Effects of Critical Collapse on Primordial Black-Hole Mass Spectra

Effects of Critical Collapse on Primordial Black-Hole Mass Spectra

Florian Kühnel florian.kuhnel@fysik.su.se The Oskar Klein Centre for Cosmoparticle Physics, Department of Physics, Stockholm University, AlbaNova, SE–106 91 Stockholm, Sweden    Cornelius Rampf cornelius.rampf@port.ac.uk Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation, University of Portsmouth, Dennis Sciama Building, Burnaby Road, Portsmouth PO1 3FX, United Kingdom    Marit Sandstad marit.sandstad@astro.uio.no Nordita, KTH Royal Institute of Technology and Stockholm University, Roslagstullsbacken 23, SE–106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
\formatdate, \currenttime

Certain inflationary models as well as realisations of phase transitions in the early Universe predict the formation of primordial black holes. For most mass ranges, the fraction of matter in the form of primordial black holes is limited by many different observations on various scales. Primordial black holes are assumed to be formed when overdensities that cross the horizon have Schwarzschild radii larger than the horizon. Traditionally it was therefore assumed that primordial black-hole masses were equal to the horizon mass at their time of formation. However, detailed calculations of their collapse show that primordial black holes formed at each point in time should rather form a spectrum of different masses, obeying critical scaling. Though this has been known for more than fifteen years, the effect of this scaling behaviour is largely ignored when considering predictions for primordial black hole mass spectra. In this paper we consider the critical collapse scaling for a variety of models which produce primordial black holes, and find that it generally leads to a shift, broadening and an overall decrease of the mass contained in primordial black holes. This effect is model and parameter dependent and cannot be contained by a constant rescaling of the spectrum; it can become important and should be taken into account when comparing to observational constraints.

preprint: NORDITA-2015-131\settimeformat


I Introduction

Black holes could have formed in a primordial cosmological era from the gravitational collapse of density fluctuations on top of the mean energy density , shortly after a phase of accelerated expansion called inflation Brout et al. (1978); Starobinsky (1980); Kazanas (1980); Sato (1981); Guth and Pi (1982); Linde (1982, 1983); Albrecht and Steinhardt (1982) (for more recent reviews see Linde (2008); Martin et al. (2014)). At such early times, most of the mean energy density of the Universe presumably stems from radiation. Formation of such primordial black holes (PBHs) Zel’dovich and Novikov (1967); Hawking (1971); Carr and Hawking (1974) (see Carr et al. (2010); Khlopov (2010) for a recent reviews) could arise when a critical threshold is exceeded such that the radiation pressure, acting as a counter force to gravity, cannot prevent the collapse anymore.

Primordial black holes, if existent, could have observational implications for current and ongoing surveys, for example through their gravitational interactions or because of their evaporation via Hawking radiation () Hawking (1974, 1975). In certain mass ranges, primordial black holes could even make up (parts of) the not yet identified cold dark matter Frampton et al. (2010), but constraints arising from the standard model of cosmology limit this possibility drastically Bergstrom (2000); Carr et al. (2010). For example, constraints from the Big Bang nucleosynthesis, arising from entropy limits — or limits on the abundance in light elements, constrain the abundant primordial black-hole masses in the range between g Suyama et al. (2005). Primordial black holes with masses less than  g would have already evaporated by the present time, due to Hawking radiation, and the effects of their evaporation might have been observable had they existed in sufficient abundance. Specifically, if primordial black holes with a mass of about  g had existed in sufficient abundance, we would measure an excess of photons with energy of about  MeV today, which is not observed in the -ray background. The non-detection of such black holes implies that their density has to be smaller than times the critical density Carr et al. (2010). There are various other mechanisms which observationally constrain the mass range of primordial black holes. An overview of observational limits can be found in Ref. Carr et al. (2010) (cf. Fig. 9 therein). For more recent constraints that stem from the capture of primordial black holes by white dwarfs and neutron stars see Refs. Capela et al. (2013a, b, 2014).

All production mechanisms for primordial black holes have one essential feature in common, that is the appearance of critical phenomena, a fact established through state-of-the-art general relativistic numerical computations Choptuik (1993); Niemeyer (1998); Musco et al. (2005, 2009); Musco and Miller (2013). When sufficiently large fluctuations (re-)enter the particle horizon () and collapse to a black hole, one could naïvely expect that the black hole mass should be of the same order as the mass associated with the current horizon patch; this associated horizon mass is roughly (cf. Carr et al. (2010)). Most of such large fluctuations will be close to the critical threshold , because even larger fluctuations are in the tail of the (almost) Gaussian distribution of primordial density fluctuations, and thus suppressed. General relativistic numerical computations performed in the literature modeled the collapse of a relativistic (and for some cases specifically a perfect) fluid, which is supposably the continuum description of the considered primordial black-hole formation. These results indicated that the resulting black hole mass distribution function does not peak at the horizon mass, but instead exhibits a spectrum of black hole masses. Consider any one-parameter family (e.g., the density contrast) of regular asymptotically flat initial data such that the space-time becomes flat if and forms a black hole for . Then, near the critical threshold , the mass spectrum of black holes obeys the following scaling law,


where is the associated horizon mass, is a dimensionless constant and the critical exponent is universal with respect to the initial data (for a recent review see e.g. Gundlach and Martin-Garcia (2007)). It is evident from this scaling law that black holes with arbitrarily small masses can be created.111Note in particular the case when which is fundamentally different from the approximation of direct horizon-mass collapse.

When the critical-scaling behaviour in the formation of primordial black holes was first discovered and explored Choptuik (1993); Niemeyer (1998), its implications on mass distributions near monochromatic spectra was considered and compared to broader mass spectra with no critical collapse Yokoyama (1998); Green and Liddle (1999). At the time, highly peaked spectra for the primordial black holes was what was mostly considered and hence the effect of critical collapse scaling was thought to be roughly degenerate with more realistic initial mass spectra. In the literature, therefore, with notable exceptions such as Bugaev and Klimai (2009), one mostly approximates the primordial black-hole mass to be identical with the horizon mass — or one simply scales the overall spectrum by some constant. Both approaches yield a specific functional form for the predictions of in any given model. Crucially, as we shall show in this work, using instead a spectrum of primordial black-hole masses consistent with the critical collapse as given by Eq. (1), the resulting fractional density gets shifted. Neglecting that shift of could change the observational consequences tremendously for certain models predicting primordial black holes, since some constraints are very sharply located in mass space (cf. Fig. 9 in Ref. Carr et al. (2010)). Hence in the most extreme scenarios, models could be ruled out or favoured again because of that shift. For instance if a model predicts a high abundance around a mass range where some masses are highly constrained and there is a sharp transition to a much less constrained region, the shift of the spectrum towards lower masses due to critical collapse may move the entire spectrum of primordial black holes from an unconstrained region to a constrained region or vice versa.

Though most standard models for inflation do not predict primordial black-hole production, several viable models of inflation still predict a possible abundance in primordial black holes. In this paper we will study the effect of the critical collapse scaling (1) on the mass distribution functions of the primordial black holes of three such models: running-mass inflation Drees and Erfani (2011), hybrid inflation Clesse and García-Bellido (2015), and axion-like curvaton inflation Kawasaki et al. (2013). Apart from some inflationary models, there are other mechanisms in the early Universe which could produce primordial black holes, amongst them are phase transitions (e.g., Jedamzik and Niemeyer (1999)) for which we shall also investigate how the mass distribtution function of primordial black holes is affected. Specifically, first-order phase transitions are usually accompanied with a change in pressure (or more precisely the speed of sound with which pressure is mediated), which could imply that the threshold for primordial black-hole formation is (suddenly) reduced when the pressure decreases. Alternatively, formation due to phase transitions could also arise without any prior inhomogeneities, for example from so-called bubble collisions, domain walls or cosmic strings (see Carr et al. (2010) and references therein), but in this paper we shall not investigate such alternative scenarios.

This paper is organised as follows. In Sec. II we will introduce the critical collapse of primordial black holes in some greater detail, focusing mainly on what we have used to account for this in the different models. In Sec. III we will briefly review the specific models and study the effects of critical collapse to the produced mass spectra for primordial black holes in each of them. Finally, we give a Summary and Outlook in Sec. IV.

Ii Critical Collapse

While it might appear reasonable to assume that once sufficiently large overdensities re-enter the horizon they immediately collapse to a black hole of horizon mass , a more refined treatment of the collapse exhibits a so-called critical scaling spectrum for the primordial black-hole mass distribution Choptuik (1993); Koike et al. (1995); Gundlach (1999, 2003) of the form [cf. Eq. (1)]


where . The constant , the threshold as well as the critical exponent depend on the specific fluid the overdensity is re-entering into Musco and Miller (2013). Besides the mentioned theoretical considerations on the critical collapse, there have been in-depth numerical confirmations Niemeyer and Jedamzik (1999); Musco et al. (2005, 2009); Musco and Miller (2013) (cf. in particular Fig. 1 of Ref. Musco et al. (2009) for justifying the above scaling law).

Right after the discovery of the critical collapse of primordial black holes in the 1990s Choptuik (1993); Niemeyer (1998), this effect was considered Yokoyama (1998); Green and Liddle (1999), and the conclusion was that the horizon-mass approximation was still reasonably good. Despite the fact that now more precise observational limits are available, using this approximation seems to be the general approach taken by the field (cf. the recent reviews Green (2015); Carr et al. (2010)).

The topic of this paper is to reinvestigate the critical collapse, particularly in light of current observational constraints on primordial black holes. Since these constraints are partly very stringent in certain regions of the mass spectrum Carr et al. (2010), the changes to the mass distribution that we obtain in the subsequent section (Sec. III) should not be ignored. Instead — as we shall demonstrate in the present work — the continued use of the horizon-mass approximation turns out to be a source of potentially very large errors.

In general, the critical exponent seems to be independent of the concrete perturbation profile Neilsen and Choptuik (2000); Musco and Miller (2013), though and may depend on this. Throughout this work we shall apply the Press–Schechter formalism Press and Schechter (1974) on spherical collapse (e.g. Green et al. (2004)), using a Gaussian perturbation profile, i.e.


which is in good accordance with current measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) Ade et al. (2015a). The quantity is the variance of the primordial power spectrum of density perturbations coming from the appropriate model of inflation.

In radiation domination the value of has been found in repeated studies to be about Koike et al. (1995); Niemeyer and Jedamzik (1999); Musco et al. (2005, 2009); Musco and Miller (2013). A good approximation for has been found to lie in the regime Musco et al. (2005, 2009); Musco and Miller (2013).222Note that these results rely on the assumption of spherical collapse which was proved to be a good assumption in Doroshkevich (1970); Bardeen et al. (1986). For non-spherical collapse the results might differ significantly (cf. Sheth et al. (2001)). We leave a respective investigation for future studies. We have used the value of where possible, however, we have also chosen other values where appropriate; either for physical reasons in the section on phase transitions (Sec. III.4) or to allow for comparison with the approach taken in the literature in the case of hybrid inflation (Sec. III.2). In accordance with Niemeyer and Jedamzik (1998) we also chose to set . In a realistic treatment we expect that this value for might not be the most accurate choice, however, we expect that the general tendencies that we find will be the same. The exact values used for and will be specified for each case.

A convenient measure of how many primordial black holes are being produced can be given by the ratio of the energy density in primordial black holes by the total energy density


Within the Press–Schechter formalism applied to black-hole formation, one can express as Niemeyer and Jedamzik (1998)


where we used . We have numerically confirmed the validity of this approximation for our considerations. In the first line we have extended the upper integration above , in contrast to what was done in Niemeyer and Jedamzik (1998). This has been shown in Ref. Kopp et al. (2011) not to lead to a separate-Universe production. Therein the authors point out that the previous choice of this limit is in fact gauge dependent. This topic is still subject to discussion Carr and Harada (2015), in practice, however, the integrand for large values of is so small that the results of taking one choice or the other are nearly equivalent. Also note that alternatively to using the Press–Schechter formalism, one could calculate the mass fraction in terms the so-called peaks-theory approach Bardeen et al. (1986). There is some recent discussion (cf. Young et al. (2014)) on whether the mentioned formalisms predict differences in the overall amplitude of . However, the effect of critical collapse also concerns broadening and shift towards smaller masses — signatures which are distinctive for the critical scaling and should hold irrespective of the use of either the mentioned formalisms. The same holds true for the extension of the Press–Schechter formalism to solve the so-called cloud-in-cloud problem (cf. Jedamzik (1995)).

Following Niemeyer and Jedamzik (1998) we next derive the primordial black-hole initial mass function , defined as the primordial black-hole number per mass interval ,333Note the slight difference in the definition of the initial mass function as compared to the one in Ref. Niemeyer and Jedamzik (1998).


which again holds for , and we have defined . In deriving Eq. (6) we have made use of the Gaussian profile (3) for the amplitude of the fluctuations.

In the subsequent sections (III.1-D) we apply this critical collapse to a representative set of models for production of primordial black holes. In practice the procedure we have employed to account for this is the following: We have taken the perturbation spectrum of primordial density fluctuations and binned it. Each bin then corresponds to a particular horizon mass and a formation time at which the horizon was of the corresponding size. For each model and parameter set, this bin has a particular value of the variance . For each bin we have then calculated the initial mass function given in Eq. (6). We have used this initial mass function and normalised it according to Eq. (5) to get the spectrum at formation time according to critical collapse by multiplying by the value of the mass and the mass interval. We then take into account the time evolution of the primordial black-hole (matter) density with respect to the background (radiation) energy density until matter-radiation equality.444We assume that matter-radiation equality occurs at about 47,000 years after the Big Bang, in accordance with the currently favoured CDM model Ade et al. (2015b). In the case of , grows approximately linearly with growing scale factor. The full spectrum for the considered model is then obtained by adding the spectra for all the bins into one function. It is important to note that, here, the binning process in itself is purely a numerical tool and has no practical consequences. Though the size of the bins is used in the multiplication by the initial mass function, the effect of the particular binning is eliminated by the normalisation of it. Since what we are binning is a continuous function, we can increase the number of bins indefinitely. In practice we have increased the number of bins until we have reached convergence of the resulting mass function, so the result is in practice equal to what it would have been for a procedure done at each point. This also implies that there won’t be any problem in counting isolated overdense regions (cf. the cloud-in-cloud problem Jedamzik (1995)). Finally, we compare the results of to those obtained by evolving a horizon mass collapse spectrum from formation to matter-radiation equality.

Iii Models

In this section we elaborate on the importance of the inclusion of critical collapse for various important models of primordial black-hole production. Specifically, we will show the consequences of the associated shift and broadening of the produced spectra of primordial black holes in running-mass inflation (Sec. III.1), hybrid inflation (Sec. III.2), axion-like curvaton inflation (Sec. III.3), and first-order phase transitions (Sec. III.4). These models represent along with (p)reheating and other types of coupling to particle production, the main sources of viable production of primordial black holes known at present Clesse and García-Bellido (2015).

We stress that the aim of this article is not to investigate the most realistic parameter sets for the individual models. Rather, we demonstrate the importance of critical scaling for any model. We will show that neglecting this scaling can in certain cases result in relative errors far larger than with respect to the shape of the specific primordial black-hole abundance, e.g. in the location of its peak and height. Though the model parameters that we use are not necessarily the most realistic, we have chosen parameters comparable to or in ranges mentioned to be relevant for primordial black hole production in the various models in their considerations in the literature. Hence though the parameters may not be realistic, for the most part they will be as realistic as the parameters considered in the literature. We also note that the parameter space of multifield models of inflation could be constrained further by the bound on primordial non-Gaussianity () Young and Byrnes (2015). The presence of the latter could have a significant effect on the abundance of primordial black holes and potentially overproduce isocurvature modes in the CMB which are constrained by current observations Ade et al. (2015b). For related discussions we refer to Refs. Bugaev and Klimai (2011, 2012); Young and Byrnes (2015); Tada and Yokoyama (2015).

The key ingredient for any model to produce primordial black holes is that it needs to generate curvature perturbations larger than some threshold value at a given early time which then collapse into black holes after horizon re-entry. As the amplitude of the curvature-perturbation power spectrum at the pivot scale for the CMB measurements of WMAP Komatsu et al. (2011) or for Planck Ade et al. (2014, 2015b) is far too small to produce a notable abundance of primordial black holes, one needs the power spectrum to become large at an early time. For the case of a power spectrum which monotonically increases with decreasing , the primordial black-hole abundance is largest for smallest . The exact value of the threshold depends on the precise medium the perturbations re-enter into (cf. the discussion in the previous section, and also Musco et al. (2009)).

The models we are discussing in the following subsections all have in common that their power spectra have an increased amplitude feature, i.e. a bump or spike, at some small scale/high , with the details depending on the specific model parameters. For a moderate number (three or four) of representative parameter sets, we subsequently investigate the effect of critical collapse and show how each of the spectra change.

Before going through the specifics of the mentioned models, let us briefly comment on the primordial black-hole production in preheating Green and Malik (2001). Here, the idea is that black holes are being produced during the inflaton decay at the end of inflation. However, as the horizon mass at that time is rather small, the associated black holes will also be, and so more or less decay right after their production, which prevents them from constituting a viable dark-matter contribution today. Their main effect will be additional heating. A large overproduction might still be in conflict with observations, and the study of primordial black hole production in preheating can thus lead to constraints on preheating models Torres-Lomas et al. (2014). Now, as we expect that critical collapse will broaden and shift the mass distribution, the mentioned additional heating will be less effective as compared to the standard case. We leave a corresponding investigation to future work.

Primordial black-hole formation can also be triggered by interactions between the inflaton and other fields, leading to the production of non-inflaton particles during inflation Lin and Ng (2013); Linde et al. (2013); Bugaev and Klimai (2014). This can then even lead to a production of primordial black holes which might still be present in the Universe today Erfani (2015). We will not consider the critical-collapse treatment of the primordial black-hole production from these sources here, but defer their consideration to future works. However, on general grounds we will argue that bounds obtained from non-production of primordial black holes in these models may in practice change and will presumably be less stringent, when critical collapse is taken into account.

We note that the recently proposed corpuscular description of black holes on the full quantum level via Bose–Einstein condensates of gravitons Dvali and Gomez (2014, 2013a) might lead to strong constraints on the production period/mass of primordial black holes: This framework naturally predicts baryon-number conservation Dvali and Gomez (2013b); Kühnel and Sandstad (2015), which leads to a bound on primordial black-hole production with mass below approximately Kühnel and Sandstad (2015). However, as it is yet to be understood what kind of objects are produced at smaller masses instead, and how they possibly constitute dark matter, we will focus on investigating how the critical collapse alters the classical results on the primordial black-hole production, and leave the mentioned corpuscular studies for future work.

iii.1 Running-Mass Inflation

Primordial black-hole formation in the running-mass model Stewart (1997a, b) has been intensively studied in amongst other works Drees and Erfani (2012a, 2011, b) (cf. also Leach et al. (2000) for a discussion on constraints).555In Bugaev and Klimai (2009), critical-collapse effects were also studied in a particular version of running mass inflation, and noted to be considerable. The version we study here is slightly different as it follows a very simple expansion order for order in the spectral index which is easier to compare both to observational bounds Komatsu et al. (2011); Ade et al. (2014, 2015b) and stays close to what was done in Drees and Erfani (2011). The perhaps simplest realisation may be expressed through the inflationary potential


with the constant , and the scalar field .

There exists a plethora of embeddings of this model in various frameworks such as hybrid inflation Linde (1994) for instance, which lead to different specific functions . These yield distinct expressions for the primordial density power spectra whose variance can be recast into the general form Drees and Erfani (2011):


where the spectral indices and are given by


with real parameters , , and . The terms multiplied by are referred to as “running” terms, those multiplied by are called “running-of-running”, and the terms are dubbed “running-of-running-of-running”. The expansion is in principle infinite to account for any functional form of the running at any value of , however here we chose to consider a model that includes only the first few terms so as to compare with what has been done in Drees and Erfani (2011) extending their analysis with one extra order as will be explained below.

As the spectral index and amplitude of the primordial power spectrum at the pivot scale have been measured to be and , respectively Komatsu et al. (2011); Ade et al. (2014, 2015b), models without running certainly cannot produce primordial black holes in any notable abundance. Furthermore, with the measurement of Ade et al. (2015b), running alone is not enough to give a sufficient increase of the power spectrum at early times. Hence one needs at least to include a running-of-running term (which is only weakly constrained: Ade et al. (2014, 2015b)).

Figure 1: The relative energy density for the running-mass case including running, and running-of-running due to Eq. (8), at the time of formation as a function of . For all graphs we set ; individually we use (dotted), (dashed), (dot-dashed), as well as (solid). For all curves the threshold has been set to . Note that all curves increase towards lower masses, yielding inevitable overproduction of small primordial black holes.

Figure 1 shows the ratio for four of these cases (cf. its figure caption for information about the respective parameters). In this Figure, exceptionally, we do not plot at the time of radiation-matter equality (as we do in all the other cases), but rather at the time of primordial black-hole formation. The reason being that, although basically any desired abundance of primordial black holes of a specific mass can be generated, due to the monotonic nature of , there will always be an enormous over-production of small black holes. This inevitably violates respective bounds on their abundance Carr et al. (2010) and there is no need to time-evolve the results to equality. In the treatment of the topic in Drees and Erfani (2011), this overproduction at small scales is not considered as their aim is to show that sufficiently many large primordial black holes can be produced to account for the dark matter present in our Universe. However, the bounds on these very small primordial black holes are very severe Carr et al. (2010), and should not be neglected, especially as this can be done within the same scheme as we will show below.

In order for the power spectrum (and hence ) to prevent this overproduction of small primordial black holes, one needs to include higher orders (than the second order) in the expansions (9a,b). Figure 2 shows the effect of the inclusion of running-of-running-of-running on at the time of matter-radiation equality (“Eq”). The dashed lines depict the influence of critical collapse. As expected, we observe a shift towards lower masses as well as a broadening with respect to the horizon-mass case. The associated areas are approximately cut in half.

Figure 2: The relative energy density for the running-mass case including running, running-of-running, and running-of-running-of-running, due to Eq. (8), at the time of radiation-matter equality as a function of . The solid curves assume standard black-hole production with horizon mass, where for all graphs, and individually (right to left) , (red), , (blue), , (green). For all curves the threshold has been set to . The dashed curves have the same respective parameters, but assume critical collapse according to Eq. (2) with .

iii.2 Hybrid Inflation

Hybrid inflation is a two-field inflationary framework, which was first introduced by Andrei Linde in 1993 Linde (1994). It generically describes the situation in which inflation ends in a rapid rolling (“waterfall”) phase of one scalar field, which is triggered by the other one.

When sufficiently large curvature perturbations, which produce primordial black holes (in standard hybrid-inflation), re-enter shortly after the end of inflation, their masses are relatively low, i.e. , such that they cannot constitute a significant fraction of dark matter today. Here we re-investigate a recently proposed scenario by Clesse and García-Bellido Clesse and García-Bellido (2015) using similar parameters. Therein, inflation ends with a mild waterfall phase which typically lasts for dozens of -folds, yielding a possible production of primordial black holes on mass ranges up to about , where the width of the associated spectra can span several orders of magnitude, depending on the specific model parameters.

We introduce the mentioned model, following Clesse and García-Bellido (2015), and specify the two-field potential:


with and , leading to


where the ratio is determined assuming instantaneous reheating and solving the two-field dynamics such that the scalar power spectrum amplitude matches the value derived from Planck Ade et al. (2014).

Using the above, the variance of curvature perturbations can be related to the power spectrum through Clesse and García-Bellido (2015)


Here, , and , with


as well as


and the durations of the two phases are given, in terms of numbers of -foldings, by


For a given wavenumber , exiting the Hubble radius -foldings before the end of inflation, the associated primordial black-hole mass when assuming horizon-mass collapse is given by Clesse and García-Bellido (2015)


Figure 3 shows the ratio at the time of matter-radiation equality, where, again, the dashed lines depict the influence of critical collapse. Just as in the running mass case (Sec. III.1), we see that the curves, appart from the right-most one, shift towards lower masses when critical collapse is accounted for. This originates from Eq. (5) and becomes much more pronounced at lower masses. The relative overall amplitude in between horizon-mass collapse and critical collapse also decreases gradually with decreasing mass.

The parameters we have considered for the models depicted in Fig. 3 are chosen to match those considered in Clesse and García-Bellido (2015) to provide easy comparison with the literature. The authors of Ref. Clesse and García-Bellido (2015) used as a free parameter, which — given a set of model parameters — has been chosen such that all dark matter can consist of primordial black holes, yielding that all those values of are much higher than the numerically favoured .666Note that, contrary to the original paper of the investigated hybrid-inflation model Clesse and García-Bellido (2015), for the evaluation of we use the density contrast instead of the curvature perturbation in order to establish comparability among the different models studied in this article. For a related discussion see Ref. Young et al. (2014). Of course, in a more proper treatment one would need to take this value and then look for implications on the model parameters. However, in this subsection we follow the mentioned literature for better comparison and focus on the implication of critical collapse. This also demonstrates that the critical collapse effects such as shift, broadening and rescaling is present for different values of . From Fig. 3 we can also see that the effects of the critical collapse are highly parameter dependent, and hence can not be treated by a constant rescaling or a constant shift if proper comparison to observations is to be made.

Figure 3: The relative energy density for the hybrid-inflation case with the variance according to Eq. (12), at the time of matter-radiation equality as a function of . The solid curves assume standard black-hole production with horizon mass, where the parameters are , for all graphs, and individually (right to left) , (red), , (blue), , (green), and , (black). The dashed curves have the same respective parameters, but assume critical scaling according to Eq. (2), using .

iii.3 Axion-like Curvaton Inflation

A curvaton Lyth and Wands (2002); Lyth et al. (2003) is an extra field present during inflation. By decaying into standard model particles, its fluctuations can produce the curvature perturbations observed for instance in the CMB. These perturbations can of course also lead to production of primordial black holes.

In Kohri et al. (2013); Kawasaki et al. (2013) a curvaton model with an axion-like curvaton, i.e. a curvaton moving in an axion-like or natural inflation type potential, is described in order to produce primordial black holes, and this is the model that we will analyse further here. This model was originally described in Kasuya and Kawasaki (2009), where the axion-like model is built into a supersymmetric framework, wherein the inflaton is the modulus, and the curvaton is related to the phase of a complex superfield . In practice the inflaton rolls down a potential of the form


where is the Hubble rate and is a parameter of the theory which is derived from combinations of parameters in the supergravity theory. Because of its large mass, the inflaton rolls fast towards its minimum . Only after this time the curvaton is well-defined as and becomes the primary degree of freedom of the superfield. The curvaton is assumed to move in an axion-like potential similar to that of natural inflation Freese et al. (1990)


where the last equality holds when is close to and the curvaton mass is . The particular shape of this potential, which is one preserving the shift symmetry peculiar to axions, is what makes this curvaton axion-like.

The power spectrum of primordial perturbations is generated by the combined perturbations from inflatons and curvatons,


The inflaton term is dominant on large scales (small ), and the second on small scales (large ). The inflaton perturbation is assumed to yield a near scale-invariant spectrum with , in accordance with CMB observations such as WMAP Komatsu et al. (2011) and Planck Ade et al. (2014, 2015b). This contribution should dominate up to at least . We define the crossing scale to be the scale at which curvaton and inflaton contributions to the power spectrum are equal. In addition, the scale is the scale at which the inflaton reaches its minimum and the curvaton becomes well-defined. and are the horizon masses when these scales cross the horizon, respectively. Primordial black holes can not form before these horizon-crossing times, because the perturbations are too small when , and because no curvaton perturbations exist for . can be found explicitly from the parameters of the theory and has the value


where is the number of radiative effective degrees of freedom at the scale . Throughout our consideration we will follow Kawasaki et al. (2013) and assume and .

Primordial black holes can not form from the density perturbations due to the inflaton, as these are constrained by the CMB observations. In contrast, when the curvaton power spectrum becomes dominant, it can have much larger power while still evading the bounds, producing large black holes. However the curvaton perturbations are assumed not to collapse to form primordial black holes before it has decayed to standard-model particles. Hence it can only form primordial black holes of a minimum mass corresponding to black holes produced at its decay time and later. The exact value for the decay time and hence the minimum mass is not known, but it should be smaller than the horizon mass at the time of big bang nucleosynthesis in order not to interfere with this process and smaller than to yield any primordial black-hole production. In Kawasaki et al. (2013) is considered, hence we will do the same here.

It can be shown that the variance of the density power spectrum due to the curvaton perturbations in this model with an axion-like curvaton reads Kawasaki et al. (2013):


for horizon mass . For smaller than this value we assume the curvaton power spectrum which can transform into primordial black holes to be equal to zero. Due to inhomogeneities of the curvaton decay, this is not strictly true, however, as in Kawasaki et al. (2013) we will take this to be a reasonable approximation. The curvaton spectral index


is controlled by the parameter . By setting we can obtain a sufficiently blue power spectrum of curvature perturbations for the curvaton in order to produce primordial black holes at scales smaller than those constrained by the CMB. The minimum mass which is defined by the decay time of the curvaton, protects the model from overproducing primordial black holes at very small scales in spite of the blue power spectrum. The functions and are given by


which are the lower incomplete gamma function and the exponential integral respectively.

To illustrate the effects of critical collapse to the primordial black-hole production in this model we have chosen to consider models with the parameters , and . The overall normalisation has been chosen in the range so as to produce a significant amount of black holes at the time of matter-radiation equality. This is done so that the primordial black holes can be the main contributor to dark matter today. The same is done in Kawasaki et al. (2013) to show that the axion-like curvaton can produce primordial black holes to serve as dark matter. The results are shown in Fig. 4. The solid lines are the results obtained when considering all the primordial black holes to be produced at horizon size. In this case all spectra produce a very sharp cutoff determined by the absolute value of in each case. The subsequent decline is determined by the other parameters of the theory, but all cases that produce black holes that can make up the dominant part of the dark matter show quite narrow peaks. When the critical scaling Eq. (2) is taken into account, the spectrum is widened, the peak is lowered and shifted towards lower values of the primordial black-hole mass.

Figure 4: The relative energy density for the axion-like curvaton inflation case due to Eq. (21), at the time of radiation-matter equality as a function of . All curves have been produced with a primordial black hole density fluctuation threshold . The solid curves assume standard black-hole production with horizon mass, where the parameters are (right to left) , , (red), , , (blue), , , (green), and , , (black). The dashed curves have the same respective parameters, but assume critical collapse according to Eq. (2).

iii.4 First-Order Phase Transitions

Primordial black-hole production during first-order phase transitions were first suggested in Crawford and Schramm (1982) and then revisited in Jedamzik (1997). The amplicification of density perturbation due to the vanishing of the speed of sound during this transition was considered in detail for the QCD phase transition in Schmid et al. (1999) and further developed to consider primordial black hole production specifically in Widerin and Schmid (1998). A semi-analytic application to consider primordial black hole production in the QCD phase transition was made in Cardall and Fuller (1998). A numerical investigation of the critical collapse of these was made by Niemeyer and Jedamzik Jedamzik and Niemeyer (1999), and shown to yield rather different results then what is found for primordial black hole production due to a peak in the power spectrum as was the case for the other models considered in this paper.

Regardless of whether critical or horizon mass collapse is considered, the threshold value for collapse is significantly lowered during the first-order phase transition. In a regular radiation dominated scenario, the collapse of an overdensity to form a primordial black hole is counteracted by the radiation pressure of the fluid when the density . During a first-order phase transition, however, two phases of fluids such as for instance quark-gluon plasma and hadrons coexist, and during this transition the expansion of the Universe can proceed at constant temperature by converting quark-gluon plasma to hadrons. Since the temperature is constant, the sound speed vanishes and hence the effective pressure that would otherwise slow down or prohibit the collapse of an overdensity is reduced. This then lowers the threshold value for collapse possibly as much as to Cardall and Fuller (1998); Jedamzik and Niemeyer (1999). These numbers were not obtained in the most updated numerical treatments of critical collapse, as these have not been applied to the first order phase transition scenario, though the lowering of the threshold should be generic. Therefore we choose to consider a range of different values of the threshold during the phase transition ranging from the usual background value and down to the value indicated in Cardall and Fuller (1998); Jedamzik and Niemeyer (1999). Furthermore, since the dynamics of the background changes, the scaling exponent also changes with peak values above , depending on the dynamics of the transition (cf. Ref. Jedamzik and Niemeyer (1999)).

As the precise phase-transition dynamics is still unknown to a large degree, and since the main purpose of this work is to demonstrate the importance of critical scaling, we stick to a rather simple model for the changes of and . We assume a first-order phase transition at the QCD energy scale  MeV Bhattacharya et al. (2014), which implies a horizon mass of Jedamzik and Niemeyer (1999). For its duration we will assume one Hubble time, and use the extremely simplified ad hoc scalings

which is chosen in order to account for the results of Jedamzik and Niemeyer (1999) (cf. Fig. 4 therein). However, we stress that, due to the large uncertainty on the form of , we regard the form of (24b) as an approximate model to the actual change of the exponent during the phase transition. Above, denotes the maximum value which is assumed to take, and is a constant shift which parametrises deviations with respect to its chosen base value of . As the physics of primordial black-hole formation through the QCD phase transition is not yet fully understood, we leave as a free parameter which we vary in our subsequent study. Figure 5 shows both of the above functions as a function of horizon mass in units of solar mass (cf. figure caption for details on the parameters). We again stress that our aim is to demonstrate the effect of critical scaling, irrespective of whether the underlying model is the most realistic.
Though the collapse process is much more effective during the first-order QCD transition, the enhancement is not strong enough to produce primordial black holes from inflationary perturbations of a plain non-running red-tilted spectrum Schmid et al. (1999); Widerin and Schmid (1998). Therefore we use a running-mass model as described in Sec. III.1, which would otherwise not produce primordial black holes, but which has an increase in the density power spectrum for the scales that cross horizon during the QCD phase transition.
In Fig. 6 we show the ratio at the time of matter-radiation equality, where we used an underlying running-mass inflation model which does not produce primordial black holes above . The dashed lines depict the influence of critical collapse. Again we observe both a shift towards lower masses as well as a broadening with respect to the horizon-mass case. Due to the narrow-peaked nature of the black-hole production during the phase transition, plus the strong increase of at this time, the effect of critical collapse is more pronounced then in any other of the three previously studied inflationary generated scenarios. As mentioned earlier the precise values for and are not very well established as they were only computed with relatively limited computing power. If primordial black hole production from a first-order phase transition is to be studied in a more realistic scenario, better knowledge of the scaling and collapse behaviour during such a transition is required.
Figure 5: Left panel:  Threshold [cf. Eq. (24b)] as a function of horizon mass over solar mass. The respective parameters are (top to bottom) (red), (blue), (green), and (black). Right panel:  Scaling exponent [cf. Eq. (24a)] as a function of horizon mass over solar mass for the choice of .
Figure 6: The relative energy density for primordial black-hole production during the QCD phase transition (assuming it is first order), at the time of matter-radiation equality as a function of . The inflationary model considered for the underlying power spectrum is that of the running mass inflation, Eq. (8), with , , , , and (red, solid, lowermost). The solid curves assume standard black-hole production with horizon mass, where the parameters are (bottom to top) (blue), (green), and (black). The dashed curves have the same respective parameters, but assume critical scaling according to Eq. (2), where is given by Eq. (24a) and we use .

Iv Summary & Outlook

In this paper we have studied the formation of primordial black holes in several models of the early Universe. Specifically we have studied viable models which may produce primordial black holes in quantities comparable to the current dark matter abundance.

In the literature such primordial black hole production have generally been approximated to yield black holes of horizon size at the time of formation. However, it was found and subsequently confirmed in several thorough numerical works that the primordial black holes are formed through critical collapse Choptuik (1993); Niemeyer (1998); Musco et al. (2005, 2009); Musco and Miller (2013). The critical collapse leads to a spectrum for the formation of primordial black holes at any time which follows the scaling law Eq. (1), which leads to a peak of the mass spectrum at masses sometimes considerably smaller than the horizon mass.

Though the scaling law (in the context of primordial black holes) has been known for more than fifteen years, initial studies of its effects Yokoyama (1998); Green and Liddle (1999) have been interpreted to mean that this effect is too small to have bearing and that the horizon mass approximation is still good.777To quote Ref. Yokoyama (1998) precisely, the previous statement holds with the exception of primordial black holes with masses in the interval to . However, this study, which has gone through many of the prime candidates for viable primordial black-hole production which are not yet excluded by observations, show that this is not necessarily true anymore. The present constraints Carr et al. (2010) on the mass distribution of primordial black holes, can be extremely tight for very specific mass ranges, but very loose for mass ranges very close to them. Hence a shift in mass distribution, lowering of peak value and widening of the distribution, as we have shown here for the various models in Figs. 2, 3, 4, and 6 could mean the difference between exclusion or continued viability for a specific model. Even in mass regimes with less sharp boundaries between constrained and unconstrained mass ranges, we have shown that the changes to the mass distributions can be large, yielding alterations in the predictions of any such model. Since the shift and rescaling is also clearly model dependent, a constant shift to account for this as implemented in Carr et al. (2010); Erfani (2015) is reasonable when predicting constraints for the whole mass range, but not enough when considering the viability of any particular model.

The model parameters that we have chosen to consider here might not be entirely realistic, however, they are all more or less in accordance with models that we found in considerations done in the literature. Apart from (p)reheating models, we have also covered what we consider to be a representative set of models for primordial black-hole production. For future work, treatment of both more realistic parameters and (p)reheating models is of course possible. A better understanding of the collapse process and parameters during first-order phase transitions would also be important for a full treatment of these phenomena. Regardless of this we consider our results as fairly general and therefore suggest that the critical-collapse scaling should be taken into account when considering primordial black hole production in the future.

In addition to this main result, we note that when primordial black holes from running-mass inflation, the inclusion of first- and second-order running is not sufficient to yield viable production, as this leads to potentially unfeasibly large production of very light primordial black holes as can be seen from Fig. 1. These are highly constrained by observations and hence theories that go only to this order are automatically ruled out. When the third-order running is included, this pathology can be avoided as shown in Fig. 2. This was not considered in the original treatment Kawasaki et al. (2013) where the focus was only on the production of sufficient amounts of primordial black holes at a certain high/intermediate mass. However, such a third-order running constitutes one additional term in the expansion of the power spectrum, and hence noticing the mentioned pathologies brings us one step closer to unveiling the true inflationary dynamics.

We thank Chris Byrnes, Bernard Carr, Maxim Khlopov, Peter Klimai, Dominik Schwarz, and Sam Young for useful discussions, and the anonymous Referee for his/her constructive comments that helped to improve the manuscript. F.K. acknowledges supported from the Swedish Research Council (VR) through the Oskar Klein Centre. C.R. acknowledges the support of the individual fellowship RA 2523/1-1 from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.


  • Brout et al. (1978) R. Brout, F. Englert, and E. Gunzig, Annals Phys. 115, 78 (1978).
  • Starobinsky (1980) A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B91, 99 (1980).
  • Kazanas (1980) D. Kazanas, Astrophys. J. 241, L59 (1980).
  • Sato (1981) K. Sato, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 195, 467 (1981).
  • Guth and Pi (1982) A. H. Guth and S. Y. Pi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1110 (1982).
  • Linde (1982) A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B108, 389 (1982).
  • Linde (1983) A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B129, 177 (1983).
  • Albrecht and Steinhardt (1982) A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1220 (1982).
  • Linde (2008) A. D. Linde, Lect. Notes Phys. 738, 1 (2008), eprint 0705.0164.
  • Martin et al. (2014) J. Martin, C. Ringeval, and V. Vennin, Phys. Dark Univ. 5-6, 75 (2014), eprint 1303.3787.
  • Zel’dovich and Novikov (1967) Ya. B. Zel’dovich and I. Novikov, Sov. Astron. 10, 602 (1967).
  • Hawking (1971) S. Hawking, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 152, 75 (1971).
  • Carr and Hawking (1974) B. J. Carr and S. W. Hawking, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 168, 399 (1974).
  • Carr et al. (2010) B. J. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda, and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D81, 104019 (2010), eprint 0912.5297.
  • Khlopov (2010) M. Yu. Khlopov, Res. Astron. Astrophys. 10, 495 (2010), eprint 0801.0116.
  • Hawking (1974) S. W. Hawking, Nature 248, 30 (1974).
  • Hawking (1975) S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 43, 199 (1975), [167(1975)].
  • Frampton et al. (2010) P. H. Frampton, M. Kawasaki, F. Takahashi, and T. T. Yanagida, JCAP 1004, 023 (2010), eprint 1001.2308.
  • Bergstrom (2000) L. Bergstrom, Rept. Prog. Phys. 63, 793 (2000), eprint hep-ph/0002126.
  • Suyama et al. (2005) T. Suyama, T. Tanaka, B. Bassett, and H. Kudoh, Phys. Rev. D71, 063507 (2005), eprint hep-ph/0410247.
  • Capela et al. (2013a) F. Capela, M. Pshirkov, and P. Tinyakov, Phys. Rev. D87, 023507 (2013a), eprint 1209.6021.
  • Capela et al. (2013b) F. Capela, M. Pshirkov, and P. Tinyakov, Phys. Rev. D87, 123524 (2013b), eprint 1301.4984.
  • Capela et al. (2014) F. Capela, M. Pshirkov, and P. Tinyakov, Phys. Rev. D90, 083507 (2014), eprint 1403.7098.
  • Choptuik (1993) M. W. Choptuik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 9 (1993).
  • Niemeyer (1998) J. C. Niemeyer, in Sources and detection of dark matter in the universe. Proceedings, 3rd International Symposium, and Workshop on Primordial Black Holes and Hawking Radiation, Marina del Rey, USA, February 17-20, 1998 (1998), eprint astro-ph/9806043.
  • Musco et al. (2005) I. Musco, J. C. Miller, and L. Rezzolla, Class. Quant. Grav. 22, 1405 (2005), eprint gr-qc/0412063.
  • Musco et al. (2009) I. Musco, J. C. Miller, and A. G. Polnarev, Class. Quant. Grav. 26, 235001 (2009), eprint 0811.1452.
  • Musco and Miller (2013) I. Musco and J. C. Miller, Class. Quant. Grav. 30, 145009 (2013), eprint 1201.2379.
  • Gundlach and Martin-Garcia (2007) C. Gundlach and J. M. Martin-Garcia, Living Rev. Rel. 10, 5 (2007), eprint 0711.4620.
  • Yokoyama (1998) J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D58, 107502 (1998), eprint gr-qc/9804041.
  • Green and Liddle (1999) A. M. Green and A. R. Liddle, Phys. Rev. D60, 063509 (1999), eprint astro-ph/9901268.
  • Bugaev and Klimai (2009) E. Bugaev and P. Klimai, Phys. Rev. D79, 103511 (2009), eprint 0812.4247.
  • Drees and Erfani (2011) M. Drees and E. Erfani, JCAP 1104, 005 (2011), eprint 1102.2340.
  • Clesse and García-Bellido (2015) S. Clesse and J. García-Bellido, Phys. Rev. D92, 023524 (2015), eprint 1501.07565.
  • Kawasaki et al. (2013) M. Kawasaki, N. Kitajima, and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D87, 063519 (2013), eprint 1207.2550.
  • Jedamzik and Niemeyer (1999) K. Jedamzik and J. C. Niemeyer, Phys. Rev. D59, 124014 (1999), eprint astro-ph/9901293.
  • Koike et al. (1995) T. Koike, T. Hara, and S. Adachi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 5170 (1995), eprint gr-qc/9503007.
  • Gundlach (1999) C. Gundlach, Living Rev. Rel. 2, 4 (1999), eprint gr-qc/0001046.
  • Gundlach (2003) C. Gundlach, Phys. Rept. 376, 339 (2003), eprint gr-qc/0210101.
  • Niemeyer and Jedamzik (1999) J. C. Niemeyer and K. Jedamzik, Phys. Rev. D59, 124013 (1999), eprint astro-ph/9901292.
  • Green (2015) A. M. Green, Fundam. Theor. Phys. 178, 129 (2015), eprint 1403.1198.
  • Neilsen and Choptuik (2000) D. W. Neilsen and M. W. Choptuik, Class. Quant. Grav. 17, 761 (2000), eprint gr-qc/9812053.
  • Press and Schechter (1974) W. H. Press and P. Schechter, Astrophys. J.  187, 425 (1974).
  • Green et al. (2004) A. M. Green, A. R. Liddle, K. A. Malik, and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D70, 041502 (2004), eprint astro-ph/0403181.
  • Ade et al. (2015a) P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck) (2015a), eprint 1502.01592.
  • Doroshkevich (1970) A. G. Doroshkevich, Astrophysics 6, 320 (1970).
  • Bardeen et al. (1986) J. M. Bardeen, J. R. Bond, N. Kaiser, and A. S. Szalay, Astrophys. J.  304, 15 (1986).
  • Sheth et al. (2001) R. K. Sheth, H. J. Mo, and G. Tormen, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 323, 1 (2001), eprint astro-ph/9907024.
  • Niemeyer and Jedamzik (1998) J. C. Niemeyer and K. Jedamzik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5481 (1998), eprint astro-ph/9709072.
  • Kopp et al. (2011) M. Kopp, S. Hofmann, and J. Weller, Phys. Rev. D83, 124025 (2011), eprint 1012.4369.
  • Carr and Harada (2015) B. J. Carr and T. Harada, Phys. Rev. D91, 084048 (2015), eprint 1405.3624.
  • Bardeen et al. (1986) J. M. Bardeen, J. R. Bond, N. Kaiser, and A. S. Szalay, Astrophys. J. 304, 15 (1986).
  • Young et al. (2014) S. Young, C. T. Byrnes, and M. Sasaki, JCAP 1407, 045 (2014), eprint 1405.7023.
  • Jedamzik (1995) K. Jedamzik, Astrophys. J. 448, 1 (1995), eprint astro-ph/9408080.
  • Ade et al. (2015b) P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck) (2015b), eprint 1502.02114.
  • Young and Byrnes (2015) S. Young and C. T. Byrnes, JCAP 1504, 034 (2015), eprint 1503.01505.
  • Bugaev and Klimai (2011) E. Bugaev and P. Klimai, JCAP 1111, 028 (2011), eprint 1107.3754.
  • Bugaev and Klimai (2012) E. Bugaev and P. Klimai, Phys. Rev. D85, 103504 (2012), eprint 1112.5601.
  • Tada and Yokoyama (2015) Y. Tada and S. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D91, 123534 (2015), eprint 1502.01124.
  • Komatsu et al. (2011) E. Komatsu et al. (WMAP), Astrophys. J. Suppl. 192, 18 (2011), eprint 1001.4538.
  • Ade et al. (2014) P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 571, A22 (2014), eprint 1303.5082.
  • Green and Malik (2001) A. M. Green and K. A. Malik, Phys. Rev. D64, 021301 (2001), eprint hep-ph/0008113.
  • Torres-Lomas et al. (2014) E. Torres-Lomas, J. C. Hidalgo, K. A. Malik, and L. A. Ureña-López, Phys. Rev. D89, 083008 (2014), eprint 1401.6960.
  • Lin and Ng (2013) C.-M. Lin and K.-W. Ng, Phys. Lett. B718, 1181 (2013), eprint 1206.1685.
  • Linde et al. (2013) A. Linde, S. Mooij, and E. Pajer, Phys. Rev. D87, 103506 (2013), eprint 1212.1693.
  • Bugaev and Klimai (2014) E. Bugaev and P. Klimai, Phys. Rev. D90, 103501 (2014), eprint 1312.7435.
  • Erfani (2015) E. Erfani (2015), eprint 1511.08470.
  • Dvali and Gomez (2014) G. Dvali and C. Gomez, Eur. Phys. J. C74, 2752 (2014), eprint 1207.4059.
  • Dvali and Gomez (2013a) G. Dvali and C. Gomez, Fortsch. Phys. 61, 742 (2013a), eprint 1112.3359.
  • Dvali and Gomez (2013b) G. Dvali and C. Gomez, Phys. Lett. B719, 419 (2013b), eprint 1203.6575.
  • Kühnel and Sandstad (2015) F. Kühnel and M. Sandstad (2015), eprint 1506.08823.
  • Stewart (1997a) E. D. Stewart, Phys. Lett. B391, 34 (1997a), eprint hep-ph/9606241.
  • Stewart (1997b) E. D. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D56, 2019 (1997b), eprint hep-ph/9703232.
  • Drees and Erfani (2012a) M. Drees and E. Erfani, JCAP 1201, 035 (2012a), eprint 1110.6052.
  • Drees and Erfani (2012b) M. Drees and E. Erfani (2012b), eprint 1205.4012.
  • Leach et al. (2000) S. M. Leach, I. J. Grivell, and A. R. Liddle, Phys. Rev. D62, 043516 (2000), eprint astro-ph/0004296.
  • Linde (1994) A. D. Linde, Phys. Rev. D49, 748 (1994), eprint astro-ph/9307002.
  • Lyth and Wands (2002) D. H. Lyth and D. Wands, Phys. Lett. B524, 5 (2002), eprint hep-ph/0110002.
  • Lyth et al. (2003) D. H. Lyth, C. Ungarelli, and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D67, 023503 (2003), eprint astro-ph/0208055.
  • Kohri et al. (2013) K. Kohri, C.-M. Lin, and T. Matsuda, Phys. Rev. D87, 103527 (2013), eprint 1211.2371.
  • Kasuya and Kawasaki (2009) S. Kasuya and M. Kawasaki, Phys. Rev. D80, 023516 (2009), eprint 0904.3800.
  • Freese et al. (1990) K. Freese, J. A. Frieman, and A. V. Olinto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 3233 (1990).
  • Crawford and Schramm (1982) M. Crawford and D. N. Schramm, Nature 298, 538 (1982).
  • Jedamzik (1997) K. Jedamzik, Phys. Rev. D55, 5871 (1997), eprint astro-ph/9605152.
  • Schmid et al. (1999) C. Schmid, D. J. Schwarz, and P. Widerin, Phys. Rev. D59, 043517 (1999), eprint astro-ph/9807257.
  • Widerin and Schmid (1998) P. Widerin and C. Schmid (1998), eprint astro-ph/9808142.
  • Cardall and Fuller (1998) C. Y. Cardall and G. M. Fuller (1998), eprint astro-ph/9801103.
  • Bhattacharya et al. (2014) T. Bhattacharya et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 082001 (2014), eprint 1402.5175.
Comments 0
Request Comment
You are adding the first comment!
How to quickly get a good reply:
  • Give credit where it’s due by listing out the positive aspects of a paper before getting into which changes should be made.
  • Be specific in your critique, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements.
  • Your comment should inspire ideas to flow and help the author improves the paper.

The better we are at sharing our knowledge with each other, the faster we move forward.
The feedback must be of minimum 40 characters and the title a minimum of 5 characters
Add comment
Loading ...
This is a comment super asjknd jkasnjk adsnkj
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters

You are asking your first question!
How to quickly get a good answer:
  • Keep your question short and to the point
  • Check for grammar or spelling errors.
  • Phrase it like a question
Test description