- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Letters

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Could a Primordial Black Hole Explosion Explain the Extremely High-Energy KM3NeT Neutrino Event?

Lua F. T. Airoldi1,*, Gustavo F. S. Alves1,†, Yuber F. Perez-Gonzalez2,‡, Gabriel M. Salla1,§, and Renata Zukanovich Funchal1,∥

  • *Contact author: lua.airoldi@usp.br
  • †Contact author: gustavo.figueiredo.alves@usp.br
  • ‡Contact author: yuber.perez@uam.es
  • §Contact author: gabriel.massoni.salla@usp.br
  • ∥Contact author: zukanov@if.usp.br
PDF

Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 041002 – Published 28 January, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/w9dp-dfkx

Abstract

A black hole is expected to end its lifetime in a cataclysmic runaway burst of Hawking radiation, emitting all standard model particles with ultrahigh energies. Thus, the explosion of a nearby primordial black hole (PBH) has been proposed as a possible explanation for the ∼220  PeV neutrino-like event recently reported by the KM3NeT Collaboration. If the event originated from a PBH, the source would need to lie at (1–7)×10−5  pc—depending on the assumed effective area—thus within the Solar System. At such proximity, the resulting flux of gamma rays and cosmic rays would be detectable at Earth. By incorporating the time-dependent field of view of gamma-ray observatories, we show that LHAASO should have recorded O(108) events between fourteen and seven hours prior to the KM3NeT detection. IceCube and KM3NeT itself should likewise have detected of order a few hundred events in the range 1  TeV≲Eν≲1  PeV during the 24 h preceding the burst. The absence of any such multimessenger signal, particularly in gamma-ray data, strongly disfavors the interpretation of the KM3-230213A event as arising from evaporation in a minimal four-dimensional Schwarzschild scenario.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

See Also

Tackling transient sources with neutrino telescopes

Lua F. T. Airoldi, Gustavo F. S. Alves, Yuber F. Perez-Gonzalez, Gabriel M. Salla, and Renata Zukanovich Funchal
Phys. Rev. D 113, 023052 (2026)

Article Text

References (81)

  1. S. Aiello et al. (KM3NeT Collaboration), Nature (London) 638, 376 (2025); 640, E3(E) (2025).
  2. M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube Collaboration), J. Instrum. 12, P03012 (2017); 19, E05001(E) (2024).
  3. M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 98, 062003 (2018).
  4. R. Abbasi et al. (IceCube Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 110, 022001 (2024).
  5. R. Abbasi et al. (IceCube Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 031001 (2025).
  6. A. Aab et al. (Pierre Auger Collaboration), J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11 (2019) 004.
  7. P. Savina (Pierre Auger Collaboration), in Proceedings of the 39th International Cosmic Ray Conference (Proceedings of Science, Geneva, 2025), https://pos.sissa.it/501/.
  8. O. Adriani et al. (KM3NeT Collaboration), Phys. Rev. X 15, 031016 (2025).
  9. A. Neronov, F. Oikonomou, and D. Semikoz, arXiv:2502.12986.
  10. S. W. Li, P. Machado, D. Naredo-Tuero, and T. Schwemberger, arXiv:2502.04508.
  11. A. Cermenati, A. Ambrosone, R. Aloisio, D. Boncioli, and C. Evoli, arXiv:2507.11993.
  12. T. Yuan and L. Lu, Highlights High Energy Phys. 1, 19 (2025).
  13. M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 051103 (2020).
  14. L. A. Anchordoqui, F. Halzen, and D. Lust, Phys. Rev. D 112, 083034 (2025).
  15. P. S. B. Dev, B. Dutta, A. Karthikeyan, W. Maitra, L. E. Strigari, and A. Verma, arXiv:2505.22754.
  16. Y. Farzan and M. Hostert, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2025) 208.
  17. M. J. Baker, J. Iguaz Juan, A. Symons, and A. Thamm, arXiv:2505.22722.
  18. J. Zhang, A. Sandrock, J. Liao, and B. Yue, arXiv:2505.04791.
  19. Y. He, J. Liu, X.-P. Wang, and Y.-M. Zhong, arXiv:2504.20163.
  20. S. Khan, J. Kim, and P. Ko, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11 (2025) 033.
  21. K. Murase, Y. Narita, and W. Yin, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2025) 109.
  22. S. Das, B. Zhang, S. Razzaque, and S. Xu, Astrophys. J. 991, 96 (2025).
  23. Q. Zhang, T.-Q. Huang, and Z. Li, Astrophys. J. 990, 78 (2025).
  24. B. Barman, A. Das, and P. Sarmah, Phys. Rev. D 112, 075014 (2025).
  25. K.-Y. Choi, E. Lkhagvadorj, and S. Mahapatra, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2025) 079.
  26. G. Dvali, M. Zantedeschi, and S. Zell, arXiv:2503.21740.
  27. Y. Jho, S. C. Park, and C. S. Shin, Phys. Rev. D 112, 115004 (2025).
  28. A. P. Klipfel and D. I. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 121003 (2025).
  29. S. Jiang and F. P. Huang, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 06 (2025) 023.
  30. M. Crnogorčević, C. Blanco, and T. Linden, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2025) 009.
  31. G. F. S. Alves, M. Hostert, and M. Pospelov, arXiv:2503.14419.
  32. R. Wang, J. Zhu, H. Li, and B.-Q. Ma, Res. Notes AAS 9, 65 (2025).
  33. Y. Narita and W. Yin, arXiv:2503.07776.
  34. K. Kohri, P. K. Paul, and N. Sahu, Phys. Rev. D 112, L031703 (2025).
  35. V. Brdar and D. S. Chattopadhyay, arXiv:2502.21299.
  36. D. Borah, N. Das, N. Okada, and P. Sarmah, Phys. Rev. D 111, 123022 (2025).
  37. A. Boccia and F. Iocco, Phys. Rev. D 112, 063045 (2025).
  38. Y.-M. Yang, X.-J. Lv, X.-J. Bi, and P.-F. Yin, Phys. Rev. D 111, 123037 (2025).
  39. T. A. Dzhatdoev, arXiv:2502.11434.
  40. P. Satunin, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 545 (2025).
  41. M. S. Muzio, T. Yuan, and L. Lu, arXiv:2502.06944.
  42. M. D. Filipović et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 984, L52 (2025).
  43. K. Fang, F. Halzen, and D. Hooper, Astrophys. J. Lett. 982, L16 (2025).
  44. S. W. Hawking, Nature (London) 248, 30 (1974).
  45. S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 43, 199 (1975); 46, 206(E) (1976).
  46. D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. D 13, 198 (1976).
  47. B. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda, and J. Yokoyama, Rep. Prog. Phys. 84, 116902 (2021).
  48. X. Boluna, S. Profumo, J. Blé, and D. Hennings, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 04 (2024) 024.
  49. A. Addazi et al. (LHAASO Collaboration), Chin. Phys. C 46, 035001 (2022), https://inspirehep.net/literature/1734085.
  50. A. U. Abeysekara et al. (historical, present HAWC Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 1052, 168253 (2023).
  51. D. H. U. for the HAWC Collaboration, HAWC follow-up observations of the KM3NeT neutrino event KM3-230213A, https://www.astronomerstelegram.org/?read=17069 (2025), the Astronomer’s Telegram.

  52. Throughout this Letter, we adopt natural units where ℏ=c=kB=1, and fix the Planck mass to be MP=G−1/2, with G the gravitational constant.

  53. J. H. MacGibbon and B. R. Webber, Phys. Rev. D 41, 3052 (1990).
  54. J. H. MacGibbon, Phys. Rev. D 44, 376 (1991).
  55. A. Cheek, L. Heurtier, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, and J. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 105, 015022 (2022).

  56. Recently, it has been proposed that black hole evaporation may deviate from the standard semiclassical picture due to the so-called “memory burden” hypothesis, which suggests modifications to the mass loss rate at late times [57]. This idea is motivated by a possible analogy between certain solitonic solutions in non-Abelian gauge theories and black holes. Within this framework, the emission of UHE neutrinos capable of producing the KM3NeT event has also been considered [26, 37, 58]. As the hypothesis remains speculative, we assume the semiclassical approximation remains valid up to near-Planckian scales.

  57. G. Dvali, J. S. Valbuena-Bermúdez, and M. Zantedeschi, Phys. Rev. D 110, 056029 (2024).
  58. M. Zantedeschi and L. Visinelli, Phys. Dark Universe 49, 102034 (2025).
  59. C. Barcelo, S. Liberati, S. Sonego, and M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D 83, 041501 (2011).
  60. D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 3743 (1993).
  61. D. N. Page, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 09 (2013) 028.
  62. Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, Phys. Rev. D 111, 083015 (2025).
  63. L. Buoninfante, F. Di Filippo, and S. Mukohyama, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2021) 081.
  64. L. Buoninfante and F. Di Filippo, arXiv:2504.00516.
  65. A. Arbey and J. Auffinger, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 693 (2019).
  66. A. Arbey and J. Auffinger, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 910 (2021).
  67. C. W. Bauer, N. L. Rodd, and B. R. Webber, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2021) 121.
  68. P. Dave and I. Taboada (IceCube Collaboration), Proc. Sci. ICRC2019 (2021) 863 [arXiv:1908.05403].
  69. L. F. T. Airoldi, G. F. S. Alves, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, G. M. Salla, and R. Z. Funchal, companion paper, Phys. Rev. D 113, 023052 (2025).
  70. L. J. Schumacher, M. Huber, M. Agostini, M. Bustamante, F. Oikonomou, and E. Resconi, Proc. Sci. ICRC2021 (2021) 1185 [arXiv:2107.13534].
  71. L. J. Schumacher, M. Bustamante, M. Agostini, F. Oikonomou, and E. Resconi, Phys. Rev. D 112, 083027 (2025).
  72. https://github.com/PLEnuM-group/Plenum.
  73. S. Aiello et al. (KM3NeT Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 885 (2024).

  74. Certainly, the PBH could be located at a larger distance such that the KM3NeT event would result from a Poissonian upward fluctuation. However, assuming an upward fluctuation with a probability of 1%, the PBH distance would be enlarged by a factor of ∼10, which does not affect our conclusions.

  75. D. J. Thompson and C. A. Wilson-Hodge, Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics (Springer, Singapore, 2022).

  76. We estimate the Pierre Auger Observatory [77] could have observed about 3 gamma-ray events with Eγ>5×109  GeV during the final burst.

  77. A. Aab et al. (Pierre Auger Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 798, 172 (2015).
  78. A. Albert et al. (HAWC Collaboration), J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 04 (2020) 026.
  79. G. Di Sciascio (LHAASO Collaboration), Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 279–281, 166 (2016).
  80. C. Yang, S. Wang, M.-L. Zhao, and X. Zhang, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2024) 083.

  81. We note, however, that KM3NeT effective areas from PLEνM are obtained from IceCube ones by a coordinate transformation. Thus, implicitly, these assume the same cuts and selections used by IceCube, which might not be applicable for KM3NeT.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 041002– Published 28 January, 2026
  • Received 16 June 2025
  • Revised 30 September 2025
  • Accepted 3 December 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Funded by SCOAP3.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation