The best known among BH to WH bouncing cosmologies may be Nikodem J. Poplawski's "cosmology with torsion" (described at https://arxiv.org/abs/1007.0587 and https://arxiv.org/abs/0902.1994), which is based on the ECSK (Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble) theory of gravity. ECSK originated through discussions between Einstein and the mathematician Elie Cartan in the late 1920's, and was modified much more recently by Sciama and Kibble. Poplawski and others consider it to be a version of GR, although it differs from simpler and more widely-used versions by requiring that fermions should have a (tiny) spatial extent. It's reportedly more complex (mathematically) than the standard version of GR, and equally adequate for confirmation of GR's observational proofs.
In Poplawski's cosmology, the trajectories of newly-materialized fermions (separated by tidal effects, on opposite sides of the outward-propagating event horizon of a rotating star undergoing gravitational collapse, from their former partners in virtual particle-antiparticle pairs, during that horizon's outward propagation) are accelerated and reversed during contact with much larger stellar fermions. (I should point out that all or most stars, as well as the black holes into which the larger ones eventually collapse gravitationally, have at least a faint residual rotation; also, all fermions--even the "point-like" ones of standard GR--spin.)
Poplawski's views are consistent with the conventional view of time's "arrow" (the subjectively-experienced direction of time's "passage") as being thermodynamic in nature, and see that direction as initially determined by the spatial direction of material falling toward the center of the collapsing star. (His views are also consistent with the "block universe" or "eternalist" view of physical time, in which every duration contains every briefer duration: This view is often considered to be implied by the paradoxes of Special Relativity, and appears consistent with the observational proofs of GR.)
In his cosmology, each new local universe (or temporal iteration) is formed when the accelerated particles reach a zone, still within the collapsing star's original volume, that he analogizes to a 3-dimensional version of the surface of a sphere (i.e., like "the skin of a basketball").
Poplawski's 2015 collaboration with Desai, "Non-parametric reconstruction of an inflaton potential" at https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.08834 , clearly reveals it (through CMB data obtained via the Planck satellite) to be a version of cosmic inflation, albeit without the subatomic "inflaton" particles which (in spite of their resemblance to the Higgs particle already observed) have not yet been found at the masses appropriate for asymptotically-exponential spatial expansion, in attempts to confirm the possibility of whatever cosmic inflation may be caused by scalar fields. (The gravitational collapse of many large stars, on the other hand, has been apparent for decades, primarily thru the elliptical or nearly-circular orbits of their former partners in binary pairs.) The inflationary spatial expansion hypothesized by Poplawski can be seen as as an application of Maupertuis' "Principle of Least Action", described at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_action. In the work with Desai, he posits a sequential version of that expansion, which might perhaps explain the acceleration of inflation that was revealed by the supernova 1A observations of 1998 and 1999.
The difference in scale between each "parenting" LU & its "baby" is huge (by a factor of 10^32), but, because the "Cartan radius" of the fermion nevertheless remains much greater than the Planck length, it's not as great as that difference between particles and black holes that's discussed by Susskind in his 2014 "ER=EPR" lecture, available free on YouTube.
Although standard GR may be scale-invariant only thru application of the Weyl Curvature Hypothesis that's been much-discussed since the 1970's, I frankly have to suspect that huge variations in spacetime scale remain "suspect" in physics only due to the strange combination of a conception of ourselves as grandiose with a patronizing attitude toward children's use of toys.
In conjunction with the notion that each local universe in Poplawski's cosmos might contain black holes of its own on sequentially smaller scales, I believe that, in combination with the motions and rotation rates of most of them in relation to the others, his cosmology might have unusually strong potential for explaining the huge discrepancy between the theoretical vacuum energy and the observed one. Its potential for bypassing the cosmological singularity has already been widely noted.
The aspect of all this about which I'm most hopeful of receiving comments is the possibility that the evaporated local universes of one iteration might comprise either the virtual particles (or fields) of another OR its black holes, perhaps in relation to Feynman and Wheeler's notion of particles as antiparticles travelling "backwards in time", and vice-versa: It's because of those possibilities that I've included a reference to Susskind's 2014 "ER=EPR" lecture at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBPpRqxY8Uw , the best I've ever seen. (Before seeing it, I'd thought that the causal separations associated with event horizons were more-or-less a temporal thing: It hadn't occurred to me that the scales of material in the separated regions might differ enough to prevent their interactions, or, at least, to greatly rarefy them.)
