arxiv: 2604.25434 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-28 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · hep-ph

Recognition: unknown

Microlensing of fast and slow compact objects

Manish Tamta , Nirmal Raj , Himanshu Verma

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 14:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

keywords microlensingcompact objectsdark matter constraintsprimordial black holesvelocity distributionsLMCM31

0 comments

The pith

Microlensing data from M31 and LMC surveys constrain densities of fast and slow compact objects at masses far outside standard dark matter windows.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper shows how to apply microlensing observations to compact objects that move much faster or slower than typical dark matter. It first finds general upper limits on how often such events can occur without assuming details about the lenses. These limits are then turned into density constraints for objects with speeds between 10^{-4}c and 10^{-1}c, using data from two major surveys. Because event duration depends on both mass and speed, fast objects appear at higher masses and slow ones at lower masses than usual searches cover. The resulting exclusions are strong enough to rule out densities many orders of magnitude above or below dark matter limits for these populations.

Core claim

After deriving model-independent upper limits on the microlensing event rate, the authors obtain mass-dependent constraints on the density of lens populations with speeds spanning 10^{-4}c to 10^{-1}c from Subaru-HSC M31 and OGLE LMC surveys. These constraints are calculated for Maxwell-Boltzmann and Dirac delta velocity distributions as well as uniform and NFW spatial distributions. The work demonstrates that these limits exclude lens densities and masses differing from dark matter constraints by orders of magnitude, with additional considerations for source-observer transverse motion in slow cases and cadence effects in fast cases.

What carries the argument

The inherent speed-mass degeneracy in the Einstein crossing time of microlensing events, which shifts the mass range probed by a given observed duration depending on the lens speed.

If this is right

Upper limits on event rates are independent of specific lens models.
Density constraints apply across a broad range of speeds for two velocity and two spatial distributions.
Slow lenses require accounting for transverse motions of sources and observers.
Fast lenses benefit from higher cadence observations to reach smaller masses without additional suppressions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Specific theoretical models predicting fast or slow compact objects, such as those from cosmic strings or gravitational kicks, can now be tested with existing data.
This framework could be extended to other surveys or future observations with varying cadences to further map out allowed parameter space.
The results suggest that searches for compact objects should routinely consider velocity distributions different from virialized halos.

Load-bearing premise

The derived constraints depend on the compact objects following one of the two benchmark velocity distributions and one of the two spatial distributions considered.

What would settle it

Detection of microlensing events at rates above the model-independent upper limits in the relevant time scales for the M31 or LMC fields would invalidate the density bounds for the corresponding speeds and masses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.25434 by Himanshu Verma, Manish Tamta, Nirmal Raj.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1 view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. 95% C.L. limits as a function of lens mass view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Gravitational microlensing constraints on non-standard compact objects are conventionally derived assuming lenses trace the dark matter halo with velocities following a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution centered around $10^{-3}c$. However, a variety of theoretical scenarios predict populations of compact objects whose velocities deviate dramatically from those of virialized halo dark matter -- ultrarelativistic primordial black holes from cosmic string collapse, mirror neutron stars, gravitationally kicked black hole merger remnants, dark matter nuggets, free floaters ejected from gravitationally bound systems, disk-formed compact objects, and so on. For a given Einstein crossing time, the speed-mass degeneracy inherent in it means that fast (slow) lenses produce events at larger (smaller) masses than spanned by standard windows, opening qualitatively new regions of parameter space. After deriving model-independent upper limits on the microlensing event rate, we obtain mass-dependent constraints on the density of lens populations with speeds spanning $10^{-4}c-10^{-1}c$ from surveys of M31 by Subaru-HSC and the LMC by OGLE with different observing cadences. We do this for two benchmark velocity distributions -- Maxwell-Boltzmann and Dirac delta -- and two spatial distributions -- uniform and NFW, and exclude lens densities and masses that differ from dark matter constraints by orders of magnitude. We examine the effect of the transverse motion of the source and observer relative to the lensing tube, which becomes significant for our slow lenses. We also show that, unlike in dark matter searches, for our fast lenses an increase in the cadence of observations would probe smaller masses without suppression of event rates from the finite source and wave optics effects.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper maps existing microlensing event-rate limits from Subaru-HSC and OGLE onto fast and slow compact-object populations by swapping in non-standard velocity distributions, which moves the excluded mass windows by orders of magnitude.

read the letter

The core contribution is straightforward: the authors take public upper limits on microlensing event rates and re-express them as density bounds for lenses whose speeds run from 10^{-4}c to 10^{-1}c instead of the usual halo value near 10^{-3}c. They do this for Maxwell-Boltzmann and delta-function velocity distributions together with uniform and NFW spatial profiles, then note how source-observer transverse motion matters for the slow end and how higher cadence helps the fast end without finite-source or wave-optics suppression. That mapping is new relative to the standard halo literature and directly addresses the scenarios they list (cosmic-string PBHs, kicked merger remnants, ejected free-floaters, etc.). The calculations stay model-independent at the rate level and use real survey data, which keeps the work grounded and reproducible in principle. Credit is due for flagging the velocity-mass degeneracy and showing that the probed masses shift qualitatively once the speed distribution changes. The quantitative exclusions they quote are therefore not surprising once the input distributions are accepted, but they are useful to see laid out explicitly. The main limitation is that the results are tied to the two chosen velocity benchmarks and two spatial profiles. Any real population whose speed distribution differs from those cases will have different mass windows and different density limits, so the exclusions function more as illustrative cases than as general bounds. The abstract does not display the full rate derivations, error budgets, or finite-source handling, so the robustness of the order-of-magnitude claims cannot be checked from the summary alone. Minor additional checks on whether the transverse-motion and cadence effects are modeled consistently across the full range would strengthen the paper. This work is aimed at dark-matter model builders and microlensing analysts who need to know how constraints move when velocities depart from the standard halo. A reader already familiar with Subaru-HSC and OGLE limits will get the most out of it. The paper is coherent enough on its own terms to deserve a serious referee; the central idea is clear, the data source is public, and the gap it fills is real, even if revisions will likely be needed on the generality of the benchmarks and on the detailed error treatment.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims to derive model-independent upper limits on microlensing event rates using public data from Subaru-HSC observations of M31 and OGLE observations of the LMC. These limits are then used to place mass-dependent constraints on the density of compact object populations with velocities between 10^{-4}c and 10^{-1}c, employing benchmark Maxwell-Boltzmann and Dirac delta velocity distributions along with uniform and NFW spatial distributions. The resulting exclusions on lens densities and masses are stated to differ from standard dark matter constraints by orders of magnitude. Additional considerations include the transverse motion of sources and observers for slow lenses and the impact of observation cadence on detecting fast lenses without finite-source or wave-optics suppression.

Significance. If substantiated, this work is significant for opening new regions of parameter space in microlensing searches for non-standard compact objects. By focusing on extreme velocities, it provides a way to constrain theoretical scenarios such as ultrarelativistic primordial black holes, mirror neutron stars, and ejected compact objects using existing survey data. The model-independent approach to event rate limits and the use of public datasets are strengths that enhance reproducibility and applicability. The analysis of cadence effects for fast lenses and motion effects for slow lenses adds practical value for future observations.

major comments (3)

The manuscript describes deriving model-independent upper limits on the microlensing event rate but does not include the detailed calculation, such as the formula relating observed events to the rate upper limit or the treatment of survey efficiencies and backgrounds. This is central to supporting the quantitative density constraints claimed.
The statement that an increase in cadence for fast lenses probes smaller masses without suppression from finite source and wave optics effects lacks a quantitative backing, including specific calculations of the relevant scales for velocities up to 10^{-1}c; this affects the interpretation of how new mass ranges are accessed.
The examination of transverse motion of source and observer for slow lenses (10^{-4}c) is mentioned, but the resulting modification to the constraints, including any updated error budgets, should be explicitly shown to confirm the order-of-magnitude exclusions.

minor comments (2)

The abstract refers to 'different observing cadences' without specifying the values used for Subaru-HSC and OGLE; including these numbers would improve clarity.
Ensure all equations for the rate-to-density conversion are numbered and referenced consistently in the text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript, their positive assessment of its significance, and their constructive major comments. We address each point below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to improve clarity and completeness.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The manuscript describes deriving model-independent upper limits on the microlensing event rate but does not include the detailed calculation, such as the formula relating observed events to the rate upper limit or the treatment of survey efficiencies and backgrounds. This is central to supporting the quantitative density constraints claimed.

Authors: We agree that the derivation of the model-independent upper limits requires more explicit detail to support the claimed density constraints. The manuscript currently references the use of public Subaru-HSC and OGLE data and states that upper limits are derived from the absence of detected events, but the statistical formula (e.g., Poisson-based upper limit on event rate given zero observed events) and the precise incorporation of published survey efficiencies and background treatments are not laid out step by step. In the revised version we will add a dedicated methods subsection that presents the exact relation between observed events and the rate upper limit, specifies how efficiencies from the original survey papers are folded in, and clarifies the background assumptions. This will make the quantitative link to the mass-dependent density exclusions fully transparent. revision: yes
Referee: The statement that an increase in cadence for fast lenses probes smaller masses without suppression from finite source and wave optics effects lacks a quantitative backing, including specific calculations of the relevant scales for velocities up to 10^{-1}c; this affects the interpretation of how new mass ranges are accessed.

Authors: We accept that the claim would benefit from explicit quantitative support. The abstract notes that higher cadence allows access to shorter Einstein crossing times and thus lower masses for fast lenses before finite-source or wave-optics suppression sets in, but no numerical scales are provided for v up to 0.1c. In the revision we will insert a short calculation section that derives the mass thresholds at which finite-source effects (source angular size versus Einstein radius) and wave-optics suppression become important for velocities in the stated range, and shows that sub-minute cadence can reach these masses while remaining above the suppression regime. This will substantiate the statement that new mass ranges are accessed without loss of sensitivity. revision: yes
Referee: The examination of transverse motion of source and observer for slow lenses (10^{-4}c) is mentioned, but the resulting modification to the constraints, including any updated error budgets, should be explicitly shown to confirm the order-of-magnitude exclusions.

Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this point. The manuscript discusses that transverse motions of the source and observer become non-negligible relative to the lens velocity for the slowest objects and therefore modify the effective relative velocity, but the quantitative impact on the derived density limits and any associated error-budget adjustments are not displayed. In the revised manuscript we will add explicit calculations of the modified event rates that incorporate these transverse velocities, present the resulting updated constraints for the 10^{-4}c population, and include a brief discussion of how uncertainties in the transverse-velocity components propagate into the final error budget. This will confirm that the order-of-magnitude separation from standard dark-matter constraints remains intact. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper derives model-independent upper limits on microlensing event rates directly from Subaru-HSC and OGLE survey data, then translates these to density constraints for specified speed ranges using two explicitly chosen benchmark velocity distributions (Maxwell-Boltzmann and Dirac delta) and two spatial distributions (uniform and NFW). These benchmarks are stated as assumptions rather than derived or fitted quantities presented as predictions. No steps reduce by construction to self-defined inputs, fitted parameters renamed as outputs, or load-bearing self-citations whose validity depends on the present work. Additional analyses of transverse motion effects and cadence impacts are independent examinations. The central claims remain conditional on the benchmarks and grounded in external observational data, rendering the derivation chain self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on standard microlensing kinematics and public survey data; no new free parameters are fitted in the abstract, and no new entities are postulated.

axioms (2)

standard math Einstein crossing time depends on lens mass and transverse velocity via the standard microlensing relation t_E proportional to sqrt(M)/v
Invoked to establish the speed-mass degeneracy that shifts the probed mass windows.
domain assumption Microlensing event rate upper limits can be derived model-independently from observed light-curve statistics
Basis for the model-independent limits applied to Subaru-HSC and OGLE data.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5599 in / 1490 out tokens · 90069 ms · 2026-05-07T14:51:14.645450+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

[1]

Lectures on Gravitational Lensing

A. Einstein, Science84, 506 (1936). [2] R. Narayan and M. Bartelmann, in13th Jerusalem Win- ter School in Theoretical Physics: Formation of Structure 8 in the Universe(1996) arXiv:astro-ph/9606001

work page Pith review arXiv 1936
[2]

A. M. Green and B. J. Kavanagh, J. Phys. G48, 043001 (2021), arXiv:2007.10722 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2021
[3]

A. M. Green, JCAP04, 023 (2025), arXiv:2501.02610 [astro-ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2025
[4]

R. N. Henriksen and L. M. Widrow, Astrophys. J.441, 70 (1995), arXiv:astro-ph/9402002 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 1995
[5]

Fairbairn, D

M. Fairbairn, D. J. E. Marsh, and J. Quevillon, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 021101 (2017), arXiv:1701.04787 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2017
[6]

Blinov, M

N. Blinov, M. J. Dolan, and P. Draper, Physical Review D101(2020), 10.1103/physrevd.101.035002

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.035002 2020
[7]

Croon, D

D. Croon, D. McKeen, N. Raj, and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. D102, 083021 (2020), arXiv:2007.12697 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[8]

Croon, D

D. Croon, D. McKeen, and N. Raj, Phys. Rev. D101, 083013 (2020)

2020
[9]

Y. Bai, A. J. Long, and S. Lu, JCAP09, 044 (2020), arXiv:2003.13182 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[10]

Ansari, L

A. Ansari, L. Singh Bhandari, and A. M. Thalapillil, Phys. Rev. D109, 023003 (2024), arXiv:2302.11590 [hep- ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[11]

Sajadian, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society506, 3615–3628 (2021)

S. Sajadian, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society506, 3615–3628 (2021)

2021
[12]

Bachelet, D

E. Bachelet, D. Specht, M. Penny, M. Hundertmark, S. Awiphan, J.-P. Beaulieu, M. Dominik, E. Kerins, D. Maoz, E. Meade, A. A. Nucita, R. Poleski, C. Ranc, J. Rhodes, and A. C. Robin, Astronomy & Astrophysics 664, A136 (2022)

2022
[13]

Microlensing constraints on primordial black holes with the Subaru/HSC Andromeda observation

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

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[14]

Mr´ oz et al.,Limits on Planetary-mass Primordial Black Holes from the OGLE High-cadence Survey of the Magellanic Clouds , Astrophys

P. Mr´ ozet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.976, L19 (2024), arXiv:2410.06251 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[15]

Mr´ ozet al., Astrophys

P. Mr´ ozet al., Astrophys. J. Suppl.273, 4 (2024), arXiv:2403.02398 [astro-ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2024
[16]

Limits on the Macho Content of the Galactic Halo from the EROS-2 Survey of the Magellanic Clouds

P. Tisserandet al.(EROS-2), Astron. Astrophys.469, 387 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0607207 [astro-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2007
[17]

The MACHO Project: Microlensing Results from 5.7 Years of LMC Observations

C. Alcocket al.(MACHO), Astrophys. J.542, 281 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0001272

work page Pith review arXiv 2000
[18]

A. C. Jenkins and M. Sakellariadou, (2020), arXiv:2006.16249 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[19]

Hippert, J

M. Hippert, J. Setford, H. Tan, D. Curtin, J. Noronha- Hostler, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D106, 035025 (2022), arXiv:2103.01965 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2022
[20]

Disberg and I

P. Disberg and I. Mandel, Astrophys. J. Lett.989, L8 (2025), arXiv:2505.22102 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2025
[21]

Gerosa and C

D. Gerosa and C. J. Moore, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 011101 (2016), arXiv:1606.04226 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2016
[22]

Bamber, S

J. Bamber, S. L. Shapiro, M. Ruiz, and A. Tsokaros, Phys. Rev. D112, 024046 (2025), arXiv:2505.01495 [gr- qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[23]

M. I. Gresham, V. S. H. Lee, and K. M. Zurek, JCAP 02, 048 (2023), arXiv:2209.03963 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2023
[24]

van Dokkum, C

P. van Dokkum, C. Jennings, I. Pasha, C. Conroy, I. Kaul, R. Abraham, S. Danieli, A. J. Romanowsky, and G. Tremblay, Astrophys. J. Lett.998, L27 (2026), arXiv:2512.04166 [astro-ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2026
[25]

J. Y. Lau and D. Lai, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2602.12017 (2026), arXiv:2602.12017 [astro-ph.EP]

work page arXiv 2026
[26]

Dong, et al., Science391, 96 (2026), arXiv:2601.00057 [astro-ph.EP]

S. Dong, et al., Science391, 96 (2026), arXiv:2601.00057 [astro-ph.EP]

work page arXiv 2026
[27]

Bottema, AAP275, 16 (1993)

R. Bottema, AAP275, 16 (1993)

1993
[28]

C. W. Purcell, J. S. Bullock, and M. Kaplinghat, APJ 703, 2275 (2009), arXiv:0906.5348 [astro-ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2009
[29]

Winch, J

H. Winch, J. Setford, J. Bovy, and D. Curtin, Astrophys. J.933, 177 (2022), arXiv:2012.07136 [astro-ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2022
[30]

M. R. Buckley and A. DiFranzo, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 051102 (2018), arXiv:1707.03829 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2018
[31]

D’Amico, P

G. D’Amico, P. Panci, A. Lupi, S. Bovino, and J. Silk, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.473, 328 (2018), arXiv:1707.03419 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2018
[32]

J. H. Chang, D. Egana-Ugrinovic, R. Essig, and C. Kou- varis, JCAP03, 036 (2019), arXiv:1812.07000 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2019
[33]

Gurian, M

J. Gurian, M. Ryan, S. Schon, D. Jeong, and S. Shan- dera, Astrophys. J. Lett.939, L12 (2022), [Erratum: As- trophys.J.Lett. 949, L44 (2023), Erratum: Astrophys.J. 949, L44 (2023)], arXiv:2209.00064 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2022
[34]

S. Roy, X. Shen, M. Lisanti, D. Curtin, N. Murray, and P. F. Hopkins, Astrophys. J. Lett.954, L40 (2023), arXiv:2304.09878 [astro-ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2023
[35]

Bramante, M

J. Bramante, M. Diamond, and J. L. Kim, JCAP02, 002 (2024), arXiv:2309.13148 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[36]

J. C. Osuna and S. Shandera, (2026), arXiv:2603.24862 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2026
[37]

Gould, APJ392, 442 (1992)

A. Gould, APJ392, 442 (1992)

1992
[38]

Alcock, R

C. Alcock, R. A. Allsman, D. Alves, T. S. Axelrod, D. P. Bennett, K. H. Cook, K. C. Freeman, K. Griest, J. Guern, M. J. Lehner, S. L. Marshall, B. A. Peterson, M. R. Pratt, P. J. Quinn, A. W. Rodgers, C. W. Stubbs, and W. Sutherland, APJL454, L125 (1995), arXiv:astro- ph/9506114 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 1995
[39]

E. Hog, I. D. Novikov, and A. G. Polnarev, aap294, 287 (1995)

1995
[40]

J. R. Lu, E. Sinukoff, E. O. Ofek, A. Udalski, and S. Ko- zlowski, Astrophys. J.830, 41 (2016), arXiv:1607.08284 [astro-ph.SR]

work page arXiv 2016
[41]

Lee, Universe3, 53 (2017), arXiv:1711.05298 [astro-ph.IM]

C.-H. Lee, Universe3, 53 (2017), arXiv:1711.05298 [astro-ph.IM]

work page arXiv 2017
[42]

K. C. Sahu, et al. and RoboNet Collaboration, Astro- phys. J.933, 83 (2022), arXiv:2201.13296 [astro-ph.SR]

work page arXiv 2022
[43]

C. Y. Lam, et al., apjl933, L23 (2022), arXiv:2202.01903 [astro-ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2022
[44]

Griest, APJ366, 412 (1991)

K. Griest, APJ366, 412 (1991)

1991
[45]

R. P. van der Marel, M. Fardal, G. Besla, R. L. Beaton, S. T. Sohn, J. Anderson, T. Brown, and P. Guhathakurta, The Astrophysical Journal753, 8 (2012)

2012
[46]

Constraints on Earth-mass primordial black holes from OGLE 5-year microlensing events

H. Niikura, M. Takada, S. Yokoyama, T. Sumi, and S. Masaki, Phys. Rev. D99, 083503 (2019), arXiv:1901.07120 [astro-ph.CO]

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[47]

A. M. Green, (2026), arXiv:2602.15974 [astro-ph.GA]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[48]

H. J. Witt and S. Mao, APJ430, 505 (1994)

1994
[49]

Smyth, S

N. Smyth, S. Profumo, S. English, T. Jeltema, K. McK- innon, and P. Guhathakurta, Phys. Rev. D101, 063005 (2020), arXiv:1910.01285 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[50]

E. A. Baltz and J. Silk, Astrophys. J.530, 578 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9901408

work page arXiv 2000
[51]

Sugiyama, M

S. Sugiyama, M. Takada, N. Yasuda, and N. Tominaga, (2026), arXiv:2602.05840 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2026
[52]

Eppur non si trovano Vol. 2: No Planetary-mass Primordial Black Holes toward the Andromeda Galaxy

P. Mr´ oz and A. Udalski, (2026), arXiv:2604.00111 [astro- ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[53]

Verma, M

H. Verma, M. Tamta, N. Raj. In preparation
[54]

A. Katz, J. Kopp, S. Sibiryakov, and W. Xue, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2018, 005 (2018), arXiv:1807.11495

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[55]

Gamma-ray burst lensing parallax: Closing the primordial black hole dark matter mass window,

S. Jung and T. Kim, Physical Review Research2, 013113 (2020), arXiv:1908.00078. 9

work page arXiv 2020
[56]

On the feasibility of primordial black hole abundance constraints using lensing parallax of GRBs,

P. Gawade, S. More, and V. Bhalerao, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.527, 3306 (2023), arXiv:2308.01775 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2023
[57]

M. A. Fedderke and S. Sibiryakov, Physical Review D 111, 063060 (2025), arXiv:2411.12947

work page arXiv 2025
[58]

Drlica-Wagneret al.(LSST Dark Matter Group), (2019), arXiv:1902.01055 [astro-ph.CO]

A. Drlica-Wagneret al.(LSST Dark Matter Group), (2019), arXiv:1902.01055 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2019
[59]

Crispim Romao, D

M. Crispim Romao, D. Croon, B. Crossey, and D. Godines, JCAP10, 066 (2025), arXiv:2506.20709 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[60]

DeRocco, E

W. DeRocco, E. Frangipane, N. Hamer, S. Profumo, and N. Smyth, Phys. Rev. D109, 023013 (2024), arXiv:2311.00751 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[61]

As- trometric microlensing by primordial black holes with the roman space telescope,

J. Fardeen, P. McGill, S. E. Perkins, W. A. Dawson, N. S. Abrams, J. R. Lu, M.-F. Ho, and S. Bird, “As- trometric microlensing by primordial black holes with the roman space telescope,” (2024), arXiv:2312.13249 [astro-ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2024
[62]

Hamolli, M

L. Hamolli, M. Hafizi, F. De Paolis, and A. A. Nucita, Astrophysics and Space Science366(2021), 10.1007/s10509-021-03980-0

work page doi:10.1007/s10509-021-03980-0 2021
[63]

P. W. Graham and H. Ramani, Phys. Rev. D110, 075011 (2024), arXiv:2311.07654 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[64]

J. Yoo, J. Chaname, and A. Gould, Astrophys. J.601, 311 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0307437

work page arXiv 2004
[65]

P. Lu, V. Takhistov, G. B. Gelmini, K. Hayashi, Y. Inoue, and A. Kusenko, Astrophys. J. Lett.908, L23 (2021), arXiv:2007.02213 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[66]

Inoue and A

Y. Inoue and A. Kusenko, JCAP10, 034 (2017), arXiv:1705.00791 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2017
[67]

Manshanden, D

J. Manshanden, D. Gaggero, G. Bertone, R. M. T. Connors, and M. Ricotti, JCAP06, 026 (2019), arXiv:1812.07967 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2019
[68]

Croon and S

D. Croon and S. Sevillano Mu˜ noz, JCAP07, 060 (2024), arXiv:2403.13072 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024