KCL-PH-TH/2017-33

Structure Formation and Microlensing with Axion Miniclusters

a a a,b c,d Malcolm Fairbairn ,∗ David J. E. Marsh ,† J´er´emieQuevillon ,‡ and Simon Rozier § a King’s College London, Strand, London, WC2R 2LS, United Kingdom b Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie, Universit´eGrenoble-Alpes, CNRS/IN2P3, 53 Avenue des Martyrs, F-38026 Grenoble, France c Ecole´ Polytechnique, Universit´eParis-Saclay, F-91128 Palaiseau, France d Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris — UMR 7095 du CNRS, Universit´ePierre & Marie Curie, 98bis boulevard Arago, F-75014 Paris, France

If the symmetry breaking responsible for axion dark matter production occurs during the radiation-dominated epoch in the early Universe, then this produces large amplitude perturba- tions that collapse into dense objects known as axion miniclusters. The characteristic minicluster mass, M0, is set by the mass inside the horizon when axion oscillations begin. For the QCD axion −10 M0 ∼ 10 M , however for an axion-like particle M0 can approach M or higher. Using the Press-Schechter formalism we compute the mass function of halos formed by hierarchical structure formation from these seeds. We compute the concentrations and collapse times of these halos and 6 show that they can grow to be as massive as 10 M0. Within the halos, miniclusters likely remain tightly bound, and we compute their gravitational microlensing signal taking the fraction of axion dark matter collapsed into miniclusters, fMC, as a free parameter. A large value of fMC severely weakens constraints on axion scenarios from direct detection experiments. We take into account the non-Gaussian distribution of sizes of miniclusters and determine how this effects the number of microlensing events. We develop the tools to consider microlensing by an extended mass function of non-point-like objects, and use microlensing data to place the first observational constraints on fMC. This opens a new window for the potential discovery of the axion.

I. INTRODUCTION is determined by the cosmic epoch during which symme- try breaking occurs. Miniclusters are formed if the PQ Models of particle dark matter (DM) can be broadly symmetry is broken after smooth cosmic initial condi- classified into two types: thermal and non-thermal. The tions are established (we refer from now on specifically prototypical thermal candidate is the Weakly Interacting to inflation [12], but the distinction is not important). Massive Particle [1, 2]. The prototypical non-thermal The minicluster mass is determined by the axion Comp- candidate is the axion [3, 4]. ton wavelength, with larger minicluster masses for lighter In this paper, we explore astrophysical implications axions. and constraints on axion DM in the so-called miniclus- The cosmology and astrophysics of miniclusters com- ters scenario [5]. In this scenario, dense lumps of ax- prised of the QCD axion [13–18] was explored in depth ion DM form from the dynamics of symmetry breaking in a series of seminal papers by Kolb and Tkachev in the which leads to the axion production in the first place. early 1990s [19–22]. At that time, microlensing observa- Both the mass and the mass function of the miniclus- tions were not yet precise enough to constrain QCD axion ters are determined by the axion particle mass, ma, and miniclusters. Modern observations are much improved, in some cases miniclusters can be massive enough, dense and here we perform the necessary improved theoretical enough, and abundant enough to impact astrophysical calculations of the event rate to compare to the data. observables such as gravitational microlensing. Thus, Furthermore, interest has been growing in the broader searches for axion miniclusters are related to searches class of axion DM models, or “axion-like particles”, in- for non-particle DM candidates including MAssive Com- spired in part by the theoretical observation that light pact Halo Objects (MACHOs) [6, 7] and primordial black (ma 1 eV) axions are abundant in the string theory holes (PBHs) [8–10]. landscape [23, 24]. It is thus timely to reconsider the arXiv:1707.03310v2 [astro-ph.CO] 8 Aug 2019 The axion is a pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson of a work of Kolb and Tkachev beyond the QCD axion. We spontaneously broken global U(1) symmetry, known as a take on this task, following also the work of Refs. [25–27]. Peccei-Quinn (PQ) symmetry [11]. PQ symmetry break- The fraction of axion DM bound up in miniclusters ing occurs when the temperature of the Universe drops is f , and is not known a priori from theoretical cal- below the symmetry breaking scale f . The cosmology of MC a culations. If f 1 then axion DM direct detec- the axion, and consequent phenomenology of axion DM, MC tion is severely limited,≈ as encounters with a miniclus- ter in our own Galaxy will be exceedingly rare. This has profound implications for axion direct detection. If ∗ f 1, then direct axion detection with ADMX [28], [email protected] MC ≈ † [email protected] MADMAX [29, 30], or the myriad other proposed ex- ‡ [email protected] periements targeting the QCD axion in the ma 1 µeV § [email protected] mass range would be much more difficult. Null∼ results 2 could erroneously be interpreted as excluding the axion, plest. Appendix A collects results on the axion relic den- when in fact it was just “hiding” in miniclusters. On sity, early time cosmology and thermal history, and de- the other hand experiments like ARIADNE [31], which termines the range of axion masses and decay constants detect axions via the forces they mediate [32] could still for which the minicluster scenario can occur. detect axions even if fMC = 1 or axions are not the DM. Finding the relic density in general requires many com- In practice even if fMC 1 initially, tidal disruption plex computational steps: lattice QCD for the tempera- will affect a few percent of≈ miniclusters allowing for some ture dependence of the axion mass, and lattice field the- prospect of DM direct detection, or even a measurement ory for the classical evolution of the axion field. These of fMC in the laboratory [33, 34]. In the present study calculations have only been performed in the literature we take fMC as a free parameter that, if sufficiently con- for the QCD axion. Our relic density computation uses strained by observation, could be used to rule out entire analytic approximations to allow us to treat ALPs, and classes of models for axion production. Our method pro- to account for uncertainties in the QCD calculation in poses to measure the minicluster fraction using gravita- a parameterised way. Our final constraints account for tional microlensing. the uncertainties by allowing for a window in the relation In the course of considering this signal, we address is- between minicluster mass and axion mass for the QCD sues of structure formation with miniclusters and present axion. a series of possible models. A new consequence of this Appendix B presents the theoretical modelling of the investigation is the computation of the mass function of MCH mass function, and some analytic results. Ap- minicluster halos (which we term “MCHs”). Depending pendix C discusses how non-Gaussianity of the axion on the merging and tidal stripping of miniclusters, the initial conditions affects the MCH mass function. Ap- MCH mass function may or may not be the appropriate pendix D discusses how formation of “axion stars” might mass function to consider for microlensing. There may modify our lensing results in the case of axion-like parti- be, however, other observational consequences of the ex- cles with temperature independent mass. istence of MCHs for which the mass function will be an We use Planck (2015) [39] cosmological parameters 2 important quantity. h = 0.67, Ωm = 0.32, Ωch = 0.12, zeq = 3402, and We begin in Section II, where we present some intro- for particle physics quantities we use natural units where ductory basics on miniclusters. There has been very little c = ~ = 1. Throughout this work we consider a stan- study in the literature on the subsequent gravitational dard thermal history of the Universe after the inflation- evolution of axion miniclusters after their formation (al- ary epoch. though see [25]). In Section III we therefore present a new computation of the MCH mass function following the Press-Schechter [35] formalism. The form of the mass II. AXION MINICLUSTERS function is seen to arise simply from basic physical prin- ciples, and can be easily parameterised. This section gives the briefest outline of the miniclus- Miniclusters are extended objects and cannot be con- ter scenario to establish some important language and sidered as point-like lenses (radius larger than the Ein- physical scales. The main results are given in Fig. 1 and stein radius). We discuss minicluster density profiles in Eq. (3). Section IV. Section V presents tools to compute the lens- There are two energy scales that define the cosmolog- ing signal from a mass function of non-point-like lenses. ical evolution of the axion field: the decay constant, fa, We apply our minicluster lensing methodology to the and the mass, ma. These two energy scales determine the historical EROS survey [36] and to the very recent Sub- two most important epochs in the life of a young axion. aru Hyper Suprime Cam observations [37] in Section VI. The axion is the angular degree of freedom of a com- We conclude in Section VII. plex scalar field, ϕ, with a global U(1) symmetry that is Since miniclusters can only be produced if the PQ sym- spontaneously broken by the potential: metry is broken after inflation, the axion parameters are 2 constrained by the precise prediction for the axion DM λ  f 2  V (ϕ) = ϕ 2 a . (1) relic density in this scenario. In particular, the relic den- 4! | | − 2 sity can be too large if the axion domain wall number NDW > 1, due to the late decay of domain walls. Thus, Spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB) occurs when the 2 in the standard QCD axion model, miniclusters are a temperature of the Universe cools to T . fa. After SSB, iφ/fa generic prediction only of the “KSVZ”-type models, with the complex field is given by ϕ = (fa/√2)e , with φ the scenario in the “DFSZ”-type models being somewhat the (real) axion field. more complicated.1 In this paper we consider only mod- If PQ symmetry is broken before or during inflation els with NDW = 1, where the minicluster scenario is sim- then the axion field takes on a uniform value across the

1 A comprehensive discussion of the variations on these general 2 The precise critical temperature for the phase transition from themes can be found in Ref. [38]. thermal field theory is calculated in e.g. Ref. [40]. 3

103 evolve into gravitationally bound miniclusters. Thus, as long as fa is low enough that SSB occurs during the nor- 100 mal thermal evolution of the Universe, then miniclusters are a logical possibility. 3 10 The time t0 when the axion mass becomes significant ]

6 is given by 3H(t0) ma, with H the Hubble rate. The 10 ≈

M axion acquires its mass due to non-perturbative effects [

0 9 such as instantons [45], which evolve with temperature 10 n

M as m = m (T/µ)− . Therefore the critical time t QCD axion a a,0 0 12 10 depends on the index n giving the temperature evolution. n =0 From this time onwards the axion field oscillates about its 15 n =3.34 10 own quadratic potential minimum, and the equation of n =6 state for the background axion energy density becomes 18 10 13 11 9 7 5 3 the same as that of pressureless matter [46–48]. The 10 10 10 10 10 10 m [eV] epoch when axion oscillations begin thus determines the a axion relic density. Appendix A computes the range of FIG. 1. The Characteristic Minicluster Mass: We plot (ma, fa) for various n for which axions provide the total M0, as a function of the axion mass, ma, for different temper- DM relic density while having fa small enough for SSB ature evolutions of the axion mass parameterised by index n. to occur after inflation. Solid lines show the most realistic assumptions about the relic The initial axion fluctuations laid down by SSB remain density, while dashed lines relax those assumptions (see Ap- smooth up to scales of order the horizon size at t . From pendix). When the axion mass is temperature independent 0 (n = 0), the two scenarios are equivalent for minicluster mass. this point on the density perturbations grow under grav- The thin dotted line shows the approximation Eq. (3). Lines ity as usual, eventually collapsing into the gravitationally terminate at a lower bound on ma set by the relic abundance. bound objects known as miniclusters. The total mass of axion DM contained within the horizon at time t0 sets the characteristic minicluster mass, M0, given by: observed Universe, with the addition of small isocurva-  3 ture perturbations from the finite temperature during 4 π M0 =ρ ¯a π , (2) inflation, and density perturbations inherited from the 3 (t0) adiabatic perturbations in the hot Big Bang plasma. On H the other hand, if PQ symmetry is broken after inflation whereρ ¯a is the energy density in axions today, and we then topological defects and large amplitude axion field have used the fact that the comoving wavenumber asso- fluctuations are present on scales of order the horizon ciated with the horizon size at this time is k0 = (t0) H size at symmetry breaking [5, 41, 42]. In this case, since where = aH is the conformal Hubble rate. H each horizon volume is causally disconnected, the axion In the case of a temperature independent axion mass, field is uncorrelated across different horizon volumes and and approximating the number of relativistic degrees of drawn from the distribution φ/fa [ π, π]. freedom as constant in T , a reasonable approximation ∈ U − 2 The Kibble mechanism [43] smoothes the axion field on to M0 can be obtained by using (H/H0) = Ωm(1 + 1 4 the horizon scale until such a time that the axion mass be- zeq)− a− to find a(t0). A fudge factor of two leads to a comes cosmically relevant, which defines the second im- good agreement with the full numerical calculation using portant epoch in the life of the axion. At this epoch, the g?(T ): topological defects decay, and the axion field is left with 3/2 large amplitude isocurvature fluctuations on the horizon 7  ma − 3 M0(ma, n = 0) 2.3 10− M 10 scale. These fluctuations of order fa between horizon ≈ × 10− eV volumes provide the initial conditions for the axion field  2    3/4  3/4 Ωch Ωm − 1 + zeq on small scales. It is these fluctuations that subsequently . 0.12 0.32 3403 (3)

This approximation is shown as the thin dotted line in 3 It is important to realise that these minicluster isocurvature fluc- tuations seeded by the PQ phase transition are unrelated to Fig. 1. the “axion isocurvature mode” constrained by large scale CMB In the general case, the characteristic minicluster mass anisotropies [44]. The “axion isocurvature mode” is produced by M0 is a function of the axion mass, the axion decay vacuum fluctuations during inflation in the scenario when PQ constant, and the index n determining the temperature symmetry is broken before inflation. The fluctuations are thus evolution of the mass. Fixing the decay constant as a scale invariant, and contribute to large angle anisotropies. The minicluster isocurvature mode is not scale invariant: the power function of the mass from the relic density, we show dies off rapidly on scales larger than the horizon size at the QCD M0(ma, n) for various n in Fig. 1. The lines in Fig. 1 phase transition (k < k0) and does not contribute to the observed for axion-like particles terminate at a lower bound on CMB anisotropies. ma. For masses below this bound axions cannot produce 4

1.0 but could be much larger, with larger ξ leading to smaller Kolb & Tkachev M0. To an extent the effect of the uncertainty in ξ on 0.8 Pearson VII M0 is captured by the uncertainty in the relic density )

0 − (see Appendix A). 0.6 The minicluster characteristic density, ρMC, is another

δ > δ important quantity, since it sets the typical radius of a (

F 0.4 minicluster, and thus it’s concentration. The character- istic density is given in terms of the initial overdensity 0.2 parameter, δ, by [21]:

3

F 0.02 ρMC = 140δ (1 + δ)¯ρa(zeq) , (4)

/ 0.00

F 0.02 −

∆ 0.05 which can be derived using spherical collapse, and under- − 0 2 4 6 8 10 stood by considering how regions of large δ collapse when δ0 z zeq. The initial condition simulations of Ref. [22] noted that while the mass of miniclusters was approxi- FIG. 2. Minicluster Overdensity Distribution: We show the cumulative mass fraction of miniclusters with overdensity mately fixed to M0, the characteristic density showed a wide, non-Gaussian, variation due to the anharmonicities parameter δ > δ0. The black line shows the simulation re- sults of Ref. [22], which we have fit using a Pearson-VII dis- in the axion potential. tribution. The overdensity distribution determines the halo Fig. 2 shows the cumulative mass fraction, (δ > δ0), concentration parameter (i.e. compactness) of miniclusters. taken from digitising Fig. 2 of Ref. [22].F The non- Gaussian distribution is well fit by a Pearson-VII-type distribution: the correct relic density while maintaining a low enough 1 fa to be of relevance for miniclusters. The lower bound (δ > δ0) = a2 , (5) on ma translates into an upper bound on M0, which is F [1 + (δ0/a1)] around 103M for n = 6 temperature evolution.4 The QCD axion has a known temperature depen- with a1 = 1.023, a2 = 0.462 found by a non-linear least dent mass with n = 3.34 from the “interacting instan- squares fit. ton liquid” model for the QCD topological susceptibil- We are not in possession of numerical simulations that ity [49], which is consistent with the results from lat- would allow us to fully characterise the non-Gaussianity tice simulations (n 3.55 0.30 [50, 51]). The mass is of the minicluster density field. In order to make some given by m =≈ 6 µeV(10± 12 GeV/f ). For our mod- progress we assume that the non-Gaussianity in over- a,QCD a density and minicluster size given by is a small-scale elling of the relic density the decay constant must be F 10 phenomenon affecting only the stochastic distribution of fa 10 GeV leading to an axion mass 50 µeV . ma . 200≈µeV. This implies a characteristic minicluster mass minicluster sizes. 10 This approach to model the non-Gaussian effects on M0 1.8 10− M , in broad agreement with other estimates≈ [20–22,× 26]. the density profile can be partially justified by consider- ing that the non-Gaussianities that affect the density pro- Our value of M0 differs from the characteristic mass defined in e.g. Ref. [22], who take the mass within file are caused by the axion self-interactions. The large scale perturbations are of smaller amplitude (the dimen- a cubic volume of size the inverse horizon wavevector, 3 rather than the spherical volume from the physical wave- sionless power spectrum falls as k for small k < k0). Small density perturbations mean small axion field per- length. This makes our definition of M0 larger by a fac- tor of 4π4/3 130. We believe our definition captures turbations. At small field values the axion potential is the symmetries≈ of minicluster formation better, and also quadratic, giving free-field behaviour that should be close better represents their likely formation history (see Sec- to Gaussian. Appendix C discusses non-Gaussian correc- tion IV). In practice the constraints on miniclusters from tions to the large scale clustering of miniclusters and the microlensing cover a broad range of masses and even a minicluster halo mass function induced by the white noise 2 fluctuations of θ. factor of 10 in M0 does not have a large impact. A far larger uncertainty is introduced if the axion string length parameter, ξ, rather than the horizon size, defines M . This factor is historically uncertain in simu- III. STRUCTURE FORMATION WITH 0 MINICLUSTERS lations: it is currently favoured to be ξ = 1.0 0.5 [52], ± The discussion in the previous section asserts that the initial conditions for the axion field on small scales caused 4 Constraints from the Lyman-α forest flux power spectrum [25] by SSB lead to the collapse of objects of mass M0 around 4 affect miniclusters with masses M0 & 10 M , which can be matter-radiation equality. In the following section we achieved in certain exotic scenarios for symmetry breaking [26]. consider how miniclusters, once initially formed, go on 5 to merge into larger bound structures, which we term 105 “minicluster halos”, or MCHs. This process has not been kJ,eq studied in great detail before. It deserves attention be- k0(n = 0) 3 cause the behaviour will be quite different from cold dark 10 k0(n = 3.34) matter: the initial conditions are isocurvature, structure k0(n = 6) ] formation begins much earlier, and the power spectrum is 1 − truncated. We address this situation by computing the 101 standard halo mass function from linear growth of the [pc

minicluster initial conditions. k MCHs are small scale structures; they are substructure 1 within the larger-scale DM halos formed by the scale- 10− invariant adiabatic initial conditions on large scales (see e.g. the combined power spectrum in Ref. [25]). 10 3 The logic of computing the mass function for the small 10− 13 10 11 10 9 10 7 10 5 10 3 scale minicluster isocurvature initial conditions indepen- − − − − − − dently from the usual adiabatic large scale cosmology is ma [eV] the following. As we will see, miniclusters collapse very FIG. 3. Cut-offs in the Power Spectrum: We plot the early, at z zeq. Galactic halos like the Milky Way are wavenumbers that cut-off the axion power spectrum, k0 and formed from≈ the dominant, but small amplitude, adia- kJ,eq as a function of axion mass. For k0, this depends on batic perturbations on large scales and collapse at much the temperature evolution of the mass as parameterised by n, lower redshifts. These galactic halos are, however, still and on details of the relic density computation. The Jeans wavenumber is fixed only by the zero-temperature mass. We formed of axion DM, and thus of the miniclusters formed notice that we always have kJ,eq > k0, which justifies that the early on. We treat these two periods of gravitational Jeans scale can be ignored to a first approximation. collapse independently, and assume that the miniclus- ter mass function established early on provides the sub- structure mass function on small-scales within the larger We wish to specify the value of the power spectrum at galactic halos. In other words, the minicluster mass func- the initial time of our study τ0: the time when the ax- tion is equivalent to the “field” mass function within the ion field begins oscillating. At τ0, the Kibble mecha- larger patches that collapse later on into galaxies. Since nism assures us that the axion field is fixed to a constant miniclusters collapse and “freeze out” from the expan- value over each causal horizon, and randomly distributed sion early on, they can be treated independently from (white noise) over the different horizons. Hence, we can the large scales. approximate the power spectrum by a sharp-k function, In the explicit examples in this section we use a Heav- cut at the typical (comoving) size of a horizon at τ0: iside initial power spectrum to model the effects of the P (τ ) = P Θ(k k) , (7) Kibble mechanism, and a Gaussian window function to k 0 0 0 − define the mass variance. We consider other possibilities, where k = (τ ) and Θ(x) is the Heaviside function. 0 H 0 and give analytic results, in Appendix B. The examples We must now find the normalisation, P0. From Eq. (6) also use the M0(ma) relation for an axion-like particle it is easy to show that the integral of the power spectrum with T -independent mass. is (e.g. Ref. [53]): We work in conformal time τ, with dt = adτ and a Z d3k the scale factor of the Friedmann-Lemaˆıtre-Robertson- x 2 Pk(τ) 3 = δa( , τ) . (8) Walker metric. For simplicity of presentation, we begin (2π) h| | i our numerical calculations in the matter-dominated era From our ansatz for Pk(τ0), the left hand side is equal to once all T -dependence of the axion mass and g? can be 4 3 R 2 3 3 πk0P0. To find the value of δa(x, τ0) d x, we note neglected. We comment briefly on the transfer function 2 | | that ρa θ , where θ [ π, π] is the uniformly dis- in the radiation era. ∝ ∈ − 2 tributed axion field. Thus the mean value of δa(x, τ0) is 4/5, and we find: | |

A. Evolution of Density Perturbations 24 2 3 P = π k− . (9) 0 5 0 1. Initial Conditions This equation sets the initial condition on the modes of the perturbations. These initial conditions are of isocur- vature type during the radiation-dominated epoch, and We define the axion density perturbation as δa(r, τ) = can be normalised to have δa(τ0) = 1 with all other per- [ρa(r, τ) ρ¯a(τ)]/ρ¯a(τ). The power spectrum Pk is de- 5 fined as the− Fourier transform of the two point correlation turbations absent. function:

ξ(r) = δ(x)δ(x + r) . (6) 5 This is sufficient accuracy for our purposes of computing the h i 6

2. The Behaviour in the Radiation-Dominated Era 4 -7 z=0 ma=10 eV

It is well-known that sub-horizon isocurvature pertur- 2 10 bations undergo only a very small amount of logarith- 50 mic growth in the radiation-dominated era, and that the 250 transfer function up to matter-radiation equality is ap- (σ) 1000

10 0 proximately k-independent for large k [57]. The ampli- 3402 tude, i.e. the actual amount of growth in the raditation log era, is somewhat cosmology-dependent. For our cosmo- -2 logical parameters using the analytic transfer function of Ref. [57] we find: M0 -4 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 δ(zeq) 1 . (10) log (M/M ) δi ≈ 10 ⊙

This approach is also taken in e.g. Refs. [5, 25, 26] FIG. 4. The RMS Density Fluctuation: The curves show −1/2 for the case of miniclusters. We have verified by full a σ(M) ∝ M above M0, which matches the RMS of white numerical solution of the Boltzmann equations that the noise, as in Ref. [5]. The constant behaviour at low masses is transfer function indeed takes the form stated, and use due to the smoothed out axion field below the horizon at the this result in the following. phase transition, the effect of the Jeans scale cannot be seen in this diagram. The growth of the RMS mass fluctuation through time is due to the linear growing mode: δ ∝ a above the Jeans scale. 3. The Behaviour in the Matter-Dominated Era

kJ (τeq) < k < kJ (τtoday): these modes are bigger We consider the sub-horizon limit, assuming that most • (physically smaller) than the Jeans mode at matter- of the sizes we are interested in are sub-horizon-sized at radiation equality, and as kJ increases they cross matter-radiation equality. The equation of motion for the Jeans scale. The behaviour of these modes is to the axion overdensity in an axion-dominated Universe oscillate at the beginning of the matter-dominated on times τ τ is [4]:  0 era, then to follow the usual growing/decaying mode; a0 2 2 2 δ00 + δ0 + (k c 4πGa ρ¯a)δa = 0 , (11) a a a s − k > kJ (τtoday): these modes are still today physi- • cally smaller (have larger k) than the Jeans mode, where primes denote derivatives with respect to confor- and still follow the oscillating behaviour. mal time, and c2 k2/4m2a2 is the axion effective sound s a The Jeans scale will affect the growth of linear perturba- speed. The sound≈ speed leads to a Jeans scale, which bal- tions when k < k . However, as can be seen in Fig. 3, ances pressure and gravity [58]: J 0 we notice that we always have kJ,eq > k0, which justi- 1/4 1/2 fies that the Jeans scale can be ignored in our case to kJ = (16πGaρa0) ma , a first approximation when computing the variance and  2 1/4 1/2 the evolution of the mass function. 6 1/4 Ωmh  ma  1 = 66.5 10 a 10 Mpc− . × 0.12 10− eV (12) 4. The RMS Mass Fluctuation The Jeans scale sorts the modes into three categories: Let us define the variance of density fluctuations on a given scale by filtering the power spectrum with a window k < kJ (τeq): these modes are already under the • Jeans mode at matter-radiation equality, their be- function of physical radius R: haviour is the usual growing/decaying as soon as Z dk σ2(R) = ∆2(k) W (kR) 2 , matter-radiation equality is reached, and matches k | | the transfer function used in Ref. [25]; Z dk k3P (k) = W (kR) 2 . (13) k 2π2 | | For ease of numerical integrals, we take the window func- mass function in the matter era. For greater accuracy in the tion to be a real-space Gaussian, which in Fourier space radiation era at τ > τ0 for modes near the Jeans scale see the gives: early-time expansion of Ref. [54]. For the complete treatment including τ < τ see Refs. [55, 56]. k2R2/2 0 W (kR) = e− . (14) 7

25 25 -4 -7 ma=10 eV ma=10 eV 20 ]) -7 ]) 20 10 eV -3 -3 15 15 10-10eV

10 10 10-13eV

10-16eV (M f(M)[ Mpc (M f(M)[Mpc 5 5 10 10 log log 0 0 10-19eV 3402 1000 250 50 10 z=0 -5 -5 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 -10 -5 0 5

log10(M/M⊙) log10(M/M⊙)

FIG. 5. The MCH Mass Function: Left Panel: HMF as a function of time for fixed axion mass. The initial miniclusters at M0 spread over time to form more massive objects due to hierarchical structure formation. Lighter objects are also formed as the late-time Jeans scale cutting off the mass function moves to scales smaller than M0. Right Panel: Minicluster mass function today for various axion masses.

We define the mass to be that contained within the co- sian window function, such that: moving volume of the radius R appropriate to the Gaus- 3/2 3 M = (2π) ρ¯a,0R . (15)

Thus we have the mass variance, (δM/M)2 σ2(M) (see also Ref. [59]). The time dependence of σ(M≡ ) comes from δa, so that:

Z k3P (k, τ) dk Z k2dk σ2(M, τ) = W (k, M) 2 = P (k, τ ) 2(k, τ) W (k, M) 2 , (16) 2π2 | | k 0 T | | 2π2

where we have defined the transfer function, (k, τ), to scale is invisible, since the shape of σ(M) is constant in contain the evolution of the power spectrum.T The above time. expression clearly separates the dependence of the mass fluctuation on the initial conditions, which depend on k0, the dynamics, given by the transfer function, and the window function which we use to define the mass scale. Our normalisation for the initial power spectrum sets B. The MCH Mass Function the variance on the scale R0 = π/k0 as:

Z k0  2 2  We consider the formation of gravitationally bound 2 P0 2 π k σ (R0) = 2 k exp 2 dk , (17) structures from linear density perturbations using the 2π 0 − k0 analytic Press-Schechter formalism [35]. We use the orig- inal formalism, rather than modern updates such as the giving σ(R0) 0.18, which differs by a factor of two from the normalisation≈ of Ref. [25], who consider quan- Sheth-Tormen [60] as we are interested in only an ap- tum fluctuations of θ and find that the RMS density fluc- proximate description of MCH formation and the mass function is subject to a number of theoretical uncertain- tuation on the scale k0 is σ 1/(2√2) 0.35. Fig. 4 shows the behaviour≈ of the≈ RMS mass fluc- ties, which we discuss. tuation at several moments in the matter-dominated The quantity δc is the critical overdensity threshold for era. It shows the white noise behaviour above M0, with gravitational collapse, and plays a key role in the Press- 1/2 σ(M) M − , and a smooth convergence under M0, Schechter formalism. In spherical collapse of cold dark due to∝ the sharp-k shape of the initial power spectrum. matter it is given by δ 1.686, and is scale-independent. c ≈ For this particular axion mass, the action of the Jeans For every point in space, the probability to have δ > δc 8 using the filtered version of δ by WM is: 1024 7    ma = 10 eV 1 δc p(δ > δc WM ) = 1 erf (18) | 2 − √2σ(M) 19 10 1/2 ] M 3 where σ(M) is the RMS mass fluctuation we defined. We take the point of view where δc is time-independent, and 1014 put the time dependence onto σ(M). Defining f(M) such [Mpc cut-o↵ that f(M)dM is the comoving number density of mini- M n dependence clusters in the range dM around M, the Press-Schechter d formalism gives: d ln 109 . . 0 min 2 r max 1 δc 2

M f(M) d ln σ 2 δc M

M

2 ( σ(M) ) M = e− (19) 4 ρ¯a0 d ln M π σ(M) 10 16 12 8 4 10 10 10 10 If n(M) is the number density of structures of mass M, M [M ] then the HMF, defined by dn/d ln M = Mf(M), is the comoving number density of structures of mass M per FIG. 6. Parametrization of the MCH Mass Function. logarithmic interval in masses. The mass function can be well fit by two cut-offs and a single The low mass end of the HMF is subject to large the- slope parameter, M −1/2, derived form the white noise ini- oretical uncertainty. The density field on scales M < M0 tial conditions. For the numerical calculation in the previous (wavenumbers k > k0) is non-Gaussian, and so the Press- subsection (solid line), the normalization is fixed to be per Schechter formalism does not apply. The formalism can unit volume. For the substructure mass function, we normal- be applied perturbatively, or for certain special types of ize by fMC (see text). For M . M0/25 where the variance non-Gaussianity [61], though such a calculation is be- becomes flat, there is cut-off dependence from the barrier, window function, and non-Gaussianities. For illustration we yond the scope of this work. The Press-Schechter mass −7 function we present for M < M applies only to “the take ma = 10 eV and n = 0 to use the analytic formula for 0 M Gaussian part” of the small-scale density field. 0 and show the cut-off from the Jeans scale only. Even for a Gaussian field, on small scales there are the- oretical uncertainties in the mass function in the case of a the Gaussian filter on large scales [64]; a modified barrier truncated power spectrum such as the axion power spec- at the Jeans scale, following the approximate implemen- trum. With a real-space window function the formula tation in Ref. [66]. We show later that, for the range Eq. (19) predicts that structures are formed on all scales of MCH masses relevant for microlensing, and in partic- below the non-linear scale even in the case of suppressed ular for the particle mass range of the QCD axion, the density perturbations. This is due to the asymptotic be- cut-off dependence of the mass function for M < M has haviour of the variance. However, a number of consider- 0 negligible effect on the observables. ations modify this prediction and predict a cut-off in the For the purposes of illustration, the MCH mass func- mass function for M M . These can be summarised . 0 tion computed with the modified barrier is shown in as: Fig. 5. We show the mass function evolving over time “Spurious Structure”: Simulations with trun- for a fixed axion mass, and the mass function at z = 0 • cated power spectra display effects due to numeri- for a range of axion masses. The M0(ma) relation used cal discreteness on scales below the power spectrum in these examples is for a temperature-independent axion cut-off [62]. mass (n = 0). The HMF is centred near M0, and is cut off at high and low masses. The mass function spreads Filter Dependence: With a truncated spectrum over time as structure formation progresses. For lower • the sharp-k window function used to derive the axion masses, the HMF is centred around larger MCH Press-Schechter formula from the excursion set [63] masses. predicts a cut-off in the mass function [64]. Dynamical Effects : The Jeans scale leads to C. Parametrization of the Mass Function • a pressure on small scales that modifies the col- lapse barrier [65, 66], the solution of the excursion set [67–69], and the formation of structure on small The HMF for miniclusters that we have obtained can scales [70, 71]. be parametrized by four quantities. We give an explicit parametrization of the HMF and show that (for arbi- Appendix B presents three different models for the trary normalization) it matches our numerical calcula- mass function for M < M0: a fit to remove structure tions well. Since the parametric form is well understood, below M0, taken from the simulations of Ref. [72] (see we can use this mass function to describe DM substruc- also Ref. [73]); a sharp-k filter, with mass normalised to ture within galactic halos, including the Milky Way. The 9 substructure mass function is normalized by the host 2. Slope 1 galaxy mass, and has units [dn/dM] = [M]− . Our parameterized HMF is shown in Fig. 6, and com- From the dependence of σ on the mass scale M, pared to the numerical results from the previous sub- Eq. (21), we can deduce the dependence of the HMF section, for which the normalization per unit volume is on M far from either cut-off. Using Eq. (19) we have: fixed. dn 1/2 = Mf(M) M − ; for (M < M < M ) . d ln M ∝ min max 1. Cut-offs in the HMF (24) Our parameterization sets the HMF to zero outside these Cut-offs in the HMF are driven by the Gaussian boundaries. term in Eq. (19), the argument of which depends on We see in Fig. 6 that the slope of the mass function δc(M)/σ(M, z), with the possible addition of a fit to re- changes below M0/6.65, where the variance becomes flat. move spurious structure at low masses discussed above. The slope of the mass function in this regime is window We parameterize σ(M) for the Heaviside initial power function and cut-off dependent. spectrum and Gaussian window function following Fig. 4 as: 3. Normalization σ(M < M /6.65) = σ 103.4 , (20) 0 0 ≈ 1/2 25M − The normalization of the substructure mass function σ(M > M0/6.65) = σ0 . (21) is simply fixed by the total mass of the host galaxy, M0 Mhost. While we assume that all of the DM is composed The high mass cut-off in the mass function depends of axions, we take the fraction collapsed into miniclusters, on the form of the initial power spectrum. At large fMC, as a free parameter. The normalization condition M M0, cut-off dependence vanishes, giving a Gaus- is:  2 2 2 sian density field suppressed as δc /2σ = x /2. Us- − − 1 Z dn Z ing δc = 1.686 we solve for x(Mmax) when the HMF has fMC = dM = ψ(M)dM, (25) dropped by 0.01 for the Heaviside cut-off initial power Mhost d ln M spectrum: where we have introduced the normalized mass function M (z) 4.9 106M D(z)2 , (22) ψ(M). max ≈ × 0 × In principle, f can be determined by numerical sim- where D(z) is the linear growth factor normalised to MC ulation of minicluster formation and the subsequent for- unity at z = 0. The co-efficient of the Gaussian cut- mation of galaxies from miniclusters. Such simulations off in the mass function is modified slightly when the will involve at least some modelling uncertainty. We take non-zero bispectrum of the minicluster initial conditions the alternate view that f is a phenomenological quan- is accounted for, leading to a slight increase in M . MC max tity that can be used to constrain models of axion DM via This is a small effect, and depends on the model for non- astrophysical observations. Thus the mass function nor- Gaussian effects on the mass function. We do not account malisation, f , is a free parameter in our constraints. for it here. It is discussed in detail in Appendix C. MC The maximum minicluster mass is fixed by M0 and so depends strongly on the temperature evolution of the IV. MINICLUSTER AND MCH DENSITY axion mass (see Fig. 1). MCHs of mass M > M0 are PROFILES formed by hierarchical structure formation from the seeds of mass M M0 present at matter-radiation equality. A. Hierarchical Structure Formation We discuss the≈ mergers and density profiles of MCHs in Section IV. The scale of miniclusters is fixed by k k and so We derive the low mass cut-off for the modified barrier 0  J (for the fit and Heaviside filtering cases the corresponding we expect density profiles to be well described by CDM. Density profiles formed by hierarchical structure forma- derivation is trivial). At small M M0, σ(M) = σ0,  tion of CDM are described by the famous Navarro-Frenk- and we use the asymptotic behaviour of δc(M < MJ ) 1/2 ∝ White (NFW) profile [74]: exp[1.8(M/MJ )− ], where MJ is the Jeans mass, to find when the Gaussian argument x(M ) = 1: min ρ δ ρ (r) = crit char , (26)  2 NFW 2 1.8 r/rs(1 + r/rs) M (z) M . (23) min ≈ J × 7.5 + log D(z) where rs is the scale radius, which is specified in terms There is only a logarithmic dependence of the minimum of the virial radius, r200, and concentration, c, as rs = minicluster mass on the growth rate, and so the minimum r200/c. The mass is defined as that contained within the mass varies very little over time. virial radius, where the average density is 200 times the 10

than one percent of the final mass. The result is plotted 103 in Fig. 7. The collapse redshift is maximised at M M0, . indicating that objects of this characteristic mass are≈ the coll

z first bound structures to form shortly after equality at z 103. We note that this appearance of M justifies ≈ 0 102 our choice in Eq. (2) That is, the first objects to form are consistent with the spherical wavelength volume, and are somewhat heavier than the cubic volume estimate. It is these first bound structures which are “true” ax- ion miniclusters, that is MCHs with M = M0. Due 101 to the non-linear dynamics of axion interactions in the Collapse Redshift instanton potential, these miniclusters display a spec- trum of sizes and characteristic densities given by Eq. (4) and Fig. 2. The concentration is a stochastic function, 100 102 104 106 108 M˜ = M/(ρ k 3) which for the initially formed miniclusters has a large crit 0− non-Gaussian tail. FIG. 7. MCH Collapse Redshift: The collapse redshift is We use Eq. (4) to define the characteristic density of computed following NFW (see main text). The earliest ob- 3 miniclusters, ρMC(δ) = ρcritδchar(δ), which defines a δ- jects to collapse do so shortly after equality at zcoll ≈ 10 . The dependent concentration for miniclusters, c (δ). Due M ρ π/ π/k 3 MC vertical line shows 0 = crit(4 3)( 0) . Miniclusters at to the large spread in values of δ, there are miniclus- the characteristic mass M0 are the first bound structures to form. ters with concentrations far exceeding that expected from ordinary hierarchical structure formation. The physical reason for this is, as discussed, the non-linear interac- tions in the axion potential, and the result is confirmed ˜ 107 cNFW(M) in numerical simulation. cMC() The concentration-mass relation, c(M), specifies the c 106 spatially averaged density profile of an MCH. Assuming MCHs are formed hierarchically from the (assumedly) 105 Gaussian large scale white-noise density fluctuations of miniclusters in mergers that are described entirely by 4 cMC(1) 10 CDM we can adopt the analytic model for c(M) proposed

3 by NFW (related approaches include e.g. Ref. [75]):

Concentration 10 3 102 δchar = 3000 Ωm(1 + zcoll) . (28) M0 0 2 4 6 8 The resulting concentration-mass relation, cNFW(M), is 10 10 10 10 10 plotted alongside c (δ) in Fig. 8. We notice that mini- M˜ or MC clusters of mass M0 maximise cNFW(M) (since they have FIG. 8. Concentration of Miniclusters and (Diffuse) largest zcoll) and that furthermore the NFW concentra- MCHs: For miniclusters we show cMC(δ) derived for an NFW tion agrees with the minicluster concentration for δ = 1: profile with characteristic density fixed by Eq. 4. For MCHs cNFW(M0) cMC(1). This is a pleasing coincidence that we show the concentration-mass relation assuming hierarchi- further validates≈ our use of M as the characteristic mass. cal structure formation. The vertical line shows the loca- 0 tion of M0, which almost maximises the concentration near cMC(1). B. Minicluster Mergers? critical density. Thus the characteristic density is given in terms of the concentration as: The NFW profile describes the average density profile of a halo. The Press-Schechter mass function (as we have 200 c3 used it) also simply groups all progenitors together into δ = . (27) char 3 ln(1 + c) c/(1 + c) a single parent mass. Neither accounts for substructure. − Using only the average density profile and ignoring the Using our analytic result for the variance with a substructure is equivalent to the case where halo mergers Heaviside filtering and Gaussian initial power spectrum, completely disrupt the progenitors. Because observables, Eq. (B11), we first compute the collapse redshift, zcoll. in particular microlensing, may be sensitive to the sub- Following NFW, this is defined using the extended Press- structure of MCHs, and minicluster mergers may not be Schechter formalism as the redshift when half the mass of totally disrupting, we must be careful how the mass func- the halo was first contained in progenitors more massive tion and NFW density profile are used. 11

101

α 1 10−

β MC

/r D 3 LS DL

Hill 10− r M = 10M 0 D 2 S M = 10 M0 5 M = 103M 10− 0 4 FIG. 10. The Lensing of a source by a point mass at the origin. M = 10 M0 DS is the distance from the observer (us) to the source, DL is the distance to the lens and DLS = DS − DL. 100 101 102 103 δ FIG. 9. The Hill Radius: When the ratio of the Hill ra- ω is the angular velocity of the satellite. A full semi- dius to the minicluster radius is larger than unity (horizontal analytic merger tree calculation including tidal stripping dashed line), tidal stripping is significant. We consider mini- (e.g. with Galacticus [77]) is beyond the scope of the cluster satellites of mass M0 in hosts of mass M located at the scale radius of the host. Solid, dashed, and dotted lines present work. For simplicity we consider the satellite to are for orbits of eccentricity e = 0, 0.5, 0.9 respectively. be an initial minicluster of mass M0 located at the scale radius of the host (where most of the mass is) and take both satellite and host to have concentration-mass re- We will satisfy ourselves with some estimates. We be- lation given by cNFW(M) (equivalent to only the least gin with considering the Hill sphere: dense minicluster satellites with δ = 1). We find, simi- larly to the case with the Hill radius, that the tidal ra-  1/3 dius is always small compared to the minicluster radius, Msat rHill = a(1 e) , (29) indicating that miniclusters do not undergo significant − 3M host stripping within MCHs. We discuss this further in Sec- tion V C. where Msat is the satellite mass, Mhost is the host mass, and the satellite has an elliptical orbit of semi-major axis a and eccentricity e. V. MICROLENSING WITH MINICLUSTERS Consider a minicluster satellite of mass M0 inside a MCH of mass Mhost. The minicluster will be disrupted by tidal forces if the minicluster radius [calculated from A. Microlensing basics cMC(δ)] is larger than the Hill radius. In other words stripping is significant if: Microlensing is the fugitive amplification of a back- ground star which occurs when a compact object passes rHill > 1 , (30) close to the line of sight to that star [78]. r MC The magnitude of the effect of microlensing by point where we consider the minicluster radius to be given by objects is relatively simple to calculate and uses the nor- the scale radius, rMC(δ, M0) = r200(M0)/cMC(δ). mal equations for gravitational lensing [7]. The mini- For simplicity we consider the minicluster to be located clusters that we are considering are not however point at the scale radius of the host, where the majority of the sources, and while they are very small, the deflection of mass is concentrated, with the concentration of the host light which they give rise to is also very small, so the ex- given by cNFW(M). Fig. 9 demonstrates that only the tended nature of these objects is important to take into least concentrated miniclusters with the most eccentric account. orbits in relatively light MCHs are likely to undergo any For the configuration where observer, lens and source significant tidal stripping as given by the Hill criterion. lie on the same line, the Einstein radius corresponds to A more complete analysis of stripping uses the tidal the radius of closest approach of photons to the point radius, rt for a satellite of mass Msat orbiting at radius mass lens as they pass by it. r in a host halo of mass M [76]: sat host r s 4GM DLDLS 13 M DS  1/3 RE = 2 = 4 10 cm (32) GMsat(< rt) c DS × M kpc r = (31) t ω2 Φ (r − 00 sat) where the enumeration assumes that DS = 2DL = 2DLS where Φ00 is the second derivative with respect to ra- and the quantities DL and DS etc. are shown in Fig. 10. 8 dius of the gravitational potential in the host halo and Getting numbers, for 10− M mass halos at the distance

12 of Andromeda, the Einstein Radius will correspond to EROS and HSC surveys. This magnification is not ar- tens of nanoparsecs.6 bitrary, it corresponds precisely (in the point like mass A microlensing event occurs when a compact object case) to the outer ray passing the lens at a radius of passes through the microlensing ‘tube’, which has a ra- 1.618 R where 1.618 is the Golden Ratio and R is the × E E dius of uT RE where uT 1 is the minimum impact pa- Einstein radius. The second image passes on the other rameter for which the amplification≈ of the background side at a distance 0.618 R , i.e. the inverse Golden × E star is above the required threshold and RE is the Ein- Ratio. The magnification of the two images is given in stein radius: terms of the distance at which the light rays pass the lens  1/2 x = r/RE and the magnifications µ are given by GMx(1 x)DS RE(x) = 2 2− , (33) " # 1 c  1 4 − µ = 1 (36) where M is the lens mass, D = L is the distance to the ± − x S ± source, and x = DL/DS is the distance of the lens from the observer [78]. In our case, the distance to the sources The sum of the magnification of the two images is 1.34, (Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) or Andromeda (M31)) the majority of which comes from the outer image which is much greater than its line of sight depth, so all of the gives a magnification of 1.17. source stars can be assumed to be at the same distance We need to repeat the calculation for situations where ( 50 kpc for LMC and 770 kpc for M31) and the the lens is potentially diffuse relative to the scales of in- angular∼ distribution of sources∼ ignored. terest, such that the enclosed mass is not a constant when The differential event rate for lenses of mass M in a δ is small. halo with projected density profile ρ(x) along the line of We start by taking the characteristic density given by sight is given by [7] 7: Eq. (4). We consider two functional forms for the mini- cluster density profiles. The NFW profile is a universal 4 Z xh dΓ 32LuT 1 4 Q(x) feature of CDM simulations emerging from hierarchical = ρ(x)R (x)e− dx , (34) 4 2 E dtˆ tˆ vc M 0 structure formation. However, miniclusters at the char- acteristic mass do not form from hierarchical structure where tˆ is the time taken by the lens to cross the Ein- formation, but probably from a more direct collapse. It stein diameter, xh is the extent of the halo and Q(x) = has been suggested [34] that a more suitable profile for 2 2 ˆ2 2 1 4RE(x)uT /(t vc ), where vc = 220 km s− is the local cir- the initial seed miniclusters be given by that due to self- cular speed. The factor uT 1 defines the critical magni- similar infall [80]: fication for the lensing survey,≈ which we take as µ = 1.34 Q  9/4 (see below). The factor e− emerges by approximating rs ρ(r) = ρs . (37) the Bessel function in the lensing integral [7, 79]. r The expected number of events, Nexp, is given by Such a power-law profile also appears in the minicluster

Z ∞ dΓ N-body simulations of Ref. [25]. Nexp = E (tˆ) dtˆ , (35) For both of the NFW and self-similar profiles we need 0 dtˆ to make an identification with the density ρMC and the where E is the exposure in star years and (tˆ) is the characteristic density. For the NFW profile we simply say probability that a microlensing event with duration tˆ is that ρMC = ρcritδchar as above, and rescale rs until we detected (detection efficiency). obtain the correct mass of the halo at rmax. If we were to calculate the virial radius for these objects, they would be hugely larger than the scale radius by many orders B. Miniclusters as non-Point-Like Objects of magnitude, but since the halos are within a galactic halo, we make the approximation that the NFW profile 1. Lensing Tube for non-Point-Like Objects is cut off at a radius rmax = 100rs. This simplifies the numerical lensing calculation by reducing the dynamic range. We are interested in the case where there is a magni- The situation is slightly more complicated for the self- fication of 1.34, which is the threshold adopted by the similar profile (Eq. 37) because rs is completely degener- ate with ρs due to the scale invariance. The overall mass of such a halo which is truncated at a radius rmax is 6 This expression differs from that in Ref. [22] by a factor of 100 due to considering local rather than cosmological sources, and using 16π 9/4 3/4 M = ρsr r (38) the modern values of the cosmological densities. This leads us 3 s max to find that larger values of δ are necessary for lensing. 7 This expression assumes a spherical halo with an isotropic ve- and the average density of such a halo is locity distribution and ignores the transverse velocity of the mi-  9/4 crolensing tube, which has a small effect on the differential event rs rate [7]. ρav = 4ρs (39) rmax 13

as a function of δ for fixed minicluster mass are shown in Fig. 11. An interesting feature occurs as one increases the parameter δ in that the magnification rises above that for a point mass before settling down to the same value as the point mass. This is because there is an intermediate regime where there are multiple paths for photons from the same source to pass the lens at different radii and still arrive at the observer, adding to the overall magnification. This is captured by the gradient terms in the lens equations. As δ increases and the halo becomes more compact it behaves increasingly like a point mass until once rmax is well below any of the scales of interest, the lensing tube is the same size as for the point mass case. One can check FIG. 11. Microlensing Lightcurves: Magnification of that for large values of δ the radius for the distributed source star as a minicluster passes through the lensing tube mass and the radius for the point mass coincide. for various values of δ. The minicluster has an NFW pro- For each value of M and δ we average the ratio be- −9 −1 file, a mass of 10 M , a tangential velocity of 200 km s tween the radius of magnification 1.17 for ten values of and an impact parameter with the line to the source of 1.6 x between 0 and 1 in order to obtain a numerical correc- milli-AU. The source star is assumed to be in the Andromeda tion factor which we can then apply to the point mass Galaxy (M31), with DLS = DS/2. As we increase the value lensing equation. For small values of δ which give rise to of δ the lensing curve approaches the value for a point mass, diffuse halos, there is no radius at which the magnifica- as described in the text. tion reaches 1.17 and such halos cannot contribute to the lensing integral. or We define the correction factor which corresponds to the average radius of the lensingR tube with the specific  3M 1/3 magnification we are looking for divided by the average r = (40) max 4πρ radius for a point mass. We plot values of for the NFW av and self similar profiles in Figs. 12 and 13.R It is clear that and then we make the identification ρav = ρMC. for small values of δ the halos are diffuse and the corre- We then want to turn the three-dimensional density sponding lensing is supressed. For larger values of δ the into a surface density by collapsing it onto the lensing lensing increases and eventually when the vast majority plane. We do this by integrating the three-dimensional of the mass is inside the lensing tube, the objects are density profile along the line of sight towards the centre indistinguishable from point-like objects. of the halo. In the situation where rmax is larger than the An estimate for the transition from = 0 to = 1 can R R 8 lensing radius we are probing, we only integrate the mass be obtained using the hard-sphere minicluster radius: within the two cones defined by the radius of interest and  1/3 the distance between the lens and the source and the lens 16 1 M0 rmc = 4 10 1/3 cm . (43) and the image. × δ((δ + 1)Ωm) M

Once we have surface mass as a function of radius we can calculate the magnification using the expression for We equated this to the Einstein radius and solved for an axisymmetric mass distribution (this can be derived δlens(M), the value of δ when microlensing will be large. from the equations in Ref. [81]) The result is plotted in Figs. 12 and 13 as a red line. For the NFW case, the estimate is close to the contour 1 µ = [(1 B) (1 + B C)]− (41) for = 0.5 from the full numerical lensing calculation − − (blackR line) and accurately estimates the transition in the 2 1 dM(r) M(r) c DS microlensing behaviour. C = ; B = 2 ;Σc = Σcπr dr Σcπr 4πGDLDLS It should be noted that we expect greater lensing if (42) we adopt the self similar profile rather than the NFW profile. The reason for this is that the majority of the What we need to do is to define the “lensing tube” [7] mass contributing to the overall profile is greatest at the as being the tube within which a lens would create a scale radius for the NFW profile, but reaches a maximum magnification of at least 1.34. towards the centre of the scale invariant profile, so in the We do this by starting at large r and zooming into the radius at which the magnification is the same as the outer image in the point mass case, i.e. µ = 1.17. When a halo is diffuse, this will occur at a radius much less 8 This differs by approximately a factor of three from the scale than the radius at which a point mass would give rise to radius obtained by setting ρMC = ρchar and solving numerically the same lensing. The lightcurves for lensing computed for cMC(δ). 14

FIG. 12. Minicluster Microlensing Tube: Rescaling factor, R, for a minicluster of mass M and overdensity δ with NFW radial profile. The black contour shows the location of R = 0.5, while the red line shows the analytic result for δlens(M) defined by equating the point mass Einstein radius to the hard-sphere minicluster radius.

2. Microlensing Event Rate for non-Point-Like Objects

From the previous numerical lensing calculations, we find that the shape of the microlensing tube is still rea- sonably well described by the Einstein radius, RE(x, M), but with a rescaling factor, , that depends on M and δ, such that the minicluster lensingR tube is given by:

R (x, M, δ) = (δ, M)R (x, M) . (44) MC R E

When a mincluster/MCH is diffuse, the tube is smaller. There is a minimum value of δ below which there is no existing value of impact parameter ` for which A 1.34, i.e. (δ < δ ) = 0 with δ = δ (M) given approx-≥ R min min min imately by rmc/RE > 1. As we will see, this treatment reduces significantly the expected number of microlensing FIG. 13. As Fig. 12 for M31 in the case of the self-similar infall density profile, ρ ∝ r−9/4. This profile is more compact events for miniclusters compared to point masses (MA- CHOs, PBHs). For δ δ the limiting behaviour is than the NFW profile (or a hard sphere) leading to a larger  min M, δ that of a point mass, 1. effective lensing tube at fixed . R → Miniclusters of mass M0 treated as non-point like ob- jects have a rate of microlensing events of duration tˆgiven by:

4 Z Z 1  dΓ 32LuT 1 ∞ dn 4 Q(RE) = ρ(x)R (x) e− dx dδ , ˆ ˆ4 2 E situation where only a fraction of the halo is within the dt t vc M0 0 dδ 0 normal lensing tube, the self similar profile will give rise (45) to a bigger lensing effect than the NFW profile. This which is a modified version of Eq. 34 where the Einstein can be seen in Fig. 13, where the transition in lensing radius has been replaced by the minicluster lensing tube behaviour occurs at a smaller value of δ than for the NFW radius RMC. The partition function dn/dδ is deduced case, and the estimate for δlens from treating miniclusters from the Fig. 2 of Ref. [22], which we showed earlier in as hard spheres is an overestimate. Fig. 2 and the fit Eq. (4). 15

C. Mergers and the Meaning of the Mass Function mass function for microlensing is a Dirac-delta function, for Microlensing δD(M M0). We call this the isolated miniclusters sce- nario,− and take it as our default model for the lensing In the case of an extended mass function, Eq. 34 should constraints in Section VI.9 be replaced by [82]: However, we may be wrong about minicluster mergers if scalar field dynamics plays an important part (i.e. if 4 Z Z 1  miniclusters cannot be considered as pure CDM). In such dΓ 32LuT ∞ ψ(M) 4 Q(RMC) = ρR e− dx dM, ˆ ˆ4 2 MC a case tunnelling through the tidal radius can cause ad- dt t vc 0 M 0 (46) ditional effects that need to be accounted for [83]. Scalar where we have used the normalized mass function of field dynamics also plays a significant role in axion star Eq. (25). formation and core mergers (see Appendix D). To ac- The assumption in Eq. 46 is that an object of mass count for our inability to fully model these processes we M in the mass function contributes to the microlensing consider two additional ad hoc possibilities for miniclus- only on a single time scale tˆ. The integral over the mass ter mergers into MCHs. Both scenarios assume complete function ignores the possibility of microlensing events merging of miniclusters (the “plums” dissolve), and use caused by substructure within an object of mass M. This the Press-Scechter mass function to consider lensing by is appropriate for point-like objects such as PBHs and smooth MCHs. “Dense MCHs”: large non-Gaussian effects and MACHOs [82]. For MCHs, which can have substruc- • ture, such an integral over the mass function assumes interactions could cause MCHs to remain very a smoothing of the lensing signal which is equivalent to dense. This scenario assumes that the concentra- assuming that miniclusters merge completely upon for- tion of an MCH is independent of mass and fol- mation of an MCH. lows the same distribution with δ of miniclusters, The estimates in Section IV B suggest that miniclus- cMC(δ). ters are dense enough to remain tightly bound within “Diffuse MCHs”: miniclusters could become MCHs, like “plums in a pudding”, and do not undergo • completely stripped when they form MCHs. This significant merging. In this case, there will always be scenario assumes MCHs follow c (M) with no ˆ NFW lensing events with time scale t(M0). A microlensing ob- substructure. servation effectively smooths the lightcurve of a lensing event over a timescale given by the cadence [the lower In the dense MCH scenario, the MCHs themselves can limit of the efficiency (tˆ)]. If the microlensing observa- still be dense enough to contribute to the microlensing tion in question is sensitive to tˆ(M0), and miniclusters signal, and so the lensing integral must account for both do not merge when they form MCHs, then the effective dn/dδ and the mass function ψ(M), being:10

4 Z  Z  Z 1   dΓ 32LuT ∞ dn ∞ ψ(M) 4 Q = ρR e− dx dM dδ , (47) ˆ ˆ4 2 MC dt t vc 0 dδ 0 M 0

The spread of masses away from M0 can lead to a signif- QCD axion the microlensing event rate is increased and icant amount of mass moving in or out of the efficiency the dense MCH scenario is more optimistic). range of a given microlensing survey. In the range of scales relevant to the HSC micolensing survey, this effect ends up reducing the signal for the QCD axion miniclus- In the diffuse MCH scenario we take only a small win- ter masses and so (despite the vastly increased density dow of masses M0/10 < M < 10M0 to be described of MCHs) it is more pessimistic than the isolated mini- by cMC(δ), i.e. those objects that have not undergone cluster scenario (for lower minicluster masses than the any mergers. We throw out all MCHs with M > 10M0 from the mass function integral, since cNFW(M > M0) < cMC(δ) for all M, and thus such diffuse MCHs will have 1 and contribute negligibly to lensing. The diffuse R  9 In the isolated mincluster scenario MCHs can still play a role MCH scenario is equivalent to a huge reduction in fMC in modulating the arrival of miniclusters leading to correlation caused by structure formation and is the most pessimistic ˆ ˆ in the events of t(M0) over the longer time scale t(M). Model- scenario for microlensing. ing such multi-time-scale microlensing would be challenging, but could be used in future to probe the MCH mass function and improve sensitivity to lower values of M0. 10 For ease of notation in Ref. [27] we used dn/dM with implicit A cartoon depicting our three models for the microlens- normalization by the host mass. ing signal of miniclusters and MCHs is shown in Fig. 14. 16

equality today Modeling of MCH mass function and z~3000 z=0 structure formation density profiles miniclusters MCH M0 M Effective Model concentration mass function name

no mergers “most conservative” Dirac-delta isolated cMC() miniclusters (M0)

“profile preserving” Press- c (,M) dense MCH mergers Schechter MC REALITY? Assumed “disrupting” “Cut” Press- diffuse MCH Schechter negligible mergers M>10 M0 “most pessimistic”

FIG. 14. Cartoon showing the modelling of the mass function and density profiles applied to the computation of the expected number of lensing events.

VI. RESULTS: MICROLENSING B. Microlensing Survey of Subaru HSC CONSTRAINTS ON AXIONS

A. The EROS Microlensing Survey The major limiting factor that prevents the EROS data from constraining MACHOs and miniclusters at low masses is the small-time efficiency, driven by the The EROS survey observed the LMC, at a distance cadence of the observation. Very recently, observations dLMC = 50 kpc, considering only lensing events of LMC in Ref. [37] used data from the Subaru Hyper Suprime stars by DM in the Milky Way (MW). EROS models the Cam (HSC) to place constraints on low mass primordial MW as a cored isothermal sphere: 13 6 black holes (PBHs) with 10− M < MPBH < 10− M .

The HSC observations exclude a PBH fraction fPBH 2 2 & Rc + R (few) 0.01. This constraint was made by performing ⊕ ρMW,EROS(r) = ρ0 2 2 , (48) O × Rc + r a microlensing survey with a cadence of two minutes over a single night of seven hours. where R = 8.5 kpc is the radius of the Earth from ⊕ For the microlensing survey, HSC observed Andromeda the centre of the MW and the MW halo parameters 3 (M31). A major difference to the EROS survey, apart are ρ0 = 0.0079 M pc− and Rc = 5 kpc. A mini- from the target galaxy, is that for microlensing in M31, cluster in the MW at distance d from Earth on the line due to the high DM density, one must account not only of sight to the LMC has radial coordinate in the MW 2 2 2 for lensing by DM in the MW, but also for lensing by DM halo rMW(d) = R 2R d cos lLMC cos bLMC + d , where ⊕ in M31 itself. Thus the differential event rate is given by (l, b) = (280o, 33⊕o−) are the measured Galactic coordi- dΓ = dΓ + dΓ . nates. − MW M31 For the EROS-2 survey E = 3.68 107 star years. HSC adopt NFW radial density profiles for the DM We extract the detection efficiency, in× terms of Einstein in the MW and M31 with parameters from Ref. [84] 11 6 3 radius crossing time, from the Fig. 11 of Ref. [36]. The of rs = 21.5 kpc, ρc = 4.88 10 M kpc− giving 12 × efficiency is large ( & 0.5) for time periods of between Mvir = 10 M for the MW and rs = 25 kpc, ρc = 6 3 12 one day and 1000 days. 4.96 10 M kpc− giving Mvir = 1.6 10 M for M31. The× different host masses for the MW× and M31 normalise the minicluster mass function differently in each case. The DM density profile along the line of sight is 11 We follow Ref. [36] by multiplying the efficiency by an extra ρDM(x) = ρMW(x) + ρM31(x), with x = d/ds for source factor of 0.9 to take into account lensing by binary lenses distance ds = 770 kpc. The line of sight distances are 17

105 given in terms of the radial co-ordinate r as HSC: PBH q isolated MC 2 2 rMW(d) = R 2R cos l cos b + d , (49) dense MCH ⊕ − ⊕ 1000 diffuse MCH

rM31(d) = ds d , (50) QCD Axion EROS: − isolated MC

exp dense MCH

with R = 8.5 kpc the radial co-ordinate of Earth from N ⊕ 10 the MW centre and (l, b) = (121.2◦, 21.6◦) the Galactic co-ordinates of M31. − HSC has a microlensing efficiency of  0.1 0.8 for ∼ − 0.1 time periods 2 minutes . tˆ . 7 hours with a number of 7 9 stars Ns 10 10 . The advanced treatment of the efficiency∼ and candidate− selection employed in Ref. [37] -15 -10 -5 0 is beyond the scope of the present work. In order to get log10(M0/M⊙) a sense for the constraints that could be obtained with a FIG. 15. Expected Microlensing Events: Here we assume dedicated analysis, we model the HSC microlensing effi- that all the DM is composed of miniclusters on small scales. ciency as a step function with  = 0.5 in the given time Lines show the effects of our modelling of the minicluster mass scale (see Fig. 14 of Ref. [37]). To normalise the exposure function and density profile for HSC and the EROS survey. we compute the expected number of events for PBHs, and rescale E to approximately match the constraints in Fig. 29 of Ref. [37] without accounting for finite source for HSC [37]. In order to understand the effects of our size and using the extrapolated number counts of source modelling we show four different calculations of Nexp for stars (this is the most optimistic constraint). HSC. It is the short cadence that gives HSC access to low In the first (gray full-line in Fig. 15), we compute the PBH masses, and for our purposes will allow constraints event rate for point-like objects (i.e PBHs) of fixed mass on the minicluster fraction for the QCD axion. This is M0 (i.e. Dirac-delta-function mass distribution) to nor- because low mass objects create lensing events on shorter malise the exposure and efficiency. timescales due to the smaller radius of the microlensing We then compute the case of isolated miniclusters tube. Thus detecting microlensing events by such objects (Dirac-delta-function mass distribution but non-point requires large efficiency on small times scales, i.e. a short like objects), with density profiles determined by dn/dδ cadence. extracted from Fig. 2. This corresponds to the red HSC use pixel lensing and image subtraction to select full/dashed line in Fig. 15 for the HSC/EROS survey. microlensing candidates. Using this technique, they iden- This additional treatment reduces the number of events 2 tify a large number of variable stars, eclipses, and other by a factor of (10 ) due to the requirement of large δ such that O> 0. We consider this scenario as the transient events. They find a single event with a light R curve consistent with a PBH microlensing event, though most conservative: miniclusters are too dense to suffer the genuine nature is not confirmed. Thus, the Poisson much disruption on mergers, and MCHs are likely to be statistics 95% C.L. upper limits on the expected number a “plum pudding” of objects of mass M0. In this case, of microlensing events are the modulating role of the MCH mass function is not relevant for the HSC cadence and QCD axion.  3 w/o. the PBH candidate The dense MCH case includes in addition the effects N . (51) exp ≤ 4.74 w. the PBH candidate of dn/dM i.e an extended mass function. A microlensing survey is sensitive to objects of fixed mass M. The mass We take Nexp 3 as the conservative limit on the mini- function spreads the MCHs to M > M (with more to- ≤ 0 cluster lensing events. A dedicated analysis of the HSC tal mass at larger M), shifting the central M0 to smaller data with the minicluster light curve would be required values. The density profiles of the dense MCHs are also to be more precise, and this is beyond the scope of the computed using dn/dδ i.e. mergers forming MCHs are present work. assumed to preserve the distribution of halo concentra- tions. This treatment corresponds to the blue full/dashed line in Fig. 15 for the HSC/EROS survey. This scenario C. Results: Expected Number of Microlensing is more conservative for the HSC survey and the QCD Events axion since it reduces the number of events by moving mass out of the central region of sensitivity. In Fig. 15 we show the expected number of microlens- Finally, the diffuse minicluster case uses dn/dM, but ing events in various minicluster scenarios as a function of assumes that all MCHs with M outside the small window M0 for HSC and EROS assuming fMC = 1. The number M0/10 M 10M0 have too low density for microlens- of events in HSC is generally far larger than for EROS ing. Mergers≤ ≤ are assumed to disrupt the miniclusters due to the huge volume of DM between the Earth and and the MCHs with M > 10M0 are uniform with con- M31 leading to a larger optical depth to microlensing centration cNFW(M), far too low to lens. The cut in 18

100 4 EROS,n=3.34 10 Point-Like Objects

10 1000 param EROS,n=0 GG GH 1 100 HG HSC,n=3.34 HH exp MC

f HSC,n=0 6 N 0.100 10 5 0.500 4 0.100 3 0.050 0.010 1 2 0.010 1 0.005

QCD Axion 0 0.001 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 0.001 -4.4 -4.2 -4.0 -3.8 -3.6 0.1 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4

log10(ma/eV) log10(M0/M⊙) FIG. 16. Limits on the Fraction of DM collapsed into FIG. 17. Theoretical Uncertainties in the Mass Func- Miniclusters: The model adopted is for “isolated miniclus- tion: Lines show the effects of our modeling concerning the ters”, which we consider the most realistic. The shaded region mass function for the HSC survey. In order to isolate this shows the allowed mass for the QCD axion with miniclus- effect from the effect of the density profile we considered the ters. Where the n = 3.34 lines intersect this region, fMC is MCHs as point-like objects (i.e. PBHs). The inset displays constrained for the QCD axion. The inset shows a zoom-in. the various distributions normalised to our default simple The magenta (blue) line in the inset shows a hypothetical im- parametric mass function (blue line). proved observation by HSC ten nights with an efficiency  ∼ 1 in the case of isolated miniclusters (dense MHCs). order to improve those bounds further. We are confident that a more thorough analysis by the observing teams dn/dM reduces significantly the number of events. This will show that HSC, and microlensing in general, is now is the most pessimistic model, corresponding to an effec- a powerful tool to constrain the QCD axion and, more tive reduction in fMC caused by mergers. This scenario generally, axion-like particles. corresponds to the purple line in Fig. 15 for the HSC survey. Using the Poisson statistics 95% C.L. limit from above D. Theoretical Uncertainties attached to our we find constraints on fMC as a function of ma, the axion Results mass, presented in Fig. 16 for the most realistic isolated miniclusters case. The dashed black lines correspond to We now discuss various theoretical uncertainties and the EROS limits in the n = 0 or n = 3.34 hypothesis. The modeling that can give small shifts in the constraints. full red lines correspond to the HSC limits in the n = 0 or As we already discussed, an additional uncertainty comes n = 3.34 hypothesis. We find that EROS does not place from our simplified modeling of the lensing efficiency. any bound on fMC < 1 however HSC places very strong In Fig. 17, we study the impact of the modelling of bounds on fMC for an axion-like particle with n = 3.34, the mass function on the computation of the expected 2 reaching as low as fMC 8.0 10− for ma 50 µeV. number of lensing events. We used the analytical for- ≈ × ≈ The shaded green band shows the allowed mass for the mulations of Appendix B. The full-blue line in Fig. 17 12 QCD axion fixed by ma = 6.6 µeV(10 GeV/fa) [13, 14] corresponds to our simple parametric mass function dis- and the relic density: 50 µeV . ma . 200 µeV [40]. The cussed earlier in section III C. n = 3.34 lines represent temperature evolution of the For all combinations of initial power spectrum (Gaus- axion mass: where these lines intersect the shaded band, sian or Heaviside) and window function (Gaussian or 2 fMC is bounded for the QCD axion, and we find fMC < Heaviside), we inject the variance σXY of Appendix B 0.12 0.083(ma/100 µeV) . in the usual Press-Schechter mass function also given in As shown in the inset of Fig. 16, these results could be Appendix B in order to estimate the expected number of improved. Indeed the magenta line shows a hypothetical microlensing events. In the case of the Gaussian window improved observation by HSC, extending the current one function, we used the half-mode models for the low-mass night to ten nights with an efficiency  1, leading to cut-off. In order to isolate this source of theoretical un- ∼ a forecast bound of fMC . 0.004 for the QCD axion in certainty from other mass-dependent effect (such as the the isolated miniclusters case. The improved observation rescaling lensing tube factor) we considered in Fig. 17 the is also able to bound fMC . 0.1 in the more pessimistic MCHs as point-like objects which is a quite unrealistic (for the QCD axion) dense MCH scenario. We advo- scenario. However we said previously that the additional cate a dedicated analysis of the HSC microlensing data treatment of considering MCHs as non-point like objects 2 to place more rigorous bounds on fMC than we have ap- reduces the number of events by a factor of (10 ) due to proximated here, and for a longer microlensing survey in the requirement of large δ such that > 0.O Our result is R 19

infall profile predicts a higher expected number of lens-

4 ing events by a factor up to eight for M0 masses below 10 6 10 10− M . This is caused by the self-similar profile being 8 self-similar infall 6 more compact, and thus requiring lower threshold values NFW profile 1000 4 2 of δ for microlensing (see Fig. 13). 0 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 100

exp VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS N 10 The QCD axion remains one of the best motivated dark 1 matter candidates some 40 years after it was originally QCD Axion proposed. Unlike the case of thermal WIMPs, the QCD 0.1 axion parameter space remains wide-open in the face of -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 direct constraints due to the extraordinarily weak inter- log10(M0/M⊙) actions between axions and the standard model. All of FIG. 18. Theoretical Uncertainties in the Density Pro- that is about to change, with a wide range of proposed file: Here we assume that all the DM is composed of miniclus- experiments set to probe a large part of the parameter ters on small scales and take the isolated minicluster scenario. space in the coming decades. It is therefore timely to Lines show the effects of our choice concerning the density study more subtle aspects of axion DM that may affect profile for the HSC survey. The dashed-red line assumes a direct detection signals. self-similar infall profile while the full-blue line assumes our default NFW profile. The inset displays the distributions nor- If PQ symmetry breaking occurs during the radiation- malised to the default NFW case (blue line). dominated phase in the early Universe (or indeed dur- ing a putative matter-dominated phase) then the axion DM model is severely constrained and makes rather pre- cise predictions. One such prediction is the existence of that our simple description of an extended mass function miniclusters: gravitationally bound lumps of axions with is conservative since for some characteristic mass, M0, a 10 masses of the order M0 10− M . There is no theo- different choice of mass function could increase the ex- retical prediction for the∼ fraction of DM in miniclusters, pected number of lensing events by up to a factor of five. fMC, but naively we expect it to be of order unity. If The analytic results for the variance and associated fMC is large, the direct detection signal for axions is re- MCH mass functions (“GG”, “GH”, “HG”, “HH”) have duced by 1 fMC (assuming that the probability of an generically a smaller upper limit compared to our simple encounter between− the Earth and a minicluster over the parametric approximation (see Fig. 21). This small dif- course of an experiment is essentially zero). ference starts to matter when this upper limit approaches Despite in some sense representing “half” of axion pa- the critical value of the experiment. This critical value rameter space, the minicluster scenario has attracted rel- 5 for HSC is around M0/M = 5 10− and corresponds to atively little attention over the years. In the present work × the typical PBH mass when the lensing experiment loses we have attempted to revive interest in it, and attempted all sensitivity due to the finite observing time (grey line of to observationally bound fMC. Fig. 15). At a particular moment, the parametric HMF We began by computing the mass function of miniclus- will have MCH masses outside the sensitivity region of ters. We predict the slope of the mass function should 1/2 HSC, however for the other HMF all the masses would be M − arising from the white noise initial conditions. remain in the sensitive region and would consequently This is the mass function on large scales, where we have predict more lensing events. When every single HMF assumed Gaussianity of fluctuations. The minicluster ha- have MCHs heavier than that critical value then the dis- los (MCHs) that we predict are composed of many indi- crepancy between them starts to shrink. This feature ex- vidual miniclusters (up to 106) and would not be seen in plains why the lines associated to the more refined HMF simulations such as Ref. [25] except in very large boxes are close to the parametric HMF for low and large values with total mass many times larger than M0. We outlined 9 of M0 and reach a maximum around M0/M 10− . uncertainties in the MCH mass function due to the initial ' The inset in Fig. 17 displays the various distributions power spectrum and window functions. normalised to our default simple parametric mass func- Our modelling of minicluster and MCH formation used tion (blue line). the simplest possible implementation of Press-Schechter In Fig. 18, we study the impact of the density profile in an analytic form. More advanced semi-analytic for- on the computation of the expected number of lensing mulations of extended Press-Schechter can be used to events for the HSC survey. The dashed-red line assumes answer deeper questions about the merger history and a self-similar infall profile (cf. section IV) while the full- tidal effects and will provide more accuracte mass func- blue line assumes our default NFW profile. The inset tions [85]. The public code galacticus is suitable for displays the two distributions normalised to the the de- such a study [77]. Such approaches can account for grav- fault NFW line (blue line). As we can see, the self-similar itational N-body-like dynamics, but will not address is- 20

sues associated to the unique minicluster initial condi- the size distribution being preserved to the present day tions, which can only be answered by field theory simu- for bound objects of mass M0, which take some time lations of the axion sting network. to assemble gravitationally. The numerical verification By treating the hierarchical structure formation as de- should be done by performing a large number of small- scribed by CDM on large scales, we computed the con- box simulations containing a mass of just a few M0. centrations and formation times of MCHs. We used this We computed the microlensing “tube size” and event to provide a simple estimate of the effect of tidal strip- rate for miniclusters. The distribution was key to ping on the “seed” miniclusters, and concluded it is likely this computation, since the densest miniclustersF in the a minor effect. Thus, miniclusters should be present as tail of the distribution have the largest effective tube ra- “plums in a pudding” in MCHs, a scenario we dubbed dius and contribute dominantly to the expected number “isolated miniclusters”. We also considered two other, of events. Using the recent HSC limit on the number less realistic, scenarios for mergers and their effects on of microlensing events Nexp 3 over event time scales observations. In the isolated minicluster case we con- between two minutes and seven≤ hours we were able to cluded that the MCH mass function was irrelevant for place the first observational bound on miniclusters of 0.12 microlensing constraints. fMC < 0.083(ma/100 µeV) over the range relevant In the case of the QCD axion we expect the individual to the QCD axion. We also presented bounds for other miniclusters to have masses very roughly comparable to axion-like particles. larger asteroids like Vesta or Pallas with radius of order 1 In the event that observations are made which suggest AU for δ = 1. After structure formation, these miniclus- microlensing events caused by DM, we would be faced ters find themselves gravitationally bound up into MCHs with the pleasurable task of identifying the precise na- with typical masses up to that of Saturn and radii of ap- ture of these microlenses. The formation of miniclusters 4 proximately 10 AU (0.1 light years). We are left won- is some sense one of the more conservative scenarios for dering if there are other consequences of MCHs that can compact object formation, relying only on ordinary SSB be tested observationally. leading to standard axion production. There are various We have not discussed the formation of miniclusters other possible compact objects which could make up a themselves, where the assembly history will be very dif- significant fraction of the dark matter. We have already ferent. Our mass function on scales smaller than M0 is pointed out that with enough statistics we could tell also subject to large uncertainties. The shape of the mass the difference between point like objects such as PBHs function for M < M0 (describing fragmentation and for- and extended density profiles such as axion miniclusters. mation of miniclusters) could be drastically different from An interesting question is whether we could tell the dif- our estimates. We have tried to quantify this uncertainty ference between axion miniclusters and “ultra compact using different window functions and cut-off models. We mini-haloes” that emerge as a result, for example, of fea- predict a cut-off in the mass function at least at the axion tures in the inflationary spectrum or a period of matter Jeans scale, and probably not much below M0 itself. domination [87]. Just like in the case of miniclusters, The largest uncertainties relate to the non-Gaussianity there is significant theoretical uncertainty relating to the of the minicluster density field. The non-Gaussianity density profiles of such objects [88], and thus microlens- will also affect the mass function on small scales. We ing alone might not distinguish these types of compact have treated the non-Gaussianity on scales of order M0 object. as giving the distribution of minicluster concentrations, UCMHs can be composed of any type of DM, but using a fit from simulations [22] giving the distribution of they are typically thought of as being composed of overdensities (δ > δ ). This predicts that miniclusters F 0 WIMPs. Clearly, interactions distinguish axions and come in a very wide range of different sizes for a fixed WIMPs, and could also be used to distinguish mini- initial mass. As we have assumed a particular form for clusters and UCMHs. A clear consequence of the high , our results could rather be interpreted as a constraint F UCMH density is in boosting the WIMP annihilation on the integrated tails of this distribution with δ0 > δlens, rate, causing UCMHs to appear as luminous gamma ray where δlens is the critical density parameter for efficient sources [89]. On the other hand, axion-photon conver- microlensing. sion leads to miniclusters acting as radio sources, with a Numerically verifying the distribution for large δ is possible relation to fast radio bursts [90–92]. Finally, on a key future project necessary, since our laterF results rest 12 distinguishing different DM microlensig candidates, the on an extrapolation of this function over a wide range. early Universe physics responsible for each (minicluster, Simulations of the minicluster field in the absence of grav- PBH, and UCMH) is in each case quite different, curva- ity are not sufficient for this purpose: our results rely on ture perturbations for PBHs and UCMHs, isocurvature and SSB for miniclusters, and could lead to other indirect evidence supporting either case. 12 An (1) uncertainty on the microlensing constraints The simulations of Wiebe, Redondo and Niemeyer [86] will be O able to investigate this extrapolation. In the initial (no gravity) comes from the minicluster density profile. We treated initial conditions some extrapolation seems justified to at least miniclusters as an NFW profile, which is close to a hard- δ & 100. We thank Javier Redondo for discussion on this point. sphere with mass located predominantly at a single ra- 21 dius. In the case of a self-similar density profile, mini- clusters are somewhat denser, and we found tighter con- straints on the density fraction. Again, simulations are 14 necessary to confirm which density profile is the correct one. 13 An observational bound on f can be seen two ways.

MC GeV)

Firstly, observationally it is good to know that f is / MC a 12 small, since in the absence of other information this al- f ( lows direct detection constraints to be interpreted with 10 11 more confidence. Secondly, it allows the possibility to ex- clude, or discover evidence for axions if theoretical pre- log n =0 dictions can be made. The same simulations that will 10 n =3.34 provide us with more information about the distribution n =6 of overdensities could also narrow down predictions on 9 F 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 the possible range of fMC, and investigate the miniclus- ter density profiles [86]. We hope that our preliminary log10(ma/eV) 2 investigations motivate the need for such further study. FIG. 19. The Axion Relic Density: Contours Ωah = 0.12 If the eventual theoretical predictions are in viola- are shown for a variety of models. Solid (dashed) lines have tion of micolensing bounds, then microlensing constraints αdec = 2.48 (1) and can = cn (1) to account for uncertainty have excluded the QCD axion with late-time symmetry in the relic density from decay of topological defects and an- breaking. On the other hand, if theoretical predictions harmonicities in the axion potential. The shaded area indi- f ≥ . × 12 are within an order of magnitude or so below our con- cates a 8 2 10 GeV, where inflationary constraints on the tensor-to-scalar ratio imply that miniclusters cannot be straints, then future microlensing surveys could expect to formed. The QCD axion is indicated by the ellipse giving see evidence of a sub-dominant population of miniclus- ma ≈ 100 µeV. ters in the galactic DM. Upcoming observational efforts such as the Zwicky Transient Facility [93] and eventually the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope [94] are expected of cosmic inflation (or indeed any other smoothing mech- to provide much more sensitivity to microlensing events. anism for the initial conditions). The axion relic den- We are excited to see what these telescopes observe and sity is produced by the coherent oscillations of the highly the implications of those observations for the nature of inhomogeneous classical axion condensate in a thermal dark matter. background. In principle, the calculation of the relic den- sity involves two computationally challenging pieces: the thermal evolution of the axion mass in finite tempera- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ture quantum field theory, and the classical evolution of the inhomogeneous condensate. We do not perform such The work of JQ and MF is supported by the UK STFC calculations here, and in the literature results are only Grant ST/L000326/1. MF is also funded by the Euro- generally available for the QCD axion. However, both pean Research Council under the European Unions Hori- of these complexities can be parameterised into a much zon 2020 programme (ERC Grant Agreement no.648680 simpler computation, allowing to treat the more general DARKHORIZONS). The work of DJEM is supported by ALP models, and account for uncertainties in the numer- a Royal Astronomical Society Postdoctoral Fellowship. ical results in the literature. We acknowledge useful discussions with Alberto Diez- In order to avoid having to compute the inhomoge- Tejedor, Anne Green, Edward Hardy, Jens Niemeyer, neous field evolution, we make the standard assumption Javier Redondo, and Paul Shellard. We also thank that there are two sources of axion relic density: produc- Torsten Bringmann, August Geelmuyden and Andrzej tion of cold axion particles via the decay of topological Jan Hryczuk for useful communications. defects, and vacuum misalignment production from the homogeneous axion condensate. This separation of axion populations is in fact artificial, the entire relic density be- ing contained in coherent oscillations of the same classical Appendix A: The Axion Relic Density field. It is a useful terminology, since the inhomogeneous calculation has the same parametric scaling as the ho- The following section uses known results concerning mogeneous calculation, allowing a single “fudge factor” the axion relic density to find the range of axion masses to be introduced and the parameter space can then be where the minicluster scenario is possible. We reproduce explored in the much simpler homogeneous case. and extend the treatment of the relic density in Ref. [26], In order to account for the finite temperature effects, giving more details on the computation. we parameterise the mass evolution as a power law. The In the minicluster scenario the breaking of the PQ sym- power law index can be computed either using an instan- metry giving rise to axions must occur after any period ton model, or a lattice computation, and depends on the 22 particle content (which is of course fixed only in the case minicluster scenario is relevant. To do this we impose 2 2 of QCD). the relic density constraint, Ωah = 0.12 [39], with Ωah computed in the minicluster scenario with the necessary Of the total axion relic density, some fraction fMC ends 12 requirement that fa < 8.2 10 GeV. up bound in miniclusters. In principle this fraction can be Consider the homogeneous× misalignment production of determined by proper simulation of PQ symmetry break- axions. The equation of motion for the homogeneous ing and axion production including the effects of gravity axion field, φ, is: up to matter-radiation equality. Instead, we take fMC as a phenomenological free parameter to be constrained by φ¨ + 3Hφ˙ + V 0(φ) = 0 , (A1) the data, and so our constraints on fMC can be used to constrain models of PQ symmetry breaking. where dots denote derivatives with respect to physical The relic density of axions of mass m is determined time t. The axion potential is V (φ), and prime denotes a derivative with respect to φ. The precise form of V (φ) is by the decay constant, fa, which for the minicluster sce- 12 not important for the present treatment of the relic den- nario must satisfy fa < 8.2 10 GeV. The bound ap- plies in an inflationary scenario× by imposing the obser- sity. An additional parameter NDW sets the periodicity vational constraint on the cosmic microwave background of the axion field and then determines the number of do- tensor-to-scalar ratio r < 0.07 [95], which in turn con- main walls. For the QCD axion, NDW is determined by strains the Hubble scale during inflation. The constraint the color anomaly of the quarks carrying PQ charge, and arises by imposing that the Gibbons-Hawking tempera- is NDW = 1 for the “KSVZ” axion [15, 16]. For simplic- ity of presentation we set NDW = 1, the NDW > 1 case ture, TGH = HI /2π, must be higher than the PQ scale in order that the PQ symmetry remain unbroken during having quite different cosmology [96]. inflation, and we have assumed for simplicity that the Axion oscillations begin at temperature Tosc when the potential term dominates over the friction provided by phase transition occurs at T = fa. In a non-inflationary scenario, if reheating is allowed to occur to temperatures the Hubble expansion. Thanks to the Kibble mecha- T > 8.2 1012 GeV, then the minicluster scenario nism, the axion field remains homogeneous on scales up reh. × to the horizon size at this time. Once axion oscillations could be extended to larger values of fa. For definite- ness, we consider only the inflationary scenario from now begin, the axion number density na(T ) = ρa(T )/ma(T ) on. becomes conserved (for slow ma variation) and the axion relic density at a later time when the temperature is T0 We must find the range of axion masses for which the is:

 3  3 mis a(Tosc) 1 2 2 a(Tosc) ρa = ma(T0)n(Tosc) = ma(T0)ma(Tosc)fa θi , (A2) a(T0) 2 a(T0)

where θi = φi/fa [ π, π] is the “initial misalignment acquiring their potential from a strongly coupled gauge angle”. The fraction∈ − of the critical density is given by theory such as QCD, and the index n can be computed 2 2 Ωa = ρa/(3H Mpl). The scale factor is related to the given the particle content. As a representative of QCD temperature by the condition of constant entropy: we take n 3.34 from the “interacting instanton liq- ≈ 1/3 1 uid” model [49], which is close to the results from lattice a(T ) g?,S(T )− T − , (A3) simulations (n 3.55 0.30 [50, 51]) and the canon- ∝ ≈ ± with the proportionality normalised by fixing matter ra- ical dilute instanton gas (n = 4 [45]). For simplicity we neglect the case µ = √mafa. The QCD axion has diation equality at redshitf zeq = 3402 [39]. We use 6 µ ΛQCD 2.5√mafa. The very small effect of this the fit for the entropic degrees of freedom, g?,S(T ), from ≈ ≈ Ref. [49]. factor on the relic density and M0 is unimportant at our level of accuracy given the other associated uncertainties In a harmonic potential, Tosc is given by: that we include below. The case µ √m f is approx-  a a 3H(Tosc) = ma(Tosc) . (A4) imated by n = 0 and occurs for some string axions and “accidental axions” [97, 98]. We allow temperature variation of the mass parame- Assuming radiation domination, the Hubble rate is terised as: given by the Friedmann equation:   n T − π2 ma(T ) = ma,0 , (A5) 3H2M 2 = g (T )T 4 , (A6) µ pl 30 ?,R p for T > µ ma,0fa and ma(T < µ) = ma,0 ma. where g?,R(T ) is the number of relativistic degrees of free- Low-temperature∝ variation of the mass occurs for≡ axions dom at temperature T . The epoch when axion oscilla- 23 tions begin is found by solving Eqs. (A4) and (A6), which that the current observable Universe is many times larger we do numerically using the fit for g?,R(T ) from Ref. [49], than the horizon size when axion oscillations begin. One 2 which includes all the standard model degrees of freedom must replace θi fan(θi) by: and the QCD phase transition. Z π 2 Anharmonicities in the potential lead to flattening 2 1 2 π away from the origin and delay the onset of oscillations θi fan(θi) = θ fan(θ)dθ can . (A9) h i 2π π ≡ 3 for large θ. The time that oscillations begin grows as [99] −

1 The number can. comes from the anharmonic corrections. tosc = m− (tosc) ln[e/p(x)] , (A7) a Assuming one can treat g? as constant over the period in which anharmonic corrections act, with p(x) = (1 x4) where p(x) is a polynomial function of x = θ /π that is i for the cosine potential and n = (0, 3.34, 6) we find −c = found from fitting to numerical solution of Eq. (A1) with an (2.7, 2.1, 2.0), which we term c . a specific potential [100], and does not depend on m or n a Now consider the population of axions from topological f as each can be absorbed in an appropriate choice of a defect decay. For N = 1, the population of axions units. For the potential V (θ) = m2f 2(1 cos θ) we find DW a a produced by decay of the string-wall network at T can that p(x) = 1 x4 gives a good fit to our− own numeri- osc be parameterised by writing the total relic density as cal solutions for− axion-like particles with T -independent mass and g? = const.. 2 mis 2 2 Ωah = (1 + αdec)Ωa h . (A10) Using that t T − from the solution to the Friedmann equation, Eq. (A7)∝ can be solved for the correction to The parameter αdec is computed from numerical solution Tosc(θi) that is then substituted into Eq. (A2) to find the relic density. of the decay of the axion string-wall network [42, 52, 101– 103]. The results can be expressed as a constant of pro- With the assumption of constant g? during the epoch portionality, since the scalings are fixed by Tosc, with over which anharmonic corrections affect Tosc, this solu- tion can be found analytically, leading to an anharmonic only weak dependence from non-trivial g?(T ). The sim- correction to the relic density: ulations of Ref. [96] find that αdec. = 2.48. For NDW > 1 the relic density cannot be expressed in mis. mis. such a simple form. The domain wall network is long ρa fan(θi)ρa , (A8) → lived and the relic density of axions produced by its de- with the anharmonic correction function fan(θi) = cay is too large (“overclosure”) unless some additional ln[e/p(x)] q, and the power q = 3/2 n/(2n + 4). With fine tuning on CP -violation is allowed [96]. We do not { } − non-constant g?, fan(θi) cannot be found analytically, consider the NDW > 1 case any further. It would be and furthermore it will in general depend on ma, fa, n, interesting to consider in futute whether miniclusters or though this is not usually stated. similar dense DM objects are produced in this scenario. In the minicluster scenario the vacuum misalignment Thus, our final expression for the relic density in the relic density must be averaged over θi, reflecting the fact minicluster scenario is:

2  3 total 1 canπ 2 a(Tosc) Ωa = 2 2 (1 + αdec) ma(TCMB)ma(Tosc)fa , (A11) 6H0 Mpl 3 a(TCMB)

where T is found from solving Eq. (A4) for oscillations ion is where dotted line m 6.6 µeV(1012 GeV/f ) osc a,QCD ≈ a in a harmonic potential, TCMB = 2.725 K is the CMB intersects n 3.34. Thus, when the PQ symmetry is temperature, a(T ) = 1, and we vary the parameters broken post-inflation,≈ the QCD axion must have m CMB a ≈ n, αdec and can.. We have not allowed for any addi- 100 µeV, consistent with other estimates in the literature. tional entropy production or degrees of freedom beyond The relation between (ma, fa) found from the relic den- the standard model, which could suppress the relic den- sity affects the M0(ma) relationship via the weak depen- sity with an additional factor of γ < 1 [104]. Allowing ent dence on fa for n = 0. For n = 0, the relic density for γent < 1 would raise the lower bound on ma for axion only affects this by6 imposing a lower limit on n. We miniclusters. have verified the accuracy of the misalignment contribu- The results of our relic density computation are shown tion to Eq. (A11) using a direct numerical solution of in Fig. 19. If axions are to provide the total DM relic the temperature-dependent equations of motion follow- denisty in the minicluster scenario we find a lower bound ing the method of Ref. [50], confirming both the use of 13 on the axion mass of ma & 10− eV, which could be low- the estimate for Tosc and the computation of can for the ered slightly more for more extreme large values of n. For single cosine and chiral axion potentials. The approxima- 8 n = 0 we find ma & 10− eV. We find that the QCD ax- tion only breaks down for oscillation temperatures near 24

ΛQCD, where the effects of g? on the dyamics are non- trivial. For n = 0 using the analytic result does not affect M0, and thus does not affect our microlensing results. For n = 0 the use of the analytic results has a smaller effect 6 than the uncertainty in αdec already accounted for. 103

The scenario discussed above does not apply to all pos- sible axion models. For example, the relationship be- . S . tween fa and the scale of SSB can be drastically mod- M

ified in the “clockwork axion” theories [105, 106]. Here . a large hierarchy can be generated between fa, which R HH Window : G H sets the periodicity of the axion field, and the symmetry GH ! breaking scale. For example, one could lower the sym- Power : G H HG ! metry breaking scale to vsymm 1 TeV while keeping 16 ≈ GG fa 10 GeV. Thus, lighter axions that require large 2 f >≈ 8.2 1012 GeV could still give rise to miniclusters. 10 2 1 0 1 2 3 a × 10 10 10 10 10 10 In the clockwork scenario one must be careful that the Reduced Mass M˜ additional axions involved in realising the clockwork do not produce dangerous relics themselves. The additional FIG. 20. Theoretical Modelling of the R.M.S.: The axions also significantly complicate the phase transition mass fluctuation, σ, is shown as a function of mass for four and subsequent production and decay of topological de- different combinations of initial power spectrum and window fects [107]. function. The Gaussian initial power cuts off power earlier Geometric string theory (and supergravity) axions can- than the step function. The Heaviside window function leads to a more pronounced flattening of σ at low masses. The not give rise to miniclusters, as there is no notion of 3 reduced mass M˜ = Mk /ρ¯a. spontaneous PQ symmetry breaking in 3+1 dimensions 0 that could produce the necessary large field fluctuations as initial conditions. Accidental axions, where the U(1) with “G” for “Gaussian” and “H” for “Heaviside”. The symmetry is explicitly broken by Planck suppressed oper- Gaussian smoothing at k to model the effects of the ators, and which also arise in string theory, can undergo 0 Kibble mechanism was used in Ref. [25]. We note that SSB and produce miniclusters.13 the normalizations, P0, of each power spectrum must be computed separately, and are given by: Appendix B: Theoretical Uncertainties in the Mass 24 2 3 Function and Analytic Results P = π k− , (B4) 0,H 5 0

8√2 3/2 3 There are four main theoretical uncertainties in our P0,G = π k0− . (B5) modelling of the MCH mass function: 5 Non-Gaussianity of the minicluster density field. In addition to the power spectrum, we also consider • two choices of window function (see e.g. Ref. [108]): The initial power spectrum, P (k, τ0). • 2 k2R2 The filtering function, W (kR). WG(kR) = e− , (B6) • 2 The cut-off of the mass function. WH(kR) = Θ(1 kR) . (B7) • − Non-Gaussianity is addressed in detail in Appendix C. Since for all axion models considered we have k0 < In this Appendix we address the other three sources of kJ,eq, the variance at z = 0 is simply given by the variance 2 uncertainty. We first compute the variance, σ (M), at at z = zeq (i.e. computed with the initial power) divided 2 the initial time, τ0. We consider two simplified models by the CDM linear growth factor squared, σ (z = 0) = 2 2 for the initial power spectrum: σ (zeq)/D (zeq). The CDM linear growth factor is given " # by the integral (assuming flatness, ΩΛ = 1 Ωm): 1  k 2 − P (k) = P exp , (B1) G 0,G Z   3 −2 k0 5 H(z) ∞ H(z0) − D˜(z) = Ωm dz0 . (B8) P (k) = P Θ(k k) , (B2) 2 H0 z (1 + z0)H0 H 0,H 0 − (B3) The growth factor is normalized to unity at z = 0 such that D(z) = D˜(z)/D˜(0). For all combinations of initial power and window func- 13 We are grateful to Joseph Conlon, Matthew McCullough, An- tion the variance can be expressed analytically, in terms dreas Ringwald, and Fuminobu Takahashi for discussion on of error functions where necessary. We write the variance clockwork axions and string axions. 2 as σXY, where X and Y take on either of the values G and 25

H, with X labelling the window function and Y labelling 100 the initial power spectrum. The closed-form expressions HH in terms of the dimensionless radius R˜ = Rk0 are: 4 GH 10− HG 3 p 2 ˜ P0,Gk0 π/2 GG σGG(R) = 2 2 , (B9) 8 ˜2 3/2 M 10 D (zeq)(2π ) (1 + 2R ) n − d

3 d ln h 2 i

P k 1 3 2 ˜ 0,H 0 ˜ R˜ √ ˜

σ (R) = 2Re− + πerf(R) , − GH 0 12 2 2 ˜3 10− D (zeq)(2π ) 4R − k (B10) 3 ( 1/(2R˜2) r ) 16 P k e π 10− 2 ˜ 0,G 0 − √ ˜ 1 σHG(R) = 2 2 + erf[( 2R)− ] , D (zeq)(2π ) − R˜ 2 (B11) 10 20 −10 2 100 102 104 106 108 1010 " # − 3 ˜ ˜ 2 ˜ P0,Hk0 1 Θ(R 1) ˜ Reduced Mass M σHH(R) = 2 2 − + Θ(1 R) . D (zeq)(2π ) 3 R˜3 − FIG. 21. Theoretical Modelling of the Mass Function: (B12) The minicluster mass function is shown as a function of mass for four different combinations of initial power spectrum and The mapping from radius to mass for the Gaussian window function. In this case of the Gaussian window func- window function is M = (2π)3/2ρ¯ R3. For the Heavi- tion, we also show the uncut (dotted), half-mode (dashed), G a and Jeans (solid) models for the low-mass cut-off. The re- side window function the mass is not well defined. We 3 duced mass M˜ = Mk /ρ¯a. choose a mass-radius relation that gives the same vari- 0 ance at large M as the Gaussian case, which is easily shown to be MH = (4/3)MG. We express the variance in 3 was advocated by the authors of Ref. [64] to explain the terms of the dimensionless mass, M˜ = M/(¯ρ k− ) (the a 0 downturn in the mass function seen in N-body simula- dimensionless characteristic minicluster mass is M˜ 0 tions with truncated initial power spectra for warm DM. 130). The variance σ2 (M˜ ) has a particularly simple≈ HH In our case, the flat variance with the Heaviside window closed form expression: also leads to a cut-off at low M for the HMF using σHH  ! 1/2  and σHG, with the cut-off for σHH being a step-function ˜ − ˜ ˜ ˜ M ˜ at M = cm. σHH(M) = σ0 Θ(M cm) + Θ(cm M) , − cm − For the Gaussian window, the logarithmic derivative of the variance does not go to zero fast enough to cut- (B13) off the mass function. This is in conflict with simula- with c = (4/3)(2π)3/2 and σ 103.4. In terms of M m 0 0 tions. We expect the Jeans scale to physically cut the defined in Eq. (2) this gives the cut-off≈ in the variance at 3/2 5/2 power off in a simulation of the full axion field [71]. Even the physical mass scale M = 2 π− M M /6.2. cut 0 ≈ 0 N-body simulations that simply use a truncated initial The variances at z = 0 as a function of M˜ for all power spectrum see a downturn in the HMF after numer- four combinations of initial power spectrum and window ical artefacts have been removed [72, 73]. function are plotted in Fig. 20. Despite the different nor- Therefore, for the Gaussian window HMF we consider malizations of the power, P , the variance has the same 0 alternative cut-off procedures. The cut-off we adopt, normalization in every case, as it should. We observe as described in the main text, simply replaces δ with that the Gaussian initial power has a cut-off at lower M˜ c (M)δ in the Press-Schechter mass function. This is than for the Heaviside initial power, and consequently the c Gthe approximation to the action of the Jeans scale con- variance on larger mass scales is smaller for the Gaussian sidered in Refs. [66, 109, 110], which qualitatively agrees case. The effect of the window function is to give a flatter with the excursion set calculation using the same barrier variance as M˜ 0 for the Heaviside window compared of Ref. [69]. We refer to this cut-off as the “Jeans cut- to the Gaussian→ window, a fact which has important con- off”: it is physically motivated, and qualitatively matches sequences for the cut-off in the mass function, which we simulations. However, this cut-off requires one to know now turn to. the axion mass, as well as k , and therefore it depends The Press-Schechter mass function is given by: 0 on the M0(ma) relation. In the examples we use the fit 2 r "  2# for an n = 0 ALP. dn 1 ρ¯a d ln σ 2 δc 1 δc = exp . Another possibility is the fit to the cut-off seen in the d ln M 2 M d ln M π σ −2 σ simulations of Ref. [72] (see also Ref. [73]): (B14) When the logarithmic derivative of the variance goes to " 1.1# 2.2 dn 2.4M − − dn zero fast enough, this cuts-off the mass function at low 1 + , (B15) M. This occurs for the Heaviside window function and d ln M → M1/2 d ln M 26

cut-off caused by the Kibble mechanism should dominate /

exp(1 over the cut-off caused by the Jeans scale. In the case of the barrier cut-off, the relation be-

. 8 tween M0(ma, n) must be specified to derive an approx- M M0 0 z = z imation to the cut-off, since the Jeans mass is given . eq 5 ) in terms of ma (see Fig. 3). Factoring out the lin- 2 x 1/2 x /2 M ear growth, the argument of the Gaussian e− is 10 / x(M) = 1.686 (M)/σ0(M), where (M) is the fitting z =0 G G

log function of Ref. [110]. The barrier (M) depend on the G threshold Jeans mass, MJ , which itself depends on the axion mass as:

3/2 10  ma − MJ =5.1 10− M 10 increasing M0 × 10 eV Mmin. M − max.  1/4  1/2 0 5 10 Ωm h 10 10 10 . (B18) 0.32 0.67 M/MJ 6 Fig. 22 shows x(M/MJ ,M0/MJ ) for 0 < < 10 . FIG. 22. Jeans Scale and Cut-offs in the Mass Func- Cut-offs in the HMF occur at small and largeR masses, tion: These are driven by the argument of the Press- 2 when x(M) exceeds a particular threshold. The thresh- Schechter Gaussian, e−x /2 and the threshold for a 1σ cut-off old for a 1σ cut-off is x = 1. The scale M0 is the largest is x = 1. We plot x as a function of M/MJ with MJ the 6 scale to cross the threshold shortly after zeq, and thus Jeans mass. As the ratio M0/MJ increases from 1 to 10 , sets the characteristic mass of miniclusters. the mass function remains centered near M0 but continues to The Jeans mass depends only on the T = 0 axion mass, have support at MJ  M0. The spread of minicluster masses increases from a narrow distribution near M0 at zeq to a much and so the mass function cut off at low M is always at wider distribution today. approximately the same value for fixed ma regardless of the temperature dependence of the axion mass. How- ever, as we saw in Fig. 1, as n is increased and the where we have rescaled the cut-off to be given by the axion mass switches on more sharply, the value M0 of “half-mode mass”, M1/2, defined by the initial conditions the characteristic minicluster mass is increased for fixed cut at k0 [72]. The half-mode masses are: ma. When M0/MJ is large, the spread of the miniclus- ter mass function is increased. This demonstrates that ˜ 3/2 M1/2,H = (2π) , (B16) the barrier cut-off has the largest difference in the low ˜ 3/2 mass behaviour of the mass function for different values M1/2,G 0.2(2π) . (B17) ≈ of n. Halos/miniclusters at the Jeans mass are formed The effects of all the modelling on the minicluster mass by “monolithic collapse” and in simulations are shown to function are shown in Fig. 21, where we show all four be composed of isolated “axion stars” [70]. combinations of initial power spectrum and window func- tion, and for the Gaussian window we show the uncut, half-mode cut-off, and Jeans cut-offs. Appendix C: Non-Gaussian Effects on the Mass The largest difference between different cut-off models Function with the same initial power happens in the case of the Heaviside initial power. The Heaviside window gives a We have already said something about the non- ˜ sharp cut-off at M/cm where the derivative of the vari- Gaussianity in the main text. We implictly assume that ance goes exactly to zero. The half-mode cut-off comes on large scales k < k0 the fluctuations are close to Gaus- in shortly after this, since we must identify the half-mode sian and that Press-Schechter can be applied to compute with k0 in the absence of any other scale. The Jeans cut- the MCH mass function for M > M0. In the main anal- off in this case gives considerably more low-mass halos, ysis we account for non-Gaussianity in the distribution a number of orders of magnitude below. of density profiles on small scales at M M using the ∼ 0 In the case of the Gaussian initial power, the different distribution (δ > δ0). cut-offs make far less difference to the mass function. The In the followingF we discuss how non-Gaussianity in the ˜ Heaviside window leads to a cut-off around M = 1, due white noise for k0 < k0 can alter the mass function. In to the shallower flattening of the variance. The half- analogy to Eqs. (6), (8) we consider the three-point cor- ˜ ˜ mode is M1/2,G 3.1, and the Jeans scale is MJ 0.3, relation function of the overdensity: and thus the cut-off≈ dependence occurs over less≈ than one order of magnitude in M˜ . For n = 0 we generically ξ (r , r ) = δ(x)δ(x + r )δ(x + r ) , (C1) 6 3 1 2 h 1 2 i have k0 < kJ,eq, and the Jeans mass can be much smaller than the characteristic minicluster mass. In this case the from which it can be shown that the bispectrum, 27

B(k1, k2) satisfies the non-Gaussianity is constant on large scales but that the Kibble mechanism erases all correlations on small Z 3 3 d k1 d k2 scales. Our ansatz for the bispectrum is thus: B(k , k ) = δ(x)3 . (C2) (2π)3 (2π)3 1 2 h i B(k1, k2) = B0Θ(k1 k0)Θ(k2 k0) . (C3) Another similar identity holds for the trispectrum, − − T (k1, k2, k3). Plugging this ansatz into Eq. (C2) we can perform the We model the axion initial field distribution as a ran- integrals and compute the normalisation: dom variable, θ, with uniform distribution on [ π, π]. At − early times when the axion interactions can be neglected 576 4 6 B = π k− . (C4) (the potential has not switched on, T µ and n > 0), 0 35 0 the uniform distribution is enough to allow us to calcu- late δ(x)3 = 16/35. We note that we cannot use the A number of authors have considered the effect of a h i numerically derived distribution (δ > δ0) to compute non-zero bispectrum on the mass function. For example, the cumulants since it is not shownF for negative δ, and Ref. [111] perform an exact calculation using the path the Pearson distribution fit is not valid in this regime integral and excursion set theory. A simple formula to either. model non-Gaussian effects on the mass function is given Next we assume, just like for the power spectrum, that by Ref. [112]:

 3  ! δc 3 1 δc d 3 p ΠNL(M) = exp S p S + 1 δc 3/3 , (C5) 6σ2 6 1 δ /3 d ln σ − S − cS3

where ΠNL is the ratio of the non-Gaussian to Gaussian It is important to note that the normalized skewness thus mass function. We do not use the related formula given computed is independent of scale. 2 by Ref. [113] since for large σ on small scales as arises in Plugging this result into Eq. (C5) we find that ΠNL di- our model it gives rise to the unphysical values Π < 0. verges exponentially on large scales when σ2 0. How- NL → The non-Gaussian corrections depend on the normal- ever, this is not a fundamental problem, since ΠNL multi- ized skewness: plies the mass function, which is cut-off exponentially on large scales. On such large scales, the skewness-corrected 3 δ s3(M) non-linear mass function goes like: 3 = h 2 i2 2 2 . (C6) S [ δ ] ≡ [σ (M)]  2    2  h i dn δ δc 3 1 δ exp c S exp 0.3 c We are interested in the MCH mass dependence of d ln M ∝ σ2 6 − 2 ≈ − σ2 this quantity. The denominator is simply the variance (C11) squared, computed under filtering by the appropriate and thus the mass function remains cut-off on large scales window function. The bispectrum in the numerator must and gives sensible results in the presence of this type of also be filtered to compute s3(M). The filtered bispec- non-Gaussianity. The change in the mass function cut- trum is off leads to a small increase in the value of Mmax, the maximum MCH mass. Z d3k d3k On intermediate and small scales Π is approximately s (R) = 1 2 B(k , k )W 2(k R)W 2(k R) NL 3 (2π)3 (2π)3 1 2 1 2 constant and equal to 0.77. Thus we find that the bis- (C7) pectrum correction to the mass function leads to a small In the following we work with the Gaussian filter to (20%) suppression of the number density of intermedi- O be explicit, but the results do not depend on this choice. ate mass MCHs. The number of large MCHs is increased Using the results for P0 and B0 we find by a much larger fraction, but their number density re- mains exponentially small. Z 2 ˜ 12 ∞ 2 y2R˜ Under our approximations, we can also compute the σ (R) = dyy e− , (C8) normalized excess kurtosis from the trispectrum: 5 1 Z 2 4 2 2 144 ∞ 2 y2R˜ δ 3[ δ ] 15 s (R˜) = dyy e− , (C9) 4 = h i − h i = , (C12) 3 35 K [ δ2 ]3 −14 1 h i which is also mass-independent. A negative excess kurto- and the normalized skewness is sis implies that the minicluster density field has a wider 5 peak than a Gaussian. We are not aware of any study of = . (C10) S3 7 the effect of kurtosis on the halo mass function. 28

We emphasise that the results presented here treat the the results for different n in Fig. 23. For temperature- axion field as a free random field and model the large dependent axion masses with n = 3.34 (the QCD axion) scale effects of the non-Gaussianity due to white noise on the formation of MCHs. These results do not model the effects of the potential or the gradient energy, and only 9 account for the purely random large scale effects. On 10 large scales the gradients can be neglected and their effect on smoothing the perturbations on small scales via the 107 Kibble mechanism is included in the ansatz for B(k1, k2). sol

On large scales the axion field values vary little, and the δ potential can be neglected. On smaller scales and at 105 times T µ, the potential cannot be neglected and is n = 0 important≈ in establishing the exact form of the distribu- n = 3.34 3 tion (δ > δ ) and the formation of miniculsters and 10 F 0 n = 6 axion stars on scales M . M0. Such effects can only be addressed by a combination of lattice field theory and 10 7 4 N-simulations beyond the scope of the present work. For 10− 10− 10− us, these effects fall under the umbrella of “cut-off depen- ma [eV] dence”.

Axion Star Formation Appendix D: Axion Stars FIG. 23. : We find the critical value δsol such that the minicluster radius is equal to the soliton radius. For δ > δsol miniclusters condense into axion stars. We have treated minicluster density profiles as if ax- ions are entirely cold. On small scales, however, scalar field dynamics becomes important [70, 83, 114–117] and and n = 6, we find that enormously large values of δ the final ingredient in any axion DM halo is the cen- are required for soliton formation. For such axions, since tral solitonic core, or “axion star”. The axion star is δsol > δlens giving the transition in the behaviour of the formed when gradient pressure in the axion field is suffi- lensing tube parameter , soliton formation can be safely cient to halt gravitational collapse, leading to a stable (in neglected in the lensing.R The solitons are deep inside the the non-relativistic limit) ground state solution (for axion point-like regime with 1. This implies that numer- star formation in halos, see the simulations of Ref. [114]; ical simulations of miniclustersR ≈ for these values of n will for relativistic corrections and stability see Refs. [118– be free from large effects due to scalar field dynamics. 121]; for interactions of axion stars with nuclear matter The situation is quite different for axion-like particles see Ref. [122]). We now briefly assess the role of axion with a temperature-independent mass, n = 0, where we 2 stars in miniclusters, and whether they might modify any find δsol 10 approximately independent of axion mass. of our conclusions. We treat only the case where axion This smaller≈ value of δ compared to n = 0 arises because 6 self-interactions can be neglected: the stable branch of miniclusters with n = 0 are much lighter for fixed ma. dilute axion stars where collapse is driven by gravity. Such axions begin oscillating much earlier in cosmic his- The soliton is the ground state solution of the tory when the horizon is smaller, and thus the mass con- Schr¨odinger-Poisson equations. For a given axion mass, tained within the horizon is also much lower. The lighter the soliton solution is specified entirely by the soliton miniclusters are closer to the soliton mass. mass. The mass-radius relation is (e.g. Ref. [114]) Using the analytic result for M0(ma) for n = 0 (Eq. 3) we can derive the value of δsol analytically. The axion    10 2 5 M 10− eV mass dependence drops out of the ratio rmc/rsol and rsol 1.54 10 cm (D1) we find δ 120 independent of axion mass. This ' × Msol ma sol ≈ value of δsol is near the critical boundary for microlensing When an axion density perturbation becomes large (Figs. 12 and 13) and implies that our results for axion- enough, the axions inside will condense into the soliton like particles with n = 0 could be altered by axion star solution under the influence of gravity. We estimate the formation. Miniclusters composed of such axions can- value of δ for which a minicluster condenses to an ax- not become any denser without gaining mass, and this ion star by equating rsol to the hard-sphere minicluster will reduce the expected number of microlensing events radius, Eq. (43). by effectively truncating the distribution for δ 120. F & We set Msol = M0(ma) and find δsol such that Furthermore, this implies that numerical simulations of rsol(ma) = rmc(δsol, ma). Using the numerical results miniclusters with n = 0 initial conditions cannot neglect for M0(ma, n) we solve numerically for δsol and plot scalar field dynamics. 29

[1] G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest, (1974). Phys. Rep.267, 195 (1996), hep-ph/9506380. [36] P. Tisserand et al., A&A469, 387 (2007), astro- [2] G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Phys. Rep.405, 279 ph/0607207. (2005), hep-ph/0404175. [37] H. Niikura et al., ArXiv e-prints (2017), 1701.02151. [3] P. Sikivie, Axion Cosmology, in Axions, edited by [38] L. Di Luzio, F. Mescia, and E. Nardi, Physical Review M. Kuster, G. Raffelt, and B. Beltr´an,, Lecture Notes Letters 118, 031801 (2017), 1610.07593. in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag Vol. 741, p. 19, 2008, [39] Planck Collaboration et al., A&A594, A13 (2016), astro-ph/0610440. 1502.01589. [4] D. J. E. Marsh, Phys. Rep.643, 1 (2016), 1510.07633. [40] G. Ballesteros, J. Redondo, A. Ringwald, and [5] C. J. Hogan and M. J. Rees, Phys. Lett. B 205, 228 C. Tamarit, ArXiv e-prints (2016), 1610.01639. (1988). [41] P. Sikivie, Phys. Rev. Lett.48, 1156 (1982). [6] B. Paczynski, Astrophys. J.304, 1 (1986). [42] D. Harari and P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett. B 195, 361 (1987). [7] K. Griest, Astrophys. J.366, 412 (1991). [43] T. W. B. Kibble, Journal of Physics A Mathematical [8] S. Hawking, MNRAS152, 75 (1971). General 9, 1387 (1976). [9] B. J. Carr and S. W. Hawking, MNRAS168, 399 (1974). [44] E. Komatsu et al., ApJS180, 330 (2009), 0803.0547. [10] B. J. Carr, Astrophys. J.201, 1 (1975). [45] D. J. Gross, R. D. Pisarski, and L. G. Yaffe, Reviews of [11] R. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett.38, 1440 Modern Physics 53, 43 (1981). (1977). [46] J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B [12] Planck Collaboration et al., A&A594, A20 (2016), 120, 127 (1983). 1502.02114. [47] L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett. B 120, 133 [13] S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 223 (1978). (1983). [14] F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 279 (1978). [48] M. Dine and W. Fischler, Phys. Lett. B 120, 137 (1983). [15] J. E. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett.43, 103 (1979). [49] O. Wantz and E. Shellard, Phys. Rev. D82, 123508 [16] M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, (2010), 0910.1066. Nuclear Physics B 166, 493 (1980). [50] S. Borsanyi et al., Physics Letters B 752, 175 (2016), [17] A. Zhitnitsky, Sov.J . Nucl. Phys. 31, 260 (1980). 1508.06917. [18] M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. B [51] S. Borsanyi et al., Nature 539, 69 (2016), 1606.07494. 104, 199 (1981). [52] T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki, K. Saikawa, and [19] E. W. Kolb and I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 3051 T. Sekiguchi, Phys. Rev. D85, 105020 (2012), (1993), hep-ph/9303313. 1202.5851. [20] E. W. Kolb and I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. D49, 5040 [53] J. A. Peacock, Cosmological physics (Cambridge Uni- (1994), astro-ph/9311037. versity Press, 1999). [21] E. W. Kolb and I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. D50, 769 [54] D. B. Thomas, M. Kopp, and C. Skordis, Astrophys. (1994), astro-ph/9403011. J.830, 155 (2016), 1601.05097. [22] E. W. Kolb and I. I. Tkachev, ApJLett460, L25 (1996), [55] D. J. E. Marsh, D. Grin, R. Hlozek, and P. G. Ferreira, astro-ph/9510043. Phys. Rev. D87, 121701+ (2013). [23] P. Svrcek and E. Witten, JHEP6, 51 (2006), hep- [56] R. Hlozek, D. Grin, D. J. E. Marsh, and P. G. Ferreira, th/0605206. Phys. Rev. D91, 103512 (2015), 1410.2896. [24] A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, [57] G. Efstathiou and J. R. Bond, MNRAS218, 103 (1986). N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. [58] M. Khlopov, B. Malomed, and I. Zeldovich, MN- D81, 123530 (2010), 0905.4720. RAS215, 575 (1985). [25] K. M. Zurek, C. J. Hogan, and T. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. [59] E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, Front. Phys. 69, 1 (1990). D75, 043511 (2007), astro-ph/0607341. [60] R. K. Sheth and G. Tormen, MNRAS308, 119 (1999), [26] E. Hardy, Journal of High Energy Physics 2, 46 (2017), astro-ph/9901122. 1609.00208. [61] M. Musso and R. K. Sheth, MNRAS439, 3051 (2014), [27] M. Fairbairn, D. J. E. Marsh, and J. Quevillon, (2017), 1305.0724. 1701.04787. [62] J. Wang and S. D. M. White, MNRAS380, 93 (2007), [28] S. J. Asztalos et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 041301 astro-ph/0702575. (2010), 0910.5914. [63] J. M. Bardeen, J. R. Bond, N. Kaiser, and A. S. Szalay, [29] B. Majorovits and Javier Redondo for the MADMAX Astrophys. J.304, 15 (1986). Working Group, ArXiv e-prints (2016), 1611.04549. [64] A. Schneider, R. E. Smith, and D. Reed, MNRAS433, [30] The MADMAX Working Group et al., ArXiv e-prints 1573 (2013), 1303.0839. (2016), 1611.05865. [65] R. Barkana, Z. Haiman, and J. P. Ostriker, Astrophys. [31] A. Arvanitaki and A. A. Geraci, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, J.558, 482 (2001), astro-ph/0102304. 161801 (2014), 1403.1290. [66] D. J. E. Marsh and J. Silk, MNRAS437, 2652 (2014), [32] J. Moody and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D30, 130 (1984). 1307.1705. [33] P. Tinyakov, I. Tkachev, and K. Zioutas, JCAP1, 035 [67] A. J. Benson et al., MNRAS428, 1774 (2013), (2016), 1512.02884. 1209.3018. [34] C. A. J. O’Hare and A. M. Green, ArXiv e-prints (2017), [68] A. R. Pullen, A. J. Benson, and L. A. Moustakas, As- 1701.03118. trophys. J.792, 24 (2014), 1407.8189. [35] W. H. Press and P. Schechter, Astrophys. J.187, 425 [69] X. Du, C. Behrens, and J. C. Niemeyer, MNRAS465, 30

941 (2017), 1608.02575. 116, 031302 (2016), 1510.09217. [70] H.-Y. Schive, T. Chiueh, and T. Broadhurst, Nature [96] M. Kawasaki, K. Saikawa, and T. Sekiguchi, Phys. Rev. Physics 10, 496 (2014), 1406.6586. D91, 065014 (2015), 1412.0789. [71] J. Veltmaat and J. C. Niemeyer, Phys. Rev. D94, [97] A. G. Dias, A. C. B. Machado, C. C. Nishi, A. Ringwald, 123523 (2016), 1608.00802. and P. Vaudrevange, Journal of High Energy Physics 6, [72] H.-Y. Schive, T. Chiueh, T. Broadhurst, and K.-W. 37 (2014), 1403.5760. Huang, Astrophys. J.818, 89 (2016), 1508.04621. [98] J. E. Kim and D. J. E. Marsh, Phys. Rev. D93, 025027 [73] P. S. Corasaniti, S. Agarwal, D. J. E. Marsh, and S. Das, (2016), 1510.01701. Phys. Rev. D95, 083512 (2017), 1611.05892. [99] D. H. Lyth, Phys. Rev. D45, 3394 (1992). [74] J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. White, Astrophys. [100] M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D33, 889 (1986). J.490, 493 (1997), astro-ph/9611107. [101] R. L. Davis, Phys. Rev. D32, 3172 (1985). [75] J. S. Bullock et al., MNRAS321, 559 (2001), astro- [102] R. A. Battye and E. P. S. Shellard, Physical Review ph/9908159. Letters 73, 2954 (1994), astro-ph/9403018. [76] I. King, AJ67, 471 (1962). [103] R. A. Battye and E. P. S. Shellard, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, [77] A. J. Benson, New Astronomy 17, 175 (2012), 2203 (1996). 1008.1786. [104] P. Fox, A. Pierce, and S. Thomas, ArXiv High Energy [78] B. Paczynski, Astrophys. J.304, 1 (1986). Physics - Theory e-prints (2004), hep-th/0409059. [79] C. Alcock et al., Astrophys. J.461, 84 (1996), astro- [105] D. E. Kaplan and R. Rattazzi, Phys. Rev. D93, 085007 ph/9506113. (2016), 1511.01827. [80] E. Bertschinger, ApJS58, 39 (1985). [106] G. F. Giudice and M. McCullough, ArXiv e-prints [81] R. Narayan and M. Bartelmann, Lectures on gravita- (2016), 1610.07962. tional lensing, in 13th Jerusalem Winter School in The- [107] T. Higaki, K. S. Jeong, N. Kitajima, T. Sekiguchi, and oretical Physics: Formation of Structure in the Universe F. Takahashi, Journal of High Energy Physics 8, 44 Jerusalem, Israel, 27 December 1995 - 5 January 1996, (2016), 1606.05552. 1996, astro-ph/9606001. [108] A. R. Zentner, International Journal of Modern Physics [82] A. M. Green, Phys. Rev. D94, 063530 (2016), D 16, 763 (2007), astro-ph/0611454. 1609.01143. [109] B. Bozek, D. J. E. Marsh, J. Silk, and R. F. G. Wyse, [83] L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine, and E. Witten, MNRAS450, 209 (2015), 1409.3544. Phys. Rev. D95, 043541 (2017), 1610.08297. [110] D. J. E. Marsh, ArXiv e-prints (2016), 1605.05973. [84] A. Klypin, H. Zhao, and R. S. Somerville, Astrophys. [111] M. Maggiore and A. Riotto, Astrophys. J.717, 526 J.573, 597 (2002), astro-ph/0110390. (2010), 0903.1251. [85] R. E. Angulo and S. D. M. White, MNRAS401, 1796 [112] S. Matarrese, L. Verde, and R. Jimenez, Astrophys. (2010), 0906.1730. J.541, 10 (2000), astro-ph/0001366. [86] J. Niemeyer, 13th Axion-WIMP Conference (Patras [113] M. LoVerde, A. Miller, S. Shandera, and L. Verde, Workshop) (2017). JCAP4, 014 (2008), 0711.4126. [87] G. Aslanyan et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 141102 (2016), [114] H.-Y. Schive et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 261302 (2014), 1512.04597. 1407.7762. [88] M. Sten Delos, A. L. Erickcek, A. P. Bailey, and M. A. [115] D. J. E. Marsh and A.-R. Pop, MNRAS451, 2479 Alvarez, ArXiv e-prints (2017), 1712.05421. (2015), 1502.03456. [89] T. Bringmann, P. Scott, and Y. Akrami, Phys. Rev. [116] B. Schwabe, J. C. Niemeyer, and J. F. Engels, Phys. D85, 125027 (2012), 1110.2484. Rev. D94, 043513 (2016), 1606.05151. [90] I. I. Tkachev, Soviet Journal of Experimental and The- [117] P. Mocz et al., ArXiv e-prints (2017), 1705.05845. oretical Physics Letters 101, 1 (2015), 1411.3900. [118] J. Eby, P. Suranyi, and L. C. R. Wijewardhana, Modern [91] A. Iwazaki, Phys. Rev. D91, 023008 (2015), 1410.4323. Physics Letters A 31, 1650090 (2016), 1512.01709. [92] A. Iwazaki, ArXiv e-prints (2017), 1707.04827. [119] D. G. Levkov, A. G. Panin, and I. I. Tkachev, Phys. [93] E. C. Bellm, The Zwicky Transient Facility, 2014, Rev. Lett.118, 011301 (2017), 1609.03611. 1410.8185. [120] T. Helfer et al., JCAP3, 055 (2017), 1609.04724. [94] LSST Science, LSST Project, P. A. Abell et al., (2009), [121] J. Eby, M. Ma, P. Suranyi, and L. C. R. Wijewardhana, 0912.0201. ArXiv e-prints (2017), 1705.05385. [95] BICEP2 Collaboration et al., Physical Review Letters [122] Y. Bai, V. Barger, and J. Berger, Journal of High En- ergy Physics 12, 127 (2016), 1612.00438.