Near universality of nonlinear transverse and radial velocity responses in spherical collapse with arbitrary radial profiles

We use the notation of Ref. [17]. The metric of a pressureless, spherically symmetric spacetime with a cosmological constant is

where

A prime and a dot denote partial derivatives with respect to $r$ and $t$, respectively. The coordinate $r$ labels the same dust shell at all times; it is therefore a Lagrangian matter coordinate rather than an instantaneous physical distance.

The transverse and radial expansion rates are

Their local volume-expansion rate and a dimensionless anisotropy are

The FLRW limit is $a_{\perp}=a_{\parallel}=a(t)$, for which both rates equal $H(t)$ and $\Gamma=0$. Regularity also gives $\Gamma(t,0)=0$, but a smooth inhomogeneous profile generally has $\Gamma\neq 0$ away from its center.

Two contrasts are necessary. The local one is

where $\rho_{m}(t)$ is the matter density of the reference FLRW background. If $M(r)$ is the conserved matter mass inside shell $r$, the enclosed contrast is

Equivalently, $\Delta$ is the Euclidean-volume average of $\delta$ inside the shell, as in Eq. (22) of Ref. [17]. The use of this volume is not an approximation: it is the quasi-local volume naturally associated with the Misner–Sharp mass in spherical symmetry [12, 13, 14]. In Sussman’s $q$-scalar notation,¹¹ 1 The exact relative density fluctuation is $\delta_{q}^{(\rho)}=[\rho_{m}(t,r)-\rho_{q}(t,r)]/\rho_{q}(t,r)=(\delta-\Delta)/(1+\Delta)$. It is neither of the FLRW-referenced contrasts $\delta$ and $\Delta$ used here. the corresponding enclosed density is $\rho_{q}=3M/(4\pi R^{3})$.

The contrast $\delta$ answers a local question, whereas $\Delta$ measures the mean mass excess or deficit enclosed by the shell. They coincide in the homogeneous interior of a top hat and at a regular symmetry center. In a compensated profile they can have opposite signs: a shell in the overdense wall of a void can be locally overdense while still enclosing a net mass deficit. Figure 1 illustrates this distinction for the two smooth compensated profiles used below. We plot against the shell’s Eulerian comoving radius, defined relative to the reference FLRW background as $\chi(t,r)\equiv R(t,r)/a(t)$, rather than against its Lagrangian label $r$, which is subject to gauge choices. The local contrast changes sign in the compensating shell, while the enclosed contrast approaches zero at the matching boundary. This distinction will control the directional response.

We normalize the Lagrangian shell label in the early FLRW regime. Mass conservation then gives [17]

At fixed Lagrangian shell $r$, the LTB energy equation takes the form of a Friedmann equation. For later use, it is convenient to write it as

while the background obeys

Here $\widehat{\Omega}_{k0}(r)\equiv-k(r)/H_{0}^{2}$ is normalized by the square of the present-day background Hubble rate and is distinct from the shell-normalized $\Omega_{k0}(r)$ of Ref. [17]. In the matched FLRW region, $\widehat{\Omega}_{k0}(r)=\Omega_{k0}$. We assume $\Omega_{\Lambda 0}=1-\Omega_{m0}-\Omega_{k0}$ and neglect radiation.

Equation (8) fixes $a_{\perp}$ once the instantaneous $\Delta$ and the background epoch $a$ are given. The growing mode is selected by requiring the shell and background to have the same age,

Here ${\cal T}$ denotes the dimensionless shell-age functional; the equal-age condition sets it equal to the dimensionless background age $H_{0}t(a)$. This one-dimensional relation determines $\widehat{\Omega}_{k0}(r)$ on the expanding branch. It is the familiar separate-universe construction of spherical collapse, expressed for an arbitrary Lagrangian shell [6, 19]. In LTB language, the simultaneous bang time removes the decaying density mode [20]. No time-evolution differential equation is solved.

To separate the linear normalization from the nonlinear response, define

where $\delta_{h_{i}}=H_{i}/H-1$ and every quantity is evaluated at the same background time. In the exact construction, the response is more fully $A(\Delta;a,\Omega_{m0},\Omega_{k0})$; throughout, its fixed background and epoch arguments are suppressed to emphasize the shell-contrast dependence. The growth rate is $f=\mathrm{d}\ln D/\mathrm{d}\ln a$. For matter, curvature, and a cosmological constant, the exact growing mode can be written with the Heath integral [21]

For flat $\Lambda\mathrm{CDM}$, this is equivalently a hypergeometric function [22]. The nonlinear function $A$ is obtained from Eqs. (8)–(12).

The derivative $A^{\prime}\equiv\partial A/\partial\Delta$ is needed below and can be obtained without finite differences. Implicit differentiation of Eq. (11) gives

Differentiating Eq. (9) then gives $A^{\prime}$ analytically. In particular, $A(0)=0$ and $A^{\prime}(0)=1$.

The central simplification follows from two exact identities. First, Eq. (3) implies

Second, the enclosed mass obeys $M^{\prime}=4\pi\rho_{m}(t,r)R^{2}R^{\prime}$. Differentiating Eq. (7) therefore gives

This is the density specialization of the exact $q$-scalar gradient identity [12, 13, 14]. At a fixed time, $H$ and $f$ have no $r$ dependence, while the shell response depends on position through $\Delta(t,r)$. Applying the chain rule to Eq. (12) therefore yields

Combining the directional rates gives

and

Equations (12) and (17)–(19) are the main result. They make the physics transparent. The transverse rate responds to the mass enclosed by the shell. The radial rate additionally responds to the mismatch between local and enclosed density. The latter is a direct measure of the profile gradient. For a top hat $\delta=\Delta$, so the derivative term vanishes, $H_{\parallel}=H_{\perp}$, and $\Gamma=0$ even nonlinearly.

The $q$-scalar identity in Eq. (16) supplies the established relation between the radial gradient of the enclosed contrast and the local–enclosed difference. Our new step is to combine it with the equal-age growing-mode closure. At a fixed background epoch, $fA(\Delta)$ fixes the transverse response, while $f[\delta-\Delta]A^{\prime}(\Delta)$ is the only additional term entering the radial, local, and anisotropic responses. Thus, once $\delta(t,r)$, $\Delta(t,r)$, the background $H$ and $f$, and the single response $A$ are specified, all four expansion observables follow without independent shell-curvature or bang-time data and without numerically differentiating the metric.

For $|\delta|,|\Delta|\ll 1$,

so that the response becomes

The first-order response is thus completely algebraic. Its only dynamical input is $f$; neither $H_{0}$, an age integral, nor a curvature reconstruction is required.

The same reduction remains algebraic at second order. Let $\delta,\Delta={\cal O}(\epsilon)$ and expand the spherical response as

For Einstein–de Sitter spherical collapse, the nonlinear and linearly extrapolated enclosed contrasts obey

The continuity equation then gives

Equations (26) and (27) are the standard EdS result for spherical collapse [2, 4]. We combine these coefficients with the exact linear growth rate $f$ of the selected background. Expanding Eqs. (12) and (17)–(19) consistently through ${\cal O}(\epsilon^{2})$ yields

Here $\Gamma^{(2)}$ is the strict expansion of Eq. (19) through ${\cal O}(\epsilon^{2})$, not an unexpanded ratio of truncated rates. No equal-age root is required. This provides a controlled perturbative benchmark between the linear response and the finite-contrast closures below; it is not intended to replace them deep in the nonlinear regime. For a top hat, $\delta=\Delta$, the two directional rates remain equal and $\Gamma^{(2)}=0$.

The scaled velocity divergence used in the classic spherical literature maps to our function $A=\Delta\Theta_{\perp}$, not to the multiplicative correction $\Theta_{\perp}$ itself. In this notation the Bernardeau relation [1] is

Bilicki and Chodorowski proposed the overdensity approximation ($\Delta\geq 0$)

which remains accurate into the mildly nonlinear regime and up to spherical turnaround [5]. Both have the same second-order expansion,

This quadratic coefficient is close to, but not identical to, the exact EdS value $-4/21$ in Eq. (27); B92 and BC08 are finite-contrast approximations rather than perturbative truncations. Moreover, Eq. (33) was neither derived nor calibrated for voids. BC08 give a separate void relation that retains an explicit cosmology dependence; we therefore do not extrapolate Eq. (33) to $\Delta<0$.

Nadkarni-Ghosh generalized these relations to flat backgrounds containing matter and nonclustering dark energy with constant equation of state $w$ [6]. With the instantaneous matter fraction $\Omega_{m}(a)$, define

In our convention the resulting shape response is

The low-density branch reduces to B92 for $\Omega_{m}=1$, while the high-density branch is BC08 after the fitted growth rate is factored out. NG13 report a maximum velocity-relation error of about $3\%$ over $-3/2\leq w\leq-1/2$ and $-1\leq\Delta\leq 10$. The two independently fitted branches meet only approximately at $\Delta=1$, and no derivative-matching condition was imposed.

Equations (32), (33), and (36) are valuable analytic benchmarks. They were designed for the top-hat density–velocity relation, however, and not optimized for $A^{\prime}$, which controls the directional response of a smooth shell.

The equal-age construction is inexpensive, but repeated curvature roots can still be undesirable in forecasts or likelihood calculations. Marra et al. introduced the fit

calibrated at $z=0$ for a flat background with $\Omega_{m0}=0.3086$ [8]. It reproduces the top-hat response to about $0.4\%$ over the nonlinear interval used there.

For a smooth profile, accuracy in $\Theta$ alone is insufficient because $H_{\parallel}$, $H_{\mathrm{loc}}$, and $\Gamma$ depend on

We therefore perform a constrained symbolic search using both $\Theta$ and $A^{\prime}$ on a grid of cosmologies and epochs. The selected three-term relation, called M26 below, is

Details of the calibration are given in Appendix A. The expression has no fitted denominator, is regular throughout the physical domain $\Delta>-1$, and satisfies $\Theta(0)=A^{\prime}(0)=1$ exactly. Consequently Eqs. (12) and (17)–(19) become a root-free nonlinear response, requiring only the growth rate $f$ and the density contrasts $\Delta$ and $\delta$, similarly to the linear and second-order results. The fit has no explicit cosmological parameter because the nonlinear correction is nearly universal, as discussed below. It is intended for

The exact response should be used outside this domain or when subpercent control of the residual cosmology dependence is required.

Figure 2 compares the exact response, the linear and second-order truncations, the B92, BC08, and NG13 relations, and the M13 and M26 fits at the fiducial cosmology of Ref. [8]. Table 1 quantifies both $\Theta_{\perp}$ and $A^{\prime}$. B92 is already accurate at the few-percent level, and BC08 improves its overdensity branch. NG13 stays within $2.1\%$ in $\Theta_{\perp}$ on both branches, consistent with its published $3\%$ velocity benchmark, but reaches $3.9\%$ in $A^{\prime}$. The latter is a new diagnostic, not a failure of the stated NG13 fit: its two branches were not optimized or joined for derivative accuracy. On the void branch M13 remains slightly better in $\Theta_{\perp}$, with maximum error $0.2\%$ rather than $0.4\%$, while M26 improves the corresponding $A^{\prime}$ error from $0.9\%$ to $0.6\%$. Over $0<\Delta\leq 3$, M26 is better in both quantities, with maximum errors $0.5\%$ in $\Theta_{\perp}$ and $1.1\%$ in $A^{\prime}$. This is expected: M26 is not optimized for one curve, but for multiple cosmologies, an extended contrast interval, and the derivative needed by general shells.

Figure 3 confirms the classic observation that the nonlinear density–expansion correction is only weakly cosmology dependent after the growth rate $f$ has been factored out [23, 5, 6, 8]. Across the ranges $0.2\leq\Omega_{m0}\leq 0.4$ and $-0.1\leq\Omega_{k0}\leq 0.1$ shown here, the fractional change in $\Theta_{\perp}$ is at most $0.34\%$, less than the maximum error in any of the approximate fits of Section IV. Neglecting the cosmology dependence is therefore justified in many applications.

The dependence is nevertheless nonzero. Varying $\Omega_{m0}$ or $\Omega_{k0}$ changes both the equal-age curvature and the growth history. Redshift has the same status: holding $\Delta$ fixed while changing $z$ probes the response law, not the trajectory of one physical shell, whose contrasts also evolve. At fixed density parameters, all dimensionless equations depend on $H_{0}$ only through $H_{0}t$. It follows that $\Theta_{\perp}$, $A^{\prime}$, and $\Gamma$ are independent of the numerical value of $H_{0}$, while every dimensional expansion rate scales linearly with it. Changing $H_{0}$ at fixed physical density $\omega_{m}=\Omega_{m0}h^{2}$ is different because it changes $\Omega_{m0}$.

To activate the derivative term with a shell drawn from an actual profile, we select $r/L=0.49$ in the underdensity model of Fig. 1. This representative shell is marked by the dotted line in the upper panel and has, at the present epoch,

so it is locally overdense while still enclosing a mass deficit. We hold these two contrasts fixed across the following scan to isolate the response closure from changes in the shell profile. We compare flat backgrounds with $\Omega_{m0}=0.2,0.3,0.4$, curved backgrounds with $(\Omega_{m0},\Omega_{k0})=(0.3,\pm 0.1)$, and the flat $\Omega_{m0}=0.3$ model at $z=1,2,5$. Every closure uses the exact growth rate of the corresponding background, so the residual isolates the approximation to $A$ and $A^{\prime}$.

Table 2 shows the result. The linear response already captures the qualitative ordering of the rates, but its error is appreciable for the nonlinear density pair in Eq. (41). The second-order expansion captures most of the leading nonlinear correction without an equal-age root, reducing the four maximum errors by factors of $3.5$–$6.5$ relative to linear theory. M26 reduces the maximum relative error by factors of roughly $23$–$29$ relative to the linear result and improves on M13 for all four observables in this test. The relative error in $h_{\rm loc}$ is numerically amplified because the exact $h_{\rm loc}$ is small; the corresponding maximum absolute error is $3.0\times 10^{-4}$.

The decisive test is against a complete spherical spacetime rather than isolated top hats. We use the compensated $\Lambda\mathrm{LTB}$ underdensity and overdensity profiles with central present-day contrasts $\delta_{0}=-0.6$ and $+0.6$ shown in Figure 1. The exact LTB calculation supplies $R$, $R^{\prime}$, $\dot{R}$, and $\dot{R}^{\prime}$ and hence the rates in Eq. (4). Independently, we retain only the resulting $\delta(t,r)$ and $\Delta(t,r)$ and apply the response equations.

For the exact equal-age closure, the two calculations agree at every sampled radius at floating-point accuracy. Thus, under the stated assumptions, the response is not an approximation to LTB dynamics; it is an exact rewriting of it. Figure 4 displays this identity. The transverse response is controlled by $\Delta$, whereas the radial rate and $\Gamma$ respond most strongly in the compensated transition, where $\delta-\Delta$ is largest, as shown in Figure 1.

The fast closures can be tested on the same profiles. Their errors are given in Table 3 and their radial dependence is shown in Fig. 4. The second-order expansion captures the leading departure from the linear curves, while M26 reconstructs the profiles to errors of order $10^{-3}$ or smaller. This very good reconstruction is especially useful because the input remains only $f,\delta,\Delta$.