arxiv: v1 [astro-ph.co] 29 Nov 2018

Transcription

1 Preprint 30 November 2018 Compiled using MNRAS LATEX style file v3.0 arxiv: v1 [astro-ph.co] 29 Nov 2018 Halo collapse: virialization by shear and rotation in dynamical dark-energy models Francesco Pace, 1 Carlo Schimd, 2 David F. Mota, 3 and Antonino Del Popolo 4,5,6 1 Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics, School of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom 2 Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, CNES, LAM, Marseille, France 3 Institute of Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Oslo, P.O Box 1029 Blindern, N-0315 Oslo, Norway 4 Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia, University Of Catania, Viale Andrea Doria 6, 95125, Catania, Italy 5 INFN sezione di Catania, Via S. Sofia 64, I Catania, Italy 6 Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Post Office Box 31, Lanzhou , Peoples Republic of China Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ 1 INTRODUCTION The law of gravity that drives the gravitational clustering on large scales is one of the major goals of ongoing and future cosmological surveys. In the Eulerian picture, the growth of cosmic structures is linear in the early universe, characterised by a very small density contrast, δ 1, quasi-linear in an intermediate phase in which 1 δ 100, and non-linear in the late time with δ 100. An analytical description for all these regimes is a challenge. While the cosmological perturbation theory (e.g. Bardeen 1980; Kodama & Sasaki 1984; Ellis & Bruni 1989; Ellis et al. 1989; Mukhanov et al. 1992) has proven extremely successful in describing the early stage of structure formation up to recombination (Hu & Sugiyama 1995; Maartens et al. 1999; Tsagas et al. 2008), as confirmed by the latest observational evidence of the Planck mission (Planck Collaboration XIII 2016; Planck Collaboration XIV 2016; Planck Collaboration XV 2016; Planck Collaboration XX 2016; Planck Collaboration VI 2018; Planck Collaboration VIII 2018; Planck Collaboration X 2018), it cannot be used in the later stages of cosmic evolution to account for very dense regions. Computationally expensive N-body simulations are therefore routinely employed, with enormous success but not necessarily providing a clear physical insight. An im- francesco.pace@manchester.ac.uk 2018 The Authors ABSTRACT We study the evolution of the virial overdensity vir for the ΛCDM and seven dynamical dark energy models by means of the extended spherical collapse model (SCM), in which the virialization process is naturally achieved by introducing shear and rotation. We generalise two approaches proposed in the literature and show that, regardless of the dark-energy model, the new virialization term can be calibrated on the peculiar velocity of the shell as measured from Einstein-de Sitter simulations. The two virialization recipes qualitatively reproduce the same features of the ordinary SCM, with a constant vir for the EdS model and time-varying for dark-energy models, but without any mass dependence. Depending on the actual description of virialization and on the dark energy model, the value of vir varies between 10 and 40 percent. As pivotal quantity in spherical overdensity algorithms, vir might fairly affect the halo mass function computed from N-body simulations and observed density fields. Key words: Gravitation methods: analytical methods: numerical cosmology: dark energy portant exception is the spherical collapse model (SCM) (Tomita 1969; Gunn & Gott 1972), in which according to Birkhoff s theorem spherically symmetric perturbations with uniform density profile evolve as close sub-universes without any influence by other perturbations. Every overdense region decouples from the Hubble flow slowing down its expansion till it reaches its maximum size (turn-around) and then recollapses to a singularity, where the density contrast diverges. The main quantity prescribed by the SCM is the linearly extrapolated overdensity δ c at collapse redshift z c, which determines the mass function and the merger rate of virialized haloes in the original and extended Press-Schechter formalisms (Press & Schechter 1974; Bond et al. 1991; Lacey & Cole 1994). In numerical simulations the definition of haloes is a critical matter, explaining the unclear results obtained by Courtin et al. (2011) on the actual importance of a correct determination of δ c. Mead (2017) circumvented this issue comparing the matter power spectra for different dark energy cosmologies with a fixed linear power spectrum at z = 0. Similar results were obtained by Despali et al. (2016) considering the correct time-dependence of δ c induced by the particular cosmological model. Mead (2017) clearly demonstrated that the SCM is mandatory for precision cosmology, supporting the recent attempt to accurately deal with numerical solution of the SCM

2 2 F. Pace et al. (Pace et al. 2017a). Nevertheless, the standard SCM is a simplified model; a more realistic picture requires an improved SCM. A major drawback of the SCM is the singularity attained in a finite time at collapse, consequence the spherical symmetry of the perturbation. Deviations from spherical symmetry and relaxation processes such as phase mixing, chaotic mixing, violent relaxation and Landau damping lead to virialized non-singular structures, in which the kinetic energy is converted into random motions of particles resulting in a finite radius of the final overdensity. Instead, in the SCM a virialization condition is introduced a posteriori by means of the virial theorem; for an Einstein-de Sitter (EdS) model one finds the time-independent, exact value of the virial overdensity vir 178 corresponding to δ c Structures evolve until this value is reached, which corresponds to a finite value of the virial radius. For dark energy cosmologies, including the ΛCDM model, the modelling is more complex and a full analytical solution has not been established yet. Energy conservation and virialization in presence of dark energy are still unclear, and are expected to depend on the degree of smoothness of the dark energy fluid (Wang & Steinhardt 1998; Iliev & Shapiro 2001; Battye & Weller 2003; Horellou & Berge 2005; Wang 2006; Maor & Lahav 2005; Wang 2006; Batista & Marra 2017). An interesting alternative and physically motivated approach is the extended SCM (hereafter ESCM) proposed by Engineer et al. (2000) and refined by Shaw & Mota (2008). They obtained a natural virialization by means of additional shear and rotation terms written as a Taylor expansion in 1/δ, which encode the correct dynamics for large values of the density contrast δ. The new terms finally lead to aspherical structures better fitting both observations and N-body simulations, which actually show triaxial dark matter haloes and galaxy clusters (Limousin et al. 2013). Alternatively, the additional terms can be modelled as proportional to δ (Del Popolo et al. 2013a,b; Pace et al. 2014), resulting in a slower mass-dependent collapse as in the ellipsoidal model (Bond & Myers 1996a,b; Ohta et al. 2003, 2004; Angrick & Bartelmann 2010), with higher values of vir and δ c with respect to the standard SCM. In this work, we compare the standard approach in which virialization is not native, as in the SCM formalism, and two physically motivated recipes for virialization introduced by Engineer et al. (2000) and Shaw & Mota (2008), explicitly worked out for seven dark-energy models alternative to the ΛCDM. The plan of this work is as follows: In Section 2 we summarise the equations of the ESCM focusing on cosmologies with dark-energy and we detail the shear-rotation-induced virialization mechanism and generalise the methods by Engineer et al. (2000); Shaw & Mota (2008) to the ΛCDM and to arbitrary smooth dark-energy models. In Section 3 we compare the different approaches by showing the evolution of the virial overdensity vir as a function of time for different dark-energy models including the ΛCDM scenario. Section 4 summarises our findings. The formalism of the ordinary SCM in EdS universe is reminded in Appendix A, while the numerical implementation of the ESCM with dark-energy models is outlined in Appendix B. All through the paper a spatially flat universe is considered, with matter density parameter Ω m,0 = THE EXTENDED SPHERICAL COLLAPSE MODEL 2.1 Top-hat dynamics with shear and rotation The equations of motion for the density contrast δ δρ m / ρ m > 0, with ρ m the matter background density, can be derived following the fluid approach. 1 Combining the continuity, Euler and Poisson equations for a collisionless fluid under the top-hat approximation, δ solves the non-linear differential equation (Ohta et al. 2003; Pace et al. 2010, 2017a) δ + 2H δ 4 δ δ 3 2 H2 Ω m (t)δ(1 + δ) = (1 + δ)(σ 2 ω 2 ), (1) where a dot represents the derivative with respect to the cosmic time, H and Ω m (t) are the Hubble and matter density parameters, and σ 2 σ ij σ ij and ω 2 ω ij ω ij the squared amplitude of the shear and rotation tensors, respectively. The shear σ ij and rotation ω ij tensors represent the symmetric traceless and anti-symmetric component of the derivative of the peculiar velocity u, i u j = 1 3 θδ ij + σ ij + ω ij, (2) where the trace θ u accounts for the isotropic expansion and the other two terms are defined by σ ij = 1 2 ( ) 1 i u j + j u i 3 θδ ij, ω ij = 1 ( ) i u j j u i. (3) 2 From equation (2), one obtains [(u )u] = 1 3 θ2 + σ 2 ω 2, which enters into equation (1) via the Euler equation Virialization by parametric models (approach I) The approach outlined by Engineer et al. (2000) and further developed by Shaw & Mota (2008) is here applied to investigate the extended SCM in presence of smooth dark energy component. The validity of this extension depends on the difference between the two-point correlation functions of the models (see Engineer et al. 2000, for a more detailed discussion). Equation (1) can be written in terms of the mass and radius of the (spherical) perturbation, noting that 1 + δ = 2GM ma 3 a3 Ω m0 H 0 2 λ R3 R 3, (4) with M m the (dark matter) mass content, G the Newtonian gravitational constant, a the scale factor, and subscript 0 denoting quantities evaluated today. Dealing with aspherical perturbations because of shear and rotation, R must be interpreted as an effective length scale. One obtains R = GM m R 2 GM de R 2 (1 + 3w de ) R 3 S, (5) where S = σ 2 ω 2 H 2 (σ 2 ω 2 ) is the dimensionless function that encodes shear and rotation (Engineer et al. 2000; Shaw & Mota 2008) and M de = 4π 3 ρ der 3 is the mass of the dark energy component enclosed in the spheroid, ρ de and w de being respectively its background density and equation-of-state (not necessarily constant). This term is obtained from the H/H 2 term and is important when discussing the correction of dark energy perturbations to the halo mass function (Batista & Pace 2013). When virialization 1 Since we consider the formation of structures at late times, we neglect radiation and consider matter ( ρ m ) as made of baryons ( ρ b ) and cold dark matter ( ρ cdm ). 2 Sometimes in the literature the rotation vector Ω k is used, related to the rotation tensor by the relation ω i j = ɛ i j k Ω k with ɛ i j k the totally antisymmetric Levi-Civita tensor. Accordingly ω 2 = 2Ω 2, paying attention to avoid confusion with the density parameter.

3 Shear and rotation as virialization in DE models 3 occurs, R tends to the constant value R vir and R 0, therefore setting R 0, we find S 3GM [ m H 2 R M ] de (1 + 3w M de ) 3 m 2 Ω m(a)(1 + δ). (6) The first expression generalises the result in Engineer et al. (2000) and the second approximation is valid when the dark energy is subdominant with respect to the dark matter component. Using instead the e-fold time ln a as time variable, which is more appropriate when dealing with dark energy models and useful for the numerical implementation (Pace et al. 2017a), Equation (1) reads ) δ + (2 + H δ 4 δ 2 H δ 3 2 Ω m(a)δ(1 + δ) = (1 + δ)s, (7) where the prime indicates the derivative with respect to ln a. When virialization takes place, δ tends to a constant value and δ 0 so that the previous equation yields S 3 2 Ω m(a)δ. (8) The expressions (6) and (8) coincide in the limit δ 1, but for intermediate values they lead to different results. Therefore hereafter we will show results for vir using both expressions, referred respectively as model S 1 and S 2. The full expressions for the virial term S S(δ) accounting also for the Taylor expansion in 1/δ up to the second order are S 1 = 3 2 Ω m(a)(1 + δ) A δ + B δ 2, (9a) S 2 = 3 2 Ω m(a)δ A δ + B δ 2, (9b) where A and B are numerical constants. The evolution equation (7) then reads ) δ + (2 + H δ 4 δ 2 H δ Ω m(a)(1 + δ) = (1 + δ) ( Aδ + Bδ ) 2, (10a) ) δ + (2 + H δ 4 δ 2 H δ = (1 + δ) ( Aδ + Bδ ) 2. (10b) Following Engineer et al. (2000), in the limit δ 1 and rescaling δ Aδ the r.h.s. term reads 1 + q/δ with q = B/A 2, proving that the model only depends on the parameter q. 3 The equations fixing the overdensity at virialization will then read ) δ + (2 + H δ 4 δ 2 H δ Ω m(a)(1 + δ) = (1 + δ) ( 1δ + qδ ) 2, (11a) ) δ + (2 + H δ 4 δ 2 H δ = (1 + δ) ( 1δ + qδ ) 2. (11b) 3 Note that we corrected the typo in Engineer et al. (2000) where it is erroneously written δ δ/a and the variable b in Equation (27) which should read as a. Still in the limit δ 1, these equations written for R read R + H H R = 1 2 Ω de(a)(1 + 3w de )R + [ R A Ω ] m,0 R 3 3 2a 3 r 3 Ω2 m,0 R 6 qa2 4a 6 r 6 (12a) R + H H R = 1 2 [Ω m(a) + Ω de (a)(1 + 3w de )] R + [ R A Ω ] m,0 R 3 3 2a 3 r 3 Ω2 m,0 R 6 qa2 4a 6 r 6, (12b) where the quantity in brackets is the virialization term and we set r 3 = GM m /H 0 2. By defining R = r viry, the only undefined constants are A and the virialization radius r vir. Since A is arbitrary, it can be set as A = r 3 /rvir 3 = GM m/h 0 2r3 vir so that the previous equations finally become y + H H y = 1 2 Ω de(a)(1 + 3w de )y + [ ] y Ωm,0 3 2a 3 y3 q Ω2 m,0 4a 6 y6, (13a) y + H H y = 1 2 [Ω m(a) + Ω de (a)(1 + 3w de )] y + [ ] y Ωm,0 3 2a 3 y3 q Ω2 m,0 4a 6 y6. (13b) These equations agree with Equation (30) of Engineer et al. (2000). 2.3 Virialization fitting N-body dynamics (approach II) The former approach is not valid for small overdensity because of the divergence of the terms proportional to 1/δ and (1/δ) 2. As suggested by Shaw & Mota (2008), one can instead consider the solution of the EdS model and replace the term (η sin η) that appears in the temporal part by a generic function T(η) since only the time needed for collapse does change. Denoting by T τ and T ττ the first and second derivative of T with respect to τ τ(η) = η sin η, one then obtains R = GM R 2 [ 1 T τ 2 + sin η(1 cos η)t ττ T τ 3 ]. (14) By comparison with Equation (5), one then obtains the expression for the deviations from spherical symmetry (dubbed as model S T ) S(δ) = 3 [ ] 1 2 (1 + δ) T 2 + sin η(1 cos η)t ττ τ T 3 1, (15) τ which requires a (parametric) relation between T(η) and δ to be fully defined. In generic cosmological scenarios where dark energy dominates at late times, this is 1 + δ = 9 f 2 T 2 (η) (a) [1 cos (η)] 3, (16) in which f (a) = 4/[9t 2 Ω m (a)h 2 (a)]. A functional form of T(η) was obtained by Shaw & Mota (2008) for an EdS cosmology by fitting the Hamilton et al. (1991) N-body simulation, which yielded T[η(τ)] T(τ) = τ (τ f τ) 1/2 e 15(τ f τ)/τ (τ f τ) 1/2 0.4(τ f τ), (17) with τ f = As proved by Engineer et al. (2000), this expressions is extremely good for δ 15 and can be safely used to

4 4 F. Pace et al. describe the evolution of the perturbation prior to the turn-around also in cosmologies with smooth dark-energy. 4 A final comment is worth to be mentioned. The works by Engineer et al. (2000) and Shaw & Mota (2008) achieved the virialization with σ 2 ω 2 1/δ. Instead, with σ 2 ω 2 δ though including virialization a posteriori,del Popolo et al. (2013a,b); Pace et al. (2014) obtained a delayed collapse but a virial overdensity substantially increased, while using the Zel dovich approximation Reischke et al. (2016); Pace et al. (2017b); Reischke et al. (2018) found a negligible effect on vir and a one percent variation for δ c. 3 NUMERICAL SOLUTIONS: COMPARISON In this section, we analyse the predictions of the two approaches for the different cosmological models, firstly focusing on the EdS and ΛCDM models; see Appendix B for the details of the numerical implementation. Both approaches I and II rely on the peculiar velocity h SC of the spherical shell, defined as h SC 1 3 d ln (1 + δ) d ln a = 1 R R, (18) which determines the value of the parameter q. As in Engineer et al. (2000); Shaw & Mota (2008), we will assume that h SC = h SC (δ), which from a numerical point-of-view is justified by the analysis of Hamilton et al. (1991). The EdS model will allow us to test our general implementation with results obtained in Engineer et al. (2000) and Shaw & Mota (2008), while the ΛCDM model will serve as reference model to compare more general dark energy models to. 3.1 The virial term S(δ) As one can expect from the previous discussion in Section 2, the two models S 1 and S 2 and model S T, respectively Equations (9) and (15), must match for large values of the overdensity, δ 1. This qualitative expectation is confirmed as shown in Figure 1, where we show the evolution of the virialization term S(δ) as function of δ for the EdS model. For models S 1 and S 2 we set q = 0.01, a value which well approximates the N-body expectations for h SC. Similar results would be obtained for different values or for more generic models (Engineer et al. 2000), which would eventually only alter the slope for δ 1 and the value of the overdensity δ h for which the models S 1, S 2, and S T do match. As in Engineer et al. (2000), the parameter q for models S 1 and S 2 is determined by fitting the maximum of h SC to appropriate N-body results. One should therefore use simulations with the correct cosmology, however the fitting prescription is available for only EdS simulations. One could instead determine h SC and its amplitude from the expressions presented in Shaw & Mota (2008), but this would imply mixing the two procedures. In the following, when dealing with a generic dark-energy model, we shall fit for q by matching the maximum of h SC as provided by the EdS N-body simulation. As we will see in Section 3.4, even larger variations of q within a factor of 2 would not lead to significant quantitative changes to the observed quantities. How much the two recipes affect vir? As explained also in Engineer et al. (2000), the virialization term is valid only for δ 4 Note that the best fit value for the virial radius is now R vir /R ta = , in agreement with Hamilton et al. (1991) who found R vir /R ta 0.56 while Engineer et al. (2000) found R vir /R ta (δ) δ Figure 1. Evolution of the virialization term S(δ) as a function of δ for an EdS model (absolute value; dashed lines correspond to negative values). The curves correspond to Equations (9) with q = 0.01 (red and blue; Engineer et al. (2000)) and Equation (15) (black; Shaw & Mota (2008)). The straight dotted lines represent the asymptotic regimes q/δ 2 and 3δ/2: larger values of q affect the shear-rotation virialization term only in regions with small overdensity, i.e. in the linear regime. 15. Models S 1 and S 2 essentially differ only for 0.1 δ 10; see Figure 1. Even if the difference is small and might look marginal, it actually implies a value for vir for the model S 1 about 6 percent larger than for model S 2. As for the model S T, S(δ) is appreciably different from zero only for δ 10, which implies a very small value for vir, about a factor 2.5 smaller than for model S 1. The reason is that the function T[η(τ)] T(τ) τ and then 1/T τ 2 1 0, except for high densities where it grows exponentially over a short range of time τ. It is now easy to understand why the term S(δ) acts as a virialization term: in the linear regime it is either vanishing or negative and counteracts the leading term originating from the Poisson equation. As long as δ 10 the shear-rotation term and the gravitational force balance hampering the growth of perturbations, further impeded by the cosmological expansion. 3.2 Evolution of the normalised radius y We can restrict the discussion to the EdS and ΛCM models since the normalised radius y evolves with time qualitatively in the same way in more general dark energy models, with differences only in the amplitude and location of its maximum. Figure 2 illustrates the evolution of y(z) as a function of the redshift for models S 1 and S 2 (top and bottom panel, respectively). By increasing q the maximum radius has a smaller value and is attained at later time. This happens because the term proportional to y 7 becomes more important, forcing the perturbation to decouple from the Hubble flow and reach the equilibrium at earlier time. At late times all the curves converge to one as expected, regardless of the value of q. Though counterintuitive, this result is a direct consequence of the adopted initial conditions which have been set at the time of collapse, here z = 0. Setting the collapse for the standard SCM at earlier times simply shifts the turn-around at earlier times, without changing the overall picture. Moreover, comparing the top and bottom panels, the turn-around in model S 2 is anticipated with respect to model S 1 and the radius has a lower value. Indeed, in model S 2 there is an additional linear term Ω m y/2 which opposes the friction term proportional to y ; see Equations (13). This behaviour is qualitatively unchanged for EdS and ΛCDM models, and will be similar for more general dark energy models. The turn-around occurs earlier for a ΛCDM model rather than for

5 Shear and rotation as virialization in DE models 5 () () Λ = = = = = Figure 2. Evolution of the normalised radius y as a function of the redshift z for the EdS (red curves) and the ΛCDM (blue curves) models for virialization models S 1 (top panel) and S 2 (bottom panel). Different line styles correspond to different values of the parameter q, ranging from to 0.1, as indicated. Λ Figure 3. Epoch of maximum expansion z max (top panel) and corresponding maximum normalised radius y max (bottom panel) as a function of the parameter q for the EdS (red) and ΛCDM (blue) models. Solid (dashed) lines refer to model S 1 (S 2 ). The red (blue) dotted line shows the value of y max for the standard virialization recipe (S std ) based on the virial theorem as presented in Wang & Steinhardt (1998). 3.3 Evolution of the peculiar velocity of the shell an EdS because of the same initial conditions, which fix the amplitude of the parametric solutions R(η) and t(η). Thus H ΛCDM < H EdS and therefore the turn-around happens earlier. This is true in general for any dark energy model, as T(τ) τ for most of the cosmic evolution. At the same time, since GM m R 3 /t 2, the mass conservation implies R ΛCDM > R EdS and therefore a higher value for the turn-around radius. One can finally study the turn-around, specifically the maximum value y max = r ta /r vir and epoch at which it occurs, z max, as function of the free parameter q; see Figure 3. According to Figure 2, z max decreases with q, with larger values for model S 1 than for S 2 regardless of the background cosmological model. When dark energy dominates, turn-around takes place earlier. Also the value of y max is higher for model S 1 than S 2, but it decreases when q increases. We immediately notice that the range of y max in the classical recipe (Wang & Steinhardt 1998) is very limited, allowing one to assume the EdS value also for the ΛCDM model. Indeed, when the standard virialization condition is considered, we find y max = 2 for the EdS model and y max 2.06 for the ΛCDM model (dotted lines in Figure 3). In the model proposed by Engineer et al. (2000), the variability of y max as a function of q between the two models examined is larger. To reproduce these values, y max 2 can be recovered for q 0.01 within a factor of two. This is broadly in agreement with what found by Engineer et al. (2000) and we refer to this work and to Shaw & Mota (2008) for a more detailed discussion on the values found in N-body simulations. The peculiar velocity of the shell h SC deduced from the solution is studied as function of the redshift z for several values of q for the EdS and ΛCDM models; see Figure 4. Consistently with the evolution of the normalised radius y, the maximum of h SC is reached earlier in a ΛCDM model than in the EdS model and this is true for both models S 1 and S 2, the latter offering a slightly faster dynamics with anticipated onset of the accelerated phase. Interestingly enough, the larger is q the smaller is the maximum value of h SC. However, this value is largely insensitive to the background cosmological model: for small values of q the peak has the same value for EdS and ΛCDM models and any difference between them arises only for relatively high values of q. As we will see in the next section, this suggests that the values of q will be very similar for more general dark-energy models, justifying the use of an EdS simulation to fit the amplitude of the peculiar velocity also in different cosmologies. A further justification comes from the virialization model proposed by Shaw & Mota (2008). Using the notation introduced in Section 2.3, one can show that h SC = 1 3 Ω m (a) sin η T(η) f (a) 2 (1 cos η) 2 T τ (η), (19) With f (a) [Ω m (a)] 0.4, one obtains h SC [Ω m(a)] 0.3 sin η T(η) (1 cos η) 2 T τ (η). (20) At z = 0 and with Ω m,0 0.3, the value of q changes by less than a factor of 2, implying a change in vir by less than a percent.

6 6 F. Pace et al. () () Λ = = = = = () Λ - + Figure 5. Time evolution of the equation-of-state w de (z) as a function of the redshift z for the dynamical dark energy models considered in this work. The three horizontal black lines represent models with constant equationof-state: DE1 with w = 0.9 (dotted black line), ΛCDM with w = 1 (solid black line), and DE2 with w = 1.1 (short-dashed black line). The solid red (dashed orange) line shows the CPL (AS) model, the dashed blue (violet dot-dashed) line shows the 2EXP (CNR) model, and the short dashed grey line represents the ODE model. Figure 4. Evolution of the peculiar velocity of the shell, h SC, as a function of the redshift z for the EdS (red curves) and the ΛCDM (blue curves) models for virialization models S 1 (top panel) and S 2 (bottom panel). Lines styles for different values of q are as in Figure Evolution of the virial overdensity in smooth dark energy models This section presents the main achievement of this work, namely the time evolution of the virial overdensity vir in presence of dark energy. Beside the EdS model, useful to validate our numerical implementation, and the ΛCDM model, used as reference model, we focus on seven specific dark-energy models that are compatible with ΛCDM today and cover a wide range of behaviour and represent a good test for the proposed virialization recipes. Their effects are limited to the background expansion and therefore fully described by the equation-of-state (see Figure 5): two dark energy models with constant equation-of-state, w de = 0.9 (DE1), w de = 1.1 (DE2) ; (21) the CPL model (Chevallier & Polarski 2001; Linder 2003), with equation-of-state w de (a) = w 0 + w a (1 a), (22) with w 0 = and w a = 0.9 (Avsajanishvili et al. 2014); the oscillating model (ODE; Pace et al. 2012; Pan et al. 2017; Panotopoulos & Rincón 2018), with equation-of-state w de (a) = w 0 + b sin [ln (1/a)], (23) with w 0 = and b = ; the CNR (Copeland et al. 2000), 2EXP (Barreiro et al. 2000), and AS Albrecht & Skordis (2000) models, which collectively can be described by (Corasaniti & Copeland 2003) w de (a) = w 0 + (w m w 0 ) 1 + e am m 1 + e a am m 1 e a 1 m 1 e 1 m, (24) Table 1. Parameter values for the quintessence models. Model w 0 w m a m m 2EXP AS CNR with the same parameters used in Pace et al. (2010); see Table 1. The AS model departs very quickly from the value at z 0 and grows asymptotically to w = 0, while the CPL model, despite having the same qualitative behaviour, has a much gentler departure from its value today and reaches w = 0.1 at early times. The 2EXP and the CNR models have a rather flat equation-of-state at late times, closely resembling a cosmological constant, rapidly growing to zero in a redshift interval that might be as short as z 3. The ODE model has a very long period of oscillation, changing its value very slowly and looking approximately constant and in the phantom regime over the redshift range 0 z 100. Since the qualitative evolution of the radius and peculiar velocity does not change with respect to the ΛCDM model, we limit the discussion to the time (redshift) evolution of vir and compare the standard results obtained by using the prescription by Wang & Steinhardt (1998); Maor & Lahav (2005) at the virialization time z vir with those of Engineer et al. (2000) and Shaw & Mota (2008). For all three approaches, vir = 1 + δ NL where δ NL represents the non-linear evolution of the matter overdensity. Note that while for Wang & Steinhardt (1998); Maor & Lahav (2005) the integration is only up to z vir, for the latter we do carry the integration till the collapse time of the standard SCM. To study the evolution of vir in a given model, for every cosmology we first look for the value of the free parameter q such that the maximum value of h SC matches the value found from N- body simulations for the EdS model. Even though this procedure is in principle not consistent, it has a quantitative negligible impact on the final results. The values of q reported in Table 2 for both expressions S 1 and S 2 are clearly largely insensitive to the background cosmological model, with a maximum variation of about 8

7 Shear and rotation as virialization in DE models 7 Δ() Δ() Λ Δ() Δ() Figure 6. Evolution of the virial overdensity vir as a function of redshift z for different virialization recipes and dark-energy models (see legend). Clockwise from top left: standard model S std by Wang & Steinhardt (1998) and Maor & Lahav (2005), evaluated at the virialization redshift. Top and bottom right: models S 1 and S 2 derived from Engineer et al. (2000), respectively. Bottom left: virialization model by Shaw & Mota (2008). Table 2. Values of the free parameter q for the virialization model of Engineer et al. (2000) for the EdS, ΛCDM and the dark energy cosmologies studied in this work using the virialization terms S 1 and S 2. Model q S1 q S2 EdS ΛCDM DE DE CPL EXP AS CNR ODE percent, and all consistent with the value of q 0.02 given in Engineer et al. (2000). As expected, values for the expression S 2 are smaller than those for S 1. We also note that this independence on the background cosmology reflects on the lack of any clear trend distinguishing quintessence from phantom models. The values of q are used to calculate the evolution of vir as a function of the collapse redshift z c. Note that for the standard prescription, vir is evaluated at the virialization redshift z vir corresponding to the collapse z c. The results are presented in Figure 6, in which each panel account for a different recipe for the virialization; clockwise from the top-right panel the a posteriori virialization recipe by Wang & Steinhardt (1998); Maor & Lahav (2005), the shear-rotation induced parametric models S 1 and S 2 from Engineer et al. (2000), and the S T model from Shaw & Mota (2008). The qualitative behaviour of the three virialization recipes S 1, S 2, and S T is the same for all the dark-energy models, however quantitative differences exist. If the virialization is forced a posteriori (top-left panel), all the dark energy models but CPL and AS resemble very closely to the ΛCDM. This is explained in terms of the equation-of-state w de, which for all but the CPL and AS models closely follows the ΛCDM value 1 until redshift z 1.5 4, while CPL and AS equation-of-states rapidly change during in the late-time universe. It is worth to notice that among all the models with evolution very similar to ΛCDM, the models DE1 and DE2 maximally deviate. For w de = 0.9 the virial overdensity is smaller than for the ΛCDM model, which in turn is smaller than for the cosmology with w de = 1.1. This happens because decreasing the value of w de, the contribution of the dark energy becomes more important and initial overdensities need to be larger to allow structures to collapse. These results are in agreement with Pace et al. (2010, 2012), where the virial overdensity was evaluated at the collapse time; instead, here we consider vir at the virialization redshift to allow for a direct comparison with Engineer et al. (2000) and Shaw & Mota (2008). When virialization is induced by shear and rotation and models S 1 and S 2 are used (top and bottom-right panels), the qualitative results are similar. For the EdS model, vir is essentially constant with redshift, with differences smaller than 0.01 percent that are very likely of numerical and not physical origin. Again, all but CPL and the AS models approach the EdS value at high redshift. Quantitatively, according to Engineer et al. (2000) the virialization overdensity is lower by about 10 percent. Moreover, the values vir for the recipe S 1 (top-right panel) are larger than for S 2 (bottom-right panel) because S 2 (δ) < S 1 (δ) when δ 1, as shown in Figure 1. This also translates into a smaller variation between low and high

8 8 F. Pace et al. redshifts: for the standard approach, variations in time are of the order of 40 percent, while for Engineer et al. (2000) it was not larger than 10 percent. Finally, with virialization inferred by N-body simulations, model S T (bottom-left panel), the values for vir are overall much lower and the variability between low and high-redshift is much higher, about 60 percent. At low redshift vir 20 for the S T model and for the three other virialization recipes; at high redshift, vir 55 for S T and for the other recipes. This is explained noting that S(δ) becomes important only for relatively high over-densities, forcing the non-linearities to kick in at later stages of the evolution of the perturbations. Beside the intrinsic theoretical interest of these achievements, these calculations deserve a practical application in the definition of haloes, both in N-body simulations and observations. To identify haloes, usually a friend-of-friend (FoF) algorithm (e.g. Huchra & Geller 1982; Einasto et al. 1984; Davis et al. 1985) is used, later refined by some spherical overdensity (SO) algorithm (e.g. Lacey & Cole 1994; Eke et al. 1996; White 2001). A SO halo is then defined according to some mean overdensity, e.g. = 200 ρ m or = 500 ρ m with ρ m the matter background density (often the critical density instead of ρ m is used). By construction, the FoF halo mass is larger than the SO halo mass. While this procedure has negligible effects for high-mass haloes, it usually wipes out lowmass haloes. If some of the parametric virialization models S 1 or S 2 is correct, then a lower value of should be considered; the haloes will be therefore spatially more extended, with possible consequence for the mass function at the low-mass end. It is finally worth to remind that all these virialization recipes are obtained from a statistical analysis of the peculiar velocity in N- body simulations, so mass information is lost. This implies that vir is a function of time only, while in more realistic models one could expect also a mass-dependence. This is the case of the ellipsoidal model (Angrick & Bartelmann 2010; Angrick 2014), in which the collapse is sensitive to the ellipticity and prolateness of the object. 4 CONCLUSIONS Starting from the basic equations for the spherical collapse in an EdS universe as derived in Engineer et al. (2000) and refined in Shaw & Mota (2008), which naturally embed virialization by modelling shear and rotation of the (collisionless) matter overdensities, we generalised the formalism to arbitrary smooth dark-energy models. We studied the evolution of the radius of dark-matter overdensities reproducing the results by Engineer et al. (2000), proving that for a ΛCDM model the turn-around occurs at earlier time since the initial overdensity is higher. Due to the stronger expansion caused by the cosmological constant term, the ratio y max = r ta /r vir is larger for a ΛCDM model than for the EdS, as shown in Figure 2. Qualitatively the evolution of the normalised radius y as a function of q is independent of the background cosmology. Similar considerations can be done for the peculiar velocity of the shells; see Figure 4. Contrary to the radius, the maximum velocity is approximately the same for both the EdS and ΛCDM model. Very likely this conclusion is valid for more generic darkenergy models and justifies our choice of determining the value of q by fitting the amplitude of h SC to the value measured in EdS N- body simulations. The main result is the computation of the virial overdensity as a function of redshift for seven dark-energy models that match ΛCDM at redshift zero; see the list in Section 3.4. We showed that the formalisms of Engineer et al. (2000) and Shaw & Mota (2008) can be easily extended to arbitrary smooth dark-energy models (see Appendix B for the actual caveats about the numerical implementation). Qualitatively, the results are similar to those obtained by the standard virialization condition when the EdS model is considered, viz. constant value for vir. Instead, for cosmologies with darkenergy, vir decreases with redshift until reaching lower values than EdS at late times, when dark energy dominates; see Figure 6. The specific value depends in a non-trivial way on the dark-energy model and the virialization recipe. It is worth to note that the virial overdensity for the Chevalier-Polarski-Linder dark-energy model is at odds with ΛCDM because of the rapid change of its equation-ofstate at low redshift. Interestingly enough, for the Engineer et al. (2000) recipe the values of vir at redshift z = 0 are about 10 percent lower than when standard virialization is assumed, while for the Shaw & Mota (2008) recipe the difference is three time larger. Moreover, the range of values spanned by the different dark-energy models is reduced in a native model. It is finally worth to remark that the actual value of the virial overdensity is pivotal for the definition of haloes in N-body simulations and observations that are based on the spherical overdensity algorithm. We argue that our results have an important impact in the determination of the halo mass function in the era of precision cosmology, in which several projects like Euclid, 5 WFIRST, 6 or LSST 7 are designed to assess any departure from the concordance ΛCDM model at an unprecedented level of accuracy. The numerical code is publicly available upon request. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS FP acknowledges support from the STFC grant ST/P000649/1. DFM thanks the Research Council of Norway for their support, and the resources provided by UNINETT Sigma2 the National Infrastructure for High Performance Computing and Data Storage in Norway. This paper is based upon work from the COST action CA15117 (CANTATA), supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology). REFERENCES Albrecht A., Skordis C., 2000, Physical Review Letters, 84, 2076 Angrick C., 2014, MNRAS, 443, 2361 Angrick C., Bartelmann M., 2010, A&A, 518, A38 Avsajanishvili O., Arkhipova N. A., Samushia L., Kahniashvili T., 2014, European Physical Journal C, 74, 3127 Bardeen J. M., 1980, Phys. Rev. D, 22, 1882 Barreiro T., Copeland E. J., Nunes N. J., 2000, Phys. Rev. D, 61, Batista R. C., Marra V., 2017, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 11, 048 Batista R. C., Pace F., 2013, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 6, 44 Battye R. A., Weller J., 2003, Phys. Rev. D, 68, Bond J. R., Myers S. T., 1996a, ApJS, 103, 1 Bond J. R., Myers S. T., 1996b, ApJS, 103, 41 Bond J. R., Cole S., Efstathiou G., Kaiser N., 1991, ApJ, 379, 440 Chevallier M., Polarski D., 2001, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 10,

9 Shear and rotation as virialization in DE models 9 Copeland E. J., Nunes N. J., Rosati F., 2000, Phys. Rev. D, 62, Corasaniti P. S., Copeland E. J., 2003, Phys. Rev. D, 67, Courtin J., Rasera Y., Alimi J.-M., Corasaniti P.-S., Boucher V., Füzfa A., 2011, MNRAS, 410, 1911 Davis M., Efstathiou G., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1985, ApJ, 292, 371 Del Popolo A., Pace F., Lima J. A. S., 2013a, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 22, Del Popolo A., Pace F., Lima J. A. S., 2013b, MNRAS, 430, 628 Despali G., Giocoli C., Angulo R. E., Tormen G., Sheth R. K., Baso G., Moscardini L., 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2486 Einasto J., Klypin A. A., Saar E., Shandarin S. F., 1984, MNRAS, 206, 529 Eke V. R., Cole S., Frenk C. S., Navarro J. F., 1996, MNRAS, 281, 703 Ellis G. F. R., Bruni M., 1989, Phys. Rev. D, 40, 1804 Ellis G. F. R., Hwang J., Bruni M., 1989, Phys. Rev. D, 40, 1819 Engineer S., Kanekar N., Padmanabhan T., 2000, MNRAS, 314, 279 Gunn J. E., Gott III J. R., 1972, ApJ, 176, 1 Hamilton A. J. S., Kumar P., Lu E., Matthews A., 1991, ApJ, 374, L1 Horellou C., Berge J., 2005, MNRAS, 360, 1393 Hu W., Sugiyama N., 1995, Phys. Rev. D, 51, 2599 Huchra J. P., Geller M. J., 1982, ApJ, 257, 423 Iliev I. T., Shapiro P. R., 2001, MNRAS, 325, 468 Kihara T., 1968, PASJ, 20, 220 Kodama H., Sasaki M., 1984, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 78, 1 Lacey C., Cole S., 1994, MNRAS, 271, 676 Lee S., 2010, Physics Letters B, 685, 110 Lee S., Ng K.-W., 2010, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 10, 28 Limousin M., Morandi A., Sereno M., Meneghetti M., Ettori S., Bartelmann M., Verdugo T., 2013, Space Sci. Rev., 177, 155 Linder E. V., 2003, Physical Review Letters, 90, Maartens R., Gebbie T., Ellis G. F. R., 1999, Phys. Rev. D, 59, Maor I., Lahav O., 2005, Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics, 7, 3 Mead A. J., 2017, MNRAS, 464, 1282 Meyer S., Pace F., Bartelmann M., 2012, Phys. Rev. D, 86, Mukhanov V. F., Feldman H. A., Brandenberger R. H., 1992, Phys. Rep., 215, 203 Ohta Y., Kayo I., Taruya A., 2003, ApJ, 589, 1 Ohta Y., Kayo I., Taruya A., 2004, ApJ, 608, 647 Pace F., Waizmann J.-C., Bartelmann M., 2010, MNRAS, 406, 1865 Pace F., Fedeli C., Moscardini L., Bartelmann M., 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1186 Pace F., Batista R. C., Del Popolo A., 2014, MNRAS, 445, 648 Pace F., Meyer S., Bartelmann M., 2017a, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 10, 040 Pace F., Reischke R., Meyer S., Schäfer B. M., 2017b, MNRAS, 466, 1839 Pan S., Saridakis E. N., Yang W., 2017, preprint, (arxiv: ) Panotopoulos G., Rincón Á., 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 97, Planck Collaboration VI 2018, preprint, (arxiv: ) Planck Collaboration VIII 2018, preprint, (arxiv: ) Planck Collaboration X 2018, preprint, (arxiv: ) Planck Collaboration XIII 2016, A&A, 594, A13 Planck Collaboration XIV 2016, A&A, 594, A14 Planck Collaboration XV 2016, A&A, 594, A15 Planck Collaboration XX 2016, A&A, 594, A20 Press W. H., Schechter P., 1974, ApJ, 187, 425 Reischke R., Pace F., Meyer S., Schäfer B. M., 2016, MNRAS, 463, 429 Reischke R., Pace F., Meyer S., Schäfer B. M., 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4558 Shaw D. J., Mota D. F., 2008, ApJS, 174, 277 Tomita K., 1969, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 42, 9 Tsagas C. G., Challinor A., Maartens R., 2008, Phys. Rep., 465, 61 Wang P., 2006, ApJ, 640, 18 Wang L., Steinhardt P. J., 1998, ApJ, 508, 483 White M., 2001, A&A, 367, 27 APPENDIX A: ORDINARY SCM AND VIRIALIZATION IN EINSTEIN-DE SITTER AND ΛCDM MODELS We remind here the results for EdS and ΛCDM models of the ordinary SCM. Using the dimensionless scale factor x = a/a ta and radius y = R/R ta rescaled to their values at the turn-around, and the dimensionless time parameter τ H ta t, the first Friedmann equation and Equation (5) can be written as dx [ ω ] 1/2 dτ = x + λx2 g(x) + (1 ω λ), (A1) d 2 y dτ 2 = ωζ ta 2y w de(x) λg(x)y, 2 (A2) where ω and λ denote respectively the matter and dark-energy parameters at turn-around, g(x) the evolution of the dark energy density relative to turn-around with equation-of-state parameter w de, { g(x) = exp 3 x 1 [1 + w de (x )] d ln x }, (A3) and ζ ta is the non-linear overdensity of the collapsing sphere with respect to the background at the turn-around (for an EdS model ζ ta = (3π/4) ; Kihara 1968). Remark that without shear and rotation, R is the actual radius of spherical perturbations. Analytical solutions of equations (A1-A2) can be obtained for spatially flat models with constant w de (Lee & Ng 2010; Lee 2010; Pace et al. 2017a). The essence of the virialization process in the ordinary SCM is already captured by the EdS model; according to the virial theorem, the potential energy U = 5 3 GM R yields y vir R vir /R ta = 1/2, which ultimately gives vir (a c ) = 18π , ( vir (a vir ) = 18π ) π for the values of overdensities at collapse and virialization times, respectively. The corresponding linear extrapolated overdensities are the well-known values δ c (a c ) = 3 20 (12π)2/ , δ c (a vir ) = 3 20 (6 + 9π)2/ In a ΛCDM scenario the picture is more complicated because of the potential energy of the cosmological constant, which leads to a third order algebraic equation in the rescaled radius y. Following Wang & Steinhardt (1998); Maor & Lahav (2005), 8 supposing that the solution [ is only ] slightly different from the EdS the virial condition U + R 2 U R = U ta, it can be solved perturbatively, yielding vir at first order y vir = where 1 η vir /2 2 + η t 3η vir /2, (A4) η t = 2ζta 1 Ω Λ (a ta ) Ω m (a ta ), η vir = 2ζ 1 ta ( ata a vir ) 3 ΩΛ (a vir ) Ω m (a vir ). 8 As also noted by Meyer et al. (2012), different strategies have also been adopted leading to the same results, at least for a ΛCDM model; see however Wang (2006).

10 10 F. Pace et al. Finally, the virial overdensity with respect to the background density is defined as in (Wang & Steinhardt 1998), ( ) 3 xc,v vir = ζ ta, (A5) y vir where ζ ta has been defined above, and x c and x vir are respectively the scale factors at collapse and virialization normalised at the turnaround epoch. Note that the crucial quantity is η vir, which is evaluated at the virialization time a vir. The latter should be determined iteratively (Meyer et al. 2012; Pace et al. 2017a), but it is routinely approximated by the collapse time, a vir a c. However, regardless the exact epoch considered, only the value of vir will change but not its qualitative evolution (Pace et al. 2017a). of η and τ, finally use them in Equation (15) to determine S(δ). This procedure is repeated at each time step till z c. Note that for some models the default sampling of the tabulated function is insufficient to return a correct value. In these cases, we set η to its maximum tabulated value. (v) Indicating with δ NL the value of δ at z c, the virial overdensity is vir = 1 + δ NL. This paper has been typeset from a TEX/LATEX file prepared by the author. APPENDIX B: EXTENDED SCDM ALGORITHM AND VIRIALIZATION IN SMOOTH DARK-ENERGY MODELS The general architecture of our code, publicly available upon request, is based on the one described in Appendix A of Pace et al. (2017a). Note that we detail the initial conditions used to solve the equations of the SCM, not clearly stated in Engineer et al. (2000). 9 (i) Collapse epoch and initial conditions. For any cosmological model defined by Ω m,0, Ω de,0, and w de (z), the collapse redshift z c is determined by solving the standard equations of the SCM as explained in Pace et al. (2017a). This value fixes the initial values (δ in, δ in ) and determines the values of ζ ta, z vir, y vir, x vir, and finally vir for the ordinary SCM. (ii) Effective radius of the sphere y: solve Equations (13). Differently from the standard SCM, the effective radius does not vanish at virialization but tends to the virial radius. Equations (13) can therefore be solved with final conditions y(z c ) = 1, y (z c ) = 0, going backward-in-time from the collapse till the time used to integrate forwards the equations describing the evolution of δ. (iii) Approach I: Evolution of the perturbation overdensity δ with virialization terms S 1, S 2 Equations (9). The value of q is determined by matching the amplitude of the theoretical prediction of h SC to the fitting function of Hamilton et al. (1991) (see Table 2), getting the corresponding value of δ h where the matching is realised. The equations of motion (11) are then integrated using the initial conditions for δ obtained in step (i), using the equations of the SCM with S(δ) = 0 for δ < δ h, and the shear-rotation virialization term S 1 (δ) or S 2 (δ) for δ > δ h. The integration proceeds till the collapse time z c. (iv) Approach II: Evolution of the perturbation overdensity δ with virialization term S T Equation (15). Since an analytical relation η = η(δ) does not exist, Equation (15) cannot be used directly and a parametric relation is needed. Furthermore, the function T(τ) is complex-valued for very large values of η. A safe numerical implementation proceeds as follows: (a) find the value η f such that τ(η f ) τ f = 5.516; (b) sample the functions τ(η) and correspondingly 1 + δ(η) defined in Equation (16) in the range 10 3 η η f 10 3 ; (c) solve the full Equation (7) for δ including the virialization term from Equation (15): for each value of a and δ, evaluate the function (1 + δ)/ f (a), determine the corresponding values 9 For this reason we have been able to only approximately infer that the parametrisation for S(δ) by Engineer et al. (2000) should be valid for δ 15, which explains why we do not reproduce exactly their values.