See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/379769527

Anisotropic f(Q) gravity model with bulk viscosity

Article in Modern Physics Letters A · April 2024

DOI: 10.1142/S0217732324500238

CITATIONS READS
6 61

4 authors:

Mouhssine Koussour Salim H Shekh

University of Hassan II Casablanca Department of Mathematics, S.P.M. Science and Gilani Arts and Commerce College, …
111 PUBLICATIONS 1,012 CITATIONS 78 PUBLICATIONS 830 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mohamed Bennai Nurgissa Myrzakulov

Université Hassan II de Casablanca Eurasian National University
193 PUBLICATIONS 1,134 CITATIONS 69 PUBLICATIONS 417 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mouhssine Koussour on 15 April 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Anisotropic f ( Q) gravity model with bulk viscosity

M. Koussour ,1, ∗ S. H. Shekh ,2, † M. Bennai ,1, 3, ‡ and N. Myrzakulov 4, §

1 Quantum Physics and Magnetism Team, LPMC, Faculty of Science Ben M’sik,
Casablanca Hassan II University, Morocco.
2 Department of Mathematics. S. P. M. Science and Gilani Arts Commerce College,

Ghatanji, Dist. Yavatmal, Maharashtra-445301, India.

3 Lab of High Energy Physics, Modeling and Simulations, Faculty of Science,

University Mohammed V-Agdal, Rabat, Morocco.

4 L. N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Astana 010008, Kazakhstan.

(Dated: February 21, 2024)

This study investigates the dynamics of a spatially homogeneous and anisotropic LRS Bianchi type-
I universe with viscous fluid in the framework of f ( Q) symmetric teleparallel gravity. We assume a
arXiv:2203.10954v3 [gr-qc] 19 Feb 2024

linear form for f ( Q) and introduce hypotheses regarding the relationship between the expansion and
shear scalars, as well as the Hubble parameter and bulk viscous coefficient. The model is constrained
using three observational datasets: the Hubble dataset (31 data points), the Pantheon SN dataset (1048
data points), and the BAO dataset (6 data points). The calculated cosmological parameters indicate
expected behavior for matter-energy density and bulk viscous pressure, supporting the universe’s
accelerating expansion. Diagnostic tests suggest that the model aligns with a ΛCDM model in the far
future and resides in the quintessence region. These findings are consistent with recent observational
data and contribute to our understanding of cosmic evolution within the context of modified gravity
and bulk viscosity.
Keywords: f ( Q) gravity, Bulk viscosity, Bianchi type-I Universe, Deceleration parameter.

I. INTRODUCTION tivity (GR) equations to achieve a stable Universe. How-

ever, this idea gave rise to other issues, such as the cos-
The visible Universe, including the Earth, Sun, stars, mic coincidence problem and the fine-tuning problem
and galaxies, is primarily composed of protons, neu- [8, 9]. Consequently, more appealing dynamical mod-
trons, and electrons, collectively known as ordinary els have emerged based on the concept of modifying the
matter or baryonic matter. This baryonic matter ac- matter content of the Universe. These models include
counts for less than 5% of the total density of the Uni- quintessence, k-essence, Chapylygin gas, holographic
verse. In contrast, the remaining 95% of the Universe, DE, running vacuum models, and others [10–18].
as indicated by studies involving high-redshift Super- Recently, with a growing interest among researchers
novae (SNe) [1–3], Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy in addressing the issue of cosmic acceleration, various
Probe (WMAP) data [4, 5], Cosmic Microwave Back- alternative approaches have emerged under the um-
ground (CMB) peaks [6], and Baryon Acoustic Oscil- brella of modified theories of gravity (MTG). These the-
lations (BAOs) [7], is comprised of other forms of en- ories seek to amend the standard Einstein-Hilbert ac-
ergy and matter. These forms are currently unidentified tion by replacing the Ricci scalar curvature, denoted as
and are referred to as Dark Energy (DE) and Dark Mat- R, with arbitrary functions of this scalar, such as f ( R)
ter (DM). DE is an enigmatic component responsible for [19, 20]. In addition, researchers have explored alterna-
the observed accelerating expansion of the Universe. It tive theories involving other physical quantities, such as
possesses a positive energy density and negative pres- f ( R, T ) gravity (where R is the Ricci scalar and T rep-
sure, manifesting as a large-scale repulsive force capable resents the trace of the energy-momentum tensor) [21–
of counteracting the gravitational force that binds the 23], f ( G ) gravity (where G signifies the Gauss-Bonnet
various constituents of the Universe. One explanation invariant) [24–26], f ( T ) gravity (where T corresponds to
for DE is that it corresponds to the cosmological con- the torsion scalar) [27–29], and f ( Q) gravity (where Q is
stant Λ that Einstein introduced into his General Rela- the non-metricity scalar), among others. In this study,
we will investigate a cosmological model aimed at ex-
plaining cosmic acceleration within the framework of
∗ Email: [email protected]
f ( Q) symmetric teleparallel gravity (STG), as originally
† Email: da [email protected] proposed by Jiménez et al. [30]. In this theory, the non-
‡ Email: [email protected] metricity scalar Q plays a crucial role in governing grav-
§ Email: [email protected] itational interactions. Various aspects related to this the-
 2

ory have been explored by researchers, including energy tionary era, this study delves into the examination of
conditions [31], cosmography [32], spherically symmet- the spatially homogeneous and anisotropic LRS Bianchi
ric configurations [33], the signature of f ( Q) gravity type-I (B-I) Universe within the framework of STG. To
[34], the growth index of matter perturbations [35], cou- address the field equations within the context of STG,
pling with matter [36], quantum cosmology for a poly- we employ the following two hypotheses: (i) establish-
nomial f ( Q) model [37], the geodesic deviation equa- ing a relationship between the directional Hubble pa-
tion [38], and the isotropization of LRS Bianchi-I Uni- rameters Hx = nHy derived from the proportionality
verses [39]. Furthermore, several researchers have con- between the expansion scalar θ and the shear scalar σ,
tributed to discussions on these topics within the frame- i.e., θ 2 ∝ σ2 , and (ii) establishing a relationship be-
work of f ( Q) gravity [40–48]. tween the average Hubble parameter H and the bulk
In cosmology, many researchers have used perfect flu- viscous coefficient as described in Eq. (1). The study ex-
ids in models to tackle scientific puzzles like cosmic ac- plores various cosmological parameters, including the
celeration, DE, DM, and primordial singularities. Re- deceleration parameter, equation of state (EoS) parame-
cent observations hint that cosmic acceleration might be ter, statefinder, and Om(z) diagnostic parameters, in the
due to exotic energy with negative pressure. Building context of this model. The structure of this paper is as
on this, our paper aims to develop a cosmological model follows: In Sec. II, we present the fundamental equa-
without invoking DE. Instead, we use a more realistic tions of f ( Q) gravity. Sec. III introduces the B-I Universe
approach by incorporating a viscous fluid. Previously, influenced by bulk viscous fluid matter, presenting the
in the study of the inflationary epoch in the early uni- exact solution for the Hubble parameter. Subsequently,
verse, bulk viscosity has been proposed in the literature in Sec. IV, we perform an analysis of observational data
as a mechanism that does not require DE [49–52]. There- to determine the best-fit values for the parameters, uti-
fore, it is reasonable to consider that bulk viscosity could lizing the Hubble dataset with 31 points, the Pantheon
be responsible for the current accelerated expansion of dataset comprising 1048 samples, and the BAO sam-
the universe. In recent times, several authors have at- ple. Sec. V is dedicated to the discussion of various
tempted to explain late-time acceleration using bulk vis- cosmological parameters, including the deceleration pa-
cosity without the need for DE or a cosmological con- rameter, EoS parameter, statefinder, and Om(z) diagnos-
stant [53–55]. Theoretically, deviations from local ther- tic parameters, analyzing their behavior concerning the
modynamic stability can give rise to bulk viscosity, but redshift z. The final section provides a summary of the
a detailed mechanism for its formation remains elusive results and the conclusions drawn from this study.
[49]. In cosmology, when the matter content of the uni-
verse expands or contracts too rapidly as a cosmologi-
cal fluid, an effective pressure is generated to restore the II. BASIC EQUATIONS OF f ( Q) GRAVITY
system to thermal stability. Bulk viscosity is the mani-
festation of this effective pressure [56, 57]. Recently, Ren The action for f ( Q) theory of gravity is given by [30]
et al. [58] proposed a viscosity coefficient that depends Z  
1
f ( Q) + Lm d4 x − g,
p
on velocity and acceleration to achieve an accelerating S= (2)
2κ
expanding Universe, given by
 .  where f ( Q) represents an arbitrary function of the non-
.! .. !
a a H metricity scalar Q. Here, g denotesthe determinant of
ζ = ζ0 + ζ1 + ζ2 . = ζ0 + ζ1 H + ζ2  + H .
a a H the metric tensor gµν , i.e., g = det gµν , and Lm rep-
(1) resents the conventional matter Lagrangian. The non-
where ζ 0 , ζ 1 , and ζ 2 are constants. As seen from the metricity scalar Q is determined as
equation above, the bulk viscosity coefficient comprises  
a linear combination of three terms: the first is a con- Q = − gµν Lα βµ L β να − Lα βα L β µν , (3)
stant,
 the second is proportional to the Hubble parame-
. 
ter H = a
, indicating its dependence on velocity, and where the deformation tensor Lγ µν is defined as,
a
 .. 
the third is proportional to aa. , signifying its depen- 1 γσ  
Lγ µν = g − Qµσν − Qνσµ + Qσµν = Lγ νµ . (4)
dence on acceleration. 2
Motivated by the preceding discussion and recent The non-metricity tensor is defined in the form:
Planck results [59], which revealed defects in the CMB
attributed to quantum fluctuations during the infla- Qγµν = ∇γ gµν . (5)
 3

The trace of the non-metricity tensor is obtained as FLRW Universe and is described by the following metric
follows: form:
 
Qγ = Qγ µ µ and Q̃γ = Qµ γµ . (6) ds2 = −dt2 + A2 (t)dx2 + B2 (t) dy2 + dz2 , (12)

Here, t represents cosmic time, and the scale factors A(t)

In addition, we define the superpotential tensor:
and B(t) characterize the expansion or contraction of the
γ Universe in different spatial directions. A flat FLRW
4Pγ µν = − Qγ µν + 2Q(µ γ ν) + ( Qγ − Q̃γ ) gµν − δ(µ Qν) . space-time can be achieved by setting A(t) = B(t) =
(7) a(t). This anisotropic LRS B-I Universe provides a valu-
Using this definition, the non-metricity scalar is ex- able framework for exploring various cosmological phe-
pressed as nomena, offering insights into the behavior of the cos-
mos beyond the simplifications of the homogeneous and
Q = − Qγµν Pγµν . (8) isotropic FLRW models. In the following sections, we
will delve into the dynamics and implications of this
Now, the energy-momentum tensor for matter is de- intriguing cosmological scenario within the context of
fined by the following mathematical relation: f ( Q) gravity. The corresponding non-metricity scalar is
given by:
√

−2 δ − gLm  . 2 . .
Tµν = √ . (9)
−g δgµν B AB
Q = −2  −4 . (13)
B AB
The field equations for f ( Q) gravity are obtained by
varying the action (S) in Eq. (2) with respect to the met- The inclusion of viscous effects in the cosmic fluid
ric tensor gµν , content can be interpreted as an effort to enhance the
precision of its description, introducing a departure
2 p 1 from its idealized properties. This viscous contribution
√ ∇γ ( − g f Q Pγ µν ) + gµν f negatively influences the total pressure, playing a role in
−g 2 (10)
propelling the cosmic late-time acceleration [54, 55, 58].
+ f Q ( Pµγβ Qν γβ
− 2Qγβµ P γβ
ν) = −κ Tµν ,
The energy-momentum tensor describing a Universe
df
filled with viscous content can be expressed as
where f Q = dQ , ∇γ represents the covariant deriva-


tive, and for simplicity, we adopt natural units Tµν = ρ + pv uµ uν + pv hµν , (14)
(κ = 8πG = 1). In addition, we can also perform a vari-
ation of (2) with respect to the connection, leading to the In this context, we introduce the metric tensor hµν =
following result: gµν + uµ uν , where ρ is the usual matter energy density
and pv is the pressure of the bulk viscous fluid and is
∇µ ∇ν (
p
− g f Q Pµν γ ) = 0. (11) defined as pv = p − 3ζ H. Here, p signifies the pressure
of the perfect fluid, and the coefficient of bulk viscosity,
ζ, is typically a function of the Hubble parameter H and
its derivatives, as indicated in Eq. (1). The four-velocity
III. LRS BIANCHI TYPE-I UNIVERSE WITH BULK vector uµ is assumed to satisfy uµ uµ = −1. Currently,
VISCOSITY the Universe is primarily composed of non-relativistic
matter (dust), which leads to pv = −3ζ H. With the
In the present discussion, our focus is on the spatially bulk viscous fluid as the dominant matter component,
homogeneous and anisotropic LRS B-I Universe. This the corresponding field equations for the B-I Universe
cosmological model is a direct generalization of the flat can be derived as follows [39]:

  . 2 
. .
f  AB B 
+ f Q 4 + 2    = ρ, (15)
2 AB B
 4
  . 2 
. . . ..
f AB B B B .
− f Q  −2 − 2 − 2    + 2 Q f QQ = − pv , (16)
 
2 AB B B B

  . 2   .
. . .. ..
.

f AB A B B   A B .

− f Q  −3 − − − + + Q f QQ = − pv + δρ . (17)

2 AB A B B A B

Here, δ is referred to as the skewness parameter, quan- the physical condition that the expansion scalar θ is di-
tifying deviations from the EoS parameter along the y rectly proportional to the shear scalar σ, i.e., θ 2 ∝ σ2 .
and z directions. In addition, the notation (˙) represents a This condition leads to the relation:
derivative with respect to cosmic time t. The field equa-
tions presented in Eq. (8) through Eq. (10) can be ex- Hx = nHy , (22)
pressed in terms of the mean Hubble parameter and di-
where n (̸= 0, 1) represents an arbitrary real num-
rectional Hubble parameters as follows:
ber. The physical rationale behind this assumption is
f grounded in observations of the velocity-redshift rela-
− Q f Q = ρ, (18) tion for extragalactic sources, suggesting that the Hub-
2
ble expansion of the Universe may tend toward isotropy
when the ratio σθ remains constant [64]. This condition
f ∂ h i
+2 Hy f Q + 6H f Q Hy = − pv , (19) has been applied in various studies [39, 43, 44]. Utiliz-
2 ∂t
ing Eq. (22), we can derive expressions for the average
  Hubble parameter and non-metricity scalar in terms of
f ∂   
Hy as follows:
+ f Hx + Hy + 3H f Q Hx + Hy = − pv + δρ .
2 ∂t Q
(20) ( n + 2)
. ..
 . 2 H= Hy , (23)
A A A 3
In the derivation, we utilized ∂t A = A − A
∂

.
and Q = −2Hy2 − 4Hx Hy . Here, H = aa = Q = −2 (1 + 2n) Hy2 . (24)
 
1
3 Hx + 2Hy represents the average Hubble parame- Thus, by employing Eqs. (21), (23), and (24), the field
. .
A
ter, while Hx = A , Hy = Hz = BB denote the directional equations take the following form:
Hubble parameters along the x, y, and z axes, respec-
α (1 + 2n) Hy2 = ρ, (25)
tively.
In this paper, inspired by the work presented in [60],
.
we consider the following linear f ( Q) model, which is 3αHy2 + 2α H y = − pv , (26)
characterized by a functional form of the non-metricity
scalar Q given by   .
α n2 + n + 1 Hy2 + α (n + 1) H y = − pv + δρ . (27)


f ( Q) = αQ, α ̸= 0, (21)
By combining Eqs. (1), (23), and the generalized
where α is a constant parameter. The choice of a lin- Friedmann equation (26), we can derive a first-order dif-
ear model for f ( Q) can be motivated by several consid- ferential equation for the average Hubble parameter H
erations within the context of modified gravity theories in the following form:
[61–63]. Also, the linear model of f ( Q) gravity is equiv- " #
alent to GR with a different gravitational constant. . 9α − (n + 2)2 ζ 1 ( n + 2) ζ 0
Upon incorporating the final constraint, the field H+ H2 − H = 0. (28)
2α (n + 2) 2α
equations (18)-(19) form a system of three differential
equations involving five unknowns. Consequently, to It is important to note that, to reduce the number of
obtain exact solutions for the field equations, an addi- model parameters, we made the assumption ζ 2 = 0 [63].
tional constraint is required. In this context, we impose Specifically, when the viscosity coefficient depends on
 5

velocity but not on acceleration. Now, we substitute the light experiences a redshift. The redshift z due to the
term dtd d
with d lnd(a) using the expression dt = H d lnd(a) , expansion of the Universe is expressed as 1 + z = aa(0t) ,
resulting in Eq. (28) taking the form: where a(t) represents the scale factor at the time when
" # the object emitted the light reaching us, and a0 denotes
dH 9α − (n + 2)2 ζ 1 ( n + 2) ζ 0 the current value of the scale factor, which we take as
+ H− = 0. (29)
d ln( a) 2α (n + 2) 2α a0 = 1. Therefore, the integration of Eq. (29) yields the
following solution for the Hubble parameter in terms of
Then, we consider a cosmological source that emits redshift:
light, and as a result of cosmic expansion, the emitted

"  #
ζ ( n +2) 9   9 ζ 1 ( n +2)
( z + 1) − 1 2α H0 (z + 1) 2( n +2) 9α − ζ 1 (n + 2)2 − ζ 0 (n + 2)2 (z + 1) 2( n +2) − ( z + 1) 2α

H (z) = , (30)
9α − ζ 1 (n + 2)2

where H (0) = H0 represents the current value of the can be computed by measuring the quantity dt. We in-
Hubble parameter. In particular, when ζ 0 = ζ 1 = 0, and clude a set of 31 data points, measured through the dif-
α = n = 1, the expression for the Hubble parameter ferential age approach [66], to avoid additional corre-
3
H (z), simplifies to H (z) = H0 (1 + z) 2 . This specific lations with BAO data. The mean values of the model
configuration corresponds to the non-viscous matter- parameters H0 , α, n, ζ 0 , and ζ 1 are calculated using the
dominated Universe. In this scenario, the absence of chi-square function as follows:
bulk viscosity, coupled with specific choices for α and n,
31
results in the classical evolution where the Hubble pa- [ Hth ( H0 , α, n, ζ 0 , ζ 1 , zk ) − Hobs (zk )]2
3
χ2H ( H0 , α, n, ζ 0 , ζ 1 ) = ∑ 2
,
rameter follows the (1 + z) 2 scaling. k =1 σH (zk )
(31)
where Hth denotes the predicted Hubble parameter
IV. OBSERVATIONAL LIMITATIONS AND value from the model, Hobs represents its observed
CONSTRAINTS value, and the standard error in the observed value of
H is denoted by σH (zk) .
To investigate the observational characteristics of our
cosmological model, we leverage the latest cosmic Hub-
ble, SN observations, and BAO. Our dataset includes B. Pantheon dataset
31 points from the Hubble dataset, 1048 points from
the Pantheon SN samples, and 6 points from the BAO At first, studies of Type Ia SNe, using a key sample of
dataset. Employing Bayesian analysis, we utilize the 50 points, suggested that the universe is expanding at an
likelihood function and the Markov Chain Monte Carlo accelerating rate. Over the last two decades, research in
(MCMC) method implemented in the emcee Python li- this area has expanded, incorporating larger and larger
brary [65]. datasets of supernovae. A recent milestone is the release
of a new dataset containing 1048 data points from Type
Ia SNe. Recently, Scolnic et al. [68] compiled the Pan-
A. Hubble dataset theon samples, encompassing 1048 SNe within the red-
shift range 0.01 < z < 2.3. The PanSTARSS1 Medium
In the field of observational cosmology, the universe’s Deep Survey, SDSS, SNLS, and various low-z and HST
expansion can be directly studied through the Hubble samples contribute to this dataset. The empirical rela-
parameter, denoted as H = ȧa , where ȧ represents the tion employed for calculating the distance modulus of
derivative of the cosmic scale factor a(t) with respect SNeIa from the observation of light curves is expressed
to cosmic time t. The Hubble parameter as a func- as µ = m∗B + αX1 − βC − MB + ∆ M + ∆ B , where X1 and
tion of redshift can be represented as H (z) = − dt(dz
1+ z )
. C denote the stretch and color correction parameters, re-
Given that dz is obtained from a spectroscopic survey, spectively [68]. Here, m∗B represents the observed ap-
the model-independent value of the Hubble parameter parent magnitude, and MB is the absolute magnitude in
 6

the B-band for SNe. The parameters α and β serve as six distinct redshifts. The characteristic scale of BAO is
two nuisance parameters characterizing the luminosity determined by the sound horizon rs at the epoch of pho-
stretch and luminosity color relations, respectively. Fur- ton decoupling z∗ , as given by the following relation:
thermore, there is a distance correction factor denoted 1
c da
Z
by ∆ M , and ∆ B represents a distance correction based rs (z∗ ) = √
1+ z ∗
q . (36)
on anticipated biases from simulations. The nuisance 3 0 a2 H ( a ) 1 + (3Ωb0 /4Ωγ0 ) a
parameters in the Tripp formula [69] were determined
using a novel technique called BEAMS with Bias Cor- In this context, Ωb0 and Ωγ0 represent the present
rections [70, 71]. The observed distance modulus was densities of baryons and photons, respectively. In ad-
then reduced to the difference between the corrected ap- dition, the BAO measurements utilize the following re-
parent magnitude m B and the absolute magnitude MB , lations:
defined as µ = m B − MB . In our current investigation of rs
△θ = , (37)
the model, we choose to avoid marginalizing over the d A (z)
nuisance parameters α and β but instead marginalize
over the Pantheon data for MB . Therefore, we exclude dz′
Z z
the values of α and β from the present analysis. d A (z) = , (38)
0 H (z′ )
The luminosity distance is expressed as
△ z = H ( z )r s , (39)
dz′
Z z
D L ( z ) = c (1 + z ) , (32)
0 H (z′ ) where △θ signifies the measured angular separation,
d A represents the angular diameter distance, and △z
where c represents the speed of light. Furthermore, the
denotes the measured redshift separation of the BAO
theoretical distance modulus is
feature in the 2-point correlation function of the galaxy
µ(z) = 5log10 DL (z) + µ0 , (33) distribution on the sky along the line of sight. In this
study, we utilize a BAO dataset consisting of six points
where for d A (z∗ )/DV (z BAO ), obtained from the references [72–
77]. Here, the redshift at the epoch of photon decoupling
µ0 = 5log(1/H0 Mpc) + 25. (34) is considered as z∗ ≈ 1091, and d A (z) represents the co-
moving angular diameter distance along with the dila-
In the case of the Pantheon dataset, the mean values h i1/3
for the model parameters H0 , α, n, ζ 0 , and ζ 1 are deter- tion scale DV (z) = d A (z)2 z/H (z) . The chi-square
mined through the chi-square function as follows: function for the BAO dataset is given by [77],

1048
 2 χ2BAO = X T C −1 X , (40)
µobs (zk ) − µth ( H0 , α, n, ζ 0 , ζ 1 , zk )
= ∑
χ2SN ( H0 , α, n, ζ 0 , ζ 1 ) ,
k =1
σ2 ( zk ) where the variable X is contingent on the specific sur-
(35) vey under consideration, and C represents the covari-
where µth represents the theoretical value of the distance ance matrix [77].
modulus, µobs denotes the observed value, and σ2 (zk ) From the Hubble, Pantheon, and BAO datasets, we
signifies the standard error in the observed value. extract the best-fit values for H0 , α, n, ζ 0 , and ζ 1 as il-
lustrated by the 1 − σ and 2 − σ contour plots in Fig.
1. The determined best-fit values are presented in Tab.
C. BAO dataset
I. Fig. 2 displays the error bar plot for the considered
model in comparison to the ΛCDM or standard cosmo-
When investigating the early universe, baryons, pho- logical model, where the cosmological constant density
tons, and DM form a unified fluid that is tightly cou- parameter is denoted as ΩΛ = 0.685, the matter density
pled through Thomson scattering. Despite the presence parameter as Ωm0 = 0.315, and H0 = 67.4 km/s/Mpc
of gravity, this fluid does not collapse; instead, it os- [67].
cillates due to the significant pressure exerted by pho-
tons. BAO is an analytical framework that specifically
addresses these oscillations during the early stages of D. Information-based criteria for model selection analysis
the Universe. Here, we use the BAO distance dataset,
which consists of measurements from the 6dFGS, SDSS, To evaluate the effectiveness of our MCMC study,
and WiggleZ surveys, providing BAO measurements at we need to conduct a statistical assessment using the
 7

Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian Infor- In this context, when the difference (∆AIC and/or
mation Criterion (BIC). The AIC can be formulated as ∆BIC) is below 2, it suggests ”consistency” between the
[78] compared models. A difference in the range of 2 to
6 indicates ”positive evidence” in favor of the model
AIC = χ2min + 2d, (41) with the smaller ∆AIC and/or ∆BIC value. Differences
falling within 6 to 10 suggest ”strong evidence” in fa-
where d represents the count of independent parame-
vor of the chosen model. If the difference exceeds 10,
ters in the model under consideration. Moreover, BIC is
it is considered ”very strong evidence” in favor of the
determined by
model [79]. Consequently, we have compiled the χ2min ,
BIC = χ2min + d ln N. (42) AIC, and ∆AIC data for our model in Tab. II. Upon re-
viewing the values, we observe that the data provides
Here, N represents the number of data points utilized moderate support for our model. Specifically, a result of
in MCMC. For comparing our outcomes with the stan- 1.5 (Hubble) indicates consistency rather than support,
dard ΛCDM model, we utilize the AIC difference be- as does a result of 1.8 (SN), while a result of 2.5 (BAO)
tween our model and the standard cosmological model, would only mildly support the model.

∆AIC = AICΛCDM − AICModel . (43)

Hubble dataset
SN dataset
BAO dataset

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

2.0

1.5

1.0
n

0.5

0.0

100

50
0

1.0

0.5
1

0.0

60 70 80 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 50 100 0.0 0.5 1.0
H0 n 0 1

FIG. 1. Contour plot: Joint likelihood function for model parameters H0 , α, n, ζ 0 , and ζ 1 using Hubble, SN, and BAO data with
1 − σ and 2 − σ confidence levels.
 8

250 Model
CDM
From 31 Hubble data points

200

150
H(z)

100

50

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

z

FIG. 2. Comparison between the model and ΛCDM for the Hubble parameter H (z) as a function of redshift z. The Model curve
is depicted by the green line, while the ΛCDM model is represented by the black dotted line. The green dots with error bars
correspond to the 31 Hubble sample points.

Datasets H0 (km/s/Mpc) α n ζ0 ζ1
Priors (60, 80) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 100) (0, 1)
Hubble 67.5+ 1.7
−1.7 1.35+ 0.66
−0.77 0.50+ 0.81
−0.55 61+ 40
−50 0.37+ 0.53
−0.38
+2.5 +0.63 +0.88 +40 +0.53
SN 67.3−2.5 1.40−0.73 0.60−0.63 57−50 0.40−0.40
BAO 69+
−8
10
1.25+ 0.69
−0.69 0.34+ 0.44
−0.35 74+ 30
−40 0.32+ 0.54
−0.34

TABLE I. The marginalized constraints for the parameters H0 , α, n, ζ 0 , and ζ 1 are presented for various data samples at 68% and
95% confidence levels.

Model χ2min AIC ∆AIC

Hubble
ΛCDM 22.028 26.028 0
f ( Q) gravity 14.739 24.739 1.3
SN
ΛCDM 1049.785 1053.785 0
f ( Q) gravity 1041.996 1051.996 1.8
BAO
ΛCDM 10.711 14.711 0
f ( Q) gravity 2.190 12.190 2.5

TABLE II. The χ2min values for each model are provided for every sample, as well as the AIC for the investigated cosmological
models. Also, the differences ∆AIC = AICΛCDM − AIC Model are included.

V. COSMOLOGICAL PARAMETERS early decelerating phase to the current accelerating

stage. Understanding the expansion of the Universe in-
A. Deceleration parameter (DP) volves investigating the behavior of the Deceleration Pa-

According to recent observations in cosmology, our

Universe is presently undergoing a transition from an
 9

rameter (DP), defined as crucial for characterizing its behavior. Notably, in the
. context of cosmic acceleration in modified theories of
H gravity, the EoS parameter is typically negative. This
q = −1 − 2 . (44)
H characteristic is evident when examining the Friedmann
equations within the standard model; specifically, when
This parameter is positive (q > 0) when the Uni-
ρ + 3p < 0, it leads to ω < − 31 . For instance, in the case
verse’s expansion decelerates over time, signifying a
of the cosmological constant (ΛCDM), the EoS param-
phase of slowing cosmic expansion. Conversely, it is
eter is ω = −1. In other components of the Universe,
negative (q < 0) when the Universe undergoes accel-
such as radiation, ω = 13 , and for non-relativistic matter,
eration, indicating an epoch where the rate of expan-
ω = 0. The expressions for the matter-energy density
sion increases. In the limiting case where all distances
and the bulk viscous pressure in our model are provided
in the Universe evolve linearly with time, the parame-
as follows:
ter takes on a value of zero, representing a critical state
where the expansion neither decelerates nor accelerates. 9α (1 + 2n)
ρ= 2
H2, (45)
Fig. 3 illustrates the behavior of the DP as a function of ( n + 2)
redshift, z, considering the Hubble, Pantheon, and BAO
datasets. The plot demonstrates that our model aligns .
27α 6α
well with the expected evolution of the Universe, show- pv = − 2
H2 − H. (46)
( n + 2) ( n + 2)
casing an early decelerating phase followed by late-time
cosmic acceleration. The current value of the DP de- Thus, we can determine the effective EoS parameter
noted as q0 , is determined to be q0 = −0.38, q0 = −0.43, as
and q0 = −0.37 for the Hubble, Pantheon, and BAO .
datasets, respectively. When considering the numerical 3 2 ( n + 2) H
ω=− − . (47)
values of H0 and Ωm0 obtained from the latest Planck (1 + 2n) 3 (1 + 2n) H 2
data for the standard ΛCDM model [67], the current
value of the DP is q0 = −0.53, and the value predicted 70
by our model is close to this reference value. Hubble
60
SN
0.5 50 BAO
40
2
ρ/3H0

0.0 30
q ( z)

20

- 0.5 10
Hubble
SN 0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5
BAO
- 1.0 z
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5
z FIG. 4. Matter-energy density (ρ) versus redshift (z) plot for
constrained parameter values from Hubble, Pantheon (SN),
FIG. 3. Deceleration parameter (q) versus redshift (z) plot for and BAO datasets.
constrained parameter values from Hubble, Pantheon (SN),
and BAO datasets. Fig. 4 clearly illustrates that the matter-energy den-
sity is an increasing function of the redshift parameter z
and approaches a small value in the distant future (i.e.,
as z → −1) for all the constrained values of the model
B. EoS parameter parameters. In contrast, the bulk viscous pressure, as
shown in Fig. 5, is a decreasing function of redshift z
In cosmology, the EoS parameter is defined as the and maintains negative values throughout the cosmic
ratio between the pressure and the energy density, ex- evolution. It starts with enormous negative values in
p
pressed as ω = ρ . When dealing with a Universe the Universe’s early stages and gradually approaches
filled with a viscous fluid, the EoS parameter becomes zero over time. The presence of negative bulk viscous
 10

0 C. Skewness parameter

- 20 By definition, the skewness parameter quantifies the

degree of anisotropy present in a DE bulk viscous fluid.
It is denoted as δ, and by utilizing Eqs. (25), (26), and
pv /H02

- 40 Hubble
(27), we can express it as follows:
SN  
.
- 60 BAO n2 + n − 2 ( n + 2) ( n − 1) H
δ=− − . (48)
(1 + 2n) 3 (1 + 2n) H 2
- 80 Fig. 7 illustrates the behavior of the skewness pa-
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 rameter as a function of the redshift z for the Hubble,
z Pantheon, and BAO datasets. It is evident from this fig-
ure that the skewness parameter assumes positive val-
FIG. 5. Bulk viscous pressure (pv ) versus redshift (z) plot for ues both in the past and the future, as well as at the
constrained parameter values from Hubble, Pantheon (SN), present epoch. Therefore, we can deduce that our model
and BAO datasets. exhibits anisotropy throughout the evolution of the Uni-
verse.

pressure aligns with the accelerating phase of the Uni- 0.9 Hubble
verse, which is consistent with recent observational ev- SN
0.8
idence, confirming the validity of our model. In Fig. 6,
BAO
the behavior of the effective EoS parameter is depicted 0.7
as a function of redshift z for the Hubble, Pantheon, and
δ(z)

BAO datasets. Notably, the behavior of the effective EoS 0.6

parameter resembles that of the quintessence DE model, 0.5
falling within the range −1 < ω < − 31 for Hubble
and Pantheon datasets, while for the BAO dataset, it ex- 0.4
hibits phantom behavior with ω < −1. Furthermore, 0.3
the present value of the effective EoS parameter is de-
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5
termined as ω0 = −0.98, ω0 = −0.92, ω0 = −1.21 for
the Hubble, Pantheon, and BAO datasets, respectively. z

These present values of ω are consistent with the results

FIG. 7. Skewness parameter (δ) versus redshift (z) plot for con-
found in the literature [80–82].
strained parameter values from Hubble, Pantheon (SN), and
BAO datasets.
- 0.4

- 0.6

- 0.8 D. Statefinder diagnostic

- 1.0
ω(z)

As researchers have increasingly focused on address-

- 1.2 ing the issue of cosmic acceleration and DE, numerous
- 1.4 Hubble models of DE have emerged, making it challenging to
SN navigate and differentiate among them. Sahni et al. [83]
- 1.6
BAO
introduced a novel concept known as the statefinder di-
- 1.8 agnostic, denoted as (r, s), which constitutes a geomet-
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 rical parameter primarily designed to elucidate cosmic
z acceleration while distinguishing between various DE
models. The statefinder parameters (r, s) are expressed
FIG. 6. Effective EoS parameter (ω) versus redshift (z) plot for in terms of the Hubble parameter and the DP as follows:
constrained parameter values from Hubble, Pantheon (SN), ...
and BAO datasets. a r−1
r= , s=  . (49)
aH 3 3 q − 12
 11

The statefinder parameters (r, s) are associated with distinguishing between DE models and gaining deeper
distinct regions of cosmological interest. When (r, s) = insights into constructed cosmological models is the
(1, 1), it corresponds to the standard cold dark matter Om(z) diagnostic. This diagnostic is a function of the
(SCDM) limit, while the fixed point (r, s) = (1, 0) cor- Hubble parameter and the redshift z [84]. The Om(z)
responds to the spatially flat ΛCDM limit. For values diagnostic for a flat Universe is calculated as:
where r < 1 and s > 0, it characterizes regions related
H (z) 2
 
to DE, including quintessence and phantom eras. In this H0 −1
paper, we illustrate the evolution of the statefinder pa- Om (z) = , (50)
(1 + z )3 − 1
rameters (r, s) in Fig. 8 for constrained parameter val-
ues from the Hubble, Pantheon, and BAO datasets. It where H0 represents the present value of the Hubble
is noteworthy that the statefinder parameters (r, s) for parameter. Similar to the statefinder parameters (r, s),
a Universe governed by a bulk viscous fluid initially the Om(z) diagnostic assumes different values depend-
exhibit behavior reminiscent of the quintessence model ing on the characteristics of the investigated Dark En-
(r < 1 and s > 0), with a slight deviation from the ergy (DE) model. Consequently, positive, negative, and
quintessence model for the BAO dataset. However, as constant slopes of Om(z) correspond to the phantom
time progresses, they tend to approach the characteris- (ω DE < −1), quintessence (ω DE > −1), and flat ΛCDM
tics of the ΛCDM model (r = 1 and s = 0) in the future. (ω DE = −1) DE models, respectively. In Fig. 9, it
is evident that the Om(z) diagnostic assumes a nega-
1.2 tive slope, indicating the similarity of our model to the
Hubble
quintessence scenario.
Chaplygin SN
ΛCDM
Gas 0.7
BAO
Hubble
1.0
0.6 SN
BAO
0.5
Om(z)

0.8 0.4

0.3
r(z)

0.2
0.6

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5
z

0.4 FIG. 9. Om(z) diagnostic versus redshift (z) plot for con-
strained parameter values from Hubble, Pantheon (SN), and
BAO data sets.
Quintessence

0.2
- 0.2 - 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
s ( z)
VI. CONCLUSIONS

FIG. 8. Statefinder parameters (r, s) plot for constrained In the context of hydrodynamics, the consideration of
parameter values from Hubble, Pantheon (SN), and BAO viscous effects in the cosmic fluid is inherently natural,
datasets. as the idealization of a perfect fluid is, in reality, an ab-
straction. In astrophysical and cosmological contexts,
real fluids often exhibit non-ideal behavior, and the in-
clusion of bulk viscosity is a plausible extension to cap-
E. Om(z) diagnostic ture more realistic aspects of the cosmic medium. Bulk
viscosity accounts for dissipative effects on large scales,
Besides the statefinder parameters (r, s), another di- reflecting the interactions and complexities present in
agnostic tool commonly employed in the literature for the cosmic fluid, especially during phases of cosmic
 12

evolution where deviations from idealized behavior be- ing phase in the early Universe, transitioning to an ac-
come significant [54, 55, 58]. In this study, we have ex- celerating phase in the present epoch, consistent with
plored the dynamics of the LRS B-I Universe in the pres- recent measurements (see Fig. 3). The matter-energy
ence of non-relativistic bulk viscous matter within the density remains positive but decreases over time, while
framework of f ( Q) symmetric teleparallel gravity. Uti- the viscous pressure takes on negative values, indica-
lizing a specific form for the bulk viscous coefficient, tive of cosmic acceleration (see Figs. 4 and 5). The
ζ = ζ 0 + ζ 1 H, where H represents the Hubble param- behavior of the effective EoS parameter closely resem-
eter, and ζ 0 and ζ 1 are constants [55], we derived exact bles that of the quintessence model for the Hubble and
solutions for the field equations governing the Universe Pantheon datasets. However, for the BAO dataset, it
under the influence of bulk viscosity. We considered exhibits phantom behavior, and its current values (i.e.
a linear f ( Q) = αQ model, where α ̸= 0 serves as a ω0 = −0.98, ω0 = −0.92, ω0 = −1.21 for the Hub-
free parameter, and introduced an additional constraint ble, Pantheon, and BAO datasets, respectively) are in
Hx = nHy (where n ̸= 0, 1 is an arbitrary real number) agreement with observational data (see Fig. 6). Further,
to facilitate the determination of the Hubble parameter. the skewness parameter depicted in Fig. 7 supports an
Moreover, we assessed the validity of the proposed anisotropic evolution of the Universe throughout its en-
f ( Q) model by incorporating observational datasets, tire timeline.
specifically the Hubble dataset, Pantheon SNe dataset,
and BAO dataset. The resulting best-fit values are as fol- Furthermore, both the statefinder parameter and
lows: for the Hubble dataset, H0 = 67.5+ 1.7
−1.7 km/s/Mpc,
the Om(z) diagnostic suggest that our model shares
+0.66 +0.81 +40
α = 1.35−0.77 , n = 0.50−0.55 , ζ 0 = 61−50 , and ζ 1 = similarities with the quintessence model in the present
0.37+ 0.53 +2.5 era, with indications of an eventual convergence to-
−0.38 ; for the Pantheon dataset, H0 = 67.3−2.5
+0.63 +0.88 +40 wards the ΛCDM model in the future (see Figs. 8 and 9).
km/s/Mpc, α = 1.40−0.73 , n = 0.60−0.63 , ζ 0 = 57−50 ,
and ζ 1 = 0.40+ 0.53
−0.40 ; and for the BAO dataset, H0 = 69−8
+10

km/s/Mpc, α = 1.25+ 0.69 +0.44 +30

−0.69 , n = 0.34−0.35 , ζ 0 = 74−40 , Data availability All data used in this study are cited
+0.54
and ζ 1 = 0.32−0.34 . The main findings can be summa- in the references and were obtained from publicly avail-
rized as follows: Our model demonstrates a decelerat- able sources.

[1] Perlmutter, Saul, et al. ”Measurements of Ω and Λ from luminous red galaxies.” The Astrophysical Journal 633.2
42 high-redshift supernovae.” The Astrophysical Journal (2005): 560.
517.2 (1999): 565. [8] Weinberg, Steven. ”The cosmological constant problem.”
[2] Riess, Adam G., et al. ”Observational evidence from su- Reviews of modern physics 61.1 (1989): 1.
pernovae for an accelerating Universe and a cosmological [9] Copeland, Edmund J., Mohammad Sami, and Shinji Tsu-
constant.” The Astronomical Journal 116.3 (1998): 1009. jikawa. ”Dynamics of dark energy.” International Journal
[3] Riess, Adam G., et al. ”Type Ia supernova discoveries at of Modern Physics D 15.11 (2006): 1753-1935.
z > 1 from the Hubble Space Telescope: Evidence for past [10] Solà, Joan, and Hrvoje Štefančić. ”Effective equation of
deceleration and constraints on dark energy evolution.” state for dark energy: Mimicking quintessence and phan-
The Astrophysical Journal 607.2 (2004): 665. tom energy through a variable Λ.” Physics Letters B
[4] Hanany, Shaul, et al. ”MAXIMA-1: a measurement of 624.3-4 (2005): 147-157.
the cosmic microwave background anisotropy on angular [11] Bonvin, Camille, Chiara Caprini, and Ruth Durrer. ”No-
scales of 10’-5.” The Astrophysical Journal 545.1 (2000): go theorem for k-essence dark energy.” Physical review
L5. letters 97.8 (2006): 081303.
[5] Spergel, David N., et al. ”Three-year Wilkinson Mi- [12] Koussour, M., and M. Bennai. ”Interacting Tsallis holo-
crowave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: impli- graphic dark energy and tachyon scalar field dark energy
cations for cosmology.” The Astrophysical Journal Sup- model in Bianchi type-II Universe.” International Journal
plement Series 170.2 (2007): 377. of Modern Physics A (2022): 2250027.
[6] Komatsu, Eiichiro, et al. ”Five-year wilkinson microwave [13] Koussour, M., S. H. Shekh, and M. Bennai. ”Bianchi type-
anisotropy probe* observations: cosmological interpreta- I Barrow holographic dark energy model in symmet-
tion.” The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 180.2 ric teleparallel gravity.” International Journal of Modern
(2009): 330. Physics A 37.28n29 (2022): 2250184.
[7] Eisenstein, Daniel J., et al. ”Detection of the baryon acous- [14] Solà Peracaula, Joan, et al. ”Running vacuum against the
tic peak in the large-scale correlation function of SDSS H0 and σ8 tensions.” EPL 134 (2021): 19001.
 13

[15] Solà Peracaula, Joan, et al. ”Running Vacuum in the Uni- ergy conditions in f ( Q) gravity.” Physical Review D 102.2
verse: Phenomenological Status in Light of the Latest Ob- (2020): 024057.
servations, and its Impact on the σ8 and H0 Tensions.” [32] Mandal, Sanjay, Deng Wang, and P. K. Sahoo. ”Cosmog-
Universe 9.6 (2023): 262. raphy in f ( Q) gravity.” Physical Review D 102.12 (2020):
[16] Solà Peracaula, Joan. ”The cosmological constant problem 124029.
and running vacuum in the expanding universe.” Philo- [33] Lin, Rui-Hui, and Xiang-Hua Zhai. ”Spherically symmet-
sophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 380.2230 ric configuration in f ( Q) gravity.” Physical Review D
(2022): 20210182. 103.12 (2021): 124001.
[17] Moreno-Pulido, Cristian, and Joan Solà Peracaula. [34] Frusciante, Noemi. ”Signatures of f ( Q) gravity in cos-
”Renormalizing the vacuum energy in cosmological mology.” Physical Review D 103.4 (2021): 044021.
spacetime: implications for the cosmological constant [35] Khyllep, Wompherdeiki, Andronikos Paliathanasis, and
problem.” The European Physical Journal C 82.6 (2022): Jibitesh Dutta. ”Cosmological solutions and growth index
551. of matter perturbations in f ( Q) gravity.” Physical Review
[18] Moreno-Pulido, Cristian, Joan Solà Peracaula, and Samira D 103.10 (2021): 103521.
Cheraghchi. ”Running vacuum in FLRW spacetime: The [36] Harko, Tiberiu, et al. ”Coupling matter in modified Q
dynamics of ρvac ( H ) from the quantized matter fields.” gravity.” Physical Review D 98.8 (2018): 084043.
arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.05205 (2023). [37] Dimakis, N., A. Paliathanasis, and T. Christodoulakis.
[19] Nojiri, Shin’ichi, and Sergei D. Odintsov. ”Unified cos- ”Quantum cosmology in f ( Q) theory.” Classical and
mic history in modified gravity: from F ( R) theory to Quantum Gravity 38.22 (2021): 225003.
Lorentz non-invariant models.” Physics Reports 505.2-4 [38] Beh, Jing-Theng, Tee-How Loo, and Avik De. ”Geodesic
(2011): 59-144. deviation equation in f ( Q) gravity.” Chinese Journal of
[20] Nojiri, Shin’ichi, and Sergei D. Odintsov. ”Introduction Physics (2021).
to modified gravity and gravitational alternative for dark [39] De, Avik, et al. ”Isotropization of locally rotationally sym-
energy.” International Journal of Geometric Methods in metric Bianchi-I Universe in f ( Q) gravity.” The European
Modern Physics 4.01 (2007): 115-145. Physical Journal C 82.1 (2022): 1-11.
[21] Harko, Tiberiu, et al. ” f ( R, T ) gravity.” Physical Review [40] Shekh, S. H. ”Models of holographic dark energy in f ( Q)
D 84.2 (2011): 024020. gravity.” Physics of the Dark Universe 33 (2021): 100850.
[22] Koussour, M., and M. Bennai. ”On a Bianchi type-I space- [41] Koussour, M., S. H. Shekh, and M. Bennai. ”Cosmic ac-
time with bulk viscosity in f ( R, T ) gravity.” International celeration and energy conditions in symmetric teleparal-
Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics (2021): lel f ( Q) gravity.” Journal of High Energy Astrophysics 35
2250038. (2022): 43-51.
[23] Koussour, M., and M. Bennai. ”Cosmological models with [42] Koussour, M., et al. ”Flat FLRW Universe in logarithmic
cubically varying deceleration parameter in f ( R, T ) grav- symmetric teleparallel gravity with observational con-
ity.” Afrika Matematika 33.1 (2022): 1-16. straints.” Classical and Quantum Gravity 39.19 (2022):
[24] Li, Baojiu, John D. Barrow, and David F. Mota. ”Cosmol- 195021.
ogy of modified Gauss-Bonnet gravity.” Physical Review [43] Koussour, M., S. H. Shekh, and M. Bennai. ”Anisotropic
D 76.4 (2007): 044027. nature of space-time in f ( Q) gravity.” Physics of the Dark
[25] Shekh, S. H., et al. ”Signature flipping of isotropic ho- Universe 36 (2022): 101051.
mogeneous space-time with holographic dark energy in [44] Koussour, M., et al. ”Thermodynamical aspects of Bianchi
f ( G ) gravity.” New Astronomy 84 (2021): 101535. type-I Universe in quadratic form of f ( Q) gravity and ob-
[26] Koussour, M., et al. ”Holographic dark energy in Gauss- servational constraints.” Journal of High Energy Astro-
Bonnet gravity with Granda-Oliveros cut-off.” arXiv physics 37 (2023): 15-24.
preprint arXiv:2202.06737 (2022). [45] Lohakare, Santosh V., et al. ”Influence of three parame-
[27] Cai, Yi-Fu, et al. ” f ( T ) teleparallel gravity and cosmol- ters on maximum mass and stability of strange star under
ogy.” Reports on Progress in Physics 79.10 (2016): 106901. linear f (Q)-action.” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro-
[28] Chirde, V. R., and S. H. Shekh. ”Dynamic minimally in- nomical Society 526.3 (2023): 3796-3814.
teracting holographic dark energy cosmological model [46] Maurya, Sunil Kumar, et al. ”The Effect of Gravitational
in f ( T ) gravity.” Indian Journal of Physics 92.11 (2018): Decoupling on Constraining the Mass and Radius for
1485-1494. the Secondary Component of GW190814 and Other Self-
[29] Koussour, M., and M. Bennai. ”Stability analysis of bound Strange Stars in f (Q) Gravity Theory.” The Astro-
anisotropic Bianchi type-I cosmological model in telepar- physical Journal Supplement Series 269.2 (2023): 35.
allel gravity.” Classical and Quantum Gravity 39.10 [47] Kaur, Simranjeet, S. K. Maurya, and Sacheendra Shukla.
(2022): 105001. ”Anisotropic fluid solution in f (Q) gravity satisfying van-
[30] Jiménez, Jose Beltrán, Lavinia Heisenberg, and Tomi ishing complexity factor.” Physica Scripta 98.10 (2023):
Koivisto. ”Coincident general relativity.” Physical Review 105304.
D 98.4 (2018): 044048. [48] Maurya, S. K., et al. ”Complexity-free solution gener-
[31] Mandal, Sanjay, P. K. Sahoo, and J. R. L. Santos. ”En- ated by gravitational decoupling for anisotropic self-
 14

gravitating star in symmetric teleparallel f (Q)-gravity (2020): A6.

theory.” The European Physical Journal C 83.4 (2023): 317. [68] Scolnic, Daniel Moshe, et al. ”The complete light-curve
[49] Zimdahl, Winfried, et al. ”Cosmic antifriction and accel- sample of spectroscopically confirmed SNe Ia from Pan-
erated expansion.” Physical Review D 64.6 (2001): 063501. STARRS1 and cosmological constraints from the com-
[50] C. W. Misner, Transport Processes in the Primordial Fire- bined pantheon sample.” The Astrophysical Journal 859.2
ball, Nature, 214 (1967) 40-41. (2018): 101.
[51] Klimek, Z. ”Entropy per particle in the early Bianchi type- [69] Tripp, Robert. ”A two-parameter luminosity correction
I Universe.” Il Nuovo Cimento B (1971-1996) 35.2 (1976): for Type IA supernovae.” Astronomy and Astrophysics,
249-258. v. 331, p. 815-820 (1998) 331 (1998): 815-820.
[52] Chimento, Luis P., Alejandro S. Jakubi, and Diego Pavón. [70] Kessler, Richard, and Dan Scolnic. ”Correcting type Ia su-
”Enlarged quintessence cosmology.” Physical Review D pernova distances for selection biases and contamination
62.6 (2000): 063508. in photometrically identified samples.” The Astrophysi-
[53] Srivastava, Milan, and C. P. Singh. ”New holographic cal Journal 836.1 (2017): 56.
dark energy model with constant bulk viscosity in modi- [71] Anagnostopoulos, Fotios K., Spyros Basilakos, and
fied f ( R, T ) gravity theory.” Astrophysics and Space Sci- Emmanuel N. Saridakis. ”Observational constraints on
ence 363.6 (2018): 1-15. Myrzakulov gravity.” Physical Review D 103.10 (2021):
[54] Brevik, Iver, Olesya Gorbunova, and Yu A. Shaido. ”Vis- 104013.
cous FRW cosmology in modified gravity.” International [72] Blake, Chris, et al. ”The WiggleZ Dark Energy Sur-
Journal of Modern Physics D 14.11 (2005): 1899-1906. vey: mapping the distance-redshift relation with baryon
[55] Singh, C. P., and Pankaj Kumar. ”Friedmann model with acoustic oscillations.” Monthly Notices of the Royal As-
viscous cosmology in modified f ( R, T ) gravity theory.” tronomical Society 418.3 (2011): 1707-1724.
The European Physical Journal C 74.10 (2014): 1-11. [73] Percival, Will J., et al. ”Baryon acoustic oscillations in the
[56] Wilson, James R., Grant J. Mathews, and George M. Sloan Digital Sky Survey data release 7 galaxy sample.”
Fuller. ”Bulk viscosity, decaying dark matter, and the cos- Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 401.4
mic acceleration.” Physical Review D 75.4 (2007): 043521. (2010): 2148-2168.
[57] Okumura, Hisashi, and Fumiko Yonezawa. ”New expres- [74] Beutler, Florian, et al. ”The 6dF Galaxy Survey: baryon
sion of the bulk viscosity.” Physica A: Statistical Mechan- acoustic oscillations and the local Hubble constant.”
ics and its Applications 321.1-2 (2003): 207-219. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 416.4
[58] Ren, Jie, and Xin-He Meng. ”Cosmological model with (2011): 3017-3032.
viscosity media (dark fluid) described by an effective [75] Jarosik, N., et al. ”Seven-year wilkinson microwave
equation of state.” Physics Letters B 633.1 (2006): 1-8. anisotropy probe (WMAP*) observations: Sky maps, sys-
[59] Ade, P. A. R., et al. ”Planck 2015 results-XVI. Isotropy and tematic errors, and basic results.” The Astrophysical Jour-
statistics of the CMB.” Astronomy & Astrophysics 594 nal Supplement Series 192.2 (2011): 14.
(2016): A16. [76] Eisenstein, Daniel J., et al. ”Detection of the baryon acous-
[60] Solanki, Raja, et al. ”Cosmic acceleration with bulk vis- tic peak in the large-scale correlation function of SDSS
cosity in modified f ( Q) gravity.” Physics of the Dark Uni- luminous red galaxies.” The Astrophysical Journal 633.2
verse 32 (2021): 100820. (2005): 560.
[61] Solanki, Raja, et al. ”Accelerating expansion of the Uni- [77] Giostri, R., et al. ”From cosmic deceleration to accel-
verse in modified symmetric teleparallel gravity.” Physics eration: new constraints from SN Ia and BAO/CMB.”
of the Dark Universe 36 (2022): 101053. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2012.03
[62] Hassan, Zinnat, Sanjay Mandal, and P. K. Sahoo. (2012): 027.
”Traversable wormhole geometries in gravity.” [78] Akaike, Hirotugu. ”A new look at the statistical model
Fortschritte der Physik 69.6 (2021): 2100023. identification.” IEEE transactions on automatic control
[63] Solanki, Raja, et al. ”Viscous fluid cosmology in sym- 19.6 (1974): 716-723.
metric teleparallel gravity.” Fortschritte der Physik 71.8-9 [79] Liddle, Andrew R. ”Information criteria for astrophysi-
(2023): 2200202. cal model selection.” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro-
[64] Collins, C. Barry, and Stephen W. Hawking. ”Why is nomical Society: Letters 377.1 (2007): L74-L78.
the Universe isotropic?.” The Astrophysical Journal 180 [80] Mukherjee, Ankan. ”Acceleration of the Universe: a re-
(1973): 317-334. construction of the effective equation of state.” Monthly
[65] Foreman-Mackey, Daniel, et al. ”emcee: the MCMC ham- Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 460.1 (2016):
mer.” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pa- 273-282.
cific 125.925 (2013): 306. [81] Novosyadlyj, Bohdan, et al. ”Do the cosmological obser-
[66] Sharov, G. S., and V. O. Vasiliev. ”How predictions of vational data prefer phantom dark energy?.” Physical Re-
cosmological models depend on Hubble parameter data view D 86.8 (2012): 083008.
sets.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.07323 (2018). [82] Kumar, Suresh, and Lixin Xu. ”Observational constraints
[67] Aghanim, Nabila, et al. ”Planck 2018 results-VI. Cos- on variable equation of state parameters of dark mat-
mological parameters.” Astronomy & Astrophysics 641 ter and dark energy after Planck.” Physics Letters B 737
 15

(2014): 244-247. [84] Sahni, Varun, Arman Shafieloo, and Alexei A. Starobin-
[83] Sahni, Varun, et al. ”Statefinder—a new geometrical diag- sky. ”Two new diagnostics of dark energy.” Physical Re-
nostic of dark energy.” Journal of Experimental and The- view D 78.10 (2008): 103502.
oretical Physics Letters 77.5 (2003): 201-206.

View publication stats