See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/368642147

A new parametrization of Hubble parameter in f (Q) gravity

Article in Fortschritte der Physik · February 2023

DOI: 10.1002/prop.202200172

CITATIONS READS
52 333

4 authors:

Mouhssine Koussour Shibesh Kumar Jas Pacif

University of Hassan II Casablanca Pacif Institute of Cosmology and Selfology (PICS)
111 PUBLICATIONS 1,012 CITATIONS 94 PUBLICATIONS 1,170 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mohamed Bennai Pradyumn Kumar Sahoo

Université Hassan II de Casablanca Birla Institute of Technology and Science - Hyderabad Campus
193 PUBLICATIONS 1,134 CITATIONS 380 PUBLICATIONS 6,289 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mouhssine Koussour on 19 February 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A new parametrization of Hubble parameter in f ( Q) gravity

M. Koussour ,1, ∗ S. K. J. Pacif ,2, † M. Bennai ,1, 3, ‡ and P.K. Sahoo 4, §

1 Quantum Physics and Magnetism Team, LPMC, Faculty of Science Ben M’sik,
Casablanca Hassan II University, Morocco.
2 Centre for Cosmology and Science Popularization (CCSP),

SGT University, Delhi-NCR, Gurugram 122505, Haryana, India.

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

University Mohammed V-Agdal, Rabat, Morocco.

4 Department of Mathematics, Birla Institute of Technology and Science-Pilani,

Hyderabad Campus, Hyderabad-500078, India.

(Dated: January 18, 2023)

In this paper, we examine the accelerated expansion of the Universe at late-time in the framework
of f ( Q) gravity theory in which the non-metricity scalar Q describes the gravitational interaction. To
arXiv:2208.04723v4 [gr-qc] 17 Jan 2023

this, we propose a new parametrization of the Hubble parameter using a model-independent way
and apply it to the Friedmann equations in the FLRW Universe. Then we estimate the best fit values
of the model parameters by using the combined datasets of updated H (z) consisting of 57 points, the
Pantheon consisting of 1048 points, and BAO datasets consisting of six points with the Markov Chain
Monte Carlo (MCMC) method. The evolution of deceleration parameter indicates a transition from
the deceleration to the acceleration phase of the Universe. In addition, we investigate the behavior of
statefinder analysis and Om diagnostic parameter, Further, to discuss other cosmological parameters,
we consider a f ( Q) model, specifically, f ( Q) = Q + mQn , where m and n are free parameters. Finally,
we find that the model supports the present accelerating Universe, and the EoS parameter behaves
like the quintessence model.

I. INTRODUCTION ture. The first approach in the framework of GR is to

modify the content of the Universe by adding new com-
Recent observational data of type Ia supernovae ponents of matter and energy such as DE of a nature
(SNIa) [1, 2], Large Scale Structure (LSS) [3, 4], Wilkinson unknown to this day, which has a large negative pres-
Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) data [5–7], Cos- sure. The most famous cosmological constant (Λ) that
mic Microwave Background (CMB) [8, 9], and Baryonic Einstein introduced into his field equations in GR is the
Acoustic Oscillations (BAO) [10, 11] confirm that the the most favored candidate for DE as it fits very well ob-
expansion of the Universe has entered an acceleration servations. The idea is that the cosmological constant
phase. Further, the same observational data exhibit that was originated from the vacuum energy predicted by
everything we see around us represents only 5% of the quantum field theory [12]. However, with this well mo-
total content of the Universe, and the remaining content, tivated candidate of DE - the cosmological constant (Λ)
i.e. 95% is in the form of other unknown components of suffers from some problems. The major one is it’s con-
matter and energy called Dark Matter (DM) and Dark stant equation of state. In literature, there were several
Energy (DE). The results of these recent observations dynamical models of Λ explored in order to resolve the
contradict the standard Friedmann equations in Gen- cosmological constant problem prior to the discovery
eral relativity (GR), which are part of the applications of late-time accelerated expansion. With the discovery
of GR on a homogeneous and isotropic Universe on a of cosmic acceleration, the cosmological constant intro-
large scale. Thus, GR is not the ultimate theory of gravi- duced into the Einstein field equations (EFEs). More-
tation as we would have thought, it may be a particular over, a slow roll scalar field (potential dominated scalar
case of a more general theory. field) reduces to the case of cosmological constant. So,
Theoretically, to explain the current acceleration of it is convenient to consider a scalar field, which has a
the Universe, there are two approaches in the litera- dynamical equation of state - the quintessence model
[13]. Other dynamical (time-varying) models of DE
have been proposed such as phantom DE [14], k-essence
∗ [15], Chameleon [16], tachyon [17], and Chaplygin gas
[Link]@[Link]
† [Link]@[Link] [18, 19].
‡ mdbennai@[Link] The second approach to explain the current accelera-
§ pksahoo@[Link] tion of the expansion of the Universe is to modify the
 2

Einstein-Hilbert action in GR theory. The fundamental The paper is organized as follows: In Sec. II, we
concept in GR is the curvature imported from Rieman- present an overview of f ( Q) gravity theory in a flat
nian geometry which is described by the Ricci scalar R. FLRW Universe. In Sec. III we describe the cosmologi-
The modified f ( R) gravity is a simple modification of cal parameters obtained from a new parametrization of
GR, replacing the Ricci scalar R with some general func- the Hubble parameter used to get the exact solutions of
tion of R [20]. Furthermore, there are other alternatives the field equations. Further, we constraint the model
to GR such as the teleparallel equivalent of GR (TEGR), parameters by using the combined of the H (z), Pan-
in which the gravitational interactions are described by theon samples and BAO datasets. Next, we consider a
the concept of torsion T. In GR, the Levi-Civita con- f ( Q) cosmological model in Sec. IV. The behavior of
nection is associated with curvature, but zero torsion, some cosmological parameters such as the energy den-
while in teleparallelism, the Weitzenbock connection is sity, pressure, and EoS parameter are discussed in the
associated with torsion, but zero curvature [21]. In the same section. Finally, Sec. V is dedicated to conclusions.
same way, the f ( T ) gravity is the simplest modification
of TEGR. Recently, a new theory of gravity has been
proposed called the symmetric teleparallel equivalent II. OVERVIEW OF f ( Q) GRAVITY THEORY
of GR (STEGR), in which the gravitational interactions
are described by the concept of non-metricity Q with In differential geometry, the metric tensor gµν is
zero torsion and curvature [22, 23]. The non-metricity thought to be a generalization of gravitational poten-
in Weyl geometry (generalization of Riemannian geom- tials. It is mainly used to determine angles, distances
etry) represents the variation of a vector length in par- and volumes, while the affine connection Υγ µν has its
allel transport. In Weyl geometry, the covariant deriva- main role in parallel transport and covariant deriva-
tive of the metric tensor is not equal to zero but is deter- tives. In the case of Weyl geometry with the presence
mined mathematically by the non-metricity tensor i.e. of the non-metricity term, the general affine connection
Qγµν = −∇γ gµν [24]. Also, the f ( Q) gravity is the can be decomposed into the following two independent
simplest modification of STEGR. Many issues have been components: the Christoffel symbol Γγ µν and the disfor-
discussed in the framework of f ( Q) gravity sufficiently mation tensor Lγ µν as follows [24]
enough to motivate us to work under this new frame-
work. Mandal et al. have examined the energy condi- Υγ µν = Γγ µν + Lγ µν , (1)
tions and cosmography in f ( Q) gravity [25, 26], while
where the Christoffel symbol is related to the metric ten-
Harko et al. investigated the coupling matter in modi-
sor gµν by
fied Q gravity by presuming a power-law function [27].
Dimakis et al. discussed quantum cosmology for a f ( Q) 1 γσ  
polynomial model [28], see also [29, 30]. Γγ µν ≡ g ∂µ gσν + ∂ν gσµ − ∂σ gµν (2)
2
In this work, we consider a new simple parametriza-
and the disformation tensor Lγ µν is derived from the
tion of the Hubble parameter to obtain the scenario of
non-metricity tensor Qγµν as
an accelerating Universe, with the study of the most fa-
mous model of the function f ( Q) in the literature [31] 1 γσ  
which contains a linear and a non-linear form of non- Lγ µν ≡ g Qνµσ + Qµνσ − Qγµν . (3)
2
metricity scalar, specifically f ( Q) = Q + mQn , where m
and n are free parameters. The best fit values of model The non-metricity tensor Qγµν is defined as the co-
parameters were obtained from the recent observational variant derivative of the metric tensor with regard to the
datasets, which are mostly used in this topic. The Hub- Weyl connection Υγ µν , i.e.
ble datasets H (z) consisting of a list of 57 measurements
Qγµν = −∇γ gµν ,
that were compiled from the differential age method [33]
and others, the Type Ia supernovae sample called Pan- and it can be obtained
theon datasets consisting 1048 points covering the red-
shift range 0.01 < z < 2.26 [34], and BAO datasets con- Qγµν = −∂γ gµν + gνσ Υσ µγ + gσµ Υσ νγ . (4)
sisting of six points [35]. Our analysis uses the combined
of the H (z), Pantheon samples and BAO datasets to con- The space-time in symmetric teleparallel gravity or
strain the cosmological model. Moreover, an MCMC the so-called f ( Q) gravity is constructed using non-
(Markov Chain Monte Carlo) approach given by the em- metricity and the symmetric teleparallelism condition,
γ
cee library will be used to estimate parameters [36]. where torsion and curvature both vanish i.e. Tµν = 0
 3

ρ
and Rσµν = 0. This condition, as mentioned in Refs. [37– It is also useful to introduce the superpotential tensor
39], allows to adopt a coordinate system {ξ µ } so that the (non-metricity conjugate) given by
affine connection Υµν disappears, which is the so-called
γ
γ e γ gµν − δγ Qν) ,
coincident gauge [22]. The affine connection then has 4Pγ µν = − Qγ µν + 2Q(µ + Qγ gµν − Q
ν) (µ
the following form in any other coordinate system { x µ }, (13)
where the trace of the non-metricity tensor can be ob-
∂x γ
Υγ µν x µ = tained as


∂µ ∂ν ξ β , (5)
∂ξ β
Q = − Qγµν Pγµν . (14)
while in an arbitrary coordinate system, we have
The symmetric teleparallel gravity field equations are
Qγµν = ∂γ gµν − 2Υλγ(µ gν)λ . (6)
obtained by varying the action S with respect to the met-
Further, the following relationship can be obtained ric tensor gµν ,
ρ ρ
between the curvature tensors Rσµν and R̊σµν associated
to the connection Υµν and Γµν as,
γ γ 2 p 1
√ ∇γ ( − g f Q Pγ µν ) + f gµν
−g 2
ρ ρ ˚ µ Lρνσ − ∇
Rσµν = R̊σµν + ∇ ˚ ν Lρµσ + Lρµγ Lγνσ − Lρνγ Lγµσ , (7)
+ f Q ( Pνρσ Qµ ρσ − 2Pρσµ Qρσ ν ) = − Tµν . (15)
and
where the energy-momentum tensor is given by
1˚ ˚ ρ 1 γ ρ γ √
Rσν = R̊σν + ∇ ν Qσ + ∇ρ Lνσ − Qγ Lνσ − Lσγ Lρσ , (8) 2 δ( − gLm )
2 2 Tµν = − √ , (16)
−g δgµν
R = R̊ + ∇ ˚ γ Q̃γ − 1 Qγ Qγ + 1 Qγ Q̃γ − Lρνγ Lγρν .
˚ γ Qγ − ∇ f Q = d f /dQ and ∇µ denotes the covariant derivative.
4 2
(9) By varying the action with respect to the affine connec-
tion Υµν , we find
γ
Here Rσν and R are, respectively, the Ricci tensor and
the Ricci scalar of the Weyl space. Since the affine con- p 
nexion is zero in this gauge, the curvature tensor is also ∇µ ∇ν − g f Q Pγ µν = 0. (17)
zero which causes the overall geometry of space-time to
be flat. Thus, the covariant derivative ∇γ reduces to the It is important to note that Eq. (17) is only valid in the
partial derivative ∂γ i.e. Qγµν = −∂γ gµν . It is clear from absence of hypermomentum. Also, the Bianchi identity
the previous discussion that the Levi-Civita connection implies that this equation is automatically satisfied once
Γγ µν can be written in terms of the disformation tensor the metric equations of motion are satisfied [40].
Lγ µν as, The cosmological principle states that our Universe is
homogeneous and isotropic in the large scale. The math-
Γγ µν = − Lγ µν . (10) ematical description of a homogeneous and isotropic
Universe is given by the flat Friedmann-Lemaitre-
The action for the gravitational interactions in sym-
Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric. So for this metric,
metric teleparallel geometry is given as [22, 23]
according to [23], coincident gauges are consistent with
the Cartesian coordinate system, which indicates that in
 
1
Z p
4
S= − gd x f ( Q) + Lm , (11)
the Cartesian coordinate system, selecting Υµν = 0 is a
γ
2
solution of f ( Q) theory. The FLRW metric is regarded
where f ( Q) is an arbitrary function of non-metricity
as,
scalar Q, while g is the determinant of the metric ten- h i
sor gµν and Lm is the matter Lagrangian density. This ds2 = −dt2 + a2 (t) dx2 + dy2 + dz2 , (18)
above action, along with a flat and symmetric connec-
tion constraint, determines the dynamics of the gravita- where a(t) is the scale factor that measures the size of
tional field, imposing the vanishing of the total curva- the expanding Universe. From now on, and unless oth-
ρ
ture of the Weyl space-time Rσµν = 0. This constraint is erwise mentioned, we will fix the coincident gauge such
imposed by including a Lagrange multiplier in the grav- that the connection is trivial and the metric is just a fun-
itational action, see [22, 37]. damental variable.
The trace of the non-metricity tensor Qγµν can be writ- The non-metricity scalar corresponding to the spa-
ten as tially flat FLRW line element is obtained as

Qγ = Qγ µ µ , e γ = Qµ γµ .
Q (12) Q = 6H 2 , (19)
 4

where H is the Hubble parameter which measures the Furthermore, the gravitational action (11) is reduced
rate of expansion of the Universe. to the standard Hilbert-Einstein form in the limiting case
To obtain the modified Friedmann equations that gov- f ( Q) = − Q = −6H 2 . For this choice, we regain the
ern the Universe when it is described by the spatially flat so-called STEGR [32], and Eqs. (26) and (27) reduce to
FLRW metric, we use the stress-energy momentum ten- the standard Friedmann equations of GR, 3H 2 = ρ, and
sor most commonly used in cosmology, i.e. the stress- 2 Ḣ + 3H 2 = − p, respectively.
energy momentum tensor of perfect fluid given by

Tµν = ( p + ρ)uµ uν + pgµν , (20) III. NEW PARAMETRIZATION OF THE HUBBLE

PARAMETER
where p and ρ represent the isotropic pressure and the
energy density of the perfect fluid, respectively. Here,
Generally, the above system of field equations con-
uµ = (1, 0, 0, 0) are components of the four velocities of
sists of only two independent equations with four un-
the perfect fluid.
knowns, namely ρ, p, f ( Q), H. In order to study the
In view of Eq. (20) for the spatially flat FLRW metric,
time evolution of the Universe and some cosmologi-
the symmetric teleparallel gravity field equations (15)
cal parameters. Further, from a mathematical point of
lead to
  view, to solve the system completely we need addi-
2 1 f tional constraints. In literature, there are many physi-
3H = −ρ + , (21)
2 fQ 2 cal motivations for choosing these constraints, the most
famous of which is the model-independent method to
f˙Q 1

f
 study the dynamics of dark energy models [41]. The
2
Ḣ + 3H + H= p+ , (22) principle of this approach is to consider a parametriza-
fQ 2 fQ 2
tion of any cosmological parameters such as the Hub-
where the dot (.) denotes the derivative with respect to ble parameter, deceleration parameter, and equation of
the cosmic time t. state (EoS) parameter. Hence, the necessary supplemen-
Now, by eliminating the term 3H 2 from the previous tary equation has been provided. Sahni et al. [42] dis-
two equations, we get the following evolution equation cussed the statefinder diagnostic by assuming a model-
for H, independent parametrization of the Hubble parameter
H (z). Recently, the same parametrization of H (z) in
f˙Q 1

Ḣ + H= p+ρ . (23) modified f ( Q) gravity was discussed by Mandal et al.
fQ 2 fQ [31]. Further, several parametrizations have been in-
Using the above equations, Eqs. (21) and (22), we vestigated for the EoS parameter ω (z) such as CPL
obtain the expressions of the energy density ρ and the (Chevallier-Polarski-Linder), BA (Barboza-Alcaniz), LC
isotropic pressure p, respectively as (Low Correlation) [43], and the deceleration parameter
q (z), see [44, 45]. In addition to the parametrization
f of the deceleration parameter, there are several other
ρ= − 6H 2 f Q , (24)
2 schemes of parametrization of other cosmological pa-
! rameters. These schemes have been extensively ad-
f˙Q
2 f dressed in the literature to describe issues with cosmo-
p= Ḣ + 3H + H 2 fQ − . (25)
fQ 2 logical investigations e.g. initial singularity problem,
problem all-time decelerating expansion problem, hori-
Again, using Eqs. (22) and (23) we can rewrite the cos- zon problem, Hubble tension etc. For a detailed review
mological equations similar to the standard Friedmann of the various schemes of cosmological parameteriza-
equations in GR, by adding the concept of an effective tion, one may follow [46, 47]. These investigations, mo-
energy density ρe f f and an effective isotropic pressure tivated us to work with a new parametrization of the
pe f f as, Hubble parameter in the form
 
1 f
3H 2 = ρe f f = − ρ− , (26)
2 fQ 2 h
i 12
H (z) = H0 (1 − α) + (1 + z) α + βz , (28)

2 f˙Q
 
1 f where α and β are model parameters and can be mea-
2 Ḣ + 3H 2 = − pe f f = − H+ ρ + 2p + .
fQ 2 fQ 2 sured using observational data, H0 is the Hubble value
(27) at z = 0.
 5

The deceleration parameter is one of the cosmologi- the model parameters, we have first used the scipy op-
cal parameters that play an important role in describing timization technique from Python library to determine
the state of expansion of our Universe. The cosmologi- the global minima for the considered Hubble function in
cal models of the evolution of the Universe transit from equation (28). It is apparent that the parameters’ diago-
the early deceleration phase (q > 0) to the present accel- nal covariance matrix entries have significant variances.
erated phase (q < 0) with certain values of the transition The aforesaid estimations were then taken into account
redshift zt . Further, the observational data used in this as means and a Gaussian prior with a fixed σ = 1.0 as
paper showed that our current Universe entered an ac- the dispersion was utilised for the numerical analysis
celerating phase with a deceleration parameter ranging using Python’s emcee package. Given this, we exam-
between −1 ≤ q ≤ 0. The deceleration parameter is ined the parameter space encircling the local minima (or
defined in terms of the Hubble parameter as estimates). Below, a more in-depth analysis of the tech-
. nique used with three datasets is provided. The results
H are shown in the contour plots (two-dimensional) with
q ( z ) = −1 − 2 . (29)
H 1 − σ and 2 − σ errors.
In addition, using the relation between the redshift
and the scale factor of the Universe a (t) = (z + 1)−1 , 1. Hz datasets
we can define the relation between the cosmic time and
redshift as As a function of redshift, the Hubble parameter may
1 dz
d dz d d be written as H (z) = − 1+ z dt , where dz is determined
= = − ( z + 1) H ( z ) . (30) from spectroscopic surveys. In contrast, determining
dt dt dz dz
dt yields the Hubble parameter’s model-independent
Using the above equation, the Hubble parameter can
value. The value of the H (z) at a certain redshift is
be written in the form
frequently estimated using two methods. The differ-
. dH ential age methodology is one, while the extraction of
H = − ( z + 1) H ( z ) . (31)
dz H(z) from the line-of-sight BAO data is another [48]-[66].
The reference [33] provides a quick summary of a list
Now, using Eqs. (28) and (29) and with the help of Eq.
of revised datasets of 57 points out of which 31 points
(31), the deceleration parameter q (z) according to our
from the differential age technique and the remaining 26
model is given by,
points evaluated using BAO and other methods in the
α + β + α(−z) + βz − 2 redshift range of 0.07 6 z 6 2.42. Furthermore, we have
q (z) =
. (32) used H0 = 69 Km/s/Mpc for our analysis. The max-
2 βz2 + z(α + β) + 1
imum likelihood analysis’s counterpart, the chi-square
To study the behavior of the cosmological parameters function, is used to determine the model parameters’ av-
above, the next step will be to find the best fit values of erage values and is given by,
the model parameters α and β using the combination of
the H (z), Pantheon samples and BAO datasets. 57
[ Hth (zi , α, β) − Hobs (zi )]2
χ2H (α, β) = ∑ σH2
, (33)
i =1 (z )
i
A. Observational constraints
where Hobs denotes the observed value of the Hubble
parameter and Hth denotes its theorised value. The sym-
In the previous sections, we have briefly described bol σH (zi ) denotes the standard error in the observed
the f ( Q) gravity and solved the field equation with a value of the Hubble parameter H (z). The following Ta-
new parametrization of Hubble parameter. The consid- ble 1 described the 57 points of the Hubble parameter
ered form of H (z) contains two model parameters α & values H (z) with corresponding errors σH from differ-
β, which have been constrained through some observa- ential age (31 points), BAO and other (26 points), meth-
tional data for further analysis. We have used some ex- ods.
ternal datasets, such as observational Hubble datasets of
recently compiled 57 data points, Pantheon compilation
of SNeIa data with 1048 data points, and also the Bary- 2. Pantheon datasets
onic Acoustic Oscillation datasets with six data points,
to obtain the best fit values for these model parame- The recent supernovae type Ia dataset, with 1048 data
ters in order to validate our technique. In order to limit points, the pantheon sample [67] is used here for stronger
 6

Table-1: 57 points of Hubble (H (z)) datasets

31 points of H (z) datasets by DA method
z H (z) σH Ref. z H (z) σH Ref.
0.070 69 19.6 [48] 0.4783 80 99 [52]
0.90 69 12 [49] 0.480 97 62 [48]
0.120 68.6 26.2 [48] 0.593 104 13 [50]
0.170 83 8 [49] 0.6797 92 8 [50]
0.1791 75 4 [50] 0.7812 105 12 [50]
0.1993 75 5 [50] 0.8754 125 17 [50]
0.200 72.9 29.6 [51] 0.880 90 40 [48]
0.270 77 14 [49] 0.900 117 23 [49]
0.280 88.8 36.6 [51] 1.037 154 20 [50]
0.3519 83 14 [50] 1.300 168 17 [49]
0.3802 83 13.5 [52] 1.363 160 33.6 [54]
0.400 95 17 [49] 1.430 177 18 [49]
0.4004 77 10.2 [52] 1.530 140 14 [49]
0.4247 87.1 11.2 [52] 1.750 202 40 [49]
0.4497 92.8 12.9 [52] 1.965 186.5 50.4 [54]
0.470 89 34 [53]
26 points of H (z) datasets from BAO & other method
z H (z) σH Ref. z H (z) σH Ref.
0.24 79.69 2.99 [55] 0.52 94.35 2.64 [57]
0.30 81.7 6.22 [56] 0.56 93.34 2.3 [57]
0.31 78.18 4.74 [57] 0.57 87.6 7.8 [61]
0.34 83.8 3.66 [55] 0.57 96.8 3.4 [62]
0.35 82.7 9.1 [58] 0.59 98.48 3.18 [57]
0.36 79.94 3.38 [57] 0.60 87.9 6.1 [60]
0.38 81.5 1.9 [59] 0.61 97.3 2.1 [59]
0.40 82.04 2.03 [57] 0.64 98.82 2.98 [57]
0.43 86.45 3.97 [55] 0.73 97.3 7.0 [60]
0.44 82.6 7.8 [60] 2.30 224 8.6 [63]
0.44 84.81 1.83 [57] 2.33 224 8 [64]
0.48 87.79 2.03 [57] 2.34 222 8.5 [65]
0.51 90.4 1.9 [59] 2.36 226 9.3 [66]

constraints of the model parameters. The sample is

the spectroscopically verified SNe Ia data points, which
spans the redshift range 0.01 < z < 2.26. These in-  Z z 
formational points provide an estimate of the distance c (1 + z ) 1 ∗
Dl ( z ) = Sk H0 ∗
dz ,
moduli µi = µiobs in the redshift range 0 < zi ≤ 1.41. To H0 0 H (z )

determine which value of the distance modulus fits our

 √
 sinh( x Ωk )/Ωk , Ωk > 0


model parameters of the generated model best, we com- where Sk ( x ) = x, Ωk = 0
pare the theoretical µith value and observed µiobs value.  sin x |Ωk |)/ |Ωk | , Ωk < 0

 p
The distance moduli are the logarithms µith = µ( DL ) =
m − M = 5 log10 ( DL ) + µ0 , where m and M stand for
apparent and absolute magnitudes, respectively, and Here, Ωk = 0 (flat space-time). To quantify the dis-
µ0 = 5 log H0−1 /Mpc + 25 is the marginalised nui-
crepancy between the SN Ia observational data and our
sance parameter. The luminosity distance is seen as be- model’s predictions, we calculated distance Dl (z) and
ing, the chi square function χ2SN . For the Pantheon datasets,
the χ2SN function is assumed to be,
 7

where the quantities Ω0b and Ω0γ stand for the baryon
and photon densities, respectively, at the present time.
1048
[µth (µ0 , zi , α, β) − µobs (zi )]2 Additionally, the sound horizon scale can be used to de-
χ2SN (µ0 , α, β) = ∑ σµ2(z )
, (34)
rive the functions of redshift z for the angular diame-
i =1 i
ter distance D A and H (Hubble expansion rate). Here,
d A (z) is the co-moving angular diameter distance re-
σµ2(z ) being the standard error in the observed value. Rz 0
i lated to H (z) and is related as d A (z) = 0 Hdz (z0 )
. It is
used to calculate the measured angular separation of
the BAO (4θ), where 4θ = d r(s z) in the 2 point cor-
A
3. BAO datasets relation function of the galaxy distribution on the sky
and the measured redshift separation of the BAO (4z),
The early Universe is the subject of the analysis of where 4z = H (z)rs . In this work, BAO datasets of
baryonic acoustic oscillations (BAO). Thompson scatter- d A (z∗ )/DV (z BAO ) are taken from the references [10, 11,
ing establishes a strong bond between baryons and pho- 68–71] and the photon decoupling redshift (z∗ ) is con-
tons in the early cosmos, causing them to act as a single sidered, z∗ ≈ 1091. Also, the term DV (z) defined by
 1/3
fluid that defies gravity and oscillates instead due to the DV (z) = d A (z)2 z/H (z) is the dilation scale. For
intense pressure of photons. The characteristic scale of this analysis, we have used the data as considered in
BAO can be found by looking at the sound horizon rs at [71], which is described in the Table 2.
the photon decoupling epoch z∗ , and is provided by the Now, the chi-square function for the BAO is
relation, given by [71],

χ2BAO = X T C −1 X , (35)
1
c da
Z
1+ z ∗
rs (z∗ ) = √ q , where
3 0 a2 H ( a ) 1 + (3Ω0b /4Ω0γ ) a

 
d A (z? )
 DV (0.106)
− 30.95 
d A (z? )
− 17.55
 
DV (0.2)
 
 
d A (z? )
− 10.11
 
DV (0.35)
 
X= d A (z? )
,

 DV (0.44)
− 8.44 

d A (z? )
 

 DV (0.6)
− 6.69 

 d A (z? ) 
DV (0.73)
− 5.45

and the inverse covariance matrix C −1 , which is defined in the ref. [71] is given by,

 
0.48435 −0.101383 −0.164945 −0.0305703 −0.097874 −0.106738
 

 −0.101383 3.2882 −2.45497 −0.0787898 −0.252254 −0.2751  
 −0.164945 −2.454987 9.55916 −0.128187 −0.410404 −0.447574 
C −1 =
 
−0.0305703 −0.0787898 −0.128187 2.78728 −2.75632 1.16437 


 

 −0.097874 −0.252254 −0.410404 −2.75632 14.9245 −7.32441 
−0.106738 −0.2751 −0.447574 1.16437 −7.32441 14.5022

With the above set up, we have found the best fit β = 1.21+ 0.13
−0.13 . The result is shown in Fig. 1 as a two
values of the model parameters for the combined Hub- dimensional contour plots with 1 − σ and 2 − σ errors.
ble, Pantheon and BAO datasets as α = 0.191+ 0.093
−0.093 , Additionally, we observed our derived model has
 8

Table-2: The values of d A (z∗ )/DV (z BAO ) for different values of z BAO
z BAO 0.106 0.2 0.35 0.44 0.6 0.73
d A (z∗ )
DV (z BAO )
30.95 ± 1.46 17.55 ± 0.60 10.11 ± 0.37 8.44 ± 0.67 6.69 ± 0.33 5.45 ± 0.31

= 0.191 ± 0.093

= 1.21 ± 0.13
2.0

1.5

1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 1.0 1.5 2.0

FIG. 1. The 1 − σ and 2 − σ likelihood contours for the model parameters using H (z)+Pantheon+BAO datasets.

nice fit to the aforementioned Hubble and Pantheon value of the deceleration parameter is q0 = −0.3092.
datasets. The error bars for the considered datasets and Now, we are now fully equipped with all theoretical for-
the ΛCDM model (with ΩΛ0 = 0.7 and Ωm0 = 0.3) are mulas as well as numerical values of the model parame-
also plotted along with our model for comparison. This ters and can discuss the physical dynamics of the model.
is displayed in Fig. 2 and 3 respectively, So, the next section is dedicated to the physical dynam-
ics of the other important cosmological parameters.

B. Evolution of the q(z) and phase transition

C. Statefinder analysis
The evolution of the deceleration parameter corre-
sponding to the constrained values of the model param- As mentioned above, the deceleration parameter
eters is shown in Fig. 4. It is clear from this figure that plays a key role in knowing the nature of the expansion
the cosmological model contains a transition from the of the Universe. But as more and more models are pre-
phase of deceleration to acceleration. The transition red- sented for DE, the deceleration parameter no longer tells
shift corresponding to the values of the model parame- us enough about the nature of the cosmological model,
ters constrained by the combined Hubble, Pantheon and because DE models have the same current value of this
BAO datasets is zt = 0.6857. Moreover, the present parameter. For this reason, it has become necessary
 9

250
From curve fitting: Hubble
CDM
From data
200

150
H(z)

100

50

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

z

FIG. 2. The figure shows the error bar plot of the considered 57 points of Hubble datasets together with the fitting of Hubble
function H (z) vs. redshift z for our obtained model (red line) compared with that of standard ΛCDM model (black dashed line).

46

44

42

40
(z)

38

36

34 From curve fitting: Pantheon values

CDM
32 From data
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
z

FIG. 3. The figure shows the error bar plot of the considered 1048 points of the Pantheon compilation SNe Ia datasets together
with the fitting of function µ(z) vs. redshift z for our obtained model (red line) compared with that of standard ΛCDM model
(black dashed line).

to propose new parameters to distinguish between DE parameters are defined as

models. Sahni et al. proposed a new geometrical diag- ...
a
nostic parameters which are dimensionless and known r= , (36)
aH 3
as statefinder parameters (r, s) [42, 76]. The statefinder
(r − 1)
s=  . (37)
3 q − 21
 10

1.4
0.2 Decelerated phase
0.0 CG
q0
-0.2 1.2
Transition redshift ( zt )
-0.4
q

1.0 LCDM
-0.6

-0.8
Accelerated phase 0.8
-1.0

-1 0 1 2 3

r
z 0.6

FIG. 4. The graphical behavior of the deceleration param-

eter with the constraint values from H (z)+Pantheon+BAO
0.4
datasets.

Quintessence
The parameter r can be rewritten as 0.2
.
2 q
r = 2q + q − . (38)
H
0.0
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
For different values of the statefinder pair (r, s), the
various DE models known in the literature can be repre- s
sented as follows
FIG. 5. The graphical behavior of the statefinder param-
• ΛCDM model corresponds to (r = 1, s = 0), eters with the constraint values from H (z)+Pantheon+BAO
datasets.
• Chaplygin Gas (CG) model corresponds to (r >
1, s < 0),

• Quintessence model corresponds to (r < 1, s > 0), 0.45

For our cosmological model, the statefinder pair can 0.40

be obtained as
0.35
OmHzL

1−α
r (z) = , (39)
βz2 + z(α + β) + 1
0.30

2(z + 1)(α + βz) 0.25

s (z) =
. (40)
3β z2 − 1 + α(6z − 3) + 9
0.20
Fig. 5 represents the r − s plane by considering pa- -1 0 1 2 3
rameters constrained by the combined Hubble, Pan-
z
theon and BAO datasets. This plot shows that our
model initially approaches the quintessence model (r < FIG. 6. The graphical behavior of the Om diagnostic pa-
1, s > 0). In the later epoch, it reaches the CG model rameter with the constraint values from H (z)+Pantheon+BAO
(r > 1, s < 0) and finally it reaches to the fixed point of datasets.
ΛCDM model (r = 1, s = 0) of the Universe.

D. Om diagnostics from the Hubble parameter [77]. It is the simplest diag-

nostic because it is a function of the Hubble parameter
The Om diagnostic is another very useful tool to clas- i.e. it uses only the first-order derivative of the scale fac-
sify the different cosmological models of DE created tor of the Universe. In a spatially flat Universe, the Om
 11

diagnostic is defined as tion of the Hubble parameter proposed in the previous

section with the values of the model parameters con-
E2 ( z ) − 1 strained by the combined Hubble, Pantheon and BAO
Om (z) = , (41)
(1 + z )3 − 1 datasets. At this stage, the equation of state (EoS) pa-
rameter is used to classify the different phases in the ex-
H (z)
where E (z) = H0 and H0 is the current Hubble con- pansion of the Universe i.e. from the decelerating phase
p
stant. This tool allows us to know the dynamical na- to the accelerating phase and is defined as ω = ρ , where
ture of DE models from the slope of Om(z), for a neg- p is the isotropic pressure and ρ is the energy density
ative slope, the model behaves as quintessence while of the Universe. The simplest candidate for DE in GR
a positive slope represents a phantom behavior of the is the cosmological constant Λ, for which ωΛ = −1.
model. Lastly, the constant behavior of Om(z) refers to The value ω < − 13 is required for a cosmic acceleration.
the ΛCDM model. The Om diagnostic parameter for our For other dynamical models of DE such as quintessence,
model is −1 < ω < − 31 and phantom regime, ω < −1.
α + β + βz
Om (z) = . (42) For our proposed parametrization of Hubble param-
z2 + 3z + 3
eter, we assume a power-law functional form of non-
From Fig. 6, it is clear that the Om diagnostic param- metricity i.e. [25],
eter corresponding to the values of the model parame-
ters constrained by the combined Hubble, Pantheon and
BAO datasets has a negative slope at first, which indi-
cates the quintessence type behavior, while in the future
f ( Q) = Q + mQn , (43)
it becomes a positive slope which indicates the phantom
scenario.

IV. COSMOLOGICAL f ( Q) MODEL where m and n are the free model parameters. For this
specific choice of the function, by using Eqs. (24) and
In this section, we are going to discuss a cosmolog- (25), the energy density of the Universe and the isotropic
ical models in f ( Q) gravity using a new parametriza- pressure can be obtained in the form

  n 
1
m −6n (2n − 1) H 2 − 6H 2 ,


ρ= (44)
2

and
   
.  n  n
2 H m6n n(2n − 1) H 2 + 6H 2 + 3H 2 m6n (2n − 1) H 2 + 6H 2
p= . (45)
6H 2

From Fig. 7, we can observe that the energy density such as dark energy in the context of accelerated ex-
of the Universe is an increasing function of redshift z pansion of the Universe. Fig. 9 depicts the behavior of
(or a decreasing function of cosmic time t) and remains the EoS parameter vs redshift using the power-law func-
positive as the Universe expands for all the three val- tional form of non-metricity for various values of n. It is
ues of n. It begins with a positive value and gradually clear that the model begins from a matter-dominated era
decreases to zero, as expected. Also, Fig. 8 shows that (ω = 0) in early time, traverses the quintessence model
the isotropic pressure is an increasing function of red- (−1 < ω < − 31 ) in the present, and then approaches
shift for all the three values of n, which starts with pos- the ΛCDM region (ω = −1) at z = −1. For n = 1.5,
itive values at early times, i.e. at large z, and in the late the EoS parameter exhibits quintessence-like behavior
and present time, the pressure becomes negative with at the current epoch, thus both q and ω give the same
small values close to zero. According to the observa- behaviour. Further, the present value of the EoS param-
tions, the negative pressure is caused by exotic matter eter corresponding to the combined Hubble, Pantheon,
 12

7 0.5
n = 1.5
6 n = 1.6

5 n = 2.0 0.0
4
ρ

ω
3
- 0.5
2 n = 1.5

1 n = 1.6
- 1.0 n = 2.0
0
-1 0 1 2 3 -1 0 1 2 3
z z

FIG. 7. The graphical behavior of the energy density with the FIG. 9. The graphical behavior of the EoS parameter with the
constraint values from H (z)+Pantheon+BAO datasets and dif- constraint values from H (z)+Pantheon+BAO datasets and dif-
ferent values for n. ferent values for n.

1.5 n = 1.5
present value of the Hubble parameter. Further, we ob-
n = 1.6
tained the best fit values of the model parameters by
n = 2.0
1.0
using the combined Hubble H (z), Pantheon and BAO
datasets as α = 0.191+ 0.093 +0.13
−0.093 , β = 1.21−0.13 . In ad-
p

dition, we have investigated the behavior of decelera-

0.5 tion parameter, statefinder analysis and Om diagnos-
tic parameter for the constrained values of model pa-
rameters. The evolution of the deceleration parame-
0.0 ter in Fig. 4 indicates that our cosmological contains a
-1 0 1 2 3
transition from decelerated to accelerated phase. The
z
transition redshift corresponding to the values of the
model parameters constrained by the combined Hub-
FIG. 8. The graphical behavior of the isotropic pressure with ble, Pantheon and BAO datasets is zt = 0.6857. More-
the constraint values from H (z)+Pantheon+BAO datasets and over, the present value of the deceleration parameter is
different values for n. q0 = −0.3092. Further, Fig 5 represents the r − s evolu-
tion trajectories of the model which initially approaches
the quintessence model. In the later epoch, it reaches
and BAO datasets and for different values of n supports
the CG model and finally it reaches to the fixed point
an accelerating phase in this scenario. Finally, it is possi-
of ΛCDM model of the Universe. The Om diagnostic
ble to see that the behavior of the EoS parameter in our
parameter has a negative slope at first, which indicates
model corresponds to the models presented in the liter-
the quintessence type behavior, while in the future it be-
ature [29–31].
comes a positive slope which indicates the phantom sce-
nario. Next, to discuss the behavior of other cosmologi-
V. CONCLUSIONS cal parameters, we considered a f ( Q) model of the non-
metricity scalar, specifically, f ( Q) = Q + mQn , where
In this paper, we investigated the accelerated expan- m and n are free parameters. From Fig. 7 we observed
sion of the Universe in the framework of f ( Q) gravity that the energy density is positive values and increasing
theory in which the non-metricity scalar Q describes the function of redshift. This represents the expansion of the
gravitational interaction. To find the exact solutions to Universe. The variation of the isotropic pressure is pre-
the field equations in the FLRW Universe, we proposed sented in Fig. 8. From the figure, we observed that the
a new parametrization of the Hubble parameter, specif- isotropic pressure is negative at present and later times.
h
i 21 From EoS parameter (see Fig. 9) we observed that f ( Q)
ically, H (z) = H0 (1 − α) + (1 + z) α + βz where model exhibits quintessence-like behavior at the current
α and β are free model parameters, H0 represents the epoch. Finally, we conclude that the model supports the
 13

current accelerating Universe. ity and facility, where a part of the work has been car-
Data availability There are no new data associated ried out during a visit. We are very much grateful to the
with this article. honorable referee and to the editor for the illuminating
Declaration of competing interest The authors suggestions that have significantly improved our work
declare that they have no known competing financial in terms of research quality, and presentation.
interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

S. K. J. Pacif & PKS thank the Inter University Centre

for Astronomy and Astrophysics (IUCAA) for hospital-

[1] A.G. Riess et al., Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998). [33] G. S. Sharov et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 466, 3497
[2] S. Perlmutter et al., Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999). (2017).
[3] T. Koivisto, D.F. Mota, Phys. Rev. D 73, 083502 (2006). [34] D.M. Scolnic et al., Astrophys. J. 859, 101 (2018).
[4] S.F. Daniel, Phys. Rev. D 77, 103513 (2008). [35] C. Blake et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 418, 1707 (2011).
[5] C.L. Bennett et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148, 119-134 (2003). [36] D. F. Mackey et al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 125, 306 (2013).
[6] D.N. Spergel et al., [WMAP Collaboration], Astrophys. J. [37] J. B. Jimenez, L. Heisenberg, and T. S. Koivisto, J. Cosmol.
Suppl. 148, 175 (2003). Astropart. Phys. 2018, 08 (2018).
[7] G. Hinshaw et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. 208, 19 (2013). [38] L. Heisenberg, Phys. Rep. 796, 1-113 (2019).
[8] R.R. Caldwell, M. Doran, Phys. Rev. D 69, 103517 (2004). [39] J. B. Jimenez, L. Heisenberg, and T. S. Koivisto, Universe
[9] Z.Y. Huang et al., JCAP 0605, 013 (2006). 5, 7 (2019).
[10] D.J. Eisenstein et al., Astrophys. J. 633, 560 (2005). [40] L. Heisenberg, M. Hohmann, and S. Kuhn, arXiv preprint
[11] W.J. Percival at el., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 401, 2148 arXiv:2212.14324 (2022).
(2010). [41] A. Shafieloo et al., Phys. Rev. D 87, 2 (2013).
[12] [Link], Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1 (1989). [42] V. Sahni, T. D. Saini, A. A. Starobinsky, U. Alam, JETP
[13] B. Ratra and P.J.E. Peebles, Phys. Rev. D 37, 3406 (1998). Lett. 77, 201 (2003).
[14] M. Sami and A. Toporensky, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 19, 1509 [43] C. Escamilla-Rivera and A. Najera, J. Cosmol. Astropart.
(2004). Phys. 2022, 03 (2022).
[15] C. Armendariz-Picon et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4438 (2000). [44] N. Banerjee, S. Das, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 37, 1695 (2005).
[16] J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 171104 [45] J. V. Cunha and J. A. S. Lima, Mon. Not. Roy. Astr. Soc. 390,
(2004). 210 (2008).
[17] T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rev. D 66, 021301 (2002). [46] S. K. J. Pacif et al., Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 14, 7
[18] M. C. Bento et al., Phys. Rev. D 66, 043507 (2002). (2017).
[19] R. Zarrouki and M. Bennai, Phys. Rev. D 82, 123506 (2010). [47] S. K. J. S. K. J. Pacif, Eur. Phys. J. Plus135, 10 (2020).
[20] S. Capozziello et al., Phys. Rev. D 76, 104019 (2007). [48] D. Stern et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 02 008 (2010).
[21] M. Koussour and M. Bennai, Class. Quantum Gravity 39, [49] J. Simon, L. Verde, R. Jimenez, Phys. Rev. D 71 123001
105001 (2022). (2005).
[22] J. B. Jimenez et al., Phys. Rev. D 98, 044048 (2018). [50] M. Moresco et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 08 006 (2012).
[23] J. B. Jimenez et al., Phys. Rev. D 101, 103507 (2020). [51] C. Zhang et al., Research in Astron. and Astrop., 14 1221
[24] Y. Xu et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 8 (2019). (2014).
[25] S. Mandal et al., Phys. Rev. D 102, 024057 (2020). [52] M. Moresco et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 05 014 (2016).
[26] S. Mandal et al., Phys. Rev. D 102, 124029 (2020). [53] A. L. Ratsimbazafy et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.,467
[27] T. Harko et al., Phys. Rev. D 98, 084043 (2018). 3239 (2017).
[28] N. Dimakis et al., Class. Quantum Grav. 38, 225003 (2021). [54] M. Moresco, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. Lett., 450 L16
[29] M. Koussour et al., J. High Energy Astrophys, 35, 43-51 (2015).
(2022). [55] E. Gaztaaga et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 399 1663
[30] M. Koussour et al., Phys. Dark Universe 36, 101051 (2022). (2009).
[31] S. Mandal et al., Universe 8, 4 (2022). [56] A. Oka et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 439 2515 (2014).
[32] R. Lazkoz et al., Phys. Rev. D 100, 104027 (2019). [57] Y. Wang et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 469 3762 (2017).
 14

[58] C. H. Chuang, Y. Wang, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 435 [70] N. Jarosik et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl., 192 14 (2011).
255 (2013). [71] R. Giostri et al., J. Cosm. Astropart. Phys., 03 027 (2012).
[59] S. Alam et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 470 2617 (2017). [72] M. Chevallier, D. Polarski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 10, 213
[60] C. Blake et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 425 405 (2012). (2001).
[61] C. H. Chuang et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 433 3559 [73] S. Del Campo et al., Phys. Rev. D 86, 083509 (2012).
(2013). [74] S. Joan , Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 255-262. [arXiv:1209.0210]
[62] L. Anderson et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 441 24 [75] J. E. Bautista et al., Astron. Astrophys. 603 (2017) A12.
(2014). [76] U. Alam et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 344, 1057 (2003).
[63] N. G. Busca et al., Astron. Astrophys., 552 A96 (2013). [77] V. Sahni, A. Shafieloo, and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev.
[64] J. E. Bautista et al., Astron. Astrophys., 603 A12 (2017). D 78, 103502 (2008).
[65] T. Delubac et al., Astron. Astrophys., 574 A59 (2015). [78] E. M. Barboza Jr and J. S. Alcaniz, Phys. Lett. B 666, 5
[66] A. Font-Ribera et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 05 027 (2008).
(2014). [79] H. Wei et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2014, 01 (2014).
[67] D. M. Scolnic et al., Astrophys. J., 859 101 (2018).
[68] C. Blake et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 418 1707 (2011).
[69] F. Beutler et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 416, 3017
(2011).

View publication stats