H0 Tension in Torsion-based Modified Gravity

Sanjay Mandal ,1, ∗ Sai Swagat Mishra ,1, † and P.K. Sahoo 1, ‡

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

Hyderabad Campus, Hyderabad-500078, India.
(Dated: January 20, 2023)

The rising concern in the Hubble constant tension (H0 tension) of the cosmological models
motivates the scientific community to search for alternative cosmological scenarios that could resolve
the H0 tension. In this regard, we aim to work on a torsion-based modified theory of gravity which
is an alternative description to the coherence model. We find an analytic solution of the Hubble
parameter using a linear Lagrangian function of torsion T and trace of energy-momentum tensor
arXiv:2301.06328v2 [astro-ph.CO] 19 Jan 2023

T for the dust case. Further, we constrain the cosmological and model parameters; to do that, we
use Hubble and Pantheon samples and Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation through
Bayesian statistics. We obtain the values of Hubble constant as H0 = 69.9 ± 6.8 kms−1 Mpc−1 ,
H0 = 70.3 ± 6.3 kms−1 Mpc−1 , and H0 = 71.4 ± 6.3 kms−1 Mpc−1 at 68% confidence level (CL), for
Hubble, Pantheon, and their combine analysis, respectively. These outputs of H0 for our model align
with the recent observational measurements of H0 . In addition, we test the Om diagnostic to check
our model’s dark energy profile.

Keywords: H0 tension, modified gravity, observational constraint, Om diagnostic.

I. INTRODUCTION and curvature through f ( R, T ) gravity (where T is the

In modern cosmology, there are two key issues re-
lated to the background evolution of the universe till
now i.e., the Hubble constant (H0 ) tension and the na-
ture of the dark energy. Studying and understanding
these problems may bring new physics, which moti-
vates scientists in the present time to look into it. So
far, various experiments conducted and ongoing to un-
derstand the properties of dark energy/accelerated ex-
pansion of the universe and it has been more than two
decades that cosmologists are trying to find an appro-
priate model that can assimilate late cosmic acceleration
[1–5]. The quest led them to extensive research on grav-
itational theories. The dark energy model is one of the
well-known models, which attempts to explain the late-
time acceleration. Einstein’s general relativity (GR) is
the best choice as a theory of gravity. Still, in GR we of-
ten encounter the presence of singularities and it is seen
that it degenerates at cosmological distance. The short-
comings of GR led cosmologists to find several modi-
fied theories of gravitation such as f ( R) gravity, f ( T )
gravity, modified Gauss-Bonnet gravity f ( G ), a general
coupling between the Ricci scalar and the Gauss-Bonnet
f ( R, G ) gravity(See extensive reviews on cosmological
applications in Refs. [6, 7]), a coupling between matter
∗ sanjaymandal960@gmail.com
† saiswagat009@gmail.com
‡ pksahoo@hyderabad.bits-pilani.ac.in
trace of energy-momentum tensor) [8–12].
Generally, in modified gravitational theories one gen-
eralizes the Einstein-Hilbert action of General Relativity
using the curvature description of gravity. However, re-
cently researchers prefer an alternative theory of gravity
that uses torsion instead of curvature, called teleparallel
gravity [13, 14]. This uses a curvature-free connection,
known as Weitzenböck connection, instead of the Levi-
Civitá connection of GR and vierbein fields instead of
a metric field. Einstein introduced the torsion formal-
ism which is equivalent to that of GR, called telepar-
allel equivalent general relativity (TEGR) [15–20]. GR
was generalized to f ( R) gravity while teleparallel grav-
ity was generalized to the torsion-based f ( T ) gravity
[21, 22]. Although TEGR is equivalent to General Rel-
ativity in terms of describing gravity, f ( T ) is different
than f ( R) gravity because they form different gravita-
tional modifications. Also, the field equation in f ( T )
gravity is of the second order which is an advantage
over f ( R). Moreover, f ( T ) gravity has been explored
in many interesting areas such as thermodynamics [23],
late-time acceleration [22], reconstruction [24], static so-
lutions [25–27], etc. The feasibility of f ( T ) gravity at
the solar system scales has also been investigated, espe-
cially by considering deviations from the linear action of
TEGR [28].
Similar to the coupling between matter and curvature
through f ( R, T ) gravity (where T is the trace of energy-
momentum tensor), f ( T ) gravity can be generalized
into f ( T, T ) gravity [29, 30], which is different from all
 2

other existing torsion or curvature-based models. The
f ( T, T ) gravity yields an interesting cosmological phe-
nomenon as it describes the expansion history with an
initial inflationary phase, a subsequent non-accelerated
matter-dominated expansion, and finally late-time ac-
celerating phase [31]. Also, it has been explored in the
context of reconstruction and stability [32], growth fac-
tor of sub-horizon modes [33], quark stars [34].
Moreover, scientists are successfully able to observe
the accelerated expansion of the universe, but still, it is
unclear about the dark energy. After many studies and
observations, we came up with a few basic properties
[35]:
II. BASIC EQUATIONS OF f ( T, T ) GRAVITY
We start with the required connection to obtain a
torsion-based curvature, which is called Weitzenböck
wλ
connection defined as Γνµ ≡ eλA ∂µ eνA which leads
to zero curvature, unlike the Levi-Civitá connection
which leads to zero torsion. Here eλA and eνA are vier-
beins. The metric tensor related to these vierbeins is
gµν ( x ) = η AB eµA ( x )eνB ( x ), here the Minkowski metric
tensor η AB = diag(1, −1, −1, −1).
The Torsion tensor can be defined as,
wλ wλ
λ
Tµν = Γνµ − Γµν = eλA (∂µ eνA − ∂ν eµA ). (1)

The contorsion tensor K µν ρ ≡ − 21 ( T µν ρ − T νµ ρ − Tρ µν )

• dark energy acts as a cosmological fluid with the which expresses the difference between Weitzenböck
equation of state ω ' −1, and Levi-Civitá connection. Further, we introduce the
superpotential tensor Sρ µν ,

• dark energy can hardly cluster, unlike dark matter, 1 µν µ

Sρ µν ≡ (K ρ + δρ T αν α − δρν T αµ α ). (2)
and it is filtered homogeneously on cosmic scales 2
of the universe. Using (1) and (2) we can obtain the torsion scalar T,

ρ 1 ρµν 1
T ≡ Sρ µν Tµν = T Tρµν + T ρµν Tνµρ − Tρµ ρ T νµ ν .
Interestingly, the H0 tension is closely related to the na- 4 2
(3)
ture of dark energy and it states that the globally derived
The gravitational action for teleparallel gravity can be
H0 value for ΛCDM model using CMB measurements
defined as,
[36] is 5σ lower than the Hubble Space Telescope (HST)
measurements for the present scenario of the universe 1
Z Z
S= d4 xeT + d4 xeLm (4)
[37]. In literature, a large number of studies have been 16πG
done to solve or relieve H0 tension [38–40]. Mostly, the √
where e = det(eµA ) = − g, G is the Newton’s con-
studies on these problems are done based on the ΛCDM
stant and Lm is the matter Lagrangian. From TEGR, one
model, whereas these issues are not widely examined
can extend the torsion scalar T to T + f ( T ), resulting in
through the modified gravity approach. Also, the modi-
f ( T ) gravity. Moreover, the function can be extended to
fied theories of gravitation are well-known for their suc-
a general function of both torsion scalar T and trace of
cessful presentation of accelerated expansion of the uni-
energy-momentum tensor T which leads to
verse without having any dark energy or cosmological
constant problem. Therefore, in this work, we attempt 1
Z Z
S= d4 xe[ T + f ( T, T )] + d4 xeLm , (5)
to explore the H0 tension in the framework of torsion- 16πG
based modified gravity.
where f ( T, T ) is the extended general function. The
This article is presented as follows: we start by intro- above equation represents the gravitational action for
ducing the basic formalism of the torsion-based grav- f ( T, T ) gravity.
ity and solve the motion equations for the solution of
the Hubble parameter in section II. After that, we dis- Varying the action, given by eq. (5), with respect
cuss various observational datasets and the methodol- to the vierbeins yields the field equations
ogy, which are used to do the statistical analysis in sec- h i
(1 + f T ) e−1 ∂µ (e e A α Sα ) − eαA Tνα Sµ +
tion III. The numerical outputs from our analysis are dis- ρµ µ νρ

cussed and summarized in section IV. Furthermore, we  

 
α ρµ ρ f +T
test our model through Om diagnostic and compare it f TT ∂µ T + f T T ∂µ T e e A Sα + e A
with the ΛCDM model to know its dark energy profile 4
 
f emρ emρ
in section V. In last, gathering all the outputs, we con- − T eαA T α + p e A = 4πG eαA T α
ρ
(6)
clude in section VI. 2

em ρ
where T α is the usual energy-momentum tensor, f T =
∂ f /∂T, f T T = ∂2 f /∂T∂T .
In order to discuss the geometrical structure of
the universe, we consider a spatially flat Friedmann-
Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric,
ds2 = dt2 − a2 (t)δij dxi dx j , (7)
where a(t) is the scale factor in terms of time. For the
above metric, vierbein field read,
eµA = diag(1, a, a, a), (8)
and T = −6H 2 . For the cosmological fluid distribution,
we consider a perfect fluid and it can be written as
em ρ
Tα = diag(ρm , − pm , − pm , − pm ), (9)
where p and ρ are pressure and energy density, respec-
tively and T reads ρm − 3pm . Using the above FLRW
metric in the field eq. (6), we obtain the modified Fried-
mann equations:
8πG 1 ρm + pm
H2 = ρm − ( f + 12H 2 f T ) + f T ( ), (10)
3 6 3 are further discussed in the following subsections.
Ḣ = −4πG (ρm + pm ) − Ḣ ( f T − 12H 2 f TT )
ρm + pm
− H (ρ˙m − 3 p˙m ) f T T − f T ( ). (11)
2 Various observations have been used to observe the
Now, one could use the above two field equations to
study various cosmological scenarios in the context of
f ( T, T ) gravity. To proceed further in our study, we aim
to find the solution for Hubble parameter. But, we have
two differential equations with more than two unknown
functions. Therefore, we considered the dust universe,
for which p = 0 and the corresponding energy density
reads,
ρm =
ρm0
= ρm0 (1 + z)3 , (12)
a3
where a(t) = 1/(1 + z). In dust case, T reduces to
ρm , which can further be generalized to λρm . Moreover,
we need to presume a functional form of Lagrangian
f ( T, T ) to study the cosmological scenario of the uni-
verse in the framework of f ( T, T ) gravity. Let us con-
sider a linear form of Lagrangian as
f ( T, T ) = αT + βT . (13)
3
We consider The first motion eq. (10) becomes,
1 2 + 2β − βλ
H2 = [ρm0 (1 + z)3 [ ]] (14)
1+α 6
This equation can be written as,
 
1 2 + 2β − βλ
H2 = 3H0 2 Ωm0 (1 + z)3  , (15)
1+α 6
where Ωm0 =
ρm0
is the dimensionless density param-
3H0 2
eter with present Hubble constant H0 . Now, our aim is
to constrain the free parameters α, β, λ with H0 , Ωm0 .
III. DATA AND METHODOLOGY
In this section, we shall discuss the observational data
sets and the methodology to estimate the bounds on pa-
rameters. For this purpose, we use the Hubble measure-
ments and pantheon SNIa samples integrates various
SNIa data points. To calibrate the data sets, we adopt
the Bayesian statistical analysis and use the emcee pack-
age to Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation.
More details about the data sets and statistical analysis
A. Cosmic Chronometer (CC) Dataset
cosmological parameters, such as the cosmic microwave
background (CMB) from the Wilkinson Microwave
Anisotropy Probe team [5, 41, 42] and Planck team [43],
baryonic acoustic oscillations (BAO) [44], Type Ia super-
novae (SNeIa) [1, 2]. Some of the above models depend
on values that require the Hubble parameter to be inte-
grated along the line of sight to explore overall expan-
sion through time. The Hubble parameter H is deeply
connected to the history of universe expansion. It is de-
fined as H = ȧa , where a represents the cosmic scale fac-
tor and ȧ as the rate of change about cosmic time. The
expansion rate H (z) is obtained as
1 dz
H (z) = − (16)
1 + z dt
where z is the redshift.
Here we have used 31 points from the differential age
(DA) approach in the redshift range 0.07 < z < 2.42 and
presented in Table II.
 4

TABLE I. H (z) datasets consisting of 31 data points

z H (z) σH Ref. z H (z) σH Ref.
0.070 69 19.6 [45] 0.4783 80 99 [49]
0.90 69 12 [46] 0.480 97 62 [45]
0.120 68.6 26.2 [45] 0.593 104 13 [47]
0.170 83 8 [46] 0.6797 92 8 [47]
0.1791 75 4 [47] 0.7812 105 12 [47]
0.1993 75 5 [47] 0.8754 125 17 [47]
0.200 72.9 29.6 [48] 0.880 90 40 [45]
0.270 77 14 [46] 0.900 117 23 [46]
0.280 88.8 36.6 [48] 1.037 154 20 [47]
0.3519 83 14 [47] 1.300 168 17 [46]
0.3802 83 13.5 [49] 1.363 160 33.6 [51]
0.400 95 17 [46] 1.430 177 18 [46]
0.4004 77 10.2 [49] 1.530 140 14 [46]
0.4247 87.1 11.2 [49] 1.750 202 40 [46]
0.4497 92.8 12.9 [49] 1.965 186.5 50.4 [51]
0.470 89 34 [50]

The chi-square function is defined to find the con- 2.26 [52, 53], which integrates Super-Nova Legacy Sur-
straint values of the parameters α, β, λ H0 , Ωm0 . vey (SNLS), Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS),Hubble
Space Telescope (HST) survey, Panoramic Survey Tele-
31 [ Hith (θs , zi ) − Hiobs (zi )]2
χ2CC = ∑ 2 (z )
σCC
(17) scope and Rapid Response System(Pan-STARRS1). The
chi-square function is defined as,
i =1 i

where Hiobs denotes the observed value, Hith denotes the

Hubble’s theoretical value,σzi denotes the standard error 1048  
in the observed value and θs = (α, β, λ H0 , Ωm0 ) is the
χ2SN = ∑ −1
5µi CSN 5 µj,
ij
(18)
i,j=1
cosmological background parameter space. For simplic-
ity, we use H0 = 100 h In addition, we use the following
prior to our analysis: Here CSN is the covariance matrix [53], and

TABLE II. Priors for parameter space α, β, λ H0 , Ωm0 . 5µi = µth (zi , θ ) − µiobs .
Parameter prior
H0 (60,80)
is the difference between the observed value of distance
Ωm0 (0,1)
modulus extracted from the cosmic observations and
α (-10,10)
its theoretical values calculated from the model with
β (-10,10)
given parameter space θ. µith and µiobs are the theoret-
λ (-10,10)
ical and observed distance modulus respectively. The
theoretical distance modulus µith is defined as µith (z) =
In our MCMC analysis, we used 100 walkers and 1000 m − M = 5LogDl (z) where m and M are apparent and
steps to find out results. The 1 − σ and 2 − σ CL contour absolute magnitudes of a standard candle respectively.
plot is presented in fig. 1 and the numerical results are TheR zluminosity distance Dl (z) defined as, Dl (z) = (1 +
dz∗
presented in Table III, for CC sample. z) 0 H (z∗ ) . To run MCMC, we used the same priors,
B. Type Ia Supernovae number of walkers, and steps, which are used in CC
sample. The 1 − σ and 2 − σ CL contour plot is pre-
For Type Ia supernovae, we have used Pantheon com- sented in fig. 2 and the numerical results are presented
pilation of 1048 points in the redshift range 0.01 < z < in Table III, for Pantheon sample.
 5

h = 0.699 ± 0.068
CC Sample

m0 = 0.319+0.053
0.072

0.5
0.4
m0

0.3
0.2
= 0.099 ± 0.097
0.4

0.2

0.0

0.2 = 0.811 ± 0.098

1.0

0.8

0.6
= 0.09 ± 0.10
0.4

0.2

0.0

0.2
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
h m0

FIG. 1. The marginalized constraints on the parameters H0 , Ωm0 , α, β, λ of our model using cosmic chronometer sample. The dark
green shaded regions present the 1 − σ confidence level (CL), and light green shaded regions present the 2 − σ confidence level.
The constraint values for the parameters are presented at the 1 − σ CL.
 6

h = 0.703 ± 0.063
Pantheon Sample

m0 = 0.329+0.050
0.070

0.5

0.4
m0

0.3

0.2
= 0.087 ± 0.099
0.4

0.2

0.0

0.2 = 1.407 ± 0.099

1.6

1.4

1.2
= 0.08 ± 0.10
0.4

0.2

0.0

0.2
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
h m0

FIG. 2. The marginalized constraints on the parameters H0 , Ωm0 , α, β, λ of our model using Pantheon sample. The dark green
shaded regions present the 1 − σ confidence level (CL), and light green shaded regions present the 2 − σ confidence level. The
constraint values for the parameters are presented at the 1 − σ CL.
 7

h = 0.714 ± 0.063
CC+Pantheon dataset

m0 = 0.333+0.053
0.066

0.5

0.4
m0

0.3

0.2 = 0.085 ± 0.097

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.2 = 0.78 ± 0.10

1.0

0.8

0.6
= 0.095 ± 0.097
0.4

0.2

0.0

0.2
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
h m0

FIG. 3. The marginalized constraints on the parameters H0 , Ωm0 , α, β, λ of our model using cosmic chronometer(CC) + Pantheon
sample. The dark green shaded regions present the 1 − σ confidence level (CL), and light green shaded regions present the 2 − σ
confidence level. The constraint values for the parameters are presented at the 1 − σ CL.

C. CC + Type Ia Supernovae Sample The marginalized constraints on the parameters in-

cluded in the parameter space θ are presented in fig. 3
To perform the both CC and Type Ia supernovae sam- and numerical results presented in Table III.
ples together, we use the following Chi-square function
χ2CC+SN = χ2CC + χ2SN . (19)
 8

h = 0.685 ± 0.030 h = 0.679 ± 0.010

CC Sample CC+Pantheon dataset

m0 = 0.327+0.050
0.068 m0 = 0.323+0.032
0.038
0.45
0.5
0.40
0.4 0.35
m0

m0
0.3 0.30
0.2 0.25

0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.66 0.68 0.70 0.3 0.4
h m0 h m0

FIG. 4. The marginalized constraints on the parameters
H0 , Ωm0 of the ΛCDM model using CC sample are shown.
The dark green shaded regions present the 1 − σ confidence
level (CL), and light green shaded regions present the 2 − σ
confidence level. The constraint values for the parameters are
presented at the 1 − σ CL.
FIG. 6. The marginalized constraints on the parameters
H0 , Ωm0 of the ΛCDM model using CC+Pantheon samples are
shown. The dark green shaded regions present the 1 − σ con-
fidence level (CL), and light green shaded regions present the
2 − σ confidence level. The constraint values for the parame-
ters are presented at the 1 − σ CL.

IV. NUMERICAL RESULTS

In this section, we shall discuss the numerical results

obtained from the statistical analysis. As we know, the
H0 -tension is a new issue in modern cosmology, be-
cause various observational studies presented different
values of H0 . Therefore, nowadays, the big question is
’why this is happening? or, what is the acceptable range for
h = 0.681 ± 0.013 H0 ?’. Let us review the status of the H0 tensions from
Pantheon Sample various experimental outputs. Starting from the ’Gold
standard’ experimental prediction with the Planck 2018
samples for a flat ΛCDM model, the Hubble constant is
H0 = 67.27 ± 0.60 kms−1 Mpc−1 at 68% CL [54], and
with the addition of the four trispectrum data points to
m0 = 0.311+0.048
0.058 Planck, it is H0 = 67.36 ± 0.54 kms−1 Mpc−1 at 68% CL
0.5 for Planck 2018+ CMB lensing [54]. The nine-year data
0.4 released for Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe
(WMAP) experiments [5] for the same ΛCDM model
m0

0.3
presented a value of Hubble constant H0 = 70.0 ± 2.2
0.2 kms−1 Mpc−1 at 68% CL. This value is in agreement
0.65 0.70 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 with previous results for Planck due to the large stan-
h m0 dard deviation. The above conclusion used to study
through various CMP samples, the constraint values of
FIG. 5. The marginalized constraints on the parameters H0 are analyzed for the same ΛCDM model, such as
H0 , Ωm0 of the ΛCDM model using Pantheon sample are South Pole Telescope (SPTPol) [55] reports H0 = 71.3 ±
shown. The dark green shaded regions present the 1 − σ con- 2.1 kms−1 Mpc−1 at 68% CL for TE and EE datasets,
fidence level (CL), and light green shaded regions present the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT) presents reports
2 − σ confidence level. The constraint values for the parame- H0 = 67.9 ± 1.5 kms−1 Mpc−1 at 68% CL, ACT with
ters are presented at the 1 − σ CL
WAMP gives H0 = 67.6 ± 1.1 kms−1 Mpc−1 at 68% CL
 9

TABLE III. Marginalized constrained data of the parameters h, Ωm0 , α, β, λ for different data samples with 68% confidence level.

Model h Ωm0 α β λ
CC dataset, 68% CL
ΛCDM 0.685 ± 0.030 0.327+ 0.050
−0.068 - - -
f ( T, T ) = αT + βT 0.699+ 0.068
−0.068
+0.053
0.319−0.072 0.099+ 0.097
−0.097 0.811+ 0.098
−0.098 0.09+ 0.10
−0.10
Pantheon dataset, 68% CL
ΛCDM 0.681 ± 0.013 0.311+ 0.048
−0.058 - - -
f ( T, T ) = αT + βT 0.703+ 0.063
−0.063
+0.050
0.329−0.070 0.087+ 0.099
−0.099 1.407+ 0.099
−0.099 0.08+ 0.10
−0.10
CC+Pantheon dataset, 68% CL
ΛCDM 0.679 ± 0.010 0.323+ 0.032
−0.038 - - -
f ( T, T ) = αT + βT 0.714+ 0.063
−0.063
+0.053
0.333−0.066 0.085+ 0.097
−0.097 0.78+ 0.010
−0.010 0.095+ 0.097
−0.097

[56]. Finally, a combined analysis of CMB experiments
SPT, Atacama Cosmology Telescope Polarimeter (ACT-
Pol), and SPTPol reads H0 = 69.72 ± 1.63 kms−1 Mpc−1
at 68% CL [57], while ACTPol+SPTPol+ Planck dataset,
gives H0 = 67.49 ± 0.53 kms−1 Mpc−1 at 68% CL [58].
Moreover, there are some other less precise results pre-
sented from the measurements of the polarization of the
CMB. These results are H0 = 73.1+ 3.3
−3.9 kms
−1 Mpc−1
at 68% CL for SPTPol, H0 = 72.4+ 3.9
−4.8 kms
−1 Mpc−1 at
68% CL for ACTPol, H0 = 70.0 ± 2.7 kms−1 Mpc−1 at
analysis, various results were also presented for Baryon
Acoustic Oscillations (BAO) and its’ combined analy-
sis with CMB considering different cosmological scenar-
ios. For instance, Baryon Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS)
Data Release 12 (DR12) provides H0 = 67.9 ± 1.1 kms−1
Mpc−1 at 68% CL [60], H0 = 68.19 ± 0.36 kms−1 Mpc−1
at 68% CL for Planck 2018+ Pantheon Type Ia super-
novae+ Dark Energy Survey (DES)+Redshift Space Dis-
tortions (RSD)+ Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) [61],
H0 = 68.36+ 0.53
−0.52 kms
−1 Mpc−1 at 68% CL for WAMP+

68% CL for SPTPol for Planck EE. But, combining these BAO [57] (please see the articles for more details in H0 -
datasets gives H0 = 68.7 ± 1.3 kms−1 Mpc−1 at 68% CL tension [53, 62–64]).
[59]. Apart from the results obtained from the CMB data

Keeping the issue with Hubble constant H0 in mind,
we aim to constrain the H0 in the framework of the
torsion-based modified theory of gravity with CC, Pan-
theon, and CC+ Pantheon samples. In Table III, the
numerical outputs for the parameters H0 , Ωm0 , α, β, λ
with 68% CL are presented. From our MCMC analysis,
we constraint the Hubble constant as H0 = 69.9 ± 6.8
kms−1 Mpc−1 at 68% CL, H0 = 70.3 ± 6.3 kms−1 Mpc−1
at 68% CL, and H0 = 71.4 ± 6.3 kms−1 Mpc−1 at 68%
CL, for CC, pantheon, and CC+Pantheon samples, re-
spectively. Furthermore, we constraint the dimension-
less matter density as Ωm0 = 0.319+ 0.053
−0.072 at 68% CL for
CC, Ωm0 = 0.329+ 0.050
−0.070 at 68% CL for Pantheon, and
+0.053
Ωm0 = 0.333−0.066 at 68% CL for CC+Pantheon dataset.
In order to a comparison with a flat ΛCDM model and
to have a better presentation, we constraint the param-
eters H0 and Ωm0 of ΛCDM model with CC, Pantheon,
and CC+ Pantheon dataset. The numerical outputs are
summarized in Table III and 1 − σ, 2 − σ contour pre-
sented in fig. 4, 5, 6 for respective datasets. Compar-
ing the numerical results of our model with the ΛCDM
model, it is observed that our model’s H0 values are
slightly higher than the ΛCDM model. But, our out-
puts are in agreement with the observational values of
H0 aforementioned and discussed in the review article
[65].
V. Om DIAGNOSTICS
Om diagnostic is used to analyze the difference be-
tween standard ΛCDM and other dark energy models.
Om is more convenient than the state-finder diagnosis
[66] as it uses only the first-order temporal derivative of
the cosmic scale factor. This is because it only involves
the Hubble parameter, and the Hubble parameter de-
pends on a single time derivative of a(t). For the spa-
tially flat universe, it is defined as
H( x )2 − 1
Om( x ) = , x = 1 + z,
(1 + z )3 − 1
H( x ) = H ( x )/H0 , (20)
 10

where z is redshift and H0 is the present value of the Om diagnostics for CDM
Hubble parameter. For the dark energy model with con- CDM
4 Quintessence
stant equation of state ω, Phantom
3
3
H( x ) = Ωm0 x + (1 − Ωm0 ) x , γ = 3(1 + ω ).

(x)2
γ
(21) 2

1
Now, we can rewrite Om( x ) as
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
xγ −1 (1 + z)3
Om( x ) = Ωm0 + (1 − Ωm0 ) . (22)
x3 − 1
FIG. 7. The evolution of H( x )2 with respect to (1 + z)3 for
For ΛCDM model, we find ΛCDM (ω = −1, black color line), quintessence (ω = −0.7,
grey-dashed color line), and phantom (ω = −1.3, yellow-
dashed color line). The constraint value of Ωm0 for ΛCDM
Om( x ) = Ωm0 , (23) model is considered.

whereas Om( x ) < Ωm0 in phantom with γ < 0 while

Om( x ) > Ωm0 in quintessence with γ > 0. This results
concluded that: Om( x ) − Ωm0 = 0 iff dark energy is a cos-
mological constant [66, 67]. In other way, we can say that
Om diagnostic gives us a null test of the cosmological
constant. As a consequence, H( x )2 provides a straight
line against x3 with a constant slope Ωm0 for ΛCDM,
plotted in Fig. 7. For other dark energy models Om( x )
is curved, because
dH( x )2
= constant. (24)
dx3
The profiles for quintessence and phantom dark energy
models profiles for H( x )2 with respect to x3 are pre-
sented in Fig. 7. From Fig. 7, it is seen that H( x )2 vs
x2 is a straight line whereas it is curved for quintessence
and phantom in the redshift range −1 ≤ z ≤ 1. Further-
more, for x1 < x2 , Om( x1 , x2 ) ≡ Om( x1 ) − Om( x2 ) = 0
in ΛCDM, whereas Om( x1 , x2 ) ≡ Om( x1 ) − Om( x2 ) <
0 in phantom, Om( x1 , x2 ) ≡ Om( x1 ) − Om( x2 ) > 0
in quintessence. This test helps us with the observa-
tional measurements and also, provides us a null test
for the ΛCDM model. In addition to this one can see
that H( x ) → 0 as z → −1 for quintessence, H( x ) di-
verges at z < 0, suggesting the ‘big rip’ future singular-
ity for phantom, and ΛCDM approached towards the
de Sitter spacetime at the late times. Moreover, we ex-
amine the Om diagnostic profile for our model with the
constraint values of parameters and presented in Fig. 8.
We observed that H( x ) is showing a constant slope for
our model and mimicking the profile of ΛCDM model.
But, in the late time, H( x ) → 0 when z → −1 like
quintessence. This is happening due to the effect of
torsion-based modified theory of gravity.
Om diagnostics for our model
7
6
5
4
(x)2
3
CDM
2 CC
Pantheon
1
CC+Pantheon
z=0
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
(1 + z)3
FIG. 8. The evolution of H( x )2 with against (1 + z)3 for ΛCDM
(black color line), CC dataset (red color line), Pantheon dataset
(green color line), CC+Pantheon dataset (cyan color line). The
constraint value of Ωm0 for ΛCDM model is considered.
VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The rising concern in the Hubble constant tension (H0
tension) of the ΛCDM cosmological model motivates
the scientific community to search for alternative cos-
mological scenarios that could resolve the H0 tension. In
this view, we have worked on the torsion-based modi-
fied theory of gravity to look at this H0 tension issue.
For this purpose, we have used 31 points of the cos-
mic chronometer dataset and 1048 points of Pantheon
Type Ia supernovae samples which integrate various
data sets. We started by considering a simple linear La-
grangian f ( T, T ) = αT + βT and dust case. We solved
for an analytic solution of Hubble parameter from Fried-
mann equations using presumed condition. Further,
we constraint the parameters H0 , Ωm0 , α, β, λ of our
model using CC and Pantheon samples. The Bayesian
method is used to find the best-fit ranges of the param-
 11

eters through MCMC simulation, and constraint values behavior, but in late time it behaves like quintessence.
of parameters with 68% CL are presented in Table III. Due to the effect of the modified theory of gravity, we
Moreover, the obtained results for Hubble constant got this type of dark energy profile for our model and
are H0 = 69.9 ± 6.8 kms−1 Mpc−1 at 68% CL, H0 = these results differentiate our outputs from the existing
70.3 ± 6.3 kms−1 Mpc−1 at 68% CL, and H0 = 71.4 ± studies on Om diagnostic.
6.3 kms−1 Mpc−1 at 68% CL, for CC, Pantheon, and
In the concluding note, our findings could motivate
CC+Pantheon samples, respectively. To compare our
the scientific community to look into the H0 tension in
outputs for H0 with the widely accepted flat ΛCDM
the torsion-based gravitational theories as well as other
model, we have constraint H0 , Ωm0 with the same data
modified theories of gravity. Because our study is one
samples and summarized in Table III. The constraint H0
of the alternatives to the coherence model, preferred
values for ΛCDM are H0 = 68.5 ± 3.0 kms−1 Mpc−1
by the observational dataset, and does not face the
at 68% CL for CC, H0 = 68.1. ± 1.3 kms−1 Mpc−1
cosmological constant problem due to the absence
at 68% CL for Pantheon, and H0 = 67.9 ± 1.0 kms−1
of additional constant in the presumed Lagrangian
Mpc−1 at 68% CL for CC+Pantheon samples. These val-
f ( T, T ). In future studies, it would be interesting to see
ues of H0 plays as the lower limits for our model and
the outputs of these types of studies using CMB, weak
H0 values for our model are comparatively large than
lensing, LSS spectra, and other datasets. We hope to test
the ΛCDM model. Nevertheless, our outputs for H0
and report these types of studies in the near further.
are in agreement with discussed H0 values for CMB,
BAO experiments in the numerical results section IV.
We have also constraint Ωm0 for our model and ΛCDM. Data availability: There are no new data associated
For our model, Ωm0 = 0.319+ 0.053
−0.072 at 68% CL for CC, with this article.
Ωm0 = 0.329+ 0.050
−0.070 at 68% CL for Pantheon, and Ωm0 =
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
+0.053
0.333−0.066 at 68% CL for CC+Pantheon dataset; whereas
in case of ΛCDM, Ωm0 = 0.327+ 0.050
−0.068 at 68% CL for SSM acknowledges the Council of Scientific and In-
+0.048
CC, Ωm0 = 0.311−0.058 at 68% CL for Pantheon, and dustrial Research (CSIR), Govt. of India for award-
Ωm0 = 0.323+ 0.032
−0.038 at 68% CL for CC+Pantheon dataset. ing Junior Research fellowship (E-Certificate No.:
These results of Ωm0 for both models are relatively sim- JUN21C05815). PKS acknowledges the Science and
ilar and align with the recent observational measure- Engineering Research Board, Department of Science
ments. In addition to this, we have examined the Om di- and Technology, Government of India for finan-
agnostics for our model to check the dark energy profile. cial support to carry out the Research project No.:
We have seen that our model mimics the ΛCDM model CRG/2022/001847.

[1] A.G. Riess et al., Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998). [14] R. Aldrovandi, J. G. Pereira, Teleparallel Gravity: An In-
[2] S. Perlmutter . et al., Astrophys. J.. 517, 565 (1999). troduction: Fundamental Theories of Physics (Springer, Dor-
[3] D. N. Spergel et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148, 175 (2003). drecht) (2012).
[4] P. J. E. Peebles, B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 559 (2003). [15] A. Unzicker, T. Case, arXiv:physics/0503046.
[5] G. Hinshaw et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. 208, 19 (2013). [16] C. Moller, Conservation laws and absolute parallelism in
[6] S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rep. 505, 59 (2011). general relativity, Mat-Fys. Skr. Udg. K. Da. 1, 3 (1961).
[7] A. De Felice, S. Tsujikawa, Living Rev. Relativ. 13, 3 (2010). [17] C. Pellegrini J. Plebanski, Mat-Fys. Skr. Udg. K. Da. 2, 1
[8] T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, Phys. (1963).
Rev. D 84, 024020 (2011). [18] K. Hayashi, T. Shirafuji, Phys. Rev. D 19, 3524 (1979).
[9] S. Chakraborty, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 45, 2039 (2013). [19] H.I. Arcos, J.G. Pereira, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 13, 2193
[10] G. Sun, Y.-C. Huang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 25, 1650038 (2004).
(2016). [20] J.W. Maluf, Annalen Phys. 525, 339 (2013).
[11] G. P. Singh, B. K. Bishi, P. K. Sahoo, Int. J. Geom. Methods [21] R. Ferraro, F. Fiorini, Phys. Rev. D 75, 084031 (2007); G. R.
Mod. Phys. 13, 1650058 (2016). Bengochea, R. Ferraro, Phys. Rev. D 79, 124019 (2009).
[12] V. Fayaz, H. Hossienkhani, Z. Zarei, N. Azimi, Eur. Phys. [22] E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. D 81, 127301 (2010); 82, 109902
J. Plus 131, 22 (2016). (2010).
[13] V. C. De Andrade, L. C. T. Guillen, J. G. Pereira, arXiv:gr- [23] I. G. Salako, M. E. Rodrigues, A. V. Kpadonou, M. J. S.
qc/0011087. Houndjo, J. Tossa, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11, 060
(2013).

[24] K. Bamba, R. Myrzakulov, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, Phys.
Rev. D 85, 104036 (2012).
[25] M. Hamani Daouda, M. E. Rodrigues, M. J. S. Houndjo,
Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1817 (2011); 72, 1890 (2012).
[26] N. Tamanini, C. G. Boehmer, Phys. Rev. D 86, 044009
(2012); R. Ferraro, F. Fiorini, Phys. Rev. D 84, 083518
(2011); C. G. Boehmer, A. Mussa, N. Tamanini, Class.
Quantum Grav. 28, 245020 (2011); X. h. Meng, Y. b. Wang,
Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1755 (2011).
[27] C. G. Boehmer, T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D 85,
044033 (2012); M. H. Daouda, M. E. Rodrigues, M. J. S.
Houndjo, Phys. Lett. B 715, 241 (2012); T. Wang, Phys. Rev.
D 84, 024042 (2011).
[28] L. Iorio, E. N. Saridakis, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 427,
1555 (2012).
[29] T. Harko, et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12, 021 (2014).
[30] S. Arora, A. M. D. Bhat, P.K. Sahoo. arXiv:2210.01552.
[31] D. Momeni, R. Myrzakulov, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod.
Phys. 11, 1450077 (2014).
[32] E. L. B. Junior, M. E. Rodrigues, I. G. Salako, M. J. S.
Houndjo, Class.l Quantum Grav. 33, 125006 (2016).
[33] G. Farrugia, J. Levi Said, Phys. Rev. D 94, 124004 (2016).
[34] M. Pace, J. Levi Said, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 62 (2017).
[35] E. Di Valentino et al., Astropart. Phys. 131, 102606 (2021).
[36] N. Aghanim et al. Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020); As-
tron. Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021).
[37] A. G. Riess et al., arXiv:2112.04510.
[38] E. Abdalla et al., JHEAp 34, 49 (2022).
[39] E. Di Valentino et al., Astropart. Phys. 131, 102605 (2021).
[40] M. Haslbauer et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 499, 2845
(2020); R. Cai et al., Phys. Rev. D 106, 063519 (2022); R.
Cai et al., Phys. Rev. D 105, L021301 (2022); K. Rezazadeh,
A. Ashoorioon, D. Grin, arXiv:2208.07631.
[41] Spergel D.N. et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 170, 377,
(2007)
[42] E. Komatsu et al., Astrophys. J., 192, 18 (2011).
[43] Ade P.A.R. et al., A & A 594, A13, (2016)
[44] D.J. Eisenstein et al., Astrophys. J., 633, 560 (2005).
12
[45] D. Stern. et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02, 008, (2010).
[46] J. Simon, L. Verde, R. Jimenez, Phys. Rev. D 71, 123001,
(2005).
[47] M. Moresco et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08, 006,
(2012).
[48] C. Zhang et al., Research in Astron. and Astrop. 14, 1221,
(2014).
[49] M. Moresco et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05, 014,
(2016).
[50] A. L. Ratsimbazafy et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 467,
3239, (2017).
[51] M. Moresco, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. Lett. 450, L16,
(2015).
[52] A. K. Camlibel, I. Semiz, M. Feyizoglu, Class. Quant.
Grav. 37,235001 (2020).
[53] D. M. Scolnic, et al., Astrophys. J. 859, 101. (2018).
[54] N. Aghanim et al. (Planck) Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6
(2020).
[55] J. W. Henning et al. (SPT) Astrophys. J. 852, 97 (2018).
[56] S. Aiola et al. (ACT) J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12, 047
(2020).
[57] K. Wang, Q. G. Huang, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 06, 045
(2020).
[58] L. Balkenhol et al. (SPT) Phys. Rev. D 104, 083509 (2021).
[59] G. E. Addison, Astrophys. J. Lett. 912, L1 (2021).
[60] M. M. Ivanov, M. Simonovic, M. Zaldarriaga, J. Cosmol.
Astropart. Phys. 05, 042 (2020).
[61] S. Alam et al. (eBOSS) Phys. Rev. D 103, 083533 (2021).
[62] T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES) Phys. Rev. D 98, 043526 (2018).
[63] M. A. Troxel et al. (DES) Phys. Rev. D 98 043528 (2018).
[64] E. Krause et al. (DES), arXiv:1706.09359.
[65] E. Di Valentino et al., Class. quantum Grav. 38, 153001
(2021).
[66] V. Sahni, A. Shafieloo, A. A. Starobinsky Phys. Rev. D 78,
103502 (2008)
[67] V. Sahni, T. D. Saini, A. A. Starobinsky, and U. Alam, JETP
Lett. 77, 201 (2003); U. Alam, V. Sahni, T. D. Saini, A. A.
Starobinsky, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 344, 1057 (2003).