New Astronomy 89 (2021) 101648

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

New Astronomy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/newast

Tsallis holographic dark energy models in Bianchi type space time

M. Vijaya Santhi *, Y. Sobhanbabu
Department of Applied Mathematics, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam 530003, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The main purpose of this paper is to construct interacting and non-interacting Tsallis holographic dark energy
Bianchi type-VI0 Universe models in an anisotropic and homogeneous Bianchi type-VI0 space time within the framework of a scalar tensor
Tsallis holographic dark energy theory proposed by Saez and Ballester (1986). For this purpose, we use the relationship between metric po­
Cosmology
tentials of the model and varying deceleration parameter to solve the Saez–Ballester field equations. In order to
Saez–Ballester theory
study the physical behavior of the models, we obtain some well-known cosmological parameters like decelera­
tion, equation of state, statefinder, Om diagnostic parameters, and ωT - ωT planes of the models. Also, we observe
′

that in our non-interacting and interacting models deceleration and equation of state parameters support the
recent observational data.

1. Introduction 2004), holographic DE (Emmanuel et al., 2018), agagraphic DE (Cai,

2007; Wei and Cai, 2008) etc. have been developed.
One of the better outstanding developments in modern cosmology is The holographic DE model (HDE) suggests, this model is originated
the discovery of the accelerated expansion of the Universe which is from holographic principle and its energy density can be expressed by
strongly believed to be driven by exotic dark energy (DE) (Bennett et al., ρde =
3C2 M2p
here C2 is a numerical constant, M2p is the reduced Planck
,
L2
2003; Perlmutter et al., 1998; Riess et al., 1998). The nature and
mass and L denotes the size of the current Universe such as the Hubble
composition of DE is still an open question. The thermodynamical in­
scale (Horava and Minic, 2000; Thomas, 2002). In addition, the holo­
vestigations of DE reveal that the constituents of DE might be massless
graphic DE has some problems and cannot explain the time line of a flat
particles (Bosons) whose collective behavior resembles with a kind of
FRW Universe (Stephen and Hsu, 2004; Li, 2004). One of the proposed
radiation components having huge negative pressure. Also, it is
solutions for the HDE problems is the consideration of various entropies.
commonly believed by the cosmological community that this unknown
One of the considered entropy is Tsallis entropy which has been used in
exotic physical entity known as DE is a kind of repulsive force which is
many papers (D’Agostino, 2019; Majhi, 2017; Abe, 2001; Biro and Ván,
acting as antigravity responsible for gearing up the Universe. The Wil­
2011). In recent years, various entropy formalism have been used to
kinson microwave anisotropy probe experiment suggests that 73%
discuss the gravitational and cosmological setups. Also, some new ho­
content of the Universe is in the form of DE, 23% is in the form of
lographic DE models are constructed such as Tsallis HDE (Tavayef et al.,
non-baryonic dark matter (DM), and rest of the 4% is in the form of
2018a), Renyi HDE (RHDE) (Tsallis and Cirto, 2013b) and
normal (baryonic) matter as well as radiation. Cosmological constant
Sharma-Mittal HDE (Moradpour et al., 2018). Among these models,
(Λ) is the primary DE candidate for describing DE phenomenon but it
Renyi HDE based on the absence of interactions between cosmos com­
has some serious problems like fine-tuning and cosmic coincidence
ponents, and this model shows more stability by itself (Jahromi et al.,
problems. Due to this reason, several dynamical DE models such as
2018), Sharma-Mittal HDE is classically stable in the case of
quintessence (Ratra and Peebles, 1988; Wetterich, 1988; Caldwell et al.,
non-interacting model and Tsallis HDE model based on the Tsallis
1998; Zlatev et al., 1999; Kamenshchik et al., 2001), phantom (Caldwell,
generalized entropy, which is never stable at the classical level (Tavayef
2002; Bento et al., 2002; Nojiri and Odintsov, 2003; Abhay and Jerzy,
et al., 2018b; Tsallis and Cirto, 2013a). Hence, with this motivation, in
2004; Setare, 2007), quintom (Feng et al., 2005; Cai et al., 2010),
this paper, we consider the HDE with Tsallis entropy formalism i.e.,
tachyon (Sen, 2002; Padmanabhan, 2002; Setare et al., 2009), K-essence
Tsallis HDE (THDE).
(Armendariz-Picon et al., 2000), Chaplygin gas model (Debnath et al.,
Nojiri et al. (2005) have investigated the properties of singularities in

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: gv.santhi@live.com (M. Vijaya Santhi), sobhan.maths@gmail.com (Y. Sobhanbabu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newast.2021.101648
Received 24 January 2021; Received in revised form 2 June 2021; Accepted 8 June 2021
Available online 18 June 2021
1384-1076/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M. Vijaya Santhi and Y. Sobhanbabu New Astronomy 89 (2021) 101648

the phantom DE Universe. They have, also, mentioned that the where A, B and C are the metric coefficients, as functions of cosmic time.
phantom-like behavior of equation of state (EoS) parameter ωT may The following are the some physical parameters which are useful to find
appear from Brans-Dicke (BD) theory, either from the non minimal the solution of the SB field equations for the metric B-VI0 . The average
coupling of a scalar Lagrangian with gravity, or from negative scale factor a(t), and volume V(t) are defined as
(non-standard) potentials, or even the usual matter may appear in
phantom like behavior. Sadri et al. (2018) have investigated an inter­ (2)
1
a(t) = (ABC)3 , V(t) = a(t)3 = ABC
acting new HDE model in the background of fractal cosmology. Pradhan
(2013) has discussed accelerating DE models with anisotropic fluid in The average Hubble parameter H(t) is defined as
Bianchi type VI0 space-time. Sahoo et al. (2017) have studied aniso­ ( )
tropic cosmological model in the framework of modified theory of ȧ 1 Ȧ Ḃ Ċ
H(t) = = + + (3)
gravity with variable deceleration parameter. Sahoo et al. (2020) have a 3 A B C
discussed bouncing scenario in f(R, T) gravity. Aditya and Reddy (2018)
have discussed anisotropic new HDE model in the framework of The deceleration parameter q is given by
Saez–Ballester (SB) scalar tensor theory of gravitation. Sahoo et al. aä
(2018) have investigated a periodic varying deceleration parameter in q(t) = − (4)
ȧ2
f(R, T) gravity. Saridakis et al. (2018) have studied HDE through Tsallis
entropy and its cosmological evolution through observational con­ The SB field equations for matter and THDE distribution are (with 8πG =
straints. Barboza et al. (2015) and Nunes et al. (2016) have studied DE C = 1) given by
models through non-extensive Tsallis entropy frame-work and cosmo­ ( ) ( )
1
logical viability of non-gaussian statistics. Recently, Nojiri et al. (2019) Gij − wϕn ϕ,i ϕ,j − gij ϕ,k ϕ,k = − Tij + Tij , (5)
have studied modified cosmology from extended entropy with varying 2
exponent.
and the scalar field ϕ satisfies the following equation
Sadri (2019) has studied observational constraints on interacting
THDE model. Zadeh et al. (2019) have investigated the cosmic evolution 2ϕn ϕ,i,i + nϕn− 1 ϕ,k ϕ,k = 0, (6)
of THDE in Bianchi type-I model filled with DM and THDE interacting
with each other throughout a sign-changeable interacting with different where Gij represents the Einstein tensor and Tij & Tij are energy mo­
IR cut offs. Dubey et al. (2019a) have discussed THDE in Bianchi type-I mentum tensors for matter and THDE respectively. For physical inter­
by using hybrid expansion law with K-essence. Aditya et al. (2019) have pretation, the energy momentum tensors for matter and THDE can be
studied observational constraint on interacting THDE in logarithmic BD written as
theory. Sanjay et al. (2020) have studied accelerating universe in Hybrid
and logarithmic teleparallel gravity. Arora et al. (2020) have discussed Tij = diag[1, 0, 0, 0]ρm , (7)
f(Q, T) gravity models with observational constraints. Ghaffari et al.
(2018) have investigated interacting and non-interacting THDE models and
by considering the Hubble horizon as the IR cutoff within BD scalar Tij = diag[1, − ωT , − (ωT + γ 1 ), − (ωT + γ 2 )]ρT , (8)
theory framework, while Jawad et al. (2019) have studied cosmological
implications of THDE in modified version of BD scalar theory. In both where ρT , ρm are energy densities of THDE and matter and pT is the
the models, the authors have considered the BD scalar field ϕ as a power pressure of THDE. ωT = pρT is an equation of state (EoS) parameter and
function of average scale factor (a). Here, we are interested to extend the
T

the skewness parameters γ 1 and γ 2 are the deviations from y and z axes
study of THDE models in BD theory with scalar field ϕ as logarithmic respectively. So, the field equations for the discussed metric can be
function of average scale factor. Recently, Santhi and Sobhanbabu written as
(2020) have analyzed anisotropic interacting and non-interacting THDE
models in the framework of scalar tensor theory of gravitation. Very B̈ C̈ ḂĊ 1 w n 2
+ + + − ϕ ϕ̇ = − ωT ρT , (9)
recently Bhattacharjee (2020a) has investigated growth rate and B C BC A2 2
configurational entropy in THDE.
In this paper, we have considered the Bianchi type-VI0 (B − VI0 ) Ä C̈ ȦĊ 1 w n 2
+ + − − ϕ ϕ̇ = − (ωT + γ1 ) ρT , (10)
Universe with THDE in SB scalar tensor theory of gravitation. The plan A C AC A2 2
of the work as follows: In section 2, we have derived SB field equations
and its solution with the help of B-VI0 space time in the presence of two Ä B̈ ȦḂ 1 w n 2
+ + − − ϕ ϕ̇ = − (ωT + γ 2 ) ρT , (11)
minimally interacting fields: DM and THDE components. In section 3, A B AB A2 2
we have constructed non-interacting and interacting THDE models
ȦḂ ḂĊ ȦĊ 1 w n 2
along with their physical discussions. In section 4, we presented dis­ + + − + ϕ ϕ̇ = ρm + ρT , (12)
AB BC AC A2 2
cussion and comparison. Finally, in section 5, we have presented some
conclusions of this work.
Ḃ Ċ
− = 0, (13)
B C
2. SB field equations and solution
( )
Ȧ Ḃ Ċ n ϕ˙2
We consider the geometry of the Universe as spatially homogeneous ϕ̈ + + + ϕ̇ + = 0, (14)
A B C 2 ϕ
and non-isotropic B-VI0 metric, which can be written as

ds2 = dt2 − A2 (t)dx2 − B2 (t)e2x dy2 − C2 (t)e− 2x

dz2 , (1) and also, the continuity equation of the matter and THDE is obtained as

2
M. Vijaya Santhi and Y. Sobhanbabu New Astronomy 89 (2021) 101648

( ) ( ) ( )
Ȧ Ḃ Ċ Ȧ Ḃ Ċ Ḃ Ċ [ ] [ ] [ ]
ρ˙m + + + ρ + ρ˙T + + + (1 + ωT )ρT + γ1 + γ2 ρ α 3k α k α k
A B C m A B C B C T ds2 = dt2 − t2 + β(k+2) dx2 − t2 + β(k+2) e2x dy2 − t2 + β(k+2) e− 2x
dz2 .
β β β
= 0. (26)
(15)
Thus, Eq. (26) describes B-VI0 THDE model in SB scalar tensor theory of
On integration, Eq. (13) yields B = c1 C, where c1 is an integration con­ gravitation.
stant. It can be taken as unity, without loss of generality, so that we have The average scale parameter and volume of the model respectively,
given by
B = C. (16) [ ] [ ]
α 1 α 3
a = t2 + 2β & V = t2 + 2β (27)
In view of Eq. (16), the field Eqs. (9)–(14) transform to β β
2
B̈ Ḃ 1 w The Hubble parameter(H) of the model can be obtained as
(17)
2
2 + + − ϕn ϕ̇ = − ωT ρT ,
B B2 A2 2
t
H= ( ) (28)
Ä B̈ ȦḂ 1 w n 2 β t2 + αβ
+ + − − ϕ ϕ̇ = − (ωT + γ 1 ) ρT , (18)
A B AB A2 2
The energy density of the THDE model is given by Tsallis and Cirto
Ä B̈ ȦḂ 1 w n 2
+ + − − ϕ ϕ̇ = − (ωT + γ 2 ) ρT , (19) (2013b)
A B AB A2 2
ρT = γH 4− 2δ , (29)
2
ȦḂ Ḃ 1 w n 2
2 + − + ϕ ϕ̇ = ρm + ρT , (20) where γ and δ are constants.
AB B2 A2 2
Now with help of Eqs. (28) and (29), the energy density of THDE is
( )
Ȧ Ḃ n ϕ˙2 obtained as
ϕ̈ + +2 ϕ̇ + = 0. (21) [ ]
A B 2 ϕ
t
ρT = γ ( ) 4− 2δ (30)
β t2 + αβ
From Eqs. (18) to (19), we obtain
γ1 = γ2 . (22) Using Eqs. (17), (18), and (22) we get the skewness parameters as

In view of Eq. (22), the field Eqs. (17)–(21) constitute a system of four ( )β(k+2)
3k
3(k− 1)
( )
βH 1
non linear equations with seven unknowns: A, B, ϕ, ωT , ρT , ρm , and γ 1 . In 2 t
− k+2
3H − t
H
order to get a deterministic solution, we take the following plausible γ1 = γ2 = (31)
γH 4− 2δ
physical conditions:
Here, we consider the fact that expansion scalar is directly propor­ Now using Eqs. (21) and (25), we have the scalar field ϕ is
tional to shear scalar which leads to a relation between the metric po­ ∫ ( )
tentials:
n+2 α −2β3
(32)
n+2
ϕ2 = ϕ0 t 2 + dt + c2 ,
2 β
A=B, k
(23)
where ϕ0 and c2 are integration constants.
k∕= 1 is a positive constant. Using Eqs. (20), (25), and (31), we get
In this paper, we assume a well-motivated ansatz considered by ( ) ( )
βH β(k+2) w βH 3β
Abdussatter and Prajapati (2011) which puts a constraint on the func­ (33)
3k
ρm = 9(k + 1)2 H 2 − + ϕ20 − γH 4− 2δ

tion form of the deceleration parameter q(t) as t 2 t

α The behavior of skewness parameter (γ1 ) versus redshift (z) is plotted

q=− + β − 1, (24) in Fig. 1 for the values α = 0.8 and β = 1.6. It is observed that the
t2
skewness parameter is positive throughout the evolution and decreases
here α > 0 and β > 1. as Universe evolves. Figs. 2 and 3 describe the behavior of energy
Hence, from the Eqs. (2), (23), and (24), we find the metric potentials density of matter and THDE against redshift for the values k = 0.925,
as α = 0.8, β = 1.6, γ = 2.3, w = 1000, δ = 2.6, and ϕ0 = 10. It is
[ ] [ ] observed that both ρm and ρT are always positive throughout the evo­
α 3k α 3
A = t2 + 2β(k+2) , B = C = t2 + 2β(k+2) . (25) lution. From Fig. 3, it is also observed that at initial epoch ρT increases,
β β
reaches a maximum value at present epoch and vanishes at late times.
Now through a proper choice of coordinates and constants the metric (1)
with the help of Eq. (25) can be written as 3. Non-interacting model

Here we consider the non-interacting matter and THDE. Hence, both

of these conserve separately, so that we have from Eq. (15),

3
M. Vijaya Santhi and Y. Sobhanbabu New Astronomy 89 (2021) 101648

Fig. 1. Plot of skewness parameter (γ1 ) versus redshift (z) for k = 0.925, α = 0.8, β = 1.6, γ = 2.3, w = 1000, δ = 2.6 and ϕ0 = 10.

Fig. 2. Plot of energy density (ρm ) of matter versus redshift (z) for k = 0.925, α = 0.8, β = 1.6, γ = 2.3, w = 1000, δ = 2.6, and ϕ0 = 10.

( )
Ȧ Ḃ Ċ ⎛ ⎞ ( ) ⎛ ⎞
ρ˙m + + + ρ = 0, (34) 6(k − 1) 3H − 1
A B C m 2δ − 4⎟ Ḣ t 4 ⎜βH ⎟β(k+2)
ωT = − 1 + ⎜
3k
⎝ ⎠ 2+ − ⎝ ⎠ ,
( ) 3 H γ(k + 2)2 H 3− 2δ γ(k + 2)H 4− 2δ t
Ȧ Ḃ Ċ Ḃ
ρ˙T + + + (1 + ωT )ρT + 2γ1 ρT = 0. (35) (36)
A B C B
( )
t2
Using Eqs. (20), (31) and (34), we get the EoS parameter (ωT ) of THDE
α−

where Ḣ = ( )2 .
β

model β α2 +αβ

Taking the derivative of Eq. (35) with respect to lna, we get

4
M. Vijaya Santhi and Y. Sobhanbabu New Astronomy 89 (2021) 101648

⎛ ( ) ⎞
H 1
( )( 2
) 3H Ḣ − − (3 − 2δ) 3H − Ḣ ⎫
′ 2δ − 4 H Ḧ − 2H 6(k − 1) ⎜ t2 t ⎟⎪
⎪
ωT = + ⎝ ⎠⎪
⎪
⎪
3 H4 γ(k + 2)2 H 4− 2δ ⎬
, (37)
(( ) ) ⎪
⎪
3k ⎪
⎪
4ββ(k+2) 4βkδ + 8δβ − 6βk − 12β + 3k tḢ 4βk+8δβ− 7βk− 14β+3k ⎪
⎭
− − 1 H β(k+2)
γ(k + 2)t2 β(k + 2) H

Fig. 3. Plot of energy density (ρT ) of THDE versus redshift (z) for k = 0.925, α = 0.8, β = 1.6, γ = 2.3, w = 1000, δ = 2.6 and ϕ0 = 10.

Fig. 4. Plot of EoS parameter (ωT ) versus redshift (z) for k = 0.925, α = 0.8, β = 1.6, γ = 2.3, w = 1000, δ = 2.6 and ϕ0 = 10.

5
M. Vijaya Santhi and Y. Sobhanbabu New Astronomy 89 (2021) 101648

Fig. 5. Plot of ωT versus ωT for k = 0.925, α = 0.8, β = 1.6, γ = 2.3, w = 1000, δ = 2.6 and ϕ0 = 10.
′

Fig. 6. Plot of squared speed of sound (v2s ) versus redshift (z) for k = 0.925, α = 0.8, β = 1.6, γ = 2.3 and δ = 2.6.

Fig. 7. Plot of EoS parameter of THDE versus redshift (z) for k = 0.925, α = 0.8, β = 1.6, γ = 2.3, w = 1000, δ = 2.6 and ϕ0 = 10.

6
M. Vijaya Santhi and Y. Sobhanbabu New Astronomy 89 (2021) 101648

⎛ (⎞ ) ⎛ ⎞
1
6(k − 1) 3H − ⎫
⎜2δ − 4⎟ Ḣ t 4 ⎜βH ⎟β(k+2)
3k
v2S = − 1+⎝ ⎠ 2+ − 2δ ⎝ ⎠ ⎪
⎪
3 H γ(k + 2)2 H 3− 2δ γ(k + 2)H 4− t ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎛ ⎛ ( ) ⎞ ⎪
⎪
H 1 ⎬
( )( ) 3H Ḣ − − (3 − 2δ) 3H − Ḣ (38)
⎜ 2δ − 4 H Ḧ − 2H 2 6(k − 1) ⎜ t2 t ⎟ ⎪
⎝ + 2⎝ ⎠ ⎪
⎪
3 H 4
γ(k + 2) H 4− 2δ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
3k
(( ) ) )( )⎪
⎭
4ββ(k+2) 4βkδ + 8δβ − 6βk − 12β + 3k tḢ 4βk+8δβ− 7βk− 14β+3k H2
− − 1 H β(k+2)
γ(k + 2)t2 β(k + 2) H (4 − 2δ)Ḣ

[( ) ( )2 ] for matter and THDE as

2 α2 − t2 − t t2 +αβ
β2 ( )
where Ḧ = ( ) . Ȧ Ḃ Ċ
β t 2 +αβ 2 ρ˙m + + + ρ = Q, (39)
A B C m
The squared sound speed (v2s )
is used for studying the stability of the
( )
model. If v2s < 0, we obtain a unstable model and if v2s > 0, we obtain Ȧ Ḃ Ċ Ḃ
stable model. For our non-interacting THDE model v2s takes the form ρ˙T + + + (1 + ωT )ρT + 2γ1 ρT = − Q, (40)
A B C B

Fig. 4, represents the behavior of EoS parameter (ωT ) of THDE against
redshift (z) for non-interacting THDE model for the values k = 0.925, α
= 0.8, β = 1.6, γ = 2.3. and δ = 2.6. It can be seen that, ωT starts from
stiff fuid region then goes towards quintessence DE region and finally,
approaches to constant value in the phantom region ωT << − 1. We
have plotted the ωT − ωT plane for non-interacting THDE model in
′
Fig. 5. From Fig. 5, it is observed that the ωT − ωT plane corresponds to
′
where the quantity Q denotes interaction between DE components. From
the Eqs. (39) and (40), we can say that the total energy is conserved.
Since there is no natural information from fundamental physics on the
interaction term Q, one can only study it to a phenomenological level.
Various forms of interaction term extensively considered in literature
include Q = 3cHρm , Q = 3cHρT and Q = 3cH(ρm + ρT ). Where, c is a
coupling constant and positive c means that DE decays into DM, while

thawing region. The plot of squared speed of sound (v2s ) versus redshift negative c means DM decays into DE. Here we consider Q = 3cHρT as the
(z) is shown in Fig. 6. interaction term with the coupling parameter c.
From Fig. 6, we can observe that squared speed of sound (v2s < 0) From Eqs. (25), (30), and (40) we find the EoS parameter ωT as
represents our non-interacting THDE model is unstable.

Interacting model

In this case, we consider that both matter and THDE are interacting
with each other. Hence, we can write the energy conservation equation

Fig. 8. Plot of ωT versus ωT versus redshift (z) fork = 0.925, α = 0.8, β = 1.6, γ = 2.3, w = 1000, δ = 2.6, ϕ0 = 10, and c = 0.12, c = 0.22 and c = 0.32.
′

7
M. Vijaya Santhi and Y. Sobhanbabu New Astronomy 89 (2021) 101648

Fig. 9. Plot of squared speed of sound v2s versus redshift (z) for k = 0.925, α = 0.8, β = 1.6, γ = 2.3, w = 1000, δ = 2.6, ϕ0 = 10, and c = 0.12, c = 0.22 and c
= 0.32.

Fig. 10. Plot of deceleration parameter (q) versus redshift (z) for α = 0.8 and β = 1.6.

Fig. 11. Plot of r versus s for k = 0.925, α = 0.8, β = 1.6, γ = 2.3 and δ = 2.6.

8
M. Vijaya Santhi and Y. Sobhanbabu New Astronomy 89 (2021) 101648

Fig. 12. Plot of Om(z) versus redshift (z) for k = 0.925, α = 0.8, β = 1.6, γ = 2.3 and δ = 2.6.

⎛ ( ) ⎞
H 1
( )( 2
) 3H Ḣ − 2 − (3 − 2δ) 3H − Ḣ ⎫
′ 2δ − 4 H Ḧ − 2H 6(k − 1) ⎜ t t ⎟⎪
⎪
ωT = + ⎝ ⎠⎪
⎪
⎪
3 H4 γ(k + 2)2
H 4− 2δ ⎬
. (42)
(( ) ) ⎪
⎪
3k ⎪
⎪
4ββ(k+2) 4βkδ + 8δβ − 6βk − 12β + 3k tḢ 4βk+8δβ− 7βk− 14β+3k ⎪
⎭
− 2
− 1 H β(k+2)
γ(k + 2)t β(k + 2) H

⎛ ⎞ ( ) ⎛ ⎞
1
6(k − 1) 3H − ⎫
⎜2δ − 4⎟ Ḣ t 4 ⎜βH ⎟β(k+2)
3k
v2S = − 1− c+⎝ ⎠ 2+ − 2δ ⎝ ⎠ ⎪
⎪
⎪
3 H γ(k + 2)2 H 3− 2δ γ(k + 2)H 4− t ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
( ) ⎞ ⎪
⎪
⎛ ⎛ H 1 ⎪
⎬
( )( ) 3H Ḣ − − (3 − 2δ) 3H − Ḣ (43)
⎜ 2δ − 4 H Ḧ − 2H 2 6(k − 1) ⎜ t2 t ⎟ ⎪
⎝ + ⎝ ⎠ ⎪
⎪
3 H4 γ(k + 2)2 H 4− 2δ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
3k
(( ) ) )( )⎪
⎪
⎭
4ββ(k+2) 4βkδ + 8δβ − 6βk − 12β + 3k tḢ 4βk+8δβ− 7βk− 14β+3k H2
− − 1 H β(k+2)
γ(k + 2)t2 β(k + 2) H (4 − 2δ)Ḣ

( )
⎛ ⎞
1
of c is depicted in the Fig. 7. It can be observed that the EoS parameter
6(k − 1) 3H −
2δ − 4⎟ Ḣ t starts from quintessence region and turns towards phantom region by
ωT = − 1 − c + ⎜
⎝ ⎠ 2+
3 H γ(k + 2)2 H 3− 2δ crossing phantom divide line (ωT = − 1) of the universe for all values of
coupling parameter c. The ωT − ωT plane is used to represents the
′

⎛ ⎞
dynamical property of dark models, where ωT is the evolutionary form of
′

4 ⎜βH ⎟β(k+2)
(41)
3k
−
γ(k + 2)H 4− 2δ
⎝ ⎠
t ωT , here prime indicates derivative with respect to lna. In Fig. 8, we plot
the behavior of ωT − ωT plane for three different values of c. It can be
′

seen that the ωT − ωT plane, for interacting THDE model corresponds to

′

Taking the derivative of Eq. (41) with respect to lna, we get

the thawing region (ωT > 0 and ωT < 0) for all the three values of
′

The squared speed of sound (v2s ) in this case is given by coupling parameter.
Fig. 9 elaborates the plot of squared speed of sound (v2s ) versus
redshift z. The trajectory represents the negative behavior, which shows
The plot of EoS parameter (ωT ) against redshift (z) for various values the model is unstable.

9
M. Vijaya Santhi and Y. Sobhanbabu New Astronomy 89 (2021) 101648

The nature of expansion of the model can be explained using the ∑ ∑ 1∑

cosmological parameter called as deceleration parameter (DP). The V→VB + VB δbi , θi →θBi + δbi , θ→θB + δbi (50)
3 i
model exhibits accelerated expansion for − 1 < q < 0 and if q > 0 the i i

model exhibits decelerating expansion, if q = 0 a constant rate of

One can show that the metric perturbations to the linear order in obey
expansion. The Universe exhibits exponential expansion or de Sitter
the following equations
expansion for q = − 1 and super exponential expansion for q < − 1. The
∑ ∑
DP for our both models (non-interacting and interacting) is same and ¨i + 2
δb θBi δb˙ i = 0, (51)
given by i

α
q=− +β− 1 (44) ˙ ∑
t2 ¨ i + VB δb˙ i +
δb δb˙ j θBi = 0, (52)
VB
Fig. 10 depicts the behavior of DP versus redshift for the values of α =
j

0.8, and β = 1.6. It indicates that q exhibits negative behavior ∑

δb˙ i = 0, (53)
throughout the evolution. Also, it can be seen that the models exhibit i
super exponential expansion at initial epoch and finally approaches to
accelerating phase of the Universe. where δbi is linear perturbation parameter. From the above equations,
In recent years there are many number of DE models have proposed we get
to explain the accelerated expansion of the Universe. The two new pa­
˙
rameters formulated by Sahni et al. (2003) named as statefinder pair (r, ¨ i + VB δb˙ i = 0,
δb (54)
s) by using the deceleration and Hubble parameters defined as follows: VB
( ) ( )2β3
⋅⋅⋅
a 2β(1 − 4β)t + (1 + 2β) t2 + αβ βt where VB = t2 + αβ .
r= = (45)
aH 3 t2 Now solving above Eq. (54) and taking β = 32, we have
( ) √̅̅̅̅̅̅ (√̅̅̅̅̅̅ )
r− 1 4βt(1 − 4β) + 2β(1 + 2β) t2 + αβ t − t2 3 3
s= ( )= (46) δbi = Ci arctan t , (55)
3((2β − 3)t2 − 2α) 2α 2α
3 q − 12
where Ci is an integration constant. Therefore, the actual fluctuations for
In Fig. 11, we have plotted the trajectories of r − s plane. Here, we
each expansion factor is δai = aBi δbi and from Eqs (55) and (27), we have
observe that the r − s plane belongs to the region s > 0 and r < 1. Hence,
√̅̅̅̅̅̅ ( ) (√̅̅̅̅̅̅ )
our models correspond to the DE regions such as quintessence and 3 2α 1 3
phantom. δai = Ci t2 + 3 arctan t , (56)
2α 3 2α
The Om diagnostic parameter tool has been proposed by Sahni et al.
(2008) as a complementary to the statefinder parameter, which helps to [ ]
1
distinguish the present matter density contrast Om in different models here aBi = t 2 + 23α 3 .
more effectively. This is also a geometrical diagnostic that explicitly
From the Eq. (56), we observe that the δai approaches to ∞ as t→∞.
depends on redshift (z) and the Hubble parameter (H). It is defined as
Consequently, the background solution is unstable against the pertur­
follows:
bation of the graviton field.
h(x)2 − 1
Om(x) = , (47) 4. Comparison and discussion
x3 − 1

where h(x) = H(x) In this current section, we present a comparison of our paper with the
H0 , x = (1 + z) and H0 is the present value of the Hubble
parameter. recent papers on this concept (i.e. THDE) with the modern observational
( ) data.
x4β x− 2β
− α Sanjay et al. (2020) have discussed accelerating Universe in hybrid
β
Om(x) = (48) and logarithmic teleparallel gravity. They found that the state-finder
β2 (x3 − 1)
parameters revel that the model is observed to deviate significantly
Fig. 12, we have plotted the evolution of Om diagnostic parameter from the point {r, s} = (0, 1) initially and is extremely sensitive to the
versus redshift (z). It can be observed that the slope of Om diagnostic value of α. For α < − 2, the model initially starts its journey from the
parameter is positive, hence our models behave like phantom model. territory of Chaplygin gas (CG) and approaches towards ΛCDM at late
times. For α > − 1, the model at high redshifts stays in the Quintessence
Stability analysis of the models by linear perturbations region but again approaches towards ΛCDM. Also, the Om diagnostic
represents a DE model which is phantom like behavior of the model for
Here, we will study the stability of the model (27) with respect to α > − 2. Therefore, Om diagnostic analysis coincides with our existing
linear homogeneous perturbations in the anisotropic background (Chen models. Arora et al. (2020) have investigated modified gravity models
and Kao, 2001; Rao et al., 2015). Perturbations will be considered for all with observational constraints. They have obtained the trajectory of the
three expansion factors ai via statefinder parameters shows that the model final approaches to ΛCDM
at late times. The Om diagnostic analysis represents a decaying behavior
ai →aBi + δai = aBi (1 + δbi ) (49)
for the constrained values of the model parameters obtained from H(z)
and SN data sets. Ghaffari et al. (2018) have studied FRW THDE model
We will focus on the variables δbi instead of δai from now on for con­
in Brans-Dicke cosmology. They found that in both interacting and
venience. Therefore, the perturbations of the volume scale factor VB =
∏3 non-interacting THDE models, the EoS parameter approaches to the
ȧi
i=1 ai , directional Hubble factors θi = ai and mean Hubble factor θ = cosmological constant in future. The models are unstable. Sayani and
∑3 θ i V̇
i=1 3 = 3V can be shown to be
Debnath (2019) have studied THDE models in D-dimansional fractal
Universe. They have obtained stability of the THDE model is unstable.

10
M. Vijaya Santhi and Y. Sobhanbabu
Zadeh et al. (2018) have studied FRW THDE by assuming various
infrared cutoffs. It is observed that the EoS parameter of interacting and
non-interacting THDE models exhibit phantom DE behavior for all the
IR cutoffs. Also, their models are unstable.(Therefore, the stability
analysis coincides with the existing THDE models.)
Aditya et al. (2019) have studied observational constraints on THDE
in Brans-Dicke scalar-tensor theory with logarithmic scalar field. They
have investigated an EoS parameter starts from matter dominated era,
then goes towards quintessence region, and finally, approaches to vac­
uum DE era in non-interacting case, while in interacting case, the EoS
parameter starts from quintessence region and turns towards phantom
region by crossing phantom divide line. Varshney et al. (2019) have
investigated State-finder diagnosis for interacting Tsallis holographic
dark energy models with ωT − ωT pair. They have obtained the state­
′
finder parameters finally reached to ΛCDM model. Ghaffari et al. (2020)
have investigated THDE in fractal Universe. They have discussed an EoS
parameter in non-interacting case, THDE model in the fractal Universe
emulates the cosmological constant while in interacting case, THDE
model can cross the phantom divide line at the late time. Sharif and
Saba (2019) have discussed THDE models in modified gravity. They
have concluded that the EoS parameter indicates phantom phase while
the deceleration parameter demonstrates accelerated cosmic epoch for
both conserved as well as non-conserved energy-momentum tensors.
Dubey et al. (2019b) have studied Bianchi type-I and III THDE
models. In both the models, the EoS parameter approaches to ΛCDM
model in future. Bhattacharjee and Sahoo (2020) have studied
comprehensive analysis of a non-singular bounce in modified theory of
gravity. They found that their model is highly unstable at the bouncing
epoch as the perturbations become infinite. Nonetheless, the perturba­
tions assume finite values and decays swiftly from the bounce estab­
lishing stability at late times. Santhi and Sobhanbabu (2020) have
studied Bianchi type III THDE non-interacting and interaction models in
the framework of SB theory of gravitation. They found that the EoS
parameter starts from matter dominated era then varies in quintessence
region and finally approaches to phantom region for non-interacting
THDE model, In interacting THDE model the EoS parameter starts
from matter dominated era and finally approaches to ΛCDM model at
late times. Also, the models are unstable. Dubey et al. (2020) have dis­
cussed THDE models with Hubble horizon as IR cutoff in axially sym­
metric space-time. They have obtained an EoS parameter which varies
quintessence region, crosses the phantom divide line. Bhattacharjee
(2020b) has discussed interacting Tsallis and Rényi holographic dark
energy with hybrid expansion law. He found that Tsallis parameter EoS
parameter of the THDE model remains in the quintessence region and
approaches the phantom divide line in future. Also, the model is
unstable.
In our Bianchi type-VI0 THDE models, the investigation of EoS
parameter represents that the model of non-interacting and interacting
THDE starts from quintessence then crosses the phantom divide line and
finally, reaches the constant value in the aggressive phantom region. It
can be observed that the behavior of EoS parameter in our models is
coincide with the models given in the literature mentioned above. The
stability analysis also coincides with the existing THDE models. The
behavior of DP coincides with the THDE models obtained by Sharif and
Saba (2019) and Santhi and Sobhanbabu (2020). Also, it is worthwhile
to present here, Plank observational data given by Aghanim et al.
(2020). It gives the constraints on EoS parameter of dark energy as
follows:
ωT = − 1.56+0.60
− 0.48 (Planck + TT + lowE)
ωT = − 1.58+0.52
− 0.41 (Planck + TT, EE + lowE)
ωT = − 1.57+0.50
− 0.40 (Planck + TT, TE, EE + lowE + lensing)
It can be observed from the Figs. 4, and 7 that the EoS parameter of
11
New Astronomy 89 (2021) 101648
our models in both non-interacting and interacting cases lie within the
above observational limits, which shows the consistency of our results
with the above cosmological observational data.
5. Conclusions
In this work, we have studied accelerated expansion of the Universe
phenomenon by assuming the THDE in B-VI0 Universe within the
framework of SB scalar-tensor theory of gravity. Using the relation be­
tween the metric potentials and varying DP, we have obtained the so­
lution of SB field equations. We have considered interacting and non-
interacting models of pressureless DM and THDE. We have also dis­
cussed different cosmological parameters to analyze the viability of
these models and summarized our conclusions as follows:
• For our non-interacting and interacting models, the skewness
parameter (γ 1 ) of THDE and energy density of matter (ρm ) are varies
in the positive region and does not vanish throughout its evolution.
Also, it is observed that the skewness parameter is a decreasing
function with respect to redshift (z). The energy density of THDE (ρT )
is positive and increases at initial epoch, attains a maximum value
and vanishes at late times. The matter energy density ρm is positive
and decreasing function throughout the evolution.
• The behavior of EoS parameter versus redshift for non-interacting
and interacting THDE models given in Figs. 4 and 7. We observe
that for both the models, the EoS parameter starts from quintessence
region then crosses the phantom divide line (ωT = − 1) and finally,
reaches the constant value in the phantom region ωT << − 1.
• For both non-interacting and interacting models, we noticed that
ωT − ωT plane corresponds to the thawing phase (ωT > 0) and
′ ′
ωT < 0. Hence, our models are in good agreement with the obser­
vational data and can be considered as viable THDE models.
• In Figs. 6 and 9, we develop the squared speed of sound v2s trajec­
tories for both non-interacting and interacting THDE models. In both
the models the trajectory of v2s varies in negative region, which shows
that the models are unstable. Also, we have discussed stability
analysis through perturbation, which also indicates the unstability of
the models.
• For both the models, the DP exhibits negative behavior throughout
the evolution of the Universe. At initial epoch, the models exhibit
super exponential expansion and finally approaches to accelerating
phase of the Universe.
• The statefinder and Om diagnostic parameters are same for both non-
interacting and interacting models. It can be observe that the THDE
models belong to the region s > 0 and r < 1. Hence, our models
correspond to the DE regions such as quintessence and phantom.
From Fig. 12, we have observed that the slope of Om(z) is positive.
Hence our models, behave like phantom model of the Universe.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The Authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
Abdussatter, Prajapati, S.R., 2011. Role of deceleration parameter and interacting dark
energy in singularity avoidance. Astrophys. Space Sci. 331, 657.
Abe, S., 2001. General pseudoadditivity of composable entropy prescribed by the
existence of equilibrium. Phys. Rev. E 63, 061105.
Abhay, A., Jerzy, L., 2004. Background independent quantum gravity: a status report.
Class. Quantum Gravity 21, R53.
Aditya, Y., Mandal, S., Sahoo, P.K., Reddy, D.R.K., 2019. Observational constraint on
interacting Tsallis holographic dark energy in logarithmic Brans-Dicke theory. Eur.
Phys. J. C 79, 1020.
Aditya, Y., Reddy, D.R.K., 2018. Anisotropic new holographic dark energy model in
Saez–Ballester theory of gravitation. Astrophys. Space Sci. 207, 363.
M. Vijaya Santhi and Y. Sobhanbabu
Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., Ashdown, M., Aumont, J., Baccigalupi, C., Ballardini, M.,
Banday, A.J., Barreiro, R.B., Bartolo, N., Basak, S., Battye, R., 2020. Planck 2018
results-VI. Cosmological parameters. Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6.
Armendariz-Picon, C., Mukhanov, V.F., Steinhardt, P.J., 2000. Dynamical solution to the
problem of a small cosmological constant and late-time cosmic acceleration. Phys.
Rev. Lett. 85, 4438.
Arora, S., Pacif, S.K.J., Bhattacharjee, S., Sahoo, P.K., 2020. f(q, t) gravity models with
observational constraints. Phys. Dark Univ. 30, 100664.
Barboza Jr, E.M., Nunes, R.C., Abreu, E.M., Neto, J.A., 2015. Dark energy models
through nonextensive tsallis statistics. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Appl. 436, 301–310.
Bennett, C.L., Halpern, M., Hinshaw, G., Jarosik, N., Kogut, A., Limon, M., Meyer, S.S.,
Page, L., Spergel, D.N., Tucker, G.S., Wollack, E., Wright, E.L., Barnes, C.,
Greason, M.R., Hill, R.H., Komatsu, E., Nolta, M.R., Odegard, N., Peiris, H.V.,
Verde, L., Weiland, J.L., 2003. First year Wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe
(WMAP1) observations: preliminary maps and basic results. Astrophys. J. Suppl.
148, 1.
Bento, M.C., Bertolami, O., Sen, A.A., 2002. Generalized Chaplygin gas, accelerated
expansion, and dark-energy-matter unification. Phys. Rev. D 66, 043507.
Bhattacharjee, S., 2020a. Growth rate and configurational entropy in Tsallis holographic
dark energy. arXiv:2011.13135v1.
Bhattacharjee, S., 2020b. Interacting Tsallis and Renyi holographic dark energy with
hybrid expansion law. Astrophys. Space Sci. 365, 103.
Bhattacharjee, S., Sahoo, P.K., 2020. Comprehensive analysis of a non-singular bounce in
f(r, t) gravitation. Phys. Dark Univ. 28, 100537.
Biro, T.S., Ván, P., 2011. Zeroth law compatibility of non additive thermodynamics.
Phys. Rev. E 83, 061147.
Cai, R.G., 2007. A note on agegraphic dark energy. Phys. Lett. B 657, 228.
Cai, Y.F., Saridakis, E.N., Setare, M.R., Xia, J.Q., 2010. Quintom cosmology: theoretical
implications and observations. Phys. Rep. 493, 1.
Caldwell, R.R., 2002. A phantom menace cosmological consequences of a dark energy
component with super-negative equation of state. Phys. Lett. B 545, 23–29.
Caldwell, R.R., Dave, R., Steinhardt, P.J., 1998. Cosmological imprint of an energy
component with general equation of state. Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1582.
Chen, C.M., Kao, W.F., 2001. Stability analysis of anisotropic inflationary cosmology.
Phys. Rev. D 64, 12.
Debnath, U., Banerjee, A., Chakraborty, S., 2004. Role of modified Chaplygin gas in
accelerated universe. Class. Quantum Gravity 21, 5609–5618.
Dubey, V.C., Mishra, A.K., Srivastava, S., Sharma, U.K., 2020. Tsallis holographic dark
energy models in axially symmetric space time. Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys.
17, 2050011.
Dubey, V.C., Srivastava, S., Sharma, U.K., Pradhan, A., 2019a. Tsallis holographic dark
energy in Bianchi-I universe using hybrid expansion law with k-essence. Pramana J.
Phys. 78, 93.
Dubey, V.C., Srivastava, S., Sharma, U.K., Pradhan, A., 2019b. Tsallis holographic dark
energy in Bianchi-I universe using hybrid expansion law with k-essence. Pramana J.
Phys. 93, 78.
D’Agostino, R., 2019. Holographic dark energy from non additive entropy: cosmological
perturbations and observational constraints. Phys. Rev. D 99, 103524.
Emmanuel, N.S., Kazuharu, B.R., Myrzakulov, Fotios, K.A., 2018. Holographic dark
energy through Tsallis entropy. J. Cosmol. Astropart. 12, 012.
Feng, B., Wang, X.L., Zhang, X.M., 2005. Dark energy constraints from the cosmic age
and supernova. Phys. Lett. B 607, 35.
Ghaffari, S., Moradpour, H., Lobo, I.P., Graça, J.M., Bezerra, V.B., 2018. Tsallis
holographic dark energy in the Brans-Dicke cosmology. Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 706.
Ghaffari, S., Sadri, E., Ziaie, A.H., 2020. Tsallis holographic dark energy in fractal
universe. Mod. Phys. Lett. A 35, 20150107.
Horava, P., Minic, D., 2000. Probable values of the cosmological constant in a
holographic theory. Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1610.
Jahromi, A.S., Moosavi, S.A., Moradpour, H., Morais Graça, J.P., Lobo, I.P., Salako, I.G.,
Jawad, A., 2018. Generalized entropy formalism and a new holographic dark energy
model. Phys. Lett. B 780, 21.
Jawad, A., Aslam, A., Rani, S., 2019. Cosmological implications of Tsallis dark energy in
modified Brans-Dicke theory. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 28, 1950146.
Kamenshchik, A.Y., Moschella, U., Pasquier, V., 2001. An alternative to quintessence.
Phys. Lett. B 511, 265–268.
Li, M., 2004. A model of holographic dark energy. Phys. Lett. B 603, 1.
Majhi, A., 2017. Non-extensive statistical mechanics and black hole entropy from
quantum geometry. Phys. Lett. B 775, 32–36.
Moradpour, H., Moosavi, S.A., Lobo, I.P., Morais Graça, J.P., Jawad, A., Salako, I.G.,
2018. Thermodynamic approach to holographic dark energy and the Rényi entropy.
Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 829.
Nojiri, S., Odintsov, S.D., 2003. Quantum desitter cosmology and phantom matter. Phys.
Lett. B 562, 147–152.
Nojiri, S., Odintsov, S.D., Tsujikawa, S., 2005. Properties of singularities in the
(phantom) dark energy universe. Phys. Rev. D 71, 063004.
12
New Astronomy 89 (2021) 101648
Nojiri, S.I., Odintsov, S.D., Saridakis, E.N., 2019. Modified cosmology from extended
entropy with varying exponent. Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 242.
Nunes, R.C., Barboza Jr, E.M., Abreu, E.M., Neto, J.A., 2016. Probing the cosmological
viability of non-gaussian statistics. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08, 051.
Padmanabhan, T., 2002. Accelerated expansion of the universe driven by tachyonic
matter. Phys. Rev. D 66, 021301.
Perlmutter, S., Aldering, G., Valle, M.D., Deustua, S., Ellis, R.S., Fabbro, S., Fruchter, A.,
Goldhaber, G., Goobar, A., Groom, D.E., Hook, I.M., Kim, A.G., Kim, M.Y., Knop, R.
A., Lidman, C., McMahon, R.G., Nugent, P., Pain, R., Panagia, N., Pennypacker, C.R.,
Lapuente, P.R., Schaefer, B., Walton, N., 1998. Discovery of a supernova explosion at
half the age of the universe and its cosmological implications. Nature 391, 51–54.
Pradhan, A., 2013. Accelerating dark energy models with anisotropic fluid in Bianchi
type VI0 space-time. Res. Astron. Astrophys. 13, 139–158.
Rao, U.M., Santhi, M.V., Aditya, Y., 2015. Anisotropic Bianchi type-VIh perfect fluid
cosmological models in a modified theory of gravity. Prespacetime J. 6 (10),
947–960.
Ratra, B., Peebles, P.J.E., 1988. Cosmological consequences of a rolling homogeneous
scalar field. Phys. Rev. D 37, 3406.
Riess, A.G., Filippenko, A.V., Challis, P., Clocchiatti, A., Diercks, A., Peter, M., Garnavich,
Gilliland, R.L., Hogan, C.J., Jha, S., Kirshner, R.P., Leibundgut, B., Phillips, M.M.,
Reiss, D., Schmidt, B.P., Schommer, R.A., Chris Smith, R., Spyromilio, J., Stubbs, C.
H., Suntzeff, N.B., Tonry, J., 1998. Observational evidence from supernovae for an
accelerating universe and a cosmological constant. Astron. J. 116, 1009–1038.
Sadri, E., 2019. Observational constraints on interacting Tsallis holographic dark energy
model. Eur. Phys. J. C. 762, 79.
Sadri, E., Khurshudyan, M., Chattopadhyay, S., 2018. An interacting new holographic
dark energy in the framework of fractal cosmology. Astrophys. Space Sci. 363, 230.
Sahni, V., Saini, T.D., Starobinsky, A.A., Alam, U., 2003. Statefinder - a new geometrical
diagnostic of dark energy. J. Exp. Theor. Phys. Lett. 77, 201.
Sahni, V., Shaleloo, A., Starobinsky, A.A., 2008. Two new diagnostics of dark energy.
Phys. Rev. D. 78, 103502.
Sahoo, P., Bhattacharjee, S., Tripathy, S.K., Sahoo, P.K., 2020. Bouncing scenario in f(r, t)
gravity. Mod. Phys. Lett. A 35, 2050095.
Sahoo, P.K., Sahoo, P., Bishi, B.K., 2017. Anisotropic cosmological models in f(r, t)
gravity with variable deceleration parameter. Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 14,
1750097.
Sahoo, P.K., Tripathy, S.K., Sahoo, P., 2018. A periodic varying deceleration parameter in
f(r, t) gravity. Mod. Phys. Lett. A 33, 1850193.
Sanjay, M., Bhattacharjee, S., Pacif, S.K.J., Sahoo, P.K., 2020. Accelerating universe in
hybrid and logarithmic teleparallel gravity. Phys. Dark Univ. 28, 100551.
Santhi, M.V., Sobhanbabu, Y., 2020. Bianchi type-III Tsallis holographic dark energy
model in Saez–Ballester theory of gravitation. Eur. Phys. J. C 1198, 80.
Saridakis, E.N., Bamba, K., Myrzakulov, R., Anagnostopoulos, F.K., 2018. Holographic
dark energy through Tsallis entropy. J. Cosmo. Astropart. Phys. 12, 012.
Sayani, M., Debnath, U., 2019. Tsallis, Renyi and Sharma-Mittal holographic and new
agegraphic DE models in d-dimensional fractal universe. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 134, 514.
Sen, A., 2002. Tachyon matter. J. High Energy Phys. 0207, 065.
Setare, M.R., 2007. Interacting holographic phantom. Eur. Phys. J. C 50, 991.
Setare, M.R., Sadeghi, J., Amani, A.R., 2009. Interacting tachyon dark energy in non-flat
universe. Phys. Lett. B 673, 241–246.
Sharif, M., Saba, S., 2019. Tsallis holographic dark energy in f(g, t) gravity. Symmetry 11,
92.
Stephen, D.H., Hsu, 2004. Entropy bounds and dark energy. Phys. Lett. B 594, 13–16.
Tavayef, M., Sheykhi, A., Bamba, K., Moradpour, H., 2018a. Tsallis holographic dark
energy. Phys. Lett. B 781, 195.
Tavayef, M., Sheykhi, A., Kazuharu Bamba, K., Moradpou, H., 2018b. Tsallis holographic
dark energy. Phys. Lett. B 781, 195.
Thomas, S., 2002. Direct evidence for neutrino flavor transformation from neutral-
current interactions in the sudbury neutrino observatory. Phys. Rev. Lett. 89,
081301.
Tsallis, C., Cirto, L.J.L., 2013a. Black hole thermodynamical entrop. Eur. Phys. J. C 73,
2487.
Tsallis, C., Cirto, L.J.L., 2013b. Black hole thermodynamical entropy. Eur. Phys. J. C 73,
2487.
Varshney, G., Sharma, U.K., Pradhan, A., 2019. Statefinder diagnosis for interacting
Tsallis holographic dark energy models with ω − ω pair. New Astron. 70, 36–42.
′
Wei, H., Cai, A.G., 2008. A new model of agegraphic dark energy. Phys. Lett. B 660, 113.
Wetterich, C., 1988. Cosmology and the fate of dilatation symmetry. Nucl. Phys. B 302,
668–696.
Zadeh, M.A., Sheykhi, A., Moradpour, H., Bamba, K., 2018. Effects of anisotropy on the
sign-changeable interacting Tsallis holographic dark energy. Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 940.
Zadeh, M. A., Sheykhi, A., Moradpour, H., Bamba, K., 2019. Effects of anisotropy on the
sign-changeable interacting Tsallis holographic dark energy. arXiv:1901.05298.
Zlatev, I., Wang, L.M., Steinhardt, P.J., 1999. Quintessence, cosmic coincidence, and the
cosmological constant. Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 896.