text:
# Introduction

## Introduction

In this paper we shall connect some approximate symmetries of nuclear forces to what is believed to be the fundamental theory of nuclear forces: Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). Ideally we should be able to calculate all hadronic constants like the meson-baryon, meson-meson coupling constants (more generally the invariant form factors) and baryon and meson masses to give the strength and the range of nuclear forces, starting from the dynamics of quarks and gluons. We are still far from this goal. However, we can set ourselves more modest objectives. As an intermediate step we might concentrate on the properties of the coupling of mesons to quarks, then try to infer general properties of hadronic interactions from the assumed properties of the former. If we study the nucleon-nucleon interaction, say from the nucleon-nucleon, meson-nucleon scattering, or the spectra of light nuclei, two kinds of approximate symmetries emerge: (a) A Wigner $`SU(4)`$ symmetry combining isospin with spin and broken by spin dependent terms; (b) An approximate chiral symmetry broken by the pion mass. Recently more evidence has accumulated in nuclear physics extending the domain of validity to more hadronic processes$`^{\text{[1]}}`$. The important role played by the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchange along nucleon exchange in phenomena exhibiting chiral symmetry points out to a possible link of the $`SU(4)`$ symmetry (which puts $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the same multiplet) with chiral symmetry$`^{\text{[2]}}`$. In turn this relation can only arise from the combination of the $`SU(4)`$ and chiral symmetries at the deeper quark level as a consequence of QCD. Another piece of evidence comes from the role the scalar mesons $`ϵ`$(f) and $`\delta `$($`a_0`$) play in decay processes. Scalar meson couplings calculated by this method will be shown to be consistent with chiral and $`SU(4)`$ symmetries at the quark level. This fundamental $`SU(4)\times SU(4)`$ symmetry leads to a universal coupling of quarks to pseudoscalar, vector mesons as well as to scalar and pseudovector mesons. In turn the exchange of all these mesons between nucleons yield nuclear forces exhibiting an approximate chiral $`SU(4)\times SU(4)`$ symmetry. Arguments supporting this view will be given in this paper. It will be shown that for relativistic quarks the potential is invariant under chiral transformations and the $`SU(4)`$ group except for definite spin dependent terms and mass differences between mesons.

Starting from field theory of free and interacting quarks we will first examine quark spin and solve a quantum mechanical bound state problem as an approximation to field theory bound state problem by extracting a potential $`V`$. We will then study the general properties of the confining (long range) part of $`V`$ and its short range part and address models leading to a spin independent or $`SU(N\times 2)`$ invariant potentials (where $`N`$ is the number of flavors). For relativistic quarks we will show that the potential is invariant under chiral transformations and the $`SU(4)`$ group except for definite spin dependent terms and mass differences between mesons, and show invariance of the potential using a larger group structure.

## Quark-meson couplings

The fundamental couplings in QCD are the self coupling of the gluons and the gluon-quark couplings which are determined uniquely by the gauge principle of local color invariance $`(SU(3)^c)`$. Through this interaction quarks are assumed to form $`q\overline{q}`$ (meson) and $`(qqq)`$ (baryon) bound states. Because of asymptotic freedom, quarks behave like quasi-free particles at small separation. There is a vertex function between the $`q\overline{q}`$ meson bound state and the quasi free $`q`$ and $`\overline{q}`$. For each quantum state of the $`q\overline{q}`$ system this vertex function can be approximated by a constant which we shall call the quark-meson coupling constant $`g_{q\overline{q}M}`$. Then, under the additivity hypothesis the meson-nucleon coupling constant is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N\overline{N}M}=3g_{q\overline{q}M}.$$
(1)
The relativistic coupling constants are defined in terms of an effective quark meson interaction Lagrangian

$`_{int}`$ $`=`$ $`g_s\overline{q}\tau _aq\chi ^a+h_s\overline{q}\tau _a\sigma _{\mu \nu }q_\mu \chi ^a+g_{Psv}\overline{q}\tau _a\gamma _5\gamma _\mu qW_{5\mu }^a`$ (2)
$`+h_{Psv}\overline{q}\tau _a\sigma _{\mu \nu }q\stackrel{~}{W}_{\mu \nu }^a+g_{Ps}\overline{q}\gamma _5\tau _aq\varphi ^a+h_{Ps}\overline{q}\tau _a\gamma {}_{5}{}^{}\gamma _{\mu }^{}q_\mu \varphi ^a`$
$`+g_v\overline{q}\tau _a\gamma _\mu qV_\mu ^a+h_v\overline{q}\tau _a\sigma _{\mu \nu }qV_{\mu \nu }^a`$
where $`a=0,1,2,3`$, $`\tau _0=1`$ and

$$V_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu V_\nu ^a_\nu V_\mu ^a,W_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu W_{5\nu }^a_\nu W_{5\mu }^a,$$
(3)
$$\stackrel{~}{W}_{\mu \nu }^a=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \kappa }W_{\rho \kappa }^a,$$
(4)
$$_\mu V_\mu ^a=0,_\mu W_{5\mu }^a=0.$$
(5)
Also note that the $`h_s`$ term in Eq.(2) is a total divergence and can be omitted. The derivative (momentum dependent) interactions are important since $`_{int}`$ is an effective Lagrangian and there is no renormalizability constraint in the Lagrangian. The constants $`g`$ and $`h`$ can be calculated from QCD following a definite scheme. Forexample at short distances coupling is similar to the probability of dissociation of positronium into its constituents, the massless photon field playing the role of the gluon field. For group theoretical treatment of this problem see Barut and Aydin$`^{\text{[3]}}`$. Rather than embarking on such a calculation we can review the available phenomenological information on these couplings, starting from the nucleon-meson vertex.

Also note that because $`SU(4)\times SU(4)`$ is embedded in $`SU(6)\times SU(6)`$, there are two pseudoscalar fields $`\varphi ^0`$, namely $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{^{}}`$ and two vector fields $`V_\mu ^0`$, namely $`\omega _\mu `$ and $`\varphi _\mu `$, with $`\eta ^{^{}}`$ being approximately $`SU(4)`$ singlet. There is a similar doubling of isosinglets for scalars and pseudovectors. We have the following identifications:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\varphi ^0:& \eta ,\eta ^{^{}}\\ \varphi ^i:& \pi ^i(i=1,2,3)\\ V_\mu ^0:& \omega _\mu ,\varphi _\mu \\ V_\mu ^i:& \rho _\mu ^i\\ \chi ^0:& ϵ(f_0)\\ \chi ^i:& \delta ^i(a_0^i)\\ W_\mu ^0:& E_\mu \\ W_\mu ^i:& A_\mu ^{(1)i}(a_\mu ^{(1)i})\end{array}$$
(6)
To determine the representation we start from the quarks $`q_L^\alpha `$ and $`q_R^\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =1,2`$), with $`\alpha `$ the isospin index, and with further identifications

$`q_L^\alpha :(4,1),q_R^\alpha :(1,4)`$
$`\widehat{q}_L^\alpha =i\sigma _2q_L^{}:(\overline{4},1),\widehat{q}_R^\alpha =i\sigma _2q_R^{}:(1,\overline{4})`$ (7)
$$\overline{q}\tau ^aq=q_L^{}\tau ^aq_R+q_R^{}\tau ^aq_L,\overline{q}\gamma _5\tau ^aq=q_L^{}\tau ^aq_Rq_R^{}\tau ^aq_L$$
(8)
so that

$`\overline{q}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma _5}{2}}\tau ^aqq_L^{}\tau ^aq_R:(\overline{4},4)𝝅,𝜹(𝐚_0)`$
$`\overline{q}{\displaystyle \frac{1\gamma _5}{2}}\tau ^aqq_R^{}\tau ^aq_L:(4,\overline{4})ϵ(\eta ,f_0)`$
$`\overline{q}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma _5}{2}}\tau ^a\sigma _{\mu \nu }qq_L^{}\tau ^a\sigma ^iq_R:(\overline{4},4)\rho _{\mu \nu }^a,B_{\mu \nu }^a(A_{\mu \nu }^a)`$
$`\overline{q}{\displaystyle \frac{1\gamma _5}{2}}\tau ^a\sigma _{\mu \nu }qq_R^{}\tau ^a\sigma ^iq_L:(4,\overline{4})\omega _{\mu \nu },B_{\mu \nu }^0(a_{\mu \nu }^0)`$
$`\overline{q}\tau ^a{\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma _5}{2}}\gamma _\mu qq_L^{}\tau ^a\sigma _\mu q_L:(15,1)+(1,1)`$
$`\overline{q}\tau ^a{\displaystyle \frac{1\gamma _5}{2}}\gamma _\mu qq_R^{}\tau ^a\sigma _\mu q_R:(1,15)+(1,1)`$ (9)
Thus, each meson is described by its generalized coordinates and generalized momenta (derivative field). The combination of these fields in the interaction Hamiltonian generate the $`(4,\overline{4})`$, $`(\overline{4},4)`$, $`(15,1)`$, $`(1,15)`$ and $`(1,1)`$ representation of the chiral $`SU(4)\times SU(4)`$.

The Dirac $`q^\alpha `$ quark Lagrangian can be regarded as being $`SU(4)\times SU(4)`$ invariant since the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks can be taken to have negligible masses in the first approximation.

A mass term for the quarks that can be induced by a non-zero vacuum expectation value of the isosinglet scalar field will behave like the neutral component of $`(4,\overline{4})+(\overline{4},4)`$, breaking the symmetry down to $`SU(4)`$ and isospin $`SU(2)`$.

Under the $`SU(4)`$ subgroup of $`SU(4)\times SU(4)`$, the nucleon $`N`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance form the $`20`$-dimensional representation contained in the symmetric part of the product $`444`$. The various derivative couplings of $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are contained in $`[(4,1)+(1,4)]^3`$ product representations of $`SU(4)\times SU(4)`$.

Let us now briefly look at the free quark approximation to QCD and vertex symmetry for interacting fermions, then buildup the symmetry in the potential approximation. We shall later return also to embedding these structures in larger groups and look at group decompositions.

## The Free Quark Approximation to QCD

First consider the simplified case of colored quarks with no flavor, interacting through the exchange of color gluons and obeying the Dirac equation

$$\gamma _\mu D_\mu \psi ^i=m\psi ^i(i=1,2,3)$$
(10)
where m is the quark mass, $`i`$ the color index and $`D_\mu `$ the covariant derivative

$$D_\mu =_\mu +\frac{i}{2}g\lambda ^aB_\mu ^a,(a=1,\mathrm{},8)$$
(11)
where $`g`$ is the quark-gluon coupling constant and the $`\lambda `$’s are the eight $`3\times 3`$ Gell-Mann matrices associated with $`SU(3)`$. When we consider a quark and an antiquark localized at very short distance separation, then, from asymptotic freedom$`^{\text{[4]}}`$ we know that the renormalized strong fine structure constant $`g_r^2/4\pi =\alpha _s`$ tends to zero at high momentum transfers (short spatial separation). In such a situation the covariant derivative $`D_\mu `$ can be replaced by $`_\mu `$ and in the zeroth approximation we can treat the quark inside the hadron as obeying the free Dirac equation for small $`x`$, the origin being the center of mass of the quark system in the hadron. Then we can write

$$\psi (x)=\frac{d^3p}{\sqrt{2p_0}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\gamma _5𝝈𝝀(p)}e^{i\gamma _4𝒑𝒙}(a_𝐩+\gamma _5\widehat{b}_𝐩)$$
(12)
where

$$a=\left(\begin{array}{c}a_1\\ a_2\end{array}\right),\widehat{b}=i\sigma _2b^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}b_2^{}\\ b_1^{}\end{array}\right)$$
(13)
$$𝝀(p)=\frac{𝐩}{|𝐩|}\mathrm{tanh}^1\frac{|𝐩|}{p_0}$$
(14)
$$a_p=\left(\begin{array}{c}a\\ a\end{array}\right)=\gamma _4a_p,\mathrm{if}\gamma _5\mathrm{is}\mathrm{diagonal}$$

and

$$a_p=\left(\begin{array}{c}a\\ 0\end{array}\right)=\gamma _4a_p,\mathrm{if}\gamma _4\mathrm{is}\mathrm{diagonal}$$
(15)
$`a_{p,s_z}^{},b_{p,s_z}^{}`$ ($`s_z=1,2`$) are respectively creation operators for particle and antiparticle Wigner states for the Poincaré group corresponding to momentum $`𝐩`$ and spin component $`s_z`$, i.e.

$$a_{p,s_z}^{}|0>=|m,s=\frac{1}{2};𝐩,s_z>$$
(16)
with

$$p_0^2|𝐩|^2=m^2$$
(17)
The exponential can be evaluated as

$$exp\{\frac{1}{2}\gamma _5𝝈𝝀(p)\}=\sqrt{\frac{p_0+\gamma _5𝝈𝐩}{m}}=\frac{m+p_0+\gamma _5𝝈𝐩}{\sqrt{2m(m+p_0)}}$$
(18)
We also have the useful identity

$$exp\{\frac{1}{2}\gamma _5𝝈𝝀(p)\}\frac{1+\gamma _4}{2}=\sqrt{\frac{p_0}{m}}(\frac{m+i𝜸𝐩}{p_0})^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{1+\gamma _4}{2}$$
(19)
The projection operators $`\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \gamma _4)`$ project the large $`(+)`$ or small $`()`$ components of the free wave function. To simplify the formulae we have also omitted the color index. For a more general description in terms of boost operators and Heisenberg algebras satisfied by these operators we refer to our earlier paper$`^{\text{[5]}}`$.

We have the following conserved quantities

(a) Quark Number:

$$B=j_\mu 𝑑\sigma _\mu =j_0d^3x$$
(20)
where

$$j_\mu =\overline{\psi }^i\gamma _\mu \psi ^i,(i=1,2,3);_\mu j_\mu =0$$
(21)
This is the number of quarks minus the number of antiquarks.

(b) Charges

Putting back the flavor index $`r`$ in the case of $`3`$ quarks

$$Q^a=\frac{1}{2}\overline{\psi }^r\gamma _\mu \lambda _{rs}^a\psi ^s𝑑\sigma ^\mu $$
(22)
(c) Energy Momentum

$$P_\mu =T_{\mu \nu }𝑑\sigma ^\nu ,T_{\mu \nu }=\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \stackrel{}{_\nu }\psi $$
(23)
The Hamiltonian $`P^0`$ is given by:

$$H=P^0=p^0(a_p^{}a_p+b_p^{}b_p)d^3p$$
(24)
(d) Conserved Spin Operators

We now make the Tani$`^{\text{[6]}}`$-Foldy-Wouthuysen$`^{\text{[7]}}`$ transformation which is the same as the Wigner transformation on particle states. Let us rewrite the Dirac equation in the form

$$iH\psi =(im\gamma _4i\gamma _4\gamma _n_n)\psi $$
(25)
($`i_n=p_n`$ on a momentum eigenstate).

The covariant states are obtained by applying on the vacuum the operator $`\psi ^c=\gamma _2\psi ^{}`$, the charge conjugate operator obtained by exchanging $`a`$’s and $`b`$’s.

$$\psi ^c|0>=d^3pexp\{\frac{i}{2}𝜸𝝀(𝐩)\}|𝐩>e^{i𝒑𝒙}$$
(26)
where we have used

$$\gamma _5𝝈=i\gamma _4𝜸,\gamma _4\widehat{a}_p|0>=\widehat{a}_p|0>$$
(27)
and Eq.(19). To obtain the covariant state from the Wigner state we must then apply a non-local operator on $`|𝐩>exp(ipx)`$. We find

$$\psi ^c|0>=W(i\mathbf{})\widehat{a}_pe^{ipx}(d^3p)|0>$$
(28)
where

$$W(i\mathbf{})=\sqrt{\frac{m+𝜸\mathbf{}}{(m^2^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}}}$$
(29)
so that the operator

$$\varsigma (x)=W(i\mathbf{})\psi (x)$$
(30)
creates Wigner antiquark states and $`\varsigma ^c(x)`$ creates quark states. The non-local operator $`W(i\mathbf{})`$ is a unitary operator that connects covariant states with Wigner states.

We can now transform the Hamiltonian with $`W`$. Transforming Eq.(25) we find

$$H^{^{}}=WHW^1=\gamma _4E_p=\gamma _4\sqrt{m^2+|𝐩|^2}=\gamma _4(m^2^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(31)
Thus, the transformation diagonalizes $`H`$ in a representation for which $`\gamma _4`$ is diagonal. The expansion of Eq.(31) in $`m^2^2`$ gives the Schrödinger operator for the upper and lower components separately, plus relativistic correction terms. Note that $`H^{^{}}`$, unlike $`H`$, commutes with the spin operators $`\sigma _n`$ and with $`\gamma _4\sigma _n`$

$$[\sigma _n,WHW^1]=0$$
(32)
or

$$[W^1\sigma _nW,H]=0$$
(33)
Hence, the non-local objects

$$\frac{1}{2}\sigma _n^{^{}}=\frac{1}{2}W^1\sigma _nW,\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \gamma _4)\sigma _n^{^{}}$$
(34)
are constants of the motion. These are the non-covariant spin operators that are conserved for free quarks and approximately conserved in QCD. Thus the conserved generators of the relativistic but non-covariant $`SU(6)\times SU(6)`$ are

$$\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \gamma _4)\{\frac{1}{2}\sigma _n^{^{}},\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^a,\frac{1}{4}\sigma _n^{^{}}\lambda ^a\}$$
(35)
If we work with the set of generators $`\frac{1}{2}\sigma _n,\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^a,\frac{1}{4}\sigma _n\lambda ^a`$ where $`n=1,2,3`$ and $`a=1,\mathrm{},8`$ we must use the transformed Hamiltonian $`H^{^{}}`$.

We now turn to another transformation of the Hamiltonian that singles out a direction and therefore is valid on the light cone. For extremely relativistic quarks the expansion of $`H`$ in $`m^2^2`$ or the velocity square is not a good one. In this case we can remove transverse components of $`p`$, say $`p_{}`$ ($`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ if the direction singled out is the third axis) by a unitary transformation. This is the Cini-Touschek$`^{\text{[8]}}`$ transformation rediscovered by Melosh$`^{\text{[9]}}`$. It is given by

$$W_{}=exp\{\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{tan}^1\frac{p_{}}{m}𝜸_{}𝐩_{}\}$$
(36)
where

$$𝜸_{}𝐩_{}=\gamma _1p_1+\gamma _2p_2,p_{}=\sqrt{p_1^2+p_2^2}$$
(37)
$$p_n=i_n$$
(38)
Then the transformed Hamiltonian takes the form

$$H^{^{\prime \prime }}=W_{}^1HW_{}=\gamma _5\sigma _3p_3+\gamma _4\sqrt{m^2+p_{}^2}$$
(39)
Note that $`H^{^{\prime \prime }}`$ no longer commutes with $`\sigma _n`$ and $`\gamma _4\sigma _n`$ but only with the subset

$$\frac{1}{2}\gamma _4\sigma _1,\frac{1}{2}\gamma _4\sigma _2\mathrm{and}\frac{1}{2}\sigma _3$$
(40)
that also generates an $`SU(2)`$ group. Then

$$\frac{1}{2}\sigma _1^{^{\prime \prime }}=\frac{1}{2}W_{}^1\gamma _4\sigma _1W_{},\frac{1}{2}\sigma _2^{^{\prime \prime }}=\frac{1}{2}W_{}^1\gamma _4\sigma _2W_{}$$

$$\frac{1}{2}\sigma _3^{^{\prime \prime }}=\frac{1}{2}W_{}^1\sigma _3W_{}$$
(41)
also generate rotations and the generators of the $`SU(6)_W`$ group

$$\frac{1}{2}\sigma _n^{^{\prime \prime }},\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^a,\frac{1}{4}\sigma _n^{^{\prime \prime }}\lambda ^a$$
(42)
commute with the original Hamiltonian $`H`$.

The operators Eq.(40) are the Stech$`^{\text{[10]}}`$ spin operators. They were rediscovered and called $`W`$-spin operators by Lipkin and Meshkov$`^{\text{[11]}}`$. We have seen that they are not conserved quantities, but their Cini-Touschek transforms $`\sigma _n^{^{\prime \prime }}`$ are conserved in the free quark limit. This property was discovered by Melosh$`^{\text{[9]}}`$.

The importance of the spin operators $`\sigma _n^{^{\prime \prime }}`$ is that they also occur in the symmetry of the vertex in which the singled out direction is given by the momentum transfer.

The meaning of $`\gamma _4`$ can be elucidated by exhibiting the transformation properties of the conserved quantities$`^{\text{[5]},\text{[12]}}`$. We distinguish between C-odd and C-even conserved covariant spin tensors. The C-even tensor is given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }=iH_{\mu \nu 0}d^3x$$
(43)
where

$$H_{\mu \nu \lambda }=\frac{1}{4}\overline{\psi }\sigma _{\mu \nu }\stackrel{}{}_\lambda \psi =\frac{i}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\gamma _\rho \psi +\mathrm{additional}\mathrm{terms}$$
(44)
is conserved:

$$_\lambda H_{\mu \nu \lambda }=0$$
(45)
so that the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }`$ are time independent. These are related to the Wigner spin as

$$W^1\mathrm{\Omega }_{0i}W=0$$

$$\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}W^1\mathrm{\Omega }_{jk}W=\mathrm{\Omega }_i=\frac{1}{2}(a_p^{}\sigma _ia_p+b_p^{}\sigma _ib_p)d^3p$$
(46)
Hence they can be interpreted as quark spin plus antiquark spin and are associated with the $`\sigma _i^{^{}}`$.

Note that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ generate $`SU(2)`$ but not the covariant quantities $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }`$.

The $`C`$-odd conserved covariant tensor is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{5\mu }=iH_{\mu 0}d^3x$$
(47)
where

$$H_{\mu \nu }=\frac{i}{4m}\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\gamma _\mu \stackrel{}{}_\nu \psi =\frac{1}{2}\overline{\psi }\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mu \nu }\psi +\mathrm{add}.\mathrm{terms}$$
(48)
and

$$_\nu H_{\mu \nu }=0$$
(49)
Making the unitary $`W`$ transformation we find the non-covariant objects

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_i^{^{}}=W^1\mathrm{\Omega }_{5i}W=\frac{1}{2}(a_p^{}\sigma _ia_pb_p^{}\sigma _ib_p)d^3p$$
(50)
$$W^1\mathrm{\Omega }_{50}W=O$$
(51)
These conserved quantities are the quark spin minus the antiquark spin and correspond to $`\gamma _4\sigma _i^{^{}}`$. The $`\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_i\pm \mathrm{\Omega }_i^{^{}})`$ generate the $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ group of quark and antiquark spin. They correspond to $`\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \gamma _4)\sigma _i^{^{}}`$. These are sometimes called the $`f`$ spin and the $`\overline{f}`$ spin.

When we do the Cini-Touschek-Melosh transformation on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{5\mu }`$, the $`C`$-odd operators $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1^{^{}},\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{^{}}`$ and the $`C`$-even $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3`$ commute with the Hamiltonian $`H^{^{\prime \prime }}`$.

If now we let $`p_3\mathrm{}`$ then

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_3\frac{1}{2}\sigma _3\frac{1}{2}\gamma _5$$
(52)
and the $`C`$-even subgroup of $`SU(6)`$ becomes the chiral $`SU(3)\times SU(3)`$ group whose generators commute with massless Dirac Hamiltonian, so that

$$\underset{p_3\mathrm{}}{lim}[SU(3)\times SU(3)]_{\sigma _3}=[SU(3)\times SU(3)]_{\gamma _5}$$
(53)
To sum up, the free Dirac Hamiltonian in the Foldy-Wouthuysen form admits a $`SU(2N)_q\times SU(2N)_{\overline{q}}`$ symmetry where $`N`$ corresponds to the dimension of the internal space and $`q`$, $`\overline{q}`$ refer respectively to quarks and antiquarks. If a longitudinal direction is singled out by an additional term in the Lagrangian, then the Dirac Hamiltonian can be transformed by a Cini-Touschek transformation relative to the longitudinal direction and the Hamiltonian has a $`SU(2N)_W`$ invariance associated with the subgroup of $`SU(2N)_q\times SU(2N)_{\overline{q}}`$ involving the $`C`$-odd transverse spin and the $`C`$-even longitudinal spin.

## Vertex Symmetry for Interacting Fermions

Consider the coupling of the fermion $`\psi `$ to a boson $`\varphi `$. If the virtual boson with momentum $`q`$ is emitted by the fermion $`\psi (p)`$ in momentum space so that the fermion wave function changes from $`\psi (p)`$ to $`\psi (p^{})`$, then $`pp^{}`$ = $`q`$ is the momentum transfer. $`\psi (p)`$ and $`\psi (p^{})`$ may refer to states with different internal quantum numbers such as $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks. In the approximation that these states are degenerate in mass the momentum transfer $`q`$ is space-like and singles out a space direction. Thus a Yukawa interaction term will involve a direction in momentum space (the $`q`$ direction) which can be taken as the direction singled out by the Cini-Touschek transformation.

Then the interacting Hamiltonian can have a non-local ($`q`$-dependent) $`SU(6)_W`$ symmetry, provided the free boson Lagrangian also exhibits an $`SU(6)_q\times SU(6)_{\overline{q}}`$ symmetry generated by C-even and C-odd spin operators. Hence we need two kinds of bosons to achieve vertex symmetry: C-even bosons $`\varphi `$ and C-odd bosons $`\omega _\mu `$. Those which have the same parity can be grouped in the same multiplet. Negative parity bosons will transform like the $`S`$-states of the ($`\overline{q}q`$) system, so that we can choose multiplets of $`J^{PC}`$ bosons which transform like $`\psi \gamma _5\psi `$ ($`0^+)`$ and $`\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \psi `$ ($`1^{})`$.

Let us write such a Yukawa coupling in the case of no internal symmetry

$$=_0+_{int}$$

$$_0=_0(\psi )+_0(\varphi )+_0(\omega _\mu )$$

$$_{int}=ig\overline{\psi }(\gamma _5\varphi +\gamma _\mu \omega _\mu )\psi $$
(54)
where $`_0(\psi )`$, $`_0(\varphi )`$ and $`_0(\omega _\mu )`$ are respectively free lagrangians for the fermion, the pseudoscalar and the vector bosons, with $`_0(\omega _\mu )`$ chosen so that the equations of motion also yield the subsidiary condition

$$_\mu \omega ^\mu =0$$
(55)
essential for associating $`\omega _\mu `$ with a $`1^{}`$ object, and $`_{int}`$ is the simplest non-derivative Yukawa coupling for the fermion-boson system.

We could now find the Fourier transform of $``$ by introducing the Fourier transforms $`\stackrel{~}{\overline{\psi }}(p^{^{}})`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(q)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_\mu (q)`$, and then do a Cini-Touschek transformation with respect to $`q`$. Instead we shall consider a simplified situation corresponding to quasi-free heavy fermions that will justify the static limit. Then

$$\xi _\pm =\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \gamma _4)\psi $$
(56)
correspond approximately to the particles and antiparticles. Writing $`M`$ for the large quark mass, we can consider an effective interaction of the quarks with mesons ($`\varphi `$ and $`\omega _\mu `$) that are in fact $`q\overline{q}`$ bound states bound by gluon exchange forces. If $`\psi `$ is quasi-free we can write

$$\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\psi =\frac{1}{2M}_\mu (\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\gamma _\mu \psi )$$

$`ig\varphi \overline{\psi }\gamma _5\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig}{2M}}\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\gamma _\mu \psi _\mu \varphi +\mathrm{total}\mathrm{divergence}`$ (57)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig}{2M}}\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\gamma _4\psi _0\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{ig}{2M}}\overline{\psi }\gamma _5𝜸(\mathbf{}\varphi )\psi `$
The first term is of the order $`\frac{\mu }{2M}`$ if $`\mu `$ is the meson mass and negligible in the static limit. In the second term the operator $`\gamma _4\gamma _5𝜸=𝝈`$ commutes with $`\gamma _4`$ and as a result does not mix particle states with antiparticle states, so that putting $`\xi _+=\xi `$ (particle wave function) we can make the replacement

$$ig\varphi \overline{\psi }\gamma _5\psi \frac{ig}{2M}\xi ^{}𝝈(\mathbf{}\varphi )\xi $$
(58)
For the vector meson $`\omega _0`$ is not independent of the independent variables $`\omega _i`$ ($`i=1,2,3)`$ and we can write $`ig\overline{\psi }𝜸𝝎\psi =g\psi ^{}\gamma _5𝝈𝝎\psi `$. Expressing small components in terms of the large components in the free-Dirac approximation, and neglecting total divergence terms we can make the replacement

$$g\psi ^{}\gamma _5𝝈𝝎\psi \frac{ig}{2M}\xi ^{}[(𝝈\times \mathbf{})𝝎]\xi +\frac{ig}{2M}\xi ^{}(\mathbf{}𝝎)\xi $$
(59)
In momentum space $`i\mathbf{}`$ gives the virtual space-like momentum $`k`$ of the mesons, so that if we call $`\sigma _{}`$ and $`\sigma _{}`$ the longitudinal and transverse spin operators we have

$$i𝝈\mathbf{}=|𝐤|\frac{𝝈𝐤}{|𝐤|}=|𝐤|\sigma _{}$$
(60)
$$i𝝈\times \mathbf{}=|𝐤|\frac{𝝈\times 𝐤}{|𝐤|}=|𝐤|𝝈_{}$$
(61)
and the interaction term takes the approximate form

$`_{int}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g|𝐤|}{2M}}\psi ^{}(\sigma _{}\varphi +\gamma _4𝝈_{}𝝎_{}+\omega _{})\psi `$ (62)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g|𝐤|}{2M}}\xi ^{}\omega _{}\xi +{\displaystyle \frac{g|𝐤|}{2M}}\xi ^{}(\sigma _{}\varphi +𝝈_{}𝝎_{})\xi `$
with $`\varphi `$ and $`𝝎_{}`$ forming an $`SU(2)_W`$ triplet. $`\omega _{}=\frac{𝐤𝝎}{|𝐤|}`$ is a singlet. If we interpret $`_{int}`$ in $`x`$ space, then

$$|𝐤|=\sqrt{^2}$$
(63)
$$\sigma _{}=W^{}(i\mathbf{})\sigma _3W(i\mathbf{})=\frac{i𝝈\mathbf{}}{\sqrt{^2}}$$

$$\sigma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}=W^{}(i\mathbf{})\sigma _1W(i\mathbf{})$$

$$\sigma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(2)}=W^{}(i\mathbf{})\sigma _2W(i\mathbf{})$$
(64)
$$W=\sqrt{\frac{M+𝝈\mathbf{}}{(M^2^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}}}$$
(65)
with

$$W^{}(i\mathbf{})W(i\mathbf{})=1$$
(66)
Both $`\sigma _{}`$ and $`𝝈_{}`$ generate $`SU(2)_W`$ and combine with an internal $`SU(N)`$ to give $`SU(2N)_W`$. Performing a Cini-Touschek-Melosh transormation in the $`𝐤`$ direction for the kinetic term we see that the generators of this $`SU(2N)_W`$ commute with the transformed Hamiltonian including the effective approximate interaction term.

Here it is important to note that the Yukawa coupling Eq.(54) is invariant under the local symmetry group $`SO(4,1)`$ acting on the five dimensional representation ($`\varphi `$, $`\omega _\mu `$) of $`SO(4,1)`$. But this group does not leave $`_0`$ invariant since Eq.(55) that is a consequence of the choice of $`_0`$ is not covariant under $`SO(4,1)`$. Only the non-local $`SU(2)_W`$ is the symmetry of $`=_0+_{int}`$. If we include the internal symmetry group $`SU(3)`$, then we can write a Yukawa interaction term that has $`SU(6,6)`$ invariance instead of $`SO(4,1)`$ in our simplified example. This is the group introduced by Salam et. al. As is well known, $`SU(6,6)`$ cannot be a symmetry of the Lagrangian. But as far as we can separate positive and negative frequency parts of $`\psi `$ we have an approximate $`SU(6)_W`$ symmetry for the whole Lagrangian. In OCD where the quarks are quasi-free inside the hadron, such an approximation is justifiable because of asymptotic freedom. In that sense we may say that the approximate vertex symmetry mixing spin and internal degrees of freedom like isospin is better understood within the QCD framework. The covariant generalization involves the spin current densities Eq.(44) and Eq.(48). The corresponding covariant spin operators $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{5\mu }`$ that are conserved in the free quark approximation do not lead to a close algebra in general. However it can be shown$`^{\text{[12]}}`$ that the matrix elements of the transverse part of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{5\mu }`$ and the longitudinal part of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }`$ between one particle states do lead to closure and to $`SU(6)_W`$ symmetry in a special frame.

Since mesons are extended objects, a quark-meson coupling such as Eq.(54) cannot be a local interaction. In general there will be a form factor $`F(q)`$, where $`q`$ is the momentum transfer at the vertex. Expanding the form factor in powers of $`q`$ is equivalent to writing effective interactions involving higher derivatives of the meson fields. As an example we can write an effective Lagrangian with pseudovector coupling for the pseudoscalar meson and a Pauli coupling for the vector meson $`\omega _\mu `$, so that

$$_{int}^{^{}}=\frac{f}{2M}\overline{\psi }[i\gamma _5\gamma _\mu _\mu \varphi +\frac{1}{2}\sigma _{\mu \nu }(_\mu \omega _\nu _\nu \omega _\mu )]\psi $$
(67)
where $`f`$ is a new coupling constant. We can also write

$$_{int}^{^{}}=\frac{f}{2M}\psi ^{}[\gamma _5_0\varphi +𝝈\mathbf{}\varphi +i\gamma _5\gamma _4𝝈(_0𝝎\mathbf{}\omega _0)+\gamma _4(𝝈\times \mathbf{})𝝎]\psi $$
(68)
Taking the momentum $`𝐤`$ of the exchanged mesons to be space-like and along the third (longitudinal) direction, we find

$$_{int}^{^{}}=\frac{f}{2M}|𝐤|\psi ^{}(\sigma _{}\varphi +\gamma _4𝝈_{}𝝎_{})\psi +O(k^2)$$
(69)
again exhibiting the W-spin invariance of the vertex.

## Symmetry in the Potential Approximation

In the one boson exchange approximation between heavy quarks we consider the case when the quarks emit two gluons that can turn into a color singlet, C-even, $`q\overline{q}`$ bound state (effectively a pseudoscalar meson $`\varphi `$) or the alternative case when they emit three gluons that go into a color-singlet, C-odd, $`q\overline{q}`$ bound state (effectively a vector meson $`\omega _\mu `$). Then the mesons $`\varphi `$ and $`\omega `$ will have effective coupling constants ($`g`$ for non derivative and $`f`$ for derivative couplings) arising from the expansion of their form factors. We can use these couplings also to describle the baryon baryon potential due to meson exchange$`^{\text{[13]}}`$. Indeed the baryons host three quasi-free quarks each. Following the usual quark additivity assumption we shall let one quark from each baryon interact at a time, while the other (spectator) quarks remain idle. When the active quarks emit several gluons in a colored state, that state cannot propagate due to color confinement. The active quarks can make contact only through emission of two or three gluon color singlet states which, in turn can create mesons in intermediate states. Hence $`g`$ and $`f`$ will also be effective coupling constants for the baryon-meson interactions and will enter in the calculation of effective baryon baryon potentials due to meson exchange. Thus, starting from a scenario in QCD we are able to justify the Moeller-Rosenfeld$`^{\text{[14]}}`$ model in which baryons exchange vector and pseudoscalar mesons with symmetrical coupling constants. Accordingly we consider in the following the effective quark-meson vertex with no renormalizability restriction on the form of the Yukawa interaction. The $`\varphi `$ exchange between quarks will give for the Fourier transform $`v(𝐤)`$ of the potential

$$v(𝐤)=\frac{g}{2M}^2(𝝈^{(1)}𝐤)(𝝈^{(2)}𝐤)(|𝐤|^2+m^2)^1$$
(70)
where $`𝐤`$ is the space-like momentum transfer (in a frame with $`k_0=0`$), $`m`$ is the meson mass, $`M`$ the quark mass (that becomes the baryon mass when we add the masses of the spectator quarks) and $`f`$ the pseudoscalar coupling constant. Its Fourier transform gives the potential due to $`\varphi `$, namely$`^{\text{[13]}}`$

$$V^{(\varphi )}\frac{m}{4\pi }g^2\frac{m^2}{4M^2}[\frac{1}{3}𝝈^{(1)}𝝈^{(2)}\varphi +S_{12}\chi ]$$
(71)
where $`\varphi `$ and $`\chi `$ are functions of $`x=mr`$, and $`S_{12}`$ is the tensor operator

$$S_{12}=\frac{3(𝝈^{(1)}𝐫)(𝝈^{(2)}𝐫)}{r^2}𝝈^{(1)}𝝈^{(2)}$$
(72)
with

$$r=|𝐫_1𝐫_2|$$
(73)
and

$$\varphi (x)=\frac{e^x}{x},\chi (x)=(\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{x}+\frac{1}{x^2})\frac{e^x}{x}$$
(74)
Similary, the exchange of the vector meson $`\omega _\mu `$ gives in the same approximation of neglecting recoil

$$V^{(\omega )}\frac{m}{4\pi }\{g^2(1+\frac{m^2}{8M^2})\varphi +g^2\frac{m^2}{4M^2}[\frac{2}{3}𝝈^{(1)}𝝈^{(2)}\varphi S_{12}\chi ]\}$$
(75)
In this limit we can also put

$$f=g\frac{m}{2M}$$
(76)
In this approximation the total potential $`V`$ is

$$V\frac{m}{4\pi }g^2\{(1+\frac{m^2}{8M^2})\varphi +\frac{m^2}{4M^2}𝝈^{(1)}𝝈^{(2)}\varphi \}$$
(77)
Introducing the projection operator

$$P^S=\frac{1}{2}(1+𝝈^{(1)}𝝈^{(2)}),(P^S)^2=P^S$$
(78)
with eigenvalue $`1`$ on spin singlet states, we have

$$V=\frac{m}{4\pi }g^2\{(1\frac{m^2}{8M^2})\varphi +\frac{m^2}{2M^2}P^S\varphi \}$$
(79)
Hence the potential is a superposition of two spin independent potentials namely $`\varphi `$ and $`P^S\varphi `$. The tensor terms $`S_{12}`$ in $`V^\varphi `$ and $`V^\omega `$ are spin dependent and highly singular at $`x=0`$. If $`\varphi `$ and $`\omega `$ have the same mass and the same coupling constant these terms cancel, resulting in a smooth wave function for the solution of the Schrödinger equation with $`V`$ as potential. Rarita and Schwinger$`^{\text{[15]}}`$ observed that even in the case $`m_\varphi m_\omega `$ the potential is smooth enough for the Schrödinger equation to be soluble provided that $`g_\varphi =g_\omega `$.

In order to generalize this model to include isospin we note that diagrams considered so far violate the Zweig rule$`^{\text{[16]}}`$ according to which disconnected quark diagrams are suppressed. The $`\varphi `$ and $`\omega `$ that are exchanged in these Zweig-forbidden diagrams are not only color singlets but also flavor singlets, i.e. they have zero isospin or unitary spin. Another effective interaction between quarks will occur through the exchange of color singlet but flavor carrying $`q\overline{q}`$ bound states, such that $`q`$ and $`\overline{q}`$ are associated with different flavor quantum numbers. For example we can have

$$d+ud+(u+\overline{d})+dd+u$$
(80)
where the bracketed $`u`$ and $`\overline{d}`$ form an intermediate bound state ($`\pi ^+`$ or $`\rho ^+`$) that is exchanged between a $`u`$ quark and a $`d`$ quark. Again we can call $`g`$ the effective coupling constant ($`\overline{u}d\pi ^+`$) or ($`\overline{u}d\rho ^+`$). If $`m`$ is the mass of the exchanged meson and $`M`$ the common mass of $`u`$ and $`d`$ assumed to be degenerate, the potentials resulting from $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\rho ^+`$ exchange will have respectively the forms Eq.(71) and Eq.(75), so that for the equal coupling constant and equal mass case the total potential will have the form Eq.(79). Including all the charged and neutral states, the total $`ud`$ potential results from the exchange of $`0^{}`$ mesons $`\eta `$, $`\pi ^i`$ and $`1^{}`$ mesons $`\omega _\mu `$ and $`\rho _\mu ^i`$, where $`i=1,2,3`$ are isospin labels. Denoting the degenerate $`(ud)`$ pair by $`\psi (I=1/2)`$ we have the effective interaction term

$$_{int}=\frac{i}{2}g\overline{\psi }(\gamma _5\eta +\gamma _\mu \omega _\mu +\gamma _5𝝉𝝅+\gamma _\mu 𝝉𝝆_\mu )\psi $$
(81)
Including the spin states, the quark doublet (particles) form the $`4`$ dimensional representation of $`SU(4)`$ while the bound state $`\eta `$ is an $`SU(4)`$ singlet. The $`𝝅`$, $`\omega `$ and $`𝝆`$ form the adjoint $`15`$ dimensional representation of $`SU(4)`$. With respect to the $`SU(4)_W`$ symmetry of the vertex, $`\omega _{}`$ is the $`SU(4)_W`$ singlet, while the $`SU(4)_W`$ ($`15`$) consists of

$$(\eta ,𝝎_{}),\rho _{}^i,(\pi ^i,𝝆_{}^i)$$
(82)
The exchange of these mesons leads to the potential of the form

$$\alpha \varphi +\frac{1}{4}\beta (1+𝝈^{(1)}𝝈^{(2)})(1+𝝉^{(1)}𝝉^{(2)})\varphi $$
(83)
that commutes with the $`SU(4)`$ generators found from $`\frac{1}{4}(1+𝝈^{(1)}𝝈^{(2)})`$ and $`\frac{1}{2}(1+𝝉^{(1)}𝝉^{(2)})`$. This potential is therefore spin and isospin independent in the limit of degenerate masses and equal coupling.

If the mass degeneracy is lifted by allowing $`\pi _i`$ and $`\rho ^i`$ to have different masses, a tensor force $`S_{12}`$ occurs in the potential between $`u`$ and $`d`$, hence, between the proton and the neutron, so that the deuteron acquires an electric quadrupole moment. The right sign and magnitude are found$`^{\text{[17]}}`$ if the $`\rho `$ is three to four times heavier than the pion, in accordance with experiment.

The $`SU(4)`$ symmetry we have found is broken when we add to the potential recoil terms associated with the one boson exchange. These are proportional to $`𝐋𝐒`$ (spin-orbit) and $`Q_{12}`$ (quadrupole) given by

$$𝐋=𝐫\times 𝐩,𝐒=\frac{1}{2}(𝝈^{(1)}+𝝈^{(2)})$$

$$Q_{12}=\frac{1}{2}[(𝝈^{(1)}𝐋)(𝝈^{(2)}𝐋)+(𝝈^{(2)}𝐋)(𝝈^{(1)}𝐋)]$$
(84)
Using $`\varphi `$ and $`\chi `$ defined by Eq.(74) we can write the additional terms associated with $`\omega `$ exchange as

$$V_{add}^\omega =\frac{m}{4\pi }g^2\frac{3m^2}{2M^2}(\frac{1}{x}+\frac{1}{x^2})\varphi 𝐋𝐒+\frac{m}{4\pi }g^2\frac{3m^4}{16M^4}\frac{1}{x^2}\chi Q_{12}$$
(85)
The exchange of the pseudoscalar $`\varphi `$ contributes no $`𝐋𝐒`$ or $`Q_{12}`$ terms that may cancel the highly singular additional terms due to $`\omega `$ exchange. A $`Q_{12}`$ term that can cancel the $`Q_{12}`$ term can only come from the exchange of a scalar meson $`\sigma `$. Accordingly we can enlarge our scheme by adding a scalar field $`\sigma `$ with the Yukawa interaction

$$_{int}^\sigma =g\overline{\psi }\psi \sigma $$
(86)
to the interaction term Eq.(55). Then we have an additional potential due to $`\sigma `$ exchange that reads$`^{\text{[13]}}`$

$$V^\sigma =\frac{m}{4\pi }g^2\{(1\frac{m^2}{8M^2})\varphi +\frac{m^2}{2M^2}(\frac{1}{x}+\frac{1}{x^2})\varphi 𝐋𝐒+\frac{3m^4}{16M^4}\frac{1}{x^2}\chi Q_{12}\}$$
(87)
In the total potential

$$V=V^\varphi +V^\omega +V^\sigma $$
(88)
the $`Q_{12}`$ terms cancel, leaving

$$V=\frac{m}{4\pi }g^2\frac{m^2}{2M^2}\varphi \{P^S4(\frac{1}{x}+\frac{1}{x^2})𝐋𝐒\}$$
(89)
The term with $`P^S`$ (where $`P^S`$ is given by Eq.(78)) is spin independent while the term in $`𝐋𝐒`$ breaks this symmetry.

## Chiral Symmetry in the Extended Moeller-Rosenfeld (M-R) Model.

The M-R model without isospin is based on $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$ exchange. We have seen that, neglecting recoil, the model gives a spin-independent potential between the fermions. Including recoil we get a highly singular potential with spin dependent, spin orbit and quadrupole terms. The extended M-R model, with the inclusion of a scalar $`\sigma `$-meson gives a spin independent potential broken only by relativistic spin-orbit terms. But now, for vanishing fermion mass, the Lagrangian exhibits a higher symmetry, namely invariance under $`U(1)\times SU(2)_W`$ where $`U(1)`$ which rotates $`\varphi `$ and $`\sigma `$ is a chiral group. It follows that the extended model has both $`SU(2)_W`$ and chiral invariance. If we introduce isovector fields $`\pi ^i`$ (pseudoscalar), $`\rho _\mu ^i`$ (vector), $`\delta ^i`$ (scalar), the potential becomes

$$W=(1+\tau _i^{(1)}\tau _i^{(2)})V$$
(90)
where $`V`$ is given by Eq.(89). The new potential is both spin and isospin independent except for spin dependent $`𝐋𝐒`$ terms. The generators of $`SU(4)_W`$ are

$$𝐒=\frac{1}{2}(𝝈^{(1)}+𝝈^{(2)}),T^i=\frac{1}{2}(\tau _i^{(1)}+\tau _i^{(2)}),𝐒T^i$$
(91)
$`SU(4)_W`$ becomes $`SU(6)_W`$ if the isospin is replaced by unitary spin. But the Lagrangian also has an additional chiral symmetry in the zero quark mass limit. If the masses of the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks are neglected we have an $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$ invariance in chromodynamics. For free quarks, combination with spin leads to $`SU(4)_L\times SU(4)_R`$ invariance. The $`q\overline{q}`$ states belonging to the adjoint representation will have both positive and negative parities. Adding singlets $`\sigma `$ and $`\varphi `$ we consider the $`32`$ states

$$E_n,\sigma ,\varphi ,\omega _n(n=1,2,3)$$

$$A_n^i,\delta ^i,\pi ^i,\rho _n^i(i=1,2,3)$$
(92)
where $`i`$ is the isospin index and $`n`$ labels the independent spatial components of mesons with spin $`1`$. Here $`\varphi `$, $`\pi _i`$, $`\omega _n`$, $`\rho _n^i`$ have negative parity while the scalar mesons ($`\sigma `$, $`\delta _i`$) and the pseudovector mesons ($`E_n`$, $`A_n^i`$) have positive parity. The scalar mesons $`\sigma `$ and $`\delta _i`$ are necessary to cancel the $`Q_{12}`$ terms due to $`\omega `$ and $`\rho `$ exchange respectively. Thus the smoothing out of the wave functions for bound states of light quarks (for which the recoil corrections are important) enlarges the $`SU(4)_W`$ vertex symmetry that combines spin and isospin to include also the chiral symmetry $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$.

As indicated before, using the additivity principle for the quarks inside the baryons and letting one quark in each baryon exchange a meson at a time, both the $`SU(4)_W`$ symmetry and the chiral symmetry are reflected in the potential between two baryons.

Note that the cancellation of the $`Q_{12}`$ terms requires the degeneracy of $`\sigma `$ with $`\omega _n`$ and $`\delta ^i`$ with $`\rho _n^i`$. This corresponds to an $`O(4)`$ subgroup of $`SU(4)\times SU(4)`$ which seems to be broken less than $`SU(4)`$.

## Larger group structure

Now $`U(4,4)`$ has $`64`$ generators, whereas $`SU(4,4)`$ has $`63`$. Writing

$$SU(4,4)SU(4)\times SU(4)SU(4)\mathrm{or}SU(4)_W$$
(93)
and

$$SU(4,4)SO(4,4)SO(4)\times SO(4)SO(4).$$
(94)
Then part of the $``$ that is in $`(1)`$-rep is

$$\overline{\psi }ϵ\psi =\psi _L^{}\psi _Rϵ+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(95)
In $`(28)`$-rep of $`SO(4,4)`$ part of $``$ is

$`\overline{\psi }[\sigma _{\mu \nu }\{(_\mu \omega _\nu _\nu \omega _\mu )+i\gamma _5(_\mu E_\nu _\nu E_\mu )+{\displaystyle \frac{𝝉}{2}}(i\gamma _5𝝅+𝜹)]\psi +`$
$`\overline{\psi }i\gamma _5\gamma _\mu (E_\mu +_\mu \stackrel{~}{\eta })\psi +\overline{\psi }i\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{𝝉}{2}}\psi 𝝆_\mu =`$
$`\psi _L^{}\underset{¯}{𝝈}\{(\underset{¯}{\mathbf{}}\times \underset{¯}{𝝎}+i\underset{¯}{\mathbf{}}\times \underset{¯}{𝐄})+(_0\underset{¯}{𝐄}\underset{¯}{\mathbf{}}E_0)+i(_0\underset{¯}{𝝎}\underset{¯}{\mathbf{}}\omega _0)\}\psi _R+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$
$`+\psi _L^{}i𝝉𝝅\psi _R+\psi _L^{}i𝝉𝜹\psi _R+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$
$`+(\psi _L^{}𝝉\psi _L+\psi _R^{}𝝉\psi _R)𝝆_0+(\psi _L^{}\sigma _n𝝉\psi _L\psi _R^{}\sigma _n𝝉\psi _R)𝝆_n`$
$`+(\psi _L^{}\psi _L\psi _R^{}\psi _R)(E_0+_0\stackrel{~}{\eta })+(\psi _L^{}\sigma _n\psi _L+\psi _R^{}\sigma _n\psi _R(E_n+_n\stackrel{~}{\eta })`$ (96)
and in $`(35)`$ of $`SO(4,4)`$ it is

$`\overline{\psi }[i\gamma _5\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{𝝉}{2}}\{(_\mu 𝝆_\nu _\nu 𝝆_\mu )+i\gamma _5(_\mu 𝐚_\nu _\nu 𝐚_\mu )\}]\psi `$
$`\overline{\psi }\{i\gamma _\mu \omega _\mu +i\gamma _5\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{𝝉}{2}}(𝐚_\mu +_\mu 𝝅)\}\psi `$
$`=\psi _L^{}[i\eta +𝝉\sigma _n\{(\underset{¯}{\mathbf{}}\times \underset{¯}{𝝆})_n+i(_0𝝆_n_n𝝆_0)`$
$`+(_0𝐚_n_n𝐚_0)+i(\underset{¯}{\mathbf{}}\times \underset{¯}{𝐚})_n\}]\psi _R+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$
$`+(\psi _L^{}\psi _L+\psi _R^{}\psi _R)\omega _0+(\psi _L^{}\sigma _n\psi _L\psi _R^{}\sigma _n\psi _R)\omega _n`$
$`+(\psi _L^{}𝝉\psi _L\psi _R^{}𝝉\psi _R)(a_0+_0𝝅)`$
$`+(\psi _L^{}\sigma _n𝝉\psi _L+\psi _R^{}\sigma _n𝝉\psi _R)(a_n+_n𝝅)`$ (97)
We now look at decomposition under $`SU(4)_L\times SU(4)_R`$ subgroup of $`SU(4,4)`$. Parts containing

$$\psi _L^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\psi _R\psi _R^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\psi _L$$

terms have negative parity, while the parts with

$$\psi _L^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\psi _R+\psi _R^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\psi _L$$

have positive parity. These lead to combined parts in $``$

$`\psi _L^{}\{ϵ+\sigma _n[(_0E_n_nE_0)+(\underset{¯}{\mathbf{}}\times \underset{¯}{𝝎})_n]+𝝉𝝈`$
$`+\sigma _n𝝉[(_0𝐚_n_n𝐚_0)+(\underset{¯}{\mathbf{}}\times \underset{¯}{𝝆})_n]\}\psi _R+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$
$`+\psi _L^{}\{i𝝉𝝅+i\sigma _n(_0\omega _n_n\omega _0)+i\sigma _n(\underset{¯}{\mathbf{}}\times \underset{¯}{𝐄})_n+i\eta `$
$`+i𝝉\sigma _n(_0𝝆_n_n𝝆_0)+i𝝉\sigma _n(\underset{¯}{\mathbf{}}\times \underset{¯}{𝐚})_n\}\psi _R+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (98)
where we put the positive parity parts in the first half, and the negative parity parts in the second half of this equation. Now that $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ is a mixture of $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{^{}}`$ we can now consider the $`32`$ states ($`16`$ negative and $`16`$ positive parity parts) which transform like $`(4,\overline{4})+(\overline{4},4)`$ under $`SU(4)_L\times SU(4)_R`$ with $`_\mu E_\mu =0`$, $`_\mu \omega _\mu =0`$, $`_\mu E_\mu =0`$, $`_\mu 𝐚_\mu =0`$, and $`_\mu 𝝆_\mu =0`$. For time-like meson momentum, $`E_0`$, $`\omega _0`$, $`𝐚_0`$, $`𝝆_0=0`$, and for space-like meson momentum in $`O_z`$ direction $`E_3`$, $`\omega _3`$, $`𝐚_3`$, $`𝝆_3=0`$ so that $`E_{}`$, $`\omega _{}`$, $`𝐚_{}`$, and $`𝝆_{}`$ vanish. The $`4\times 4=1+15`$ occur in $`\psi _L^{}\psi _L`$, $`\psi _R^{}\psi _R`$ parts. $`LL`$, $`RR`$ parts give the $`31`$ generators

$$(1,1)+(15,1)+(1,15)$$
(99)
put together with above $`32`$ giving the $`63`$ generators of $`SU(4,4)`$. One boson exchange of above $`(4,\overline{4})+(\overline{4},4)`$ gives on cancellation due to equality of $`qq`$meson coupling constant a potential of the form

$$\frac{1}{2}(1+𝝉^{(1)}𝝉^{(2)})\frac{1}{2}(1+𝝈^{(1)}𝝈^{(2)})V(r)$$
(100)
while the $`𝐋𝐒`$ term breaks the symmetry.

It is also possible to use non-compact form of $`Sp(4)SU(4,4)`$.

Making the $`J^{PC}`$ identifications $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ ($`0^+`$), $`𝝅`$ ($`0^+`$), $`\omega _\mu `$ ($`1^{}`$), $`ϵ(f_0)`$ ($`0^{++}`$), $`𝜹(𝐚_0)`$ ($`0^{++}`$), $`E_\mu (f_{1\mu })`$ ($`1^+`$), $`𝐀_\mu (𝐛_\mu )`$ ($`1^+`$), under $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$ exchanging particles $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ with $`𝜹(𝐚_0)`$, $`𝝅`$ with $`ϵ(f_0)`$, $`\omega _\mu `$ with $`𝐀_\mu (𝐛_\mu )`$, and $`𝝆_\mu `$ with $`E_\mu (f_{1\mu })`$ also leads to the same potential including relativistic corrections (recoil).

## Remarks on Symmetries Involving Spin and Internal Symmetries

We have seen that an approximate combination of spin and internal degrees of freedom arises in effective Lagrangians where the couplings of the $`q\overline{q}`$ bound states to quarks ($`q`$) or baryons ($`qqq`$) are almost equal and the masses are almost degenerate. The $`SU(4)`$, $`SU(6)`$ or $`SU(8)`$ generators that close are not in general covariant. They are related to the covariant operators $`\sigma _n`$, $`\sigma _n\lambda ^a`$ by a unitary transformation that is momentum dependent, hence non-local. This unitary transformation can be worked out for the free quark case. It serves as a model for the interacting case and works very well in phenomenological applications$`^{\text{[18]}\text{[19]}\text{[20]}}`$. The success of this procedure is now partially understood by the asymptotic freedom of quarks interacting through gluon exchange. At short spatial separation quarks are quasi free, so that their positive and negative frequency parts can be separated and they can be subjected to Foldy-Wouthuysen-Tani or Cini-Touschek-Melosh type transformations. The vertex then exhibits an $`SU(6)_W`$ type symmetry for a quark emitting a meson with space-like momentum. If the meson momentum is time-like, the meson can only be coupled to a quark-antiquark pair, each with a time-like momentum (in general not on the mass shell). In this case the effective interaction Lagrangians of the form Eq.(54) and Eq.(67) have an $`SU(2)`$ (no flavor), $`SU(4)`$ (isospin flavor) or $`SU(6)`$ (unitary spin flavor) symmetry with the correspondences (in the $`SU(4)`$ case)

$$\tau ^i\pi ^i,𝝈𝝎,\tau ^i𝝈𝝆^i$$
(101)
which give the usual $`SU(4)`$ classification for the bound states $`q\overline{q}`$. The spin dependence of the one-gluon exchange between $`q`$ and $`\overline{q}`$ introduces a $`𝝈^{(1)}𝝈^{(2)}`$ term that splits $`\pi `$ from $`\omega `$ and $`\rho `$ and leads to the mass formula for $`SU(6)`$

$$M=M_0+M_1Y+M_2[I(I+1)\frac{1}{4}Y^2]M_3S(S+1)$$
(102)
that was proposed$`^{\text{[21]}}`$ in $`1964`$. The $`M_0`$ part comes from the exact $`SU(6)`$ limit valid for the spin independent confining potential$`^{\text{[22]}}`$. This spin independence is only seen in the lattice approximation in QCD. We have found a partial justification in the Moeller-Rosenfeld model with quarks exchanging almost degenerate $`q\overline{q}`$ bound states. The $`S(S+1)`$ part comes from short range one-gluon exchange forces as shown by de Rújula, Georgi and Glashow$`^{\text{[23]}}`$ who find the value of $`M_3`$ to be proportional to $`\alpha _s`$, the QCD fine structure constant and inversely proportional to the masses of the constituent quarks. Finally the $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ terms come from quark mass difference.

The spin independent confining force can be largely simulated by an effective scalar field as shown by Schnitzer$`^{\text{[24]}}`$.

A phenomenological bag model description of the hadron is obtained by R. Friedberg and T. D. Lee$`^{\text{[25]}}`$ if the phenomenological scalar field (regarded as a function of invariants constructed out of two-gluon fields and three-gluon fields) is assumed to have different vacuum expectation values inside and outside the hadron. As shown by the same authors the large mass of the color and flavor singlet can be understood by the contribution of the $`2`$-gluon annihilation diagram for $`q\overline{q}`$.

Once we have this phenomenological picture for hadrons we can get non-trivial decay amplitude relations for mesons going into $`2`$ mesons or baryons decaying into baryons (by emission of mesons or photons) by using the unitary transformation between the vertex spin operators and the covariant spin operators. The non-covariant spin belongs to the $`35`$-dimensional adjoint representation of $`SU(6)_W`$. It is a function of the covariant spin operators of current algebra and the momentum. The momentum dependence can be taken into account by consideration$`^{\text{[26]}}`$ of the group $`SU(6)_W\times SO(3)`$ where the $`SO(3)`$ is associated with the orbital angular momentum exhibiting the momentum dependence. The $`SO(3)`$ part can be described by the quantum number $`L=0,1,2`$, etc.. We have seen that in the infinite momentum frame $`\gamma _5`$ converges to the longitudinal spin $`\sigma _{}`$ or $`\sigma _3`$ (with $`O_2`$ being chosen as the longitudinal direction). The pion operator $`\gamma _5𝝉`$ in current algebra becomes $`\sigma _3𝝉`$. The conserved spin is obtained by a unitary transformation of this operator. It will belong in general to a superposition of ($`35`$) $`L=0,L=1,L=2`$, etc.. For a given matrix element of the pion operator between two states (meson states for pionic decay of mesons, baryonic state for pionic decays of baryons) only a limited number of these representations ($`35,L`$) will contribute. That will immediately give non-trivial relations between meson-meson-pion amplitudes or between baryon-baryon-pion amplitudes. $`\gamma `$-decays or vector meson decays are handled in similar fashion. The details of this analysis can be found in the reviews of Meshkov$`^{\text{[27]}}`$ for meson decays, Hey$`^{\text{[28]}}`$ for baryon decays or in the numerous original articles$`^{\text{[18]}\text{[19]}\text{[20]}}`$ exploring the unitary transformation between the $`SU(6)`$ operators of the non-covariant constituent quarks and the $`SU(6)`$ operators of current algebra generated by covariant current quarks. More model dependent and detailed descriptions of the bound states and decay processes are obtained in a semi-classical field theory of quarks bound by a confining (harmonic or linear) potential that is from the outset taken to be spin independent$`^{\text{[22]}}`$.

The chiral structure is related to the approximate zero mass of the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks and the negligibly small mass of the pion$`^{\text{[29]}}`$. In quark phenomenology the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quark masses are usually taken to be one third of the proton or neutron masses. On the other hand, if they are evaluated from the deviations from exact chiral symmetry in current algebra, they are found to be of the order of a few MeV. The two pictures can be reconciled by putting massless quarks in a bag (resulting from an effective scalar field) of radius $`R`$, assuming that the sphere of radius $`R`$ is the boundary of regions where the scalar field assumes different vacuum expectation values. Then, quarks behave as if they had a mass proportional to $`R^1`$ which can be adjusted to one third of the proton mass. For an attempt to understand the zero pion mass within this phenomenological bag model based on QCD, see Friedberg and Lee’s article$`^{\text{[25]}}`$.


format: text

text:
# Extended visual cryptography schemes

## 1. Introduction

A visual cryptography scheme is given by the following set up. Let $`P`$ be a group of $`n`$ persons where each participant is given exactly one image (in fact it does not have to be a real image) xeroxed onto a transparency. Stacking all the transparencies together, a secret image is recovered. So in this sense the participants share a secret. This set up can be generalized to the case where some subsets $`XP`$ (which are usually called qualified subsets of $`P`$) can recover the secret by stacking their transparencies together, whereas other, forbidden subsets cannot. Such structures, called access structures, have been examined very well. In  Naor and Shamir analysed so-called $`(k,n)`$-threshold visual cryptography schemes, i.e. schemes where a subset is qualified if and only if it consists of at least $`k`$ participants. In  and  their idea was extended to general access structures.

Most work concerning this subject focuses on two aspects, either the pixel expansion, i.e. the number of subpixels which is needed on the different levels to represent a white or a black pixel, or the contrast, i.e. the difference of subpixels representing a white or a black pixel.

As a further generalization, the existence of a secret image can be concealed by displaying a different image on each slide. Naor and Shamir  solved this problem for the $`(2,2)`$-threshold scheme. In  this problem was considered for a general access structure. In  Droste made a further generalization: Stacking the transparencies of each participant together, a secret image is recovered, and there is in fact only this single way to recover it. But moreover, the participants of any arbitrary subset $`X`$ of $`P`$ share a secret, too. Hence we have $`2^n1`$ more or less secret images.

We start by briefly recalling the work done by Droste and prove that the scheme proposed in  has minimal pixel expansion. Then we prove a trade-off theorem between the contrast of the different images.

Finally we give new constructions for generalized visual cryptography schemes with less then $`2^n1`$ subsets in order to achieve a smaller pixel expansion and a better contrast.

## 2. Preliminaries

A visual cryptography scheme is based on the fact that each pixel of an image is divided into a certain number $`m`$ of subpixels. This number $`m`$ is called the pixel expansion of the image. If the number of black subpixels needed to represent a white pixel in an image is $`l`$, and the number of black subpixels needed to represent a black pixel is $`h`$, then we call the number $`\alpha =\frac{hl}{m}`$ the contrast of the image.

An extended visual cryptography scheme consists of $`n`$ transparencies $`\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _n`$ and $`2^n1`$ different images (one for each non-empty subset $`T\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$). We denote by $`I_T`$ the image which is recovered by stacking together exactly the transparencies $`\tau _i`$ for $`iT`$. We generalize this as follows. For any non-empty subset $`𝔖𝒫(\{1,\mathrm{},n\})\backslash \{\mathrm{}\}`$ an $`𝔖`$-extended visual cryptography scheme consists of $`n`$ transparencies $`\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _n`$ with the following property: Let $`T𝔖`$. If we stack together the slides $`\tau _i`$ for $`iT`$, then we recover the image $`I_T`$ for which each white pixel is represented by $`l_T`$ black subpixels and each black pixel is represented by $`h_T`$ black subpixels. Furthermore, for $`T^{}`$ not contained in $`T`$, the distribution of subpixels on the transparencies $`\tau _i`$ with $`iT`$ is independent of the image $`I_T^{}`$, i.e. the information of the transparencies $`\tau _i`$ with $`iT`$ does not suffice to recover the image $`I_T^{}`$.

More formally, we define an $`𝔖`$-extended visual cryptography scheme as follows. (See also  for “usual” visual cryptography schemes and  for $`𝔖`$-extended visual cryptography schemes.)

###### Definition 2.1.

Let $`𝔖𝒫(\{1,\mathrm{},n\})\backslash \{\mathrm{}\}`$.

An $`𝔖`$-extended visual cryptography scheme is described by multi-sets $`C^𝔗`$ of $`n\times m`$ Boolean matrices for $`𝔗𝔖`$. (For given $`𝔗`$ each Boolean matrix in $`C^𝔗`$ describes the colors of the subpixels on each transparency, where the corresponding pixel in image $`I_T`$ is black if and only if $`T𝔗`$. For encoding, each matrix in $`C^𝔗`$ is chosen with the same probability.)

The multi-sets $`C^𝔗`$ must satisfy the following conditions:

1. Let $`BC^𝔗`$. For $`\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_q\}𝔖`$ the Hamming weight of the OR of the rows $`i_1,\mathrm{},i_q`$ of $`B`$ is $`h_{\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_q\}}`$ if $`\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_q\}𝔗`$ and $`l_{\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_q\}}`$ otherwise, i.e.

$$w_{Ham}((b_{i_1,1},\mathrm{},b_{i_1,m})\text{ OR }\mathrm{}\text{ OR }(b_{i_q,1},\mathrm{},b_{i_q,m}))=\{\begin{array}{cc}h_{\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_q\}}\hfill & \text{if }\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_q\}𝔗\hfill \\ l_{\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_q\}}\hfill & \text{if }\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_q\}𝔗\hfill \end{array}.$$

(This means stacking the transparencies $`\tau _{i_1},\mathrm{},\tau _{i_q}`$ together we recover the image $`I_{\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_q\}}`$.)
2. For $`\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_q\}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and $`𝔗,𝔗^{}𝔖`$ with $`𝔗𝒫(\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_q\})=𝔗^{}𝒫(\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_q\})`$ we obtain the same multi-sets if we restrict the matrices in $`C^𝔗`$ and $`C^𝔗^{}`$ respectively to the rows $`i_1,\mathrm{},i_q`$.

(This condition guarantees the security of the different images.)

If $`𝔖=𝒫(\{1,\mathrm{},n\})\backslash \{\mathrm{}\}`$ we simply call this an extended visual cryptography scheme.

In  Droste gives the following construction for $`𝔖`$-extended visual cryptography schemes using $`(k,k)`$-threshold schemes.

###### Construction 2.2.

For each $`T𝔖`$ we take $`2^{|T|1}`$ subpixels and use them to construct a $`(|T|,|T|)`$-threshold visual cryptography scheme. If $`iT`$ the corresponding subpixels on $`\tau _i`$ will be black. The $`𝔖`$-extended visual cryptography scheme is achieved by putting all these schemes together. Since we shall not need the details of this construction in the sequel, we omit a formal definition and refer to .

The scheme obtained by this construction has pixel expansion

$$m=\underset{T𝔖}{}2^{|T|1}$$

and the contrast of all encoded images is $`\frac{1}{m}`$. We shall prove in the following sections that this construction is optimal if $`𝔖=𝒫(\{1,\mathrm{},n\})\backslash \{\mathrm{}\}`$ but it is not optimal for general $`𝔖`$.

## 3. Pixel Expansion and Contrast for the Extended Scheme

It is sufficient to consider the case of one single pixel. For a given non-empty subset $`T\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ let $`x_T`$ be the number of subpixels which are black exactly on the transparencies $`i`$ for $`iT`$ and let us denote by $`x`$ the vector of all the $`x_T`$. For $`\mathrm{}S\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ let $`r_S`$ be the number of black subpixels needed for the image $`I_S`$. Formally we set $`r_{\mathrm{}}=0`$. We write $`r`$ for the vector of all the $`r_S`$ with $`\mathrm{}S\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$.

This leads to the linear equation system given by

(1)
$$Mx=r$$

where $`M=(m_{S,T})_{\mathrm{}S,T\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}`$ is defined by $`m_{S,T}=1`$ if $`ST\mathrm{}`$ and $`m_{S,T}=0`$ otherwise.

###### Lemma 3.1.

Equation (1) has a unique integral solution.

###### Proof.

We prove this by induction on the number $`n`$ of transparencies. Writing $`M_1=(1)`$, we obtain the following recursion formula which follows directly from the definition:

$$M_{n+1}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}M_n& \mathrm{𝟎}& M_n\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& 1& \mathrm{𝟏}\\ M_n& \mathrm{𝟏}& \mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right).$$

Here the index denotes the number of transparencies.

Let $`e_n`$ denote the $`(2^n1)`$ dimensional vector $`(1,\mathrm{},1)^t`$. With $`M_1^1=(1)`$ we obtain the following recursion formula for $`M_n^1`$:

$$M_{n+1}^1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& M_n^1e_n& M_n^1\\ e_n^tM_n^1& 0& e_n^tM_n^1\\ M_n^1& M_n^1e_n& M_n^1\end{array}\right)$$

We notice that the components of $`M_n^1e_n`$ are only $`1,0`$ and $`1`$ and that $`e_n^tM_n^1e_n=1`$. Then the formula can be proved by induction.

Thus $`M_n^1`$ contains only the entries $`1,0`$ and $`1`$ and therefore equation (1) has an integral solution. ∎

###### Lemma 3.2.

The solution of (1) is non-negative if and only if for each $`S\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ the condition

(2)
$$\underset{ST\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}(1)^{|S|+|T|}r_T0$$

is satisfied.

###### Proof.

We claim that $`x=(x_S)`$ with

(3)
$$x_S=\underset{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\backslash ST\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}(1)^{|T|+|S|+n+1}r_T$$

solves equation (1) and due to Lemma 3.1 this solution is unique.

To prove this we substitute $`x`$ in equation (1). For $`\mathrm{}U\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ the line of the system of linear equations corresponding to $`U`$ yields

(4)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{\mathrm{}S\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}m_{U,S}x_S& =\underset{S\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}m_{U,S}\underset{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\backslash ST\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}(1)^{|T|+|S|+n+1}r_T\hfill \\ \\ & =\underset{T\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}\underset{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\backslash TS\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}(1)^{|T|+|S|+n+1}r_Tm_{U,S}\hfill \\ \\ & =\underset{\mathrm{}T\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}(1)^{|T|}r_T\underset{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\backslash TS\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}(1)^{|S|+n+1}m_{U,S}.\hfill \end{array}$$

If $`TU`$ we choose $`tT\backslash U`$ and obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\backslash TS\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}(1)^{|S|+n+1}m_{U,S}\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\backslash \{T\{t\}\}S\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\backslash \{t\}}{}(1)^{|S|+n+1}m_{U,S}+(1)^{|S|+1+n+1}m_{U,S\{t\}}=0\end{array}$$

since $`m_{U,S}=m_{U,S\{t\}}`$.

If $`TU`$ and $`T\mathrm{}`$ we find

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\backslash TS\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}(1)^{|S|+n+1}m_{U,S}& =\underset{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\backslash TS\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}(1)^{|S|+n+1}=0\hfill \end{array}$$

since $`m_{U,S}=1`$.

But for $`\mathrm{}T=U`$ we find

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\backslash TS\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}(1)^{|S|+n+1}m_{U,S}& =\underset{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\backslash TS\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}(1)^{|S|+n+1}(1)^{|\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\backslash U|+n+1}\hfill \\ & =(1)^{|\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\backslash U|+n}\hfill \end{array}$$

since $`m_{U,S}=1`$ for $`S\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\backslash U`$.

Thus equation (4) yields

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{\mathrm{}S\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}m_{U,S}x_S& =\underset{\mathrm{}T\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}(1)^{|T|}r_T\underset{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\backslash TS\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}(1)^{|S|+n+1}m_{U,S}\hfill \\ \\ & =(1)^{|U|}r_U(1)^{|\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\backslash U|+n}\hfill \\ & =(1)^{2n}r_U=r_U.\hfill \end{array}$$

This proves that $`x`$ is a solution of equation (1) and the lemma follows. ∎

Now we can solve (2) to derive bounds for the pixel expansion and the contrast.

###### Theorem 3.3.

An extended visual cryptography scheme with $`n`$ transparencies needs at least $`\frac{1}{2}(3^n1)`$ subpixels. Hence Construction 2.2 is optimal with respect to the pixel expansion.

###### Proof.

First we note that the inequality (2) is as strong as possible if $`r_T=h_T`$ for $`|S|+|T|`$ even and $`r_T=l_T`$ for $`|S|+|T|`$ odd.

Thus an extended visual cryptography scheme exists if and only if

(5)
$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}ST\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\\ |S||T|mod2\end{array}}{}h_T\underset{\begin{array}{c}ST\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\\ |S||T|mod2\end{array}}{}l_T$$

holds for each $`S\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$.

For each $`\mathrm{}T\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ let $`\delta _T=h_Tl_T`$. Our goal is to prove that

(6)
$$mh_{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}\underset{\mathrm{}T\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}\delta _T2^{|T|1}.$$

As the first step in this proof we show that, for given values $`\delta _T`$ (for $`\mathrm{}T\{1,\mathrm{},n\})`$, the number $`h_{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}`$ is minimal if for all $`S\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ inequality (5) is satisfied with equality.

To this end, suppose

$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}ST\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\\ |S||T|mod2\end{array}}{}h_T<\underset{\begin{array}{c}ST\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\\ |S||T|mod2\end{array}}{}l_T$$

for some $`S\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. But the contrast levels

$`\overline{h}_T`$ $`=\{\begin{array}{cc}h_T\hfill & \text{for }TS\hfill \\ h_T1\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}`$
and
$`\overline{l}_T`$ $`=\{\begin{array}{cc}l_T\hfill & \text{for }TS\hfill \\ l_T1\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}`$
satisfy (5), since

$$\begin{array}{c}|\{TST\{1,\mathrm{},n\};|T||S|mod2;TS\}|=\hfill \\ \hfill |\{TST\{1,\mathrm{},n\};|T||S|mod2;TS\}|.\end{array}$$

Thus we may assume that inequality (5) is satisfied with equality for each $`S\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$.

Next we claim that

(7)
$$h_T=\underset{\mathrm{}T^{}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}\delta _T^{}2^{|T^{}|1}\underset{TT^{}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}\delta _T^{}2^{|T^{}|1|T|}$$

for $`\mathrm{}S\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ satisfy (5) with equality.

To prove this we have to show that

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{\begin{array}{c}ST\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\\ |S||T|mod2\end{array}}{}\left[\underset{\mathrm{}T^{}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}\delta _T^{}2^{|T^{}|1}\underset{TT^{}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}\delta _T^{}2^{|T^{}|1|T|}\right]=\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{\begin{array}{c}ST\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\\ |S||T|mod2\end{array}}{}\left(\left[\underset{\mathrm{}T^{}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}\delta _T^{}2^{|T^{}|1}\underset{TT^{}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}\delta _T^{}2^{|T^{}|1|T|}\right]\delta _T\right)\end{array}$$

or equivalently

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{\mathrm{}T^{}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}\delta _T^{}\left[\underset{\begin{array}{c}ST\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\\ |S||T|mod2\end{array}}{}2^{|T^{}|1}\underset{\begin{array}{c}STT^{}\\ |S||T|mod2\end{array}}{}2^{|T^{}|1|T|}\right]=\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{\mathrm{}T^{}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}\delta _T^{}\left[\underset{\begin{array}{c}ST\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\\ |S||T|mod2\end{array}}{}2^{|T^{}|1}\underset{\begin{array}{c}STT^{}\\ |S||T|mod2\end{array}}{}2^{|T^{}|1|T|}\right]+\delta _T^{}\frac{(1)^{|T^{}|+|S|}1}{2}.\end{array}$$

(Note that the last summand is equal to $`\delta _T^{}`$ for $`|T^{}||S|mod2`$ and equal to $`0`$ otherwise.)

Comparing coefficients for each $`\delta _T^{}`$ we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}2^{n|S|1}2^{|T^{}|1}\underset{\begin{array}{c}STT^{}\\ |S||T|mod2\end{array}}{}2^{|T^{}|1|T|}=\hfill \\ \hfill 2^{n|S|1}2^{|T^{}|1}\left(\underset{\begin{array}{c}STT^{}\\ |S||T|mod2\end{array}}{}2^{|T^{}|1|T|}\right)+\frac{(1)^{|T^{}|+|S|}1}{2},\end{array}$$

but this is true since

$$(1)^{|T^{}||S|}=(12)^{|T^{}||S|}=\underset{\begin{array}{c}STT^{}\\ |T^{}||T|mod2\end{array}}{}2^{|T^{}||T|}\underset{\begin{array}{c}STT^{}\\ |T^{}||T|mod2\end{array}}{}2^{|T^{}||T|}.$$

Suppose that $`\overline{h}_T`$ (for $`\mathrm{}T\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$) satisfy (5) with equality, too. For $`S\mathrm{}`$ inequality (5) gives

$$\overline{h}_S=h_S+\overline{h}_{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}h_{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}.$$

But for $`S=\mathrm{}`$ inequality (5) yields $`\overline{h}_{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}=h_{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}`$ and therefore $`\overline{h}_T=h_T`$ for all $`\mathrm{}T\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$.

This proves that (7) is the only solution of (5) that satisfies all inequalities with equality.

Thus we find

$$mh_{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}\underset{\mathrm{}T^{}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}\delta _T^{}2^{|T^{}|1}\underset{\mathrm{}T^{}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}2^{|T^{}|1}=\frac{1}{2}(3^n1).$$

Next we prove a trade-off between the contrast of the different images.

###### Theorem 3.4.

For $`\mathrm{}T\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ let $`\alpha _T=\frac{h_Tl_T}{m}`$ be the contrast of the image $`I_T`$. The contrast levels of the images satisfy

(8)
$$\underset{\mathrm{}T\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}2^{|T|1}\alpha _T1.$$

Further let $`\alpha _T^{}0`$ (for $`\mathrm{}T\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$) satisfy (8) . Then for every $`\epsilon >0`$ there exists a generalized visual cryptography scheme with contrast levels $`\alpha _T`$ (for $`\mathrm{}T\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$) where $`|\alpha _T\alpha _T^{}|<\epsilon `$ for nonempty subsets $`T`$ of $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\delta _T=h_Tl_T`$. By (7) we conclude

$$mh_{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}\underset{\mathrm{}T\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}\delta _T2^{|T|1}$$

and therefore

$$\underset{\mathrm{}T\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}2^{|T|1}\alpha _T=\frac{1}{m}\underset{\mathrm{}T\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}\delta _T2^{|T|1}1.$$

Now assume (8) holds for $`\alpha _T^{}`$. Then we choose $`\delta _T`$ and $`M`$ with

$$0\alpha _T^{}\frac{\delta _T}{M}\epsilon .$$

By (7) we know that there exists an extended visual cryptography scheme with contrast levels $`h_Tl_T=\delta _T`$ and minimal pixel expansion

$$m=\underset{\mathrm{}T\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}2^{|T|1}\delta _T.$$

Since $`\frac{\delta _T}{M}\alpha _T^{}`$ and $`\alpha _T^{}`$ satisfy (8) we find $`m<M`$.

If we add useless subpixels (e.g. subpixels that are always black) to the extended visual cryptography scheme constructed above, we obtain a scheme with contrast $`\alpha _T=\frac{\delta _T}{M}`$. This proves the theorem. ∎

## 4. Pixel Expansion and Contrast for the $`𝔖`$-Extended Scheme

In the previous section we proved that Construction 2.2 is optimal if $`𝔖=𝒫(\{1,\mathrm{},n\})\backslash \{\mathrm{}\}`$.

If we set $`\delta _T=1`$ for $`T𝔖`$ and $`\delta _T=0`$ for $`T𝔖`$ in equation (7) we obtain the same contrast values as in Construction 2.2. In this sense Construction 2.2 can be viewed as a $`(𝒫(\{1,\mathrm{},n\})\backslash \{\mathrm{}\})`$-extended visual cryptography scheme with degenerated contrast values.

###### Theorem 4.1.

Let $`𝔖=𝒫(\{1,\mathrm{},n\})\backslash \{\mathrm{},\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\}`$ then Construction 2.2 is optimal if and only if $`n`$ is odd.

###### Proof.

Let $`\delta _T=1`$ for $`\mathrm{}T\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and $`\delta _{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}=0`$. Then $`h_T`$ and $`l_T=h_T\delta _T`$ as in (7) satisfy (5) and these are the solutions given by 2.2.

Let us assume $`n`$ is even. We show that in this case we can find a better construction in the sense that fewer subpixels are required. Setting $`\overline{h}_T=h_T1`$ and $`\overline{l}_T=l_T1`$ for $`\mathrm{}T\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and $`\overline{h}_{\mathrm{}}=\overline{l}_{\mathrm{}}=0`$ we observe that inequality (5) still holds for all $`S\mathrm{}`$. Thus the solution $`x=(x_T)_{\mathrm{}T\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}`$ of equation (1) satisfies $`x_T0`$ for $`T\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$.

The value of $`x_{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}`$ will be non-negative unless $`r_T=\overline{h}_T`$ for $`|T|`$ even and $`r_T=\overline{l}_T`$ for $`|T|`$ odd. In this special case equation (3) gives the solution $`x_{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}=1`$. To obtain a solution with positive $`x_{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}`$ we adjust the value of $`r_{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}`$ from $`\overline{h}_{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}`$ to $`\overline{h}_{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}1`$. (This is possible, since $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}𝔖`$ which means that the number of black subpixels in the stack of all transparencies does not matter.) Now (3) reveals the solution

$`x_{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{T\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}}(1)^{|T|+1}r_T`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}T\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\\ |T|\text{ odd}\end{array}}{}}\overline{l}_T\left({\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}T\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\\ |T|\text{ even}\end{array}}{}}\overline{h}_T\right)+1=1+1=0.`$
For $`S\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and $`|S|`$ even we obtain
$`x_S`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\backslash ST\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}}(1)^{|T|+|S|+n+1}r_T`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\backslash ST\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\\ |T|\text{ odd}\end{array}}{}}\overline{l}_T\left({\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\backslash ST\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\\ |T|\text{ even}\end{array}}{}}\overline{h}_T\right)+1=0+1=1.`$
For $`|S|`$ odd we obtain
$`x_S`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\backslash ST\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}}(1)^{|T|+|S|+n+1}r_T`$
$`=\left({\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\backslash ST\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\\ |T|\text{ even}\end{array}}{}}\overline{h}_T\right)1{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\backslash ST\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\\ |T|\text{ odd}\end{array}}{}}\overline{l}_T`$
$`>{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\backslash ST\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\\ |T|\text{ even}\end{array}}{}}\overline{l}_T\left({\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\backslash ST\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\\ |T|\text{ odd}\end{array}}{}}\overline{h}_T\right)1=1.`$
Thus all possible values of $`r`$ lead to non-negative solutions for $`x`$, hence an $`𝔖`$-extended visual cryptography scheme with $`m=\overline{h}_{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}<h_{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}`$ exists, i.e. the solution given by 2.2 is not optimal.

Now we assume $`n`$ is odd. Let $`\overline{h}_T`$ and $`\overline{l}_T`$ ($`\mathrm{}T\{1,\mathrm{},n\})`$) be a solution of (5) different from $`h_T`$ and $`l_T`$. Let $`\overline{h}_{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}`$ be the maximal number of black subpixels occurring when all the transparencies are stacked together.

Since $`\overline{h}_T`$ and $`\overline{l}_T`$ solve inequality (5), we can apply the same arguments leading from (5) to (7) and find

(9)
$$\overline{h}_{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}\overline{h}_Th_{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}h_T$$

for all $`\mathrm{}T\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. But for $`S=\mathrm{}`$ in (5), we obtain

$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}T\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\\ |T|\text{ even}\end{array}}{}\overline{h}_T\underset{\begin{array}{c}T\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\\ |T|\text{ odd}\end{array}}{}\overline{l}_T$$

and hence, together with (9),

$$\overline{l}_{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}l_{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}=h_{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}.$$

But by definition $`\overline{h}_{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}\overline{l}_{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}`$ and therefore this solution needs at least $`h_{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}`$ subpixels, i.e. the solution given by 2.2 is optimal. ∎

We notice that in the first part of the proof of 4.1 we did not need the assumption $`\delta _T=1`$ for $`\mathrm{}T\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. In fact, it is sufficient to assume $`h_T0`$ where $`h_T`$ is defined by (7). A short calculation proves that this is the case if $`𝔖𝒫(S)`$ for a proper subset $`S`$ of $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. Thus the first part of 4.1 proves:

###### Corollary 4.2.

For $`𝔖𝒫(\{1,\mathrm{},n\})\backslash \{\mathrm{},\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\}`$, $`𝔖S`$ for any proper subset $`S`$ of $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and $`n`$ even, Construction 2.2 is not optimal.

Even more general we can prove:

###### Theorem 4.3.

Let $`𝔖𝒫(\{1,\mathrm{},n\})\backslash \{\mathrm{}\}`$. Let us assume that there exists a nonempty subset $`T𝒫(\{1,\mathrm{},n\})\backslash 𝔖`$ with $`|T|`$ even and that $`𝔖𝒫(T)𝒫(T^{})`$ for each proper subset $`T^{}`$ of $`T`$. Then Construction 2.2 is not optimal.

###### Proof.

We apply 4.2 to $`𝔖𝒫(T)`$. For a proper subset $`T^{}`$ of $`T`$ we define $`\overline{h}_T^{}`$ and $`\overline{l}_T^{}`$ as in the proof of 4.1. Formally we define $`\overline{h}_T=h_T2`$ and $`\overline{l}_T=h_T1`$ where $`h_T`$ is defined by (7). Let $`\delta _T=1`$ and for $`TS\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ we define $`\delta _S=0`$ for $`S𝔖`$ and $`\delta _S=1`$ otherwise.

Corresponding to (7) we define

$$\widehat{h}_S=\{\begin{array}{cc}\overline{l}_T+\underset{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}S^{}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\\ S^{}T\end{array}}{}\delta _S^{}2^{|S^{}|1}\underset{SS^{}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}\delta _S^{}2^{|S^{}|1|S|}\hfill & \text{for }ST\hfill \\ & \\ \overline{h}_S+\underset{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}S^{}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\\ S^{}T\end{array}}{}\delta _S^{}2^{|S^{}|1}\underset{\begin{array}{c}SS^{}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\\ S^{}T\end{array}}{}\delta _S^{}2^{|S^{}|1|S|}\hfill & \text{for }ST\hfill \end{array}$$

for $`\mathrm{}S\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and $`\widehat{l}_S=\widehat{h}_S\delta _S`$.

An easy but tedious calculation corresponding to the one that was used in the proof of Theorem 3.3 shows that $`\widehat{h}_S,\widehat{l}_S`$ satisfy (5). Hence an $`𝔖`$-extended visual cryptography system with contrast levels $`\widehat{h}_S,\widehat{l}_S`$ exists. This scheme has a smaller pixel-expansion than the scheme given by Construction 2.2. ∎

## 5. Conclusions and further remarks

Equation (3) gives us a simple method to construct an $`𝔖`$-extended visual cryptography scheme with given contrast values $`l_T`$ and $`h_T`$. Furthermore, for fixed $`n`$ and $`𝔖`$, equation (3) leads to a linear programming problem which describes all possible $`𝔖`$-extended visual cryptography schemes. For small values of $`n`$ this problem can easily be solved.

In this article we have given a full solution for the special cases $`𝔖=𝒫(\{1,\mathrm{},n\})\backslash \{\mathrm{}\}`$ and $`𝔖=𝒫(\{1,\mathrm{},n\})\backslash \{\mathrm{},\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\}`$. We close by presenting the following open problems:

1. We conjecture:

> Let $`𝔖𝒫(\{1,\mathrm{},n\})\backslash \{\mathrm{}\}`$. Then Construction 2.2 is optimal for an $`𝔖`$-extended visual cryptography scheme if and only if for all $`\mathrm{}T𝔖`$ we have either $`|T|`$ odd or $`𝔖𝒫(T)𝒫(T^{})`$ for some proper subset $`T^{}`$ of $`T`$.
2. An even harder problem is a full characterization of $`𝔖`$-extended visual cryptography schemes with minimal pixel expansion for arbitrary subsets $`𝔖`$ of $`𝒫(\{1,\mathrm{},n\})`$, i.e. to find a formula for the minimal pixel expansion depending on $`𝔖`$.

Andreas Klein
Universität Kassel
Fachbereich 17 (Mathematik und Informatik)
D-34109 Kassel
klein@mathematik.uni-kassel.de

Markus Wessler
Universität Kassel
Fachbereich 17 (Mathematik und Informatik)
D-34109 Kassel
wessler@mathematik.uni-kassel.de