\section{Introduction}

Computer-assisted diagnosis (CAD) is playing a key role in detecting COVID-19 using medical images. Deep learning models have been tailored for the detection of COVID-19. Promising exemplars include models like COVID-Net \citep{Wang2020}. One  major bottleneck of deep learning performance is the lack of data. This stops rapid model development at the onset of a novel pandemic like COVID-19, when fast and cheap screening tools are of critical importance.

In most cases, novel illnesses have similarities to known diseases with abundant data, like COVID-19 and pneumonia. Additionally, state-of-the-art models for known diseases are being generated frequently in the medical artificial intelligence (AI) community. A low-shot approach named imprinted weights \citep{qi2018low} leverages both of these facts and can therefore be applied with little computational cost to generate high-performing models when data are scarce. These early models can jump start the novel illness classification process even with few samples, while more sophisticated models requiring more data are unavailable.

This study aims to evaluate the imprinted weights low-shot architecture, which was shown to improve the overall accuracy on all involved classes \citep{qi2018low}. Here, we adopt it for COVID-19 detection, by leveraging the abundance of pneumonia X-ray data and a pre-trained pneumonia classifier using chest radiography. Since COVID-19 is the class of interest, this study aims to evaluate the imprinted weights architecture performance on the novel minority class. Instead of overall accuracy which may be misleading for unbalanced datasets, we evaluate with per-class sensitivity and Positive predictive value (PPV) with varying n-shots. We tackle COVID-19 as a prime example of a critical novel illness classification problem with few data samples.

\section{Literature review}
The COVID-19 outbreak attracted attention from the healthcare and medical communities. They have rapidly responded to the challenge on drug and vaccine discovery research, analyzing the impact of the disease on patients with other complications and those from high-risk groups. A temporal evolution of COVID-19 related research topics has been studied in \citet{Ebadi2021}, where the authors conducted structural modeling on COVID-19 related research, using machine learning and natural language processing techniques.

The research community in AI also played a key role in responding to the pandemic on patient screening and risk stratification. In general, the AI approaches have used handcrafted image features and those learned from deep learning. Using computed tomography (CT) scans, Shi and colleagues extracted a list of features including volume, histogram and surface features \citep{9069255}. In the ``COVID-Net" project, the authors tailored deep convolutional neural network (CNN) models for distinguishing normal, pneumonia and COVID-19 patients \citep{Wang2020}. A series of models have been trained on X-ray and CT images for screening and risk stratification \citep{Gunraj2020, Gunraj2021, wong2020covidnet}.

Due to the bottleneck of limited novel class data, low or few-shot learning techniques can greatly improve deep learning model performance \citep{10.1145/3386252}. Failing to focus on rectifying the class imbalance issue in deep learning will lead to sub-par COVID-19 screening performance. Using the low-shot imprinted weights approach \citep{qi2018low}, a preliminary study has been conducted for COVID-19 \citep{as2020covid}. In this work, we aim to  formally evaluate the imprinted weights architecture on detecting COVID-19 based on the COVIDx-CXR dataset \citep{Wang2020}.

\section{Method}
\subsection{Model Architecture}
Our model follows the architecture outlined in \citet{qi2018low} and differs in two ways from the traditional transfer learning architecture for convolutional neural networks (CNNs). After an embedding extractor, L2 normalization is applied to the embedding vector for a resulting vector of unit length. The softmax prediction layer has no bias term, and each column of its weight matrix is also normalized to unit length via L2 normalization. Our model uses ResNet-50 \citep{7780459} as the embedding extractor. Because the number of classification categories is small, we do not use a scale factor proposed in \citet{qi2018low}. The model then consists of a 256 neuron fully connected embedding layer, and a softmax classification layer.

For comparison, a 3-class joint model is built as a baseline model. This model shares the number of neurons in the fully connected layer and the softmax classification layer, but does not have any normalization constraints.

\subsection{Implementation Details}
The embedding extractor uses ResNet-50 pre-trained on the ImageNet data set \citep{5206848}. The parameters of the fully-connected layer are initialized randomly. Input images are resized to 256x256, cropped to 224x224 and normalized. No data augmentation is used as it was described not to contribute significantly to imprinted weights \citep{qi2018low}.

Parameter settings are as follows. Learning rate is set at $1e-3$ for pre-trained layers, and a 10x multiplier is used for the randomly initialized layers. We used exponential step decay as the learning rate reduction method during training. The step decay is applied at the same epochs for both models. The parameters of the decay are as follows: learning rate of $1e-3$, steps of 4, and decay factor of 0.94. This lr reduction method was chosen to compare the model architectures without introducing variable learning rates during training. The SGD optimizer is used with momentum of 0.9 and 1e-4 weight decay. All models are trained for 40 epochs.

\subsection{Data Pipeline}
The COVIDx-CXR data set \citep{Wang2020} contains three image categories with train/test distributions listed in Table \ref{data-table}. We use normal and pneumonia categories to train a base classifier. We then use all COVID-19 images for inference to the base classifier to generate averaged embedding vectors used in the imprinting step. To evaluate the generalization performance of the models, 10-fold stratified cross validations are performed. All models are evaluated on the same folds.

For low-shot analysis, the number of COVID-19 samples available for training is changed. Different number of COVID-19 samples (denoted as `n') are randomly selected from the training split after the 0.1 validation split is performed. Models with the highest overall validation accuracy are evaluated on the stratified test fold. The test fold is unseen by the model until the final evaluation.

\begin{table}[t]
\caption{The train/test split of COVIDx-CXR data set}
\label{data-table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\bf COVIDx Split}  &\multicolumn{1}{c}{\bf Normal} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{\bf Pneumonia} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{\bf COVID-19}
\\ \hline \\
Train & 7966 & 5469 & 507 \\
Test & 885 & 594 & 100 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}

\subsection{Models and Configuration Variants}
\textbf{Imprinting.} To build imprinted models, a 2-class model (with the imprinted weights architecture of normalization constraints) is first trained on the normal and pneumonia data. Once the 2-class model is fine tuned, all COVID-19 images are given to the model for inference. The resulting embedded vectors are then averaged and used to set the novel class weights in a 3-class model along with the weight columns from the 2-class model. The model architectures of the 2-class and 3-class models only differ in the number of neurons in the soft-max layer.

\textbf{3-Class Joint.} The 3-class joint model uses a standard transfer learning architecture without normalization constraints. The weights of the soft-max prediction layers are randomly initialized.

\textbf{Fine-Tuning.} In each fold, both the models are fine-tuned, and the highest validation accuracy configuration during training is selected to be evaluated on the test fold. In both cases, the models are evaluated using the same cross validation pipeline. Since the distribution of the classes is unbalanced, and only few shots of COVID-19 are used, oversampling is used such that all classes are sampled uniformly in each mini-batch.

\section{Results}

\subsection{Analysis on Number of Shots}
Our study focuses on the performance of the imprinted weights architecture as the number of COVID-19 samples changes. Fig. \ref{fig:n_shot_covid_sens} shows the COVID-19 sensitivity comparison between the two models. Initially at n=20, the imprinted weights model performs noticeably better. As the number of COVID-19 samples increases, this sensitivity difference decreases until at around n=100, where the average sensitivities of the two model converge. The 3-class model starts to perform better by n=300, although at this point the two models' sensitivities are very close taking the standard deviation into account. During the tests, we also noticed that imprinted model validation accuracy converged faster and with less oscillations in fewer epochs compared to the baseline model.

\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
    \includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{COVID-19_nshot_sens.png}
    \caption{}
    \label{fig:n_shot_covid_sens}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
    \includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{overall_nshot_sense.png}
    \caption{}
    \label{fig:n_shot_overall_sens}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[N-shot analysis of model sensitivities]{(a) COVID-19 sensitivities for Imprinted Weights and 3-class joint models as they change with increasing number of COVID-19 samples used. (b) Overall (averaged between all 3 classes) sensitivity comparison of the two models. Both (a) and (b) have their standard deviation across the folds as the error bars.}
\end{figure}

Fig. \ref{fig:n_shot_overall_sens} shows the averaged sensitivity from all three classes. The Imprinted Weights model outperforms the 3-class joint model more significantly, even at a high shot of n=200, before the two model sensitivities converge at n=300. The difference from Fig. \ref{fig:n_shot_covid_sens} is because the sensitivities for normal and pneumonia are consistently higher for the Imprinted Weight architecture, likely due to its weights being trained on these two classes already.

\subsection{All COVID-19 samples}

\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
    \includegraphics[width=0.86\linewidth]{all_data_sens.png}
    \caption{}
    \label{fig:all_sens}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
    \includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{all_data_ppv.png}
    \caption{}
    \label{fig:all_ppv}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Using all COVID-19 data in training]{(a) Class sensitivities for Imprinted Weights and 3-class joint models. (b) Class positive predictive value (PPV) for Imprinted Weights and 3-class joint models. Both (a) and (b) have their standard deviation across the 10 folds as the error bars.}
\label{fig:allsensppv}
\end{figure}

In addition to n-shot analysis from n=20 up to n=300, we conducted a comparison using all available COVID-19 images. Fig. \ref{fig:allsensppv} shows the per-class sensitivity and positive predictive values (PPV) for both models. The Imprinted Weights model performs better for the normal and pneumonia classes, but the 3-class joint model outperforms it slightly for the COVID-19 class. While the overall metrics of the imprinted model is higher, COVID-19 class sensitivity starts to perform worse as enough data become available. We conjecture that the Imprinted Weights model starts to under-perform past a certain threshold of data, due to its normalization constraints or the fact that COVID-19 weights are initialized based off of the base class features, which in turn caused the model to be less sensitive to COVID-19.

\section{Discussion and Conclusion}

Through the experiments, we evaluated the effectiveness of the Imprinted Weights approach for medical data where there is one minority novel class. We also evaluated the approach more formally with 10-fold stratified cross validation, and focused on the metrics of the novel class. By applying cross validation with the same pipeline for both models, we produced more reliable results than the previous study \citep{as2020covid}. By focusing on novel class metrics instead of top-1 accuracy like \citet{qi2018low}, we found that the advantage of weight imprinting diminishes faster for COVID-19 than it does for all 3 classes. However, at low shots, weight imprinting still significantly improves COVID-19 sensitivity. Additionally, it provides smoother and faster convergence during training. At the onset of a novel pandemic with limited data, this approach can produce better models than standard transfer learning approaches with faster convergence speed. Once more data become available, more data reliant architectures can then replace this approach.

The analysis of the imprinted weights architecture will benefit medical image classification tasks of novel illnesses with limited data. It is common for a disease to have few training samples, but have similar features to categories that the AI community has learned to classify with an abundance of images. The Imprinted Weights approach can leverage these categories to jump start the performance on classifying novel medical classes with few data.
For future work, we plan to evaluate this approach against other few-shot architectures, and evaluate their performances as n-shots vary.


\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
Despite its success in describing the electromagnetic, strong and weak interactions with a high degree of precision, the Standard Model (SM) has several unaddressed issues. The very large mass hierarchy in the SM fermion sector extending, over a range of about 13 orders of magnitude, from the light active neutrino mass scale up to the top quark mass, the small quark mixing angles and the sizeable leptonic mixing ones, the existence of three fermion families, the electric charge quantization as well as the muon anomalous magnetic moments do not find an explanation within the context of the SM. To address these issues, we propose a renormalizable theory based on the $SU\left( 3\right) _{C}\times SU\left( 3\right) _{L}\times U\left( 1\right) _{X}$ gauge symmetry (3-3-1 model), which is suplemmented by the spontaneously broken $U(1)$ global symmetry. In our proposed theory, we considered the $SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_L\times U(1)_X$ gauge symmetry, since models having this symmetry naturally explain the number of SM fermion families as well as the electric charge quantization, see for instance \cite{Valle:1983dk,Pisano:1991ee,Frampton:1992wt,Hoang:1995vq,CarcamoHernandez:2005ka,Chang:2006aa,Hernandez:2013mcf,Hernandez:2013hea,Boucenna:2014ela,Hernandez:2014lpa,Hernandez:2014vta,Okada:2015bxa,Hernandez:2016eod,Fonseca:2016tbn,CarcamoHernandez:2017cwi,CarcamoHernandez:2018iel,CarcamoHernandez:2019vih,CarcamoHernandez:2019iwh,CarcamoHernandez:2019lhv,CarcamoHernandez:2020pxw,CarcamoHernandez:2020ehn}. Unlike several 3-3-1 models, our proposed theory does not have right handed Majorana neutrinos in the fermionic spectrum that induce a low scale linear or inverse seesaw mechanism that produces the tiny neutrino masses. In our proposed model, the heavy charged exotic vector like leptons are included instead of the right handed Majorana neutrinos and they induce a low scale Universal seesae mechanism that produces the SM charged lepton masses. These heavy charged exotic leptons mediate a radiative linear seesaw mechanism that produces the tiny masses of the light active neutrinos and at the same time are crucial for accommodating the muon anomalous magnetic moment. In our proposed model, the third family of the SM quarks receive tree-level masses from their Yukawa interactions with the $\eta$ and $\rho$ $SU(3)_L$ scalar triplets, whereas the first and second families of SM quarks get their masses from a Universal seesaw mechanism mediated by heavy vector like quarks. The layout of the reminder of the paper is as follows. In section \ref{model} we describe our proposed 3-3-1 model. Its implications on the SM fermion mass hiearchy are discussed in section \ref{fermionmasses}. The model scalar potential is analyzed in detail in section \ref{scalarpotential}. The implications of our model in the muon anomalous magnetic moment are discussed in section \ref{gminus2}. We conclude in section \ref{conclusions}.

\section{The model}
\label{model}

We propose a renomalizable theory based on the $SU\left( 3\right) _{C}\times
SU\left( 3\right) _{L}\times U\left( 1\right) _{X}$ gauge symmetry (3-3-1
model), which is supplemented by the spontaneously broken $%
U\left( 1\right) $ global symmetry, where the scalar sector is composed of
three $SU\left( 3\right) _{L}$ scalar triplets and two gauge singlet
scalars, from which one is electrically neutral and the other one
electrically charged. The fermion sector of our theory contains the
fermionic particles of the conventional 3-3-1 model with right handed
neutrinos plus the following $SU\left( 3\right) _{L}$ singlets charged
vector like fermions: two exotic up type quark $T_{n}$, two exotic down type
quarks $B_{n}$ ($n=1,2$)\ and three exotic charged leptons $E_{i}$ ($i=1,2,3$
) in singlet representations under $SU\left( 3\right) _{L}$. The
aforementioned exotic charged fermion spectrum is the minimal necessary so
that no massless charged SM-fermions would appear in the model. Such
extension of the particle content of the 3-3-1 model with right handed
neutrinos allows the implementation of the tree-level Universal seesaw
mechanism to generate the SM charged fermion mass hierarchy as well as of
the one-loop level linear seesaw mechanism to produce the light active
neutrino masses. It is worth mentioning that a successfull implementation of
the tree-level Universal seesaw mechanism to generate the SM charged fermion
mass hierarchy, requires to extend the scalar spectrum of the conventional
3-3-1 model by adding a electrically neutral gauge singlet scalar field $%
\sigma $ which allows mixings between left handed charged exotic fermions
and right handed SM fermions. The mixing between left handed SM charged
fermions and right handed exotic charged fermions arises from renormalizable
Yukawa interactions involving the $\eta $ and $\rho $ $SU(3)_{L}$ scalar
triplets. Furthermore, the implementation of the one loop level radiative
linear seesaw mechanism to generate the light active neutrino masses
requires to consider the electrically charged scalar singlet $S^{-}$ in the
scalar spectrum. The scalar, quark and lepton content with their assignments
under the $SU(3)_{C}\times SU(3)_{L}\times U(1)_{X}\times U\left( 1\right) $
group are shown in Tables \ref{scalars}, \ref{quarks} and \ref{leptons},
respectively. In our proposed model the top and bottom quarks as well as the
exotic charged fermion masses are generated at tree level. The top and
bottom quarks get their masses from renormalizable Yukawa interactions
involving different $SU\left( 3\right) _{L}$ scalar triplets ($\eta $ and $%
\rho $ for the top and bottom quarks, respectively) thus allowing an
explanation of their mass hierarchy, which is consequence of the VEV
hierarchy of the neutral components of these triplets. The $U\left( 1\right)
$ global symmetry prevents the appearance of renormalizable Yukawa
interactions that can directly generate tree level masses for the first and
second families of SM quarks as well as for the SM charged leptons. The
masses of the first and second families of SM quarks as well as the SM
charged lepton masses are generated from a tree level Universal seesaw
mechanism mediated by heavy charged vector like fermions. In addition, light
active neutrino masses are generated from a one loop level radiative linear
seesaw mechanism mediated by charged exotic vector-like leptons and
electrically charged scalars.

In addition, our model does not have fermions with exotic electric charges.
Thus, in our model the electric charge is defined as:

\begin{equation*}
Q=T_{3}-\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}T_{8}+X,
\end{equation*}

In our model the full symmetry $\mathcal{G}$ experiences the following
spontaneous symmetry breaking chain:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\mathcal{G}=SU(3)_{C}\times SU(3)_{L}\times U(1)_{X}\times U(1){\ %
\xrightarrow{v_{\chi}}}  \notag \\
&&\hspace{7mm}SU(3)_{C}\times SU(2)_{L}\times U(1){\xrightarrow{v_\eta
,v_{\rho},v_{\sigma}}}  \notag \\
&&\hspace{7mm}SU(3)_{C}\times U(1)_{Q},  \label{SB}
\end{eqnarray}
where the different symmetry breaking scales fulfill the hierarchy:
\begin{equation}
v_{\chi }\gg v_{\eta },v_{\rho }\sim v_{\sigma },  \label{VEVhierarchy}
\end{equation}
with $v_{\eta }^{2}+v_{\rho }^{2}=v^{2}$, $v=246$ GeV. The first step of
spontaneous symmetry breaking is produced the $SU(3)_{L}$ scalar triplet $%
\chi $, whose third component acquires a $10$ TeV scale vacuum expectation
value (VEV) that breaks the $SU(3)_{L}\times U(1)_{X}$ gauge symmetry, thus
providing masses for the exotic fermions, non Standard Model gauge bosons
and the heavy CP even neutral scalar state of $\chi $. The second step of
symmetry breaking is caused by the gauge singlet scalar $\sigma $ as well as
by the remaining two $SU(3)_{L}$ scalar triplets $\eta $ and $\rho $, whose
first and second components, respectively, get VEVs at the Fermi scale, thus
producing the masses for the SM particles and for the physical neutral
scalar states arising from those scalar triplets. We assume that the scale $%
v_{\chi }$ of spontaneous $SU(3)_{L}\times U(1)_{X}$ gauge symmetry breaking
is about $10$ TeV or larger in order to keep consistency with the collider
constraints \cite{Salazar:2015gxa}, the constraints from the experimental
data on $K$, $D$ and $B$-meson mixings \cite{Huyen:2012uk} and $%
B_{s,d}\rightarrow \mu ^{+}\mu ^{-}$, $B_{d}\rightarrow K^{\ast }(K)\mu
^{+}\mu ^{-}$ decays \cite%
{CarcamoHernandez:2005ka,Martinez:2008jj,Buras:2013dea,Buras:2014yna,Buras:2012dp}

The $SU\left( 3\right) _{L}$ scalar triplets of our model can be expanded
around the mininum as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta &=&
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(v_{\eta }+\xi _{\eta }\pm i\zeta _{\eta }) \\
\eta _{2}^{-} \\
\eta _{3}^{0}%
\end{pmatrix}
,\hspace{0.5cm}\hspace{0.5cm}\rho =
\begin{pmatrix}
\rho _{1}^{+} \\
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(v_{\rho }+\xi _{\rho }\pm i\zeta _{\rho }) \\
\rho _{3}^{+}%
\end{pmatrix}
\\
\chi &=&
\begin{pmatrix}
\chi _{1}^{0} \\
\chi _{2}^{-} \\
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(v_{\chi }+\xi _{\chi }\pm i\zeta _{\chi })%
\end{pmatrix}
{.}\label{VEV}
\end{eqnarray}

The $SU(3)_{L}$ fermionic antitriplets and triplets are
\begin{equation}
Q_{nL}=
\begin{pmatrix}
D_{n} \\
-U_{n} \\
J_{n} \\
\end{pmatrix}
_{L},\hspace{0.5cm}Q_{3L}=
\begin{pmatrix}
U_{3} \\
D_{3} \\
T \\
\end{pmatrix}
_{L},\hspace{0.5cm}L_{iL}=
\begin{pmatrix}
\nu _{i} \\
l_{i} \\
\nu _{i}^{c} \\
\end{pmatrix}
_{L},\hspace{0.5cm}n=1,2,\hspace{0.1cm}i=1,2,3.
\end{equation}
where $l_{1,2,3}=e,\mu ,\tau $.

\begin{table}[tbp]
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& $SU\left( 3\right) _{C}$ & $SU\left( 3\right) _{L}$ & $U\left( 1\right)
_{X}$ & $U\left( 1\right)$ \\ \hline
$\chi$ & $\mathbf{1}$ & $\mathbf{3}$ & $-\frac{1}{3}$ & $0$ \\ \hline
$\eta$ & $\mathbf{1}$ & $\mathbf{3}$ & $\mathbf{-}\frac{1}{3}$ & $4$ \\
\hline
$\rho$ & $\mathbf{1}$ & $\mathbf{3}$ & $\frac{2}{3}$ & $-2$ \\ \hline
$S^{-}$ & $\mathbf{1}$ & $\mathbf{1}$ & $-1$ & $0$ \\ \hline
$\sigma$ & $\mathbf{1}$ & $\mathbf{1}$ & $0$ & $-2$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}%
\caption{Scalar assigments under $SU\left( 3\right) _{C}\times SU\left(
3\right) _{L}\times U\left( 1\right) _{X}\times U(1)$.}
\label{scalars}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[tbp]
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& $SU\left( 3\right) _{C}$ & $SU\left( 3\right) _{L}$ & $U\left( 1\right)
_{X}$ & $U\left( 1\right)$ \\ \hline
$Q_{nL}$ & $\mathbf{3}$ & $\mathbf{\overline{3}}$ & $0$ & $0$ \\ \hline
$Q_{3L}$ & $\mathbf{3}$ & $\mathbf{3}$ & $\frac{1}{3}$ & $0$ \\ \hline
$u_{iR}$ & $\mathbf{3}$ & $\mathbf{1}$ & $\frac{2}{3}$ & $-4$ \\ \hline
$d_{iR}$ & $\mathbf{3}$ & $\mathbf{1}$ & $-\frac{1}{3}$ & $2$ \\ \hline
$J_{1R}$ & $\mathbf{3}$ & $\mathbf{1}$ & $\frac{2}{3}$ & $0$ \\ \hline
$J_{nR}$ & $\mathbf{3}$ & $\mathbf{1}$ & $-\frac{1}{3}$ & $0$ \\ \hline
$T_{nL}$ & $\mathbf{3}$ & $\mathbf{1}$ & $\frac{2}{3}$ & $-2$ \\ \hline
$T_{nR}$ & $\mathbf{3}$ & $\mathbf{1}$ & $\frac{2}{3}$ & $-2$ \\ \hline
$B_{nL}$ & $\mathbf{3}$ & $\mathbf{1}$ & $-\frac{1}{3}$ & $4$ \\ \hline
$B_{nR}$ & $\mathbf{3}$ & $\mathbf{1}$ & $-\frac{1}{3}$ & $4$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}%
\caption{Quark assigments under $SU\left( 3\right) _{C}\times SU\left(
3\right) _{L}\times U\left( 1\right) _{X}\times U(1)$. Here $i=1,2,3 $ and $%
n=1,2$.}
\label{quarks}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[tbp]
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& $SU\left( 3\right) _{C}$ & $SU\left( 3\right) _{L}$ & $U\left( 1\right)
_{X}$ & $U\left( 1\right)$ \\ \hline
$L_{iL}$ & $\mathbf{1}$ & $\mathbf{3}$ & $-\frac{1}{3}$ & $1$ \\ \hline
$e_{iR}$ & $\mathbf{1}$ & $\mathbf{1}$ & $-1$ & $1$ \\ \hline
$N_{iR}$ & $\mathbf{1}$ & $\mathbf{1}$ & $0$ & $1$ \\ \hline
$E_{iL}$ & $\mathbf{1}$ & $\mathbf{1}$ & $-1$ & $3$ \\ \hline
$E_{iR}$ & $\mathbf{1}$ & $\mathbf{1}$ & $-1$ & $3$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}%
\caption{Lepton assigments under $SU\left( 3\right) _{C}\times SU\left(
3\right) _{L}\times U\left( 1\right) _{X}\times U(1)$. Here $i=1,2,3 $.}
\label{leptons}
\end{table}
With the field assignment specified in Tables \ref{scalars}, \ref{quarks}
and \ref{leptons}, the following quark and lepton Yukawa terms arise:
\begin{eqnarray}
-\mathcal{L}_{Y}^{\left( q\right) } &=&y_{1}^{\left( J\right) }\overline{Q}
_{3L}\chi J_{1R}+\sum_{n=1}^{2}y_{nm}^{\left( J\right) }\overline{Q}
_{nL}\chi ^{\ast }J_{mR}+\sum_{j=1}^{3}y_{3j}^{\left( u\right) }\overline{Q}
_{3L}\eta u_{jR}+\sum_{j=1}^{3}y_{3j}^{\left( d\right) }\overline{Q}
_{3L}\rho d_{jR}  \notag \\
&&\sum_{n=1}^{2}\sum_{m=1}^{2}y_{nm}^{\left( T\right) }\overline{Q}_{nL}\rho
^{\ast }T_{mR}+\sum_{n=1}^{2}\sum_{j=1}^{3}x_{nm}^{\left( u\right) }
\overline{T}_{nL}\sigma ^{\ast }u_{jR}+\sum_{n=1}^{2}\sum_{m=1}^{2}\left(
M_{T}\right) _{nm}\overline{T}_{nL}T_{mR}  \notag \\
&&+\sum_{n=1}^{2}\sum_{m=1}^{2}y_{nm}^{\left( B\right) }\overline{Q}
_{nL}\eta ^{\ast }B_{mR}+\sum_{n=1}^{2}\sum_{j=1}^{3}x_{nj}^{\left( d\right)
}\overline{B}_{nL}\sigma ^{\ast }d_{jR}+\sum_{n=1}^{2}\sum_{m=1}^{2}\left(
M_{B}\right) _{nm}\overline{B}_{nL}B_{mR}+h.c  \label{lyq}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
-\mathcal{L}_{Y}^{\left( l\right) }
&=&\sum_{i=1}^{3}\sum_{j=1}^{3}y_{ij}^{\left( N\right) }\overline{L}
_{iL}\chi N_{jR}+\sum_{i=1}^{3}\sum_{j=1}^{3}x_{ij}^{\left( N\right) }
\overline{E}_{iL}S^{-}N_{jR}+\sum_{i=1}^{3}\left( x_{\rho }^{\left( L\right)
}\right) _{ij}\varepsilon _{abc}\overline{L}_{iL}^{a}\left(
L_{jL}^{C}\right) ^{b}\left( \rho ^{\ast }\right) ^{c}  \notag \\
&&+\sum_{i=1}^{3}\sum_{j=1}^{3}y_{ij}^{\left( E\right) }\overline{L}
_{iL}\rho E_{jR}+\sum_{i=1}^{3}\sum_{j=1}^{3}x_{ij}^{\left( l\right) }
\overline{E}_{iL}\sigma ^{\ast }l_{jR}+\sum_{i=1}^{3}\sum_{j=1}^{3}\left(
m_{E}\right) _{ij}\overline{E}_{iL}E_{jR}+h.c  \label{lyl}
\end{eqnarray}
In what follows we comment about some phenomenological aspects of our model
concerning LHC signals of non-SM fermions. As follows from the Yukawa terms
of Eq. (\ref{lyq}) and \ref{lyl}, the exotic fermions have mixing mass terms
with all the SM quarks, excepting the top and bottom quarks. Such mixing terms
allow that these exotic charged fermions can decay into any of the scalars
of the model and SM charged fermions. These exotic charged fermions can
decay into a SM charged fermion and a scalar. These heavy charged exotic
fermions can be pair produced at the LHC via gluon fusion (for the exotic
quarks only) and Drell Yan mechanism. Consequently, observing an excess of
events in the multijet and multilepton final state can be a signal of
support of this model at the LHC.

\section{Fermion mass matrices}
\label{fermionmasses}
From the quark Yukawa interactions in Eq. (\ref{lyq}), we find that the
up-type mass matrix in the basis $(\overline{u}_{1L},\overline{u}_{2L},
\overline{u}_{3L},\overline{J}_{1L},\overline{T}_{1L},\overline{T}_{2L})$
versus $(u_{1R},u_{2R},u_{3R},J_{1R},T_{1R},T_{2R})$ is given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{U} &=&\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
C_{U} & 0_{3\times 1} & A_{U} \\
0_{1\times 3} & m_{J_{1}} & 0_{1\times 2} \\
B_{U} & 0_{2\times 1} & M_{T}%
\end{array}
\right) ,\hspace{0.1cm}\hspace{0.1cm}\left( A_{U}\right) _{3j}=0,\hspace{
0.1cm}\hspace{0.1cm}\left( A_{U}\right) _{nm}=y_{nm}^{\left( T\right) }\frac{
v_{\rho }}{\sqrt{2}},\hspace{0.5cm}\left( B_{U}\right) _{nj}=x_{nj}^{\left(
u\right) }v_{\sigma },  \notag \\
C_{U} &=&\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
y_{31}^{\left( u\right) } & y_{32}^{\left( u\right) } & y_{33}^{\left(
u\right) }%
\end{array}
\right) \frac{v_{\eta }}{\sqrt{2}},\hspace{0.5cm}m_{J_{1}}=y_{1}^{\left(
J\right) }\frac{v_{\chi }}{\sqrt{2}},\hspace{0.5cm}j=1,2,3,  \label{MU}
\end{eqnarray}

whereas the down type quark mass matrix written in the basis $(\overline{d}
_{1L},\overline{d}_{2L},\overline{d}_{3L},\overline{J}_{1L},\overline{J}
_{2L},\overline{B}_{1L},\overline{B}_{2L})$-$%
(d_{1R},d_{2R},d_{3R},J_{1R},J_{2R},B_{1R},B_{2R})$ takes the form:
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{D} &=&\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
C_{D} & 0_{3\times 2} & A_{D} \\
0_{2\times 3} & M_{J} & 0_{2\times 3} \\
B_{D} & 0_{3\times 2} & M_{B}%
\end{array}
\right) ,\hspace{0.1cm}\hspace{0.1cm}\left( A_{D}\right) _{3j}=0,\hspace{
0.1cm}\hspace{0.1cm}\left( A_{D}\right) _{nm}=y_{nm}^{\left( B\right) }\frac{
v_{\eta }}{\sqrt{2}},\hspace{0.1cm}\hspace{0.1cm}\left( B_{D}\right)
_{nj}=x_{nj}^{\left( d\right) }v_{\sigma },  \notag \\
C_{D} &=&\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
y_{31}^{\left( d\right) } & y_{32}^{\left( d\right) } & y_{33}^{\left(
d\right) }%
\end{array}
\right) \frac{v_{\rho }}{\sqrt{2}},\hspace{0.1cm}\hspace{0.1cm}\hspace{0.1cm}
\left( M_{J}\right) _{nm}=y_{nm}^{\left( J\right) }\frac{v_{\chi }}{\sqrt{2}}
,\hspace{0.5cm}n,m=1,2,\hspace{0.5cm}j=1,2,3.  \label{MD}
\end{eqnarray}

Furthermore, from the charged lepton Yukawa terms, we get that the mass
matrix for SM charged leptons in the basis $(\overline{l}_{1L},\overline{l}
_{2L},\overline{l}_{3L},\overline{E}_{1L},\overline{E}_{2L},\overline{E}
_{3L})$-$(l_{1R},l_{2R},l_{3R},E_{1R},E_{2R},E_{3R})$ is given by:

\begin{equation}
M_{E}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0_{3\times 3} & A_{E} \\
B_{E} & M_{E}%
\end{array}
\right) ,\hspace{0.1cm}\hspace{0.1cm}\hspace{0.1cm}\left( A_{E}\right)
_{ij}=y_{ij}^{\left( E\right) }\frac{v_{\rho }}{\sqrt{2}},\hspace{0.5cm}
\left( B_{E}\right) _{ij}=x_{ij}^{\left( l\right) }v_{\sigma },\hspace{0.5cm}
i,j=1,2,3.  \label{ME}
\end{equation}

The masses of the charged exotic vector like fermions are assumed to be much
larger than the $SU(3)_{L}\times U(1)_{X}$ symmetry breaking scale.
Consequently, the first and second generation of SM quarks as well as the SM
charged exotic leptons obtain their masses via Universal Seesaw mechanism,
while the bottom and top quark masses are generated from the renormalizable
Yukawa interactions involving the $SU\left( 3\right) _{L}$ scalar triplets $%
\rho $ and $\eta $, respectively. Furthemore, the exotic fermion masses are
generated at tree level. In view of the aforementioned considerations, we
find that the SM charged fermion mass matrices are given by:

\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde{M}_{U} &=&C_{U}+A_{U}M_{\widetilde{T}}^{-1}B_{U}, \\
\widetilde{M}_{D} &=&C_{D}+A_{D}M_{B}^{-1}B_{D}, \\
\widetilde{M}_{D} &=&C_{E}+A_{E}M_{E}^{-1}B_{E}.
\end{eqnarray}

The neutrino Yukawa interactions give rise to the following neutrino mass
terms:

\begin{equation}
-\mathcal{L}_{mass}^{\left( \nu \right) }=\frac{1}{2}\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\overline{\nu _{L}^{C}} & \overline{\nu _{R}} & \overline{N_{R}}%
\end{array}
\right) M_{\nu }\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\nu _{L} \\
\nu _{R}^{C} \\
N_{R}^{C}%
\end{array}
\right) +H.c,
\end{equation}

where the neutrino mass matrix reads:

\begin{equation}
M_{\nu }=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0_{3\times 3} & m_{\nu D} & \varepsilon \\
m_{\nu D}^{T} & 0_{3\times 3} & M \\
\varepsilon ^{T} & M^{T} & 0_{3\times 3}%
\end{array}
\right) ,  \label{Mnu}
\end{equation}

being the submatrices $M$ and $m_{\nu D}$ generated at tree level from the
first and second terms of the leptonic Yukawa interactions of Eq. (\ref{lyl}
), respectively, whereas the submatrix $\varepsilon $ is generated at one
loop level from the Feynman diagram of Figure \ref{Neutrinoloopdiagram}. The
aforementioned submatrices are given by:

\begin{eqnarray}
m_{\nu D} &=&\left[ \left( x_{\rho }^{\left( L\right) }\right) ^{\dagger
}-\left( x_{\rho }^{\left( L\right) }\right) ^{\ast }\right] \frac{v_{\rho }
}{2\sqrt{2}},\hspace{0.1cm}\hspace{0.1cm}\hspace{0.1cm}M_{ij}=y_{ij}^{\left(
N\right) }\frac{v_{\chi }}{\sqrt{2}},\hspace{0.5cm}i,j=1,2,3, \\
\varepsilon _{ij} &=&\frac{\lambda _{S^{+}\rho ^{\dagger }\chi \sigma }}{
16\pi ^{2}}\sum_{k=1}^{3}\frac{y_{ik}^{\left( E\right) }x_{kj}^{\left(
N\right) }v_{\sigma }v_{\chi }}{m_{E_{k}}}C_{0}\left( \frac{m_{\rho
_{1}^{+}} }{m_{E_{k}}},\frac{m_{S^{-}}}{m_{E_{k}}}\right)
\end{eqnarray}

and the loop function has the form:
\begin{equation}
C_{0}\left( \widehat{m}_{1},\widehat{m}_{2}\right) =\frac{\widehat{m}%
_{1}^{2} \widehat{m}_{2}^{2}\ln \left( \frac{\widehat{m}_{1}^{2}}{\widehat{m}%
_{2}^{2}} \right) -\widehat{m}_{1}^{2}\ln \widehat{m}_{1}^{2}+\widehat{m}%
_{2}^{2}\ln \widehat{m}_{2}^{2}}{\left( 1-\widehat{m}_{1}^{2}\right) \left(
1-\widehat{m} _{2}^{2}\right) \left( \widehat{m}_{1}^{2}-\widehat{m}%
_{2}^{2}\right) }.  \label{loopfunction}
\end{equation}

The light active neutrino masses arise from a linear seesaw mechanism and
the physical neutrino mass matrices are:
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{\nu }^{\left( 1\right) } &=&-\left[ \varepsilon M^{-1}m_{\nu
D}^{T}+m_{\nu D}\left( M^{T}\right) ^{-1}\varepsilon ^{T}\right] , \\
M_{\nu }^{\left( 2\right) } &=&-\frac{1}{2}\left( M+M^{T}\right) -\frac{1}{2}
\left[ m_{\nu D}^{T}m_{\nu D}\left( M^{T}\right) ^{-1}+\left( M\right)
^{-1}m_{\nu D}^{T}m_{\nu D}\right] , \\
M_{\nu }^{\left( 3\right) } &=&\frac{1}{2}\left( M+M^{T}\right) +\frac{1}{2} %
\left[ m_{\nu D}^{T}m_{\nu D}\left( M^{T}\right) ^{-1}+\left( M\right)
^{-1}m_{\nu D}^{T}m_{\nu D}\right] ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $M_{\nu }^{\left( 1\right) }$ corresponds to the active neutrino mass
matrix whereas $M_{\nu }^{\left( 2\right) }$ and $M_{\nu }^{\left( 3\right)
} $ are the sterile neutrino mass matrices. The smallness of the light
active neutrino masses is attributed to the loop suppression as well as to
the small $\frac{\left( m_{\nu D}\right) _{ij}}{M_{ij}}\sim \frac{v_{\rho }}{
v_{\chi }}$ ratio. The physical neutrino spectrum is composed of 3 light
active neutrinos and 6 nearly degenerate sterile exotic pseudo-Dirac
neutrinos. The sterile neutrinos can be produced in pairs at the LHC, via
quark-antiquark annihilation mediated by a heavy $Z^\prime $ gauge boson.
They can decay into SM particles giving rise to a SM charged lepton and a $W$
gauge boson in the final state. Thus, observing an excess of events with
respect to the SM background in the opposite sign dileptons final states can
be a signal in support of this model at the LHC.

\begin{figure}[th]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Neutrinodiagram}
\caption{One-loop Feynman diagram contributing to the neutrino mass
submatrix $\protect\varepsilon$. Here $i,j,k,l=1,2,3$.}
\label{Neutrinoloopdiagram}
\end{figure}

\section{The scalar potential}
\label{scalarpotential}
The most general scalar potential, with one neutral scalar singlet, one electrically charged scalar singlet, and three scalar triplets, is written as follows:
\begin{align}
V_{\left( \eta ,\rho ,\chi ,\sigma ,S\right) }& =\mu _{\chi }^{2}\left( \chi
^{\dagger }\chi \right) +\mu _{\eta }^{2}\left( \eta^{\dagger }\eta \right)
+\mu _{\rho }^{2}\left( \rho^{\dagger }\rho \right) +\mu _{\sigma}\left( \left(
\sigma ^{\dagger }\sigma \right) +h.c\right) +\mu _{S}^{2}S^{+}S^{-}+\lambda _{1}\left( \chi ^{\dagger }\chi \right) \left( \chi ^{\dagger
}\chi \right)   \notag \\
& +\lambda _{2}\left( \rho ^{\dagger }\rho \right) \left( \rho ^{\dagger
}\rho \right) +\lambda _{3}\left( \eta ^{\dagger }\eta \right) \left( \eta
^{\dagger }\eta \right) +\lambda _{4}\left( \sigma ^{\dagger }\sigma \right)
^{2}+\lambda _{5}\left( \chi ^{\dagger }\chi \right) \left( \sigma ^{\dagger
}\sigma \right) +\lambda _{6}\left( \eta ^{\dagger }\eta \right) \left(
\sigma ^{\dagger }\sigma \right)   \notag \\
& +\lambda _{7}\left( \rho ^{\dagger }\rho \right) \left( \sigma ^{\dagger
}\sigma \right) +\lambda _{8}\left( \chi ^{\dagger }\chi \right) \left( \rho
^{\dagger }\rho \right) +\lambda _{9}\left( \chi ^{\dagger }\chi \right)
\left( \eta ^{\dagger }\eta \right) +\lambda _{10}\left( \rho ^{\dagger
}\rho \right) \left( \eta ^{\dagger }\eta \right) +\lambda _{11}\left( \chi ^{\dagger }\eta \right) \left( \eta ^{\dagger
}\chi \right)   \label{VS} \\
& +\lambda _{12}\left( \chi ^{\dagger }\rho \right) \left( \rho
^{\dagger }\chi \right) +\lambda _{13}\left( \rho ^{\dagger }\eta \right)
\left( \eta ^{\dagger }\rho \right) -\frac{f_{q}}{\sqrt[2]{2}}\left( \sigma
\chi _{i}\eta _{j}\rho _{k}\varepsilon ^{ijk}+\RIfM@\expandafter\text@\else\expandafter\mbox\fi{ H.c. }\right)  +\frac{f_{s}}{\sqrt[2]{2}}\left( \left( S^{+}S^{-}\right) \left( \sigma
^{\dagger }\sigma \right) +\RIfM@\expandafter\text@\else\expandafter\mbox\fi{ H.c. }\right) \notag
\\
&  +\frac{f_{1}}{\sqrt[2]{2}}%
\left( (\chi ^{\dagger }\eta )\left( \sigma ^{\dagger }\sigma \right) +\RIfM@\expandafter\text@\else\expandafter\mbox\fi{
H.c. }\right) +\frac{f_{2}}{\sqrt[2]{2}}\left( \eta ^{\dagger }\rho \sigma S^{-}+%
\RIfM@\expandafter\text@\else\expandafter\mbox\fi{ H.c. }\right) +\frac{f_{3}}{\sqrt[2]{2}}\left( \chi ^{\dagger }S^{-}\rho \sigma ^{\ast } +\RIfM@\expandafter\text@\else\expandafter\mbox\fi{ H.c. }\right)  \notag \\
& +\lambda_{14}\left( S^{+}S^{-}\right) ^{2}+\lambda_{15}\left( \chi
^{\dagger }\chi \right) \left( S^{+}S^{-}\right) +\lambda_{16}\left(
\eta ^{\dagger }\eta \right) \left( S^{+}S^{-}\right) +\lambda_{17}\left( \rho ^{\dagger }\rho \right) \left( S^{+}S^{-}\right) .  \notag
\end{align}

Where $\mu _{a}$ $(a=\chi ,\mu ,\rho ,\sigma )$ are dimensionful parameters
(mass matrices), coefficiens $\lambda_{i}$ $(i=1,...,17)$, and $f_{j}$ $%
(j=1,2,3,q,s,)$ are quartic scalar couplings. Besides, charged scalar singlet $%
S^{-}$ is not allowed to have VEV and we take on that the neutral scalars $\eta
_{3}^{0}$ and $\chi _{1}^{0}$ do not develop VEVs. Therefore, we can obtain $%
\mu _{a}$ from the scalar potential Eq. (\ref{VS}) expanding the scalars
around the VEVs as in Eq. (\ref{VEV}), and using the minimum conditions,

\begin{align}
& \mu _{\chi }^{2}=-\lambda_{1}v_{\chi }^{2}-\frac{\lambda_{5}}{2}v_{\sigma
}^{2}-\frac{\lambda_{8}}{2}v_{\rho }^{2}-\frac{\lambda_{9}}{2}v_{\eta
}^{2}+f_{q}\frac{v_{\eta }v_{\rho }v_{\sigma }}{2\sqrt{2}v_{\chi }} \notag
\\
& \mu _{\eta }^{2}=-\lambda_{3}v_{\eta }^{2}-\frac{\lambda_{6}}{2}v_{\sigma
}^{2}-\frac{\lambda_{9}}{2}v_{\chi }^{2}-\frac{\lambda_{10}}{2}v_{\rho
}^{2}+f_{q}\frac{v_{\chi }v_{\rho }v_{\sigma }}{2\sqrt{2}v_{\eta }} \notag
\\
& \mu _{\rho }^{2}= -\lambda_{2}v_{\rho }^{2}-\frac{\lambda_{7}}{2}v_{\sigma
}^{2}-\frac{\lambda_{8}}{2}v_{\chi }^{2}-\frac{\lambda_{10}}{2}v_{\eta
}^{2}+f_{q}\frac{v_{\chi }v_{\eta }v_{\sigma }}{2\sqrt{2}v_{\rho }}  \notag
\\
& \mu _{\sigma }^{2}=-\frac{\lambda_{4}}{2}v_{\sigma }^{2}-\frac{\lambda_{5}%
}{4}v_{\chi }^{2}-\frac{\lambda_{6}}{4}v_{\eta }^{2}-\frac{\lambda_{7}}{4}%
v_{\rho }^{2}+f_{q}\frac{v_{\eta }v_{\rho }v_{\chi }}{2\sqrt{2}v_{\sigma }}%
.  \label{MUs}
\end{align}%
Substituting Eq.  (\ref{MUs}), and Eq. (\ref{VEV}) in the scalar potential Eq. %
(\ref{VS}), we can determinate three mass squared matrices for CP odd, CP
even, and complex neutral scalars in the pseudoscalar basis $\left( \zeta
_{\eta },\zeta _{\rho },\zeta _{\chi },\sigma _{I}\right) $, scalar basis
$\left( \xi _{\eta },\xi _{\rho },\xi _{\chi },\sigma_{R}\right) $ and
complex scalar basis $\left( \eta _{3}^{0},\chi _{1}^{0}\right) $\
respectively. Also, we can obtain a mass squared matrix for charged scalars
in the basis $\left( \eta _{2}^{+}\rho _{1}^{+},\rho _{3}^{+},\chi
_{2}^{+},S^{+}\right) $. In this way, we find the physical mass eigenvalues of these square matrices. Thus, for the pseudoscalar basis we have the squared masses for the CP odd $A_{1}$ physical scalar field and the Goldstone bosons $G_{1}^{0}$, $G_{2}^{0}$ and $G_{3}^{0}$ as following,

\begin{align}
& M_{A_{1}}^{2}=\frac{f_{q}(v_{\chi }^{2}v_{\sigma }^{2}v_{\rho
}^{2}+v_{\eta }^{2}(v_{\chi }^{2}v_{\sigma }^{2}+(v_{\chi }^{2}+v_{\sigma
}^{2})v_{\rho }^{2}))}{2\sqrt{2}v_{\chi }v_{\eta }v_{\rho }v_{\sigma }}\notag \\
& M_{G_{1}^{0}}^{2}=M_{G_{2}^{0}}^{2}=M_{G_{3}^{0}}^{2}=0,
\end{align}
being $A_{1}$ a heavy pseudoscalar. For the complex scalar basis we can obtain the following squared mass,
\begin{align}
&M_{\phi }^{2}=\frac{v_{\chi }(\sqrt{2}f_{q}v_{\sigma }v_{\rho }+2\lambda_{11}v_{\chi }v_{\eta })}{4v_{\eta }}. \notag \\
&M_{G_{\phi} }^{2}=0,
\end{align}
where $G_{\phi}$ is the Goldstone boson corresponding to the imaginary part of the gauge singlet scalar $\varphi$. Such Goldstone boson associated with the spontaneous breaking is the global $U(1)$ symmetry is the Majoron which is harmless since it is a gauge singlet. It is worth mentioning that the imaginary part of $\varphi$ can acquire a mass by including a soft breaking term $\mu^2_{sb}\left(\varphi^2+h.c\right)$ in the scalar potential. Analyzing the squared mass matrix for the CP even scalar fields,

\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:CP-even-1}
 M^2_{CP} =\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
	\frac{\sqrt{2} v_{\sigma}  v_{\rho } v_{\chi} f_{q}+8 \lambda_{3} v_{\eta }^3}{4 v_{\eta}} & \lambda_{10} v_{\eta } v_{\rho }-\frac{v_{\sigma }  v_{\chi
	} f_{q}}{2 \sqrt{2}} & \lambda_{9} v_{\eta }
	v_{\chi
	}-\frac{v_{\sigma }  v_{\rho } f_{q}}{2 \sqrt{2}} & \lambda_{6} v_{\sigma }  v_{\eta }-\frac{v_{\rho } v_{\chi
		} f_{q}}{2 \sqrt{2}}  \\
	\lambda_{10} v_{\eta } v_{\rho }-\frac{v_{\sigma }  v_{\chi
		} f_{q}}{2 \sqrt{2}} & \frac{\sqrt{2} v_{\sigma }  v_{\eta } v_{\chi
		} f_{q}+8 \lambda_{2} v_{\rho }^3}{4 v_{\rho }} & \lambda_{8} v_{\rho }
	v_{\chi
	}-\frac{v_{\sigma }  v_{\eta } f_{q}}{2 \sqrt{2}} & \lambda_{7} v_{\sigma }  v_{\rho }-\frac{v_{\eta } v_{\chi
		} f_{q}}{2 \sqrt{2}}  \\
	\lambda_{9} v_{\eta } v_{\chi
	}-\frac{v_{\sigma } v_{\rho } f_{q}}{2 \sqrt{2}} & \lambda_{8} v_{\rho } v_{\chi
	}-\frac{v_{\sigma }  v_{\eta } f_{q}}{2 \sqrt{2}} & \frac{\sqrt{2} v_{\sigma }  v_{\eta } v_{\rho }
		f_{q}+8 \lambda_{1} v_{\chi
		}^3}{4 v_{\chi
	}} & \lambda_{5} v_{\sigma }  v_{\chi
}-\frac{v_{\eta } v_{\rho } f_{q}}{2 \sqrt{2}}  \\
	\lambda_{6} v_{\sigma }  v_{\eta }-\frac{v_{\rho } v_{\chi
		} f_{q}}{2 \sqrt{2}} & \lambda_{7} v_{\sigma }  v_{\rho }-\frac{v_{\eta } v_{\chi
		} f_{q}}{2 \sqrt{2}} & \lambda_{5} v_{\sigma }  v_{\chi
	}-\frac{v_{\eta }
		v_{\rho } f_{q}}{2 \sqrt{2}} & \frac{\sqrt{2} v_{\eta } v_{\rho } v_{\chi
		} f_{q}+8 \lambda_{4} v_{\sigma } ^3}{4 v_{\sigma } }
	\end{array}\right),
\end{eqnarray}
we can find physical scalars   $h_{1}^{0}$\ , $H_{1}$\,$ H_{2}$ and their masses $M_{h_{1}^{0}}^{2}$, $M_{H_{1}}^{2}$ and $ M_{H_{2}}^{2}$.
In order to simplify the computations we consider a benchmark point: $f_{q}=0$, $\lambda_{7}=\lambda_{6}=0$, $\lambda_{3}=\lambda_{2}$, $\lambda_{8}=\lambda_{9}$, $\lambda_{10}=2\lambda_{3}$ and  $\lambda_{5}=0$.
In this case
we find from (\ref{eq:CP-even-1}) for the squared masses for the CP even Higgs bosons, $M_{h_{1}^{0}}^{2}$, $ M_{H_{1}}^{2}$, $ M_{H_{2}}^{2}$ and the Goldstone boson $ M_{G_{H}}^{2}$ the following expressions
\begin{align}
&M_{h_{1}^{0}}^{2}= v_{\chi }^{2}\lambda_{1} + v^{2}\lambda_{3} -\sqrt{\left(v_{\chi }^{2}\lambda_{1} - v^{2}\lambda_{3}\right)^2 + v_{\chi }^{2}v^{2}\lambda_{9}^{2}},\notag\\
&  M_{H_{1}}^{2}=  v_{\chi }^{2}\lambda_{1} + v^{2}\lambda_{3} +\sqrt{\left(v_{\chi }^{2}\lambda_{1} - v^{2}\lambda_{3}\right)^2 + v_{\chi }^{2}v^{2}\lambda_{9}^{2}} ,\notag\\
& M_{H_{2}}^{2} = 2 \lambda_{4} v_{\sigma }^{2},\quad M_{G_{H}}^{2}=0.
\end{align}
Hence, for the mass of the scalar $h_{1}^{0}$ not to have a negative value, we can assume $\lambda_{9}=0$, thus, $M_{h_{1}^{0}}^{2}=2v^{2}\lambda_{3}$ and $ M_{H_{1}}^{2}=  2v_{\chi }^{2}\lambda_{1} $. Furthermore, the scalar denoted as $h^{0}_{1}$ might be linked to the SM Higgs boson; the scalar $H_{1}$ would correspond to the physical scalar field associated with the spontaneous symmetry breaking produced through the $SU(3)_{L}$ scalar triplet $\chi$, and the scalar $H_{2}$ could be identified with the CP even part of the $\sigma$ field. Finally, the squared masses for the charged scalar fields are,
\begin{align}
& M_{h_{1}^{\pm}}^{2}=\frac{(v_{\chi }^{2}+v_{\rho }^{2})(\sqrt{2}%
f_{q}v_{\sigma }v_{\eta}+2\lambda_{12}v_{\chi }v_{\rho})}{4v_{\chi
}v_{\rho}}\notag \\
& M_{h_{2}^{\pm}}^{2}=\frac{(v^{2}(\sqrt{2}%
f_{q}v_{\sigma }v_{\chi}+2\lambda_{13}v_{\eta }v_{\rho})}{4v_{\eta
}v_{\rho }},\notag\\
& M_{h_{3}^{\pm}}^{2}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\sqrt{2}f_{s}v_{\sigma }^{2}+\lambda_{15}v_{\chi }^{2}+\lambda_{16} v^{2}\right),\notag\\
&M_{G_{1}^{\pm}}  = M_{G_{2}^{\pm}}=0,
\end{align}
with $G_{1}^{\pm}$, $G_{1}^{\pm}$ as Goldstone bosons, and taking into account $f_{1}=0$, $\mu_{S}=0$, $\lambda_{18}=f_{2}=0$, and $\lambda_{16}=\lambda_{17}$.

\section{Muon anomalous magnetic moment}
\label{gminus2}
In this section we will analyze the phenomenological consequences of our
model in the muon anomalous magnetic moment. The dominant contribution to
the muon anomalous magnetic moment corresponds to the one-loop diagram
involving the exchange of electrically neutral CP even and CP odd scalars
and charged exotic lepton $E_{2}$ running in the internal lines of the loop.
To simplify our analysis we can consider a simplified benchmark scenario
close to the decoupling limit where $\xi _{\rho }$ ($\zeta _{\rho }$) and $%
\sigma _{R}$ ($\sigma _{I}$) are mainly composed of two orthogonal
combinations involving two heavy CP even (odd) $H_{1}$ ($A_{1}$), $H_{2}$ ($%
A_{2}$) physical scalar fields. Furthermore, we work on the basis where the
SM charged lepton mass matrix is diagonal, which implies that the charged
exotic leptons $E_{i}$ ($i=1,2,3$) are physical fields. Consequently, the
muon anomalous magnetic moment is given by:
\begin{equation}
\Delta a_{\mu }\simeq \frac{z_{\mu }^{2}m_{\mu }^{2}}{8\pi ^{2}}\left[
I_{S}\left( m_{E_{2}},m_{H_{1}}\right) -I_{S}\left(
m_{E_{2}},m_{H_{2}}\right) +I_{P}\left( m_{E_{2}},m_{A_{1}}\right)
-I_{P}\left( m_{E_{2}},m_{A_{2}}\right) \right] \sin \theta \cos \theta ,
\end{equation}
where $H_{1}\simeq \cos \theta _{S}\sigma _{R}+\sin \theta _{S}\xi _{\rho }$
, $H_{2}\simeq -\sin \theta _{S}\sigma _{R}+\cos \theta _{S}\xi _{\rho }$, $%
A_{1}\simeq \cos \theta _{P}\sigma _{I}+\sin \theta _{P}\zeta _{\rho }$, $%
A_{2}\simeq -\sin \theta _{P}\sigma _{I}+\cos \theta _{P}\zeta _{\rho }$ and
for the sake of simplicity we have set $\theta _{S}=\theta _{P}$ and $%
m_{E_{2}}$ is the mass of the charged exotic lepton $E_{2}$. Furthermore,
loop $I_{S\left( P\right) }\left( m_{E},m\right) $ function has the form
\cite%
{Diaz:2002uk,Jegerlehner:2009ry,Kelso:2014qka,Lindner:2016bgg,Kowalska:2017iqv}
:
\begin{equation}
I_{S\left( P\right) }\left( m_{E},m_{S,P}\right) =\int_{0}^{1}\frac{
x^{2}\left( 1-x\pm \frac{m_{E}}{m_{\mu }}\right) }{m_{\mu }^{2}x^{2}+\left(
m_{E}^{2}-m_{\mu }^{2}\right) x+m_{S,P}^{2}\left( 1-x\right) }dx
\end{equation}
Considering that the muon anomalous magnetic moment is constrained to be in
the range \cite{Hagiwara:2011af,Nomura:2018lsx,Nomura:2018vfz}:
\begin{equation}
\left( \Delta a_{\mu }\right) _{\exp }=\left( 2.51\pm 0.59\right) \times
10^{-9}.
\end{equation}
We display in Figure \ref{gminus2muonvsmE} the muon anomalous magnetic
moment as a function of the charged exotic lepton mass $M_{E_2}$. In our
numerical analysis we have considered a benchmark scenario where we have
fixed $\theta =\frac{\pi }{4}$, $M_{A_1}=M_{H_1}=0.5$ TeV, $M_{A_2}=0.6$ TeV
and $M_{H_2}=2$ TeV. The mass of the charged exotic lepton $E_2$ has been
varied in the range $1.5$ TeV$\leqslant M_{E_2}\leqslant$ $2$ TeV. Figure \ref%
{gminus2muonvsmE} shows that the muon anomalous magnetic moment decreases
when the charged exotic lepton mass is increased. We find that our model can
successfully accommodate the experimental value of $\Delta a_{\mu}$.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{plotgminus2muon.pdf}
\caption{Muon anomalous magnetic moment as a function of the charged exotic
lepton mass $M_{E_2}$.}
\label{gminus2muonvsmE}
\end{figure}

\section{Conclusions}
It has been shown  that the most popular 3-3-1 models, such as
minimal 3-3-1 are not capable of explaining g-2. They need to be extended. Moreover, the simplest versions of the most popular 3-3-1 models fail in generating two mass differences between the active neutrinos and be consistent with observation, unless a scalar sextet is added to the models. Motivated by these two facts, we proposed a new 3-3-1 model where neutrino masses are generated via one-loop linear seesaw and g-2 is accommodated in agreement with existing bounds. Our work, stands a plausible alternative to the well known 3-3-1 models in the literature, especially if the g-2 anomaly reaches $5\sigma$ of statistical significance with a larger data sample from the Muon g-2 experiment.
\label{conclusions}

\section*{Acknowledgements}
AECH has received funding from ANID-Chile FONDECYT 1210378. SK acknowledges support from CONICYT-Chile Fondecyt No. 1190845 and ANID-Chile PIA/APOYO AFB180002. YSV acknowledge support from CAPES. FSQ thanks CNPq
grants 303817/2018-6 and 421952/2018-0, and Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) through ICTP-SAIFR
FAPESP grant 2016/01343-7, and grant 2015/158971, for the financial support. FSQ thanks Andres Bello and UFRGS for the hospitality where part of this was partly done. This work was supported by the Serrapilheira Institute (grant number Serra-1912-31613). We thank the High Performance Computing Center (NPAD) at UFRN for providing computational resources.

\section*{Abstract (Not appropriate in this style!)}%
   \else \small
   \begin{center}{\bf Abstract\vspace{-.5em}\vspace{\z@}}\end{center}%
   \quotation
   \fi
  }%
 }{%
 }%
\@ifundefined{endabstract}{\def\endabstract
  {\if@twocolumn\else\endquotation\fi}}{}%
\@ifundefined{maketitle}{\def\maketitle#1{}}{}%
\@ifundefined{affiliation}{\def\affiliation#1{}}{}%
\@ifundefined{proof}{\def\proof{\noindent{\bfseries Proof. }}}{}%
\@ifundefined{endproof}{\def\endproof{\mbox{\ \rule{.1in}{.1in}}}}{}%
\@ifundefined{newfield}{\def\newfield#1#2{}}{}%
\@ifundefined{chapter}{\def\chapter#1{\par(Chapter head:)#1\par }%
 \newcount\c@chapter}{}%
\@ifundefined{part}{\def\part#1{\par(Part head:)#1\par }}{}%
\@ifundefined{section}{\def\section#1{\par(Section head:)#1\par }}{}%
\@ifundefined{subsection}{\def\subsection#1%
 {\par(Subsection head:)#1\par }}{}%
\@ifundefined{subsubsection}{\def\subsubsection#1%
 {\par(Subsubsection head:)#1\par }}{}%
\@ifundefined{paragraph}{\def\paragraph#1%
 {\par(Subsubsubsection head:)#1\par }}{}%
\@ifundefined{subparagraph}{\def\subparagraph#1%
 {\par(Subsubsubsubsection head:)#1\par }}{}%
\@ifundefined{therefore}{\def\therefore{}}{}%
\@ifundefined{backepsilon}{\def\backepsilon{}}{}%
\@ifundefined{yen}{\def\yen{\hbox{\rm\rlap=Y}}}{}%
\@ifundefined{registered}{%
   \def\registered{\relax\ifmmode{}\r@gistered
                    \else$\m@th\r@gistered$\fi}%
 \def\r@gistered{^{\ooalign
  {\hfil\raise.07ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\rm\RIfM@\expandafter\text@\else\expandafter\mbox\fi{R}$}\hfil\crcr
  \mathhexbox20D}}}}{}%
\@ifundefined{Eth}{\def\Eth{}}{}%
\@ifundefined{eth}{\def\eth{}}{}%
\@ifundefined{Thorn}{\def\Thorn{}}{}%
\@ifundefined{thorn}{\def\thorn{}}{}%
\def\TEXTsymbol#1{\mbox{$#1$}}%
\@ifundefined{degree}{\def\degree{{}^{\circ}}}{}%
\newdimen\theight
\@ifundefined{Column}{\def\Column{%
 \vadjust{\setbox\z@=\hbox{\scriptsize\quad\quad tcol}%
  \theight=\ht\z@\advance\theight by \dp\z@\advance\theight by \lineskip
  \kern -\theight \vbox to \theight{%
   \rightline{\rlap{\box\z@}}%
   \vss
   }%
  }%
 }}{}%
\@ifundefined{qed}{\def\qed{%
 \ifhmode\unskip\nobreak\fi\ifmmode\ifinner\else\hskip5\p@\fi\fi
 \hbox{\hskip5\p@\vrule width4\p@ height6\p@ depth1.5\p@\hskip\p@}%
 }}{}%
\@ifundefined{cents}{\def\cents{\hbox{\rm\rlap c/}}}{}%
\@ifundefined{tciLaplace}{\def\tciLaplace{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}}{}%
\@ifundefined{tciFourier}{\def\tciFourier{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}{}%
\@ifundefined{textcurrency}{\def\textcurrency{\hbox{\rm\rlap xo}}}{}%
\@ifundefined{texteuro}{\def\texteuro{\hbox{\rm\rlap C=}}}{}%
\@ifundefined{euro}{\def\euro{\hbox{\rm\rlap C=}}}{}%
\@ifundefined{textfranc}{\def\textfranc{\hbox{\rm\rlap-F}}}{}%
\@ifundefined{textlira}{\def\textlira{\hbox{\rm\rlap L=}}}{}%
\@ifundefined{textpeseta}{\def\textpeseta{\hbox{\rm P\negthinspace s}}}{}%
\@ifundefined{miss}{\def\miss{\hbox{\vrule height2\p@ width 2\p@ depth\z@}}}{}%
\@ifundefined{vvert}{\def\vvert{\Vert}}{
\@ifundefined{tcol}{\def\tcol#1{{\baselineskip=6\p@ \vcenter{#1}} \Column}}{}%
\@ifundefined{dB}{\def\dB{\hbox{{}}}}{
\@ifundefined{mB}{\def\mB#1{\hbox{$#1$}}}{
\@ifundefined{nB}{\def\nB#1{\hbox{#1}}}{
\@ifundefined{note}{\def\note{$^{\dag}}}{}%
\defLaTeX2e{LaTeX2e}
\ifx\fmtnameLaTeX2e
  \DeclareOldFontCommand{\rm}{\normalfont\rmfamily}{\mathrm}
  \DeclareOldFontCommand{\sf}{\normalfont\sffamily}{\mathsf}
  \DeclareOldFontCommand{\tt}{\normalfont\ttfamily}{\mathtt}
  \DeclareOldFontCommand{\bf}{\normalfont\bfseries}{\mathbf}
  \DeclareOldFontCommand{\it}{\normalfont\itshape}{\mathit}
  \DeclareOldFontCommand{\sl}{\normalfont\slshape}{\@nomath\sl}
  \DeclareOldFontCommand{\sc}{\normalfont\scshape}{\@nomath\sc}
\fi

\def\alpha{{\Greekmath 010B}}%
\def\beta{{\Greekmath 010C}}%
\def\gamma{{\Greekmath 010D}}%
\def\delta{{\Greekmath 010E}}%
\def\epsilon{{\Greekmath 010F}}%
\def\zeta{{\Greekmath 0110}}%
\def\eta{{\Greekmath 0111}}%
\def\theta{{\Greekmath 0112}}%
\def\iota{{\Greekmath 0113}}%
\def\kappa{{\Greekmath 0114}}%
\def\lambda{{\Greekmath 0115}}%
\def\mu{{\Greekmath 0116}}%
\def\nu{{\Greekmath 0117}}%
\def\xi{{\Greekmath 0118}}%
\def\pi{{\Greekmath 0119}}%
\def\rho{{\Greekmath 011A}}%
\def\sigma{{\Greekmath 011B}}%
\def\tau{{\Greekmath 011C}}%
\def\upsilon{{\Greekmath 011D}}%
\def\phi{{\Greekmath 011E}}%
\def\chi{{\Greekmath 011F}}%
\def\psi{{\Greekmath 0120}}%
\def\omega{{\Greekmath 0121}}%
\def\varepsilon{{\Greekmath 0122}}%
\def\vartheta{{\Greekmath 0123}}%
\def\varpi{{\Greekmath 0124}}%
\def\varrho{{\Greekmath 0125}}%
\def\varsigma{{\Greekmath 0126}}%
\def\varphi{{\Greekmath 0127}}%

\def{\Greekmath 0272}{{\Greekmath 0272}}
\def\FindBoldGroup{%
   {\setbox0=\hbox{$\mathbf{x\global\edef\theboldgroup{\the\mathgroup}}$}}%
}

\def\Greekmath#1#2#3#4{%
    \if@compatibility
        \ifnum\mathgroup=\symbold
           \mathchoice{\mbox{\boldmath$\displaystyle\mathchar"#1#2#3#4$}}%
                      {\mbox{\boldmath$\textstyle\mathchar"#1#2#3#4$}}%
                      {\mbox{\boldmath$\scriptstyle\mathchar"#1#2#3#4$}}%
                      {\mbox{\boldmath$\scriptscriptstyle\mathchar"#1#2#3#4$}}%
        \else
           \mathchar"#1#2#3#
        \fi
    \else
        \FindBoldGroup
        \ifnum\mathgroup=\theboldgroup
           \mathchoice{\mbox{\boldmath$\displaystyle\mathchar"#1#2#3#4$}}%
                      {\mbox{\boldmath$\textstyle\mathchar"#1#2#3#4$}}%
                      {\mbox{\boldmath$\scriptstyle\mathchar"#1#2#3#4$}}%
                      {\mbox{\boldmath$\scriptscriptstyle\mathchar"#1#2#3#4$}}%
        \else
           \mathchar"#1#2#3#
        \fi
	  \fi}

\newif\ifGreekBold  \GreekBoldfalse
\let\SAVEPBF=\pbf
\def\pbf{\GreekBoldtrue\SAVEPBF}%

\@ifundefined{theorem}{\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}}{}
\@ifundefined{lemma}{\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}}{}
\@ifundefined{corollary}{\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}}{}
\@ifundefined{conjecture}{\newtheorem{conjecture}[theorem]{Conjecture}}{}
\@ifundefined{proposition}{\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}}{}
\@ifundefined{axiom}{\newtheorem{axiom}{Axiom}}{}
\@ifundefined{remark}{\newtheorem{remark}{Remark}}{}
\@ifundefined{example}{\newtheorem{example}{Example}}{}
\@ifundefined{exercise}{\newtheorem{exercise}{Exercise}}{}
\@ifundefined{definition}{\newtheorem{definition}{Definition}}{}

\@ifundefined{mathletters}{%

  \newcounter{equationnumber}
  \def\mathletters{%
     \addtocounter{equation}{1}
     \edef\@currentlabel{\arabic{equation}}%
     \setcounter{equationnumber}{\c@equation}
     \setcounter{equation}{0}%
     \edef\arabic{equation}{\@currentlabel\noexpand\alph{equation}}%
  }
  \def\endmathletters{%
     \setcounter{equation}{\value{equationnumber}}%
  }
}{}

\@ifundefined{BibTeX}{%
    \def\BibTeX{{\rm B\kern-.05em{\sc i\kern-.025em b}\kern-.08em
                 T\kern-.1667em\lower.7ex\hbox{E}\kern-.125emX}}}{}%
\@ifundefined{AmS}%
    {\def\AmS{{\protect\usefont{OMS}{cmsy}{m}{n}%
                A\kern-.1667em\lower.5ex\hbox{M}\kern-.125emS}}}{}%
\@ifundefined{AmSTeX}{\def\AmSTeX{\protect\AmS-\protect\TeX\@}}{}%

\def\@@eqncr{\let\@tempa\relax
    \ifcase\@eqcnt \def\@tempa{& & &}\or \def\@tempa{& &}%
      \else \def\@tempa{&}\fi
     \@tempa
     \if@eqnsw
        \iftag@
           \@taggnum
        \else
           \@eqnnum\stepcounter{equation}%
        \fi
     \fi
     \global\@ifnextchar*{\@tagstar}{\@tag}@false
     \global\@eqnswtrue
     \global\@eqcnt\z@\cr}

\def\@ifnextchar*{\@TCItagstar}{\@TCItag}{\@ifnextchar*{\@TCItagstar}{\@TCItag}}
\def\@TCItag#1{%
    \global\@ifnextchar*{\@tagstar}{\@tag}@true
    \global\def\@taggnum{(#1)}%
    \global\def\@currentlabel{#1}}
\def\@TCItagstar*#1{%
    \global\@ifnextchar*{\@tagstar}{\@tag}@true
    \global\def\@taggnum{#1}%
    \global\def\@currentlabel{#1}}
\def\QATOP#1#2{{#1 \atop #2}}%
\def\QTATOP#1#2{{\textstyle {#1 \atop #2}}}%
\def\QDATOP#1#2{{\displaystyle {#1 \atop #2}}}%
\def\QABOVE#1#2#3{{#2 \above#1 #3}}%
\def\QTABOVE#1#2#3{{\textstyle {#2 \above#1 #3}}}%
\def\QDABOVE#1#2#3{{\displaystyle {#2 \above#1 #3}}}%
\def\QOVERD#1#2#3#4{{#3 \overwithdelims#1#2 #4}}%
\def\QTOVERD#1#2#3#4{{\textstyle {#3 \overwithdelims#1#2 #4}}}%
\def\QDOVERD#1#2#3#4{{\displaystyle {#3 \overwithdelims#1#2 #4}}}%
\def\QATOPD#1#2#3#4{{#3 \atopwithdelims#1#2 #4}}%
\def\QTATOPD#1#2#3#4{{\textstyle {#3 \atopwithdelims#1#2 #4}}}%
\def\QDATOPD#1#2#3#4{{\displaystyle {#3 \atopwithdelims#1#2 #4}}}%
\def\QABOVED#1#2#3#4#5{{#4 \abovewithdelims#1#2#3 #5}}%
\def\QTABOVED#1#2#3#4#5{{\textstyle
   {#4 \abovewithdelims#1#2#3 #5}}}%
\def\QDABOVED#1#2#3#4#5{{\displaystyle
   {#4 \abovewithdelims#1#2#3 #5}}}%
\def\tint{\mathop{\textstyle \int}}%
\def\tiint{\mathop{\textstyle \iint }}%
\def\tiiint{\mathop{\textstyle \iiint }}%
\def\tiiiint{\mathop{\textstyle \iiiint }}%
\def\tidotsint{\mathop{\textstyle \idotsint }}%
\def\toint{\mathop{\textstyle \oint}}%
\def\tsum{\mathop{\textstyle \sum }}%
\def\tprod{\mathop{\textstyle \prod }}%
\def\tbigcap{\mathop{\textstyle \bigcap }}%
\def\tbigwedge{\mathop{\textstyle \bigwedge }}%
\def\tbigoplus{\mathop{\textstyle \bigoplus }}%
\def\tbigodot{\mathop{\textstyle \bigodot }}%
\def\tbigsqcup{\mathop{\textstyle \bigsqcup }}%
\def\tcoprod{\mathop{\textstyle \coprod }}%
\def\tbigcup{\mathop{\textstyle \bigcup }}%
\def\tbigvee{\mathop{\textstyle \bigvee }}%
\def\tbigotimes{\mathop{\textstyle \bigotimes }}%
\def\tbiguplus{\mathop{\textstyle \biguplus }}%
\def\dint{\mathop{\displaystyle \int}}%
\def\diint{\mathop{\displaystyle \iint}}%
\def\diiint{\mathop{\displaystyle \iiint}}%
\def\diiiint{\mathop{\displaystyle \iiiint }}%
\def\didotsint{\mathop{\displaystyle \idotsint }}%
\def\doint{\mathop{\displaystyle \oint}}%
\def\dsum{\mathop{\displaystyle \sum }}%
\def\dprod{\mathop{\displaystyle \prod }}%
\def\dbigcap{\mathop{\displaystyle \bigcap }}%
\def\dbigwedge{\mathop{\displaystyle \bigwedge }}%
\def\dbigoplus{\mathop{\displaystyle \bigoplus }}%
\def\dbigodot{\mathop{\displaystyle \bigodot }}%
\def\dbigsqcup{\mathop{\displaystyle \bigsqcup }}%
\def\dcoprod{\mathop{\displaystyle \coprod }}%
\def\dbigcup{\mathop{\displaystyle \bigcup }}%
\def\dbigvee{\mathop{\displaystyle \bigvee }}%
\def\dbigotimes{\mathop{\displaystyle \bigotimes }}%
\def\dbiguplus{\mathop{\displaystyle \biguplus }}%

\if@compatibility\else

  \RequirePackage{amsmath}
\fi

\def\makeatother\endinput{\makeatother\endinput}

\bgroup
\ifx\ds@amstex\relax
   \message{amstex already loaded}\aftergroup\makeatother\endinput
\else
   \@ifpackageloaded{amsmath}%
      {\if@compatibility\message{amsmath already loaded}\fi\aftergroup\makeatother\endinput}
      {}
   \@ifpackageloaded{amstex}%
      {\if@compatibility\message{amstex already loaded}\fi\aftergroup\makeatother\endinput}
      {}
   \@ifpackageloaded{amsgen}%
      {\if@compatibility\message{amsgen already loaded}\fi\aftergroup\makeatother\endinput}
      {}
\fi
\egroup

\typeout{TCILATEX defining AMS-like constructs in LaTeX 2.09 COMPATIBILITY MODE}
\let\DOTSI\relax
\def\RIfM@{\relax\ifmmode}%
\def\FN@{\futurelet\next}%
\newcount\intno@
\def\iint{\DOTSI\intno@\tw@\FN@\ints@}%
\def\iiint{\DOTSI\intno@\thr@@\FN@\ints@}%
\def\iiiint{\DOTSI\intno@4 \FN@\ints@}%
\def\idotsint{\DOTSI\intno@\z@\FN@\ints@}%
\def\ints@{\findlimits@\ints@@}%
\newif\iflimtoken@
\newif\iflimits@
\def\findlimits@{\limtoken@true\ifx\next\limits\limits@true
 \else\ifx\next\nolimits\limits@false\else
 \limtoken@false\ifx\ilimits@\nolimits\limits@false\else
 \ifinner\limits@false\else\limits@true\fi\fi\fi\fi}%
\def\multint@{\int\ifnum\intno@=\z@\intdots@
 \else\intkern@\fi
 \ifnum\intno@>\tw@\int\intkern@\fi
 \ifnum\intno@>\thr@@\int\intkern@\fi
 \int
\def\multintlimits@{\intop\ifnum\intno@=\z@\intdots@\else\intkern@\fi
 \ifnum\intno@>\tw@\intop\intkern@\fi
 \ifnum\intno@>\thr@@\intop\intkern@\fi\intop}%
\def\intic@{%
    \mathchoice{\hskip.5em}{\hskip.4em}{\hskip.4em}{\hskip.4em}}%
\def\negintic@{\mathchoice
 {\hskip-.5em}{\hskip-.4em}{\hskip-.4em}{\hskip-.4em}}%
\def\ints@@{\iflimtoken@
 \def\ints@@@{\iflimits@\negintic@
   \mathop{\intic@\multintlimits@}\limits
  \else\multint@\nolimits\fi
  \eat@
 \else
 \def\ints@@@{\iflimits@\negintic@
  \mathop{\intic@\multintlimits@}\limits\else
  \multint@\nolimits\fi}\fi\ints@@@}%
\def\intkern@{\mathchoice{\!\!\!}{\!\!}{\!\!}{\!\!}}%
\def\plaincdots@{\mathinner{\cdotp\cdotp\cdotp}}%
\def\intdots@{\mathchoice{\plaincdots@}%
 {{\cdotp}\mkern1.5mu{\cdotp}\mkern1.5mu{\cdotp}}%
 {{\cdotp}\mkern1mu{\cdotp}\mkern1mu{\cdotp}}%
 {{\cdotp}\mkern1mu{\cdotp}\mkern1mu{\cdotp}}}%
\def\RIfM@{\relax\protect\ifmmode}
\def\RIfM@\expandafter\text@\else\expandafter\mbox\fi{\RIfM@\expandafter\RIfM@\expandafter\text@\else\expandafter\mbox\fi@\else\expandafter\mbox\fi}
\let\nfss@text\RIfM@\expandafter\text@\else\expandafter\mbox\fi
\def\RIfM@\expandafter\text@\else\expandafter\mbox\fi@#1{\mathchoice
   {\textdef@\displaystyle\f@size{#1}}%
   {\textdef@\textstyle\tf@size{\firstchoice@false #1}}%
   {\textdef@\textstyle\sf@size{\firstchoice@false #1}}%
   {\textdef@\textstyle \ssf@size{\firstchoice@false #1}}%
   \glb@settings}

\def\textdef@#1#2#3{\hbox{{%
                    \everymath{#1}%
                    \let\f@size#2\selectfont
                    #3}}}
\newif\iffirstchoice@
\firstchoice@true
\def\Let@{\relax\iffalse{\fi\let\\=\cr\iffalse}\fi}%
\def\vspace@{\def\vspace##1{\crcr\noalign{\vskip##1\relax}}}%
\def\multilimits@{\bgroup\vspace@\Let@
 \baselineskip\fontdimen10 \scriptfont\tw@
 \advance\baselineskip\fontdimen12 \scriptfont\tw@
 \lineskip\thr@@\fontdimen8 \scriptfont\thr@@
 \lineskiplimit\lineskip
 \vbox\bgroup\ialign\bgroup\hfil$\m@th\scriptstyle{##}$\hfil\crcr}%
\def\Sb{_\multilimits@}%
\def\endSb{\crcr\egroup\egroup\egroup}%
\def\Sp{^\multilimits@}%
\let\endSp\endSb
\newdimen\ex@
\ex@.2326ex
\def\rightarrowfill@#1{$#1\m@th\mathord-\mkern-6mu\cleaders
 \hbox{$#1\mkern-2mu\mathord-\mkern-2mu$}\hfill
 \mkern-6mu\mathord\rightarrow$}%
\def\leftarrowfill@#1{$#1\m@th\mathord\leftarrow\mkern-6mu\cleaders
 \hbox{$#1\mkern-2mu\mathord-\mkern-2mu$}\hfill\mkern-6mu\mathord-$}%
\def\leftrightarrowfill@#1{$#1\m@th\mathord\leftarrow
\mkern-6mu\cleaders
 \hbox{$#1\mkern-2mu\mathord-\mkern-2mu$}\hfill
 \mkern-6mu\mathord\rightarrow$}%
\def\overrightarrow{\mathpalette\overrightarrow@}%
\def\overrightarrow@#1#2{\vbox{\ialign{##\crcr\rightarrowfill@#1\crcr
 \noalign{\kern-\ex@\nointerlineskip}$\m@th\hfil#1#2\hfil$\crcr}}}%
\let\overarrow\overrightarrow
\def\overleftarrow{\mathpalette\overleftarrow@}%
\def\overleftarrow@#1#2{\vbox{\ialign{##\crcr\leftarrowfill@#1\crcr
 \noalign{\kern-\ex@\nointerlineskip}$\m@th\hfil#1#2\hfil$\crcr}}}%
\def\overleftrightarrow{\mathpalette\overleftrightarrow@}%
\def\overleftrightarrow@#1#2{\vbox{\ialign{##\crcr
   \leftrightarrowfill@#1\crcr
 \noalign{\kern-\ex@\nointerlineskip}$\m@th\hfil#1#2\hfil$\crcr}}}%
\def\underrightarrow{\mathpalette\underrightarrow@}%
\def\underrightarrow@#1#2{\vtop{\ialign{##\crcr$\m@th\hfil#1#2\hfil
  $\crcr\noalign{\nointerlineskip}\rightarrowfill@#1\crcr}}}%
\let\underarrow\underrightarrow
\def\underleftarrow{\mathpalette\underleftarrow@}%
\def\underleftarrow@#1#2{\vtop{\ialign{##\crcr$\m@th\hfil#1#2\hfil
  $\crcr\noalign{\nointerlineskip}\leftarrowfill@#1\crcr}}}%
\def\underleftrightarrow{\mathpalette\underleftrightarrow@}%
\def\underleftrightarrow@#1#2{\vtop{\ialign{##\crcr$\m@th
  \hfil#1#2\hfil$\crcr
 \noalign{\nointerlineskip}\leftrightarrowfill@#1\crcr}}}%

\def\qopnamewl@#1{\mathop{\operator@font#1}\nlimits@}
\let\nlimits@\displaylimits
\def\setboxz@h{\setbox\z@\hbox}

\def\varlim@#1#2{\mathop{\vtop{\ialign{##\crcr
 \hfil$#1\m@th\operator@font lim$\hfil\crcr
 \noalign{\nointerlineskip}#2#1\crcr
 \noalign{\nointerlineskip\kern-\ex@}\crcr}}}}

 \def\rightarrowfill@#1{\m@th\setboxz@h{$#1-$}\ht\z@\z@
  $#1\copy\z@\mkern-6mu\cleaders
  \hbox{$#1\mkern-2mu\box\z@\mkern-2mu$}\hfill
  \mkern-6mu\mathord\rightarrow$}
\def\leftarrowfill@#1{\m@th\setboxz@h{$#1-$}\ht\z@\z@
  $#1\mathord\leftarrow\mkern-6mu\cleaders
  \hbox{$#1\mkern-2mu\copy\z@\mkern-2mu$}\hfill
  \mkern-6mu\box\z@$}

\def\qopnamewl@{proj\,lim}{\qopnamewl@{proj\,lim}}
\def\qopnamewl@{inj\,lim}{\qopnamewl@{inj\,lim}}
\def\mathpalette\varlim@\rightarrowfill@{\mathpalette\varlim@\rightarrowfill@}
\def\mathpalette\varlim@\leftarrowfill@{\mathpalette\varlim@\leftarrowfill@}
\def\mathpalette\varliminf@{}{\mathpalette\mathpalette\varliminf@{}@{}}
\def\mathpalette\varliminf@{}@#1{\mathop{\underline{\vrule\@depth.2\ex@\@width\z@
   \hbox{$#1\m@th\operator@font lim$}}}}
\def\mathpalette\varlimsup@{}{\mathpalette\mathpalette\varlimsup@{}@{}}
\def\mathpalette\varlimsup@{}@#1{\mathop{\overline
  {\hbox{$#1\m@th\operator@font lim$}}}}

\def\stackunder#1#2{\mathrel{\mathop{#2}\limits_{#1}}}%
\begingroup \catcode `|=0 \catcode `[= 1
\catcode`]=2 \catcode `\{=12 \catcode `\}=12
\catcode`\\=12
|gdef|@alignverbatim#1\end{align}[#1|end[align]]
|gdef|@salignverbatim#1\end{align*}[#1|end[align*]]

|gdef|@alignatverbatim#1\end{alignat}[#1|end[alignat]]
|gdef|@salignatverbatim#1\end{alignat*}[#1|end[alignat*]]

|gdef|@xalignatverbatim#1\end{xalignat}[#1|end[xalignat]]
|gdef|@sxalignatverbatim#1\end{xalignat*}[#1|end[xalignat*]]

|gdef|@gatherverbatim#1\end{gather}[#1|end[gather]]
|gdef|@sgatherverbatim#1\end{gather*}[#1|end[gather*]]

|gdef|@gatherverbatim#1\end{gather}[#1|end[gather]]
|gdef|@sgatherverbatim#1\end{gather*}[#1|end[gather*]]

|gdef|@multilineverbatim#1\end{multiline}[#1|end[multiline]]
|gdef|@smultilineverbatim#1\end{multiline*}[#1|end[multiline*]]

|gdef|@arraxverbatim#1\end{arrax}[#1|end[arrax]]
|gdef|@sarraxverbatim#1\end{arrax*}[#1|end[arrax*]]

|gdef|@tabulaxverbatim#1\end{tabulax}[#1|end[tabulax]]
|gdef|@stabulaxverbatim#1\end{tabulax*}[#1|end[tabulax*]]

|endgroup

\def\align{\@verbatim \frenchspacing\@vobeyspaces \@alignverbatim
You are using the "align" environment in a style in which it is not defined.}
\let\endalign=\endtrivlist

\@namedef{align*}{\@verbatim\@salignverbatim
You are using the "align*" environment in a style in which it is not defined.}
\expandafter\let\csname endalign*\endcsname =\endtrivlist

\def\alignat{\@verbatim \frenchspacing\@vobeyspaces \@alignatverbatim
You are using the "alignat" environment in a style in which it is not defined.}
\let\endalignat=\endtrivlist

\@namedef{alignat*}{\@verbatim\@salignatverbatim
You are using the "alignat*" environment in a style in which it is not defined.}
\expandafter\let\csname endalignat*\endcsname =\endtrivlist

\def\xalignat{\@verbatim \frenchspacing\@vobeyspaces \@xalignatverbatim
You are using the "xalignat" environment in a style in which it is not defined.}
\let\endxalignat=\endtrivlist

\@namedef{xalignat*}{\@verbatim\@sxalignatverbatim
You are using the "xalignat*" environment in a style in which it is not defined.}
\expandafter\let\csname endxalignat*\endcsname =\endtrivlist

\def\gather{\@verbatim \frenchspacing\@vobeyspaces \@gatherverbatim
You are using the "gather" environment in a style in which it is not defined.}
\let\endgather=\endtrivlist

\@namedef{gather*}{\@verbatim\@sgatherverbatim
You are using the "gather*" environment in a style in which it is not defined.}
\expandafter\let\csname endgather*\endcsname =\endtrivlist

\def\multiline{\@verbatim \frenchspacing\@vobeyspaces \@multilineverbatim
You are using the "multiline" environment in a style in which it is not defined.}
\let\endmultiline=\endtrivlist

\@namedef{multiline*}{\@verbatim\@smultilineverbatim
You are using the "multiline*" environment in a style in which it is not defined.}
\expandafter\let\csname endmultiline*\endcsname =\endtrivlist

\def\arrax{\@verbatim \frenchspacing\@vobeyspaces \@arraxverbatim
You are using a type of "array" construct that is only allowed in AmS-LaTeX.}
\let\endarrax=\endtrivlist

\def\tabulax{\@verbatim \frenchspacing\@vobeyspaces \@tabulaxverbatim
You are using a type of "tabular" construct that is only allowed in AmS-LaTeX.}
\let\endtabulax=\endtrivlist

\@namedef{arrax*}{\@verbatim\@sarraxverbatim
You are using a type of "array*" construct that is only allowed in AmS-LaTeX.}
\expandafter\let\csname endarrax*\endcsname =\endtrivlist

\@namedef{tabulax*}{\@verbatim\@stabulaxverbatim
You are using a type of "tabular*" construct that is only allowed in AmS-LaTeX.}
\expandafter\let\csname endtabulax*\endcsname =\endtrivlist

 \def\endequation{%
     \ifmmode\ifinner
      \iftag@
        \addtocounter{equation}{-1}
        $\hfil
           \displaywidth\linewidth\@taggnum\egroup \endtrivlist
        \global\@ifnextchar*{\@tagstar}{\@tag}@false
        \global\@ignoretrue
      \else
        $\hfil
           \displaywidth\linewidth\@eqnnum\egroup \endtrivlist
        \global\@ifnextchar*{\@tagstar}{\@tag}@false
        \global\@ignoretrue
      \fi
     \else
      \iftag@
        \addtocounter{equation}{-1}
        \eqno \hbox{\@taggnum}
        \global\@ifnextchar*{\@tagstar}{\@tag}@false%
        $$\global\@ignoretrue
      \else
        \eqno \hbox{\@eqnnum
        $$\global\@ignoretrue
      \fi
     \fi\fi
 }

 \newif\iftag@ \@ifnextchar*{\@tagstar}{\@tag}@false

 \def\@ifnextchar*{\@TCItagstar}{\@TCItag}{\@ifnextchar*{\@TCItagstar}{\@TCItag}}
 \def\@TCItag#1{%
     \global\@ifnextchar*{\@tagstar}{\@tag}@true
     \global\def\@taggnum{(#1)}%
     \global\def\@currentlabel{#1}}
 \def\@TCItagstar*#1{%
     \global\@ifnextchar*{\@tagstar}{\@tag}@true
     \global\def\@taggnum{#1}%
     \global\def\@currentlabel{#1}}

  \@ifundefined{tag}{
     \def\@ifnextchar*{\@tagstar}{\@tag}{\@ifnextchar*{\@tagstar}{\@tag}}
     \def\@tag#1{%
         \global\@ifnextchar*{\@tagstar}{\@tag}@true
         \global\def\@taggnum{(#1)}}
     \def\@tagstar*#1{%
         \global\@ifnextchar*{\@tagstar}{\@tag}@true
         \global\def\@taggnum{#1}}
  }{}

\def\tfrac#1#2{{\textstyle {#1 \over #2}}}%
\def\dfrac#1#2{{\displaystyle {#1 \over #2}}}%
\def\binom#1#2{{#1 \choose #2}}%
\def\tbinom#1#2{{\textstyle {#1 \choose #2}}}%
\def\dbinom#1#2{{\displaystyle {#1 \choose #2}}}%

\makeatother
\endinput