\section{Introduction}
The standard model (SM) cannot predict the number of fermion
generations.  If one expands the gauge group to \gclx
\cite{Singer:1980sw, Valle:1983dk, Pisano:1991ee, Frampton:1992wt,
  Foot:1994ym}, then the number of generations come out to be 3, or
any multiple of 3.  In addition to this feature for which acted as a
prime motivation for constructing these models, the models can provide
an automatic solution to the strong CP problem \cite{Pal:1994ba} and
an interesting explanation of electric charge quantization
\cite{deSousaPires:1998jc, VanDong:2005ux}.  Because of these
attractive features, phenomenological implications of these models
have been extensively studied \cite{Buras:2012dp,
  CarcamoHernandez:2019iwh, Costantini:2019kmv,
  RobertsonSingh:2019jad, Dias:2020ryz, CarcamoHernandez:2020pxw,
  Lebbal:2020sqb, Hong:2020qxc}.  In addition, people have also
examined the Higgs potential \cite{Palcu:2019nld, Costantini:2020xrn},
possible candidates for cosmological dark matter \cite{Filippi:2005mt,
  deS.Pires:2007gi} and the possibilities of embedding of these models
\cite{Byakti:2013uya, Fonseca:2015aoa, Deppisch:2016jzl} into some
grand unified model.

For the sake of convenience, one often refers to the gauge group as
the 331 group, as has been done in the title of this article.  There
are different versions of 331 models, or really, different models with
the 331 gauge group.  Among the two early versions in which the number
of generations is predicted, right-handed neutrinos are absent in one
version \cite{Pisano:1991ee, Frampton:1992wt} and present in another
\cite{Singer:1980sw, Valle:1983dk, Foot:1994ym}.  The common feature
is the gauge group, the prediction of the number of generations, and
the fact that new fermions must be introduced in order to complete the
multiplets as well as to cancel gauge anomalies.  The difference lies
in the properties of these new fermions.  In addition, it was shown
later \cite{Deppisch:2016jzl} that if one chooses, one can also
construct models based on the same gauge group in which each
generation of fermions is independent in the sense that all anomalies
cancel within a single generation, and different generations are mere
copies of one another.  Of course, in this model the prediction of the
number of generations is lost, but the model is nonetheless viable.

The aim of this article is to examine whether other variants of the
model are possible.  We show that, for the case of non-identical
generations, the proposed models are specific examples of a class of
models characterized by a free parameter.  For the case of identical
fermion generations, however, the proposed model is unique under some
restrictive assumptions.  However, those assumptions are by no ways a
necessity, so they can be spared and more general models can be built.
We show that there are other kinds of models possible, which do not
resemble the earlier models in any way.

\section{Anomalies}\label{s:an}
So far as the color symmetry is concerned, this group is no different
from SM.  The quarks will be in color triplets and the leptons will be
in color singlets.  Since there will be new fields in these models,
let us say that anything that transforms like a triplet of \ensuremath{{\rm SU(3)}_c}\ will
be called quark, and any singlet of the color group will be called
lepton.

The \ensuremath{{\rm SU(3)}_L}\ part of the group requires obvious thoughts.  We assume that
all fermions transform either like the singlet or in the multiplet
whose dimension equals that of the fundamental representation, as is
the case in the SM.  This means that the representations under
\ensuremath{{\rm SU(3)}_L}\ are \rep1, \rep3 and \rep{3^*}.  We take all right-chiral fields
in \ensuremath{{\rm SU(3)}_L}\ singlets.  This is no loss of generality, because if we
encounter any right-chiral field that is not a singlet of \ensuremath{{\rm SU(3)}_L}, we can
disregard it and instead tabulate its complex conjugate which would
then be a left-chiral field.  With these ground rules, then, all
possible multiplets would fall under one of the categories listed in
Table~\ref{t:multiplets}.   It should be commented that
restriction to singlets and triplets does not follow from any
fundamental principle.  It is just an assumption.  There are models
where other representations are used \cite{Huong:2019vej}, but we will
not discuss them here.
\begin{table}
  \caption{Multiplets, showing their representations under the ${\rm
      SU(3)}_c \times {\rm SU(3)}_L$ part of the gauge group.  The ${\rm
      U(1)}_X$ values have been left unspecified.}\label{t:multiplets}

  $$
  \begin{array}{cccc}
    \hline
    \mbox{Type} & \mbox{Representation} & \mbox{Chirality} &
    \mbox{Range of $k$} \\
    \hline
    1 & (1,3,\alpha_k) & L & 1, \cdots, n_1  \\
    2 & (1,3^*,\beta_k) & L & 1, \cdots, n_2  \\
    3 & (3,3,\gamma_k) & L & 1, \cdots, n_3 \\
    4 & (3,3^*,\delta_k) & L & 1, \cdots, n_4 \\
    5 & (1,1,\xi_k) & R & 1, \cdots, n_5 \\
    6 & (3,1,\zeta_k) & R & 1, \cdots, n_6 \\
    \hline
  \end{array}
  $$
\end{table}

We now write down the constraints coming from gauge anomaly
cancellation.  While reading the ensuing equations, it has to be
remembered that the range of the sum on $k$ is in general different
for different lettered variables, as can be seen from
Table~\ref{t:multiplets}.
\begin{subequations}
  \label{anom}
\begin{align}
  [\ensuremath{{\rm SU(3)}_c}]^3~: && 3(n_3+n_4) - n_6 &= 0 \,,
  \label{ccc} \\

  [\ensuremath{{\rm SU(3)}_L}]^3~: && n_1 - n_2 + 3(n_3-n_4) &= 0 \,,
  \label{lll} \\

  [\ensuremath{{\rm SU(3)}_c}]^2 \times [\ensuremath{{\rm U(1)}_X}]~: &&
  \sum_k \Big( 3 \gamma_k + 3 \delta_k - \zeta_k \Big) &= 0 \,,
  \label{ccx} \\
  [\ensuremath{{\rm SU(3)}_L}]^2 \times [\ensuremath{{\rm U(1)}_X}]~: && \sum_k \Big( \alpha_k +
   \beta_k + 3  \gamma_k + 3  \delta_k \Big) &= 0
  \,, \label{llx} \\
  [\ensuremath{{\rm U(1)}_X}]^3~: && \sum_k \Big( 3 \alpha_k^3 + 3 \beta_k^3 + 9
  \gamma_k^3 + 9 \delta_k^3 - \xi_k^3 - 3 \zeta_k^3 \Big) &= 0 \,.
  \label{xxx}
\end{align}
In addition, gravitational anomaly cancellation would require the
condition
\begin{eqnarray}
  \sum_k \Big( 3 \alpha_k + 3 \beta_k + 9
   \gamma_k + 9 \delta_k - \xi_k - 3 \zeta_k \Big) &= 0 \,.
  \label{grav}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}

In the context of the SM gauge group, it was shown
\cite{Golowich:1990ki} that the anomaly cancellation equations, aided
by some reasonable assumptions like the presence of a mass of the
charged fermions, are enough to determine the charges of the fermion
fields.  This will not be the case in the context of the 331 models.
There are too many parameters, and one will need so many assumptions
to reach the goal that finally it would seem that the goals were
pre-determined and the assumptions were tailored to obtain them.  This
statement will be supported by the discussions in the rest of this
article, where we will see that there is enough freedom in the
construction which allows many models to be constructed.

Note that the $[\ensuremath{{\rm SU(3)}_c}]^3$ anomaly cancellation condition, \Eqn{ccc},
demands that the number of left-chiral triplets of color must equal
the number of right-chiral triplets.  That requirement is
automatically satisfied if we assume that all quarks are massive.
Similarly, \Eqn{lll} implies that the number of triplets and
antitriplets of \ensuremath{{\rm SU(3)}_L}\ must be equal.

Many of the other equations become trivial if we impose the
requirement that all charged particles must be massive.  In the mass
term, a left-chiral fermion field pairs with a right-chiral field.
Therefore, this requirement can be summarized by saying that all
non-trivial representations of the final unbroken group of $\ensuremath{{\rm SU(3)}_c}
\times \ensuremath{{\rm U(1)}_Q}$ should be vectorlike \cite{Golowich:1990ki}, the latter
factor being the gauge group of quantum electrodynamics.  Because the
electric charge generator is a linear combination of \ensuremath{{\rm SU(3)}_L}\ generators
and the \ensuremath{{\rm U(1)}_X}\ generator, \Eqs{ccc} {ccx} together imply that the
$[\ensuremath{{\rm SU(3)}_c}]^2 \times \ensuremath{{\rm U(1)}_Q}$ anomalies must also cancel.  This will produce
a condition that is similar to \Eqn{ccx}, except that there will be
sums over the electric charges instead of the $X$ quantum numbers.
But that equation is automatically obeyed, because for each
left-chiral quark field there must be a right-chiral quark with the
same charge.  For the same reason, the quark terms in \Eqs{xxx} {grav}
must also vanish among themselves.  The same argument applies for the
lepton fields.  If there is a left-chiral field with a certain
non-zero charge, either there would be a type-5 right-chiral field of
the same charge present in the model, or a left-chiral field of
opposite charge must be present in the type-1 fields.  To summarize,
the anomaly conditions of \Eqs{xxx} {grav} need not be considered
separately if we arrange the right-chiral fields in such a way that
all left-chiral fields of nonzero charge can obtain masses.

\Eqs{lll} {llx} are then the important equations in the context of
model building.   Note that
all $n$'s must be non-negative integers by definition.  We can always
take
\begin{eqnarray}
  n_1 \geq n_2
  \label{n1>n2}
\end{eqnarray}
by adjusting our definition of the \rep3 and \rep{3^*} representations
of \ensuremath{{\rm SU(3)}_L}.  \Eqn{lll} then implies that
\begin{eqnarray}
  n_4 \geq n_3 \,.
  \label{n4>n3}
\end{eqnarray}
We will also impose
\begin{eqnarray}
  n_1 \geq 1, \qquad n_4 \geq 1 \,,
  \label{n>1}
\end{eqnarray}
because otherwise the model would lack either leptons, or quarks, or
both.  Next, we note that \Eqn{lll} shows that $n_1-n_2$ must be a
multiple of 3.  We can explore how this equation can be satisfied,
taking small values of all $n$'s.  Here are some examples.
Corresponding to each pair of values of $n_3$ and $n_4$, we choose the
minimum values of $n_1$ and $n_2$, subject to the conditions of
\Eqs{n1>n2} {n>1}, that will satisfy \Eqn{lll}.
\begin{eqnarray}
  \begin{array}{ccccc}
    \mbox{Choice} & n_3 & n_4 & n_1 & n_2 \\  \hline
    \chno{ch01} & 0 & 1 & 3 & 0 \\
    \chno{ch11} & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
    \chno{ch12} & 1 & 2 & 3 & 0
  \end{array}
  \label{n1-n2}
\end{eqnarray}
We will see that Choice~\ref{ch01} will give us the sequential model
\cite{Deppisch:2016jzl}, whereas Choice~\ref{ch12} will give us models
in which the generations are non-sequential, and  one needs all three
generations for all gauge anomalies to cancel \cite{Singer:1980sw,
  Valle:1983dk, Pisano:1991ee, Frampton:1992wt, Foot:1994ym}, which
can be called the entangled models.  An intermediate case,
corresponding to Choice~\ref{ch11}, provides a new kind of 331 model
which has not been explored so far.

Note that, so far we have not used \Eqn{llx} at all.  It will prove
useful when we will try to construct the models explicitly.

\section{Charge assignment}\label{s:ch}
The SM lepton doublet must lie within one of the $(1,3,\alpha_k)$
representations.  We can choose the triplet, for the first generation
of left-chiral lepton fields, to be
\begin{eqnarray}
  \left( \begin{array}{c} \nu_e \\ e \\ f
  \end{array}  \right)_L \,,
  \label{nuef}
\end{eqnarray}
where $f_L$ is a lepton field that has to be added to complete the
triplet.  It might be a field that is already present in the SM, or
might be a new field --- the choice is left open for now.

The electric charge generator must be of the form
\begin{eqnarray}
  Q = T_L + X \,,

\end{eqnarray}
where $T_L$ is a diagonal generator of \ensuremath{{\rm SU(3)}_L}, and $X$ is the generator
of the \ensuremath{{\rm U(1)}_X}\ part of the gauge group.  If one uses the standard
representations of SU(3) generators in which $T_3$ and $T_8$ are the
diagonal generators, then $T_L$ is a linear combination of those two.
For the \rep3 representation of \ensuremath{{\rm SU(3)}_L}, this means that the charges of
its components will be given by
\begin{eqnarray}
  Q_{(\rep3)} = \mathop{\rm diag} \Big( c_1 + x, c_2+x, c_3+x \Big) \,,
  \label{Q3}
\end{eqnarray}
where $x$ is the \ensuremath{{\rm U(1)}_X}\ quantum number, and
\begin{eqnarray}
  c_1 + c_2 + c_3 = 0
  \label{csum}
\end{eqnarray}
because they come from the \ensuremath{{\rm SU(3)}_L}\ generators which are traceless.  We
note that, since the representation of the generators in \rep3 and
\rep{3^*} are different, in the \rep{3^*} representation the electric
charge will be given by
\begin{eqnarray}
  Q_{(\rep{3^*})} = \mathop{\rm diag} \Big( {-}c_1 + x, -c_2+x, -c_3+x \Big) \,,
  \label{Q3*}
\end{eqnarray}
with the same values of $c_1$, $c_2$ and $c_3$ that appear in
\Eqn{Q3}.

If the $X$ quantum number is taken to be $\alpha_1$ for the multiplet
shown in \Eqn{nuef}, the charges of the first two components would
imply the relations
\begin{eqnarray}
  c_1 + \alpha_1 = 0 \,, \qquad c_2 + \alpha_1 = -1 \,.
  \label{c1c2eq}
\end{eqnarray}
If we take the charge of the field $f$ to be $q$, \Eqn{csum} would
imply the relation
\begin{eqnarray}
  \alpha_1 = {q - 1 \over 3} \,.
  \label{alpha1}
\end{eqnarray}
So now we can find $c_1$, $c_2$ and $c_3$ in terms of $q$ by using
\Eqs{csum} {c1c2eq}, and thereby rewrite \Eqs{Q3}{Q3*} in the form
\begin{subequations}
  \label{Qq}
\begin{eqnarray}
  Q_{(\rep3)} &=& \mathop{\rm diag} \Big( {1-q \over 3} + x, \; - {2+q \over 3} +x, \;
  {1+2q \over 3} +x \Big) \,,
  \label{Q3q}  \\
  Q_{(\rep{3^*})} &=& \mathop{\rm diag} \Big( {q-1 \over 3} + x, \; {2+q \over 3} +x, \;
  - {1+2q \over 3} +x \Big) \,.
  \label{Q3*q}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}

Let us now look at the quark sector.  We see from \Eqn{n1-n2} that
there must be at least one $(3,3^*)$ multiplet of \ensuremath{{\rm SU(3)}_c \times {\rm SU(3)}_L}.  Let us
denote its $X$ quantum number by $\delta_1$.  It must contain one of
the usual quark doublets, and they must occur in the first two
components of the \ensuremath{{\rm SU(3)}_c \times {\rm SU(3)}_L}\ representation.  However, note that
\Eqs{c1c2eq} {Q3*q} tell us that, for a
\rep{3^*} representation of \ensuremath{{\rm SU(3)}_L}, the first component has lower charge
than the second one.  Therefore, we should identify the first
component as $d_L$ and the second one as $u_L$.  These identifications
imply
\begin{eqnarray}
  {q-1 \over 3} + \delta_1 = - \frac13 \,,

\end{eqnarray}
or
\begin{eqnarray}
  \delta_1 = -{q \over 3} \,.
  \label{delta1}
\end{eqnarray}
From this, we can find the charges of all three components of the
multiplet.  In particular, the third component will have a charge
$-\frac13-q$.  Exactly similarly, we can argue that, for a $(3,3)$
representation of \ensuremath{{\rm SU(3)}_c \times {\rm SU(3)}_L}, if the first two components are $u$-type and
$d$-type quarks, the third component would have a charge $\frac23+q$.
We will now use these results to construct the full models.  We will
not arrange our construction in the order of the choices given in
\Eqn{n1-n2}, Rather, we start with the possibility $n_2=0$, and will
later go up to $n_2=1$.

\section{Entangled models}\label{s:en}
To keep things as simple as possible, we will first assume, along with
$n_2=0$ as mentioned, that all $\alpha_k$'s are equal to $\alpha_1$
found in \Eqn{alpha1}, and similarly all $\gamma_k$'s and all
$\delta_k$'s are also equal.  We will denote this common value without
any subscripted index.  Then, \Eqn{llx} will imply
\begin{eqnarray}
  n_1 \alpha + 3n_3 \gamma + 3n_4 \delta = 0 \,.

\end{eqnarray}
The values of $\alpha$ and $\delta$ must be those given in
\Eqs{alpha1} {delta1}.  Then,
\begin{eqnarray}
  n_3 \gamma = - \frac13 n_1 \alpha - n_4 \delta = {(1-q) n_1
  + 3n_4q \over 9 } \,.
  \label{gamma}
\end{eqnarray}
This equation will be inconsistent if we take Choice~\ref{ch01} of
\Eqn{n1-n2}, where $n_3=0$.  Therefore, the next simplest solution is
Choice~\ref{ch12}, i.e., $n_1=3$, $n_3=1$ and $n_4=2$.  This will mean
that the three left-chiral quark doublets of SM appear in two
different types of representations of the 331 group.  The generations
are not identical, and all anomalies also do not cancel within a
single generation of fermions, which is why we call these models
`entangled'.

\Eqn{gamma} now gives
\begin{eqnarray}
  \gamma = {q+1 \over 3} \,.

\end{eqnarray}
Remarkably, this value coincides exactly with the value of the $X$
quantum number obtained from the requirement that a (3,3)
representation of \ensuremath{{\rm SU(3)}_c \times {\rm SU(3)}_L}\ contains the usual quark doublet.  Therefore
we find that the generalized 331 model will have the following
multiplet structure for the fermions:
\begin{eqnarray}
  \begin{array}{c@{\hspace{7mm}}c@{\hspace{7mm}}c@{\hspace{7mm}}l}
    \hline
    \mbox{\gclx} & \multirow2*{\mbox{Chirality}} & \mbox{Number of} &
    \mbox{electric} \\
    \mbox{representation} && \mbox{copies} & \mbox{charges} \\ \hline
    \Big( 1,3, {q-1 \over 3} \Big) & L & 3 & 0,-1,q \\
    \Big( 3,3, {q+1 \over 3} \Big) & L & 1 & \frac23,-\frac13, \frac23+q \\
    \Big( 3,3^*, -{q \over 3} \Big) & L & 2 & -\frac13,\frac23,
    -\frac13-q \\
    \multicolumn4c{\mbox{and R-chiral fields to match their charges.}}
    \\
    \hline
  \end{array}
  \label{en.charges}
\end{eqnarray}
It can now be easily checked that  all anomaly cancellation conditions of
\Eqn{anom} are obeyed for any value of $q$ as long as the right chiral
fields contain the same charges as the left chiral fields, as argued
earlier in \Sec{s:an}.

Clearly, there are two distinguished values of $q$ that need to be
discussed.  One is $q=+1$, and the other is $q=0$.  For each of these
values, there arises the possibility that the new field can pair with
one of the two other fields of the same multiplet to form a mass term
for the fermion.  Interestingly, these values give the variants of the
331 models discussed in the literature: the $q=+1$ case gives the model
of Pisano, Pleitez and Frampton \cite{Pisano:1991ee, Frampton:1992wt},
whereas the model with $q=0$ was presented by Singer, Valle, Schechter,
Foot, Long and Tran \cite{Singer:1980sw, Valle:1983dk, Foot:1994ym}.
To the best of our knowledge, models with any other value of $q$
 have not been studied or proposed.

\section{Sequential models}\label{s:se}
In this case, we deal with the solution with $n_2=n_3=0$ that was
presented as Choice~\ref{ch01} in \Eqn{n1-n2}.  Since $n_1=3$ for
$n_4=1$, there will be three lepton multiplets corresponding to each
quark multiplet.  We can therefore use the quark multiplet to be the
marker of a fermion generation, and construct the field content of a
single generation, which can be repeated arbitrary number of times.
We can now write $\delta$ instead of $\delta_1$ since it is the only
parameter of its kind.  Clearly, we cannot take all $\alpha$'s to be
the same because, if we do that, then \Eqn{llx}, or equivalently
\Eqn{gamma}, is not obeyed with the values obtained in \Eqs{alpha1}
    {delta1}.

So at least two $\alpha_k$'s will be different.  Rather than
considering the possibility that they are all different, let us
consider the scenario where
\begin{eqnarray}
  \alpha_1 = \alpha_2 \neq \alpha_3 \,.

\end{eqnarray}
We now look at \Eqn{llx}.  With the values of $\alpha_1$ and $\delta$
from \Eqs{alpha1}{delta1}, we find
\begin{eqnarray}
  \alpha_3 = {2+q \over 3} \,.

\end{eqnarray}
We can now write the electric charges of all left-chiral fields in a
single generation:
\begin{eqnarray}
  \begin{array}{c@{\hspace{7mm}}c@{\hspace{7mm}}c@{\hspace{7mm}}l}
    \hline
    \mbox{\gclx} & \multirow2*{\mbox{Chirality}} & \mbox{Number of} &
    \mbox{electric} \\
    \mbox{representation} && \mbox{copies} & \mbox{charges} \\ \hline
    \Big( 1,3, {q-1 \over 3} \Big) & L & 2 & 0,-1,q \\
    \Big( 1,3, {q+2 \over 3} \Big) & L & 1 & 1,0, q+1 \\
    \Big( 3,3^*, -{q \over 3} \Big) & L & 1 & -\frac13,\frac23, -\frac13-q \\
    \multicolumn4c{\mbox{and R-chiral fields to match their charges.}}
    \\
    \hline
  \end{array}
  \label{seqmodel}
\end{eqnarray}
Here also, one can take any arbitrary value of $q$ and introduce a
right chiral field corresponding to every left chiral charged field
and obtain anomaly cancellation thereby.  But there is a more
economical possibility, which was found by Deppish, Hati, Patra,
Sarkar and Valle \cite{Deppisch:2016jzl}.  They entertained the
possibility that each charged left chiral field has a partner in the
form of a left chiral field of opposite charge.  Together, they can
form mass terms.  This means that there is no need for the singlets of
\ensuremath{{\rm SU(3)}_c \times {\rm SU(3)}_L}.  If this viewpoint is adopted, there is a unique value of $q$
that becomes acceptable.  This value comes from the fact that there
are two fields of charge $-1$ in the two copies of of the first kind
of multiplet shown in \Eqn{seqmodel}, and therefore we need two fields
with charge $+1$.  This can be achieved by putting $q=0$, so that both
fields of charge $+1$ can appear in the second kind of multiplet shown
in \Eqn{seqmodel}.  Setting $q=0$ and adding the right chiral quark
fields in \ensuremath{{\rm SU(3)}_c \times {\rm SU(3)}_L}\ singlets, one obtains a single generation of fermions
from \Eqn{seqmodel}.  Other generations are exact copies, so far as
the gauge transformation properties are concerned.  The model thus
obtained is then exactly the model suggested in
\textcite{Deppisch:2016jzl}, except for a difference in the
convention: what we call a triplet of \ensuremath{{\rm SU(3)}_L}\ was called an antitriplet
in \textcite{Deppisch:2016jzl}, and vice versa.

In order to exhaust all scenarios in which at least two $\alpha_k$'s
are equal, we should also examine the possibility
\begin{eqnarray}
  \alpha_1 \neq \alpha_2 = \alpha_3 \,.

\end{eqnarray}
Now, putting \Eqs{alpha1} {delta1} into \Eqn{llx}, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
  \alpha_2 = \alpha_3 = {1 + 2q \over 6} \,.

\end{eqnarray}
With these values of the $\alpha_k$'s, the following multiplets
result.
\begin{eqnarray}
  \begin{array}{c@{\hspace{7mm}}c@{\hspace{7mm}}c@{\hspace{7mm}}l}
    \hline
    \mbox{\gclx} & \multirow2*{\mbox{Chirality}} & \mbox{Number of} &
    \mbox{electric} \\
    \mbox{representation} && \mbox{copies} & \mbox{charges} \\ \hline
    \Big( 1,3, {q-1 \over 3} \Big) & L & 1 & 0,-1,q \\
    \Big( 1,3, {1+2q \over 6} \Big) & L & 2 & \frac12, -\frac12,
    \frac12 +q \\
    \Big( 3,3^*, -{q \over 3} \Big) & L & 1 & -\frac13,\frac23, -\frac13-q \\
    \multicolumn4c{\mbox{and R-chiral fields to match their charges.}}
    \\
    \hline
  \end{array}
  \label{seqmodel2}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that these models necessarily contain fractionally charged
leptons.  Also note that there is no value of $q$ for which the
\ensuremath{{\rm SU(3)}_c \times {\rm SU(3)}_L}\ singlets can be avoided.  However, it should be emphasized that,
by adding suitable right chiral fields, one can definitely build a
viable model of this sort.

\section{Intermediate models}\label{s:in}
In the models discussed in \Sec{s:en}, anomalies do not cancel unless
we take all three generations of fermions together.  In the models of
\Sec{s:se}, anomalies cancel within a single generation.  We can now
explore the intermediate scenario in which one needs two generations
to cancel the gauge anomalies.  This means that we want $n_3+n_4=2$.
Among the integral solutions to this equation subject to \Eqn{n4>n3},
the solution $n_4=2, \ n_3=0$ merely duplicates the field content of
the sequential model.  Thus, we are left with the only other solution,
i.e., both $n_3$ and $n_4$ equals 1.  This means that $n_1=n_2$,
according to \Eqn{lll}.  If we take $n_1=n_2=0$ then there will be no
lepton in the model.  In order to accommodate leptons, we take the
next smallest solution, i.e., Choice~\ref{ch11} of \Eqn{n1-n2}.  In
order to accommodate the SM doublets of quarks in the \rep{(3,3)} and
the \rep{(3,3^*)} representations of \ensuremath{{\rm SU(3)}_c \times {\rm SU(3)}_L}, and also to accommodate an
SM lepton doublet in the \rep{(1,3)} representation, we need the
values of $\alpha$, $\gamma$ and $\delta$ as shown in
\Eqn{en.charges}.  \Eqn{llx} will then give the value of $\beta$.  We
summarize the information.
\begin{eqnarray}
  \begin{array}{c@{\hspace{7mm}}c@{\hspace{7mm}}c@{\hspace{7mm}}l}
    \hline
    \mbox{\gclx} & \multirow2*{\mbox{Chirality}} & \mbox{Number of} &
    \mbox{electric} \\
    \mbox{representation} && \mbox{copies} & \mbox{charges} \\ \hline
    \Big( 1,3, {q-1 \over 3} \Big) & L & 1 & 0,-1,q \\
    \Big( 1,3^*, -{q+2 \over 3} \Big) & L & 1 & -1,0,-1-q \\
    \Big( 3,3, {q+1 \over 3} \Big) & L & 1 & \frac23,-\frac13, \frac23+q \\
    \Big( 3,3^*, -{q \over 3} \Big) & L & 1 & -\frac13,\frac23,
    -\frac13-q \\
    \multicolumn4c{\mbox{and R-chiral fields to match their charges.}}
    \\
    \hline
  \end{array}
  \label{in.charges}
\end{eqnarray}

The discussion does not imply that we can have only two generations
and no more if we follow this path.  It only means that all gauge
anomalies cancel among the two generations of fermions whose
specifications have been given in \Eqn{in.charges}.  In order to
confront phenomenology and include three generations of quarks, one
can always add a sequential generation as what has been discussed in
\Sec{s:se}.  This means that the complete model, with three
generations of fermions in it, will have
\begin{eqnarray}
  n_1 = 4, \qquad n_2 = 1, \qquad n_3 = 1, \qquad n_4 = 2.

\end{eqnarray}

\begin{table}[b]
  \caption{Comparison of field contents of the models described in
    the text.}\label{t:comparison}

  \begin{center}
    \begin{tabular}{lcccccl}
      \hline
      \multirow2*{Model} & \multirow2*{$n_1$} & \multirow2*{$n_2$} & \multirow2*{$n_3$} & \multirow2*{$n_4$} & Number of & Comment
      on \\
      &&&&& SM doublets & Economy \\
      \hline
      Entangled & 3 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 12 & Most economical \\
      Sequential & 9 & 0 & 0 & 3 & 18 & Least economical \\
      Intermediate & 4 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 14 & Intermediate \\
      \hline
    \end{tabular}
  \end{center}

\end{table}
\section{Comments}
We have identified many ways of extending the SM to a model based on
the gauge group \gclx.  For the entangled models where the model has a
prediction for the number of fermion generations, we show that there
is a whole family of models, characterized by a parameter $q$, which
are anomaly-free.  This family includes the models which have been
studied in detail in the literature \cite{Singer:1980sw, Valle:1983dk,
  Pisano:1991ee, Frampton:1992wt, Foot:1994ym}.  In contrast, there
are also sequential models, including one which has been studied in
some detail \cite{Deppisch:2016jzl}, in which generations are marked
by quark fields, and are copies of one another.   We have
shown that there can be an intermediate class of models in which there
is one sequential generation and two more generations which are
entangled through anomalies.  Many of these models have not been
studied at all.

It need not be said that one can make more complicated models with the
same gauge group.  It is possible to construct models with larger
number of fermion fields by adding any number of vectorlike fermions,
or gauge singlets, or multiple copies of the entire collection.  We
have only identified models which are minimal corresponding to some
set of assumptions.

These minimal models can be compared on the basis of their field
content.  In Table\,\ref{t:comparison}, we summarize the total number
of triplets and antitriplets of \ensuremath{{\rm SU(3)}_L}\ in each kind of model.  Each of
these representations contain a doublet of the standard electroweak
model.  We see that the completely entangled models have no SM doublet
other than the ones which are already present in the three generations
of the SM.  The sequential models need a lot of new doublets, whereas
the intermediate models are intermediate in this aspect as well.  The
number of singlets of \ensuremath{{\rm SU(3)}_L}\ are different in the individual models of
each kind, and are not included in the table.

\paragraph*{Acknowledgements~:} The research of PBP was supported
by the SERB grant EMR/2017/001434 of the Government of India.

\bibliographystyle{unsrt}


\section{Introduction}

With the rise of social media platforms, information is generated and propagated at an unprecedented rate. The simplicity of the sharing process has led to a large volume of news content spreading over social networks and reaching vast numbers of users in a short time.

The convenience and openness of microblogs have also fostered the spread of rumors, which have become a serious public concern recently. The spread of rumors is also facilitated by the availability of low-cost and straightforward multimedia content processing tools, such that everyone can easily edit the content of an image or video \cite{lago2019visual}. Therefore, the automatic assessment of information credibility on social networks becomes a mandatory requirement to limit the propagation of rumors.

On a microblogging platform such as Twitter, users publish short messages (i.e., tweets) that may contain, in addition to ``classical" text, tags such as URLs, hashtags or references to other users. Moreover, the message can be accompanied by multimedia content such as an image or video. Consequently, the textual and visual content that forms the message should be considered together. Moreover, the message's veracity depends on the veracity of each of these components.

Most existing approaches for automatic rumor detection are based only on the textual content of messages to predict the veracity of online content. Unlike these approaches, we propose in this position paper a framework that explores the veracity of messages from social networks by analyzing both their textual and visual content in a single process.

For this purpose, we propose two techniques to achieve this challenging task. The first is based on the extraction of appropriate features from the text and useful statistical and visual features from the image. These features are merged to train a supervised classifier to assess the veracity of messages.

The second technique involves a verification system composing two classification tiers. The first classification tier determines the veracity of the textual content based on textual feature extraction; the second classification tier determines the veracity of the image by adopting a forgery detection method. Finally, scores returned from both classifiers are fused to provide the final decision about message veracity.

The rest of this paper is structured as follows. We present the state of the art in Section~\ref{sec:relatedworks}. We detail the definition and categories of fake images circulating on social media in Section~\ref{sec:fakeimage}. We describe the framework we  propose in Section~\ref{sec:framework}. We discuss our framework in Section~\ref{sec:Discussion}. We conclude this paper and present perspectives for our future work in Section~\ref{sec:conclusionperspective}.

\section{related works}
\label{sec:relatedworks}

We review related work in two main areas: rumor analysis and images forgery detection. Because these are two extensive research areas, we just provide an outline of the research that is most closely related to ours.

\subsection{Rumor Analysis in Social Media}

Almost existing studies solve the rumor detection problem in feature-based approaches and supervised machine learning scheme. Features from text content \cite{castillo2011information,kwon2013prominent}, users \cite{morris2012tweeting}, and propagation patterns \cite{wu2015false}, are extracted to train a classifier on labeled training data. Some recent works further
improve the classification result with graph-based optimization methods \cite{gupta2012evaluating,jin2014news}.

To represent high-level abstract semantics in the rumor detection task, the approaches of \cite{jin2016news,wu2015false} use features based on topic modeling (LDA). To overcome the limitation of these manually crafted features, \textit{Ma et al.} \cite{ma2016detecting} represents tweets in an event with deep neural networks by using recurrent neural networks (RNN), to learn the representation of tweets in a time series.

Only a few recent studies aim to verify the credibility of multimedia content in addition to text. In \cite{gupta2012evaluating,wu2015false}, some basic features are provided for images attached in tweets. Text and image features are extracted to automatically predict the veracity of a tweet that shares multimedia content in \cite{boididou2015verifying}.

Finally, \textit{Jin et al.} \cite{jin2017multimodal} proposes an RNN with the attention mechanism to fuse features from the text, image, and social context for detecting rumors on microblogs. However, the proposed system in \cite{jin2017multimodal} has several limitations. First, this system does not explain the final classification, this problem is one of the weak points in the use of neural networks. Also, the system as it stands, cannot handle the detection of information misuse, this corresponds to a bad association of an image and a text representing two different contexts.

\subsection{Image Forgery Detection}

Creating forged images by manipulating the original image content is called digital image forgery. This field that intends to verify the authenticity of images has been developed significantly against the problem of image forgeries in many domains like legal services, medical images, and forensics.

There are two main ways to detect alteration: classification and localization. In the classification detection method, the output is binary, whether the image is authentic or forged. On the other hand, the localization method not only detects whether an image is authentic or falsified, but also gives the regions that are manipulated in the image if it's falsified \cite{qureshi2015bibliography, warif2016copy}.

Image forgery detection methods can be divided into two types: active and passive. An active forgery detection technique uses a known authentication code embedded into the image content such as digital watermarking \cite{lin1998generating} or digital signatures \cite{shieh2006semi}. Passive forgery detection technique is the process of authenticating images with no requirement of prior information, just the image itself \cite{asghar2017copy, birajdar2013digital}.

In passive forgery detection, if a forged image involves parts of more than one image, then resultant image is called a spliced image; if the forged image involves parts of the same image, it is called a copy-move forged image.

\section{Fake Images in Social Media}
\label{sec:fakeimage}

The content of a message on social media is usually linked to an event or a context. For this purpose, the definition of a fake image leads us first of all to define the event.

In literature, the definition of an event can be heterogeneous even though it shares a common characteristic; events are in general said to occur, or happen, meaning that they are entities that unfold over time and/or space \cite{scherp2009f, wang2007eventory}.

A fake image is defined as any image attached to a message that does not accurately represent the event to which it refers \cite{boididou2017learning}.

Following the definition of the event, a fake image is defined as either miscontextualized or tampered. A miscontextualized image presents inconsistencies with at least one aspect of the event, for instance, temporal or geographical misplacement. In other words, it is a bad association of an image and a text representing two different contexts.

Figure~\ref{Fig 2}(a) shows a miscontextulized image that seems to
show Paris the day after the attacks of November 2015.
However, by searching on Google Image, we can find the origin
of the image that dates back to 2008. While the image used to show the hurricane sandy in Figure~\ref{Fig 2}(b) is deliberately tampered .

\begin{figure*}[ht]
	\centering
	\begin{minipage}[l]{1.0\columnwidth}%
			\centering
			\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{img5.pdf}
	         \subcaption{}
	\end{minipage}%
	\hfill
	\begin{minipage}[r]{1.0\columnwidth}%
		\centering
		\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{img7.pdf}
		\subcaption{}
	\end{minipage}

	\caption{Different types of fake images: (a) miscontextulized image; (b)  Digitally manipulated image.}\label{Fig 2}
\end{figure*}

\section{The Proposed Framework}
\label{sec:framework}

The key idea of our proposal is to exploit both textual and visual content of messages to assess the veracity of entire online content by studying the possibilities of text and image processing in a single framework.

Figure~\ref{Fig3} presents an overview of the main components of the proposed framework.

\begin{figure*}[h]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=.65\textwidth]{modele.pdf}
	\caption{Overview of the proposed framework.}\label{Fig3}
\end{figure*}

\subsection{First Technique}

The detection of the veracity of messages is formalized in this technique as a classification problem, and it mainly contains two phases: features extraction and model training.

In this method, several useful features are extracted from the message text and the attached image. After features extraction, "traditional" classifiers are built, based on these features to identify messages veracity as real or fake.

\subsubsection{\textbf{Features Extraction}}
\paragraph{\textbf{Textual Features Extraction}}

Features come from two main aspects of false information or rumor: content and social context in social media, this because the content is associated with a certain social context during spreading of rumor.

Content features are the features extracted from the text. The social context reflects the relationship among different users and describes the propagating process of a rumor, so social context features are the features extracted from the user behavior and the propagation network. These features are suitable to capture the characteristics of rumors.

Depending on their nature, we distinguish three features categories: message content features, user content features, and propagation properties features.

\begin{enumerate}

\item \textbf{Message Content Features.} They take into account information about the content of the messages themselves; this information may or may not be related to social media. The information that is not related to social media includes the presence of exclamation or question marks, the presence of positive or negative sentiment words, and the size of the message. The information that is linked to social media includes the presence of hashtags, URLs, the fact that the message is original or a re-tweet.

\item \textbf{User Content Features.} They are the attributes of the user who posted the message, e.g., we assume properties such as the number of friends, followers, the number of tweets the user has authored in the past or registration age.

\item \textbf{Propagation Properties Features.} They take into account information about the propagation tree that can be built from tweet and re-tweets of a message, such as the depth of the re-tweet tree.

\end{enumerate}

We propose a set of features to characterize messages in our dataset. Many of these features have been studied in previous works \cite{agichtein2008finding,boididou2017learning,qazvinian2011rumor,ratkiewicz2010detecting}.

Patterns of these categories features for rumor messages are obviously different from that of "normal" ones. Table~\ref{table 1} presents a list of features produced for each message.

\begin{table*}[ht]
	\centering
	\caption{List of Features Extracted from Each Message.}\label{table 1}
	\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
		\hline
		Feature category &  Description \\
		\hline
		& Length of the tweet \\
		& Number of Words \\
		& Contains Question Mark ? \\
		& Contains Exclamation Mark !\\
		& Contains Happy Emoticon \\
		& Contains Sad Emoticon \\
		& Contains a personal pronoun in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person \\
		& Number of uppercase characters\\
		Message  & Number of negative sentiment words \\
		& Number of positive sentiment words \\
		& Number of mentions \\
		& The date in which this tweet was written\\
		& Number of hashtags \\
		& Number of URLs \\
		& Retweet count \\  \hline
		& Number of Friends\\
		& Number of Followers \\
		& Follower-Friend Ratio \\
		User& Age of user account \\
		& Is a verified user\\
		& User has a URL\\
		& The number of tweets at posting time \\ \hline
		& The depth of a propagation tree\\
		Propagation & The max. size of a level in the propagation tree \\
		& The degree of the root in a propagation tree\\
		\hline

	\end{tabular}
\end{table*}

\paragraph{\textbf{Image Features Extraction}}

To make the difference between real and fake images, the authors of \cite{jin2016image} find that, to describe false information, fake images tend to be eye-catching, and visually striking in contrast to real ones. Also, images in the real news are much denser than those in the fake news. Hence, images in fake and real news have visually and statistically distinctive patterns. Therefore, images have an important impact on detecting fake news in microblogs.

For this purpose, we propose a set of features to characterize images, which are divided into two categories.

\begin{enumerate}

 \item \textbf{Statistical Features.} Similar to the statistical features of textual content, some basic statistics of images proved to be distinctive in separating rumors and non-rumors as to mark the occurrence of images in rumor messages, or popular images that gain more retweeting and comments than others.

\item \textbf{Visual Features.} Extracted from Image quality assessment (IQA) field. IQA aims to quantitatively represent the human perception of quality. These metrics are commonly used to analyze the performance of algorithms in different fields of computer vision like image compression, image transmission, and image processing \cite{maitre2017photon}.

IQA is mainly divided into two areas of research:~(1) Full-Reference evaluation and~(2) No-reference evaluation. Full-Reference algorithms compare the input image against a pristine reference image with no distortion. In no-reference algorithms, the only input is the image whose quality we want to measure, these algorithms compare statistical features of the input image against a set of features derived from an image database.

Since in our case, we don't have the original version of the posted image; therefore, the approach that is fitting for our context is no-reference IQA metrics.

For this purpose, we use three No-reference algorithms demonstrated to be highly efficient:  Blind/Referenceless Image Spatial QUality Evaluator (BRISQUE) \cite{mittal2011blind}, Naturalness Image Quality Evaluator (NIQE) \cite{mittal2012making}, and Perception based Image Quality Evaluator (PIQE)\cite{venkatanath2015blind}.

\end{enumerate}

Table~\ref{table 2} presents a list of some features produced for each image.

\begin{table*}[ht]
	\centering
	\caption{List of Features Extracted from Each Image.}\label{table 2}
	\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
		\hline
		Feature category &  Description \\
		\hline
		& BRISQUE score \\
		Visual  & NIQE Score \\
		& PIQE Score \\  \hline
		  & The number of all images in a news event \\
		Statistical& The ratio of the image-tweets in all tweets\\
		& The ratio of image number to tweet number\\

		\hline

	\end{tabular}
\end{table*}

\subsubsection{\textbf{Model Training}}

Extracted features are normalized and concatenated, and a classifier model will be trained using the features. A large amount of supervised model can be used such as Support Vector Machine, Random Forest, Decision Tree, and Na\"ive Bayes. At the end of this step, messages are labeled true or false.

\subsection{Second Technique}

In this technique, we propose a verification system based on three main steps.

First, we explore the veracity of textual content by adopting the approach followed in the first proposition, using only the features listed in Table~\ref{table 1} and a classifier whose output is the probability of the veracity of textual content of the message, e.g., logistic regression.

Secondly, we explore the veracity of visual content by adopting an image forgery detection method. Almost of the existing forgery detection approaches extract representative and relevant features from an image first, then a suitable classifier is trained and modeled by using the features, and finally, classification performed by using the trained model.

In the field of image forgery detection, no method can detect all forms of falsification, because each technique is designed to identify specific traces of manipulation based on its own assumption; it is, therefore, judicious to fuse multiple outputs from many forgery techniques \cite{fontani2013framework}. Basing on this acknowledgment, we propose to combine numerous classical image forgery techniques on the expectation to detect various image manipulations.

The fusion of these techniques makes it possible to detect more precisely the region that is more likely to contain falsification. Then, relevant statistics are extracted from this region to generate a features vector which will be used to train a classifier, for example, random forests, that provide the probability of image veracity.

Finally, scores returned from the two classifiers are fused to give the final decision.

The final probability of veracity of the whole message is defined as a linear combination of the probability outputs from these two classifiers, as follows:

\begin{equation}
\label{eq:equation1}
Pr(Message)= \omega_1\times Pr(Txt_{content}) + \omega_2\times Pr(Img_{content})
\end{equation}

Where, $Pr(Txt_{content})$ and $Pr(Img_{content})$ are respectively the probabilities to be fake for the textual content and the image. The parameters $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ are two percentages, where there sum is 100\%. We make all possible combinations of $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ to evaluate which values are most appropriate to evaluate the authenticity of messages.

The linear combination in equation~\eqref{eq:equation1} represents the probability of message to be fake: $Pr(Message)$. If this probability is higher than 50\%, then the image is classified as fake, otherwise as real, as can be seen in Figure~\ref{Fig4}.

\begin{figure*}[ht]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=.65\textwidth]{model2.pdf}
	\caption{Overview of the second technique.}\label{Fig4}
\end{figure*}

\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:Discussion}

From the analysis of our framework, we can make the following observations and proposals.

The task of distinguishing the credibility of images is challenging, as images can be misleading in many ways. Indeed, in case of miscontextualized images, the vast majority of information misuse requires information from outside the message because it is impossible to detect misuse of information by taking into account only the text and image of a publication.

To overcome this difficulty, and based on the idea that image misused from its context has necessarily got an original context, we propose to search this context on a search engine like Google image\footnote{https ://images.google.com/} or TinEye\footnote{https ://www.tineye.com/} using this same image. To compare the context of our message with those returned by search engines, we can compare the text of the message with the content of found pages.

In the case where the contexts are not identical, there is then misuse of context either in the request message or in the analyzed page. In this situation, the comparison of the publication dates could make the difference between these cases.

Another possibility is to compare the textual content with the image by extracting the most representative words from the text message \cite{drouin2003term}. For the image, we can use a system for searching objects and persons in an image \cite{lavi2018survey} which is an active domain, or a bag of visual words technique. Then by comparing the two contents, we can know if, for example, an image represents a person or an object that is not described in the text.

In the field of image forgery detection, the assessment of image veracity depends on the ability of detection methods used to  locate alterations. A limitation of these methods is estimating the ability of a modification to make the image fake. Indeed, some modifications will not be intended to mislead the user, such as changing the color of the image. On the other hand, changing a person's face or adding or deleting objects in an image completely changes the user's understanding of the image and therefore its meaning. This aspect related to the threshold for which an image is considered as fake or not has to be further investigated to not send unnecessary warnings to a user who uses an alert system.

\section{Conclusion and Perspectives}
\label{sec:conclusionperspective}

Existing approaches for news verification on microblogs ignore image content, which is nonetheless very important,  in messages such as tweets. In this position paper, we present and discuss a framework to analyze the veracity of messages in social media.

The  framework we propose explores two ways to assess the veracity of messages published on social networks, by analysing both their textual and visual content. The first way is based on the extraction of appropriate features from the text and statistical and visual features from the image. These features are combined to train a supervised classifier to assess the veracity of messages. The second approach presents a verification system with two levels of classification. The first level is used to determine the veracity of textual content; the second determines the veracity of the image by applying a forgery detection method. The returned scores are taken into account to evaluate the final decision on message veracity.

As perspectives for future work, we plan to implement and test our framework with both approaches. However, there are very few standard multimedia rumor detection datasets available. Thus, in addition to the dataset from the MediaEval Verifying Multimedia Use benchmark \cite{boididou2014challenges}, we intend to build a new dataset for the task. Moreover, to communicate the verification process to end-users, we propose to add a visualization module to preview the results.

\bibliographystyle{abbrv}