text:
# CFNUL/01-04 DFAQ-2001/05-TH Leptogenesis via Collisions: Leaking Lepton Number to the Hidden Sector

\[

## Abstract

We propose a leptobaryogenesis mechanism in which the non-zero $`BL`$ of the Universe is produced in out-of-equilibrium, lepton number and CP violating scattering processes that convert ordinary particles into particles of some hidden sector. In particular, we consider the processes $`l\varphi l^{}\varphi ^{},\overline{l}^{}\overline{\varphi }^{}`$ mediated by the heavy Majorana neutrinos $`N`$ of the seesaw mechanism, where $`l`$ and $`\varphi `$ are ordinary lepton and Higgs doublets and $`l^{}`$, $`\varphi ^{}`$ their hidden counterparts. Such a leptogenesis mechanism is effective even if the reheat temperature is much smaller than the heavy neutrino masses. In particular, it can be as low as $`10^9`$ GeV.

PACS numbers: 98.80.Cq., 11.30.Er., 11.30.Fs., 14.60.St

\]

It is well known that a non-zero baryon asymmetry (BA) can be produced in the initially baryon symmetric universe if three conditions are fulfilled: B-violation, CP-violation and departure from thermal equilibrium . These conditions can be satisfied in the decays of heavy particles of grand unified theories. On the other hand, the sphaleron processes, which violate $`B+L`$ but conserve $`BL`$, are effective at temperatures from about $`10^{12}`$ GeV down to 100 GeV . Thus, one actually needs to produce a non-zero $`BL`$ rather than just $`B`$, a fact that disfavors the simplest baryogenesis picture based on grand unification models like $`SU(5)`$. When sphalerons are in equilibrium, the baryon number and $`BL`$ are related as $`B=a(BL)`$, where $`a`$ is a model dependent order one coefficient . Hence, in order to obtain the observed baryon to entropy density ratio $`B=n_B/s=(0.61)\times 10^{10}`$, the produced $`BL`$ needs to be $`𝒪(10^{10})`$.

The seesaw mechanism for neutrino masses offers an elegant possibility of generating non-zero $`BL`$ in CP-violating decays of heavy Majorana neutrinos $`N`$ into leptons and Higgses, the so called leptogenesis scenario . Namely, due to complex Yukawa constants, the decay rates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Nl\varphi )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(N\overline{l}\overline{\varphi })`$ can be different from each other, so that leptons $`l`$ and anti-leptons $`\overline{l}`$ are produced in different amounts.

In this Letter we propose an alternative mechanism of leptogenesis that is based on scattering processes rather than particle decays. The main idea consists in the following. There may exist some hidden (shadow or mirror) sector of new particles which are not in thermal equilibrium with the ordinary particle world as far as the two systems interact very weakly e.g., if they only communicate via gravity. However, other messengers may well exist namely, superheavy gauge singlets like right-handed neutrinos which can mediate very weak effective interactions between the ordinary and shadow leptons. Then, a net $`BL`$ could emerge in the Universe as a result of CP-violating effects in the unbalanced production of shadow particles from ordinary particle collisions.

The simplest model of this type can be described as follows. Consider the standard $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ model, containing three generations of leptons $`l_i=(\nu ,e)_i`$, $`e_i^c`$ and quarks, the Higgs doublet $`\varphi `$, and some heavy singlet fermions $`N_a`$. Imagine now, that there is also a hidden sector with gauge symmetry $`G^{}`$, containing fermion and scalar fields that are singlets under the standard model gauge group, while the ordinary particles are instead singlets under $`G^{}`$. The interesting candidate can be a mirror sector, exact duplicate of the observable sector with the same gauge symmetry $`G^{}=SU(3)^{}\times SU(2)^{}\times U(1)^{}`$ and with the same particle content . However, in the more general case $`G^{}`$ could be any gauge symmetry group containing, among other possible particles, fermions $`l_k^{}`$ and scalar $`\varphi ^{}`$ possessing opposite gauge charges so that the products $`l_k^{}\varphi ^{}`$ are gauge invariant.

In this case, the heavy singlet neutrinos $`N`$ can couple to $`l,\varphi `$ as well as to $`l^{},\varphi ^{}`$ and hence play the role of messengers between ordinary and shadow particles. The relevant Yukawa couplings have the form:

$$h_{ia}l_iN_a\varphi +h_{ka}^{}l_k^{}N_a\varphi ^{}+\frac{1}{2}M_{ab}N_aN_b+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{C}.$$
(1)
(charge-conjugation matrix $`C`$ is omitted); the $`l,N,l^{}`$ states are left handed while their $`C`$-conjugate, right-handed anti-particles are denoted as $`\overline{l},\overline{N},\overline{l}^{}`$. Without loss of generality, the heavy neutrino mass matrix can be taken in diagonal basis as $`M_a=g_aM`$, $`M`$ being the overall mass scale and $`g_a`$ order one real constants. After integrating out the heavy neutrinos $`N`$ the effective operators emerge from the couplings (1) as

$$\frac{A_{ij}}{2M}l_il_j\varphi \varphi +\frac{D_{ik}}{M}l_il_k^{}\varphi \varphi ^{}+\frac{A_{kn}^{}}{2M}l_k^{}l_n^{}\varphi ^{}\varphi ^{}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{C}.,$$
(2)
with coupling constant matrices of the form $`A=hg^1h^T`$, $`A^{}=h^{}g^1h^T`$ and $`D=hg^1h^T`$.

Our mechanism works within the following scenario. We assume that the initial densities of the ordinary and hidden sectors are different from each other. In particular, the reheat temperature of the hidden sector should be smaller than the visible one, $`T_R^{}<T_R`$, which can be achieved in certain inflationary models . The two particle systems interact very weakly so that they do not come in thermal equilibrium with each other after reheating. The heavy neutrino masses are much larger than the reheat temperature $`T_R`$ and thus cannot be thermally produced. As a result, the usual leptogenesis mechanism via $`Nl\varphi `$ decays is ineffective . Now, the important role is played by lepton number violating scatterings mediated by the heavy neutrinos $`N`$ which stay out of equilibrium once $`T_RM`$. On the other hand, they violate CP due to complex Yukawa couplings in Eq. (1).

In other words, we assume that after the postinflationary reheating, different temperatures are established in the two sectors: the hidden world is cooler or ultimately, completely “empty”. Nevertheless, it starts to be “slowly” occupied due to the leaking of entropy from the ordinary sector through the reactions $`l_i\varphi \overline{l}_k^{}\overline{\varphi }^{}`$, $`\overline{l}_i\overline{\varphi }l_k^{}\varphi ^{}`$. Then, because of CP violation, the cross-sections with leptons and anti-leptons in the initial state are different from each other. As a result, leptons leak to the hidden sector more (or less) effectively than antileptons and a non-zero $`BL`$ is produced in the Universe.

A temperature scale that plays a crucial role in our considerations is the reheat temperature $`T_R`$, at which the inflaton decay and entropy production of the Universe is over and under which the Universe is dominated by a relativistic plasma of ordinary particle species.

It is convenient to introduce a parameter that characterizes the reaction rate per Hubble time at the temperature $`T=T_R`$, $`K=(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2H)_R`$. Here $`H=1.66g_{}^{1/2}T^2/M_{Pl}`$ is the Hubble parameter and $`g_{}`$ is the effective number of particle degrees of freedom. For the $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=1`$ reaction rate we have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=\sigma _1n_{eq}`$, where $`n_{eq}(1.2/\pi ^2)T^3`$ is an equilibrium density per degree of freedom and $`\sigma _1`$ is the total cross section of $`l\varphi \overline{l}^{}\overline{\varphi }^{}`$ scatterings,

$$\sigma _1=\sigma (l\varphi \overline{l}^{}\overline{\varphi }^{})=\frac{Q_1}{8\pi M^2}.$$
(3)
The sum is taken over all flavor and isospin indices of initial and final states, and $`Q_1=\mathrm{Tr}(D^{}D)=\mathrm{Tr}[(h^{}h^{})g^1(h^{}h)^{}g^1]`$. Hence, the out-of-equilibrium condition for this process reads as

$$K_1=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}{2H}\right)_R1.5\times 10^3\frac{Q_1T_RM_{Pl}}{g_{}^{1/2}M^2}<1,$$
(4)
which, for a given reheat temperature $`T_R`$, translates into the lower limit on the heavy neutrino mass scale $`M`$:

$$M_{12}>1.3Q_1^{1/2}T_9^{1/2},$$
(5)
where $`M_{12}(M/10^{12}\mathrm{GeV})`$, $`T_9(T_R/10^9\mathrm{GeV})`$ and we have taken $`g_{}100`$ as in the standard model.

However, there are also scattering processes like $`l\varphi \overline{l}\overline{\varphi }`$ etc., which can wash out the produced $`BL`$ unless they are out of equilibrium . The total rate of $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=2`$ processes is given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(3Q_2/4\pi M^2)n_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ where $`Q_2=\mathrm{Tr}(A^{}A)=\mathrm{Tr}[(h^{}h)g^1(h^{}h)^{}g^1]`$. Therefore, the condition $`K_2=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2/2H)_R<1`$ translates into a lower bound similar to (5),

$$M_{12}>3.2Q_2^{1/2}T_9^{1/2}.$$
(6)
Clearly, if the Yukawa constants $`h_{ia}`$ and $`h_{ka}^{}`$ are of the same order, the out-of-equilibrium conditions for $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=2`$ processes are nearly equivalent to each other.

Let us turn now to CP violation. In $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=1`$ processes the CP-odd lepton number asymmetry emerges from the interference between the tree-level and one-loop diagrams of Fig. 1. The tree-level amplitude for the dominant channel $`l\varphi \overline{l}^{}\overline{\varphi }^{}`$ goes as $`1/M`$ and the radiative corrections as $`1/M^3`$. For the channel $`l\varphi l^{}\varphi ^{}`$ instead, both tree-level and one-loop amplitudes go as $`1/M^2`$. As a result, the cross section CP-asymmetries are the same for both $`l\varphi \overline{l}^{}\overline{\varphi }^{}`$ and $`l\varphi l^{}\varphi ^{}`$ channels (on the contrary, the diagrams with $`l^{}\varphi ^{}`$ inside the loops, not shown in Fig. 1, yield asymmetries, $`\pm \mathrm{\Delta }\sigma ^{}`$, symmetric to each other). However, CP violation takes also place in $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=2`$ processes (see Fig. 2). This is a consequence of the very existence of the hidden sector namely, the contribution of the hidden particles to the one-loop diagrams of Fig. 2. The direct calculation gives:

$`\sigma (l\varphi \overline{l}^{}\overline{\varphi }^{})\sigma (\overline{l}\overline{\varphi }l^{}\varphi ^{})=(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }\sigma ^{})/2,`$ (7a)
$`\sigma (l\varphi l^{}\varphi ^{})\sigma (\overline{l}\overline{\varphi }\overline{l}^{}\overline{\varphi }^{})=(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma +\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma ^{})/2,`$ (7b)
$`\sigma (l\varphi \overline{l}\overline{\varphi })\sigma (\overline{l}\overline{\varphi }l\varphi )=\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma ;`$ (7c)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma ={\displaystyle \frac{3JS}{32\pi ^2M^4}},`$ (7d)
where $`J=\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{Tr}[(h^{}h^{})g^2(h^{}h)g^1(h^{}h)^{}g^1]`$ is the CP-violation parameter and $`S`$ is the c.m. energy square ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma ^{}`$ is obtained from $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$ by exchanging $`h`$ with $`h^{}`$).

This is in perfect agreement with CPT invariance that requires that the total cross sections for particle and anti-particle scatterings are equal to each other: $`\sigma (l\varphi X)=\sigma (\overline{l}\overline{\varphi }X)`$. Indeed, taking also into account that by CPT, $`\sigma (l\varphi l\varphi )=\sigma (\overline{l}\overline{\varphi }\overline{l}\overline{\varphi })`$, we obtain that the CP asymmetries in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=2`$ processes should be related as follows:

$`\sigma (l\varphi X^{})\sigma (\overline{l}\overline{\varphi }X^{})+`$ (8)
$`\sigma (l\varphi \overline{l}\overline{\varphi })\sigma (\overline{l}\overline{\varphi }l\varphi )=0,`$ (9)
where $`X^{}`$ are the hidden sector final states, $`\overline{l}^{}\overline{\varphi }^{}`$ and $`l^{}\varphi ^{}`$. That is, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=2`$ reactions have CP asymmetries with equal intensities but opposite signs. But, as $`L`$ varies in each case by a different amount, a net lepton number decrease is produced, or better, a net increase of $`BL`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$.

Contrary to the lepton number that is violated by sphaleron processes, $`BL`$ is only violated by the above kind of reactions. As long as we assume that the hidden sector is essentially depleted of particles, the only relevant reactions are the ones with ordinary particles in the initial state. Hence, the evolution of the $`BL`$ number density is determined by the CP asymmetries shown in Eqs. (7) and obeys the equation

$$\frac{dn_{BL}}{dt}+3Hn_{BL}=\frac{3}{4}\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma n_{\mathrm{eq}}^2.$$
(10)
Since the CP-asymmetric cross section $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$ is proportional to the thermal average c.m. energy square $`S17T^2`$ and $`H=1/2tT^2`$, one integrates the above equation from $`T=T_R`$ to the low temperature limit and obtains the final $`BL`$ asymmetry of the Universe as

$$BL=\frac{n_{BL}}{s}=\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma n_{\mathrm{eq}}^2}{4Hs}\right]_R,$$
(11)
where $`s`$ is the entropy density.

The following remark is in order. In fact, the lepton number production starts as soon as the inflaton starts to decay and the particle thermal bath is produced, before the reheat temperature is established. (Recall that the maximal temperature at the reheating period is usually larger than $`T_R`$.) In this epoch the Universe is still dominated by the inflaton oscillations and therefore it expands as $`t^{2/3}`$ while the entropy of the Universe grows as $`t^{5/4}`$. The integration of Eq. (10) from some higher temperatures down to $`T_R`$ gives an asymmetry 1.5 times larger than the estimation (11). Taking all these into account, the final result can be recasted as follows:

$$BL2\times 10^3\frac{JM_{Pl}T_R^3}{g_{}^{3/2}M^4}2\times 10^8\frac{JT_9^3}{M_{12}^4},$$
(12)
where we have taken again $`g_{}100`$. Taking also into account the lower limits (5) and (6), we obtain the upper limit on the produced $`BL`$:

$$BL<10^8\frac{JT_9}{Q^2};Q=\mathrm{max}\{Q_1,6Q_2\}.$$
(13)
This shows that for Yukawa constants spread e.g. in the range $`0.11`$ one can achieve $`BL=𝒪(10^{10})`$ for a reheat temperature as low as $`T_R10^9`$ GeV. Interestingly, this coincidence with the upper bound from the thermal gravitino production, $`T_R<4\times 10^9`$ GeV or so , indicates that our scenario could also work in the context of supersymmetric theories. Certainly, in a non-supersymmetric theory $`T_R`$ can be much larger.

The hidden sector may include coupling constants (e.g. gauge coupling constants of $`G^{}`$) large enough to thermalize the hidden particles at a temperature $`T^{}`$. Once $`K_1<1`$, $`T^{}`$ will be smaller than the parallel temperature of the ordinary system $`T`$. Obviously, the presence of the out-of-equilibrium hidden sector does not affect much the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) epoch. Indeed, if the two sectors do not come into full thermal equilibrium at temperatures $`TT_R`$ then, they evolve independently during the Universe expansion and approach the nucleosynthesis era with different temperatures. For $`K_1<1`$, the energy density transferred to the hidden sector will be crudely $`\rho ^{}(8K_1/g_{})\rho `$, where $`g_{}(100)`$ is attained to the leptogenesis epoch. Thus, assuming that at the BBN epoch the shadow sector is dominated by relativistic degrees of freedom, we obtain an effective number of extra light neutrinos $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu K_1/2`$.

Observe, that our model can induce the masses of both the ordinary and shadow neutrinos via their seesaw mixing with the heavy Majorana neutrinos provided that the shadow Higgs $`\varphi ^{}`$ has a vacuum expectation value (VEV) $`v^{}M`$. The first operator in Eq. (2), due to the ordinary Higgs VEV $`\varphi ^0=v100`$ GeV, induces the small Majorana masses of the ordinary neutrinos while the other operators induce the mass and mixing mass terms of the shadow neutrinos contained in $`l^{}`$ (in fact sterile neutrinos for the ordinary observer) with the ordinary active neutrinos . The total mass matrix of active-sterile neutrinos reads as

$$M_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_\nu & m_{\nu \nu ^{}}\\ m_{\nu \nu ^{}}^T& m_\nu ^{}\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{M}\left(\begin{array}{cc}Av^2& Dvv^{}\\ D^Tvv^{}& A^{}v^2\end{array}\right).$$
(14)
In other words, it provides a simple explanation of why sterile neutrinos could be light (on the same grounds as the active neutrinos) and could have significant mixing with the ordinary neutrinos. For example, if $`v^{}10^2v`$ then, the shadow neutrinos $`\nu ^{}`$ with masses of keV order could provide the warm dark matter component in the Universe . Instead, if $`\varphi ^{}=0`$, the $`\nu ^{}`$ are massless and unmixed with the ordinary neutrinos.

It is worth noticing that the same mechanism that produces the lepton number in the ordinary Universe, can also produce the lepton prime asymmetry in the hidden sector. The amount of this asymmetry will depend on the CP-violation parameter that replaces $`J`$ in Eqs. (7) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma ^{}`$ namely, $`J^{}=\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{Tr}[(h^{}h)g^2(h^{}h^{})g^1(h^{}h^{})^{}g^1]`$. Then, if the shadow sector contains also some heavier particles of the lepton or baryon type, the shadow matter could provide a dark matter.

The interesting candidate is the mirror world, which has attracted a significant interest over the last years, being motivated by various problems in particle physics and cosmology . In this case we have a theory given by the product $`G\times G^{}`$ of two identical gauge factors with identical particle contents, which could naturally emerge e.g. in the context of $`E_8\times E_8^{}`$ superstring theories. In particular, the $`G`$ sector contains ordinary particles $`\varphi `$, $`l`$, etc., whereas $`G^{}`$ contains their mirror partners $`\varphi ^{}`$, $`l^{}`$, etc., in equivalent representations. It is natural to assume that both particle sectors are described by identical Lagrangians, that is, all coupling constants (gauge, Yukawa, Higgs) have the same pattern in both sectors and thus their microphysics is the same.

In particular, a discrete symmetry under the exchange $`\varphi \varphi ^{}`$, $`l\overline{l}^{}`$, etc., the so-called mirror parity, implies $`h_{ia}^{}=h_{ia}^{}`$. In this case the CP-violation parameters are the same, $`J^{}=J`$. Then, one expects that $`n_{BL}=n_{BL}^{}`$ and the mirror baryon number density should be equal to the ordinary baryon density, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$. The mirror parity could be also spontaneously broken by the difference in weak scales $`\varphi =v`$ and $`\varphi ^{}=v^{}`$, which would lead to somewhat different particle physics in the mirror sector , e.g. the mirror leptons and baryons could be heavier (or lighter) than the ordinary ones. But, as the mechanism only depends on the Yukawa constant pattern in (1), one still has $`n_{BL}=n_{BL}^{}`$, while $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$. Generically, the mirror sector provides a sort of self-interacting dark matter, however, if it is significantly colder than the visible one, $`T^{}/T<0.3`$ or so, the mirror photons decouple early and the mirror matter would behave as a cold dark matter as far as the large scale formation is concerned . Moreover, the mirror group $`SU(2)^{}\times U(1)^{}`$ may be even fully broken by a set of two or more Higgs VEVs, which would make the mirror photon a massive particle and thus the corresponding interaction short-range.

It is worthwhile to stress that the leptogenesis mechanism we propose does not really rely on model dependent features of the hidden sector. They are however important and in principle testable to some extent if the hidden sector is to make up for the dark matter of the Universe. Depending on the gauge structure, field content and symmetry breaking scales in the hidden sector, one could have a shadow matter behaving as a cold, warm or self-interacting dark matter, or their combination. The possible marriage between dark matter and the leptobaryogenesis mechanism is certainly an atractive feature of our scheme which deserves to be explored in more detail.

Let us conclude with the following remark. The magnitude of the produced $`BL`$, Eq. (12), strongly depends on the temperature – namely, larger $`BL`$ will be produced in the patches where the plasma is hotter. In the cosmological context, this would lead to a situation where apart from the adiabatic density/temperature perturbations, there also emerge correlated isocurvature fluctuations with variable $`B`$ and $`L`$ which could be tested with the future data on the CMB anisotropies and large scale structure.

We thank A. Dolgov and E. Paschos for discussions. We acknowledge Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) for grant CERN/P/FIS/40129/2000. The work of Z. B. was partially supported by the MURST research grant “Astroparticle Physics”.


format: text

text:
# A classical analogue of entanglement

## I Introduction

In his pioneering paper of 1964 , J. Bell pointed out the non-local character of quantum mechanical long-distance correlations. Since then many novel aspects of non-locality have been uncovered, such as teleportation , super-dense coding , and the capability to reduce the number of required bits of classical communication for implementing certain communication tasks (in the so called “communication complexity scenario”) . Furthermore, entanglement and non-locality are at the core of quantum computation  and its capability of performing computations faster than any classical computer. An enormous effort has been dedicated during the last few years to understanding the qualitative and quantitative properties of non-locality. In effect, quantum non-locality has become to be considered one of, if not the most representative aspect of quantum mechanics. Quite surprisingly we found, as we describe in the present paper, that there exists a quite close classical analog of quantum entanglement, namely secret classical correlations.

Our motivation in looking for a classical analog of quantum entanglement is two-fold. Firstly, such an analogy allows us to identify aspects of quantum entanglement which were hitherto considered to be purely quantum but which are in fact not quantum at all. Indeed, all those aspects of entanglement which are common with the classical analog, are not of a quantum nature. As a corollary we also get a better understanding of what are the true quantum features of quantum entanglement. Secondly, this analogy allows one to transfer questions from quantum entanglement to the classical domain (classical information cryptography) and vice-versa and thus lead to a better understanding of both subjects. In fact, the inspiration for our paper stems from the work of N. Gisin and S. Wolf  which asked if there is a classical analog of bound entanglement.

The analogy we suggest is summarized in the following table:

| quantum |  | secret classical |
| --- | --- | --- |
| entanglement |  | correlations |
| quantum |  | secret classical |
| communication |  | communication |
| classical |  | public classical |
| communication |  | communication |
| local actions |  | local actions |

Thus we suggest that a classical analog of a pair of entangled particles is that of one sample of two secret, correlated, random variables (one at each remote party). Here by secret communication we mean communication through a channel to which an eavesdropper has no access. By public communication we understand communication through a channel to which an eavesdropper has full access (can hear everything), but cannot alter the messages sent, nor introduce new messages. Finally, in the quantum context by local actions we understand subjecting the q-bits to unitary evolutions as well as to measurements and other non-unitary evolutions. The classical analog of unitary transformations is that of replacing the value of the original random variable by some new value related to the old one by a one-to-one function, while the analog of the case of quantum non-unitary evolutions is that of transformation by non bijective functions. ***Note that when we replace the original value of the random variable by another via a non-bijective function, we consider that we actually erase the original information, so information is lost. This is completely analogous to what happens in the quantum case. Of course, one may argue that in neither case information is lost. For example, in the non-collapse interpretations of the quantum case all we have is an entanglement of the measured system with the measuring device; this entanglement however involves so many degrees of freedom that it cannot be reversed. Similarly, erasing say pencil markings from a paper still preserves the original information in some subtle arrangement of the graphite granules mixed with bits of paper and erasing gum, but this involves so many degrees of freedom that the original information cannot be recovered.

The main idea of this analogy is that as with quantum entanglement, secret classical correlations act as a (fungible) resource and obey a “second law of thermodynamics” principle - the amount of secrecy doesn’t increase under LOPC (local actions and public communication).

The modern paradigm is that of quantum non-locality as a resource as we describe below .

* Non-local correlations between two or more remote parties can be created by quantum communication, i.e. by sending quantum particles (q-bits) from a common source to the parties, or from one party to another.
* Second law of thermodynamics: The amount of non-locality between the remote parties cannot be increased by local actions and/or classical communication (LOCC).

Indeed, one can view this statement as the very definition of what non-locality is.

The above version of the second law can be further extended to allow for quantum communication, catalysis, etc.. For example  “ By local actions, classical communication and exchange of n q-bits, the amount of non-locality between remote parties cannot be increased by more that n e-bits”.
* The remote parties can, by local actions and classical communication, transform non-locality from one form into another.

For example, suppose two parties, Alice and Bob, have a large number of pairs of particles, each pair in some pure, non-maximally entangled state. By appropriate actions they can end up with a smaller number of pairs in maximally entangled states , . In effect, at least in the case of bi-partite pure states, non-locality is absolutely fungible - any form can be transformed into any other, and the transformation is reversible. Thus it doesn’t really matter in which form the parties are supplied with non-locality, they can always convert it into the form which is required for implementing the specific task (for example teleportation) they want to do.
* Non-locality is consumed for producing useful tasks (teleportation, super-dense coding, remote implementation of joint unitary transformations , etc.).

As with quantum non-local correlations, secret correlations are also a resource.

* Secret correlations can be established between remote parties by secret communication.
* “Second law of thermodynamics”: The amount of secret correlations cannot be increased by local actions and/or public communication (LOPC)In everyday practice, secret messages are exchanged by public communication by so called “public key distribution” protocols. We do not consider here this case since these are only pseudo secret messages - their secrecy is based on encoding which is difficult to decode due to computational complexity; in principle however an eavesdropper could decode the message..

In fact, as with the case of non-locality, we can take this law to be the very definition of the amount of secret correlations, i.e. the amount of secret correlations between remote parties is that part of their correlations which cannot be increased by local actions and public classical communication.

The above version of the second law can be further extended to allow for secret communication, catalysis, etc. For example “ By local actions, public communication and exchange of n secret bits, the amount of secret correlations between remote parties cannot be increased by more that n secret correlation bits”.
* The remote parties can, by local actions and public communication, transform secret correlations from one form into another.
* Analogous to entanglement, secret correlations are a fungible resource - they can be stored, transformed from one form into another, and can be consumed to perform useful tasks, such as secret communication via the one time pad .

The possibility of transforming secret correlations from one form into another enables us, similarly to the case of quantum correlations, to obtain a quantitative description of secrecy.

In the bi-partite case, the analogy is now obvious:

Shared, undirected resources:

| $`ebit_{AB}`$ |  | shared secret $`bit_{AB}`$ |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

Directed resources:

| $`qubit_{AB}`$ |  | secret $`bit_{AB}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| classical $`bit_{AB}`$ |  | public classical $`bit_{AB}`$ |

The situation of multi-partite secret correlations is more complicated, as is the situation of multi-partite entanglement. It is now clear that there are many different, irreducible, types of multi-partite entanglement , ; this is also the case for secret correlations.

At this point it is legitimate to ask what is the role of secrecy. That is, why do we consider secret classical correlations to be the analogue of entanglement and not simply any classical correlations. There are two main reasons. First of all, while such an analogy is certainly possible, it would be rather uninteresting. Indeed, one of the main aspects of manipulating entanglement is that there is a way in which the different parties may communicate (classical communication) which doesn’t increase the amount of entanglement. Similarly in the case of secret classical correlations, public communication doesn’t increase the amount of secrecy. In the case of arbitrary classical correlations however there is no way in which the remote parties could communicate and not increase the correlations. So when trying to build an LOCC (“local operations and classical communications”) analog in the case of arbitrary classical correlations we have no choice but to completely eliminate the communication, which leads to a very uninteresting situation.

The second reason is far more profound. Consider for example two parties, Alice and Bob who share, say, a maximally entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0|0+|1|1)`$. Suppose now that Alice and Bob “degrade” the state by “erasing” the entanglement. They can do this in a minimal way by, say, Alice randomizing the phase of her basis state vectors $`\{|0,|1\}`$. Then Alice and Bob will be left with a mixture of $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0|0+|1|1)`$ and $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0|0|1|1)`$ with equal probabilities. This mixture contains no entanglement (it is equivalent to an equal mixture of $`|0|0`$ and $`|1|1`$) but contains secret correlations between Alice and Bob. Thus secret correlations are in fact very closely related to entanglement.

The analogies described above are the “fundamental” analogies. From them follow an entire set of derived analogies. We would like to emphasize however that it is only the fundamental analogies (such as the behavior under LOCC/LOPC) which have truly deep significance and that one shouldn’t expect the derived analogies to be very close (though many of them are). Derived analogies are summarized in the following table:

| teleportation |  | one-time pad |
| --- | --- | --- |
| entanglement |  | secret correlation |
| concentration |  | concentration |
| entanglement |  | secret correlation |
| dilution |  | dilution |
| entanglement |  | classical privacy |
| purification |  | amplification |
| single copy |  | single copy |
| transformations |  | transformations |
| probabilistic single |  | probabilistic single |
| copy transformations |  | copy transformations |
| catalytic |  | catalytic |
| transformations |  | transformations |
| bound |  | bound |
| entanglement |  | information ? |

## II Quantum states and classical analogues

In the previous section we suggested that classical secret correlations are a good analog for quantum entanglement. Again, the basis of the analogy is the similar behavior of secret correlation and quantum entanglement under LOPC/LOCC. To make the analogy more detailed and to obtain the “derived” analogies mentioned above we need to define more precisely the analogy between quantum states and secret correlations.

Consider two remote parties, Alice and Bob. A general quantum state is described by a density matrix $`\rho _{AB}`$ or, equivalently, by a pure state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{ABE}`$ in which A and B are entangled with a third party, the “environment”. The classical equivalent of the general quantum state is a probability distribution $`P(X_A,X_B,X_E)`$ where $`X_A`$, $`X_B`$ and $`X_E`$ are random variables known to Alice, Bob and Eve (the eavesdropper) respectively. One copy of a quantum state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{ABE}`$ corresponds to one sample of the probability distribution $`P(X_A,X_B,X_E)`$.

A quantum bi-partite pure state can always be written in the Schmidt basis  as

$$|\psi _{AB}=\underset{i}{}\sqrt{p_i}|i_A|i_B.$$
(1)
If Alice and Bob measure their particles in the Schmidt basis then they get correlated random variables, $`X_A`$ and $`X_B`$, which come according to the distribution $`p(X_A=i,X_B=j)=\delta _{ij}p_i`$. In other words, they both get the same sample from a random variable $`X\{p_i\}`$. Furthermore, the values of $`X_A`$ and $`X_B`$ are secret - there is no third party E who knows them. We propose classical distributions of this form as the classical “pure” state. That is, a bi-partite classical pure state is a distribution

$$p(X_A=i,X_B=j,X_E=k)=\delta _{ij}p_i\stackrel{~}{P}(E_k)$$
(2)
where $`\stackrel{~}{P}(E_k)`$ is the distribution of eavesdropper’s variable $`X_E`$ and it completely irrelevant, except for the fact that it is completely uncorrelated to the distribution of $`X_A`$ and $`X_B`$Note that quantum mechanically in order to say that the state of Alice and Bob is pure we don’t need to specify that the state of Alice, Bob and the Environment is of the form $`|\psi _{ABE}=|\psi _{AB}|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E`$, but it is enough to know the state $`\rho _{AB}`$ of Alice and Bob alone. On the other hand, the classical correlations of Alice and Bob alone do not allow us to know if Eve is, or is not, correlated with Alice and Bob, therefore we must always describe the full state of Alice, Bob and Eve.. Strictly speaking, we propose (2) as the classical analogue of the pure state Schmidt decomposition, and any classical state which is locally equivalent, ie. can be transformed into the above form by local, one-to-one mappings (the equivalent of local unitaries) we consider to be a pure state.

Another interesting case is that of distributions of the form $`p(X_A=i,X_B=j,X_E=k)=P(X_A=i,X_B=j)\stackrel{~}{P}(E_k)`$ in which E is completely uncorrelated with A and B, but A and B are not completely correlated with each other. Such a distribution is obtained when Alice and/or Bob measure a quantum pure state in some other basis than the Schmidt one. Such a distribution has some characteristics of a pure state and some characteristics of a mixed state. We will discuss in more detail this case in section XI.

For more than two parties the analogue of a density matrix $`\rho _{ABC\mathrm{}}`$ is a probability distribution $`P(X_A,X_B,X_C,\mathrm{})`$. It is not yet clear to us what the general analogue of a multi-partite pure state is. This is due, in part, to the fact that for multi-partite states the analog of the Schmidt decomposition is far more complicated. We shall give some multipartite results in section XII.

## III Teleportation and the One Time Pad

The first “derived” analogy is probably the most striking of all. The fundamental quantum communication protocol that is teleportation turns out to be analogous to the fundamental secret communication protocol, the one-time pad .

Alice begins with the qubit (secret bit) to be sent, which may be entangled (secretly-correlated) with any number of other particles (bits). She does a Bell measurement (addition modulo 2) on the qubit (secret bit) to be sent and the qubit (bit) of resource she holds. She then sends the outcome (result) of this operation as a classical bit (public bit) to Bob. He then does a conditional unitary (bit flip) upon his part of the e-bit (shared secret bit). Bob now holds the qubit (secret bit) Alice was sending him.

The necessary and sufficient resources are given by:

$$1ebit_{AB}+2classicalbits_{AB}1qubit_{AB}$$
(3)
$$1sharedsecretbit_{AB}+1publicbit_{AB}1secretbit_{AB}$$
(4)
By necessary we mean that, if we were to try to do the teleportation with less than 1 e-bit - by using a less than maximally entangled state for example - the teleportation will not give a perfect output, and the classical information will give some information about the qubit we are sending. If we try to use a less than completely correlated shared secret bit to send a secret bit then Eve gets some information about the secret bit. The resources are sufficient since we can achieve the operations using them.

Note that the resources are used up in the process: once we have used an e-bit (shared secret bit) to send a qubit (shared secret bit) we cannot reuse it. Quantum mechanically this is obvious, since the original maximally entangled state is destroyed by Alice’s measurement. Classically however Alice and Bob do not lose their correlated bits - Alice and Bob need not erase or physically modify in any way their original correlated bits but just use them for some mathematical operations. What is lost however is the secrecy of these bits - they cannot be reused.

Furthermore, it is obvious to see that the one-time pad secret communication can be used to implement the analog of teleportation of entangled states and of entanglement swapping.

Finally, let us note an important fact. Quantitatively the amount of resources in the classical and quantum cases are similar but not identical: but we need 2 classical $`bits_{AB}`$ to send 1 qubit, whereas only 1 public $`bit_{AB}`$ to send 1 secret bit.

## IV Entanglement and Secret Correlation Manipulations - Single Copy

The ability to manipulate entanglement, i.e. transforming entanglement from one form into another by local actions and classical communications is one of the most important aspects of entanglement. This leads to elevating entanglement to the status of a (fungible) resource: to a large extent it doesn’t matter in which form entanglement is supplied, we can transform it into the specific form we need for different applications, very much as say, transforming the chemical energy stored in coal into electrical energy for use in electric engines. Similarly one can imagine that Alice and Bob are supplied with secret correlations in some given form, i.e. according to some specific probability distribution, and they want to obtain secret correlations obeying a different probability distribution. We find that the quantum and classical scenarios are in very close analogy.

In this section we treat the case of bi-partite pure state single copy manipulations. In the quantum context this means that the two parties, Alice and Bob, share a single pair of particles in some pure state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}`$. In the classical context, Alice and Bob share a single sample of a classical pure-state (2).

In the case of a single copy, entanglement is not a completely interconvertible resource (as it is in the case of many copies (see section VIII)), but many more restrictions apply.

For bipartite pure quantum states, it is possible to turn one state into another with certainty if and only if a certain set of conditions, collectively known as majorization, holds , . We here show that for classical secret pure states, the transformation is possible if and only if an analogous condition holds.

Quantum mechanically the majorization condition is the following. Consider two quantum pure states $`|\psi _{AB}`$ and $`|\varphi _{AB}`$, written in their Schmidt bases

$$|\psi _{AB}=\underset{i}{}\sqrt{p_i}|i_A|i_B,$$
(5)
$$|\varphi _{AB}=\underset{i}{}\sqrt{q_i}|i_A|i_B,$$
(6)
with the squared Schmidt coefficients $`p_i`$ and $`q_i`$ arranged in decreasing order, $`p_1p_2\mathrm{}`$ and $`q_1q_2\mathrm{}`$. The vector $`\stackrel{}{q}=\{q_i\}`$ is said to majorize the vector $`\stackrel{}{p}=\{p_i\}`$ iff

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}q_i\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}p_ik.$$
(7)
$`|\varphi _{AB}`$ is said to majorize $`|\psi _{AB}`$ iff $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ majorizes $`\stackrel{}{p}`$. The transformation $`|\psi _{AB}|\varphi _{AB}`$ is possible with certainty if and only if $`|\varphi _{AB}`$ majorizes $`|\psi _{AB}`$ . (Note that it is the final state which must majorize the starting one.)

For classical secret correlations, suppose Alice and Bob begin with an arbitrary classical bipartite pure state, which we may write as

$$p(X_A=i,X_B=j,X_E=k)=\delta _{ij}p_i\stackrel{~}{P}(E_k).$$
(8)
Their task it to produce some other state,

$$p(Y_A=i,Y_B=j,Y_E=k)=\delta _{ij}q_i\stackrel{~}{P}^{}(E_k).$$
(9)
We shall prove that they can do this iff $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ majorizes $`\stackrel{}{p}`$. However, to understand what is going on, let us first consider a simple example which has all the important features. The quantum version was first considered in .

Suppose Alice and Bob share one sample of the classical pure state $`X`$, where

$$p_1=p_2=p_3=\frac{1}{3},$$
(10)
and they would like to turn it into a sample of the pure state $`Y`$, where

$$q_1=q_2=\frac{1}{2}.$$
(11)
A probabilistic method (analogous to the procustean method for the quantum case) is for Alice to send message $`m_1`$ (which means “OK”) if X is 1 or 2, and to send message $`m_2`$ (which means “not OK”) if X is 3. If message $`m_1`$ is sent then Alice and Bob keep their sample, and they now have a shared secret random variable of the form $`Y`$. Indeed, in this case Eve only knows that the value of the secret variable is either 1 or 2 but she doesn’t know which one - Alice and Bob’s data is therefore still perfectly secret, and it is now either 1 or 2 with probability $`1/2`$. If message $`m_2`$ is sent then the procedure failed and Alice and Bob have to throw away their sample. The reason is that Eve, who monitors the public communication, learns that Alice and Bob’s variable is equal to 3, and there is no more Alice and Bob can do.

The above method works with probability $`\frac{2}{3}`$. Can Alice and Bob do better? The second distribution majorizes the first, since $`\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{3}`$, $`\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{3}`$ and $`\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}+0\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{3}`$. Thus, according to the majorization theorem we shall shortly prove, there exists a method which works with certainty. The protocol for achieving this goes as follows. Alice reads the value of X. If it is 1, she flips an unbiased coin which tells her to send message $`m_1`$ or $`m_2`$ with equal probability. If $`X=2`$ she flips an unbiased coin to send $`m_2`$ or $`m_3`$, and if $`X=3`$ she flips an unbiased coin to send $`m_1`$ or $`m_3`$. She then publicly sends the message, so that everyone can read it. If $`m_1`$ is sent, Eve knows that X is 1 or 3 with equal probability. If $`m_2`$ is sent, Eve knows that X is either 1 or 2, with equal probability. And if $`m_3`$ is sent, Eve knows that X is 2 or 3 with equal probability. Now Alice and Bob just have to do a simple relabelling of X to produce Y. If $`m_1`$ is sent, they both do $`11,32`$. If $`m_2`$ was sent they do $`11,22`$. If $`m_3`$ is sent they do $`21,32`$. Whatever message was sent, Y is now a shared random variable which is (as far as Eve is concerned) a shared secret bit of the form (11).

Now we shall look at the general case. For which pure states X and Y is it possible to turn a single sample of X into a single sample of Y? Consider the most general possible protocol. We assume that Alice, Bob and Eve all know the protocol§§§if Alice and Bob had a secret protocol, this would be like having an additional shared random variable, whose different outcomes told them which protocol to use. Thus they would have an additional resource. Here we insist they have only one shared resource, X.. Alice and Bob start by having a single sample of the pure state X. They each have also access to some local source of secret randomness - they may each throw dice. Of course, Alice knows only the outcomes of her dice and Bob of his. During the protocol Alice and Bob may publicly communicate, perhaps in many rounds, with each message determined by X, the public messages already sent, and by the results of the local dice. At the end of the protocol there will be some total public message which consists of all the messages that were exchanged by Alice and Bob. All three parties, Alice, Bob and Eve know this total message. In addition, Alice and Bob know the value of X (which is common to both of them since the state is pure), and each of them knows the outcomes of his/her own dice. Based on all this knowledge Alice and Bob must decide on the values of $`Y_A`$ and $`Y_B`$. Formally, we can write

$$Y_A=f_A(X_A,m,d_A)$$
(12)
$$Y_B=f_B(X_B,m,d_B)$$
(13)
where by $`m`$ we denote the total message, and by $`d_A`$ and $`d_B`$ we denote the outcome of all Alice’s and Bob’s dice.

The above procedure can be simplified. Since we begin with a pure state, $`X_A=X_B=X`$. Furthermore, since we want to end with a pure state, we require $`Y_A=Y_B`$. This requirement implies that $`Y_A`$ and $`Y_B`$ cannot depend on the outcome of the dice $`d_A`$ and $`d_B`$. Also given the initial value X and the message m, Alice and Bob must perform the same function $`f`$. Thus we get

$$Y_A=Y_B=f(X,m).$$
(14)
Furthermore, since Bob’s actions may not depend on the outcomes of his dice but only on X and m, for every procedure which involves many rounds of communication between Alice and Bob, we can formulate an equivalent procedure in which the total message is entirely generated by Alice - she could simply throw all dice herself - and then communicate the message in a single transmission to Bob.

Let us now formalise this procedure for turning X into Y.

Alice looks at $`X=x_i`$, which occurs with probability $`p_i`$. She then throws a biased dice which tells her to send message $`m_j`$ with some probability $`p(m_j|x_i)`$ which depends upon $`x_i`$. She then publicly announces $`m_j`$. Alice and Bob now follow the instructions in the message, which say to do $`x_iy_k(x_i,m_j)`$. Forgetting what X is (ie. summing over $`x_i`$) this gives them some joint distribution for $`y_k`$ and $`m_j`$, $`p(y_k,m_j)`$. Since Alice and Bob want $`y_k`$ to be secret from Eve, who knows only the protocol and the message, this distribution must factorise: $`p(y_k,m_j)=p(y_k)p(m_j)`$. $`p(y_k)`$ is the final distribution, and so we want $`p(y_k)=q_k`$ (the distribution of Y).

This secrecy procedure can be thought of as a single party problem, which goes as follows. We begin with a sample from X, which occurs with probability $`p_i`$. We may look at the sample, and then roll some dice which gives outcome $`m_j`$ with probability $`p(m_j|x_i)`$. We then perform the map $`x_iy_k(x_i,m_j)`$. We then forget what X is, which gives some joint distribution for $`y_k`$ and $`m_j`$, $`p(y_k,m_j)`$. We desire this distribution to factorise, $`p(y_k,m_j)=p(y_k)p(m_j)`$, and that $`p(y_k)=q_k`$. Note that this single party procedure is not a secrecy procedure, however it is possible iff the above secrecy transformation is.

To find for which $`p_i`$ and $`q_k`$ this single party problem is possible, and thus to find for which $`p_i`$ and $`q_j`$ the secrecy transformation is possible, we shall look at the time reversed problem. This goes as follows. We start with a sample from Y, which occurs with probability $`q_k`$. We then roll dice, which give outcome $`m_j`$ with probability $`p(m_j)`$, independent of the outcome of Y. This gives a joint distribution $`p(y_k,m_j)=q_kp(m_j)`$. Now we must do the inverse of the map $`x_iy_k(x_i,m_j)`$ to turn our Y into an X. If the map is one-to-one, and hence invertible, this will give us a distribution $`p(x_i,m_j)`$. Like any joint distribution, this can be written as $`p(x_i,m_j)=p(x_i)p(m_j|x_i)`$. If we now forget the value of Y and of $`m_k`$, we get a new distribution for X, $`p(x_i)`$. We desire $`p(x_i)=p_i`$. If the map is many-to-one, then we can give it a probabilistic inverse which is a “one-to-many” map where the probabilities of getting various $`x_i`$’s given any particular $`y_k`$ are given by the relative frequencies of the $`x_i`$’s when $`y_k`$ is produced in the forward time protocol. This probabilistic one-to-many map can be replaced by a probabilistic choice of several one-to-one maps, which will have the same effect upon the protocol since we forget which map we did at the end. Thus in the reversed time single party problem, we need only consider maps which are one-to-one. This also applies to the forward time single party problem, and to the forward time secrecy protocol: we only need consider maps which are one-to-one, ie. permutations.

As explained above, if we find the conditions for which the reversed time single party problem is possible, we will have the conditions for which the forward time secrecy transformation is possible. Physically, this time reversed single party problem goes as follows. We begin with a ball in some box according to the distribution $`q_i`$. We do not know which box the ball is in, and are not allowed to look to see where it is. We then apply some shuffle (one-to-one relabelling) to the boxes, choosing which shuffle to make according to a distribution, $`p(m_j)`$, which we may choose. We then forget which shuffle we did, and look at the new distribution of the balls, $`p_i`$. The question is for which $`q_i`$ and $`p_i`$ is this possible? Clearly $`p_i`$ should be more random than $`q_i`$. This is a well-known problem, and is the context in which majorization appears in classical physics. The answer is that it is possible iff $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ majorises $`\stackrel{}{q}`$. Intuitively this is easy to see, and the proof can be found, for example, in.

Above we have proved the majorization result in the classical context by using arguments referring solely to the classical context. We could have used however the known results for quantum entanglement manipulation to prove the classical ones. The reason is as follows. On one hand, it was found out that transforming pure quantum states (with certainty) from one into another involves only actions and measurements in the Schmidt decomposition basis. These actions do not involve phases, but are simply classical actions upon the basis, which are performed coherently to make a quantum evolution. One could, however, imagine starting by measuring the quantum state in the Schmidt basis, and then performing the corresponding classical actions and measurements upon the state. This transforms one classical state into another, and will not give Eve any knowledge about the state since the quantum procedure did not entangle the quantum state with the environment. Thus, if we can transform with certainty a quantum pure state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (5) into a quantum pure state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (6), we can also transform with certainty $`X`$ (8) the classical pure state equivalent of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, into $`Y`$ (9), the classical pure state equivalent of $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

To prove the reverse, that is, that $`X`$ can be transform with certainty into $`Y`$ only if the quantum analogs can be transformed from one into the other, we note that we can turn any classical transformation of pure states into a quantum one, simply by applying the classical operations coherently, and performing the quantum actions in the Schmidt basis. Thus there cannot be any classical procedure which does better than the optimal quantum one. So the classical transformation is possible iff the quantum one is. Note however that although we can use the quantum result to prove the classical one, we cannot use the classical result to prove the quantum result. The reason is that although we can turn any classical transformation into a quantum one, we cannot generate this way all possible quantum protocols - indeed, they may involve phases outside the Schmidt basis.

## V Probabilistic Single Copy Manipulations

It may not be possible to transform a single copy of a resource from one form into another with certainty, but it may be possible to do it with some probability. What is the largest probability with which this can be done? For quantum states, the problem was considered in , , and the general answer is given  in the simple form:

$$\underset{k}{\mathrm{min}}\frac{1_{i=1}^kp_i}{1_{i=1}^kq_i}.$$
(15)
We shall now show that for classical secret states, the answer is the same.

As for the non-probabilistic transformations, we may simplify the most general protocol, which then goes as follows. Alice first looks at her sample which comes according to the distribution $`p(x_i)`$. She then chooses a message $`m_j`$ according to $`p(m_j|x_i)`$. Most of the possible messages will be ones for which the transformation succeeds: these must say to do a one-to-one map There is no loss in generality in forgetting about the many-to-one maps, for the same reasons as in the non-probabilistic manipulations. $`XY`$. The other messages say “fail”: for these it does not matter what transformation we do, and it does not help to send more than one “fail” message. So we may assume we have only one “fail” message, $`m_{fail}`$, which says to do $`x_iy_1`$. Alice and Bob then do $`x_iy_k(x_i,m_j)`$ according to the message. This gives them a distribution $`p(y_k,m_j)`$. In the case they succeed, this distribution must factorise:

$$p(y_k,m_j)=\{\begin{array}{cc}p(y_k)p(m_j)\hfill & \text{for j }\text{ “fail”}\hfill \\ \delta (y_k=1)p(m_{fail})\hfill & \text{for j = “fail”}\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
By defining $`p(success)=\lambda `$, so that $`p(m_j)=\lambda p(m_j|success)`$ for $`j\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}fail\mathrm{"}`$ and $`p(m_{fail})=1\lambda `$ and by requiring $`p(y_k)=q_k`$ (so that the protocol succeeds) we obtain:

$$p(y_k,m_j)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\lambda q_kp(m_j|success)\hfill & \text{for j }\text{ “fail”}\hfill \\ (1\lambda )\delta (y_k=1)\hfill & \text{for j = “fail”}\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
The time reversed, single party version of this problem is to start by flipping a coin (H/T) with probabilities $`(\lambda ,1\lambda )`$. We look at the result, and if it is T we start with $`y_k=1`$, send a message $`m_{fail}`$, and are allowed to do anything (including probabilistic things) to transform $`YX`$. If the coin is H we get a sample $`y_k`$ according to $`p(y_k)=q_k`$, but do not know which sample we get. We then pick some message according to $`p(m_j)`$, and do the corresponding shuffle $`y_kx_i`$. This gives some distribution $`p(x_i,m_j)`$. Finally, we forget whether the coin was H or T, and also which message was sent. This then gives us $`p(x_i)`$, which we would like to be $`p_i`$. Our aim is, for a given $`q_k`$ and $`p_i`$, to find the maximal $`\lambda `$ for which this is possible. This problem is closely related to the one where majorization first appeared in classical physics, and the maximal value of $`\lambda `$ is as given at the start of this section. Once again the quantum and classical pure state manipulations are possible under the same conditions.

## VI Catalysis of Single Copy Transformations

There is an interesting entanglement transformation called catalysis  which transfers easily to the classical case. Suppose we begin with some pure state

$$|\psi _{AB}=\underset{i}{}\sqrt{p_i}|ii_{AB},$$
(18)
and wish to produce, using LOCC, the state

$$|\varphi _{AB}=\underset{j}{}\sqrt{q_j}|jj_{AB}.$$
(19)
This is possible iff $`q_j`$ majorizes $`p_i`$. There are, however, states such that $`q_j`$ does not majorise $`p_i`$, but where catalysis is possible. That is, where Alice and Bob cannot perform

$$|\psi |\varphi ,$$
(20)
but if Alice and Bob share an additional pure state,

$$|\chi _{AB}=\underset{k}{}\sqrt{r_k}|kk_{AB},$$
(21)
then they are able to perform, with certainty, the transformation

$$|\psi |\chi |\varphi |\chi .$$
(22)
This is, quite simply, because for the tensor product system, the majorization condition holds. $`|\chi `$ acts as a catalyst. It enables the transformation of $`|\psi `$ into $`|\varphi `$, but is not consumed in the process. One example of such a catalysis is transforming the quantum state whose squared Schmidt coefficients are

$$p_1=0.4;p_2=0.4;p_3=0.1;p_4=0.1$$
(23)
into the quantum state

$$q_1=0.5;q_2=0.25,q_3=0.25,$$
(24)
using the catalyst

$$r_1=0.6;r_2=0.4.$$
(25)
The classical analogue of this process follows immediately. That is, Alice and Bob may wish to turn the classical pure state defined by $`p_i`$ into the classical pure state defined by $`q_j`$, using LOPC. This is only possible, as we showed in section IV, when $`q_j`$ majorises $`p_i`$. However there are cases when this is not possible, but if they also have a sample of the classical pure state $`r_k`$, then they can achieve the transformation

$$PRQR$$
(26)
with certainty. The sample R is not revealed or altered by this process, and can be subsequently used independently elsewhere. As far as we know, this classical secret correlation catalysis has not been previously considered.

## VII Shuffling with Catalysis

Another classical catalysis problem which has not (to our knowledge) been considered before is the single party, time reversed version\**\**\**see section IV for the meaning of the single party, time reversed version of the classical pure state transformation. of the classical pure state catalysis discussed in the previous section. We call this “shuffling catalysis”. We emphasize that this shuffling catalysis has, in itself, nothing to do with secrecy or secret correlations. However, it is possible to perform this shuffling catalysis iff the classical pure state catalysis is possible. Recalling (from section IV that the majorization conditions are easier to prove in the shuffling scenario than in the classical secret correlation scenario, studying shuffling catalysis may help in finding exactly when classical secret correlation (and, by analogy, entanglement) catalysis is possible.

We state the problem of shuffling catalysis to make the idea clear. Suppose we have a sample from a distribution $`q_j`$ and wish to turn it into a sample from a distribution $`p_i`$. We are not allowed to look at the sample to see what it is, we can only throw dice whose probabilities (which we choose) are independent of which sample we have. We then make some permutation (shuffle) upon the outcomes, which suffle decided by the dice, and finally forget which one we did. As mentioned in section IV, this “shuffling” is possible iff $`q_j`$ majorizes $`p_i`$. There are, however, distributions where $`q_j`$ does not majorize $`p_i`$, and so cannot be turned into it directly, but where we can perform catalysis. This means that we can take a sample from a third distribution $`r_k`$, such that $`q_jr_k`$ majorizes $`p_ir_k`$, and then roll an independent dice and permute the possible outcomes of the tensor product distribution to turn $`q_jr_k`$ into $`p_ir_k`$. This catalysis is possible iff we can use $`r_k`$ to turn the shared secret correlation pure state $`p_i`$ into to the pure state $`q_j`$. Thus an example of this shuffling catalysis is the example given in sectionVI.

## VIII Pure State Concentration and Dilution

For many copies of a bipartite pure state, entanglement is a completely fungible resource. It can be converted from one form to another reversibly. Thus we can quantify the amount of entanglement by a single number, the entropy of entanglement. We shall show that the same is true for classical pure bipartite states. That is, for such states, secret correlations are a completely fungible resource. They can be converted from one form to another reversibly, and can be quantified by a single number, the entropy of secrecy.

We define the entropy of entanglement for a quantum pure state, $`E(|\psi _{AB})`$ as

$$E(|\psi _{AB})=\underset{i}{}p_i\mathrm{log}p_i$$
(27)
where $`p_i`$ are the squares of the Schmidt coefficients.

The physical meaning of the entropy of entanglement is the following. When Alice and Bob share a large number $`N`$ of copies of some arbitrary pure state $`|\psi _{AB}`$, they can convert them, in a reversible way, using only local operations and classical communication into a number $`K`$ of copies of the maximally entangled state

$$|\psi _s_{AB}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|11_{AB}+|22_{AB})$$
(28)
where

$$\frac{K}{N}E(|\psi _{AB})$$
(29)
as $`N\mathrm{}`$. That is, the entropy of entanglement represents the yield of singlets per copy of the original state $`|\psi _{AB}`$. The operation of converting the states $`|\psi _{AB}`$ into maximally entangled states is called entanglement concentration and the reverse operation is called entanglement dilution.

Since entanglement cannot increase under LOCC, the above procedures are optimal, in the sense that concentration and dilution cannot produce more copies: if they could, we would be able to produce entangled states from nothing††††††It would be like the Carnot cycle for a perpetual motion machine.. We can thus quantify the amount of entanglement in a state by its entropy of entanglement. Any state is worth that many maximally entangled states, since it can be reversibly converted into that many states. We call one of these maximally entangled states an e-bit, and shall say that other states have an entanglement of E e-bits. Note that this quantity is additive. That is, if we have two states which individually have entanglement $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$, together they have entanglement $`E_1+E_2`$.

The quantum procedure of entanglement concentration can directly be mapped into an equivalent classical analog. The reason for this is that all the quantum actions used for entanglement concentration take place in the Schmidt decomposition bases, i.e. the unitary actions are all permutations in the Schmidt basis while the measurements are of operators whose eigenstates are direct products in the Schmidt basis. Hence all these actions are essentially classical. Furthermore the quantum procedure does not require communication, so is completely secure.

The quantum dilution protocol also has a classical analog. Indeed, the quantum dilution  involves only Schumacher compression of quantum information and teleportation. Both these protocols have classical analogs: Schumacher compression maps into Shannon data compression and teleportation is replaced by the one-time pad secret communication.

Since secret correlations cannot increase under LOPC, these procedures are optimal. They allow us to reversibly convert $`N`$ copies of the classical pure state $`Xp_i`$ into $`K`$ copies of the shared secret bit $`Yq_j`$,

$$P(Y_A=1,Y_B=1)=P(Y_A=2,Y_B=2)=\frac{1}{2},$$
(30)
where

$$\frac{K}{N}=\underset{i}{}p_ilogp_i.$$
(31)
We can thus quantify the amount of secret correlations by the entropy of secrecy, which is defined as the number of shared secret bits which can be produced per copy of the original state $`X`$. We note that this amount is equal to the mutual entropy between $`X_A`$ and $`X_B`$, and is also equal to the local entropy of $`X_A`$, and to the local entropy of $`X_B`$.

## IX Entanglement Purification and Privacy Amplification

An important procedure in quantum information is Entanglement Purification , which turns mixed states into pure states, at the many copy level. The number of pure states produced per input mixed state is the yield.

Analogous procedures for turning classical mixed states into classical pure states exist, though are usually subdivided into two stages. The first stage takes the mixed state $`P(X_A,X_B,X_E)`$ and turns it into a mixed state where Alice and Bob hold the same value, ie. of the form $`P(i,j,k)=\delta _{ij}P(i,i,k)`$. This stage is known as Information Reconciliation , because Alice and Bob are agreeing on a common value. The second stage takes the output of the first stage, and factors out Eve, to give a state of the form $`\delta _{ij}p_i\stackrel{~}{P}(k)`$. In other words it produces a pure state. This stage is known as Privacy Amplification , because Alice and Bob are increasing the secrecy of their key by reducing (to 0) Eve’s knowledge of it.

In general it is not known what the optimal protocol is, and there may be different optimal protocols for different states. There are a few different schemes for the quantum and classical cases, but we do not wish to discuss the details here, just to draw the analogy. Firstly, any information reconciliation/privacy amplification protocol may be used as a entanglement purification protocol. Secondly any entanglement purification protocol may be used as a information reconciliation/privacy amplification protocol. We hope that a detailed study of the two problems together will yield better understanding and new protocols in both the classical and the quantum case.

## X Bound Entanglement

One of our motivations for this work was a paper by N. Gisin and S. Wolf suggesting a classical analog of bound entanglement. A bound entangled state is a bi-partite mixed quantum state which cannot be created locally (without any prior entanglement), but from which no maximally entangled states can be distilled, even if there are many copies of the bound entangled state. It is as if the entanglement is “bound” inside the state, and cannot be released. They proposed the classical analog to be a sample from a probability distribution on Alice, Bob and Eve, $`P(X_A,X_B,X_C)`$, in which Alice and Bob have strictly positive intrinsic information‡‡‡‡‡‡a classical measure which, loosely speaking, is designed to test whether or not Alice and Bob share some information which Eve does not have and which they can use. The hope was that if positive, then they would have something useful, and if zero, then they would have nothing., but from which they cannot distill shared secret bits under LOPC, even if they have many samples from the distribution. Though it is not yet known if such a classical state exists, there is strong evidence that, by starting with a bound entangled state $`\rho _{AB}`$, taking a natural purification, $`|\psi _{ABE}`$, and measuring it in natural bases, we may produce a classical bound state. Here we simply note that bound information fits into our framework as a derived analogy, and is another consequence of the deeper analogy between entanglement and secret classical correlations.

## XI Pure or Mixed?

We have mentioned in section II that it is not clear whether to classify classical states of the form $`P(X_A,X_B)P(X_E)`$ where $`X_A`$ is not completely correlated with $`X_B`$ as pure or as mixed. Such a distribution resembles a pure state because it is not correlated with Eve: this is like a pure state not being entangled with the environment. It also resembles a pure state because we can optimally distill shared secret bits from many copies of such a state at a rate equal to the natural measure of shared correlations, the mutual information ; this is the analog of pure state entanglement concentration. However, it is not known whether such a distillation is reversible. That is, given the shared secret bits, can we produce the original states? If the answer is no, this would be typical behavior of a mixed state. Furthermore, a definite similarity to mixed states is that there is no Schmidt decomposition for such states: in other words there is no way, using local reversible transformations, to make Alice and Bob have the same values for their samples.

Another similarity to mixed states is that it is not possible, even probabilistically, to use LOPC to produce a pure state from one copy of such a distribution. For consider the bi-partite, 2-d case, where Alice and Bob both receive either a 0 or a 1, with probabilities $`p_{00},p_{10},p_{01},p_{11}`$. We can assume that at least the first three probabilities are non-zero (otherwise they have a pure state). They wish to use LOPC to make a classical “entangled” pure state, ie. where $`P(00)>0`$, $`P(11)>0`$, $`P(01)=P(10)=0`$. As discussed in sectionIV, the most general thing they can do is to first communicate publicly, resulting in some total public message, $`m_i`$, where i may depend upon their local dice and upon their samples. They may then change their samples according to some map which is specified by the message. For example, the message could tell Alice to flip her bit, and Bob to leave his alone. Note that the message has to tell them what to do locally: it cannot tell them to look at the other person’s bit to decide what they will do. Now, to make a pure state with any probability they need at least one map which is local in the sense described above and which produces both 00 and 11, and nothing else. We shall show that no such map exists.

Assume that such a map exists. Without loss of generality, we may assume the map does

$$0000.$$
(32)
Since Bob has to act locally, this means that if he starts with a 0, he has to finish with a 0. Since they must finish with the same thing, this implies

$$1000.$$
(33)
Since they are symmetric, similar reasoning gives

$$0100.$$
(34)
Because they have to act locally, we now know that if Alice or Bob sees a 1, they have to finish with a 0. Thus

$$1100.$$
(35)
And so the map takes everything to 00, which is no good. For classical states in higher dimensions, the same type of reasoning shows that we cannot produce a classical pure state from a single copy of such a state.

So, as we have shown, classical states of the form $`P(X_A,X_B)P(X_E)`$ have some characteristics in common with pure quantum states, and some in common with mixed quantum states.

## XII Multi-Partite Results

It is well known that entanglement is much more complicated for multi-partite systems than for bi-partite systems,, . In particular, already in the case of three parties, it is known that tri-partite entanglement is fundamentally different to bi-partite entanglement, even in the many copy scenario. Furthermore, there might even exist many different inequivalent forms of tri-partite entanglement. As more systems are added the problem becomes vastly more complicated, but we have a few results to guide us, such as the fact that there is genuine entanglement at every level (again, even in the many copy scenario). Here we show that many of these features have classical analogs.

First, we shall look at the tripartite case. We propose that the classical equivalent of the GHZ state,

$$|GHZ_{ABC}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(|000+|111),$$
(36)
is a probability distribution of the form

$$P(X_A,X_B,X_C,X_E)=P(X_A,X_B,X_C)\stackrel{~}{P}(X_E),$$
(37)
where $`P(X_A,X_B,X_C)`$ is given by

$$P(0,0,0)=P(1,1,1)=\frac{1}{2}.$$
(38)
We shall call this the C-GHZ (classical GHZ), and the classical singlet (ie. the bipartite shared secret bit) we shall call the C-EPR. Is is easy to see that out of 1 GHZ copy we may generate one C-EPR, ie.

$$CGHZCEPR.$$
(39)
Clare simply forgets her bit. This may sound unsatisfactory since in the quantum case Alice and Bob end with an EPR which Clare has no control over, whereas here Clare could always later remember her bit, and so one may argue that we have not really performed the classical transformation. However, since Alice, Bob and Clare all begin with the same information and communicate only publicly, it is impossible for Alice and Bob to agree upon anything without Clare knowing it. Thus the “stronger” form of the transformation is impossible, and the best we can do is this weak form, with Clare forgetting her bit.

The above transformation is irreversible: ie. given one C-EPR, it is impossible to make a C-GHZ. This is because the bi-partite entropy of secrecy can only decrease under LOPC, and viewing the system as (AB) vs. C a $`CEPR_{AB}`$ will have 0 entropy, whereas the $`CGHZ_{ABC}`$ has entropy of 1 (and is symmetric with respect to all the parties). It is possible, however, to do

$$CEPR_{AB}+CEPR_{BC}CGHZ.$$
(40)
This is done as it would be in the quantum case: Bob makes a joint measurement on his bits (addition modulo 2), and publicly announces the result. Bob now forgets his second bit, and if the public message was 1, Clare flips her bit. They are then done. This procedure can be viewed as Bob using the $`CEPR_{BC}`$ as a one-time pad to send Clare the value of the $`CEPR_{AB}`$. It is again clear that we cannot do the reverse transformation: viewing the system as (AC) vs. B, the C-GHZ has an entropy of secrecy of 1, whereas the two C-EPR’s together have an entropy of 2.

The entropy of secrecy can be used to show that there exists more than just bi-partite secrecy, even in the many-copy case. Specifically, the 4-party Cat state, which has distribution $`P(X_A,X_B,X_C,X_D)`$ given by

$$P(0,0,0,0)=P(1,1,1,1)=\frac{1}{2}$$
(41)
(where Eve factors out) cannot be converted reversibly into C-EPR pairs. The proof of this is exactly the proof used for the analogous quantum problem , and is done by partitioning the 4 parties into pairs in various ways, and looking at the entropy of entanglement, which must be asymptotically conserved under reversible transformations.

Suppose that we could reversibly convert asymptotically a single 4-party Cat state into C-EPR pairs: $`n_{AB}`$ between A and B, $`n_{AC}`$ between A and C, etc. Partitioning the system into (A) vs. (BCD) we get the equation

$$n_{AB}+n_{AC}+n_{AD}=1.$$
(42)
Partitioning the system as (B) vs. (ACD), (C) vs. (ABD) and (D) vs. (ABC) gives

$$n_{AB}+n_{BC}+n_{BD}=1,$$
(43)
$$n_{AC}+n_{BC}+n_{CD}=1,$$
(44)
$$n_{AD}+n_{BD}+n_{CD}=1.$$
(45)
On the other hand, partitioning the system as (AB) vs. (CD), (AC) vs (BD) and (AD) vs. (BC) gives

$$n_{AC}+n_{AD}+n_{BC}+n_{BD}=1,$$
(46)
$$n_{AB}+n_{AD}+n_{BC}+n_{CD}=1,$$
(47)
$$n_{AB}+n_{AC}+n_{BD}+n_{CD}=1.$$
(48)
Summing the first 4 equations together gives

$$2\underset{allpairs}{}n_{ij}=4,$$
(49)
whilst summing together the next 3 gives

$$2\underset{allpairs}{}n_{ij}=3.$$
(50)
Thus the transformation is impossible, and the 4 party classical Cat state really is more than just bi-partite shared secret correlations.

We thus conclude that there are different types of multi-partite secret correlations.

## XIII Conclusion

We have described a fundamental analogy between entanglement and secret classical correlations. The analogy is quite simple to state. Both are resources, and the main objects involved in the study of such resources have a one-to-one correspondence, as given in the table on the first page. Due to this basic analogy, many derived analogies follow. In particular, we have shown that teleportation and the one-time-pad are deeply connected, that the concept of “pure state” exists in the classical domain, that entanglement concentration and dilution are essentially classical secrecy manipulations, and that the single copy entanglement manipulations have such a close classical analog that the majorization results are reproduced in the classical setting. We have pointed out that entanglement purification is analogous to classical privacy amplification, and hope that the search for better protocols in the two areas can go hand in hand. We finally showed that, as with entanglement, one can look at multipartite shared secret correlations, and gave a flavor of how results in the quantum setting easily transfer into the classical world. Despite all these useful derived analogies, our main point is the fundamental one: entanglement and shared secret correlations are deeply related, and one should never be viewed without the other.

We want to emphasize that by no means do we claim that quantum entanglement is a fundamentally classical effect or that there exists a classical explanation of entanglement. The classical analog of entanglement is nothing more nor less than a simple analog, and has a value of its own. On the other hand, all the aspects of quantum entanglement which are common with the classical analog cannot be considered to be quantum. Thus many aspects which were hitherto considered to be genuinely quantum lose their status.

The main thrust of this paper was to identify the common aspects of quantum entanglement and classical secret correlations. An even more interesting question to find those aspects which are not common. For example, we have not found any (and believe there is no) analog of super-dense coding. It is not the case that by having 1 secret correlation bit and by sending 1 secret bit Alice can transmit to Bob 2 public bits. The lack of super-dense coding manifests itself, implicitly, also by a difference in the quantitative descriptions of teleportation and one-time pad secret communication: in the case of teleportation Alice has to send Bob 2 classical bits while in the one-time pad Alice has to send only 1 public bit. It is only such aspects which are not common to the two settings which are genuinely quantum. We hope that getting rid of those aspects which were believed to be quantum but are not, and identifying the genuine quantum ones will lead to a better understanding of quantum entanglement. And of secret communication.

## XIV Acknowledgements

We thank C. H. Bennett, N. Gisin, N. Linden and S. Massar for very helpful discussions.


text:
# References

Comment on ”Chiral symmetry and the intrinsic structure of the
nucleon”\- by D.B.Leinweber,A.W Thomas and R.D.Young.
G.Morpurgo Università di Genova and INFN - Genova (Italy)

The authors of ref., using QCD plus approximate chiral symmetry show that the ”perfect” prediction 3/2 for $`|\mu (p)/\mu (n)|`$ is coincidental. I agree; infact this was discussed in \[2b,3,5\] on the basis of the general QCD parameterization (GP). The argument in  is more general than that in , but  is of interest, because it exemplifies an explicit mechanism that may produce the coincidence. Yet I disagree with a statement in . It is: ”Within the constituent quark model this ratio would remain constant at 3/2, independent of the change of the quark mass”. This is so for an additive , but not for a general constituent model.

For the lowest hadronic multiplets the GP relates  all possible constituent models to QCD. It parametrizes in the most general way compatible with QCD the properties (masses, magnetic moments, etc.) of the lowest hadron multiplets. It was started \[2a\] to explain the fair quantitative success of the simple non relativistic model . Although non covariant (we work in a given frame), the GP is relativistic, based only on general properties of relativistic QCD. Also  the renormalization point for quark masses can be selected at will in the QCD Lagrangian; i.e. the GP is compatible  with a quasi-chiral description, with light u,d quarks.(The script symbols for quark fields that I used in  may be confusing on this; they seem to imply $`\mathrm{"}300\mathrm{"}`$ MeV masses for u,d quarks in the QCD Lagrangian. Standard symbols u,d,s were used from  on.)

For each quantity considered, the GP gives the most general spin flavor parameterization compatible with QCD. This alone is not much. Indeed e.g. for the 8 plus 10 baryon masses, the GP has 8 parameters to fit 8 masses. Clearly trivial! But, fitting the data, a hierarchy in the parameters emerges: The parameters multiplying spin-flavor structures of increasing complexity are smaller and smaller. This is true for any quantity treated so far, in particular the baryon magnetic moments. The reduction factor due to increasing complexity of GP terms is, from the data, the product of $`0.3`$ for each flavor breaking factor (FB) and 0.2-0.37 for each pair of different indices in the term (”gluon exchange” factor \[2b\]). In  we parametrized the magnetic moments of the octet baryons up to first order in FB. There are seven data and seven parameters, called $`g_i`$ The $`g_i`$’s are functions of the quark masses and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. To first order FB the expression so obtained is the most general one in QCD or in any constituent quark model compatible with it. It was underlined in \[2b,3,5\] that all $`g_i`$’s agree, to a factor 2, with the expectations from the hierarchy taking a gluon exchange factor from 0.2 to 0.35; only $`g_3`$ is $`7`$ (or 10) times smaller ($`g_3`$ is,in the GP, the coefficient of the term giving the deviation of $`|\mu (p)/\mu (n)|`$ from 3/2. In \[(2b), Eq.(23)\] such factor 7 (or 10) was possibly attributed to chance.

This conclusion on chance is much reinforced (Sect.4 of ) considering only the parametrized $`\mu `$’s of the non strange baryons of 8+10 (p,n,$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s). Then we have four parameters ($`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta `$). The ”perfect” 3/2 arises from $`g_3=\delta \beta 4\gamma 0`$. That this particular combination almost vanishes can be due only to a chance cancellation; a cancellation compatible with the typical hierarchy reduction, and with the known $`\mu (p)`$,$`\mu (n)`$ and $`\mu (\mathrm{\Delta }p\gamma )`$. A measurement of $`\mu (\mathrm{\Delta }^+)`$’s would allow a further check.