1: \documentclass[prd,twocolumn,showpacs]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{psfrag}
4:
5: %-----------------------------DEFINITIONS---------------------------%
6: \newcommand{ \be}{\begin{equation}}
7: \newcommand{ \ee}{\end{equation}}
8: \newcommand{ \bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
9: \newcommand{ \eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
10: \newcommand{ \mysmall}[1]{\scriptscriptstyle #1} % a smaller #
11: \newcommand{ \amu}{a_{\mu}}
12: \newcommand{ \mw}{M_{\mysmall{W}}}
13: \newcommand{ \mz}{M_{\mysmall{Z}}}
14: \newcommand{ \mh}{M_{\mysmall{H}}}
15: \newcommand{ \mhUB}{M_{\mysmall{H}}^{\mysmall 95}}
16: \newcommand{ \mhLB}{M_{\mysmall{H}}^{\mysmall \rm LB}}
17: \newcommand{ \mt}{M_{t}}
18: \newcommand{ \mpi}{m_{\pi}}
19: \newcommand{ \seff}{\sin^2 \!\theta_{\rm eff}^{\rm lept}}
20: \newcommand{ \eq}[1]{Eq.~(\ref{eq:#1})}
21: \newcommand{ \gev} {\mbox{ GeV}}
22: \newcommand{ \mev} {\mbox{ MeV}}
23: \newcommand{ \bm} {\boldmath}
24: \newcommand{ \ubm} {\unboldmath}
25: \newcommand{ \gmt} {$g$$-$$2$~}
26:
27: \psfrag{sqrtsmev}{\sf $\sqrt s_0$~~(MeV)}
28: \psfrag{mhgev}{\sf \hspace{-6mm} $\mhUB$~~(GeV)}
29: \psfrag{leplbleplble}{\sf ~LEP LB}
30: \psfrag{ewubewub}{\sf EW UB}
31: \psfrag{dadb105}
32: {\hspace{-12mm}$[\Delta \alpha_{\rm had}^{(5)}(\mz)+\Delta b] \times 10^5$}
33: \psfrag{epspercent}{\sf $\epsilon$~~(\%)}
34: \psfrag{delta}{\sf $\delta$~~(MeV)}
35:
36:
37: \begin{document}
38: %------------------------------- TITLE -----------------------------%
39:
40: \title{The muon g-2 and the bounds on the Higgs boson mass}
41:
42: %\date{\today}
43:
44: \author{M.~Passera}
45: \affiliation{Istituto Nazionale Fisica Nucleare,
46: Sezione di Padova, I-35131, Padova, Italy}
47: \email{massimo.passera@pd.infn.it}
48:
49: \author{W.J.~Marciano}
50: \affiliation{Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973, USA}
51: \email{marciano@bnl.gov}
52:
53: \author{A.~Sirlin}
54: \affiliation{Department of Physics, New York University,
55: 10003 New York NY, USA}
56: \email{alberto.sirlin@nyu.edu}
57:
58: \begin{abstract}
59: \noindent
60: %
61: After a brief review of the muon \gmt status, we analyze the
62: possibility that the present discrepancy between experiment and the
63: Standard Model (SM) prediction may be due to hypothetical errors in
64: the determination of the hadronic leading-order contribution to the
65: latter. In particular, we show how an increase of the hadro-production
66: cross section in low-energy $e^+e^-$ collisions could bridge the muon
67: \gmt discrepancy, leading however to a decrease on the electroweak
68: upper bound on $\mh$, the SM Higgs boson mass. That bound is currently
69: $\mh \lesssim 150$~GeV (95\%CL) based on the preliminary top quark
70: mass $\mt=172.6(1.4)$~GeV and the recent determination $\Delta
71: \alpha_{\rm had}^{(5)}(\mz) = 0.02768(22)$, while the direct-search
72: lower bound is $\mh > 114.4$~GeV (95\%CL). By means of a detailed
73: analysis we conclude that this solution of the muon \gmt discrepancy
74: is unlikely in view of current experimental error estimates. However,
75: if this turns out to be the solution, the 95\%CL upper bound on $\mh$
76: is reduced to about 130~GeV which, in conjunction with the
77: experimental lower bound, leaves a narrow window for the mass of this
78: fundamental particle.
79: %
80: \end{abstract}
81:
82: \pacs{13.40.Em, 14.60.Ef, 12.15.Lk, 14.80.Bn}
83:
84: \maketitle
85:
86: %---------------------------------TEXT--------------------------------%
87: %2345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901
88: % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
89: %---------------------------------------------------------------------%
90:
91: %---------------------------------------------------------------------%
92: \subsection{Introduction}
93: %---------------------------------------------------------------------%
94: \label{sec:INTRO}
95:
96:
97:
98: The measurement of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon $a_{\mu}$
99: by the E821 experiment at Brookhaven, with a remarkable relative
100: precision of 0.5 parts per million~\cite{bnl}, is challenging the
101: Standard Model ({\small SM}) of particle physics. Indeed, as each
102: sector of the {\small SM} contributes in a significant way to the
103: theoretical prediction of $a_{\mu} = (g-2)/2$ ($g$ is the muon's
104: gyromagnetic factor), this measurement allows us to test the entire
105: {\small SM} and provides a powerful tool to scrutinize viable ``new
106: physics'' appendages to this theory~\cite{NP}.
107:
108: The {\small SM} prediction of the muon \gmt is conveniently split into
109: {\small QED}, electroweak ({\small EW}) and hadronic (leading- and
110: higher-order) contributions:
111: %
112: $
113: a_{\mu}^{\mysmall \rm SM} =
114: a_{\mu}^{\mysmall \rm QED} +
115: a_{\mu}^{\mysmall \rm EW} +
116: a_{\mu}^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm HLO}$}} +
117: a_{\mu}^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm HHO}$}}.
118: $
119: %
120: The hadronic contributions dominate the present $a_{\mu}^{\mysmall \rm
121: SM}$ uncertainty. The {\small QED} prediction, computed up to four
122: (and estimated at five) loops, currently stands at
123: %
124: $a_{\mu}^{\mysmall \rm QED} = 116584718.10(16)
125: \times 10^{-11}$\cite{QED,MPrev},
126: %
127: while the {\small EW} effects, suppressed by a factor
128: $(m_{\mu}/\mw)^2$, provide
129: %
130: $a_{\mu}^{\mysmall \rm EW} = 154(2) \times 10^{-11}$\cite{EW}.
131: %
132: The most recent calculations of the hadronic leading-order
133: contribution via the hadronic $e^+ e^-$ annihilation data, to be
134: discussed later, are in very good agreement:
135: %
136: $ a_{\mu}^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm HLO}$}} =
137: 6909(44) \times 10^{-11}$\cite{DE07},
138: $6894(46) \times 10^{-11}$\cite{HMNT06},
139: $6921(56) \times 10^{-11}$\cite{Jeger06}, and
140: $6944(49) \times 10^{-11}$\cite{TY05}.
141: %
142: The higher-order hadronic term is further divided into two parts:
143: %
144: $
145: \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm HHO}$}}=
146: \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm HHO}$}}(\mbox{vp})+
147: \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm HHO}$}}(\mbox{lbl}).
148: $
149: %
150: The first one,
151: %
152: $-98\, (1) \times 10^{-11}$\cite{HMNT06},
153: %
154: is the $O(\alpha^3)$ contribution of diagrams containing hadronic
155: vacuum polarization insertions~\cite{Kr96}. The second term, also of
156: $O(\alpha^3)$, is the hadronic light-by-light contribution; as it
157: cannot be determined from data, its evaluation relies on specific
158: models. Recent determinations of this term vary between
159: %
160: $80(40) \times 10^{-11}$\cite{Andreas}
161: %
162: and
163: %
164: $136(25) \times 10^{-11}$\cite{Arkady}.
165: %
166: The most recent one,
167: %
168: $110(40) \times 10^{-11}$\cite{BP07},
169: %
170: lies between them. If we add this result to the leading-order hadronic
171: contribution, for example the value of Ref.~\cite{HMNT06} (which also
172: provides a recent calculation of the hadronic contribution to the
173: effective fine-structure constant, later required for our analysis),
174: and the rest of the {\small SM} contributions, we obtain
175: %
176: $ \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm SM}$}}= 116591778(61)
177: \times 10^{-11}$.
178: %
179: The difference with the experimental value
180: %
181: $
182: a_{\mu}^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm EXP}$}} =
183: 116592080(63) \times 10^{-11}$~\cite{bnl}
184: %
185: is
186: %
187: $\Delta a_{\mu} = a_{\mu}^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm EXP}$}}-
188: \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm SM}$}} = +302(88) \times 10^{-11}$,
189: %
190: i.e., 3.4 standard deviations (all errors were added in quadrature).
191: Similar discrepancies are obtained employing the values of the
192: leading-order hadronic contribution reported in
193: Refs.~\cite{DE07,Jeger06,TY05}.
194:
195:
196: The term $a_{\mu}^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm HLO}$}}$ can
197: alternatively be computed incorporating hadronic $\tau$-decay data,
198: related to those of hadroproduction in $e^+e^-$ collisions via isospin
199: symmetry~\cite{ADH98,DEHZ}. Unfortunately there is a large difference
200: between the $e^+e^-$- and $\tau$-based determinations of
201: $a_{\mu}^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm HLO}$}}$, even if isospin
202: violation corrections are taken into account~\cite{IVC1}. The
203: $\tau$-based value is significantly higher, leading to a small ($\sim
204: 1 \sigma$) $\Delta a_{\mu}$ difference. As the $e^+e^-$ data are more
205: directly related to the $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm HLO}$}}$
206: calculation than the $\tau$ ones, the latest analyses do not include
207: the latter. Also, we note that recently studied additional
208: isospin-breaking corrections somewhat reduce the difference between
209: these two sets of data (lowering the $\tau$-based
210: determination)~\cite{IVC2,IVC3}, and a new analysis of the pion form
211: factor claims that the $\tau$ and $e^+e^-$ data are consistent after
212: isospin violation effects and vector meson mixings are
213: considered~\cite{IVC4}. Recent reviews of the muon \gmt can be found
214: in Refs.~\cite{MPrev, DM04, Reviews}.
215:
216:
217: The 3.4 $\sigma$ discrepancy between the theoretical prediction and
218: the experimental value of the muon \gmt can be explained in several
219: ways. It could be due, at least in part, to an error in the
220: determination of the hadronic light-by-light contribution. However, if
221: this were the only cause of the discrepancy, $a_{\mu}^{\mysmall \rm
222: HHO}(\mbox{lbl})$ would have to move up by many standard
223: deviations to fix it --~roughly eight, if we use the
224: $a_{\mu}^{\mysmall \rm HHO}(\mbox{lbl})$ result of Ref.~\cite{BP07}
225: (which includes all known uncertainties), and more than ten if the
226: less conservative estimate of Ref.~\cite{Arkady} is employed instead.
227: Although the errors assigned to $a_{\mu}^{\mysmall \rm
228: HHO}(\mbox{lbl})$ are only educated guesses, this solution seems
229: unlikely, at least as the dominant one.
230:
231:
232: Another possibility is to explain the discrepancy $\Delta a_{\mu}$ via
233: the {\small QED}, {\small EW} and hadronic higher-order vacuum
234: polarization contributions; this looks very improbable, as one can
235: immediately conclude inspecting their values and uncertainties
236: reported above. If we assume that the \gmt experiment {\small E821} is
237: correct, we are left with two options: possible contributions of
238: physics beyond the {\small SM}, or an erroneous determination of the
239: leading-order hadronic contribution
240: $a_{\mu}^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm HLO}$}}$ (or combinations of
241: the two). The first of these two options has been widely discussed in
242: the literature; we will focus on the second one, and analyze its
243: implications for the {\small EW} bounds on the mass of the Higgs
244: boson.
245:
246:
247: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%
248: \subsection{Shifts of
249: \bm $a_{\mu}^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm HLO}$}}$ and
250: $\Delta \alpha_{\rm had}^{(5)}(\mz)$ \ubm }
251: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%
252:
253: The evaluation of the hadronic leading-order contribution
254: $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm HLO}$}}$, due to the hadronic
255: vacuum polarization correction to the one-loop {\small QED} diagram,
256: involves long-distance {\small QCD} for which perturbation theory
257: cannot be employed. However, using analyticity and unitarity, it was
258: shown long ago that this term can be computed from hadronic $e^+ e^-$
259: annihilation data via the dispersion integral~\cite{DISPamu}
260: %
261: \be
262: a_{\mu}^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm HLO}$}}=
263: \frac{1}{4\pi^3} \!
264: \int^{\infty}_{4m_{\pi}^2} ds \, K(s) \, \sigma (s),
265: \label{eq:amudispint}
266: \ee
267: %
268: where $\sigma (s)$ is the total cross section for $e^+ e^-$
269: annihilation into any hadronic state, with extraneous {\small QED}
270: corrections subtracted off, and $s$ is the squared momentum
271: transfer. The kernel $K(s)$ is the well-known function
272: %
273: \be
274: K(s)= \int_0^1 \!dx \frac{x^2 (1-x)}
275: {x^2 +(1-x)s/m_\mu^2}
276: \ee
277: %
278: (see Ref.~\cite{EJ95} for some of its explicit representations and
279: their suitability for numerical evaluations). It decreases
280: monotonically for increasing $s$ and, for large $s$, it behaves as
281: $m_\mu^2/(3s)$ to a good approximation. One finds that the low-energy
282: region of the dispersive integral is enhanced by $\sim 1/s^2$. About
283: 90\% of the total contribution to $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm
284: HLO}$}}$ is accumulated at center-of-mass energies $\sqrt{s}$
285: below 1.8~GeV and roughly three-fourths of
286: $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm HLO}$}}$ is covered by the
287: two-pion final state which is dominated by the $\rho(770)$
288: resonance~\cite{DEHZ}. Note that $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm
289: HLO}$}}$ is a positive definite quantity. Exclusive low-energy
290: $e^+e^-$ cross sections have been measured by experiments running at
291: $e^+e^-$ colliders in Frascati, Novosibirsk, Orsay, and Stanford,
292: while at higher energies the total cross section has been measured
293: inclusively. Perturbative {\small QCD} becomes applicable at higher
294: loop-momenta, so that at some energy scale one can switch from data to
295: {\small QCD}~\cite{pQCD}.
296:
297:
298: Let's now assume that the discrepancy
299: %
300: $\Delta a_{\mu} = a_{\mu}^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm EXP}$}}-
301: \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm SM}$}} = +302(88) \times 10^{-11}$,
302: %
303: is due to --~and only to~-- hypothetical mistakes in $\sigma (s)$, and
304: let us increase this cross section in order to raise
305: $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm HLO}$}}$, thus reducing $\Delta
306: a_{\mu}$. This simple assumption leads to interesting consequences. An
307: upward shift of the hadronic cross section also induces an increase of
308: the value of the hadronic contribution to the effective fine-structure
309: constant at $M_Z$~\cite{DISPDalpha},
310: %
311: \be
312: \Delta \alpha_{\rm had}^{(5)}(\mz) = \frac{\mz^2}{4 \alpha \pi^2}
313: \,\, P \! \int_{4m_\pi^2}^{\infty} ds \, \frac{\sigma(s)}{\mz^2 -s}
314: \label{eq:Dpi5dispint}
315: \ee
316: %
317: ($P$ stands for Cauchy's principal value). This integral is similar
318: to the one we encountered in \eq{amudispint} for
319: $a_{\mu}^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm HLO}$}}$. There, however, the
320: weight function in the integrand gives a stronger weight to low-energy
321: data. The negligible contribution to $a_{\mu}^{\mysmall \rm HLO}$ and
322: $\Delta \alpha_{\rm had}^{(5)}(\mz)$ of the $\pi^0 \gamma$ channel
323: below the $\pi^{+} \pi^{-}$ threshold was ignored in
324: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:amudispint},\ref{eq:Dpi5dispint}). Let us define
325: %
326: \bea
327: a &=& \int_{4m_{\pi}^2}^{s_u}ds \, f(s) \, \sigma (s),
328: \label{eq:adef} \\
329: b &=& \int_{4m_{\pi}^2}^{s_u}ds \, g(s) \, \sigma (s),
330: \label{eq:bdef}
331: \eea
332: %
333: where the upper limit of integration is $s_u < \mz^2$, and the kernels
334: are $f(s) = K(s)/(4 \pi^3)$ and $g(s) = [\mz^2/(\mz^2-s)]/(4 \alpha
335: \pi^2)$. Equations (\ref{eq:adef},\ref{eq:bdef}) provide the
336: contributions to $a_{\mu}^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm HLO}$}}$ and
337: $\Delta \alpha_{\rm had}^{(5)}(\mz)$, respectively, in the region from
338: the two-pion threshold up to $s_u$ (see
339: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:amudispint},\ref{eq:Dpi5dispint})).
340:
341:
342: An increase of the cross section $\sigma(s)$ of the form
343: %
344: \be
345: \Delta \sigma(s) = \epsilon \sigma(s)
346: \label{eq:shifts}
347: \ee
348: %
349: in the energy range $\sqrt s \in [\sqrt s_0 - \delta/2, \sqrt s_0 +
350: \delta/2]$, where $\epsilon$ is a positive constant and
351: $2m_{\pi}+\delta/2<\sqrt s_0<\sqrt s_u -\delta/2$, increases $a$ by
352: $\Delta a (\sqrt s_0,\delta,\epsilon) = \epsilon \int_{\sqrt
353: s_0-\delta/2}^{\sqrt s_0+\delta/2} 2t \, \sigma(t^2) \, f(t^2) \,
354: dt$. If we assume that the muon \gmt discrepancy is entirely due to
355: this increase in $\sigma(s)$ so that $\Delta a (\sqrt
356: s_0,\delta,\epsilon) = \Delta a_{\mu}$, the parameter $\epsilon$
357: becomes
358: %
359: \be
360: \epsilon =
361: \frac{\Delta a_{\mu}}{
362: \int_{\sqrt s_0-\delta/2}^{\sqrt s_0 +\delta/2}
363: 2t \, f(t^2) \, \sigma(t^2) \, dt},
364: \label{eq:eps}
365: \ee
366: %
367: and the corresponding increase in $\Delta \alpha_{\rm had}^{(5)}(\mz)$
368: is
369: %
370: \be
371: \Delta b(\sqrt s_0,\delta) = \Delta a_{\mu}
372: \frac{\int_{\sqrt s_0-\delta/2}^{\sqrt s_0+\delta/2} g(t^2) \,
373: \sigma(t^2) \, t \, dt}
374: {\int_{\sqrt s_0-\delta/2}^{\sqrt s_0+\delta/2} f(t^2) \,
375: \sigma(t^2) \, t \, dt}.
376: \label{eq:shiftb}
377: \ee
378: %
379: In the limiting case of a point-like shift
380: %
381: $\Delta \sigma(s) \!=\! \epsilon' \delta(s-s_0)$,
382: %
383: with $2m_{\pi} < \sqrt s_0 < \sqrt s_u$, the condition
384: %
385: $\Delta a (\sqrt s_0,\epsilon') = \Delta a_{\mu}$,
386: %
387: with
388: %
389: $\Delta a (\sqrt s_0,\epsilon') = \epsilon' f(s_0)$,
390: leads to
391: %
392: \be
393: \Delta b(\sqrt s_0) = \Delta a_{\mu} \left[g(s_0)/f(s_0)\right].
394: \label{eq:shiftb_simple}
395: \ee
396: %
397: Following Ref.~\cite{DEHZ}, to overcome the lack of precise data for
398: $\sigma(s)$ at threshold energies, in the region $2\mpi < \sqrt s <
399: 500 \mev$ one can adopt the polynomial parametrization for the pion
400: form factor $F_{\pi}(s)$ inspired by chiral perturbation theory; the
401: parameters are determined from a fit to the data for both time-like
402: and space-like momentum transfers~\cite{EJ95,DEHZ,Co04}. The cross
403: section below 500 MeV is therefore given by
404: %
405: \be
406: \sigma(s) = \frac{\pi \alpha^2}{3s} \beta_{\pi}^3 \, |F_{\pi}(s)|^2,
407: \label{eq:sigmalow}
408: \ee
409: %
410: where $\beta_{\pi} = (1-4\mpi^2/s)^{1/2}$, $F_{\pi}(s) = 1 + s \langle
411: r^2\rangle_{\pi}/6 + s^2 c_1 +s^3 c_2$, $\langle r^2\rangle_{\pi} =
412: (0.439 \pm 0.008)~\mbox{fm}^2$, $c_1 = (6.8 \pm 1.9)~\mbox{GeV}^{-4}$,
413: and $c_2 = (-0.7 \pm 6.8)~\mbox{GeV}^{-6}$ (see Ref.~\cite{DEHZ} for
414: the correlation matrix of these coefficients). Between 500~MeV and
415: 1.4~GeV we use the cross section directly obtained combining the
416: experimental results of the
417: %
418: $\pi^+ \pi^-$~\cite{2pi},
419: %
420: $\pi^+ \pi^-\pi^0$~\cite{3pia,3pib2K},
421: %
422: $K^+K^-$~\cite{3pib2K,2Kc},
423: %
424: $K^0_L K^0_S$~\cite{2K0},
425: %
426: $2\pi^+ 2\pi^-$~\cite{4pic},
427: %
428: $\pi^0 \pi^0 \pi^+ \pi^-$~\cite{4pi0},
429: %
430: $\pi^0 \gamma$~\cite{1pi,1et} and
431: %
432: $\eta \gamma$~\cite{1et}
433: %
434: channels. Between 1.4~GeV and 2~GeV we employ the inclusive
435: measurements of Refs.~\cite{inclusive}.
436:
437:
438: %
439: \begin{figure}
440: \includegraphics[width=85mm,angle=0]{fig1.eps}
441: \vspace{0cm}\caption{Shifts of $\Delta \alpha_{\rm had}^{(5)}(\mz)$.
442: The histogram indicates the increase $\Delta b(\sqrt s_0,\delta)$
443: obtained varying the cross section by $\Delta \sigma(s) = \epsilon
444: \sigma(s)$ in $\delta\!=\!210$~MeV energy regions, while $\Delta
445: b(\sqrt s_0)$, obtained for point-like increases, is plotted as a
446: smooth curve. The shifts are added to $\Delta \alpha_{\rm
447: had}^{(5)}(\mz) = 0.02768(22)$~\cite{HMNT06} (horizontal line).
448: The uncertainty of the sum $\Delta \alpha_{\rm had}^{(5)}(\mz) +
449: \Delta b(\sqrt s_0)$ is shown by the light band.}
450: \label{fig:dalpha}
451: \end{figure}
452: %
453:
454:
455: Figure 1 shows the shifts $\Delta b(\sqrt s_0,\delta\!=\!210\mbox{MeV})$
456: (histogram) and $\Delta b(\sqrt s_0)$ (smooth curve) obtained from the
457: increases $\Delta \sigma(s) = \epsilon \sigma(s)$ and $\Delta
458: \sigma(s) = \epsilon' \delta(s-s_0)$, respectively. These shifts, shown
459: as functions of $\sqrt s_0$, are added to the value $\Delta
460: \alpha_{\rm had}^{(5)}(\mz) = 0.02768(22)$~\cite{HMNT06}. The
461: uncertainty of the sum $\Delta \alpha_{\rm had}^{(5)}(\mz) + \Delta b
462: (\sqrt s_0)$ is indicated by the light band.
463: %
464: To compute it, we first note that the errors $46 \times 10^{-11}$ in
465: $a_{\mu}^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm HLO}$}}$ and $22 \times
466: 10^{-5}$ in $\Delta \alpha_{\rm had}^{(5)}(\mz)$~\cite{HMNT06}
467: are strongly correlated since they arise mainly from the same source,
468: namely the uncertainty in the hadronic
469: $e^+ e^-$ annihilation cross section (which includes the uncertainties
470: associated with the radiative corrections applied to the experimental
471: data). Taking this into account, and observing also that the error in
472: $\Delta b(\sqrt s_0)$ due to the
473: $a_{\mu}^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm HLO}$}}$ uncertainty is $-46
474: \times 10^{-11}[g(s_0)/f(s_0)]$, we add it linearly to $22 \times
475: 10^{-5}$, and then combine in quadrature this result with the error in
476: $\Delta b(\sqrt s_0)$ induced by the remaining $\Delta a_{\mu}$
477: uncertainty. (We note that combining all errors in quadrature,
478: ignoring their correlation, would enlarge the uncertainty of the sum
479: $\Delta \alpha_{\rm had}^{(5)}(\mz) + \Delta b (\sqrt s_0)$, but would
480: only induce minimal changes in our analysis.) The uncertainty of the
481: sum $\Delta \alpha_{\rm had}^{(5)}(\mz) + \Delta b (\sqrt s_0,
482: \delta)$, for finite energy intervals, is computed analogously,
483: neglecting the relative error of the ratio of integrals on the
484: r.h.s.\ of \eq{shiftb} with respect to the large relative error of
485: $\Delta a_{\mu}$. The dark area below $2\mpi$, where $\mpi$ is the
486: mass of the charged pion, denotes the kinematically forbidden region
487: below the $\pi^{+} \pi^{-}$ threshold (the $\pi^0 \gamma$ channel is
488: neglected below this threshold).
489: %
490:
491:
492: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%
493: \subsection{Connection with the Higgs boson mass}
494: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%
495:
496: The dependence of {\small SM} predictions, via quantum effects, on the
497: mass of the Higgs boson $\mh$ provides a powerful tool to set indirect
498: bounds on the mass of this fundamental missing piece of the {\small
499: SM}. Indeed, comparing calculated quantities with their precise
500: experimental values, the present global fit of the {\small LEP}
501: Electroweak Working Group ({\small LEP-EWWG}) leads to the value
502: %
503: $\mh = 87^{+36}_{-27}$~GeV
504: %
505: and to the 95\% confidence level ({\small CL}) upper bound $\mhUB
506: \simeq 160$~GeV~\cite{newLEPEWWG}. This result is based on the very
507: recent preliminary top quark mass $\mt=172.6(1.4)$~GeV from a
508: combined CDF-D0 fit~\cite{Group:2008nq} and the value
509: %
510: $\Delta \alpha_{\rm had}^{(5)}(\mz) = 0.02758(35)$~\cite{BP05}.
511: %
512: The {\small LEP} direct-search lower bound is
513: $\mhLB=114.4$~GeV~\cite{MHLB03}, also at the 95\% {\small CL}.
514:
515:
516: Although the global fit to the {\small EW} data employs a large set of
517: observables, the $\mh$ upper bound is strongly driven by the
518: comparison of the theoretical predictions of the mass of the W boson
519: and the effective {\small EW} mixing angle $\seff$ with their
520: precisely measured values~\cite{FOS}. Convenient formulae providing
521: the {\small SM} prediction of $\mw$ and $\seff$ in terms of $\mh$, the
522: top quark mass $\mt$, $\Delta \alpha_{\rm had}^{(5)}(\mz)$, and
523: $\alpha_s(\mz)$, the value of the strong coupling constant at the
524: scale $\mz$, are given in Refs.~\cite{formulette}. Combining these
525: $\mw$ and $\seff$ predictions by means of a numerical
526: $\chi^2$-analysis, and using the present world-average values
527: %
528: $\mw = 80.398(25)$~GeV~\cite{LEPEWWG06,Wmass, Gru07},
529: %
530: %
531: $\seff = 0.23153(16)$~\cite{LEPEWWG05},
532: %
533: %
534: $\mt = 172.6(1.4)$~GeV~\cite{Group:2008nq},
535: %
536: %
537: $\alpha_s(\mz) = 0.118(2)$~\cite{PDG06},
538: %
539: and the determination
540: %
541: $\Delta \alpha_{\rm had}^{(5)}(\mz) = 0.02758(35)$~\cite{BP05}
542: %
543: adopted by the {\small LEP-EWWG}, we obtain
544: %
545: $\mh = 92^{+38}_{-28}$~GeV
546: %
547: and $\mhUB=161$~GeV. We see that indeed the $\mh$ values obtained from
548: the $\mw$ and $\seff$ predictions are quite close to the results of
549: the global analysis.
550:
551:
552: The $\mh$ dependence of the {\small SM} prediction of the muon
553: $g$$-$$2$, via its {\small EW} contribution, is too weak to provide
554: $\mh$ bounds from the comparison with the measured value. Indeed, the
555: shift of $a_{\mu}^{\mysmall \rm SM}$ for $\mh$ varying between
556: 114.4~GeV and 300~GeV is only of $O(10^{-11})$, which is negligible
557: when compared with the hadronic and experimental uncertainties.
558: %
559: On the other hand, $\Delta \alpha_{\rm had}^{(5)}(\mz)$ is one of the
560: key inputs of the {\small EW} fits. For example, employing the recent
561: (slightly higher) value
562: %
563: $\Delta \alpha_{\rm had}^{(5)}(\mz) = 0.02768(22)$~\cite{HMNT06}
564: %
565: instead of
566: %
567: $\Delta \alpha_{\rm had}^{(5)}(\mz) = 0.02758(35)$~\cite{BP05},
568: %
569: the $\mh$ prediction shifts down to
570: %
571: $\mh = 90^{+33}_{-25}$~GeV
572: %
573: and $\mhUB=150$~GeV. We note that $\mhUB$ depends both on the central
574: value and on the uncertainty of $\Delta \alpha_{\rm
575: had}^{(5)}(\mz)$. Henceforth, we employ the recent evaluation
576: $\Delta \alpha_{\rm had}^{(5)}(\mz) = 0.02768(22)$~\cite{HMNT06}. (For
577: the dependence of $\mh$ and its bounds on $\Delta \alpha_{\rm
578: had}^{(5)}(\mz)$ see Refs.~\cite{formulette}). Next we consider the
579: new values of $\Delta \alpha_{\rm had}^{(5)}(\mz)$ obtained shifting
580: 0.02768(22) by $\Delta b(\sqrt s_0)$ and $\Delta b(\sqrt s_0, \delta)$
581: (including their uncertainties as discussed in the previous section),
582: and compute the corresponding new values of $\mhUB$ by means of the
583: combined $\chi^2$-analysis based on the $\mw$ and $\seff$ inputs. The
584: results are shown in Fig.\ 2. The lower region $\mh < 114.4$~GeV is
585: excluded by the direct {\small LEP} searches at $95\%$ {\small CL},
586: while the upper one is excluded by the indirect {\small EW} $95\%$
587: {\small CL} bound $\mh < 150$~GeV obtained with $\Delta \alpha_{\rm
588: had}^{(5)}(\mz) = 0.02768(22)$. (As in the case of $\Delta
589: \alpha_{\rm had}^{(5)}(\mz)$, the value adopted here for
590: $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm HLO}$}}$ is from the recent
591: article in Ref.~\cite{HMNT06}.) If we increase the hadronic cross
592: section $\sigma(s)$ by $\epsilon' \delta(s-s_0)$ in order to bridge
593: the muon \gmt discrepancy $\Delta a_{\mu}$, $\mhUB$ decreases, as
594: shown by the continuous red line in Fig.\ 2, further restricting the
595: already narrow allowed region for $\mh$. In particular, this curve
596: falls below $\mhLB$ for $\sqrt s_0 \gtrsim 1.1$~GeV. The two
597: histograms show the $\mhUB$ values when the analysis is repeated with
598: %
599: $\Delta \sigma = \epsilon \sigma (s)$
600: %
601: shifts in $\delta=210$~MeV and $\delta=400$~MeV energy regions. We
602: conclude that the hypothetical shifts
603: %
604: $\Delta \sigma = \epsilon \sigma (s)$
605: %
606: (in $\sqrt s \in [\sqrt s_0 - \delta/2, \sqrt s_0 + \delta/2]$) of the
607: hadronic cross section that bridge the muon \gmt discrepancy,
608: conflict with the {\small LEP} lower limit when
609: %
610: $\sqrt s_0 > (\sqrt s_0)_{\rm thr} \sim 1.2$~GeV,
611: %
612: for values of $\delta$ up to several hundreds of MeV. The threshold
613: $(\sqrt s_0)_{\rm thr}$ increases above $\sim 1.3$~GeV for
614: hypothetical shifts $\epsilon \sigma (s)$ in even wider energy regions
615: $\delta \gtrsim 1$~GeV, but uniform shifts of the cross section in
616: such wide energy ranges appear to be unrealistic.
617: %
618: %
619: \begin{figure}
620: \includegraphics[width=85mm,angle=0]{fig2.eps}
621: \vspace{0cm}\caption{The $\mhUB$ values obtained via the $\mw$ and
622: $\seff$ fits using as input for $\Delta \alpha_{\rm had}^{(5)}(\mz)$
623: the value 0.02768(22) increased by $\Delta b(\sqrt s_0)$ (smooth
624: curve) and by $\Delta b(\sqrt s_0,\delta\!=\!210\mbox{MeV},
625: 400\mbox{MeV})$ (histograms). The area below 114.4~GeV, partly
626: yellow and partly pink, is excluded at $95\%$ {\small CL} by the
627: {\small LEP} direct lower bound, while the orange $\mh>150$~GeV one
628: is forbidden by the {\small EW} indirect upper bound. As in Fig.~1,
629: the region $\sqrt s_0 < 2m_{\pi}$ is excluded. The dotted line
630: replaces the smooth one when $\tau$ data are incorporated in the
631: determination of $\Delta \alpha_{\rm had}^{(5)}(\mz)$ and
632: $a_{\mu}^{\mysmall \rm SM}$.}
633: \label{fig:mhtot}
634: \end{figure}
635: %
636:
637: If $\tau$ data are incorporated in the calculation of the dispersive
638: integrals in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:amudispint}) and (\ref{eq:Dpi5dispint}),
639: the leading-order hadronic contribution to the muon \gmt significantly
640: increases to
641: %
642: $ a_{\mu}^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm HLO}$}} =
643: 7110(58) \times 10^{-11}$\cite{DEHZ},
644: %
645: the higher-order vacuum polarization term slightly decreases to
646: %
647: $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm HHO}$}}(\mbox{vp}) = -101(1)
648: \times 10^{-11}$\cite{HMNT06,DM04}, and the discrepancy with the
649: experimental value drops to
650: %
651: $\Delta a_{\mu} = +89(95) \times 10^{-11}$,
652: %
653: i.e.\ roughly 1 $\sigma$. While using $\tau$ data almost solves the
654: muon \gmt discrepancy, it increases the value of $\Delta \alpha_{\rm
655: had}^{(5)}(\mz)$ to 0.02782(16)~\cite{Marciano04,DEHZ}. In
656: Ref.~\cite{Marciano04} it was shown that this increase leads to a low
657: $\mh$ prediction which is suggestive of a near conflict with $\mhLB$,
658: leaving a very narrow window for $\mh$. Indeed, with this value of
659: $\Delta \alpha_{\rm had}^{(5)}(\mz)$ and the same above-discussed
660: values of the other inputs of the $\chi^2$-analysis, we find
661: %
662: $\mh = 84^{+30}_{-23}$~GeV
663: %
664: and an $\mhUB$ value of only 138~GeV. The dotted line in Fig.~2 shows
665: the $\mhUB$ values obtained using $\tau$ data to compute $\Delta
666: \alpha_{\rm had}^{(5)}(\mz)$ and $\Delta a_{\mu}$, with the hadronic
667: cross section $\sigma(s)$ increased by $\epsilon' \delta(s-s_0)$ in
668: order to bridge the $\Delta a_{\mu}$ difference.
669:
670:
671: As we briefly mentioned in the Introduction, recently computed
672: isospin-breaking violations, further improvements of the long-distance
673: radiative corrections to the decay $\tau^- \to \pi^- \pi^0
674: \nu_{\tau}$~\cite{IVC2} and differentiation of the neutral and charged
675: $\rho$ properties~\cite{IVC3}, reduce to some extent the difference
676: between $\tau$ and $e^+e^-$ data, lowering the $\tau$-based
677: determination of $ a_{\mu}^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm
678: HLO}$}}$. Moreover, a recent analysis of the pion form factor
679: below 1~GeV claims that $\tau$ data are consistent with the $e^+e^-$
680: ones after isospin violation effects and vector meson mixings are
681: considered~\cite{IVC4}. In this case one could therefore use the
682: $e^+e^-$ data below $\sim 1$~GeV, confirmed by the $\tau$ ones, and
683: assume that $\Delta a_{\mu}$ is accommodated by hypothetical errors
684: occurring above $\sim 1$~GeV, where disagreement persists between
685: these two sets of data. Our previous analysis shows that this
686: assumption would lead to values of $\mhUB$ inconsistent with the
687: {\small LEP} lower bound.
688:
689:
690: It is interesting to note that there are more complex scenarios where
691: it is possible to bridge the $\Delta a_{\mu}$ discrepancy without
692: significantly affecting $\mhUB$. For instance, we may envisage an
693: increase of $\sigma(s)$ at low $s$ combined with a decrease at high
694: $s$ in such a manner that their overall contribution to $\Delta
695: \alpha_{\rm had}^{(5)}(\mz)$, and therefore to $\mhUB$, approximately
696: cancels. Since the contributions to
697: $a_{\mu}^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm HLO}$}}$ are more heavily
698: weighted at low $s$, it is then possible to further adjust the
699: positive and negative $\sigma(s)$ shifts to bridge the muon \gmt
700: discrepancy. However, such scheme requires two fine-tuning steps and a
701: larger increase of $\sigma(s)$ at low $s$, and is therefore
702: considerably more unlikely than the simplest scenarios, involving a
703: single adjustable contribution, that are discussed in detail in this
704: paper.
705:
706:
707: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%
708: \subsection{How realistic are these shifts \bm $\Delta \sigma(s)$\ubm?}
709: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%
710: \label{sec:REALISTIC}
711:
712: In the above study, the hadronic cross section $\sigma(s)$ was shifted
713: up by amounts required to adjust the muon \gmt discrepancy $\Delta
714: a_{\mu}$. Apart from the implications for the Higgs boson mass (and
715: the restrictions deriving from them), these shifts may actually be
716: inadmissibly large when compared with the quoted experimental
717: uncertainties. For example, one of the histograms in Fig.~2 shows that
718: a shift $\Delta \sigma$ in a 210~MeV bin centered just above the
719: $\rho$ peak could fix the muon \gmt discrepancy (lowering $\mhUB$ to
720: 131~GeV); but is such a shift of the precisely measured cross section
721: at the $\rho$ peak realistic?
722:
723:
724: To investigate this problem, we turn our attention to the parameter
725: $\epsilon=\Delta \sigma(s)/\sigma(s)$, i.e.\ the ratio of the shift
726: $\Delta \sigma(s)$ required to bridge the muon \gmt discrepancy and
727: the cross section $\sigma(s)$, provided by \eq{eps}. Clearly, the
728: value of $\epsilon$ depends on the choice of the energy range $[\sqrt
729: s_0 - \delta/2, \sqrt s_0 + \delta/2]$ where $\sigma(s)$ is
730: increased and, for fixed $\sqrt s_0$, it increases when $\delta$
731: decreases. The minimum value of $\epsilon$ is roughly $+4\%$; it
732: occurs if the hadronic cross section $\sigma(s)$ is multiplied by
733: $(1+\epsilon)$ in the whole integration region of \eq{amudispint},
734: from the $\pi^{+} \pi^{-}$ threshold to infinity (this minimum value
735: of $\epsilon$ changes only negligibly whether the shift up of
736: $\sigma(s)$ includes or not the high-energy region where perturbative
737: {\small QCD} is employed). Such a shift would lead to an $\mhUB$ of
738: roughly 75~GeV, well below the {\small LEP} lower bound.
739:
740:
741: Figure \ref{fig:subway} shows the values of $\epsilon$ (in per cent)
742: for several bin widths $\delta$ and central values $\sqrt s_0$ (same
743: length segments are of the same color). Also, next to each segment we
744: quote the value of $\mhUB$ (in GeV) obtained performing the shift
745: $\Delta \sigma = \epsilon \sigma (s)$ in that energy range. A shift up
746: of $\sigma(s)$ in the energy range from $2\mpi$ to 850~MeV, to fix
747: $\Delta a_{\mu}$, leads to $\epsilon \sim 6\%$ and lowers $\mhUB$ to
748: 134~GeV. Higher values of $\epsilon$ are obtained for narrower energy
749: bins, particularly if they do not include the $\rho$-$\omega$
750: resonance region. For example, a huge $\epsilon \sim 52\%$ increase is
751: needed to accommodate $\Delta a_{\mu}$ with a shift of the cross
752: section in the region from $2\mpi$ up to 500~MeV (reducing $\mhUB$ to
753: 143~GeV), while an increase in a bin of the same size but centered at
754: the $\rho$ peak requires $\epsilon \sim 8\%$ (lowering $\mhUB$ to
755: 132~GeV). As the quoted experimental uncertainty of $\sigma(s)$ below
756: 1~GeV is of the order of a few per cent (or less, in some specific
757: energy regions), the possibility to explain the muon \gmt discrepancy
758: with these shifts $\Delta \sigma(s)$ appears to be unlikely. Figure
759: \ref{fig:subway} shows that for fixed $\delta$ (i.e., segments of the
760: same color), lower values of $\epsilon$ are obtained if the shifts
761: occur in energy ranges centered around the $\rho$-$\omega$ resonances;
762: but also this possibility looks unlikely, since it requires variations
763: of $\sigma(s)$ of at least $\sim 6$\%. If, however, we allow
764: variations of the cross section up to $\sim 6$\% (7\%), $\mhUB$ is
765: reduced to less than $\sim 134$~GeV (135~GeV). For example, the
766: $\sim6$\% shifts in the intervals [0.5,1.0]~GeV or [0.6,1.2]~GeV,
767: required to fix $\Delta a_{\mu}$ (not represented in
768: Fig.~\ref{fig:subway}), lower $\mhUB$ to 133~GeV or 130~GeV,
769: respectively.
770:
771: %
772: \begin{figure}[h]
773: \includegraphics[width=88mm,angle=0]{fig3.eps}
774: \vspace{0cm}\caption{Values of $\epsilon$ obtained increasing
775: $\sigma(s)$ by $\epsilon \sigma(s)$, to bridge the $\Delta a_{\mu}$
776: discrepancy, in energy ranges $[\sqrt s_0 - \delta/2, \sqrt s_0 +
777: \delta/2]$ for various values of $\sqrt s_0$ and $\delta$. The
778: number next to each segment indicates the $\mhUB$ value (in GeV)
779: induced by the $\epsilon \sigma(s)$ shift in that energy
780: region. Same length segments are of the same color. The midpoint of
781: each segment is displayed by a dot.}
782: \label{fig:subway}
783: \end{figure}
784: %
785:
786: We remind the reader that the present experimental results for $\seff$
787: exhibit an intriguing dichotomy. Those based on the leptonic
788: observables
789: % ($A_l(SLD)$, $A_l(P_\tau)$, $A_{fb}^{(0,l)}$)
790: lead to $(\seff)_{l}=0.23113(21)$, while the average of those derived
791: from the hadronic sector
792: %($A_{fb}^{(0,b)}$, $A_{fb}^{(0,c)}$, $<Q_{fb}>$)
793: is $(\seff)_{h}=0.23222(27)$~\cite{LEPEWWG05}. The results within each
794: group agree well with each other, but the averages of the two sectors
795: differ by about $3.2 \sigma$. Our analysis, like the {\small LEP-EWWG}
796: one, depends on the value of $\seff$. For instance, if we were to use
797: $(\seff)_{h}$, we would obtain a significantly higher {\small SM}
798: prediction:
799: %
800: $\mh = 129^{+53}_{-40}$~GeV,
801: %
802: $\mhUB = 225$~GeV,
803: %
804: and a continuous (red) line in Fig.~\ref{fig:mhtot} similarly shifted
805: up. However, we note that in this scenario the $\mh$ predictions from
806: $\mw$ and $(\seff)_{h}$ are inconsistent with one another unless one
807: introduces additional ``new physics'' beyond the {\small SM}. For
808: example, the difference could be associated with a value $S \sim 0.4$
809: to 0.5 of the $S$-parameter, an effect generally attributed to
810: technicolor-like theories with additional heavy fermion chiral
811: doublets~\cite{Marciano:2006zu}. Instead, if we were to employ
812: $(\seff)_{l}$, the {\small SM} prediction would drop sharply to
813: %
814: $\mh = 50^{+25}_{-18}$~GeV,
815: %
816: $\mhUB=97$~GeV,
817: %
818: which is already in conflict with the direct-search lower bound. Thus,
819: in that case, no shift $\Delta \sigma(s)$ could reconcile the \gmt
820: discrepancy without violating the lower bound. In this paper we employ
821: as input the world-average of $\seff$ since this is the value
822: determined in the global analysis of the {\small SM}.
823:
824:
825: The $\mh$ upper bounds presented in this article depend sensitively on
826: the central value $\mt=172.6$~GeV and its uncertainty $\delta
827: \mt=1.4$~GeV. In the future, the former may still change and the
828: latter will further decrease. We therefore provide the following
829: simple formulae to translate easily the $\mhUB=150$~GeV result of our
830: numerical $\chi^2$-analysis based on the $\mw$ and $\seff$
831: predictions, as well as the $\mhUB[0.6,1.2] = 130$~GeV upper bound
832: corresponding to the $\sim 6$\% increase of $\sigma(s)$ in the
833: interval [0.6,1.2]~GeV (an illustrative case that accounts for $\Delta
834: a_{\mu}$), into the new values derived with different $\mt$ and $\delta
835: \mt$ inputs:
836: %
837: \bea
838: &&\mhUB = \left( 150.5 + 11.2 x + 9.4 y \right){\rm GeV,}
839: \label{eq:fit1}
840: \\ &&\mhUB[0.6,1.2] = ( 130.7 + 9.9 x + 8.2 y){\rm \, GeV,~~~~~~}
841: \label{eq:fit2}
842: \eea
843: %
844: with $x=\mt- 172.6{\rm GeV}$ and $y=\delta \mt - 1.4{\rm GeV}$. Note
845: that, in case of a future rise of the $\mt$ central value, the
846: increase induced on the $\mh$ upper bounds would be partially
847: compensated by a reduction of the error $\delta \mt$. Equations
848: (\ref{eq:fit1},\ref{eq:fit2}) reproduce the results of the detailed
849: numerical $\chi^2$-analysis with maximum absolute deviations of
850: roughly 1~GeV when $\mt \in [171,174]$~GeV and $\delta \mt \in
851: [1.0,1.8]$~GeV.
852:
853:
854:
855: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%
856: \subsection{Conclusions}
857: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%
858: \label{sec:CONC}
859:
860: The present discrepancy between the {\small SM} prediction of the
861: anomalous magnetic moment of the muon and its experimental
862: determination could be due to the contribution of new, yet
863: undiscovered, physics beyond the {\small SM}, or to errors in the
864: determination of the hadronic contributions. In this letter we
865: considered the second hypothesis and, in particular, the possibility
866: to accommodate the discrepancy
867: %
868: $\Delta a_{\mu} = +302(88) \times 10^{-11}$
869: %
870: (3.4 $\sigma$) by changes in the hadronic cross section $\sigma(s)$
871: used to determine the leading hadronic contribution
872: $a_{\mu}^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\rm HLO}$}}$. This option has
873: important consequences on $\mhUB$, the 95\% {\small CL} {\small EW}
874: upper bound on the mass of the {\small SM} Higgs boson.
875:
876:
877: We first analyzed the effects induced by these hypothetical changes
878: $\Delta \sigma(s)$ on the value of $\Delta \alpha_{\rm
879: had}^{(5)}(\mz)$, one of the key inputs of the {\small EW} fits with
880: a strong influence on the {\small SM} $\mh$ predictions. The
881: comparison of the theoretical predictions of $\mw$ and the effective
882: {\small EW} mixing angle $\seff$ with their precisely measured values
883: allowed us to determine, via a combined $\chi^2$ analysis, the
884: variations of $\mhUB$ induced by the shifts $\Delta \sigma(s)$. We
885: concluded that if the hadronic cross section is shifted up in energy
886: regions centered above $\sim 1.2$~GeV to bridge the muon \gmt
887: discrepancy, the Higgs mass upper bound becomes inconsistent with the
888: {\small LEP} lower limit.
889:
890:
891: If $\tau$-decay data are incorporated in the calculation of
892: $a_{\mu}^{\mysmall \rm SM}$, the discrepancy $\Delta a_{\mu}$ drops to
893: $+89(95) \times 10^{-11}$. While this almost solves the muon \gmt
894: discrepancy, it raises the value of $\Delta \alpha_{\rm
895: had}^{(5)}(\mz)$ leading to $\mhUB= 138$~GeV, increasing the tension
896: with the {\small LEP} lower bound. One could also consider a scenario,
897: suggested by recent studies, where the $\tau$ data confirm the
898: $e^+e^-$ ones below $\sim 1$~GeV, while a discrepancy between them
899: persists at higher energies. If, in this case, $\Delta a_{\mu}$ is
900: reconciled by hypothetical errors above $\sim 1$~GeV, where the data
901: sets disagree, one also finds values of $\mhUB$ inconsistent with the
902: 114.4~GeV lower bound. For example, if $\sigma(s)$ is shifted in the
903: interval [1.0,1.8]~GeV, we obtain $\mhUB= 108$~GeV.
904:
905:
906: We then questioned the plausibility of the variations $\Delta
907: \sigma(s)\!=\!\epsilon \sigma(s)$ required to fix $\Delta
908: a_{\mu}$. Their amounts clearly depend on the energy regions chosen
909: for the change, but we showed that they are generally very large when
910: compared with the actual experimental uncertainties. Given the small
911: experimental uncertainty of $\sigma(s)$ below 1~GeV, the possibility
912: to bridge the muon \gmt discrepancy with shifts of the hadronic cross
913: section appears to be unlikely. Smaller values of $\epsilon$ (for
914: fixed bin-widths $\delta$) are needed when the shifts occur in energy
915: regions centered around the $\rho$-$\omega$ resonances; but also this
916: possibility looks unlikely since it requires variations of $\sigma(s)$
917: of at least $\sim 6$\%, a large modification given current
918: experimental error estimates. However, if this turns out to be the
919: solution of the $\Delta a_{\mu}$ discrepancy, we conclude that $\mhUB$
920: is reduced to roughly 130~GeV which, in conjunction with the 114.4~GeV
921: lower bound, leaves a narrow window for the mass of this fundamental
922: particle. Simple formulae were also provided to translate $\mh$ upper
923: bounds derived in this paper into new values corresponding to $\mt$
924: and $\delta \mt$ inputs different from those employed here.
925:
926:
927: If the $\Delta a_{\mu}$ discrepancy is real, it points to ``new
928: physics'', like low-energy supersymmetry. In fact, an intriguing
929: explanation of $\Delta a_{\mu}$ is provided by some supersymmetric
930: models, where it is reconciled by the additional contributions of
931: supersymmetric partners~\cite{NP} and one expects $\mh \lesssim
932: 135$~GeV for the mass of the lightest scalar~\cite{DHHSW}. If,
933: instead, the deviation is caused by an incorrect leading-order
934: hadronic contribution, it leads to a larger $\Delta \alpha_{\rm
935: had}^{(5)}(\mz)$ and, correspondingly, to low values of $\mhUB$,
936: thus leaving a very narrow range for the {\small SM} Higgs boson mass.
937:
938:
939:
940: %%---------------------------------------------------------------------------%
941: \begin{acknowledgments}
942: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%
943: \noindent
944: We would like to thank G.~Colangelo, G.~Degrassi, S.~Eidelman,
945: A.~Ferroglia and T.~Teubner for very useful discussions, and
946: S.~Eidelman, S.~M\"uller, F.~Nguyen and G.~Venanzoni for precious help
947: with the experimental data of the hadronic cross sections. M.P.\ also
948: thanks the Department of Physics of the University of Padova for its
949: support.
950: %
951: The work of M.P.\ was supported in part by the E.C.\ Research Training
952: Networks under contracts MRTN-CT-2004-503369 and
953: MRTN-CT-2006-035505. The work of W.J.M.\ was supported by U.S.\ DOE grant
954: DE-AC02-76CH00016. The work of A.S.\ was supported in part by the
955: U.S.\ NSF grant PHY-0245068.
956:
957: \end{acknowledgments}
958:
959:
960: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%
961: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
962: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%
963:
964: \bibitem{bnl} G.W.~Bennett {\it et al.},
965: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73} (2006) 072003;
966: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0602035;%%
967: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 92} (2004) 161802;
968: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0401008;%%
969: {\bf 89} (2002) 101804;
970: {\bf 89} (2002) 129903(E);
971: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0208001;%%
972: H.N.~Brown {\it et al.},
973: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86} (2001) 2227.
974: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0102017;%%
975:
976: \bibitem{NP}
977: See, e.g., A.~Czarnecki and W.J.~Marciano,
978: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 013014;
979: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D64,013014;%%
980: D.~Stockinger,
981: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 34}, R45 (2007),
982: %% CITATION = JPHGB,G34,R45;%%
983: and references therein.
984:
985: \bibitem{QED}
986: T.~Kinoshita and M.~Nio,
987: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73} (2006) 013003;
988: %% CITATION = HEP-PH 0507249;%%
989: {\bf 70} (2004) 113001;
990: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402206;%%
991: {\bf 73} (2006) 053007;
992: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0512330;%%
993: T.~Aoyama, M.~Hayakawa, T.~Kinoshita and M.~Nio,
994: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 99} (2007) 110406;
995: %%CITATION = PRLTA,99,110406;%%
996: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 77} (2008) 053012;
997: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0712.2607;%%
998: S.~Laporta and E.~Remiddi,
999: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 301} (1993) 440;
1000: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B301,440;%%
1001: {\bf 379} (1996) 283;
1002: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B379,283;%%
1003: M.~Passera, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 75} (2007) 013002;
1004: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D75,013002;%%
1005: A.L.~Kataev, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74} (2006) 073011.
1006: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D74,073011;%%
1007:
1008: \bibitem{MPrev}
1009: M.~Passera,
1010: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 31} (2005) R75.
1011: %% CITATION = JPHGB,G31,R75;%%
1012:
1013: \bibitem{EW}
1014: A.~Czarnecki, W.J.~Marciano and A.~Vainshtein,
1015: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 073006;
1016: D {\bf 73} (2006) 119901(E);
1017: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D67,073006;%%
1018: A.~Czarnecki, B.~Krause and W.J.~Marciano,
1019: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52} (1995) 2619;
1020: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D52,2619;%%
1021: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 76} (1996) 3267.
1022: %%CITATION = PRLTA,76,3267;%%
1023:
1024: \bibitem{DE07}
1025: M.~Davier,
1026: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 169} (2007) 288;
1027: %% CITATION = NUPHZ,169,288;%%
1028: S.~Eidelman,
1029: Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 38} (2007) 3015.
1030:
1031: \bibitem{HMNT06}
1032: K.~Hagiwara, A.D.~Martin, D.~Nomura and T.~Teubner,
1033: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 649} (2007) 173.
1034: %% CITATION = PHLTA,B649,173;%%
1035:
1036: \bibitem{Jeger06}
1037: F.~Jegerlehner,
1038: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 162} (2006) 22.
1039: %% CITATION = NUPHZ,162,22;%%
1040:
1041: \bibitem{TY05}
1042: J.F.~de Troconiz and F.J.~Yndurain,
1043: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71} (2005) 073008.
1044: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D71,073008;%%
1045:
1046: \bibitem{Kr96}
1047: B.~Krause, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 390} (1997) 392.
1048: %% CITATION = PHLTA,B390,392;%%
1049:
1050: \bibitem{Andreas}
1051: M.\ Knecht and A.\ Nyffeler, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 73034;
1052: %% CITATION = HEP-PH 0111058;%%
1053: M.~Knecht, A.~Nyffeler, M.~Perrottet and E.~de Rafael,
1054: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 88} (2002) 71802.
1055: %% CITATION = HEP-PH 0111059;%%
1056:
1057: \bibitem{Arkady}
1058: K.~Melnikov and A.~Vainshtein,
1059: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 113006.
1060: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D70,113006;%%
1061:
1062: \bibitem{BP07}
1063: J.~Bijnens, J.~Prades,
1064: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 22} (2007) 767.
1065: %%CITATION = MPLAE,A22,767;%%
1066:
1067: \bibitem{ADH98} R.~Alemany, M.~Davier and A.~H\"ocker,
1068: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 2} (1998) 123.
1069: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9703220;%%
1070:
1071: \bibitem{DEHZ}
1072: M.~Davier, S.~Eidelman, A.~H\"ocker, and Z.~Zhang,
1073: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 27} (2003) 497;
1074: %% CITATION = EPHJA,C27,497;%%
1075: C {\bf 31} (2003) 503.
1076: %% CITATION = EPHJA,C31,503;%%
1077:
1078: \bibitem{IVC1}
1079: W.J.~Marciano and A.~Sirlin,
1080: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 61} (1988) 1815;
1081: %% CITATION = PRLTA,61,1815;%%
1082: A.~Sirlin, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 196} (1982) 83;
1083: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B196,83;%%
1084: V.~Cirigliano, G.~Ecker and H.~Neufeld,
1085: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 513} (2001) 361;
1086: %% CITATION = HEP-PH 0104267;%%
1087: {\small JHEP} {\bf 0208} (2002) 002.
1088: %% CITATION = HEP-PH 0207310;%%
1089:
1090: \bibitem{IVC2} F.~Flores-Baez, A.~Flores-Tlalpa, G.~Lopez Castro and
1091: G.~Toledo Sanchez, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74} (2006) 071301.
1092: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D74,071301;%%
1093:
1094: \bibitem{IVC3} F.V.~Flores-Baez, G.~Lopez Castro and G.~Toledo
1095: Sanchez, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 76} (2007) 096010.
1096: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D76,096010;%%
1097:
1098: \bibitem{IVC4}
1099: M.~Benayoun, P.~David, L.~DelBuono, O.~Leitner and H.B.~O'Connell,
1100: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 55} (2008) 199.
1101: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C55,199;%%
1102:
1103: \bibitem{DM04}
1104: M.~Davier and W.J.~Marciano,
1105: Annu.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf 54} (2004) 115.
1106: %% CITATION = ARNUA,54,115;%%
1107:
1108: \bibitem{Reviews}
1109: F.~Jegerlehner,
1110: Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 38} (2007) 3021;
1111: %%CITATION = APPOA,B38,3021;%%
1112: {\it The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon}
1113: (Springer tracts in modern physics 226), 2007;
1114: J.P.~Miller, E.~de Rafael and B.L.~Roberts,
1115: Rept.\ Prog.\ Phys.\ {\bf 70} (2007) 795;
1116: %%CITATION = RPPHA,70,795;%%
1117: M.~Passera,
1118: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 169} (2007) 213;
1119: %% CITATION = NUPHZ,169,213;%%
1120: {\bf 162} (2006) 242;
1121: %% CITATION = NUPHZ,162,242;%%
1122: {\bf 155} (2006) 365;
1123: %% CITATION = HEP-PH 0509372;%%
1124: K.~Melnikov and A.~Vainshtein,
1125: {\it Theory of the muon anomalous magnetic moment}
1126: (Springer tracts in modern physics 216), 2006;
1127: M.~Knecht,
1128: Lect.\ Notes Phys.\ {\bf 629} (2004) 37.
1129: %% CITATION = LNPHA,629,37;%%
1130:
1131: \bibitem{DISPamu}
1132: C.~Bouchiat and L.\ Michel, J.\ Phys.\ Radium 22 (1961) 121;
1133: L.~Durand, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 128} (1962) 441;
1134: {\bf 129} (1963) 2835(E);
1135: M.~Gourdin and E.~de Rafael, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 10} (1969) 667.
1136: %% CITATION = NUPHA,B10,667;%%
1137:
1138: \bibitem{EJ95}
1139: S.~Eidelman, F.~Jegerlehner,
1140: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 67} (1995) 585.
1141: %% CITATION = ZEPYA,C67,585;%%
1142:
1143: \bibitem{pQCD}
1144: R.V.~Harlander and M.~Steinhauser,
1145: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 153} (2003) 244, and references therein.
1146: %% CITATION = CPHCB,153,244;%%
1147:
1148: \bibitem{DISPDalpha}
1149: N.~Cabibbo and R.~Gatto, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 124} (1961) 1577.
1150: %% CITATION = PHRVA,124,1577;%%
1151:
1152: \bibitem{Co04}
1153: G.~Colangelo,
1154: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 131} (2004) 185.
1155: %% CITATION = NUPHZ,131,185;%%
1156:
1157: \bibitem{2pi}
1158: R.R.~Akhmetshin {\it et al.} [CMD-2 Collaboration],
1159: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 648} (2007) 28;
1160: %% CITATION = PHLTA,B648,28;%%
1161: M.N.~Achasov {\it et al.} [SND Collaboration],
1162: J.\ Exp.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 103} (2006) 380
1163: [Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 130} (2006) 437];
1164: %% CITATION = ZETFA,130,437;%%
1165: A.~Aloisio {\it et al.} [KLOE Collaboration],
1166: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 606} (2005) 12.
1167: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B606,12;%%
1168:
1169: \bibitem{3pia}
1170: M.N.~Achasov {\it et al.} [SND Collaboration],
1171: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68} (2003) 052006;
1172: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D68,052006;%%
1173: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
1174: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 072004.
1175: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D70,072004;%%
1176:
1177: \bibitem{3pib2K}
1178: M.N.~Achasov {\it et al.} [SND Collaboration],
1179: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 072002;
1180: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D63,072002;%%
1181:
1182: \bibitem{2Kc}
1183: S.I.~Dolinsky {\it et al.},
1184: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 202} (1991) 99.
1185: %%CITATION = PRPLC,202,99;%%
1186:
1187: \bibitem{2K0}
1188: R.R.~Akhmetshin {\it et al.} [CMD-2 Collaboration],
1189: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 551} (2003) 27;
1190: %% CITATION = PHLTA,B551,27;%%
1191: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 578} (2004) 285.
1192: %% CITATION = PHLTA,B578,285;%%
1193:
1194: \bibitem{4pic}
1195: R.R.~Akhmetshin {\it et al.} [CMD-2 Collaboration],
1196: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 475} (2000) 190;
1197: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B475,190;%%
1198: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 595} (2004) 101;
1199: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B595,101;%%
1200: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
1201: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71} (2005) 052001.
1202: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D71,052001;%%
1203:
1204: \bibitem{4pi0}
1205: S.I.~Eidelman [CMD-2 and SND Collaborations],
1206: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 144} (2005) 223;
1207: %%CITATION = NUPHZ,169,265;%%
1208: M.N.~Achasov {\it et al.} [SND Collaboration],
1209: J.\ Exp.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 96} (2003) 789
1210: [Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 123} (2003) 899].
1211: %%CITATION = ZETFA,123,899;%%
1212:
1213: \bibitem{1pi}
1214: M.N.~Achasov {\it et al.} [SND Collaboration],
1215: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 559} (2003) 171.
1216: %% CITATION = PHLTA,B559,171;%%
1217:
1218: \bibitem{1et}
1219: M.N.~Achasov {\it et al.} [SND Collaboration],
1220: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 12} (2000) 25.
1221: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C12,25;%%
1222:
1223: \bibitem{inclusive}
1224: C.~Bacci {\it et al.} [$\gamma \gamma 2$ Collaboration],
1225: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 86} (1979) 234;
1226: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B86,234;%%
1227: B.~Esposito {\it et al.} [MEA Collaboration],
1228: Lett.\ Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf 30} (1981) 65;
1229: %%CITATION = NCLTA,30,65;%%
1230: M.~Ambrosio {\it et al.} [$B\bar{B}$ Collaboration],
1231: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 91} (1980) 155.
1232: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B91,155;%%
1233:
1234: \bibitem{newLEPEWWG} LEP EW Working Group,
1235: http://lepewwg.web.cern.ch.
1236:
1237: \bibitem{Group:2008nq}
1238: Tevatron Electroweak Working Group, for the CDF
1239: and D0 Collaborations, arXiv:0803.1683 [hep-ex].
1240: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0803.1683;%%
1241:
1242: \bibitem{BP05}
1243: H.~Burkhardt and B.~Pietrzyk,
1244: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 057501.
1245: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D72,057501;%%
1246:
1247: \bibitem{MHLB03}
1248: LEP Working Group for Higgs boson searches,
1249: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 565} (2003) 61.
1250: %% CITATION = PHLTA,B565,61;%%
1251:
1252: \bibitem{FOS}
1253: A.~Ferroglia, G.~Ossola and A.~Sirlin,
1254: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 35} (2004) 501;
1255: %% CITATION = EPHJA,C35,501;%%
1256: arXiv:hep-ph/0406334.
1257: %% CITATION = HEP-PH/0406334;%%
1258:
1259: \bibitem{formulette}
1260: G.~Degrassi, P.~Gambino, M.~Passera and A.~Sirlin,
1261: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 418} (1998) 209;
1262: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9708311;%%
1263: G.~Degrassi and P.\ Gambino,
1264: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 567} (2000) 3;
1265: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905472;%%
1266: A.~Ferroglia, G.~Ossola, M.~Passera and A.~Sirlin,
1267: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 113002;
1268: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0203224;%%
1269: M.~Awramik, M.~Czakon, A.~Freitas and G.~Weiglein,
1270: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 053006;
1271: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311148;%%
1272: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93} (2004) 201805;
1273: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407317;%%
1274: M.~Awramik, M.~Czakon and A.~Freitas,
1275: JHEP {\bf 0611} (2006) 048.
1276: %% CITATION = JHEPA,0611,048;%%
1277:
1278: \bibitem{LEPEWWG06}
1279: The LEP Collaborations ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL, and the
1280: LEP Electroweak Working Group,
1281: arXiv:hep-ex/0612034.
1282: %%CITATION = HEP-EX/0612034;%%
1283:
1284: \bibitem{Wmass}
1285: CDF and D0 Collaborations, and Tevatron Electroweak Working Group,
1286: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 092008.
1287: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D70,092008;%%
1288:
1289: \bibitem{Gru07}
1290: M.W.~Grunewald, arXiv:0710.2838 [hep-ex].
1291: %% CITATION = ARXIV:0710.2838;%%
1292:
1293: \bibitem{LEPEWWG05}
1294: LEP Electroweak Working Group, SLD Electroweak Group,
1295: SLD HeavyFlavour Group,
1296: and ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL and SLD Collaborations,
1297: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 427} (2006) 257.
1298: %% CITATION = PRPLC,427,257;%%
1299:
1300: \bibitem{PDG06}
1301: W.M.~Yao {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group],
1302: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 33} (2006) 1.
1303: %% CITATION = JPHGB,G33,1;%%
1304:
1305: \bibitem{Marciano04}
1306: W.J.~Marciano,
1307: eConf {\bf C040802} (2004) L009
1308: [arXiv:hep-ph/0411179].
1309: %% CITATION = HEP-PH 0411179;%%
1310:
1311: \bibitem{Marciano:2006zu}
1312: W.J.~Marciano,
1313: AIP Conf.\ Proc.\ {\bf 870} (2006) 236.
1314: %%CITATION = APCPC,870,236;%%
1315:
1316: \bibitem{DHHSW}
1317: G.~Degrassi, S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik, P.~Slavich and G.~Weiglein,
1318: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 28} (2003) 133.
1319: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C28,133;%%
1320:
1321: \end{thebibliography}
1322:
1323:
1324: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%
1325: \end{document}
1326: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%
1327: %***************************************************************************%
1328:
1329: