1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% THE SKELETON FILE FOR JHEP PROCEEDINGS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Look at the documentation for syntax %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% http://jhep/JOURNAL/tex.html %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4:
5: \documentclass[proceedings]{JHEP3}
6:
7: \PrHEP{PrHEP hep2001}
8: \conference{International Europhysics Conference on HEP}
9:
10: \usepackage{epsfig}
11:
12: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
13: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
14: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}
15: \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}
16: \newcommand{\beqan}{\begin{eqnarray*}}
17: \newcommand{\eeqan}{\end{eqnarray*}}
18: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}}
19: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}
20: \newcommand{\no}{\nonumber}
21: \newcommand{\grts}{\stackrel{>}{_\sim}}
22: \newcommand{\lets}{\stackrel{<}{_\sim}}
23: \newcommand{\Un}{\underline}
24: \newcommand{\ol}{\overline}
25: \newcommand{\ra}{\rightarrow}
26: \newcommand{\Ra}{\Rightarrow}
27: \newcommand{\ve}{\varepsilon}
28: \newcommand{\vp}{\varphi}
29: \newcommand{\vt}{\vartheta}
30: \newcommand{\dg}{\dagger}
31: \newcommand{\wt}{\widetilde}
32: \newcommand{\wh}{\widehat}
33: \newcommand{\br}{\breve}
34: \newcommand{\A}{{\cal A}}
35: \newcommand{\B}{{\cal B}}
36: \newcommand{\C}{{\cal C}}
37: \newcommand{\D}{{\cal D}}
38: \newcommand{\E}{{\cal E}}
39: \newcommand{\F}{{\cal F}}
40: \newcommand{\G}{{\cal G}}
41: \newcommand{\Ha}{{\cal H}}
42: \newcommand{\K}{{\cal K}}
43: \newcommand{\cL}{{\cal L}}
44: \newcommand{\M}{{\cal M}}
45: \newcommand{\N}{{\cal N}}
46: \newcommand{\cO}{{\cal O}}
47: \newcommand{\cP}{{\cal P}}
48: \newcommand{\Q}{{\cal Q}}
49: \newcommand{\R}{{\cal R}}
50: \newcommand{\cS}{{\cal S}}
51: \newcommand{\T}{{\cal T}}
52: \newcommand{\U}{{\cal U}}
53: \newcommand{\V}{{\cal V}}
54: \newcommand{\W}{{\cal W}}
55: \newcommand{\X}{{\cal X}}
56: \newcommand{\Y}{{\cal Y}}
57: \newcommand{\Z}{{\cal Z}}
58: \newcommand{\st}{\stackrel}
59: \newcommand{\dfrac}{\displaystyle \frac}
60: \newcommand{\dint}{\displaystyle \int}
61: \newcommand{\dsum}{\displaystyle \sum}
62: \newcommand{\dprod}{\displaystyle \prod}
63: \newcommand{\dmax}{\displaystyle \max}
64: \newcommand{\dmin}{\displaystyle \min}
65: \newcommand{\dlim}{\displaystyle \lim}
66: \newcommand{\tab}[3]{\parbox{2cm}{#1} #2 \dotfill\ #3\\}
67: \newcommand{\co}{\; \; ,}
68: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber \\}
69: \newcommand{\scs}{\co \;}
70: \newcommand{\sss}{\;\; ; \;}
71: \newcommand{\per}{ \; .}
72: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
73: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
74: \newcommand{\del}{\partial}
75: \newcommand{\fsl}{\not\!}
76: \newcommand{\Fsl}{\not\!\!}
77: \newcommand{\epe}{\ve_{\pi^0\eta}}
78: \newcommand{\pe}{$\pi^0$-$\eta$}
79: \def\lint{\int\limits}
80: \newcommand{\epoe}{\varepsilon'/\varepsilon}
81: \newcommand{\RE}{\mbox{\rm Re}}
82: \newcommand{\IM}{\mbox{\rm Im}}
83: %\newcommand{\hepph}[1]{{\tt hep-ph/#1}}
84: %\newcommand{\hepex}[1]{{\tt hep-ex/#1}}
85: \newcommand{\PL}[3]{{Phys. Lett.} {\bf#1} {(#2)} {#3}}
86: \newcommand{\PRL}[3]{{Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf#1} {(#2)} {#3}}
87: \newcommand{\PR}[3]{{Phys. Rev.} {\bf#1} {(#2)} {#3}}
88: \newcommand{\NP}[3]{{Nucl. Phys.} {\bf#1} {(#2)} {#3}}
89: \newcommand{\EPJ}[3]{{Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf#1} {(#2)} {#3}}
90: \newcommand{\ZP}[3]{{Z. Phys.} {\bf#1} {(#2)} {#3}}
91:
92:
93: \title{Isospin Violation and the Magnetic Moment of the Muon}
94:
95: \author{\speaker{Vincenzo Cirigliano}, Gerhard Ecker, Helmut Neufeld
96: \thanks{ Work supported in part by TMR, EC-Contract
97: No. ERBFMRX-CT980169 (EURODA$\Phi$NE).}\\
98: Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at
99: Wien\\ Boltzmanngasse 5, A-1090 Vienna, Austria \\
100: E-mail: \email{vincenzo@thp.univie.ac.at}}
101:
102: \abstract{We calculate the leading isospin-violating and electromagnetic
103: corrections for the decay $\tau^- \to \pi^0 \pi^- \nu_\tau$ at low
104: energies. The corrections are small but
105: relevant for the inclusion of $\tau$ decay data in the determination
106: of hadronic vacuum polarization especially for the anomalous magnetic
107: moment of the muon. This contribution is based on Ref.~\cite{cen}}
108:
109:
110: \begin{document}
111:
112: \section{Introduction}
113: The leading hadronic contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of
114: the muon $a_\mu=(g_\mu-2)/2$ is given by the hadronic vacuum
115: polarization \cite{GdR69}:
116: \begin{equation}
117: a_\mu^{\rm vacpol}=\displaystyle\frac{1}{4\pi^3}\displaystyle\int_{4
118: M_\pi^2}^{\infty} dt K(t) \sigma^0_{e^+ e^- \to {\rm hadrons}}(t)
119: \end{equation}
120: where $K(t)$ is a smooth kernel concentrated at low energies,
121: and $\sigma^0_{e^+ e^- \to {\rm hadrons}}$ denotes the
122: ``pure'' hadronic cross section with QED corrections removed.
123: The low-energy structure of hadronic vacuum polarization is especially
124: important. In fact, about 70 $\%$ of $a_\mu^{\rm vacpol}$ is due to
125: the two-pion intermediate state for $4 M_\pi^2 \le t \le 0.8$ GeV$^2$
126: (see, e.g., Ref. \cite{narison}). A precision of 1 $\%$ has been
127: achieved in the calculation of $a_\mu^{\rm vacpol}$ by including
128: \cite{alemany} the more accurate $\tau$ decay data \cite{taudata} in
129: addition to $\sigma(e^+ e^- \to $ hadrons) data.
130: This is possible because of a CVC relation between
131: electromagnetic and weak form factors in the isospin limit. However,
132: both the aforementioned theoretical accuracy and the new
133: high-precision experiment at Brookhaven \cite{bnl} warrant a closer
134: investigation of isospin violation, due to both the light quark
135: mass difference and electromagnetism (EM).
136: We concentrate in this work on isospin violation in the reactions
137: $\tau^- \to \pi^0 \pi^- \nu_\tau$ and $e^+ e^- \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ at low
138: energies. Chiral perturbation theory (CHPT) \cite{chpt,urech} is the
139: framework where such corrections can reliably be calculated for the
140: standard model in a systematic low-energy expansion. More
141: specifically, we calculate the leading corrections of both
142: $O[(m_u-m_d)p^2]$ and $O(e^2 p^2)$ for the CVC relation between the
143: two-pion (vector) form factors in the two processes.
144: For a more detailed presentation and a more complete bibliography
145: we refer to Ref.~\cite{cen}.
146:
147: Let us define the problem more precisely. For the two-pion final
148: state, the bare $e^+ e^-$ cross section and the $\tau^- \to \pi^0 \pi^-
149: \nu_\tau$ decay distribution take the form:
150: \begin{eqnarray}
151: \sigma^0_{e^+ e^- \to \pi^+ \pi^-}(t)&=&\displaystyle\frac
152: {\pi\alpha^2}{3 t} \beta^3_{\pi^+\pi^-} (t) |F_V(t)|^2 \\
153: \displaystyle\frac{d \Gamma(\tau^-\to \pi^0 \pi^- \nu_\tau)}{dt} &=&
154: \Gamma_e \, {\cal K}_1 (t) \, \beta^3_{\pi^0\pi^-}(t) \,
155: |f_+(t)|^2 \, S_{\rm EW} \, G_{\rm EM} (t) \ ,
156: \label{dGamma}
157: \end{eqnarray}
158: where
159: $$
160: \Gamma_e= \displaystyle\frac{G_F^2 m_\tau^5}{192 \pi^3} ~,~ \ \ \ \ \ \
161: {\cal K}_1(t) =
162: \displaystyle\frac{|V_{ud}|^2}{2 m_\tau^2} (1-\frac{t}{m_\tau^2})^2
163: (1+\frac{2t}{m_\tau^2}) \ .
164: $$
165: Here $t$ is the hadronic invariant mass; $\beta_{\pi^+ \pi^-} (t)$ and
166: $\beta_{\pi^0 \pi^-} (t)$ are the center of mass pion velocities for
167: the two processes; $F_V (t)$ and $f_+ (t)$ are the EM and weak vector
168: form factors of the pion. In the isospin limit ($m_u=m_d$ and $e=0$)
169: we have $M_{\pi^+}=M_{\pi^0}$ (hence $\beta_{\pi^+ \pi^-} (t)=
170: \beta_{\pi^0 \pi^-} (t)$) , $S_{\rm EW} = G_{\rm EM} (t) = 1$ and
171: $f_+(t) = F_V(t)$, implying the CVC relation
172: \begin{equation}
173: \sigma^{0, CVC}_{e^+ e^- \to \pi^+ \pi^-}(t)=\displaystyle\frac{\pi \alpha^2}
174: {3 \, t \, {\cal K}_1(t) \ \Gamma_e}
175: \displaystyle\frac{d \Gamma(\tau^-\to \pi^0 \pi^-
176: \nu_\tau)}{dt} \ .
177: \label{CVC}
178: \end{equation}
179: Including isospin violation, the modified CVC relation reads
180: \begin{eqnarray}
181: \sigma^0_{e^+ e^- \to \pi^+ \pi^-}(t) & = &
182: \sigma^{0, CVC}_{e^+ e^- \to \pi^+ \pi^-}(t)
183: \displaystyle\frac{R_{\rm IB} (t)}{S_{\rm EW}} \ , \\
184: R_{\rm IB} (t) & = &
185: \displaystyle\frac{1}{G_{\rm EM}(t)} \displaystyle\frac{\beta^3_{\pi^+
186: \pi^-}(t)}{\beta^3_{\pi^0\pi^-}(t)} \left|\displaystyle\frac{F_V(t)}{f_+(t)}
187: \right|^2 ~. \label{riso}
188: \end{eqnarray}
189: The factor $S_{\rm EW}$ takes into account the dominant short-distance
190: electroweak corrections \cite{MS88}. To lowest order in $\alpha$, it
191: is given by $S_{\rm EW} = 1 +(\alpha / \pi) {\rm
192: log}(M_Z^2/m_{\tau}^2)$, amounting to the numerical value $S_{\rm EW}
193: = 1.0194$. This is consistently used in all present analyses.
194: $R_{\rm IB} (t)$ involves the long distance QED factor $G_{\rm EM}(t)$ (which
195: receives both virtual and real photon contributions), the phase space
196: correction factor $\beta^3_{\pi^+ \pi^-}(t)/\beta^3_{\pi^0\pi^-}(t)$
197: ~\cite{kuehn}, and the ratio of EM and weak form factors. Working at
198: leading order, the form factor $F_V(t)$ needs to be calculated to
199: $O[(m_u-m_d)p^2]$ with physical meson masses (but without explicit
200: photonic corrections). $f_+(t)$ must be calculated to both
201: $O[(m_u-m_d)p^2]$ and $O(e^2 p^2)$, if $d\Gamma/dt$ is to be extracted
202: from actual $\tau$ decay data.
203:
204: \section{Anatomy of $R_{\rm IB}(t)$: $F_V$, $f_+$, $G_{\rm EM}$}
205:
206: At first non-trivial order in the low-energy expansion, isospin
207: violation manifests itself in the pion vector form factor $F_V(t)$
208: only in the masses of the particles contained in the loop amplitude:
209: \begin{equation}
210: F_V(t)=1+2 H_{\pi^+\pi^-}(t) + H_{K^+ K^-}(t)
211: \label{FVp4}
212: \end{equation}
213: with \cite{gl852}
214: \begin{equation}
215: H_{PQ} (t) = {\tilde H}_{PQ}(t,\mu)
216: + \frac{2}{3 F_\pi^2}t L_9^r(\mu) ~,
217: \end{equation}
218: The loop function ${\tilde H}_{PQ}(t)$ encodes the singularities due
219: to the low energy meson propagation, while the local term
220: (proportional to the low-energy constant $L_9^r(\mu)$ \cite{gl852})
221: governs the charge radius of the pion and is sensitive to the
222: structure of the theory at higher energies.
223: This specific channel is completely
224: dominated by the $\rho$ resonance. So, leaving the domain of a pure
225: low energy effective theory, we use the prescription of
226: Ref.~\cite{gpgdpp} to match the CHPT form factor (\ref{FVp4}) of
227: $O(p^4)$ to the resonance region:
228: \begin{eqnarray}
229: F_V(t)&=&\displaystyle\frac{M_\rho^2}{M_\rho^2 - t -i M_\rho
230: \Gamma_\rho(t)} \exp{ \bigg[2 {\rm Re} {\tilde H}_{\pi^+\pi^-}(t)+
231: {\rm Re} {\tilde H}_{K^+ K^-}(t) \bigg]}~,
232: \label{FVrho} \\
233: \Gamma_\rho(t)&=&\displaystyle\frac{M_\rho t}{96 \pi F_\pi^2}
234: \left[\beta^3_{\pi\pi}(t)\theta(t-4 M_\pi^2)+\frac{1}{2}
235: \beta^3_{KK}(t) \theta(t-4 M_K^2)\right] \ .
236: \label{width}
237: \end{eqnarray}
238: For the present case, the charged pion and kaon masses must be inserted
239: in the hadronic off-shell width.
240: The representation (\ref{FVrho}) gives an excellent description of
241: $e^+ e^- \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ data up to $t\sim 1$ GeV$^2$ with the single
242: parameter $M_\rho\simeq$ 775 MeV, and has the correct low-energy
243: behaviour to $O(p^4)$ (including isospin breaking).
244: To the order we are working, $\rho^+-\rho^0$ mass difference and
245: $\rho-\omega$ mixing do not appear. Such higher-order effects (from
246: the low energy point of view) are not necessarily negligible
247: numerically (see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{maltman}). They can be included
248: as additional contributions to the factor $R_{\rm IB}(t)$.
249:
250: To first order in isospin violation, this time including explicit
251: photonic corrections, the form factor $f_+$ is given by
252: \begin{equation}
253: f_+(t,u)=1 + 2 H_{\pi^0\pi^-}(t) + H_{K^0 K^-}(t)
254: + f_{\rm loop}^{\rm elm}(u,M_\gamma)
255: + f_{\rm local}^{\rm elm}~.
256: \label{fplus1}
257: \end{equation}
258: Compared to the form factor $F_V(t)$ in (\ref{FVp4}), the appropriate
259: meson masses appear in the loop amplitude and there is an additional
260: electromagnetic amplitude, containing both the photon loop diagrams
261: and an associated local part. The electromagnetic amplitude depends on
262: the second Dalitz variable $u=(P_\tau - p_{\pi^-})^2$.
263: The loop function $f_{\rm loop}^{\rm elm}(u,M_\gamma)$ encodes
264: universal physics related to the Coulomb interaction between the
265: $\tau$ and the charged pion, and therefore we pull it out in an overall
266: term. Matching this low energy result to the resonance region,
267: we are lead to write:
268: \begin{eqnarray}
269: f_+(t,u) & = & f_{+} (t) \bigg[1 + f_{\rm loop}^{\rm elm}(u,M_\gamma)
270: \bigg] \\
271: f_+(t)&=&\displaystyle\frac{M_\rho^2}{M_\rho^2 - t -i M_\rho
272: \Gamma_\rho(t)} \exp{ \bigg[2 {\rm Re} {\tilde H}_{\pi^0\pi^-}(t)+
273: {\rm Re}{\tilde H}_{K^0 K^-}(t) \bigg]} + f_{\rm local}^{\rm elm} ~.
274: \label{fplus2}
275: \end{eqnarray}
276: The resonance width $\Gamma_\rho (t)$ in (\ref{width}) has to
277: be calculated now with the appropriate $\pi^- \pi^0$ and $K^- K^0$
278: thresholds and phase space factors.
279: The local contribution in $f_+$ depends on three low-energy constants
280: appearing in the chiral expansion. The bounds used for them
281: \cite{cen} reflect in
282: the uncertainty reported in our result (Fig.~\ref{fig:RIB} $(a)$,
283: solid curves).
284:
285: The photon loop amplitude $f_{\rm loop}^{\rm elm}(u,M_\gamma)$ is
286: infrared divergent, depending on an artificial photon mass
287: $M_\gamma$. This dependence is canceled by bremsstrahlung of soft
288: photons making the decay distribution in $(t,u)$ infrared finite. The
289: sum of real and virtual contributions produces a correction factor
290: $\Delta (t,u)$ to the $(t,u)$ decay distribution. After averaging
291: over the Dalitz variable $u$, this produces the term $G_{\rm EM}(t)$
292: in the decay distribution (\ref{dGamma}). The precise form of
293: $\Delta (t,u)$ (and $G_{\rm EM}(t)$) depends on the specific
294: experimental setup. To the best of our knowledge, all $\tau$ decay
295: experiments relevant here \cite{taudata} apply bremsstrahlung
296: corrections in the same (approximate) way ~\cite{was}, including only
297: the leading term in the Low expansion. Assuming this prescription, we
298: have then calculated the setup-independent part of $G_{\rm EM}(t)$,
299: assigning to it an uncertainty of $\pm \alpha/\pi$ (due to neglect of
300: sub-leading terms).
301:
302: \section{Results and conclusions}
303: \begin{figure}
304: \centering
305: \begin{picture}(300,180)
306: \put(-5,50){\makebox(100,120){\epsfig{figure=rib.eps,height=6.0cm}}}
307: \put(120,20){\scriptsize{$t$ (GeV$^2$)}}
308: \put(-65,170){\scriptsize{$R_{\rm IB} (t)$}}
309: \put(40,20){\scriptsize{$(a)$}}
310: \put(220,50){\makebox(100,120){\epsfig{figure=isofac.eps,height=6.0cm}}}
311: \put(320,20){\scriptsize{$t$ (GeV$^2$)}}
312: \put(280,20){\scriptsize{$(b)$}}
313: \end{picture}
314: \caption{$(a)$ Correction factor $R_{\rm IB}(t)$ for isospin violation.
315: The bands around the central curve correspond to
316: the uncertainty in the low-energy constants (solid lines)
317: and in the bremsstrahlung factor (dashed lines).
318: $(b)$ The separate factors defining $R_{\rm IB}(t)$ in
319: Eq.(\protect\ref{riso}) are plotted as solid line for
320: $\beta_{+-}^3/\beta_{0-}^3$, dashed line for $|F_V(t)/f_+(t)|^2$ and
321: dotted line for $1/G_{\rm EM}(t)$. \label{fig:RIB} }
322: \end{figure}
323: The results of our analysis are summarized in Figs.~\ref{fig:RIB}
324: $(a)$,$(b)$ where we plot the function $R_{\rm IB}(t)$ of
325: Eq.~(\ref{riso}) and its component factors for $ 0.2 \leq t \leq 0.8 $
326: GeV$^2$. We note that the dominant contribution at low $t$ is given
327: by the kinematical term $\beta_{+-}^3/\beta_{0-}^3$
328: \cite{kuehn}. Photonic corrections embodied in $G_{\rm EM}(t)$ reduce
329: $R_{\rm IB}(t)$ in addition by about half a percent, largely
330: independently of $t$. The form factor ratio $|F_V(t)/f_+(t)|^2$ is
331: dominated by the width difference $\Gamma_{\rho^+}-\Gamma_{\rho^0}$.
332: Since $R_{\rm IB}(t)$ is smaller than unity in most of the region
333: under consideration ($4 M_\pi^2 \le t \le 0.8$ GeV$^2$), isospin
334: violation accounts for a sizable part of the systematic difference at
335: low energies between $e^+ e^-$ and $\tau$ decay data (e.g.,
336: Ref.~\cite{EI99}). \\
337: In order to quantify the impact of $R_{\rm IB}(t)$ on
338: $a_\mu^{\rm vacpol}$, we construct the following ratio:
339: \begin{equation}
340: {\cal R} (t_{\rm max}) = \frac{ \displaystyle\int_{4 M_\pi^2}^{t_{\rm
341: max}} dt \, K(t) \, \sigma^{0,{\rm CVC}}_{e^+ e^- \to \pi^+ \pi^- }(t) \,
342: R_{\rm IB}
343: (t)}{ \displaystyle\int_{4 M_\pi^2}^{t_{\rm max}} dt \, K(t) \,
344: \sigma^{0,{\rm CVC}}_{e^+ e^- \to \pi^+ \pi^- }(t) } ~ ,
345: \label{ramu}
346: \end{equation}
347: and report a few representative values of ${\cal R} (t_{\rm max})$ in
348: Table \ref{tab1}.
349: %
350: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
351: %\begin{table}[ht]
352: \TABLE{
353: %\begin{center}
354: \caption{Correction factor for $a_\mu^{\rm vacpol}$ due to isospin
355: violation (defined in
356: Eq.~(\protect\ref{ramu})) for some values of $t_{\rm max}$.
357: An uncertainty of $0.002$ - due to $G_{\rm EM}(t)$ -
358: should be assigned to the reported values.
359: This is also an upper bound for the uncertainty due to the low-energy
360: constants (see Fig. \ref{fig:RIB}(a)). \label{tab1} }
361: %\vspace{.5cm}
362: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|}\hline
363: $t_{\rm max}$ (GeV$^2$) & 0.3 & 0.5 & 0.8\\ \hline
364: ${\cal R} (t_{\rm max})$ & 0.949 & 0.974 & 0.988 \\
365: \hline
366: \end{tabular}
367: %\end{center}
368: }
369: %\end{table}
370: %
371: Although the calculation is based on a low-energy
372: description of the standard model, we claim that the main features of
373: our $R_{\rm IB}(t)$ are valid up to $t \simeq 0.8$
374: GeV$^2$. Of the three factors in the definition (\ref{riso}) of
375: $R_{\rm IB}(t)$, both the dominant phase space correction factor
376: \cite{kuehn} and the photon loop effects are independent of the
377: low-energy expansion. Finally, the main part of isospin violation in
378: the form factor ratio $|F_V(t)/f_+(t)|^2$ occurs in the $\rho$-width
379: difference $\Gamma_{\rho^+}-\Gamma_{\rho^0}$ and should therefore be
380: reliable in the vicinity of the resonance.
381:
382: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
383: \bibitem{cen}
384: V. Cirigliano, G. Ecker, H. Neufeld,
385: \PL{B513}{2001}{361}.
386: \bibitem{GdR69}
387: M. Gourdin and E. de Rafael, \NP{B10}{1969}{667}.
388: \bibitem{narison}
389: S. Narison,
390: \PL{B513}{2001}{53}.
391: \bibitem{alemany}
392: R. Alemany, M. Davier and A. H\"ocker, \EPJ{C2}{1998}{123};\\
393: M. Davier and A. H\"ocker, \PL{B435}{1998}{427}.
394: \bibitem{taudata}
395: R. Barate et al. (ALEPH), \EPJ{C4}{1998}{409};\\
396: K. Ackerstaff et al. (OPAL), \EPJ{C7}{1999}{571};\\
397: S. Anderson et al. (CLEO), \PR{D61}{2000}{112002}.
398: \bibitem{bnl}
399: H.N. Brown et al. (BNL-E821), \PRL{86}{2001}{2227}.
400: \bibitem{chpt}
401: S. Weinberg, Physica {\bf 96A} (1979) 327;\\
402: J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Ann. Phys. {\bf 158} (1984) 142;\\
403: J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, \NP{B250}{1985}{465}.
404: \bibitem{urech}
405: R. Urech, \NP{B433}{1995}{234}; \\
406: H. Neufeld and H. Rupertsberger, Z. Phys. {\bf C68} (1995) 91; ibid.
407: {\bf C71} (1996) 131; \\
408: M. Knecht, H. Neufeld, H. Rupertsberger and P. Talavera,
409: \EPJ{C12}{2000}{469}.
410: \bibitem{MS88}
411: W.J. Marciano and A. Sirlin, \PRL{61}{1988}{1815};
412: ibid. {\bf 71} (1993) 3629.
413: \bibitem{kuehn}
414: H. Czyz and J.H. K\"uhn, \EPJ{C18}{2001}{497}.
415: \bibitem{gl852}
416: J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, \NP{B250}{1985}{517}.
417: \bibitem{gpgdpp}
418: F. Guerrero and A. Pich, \PL{B412}{1997}{382};\\
419: D. G\'{o}mez Dumm, A. Pich and J. Portol\'{e}s,
420: \PR{D62}{2000}{054014}.
421: \bibitem{maltman}
422: K. Maltman, \PR{D58}{1998}{014008}.
423: \bibitem{was}
424: E. Barberio and Z. W\c{a}s, Comp. Phys. Comm. {\bf 79} (1994) 291.
425: \bibitem{EI99}
426: S.I. Eidelman and V.N. Ivanchenko, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)
427: {\bf 76} (1999) 319.
428:
429: \end{thebibliography}
430:
431:
432:
433:
434: % \EPSFIGURE{filename.eps}
435: % {Text of the caption.\label{figlabel}}
436:
437: % \TABLE{\begin{tabular}...
438: % ....
439: % \end{tabular}%
440: % \caption{Text of the caption
441: % of the table.\label{tablabel}}}
442:
443:
444:
445: \end{document}
446: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
447:
448:
449:
450:
451:
452:
453:
454:
455:
456:
457:
458:
459:
460: