1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}

2: \usepackage{graphicx}

3: \usepackage{cite}

4: 

5: 

6: %------------------------------ LAYOUT -------------------------------------%

7: 

8: %\usepackage[textwidth=14.5cm, textheight=21cm,verbose]{geometry} 

9: % The default is approx. 13x19 cm.

10: % Output of the 'geometry' package with the above parameters: 

11: 

12: \textwidth  412.56496pt

13: \textheight 597.50787pt

14: \oddsidemargin  28.59503pt

15: \evensidemargin 28.59503pt

16: \topmargin  -7.03894pt

17: \headheight 12.0pt

18: \headsep    25.0pt

19: \footskip   30.0pt

20: \hoffset 0.0pt

21: \voffset 0.0pt

22: \mag 1000

23: 

24: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%

25: 

26: 

27: %------------------------------ DEFINITIONS --------------------------------%

28: 

29: \newcommand{ \be}{\begin{equation}}

30: \newcommand{ \ee}{\end{equation}}

31: \newcommand{ \bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

32: \newcommand{ \eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

33: \newcommand{ \mysmall}[1]{\scriptscriptstyle #1} % a smaller #

34: \newcommand{ \smallmax}{{\rm\scriptstyle max}} 

35: \newcommand{ \smallmin}{{\rm\scriptstyle min}} 

36: \newcommand{ \amu}{a_{\mu}}

37: \newcommand{ \mw}{M_{\mysmall{W}}}

38: \newcommand{ \mz}{M_{\mysmall{Z}}}

39: \newcommand{ \mh}{M_{\mysmall{H}}}

40: \newcommand{ \ct} {c_{\mysmall{W}}}

41: \newcommand{ \st} {s_{\mysmall{W}}}

42: \newcommand{ \eq}[1]{eq.~(\ref{eq:#1})}

43: \newcommand{ \gev}  {\mbox{ GeV}}

44: \newcommand{ \bm}   {\boldmath}

45: \newcommand{ \ubm}  {\unboldmath}

46: 

47: \begin{document}

48: 

49: %----------------------------  TITLE PAGE  ---------------------------------%

50: \begin{titlepage}

51: \newcommand\hepnumber{hep-ph/0411168}

52: \begin{flushright}

53:         hep-ph/0411168 \\

54: 	Updated February 2005

55: \end{flushright}

56: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

57: 

58: \begin{center}

59: \vspace{1.2cm}

60: {\LARGE \bf The Standard Model Prediction of the Muon\\[3mm]

61: Anomalous Magnetic Moment}

62: 

63: \vspace{1.5cm} {\Large\bf M.~Passera\footnotetext{e-mail address:

64: passera@pd.infn.it}}

65: 

66: \vspace{1cm}

67: {\it    Dipartimento di Fisica ``G.~Galilei'', Universit\`{a} 

68:         di Padova and \\ INFN, Sezione di Padova, I-35131, Padova, Italy 

69: 	\\[3mm]

70:         Departament de F\'\i sica Te\`orica and IFIC Centro Mixto,

71:         Universitat de Val\`encia--CSIC, E-46100, Burjassot, Val\`encia, 

72: 	Spain

73: }

74: \vspace{2.5cm}

75: 

76: {\large\bf Abstract} 

77: \end{center} 

78: 

79: \vspace{3mm} 

80: \noindent This article reviews and updates the Standard Model prediction of

81: the muon $g$$-$$2$. {\small QED}, electroweak and hadronic contributions are

82: presented, and open questions discussed.  The theoretical prediction

83: deviates from the present experimental value by 2--3 standard deviations, if

84: $e^+e^-$ annihilation data are used to evaluate the leading hadronic term.

85: 

86: \end{titlepage}

87: \setcounter{page}{2}

88: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%

89: \tableofcontents\newpage

90: 

91: %-----------------------------   TEXT  -------------------------------------%

92: %2345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567

93: %        1         2         3         4         5         6         7

94: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%

95: \section{Introduction}

96: 

97: The evaluation of the Standard Model ({\small SM}) prediction for the

98: anomalous magnetic moment of the muon $\amu \equiv (g_{\mu}-2)/2$ has

99: occupied many physicists for over fifty years. Schwinger's 1948

100: calculation~\cite{Sch48} of its leading contribution, equal to the one of

101: the electron, was one of the very first results of {\small QED}, and its

102: agreement with the experimental value of the anomalous magnetic moment of

103: the electron, $a_e$, provided one of the early confirmations of this theory.

104: 

105: While $a_e$ is rather insensitive to strong and weak interactions, hence

106: providing a stringent test of {\small QED} and leading to the most precise

107: determination to date of the fine-structure constant $\alpha$, $\amu$ allows

108: to test the entire {\small SM}, as each of its sectors contribute in a

109: significant way to the total prediction. Compared with $a_e$, $\amu$ is also

110: much better suited to unveil or constrain ``new physics'' effects. For a

111: lepton $l$, their contribution to $a_l$ is generally proportional to

112: $m_l^2/\Lambda^2$, where $m_l$ is the mass of the lepton and $\Lambda$ is

113: the scale of ``new physics'', thus leading to an $(m_{\mu}/m_e)^2 \sim

114: 4\times 10^4$ relative enhancement of the sensitivity of the muon versus the

115: electron anomalous magnetic moment. The anomalous magnetic moment of the

116: $\tau$ would thus offer the best opportunity to detect ``new physics'', but

117: the very short lifetime of this lepton makes such a measurement very

118: difficult at the moment.

119: 

120: In a sequence of increasingly more precise

121: measurements~\cite{BNL00,BNL01,BNL02,BNL04}, the E821 Collaboration at the

122: Brookhaven Alternating Gradient Synchrotron has reached a fabulous relative

123: precision of 0.5 parts per million (ppm) in the determination of $\amu$,

124: providing a very stringent test of the {\small SM}. Even a tiny

125: statistically significant discrepancy from the {\small SM} prediction could

126: be the harbinger for ``new physics''~\cite{CM01}.

127: 

128: Several excellent reviews exist on the topic presented here. Among them, I

129: refer the interested reader to refs.~\cite{KM90,CM99, HK99, MT00, MLR01,

130: Me01, Ny03, Kn03, DM04}. In this article I will provide an update and a

131: review of the theoretical prediction for $\amu$ in the {\small SM},

132: analyzing in detail the three contributions into which $\amu^{\mysmall SM}$

133: is usually split: {\small QED}, electroweak ({\small EW}) and hadronic. They

134: are respectively discussed in secs.~\ref{sec:QED}, \ref{sec:EW} and

135: \ref{sec:HAD}. A numerical re-evaluation of the two- and three-loop {\small

136: QED} contributions employing recently updated values for the lepton masses

137: is presented in secs.~\ref{sec:QED2} and \ref{sec:QED3}. Comparisons between

138: $\amu^{\mysmall SM}$ results and the current experimental determination

139: $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{EXP}$}}$ are given in

140: sec.~\ref{sec:COMP}. Conclusions are drawn in sec.~\ref{sec:CONC}.

141: 

142: 

143: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%

144: \section{The QED Contribution to \bm $\amu$ \ubm}

145: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%

146: \label{sec:QED}

147: 

148: The {\small QED} contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon

149: is defined as the contribution arising from the subset of {\small SM}

150: diagrams containing only leptons ($e,\mu,\tau$) and photons.  As a

151: dimensionless quantity, it can be cast in the following general

152: form~\cite{KM90,KNO90}

153: %

154: \be

155:     \amu^{\mysmall QED} = A_1 + A_2(m_{\mu}/m_e) + A_2(m_{\mu}/m_{\tau}) + 

156:                           A_3(m_{\mu}/m_e,m_{\mu}/m_{\tau}),    

157: \label{eq:amuqedgeneral}

158: \ee

159: %

160: where $m_e$, $m_{\mu}$ and $m_{\tau}$ are the masses of the electron, muon

161: and tau respectively. The term $A_1$, arising from diagrams containing only

162: photons and muons, is mass independent (and is therefore the same for the

163: {\small QED} contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of all three

164: charged leptons).  In contrast, the terms $A_2$ and $A_3$ are functions of

165: the indicated mass ratios, and are generated by graphs containing also

166: electrons and taus. The renormalizability of {\small QED} guarantees that

167: the functions $A_i$ ($i=1,2,3$) can be expanded as power series in

168: $\alpha/\pi$ and computed order-by-order

169: %

170: \be

171:     A_i \,= A_i^{(2)}\left(\frac{\alpha}{\pi} \right)

172:     + A_i^{(4)}\left(\frac{\alpha}{\pi} \right)^{\!2}

173:     + A_i^{(6)}\left(\frac{\alpha}{\pi} \right)^{\!3}

174:     + A_i^{(8)}\left(\frac{\alpha}{\pi} \right)^{\!4}

175:     + A_i^{(10)}\left(\frac{\alpha}{\pi} \right)^{\!5} +\cdots.

176: \ee

177: %

178: 

179: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%

180: \subsection{One-loop Contribution}

181: 

182: Only one diagram, shown in fig.~\ref{fig:schwinger}, is involved in the

183: evaluation of the lowest-order contribution (second-order in the electric

184: charge); it provides the famous result by Schwinger~\cite{Sch48}, $A_1^{(2)}

185: = 1/2$ ($A_2^{(2)}=A_3^{(2)} = 0$).

186: %

187: %

188: \begin{figure}[h]

189: \begin{center}

190: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{schwinger.eps}

191: \caption{{\sf Lowest-order {\small QED} contribution to $\amu$.}}

192: \label{fig:schwinger}

193: \end{center}

194: \end{figure}

195: %

196: 

197: \vspace{-5mm}

198: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%

199: \subsection{Two-loop Contribution}

200: \label{sec:QED2}

201: 

202: At fourth order, seven diagrams contribute to $A_1^{(4)}$, one to

203: $A_2^{(4)}(m_{\mu}/m_e)$ and one to $A_2^{(4)}(m_{\mu}/m_{\tau})$. They are

204: depicted in fig.~\ref{fig:qed2}. The coefficient $A_1^{(4)}$ has been known

205: for almost fifty years~\cite{So57-58,Pe57-58}: 

206: %

207: \be

208:     A_1^{(4)} = \frac{197}{144} + \frac{\pi^2}{12} 

209:                 + \frac{3}{4}\zeta(3) - \frac{\pi^2}{2} \ln2

210: 		= -0.328 \, 478 \, 965 \, 579 \ldots,

211: \label{eq:qedA14}

212: \ee

213: %

214: where $\zeta(s)$ is the Riemann zeta function of argument $s$. The

215: mass-dependent coefficient 

216: %

217: \be

218:      A_2^{(4)}(1/x) \,=\, \int_0^1  du \int_0^1 dv \,\,

219:      \frac{u^2 (1-u) v^2 (1-v^2/3)}{u^2(1-v^2) +4x^2 (1-u)},

220: \ee

221: %

222: where $x=m_l/m_{\mu}$ and $m_l$ is the mass of the virtual lepton in the

223: vacuum polarization subgraph, was also computed in the late

224: 1950s~\cite{SWP57} for $m_l= m_e$ and neglecting terms of

225: $O(m_e/m_{\mu})$. Its exact expression was calculated in

226: 1966~\cite{El66}. Actually, the full analytic result of~\cite{El66} can be

227: greatly simplified by taking advantage of the properties of the dilogarithm

228: ${\rm Li}_2(z)=-\int_0^z dt \ln(1-t)/t$. As a result of this simplification

229: I obtain

230: %

231: \bea 

232:      A_2^{(4)}(1/x)   \! &=& \!

233:      -\frac{25}{36} - \frac{\ln x}{3} 

234:      +x^2 \left(4+3\ln x \right)

235:      +x^4 \left[ \frac{\pi^2}{3} -2\ln x \, \ln \left(\frac{1}{x}-x\right)

236:      -{\rm Li}_2(x^2)\right] + 

237:      \nonumber \\   \!&&\!

238:      + \, \frac{x}{2} \left(1-5 x^2\right) \!\left[\frac{\pi^2}{2} 

239:        - \ln x \, \ln \left( \frac{1-x}{1+x} \right) 

240:        - {\rm Li}_2(x) + {\rm Li}_2(-x) \right].

241: \label{eq:qedA24}

242: \eea

243: %

244: Note that this simple formula, contrary to the one in ref.~\cite{El66}, can

245: be directly used both for $0<x<1$ (the case of the electron loop) and for

246: $x\geq 1$ (tau loop). In the latter case, the imaginary parts developed by

247: the dilogarithms ${\rm Li}_2(x)$ and ${\rm Li}_2(x^2)$ are exactly canceled

248: by the corresponding ones arising from the logarithms. For $x=1$ (muon

249: loop), \eq{qedA24} gives $A_2^{(4)}(1) = 119/36 - \pi^2/3$; of course, this

250: contribution is already part of $A_1^{(4)}$ in \eq{qedA14}. Evaluation of

251: \eq{qedA24} with the latest recommended values for the muon-electron mass

252: ratio $m_{\mu}/m_e = 206.768\,2838\,(54)$~\cite{MT04}, and the ratio of

253: $m_{\mu} = 105.658\,3692\,(94)$ MeV~\cite{MT04} and $m_{\tau}=

254: 1776.99\,(29)$ MeV~\cite{PDG04} yields

255: %

256: \bea

257:      A_2^{(4)}(m_{\mu}/m_e)      & = & 1.094\,258\,3111 \, (84)  

258: \label{eq:qedA24e}

259: \\

260:      A_2^{(4)}(m_{\mu}/m_{\tau}) & = & 0.000\,078\,064 \, (25),

261: \label{eq:qedA24tau}

262: \eea

263: %

264: where the standard uncertainties are only caused by the measurement

265: uncertainties of the lepton mass ratios. Eqs.~(\ref{eq:qedA24e}) and

266: (\ref{eq:qedA24tau}) provide the first re-evaluation of these coefficients

267: with the recently updated {\small CODATA} and {\small PDG} mass ratios of

268: refs.~\cite{MT04,PDG04}. These new values differ visibly from older ones

269: (see refs.~\cite{CM99, MT00}) based on previous measurements of the mass

270: ratios, but the change induces only a negligible shift in the total {\small

271: QED} prediction.  Note that the $\tau$ contribution in \eq{qedA24tau}

272: provides a $\sim \! 42 \times 10^{-11}$ contribution to $\amu^{\mysmall

273: QED}$.  As there are no two-loop diagrams containing both virtual electrons

274: and taus, $A_3^{(4)}(m_{\mu}/m_e,m_{\mu}/m_{\tau}) = 0$. Adding up

275: eqs.~(\ref{eq:qedA14}), (\ref{eq:qedA24e}) and (\ref{eq:qedA24tau}) I get

276: the new two-loop {\small QED} coefficient

277: %

278: \be

279:     C_2 =  A_1^{(4)} + A_2^{(4)}(m_{\mu}/m_e) + 

280:                A_2^{(4)}(m_{\mu}/m_{\tau}) = 0.765 \, 857 \, 410 \,(27).

281: \label{eq:qedC2}

282: \ee 

283: %

284: The uncertainties in $A_2^{(4)}(m_{\mu}/m_e)$ and

285: $A_2^{(4)}(m_{\mu}/m_{\tau})$ have been added in quadrature. The resulting

286: error $\delta C_2 = 2.7 \times 10^{-8}$ leads to a tiny $0.01 \times

287: 10^{-11}$ uncertainty in $\amu^{\mysmall QED}$.

288:  

289: %

290: %

291: \begin{figure}[h]

292: \begin{center}

293: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{qed2.eps}

294: \caption{{\sf The {\small QED} diagrams contributing to the muon $g$$-$$2$ in

295:          order $\alpha^2$. The mirror reflections (not shown) of the third

296:          and fourth diagrams must be included as well.}}

297: \label{fig:qed2}

298: \end{center}

299: \end{figure}

300: %

301: 

302: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%

303: \subsection{Three-loop Contribution}

304: \label{sec:QED3}

305: 

306: More than one hundred diagrams are involved in the evaluation of the

307: three-loop (sixth-order) {\small QED} contribution. Their analytic

308: computation required approximately three decades, ending in the late 1990s.

309: 

310: The coefficient $A_1^{(6)}$ arises from 72 diagrams. Its calculation in

311: closed analytic form is mainly due to Remiddi and his

312: collaborators~\cite{Remiddi,LR96}, who completed it in 1996 with the

313: evaluation of the last class of diagrams, the non-planar ``triple cross''

314: topologies (see, for example, fig.~\ref{fig:qed3} $A$)~\cite{LR96}. The

315: result reads:

316: %

317: \bea 

318:      A_1^{(6)} \! &=& \!  \frac{83}{72} \pi^2 \zeta(3) - \frac{215}{24}

319:      \zeta(5) + \frac{100}{3} \left[a_4 + \frac{1}{24} \left( \ln^2

320:      2 -\pi^2 \right) \ln^2 2 \right] - \frac{239}{2160} \pi^4

321:      \nonumber \\ 

322:      \!&&\! + \frac{139}{18} \zeta(3) - \frac{298}{9} \pi^2 \ln2 +

323:      \frac{17101}{810} \pi^2 + \frac{28259}{5184}= 1.181 \,241\,4566 \ldots,

324: \label{eq:qedA16}

325: \eea

326: %

327: where $a_4=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} 1/(2^n n^4)= {\rm Li}_4(1/2) = 0.517 \, 479\,

328: 061 \,674 \ldots$.

329: 

330: The calculation of the exact expression for the coefficient $A_2^{(6)}(m/M)$

331: for arbitrary values of the mass ratio $(m/M)$ was completed in 1993 by

332: Laporta and Remiddi~\cite{La93,LR93} (earlier works include

333: refs.~\cite{Ki67, A26early}). For our analysis, $m=m_{\mu}$, and $M=m_e$ or

334: $m_{\tau}$. This coefficient can be further split into two parts: the first

335: one, $A_2^{(6)}(m/M,\mbox{vp})$, receives contributions from 36 diagrams

336: containing electron or $\tau$ vacuum polarization loops (see, for example,

337: fig.~\ref{fig:qed3} $B$)~\cite{La93}, whereas the second one,

338: $A_2^{(6)}(m/M,\mbox{lbl})$, is due to 12 light-by-light scattering diagrams

339: with electron or $\tau$ loops (like the graph of fig.~\ref{fig:qed3}

340: $C$)~\cite{LR93}. The exact expression for $A_2^{(6)}(m/M)$ in closed

341: analytic form is quite complicated, containing hundreds of polylogarithmic

342: functions up to fifth degree (for the light-by-light diagrams) and complex

343: arguments (for the vacuum polarization contribution). It also includes

344: harmonic polylogarithms~\cite{HarmPol}. As it is very lengthy, it was not

345: listed in the original papers~\cite{La93,LR93} which provided, however,

346: useful series expansions in the mass ratio $(m/M)$ for the cases of physical

347: relevance. Using the exact expressions in closed analytic form kindly

348: provided to me by the authors, and the latest values for the mass ratios

349: mentioned above, I obtain the following values

350: %

351: \bea

352:      A_2^{(6)}(m_{\mu}/m_e,\mbox{vp}) &=&  \:\: 1.920\, 455 \, 130 \, (33),

353: \label{eq:qedA26evac}

354:      \\

355:      A_2^{(6)}(m_{\mu}/m_e,\mbox{lbl}) &=&      20.947 \, 924 \, 89\,(16),

356: \label{eq:qedA26elbl}

357:      \\

358:      A_2^{(6)}(m_{\mu}/m_{\tau},\mbox{vp})&=& \!\! -0.001\,782\,33 \, (48),  

359: \label{eq:qedA26tauvac}

360:      \\

361:      A_2^{(6)}(m_{\mu}/m_{\tau},\mbox{lbl})&=&\,\:\,0.002\,142\,83\, (69).

362: \label{eq:qedA26taulbl}

363: \eea

364: %

365: The sums of eqs.~(\ref{eq:qedA26evac})--(\ref{eq:qedA26elbl}) and 

366: eqs.~(\ref{eq:qedA26tauvac})--(\ref{eq:qedA26taulbl}) are

367: %

368: \bea

369:      A_2^{(6)}(m_{\mu}/m_e) &=&      22.868 \, 380 \, 02\,(20),

370: \label{eq:qedA26e}

371:      \\

372:      A_2^{(6)}(m_{\mu}/m_{\tau})&=&\,\:\,0.000\, 360 \, 51\, (21);

373: \label{eq:qedA26tau}

374: \eea

375: %

376: to determine the uncertainties, the correlation of the addends has been

377: taken into account. Eqs.~(\ref{eq:qedA26evac})--(\ref{eq:qedA26tau}) provide

378: the first re-evaluation of these coefficients with the recently updated

379: {\small CODATA} and {\small PDG} mass ratios of

380: refs.~\cite{MT04,PDG04}. These new values differ visibly from older ones

381: (see refs.~\cite{CM99, MT00}) based on previous measurements of the mass

382: ratios, but the change induces only a negligible shift in the total {\small

383: QED} prediction.  Note the large contribution from the electron

384: light-by-light diagrams, \eq{qedA26elbl} -- its leading term is $(2/3)\pi^2

385: \ln(m_{\mu}/m_e)$~\cite{LS77}. More generally, it was shown in~\cite{Ye89}

386: that the $O(\alpha^{2n+1})$ contribution to $\amu^{\mysmall QED}$, from

387: diagrams in which the electron light-by-light subgraph is connected with

388: $2n+1$ photons to the muon, contains a large $\pi^{2n}\ln(m_{\mu}/m_e)$ term

389: with a coefficient of $O(1)$.

390: 

391: 

392: The analytic calculation of the three-loop diagrams with both electron and

393: $\tau$ loop insertions in the photon propagator (see fig.~\ref{fig:qed3}

394: $D$) became available in 1999~\cite{CS99}. This analytic result yields the

395: numerical value

396: %

397: \be

398:      A_3^{(6)}(m_{\mu}/m_e,m_{\mu}/m_{\tau}) 

399:      \,=\, 0.000 \, 527 \, 66 \, (17),

400: \label{eq:qedA36}

401: \ee

402: %

403: providing a small $0.7 \times 10^{-11}$ contribution to $\amu^{\mysmall

404: QED}$. The error, $1.7 \times 10^{-7}$, is caused by the uncertainty of the

405: ratio $m_{\mu}/m_{\tau}$. Combining the three-loop results presented above,

406: I obtain the new sixth-order {\small QED} coefficient

407: %

408: \bea

409:     C_3 &=&  A_1^{(6)} + 

410:                A_2^{(6)}(m_{\mu}/m_e) + 

411:                A_2^{(6)}(m_{\mu}/m_{\tau}) +

412: 	       A_3^{(6)}(m_{\mu}/m_e,m_{\mu}/m_{\tau}) 

413: 	       \nonumber \\

414: 	&=&       24.050 \, 509 \,64 \, (43).

415: \label{eq:qedC3}

416: \eea 

417: %

418: The error $\delta C_3 = 4.3 \times 10^{-7}$, due to the measurement

419: uncertainties of the lepton masses, has been determined considering the

420: correlation of the addends. It induces a negligible $O(10^{-14})$

421: uncertainty in $\amu^{\mysmall QED}$.

422: 

423: In parallel to these analytic results, numerical methods were also

424: developed, mainly by Kinoshita and his collaborators, for the evaluation of

425: the full set of three-loop diagrams~\cite{Ki90, KM90}.

426: %

427: %

428: \begin{figure}[h]

429: \begin{center}

430: \includegraphics[width=13cm]{qed3.eps}

431: \caption{{\sf Examples of {\small QED} diagrams contributing to the muon

432:          $g$$-$$2$ in order $\alpha^3$. $A$, a ``triple-cross'' diagram.

433:          $B$ ($C$), sixth-order muon vertex obtained by insertion of an

434:          electron or $\tau$ vacuum polarization (light-by-light)

435:          subdiagram. $D$, graph with $e$ and $\tau$ loops in the photon

436:          propagator.}}

437: \label{fig:qed3}

438: \end{center}

439: \end{figure}

440: %

441: %

442: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%

443: \subsection{Four-loop Contribution}

444: 

445: More than one thousand diagrams enter the evaluation of the four-loop

446: {\small QED} contribution to $\amu$. As only few of them are known

447: analytically~\cite{A8analytic}, this eighth-order term has thus far been

448: evaluated only numerically. This formidable task was first accomplished by

449: Kinoshita and his collaborators in the early 1980s~\cite{KL81,KNO84}. Since

450: then, they made a major effort to continuously improve this

451: result~\cite{KM90, HK99, KNO90, KL83-89, Ki93, KN03}, also benefiting from

452: fast advances in computing power. The latest analysis appeared in

453: ref.~\cite{KN04}. One should realize that this eighth-order {\small QED}

454: contribution, being about six times larger than the present experimental

455: uncertainty of $\amu$, is crucial for the comparison between the {\small SM}

456: prediction of $\amu$ and its experimental determination.

457: 

458: There are 891 four-loop diagrams contributing to the mass-independent

459: coefficient $A_1^{(8)}$. Its latest published value is $A_1^{(8)} = -1.7502

460: \, (384)$~\cite{KN03}, where the error is caused by the numerical

461: procedure. This coefficient has undergone a small revision in

462: ref.~\cite{KN03}. In September 2004 Kinoshita reported a new preliminary

463: updated result~\cite{Ki04},

464: %

465: \be

466:     A_1^{(8)} \, = \, -1.7093 \, (42).

467: \label{eq:qedA18}

468: \ee

469: %

470: Note the small shift in the central value and the significant reduction of

471: the numerical uncertainty of this new result. I will adopt it for the value

472: of $A_1^{(8)}$. The latest value of the coefficient

473: $A_2^{(8)}(m_{\mu}/m_e)$, arising from 469 diagrams, is~\cite{KN04}

474: %

475: \be

476:     A_2^{(8)}(m_{\mu}/m_e) \,=\, 132.6823 \, (72).

477: \label{eq:qedA28e}

478: \ee

479: %

480: This value is significantly higher than the older one, $127.50

481: \,(41)$~\cite{HK99} (its precision is impressively higher too) shifting up

482: the value of $\amu^{\mysmall QED}$ by a non-negligible $\sim \! 15 \times

483: 10^{-11}$. This difference is partly accounted for by the correction of a

484: program error described in ref.~\cite{KN03}, but is mostly due to the fact

485: that the computation of the older value suffered from insufficient numerical

486: precision.  The term $A_2^{(8)}(m_{\mu}/m_{\tau})$ has been roughly

487: estimated to give an $O(10^{-13})$ contribution to $\amu^{\mysmall QED}$ --

488: it can be safely ignored for now~\cite{KN04}. The numerical evaluation of

489: the 102 diagrams containing both electron and $\tau$ loop insertions yields

490: the three-mass coefficient~\cite{KN04}

491: %

492: \be

493:     A_3^{(8)}(m_{\mu}/m_e,m_{\mu}/m_{\tau})  

494:      \,=\, 0.037 \,594 \, (83),

495: \label{eq:qedA28tau}

496: \ee

497: %

498: which provides a small $O(10^{-12})$ contribution to $\amu^{\mysmall QED}$.

499: Adding up the four-loop results described above, we obtain the eighth-order

500: {\small QED} coefficient

501: %

502: \be

503:     C_4 \, \simeq \,   A_1^{(8)} + 

504:                A_2^{(8)}(m_{\mu}/m_e) + 

505: 	       A_3^{(8)}(m_{\mu}/m_e,m_{\mu}/m_{\tau}) 

506: 	\,=\,  131.011 \,(8).

507: \label{eq:qedC4}

508: \ee 

509: %

510: Note that this expression does not contain the term

511: $A_2^{(8)}(m_{\mu}/m_{\tau})$, which has been roughly estimated to be of the

512: same order of magnitude of the uncertainty on the r.h.s.\ of

513: \eq{qedC4}. However, this uncertainty, $0.008$, causes only a tiny $0.02

514: \times 10^{-11}$ error in $\amu^{\mysmall QED}$.

515: 

516: 

517: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%

518: \subsection{Five-loop Contribution}

519: 

520: The evaluation of the five-loop {\small QED} contribution is in

521: progress~\cite{Ki04}. The existing estimates are mainly based on the

522: experience accumulated computing the sixth- and eighth-order terms, and

523: include only specific contributions enhanced by powers of $\ln(m_{\mu}/m_e)$

524: times powers of $\pi$. The first estimate, $C_5 = 570 \,(140)$, provided by

525: Kinoshita and collaborators in 1990~\cite{KNO90}, considered the

526: contribution of graphs containing an electron light-by-light subdiagram with

527: one-loop vacuum polarization insertions. A few other predictions for $C_5$

528: exist, and classes of diagrams were computed or estimated with various

529: methods~\cite{Ye89, MY89, Ka92, Br93, Ka93, La94, EKS94, KS94}.  In

530: September 2004 Kinoshita reported a new very preliminary result~\cite{Ki04},

531: %

532: \be C_5 \, \simeq \, A_2^{(10)}(m_{\mu}/m_e) \, = \, 677 \, (40),

533: \label{eq:qedC5}

534: \ee 

535: %

536: (9080 diagrams contribute to $A_2^{(10)}(m_{\mu}/m_e)$!) corresponding to a

537: $4.6\,(0.3) \times 10^{-11}$ contribution to $\amu^{\mysmall QED}$. This is

538: the value of $C_5$ I will employ. The uncertainty in this new estimate of

539: the tenth-order term ($0.3 \times 10^{-11}$) no longer dominates the error

540: of the total {\small QED} prediction (see next section). Efforts to improve

541: upon the evaluation of $C_5$ are presently being pursued by Kinoshita and

542: Nio.

543: 

544: 

545: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%

546: \subsection{The Numerical Value of {\bm $\amu^{\mysmall QED}$\ubm} }

547: 

548: Adding up all the above contributions and using the latest {\small CODATA}

549: recommended value for the fine-structure constant~\cite{MT04}, known to 3.3

550: ppb,

551: %

552: \be

553:      \alpha^{-1} \, = \,  137.035 \,999 \,11 \,(46),    

554: \label{eq:alphaMT04}

555: \ee 

556: %

557: I obtain the following value for the {\small QED} contribution to the muon

558: $g$$-$$2$:

559: %

560: \be

561:     \amu^{\mysmall QED} = 

562:     116 \, 584 \, 718.8 \, (0.3)\,(0.4)  \times 10^{-11}.       

563: \label{eq:qed}

564: \ee

565: %

566: The first error is due to the uncertainties of the $O(\alpha^2)$,

567: $O(\alpha^4)$ and $O(\alpha^5)$ terms, and is strongly dominated by the last

568: of them.  (The uncertainty of the $O(\alpha^3)$ term is negligible.)  The

569: second error is caused by the 3.3 ppb uncertainty of the fine-structure

570: constant $\alpha$.  When combined in quadrature, these uncertainties yield

571: $\delta \amu^{\mysmall QED} = 0.5 \times 10^{-11}$. The value of

572: $\amu^{\mysmall QED}$ in \eq{qed} is close to that presented by Kinoshita

573: in~\cite{Ki04}, $\amu^{\mysmall QED} = 116 \, 584 \, 717.9 \,(0.3)\,(0.9)

574: \times 10^{-11}$, and has a smaller error. This latter result was in fact

575: derived using the value of $\alpha$ determined from atom interferometry

576: measurements~\cite{alpha}, $\alpha^{-1}=137.036\,000\,3\,(10)$ (7.3 ppb),

577: which has a larger uncertainty than the latest {\small CODATA} value

578: employed for \eq{qed}.

579: 

580: 

581: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%

582: \section{The Electroweak Contribution}

583: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%

584: \label{sec:EW}

585: 

586: The electroweak ({\small EW}) contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment

587: of the muon is suppressed by a factor $(m_{\mu}/\mw)^2$ with respect to the

588: {\small QED} effects. The one-loop part was computed in 1972 by several

589: authors~\cite{ew1loop}. Back then, the experimental uncertainty of $\amu$

590: was one or two orders of magnitude larger than this one-loop contribution.

591: Today it's less than one-third as large.

592: 

593: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%

594: \subsection{One-loop Contribution}

595: 

596: The analytic expression for the one-loop {\small EW} contribution to $\amu$,

597: due to the diagrams in fig.~\ref{fig:ew1}, reads

598: %

599: \be

600:      \amu^{\mysmall EW} (\mbox{1 loop}) =

601:      \frac{5 G_{\mu} m^2_{\mu}}{24 \sqrt{2} \pi^2}

602:      \left[ 1+ \frac{1}{5}\left(1-4\sin^2\!\theta_{\mysmall{W}}\right)^2 

603:        + O \left( \frac{m^2_{\mu}}{M^2_{\mysmall{Z,W,H}}} \right) \right],

604: \label{eq:EWoneloop}

605: \ee

606: %

607: where $G_{\mu}=1.16637(1) \times 10^{-5}\gev^{-2}$ is the Fermi coupling

608: constant, $\mz$, $\mw$ and $\mh$ are the masses of the $Z$, $W$ and Higgs

609: bosons, and $\theta_{\mysmall{W}}$ is the weak mixing angle.  Closed

610: analytic expressions for $\amu^{\mysmall EW} (\mbox{1 loop})$ taking exactly

611: into account the $m^2_{\mu}/M^2_{\mysmall{B}}$ dependence ($B=Z,W,$ Higgs,

612: or other hypothetical bosons) can be found in refs.~\cite{Studenikin}.

613: Following~\cite{CMV03}, I employ for $\sin^2\!\theta_{\mysmall{W}}$ the

614: on-shell definition $\sin^2\!\theta_{\mysmall{W}} =

615: 1-M^2_{\mysmall{W}}/M^2_{\mysmall{Z}}$~\cite{Si80}, where

616: $\mz=91.1875(21)\gev$ and $\mw$ is the theoretical {\small SM} prediction of

617: the $W$ mass. The latter can be easily derived from the simple analytic

618: formulae of ref.~\cite{FOPS},

619: %

620: \be

621:       \mw = \left[ 80.4077 

622: 	- 0.05738 \, \ln \! \left(\frac{\mh}{100\gev}\right) -

623: 	0.00892\, \ln^2 \! 

624: 	  \left(\frac{\mh}{100\gev}\right)\right]\!\!\gev,

625: \label{eq:fops}

626: \ee

627: %

628: (on-shell scheme {\small II} with $\Delta \alpha_h^{(5)}=0.02761 \,(36)$,

629: $\alpha_s(\mz)=0.118 \,(2)$ and $M_{\rm\scriptstyle top}=$ $178.0 \, (4.3)$ GeV

630: \cite{newTOP}), leading to $\mw =80.383\gev$ for $\mh=150\gev$, compared

631: with the direct experimental value $\mw=80.425 \,(38)\gev$ \cite{PDG04}, which

632: corresponds to a small $\mh$~\cite{FOS04}. For $\mh=150\gev$,

633: eq.~(\ref{eq:EWoneloop}) thus gives

634: %

635: \be

636:     \amu^{\mysmall EW} (\mbox{1 loop}) = 194.8 \times 10^{-11},

637: \label{eq:EWoneloopNumber}

638: \ee

639: %

640: but this value encompasses the predictions derived from a wide range of

641: values of $\mh$ varying from 114.4 GeV, the current lower bound at 95\%

642: confidence level~\cite{LEPHIGGS}, up to a few hundred GeV.

643: %

644: %

645: \begin{figure}[h]

646: \begin{center}

647: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{ew1.eps}

648: \caption{{\sf One-loop electroweak contributions to $a_{\mu}$. The diagram

649:   with a W and a Goldstone boson ($\phi$) must be counted twice. The

650:   diagrams with the Higgs boson loop and with two Goldstone boson couplings

651:   to the muon are suppressed by a factor $m^2_{\mu}/M^2_{\mysmall{Z,W,H}}$ and

652:   are not drawn.}}

653: \label{fig:ew1}

654: \end{center}

655: \end{figure}

656: %

657: %

658: 

659: The contribution of the Higgs diagram alone, part of the

660: $O(m^2_{\mu}/M^2_{\mysmall{Z,W,H}})$ terms of eq.~(\ref{eq:EWoneloop}),

661: is~\cite{KM90,Studenikin}

662: %

663: \be

664:      \amu^{\mysmall EW,H} (\mbox{1 loop}) = 

665:      \frac{G_{\mu} m^2_{\mu}}{4 \sqrt{2} \pi^2} 

666:      \left[\frac{\log R_{\mysmall{H}}}{R_{\mysmall{H}}}

667: 	   -\frac{7}{6R_{\mysmall{H}}} 

668: 	     + O \left( \frac{1}{R_{\mysmall{H}^2}} \right) \right],

669: \ee

670: %

671: where $R_{\mysmall{H}}=M^2_{\mysmall{H}}/m^2_{\mu}$.  Given the current

672: lower bound $M_{\mysmall{H}} > 114.4$ GeV (95\% {\small CL}),

673: $\amu^{\mysmall EW,H} (\mbox{1 loop})$ is smaller than $3 \times 10^{-14}$

674: and can be safely neglected.

675: 

676: 

677: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%

678: \subsection{Higher-order Contributions}

679: 

680: The two-loop {\small EW} contribution to $\amu$ was computed in 1995 by

681: Czarnecki, Krause and Marciano~\cite{CKM95a,CKM95b}. This remarkable

682: calculation, probably the first (and still one of the very few) complete

683: two-loop electroweak computation, leads to a significant reduction of the

684: one-loop prediction. Na\"{\i}vely one would expect the two-loop {\small EW}

685: contribution $\amu^{\mysmall EW} (\mbox{2 loop})$ to be of order

686: $(\alpha/\pi) \times \amu^{\mysmall EW} (\mbox{1 loop})$, and thus

687: negligible, but this turns out not to be so. As first noticed in

688: 1992~\cite{KKSS}, $\amu^{\mysmall EW} (\mbox{2 loop})$ is actually quite

689: substantial because of the appearance of terms enhanced by a factor of

690: $\ln(M_{\mysmall{Z,W}}/m_f)$, where $m_f$ is a fermion mass scale much

691: smaller than $\mw$.

692: 

693: The two-loop contributions to $\amu^{\mysmall EW}$ can be divided into

694: fermionic and bosonic parts; the former includes all two-loop {\small EW}

695: corrections containing closed fermion loops, whereas all other contributions

696: are grouped into the latter. The full two-loop calculation involves 1678

697: diagrams in the linear 't Hooft-Feynman gauge~\cite{Kaneko95}. As a check,

698: the authors of~\cite{CKM95a,CKM95b} employed both this gauge and a nonlinear

699: one in which the vertex of the photon, the $W$ and the unphysical charged

700: scalar vanishes. Their result for $\mh=150\gev$ (obtained in the

701: approximation $\mh \gg M_{\mysmall{W,Z}}$ computing the first two terms in

702: the expansion in $M^2_{\mysmall{W,Z}}/\mh^2$) was $\amu^{\mysmall EW}

703: (\mbox{2 loop})= -42.3(2.0)(1.8)\times 10^{-11}$, leading to a significant

704: reduction of $\amu^{\mysmall EW}$. The first error is meant to roughly

705: reflect low momentum hadronic uncertainties (more below), whereas the second

706: allows for a range of $\mh$ values from 114 GeV to about 250 GeV.  Note that

707: the contribution from $\gamma$--$Z$ mixing diagrams is not included in this

708: result: as it is suppressed by ($1-4\sin^2\!\theta_{\mysmall{W}}) \sim 0.1$

709: for quarks and ($1-4\sin^2\!\theta_{\mysmall{W}})^2$ for leptons, it was

710: neglected in this early calculation. It was later studied in

711: ref.~\cite{CMV03}: together with small contributions proportional to

712: $(1-4\sin^2\!\theta_{\mysmall{W}})(m_t^2/\mw^2)$ induced by the

713: renormalization of $\sin^2\!\theta_{\mysmall{W}}$, it shifts the above value

714: of $\amu^{\mysmall EW}$ down by a tiny $0.4\times 10^{-11}$.

715: 

716: The hadronic uncertainties, above estimated to be $\sim 2\times 10^{-11}$,

717: arise from two types of two-loop diagrams: hadronic photon--$Z$ mixing, and

718: quark triangle loops with the external photon, a virtual photon and a $Z$

719: attached to them (see fig.~\ref{fig:ew2}).  

720: %

721: %

722: \begin{figure}[h]

723: \begin{center}

724: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{ew2.eps}

725: \caption{{\sf Hadronic loops in two-loop {\small EW} contributions.}}

726: \label{fig:ew2}

727: \end{center}

728: \end{figure}

729: %

730: %

731: The tiny hadronic $\gamma$--$Z$ mixing terms can be evaluated either in the

732: free quark approximation or via a dispersion relation using data from

733: $e^+e^-$ annihilation into hadrons; the difference was shown to be

734: numerically insignificant~\cite{CMV03}. The contribution from the second

735: type of diagrams (the quark triangle ones), calculated in \cite{CKM95a} in

736: the free quark approximation, is numerically more important. The question of

737: how to treat properly the contribution of the light quarks was originally

738: addressed in ref.~\cite{PPD95} within a low-energy effective field theory

739: approach and was further investigated in the detailed analyses of

740: refs.~\cite{CMV03,KPPD02,CMV03b}. These refinements significantly improved

741: the reliability of the fermionic part of $\amu^{\mysmall EW}(\mbox{two

742: loop})$ and increased it by $2\times 10^{-11}$ relative to the free quark

743: calculation, leading, for $\mh=150\gev$, to~\cite{CMV03}

744: %

745: \be

746:     \amu^{\mysmall EW} = 154(1)(2)\times 10^{-11},

747: \label{eq:ew}

748: \ee

749: %

750: where the first error corresponds to hadronic loop uncertainties and the

751: second to an allowed Higgs mass range of $114\gev < \mh < 250\gev$, the

752: current top mass uncertainty\footnote{Indeed, although the result in

753: eq.~(\ref{eq:ew}) was computed for $m_t=174.3\gev$, I checked that the shift

754: induced in $\amu^{\mysmall EW}$ by the latest experimental value $m_t=178.0

755: \, (4.3)\gev$~\cite{newTOP} is well within the quoted error.} and unknown

756: three-loop effects.

757: 

758: The leading-logarithm three-loop contribution to $\amu^{\mysmall EW}$ was

759: first studied via a renormalization group analysis in ref.~\cite{DGi98}.

760: Such an analysis was revisited and refined in~\cite{CMV03}, where this

761: contribution was found to be extremely small (indeed, consistent with zero

762: to a level of accuracy of $10^{-12}$). An uncertainty of $0.2\times

763: 10^{-11}$, included in eq.~(\ref{eq:ew}), has been conservatively

764: assigned to $\amu^{\mysmall EW}$ for uncalculated three-loop

765: nonleading-logarithm terms.

766: 

767: Lastly, I would like to point out that until recently only one evaluation

768: existed of the two-loop bosonic part of $\amu^{\mysmall EW}$, ie,

769: ref.~\cite{CKM95b}. The recent calculation of ref.~\cite{HSW04}, performed

770: without the approximation of large Higgs mass previously employed, agrees

771: with the result of~\cite{CKM95b}. Work is also in progress for an

772: independent recalculation based on the numerical methods of

773: refs.~\cite{Topside}.

774: 

775: 

776: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%

777: \section{The Hadronic Contribution}

778: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%

779: \label{sec:HAD}

780: 

781: In this section I will analyze the contribution to the muon $g$$-$$2$

782: arising from {\small QED} diagrams involving hadrons. Hadronic effects in

783: (two-loop) {\small EW} contributions are already included in $\amu^{\mysmall

784: EW}$ (see the previous section).

785: 

786: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%

787: \subsection{Leading-order Hadronic Contribution}

788: \label{subsec:HLO}

789: 

790: The leading hadronic contribution to the muon $g$$-$$2$,

791: $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HLO}$}}$, is due to the hadronic vacuum

792: polarization correction to the internal photon propagator of the one-loop

793: diagram (see diagram in fig.~\ref{fig:hlo}). 

794: %

795: %

796: \begin{figure}[h]

797: \begin{center}

798: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{hlo.eps}

799: \caption{{\sf Leading hadronic contribution to $\amu$.}}

800: \label{fig:hlo}

801: \end{center}

802: \end{figure}

803: %

804: %

805: The evaluation of this $O(\alpha^2)$ diagram involves long-distance {\small

806: QCD} for which perturbation theory cannot be employed. However, using

807: analyticity and unitarity (the optical theorem), Bouchiat and

808: Michel~\cite{BM61} showed long ago that this contribution can be computed

809: from hadronic $e^+ e^-$ annihilation data via the dispersion

810: integral~\cite{BM61,LBdRGdR}

811: %

812: \be

813:       \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HLO}$}}= 

814:       \frac{1}{4\pi^3} 

815:       \int^{\infty}_{4m^2_\pi} ds \, K(s) \, \sigma^{(0)}(s) =

816:       \frac{\alpha^2}{3\pi^2}

817:        \int^{\infty}_{4m^2_\pi} \frac{ds}{s} \, K(s) \, R(s),

818: \label{eq:hlo}

819: \ee

820: %

821: where $\sigma^{(0)}(s)$ is the experimental total cross section for $e^+

822: e^-$ annihilation into any hadronic state, with extraneous {\small QED}

823: radiative corrections subtracted off (more later), and $R(s)$ is the ratio

824: of $\sigma^{(0)}(s)$ and the high-energy limit of the Born cross section for

825: $\mu$-pair production: $R(s) = \sigma^{(0)}(s)/(4\pi \alpha^2\!/3s)$.  The

826: kernel $K(s)$ is the well-known function

827: %

828: \be

829:                 K(s)= \int_0^1 \!dx \frac{x^2 (1-x)}

830:                 {x^2 +(1-x)s/m_\mu^2}

831: \ee

832: %

833: (see ref.~\cite{EJ95} for some of its explicit representations and their

834: suitability for numerical evaluations). It decreases monotonically for

835: increasing $s$, and for large $s$ it behaves as $m_\mu^2/3s$ to a good

836: approximation. For this reason the low-energy region of the dispersive

837: integral is enhanced by $\sim 1/s^2$. About 91\% of the total contribution

838: to $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HLO}$}}$ is accumulated at

839: center-of-mass energies $\sqrt{s}$ below 1.8 GeV and 73\% of

840: $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HLO}$}}$ is covered by the two-pion final

841: state which is dominated by the $\rho(770)$ resonance~\cite{DEHZ03}.

842: Exclusive low-energy $e^+e^-$ cross sections have been mainly measured by

843: experiments running at $e^+e^-$ colliders in Novosibirsk ({\small OLYA, TOF,

844: ND, CMD, CMD-2, SND}) and Orsay ({\small M3N, DM1, DM2}), while at higher

845: energies the total cross section ratio $R(s)$ has been measured inclusively

846: by the experiments $\gamma \gamma 2$, {\small MARK I, DELCO, DASP, PLUTO,

847: LENA}, Crystal Ball, {\small MD-1, CELLO, JADE, MARK-J, TASSO, CLEO, CUSB,

848: MAC}, and {\small BES}.  Perturbative {\small QCD} becomes applicable at

849: higher loop momenta, so that at some energy scale one can switch from data

850: to {\small QCD}~\cite{pQCD,DH98a,DH98b}.

851: 

852: Detailed evaluations of the dispersive integral in eq.~(\ref{eq:hlo}) have

853: been carried out by several authors~\cite{EJ95, DEHZ03, DH98a, DH98b,

854: B85,KNO85,CLY85,MD89, AY95, BW96, ADH98, SN01, JatSirlin, dTY01, CLS01,

855: DEHZ02, HMNT02, J03, ELZ04, ELZ03, HMNT03, dTY04, DEHZ04}. A prominent role

856: among all data sets is played by the precise measurements by the {\small

857: CMD-2} detector at the {\small VEPP-2M} collider in

858: Novosibirsk~\cite{CMD2-99,CMD2-01,CMD2-03} of the cross section for

859: $e^+e^-\rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ at values of $\sqrt s$ between 0.61 and 0.96

860: GeV (ie, $s \in [0.37,0.93]\,{\rm GeV}^2$). The quoted systematic error of

861: these data is 0.6\%~\cite{CMD2-03}, dominated by the uncertainties in the

862: radiative corrections (0.4\%). In July 2004, also the {\small KLOE}

863: experiment at the {\small DA$\Phi$NE} collider in Frascati presented the

864: final analysis~\cite{KLOE-04} of the 2001 data for the precise measurement

865: of $\sigma(e^+e^-\rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-)$ via the radiative return

866: method~\cite{RadRet} from the $\phi$ resonance. In this case the machine is

867: operating at a fixed center-of-mass energy $W \simeq$ 1.02 GeV, the mass of

868: the $\phi$ meson, and initial-state radiation is used to reduce the

869: invariant mass of the $\pi^+\pi^-$ system. In~\cite{KLOE-04} the cross

870: section $\sigma(e^+e^-\rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-)$ was extracted for the range

871: $s \in [0.35,0.95]\,{\rm GeV}^2$ with a systematic error of 1.3\% (0.9\%

872: experimental and 0.9\% theoretical) and a negligible statistical one.  The

873: study of the $e^+e^-\rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ process via the initial-state

874: radiation method is also in progress at the {\small BABAR} detector at the

875: {\small PEP-II} collider in {\small SLAC}~\cite{BABAR}. This analysis will

876: be important to further assess the consistency of the $e^+e^-$ data.  The

877: {\small BABAR} collaboration has already presented data for the $\pi^+ \pi^-

878: \pi^0$ final state~\cite{BABAR+-0}, and preliminary ones for the process

879: $e^+e^- \rightarrow 2\pi^+ 2\pi^-$~\cite{BABAR}. On the theoretical side,

880: the properties of analyticity, unitarity and chiral symmetry provide strong

881: constraints for the pion form factor $F_\pi(s)$ in the low-energy

882: region~\cite{GM91, BERN01,Le02,Co03,VLC,dTY04}. They can lead to further

883: improvements. Perhaps, also lattice {\small QCD} computations of

884: $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HLO}$}}$, although not yet competitive with

885: the precise results of the dispersive method, may eventually rival that

886: precision~\cite{LATTICE}.

887: 

888: The hadronic contribution $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HLO}$}}$ is of

889: order $7000\times 10^{-11}$. Of course, this is a small fraction of the

890: total {\small SM} prediction for $\amu$, but is very large compared with the

891: current experimental uncertainty $\delta

892: a_{\mu}^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{EXP}$}} = 60\times 10^{-11}$. Indeed, as

893: $\delta a_{\mu}^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{EXP}$}}$ is less than one percent

894: of $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HLO}$}}$, precision analyses of this

895: hadronic term as well as full treatment of its higher-order corrections are

896: clearly warranted. Normally, the ``bare'' cross section $\sigma^{(0)}(s)$ is

897: used in the evaluation of the dispersive integral and the higher-order

898: hadronic corrections (see sec.~\ref{subsec:HHO}) are addressed

899: separately. But what does ``bare'' really mean?

900: 

901: The extraction of $\sigma^{(0)}(s)$ from the observed hadronic cross section

902: $\sigma(s)$ requires the subtraction of several radiative corrections

903: ({\small RC}) which, at the level of precision we are aiming at, have a

904: substantial impact on the result.  To start with, {\small RC} must be

905: applied to the luminosity determination, which is based on large-angle

906: Bhabha scattering and muon-pair production in low-energy experiments, and

907: small-angle Bhabha scattering at high energies. The first step to derive

908: $\sigma^{(0)}(s)$ consists then in subtracting the initial-state radiative

909: ({\small ISR}) corrections (virtual and real, described by pure {\small

910: QED}) from $\sigma(s)$. The resulting cross section still contains the

911: effects of the photon vacuum polarization corrections ({\small VP}), which

912: can be simply undressed by multiplying it by $\alpha^2/\alpha(s)^2$, where

913: $\alpha(s)$ is the effective running coupling (obviously depending on

914: nonperturbative contributions itself). The problem with data from old

915: experiments is that it's difficult to find out if (and which of) these

916: corrections have been included (see ref.~\cite{DEHZ02}).  The latest

917: analysis from {\small CMD-2}~\cite{CMD2-03} is explicitly corrected for both

918: {\small ISR} and {\small VP} (leptonic as well as hadronic) effects, whereas

919: the preliminary data~\cite{CMD2-99} of the same experiment were only

920: corrected for {\small ISR}. For a thorough analysis of these problems, I

921: refer the reader to~\cite{DEHZ02,HMNT03,HGJ02} and references therein.

922: 

923: All hadronic final states should be incorporated in the hadronic

924: contribution to the muon $g$$-$$2$, in particular final states including

925: photons. These final-state radiation ({\small FSR}) effects, although of

926: higher order ($\alpha^3$), are normally included in the leading-order

927: hadronic contribution $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HLO}$}}$. I will

928: stick to this time-honored convention. The precise {\small CMD-2} data for

929: the cross section $e^+e^- \rightarrow \pi^+ \pi^-$ (quoted systematic error

930: of 0.6\% dominated by the uncertainties in the {\small RC}) are corrected

931: for {\small FSR} effects using {\em scalar} {\small QED}. I find this

932: worrisome. The following is done: their experimental analysis imposes cuts

933: to isolate the two-pion final states. These cuts exclude a large fraction of

934: the $\pi^+ \pi^- \gamma$ states, in particular those where the photon is

935: radiated off at a relatively large angle~\cite{Me01}. The fraction left is

936: then removed using the Monte Carlo simulation based on point-like

937: pions. Finally, the full {\small FSR} contribution is added {\em back} using

938: an analytic expression computed in scalar {\small QED} for point-like

939: pions~\cite{Sch89}, shifting up the value of

940: $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HLO}$}}$ by $\sim 50 \times

941: 10^{-11}$~\cite{Me01, dTY01, dTY04, HGJ02, CGKR03, DKMPS04}. (This full

942: scalar-{\small QED} {\small FSR} contribution is also added to older

943: $\pi^+ \pi^-$ data.)  This procedure is less than perfect, as it introduces

944: a model dependence which could be avoided by a direct measurement of the

945: cross section into hadronic states inclusive of photons. Any calculation

946: that invokes scalar {\small QED} probably falls short of what is needed.

947: 

948: The 2001 final analysis~\cite{CMD2-01} of the precise {\small CMD-2} $\pi^+

949: \pi^-$ data taken in 1994--95 substantially differed from the preliminary

950: one~\cite{CMD2-99} released two years earlier (based on the same data

951: sample). The difference mostly consisted in the treatment of {\small RC},

952: resulting in a reduction of the cross section by about 1\% below the $\rho$

953: peak and 5\% above. A second significant change occurred during the summer

954: of 2003, when the {\small CMD-2} collaboration discovered an error in the

955: Monte Carlo program for Bhabha scattering that was used to determine the

956: luminosity~\cite{CMD2-03}.  As a result, the luminosity was overestimated by

957: 2--3\%, depending on energy. (Another problem was found in the {\small RC}

958: for $\mu$-pairs production.) Overall, the pion-pair cross section

959: increased by 2.1--3.8\% in the measured energy range~\cite{DEHZ03}, a

960: non-negligible shift. The 2004 results of the {\small KLOE} collaboration,

961: obtained via the radiative return method from the $\phi$ resonance, are in

962: fair agreement with the latest energy scan data from {\small

963: CMD-2}~\cite{DEHZ04, CMD2-03,KLOE-04}. Here I will only report the

964: evaluations of the dispersive integral in eq.~(\ref{eq:hlo}) based on the

965: latest {\small CMD-2} reanalysis, as it supersedes all earlier ones.  These

966: evaluations are in very good agreement:\footnote{I have translated the

967: results of ref.~\cite{dTY04} into the notation of the present article.}

968: %

969: \bea

970: \label{eq:DEHZ04}

971:       \mbox{\cite{DEHZ04}} \qquad\qquad&

972:       \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HLO}$}} \,\,= & 

973:       6934 \, (53)_{exp} (35)_{rad} \times 10^{-11},  \\

974: \label{eq:J03}

975:       \mbox{\cite{J03}}    \qquad\qquad&

976:       \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HLO}$}} \,\,= & 

977:       6948 \, (86) \times 10^{-11},  \\

978: \label{eq:ELZ04}

979:       \mbox{\cite{ELZ04}}  \qquad\qquad&   

980:        \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HLO}$}}\,\,= & 

981:       6934 \, (92) \times 10^{-11}, \\

982: \label{eq:HMNT03}

983:       \mbox{\cite{HMNT03}} \qquad\qquad&

984:       \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HLO}$}} \,\,= & 

985:       6924 \, (59)_{exp} (24)_{rad} \times 10^{-11},  \\

986: \label{eq:dTY04}

987:       \mbox{\cite{dTY04}}  \qquad\qquad&

988:       \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HLO}$}} \,\,= & 

989:       6944 \, (48)_{exp} (10)_{rad} \times 10^{-11}.  

990: \eea

991: %

992: The preliminary result in eq.~(\ref{eq:DEHZ04}) already includes {\small

993: KLOE}'s 2004 data analysis and updates the one of ref.~\cite{DEHZ03},

994: shifting it down by $29 \times 10^{-11}$; two thirds of this shift are due

995: to the inclusion of {\small KLOE}'s data. The preliminary new result in

996: eq.~(\ref{eq:ELZ04}) updates the value

997: $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HLO}$}}= 6996 \,(85)_{exp} (19)_{rad}

998: (20)_{proc} \times 10^{-11}$ previously obtained by the same

999: authors~\cite{ELZ03}. Their central value decreased because of an

1000: improvement of their integration procedure.

1001: 

1002: 

1003: The authors of ref.~\cite{ADH98} pioneered the idea of using vector spectral

1004: functions derived from the study of hadronic $\tau$ decays~\cite{ALEPHtau}

1005: to improve the evaluation of the dispersive integral in eq.~(\ref{eq:hlo}).

1006: Indeed, assuming isospin invariance to hold, the isovector part of the cross

1007: section for $e^+e^-\rightarrow$ hadrons can be calculated via the Conserved

1008: Vector Current ({\small CVC}) relations from $\tau$-decay spectra.  An

1009: updated analysis is presented in ~\cite{DEHZ03}, where $\tau$ spectral

1010: functions are obtained from the results of {\small ALEPH}~\cite{ALEPH02},

1011: {\small CLEO}~\cite{CLEO} and {\small OPAL}~\cite{OPAL}, and

1012: isospin-breaking corrections are applied~\cite{MS88,CEN01,CEN02}. In this

1013: $\tau$-based evaluation, the $2\pi$ and the two $4\pi$ channels are taken

1014: from $\tau$ data up to 1.6 GeV and complemented by $e^+e^-$ data above (the

1015: {\small QCD} prediction for $R(s)$ is employed above 5 GeV).  Note that

1016: $\tau$ decay experiments measure decay rates which are inclusive with

1017: respect to radiative photons.  Their result is

1018: %

1019: \bea

1020:       \mbox{\cite{DEHZ03}} \qquad\qquad&

1021:       \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HLO}$}} \,\,= &  

1022:       7110 \, (50)_{exp} (8)_{rad} (28)_{SU(2)} \times 10^{-11}, 

1023: \label{eq:DEHZ03tau}

1024: \eea

1025: %

1026: where the quoted uncertainties are experimental, missing radiative

1027: corrections to some $e^+e^-$ data, and isospin violation. This value must be

1028: compared with their $e^+e^-$-based determination in eq.~(\ref{eq:DEHZ04}).

1029: Also the analysis of~\cite{dTY04} includes information from $\tau$

1030: decay. They obtain

1031: %

1032: \bea

1033:       \mbox{\cite{dTY04}} \qquad\qquad&

1034:       \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HLO}$}} \,\,= &  

1035:       7027 \, (47)_{exp} (10)_{rad} \times 10^{-11},~~~~~~~~~

1036: \label{eq:dTY04tau}

1037: \eea

1038: %

1039: to be compared with their determination in eq.~(\ref{eq:dTY04}).

1040: 

1041:  

1042: Although the latest {\small CMD-2} $e^+e^-\rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ data are

1043: consistent with $\tau$ data for the energy region below 850 MeV, there is an

1044: unexplained discrepancy for larger energies. This is clearly visible in

1045: fig.~\ref{fig:dehz04}, from ref.~\cite{DEHZ04}, where the relative

1046: comparison of the $\pi^+\pi^-$ spectral functions from $e^+e^-$ and

1047: isospin-breaking-corrected $\tau$ data is illustrated. The same figure also

1048: shows the $\pi^+\pi^-$ spectral functions derived from {\small KLOE}'s 2004

1049: $e^+e^-$ analysis. They are in fair agreement with those of {\small CMD-2}

1050: and confirm the discrepancy with the $\tau$ data.

1051: 

1052: %

1053: \begin{figure}[h]

1054: \begin{center}

1055: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{dehz04.eps}

1056: \caption{{\sf Relative comparison of the $\pi^+\pi^-$ spectral functions

1057: from $e^+e^-$ and isospin-breaking-corrected $\tau$ data, expressed as a

1058: ratio to the $\tau$ spectral functions. The band shows the uncertainty of

1059: the latter. This figure is from ref.~\cite{DEHZ04}.}}

1060: \label{fig:dehz04}

1061: \end{center}

1062: \end{figure}

1063: %

1064: 

1065: Among the possible causes of this discrepancy, one may wonder about

1066: inconsistencies in the $e^+e^-$ data, in the $\tau$ data, or in the

1067: isospin-breaking corrections applied to the $\tau$ spectral functions. Given

1068: the good consistency of the {\small ALEPH} and {\small CLEO} data sets, and

1069: the confirmation by {\small KLOE} of the trend exhibited by other $e^+ e^-$

1070: data, further careful investigations of the isospin-violating effects are

1071: clearly warranted -- see the interesting studies in~\cite{dTY04, DEHZ04,

1072: Le02, GJ03, Da03, Mo04}, in particular the discussion of the possible

1073: difference between the masses and the widths of neutral and charged

1074: $\rho$-mesons. Until we reach a better understanding of this problem, it is

1075: probably safer to discard information from $\tau$ decays for the evaluation

1076: of $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HLO}$}}$~\cite{DEHZ04}.

1077: 

1078: 

1079: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%

1080: \subsection{Higher-order Hadronic Contributions}

1081: \label{subsec:HHO}

1082: 

1083: We will now briefly discuss the $O(\alpha^3)$ hadronic contribution to

1084: the muon $g$$-$$2$, $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HHO}$}}$, which can be

1085: divided into two parts:

1086: %

1087: \be

1088:      \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HHO}$}}=

1089:      \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HHO}$}}(\mbox{vp})+

1090:      \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HHO}$}}(\mbox{lbl}).

1091: \ee

1092: %

1093: The first term is the $O(\alpha^3)$ contribution of diagrams containing

1094: hadronic vacuum polarization insertions, including, among others, those

1095: depicted in figs.~\ref{fig:hho} $A$ and $B$. The second one is the

1096: light-by-light contribution, shown in fig.~\ref{fig:hho} $C$. Note that the

1097: $O(\alpha^3)$ diagram in fig.~\ref{fig:hho} $D$ has already been included in

1098: the leading-order hadronic contribution

1099: $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HLO}$}}$ although, unsatisfactorily, using

1100: {\em scalar} {\small QED} (see discussion in sec.~\ref{subsec:HLO}). In

1101: recent years, $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HHO}$}}(\mbox{vp})$ was

1102: evaluated by Krause~\cite{Kr96} and slightly updated in~\cite{ADH98}. Its

1103: latest value is~\cite{HMNT03}

1104: %

1105: \be

1106:       \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HHO}$}}(\mbox{vp})=

1107:       -97.9 \, (0.9)_{exp} (0.3)_{rad} \times 10^{-11}.

1108: \label{eq:hhovp}

1109: \ee

1110: %

1111: This result was obtained using the same hadronic $e^+ e^-$ annihilation data

1112: described in sec.~\ref{subsec:HLO}. It changes by about $-3\times 10^{-11}$

1113: if hadronic $\tau$-decay data (again, see sec.~\ref{subsec:HLO}) are used

1114: instead~\cite{DM04}.

1115: 

1116: 

1117: %

1118: %

1119: \begin{figure}[h]

1120: \begin{center}

1121: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{hho.eps}

1122: \caption{{\sf Some of the higher-order hadronic diagrams contributing to

1123: $\amu$.}}

1124: \label{fig:hho}

1125: \end{center}

1126: \end{figure}

1127: %

1128: %-----

1129: % lxl

1130: 

1131: The hadronic light-by-light contribution changed sign already three times in

1132: its troubled life. Contrary to

1133: $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HHO}$}}(\mbox{vp})$, it cannot be expressed

1134: in terms of experimental observables determined from data and its evaluation

1135: therefore relies on purely theoretical considerations. The estimate of the

1136: authors of~\cite{Ny03, KN01,KNPdR01}, who uncovered in 2001 a sign error in

1137: earlier evaluations, is

1138: %

1139: \bea

1140:       \mbox{\cite{Ny03}} \qquad\qquad&

1141:       \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HHO}$}}(\mbox{lbl})\,\,= &  

1142:       +\,80\,(40)\times 10^{-11}.

1143: \label{eq:hholblNy}

1144: \eea

1145: %

1146: Earlier determinations now agree with this result~\cite{HK01,BPP01}. Further

1147: studies include~\cite{BCM01,RW02}. At the end of 2003 a higher value was

1148: reported in~\cite{MV03},

1149: %

1150: \bea

1151:       \mbox{\cite{MV03}} \qquad\qquad&

1152:       \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HHO}$}}(\mbox{lbl})\,\,= &  

1153:       +\,136\,(25)\times 10^{-11}.

1154: \label{eq:hholblMV}

1155: \eea

1156: %

1157: It was obtained by including short-distance {\small QCD} constraints

1158: previously overlooked.  Further independent calculations would provide an

1159: important check of this result for

1160: $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HHO}$}}(\mbox{lbl})$, a contribution whose

1161: uncertainty may become the ultimate limitation of the {\small SM} prediction

1162: of the muon $g$$-$$2$.

1163: 

1164: 

1165: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%

1166: \section{The Standard Model Prediction vs.\ Measurement}

1167: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%

1168: \label{sec:COMP}

1169: 

1170: We now have all the ingredients to derive the {\small SM} prediction for

1171: $\amu$:

1172: %

1173: \be

1174:     \amu^{\mysmall SM} = 

1175:          \amu^{\mysmall QED} +

1176:          \amu^{\mysmall EW}  +

1177: 	 \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HLO}$}}  +

1178: 	 \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HHO}$}}(\mbox{vp})  +

1179: 	 \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HHO}$}}(\mbox{lbl}).

1180: \label{eq:sm}

1181: \ee

1182: % 

1183: For convenience, I collect here the values of each term from

1184: eqs.~(\ref{eq:qed}, \ref{eq:ew}, \ref{eq:DEHZ04}--\ref{eq:dTY04tau},

1185: \ref{eq:hhovp}--\ref{eq:hholblMV}):

1186: 

1187: 

1188: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}

1189: $$

1190: \begin{array}{llclr}

1191:       \mbox{[this article]} \qquad\qquad &

1192:       \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{QED}$}}   &= & 

1193:       116 \, 584 \, 718.8 \,(0.5)  &\times 10^{-11} \\  

1194:       \mbox{\cite{CMV03}} \qquad\qquad &

1195:       \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{EW}$}}    &= &

1196:       154(1)(2)                       &\times 10^{-11}        \\

1197:       \mbox{\cite{DEHZ04}} \qquad (e^+e^-) &

1198:       \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HLO}$}} &= & 

1199:       6934 \, (53)_{exp} (35)_{rad} &\times 10^{-11}             \\

1200:       \mbox{\cite{J03}}    \qquad (e^+e^-) &

1201:       \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HLO}$}} &= & 

1202:       6948 \, (86) &\times 10^{-11}                              \\

1203:       \mbox{\cite{ELZ04}}  \qquad (e^+e^-) &   

1204:        \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HLO}$}}&= & 

1205:       6934 \, (92) &\times 10^{-11} \\

1206:       \mbox{\cite{HMNT03}} \qquad (e^+e^-) &

1207:       \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HLO}$}} &= & 

1208:       6924 \, (59)_{exp} (24)_{rad} &\times 10^{-11}             \\

1209:       \mbox{\cite{dTY04}}  \qquad (e^+e^-) &

1210:       \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HLO}$}} &= & 

1211:       6944 \, (48)_{exp} (10)_{rad} &\times 10^{-11}            \\  

1212:       \mbox{\cite{DEHZ03}} \qquad (\tau) &

1213:       \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HLO}$}} &= &  

1214:       7110 \, (50)_{exp} (8)_{rad} (28)_{SU(2)} &\times 10^{-11} \\  

1215:       \mbox{\cite{dTY04}} \qquad  (e^+e^-, \tau)  &

1216:       \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HLO}$}} &= &  

1217:       7027 \, (47)_{exp} (10)_{rad}     &\times 10^{-11}        \\ 

1218:       \mbox{\cite{HMNT03}} \qquad (e^+e^-) &

1219:       \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HHO}$}}(\mbox{vp})\,\,&= & 

1220:       -97.9 \, (0.9)_{exp} (0.3)_{rad} &\times 10^{-11}          \\

1221:       \mbox{\cite{DM04}} \qquad (\tau) &

1222:       \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HHO}$}}(\mbox{vp})\,\,&= & 

1223:       -101 \, (1) &\times 10^{-11}          \\

1224:       \mbox{\cite{Ny03}} \qquad\qquad   &

1225:       \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HHO}$}}(\mbox{lbl})\,\,&= &  

1226:       80\,(40)                         &\times 10^{-11}          \\

1227:       \mbox{\cite{MV03}} \qquad\qquad   &

1228:       \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HHO}$}}(\mbox{lbl})\,\,&= &  

1229:       136\,(25)                        & \times 10^{-11}            

1230: \end{array}

1231: $$

1232: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}

1233: %

1234: %

1235: 

1236: \noindent

1237: The values I obtain for $\amu^{\mysmall SM}$ are shown in the first column

1238: of table~\ref{tab:EXPvsSM}. The values employed for

1239: $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HLO}$}}$ are indicated by the reference in

1240: the last column. I used the latest value available for the hadronic

1241: light-by-light contribution

1242: $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HHO}$}}(\mbox{lbl})= 136\,(25)\times

1243: 10^{-11}$~\cite{MV03}. Errors were added in quadrature.

1244: 

1245: %--- EXP

1246: The latest measurement of the anomalous magnetic moment of negative muons by

1247: the experiment {\small E821} at Brookhaven is~\cite{BNL04}

1248: %

1249: \be 

1250:       a_{\mu^-}^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{EXP}$}} = 

1251: 	  116 \, 592 \, 140 \, (80)(30) \times 10^{-11},

1252: \label{eq:bnl04}

1253: \ee

1254: %

1255: where the first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

1256: This result is in good agreement with the average of the measurements of the

1257: anomalous magnetic moment of positive muons~\cite{BNL00,BNL01,BNL02,oldEXP},

1258: as predicted by the {\small CPT} theorem~\cite{Hu03}. The present world

1259: average experimental value is~\cite{BNL04}

1260: %

1261: \be

1262:     \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{EXP}$}}  = 

1263:                116 \, 592 \, 080 \, (60) \times 10^{-11} 

1264: 	       \quad (0.5~\mbox{ppm}).

1265: \label{eq:exp}

1266: \ee

1267: %

1268: 

1269: 

1270: The comparison of the {\small SM} results with the present experimental

1271: average in eq.~(\ref{eq:exp}) gives the discrepancies

1272: $(\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{EXP}$}}-

1273: \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{SM}$}})$ listed in the second column of

1274: table~\ref{tab:EXPvsSM}. The number of standard deviations, shown in the

1275: third column, spans a wide range from 0.7 to 2.8. Somewhat higher

1276: discrepancies, shown in parentheses in the third column, are obtained if the

1277: hadronic light-by-light contribution

1278: $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HHO}$}}(\mbox{lbl})= 80\,(40)\times

1279: 10^{-11}$~\cite{Ny03} is used instead of

1280: $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HHO}$}}(\mbox{lbl})= 136\,(25)\times

1281: 10^{-11}$~\cite{MV03}, with the number of standard deviations spanning the

1282: range $[1.3-3.2]$ instead of $[0.7-2.8]$. Note that the entries of the first

1283: row in table~\ref{tab:EXPvsSM} are based on the preliminary result for

1284: $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HLO}$}}$ of ref.~\cite{DEHZ04}, which

1285: already includes the recent data from {\small KLOE} and updates the one of

1286: ref.~\cite{DEHZ03}, shifting it down by $29 \times 10^{-11}$. As two thirds

1287: of this shift are due to the inclusion of the {\small KLOE} data, it is

1288: possible that eventually also the $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{HLO}$}}$

1289: results of refs.~\cite{J03,ELZ04,HMNT03,dTY04} will undergo some

1290: decrease as a consequence of this inclusion, thus increasing the

1291: corresponding $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{EXP}$}}-

1292: \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{SM}$}}$ discrepancies.

1293: %

1294: %

1295: \begin{table}[h] 

1296: \begin{center}

1297: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}

1298: \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|}

1299: \hline 

1300: \hline 

1301: %

1302: $\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{SM}$}} \times 10^{11}$   & 

1303: $(\amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{EXP}$}}-

1304:   \amu^{\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{SM}$}})\times 10^{11}$  & 

1305: $\sigma$                                                  &

1306: {\small HLO} Reference                                    \\

1307: \hline 

1308: 116591845 \,(69) & 235 \,(91) & 2.6 ~~~(3.0) & 

1309:       \mbox{\cite{DEHZ04}}~~~$(e^+e^-)$\\ 

1310: 116591859 \,(90) & 221 \,(108)& 2.1 ~~~(2.5) & 

1311:       \mbox{\cite{J03}}~~~$(e^+e^-)$\\ 

1312: 116591845 \,(95) & 235 \,(113)& 2.1 ~~~(2.5) & 

1313:       \mbox{\cite{ELZ04}}~~~$(e^+e^-)$\\ 

1314: 116591835 \,(69) & 245 \,(91) & 2.7 ~~~(3.1) & 

1315:       \mbox{\cite{HMNT03}}~~~$(e^+e^-)$\\ 

1316: 116591855 \,(55) & 225 \,(81) & 2.8 ~~~(3.2) & 

1317:       \mbox{\cite{dTY04}}~~~$(e^+e^-)$\\ 

1318: \hline 

1319: 116592018 \,(63) &  62 \,(87) & 0.7 ~~~(1.3) & 

1320:       \mbox{\cite{DEHZ03}}~~~$(\tau)$\\ 

1321: 116591938 \,(54) & 142 \,(81) & 1.8 ~~~(2.3)&

1322:       \mbox{\cite{dTY04}}~~~$(e^+e^-,\tau)$\\

1323: %

1324: \hline 

1325: \hline

1326: \end{tabular}

1327: \end{center} 

1328: \caption{{\sf {\small SM} predictions for $\amu$ compared with the current

1329:   measured world average value. See text for details.}}

1330: \label{tab:EXPvsSM}   

1331: \end{table} 

1332: %

1333: %

1334: 

1335: 

1336: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%

1337: \section{Conclusions}

1338: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%

1339: \label{sec:CONC}

1340: 

1341: In the previous sections I presented an update and a review of the

1342: contributions to the {\small SM} prediction for the muon $g$$-$$2$.  What

1343: should we conclude from the wide spectrum of results obtained in

1344: sec.~\ref{sec:COMP}?  The discrepancies in table~\ref{tab:EXPvsSM} between

1345: recent {\small SM} predictions and the current world average experimental

1346: value range from 0.7 to 3.2 standard deviations, according to the values

1347: used for the leading-order and light-by-light hadronic contributions.

1348: In particular, the contribution of the hadronic vacuum polarization depends

1349: on which of the two data sets, $e^+e^-$ collisions or $\tau$ decays, are

1350: employed.

1351: 

1352: This puzzling discrepancy between the $\pi^+\pi^-$ spectral functions from

1353: $e^+e^-$ and isospin-breaking-corrected $\tau$ data could be caused by

1354: inconsistencies in the $e^+e^-$ data, in the $\tau$ data, or in the

1355: isospin-breaking corrections applied to the latter.  Given the fair

1356: agreement between the {\small CMD-2} and {\small KLOE} $e^+e^-$ data, and

1357: the good consistency of the {\small ALEPH} and {\small CLEO} $\tau$ spectral

1358: functions, it is clear that further careful investigations of the isospin

1359: violations are highly warranted. Indeed, the question remains whether all

1360: possible isospin-breaking effects have been properly taken into

1361: account. Until we reach a better understanding of this problem, it is

1362: probably safer to discard information from hadronic $\tau$

1363: decays~\cite{DEHZ04}. (Of course, discarding $\tau$ data information still

1364: leaves us with the problem of their discrepancy, a troublesome issue on its

1365: own, independent of the calculation of the muon $g$$-$$2$.) If $e^+e^-$

1366: annihilation data are used to evaluate the leading hadronic contribution,

1367: the {\small SM} prediction of the muon $g$$-$$2$ deviates from the present

1368: experimental value by 2--3 standard deviations.

1369: 

1370: 

1371: The measurement of the muon $g$$-$$2$ by the {\small E821} experiment at the

1372: Brookhaven Alternating Gradient Synchrotron, with an impressive relative

1373: precision of 0.5 ppm, is still limited by statistical errors rather than

1374: systematic ones.  A new experiment, {\small E969}, has been approved (but

1375: not yet funded) at Brookhaven in September 2004~\cite{E969}. Its goal would

1376: be to reduce the present experimental uncertainty by a factor of 2.5 to

1377: about 0.2 ppm ($\pm 23 \times 10^{-11}$). A letter of intent for an even

1378: more precise $g$$-$$2$ experiment was submitted to {\small J-PARC} with the

1379: proposal to reach a precision below 0.1 ppm~\cite{JPARC}.  While the

1380: theoretical predictions for the {\small QED} and {\small EW} contributions

1381: appear to be ready to rival these precisions, much effort will be needed in

1382: the hadronic sector to test $\amu^{\mysmall SM}$ at an accuracy comparable

1383: to the experimental one. Such an effort is certainly well motivated by the

1384: excellent opportunity the muon $g$$-$$2$ is providing us to unveil or

1385: constrain ``new physics'' effects.

1386: 

1387: 

1388: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%

1389: \section*{Acknowledgments}

1390: 

1391: It is a pleasure to thank G.~Colangelo, J.~Gasser, H.~Leutwyler,

1392: P.~Minkowski, A.~Rusetsky and I.~Scimemi for many useful discussions of the

1393: topic presented here. Several comments and remarks reported in this paper

1394: grew out of our ongoing collaboration. I also wish to thank M.~Davier,

1395: A.~Ferroglia, T.~Kinoshita, A.~Pich, F.~Yndur\'{a}in and O.V.~Zenin for very

1396: helpful comments on a number of points. The exact formulae for the

1397: evaluation of the three-loop {\small QED} coefficients were kindly provided

1398: by S.~Laporta. All diagrams were drawn with {\tt Jaxodraw}~\cite{Jax}.

1399: 

1400: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%

1401: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1402: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%

1403:   

1404: %--------------------- Introduction

1405: 

1406: \bibitem{Sch48} J.S.~Schwinger, Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf 73} (1948) 416.

1407: 

1408: %--------------------- EXP

1409: 

1410: \bibitem{BNL00} H.N.~Brown {\it et al.}  [Muon (g-2) Collaboration],

1411:       Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 091101

1412:       [arXiv:hep-ex/0009029].

1413:       %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0009029;%%

1414: 

1415: \bibitem{BNL01} H.N.~Brown {\it et al.}  [Muon (g-2) Collaboration],

1416:       Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 86} (2001) 2227

1417:       [arXiv:hep-ex/0102017].

1418:       %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0102017;%%

1419: 

1420: \bibitem{BNL02} G.W.~Bennett {\it et al.}  [Muon (g-2) Collaboration],

1421:       Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 89} (2002) 101804

1422:       [Erratum-ibid.\  {\bf 89} (2002) 129903]

1423:       [arXiv:hep-ex/0208001].

1424:       %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0208001;%%

1425: 

1426: \bibitem{BNL04} G.W.~Bennett {\it et al.}  [Muon (g-2) Collaboration],

1427:      Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 92} (2004) 161802

1428:      [arXiv:hep-ex/0401008].

1429:      %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0401008;%%

1430: 

1431: %--------------------- Reviews

1432: 

1433: \bibitem{CM01} A.~Czarnecki and W.J.~Marciano,

1434:      Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 013014

1435:      [arXiv:hep-ph/0102122].

1436:      %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102122;%%

1437: 

1438: \bibitem{KM90} T.~Kinoshita and W.J.~Marciano, in {\it Quantum

1439:      Electrodynamics}, edited by T.~Kinoshita (World Scientific, Singapore),

1440:      pp.~419--478. 

1441: 

1442: \bibitem{CM99} A.~Czarnecki and W.J.~Marciano,

1443:      Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 76} (1999) 245

1444:      [arXiv:hep-ph/9810512].

1445:      %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810512;%%

1446: 

1447: \bibitem{HK99} V.W.~Hughes and T.~Kinoshita,

1448:      Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\  {\bf 71} (1999) S133.

1449:      %%CITATION = RMPHA,71,S133;%%

1450: 

1451: \bibitem{MT00} P.J.~Mohr and B.N.~Taylor,

1452:      Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\  {\bf 72} (2000) 351.

1453:      %%CITATION = RMPHA,72,351;%%

1454: 

1455: \bibitem{MLR01} W.J.~Marciano and B.L.~Roberts,

1456:      arXiv:hep-ph/0105056.

1457:      %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105056;%%

1458: 

1459: \bibitem{Me01} K.~Melnikov,

1460:      Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 16} (2001) 4591

1461:      [arXiv:hep-ph/0105267].

1462:      %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105267;%%

1463: 

1464: \bibitem{Ny03}  A.~Nyffeler, 

1465:      Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 34} (2003) 5197.

1466:      %%CITATION = APPOA,B34,5197;%%

1467: 

1468: \bibitem{Kn03} M.~Knecht,

1469:      arXiv:hep-ph/0307239.

1470:      %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307239;%%

1471: 

1472: \bibitem{DM04} M.~Davier and W.J.~Marciano,

1473:      Annu.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ 54 (2004) 115.

1474: 

1475: 

1476: %--------------------- QED O(alpha^2)

1477: 

1478: \bibitem{KNO90} T.~Kinoshita, B.~Nizic and Y.~Okamoto,

1479:         Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 41} (1990) 593.

1480: 	%%CITATION = PHRVA,D41,593;%%

1481: 

1482: \bibitem{So57-58}  C.M.~Sommerfield, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 107} (1957) 328;

1483:                 Ann.\ Phys.\ (N.Y.) {\bf 5} (1958) 26.

1484: 

1485: \bibitem{Pe57-58}  A.~Petermann, Helv.\ Phys.\ Acta {\bf 30} (1957) 407;

1486:                 Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 5} (1958) 677.

1487: 

1488: \bibitem{SWP57} H.~Suura and  E.~Wichmann, 

1489:                 Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 105} (1957) 1930; \\

1490: 		A.~Petermann, 

1491: 		Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 105} (1957) 1931.

1492: 

1493: \bibitem{El66}  H.H.~Elend, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf 20} (1966) 682;  

1494:                 Erratum-ibid.\ {\bf 21} (1966) 720.

1495: %		H.H.T.~Liu, UCD-CNL-81 report (1968).

1496: 

1497: %\bibitem{Lewin} L.~Lewin, ``Polylogarithms and Associated Functions''

1498: %                (Elsevier North Holland, 1981).

1499: 

1500: \bibitem{MT04} P.J.~Mohr and B.N.~Taylor, ``{\small CODATA} recommended

1501:   values of the fundamental physical constants: 2002,'' Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.,

1502:   to be published in 2005. The full 2002 {\small CODATA} set of constants

1503:   may be found at {\tt http://physics.nist.gov/constants}.

1504: 

1505: \bibitem{PDG04} S.~Eidelman {\it et al.} 

1506:   [Particle Data Group Collaboration], Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 592} (2004)~1.

1507: 

1508: 

1509: %--------------------- QED O(alpha^3)

1510: 

1511: \bibitem{Remiddi}  J.A.~Mignaco and E.~Remiddi,

1512:                 Nuovo Cim.\ A {\bf 60} (1969) 519;    \\

1513: 		R.~Barbieri and E.~Remiddi,

1514: 		Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 49} (1974) 468;  \\

1515: 		%%CITATION = PHLTA,B49,468;%%

1516: 		R.~Barbieri and E.~Remiddi,

1517:                 Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 90} (1975) 233;  \\

1518: 		%%CITATION = NUPHA,B90,233;%%

1519: 		R.~Barbieri, M.~Caffo and E.~Remiddi,

1520: 		Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 57} (1975) 460;  \\

1521: 		%%CITATION = PHLTA,B57,460;%%

1522: 		M.J.~Levine, E.~Remiddi and R.~Roskies,

1523: 		Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 20} (1979) 2068;  \\

1524: 		%%CITATION = PHRVA,D20,2068;%%

1525: 		S.~Laporta and E.~Remiddi,

1526: 		Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 265} (1991) 182; \\

1527: 		%%CITATION = PHLTA,B265,182;%%

1528: 		S.~Laporta,

1529: 		Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 47} (1993) 4793; 

1530: 		%%CITATION = PHRVA,D47,4793;%%

1531: 		Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 343} (1995) 421

1532: 		[arXiv:hep-ph/9410248]; \\

1533: 		%%CITATION = HEP-PH 9410248;%%

1534: 		S.~Laporta and E.~Remiddi,

1535: 		Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 356} (1995) 390.

1536: 		%%CITATION = PHLTA,B356,390;%%

1537: 

1538: \bibitem{LR96}  S.~Laporta and E.~Remiddi,

1539:                 Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 379} (1996) 283

1540: 		[arXiv:hep-ph/9602417].

1541: 		%%CITATION = HEP-PH 9602417;%%

1542: 

1543: \bibitem{La93}  S.~Laporta,

1544:                 Nuovo Cim.\ A {\bf 106} (1993) 675.

1545: 		%%CITATION = NUCIA,A106,675;%%

1546: 

1547: \bibitem{LR93}  S.~Laporta and E.~Remiddi,

1548:                 Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 301} (1993) 440.

1549: 		%%CITATION = PHLTA,B301,440;%%

1550: 

1551: \bibitem{Ki67}  T.~Kinoshita, Nuovo Cim.\ B {\bf 51} (1967) 140.

1552: 

1553: \bibitem{A26early} B.E.~Lautrup and E.~de Rafael,

1554:                 Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf 174} (1968) 1835; \\

1555: 		%%CITATION = PHRVA,174,1835;%%

1556: 		R.~Barbieri and E.~Remiddi,

1557: 		Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 90} (1975) 233; \\

1558: 		%%CITATION = NUPHA,B90,233;%%

1559: 		B.E.~Lautrup and M.A.~Samuel,

1560: 		Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 72} (1977) 114; \\

1561: 		M.A.~Samuel and G.~Li,

1562: 		Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 44} (1991) 3935

1563: 		[Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 48} (1993) 1879].

1564: 

1565: \bibitem{HarmPol} E.~Remiddi and J.A.M.~Vermaseren,

1566:                 Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 15} (2000) 725

1567: 		[arXiv:hep-ph/9905237].

1568: 		%%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905237;%%

1569: 

1570: \bibitem{LS77}  B.E.~Lautrup and M.A.~Samuel,

1571:                 Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 72} (1977) 114.

1572: 		%%CITATION = PHLTA,B72,114;%%

1573: 

1574: \bibitem{Ye89}  A.S.~Yelkhovsky, 

1575:                 Yad.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 49} (1989) 1059 

1576: 		[Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf 49} (1989) 656].

1577: 

1578: \bibitem{CS99}  A.~Czarnecki and M.~Skrzypek,

1579:                 Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 449} (1999) 354

1580: 		[arXiv:hep-ph/9812394].

1581: 		%%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812394;%%

1582: 

1583: \bibitem{Ki90}  T.~Kinoshita, in {\it Quantum

1584:                 Electrodynamics}, edited by T.~Kinoshita 

1585:                 (World Scientific, Singapore), pp.~218--321. 

1586: 

1587: %--------------------- QED O(alpha^4)

1588: 

1589: \bibitem{A8analytic} 

1590:         M.~Caffo, S.~Turrini and E.~Remiddi,

1591: 	Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 30} (1984) 483; \\

1592: 	%%CITATION = PHRVA,D30,483;%%

1593: 	E.~Remiddi and S.P.~Sorella,

1594: 	Lett.\ Nuovo Cim.\  {\bf 44} (1985) 231; \\

1595: 	%%CITATION = NCLTA,44,231;%%

1596: 	D.J.~Broadhurst, A.L.~Kataev and O.V.~Tarasov,

1597: 	Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 298} (1993) 445

1598: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/9210255]; \\

1599: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 9210255;%%

1600: 	S.~Laporta,

1601:         Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 312} (1993) 495

1602: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/9306324]; \\

1603: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 9306324;%%

1604: 	P.A.~Baikov and D.J.~Broadhurst,

1605: 	arXiv:hep-ph/9504398.

1606: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 9504398;%%

1607: 

1608: \bibitem{KL81} T.~Kinoshita and W.B.~Lindquist,

1609:         Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 47} (1981) 1573.

1610: 

1611: \bibitem{KNO84} T.~Kinoshita, B.~Nizic and Y.~Okamoto,

1612:         Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 52} (1984) 717.

1613: 	%%CITATION = PRLTA,52,717;%%

1614: 

1615: \bibitem{KL83-89} T.~Kinoshita and W.B.~Lindquist,

1616: 	%%CITATION = PRLTA,47,1573;%%

1617: 	Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 27} (1983) 867;

1618: 	%%CITATION = PHRVA,D27,867;%%

1619: 	Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 27} (1983) 877;

1620: 	%%CITATION = PHRVA,D27,877;%%

1621: 	Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 27} (1983) 886;

1622: 	%%CITATION = PHRVA,D27,886;%%

1623: 	Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 39} (1989) 2407;

1624: 	%%CITATION = PHRVA,D39,2407;%%

1625: 	Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 42} (1990) 636.

1626: 	%%CITATION = PHRVA,D42,636;%%

1627: 

1628: \bibitem{Ki93} T.~Kinoshita,

1629:         Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 47} (1993) 5013.

1630: 	%%CITATION = PHRVA,D47,5013;%%

1631: 

1632: \bibitem{KN03} T.~Kinoshita and M.~Nio,

1633:         Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 90} (2003) 021803

1634: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/0210322].

1635: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210322;%%

1636: 

1637: \bibitem{KN04} T.~Kinoshita and M.~Nio,

1638: 	Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 113001

1639: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/0402206].

1640: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402206;%%

1641: 

1642: \bibitem{Ki04} T.~Kinoshita, talk at Tau04, September 14th--17th 2004, Nara,

1643:         Japan.

1644: 

1645: 

1646: %--------------------- QED O(alpha^5)

1647: 

1648: \bibitem{MY89} A.I.~Milstein and A.S.~Yelkhovsky,

1649:         Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 233} (1989) 11.

1650: 

1651: \bibitem{Ka92} A.L.~Kataev,

1652:         Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 284} (1992) 401.

1653: 	%%CITATION = PHLTA,B284,401;%%

1654: 

1655: \bibitem{Br93} D.J.~Broadhurst,

1656:         Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 58}, 339 (1993).

1657: 	%%CITATION = ZEPYA,C58,339;%%

1658: 

1659: \bibitem{Ka93} S.G.~Karshenboim,

1660:         Phys.\ Atom.\ Nucl.\  {\bf 56} (1993) 857

1661: 	[Yad.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 56N6} (1993) 252].

1662: 	%%CITATION = PANUE,56,857;%%

1663: 

1664: \bibitem{La94} S.~Laporta,

1665:         Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 328}, 522 (1994)

1666: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/9404204].

1667: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 9404204;%%

1668: 

1669: \bibitem{EKS94} J.R.~Ellis, M.~Karliner, M.A.~Samuel and

1670:         E.~Steinfelds, arXiv:hep-ph/9409376.

1671: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 9409376;%%

1672: 

1673: \bibitem{KS94} A.L.~Kataev and V.V.~Starshenko,

1674:         Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52}, 402 (1995)

1675: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/9412305].

1676: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 9412305;%%

1677: 

1678: 

1679: %--------------------- Alpha

1680: 

1681: \bibitem{alpha} A.~Wicht {\it et al.}, in Proc.\ of the 6th Symp.\ on Freq.\

1682:   Standards and Metrology (World Scientific, Singapore, 2002), pp.~193--212.

1683: 

1684: %--------------------- EW 1 loop

1685: 

1686: \bibitem{ew1loop} R.~Jackiw and S.~Weinberg,

1687:                   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 5} (1972) 2396; \\

1688: 		  %%CITATION = PHRVA,D5,2396;%%

1689:                   I.~Bars and M.~Yoshimura,

1690: 		  Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 6} (1972) 374; \\

1691: 		  %%CITATION = PHRVA,D6,374;%%

1692: 		  G.~Altarelli, N.~Cabibbo and L.~Maiani,

1693: 		  Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 40} (1972) 415;\\

1694: 		  %%CITATION = PHLTA,B40,415;%%

1695: 		  W.A.~Bardeen, R.~Gastmans and B.~Lautrup,

1696: 		  Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 46} (1972) 319;\\

1697: 		  %%CITATION = NUPHA,B46,319;%%

1698: 		  K.~Fujikawa, B.W.~Lee and A.I.~Sanda,

1699: 		  Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 6} (1972) 2923.

1700: 		  %%CITATION = PHRVA,D6,2923;%%

1701: 

1702: \bibitem{Studenikin}

1703:                   I.M.~Ternov, V.N.~Rodionov and A.I.~Studenikin,

1704: 		  Yad.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 37} (1983) 1270 

1705: 		  [Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf 37} (1983) 755];

1706: 		  %%CITATION = YAFIA,37,1270;%%

1707: 		  Annalen Phys.\  {\bf 46} (1989) 303; \\

1708: 		  %%CITATION = ANPYA,46,303;%%

1709: 		  A.I.~Studenikin,

1710: 		  Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 97} (1990) 1407

1711: 		  [Sov.\ Phys.\ {\small JETP} {\bf 70} (1990) 795];

1712: 		  %%CITATION = SPHJA,70,795;%%

1713: 		  arXiv:hep-ph/9808219;

1714: 		  %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9808219;%%

1715: 		  Yad.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 62} (1999) 2248

1716: 		  [Phys.\ Atom.\ Nucl.\  {\bf 62} (1999) 2071].

1717: 		  %%CITATION = PANUE,62,2071;%%

1718: 

1719: \bibitem{CMV03}  A.~Czarnecki, W.J.~Marciano and A.~Vainshtein,

1720:                   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 073006

1721: 		  [arXiv:hep-ph/0212229].

1722: 		  %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212229;%%

1723: 

1724: \bibitem{Si80}   A.~Sirlin,

1725:                   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 22} (1980) 971.

1726: 		  %%CITATION = PHRVA,D22,971;%%

1727: 

1728: \bibitem{FOPS}   A.~Ferroglia, G.~Ossola, M.~Passera and A.~Sirlin,

1729:                   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 113002 (2002)

1730: 		  [arXiv:hep-ph/0203224]; \\

1731: 		  %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0203224;%%

1732: 		  G.~Degrassi and P.~Gambino,

1733: 		  Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 567} (2000) 3

1734: 		  [arXiv:hep-ph/9905472]; \\

1735: 		  %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905472;%%

1736: 		  G.~Degrassi, P.~Gambino, M.~Passera and A.~Sirlin,

1737: 		  Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 418} (1998) 209

1738: 		  [arXiv:hep-ph/9708311].

1739: 		  %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9708311;%%

1740: 

1741: \bibitem{newTOP} P.~Azzi {\it et al.}  [{\small CDF} Collaboration, {\small

1742:                   D0} Collaboration and Tevatron Electroweak Working Group],

1743:                   arXiv:hep-ex/0404010.  %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0404010;%%

1744: 

1745: \bibitem {FOS04}  A.~Ferroglia, G.~Ossola and A.~Sirlin, 

1746: 		  arXiv:hep-ph/0406334.

1747: 		  %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406334;%%

1748: 

1749: \bibitem{LEPHIGGS} R.~Barate {\it et al.}  [{\small ALEPH} Collaboration,

1750:                   {\small DELPHI} Collaboration, {\small L3} Collaboration,

1751:                   {\small OPAL} Collaboration and The {\small LEP} Working

1752:                   Group for Higgs Boson Searches], Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 565}

1753:                   (2003) 61 [arXiv:hep-ex/0306033].  %%CITATION = HEP-EX

1754:                   0306033;%%

1755: 

1756: %--------------------- EW 2 loop

1757: 

1758: \bibitem{CKM95a}   A.~Czarnecki, B.~Krause and W.J.~Marciano,

1759:                   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52} (1995) 2619

1760: 		  [arXiv:hep-ph/9506256].

1761: 		  %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9506256;%%

1762: 

1763: \bibitem{CKM95b}   A.~Czarnecki, B.~Krause and W.J.~Marciano,

1764: 		  Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 76} (1996) 3267

1765: 		  [arXiv:hep-ph/9512369].

1766: 		  %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9512369;%%

1767: 

1768: \bibitem{KKSS} T.V.~Kukhto, E.A.~Kuraev, Z.K.~Silagadze and A.~Schiller,

1769:                   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 371} (1992) 567.

1770: 		  %%CITATION = NUPHA,B371,567;%%

1771: 

1772: \bibitem{Kaneko95} T.~Kaneko and N.~Nakazawa, 

1773: 		  arXiv:hep-ph/9505278.  

1774: 		  %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9505278;%%

1775: 

1776: \bibitem{PPD95} S.~Peris, M.~Perrottet and E.~de Rafael,

1777:                   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 355} (1995) 523

1778: 		  [arXiv:hep-ph/9505405].

1779: 		  %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9505405;%%

1780: 

1781: \bibitem{KPPD02} M.~Knecht, S.~Peris, M.~Perrottet and E.~de Rafael, {\small

1782:                   JHEP} {\bf 0211} (2002) 003 [arXiv:hep-ph/0205102].

1783:                   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205102;%%

1784: 

1785: \bibitem{CMV03b} A.~Czarnecki, W.J.~Marciano and A.~Vainshtein,

1786:                   Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 34} (2003) 5669

1787: 		  [arXiv:hep-ph/0310276].

1788: 		  %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310276;%%

1789: 

1790: \bibitem{DGi98}  G.~Degrassi and G.F.~Giudice,

1791:                   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58} (1998) 053007

1792: 		  [arXiv:hep-ph/9803384].

1793: 		  %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803384;%%

1794: 

1795: \bibitem{HSW04}  S.~Heinemeyer, D.~St\"ockinger and G.~Weiglein,

1796: 		  Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 699} (2004) 103

1797: 		  [arXiv:hep-ph/0405255].

1798: 		  %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405255;%%

1799: 

1800: 

1801: \bibitem{Topside} F.V.~Tkachov,

1802:                  Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Meth.\ A {\bf 389} (1997) 309

1803: 		 [hep-ph/9609429];\\

1804: 		 %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9609429;%%

1805: 		 L.N.~Bertstein, Functional Analysis and its 

1806: 		 Applications, {\bf 6} (1972) 66; \\

1807: 		 G.~Passarino,

1808: 		 Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 619} (2001) 257

1809: 		 [arXiv:hep-ph/0108252]; \\

1810: 		 %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108252;%%

1811: 		 G.~Passarino and S.~Uccirati,

1812: 		 Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 629} (2002) 97

1813: 		 [arXiv:hep-ph/0112004]; \\

1814: 		 %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112004;

1815: 	A.~Ferroglia, G.~Passarino, M.~Passera and S.~Uccirati,

1816: 		 Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B650} (2003) 162

1817: 		 [arXiv:hep-ph/0209219];

1818: 		 %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209219;%%

1819: 		 Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Meth.\ A {\bf 502} (2003) 391;

1820: 		 %%CITATION = NUIMA,A502,391;%%

1821: 		 Proceedings of {\small ICHEP} 2002, Amsterdam, 

1822:  		 July 2002, {\small ISBN} 0-444-51343-4, pp.~206--210, 

1823: 		 Elsevier Science;

1824: 		 Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 680} (2004) 199

1825: 		 [arXiv:hep-ph/0311186]; \\

1826: 		 %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311186;%%

1827: 	S.~Actis, A.~Ferroglia, G.~Passarino, M.~Passera and S.~Uccirati,

1828:                  Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 703} (2004) 3

1829: 		 [arXiv:hep-ph/0402132].

1830: 		 %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402132;%%

1831: 

1832: 

1833: %--------------------- Leading-order Hadronic

1834: 

1835: \bibitem{BM61}  C.~Bouchiat and L.~Michel, J.~Phys.~Radium 22 (1961) 121.

1836: 

1837: \bibitem{LBdRGdR} L.~Durand, Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf 128} (1962) 441;

1838:                    Erratum-ibid.\ {\bf 129} (1963) 2835;\\

1839: 		  S.J.~Brodsky and E.~de Rafael,

1840:                    Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf 168} (1968) 1620;\\

1841: 		   %%CITATION = PHRVA,168,1620;%%

1842: 		  M.~Gourdin and E.~de Rafael,

1843: 		   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 10} (1969) 667.

1844: 		   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B10,667;%%

1845: 

1846: \bibitem{EJ95}    S.~Eidelman and F.~Jegerlehner,

1847: 		   Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 67} (1995) 585

1848: 		   [arXiv:hep-ph/9502298].

1849: 		   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9502298;%%

1850: 

1851: \bibitem{DEHZ03} M.~Davier, S.~Eidelman, A.~H\"ocker and Z.~Zhang,

1852:                   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 31} (2003) 503

1853: 		  [arXiv:hep-ph/0308213].

1854: 		  %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308213;%%

1855: 

1856: \bibitem{pQCD}   A.D.~Martin and D.~Zeppenfeld,

1857:                  Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 345}, 558 (1995)

1858: 		 [arXiv:hep-ph/9411377]; \\

1859: 		 %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9411377;%%

1860: 		 J.H.~Kuhn and M.~Steinhauser,

1861: 		 Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 437} (1998) 425

1862: 		 [arXiv:hep-ph/9802241]; \\

1863: 		 %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9802241;%%

1864: 		 S.~Groote, J.G.~Korner, K.~Schilcher and N.F.~Nasrallah,

1865: 		 Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 440} (1998) 375

1866: 		 [arXiv:hep-ph/9802374].

1867: 		 %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9802374;%%

1868: 

1869: \bibitem{DH98a} M.~Davier and A.~H\"ocker,

1870:                  Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 419} (1998) 419

1871: 		 [arXiv:hep-ph/9711308].

1872: 		 %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9711308;%%

1873: 

1874: \bibitem{DH98b} M.~Davier and A.~H\"ocker,

1875:                 Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 435} (1998) 427

1876: 		[arXiv:hep-ph/9805470].

1877: 		%%CITATION = HEP-PH 9805470;%%

1878: 

1879: \bibitem{B85}     L.M.~Barkov {\it et al.},

1880:                   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 256} (1985) 365.

1881: 		  %%CITATION = NUPHA,B256,365;%%

1882: 

1883: \bibitem{KNO85}   T.~Kinoshita, B.~Nizic and Y.~Okamoto,

1884:                   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 31} (1985) 2108.

1885: 		  %%CITATION = PHRVA,D31,2108;%%

1886: 

1887: \bibitem{CLY85}   J.A.~Casas, C.~Lopez and F.J.~Yndur\'{a}in,

1888:                   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 32} (1985) 736.

1889: 		  %%CITATION = PHRVA,D32,736;%%

1890: 

1891: \bibitem{MD89}    L.~Martinovic and S.~Dubnicka,

1892:                   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 42} (1990) 884.

1893: 		  %%CITATION = PHRVA,D42,884;%%

1894: 

1895: \bibitem{AY95} K.~Adel and F.J.~Yndur\'{a}in, hep-ph/9509378.

1896: 

1897: \bibitem{BW96} D.H.~Brown and W.A.~Worstell,

1898:         Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54} (1996) 3237

1899: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/9607319].

1900: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 9607319;%%

1901: 

1902: \bibitem{ADH98} R.~Alemany, M.~Davier and A.~H\"ocker,

1903:         Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 2} (1998) 123

1904: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/9703220].

1905: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 9703220;%%

1906: 

1907: \bibitem{SN01} S.~Narison,

1908:         Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 513} (2001) 53

1909: 	[Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 526} (2002) 414]

1910: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/0103199].

1911: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103199;%%

1912: 

1913: \bibitem{JatSirlin} F.~Jegerlehner,

1914:         J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 29} (2003) 101

1915: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/0104304].

1916: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104304;%%

1917: 

1918: \bibitem{dTY01} J.F.~De Troc\'oniz and F.J.~Yndur\'{a}in,

1919:         Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 093001

1920: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/0106025].

1921: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106025;%%

1922: 

1923: \bibitem{CLS01} G.~Cvetic, T.~Lee and I.~Schmidt,

1924:         Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 520} (2001) 222

1925: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/0107069].

1926: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107069;%%

1927: 

1928: \bibitem{DEHZ02} M.~Davier, S.~Eidelman, A.~H\"ocker and Z.~Zhang,

1929:         Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 27} (2003) 497

1930: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/0208177].

1931: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208177;%%

1932: 

1933: \bibitem{HMNT02} K.~Hagiwara, A.D.~Martin, D.~Nomura and T.~Teubner,

1934:         Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 557} (2003) 69

1935: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/0209187].

1936: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209187;%%

1937: 

1938: \bibitem{J03}	F.~Jegerlehner,

1939: 	Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.) {\bf 126} (2004) 325

1940: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/0310234];

1941: 	Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.) {\bf 131} (2004) 213

1942: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/0312372].

1943: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312372;%%

1944: 

1945: \bibitem{ELZ04} O.V.~Zenin, private communication, January 2005. Preliminary

1946:         update of~\cite{ELZ03}.

1947: 

1948: \bibitem{ELZ03} V.V.~Ezhela, S.B.~Lugovsky and O.V.~Zenin,

1949:         arXiv:hep-ph/0312114.

1950: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312114;%%

1951: 

1952: \bibitem{HMNT03} K.~Hagiwara, A.D.~Martin, D.~Nomura and T.~Teubner,

1953:         Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 093003

1954: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/0312250].

1955: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312250;%%

1956: 

1957: \bibitem{dTY04} J.F.~de Troc\'oniz and F.J.~Yndur\'{a}in,

1958:         arXiv:hep-ph/0402285.

1959: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402285;%%

1960: 

1961: \bibitem{DEHZ04} A.~H\"ocker,

1962:         arXiv:hep-ph/0410081.

1963: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410081;%%

1964: 

1965: \bibitem{CMD2-99} R.R.~Akhmetshin {\it et al.}  [{\small CMD-2}

1966:         Collaboration], arXiv:hep-ex/9904027.  

1967:         %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9904027;%%

1968: 

1969: \bibitem{CMD2-01} R.R.~Akhmetshin {\it et al.}  [{\small CMD-2}

1970:         Collaboration], Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 527} (2002) 161

1971:         [arXiv:hep-ex/0112031].  

1972: 	%%CITATION = HEP-EX 0112031;%%

1973: 

1974: \bibitem{CMD2-03} R.R.~Akhmetshin {\it et al.}  [{\small CMD-2}

1975:         Collaboration], Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 578} (2004) 285

1976:         [arXiv:hep-ex/0308008].  

1977: 	%%CITATION = HEP-EX 0308008;%%

1978: 

1979: \bibitem{KLOE-04} A.~Aloisio {\it et al.}  [{\small KLOE} Collaboration],

1980: 	Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 606} (2005) 12

1981: 	[arXiv:hep-ex/0407048].

1982: 	%%CITATION = HEP-EX 0407048;%%

1983: 

1984: \bibitem{RadRet} 

1985:         M.S.~Chen and P.M.~Zerwas,

1986: 	Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 11} (1975) 58;\\

1987: 	%%CITATION = PHRVA,D11,58;%%

1988:         M.W.~Krasny, W.Placzek and H.~Spiesberger,

1989: 	Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 53} (1992) 687;\\

1990: 	%%CITATION = ZEPYA,C53,687;%%

1991: 	A.B.~Arbuzov, E.A.~Kuraev, N.P.~Merenkov and L.~Trentadue,

1992: 	JHEP {\bf 9812} (1998) 009

1993: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/9804430];\\

1994: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 9804430;%%

1995: 	S.~Binner, J.H.~Kuhn and K.~Melnikov,

1996: 	Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 459} (1999) 279

1997: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/9902399];\\

1998: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 9902399;%%

1999: 	G.~Rodrigo, H.~Czyz, J.H.~Kuhn and M.~Szopa,

2000: 	Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 24} (2002) 71

2001: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/0112184].

2002: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112184;%%

2003: 

2004: \bibitem{BABAR} M.~Davier,

2005:         Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.) {\bf 131} (2004) 82

2006:         [arXiv:hep-ex/0312063].

2007: 	%%CITATION = HEP-EX 0312063;%%

2008: 

2009: \bibitem{BABAR+-0} B.~Aubert {\it et al.}  [{\small BABAR} Collaboration],

2010:         Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 072004

2011: 	[arXiv:hep-ex/0408078].

2012: 	%%CITATION = HEP-EX 0408078;%%

2013: 

2014: \bibitem{GM91} J.~Gasser and U.G.~Meissner,

2015:         Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 357} (1991) 90.

2016: 	%%CITATION = NUPHA,B357,90;%%

2017: 

2018: \bibitem{BERN01}

2019:         B.~Ananthanarayan, G.~Colangelo, J.~Gasser and H.~Leutwyler,

2020: 	Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 353} (2001) 207

2021: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/0005297];\\

2022: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005297;%%

2023: 	G.~Colangelo, J.~Gasser and H.~Leutwyler,

2024: 	Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 603} (2001) 125

2025: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/0103088].

2026: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103088;%%

2027: 

2028: \bibitem{Le02} H.~Leutwyler, arXiv:hep-ph/0212324.

2029:         %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212324;%%

2030: 

2031: \bibitem{Co03} G.~Colangelo, 

2032:         Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.) {\bf 131} (2004) 185

2033: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/0312017].

2034:         %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312017;%%

2035: 

2036: \bibitem{VLC}

2037:         F.~Guerrero and A.~Pich,

2038: 	Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 412} (1997) 382

2039: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/9707347];\\

2040: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 9707347;%%

2041: 	D.~Gomez Dumm, A.~Pich and J.~Portoles,

2042: 	Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 054014

2043: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/0003320]; \\

2044: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003320;%%

2045: 	J.~Portoles and P.D.~Ruiz-Femenia,

2046:         Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.)  {\bf 131} (2004) 170

2047: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/0311251].

2048: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311251;%%

2049: 

2050: \bibitem{LATTICE} T.~Blum,

2051:         Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 91} (2003) 052001

2052: 	[arXiv:hep-lat/0212018];

2053: 	%%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0212018;%%

2054: 	Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.)  {\bf 129} (2004) 904

2055: 	[arXiv:hep-lat/0310064];\\

2056: 	%%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0310064;%%

2057: 	M.~Gockeler, R.~Horsley, W.~Kurzinger, D.~Pleiter, 

2058:         P.E.L.~Rakow and G.~Schierholz [{\small QCDSF} Collaboration],

2059: 	Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 688} (2004) 135

2060: 	[arXiv:hep-lat/0312032].

2061: 	%%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0312032;%%

2062: 

2063: \bibitem{HGJ02} A.~Hoefer, J.~Gluza and F.~Jegerlehner, 

2064:         Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 24} (2002) 51 

2065: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/0107154];  \\

2066: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107154;%%

2067: 	J.~Gluza, A.~Hoefer, S.~Jadach and F.~Jegerlehner,

2068: 	Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 28} (2003) 261

2069: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/0212386].

2070: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212386;%%

2071: 

2072: \bibitem{Sch89} J.S.~Schwinger, ``Particles, sources, and fields'', Vol.~3

2073:         (Redwood City, USA: Addison-Wesley (1989), p.~99. See also 

2074:         M.~Drees and K.i.~Hikasa, 

2075: 	Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 252} (1990) 127, 

2076: 	%%CITATION = PHLTA,B252,127;%% 

2077: 	where a misprint in Schwinger's formula is corrected.

2078: 

2079: \bibitem{CGKR03} H.~Czyz, A.~Grzelinska, J.H.~Kuhn and G.~Rodrigo,

2080:         Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 33} (2004) 333

2081: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/0308312].

2082: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308312;%%

2083: 

2084: \bibitem{DKMPS04} S.~Dubinsky, A.~Korchin, N.~Merenkov, G.~Pancheri,

2085:         O.~Shekhovtsova, hep-ph/0411113.

2086: 

2087: \bibitem{ALEPHtau} R.~Barate {\it et al.}  [{\small ALEPH} Collaboration],

2088:         Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 76} (1997) 15.

2089: 	%%CITATION = ZEPYA,C76,15;%%

2090: 

2091: \bibitem{ALEPH02} {\small ALEPH} Collaboration, {\small ALEPH} 2002-030

2092:         {\small CONF} 2002-019, (July 2002).

2093: 

2094: \bibitem{CLEO} S.~Anderson {\it et al.}  [{\small CLEO} Collaboration],

2095:         Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61} (2000) 112002

2096: 	[arXiv:hep-ex/9910046].

2097: 	%%CITATION = HEP-EX 9910046;%%

2098: 

2099: \bibitem{OPAL} K.~Ackerstaff {\it et al.}  [{\small OPAL} Collaboration],

2100:         Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 7} (1999) 571

2101: 	[arXiv:hep-ex/9808019].

2102: 	%%CITATION = HEP-EX 9808019;%%

2103: 

2104: \bibitem{MS88} W.J.~Marciano and A.~Sirlin,

2105:         Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 61} (1988) 1815; \\

2106: 	%%CITATION = PRLTA,61,1815;%%

2107: 	A.~Sirlin,

2108: 	Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 196} (1982) 83.

2109: 	%%CITATION = NUPHA,B196,83;%%

2110: 

2111: \bibitem{CEN01} V.~Cirigliano, G.~Ecker and H.~Neufeld,

2112:         Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 513} (2001) 361

2113: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/0104267].

2114: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104267;%%

2115: 

2116: \bibitem{CEN02} V.~Cirigliano, G.~Ecker and H.~Neufeld,

2117:         {\small JHEP} {\bf 0208} (2002) 002

2118: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/0207310].

2119: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207310;%%

2120: 

2121: \bibitem{GJ03} S.~Ghozzi and F.~Jegerlehner,

2122:         Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 583}, 222 (2004)

2123: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/0310181].

2124: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310181;%%

2125: 

2126: \bibitem{Da03} M.~Davier, 

2127:         Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.) {\bf 131} (2004) 123

2128: 	[arXiv:hep-ex/0312064]; 

2129: 	%%CITATION = HEP-EX 0312064;%%

2130: 	ibid.~{\bf 131} (2004) 192

2131: 	[arXiv:hep-ex/0312065].

2132: 	%%CITATION = HEP-EX 0312065;%%

2133: 

2134: \bibitem{Mo04} W.M.~Morse,

2135:         arXiv:hep-ph/0410062.

2136: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410062;%%

2137: 

2138: %--------------------- Higher Order Hadronic: vac pol

2139: 

2140: \bibitem{Kr96} B.~Krause,

2141:         Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 390} (1997) 392

2142: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/9607259].

2143: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 9607259;%%

2144: 

2145: %--------------------- Higher Order Hadronic: light by light

2146: 

2147: \bibitem{KN01} M.~Knecht and A.~Nyffeler,

2148:         Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 073034

2149: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/0111058].

2150: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111058;%%

2151: 

2152: \bibitem{KNPdR01} M.~Knecht, A.~Nyffeler, M.~Perrottet and E.~de Rafael,

2153:         Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 88} (2002) 071802

2154: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/0111059].

2155: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111059;%%

2156: 

2157: \bibitem{HK01} M.~Hayakawa and T.~Kinoshita,

2158:         arXiv:hep-ph/0112102;

2159: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112102;%%

2160: 	Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57} (1998) 465

2161: 	[Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 019902]

2162: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/9708227].

2163: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 9708227;%%

2164: 

2165: \bibitem{BPP01} J.~Bijnens, E.~Pallante and J.~Prades,

2166:         Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 626} (2002) 410

2167: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/0112255].

2168: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112255;%%

2169: 

2170: \bibitem{BCM01} I.~Blokland, A.~Czarnecki and K.~Melnikov,

2171:         Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 88} (2002) 071803

2172: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/0112117].

2173: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112117;%%

2174: 

2175: \bibitem{RW02} M.~Ramsey-Musolf and M.B.~Wise,

2176:         Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 89} (2002) 041601

2177: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/0201297].

2178: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201297;%%

2179: 

2180: \bibitem{MV03} K.~Melnikov and A.~Vainshtein,

2181:         Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 113006

2182: 	[arXiv:hep-ph/0312226].

2183: 	%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312226;%%

2184: 

2185: %--------------------- Old EXP

2186: 

2187: \bibitem{oldEXP} J.~Bailey {\it et al.}  

2188:       [{\small CERN} Muon Storage Ring Collaboration],

2189:       Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 67} (1977) 225

2190:       [Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 68} (1977) 191];\\

2191:       %%CITATION = PHLTA,B67,225;%%

2192:       J.~Bailey {\it et al.}

2193:       Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 150} (1979) 1;\\

2194:       %%CITATION = NUPHA,B150,1;%%

2195:       F.J.M.~Farley and E.~Picasso, in {\it Quantum

2196: 	Electrodynamics}, edited by T.~Kinoshita (World Scientific, 

2197:         Singapore), pp.~479--559. 

2198: 

2199: %--------------------- CPT Review

2200: 

2201: \bibitem{Hu03} For a review of tests of {\small CPT}

2202:       invariance for muons, see 

2203:       V.W.~Hughes, J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 29} (2003) 181.

2204:       %%CITATION = JPHGB,G29,181;%%

2205: 

2206: 

2207: %--------------------- Future exp

2208: 

2209: \bibitem{E969} R.M.~Carey {\it et al.}, Proposal of the {\small BNL}

2210: 	Experiment {\small E969}, 2004 ({\tt

2211: 	www.bnl.gov/henp/docs/pac0904/P969.pdf});

2212: 	B.L.~Roberts,

2213: 	arXiv:hep-ex/0501012.

2214: 	%%CITATION = HEP-EX 0501012;%%

2215: 

2216: \bibitem{JPARC} {\small J-PARC} Letter of Intent L17, 

2217:         B.L.~Roberts contact person.

2218: 

2219: 

2220: %--------------------- Jaxodraw

2221: 

2222: \bibitem{Jax}    D.~Binosi and L.~Theussl,

2223:                  Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\  {\bf 161} (2004) 76

2224: 		 [arXiv:hep-ph/0309015].

2225: 		 %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309015;%%

2226: 

2227: \end{thebibliography}

2228: 

2229: 

2230: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%

2231: \end{document}

2232: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------%

2233: %***************************************************************************%

2234: 

2235: 

2236: 

2237: