1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

2: 

3: \usepackage{epsfig,epsf}

4: 

5: %

6: \newcommand{\ltsim}{ \mathop{}_{\textstyle \sim}^{\textstyle <} }

7: 

8: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.1}

9: 

10: \parskip 2mm plus 2mm minus 2mm

11: 

12: \newlength{\dinwidth}

13: 

14: \newlength{\dinmargin}

15: 

16: \setlength{\dinwidth}{21.0cm} \textheight24.0cm \textwidth17.0cm

17: 

18: \setlength{\dinmargin}{\dinwidth}

19: 

20: \addtolength{\dinmargin}{-\textwidth}

21: 

22: \setlength{\dinmargin}{0.5\dinmargin} \oddsidemargin -1.0in

23: 

24: \addtolength{\oddsidemargin}{\dinmargin}

25: 

26: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{\oddsidemargin}

27: 

28: \setlength{\marginparwidth}{0.9\dinmargin} \marginparsep 8pt

29: 

30: \marginparpush 5pt \topmargin -42pt \headheight 12pt \headsep 30pt

31: 

32: %\footheight 12pt

33: 

34: \footskip 24pt \setlength{\parsep}{1pt plus0.5pt minus0.5pt}

35: 

36: \setlength{\parskip}{1pt plus0.5pt minus0.5pt}

37: 

38: \setlength{\partopsep}{1pt plus0.5pt minus0.5pt}

39: 

40: \setlength{\textfloatsep}{17pt plus0.5pt minus0.5pt}

41: 

42: 

43: 

44: \def\lapproxeq{\lower .7ex\hbox{$\;\stackrel{\textstyle <}{\sim}\;$}}

45: 

46: \def\gapproxeq{\lower .7ex\hbox{$\;\stackrel{\textstyle >}{\sim}\;$}}

47: 

48: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

49: 

50: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

51: 

52: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}

53: 

54: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

55: 

56: \def\funp{{I\!\!P}}

57: 

58: \def\gtrsim{ \;\raisebox{-.7ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle >}{\sim}$}\; }

59: 

60: \def\lesim{ \;\raisebox{-.7ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle <}{\sim}$}\; }

61: 

62: \newcommand{\lsim}{ \mathop{}_{\textstyle \sim}^{\textstyle <} }

63: 

64: 

65: 

66: \newcommand{\ksq}{k^2} \newcommand{\qsq}{q^2}

67: 

68: \newcommand{\epem}{e^+e^-}

69: 

70: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{0.88}

71: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{0.88}

72: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.12}

73: 

74: 

75: \newcommand{\Fslash}[1]{{#1} \!\!\! / }

76: 

77: \def\Tr{\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits}

78: 

79: \def\Re{\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits} \def\Im{\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}

80: 

81: \def\Li{\mathop{\rm Li}\nolimits}

82: 

83: 

84: 

85: \def\GeV{{\rm GeV}}

86: 

87: \def\MeV{{\rm MeV}}

88: 

89: \def\eV{{\rm eV}}

90: 

91: \def\ra{ \rightarrow }

92: 

93: 

94: 

95: \begin{document}

96: 

97: \titlepage

98: 

99: 

100: 

101: \begin{flushright}

102: 

103: %hep-ph/0611102\\

104: 

105: KEK--TH--1112\\

106: 

107: IPPP/06/72 \\

108: 

109: DCPT/06/144\\

110: 

111: LTH 729\\

112: 

113: 8th November 2006 \\

114: Revised: 20th April 2007 \\

115: 

116: \end{flushright}

117: 

118: 

119: 

120: \vspace*{1.5cm}

121: 

122: 

123: 

124: \begin{center}

125: 

126: {\Large \bf Improved predictions for $g-2$ of the muon and 

127:             $\alpha_{\rm QED}(M_Z^2)$}

128: 

129: 

130: \vspace*{1cm} {\sc K. Hagiwara}$^a$, {\sc A.D. Martin}$^b$, 

131: {\sc Daisuke Nomura}$^a$ and {\sc T. Teubner}$^{c}$ \\

132: 

133: 

134: 

135: \vspace*{0.5cm}

136: 

137: %

138: 

139: $^a$ {\em Theory Group, KEK, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0801, Japan} \\

140: 

141: %

142: 

143: $^b$ {\em Department of Physics and Institute for Particle Physics Phenomenology,\\

144: 

145: University of Durham, Durham DH1 3LE, U.K.}\\

146: 

147: %

148: 

149: 

150: $^c$ {\em Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX, U.K.}

151: 

152: \end{center}

153: 

154: 

155: 

156: \vspace*{0.5cm}

157: 

158: 

159: 

160: \begin{abstract}

161: We update the Standard Model predictions of the anomalous magnetic 

162: moment of the muon, $a_\mu \equiv (g-2)/2$, and the value of the 

163: QED coupling at the $Z$-boson mass, incorporating the new 

164: $e^+e^- \to \pi\pi$ data obtained by CMD-2 and KLOE, as well as 

165: the corrected SND data, and other improvements.  The prediction 

166: for $a_\mu=11659180.4 (5.1) \times 10^{-10}$ is about 

167: $3 \times 10^{-10}$ lower than before, and has a smaller 

168: uncertainty, which corresponds to a 3.4\,$\sigma$ deviation from 

169: the measured value. The prediction for the QED coupling is 

170: $\alpha(M_Z^2)^{-1}= 128.937 \pm 0.030$.

171: \end{abstract}

172: 

173: It is important to predict the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon,

174: $a_\mu\equiv(g_\mu-2)/2$, and the value of the QED coupling 

175: on the $Z$ pole as precisely as possible, in order to test the 

176: Standard Model and to probe New Physics. For the first quantity, we note that the Brookhaven experiment gives the average of the measurements of the $\mu^+$ and $\mu^-$ anomalous magnetic moments to be \cite{BNL}

177: %

178: \begin{eqnarray}

179:  a_\mu^{\rm exp} = 11 659 208.0(6.3) \times 10^{-10}.

180:  \label{eq:BNL}

181: \end{eqnarray}

182: If a statistically 

183: significant deviation, no matter how tiny, can be definitively 

184: established between the measured value $a_\mu^{\rm exp}$ and the 

185: Standard Model prediction, then it will herald the existence of new 

186: physics beyond the Standard Model. In particular the comparison offers 

187: valuable constraints on possible contributions from SUSY particles, see, for example, the reviews in \cite{susy}.

188: The second quantity, the QED coupling at the $Z$ boson mass, $M_Z$, is 

189: equally important. 

190: The uncertainty in its value is one of the major limiting factors for

191: precision electroweak physics. It limits, for example, the accuracy 

192: of the indirect estimate of the Higgs mass in the Standard Model.

193: 

194: 

195: The Standard Model (SM) prediction of the muon anomalous magnetic moment, $a_\mu$, may be written as the sum

196: of three terms,

197: %

198: \begin{eqnarray}

199:  a_\mu^{\rm SM} = a_\mu^{\rm QED} + a_\mu^{\rm EW} + a_\mu^{\rm had} .

200: \label{eq:amusm}

201: \end{eqnarray}

202: %

203: The QED contribution, which includes all the photonic and leptonic loops, and the EW contribution, which includes the loops involving the $W,Z$ or Higgs bosons, are known very accurately: $a_\mu^{\rm QED} = (116584718.09 \pm 0.16) \times 10^{-11}$ \cite{QED} and $a_\mu^{\rm EW} = (154 \pm 2) \times 10^{-11}$ \cite{EW}.  The main uncertainty lies in the final term, which involves the hadronic loop contributions. This term may, itself, be sub-divided into three parts

204: %

205: \begin{eqnarray}

206:  a_\mu^{\rm had} = a_\mu^{\rm had,LO}

207:                  + a_\mu^{\rm had,NLO}

208:                  + a_\mu^{{\rm had,l}\raisebox{0.45ex}{\rule{0.6ex}{0.08ex}}{\rm b}\raisebox{0.45ex}{\rule{0.6ex}{0.08ex}}{\rm l}}.

209: \label{eq:had}

210: \end{eqnarray}

211: %

212: At present the hadronic vacuum polarisation contributions, $a_\mu^{\rm had,LO,NLO}$, cannot be calculated sufficiently accurately from first principles \cite{AB}, but instead are evaluated using dispersion integrals over the measured cross sections for $e^+e^- \to \gamma^* \to$ hadrons. For our 2003 predictions \cite{HMNT2003} we found 

213: \be

214: a_\mu^{\rm had, LO} ~~ = ~~ (692.4 \pm 5.9_{\rm exp} \pm 2.4_{\rm rad}) ~ \times ~ 10^{-10}~, 

215: \label{eq:hadLO}

216: \ee

217: \be

218:   a_\mu^{\rm had,NLO} ~~ = ~~ (-9.79 \pm 0.09_{\rm exp} \pm 0.03_{\rm rad}) ~ \times ~ 10^{-10}~,

219: \label{eq:hadNLO}

220: \ee

221: where the last error corresponds to the uncertainty associated with the

222: radiative corrections to the cross section data. The final term in

223: (\ref{eq:had}), $a_\mu^{{\rm had,l}\raisebox{0.45ex}{\rule{0.6ex}{0.08ex}}{\rm

224: b}\raisebox{0.45ex}{\rule{0.6ex}{0.08ex}}{\rm l}}$, is the hadronic

225: light-by-light contribution. In our previous analysis, we took, in units

226: of $10^{-10}$, either\footnote{

227: The first is a representative value of several earlier determinations

228: (see, for example, the review in \cite{ny}), whereas the second value

229: (which was used in the note added in proof in \cite{HMNT2003}) was

230: obtained in \cite{MV}. In this paper we take the second value; it is

231: consistent with the upper bound found in \cite{es}, but see also

232: `Note added in proof'.}

233: \be

234: a_\mu^{{\rm had,l}\raisebox{0.45ex}{\rule{0.6ex}{0.08ex}}{\rm b}\raisebox{0.45ex}{\rule{0.6ex}{0.08ex}}{\rm l}}~~=~~8.0 \pm 4.0~~~~~~{\rm or}~~~~~~13.6 \pm 2.5.

235: \label{eq:lbl}

236: \ee

237: 

238: The major uncertainty in the Standard Model prediction of the

239: anomalous moment, $a_\mu$, comes from the contribution of the $e^+e^-

240: \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ channel. Indeed, the $e^+e^- \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ cross

241: section data, available in 2003, give the dominant contribution to

242: (\ref{eq:hadLO}) of about $(500 \pm 5) \times 10^{-10}$.  Since then

243: the situation has improved considerably. In particular, new precise

244: measurements have recently become available from the CMD-2 detector throughout

245: the centre-of-mass energy range $0.37 < \sqrt{s} < 1.38$ GeV

246: \cite{CMDlo,CMDmed,CMDhi}.  Moreover, the KLOE collaboration have made

247: measurements of the cross section by the radiative return method over

248: the range $0.6 < \sqrt{s} < 1$ GeV \cite{KLOE}.  Finally measurements

249: at the SND detector over the interval $0.4 < \sqrt{s} < 1$ GeV have

250: become available \cite{SND}, and subsequently have been 

251: corrected \cite{SNDreanal}.  Clearly all these 

252: data\footnote{

253: There is the possibility of obtaining indirect information on 

254: $e^+e^- \to$ hadrons in the energy range $\sqrt{s}<m_\tau$, via 

255: the conserved vector current (CVC) hypothesis, using the precision 

256: data for the hadronic decays of $\tau$ leptons. However there is 

257: a sizeable discrepancy between the data from the $e^+e^- \to \pi^+\pi^-$ 

258: experiments and that extracted from the $\pi^{\pm}\pi^0 \nu$ decay 

259: mode of the $\tau$. This suggests that the understanding of the CVC 

260: hypothesis may be inadequate at the desired level of precision,

261: see e.g. the recent discussion in \cite{Melnikov:2006sr}. 

262: Also the fair agreement between the KLOE data and the

263: CMD-2 and SND data strongly supports the $e^+ e^-$ 

264: data against the $\tau$ data~\cite{DHZ}.

265: In addition, $\tau$ spectral function data from Belle show a 

266: significant discrepancy compared to ALEPH and, to a lesser extent,

267: CLEO, see~\cite{hep-ex/0512071}.   

268: We therefore do not include the $\tau$ data in the present (or in our 

269: previous \cite{HMNT2003}) analysis. } 

270: will have an impact on the determination of $g-2$ of the muon.

271: 

272: Here we repeat the analysis described in detail in Ref. \cite{HMNT2003}. That is, we evaluate the dispersion relation

273: \be 

274: a_\mu^{\rm had,LO} 

275:  = \left(\frac{\alpha m_\mu}{3\pi}\right)^2

276:    \int_{s_{\rm th}}^\infty {\rm d}s\,\frac{R(s)K(s)}{s^2} \,,

277: \label{eq:disprel1} 

278: \ee

279: where the kernel $K(s)$ is a known function (see, for example, eq. (45) of \cite{HMNT2003}), and

280: \begin{equation} 

281: R(s) = \frac{\sigma^0_{\rm had}(s)}{\sigma_{\rm pt}(s)}\,.

282: \label{eq:R(s)} 

283: \end{equation}

284: The subscript 0 on $\sigma^0_{\rm had} \equiv \sigma_{\rm tot}^0(e^+e^-\to\gamma^*\to{\rm hadrons})$ is to indicate that we take the bare cross section with no initial state radiative or vacuum polarization corrections, but with final state radiative corrections; and $\sigma_{\rm pt} \equiv 4\pi\alpha^2/3s$ with $\alpha =\alpha(0)$. 

285: 

286: \begin{figure}

287: \begin{center}

288: \includegraphics[height=10cm]{chiscan3b.eps}

289: \vspace{-1cm}

290: \caption{The lower continuous (red) line shows the contribution of the

291:   $e^+e^- \to \pi^+  \pi^-$ data in the energy region $0.32 < \sqrt{s}

292:   < 1.43$ GeV to $a_\mu^{\rm had,LO}$ of (\ref{eq:disprel1}), as a

293:   function of the data cluster size parameter $\delta$. The (orange)

294:   band corresponds to the uncertainty in the contribution. All the new

295:   $\pi^+\pi^-$ data are included except those from KLOE, see text. The upper

296:   dashed (blue) curve, and the error corridor given by the dotted

297:   lines, are the corresponding results obtained with the data as they

298:   were available for our previous 2003 analysis \cite{HMNT2003}. }

299: \label{fig:1}

300: \end{center}

301: \end{figure}

302: To begin, we repeat the analysis of \cite{HMNT2003} including all the

303: new data, except those from KLOE. The latter data have a significantly

304: different energy dependence, and we shall discuss their effect on the

305: analysis later. We combine the `bare' cross section data from the

306: various experiments for a given channel in clusters of a given size

307: $\delta$, as described in \cite{HMNT2003}. For the crucial $\pi\pi$

308: channel we show, in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}, how the contribution

309: $a_\mu^{\pi\pi,{\rm LO}}$ varies as a function of the cluster size

310: $\delta$. (For this channel, we have fixed the

311: cluster size in the small energy interval from 0.778 to 0.787 GeV

312: containing the $\rho-\omega$ interference effects, to be $\delta=1$

313: MeV, thus improving the quality and stability of the fit

314: considerably.) The improvement due to

315: the inclusion of the new $\pi\pi$ data is immediately clear from

316: Fig.~\ref{fig:1}. Choosing the cluster size $\delta$ to be 3.5 MeV, as

317: in our previous analysis \cite{HMNT2003}, we see that the contribution

318: $a_\mu^{\pi\pi,{\rm LO}}$ is reduced by $4.6 \times 10^{-10}$, and that

319: the uncertainty in the value decreases from $5.0 \times 10^{-10}$ to

320: $3.2 \times 10^{-10}$. Moreover the result is stable to the variation

321: of the choice of the cluster size in the range from 3 to 10

322: MeV. Furthermore the minimum $\chi^2$ of the clustering fit to the

323: data, divided by the number of degrees of freedom, $\chi^2_{\rm

324:   min}/{\rm d.o.f.}$, is, to a good approximation, equal to $1.1$

325: for all choices of $\delta$ in this interval.

326: \begin{figure}

327: \begin{center}

328: \includegraphics[height=11cm]{pipi_vgl2a40.eps}\\

329: \vspace{-2cm}

330: \includegraphics[height=11cm]{pipi_vgl2b40.eps}

331: \vspace{-1cm}

332: \caption{$\pi\pi$ data in the low and high energy $\rho$-resonance

333:   tail regions (upper and lower panels), compared to our fits using a

334:   clustering size of $\delta=4.0$ MeV. The light (orange) band

335:   indicates the error band of the fit without the recent CMD-2 (2006)

336:   and SND data which became available after our previous analysis

337:   \cite{HMNT2003}, whereas the (blue) line and darker (red) band

338:   correspond to the mean value and error band of the new fit including

339:   all data as indicated in the two panels.}

340: \label{fig:2}

341: \end{center}

342: \end{figure}

343: It is informative to trace the origin of the reduction of $4.6 \times

344: 10^{-10}$ in $a_\mu$ due to the addition of the new $\pi\pi$ data. It

345: comes about equally from the intervals $0.32 < \sqrt{s} < 0.6$ GeV and

346: $1 < \sqrt{s} < 1.43$ GeV, with only a small reduction in $a_\mu$

347: coming from the intervening energy range. This becomes clear from

348: Fig.~\ref{fig:2}, where the data are displayed together with two fits

349: for a cluster size $\delta=4.0$ MeV (recall from Fig.~\ref{fig:1} the

350: insensitivity of the integrated result to variation of $\delta$ in the

351: range $3-10$ MeV), which correspond to our previous and the present

352: analyses. A comparison of the two bands shows that the introduction of

353: the CMD-2 (and SND) data gives, on average, a smaller cross section in

354: the energy regions above 410 and above 1030 MeV in the upper and lower plots, respectively, of Fig.~\ref{fig:2}.

355: 

356: We now discuss the inclusion of the KLOE $\pi\pi$ data in the

357: analysis. Note that KLOE measures the hadronic cross section via the

358: {\em radiative return} method in $e^+ e^- \to \phi \to \pi\pi\gamma$

359: at the $\Phi$ factory DA$\Phi$NE in Frascati.  Here the observation of

360: initial state photon radiation at various energies allows for a

361: determination of the invariant mass spectrum of the $\pi\pi$ system.

362: This analysis is completely independent of the `direct scan'

363: measurements of CMD-2 and SND at VEPP-2M in Novosibirsk which use a

364: tunable $e^+e^-$ beam energy. Unfortunately, the KLOE data \cite{KLOE}

365: have a different energy dependence to the other $\pi\pi$ data sets,

366: especially when compared with the recent CMD-2 and SND analyses, see

367: e.g. the discussions in \cite{SNDreanal,Sibidanov:2006ts}. Our

368: clustering prescription allows overlapping data sets to adjust by an

369: overall constant within the systematic error of each set, but does not

370: allow for an energy dependent renormalization\footnote{

371: We have also studied the effect of an energy dependent renormalization,

372: using either a linear or a constant plus logarithmic form;

373: neither of these forms were able to improve the fit with the KLOE

374: data significantly.}. 

375: If we would include the KLOE

376: data in the fit, then they would be normalized upwards by nearly two

377: percent.\footnote{This is because there are fewer data points in the

378:   low energy region lying high (compared to CMD-2) than lying low in

379:   the central peak and high energy tail region, and because KLOE's

380:   quoted systematic error is about twice as large as CMD-2's.}

381: \begin{figure} [ht]

382: \begin{center}

383: %\includegraphics[height=14cm]{pipi_vgl.eps}

384: \includegraphics[height=14cm]{pipi_vgl40.eps}

385: \vspace{-1cm}

386: \caption{Mean value of the fit of all $\pi\pi$ data in the $\rho$ central 

387: region (blue line) compared to the fit without the KLOE data (red band), 

388: together with data from CMD-2, SND and KLOE (as indicated).}

389: \label{fig:3}

390: \end{center}

391: \end{figure}

392: This in turn would lead to a sizeable effect in the fit, see

393: Fig. \ref{fig:3}: the (blue) line is the mean value of the fit including the

394: KLOE data, whereas the (red) band is the error band for the fit excluding

395: KLOE. In the dispersion integral this would lead to an artificial overall shift

396: of $a_{\mu}^{\pi\pi}$ upwards by about $5\times 10^{-10}$. As the

397: $\chi^2_{\rm min}/{\rm d.o.f.}$, for the `clustering' fit to the $\pi\pi$ data, would increase significantly from the value 1.1 found above, the improvement of

398: the error on $a_{\mu}^{\pi\pi}$ after inflation by

399: $\sqrt{\chi^2_{\rm min}/{\rm d.o.f.}}$ would be very small.  However the KLOE

400: data \cite{KLOE} more than adequately populate the energy interval of

401: their measurement, $0.60 < \sqrt{s} < 0.97$ GeV, so that we can

402: compute reliably their integrated contribution to the dispersion

403: relation of (\ref{eq:disprel1}). We find 

404: \be

405: a_\mu^{\pi\pi,\rm LO}({\rm KLOE\ only}, 0.6-0.97 ~\GeV) 

406: ~~=~~(385.7 \pm 4.9) \times 10^{-10}.

407: \ee

408: %which is in agreement with the number quoted in \cite{KLOE}.

409: This should be compared to that obtained in the complete analysis (in which the KLOE data were omitted)

410: \be

411: a_\mu^{\pi\pi,\rm LO}({\rm fit\ w/o\ KLOE}, 0.6-0.97 ~\GeV) 

412: ~~=~~(384.3 \pm 2.5) \times 10^{-10},

413: \ee

414: where, as is to be expected, the error is less.  Moreover, despite

415: their different energy dependence, the agreement of the KLOE

416: integrated contribution with that of the fit of all other data is

417: excellent. Therefore, for our SM prediction of $a_{\mu}$, we combine

418: both contributions for this energy interval. Doing so we arrive at

419: \be

420: a_\mu^{\pi\pi,\rm LO} ~~=~~(384.6 \pm 2.2) \times 10^{-10},

421: \ee

422: for the interval $0.60 < \sqrt{s} < 0.97$ GeV. The effect of the 

423: KLOE data is to slightly increase the magnitude and reduce the error.  As a result, 

424: the $\pi\pi$ contribution in the interval $0.32 < \sqrt{s} < 1.43$ GeV, 

425: becomes $(498.5 \pm 2.9) \times 10^{-10}$. 

426: 

427: In addition to the inclusion of the new $\pi\pi$ data, we have made other improvements in the analysis. One small improvement that we have made is to evaluate the vacuum polarisation corrections to the data using our recent determination \cite{HMNTalpha} of the running of the effective coupling $\alpha(q^2)$ in the time-like region $q^2=s$, which was obtained using our clustered data set. This is more consistent than using the evaluation by Jegerlehner \cite{Jegerlehner} that we did previously.  This is a correction to a correction, and so hardly changes the result. 

428: 

429: A more important improvement is that for the subleading exclusive channels we have included new data from CMD-2

430: \cite{cmd2newsubl} ($2\pi^+2\pi^-$, $\pi^0\gamma$, $\eta\gamma$),

431: BaBar \cite{babarnewsubl} ($\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$, $2\pi^+2\pi^-$,

432: $3\pi^+3\pi^-$, $\pi^+\pi^- K^+ K^-$, $p\bar p$); and from BES

433: \cite{besnewincl} for the inclusive hadronic cross section.  The effects of the new data are

434: summarized in Table~\ref{tab:gm2table}. It lists the contributions to $a_\mu^{\rm had, LO}$ which have changed since our previous prediction. As expected, the main change arises from the inclusion of the new $\pi\pi$ data: $-4.32$ in units of $10^{-10}$. This is partially compensated by changes in other contributions, such as $+0.84$ (due mainly to the new BES data) and $+0.60$ (due to the new leptonic widths of $J/\psi$ and $\psi'$ \cite{RPP06}).  

435: Including all the hadronic contributions we obtain

436: \be

437: a_\mu^{\rm had, LO} ~~ = ~~ 

438: (689.4 \pm 4.2_{\rm exp} \pm 1.8_{\rm rad}) ~ \times ~ 10^{-10}~, 

439: \label{eq:hadLOnew}

440: \ee

441: and, similarly for NLO, 

442: \be

443:   a_\mu^{\rm had,NLO} ~~ = ~~ 

444: (-9.79 \pm 0.08_{\rm exp} \pm 0.03_{\rm rad}) ~ \times ~ 10^{-10}~,

445: \label{eq:hadNLOnew}

446: \ee

447: which are to be compared with (\ref{eq:hadLO}) and (\ref{eq:hadNLO}) 

448: respectively.

449: 

450: 

451: 

452: \begin{table}[ht]\begin{center}

453: \begin{tabular}{l|l|l|l}

454: channel & range (GeV) & $a_{\mu} \times 10^{10}$ & HMNT03 \cite{HMNT2003} \\ \hline

455: $\pi^+\pi^-$     &$0.32 - 1.43$ & $498.46 \pm 2.87$  &$502.78 \pm 5.02$ \\

456: $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$&$0.66 - 1.43$ &  $46.18 \pm 0.94$ & $46.43 \pm 0.90$ \\

457: $2\pi^+2\pi^-$   &$0.6125 - 1.43$&  $6.01 \pm 0.19$ & $6.16 \pm 0.32$ \\

458: $\pi^0\gamma$    &$0.60 - 1.03$ &   $4.54 \pm 0.12$ & $4.50 \pm 0.15$ \\

459: $\eta\gamma$     &$0.69 - 1.35$ &   $0.72 \pm 0.03$ & $0.73 \pm 0.03$ \\

460: inclusive        &$1.43 - 11.09$ &  $74.80 \pm 2.67$ & $73.96 \pm 2.68$ \\

461: $J/\psi+\psi'$   &               &  $7.90 \pm 0.16$ & $7.30 \pm 0.43$ \\

462: \end{tabular}

463: %\vspace{2mm} 

464: \caption{Contribution of different channels to $a_{\mu}$ compared to

465:   the numbers as given in \cite{HMNT2003}. }

466: \label{tab:gm2table} 

467: \end{center}

468: \end{table}

469: 

470: 

471: \begin{figure}[ht]

472: \begin{center}

473: \includegraphics[height=11cm]{a_sm_history.eps}

474: \vspace*{-1.cm}

475: \caption{In the lower half of the plot we compare the experimental value

476:  \cite{BNL} of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, $(g-2)/2

477:  \equiv a_\mu$, with the SM prediction calculated in the text. We see

478:  that there is now a 3.4\,$\sigma$ discrepancy between experiment and the SM prediction. In the upper part of the plot we show four earlier determinations \cite{HMNT2003, early} of $a_\mu$ that were made before the CMD-2 \cite{CMDlo,CMDmed,CMDhi}, KLOE \cite{KLOE} and SND \cite{SND,SNDreanal} $e^+e^- \to \pi\pi$ data became available. The light-by-light contribution used in these determinations varies from $(8.6 \pm 3.5) \times 10^{-10}$ in DEHZ(03) to the more recent estimate \cite{MV} of $(13.6 \pm 2.5) \times 10^{-10}$ used in HMNT(03b,06), see (\ref{eq:lbl}).}

479: \label{fig:4}

480: \end{center}

481: \end{figure}

482: Finally, adding all the terms of (\ref{eq:amusm}) and 

483: (\ref{eq:had}), we obtain the updated Standard Model prediction for 

484: the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon:

485: \begin{equation}

486:      a_\mu^{\rm SM} = (11 659 180.4 \pm 5.1) \times 10^{-10}.

487: \label{eq:a_mu_totalSM}

488: \end{equation}

489: That is, the difference $\delta a_\mu (\equiv 

490: a_{\mu}^{\rm exp} - a_{\mu}^{\rm SM})$

491: is  $\delta a_\mu = (27.6 \pm 8.1) \times 10^{-10}$.

492: Eq.~(\ref{eq:a_mu_totalSM}) should be compared to our previous prediction (HMNT(03b)), given in the note added in proof in \cite{HMNT2003}, of

493: \begin{equation}

494:      a_\mu^{\rm SM} = (11 659 183.5 \pm 6.7) \times 10^{-10}.

495: \end{equation}

496: The new data, particularly for $e^+e^- \to \pi\pi$ 

497: in the centre-of-mass energy range $0.37 < \sqrt{s} < 1.38$ GeV, 

498: have decreased the value of $a_\mu^{\rm SM}$ by $3.1 \times 10^{-10}$ 

499: and reduced the error from $6.7 \times 10^{-10}$ to 

500: $5.1 \times 10^{-10}$.  Both of these effects increase the disagreement 

501: with the measured value. The situation is shown pictorially in 

502: Fig.~\ref{fig:4}. We now have a discrepancy of 3.4\,$\sigma$, which is 

503: larger than before\footnote{

504: %

505: If we do not use the KLOE data at all, then we have

506: %

507: \begin{equation}

508:    a_{\mu}^{\rm had,LO} = 

509:           (689.2 \pm 4.3_{\rm exp} \pm 1.8_{\rm exp}) \times 10^{-10},

510: \end{equation}

511: %

512: in place of (\ref{eq:hadLOnew}).  (The change in the hadronic NLO 

513: contribution is invisible to this accuracy.)

514: The corresponding value for the total SM prediction is

515: %

516: \begin{equation}

517:     a_{\mu}^{\rm SM} = (11659180.2 \pm 5.3) \times 10^{-10}.

518: \end{equation}

519: %

520: The deviation $\delta a_\mu$ from the experimental value 

521: $a_\mu^{\rm exp}$ is

522: %

523: \begin{equation}

524:     \delta a_{\mu} = a_\mu^{\rm exp} - a_\mu^{\rm SM}

525:         = (27.8 \pm 8.2) \times 10^{-10},

526: \end{equation}

527: %

528: which again corresponds to a 3.4\,$\sigma$ discrepancy.}$^{,}$\footnote{

529: A preliminary DEHZ analysis \cite{ichep}, 

530: also including the new data, finds 

531: $a_\mu^{\rm SM} = (11 659 180.5 \pm 5.6) \times 10^{-10}$, for which they quote a 3.3\,$\sigma$ discrepancy.}. Moreover, note that we use the 

532: recent, larger, value \cite{MV} of the light-by-light contribution, 

533: near the upper limit estimated in \cite{es}, which reduces the

534: discrepancy.  

535: 

536: The larger discrepancy, $a_\mu^{\rm exp}-a_\mu^{\rm SM}$, 

537: which arises from the inclusion of the new $\pi\pi$ data, is becoming 

538: a more significant indication of New Physics beyond the Standard Model.  

539: The effect of supersymmetry on $a_\mu$ can be seen, for example, from 

540: the reviews in \cite{susy}. Finally, it is worth noting that the 

541: theoretical error is now below the experimental error on $a_\mu$. 

542: With further measurements of the low energy hadronic cross sections 

543: underway, which will improve the accuracy of $a_\mu^{\rm SM}$, the 

544: case for improving the measurement of $a_\mu$ is strong.

545: 

546: 

547: \begin{figure}[ht] \begin{center}

548: \includegraphics[height=8cm]{contour10.eps}

549: %

550: \caption{The contours in the minimal SUGRA 

551: $m_{1/2}$, $m_0$ plane allowed by the difference 

552: $a_{\mu}^{\rm exp} - a_{\mu}^{\rm SM} = (27.6 \pm 8.1) 

553: \times 10^{-10}$ at 1-$\sigma$, 2-$\sigma$ and 3-$\sigma$. 

554: The other parameters are $\tan\beta=10$, $A_0=-300$ GeV,

555: $\mu>0$, and the SPS 1a$^\prime$ reference point is shown by the big dot.

556: Also shown are the constraints from the Higgs 

557: boson and the chargino masses from the direct searches 

558: and the charged dark matter ($\tilde{\tau}$ LSP).}

559: \label{fig:mSUGRAplot}

560: \end{center} \end{figure}

561: 

562: As an example of the impact of the difference 

563: $a_\mu^{\rm exp}-a_\mu^{\rm SM}$, we show in Fig.~\ref{fig:mSUGRAplot} 

564: the allowed region of the minimal SUGRA parameters $m_{1/2}$ and 

565: $m_0$.  We choose the other parameters to be $\tan\beta=10$, 

566: $A_0=-300$ GeV, and $\mu>0$, so that the commonly studied reference 

567: point SPS 1a$^\prime$~\cite{SPA} appears as the big dot on the plane.

568: We also plotted the constraints arising from the Higgs boson mass and 

569: the chargino mass from the negative results of direct searches 

570: at LEP~\cite{RPP06}, and that from the lightest charged SUSY 

571: particle (the region labeled by ``$\tilde{\tau}$ LSP'').  

572: (To make this figure, we used the program ``{\tt SuSpect}''~\cite{SuSpect}

573: to calculate the mass spectrum of the SUSY particles except

574: for the lightest Higgs boson mass, for which we used

575: ``{\tt FeynHiggs}''~\cite{FeynHiggs}.)

576: 

577: 

578: The new data also improve the predicted value of the QED coupling 

579: at the $Z$ boson mass. The value of $\alpha(M_Z^2)$ is obtained 

580: from \cite{PDG2006}

581: %

582: \be

583: \alpha^{-1}\equiv \alpha(0)^{-1} = 137.035999710(96)

584: \label{eq:alpha^{-1}}

585: \ee

586: %

587: using the relation

588: %

589: \be 

590: \alpha(M_Z^2)^{-1} = 

591:  \left( 1 - \Delta\alpha_{\rm lep}(M_Z^2)

592:           - \Delta\alpha_{\rm had}(M_Z^2)    

593:  \right) \alpha^{-1}, 

594: \ee

595: where $\Delta\alpha_{\rm lep}(M_Z^2)=0.03149769$, and $\Delta\alpha_{\rm had}$ is evaluated from the dispersion relation

596: \begin{equation} 

597:   \Delta \alpha_{\rm had}(M_Z^2) 

598:  = -\frac{M_Z^2}{4\pi^2\alpha} 

599:   {\rm P} \int_{s_{\rm th}}^\infty {\rm d} s\,

600:   \frac{\sigma_{\rm had}^0(s)}{s-M_Z^2}\,. 

601: \label{eq:disprel2} 

602: \end{equation}

603: The {\it bare} cross section $\sigma_{\rm had}^0(s)$ is defined below (\ref{eq:R(s)}). In comparison with (\ref{eq:disprel1}), dispersion relation (\ref{eq:disprel2}) is less sensitive to the values of $\sigma_{\rm had}^0(s)$ in the low energy region. We therefore do not expect the error on $\alpha(M_Z^2)$ to reduce quite as much as that on $a_\mu^{\rm had,LO}$, when we use the improved $e^+e^- \to \pi\pi$ data.

604: 

605: It is conventional to separate out the top-quark contribution and to write

606: \be

607: \Delta\alpha_{\rm had}~=~\Delta\alpha_{\rm had}^{(5)}+\Delta\alpha^{\rm top},

608: \ee

609: where, using $m_t=171.4 \pm 2.1$ GeV, perturbative QCD determines 

610: $\Delta\alpha^{\rm top}(M_Z^2) = -0.000073 (02)$.  

611: We proceed as in Ref.~\cite{HMNT2003}. Using the new clustered data 

612: to evaluate the dispersion relation (\ref{eq:disprel2}), we find 

613: \begin{eqnarray}

614:  \Delta\alpha_{\rm had}^{(5)}(M_Z^2) 

615: &=& 0.02768\pm 0.00017_{\rm exp}\pm 0.00013_{\rm rad} \\

616: &=& 0.02768\pm 0.00022. 

617: \end{eqnarray}

618: This, in turn, gives

619: %

620: \be 

621: \alpha(M_Z^2)^{-1} = 128.937 \pm 0.030, 

622: \ee

623: %

624: which should be compared to our previous estimate of 

625: $\alpha(M_Z^2)^{-1} = 128.954 \pm 0.031.$ The accuracy 

626: is now $23\times 10^{-5}$, which is still the least accurately 

627: determined of the three 

628: fundamental parameters of the electroweak theory;

629: $\Delta G_\mu/G_\mu= 0.9\times 10^{-5}$  and 

630: $\Delta M_Z/M_Z= 2.3\times 10^{-5}$, where $G_\mu$ is the Fermi constant.

631: 

632: 

633: {\it Note added in proof:} After submission of this letter a new assessment

634: of the status of the light-by-light contributions has appeared

635: \cite{Bijnens}. If we would use their estimate of

636: $a_{\mu}^{\rm had,l\mbox{-}b\mbox{-}l}=(11 \pm 4)\times 10^{-10}$, 

637: the difference

638: $a_{\mu}^{\rm exp} - a_{\mu}^{\rm SM}$ would slightly widen to $(30.2 \pm

639: 8.7)\times 10^{-10}$, corresponding to a 3.5\,$\sigma$ discrepancy.

640: 

641: 

642: 

643: 

644: 

645: 

646: \section*{Acknowledgements}

647: 

648: We would like to thank Achim Denig and Simon Eidelman for valuable discussions

649: concerning the hadronic data.  TT thanks the UK Particle Physics and

650: Astronomy Research Council for an Advanced Fellowship.

651: 

652: \begin{thebibliography}{999}

653: 

654: %\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{References}

655: 

656: \setlength{\itemsep}{0.5pt plus1pt minus1pt}

657: 

658: 

659: \bibitem{BNL} 

660: %\cite{Bennett:2006fi}

661: G.~W.~Bennett {\it et al.}  [Muon $g-2$ Collaboration],

662: %``Final report of the muon E821 anomalous magnetic moment measurement

663: %at BNL,''

664: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D73} (2006) 072003.

665: 

666: \bibitem{susy} S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik and G. Weiglein, Phys. Rept. {\bf 425} (2006) 265; \\

667: D. St\"{o}ckinger, J. Phys. {\bf G34} (2007) R45.

668: 

669: \bibitem{QED} T. Kinoshita and M. Nio, Phys. Rev. {\bf D70} (2004) 113001; \\

670: M. Passera, Phys. Rev. {\bf D75} (2007) 013002.

671: 

672: \bibitem{EW} A.~Czarnecki, W. J.~Marciano and A.~Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. {\bf D67} (2003) 073006.

673: 

674: \bibitem{AB} C. Aubin and T. Blum, arXiv:hep-lat/0608011.

675: 

676: \bibitem{HMNT2003} K. Hagiwara, A. D. Martin, D. Nomura and T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. {\bf D69} (2004) 093003.

677: 

678: \bibitem{ny} A. Nyffeler, in {\it ``Tempe 2002, Phenomenology of 

679:      large $N_C$''}, Arizona, Jan. 2002 [arXiv:hep-ph/0203243].

680: 

681: \bibitem{MV} K. Melnikov and A. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. {\bf D70} (2004) 113006.

682: 

683: \bibitem{es} J. Erler and G. T. S\'{a}nchez, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 97}

684: (2006) 161801.

685: 

686: \bibitem{CMDlo} CMD-2 Collaboration: R. R. Akhmetshin {\it et al.,} 

687: JETP Lett. {\bf 84} (2006) 413.

688: 

689: \bibitem{CMDmed} CMD-2 Collaboration: R. R. Akhmetshin {\it et al.,} arXiv:hep-ex/0610021.

690: 

691: \bibitem{CMDhi} CMD-2 Collaboration: V. M. Aulchenko {\it et al.,} JETP Lett. {\bf 82} (2005) 743.

692: 

693: \bibitem{KLOE} KLOE Collaboration: A. Aloisio {\it et al.,} Phys. Lett. {\bf B606} (2005) 12.

694: 

695: \bibitem{SND} SND Collaboration: M. N. Achasov {\it et al.,}

696:   J. Exp. Theor. Phys. {\bf 101} (2005) 1053.

697: 

698: \bibitem{SNDreanal} SND Collaboration: M. N. Achasov {\it et al.,} J. Exp. Theor. Phys. {\bf 103} (2006) 380.

699: 

700: %

701: \bibitem{Melnikov:2006sr}

702:   K.~Melnikov and A.~Vainshtein,

703:   {\it ``Theory of the muon anomalous magnetic moment''},

704: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?irn=6927521}{SPIRES entry}

705:    Berlin, Germany: Springer (2006), Chap. 3.6.

706: 

707: \bibitem{DHZ} M. Davier, A. H\"{o}cker, and Z. Zhang, 

708:            Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 78} (2006) 1043;\\

709:            S.~Eidelman, talk given at ICHEP 2006, Moscow, July 2006.

710: 

711: \bibitem{hep-ex/0512071}

712:   K.~Abe {\it et al.}  [BELLE Collaboration],

713:   %``A high statistics study of the decay tau- --> pi- pi0 nu/tau,''

714:   arXiv:hep-ex/0512071.

715:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX/0512071;%%

716: 

717: %\cite{Sibidanov:2006ts}

718: \bibitem{Sibidanov:2006ts} CMD-2 Collaboration:

719:   A.~L.~Sibidanov,

720:   %``Precise measurement of hadronic cross sections with CMD-2 detector,''

721:   AIP Conf.\ Proc.\  {\bf 814} (2006) 478.

722:   %%CITATION = APCPC,814,478;%%

723: 

724: \bibitem{HMNTalpha} K. Hagiwara, A. D. Martin, D. Nomura and T. Teubner, to be published.

725: 

726: \bibitem{Jegerlehner}

727: Routine made available by F. Jegerlehner, based on arXiv:hep-ph/0308117.  

728: 

729: \bibitem{cmd2newsubl}

730: %

731: %\cite{Akhmetshin:2004dy}

732: CMD-2 Collaboration: R.~R.~Akhmetshin {\it et al.},

733: %``Total cross section of the process e+ e- $\to$ pi+ pi- pi+ pi- in the CM

734: %energy range 980-MeV - 1380-MeV,''

735: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B595} (2004) 101; 

736: %

737: %\cite{Akhmetshin:2004gw}

738: %R.~R.~Akhmetshin {\it et al.}  [CMD-2 Collaboration],

739: %``Study of the processes e+ e- $\to$ eta gamma, pi0 gamma $\to$ 3gamma in the

740: %cm. energy range 600-MeV - 1380-MeV at CMD-2,''

741: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B605} (2005) 26.

742: %

743: %

744: \bibitem{babarnewsubl}

745: %

746: %\cite{Aubert:2004kj}

747: BaBar Collaboration: B.~Aubert {\it et al.},

748: %``Study of e+ e- $\to$ pi+ pi- pi0 process using initial state radiation  with

749: %BaBar,''

750: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D70} (2004) 072004;

751: %

752: %\cite{Aubert:2005eg}

753: %B.~Aubert {\it et al.}  [BABAR Collaboration],

754: % ``The e+ e- $\to$ pi+ pi- pi+ pi- , K+ K- pi+ pi- , and K+ K- K+ K- cross

755: %sections at center-of-mass energies 0.5-GeV - 4.5-GeV measured with

756: %initial-state radiation,''

757: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D71} (2005) 052001;

758: %

759: %\cite{Aubert:2006jq}

760: %B.~Aubert {\it et al.}  [BABAR Collaboration],

761: % ``The e+ e- $\to$ 3(pi+ pi-), 2(pi+ pi- pi0) and K+ K- 2(pi+ pi-) cross

762: %sections at center-of-mass energies from production threshold to 4.5-GeV

763: %measured with initial-state radiation,''

764: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D73} (2006) 052003;

765: %

766: %\cite{Aubert:2005cb}

767: %B.~Aubert {\it et al.}  [BABAR Collaboration],

768: %``A study of e+ e- $\to$ p anti-p using initial state radiation with BABAR,''

769: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D73} (2006) 012005.

770: %

771: %

772: \bibitem{besnewincl}

773: %\cite{Ablikim:2006aj}

774: BES Collaboration: M.~Ablikim {\it et al.},

775: % ``Measurements of the cross sections for e+ e- $\to$ hadrons at 3.650-GeV,

776: %3.6648-GeV, 3.773-GeV and the branching fraction for psi(3770) $\to$ non D

777: %anti-D,''

778: Phys. Lett. {\bf B641} (2006) 145.

779: %

780: 

781: \bibitem{RPP06} Review of Particle Physics: W.-M. Yao {\it et al.}, J. Phys. {\bf G33} (2006) 1.

782: 

783: \bibitem{early} M. Davier, S. Eidelman, A. H\"ocker and Z. Zhang, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\

784:     {\bf C31} (2003) 503; \\

785: S. Ghozzi and F. Jegerlehner, Phys. Lett. {\bf B583} (2004) 222; \\

786: J. F. de Troc$\acute{\rm o}$niz and F. J. Yndur$\acute{\rm a}$in,  Phys. Rev. {\bf D71} (2005) 073008. 

787: 

788: \bibitem{ichep} S. Eidelman, talk given at ICHEP 2006, Moscow, July 2006.

789: 

790: \bibitem{SPA} J.~A.~Aguilar-Saavedra {\it et al.},

791:      Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 46} (2006) 43. 

792: 

793: \bibitem{SuSpect} A.~Djouadi, J.~L.~Kneur and G.~Moultaka, 

794:         Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 176} (2007) 426.

795: 

796: \bibitem{FeynHiggs}

797:   M.~Frank, T.~Hahn, S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik, H.~Rzehak and G.~Weiglein,

798:   JHEP {\bf 02} (2007) 047;

799:   G.~Degrassi, S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik, P.~Slavich and G.~Weiglein,

800:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 28} (2003) 133;

801:   S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,

802:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 9} (1999) 343;

803:   Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\  {\bf 124} (2000) 76.

804: 

805: \bibitem{PDG2006} G. Gabrielse, D. Hanneke, T. Kinoshita, 

806: M. Nio, and B. Odom, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 97} (2006) 030802.

807: 

808: 

809: \bibitem{Bijnens} J.~Bijnens and J.~Prades, 

810: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf A22} (2007) 767.

811: 

812: \end{thebibliography}

813: 

814: %

815: 

816: \end{document}

817: 

818: %

819: 

820: