Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 80 references

Searching for hadronic scale baryonic and dark forces at $(g-2)_\mu$'s lattice-vs-dispersion front

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A GeV-scale vector boson that decays mostly to hadrons cancels its own direct contribution in the data-driven muon $(g-2)$ test, so the lattice-vs-dispersion HVP comparison becomes the real probe.

desk verdict A real and useful cancellation result, but the 'arbitrarily small coupling' exclusions are just the current HVP discrepancy restated, and the data-driven cancellation assumes the resonance really is in the measured cross section. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12266 v2 pith:ZUJ3VRAZ submitted 2024-12-16 hep-ph hep-ex

Kaustubh Agashe , Abhishek Banerjee , Minuyan Jiang , Shmuel Nussinov , Kushan Panchal , Srijit Paul , Gilad Perez , Yotam Soreq This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords muonanomalousmagneticmomenthadronicvacuumpolarizationdata-drivendispersionrelationlatticeQCDdarkphotonbaryonnumbergaugebosong-2cancellatione+e-annihilationtohadrons
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that for a flavour-universal vector boson $X$ with mass around $100$ MeV--$1$ GeV, the standard data-driven muon $(g-2)$ test is nearly blind to the new force. When $X$ decays mostly to hadrons, the on-shell $X$ contribution to the measured $e^+e^- \to \text{hadrons}$ cross section, which enters the data-driven hadronic vacuum polarization (HVP), cancels the direct one-loop $X$ contribution to $a_\mu$; the residual is $a_X^\mu\,[1-\mathrm{Br}(X\to \text{had})]$ as in Eq. (2.16). If correct, a hadrophilic light vector cannot explain or be probed by the $(g-2)_\mu$ anomaly through the usual dispersive route, and the discriminating quantities become the HVP test (data-driven vs lattice) and the photon--$X$ interference term. The paper applies this to the dark photon and the baryon-number gauge boson $B$, producing complementary exclusions of previously uncharted parameter space, and proposes an ISR $B\to 3\pi$ bump-hunt in existing B-factory data.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the identity in Eq. (2.16), built on the narrow-width factorisation in Eq. (2.12): $(a_{\mathrm{HVP}}^X)_{e^+e^-\to \text{had}} \simeq a_X^\mu\,\mathrm{Br}(X\to \text{had})$, together with the dispersive representation of the $\gamma$--$X$ mixed vacuum polarisation that yields $(a_{\mathrm{HVP}}^{\gamma-X})_{e^+e^-\to \text{had}} \simeq a^{\gamma-X}_\mu$ when the polarisation is renormalised at $k^2 = m_X^2$. The proof that the longitudinal pieces of the $X$ propagator and of the vacuum-polarisation tensors do not contribute to $a_\mu$, and the demonstration that the sum of one- and two-loop contributions is renormalisation-scheme independent, complete the formalism needed to trust the cancellation.

What would settle it

Compute the data-driven $\Delta a_{DD}^\mu$ after injecting a narrow resonance with fixed $m_X$, $g_\ell$, $g_q$ into the R-ratio data used for the data-driven HVP average, and compare the residual with $a_X^\mu[1-\mathrm{Br}(X\to\text{had})]$; agreement to the quoted precision confirms Eq. (2.16), while a mismatch from smeared or partially subtracted resonance contributions would show the cancellation is only approximate. A complementary experimental check is a dedicated ISR scan of $\sigma(e^+e^-\to 3\pi)$ at the B-factories, where a narrow $B$-boson bump would either appear or be excluded down to $g_\ell\sqrt{\mathrm{Br}(B\to 3\pi)} \sim 2\times 10^{-4}$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Eq. (2.16): for a flavour-universal GeV-scale vector boson $X$, the data-driven $a_\mu$ test receives a net new-physics shift $\Delta a_{DD}^\mu \simeq a_X^\mu\,[1 - \mathrm{Br}(X\to \text{had})]$, whereas the naive expectation would be $a_X^\mu$. The cancellation follows from the narrow-width factorisation in Eq. (2.12), $(a_{\mathrm{HVP}}^X)_{e^+e^-\to \text{had}} \simeq a_X^\mu\, \mathrm{Br}(X\to \text{had})$, which holds because the same kernel $K(s)$ weights the one-loop muon $g-2$ integral and the dispersion integral over $\sigma(e^+e^-\to \text{hadrons})$. The remaining sensitivity to $X$ is carried by the photon--$X$ mixing term $a^{\gamma-X}_\mu$, which becomes comparable to $a_X^\mu$ when $g_\ell/g_q \lesssim 10^{-3}$, and by the HVP test $\Delta a_{\mathrm{HVP}}^\mu = (a_{\mathrm{HVP}}^{\gamma-X})_{e^+e^-\to \text{had}} + (a_{\mathrm{HVP}}^X)_{e^+e^-\to \text{had}}$, which is positive and dominated by the on-shell $X$ term. Applied to the dark photon and the baryon-number gauge boson, this reshuffling converts the two precision tests into complementary new constraints, including regions near hadronic resonances where collider searches are blind.

Load-bearing premise

The cancellation in Eq. (2.16) presupposes that the measured $e^+e^- \to \text{hadrons}$ cross sections used for the data-driven HVP contain the full on-shell $X$ resonance and weight it with the same kernel $K(s)$ that defines $a_X^\mu$; if experimental binning, efficiency, or radiative corrections smear, veto, or subtract part of that resonance, the claimed blindness of the data-driven $(g-2)$ test is incomplete.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A hadrophilic GeV-scale vector with $\mathrm{Br}(X\to\text{had})\approx 1$ yields almost no net shift in the data-driven $a_\mu$ test, so the residual sensitivity is set by $1-\mathrm{Br}(X\to\text{had})$.
  • The HVP test and the $\gamma$--$X$ interference term become the leading probes of such vectors; the paper shows the HVP test alone excludes arbitrarily small couplings when the current data-driven and lattice central values are used.
  • For the dark photon the lattice $a_\mu$ test improves bounds by an order of magnitude near the $\phi$ resonance, where visible-dark-photon collider searches have blind spots.
  • For the baryon-number gauge boson, the lattice $a_\mu$ test deviates sharply from the naive one-loop expectation in the region $m_B \gtrsim 0.6$ GeV, improving the reach by roughly a factor of 4 there.
  • An ISR bump-hunt in $e^+e^- \to 3\pi$ using existing B-factory data can probe $g_\ell\sqrt{\mathrm{Br}(B\to 3\pi)} \lesssim 2\text{--}3\times 10^{-4}$ for $m_B \simeq 0.75\text{--}1.1$ GeV.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same $1-\mathrm{Br}(X\to\text{had})$ suppression should appear in other observables that subtract the data-driven HVP, such as the running of $\alpha$, $\sin^2\theta_W$, and muonium spectroscopy; the paper states this expectation but does not compute those observables.
  • Eq. (2.16) assumes the narrow-width on-shell $X$ resonance is fully captured by the measured R-ratio; real experiments' finite bins, efficiencies, and radiative-return corrections could partially remove it, which would make the residual larger than $1-\mathrm{Br}(X\to\text{had})$, a complication the paper does not quantify.
  • If future data-driven averages migrate toward the recent high-statistics $e^+e^-\to \pi^+\pi^-$ result, the same formalism predicts substantially weaker combined HVP and $a_\mu$ exclusions, so the framework maps directly onto the ongoing consolidation of the $e^+e^-$ cross-section measurements.
  • A dedicated experimental analysis of the $3\pi$ ISR spectrum with correlated systematic errors and a full background model would sharpen the preliminary bump-hunt reach and could close the remaining low-coupling window for the baryon-number gauge boson.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper considers a generic flavor-universal GeV-scale vector boson X with independent lepton and quark couplings and studies its effect on two comparisons: the "a_mu test" (experimental vs theoretical muon g-2) and the "HVP test" (data-driven vs lattice hadronic vacuum polarization). The main formal result is Eq. (2.16): when the data-driven HVP is used in the a_mu test, the on-shell X contribution to e+e- -> hadrons cancels the direct 1-loop X contribution to a_mu up to a factor [1 - B(X -> had)], so a hadrophilic vector largely evades the data-driven a_mu constraint. The paper also emphasizes that the gamma-X interference contribution, Eq. (2.9), can be as important as the 1-loop term when g_q/g_l is large, and applies the formalism to the dark photon and to a baryon-number gauge boson. It presents exclusion plots using current TI 2020 and BMW 2020 central values, discusses future scenarios in which the HVP discrepancy disappears, and proposes an ISR bump hunt in the 3pi final state at B-factories.

Significance. If correct, Eq. (2.16) is an important conceptual point for the interpretation of (g-2)_mu anomalies and for dark/hadronic force searches: standard data-driven HVP evaluations already absorb the on-shell resonant NP contribution, so claims about the 1-loop X diagram as a resolution of the anomaly need revision for models with B(X -> had) close to 1. The complementary use of the HVP test and the lattice-based a_mu test, with the gamma-X interference included, is a useful framework. The detailed appendices (A.1-A.3) provide explicit proofs that longitudinal polarizations do not contribute to a_mu and that the combination a_X^mu + a_gamma-X^mu is renormalization-scheme independent; these are valuable and appear internally consistent. The proposed 3pi ISR search is a concrete, falsifiable suggestion. However, the strength of the phenomenological exclusions is limited by the issues in the major comments.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1 (Eq. 2.12) and §2.2 (Eq. 2.19)] The cancellation in Eq. (2.16) relies on the narrow-width factorization (2.12): (a_HVP^X)_e+e-->had = a_X^mu B(X -> had), which in turn assumes that the e+e- -> hadrons cross sections used in the data-driven HVP contain the complete on-shell X resonance, integrated with the same kernel K(s) that defines a_X^mu. Section 2.2 briefly discusses the vacuum-polarization "undressing" around Eq. (2.19), but only asserts that the error is "doubly suppressed" because the NP cross section is a small correction; it does not quantify whether the on-shell X signal survives the undressing, energy-binning, efficiency-correction, and radiative-unfolding procedures of the BaBar, KLOE, SND, and CMD-3 measurements used in the TI 2020 average. If part of the X signal is smeared, vetoed, or absorbed into the VP-subtraction model, the effective B(X -> had) entering Eq. (2.16) is smaller than the true branching ratio, and the residual a_X^mu [1 - B_eff(X -> had)] is larger than claimed. This is load-bearing for the paper's central result that the data-driven a_mu test is insensitive to hadrophilic vectors; please either provide a quantitative argument (or an order-of-magnitude estimate) that standard R-ratio extractions preserve the integrated narrow-resonance contribution, or state the idealization as an explicit limitation and estimate the resulting correction.
  2. [§4.1 (Fig. 5) and §4.2 (Fig. 7)] The exclusions marked "even for arbitrarily small coupling" in §4.1 (Fig. 5) and §4.2 (Fig. 7) are a restatement of the current central-value discrepancies rather than a property of the NP models. For the HVP test, zero NP gives Delta a_HVP^mu = (-144 ± 68) x 10^-11, a 2.1 sigma discrepancy, so no coupling, however small, can bring the prediction into the ±2 sigma band; this is a statement that the model cannot explain the HVP puzzle at the current central values. Similarly, the green "a_mu test" regions exclude small couplings because the model does not resolve the 5 sigma (g-2)_mu anomaly. These are "disfavored as an explanation of the current anomaly" statements, not conventional upper bounds: they would disappear if the central values shifted, as the paper itself shows in the future scenarios of Figs. 6 and 8 (DD = lattice). Please relabel these regions and state explicitly that they assume the X is the sole NP responsible for the observed discrepancy; the same wording should be softened in Section 6, where "complete exclusion of these models" overstates the status of an anomaly-fit incompatibility.
  3. [§2.1, Eq. (2.15) and Eq. (2.16)] The derivation of Eq. (2.16) uses Eq. (2.10) to cancel the gamma-X interference term between a_mu and the data-driven HVP contribution, leaving only a_X^mu [1 - B(X -> had)]. This is a stronger statement than the cancellation of the pure X term alone, and it depends on the renormalization choice p0^2 = m_X^2 used in Eq. (2.10). The scheme-independence proof in Appendix A.3 covers a_X^mu + a_gamma-X^mu up to two VP insertions, but the main text does not state that Eq. (2.16) inherits this scheme choice; please add a sentence clarifying that the cancellation is exact only in that scheme and that the physical observable is the scheme-independent sum, as shown in Appendix A.3.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix B.3, Fig. 20] The caption of Fig. 20 refers to "Fig. 9a and 9b" when describing the panels; it should refer to Fig. 20a and 20b.
  2. [§5.1, Eq. (5.2)] In Eq. (5.2), the logarithm ln(m_X^2/Lambda^2) is negative for m_X = 0.6 GeV and Lambda ~ 1 GeV, whereas the numerical estimate 52 MeV x (g_d^X)^2 is positive; please state that the absolute value is used, or define Lambda below m_X.
  3. [§5.1, Eq. (5.2)] The coefficient 52 MeV in Eq. (5.2) is an order-of-magnitude estimate that depends on the unspecified logarithm and on the electromagnetic self-energy M_Omega^gamma; the conclusion that the NP scale-setting error is negligible at current precision should be presented as an estimate, not as a precise bound.
  4. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase "the new physics contributions effectively cancels" should be reworded for grammar and, more substantively, should specify that the cancellation applies to the on-shell X contribution in the data-driven a_mu test in the narrow-width limit, as stated in Eq. (2.16).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central cancellation and HVP-test constraints follow from standard dispersion identities and external inputs, not from fitted parameters or self-citations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The master HVP relation (2.4) is an algebraic decomposition of the observed lattice-vs-data difference into the gamma-X and X contributions; it is a consistency test, not a fit, because the right-hand side is computed from model parameters and the left-hand side is an external measured input. The key data-driven a_mu cancellation (2.16) follows from the narrow-width factorization (2.12), where the equality of the integral of K(s) sigma(e+e- to X) with a_X^mu is the standard optical-theorem/dispersive identity, not an equality imposed by construction; the same K(s) appears in both only because both quantities are defined by the same one-loop muon vertex. The exclusions of arbitrarily small couplings in Figs. 5 and 7 are constraints stating that a model with negligible NP cannot produce the observed -144(68) times 10^-11 HVP discrepancy; this is an external benchmark, not a predicted quantity being renamed. Existing bounds use the publicly available DarkCast code [42], and the several other self-citations [24,27,56,62] are motivational or technical and are not load-bearing for the main result. The concern that R-ratio undressing or finite resolution may remove part of the on-shell X signal is a validity caveat about the narrow-width factorization's applicability to real data, not a circular step in the derivation, and therefore does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim introduces no new particle; the dark photon and baryon-number gauge boson are prior models. The free parameters listed are benchmark values and estimate inputs used in plots, not fitted parameters. The analysis rests on standard dispersion-relation machinery, narrow-width factorization, flavor universality, and the assumption that lattice HVP is clean of direct X contamination. The main caveats are the +-2 sigma statistical framing of the HVP discrepancy and the rough character of the scale-setting and 3pi estimates.

free parameters (4)
  • g_l/g_q ratio r for B-boson plots = 0.005, 0.02, 0.05 with both signs
    The B-boson exclusion contours are presented for discrete values of the lepton-to-quark coupling ratio; the paper does not profile over this ratio, so the breadth of excluded regions is only sampled at these benchmarks.
  • 3pi bump-hunt sample masses = 0.75, 0.9, 1.1 GeV
    The B -> 3pi reach is quoted at three chosen resonance masses; these points are illustrative, not fitted to data.
  • 3pi detection efficiency = 11% (BaBar), 10% (Belle-II)
    A mass-independent efficiency is assumed for the preliminary ISR bump hunt; the value is taken from experimental context, not fitted.
  • Scale-setting log coefficient = 52 MeV x (g_d^X)^2 in Eq. (5.2)
    The lattice scale-setting NP shift uses an order-one logarithmic enhancement; the coefficient is an order-of-magnitude estimate rather than a measured or derived constant.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The lattice HVP result contains no direct X-boson contamination; only the data-driven e+e- -> hadrons cross section receives NP contributions.
    Used to write Eq. (2.4) with Delta a_HVP equal to (a_HVP^{gamma-X}) + (a_HVP^X); Sec. 5.1 only addresses indirect scale-setting contamination.
  • domain assumption Gamma_X << m_X, so narrow-width factorization applies and sigma_X is dominated by on-shell production.
    Eq. (2.12) uses sigma_X ~ sigma(e+e- -> X) B(X -> had), which is the input to the cancellation Eq. (2.16).
  • domain assumption Flavor-universal lepton coupling g_l for e, mu, tau.
    The e+e- production of X and the muon g-2 loop must share the same g_l for the cancellation in Eq. (2.16) to hold.
  • domain assumption Vector meson dominance: X-hadron couplings are described by rho, omega, phi mixing with strengths epsilon_rho, epsilon_omega, epsilon_phi.
    Converts X contributions to sigma(e+e- -> hadrons) in Eqs. (2.17)-(2.18), following Refs. [22,42].
  • standard math Dispersion relations and the Kallen-Lehmann representation connect the imaginary parts of vacuum polarization functions to measured cross sections.
    Basis of Eqs. (A.6)-(A.10) and the equality Eq. (2.10).
  • standard math The combination a_X + a_gamma-X + a_gamma-X-gamma is renormalization-scheme independent; the proof is given up to two VP insertions and assumed to continue.
    Appendix A.3 establishes the result at the computed order; the paper does not prove it to all orders.
  • domain assumption The TI-BMW HVP difference (-144 +- 68) x 10^-11 is treated as a target band at +-2 sigma, so the no-NP point is considered excluded.
    Drives the 'arbitrarily small coupling' exclusions in Figs. 5 and 7; at 2.1 sigma the no-NP point lies marginally outside the chosen window.
  • domain assumption U(1)_B anomaly cancellation can be implemented with UV completions that do not introduce new low-energy effects altering the constraints.
    Section 4.2 discusses anomalons and Wess-Zumino terms, citing evasions [60-63]; the paper does not construct an explicit anomaly-free model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Searching for hadronic scale baryonic and dark forces at $(g-2)_\mu$'s lattice-vs-dispersion front." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZUJ3VRAZ

@misc{pith2026241212266,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Searching for hadronic scale baryonic and dark forces at $(g-2)_\mu$'s lattice-vs-dispersion front},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZUJ3VRAZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12266}
}
abstract

The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon ($\,a_{\mu}\,$) provides a stringent test of the quantum nature of the Standard Model (SM) and its extensions. To probe beyond the SM physics, one needs to be able to subtract the SM contributions, which consists of a non-perturbative part, namely, the hadronic vacuum polarization (HVP) of the photon. The state of the art is to predominantly use two different methods to extract this HVP: lattice computation, and dispersion relation-based, data-driven method. Thus one can construct different forms of the ``$a_{\mu}$ test" which compares the precise measurement of $a_{\mu}$ to its theory prediction. Additionally, this opens the possibility for another subtle test, where these two ``theory" predictions themselves are compared against each other, which is denoted as the ``HVP-test". This test is particularly sensitive to hadronic scale new physics. Therefore, in this work, we consider a SM extension consisting of a generic, light $\sim(100~{\rm MeV}-1~{\rm GeV})$ vector boson and study its impact on both tests. We develop a comprehensive formalism for this purpose. We find that in the case of data-driven HVP being used in the $a_{\mu}$ test, the new physics contributions effectively cancels for a flavor-universal vector boson. As an illustration of these general results, we consider two benchmark models: i)~the dark photon ($\,A'\,$) and ii)~a gauge boson coupled to baryon-number ($\,B\,$). Using a combination of these tests, we are able to constrain the parameter space of $B$ and $A'$, complementarily to the existing limits. As a spin-off, our preliminary analysis of the spectrum of invariant mass of $3\pi$ in events with ISR at the $B-$ factories (BaBar, Belle) manifests the value of such a study in searching for $B\to 3\pi$ decay, thus motivating a dedicated search by experimental collaborations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abi et al., Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.46 ppm , Phys

    Muon g-2 Collaboration, B. Abi et al., Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.46 ppm , Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021), no. 14 141801, [arXiv:2104.03281]

    arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    Muon g-2 Collaboration, D. P. Aguillard et al., Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.20 ppm , Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023), no. 16 161802, [arXiv:2308.06230]

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Muon g-2 Collaboration, D. P. Aguillard et al., Detailed report on the measurement of the positive muon anomalous magnetic moment to 0.20 ppm , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), no. 3 032009, [arXiv:2402.15410]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Muon g-2 Collaboration, G. W. Bennett et al., Final Report of the Muon E821 Anomalous Magnetic Moment Measurement at BNL , Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 072003, [ hep-ex/0602035]

    arXiv 2006

  5. [5]

    Jegerlehner, The Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Muon , vol

    F. Jegerlehner, The Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Muon , vol. 274. Springer, Cham, 2017

    2017

  6. [6]

    Aubert et al., Study of e+e− → π+π−π0 process using initial state radiation with BaBar , Phys

    BaBar Collaboration, B. Aubert et al., Study of e+e− → π+π−π0 process using initial state radiation with BaBar , Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 072004, [ hep-ex/0408078]

    arXiv 2004

  7. [7]

    M. N. Achasov et al., Study of the process e+e− → π+π−π0 in the energy region √s from 0.98 GeV to 1.38 GeV , Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 032001, [ hep-ex/0201040]

    arXiv 2002

  8. [8]

    M. N. Achasov et al., Study of the process e+e− → π+π−π0 in the energy region √s below 0.98 GeV, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 052006, [ hep-ex/0305049]

    arXiv 2003

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    Anastasi et al., Limit on the production of a new vector boson in e+e− → Uγ, U → π+π− with the KLOE experiment , Phys

    KLOE-2 Collaboration, A. Anastasi et al., Limit on the production of a new vector boson in e+e− → Uγ, U → π+π− with the KLOE experiment , Phys. Lett. B 757 (2016) 356–361, [arXiv:1603.06086]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Aoyama et al., The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model , Phys

    T. Aoyama et al., The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model , Phys. Rept. 887 (2020) 1–166, [ arXiv:2006.04822]

    2020 arXiv

  3. [11]

    CMD-3 Collaboration, F. V. Ignatov et al., Measurement of the e+e- →π+π- cross section from threshold to 1.2 GeV with the CMD-3 detector , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024), no. 11 112002, [arXiv:2302.08834]

    2024

  4. [12]

    CMD-3 Collaboration, F. V. Ignatov et al., Measurement of the Pion Form Factor with CMD-3 Detector and its Implication to the Hadronic Contribution to Muon (g-2) , Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024), no. 23 231903, [ arXiv:2309.12910]

    2024

  5. [13]

    C. Alexandrou et al., Lattice calculation of the short and intermediate time-distance hadronic vacuum polarization contributions to the muon magnetic moment using twisted-mass fermions, arXiv:2206.15084

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    C` e et al.,Window observable for the hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the muon g − 2 from lattice QCD , arXiv:2206.06582

    M. C` e et al.,Window observable for the hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the muon g − 2 from lattice QCD , arXiv:2206.06582. – 40 –

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Kuberski, M

    S. Kuberski, M. C` e, G. von Hippel, H. B. Meyer, K. Ottnad, A. Risch, and H. Wittig, Hadronic vacuum polarization in the muon g − 2: the short-distance contribution from lattice QCD, JHEP 03 (2024) 172, [ arXiv:2401.11895]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Djukanovic, G

    D. Djukanovic, G. von Hippel, S. Kuberski, H. B. Meyer, N. Miller, K. Ottnad, J. Parrino, A. Risch, and H. Wittig, The hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the muon g − 2 at long distances , arXiv:2411.07969

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    Blum et al., The long-distance window of the hadronic vacuum polarization for the muon g-2 , arXiv:2410.20590

    RBC, UKQCD Collaboration, T. Blum et al., The long-distance window of the hadronic vacuum polarization for the muon g-2 , arXiv:2410.20590

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Blum et al., Update of Euclidean windows of the hadronic vacuum polarization , Phys

    RBC, UKQCD Collaboration, T. Blum et al., Update of Euclidean windows of the hadronic vacuum polarization , Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023), no. 5 054507, [ arXiv:2301.08696]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Bazavov et al., Hadronic vacuum polarization for the muon g − 2 from lattice QCD: Complete short and intermediate windows , arXiv:2411.09656

    A. Bazavov et al., Hadronic vacuum polarization for the muon g − 2 from lattice QCD: Complete short and intermediate windows , arXiv:2411.09656

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Boccaletti et al., High precision calculation of the hadronic vacuum polarisation contribution to the muon anomaly , arXiv:2407.10913

    A. Boccaletti et al., High precision calculation of the hadronic vacuum polarisation contribution to the muon anomaly , arXiv:2407.10913

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Borsanyi et al., Leading hadronic contribution to the muon magnetic moment from lattice QCD, Nature 593 (2021), no

    S. Borsanyi et al., Leading hadronic contribution to the muon magnetic moment from lattice QCD, Nature 593 (2021), no. 7857 51–55, [ arXiv:2002.12347]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Di Luzio, A

    L. Di Luzio, A. Masiero, P. Paradisi, and M. Passera, New physics behind the new muon g-2 puzzle?, Phys. Lett. B 829 (2022) 137037, [ arXiv:2112.08312]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Di Luzio, A

    L. Di Luzio, A. Keshavarzi, A. Masiero, and P. Paradisi, Model Independent Tests of the Hadronic Vacuum Polarization Contribution to the Muon g−2, arXiv:2408.01123

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Delaunay, B

    C. Delaunay, B. Ohayon, and Y. Soreq, Towards an Independent Determination of Muon g-2 from Muonium Spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021), no. 25 251801, [arXiv:2106.11998]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    BABAR, BaBar Collaboration, J. P. Lees et al., Study of the process e+e− → π+π−π0 using initial state radiation with BABAR , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021), no. 11 112003, [arXiv:2110.00520]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Davier, A

    M. Davier, A. Hoecker, A.-M. Lutz, B. Malaescu, and Z. Zhang, Tensions in e+e− → π+π−(γ) measurements: the new landscape of data-driven hadronic vacuum polarization predictions for the muon g − 2, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024), no. 7 721, [arXiv:2312.02053]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Balkin, C

    R. Balkin, C. Delaunay, M. Geller, E. Kajomovitz, G. Perez, Y. Shpilman, and Y. Soreq, Custodial symmetry for muon g-2 , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021), no. 5 053009, [arXiv:2104.08289]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Passera, W

    M. Passera, W. J. Marciano, and A. Sirlin, The Muon g-2 and the bounds on the Higgs boson mass, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 013009, [ arXiv:0804.1142]

    2008 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Keshavarzi, W

    A. Keshavarzi, W. J. Marciano, M. Passera, and A. Sirlin, Muon g − 2 and ∆α connection, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020), no. 3 033002, [ arXiv:2006.12666]

    2020 arXiv

  22. [30]

    N. M. Coyle and C. E. M. Wagner, Resolving the muon g − 2 tension through Z ′-induced modifications to σhad, JHEP 12 (2023) 071, [ arXiv:2305.02354]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    L. B. Okun, LIMITS OF ELECTRODYNAMICS: PARAPHOTONS? , Sov. Phys. JETP 56 (1982) 502

    1982

  24. [32]

    Holdom, Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts , Phys

    B. Holdom, Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts , Phys. Lett. B 166 (1986) 196–198. – 41 –

    1986

  25. [33]

    Galison and A

    P. Galison and A. Manohar, TWO Z’s OR NOT TWO Z’s? , Phys. Lett. B 136 (1984) 279–283

    1984

  26. [34]

    Pospelov, Secluded U(1) below the weak scale , Phys

    M. Pospelov, Secluded U(1) below the weak scale , Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 095002, [arXiv:0811.1030]

    2009 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Arkani-Hamed, D

    N. Arkani-Hamed, D. P. Finkbeiner, T. R. Slatyer, and N. Weiner, A Theory of Dark Matter , Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 015014, [ arXiv:0810.0713]

    2009 arXiv

  28. [36]

    J. D. Bjorken, R. Essig, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, New Fixed-Target Experiments to Search for Dark Gauge Forces , Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 075018, [ arXiv:0906.0580]

    2009 arXiv

  29. [37]

    C. D. Carone and H. Murayama, Possible light U(1) gauge boson coupled to baryon number , Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 3122–3125, [ hep-ph/9411256]

    1995 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Aranda and C

    A. Aranda and C. D. Carone, Limits on a light leptophobic gauge boson , Phys. Lett. B 443 (1998) 352–358, [ hep-ph/9809522]

    1998 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Tulin, New weakly-coupled forces hidden in low-energy QCD , Phys

    S. Tulin, New weakly-coupled forces hidden in low-energy QCD , Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014), no. 11 114008, [ arXiv:1404.4370]

    2014 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Adachi et al., Measurement of the e+e− → π+π−π0 cross section in the energy range 0.62-3.50 GeV at Belle II , arXiv:2404.04915

    Belle-II Collaboration, I. Adachi et al., Measurement of the e+e− → π+π−π0 cross section in the energy range 0.62-3.50 GeV at Belle II , arXiv:2404.04915

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, An Introduction to quantum field theory . Addison-Wesley, Reading, USA, 1995

    1995

  34. [42]

    Ilten, Y

    P. Ilten, Y. Soreq, M. Williams, and W. Xue, Serendipity in dark photon searches , JHEP 06 (2018) 004, [ arXiv:1801.04847]

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    M. Endo, K. Hamaguchi, and G. Mishima, Constraints on Hidden Photon Models from Electron g-2 and Hydrogen Spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 095029, [arXiv:1209.2558]

    2012 arXiv

  36. [44]

    BaBar Collaboration, J. P. Lees et al., Search for a Dark Photon in e+e− Collisions at BaBar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014), no. 20 201801, [ arXiv:1406.2980]

    2014 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Babusci et al., Search for light vector boson production in e+e− → µ+µ−γ interactions with the KLOE experiment , Phys

    KLOE-2 Collaboration, D. Babusci et al., Search for light vector boson production in e+e− → µ+µ−γ interactions with the KLOE experiment , Phys. Lett. B 736 (2014) 459–464, [arXiv:1404.7772]

    2014 arXiv

  38. [46]

    CMS Collaboration, A. Hayrapetyan et al., Search for direct production of GeV-scale resonances decaying to a pair of muons in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV , JHEP 12 (2023) 070, [ arXiv:2309.16003]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Ilten, Y

    P. Ilten, Y. Soreq, J. Thaler, M. Williams, and W. Xue, Proposed Inclusive Dark Photon Search at LHCb , Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016), no. 25 251803, [ arXiv:1603.08926]

    2016 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Aaij et al., Search for Dark Photons Produced in 13 TeV pp Collisions, Phys

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Search for Dark Photons Produced in 13 TeV pp Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018), no. 6 061801, [ arXiv:1710.02867]

    2018 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Aaij et al., Search for A′ → µ+µ− Decays, Phys

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Search for A′ → µ+µ− Decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (2020), no. 4 041801, [ arXiv:1910.06926]

    2020

  42. [50]

    Campajola, Dark Sector first results at Belle II , Phys

    Belle-II Collaboration, M. Campajola, Dark Sector first results at Belle II , Phys. Scripta 96 (2021), no. 8 084005, [ arXiv:2208.01101]

    2021 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Albrecht et al., An Upper Limit for Two Jet Production in Direct Υ (1s) Decays, Z

    ARGUS Collaboration, H. Albrecht et al., An Upper Limit for Two Jet Production in Direct Υ (1s) Decays, Z. Phys. C 31 (1986) 181. – 42 –

    1986

  44. [52]

    Schael et al., Electroweak Measurements in Electron-Positron Collisions at W-Boson-Pair Energies at LEP, Phys

    ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OP AL, LEP Electroweak Collaboration, S. Schael et al., Electroweak Measurements in Electron-Positron Collisions at W-Boson-Pair Energies at LEP, Phys. Rept. 532 (2013) 119–244, [ arXiv:1302.3415]

    2013 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Navas et al., Review of particle physics , Phys

    Particle Data Group Collaboration, S. Navas et al., Review of particle physics , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), no. 3 030001

    2024

  46. [54]

    Gagliardi, R

    G. Gagliardi, R. Frezzotti, V. Lubicz, G. Martinelli, F. Sanfilippo, and S. Simula, Lattice determination of the pion mass difference Mπ+ − Mπ0 at order O(αem) and O((md − mu)2) including disconnected diagrams., PoS LA TTICE2021(2022) 255, [ arXiv:2112.01066]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Fabbrichesi, E

    M. Fabbrichesi, E. Gabrielli, and G. Lanfranchi, The Dark Photon , arXiv:2005.01515

    2005 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Agashe, A

    K. Agashe, A. Delgado, M. J. May, and R. Sundrum, RS1, custodial isospin and precision tests, JHEP 08 (2003) 050, [ hep-ph/0308036]

    2003 arXiv

  49. [57]

    D. J. Gross and R. Jackiw, Effect of anomalies on quasirenormalizable theories , Phys. Rev. D 6 (1972) 477–493

    1972

  50. [58]

    J. A. Dror, R. Lasenby, and M. Pospelov, New constraints on light vectors coupled to anomalous currents, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017), no. 14 141803, [ arXiv:1705.06726]

    2017 arXiv

  51. [59]

    J. A. Dror, R. Lasenby, and M. Pospelov, Dark forces coupled to nonconserved currents , Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017), no. 7 075036, [ arXiv:1707.01503]

    2017 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Di Luzio, M

    L. Di Luzio, M. Nardecchia, and C. Toni, Light vectors coupled to anomalous currents with harmless Wess-Zumino terms , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022), no. 11 115042, [ arXiv:2204.05945]

    2022 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Bonnefoy, L

    Q. Bonnefoy, L. Di Luzio, C. Grojean, A. Paul, and A. N. Rossia, The anomalous case of axion EFTs and massive chiral gauge fields , JHEP 07 (2021) 189, [ arXiv:2011.10025]

    2021 arXiv

  54. [62]

    J. F. Kamenik, Y. Soreq, and J. Zupan, Lepton flavor universality violation without new sources of quark flavor violation , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018), no. 3 035002, [ arXiv:1704.06005]

    2018 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Bizot and M

    N. Bizot and M. Frigerio, Fermionic extensions of the Standard Model in light of the Higgs couplings, JHEP 01 (2016) 036, [ arXiv:1508.01645]

    2016 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Fanelli and M

    C. Fanelli and M. Williams, Photoproduction of leptophobic bosons , J. Phys. G 44 (2017), no. 1 014002, [ arXiv:1605.07161]

    2017 arXiv

  57. [65]

    KLOE-2 Collaboration, E. P. del Rio, B boson search at KLOE/KLOE-2 , arXiv:2112.10110

    arXiv

  58. [66]

    Aoki et al., FLAG Review 2024, arXiv:2411.04268

    Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG) Collaboration, Y. Aoki et al., FLAG Review 2024, arXiv:2411.04268

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    RBC, UKQCD Collaboration, T. Blum, P. A. Boyle, V. G¨ ulpers, T. Izubuchi, L. Jin, C. Jung, A. J¨ uttner, C. Lehner, A. Portelli, and J. T. Tsang, Calculation of the hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment , Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018), ...

    2018 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Bernecker and H

    D. Bernecker and H. B. Meyer, Vector Correlators in Lattice QCD: Methods and applications, Eur. Phys. J. A 47 (2011) 148, [ arXiv:1107.4388]

    2011 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Colangelo, A

    G. Colangelo, A. X. El-Khadra, M. Hoferichter, A. Keshavarzi, C. Lehner, P. Stoffer, and T. Teubner, Data-driven evaluations of Euclidean windows to scrutinize hadronic vacuum polarization, Phys. Lett. B 833 (2022) 137313, [ arXiv:2205.12963]

    2022 arXiv

  62. [70]

    V. V. Bryzgalov and O. V. Zenin, A comment on the impact of CMD-3 e+e− → π+π− cross section measurement on the SM gµ − 2 value, arXiv:2401.07204. – 43 –

    arXiv

  63. [71]

    BaBar Collaboration, J. P. Lees et al., Precise Measurement of the e+e− → π+π−(γ) Cross Section with the Initial-State Radiation Method at BABAR , Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 032013, [arXiv:1205.2228]

    2012 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Anastasi et al., Combination of KLOE σ e+e− → π+π−γ(γ) measurements and determination of aπ+π− µ in the energy range 0.10 < s <0.95 GeV2, JHEP 03 (2018) 173, [ arXiv:1711.03085]

    KLOE-2 Collaboration, A. Anastasi et al., Combination of KLOE σ e+e− → π+π−γ(γ) measurements and determination of aπ+π− µ in the energy range 0.10 < s <0.95 GeV2, JHEP 03 (2018) 173, [ arXiv:1711.03085]

    2018 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Ambrosino et al., Measurement of σ(e+e− → π+π−) from threshold to 0.85 GeV 2 using Initial State Radiation with the KLOE detector , Phys

    KLOE Collaboration, F. Ambrosino et al., Measurement of σ(e+e− → π+π−) from threshold to 0.85 GeV 2 using Initial State Radiation with the KLOE detector , Phys. Lett. B 700 (2011) 102–110, [ arXiv:1006.5313]

    2011 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Babusci et al., Precision measurement of σ(e+e− → π+π−γ)/σ(e+e− → µ+µ−γ) and determination of the π+π− contribution to the muon anomaly with the KLOE detector , Phys

    KLOE Collaboration, D. Babusci et al., Precision measurement of σ(e+e− → π+π−γ)/σ(e+e− → µ+µ−γ) and determination of the π+π− contribution to the muon anomaly with the KLOE detector , Phys. Lett. B 720 (2013) 336–343, [arXiv:1212.4524]

    2013 arXiv

  67. [75]

    M. N. Achasov et al., Update of the e+ e- — > pi+ pi- cross-section measured by SND detector in the energy region 400-MeV < s**(1/2) < file1000-MeV, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 103 (2006) 380–384, [ hep-ex/0605013]

    2006 arXiv

  68. [76]

    SND Collaboration, M. N. Achasov et al., Measurement of the e+e− → π+π− process cross section with the SND detector at the VEPP-2000 collider in the energy region 0.525 < √s <0.883 GeV, JHEP 01 (2021) 113, [ arXiv:2004.00263]

    2021 arXiv

  69. [77]

    CMD-2 Collaboration, R. R. Akhmetshin et al., High-statistics measurement of the pion form factor in the rho-meson energy range with the CMD-2 detector , Phys. Lett. B 648 (2007) 28–38, [ hep-ex/0610021]

    2007 arXiv

  70. [78]

    CMD-2 Collaboration, V. M. Aul’chenko et al., Measurement of the pion form-factor in the range 1.04-GeV to 1.38-GeV with the CMD-2 detector , JETP Lett. 82 (2005) 743–747, [hep-ex/0603021]

    2005 arXiv

  71. [79]

    V. M. Aul’chenko et al., Measurement of the e+ e- — > pi+ pi- cross section with the CMD-2 detector in the 370 - 520-MeV c.m. energy range , JETP Lett. 84 (2006) 413–417, [hep-ex/0610016]

    2006 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Benton, D

    G. Benton, D. Boito, M. Golterman, A. Keshavarzi, K. Maltman, and S. Peris, Data-driven results for light-quark connected and strange-plus-disconnected hadronic g − 2 short- and long-distance windows, arXiv:2411.06637. – 44 –

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.