Muon \(g2\) estimates: can one trust effective Lagrangians and global fits?
 641 Downloads
 22 Citations
Abstract
Previous studies have shown that the Hidden Local Symmetry (HLS) model, supplied with appropriate symmetry breaking mechanisms, provides an effective Lagrangian (Broken Hidden Local Symmetry, BHLS) which encompasses a large number of processes within a unified framework. Based on it, a global fit procedure allows for a simultaneous description of the \(e^+ e^\) annihilation into six final states—\(\pi ^+\pi ^\), \(\pi ^0\gamma \), \(\eta \gamma \), \(\pi ^+\pi ^\pi ^0\), \(K^+K^\), \(K_L K_S\)—and includes the dipion spectrum in the \(\tau \) decay and some more light meson decay partial widths. The contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment \(a_{\mu }^\mathrm{{th}}\) of these annihilation channels over the range of validity of the HLS model (up to 1.05 GeV) is found much improved in comparison to the standard approach of integrating the measured spectra directly. However, because most spectra for the annihilation process \(e^+e^ \rightarrow \pi ^+\pi ^\) undergo overall scale uncertainties which dominate the other sources, one may suspect some bias in the dipion contribution to \(a_{\mu }^\mathrm{{th}}\), which could question the reliability of the global fit method. However, an iterated global fit algorithm, shown to lead to unbiased results by a Monte Carlo study, is defined and applied successfully to the \(e^+e^ \rightarrow \pi ^+\pi ^\) data samples from CMD2, SND, KLOE, BaBar, and BESSIII. The iterated fit solution is shown to further improve the prediction for \(a_{\mu }\), which we find to deviate from its experimental value above the \(4\sigma \) level. The contribution to \(a_{\mu }\) of the \(\pi ^+\pi ^\) intermediate state up to 1.05 GeV has an uncertainty about 3 times smaller than the corresponding usual estimate. Therefore, global fit techniques are shown to work and lead to improved unbiased results.
1 Introduction
As is well known, the Standard Model (SM) is the gauge theory which covers the realm of weak, electromagnetic and strong interactions among quarks, leptons and the various gauge bosons (gluons, photons, \(W^\pm \), \(Z^0\)). In energy regions where perturbative methods apply, the SM allows one to yield precise estimates for several physical effects, sometimes with accuracies of the order of a few 10\(^{12}\). In contrast, in energy regions where the nonperturbative regime of QCD is involved, getting similar precision may become challenging. This is the case for the low energy part of the photon hadronic vacuum polarization (HVP); this HVP plays a crucial role in determining the theoretical value for the muon anomalous moment \(a_{\mu }\), one of the best measured particle properties.
Fortunately, getting precise estimates in the low energy hadron SM sector is not completely out of reach as exemplified by the Chiral Perturbation Theory (ChPT) [1, 2] which is rigorously the low energy limit of QCD, valid up to 400 \(\div \) 500 MeV but lets the resonance region outside its scope. Lattice QCD (LQCD) is also a promising method under rapid development which already allows one to perform precise computations at low (and very low) energies [3]. Interesting LQCD estimates for the HVP’s of the three leptons have already been produced [4, 5] which clearly show that LQCD reaches results in accord with expectations; this is especially striking for \(a_{\mu }\) with, however, still unsatisfactory uncertainties [4].
So, much progress remains to be made before LQCD evaluations can compete with the accuracy of the experimental measurements already available [6, 7] or, a fortiori, with those expected in a near future at Fermilab [8, 9] or, slightly later, at JPARC [10]. Since lattice QCD is intrinsically an Euclidean approach, it is intrinsically unable to account for the existing rich amount of low energy hadronic data in the nonperturbative timelike region, i.e. from thresholds to 2 \(\div \) 3 GeV. Therefore, other methods, able to encompass large fractions of the physics from this important energy region, are valuable.
A natural approach to this issue is provided by effective Lagrangians which cover the resonance region. Such effective Lagrangians should be constructed so as to preserve the symmetry properties of QCD as already done by standard ChPT, however, only valid up to the \(\eta \) mass region. As it includes meson resonances, the Resonance Chiral Perturbation Theory (R\(\chi \)PT) [11] is an appropriate framework to study \(e^+e^ \) annihilations from their respective thresholds up to the intermediate energy region.
It has been proven [12] that the coupling constants occurring at order \(p^4\) in ChPT are saturated by low lying meson resonances of various kinds as soon as they can contribute. This emphasizes the role of the fundamental vector meson nonet (V) and confirms the relevance of the Vector Meson Dominance (VMD) concept in low energy physics.
On the other hand, it has been proven [11] that the Hidden Local Symmetry (HLS) model [13] and R\(\chi \)PT are equivalent provided consistency with the QCD asymptotic behavior is incorporated. It thus follows that the HLS model is also a motivated and constraining QCD rooted framework. As the original HLS model only deals with the lowest mass resonances, it provides a framework for the \(e^+e^ \) annihilations naturally bounded by the \(\phi \) mass region—i.e. up to \({\simeq } 1.05\) GeV.
The nonanomalous [14] and anomalous [15] sectors of the HLS model open a wide scope and can deal with a large corpus of physics processes in a unified way. However, as such, HLS cannot precisely reach the numerical precision requested by the wide ensemble of high statistics data samples collected by several sophisticated experiments on several annihilation channels. In order to achieve such a program, the HLS Lagrangian must be supplied with appropriate symmetry breaking mechanisms not present in its original formulation [13].
This was soon recognized by the HLS model authors who first proposed the mechanism to break SU(3) symmetry [16] named BKY according to its author names. Its success was illustrated by several phenomenological studies based on the BKY breaking scheme [17, 18, 19]. It was also soon extended to SU(2)/isospin symmetry breaking [20]. However, in order to account simultaneously for all the radiative decays of the light flavor mesons, the additional step of breaking the nonet symmetry for light pseudoscalar mesons was required; based on the heuristic formulation of the \(VP\gamma \) couplings by O’Donnell [21] which includes nonet symmetry breaking in the pseudoscalar (P) sector in a specific way, a global and successful account of all \(VP\gamma \) and \(P\gamma \gamma \) couplings has been reached [22]. The BKY SU(3) breaking and this nonet symmetry breaking included within the HLS model was shown [23] to meet the requirements of extended chiral perturbation theory [24, 25]. Finally, introducing the physical vector meson fields as the eigenstates of the loop modified vector meson mass matrix provided a mixing scheme of the \(\rho ^0\)–\(\omega \)–\(\phi \) system which together with the V–\(\gamma \) loop transitions implied by the HLS model at one loop^{1} leads to a satisfactory solution [27] of the longstanding \(\tau  e^+e^\) puzzle [28, 29, 30, 31].
Therefore, the approach just sketched is a global framework aiming at accounting for the largest possible ensemble of data spectra collected in the largest possible number of low energy physics channels. As this global model is an effective Lagrangian constructed from the (P and V) fields relevant in the low energy regime of QCD and because it is consistent with the symmetries of QCD, one naturally expects their low energy results to be consistent with the SM.
It was then shown that the effective Lagrangian constructed from the original HLS model supplemented with the breaking schemes listed above was able to provide a satisfactory simultaneous description of the \(e^+e^\) annihilations into the \(\pi ^+\pi ^\), \(\pi ^0\gamma \), \(\eta \gamma \), \(\pi ^+\pi ^\pi ^0\) final states and of the dipion spectrum in the decay of the \(\tau \) lepton [32, 33]. This tended to indicate that the \(\tau  e^+e^\) puzzle just referred was related to an incomplete incorporation of isospin symmetry breaking effects within models.
Slightly extending these breaking schemes, one is led to the Broken HLS (BHLS) model [34], which provides a fully consistent picture of all examined \(e^+e^\) annihilation cross sections,^{2} the \(\tau \) dipion spectrum and, additionally, some light meson decay information with a limited number of free parameters to be extracted from data. An interesting outcome of the BHLSbased fit framework was a novel evaluation of the dominating low energy piece of the HVP, leading to an improved estimate of the muon anomalous magnetic moment at more than \(4\sigma \) from its measured value^{3} [6, 7].
Introducing the dipion spectra collected in the ISR mode confirmed that the muon \(g2\) departs from expectation by more than \(4\sigma \) [35]. One should note that the high statistics ISR dipion spectra recently published by the KLOE [36, 37, 38], BaBar [39, 40] and BESSIII [41] Collaborations are strongly dominated by overall scale (i.e. normalization) uncertainties; additionally the KLOE and BaBar normalization uncertainties are energy dependent. However, sizable overall scale uncertainties raise an important issue related with their possibly biasing the physics quantity values extracted from their spectra. This issue has been identified in the reference work of D’Agostini [42] where a very simple case is proposed which illustrates that biasing effects can be dramatic.^{4} Of course, for a key quantity like the muon \(g2\), the problem should be explored and possible biases identified and fixed. The way out is already mentioned in [42] and further emphasized in other studies [44, 45, 46]; the exact solution exhibits a delicate issue as the removal of the bias on some quantity supposes to know its exact value. Nevertheless, as already suggested in [42] and emphasized in [44], iterative methods can be defined and are expected to be bias free; this has been applied successfully to the derivation of parton density functions in [47].
The present work mostly aims at reexamining the results provided in [34, 35] concerning the muon HVP using an appropriately defined iterative fit method adapted to the dealing with form factors or cross sections in such a way that fit results and derived quantities—like the HVP, but not only—could be ascertained to be bias free. In this way, one can positively answer the question raised in the title of this study at the methodological level.
The real issue of the physics model dependence can only be answered by having at disposal results derived from several independent model frameworks, all successfully (undoubtedly) accounting for the largest possible corpus of data. Indeed, the physics correlations relating the different physics processes encompassed within a given framework cannot easily accommodate a modelindependent approach. Moreover, several issues within the global fit approach are related with the formulation of Isospin symmetry Breaking (IB) which can hardly be made model independent, especially in a global framework.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, one briefly recalls the concern of using effective Lagrangian global frameworks in order to strengthen the constraints on the parameters to be derived from global fits. As our HLS Lagrangian framework has a range limited upward to 1.05 GeV, Sect. 3 recalls how the full HVP is derived from fit results and from additional information.
Section 4 is, actually, the center piece of the present paper as its purpose is to define the fit method when one should deal with samples affected by strong overall scale uncertainties. This first of all turns out to precisely define the \(\chi ^2\) functions to be minimized, depending on the specific properties of the spectra considered and, second, to set up and justify the iterative procedure we propose.^{5} Section 4.2 puts special emphasis on the specific \(\chi ^2\) function associated with samples affected by overall scale uncertainties besides a more usual experimental error matrix. The iterative fit procedure to deal with biases is formulated therein.
Most of the ISR data samples exhibit sdependent overall scale uncertainties, which are certainly a novel feature in our field; Sect. 4.3 defines an appropriate \(\chi ^2\) function suitable for such a case. Finally, Sect. 4.4 reports on the main features of the iterative global fit method when fitting sets of data samples containing samples with overall scale uncertainties of various magnitudes compared to statistical errors. The conclusions reported here rely on a Monte Carlo study outlined and illustrated in Appendix A.
Section 5 recalls the data samples used within the BHLS procedure and reports for a (minor) correction affecting the amplitudes for the annihilation channels \(\pi ^0\gamma \) and \(\eta \gamma \). Section 6 reports on the updated results of the fits performed using only the scan data and discarding all ISR data samples; the effects of the iterative method is illustrated here and it is shown that the needed number of iterations in the global fit procedure does not exceed 1. The more general running is the subject of Sect. 7 where updated results are given to correct for coding bugs affecting some of the numbers given in our [34, 35]. The properties of the recently published KLOE12 [38] and BESSIII [41] data samples are examined. The evaluation of the muon \(g2\) based on the iterated fits of various combinations of data samples is the subject of Sect. 8, where the HVP slope at \(s=0\) is also computed within BHLS and compared to its value directly derived from experimental data. Finally, Sect. 9 is devoted to conclusions and remarks.
2 Effective Lagrangian frameworks and global fits
As recalled in Sect. 1, it is a common approach to rely on the Effective Lagrangian (EL) method to cover the low energy region where QCD exhibits its nonperturbative regime and where the quark and gluon degrees of freedom are replaced by hadron fields. Each EL of practical use generally depends on parameters originating from the starting Lagrangians (like the pion decay constant \(f_\pi \) or the universal vector coupling g) and on parameters generated by the unavoidable symmetry breaking effects (like quark mass differences); all such parameters are determined from data with various precisions.
Needless to say that any (broken) effective Lagrangian provides amplitudes expected to account simultaneously for several different processes. This has a trivial consequence which, nevertheless, deserves to be stressed: All the effective Lagrangians predict physics correlations among the different physical processes they can encompass: \(\mathcal{H} \equiv \{H_i, i=1,\ldots ,p\}\).
Therefore, having plugged from start the physics correlations inside the (broken) Lagrangian, the amplitudes derived from this should allow for a global, simultaneous and constrained fit of all available data samples covering all the channels in \(\mathcal{H}\). Provided the global fit is clearly successful, the parameter central values and uncertainties returned can be considered as the optimal values accounting for all the processes in \(\mathcal{H}\) simultaneously. Therefore, one can consider that the fit information—parameter central values and error covariance matrix—exhausts the experimental information contained in the data samples covering all the processes in \(\mathcal{H}\).
From now on, one specializes to the Broken HLS (BHLS) model as defined and used in [34]. All data samples used in the global fit procedure defined in this paper have already been listed and analyzed in this reference;^{6} this will not be repeated here. As for the \(\pi ^+ \pi ^\) annihilation final state, which is a central piece of HVP studies, this Reference dealt with only the available scan data which are dominated by the samples from CMD2 [52, 53] and SND [54]. The samples collected in the ISR mode by Babar [55] as well as the former KLOE data samples (KLOE08 [36] and KLOE10 [37]) have been considered in [35]. Preliminary results including also the most recent KLOE sample (KLOE12) [38] have been given in [56, 57]. The BESSIII spectrum [41], published by mid of 2015, is also included within our analysis.
3 Estimating the muon nonperturbative HVP
The issue raised in this paper is whether effective Lagrangian methods really improve the evaluation of the dominating nonperturbative part of the HVP [34, 35] compared to a direct integration of experimental data (see [26, 58, 59] for instance). As we are working within the original HLS framework [13], what is discussed is the HVP fraction associated with the \(\pi ^+\pi ^\), \(\pi ^0\gamma \), \(\eta \gamma \), \(\pi ^+\pi ^\pi ^0\), \(K^+K^\), \(K^0\overline{K^0}\) intermediate states—covered by BHLS—up to \({\simeq } 1.05\) GeV; this represents more than 80 % of the total LOHVP.
As can be checked by looking at the cross section formulas given in [34], most parameters to be fitted appear simultaneously in the six different cross sections \(\{\sigma _{H_i}(s), i=1, \ldots ,6\}\) and each annihilation channel \(H_i\) comes in with several experimental data samples.^{8} Therefore, for instance, the data samples covering any of the \(\pi ^0\gamma \), \(\eta \gamma \), \(\pi ^+\pi ^\pi ^0\), \(K^+K^\), \(K^0\overline{K^0}\) annihilation channels play as additional constraints on the \(\pi ^+\pi ^\) cross section and are treated on the same footing than the \(\pi ^+\pi ^\) annihilation data themselves. On the other hand, the constraints carried by the dipion \(\tau \) decay spectrum data [49, 50, 51] influence the fit and allow one to reduce the BHLS parameter uncertainties in a consistent way.^{9} This explains why the global fit method is expected to improve each \(a_{\mu }(H_i)\) contribution compared to more traditional methods—those from [26, 58, 59] for instance—as these ignore the interchannel correlations revealed by the BHLS effective Lagrangian and validated by satisfactory global fits. Of course, interchannel correlations are a general feature of effective Lagrangians, and not particular for the BHLS implementation.
As any method, the BHLSbased global fit method carries specific systematics which have been examined in great detail in [35]. It is worth remarking, to avoid ambiguities, that the isospin breaking effects specific of the \(\tau \) dipion spectra are introduced in the dipion spectrum [35] as commonly done in the literature [62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69] (see also [26]); they are totally independent of the isospin breaking schemes involved in the BHLS Lagrangian and, actually, come supplementing these [35].
4 Can one trust global fit results?

1/ If the physics correlations predicted by a given effective Lagrangian model are supported by the experimental data they encompass, they can be considered as exact at the accuracy level reported for the data.

2/ Whenever the description—global fit—provided by a given effective Lagrangian is satisfactory, the model cross sections, the fit parameter values and the parameter error covariance matrix exhaust reliably the physics information contained in the fitted data samples.
On the other hand, Statement # 1 does not mean that the importance of the word “effective” is forgotten, as is clear from the italic sentence it carries: Its validity might have to be revised if the experimental context evolves toward a degraded account of the data.^{10}
Obviously, a VMD strategy heavily relies on the statistical methods used to analyze and fit the data; thus, one should ascertain that all aspects of the data handling are taken into account as they should. In particular, all features of the experimental uncertainties should be implemented canonically within the minimized global \(\chi ^2\) and in the fitting procedure. Indeed, as remarked in [45, 70], incorrect fit results are more frequently due to an incorrect dealing with the experimental errors (and correlations) rather than to the minimization procedure itself. Therefore, special care is requested in dealing with experimental uncertainties and in choosing the appropriate \(\chi ^2\) expression adapted to each data sample.
It is the purpose of this section to address this issue and check whether the procedure defined in [34, 35] fulfills this statement; this will lead us to complement the fitting procedure by an iterative method.
4.1 The basic \(\chi ^2\)/least square method
As recalled in [45], if the model \(M(\vec {a})\) is linear in the parameters^{12} and if the error covariance matrix is correct, the estimated parameter vector \(\vec {a}_0\) has unbiased components and this estimator \(\vec {a}_0\) has the smallest variance. As illustration, in the case of a straight line fit (\(M=q+px\)), Blobel [45] produced the residual plots for the model parameters using several kinds of error distributions for the generated data points (each with the same standard deviation) and showed that these plots are always gaussian distributions, as expected from the central limit theorem. Of course, the probability distribution is flat only if the error distributions are gaussian, i.e. if the effective \(\chi ^2\) function is actually a real \(\chi ^2\).
When analyzing (a collection of) actual spectra obtained by various groups, nothing better can be done and the derived fit solution faithfully reflects the whole data information on which it relies: It corresponds, at worst, to the least square solution and, at best, to the minimum \(\chi ^2\) solution, depending on the functional nature of the true experimental error distributions.
4.2 Iterative treatment of global scale uncertainties
In the subsection just above we have briefly summarized the traditional method which applies when the handled spectra are not significantly affected by (correlated) global uncertainties. These can be of either kinds: additive (offset error) or multiplicative (scale/normalization error). As no offset error issue is reported for the spectra we analyze within BHLS [34, 35], we skip this case and let the interested readers refer to suitable references [42, 45, 46]. In contrast, multiplicative (global scale) uncertainties are reported for most experimental spectra; when they are nonnegligible compared with the other (more standard) kinds of errors, they should be specifically accounted for within the global fit procedure. This is of special concern for the important \(e^+e^ \rightarrow \pi ^+ \pi ^\) data samples collected in scan mode [52, 53, 54], and even more for those collected using the Initial State Radiation (ISR) mode by KLOE [36, 37, 38], BaBar [39, 40] or BESSIII [41]; furthermore, the normalization uncertainties reported for each of the ISR data samples have all a peculiar structure which deserves each a specific treatment—this is the subject of the next subsection.
However, Eq. (4) clearly points toward a difficulty if the model is not numerically known beforehand as the modified covariance matrix becomes \(\vec {a}\)dependent when setting the unbiasing choice \(A=M\). In this case, the parameter error covariance matrix provided by the \(\chi ^2\) minimization might not be easy to interpret.
The way out is to define iterative procedures; this is allusively stated in [42], but explicitly considered in [44] as solution to the socalled “Peelle’s Pertinent Puzzle”^{14} [43], provided a good starting approximate solution is known beforehand; however, defining such a tool might be a delicate task if the underlying model is nonlinear, as quite usual in particle physics. Such a procedure has already been followed and successfully worked out in [47] in order to derive through a minimization procedure the parton density functions from several measured spectra. When dealing with samples of form factor and/or cross section data, other appropriate iterative methods should be defined.
The starting step of the iteration implies choosing some initial value for A, say \(A=A_0\). Without further information, the best approximation one can choose is obviously \(A_0\equiv m\), the experimental spectrum itself. Quite interestingly, this turns out to start iterating with \(\lambda =0\) (\(\sigma =0\) in Eq. (4)), i.e. \(\beta =1\), a unit scale factor; this makes the connection with the iterative method followed in [47].
Then the minimization of the \(\chi ^2\) in Eq. (4) with \(A=A_0\equiv m\) is performed using the minuit procedure [71] which yields the (step # 0) solution^{15} \(M_0\) via the fitted parameter vector value \(\vec {a}_0\). The next step (# 1) consists in minimizing Eq. (4) using \(A=M_0\equiv M(\vec {a}_0)\), which is easily implemented in the procedure and, at convergence, minuit provides the step # 1 solution \(M(\vec {a}_1)\). This stepwise procedure.^{16} is followed until some convergence criterion is met. As in each minimization procedure the covariance matrix is constant, the interpretation of the parameter error covariance matrix is canonical.
The convergence speed of the iterative procedure cannot be guessed ab initio but may be expected fast, referring to the fit of the parton density functions where the convergence is essentially reached at the first iteration [47]. This is confirmed by the Monte Carlo studies reported in Appendix A.
Nevertheless, one may infer that the number of iteration steps is smaller for a starting guess for A close to the actual model than for an arbitrary choice; clearly, as the choice \(A= m\) (the experimental spectrum) should be the closest to the actual model, one may think that it should minimize the number of iterations needed to reach convergence. Additionally, this choice does not imply any a priori assumption on the parameter vector to be fitted.
Among the data samples one deals within the BHLSbased global fit method, most have been collected in scan mode, essentially at Novosibirsk, and carry a constant scale uncertainty merging several effects. This is especially the case for the \(e^+e^ \rightarrow \pi ^+ \pi ^\) data samples collected by the CMD2 [52, 53] and SND [54] detectors; this also covers the case of the BESSIII data sample [41].
4.3 Global scale uncertainties effects in ISR experiments
With the advent of the \(\Phi \) factory in Frascati, of the \(J/\psi \) factory in Beijing and of the B factories at SLAC and KEK, the possibility opened to get large data samples for the various \(e^+e^\) annihilation channels in the region of interest of the BHLS model, namely, from the thresholds to the \(\phi \) meson mass energy region (\(\sqrt{s} \le 1.05\) GeV). The production mechanism involved is the emission of a hard photon in the initial state [72], the socalled the Initial State Radiation (ISR) phenomenon. This ISR production mode has been used to collect high statistics data samples for the \(e^+e^ \rightarrow \pi ^+\pi ^ \) channel covering the low energies by the KLOE [36, 37, 38], BaBar [39, 40], and BESSIII [41] Collaborations.
However, it is a common feature of the KLOE and BaBar (ISR) data samples to carry nontrivial error structures. Beside a nondiagonal statistical error covariance matrix (V), they exhibit a large number of (statistically independent) bintobin correlated uncertainties, most of these being additionally sdependent. As far as we know, this seems to be a première in particle physics and how this is dealt with inside minimization procedures deserves to be clarified and explicitly stated (see also [35]).
Let us consider a given experimental data sample E, a spectrum m function of s, for which the (given) statistical error covariance matrix is V; the information provided for the bintobin correlated uncertainties defines several independent scale uncertainties \(\lambda _{\alpha }\) (\(\alpha =1,\ldots , n_{\mathrm{scale}}\)) and should be understood as follows: each of the scale uncertainty \(\lambda _{\alpha }\) is a random variable of zero mean and carrying a sdependent standard deviation \(\sigma _{\alpha }(s)\) as tabulated by each experiment. It is clearer to make the change of (random) variables \(\lambda _{\alpha }=\sigma _{\alpha } (s) \mu _{\alpha }\) (\(\alpha =1,\ldots , n_{\mathrm{scale}}\)) and assume that all the random variables \(\mu _{\alpha }\) fulfill \(E(\mu _{\alpha })=0\) and \(E(\mu _{\alpha } \mu _{\beta })=\delta _{\alpha \beta }\).
A specific feature of Eq. (9) deserves to be noted. As each experimental group reports separately on each identified independent source of (scale) uncertainty, these should indeed be fitted separately as stated just above to go from Eqs. (8) to (9). More precisely, for the experiment E, we are not using the quadratic sum \((\sigma _E(s))^2=\sum _{\alpha } [\sigma _{\alpha }(s)]^2\) for its partial \(\chi ^2\), which would have given \(\sigma _E(s_i) \sigma _E(s_j)A_iA_j\) inside the full error covariance matrix instead of what is shown in Eq. (9). Stated otherwise, the various sources of normalization uncertainties are not summed in quadrature but really treated as statistically independent.
4.4 Numerical tests of the global fit iterative method
As stated in the header of the present section, if the physics correlations predicted by the effective Lagrangian (here BHLS) are fulfilled by the data, the estimate of the model parameters and the parameter error covariance matrix are legitimate tools serving the evaluation of related physical quantities.
As in the previous studies relying on the HLS model, at the early stages [32, 33] or more recently [34, 35, 56, 57], the method is to minimize a global \(\chi ^2\) expression taking into account the largest possible number of data samples and using appropriately all information provided by the experimentalists concerning all kinds of uncertainties which affect their data samples. The aim of Sects. 4.1–4.3 was to detail how the \(\chi ^2\) piece associated with each data sample should be constructed, depending on its reported error structure.
In contrast with previous references (including ours), the fit procedure will be adapted in the present study in order to examine and cure possible biases produced by having stopped the fit procedure at the \(A=m\) step instead of iterating further on as suggested in [42], explicitly proposed in [44] and performed in [47].

The fit parameter residuals \(\Delta _i= a_i^{\mathrm{fit}}a_i^{\mathrm{true}}\) are unbiased gaussians.

The parameter pulls are centered gaussians of unit standard deviations.
This condition list can be supplemented with some examination of the effects due to nonlinear dependences upon the parameters to be fitted.

The effects of nonlinear parameter dependence within models used to fit data spectra (see Sect. A.2.1) are likely to be marginal for the kind of experimental distributions we are dealing with. This should be related with the local minimum finding structure of the algorithms gathered within the minuit package.

When scale uncertainties dominate the sets of spectra globally submitted to fit, using^{18} \(A=m_E\) gives a solution which can exhibit strong biases, but this solution is the start of an iterative procedure which leads rapidly to the unbiased solution to the minimization problem. The biases occurring at start of the procedure can be very large, but they are observed to practically vanish already at the first iteration step (the solution previously called \(M_1\)).

When performing a global fit of some data samples dominated by global scale uncertainties together with others where the statistical errors (e.g. affecting randomly each bin) dominate, the iterative method obviously works as well as just stated. In this case, however, the presence of some samples free from scale errors exhibits an unexpected pattern: Even if the data samples free from scale uncertainties are affected by enlarged statistical errors, they strongly reduce the biases generated by the \(A=m_E\) choice. Stated otherwise, the effects of data samples where the normalization errors are dominated by the (random) statistical errors is to favor the smearing out of the biases in the parameter value estimations.
The last item in the list just above has important consequences while working with real (and so, not really perfect) experimental data. However, even if the fraction of data samples free from—or marginally affected by—scale uncertainties may look large enough, it is nevertheless cautious to ascertain that the fit solution is indeed unbiased by performing one or two additional iterations. Indeed, the studies reported in Appendix A tell that, anyway, the iterated fit solutions are always unbiased.
Therefore, one may conclude from this section and from the simulation studies reported in Appendix A that global fit methods can indeed be trusted. The single proviso is that iterating the fit procedure as explained above is mandatory or, at least, cautious.
The issue is now to examine how the results given in [34, 35] are modified when iterating beyond the approximation \(A_E=m_E\) for all data samples significantly affected by scale uncertainties, constant (as, mostly, the spectra reported in [52, 53, 54]) or sdependent (as all the ISR spectra reported in [36, 37, 38, 39]). Observing the stabilizing effect of the data samples dominated by statistical errors (like the \(\gamma \pi ^0\) and \(\gamma \eta \) final states) is also methodologically relevant.
5 BHLS global fit method: present status and corrigendum
As stated several times above, the effective Lagrangian model we use is the broken HLS (BHLS) model developed in [34]. In this Reference, the BHLS model is also applied to all data samples collected in scan mode, by the various Collaborations which have run on the successive Novosibirsk \(e^+e^\) colliders. These \(e^+e^\) annihilation samples cover the \(\pi ^+\pi ^\), \(\pi ^0\gamma \), \(\eta \gamma \), \(\pi ^+\pi ^\pi ^0\), \(K^+K^\), \(K^0\overline{K^0}\) final states and have been discussed in detail in several previous studies [32, 33, 34]; for the sake of conciseness, we will not repeat this exercise here. As the BHLS model also covers the \(\tau \) decays from the early stages of its formulation [27], the previous studies include the dipion spectra collected in the \(\tau ^\pm \rightarrow \pi ^\pm \pi ^0 \nu _\tau \) decay mode by ALEPH [49, 73], Belle [51] and CLEO [50]. Also included within the BHLS fit procedure are some light meson decay partial widths not connected with the annihilation channels already listed, like \(K^{*0} \rightarrow K^0 \gamma \), \(K^{*\pm } \rightarrow K^\pm \gamma \), \(\eta ^\prime \rightarrow \omega \gamma \) or \(\phi \rightarrow \eta ^\prime \gamma \).
A second step has been to extend the study in [34] to treat the high statistics ISR data samples for \(e^+e^ \rightarrow \pi ^+\pi ^\); this has been the purpose of the study in [35] where the KLOE08 [36] and KLOE10 [37] data samples collected by the KLOE Collaboration and the data sample produced by BaBar [39] have been examined. Since then, two new samples have been produced by the KLOE (KLOE12 [38]) and BESSIII [41] Collaborations^{19} Except otherwise stated, all the fit results presented in this paper have been obtained using the Configuration B [34] (i.e. dropping out from the fit procedure the three pion data samples collected in the \(\phi \) mass region).
The studies covered by [34, 35, 56, 57] rely on minimizing a global \(\chi ^2\) function summing up partial \(\chi ^2\)’s, each associated with a given data sample. For each of the \({\simeq } 40\div 50\) data samples, the partial \(\chi ^2\) was (canonically) constructed following the rules detailed in Sect. 4. However, as the fit was not iterated in the studies [34, 35], it is worth checking to which extent the value of the muon HVP derived from this is changed by the iteration procedure.
For the present study, a few coding bug fixes have been performed and a piece missing in the expression for the \(e^+e^ \rightarrow \pi ^0\gamma \) and \(e^+e^ \rightarrow \eta \gamma \) cross sections has been included. So, when different, the results in the present paper supersede those in [34, 35].
6 BHLS global fit method: iterating with NSK data only
\(\chi ^2/N\)  \(A=m\)  Iteration method  \(A=M\) varying  

[34]  \( A=M_0\)  \( A=M_1\)  \(A_{\mathrm{start}}=M_1\)  \(A_{\mathrm{start}}=M_x\)  
Decays  8.16/10  8.01/10  8.03/10  8.01/10  8.02/10 
New timelike \(\pi ^+ \pi ^ \)  121.54/127  121.75/127  121.75/127  121.74/127  121.75/127 
\(\pi ^0 \gamma \)  63.84/86  63.98/86  63.96/86  63.98/86  63.96/86 
\(\eta \gamma \)  120.87/182  120.84/182  120.84/182  120.84/182  120.83/182 
\(\pi ^+ \pi ^ \pi ^0\)  101.82/99  102.49/99  102.43/99  102.49/99  102.43/99 
\(K^+ K^ \)  29.87/36  29.77/36  29.78/36  29.78/36  29.78/36 
\(K^0 \overline{K}^0 \)  119.21/119  119.21/119  119.18/119  119.20/119  119.19/119 
ALEPH  19.67/37  19.73/37  19.71/37  19.72/37  19.70/37 
Belle  28.24/19  28.27/19  28.29/19  28.27/19  28.29/19 
CLEO  34.96/26  34.82/29  34.82/29  34.84/29  34.84/29 
\(\chi ^2/dof\)  648.16/719  648.85/719  648.78/719  648.85/719  648.78/719 
Global fit probability (%)  97.2  97.1  97.1  97.1  97.1 
The CMD2 data samples are reported to carry constant bintobin correlated uncertainties of 0.6 % [74], 0.8 % [52] and 0.7 % [53], while SND reports a 1.3 % constant scale uncertainty [54]—except for their first two data points where it is 3.2 %. For these data samples, the partial \(\chi ^2\)’s are essentially given by expressions like Eq. (4). For the other data samples, we performed as in [34].
The first data column in Table 1 displays the results of the fit performed by setting \(A=m\) in the \(\chi ^2\) associated with each experimental data spectrum generically named m. The form factor returned by this (\(A=m\)) global fit is named \(M_0\) and is used to perform the first iterated (\(A=M_0\)) global fit; the results of this fit are shown in the data column #2; this iteration #1 global fit returns the solution named \(M_1\). The iterated #2 fit is then performed by setting \(A=M_1\) in the \(\chi ^2\) expressions of the pion form factor data samples, leading to another (\(M_2\)) solution; the fit results are displayed in the third data column in Table 1.
Another way to account for the scale uncertainty is to set \(A=M(\vec {a})\) (which depends on the parameters under fit) and perform the fit. A starting value for A must be chosen (denoted \(A_{\mathrm{start}}\)) but its value changes at each step of the minimization procedure. In this case, the fit convergence time is much larger than previously but the results are almost identical to those already obtained by iterating. The last two columns in Table 1 display the fit results starting with \(A_{\mathrm{start}}=M_1\) and also those starting from the fit solution derived from this (denoted \(M_x\)). As for \(a_{\mu }(\pi \pi ,[0.63,0.958])\), the values derived in these last fits numerically coincide with the iterated cases displayed above.
Therefore, one may indeed conclude, as can be inferred from the Monte Carlo studies reported in Appendix A, that the HVP value reached without iterating is very close to the HVP derived from the once iterated solution. One also observes, as expected, that iterating only once already leads to the final result; indeed, from iteration #1 to iteration #2, the changes for \(a_{\mu }(\pi \pi )\) are at the level of a few \(10^{12}\).
As for the fit quality reflected by the \(\chi ^2\) values at minimum and the corresponding fit probabilities, the last line in Table 1 indicates that, whatever way one treats the vector A, they are all alike. This, once more, corresponds to expectations, as can be checked with the discussion in Sect. A.2.3 and especially the properties of Fig. 8. Nevertheless, it is useful to check that the twice iterated solution does not modify the result derived from the once iterated solution in a significant way.
7 BHLS global fit method: iterating scan and ISR data
It remains to introduce the other \(\pi ^+\pi ^\) data samples collected at \(e^+e^\) colliders using the ISR mechanism. Reference [35] has already done this work with the data samples then available using the method described in Sect. 4.3 without, however, iterating the procedure. The conclusion reached was that the KLOE08 [36] and BaBar [39] data samples have difficulties to accommodate—within the BHLS framework—the whole set of data samples covering the channels already recalled in Sect. 5. In contrast, the KLOE10 [37] data sample was found to fit well the BHLS expectations. Complementing preliminary works [56, 57], we revisit here the issue with the two new data samples provided by KLOE (KLOE12) and BESSIII.
7.1 The \(\tau \)+PDG analysis
Before going on, it deserves noting that the decay information used to run the \(\tau \)+PDG method has been extracted from the Review of Particle Properties (RPP) [61] and that the above mentioned pieces of information are in no way influenced by the data collected by KLOE, BaBar or BESSIII; actually, they are almost 100 % determined by the data samples from the CMD2 and SND experiments. On the other hand, the \(\tau \)+PDG analysis is not influenced by the global scale issue which mostly motivates the present work.
We have performed the \(\tau \)+PDG run using all annihilation data mentioned in the above sections (configuration A [34]). The fit returns \(\chi ^2_{\tau }/N_{\tau }=82.1/85=0.97\). The best fit solution allows one to reconstruct the predicted invariant mass distribution of the pion form factor in the \(e^+ e^ \rightarrow \pi ^+\pi ^\) annihilation; this prediction is expected valid over the whole BHLS range as shown by Figure 2 in [35]. It is worth showing here the mass range from 0.70 to 0.85 GeV; Fig. 1 displays the \(\tau \)+PDG prediction on this range together with the available \( \pi ^+\pi ^\) data superimposed (and not fitted); we have calculated the \(\chi ^2\) distance of each sample over its full range.^{21} The average \(\chi ^2\) per data point is indicated inside the corresponding pannel.
Figure 1 indicates that the average \(\chi ^2\) distances for the NSK (CMD2 and SND), KLOE10, KLOE12 and BESSIII samples are small enough to claim a success of the \(\tau \)+PDG method. One can conclude that they fulfill the consistency issue discussed in Sect. 2 with the full set of data and channels covered by BHLS. One should note that the description of the BESSIII sample (which is not a fit) is as good as the fit published by the BESSIII Collaboration [41]. For KLOE08 and BaBar, we reach the same conclusion as in [35]; nevertheless, one can now compare the behavior of the twin^{22} samples KLOE08 and KLOE12: We have \(\overline{\chi ^2}_{KLOE08} = 4.8\) while \(\overline{\chi ^2}_{KLOE12} = 1.2\) clearly reflecting a better understanding of the error covariance matrix, while the central values are almost unchanged, as clear from Fig. 1.
Stated otherwise, the issue met with as regards KLOE08 and BaBar is confirmed but the two new data samples published since [35] are both found to be in good correspondence with expectations.
7.2 The iterative method: global fit properties
Global fit results as a function of the \(e^+e^\rightarrow \pi ^+ \pi ^\) data sample content. Each entry displays the \([\chi ^2_{\pi ^+\pi ^}/N_{\pi ^+\pi ^}]\) value returned by the global fit. The data samples involved can be tracked from the column titles, the following line giving the corresponding data point numbers \([N_{\pi ^+\pi ^}]\) in the range up to 1 GeV. The value flagged by * has been obtained using a BaBar sample truncated from the energy region [0.76, 0.80] GeV (250 data points)
Fit configuration  Iteration method  

\([\chi ^2_{\pi ^+\pi ^}/N_{\pi ^+\pi ^}]\)  KLOE08  KLOE10  KLOE12  NSK  BESSIIIIII  BaBar 
\(N_{\pi ^+\pi ^}\)  (60)  (75)  (60)  (127/[209])  (60)  (270) 
Fits in isolation  1.64  0.96  1.02  0.96[0.83]  0.56  1.25 
Global fit prob. (%)  59  97  97  97[99 %]  99  40 
Fit combination 1  1.02  1.48  1.18[0.96]  0.56  1.36(*)  
\(\chi ^2_{\pi ^+\pi ^}/N_{\pi ^+\pi ^}\) and Gl. fit prob:  1.21 and 22 %  
Fit combination 2  1.00  1.05  1.11[0.89]  0.61  
\(\chi ^2_{\pi ^+\pi ^}/N_{\pi ^+\pi ^}\) and Gl. fit prob:  0.98 and 99 %  
Fit combination 3  1.02  1.05  1.10[0.89]  
\(\chi ^2_{\pi ^+\pi ^}/N_{\pi ^+\pi ^}\) and Gl. fit prob:  1.06 and 97 % 
Table 2 displays our main results using the scan and ISR \(e^+e^\rightarrow \pi ^+ \pi ^\) annihilation data. They correspond to the iteration # 1 fit (denoted above \(A=M_0\)), however, the previously called \(A=m\) or \(A=M_1\) solutions gives almost identical fit quality results.^{23}
The first data line displays the global fit properties with the indicated \(e^+e^\rightarrow \pi ^+ \pi ^\) data samples used each in isolation within the global BHLS context, together with all other data samples covering the rest of the encompassed physics (see Sect. 5).
One observes that the average (partial) \(\chi ^2\) per data point \(\chi ^2_{\pi ^+\pi ^}/N_{\pi ^+\pi ^}\) is of the order 1 or (much) better and the probability high when running with any of the KLOE10, KLOE12, NSK^{24} and BESSIII data samples; as in [35] the picture is not as good for KLOE08 and BaBar.
Performing a global BHLS fit using the data samples from KLOE10, KLOE12, BESSIII, NSK and BaBar (amputated^{25} from the energy region [0.76, 0.80] GeV) leads to results given at the entry lines flagged by “Fit Combination 1”; as the correlations between the KLOE08 and KLOE12 data samples are strong and their content not explicitly stated,^{26} it is more cautious to avoid dealing with the KLOE08 and KLOE12 samples simultaneously. Despite the removal of the dropoff region in the BaBar \(\pi ^+ \pi ^\) spectrum, the global fit quality looks poorer.
Therefore, this proves that the scan data from CMD2 and SND are consistent with the KLOE10, KLOE12 and BESSIII data samples and that all these are fully consistent with the other data spectra introduced in the global fit procedure as indicated by the global fit probability. One should also remark that the systematic uncertainties provided for KLOE12 lead to a satisfactory global fit, in contrast with KLOE08, as already noted in the previous subsection.
Except otherwise stated, the fit parameter values presented from now on are derived using the \(e^+e^ \rightarrow \pi ^+ \pi ^\) data samples corresponding to the “Fit Combination 2” (see Table 2); the fit results are those derived after the first iteration and they do not differ significantly from the corresponding results at iteration # 2. The fit quality for the non\(\pi ^+ \pi ^\) data samples are almost indistinguishable from the numbers already given in the second data column from Table 1; they are not repeated for the sake of brevity.
7.3 The iterative method: updating the model parameter values
Beside improving the fits by mean of the iterative method, the present work accounts for an error and a couple of bugs affecting our [34, 35]. Moreover, the present work includes the new KLOE12 data sample within the fit procedure; this is not harmless as KLOE12 constrains the fit conditions more severely than the KLOE10 sample. Therefore, the present results update and supersede the corresponding ones previously given in [34, 35].
7.3.1 The HLSFKTUY parameters
Our value for \(c_+\) agrees with the estimates derived in [13] from the \(\pi ^0 \gamma \gamma ^*\)) form factor (\(c_+=1.06 \pm 0.13\)) and from the \(\omega \rightarrow \pi ^0 \gamma \) partial width (\(c_+=0.99 \pm 0.16\)) with a much smaller uncertainty due to the large amount of data influencing the (global) fit. After the bug fixing, \(c_\) is found small but nonzero with a large significance and \((c_1c_2)\) becomes closer to 1. Using the full \(25\times 25\) parameter error covariance matrix returned by the global fit, we have computed separately \(c_4\) and \(c_3\) by a MonteCarlo sampling. This gives \(c_3=1.124 \pm 0.022\) and \(c_4=0.789 \pm 0.021\).
Among the numbers displayed in Eq. (14), some are appealing: The nearness to 1 of the fitted \(c_1c_2\) and \(c_+\) parameters, their customary guessed value [13], should be noted and deserves confirmation with more precise data on the anomalous annihilations and light meson radiative decays than those presently available.
7.3.2 The iterative method: pseudoscalar meson mixing and decay parameters
Some parameter values derived when leaving free \(\theta _P\) and \(\lambda \) (first data column) or when relating them by imposing \(\theta _0 =0\) to the fit (second data column)
General fit  Constrained fit  

\(\theta _0\)  \(2.77^\circ \pm 0.41^\circ \)  0 
\(\theta _8\)  \(25.95^\circ \pm 0.35^\circ \)  \(25.52^\circ \pm 0.20^\circ \) 
\(\theta _P\)  \(15.29^\circ \pm 0.32^\circ \)  \(13.96^\circ \pm 0.16^\circ \) 
\(\lambda \)  \((2.91 \pm 3.35) ~10^{2}\)  \((1.86 \pm 1.17) ~10^{2}\) 
\(\varepsilon _0\)  \((4.12 \pm 0.33) ~10^{2}\)  \((4.00 \pm 0.33) ~10^{2}\) 
\(\varepsilon (\eta )\)  \((5.85 \pm 0.48) ~10^{2}\)  \((5.57 \pm 0.47) ~10^{2}\) 
\(\varepsilon ^\prime (\eta ^\prime )\)  \((1.46 \pm 0.13) ~10^{2}\)  \((1.36 \pm 0.12) ~10^{2}\) 
\(\chi ^2/N_{\mathrm{dof}}\)  887.5 / 994  892.5 / 995 
Probability (%)  99.3  99.1 
The BHLS model connects to (extended) ChPT [24, 25], especially its two angle \(\theta _0\) and \(\theta _8\) mixing scheme; in particular, it relates these angles to the singlet–octet mixing angle traditionally denoted \(\theta _P\), together with the BKY breaking parameters \(z_A\), \(\Delta _A\) and to \(\lambda \) [34].
The upper part of Table 3 displays in its first data column our fit results in the general case. The fit value for \(\theta _8\) is in good agreement with other expectations [24] as well as that for \(\theta _0\). The smallness of this has led us to impose \(\theta _0=0\) within fits which leads to the results shown in the second data column. The value for \(\lambda \) undergoes a severe correction compared with [34, 35] and, presently, because of its large uncertainty, could be neglected without any real degradation in fit qualities.
Before closing this subsection, we mention that the Monte Carlo sampling method allows one to reconstruct the decay constant ratio \(f_K/f_\pi =1.265 \pm 0.009\) which becomes \(f_K/f_\pi =1.295 \pm 0.002\) when constraining the fit with \(\theta _0=0\).
8 The muon LOHVP: evaluations from iterated fits
8.1 Various evaluations of \(a_{\mu }(\pi \pi ,[0.63,0.958]~\)GeV)
The point at top of Fig. 3 is the socalled \(\tau \)+PDG [35] value for \(a_{\mu }(\pi \pi ,[0.63,0.958]~\)GeV) derived by switching off the contributions of the various \(e^+e^ \rightarrow \pi ^+ \pi ^\) data samples from the minimized \(\chi ^2\), replacing them by decay information extracted from the Review of Particle Properties (RPP) [61] as emphasized in Sect. 7.1.
In order to get the other points displayed in Fig. 3, one always uses all the channels covered by BHLS, including the \(\tau \) spectra from ALEPH, CLEO and Belle. As for the \(e^+e^ \rightarrow \pi ^+ \pi ^\) data samples, one uses each of the BaBar, KLOE08, KLOE10 and KLOE12 samples in isolation as indicated within the figure (see also Table 2 and Sect. 7.2). The point flagged by CMD2+SND is obtained from a fit to the socalled [34] new timelike data from CMD2 and SND [52, 53, 54, 74], leaving aside the older data from OLYA and CMD collected in [75] (see Table 2 and Sect. 6 above). As for the BaBar spectrum, for reasons already stated, the fit is performed on the spectrum amputated from the dropoff region (\(\sqrt{s} \in [0.76,0.80]~\) GeV). Finally, as the published BESSIII spectrum ends up at 0.9 GeV, one cannot produce an experimental value on the interval [0.63, 0.958] GeV.
As a general statement, Fig. 3 clearly illustrates that the iterated (\(M_1\)) and the noniterated (\(M_0\)) solutions provide quite similar fit estimates for \(a_{\mu }(\pi \pi ,[0.63,0.958]~\)GeV). One should nevertheless remark that the agreement between both fit solutions and the numerical integral of the experimental data is less satisfactory for the data samples which exhibit poor fit qualities within the global framework (KLOE08 and BaBar) than for the others (KLOE10, KLOE12, CMD2+SND) as can be inferred from the “fit in isolation” properties displayed in Table 2. Finally, the weighted averages of the experimental results for KLOE10 and KLOE12 alone or together with all NSK data (the socalled new timelike data and the former samples [75]) are always well reproduced by the global fit and are supported by quite good probabilities (see Table 2).
Finally, the lowermost point in Fig. 3 displays the result derived using all data samples (except for KLOE08 as there is not enough published information to account for its strong correlation with KLOE12); this estimate for \( a_{\mu }(\pi \pi ,[0.63,0.958])\) which benefits from a very small uncertainty has, however, a poor fit probability as clear from Table 2.
8.2 Contributions to the muon LOHVP up to 1.05 GeV
The contributions to the muon LOHVP from the various channels covered by BHLS from their respective thresholds to 1.05 GeV in units of \(10^{10}\) at start and after iteration. The last column displays the direct numerical integration of the various spectra used within BHLS. The \(\pi ^+\pi ^\) data samples considered are those flagged by “Combination 2” in Table 2
Channel  \(A=m\)  \(A=M_0\)  Exp. value 

\(\pi ^+\pi ^\)  \(495.06 \pm 1.43\)  \(494.59 \pm 0.89\)  \(492.98 \pm 3.38\) 
\(\pi ^0\gamma \)  \(4.53 \pm 0.04\)  \(4.54 \pm 0.04\)  \(3.67 \pm 0.11\) 
\(\eta \gamma \)  \(0.64 \pm 0.01\)  \(0.64 \pm 0.01\)  \(0.56 \pm 0.02\) 
\(\pi ^+\pi ^\pi ^0\)  \(40.83 \pm 0.57\)  \(40.84 \pm 0.57\)  \(43.54 \pm 1.29\) 
\(K_L K_S\)  \(11.56 \pm 0.08\)  \(11.53 \pm 0.08\)  \(12.21 \pm 0.33\) 
\(K^+ K^\)  \(16.79 \pm 0.20\)  \(16.90 \pm 0.20\)  \(17.72 \pm 0.52\) 
Total  \(569.41\pm 1.55 \)  \(569.04 \pm 1.08 \)  \(570.68 \pm 3.67 \) 
As for the \(\pi ^+\pi ^\) channel, both fits—which include the \(\tau \) spectra—provide central values in agreement with each other and with the direct estimate within the quoted error.^{29} If the \(A=m\) solution were (inherently) exhibiting a bias, comparing the first two numbers in the first line of Table 4 indicates that this does not exceed \({\simeq } 0.5\times 10^{10}\)—e.g. half a standard deviation. Therefore, real experimental data samples confirm the gain provided by a global fit procedure when samples with normalization errors small compared to their statistical accuracies are included; exploring this effect is the purpose of Sect. A.2.3 in Appendix A.
One should also remark that the unbiasing iterative procedure lessens significantly the uncertainty on \(a_{\mu }(\pi ^+\pi ^)\) compared with the \(A=m\) solution and, over the whole range of validity of BHLS (up to 1.05 GeV), one ends up with a factor of \(\simeq \) 3 reduction of the uncertainty compared to the direct numerical integration. The same kind of effect is reported in [47] concerning the spread of the parton density functions.^{30}
Therefore, relying on the iterative procedure, one observes that the global fit does not produce significant shifts of the central values of the HVP contributions which could be attributed to the normalization (scale) uncertainties strongly affecting some data samples. Relying on the Monte Carlo studies outlined in Appendix A, this can be attributed to the large number of data samples where the statistical uncertainties dominate over the normalization uncertainty. Moreover, the uncertainty on the part of the LOHVP derived from the BHLS fit (more than 80 % of the total LOHVP) is very small and even marginal.
8.3 The muon \(g2\) from BHLS global fit procedure
LOHVP contributions to \(10^{10} a_{\mu }\) with FSR corrections included. The statistical and systematic errors are given within brackets; the total uncertainty is given within square brackets. The column “LOHVP (2011)” displays the contributions estimated using only the data samples available in 2011; the column “LOHVP (2014)” displays the corresponding values updated with the data samples published up to the end of 2014
Contribution from  Energy range  LOHVP (2014)  LOHVP (2011) 

Missing channels  Threshold \(\rightarrow \) 1.05  1.34 (0.03)(0.11)[0.11]  1.44 (0.40)(0.40)[0.57] 
\(J/\psi \)  8.94(0.42)(0.41)[0.59]  8.51(0.40)(0.38)[0.55]  
\(\Upsilon \)  0.11(0.00)(0.01)[0.01]  0.10(0.00)(0.01)[0.01]  
Hadronic  (1.05, 2.00)  60.45(0.21)(2.80)[2.80]  60.76(0.22)(3.93)[3.94] 
Hadronic  (2.00, 3.10)  21.63(0.12)(0.92)[0.93]  21.63(0.12)(0.92)[0.93] 
Hadronic  (3.10, 3.60)  3.77(0.03)(0.10)[0.10]  3.77(0.03)(0.10)[0.10] 
Hadronic  (3.60, 5.20)  7.50(0.04)(0.05)[0.06]  7.64(0.04)(0.05)[0.06] 
pQCD  (5.20, 9.46)  6.27(0.00)(0.01)[0.01]  6.19(0.00)(0.00)[0.00] 
Hadronic  (9.46, 13.00)  1.28(0.01)(0.07)[0.07]  1.28(0.01)(0.07)[0.07] 
pQCD  (13.00, \(\infty \))  1.53(0.00)(0.00)[0.00]  1.53(0.00)(0.00)[0.00] 
Total  1.05 \(\rightarrow \infty + \hbox {missing channels}\)  \(112.82 \pm 3.01_{\mathrm{tot}}\)  \(112.96 \pm 4.13_{\mathrm{tot}}\) 
Table 5 summarizes these additional contributions to be combined with the BHLS results to derive the muon LOHVP; in this Table, one recalls the information available by end of 2011 and used in our previous [34, 35]. The data column flagged by “LOHVP (2014)” is the update derived by taking into account the data samples more recently collected (and published up to the end of 2014); these are the \(e^+e^\rightarrow 3(\pi ^+\pi ^)\) data from CMD3 [81], the \(e^+e^ \rightarrow \omega \pi ^0 \rightarrow \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma \) from SND [82] and several data samples collected by BaBar in the ISR mode^{32} [83, 84, 85, 86]. These data samples highly increase the available statistics for the annihilation channels opened above 1.05 GeV and lead to significant improvements. One thus should note the important improvement these provide for the LOHVP contribution from the [1.05, 2.0] GeV region: its uncertainty is reduced by 25 %, while its central value is almost unchanged. Despite this improvement, the energy region [1.05, 2.0] GeV still remains the dominant uncertainty on the muon LOHVP and this strongly limits the effect of gaining further in precision on the part of the LOHVP covered by BHLS.
Deriving the full HVP value also requires one to account for the higher order effects. This includes the nexttoleading order contribution (NLO) taken from [26] (\([9.97 \pm 0.09]\times 10^{10}\)) and the recently estimated nexttonexttoleading order (NNLO) effects which happen to be nonnegligible (\([1.24 \pm 0.01]\times 10^{10}\)) [87].
The various contributions to \(10^{10} a_{\mu }\). \(\Delta a_{\mu }= a_{\mu }^{\mathrm{exp}}a_{\mu }^{\mathrm{th}}\) is given in units of \(10^{10}\). For the measured value \(a_{\mu }^{\mathrm{exp}}\), we have adopted the value reported in the RPP which uses the updated value for \(\lambda =\mu _{\mu }/\mu _p\) recommended by the CODATA group [93]. By KLOE, one means that the KLOE10 and KLOE12 \(\pi ^+ \pi ^\) data samples are introduced in the BHLS fit procedure and in the directly integrated spectra
\(10^{10} \times a_{\mu }\)  Values (incl. \(\tau \))  Direct integration  

Scan only  Scan \(\oplus \) KLOE \(\oplus \) BESSIII  Scan \(\oplus \) KLOE \(\oplus \) BESSIII  
LOHVP  \(683.26 \pm 3.78\)  \(681.86 \pm 3.20 \)  \(683.50 \pm 4.75 \) 
HO (NLO) HVP  \(9.97 \pm 0.09 \) [26]  
NNLO HVP  \(~1.24 \pm 0.01 \) [87]  
LBL  \(10.5 \pm 2.6\) [88]  
NLOLBL  \(0.3 \pm 0.2\) [91]  
QED  
EW  \(15.40\pm 0.10_\mathrm{had} \pm 0.03_{\mathrm{Higgs,top},3\text {}\mathrm{loop}}\) [31]  
Total theor.  \(11~659~172.62 \pm 4.60 \)  \(11~659~171.22 \pm 4.13 \)  \(11~659~172.86 \pm 5.42 \) 
Exper. aver.  \(11~659~208.9 \pm 6.3 \)  
\(\Delta a_{\mu }\)  \(36.28\pm 7.80 \)  \(37.68\pm 7.53 \)  \(36.04 \pm 8.31 \) 
Significance (\(n \sigma \))  \(4.65 \sigma \)  \(5.00 \sigma \)  \(4.38 \sigma \) 
The first data column in Table 6 reproduces (after our methodological update) the muon anomalous moment estimate coming from the corresponding BHLS global fit where only the scan data for the \(\pi ^+ \pi ^\) channel are considered while all ISR data are excluded. This supersedes the corresponding information in [34]. The sample combination preferred by the BHLS global fit gives the results displayed in the second data column; it exhibits a \(4.9 \sigma \) significance for a nonzero \(\Delta a_{\mu }= a_{\mu }^{\mathrm{exp}}a_{\mu }^{\mathrm{th}}\). The evaluation derived by direct integration of the spectra used within the global fits are given in the third data column. The new data, as a whole, increase the discrepancy for \(\Delta a_{\mu }\) which is always found above the \(4 \sigma \) level; effects of additional and not still accounted for systematics will be examined in the next subsection.
Figure 4 displays the results for \(\Delta a_{\mu }\) derived using or not the \(\tau \) data and various combinations of the available \(\pi ^+ \pi ^\) data samples introduced within the BHLS global fit procedure at first iteration. For comparison, one also displays in this figure the evaluations produced by other authors and flagged by Dhea09 [29], DHMZ10 [58], JS11 [26] and HLMNT11 [60]—corrected, however, for the recently calculated NNLOHVP and NLOLBL—contributions as included in Table 6. A priori, the Dhea09 estimate compares exactly to our evaluations using scan data only; the other results are derived using, beside the NSK samples, the BaBar, KLOE08 and KLOE10 samples. These may be compared to the last couple of lines in Fig. 4 where the scan data are supplemented with the BaBar (not truncated), KLOE (10/12) and BESSIII samples.

1/ The difference between our estimates and those of other authors mainly concerns the estimated central value for \(\Delta a_{\mu }\). Also, our uncertainties are now reduced because of the global fit method, but also because of using much more data samples than other authors; this is clear by comparing the errors shown in Fig. 4 with those given in [35]. When using only the scan data, the shift one observes should reflect the biasing effect certainly present in the experimental data (see footnote # 29) and corrected in our approach by the iterated fit method. When the ISR \(\pi ^+ \pi ^\) samples are also involved, the issue just recalled is amplified because the weight of samples with large overall scale uncertainties is much increased.^{33} The effect of the BaBar data sample is no longer enough to balance the effect of the new data samples as becomes clear by comparing the lines for “NSK+KLOE+BESSIII” with the lines for “Global (ISR+scan)”, which also include the (full) BaBar sample. Nevertheless, one should note the large difference of the corresponding probabilities.

2/ When a comparison between a \(\Delta a_{\mu }\) estimate derived using the \(\tau \) data and the corresponding one excluding these is possible, ours exhibits the smallest difference (\(1.12 \times 10^{10}\) for NSK+KLOE+BESSIII, \(0.7\times 10^{10}\) for the Global fit including all the \(\pi ^+ \pi ^\) data samples). This is certainly due to the vector meson mixing which defines the BHLS model. It is interesting to note that the JS11 [26] value, which is based on the \(\gamma \)–\(\rho ^0\) mixing by loop transitions,^{34} is the closest to ours.

3/ Relying on the global fit properties, the BHLS model favors the “NSK + KLOE10 + KLOE12 +BESSIII + \(\tau \)” as the largest consistent set of data samples. This leads to \(\Delta a_{\mu }=(37.55 \pm 4.12)\times 10^{10}\) which exhibits a \(5 \sigma \) significance.^{35} Our estimate is expected to be free from biases generated by the overall scale uncertainties which dominate the ISR \(\pi ^+ \pi ^\) data samples.
8.4 Additional systematics on the BHLS estimate for the muon \(g2\)
A detailed study of additional systematics possibly affecting the BHLS evaluation of \(\Delta a_{\mu }\) has been already performed in [35]. It concluded to an uncertainty of the LOHVP central value for \(\Delta a_{\mu }=a_{\mu }^{\mathrm{exp}} a_{\mu }^{\mathrm{th}}\) in the range \([1.3 \div 0.60]\times 10^{10}\) coming from \(\pi ^+ \pi ^\) contribution in the \(\phi \) mass region, where BHLS is weakly constrained. An uncertainty coming from using the \(\tau \) spectra has also been considered; it was argued that the best motivated evaluation of this is the difference between fitting with the \(\tau \) spectra and without them in the most constrained configuration. Presently, this means that the BHLS preferred value (\(\Delta a_{\mu }=(38.58 \pm 5.04)\times 10^{10}\)) could be underestimated by \({\simeq } 0.9\times 10^{10}\).
Another mean to detect systematics is to compare with the accurate ChPT predictions on the Pwave \(\pi ^+ \pi ^\) phase shift [94] and also with the available experimental data from the Cern–Munich [95] and Fermilab [96] groups. These are shown in Fig. 5. Included also are the predictions derived from the Roy equations [97] and from the phase of the pion form factor fit performed in [26] (JS11).
The slope of the photon HVP at \(s=0\)
Moment  Data direct  HLS channels data  HLS model  HLS + nonHLS 

\(P_1\) (GeV\(^{2}\))  \(11.83\pm 0.08\)  \(10.07\pm 0.05\)  \(9.970\pm 0.016\)  \(11.73 \pm 0.06\) 
\( 10^2 \frac{\mathrm{d}\Delta \alpha _{\mathrm {had}}}{\mathrm{d}s}(0)\)  \(0.92\pm 0.01\)  \(0.78\pm 0.01\)  \(0.772 \pm 0.001\)  \(0.907 \pm \) 0.01 
8.5 The HVP slope at origin in BHLS fits
A lattice estimate of the Adler function slope \(D'(0)\) has been presented in [109]. The result is \({P}_1=5.8(5)~\mathrm{GeV}^{2}\), and has been compared with \({P}_1=9.81(30)~\mathrm{GeV}^{2}\), a result estimated using a phenomenological toymodel representation [110] of the isovector spectral function. The lattice results too include the isovector part only and are missing higher energy contributions above 1 GeV.
9 Concluding remarks
The present study was motivated by the question which gives its title to this paper. More precisely, the issue is whether the D’Agostini bias [42, 46] prevents to derive unbiased physical results from global fits to experimental spectra affected by dominant overall scale uncertainties.^{40}
In our former studies [34, 35], beside the \(\simeq 40\) data samples dominated by statistical errors which follow the traditional treatment, the data samples covering the \(e^+e^ \rightarrow \pi ^+ \pi ^\) annihilation channel are all, sometime very strongly, dominated by overall scale uncertainties; this especially refers to the samples collected by the KLOE and BaBar Collaborations using the ISR production mode. Here, for each sample, we chose for A the experimental spectrum itself; this choice is referred to as \(A=m\) all along the paper. The guess behind this was that all scale uncertainties affecting the different experimental spectra independently of each other should smear out possible biases in the central values of the (common) theoretical form factor function parameters [35].
It happens that the results one can derive in this way from the BHLS global fit undergo very small biases (compared to the errors derived from the fit procedure); this is shown in the present study.^{41} However, the guess just recalled was incorrect and the actual reason which explains the almost bias free results is following: As shown in the Monte Carlo study presented in the appendix, there is no smearing out of biases if all the spectra submitted to fit undergo comparable strong scale uncertainties; however, this study also shows that, if some of the fitted spectra are dominated by (random) statistical errors rather than global scale uncertainties, the fit results can be strongly unbiased.
Nevertheless, a high level of unbiasing cannot be taken as granted as the real weight of the samples dominated by statistical errors within the full global fit procedure cannot be ascertained beforehand. Basically, the choice \(A=m\) potentially leads to biases of unknown magnitude; this has been shown by D’Agostini [42] with a simple example and more generally argued by Blobel [46]. These authors also showed that all biases vanish if, instead of \(A=m\), one makes the choice \(A=M\), the “true” spectrum. But this is just not possible within contexts like ours, where fits are performed just in order to derive the “true” spectrum from data. Fortunately, iterative methods allow one to circumvent this difficulty by taking the path opened in [47] in order to derive the parton density function from data and correct for biases. The iterative method we propose has been tested with the Monte Carlo study reported in the appendix and shown to produce unbiased results with a quite fast convergence speed; indeed, only one iteration is sufficient.
So, our main conclusion is indeed that global fit methods including a fast iterative procedure are expected to produce reliable pieces of information as, methodologically, the central values are unbiased and the estimate for the uncertainties reliable; this especially applies to the part of the muon leading order HVP derived from \(e^+ e^\) annihilation cross sections.
Having shown that appropriate global fit methods should lead to results which can be trusted, a related remark is worth being made. Iterative global fits allow one to supply the BHLS effective Lagrangian cross sections with reliable and unbiased numerical central values for the fit parameters and a good estimate of their error covariance matrix. Then, using these cross sections and the fit information, Eq. (1) is expected to provide an unbiased estimate for \(a_{\mu }(\pi \pi )\) as the ingredients are unbiased.
As for the physics conclusions, the present paper updates and corrects the results derived by the global BHLS fit method which, following the considerations just summarized, has been completed with an iteration procedure in order to cancel out possible biases. One thus confirms that almost all of the existing data samples covering the annihilation channels with the \(\pi ^0\gamma \), \(\eta \gamma \), \(\pi ^+\pi ^\pi ^0\), \(K^+K^\), \(K^0\overline{K^0}\) final states and the dipion spectra in the \(\tau ^\pm \rightarrow \pi ^\pm \pi ^0 \nu \) decay accommodate perfectly the BHLS framework. In the line of our previous works, one also finds that among the data samples covering the \(e^+e^ \rightarrow \pi ^+\pi ^\) annihilation, the data samples provided by CMD2 and SND, the KLOE10 and now also the KLOE12 and BESSIII samples behave consistently with each other and with the other considered data covering the various channels entering the BHLS scope.
The present update, which also includes the recently published KLOE12 and BESSIII \(\pi ^+\pi ^\) samples, supersedes our previous results; these are mostly given in Table 3 and in Eq. (14). From a theoretical point of view, it is interesting to note the corrected values for the \(c_i\)’s coefficients of the anomalous (FKTUY) terms of the HLS model [13, 15]: The combinations \(c_+=(c_4+c_3)/2\) and \(c_1c_2\) are found very close to the usually assumed value, i.e. 1; in contrast, \(c_=(c_4c_3)/2=0.166 \pm 0.021\) is nonzero with a \(8\sigma \) significance.
Figure 3 displays the values for \(a_{\mu }(\pi \pi ,[0.63,0.958])~\)GeV derived from iterating the fits with the various available data samples. One observes a strong reduction of the uncertainty compared to the corresponding experimental value (about a factor of 2.5) and there is a close agreement between central values for all samples (or combinations of samples) which yield a good fit probability. The difference between the central values for the starting fit and the iterated one tends to indicate that biases are limited; this should be a consequence of also dealing with a large number of samples where the overall scale uncertainties are dominated by random statistical errors, as argued in the appendix.
Figure 4 exhibits the values for the muon \(\Delta a_{\mu }=a_{\mu }^{\mathrm{exp}}a_{\mu }^{\mathrm{th}}\) when various combinations of \(e^+e^ \rightarrow \pi ^+\pi ^\) and \(\tau ^\pm \rightarrow \pi ^\pm \pi ^0 \nu \) samples are used in the iterated global fit procedure. The present study confirms that, within BHLS and because of its specific isospin breaking mechanisms, one does not observe any serious mismatch between fits with only \(e^+e^\) annihilation data and fits where these are supplemented with the \(\tau \) dipion spectra. The central values^{43} for \(a_{\mu }(e^+e^)\) and \(a_{\mu }(e^+e^+ \tau )\) only differ by 2 units (NKS), 1 unit (NSK+KLOE+BESSIII+\(\tau \)) or 0.7 unit in the global fit of all data samples (including BaBar), as can be seen in Fig. 4.
As a summary, even complemented with an iterative procedure shown in the appendix to remove biases, the BHLS approach favors a significance for \(\Delta a_{\mu }\) above the \(\simeq 4.5 \sigma \) level; this value is a lower bound obtained by including possible additional systematics added linearly. New data expected soon may further clarify the picture. The uncertainties now become sharply dominated by the region above 1.05 GeV, i.e. outside the BHLS scope.
Footnotes
 1.
See also [26] where the role of the \(\rho ^0\)–\(\gamma \) mixing is especially emphasized.
 2.
Specifically the six \(e^+e^\) annihilation channels to \(\pi ^+\pi ^\), \(\pi ^0\gamma \), \(\eta \gamma \), \(\pi ^+\pi ^\pi ^0\), \(K^+K^\), \(K^0\overline{K^0}\), each from its threshold up to 1.05 GeV, i.e. including the \(\phi \) signal region.
 3.
One should note that the BHLS evaluation for the muon HVP is the closest to the central value preferred by the lattice QCD study [4].
 4.
 5.
After completion of this work, we found that [48] applies a method similar to ours to derive unbiased parton density functions from various kinds of measured spectra.
 6.
 7.
Final state radiation (FSR) effects also contribute and are estimated as in [31].
 8.
An experimental data sample is defined as the measured spectrum m and all the uncertainties which affect it.
 9.
So also do the decay partial widths of the form \(P \rightarrow \gamma \gamma \) and \(V \rightarrow P \gamma \) (or \(\eta ^\prime \rightarrow \omega \gamma \)) extracted from the Review of Particle Properties (RPP) [61] and implemented within BHLS.
 10.
However, if an ensemble of data is internally conflicting within a given effective Lagrangian framework, as the fit results can be affected in an unpredictable way, some action has to be taken. The simplest solution is certainly to discard the faulty data samples; however, as suggested by [46], a downweighting of the outlier contributions to the minimized \(\chi ^2\) might also be considered. This could be a way to reconcile the preservation of the fit information quality with the use of all available samples.
 11.
This is a true \(\chi ^2\) if the errors are gaussian.
 12.
Actually, fitting is generally performed in the neighborhood of some given solution; this makes the linearity condition less constraining in practice.
 13.
This does not mean that the choice \(A=m\) necessarily leads to a significantly biased solution as shown below.
 14.
 15.
 16.
Each such step is defined as a full (minuit) minimization procedure where the covariance matrix is unchanged until convergence is reached.
 17.
For clarity, defining \(Z=A\) or B, \(Z_k\) denotes the quantity \(Z(s_k)\) for short.
 18.
 19.
The KLOE12 and KLOE08 data samples are tightly correlated; actually, they mostly differ by their respective normalization procedures. Comparing their respective behaviors within our global treatment is, therefore, interesting.
 20.
 21.
For BaBar, the computed \(\chi ^2\) referred to here is computed on its spectrum up to 1 GeV, but truncated from the dropoff region (0.76 \(\div \) 0.80 GeV).
 22.
They mostly differ by the normalization method used to reconstruct the spectrum from the same collected data.
 23.
As regard to the fit parameter values and uncertainties: The \(A=M_0\) and \(A=M_1\) solutions differ insignificantly; the \(A=m\) exhibits some small departure commented on below.
 24.
 25.
We recall that this removal is motivated by a possible mismatch in the energy calibration in the \(\rho ^0\omega \) interference region between BaBar and the other \(\pi ^+ \pi ^\) data samples submitted to the same global framework. In contrast, when running with the \(\pi ^+ \pi ^\) BaBar sample in isolation, its full spectrum is considered.
 26.
Some work in this field seems ongoing [76].
 27.
Actually, the erratum involved in Eq. (10) comes from having missed the contribution of the \((c_4c_3)\) term displayed in Eq. (13) which actually turned out to impose \(c_4=c_3\). As already stated, after correction, all the anomalous decay couplings and the amplitudes for \(e^+e^ \rightarrow (\pi ^0/\eta ) \gamma \) annihilations only depend on the combination \((c_4+c_3)/2\) and the single place where the difference \((c_4c_3)\) occurs is the \(e^+e^ \rightarrow \pi ^0 \pi ^+ \pi ^\) annihilation amplitude. In [34, 35] where \((c_4c_3)\) was absent, its physical effect was absorbed by \((c_1c_2)\) to recover good fit qualities; so \((c_4c_3)\) and \((c_1c_2)\) should carry an important correlation.
 28.
\(M_0\) is the solution to the fit performed under the approximation already named in short \(A=m\) (i.e. each of the various \(\pi ^+ \pi ^\) experimental spectra is used for its individual contribution to the global \(\chi ^2\)).
 29.
As for the central value of the experimental estimate which is the present concern, one can legitimately expect that it should be affected by some bias (a priori, of unknown magnitude) of the same nature than the \(A=m\) result. Indeed, roughly speaking, the experimental cross section \(\sigma _{\mathrm{exp}}(s)\) is related with the underlying theoretical cross section \(\sigma _{\mathrm{th}}(s)\) by a relation of the form \(\sigma _{\mathrm{exp}}(s)=\sigma _{\mathrm{th}}(s) + \delta \sigma (s)\) and the \( \delta \sigma (s)\) correction depends on the normalization uncertainties which just motivate the iterative method! Actually, this \(\delta \sigma (s)\) is exactly the scaledependent term in Eqs. (5) and (8). Obviously it cannot be estimated without some fitting procedure.
 30.
In particular, Figure 5 in this reference, is quite informative about the variety of correction kinds revealed by unbiasing procedures.
 31.
For instance the four, five or six pion annihilation channels, or the \(\omega \pi ^0\) final state.
 32.
These cover the \(p \bar{p}\), \(K^+K^\), \(K_LK_S,\,K_LK_S\pi ^+\pi ^\), \(K_SK_S\pi ^+\pi ^,K_S K_S K^+K^\) annihilation final states.
 33.
All ISR data samples are strongly dominated by overall scale uncertainties, additionally sdependent.
 34.
Within the BHLS model too, the \(\gamma \)–\(\rho ^0\) mixing is mediated by loop effects.
 35.
If using the data from 2011 in Table 5, as in our previous studies, this significance is “only” \(4.8 \sigma \). This compares more directly to the results from other authors displayed in Fig. 4. The increased significance is a pure consequence of the recent improvements of the hadronic contribution from the [1.05, 2.0] GeV region.
 36.
This is obtained by canceling out the “angles” \(\alpha (s)\), \(\beta (s)\) and \(\gamma (s)\) from the full amplitude expression.
 37.
\(R(s)=\sigma (e^+e^ \rightarrow hadr.)/ \sigma (e^+e^ \rightarrow \mu ^+\mu ^)\) with \(\sigma (e^+e^ \rightarrow \mu ^+\mu ^)=4 \pi \alpha ^2/3s\) by neglecting the electron mass.
 38.
The nonHLS part of \(P_1\) amounts to \(1.76 \pm 0.06\) GeV\(^{2}\).
 39.
Assuming also the errors on the a’s and b’s parameters are not correlated.
 40.
We gratefully acknowledge G. Colangelo who has pointed out the issue of estimating the muon HVP using global fit methods. However, the bias issue is more general as will be argued shortly.
 41.
This study also corrects for some coding bugs affecting our previous studies.
 42.
In the case of a constant scale uncertainty, as for the CMD2, SND and BESSIII data, there is only one scale factor \(\lambda \). For most ISR data samples, the expression is slightly more complicated but easy to derive (see also the appendix to [35]) and the conclusions are obviously likewise.
 43.
The values for \(a_{\mu }\) are given from now on in units of \(10^{10}\) for convenience.
 44.
Recall that 0 and 1 GeV\(^2\) are the energy squared limits of the generated spectra.
 45.
The numerical importance of this bias is intimately related with the ratio \(\sigma /\eta =5/3\); if instead one works with \(\sigma /\eta =1\), the bias coming out from fitting with \(A=m\) would only be 4 %.
Notes
Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge the Mainz Institute for Theoretical Physics (MITP) for its hospitality which has allowed exchanges leading to a better understanding of the effects of normalization uncertainties within global fit frameworks; this has allowed improving the numerical methods for \(g2\) evaluation.
References
 1.J. Gasser, H. Leutwyler, Chiral perturbation theory to one loop. Ann. Phys. 158, 142 (1984)CrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 2.J. Gasser, H. Leutwyler, Chiral perturbation theory: expansions in the mass of the strange quark. Nucl. Phys. B 250, 465 (1985)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 3.S. Aoki et al., Review of lattice results concerning lowenergy particle physics. Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2890 (2014). arXiv:1310.8555 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 4.ETM, F. Burger et al., Fourflavour leadingorder hadronic contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment. JHEP 1402, 099 (2014). arXiv:1308.4327
 5.F. Burger, G. Hotzel, K. Jansen, M. Petschlies, Leadingorder hadronic contributions to the electron and tau anomalous magnetic moments (2015). arXiv:1501.05110
 6.Muon G2, G.W. Bennett et al., Final report of the muon E821 anomalous magnetic moment measurement at BNL. Phys. Rev. D 73, 072003 (2006). arXiv:hepex/0602035
 7.B.L. Roberts, Status of the Fermilab muon \((g2)\) experiment. Chin. Phys. C 34, 741 (2010). arXiv:1001.2898 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 8.Fermilab P989 Collaboration, B. Lee Roberts, The Fermilab muon (g2) project. Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 218, 237 (2011)Google Scholar
 9.Muon g2 Collaboration, J. Grange et al., Muon (g2) technical design report (2015). arXiv:1501.06858
 10.JPARC New g2/EDM Experiment Collaboration, H. Iinuma, New approach to the muon g2 and EDM experiment at JPARC. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 295, 012032 (2011)Google Scholar
 11.G. Ecker, J. Gasser, H. Leutwyler, A. Pich, E. de Rafael, Chiral Lagrangians for massive spin 1 fields. Phys Lett. B 223, 425 (1989)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 12.G. Ecker, J. Gasser, A. Pich, E. de Rafael, The role of resonances in chiral perturbation theory. Nucl. Phys. B 321, 311 (1989)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 13.M. Harada, K. Yamawaki, Hidden local symmetry at loop: a new perspective of composite gauge boson and chiral phase transition. Phys. Rep. 381, 1 (2003). arXiv:hepph/0302103
 14.M. Bando, T. Kugo, K. Yamawaki, Nonlinear realization and hidden local symmetries. Phys. Rep. 164, 217 (1988)CrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 15.T. Fujiwara, T. Kugo, H. Terao, S. Uehara, K. Yamawaki, Nonabelian anomaly and vector mesons as dynamical gauge bosons of hidden local symmetries. Prog. Theor. Phys. 73, 926 (1985)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 16.M. Bando, T. Kugo, K. Yamawaki, On the vector mesons as dynamical gauge bosons of hidden local symmetries. Nucl. Phys. B 259, 493 (1985)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 17.A. Bramon, A. Grau, G. Pancheri, Effective chiral lagrangians with an SU(3) broken vector meson sector. Phys. Lett. B 345, 263 (1995). arXiv:hepph/9411269
 18.A. Bramon, A. Grau, G. Pancheri, Radiative vector meson decays in SU(3) broken effective chiral Lagrangians. Phys. Lett. B 344, 240 (1995)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 19.M. Benayoun, H.B. O’Connell, SU(3) breaking and hidden local symmetry. Phys. Rev. D 58, 074006 (1998). arXiv:hepph/9804391
 20.M. Hashimoto, Hidden local symmetry for anomalous processes with isospin/SU(3) breaking effects. Phys. Rev. D 54, 5611 (1996). arXiv:hepph/9605422
 21.P.J. O’Donnell, Radiative decays of mesons. Rev. Mod. Phys. 53, 673 (1981)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 22.M. Benayoun, L. DelBuono, S. Eidelman, V.N. Ivanchenko, H.B. O’Connell, Radiative decays, nonet symmetry and SU(3) breaking. Phys. Rev. D 59, 114027 (1999). arXiv:hepph/9902326
 23.M. Benayoun, L. DelBuono, H.B. O’Connell, VMD, the WZW Lagrangian and ChPT: the third mixing angle. Eur. Phys. J. C 17, 593 (2000). arXiv:hepph/9905350
 24.H. Leutwyler, On the 1/Nexpansion in chiral perturbation theory. Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 64, 223 (1998). arXiv:hepph/9709408
 25.R. Kaiser, H. Leutwyler, in Adelaide 1998, Nonperturbative Methods in Quantum Field Theory. Pseudoscalar decay constants at large \(N_c\) (2001), p. 15. arXiv:hepph/9806336
 26.F. Jegerlehner, R. Szafron, \(\rho ^0\gamma \) spectral functions. Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1632 (2011). arXiv:1101.2872
 27.M. Benayoun, P. David, L. DelBuono, O. Leitner, H.B. O’Connell, The dipion mass spectrum in \(e^{+}e^{}\) mixing approach. Eur. Phys. J. C 55, 199 (2008). arXiv:0711.4482 [hepph]
 28.M. Davier, S. Eidelman, A. Hocker, Z. Zhang, Confronting spectral functions from \(e^+ e^\) annihilation and tau decays: consequences for the muon magnetic moment. Eur. Phys. J. C 27, 497 (2003). arXiv:hepph/0208177
 29.M. Davier et al., The discrepancy between \(\tau \) spectral functions revisited and the consequences for the muon magnetic anomaly. Eur. Phys. J. C 66, 127 (2010). arXiv:0906.5443
 30.S.I. Eidelman, Standard model predictions for the Muon (g2)/2. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Tau Lepton Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia, 22–25 September 2008 (2009). 10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2009.03.036. arXiv:0904.3275
 31.F. Jegerlehner, A. Nyffeler, The muon g2. Phys. Rep. 477, 1 (2009). arXiv:0902.3360 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 32.M. Benayoun, P. David, L. DelBuono, O. Leitner, A global treatment of VMD physics up to the \(\phi :\) annihilations, anomalies and vector meson partial widths. Eur. Phys. J. C 65, 211 (2010). arXiv:0907.4047
 33.M. Benayoun, P. David, L. DelBuono, O. Leitner, A global treatment of VMD physics up to the phi: II. \(\tau \) Decay and hadronic contributions to g2. Eur. Phys. J. C 68, 355 (2010). arXiv:0907.5603 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 34.M. Benayoun, P. David, L. DelBuono, F. Jegerlehner, Upgraded breaking of the HLS model: a full solution to the \(\tau ^  e^+e^\) decay issues and its consequences on g2 VMD estimates. Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1848 (2012). arXiv:1106.1315
 35.M. Benayoun, P. David, L. DelBuono, F. Jegerlehner, An update of the HLS estimate of the muon g2. Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2453 (2013). arXiv:1210.7184 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 36.KLOE, G. Venanzoni et al., A precise new KLOE measurement of \(F_\pi ^2\) GeV. AIP Conf. Proc. 1182, 665 (2009). arXiv:0906.4331
 37.KLOE, F. Ambrosino et al., Measurement of \(\sigma (e^+ e^ \rightarrow \pi ^+ \pi ^)\) using initial state radiation with the KLOE detector. Phys. Lett. B 700, 102 (2011). arXiv:1006.5313
 38.KLOE Collaboration, D. Babusci et al., Precision measurement of \(\sigma (e^+e^\rightarrow \pi ^+\pi ^\gamma )/ \sigma (e^+e^\rightarrow \mu ^+\mu ^\gamma )\) contribution to the muon anomaly with the KLOE detector. Phys. Lett. B 720, 336 (2013). arXiv:1212.4524
 39.BABAR, B. Aubert et al., Precise measurement of the \(e^+e^ \rightarrow \pi ^+ \pi ^ (\gamma )\) cross section with the initial state radiation method at BABAR. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 231801 (2009). arXiv:0908.3589
 40.BABAR Collaboration, J. Lees et al., Precise measurement of the \(e^+ e^ \rightarrow \pi ^+\pi ^ (\gamma )\) cross section with the initialstate radiation method at BABAR. Phys. Rev. D 86, 032013 (2012). arXiv:1205.2228
 41.BESSIII, M. Ablikim et al., Measurement of the \(\rm e\mathit{^+\rm e}^\rightarrow \rm \pi \mathit{^+\rm \pi }^\) cross section between 600 and 900 MeV using initial state radiation (2015). arXiv:1507.08188
 42.G. D’Agostini, On the use of the covariance matrix to fit correlated data. Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 346, 306 (1994)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 43.R.W. Peelle, Peelle’s Pertinent Puzzle. Informal Memorandum, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN, USA (1987)Google Scholar
 44.S. Ciba, D. Smith, A suggested procedure for resolving an anomaly in leastsquares data analysis known as ‘Peelle’s Pertinent Puzzle’ and the general implications for nuclear data evaluation nuclear data and measurements series. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, USA ANL/NDM121 (1991)Google Scholar
 45.V. Blobel, Some comments on \(\chi ^2\) minimization applications. eConf C030908, MOET002 (2003)Google Scholar
 46.V. Blobel, Dealing with systematics for chisquare and for log likelihood goodness of fit. Banff International Research Station. Statistical Inference Problems in High Energy Physics (2006). http://www.desy.de/~blobel/banff.pdf
 47.NNPDF, R.D. Ball et al., Fitting parton distribution data with multiplicative normalization uncertainties. JHEP 5, 075 (2010). arXiv:0912.2276
 48.R.D. Ball et al., A first unbiased global NLO determination of parton distributions and their uncertainties. Nucl. Phys. B 838, 136 (2010). arXiv:1002.4407 CrossRefADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 49.ALEPH, S. Schael et al., Branching ratios and spectral functions of tau decays: final ALEPH measurements and physics implications. Phys. Rep. 421, 191 (2005). arXiv:hepex/0506072
 50.CLEO, S. Anderson et al., Hadronic structure in the decay \(\tau ^ \rightarrow \pi ^ \pi ^0 \nu _{\tau }.\) Phys. Rev. D 61, 112002 (2000). arXiv:hepex/9910046
 51.Belle, M. Fujikawa et al., Highstatistics study of the \(\tau ^ \rightarrow \pi ^ \pi ^0 \nu _{\tau }\) decay. Phys. Rev. D 78, 072006 (2008). arXiv:0805.3773
 52.CMD2, R.R. Akhmetshin et al., Highstatistics measurement of the pion form factor in the rhomeson energy range with the CMD2 detector. Phys. Lett. B 648, 28 (2007). arXiv:hepex/0610021
 53.R.R. Akhmetshin et al., Measurement of the \(e^+ e^ \rightarrow \pi ^+ \pi ^\) cross section with the CMD2 detector in the 370MeV–520MeV cm energy range. JETP Lett. 84, 413 (2006). arXiv:hepex/0610016
 54.M.N. Achasov et al., Update of the \(e^+ e^ \rightarrow \pi ^+ \pi ^\)MeV. J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 103, 380 (2006). arXiv:hepex/0605013
 55.M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu, C.Z. Yuan, Z. Zhang, Reevaluation of the hadronic contribution to the muon magnetic anomaly using new \(e^+ e^ \rightarrow \pi ^+ \pi ^\) cross section data from BABAR. Eur. Phys. J. C 66, 1 (2009). arXiv:0908.4300 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 56.M. Benayoun, Effective Lagrangians: a new approach to g  2 evaluations. PoS Photon 2013, 048 (2013)Google Scholar
 57.M. Benayoun, Impact of the recent KLOE data samples on the estimate for the muon \(g  2\). Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser. 35, 1460416 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 58.M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu, Z. Zhang, Reevaluation of the hadronic contributions to the muon g2 and to alpha(MZ). Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1515 (2011). arXiv:1010.4180 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 59.K. Hagiwara, R. Liao, A.D. Martin, D. Nomura, T. Teubner, \((g2)_\mu \) reevaluated using new precise data. J. Phys. G 38, 085003 (2011). arXiv:1105.3149
 60.T. Teubner, K. Hagiwara, R. Liao, A.D. Martin, D. Nomura, Update of g2 of the muon and delta alpha. Chin. Phys. C 34, 728 (2010). arXiv:1001.5401 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 61.Particle Data Group, J. Beringer et al., Review of particle physics (RPP). Phys. Rev. D 86, 010001 (2012)Google Scholar
 62.W.J. Marciano, A. Sirlin, Radiative corrections to pi(lepton 2) decays. Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 3629 (1993)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 63.V. Cirigliano, G. Ecker, H. Neufeld, Isospin violation and the magnetic moment of the muon (2001). arXiv:hepph/0109286
 64.V. Cirigliano, G. Ecker, H. Neufeld, Isospin violation and the magnetic moment of the muon. Phys. Lett. B 513, 361 (2001). arXiv:hepph/0104267
 65.V. Cirigliano, G. Ecker, H. Neufeld, Radiative tau decay and the magnetic moment of the muon. JHEP 08, 002 (2002). arXiv:hepph/0207310
 66.F. FloresBaez, A. FloresTlalpa, G. Lopez Castro, G. Toledo Sanchez, Longdistance radiative corrections to the dipion tau lepton decay. Phys. Rev. D 74, 071301 (2006). arXiv:hepph/0608084
 67.A. FloresTlalpa, F. FloresBaez, G. Lopez Castro, G. Toledo Sanchez, Modeldependent radiative corrections to \(\tau ^ \rightarrow \pi ^ \pi ^0 \nu \) revisited. Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 169, 250 (2007). arXiv:hepph/0611226
 68.F. FloresBaez, G.L. Castro, G. Toledo Sanchez, The width difference of rho vector mesons. Phys. Rev. D 76, 096010 (2007). arXiv:0708.3256
 69.S. Ghozzi, F. Jegerlehner, Isospin violating effects in e+ e versus tau measurements of the pion formfactor \(F_\pi (s)^2\). Phys. Lett. B 583, 222 (2004). arXiv:hepph/0310181
 70.R. Fruehwirth, D. Neudecker, H. Leeb, Peelle’s pertinent puzzle and its solution. EPJ Web Conf. 27, 00008 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 71.F. James, M. Roos, Minuit: a system for function minimization and analysis of the parameter errors and correlations. Comput. Phys. Commun. 10, 343 (1975)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 72.M. Benayoun, S. Eidelman, V. Ivanchenko, Z. Silagadze, Spectroscopy at B factories using hard photon emission. Mod. Phys. Lett. A 14, 2605 (1999). arXiv:hepph/9910523
 73.M. Davier, A. Hcker, B. Malaescu, C.Z. Yuan, Z. Zhang, Update of the ALEPH nonstrange spectral functions from hadronic \(\tau \) decays. Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2803 (2014). arXiv:1312.1501 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 74.CMD2, R.R. Akhmetshin et al., Reanalysis of hadronic cross section measurements at CMD2. Phys. Lett. B 578, 285 (2004). arXiv:hepex/0308008
 75.L.M. Barkov et al., Electromagnetic pion formfactor in the timelike region. Nucl. Phys. B 256, 365 (1985)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 76.KLOE KLOE2, V. De Leo, Measurement of hadronic cross section at KLOE/KLOE2. Acta Phys. Polon. B 46, 45 (2015). arXiv:1501.04446
 77.M. Benayoun, H.B. O’Connell, A.G. Williams, Vector meson dominance and the \(\rho \) meson. Phys. Rev. D 59, 074020 (1999). arXiv:hepph/9807537
 78.M. Benayoun, P. David, L. DelBuono, P. Leruste, H.B. O’Connell, The pion form factor within the hidden local symmetry model. Eur. Phys. J. C 29, 397 (2003). arXiv:nuclth/0301037
 79.G. ’t Hooft, How instantons solve the U(1) problem. Phys. Rep. 142, 357 (1986)Google Scholar
 80.H. Leutwyler, Implications of \(\eta \eta ^\prime \) Phys. Lett. B 374, 181 (1996). arXiv:hepph/9601236
 81.CMD3, R. Akhmetshin et al., Study of the process \(e^+e^\rightarrow 3(\pi ^+\pi ^)\) in the c.m.energy range 1.5–2.0 GeV with the CMD3 detector. Phys. Lett. B 723, 82 (2013). arXiv:1302.0053
 82.M. Achasov et al., Study of \(e^+e^ \rightarrow \omega \pi ^0 \rightarrow \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma \) in the energy range 1.05–2.00 GeV with SND. Phys. Rev. D 88, 054013 (2013). arXiv:1303.5198
 83.BaBar, J. Lees et al., Study of \(e^+e^ \rightarrow p \bar{p}\) via initialstate radiation at BABAR. Phys. Rev. D 87, 092005 (2013). arXiv:1302.0055
 84.BaBar, J. Lees et al., Precision measurement of the \(e^+e^ \rightarrow K^+K^\) cross section with the initialstate radiation method at BABAR. Phys. Rev. D 88, 032013 (2013). arXiv:1306.3600
 85.BaBar, J. Lees et al., Cross sections for the reactions \(e^+ e^\rightarrow K_S^0 K_L^0,K_S^0 K_L^0\pi ^{+}\pi ^{},K_S^0 K_S^0\pi ^{+}\pi ^{},\) from events with initialstate radiation. Phys. Rev. D 89, 092002 (2014). arXiv:1403.7593
 86.M. BaBar, Davier, \(e^+e^\) results from BABAR and their impact on the muon \(g2\) prediction. Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 260, 102 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 87.A. Kurz, T. Liu, P. Marquard, M. Steinhauser, Hadronic contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment to nexttonexttoleading order. Phys. Lett. B 734, 144 (2014). arXiv:1403.6400 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 88.J. Prades, E. de Rafael, A. Vainshtein, Hadronic lightbylight scattering contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment (2009). arXiv:0901.0306
 89.M. Passera, Precise massdependent QED contributions to leptonic g2 at order \(\alpha ^2\) Phys. Rev. D 75, 013002 (2007). arXiv:hepph/0606174
 90.F. Jegerlehner, Application of chiral resonance Lagrangian theories to the muon \(g2\). Acta Phys. Polon. B 44, 2257 (2013). arXiv:1312.3978 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 91.G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, A. Nyffeler, M. Passera, P. Stoffer, Remarks on higherorder hadronic corrections to the muon g\(\breve{2}\)2122. Phys. Lett. B 735, 90 (2014). arXiv:1403.7512 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 92.M. Knecht, The muon anomalous magnetic moment, Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 258–259, 235 (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2015.01.050. arXiv:1412.1228
 93.P.J. Mohr, B.N. Taylor, D.B. Newell, CODATA recommended values of the fundamental physical constants: 2010. Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1527 (2012). arXiv:1203.5425
 94.G. Colangelo, J. Gasser, H. Leutwyler, \(\pi \pi \) scattering. Nucl. Phys. B 603, 125 (2001). arXiv:hepph/0103088
 95.G. Grayer et al., High statistics study of the reaction \(\pi ^ p \rightarrow \pi ^ \pi ^+ n\): apparatus, method of analysis, and general features of results at 17GeV/c. Nucl. Phys. B 75, 189 (1974)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 96.S.D. Protopopescu et al., \(\pi \pi \) at 7.1GeV/c. Phys. Rev. D 7, 1279 (1973)Google Scholar
 97.B. Ananthanarayan, G. Colangelo, J. Gasser, H. Leutwyler, Roy equation analysis of pi pi scattering. Phys. Rep. 353, 207 (2001). arXiv:hepph/0005297
 98.M. Benayoun et al., Hadronic contributions to the muon anomalous magnetic moment workshop. \((g2)_{\mu }\): Quo vadis? Workshop. Mini proceedings (2014). arXiv:1407.4021
 99.P. Boyle, L. Del Debbio, E. Kerrane, J. Zanotti, Lattice determination of the hadronic contribution to the muon \(g2\) using dynamical domain wall fermions. Phys. Rev. D 85, 074504 (2012). arXiv:1107.1497 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 100.C. Aubin, T. Blum, M. Golterman, S. Peris, Hadronic vacuum polarization with twisted boundary conditions. Phys. Rev. D 88, 074505 (2013). arXiv:1307.4701 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 101.G.M. de Divitiis, R. Petronzio, N. Tantalo, On the extraction of zero momentum form factors on the lattice. Phys. Lett. B 718, 589 (2012). arXiv:1208.5914 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 102.C. Aubin, T. Blum, M. Golterman, S. Peris, Modelindependent parametrization of the hadronic vacuum polarization and g2 for the muon on the lattice. Phys. Rev. D 86, 054509 (2012). arXiv:1205.3695 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 103.X. Feng et al., Computing the hadronic vacuum polarization function by analytic continuation. Phys. Rev. D 88, 034505 (2013). arXiv:1305.5878 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 104.A. Francis, V. Gülpers, G. Herdoíza, G. von Hippel, H. Horch, B. Jäger, H.B. Meyer, E. Shintani, H. Wittig, Lattice QCD Studies of the Leading Order Hadronic Contribution to the Muon \(g2\). In: International Conference on High Energy Physics 2014 (ICHEP 2014) Valencia, Spain, 2–9 July 2014 (2014). arXiv:1411.3031
 105.M. Della Morte et al., Study of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon computed from the Adler function. PoS LATTICE2014, 162 (2014). arXiv:1411.1206
 106.BudapestMarseilleWuppertal, R. Malak et al., Finitevolume corrections to the leadingorder hadronic contribution to \(g_\mu 2\). PoS LATTICE2014, 161 (2015). arXiv:1502.02172
 107.J.S. Bell, E. de Rafael, Hadronic vacuum polarization and g(mu)2. Nucl. Phys. B 11, 611 (1969)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 108.E. de Rafael, Hadronic contributions to the muon g2 and lowenergy QCD. Phys. Lett. B 322, 239 (1994)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 109.A. Francis, B. Jaeger, H.B. Meyer, H. Wittig, A new representation of the Adler function for lattice QCD. Phys. Rev. D 88, 054502 (2013). arXiv:1306.2532 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 110.D. Bernecker, H.B. Meyer, Vector correlators in lattice QCD: methods and applications. Eur. Phys. J. A 47, 148 (2011). arXiv:1107.4388 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Funded by SCOAP^{3}.