Skip to main content

Full text of "The muon g-2 discrepancy: errors or new physics?"

See other formats

The muon g-2 discrepancy: errors or new physics? 

M. Passera*, W. J. Marciano^ and A. Sirlin** 

*Istituto Nazionale Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Padova, 1-35131, Padova, Italy 
^ Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973, USA 
** Department of Physics, New York University, 10003 New York NY, USA 

Abstract. After a brief review of the muon g— 2 status, we discuss hypothetical errors in the Standard Model prediction that 
could explain the present discrepancy with the experimental value. None of them looks likely. In particular, an hypothetical 
increase of the hadroproduction cross section in low-energy e+e^ collisions could bridge the muon g— 2 discrepancy, but is 
shown to be unlikely in view of current experimental error estimates. If, nonetheless, this turns out to be the explanation of 
the discrepancy, then the 95% CL upper bound on the Higgs boson mass is reduced to about 130 GeV which, in conjunction 
with the experimental 1 14.4 GeV 95% CL lower bound, leaves a narrow window for the mass of this fundamental particle. 

Keywords: Muon anomalous magnetic moment. Standard Model Higgs boson 
PACS: 13.40.Em, 14.60.Ef, 12.15.Lk, 14.80.Bn 


The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, a^, is one 
of the most interesting observables in particle physics. 
Indeed, as each sector of the Standard Model (SM) con- 
tributes in a significant way to its theoretical prediction, 
the precise a^ measurement by the E821 experiment at 
Brookhaven [1] allows us to test the entire SM and scru- 
tinize viable "new physics" appendages to this theory [2]. 

The SM prediction of the muon g—2 is conve- 
niently split into QED, electroweak (EW) and hadronic 
(leading- and higher-order) contributions: a^^ = 

af-°+af^+af-°+a™°. The QED prediction, computed 
up to four (and estimated at five) loops, currently stands 
at flP = 116584718. 10(16)xlO"''[3], while the EW ef- 
fects provide a™ = 154(2) x 10""[4]. The latest calcu- 
lations of the hadronic leading-order contribution, via the 
hadronic e+e^ annihilation data, are in good agreement: 
= 6909(44) X 10-ii[5], 6894(46) x 10-"[6, 7], 
6921(56) X 10-"[8], and 6944(49) x 10-'^[9]. The 
higher-order hadronic term is further divided into 
two parts: a™° a™°(vp) + fl™°(lbl). The first 

one, -98 (1) X 10"''[6], is the 0{a^) contribution 
of diagrams containing hadronic vacuum polarization 
insertions [10]. The second term, also of 0{a^), is the 
hadronic light-by-light contribution; as it cannot be 
determined from data, its evaluation relies on specific 
models. Recent determinations of this term vary between 
80(40) xlO-'Hll] and 136(25) x 10-^'[12]. The most 
recent one, 110 (40) x 1 0^ " [ 1 3] , lies between them. If we 
add this result to a^°, for example the value of Ref. [6] 
(which also provides the hadronic contribution to the ef- 
fective fine-structure constant, later required for our dis- 
cussion), and the rest of the SM contributions, we obtain 

fl™ = 116591778(61) x lO^'^ The difference with the 
experimental value af = 1 16592080(63) x 10"" [1] 
is Afl^ = a™ _ ^sM ^ +302(88) x lO^^', i.e., 3.4c7 (all 
errors were added in quadrature). Similar discrepan- 
cies are found employing the a^° values reported in 
Refs. [5, 8, 9]. For recent reviews of aj^ see [7, 14, 15]. 

The term 0^''° can alternatively be computed in- 
corporating hadronic T-decay data, related to those of 
hadroproduction in e+e^ collisions via isospin symme- 
try [16, 17]. Unfortunately there is a large difference be- 
tween the e+e^- and T-based determinations of a^}'°, 
even if isospin violation coiTections are taken into ac- 
count [18]. The T-based value is significantly higher, 
leading to a small (^ Iff) Aa^ difference. As the e+e^ 
data are more directly related to the calculation than 
the T ones, all recent analyses do not include the latter 
Also, we note that recently studied additional isospin- 
breaking coiTections somewhat reduce the difference be- 
tween these two sets of data (lowering the T-based deter- 
mination) [19, 20], and a new analysis of the pion form 
factor claims that the t and e+e" data are consistent af- 
ter isospin violation effects and vector meson mixings 
are considered [21]. 

The 3.4a discrepancy between the theoretical predic- 
tion and the experimental value of the muon g—2 can be 
explained in several ways. It could be due, at least in part, 
to an error in the determination of the hadronic light-by- 
light contribution. However, if this were the only cause 
of the discrepancy, fl™°(lbl) would have to move up by 
many standard deviations to fix it - roughly eight, if we 
use the fl™°(lbl) result of Ref. [13] (which includes all 
known uncertainties), and more than ten if the estimate 
of Ref. [12] is employed instead. Although the errors as- 
signed to a™°(lbl) are only educated guesses, this solu- 

tion seems unlikely, at least as the dominant one. 

Another possibility is to explain the discrepancy Aa^ 
via the QED, EW and hadronic higher-order vacuum po- 
larization contributions; this looks very improbable, as 
one can immediately conclude inspecting their values 
and uncertainties reported above. If we assume that the 
g—2 experiment E821 is correct, we are left with two 
options: possible contributions of physics beyond the 
SM, or an erroneous determination of the leading-order 
hadronic contribution (or both). The first of these 
two explanations has been extensively discussed in the 
literature; following Ref. [22] we will study whether the 
second one is realistic or not, and analyze its implications 
for the EW bounds on the mass of the Higgs boson. 


The hadronic leading-order contribution a^'^ can be 
computed via the dispersion integral [23J 

1 r 

J 4ml 



where a{s) is the total cross section for e+e~ annihila- 
tion into any hadronic state, with extraneous QED cor- 
rections subtracted off, and s is the squared momentum 
transfer. The well-known kernel function K{s) (see [24]) 
is positive definite, decreases monotonically for increas- 
ing s and, for large s, behaves as m^/(3s) to a good 
approximation. About 90% of the total contribution to 
is accumulated at center-of-mass energies ^ be- 
low 1.8 GeV and roughly three-fourths of is covered 
by the two-pion final state which is dominated by the 
p(770) resonance [17]. Exclusive low-energy e+e^ cross 
sections were measured at colliders in Frascati, Novosi- 
birsk, Orsay, and Stanford, while at higher energies the 
total cross section was determined inclusively. 

Let's now assume that the discrepancy Aa^ = — 
aSM = +302(88) x lO-^\ is due to - and only to - hy- 
pothetical errors in g{s), and let us increase this cross 
section in order to raise a^°, thus reducing Aa^. This 
simple assumption leads to interesting consequences. An 
upward shift of the hadronic cross section also induces 
an increase of the value of the hadronic contribution to 
the effective fine- structure constant at Mz [25], 


" [ ds 



{P stands for Cauchy's principal value). This integral 
is similar to the one we encountered in Eq. (1) for 
a^°. There, however, the weight function in the inte- 
grand gives a stronger weight to low-energy data. Let 

us define a,- = /^'^2 dsfi{s) o{s) (/ = 1,2), where the up- 
per limit of integration is Su < M^, and the kernels are 
Ms)=Kis)/i47:') and/2(*) = [M^J{M^,-s)]/{4aK^). 
The integrals a, with i = 1,2 provide the contributions 
to and Aoi^^{Mz), respectively, from 4m| up to Su 
(see Eqs. (1,2)). An increase of the cross section g{s) 
of the form Aa{s) = ea{s) in the energy range y/s e 
[^/sQ — 5/2, -1-5/2], where e is a positive constant 
and 2m,i + 5/2 < y/s^ < — 5/2, increases ai by 

Afli(V^o,5,e) = ej^^°^gl^2ta{t^)f{t^)dt. If we as- 
sume that the muon g—2 discrepancy is entirely due to 
this increase in (J{s), so that Aai(v^Q,5,e) = Aa^, the 
corresponding increase in Aal^^{Mz) is 

Aa2Wso,5)=Aan " ' . 


'Vso-S/2 ■ 

The shifts Aa2{y/sQ,5) were studied in Ref. [22] for 
several bin widths 5 and central values ^/sq. 

The present global fit of the LEP Electroweak 
Working Group (EWWG) leads to the Higgs bo- 
son mass Mh = 84+26 GeV and the 95% confi- 
dence level (CL) upper bound M^^ ~ 154 GeV [26]. 
This result is based on the recent preliminary top 
quark mass M, = 172.4(1.2) GeV [27] and the value 
A"had(^z) =0-02758(35) [28]. The LEP direct-search 
95%CL lower bound is = 1 14.4 GeV [29]. Although 
the global EW fit employs a large set of observables, M™ 
is strongly driven by the comparison of the theoretical 
predictions of the W boson mass and the effective EW 
mixing angle sin^0^^' with their precisely measured 
values. Convenient formulae providing the Mw and 
sin^e^^P' SM predictions in terms of Mh, M,, Ao!^l^{Mz), 
and av(Mz), the strong coupling constant at the scale 
Mz, are given in [30]. Combining these two predic- 
tions via a numerical ;|f^-analysis and using the present 
world-average values M„ = 80.399(25) GeV [31], 
sin20^^P' = O.23153(16) [32], = 172.4(1.2) GeV [27], 
as{Mz) = 0.118(2) [33], and the determination 
A«had(^z) = 0.02758(35) [28], we get M„ = 89+^^ GeV 
and M™ = 156 GeV. We see that indeed the M^ values 
obtained from the Mw and sin^O^^' predictions are quite 
close to the results of the global analysis. 

The Mh dependence of a^*^ is too weak to provide Mh 
bounds from the comparison with the measured value. 
On the other hand, Aal^^^{Mz) is one of the key inputs of 
the EW fits. For example, employing the more recent (and 
shghdy higher) value Aa^'^^(Mz) = 0.02768(22) [6] in- 
stead of 0.02758(35) [28], the M« prediction shifts down 
to Mh = 881^ GeV and M™ = 145 GeV. In [22] we 

considered the new values of Aa^^^^{Mz) obtained shift- 
ing 0.02768(22) [6] by Aa2{y/sQ, 5) (including their un- 

certainties), and computed the corresponding new val- 
ues of M™ via the combined j^-analysis based on the 

My, and sm^d^X i^^P^ts (for both Aa<'^^(Mz) and aj^^^ 
we used the values reported in [6]). Our results show 
that an increase Ea{s) of the hadronic cross section (in 
\/s € [v^Q — 5/2, + adjusted to bridge the 

muon g—2 discrepancy Aa^, decreases M™, further re- 
stricting the already narrow allowed region for M^. We 
concluded that these hypothetical shifts conflict with the 
lower Umit M]P when s/sq > 1 .2 GeV, for values of 5 up 
to several hundreds of MeV. In [22] we pointed out that 
there are more complex scenarios where it is possible to 
bridge the Aa^u discrepancy without significantly affect- 
ing M™ , but they are considerably more unlikely than 
those discussed above. 

If T data are incorporated in the calculation of the 
dispersive integrals in Eqs. (1,2), 0"'-° significantly in- 
creases to 7110(58) X 10-"[17], a™°(vp) slightly de- 
creases to — 101(1) X 10~'n6, 15], and the discrepancy 
drops to Aa^ = +89(95) x 10"^', i.e. la. While using 
T data almost solves the Aa^u discrepancy, it increases 
Aa^'^'^(Mz) to 0.02782(16) [34, 17]. In [34] it was shown 
that this increase leads to a low prediction which is 
suggestive of a near conflict with M\p, leaving a narrow 
window for M^. Indeed, with this value of Ao^^|j(Mz) 
and the same above-discussed other inputs of the X^' 
analysis, we find an M™ value of only 133 GeV. 

Recently computed isospin-breaking violations, im- 
provements of the long-distance radiative corrections to 
the decay n^n^Vx [19], and differentiation of the 
neutral and charged p properties [20] reduce to some ex- 
tent the difference between t and e+e^ data, lowering the 
T-based determination of a^°. Moreover, a recent analy- 
sis of the pion form factor below 1 GeV claims that T data 
are consistent with the e+e~ ones after isospin violation 
effects and vector meson mixings are considered [21]. In 
this case one could use the e+e" data below ^ 1 GeV, 
confirmed by the T ones, and assume that Aa^ is accom- 
modated by hypothetical errors occurring above ~ 1 GeV, 
where disagreement persists between these two data sets. 
Reference [22] shows that this assumption would lead to 
M™ values inconsistent with M]p. 

In the above analysis, the hadronic cross section a{s) 
was shifted up by amounts Aa(j) = e(y{s) adjusted to 
bridge Aa^y. Apart from the impUcations for Mf,, these 
shifts may actually be inadmissibly large when compared 
with the quoted experimental uncertainties. Consider the 
parameter e = A(7(5') /o(s). Clearly, its value depends on 
the choice of the energy range [^/sq — 8/2, ^/vq + ^ /2] 
where a{s) is increased and, for fixed it decreases 
when 5 increases. Its minimum value, ~ 4%, occurs if 
c{s) is multiplied by (1 + e) in the whole integration 
region, from Inin to infinity. Such a shift would lead to 
70 GeV, well below M^. Higher values of e are 

obtained for narrower energy bins, particularly if they 
do not include the p-o resonance region. For example, 
a huge e ~ 52% increase is needed to accommodate 
Aa^ with a shift of a{s) in the region from 2m up to 
500 MeV (reducing M^^ to 139 GeV), while an increase 
in a bin of the same size but centered at the p peak 
requires e ~ 8% (lowering M™ to 127 GeV). As the 
quoted experimental uncertainty of a{s) below 1 GeV 
is of the order of a few per cent (or less, in some specific 
energy regions), the possibility to explain Aa^ with these 
shifts Aa(s) appears to be unlikely. Lower values of e 
are obtained if the shifts occur in energy ranges centered 
around the p-co resonances, but also this possibility looks 
unUkely, since it requires variations of a{s) of at least 
~ 6%. If, however, such shifts A(7(i) indeed turn out 
to be the solution of the Aa^^ discrepancy, then M™ is 
reduced to about 130 GeV [22]. 

It is interesting to note that in the scenario where 
Aufi is due to hypothetical errors in (y{s), rather than 
"new physics", the reduced M)^ 130 GeV induces 
some tension with the approximate 95% CL lower bound 
Mh 120 GeV required to ensure vacuum stability 
under the assumption that the SM is valid up to the 
Planck scale [35] (note, however, that this lower bound 
somewhat decreases when the vacuum is allowed to be 
metastable, provided its Ufetime is longer than the age of 
the universe [36]). Thus, one could argue that this tension 
is, on its own, suggestive of physics beyond the SM. 

We remind the reader that the present values of 
sin^0g^' derived from the lep tonic and hadronic ob- 
servables are respectively (sin^e^g"), =0.231 13(21) and 

(sin^e^^P')^ = 0.23222(27) [32]. In Ref. [22] we pointed 
out that the use of either of these values as an input pa- 
rameter leads to inconsistencies in the SM framework 
that already require the presence of "new physics". For 
this reason, we followed the standard practice of employ- 
ing as input the world-average value for sin^Q^^' deter- 
mined in the SM global analysis. Since M™ also depends 
sensitively on , in [22] we provide simple formulae to 
obtain the new values derived from different Mf inputs. 


We examined a number of hypothetical errors in the SM 
prediction of the muon g—2 that could be responsible 
for the present discrepancy Aa^ with the experimental 
value. None of them looks likely. In particular, follow- 
ing Ref. [22] we showed how an increase Aa{s) =ea{s) 
of the hadroproduction cross section in low-energy e+e~ 
collisions could bridge Aa^. However, such increases 
lead to reduced upper bounds (lower than 1 14.4 GeV 
- the LEP lower bound - if they occur in energy regions 
centered above 1.2 GeV). Moreover, their amounts 

are generally very large when compared with the quoted 
experimental uncertainties, even if the latter were sig- 
nificantly underestimated. The possibility to bridge the 
muon g—2 discrepancy with shifts of the hadronic cross 
section therefore appears to be unlikely. If, nonetheless, 
this turns out to be the solution, then the 95% CL upper 
bound M™ drops to about 130 GeV. 

If T-decay data are incorporated in the calculation of 
a™, the muon g—2 discrepancy decreases to ~ 1 a. While 

this almost solves Aa^j, it raises the value of Aa!^l^{Mz) 
leading to M™ = 133 GeV, increasing the tension with 
the LEP lower bound. One could also consider a scenario, 
suggested by recent studies, where the t data confirm the 
e+e^ ones below ^ 1 GeV, while a discrepancy between 
them persists at higher energies. If, in this case, Aa^u 
is fixed by hypothetical errors above 1 GeV, where 
the data sets disagree, one also finds values of M™ 
inconsistent with the LEP lower bound. 

It has been suggested [37] that a P-wave electromag- 
netic bound state of tt+tt" (pionium) could enter the dis- 
persion relations through 1% mixing with the p in a way 
that significantly increases the hadronic contribution to 
a^. If so, such a state would give little change to the 
Higgs mass determination and would seem to refute our 
claims. However, Ref. [37] is in error. The required mix- 
ing is actually 0.1, not the erroneous 0.01 claim in [37], 
and such large mixing is not possible. The actual effect 
of pionium on is neghgible [38]. 

If the Afl^ discrepancy is real, it points to "new 
physics", like low-energy supersymmetry where Aa^u is 
reconciled by the additional contributions of supersym- 
metric partners and one expects Mh ^135 GeV for the 
mass of the lightest scalar [39]. If, instead, the deviation 
is caused by an incorrect leading-order hadronic contri- 
bution, it leads to reduced M™ values. This reduction, 
together with the LEP lower bound, leaves a narrow win- 
dow for the mass of this fundamental particle. Interest- 
ingly, it also raises the tension with the Mh lower bound 
derived in the SM from the vacuum stability requirement. 

Acknowledgments. We thank A. Vainshtein for discus- 
sions and correspondence. The work of W.J.M., M.P., 
and A.S. was supported by U.S. DOE grant DE-AC02- 
76CH00016, E.G. contracts MRTN-CT 2004-503369 & 2006- 
035505, and U.S. NSF grant PHY-0758032, respectively. 


L G.W. Bennett et al, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 072003; 
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 161802; 89 (2002) 101804; 89 

(2002) 129903(E). 

2. A. Czarnecki and W.J. Marciano, Phys. Rev. D 64 
(2001) 013014; D. Stockinger, J. Phys. G 34 (2007) R45; 
D. Nomura, these proceedings. 

3. T. Kinoshita, M. Nio, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 013003; 

70 (2004) 113001; 73 (2006) 053007; T. Aoyama et al, 
Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007) 110406; Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 
053012; S. Laporta, E. Remiddi, Phys. Lett. B 301 (1993) 
440; 379 (1996) 283; M. Passera, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 
013002; A.L. Kataev, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 073011. 

4. A. Czarnecki, W.J. Marciano and A. Vainshtein, Phys. 
Rev. D 67 (2003) 073006; D 73 (2006) 119901(E); 

A. Czarnecki, B. Rrause and W.J. Marciano, Phys. Rev. D 
52 (1995) 2619; Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 (1996) 3267. 

5. M. Davier, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 169 (2007) 288; 
S. Eidelman, Acta Phys. Polon. B 38 (2007) 3015. 

6. K. Hagiwara et al, Phys. Lett. B 649 (2007) 173. 

7. T. Teubncr, these proceedings. 

8. F. Jegerlehner, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 162 (2006) 22. 

9. Troconiz,FJ.Yndurain, Phys.Rev.D71(2005)73008. 

10. B. Krause, Phys. Lett. B 390 (1997) 392. 

11. M. Knecht, A. Nyffeler, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 73034; 
M. Knecht etal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 71802. 

12. K.Melmkov, A. Vainshtein, Phys.Rev.D70 (2004) 113006. 

13. J. Bijnens, J. Prades, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 22 (2007) 767. 

14. F Jegerlehner, Acta Phys. Polon. B 38 (2007) 3021; The 
anomalous magnetic moment of the muon. Springer 2007; 
J.P Miller, E. de Rafael and B.L. Roberts, Rept. Prog. 
Phys. 70 (2007) 795; M. Passera, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 
169 (2007) 213; 162 (2006) 242; 155 (2006) 365; J. Phys. 
G 31 (2005) R75; K. Melnikov and A. Vainshtein, Theory 
of the muon anomalous magnetic moment. Springer 2006. 

15. M.Davier,W.J.Marciano, Ann.Rev.Nucl.Sci.54(2004)115. 

16. R.Alemany,M.Davier,A.H6cker,Eur.Phys.J.C2(1998)123. 

17. M.Davier et al, Eur.Phys.J.C27(2003)497;C31(2003)503. 

18. W.J. Marciano, A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61 (1988) 1815; 
A. Sirlin, Nucl. Phys. B196 (1982) 83; V. Cirigliano et al, 
Phys. Lett. B 513 (2001) 361; JHEP 0208 (2002) 002. 

19. F Flores-Baez et al, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 071301. 

20. FV. Flores-Baez et al, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 096010. 

21. M. Benayoun et al, Eur. Phys. J. C 55 (2008) 199. 

22. M. Passera, W.J. Marciano and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D 78 
(2008) 013009. 

23. C. Bouchiat, L. Michel, J.Phys.Radium 22 (1961) 121; 
M. Gourdin, E. de Rafael, Nucl. Phys. B 10 (1969) 667. 

24. S. Eidelman and F Jegerlehner, Z. Phys. C 67 (1995) 585. 

25. N. Cabibbo and R. Gatto, Phys. Rev. 124 (1961) 1577. 

26. LEP EW Working Group, 

27. Tevatron EW Working Group, arXiv:0808.1089 [hep-ex]. 

28. H. Burkhardt, B. Pietrzyk, Phys. Rev. D72 (2005) 057501. 

29. R. Barate et al, Phys. Lett. B 565 (2003) 61. 

30. G.Degrassi et al, Phys. Lett. B418(1998)209; G.Degrassi, 
P.Gambino, Nucl. Phys. B567(2000)3; A. Ferroglia etal, 
Phys.Rev.D65(2002)l 13002; M.Awramik et a/.,Phys.Rev. 
D69 (2004) 053006; Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 201805; 
M.Awramik, M.Czakon, A.Freitas, JHEP0611(2006)048. 

31. J. Alcaraz et al, arXiv:hep-ex/0612034; Tevatron EW 
Working Group, arXiv:0808.0147 [hep-ex]. 

32. M. Griinewald et al, Phys. Rept. 427 (2006) 257. 

33. C. Amsler et al [PDG], Phys. Lett. B 667 (2008) 1. 

34. W.J. Marciano, arXiv:hep-ph/041 1 179. 

35. G.Altarelli, G.Isidori, Phys. Lett. B337 (1994) 141; LA. 
Casas, et al, Phys.Lett.B342(1995)171; B382(1996)374. 

36. G. Isidori et al, Nucl. Phys. B 609 (2001) 387. 

37. R.W. Schiel and LP Ralston, Phys. Lett. B 657 (2007) 43. 

38. A. Vainshtein, private communication. Prof. Vainshtein 
reaches the same conclusions as us. 

39. G. Degrassi et al, Eur. Phys. J. C 28 (2003) 133.