Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Data-based form factor corrections between the two-pion $\tau$ and $e^+e^-$ spectral functions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Data-based fits of the rho resonance shape determine the isospin-breaking correction between tau and e+e- two-pion spectral functions, replacing the previous theory-driven estimate.

desk verdict First data-based rho mass/width differences for tau vs e+e-; the method is sound but the tail-isospin assumption is only partially stress-tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.13789 v1 pith:J3X5NGVB submitted 2025-04-18 hep-ph hep-ex

Michel Davier , Bogdan Malaescu , Zhiqing Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords isospinbreakingpionformfactortauspectralfunctione+e-annihilationmuong-2hadronicvacuumpolarizationGounaris-Sakurairhomeson
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper replaces a theory-based estimate with a data-based determination of the isospin-breaking (IB) correction that connects the two-pion spectral functions measured in tau decays and in e+e- annihilation. The authors fit the rho resonance line shape to all precise e+e- and tau datasets with the overall normalization left free, so the fitted rho mass and width are decoupled from the absolute scale of each measurement. The resulting differences, $\Delta m_\rho = (-0.30\pm 0.53)$ MeV and $\Delta \Gamma_\rho = (-0.58\pm 1.04)$ MeV, feed into an updated total IB correction of $-(12.2\pm 3.4)\times 10^{-10}$ for the tau-based hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the muon g-2. This value agrees with earlier theory-based corrections but carries a larger uncertainty, and it removes the reliance on a model-dependent radiative-width calculation. If correct, the method gives an independent, fully data-driven route to correct tau spectral functions before they are used in dispersion relations.

What carries the argument

The engine of the method is the Gounaris-Sakurai (GS) parametrization of the $\rho$ resonance, a Breit-Wigner line shape with an energy-dependent width and analyticity-preserving auxiliary functions, fitted to each dataset with a free overall normalization. Freeing the normalization decouples the fitted mass and width from the absolute scale of the measurement, so the parameters carry shape information only and are not circularly tied to the $a_\mu$ integral. The higher-mass contributions $\rho'$, $\rho''$, and $\rho'''$ are fixed from a wide $e^+e^-$ fit rather than fitted per experiment, and $e^+e^-$ fits add four parameters for $\rho$–$\omega$ interference; the fit range is restricted below 0.9 GeV for all datasets.

What would settle it

Fit the $\tau$ two-pion spectral function over its full kinematic range with the $\rho'$ and $\rho''$ complex amplitudes left free; if the fitted amplitudes differ from the fixed $e^+e^-$ values by more than the amounts that shift $m_\rho$ by 0.38 MeV or $\Gamma_\rho$ by 0.25 MeV, the fixed-tail assumption fails and the central isospin-breaking correction is biased.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the isospin-breaking difference between the charged and neutral $\rho$ resonance parameters can be extracted directly from the shapes of the $e^+e^-$ and $\tau$ two-pion spectral functions. Using the Gounaris-Sakurai parametrization with a free normalization for every dataset, the authors obtain averaged values $m_{\rho^0}=(774.93\pm 0.12)$ MeV and $\Gamma_{\rho^0}=(148.74\pm 0.19)$ MeV from $e^+e^-$ data and $m_{\rho^\pm}=(775.23\pm 0.52)$ MeV and $\Gamma_{\rho^\pm}=(149.32\pm 1.02)$ MeV from $\tau$ data, giving $\Delta m_\rho = (-0.30\pm 0.53)$ MeV and $\Delta\Gamma_\rho = (-0.58\pm 1.04)$ MeV. These are then used to compute the pion form factor part of the total isospin-breaking correction, which, together with the separately fitted $\rho$–$\omega$ interference, yields a total correction $-(12.2\pm 3.4)\times 10^{-10}$. The authors argue that this data-based determination is consistent with earlier theoretical estimates but replaces the model-dependent radiative width calculation, and they validate the shape-only extraction by showing that each experiment's fitted normalization tracks its dispersion-integral value.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the high-mass tail of the pion form factor, taken from a wide $e^+e^-$ fit, is identical for $\tau$ and $e^+e^-$ data, so isospin breaking in the $\rho'$ and higher resonances is neglected and would bias the fitted mass and width differences if it were significant.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The total isospin-breaking correction becomes $-(12.2\pm 3.4)\times 10^{-10}$, consistent with the earlier theory-based values but with roughly double the uncertainty.
  • With this correction, the $\tau$-based $a_\mu$ prediction moves closer to the most precise $e^+e^-$ results and sits $1.8\sigma$ from the direct muon g-2 measurement.
  • The limiting factor is the precision of existing $\tau$ data; future higher-statistics $\tau$ datasets and the large $J/\psi\to\rho\pi$ sample are expected to reduce the uncertainties.
  • Once normalization differences are removed, the $\rho$ parameters from all $e^+e^-$ experiments are consistent except for a mass slope in one dataset, indicating that part of the known $e^+e^-$ tension is a pure scale effect.
  • The data-based width difference carries an uncertainty about six times larger than the theoretical prediction, so it cannot yet check the radiative-width calculation at its claimed accuracy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same shape-versus-normalization decoupling could be extended to other hadronic channels (for instance four pions) to build fully data-driven isospin-breaking corrections for the rest of the hadronic vacuum polarization integral.
  • Editorial inference: if isospin breaking in the high-mass tail is larger than assumed, the quoted 0.38 MeV mass systematic would need to scale up; a dedicated $\tau$ high-mass measurement with free $\rho'$ amplitudes would settle this.
  • Editorial inference: the slope observed in one $e^+e^-$ dataset relative to the others points to a second-order shape difference rather than pure normalization; understanding its origin could resolve part of the $e^+e^-$ tension.
  • Editorial inference: the normalization-to-integral ratio test could be reused as a general cross-check of $e^+e^-$ averaging procedures, since it cleanly separates scale effects from shape effects.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes replacing the theoretical estimate of the isospin-breaking (IB) correction between the e+e- and tau two-pion spectral functions with a data-based determination. The authors fit the rho resonance parameters in each e+e- and tau dataset with a Gounaris-Sakurai form factor, leaving the normalization free to decouple the fitted mass and width from the absolute spectral-function scale. The high-mass tail is fixed from the wide BABAR e+e- fit. From the per-experiment fits they derive Delta m_rho = (-0.30 +/- 0.53) MeV and Delta Gamma_rho = (-0.58 +/- 1.04) MeV, combine them with the other IB contributions, and obtain a total IB correction of -(12.2 +/- 3.4) x 10^-10 for the tau-based HVP prediction of a_mu. The paper includes consistency checks for normalization decoupling, line-shape parametrization, high-mass tail sensitivity, and the GEM correction, and compares the resulting tau-based a_mu with e+e- results and the Fermilab measurement.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a valuable methodological step: it offers a data-driven alternative to the model-based pion form-factor IB correction that has long been one of the weaker points in tau-based HVP estimates. The paper is careful in several respects: the normalization decoupling is explicitly tested via the correlation between fitted normalizations and a_mu integrals (Figure 4), the quoted uncertainties are honest and conservative, and the consistency of the extracted rho parameters across experiments is examined in detail. The final result is consistent with the previous theory-driven correction, although with larger uncertainty, and it provides an independent cross-check in a field where independent cross-checks are scarce. The main weakness is that the high-mass tail is imposed on the tau fits from BABAR e+e- data and the sensitivity test only partially covers the associated isospin-breaking uncertainty; this point is load-bearing for the central claim and needs additional quantitative support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.3, Eqs. (19) and (20)] The tail-isospin-breaking test is incomplete: freeing only the relative complex amplitudes of rho' and rho'' while keeping their masses and widths fixed to the BABAR e+e- values does not explore isospin breaking in the excited-state masses and widths. A physical charged/neutral splitting of rho' or rho'' would be absorbed into the fitted rho mass and width through the pronounced rho-rho' interference shown in Figure 6, and would bias the quoted Delta m_rho and Delta Gamma_rho. The shifts quoted in Section 5.3 (0.38 MeV in m_rho and -0.25 MeV in Gamma_rho) therefore cover only one slice of the allowed parameter space. Since the final uncertainties are 0.53 MeV (mass) and 1.04 MeV (width), an unquantified tail-IB bias of order 0.3-0.5 MeV is material. The authors should extend the study by varying delta m_rho', delta Gamma_rho', delta m_rho'', and delta Gamma_rho'' (or otherwise bounding them using the tau data), and should propagate the resulting shifts as an additional systematic uncertainty.
  2. [Section 3 and Figure 1] The empirical support for the fixed-tail assumption is weaker than the text suggests. In Figure 1, both CMD-3 and Belle data show deviations at the 5% level relative to the BABAR-tail extrapolation in the fitted region, and these residual oscillations are not converted into a quantitative uncertainty on the extracted rho parameters. The paper should translate these observed deviations into a systematic uncertainty, for example by refitting with the tail parameters or amplitudes varied within the envelope suggested by the data/fit ratios, rather than relying only on the free-amplitude check in Section 5.3.
  3. [Section 9 and Table 3] The conclusion that the data-based method 'removes the issue related to the reliability' of the theoretical radiative-width calculation is stronger than the results support: the data-based Delta Gamma_rho has a 1.04 MeV uncertainty and is consistent with the theoretical prediction of 0.76 +/- 0.18 MeV at only 1.3 sigma, so it cannot validate or invalidate that calculation at the claimed accuracy. The text should state this limitation explicitly and frame the data-based value as a conservative replacement rather than as a resolution of the theoretical uncertainty.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (2)] The form factors F_0(s) and F_-(s) are introduced only verbally; they should be defined explicitly in the text or in the equation, since the sign convention in Eq. (2) is central to the IB correction.
  2. [Section 2] The sentence 'The small GEM shape correction is the only explicit model-dependence introduced in this procedure' appears to contradict the earlier statement in the same section that FSR is also model-dependent and evaluated with scalar QED; please clarify which model dependences are considered 'explicit' here.
  3. [Abstract and Introduction] There are typographical and spacing issues, for example 'tau ande+e-' in the abstract and the italic/spacing treatment of quantities such as a_tau_mu and a_ee_mu; a careful proofread is recommended.
  4. [Section 5.3, Figure 6] Figure 6 would be easier to interpret if the interference contributions were shown separately or with a clear normalization, since the statement that rho-rho' interference dominates the mass shift is important for the tail-IB discussion.
  5. [Section 6 and Table 3] The quoted uncertainties would be more transparent if the systematic contributions (normalization decoupling, fit-range, binning, line-shape, tail, GEM) were itemized in a table or text list, rather than appearing only as combined values in Table 3.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analysis explicitly decouples fitted rho parameters from the absolute normalization and treats the BABAR-derived high-mass tail as a tested assumption rather than a predetermined input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a data-based determination of Delta m_rho and Delta Gamma_rho from independent e+e- and tau spectral functions. The main circularity risk, that fitted mass and width are correlated with the a_mu dispersion integral, is explicitly identified and avoided by leaving the normalization free in every fit (Section 3). Figure 4 checks the decoupling by showing that a_mu values track the fitted normalizations across experiments, so the parameters are shape-only determinations. The high-mass tail is fixed from the BABAR e+e- fit and applied to tau fits; this is an assumption that isospin breaking in higher rho-like states is negligible, not a reduction by construction. The paper tests the assumption by freeing the rho' and rho'' complex amplitudes in tau fits (Section 5.3) and quotes the resulting 0.38 MeV mass shift and 0.25 MeV width shift as systematic uncertainties. That test does not vary the masses and widths of the excited states, so the coverage of the tail-IB space is limited, but this is a correctness/systematics limitation, not circularity. Self-citations, notably Ref. [8] for the previous global analysis, are used for context and comparison, not as the load-bearing justification for the new form factor correction. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its own input by definition, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The derivation is therefore self-contained with respect to the stated inputs, and the residual concerns are about unmodeled isospin breaking in the tail, not about circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. The fit function and the fixed high-mass tail are standard tools, but the specific way of decoupling normalization introduces several fitted parameters whose values come from the same datasets used to compute a_mu, making them the key inputs the result rests on.

free parameters (6)
  • rho mass per experiment = 10 values, e.g., m_rho0 = 774.93 +/- 0.12 MeV (average), m_rhoc = 775.23 +/- 0.52 MeV (average)
    Fitted to each e+e- and tau spectral function; the central quantities compared for IB correction.
  • rho width per experiment = 10 values, e.g., Gamma_rho0 = 148.74 +/- 0.19 MeV, Gamma_rhoc = 149.32 +/- 1.02 MeV
    Fitted to each dataset; the width difference is the dominant uncertainty in the form factor correction.
  • normalization per experiment = 10 values, e.g., 1.031(14) for BABAR, 1.012(17) for ALEPH
    Left free to decouple shape parameters from absolute scale, avoiding circularity with a_mu integrals.
  • rho-omega interference parameters = 4 parameters for each of 7 e+e- experiments: mass, width, complex amplitude
    Needed to describe the narrow omega in e+e- data; the resulting correction is applied to tau data.
  • high-mass tail parameters from BABAR = 19 parameters (masses, widths, amplitudes, phases of rho', rho'', rho''') fixed from Ref [28]
    Fixed from the wide BABAR fit and applied to all experiments; central to the weakest assumption.
  • uncertainty scale factor for e+e- mass average = sqrt(chi2/DF) = 1.7
    Applied to scale the e+e- mass average uncertainty when chi2/DF exceeds unity.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Gounaris-Sakurai parametrization correctly describes the rho line shape in both e+e- and tau data.
    Used as the fitting function throughout Section 3; the KS parametrization is tested as an alternative in Section 5.2.
  • domain assumption Isospin breaking is negligible in the higher-mass rho states, so the BABAR tail applies to tau data.
    Stated in Section 3 and tested in Section 5.3 by freeing rho' and rho'' amplitudes in tau fits.
  • domain assumption Discrepancies among e+e- datasets are first-order normalization differences; remaining slope effects only bias the KLOE mass.
    Assumed in Section 5.1 and used to justify excluding the KLOE mass from the average in Section 6.
  • domain assumption The relation between tau and e+e- spectral functions after IB corrections respects isospin symmetry.
    Foundational to the entire program of using tau data for HVP, stated in Section 1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Data-based form factor corrections between the two-pion $\tau$ and $e^+e^-$ spectral functions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J3X5NGVB

@misc{pith2026250413789,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Data-based form factor corrections between the two-pion $\tau$ and $e^+e^-$ spectral functions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J3X5NGVB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13789}
}
abstract

The $\tau$ spectral functions are an alternative to $e^+e^-$ cross-sections, where different measurements are not consistent, for computing the hadronic vacuum contribution to the muon magnetic anomaly $a_\mu$. This requires a control of isospin-breaking effects which have to be corrected for. So far these corrections have been evaluated using theoretical models. In this letter, a new approach based only on data is presented for the determination of the most critical correction relating the $e^+e^-$ and $\tau$ pion form factors. An updated evaluation of the total isospin-breaking correction is given and its impact is discussed in the context of $e^+e^-$-based $a_\mu$ predictions and of the direct measurement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.13789 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top-left: a GS fit to the BABAR measurement in the full mass range with 19 free parameters. The ratio of the BABAR data over the fit in the rho resonance region is shown in the bottom panel. Top-right: a GS fit to the CMD-3 measurements below 0.9 GeV with 7 free parameters, using the BABAR tail shown at high mass with a dashed line. The region between 0.9 and 1.05 GeV is affected by the ρ − ϕ interference which is n… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Fits to e +e − data with GS ρ resonance function and ρ − ω interference with 7 free parameters as described in the text: from top-left to bottom-right CMD-3, CMD-2, SND, SND20, KLOE, BES. For each experiment, the top panel shows the pion form factor decoupled from normalization (data points) and the fitted function, with their ratio in the bottom panel. The ratio for BABAR is given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fits to τ data with GS ρ resonance function with three free parameters as described in the text: ALEPH (top￾left), Belle (top-right) and CLEO (bottom). For each experiment, the top panel shows the pion form factor decoupled from normalisation (data points) and the fitted function, with their ratio in the bottom panel. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison for all e +e − experiments of their a HVP, LO µ integral in the mass range 0.6–0.883 GeV (left) and the normalization factor in the corresponding GS fits, Nfit (middle). To better track the correlation, the experiments are ranked by the values of a HVP, LO µ…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The ratio between data (points) for CMD-3 and the GS fit (dashed line at 1) compared to the result (red curve) fitted on the same data obtained using the KS parametrization. The difference is much smaller than the data uncertainty. Both fits are good representations of…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The contribution of the higher ρ-like states under the ρ resonance from the central parameters of the BABAR fit. The effect is dominated by the ρ − ρ ′ and ρ − ρ ′′ interferences. The consistency of the high-mass BABAR tail can be compared to existing e +e − data. The …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: A compilation of the fitted ρ mass values from e +e − data in the top panel in comparison with the fitted values from τ data. Right: the same plot compilation for the ρ width. The vertical bands correspond to the weighted averages of the e +e − and τ determinatio…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The values for IB correction from ρ − ω interference, ∆a HVP, LO, ρ−ω µ , obtained from the e +e − fits to all experiments. The weighted average is indicated by the vertical band [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The landscape of dispersive data predictions to aµ using e +e − et IB-corrected τ data expressed as differences to the direct Fermilab measurement [47](adapted from Ref. [8]). The full circles correspond to e +e − experiments, the open circle to the previous τ value [8…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Comparison of the hadronic vacuum polarization between hadronic $\tau$-decay data and lattice QCD

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Lattice QCD and tau-decay dispersive calculations of isospin-one HVP generally agree, except for a significant difference in the 2π−π+π0 four-pion mode contribution to window quantities.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model

    T. Aoyama et al. “The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model”. In: Phys. Rept. 887 (2020), pp. 1–166. doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2020.07.006. arXiv: 2006.04822 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Leading hadronic contribution to the muon magnetic moment from lattice QCD

    Sz. Borsanyi et al. “Leading hadronic contribution to the muon magnetic moment from lattice QCD”. In: Nature 593.7857 (2021), pp. 51–55. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03418-1 . arXiv: 2002.12347 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    High precision calculation of the hadronic vacuum polarisation contribution to the muon anomaly

    A. Boccaletti et al. “High precision calculation of the hadronic vacuum polarisation contribution to the muon anomaly”. In: (July 2024). arXiv: 2407.10913 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    The long-distance window of the hadronic vacuum polarization for the muon g− 2

    T. Blum et al. “The long-distance window of the hadronic vacuum polarization for the muon g− 2”. In: (Oct. 2024). arXiv: 2410.20590 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    The hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the muon g− 2 at long distances

    Dalibor Djukanovic et al. “The hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the muon g− 2 at long distances”. In: (Nov. 2024). arXiv: 2411.07969 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Hadronic vacuum polarization for the muon g− 2 from lattice QCD: Long-distance and full light-quark connected contribution

    Alexei Bazavov et al. “Hadronic vacuum polarization for the muon g− 2 from lattice QCD: Long-distance and full light-quark connected contribution”. In: (Dec. 2024). arXiv: 2412.18491 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Improved determination of the hadronic contribution to the muon g− 2 and to α(M2 Z) using new data from hadronic tau decays

    R. Alemany, M. Davier, and A. Hoecker. “Improved determination of the hadronic contribution to the muon g− 2 and to α(M2 Z) using new data from hadronic tau decays”. In: Eur. Phys. J. C 2 (1998), pp. 123–135. doi: 10.1007/s100520050127. arXiv: hep-ph/9703220

    arXiv 1998

  8. [8]

    Tensions in e+e−→π+π−(γ) measurements: the new landscape of data-driven hadronic vacuum polarization predictions for the muon g− 2

    M. Davier et al. “Tensions in e+e−→π+π−(γ) measurements: the new landscape of data-driven hadronic vacuum polarization predictions for the muon g− 2”. In: Eur. Phys. J. C 84.7 (2024), p. 721. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12964-7 . arXiv: 2312.02053 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Branching ratios and spectral functions of tau decays: Final ALEPH measurements and physics implications

    S. Schael et al. “Branching ratios and spectral functions of tau decays: Final ALEPH measurements and physics implications”. In: Phys. Rept. 421 (2005), pp. 191–284. doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2005.06.007 . arXiv: hep-ex/0506072

    2005 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Update of the ALEPH non-strange spectral functions from hadronic τ decays

    Michel Davier et al. “Update of the ALEPH non-strange spectral functions from hadronic τ decays”. In: Eur. Phys. J. C 74.3 (2014), p. 2803. doi: 10 . 1140 / epjc / s10052 - 014 - 2803 - 9. arXiv: 1312 . 1501 [hep-ex]

    2014

  3. [11]

    Measurement of the strong coupling constant alpha(s) and the vector and axial vector spectral functions in hadronic tau decays

    K. Ackerstaff et al. “Measurement of the strong coupling constant alpha(s) and the vector and axial vector spectral functions in hadronic tau decays”. In: Eur. Phys. J. C 7 (1999), pp. 571–593. doi: 10.1007/ s100529901061. arXiv: hep-ex/9808019

    1999 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Hadronic structure in the decay τ−→π−π0ντ

    S. Anderson et al. “Hadronic structure in the decay τ−→π−π0ντ”. In: Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000), p. 112002. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.61.112002. arXiv: hep-ex/9910046

    2000 arXiv

  5. [13]

    High-statistics study of the τ− → π−π0ντ decay

    M. Fujikawa et al. “High-statistics study of the τ− → π−π0ντ decay”. In: Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008), p. 072006. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.072006. arXiv: 0805.3773 [hep-ex]

    2008 arXiv

  6. [14]

    The Physics of Hadronic Tau Decays

    Michel Davier, Andreas Hocker, and Zhiqing Zhang. “The Physics of Hadronic Tau Decays”. In: Rev. Mod. Phys. 78 (2006), pp. 1043–1109. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.78.1043. arXiv: hep-ph/0507078

    2006 arXiv

  7. [15]

    The discrepancy between tau and e+e− spectral functions revisited and the consequences for the muon magnetic anomaly

    M. Davier et al. “The discrepancy between tau and e+e− spectral functions revisited and the consequences for the muon magnetic anomaly”. In:Eur. Phys. J. C 66 (2010), pp. 127–136.doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052- 009-1219-4. arXiv: 0906.5443 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Towards a dispersive calculation of isospin-breaking corrections for τ data

    Martina Cottini. “Towards a dispersive calculation of isospin-breaking corrections for τ data”. Seventh plenary workshop of the muon g− 2 theory initiative. 2024. url: https://conference-indico.kek.jp/ event/257/

    2024

  9. [17]

    Hadronic τ data and lattice QCD+QED simulations for the muong−2

    Mattia Bruno. “Hadronic τ data and lattice QCD+QED simulations for the muong−2”. Seventh plenary workshop of the muon g− 2 theory initiative. 2024. url: https://conference-indico.kek.jp/event/ 257/

    2024

  10. [18]

    Current Algebra Formulation of Radiative Corrections in Gauge Theories and the Universality of the Weak Interactions

    A. Sirlin. “Current Algebra Formulation of Radiative Corrections in Gauge Theories and the Universality of the Weak Interactions”. In: Rev. Mod. Phys. 50 (1978). [Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 50, 905 (1978)], p. 573. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.50.573

    1978 doi

  11. [19]

    Large mW ,mZ Behavior of theO(α) Corrections to Semileptonic Processes Mediated by W

    A. Sirlin. “Large mW ,mZ Behavior of theO(α) Corrections to Semileptonic Processes Mediated by W ”. In: Nucl. Phys. B 196 (1982), pp. 83–92. doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(82)90303-0. 15

    1982 doi

  12. [20]

    Electroweak Radiative Corrections to tau Decay

    W. J. Marciano and A. Sirlin. “Electroweak Radiative Corrections to tau Decay”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 61 (1988), pp. 1815–1818. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.61.1815

    1988 doi

  13. [21]

    Electroweak radiative corrections to the semihadronic decay rate of the tau lepton

    Eric Braaten and Chong-Sheng Li. “Electroweak radiative corrections to the semihadronic decay rate of the tau lepton”. In: Phys. Rev. D 42 (1990), pp. 3888–3891. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.42.3888

    1990 doi

  14. [22]

    Confronting spectral functions from e+e− annihilation and tau decays: Consequences for the muon magnetic moment

    M. Davier et al. “Confronting spectral functions from e+e− annihilation and tau decays: Consequences for the muon magnetic moment”. In: Eur. Phys. J. C 27 (2003), pp. 497–521. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s2003- 01136-2. arXiv: hep-ph/0208177

    2003 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Radiative tau decay and the magnetic moment of the muon

    V. Cirigliano, G. Ecker, and H. Neufeld. “Radiative tau decay and the magnetic moment of the muon”. In: JHEP 08 (2002), p. 002. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2002/08/002. arXiv: hep-ph/0207310

    2002 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Long-distance radiative corrections to the di-pion tau lepton decay

    F. Flores-Baez et al. “Long-distance radiative corrections to the di-pion tau lepton decay”. In: Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006), p. 071301. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.071301. arXiv: hep-ph/0608084

    2006 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Schwinger

    J.S. Schwinger. Particles, Sources and Fields . Vol. III. Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1989

    1989

  18. [26]

    The Width difference of rho vector mesons

    F. V. Flores-Baez, G. Lopez Castro, and G. Toledo Sanchez. “The Width difference of rho vector mesons”. In: Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007), p. 096010. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.096010. arXiv: 0708.3256 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Finite width corrections to the vector meson dominance prediction for ρ→e+e−

    G. J. Gounaris and J. J. Sakurai. “Finite width corrections to the vector meson dominance prediction for ρ→e+e−”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 21 (1968), pp. 244–247. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.21.244

    1968 doi

  20. [28]

    Precise Measurement of the e+e− → π+π−(γ) Cross Section with the Initial-State Radiation Method at BABAR

    J. P. Lees et al. “Precise Measurement of the e+e− → π+π−(γ) Cross Section with the Initial-State Radiation Method at BABAR”. In: Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012), p. 032013. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86. 032013. arXiv: 1205.2228 [hep-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Measurement of the 2 π spectral function in the decay τ−→π−π0ντ and the contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment aµ(2π)

    H. Hayashii and M. Fujikawa. “Measurement of the 2 π spectral function in the decay τ−→π−π0ντ and the contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment aµ(2π)”. In: Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 189 (2009). Ed. by A. Bondar and S. Eidelman, pp. 96–102. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysbps...

    2009 doi

  22. [30]

    Reanalysis of hadronic cross-section measurements at CMD-2

    R. R. Akhmetshin et al. “Reanalysis of hadronic cross-section measurements at CMD-2”. In: Phys. Lett. B 578 (2004), pp. 285–289. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2003.10.108. arXiv: hep-ex/0308008

    2004 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Measurement of the pion form-factor in the range 1.04 GeV to 1.38 GeV with the CMD-2 detector

    V. M. Aulchenko et al. “Measurement of the pion form-factor in the range 1.04 GeV to 1.38 GeV with the CMD-2 detector”. In: JETP Lett. 82 (2005), pp. 743–747. doi: 10.1134/1.2175241 . arXiv: hep- ex/0603021

    2005

  24. [32]

    Measurement of the e+e− → π+π− cross section with the CMD-2 detec- tor in the 370–520 MeV c.m. energy range

    V. M. Aulchenko et al. “Measurement of the e+e− → π+π− cross section with the CMD-2 detec- tor in the 370–520 MeV c.m. energy range”. In: JETP Lett. 84 (2006), pp. 413–417. doi: 10 . 1134 / S0021364006200021. arXiv: hep-ex/0610016

    2006 arXiv

  25. [33]

    High-statistics measurement of the pion form factor in the rho-meson energy range with the CMD-2 detector

    R. R. Akhmetshin et al. “High-statistics measurement of the pion form factor in the rho-meson energy range with the CMD-2 detector”. In: Phys. Lett. B 648 (2007), pp. 28–38. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb. 2007.01.073. arXiv: hep-ex/0610021

    2007 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Update of the e+e− → π+π− cross-section measured by SND detector in the energy region 400 MeV < √s < 1000 MeV

    M. N. Achasov et al. “Update of the e+e− → π+π− cross-section measured by SND detector in the energy region 400 MeV < √s < 1000 MeV”. In: J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 103 (2006), pp. 380–384. doi: 10.1134/S106377610609007X. arXiv: hep-ex/0605013

    2006 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Measurement of the e+e−→π+π− process cross section with the SND detector at the VEPP-2000 collider in the energy region 0.525<√s< 0.883 GeV

    M. N. Achasov et al. “Measurement of the e+e−→π+π− process cross section with the SND detector at the VEPP-2000 collider in the energy region 0.525<√s< 0.883 GeV”. In: JHEP 01 (2021), p. 113. doi: 10.1007/JHEP01(2021)113. arXiv: 2004.00263 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Measurement of the e+e−→ π+π− cross section from threshold to 1.2 GeV with the CMD-3 detector

    F. V. Ignatov et al. “Measurement of the e+e−→ π+π− cross section from threshold to 1.2 GeV with the CMD-3 detector”. In: Phys. Rev. D 109.11 (2024), p. 112002. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.112002. arXiv: 2302.08834 [hep-ex]

    2024

  29. [37]

    Measurement of σ(e+e−→ π+π−γ(γ)) and the dipion contribution to the muon anomaly with the KLOE detector

    F. Ambrosino et al. “Measurement of σ(e+e−→ π+π−γ(γ)) and the dipion contribution to the muon anomaly with the KLOE detector”. In: Phys. Lett. B 670 (2009), pp. 285–291. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb. 2008.10.060. arXiv: 0809.3950 [hep-ex]

    2009 arXiv

  30. [38]

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

    F. Ambrosino et al. “Measurement of σ(e+e−→π+π−) from threshold to 0.85 GeV 2 using Initial State Radiation with the KLOE detector”. In: Phys. Lett. B 700 (2011), pp. 102–110. doi: 10 . 1016 / j . physletb.2011.04.055. arXiv: 1006.5313 [hep-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  31. [39]

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

    D. Babusci et al. “Precision measurement of σ(e+e−→ π+π−γ)/σ(e+e−→ µ+µ−γ) and determination of the π+π− contribution to the muon anomaly with the KLOE detector”. In: Phys. Lett. B 720 (2013), pp. 336–343. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2013.02.029. arXiv: 1212.4524 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Measurement of the e+e−→π+π− cross section between 600 and 900 MeV using initial state radiation

    M. Ablikim et al. “Measurement of the e+e−→π+π− cross section between 600 and 900 MeV using initial state radiation”. In: Phys. Lett. B 753 (2016). [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 812, 135982 (2021)], pp. 629–638. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.11.043. arXiv: 1507.08188 [hep-ex]

    2016

  33. [41]

    Hayashii

    H. Hayashii. personal communication. 2008. 16

    2008

  34. [42]

    Effective field theory description of the pion form-factor

    Francisco Guerrero and Antonio Pich. “Effective field theory description of the pion form-factor”. In: Phys. Lett. B 412 (1997), pp. 382–388. doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(97)01070-8. arXiv: hep-ph/9707347

    1997 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Isospin breaking corrections in 2π production in tau decays and e+e− annihilation: consequences for the muon g− 2 and CVC tests

    Gabriel L´ opez Castro, Alejandro Miranda, and Pablo Roig. “Isospin breaking corrections in 2π production in tau decays and e+e− annihilation: consequences for the muon g− 2 and CVC tests”. In: (Nov. 2024). arXiv: 2411.07696 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Tau decays to pions

    Johann H. Kuhn and A. Santamaria. “Tau decays to pions”. In: Z. Phys. C 48 (1990), pp. 445–452. doi: 10.1007/BF01572024

    1990 doi

  37. [45]

    Review of particle physics

    S. Navas et al. “Review of particle physics”. In: Phys. Rev. D 110.3 (2024), p. 030001. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.110.030001

    2024

  38. [46]

    Study of the decay ϕ→π+π−π0 with the KLOE detector

    A Aloisio et al. “Study of the decay ϕ→π+π−π0 with the KLOE detector”. In: Phys. Lett. B 561 (2003). [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 609, 449–450 (2005)], pp. 55–60. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2005.01.092. arXiv: hep-ex/0303016

    2003 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Measurement of the positive muon anomalous magnetic moment to 0.20 ppm

    D. P. Aguillard et al. “Measurement of the positive muon anomalous magnetic moment to 0.20 ppm”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 131.16 (2023), p. 161802. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.161802. arXiv: 2308.06230 [hep-ex]. 17

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.