text:
# References

hep-ph/0103242

How to Describe Neutrino Mixing and CP Violation

Harald Fritzsch

Sektion Physik, Universit$`\ddot{a}`$t M$`\ddot{u}`$nchen, D–80333 M$`\ddot{u}`$nchen, Germany

Zhi-zhong Xing ***Electronic address: xingzz@mail.ihep.ac.cn

Institute of High Energy Physics, P.O. Box 918 (4), Beijing 100039, China

## Abstract

We present a classification of possible parametrizations of the $`3\times 3`$ lepton flavor mixing matrix in terms of the rotation and phase angles. A particular parametrization, which is most convenient to describe the observables of neutrino oscillations and that of the neutrinoless double beta decay, is studied in detail. The possibility to determine the Dirac- and Majorana-type CP-violating phases are also discussed.

The accumulating evidence for atmospheric and solar neutrino oscillations strongly suggests that neutrinos are massive and lepton flavors are mixed . In general the flavor mixing among $`N`$ different lepton families is described by a $`N\times N`$ unitary matrix $`V`$, whose number of independent parameters depends on the nature of neutrinos. If neutrinos are Dirac particles, $`V`$ can be parametrized in terms of $`N(N1)/2`$ rotation angles and $`(N1)(N2)/2`$ phase angles. If neutrinos are Majorana particles, however, a full parametrization of $`V`$ requires $`N(N1)/2`$ rotation angles and the same number of phase angles. The flavor mixing of charged leptons and Dirac neutrinos is completely analogous to that of quarks, for which a number of different parametrizations have been proposed and classified in the literature . One of the purposes of this paper is to classify the parametrizations of flavor mixing between charged leptons and Majorana neutrinos with $`N=3`$. Regardless of the phase-assignment freedom, we find that there are nine distinct ways to describe the $`3\times 3`$ lepton flavor mixing matrix.

Although different representations of lepton flavor mixing are mathematically equivalent, one of them is very likely to describe the underlying physics of lepton mass generation and CP violation in a more transparent way, or is particularly convenient in the analyses of experimental data on neutrino oscillations and lepton-number-violating processes. We point out that there does exist such a parametrization, which allows for simple connections between the measurable quantities and the flavor mixing angles. In addition, the phase assignment of this “standard” parametrization assures that the single Dirac-type CP-violating phase is associated only with neutrino oscillations, and the two Majorana-type CP-violating phases are associated only with the neutrinoless double beta decay. Some remarks are made on the difficulty to separately determine the Majorana-type CP-violating phases.

Let us start to parametrize the $`3\times 3`$ lepton flavor mixing $`V`$, which is defined to link the neutrino flavor eigenstates $`(\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau )`$ to the neutrino mass eigenstates $`(\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3)`$:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ \nu _\mu \\ \nu _\tau \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}V_{e1}& V_{e2}& V_{e3}\\ V_{\mu 1}& V_{\mu 2}& V_{\mu 3}\\ V_{\tau 1}& V_{\tau 2}& V_{\tau 3}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _1\\ \nu _2\\ \nu _3\end{array}\right).$$
(1)
The strength of CP or T violation in normal neutrino oscillations, no matter whether neutrinos are Dirac or Majorana particles, depends only upon a universal parameter of $`V`$, defined as $`J`$ through the following equation :

$$\mathrm{Im}(V_{\alpha i}V_{\beta j}V_{\alpha j}^{}V_{\beta i}^{})=J\underset{\gamma ,k}{}ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }ϵ_{ijk},$$
(2)
where the Greek and Latin subscripts run over ($`e,\mu ,\tau `$) for charged leptons and over ($`1,2,3`$) for neutrinos, respectively.

In analogy to the quark mixing matrix, $`V`$ can be expressed as a product of three unitary matrices $`O_1`$, $`O_2`$ and $`O_3`$, which correspond to simple rotations in the complex (1,2), (2,3) and (3,1) planes:

$`O_1(\theta _1,\alpha _1^{},\beta _1,\gamma _1^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_1e^{i\alpha _1^{}}& s_1e^{i\beta _1}& 0\\ s_1e^{i\beta _1}& c_1e^{i\alpha _1^{}}& 0\\ 0& 0& e^{i\gamma _1^{}}\end{array}\right),`$
$`O_2(\theta _2,\alpha _2^{},\beta _2,\gamma _2^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}e^{i\gamma _2^{}}& 0& 0\\ 0& c_2e^{i\alpha _2^{}}& s_2e^{i\beta _2}\\ 0& s_2e^{i\beta _2}& c_2e^{i\alpha _2^{}}\end{array}\right),`$
$`O_3(\theta _3,\alpha _3^{},\beta _3,\gamma _3^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_3e^{i\alpha _3^{}}& 0& s_3e^{i\beta _3}\\ 0& e^{i\gamma _3^{}}& 0\\ s_3e^{i\beta _3}& 0& c_3e^{i\alpha _3^{}}\end{array}\right),`$ (3)
where $`s_i\mathrm{sin}\theta _i`$ and $`c_i\mathrm{cos}\theta _i`$ (for $`i=1,2,3`$). Obviously $`O_iO_i^{}=O_i^{}O_i=1`$ holds, and any two rotation matrices do not commute with each other. Note that the matrix $`O_i^{}`$ or $`O_i^1`$ plays an equivalent role as $`O_i`$ in constructing $`V`$, because of

$$O_i^{}(\theta _i,\alpha _i^{},\beta _i,\gamma _i^{})=O_i^1(\theta _i,\alpha _i^{},\beta _i,\gamma _i^{})=O_i(\theta _i,\alpha _i^{},\beta _i,\gamma _i^{}).$$
(4)
Note also that

$$O_i(\theta _i,\alpha _i^{},\beta _i,\gamma _i^{})O_i(\theta _i^{},\alpha _i^{},\beta _i^{},\gamma _i^{})=O_i(\theta _i^{\prime \prime },\alpha _i^{\prime \prime },\beta _i^{\prime \prime },\gamma _i^{\prime \prime })$$
(5)
holds, where $`\theta _i^{\prime \prime }`$, $`\alpha _i^{\prime \prime }`$, $`\beta _i^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`\gamma _i^{\prime \prime }`$ are simple functions of $`(\theta _i,\alpha _i^{},\beta _i,\gamma _i^{})`$ and $`(\theta _i^{},\alpha _i^{},\beta _i^{},\gamma _i^{})`$. In particular, one will get $`\theta _i^{\prime \prime }=\theta _i+\theta _i^{}`$ if all the complex phases in $`O_i`$ are switched off. Thus the product $`O_i(\theta _i)O_i(\theta _i^{})O_j(\theta _j)`$ or $`O_i(\theta _i)O_j(\theta _j)O_j(\theta _j^{})`$ is unable to cover the whole space of a $`3\times 3`$ unitary matrix and should be excluded. We find that there are only twelve different possibilities to arrange the product of $`O_1`$, $`O_2`$ and $`O_3`$, which can cover the whole $`3\times 3`$ space and provide a full description of $`V`$. Explicitly, six of the twelve different combinations of $`O_i`$ belong to the category

$$V=O_i(\theta _i,\alpha _i^{},\beta _i,\gamma _i^{})O_j(\theta _j,\alpha _j^{},\beta _j,\gamma _j^{})O_i(\theta _i^{},\alpha _i^{},\beta _i^{},\gamma _i^{})$$
(6)
with $`ij`$, where the complex rotation matrix $`O_i`$ occurs twice; and the other six belong to the category

$$V=O_i(\theta _i,\alpha _i^{},\beta _i,\gamma _i^{})O_j(\theta _j,\alpha _j^{},\beta _j,\gamma _j^{})O_k(\theta _k,\alpha _k^{},\beta _k,\gamma _k^{})$$
(7)
with $`ijk`$, in which the rotations take place in three different complex planes.

It should be noted that only nine of the twelve parametrizations, three from Eq. (6) and six from Eq. (7), are structurally different. The reason is simply that the combinations $`O_iO_jO_i`$ and $`O_iO_kO_i`$ (for $`ik`$) in Eq. (6) are correlated with each other . To see this point clearly, we switch off the relevant phase parameters in $`O_i`$ and then arrive at the following relations:

$`O_1(\theta _1)O_3(\theta _3)O_1(\theta _1^{})`$ $`=`$ $`O_1(\theta _1+90^{})O_2(\theta _2=\theta _3)O_1(\theta _1^{}90^{}),`$
$`O_2(\theta _2)O_1(\theta _1)O_2(\theta _2^{})`$ $`=`$ $`O_2(\theta _2+90^{})O_3(\theta _3=\theta _1)O_2(\theta _2^{}90^{}),`$
$`O_3(\theta _3)O_2(\theta _2)O_3(\theta _3^{})`$ $`=`$ $`O_3(\theta _2+90^{})O_1(\theta _1=\theta _2)O_3(\theta _3^{}90^{}).`$ (8)
Therefore three of the six combinations in Eq. (6) need not be treated as independent choices, even though the phase parameters are taken into account. We then conclude that there exist nine distinct parametrizations of the $`3\times 3`$ lepton flavor mixing matrix $`V`$, no matter how the complex phases are arranged among the nine elements of $`V`$.

In each of the nine distinct parametrizations for $`V`$, there apparently exist nine phase parameters. Six of them or combinations thereof can be absorbed by redefining the arbitrary phases of charged lepton fields and a common phase of neutrino fields. If neutrinos are Dirac particles, one can also redefine the arbitrary phases of Dirac neutrino fields to reduce the number of the remaining phase parameters from three to one. In this case $`V`$ consists of only a single nontrivial phase parameter, which violates CP symmetry. If neutrinos are Majorana particles, however, there is no freedom to rearrange the relative phases of Majorana neutrino fields. Hence $`V`$ is totally composed of three nontrivial phase parameters in the latter case. There is much freedom, through redefinition of the arbitrary phases of charged lepton fields, to place the three CP-violating phases among the nine elements of $`V`$. In particular, it is always possible to parametrize the Majorana-type flavor mixing matrix as a product of the Dirac-type flavor mixing matrix (with three mixing angles and a single CP-violating phase) and a diagonal phase matrix (with two unremovable CP-violating phases) .

To be more specific, let us take two typical examples to show the parametrization of $`V`$ in terms of three mixing angles and three CP-violating phases.

Example A: The lepton flavor mixing matrix can be parametrized, in close analogy to a representation of the quark mixing matrix , as follows:

$$V=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}s_l^{}s_\nu c+c_l^{}c_\nu e^{i\varphi }& s_l^{}c_\nu cc_l^{}s_\nu e^{i\varphi }& s_l^{}s\\ c_l^{}s_\nu cs_l^{}c_\nu e^{i\varphi }& c_l^{}c_\nu c+s_l^{}s_\nu e^{i\varphi }& c_l^{}s\\ s_\nu s& c_\nu s& c\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{i\rho }& 0\\ 0& 0& e^{i\sigma }\end{array}\right),$$
(9)
where $`s_l^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta _l`$, $`c_\nu \mathrm{cos}\theta _\nu `$, etc. The three mixing angles $`(\theta _l,\theta _\nu ,\theta )`$ may have simple physical interpretations in a specific scheme of lepton mass matrices . In particular, we expect $`\theta _l`$ to be small in magnitude, as a natural consequence of the mass hierarchy of three charged leptons. It is obvious that only the phase $`\varphi `$ remains present, if neutrinos are assumed to be Dirac particles. The reason is simply that the diagonal phase matrix on the right-hand side of Eq. (9), which consists of the Majorana-type CP-violating phases $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$, can be rotated away by redefining the phases of Dirac neutrino fields. In other words, only $`\varphi `$ is associated with CP or T violation in normal neutrino oscillations (measured by $`J=s_l^{}c_l^{}s_\nu c_\nu s^2c\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$), no matter whether neutrinos are Majorana particles or not. The diagonal phase matrix of $`V`$ signifies the Majorana nature of neutrinos and affects the neutrinoless double beta decay and some other lepton-number-violating processes.

Example B: The lepton flavor mixing matrix can be parametrized, in a form similar to the parametrization of quark flavor mixing discussed in Ref. , as follows:

$$V=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_1c_3& s_1c_3& s_3\\ c_1s_2s_3s_1c_2e^{i\delta }& s_1s_2s_3+c_1c_2e^{i\delta }& s_2c_3\\ c_1c_2s_3+s_1s_2e^{i\delta }& s_1c_2s_3c_1s_2e^{i\delta }& c_2c_3\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{i\rho }& 0\\ 0& 0& e^{i\sigma }\end{array}\right)$$
(10)
with $`s_i\mathrm{sin}\theta _i`$ and $`c_i\mathrm{cos}\theta _i`$ (for $`i=1,2,3`$). Note that the location of the Dirac-type CP-violating phase $`\delta `$ in $`V`$ is different from that advocated by the Particle Data Group . The advantage of our present phase assignment is that $`\delta `$ itself does not appear in the effective Majorana mass term of the neutrinoless double beta decay, as one can see later on. Without loss of generality, the three mixing angles ($`\theta _1,\theta _2,\theta _3`$) can all be arranged to lie in the first quadrant. Arbitrary values between $`180^{}`$ and $`+180^{}`$ are allowed for $`\delta `$ and the Majorana-type CP-violating phases $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$. The CP- and T-violating effects in normal neutrino oscillations are measured by $`J=s_1c_1s_2c_2s_3c_3^2\mathrm{sin}\delta `$. As the magnitude of $`J`$ is independent of the specific parametrizations of $`V`$, one can easily find out the relation between the Dirac-type CP-violating phases $`\varphi `$ in Eq. (8) and $`\delta `$ in Eq. (10): $`\mathrm{sin}\delta /\mathrm{sin}\varphi =(s_l^{}c_l^{}s_\nu c_\nu s^2c)/(s_1c_1s_2c_2s_3c_3^2)`$.

Of course, both examples taken above and other possible parametrizations of $`V`$ are mathematically equivalent, and adopting any of them does not have any specific physical significance. It is quitely likely, however, that one particular parametrization is more useful and transparent than the others in the analyses of data from various neutrino experiments and (or) towards a deeper understanding of the underlying dynamics responsible for lepton mass generation and CP violation.

We find that Example B is very convenient to confront with the observables of neutrino oscillations and that of the neutrinoless double beta decay (see the next section for a detailed discussion). In particular, it is favored if the solar neutrino problem invokes a large-angle MSW (or vacuum oscillation) solution . In this case, the lepton mixing matrix $`V`$ is expected to be roughly symmetric about its axis $`V_{e3}`$-$`V_{\mu 2}`$-$`V_{\tau 1}`$; i.e., $`\theta _1\theta _2`$ holds. If the small-angle MSW oscillation were the true solution to the solar neutrino problem The latest SNO experiment , together with the Super-Kamiokande data, has provided the first direct evidence that there is a muon- and (or) tau-neutrino component in the solar electron-neutrino flux. The global fit shows that the large-angle MSW solution is apparently favored and the small-angle MSW solution is highly disfavored . However, it remains too early to claim that the small-angle MSW solution has been convincingly ruled out. Further experimental effort is desirable to pin down the true solution to the solar neutrino puzzle., however, Example A would show its advantages. For instance, $`V`$ would be expected to be roughly symmetric about its axis $`V_{e1}`$-$`V_{\mu 2}`$-$`V_{\tau 3}`$ in the latter case (i.e., $`\theta _l\theta _\nu `$ holds), just like the approximate off-diagonal symmetry of the $`3\times 3`$ quark flavor mixing matrix about its axis $`V_{ud}`$-$`V_{cs}`$-$`V_{tb}`$ . Both $`\theta _l`$ and $`\theta _\nu `$ might get simple physical interpretations in terms of the ratios of charged lepton and neutrino masses, provided that the texture of lepton mass matrices is constrained by some flavor symmetries. An instructive possibility is

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta _l\sqrt{\frac{m_e}{m_\mu }}𝒪(10^2),\mathrm{tan}\theta _\nu \sqrt{\frac{m_1}{m_2}}𝒪(10^2),$$
(11)
if the neutrino masses exhibit a similar hierarchy as the charged lepton masses or the quark masses.

Furthermore, it is worth pointing out a useful relation in the limit $`|V_{e3}|=0`$ (i.e., $`\theta _3=0`$ or $`\theta _l=0`$):

$$\left|\frac{V_{e2}}{V_{e1}}\right|=\left|\frac{V_{\mu 1}}{V_{\mu 2}}\right|=\left|\frac{V_{\tau 1}}{V_{\tau 2}}\right|=\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{tan}\theta _\nu (\mathrm{Example}\mathrm{A}),\\ \mathrm{tan}\theta _1(\mathrm{Example}\mathrm{B}).\end{array}$$
(12)
Such a result is meaningful, because small $`|V_{e3}|`$ is favored by current experimental data on neutrino oscillations.

Let us concentrate on the parametrization in Eq. (10) (i.e., Example B) and confront it with the measurable quantities of lepton flavor mixing and CP violation. First of all, the mixing angle $`\theta _3`$ can be determined from measuring the survival probability of electron neutrinos at the scale of atmospheric neutrino oscillations in a long-baseline (LBL) neutrino experiment:

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{LBL}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}|V_{e3}|^2\left(1|V_{e3}|^2\right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}s_3^2\left(1s_3^2\right)=\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _3.$$
(13)
The current constraint obtained from CHOOZ  and Palo Verde  reactor experiments, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{LBL}}1`$, indicates that $`\theta _3`$ may be quite small. This result, together with the mass-squared hierarchy $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2`$ showing up in a variety of analyses of the experimental data on atmospheric and solar neutrino oscillations , strongly implies that solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillation phenomena approximately decouple from each other. Hence the mixing angles $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$ essentially measure the corresponding amplitudes of solar $`(\nu _e\nu _e)`$ and atmospheric $`(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )`$ neutrino oscillations; i.e.,

$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}`$ $``$ $`4|V_{e1}|^2|V_{e2}|^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}s_1^2c_1^2c_3^4\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _1,`$
$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}`$ $``$ $`4|V_{\mu 3}|^2\left(1|V_{\mu 3}|^2\right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}s_2^2c_3^2\left(1s_2^2c_3^2\right)\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _2.`$ (14)
We see that all three mixing angles of the parametrization in Eq. (10) have simple relations to measurable quantities ($`\theta _1\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}`$, $`\theta _2\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}`$, and $`\theta _3\theta _{\mathrm{LBL}}`$), at least in the leading-order approximation.

The Dirac-type CP-violating phase $`\delta `$ can be determined from CP- and (or) T-violating asymmetries in normal long-baseline neutrino oscillations. In vacuum, the T-violating asymmetry between the probabilities of $`\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta ^{}`$ and $`\nu _\beta ^{}\nu _\alpha `$ transitions amounts to the CP-violating asymmetry between the probabilities of $`\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta ^{}`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\alpha \overline{\nu }_\beta ^{}`$ transitions :

$`\mathrm{\Delta }P`$ $``$ $`P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta ^{})P(\overline{\nu }_\alpha \overline{\nu }_\beta ^{})`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta ^{})P(\nu _\beta ^{}\nu _\alpha )`$
$`=`$ $`16J\mathrm{sin}F_{21}\mathrm{sin}F_{31}\mathrm{sin}F_{32},`$
where the subscripts $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ run over $`(e,\mu )`$, $`(\mu ,\tau )`$ or $`(\tau ,e)`$, and $`F_{ij}1.27\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2L/E`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2m_i^2m_j^2`$ being the mass-squared differences of neutrinos (in unit of $`\mathrm{eV}^2`$), $`L`$ being the baseline length (in unit of km), and $`E`$ being the neutrino beam energy (in unit of GeV). A determination of $`J`$ from $`\mathrm{\Delta }P`$ will allow us to extract the CP-violating phase $`\delta `$, provided that all three mixing angles $`(\theta _1,\theta _2,\theta _3)`$ have been measured elsewhere. In practice, however, all these measurable quantities may be contaminated due to the presence of terrestrial matter effects. Hence the fundamental parameters of lepton flavor mixing need be disentangled from the matter-corrected ones.

Regardless of the Majorana-type phases $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$, which have nothing to do with normal neutrino oscillations, we have located the Dirac-type phase $`\delta `$ in such a way that the matrix elements in the first row and the third column of $`V`$ are real. As a consequence, the CP-violating phase $`\delta `$ does not appear in the effective mass term of the neutrinoless double beta decay. Indeed the latter reads:

$`m_{ee}`$ $`=`$ $`\left|m_1V_{e1}^2+m_2V_{e2}^2+m_3V_{e3}^2\right|`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{𝐚+𝐛\mathrm{cos}2\rho +𝐜\mathrm{cos}2\sigma +𝐝\mathrm{cos}2(\rho \sigma )},`$
where

$`𝐚`$ $`=`$ $`m_1^2c_1^4c_3^4+m_2^2s_1^4c_3^4+m_3^2s_3^4,`$
$`𝐛`$ $`=`$ $`2m_1m_2s_1^2c_1^2c_3^4,`$
$`𝐜`$ $`=`$ $`2m_1m_3c_1^2s_3^2c_3^2,`$
$`𝐝`$ $`=`$ $`2m_2m_3s_1^2s_3^2c_3^2.`$ (17)
It becomes obvious that $`m_{ee}`$ is independent of both the mixing angle $`\theta _2`$ and the CP-violating phase $`\delta `$. On the other hand, CP- and T-violating asymmetries in normal neutrino oscillations depend only upon the Dirac-type phase $`\delta `$ or the universal CP-violating parameter $`J`$; i.e., they have nothing to do with the Majorana-type CP-violating phases $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ . We then arrive at the conclusion that the two different types of CP-violating phases can (in principle) be studied in two different types of experiments.

It is worth pointing out that the expression of $`m_{ee}`$ can particularly be simplified, if $`\theta _30`$ and $`m_1m_2m_3`$ are assumed. In this special case, we arrive at

$$m_{ee}m_1\sqrt{1\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _1\mathrm{sin}^2\rho },$$
(18)
which depends only upon a single Majorana phase $`\rho `$.

A long-standing and important question is whether the two Majorana phases $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ can be separately determined by measuring other possible lepton-number-nonconserving processes, in addition to the neutrinoless double beta decay. While the answer to this question is affirmative in principle, it seems to be negative in practice. The key problem is that those lepton-number-violating processes, in which the Majorana phases can show up, are suppressed in magnitude by an extremely small factor compared to normal weak interactions. Therefore it is extremely difficult, even impossible, to measure or constrain $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ in any experiment other than the one associated with the neutrinoless double beta decay.

To illustrate the above-mentioned difficulty in measuring $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ separately, let us take a “Gedanken” experiment of neutrino-antineutrino oscillations for example . We suppose a beam of positive muons to be incident upon a neutron target, from which the antineutrinos $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ are emitted through the usual $`W`$-mediated reaction $`\mu ^++n\overline{\nu }_\mu +p`$ in a given direction. Such an energetic beam of antineutrinos ($`Em_i`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$) is then arranged to hit another neutron target at proper time $`t`$, leading to the emission of negative muons through the lepton-number-conserving reaction $`\nu _\mu +n\mu ^{}+p`$. The overall process can actually happen, because of the lepton-number-violating conversion of $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ into $`\nu _\mu `$ at the interval $`t`$. The effective amplitude of this $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \nu _\mu `$ oscillation is therefore expressed as

$$A(\overline{\nu }_\mu \nu _\mu )=\frac{1}{E}\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left[m_k\left(V_{\mu k}^{}\right)^2e^{iE_kt}\right],$$
(19)
where $`E`$ is the neutrino beam energy and $`V_{\mu k}`$ (for $`k=1,2,3`$) are the elements of the flavor mixing matrix $`V`$. Obviously $`|A(\overline{\nu }_\mu \nu _\mu )|^2`$ depends upon all of the three mixing angles and the three CP-violating phases in the parametrization advocated above. It is therefore possible, in principle, to determine the Majorana phases $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ separately from Eqs. (16) and (19), if the Dirac-type phase ($`\delta `$) and three mixing angles ($`\theta _1,\theta _2,\theta _3`$) have been fixed from the experiments of normal neutrino-neutrino and antineutrino-antineutrino oscillations. The probability of observing the $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \nu _\mu `$ oscillation is nevertheless suppressed by the factors $`(m_k/E)^2`$ in comparison with that of observing the normal $`\nu _\mu \nu _\mu `$ or $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu `$ oscillation, whose amplitude is associated only with $`|V_{\mu k}|^2`$. As the factors $`m_k/E`$ (for $`k=1,2,3`$) are expected to be extremely tiny (e.g., of order $`10^9`$ for $`m_k1`$ eV and $`E1`$ GeV), it is practically impossible to measure the $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \nu _\mu `$ oscillation. It is also extremely difficult or impossible to observe other similar types of neutrino-antineutrino oscillating effects .

It seems that one would have no way to determine all of the three CP-violating phases of $`V`$, even though the Majorana nature of neutrinos could finally be established (e.g., from the experiment on the neutrinoless double beta decay). Whether this will be the case has to be seen. On the theoretical side, how to predict or calculate those flavor mixing angles and CP-violating phases on a solid dynamical ground remains an open question. Phenomenologically, the parametrization in Eq. (10) is expected to be very useful and convenient, and might even be able to provide some insight into the underlying physics of lepton mass generation. We therefore recommend it to experimentalists and theorists as a standard parametrization of the $`3\times 3`$ lepton flavor mixing matrix.

In summary, we have classified possible parametrizations of the $`3\times 3`$ lepton flavor mixing matrix in terms of the rotation and phase angles. A particular parametrization, which is most convenient to confront with the measurables of neutrino oscillations and that of the neutrinoless double beta decay, has been emphasized from the phenomenological point of view.

Although the present non-accelerator neutrino experiments have yielded some impressive constraints on three lepton flavor mixing angles ($`\theta _1`$, $`\theta _2`$, and $`\theta _3`$), a precise determination of them and a measurement of the Dirac-type CP-violating phase $`\delta `$ have to rely on a new generation of accelerator experiments with very long baselines, including the possible neutrino factories. In such long- or medium-baseline neutrino experiments the terrestrial matter effects, which may deform the oscillating behaviors of neutrinos in vacuum and even fake the genuine CP-violating signals, must be taken into account .

We expect that some significant progress can be made in our understanding of the lepton mass generation, flavor mixing and CP violation, once the precision measurements of neutrino oscillations are carried out in the long-baseline neutrino experiments. Nevertheless, it seems essentially impossible to separately determine the two Majorana-type CP-violating phases from any feasible measurements of the lepton-number-violating processes.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Numerical relativity – solving the Einstein equations numerically – is now an essential field in gravity research. The current mainstream of numerical relativity is to demonstrate the final phase of compact binary objects related to gravitational wave observations , and these efforts are now again shedding light on the mathematical structure of the Einstein equations.

Up to a couple of years ago, the standard Arnowitt-Deser-Misner (ADM) decomposition of the Einstein equations was taken as the standard formulation for numerical relativists. Difficulties in accurate/stable long-term evolutions were supposed to be overcome by choosing proper gauge conditions and boundary conditions. Recently, however, several numerical experiments show that the standard ADM is not the best formulation for numerics, and finding a better formulation has become one of the main research topics.

One direction in the community is to apply conformally decoupled and tracefree re-formulation of ADM system which were first used by Nakamura et al. . Although there is an effort to show why this re-formulation is better than ADM, we do not yet know this method is robust for all situations.

Another alternative approach to ADM is to formulate the Einstein equations to reveal hyperbolicity . A certain kind of hyperbolicity of the dynamical equations is essential to analyze their propagation features mathematically, and are known to be useful in numerical approximations. Several hyperbolic formulations have been proposed to re-express the Einstein equations, with different levels: weakly, strongly and symmetric hyperbolic systems. Several numerical tests were also performed in this direction.

The following questions, therefore, naturally present themselves (cf. ):

* Does hyperbolicity actually contribute to the numerical accuracy/stability?
* If so, which level of hyperbolic formulation is practically useful for numerical applications? (or does the symmetric hyperbolicity solve all the difficulties?)
* Are there any other approaches to improve the accuracy/stability of the system?

In this report, we try to answer these questions with our simple numerical experiments. Such comparisons are appropriate when the fundamental equations are cast in the same interface, and that is possible using Ashtekar’s connection variables . More precisely, the authors’ recent studies showed the following:

* the original set of dynamical equations proposed by Ashtekar already forms a weakly hyperbolic system ,
* by requiring additional gauge conditions or adding constraints to the dynamical equations, we can obtain a strongly hyperbolic system ,
* by requiring additional gauge conditions and adding constraints to the dynamical equations, we can obtain a symmetric hyperbolic system , and finally
* based on the above symmetric hyperbolic system, we can construct a set of dynamical systems which is robust against perturbative errors for constraints and reality conditions  (aka. $`\lambda `$-system ).

Based on the above results (a)-(c), we developed a numerical code which handles gravitational wave propagation in the plane symmetric spacetime. We performed the time evolutions using the above three levels of Ashtekar’s dynamical equations together with the standard ADM equation. We compare these for accuracy and stability by monitoring the violation of the constraints. We also show the demonstrations of our $`\lambda `$-system (above (d)), together with new proposal for controlling the stability.

It is worth remarking that this study is the first one which shows full numerical simulations of Lorentzian spacetime using Ashtekar’s connection variables. This research direction was suggested  soon after Ashtekar completed his formulation, but has not yet been completed. Historically, an application to numerical relativity of the connection formulation was also suggested  using Capovilla-Dell-Jacobson’s version of the connection variables , which produce an direct relation to Newman-Penrose’s $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$s. However here we apply Ashtekar’s original formulation, because we know how to treat its reality conditions in detail, and how they form hyperbolicities. We will also describe the basic numerical procedures in this paper.

Due to the limited space, we have to omit details in some part in this report. More complete discussion can be found in our recent articles .

## 2 Field equations to be compared

### 2.1 Hyperbolic formulations

We begin by providing our definitions of hyperbolic systems.

###### Definition 1

We assume a certain set of (complex) variables $`u_\alpha `$ $`(\alpha =1,\mathrm{},n)`$ forms a first-order (quasi-linear) partial differential equation system,

$$_tu_\alpha =J^l{}_{}{}^{\beta }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\left(u\right)_lu_\beta +K_\alpha \left(u\right),$$
(1)
where $`J`$ (the characteristic matrix) and $`K`$ are functions of $`u`$ but do not include any derivatives of $`u`$. We say that the system (1) is:

1. weakly hyperbolic, if all the eigenvalues of the characteristic matrix are real.
2. strongly (diagonalizable) hyperbolic, if the characteristic matrix is diagonalizable and has all real eigenvalues.
3. symmetric hyperbolic, if the characteristic matrix is a Hermitian matrix.

We treat $`J^{l\beta }_\alpha `$ as a $`n\times n`$ matrix when the $`l`$-index is fixed. We say $`\lambda ^l`$ is an eigenvalue of $`J^{l\beta }_\alpha `$ when the characteristic equation, $`\text{det}(J^{l\beta }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\lambda ^l\delta ^\beta {}_{\alpha }{}^{})=0`$, is satisfied. The eigenvectors, $`p^\alpha `$, are given by solving $`J^l{}_{}{}^{\alpha }{}_{\beta }{}^{}p_{}^{l\beta }=\lambda ^lp^{l\alpha }`$.

These three classes have the relation (III) $``$ (II) $``$ (I). The symmetric hyperbolic system gives us the energy integral inequalities, which are the primary tools for studying well-posedness of the system.

For more concrete descriptions for each systems, please refer our paper . It might be worth remarking that the standard ADM formulation cannot be a first-order hyperbolic form, since there are curvature terms in the r.h.s. of dynamical equations.

### 2.2 Ashtekar’s dynamical equations: three levels of hyperbolicity

The key feature of Ashtekar’s formulation of general relativity  is the introduction of a self-dual connection as one of the basic dynamical variables. The new basic variables are the densitized inverse triad, $`\stackrel{~}{E}_a^i`$, and the SO(3,C) self-dual connection, $`𝒜_i^a`$, where the indices $`i,j,\mathrm{}`$ indicate the 3-spacetime, and $`a,b,\mathrm{}`$ are for SO(3) space. The total four-dimensional spacetime is described together with the gauge variables $`\underset{^{}}{𝑁},N^i,𝒜_0^a`$, which we call the densitized lapse function, shift vector and the triad lapse function. The system has three constraint equations,

$`𝒞_H^{\mathrm{ASH}}`$ $`:=`$ $`\left(i/2\right)ϵ^{ab}{}_{c}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{E}_{a}^{i}\stackrel{~}{E}_b^jF_{ij}^c0,`$ (2)
$`𝒞_{Mi}^{\mathrm{ASH}}`$ $`:=`$ $`F_{ij}^a\stackrel{~}{E}_a^j0,`$ (3)
$`𝒞_{Ga}^{\mathrm{ASH}}`$ $`:=`$ $`𝒟_i\stackrel{~}{E}_a^i0,`$ (4)
which are called the Hamiltonian, momentum, and Gauss constraints equation, respectively. The dynamical equations for a set of $`(\stackrel{~}{E}_a^i,𝒜_i^a)`$ are

$`_t\stackrel{~}{E}_a^i`$ $`=`$ $`i𝒟_j\left(ϵ^{cb}{}_{a}{}^{}\underset{^{}}{𝑁}\stackrel{~}{E}_c^j\stackrel{~}{E}_b^i\right)+2𝒟_j\left(N^{[j}\stackrel{~}{E}_a^{i]}\right)+i𝒜_0^bϵ_{ab}{}_{}{}^{c}\stackrel{~}{E}_{c}^{i},`$ (5)
$`_t𝒜_i^a`$ $`=`$ $`iϵ^{ab}{}_{c}{}^{}\underset{^{}}{𝑁}\stackrel{~}{E}_b^jF_{ij}^c+N^jF_{ji}^a+𝒟_i𝒜_0^a,`$ (6)
where $`F_{ij}^a:=2_{[i}𝒜_{j]}^aiϵ^a{}_{bc}{}^{}𝒜_{i}^{b}𝒜_j^c`$ is the curvature 2-form.

We have to consider the reality conditions when we use this formalism to describe the classical Lorentzian spacetime. Fortunately, the metric will remain on its real-valued constraint surface during time evolution automatically if we prepare initial data which satisfies the reality condition. More practically, we further require that triad is real-valued. But again this reality condition appears as a gauge restriction on $`𝒜_0^a`$, which can be imposed at every time step. In our actual simulation, we prepare our initial data using the standard ADM approach, so that we have no difficulties in maintaining these reality conditions.

The set of dynamical equations (5) and (6) \[the original equations\] does have a weakly hyperbolic form , so that we regard the mathematical structure of the original equations as one step advanced from the standard ADM. Further, we can construct higher levels of hyperbolic systems by restricting the gauge condition and/or by adding constraint terms, $`𝒞_H^{\mathrm{ASH}},𝒞_{Mi}^{\mathrm{ASH}}`$ and $`𝒞_{Ga}^{\mathrm{ASH}}`$, to the original equations . We extract only the final expressions here.

In order to obtain a symmetric hyperbolic system 1)1)1) Iriondo et al  presented a symmetric hyperbolic expression in a different form. The differences between ours and theirs are discussed in ., we add constraint terms to the right-hand-side of (5) and (6). The adjusted dynamical equations,

$`_t\stackrel{~}{E}_a^i`$ $`=`$ $`i𝒟_j\left(ϵ^{cb}{}_{a}{}^{}\underset{^{}}{𝑁}\stackrel{~}{E}_c^j\stackrel{~}{E}_b^i\right)+2𝒟_j\left(N^{[j}\stackrel{~}{E}_a^{i]}\right)+i𝒜_0^bϵ_{ab}{}_{}{}^{c}\stackrel{~}{E}_{c}^{i}+\kappa _1P^i{}_{ab}{}^{}𝒞_{G}^{\mathrm{ASH}}{}_{}{}^{b},`$
$`\mathrm{where}P^i{}_{ab}{}^{}N^i\delta _{ab}+i\underset{^{}}{𝑁}ϵ_{ab}{}_{}{}^{c}\stackrel{~}{E}_{c}^{i},`$
$`_t𝒜_i^a`$ $`=`$ $`iϵ^{ab}{}_{c}{}^{}\underset{^{}}{𝑁}\stackrel{~}{E}_b^jF_{ij}^c+N^jF_{ji}^a+𝒟_i𝒜_0^a+\kappa _2Q_i^a𝒞_H^{\mathrm{ASH}}+\kappa _3R_i{}_{}{}^{ja}𝒞_{Mj}^{\mathrm{ASH}},`$
$`\mathrm{where}Q_i^ae^2\underset{^{}}{𝑁}\stackrel{~}{E}_i^a,R_i{}_{}{}^{ja}ie^2\underset{^{}}{𝑁}ϵ^{ac}{}_{b}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{E}_{i}^{b}\stackrel{~}{E}_c^j`$
form a symmetric hyperbolicity if we further require $`\kappa _1=\kappa _2=\kappa _3=1`$ and the gauge conditions,

$$𝒜_0^a=𝒜_i^aN^i,_iN=0.$$
(9)
We remark that the adjusted coefficients, $`P^i{}_{ab}{}^{},Q_i^a,R_i^{ja}`$, for constructing the symmetric hyperbolic system are uniquely determined, and there are no other additional terms (say, no $`𝒞_H^{\mathrm{ASH}},𝒞_M^{\mathrm{ASH}}`$ for $`_t\stackrel{~}{E}_a^i`$, no $`𝒞_G^{\mathrm{ASH}}`$ for $`_t𝒜_i^a`$) . The gauge conditions, (9), are consequences of the consistency with (triad) reality conditions.

We can also construct a strongly hyperbolic system by restricting to a gauge $`N^l0,\pm N\sqrt{\gamma ^{ll}}`$ (where $`\gamma ^{ll}`$ is the three-metric and we do not sum indices here) for the original equations (5), (6). Or we can also construct from the adjusted equations, (2.2) and (2.2), together with the gauge condition

$$𝒜_0^a=𝒜_i^aN^i.$$
(10)
As for the strongly hyperbolic system, we hereafter take the latter expression.

### 2.3 Alternative approaches to obtain robust evolution 1: “$`\lambda `$-system”

Based on the symmetric hyperbolic feature of the system, Brodbeck, Frittelli, Hübner and Reula (BFHR) proposed an alternative dynamical system to obtain stable evolutions, which they named “$`\lambda `$-system” . The idea of this approach is to introduce additional variables, $`\lambda `$, which indicates the violation of the constraints, and to construct a symmetric hyperbolic system for both the original variables and $`\lambda `$s together with imposing dissipative dynamical equations for $`\lambda `$s. BFHR constructed their $`\lambda `$-system based on Frittelli-Reula’s symmetric hyperbolic formulation of the Einstein equations , and we  have also presented the similar system for the Ashtekar’s connection formulation based on the above symmetric hyperbolic expression. Here we present our system which evolves the spacetime to the constraint surface, $`𝒞_H𝒞_{Mi}𝒞_{Ga}0`$ as the attractor. In , we also present a system which controls the perturvative violation of the reality condition.

We introduce new variables ($`\lambda ,\lambda _i,\lambda _a`$), as they obey the dissipative evolution equations

$`_t\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _1𝒞_H\beta _1\lambda ,`$ (11)
$`_t\lambda _i`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _2\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_{Mi}\beta _2\lambda _i,`$ (12)
$`_t\lambda _a`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _3𝒞_{Ga}\beta _3\lambda _a,`$ (13)
where $`\alpha _i0`$ (allowed to be complex numbers) and $`\beta _i>0`$ (real numbers) are constants.

If we take $`u_\alpha ^{\left(DL\right)}=(\stackrel{~}{E}_a^i,𝒜_i^a,\lambda ,\lambda _i,\lambda _a)`$ as a set of dynamical variables, then the principal part of (11)-(13) can be written as

$`_t\lambda `$ $``$ $`i\alpha _1ϵ^{bcd}\stackrel{~}{E}_c^j\stackrel{~}{E}_d^l\left(_l𝒜_j^b\right),`$ (14)
$`_t\lambda _i`$ $``$ $`\alpha _2\left[e\delta _i^l\stackrel{~}{E}_b^j+e\delta _i^j\stackrel{~}{E}_b^l\right]\left(_l𝒜_j^b\right),`$ (15)
$`_t\lambda _a`$ $``$ $`\alpha _3_l\stackrel{~}{E}_a^l.`$ (16)
The characteristic matrix of the system $`u_\alpha ^{\left(DL\right)}`$ does not form a Hermitian matrix. However, if we modify the right-hand-side of the evolution equation of ($`\stackrel{~}{E}_a^i,𝒜_i^a`$), then the set becomes a symmetric hyperbolic system. This is done by adding $`\overline{\alpha }{}_{3}{}^{}\gamma _{}^{il}\left(_l\lambda _a\right)`$ to the equation of $`_t\stackrel{~}{E}_a^i`$, and by adding $`i\overline{\alpha }{}_{1}{}^{}ϵ_{}^{a}{}_{c}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{d}\stackrel{~}{E}_{i}^{c}\stackrel{~}{E}_d^l\left(_l\lambda \right)+\overline{\alpha }{}_{2}{}^{}(e\gamma ^{lm}\stackrel{~}{E}_i^a+e\delta _i^m\stackrel{~}{E}^{la})\left(_l\lambda _m\right)`$ to the equation of $`_t𝒜_i^a`$. The final principal part, then, is written as

$$_t\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{E}_a^i\\ 𝒜_i^a\\ \lambda \\ \lambda _i\\ \lambda _a\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}A^l{}_{a}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{bi}_m& 0& 0& 0& \overline{\alpha }{}_{3}{}^{}\gamma _{}^{il}\delta _a^b\\ 0& D^l{}_{i}{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}^m& i\overline{\alpha }{}_{1}{}^{}ϵ_{}^{a}{}_{c}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{d}\stackrel{~}{E}_{i}^{c}\stackrel{~}{E}_d^l& \overline{\alpha }{}_{2}{}^{}e\left(\delta _i^m\stackrel{~}{E}^{la}\gamma ^{lm}\stackrel{~}{E}_i^a\right)& 0\\ 0& i\alpha _1ϵ_b{}_{}{}^{cd}\stackrel{~}{E}_{c}^{m}\stackrel{~}{E}_d^l& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \alpha _2e\left(\delta _i^m\stackrel{~}{E}_b^l\delta _i^l\stackrel{~}{E}_b^m\right)& 0& 0& 0\\ \alpha _3\delta _a{}_{}{}^{b}\delta _{}^{l}_m& 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)_l\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{E}_b^m\\ 𝒜_m^b\\ \lambda \\ \lambda _m\\ \lambda _b\end{array}\right).$$
(17)
Clearly, the solution $`(\stackrel{~}{E}_a^i,𝒜_i^a,\lambda ,\lambda _i,\lambda _a)=(\stackrel{~}{E}_a^i,𝒜_i^a,0,0,0)`$ represents the original solution of the Ashtekar system. If the $`\lambda `$s decay to zero after the evolution, then the solution also describes the original solution of the Ashtekar system in that stage. Since the dynamical system of $`u_\alpha ^{\left(DL\right)}`$, (17), constitutes a symmetric hyperbolic form, the solutions to the $`\lambda `$-system are unique. BFHR showed analytically that such a decay of $`\lambda `$s can be seen for $`\lambda `$s sufficiently close to zero with a choice of appropriate combination of $`\alpha `$s and $`\beta `$s, and that statement can be also applied to our system. Therefore, the dynamical system, (17), is useful for stabilizing numerical simulations from the point that it recovers the constraint surface automatically.

### 2.4 Alternative approaches to obtain robust evolution 2: “adjusted system”

We also try to compare a set of evolution system, which we propose as “adjusted-system”. The essential procedures are to add constraint terms in the right-hand-side of the dynamical equations with multipliers, and to choose the multipliers so as to decrease the violation of constraint equation. This second step will be explained by obtaining non-positive (or non-zero) eigenvalues of the adjusted constraint propagation equations. We remark that this eigenvalue criterion is also the core part of the theoretical support of the above $`\lambda `$-system.

The fundamental equations that we will demonstrate in this report, are the same with (2.2) and (2.2), but here the real-valued constant multipliers $`\kappa `$s are not necessary equals to unity. We set $`\kappa \kappa _1=\kappa _2=\kappa _3`$ for simplicity. Apparently the set of (2.2) and (2.2) becomes the original weakly hyperbolic system if $`\kappa =0`$, becomes the symmetric hyperbolic system if $`\kappa =1`$ and $`N=const.`$. The set remains strongly hyperbolic systems for other choices of $`\kappa `$ except $`\kappa =1/2`$ which only forms weakly hyperbolic system.

## 3 Comparing numerical performance

### 3.1 Model and Numerical method

The model we present here is gravitational wave propagation in a planar spacetime under periodic boundary condition. We perform a full numerical simulation using Ashtekar’s variables. We prepare two $`+`$-mode strong pulse waves initially by solving the ADM Hamiltonian constraint equation, using York-O’Murchadha’s conformal approach. Then we transform the initial Cauchy data (3-metric and extrinsic curvature) into the connection variables, $`(\stackrel{~}{E}_a^i,𝒜_i^a)`$, and evolve them using the dynamical equations. For the presentation in this article, we apply the geodesic slicing condition (ADM lapse $`N=1`$ or densitized lapse $`\underset{^{}}{𝑁}=1`$, with zero shift and zero triad lapse). We have used both the Brailovskaya integration scheme, which is a second order predictor-corrector method, and the so-called iterative Crank-Nicholson integration scheme for numerical time evolutions. The details of the numerical method are described in , where we also described how our code shows second order convergence behaviour.

More specifically, we set our initial guess 3-metric as

$$\widehat{\gamma }_{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ sym.& 1+K\left(e^{\left(xL\right)^2}+e^{\left(x+L\right)^2}\right)& 0\\ sym.& sym.& 1K\left(e^{\left(xL\right)^2}+e^{\left(x+L\right)^2}\right)\end{array}\right),$$
(18)
in the periodically bounded region $`x=[5,+5]`$. Here $`K`$ and $`L`$ are constants and we set $`K=0.3`$ and $`L=2.5`$ for the plots.

In order to show the expected “stabilization behaviour” clearly, we artificially add an error in the middle of the time evolution. We added an artificial inconsistent rescaling once at time $`t=6`$ for the $`𝒜_y^2`$ component as $`𝒜_y^2𝒜_y^2\left(1+\mathrm{error}\right)`$.

### 3.2 Differences between three levels of hyperbolicity

We have performed comparisons of stability and/or accuracy between weakly and strongly hyperbolic systems, and between weakly and symmetric hyperbolic systems. (We can not compare strongly and symmetric hyperbolic systems directly, because these two requires different gauge conditions.)

We omit figures in this report, but one can see a part of results in Fig.1 and Fig.2. We may conclude that higher level hyperbolic system gives us slightly accurate evolutions. However, if we evaluate the magnitude of L2 norms, then we also conclude that there is no measurable differences between strongly and symmetric hyperbolicities. This last fact will be supported more affirmatively in the next experiments.

### 3.3 Demonstrating “$`\lambda `$-system”

Next, we show a result of the “$`\lambda `$-system” . Fig.1 (a) shows how the violation of the Hamiltonian constraint equation, $`𝒞_H`$, become worse depending on the term $`\mathrm{error}`$. The oscillation of the L2 norm $`𝒞_H`$ in the figure due to the pulse waves collide periodically in the numerical region. We, then, fix the error term as a 20% spike, and try to evolve the same data in different equations of motion, i.e., the original Ashtekar’s equation \[solid line in Fig.1 (b)\], strongly hyperbolic version of Ashtekar’s equation (dotted line) and the above $`\lambda `$-system equation (other lines) with different $`\beta `$s but the same $`\alpha `$. As we expected, all the $`\lambda `$-system cases result in reducing the Hamiltonian constraint errors.

### 3.4 Demonstrating “adjusted system”

We here examine how the adjusted multipliers contribute to the system’s stability . In Fig.2, we show the results of this experiment. We plot the violation of the constraint equations both $`𝒞_H`$ and $`𝒞_{Mx}`$. An artificial error term was added in the same way as above. The solid line is the case of $`\kappa =0`$, that is the case of “no adjusted” original Ashtekar equation (weakly hyperbolic system). The dotted line is for $`\kappa =1`$, equivalent to the symmetric hyperbolic system. We see other line ($`\kappa =2.0`$) shows better performance than the symmetric hyperbolic case.

## 4 Why adjusted equations have better performance?

The remaining question is: why we can get the better performance by adding constraint terms in the dynamical equations? The added terms are basically error terms during the evolution for its original dynamical equations. Nevertheless, these terms improve the accuracy of the evolution. This question applies to both higher level of hyperbolicities and also for our proposing “adjusted systems”. Here we introduce our plausible explanation schematically. The detail explanations and numerical experiments are in .

Suppose we have constraint equations, $`𝒞_10,𝒞_20,\mathrm{}`$, in a system. We, normally, monitor the error of the evolution by evaluating these constraint equations on the each constant-time hypersurface. Such monitoring, on the other hand, can be performed also by checking the evolution equations of the constraint, which we denote constraint propagation equations (cf. ). If this set of constraint propagation equations could be written in a first order form, then we may predict the evolution behavior by its characteristic matrix, $`M`$, which is expressed by

$$_t\left(\begin{array}{c}𝒞_1\\ 𝒞_2\\ \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)M_i\left(\begin{array}{c}𝒞_1\\ 𝒞_2\\ \mathrm{}\end{array}\right),$$
(19)
where $``$ means we are extracting only the characteristic part.

The idea here is to estimate the eigenvalues of the characteristic matrix, $`M`$, after we took the Fourier transformation on the both sides of (19).

1. Clearly, if all the real part of the eigenvalues are negative, then all constraints decays to zero along to the system’s evolution.
2. Alternatively, if all the eigenvalues are pure-imaginary, then all constraints evolve similar to wave equations, and diffusion due to differenciation may preserve from its unstable evolution.

These guidelines are supported by von Neumann’s stability analysis. For the adjusted Ashtekar equations, the eigenvalues of the amplicication matrix in von Neumann’s method for the set of $`(𝒞_H,𝒞_{Mi},𝒞_{Ga})`$ are $`\{1,1\nu ^2\kappa \mathrm{sin}\theta \pm i\nu \kappa \left|\mathrm{sin}\theta \right|\left(\text{multiplicity 2 each}\right),1\nu ^2\left(12\kappa \right)^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \pm i\nu \left|12\kappa \right|\left|\mathrm{sin}\theta \right|\}`$, where $`\nu =\mathrm{\Delta }t/\mathrm{\Delta }x`$, $`\theta `$ is the parameter for the frequency in grid spacing domain, and $`\kappa `$ is the adjusted parameter (§2.4). We observe that von Neumann’s necessary condition for the stability can be obtained in larger non-zero $`\kappa `$.

In , we show that such a case can be obtained by adding ‘adjusted terms’ both for Ashtekar’s and Maxwell’s systems. There we also show examples of unstable evolution by choosing adjusted terms which produce positive eigenvalues of $`M`$.

In this point, we can say that adjusted terms are responsible for obtaining the stable and/or accurate evolution system, and this is a way to control the stability of simulation, which effects more than the system’s hyperbolicity.

## 5 Concluding remarks

We presented numerical comparisons on the accuracy/stability of the systems, mainly between three mathematical levels of hyperbolicity: weakly hyperbolic, strongly hyperbolic, and symmetric hyperbolic systems. We apply Ashtekar’s connection formulation, because this is the only known system in which we can compare three hyperbolic levels with the same interface. We also tested two another approaches with a purpose of constructing an “asymptotically constrained” system, “$`\lambda `$-system” and “adjusted system”, which can be robust against perturbative errors for the free evolution of the initial data.

We may conclude that higher levels of hyperbolic formulations help the numerics more, though its differences are small . Two other approaches work as desired. These show quite good performance than those of the original and its symmetric hyperbolic form. This indicates, in turn, that the symmetric hyperbolic system is not always the best for controlling accuracy or stability.

The reason why higher hyperbolicity shows better stability may be explained by the eigenvalue analysis of the propagation equation of the constraints. Our two guidelines, negative-real eigenvalues or pure-imaginary eigenvalues, give us clear indications whether the constraints decay (i.e. stable system) or not for perturbative errors, at least to all our numerical experiments.

We think these results open a new direction to numerical relativists for future treatment of the Einstein equations.

To conclude, we are glad to announce that Ashtekar’s connection variables have finally been applied in numerical simulations. This new approach, we hope, will contribute to understanding further of gravitational physics, and will open a new window for peeling off interesting non-linear natures together with a step to numerical treatment of quantum gravity.

## Acknowledgements

HS appreciates helpful comments by Abhay Ashtekar, Jorge Pullin, Douglas Arnold and L. Samuel Finn, and the hospitality of the CGPG group. Numerical computations were performed using machines at CGPG. This work was supported in part by the NSF grants PHYS98-00973, and the Everly research funds of Penn State. HS was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science as a research fellow abroad. HS appreciates the travel support from the LOC of the JGRG workshop.


text:
# Muon and Tau Anomalies Updated

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The recent E821 BNL result  for the measurement of the muon anomaly averaged with older determinations  gives :

$$a_\mu ^{exp}=116592023(151)\times 10^{11}.$$
(1)
The announcement of a $`2.6\sigma `$ deviation  of this experimental result from the standard model (SM) prediction has stimulated intensive publications on the possible signal or/and constraints on new physics, but has also raised some criticisms . In this paper, we consider that the only rational answer to the the criticisms of  is an independent re-evaluation of the hadronic vacuum polarisation contribution to the muon anomaly as an update of our old estimate in , which is the main motivation of this work. In order to avoid some specific theoretical dependences of the result, we shall mainly use the available data from $`\tau `$-decay and $`e^+e^{}`$ hadrons, and limit ourselves to the use of perturbative QCD plus (negiligible) additional effects due to the QCD vacuum condensates for describing the high-energy region (QCD continuum) not accessible experimentally. We shall compare our results with previous determinations and analyze its implications for some new physics (e.g. supersymmetry, radiative muon, composite, extended Zee and leptoquark models) beyond the SM. Finally, we update our old and first  SM predictions for $`a_\tau `$.

## 2 THE HADRONIC VACUUM POLARISATION CONTRIBUTION TO THE LEPTON ANOMALY

Several papers have been devoted to the analysis of the contribution to the muon anomaly. Works prior 76 have been reviewed in , while more recent works (after 85) are reviewed in . A partial historical review of the different determinations since 61 can be found in Figure 2 of , which we complete and update in Table 1, where only works published in journals with referee-policies have been considered.

Using a dispersion relation, the hadronic vacuum polarisation contribution to the lepton anomaly $`a_l`$ can be expressed as :

$`a_l^{had}(l.o)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle _{4m_\pi ^2}^{\mathrm{}}}dtK_l(t)\sigma _H(t).`$ (2)
$``$ $`K_l(t0)`$ is the QED kernel function :

$`K_l(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{x^2(1x)}{x^2+\left(t/m_l^2\right)(1x)}},`$ (3)
with the analytic forms:

$`K_l(t4m_l^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}4y_l`$
$`4y_l(12y_l)\mathrm{log}(4y_l)`$
$`2(18y_l+8y_l^2)\times `$
$`\sqrt{y_l(1y_l)}\mathrm{arccos}\sqrt{y_l},`$
$`K_l(t4m_l^2)`$ $`=`$ $`z_l^2(1{\displaystyle \frac{z_l^2}{2}})+(1+z_l)^2\times `$ (4)
$`(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_l^2}})[\mathrm{log}(1+z_l)z_l`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{z_l^2}{2}}]+({\displaystyle \frac{1+z_l}{1z_l}})z_l^2\mathrm{log}z_l,`$
with:

$$y_l=\frac{t}{4m_l^2},z_l=\frac{(1v_l)}{(1+v_l)}\mathrm{and}v_l=\sqrt{1\frac{4m_l^2}{t}}.$$
(5)
$`K_l(t)`$ is a monotonically decreasing function of $`t`$. For large $`t`$, it behaves as:

$$K_l(t>m_l^2)\frac{m_l^2}{3t},$$
(6)
which will be useful for the analysis in the large $`t`$ regime. Such properties then emphasize the importance of the low-energy contribution to $`a_l^{had}(l.o)(le,\mu )`$, where the QCD analytic calculations cannot be applied.
$``$ $`\sigma _H(t)\sigma (e^+e^{}\mathrm{hadrons})`$ is the $`e^+e^{}`$ hadrons total cross-section which can be related to the hadronic two-point spectral function Im$`\mathrm{\Pi }(t)_{em}`$ through the optical theorem:

$$R_{e^+e^{}}\frac{\sigma (e^+e^{}\mathrm{hadrons})}{\sigma (e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{})}=12\pi \mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }(t)_{em},$$
(7)
where:

$$\sigma (e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{})=\frac{4\pi \alpha ^2}{3t}.$$
(8)
Here,

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{em}^{\mu \nu }`$ $``$ $`i{\displaystyle d^4xe^{iqx}0|𝒯J_{em}^\mu (x)\left(J_{em}^\nu (x)\right)^{}|0}`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`\left(g^{\mu \nu }q^2q^\mu q^\nu \right)\mathrm{\Pi }_{em}(q^2)`$
is the correlator built from the local electromagnetic current:

$$J_{em}^\mu (x)=\frac{2}{3}\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu u\frac{1}{3}\overline{d}\gamma ^\mu d\frac{1}{3}\overline{s}\gamma ^\mu s+\mathrm{}$$
(10)
$``$ In the following, we shall discuss in details the different hadronic contributions to $`a_\mu ^{had}(l.o)`$. Our results will be given in Table 2.

## 3 HADRONIC VACUUM POLARISATION CONTRIBUTION TO THE MUON ANOMALY

### 3.1 LIGHT ISOVECTOR MESONS

### Region below 0.8 GeV2

Due to the $`t`$-behaviour of the kernel function $`K_\mu (t)`$, this region gives so far the most important contribution to $`a_\mu ^{had}(l.o)`$ ($`68\%`$ of the total contribution), and also the largest source of the errors (77% when added quadratically). In our numerical analysis, we divide this region into three subregions.
$``$ The first one is the region near the two pions threshold $`4m_\pi ^2t0.4`$ GeV2, where the pion form factor $`|F_\pi |^2(t)`$ is constrained by universality $`|F_\pi |^2(0)=1`$ and by the $`t`$ expansion predicted by chiral perturbation theory:

$$|F_\pi |^2(t)1+\frac{1}{6}r^2_\pi t+c_\pi t^2+𝒪(t^3),$$
(11)
or its resummed expression . $`r^2_\pi (0.431\pm 0.026)\mathrm{fm}^2`$ is the mean pion charge radius squared and $`c_\pi (3.2\pm 1.0)\mathrm{GeV}^4`$ . One can inspect that the ALEPH/OPAL  and $`e^+e^{}`$ data compiled in  satisfy both constraints.
$``$ The second region is the one from $`0.4\mathrm{GeV}^2t0.6\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ on the top of the $`\rho `$ resonance.
$``$ For these two regions, we shall use CVC hypothesis which relates the electromagnetic to the charged current through an isospin rotation :

$$\sigma _H(t)=\frac{4\pi \alpha ^2}{t}v_1.$$
(12)
We follow the notation of ALEPH , where:

$$\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\overline{u}d,V}^{(1)}\frac{1}{2\pi }v_1,$$
(13)
is the charged vector two-point correlator:

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\overline{u}d,V}^{\mu \nu }`$ $``$ $`i{\displaystyle d^4xe^{iqx}0|𝒯J_{\overline{u}d}^\mu (x)\left(J_{\overline{u}d}^\nu (0)\right)^{}|0}`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`\left(g^{\mu \nu }q^2q^\mu q^\nu \right)\mathrm{\Pi }_{\overline{u}d,V}^{(1)}(q^2)`$
$`+q^\mu q^\nu \mathrm{\Pi }_{\overline{u}d,V}^{(0)}(q^2),`$
built from the local charged current $`J_{\overline{u}d,V}^\mu (x)=\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu d(x).`$ We use the accurate semi-inclusive ALEPH/ OPAL data . For a comparison, we also show the results obtained from the use of $`e^+e^{}`$ data in the whole region below 0.6 GeV2.
$``$ The third region is the one from $`0.6`$ GeV2 to $`0.8`$ GeV2, which is peculiar due to the $`\omega \rho `$ mixing. In this region, we use either the $`\tau `$-decay data with corrected $`\omega \rho `$ mixing effect, or the $`e^+e^{}`$ data alone compiled in . One can check from the data that the effect of the $`4\pi `$ is negligible in such a region.

### Region from 0.8 to 3 GeV2

For our fitting procedure, we use CVC and the ALEPH/OPAL semi-inclusive $`\tau `$-decay data . The dominant error from this region comes from the one between 2.1 and 3 GeV2 (88% when the errors are added quadratically), due to the incaccuracy of the data near $`M_\tau `$. For a comparison, we also show the results when using the sum of exclusive modes from $`e^+e^{}`$ compiled in , where in this case the errors come mainly from the region below 2 GeV2.

### 3.2 LIGHT ISOSCALAR MESONS

### $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$ mesons

We treat these mesons in a narrow width approximation (NWA), which is expected to be a good approximation. Using the relation between the $`e^+e^{}`$ hadrons total cross section and the leptonic width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ee}`$ of the meson with a mass $`M_R`$:

$$\sigma _H(t)_{NWA}12\pi ^2\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ee}}{M_R}\delta (tM_R^2),$$
(15)
one can write:

$$a_\mu ^{had}(l.o)_{NWA}\frac{3}{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ee}}{M_R}K_\mu (M_R^2),$$
(16)
where, we shall use the PDG values of the electronic widths .

### Region below $`1.39^2`$ GeV2

We estimate the effect of this region by using the sum of exclusive $`I=0`$ modes for the ratio $`R_{e^+e^{}}^{I=0}`$ compiled in .

### Region between $`1.39^2`$ and 3 GeV2

In order to account for the multi-odd pions, $`\overline{K}K,\overline{K}K\pi ,\mathrm{}`$ modes, we estimate the effect of this region by assuming that it is mainly given by the $`\omega (1419),\omega (1662)`$ and $`\varphi (1680)`$, with their parameters measured by the DM2  and DM1  collaborations. We shall estimate their leptonic widths which are multiplied by the hadronic branching ratios in , by assuming (see PDG  and the indication from DM2 and DM1 data), that the $`\omega (1419)`$ decays predominantly into $`\rho \pi `$ (we assume it to be approximately 90%); the $`\omega (1662)`$ decays mainly into $`\rho \pi `$ (44%) and $`\omega \pi `$ (56%), while the $`\varphi (1680)`$ decays dominantly into $`K^{}K`$ (93%) and to $`K\overline{K}`$ (7%). In this way, we deduce the leptonic widths:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega (1419)e^+e^{}}`$ $``$ $`(90\pm 34)\mathrm{eV},`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega (1650)e^+e^{}}`$ $``$ $`(0.30\pm 0.03)\mathrm{keV},`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\varphi (1680)e^+e^{}}`$ $``$ $`(0.43\pm .15)\mathrm{keV}.`$ (17)
We use a Breit-Wigner (BW) form for evaluating their contributions:

$$\sigma _H(t)|_{BW}12\pi \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ee}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}}{(tM_R^2)^2+M_R^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}^2},$$
(18)
where we take $`M_R`$ from PDG  and:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}^{\omega (1420)}`$ $``$ $`(174\pm 59)\mathrm{MeV}\text{[35]},`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}^{\omega (1650)}`$ $``$ $`(280\pm 24)\mathrm{MeV}\text{[35]},`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}^{\varphi (1680)}`$ $``$ $`(150\pm 50)\mathrm{MeV}\text{[33]}.`$ (19)
### 3.3 THE $`J/\psi `$ AND $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ FAMILIES

We consider the six $`J/\psi `$ mesons $`1S`$, $`2S,`$ 3770, 4040, 4160 and 4415, and the five $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ mesons $`1S`$, $`2S`$, $`3S,`$ $`4S`$ and 11020. We treat these mesons using NWA and the data on their electronic widths from PDG .

### 3.4 QCD CONTINUUM

As advertized previously, we shall treat the region not accessible experimentally by using perturbative QCD where it is expected to work and where non-perturbative effects like e.g. the quark and gluon condensates are negligible corrections.

### Input for light quarks

In the case of massless quarks, the unit operator contribution to $`R_{e^+e^{}}`$ is accurately known and reads, in the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme:

$`R_{e^+e^{}}^{pert}=3{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}Q_f^2\left[1+a_s+F_3a_s^2+F_4a_s^3\right]`$ (20)
with:

$`F_3`$ $`=`$ $`1.9860.115n_f\text{[37]},`$
$`F_4`$ $`=`$ $`6.6371.200n_f0.005n_f^2`$ (21)
$`1.240{\displaystyle \frac{\left(_fQ_f\right)^2}{3\left(_fQ_f^2\right)}}\text{[38]},`$
for $`n_f`$ quark flavours; $`Q_f`$ is the quark charge in units of $`e`$ and $`a_s(\alpha _s/\pi )`$ is the QCD running coupling which we use to order $`a_s^2`$ (see e.g. the expression in ). We also use, the value of the QCD scale for three flavours:

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3`$ $`=`$ $`(375\pm 50)\mathrm{MeV},`$ (22)
obtained using the central value $`\alpha _s(M_Z)=0.119`$ .

To this perturbative correction, we add the light quark mass and non-perturbative corrections. We shall also consider the effects of a tachyonic gluon mass evaluated in  in order to take into account the effects of the truncation of the QCD perturbative series.

The dimension $`D=2`$ ($`m_f^2`$ and tachyonic gluon) corrections are :

$`tR_{e^+e^{}}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`3{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}Q_f^2[\overline{m}_f^2[6+28a_s+`$ (23)
$`(294.812.3n_f)a_s^2]+1.05a_s\lambda ^2],`$
where  $`a_s\lambda ^2(0.060.07)`$ GeV2.

The dimension $`D=4`$ corrections are :

$`t^2R_{e^+e^{}}^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`3{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}Q_f^2[{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{11}{18}}a_s)\alpha _sG^2`$ (24)
$`+8\pi ^2\left(1a_s\right)m_f\overline{\psi }_f\psi _f`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{32\pi ^2}{27}}a_s{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}m_f\overline{\psi }_f\psi _f`$
$`+\overline{m}_s^4{\displaystyle \frac{8}{7}}[{\displaystyle \frac{6}{a_s}}+{\displaystyle \frac{23}{4}}`$
$`+a_s({\displaystyle \frac{2063}{24}}10\zeta _3)]],`$
where $`\zeta _3=1.2020569`$

We use $`\alpha _sG^2=(0.07\pm 0.01)`$ GeV4 , and $`(m_u+m_d)\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d=2f_\pi ^2m_\pi ^2`$ ($`f_\pi =92.6`$ MeV). The running quark mass in the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme is defined as (see e.g. ):

$`\overline{m}_i(\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{m}_i(\beta _1a_s(\nu ))^{\gamma _1/\beta _1}\{1`$ (25)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2}{\beta _1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _1}{\beta _1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _2}{\beta _2}}\right)a_s(\nu )`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2^2}{\beta _1^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _1}{\beta _1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _2}{\beta _2}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2^2}{\beta _1^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _1}{\beta _1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _2}{\beta _2}})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _3}{\beta _1}}({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _1}{\beta _1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _3}{\beta _3}})]a_s^2(\nu )\},`$
where for three flavours the quark mass anomalous dimensions are (see e.g. ): $`\gamma _1=2`$, $`\gamma _2=91/12,`$ $`\gamma _3=24.8404`$, while the coefficients of the $`\beta `$ function are: $`\beta _1=9/2,`$ $`\beta _2=8,`$ $`\beta _3=20.1198`$. We shall use the value of the invariant strange quark mass :

$$\widehat{m}_s=(133.3\pm 18.8)\mathrm{MeV}.$$
(26)
We take into account the $`SU(3)`$ breaking of the quark condensates $`\overline{s}s/\overline{d}d0.68_{0.29}^{+0.15}`$  and consistently use $`f_K=1.2f_\pi `$.

### Input for heavy quarks

In the case of heavy quarks, the perturbative spectral function can be accurately approximated by the Schwinger interpolating formula :

$$R_{e^+e^{}}=3\underset{f}{}Q_f^2v_f\frac{(3v_f^2)}{2}\left[1+\frac{4}{3}\alpha _sf(v_f)\right],$$
(27)
where:

$$f(v_f)=\frac{\pi }{2v_f}\frac{(3+v_f)}{4}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{3}{4\pi }\right),$$
(28)
and:

$$v_f=\sqrt{1\frac{4m_f^2}{t}},$$
(29)
is the quark velocity; $`m_f`$ is the heavy quark (pole) mass of flavour $`f`$. We shall see that, in the region where we shall work (away from threshold and for large $`t`$), these two parametrizations provide a sufficiently accurate description of the spectral function. For a conservative estimate, we shall consider the range of values spanned by the running and pole quark masses for the heavy quarks :

$`m_c=(1.21.46)\mathrm{GeV},m_b=(4.24.7)\mathrm{GeV}.`$ (30)
Within the present accuracy of the values of the heavy quark masses, we find that it is not necessary to include the known $`\alpha _s^2`$ corrections .

### The $`(u,d,s)`$ flavour contributions

We complete the contribution of the light quark channels by adding the QCD continuum from $`t_c=3`$ to (4.57 GeV)2. We shall use the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3`$ given in Eq. (22). Our value of $`t_c`$ is higher than $`t_c1.6`$ GeV2 from global duality constraint in the $`I=1`$ channel 111I thank Eduardo de Rafael for this remark. A similar value of the QCD continuum is obtained from the $`V`$-$`A`$ channel .. We have compared $`a_\mu ^{I=1}(1.6t3)`$ GeV2 from a QCD continuum parametrization and from the uses of data. They only differ by 16$`\times 10^{11}`$, showing that the QCD continuum provides a good smearing of the data. We shall include this value into the systematics. One can also realize that the mass and non-perturbative corrections tend to cancel each others, whilst, individually, they are already small.

### The $`(u,d,s,c)`$ flavour contributions

We add the contribution of the charm quark about 150 MeV above the $`J/\psi (4415)`$ ($``$ empirical mass-splitting between the radial excitations). In this region, the previous expressions give a good description of the spectral function, because at this energy, the charm quark is already relativistic with a velocity larger than 0.75. Additional threshold effects are taking into account by transforming the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3`$ into $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$.

### The $`(u,d,s,c,b)`$ flavour contributions

The contribution of the $`b`$-quark is added about 250 MeV above the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(11020) resonance ($``$ empirical mass-splitting between the radial excitations). Again at this energy, the $`b`$ quark is already relativistic as its velocity is larger than 0.55, such that our perturbative parametrization remains a good approximation. We integrate until the $`2M_t`$ threshold, where we take $`M_t174.3(5.1)`$ GeV as a best value given by PDG .

### 3.5 FINAL RESULT FOR $`a_\mu ^{had}(l.o)`$

### From combined $`\tau `$-decay and $`e^+e^{}`$ data

Collecting all different contributions from Table 2, we deduce the final result at the end of that table, which we compile in Table 1 for a comparison with other previous determinations. We obtain 222Here and in the following, the errors will be added quadratically as usually done.:

$$a_\mu ^{had}(l.o)=7036.1(76.4)\times 10^{11},$$
(31)
using the inclusive $`\tau `$-decay data until 3 GeV2 from ALEPH/OPAL  for the isovector channel and using $`e^+e^{}`$ data below 3 GeV2  for the isoscalar channel. The errors have been added quadratically. The effects of the heavy quark mesons have been treated using a narrow width approximation plus QCD continuum away from the quark-anti-quark thresholds.

### From the alone $`e^+e^{}`$ data

If we use the isovector $`e^+e^{}`$ data below 3 GeV2, we obtain:

$$a_\mu ^{had}(l.o)=7015.7(119.1)\times 10^{11},$$
(32)
which is slightly lower than the one from inclusive $`\tau `$ decay and less accurate. The difference in each region can be seen explicitly in Table 2 and easy to understand from the data given in .

### Different source of errors

$``$ The main error (80% when added quadratically) in our previous determinations comes from the $`\rho `$-meson region below 0.8 GeV2. Hopefully, improved measurements of this region are feasible in the near future.
$``$ The second source of errors comes from the region around $`M_\tau `$ for the inclusive $`\tau `$-decay and between 1 GeV to $`M_\tau `$ for the $`e^+e^{}`$ data. These errors are about half of the one from the region below 0.8 GeV2 in most different determinations. They can be reduced by improved measurements of inclusive $`\tau `$-decay near $`M_\tau `$ $`(I=1)`$ and by improving the measurements of the odd multi-pions and $`\overline{K}K,\overline{K}K\pi ,\mathrm{}`$ channels in the $`I=0`$ channels from $`e^+e^{}`$ data.
$``$ The contributions of the whole region above 3 GeV2 induce much smaller errors (7% of the total). There is a quite good consensus between different determinations in this energy region.

### Improvements from $`\tau `$-decay data

Our results for the isovector contributions, show that the precise inclusive $`\tau `$-decay data have significantly improved by almost a factor two the accuracy of the determination compared with the one from $`e^+e^{}`$ data. However, they are amended by the inaccuracy near $`M_\tau `$. Indeed, one can gain a bit in precision by using $`e^+e^{}`$ data in the region between 2.1 and 3 GeV2 instead of $`\tau `$-decay data, but we are aware of the disagreement among different $`e^+e^{}`$ data in this region. In this case of figure, one would get from Table 2:

$$a_\mu ^{had}(l.o)=7010.0(72.2)\times 10^{11}.$$
(33)
### Final result and additional systematic errors

We consider as a final result the average of the three results given in Eqs. (31), (32) and (33). We consider the accuracy given in Eq. (33), which avoids the weakness of $`\tau `$-decay data near $`M_\tau `$. We add to this error the following systematics:
$``$ We take into account, an eventual deviation from the CVC assumption 333I thank Paco Yndurain for mentioning this point, for checking some of the entries in Table 2 and for several communications. (CVC has been also tested in ), and some other systematics in manipulating the isovector data by adding a systematic error of 15.5$`\times 10^{11}`$ coming from the largest difference of the central value of Eqs. (31) and (32) from the average value.
$``$ We also add another 16$`\times 10^{11}`$ systematics due to the difference of the continuum threshold 3 GeV2 value for three flavours used here and the one from QCD global duality in  (see section 3.4).
Adding the different errors quadratically, we deduce our final estimate:

$$a_\mu ^{had}(l.o)=7020.6(75.6)\times 10^{11},$$
(34)
It is amusing to notice that the central value of our different results almost coïncide with our 25 years old value  and with the mean central value given in Table 1.

### 3.6 COMPARISONS WITH PREVIOUS DETERMINATIONS OF $`a_\mu ^{had}(l.o)`$

### QCD continuum

$``$ Our treatment of the QCD continuum in the heavy quark channels gives similar results than more involved parametrization  including non-perturbative gluon condensate and non-relativistic contributions. This is due to the fact that in the region where we work, the heavy quark-antiquark pairs are already relativistic with a quark velocity larger than 0.55.
$``$ Comparing existing estimates, one can see that there is a consensus on the size of the QCD continuum effect. The departures from different determinations come mainly from the treatment of the low-energy region below 2 GeV.

### Isoscalars

For the isoscalar resonances, one can realize by comparing the results with existing estimates that the narrow width approximation (NWA) gives enough accurate results comparable in magnitude and accuracy with more sophisticated parametrization including width effects .

### Isovector channel and some global comparisons

In the following comparison, we shall use numbers in units of $`10^{11}`$.
$``$ Comparison with
It has been argued in  that the contribution from this region can be improved by using constraint imposed by $`\pi \pi `$ scattering data in the spacelike region on the pion form factor. The result $`a_\mu ^{had}(l.o)(t0.8`$ GeV$`{}_{}{}^{2})=4848(31)`$ quoted by  is based on Watson theorem (extended to 0.8 GeV2) for the $`\pi \pi `$ phase shift $`\delta _1^1(t)`$. The central value differs with our value 4795(61) obtained from the data in the timelike region by 53 MeV, but agrees with the result 4794(14) given in their Eq. (3.23) obtained from a fit of $`\delta _1^1(t)`$ from the data. Another discrepancy of 39(104) comes from the region between 0.8 and 2 GeV2, but is not significant due to the large errors. It is argued in  that error from high-energy region can be reduced .
$``$ Comparison with
Our result agrees within the errors with the final result 7024(153) of  from their Table 3a 444I thank William Marciano for mentioning this correct result and for several communications., with the updated result 6989(111) quoted in , and with some of the results given in Table 2.
$``$ Comparison with

For a proper comparison with these different determinations, we shall only consider the two regions separated by the scale $`\sqrt{t}=M_\tau `$, and compare our result $`a_\mu ^{had}(l.o)(\sqrt{t}M_\tau )=6426(76)`$ obtained from $`\tau `$-decay data. The central value of our result is relatively higher than the value 6365(74) in  and 6343(60) in . Within the errors, the 1st result is consistent with ours while the second shows one $`\sigma `$ discrepancy. For comparing with the result of , we subtract from their total result, the heavy quarks and QCD continuum contributions. In this way, we deduce the contribution 6405(94), much more closer to our result than the two formers, where one should also notice that our final results from the alone $`e^+e^{}`$ data agree.

The exact origin of the discrepancy of the central values is not easy to detect due to the complexity of the analysis in this region, though it is reassuring that results based on maximal data inputs  are consistent with ours within the errors.

We do not worry by the discrepancy with , as it uses more theoretical inputs than data (“determination with minimal data input” as quoted from ) for minimizing the errors , through the introduction (and subtraction) of some arbitrary polynomials in $`t`$ (not coming from QCD first principles) for approaching the $`t=0`$ region 555This procedure together with the analytic continuation method has been already criticized in . Analogous comments apply to the estimate of $`\alpha (M_Z)`$.. On the other hand, the use of “local duality” in a given interval is stronger than the standard applications of QCD spectral sum rules à la SVZ  (for a review see e.g. ), where systematic uncertainties can be more severe. We do not expect that the result obtained in this way is much better (though apparently more accurate) than the ones previously obtained from pure data analysis.

One should also notice that, though one has been able to formulate the $`\tau `$-decay width using QCD and the Operator Product Expansion (OPE) including the QCD vacuum condensates  à la SVZ , which has provided an accurate measurement of the QCD coupling $`\alpha _s`$ , the extension of such a program to the analysis of the lepton anomaly cannot be done in a straightforward way due the existence of a pole at $`t=0`$, which needs a nonperturbative QCD control of the contribution of the small circle at the origin when using the Cauchy contour for evaluating the muon anomaly in the complex-t plane. Such a control is not feasible at present from QCD first principles.

### Final errors and comments on the uses of new data

We can conclude from the previous determinations in Table 1 and the present work that, with present data and with less theoretical inputs, a realistic error for extracting $`a_\mu ^{had}(l.o)`$ cannot be less than $`70\times 10^{11}`$. After the completion of this work, we have checked  by doing similar analyses (hadronic contributions to $`\alpha `$ and to the muonium hyperfine splitting) that, using the new Novosibirsk  and BES  data, one does not improve noticeably the errors compared to the one obtained from the correlated averaged data and QCD continuum parametrizations used in this paper.

## 4 THEORY OF THE MUON ANOMALY

### 4.1 SUM OF THE THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

$``$ QED and SM electroweak contributions
Using obvious notations, they read :

$`a_\mu ^{QED}`$ $`=`$ $`116584705.7(2.9)\times 10^{11},`$
$`a_\mu ^{EW}`$ $`=`$ $`151(4)\times 10^{11}.`$ (35)
with QED up to 8th order and EW including two-loop corrections .
$``$ Higher order hadronic contributions
For $`a_\mu ^{had}(h.o)`$, we have used the contribution of the high-order vacuum polarizations $`(h.o)_{V.P}`$ recently estimated in , where we have checked that the central value coïncide with the original estimate in  which has the same result for $`a_\mu ^{had}(l.o)`$ though the error is larger in  due to older data. This feature is reassuring for a self-consistency check. As the data used in  give smaller value of $`a_\mu ^{had}(l.o)`$ by 1.00125 than the present work, we have rescaled the $`(h.o)_{V.P}`$ contribution by this small factor, and we deduce:

$$a_\mu ^{had}(h.o)_{V.P}=101.2(6.1).$$
(36)
For the light by light scattering hadronic contributions, we use the average of the two estimates in  which agree each others. We have corrected the sign of the pseudoscalar and axial-vector contributions according to the result in , which has been confirmed in  666We are also aware of the fact that the two results are model-dependent and further tests on their validity are needed. However, one can notice that this contribution is of the same size as the error of $`a_\mu ^{had}(l.o)`$.. Then, we obtain:

$$a_\mu ^{had}(h.o)_{LL}=70.8(21.0)\times 10^{11}.$$
(37)
We have not included into the sum the contribution due to the quark loop, suspecting that adding this effect together with the pion loop and meson pole contributions can lead to a double counting (quark-hadron duality arguments 777The agreement of the result in Eq. (37) with the one $`62(3)\times 10^{11}`$ obtained in  (see also ), using the quark constituent model (and no hadrons at all!) seems to support such arguments.). Instead, we have considered the quark loop effect incorporating vector mesons in the photon legs, which is about $`15\times 10^{11}`$ (average of the two determinations in ) as another source of uncerainties of the estimate. Then, we deduce:

$`a_\mu ^{had}(h.o)`$ $``$ $`a_\mu ^{had}(h.o)_{V.P}+a_\mu ^{had}(h.o)_{LL}`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`30.4(21.9)\times 10^{11},`$
showing that the higher order hadronic effects tend to cancel each others.
$``$ Total theoretical predictions in the SM
Adding the results in Eqs. (4.1) and (38), one obtains the SM theoretical contributions:

$`a_\mu ^{SM}`$ $`=`$ $`116584826.3(22.5)\times 10^{11}+a_\mu ^{had}(l.o)`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`116591846.9(78.9)\times 10^{11},`$
where $`a_\mu ^{had}(l.o)`$ is the lowest order hadronic contributions evaluated in this paper \[see Eq. (34)\].

### 4.2 THEORY VERSUS EXPERIMENT

In confronting the theoretical estimate with the experimental value in Eq. (1), we shall use, for reasons explained previously, the result in Eq. (34) with a moderate accuracy. We deduce:

$$a_\mu ^{new}a_\mu ^{exp}a_\mu ^{SM}=176(170)\times 10^{11}.$$
(40)
The mean central value from our selected determinations given in Table 1 would give:

$$a_\mu ^{new}a_\mu ^{exp}a_\mu ^{SM}=189(175)\times 10^{11},$$
(41)
after adding to the “statistical” error in Table 1, the one from our determination in Eq. (34). Both values indicate an eventual window of about only $`\sigma `$ for new physics beyond the standard model. A more definite claim is waiting for a more precise $`a_\mu `$ measurement. We translate the results in Eqs. (40) and (41) into the conservative range:

$$42a_\mu ^{new}\times 10^{11}413(90\%\mathrm{CL}).$$
(42)
We shall discuss some numerical implications of this result by giving conservative lower bounds on the scales of new physics discussed recently in the literature .

### 4.3 LOWER BOUNDS ON NEW PHYSICS

### Supersymmetry

Using the expression given in  and for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \varphi _2/\varphi _1`$ (ratio of Higgs expectation values) $`4`$:

$$a_\mu ^{SUSY}\frac{\alpha }{8\pi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}\frac{m_\mu ^2}{\stackrel{~}{m}^2}\mathrm{tan}\beta ,$$
(43)
one obtains a conservative lower bound on the degenerate sparticle mass:

$$\stackrel{~}{m}113\mathrm{GeV}(90\%\mathrm{CL}),$$
(44)
which is comparable with the present experimental lower bound of 100 GeV.

### Radiative mass, composite and extended Zee models

In these models where the typical contribution to $`a_\mu `$ is about $`(m_\mu ^2/M^2)𝒪(1)`$ , one can derive the lower bound on the scale of the models:

$$M1.7\mathrm{TeV}.$$
(45)
This constraint can also be translated into a lower bound on the mass of a singlet scalar in the Zee Model with a coupling $`1/96\pi ^2`$ . One can deduce:

$$M_{S_2}55\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(46)
### Leptoquarks scenarios

Leptoquark effects on $`a_\mu `$ have been discussed recently in . For an electromagnetic coupling at the lepton-leptoquark-quark vertex, one can deduce the approximate expression: as:

$$a_\mu ^{lq}\left(\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\right)\frac{m_cm_\mu }{M_{lq}^2}\mathrm{log}\frac{M_{lq}^2}{m_c^2},$$
(47)
giving:

$$M_{lq}1.1\mathrm{TeV}.$$
(48)
This bound is much larger than the present lower bounds of about $`(200300)`$ GeV from direct search experiments at HERA and Tevatron.
We expect that these different bounds will be improved in the near future both from accurate measurements of $`a_\mu `$ and of $`e^+e^{}`$ data necessary for reducing the theoretical errors in the determinations of the hadronic contributions, being the major source of the theoretical uncertainties.

## 5 THEORY OF THE TAU ANOMALY

Here, we update our old and first work  on the $`\tau `$ lepton anomaly. We shall use $`M_\tau =1.77703`$ GeV from PDG ,

### Lowest order hadronic contribution

The estimate from $`e^+e^{}+\tau `$-decay is given in Table 2. Taking the similar average as in the case of the muon (section 3.5), one obtains:

$$a_\tau ^{had}(l.o)=353.6(4.0)\times 10^8.$$
(49)
One can see that the estimate $`280(20)\times 10^8`$ in , using present values of the QCD condensates , is much lower than this result. This appears to be a general feature of this method based on minimal data inputs (see e.g.  for $`a_\mu ^{had}(l.o)`$ discussed in the previous section). A comparison with the result of  shows that in both cases of muon and tau, this result is systematically higher than ours by the same scaling factor 1.0004. Previous results 370(40)  and 360(30)  in units of $`10^8`$ are comparable with ours but inaccurate.

### Higher order hadronic contributions

The higher order contributions due to vacuum polarization $`a_\tau ^{had}(h.o)_{V.P}`$, can be obtained from the result of . We rescale it by the factor 1/1.0083 like we have done for the muon case as explained in previous section 9. For the light by light scattering contribution, we use the result of  for the muon and we rescale it by the mass squared ratio $`(m_\tau /m_\mu )^2`$, which is expected to be a good approximation from the semi-analytical expression given in . Then, we obtain:

$`a_\tau ^{had}(h.o)_{V.P}`$ $`=`$ $`7.6(0.2)\times 10^8,`$
$`a_\tau ^{had}(h.o)_{L.L}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau }{m_\mu }}\right)^2a_\mu ^{had}(h.o)_{L.L}`$ (50)
$`=`$ $`20.0(5.8)\times 10^8.`$
Therefore, we deduce:

$$a_\tau ^{had}(h.o)=27.6(5.8)\times 10^8,$$
(51)
and:

$$a_\tau ^{had}a_\tau ^{had}(l.o)+a_\tau ^{had}(h.o)=381.2(7.0)\times 10^8.$$
(52)
### Electroweak contributions

The lowest order electroweak SM contribution is well-known:

$`a_\tau ^{EW}(l.o)={\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{G_\tau m_\tau ^2}{8\pi ^2\sqrt{2}}}[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}(14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)^2],`$ (53)
to order $`(m_\tau /M)^2`$ ($`M`$ being the W or Higgs mass); We assume $`G_\tau =G_\mu =1.16639(1)\times 10^5`$ is the Fermi coupling; $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=0.224`$, where $`\theta _W`$ is the weak mixing angle. We add the two-loop contribution (2-loop/l.o$`65\alpha /\pi )`$ , which induces a 15% reduction of the one loop result. We obtain:

$$a_\tau ^{EW}46.9(1.2)\times 10^8.$$
(54)
### QED contributions

$``$ Generalities
These contributions have been first evaluated in  to order $`\alpha ^3`$. Here, we revise and improve these evaluations. In so doing, we use the relation :

$`a_\tau a_e`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l,l^{}e,\mu }{}}[a_4(l)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\right)^2+`$ (55)
$`[a_6(l)+a_6(ll^{})]\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\right)^3],`$
where $`l`$ indicates the internal fermion loop appearing in the photon propagator. $`a_4(l)`$ and $`a_6(l)`$ can be deduced from the result of the muon anomaly while $`a_6(ll^{})`$ is a new contribution involving one electron and one muon loop insertion in one photon propagator. At the same order of truncation of PT series, one has :

$`a_e`$ $`=`$ $`0.5\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\right)0.328478965\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\right)^2+`$ (56)
$`1.181241456\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\right)^3+\mathrm{}`$
$`=`$ $`115965.2\times 10^8,`$
where we have used the measurement:

$$\alpha ^1=137.0360037(33),$$
(57)
from the quantum Hall effect .
$``$ QED at fourth order
For evaluating this contribution, we use the dispersive representation:

$`a_4(l)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle _{4m_l^2}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t^2}}(t+2m_l^2)\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_l^2}{t}}}K_\tau (t),`$ (58)
where $`K_\tau (t)`$ is the kernel function defined in Eq. (3). Then, we obtain:

$$a_4(e)=2.02429\mathrm{and}a_4(\mu )=0.36166.$$
(59)
The former result is well approximated by the known analytic approximate relation to order $`(m_e/m_\tau )^2`$ given e.g. in , while the second result needs the inclusion of the not yet available $`(m_\mu /m_\tau )^3`$ term 888These results agree with the last paper in  confirming that the results in their two former papers are wrong.. Adding these two contributions, we obtain:

$$\left(a_\tau a_e\right)_4=2.38595\left(\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\right)^2=1287.3\times 10^8$$
(60)
$``$ QED at sixth order
Because of the accurate determinations of the hadronic and weak contributions, the inclusion of the sixth order contributions becomes necessary as they contribute with the same strength. The contributions of diagrams with vacuum polarizations and ladders, can be obtained from the analytic result given for the muon in :

$`a_6(l)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau }{m_l}}1.11390\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau }{m_l}}+`$ (61)
$`4.30766+\mathrm{},`$
which leads to:

$$a_6(e)=10.0002,a_6(\mu )=2.9340.$$
(62)
$`a_6(\mu )`$ differs from the value $`.122`$ given in  where the origin of the negative value is not understandable from Eq. (61) but should come from a wrong term used there. We add the new class of contributions specific for $`a_\tau `$ given in :

$`a_6(e\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`2\{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau }{m_e}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau }{m_\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{25}{54}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau ^2}{m_em_\mu }}`$ (63)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{27}}+{\displaystyle \frac{317}{324}}\}=2.75316.`$
We parametrize the light by light scattering contribution as:

$$a_6(l)_{L.L}\frac{2\pi ^2}{3}\mathrm{log}\frac{m_\tau }{m_l}14.13,$$
(64)
by combining the known coefficient of the log-term  and the numerical value of the total contribution for the muon . This leads to:

$$a_6(e)_{L.L}=39.5217,a_6(\mu )_{L.L}=4.4412,$$
(65)
This contribution is so far the most important at sixth order. Adding the different contributions from Eqs (61) to (65), one obtains to sixth order:

$$\left(a_\tau a_e\right)_6=59.650\left(\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\right)^3=74.758\times 10^8.$$
(66)
This effect is about the same strength as the weak interaction effect and bigger than the higher order hadronic contributions.
$``$ Total QED contribution up to sixth order
Adding the previous QED contributions, we deduce

$$a_\tau ^{QED}=117327.1(1.2)\times 10^8,$$
(67)
where the error comes from the measurement of $`\alpha `$.

### Final result

Summing up the previous different theoretical contributions, we deduce in the standard model:

$`a_\tau ^{SM}`$ $`=`$ $`a_\tau ^{had}+a_\tau ^{EW}+a_\tau ^{QED}`$ (68)
$`=`$ $`117755.2(7.2)\times 10^8.`$
We consider this result as an improvement of our old  and other existing results. In , only an average of different existing hadronic contributions have been added to the QED and electroweak contributions. In , the hadronic contributions are inaccurate, while the value of the sixth order QED contribution is incorrect. This value in Eq. (68) can be compared with the present (inaccurate) experimental value :

$$a_\tau ^{exp}=0.004\pm 0.027\pm 0.023,$$
(69)
which, we wish, will be improved in the near future.

## 6 SUMMARY

$``$ We have re-evaluated the lowest order hadronic contribution to the muon and tau anomalies using the precise $`\tau `$-decay data below $`M_\tau `$ and averaged $`e^+e^{}`$ data. Ours results are given in Table 2 and section 7, and our best choice in Eq. (34). Though the approach is not conceptually new, the present situation of $`a_\mu `$ (theory versus experiment) justifies a new independent re-evaluation of the anomaly using minimal theoretical inputs.
$``$ We have extensively discussed the different sources of the errors in the analysis, which are dominated by the region below $`M_\tau `$. However, the relative weight of this region decreases for $`a_\tau `$ (see also detailed discussions in ) where a more precise theoretical prediction can then be provided.
$``$ We have compared our analysis summarized in Table 2 and our final result in Eq. (34) with some of the existing estimates given in Table 1 999During the submission of this paper to the journal, some other papers appeared in the literature ..
$``$ We have shortly discussed implications of our result to some models beyond the standard model, namely supersymmetry with large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, radiative muon mass, composite, some extended Zee and leptoquark models. The lower bounds on the mass scale of these models from the muon anomaly is comparable or in some cases stronger than existing experimental lower bounds.
$``$ We have completed our work by updating our old estimate  of the different theoretical contributions (QED up to sixth order, higher order hadronic and electroweak) to the $`\tau `$ lepton anomaly. Our result is given in Eq. (68). A precise future measurement of the $`\tau `$-lepton anomaly is welcome as it will permit to probe the QED series at shorter distance, and where, the relative weights of different interaction effects are very different from the case of the muon.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It is a pleasure to thank Hsiang-nan Li and the theory group of NCTS-Hsinchu for the warm hospitality.