Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,103

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The muon g−2

Open access
Jegerlehner, Fred, Nyffeler, Andreas·2009·Physics Reports

Abstract

Abstract The muon anomalous magnetic moment is one of the most precisely measured quantities in particle physics. In a recent experiment at Brookhaven it has been measured with a remarkable 14-fold improvement of the previous CERN experiment reaching a precision of 0.54 ppm. Since the first results were published, a persistent “discrepancy” between theory and experiment of about 3 standard deviations is observed. It is the largest “established” deviation from the Standard Model seen in a “clean” electroweak observable and thus could be a hint for New Physics to be around the corner. This deviation triggered numerous speculations about the possible origin of the “missing piece” and the increased experimental precision animated a multitude of new theoretical efforts which lead to a substantial improvement of the prediction of the muon anomaly a μ = ( g μ − 2 ) / 2 . The dominating uncertainty of the prediction, caused by strong interaction effects, could be reduced substantially, due to new hadronic cross section measurements in electron-positron annihilation at low energies. Also the recent electron g − 2 measurement at Harvard contributes substantially to progress in this field, as it allows for a much more precise determination of the fine structure constant α as well as a cross check of the status of our theoretical understanding. In this report we review the theory of the anomalous magnetic moments of the electron and the muon. After an introduction and a brief description of the principle of the muon g − 2 experiment, we present a review of the status of the theoretical prediction and in particular discuss the role of the hadronic vacuum polarization effects and the hadronic light-by-light scattering correction, including a new evaluation of the dominant pion-exchange contribution. In the end, we find a 3.2 standard deviation discrepancy between experiment and Standard Model prediction. We also present a number of examples of how extensions of the electroweak Standard Model would change the theoretical prediction of the muon anomaly a μ . Perspectives for future developments in experiment and theory are briefly discussed and critically assessed. The muon g − 2 will remain one of the hot topics for further investigations.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.physrep.2009.04.003

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 1,103

Metadata

Authors
Jegerlehner, F., & Nyffeler, A.
Venue
Physics Reports
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-06
Volume
477
Issue
1-3
Pages
1-110
ISSN
0370-1573 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2091605720
Cited by
1,103
References
10
FWCI
36.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.