Erratum to: “Study of the decay <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" altimg="si1.gif" overflow="scroll"><mml:mi>ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>→</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>π</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mi>π</mml:mi><mml:mo>−</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mi>π</mml:mi><mml:mn>0</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math> with the KLOE detector” [Phys. Lett. B 561 (2003) 55]

Aloisio, A.; Ambrosino, F.; Antonelli, A.; Antonelli, M.; Bacci, C.; Bellini, F.; Bencivenni, G.; Bertolucci, S.; Bini, C.; Bloise, C.; Bocci, V.; Bossi, F.; Branchini, P.; Bulychjov, S. A.; Cabibbo, G.; Caloi, R.; Campana, P.; Capon, G.; Capussela, T.; Carboni, G.; Casarsa, M.; Casavola, V.; Cataldi, G.; Ceradini, F.; Cervelli, F.; Cevenini, F.; Chiefari, G.; Ciambrone, P.; Conetti, S.; Lucia, E. De; Robertis, G. De; Simone, P. De; Zorzi, G. De; Dell’Agnello, S.; Denig, A.; Domenico, A. Di; Donato, C. Di; Falco, S. Di; Micco, B. Di; Doria, A.; Dreucci, M.; Erriquez, O.; Farilla, A.; Felici, G.; Ferrari, A.; Ferrer, M. L.; Finocchiaro, G.; Forti, C.; Franceschi, A.; Franzini, P.; Gatti, C.; Gauzzi, P.; Giovannella, S.; Gorini, E.; Grancagnolo, F.; Graziani, E.; Han, S. W.; Incagli, M.; Ingrosso, L.; Kluge, W.; Kuo, C. C.; Куликов, В. А.; Lacava, F.; Lanfranchi, G.; Lee‐Franzini, J.; Leone, D.; Lu, F. X.; Martemianov, M.; Matsyuk, M.; Mei, W.; Merola, L.; Messi, R.; Miscetti, S.; Moulson, M.; Müller, S.; Murtas, F.; Napolitano, Maddalena; Nedosekin, A.; Nguyen, F.; Palutan, M.; Pasqualucci, E.; Passalacqua, L.; Passeri, A.; Patera, V.; Perfetto, F.; Petrolo, E.; Pirozzi, Gianluca; Pontecorvo, L.; Primavera, M.; Ruggieri, F.; Santangelo, P.; Santovetti, E.; Saracino, G.; Schamberger, R. D.; Sciascia, B.; Sciubba, A.; Scuri, F.; Sfiligoi, I.; Sibidanov, A.; Silano, P.; Spadaro, T.; Spiriti, E.; Tong, G. L.; Tortora, L.; Valente, E.; Valente, P.; Valeriani, B.; Venanzoni, G.; Veneziano, S.; Ventura, A.; Ventura, S.; Versaci, R.; Xu, Y.; Yu, G.W.

doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2005.01.092

Cited by 26 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 3 publications

(4 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…3 Dalitz plot of Ref. [32] does not change our results by all that much: the differences are smaller than the overall uncertainty in our transition form factor prediction. This corroborates our skepticism that an imperfect determination of the !…”

Section: Numerical Resultscontrasting

confidence: 44%

See 1 more Smart Citation

ω→π0γandϕ→π0γtransition form factors in dispersion

Schneider¹,

Kubis²,

Niecknig³

2012

Phys. Rev. D

126

168

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We calculate the ! ! 0 Ã and ! 0 Ã electromagnetic transition form factors based on dispersion theory, relying solely on a previous dispersive analysis of the corresponding three-pion decays and the pion vector form factor. We compare our findings to recent measurements of the ! ! 0 þ À decay spectrum by the NA60 collaboration, and strongly encourage experimental investigation of the OkuboZweig-Iizuka forbidden ! 0 ' þ ' À decays in order to understand the strong deviations from vectormeson dominance found in these transition form factors.

show abstract

Section: Numerical Resultscontrasting

confidence: 44%

“…3 Dalitz plot [32]. Since the fitted value for b differs from a sum rule, as suggested by demanding the representations (17) and (18) to be equal, Eq.…”

Section: B V ! 3 Partial-wave Amplitudementioning

confidence: 99%

ω→π0γandϕ→π0γtransition form factors in dispersion

Schneider¹,

Kubis²,

Niecknig³

2012

Phys. Rev. D

126

168

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…5), where more than 30 exclusive channels must be measured and although it contributes about 14% only of the total it contributes about 42% of the uncertainty. In the low energy region, which is particularly important for the dispersive evaluation of the hadronic contribution to the muon g − 2, data have improved dramatically in the past decade for the dominant e + e − → π + π − channel (CMD-2 [8], SND/Novosibirsk [9], KLOE/Frascati [10][11][12][13][14], BaBar/SLAC [15], BES-III/Beijing [16]), CLEOc/Cornell [17] and the statistical errors are a minor problem now. Similarly, the important region between 1.2 GeV to 2.4 GeV has been improved a lot by the BaBar exclusive channel measurements in the ISR mode [18][19][20][21].…”

Section: Evaluation Of the Leading Order A Hadmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Muon $g-2$ in Progress

Jegerlehner¹

2018

Acta Phys. Pol. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two next generation muon g − 2 experiments at Fermilab in the US and at J-PARC in Japan have been designed to reach a four times better precision from 0.54 ppm to 0.14 ppm and the challenge for the theory side is to keep up in precision as far as possible. This has triggered a lot of new research activities. The main motivation is the persisting 3 to 4 σ deviation between standard theory and experiment. As Standard Model predictions almost without exception match perfectly all other experimental information, the deviation in one of the most precisely measured quantities in particle physics remains a mystery and inspires the imagination of model builders. Plenty of speculations are aiming to explain what beyond the Standard Model effects could fill what seems to be missing. Here very high precision experiments are competing with searches for new physics at the high energy frontier lead by the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. Actually, the tension is increasing steadily as no new states are found which could accommodate the g µ − 2 discrepancy. With the new muon g − 2 experiments this discrepancy would go up at least to 6 σ, in case the central values do not move, up to 10 σ could be reached if the present theory error could be reduced by a factor of two. Interestingly, the new α from Berkeley by R. H. Parker et al. Science 360, 191 (2018): α −1 (Cs18) = 137.035999046 (27) gives an a e prediction a e = 0.00115965218157(23) such that a exp e − a the e = (−84 ± 36) × 10 −14 shows a −2.3 σ deviation now.

show abstract

“…10 and 12) processes and also from the electron-positron annihilation into three pions e + e − → π + π − π 0 (Refs. [13][14][15] by an application of various standard Breit-Wigner (BW) functions, bringing in this way into obtained results a considerable model dependence and large errors. There is no doubt that the clearest determination of the ρ 0 and ρ ± masses and widths comes from the electron-positron annihilation and the τ -lepton decay, respectively, both into two pions, since, as we have already mentioned, a highstatistics measurement of the branching fraction τ − → ν τ π − π 0 delivers the invariant mass spectrum of the produced π − π 0 (Ref.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The mass and width differences of the neutral and charged ρ(770), ρ(1450) and ρ(1700) mesons from e+e−→ π+π− and τ−→ ντπ−π0 processes

Bartoš

Dubnička

Dubničková

et al. 2017

Int. J. Mod. Phys. A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unlike the Review of Particle Physics, the clear nonzero values of the mass and width differences of the neutral and charged [Formula: see text] mesons are determined by an application of the Unitary & Analytic model of the pion electromagnetic and the pion weak form factor in a description of the data on [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] processes, respectively. Also the mass and the width differences of the neutral and charged [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] mesons are determined for the first time, however, they are masked by large evaluated errors. Therefore, in order to come to a definite conclusion, more precise data on [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] in the region of [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] mesons are desirable.

show abstract

Erratum to: “Study of the decay ϕ→π+π−π0 with the KLOE detector” [Phys. Lett. B 561 (2003) 55]

Cited by 26 publications

References 3 publications

ω→π0γandϕ→π0γtransition form factors in dispersion

ω→π0γandϕ→π0γtransition form factors in dispersion

The Muon $g-2$ in Progress

The mass and width differences of the neutral and charged ρ(770), ρ(1450) and ρ(1700) mesons from e+e−→ π+π− and τ−→ ντπ−π0 processes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Erratum to: “Study of the decay ϕ→π+π−π0 with the KLOE detector” [Phys. Lett. B 561 (2003) 55]

Cited by 26 publications

References 3 publications

ω→π0γ*andϕ→π0γ*transition form factors in dispersion

ω→π0γ*andϕ→π0γ*transition form factors in dispersion

The Muon $g-2$ in Progress

The mass and width differences of the neutral and charged ρ(770), ρ(1450) and ρ(1700) mesons from e+e−→ π+π− and τ−→ ντπ−π0 processes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

ω→π0γandϕ→π0γtransition form factors in dispersion

ω→π0γandϕ→π0γtransition form factors in dispersion