## Model Independent Tests of the Hadronic Vacuum Polarization Contribution to the Muon g -2

Luca Di Luzio, 1 Alexander Keshavarzi, 2 Antonio Masiero, 3, 1 and Paride Paradisi 3, 1 1

Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Padova, Via F. Marzolo 8, 35131 Padova, Italy 2 Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, U.K. 3 Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia 'G. Galilei',

Universit` a di Padova, Via F. Marzolo 8, 35131 Padova, Italy

The hadronic vacuum polarization (HVP) contributions to the muon g -2 are the crucial quantity to resolve whether new physics is present or not in the comparison between the Standard Model (SM) prediction and experimental measurements at Fermilab. They are commonly and historically determined via dispersion relations using a vast catalogue of experimentally measured, low-energy e + e -→ hadrons cross section data as input. These dispersive estimates result in a SM prediction that exhibits a muon g -2 discrepancy of more than 5 σ when compared to experiment. However, recent lattice QCD evaluations of the HVP and a new hadronic cross section measurement from the CMD-3 experiment favor a no-new-physics scenario and, therefore, exhibit a common tension with the previous e + e -→ hadrons data. This study explores the current and future implications of these two scenarios on other observables that are also sensitive to the HVP contributions in the hope that they may provide independent tests of the current tensions observed in the muon g -2.

Introduction.The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, a µ ≡ ( g µ -2) / 2, stands amongst the best probes of the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics and its possible extensions. Recently, the Muon g -2 Experiment at Fermilab announced a new experimental (exp) measurement of a µ [1, 2] which, when combined with the previous and consistent results from the same experiment [3-6] (and from the earlier Muon g -2 Experiment at Brookhaven [7-9]), results in a new world average of a exp µ = 116592059(22) × 10 -11 with an unprecedented precision of 190 parts-per-billion (ppb).

which reduces ∆ a µ to 0 9 . σ (fully consistent with a exp µ at the current level of precision) at the expense of generating a 4 0 . σ tension with Eq. (1). These results have been partially confirmed by other lattice QCD studies of the so-called window quantities [47, 58-62], which further increase the tension between lattice QCD evaluations and ( a HVP TI µ ) e + e -in the intermediate [63] as well as long-distance [64, 65] windows.

The most recent, community-approved SM prediction of a µ from the Muon g -2 Theory Initiative [10-30] relies on the hadronic vacuum polarization (HVP) contribution, a HVP µ , being entirely evaluated using the datadriven, dispersive approach [15-25, 31-45]. This method uses measured e + e -→ hadrons cross section data ( σ had ) as input and the leading-order (LO) HVP contribution was found by the Theory Initiative to be [10, 15-20]

$$( a _ { \mu } ^ { H V P } ) _ { e ^ { + } e ^ { - } } ^ { T I } = ( 6 9 3. 1 \pm 4. 0 ) \times 1 0 ^ { - 1 0 } \,. \quad ( 1 ) \quad \text{cout}$$

This, when combined with the updated values for the other SM contributions, resulted in a SM prediction of a SM µ = 116591810(43) × 10 -11 [10-30]. Comparing a SM µ with the current experimental world average leads to

$$\Delta a _ { \mu } \equiv a _ { \mu } ^ { \exp } - a _ { \mu } ^ { S M } = ( 2 4. 9 \pm 4. 8 ) \times 1 0 ^ { - 1 0 } \,, \quad ( 2 ) \quad \text{ also}$$

yielding a discrepancy of 5 1 . σ and implying the presence of physics beyond the SM (BSM).

a HVP µ can now be calculated from first-principles lattice QCD methods [10] (see also [46-57]). In particular, the BMW lattice QCD collaboration (BMWc) first computed a HVP µ with sub per-cent precision [56] and found ( a HVP BMW µ ) Lattice = (707 5 . ± 5 5) . × 10 -10 , which is evidently larger than the Theory Initiative value [10]. They have since updated their result to [57]

$$( a _ { \mu } ^ { H V P } ) _ { L a t t i c e } ^ { B M W } = ( 7 1 4. 1 \pm 3. 3 ) \times 1 0 ^ { - 1 0 } \,, \quad ( 3 ) \quad \text{ when}$$

Increasing the hadronic cross section to accommodate ∆ a µ in ( a HVP TI µ ) e + e -requires shifts below ∼ 1 GeV to avoid inconsistency with the electroweak precision fits [66-70]. Indeed, a large portion of the differences observed between ( a HVP TI µ ) e + e -and lattice QCD evaluations dominantly originate from the light-quark-connected contributions (which in-turn are dominated by π + π -) [71, 72]. The potential for light new physics affecting the interpretation of e + e -data was also investigated in [73-77].

Recently, the CMD-3 experiment released a new measurement of the e + e -→ π + π -cross section [78, 79]. It covers the energy range from 0.32 to 1.2 GeV, therefore capturing the dominant ρ -resonance region, and is ∼ 2 σ -4 σ higher than all previous e + e -→ π + π -cross section measurements in the same region [80-91]. Although ( a ππ µ ) CMD3 e + e -covers a limited energy range, it goes in the same direction as the BMWc result of Eq. (3), thereby also suggesting consistency between a exp µ and a SM µ .

Several updates and improvements on all fronts are expected soon which may help shed light on the current puzzling picture. New results of the e + e -→ π + π -cross section are expected from the BaBar [92], Belle II [93], BESIII [94], CMD-3 [95], KLOE [96] and SND [97] experiments in the next 2-4 years, with theoretical improvements also expected for the higher-order QED corrections which are paramount for these measurements (see e.g. [98, 99]). New full HVP determinations from other lattice QCD collaborations are also expected soon, as well as new dispersive determinations of the HVP incorporating new e + e -→ hadrons cross section data. In ad-

FIG. 1. Representative Feynman diagrams for observables that are sensitive to the leading HVP contribution: leptonic g -2 (first diagram), running of α and sin 2 θ W (second diagram), and Muonium HFS (third and fourth diagrams).

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01123v2-figure-7469b5f0-4ef7-4ac0-bc1b-7d343cdee52c.jpg)

dition, a direct experimental measurement of a HVP µ , has been proposed and is in preparation by the MUonE experiment [100-104]. 1

This letter adds to this catalogue of probes other observables that are sensitive to HVP effects and, therefore, can be used as additional indirect tools to scrutinize the differences in a HVP µ . The new data from CMD3 are used to perform numerical analyses and provide analytical expressions relating the HVP contributions of other observables to a HVP µ . The current and future implications of the CMD-3 data (and, by data-based proxy, the increase of ( a HVP BMW µ ) Lattice compared to dispersive estimates) are assessed and quantified for the electron, muon and tau g -2, the running of the QED coupling constant ( α ), the low-energy weak mixing angle (sin 2 θ W (0)) and the Muonium hyperfine splitting (HFS). The conclusions drawn focus upon how new, precise experimental measurements of these observables could be sensitive to the differences observed due to the CMD-3 data in a HVP µ and, therefore, provide additional robust tests of the current tensions.

Impact of the CMD-3 data.The CMD-3 measurement of the π + π -final state [78] is larger than all previous π + π -measurements by 2 σ -4 σ , resulting in it being comparatively larger than the compilation by the KNT collaboration in 2019 (referred to as KNT19) [20]. Given it is not expected that the differences between these measurements will be reconciled, and that no new compilation of π + π -measurements including the CMD-3 data has yet been performed, two scenarios can be compared and analysed: (1) σ had = KNT19. The previous data are correct and the new CMD-3 data are not used. (2) σ had = KNT19/CMD-3. The CMD-3 data are correct therefore are substituted into and replace the KNT19 data only in their available energy range.

The electron, muon and tau g -2, the running of the QED coupling constant, the low-energy weak mixing angle and the Muonium HFS are all sensitive to HVP effects (see e.g. Fig. 1). To understand the impact of the CMD-3 data on the HVP contributions to these observables, O HVP e + e -, the difference between the scenario (1) and

1 Several efforts have also attempted new determinations of a HVP µ from hadronic τ -decay data (see e.g. [99, 105]), although the level to which the required isospin breaking corrections are understood is still under question [10].

TABLE I. HVP contributions to the studied observables [first column] using scenario (1) KNT19 data [second column], or scenario (2) KNT19/CMD3 data [third column]. The fourth column lists the difference or shift induced by the CMD-3 data as δO CMD3 ≡ ( O HVP e + e -) CMD3 -( O HVP e + e -) KNT19 , where the error accounts for the correlation between scenario (1) and scenario (2) from the common KNT19 data.

| O HVP e + e -                | Scenario (1)     | Scenario (2)     | δO CMD3        |
|------------------------------|------------------|------------------|----------------|
| a HVP µ × 10 10              | 692 . 8 ± 2 . 4  | 714 . 5 ± 3 . 4  | 21 . 7 ± 3 . 6 |
| a HVP e × 10 14              | 186 . 1 ± 0 . 7  | 192 . 0 ± 0 . 9  | 6 . 0 ± 1 . 0  |
| a HVP τ × 10 8               | 332 . 8 ± 1 . 4  | 340 . 2 ± 2 . 1  | 7 . 4 ± 1 . 7  |
| ∆ α (5) had ( M 2 Z ) × 10 4 | 276 . 1 ± 1 . 1  | 277 . 5 ± 1 . 2  | 1 . 4 ± 0 . 5  |
| sin 2 θ W (0) × 10 4         | 2386 . 0 ± 1 . 4 | 2386 . 4 ± 1 . 4 | 0 . 4 ± 0 . 1  |
| ν HVP HFS (Hz)               | 540 . 5 ± 1 . 9  | 557 . 0 ± 2 . 7  | 16 . 5 ± 2 . 8 |

scenario (2) is calculated as

$$\delta O ^ { C M D 3 } \equiv ( O ^ { H V P } _ { e ^ { + } e ^ { - } } ) ^ { C M D 3 } - ( O ^ { H V P } _ { e ^ { + } e ^ { - } } ) ^ { K N T 1 9 } \,. \quad ( 4 )$$

All results are given in Table I. Other than the region of the replaced π + π -data, the two scenarios are correlated for all common KNT19 data. The statistical significance of each δO CMD3 is depicted in Fig. 2. The results for each O HVP e + e -are discussed in the following, starting with the muon g -2 as the original source of the tensions that motivates this study.

Muon g -2 .-The LO HVP contribution to the muon g -2 is calculated via

$$( a _ { \mu } ^ { H V P } ) _ { e ^ { + } e ^ { - } } = \frac { 1 } { 4 \pi ^ { 3 } } \int _ { m _ { \pi ^ { 0 } } ^ { 2 } } ^ { \infty } \mathrm d s \, K _ { \mu } ( s ) \, \sigma _ { \text{had} } ( s ) \,. \quad ( 5 )$$

The positive-definite kernel function K µ ( s ) is given by

$$K _ { \mu } ( s ) = \int _ { 0 } ^ { 1 } d x \frac { x ^ { 2 } ( 1 - x ) } { x ^ { 2 } + ( 1 - x ) s / m _ { \mu } ^ { 2 } } \,, \quad \ \ ( 6 )$$

with K µ ( s ) ≈ m / s 2 µ 3 in the high-energy limit √ s ≫ m µ . The KNT19 evaluation (scenario (1)) was one of several inputs to the estimate found in Eq. (1) and found the LO HVP contribution to be [20]

$$( a _ { \mu } ^ { H V P } ) _ { e ^ { + } e ^ { - } } ^ { K N T 1 9 } = ( 6 9 2. 8 \pm 2. 4 ) \times 1 0 ^ { - 1 0 } \,. \quad ( 7 )$$

FIG. 2. The tension observed in standard deviations ( σ ) between dispersive evaluations of HVP contributions to observables sensitive to such effects when the e + e -→ hadrons data used as input as those given in scenario (1) (KNT19) [20] (black points) or scenario (2) KNT19/CMD3 [78] (red points).

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01123v2-figure-5eaf124b-befd-44d6-b51a-66779e52e346.jpg)

Using scenario (2) (substituting in the CMD-3 data) [78] increases this estimate to

$$( a _ { \mu } ^ { H V P } ) _ { e ^ { + } e ^ { - } } ^ { C M D 3 } = ( 7 1 4. 5 \pm 3. 4 ) \times 1 0 ^ { - 1 0 } \,, \quad ( 8 )$$

which is in better agreement with the BMWc value of Eq. (3). This results in a shift in a HVP µ of

$$\delta a _ { \mu } ^ { \text{CMD3} } & \equiv ( a _ { \mu } ^ { \text{HVP} } ) _ { e ^ { + } e ^ { - } } ^ { \text{CMD3} } - ( a _ { \mu } ^ { \text{HVP} } ) _ { e ^ { + } e ^ { - } } ^ { \text{KNT19} } \\ & = ( 2 1. 7 \pm 3. 6 ) \times 1 0 ^ { - 1 0 } \,, \quad \quad ( 9 ) \quad \text{It} \\ & \alpha \text{ are}$$

exhibiting a tension of 6 1 . σ . In the following, the phenomenological implications of the above shift on O HVP e + e -(see Table I) are analyzed, followed by a discussion regarding the required experimental and theoretical improvements needed to probe the disagreement in Eq. (9).

Electron g -2 .-The anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, a e , is commonly used to determine the value of the fine-structure constant, α (and vice versa). Recent, more-refined atomic-physics experiments using Cesium (Cs) and Rubidium (Rb) interferometry have led to the following results for direct measurements of α :

$$\alpha ( C s ) = 1 / 1 3 7. 0 3 5 9 9 9 0 4 6 ( 2 7 ) \ \ [ 1 0 6 ] \,, \quad ( 1 0 ) \quad \text{ancv}$$

$$\alpha ( R b ) = 1 / 1 3 7. 0 3 5 9 9 9 2 0 6 ( 1 1 ) \ \ [ 1 0 7 ] \,, \quad ( 1 1 ) \quad \ g a u g$$

in disagreement with each other by 5.5 σ . Yet, a e can be extracted and used as another precision test of the SM and its possible extensions [108, 109]. Comparing the resulting SM predictions, a SM e , with the latest experimental measurement of a exp e = (115 965 218 059 ± 13) × 10 -14 [110], yields

$$( \Delta a _ { e } ) _ { C s } = ( - 1 0 2. 0 \pm 2 6. 4 ) \times 1 0 ^ { - 1 4 } \Rightarrow - 3. 9 \sigma \,, \quad ( 1 2 ) \quad _ { \lambda \, - \, \cdot }.$$

$$( \Delta a _ { e } ) _ { R b } = \ \ ( 3 3. 8 \pm 1 6. 1 ) \times 1 0 ^ { - 1 4 } \Rightarrow \ 2. 1 \sigma \,, \ \ ( 1 3 ) \quad _ { ^ { 3 } S. \ G } ^ { \varepsilon \ G. \ C }$$

where ∆ a e ≡ a exp e -a SM e .

The impact of the CMD-3 data on the HVP contribution to a SM e can first be estimated by reconsidering the high-energy approximation of Eq. (6) and relating a HVP µ and a HVP e by a quadratic-scaling between the lepton masses. In doing so, and by employing the value of δa CMD3 µ quoted in Eq. (9), results in

$$\left | \quad \delta a _ { e } ^ { \text{CMD3} } \approx \delta a _ { \mu } ^ { \text{CMD3} } \left ( \frac { m _ { e } } { m _ { \mu } } \right ) ^ { 2 } \approx \left ( 5. 1 \pm 0. 8 \right ) \times 1 0 ^ { - 1 4 } \,. \ \ ( 1 4 )$$

This is in good agreement with the numerical result in Table I, which shows a 6 2 . σ shift from the CMD-3 data compared to the previous data. It follows that the electron g -2 will only be sensitive to the increase observed on a HVP µ if the current discrepancy in the measurements of α is resolved and a precision at the level of O (10 -14 ) is achieved for ∆ a e .

Consider the sources of error in the determinations of (∆ a e ) Cs and (∆ a e ) Rb :

| ∆ a e error source       | Value        | % of ∆ a e error   |
|--------------------------|--------------|--------------------|
| Five-loop QED, δa QED5 e | 6 × 10 - 14  | 5%(Cs) / 13%(Rb)   |
| Hadronic, δa HAD e       | 1 × 10 - 14  | < 1%               |
| α (Cs), δa α (Cs) e      | 22 × 10 - 14 | 70%                |
| α (Rb), δa α (Rb) e      | 9 × 10 - 14  | 28%                |
| Experiment, δa exp e     | 13 × 10 - 14 | 24%(Cs) / 59%(Rb)  |

It follows that should the experimental resolutions on α and a exp e improve by roughly one order of magnitude, the total uncertainties of ∆ a e should reach the O (10 -14 ) level and the study of electron g -2 will become sensitive to the increase observed in a HVP µ due to CMD-3 (and BMWc). Fortunately, an improvement on δa exp e by a factor of ∼ 5 is expected in the next few years. 2 On the same timescale, new measurements of α (Rb) and α (Cs) by the Paris and Berkeley collaborations, respectively, will significantly reduce the systematic effects that were dominant in their previous measurements. 3 Such improvements should be sufficient to probe the shift induced by CMD-3 (and BMWc) through the electron g -2.

Additionally, δa QED5 e reflects the current 5 σ discrepancy between the two independent calculations of the gauge-invariant set of 5-loop QED diagrams with no lepton loops by Kinoshita et al. [111] and Volkov [112, 113]. As a non-negligible source of uncertainty on ∆ a e , and with expected improvements in the experimental inputs, resolving this difference may soon become crucial in this context. 4

2 G. Gabrielse, private communication.

3 S. Guellati-Kh´lifa and H. Mueller, private communications. e

4 S. Laporta, work in progress. Preliminary results presented at the 7th Plenary Workshop of the Muon g-2 Theory Initiative, 09-13 september 2024, KEK, Tsukuba, Japan by M. Nio (see [114]) point toward a resolution of this discrepancy.

Tau g -2 .-The shift in a SM τ due to the CMD-3 data is estimated by assuming dominant effects at the ρ -peak:

$$\delta a _ { \tau } ^ { \text{CMD3} } & \approx 0. 6 3 \left ( m _ { \rho } ^ { 2 } / m _ { \mu } ^ { 2 } \right ) \delta a _ { \mu } ^ { \text{CMD3} } \\ & \approx \left ( 7. 2 \pm 1. 4 \right ) \times 1 0 ^ { - 8 } \,, \quad \quad \ \ ( 1 5 ) \quad.$$

which is in very good agreement with the numerical estimate in Table I. Compared to the electron and muon g -2, the larger mass of the tau lepton increases the weight of the hadronic contributions to higher energies. As such, the influence of the π + π -and ρ -resonance contribution is reduced in ( a HVP τ ) e + e -, resulting in a much larger degree of correlation between the two scenarios for the tau ( ∼ 55%) compared to the muon ( ∼ 28%). This means the significance of δa CMD3 τ is 4 2 . σ compared to more than 6 σ for ( a HVP e ) e + e -and ( a HVP µ ) e + e -.

As δa CMD3 τ is roughly one order of magnitude below the expected future experimental sensitivity of O (10 -6 ) at Belle-II [115-118], an experiment-theory comparison is unlikely to shed light on the current discrepancies in the SM predictions of the muon g -2 without significant improvement in measurements of a exp τ .

The running of α .-Hadronic effects to the running QED coupling at the Z -boson mass, ∆ α (5) had ( M 2 Z ), are a principal component of the electroweak precision fit. The shift in ∆ α (5) had ( M 2 Z ) due to the CMD-3 data is estimated as

$$\delta \Delta \alpha _ { \text{had} } ^ { ( 5 ) } ( M _ { Z } ^ { 2 } ) & \approx \frac { 3 \pi } { \alpha } \, \frac { m _ { \rho } ^ { 2 } } { m _ { \mu } ^ { 2 } } \, \delta a _ { \mu } ^ { \text{CMD3} } \\ & \approx ( 1. 5 \pm 0. 3 ) \times 1 0 ^ { - 4 } \,, \quad \ \ ( 1 6 ) \quad \text{ and}.$$

in full agreement with Table I. The relevant kernel function in the dispersive evaluation of ∆ α (5) had ( M 2 Z ) exhibits an s -dependent weighting that is much higher in energy than any of the dispersion relations used to evaluate ( a HVP l ) e + e -. As a result, the CMD-3 increase has less of an impact than in any of the g -2 cases, exhibiting a 2 8 . σ deviation. The magnitude of the shift is comparable with the current uncertainty of ∆ α (5) had ( M 2 Z ), making it difficult for ∆ α (5) had ( M 2 Z ) to probe δa CMD3 µ . However, looking ahead, a future e + e -collider, e.g. FCC-ee [119, 120], is expected to reach an unprecedented precision on α M ( 2 Z ) of O (10 -5 ), which would provide sensitivity to the shift in Eq. (16).

The running of sin 2 θ W .-The low-energy weak mixing angle, defined as sin 2 θ W (0) at zero momentum transfer ( q 2 = 0), has been measured at parity-violating electron scattering and atomic physics asymmetry experiments [121, 122]. Following the prescription in [68], sin 2 θ W (0) can be connected with the high-energy LEP measurement of the same quantity, sin 2 θ W ( M Z ), by including quantum effects from the γ -Z mixing [123, 124].

The shift from the CMD-3 data is estimated via 5

$$\delta \sin ^ { 2 } \theta _ { W } ( 0 ) & \approx k ^ { \prime } \sin ^ { 2 } \theta _ { W } ( M _ { Z } ) \, \frac { 3 \pi } { \alpha } \, \frac { m _ { \rho } ^ { 2 } } { m _ { \mu } ^ { 2 } } \, \delta a _ { \mu } ^ { \text{CMD3} } \\ & \approx ( 0. 4 \pm 0. 1 ) \times 1 0 ^ { - 4 } \,,$$

where sin 2 θ W ( M Z ) = 0 23119(14) [121, 122] and . k ′ = 1 14 [123, 124]. . This is again in full agreement with the numerical estimate in Table I. The comparison exhibits a similar significance (2 9 . σ ) as for δ ∆ α (5) had ( M 2 Z ).

Unfortunately, current and expected future experimental errors prevent sin 2 θ W (0) to probe the HVP contributions, which would require a precision on both sin 2 θ W (0) and sin 2 θ W ( M Z ) at the ∼ 10 -5 level. Indeed, even a potential e + e -high-energy collider, like FCC-ee, would take at least few decades to reach a resolution on sin 2 θ W ( M Z ) of order O (10 -5 ) [120], a timescale by which the puzzle discussed here is very likely to be already successfully overcome. Furthermore, experimental progress on sin 2 θ W (0) planned at both MESA (P2) in Mainz [125] and JLab (Møller) [126] is projected to reach only ∼ O (10 -4 ).

The Muonium HFS.We show now that a powerful method to extract a HVP µ is via Muonium, a bound state of an antimuon and an electron ( M ≡ µ + e -). The Muonium HFS of the 1S ground state is given by [127-130]

$$\frac { \nu _ { \text{HFS} } } { \nu _ { F } } = 1 + a _ { \mu } + \Delta _ { \text{HFS} } ^ { \text{QED} } + \Delta _ { \text{HFS} } ^ { \text{Heak} } + \Delta _ { \text{HFS} } ^ { \text{HVP} } \,, \quad ( 1 8 )$$

where

$$\nu _ { F } = \frac { 1 6 } { 3 } \frac { m _ { e } } { m _ { \mu } } \frac { R _ { \infty } h \, c \, \alpha ^ { 2 } } { ( 1 + m _ { e } / m _ { \mu } ) ^ { 3 } } \,, \quad \quad ( 1 9 )$$

and R ∞ is the Rydberg constant. The quantities ∆ QED HFS and ∆ weak HFS in Eq. (18) refer to corrections stemming from QED and weak contributions, respectively. ∆ HVP HFS accounts for HVP effects [129] which are given by [129]

$$\Delta _ { \text{HFS} } ^ { \text{HVP} } = \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi ^ { 3 } } \int _ { m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } } ^ { \infty } d s \, K _ { \text{Mu} } ( s ) \, \sigma _ { \text{had} } ( s ) \,, \quad ( 2 0 )$$

where, for s ≫ m 2 µ , the kernel function K Mu ( s ) reads

$$K _ { \text{Mu} } ( s ) \approx \frac { m _ { \mu } ^ { 2 } } { s } \left ( \frac { 9 } { 2 } \log \frac { s } { m _ { \mu } ^ { 2 } } + \frac { 1 5 } { 4 } \right ) \frac { m _ { e } } { m$$

Again, as the dominant effects to σ had arise at the ρ -peak, s ≈ m 2 ρ ≫ m 2 µ . Using Eqs. (5) and (20) results in

$$\Delta _ { \text{HFS} } ^ { \text{HVP} } & \approx 6 \, \frac { m _ { \rho } ^ { 2 } } { m _ { \mu } ^ { 2 } } \, K _ { \text{Mu} } ( m _ { \rho } ^ { 2 } ) \, ( a _ { \mu$$

5 A similar result was obtained in Ref. [124] employing instead BMW Lattice data.

Therefore, using also Eq. (18), the entire HVP contribution to ν HFS can be expressed as 6

$$\nu _ { \text{HF5} } ^ { \text{HVP} } = \left ( a _ { \mu } ^ { \text{HVP} } + \Delta _ { \text{HF5} } ^ { \text{HVP} } \right ) \nu _ { F } \, \approx \, 1. 6 3 \, \nu _ {$$

where the two terms are depicted in the third and fourth diagrams of Fig. 1. Therefore, the impact of the CMD-3 data on ν HVP HFS is estimated to be

$$\delta \nu _ { \text{HF5} } ^ { \text{CMD3} } \approx ( 1 5. 8 \pm 2. 6 ) \ H z \,, \quad \quad ( 2 4 ) \quad \ \ 1$$

in excellent agreement with the numerical evaluation in Table I and exhibits a 5 9 . σ discrepancy in the comparison. This makes the Muonium HFS among the most sensitive probes of δa CMD3 µ . To be sensitive to this shift would require a measurement at a precision of O (1) Hz. Fortunately, the MuSEUM experiment at J-PARC aims to reduce the uncertainty of the current measurement ν exp HFS = (4 463 302 776 ± 51) Hz [132, 133] by one order of magnitude [134], well below the shift of Eq. (24).

Other sources of uncertainty are also set to improve. The uncertainty on ν F is fully dominated by the m /m e µ ratio (the uncertainties of R ∞ and α are negligible) [127]. Here, m /m e µ is obtained from the measurement of the 1S-2S transition frequency in Muonium [131], given by

$$\nu _ { 1 S - 2 S } = \frac { 3 } { 4 } \frac { R _ { \infty } h c } { ( 1 + m _ { e } / m _ { \mu } ) } \left [ 1 + \delta _ { 1 S - 2 S } \right ] \,, \quad ( 2 5 ) \quad \quad \quad$$

where the muon mass enters as a recoil contribution. As the hadronic corrections to δ 1S -2S [135] do not spoil the extraction of m /m e µ at the required precision, the dominant uncertainty on m /m e µ arises from the experimental error in ν 1S -2S [136]. This induces an error on ν F of 4 × 10 3 Hz. Experimental progress is ongoing at the MuMASS experiment to improve this precision by three orders of magnitude [137]. Additionally, the dominant theory uncertainty in ν HFS arises from unknown three-loop QED contributions [128] to δ QED HFS ( δ 1S -2S ) and amounts to about 70 Hz (7 Hz) [128]. A complete three-loop QED calculation would bring the related uncertainty to a negligible level [138].

Conclusions and outlook.Recent lattice QCD calculations and new measurements by the CMD-3 collaboration show a significant tension with the low-energy e + e -→ hadrons data in the determination of the leading HVP contribution to the muon g -2. Several modelindependent tests of the HVP contribution are possible through the electron and tau g -2, the running of

6 As proposed by Ref. [131], Eq. (18) allows for an independent determination of a µ if e + e -data are used to determine ∆ HVP HFS . In this case, the obtained a µ cannot be exploited to extract a HVP µ .

α and of the weak mixing angle, and the Muonium HFS. Both numerical analyses based on state-of-the-art e + e -→ hadrons data and approximate analytical expressions relating the HVP contributions of the considered observables have revealed the electron g -2 and the Muonium HFS to be the most promising prospects (see Fig. 2), offering unique opportunities to shed light on the current g -2 puzzle.

To achieve this ambitious goal, both experimental and theoretical improvements are needed. For the g -2 of the electron, the required precision level of O (10 -14 ) is the expected future resolution for a exp e and α from atomic physics. In the case of the Muonium HFS, the MuSEUM experiment is expected to improve the HFS ground-state measurement by one order of magnitude, while the MuMASS experiment is expected to determine the m /m e µ ratio with a precision three orders of magnitude better than the present situation. Finally, a better theoretical control of QED effects (five loop contributions in the case of the electron g -2 and three loops in the case of Muonium HFS) is necessary. Although challenging, the above program seems to be feasible and it should be pursued with high priority to resolve significant tensions in one of the most stringent probes of the SM.

Acknowledgments.We thank G. Colangelo, P. Crivelli, R. Frezzotti, G. Gabrielse, S. Guellati-Kh´lifa, e M. Incagli, K. Kirch, S. Laporta, L. Lellouch, V. Lubicz, H. Mueller, M. Neubert, M. Passera, F. Piccinini, M. Pospelov, N. Tantalo and G. Venanzoni for private communications and useful discussions. Special thanks are extended to D. Nomura and T. Teubner for their collaboration with AK in producing the KNT19 data. The work of AK is supported by The Royal Society (URF R1 231503). \ \ The work of LDL and PP is supported by the European Union - Next Generation EU and by the Italian Ministry of University and Research (MUR) via the PRIN 2022 project n. 2022K4B58X - AxionOrigins. This work received funding by the INFN Iniziative Specifiche APINE and TASP and from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skglyph[suppress] lodowska-Curie grant agreements n. 860881 - HIDDeN, n. 101086085 - ASYMMETRY. This work was also partially supported by the Italian MUR Departments of Excellence grant 2023-2027 'Quantum Frontiers'.

- [1] D. P. Aguillard et al. (Muon g-2), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 , 161802 (2023), arXiv:2308.06230 [hep-ex].
- [2] D. P. Aguillard et al. (Muon g-2), (2024), arXiv:2402.15410 [hep-ex].
- [3] B. Abi et al. (Muon g-2), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 , 141801 (2021), arXiv:2104.03281 [hep-ex].
- [4] T. Albahri et al. (Muon g-2), Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 24 , 044002 (2021), arXiv:2104.03240 [physics.acc-ph].
- [5] T. Albahri et al. (Muon g-2), Phys. Rev. A 103 , 042208 (2021), arXiv:2104.03201 [hep-ex].
- [6] T. Albahri et al. (Muon g-2), Phys. Rev. D 103 , 072002 (2021), arXiv:2104.03247 [hep-ex].
- [7] G. W. Bennett et al. (Muon g-2), Phys. Rev. D 73 , 072003 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0602035.
- [8] G. W. Bennett et al. (Muon g-2), Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 , 101804 (2002), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 89, 129903 (2002)], arXiv:hep-ex/0208001.
- [9] G. W. Bennett et al. (Muon g-2), Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 , 161802 (2004), arXiv:hep-ex/0401008.
- [10] T. Aoyama et al., Phys. Rept. 887 , 1 (2020), arXiv:2006.04822 [hep-ph].
- [11] T. Aoyama, M. Hayakawa, T. Kinoshita, and M. Nio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 , 111808 (2012), arXiv:1205.5370 [hep-ph].
- [12] T. Aoyama, T. Kinoshita, and M. Nio, Atoms 7 , 28 (2019).
- [13] A. Czarnecki, W. J. Marciano, and A. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. D67 , 073006 (2003), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D73 , 119901 (2006)], arXiv:hep-ph/0212229 [hep-ph].
- [14] C. Gnendiger, D. St¨ckinger, o and H. St¨ckinger-Kim, o Phys. Rev. D88 , 053005 (2013), arXiv:1306.5546 [hepph].
- [15] M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu, and Z. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C77 , 827 (2017), arXiv:1706.09436 [hep-ph].
- [16] A. Keshavarzi, D. Nomura, and T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. D97 , 114025 (2018), arXiv:1802.02995 [hep-ph].
- [17] G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, and P. Stoffer, JHEP 02 , 006, arXiv:1810.00007 [hep-ph].
- [18] M. Hoferichter, B.-L. Hoid, and B. Kubis, JHEP 08 , 137, arXiv:1907.01556 [hep-ph].
- [19] M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu, and Z. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C80 , 241 (2020), [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C80 , 410 (2020)], arXiv:1908.00921 [hep-ph].
- [20] A. Keshavarzi, D. Nomura, and T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. D101 , 014029 (2020), arXiv:1911.00367 [hep-ph].
- [21] A. Kurz, T. Liu, P. Marquard, and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Lett. B734 , 144 (2014), arXiv:1403.6400 [hep-ph].
- [22] K. Melnikov and A. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. D70 , 113006 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0312226 [hep-ph].
- [23] P. Masjuan and P. S´nchez-Puertas, Phys. Rev. a D95 , 054026 (2017), arXiv:1701.05829 [hep-ph].
- [24] G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, M. Procura, and P. Stoffer, JHEP 04 , 161, arXiv:1702.07347 [hep-ph].
- [25] M. Hoferichter, B.-L. Hoid, B. Kubis, S. Leupold, and S. P. Schneider, JHEP 10 , 141, arXiv:1808.04823 [hepph].
- [26] A. G´ erardin, H. B. Meyer, and A. Nyffeler, Phys. Rev. D100 , 034520 (2019), arXiv:1903.09471 [hep-lat].
- [27] J. Bijnens, N. Hermansson-Truedsson, and A. Rodr´ ıguez-S´nchez, a Phys. Lett. B798 , 134994 (2019), arXiv:1908.03331 [hep-ph].
- [28] G. Colangelo, F. Hagelstein, M. Hoferichter, L. Laub, and P. Stoffer, JHEP 03 , 101, arXiv:1910.13432 [hepph].
- [29] T. Blum, N. Christ, M. Hayakawa, T. Izubuchi, L. Jin, C. Jung, and C. Lehner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 , 132002 (2020), arXiv:1911.08123 [hep-lat].
- [30] G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, A. Nyffeler, M. Passera, and P. Stoffer, Phys. Lett. B735 , 90 (2014), arXiv:1403.7512 [hep-ph].
- [31] S. J. Brodsky and E. De Rafael, Phys. Rev. 168 , 1620 (1968).
- [32] B. E. Lautrup and E. De Rafael, Phys. Rev. 174 , 1835 (1968).
- [33] B. Krause, Phys. Lett. B 390 , 392 (1997), arXiv:hepph/9607259.
- [34] F. Jegerlehner, Vol. 274 (Springer, Cham, 2017).
- [35] F. Jegerlehner, EPJ Web Conf. 118 , 01016 (2016), arXiv:1511.04473 [hep-ph].
- [36] F. Jegerlehner, EPJ Web Conf. 166 , 00022 (2018), arXiv:1705.00263 [hep-ph].
- [37] F. Jegerlehner, EPJ Web Conf. 218 , 01003 (2019), arXiv:1711.06089 [hep-ph].
- [38] F. Jegerlehner, EPJ Web Conf. 199 , 01010 (2019), arXiv:1809.07413 [hep-ph].
- [39] S. Eidelman and F. Jegerlehner, Z. Phys. C 67 , 585 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9502298.
- [40] M. Benayoun, P. David, L. DelBuono, O. Leitner, and H. B. O'Connell, Eur. Phys. J. C 55 , 199 (2008), arXiv:0711.4482 [hep-ph].
- [41] M. Benayoun, P. David, L. DelBuono, and F. Jegerlehner, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 , 1848 (2012), arXiv:1106.1315 [hep-ph].
- [42] M. Benayoun, P. David, L. DelBuono, and F. Jegerlehner, Eur. Phys. J. C 73 , 2453 (2013), arXiv:1210.7184 [hep-ph].
- [43] M. Benayoun, P. David, L. DelBuono, and F. Jegerlehner, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 , 613 (2015), arXiv:1507.02943 [hep-ph].
- [44] M. Benayoun, L. Delbuono, and F. Jegerlehner, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 , 81 (2020), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 80, 244 (2020)], arXiv:1903.11034 [hep-ph].
- [45] M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu, and Z. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 71 , 1515 (2011), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 72, 1874 (2012)], arXiv:1010.4180 [hep-ph].
- [46] S. Borsanyi et al. (Budapest-Marseille-Wuppertal), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 , 022002 (2018), arXiv:1711.04980 [hep-lat].
- [47] T. Blum, P. A. Boyle, V. G¨lpers, T. Izubuchi, L. Jin, u C. Jung, A. J¨ttner, C. Lehner, A. Portelli, and J. T. u Tsang (RBC, UKQCD), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 , 022003 (2018), arXiv:1801.07224 [hep-lat].
- [48] D. Giusti, V. Lubicz, G. Martinelli, F. Sanfilippo, and S. Simula, Phys. Rev. D 99 , 114502 (2019), arXiv:1901.10462 [hep-lat].
- [49] C. T. H. Davies et al. (Fermilab Lattice, LATTICEHPQCD, MILC), Phys. Rev. D 101 , 034512 (2020), arXiv:1902.04223 [hep-lat].
- [50] A. G´ erardin, M. C` e, G. von Hippel, B. H¨ orz, H. B. Meyer, D. Mohler, K. Ottnad, J. Wilhelm, and H. Wittig, Phys. Rev. D 100 , 014510 (2019), arXiv:1904.03120 [hep-lat].
- [51] B. Chakraborty et al. (Fermilab Lattice, LATTICEHPQCD, MILC), Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 , 152001 (2018), arXiv:1710.11212 [hep-lat].
- [52] T. Blum, P. A. Boyle, V. G¨lpers, T. Izubuchi, L. Jin, u C. Jung, A. J¨ttner, C. Lehner, A. Portelli, and J. T. u Tsang (RBC, UKQCD), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 , 022003

- (2018), arXiv:1801.07224 [hep-lat].
- [53] E. Shintani and Y. Kuramashi, Phys. Rev. D100 , 034517 (2019), arXiv:1902.00885 [hep-lat].
- [54] C. Aubin, T. Blum, C. Tu, M. Golterman, C. Jung, and S. Peris, Phys. Rev. D101 , 014503 (2020), arXiv:1905.09307 [hep-lat].
- [55] D. Giusti and S. Simula, PoS LATTICE2019 , 104 (2019), arXiv:1910.03874 [hep-lat].
- [56] S. Borsanyi et al., Nature 593 , 51 (2021), arXiv:2002.12347 [hep-lat].
- [57] A. Boccaletti et al., (2024), arXiv:2407.10913 [hep-lat].
- [58] C. Lehner and A. S. Meyer, Phys. Rev. D 101 , 074515 (2020), arXiv:2003.04177 [hep-lat].
- [59] C. Alexandrou et al. (Extended Twisted Mass), Phys. Rev. D 107 , 074506 (2023), arXiv:2206.15084 [hep-lat].
- [60] T. Blum et al. (RBC, UKQCD), Phys. Rev. D 108 , 054507 (2023), arXiv:2301.08696 [hep-lat].
- [61] S. Kuberski, M. C` e, G. von Hippel, H. B. Meyer, K. Ottnad, A. Risch, and H. Wittig, JHEP 03 , 172, arXiv:2401.11895 [hep-lat].
- [62] C. T. H. Davies et al. (Fermilab Lattice, MILC, HPQCD), Phys. Rev. D 106 , 074509 (2022), arXiv:2207.04765 [hep-lat].
- [63] G. Colangelo, A. X. El-Khadra, M. Hoferichter, A. Keshavarzi, C. Lehner, P. Stoffer, and T. Teubner, Phys. Lett. B 833 , 137313 (2022), arXiv:2205.12963 [hep-ph].
- [64] T. Blum et al. (RBC, UKQCD), (2024), arXiv:2410.20590 [hep-lat].
- [65] D. Djukanovic, G. von Hippel, S. Kuberski, H. B. Meyer, N. Miller, K. Ottnad, J. Parrino, A. Risch, and H. Wittig, (2024), arXiv:2411.07969 [hep-lat].
- [66] M. Passera, W. J. Marciano, and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D 78 , 013009 (2008), arXiv:0804.1142 [hep-ph].
- [67] A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter, C. A. Manzari, and M. Montull, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 , 091801 (2020), arXiv:2003.04886 [hep-ph].
- [68] A. Keshavarzi, W. J. Marciano, M. Passera, and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D 102 , 033002 (2020), arXiv:2006.12666 [hep-ph].
- [69] B. Malaescu and M. Schott, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 , 46 (2021), arXiv:2008.08107 [hep-ph].
- [70] G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, and P. Stoffer, Phys. Lett. B 814 , 136073 (2021), arXiv:2010.07943 [hep-ph].
- [71] G. Benton, D. Boito, M. Golterman, A. Keshavarzi, K. Maltman, and S. Peris, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 , 251803 (2023), arXiv:2306.16808 [hep-ph].
- [72] G. Benton, D. Boito, M. Golterman, A. Keshavarzi, K. Maltman, and S. Peris, Phys. Rev. D 109 , 036010 (2024), arXiv:2311.09523 [hep-ph].
- [73] L. Di Luzio, A. Masiero, P. Paradisi, and M. Passera, Phys. Lett. B 829 , 137037 (2022), arXiv:2112.08312 [hep-ph].
- [74] L. Darm´ e, G. Grilli di Cortona, and E. Nardi, JHEP 06 , 122, arXiv:2112.09139 [hep-ph].
- [75] A. Crivellin and M. Hoferichter, Phys. Rev. D 108 , 013005 (2023), arXiv:2211.12516 [hep-ph].
- [76] L. Darm´ e, G. Grilli di Cortona, and E. Nardi, Phys. Rev. D 108 , 095056 (2023), arXiv:2212.03877 [hep-ph].
- [77] N. M. Coyle and C. E. M. Wagner, JHEP 12 , 071, arXiv:2305.02354 [hep-ph].
- [78] F. V. Ignatov et al. (CMD-3), Phys. Rev. D 109 , 112002 (2024), arXiv:2302.08834 [hep-ex].
- [79] F. V. Ignatov et al. (CMD-3), Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 , 231903 (2024), arXiv:2309.12910 [hep-ex].
- [80] M. N. Achasov et al., J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 103 , 380 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0605013.
- [81] V. M. Aul'chenko et al., JETP Lett. 84 , 413 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0610016.
- [82] R. R. Akhmetshin et al. (CMD-2), Phys. Lett. B 648 , 28 (2007), arXiv:hep-ex/0610021.
- [83] F. Ambrosino et al. (KLOE), Phys. Lett. B 670 , 285 (2009), arXiv:0809.3950 [hep-ex].
- [84] F. Ambrosino et al. (KLOE), Phys. Lett. B 700 , 102 (2011), arXiv:1006.5313 [hep-ex].
- [85] D. Babusci et al. (KLOE), Phys. Lett. B 720 , 336 (2013), arXiv:1212.4524 [hep-ex].
- [86] A. Anastasi et al. (KLOE-2), JHEP 03 , 173, arXiv:1711.03085 [hep-ex].
- [87] B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 , 231801 (2009), arXiv:0908.3589 [hep-ex].
- [88] J. P. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 86 , 032013 (2012), arXiv:1205.2228 [hep-ex].
- [89] M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Lett. B 753 , 629 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 812, 135982 (2021)], arXiv:1507.08188 [hep-ex].
- [90] T. Xiao, S. Dobbs, A. Tomaradze, K. K. Seth, and G. Bonvicini, Phys. Rev. D 97 , 032012 (2018), arXiv:1712.04530 [hep-ex].
- [91] M. N. Achasov et al. (SND), JHEP 01 , 113, arXiv:2004.00263 [hep-ex].
- [92] Zhiqing ZHANG, News from BABAR, Muon g -2 Theory Initiative Spring 2024 Meeting, url: https://indico.cern.ch/event/1400808/ contributions/5902094/attachments/2842140/ 4968393/Zhang\_HVP240422.pdf (2024).
- [93] Hisaki Hayashii, Status and plans regarding g -2 at belle II, Muon g -2 Theory Initiative Spring 2024 Meeting, url: https://indico.cern.ch/event/1400808/ contributions/5902135/attachments/2841580/ 4968265/g-2-theory\_mni-workshop\_240422\_v2.pdf (2024).
- [94] Riccardo Aliberti, Status and Plans for Experimental Inputs to HVP at BESIII, Muon g -2 Theory Initiative Spring 2024 Meeting, url: https://indico.cern.ch/event/1400808/ contributions/5902095/attachments/2841881/ 4967869/Muon\_g-2\_spring\_meeting\_2024.pdf (2024).
- [95] Ivan Logashenko, CMD2/3 report (on π + π -), Muon g -2 Theory Initiative Spring 2024 Meeting, url: https://indico.cern.ch/event/1400808/ contributions/5902096/attachments/2842193/
- 4968485/Logashenko\_CMD\_TI\_2024.pdf (2024).
- [96] Giuseppe Mandaglio, Hadron physics results at KLOE-2, Sixth Plenary Workshop of the Muon g -2 Theory Initiative (2023), url: https: //indico.cern.ch/event/1400808/contributions/ 5902134/attachments/2841711/4967471/talk\_IL.pdf (2023).
- [97] Andrey Kupich, Preliminary results of the e + e -→ π + π -analysis with SND at VEPP-2000, Muon g -2 Theory Initiative Spring 2024 Meeting, url: https: //indico.cern.ch/event/1400808/contributions/ 5902134/attachments/2841711/4967471/talk\_IL.pdf (2024).
- [98] J. P. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 108 , L111103 (2023), arXiv:2308.05233 [hep-ex].
- [99] M. Davier, A. Hoecker, A.-M. Lutz, B. Malaescu, and Z. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 , 721 (2024),

## arXiv:2312.02053 [hep-ph].

- [100] C. M. Carloni Calame, M. Passera, L. Trentadue, and G. Venanzoni, Phys. Lett. B 746 , 325 (2015), arXiv:1504.02228 [hep-ph].
- [101] G. Abbiendi et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 77 , 139 (2017), arXiv:1609.08987 [hep-ex].
- [102] G. Abbiendi, Letter of Intent: the MUonE project, Tech. Rep. (CERN, Geneva, 2019).
- [103] P. Banerjee et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 80 , 591 (2020), arXiv:2004.13663 [hep-ph].
- [104] A. Masiero, P. Paradisi, and M. Passera, Phys. Rev. D 102 , 075013 (2020), arXiv:2002.05418 [hep-ph].
- [105] P. Masjuan, A. Miranda, and P. Roig, Phys. Lett. B 850 , 138492 (2024), arXiv:2305.20005 [hep-ph].
- [106] R. H. Parker, C. Yu, W. Zhong, B. Estey, and H. M¨ uller, Science 360 , 191 (2018), arXiv:1812.04130 [physics.atom-ph].
- [107] L. Morel, Z. Yao, P. Clad´, and S. Guellati-Kh´lifa, Nae e ture 588 , 61 (2020).
- [108] G. F. Giudice, P. Paradisi, and M. Passera, JHEP 11 , 113, arXiv:1208.6583 [hep-ph].
- [109] A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter, and P. SchmidtWellenburg, Phys. Rev. D 98 , 113002 (2018), arXiv:1807.11484 [hep-ph].
- [110] X. Fan, T. G. Myers, B. A. D. Sukra, and G. Gabrielse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 , 071801 (2023), arXiv:2209.13084 [physics.atom-ph].
- [111] T. Aoyama, M. Hayakawa, T. Kinoshita, and M. Nio, Phys. Rev. D 91 , 033006 (2015), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 96, 019901 (2017)], arXiv:1412.8284 [hep-ph].
- [112] S. Volkov, Phys. Rev. D 100 , 096004 (2019), arXiv:1909.08015 [hep-ph].
- [113] S. Volkov, (2024), arXiv:2404.00649 [hep-ph].
- [114] https://conference-indico.kek.jp/event/257/ contributions/5806/attachments/3737/5122/Muong\_ 2QED2024.pdf .
- [115] J. Bernabeu, G. A. Gonzalez-Sprinberg, J. Papavassiliou, and J. Vidal, Nucl. Phys. B 790 , 160 (2008), arXiv:0707.2496 [hep-ph].
- [116] J. Bernabeu, G. A. Gonzalez-Sprinberg, and J. Vidal, JHEP 01 , 062, arXiv:0807.2366 [hep-ph].
- [117] X. Chen and Y. Wu, JHEP 10 , 089, arXiv:1803.00501

## [hep-ph].

- [118] A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter, and J. M. Roney, Phys. Rev. D 106 , 093007 (2022), arXiv:2111.10378 [hep-ph].
- [119] P. Janot, JHEP 02 , 053, [Erratum: JHEP 11, 164 (2017)], arXiv:1512.05544 [hep-ph].
- [120] A. Blondel and P. Janot, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137 , 92 (2022), arXiv:2106.13885 [hep-ex].
- [121] M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 98 , 030001 (2018).
- [122] P. Gambino and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D 49 , 1160 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9309326.
- [123] J. Erler and R. Ferro-Hern´ndez, a JHEP 03 , 196, arXiv:1712.09146 [hep-ph].
- [124] J. Erler, R. Ferro-Hernandez, and S. Kuberski, (2024), arXiv:2406.16691 [hep-ph].
- [125] D. Becker et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 54 , 208 (2018), arXiv:1802.04759 [nucl-ex].
- [126] J. Benesch et al. (MOLLER), (2014), arXiv:1411.4088 [nucl-ex].
- [127] E. Tiesinga, P. J. Mohr, D. B. Newell, and B. N. Taylor, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93 , 025010 (2021).
- [128] M. I. Eides, Phys. Lett. B 795 , 113 (2019), arXiv:1812.10881 [hep-ph].
- [129] A. Czarnecki, S. I. Eidelman, and S. G. Karshenboim, Phys. Rev. D 65 , 053004 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0107327.
- [130] S. G. Karshenboim and V. A. Shelyuto, Phys. Lett. B 517 , 32 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0107328.
- [131] C. Delaunay, B. Ohayon, and Y. Soreq, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 , 251801 (2021), arXiv:2106.11998 [hep-ph].
- [132] F. G. Mariam et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 , 993 (1982).
- [133] W. Liu et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 , 711 (1999).
- [134] P. Strasser et al., Hyperfine Interact. 237 , 124 (2016).
- [135] J. L. Friar, J. Martorell, and D. W. L. Sprung, Phys. Rev. A 59 , 4061 (1999), arXiv:nucl-th/9812053.
- [136] V. Meyer et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 , 1136 (2000), arXiv:hep-ex/9907013.
- [137] P. Crivelli, Hyperfine Interact. 239 , 49 (2018), arXiv:1811.00310 [physics.atom-ph].
- [138] M. I. Eides and V. A. Shelyuto, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 31 , 1645034 (2016).
Luca Di Luzio Alexander Keshavarzi Antonio Masiero Paride Paradisi
Model Independent Tests of the Hadronic Vacuum Polarization Contribution to the Muon $g$$-$$2$
The hadronic vacuum polarization (HVP) contributions to the muon $g$$-$$2$
are the crucial quantity to resolve whether new physics is present or not in
the comparison between the Standard Model (SM) prediction and experimental
measurements at Fermilab. They are commonly and historically determined via
dispersion relations using a vast catalogue of experimentally measured,
low-energy $e^+e^-\to \,\rm{hadrons}$ cross section data as input. These
dispersive estimates result in a SM prediction that exhibits a muon $g$$-$$2$
discrepancy of more than $5\sigma$ when compared to experiment. However, recent
lattice QCD evaluations of the HVP and a new hadronic cross section measurement
from the CMD-3 experiment favor a no-new-physics scenario and, therefore,
exhibit a common tension with the previous $e^+e^-\to \,\rm{hadrons}$ data.
This study explores the current and future implications of these two scenarios
on other observables that are also sensitive to the HVP contributions in the
hope that they may provide independent tests of the current tensions observed
in the muon $g$$-$$2$.