<table>
  <tr>
    <td>NA14</td>
    <td>CERN NA14</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>NA31</td>
    <td>CERN NA31 Spectrometer-Calorimeter</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>NA32</td>
    <td>CERN NA32 Spectrometer</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>NA48</td>
    <td>CERN NA48 Collaboration</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>NA49</td>
    <td>CERN NA49 Collaboration</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>NA60</td>
    <td>CERN NA60 Collaboration</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>NA62</td>
    <td>CERN NA62 Experiment</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>NA64</td>
    <td>CERN SPS NA64 Experiment</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>NAGE</td>
    <td>NEWAGE, New generation WIMP-search experiment with advanced gaseous tracking</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>NAIA</td>
    <td>NAIAD (NaI Advanced Detector) dark matter search experiment</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>ND</td>
    <td>NaI detector at VEPP-2M, Novosibirsk</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>NEOS</td>
    <td>NEOS Collaboration</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>NEWS</td>
    <td>NEWS-G direct dark matter search at LSM</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>NICE</td>
    <td>Serpukhov nonmagnetic precision spectrometer</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>NMR</td>
    <td>Nuclear magnetic resonance</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>NOMD</td>
    <td>NOMAD Collaboration, CERN SPS</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>NOVA</td>
    <td>NOvA experiment with Fermilab's NuMI neutrino beam</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>NTEV</td>
    <td>NuTeV Collab. at Fermilab</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>nTRV</td>
    <td>neutron Time-Reversal Violation</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>NUSX</td>
    <td>Mont Blanc NUSEX underground detector</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>OBLX</td>
    <td>OBELIX detector at LEAR</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>OKA</td>
    <td>OKA collaboration at U70 accelerator in Protvino, Russia</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>OLYA</td>
    <td>Detector at VEPP-2M and VEPP-4, Novosibirsk</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>OMEG</td>
    <td>CERN OMEGA spectrometer</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>OPAL</td>
    <td>OPAL detector at LEP</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>OPER</td>
    <td>OPERA experiment with emulsion tracking at Gran Sasso</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>ORGN</td>
    <td>ORGAN (Oscillating Resonant Group AxioN) experiment</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>ORPH</td>
    <td>ADMX-Orpheus Dark Matter Experiment</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>OSPK</td>
    <td>Optical spark chamber</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>PIBE</td>
    <td>The PIBETA detector at the Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI), Switzerland.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>PICA</td>
    <td>PICASSO dark matter search experiment</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>PICO</td>
    <td>PICO bubble chamber experiment in SNOLAB underground laboratory</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>PIE3</td>
    <td>πE3 beam-line of Paul Scherrer Institute</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>PLAS</td>
    <td>Plastic detector</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>PLUT</td>
    <td>DESY PLUTO detector</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>PMLA</td>
    <td>PAMELA space spectrometer on Resurs-DK1 satellite</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>PNDX</td>
    <td>PandaX dual-phase liquid xenon dark matter experiment at Jin-Ping</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>PPTA</td>
    <td>Parkes Pulsar Timing Array</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>PRMX</td>
    <td>The PRIMEX detector in Hall B at TJNAF</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>PWA</td>
    <td>Partial-wave analysis</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>QUAX</td>
    <td>QUAX axion search experiment</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>QULP</td>
    <td>QUALIPHIDE, quantum limited photons in the dark exp.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>RADE</td>
    <td>CAST-RADES haloscope search for axions.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>RDK2</td>
    <td>NIST rare radioactive decay experiment</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>REDE</td>
    <td>Resonance depolarization</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>RENO</td>
    <td>RENO Collaboration</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>RICE</td>
    <td>Radio Ice Cherenkov Experiment</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>RVUE</td>
    <td>Review of previous data</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>SAGE</td>
    <td>US - Russian Gallium Experiment</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>SAPH</td>
    <td>SAPPHIRES collaboration search for sub-eV Axion LPs</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>SCDM</td>
    <td>SuperCDMS experiment at Soudan Underground Lab.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>SEXL</td>
    <td>FNAL SELEX Collab.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>SENS</td>
    <td>Sub-Electron-Noise Skipper CCD Experimental Instrument (SENSEI)</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>SFM</td>
    <td>CERN split-field magnet</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>SHF</td>
    <td>SLAC Hybrid Facility Photon Collaboration</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>SHFT</td>
    <td>Search for Halo Axions with Ferromagnetic Toroids</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>SHUK</td>
    <td>SHUKET: search for U(1) dark matter with an electromagnetic telescope</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>SIGM</td>
    <td>Serpukhov CERN-IHEP magnetic spectrometer (SIGMA)</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>SILI</td>
    <td>Silicon detector</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>SIMP</td>
    <td>SIMPLE, dark matter detector at Laboratori Nazionali del Sud</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>SKAM</td>
    <td>Super-Kamiokande Collab.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>SLAX</td>
    <td>Solar Axion Experiment in Canfranc Underground Laboratory</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>SLD</td>
    <td>SLC Large Detector for e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> colliding beams at SLAC</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>SLIC</td>
    <td>ADMX SLIC (Superconducting LC Circuit Investigating Cold Axions)</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>SMPL</td>
    <td>SIMPLE, Superheated Instrument for Massive ParticLe Experiments</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>SND</td>
    <td>Novosibirisk Spherical neutral detector at VEPP-2M</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>SNDR</td>
    <td>SINDRUM spectrometer at PSI</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>SNO</td>
    <td>SNO Collaboration (Sudbury Neutrino Observatory)</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>SNO+</td>
    <td>SNO+ Collaboration (Sudbury Neutrino Observatory)</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<table>
  <tr>
    <td>SNSP</td>
    <td>SNSPD, Superconducting Nanowire Single-Photon Detectors</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>SOU2</td>
    <td>Soudan 2 underground detector</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>SOUd</td>
    <td>Soudan underground detector</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>SPEC</td>
    <td>Spectrometer</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>SPED</td>
    <td>From maximum of speed plot or resonant amplitude</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>SPHR</td>
    <td>Bonn SAPHIR Collab.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>SPNX</td>
    <td>SPHINX spectrometer at IHEP accelerator</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>SPRK</td>
    <td>Spark chamber</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>SQID</td>
    <td>SQUID device</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>STRC</td>
    <td>Streamer chamber</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>SVD2</td>
    <td>SVD-2 experiment at IHEP, Protvino</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>T2K</td>
    <td>T2K Collaboration</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>TASE</td>
    <td>Taiwan Axion Search Experiment with a Haloscope, TASEH, experiment</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>TASS</td>
    <td>DESY TASSO detector</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>TEVA</td>
    <td>Combined analysis of CDF and DØ experiments</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>TEXO</td>
    <td>TEXONO Collab., ultra low energy Ge detector at Kuo-Sheng Laboratory</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>THEO</td>
    <td>Theoretical or heavily model-dependent result</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>TNF</td>
    <td>TNF-IHEP facility at 70 GeV IHEP accelerator</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>TOF</td>
    <td>Time-of-flight</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>TOPZ</td>
    <td>TOPAZ detector at KEK-TRISTAN</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>TPC</td>
    <td>TPC detector at PEP/SLAC</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>TPS</td>
    <td>Tagged photon spectrometer at Fermilab</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>TRAP</td>
    <td>Penning trap</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>TWST</td>
    <td>TWIST spectrometer at TRIUMF</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>UA1</td>
    <td>UA1 detector at CERN</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>UA2</td>
    <td>UA2 detector at CERN</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>UA5</td>
    <td>UA5 detector at CERN</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>UCNA</td>
    <td>UCNA collaboration using polarized ultracold neutrons at LANSCE</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>UKDM</td>
    <td>UK Dark Matter Collab.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>UPLD</td>
    <td>UPLOAD, upconversion low-noise oscillator axion detection experiment</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>VES</td>
    <td>Vertex Spectrometer Facility at 70 GeV IHEP accelerator</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>VLBI</td>
    <td>Very Long Baseline Interferometer</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>VNS</td>
    <td>VENUS detector at KEK-TRISTAN</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>VRTS</td>
    <td>Very Energetic Radiation Imaging Telescope Array System (VERITAS)</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>WA75</td>
    <td>CERN WA75 experiment</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>WA82</td>
    <td>CERN WA82 experiment</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>WA89</td>
    <td>CERN WA89 experiment</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>WARP</td>
    <td>Liquid argon detector for CDM searches at Gran Sasso</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>WASA</td>
    <td>WASA detector at CELSIUS, Uppsala and at COSY, Juelich</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>WDMX</td>
    <td>WISP Dark Matter eXperiment (WISPDMX) for direct hidden photon search</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>WIRE</td>
    <td>Wire chamber</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>X100</td>
    <td>XENON100 dark matter search experiment at Gran Sasso National Laboratory</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>XE10</td>
    <td>XENON10 experiment at Gran Sasso National Laboratory</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>XE1T</td>
    <td>XENON1T dark matter search experiment at Gran Sasso National Laboratory</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>XEBC</td>
    <td>Xenon bubble chamber</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>XENT</td>
    <td>XENONnT dark matter search experiment at Gran Sasso National Laboratory</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>XMAS</td>
    <td>XMASS, liquid xenon scintillation detector at Kamioka Observatory</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>YUKA</td>
    <td>Graviton mass measurement based on Yukawa potential</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>ZEP2</td>
    <td>ZEPLIN-II dark matter detector</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>ZEP3</td>
    <td>ZEPLIN-III dark matter detector at Palmer Underground Lab.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>ZEPL</td>
    <td>ZEPLIN-I galactic dark matter detector</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>ZEUS</td>
    <td>ZEUS detector at DESY/HERA</td>
  </tr>
</table>

Conferences

Conferences are generally referred to by the location at which they were held (e.g., HAMBURG, TORONTO, CORNELL, BRIGHTON, etc.).

Journals

AA Astronomy and Astrophysics

ADVP Advances in Physics

AFIS Anales de Fisica

AJP American Journal of Physics

AL Astronomy Letters

ANP Annals of Physics

ANPL Annals of Physics (Leipzig)

ANYAS Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

AP Atomic Physics
Abbreviations Used in the Particle Listings

APAH Acta Physica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae

APJ Astrophysical Journal

APJS Astrophysical Journal Suppl.

APP Acta Physica Polonica

APS Acta Physica Slovaca

ARNPS Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science

ARNSS Annual Review of Nuclear Science

ASP Astroparticle Physics

AST American Statistician

BAPS Bulletin of the American Physical Society

BASUP Bulletin of the Academy of Science, USSR (Physics)

CJNP Chinese Journal of Nuclear Physics

CJP Canadian Journal of Physics

CNPP Comments on Nuclear and Particle Physics

CP Chinese Physics

CPC Chinese Physics C

CPL Chinese Physics Letters

CQG Classical and Quantum Gravity

CTP Communications in Theoretical Physics

CZJP Czechoslovak Journal of Physics

DANS Doklady Akademii nauk SSSR

DP Doklady Physics (Magazine)

EPJ The European Physical Journal

EPJA The European Physical Journal A

EPJC The European Physical Journal C

EPL Europhysics Letters

FECAY Fizika Elementarnykh Chastits i Atomnogo Yadra

HADJ Hadronic Journal

IJMP International Journal of Modern Physics

IJMPA International Journal of Modern Physics A

JAP Journal of Applied Physics

JCAP Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics

JETP English Translation of Soviet Physics ZETF

JETPL English Translation of Soviet Physics ZETF Letters

JHEAP Journal of High Energy Astrophysics

JHEP Journal of High Energy Physics

JINR Joint Inst. for Nuclear Research

JINRRC JINR Rapid Communications

JP Journal of Physics

JPA Journal of Physics A

JPB Journal of Physics B

JPCRD Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data

JPCS Journal of Physics: Conference Series

JPG Journal of Physics G

JPSJ Journal of the Physical Society of Japan

LHEP Letters in High Energy Physics

LNC Lettere Nuovo Cimento

MNRAS Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

MPL Modern Physics Letters

MPLA Modern Physics Letters A

NAST New Astronomy

NAT Nature

NATC Nature Communications (NCAOBW)

NATP Nature Physics

NC Nuovo Cimento

NIM Nuclear Instruments and Methods

NJP New Journal of Physics

NP Nuclear Physics

NPA Nuclear Physics A

NPB Nuclear Physics B

NPBPS Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplement

NPPP Nuclear and Particle Physics Proceedings

PAN Physics of Atomic Nuclei (formerly SJNP)

PD Physics Doklady (Magazine)

PDAT Physik Daten

PDU Physics of the Dark Universe

PL Physics Letters

PLA Physics Letters A

PLB Physics Letters B

PN Particles and Nuclei

PPCF Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion

PPN Physics of Particles and Nuclei (formerly SJPN)

PPNL Physics of Particles and Nuclei Letters

PPNP Progress in Particles and Nuclear Physics

PPSL Proc. of the Physical Society of London

PR Physical Review

PRA Physical Review A

PRAM Pramana

PRC Physical Review C

PRD Physical Review D

PRL Physical Review Letters

PRPL Physics Reports (Physics Letters C)

PRSE Proc. of the Royal Society of Edinburgh

PRSL Proc. of the Royal Society of London, Section A

PRX Physical Review X

PS Physica Scripta

PTEP Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics

PTP Progress of Theoretical Physics

PTPS Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement

PTRSL Phil. Trans. Royal Society of London

RA Radiochimica Acta

RMP Reviews of Modern Physics

RNC La Rivista del Nuovo Cimento

RPP Reports on Progress in Physics

RRP Revue Roumaine de Physique

SADV Science Advances

SCI Science

SCIB Science Bulletin

SCP SciPost Physics

SCPMA Science China Physics, Mechanics and Astronomy

SJPN Soviet Journal of Nuclear Physics

SJPN Soviet Journal of Particles and Nuclei

SPD Soviet Physics Doklady (Magazine)

SPU Soviet Physics - Uspekhi

SYM Symmetry

UFN Usp. Fiz. Nauk – Russian version of SPU

YAF Yadernaya Fizika

ZETF Zhurnal Eksperimental'noi i Teoreticheskoi Fiziki

ZETF Zhurnal Eksperimental'noi i Teoreticheskoi Fiziki, Pis'ma v Redakts

ZNAT Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung

ZPHY Zeitschrift fur Physik

Institutions

AACH Phys. Inst. der Techn. Aachen (Historical, use for general Inst. der Techn. Hochschule)

AACH1 I Phys. Inst. B, RWTH Aachen Aachen, Germany

AACH3 III Phys. Inst. A, RWTH Aachen Univ. Aachen, Germany

AACHT Inst. für Theoretische Teilchenphysik & Kosmologie, RWTH Aachen Aachen, Germany

AARH Univ. of Aarhus Aarhus C, Denmark

ABO Åbo Akademi Univ. Turku, Finland

ADEL Adelphi Univ. Garden City, NY, USA

ADLD The University of Adelaide Adelaide, SA, Australia

AERE Atomic Energy Research Estab. Didcot, United Kingdom

AFRR Armed Forces Radiobiology Res. Inst. Bethesda, MD, USA

AHMED Physical Research Lab. Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India

AICH Aichi Univ. of Education Aichi, Japan

AKIT Akita Univ. Akita, Japan

ALAH Univ. of Alabama (Huntsville) Huntsville, AL, USA

ALAT Univ. of Alabama (Tuscaloosa) Tuscaloosa, AL, USA

ALBA SUNY at Albany Albany, NY, USA

ALBE Univ. of Alberta Edmonton, AB, Canada

AMES Ames Lab. Ames, IA, USA

AMHT Amherst College Amherst, MA, USA

AMST Univ. van Amsterdam GL Amsterdam, The Netherlands

ANIK NIKHEF Amsterdam, The Netherlands
ANKA Middle East Technical Univ.; Dept. of Physics; Experimental HEP Lab Ankara, Turkey

ANL Argonne National Lab.; High Energy Physics Division, Bldg. 362; Physics Division, Bldg. 203 Argonne, IL, USA
Abbreviations Used in the Particle Listings

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>ANSM</td>
      <td>St. Anselm Coll.</td>
      <td>Manchester, NH, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>AQUI</td>
      <td>Univ. di LAquila</td>
      <td>Aquila, Italy</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>ARCBO</td>
      <td>Arecibo Observatory</td>
      <td>Arecibo, PR, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>ARIZ</td>
      <td>Univ. of Arizona</td>
      <td>Tucson, AZ, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>ARZS</td>
      <td>Arizona State Univ.</td>
      <td>Tempe, AZ, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>ASCI</td>
      <td>Russian Academy of Sciences</td>
      <td>Moscow, Russian Federation</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>AST</td>
      <td>Academia Sinica</td>
      <td>Nankang, Taipei, Taiwan</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>ASTAR</td>
      <td>Institute of Materials</td>
      <td>Singapore, Singapore</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>ATEN</td>
      <td>NCSR "Demokritos"</td>
      <td>Aghia Paraskevi, Greece</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>ATHU</td>
      <td>Univ. of Athens</td>
      <td>Athens, Greece</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>AUCK</td>
      <td>Univ. of Auckland</td>
      <td>Auckland, New Zealand</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BAKU</td>
      <td>Natl. Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences, Inst. of Physics</td>
      <td>Baku, Azerbaijan</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BANG</td>
      <td>Indian Inst. of Science</td>
      <td>Bangalore, India</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BANGB</td>
      <td>Bangabasi College</td>
      <td>Calcutta, India</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BARC</td>
      <td>Univ. Autónoma de Barcelona; Dept. de Física</td>
      <td>Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BARCE</td>
      <td>Univ. Autónoma de Barcelona; Inst. de Física de Altas Energías</td>
      <td>Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BARI</td>
      <td>Univ. e del Politecnico di Bari</td>
      <td>Bari, Italy</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BART</td>
      <td>Univ. of Delaware; Bartol Research Inst.</td>
      <td>Newark, DE, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BASL</td>
      <td>Inst. für Physik der Univ. Basel</td>
      <td>Basel, Switzerland</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BAYR</td>
      <td>Univ. Bayreuth</td>
      <td>Bayreuth, Germany</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BCEN</td>
      <td>Centre d'Etudes Nucleaires de Bordeaux-Gradignan</td>
      <td>Gradignan, France</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BCIP</td>
      <td>Natl. Inst. for Physics &amp; Nuclear Eng. "Horia Hulubei" (IFIN-HH)</td>
      <td>Bucharest-Magurele, Romania</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BEIJ</td>
      <td>Beijing Univ.</td>
      <td>Beijing, China</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BEIJT</td>
      <td>Inst. of Theoretical Physics</td>
      <td>Beijing, China</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BELG</td>
      <td>Inter-University Inst. for High Energies (ULB-VUB)</td>
      <td>Brussel, Belgium</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BELL</td>
      <td>AT &amp; T Bell Labs</td>
      <td>Murray Hill, NJ, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BERG</td>
      <td>Univ. of Bergen</td>
      <td>Bergen, Norway</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BERL</td>
      <td>DESY, Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron</td>
      <td>Zeuthen, Germany</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BERN</td>
      <td>Univ. of Berne</td>
      <td>Berne, Switzerland</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BGNA</td>
      <td>Univ. di Bologna, &amp; INFN, Sezione di Bologna; Via Irneorio, 46, I-40126 Bologna; Viale C. Berti Pichat, n. 6/2</td>
      <td>Bologna, Italy</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BHAB</td>
      <td>Bhabha Atomic Research Center</td>
      <td>Trombay, Bombay, India</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BHEP</td>
      <td>Inst. of High Energy Physics</td>
      <td>Beijing, China</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BIEL</td>
      <td>Univ. Bielefeld</td>
      <td>Bielefeld, Germany</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BING</td>
      <td>SUNY at Binghamton</td>
      <td>Binghamton, NY, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BIRK</td>
      <td>Birkbeck College, Univ. of London</td>
      <td>London, United Kingdom</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BIRM</td>
      <td>Univ. of Birmingham</td>
      <td>Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BLSU</td>
      <td>Bloomsburg Univ.</td>
      <td>Bloomsburg, PA, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BNL</td>
      <td>Brookhaven National Lab.</td>
      <td>Upton, NY, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BNORM</td>
      <td>Beijing Normal Univ.</td>
      <td>Beijing, China</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BOCH</td>
      <td>Ruhr Univ. Bochum</td>
      <td>Bochum, Germany</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BOHR</td>
      <td>Niels Bohr Inst.</td>
      <td>Copenhagen Ø, Denmark</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BOIS</td>
      <td>Boise State Univ.</td>
      <td>Boise, ID, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BOMB</td>
      <td>Univ. of Bombay</td>
      <td>Bombay, India</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BONN</td>
      <td>Univ. of Bonn</td>
      <td>Bonn, Germany</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BORD</td>
      <td>Centre d'Etudes Nucléaires de Bordeaux Gradignan (CENBG)</td>
      <td>Gradignan, France</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BOSE</td>
      <td>S.N. Bose National Centre for Basis Sciences</td>
      <td>Calcutta, India</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BOSK</td>
      <td>"Rudjer Bošković" Inst.</td>
      <td>Zagreb, Croatia</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BOST</td>
      <td>Boston Univ.</td>
      <td>Boston, MA, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BRAN</td>
      <td>Brandeis Univ.</td>
      <td>Waltham, MA, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BRCO</td>
      <td>Univ. of British Columbia</td>
      <td>Vancouver, BC, Canada</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BRIS</td>
      <td>Univ. of Bristol</td>
      <td>Bristol, United Kingdom</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BROW</td>
      <td>Brown Univ.</td>
      <td>Providence, RI, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BRUN</td>
      <td>Brunel Univ.</td>
      <td>Uxbridge, Middlesex, United Kingdom</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>BRUX</td>
      <td>Univ. Libre de Bruxelles; Physique des Particules Elémentaires</td>
      <td>Bruxelles, Belgium</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BRUXT</td>
      <td>Univ. Libre de Bruxelles; Physique Théorique</td>
      <td>Bruxelles, Belgium</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BUCH</td>
      <td>Univ. of Bucharest</td>
      <td>Bucharest-Magurele, Romania</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BUDA</td>
      <td>Wigner Research Centre for Physics</td>
      <td>Budapest, Hungary</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BUFF</td>
      <td>SUNY at Buffalo</td>
      <td>Buffalo, NY, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BURE</td>
      <td>Inst. des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques</td>
      <td>Bures-sur-Yvette, France</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CAEN</td>
      <td>Lab. de Physique Corpusculaire, ENSICAEN</td>
      <td>Caen, France</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CAGL</td>
      <td>Univ. degli Studi di Cagliari</td>
      <td>Monserrato (CA), Italy</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CAGLI</td>
      <td>INFN, Sezione di Cagliari</td>
      <td>Monserrato (CA), Italy</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CAIR</td>
      <td>Cairo University</td>
      <td>Orman, Giza, Cairo, Egypt</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CAIW</td>
      <td>Carnegie Inst. of Washington</td>
      <td>Washington, DC, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CALB</td>
      <td>Univ. della Calabria</td>
      <td>Cosenza, Italy</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CALC</td>
      <td>Univ. of Calcutta</td>
      <td>Calcutta, India</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CAMB</td>
      <td>DAMTP</td>
      <td>Cambridge, United Kingdom</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CAMP</td>
      <td>Univ. Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)</td>
      <td>Campinas, SP, Brazil</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CANB</td>
      <td>Australian National Univ.</td>
      <td>Canberra, ACT, Australia</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CANTB</td>
      <td>Inst. de Física de Cantabria (CSIC-UNiv. Cantabria)</td>
      <td>Santander, Spain</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CAPE</td>
      <td>University of Cape Town</td>
      <td>Rondebosch, Cape Town, South Africa</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CARA</td>
      <td>Univ. Central de Venezuela</td>
      <td>Caracas, Venezuela</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CARL</td>
      <td>Carleton Univ.</td>
      <td>Ottawa, ON, Canada</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CARLC</td>
      <td>Carleton College</td>
      <td>Northfield, MN, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CASE</td>
      <td>Case Western Reserve Univ.</td>
      <td>Cleveland, OH, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CAST</td>
      <td>China Center of Advanced Science and Technology</td>
      <td>Beijing, China</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CATA</td>
      <td>Univ. di Catania</td>
      <td>Catania, Italy</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CATH</td>
      <td>Catholic Univ. of America</td>
      <td>Washington, DC, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CAVE</td>
      <td>Cavendish Lab.</td>
      <td>Cambridge, United Kingdom</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CBNM</td>
      <td>CBNM</td>
      <td>Geel, Belgium</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CBPF</td>
      <td>Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas – BIB/CDI/CBPF</td>
      <td>Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CCAC</td>
      <td>Allegheny College</td>
      <td>Meadville, PA, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CDEF</td>
      <td>Univ. Paris VII, Denis Diderot</td>
      <td>Paris, France</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CEA</td>
      <td>Cambridge Electron Accelerator (Historical in Review)</td>
      <td>Cambridge, MA, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CEADE</td>
      <td>Center for Apl. Studies for Nuclear Physics</td>
      <td>Havana, Cuba</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CEBAF</td>
      <td>Jefferson Lab—Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility</td>
      <td>Newport News, VA, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CENG</td>
      <td>Centre d'Etudes Nucleaires</td>
      <td>Grenoble, France</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CERN</td>
      <td>CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research</td>
      <td>Genève, Switzerland</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CFPA</td>
      <td>Univ. of California, (Berkeley)</td>
      <td>Berkeley, CA, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CHIC</td>
      <td>Univ. of Chicago</td>
      <td>Chicago, IL, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CIAE</td>
      <td>State Nuclear Power Research Inst.</td>
      <td>Beijing, China</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CINC</td>
      <td>Univ. of Cincinnati</td>
      <td>Cincinnati, OH, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CINV</td>
      <td>CINVESTAV-IPN Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN</td>
      <td>México, DF, Mexico</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CIT</td>
      <td>California Inst. of Tech.</td>
      <td>Pasadena, CA, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CLER</td>
      <td>Univ. de Clermont-Ferrand</td>
      <td>Aubière, France</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CLEV</td>
      <td>Cleveland State Univ.</td>
      <td>Cleveland, OH, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CMNS</td>
      <td>Comenius Univ. (FMFI UK)</td>
      <td>Bratislava, Slovakia</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CMU</td>
      <td>Carnegie Mellon Univ.</td>
      <td>Pittsburgh, PA, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CNEA</td>
      <td>Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica</td>
      <td>Buenos Aires, Argentina</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CNRC</td>
      <td>Centre for Research in Particle Physics</td>
      <td>Ottawa, ON, Canada</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CNRS</td>
      <td>National Center for Scientific Research</td>
      <td>Paris, France</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CNYIT</td>
      <td>C. N. Yang Institute</td>
      <td>New York, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>COIM</td>
      <td>Univ. de Coimbra</td>
      <td>Coimbra, Portugal</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>COLO</td>
      <td>Univ. of Colorado</td>
      <td>Boulder, CO, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>COLU</td>
      <td>Columbia Univ.</td>
      <td>New York, NY, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CONC</td>
      <td>Concordia University</td>
      <td>Montreal, PQ, Canada</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CORN</td>
      <td>Cornell Univ.</td>
      <td>Ithaca, NY, USA</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
Abbreviations Used in the Particle Listings

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>ILLC</td>
      <td>Univ. of Illinois at Chicago</td>
      <td>Chicago, IL, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>ILLG</td>
      <td>Inst. Laue-Langevin</td>
      <td>Grenoble, France</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>IND</td>
      <td>Indiana Univ.</td>
      <td>Bloomington, IN, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>INEL</td>
      <td>E G and G Idaho, Inc.</td>
      <td>Idaho Falls, ID, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>INFN</td>
      <td>Ist. Nazionale di Fisica Nu- clear (Generic INFN, un- known location)</td>
      <td>Various places, Italy</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>INFNL</td>
      <td>INFN, Sezione di Lecce</td>
      <td>Lecce, Italy</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>INNS</td>
      <td>Univ. of Innsbruck</td>
      <td>Innsbruck, Austria</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>INPK</td>
      <td>Henryk Niewodniczański Inst. of Nuclear Physics</td>
      <td>Kraków, Poland</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>INRM</td>
      <td>INR, Inst. for Nucl. Research</td>
      <td>Moscow, Russian Federation</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>INUS</td>
      <td>KEK, High Energy Accelera- tor Research Organization</td>
      <td>Tokyo, Japan</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>IOAN</td>
      <td>Univ. of Ioannina</td>
      <td>Ioannina, Greece</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>IOFF</td>
      <td>A.F. Ioffe Phys. Tech. Inst.</td>
      <td>St. Petersburg, Russian Fed- eration</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>IOWA</td>
      <td>Univ. of Iowa</td>
      <td>Iowa City, IA, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>IPN</td>
      <td>IPN, Inst. de Phys. Nucl.</td>
      <td>Orsay, France</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>IPNP</td>
      <td>Univ. Pierre et Marie Curie (Paris VI)</td>
      <td>Paris, France</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>IRAD</td>
      <td>Inst. du Radium (Historical)</td>
      <td>Paris, France</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>ISNG</td>
      <td>Lab. de Physique Sub- atomique et de Cosmologie (LPSC)</td>
      <td>Grenoble, France</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>ISU</td>
      <td>Iowa State Univ.</td>
      <td>Ames, IA, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>ISUT</td>
      <td>Isfahan University of Technol- ogy</td>
      <td>Isfahan, Iran</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>ITEP</td>
      <td>ITEP, Inst. of Theor. and Exp. Physics</td>
      <td>Moscow, Russian Federation</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>ITHA</td>
      <td>Ithaca College</td>
      <td>Ithaca, NY, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>IUPU</td>
      <td>Indiana Univ., Purdue Univ. Indianapolis</td>
      <td>Indianapolis, IN, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>JADA</td>
      <td>Jadavpur Univ.</td>
      <td>Calcutta, India</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>JAGL</td>
      <td>Jagiellonian Univ.</td>
      <td>Kraków, Poland</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>JHU</td>
      <td>Johns Hopkins Univ.</td>
      <td>Baltimore, MD, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>JINR</td>
      <td>JINR, Joint Inst. for Nucl. Research</td>
      <td>Dubna, Russian Federation</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>JPL</td>
      <td>Jet Propulsion Laboratory</td>
      <td>Pasadena, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>JULI</td>
      <td>Forschungszentrum Jülich</td>
      <td>Jülich, Germany</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>JYV</td>
      <td>Univ. of Jyväskylä</td>
      <td>Jyväskylä, Finland</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>KAGO</td>
      <td>Univ. of Kagoshima</td>
      <td>Kagoshima-shi, Japan</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>KAIST</td>
      <td>Korea Advanced Inst. of Sci- ence and Technology</td>
      <td>Yusung ku, Daejeon, Republic of Korea</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>KANP</td>
      <td>Indian Inst. of Tech.</td>
      <td>Kanpur, UT, India</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>KANS</td>
      <td>Univ. of Kansas</td>
      <td>Lawrence, KS, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>KARL</td>
      <td>Univ. Karlsruhe (Historical in Review)</td>
      <td>Karlsruhe, Germany</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>KARLE</td>
      <td>Karlsruhe Inst. of Technol- ogy (KIT); Inst. for Experi- mental Nuclear Physics</td>
      <td>Karlsruhe, Germany</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>KARLK</td>
      <td>Karlsruhe Inst. of Technol- ogy (KIT)</td>
      <td>Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Ger- many</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>KARLT</td>
      <td>Karlsruhe Inst. of Technol- ogy (KIT); Inst. for Theoreti- cal Physics</td>
      <td>Karlsruhe, Germany</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>KAZA</td>
      <td>Kazakh Inst. of High Energy Physics</td>
      <td>Alma Ata, Kazakhstan</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>KEK</td>
      <td>KEK, High Energy Accelera- tor Research Organization</td>
      <td>Ibaraki-ken, Japan</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>KENT</td>
      <td>Univ. of Kent</td>
      <td>Canterbury, United Kingdom</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>KEYN</td>
      <td>Open Univ.</td>
      <td>Milton Keynes, United King- dom</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>KFTI</td>
      <td>Kharkov Inst. of Physics and Tech. (NSC KIPT)</td>
      <td>Kharkov, Ukraine</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>KIAE</td>
      <td>Kurchatov Inst.</td>
      <td>Moscow, Russian Federation</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>KIAM</td>
      <td>Keldysh Inst. of Applied Math., Acad. Sci., Russia</td>
      <td>Moscow, Russian Federation</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>KIDR</td>
      <td>Vinča Inst. of Nuclear Sci- ences</td>
      <td>Belgrade, Serbia</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>KIEV</td>
      <td>Institute for Nuclear Re- search</td>
      <td>Kyiv, Ukraine</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>KINK</td>
      <td>Kinki Univ.</td>
      <td>Osaka, Japan</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>KIT</td>
      <td>Karlsruhe Institute for Tech- nology</td>
      <td>Karlsruhe, Germany</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>KNTY</td>
      <td>Univ. of Kentucky</td>
      <td>Lexington, KY, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>KOBE</td>
      <td>Kobe Univ.</td>
      <td>Kobe, Japan</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>KOMABUniv.</td>
      <td>of Tokyo, Komaba</td>
      <td>Tokyo, Japan</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>KONAN</td>
      <td>Konan Univ.</td>
      <td>Kobe, Japan</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>KOSI</td>
      <td>Inst. of Experimental Physics SAS</td>
      <td>Košice, Slovakia</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>KYOT</td>
      <td>Kyoto Univ.; Dept. of Physics, Graduate School of Science</td>
      <td>Kyoto, Japan</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>KYOTU</td>
      <td>Kyoto Univ.; Yukawa Inst. for Theor. Physics</td>
      <td>Kyoto, Japan</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>KYUN</td>
      <td>Kyungpook National Univ.</td>
      <td>Daegu, Republic of Korea</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>KYUSH</td>
      <td>Kyushu Univ.; Elementary ParticleTheory Group; Exp. Particle Physics Group; Research Center for Advanced Particle Physics</td>
      <td>Fukuoka, Japan</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LALO</td>
      <td>LAL, Laboratoire de l'Accélérateur Linéaire</td>
      <td>Orsay, France</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LANC</td>
      <td>Lancaster Univ.</td>
      <td>Lancaster, United Kingdom</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LANL</td>
      <td>Los Alamos National Lab. (LANL)</td>
      <td>Los Alamos, NM, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LAPL</td>
      <td>Univ. Nacional de La Plata</td>
      <td>La Plata, Argentina</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LAPP</td>
      <td>LAPP, Lab. d'Annecy-le-Vieux de Phys. des Particules</td>
      <td>Annecy-le-Vieux, France</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LAPTH</td>
      <td>LAPTh Lab. d'Annecy-le-Vieux de Phys. Théorique</td>
      <td>Annecy-le-Vieux CEDEX, France</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LASL</td>
      <td>U.C. Los Alamos Scientific Lab. (Old name for LANL)</td>
      <td>Los Alamos, NM, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LATV</td>
      <td>Latvian State Univ.</td>
      <td>Riga, Latvia</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LAUS</td>
      <td>EPFL Lausanne</td>
      <td>Lausanne, Switzerland</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LAVL</td>
      <td>Univ. Laval</td>
      <td>Quebec, QC, Canada</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LBL</td>
      <td>Lawrence Berkeley Na- tional Lab.</td>
      <td>Berkeley, CA, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LCGT</td>
      <td>Univ. di Torino</td>
      <td>Turin, Italy</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LEBD</td>
      <td>Lebedev Physical Inst.</td>
      <td>Moscow, Russian Federation</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LECE</td>
      <td>Univ. di Lecce</td>
      <td>Lecce, Italy</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LEED</td>
      <td>Univ. of Leeds</td>
      <td>Leeds, United Kingdom</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LEGN</td>
      <td>Lab. Naz. di Legnaro</td>
      <td>Legnaro, Italy</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LEHI</td>
      <td>Lehigh Univ.</td>
      <td>Bethlehem, PA, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LEHM</td>
      <td>Lehman College of CUNY</td>
      <td>Bronx, NY, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LEID</td>
      <td>Univ. Leiden</td>
      <td>Leiden, The Netherlands</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LEMO</td>
      <td>Le Moyne Coll.</td>
      <td>Syracuse, NY, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LENSU</td>
      <td>Saint-Petersburg State Univ.</td>
      <td>St. Petersburg, Russian Fed- eration</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LEUV</td>
      <td>Katholieke Univ. Leuven</td>
      <td>Leuven, Belgium</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LIEG</td>
      <td>Univ. de Liège</td>
      <td>Liège, Belgium</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LINZ</td>
      <td>Univ. Linz</td>
      <td>Linz, Austria</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LISB</td>
      <td>Inst. Nacional de Investigacion Cientifica</td>
      <td>Lisboa CODEX, Portugal</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LISBT</td>
      <td>Centro de Física Teórica de Partículas (CFTP)</td>
      <td>Lisboa, Portugal</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LIVP</td>
      <td>Univ. of Liverpool</td>
      <td>Liverpool, United Kingdom</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LJUB</td>
      <td>Univerza v Ljubljani</td>
      <td>Ljubljana, Slovenia</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LLL</td>
      <td>Lawrence Livermore Lab. (Old name for LLNL)</td>
      <td>Livermore, CA, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LLNL</td>
      <td>Lawrence Livermore Na- tional Lab.</td>
      <td>Livermore, CA, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LNUDA</td>
      <td>Liaoning Normal Univ.</td>
      <td>Dalian, China</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LOCK</td>
      <td>Lockheed Palo Alto Res. Lab</td>
      <td>Palo Alto, CA, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LOIC</td>
      <td>Imperial College of Science Tech. & Medicine</td>
      <td>London, United Kingdom</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LOKC</td>
      <td>Univ. of London, King's College</td>
      <td>London, United Kingdom</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LOQM</td>
      <td>Queen Mary, Univ. of Lon- don</td>
      <td>London, United Kingdom</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LOUC</td>
      <td>University College London</td>
      <td>London, United Kingdom</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LOUV</td>
      <td>Univ. Catholique de Louvain</td>
      <td>Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LOWC</td>
      <td>Westfield College (Historical, see LOQM (Queen Mary and Westfield joined))</td>
      <td>London, United Kingdom</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LRL</td>
      <td>U.C. Lawrence Radiation Lab. (Old name for LBL)</td>
      <td>Berkeley, CA, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LSU</td>
      <td>Louisiana State Univ.</td>
      <td>Baton Rouge, LA, USA</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LUND</td>
      <td>Fysiska Institutionen</td>
      <td>Lund, Sweden</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LUND</td>
      <td>Lund Univ.</td>
      <td>Lund, Sweden</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>LYON</td>
      <td>Institute de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon (IPN)</td>
      <td>Villeurbanne, France</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>MADE</td>
      <td>UAM/CSIC, Inst. de Física Teórica</td>
      <td>Madrid, Cantoblanco, Spain</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>MADR</td>
      <td>C.I.E.M.A.T</td>
      <td>Madrid, Spain</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>MADU</td>
      <td>Univ. Autónoma de Madrid</td>
      <td>Cantoblanco, Madrid, Spain</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
Abbreviations Used in the Particle Listings

MAINZ Johannes-Gutenberg- Univ.; Inst. für Kernphysik, J.-J.-Becher-Weg 45; Inst. für Physik, Staudingerweg 7

MANI Univ. of Manitoba

MARB Univ. Marburg

MARS Centre de Physique des Particules de Marseille

MASA Univ. of Massachusetts Amherst

MASB Univ. of Massachusetts Boston

MASD Univ. of Massachusetts Dartmouth

MCGI McGill Univ.

MCHS Univ. of Manchester

MCMS McMaster Univ.

MDRA Univ. of Madras

MEHTA Harish-Chandra Research Inst.

MEIS Meisei Univ.

MELB Univ. of Melbourne

MEUD Observatoire de Meudon

MICH Univ. of Michigan

MILA Univ. di Milano

MILAI INFN, Sez. di Milano

MINN Univ. of Minnesota

MIPT Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology

MISS Univ. of Mississippi

MISSR Univ. of Missouri

MIT MIT Massachusetts Inst. of Technology

MIU Maharishi International Univ.

MIYA Miyazaki Univ.

MONP Univ. de Montpellier II

MONS Univ. of Mons

MONT Univ. de Montréal: Pavillon René-J.-A.-Lévesque

MONTCUniv. de Montréal; Centre de recherches mathématiques

MOSU Skobeltsyn Inst. of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State Univ.; Experimental HEP Division; Theoretical HEP Division

MPCM Max Planck Inst. fur Chemie

MPEI Moscow Physical Engineering Inst.

MPIG Max-Planck-Institute für Astrophysik

MPIK Max-Planck-Inst. für Kernphysik

MPIM Max-Planck-Inst. für Physik

MPP Max Planck Institute for Physics

MRION Mirion Technologies Canberra

MSST Mississippi State University

MSU Michigan State Univ.

MTHO Mount Holyoke College

MULH Centre Univ. du Haut-Rhin

MUNI Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München

MURA Midwestern Univ. Research Assoc. (Historical in Review)

MURC Univ. of Murcia

NAAS North American Aviation Science Center (Historical in Review)

NAGO Nagoya Univ.

NANJ Nanjing Univ.

NANKANanKai University

NAPL Univ. di Napoli "Federico II"

NAPLI INFN, Sezione di Napoli

NASA NASA

NBI Niels Bohr Institut

Mainz, Germany

Winnipeg, MB, Canada

Marburg, Germany

Marseille, France

Amherst, MA, USA

Boston, MA, USA

North Dartmouth, MA, USA

Montreal, QC, Canada

Manchester, United Kingdom

Hamilton, ON, Canada

Madras, India

Allahabad, India

Tokyo, Japan

Victoria, Australia

Meudon, France

Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Milano, Italy

Milano, Italy

Minneapolis, MN, USA

Moscow, Russian Federation

University, MS, USA

Rolla, MO, USA

Cambridge, MA, USA

Fairfield, IA, USA

Miyazaki-shi, Japan

Montpellier, France

Mons, Belgium

Montréal, PQ, Canada

Montréal, PQ, Canada

Moscow, Russian Federation

Mainz, Germany

Moscow, Russian Federation

Garching, Germany

Heidelberg, Germany

München, Germany

Munich, Germany

Meriden, CT, USA

Mississippi State, MS, USA

East Lansing, MI, USA

South Hadley, MA, USA

Mulhouse, France

Garching, Germany

Stroughton, WI, USA

Murcia, Spain

Thousand Oaks, CA, USA

Nagoya, Japan

Nanjing, China

Tianjin, China

Napoli, Italy

NAPOLI, Italy

Greenbelt, MD, USA

Copenhagen, Denmark

NBS U.S National Bureau of Standards (Old name for NIST)

NBSB National Inst. Standards Tech.

NCAR National Center for Atmospheric Research

NCSU North Carolina State Univ.

NDAM Univ. of Notre Dame

NEAS Northeastern Univ.

NEBR Univ. of Nebraska

NEUC Univ. de Neuchâtel

NICEA Univ. de Nice

NICEO Observatoire de Nice

NIHO Nihon Univ.

NIIG Niigata Univ.

NIJM Radboud Univ. Nijmegen

NIRS Nat. Inst. Radiological Sciences

NIST National Institute of Standards & Technology

NIU Northern Illinois Univ.

NJU Nanjing University

NMSU New Mexico State Univ.; Dept. of Physics, MSC 3D; Part. & Nucl. Phys. Group, Box 30001/Dept.

NORD Nordita

NOTT Univ. of Nottingham

NOVM Inst. of Mathematics

NOVOBINP, Budker Inst. of Nuclear Physics

NOVOU Novosibirsk State University

NPLT National Physical Laboratory

NPOL Polytechnic of North London

NRL Naval Research Lab

NSF National Science Foundation

NTHU National Tsing Hua Univ.

NTUA National Tech. Univ. of Athens

NWES Northwestern Univ.

NYU New York Univ.

OBER Oberlin College

OCH Ochanomizu Univ.

OHIO Ohio Univ.

OKAY Okayama Univ.

OKLA Univ. of Oklahoma

OKSU Oklahoma State Univ.

OPAV Silesian University

OREG Univ. of Oregon; Inst. of Theoretical Science; U.O. Center for High Energy Physics

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory

ORSAY Univ. de Paris Sud 11

ORST Oregon State Univ.

OSAK Osaka Univ.

OSKC Osaka City Univ.

OSLO Univ. of Oslo

OSU Ohio State Univ.

OTTA Univ. of Ottawa

OXF University of Oxford

OXFFTP Univ. of Oxford

PADO Univ. degli Studi di Padova

PARIN LPNHE, $\mathrm{IN}^2\mathrm{P}^3$/CNRS

PARIS Univ. de Paris (Historical)

PARIT Univ. Paris VII, LPTHE

PARM INFN, Gruppo Collegato di Parma

PAST Institut Pasteur

PATR Univ. of Patras

PAVI Univ. di Pavia

PAVII INFN, Sez. di Pavia

Gaithersburg, MD, USA

Boulder, CO, USA

Boulder, CO, USA

Raleigh, NC, USA

Notre Dame, IN, USA

Boston, MA, USA

Lincoln, NE, USA

Neuchâtel, Switzerland

Nice, France

Nice, France

Tokyo, Japan

Niigata, Japan

AJ Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Chiba, Japan

Gaithersburg, MD, USA

De Kalb, IL, USA

Nanjing, China

Las Cruces, NM, USA

Stockholm, Sweden

Nottingham, United Kingdom

Novosibirsk, Russian Federation

Novosibirsk, Russian Federation

Novisibirsk, Russian Federation
Teddington, United Kingdom
London, United Kingdom

Washington, DC, USA

Arlington, VA, USA

Hsinchu, Taiwan

Athens, Greece

Evanston, IL, USA

New York, NY, USA

Oberlin, OH, USA

Tokyo, Japan

Athens, OH, USA

Okayama, Japan

Norman, OK, USA

Stillwater, OK, USA

Opava, Czech Republic

Eugene, OR, USA

Oak Ridge, TN, USA

Orsay CEDEX, France

Corvallis, OR, USA

Osaka, Japan

Osaka, Japan

Oslo, Norway

Columbus, OH, USA

Ottawa, ON, Canada

Oxford, United Kingdom

Oxford, United Kingdom

Padova, Italy

Paris, France

Paris, France

Paris, France

Parma, Italy

Paris, France

Patras, Greece

Pavia, Italy

Pavia, Italy
Abbreviations Used in the Particle Listings

PENN Univ. of Pennsylvania
Perim Institute for Theoretical Physics
PGIA INFN, Sezione di Perugia
PISA Univ. di Pisa
PISAI INFN, Sez. di Pisa
PITT Univ. of Pittsburgh
PLAT SUNY at Plattsburgh
PLRM Univ. di Palermo
PNL Battelle Memorial Inst.
PNPI Petersburg Nuclear Physics
Inst. of Russian Academy of Sciences
PPA Princeton-Penn. Proton Accelerator (Historical in Review)
PRAG Inst. of Physics, ASCR
PRIN Princeton Univ.
PSI Paul Scherrer Institute
PSLL Physical Science Lab
PSU Penn State Univ.
PUCB Pontificia Univ. Católica do Rio de Janeiro
PUEB Univ. Autonoma de Puebla
PURD Purdue Univ.
QUKI Queen's Univ.
RAL STFC Rutherford Appleton Lab.
REGE Univ. Regensburg
REHO Weizmann Inst. of Science
REZ Nuclear Physics Inst. AVČR
RGSUL Univ. Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)
RHBL Royal Holloway, Univ. of London
RHEL Rutherford High Energy Lab (Old name for RAL)
RICE Rice Univ.
RIKEN Riken Nishina Center for Accelerator-Based Science
RIKK Rikkyo Univ.
RIS Rowland Inst. for Science
RISC Rockwell International
RISL Universities Research Reactor
RISO Riso National Laboratory
RITS Royal Inst. of Technology (KTH)
RL Rutherford High Energy Lab (Old name for RAL)
RMCS Royal Military Coll. of Science
ROCH Univ. of Rochester
ROCK Rockefeller Univ.
ROMA Univ. di Roma (Historical)
ROMA2 Univ. di Roma, "Tor Vergata"
ROMA3 INFN, Sez. di Roma Tre
ROMA1 INFN, Sez. di Roma
ROSE Rose-Hulman Inst. of Technology
RPI Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst.
RUTG Rutgers, the State Univ. of New Jersey
SOGA Sogang University
SACL CEA Saclay, IRFU
SACL5 CEA Saclay - IPhT
SACLD CEA Saclay (Essonne)
SAGA Saga Univ.
SAHA Saha Inst. of Nuclear Physics
SANG Kyoto Sangyo Univ.
SANI Ist. Superiore di Sanità
SASK Univ. of Saskatchewan
SASSO Lab. Naz. Gran Sasso dell'INFN
SAVO Univ. de Savoie
SBER California State Univ.
SCHAF W.J. Schafer Assoc.
Philadelphia, PA, USA
Ontario, Canada
Perugia, Italy
Pisa, Italy
Pisa, Italy
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Plattsburgh, NY, USA
Palermo, Italy
Richland, WA, USA
Gatchina, Russian Federation
Princeton, NJ, USA

PRAG Inst. of Physics, ASCR
PRIN Princeton Univ.
PSI Paul Scherrer Institute
PSLL Physical Science Lab
PSU Penn State Univ.
PUCB Pontificia Univ. Católica do Rio de Janeiro
PUEB Univ. Autonoma de Puebla
PURD Purdue Univ.
QUKI Queen's Univ.
RAL STFC Rutherford Appleton Lab.
REGE Univ. Regensburg
REHO Weizmann Inst. of Science
REZ Nuclear Physics Inst. AVČR
RGSUL Univ. Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)
RHBL Royal Holloway, Univ. of London
RHEL Rutherford High Energy Lab (Old name for RAL)
RICE Rice Univ.
RIKEN Riken Nishina Center for Accelerator-Based Science
RIKK Rikkyo Univ.
RIS Rowland Inst. for Science
RISC Rockwell International
RISL Universities Research Reactor
RISO Riso National Laboratory
RITS Royal Inst. of Technology (KTH)
RL Rutherford High Energy Lab (Old name for RAL)
RMCS Royal Military Coll. of Science
ROCH Univ. of Rochester
ROCK Rockefeller Univ.
ROMA Univ. di Roma (Historical)
ROMA2 Univ. di Roma, "Tor Vergata"
ROMA3 INFN, Sez. di Roma Tre
ROMA1 INFN, Sez. di Roma
ROSE Rose-Hulman Inst. of Technology
RPI Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst.
RUTG Rutgers, the State Univ. of New Jersey
SOGA Sogang University
SACL CEA Saclay, IRFU
SACL5 CEA Saclay - IPhT
SACLD CEA Saclay (Essonne)
SAGA Saga Univ.
SAHA Saha Inst. of Nuclear Physics
SANG Kyoto Sangyo Univ.
SANI Ist. Superiore di Sanità
SASK Univ. of Saskatchewan
SASSO Lab. Naz. Gran Sasso dell'INFN
SAVO Univ. de Savoie
SBER California State Univ.
SCHAF W.J. Schafer Assoc.
Prague, Czech Republic
Princeton, NJ, USA
Villigen, Switzerland
Las Cruces, NM, USA
University Park, PA, USA
Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
Puebla, Pue, Mexico
West Lafayette, IN, USA
Kingston, ON, Canada
Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
Regensburg, Germany
Rehovot, Israel
Rež, Czech Republic
Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
Egham, Surrey, United Kingdom
Chilton, Didcot, Oxon., United Kingdom
Houston, TX, USA
Saitama, Japan
Tokyo, Japan
Cambridge, MA, USA
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA
Risley, Warrington, United Kingdom
Roskilde, Denmark
Stockholm, Sweden
Chilton, Didcot, Oxon., United Kingdom
Swindon, Wilts., United Kingdom
Rochester, NY, USA
New York, NY, USA
Roma, Italy
Roma, Italy
Roma, Italy
Terre Haute, IN, USA
Troy, NY, USA
Piscataway, NJ, USA

RML Royal Holloway, Univ. of London
RHEL Rutherford High Energy Lab (Old name for RAL)
RICE Rice Univ.
RIKEN Riken Nishina Center for Accelerator-Based Science
RIKK Rikkyo Univ.
RIS Rowland Inst. for Science
RISC Rockwell International
RISL Universities Research Reactor
RISO Riso National Laboratory
RITS Royal Inst. of Technology (KTH)
RL Rutherford High Energy Lab (Old name for RAL)
RMCS Royal Military Coll. of Science
ROCH Univ. of Rochester
ROCK Rockefeller Univ.
ROMA Univ. di Roma (Historical)
ROMA2 Univ. di Roma, "Tor Vergata"
ROMA3 INFN, Sez. di Roma Tre
ROMA1 INFN, Sez. di Roma
ROSE Rose-Hulman Inst. of Technology
RPI Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst.
RUTG Rutgers, the State Univ. of New Jersey
SOGA Sogang University
SACL CEA Saclay, IRFU
SACL5 CEA Saclay - IPhT
SACLD CEA Saclay (Essonne)
SAGA Saga Univ.
SAHA Saha Inst. of Nuclear Physics
SANG Kyoto Sangyo Univ.
SANI Ist. Superiore di Sanità
SASK Univ. of Saskatchewan
SASSO Lab. Naz. Gran Sasso dell'INFN
SAVO Univ. de Savoie
SBER California State Univ.
SCHAF W.J. Schafer Assoc.
Seoul, Republic of Korea
Gif-sur-Yvette, France
Gif-sur-Yvette, France
Gif-sur-Yvette, France
Gif-sur-Yvette, France
Bidhan Nagar, Calcutta, India
Kyoto-shi, Japan
Roma, Italy
Saskatoon, SK, Canada
Assergi (AQ), Italy
Chambery, France
San Bernardino, CA, USA
Livermore, DA, USA

RML Royal Holloway, Univ. of London
RHEL Rutherford High Energy Lab (Old name for RAL)
RICE Rice Univ.
RIKEN Riken Nishina Center for Accelerator-Based Science
RIKK Rikkyo Univ.
RIS Rowland Inst. for Science
RISC Rockwell International
RISL Universities Research Reactor
RISO Riso National Laboratory
RITS Royal Inst. of Technology (KTH)
RL Rutherford High Energy Lab (Old name for RAL)
RMCS Royal Military Coll. of Science
ROCH Univ. of Rochester
ROCK Rockefeller Univ.
ROMA Univ. di Roma (Historical)
ROMA2 Univ. di Roma, "Tor Vergata"
ROMA3 INFN, Sez. di Roma Tre
ROMA1 INFN, Sez. di Roma
ROSE Rose-Hulman Inst. of Technology
RPI Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst.
RUTG Rutgers, the State Univ. of New Jersey
SOGA Sogang University
SACL CEA Saclay, IRFU
SACL5 CEA Saclay - IPhT
SACLD CEA Saclay (Essonne)
SAGA Saga Univ.
SAHA Saha Inst. of Nuclear Physics
SANG Kyoto Sangyo Univ.
SANI Ist. Superiore di Sanità
SASK Univ. of Saskatchewan
SASSO Lab. Naz. Gran Sasso dell'INFN
SAVO Univ. de Savoie
SBER California State Univ.
SCHAF W.J. Schafer Assoc.
Philadelphia, PA, USA
Ontario, Canada
Perugia, Italy
Pisa, Italy
Pisa, Italy
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Plattsburgh, NY, USA
Palermo, Italy
Richland, WA, USA
Gatchina, Russian Federation
Princeton, NJ, USA
Prague, Czech Republic
Princeton, NJ, USA
Villigen, Switzerland
Las Cruces, NM, USA
University Park, PA, USA
Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
Puebla, Pue, Mexico
West Lafayette, IN, USA
Kingston, ON, Canada
Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
Regensburg, Germany
Rehovot, Israel
Rež, Czech Republic
Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
Egham, Surrey, United Kingdom
Chilton, Didcot, Oxon., United Kingdom
Houston, TX, USA
Saitama, Japan
Tokyo, Japan
Cambridge, MA, USA
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA
Risley, Warrington, United Kingdom
Roskilde, Denmark
Stockholm, Sweden
Chilton, Didcot, Oxon., United Kingdom
Swindon, Wilts., United Kingdom
Rochester, NY, USA
New York, NY, USA
Roma, Italy
Roma, Italy
Roma, Italy
Terre Haute, IN, USA
Troy, NY, USA
Piscataway, NJ, USA

SCIT Science Univ. of Tokyo
SCOT Scottish Univ. Research and Reactor Ctr.
SCUC Univ. of South Carolina
SEAT Seattle Pacific Coll.
SEIB Austrian Research Center, Seibersdorf LTD.
SEOU Korea Univ.; Dept. of Physics; HEP Group
SEOUl Seoul National Univ.; Center for Theoretical Physics; Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, Coll. of Natural Sciences
SERP IHEP, Inst. for High Energy Physics
SETO Seton Hall Univ.
SFLA Univ. of South Florida
SFRA Simon Fraser University
SFSU California State Univ.
SHAMS Ain Shams University
SHDN Shandong Univ.
SHDNQ Shandong Univ.
SHEF Univ. of Sheffield
SHMP Univ. of Southampton
SHRZ Shiraz Univ.
SIEG Univ. Siegen
SILES Univ. of Silesia
SIN Swiss Inst. of Nuclear Research (Old name for VILL)
SING National Univ. of Singapore
SISSA Scuola Internazionale Superiore di Studi Avanzati
SLAC SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory
SLOV Inst. of Physics, Slovak Acad. of Sciences
SMU Southern Methodist Univ.
SNSP Scuola Normale Superiore
SOFI Inst. for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy
SOFU Univ. of Sofia "St. Kliment Ohridski"
SORB Sorbonne Université
SPAUl Univ. de São Paulo
SPIFT Inst. de Física Teórica (IFT)
SSL Univ. of California (Berkeley)
STAN Stanford Univ.
STEV Stevens Inst. of Tech.
STFN Jožef Stefan Institute
STLO St. Louis Univ.
STOH Stockholm Univ.
STON SUNY at Stony Brook
STRB Inst. Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien (CNRS)
STUT Univ. Stuttgart
STUTM Max-Planck-Inst.
SUGI Sugiyama Jogakuen Univ.
SUNG Sungkyunkwan Univ.
SURR Univ. of Surrey
SUSS Univ. of Sussex
SVR Savannah River Labs.
SYDN Univ. of Sydney
SYRA Syracuse Univ.
TAJK Acad. Sci., Tadzhik SSR
TAMU Texas A&M Univ.
TATA Tata Inst. of Fundamental Research
TBIL Tbilisi State University
TELA Tel-Aviv Univ.
TELE Teledyne Brown Engineering
TEMP Temple Univ.
TENN Univ. of Tennessee
TEXA Univ. of Texas at Austin
TGAK Tokyo Gakugei Univ.
TGU Tohoku Gakuin Univ.
Tokyo, Japan
Glasgow, United Kingdom
Columbia, SC, USA
Seattle, WA, USA
Seibersdorf, Austria
Seoul, Republic of Korea
Seoul, Republic of Korea
Protvino, Russian Federation
South Orange, NJ, USA
Tampa, FL, USA
Burnaby, BC, Canada
San Francisco, CA, USA
Ab Bassia, Cairo, Egypt
Jinan, Shandong, China
Qingdao, Shandong, China
Sheffield, United Kingdom
Southampton, United Kingdom
Shiraz, Iran
Siegen, Germany
Katowice, Poland
Villigen, Switzerland
Kent Ridge, Singapore
Trieste, Italy
Menlo Park, CA, USA
Bratislava 45, Slovakia
Dallas, TX, USA
Pisa, Italy
Sofia, Bulgaria
Sofia, Bulgaria
Paris, France
São Paulo, SP, Brazil
São Paulo, SP, Brazil
Berkeley, CA, USA
Stanford, CA, USA
Hoboken, NJ, USA
Ljubljana, Slovenia
St. Louis, MO, USA
Stockholm, Sweden
Stony Brook, NY, USA
Strasbourg, France
Stuttgart, Germany
Stuttgart, Germany
Aichi, Japan
Suwon, Republic of Korea
Guildford, Surrey, United Kingdom
Brighton, United Kingdom
Aiken, SC, USA
Sydney, NSW, Australia
Syracuse, NY, USA
Dushanbe, Tadzhikistan
College Station, TX, USA
Bombay, India
Tbilisi, Republic of Georgia
Tel Aviv, Israel
Huntsville, AL, USA
Philadelphia, PA, USA
Knoxville, TN, USA
Austin, TX, USA
Tokyo, Japan
Miyagi, Japan
Abbreviations Used in the Particle Listings

<table><tr><td>THES</td><td>Aristotle Univ. of Thessaloniki (AUTh)</td><td>Thessaloniki, Greece</td></tr><tr><td>TINT</td><td>Tokyo Inst. of Technology</td><td>Tokyo, Japan</td></tr><tr><td>TISA</td><td>Sagamihara Inst. of Space & Astronautical Sci.</td><td>Kanagawa, Japan</td></tr><tr><td>TMSK</td><td>Tomsk Polytechnic Univ.</td><td>Tomsk, Russian Federation</td></tr><tr><td>TMTC</td><td>Tokyo Metropolitan Coll. Tech.</td><td>Tokyo, Japan</td></tr><tr><td>TMU</td><td>Tokyo Metropolitan Univ.</td><td>Tokyo, Japan</td></tr><tr><td>TNTO</td><td>Univ. of Toronto</td><td>Toronto, ON, Canada</td></tr><tr><td>TOHO</td><td>Toho Univ.</td><td>Chiba, Japan</td></tr><tr><td>TOHOK</td><td>Tohoku Univ.</td><td>Sendai, Japan</td></tr><tr><td>TOKA</td><td>Tokai Univ.</td><td>Shimizu, Japan</td></tr><tr><td>TOKAH</td><td>Tokai Univ.</td><td>Hiratsuka, Japan</td></tr><tr><td>TOKMS</td><td>Univ. of Tokyo; Meson Science Laboratory</td><td>Tokyo, Japan</td></tr><tr><td>TOKU</td><td>Univ. of Tokushima</td><td>Tokushima-shi, Japan</td></tr><tr><td>TOKY</td><td>Univ. of Tokyo; High-Energy Physics Theory Group</td><td>Tokyo, Japan</td></tr><tr><td>TOKYC</td><td>Univ. of Tokyo; Dept. of Chemistry</td><td>Tokyo, Japan</td></tr><tr><td>TORI</td><td>Univ. degli Studi di Torino</td><td>Torino, Italy</td></tr><tr><td>TPTI</td><td>Uzbek Academy of Sciences</td><td>Tashkent, Republic of Uzbekistan</td></tr><tr><td>TRIN</td><td>Trinity College Dublin</td><td>Dublin, Ireland</td></tr><tr><td>TRIU</td><td>TRIUMF</td><td>Vancouver, BC, Canada</td></tr><tr><td>TRST</td><td>Univ. di Trieste</td><td>Trieste, Italy</td></tr><tr><td>TRSTI</td><td>INFN, Sez. di Trieste</td><td>Trieste, Italy</td></tr><tr><td>TRSTT</td><td>Univ. degli Studi di Trieste</td><td>Trieste, Italy</td></tr><tr><td>TSIN</td><td>Tsinghua Univ.</td><td>Beijing, China</td></tr><tr><td>TSUK</td><td>Univ. of Tsukuba</td><td>Ibaraki-ken, Japan</td></tr><tr><td>TTAM</td><td>Tamagawa Univ.</td><td>Tokyo, Japan</td></tr><tr><td>TUAT</td><td>Tokyo Univ. of Agriculture Tech.</td><td>Tokyo, Japan</td></tr><tr><td>TUBIN</td><td>Univ. Tübingen</td><td>Tübingen, Germany</td></tr><tr><td>TUFTS</td><td>Tufts Univ.</td><td>Medford, MA, USA</td></tr><tr><td>TUM</td><td>Tech. Univ. München</td><td>Garching, Germany</td></tr><tr><td>TUW</td><td>Technische Univ. Wien</td><td>Vienne, Austria</td></tr><tr><td>TUZL</td><td>Tuzla Univ.</td><td>Tuzla, Argentina</td></tr><tr><td>UBA</td><td>Univ. de Buenos Aires</td><td>Buenos Aires, Argentina</td></tr><tr><td>UCB</td><td>Univ. of California (Berkeley)</td><td>Berkeley, CA, USA</td></tr><tr><td>UCD</td><td>Univ. of California (Davis)</td><td>Davis, CA, USA</td></tr><tr><td>UCI</td><td>Univ. of California (Irvine)</td><td>Irvine, CA, USA</td></tr><tr><td>UCLA</td><td>Univ. of California (Los Angeles)</td><td>Los Angeles, CA, USA</td></tr><tr><td>UCND</td><td>Union Carbide Corp.</td><td>Oak Ridge, TN, USA</td></tr><tr><td>UCR</td><td>Univ. of California (Riverside)</td><td>Riverside, CA, USA</td></tr><tr><td>UCSB</td><td>Univ. of California (Santa Barbara); Physics Dept., High Energy Physics Experiment</td><td>Santa Barbara, CA, USA</td></tr><tr><td>UCSBT</td><td>Univ. of California (Santa Barbara); Kavli Inst. for Theoretical Physics</td><td>Santa Barbara, CA, USA</td></tr><tr><td>UCSC</td><td>Univ. of California (Santa Cruz)</td><td>Santa Cruz, CA, USA</td></tr><tr><td>UCSD</td><td>Univ. of California (San Diego)</td><td>La Jolla, CA, USA</td></tr><tr><td>UGAZ</td><td>Univ. of Gaziantep</td><td>Gaziantep, Turkey</td></tr><tr><td>ULL</td><td>Universidad de La Laguna</td><td>La Laguna, Spain</td></tr><tr><td>UMD</td><td>Univ. of Maryland</td><td>College Park, MD, USA</td></tr><tr><td>UNAM</td><td>Univ. Nac. Autónoma de México (UNAM)</td><td>México, DF, Mexico</td></tr><tr><td>UNAM</td><td>Univ. Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM)</td><td>México, DF, Mexico</td></tr><tr><td>UNC</td><td>Univ. of North Carolina</td><td>Greensboro, NC, USA</td></tr><tr><td>UNCCH</td><td>Univ. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill</td><td>Chapel Hill, NC, USA</td></tr><tr><td>UNCS</td><td>Union College</td><td>Schenectady, NY, USA</td></tr><tr><td>UNESP</td><td>UNESP</td><td>Botucatu, Brazil</td></tr><tr><td>UNH</td><td>Univ. of New Hampshire</td><td>Durham, NH, USA</td></tr><tr><td>UNM</td><td>Univ. of New Mexico</td><td>Albuquerque, NM, USA</td></tr><tr><td>UOEH</td><td>Univ. of Occupational and Environmental Health</td><td>Kitakyushu, Japan</td></tr><tr><td>UPCIT</td><td>Univ. Paris Cite</td><td>Paris, France</td></tr><tr><td>UPNJ</td><td>Upsala College</td><td>East Orange, NJ, USA</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>UPPS</td><td>Uppsala Univ.</td><td>Uppsala, Sweden</td></tr><tr><td>UPR</td><td>Univ. of Puerto Rico</td><td>San Juan, PR, USA</td></tr><tr><td>URI</td><td>Univ. of Rhode Island</td><td>Kingston, RI, USA</td></tr><tr><td>USC</td><td>Univ. of Southern California</td><td>Los Angeles, CA, USA</td></tr><tr><td>USDC</td><td>Univ. Santiago de Cali</td><td>Cali, Colombia</td></tr><tr><td>USF</td><td>Univ. of San Francisco</td><td>San Francisco, CA, USA</td></tr><tr><td>USTA</td><td>Univ. Santo Tomás</td><td>Bogota, Colombia</td></tr><tr><td>UTAH</td><td>Univ. of Utah</td><td>Salt Lake City, UT, USA</td></tr><tr><td>UTOL</td><td>Univ. del Tolima</td><td>Ibague, Colombia</td></tr><tr><td>UTRE</td><td>Univ. of Utrecht</td><td>Utrecht, The Netherlands</td></tr><tr><td>UTRO</td><td>Norwegian Univ. of Science & Technology</td><td>Trondheim, Norway</td></tr><tr><td>UVA</td><td>Univ. of Virginia</td><td>Charlottesville, VA, USA</td></tr><tr><td>UZINR</td><td>Acad. Sci., Ukrainian SSR</td><td>Uzhgorod, Ukraine</td></tr><tr><td>VALE</td><td>Univ. de Valencia</td><td>Burjassot, Valencia, Spain</td></tr><tr><td>VALP</td><td>Valparaiso Univ.</td><td>Valparaiso, IN, USA</td></tr><tr><td>VAND</td><td>Vanderbilt Univ.</td><td>Nashville, TN, USA</td></tr><tr><td>VASS</td><td>Vassar College</td><td>Poughkeepsie, NY, USA</td></tr><tr><td>VICT</td><td>Univ. of Victoria</td><td>Victoria, BC, Canada</td></tr><tr><td>VIEN</td><td>Inst. für Hochenergiephysik (HEPHY)</td><td>Vienna, Austria</td></tr><tr><td>VILL</td><td>Inst. for Part. Phys. and Astrophys. IPA at PSI</td><td>Villigen, Switzerland</td></tr><tr><td>VPI</td><td>Virginia Tech.</td><td>Blacksburg, VA, USA</td></tr><tr><td>VRIJ</td><td>Vrije Univ.</td><td>HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands</td></tr><tr><td>WABR</td><td>Eidgenössisches Amt für Messwesen</td><td>Waber, Switzerland</td></tr><tr><td>WARS</td><td>Univ. of Warsaw</td><td>Warsaw, Poland</td></tr><tr><td>WASCR</td><td>Waseda Univ.; Cosmic Ray Division</td><td>Tokyo, Japan</td></tr><tr><td>WASH</td><td>Univ. of Washington; Elem. Particle Experiment (EPE); Particle Astrophysics (PA)</td><td>Seattle, WA, USA</td></tr><tr><td>WASU</td><td>Waseda Univ.; Dept. of Physics, High Energy Physics Group</td><td>Tokyo, Japan</td></tr><tr><td>WATER</td><td>Univ. of Waterloo</td><td>Waterloo, ON, Canada</td></tr><tr><td>WAUS</td><td>Univ. of Western Australia</td><td>Perth, WA, Australia</td></tr><tr><td>WAYN</td><td>Wayne State Univ.</td><td>Detroit, MI, USA</td></tr><tr><td>WESL</td><td>Wesleyan Univ.</td><td>Middletown, CT, USA</td></tr><tr><td>WIEN</td><td>Univ. Wien</td><td>Vienna, Austria</td></tr><tr><td>WILL</td><td>Coll. of William and Mary</td><td>Williamsburg, VA, USA</td></tr><tr><td>WINR</td><td>National Centre for Nuclear Research</td><td>Warsaw, Poland</td></tr><tr><td>WISC</td><td>Univ. of Wisconsin</td><td>Madison, WI, USA</td></tr><tr><td>WITW</td><td>Univ. of the Witwatersrand</td><td>Wits, South Africa</td></tr><tr><td>WMIU</td><td>Western Michigan Univ.</td><td>Kalamazoo, MI, USA</td></tr><tr><td>WONT</td><td>The Univ. of Western Ontario</td><td>London, ON, Canada</td></tr><tr><td>WOOD</td><td>Woodstock College (No longer in existence)</td><td>Woodstock, MD, USA</td></tr><tr><td>WROC</td><td>University of Wrocław</td><td>Wrocław, Poland</td></tr><tr><td>WUPP</td><td>Bergische Univ. Wuppertal</td><td>Wuppertal, Germany</td></tr><tr><td>WURZ</td><td>Univ. Würzburg</td><td>Würzburg, Germany</td></tr><tr><td>WUSL</td><td>Washington Univ.</td><td>St. Louis, MO, USA</td></tr><tr><td>WYOM</td><td>Univ. of Wyoming</td><td>Laramie, WY, USA</td></tr><tr><td>YALE</td><td>Yale Univ.</td><td>New Haven, CT, USA</td></tr><tr><td>YARO</td><td>Yaroslavl State Univ.</td><td>Yaroslavl, Russian Federation</td></tr><tr><td>YCC</td><td>Yokohama Coll. of Commerce</td><td>Yokohama, Japan</td></tr><tr><td>YERE</td><td>Yerevan Physics Inst.</td><td>Yerevan, Armenia</td></tr><tr><td>YOKO</td><td>Yokohama National Univ.</td><td>Yokohama-shi, Japan</td></tr><tr><td>YORKC</td><td>York Univ.</td><td>Toronto, Canada</td></tr><tr><td>ZAGR</td><td>Zagreb Univ.</td><td>Zagreb, Croatia</td></tr><tr><td>ZARA</td><td>Univ. de Zaragoza</td><td>Zaragoza, Spain</td></tr><tr><td>ZEEM</td><td>Univ. van Amsterdam</td><td>TV Amsterdam, The Netherlands</td></tr><tr><td>ZHON</td><td>Zhongshan (Sun Yat-Sen) Univ.</td><td>Guangzhou, China</td></tr><tr><td>ZHZH</td><td>Zhengzhou Univ.</td><td>Zhengzhou, Henan, China</td></tr><tr><td>ZURI</td><td>Univ. Zürich</td><td>Zürich, Switzerland</td></tr></table>
## GAUGE AND HIGGS BOSONS

<table><tr><td>γ</td><td>1185</td></tr><tr><td>g (gluon)</td><td>1186</td></tr><tr><td>graviton</td><td>1186</td></tr><tr><td>W</td><td>1187</td></tr><tr><td>Z</td><td>1200</td></tr><tr><td>H</td><td>1220</td></tr><tr><td>Neutral Higgs Bosons, Searches for</td><td>1237</td></tr><tr><td>Charged Higgs Bosons (H<sup>±</sup> and H<sup>±±</sup>), Searches for</td><td>1248</td></tr><tr><td>New Heavy Bosons</td><td>1253</td></tr><tr><td>Axions (A<sup>0</sup>) and Other Very Light Bosons</td><td>1271</td></tr></table>

## Notes in the Listings

<table><tr><td>Triple gauge couplings (TGC's)</td><td>1190</td></tr><tr><td>Anomalous ZZγ, Zγγ, and ZZV couplings</td><td>1216</td></tr><tr><td>Anomalous W/Z quartic couplings (rev.)</td><td>1217</td></tr></table>

## Related Reviews in Volume 1

<table><tr><td>54. Mass and width of the W boson (rev.)</td><td>815</td></tr><tr><td>55. Z boson</td><td>817</td></tr></table>
<figure><img src="image_398.png" /></figure>
# GAUGE AND HIGGS BOSONS

$γ$ (photon)

$$I(J^{PC}) = 0,1(1^{--})$$

## γ MASS

Results prior to 2008 are critiqued in GOLDHABER 10. All experimental results published prior to 2005 are summarized in detail by TU 05.

The following conversions are useful: $1 \text{ eV} = 1.783 \times 10^{-33} \text{ g} = 1.957 \times 10^{-6} m_e$; $\chi_C = (1.973 \times 10^{-7} \text{ m}) \times (1 \text{ eV}/m_\gamma)$.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (eV)</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;1 × 10<sup>-18</sup></td><td></td><td>1 RYUTOV</td><td>MHD of solar wind</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">●●● We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. ●●●</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;2.1 × 10<sup>-15</sup></td><td>68</td><td>2 WANG</td><td>23b Fast Radio Bursts</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;2.2 × 10<sup>-14</sup></td><td></td><td>3 BONETTI</td><td>17 Fast Radio Bursts, FRB 121102</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1.8 × 10<sup>-14</sup></td><td></td><td>4 BONETTI</td><td>16 Fast Radio Bursts, FRB 150418</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1.9 × 10<sup>-15</sup></td><td></td><td>5 RETINO</td><td>16 Ampere's Law in solar wind</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;2.3 × 10<sup>-9</sup></td><td>95</td><td>6 EGOROV</td><td>14 Lensed quasar position</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1 × 10<sup>-26</sup></td><td></td><td>7 ACCIOLY</td><td>10 Anomalous magn. mom.</td></tr><tr><td>no limit feasible</td><td></td><td>8 ADELBERGER</td><td>07A Proca galactic field</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1 × 10<sup>-19</sup></td><td></td><td>8 ADELBERGER</td><td>07A γ as Higgs particle</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1.4 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td><td></td><td>9 TU</td><td>06 Torque on rotating magnetized toroid</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;2 × 10<sup>-16</sup></td><td></td><td>10 ACCIOLY</td><td>04 Dispersion of GHz radio waves by sun</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;7 × 10<sup>-19</sup></td><td></td><td>10 FULLEKRUG</td><td>04 Speed of 5-50 Hz radiation in atmosphere</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1 × 10<sup>-17</sup></td><td></td><td>11 LUO</td><td>03 Torque on rotating magnetized toroid</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;6 × 10<sup>-16</sup></td><td></td><td>12 LAKES</td><td>98 Torque on toroid balance</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;8 × 10<sup>-16</sup></td><td>90</td><td>13 RYUTOV</td><td>97 MHD of solar wind</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;5 × 10<sup>-13</sup></td><td></td><td>14 FISCHBACH</td><td>94 Earth magnetic field</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1.5 × 10<sup>-9</sup></td><td>90</td><td>15 CHERNIKOV</td><td>92 Ampere's Law null test</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;3 × 10<sup>-27</sup></td><td></td><td>16 RYAN</td><td>85 Coulomb's Law null test</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;3 × 10<sup>-27</sup></td><td>99.7</td><td>17 CHIBISOV</td><td>76 Galactic magnetic field</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;6 × 10<sup>-16</sup></td><td></td><td>18 DAVIS</td><td>75 Jupiter's magnetic field</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;7.3 × 10<sup>-16</sup></td><td></td><td>19 HOLLWEG</td><td>74 Alfvén waves</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;6 × 10<sup>-17</sup></td><td></td><td>19 FRANKEN</td><td>71 Low freq. res. circuit</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;2.4 × 10<sup>-13</sup></td><td></td><td>20 KROLL</td><td>71A Dispersion in atmosphere</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1 × 10<sup>-14</sup></td><td></td><td>21 WILLIAMS</td><td>71 Tests Coulomb's Law</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;2.3 × 10<sup>-15</sup></td><td></td><td>GOLDHABER</td><td>68 Satellite data</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. RYUTOV 07 extends the method of RYUTOV 97 to the radius of Pluto's orbit.

2. WANG 23b use fast radio burst photon mass dependent dispersion relation to determine an upper limit of the photon mass.

3. BONETTI 17 uses frequency-dependent time delays of repeating FRB with well-determined redshift, assuming the DM is caused by expected dispersion in IGM. There are several uncertainties, leading to mass limit $2.2 \times 10^{-14}$ eV.

4. BONETTI 16 uses frequency-dependent time delays of FRB, assuming the DM is caused by expected dispersion in IGM. There are several uncertainties, leading to mass limit $1.8 \times 10^{-14}$ eV, if indeed the FRB is at the initially reported redshift.

5. RETINO 16 looks for deviations from Ampere's law in the solar wind, using Cluster four spacecraft data. Authors quote a range of limits from $1.9 \times 10^{-15}$ eV to $7.9 \times 10^{-14}$ eV depending on the assumptions of the vector potential from the interplanetary magnetic field.

6. EGOROV 14 studies chromatic dispersion of lensed quasar positions ("gravitational rain-bows") that could be produced by any of several mechanisms, among them via photon mass. Limit not competitive but obtained on cosmological distance scales.

7. ACCIOLY 10 limits come from possible alterations of anomalous magnetic moment of electron and gravitational deflection of electromagnetic radiation. Reported limits are not "claimed" by the authors and in any case are not competitive.

8. When trying to measure *m* one must distinguish between measurements performed on large and small scales. If the photon acquires mass by the Higgs mechanism, the large-scale behavior of the photon might be effectively Maxwellian. If, on the other hand, one postulates the Proca regime for all scales, the very existence of the galactic field implies $m < 10^{-26}$ eV, as correctly calculated by YAMAGUCHI 59 and CHIBISOV 76.

9. TU 06 continues the work of LUO 03, with extended LAKES 98 method, reporting the improved limit $\mu^2 A = (0.7 \pm 1.7) \times 10^{-13}$ T/m if $A = 0.2 \mu G$ out to $4 \times 10^{22}$ m. Reported result $\mu = (0.9 \pm 1.5) \times 10^{-52}$ g reduces to the frequentist mass limit $1.2 \times 10^{-19}$ eV (FELDMAN 98).

10. FULLEKRUG 04 adopted KROLL 71A method with newer and better Schumann resonance data. Result questionable because assumed frequency shift with photon mass is assumed to be linear. It is quadratic according to theorem to GOLDHABER 71B, KROLL 71, and PARK 71.

11. LUO 03 extends LAKES 98 technique to set a limit on $\mu^2 A$, where $\mu^{-1}$ is the Compton wavelength $\chi_C$ of the massive photon and A is the ambient vector potential. The important departure is that the apparatus rotates, removing sensitivity to the direction of A. They take $A = 10^{12}$ Tm, due to "cluster level fields." But see comment of GOLDHABER 03 and reply by LUO 03b.

12. LAKES 98 reports limits on torque on a toroid Cavendish balance, obtaining a limit on $\mu^2 A < 2 \times 10^{-9}$ T/m$^2$ via the Maxwell-Proca equations, where $\mu^{-1}$ is the characteristic length associated with the photon mass and A is the ambient vector potential in the Lorentz gauge. Assuming $A \approx 1 \times 10^{12}$ Tm due to cluster fields he obtains $\mu^{-1} > 2 \times 10^{10}$ m, corresponding to $\mu < 1 \times 10^{-17}$ eV. A more conservative limit, using $A \approx (1 \mu G) \times (600 \text{ pc})$ based on the galactic field, is $\mu^{-1} > 1 \times 10^9$ m or $\mu < 2 \times 10^{-16}$ eV.

13. RYUTOV 97 uses a magnetohydrodynamics argument concerning survival of the Sun's field to the radius of the Earth's orbit. "To reconsider observations to theory, one has to reduce [the photon mass] by approximately an order of magnitude compared with" per DAVIS 75. "Secure limit, best by this method" (per GOLDHABER 10).

14. FISCHBACH 94 analysis is based on terrestrial magnetic fields; approach analogous to DAVIS 75. Similar result based on a much smaller planet probably follows from more precise B field mapping. "Secure limit, best by this method" (per GOLDHABER 10).

15. CHERNIKOV 92, motivated by possibility that photon exhibits mass only below some unknown critical temperature, searches for departure from Ampere's Law at 1.24 K. See also RYAN 85.

16. RYAN 85, motivated by possibility that photon exhibits mass only below some unknown critical temperature, sets mass limit at $< (1.5 \pm 1.4) \times 10^{-42}$ g based on Coulomb's Law departure limit at 1.36 K. We report the result as frequentist 90% CL (FELDMAN 98).

17. CHIBISOV 76 depends in critical way on assumptions such as applicability of virial theorem. Some of the arguments given only in unpublished references.

18. DAVIS 75 analysis of Pioneer-10 data on Jupiter's magnetic field. "Secure limit, best by this method" (per GOLDHABER 10).

19. FRANKEN 71 method is of dubious validity (KROLL 71A, JACKSON 99, GOLDHABER 10, and references therein).

20. KROLL 71A used low frequency Schumann resonances in cavity between the conducting earth and resistive ionosphere, overcoming objections to resonant-cavity methods (JACKSON 99, GOLDHABER 10, and references therein). "Secure limit, best by this method" (per GOLDHABER 10).

21. WILLIAMS 71 is landmark test of Coulomb's law. "Secure limit, best by this method" (per GOLDHABER 10).

## γ CHARGE

OKUN 06 has argued that schemes in which all photons are charged are inconsistent. He says that if a neutral photon is also admitted to avoid this problem, then other problems emerge, such as those connected with the emission and absorption of charged photons by charged particles. He concludes that in the absence of a self-consistent phenomenological basis, interpretation of experimental data is at best difficult.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (e)</th><th>CHARGE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TEC.</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;1 × 10<sup>-46</sup></td><td>mixed</td><td>1 ALTSCHUL</td><td>07B</td><td>Aharonov-Bohm effect</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1 × 10<sup>-35</sup></td><td>single</td><td>2 CAPRINI</td><td>05</td><td>Isotropy constraint</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">●●● We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. ●●●</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1 × 10<sup>-32</sup></td><td>single</td><td>1 ALTSCHUL</td><td>07B</td><td>Aharonov-Bohm effect</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;3 × 10<sup>-33</sup></td><td>mixed</td><td>3 KOBYCHEV</td><td>05</td><td>Smear as function of B-E<sub>γ</sub></td></tr><tr><td>&lt;4 × 10<sup>-31</sup></td><td>single</td><td>3 KOBYCHEV</td><td>05</td><td>Deflection as function of B-E<sub>γ</sub></td></tr><tr><td>&lt;8.5 × 10<sup>-17</sup></td><td></td><td>4 SEMERTZIDIS 03</td><td></td><td>Laser light deflection in B-field</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;3 × 10<sup>-28</sup></td><td>single</td><td>5 SIVARAM</td><td>95</td><td>CMB For Ω<sub>M</sub> = 0.3, h<sup>2</sup> = 0.5</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;5 × 10<sup>-30</sup></td><td></td><td>6 RAFFELT</td><td>94</td><td>TOF Pulsar f<sub>1</sub>-f<sub>2</sub></td></tr><tr><td>&lt;2 × 10<sup>-28</sup></td><td></td><td>7 COCCONI</td><td>92</td><td>VLBA radio telescope resolution</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;2 × 10<sup>-32</sup></td><td></td><td>8 COCCONI</td><td>88</td><td>TOF Pulsar f<sub>1</sub>-f<sub>2</sub> TOF</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. ALTSCHUL 07B looks for Aharonov-Bohm phase shift in addition to geometric phase shift in radio interference fringes (VSOP mission).

2. CAPRINI 05 uses isotropy of the cosmic microwave background to place stringent limits on possible charge asymmetry of the Universe. Charge limits are set on the photon, neutrino, and dark matter particles. Valid if charge asymmetries produced by different particles are not anticorrelated.

3. KOBYCHEV 05 considers a variety of observable effects of photon charge for extragalactic compact radio sources. Best limits if source observed through a foreground cluster of galaxies.

4. SEMERTZIDIS 03 reports the first laboratory limit on the photon charge in the last 30 years. Straightforward improvements in the apparatus could attain a sensitivity of $10^{-20}$ e.

5. SIVARAM 95 requires that CMB photon charge density not overwhelm gravity. Result scales as $\Omega_M h^2$.

6. RAFFELT 94 notes that COCCONI 88 neglects the fact that the time delay due to dispersion by free electrons in the interstellar medium has the same photon energy dependence as that due to bending of a charged photon in the magnetic field. His limit is based on the assumption that the entire observed dispersion is due to photon charge. It is a factor of 200 less stringent than the COCCONI 88 limit.

7. See COCCONI 92 for less stringent limits in other frequency ranges. Also see RAFFELT 94 note.

## γ REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>WANG</td><td>23B</td><td>JCAP 2309 025</td><td>B. Wang, et al.</td></tr><tr><td>BONETTI</td><td>17</td><td>PL B768 326</td><td>L. Bonetti et al.</td></tr><tr><td>BONETTI</td><td>16</td><td>PL B757 548</td><td>(ORLEANS, CERN)</td></tr><tr><td>RETINO</td><td>16</td><td>ASP 82 49</td><td>A. Retino, A.D.A.M. Spallacci, A. Valvads (CURCP+)</td></tr><tr><td>EGOROV</td><td>14</td><td>MNRAS 437 L90</td><td>P. Egorov et al.</td></tr><tr><td>ACCIOLY</td><td>10</td><td>PR D82 065026</td><td>(MOSU, MIPT, INRM)</td></tr><tr><td>GOLDHABER</td><td>10</td><td>RMP 82 939</td><td>A. S. Goldhaber, M.M. Nieto (LABEX+)</td></tr><tr><td>ADELBERGER</td><td>07A</td><td>PLR 98 010402</td><td>E. Adelberger, G. Dvali, A. Gruzinov (STON, LANL)</td></tr><tr><td>ALTSCHUL</td><td>07B</td><td>PLR 98 261801</td><td>E. Adelberger, G. Dvali, A. Gruzinov (WASH, NYU)</td></tr><tr><td>Also</td><td></td><td>ASP 29 1801</td><td>B. Altschul (IND)</td></tr><tr><td>RYUTOV</td><td>07</td><td>PPCF 49 B429</td><td>B. Altschul (SCUC)</td></tr><tr><td>OKUN</td><td>06</td><td>APPF B37 565</td><td>D.D. Rytov (LLNL)</td></tr><tr><td>TU</td><td>06</td><td>PL A352 267</td><td>L.-C. Tu, et al., (ITEP)</td></tr><tr><td>CAPRINI</td><td>05</td><td>JCAP 0502 006</td><td>C. Caprini, P.G. Ferreira (GEVA, OXFTP)</td></tr><tr><td>KOBYCHEV</td><td>05</td><td>AL 31 147</td><td>V.V. Kobychev, S.B. Popov (KIEV, PADO)</td></tr><tr><td>TU</td><td>05</td><td>RPP 68 77</td><td>L.-C. Tu, J. Luo, G.T. Gillies</td></tr><tr><td>ACCIOLY</td><td>04</td><td>PR D69 107501</td><td>A. Accioly, R. Paszko</td></tr><tr><td>FULLEKRUG</td><td>04</td><td>PLR 93 043901</td><td>M. Fullekrug</td></tr><tr><td>GOLDHABER</td><td>03</td><td>PLR 91 149101</td><td>A.S. Goldhaber, M.M. Nieto</td></tr><tr><td>LUO</td><td>03</td><td>PLR 90 081801</td><td>J. Luo et al.</td></tr><tr><td>LUO</td><td>03B</td><td>PLR 91 149102</td><td>J. Luo et al.</td></tr><tr><td>SEMERTZIDIS</td><td>03</td><td>PR D67 017701</td><td>Y.K. Semertzidis, G.T. Danby, D.M. Lazarus</td></tr><tr><td>JACKSON</td><td>99</td><td>Classical Electrodynamics J.D. Jackson</td><td>(3rd ed., J. Wiley and Sons (1999))</td></tr></table>
<table><tbody><tr><td>FELDMAN</td><td>98</td><td>PR D57 3873</td><td>G.J. Feldman, R.D. Cousins</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>LAKES</td><td>98</td><td>PRL 80 1826</td><td>R. Lakes</td><td>(WISC)</td></tr><tr><td>RYUTOV</td><td>97</td><td>PPCF 39 473</td><td>D.D. Ryutov</td><td>(LLNL)</td></tr><tr><td>SIVARAM</td><td>95</td><td>AJP 63 473</td><td>C. Sivaram</td><td>(BANG)</td></tr><tr><td>FISCHBACH</td><td>94</td><td>PRL 73 514</td><td>E. Fischbach et al.</td><td>(PURD, JHU+)</td></tr><tr><td>RAFFELT</td><td>94</td><td>PR D50 7729</td><td>G. Raffelt</td><td>(MPIM)</td></tr><tr><td>CHERNIKOV</td><td>92</td><td>PRL 58 3383</td><td>M.A. Chernikov et al.</td><td>(ETH)</td></tr><tr><td>Also</td><td></td><td>PRL 69 2999 (errat.)</td><td>M.A. Chernikov et al.</td><td>(ETH)</td></tr><tr><td>COCONI</td><td>92</td><td>AJP 60 750</td><td>G. Cocconi</td><td>(CERN)</td></tr><tr><td>COCONI</td><td>88</td><td>PL B206 705</td><td>G. Cocconi</td><td>(CERN)</td></tr><tr><td>RYAN</td><td>85</td><td>PR D32 802</td><td>J.J. Ryan, F. Accetta, R.H. Austin</td><td>(PRIN)</td></tr><tr><td>CHIBISOV</td><td>76</td><td>SPU 19 624</td><td>G.V. Chibisov</td><td>(LEBD)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Translated from UFN 119</td><td>551.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>DAVIS</td><td>75</td><td>PRL 35 1402</td><td>L. Davis, A.S. Goldhaber, M.M. Nieto</td><td>(CIT, STON+)</td></tr><tr><td>HOLLWEG</td><td>74</td><td>PRL 32 961</td><td>J.V. Hollweg</td><td>(NCAR)</td></tr><tr><td>FRANKEN</td><td>71</td><td>PRL 26 115</td><td>P.A. Franken, G.W. Ampulski</td><td>(MICH)</td></tr><tr><td>GOLDHABER</td><td>71B</td><td>RMP 43 277</td><td>A.S. Goldhaber, M.M. Nieto</td><td>(STON, BOHR, UCSB)</td></tr><tr><td>KROLL</td><td>71</td><td>PRL 26 1395</td><td>N.M. Kroll</td><td>(SLAC)</td></tr><tr><td>KROLL</td><td>71A</td><td>PRL 27 340</td><td>N.M. Kroll</td><td>(SLAC)</td></tr><tr><td>PARK</td><td>71</td><td>PRL 26 1393</td><td>D. Park, E.R. Williams</td><td>(WILC)</td></tr><tr><td>WILLIAMS</td><td>71</td><td>PRL 26 721</td><td>E.R. Williams, J.E. Falder, H.A. Hill</td><td>(WESL)</td></tr><tr><td>GOLDHABER</td><td>68</td><td>PRL 21 567</td><td>A.S. Goldhaber, M.M. Nieto</td><td>(STON)</td></tr><tr><td>YAMAGUCHI</td><td>59</td><td>PTPS 11 37</td><td>Y. Yamaguchi</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### g (gluon)

SU(3) color octet

Mass $m = 0$. Theoretical value. A mass as large as a few MeV may not be precluded, see YNDURAIN 95.

### gluon spin

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>• • •</td><td></td><td></td><td>We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>ABREU</td><td>92E</td><td>DLPH Spin 1, not 0</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>ALEXANDER</td><td>91H</td><td>OPAL Spin 1, not 0</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>BEHREND</td><td>82D</td><td>CELL Spin 1, not 0</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>BERGER</td><td>80D</td><td>PLUT Spin 1, not 0</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>BRANDELIK</td><td>80C</td><td>TASS Spin 1, not 0</td></tr></tbody></table>

### gluon REFERENCES

<table><tbody><tr><td>YNDURAIN</td><td>95</td><td>PL B345 524</td><td>F.J. Yndurain</td><td>(MADU)</td></tr><tr><td>ABREU</td><td>92E</td><td>PL B274 498</td><td>P. Abreu et al.</td><td>(DELPH Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ALEXANDER</td><td>91H</td><td>ZPHY C52 543</td><td>G. Alexander et al.</td><td>(OPAL Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BEHREND</td><td>82D</td><td>PL B110 329</td><td>H.J. Behrend et al.</td><td>(CELLO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BERGER</td><td>80D</td><td>PL B97 459</td><td>C. Berger et al.</td><td>(PLUTO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BRANDELIK</td><td>80C</td><td>PL B97 453</td><td>R. Brandelik et al.</td><td>(TASSO Collab.)</td></tr></tbody></table>

### graviton

$$J = 2$$

### graviton MASS

It is likely that the graviton is massless. More than fifty years ago Van Dam and Veltman (VANDAM 70), Iwasaki (IWASAKI 70), and Zakharov (ZAKHAROV 70) almost simultaneously showed that in the linear approximation a theory with a finite graviton mass does not approach GR as the mass approaches zero. Attempts have been made to evade this "vDVZ discontinuity" by invoking modified gravity or nonlinear theory by De Rakh (DE-RHAM 17) and others. More recently, the analysis of gravitational wave dispersion has led to bounds that are largely independent of the underlying model, even if not the strongest. We quote the best of these as our best limit.

Experimental limits have been set based on a Yukawa potential (YUKA), dispersion relation (DISP), or other modified gravity theories (MGRV).

The following conversions are useful: $1 \text{ eV} = 1.783 \times 10^{-33} \text{ g} = 1.957 \times 10^{-6} \text{ m}_e$; $\chi_{C} = (1.973 \times 10^{-7} \text{ m}) \times (1 \text{ eV/m}_g)$.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (eV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><b>&lt;1.76 x 10<sup>-23</sup></b></td><td>1 ABBOTT</td><td>21</td><td>LIGO Virgo catalog GWTC-2</td></tr><tr><td>• • •</td><td></td><td></td><td>We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;8 x 10<sup>-34</sup></td><td>2 DEFELICE</td><td>21</td><td>MGRV Normal branch Minimal Theory of Massive Gravity</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;3.2 x 10<sup>-23</sup></td><td>3 BERNUS</td><td>20</td><td>YUKA Planetary ephemeris INPOP19a</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;2 x 10<sup>-28</sup></td><td>4 SHAO</td><td>20</td><td>DISP Binary pulsar Galileon radiation</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;4.7 x 10<sup>-23</sup></td><td>5 ABBOTT</td><td>19</td><td>DISP LIGO Virgo catalog GWTC-1</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;7 x 10<sup>-23</sup></td><td>6 BERNUS</td><td>19</td><td>YUKA Planetary ephemeris INPOP17b</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;3.1 x 10<sup>-20</sup></td><td>7 MIAO</td><td>19</td><td>DISP Binary pulsar orbital decay rate</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1.4 x 10<sup>-29</sup></td><td>8 DESAI</td><td>18</td><td>YUKA Gal cluster Abell 1689</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;5 x 10<sup>-30</sup></td><td>9 GUPTA</td><td>18</td><td>YUKA Using SPT-SZ</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;3 x 10<sup>-30</sup></td><td>9 GUPTA</td><td>18</td><td>YUKA Using Planck all-sky SZ</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1.3 x 10<sup>-29</sup></td><td>9 GUPTA</td><td>18</td><td>YUKA Using redMaPPer SDSS-DR8</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;6 x 10<sup>-30</sup></td><td>10 RANA</td><td>18</td><td>YUKA Weak lensing in massive clusters</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;8 x 10<sup>-30</sup></td><td>11 RANA</td><td>18</td><td>YUKA SZ effect in massive clusters</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1.0 x 10<sup>-23</sup></td><td>12 WILL</td><td>18</td><td>YUKA Perihelion advances of planets</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;7 x 10<sup>-23</sup></td><td>5 ABBOTT</td><td>17</td><td>DISP Combined dispersion limit from three BH mergers</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>&lt;1.2 x 10<sup>-22</sup></td><td>5 ABBOTT</td><td>16</td><td>DISP Combined dispersion limit from two BH mergers</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;2.9 x 10<sup>-21</sup></td><td>13 ZAKHAROV</td><td>16</td><td>YUKA S2 star orbit</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;5 x 10<sup>-23</sup></td><td>14 BRITO</td><td>13</td><td>MGRV Spinning black holes bounds</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;6 x 10<sup>-32</sup></td><td>15 GRUZINOV</td><td>05</td><td>MGRV Solar System observations</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;6 x 10<sup>-32</sup></td><td>16 CHOUDHURY</td><td>04</td><td>YUKA Weak gravitational lensing</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;9.0 x 10<sup>-34</sup></td><td>17 GERSHTEIN</td><td>04</td><td>MGRV From Ω<sub>tot</sub> value assuming RTG</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;8 x 10<sup>-20</sup></td><td>18.19 FINN</td><td>02</td><td>DISP Binary pulsar orbital period decrease</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;7 x 10<sup>-23</sup></td><td>TALMADGE</td><td>88</td><td>YUKA Solar system planetary astrometric data</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1.3 x 10<sup>-29</sup></td><td>20 GOLDHABER</td><td>74</td><td>YUKA Rich clusters</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;7 x 10<sup>-28</sup></td><td>HARE</td><td>73</td><td>YUKA Galaxy</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;8 x 10<sup>4</sup></td><td>HARE</td><td>73</td><td>YUKA 2γ decay</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. ABBOTT 21 assumed modified gravitational-wave dispersion to establish a limit on graviton mass, using LIGO-Virgo O1-O3a binary black hole (BBH) events.

2. DEFELICE 21 studies the normal branch of the Minimal Theory of Massive Gravity (MTMG) to find that after five parameters are adjusted to obtain agreement with all presently available data, today's squared mass $m_g^2 = (2.5 + 4.5/4.8) \times 10^{-67} \text{ eV}^2$ or $m_g < 8.4 \times 10^{-33} \text{ eV}$, both at the 95% CL.

3. BERNUS 20 use the latest solution of the ephemeris INPOP (19a) in order to improve the constraint in BERNUS 19 on the existence of a Yukawa suppression to the Newtonian potential, generically associated to a gravitons mass.

4. SHAO 20 sets limit, 95% CL, based on non-observation of excess gravitational radiation in 14 well-timed binary pulsars in the context of the cubic Galilean model.

5. ABBOTT 19, ABBOTT 17, and ABBOTT 16 assumed modified gravitational waves dispersion to establish limits on graviton mass.

6. BERNUS 19 use the planetary ephemeris INPOP 17b to constrain the existence of a Yukawa suppression to the Newtonian potential, generically associated to a gravitons mass.

7. MIAO 19 90% CL limit is based on orbital period decay rates of 9 binary pulsars using a Bayesian prior uniform in graviton mass. Limit becomes $< 5.2 \times 10^{-21} \text{ eV for a prior uniform in } \ln(m_g)$.

8. DESAI 18 limit based on dynamical mass models of galaxy cluster Abell 1689.

9. GUPTA 18 obtains graviton mass limits using stacked clusters from 3 disparate surveys.

10. RANA 18 limit, 68% CL, obtained using weak lensing mass profiles out to the radius at which the cluster density falls to 200 times the critical density of the Universe. Limit is based on the fractional change between Newtonian and Yukawa accelerations for the 50 most massive galaxy clusters in the Local Cluster Substructure Survey. Limits for other CL's and other density cuts are also given.

11. RANA 18 limit, 68% CL, obtained using mass measurements via the SZ effect out to the radius at which the cluster density falls to 500 times the critical density of the Universe for 182 optically confirmed galaxy clusters in an Altacama Cosmology Telescope survey. Limits for other CL's and other density cuts are also given.

12. WILL 18 limit from perihelion advances of the planets, notably Earth, Mars, and Saturn. Alternate analysis yields $< 6 \times 10^{-24}$.

13. ZAKHAROV 16 constrains range of Yukawa gravity interaction from S2 star orbit about black hole at Galactic center. The limit is $< 2.9 \times 10^{-21} \text{ eV for } \delta = 100$.

14. BRITO 13 explore massive graviton (spin-2) fluctuations around rotating black holes.

15. GRUZINOV 05 uses the DGP model (DVALI 00) showing that non-perturbative effects restore continuity with Einstein's equations as the graviton mass approaches zero, then bases his limit on Solar System observations.

16. CHOUDHURY 04 concludes from a study of weak-lensing data that masses heavier than about the inverse of 100 Mpc seem to be ruled out if the gravitation field has the Yukawa form.

17. GERSHTEIN 04 use non-Einstein field relativistic theory of gravity (RTG), with a massive graviton, to obtain the 95% CL mass limit implied by the value of $\Omega_{tot} = 1.02 \pm 0.02$ current at the time of publication.

18. FINN 02 analyze the orbital decay rates of PSR B1913+16 and PSR B1534+12 with a possible graviton mass as a parameter. The combined frequentant mass limit is at 90%CL.

19. As of 2020, limits on dP/dt are now about 0.1% (see T. Damour, "Experimental tests of gravitational theory," in this Review).

20. GOLDHABER 74 establish this limit considering the binding of galactic clusters, corrected to Planck $\eta_0 = 0.67$.

### graviton REFERENCES

<table><tbody><tr><td>ABBOTT</td><td>21</td><td>PR D103 122002</td><td>R. Abbott et al.</td><td>(LIGO and Virgo Collabs.)</td></tr><tr><td>DEFELICE</td><td>21</td><td>JCAP 2112 011</td><td>A. De Felice, S. Mukohyama, M.C. Pookillath</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>BERNUS</td><td>20</td><td>PR D102 021501</td><td>L. Bernus et al.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SHAO</td><td>20</td><td>PR D102 024069</td><td>L. Shao, N. Wex, S.-Y. Zhou</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ABBOTT</td><td>19</td><td>PR D100 104036</td><td>B.P. Abbott et al.</td><td>(LIGO and Virgo Collabs.)</td></tr><tr><td>BERNUS</td><td>19</td><td>PRL 123 161103</td><td>L. Bernus et al.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MIAO</td><td>19</td><td>PL D99 123015</td><td>X. Miao, L. Shao, B.-Q. Ma</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>DESAI</td><td>18</td><td>PL B778 325</td><td>S. Desai</td><td>(HYDER)</td></tr><tr><td>GUPTA</td><td>18</td><td>ANP 399 85</td><td>S. Gupta, S. Desai</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>RANA</td><td>18</td><td>PL B781 220</td><td>A. Rana et al.</td><td>(DELHI)</td></tr><tr><td>WILL</td><td>18</td><td>CQG 35 17LT01</td><td>C.M. Will</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ABBOTT</td><td>17</td><td>PRL 118 221101</td><td>B.P. Abbott et al.</td><td>(LIGO and Virgo Collabs.)</td></tr><tr><td>DE-RHAM</td><td>17</td><td>RMP 89 025004</td><td>C. de Rham et al.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ABBOTT</td><td>16</td><td>PRL 116 061102</td><td>B.P. Abbott et al.</td><td>(LIGO and Virgo Collabs.)</td></tr><tr><td>ZAKHAROV</td><td>16</td><td>JCAP 1605 045</td><td>A.F. Zakharov et al.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>BRITO</td><td>13</td><td>PR D88 023514</td><td>R. Brito, V. Cardoso, P. Pani</td><td>(LISB, MISS, HSCA+)</td></tr><tr><td>GRUZINOV</td><td>05</td><td>NAST 10 311</td><td>A. Gruzinov</td><td>(NYU)</td></tr><tr><td>CHOUDHURY</td><td>04</td><td>ASP 21 559</td><td>S.R. Choudhury et al.</td><td>(DELPH, ME LB)</td></tr><tr><td>GERSHTEIN</td><td>04</td><td>PAN 67 159</td><td>S.S. Gershtein et al.</td><td>(SERP)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Translated from YAF 67 1618.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>FINN</td><td>02</td><td>PR D65 044022</td><td>L.S. Finn, P.J. Sutton</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>DVALI</td><td>00</td><td>PL B405 208</td><td>G.R. Dvali, G. Gabadadze, M. Porrati</td><td>(NYU)</td></tr><tr><td>TALMADGE</td><td>88</td><td>PRL 61 1159</td><td>C. Talmadge et al.</td><td>(JPL)</td></tr><tr><td>GOLDHABER</td><td>74</td><td>PR D9 1119</td><td>A.S. Goldhaber, M.M. Nieto</td><td>(LANL, STON)</td></tr><tr><td>HARE</td><td>73</td><td>CJP 51 431</td><td>M.G. Hare</td><td>(SASK)</td></tr><tr><td>IWASAKI</td><td>70</td><td>PR D2 2255</td><td>Y. Iwasaki</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>VANDAM</td><td>70</td><td>NP B22 397</td><td>H. van Dam, M. Veltman</td><td>(UTRE)</td></tr><tr><td>ZAKHAROV</td><td>70</td><td>JETPL 12 312</td><td>V.I. Zakharov et al.</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
W

J = 1

See the related review(s):

Mass and Width of the W Boson

W MASS

The W-mass listed here corresponds to the mass parameter in a Breit-Wigner distribution with mass-dependent width. To obtain the world averages of various measurements, common systematic uncertainties between experiments are evaluated and accounted for in combinations [SCHAEL 13A, AMOROSO 24].

Until 2022, the measurements of the W-boson mass at lepton and hadron colliders, LEP-2 (ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, and OPAL), Tevatron (CDF and D0), and LHC (ALEPH and LHCb), were in good agreement with each other [PDG 22]. However, with the new CDF result [AALTONEN 22] based on their complete Run-II data set, this is no longer the case.

The LHC-TeV MW Working Group, including W-mass experts from CDF, D0, ATLAS, CMS and LHCb [AMOROSO 24], has examined this issue in depth. They report that a combination of all W-mass measurements corrected to a common theory description and PDF set, has a probability of compatibility of 0.5% only, and is therefore disfavoured. A 91% probability of compatibility is obtained when the CDF-II measurement is removed. The corresponding value of the W boson mass is 80369.2 ± 13.3 MeV, which we quote as the World Average.

More information is given in [M. Grunewald and A. Gurtu, Mass and Width of the W Boson review, PDG 24] and in [AMOROSO 24].

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (GeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr><tr><td colspan="5" style="text-align: center;">(AMOROSO 24)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>80.3692 ± 0.0133</strong></td><td><strong>OUR EVALUATION</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>80.4335 ± 0.0094</strong></td><td><strong>(AALTONEN 22 CDF)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>80.354 ± 0.023 ± 0.022</td><td>2.4M</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>22C LHCB</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>80.4335 ± 0.0064 ± 0.0069</td><td>4.2M</td><td>2 AALTONEN</td><td>22 CDF</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>80.370 ± 0.007 ± 0.017</td><td>13.7M</td><td>3 AABOUD</td><td>18J ATLS</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 7 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>80.375 ± 0.011 ± 0.020</td><td>2177K</td><td>4 ABAZOV</td><td>12F D0</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>80.336 ± 0.055 ± 0.039</td><td>10.3k</td><td>5 ABDALLAH</td><td>08A DLPH</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 161-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>80.415 ± 0.042 ± 0.031</td><td>11830</td><td>6 ABIENDI</td><td>06 OPAL</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 170-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>80.270 ± 0.046 ± 0.031</td><td>9909</td><td>7 ACHARD</td><td>06 L3</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 161-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>80.440 ± 0.043 ± 0.027</td><td>8692</td><td>8 SCHAEL</td><td>06 ALEP</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 161-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>80.483 ± 0.084</td><td>49247</td><td>9 ABAZOV</td><td>02D D0</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5" style="text-align: center;">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>80.520 ± 0.070 ± 0.092</td><td></td><td>10 ANDREEV</td><td>18A H1</td><td>e<sup>±</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>80.387 ± 0.012 ± 0.015</td><td>1095k</td><td>11 AALTONEN</td><td>12E CDF</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>80.367 ± 0.013 ± 0.022</td><td>1677k</td><td>12 ABAZOV</td><td>12F D0</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>80.401 ± 0.021 ± 0.038</td><td>500k</td><td>13 ABAZOV</td><td>09AB D0</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>80.413 ± 0.034 ± 0.034</td><td>115k</td><td>14 AALTONEN</td><td>07F CDF</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>82.87 ± 1.82<sup>+0.30</sup><sub>-0.16</sub></td><td>1500</td><td>15 AKTAS</td><td>06 H1</td><td>e<sup>±</sup> p → ν<sub>e</sub>e(ν<sub>e</sub>)X, √s<sup>≈</sup> 300 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>80.3 ± 2.1 ± 1.2 ± 1.0</td><td>645</td><td>16 CHEKANOV</td><td>02C ZEUS</td><td>e<sup>-</sup> p → ν<sub>e</sub>X, √s<sup>≈</sup> 318 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>80.433 ± 0.079</td><td>53841</td><td>17 AFFOLDER</td><td>01E CDF</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>81.4<sup>+2.7</sup><sub>-2.6</sub> ± 2.0<sup>+3.3</sup><sub>-3.0</sub></td><td>1086</td><td>18 BREITWEG</td><td>00D ZEUS</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> p → ν<sub>e</sub>X, √s<sup>≈</sup> 300 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>80.84 ± 0.22 ± 0.83</td><td>2065</td><td>19 ALITTI</td><td>92B UA2</td><td>See W/Z ratio below</td></tr><tr><td>80.79 ± 0.31 ± 0.84</td><td></td><td>20 ALITTI</td><td>90B UA2</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 546,630 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>80.0 ± 3.3 ± 2.4</td><td>22</td><td>21 ABE</td><td>89I CDF</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>82.7 ± 1.0 ± 2.7</td><td>149</td><td>22 ALBAJAR</td><td>89 UA1</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 546,630 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>81.8 ± 6.0<sup>+5.3</sup><sub>-5.3</sub></td><td>46</td><td>23 ALBAJAR</td><td>89 UA1</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 546,630 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>89 ± 3 ± 6</td><td>32</td><td>24 ALBAJAR</td><td>89 UA1</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 546,630 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>81. ± 5.</td><td>6</td><td>ARNISON</td><td>83 UA1</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 546 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>80. ± 10<sup>+6</sup><sub>-6</sub></td><td>4</td><td>BANNER</td><td>83B UA2</td><td>Repl. by ALITTI 90B</td></tr></tbody></table>

W/Z MASS RATIO

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr><tr><td>0.88136 ± 0.00015</td><td></td><td>1 PDG</td><td>24</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5" style="text-align: center;">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.8821 ± 0.0011 ± 0.0008</td><td>28323</td><td>2 ABBOTT</td><td>98N D0</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>0.88114 ± 0.00154 ± 0.00252</td><td>5982</td><td>3 ABBOTT</td><td>98P D0</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>0.8813 ± 0.0036 ± 0.0019</td><td>156</td><td>4 ALITTI</td><td>92B UA2</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 630 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="1">1 AAIJ 22C analyse W production in the muon decay channel, with the transverse momentum of the muon required to be between 28 and 52 GeV. Analysing the distribution of the muon charge divided by the muon transverse momentum of approximately 2.4 million selected W candidates, a value of $M_W = 80354 \pm 23(\text{stat.}) \pm 10(\text{exp.}) \pm 17(\text{theo.}) \pm 9(\text{PDF})$ MeV is obtained; we combine the three systematic uncertainties in quadrature.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2 AALTONEN 22 select a data sample of about 4 million W boson candidates in 8.8 fb⁻¹ of Run-II data. The mass is determined using the transverse mass, transverse lepton momentum and transverse missing momentum distributions of W decays into electrons or muons, accounting for correlations. This measurement supersedes AALTONEN 12E, but is not used in OUR EVALUATION.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3 AABOUD 18J select 4.61M $W^+ \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu$, 3.40M $W^+ \to e^+ \nu_e$, 3.23M $W^- \to \mu^- \bar{\nu}_\mu$ and 2.49M $W^- \to e^- \bar{\nu}_e$ events in 4.6 fb⁻¹ $pp$ data at 7 TeV. The W mass is determined using the transverse mass and transverse lepton momentum distributions,</footnote>

<footnote>accounting for correlations. The systematic error includes 0.011 GeV experimental and 0.014 GeV modelling uncertainties.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4 Combination of results from ABAZOV 12F and ABAZOV 09AB as quoted in ABAZOV 12F.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">5 ABDALLAH 08A use direct reconstruction of the kinematics of $W^+W^- \to q\bar{q}\ell\nu$ and $W^+W^- \to q\bar{q}q\bar{q}$ events for energies 172 GeV and above. The W mass was also extracted from the dependence of the WW cross section close to the production threshold and combined appropriately to obtain the final result. The systematic error includes ±0.025 GeV due to final state interactions and ±0.009 GeV due to LEP energy uncertainty.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">6 ABIENDI 06 use direct reconstruction of the kinematics of $W^+W^- \to q\bar{q}\ell\nu_\ell$ and $W^+W^- \to q\bar{q}q\bar{q}$ events. The result quoted here is obtained combining this mass value with the results using $W^+W^- \to \ell\nu_\ell\ell\nu_\ell$ events in the energy range 183-207 GeV (ABIENDI 03C) and the dependence of the WW production cross-section on $m_W$ at threshold. The systematic error includes ±0.009 GeV due to the uncertainty on the LEP beam energy.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">7 ACHARD 06 use direct reconstruction of the kinematics of $W^+W^- \to q\bar{q}\ell\nu_\ell$ and $W^+W^- \to q\bar{q}q\bar{q}$ events in the C.M. energy range 189-209 GeV. The result quoted here is obtained combining this mass value with the results obtained from a direct W mass reconstruction at 172 and 183 GeV and with those from the dependence of the WW production cross-section on $m_W$ at 161 and 172 GeV (ACCIARRI 99).</footnote>

<footnote n="8">8 SCHAEL 06 use direct reconstruction of the kinematics of $W^+W^- \to q\bar{q}\ell\nu_\ell$ and $W^+W^- \to q\bar{q}q\bar{q}$ events in the C.M. energy range 183-209 GeV. The result quoted here is obtained combining this mass value with those obtained from the dependence of the W pair production cross-section on $m_W$ at 161 and 172 GeV (BARATE 97 and BARATE 97s respectively). The systematic error includes ±0.009 GeV due to possible effects of final state interactions in the $q\bar{q}q\bar{q}$ channel and ±0.009 GeV due to the uncertainty on the LEP beam energy.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">9 ABAZOV 02D improve the measurement of the W-boson mass including $W \to e\nu_e$ events in which the electron is close to a boundary of a central electromagnetic calorimeter module. Properly combining the results obtained by fitting $m_T(W)$, $\rho_T(e)$, and $\rho_T(\nu)$, this sample provides a mass value of 80.574 ± 0.405 GeV. The value reported here is a combination of this measurement with all previous DØ W-boson mass measurements.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">10 ANDREEV 18A obtain this result in a combined electroweak and QCD analysis using all deep-inelastic $e^+p$ and $e^-p$ neutral current and charged current scattering cross sections published by the H1 Collaboration, including data with longitudinally polarized lepton beams.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">11 AALTONEN 12E select 470k $W \to e\nu$ decays and 625k $W \to \mu\nu$ decays in 2.2 fb⁻¹ of Run-II data. The mass is determined using the transverse mass, transverse lepton momentum and transverse missing energy distributions, accounting for correlations. This result supersedes AALTONEN 07F. AALTONEN 14d gives more details on the procedures followed by the authors. This measurement is superseded by AALTONEN 22.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">12 ABAZOV 12F select 1677k $W \to e\nu$ decays in 4.3 fb⁻¹ of Run-II data. The mass is determined using the transverse mass and transverse lepton momentum distributions, accounting for correlations.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">13 ABAZOV 09AB study the transverse mass, transverse electron momentum, and transverse missing energy in a sample of 0.5 million $W \to e\nu$ decays selected in Run-II data. The quoted result combines all three methods, accounting for correlations.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">14 AALTONEN 07F obtain high purity $W \to e\nu_e$ and $W \to \mu^+\nu_\mu$ candidate samples totaling 63,964 and 51,128 events respectively. The W mass value quoted above is derived by simultaneously fitting the transverse mass and the lepton, and neutrino $\rho_T$ distributions.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">15 AKTAS 06 fit the $Q^2$ dependence ($300 < Q^2 < 30,000 \text{ GeV}^2$) of the charged-current differential cross section with a propagator mass. The first error is experimental and the second corresponds to uncertainties due to input parameters and model assumptions.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">16 CHEKANOV 02C fit the $Q^2$ dependence ($200 < Q^2 < 60000 \text{ GeV}^2$) of the charged-current differential cross sections with a propagator mass fit. The last error is due to the uncertainty on the probability density functions.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">17 AFFOLDER 01E fit the transverse mass spectrum of 30115 $W \to e\nu_e$ events ($M_W = 80.473 \pm 0.065 \pm 0.092 \text{ GeV}$) and of 14740 $W \to \mu^+\nu_\mu$ events ($M_W = 80.465 \pm 0.100 \pm 0.103 \text{ GeV}$) obtained in the run IB (1994-95). Combining the electron and muon results, accounting for correlated uncertainties, yields $M_W = 80.470 \pm 0.089 \text{ GeV}$. They combine this value with their measurement of ABE 95P reported in run IA (1992-93) to obtain the quoted value.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">18 BREITWEG 00D fit the $Q^2$ dependence ($200 < Q^2 < 22500 \text{ GeV}^2$) of the charged-current differential cross sections with a propagator mass fit. The last error is due to the uncertainty on the probability density functions.</footnote>

<footnote n="19">19 ALITTI 92B result has two contributions to the systematic error (±0.83); one (±0.81) cancels in $m_W/m_Z$ and one (±0.17) is noncancelling. These were added in quadrature. We choose the ALITTI 92B value without using the LEP $m_Z$ value, because we perform our own combined fit.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">20 There are two contributions to the systematic error (±0.84); one (±0.81) which cancels in $m_W/m_Z$ and one (±0.21) which is non-cancelling. These were added in quadrature.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">21 ABE 891 systematic error dominated by the uncertainty in the absolute energy scale.</footnote>

<footnote n="22">22 ALBAJAR 89 result is from a total sample of 299 $W \to e\nu$ events.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">23 ALBAJAR 89 result is from a total sample of 67 $W \to \mu\nu$ events.</footnote>

<footnote n="24">24 ALBAJAR 89 result is from $W \to \tau\nu$ events.</footnote>

<footnote n="1">1 This value was obtained using the world average values of $m_Z$ and $m_W$ as presented in these listings.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2 ABBOTT 98N obtain this from a study of 28323 $W \to e\nu_e$ and 3294 $Z \to e^+e^-$ decays. Of this latter sample, 2179 events are used to calibrate the electron energy scale.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3 ABBOTT 98P obtain this from a study of 5982 $W \to e\nu_e$ events. The systematic error includes an uncertainty of ±0.00175 due to the electron energy scale.</footnote>
⁴Scale error cancels in this ratio.

$$m_Z - m_W$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (GeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>10.818 ±0.013</td><td>1 PDG</td><td>24</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10.4 ±1.4 ±0.8</td><td>ALBAJAR</td><td>89 UA1</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 546,630 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>11.3 ±1.3 ±0.9</td><td>ANSARI</td><td>87 UA2</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 546,630 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹This value was obtained using the world average values of $m_Z$ and $m_W$ as presented in these listings.

$$m_{W^+} - m_{W^-}$$

Test of CPT invariance.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (GeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-0.029 ±0.028</td><td>OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-0.029 ±0.013 ±0.025</td><td>13.7M</td><td>1 AABOUD</td><td>18J ATLS</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 7 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>-0.19 ±0.58</td><td>1722</td><td>ABE</td><td>90G CDF</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.8 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹AABOUD 18J select 4.61M $W^+ \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu$, 3.40M $W^+ \to e^+ \nu_e$, 3.23M $W^- \to \mu^- \bar{\nu}_\mu$, and 2.49M $W^- \to e^- \bar{\nu}_e$ events in 4.6 fb$^{-1}$ pp data at 7 TeV. The W mass is determined using the transverse mass and transverse lepton momentum distributions, accounting for correlations. The systematic error includes 0.007 GeV experimental and 0.024 GeV modelling uncertainties.

## W WIDTH

The W width listed here corresponds to the width parameter in a Breit-Wigner distribution with mass-dependent width. To obtain the world average, common systematic uncertainties between experiments are properly taken into account. The LEP-2 average W width based on published results is 2.195 ± 0.083 GeV [SCHAEL 13A]. The combined Tevatron data yields an average W width of 2.046 ± 0.049 GeV [FERMILAB-TM-2460-E].

OUR FIT uses these average LEP and Tevatron width values and combines them assuming no correlations.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (GeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2.085 ±0.042</td><td>OUR FIT</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2.028 ±0.072</td><td>5272</td><td>1 ABAZOV</td><td>09AK D0</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>2.032 ±0.045 ±0.057</td><td>6055</td><td>2 AALTONEN</td><td>08B CDF</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>2.404 ±0.140 ±0.101</td><td>10.3k</td><td>3 ABDALLAH</td><td>08A DLPH</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 183–209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>1.996 ±0.096 ±0.102</td><td>10729</td><td>4 ABBIENDI</td><td>06 OPAL</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 170–209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>2.18 ±0.11 ±0.09</td><td>9795</td><td>5 ACHARD</td><td>06 L3</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 172–209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>2.14 ±0.09 ±0.06</td><td>8717</td><td>6 SCHAEL</td><td>06 ALEP</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 183–209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>2.23 <sup>+0.15</sup><sub>-0.14</sub> ±0.10</td><td>294</td><td>7 ABAZOV</td><td>02E D0</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>2.05 ±0.10 ±0.08</td><td>662</td><td>8 AFFOLDER</td><td>00M CDF</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>2.152 ±0.066</td><td>79176</td><td>9 ABBOTT</td><td>00B D0</td><td>Extracted value</td></tr><tr><td>2.064 ±0.060 ±0.059</td><td></td><td>10 ABE</td><td>95W CDF</td><td>Extracted value</td></tr><tr><td>2.10 <sup>+0.14</sup><sub>-0.13</sub> ±0.09</td><td>3559</td><td>11 ALITTI</td><td>92 UA2</td><td>Extracted value</td></tr><tr><td>2.18 <sup>+0.26</sup><sub>-0.24</sub> ±0.04</td><td></td><td>12 ALBAJAR</td><td>91 UA1</td><td>Extracted value</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ABAZOV 09AK obtain this result fitting the high-end tail (100-200 GeV) of the transverse mass spectrum in W → $e\nu$ decays.

²AALTONEN 08b obtain this result fitting the high-end tail (90-200 GeV) of the transverse mass spectrum in semileptonic W → $e\nu_e$ and W → $\mu\nu_\mu$ decays.

³ABDALLAH 08A use direct reconstruction of the kinematics of $W^+W^- \to q\bar{q}\ell\nu$ and $W^+W^- \to q\bar{q}q\bar{q}$ events. The systematic error includes ±0.065 GeV due to final state interactions.

⁴ABBIENDI 06 use direct reconstruction of the kinematics of $W^+W^- \to q\bar{q}\ell\nu_e$ and $W^+W^- \to q\bar{q}q\bar{q}$ events. The systematic error includes ±0.003 GeV due to the uncertainty on the LEP beam energy.

⁵ACHARD 06 use direct reconstruction of the kinematics of $W^+W^- \to q\bar{q}\ell\nu_e$ and $W^+W^- \to q\bar{q}q\bar{q}$ events in the C.M. energy range 189–209 GeV. The result quoted here is obtained combining this value of the width with the result obtained from a direct W mass reconstruction at 172 and 183 GeV (ACCIARRI 99).

⁶SCHAEL 06 use direct reconstruction of the kinematics of $W^+W^- \to q\bar{q}\ell\nu_e$ and $W^+W^- \to q\bar{q}q\bar{q}$ events. The systematic error includes ±0.05 GeV due to possible effects of final state interactions in the $q\bar{q}q\bar{q}$ channel and ±0.01 GeV due to the uncertainty on the LEP beam energy.

⁷ABAZOV 02E obtain this result fitting the high-end tail (90-200 GeV) of the transverse mass spectrum in semileptonic W → $e\nu_e$ decays.

⁸AFFOLDER 00M fit the high transverse mass (100-200 GeV) W → $e\nu_e$ and W → $\mu\nu_\mu$ events to obtain $\Gamma(W)=2.04 \pm 0.11(\text{stat}) \pm 0.09(\text{syst})$ GeV. This is combined with the earlier CDF measurement (ABE 95C) to obtain the quoted result.

⁹ABBOTT 00b measure $R = 10.43 \pm 0.27$ for the W → $e\nu_e$ decay channel. They use the SM theoretical predictions for $\sigma(W)/\sigma(Z)$ and $\Gamma(W \to \bar{e}\nu_e)$ and the world average for $B(Z \to e\bar{e})$. The value quoted here is obtained combining this result (2.169 ± 0.070 GeV) with that of ABBOTT 99h.

¹⁰ABE 95W measured $R = 10.90 \pm 0.32 \pm 0.29$. They use $m_W=80.23 \pm 0.18$ GeV, $\sigma(W)/\sigma(Z) = 3.35 \pm 0.03$, $\Gamma(W \to e\nu) = 225.9 \pm 0.9$ MeV, $\Gamma(Z \to e^+e^-) = 83.98 \pm 0.18$ MeV, and $\Gamma(Z) = 2.4969 \pm 0.0038$ GeV.

¹¹ALITTI 92 measured $R = 10.4^{+0.7}_{-0.6} \pm 0.3$. The values of $\sigma(Z)$ and $\sigma(W)$ come from $O(\alpha_S^2)$ calculations using $m_W = 80.14 \pm 0.27$ GeV, and $m_Z = 91.175 \pm 0.021$ GeV along with the corresponding value of $\sin^2\theta_W = 0.2274$. They use $\sigma(W)/\sigma(Z) = 3.26 \pm 0.07 \pm 0.05$ and $\Gamma(Z) = 2.487 \pm 0.010$ GeV.

¹²ALBAJAR 91 measured $R = 9.5^{+1.1}_{-1.0} (\text{stat. + syst.})$, $\sigma(W)/\sigma(Z)$ is calculated in QCD at the parton level using $m_W = 80.18 \pm 0.28$ GeV and $m_Z = 91.172 \pm 0.031$ GeV along with $\sin^2\theta_W = 0.2322 \pm 0.0014$. They use $\sigma(W)/\sigma(Z) = 3.23 \pm 0.05$ and $\Gamma(Z) = 2.498 \pm 0.020$ GeV. This measurement is obtained combining both the electron and muon channels.

## W+ DECAY MODES

W⁻ modes are charge conjugates of the modes below.

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>f</sub>/Γ)</th><th>Confidence level</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> &ell;<sup>+</sup> &nu;</td><td>[a] (10.86 &pm; 0.09) %</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub> e<sup>+</sup> &nu;</td><td>(10.71 &pm; 0.16) %</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>3</sub> &mu;<sup>+</sup> &nu;</td><td>(10.63 &pm; 0.15) %</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>4</sub> &tau;<sup>+</sup> &nu;</td><td>(11.38 &pm; 0.21) %</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>5</sub> hadrons</td><td>(67.41 &pm; 0.27) %</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>6</sub> &pi;<sup>+</sup> &gamma;</td><td>&lt; 7 &times; 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>95%</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>7</sub> D<sub>s</sub><sup>+</sup> &gamma;</td><td>&lt; 6 &times; 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>95%</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>8</sub> cX</td><td>(33.3 &pm; 2.6) %</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>9</sub> c<span style="text-decoration: overline;">&tau;</span></td><td>(31 <sup>+13</sup><sub>-11</sub>) %</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>10</sub> invisible</td><td>[b] (1.4 &pm; 2.9) %</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>11</sub> &pi;<sup>+</sup> &pi;<sup>+</sup> &pi;<sup>-</sup></td><td>&lt; 1.01 &times; 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>95%</td></tr></tbody></table>

[a] $\ell$ indicates each type of lepton (e, $\mu$, and $\tau$), not sum over them.

[b] This represents the width for the decay of the W boson into a charged particle with momentum below detectability, $p<200$ MeV.

## W PARTIAL WIDTHS

### Γ(invisible)

Γ<sub>10</sub>

This represents the width for the decay of the W boson into a charged particle with momentum below detectability, $p<200$ MeV.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>30<sup>+52</sup><sub>-48</sub> ±33</td><td>1 BARATE</td><td>99L ALEP</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 161+172+183 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

²BARATE 99L ALEP E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 161+172+183 GeV

¹BARATE 99I measure this quantity using the dependence of the total cross section $\sigma_W W$ upon a change in the total width. The fit is performed to the WW measured cross sections at 161, 172, and 183 GeV. This partial width is < 139 MeV at 95%CL.

²BARATE 99I use W-pair production to search for effectively invisible W decays, tagging with the decay of the other W boson to Standard Model particles. The partial width for effectively invisible decay is < 27 MeV at 95%CL.

## W BRANCHING RATIOS

Overall fits are performed to determine the branching ratios of the W boson. Averages on W → $e\nu$, W → $\mu\nu$, and W → $\tau\nu$, and their correlations are obtained by combining results from the four LEP experiments properly taking into account the common systematic uncertainties and their correlations [SCHAEL 13A]. A first fit determines the three individual leptonic branching ratios $B(W \to e\nu)$, $B(W \to \mu\nu)$, and $B(W \to \tau\nu)$. This fit has a $\chi^2 = 6.3$ for 9 degrees of freedom. The correlation coefficients between the branching fractions are 0.14 ($e-\mu$), -0.20 ($e-\tau$), -0.12 ($\mu-\tau$). A second fit assumes lepton universality and determines the leptonic branching ratio $B(W \to \ell\nu)$ and the hadronic branching ratio is derived as $B(W \to \text{hadrons}) = 1 - 3 B(W \to \ell\nu)$. This fit has a $\chi^2 = 15.4$ for 11 degrees of freedom.

### Γ(ℓ+ν)/Γ<sub>total</sub>

Γ<sub>1</sub>/Γ

$\ell$ indicates average over e, $\mu$, and $\tau$ modes, not sum over modes.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>10.86 ±0.09</td><td>OUR FIT</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10.89 ±0.01 ±0.08</td><td></td><td>TUMASYAN</td><td>22F CMS</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>10.86 ±0.12 ±0.08</td><td></td><td>ABBIENDI</td><td>07A OPAL</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 161–209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>10.85 ±0.14 ±0.08</td><td></td><td>ABDALLAH</td><td>04G DLPH</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 161–209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>10.83 ±0.14 ±0.10</td><td></td><td>ACHARD</td><td>04J L3</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 161–209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>10.96 ±0.12 ±0.05</td><td></td><td>SCHAEL</td><td>04A ALEP</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 183–209 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>11.02 ±0.52</td><td>1 ABBOTT</td><td>99H D0</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>10.4 ±0.8</td><td>2 ABE</td><td>92L CDF</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.8 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ABBOTT 99H measure $R \equiv [\sigma_W B(W \to \ell\nu_f)]/[\sigma_Z B(Z \to \ell)] = 10.90 \pm 0.52$ combining electron and muon channels. They use $M_W = 80.39 \pm 0.06$ GeV and the SM theoretical predictions for $\sigma(W)/\sigma(Z)$ and $B(Z \to \ell\ell)$.

²1216 ± $38^{+27}_{-31}$ W → $\mu\nu$ events from ABE 92l and 2426W → $e\nu$ events from ABE 91c. ABE 92l give the inverse quantity as 9.6 ± 0.7 and we have inverted.
$\Gamma(e^+\nu)/\Gamma_{\text{total}}$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>10.71&plusmn;0.16 OUR FIT</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10.83&plusmn;0.01&plusmn;0.10</td><td></td><td>TUMASYAN</td><td>22F</td><td>CMS E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>10.71&plusmn;0.25&plusmn;0.11</td><td>2374</td><td>ABBIENDI</td><td>07A</td><td>OPAL E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 161-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>10.55&plusmn;0.31&plusmn;0.14</td><td>1804</td><td>ABDALLAH</td><td>04G</td><td>DLPH E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 161-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>10.78&plusmn;0.29&plusmn;0.13</td><td>1576</td><td>ACHARD</td><td>04J</td><td>L3 E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 161-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>10.78&plusmn;0.27&plusmn;0.10</td><td>2142</td><td>SCHAEL</td><td>04A</td><td>ALEP E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 183-209 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • •

<table><tr><td>10.61&plusmn;0.28</td><td>1 ABAZOV</td><td>04D</td><td>TEVA</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.8 TeV</td></tr></table>

¹ ABAZOV 04D take into account all correlations to properly combine the CDF (ABE 95W) and DØ (ABBOTT 00B) measurements of the ratio R in the electron channel. The ratio R is defined as $[\sigma_W \cdot B(W \to e\nu e)] / [\sigma_Z \cdot B(Z \to e\bar{e})]$. The combination gives $R_{\text{Tevatron}} = 10.59 \pm 0.23$. $\sigma_W / \sigma_Z$ is calculated at next-to-next-to-leading order (3.360 ± 0.051). The branching fraction $B(Z \to e\bar{e})$ is taken from this Review as (3.363 ± 0.004)%.

$\Gamma(\mu^+\nu)/\Gamma_{\text{total}}$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>10.63&plusmn;0.15 OUR FIT</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10.94&plusmn;0.01&plusmn;0.08</td><td></td><td>TUMASYAN</td><td>22F</td><td>CMS E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>10.78&plusmn;0.24&plusmn;0.10</td><td>2397</td><td>ABBIENDI</td><td>07A</td><td>OPAL E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 161-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>10.65&plusmn;0.26&plusmn;0.08</td><td>1998</td><td>ABDALLAH</td><td>04G</td><td>DLPH E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 161-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>10.03&plusmn;0.29&plusmn;0.12</td><td>1423</td><td>ACHARD</td><td>04J</td><td>L3 E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 161-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>10.87&plusmn;0.25&plusmn;0.08</td><td>2216</td><td>SCHAEL</td><td>04A</td><td>ALEP E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 183-209 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Gamma(\mu^+\nu)/\Gamma(e^+\nu)$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>1.002&plusmn;0.006 OUR AVERAGE</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1.009&plusmn;0.009</td><td></td><td>TUMASYAN</td><td>22F</td><td>CMS E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>1.003&plusmn;0.010</td><td></td><td>1 AABOUD</td><td>17Q</td><td>ATLS E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 7 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>0.980&plusmn;0.018</td><td></td><td>2 AAIJ</td><td>16AJ</td><td>LHCB E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>0.993&plusmn;0.019</td><td></td><td>SCHAEL</td><td>13A</td><td>LEP E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 130-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>0.89&plusmn;0.10</td><td>13k</td><td>3 ABACHI</td><td>95D</td><td>D0 E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>1.02&plusmn;0.08</td><td>1216</td><td>4 ABE</td><td>92I</td><td>CDF E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>1.00&plusmn;0.14&plusmn;0.08</td><td>67</td><td>ALBAJAR</td><td>89</td><td>UA1 E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 546,630 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • •

<table><tr><td>1.24<sup>+0.6</sup><sub>-0.4</sub></td><td>14</td><td>ARNISON</td><td>84D</td><td>UA1 Repl. by ALBAJAR 89</td></tr></table>

¹ AABOUD 17Q make a precise determination of $W \to e\nu$ and $W \to \mu\nu$ production in the following fiducial phase space: lepton pseudo-rapidity range $|\eta| < 2.5$, lepton and neutrino transverse momenta larger than 25 GeV each, and $W$ transverse mass larger than 25 GeV. They determine the ratio of the $W$ branching fractions $B(W \to e\nu)/B(W \to \mu\nu) = 0.9967 \pm 0.0004 \pm 0.0101 = 0.997 \pm 0.010$.

² AAIJ 16AJ make precise measurements of forward $W \to e\nu$ and $W \to \mu\nu$ production in proton-proton collisions at 8 TeV and determine the ratio of the $W$ branching fractions $B(W \to e\nu)/B(W \to \mu\nu) = 1.020 \pm 0.002 \pm 0.019$.

³ ABACHI 95D obtain this result from the measured $\sigma_W B(W \to \mu\nu) = 2.09 \pm 0.23 \pm 0.11$ nb and $\sigma_W B(W \to e\nu) = 2.36 \pm 0.07 \pm 0.13$ nb in which the first error is the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty, the second reflects the uncertainty in the luminosity.

⁴ ABE 92I obtain $\sigma_W B(W \to \mu\nu) = 2.21 \pm 0.07 \pm 0.21$ and combine with ABE 91C $\sigma_W B((W \to e\nu))$ to give a ratio of the couplings from which we derive this measurement.

$\Gamma(\tau^+\nu)/\Gamma_{\text{total}}$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>11.38&plusmn;0.21 OUR FIT</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10.77&plusmn;0.05&plusmn;0.21</td><td></td><td>TUMASYAN</td><td>22F</td><td>CMS E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>11.14&plusmn;0.31&plusmn;0.17</td><td>2177</td><td>ABBIENDI</td><td>07A</td><td>OPAL E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 161-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>11.46&plusmn;0.39&plusmn;0.19</td><td>2034</td><td>ABDALLAH</td><td>04G</td><td>DLPH E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 161-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>11.89&plusmn;0.40&plusmn;0.20</td><td>1375</td><td>ACHARD</td><td>04J</td><td>L3 E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 161-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>11.25&plusmn;0.32&plusmn;0.20</td><td>2070</td><td>SCHAEL</td><td>04A</td><td>ALEP E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 183-209 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Gamma(\tau^+\nu)/\Gamma(e^+\nu)$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>1.015&plusmn;0.020 OUR AVERAGE</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.994&plusmn;0.021</td><td></td><td>TUMASYAN</td><td>22F</td><td>CMS E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>1.063&plusmn;0.027</td><td></td><td>SCHAEL</td><td>13A</td><td>LEP E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 130-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>0.961&plusmn;0.061</td><td>980</td><td>1 ABBOTT</td><td>00D</td><td>D0 E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>0.94&plusmn;0.14</td><td>179</td><td>2 ABE</td><td>92E</td><td>CDF E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>1.04&plusmn;0.08&plusmn;0.08</td><td>754</td><td>3 ALITTI</td><td>92F</td><td>UA2 E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 630 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>1.02&plusmn;0.20&plusmn;0.12</td><td>32</td><td>ALBAJAR</td><td>89</td><td>UA1 E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 546,630 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • •

<table><tr><td>0.995&plusmn;0.112&plusmn;0.083</td><td>198</td><td>ALITTI</td><td>91C</td><td>UA2 Repl. by ALITTI 92F</td></tr><tr><td>1.02&plusmn;0.20&plusmn;0.10</td><td>32</td><td>ALBAJAR</td><td>87</td><td>UA1 Repl. by ALBAJAR 89</td></tr></table>

¹ ABBOTT 00d measure $\sigma_W \times B(W \to \tau\nu_\tau) = 2.22 \pm 0.09 \pm 0.10 \pm 0.10$ nb. Using the ABBOTT 00B result $\sigma_W \times B(W \to e\nu e) = 2.31 \pm 0.01 \pm 0.05 \pm 0.10$ nb, they quote the ratio of the couplings from which we derive this measurement.

² ABE 92t use two procedures for selecting $W \to \tau\nu_\tau$ events. The missing $E_T$ trigger leads to 132 ± 14 ± 8 events and the $\tau$ trigger to 47 ± 9 ± 4 events. Proper statistical and

systematic correlations are taken into account to arrive at $\sigma_B(W \to \tau\nu) = 2.05 \pm 0.27$ nb. Combined with ABE 91C result on $\sigma_B(W \to e\nu)$, ABE 92E quote a ratio of the couplings from which we derive this measurement.

³ This measurement is derived by us from the ratio of the couplings of ALITTI 92F.

WEIGHTED AVERAGE
1.015±0.020 (Error scaled by 1.3)

Values above of weighted average, error, and scale factor are based upon the data in this ideogram only. They are not necessarily the same as our 'best' values, obtained from a least-squares constrained fit utilizing measurements of other (related) quantities as additional information.

<figure><img src="image_399.png" /></figure>

$\Gamma(\tau^+\nu)/\Gamma(\mu^+\nu)$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.002&plusmn;0.020 OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.985&plusmn;0.020</td><td></td><td>TUMASYAN</td><td>22F</td><td>CMS E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>0.992&plusmn;0.007&plusmn;0.011</td><td></td><td>1 AAD</td><td>21AN</td><td>ATLS E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>1.070&plusmn;0.026</td><td></td><td>SCHAEL</td><td>13A</td><td>LEP E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 130-209 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ AAD 21AN study $t\bar{t}$ production, with the $W$ bosons in top-quark decay decaying to electrons or taus, with the tau decaying further into a muon. Analyzing the muon impact parameter and its transverse momentum, the contributions from prompt muons (arising from $W$ decay) and non-prompt muons (arising from tau decay) are separated, allowing a measurement of the ratio of the $W$ branching fractions into taus and muons, $R(\tau/\mu) = 0.992 \pm 0.007 \pm 0.011$ where the first error is statistical and the second systematic.

WEIGHTED AVERAGE
1.002±0.020 (Error scaled by 2.0)

<figure><img src="image_400.png" /></figure>

$\Gamma(\text{hadrons})/\Gamma_{\text{total}}$

OUR FIT value is obtained by a fit to the lepton branching ratio data assuming lepton universality.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>67.41&plusmn;0.27 OUR FIT</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>67.32&plusmn;0.02&plusmn;0.23</td><td></td><td>TUMASYAN</td><td>22F</td><td>CMS E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>67.41&plusmn;0.37&plusmn;0.23</td><td>16438</td><td>ABBIENDI</td><td>07A</td><td>OPAL E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 161-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>67.45&plusmn;0.41&plusmn;0.24</td><td>13600</td><td>ABDALLAH</td><td>04G</td><td>DLPH E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 161-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>67.50&plusmn;0.42&plusmn;0.30</td><td>11246</td><td>ACHARD</td><td>04J</td><td>L3 E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 161-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>67.13&plusmn;0.37&plusmn;0.15</td><td>16116</td><td>SCHAEL</td><td>04A</td><td>ALEP E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 183-209 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Gamma(\pi^+\gamma)/\Gamma_{\text{total}}$

A stronger limit of $<7 \times 10^{-6}$ is obtained from $\Gamma(W^+ \to \pi^+\gamma)/\Gamma(W^+ \to e^+\nu)$ measurements.

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>&lt;1.50 &times; 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>95</td><td>1 SIRUNYAN</td><td>21I</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 13 TeV</td></tr></table>

¹ SIRUNYAN 21I search for the rare decay of a $W$ boson into a charged pion accompanied by a photon. A signal is not observed, and an upper limit on the branching fraction $B(W \to \pi\gamma) < 1.50 \times 10^{-5}$ is obtained at 95% C.L.
<table><caption>Γ(π<sup>+</sup>γ)/Γ(e<sup>+</sup>ν)</caption><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>Γ<sub>6</sub>/Γ<sub>2</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt; 6.4 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>95</td><td>AALTONEN</td><td>12W</td><td>CDF</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>&lt; 7 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>95</td><td>ABE</td><td>98H</td><td>CDF</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.8 TeV</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>&lt; 4.9 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>95</td><td>1 ALITTI</td><td>92d</td><td>UA2</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 630 GeV</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>&lt;58 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>95</td><td>2 ALBAJAR</td><td>90</td><td>UA1</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 546, 630 GeV</td></tr></table>

¹ALITTI 92d limit is 3.8 × 10⁻³ at 90%CL.

²ALBAJAR 90 obtain < 0.048 at 90%CL.

<table><caption>Γ(D<sub>s</sub><sup>+</sup>γ)/Γ(e<sup>+</sup>ν)</caption><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>Γ<sub>7</sub>/Γ<sub>2</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;1.2 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td><td>95</td><td>ABE</td><td>98P</td><td>CDF</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.8 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Γ(D<sub>s</sub><sup>+</sup>γ)/Γ(μ<sup>+</sup>ν)</caption><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>Γ<sub>7</sub>/Γ<sub>3</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;6.1 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>95</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>23AMLHCB</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 13 TeV</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹AAIJ 23AM also quotes the branching fraction limit B(W⁺ → D<sub>s</sub><sup>+</sup>γ) < 6.5 × 10⁻⁴, using the known W → μν branching fraction.

<table><caption>Γ(cX)/Γ(hadrons)</caption><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>Γ<sub>8</sub>/Γ<sub>5</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.49 ± 0.04</td><td>OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.481 ± 0.042 ± 0.032</td><td>3005</td><td>1 ABBIENDI</td><td>00V</td><td>OPAL</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 183 + 189 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>0.51 ± 0.05 ± 0.03</td><td>746</td><td>2 BARATE</td><td>99M</td><td>ALEP</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 172 + 183 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ABBIENDI 00V tag W → cX decays using measured jet properties, lifetime information, and leptons produced in charm decays. From this result, and using the additional measurements of Γ(W) and B(W → hadrons), |V<sub>CS</sub>| is determined to be 0.969 ± 0.045 ± 0.036.

²BARATE 99M tag c jets using a neural network algorithm. From this measurement |V<sub>CS</sub>| is determined to be 1.00 ± 0.11 ± 0.07.

<table><caption>R<sub>CS</sub> = Γ(c3)/Γ(hadrons)</caption><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>Γ<sub>9</sub>/Γ<sub>5</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.46 + 0.18 - 0.14</td><td>0.07</td><td>1 ABREU</td><td>98N</td><td>DLPH</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 161+172 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ABREU 98N tag c and s jets by identifying a charged kaon as the highest momentum particle in a hadronic jet. They also use a lifetime tag to independently identify a c jet, based on the impact parameter distribution of charged particles in a jet. From this measurement |V<sub>CS</sub>| is determined to be 0.94<sup>+0.32</sup><sub>-0.26</sub> ± 0.13.

<table><caption>Γ(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)/Γ<sub>total</sub></caption><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-6</sup>)</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>Γ<sub>11</sub>/Γ</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;1.01</td><td>95</td><td>1 SIRUNYAN</td><td>19BG</td><td>CMS</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 13 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹SIRUNYAN 19BG search for the rare decay of a W boson into three charged pions. Three pion candidates are required in each event, with transverse momentum larger than 35 GeV, 35 GeV, 18 GeV, respectively, while the transverse momentum of the three-pion system is required to be larger than 40 GeV. Analyzing the three-pion invariant mass, no excess is observed in the W mass region, leading to the 95% C.L. upper limit on the branching fraction.

## AVERAGE PARTICLE MULTIPLICITIES IN HADRONIC W DECAY

Summed over particle and antiparticle, when appropriate.

<table><caption>⟨N<sub>π±</sub>⟩</caption><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>15.70 ± 0.35</td><td>1 ABREU,P</td><td>00F</td><td>DLPH</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 189 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ABREU,P 00F measure ⟨N<sub>π±</sub>⟩ = 31.65 ± 0.48 ± 0.76 and 15.51 ± 0.38 ± 0.40 in the fully hadronic and semileptonic final states respectively. The value quoted is a weighted average without assuming any correlations.

<table><caption>⟨N<sub>K±</sub>⟩</caption><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2.20 ± 0.19</td><td>1 ABREU,P</td><td>00F</td><td>DLPH</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 189 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ABREU,P 00F measure ⟨N<sub>K±</sub>⟩ = 4.38 ± 0.42 ± 0.12 and 2.23 ± 0.32 ± 0.17 in the fully hadronic and semileptonic final states respectively. The value quoted is a weighted average without assuming any correlations.

<table><caption>⟨N<sub>p</sub>⟩</caption><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.92 ± 0.14</td><td>1 ABREU,P</td><td>00F</td><td>DLPH</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 189 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ABREU,P 00F measure ⟨N<sub>p</sub>⟩ = 1.82 ± 0.29 ± 0.16 and 0.94 ± 0.23 ± 0.06 in the fully hadronic and semileptonic final states respectively. The value quoted is a weighted average without assuming any correlations.

<table><caption>⟨N<sub>charged</sub>⟩</caption><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>19.39 ± 0.08</td><td>OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>19.38 ± 0.05 ± 0.08</td><td></td><td>1 ABBIENDI</td><td>06A</td><td>OPAL</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 189-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>19.44 ± 0.17</td><td></td><td>2 ABREU,P</td><td>00F</td><td>DLPH</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 183+189 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

$19.3 \pm 0.3 \pm 0.3 \qquad 3 \text{ ABBIENDI} \qquad 99N \text{ OPAL} \quad E_{\text{cm}}^{\text{ee}} = 183 \text{ GeV}$

$19.23 \pm 0.74 \qquad 4 \text{ ABREU} \qquad 98C \text{ DLPH} \quad E_{\text{cm}}^{\text{ee}} = 172 \text{ GeV}$

¹ABBIENDI 06A measure ⟨N<sub>charged</sub>⟩ = 38.74 ± 0.12 ± 0.26 when both W bosons decay hadronically and ⟨N<sub>charged</sub>⟩ = 19.39 ± 0.11 ± 0.09 when one W boson decays semileptonicly. The value quoted here is obtained under the assumption that there is no color reconnection between W bosons; the value is a weighted average taking into account correlations in the systematic uncertainties.

²ABREU,P 00F measure ⟨N<sub>charged</sub>⟩ = 39.12 ± 0.33 ± 0.36 and 38.11 ± 0.57 ± 0.44 in the fully hadronic final states at 189 and 183 GeV respectively, and ⟨N<sub>charged</sub>⟩ = 19.49 ± 0.31 ± 0.27 and 19.78 ± 0.49 ± 0.43 in the semileptonic final states. The value quoted is a weighted average without assuming any correlations.

³ABBIENDI 99N use the final states W⁺W⁻ → q<span style="text-decoration: overline">q</span>γt<sub>l</sub> to derive this value.

⁴ABREU 98C combine results from both the fully hadronic as well semileptonic WW final states after demonstrating that the W decay charged multiplicity is independent of the topology within errors.

## TRIPLE GAUGE COUPLINGS (TGC'S)

Revised April 2017 by M.W. Grünewald (U. College Dublin) and A. Gurtu (Formerly Tata Inst.).

Fourteen independent couplings, seven each for ZWW and γWW, completely describe the VWW vertices within the most general framework of the electroweak Standard Model (SM) consistent with Lorentz invariance and U(1) gauge invariance. Of each of the seven TGCs, three conserve C and P individually, three violate CP, and one violates C and P individually while conserving CP. Assumption of C and P conservation and electromagnetic gauge invariance reduces the number of independent VWW couplings to five: one common set [1,2] is (κ<sub>γ</sub>, κ<sub>Z</sub>, λ<sub>γ</sub>, λ<sub>Z</sub>, g<sup>2</sup><sub>1</sub>), where κ<sub>γ</sub> = κ<sub>Z</sub> = g<sup>2</sup><sub>1</sub> = 1 and λ<sub>γ</sub> = λ<sub>Z</sub> = 0 in the Standard Model at tree level. The parameters κ<sub>Z</sub> and λ<sub>Z</sub> are related to the other three due to constraints of gauge invariance as follows: κ<sub>Z</sub> = g<sup>2</sup><sub>1</sub> - (κ<sub>γ</sub> - 1) tan² θ<sub>W</sub> and λ<sub>Z</sub> = λ<sub>γ</sub>, where θ<sub>W</sub> is the weak mixing angle. The W magnetic dipole moment, μ<sub>W</sub>, and the W electric quadrupole moment, q<sub>W</sub>, are expressed as μ<sub>W</sub> = e (1 + κ<sub>γ</sub> + λ<sub>γ</sub>)/2M<sub>W</sub> and q<sub>W</sub> = -e (κ<sub>γ</sub> - λ<sub>γ</sub>)/M<sub>W</sub>².

Precision measurements of suitable observables at LEP1 has already led to an exploration of much of the TGC parameter space. At LEP2, the VWW coupling arises in W-pair production via s-channel exchange, or in single W production via the radiation of a virtual photon off the incident e⁺ or e⁻. At the Tevatron and the LHC, hard-photon bremsstrahlung off a produced W or Z signals the presence of a triple-gauge vertex. In order to extract the value of one TGC, the others are generally kept fixed to their SM values. While most analyses use the above gauge constraints in the extraction of TGCs, one analysis of W-pair events also determines the real and imaginary parts of all 14 couplings using unconstrained single-parameter fits [3]. The results are consistent. Some experiments have determined limits on the couplings under various non-LEP scenarios and assuming different values of the form factor Λ, where the coupling parameters are scaled by 1/(1 + s/Λ²)². For practical reasons it is not possible to quote all such determinations in the listings. For that the individual papers may be consulted. Recently, EFT-inspired sets of couplings [4,5], such as c<sub>WWW</sub>/Λ², c<sub>W</sub>/Λ², c<sub>B</sub>/Λ² which are linearly related to the couplings discussed above, are also determined by the LHC experiments.

## References

1. K. Hagiwara *et al.*, Nucl. Phys. B282, 253 (1987).
2. G. Gounaris et al., CERN 96-01 p. 525.

3. S. Schael et al. (ALEPH Collab.), Phys. Lett. B614, 7 (2005).

4. K. Hagiwara et al., Phys. Rev. D48, 2182 (1993).

5. C. Degrande et al., Annals Phys. 335 (2013) 21-32.

$g_1^Z$

OUR FIT below is taken from [SCHAEL 13A].

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT_ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>0.984<sup>+0.018</sup><sub>-0.020</sub> OUR FIT</strong></td></tr><tr><td>0.975<sup>+0.033</sup><sub>-0.030</sub></td><td>7872</td><td>1</td><td>ABDALLAH</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 189-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>1.001±0.027±0.013</td><td>9310</td><td>2</td><td>SCHAEL</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 183-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>0.987<sup>+0.034</sup><sub>-0.033</sub></td><td>9800</td><td>3</td><td>ABBIENDI</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 183-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>0.966<sup>+0.034</sup><sub>-0.032</sub>±0.015</td><td>8325</td><td>4</td><td>ACHARD</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 161-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>5</td><td>SIRUNYAN</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>6</td><td>SIRUNYAN</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>7</td><td>SIRUNYAN</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>8</td><td>AABOUD</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 7+8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>9</td><td>AABOUD</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>10</td><td>KHACHATRY</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>11</td><td>SIRUNYAN</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>12</td><td>AAD</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>13</td><td>AAD</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>14</td><td>AAD</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>15</td><td>AAD</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 7 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>16</td><td>CHATRCHYAN</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 7 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>17</td><td>AAD</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 7 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>18</td><td>AALTONEN</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>19</td><td>ABAZOV</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>34</td><td>20</td><td>ABAZOV</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>334</td><td>21</td><td>AALTONEN</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>1.04 ±0.09</td><td></td><td>22</td><td>ABAZOV</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>23</td><td>ABAZOV</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>1.07<sup>+0.08</sup><sub>-0.12</sub></td><td>1880</td><td>24</td><td>ABDALLAH</td><td>Superseded by ABDAL-LAH 10</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>13</td><td>25</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>2.3</td><td>26</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>0.98 ±0.07 ±0.01</td><td>2114</td><td>27</td><td>ABREU</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 183+189 GeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>331</td><td>28</td><td>ABBOTT</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.8 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="1">¹ABDALLAH 10 use data on the final states $e^+e^- \to jj\ell\nu, jjjj, jjjX, \ell X$, at center-of-mass energies between 189-209 GeV at LEP2, where $j = \text{jet}$, $\ell = \text{lepton}$, and $X$ represents missing momentum. The fit is carried out keeping all other parameters fixed at their SM values.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²SCHAEL 05A study single-photon, single-W, and WW-pair production from 183 to 209 GeV. The result quoted here is derived from the WW-pair production sample. Each parameter is determined from a single-parameter fit in which the other parameters assume their Standard Model values.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ABBIENDI 04D combine results from $W^+W^-$ in all decay channels. Only CP-conserving couplings are considered and each parameter is determined from a single-parameter fit in which the other parameters assume their Standard Model values. The 95% confidence interval is $0.923 < g_1^Z < 1.054$.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ACHARD 04D study WW-pair production, single-W production and single-photon production with missing energy from 189 to 209 GeV. The result quoted here is obtained from the WW-pair production sample including data from 161 to 183 GeV, ACCIA-RRI 990. Each parameter is determined from a single-parameter fit in which the other parameters assume their Standard Model values.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵SIRUNYAN 20BA study electroweak production of a W boson in association with two jets, using W decays in the electron or muon channel. The isolated muons (electrons) are required to have a transverse momentum larger than 25 (30) GeV, while the transverse momentum of the two jets has to be larger than 50 and 30 GeV. A total of 2,382 (1,051) million events are selected in the muon (electron) channel, with a Standard Model expectation of 2.39±0.17 (1.054±0.058) million events. Analyzing the transverse momentum distribution of the charged leptons from W decay, the following 95% C.L. limit is obtained: $0.971 < g_1^Z < 1.044$. Combining this result with that from the closely-related electroweak Z-jet-jet production SIRUNYAN 18BZ, the limit becomes: $0.979 < g_1^Z < 1.034$.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶SIRUNYAN 19CL study WW and WZ production in lepton + jet events, with one W boson decaying leptonically (electron or muon), and another W or Z boson decaying hadronically, reconstructed as a single massive large-radius jet. In the electron channel 2,456 (2,235) events are selected in the WW(WZ) category, while in the muon channel 3,996 (3572) events are selected in the WW(WZ) category. Analysing the di-boson invariant mass distribution, the following 95% C.L. limit is obtained: $0.9939 < g_1^Z < 1.0074$.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷SIRUNYAN 18BZ study $pp \to Z$ jet jet events at 13 TeV where $Z \to e^+e^- / \mu^+\mu^-$, Isolated electrons and muons are selected with $p_T$ of the leading/sub-leading lepton > 30/20 GeV and $|\eta| < 2.4$, with the di-lepton invariant mass within 15 GeV of the Z mass. The two highest $p_T$ jets are selected with $p_T$ of the leading/sub-leading jet > 50/30 GeV respectively and dijet invariant mass > 200 GeV. Templates in the transverse momentum of the Z are utilized to set limits on the triple gauge couplings in the EFT and the LEP parametrizations. The following 95% C.L. limit is obtained: $0.965 < g_1^Z < 1.042$.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸AABOUD 17s analyze electroweak production of a W boson in association with two jets at high dijet invariant mass, with the W boson decaying to electron or muon plus neutrino. In the signal region of dijet mass larger than 1 TeV and leading-jet transverse momentum larger than 600 GeV, 30 events are observed in the data with $39 \pm 4$ events expected in the Standard Model, yielding the following limit at 95% CL for the form factor cut-off scale $\Lambda_{FF} \to \infty$: $0.87 < g_1^Z < 1.12$.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹AABOUD 17u analyze production of WW or WZ boson pairs with one W boson decaying to electron or muon plus neutrino, and the other W or Z boson decaying hadronically. The hadronic decay system is reconstructed as either a resolved two-jet system or as a single large jet. Analysing the transverse momentum distribution of the hadronic system above 100 GeV yields the following limit at 95% CL for the form factor cut-off scale $\Lambda_{FF} \to \infty$: $0.979 < g_1^Z < 1.024$.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰KHACHATRYAN 17o analyse WZ production where each boson decays into electrons or muons. Events are required to have a tri-lepton invariant mass larger than 100 GeV, with one of the lepton pairs having an invariant mass within 20 GeV of the Z boson mass. The Z transverse momentum spectrum is analyzed to set a 95% C.L. limit of: $0.982 < g_1^Z < 1.035$.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹SIRUNYAN 17x study $pp \to WW/WZ \to \ell\nu q\bar{q}$ production at 8 TeV where $\ell$ is an electron or muon with $p_T > 30$ or 25 GeV respectively. Suitable cuts are put on the $p_T$ of the dijet system and the missing $E_T$ of the event yielding a total of 285 and 204 W events observed in the electron and muon channels. The following 95% C.L. limit is obtained: $0.9913 < g_1^Z < 1.024$.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹²AAD 16AR study WW production in $pp$ collisions and select 6636 WW candidates in decay modes with electrons or muons with an expected background of 1546 ± 157 events. Assuming the LEP formulation and setting the form-factor $\Lambda$ to infinity, a fit to the transverse momentum distribution of the leading charged lepton, leads to a 95% C.L. range of $0.984 < g_1^Z < 1.027$.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³AAD 16P study WZ production in $pp$ collisions and select 2091 WZ candidates in 4 decay modes with electrons and muons, with an expected background of 1825 ± 7 events. Analyzing the WZ transverse momentum distribution, the resulting 95% C.L. limit is: $0.981 < g_1^Z < 1.029$.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴AAD 14Y determine the electroweak Z-dijet cross section in 8 TeV $pp$ collisions. $Z \to e\bar{e}$ and $Z \to \mu\mu$ decays are selected with the di-lepton $p_T > 20$ GeV and mass in the 81-101 GeV range. Minimum two jets are required with $p_T > 55$ and 45 GeV and no additional jets with $p_T > 25$ GeV in the rapidity interval between them. The normalized $p_T$ balance between the Z and the two jets is required to be < 0.15. This leads to a selection of 900 events with dijet mass > 1 TeV. The number of signal and background events expected is 261 and 592 respectively. A Poisson likelihood method is used on an event by event basis to obtain the 95% CL limit $0.5 < g_1^Z < 1.26$ for a form factor value $\Lambda = \infty$.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵AAD 13AL study WW production in $pp$ collisions and select 1325 WZ candidates in decay modes with electrons or muons with an expected background of 369 ± 61 events. Assuming the LEP formulation and setting the form-factor $\Lambda$ to infinity, a fit to the transverse momentum distribution of the leading charged lepton, leads to a 95% C.L. range of $0.961 < g_1^Z < 1.052$. Supersedes AAD 12AC.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶CHATRCHYAN 13BF determine the $W^+W^-$ production cross section using unlike sign di-lepton ($e$ or $\mu$) events with high $p_T$. The leptons have $p_T > 20$ GeV/c and are isolated. 1134 candidate events are observed with an expected SM background of 247 ± 34. The $p_T$ distribution of the leading lepton is fitted to obtain 95% C.L. limits of $0.905 \le g_1^Z \le 1.095$.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷AAD 12CD study WZ production in $pp$ collisions and select 317 WZ candidates in three $\ell\nu$ decay modes with an expected background of 68.0 ± 10.0 events. The resulting 95% C.L. range is: $0.943 < g_1^Z < 1.093$. Supersedes AAD 12v.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸AALTONEN 12AC study WZ production in $p\bar{p}$ collisions and select 63 WZ candidates in three $\ell\nu$ decay modes with an expected background of 7.9 ± 1.0 events. Based on the cross section and shape of the Z transverse momentum spectrum, the following 95% C.L. range is reported: $0.92 < g_1^Z < 1.20$ for a form factor $\Lambda = 2$ TeV.</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ABAZOV 12AG combine new results with already published results on $W\gamma$, WW and WZ production in order to determine the couplings with increased precision, superseding ABAZOV 08R, ABAZOV 11AC, ABAZOV 09AJ, ABAZOV 09AD. The 68% C.L. result for a form-factor cutoff of $\Lambda = 2$ TeV is $g_1^Z = 1.022 - 0.030$.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰ABAZOV 11 study the $p\bar{p} \to 3\ell\nu$ process arising in WZ production. They observe 34 WZ candidates with an estimated background of 6 events. An analysis of the $p_T$ spectrum of the Z boson leads to a 95% C.L. limit of $0.944 < g_1^Z < 1.154$, for a form factor $\Lambda = 2$ TeV.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹AALTONEN 10K study $p\bar{p} \to W^+W^-$ with $W \to e/\mu\nu$. The $p_T$ of the leading (second) lepton is required to be > 20 (10) GeV. The final number of events selected is 654 of which 320 ± 47 are estimated to be background. The 95% C.L. interval is $0.76 < g_1^Z < 1.34$ for $\Lambda = 1.5$ TeV and $0.78 < g_1^Z < 1.30$ for $\Lambda = 2$ TeV.</footnote>

<footnote n="22">²²ABAZOV 09AD study the $p\bar{p} \to \ell\nu 2\ell$ process arising in WW and WZ production. They select 12,473 (14,392) events in the electron (muon) channel with an expected di-boson signal of 436 (527) events. The results on the anomalous couplings are derived from an analysis of the $p_T$ spectrum of the 2-jet system and quoted at 68% C.L. and for a form factor of 2 TeV. This measurement is not used for obtaining the mean as it is for a specific form factor. The 95% confidence interval is $0.88 < g_1^Z < 1.20$.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³ABAZOV 09AJ study the $p\bar{p} \to 2\ell 2\nu$ process arising in WW production. They select 100 events with an expected WW signal of 65 events. An analysis of the $p_T$ spectrum of the two charged leptons leads to 95% C.L. limits of $0.86 < g_1^Z < 1.3$, for a form factor $\Lambda = 2$ TeV.</footnote>
24 ABDALLAH 08c determine this triple gauge coupling from the measurement of the spin density matrix elements in $e^+e^- \to W^+W^- \to (qq)(\ell\nu)$, where $\ell = e$ or $\mu$. Values of all other couplings are fixed to their standard model values.

25 ABAZOV 07Z set limits on anomalous TGCs using the measured cross section and $p_T(Z)$ distribution in WZ production with both the W and the Z decaying leptonically into electrons and muons. Setting the other couplings to their standard model values, the 95% C.L. limit for a form factor scale $\Lambda = 2$ TeV is 0.86 $< g_Z^2 < 1.35$.

26 ABAZOV 05s study $p\bar{p} \to WZ$ production with a subsequent trilepton decay to $\ell\nu\ell'\ell'\tau'$ ($\ell$ and $\ell' = e$ or $\mu$). Three events (estimated background 0.71 $\pm$ 0.08 events) with WZ decay characteristics are observed from which they derive limits on the anomalous WWZ couplings. The 95% CL limit for a form factor scale $\Lambda = 1.5$ TeV is 0.51 $< g_Z^2 < 1.66$, fixing $\lambda_Z$ and $\kappa_Z$ to their Standard Model values.

27 ABREU 01l combine results from $e^+e^-$ interactions at 189 GeV leading to $W^+W^-$ and $We\nu_e$ final states with results from ABREU 99L at 183 GeV. The 95% confidence interval is 0.84 $< g_Z^2 < 1.13$.

28 ABBOTT 99i perform a simultaneous fit to the $W\gamma, WW \to$ dilepton, $WW/WZ \to e\nu jj, WW/WZ \to \mu\nu jj$, and $WZ \to$ trilepton data samples. For $\Lambda = 2.0$ TeV, the 95%CL limits are 0.63 $< g_Z^2 < 1.57$, fixing $\lambda_Z$ and $\kappa_Z$ to their Standard Model values, and assuming Standard Model values for the $WW\gamma$ couplings.

$\kappa_\gamma$

OUR FIT below is taken from [SCHAEL 13A].

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>0.982 &pm; 0.042</strong></td><td><strong>OUR FIT</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1.024<sup>+0.077</sup><sub>-0.081</sub></td><td>7872</td><td>1 ABDALLAH</td><td>10</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 189-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>0.971&pm;0.055&pm;0.030</td><td>10689</td><td>2 SCHAEL</td><td>05A</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 183-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>0.88<sup>+0.09</sup><sub>-0.08</sub></td><td>9800</td><td>3 ABBIENDI</td><td>04D</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 183-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>1.013<sup>+0.067</sup><sub>-0.064</sub></td><td>10575</td><td>4 ACHARD</td><td>04D</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 161-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>5 AABOUD</td><td>17U</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>6 SIRUNYAN</td><td>17X</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>7 CHATRCHYAN</td><td>14AB</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 7 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>8 AAD</td><td>13AN</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 7 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>9 CHATRCHYAN</td><td>13BF</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 7 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>10 ABAZOV</td><td>12AG</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>11 ABAZOV</td><td>11AC</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>12 CHATRCHYAN</td><td>11M</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 7 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>13 AALTONEN</td><td>10K</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>14 AARON</td><td>09B</td><td>E<sup>ep</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 0.3 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>15 ABAZOV</td><td>09AD</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>16 ABAZOV</td><td>09AJ</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>17 ABAZOV</td><td>08R</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>18 ABDALLAH</td><td>08C</td><td>Superseded by ABDAL-LAH 10</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>19 AALTONEN</td><td>07L</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 GeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>20 ABAZOV</td><td>06H</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>21 ABAZOV</td><td>05J</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>22 ABREU</td><td>01I</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 183+189 GeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>23 BREITWEG</td><td>00</td><td>ZEUS e<sup>+</sup> p<sup>-</sup> &rarr; e<sup>+</sup> W&pm;X, &radic;<span style="text-decoration: overline">S</span> &approx; 300 GeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>24 ABBOTT</td><td>99I</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>1.07<sup>+0.26</sup><sub>-0.29</sub></td><td>334</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>53</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.68<sup>+0.17</sup><sub>-0.15</sub></td><td>1880</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>1617</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>17</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>141</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1.25<sup>+0.21</sup><sub>-0.20</sub></td><td>2298</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>±0.06</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.92<sup>+0.34</sup></td><td>331</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

1 ABDALLAH 10 use data on the final states $e^+e^- \to jj\ell\nu, jjjj, jjjX, \ell\nu X$, at center-of-mass energies between 189-209 GeV at LEP2, where $j = \text{jet}$, $\ell = \text{lepton}$, and $X$ represents missing momentum. The fit is carried out keeping all other parameters fixed at their SM values.

2 SCHAEL 05A study single-photon, single-W, and WW-pair production from 183 to 209 GeV. Each parameter is determined from a single-parameter fit in which the other parameters assume their Standard Model values.

3 ABBIENDI 04D combine results from $W^+W^-$ in all decay channels. Only CP-conserving couplings are considered and each parameter is determined from a single-parameter fit in which the other parameters assume their Standard Model values. The 95% confidence interval is 0.73 $< \kappa_\gamma < 1.07$.

4 ACHARD 04D study WW-pair production, single-W production and single-photon production with missing energy from 189 to 209 GeV. The result quoted here is obtained including data from 161 to 183 GeV, ACCIARRI 99Q. Each parameter is determined from a single-parameter fit in which the other parameters assume their Standard Model values.

5 AABOUD 17U analyze production of WW or WZ boson pairs with one W boson decaying to electron or muon plus neutrino, and the other W or Z boson decaying hadronically. The hadronic decay system is reconstructed as either a resolved two-jet system or as a single large jet. Analysing the transverse momentum distribution of the hadronic system above 100 GeV yields the following limit at 95% CL for the form factor cut-off scale $\Lambda_{FF} \to \infty$: 0.939 $< \kappa_\gamma < 1.064$.

6 SIRUNYAN 17X study $pp \to WW/WZ \to \ell\nu q\bar{q}$ production at 8 TeV where $\ell$ is an electron or muon with $p_T > 30$ or 25 GeV respectively. Suitable cuts are put on the $p_T$ of the dijet system and the missing $E_T$ of the event yielding a total of 285 and 204 WW events observed in the electron and muon channels. The following 95% C.L. limit is obtained: 0.956 $< \kappa_\gamma < 1.063$.

7 CHATRCHYAN 14AB measure $W\gamma$ production cross section for $p_T^\gamma > 15$ GeV and $R(\ell\gamma) > 0.7$, which is the separation between the $\gamma$ and the final state charged lepton ($e$ or $\mu$) in the azimuthal angle-pseudorapidity ($\phi - \eta$) plane. After background subtraction the number of $e\nu\gamma$ and $\mu\nu\gamma$ events is determined to be 3200 $\pm$ 325 and 4970 $\pm$ 543 respectively, compatible with expectations from the SM. This leads to a 95% CL limit of 0.62 $< \kappa_\gamma < 1.29$, assuming other parameters have SM values.

8 AAD 13AN study $W\gamma$ production in $pp$ collisions. In events with no additional jet, 4449 (6578) W decays to electron (muon) are selected, with an expected background of 1662 $\pm$ 262 (2538 $\pm$ 362) events. Analysing the photon $p_T$ spectrum above 100 GeV yields a 95% C.L. limit of 0.59 $< \kappa_\gamma < 1.46$. Supersedes AAD 12Bx.

9 CHATRCHYAN 13BF determine the $W^+W^-$ production cross section using unlike sign di-lepton ($e$ or $\mu$) events with high $p_T$. The leptons have $p_T > 20$ GeV/c and are isolated. 1134 candidate events are observed with an expected SM background of 247 $\pm$ 34. The $p_T$ distribution of the leading lepton is fitted to obtain 95% C.L. limits of 0.79 $\le \kappa_\gamma \le 1.22$.

10 ABAZOV 12AG combine new results with already published results on $W\gamma$, WW and WZ production in order to determine the couplings with increased precision, superseding ABAZOV 08R, ABAZOV 11AC, ABAZOV 09AJ, ABAZOV 09AD. The 68% C.L. result for a formfactor cutoff of $\Lambda = 2$ TeV is $\kappa_\gamma = 1.048 \pm 0.105$.

11 ABAZOV 11AC study $W\gamma$ production in $p\bar{p}$ collisions at 1.96 TeV, with the W decay products containing an electron or a muon. They select 196 (363) events in the electron (muon) mode, with a SM expectation of 190 (372) events. A likelihood fit to the photon $E_T$ spectrum above 15 GeV yields at 95% C.L. the result: $0.6 < \kappa_\gamma < 1.4$ for a formfactor $\Lambda = 2$ TeV.

12 CHATRCHYAN 11M study $W\gamma$ production in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 7$ TeV using 36 $pb^{-1}$ $pp$ data with the W decaying to electron and muon. The total cross section is measured for photon transverse energy $E_T^\gamma > 10$ GeV and spatial separation from charged leptons in the plane of pseudo rapidity and azimuthal angle $\Delta R(\ell\gamma) > 0.7$. The number of candidate (background) events is 452 (228 $\pm$ 21) for the electron channel and 520 (277 $\pm$ 25) for the muon channel. Setting other couplings to their standard model value, they derive a 95% CL limit of $-0.11 < \kappa_\gamma < 2.04$.

13 AALTONEN 10K study $p\bar{p} \to W^+W^-$ with $W \to e/\mu\nu$. The $p_T$ of the leading (second) lepton is required to be $> 20$ (10) GeV. The final number of events selected is 654 of which 320 $\pm$ 47 are estimated to be background. The 95% C.L. interval is 0.37 $< \kappa_\gamma < 1.72$ for $\Lambda = 1.5$ TeV and 0.43 $< \kappa_\gamma < 1.65$ for $\Lambda = 2$ TeV.

14 AARON 09b study single-W production in ep collisions at 0.3 TeV C.M. energy. They select $53 W \to e/\mu$ events with a standard model expectation of 54.1 $\pm$ 7.4 events. Fitting the transverse momentum spectrum of the hadronic recoil system they obtain a 95% C.L. limit of $-3.7 < \kappa_\gamma < -1.5$ or $0.3 < \kappa_\gamma < 1.5$, where the ambiguity is due to the quadratic dependence of the cross section to the coupling parameter.

15 ABAZOV 09AD study the $p\bar{p} \to \ell\nu 2\ell$ process arising in WW and WZ production. They select 12,473 (14,392) events in the electron (muon) channel with an expected di-boson signal of 436 (527) events. The results on the anomalous couplings are derived from an analysis of the $p_T$ spectrum of the 2-jet system and quoted at 68% C.L. and for a form factor of 2 TeV. This measurement is not used for obtaining the mean as it is for a specific form factor. The 95% confidence interval is $0.56 < \kappa_\gamma < 1.55$.

16 ABAZOV 09AJ study the $p\bar{p} \to 2\ell 2\nu$ process arising in WW production. They select 100 events with an expected WW signal of 65 events. An analysis of the $p_T$ spectrum of the two charged leptons leads to 95% C.L. limits of $0.46 < \kappa_\gamma < 1.83$, for a form factor $\Lambda = 2$ TeV.

17 ABAZOV 08R use 0.7 fb$^{-1}$ $p\bar{p}$ data at $\sqrt{s} = 1.96$ TeV to select 263 $W\gamma + X$ events, of which 187 constitute signal, with the W decaying into an electron or a muon, which is required to be well separated from a photon with $E_T > 9$ GeV. A likelihood fit to the photon $E_T$ spectrum yields a 95% CL limit $0.49 < \kappa_\gamma < 1.51$ with other couplings fixed to their Standard Model values.

18 ABDALLAH 08C determine this triple gauge coupling from the measurement of the spin density matrix elements in $e^+e^- \to W^+W^- \to (qq)(\ell\nu)$, where $\ell = e$ or $\mu$. Values of all other couplings are fixed to their standard model values.

19 AALTONEN 07L set limits on anomalous TGCs using the $p_T(W)$ distribution in WW and WZ production with the W decaying to an electron or muon and the Z to 2 jets. Setting other couplings to their standard model value, the 95% C.L. limits are $0.54 < \kappa_\gamma < 1.39$ for a form factor scale $\Lambda = 1.5$ TeV.

20 ABAZOV 06H study $p\bar{p} \to WW$ production with a subsequent decay $WW \to e^+e_\nu e^-\nu_\mu$ or $WW \to \mu^+\mu_\nu\mu_\nu e^-\bar{p}$. The 95% C.L. limit for a form factor scale $\Lambda = 1$ TeV is $-0.05 < \kappa_\gamma < 2.29$, fixing $\lambda_\gamma = 0$. With the assumption that the $WW\gamma$ and $WWZ$ couplings are equal the 95% C.L. one-dimensional limit ($\Lambda = 2$ TeV) is 0.68 $< \kappa_\gamma < 1.45$.

21 ABAZOV 05J perform a likelihood fit to the photon $E_T$ spectrum of $W\gamma + X$ events, where the W decays to an electron or muon which is required to be well separated from the photon. For $\Lambda = 2.0$ TeV the 95% CL limits are 0.12 $< \kappa_\gamma < 1.96$. In the fit $\lambda_\gamma$ is kept fixed to its Standard Model value.

22 ABREU 01l combine results from $e^+e^-$ interactions at 189 GeV leading to $W^+W^-$, $We\nu_e$, and $\nu\bar{p}\gamma$ final states with results from ABREU 99L at 183 GeV. The 95% confidence interval is 0.87 $< \kappa_\gamma < 1.68$.

23 BREITWEG 00 search for W production in events with large hadronic $p_T$. For $p_T > 20$ GeV, the upper limit on the cross section gives the 95%CL limit $-3.7 < \kappa_\gamma < 2.5$ (for $\lambda_\gamma = 0$).

24 ABBOTT 99i perform a simultaneous fit to the $W\gamma, WW \to$ dilepton, $WW/WZ \to e\nu jj, WW/WZ \to \mu\nu jj$, and $WZ \to$ trilepton data samples. For $\Lambda = 2.0$ TeV, the 95%CL limits are $0.75 < \kappa_\gamma < 1.39$.

$\lambda_\gamma$

OUR FIT below is taken from [SCHAEL 13A].

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>-0.022 &pm; 0.019</strong></td><td><strong>OUR FIT</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.002&pm;0.035</td><td>7872</td><td>1 ABDALLAH</td><td>10</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 189-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>-0.012&pm;0.027&pm;0.011</td><td>10689</td><td>2 SCHAEL</td><td>05A</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 183-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>-0.060&pm;0.034</td><td>9800</td><td>3 ABBIENDI</td><td>04D</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 183-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>-0.021&pm;0.035</td><td>0.017</td><td>4 ACHARD</td><td>04D</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 161-209 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>
• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td>5 CHATRYCHYAN 14<sub>AB</sub> CMS</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 7 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>6 AAD</td><td>13AN ATLS E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 7 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>7 ABAZOV</td><td>12AG D0 E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>8 ABAZOV</td><td>11AC D0 E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>9 CHATRYCHYAN 11<sub>M</sub> CMS</td><td>E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 7 TeV</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">0.00 ± 0.06</td><td rowspan="5">53</td><td>10 AARON</td><td>09B H1 E<sup>ep</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 0.3 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>11 ABAZOV</td><td>09AD D0 E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>12 ABAZOV</td><td>09AJ D0 E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>13 ABAZOV</td><td>08R D0 E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>14 ABDALLAH</td><td>08C DLPH Superseded by ABDAL-LAH 10</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">0.16 ± 0.12<br/>-0.13</td><td rowspan="4">1880</td><td>15 AALTONEN</td><td>07L CDF E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>16 ABAZOV</td><td>06H D0 E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>17 ABAZOV</td><td>05J D0 E<sup>pp</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>141</td><td>18 ABREU</td><td>01I DLPH E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 183+189 GeV</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">0.05 ± 0.09 ± 0.01</td><td rowspan="2">2298</td><td>19 BREITWEG</td><td>00 ZEUS e<sup>+</sup> p<sub>t</sub> → e<sup>+</sup> W<sup>±</sup>X, √s ≈ 300 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>20 ABBOTT</td><td>99I D0 E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 1.8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>0.00 ± 0.10<br/>-0.09</td><td>331</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

1 ABDALLAH 10 use data on the final states $e^+e^- \to jj\ell\nu, jjj, jjX, \ell X$, at center-of-mass energies between 189-209 GeV at LEP2, where $j$ = jet, $\ell$ = lepton, and $X$ represents missing momentum. The fit is carried out keeping all other parameters fixed at their SM values.

2 SCHAEEL 05A study single-photon, single-W, and WW-pair production from 183 to 209 GeV. Each parameter is determined from a single-parameter fit in which the other parameters assume their Standard Model values.

3 ABBIENDI 04D combine results from $W^+W^-$ in all decay channels. Only CP-conserving couplings are considered and each parameter is determined from a single-parameter fit in which the other parameters assume their Standard Model values. The 95% confidence interval is -0.13 < $\lambda_\gamma$ < 0.01.

4 ACHARD 04D study WW-pair production, single-W production and single-photon production with missing energy from 189 to 209 GeV. The result quoted here is obtained including data from 161 to 183 GeV, ACCIARRI 99Q. Each parameter is determined from a single-parameter fit in which the other parameters assume their Standard Model values.

5 CHATRYCHYAN 14<sub>AB</sub> measure W$\gamma$ production cross section for $p_T^\gamma > 15$ GeV and R($\ell\gamma$) > 0.7, which is the separation between the $\gamma$ and the final state charged lepton ($e$ or $\mu$) in the azimuthal angle-pseudorapidity ($\phi - \eta$) plane. After background subtraction the number of $e\nu\gamma$ and $\mu\nu\gamma$ events is determined to be 3200 ± 325 and 4970 ± 543 respectively, compatible with expectations from the SM. This leads to a 95% CL limit of -0.050 < $\lambda_\gamma$ < 0.037, assuming all other parameters have SM values.

6 AAD 13AN study W$\gamma$ production in $pp$ collisions. In events with no additional jet, 4494 (6578) W decays to electron (muon) are selected, with an expected background of 1662 ± 262 (2538 ± 362) events. Analysing the photon $p_T$ spectrum above 100 GeV yields a 95% C.L. limit of -0.065 < $\lambda_\gamma$ < 0.061. Supersedes AAD 128X.

7 ABAZOV 12AG combine new results with already published results on W$\gamma$, WW and WZ production in order to determine the couplings with increased precision, superseding ABAZOV 08R, ABAZOV 11AC, ABAZOV 09AJ, ABAZOV 09AD. The 68% C.L. result for a formfactor cutoff of $\Lambda = 2$ TeV is $\lambda_\gamma = 0.007^{+0.021}_{-0.022}$.

8 ABAZOV 11AC study W$\gamma$ production in $p\bar{p}$ collisions at 1.96 TeV, with the W decay products containing an electron or a muon. They select 196 (363) events in the electron (muon) mode, with a SM expectation of 190 (372) events. A likelihood fit to the photon $E_T$ spectrum above 15 GeV yields at 95% C.L. the result: -0.08 < $\lambda_\gamma$ < 0.07 for a formfactor $\Lambda = 2$ TeV.

9 CHATRYCHYAN 11<sub>M</sub> study W$\gamma$ production in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 7$ TeV using 36 $p\bar{p}$ events with the W decaying to electron and muon. The total cross section is measured for photon transverse energy $E_T^\gamma > 10$ GeV and spatial separation from charged leptons in the plane of pseudo rapidity and azimuthal angle $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) > 0.7$. The number of candidate (background) events is 452 (228 ± 21) for the electron channel and 520 (277 ± 25) for the muon channel. Setting other couplings to their standard model value, they derive a 95% CL limit of -0.18 < $\lambda_\gamma$ < 0.17.

10 AARON 09B study single-W production in $ep$ collisions at 0.3 TeV C.M. energy. They select 53 W → $e/\mu$ events with a standard model expectation of 54.1 ± 7.4 events. Fitting the transverse momentum spectrum of the hadronic recoil system they obtain a 95% C.L. limit of -2.5 < $\lambda_\gamma$ < 2.5.

11 ABAZOV 09<sub>AJ</sub> study the $p\bar{p} \to \ell\nu$ 2jet process arising in WW and WZ production. They select 12,473 (14,392) events in the electron (muon) channel with an expected di-boson signal of 436 (527) events. The results on the anomalous couplings are derived from an analysis of the $p_T$ spectrum of the 2-jet system and quoted at 68% C.L. and for a form factor of 2 TeV. This measurement is not used for obtaining the mean as it is for a specific form factor. The 95% confidence interval is -0.10 < $\lambda_\gamma$ < 0.11.

12 ABAZOV 09<sub>AJ</sub> study the $p\bar{p} \to 2\ell 2\nu$ process arising in WW production. They select 100 events with an expected WW signal of 65 events. An analysis of the $p_T$ spectrum of the two charged leptons leads to 95% C.L. limits of -0.14 < $\lambda_\gamma$ < 0.18, for a form factor $\Lambda = 2$ TeV.

13 ABAZOV 08R use 0.7 $fb^{-1}$ $p\bar{p}$ data at $\sqrt{s} = 1.96$ TeV to select 263 W$\gamma$ + X events, of which 187 constitute signal, with the W decaying into an electron or a muon, which is required to be well separated from a photon with $E_T^\gamma > 9$ GeV. A likelihood fit to the photon $E_T$ spectrum yields a 95% CL limit -0.12 < $\lambda_\gamma$ < 0.13 with other couplings fixed to their Standard Model values.

14 ABDALLAH 08C determine this triple gauge coupling from the measurement of the spin density matrix elements in $e^+e^- \to W^+W^- \to (qq)(\ell\nu)$, where $\ell = e$ or $\mu$. Values of all other couplings are fixed to their standard model values.

15 AALTONEN 07L set limits on anomalous TGCs using the $p_T(W)$ distribution in WW and WZ production with the W decaying to an electron or muon and the Z to 2 jets. Setting other couplings to their standard model value, the 95% C.L. limits are -0.18 < $\lambda_\gamma$ < 0.17 for a form factor scale $\Lambda = 1.5$ TeV.

16 ABAZOV 06H study $p\bar{p} \to WW$ production with a subsequent decay $WW \to e^+e^- e^- \bar{e}_e, WW \to e^\pm e_\mu \pm \nu_\mu$ or $WW \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \mu^- \bar{\nu}_\mu$. The 95% C.L. limit for a form factor scale $\Lambda = 1$ TeV is -0.97 < $\lambda_\gamma$ < 1.04, fixing $\kappa_\gamma = 1$. With the assumption that the WW$\gamma$ and WWZ couplings are equal the 95% C.L. one-dimensional limit ($\Lambda = 2$ TeV) is -0.29 < $\lambda_\gamma$ < 0.30.

17 ABAZOV 05J perform a likelihood fit to the photon $E_T$ spectrum of W$\gamma$ + X events, where the W decays to an electron or muon which is required to be well separated from the photon. For $\Lambda = 2.0$ TeV the 95% CL limits are -0.20 < $\lambda_\gamma$ < 0.20. In the fit $\kappa_\gamma$ is kept fixed to its Standard Model value.

18 ABREU 01I combine results from $e^+e^-$ interactions at 189 GeV leading to $W^+W^-$, $W\nu e_\mu$, and $\nu\bar{\nu}\gamma$ final states with results from ABREU 99L at 183 GeV. The 95% confidence interval is -0.11 < $\lambda_\gamma$ < 0.23.

19 BREITWEG 00 search for W production in events with large hadronic $p_T$. For $p_T > 20$ GeV, the upper limit on the cross section gives the 95% CL limit -3.2 < $\lambda_\gamma$ < 3.2 for $\kappa_\gamma$ fixed to its Standard Model value.

20 ABBOTT 99I perform a simultaneous fit to the W$\gamma$, WW → dilepton, WW/WZ → $e\nu jj$, WW/WZ → $\mu\nu jj$, and WZ → trilepton data samples. For $\Lambda = 2.0$ TeV, the 95% CL limits are -0.18 < $\lambda_\gamma$ < 0.19.

## $\kappa_Z$

This coupling is CP-conserving (C- and P- separately conserving).

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVENTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>0.924<sup>+0.059</sup><sub>-0.056</sub></strong></td><td><strong>7171</strong></td><td>1 ACHARD</td><td>04D L3</td><td>E<sup>ee</sup><sub>cm</sub> = 189-209 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

2 SIRUNYAN 20BA CMS $E^{pp}_{cm} = 13$ TeV

3 SIRUNYAN 19CL CMS $E^{pp}_{cm} = 13$ TeV

4 AABOUD 17S ATLS $E^{pp}_{cm} = 7+8$ TeV

5 KHACHATRY...170 CMS $E^{pp}_{cm} = 8$ TeV

6 AAD 16AR ATLS $E^{pp}_{cm} = 8$ TeV

7 AAD 16P ATLS $E^{pp}_{cm} = 8$ TeV

8 AAD 13AL ATLS $E^{pp}_{cm} = 7$ TeV

9 AAD 12CD ATLS $E^{pp}_{cm} = 7$ TeV

10 AALTONEN 12AC CDF $E^{pp}_{cm} = 1.96$ TeV

34 11 ABAZOV 11 D0 $E^{pp}_{cm} = 1.96$ TeV

17 12 ABAZOV 06H D0 $E^{pp}_{cm} = 1.96$ TeV

2.3 13 ABAZOV 05s D0 $E^{pp}_{cm} = 1.96$ TeV

1 ACHARD 04D study WW-pair production, single-W production and single-photon production with missing energy from 189 to 209 GeV. The result quoted here is obtained using the WW-pair production sample. Each parameter is determined from a single-parameter fit in which the other parameters assume their Standard Model values.

2 SIRUNYAN 20BA study electroweak production of a W boson in association with two jets, using W decays in the electron or muon channel. The isolated muons (electrons) are required to have a transverse momentum larger than 25 (30) GeV, while the transverse momentum of the two jets has to be larger than 50 and 30 GeV. A total of 2.382 (1.051) million events are selected in the muon (electron) channel, with a Standard Model expectation of 2.39 ± 0.17 (1.054 ± 0.058) million events. Analysing the transverse momentum distribution of the charged leptons from W decay, the following 95% C.L. limit is obtained: 0.956 < $\kappa_Z$ < 1.044. Combining this result with that from the closely-related electroweak Z-jet-jet production SIRUNYAN 18BZ, the limit becomes: 0.957 < $\kappa_Z$ < 1.042.

3 SIRUNYAN 19CL study WW and WZ production in lepton + jet events, with one W boson decaying leptonically (electron or muon), and another W or Z boson decaying hadronically, reconstructed as a single massive large-radius jet. In the electron channel 2,456 (2,235) events are selected in the $WW(WZ)$ category, while in the muon channel 3,996 (3,572) events are selected in the $WW(WZ)$ category. Analysing the di-boson invariant mass distribution, the following 95% C.L. limit is obtained: 0.9921 < $\kappa_Z$ < 1.0082.

4 AABOUD 17S analyze electroweak production of a W boson in association with two jets at high dijet invariant mass, with the W boson decaying to electron or muon plus neutrino. In the signal region of dijet mass larger than 1 TeV and leading-jet transverse momentum larger than 600 GeV, 30 events are observed in the data with 39 ± 4 events expected in the Standard Model, yielding the following limit at 95% CL for the form factor cut-off scale $\Lambda_{FF} = \infty$: 0.85 < $\kappa_Z$ < 1.16.

5 KHACHATRYAN 17O analyse WZ production where each boson decays into electrons or muons. Events are required to have a tri-lepton mass larger than 100 GeV, with one the lepton pairs having an invariant mass within 20 GeV of the Z boson mass. The Z transverse momentum spectrum is analyzed to set an 95% C.L. limit of: 0.79 < $\kappa_Z$ < 1.25.

6 AAD 16R study WW production in $pp$ collisions and select 6636 WW candidates in decay modes with electrons or muons with an expected background of 1546 ± 157 events. Assuming the LEP formulation and setting the form-factor $\Lambda$ to infinity, a fit to the transverse momentum distribution of the leading charged lepton, leads to a 95% C.L. range of 0.975 < $\kappa_Z$ < 1.020.

7 AAD 16P study WZ production in $pp$ collisions and select 2091 WZ candidates in 4 decay modes with electrons and muons, with an expected background of 1825 ± 7 events. Analyzing the WZ transverse momentum distribution, the resulting 95% C.L. limit is: 0.81 < $\kappa_Z$ < 1.30.

8 AAD 13AL study WW production in $pp$ collisions and select 1325 WW candidates in decay modes with electrons or muons with an expected background of 369 ± 61 events. Assuming the LEP formulation and setting the form-factor $\Lambda = \infty$, a fit to the transverse momentum distribution of the leading charged lepton, leads to a 95% C.L. range of 0.957 < $\kappa_Z$ < 1.043. Supersedes AAD 12AC.

9 AAD 12CD study WZ production in $pp$ collisions and select 317 WZ candidates in three $\ell\nu$ decay modes with an expected background of 68.0 ± 10.0 events. The resulting 95% C.L. range is: 0.63 < $\kappa_Z$ < 1.57. Supersedes AAD 12v.

10 AALTONEN 12AC study WZ production in $p\bar{p}$ collisions and select 63 WZ candidates in three $\ell\nu$ decay modes with an expected background of 7.9 ± 1.0 events. Based on