Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)µ

J = 12µ MASS (atomic mass units u)
The muon’s mass is obtained from the muon-electron mass ratio as determined from the measurement of Zeeman transition frequencies in muonium(µ+ e − atom). Since the electron’s mass is most accurately known in u,
the muon’s mass is also most accurately known in u. The conversion factor to MeV has approximately the same relative uncertainty as the massof the muon in u. In this datablock we give the result in u, and in thefollowing datablock in MeV.

VALUE (u)DOCUMENT ID

TECNCOMMENT

0.1134289259± 0.0000000025
TIESINGA
21 RVUE 2018 CODATA value• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •0.1134289257± 0.0000000025
MOHR
16 RVUE
0.1134289267± 0.0000000029
MOHR
12 RVUE
0.1134289256± 0.0000000029
MOHR
08 RVUE
0.1134289264± 0.0000000030
MOHR
05 RVUE
1 MOHR
0.1134289168± 0.0000000034
99 RVUE
2 COHEN
0.113428913 ± 0.000000017
87 RVUE
1 MOHR 99 make use of other 1998 CODATA entries below.
2 COHEN 87 make use of other 1986 CODATA entries below.

2014 CODATA value
2010 CODATA value
2006 CODATA value
2002 CODATA value
1998 CODATA value
1986 CODATA valueµ MASS
The mass is known more precisely in u (atomic mass units) than in MeV.
The conversion is: 1 u = 931.494 102 42(28) MeV/c2 (2018 CODATA
value, TIESINGA 21). The conversion error contributes significantly tothe uncertainty of the masses given below.

VALUE (MeV)

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

CHG

COMMENT

105.6583755± 0.0000023
TIESINGA
21 RVUE2018 CODATA value• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •105.6583745± 0.0000024
MOHR
16 RVUE2014 CODATA value
105.6583715± 0.0000035
MOHR
12 RVUE2010 CODATA value
105.6583668± 0.0000038
MOHR
08 RVUE2006 CODATA value
105.6583692± 0.0000094
MOHR
05 RVUE2002 CODATA value
105.6583568± 0.0000052
MOHR
99 RVUE1998 CODATA value
1 COHEN
105.658353 ± 0.000016
87 RVUE1986 CODATA value
2 MARIAM
105.658386 ± 0.000044
82 CNTR +3 CROWE
105.65836 ± 0.00026
72 CNTR
4 CRANE105.65865 ± 0.00044
71 CNTR
1 Converted to MeV using the 1998 CODATA value of the conversion constant,
931.494013 ± 0.000037 MeV/u.
2 MARIAM 82 give m /m = 206.768259(62).
µ e
3 CROWE 72 give m /m = 206.7682(5).
µ e

https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 1Created: 7/25/2024 17:21

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

4 CRANE 71 give m /m = 206.76878(85).
µ eµ MEAN LIFE τ
Measurements with an error > 0.001 × 10−6 s have been omitted.
VALUE (10−6 s)

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

2.1969811± 0.0000022 OUR AVERAGE
2.1969803± 0.0000021 ± 0.0000007 1 TISHCHENKO 13
2.197083 ± 0.000032 ± 0.000015
BARCZYK08

CHG COMMENT

CNTR +
CNTR +

Surface µ+ at PSI
Muons from π +decay at rest
Surface µ+ at PSI

2.197013 ± 0.000021 ± 0.000011
CHITWOOD 07 CNTR +2.197078 ± 0.000073
BARDIN
84 CNTR +2.197025 ± 0.000155
BARDIN
84 CNTR −2.19695 ± 0.00006
GIOVANETTI 84 CNTR +2.19711 ± 0.00008
BALANDIN
74 CNTR +2.1973± 0.0003
DUCLOS
73 CNTR +• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •2.1969803± 0.0000022
WEBBER
11 CNTR + Surface µ+ at PSI
1 TISHCHENKO 13 uses 1.6 × 1012 µ+ events and supersedes WEBBER 11.

τ µ+ /τ µ− MEAN LIFE RATIO
A test of CPT invariance.
VALUE

DOCUMENT ID

TECNCOMMENT

1.000024± 0.000078
BARDIN
84 CNTR• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •1.00081.000± 0.0010± 0.001

BAILEY
MEYER

79
63

CNTR Storage ring
CNTR Mean life µ+ / µ−(τ µ+ − τ µ− ) / τ average
A test of CPT invariance. Calculated from the mean-life ratio, above.
VALUE

DOCUMENT ID(2± 8) × 10−5 OUR EVALUATIONµ/p MAGNETIC MOMENT RATIOThis ratio is used to obtain a precise value of the muon mass and to
reduce experimental muon Larmor frequency measurements to the muon
magnetic moment anomaly. Measurements with an error > 0.00001 havebeen omitted. By convention, the minus sign on this ratio is omitted.
CODATA values were fitted using their selection of data, plus other datafrom multiparameter fits.
VALUE

DOCUMENT ID

3.183345142± 0.000000071

TIESINGA

https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 2

TECN

21

CHG

RVUE

COMMENT2018 CODATA value

Created: 7/25/2024 17:21

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •3.183345142± 0.000000071
3.183345107± 0.000000084
3.183345137± 0.000000085
3.183345118± 0.000000089
3.18334513 ± 0.00000039
3.18334539 ± 0.00000010
3.18334547 ± 0.00000047
3.1833441 ± 0.0000017
3.1833461 ± 0.0000011
3.1833448 ± 0.0000029
3.1833403 ± 0.0000044
3.1833402 ± 0.0000072
3.1833467 ± 0.0000082

MOHR
MOHR
MOHR
MOHR
LIU
MOHR
COHEN
KLEMPT
MARIAMCAMANICASPERSON
COHEN
CROWE

16
12
08
05
99
99
87
82
82
78
77
73
72

RVUE
RVUE
RVUE
RVUE
CNTR
RVUE
RVUE
CNTR
CNTR
CNTR
CNTR
RVUE
CNTR

+

+
+
+
+
+

2014 CODATA value
2010 CODATA value
2006 CODATA value
2002 CODATA value
HFS in muonium
1998 CODATA value
1986 CODATA value
Precession strob
HFS splitting
See KLEMPT 82
HFS splitting
1973 CODATA value
Precession phase

See the related review(s):Muon Anomalous Magnetic Momentµ MAGNETIC MOMENT ANOMALY
The parity-violating decay of muons in a storage ring is observed. The
difference frequency ωa between the muon spin precision and the orbital
angular frequency (e/m µ c) B is measured, as is the free proton NMR
frequency ωp , thus determining the ratio R=ωa /ωp . Given the magnetic
moment ratio λ=µµ /µp (from hyperfine structure in muonium), (g−2)/2= R/(λ−R).

µµ /(eh̄/2mµ )−1 = (gµ −2)/2
VALUE (units 10−10 )DOCUMENT ID

TECN

CHG

11659205.9±

2.2

1 AGUILLARD

23

MUG2 ±

11659204.0±
11659206.1±

5.4
4.1

ABI
3 ABI

21
21

MUG2 +
MUG2 ±COMMENT

Combined FNAL and
BNL values• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •2 AGUILLARD 23 MUG2 +11659205.5±
2.4
Storage ring
Storage ring
Combined FNAL and
BNL values
Average µ+ and µ−
Average µ+ and µ−
Storage ring
Storage ring
Storage ring
Storage ring11659208.0±
5.4 ± 3.3
BENNETT
06 MUG2 ±11659208 ±6
BENNETT
04 MUG2 ±11659214 ±8 ±3
BENNETT
04 MUG2 −11659203 ±6 ±5
BENNETT
04 MUG2 +11659204 ±7 ±5
BENNETT
02 MUG2 +11659202 ± 14 ± 6
BROWN
01 MUG2 +11659191 ± 59
BROWN
00 MUG2 +4 BAILEY
11659100 ± 110
79 CNTR +Storage ring
4 BAILEY
11659360 ± 120
79 CNTR −Storage ring
4 BAILEY
11659230 ± 85
79 CNTR ±Storage ring
11620000 ± 5000
CHARPAK
62 CNTR +1 AGUILLARD 23 combined their value with the previous independent BNL measurementof BENNETT 06.

https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 3Created: 7/25/2024 17:21

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

2 This AGUILLARD 23 value is the combination of all 2018, 2019 and 2020 data, including the ABI 21 value. The new FNAL 2019 and 2020 data alone combined yield(11659205.7 ± 2.5) × 10−10 .
3 ABI 21 combined their value with the previous independent BNL measurement of BENNETT 06. ABI 21 also report that the difference of this combination with the standard
model value of (11659181.0 ± 4.3) × 10−10 (AOYAMA 20) has a significance of 4.2 σ.
4 BAILEY 79 values recalculated by HUGHES 99 using the COHEN 87 µ/p magnetic
moment. The improved MOHR 99 value does not change the result.

(g µ+ − g µ− ) / g average
A test of CPT invariance.
VALUE (units 10−8 )DOCUMENT ID

TECN− 0.11± 0.12
BENNETT
04 MUG2• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •− 2.6 ± 1.6

BAILEY79

CNTRµ ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENT (d)A nonzero value is forbidden by both T invariance and P invariance.
VALUE (10−19 e cm)

CL%

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

CHG

COMMENT

1 BENNETT< 1.8
95
09 MUG2 ±Storage ring• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •2 EMA< 0.1990
22
theory limit
3 BENNETT− 0.1 ± 1.0
09 MUG2 +Storage ring
4 BENNETT− 0.1 ± 0.7
09 MUG2 −Storage ring
5 BAILEY− 3.7 ± 3.4
78 CNTR ±Storage ring
8.6 ± 4.5
0.8 ± 4.3

BAILEYBAILEY

78
78

CNTR +
CNTR −

Storage ring
Storage ring

1 This is the combination of the two BENNETT 09 measurements quoted here separately
for µ+ and µ− . The result is also presented as a measurement of (0.0 ± 0.9) × 10−19 ecm.
2 EMA 22 determine indirect constraints on µ
EDM from EDM measurements performedon heavy atoms and molecules, based on the muon-loop induced light-by-light CP-odd
amplitude.
3 Also reported as the limit of d(µ+ ) < 2.1 × 10−19 e cm at 95% CL.
4 Also reported as the limit of d(µ− ) < 1.5 × 10−19 e cm at 95% CL.
5 This is the combination of the two BAILEY 78 results quoted here separately for µ+ andµ− . BAILEY 78 uses the convention d = 1/2 · (d + − d − ) and reports 3.7 ± 3.4. Weµµconvert their result to use the same convention as BENNETT 09.

MUON-ELECTRON CHARGE RATIO ANOMALY qµ+ /qe − + 1
VALUE(1.1± 2.1) × 10−9

DOCUMENT ID

1 MEYERTECNCOMMENT1s–2s muonium
interval
1 MEYER 00 measure the 1s–2s muonium interval, and then interpret the result in termsof muon-electron charge ratio q + /q − .
µe

https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 400

CHG

CNTR +Created: 7/25/2024 17:21

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)µ− DECAY MODESµ+ modes are charge conjugates of the modes below.
Mode

Fraction (Γi /Γ)

Γ1
Γ2
Γ3

e − ν e νµe − ν e νµ γe − ν e νµ e + e −

Γ4
Γ5
Γ6
Γ7

e − νe ν µe− γ

Confidence level≈ 100%[a][b](6.0± 0.5) × 10−8(3.4± 0.4) × 10−5

Lepton Family number (LF ) violating modes
LF
LF

e− e+ e−e − 2γ[c] < 1.2
< 4.2

LF

< 1.0

LF

< 7.2

%

90%

× 10−13× 10−12× 10−11

90%
90%
90%

[a] This only includes events with energy of e > 45 MeV and energy ofγ > 40 MeV. Since the e − ν e νµ and e − ν e νµ γ modes cannot be clearly
separated, we regard the latter mode as a subset of the former.
[b] See the Particle Listings below for the energy limits used in this measurement.
[c] A test of additive vs. multiplicative lepton family number conservation.
µ− BRANCHING RATIOSΓ e − ν e νµ γ /Γtotal
VALUE

Γ2 /Γ
EVTS

DOCUMENT ID

TECNCOMMENT

1 BALDINI(6.03± 0.14 ± 0.53) × 10−8
13k
16A SPEC γ KE > 40 MeV• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •862

BOGART
67 CNTR γ KE > 14.5 MeV
CRITTENDEN 61 CNTR γ KE > 20 MeV
CRITTENDEN 61 CNTR γ KE > 10 MeV
27
ASHKIN
59 CNTR
1 BALDINI 16 measurement refers to µ+ → e + ν ν γ decay and requires energy of e + >45 MeV and energy γ > 40 MeV.

(3.3 ± 1.3(1.4 ± 0.4) × 10−3) × 10−2Γ e − ν e νµ e + e − /Γtotal
VALUE (units 10−5 )

EVTS

Γ3 /Γ
DOCUMENT ID

TECN

CHG

COMMENT

1 BERTL

3.4± 0.2± 0.37443
85 SPEC +SINDRUM• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •2 CRITTENDEN 61 HLBC +2.2± 1.57E(e + e − ) > 10 MeV
3 GUREVICH
2
1
60 EMUL +4 LEE
1.5± 1.0
359 HBC+
1 BERTL 85 has transverse momentum cut p
T > 17 MeV/c. Systematic error wasincreased by us.
2 CRITTENDEN 61 count only those decays where total energy of either (e + , e − ) combination is >10 MeV.

https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 5Created: 7/25/2024 17:21

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

3 GUREVICH 60 interpret their event as either virtual or real photon conversion. e + ande − energies not measured.
4 In the three LEE 59 events, the sum of energies E(e + ) + E(e − ) + E(e + ) was 51 MeV,
55 MeV, and 33 MeV.

Γ e − νe ν µ /Γtotal

Γ4 /Γ
Forbidden by the additive conservation law for lepton family number. A multiplicativelaw predicts this branching ratio to be 1/2. For a review see NEMETHY 81.

VALUE

CL%

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

CHG

COMMENT

1 FREEDMAN 93 CNTR +< 0.01290
ν oscillation search• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •< 0.018< 0.0590
90

KRAKAUER
2 BERGSMA

91B CALO +83 CALOν µ e → µ− ν e< 0.0990
JONKER
80 CALO
See BERGSMA 83− 0.001± 0.061
WILLIS
80 CNTR +0.13 ± 0.15
BLIETSCHAU 78 HLBC ±Avg. of 4 values< 0.2590
EICHTEN
73 HLBC +1 FREEDMAN 93 limit on ν observation is here interpreted as a limit on lepton familyenumber violation.
2 BERGSMA 83 gives a limit on the inverse muon decay cross-section ratio σ(ν e − →µµ− ν e ) σ(νµ e − → µ− νe ), which is essentially equivalent to Γ e − νe ν µ /Γtotal forsmall values like that quoted.

Γ e − γ /Γtotal

Γ5 /Γ

Forbidden by lepton family number conservation.

VALUE (units 10−11 )CL%

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

CHG

COMMENT< 0.04290
BALDINI
16 SPEC +MEG at PSI• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •< 0.057< 0.24
< 2.8
< 1.2
< 1.2
< 4.9
<100
< 17
<100

90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90

ADAM
ADAM
ADAM
AHMED
BROOKSBOLTONAZUELOSKINNISONSCHAAF

13B
11
10
02
99
88
83
82
80

SPEC
SPEC
SPEC
SPEC
SPEC
CBOX
CNTR
SPEC
ELEC

+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

MEG at PSI
MEG at PSI
MEG at PSI
MEGA
LAMPF
LAMPF
TRIUMF
LAMPF
SINΓ e − e + e − /Γtotal

Γ6 /Γ

Forbidden by lepton family number conservation.

VALUE (units 10−12 )CL%

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

CHG

COMMENT

1 BELLGARDT 88 SPEC +< 1.0
90
SINDRUM• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •< 36
90
BARANOV
91 SPEC< 35
90
BOLTON
88 CBOX
1 BERTL< 2.4
90
85 SPEC
1 BERTL<160
90
84 SPEC
1 BOLTON<130
90
84 CNTR
1 These experiments assume a constant matrix element.

https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 6

+
+
+
+

ARES
LAMPF
SINDRUM
SINDRUM
LAMPF

Created: 7/25/2024 17:21

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)Γ e − 2γ /Γtotal

Γ7 /Γ

Forbidden by lepton family number conservation.

VALUE (units 10−11 )CL%

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

CHG

COMMENT<
7.2
90
BOLTON
88 CBOX +LAMPF• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •1 BALDINI<
1
90
20 MEGPSI
2 AZUELOS< 840
90
83 CNTR +TRIUMF
3 BOWMAN<5000
90
78 CNTRDEPOMMIER 77 data
1 BALDINI 20 uses 7.5×1014 stopped muons to obtain limits on µ → e X decay mediatedby a new light particle X with lifetimes < 40 ps, which decays to γ γ for X -mass ranges
20–45 MeV. The limit of the order < 10−11 at 90% CL is for the mass range 20–30
MeV.
2 AZUELOS 83 uses the phase space distribution of BOWMAN 78.
3 BOWMAN 78 assumes an interaction Lagrangian local on the scale of the inverse µmass.

LIMIT ON µ− → e − CONVERSION
Forbidden by lepton family number conservation.

σ(µ− 32 S → e − 32 S) / σ(µ− 32 S → νµ 32 P∗ )
VALUE

CL%

DOCUMENT ID

TECNCOMMENT<7 × 10−11
90
BADERT...
80 STRC SIN• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •<4 × 10−10
90
BADERT...
77 STRC SIN

σ(µ− Cu → e − Cu) / σ(µ− Cu → capture)
VALUE

CL%

DOCUMENT ID

TECN• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •<1.6 × 10−8
90
BRYMAN
72 SPECσ(µ− Ti → e − Ti) / σ(µ− Ti → capture)
VALUE

CL%

DOCUMENT ID

TECNCOMMENT

1 DOHMEN<4.3 × 10−1290
93 SPEC SINDRUM II• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •<4.6 × 10−1290
AHMAD
88 TPCTRIUMF<1.6 × 10−11
90
BRYMAN85 TPCTRIUMF
1 DOHMEN 93 assumes µ− → e − conversion leaves the nucleus in its ground state, aprocess enhanced by coherence and expected to dominate.

σ(µ− Pb → e − Pb) / σ(µ− Pb → capture)
VALUE

CL%

DOCUMENT ID

TECNCOMMENT<4.6 × 10−11
90
HONECKER 96 SPEC SINDRUM II• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •<4.9 × 10−1090
AHMAD
88 TPCTRIUMFσ(µ− Au → e − Au) / σ(µ− Au → capture)
VALUE

CL%

DOCUMENT ID<7 × 10−13

90

BERTL

https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 7

06

TECN

CHG

COMMENTSPEC−SINDRUM II

Created: 7/25/2024 17:21

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

LIMIT ON µ− → e + CONVERSION
Forbidden by total lepton number conservation.

σ(µ− 32 S → e + 32 Si∗ ) / σ(µ− 32 S → νµ 32 P∗ )
VALUE

CL%

DOCUMENT ID

TECNCOMMENT<9 × 10−10
90
BADERT...
80 STRC SIN• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •<1.5 × 10−990
BADERT...
78 STRC SIN

σ(µ− 127 I → e + 127 Sb∗ ) / σ(µ− 127 I → anything)
VALUE

CL%

DOCUMENT ID

TECNCOMMENT

1 ABELA<3 × 10−1090
80 CNTR Radiochemical tech.
1 ABELA 80 is upper limit for µ− e + conversion leading to particle-stable states of 127 Sb.
Limit for total conversion rate is higher by a factor less than 4 (G. Backenstoss, private
communication).

σ(µ− Cu → e + Co) / σ(µ− Cu → νµ Ni)
VALUE

CL%

DOCUMENT ID

TECN• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •<2.6 × 10−8
90
BRYMAN
72 SPEC<2.2 × 10−7
90
CONFORTO 62 OSPK

σ(µ− Ti → e + Ca) / σ(µ− Ti → capture)
VALUE

CL%

EVTS

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

CHG

COMMENT

1,2 KAULARD<3.6 × 10−1190
1
98 SPEC −SINDRUM II• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •2,3 KAULARD<1.7 × 10−1290
1
98 SPEC −SINDRUM II−123<4.3 × 10
90
DOHMEN
93 SPEC
SINDRUM II
1 DOHMEN<8.9 × 10−11
90
93 SPEC
SINDRUM II
4 AHMAD<1.7 × 10−1090
88 TPCTRIUMF
1 This limit assumes a giant resonance excitation of the daughter Ca nucleus (mean energy
and width both 20 MeV).
2 KAULARD 98 obtained these same limits using the unified classical analysis of FELDMAN 98.
3 This limit assumes the daughter Ca nucleus is left in the ground state. However, theprobability of this is unknown.
4 Assuming a giant-resonance-excitation model.

LIMIT ON MUONIUM → ANTIMUONIUM CONVERSION
Forbidden by lepton family number conservation.

Rg = GC / GF

The effective Lagrangian for the µ+ e − → µ− e + conversion is assumed to be
L = 2−1/2 GC [ψ µ γλ (1 − γ5 ) ψe ] [ψ µ γλ (1 − γ5 ) ψe ] + h.c.

The experimental result is then an upper limit on GC /GF , where GF is the Fermi
coupling constant.
VALUE

CL%

< 0.0030

90

https://pdg.lbl.gov

EVTS

DOCUMENT ID

1

1 WILLMANN

Page 8

99

TECN

CHG

COMMENTSPEC+µ+ at 26 GeV/c

Created: 7/25/2024 17:21

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •2 GORDEEV< 0.1490
1
97 SPEC +JINR phasotron
3 ABELA< 0.01890
0
96 SPEC +µ+ at 24 MeV
< 6.9
90
NI
93 CBOX
LAMPF< 0.1690
MATTHIAS
91 SPEC
LAMPF< 0.2990
HUBER
90B CNTR
TRIUMF<2095
BEER
86 CNTR
TRIUMF<42
95
MARSHALL
82 CNTR
1 WILLMANN 99 quote both probability P< 8.3 × 10−11 at 90%CL in a 0.1 T fieldMM
and Rg = GC /GF .
2 GORDEEV 97 quote limits on both f=G
M M /GF and the probability WM M < 4.7 ×−7
10(90% CL).
3 ABELA 96 quote both probability P< 8 × 10−9 at 90% CL and Rg = GC /GF .
MM

See the related review(s):Muon Decay Parametersµ DECAY PARAMETERSρ PARAMETER(V −A) theory predicts ρ = 0.75.
VALUE

EVTS

DOCUMENT IDTECNCHG COMMENT

0.74979± 0.00026 OUR AVERAGE
1 BAYES0.74977± 0.00012 ± 0.00023
11 TWST + Surface µ+0.7518 ± 0.0026
DERENZO
69 RVUE• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •2 MACDONALD 08 TWST + Surface µ+0.75014± 0.00017 ± 0.00045
3 MUSSER
0.75080± 0.00032 ± 0.00100
6G
05 TWST + Surface µ+0.72± 0.06± 0.08AMORUSO
04 ICARLiquid Ar TPC
4 FRYBERGER 68 ASPK + 25–53 MeV e +0.762 ± 0.008
170k
4 SHERWOOD 67 ASPK + 25–53 MeV e +0.760 ± 0.009
280k
4 PEOPLES
0.7503 ± 0.0026
800k
66 ASPK + 20–53 MeV e +1 The quoted systematic error includes a contribution of 0.00013 (added in quadrature)from uncertainties on radiative corrections and on the Michel parameter η.
2 The quoted systematic error includes a contribution of 0.00011 (added in quadrature)from the dependence on the Michel parameter η.
3 The quoted systematic error includes a contribution of 0.00023 (added in quadrature)from the dependence on the Michel parameter η.
4 η constrained = 0. These values incorporated into a two parameter fit to ρ and η by
DERENZO 69.

η PARAMETER(V −A) theory predicts η = 0.
VALUE

EVTS

0.057 ± 0.034 OUR AVERAGE
0.071 ± 0.037 ± 0.005
30M
0.011 ± 0.081 ± 0.026
5.3M− 0.12 ± 0.21
6346

https://pdg.lbl.gov

DOCUMENT IDTECNCHG COMMENTDANNEBERG 05 CNTR +1 BURKARD
85BCNTR +DERENZO
69 HBC+

Page 97–53 MeV e +9–53 MeV e +1.6–6.8 MeV e +Created: 7/25/2024 17:21

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •2 DANNEBERG 05 CNTR + 7–53 MeV e +− 0.0021± 0.0070 ± 0.0010
30M
2 BURKARD− 0.012 ± 0.015 ± 0.003
5.3M
85BCNTR + 9–53 MeV e +3− 0.007 ± 0.013
5.3M
BURKARD
85BFIT
+ 9–53 MeV e +
4
− 0.7
± 0.5
170k
FRYBERGER 68 ASPK + 25–53 MeV e +
4
− 0.7
± 0.6
280k
SHERWOOD 67 ASPK + 25–53 MeV e +4 PEOPLES
0.05 ± 0.5
800k
66 ASPK + 20–53 MeV e +
5
− 2.0
± 0.9
9213
PLANO
60 HBC+ Whole spectrum
1 Previously we used the global fit result from BURKARD 85B in OUR AVERAGE, we now
only include their actual measurement.
2 α = α′ = 0 assumed.
3 Global fit to all measured parameters. The fit correlation coefficients are given in
BURKARD 85B.
4 ρ constrained = 0.75.
5 Two parameter fit to ρ and η; PLANO 60 discounts value for η.

δ PARAMETER(V −A) theory predicts δ = 0.75.
VALUE

EVTS

DOCUMENT IDTECNCHG COMMENT

0.75047± 0.00034 OUR AVERAGE
1 BAYES0.75049± 0.00021 ± 0.00027
11 TWST + Surface µ+20.7486 ± 0.0026 ± 0.0028
BALKE
88 SPEC + Surface µ+• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •0.75067± 0.00030 ± 0.00067
MACDONALD 08 TWST + Surface µ+0.74964± 0.00066 ± 0.00112
6G
GAPONENKO 05 TWST + Surface µ+3 VOSSLER
69
0.752 ± 0.009
490k
FRYBERGER 68 ASPK + 25–53 MeV e +0.782 ± 0.031
KRUGER61
0.78± 0.058354
PLANO
60 HBC+ Whole spectrum
1 The quoted systematic error includes a contribution of 0.00006 (added in quadrature)from uncertainties on radiative corrections and on the Michel parameter η.
2 BALKE 88 uses ρ = 0.752 ± 0.003.
3 VOSSLER 69 has measured the asymmetry below 10 MeV. See comments about radiative
corrections in VOSSLER 69.

(ξ PARAMETER)×(µ LONGITUDINAL POLARIZATION)(V −A) theory predicts ξ = 1, longitudinal polarization = 1.
VALUE

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

CHG

COMMENT+ 0.0016 OUR AVERAGE
1.0009 −0.0007+ 0.00165
1.00084± 0.00029 −0.00063

BUENO

11

TWST

Surface µ+ beam

1.0027 ± 0.0079 ± 0.0030
BELTRAMI
87 CNTR
SIN, π decay in flight• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •1.0003 ± 0.0006 ± 0.0038
JAMIESON
06 TWST +surface µ+ beam
11.0013 ± 0.0030 ± 0.0053
IMAZATO
92 SPEC +K + → µ+ ν µ0.975 ± 0.015
AKHMANOV 68 EMUL
140 kG
0.975 ± 0.030
GUREVICH
64 EMUL
See AKHMANOV 68
2 ALI-ZADE
0.903 ± 0.027
61 EMUL +
27 kG
0.93
± 0.06PLANO
60 HBC
+
8.8 kG0.97± 0.05BARDON
59 CNTR
Bromoform target

https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 10Created: 7/25/2024 17:21

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

1 The corresponding 90% confidence limit from IMAZATO 92 is ξPµ > 0.990. This++measurement is of K decay, not π decay, so we do not include it in an average, nor
do we yet set up a separate data block for K results.
2 Depolarization by medium not known sufficiently well.

ξ × (µ LONGITUDINAL POLARIZATION) × δ / ρ
VALUE

CL%

+ 0.00156
1.00179 −0.00071

DOCUMENT ID

1 BAYES

TECN

11

CHG

TWST +COMMENT

Surface µ+ beam• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •2 JODIDIO>0.99682
90
86 SPEC +TRIUMF
3 STOKER>0.9966
90
85 SPEC +µ-spin rotation>0.995990
CARR
83 SPEC +11 kG
1 BAYES 11 obtains the limit > 0.99909 (90% CL) with the constraint that ξ×(µ LONGITUDINAL POLARIZATION) × δ/ρ ≤ 1.0.
2 JODIDIO 86 includes data from CARR 83 and STOKER 85. The value here is from theerratum.
3 STOKER 85 find (ξP δ/ρ) >0.9955 and >0.9966, where the first limit is from new µµspin-rotation data and the second is from combination with CARR 83 data. In V −A
theory, (δ/ρ) = 1.0.

ξ ′ = LONGITUDINAL POLARIZATION OF e +(V −A) theory predicts the longitudinal polarization = ± 1 for e ± , respectively. We
have flipped the sign for e − so our programs can average.

VALUE

EVTS

1.00 ± 0.04 OUR AVERAGE
0.998± 0.045
1M
0.89 ± 0.28
29k
0.94 ± 0.38
1.04 ± 0.18
1.05 ± 0.30

DOCUMENT ID

BURKARD
SCHWARTZBLOOM
DUCLOS
BUHLER

85
67
64
64
63

TECN

CHG

COMMENT

CNTR
OSPK
CNTR
CNTR
CNTR

+
−
+
+
+

Bhabha + annihil
Moller scatteringBrems. transmiss.
Bhabha scattering
Annihilation

ξ ′′ PARAMETER
VALUE

EVTS

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

CHG

0.98 ± 0.04 OUR AVERAGE
0.981± 0.045 ± 0.003
3.87M
PRIEELS
14 CNTR +1 BURKARD
0.65 ± 0.36326k
85 CNTR +1 BURKARD 85 measure (ξ ′′ -ξξ ′ )ξ and ξ ′ and set ξ = 1.

COMMENT

Bhabha + annihil
Bhabha + annihil

TRANSVERSE e + POLARIZATION IN PLANE OF µ SPIN, e + MOMENTUM
VALUE (units 10−3 )EVTS

7 ± 8 OUR AVERAGE
6.3± 7.7± 3.4
30M
16 ± 21 ± 10
5.3M

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

CHG

DANNEBERG 05 CNTR +BURKARD85B CNTR +COMMENT

7–53 MeV e +Annihil 9–53 MeV

TRANSVERSE e + POLARIZATION NORMAL TO PLANE OF µ SPIN, e +MOMENTUM
Zero if T invariance holds.
VALUE (units 10−3 )EVTS

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

CHG

− 2 ± 8 OUR AVERAGE− 3.7± 7.7± 3.4
30M
7 ± 22 ± 7
5.3M

DANNEBERG 05 CNTR +BURKARD85B CNTR +https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 11

COMMENT

7–53 MeV e +Annihil 9–53 MeV

Created: 7/25/2024 17:21

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

α/A
VALUE (units 10−3 )EVTS

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

CHG

COMMENT

1 BURKARD
0.4± 4.3
85B FIT• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •15 ± 50 ± 14
5.3M
BURKARD
1 Global fit to all measured parameters.
BURKARD 85B.

85B CNTR +9–53 MeV e +Correlation coefficients are given in

α′ /AZero if T invariance holds.
VALUE (units 10−3 )EVTS

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

CHG

COMMENT− 10 ± 20 OUR AVERAGE− 3.4± 21.3 ± 4.9
30M
DANNEBERG 05 CNTR +7–53 MeV e +1− 47 ± 50 ± 14
5.3M
BURKARD85B CNTR +9–53 MeV e +• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •2 BURKARD− 0.2± 4.3
85B FIT
1 Previously we used the global fit result from BURKARD 85B in OUR AVERAGE, we now
only include their actual measurement. BURKARD 85B measure e + polarizations PT
1
and PT versus e + energy.
2
2 Global fit to all measured parameters. The fit correlation coefficients are given in
BURKARD 85B.

β/A
VALUE (units 10−3 )EVTS

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

CHG

COMMENT

1 BURKARD

3.9± 6.2
85B FIT• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •2 ± 17 ± 6
5.3M
BURKARD85B CNTR +9–53 MeV e +1 Global fit to all measured parameters. The fit correlation coefficients are given in
BURKARD 85B.

β ′ /A
Zero if T invariance holds.
VALUE (units 10−3 )EVTS

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

CHG

COMMENT

2 ± 7 OUR AVERAGE− 0.5± 7.8± 1.8
30M
DANNEBERG 05 CNTR +7–53 MeV e +1 BURKARD
17 ± 17 ± 6
5.3M
85B CNTR +9–53 MeV e +• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •2 DANNEBERG 05 CNTR +− 1.3± 3.5± 0.6
30M
7–53 MeV e +31.5± 6.3
BURKARD
85B FIT
1 Previously we used the global fit result from BURKARD 85B in OUR AVERAGE, we now
only include their actual measurement. BURKARD 85B measure e + polarizations PT
1
and PT versus e + energy.
22 α = α′ = 0 assumed.
3 Global fit to all measured parameters. The fit correlation coefficients are given in
BURKARD 85B.

https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 12Created: 7/25/2024 17:21

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

a/A
This comes from an alternative parameterization to that used in the Summary Table(see the “Note on Muon Decay Parameters” above).
VALUE (units 10−3 )CL%

DOCUMENT ID

TECN• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •1 BURKARD<15.9
90
85B FIT
1 Global fit to all measured parameters.
BURKARD 85B.

Correlation coefficients are given ina′ /AThis comes from an alternative parameterization to that used in the Summary Table(see the “Note on Muon Decay Parameters” above).
VALUE (units 10−3 )DOCUMENT ID

TECN• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •1 BURKARD
5.3± 4.1
85B FIT
1 Global fit to all measured parameters.
BURKARD 85B.

Correlation coefficients are given in(b′ +b)/A
This comes from an alternative parameterization to that used in the Summary Table(see the “Note on Muon Decay Parameters” above).
VALUE (units 10−3 )CL%

DOCUMENT ID

TECN• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •1 BURKARD<1.04
90
85B FIT
1 Global fit to all measured parameters.
BURKARD 85B.

Correlation coefficients are given in

c/A
This comes from an alternative parameterization to that used in the Summary Table(see the “Note on Muon Decay Parameters” above).
VALUE (units 10−3 )CL%

DOCUMENT ID

TECN• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •1 BURKARD<6.4
90
85B FIT
1 Global fit to all measured parameters.
BURKARD 85B.

Correlation coefficients are given inc ′ /AThis comes from an alternative parameterization to that used in the Summary Table(see the “Note on Muon Decay Parameters” above).
VALUE (units 10−3 )DOCUMENT ID

TECN• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •1 BURKARD
3.5± 2.0
85B FIT
1 Global fit to all measured parameters.
BURKARD 85B.

https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 13

Correlation coefficients are given in

Created: 7/25/2024 17:21

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

η PARAMETER(V −A) theory predicts η = 0. η affects spectrum of radiative muon decay.
VALUE

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

CHG

COMMENT

0.02 ± 0.08 OUR AVERAGE− 0.014± 0.090
EICHENBER... 84 ELEC +ρ free+ 0.09 ± 0.14
BOGART
67 CNTR +• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •− 0.035± 0.098

EICHENBER... 84

ELEC

+

ρ=0.75 assumedµ REFERENCES
AGUILLARDEMAABITIESINGAAOYAMABALDINIBALDINIBALDINIMOHR
PRIEELSADAM
TISHCHENKO
MOHR
ADAM
BAYES
Also
BUENO
Also
WEBBER
Also
ADAM
BENNETTBARCZYK
MACDONALD
MOHR
CHITWOOD
BENNETTBERTL
JAMIESONDANNEBERGGAPONENKO
MOHR
MUSSERAMORUSO
BENNETT
AHMED
BENNETT
BROWN
BROWN
MEYER
BROOKSHUGHES
LIU
MOHR
Also
WILLMANN
FELDMANKAULARDGORDEEVABELAHONECKER
DOHMEN
FREEDMANNIIMAZATO

23
22
21
21
20
20
16
16A
16
14
13B
13
12
11
11
11
11
10
09
08
08
08
07
06
06
06
05
05
05
05
04
04
02
02
01
00
00
99
99
99
99
99
98
98
97
96
96
93
93
93
92

PRL 131 161802
D.P. Aguillard et al.
(Muon g-2 Collab.)
PRL 128 131803
Y. Ema, T. Gao, M. Pospelov(DESY, MINN)
PRL 126 141801
B. Abi et al.
(Muon g-2 Collab.)
RMP 93 025010
E. Tiesinga et al.
(NIST)PRPL 887 1
T. Aoyama et al.
EPJ C80 858
A.M. Baldini et al.
(MEG Collab.)
EPJ C76 434
A.M. Baldini et al.
(MEG Collab.)
EPJ C76 108
A.M. Baldini et al.
(MEG Collab.)
RMP 88 035009
P.J. Mohr, D.B. Newell, B.N. Taylor(NIST)PR D90 112003
R. Prieels et al.
(LOUV, ETH, PSI+)PRL 110 201801
J. Adam et al.
(MEG Collab.)
PR D87 052003
V. Tishchenko et al.
(MuLan Collab.)
RMP 84 1527
P.J. Mohr, B.N. Taylor, D.B. Newell(NIST)
PRL 107 171801
J. Adam et al.
(MEG Collab.)
PRL 106 041804
R. Bayes et al.
(TWIST Collab.)
PR D85 092013
A. Hillairet et al.
(TWIST Collab.)
PR D84 032005
J.F. Bueno et al.
(TWIST Collab.)
PR D85 039908 (errat.) J.F. Bueno et al.
(TWIST Collab.)
PRL 106 041803
D.M. Webber et al.
(MuLan Collab.)
PRL 106 079901 (errat.) D.M. Webber et al.
(MuLan Collab.)
NP B834 1
J. Adam et al.
(MEG Collab.)
PR D80 052008
G.W. Bennett et al.
(MUG-2 Collab.)
PL B663 172
A. Barczyk et al.
(FAST Collab.)
PR D78 032010
R.P. MacDonald et al.
(TWIST Collab.)
RMP 80 633
P.J. Mohr, B.N. Taylor, D.B. Newell(NIST)
PRL 99 032001
D.B. Chitwood et al.
(MULAN Collab.)
PR D73 072003
G.W. Bennett et al.
(MUG-2 Collab.)
EPJ C47 337
W. Bertl et al.
(SINDRUM II Collab.)
PR D74 072007
B. Jamieson et al.
(TWIST Collab.)
PRL 94 021802
N. Danneberg et al.
(ETH, JAGL, PSI+)PR D71 071101
A. Gaponenko et al.
(TWIST Collab.)
RMP 77 1
P.J. Mohr, B.N. Taylor(NIST)
PRL 94 101805
J.R. Musser et al.
(TWIST Collab.)
EPJ C33 233
S. Amoruso et al.
(ICARUS Collab.)
PRL 92 161802
G.W. Bennett et al.
(Muon(g-2) Collab.)PR D65 112002
M. Ahmed et al.
(MEGA Collab.)
PRL 89 101804
G.W. Bennett et al.
(Muon(g-2) Collab.)
PRL 86 2227
H.N. Brown et al.
(Muon(g-2) Collab.)PR D62 091101
H.N. Brown et al.
(BNL/G-2 Collab.)
PRL 84 1136
V. Meyer et al.
PRL 83 1521
M.L. Brooks et al.
(MEGA/LAMPF Collab.)
RMP 71 S133
V.W. Hughes, T. Kinoshita
PRL 82 711
W. Liu et al.
(LAMPF Collab.)
JPCRD 28 1713
P.J. Mohr, B.N. Taylor(NIST)
RMP 72 351
P.J. Mohr, B.N. Taylor(NIST)
PRL 82 49
L. Willmann et al.
PR D57 3873
G.J. Feldman, R.D. Cousins
PL B422 334
J. Kaulard et al.
(SINDRUM-II Collab.)
PAN 60 1164
V.A. Gordeev et al.
(PNPI)
Translated from YAF 60 1291.
PRL 77 1950
R. Abela et al.
(PSI, ZURI, HEIDH, TBIL+)PRL 76 200
W. Honecker et al.
(SINDRUM II Collab.)
PL B317 631
C. Dohmen et al.
(PSI SINDRUM-II Collab.)PR D47 811
S.J. Freedman et al.
(LAMPF E645 Collab.)PR D48 1976
B. Ni et al.
(LAMPF Crystal-Box Collab.)
PRL 69 877
J. Imazato et al.
(KEK, INUS, TOKY+)

https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 14Created: 7/25/2024 17:21

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

BARANOV91

KRAKAUER
MATTHIAS
Also
HUBER
AHMAD
Also
BALKE
BELLGARDTBOLTON
Also
Also
BELTRAMI
COHEN
BEER
JODIDIO
Also
BERTL
BRYMAN
BURKARD
BURKARD
Also
Also
STOKER
BARDINBERTL
BOLTONEICHENBER...
GIOVANETTIAZUELOS
Also
BERGSMACARR
KINNISONAlso
KLEMPT
MARIAMMARSHALLNEMETHYABELA
BADERT...
Also
JONKERSCHAAF
Also
WILLIS
Also
BAILEYBADERT...
BAILEY
Also
BLIETSCHAUBOWMANCAMANIBADERT...
CASPERSON
DEPOMMIER
BALANDIN

91B
91
90B
88
88
88
88
87
87
86
86
85
85
85
85B
85
84
84
84
84
84
83
83
83
82
82
82
82
81
80
80
80
80
80
79
78
78
78
78
78
77
77
77
74

COHEN
DUCLOSEICHTEN
BRYMAN
CROWE
CRANE
DERENZOVOSSLERAKHMANOV

73
73
73
72
72
71
69
69
68

FRYBERGER
BOGART

68
67

SJNP 53 802
V.A. Baranov et al.
(JINR)
Translated from YAF 53 1302.
PL B263 534
D.A. Krakauer et al.
(UMD, UCI, LANL)PRL 66 2716
B.E. Matthias et al.
(YALE, HEIDP, WILL+)PRL 67 932 (errat.)
B.E. Matthias et al.
(YALE, HEIDP, WILL+)PR D41 2709
T.M. Huber et al.
(WYOM, VICT, ARIZ+)PR D38 2102
S. Ahmad et al.
(TRIU, VICT, VPI, BRCO+)PRL 59 970
S. Ahmad et al.
(TRIU, VPI, VICT, BRCO+)PR D37 587
B. Balke et al.
(LBL, UCB, COLO, NWES+)NP B299 1
U. Bellgardt et al.
(SINDRUM Collab.)
PR D38 2077
R.D. Bolton et al.
(LANL, STAN, CHIC+)PRL 56 2461
R.D. Bolton et al.
(LANL, STAN, CHIC+)PRL 57 3241
D. Grosnick et al.
(CHIC, LANL, STAN+)
PL B194 326
I. Beltrami et al.
(ETH, SIN, MAINZ)RMP 59 1121
E.R. Cohen, B.N. Taylor(RISC, NBS)
PRL 57 671
G.A. Beer et al.
(VICT, TRIU, WYOM)
PR D34 1967
A. Jodidio et al.
(LBL, NWES, TRIU)
PR D37 237 (errat.)
A. Jodidio et al.
(LBL, NWES, TRIU)NP B260 1
W. Bertl et al.
(SINDRUM Collab.)
PRL 55 465
D.A. Bryman et al.
(TRIU, CNRC, BRCO+)
PL 150B 242
H. Burkhardt et al.
(ETH, SIN, MAINZ)
PL 160B 343
H. Burkhardt et al.
(ETH, SIN, MAINZ)PR D24 2004
F. Corriveau et al.
(ETH, SIN, MAINZ)
PL 129B 260
F. Corriveau et al.
(ETH, SIN, MAINZ)PRL 54 1887
D.P. Stoker et al.
(LBL, NWES, TRIU)
PL 137B 135
G. Bardin et al.
(SACL, CERN, BGNA, FIRZ)
PL 140B 299
W. Bertl et al.
(SINDRUM Collab.)
PRL 53 1415
R.D. Bolton et al.
(LANL, CHIC, STAN+)NP A412 523
W. Eichenberger, R. Engfer, A. van der Schaff
PR D29 343
K.L. Giovanetti et al.
(WILL)PRL 51 164
G. Azuelos et al.
(MONT, TRIU, BRCO)
PRL 39 1113
P. Depommier et al.
(MONT, BRCO, TRIU+)
PL 122B 465
F. Bergsma et al.
(CHARM Collab.)
PRL 51 627
J. Carr et al.
(LBL, NWES, TRIU)
PR D25 2846
W.W. Kinnison et al.
(EFI, STAN, LANL)PRL 42 556
J.D. Bowman et al.
(LASL, EFI, STAN)
PR D25 652
E. Klempt et al.
(MAINZ, ETH)
PRL 49 993
F.G. Mariam et al.
(YALE, HEIDH, BERN)
PR D25 1174
G.M. Marshall et al.
(BRCO)
CNPP 10 147
P. Nemethy, V.W. Hughes(LBL, YALE)
PL 95B 318
R. Abela et al.
(BASL, KARLK, KARLE)
LNC 28 401
A. Badertscher et al.
(BERN)NP A377 406
A. Badertscher et al.
(BERN)PL 93B 203
M. Jonker et al.
(CHARM Collab.)
NP A340 249
A. van der Schaaf et al.
(ZURI, ETH+)
PL 72B 183
H.P. Povel et al.
(ZURI, ETH, SIN)
PRL 44 522
S.E. Willis et al.
(YALE, LBL, LASL+)
PRL 45 1370
S.E. Willis et al.
(YALE, LBL, LASL+)
NP B150 1
J.M. Bailey(CERN, DARE, MAINZ)
PL 79B 371
A. Badertscher et al.
(BERN)JP G4 345
J.M. Bailey(DARE, BERN, SHEF, MAINZ, RMCS+)NP B150 1
J.M. Bailey(CERN, DARE, MAINZ)NP B133 205
J. Blietschau et al.
(Gargamelle Collab.)
PRL 41 442
J.D. Bowman et al.
(LASL, IAS, CMU+)
PL 77B 326
M. Camani et al.
(ETH, MAINZ)PRL 39 1385
A. Badertscher et al.
(BERN)
PRL 38 956
D.E. Casperson et al.
(BERN, HEIDH, LASL+)
PRL 39 1113
P. Depommier et al.
(MONT, BRCO, TRIU+)
JETP 40 811
M.P. Balandin et al.
(JINR)
Translated from ZETF 67 1631.
JPCRD 2 664
E.R. Cohen, B.N. Taylor(RISC, NBS)
PL 47B 491
J. Duclos, A. Magnon, J. Picard(SACL)PL 46B 281
T. Eichten et al.
(Gargamelle Collab.)
PRL 28 1469
D.A. Bryman et al.
(VPI)
PR D5 2145
K.M. Crowe et al.
(LBL, WASH)
PRL 27 474
T. Crane et al.
(YALE)
PR 181 1854
S.E. Derenzo(EFI)
NC 63A 423
C. Vossler(EFI)
SJNP 6 230
V.V. Akhmanov et al.
(KIAE)
Translated from YAF 6 316.
PR 166 1379
D. Fryberger(EFI)
PR 156 1405
E. Bogart et al.
(COLU)

https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 15

Created: 7/25/2024 17:21

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

SCHWARTZ
SHERWOODPEOPLESBLOOMDUCLOSGUREVICH
BUHLERMEYER
CHARPAKCONFORTO
ALI-ZADE

67
67
66
64
64
64
63
63
62
62
61

CRITTENDEN 61
KRUGER61
GUREVICH60
PLANO
ASHKINBARDON
LEE

60
59
59
59

PR 162 1306
D.M. Schwartz(EFI)
PR 156 1475
B.A. Sherwood(EFI)
Nevis 147 unpub.
J. Peoples(COLU)PL 8 87
S. Bloom et al.
(CERN)PL 9 62
J. Duclos et al.
(CERN)PL 11 185
I.I. Gurevich et al.
(KIAE)PL 7 368
A. Buhler-Broglin et al.
(CERN)PR 132 2693
S.L. Meyer et al.
(COLU)
PL 1 16
G. Charpak et al.
(CERN)NC 26 261
G. Conforto et al.
(INFN, ROMA, CERN)JETP 13 313
S.A. Ali-Zade, I.I. Gurevich, B.A. Nikolsky
Translated from ZETF 40 452.
PR 121 1823
R.R. Crittenden, W.D. Walker, J. Ballam(WISC+)UCRL 9322 unpub.
H. Kruger(LRL)
JETP 10 225
I.I. Gurevich, B.A. Nikolsky, L.V. Surkova(ITEP)
Translated from ZETF 37 318.
PR 119 1400
R.J. Plano(COLU)NC 14 1266
J. Ashkin et al.
(CERN)
PRL 2 56
M. Bardon, D. Berley, L.M. Lederman(COLU)
PRL 3 55
J. Lee, N.P. Samios(COLU)

https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 16Created: 7/25/2024 17:21