Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Computational framework evaluates BaBar hadronic vacuum polarization data, revealing successful integrated scalar predictions alongside severe lineshape discrepancies.
Which HVP object is the source, which one is the apparatus, and which one is only statistics? The paper-native BaBar source-access word is frozen before the public row is judged: \[ FBaBarQTT(s)=e-4χ_0({R2πsrc,QTT(s)}{Gsrc,BaBar})-4χ_0, χ_0=15/512ρ. \] Version 52.0 types the complete route from source to access word, calibrated physical camera, finite binning, nuisance quotient, and covariance verdict. A camera attenuation is not silently relabelled as the canonical Access-Law projector. Two results are simultaneously true. In the primary BaBar window, the integrated scalar is \[ aμ,2πQTT=371.643570327919×10⁻¹⁰, za_μ=-0.593757, \] a scoped QTT zero-target-fit empirical victory for the scalar direction. The same frozen source fails the resolved lineshape: \[ χ^2ₛₕ=85030.2610802301, νₛₕ=139, χ^20.95(139)=167.514304991. \] This is a frozen-source failure, not a quantity available for post-hoc source repair. The scalar result and functional failure are different covariance observables and neither is allowed to erase the other. Verification: 28/28 typed-access checks and the inherited 31/31 independent HVP checks pass. The full 360-page execution history is retained.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Attar Ali (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: