LEP GC averages:

GC   95% ranges
---------------------------

Neutral hTGCs (95%CL):

- 1-dim:

h1g = [-0.056, 0.055] 
h2g = [-0.045, 0.025] 
h3g = [-0.049, 0.008] 
h4g = [-0.002, 0.034] 
h1z = [-0.13,   0.13]
h2z = [-0.078, 0.071] 
h3z = [-0.20,   0.07] 
h4z = [-0.05,   0.12] 

- 2-dim

h1g = [-0.16   +0.05 ]  1.00  0.79
h2g = [-0.11   +0.02 ]  0.79  1.00

h1z = [-0.35   +0.28 ]  1.00  0.77
h2z = [-0.21   +0.17 ]  0.77  1.00

h3g = [-0.08   +0.14 ]  1.00  0.97
h4g = [-0.04   +0.11 ]  0.97  1.00

h3z = [-0.37   +0.29 ]  1.00  0.76
h4z = [-0.19   +0.21 ]  0.76  1.00


Neutral fTGCs (95%CL):

- 1-dim
[
f4g =  [-0.17   +0.19 ]
f4z =  [-0.31   +0.28 ]
f5g =  [-0.36   +0.40 ]
f5z =  [-0.36   +0.39 ]

- 2-dim

f4g =  [-0.17   +0.19 ]  1.00  0.10
f4z =  [-0.30   +0.28 ]  0.10  1.00

f5g =  [-0.34   +0.38 ]  1.00 -0.18
f5z =  [-0.36   +0.38 ] -0.18  1.00


QGCs (95%CL):
The Quartic Gauge Couplings are all assuming the ZZgg vertex to vanish 
as in the Standard Model.

There is a known sign difference in the treatment of the a^w_0,n,c couplings
between the Monte Carlos EEWW (Stirling&Wertenbach) and WARP (Nicrosini et.al.)
for the WWg final state. The combinations use the sign convention from
Stirling&Wertenbach as it was used in the previous publications. The limits
derived from the nngg final state are basically symmetric and a possible sign
difference should have no significant effect the combinations.

- 1-dim


nngg+WWg

a0l2=  [-0.018 +0.018]
acl2=  [-0.033 +0.047]

WWg

anl2=  [-0.17  +0.15 ]