Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 52 references

Analysis of $\Sigma^*$ via isospin selective reaction $K_Lp \to \pi^+\Sigma^0$

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A fit to $K_L p \to \pi^+\Sigma^0$ data requires a $1/2^-$ $\Sigma^*$ resonance near 1.54 GeV, identified with the disputed $\Sigma(1620)$.

desk verdict A competent effective-Lagrangian fit that gives a new but model-dependent hint for Σ(1620); the 'essential' claim needs a broader background model before I'd trust it. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21343 v2 pith:NYRXSX6V submitted 2025-04-30 hep-ph nucl-th

Dan Guo , Jun Shi , Igor Strakovsky , Bing-Song Zou This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-th
keywords Sigma*resonancesSigma(1620)1/2isospin-selectivereactioneffectiveLagrangianhyperonspectroscopyK_Lptopi+Sigma0recoilpolarizationpartial-waveanalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the isospin-selective reaction $K_L p \to \pi^+\Sigma^0$, which proceeds only through the $I=1$ amplitude, is a clean probe of $\Sigma^*$ resonances and that the existing data require a $\Sigma^*(1/2^-)$ state near 1.54 GeV. Using an effective Lagrangian with the well-established $\Sigma(1189)1/2^+$, $\Sigma(1385)3/2^+$, $\Sigma(1670)3/2^-$, and $\Sigma(1775)5/2^-$ states plus $t$-channel $K^*$ and $u$-channel nucleon exchange, the authors fit the available differential cross sections and $\Sigma^0$ recoil polarization. A good description is achieved only when a $1/2^-$ resonance with mass around 1541 MeV and width around 129 MeV is added, which they identify with the long-disputed $\Sigma(1620)1/2^-$. If this is right, this channel gives stronger evidence for that state than earlier $\pi\Lambda$ analyses and also supports the $\Sigma(1660)1/2^+$ and $\Sigma(1580)3/2^-$. The result matters because the lowest $1/2^-$ hyperon multiplet is a sensitive test of quark-model and chiral-dynamics descriptions of baryons.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the isospin selection rule $T(K_L p\to\pi^+\Sigma^0) = -\frac{1}{2}T^{1}(KN\to\pi\Sigma)$, which forces the reaction through the pure $I=1$ amplitude and makes any required $s$-channel state a $\Sigma^*$. The carrying mechanism is a tree-level effective Lagrangian: $s$-channel exchange of $\Sigma$ and its resonances with spins $1/2^\pm$, $3/2^\pm$, and $5/2^-$, $t$-channel $K^*$ exchange, and $u$-channel nucleon exchange, with form factors $\Lambda^4/(\Lambda^4+(q^2-M^2)^2)$ and standard partial-wave phase conventions. The fit uses differential cross sections plus the recoil polarization of the final $\Sigma^0$, which is sensitive to interference between diagrams.

What would settle it

Measure $K_L p\to\pi^+\Sigma^0$ differential cross sections and $\Sigma^0$ recoil polarization with high statistics across $\sqrt{s}=1.50$-$1.65$ GeV and fit the same backgrounds and established resonances without any $1/2^-$ state; if that model describes the data within uncertainties, the claimed necessity of the 1.54 GeV $\Sigma^*(1/2^-)$ is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the $K_L p \to \pi^+\Sigma^0$ data cannot be described by the established four-star $\Sigma$ resonances plus the two background diagrams alone ($\chi^2/\mathrm{D.o.F}=2.789$), but are well described when a $\Sigma^*(1/2^-)$ with fitted mass $1541\pm3$ MeV and width $129\pm2$ MeV is included ($\chi^2/\mathrm{D.o.F}=1.606$). Because this reaction is pure $I=1$, any required $s$-channel state must be a $\Sigma^*$ rather than a $\Lambda^*$. The authors conclude that a $1/2^-$ hyperon in the $\Sigma(1620)$ region is essential in this channel, a stronger indication than found in the $K^-N\to\pi\Lambda$ analyses, and that $\Sigma(1660)1/2^+$ and $\Sigma(1580)3/2^-$ each improve the description. They also note that the same model reproduces the measured total cross section, which they take as support for the overall mechanism.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the non-resonant background consists only of the two exchange diagrams included in the model, in addition to the known resonances; if an unaccounted background process contributes significantly, the fitted $1/2^-$ state could be an artifact rather than a real resonance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the fit is correct, the $K_L p\to\pi^+\Sigma^0$ channel provides an isospin-clean route to the disputed $\Sigma(1620)1/2^-$, with the state appearing at roughly 1.54 GeV and width near 129 MeV.
  • Because removing the $1/2^-$ state visibly degrades the fit, high-statistics data on this reaction would directly test the existence and parameters of that resonance.
  • The same analysis gives complementary support for the $\Sigma(1660)1/2^+$ and $\Sigma(1580)3/2^-$ states, with coupling signs and magnitudes consistent with the standard listings.
  • The model's prediction for the total cross section agrees with the existing measurements, suggesting the chosen reaction mechanism captures the main dynamics.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A straightforward cross-check the paper does not perform is to enlarge the background set (extra $t$-channel exchanges, different form-factor functional forms); if the need for the $1/2^-$ state survives such changes, the case for $\Sigma(1620)$ becomes much stronger, but if it disappears the state would look like a model artifact.
  • The fitted mass of about 1.54 GeV sits between the roughly 1.65 GeV prediction of quark models and the roughly 1.4 GeV prediction of unquenched or dynamical chiral models, so a confirmed state at this mass would discriminate between those descriptions.
  • Adding $K_L p\to\pi^+\Lambda$ data in the same framework would test whether the same $\Sigma^*(1/2^-)$ pole appears in both $I=1$ final states; the authors call for such measurements, but the combined analysis is not carried out here.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the first effective-Lagrangian analysis of the isospin-selective reaction K_L p -> pi+ Sigma0, with s-channel Sigma and Sigma* exchanges, u-channel nucleon exchange, and t-channel K* exchange. Fitting 245 differential cross-section and recoil-polarization data points, the authors find that a model with the four well-established resonances alone gives chi2/d.o.f. = 2.789, while adding Sigma(1660)1/2+, Sigma(1620)1/2-, and Sigma(1580)3/2- yields chi2/d.o.f. = 1.606 with 22 parameters. They conclude that a Sigma*(1/2-) state with mass around 1.54 GeV, identified with Sigma(1620)1/2-, is essential for describing this channel, and they compare the predicted total cross section with experimental data.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a useful new piece of evidence for the long-contested Sigma(1620)1/2- state, obtained from a reaction that isolates the I=1 KN -> pi Sigma amplitude. The manuscript is careful in adopting PDG-compatible phase conventions, provides a reasonably complete parameter table for several fit scenarios, and explicitly identifies the limitations of the historical data. The main strength is that a pure I=1 channel is analyzed for the first time in an effective-Lagrangian framework, with a transparent model definition that can be tested by future JLab KLF data. The evidence is nevertheless suggestive rather than definitive: the improvement over the baseline is modest, the background model is minimal, and the quoted uncertainties are statistical only.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Table II] The fitted K*N Sigma coupling sits exactly at the lower boundary of the imposed range: g_K*N Sigma = -7.0 +/- 0.5 against the allowed interval [-7.0, -1.2], and the K* exchange is stated in the text to dominate the forward-angle enhancement. A fitted parameter pinned at its allowed boundary is a warning that the background model is absorbing strength from mechanisms not explicitly included. Because the claimed necessity of a Sigma(1620)1/2- pole depends on the residual after subtracting this background, the authors should test whether the pole survives when the t-channel treatment is extended (for example, by adding t-channel K exchange, a Reggeized K*, or allowing g_K*N Sigma outside the NSC97-based band). Without such a test, the abstract's 'essential' claim is model-dependent.
  2. [Section III, Table II and Figs. 2-3] The quantitative support for calling Sigma(1620) 'essential' is incomplete. The paper reports chi2/d.o.f. = 2.789 for the baseline and 1.774 for Fit III (which adds Sigma(1620) but removes Sigma(1660) and Sigma(1580)), but it never quotes the chi2 for the optimal model with only Sigma(1620) removed while keeping Sigma(1660) and Sigma(1580). The 'without Sigma(1620)' curves in Figs. 2 and 3 are displayed without a corresponding fit-quality number. The central claim should be backed by the Delta(chi2) and the parameter-count change for removing only Sigma(1620) from the preferred model.
  3. [Section III, Table II and Eq. (26)] The quoted uncertainties on the Sigma(1620) parameters (M = 1541 +/- 3 MeV, Gamma = 129 +/- 2 MeV, coupling product -0.633 +/- 0.009) are Hesse-matrix statistical errors only. Given the manuscript's own statement about large uncertainties and inconsistencies in the historical data, and given the untested form-factor and background assumptions in Eq. (26) and Fig. 1, these errors almost certainly understate the total uncertainty. The authors should provide a systematic uncertainty estimate, for example by varying the background set or the form-factor functional form, before claiming a precise mass around 1.54 GeV compatible with Sigma(1620).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table II] The column header of Table II appears to mislabel the third and fourth fit columns: from the Sigma(1660), Sigma(1580), and Sigma(1750) rows and from the D.o.F row, the third column corresponds to Fit III (Sigma(1620) only added) and the fourth to Fit II (with Sigma(1750)). Please correct the header order.
  2. [Section IV] The summary text lists 'Sigma(1189)1/2-' among the four-star resonances; Sigma(1189) has J^P = 1/2+, so this is a typo. The same paragraph also refers to 'Sigma(1750)3/2-', whereas the fit in Table II uses Sigma(1750)1/2-.
  3. [Fig. 4 and Section III] The total cross-section comparison in Fig. 4 is not an independent validation, because Refs. [46-48] are already used as differential cross-section input in the fit. The text should state explicitly that Fig. 4 is a consistency check of the same fitted data rather than a prediction against new data.
  4. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical and formatting errors (for example, 'KLP', 'ractions', 'e ffective', and inconsistent use of 'D.o.F' versus 'd.o.f.'). A careful proofread is needed before publication.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity in the central resonance claim; the only mildly circular element is the total-cross-section 'prediction', which is a consistency check rather than an independent validation.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III, paragraph introducing Fig. 4; see also Eq. (36)]
    "Moreover, based on the globally consistent fit to the differential cross sections and polarization data, we also present a comparison between the theoretical prediction and the experimental measurements of the total cross section [46–48, 51, 52], as shown in Fig. 4. The good agreement between the theoretical prediction and the experimental total cross section supports the validity of our analysis and indicates that the adopted scenario captures the essential features of the reaction dynamics."

    The 'theoretical prediction' is the angular integral of the differential cross section (Eq. 36) whose parameters were just fitted to the differential data of Refs. [45-48], and the comparison total-cross-section data include Refs. [46-48] already used in that fit. The agreement in Fig. 4 is therefore a consistency check of the fitted amplitude, not a statistically independent confirmation. This step is non-central: the Σ(1620) claim rests on the χ²/d.o.f. comparison (2.789 vs 1.606/1.774) with and without the resonance, which is a legitimate model-comparison argument and not circular.

full rationale

The central claim—that a Σ*(1/2−) near 1.54 GeV is essential—is derived from a model-comparison exercise: the baseline fit without the resonance gives χ²/d.o.f. = 2.789, while the fit including Σ(1620)1/2− gives 1.606 (or 1.774 when Σ(1660) and Σ(1580) are excluded). The resonance mass, width, and couplings are fitted parameters, but the paper does not present those fitted numbers as predictions; the 'essential' conclusion is a fit-quality comparison, which is standard phenomenology and not circular. The self-citations (Refs. [10-12,17,18]) are used for context, phase conventions, and SU(3) coupling estimates; they are not load-bearing for the new Σ(1620) finding, and the mass/width comparison with Refs. [49,50] is external. The only mildly circular element is the total-cross-section comparison in Fig. 4, where the 'prediction' is the integral of the just-fitted differential cross section and partly uses the same experimental references. This does not affect the central resonance claim. The concern about the limited non-resonant background (only t-channel K* and u-channel nucleon exchange) is a model-dependence/correctness risk, not a circularity, because the paper does not define the resonance in terms of that background.

Assumptions & free parameters 22 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on a tree-level effective Lagrangian model with 22 fitted parameters, SU(3)-motivated coupling priors, and the assumption that the included diagrams exhaust the relevant reaction mechanisms. The proposed Σ(1620) contribution is a hypothesis drawn from prior PDG listings, not a fundamentally new entity.

free parameters (22)
  • gK*NΣ = -7.0
    t-channel K* vector coupling, fitted within [-7.0, -1.2].
  • κK*NΣ = -1.6
    t-channel K* tensor coupling, fitted within [-2.3, -0.2].
  • Λ_K* = 0.97
    Form factor cutoff for K* exchange, range [0.5,2] GeV.
  • Λ_N = 1.42
    Form factor cutoff for u-channel nucleon exchange.
  • gKNΣ fπΣΣ (Σ1189) = -1.50 ± 3.0
    Product of ground-state couplings, poorly constrained.
  • Λ_Σ1189 = 0.5
    Cutoff for Σ(1189) channel.
  • fKNΣ* fπΣΣ* (Σ1385) = -1.34 ± 4.0
    Coupling product for Σ(1385).
  • Λ_Σ1385 = 0.50
    Cutoff for Σ(1385).
  • sqrt(ΓKNΓπΣ)/Γtot (Σ1670) = +0.26 ± 0.04
    Effective coupling for Σ(1670) 3/2-.
  • Λ_Σ1670 = 0.72 ± 0.07
    Cutoff for Σ(1670).
  • sqrt(ΓKNΓπΣ)/Γtot (Σ1775) = +0.24 ± 0.04
    Effective coupling for Σ(1775) 5/2-.
  • Λ_Σ1775 = 2.0 ± 1.4
    Cutoff for Σ(1775).
  • sqrt(ΓKNΓπΣ)/Γtot (Σ1580) = +0.032 ± 0.005
    Effective coupling for Σ(1580) 3/2-.
  • Λ_Σ1580 = 0.50 ± 0.09
    Cutoff for Σ(1580).
  • M (Σ1660) = 1.696 ± 0.010 GeV
    Fitted mass of Σ(1660) 1/2+.
  • Γ (Σ1660) = 0.108 ± 0.021 GeV
    Fitted width of Σ(1660).
  • coupling product (Σ1660) = -0.112 ± 0.006
    Effective coupling sqrt(ΓKNΓπΣ)/Γtot.
  • Λ_Σ1660 = 2.0 ± 0.8
    Cutoff for Σ(1660).
  • M (Σ1620) = 1.541 ± 0.003 GeV
    Fitted mass of the crucial 1/2- state.
  • Γ (Σ1620) = 0.129 ± 0.002 GeV
    Fitted width of the 1/2- state.
  • coupling product (Σ1620) = -0.633 ± 0.009
    Effective coupling sqrt(ΓKNΓπΣ)/Γtot.
  • Λ_Σ1620 = 0.89 ± 0.04
    Cutoff for Σ(1620).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The reaction amplitude is given by tree-level diagrams with only s-channel Sigma(*) exchange, u-channel nucleon exchange, and t-channel K* exchange.
    This truncation is assumed to capture the essential dynamics; if additional backgrounds are significant, inferred resonance contributions could change. Introduced in Sec. II (Fig. 1).
  • standard math CP violation is negligible, so K_L is a CP eigenstate and T(K_L p -> pi+ Sigma0) = -1/2 T^1(KN -> piSigma).
    Standard treatment for hadron scattering precision; Eq. (1)-(2).
  • domain assumption Coupling constants of established resonances are anchored by SU(3) symmetry and decay width estimates, with a tunable factor 1/2 to 2.
    The fit ranges for couplings assume those estimates are reliable priors. Sec. II.
  • ad hoc to paper The form factor in Eq. (26) (monopole form with cutoff Lambda in [0.5, 2] GeV) describes off-shell effects.
    Functional form and cutoff range are chosen ad hoc; results could depend on this choice.
  • domain assumption The partial-wave phase conventions and the signs of the imaginary parts of the four-star resonance amplitudes follow PDG and SU(3) assignments.
    Table I and Sec. III fix relative signs; wrong conventions could alter interference patterns and the role of each resonance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analysis of $\Sigma^*$ via isospin selective reaction $K_Lp \to \pi^+\Sigma^0$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NYRXSX6V

@misc{pith2026250421343,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analysis of $\Sigma^*$ via isospin selective reaction $K_Lp \to \pi^+\Sigma^0$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NYRXSX6V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21343}
}
abstract

The isospin-selective reaction $K_Lp \to \pi^+\Sigma^0$ provides a clean probe for investigating $I=1$ $\Sigma^*$ resonances. In this work, we perform an analysis of this reaction using an effective Lagrangian approach for the first time, incorporating the well-established $\Sigma(1189) 1/2^+$, $\Sigma(1385) 3/2^+$, $\Sigma(1670) 3/2^-$, $\Sigma(1775) 5/2^-$ states, while also exploring contributions from other unestablished states. By fitting the available differential cross section and recoil polarization data, adhering to partial-wave phase conventions same as PDG, we find that besides the established resonances, contributions from $\Sigma(1660) 1/2^+$, $\Sigma(1580) 3/2^-$ and a $\Sigma^*(1/2^-)$ improve the description. Notably, a $\Sigma^*(1/2^-)$ resonance with mass around 1.54 GeV, consistent with $\Sigma(1620)1/2^-$, is found to be essential for describing the data in this channel, a stronger indication than found in previous analyses focusing on $\pi\Lambda$ final states. While providing complementary support for $\Sigma(1660) 1/2^+$ and $\Sigma(1580) 3/2^-$, our results highlight the importance of the $\Sigma(1620) 1/2^-$ region in $K_Lp \to \pi^+\Sigma^0$. Future high-precision measurements are needed to solidify these findings and further constrain the $\Sigma^*$ spectrum.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21343 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The tree-level Feynman diagrams of the process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The fitted di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The recoil polarizations of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The comparison of predicted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. [Particle Data Group], Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.3, 030001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Capstick and W

    S. Capstick and W. Roberts, Quark models of baryon masses and decays, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 45, S241-S331 (2000)

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    Capstick and N

    S. Capstick and N. Isgur, Baryons in a relativized quark model with chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 34, no.9, 2809-2835 (1986)

    work page 1986

  4. [4]

    L. Y . Glozman and D. O. Riska, The Spectrum of the nucleons and the strange hyperons and chiral dynamics, Phys. Rept. 268, 263-303 (1996)

    work page 1996

  5. [5]

    Loring, B

    U. Loring, B. C. Metsch and H. R. Petry, The Light baryon spectrum in a relativistic quark model with instanton induced quark forces: The Nonstrange baryon spectrum and ground states, Eur. Phys. J. A 10, 395-446 (2001)

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    Helminen and D

    C. Helminen and D. O. Riska, Low lying qqqq¯q states in the baryon spectrum, Nucl. Phys. A 699, 624-648 (2002)

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    Zhang, Y

    A. Zhang, Y . R. Liu, P. Z. Huang, W. Z. Deng, X. L. Chen and S. L. Zhu, JP = 1 2 − pentaquarks in Jaffe and Wilczek’s diquark model, HEPNP 29, 250 (2005)

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    B. S. Zou, Five-quark components in baryons, Nucl. Phys. A 835, 199-206 (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    B. S. Zou, On the nature of the lowest 1 /2− baryon nonet and decuplet, Eur. Phys. J. A 35, 325-328 (2008)

    2008

  2. [10]

    J. J. Wu, S. Dulat and B. S. Zou, Evidence for a new Σ∗ reso- nance with JP = 1/2− in the old data of K− p→ Λπ+π− reac- tion, Phys. Rev. D 80, 017503 (2009)

    2009

  3. [11]

    J. J. Wu, S. Dulat and B. S. Zou, Further evidence for the Σ∗ resonance with JP = 1/2− around 1380 MeV , Phys. Rev. C81, 045210 (2010)

    2010

  4. [12]

    P. Gao, J. J. Wu and B. S. Zou, Possible Σ( 1 2 − ) under the Σ∗(1385) peak in KΣ∗ photoproduction, Phys. Rev. C 81, 055203 (2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    K. A. Olive et al. [Particle Data Group], Review of Particle Physics, Chin. Phys. C 38, 090001 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    W. T. Lyu, S. C. Zhang, G. Y . Wang, J. J. Wu, E. Wang, L. S. Geng and J. J. Xie, Evidence of the low-lying baryon Σ∗(1/2−) in the process Λ+ c → ηπ+Λ, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.5, 054020 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Y . Li, W. T. Lyu, G. Y . Wang, L. Li, W. C. Yan and E. Wang, Study of Ξ+ c → Λ ¯K0π+ and search for the low-lying baryons Ξ(1/2−) and Σ(1/2−), Phys. Rev. D 111, no.5, 054011 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    E. Wang, L. S. Geng, J. J. Wu, J. J. Xie and B. S. Zou, Review of the Low-Lying Excited Baryons Σ∗(1/2−), Chin. Phys. Lett. 41, no.10, 101401 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    P. Gao, B. S. Zou and A. Sibirtsev, Analysis of the new Crystal Ball data on K− p→π0Λ reaction with beam momenta of 514− 750 MeV/c, Nucl. Phys. A 867, 41-51 (2011)

    2011

  10. [18]

    P. Gao, J. Shi and B. S. Zou, Σ Resonances from K−N→ πΛ reactions with the center of mass energy from 1550 to 1676 MeV , Phys. Rev. C86, 025201 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    Prakhov, B

    S. Prakhov, B. M. K. Nefkens, V . Bekrenev, W. J. Briscoe, N. Knecht, A. Koulbardis, N. Kozlenko, S. Kruglov, G. Lo- los and I. Lopatin, et al. Measurement of π0Λ, ¯K0n, and π0Σ0 production in K− p interactions for pK− between 514 and 750 MeV/c, Phys. Rev. C 80, 025204 (2009)

    2009

  12. [20]

    W. A. Morris, J. R. Albright, A. P. Colleraine, J. D. Kimel and J. E. Lannutti, Reaction K−n→ Λ0π− from 1550 MeV to 1650 MeV , Phys. Rev. D17, 55-61 (1978)

    1978

  13. [21]

    Amaryan, E

    M. Amaryan, E. Chudakov, C. Meyer, M. Pennington, J. Rit- man and I. Strakovsky, Mini-Proceedings: Workshop on Physics with Neutral Kaon Beam at JLab (KL2016): Newport News, V A, USA, February 1-3, 2016, arXiv:1604.02141 [hep- ph]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Adhikari et al

    S. Adhikari et al. [GlueX], Strange Hadron Spectroscopy with a Secondary KL Beam at GlueX, arXiv:1707.05284 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Amaryan et al

    M. Amaryan et al. [KLF], Strange Hadron Spectroscopy with Secondary KL Beam in Hall D, arXiv:2008.08215 [nucl-ex]

    2008 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Kamano, S

    H. Kamano, S. X. Nakamura, T. S. H. Lee and T. Sato, Nucleon resonances within a dynamical coupled-channels model of πN andγN reactions, Phys. Rev. C 88, no.3, 035209 (2013)

    2013

  17. [25]

    Doring, C

    M. Doring, C. Hanhart, F. Huang, S. Krewald, U. G. Meiss- ner and D. Ronchen, The reaction π+ p→ K+Σ+ in a unitary coupled-channels model, Nucl. Phys. A 851, 58-98 (2011)

    2011

  18. [26]

    Y . Oh, C. M. Ko and K. Nakayama, Nucleon and Delta reso- nances in KΣ(1385) photoproduction from nucleons, Phys. Rev. C 77, 045204 (2008)

    2008

  19. [27]

    Johnson and E

    K. Johnson and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Inconsistency of the local field theory of charged spin 3/2 particles, Annals Phys. 13, 126- 145 (1961)

    1961

  20. [28]

    Velo and D

    G. Velo and D. Zwanziger, Propagation and quantization of Rarita-Schwinger waves in an external electromagnetic poten- tial, Phys. Rev. 186, 1337-1341 (1969)

    1969

  21. [29]

    Pascalutsa, Quantization of an interacting spin-3/2 field and the Delta isobar, Phys

    V . Pascalutsa, Quantization of an interacting spin-3/2 field and the Delta isobar, Phys. Rev. D 58, 096002 (1998)

    1998

  22. [30]

    Pascalutsa and R

    V . Pascalutsa and R. Timmermans, Field theory of nucleon to higher spin baryon transitions, Phys. Rev. C60, 042201 (1999)

    1999

  23. [31]

    Pascalutsa, Correspondence of consistent and inconsistent spin-3/2 couplings via the equivalence theorem, Phys

    V . Pascalutsa, Correspondence of consistent and inconsistent spin-3/2 couplings via the equivalence theorem, Phys. Lett. B 503, 85-90 (2001)

    2001

  24. [32]

    Fernandez-Ramirez, E

    C. Fernandez-Ramirez, E. Moya de Guerra and J. M. Udias, Effective Lagrangian approach to pion photoproduction from the nucleon, Annals Phys. 321, 1408-1456 (2006)

    2006

  25. [33]

    J. M. Alarcon, J. Martin Camalich and J. A. Oller, Improved description of the πN-scattering phenomenology in covariant baryon chiral perturbation theory, Annals Phys. 336, 413-461 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    Shklyar, G

    V . Shklyar, G. Penner and U. Mosel, Spin 5 /2 resonance con- tributions to the pion induced reactions for energies √s≤ 2.0 GeV , Eur. Phys. J. A21, 445-454 (2004)

    2004

  27. [35]

    X. H. Cao, M. L. Du and F. K. Guo, Photoproduction of the X(3872) beyond vector meson dominance: the open-charm coupled-channel mechanism, J. Phys. G 51, no.10, 105002 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Descotes-Genon and M

    S. Descotes-Genon and M. Novoa-Brunet, Angular analysis of the rare decay Λb → Λ(1520)(→ NK )ℓ+ℓ−, JHEP 06, 136 (2019)[erratum: JHEP 06, 102 (2020)]

    2019

  29. [37]

    Ronchen, M

    D. Ronchen, M. Doring, F. Huang, H. Haberzettl, J. Haiden- bauer, C. Hanhart, S. Krewald, U. G. Meissner and K. Nakayama, Coupled-channel dynamics in the reactions πN→πN,ηN, KΛ, KΣ, Eur. Phys. J. A 49, 44 (2013)

    2013

  30. [38]

    A. C. Wang, N. C. Wei and F. Huang, Analysis of the γp→ K+Σ0(1385), γn→ K+Σ−(1385), and π+ p→ K+Σ+(1385) re- actions, Phys. Rev. D 111, no.5, 054032 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    Mueller- Groeling, K

    A. Mueller- Groeling, K. Holinde and J. Speth, K−N interaction in the meson exchange framework, Nucl. Phys. A513, 557-583 (1990)

    1990

  32. [40]

    V . G. J. Stoks and T. A. Rijken, Soft core baryon baryon poten- tials for the complete baryon octet, Phys. Rev. C59, 3009-3020 (1999)

    1999

  33. [41]

    Y . Oh, K. Nakayama and T. S. H. Lee, Pentaquark Θ+(1540) production inγN→ KKN , Phys. Rept. 423, 49-89 (2006)

    2006

  34. [42]

    Shi and B

    J. Shi and B. S. Zou, Theoretical study of Λ resonances from an 11 analysis of Crystal Ball K− p→π0Σ0 reaction data with center- of-mass energies of 1536–1676 MeV , Phys. Rev. C 91, no.3, 035202 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    Penner and U

    G. Penner and U. Mosel, Vector meson production and nucleon resonance analysis in a coupled channel approach for energies mN <√s< 2 GeV . I. Pion induced results and hadronic param- eters, Phys. Rev. C 66, 055211 (2002)

    2002

  36. [44]

    Levi Setti, Strange baryon resonances, Conf

    R. Levi Setti, Strange baryon resonances, Conf. Proc. C 690625, 339-383 (1969)

    1969

  37. [45]

    Y . Cho, M. Derrick, R. J. Miller, R. P. Smith, A. Engler, G. Keyes, R. W. Kraemer, J. Schlereth and M. Tanaka, K0 L p Interactions at 550 MeV/c, Phys. Lett. B 60, 293-296 (1976)

    1976

  38. [46]

    Engler, G

    A. Engler, G. Keyes, R. W. Kraemer, M. Tanaka, Y . Cho, M. Derrick, D. Lissauer, R. J. Miller, J. Schlereth and R. P. Smith, A Study of the Reactions K0 L p→ K0 S p, Λπ+, Σ0π+ and Λπ+π0 Near 550 MeV/c, Phys. Rev. D 18, 3061 (1978)

    1978

  39. [47]

    Burkhardt, A

    E. Burkhardt, A. Pfei ffer, A. Putzer, G. Alexander, I. Bar-Nir, O. Benary, I. Borowitz, S. Dagan, A. Levy and D. Lissauer, et al. Study of the ¯K0 p → Λπ+, Σ0π+ Reactions in the En- ergy Range of 1.5 GeV to 2.3 GeV , Nucl. Phys. B99, 365-375 (1975)

    1975

  40. [48]

    Cameron et al

    W. Cameron et al. [Bologna-Edinburgh-Glasgow-Pisa- Rutherford], K0 L p Interactions in the Center-Of-Mass Energy Range 1.54 GeV to 1.71 GeV , Nucl. Phys. B 132, 189-211 (1978)

    1978

  41. [49]

    Zhang, J

    H. Zhang, J. Tulpan, M. Shrestha and D. M. Manley, Multichan- nel parametrization of ¯KN scattering amplitudes and extraction of resonance parameters, Phys. Rev. C88, no.3, 035205 (2013)

    2013

  42. [50]

    Kamano, S

    H. Kamano, S. X. Nakamura, T. S. H. Lee and T. Sato, Dynam- ical coupled-channels model of K− p reactions. II. Extraction of Λ∗ and Σ∗ hyperon resonances, Phys. Rev. C 92, no.2, 025205 (2015), [erratum: Phys. Rev. C 95, no.4, 049903 (2017)]

    2015

  43. [51]

    Engler, G

    A. Engler, G. Keyes, R. W. Kraemer, J. Schlereth, M. Tanaka, Y . Cho, M. Derrick, D. Lissauer, R. J. Miller and R. P. Smith, Energy Dependence of the Reactions K0 L p→ K0 s p,π+Λ,π+Σ0 from 1540 MeV to 1610 MeV , Phys. Lett. B 63, 231-234 (1976)

    1976

  44. [52]

    Yamartino, G

    R. Yamartino, G. W. Brandenburg, W. B. Johnson, D. W. G. S. Leith, J. S. Loos, G. Luste, J. A. J. Matthews, K. Moriyasu, W. M. Smart and F. C. Winkelmann, A Study of the Reactions ¯K0 p→ Λπ+ and ¯K0 p→ Σ0π+ from 1 to 12 GeV/c, Phys. Rev. D 10, 9 (1974)

    1974

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.