Combined analysis of the data on cross sections and spin density matrix elements for $K^*\Sigma$ photoproduction reactions

Ai-Chao Wang; Fei Huang; Neng-Chang Wei

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 35 references

Combined analysis of the data on cross sections and spin density matrix elements for $K^*\Sigma$ photoproduction reactions

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the measured spin-density-matrix data for γp → K∗0Σ+ do not require a dominant κ exchange, contrary to earlier claims, and that two equally good fits bracket the ambiguity, leaving the reaction mechanism undetermined u

desk verdict A genuinely useful ambiguity result — the LEPS Pσ data do not uniquely require κ exchange — but the 'equally good fits' claim rests on a single-centroid comparison that a referee should push on. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.28337 v3 pith:PEB4U3OP submitted 2026-03-30 hep-ph nucl-th

Ai-Chao Wang , Neng-Chang Wei , Fei Huang This is my paper

classification hep-phnucl-th PACS 25.20.Lj13.60.Le14.20.Gk

keywords K*photoproductionspindensitymatrixelementsparityasymmetrykappamesonexchangeeffectiveLagrangianDelta(1905)5/2+resonancereactionmechanismK*Sigmaproduction

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

This paper re-analyzes K∗Σ photoproduction by combining differential cross-section data with spin density matrix elements, which had never been included together before. The authors find two distinct solutions that describe all existing data equally well: one where t-channel κ exchange is negligible, and one where it is large. Both require the Δ(1905)5/2+ resonance. The key conclusion is that the parity spin asymmetry Pσ measured at low photon energies (1.85–2.96 GeV) does not force κ-exchange dominance, contradicting earlier interpretations. A clear discriminator is predicted at 8.5 GeV, where the two models give Pσ below 0.5 versus close to 1.

What carries the argument

The analysis uses an effective Lagrangian amplitude for γN → K∗Σ including t-channel K, κ, and K∗ exchanges; s-channel N, Δ, and Δ(1905)5/2+ contributions; u-channel Λ, Σ, and Σ∗ exchanges; and a generalized contact term chosen to preserve gauge invariance via the Ward-Takahashi identity. The key observable is the parity spin asymmetry Pσ = 2ρ¹₁₋₁ − ρ¹₀₀, which in a pure t-channel picture measures the ratio of natural to unnatural parity exchange. The paper shows that this simple interpretation breaks down at low energies where s- and u-channel contributions interfere, so Pσ near unity is not a reliable indicator of κ dominance.

What would settle it

Measure the parity spin asymmetry Pσ for γp → K∗0Σ+ at Eγ = 8.5 GeV and small scattering angles. If the measured value is close to 1, model II is favored; if it is below 0.5, model I is favored. A value in between would indicate both models are inadequate. Conversely, a direct partial-wave or amplitude analysis of the low-energy data that shows a different interference pattern could falsify the specific no-κ solution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the LEPS parity spin asymmetry data for γp → K∗0Σ+, which lie near unity and were previously taken as evidence for dominant natural-parity κ exchange, are actually insufficient to determine the κ contribution. The authors obtain two equally good fits to the combined cross-section and spin-density-matrix data. In model I the κ exchange is almost negligible; in model II it is significant. Both reproduce the Pσ data well, showing that Pσ ≈ 1 can arise from interference involving s-channel resonance contributions even without κ exchange. The paper therefore concludes that the current low-energy data cannot settle the role of κ exchange, and provides predictions at E

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion depends on the effective-Lagrangian amplitude being a complete and reliable representation of the background, including the chosen prescription for the interaction current and the truncation to the listed s/t/u channels plus the Δ(1905)5/2+ resonance; if that representation is wrong, the no-κ fit could be an artifact and the claim that Pσ is uninformative would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The existing LEPS spin-density-matrix data cannot be used to claim κ exchange dominance; the ambiguity remains open.
The two fits both require the Δ(1905)5/2+ resonance, reinforcing its importance in this reaction.
The prediction at Eγ = 8.5 GeV gives Pσ < 0.5 for the no-κ model and Pσ ≈ 1 for the κ-dominant model, providing a clear experimental test.
Future high-energy measurements, such as those accessible at GlueX, can discriminate between the two reaction mechanisms.
A combined analysis of cross sections and spin density matrix elements imposes stronger constraints than cross sections alone, but still permits multiple solutions.

Reading between the lines

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

If a high-energy measurement of Pσ lands near 1, it would support the κ-dominant model, but the paper itself notes that a Regge formalism might be more appropriate at 8.5 GeV, so the quantitative prediction could be model-dependent.
The same lesson likely applies to other reactions where Pσ or similar observables are used to infer exchange mechanisms: the interpretation is only clean when t-channel dominance is guaranteed.
The degeneracy between the two fits suggests that additional polarization observables (e.g., beam asymmetries or target asymmetries) could break the ambiguity at low energies without needing a higher-energy machine.
The conclusion relies on the completeness of the included channels; if alternative resonance contributions (such as molecular N∗ states) are added, the interference pattern might change and a no-κ solution could be harder to sustain.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper makes a real point: the LEPS Pσ data for γp→K*0Σ+ do not force a dominant κ-exchange contribution. Two fits that describe the data equally well—one with negligible κ, one with significant κ—are plausible because s-channel contributions can push Pσ toward unity even when κ is absent. That is new and worth knowing, and it is a fair correction to the earlier claim that Pσ≈1 is essentially a fingerprint of κ exchange.

What the paper does well: it is honest about the ambiguity, it frames the prediction at 8.5 GeV as a testable discriminator, and it uses PDG constraints on the resonance parameters. The logic that Pσ≈1 only proves natural-parity dominance when t-channel exchange truly dominates is clearly laid out. The conclusion is not circular; the two fits are genuine outcomes, and the high-energy predictions are out-of-sample.

The main soft spot is the single-centroid treatment of the LEPS energy bin. The data span Eγ=1.85–2.96 GeV, and the two models differ precisely in the balance of s-channel versus t-channel strength, which have different energy dependences. Evaluating both models at one centroid could in principle make them look equally compatible with energy-averaged data even when a proper integration would separate them. This is the load-bearing part of the 'equally good' claim, so it is a serious issue, not a cosmetic one. The authors should integrate over the bin or, at minimum, show both models' Pσ as a function of W across the bin.

Second, no χ2 is reported for the SDME fits. The figures look suggestive, but 'well reproduced' is doing a lot of work. A referee will want a quantitative measure, especially with ~20 free parameters. Third, the 8.5 GeV predictions come from a Feynman-type effective Lagrangian with no uncertainty bands, and the authors themselves note a Regge treatment may be more appropriate. Those predictions are qualitative, and should be labeled as such.

Minor but worth noting: CBELSA/TAPS cross sections are cited in the introduction but not included in the fit, with no stated reason. And the interaction current prescription is taken from earlier work; that model dependence is inherent to effective Lagrangians, but it does mean the no-κ solution is only as good as that prescription.

Overall, the central ambiguity claim is plausible and the paper deserves a serious referee. I would send it out. The referee should ask for an energy-averaged SDME comparison, a χ2 for the spin-density-matrix data, and a discussion of how sensitive the 8.5 GeV predictions are to the model assumptions. If the energy-averaging separates the two fits, the conclusion would need revision; if not, the paper will be a useful reference for the K*Σ community.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper extends the authors' earlier effective-Lagrangian analysis of γp→K*Σ photoproduction (Ref. [15]) by including the LEPS spin-density-matrix-element (SDME) data for γp→K*0Σ+ at Eγ=1.85–2.96 GeV [14]. After refitting the combined differential-cross-section and SDME data, the authors report two parameter sets—model I, in which t-channel κ exchange is negligible, and model II, in which κ exchange is significant—that they claim describe all data equally well. From this they conclude that the measured parity spin asymmetry Pσ≈1 does not uniquely require dominant κ exchange, contradicting the claim in Ref. [14]. They further present predictions for Pσ at Eγ=8.5 GeV that would discriminate between the two reaction mechanisms.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper overturns a frequently cited interpretation that low-energy LEPS Pσ data establish κ dominance in γp→K*0Σ+, and it provides a concrete, falsifiable high-energy prediction. This is, to the best of my knowledge, the first combined analysis of K*Σ cross-section and SDME data, and it is therefore of clear interest to the hadronic photoproduction community. The paper is careful in explaining the validity condition of Eq. (7) (t-channel dominance is required before Pσ≈1 can be read as natural-parity exchange) and is honest about the Regge-regime caveat at 8.5 GeV. The explicit parameter tables, the dσ χ² values, and the out-of-sample nature of the 8.5-GeV prediction are definite strengths. The main weaknesses are the absence of any quantitative measure for the SDME fits and the questionable treatment of the 1.11-GeV-wide LEPS energy bin as a single centroid.

major comments (3)

[§III, Figs. 8–9] The claim that the two models describe the LEPS SDME and Pσ data 'equally well' is central, but it is never quantified. The only χ² values reported are χ²_dσ/N_D = 1.97 and 2.02 for differential cross sections; no χ² is given for the nine SDME panels of Fig. 8 or for Pσ in Fig. 9. Please report the χ² per data point for the SDME data (with the number of points and, if possible, the treatment of point-to-point correlations) for both models. Without a quantitative measure, 'well reproduced' is based on visual inspection, and the 'equally good fits' assertion is not established.
[§III, Fig. 8] The LEPS data span Eγ=1.85–2.96 GeV, yet the calculations are made at a single centroid value. This is a load-bearing approximation: model I and model II differ precisely in the relative weight of the subthreshold Δ(1905)5/2+ tail, t-channel κ, and K* exchanges, all of which have a strong W dependence over this range. A centroid evaluation can make a model appear compatible with acceptance-averaged data even when the properly energy-averaged prediction does not reproduce Pσ≈1. Please fold both models through the LEPS Eγ distribution (or at least evaluate at the quoted 100-MeV bins and average) and repeat the comparison of Fig. 8 and Fig. 9. If the LEPS photon-energy distribution is not publicly available, state that explicitly and examine the sensitivity by using flat or realistic ansätze.
[§II, Eq. (1)] The central negative result—that a no-κ model can reproduce Pσ≈1—is obtained within one particular effective-Lagrangian framework: the interaction current M_int is taken from Refs. [23–26], the amplitude is truncated to the listed s/t/u channels, and the recently proposed molecular resonances of Ref. [20] are not included. Because the LEPS data are part of the fit, reproducing them is not an independent validation of the model space. A robustness check is needed: for example, test one alternative gauge-invariant prescription for M_int, or add the N(2080)3/2− state of Ref. [20], and state whether the two-fit ambiguity and the Pσ≈1 prediction of model I survive. Without such a check, the conclusion should be framed as 'within this model space the data do not determine κ exchange' rather than as a general statement about the data.

minor comments (6)

[§III, Fig. 8] The centroid energy is never given numerically. State explicitly the adopted Eγ (or W) at which the curves in Figs. 8 and 9 are evaluated, and consider plotting bands that span the 1.85–2.96 GeV range to show the energy sensitivity.
[Table I] Some model II uncertainties are very small (e.g., Δ(1905) mass 1910±0.4 MeV, g_RΣK* values with ±0.1% relative errors) compared to model I. Please state whether these are purely statistical from the χ² minimum and whether the minimum is flat in those directions. The reader needs to know whether the quoted values are well-constrained or numerical artifacts.
[Fig. 10] Define precisely what 'switching off' the Δ(1905)5/2+, κ, and K exchanges means (set the coupling to zero? remove the propagator? suppress the form factor?). The same operation should be specified for Figs. 6 and 7.
[Running header/title] The manuscript text displays 'spin dens ity matrix elements' with a spurious space; correct the typo.
[§III, p. 3] The sentence 'Note that in the literature, the LEPS data on spin density matrix elements has never been analyzed by theoretical works' is a strong priority claim. If true, keep it, but consider softening to 'has not been included in a combined fit with cross sections' unless a complete literature check is intended.
[§III, Fig. 6/7 caption] The captions refer to 'upper graph' and 'lower graph' but the panels are not labelled as (a) and (b); adding panel labels would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central non-uniqueness claim rests on two genuine fits, and the 8.5 GeV predictions are out-of-sample.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing steps are (i) fitting parameters to CLAS cross sections plus LEPS SDMEs, (ii) finding two distinct local minima (model I and model II) with nearly equal chi-square, and (iii) predicting P_sigma at 8.5 GeV. The SDME/LEPS data are inputs to the fit, but the paper never presents their reproduction as an independent prediction; the central claim is the non-uniqueness of the fitted kappa-exchange contribution, which is exactly the sort of ambiguity a fit can exhibit and is not circular. The 8.5 GeV predictions are genuine out-of-sample extrapolations (the paper itself notes a Regge formalism might be more appropriate there, a correctness caveat, not circularity). The main self-citation is to Ref. [15] for the full effective-Lagrangian amplitude ('The explicit expressions ... can be found in our previous work [15]'), but that prior work is a published independent analysis of cross-section data, and the present conclusion is not equivalent to it. The interaction-current prescription is explicitly attributed to Refs [23-26] and the gauge-invariance requirement, not to a self-citation. The centroid-energy evaluation of the 1.11 GeV LEPS bin is a possible systematic/correctness concern, but it does not make any prediction equal to its input by construction. No circular reduction was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 20 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central result is a statement about the degeneracy of fits to data; it therefore rests on the ~20 fitted parameters in Table I and on the model assumptions listed. No new particles or entities are introduced.

free parameters (20)

g(2)_{Σ*+Σ+γ}/g(1)_{Σ*+Σ+γ} = model I: -1.83 ± 0.76; model II: 0.50 ± 0.74
Ratio of Σ*+ electromagnetic couplings; fitted to combined data.
g(1)_{Σ*0Σ0γ} = model I: -2.54 ± 0.68; model II: -0.00029 ± 0.0003
Electromagnetic coupling for Σ*0; fitted because no PDG decay info is available.
g(2)_{Σ*0Σ0γ} = model I: 2.62 ± 0.36; model II: -5.78 ± 2.8
Second electromagnetic coupling for Σ*0; fitted.
g(1)_{ΔΣK*} = model I: 20.14 ± 2; model II: -25.0 ± 3.6
ΔΣK* coupling; fitted and affects s-channel Δ contributions.
Λ_N = model I: 1737 ± 28 MeV; model II: 1000 ± 15 MeV
Cutoff mass for s-channel nucleon exchange; treated as independent free parameter.
Λ_Δ = model I: 1368 ± 10 MeV; model II: 1137 ± 24 MeV
Cutoff mass for s-channel Δ exchange; fitted.
Λ_{Σ*} = model I: 857 ± 22 MeV; model II: 838 ± 18 MeV
Cutoff mass for u-channel Σ* exchange; fitted.
Λ_Λ = model I: 745 ± 25 MeV; model II: 779 ± 15 MeV
Cutoff mass for u-channel Λ exchange; fitted.
Λ_Σ = model I: 1194 ± 9 MeV; model II: 1173 ± 9 MeV
Cutoff mass for u-channel Σ exchange; fitted.
Λ_K = model I: 700 ± 10 MeV; model II: 833 ± 19 MeV
Cutoff mass for t-channel K exchange; fitted.
Λ_κ = model I: 1000 ± 2 MeV; model II: 1800 ± 2 MeV
Cutoff mass for t-channel κ exchange; this parameter controls whether κ is negligible or significant and is the key ambiguity in the paper.
Λ_{K*} = model I: 1100 ± 3 MeV; model II: 1293 ± 15 MeV
Cutoff mass for t-channel K* exchange; fitted.
M_R (Δ(1905)5/2+) = model I: 1855 ± 2 MeV; model II: 1910 ± 0.4 MeV
Resonance mass; fitted within the PDG recommended range.
Γ_R (Δ(1905)5/2+) = model I: 346 ± 91 MeV; model II: 400 ± 2 MeV
Resonance width; fitted within the PDG recommended range.
A1/2 (Δ(1905)5/2+) = model I: 0.025 ± 0.007 GeV^-1/2; model II: 0.017 ± 0.0001 GeV^-1/2
Helicity amplitude; fitted within PDG range.
A3/2 (Δ(1905)5/2+) = model I: -0.038 ± 0.013 GeV^-1/2; model II: -0.055 ± 0.0002 GeV^-1/2
Helicity amplitude; fitted within PDG range.
g(1)_{RΣK*} = model I: 11.52 ± 0.20; model II: 0.316 ± 0.005
Resonance ΣK* coupling; fitted.
g(2)_{RΣK*} = model I: -0.137 ± 0.01; model II: -5.78 ± 0.007
Second resonance ΣK* coupling; fitted.
g(3)_{RΣK*} = model I: 115.8 ± 1.18; model II: 43.5 ± 0.001
Third resonance ΣK* coupling; fitted.
Λ_R = model I: 1150 ± 9 MeV; model II: 1307 ± 9 MeV
Cutoff mass for the Δ(1905) resonance contribution; fitted.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The effective-Lagrangian amplitude built from t-channel K, κ, K*; s-channel N, Δ, Δ(1905); u-channel Λ, Σ, Σ*; and a generalized contact current is complete enough to describe the reaction.
Sec. II and Fig. 1; the conclusion that Pσ can be explained without κ depends on this truncation being adequate.
domain assumption The generalized contact current M_int prescription from Refs [23–26] preserves gauge invariance and crossing and is a valid model of the interaction current.
Sec. II: 'We follow Refs [23–26] to choose a particular prescription for M_int'; model I's s-channel interference explanation relies on this prescription.
ad hoc to paper LEPS SDME data spanning Eγ=1.85–2.96 GeV can be represented by calculations at a single centroid energy.
Sec. III: 'our theoretical results are calculated at the centroid value over this 1.11 GeV energy bin'; no test of energy-smearing effects is reported.
domain assumption Δ(1905)5/2+ is the relevant nucleon resonance, and its PDG-constrained mass, width, and helicity amplitudes are valid inputs.
Sec. I and Table I; alternative molecular-state explanations from Ref. [20] are not included in the fits.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Combined analysis of the data on cross sections and spin density matrix elements for $K^*\Sigma$ photoproduction reactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PEB4U3OP

@misc{pith2026260328337,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Combined analysis of the data on cross sections and spin density matrix elements for $K^*\Sigma$ photoproduction reactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PEB4U3OP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.28337}
}

abstract

In our earlier work [Phys. Rev. C \textbf{98}, 045209 (2018)], we analyzed the differential cross-section data from the CLAS Collaboration for the reactions $\gamma p \to K^{*+}\Sigma^0$ and $\gamma p \to K^{*0} \Sigma^+$ using an effective Lagrangian approach. We found that a satisfactory description of the data required the inclusion of the $s$-channel $\Delta(1905)5/2^+$ resonance, in addition to $t$-channel exchanges of $K$, $\kappa$, and $K^*$, $s$-channel contributions from nucleons ($N$) and $\Delta$, $u$-channel exchanges of $\Lambda$, $\Sigma$, and $\Sigma^*$, and a generalized contact term. In the present work, we extend our analysis to incorporate the data on spin density matrix elements from the LEPS Collaboration for the $\gamma p \to K^{*0}\Sigma^+$ reaction at photon energies $E_{\gamma} = 1.85$--$2.96$ GeV. Our goal is to impose more stringent constraints on the theoretical model and obtain a more reliable understanding of the reaction mechanisms. We obtain two fits that describe the experimental data equally well. In both fits, the $\Delta(1905)5/2^+$ resonance plays an important role. However, the contribution from $t$-channel $\kappa$ exchange is significant in one fit but negligible in the other. This finding contradicts earlier claims in the literature that the LEPS parity spin asymmetry $P_\sigma$ data support a dominant role of $\kappa$ exchange in $\gamma p \to K^{*0}\Sigma^+$. We also present predictions for $P_\sigma$ at $E_\gamma = 8.5$ GeV, which may help clarify whether $\kappa$ exchange is indeed dominant in this reaction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.28337 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Total cross sections with dominant individual contr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Spin density matrix elements for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Parity spin asymmetry ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10. Parity spin asymmetry for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

[15]

Hleiqawi et al

I. Hleiqawi et al. (CLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 75, 042201 (2007); Phys. Rev. C 76, 039905(E) (2007)

2007
[14]

Tang et al

W. Tang et al. (CLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 87, 065204 (2013)

2013
[20]

Oh and H

Y . Oh and H. Kim, Phys. Rev. C 74, 015208 (2006)

2006
[1]

Isgur and G

N. Isgur and G. Karl, Phys. Lett. 72B, 109 (1977)

1977
[2]

The black solid line and blue dashed line correspond to the results in model I and m odel II, respectively

for γp → K∗0Σ+ as a function of cos θ at Eγ = 1.85–2.96 GeV . The black solid line and blue dashed line correspond to the results in model I and m odel II, respectively. The data are from the LEPS Collaboration [ 14]. ward angles, while in model II, the ∆(1905)5/2+ resonance interacts with the κ exchange to produce these increases. It is important to note...

1905
[3]

In liter- ature, it is believed that the value of Pσ data being close to unity indicates a dominant contribution coming from natura l parity exchanges

It is seen that the LEPS Pσ data [ 14] is also well reproduced in both model I and model II. In liter- ature, it is believed that the value of Pσ data being close to unity indicates a dominant contribution coming from natura l parity exchanges. In particular, as the LEPS data on Pσ for γp → K∗0Σ+ tends to 1, it is claimed in Ref. [ 14] that the t-channel ...

1905
[4]

R. G. Edwards, N. Mathur, D. G. Richards, and S. J. Wallace , Phys. Rev. D 87, 054506 (2013)

2013
[5]

Koniuk and N

R. Koniuk and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D 21, 1868 (1980)

1980

Show all 35 references

[6]

R. G. Edwards, J. J. Dudek, D. G. Richards, and S. J. Wallac e, Phys. Rev. D 84, 074508 (2011)

2011
[7]

C. B. Lang, L. Leskovec, M. Padmanath, and S. Prelovsek, Phys. Rev. D 95, 014510 (2017)

2017
[8]

G. P . Engel, C. B. Lang, D. Mohler, and A. Sch¨ afer, Phys. Rev. D 87, 074504 (2013)

2013
[9]

C. B. Lang and V . V erduci, Phys. Rev. D 87, 054502 (2013)

2013
[10]

Additionally, in Ref

were analyzed, suggesting a signiﬁcant role for t-channel κ exchange in this reaction. Additionally, in Ref. [ 14], the LEPS parity spin asymmetry Pσ data were interpreted as sup- porting the model II in Ref. [ 17] that includes a substantial κ- exchange contribution. More rec...

arXiv
[11]

A. L. Kiratidis, W. Kamleh, D. B. Leinweber, Z. W. Liu, F. M . Stokes, and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D 95, 074507 (2017)

2017
[12]

C. W. Andersen, J. Bulava, B. H¨ orz, and C. Morningstar, P hys. Rev. D 97, 014506 (2018)

2018
[13]

Hleiqawi and K

I. Hleiqawi and K. Hicks, arXiv:nucl-ex /0512039
[16]

Nanova et al

M. Nanova et al. (CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. A 35, 333 (2008)

2008
[17]

S. H. Hwang et al. (LEPS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 092001 (2012)

2012
[18]

A. C. Wang, W. L. Wang, and F. Huang, Phys. Rev. C 98, 045209 (2018)

2018
[19]

Q. Zhao, J. S. Al-Khalili, and C. Bennhold, Phys. Rev. C 64, 052201 (2001)

2001
[21]

S. H. Kim, S. Nam, A. Hosaka, and H. C. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 88, 114023 (2013)

2013
[22]

S. H. Kim, S. Nam, A. Hosaka, and H. C. Kim, arXiv:1310.6551

arXiv
[23]

D. Ben, A. C. Wang, F. Huang, and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C 108, 065201 (2023)

2023
[24]

A. C. Wang, W. L. Wang, F. Huang, H. Haberzettl, and K. 10 Nakayama, Phys. Rev. C 96, 035206 (2017)

2017
[25]

S. H. Kim, A. Hosaka, and H. C. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 90, 014021 (2014)

2014
[26]

Haberzettl, Phys

H. Haberzettl, Phys. Rev. C 56, 2041 (1997)
[27]

Haberzettl, K

H. Haberzettl, K. Nakayama, and S. Krewald, Phys. Rev. C 74, 045202 (2006)

2006
[28]

Huang, M

F. Huang, M. D¨ oring, H. Haberzettl, J. Haidenbauer, C. Han- hart, S. Krewald, U.-G. Meißner, and K. Nakayama, Phys. Rev. C 85, 054003 (2012)

2012
[29]

Huang, H

F. Huang, H. Haberzettl, and K. Nakayama, Phys. Rev. C 87, 054004 (2013)

2013
[30]

Jacob and G

M. Jacob and G. C. Wick, Ann. Phys. (N. Y .) 26, 322 (1964)

1964
[31]

N. C. Wei, F. Huang, K. Nakayama, and D. M. Li, Phys. Rev. D 100, 114026 (2019)

2019
[32]

Schilling, P

K. Schilling, P . Seyboth, and G. E. Wolf, Nucl. Phys. B 15, 397 (1970); T. H. Bauer et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 50, 261 (1978)

1970
[33]

Navas et al

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

2024
[34]

Austregesiloa et al

A. Austregesiloa et al. (GlueX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 108, 055204 (2023)

2023
[35]

A. C. Wang, N. C. Wei, and F. Huang, Phys. Rev. C111, 025205 (2025)

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [15]

Hleiqawi et al

I. Hleiqawi et al. (CLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 75, 042201 (2007); Phys. Rev. C 76, 039905(E) (2007)

2007

[2] [14]

Tang et al

W. Tang et al. (CLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 87, 065204 (2013)

2013

[3] [20]

Oh and H

Y . Oh and H. Kim, Phys. Rev. C 74, 015208 (2006)

2006

[4] [1]

Isgur and G

N. Isgur and G. Karl, Phys. Lett. 72B, 109 (1977)

1977

[5] [2]

The black solid line and blue dashed line correspond to the results in model I and m odel II, respectively

for γp → K∗0Σ+ as a function of cos θ at Eγ = 1.85–2.96 GeV . The black solid line and blue dashed line correspond to the results in model I and m odel II, respectively. The data are from the LEPS Collaboration [ 14]. ward angles, while in model II, the ∆(1905)5/2+ resonance interacts with the κ exchange to produce these increases. It is important to note...

1905

[6] [3]

In liter- ature, it is believed that the value of Pσ data being close to unity indicates a dominant contribution coming from natura l parity exchanges

It is seen that the LEPS Pσ data [ 14] is also well reproduced in both model I and model II. In liter- ature, it is believed that the value of Pσ data being close to unity indicates a dominant contribution coming from natura l parity exchanges. In particular, as the LEPS data on Pσ for γp → K∗0Σ+ tends to 1, it is claimed in Ref. [ 14] that the t-channel ...

1905

[7] [4]

R. G. Edwards, N. Mathur, D. G. Richards, and S. J. Wallace , Phys. Rev. D 87, 054506 (2013)

2013

[8] [5]

Koniuk and N

R. Koniuk and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D 21, 1868 (1980)

1980