Charged current neutrino and antineutrino induced associated particle production from nucleons

A. Fatima; M. Sajjad Athar; S. K. Singh

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Charged current neutrino and antineutrino induced associated particle production from nucleons

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new effective-Lagrangian calculation gives the first Q² and kaon-momentum distributions for charged-current neutrino and antineutrino production of KΛ from free nucleons, with the P11(1710) and P13(1720) baryon resonances dominating the…

desk verdict A credible extension of the authors' photoproduction model to neutrino KΛ production with real new differential predictions, but the axial sector needs a sensitivity test before these numbers are used. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20754 v2 pith:TF3NN3ID submitted 2025-07-28 hep-ph hep-ex

A. Fatima , M. Sajjad Athar , S. K. Singh This is my paper

classification hep-phhep-ex PACS 25.30.Pt13.15.+g12.15.-y12.39.Fe

keywords neutrino-inducedassociatedparticleproductionKΛchargedcurrentneutrinoscatteringeffectiveLagrangianmodelnucleonresonanceexcitationsaxialformfactorsPCACfew-GeVcrosssections

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 claims that charged-current neutrino and antineutrino scattering on free nucleons in the few-GeV energy range produces $K\Lambda$ pairs through a well-defined superposition of nonresonant Born terms and six low-lying baryon resonances, and that this channel can be predicted reliably once the vector part of the weak current is anchored to electromagnetic data and the axial part is fixed by partial conservation of the axial current. It presents the first $Q^2$ distribution and the first kaon-momentum distribution for $\nu_\mu n \to \mu^- \Lambda K^+$ and $\bar{\nu}_\mu p \to \mu^+ \Lambda K^0$, together with an updated total cross section. The calculation matters because accelerator and atmospheric neutrino experiments operate in this energy region, where the $K\Lambda$ channel is an inelastic background and where older theoretical estimates disagreed with the scant existing data by large factors. If the predictions are right, this inelastic channel can be treated with concrete differential shapes instead of a rough resonant-only approximation.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two coupled mechanisms. On the nonresonant side, an SU(3) chiral non-linear $\sigma$ model generates the Born currents for $s$-, $t$-, and $u$-channel baryon exchange, the contact term, the pion-in-flight term, and the pion-pole term, with hadronic form factors regulated by a cutoff $\Lambda_B=0.54$ GeV. On the resonant side, effective Lagrangians describe the excitation of six baryon resonances and their decay to $K\Lambda$; the strong couplings $g_{RK\Lambda}$ are fixed by measured branching ratios, the vector $N\to R$ form factors are related by isospin to electromagnetic helicity amplitudes, and the axial $N\to R$ form factors are fixed by the generalized Goldberger-Treiman relation $g_{CC}^1(0)=2\,g_{RN\pi}$ with a dipole $Q^2$ dependence of axial mass 1.026 GeV. Spin-$\frac{3}{2}$ resonances are handled with a propagator prescription that removes the lower-spin off-shell degrees of freedom, a choice the paper notes is one of several possible. The two $t$-channel kaon resonances $K^*(892)$ and $K_1(1270)$ are included with couplings fitted as free parameters, though their net effect is reported as almost negligible. The vector current is locked down first by reproducing $\eta$ and $K\Lambda$ photoproduction and $\eta$ electroproduction data, so that the neutrino prediction tests mainly the axial sector.

What would settle it

A fine-binned measurement of the exclusive reaction $\nu_\mu n \to \mu^- \Lambda K^+$ or $\bar{\nu}_\mu p \to \mu^+ \Lambda K^0$ on a light nuclear target in the 1.5–3.5 GeV beam-energy region would settle the claim: the model makes specific predictions for the location of the $Q^2$ peak near 0.2 GeV$^2$, the relative strength of $P_{11}(1710)$ versus $P_{13}(1720)$, and the sharper low-$Q^2$ peak in the antineutrino mode compared with the neutrino mode. Comparing the measured $d\sigma/dQ^2$ shape with the dipole/PCAC prediction is the direct test.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the $\Delta S = 0$ weak production of $K\Lambda$ from nucleons—the reactions $\nu_\mu n \to \mu^- \Lambda K^+$ and $\bar{\nu}_\mu p \to \mu^+ \Lambda K^0$—can be computed from an effective-Lagrangian model whose resonant and nonresonant pieces are both quantitatively relevant. The nonresonant background comes from SU(3) chiral Lagrangians; the resonances are the six low-lying baryon resonances $S_{11}(1650)$, $P_{11}(1710)$, $P_{11}(1880)$, $S_{11}(1895)$, $P_{13}(1720)$, and $P_{13}(1900)$, with strong couplings set by measured branching ratios and decay widths to $K\Lambda$. The vector transition form factors are taken from fits to real and virtual photon data on $\eta$ and $K\Lambda$ production, while the axial transition form factors come from PCAC and the generalized Goldberger-Treiman relation, with $g_{CC}^1(0)=2\,g_{RN\pi}$ and a dipole $Q^2$ dependence using $M_A=1.026$ GeV. The paper reports that this fixed model then predicts $d\sigma/dQ^2$ peaking near $Q^2=0.2$ GeV$^2$, a kaon-momentum distribution peaking around 0.88–1 GeV, and a total cross section dominated by $P_{11}(1710)$ and $P_{13}(1720)$ for both neutrinos and antineutrinos, with the antineutrino $Q^2$ distribution more sharply peaked because vector–axial interference is destructive there. It presents this as the first calculation of those differential distributions for this channel and an updated total cross section.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the size and $Q^2$ shape of the axial nucleon-to-resonance transition, which no neutrino experiment has measured, are fixed by PCAC and pion-pole dominance with $g_{CC}^1(0)=2\,g_{RN\pi}$ and a dipole form of axial mass 1.026 GeV. If that axial Ansatz is wrong at the $W$ and $Q^2$ values relevant here, the predicted cross sections shift by a sizeable amount.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The Q² and kaon-momentum distributions give accelerator and atmospheric neutrino experiments concrete differential predictions for an inelastic channel that currently enters generators only through a resonant approximation.
Because P11(1710) and P13(1720) dominate the resonant part, a dedicated exclusive measurement can constrain their axial transition strengths, which are otherwise unmeasured.
The model quantifies the effect of the shallow-inelastic region: cutting W < 2 GeV lowers the total cross section by about 8% at 2.5 GeV and 15% at 3.5 GeV, and adding back W > 2 GeV with Q² < 1 GeV² restores nearly the full result.
The difference in peak sharpness between the neutrino and antineutrino Q² distributions is a direct consequence of constructive versus destructive vector–axial interference and is testable with moderate statistics.
The predicted kaon-momentum peak near 0.88–1 GeV informs detector-acceptance corrections and estimates of background to proton-decay searches with kaon final states.

Reading between the lines

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

If the model is right, the same SU(3) chiral machinery extends naturally to ΣK final states and to incoherent production on nuclei, where Fermi motion and final-state interactions would smear the free-nucleon peaks; those nuclear predictions are not derived in this paper.
Since the vector current is anchored by real-photon data, any future neutrino measurement that disagrees with the predicted dσ/dQ² shape would most directly implicate the axial Ansatz (PCAC plus dipole) rather than the resonance content.
A practical test of the axial assumption would be to extract g_CC^1(Q²) from the data and check whether it equals 2 g_RNπ at Q² = 0 and follows the assumed dipole fall-off; that check is not performed here.
The background terms grow in relative importance with energy, so a measurement spanning the full few-GeV range would separate the nonresonant Born contribution from the resonance contributions, testing the chiral-model part of the calculation independently.

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

This paper is a workmanlike extension of the Aligarh group's photoproduction model to charged-current neutrino and antineutrino induced KΛ production. The genuinely new pieces are the Q2 and kaon momentum distributions for this channel, plus an updated resonance set; previous work by Shrock, Adera, and Nakamura stopped at total or threshold-level cross sections. So the 'first work' claim is defensible, though it is an incremental, not breakthrough, step.

The model does some things well. The vector sector is anchored to a large body of electromagnetic data—MAMI η, CLAS KΛ and electroproduction—and the paper shows that these data are reproduced. The nonresonant background is derived from SU(3) chiral Lagrangians, and the breakdown of resonance vs. background contributions is clear and useful. The comparison with the BNL data and with the DCC model gives context, even though the data are old and flux-averaged.

The soft spot is the axial sector, and it is load-bearing. The axial N→R transition form factors are set by PCAC and a dipole ansatz with M_A = 1.026 GeV, with no neutrino data to constrain them. The paper's own decomposition says P11(1710) and P13(1720) dominate—55% and 30% respectively at 1.5 GeV. Varying M_A from 1.0 to 1.2 GeV changes the axial form factor by 8% at Q2=0.2 GeV² and 20% at 1 GeV², so the total cross sections could shift by tens of percent. The paper shows no sensitivity study, no alternative axial model, and no uncertainty band. That means the predictions are indicative rather than quantitative.

Two smaller issues. In Table I, the P13(1720) branching ratio to KΛ is given as 4–19% with a central value of 2%, which is outside the stated range; since this resonance contributes ~30%, the coupling should be rechecked. Also, the Q2 dependence of the spin-3/2 vector form factors is fitted but not displayed against data, and the W/Q2 cuts change the results by up to 15% at higher energies.

Who is this for: neutrino cross-section modelers and event-generator people working on DUNE, Hyper-K, and atmospheric analyses. The paper deserves a serious referee. I'd recommend sending to peer review, with the request that the authors add an axial sensitivity test—varying M_A, and ideally g1(0)—or a comparison with an alternative axial model. With that, it becomes a usable reference for a channel that generators currently treat crudely.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper calculates charged-current neutrino and antineutrino induced associated KLambda production off free nucleons in the few-GeV region. The hadronic current is built from nonresonant Born terms derived from SU(3) chiral Lagrangians, s-channel excitations of four spin-1/2 resonances and two spin-3/2 resonances, and t-channel K*(892) and K1(1270) exchanges. Vector-current parameters are fixed by fitting the same model to MAMI and CLAS photoproduction/electroproduction data for eta and KLambda production; axial-current parameters are fixed by PCAC and the generalized Goldberger-Treiman relation, with a dipole Q^2 dependence and M_A = 1.026 GeV. The paper presents total cross sections as a function of neutrino energy, dsigma/dQ^2 and dsigma/dp_K distributions, and comparisons with the BNL measurement, Shrock's Born calculation, and the dynamical coupled-channel model of Nakamura et al.

Significance. If the calculation is robust, it fills a genuine gap: no previous work appears to have presented Q^2 distributions and kaon momentum distributions for charged-current KLambda production in the few-GeV region, and the total cross section comparison with the DCC model is a useful benchmark for neutrino event generators. The model's treatment of the vector current is anchored to several electromagnetic datasets, and the comparison with CLAS photoproduction data in Fig. 2 is encouraging. The central risk is that the largest contributions to the weak cross section, from P11(1710) and P13(1720), depend on axial transition form factors that are fixed only by PCAC and a dipole ansatz and are not tested against any neutrino data; no sensitivity or uncertainty estimate is provided. The paper would be significantly strengthened by a quantitative test of this axial-sector assumption.

major comments (4)

[Sec. III.B, Eqs. (80)-(82) and (87)-(88)] The axial N-to-R transition form factors control the dominant resonance contributions: the text states that P11(1710) and P13(1720) contribute about 55% and 30% for neutrinos and about 40% and 22-27% for antineutrinos in the 1.5-2.5 GeV range. These form factors are fixed by g_1^CC(0)=2 g_RNpi and C_A^5(0)=-2 g_RNpi, with a dipole Q^2 dependence and M_A=1.026 GeV, but no neutrino data constrain either the normalization or the Q^2 shape. A concrete sensitivity test is needed: for example, varying M_A between 1.0 and 1.2 GeV changes g_1^CC by roughly 8% at Q^2=0.2 GeV^2 and about 20% at Q^2=1 GeV^2, which, given the resonance fractions quoted above, could shift the total cross sections by tens of percent. The paper should show such variations, or an alternative axial-model comparison, before the predictions are presented as usable for experiments.
[Sec. III.B, Eqs. (81) and (88)] As printed, Eqs. (81) and (88) give the axial form factors with a positive power of (1+Q^2/M_A^2) squared, i.e. they grow with Q^2 rather than falling like a dipole. This is inconsistent with the text describing a dipole form and with the nucleon axial form factor in Eq. (70), which has the inverse-square form. If the intended expressions are the standard dipole forms, the exponents must be corrected; as written, these equations drive unphysical growth of the dominant resonance amplitudes and must be fixed.
[Sec. II.B.3 and Fig. 3, right panel] The text states that for KLambda electroproduction the Q^2 dependence of the helicity amplitudes for the spin-3/2 resonances is fitted, but the right panel of Fig. 3 shows only model curves with no experimental data and no fitted Q^2 parameter values or goodness-of-fit information. Since P13(1720) is one of the two dominant resonances in the weak process, the vector-current input for this resonance is not actually demonstrated to be constrained by data. The authors should either show the fit against the CLAS electroproduction data used, or state explicitly which data were fitted and how well the model represents them.
[Sec. IV and Figs. 6-10] All neutrino and antineutrino results are presented as single curves with no uncertainty bands and no propagated errors from the many fitted parameters in Tables I-III, the cutoffs Lambda_B and Lambda_R, and the helicity amplitude parameters. The sensitivity to the W/Q^2 cuts is quantified in Sec. V as 8-15% at E_nu=2.5-3.5 GeV, but the sensitivity to the fitted parameters and to the axial assumptions is not addressed. For the paper to support its claim of providing usable predictions for MicroBooNE, T2K, DUNE, and related experiments, a systematic uncertainty estimate or at least a parameter-variation study is necessary.

minor comments (5)

[Fig. 6 caption and Sec. IV text] The right panel is labeled as νbar_mu n → μ+ Λ K0, but the process defined in Eq. (60) and discussed in the text is νbar_mu p → μ+ Λ K0; the target nucleon should be a proton.
[Table I] For P13(1720), the KΛ branching ratio is listed as “4 − 19 (2)”, and the central value 2 lies outside the quoted range; this is either a typo for “12” or needs clarification, since the central value is used to extract the strong coupling g_RKΛ.
[Sec. V, last bullet] The sentence “the kaon momentum distribution dσ/dp_K peaks around p_K = (0.88) 1 GeV at E_ν = (1.5) 2.5 GeV” has an awkward parentheses style that obscures the intended values; it should be rewritten, e.g., “0.88 GeV at 1.5 GeV and 1 GeV at 2.5 GeV.”
[Abstract and throughout] There are several typos, including “associa ted” in the title line and “¯νμn” in the right panel of Fig. 6; a careful proofreading pass is needed.
[References] Reference [6] contains a bare URL and no complete journal citation; it should be updated to the published or arXiv version with a proper citation format.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: weak KLambda predictions are extrapolations from electromagnetic fits and PCAC, not fits to the predicted channel.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is self-contained in the required sense. The vector N-R transition form factors are fixed by fitting real and virtual photon data (MAMI, CLAS) in Sec. II, and the axial form factors are fixed by PCAC and generalized Goldberger-Treiman relations, Eqs. (80)-(82) and (87)-(88), with g_1^CC(0)=2 g_RNpi extracted from strong decay widths and a dipole Q^2 dependence explicitly assumed with M_A=1.026 GeV. The weak KLambda cross sections, Q^2 distributions, and kaon momentum distributions are then computed from these ingredients; no neutrino KLambda data are used to adjust any parameter, and the paper does not claim to reproduce a weak dataset. The only neutrino-related comparison, the BNL point in Fig. 8, is an external test, not a fitting target. The axial dipole ansatz is flagged by the authors themselves as an assumption ('Since no information about the Q2 dependence ... is known experimentally, therefore, a dipole form is assumed'), so it is an extrapolation whose uncertainty belongs to model risk, not circularity. References to the authors' earlier work [1,42-44] supply formalism and electromagnetic fits anchored to external data; they are not invoked as unverified uniqueness theorems or as substitutes for missing derivation. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation depends on many parameters fitted to photo- and electroproduction data in the same model family: Born cutoffs, resonance cutoffs, kaon-resonance couplings, helicity amplitude parameters, and strong R-to-KLambda couplings. The weak axial sector is fixed by PCAC and an externally determined axial mass. No parameters are fitted to neutrino KLambda data, so the weak results are extrapolations rather than fits, but the extrapolation carries the uncertainties of every fitted input.

free parameters (7)

Lambda_B (nonresonant Born cutoff) = 0.54 GeV
Cutoff in Eq. (12), fitted to eta and KLambda photoproduction data.
Lambda_R (spin-1/2 resonance cutoff) = 1.0 GeV
Cutoff in Eq. (18), fitted to photoproduction data.
Lambda_R (spin-3/2 resonance cutoff) = 1.62 GeV
Cutoff in Eq. (18), fitted to KLambda photoproduction data.
Kaon resonance couplings Gv_K*, Gt_K*, Gv_K1, Gt_K1 = Table III: -0.18, 0.02, 0.28, -0.28
Treated as free and fitted to KLambda photoproduction, Sec. II A 2.
Helicity amplitude parameters (A_alpha(0), a1, b1) for six resonances = Table II
PDG values varied within errors and Q2 slopes fitted to eta and KLambda photo/electroproduction data.
g_RKLambda strong couplings for six resonances = Table I: 0.1362, 0.1973, 1.29, 0.0604, 0.0856, 0.5684
Computed from central branching ratios and widths; the P13(1720) entry looks inconsistent with its quoted 2% central BR.
Axial dipole mass MA = 1.026 GeV
External world-average input used in all axial form factors; not fitted here.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption CVC and isospin symmetry connect weak charged-current N-to-R vector form factors to charged and neutral electromagnetic N-to-R form factors (f_i^CC = F_i^{R+} - F_i^{R0}, Eqs. 79 and 86).
The neutrino cross sections inherit the electromagnetic fit; if isospin breaking is larger than assumed at these Q2 values, the resonance contributions shift.
domain assumption PCAC and pion-pole dominance fix the axial N-to-R form factors, with g_CC^1(0) = 2 g_RNpi and dipole Q2 dependence (Eqs. 80-82, 87-88).
No weak N-to-R axial data constrain these form factors; this assumption drives the difference between neutrino and antineutrino predictions.
domain assumption SU(3) chiral Lagrangian Born terms provide a complete description of the nonresonant background (Eqs. 65-73).
The background is coherently added to resonances; omitted diagrams or wrong couplings would change the low-Q2 region where the cross section peaks.
domain assumption The Pascalutsa-Timmermans formalism is the correct treatment for spin-3/2 resonance propagation (Eqs. 23-28).
Alternative off-shell prescriptions give different results; the authors choose this one because it best fits photoproduction data.
ad hoc to paper Hadronic form factors use dipole or monopole shapes with cutoffs fitted to photo/electro data (Eqs. 12, 18, 58).
These shapes are not derived from QCD; they are the model's main source of flexibility at high W and Q2.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Charged current neutrino and antineutrino induced associated particle production from nucleons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TF3NN3ID

@misc{pith2026250720754,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Charged current neutrino and antineutrino induced associated particle production from nucleons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TF3NN3ID}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20754}
}

abstract

In this work, we study the charged-current (anti)neutrino-induced associated particle($K\Lambda$) production($\Delta S=0$) from free nucleons in the energy region of a few GeV, relevant to the (anti)neutrino oscillation experiments with accelerator and atmospheric neutrinos. We employ a model based on effective Lagrangians to evaluate the contributions from the nonresonant and the resonant diagrams. The nonresonant background terms are calculated using a microscopic model derived from the SU(3) chiral Lagrangians. For the resonant contributions, we consider the low-lying spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ resonances, such as $S_{11}(1650)$, $P_{11}(1710)$, $P_{11}(1880)$, and $S_{11}(1895)$, and spin-$\frac{3}{2}$ resonances, such as $P_{13}(1720)$ and $P_{13}(1900)$, which have finite branching ratios to the $K\Lambda$ channel. These resonant contributions are modelled using an effective phenomenological Lagrangian approach, with strong couplings determined from the experimental branching ratios and the decay widths to the $K\Lambda$ channel. To fix the parameters of the vector current interaction, the model is first used to reproduce satisfactorily the MAMI experimental data on the real photon induced scattering off the nucleon resulting an eta meson in the final state and with the CLAS data for the $K\Lambda$ production in the final state. The PCAC hypothesis and the generalized Goldberger-Treiman relation are used to fix the parameters of the axial vector interaction. The model is then applied to study the weak production of $K\Lambda$ induced by the neutrinos and antineutrinos, and predicts the numerical values for the $Q^2$-distribution, the kaon kinetic energy distribution, and the total scattering cross sections with and without a cut on the CM energy W. The results presented in this work are relevant for the present and future accelerator and atmospheric neutrino experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.20754 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: (Left panel) Total cross section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: (Left panel) Integrated cross section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: (Anti)neutrino scattering and reaction planes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: Feynman diagrams corresponding to the nonresonant b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6: Cross section for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7: Cross section for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8: Cross section for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

Neutrino-induced hyperon final-state interactions as constraints on the in-medium hyperon potential
nucl-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Neutrino hyperon final-state interactions at SBND/DUNE constrain the sub-saturation U_Λ and U_Σ potentials, mapping them through a GM1 EOS to a neutron-star maximum-mass posterior set mainly by external priors.
Accelerator neutrinos as a probe of in-medium hyperon potentials
nucl-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

StrangeMC forecasts that SBND/DUNE hyperon FSI observables constrain U_Λ(ρ0) to ~6 MeV after slope marginalization, with systematics distinct from hypernuclear data.
Weak charged current induced electron and positron scattering off proton at JLab and MAMI energies
hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Calculated cross sections and spin observables for weak charged-current e±+p scattering at JLab-MAMI energies, presented as benchmarks to extract the axial dipole mass and test G- and T-invariance.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

[1]

F ∗ s (s) is deﬁned in Eq

Spin 3 2 resonances The general form of the hadronic current for the s-channel processes where a positive parity resonance state is produced and decays to a lambda (Λ) and a kaon ( K) in the ﬁnal state, is written as [2]: jµ⏐ ⏐ s = F ∗ s (s) gRKΛ MRMK ¯u(p ′)ǫσναβpσ Rγ5γαpβ K ( P νδ (pR) s −M 2 R +iMRΓR ) Γδµ 3 2 u(p ); pR =p +q (23) where Γ R and MR, res...

work page
[2]

For details, see Ref

Kaon resonances In the present work, we have considered two kaon resonances in t he t-channel: a vector meson K ∗(892) and an axial vector meson K1(1270). For details, see Ref. [44]. The hadronic current for the K ∗ exchange in the t-channel is obtained as Jµ ⏐ ⏐ K ∗ = ieF ⋆ t (t)¯u(p′)ǫµνρσqρ(p′ −p)σ ( −gνα + (p −p′)ν(p −p′)α/M 2 K ∗ t −M 2 K ∗ +iMK ∗ΓK ...

work page 2010
[3]

Cross section In order to obtain the η production as well as the associated particle production cross sec tions, in the numerical calculations, we consider the following: (i) the non-resonant Born terms are obtained using the SU(3) sym metric chiral Lagrangians based on the non-linear sigma model. (ii) for all the spin 1 2 and 3 2 resonances, the coupling...

work page 1900
[4]

Spin 3 2 resonances The general expression of the hadronic current for the resonan ce excitation in the s-channel is written as [1], jµ⏐ ⏐ s = F ∗ s (s) gRKΛ MRMK ¯u(p ′)ǫσναβpRσγ5γαpKβ ( Pνδ (pR) s −M 2 R +iMRΓR ) Γδµ 3 2 (Q2)u(p ); pR =p +q (52) The vertex function Γ δµ 3 2 for the positive parity resonances is given in Eq. (25), where the ve ctor curre...

work page
[5]

(31) an d (32), except that these terms are multiplied by an additional form factor, which accounts for the electromagn etic structure of the kaons

Kaon resonances In the case of associated particle production induced by the electr ons, the expressions for the hadronic current of the kaon exchange diagrams remain the same as given in Eqs. (31) an d (32), except that these terms are multiplied by an additional form factor, which accounts for the electromagn etic structure of the kaons. In literature, ...

work page
[6]

3: (Left panel) Integrated cross section σ vs

Cross section In order to obtain the electron induced η production as well as the KΛ production cross sections, in the numerical calculations, we consider the following: 13 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 W (GeV) 0 5 10 15σ (µb) CLAS 2007; Q 2 = 0.165 GeV 2 CLAS 2007; Q 2 = 0.25 GeV 2 CLAS 2007; Q 2 = 0.7 GeV 2 Our model; Q 2 = 0.165 GeV 2 Our model; Q 2 = 0.25 GeV...

work page 2007
[7]

The general expression of the hadronic current fo r the s-channel resonance excitation and their subsequent decay to KΛ mode are given in Eq

Spin 1 2 resonance excitations Next, we discuss the positive and negative parity resonance excita tion mechanism for the weak interaction induced KΛ production. The general expression of the hadronic current fo r the s-channel resonance excitation and their subsequent decay to KΛ mode are given in Eq. (46), where the vertex factor Γ µ 1 2 ± is now written...

work page
[8]

(52), where the vertex factor Γ µα 3 2 is now written as Γµα 3 2 =V µα 3 2 −Aµα 3 2

Spin 3 2 resonance excitations In the case of positive parity spin 3 2 resonance excitation and its subsequent decay to KΛ channel, the expression of the hadronic current for the s-channel diagram is given in Eq. (52), where the vertex factor Γ µα 3 2 is now written as Γµα 3 2 =V µα 3 2 −Aµα 3 2 . (83) The vector and axial-vector vertex factors for the we...

work page 1900

Show all 68 references

[9]

M R A is taken as 1 .026 GeV

2, (88) withCA 5 (0) = −2gRN π [1] for the isospin 1 2 resonances considered in the present work, with gRN π being the coupling for R − →Nπ decay for each resonance R. M R A is taken as 1 .026 GeV. CA 3 (Q2) as well as CA 4 (Q2) are taken as zero
[10]

Spin 1 Kaon resonances We have taken the same form of the hadronic current for the spin 1 kaon resonances being exchanged in the t-channel as that in the case of electroproduction, discussed in Sec. II B 2. 19 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Eνµ (GeV) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2σ (10 -40 cm 2 ) No ...

1900
[11]

Sajjad Athar, A

M. Sajjad Athar, A. Fatima and S. K. Singh, Prog. Part. Nuc l. Phys. 129, 104019 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2022.104019 [arXiv:2206.13792 [hep-ph]]

2023
[12]

Sajjad Athar and S

M. Sajjad Athar and S. K. Singh, The Physics of Neutrino In teractions, Cambridge University Press (2020) ISBN 978-1- 108-77383-6, 978-1-108-48906-5 doi:10.1017/9781108489 065

2020 doi
[13]

Sajjad Athar, S

M. Sajjad Athar, S. W. Barwick, T. Brunner, J. Cao, M. Dani lov, K. Inoue, T. Kajita, M. Kowalski, M. Lindner and K. R. Long, et al. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 124, 103947 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2022.103947 [arXiv:2 111.07586 [hep-ph]]

2022
[14]

L. A. Ruso, A. M. Ankowski, S. Bacca, A. B. Balantekin, J. C arlson, S. Gardiner, R. Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, R. Gupta, T. J. Hobbs and M. Hoferichter, et al. J. Phys. G 52, no.4, 043001 (2025)

2025
[15]

Alvarez-Ruso, J

L. Alvarez-Ruso, J. L. Barrow, L. Bellantoni, M. Betanco urt, A. Bross, L. Cremonesi, K. Duﬀy, S. Dytman, L. Fields and T. Fukuda, et al. [arXiv:2203.11298 [hep-ex]]

arXiv
[16]

Sajjad Athar, A

M. Sajjad Athar, A. Fatima, S. K. Singh and F. Zaidi, https ://doi.org/10.1140/epjs/s11734-025-01499-x, [arXiv:2 409.14732 [hep-ph]]

doi
[17]

Raﬁ Alam, I

M. Raﬁ Alam, I. Ruiz Simo, M. Sajjad Athar and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev. D 82, 033001 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.033001 [arXiv:1004.5484 [hep- ph]]

2010 arXiv
[18]

M. R. Alam, I. R. Simo, M. Sajjad Athar and M. J. Vicente Vac as, Phys. Rev. D 85, 013014 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.013014 [arXiv:1111.0863 [hep- ph]]

2012 arXiv
[19]

R. E. Shrock, Phys. Rev. D 12, 2049 (1975) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.12.2049

1975 doi
[20]

Mecklenburg, Acta Phys

W. Mecklenburg, Acta Phys. Austriaca 48, 293 (1978) Print-77-0085 (VIENNA)

1978
[21]

A. A. Amer, Phys. Rev. D 18, 2290 (1978) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.18.2290

1978 doi
[22]

H. K. Dewan, Phys. Rev. D 24, 2369-2378 (1981) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.24.2369

1981 doi
[23]

G. B. Adera, B. I. S. Van Der Ventel, D. D. van Niekerk and T . Mart, Phys. Rev. C 82, 025501 (2010)

2010
[24]

S. X. Nakamura, H. Kamano and T. Sato, Phys. Rev. D 92, no.7, 074024 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.074024 [arXiv:1506.03403 [hep-ph]]

2015 arXiv
[25]

Solomey [MINERvA Collaboration], Nucl

N. Solomey [MINERvA Collaboration], Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 142, 74 (2005). 24

2005
[26]

W. A. Mann, T. Kafka, M. Derrick, B. Musgrave, R. Ammar, D . Day and J. Gress, Phys. Rev. D 34, 2545-2553 (1986) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.34.2545

1986 doi
[27]

S. J. Barish, M. Derrick, L. G. Hyman, P. Schreiner, R. Si nger, R. P. Smith, H. Yuta, V. E. Barnes, D. D. Carmony and A. F. Garﬁnkel, et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 33, 1446 (1974)

1974
[28]

S. J. Barish, M. Derrick, T. Dombeck, L. G. Hyman, K. Jaeg er, B. Musgrave, P. Schreiner, R. Singer, A. Snyder and V. E. Barnes, et al. Phys. Rev. D 19, 2521 (1979) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.19.2521

1979 doi
[29]

Deden, F

H. Deden, F. J. Hasert, W. Krenz, J. Von Krogh, D. Lanske, J. Morﬁn, M. Pohl, K. Schultze, H. Weerts and G. H. Bertrand- Coremans, et al. Phys. Lett. B 58, 361-366 (1975)

1975
[30]

Erriquez et al

O. Erriquez et al. , Nucl. Phys. B 140, 123 (1978)

1978
[31]

N. J. Baker, P. L. Connolly, S. A. Kahn, H. G. Kirk, M. J. Mu rtagh, R. B. Palmer, N. P. Samios and M. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D 24, 2779-2786 (1981)

1981
[32]

N. J. Baker, P. L. Connolly, S. A. Kahn, M. J. Murtagh, R. B . Palmer, N. P. Samios, M. Tanaka, C. Baltay, M. Bregman and L. Chen, et al. Phys. Rev. D 34, 1251 (1986) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.34.1251

1986 doi
[33]

D. Son, G. A. Snow, S. Chang, S. Kunori, P. H. Steinberg, D . Zieminska, R. A. Burnstein, J. Hanlon, H. A. Rubin and R. Engelmann, et al. Phys. Rev. D 28, 2129 (1983) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.28.2129

1983 doi
[34]

Datchev, APS Meeting (2002)

K. Datchev, APS Meeting (2002)

2002
[35]

Alvarez-Ruso et al

L. Alvarez-Ruso et al. [GENIE], Eur. Phys. J. ST 230, no.24, 4449-4467 (2021) doi:10.1140/epjs/s11734-021-0 0295-7 [arXiv:2106.09381 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[36]

Hayato and L

Y. Hayato and L. Pickering, Eur. Phys. J. ST 230, no.24, 4469-4481 (2021) doi:10.1140/epjs/s11734-021-0 0287-7 [arXiv:2106.15809 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[37]

Rein and L

D. Rein and L. M. Sehgal, Annals Phys. 133, 79-153 (1981)

1981
[38]

C. M. Marshall et al. [MINERvA], Phys. Rev. D 94, no.1, 012002 (2016)

2016
[39]

Abratenko et al

P. Abratenko et al. [MicroBooNE], [arXiv:2503.00291 [hep-ex]]
[40]

C. M. Marshall et al. [MINERvA], Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, no.1, 011802 (2017)

2017
[41]

Rarita and J

W. Rarita and J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 60, 61 (1941)

1941
[42]

Pascalutsa and R

V. Pascalutsa and R. Timmermans, Phys. Rev. C 60, 042201 (1999)

1999
[43]

Fierz and W

M. Fierz and W. E. Pauli, Proceedings of the Royal Societ y of London Series A Mathematical and Physical Sciences 173, 211 (1939)

1939
[44]

Pascalutsa, [arXiv:hep-ph/9412321 [hep-ph]]

V. Pascalutsa, [arXiv:hep-ph/9412321 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[45]

T. Mart, J. Kristiano and S. Clymton, Phys. Rev. C 100, 035207 (2019)

2019
[46]

Vrancx, L

T. Vrancx, L. De Cruz, J. Ryckebusch and P. Vancraeyveld , Phys. Rev. C 84, 045201 (2011)

2011
[47]

Fatima, M

A. Fatima, M. Sajjad Athar, and S. K. Singh, To be present ed at DAE Symposium on Nuclear Physics, 2025

2025
[48]

E. F. McNicoll et al. [Crystal Ball at MAMI Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 82, 035208 (2010) [erratum: Phys. Rev. C 84, 029901 (2011)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.84.029901

2010 doi
[49]

Werthm¨ ulleret al

D. Werthm¨ ulleret al. [A2 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 90, 015205 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.90.015205

2014 doi
[50]

Bradford et al

R. Bradford et al. , Phys. Rev. C 73 035202 (2006)

2006
[51]

Denizli et al

H. Denizli et al. [CLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 76, 015204 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.76.015204

2007 doi
[52]

Fatima, M

A. Fatima, M. Sajjad Athar and S. K. Singh, Phys. Rev. D 107, 033002 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.033002 [arXiv:2211.08830 [hep-ph]]

2023 arXiv
[53]

Fatima, M

A. Fatima, M. Sajjad Athar and S. K. Singh, Phys. Rev. D 108, 053009 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.053009 [arXiv:2307.12686 [hep-ph]]

2023 arXiv
[54]

Fatima, Z

A. Fatima, Z. Ahmad Dar, M. Sajjad Athar and S. K. Singh, I nt. J. Mod. Phys. E 29, 2050051 (2020) doi:10.1142/S0218301320500512 [arXiv:2001.10201 [hep- ph]]

2020 arXiv
[55]

Faessler, T

A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, B. R. Holstein, M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Korner and V. E. Lyubovitskij, Phys. Rev. D 78, 094005 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.094005

2008 doi
[56]

R. M. Davidson and R. Workman, Phys. Rev. C 63, 025210 (2001)

2001
[57]

P. A. Zyla et al. [Particle Data Group], PTEP 2020, no.8, 083C01 (2020)

2020
[58]

Electromagnetic Interactio ns of Hadrons. 1.,

A. Donnachie and G. Shaw, “Electromagnetic Interactio ns of Hadrons. 1.,” Springer, New York 1978, 446p

1978
[59]

Amaldi, S

E. Amaldi, S. Fubini and G. Furlan, Springer Tracts Mod. Phys. 83, 1 (1979) doi:10.1007/BFb0048209

1979 doi
[60]

Drechsel, Few Body Syst

D. Drechsel, Few Body Syst. Suppl. 7, 325 (1994)

1994
[61]

Bradford, A

R. Bradford, A. Bodek, H. S. Budd and J. Arrington, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 159 (2006) 127 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2006.08.028

2006 doi
[62]

Tiator, D

L. Tiator, D. Drechsel, S. S. Kamalov and M. Vanderhaegh en, Eur. Phys. J. ST 198, 141 (2011)

2011
[63]

Janssen, J

S. Janssen, J. Ryckebusch and T. Van Cauteren, Phys. Rev . C 67, 052201 (2003)

2003
[64]

Bernard, L

V. Bernard, L. Elouadrhiri, U. G. Meissner, J. Phys. G 28, R1 (2002) doi:10.1088/0954-3899/28/1/201

2002 doi
[65]

Hernandez, J

E. Hernandez, J. Nieves and M. Valverde, Phys. Rev. D 76, 033005 (2007)

2007
[66]

S. L. Adler, Annals Phys. 50, 189 (1968) doi: 10.1016/0003-4916(68)90278-9

1968 doi
[67]

Sajjad Athar and J

M. Sajjad Athar and J. G. Morf ´ ın, J. Phys. G 48, no.3, 034001 (2021) doi:10.1088/1361-6471/abbb11 [arXi v:2006.08603 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[68]

Y. S. Jeong and M. H. Reno, Phys. Rev. D 108,113010 (2023)

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

F ∗ s (s) is deﬁned in Eq

Spin 3 2 resonances The general form of the hadronic current for the s-channel processes where a positive parity resonance state is produced and decays to a lambda (Λ) and a kaon ( K) in the ﬁnal state, is written as [2]: jµ⏐ ⏐ s = F ∗ s (s) gRKΛ MRMK ¯u(p ′)ǫσναβpσ Rγ5γαpβ K ( P νδ (pR) s −M 2 R +iMRΓR ) Γδµ 3 2 u(p ); pR =p +q (23) where Γ R and MR, res...

work page

[2] [2]

For details, see Ref

Kaon resonances In the present work, we have considered two kaon resonances in t he t-channel: a vector meson K ∗(892) and an axial vector meson K1(1270). For details, see Ref. [44]. The hadronic current for the K ∗ exchange in the t-channel is obtained as Jµ ⏐ ⏐ K ∗ = ieF ⋆ t (t)¯u(p′)ǫµνρσqρ(p′ −p)σ ( −gνα + (p −p′)ν(p −p′)α/M 2 K ∗ t −M 2 K ∗ +iMK ∗ΓK ...

work page 2010

[3] [3]

Cross section In order to obtain the η production as well as the associated particle production cross sec tions, in the numerical calculations, we consider the following: (i) the non-resonant Born terms are obtained using the SU(3) sym metric chiral Lagrangians based on the non-linear sigma model. (ii) for all the spin 1 2 and 3 2 resonances, the coupling...

work page 1900

[4] [4]

Spin 3 2 resonances The general expression of the hadronic current for the resonan ce excitation in the s-channel is written as [1], jµ⏐ ⏐ s = F ∗ s (s) gRKΛ MRMK ¯u(p ′)ǫσναβpRσγ5γαpKβ ( Pνδ (pR) s −M 2 R +iMRΓR ) Γδµ 3 2 (Q2)u(p ); pR =p +q (52) The vertex function Γ δµ 3 2 for the positive parity resonances is given in Eq. (25), where the ve ctor curre...

work page

[5] [5]

(31) an d (32), except that these terms are multiplied by an additional form factor, which accounts for the electromagn etic structure of the kaons

Kaon resonances In the case of associated particle production induced by the electr ons, the expressions for the hadronic current of the kaon exchange diagrams remain the same as given in Eqs. (31) an d (32), except that these terms are multiplied by an additional form factor, which accounts for the electromagn etic structure of the kaons. In literature, ...

work page

[6] [6]

3: (Left panel) Integrated cross section σ vs

Cross section In order to obtain the electron induced η production as well as the KΛ production cross sections, in the numerical calculations, we consider the following: 13 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 W (GeV) 0 5 10 15σ (µb) CLAS 2007; Q 2 = 0.165 GeV 2 CLAS 2007; Q 2 = 0.25 GeV 2 CLAS 2007; Q 2 = 0.7 GeV 2 Our model; Q 2 = 0.165 GeV 2 Our model; Q 2 = 0.25 GeV...

work page 2007

[7] [7]

The general expression of the hadronic current fo r the s-channel resonance excitation and their subsequent decay to KΛ mode are given in Eq

Spin 1 2 resonance excitations Next, we discuss the positive and negative parity resonance excita tion mechanism for the weak interaction induced KΛ production. The general expression of the hadronic current fo r the s-channel resonance excitation and their subsequent decay to KΛ mode are given in Eq. (46), where the vertex factor Γ µ 1 2 ± is now written...

work page

[8] [8]

(52), where the vertex factor Γ µα 3 2 is now written as Γµα 3 2 =V µα 3 2 −Aµα 3 2

Spin 3 2 resonance excitations In the case of positive parity spin 3 2 resonance excitation and its subsequent decay to KΛ channel, the expression of the hadronic current for the s-channel diagram is given in Eq. (52), where the vertex factor Γ µα 3 2 is now written as Γµα 3 2 =V µα 3 2 −Aµα 3 2 . (83) The vector and axial-vector vertex factors for the we...

work page 1900