New Isobar Models for $K^+\Lambda$ Electroproduction

Jovan Alfian Djaja; Terry Mart

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 38 references

New Isobar Models for $K^+\Lambda$ Electroproduction

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 Two new electromagnetic form factors—an exponential and a sech-squared damping of the dipole—let an isobar model with resonances up to spin 13/2 fit $K^+\Lambda$ electroproduction data better than the plain dipole and reproduce…

desk verdict Genuine but incremental isobar-model update; the descriptive fit is fine, the charge-radius claim is not supported by the model comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07750 v1 pith:XIO2Q7A3 submitted 2025-07-10 hep-ph nucl-th

Jovan Alfian Djaja , Terry Mart This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phnucl-th

keywords kaonelectroproductionisobarmodelelectromagneticformfactorsbaryonresonanceshyperonbeam-recoilpolarizationstructurefunctionsQ^2dependence

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 seeks to establish that the $Q^2$ dependence of $K^+\Lambda$ electroproduction is better described when the standard dipole electromagnetic form factor at baryon-resonance vertices is replaced by one of two steeper shapes: a dipole times an exponential, or a dipole times a squared hyperbolic secant. Fitting the resulting covariant isobar models—which include 26 nucleon and 20 hyperon resonances up to spin $13/2$—to 1,953 experimental structure-function and beam-recoil polarization data points yields $\chi^2$ per point of 2.16 and 2.17, versus 2.33 for the dipole model. The paper also shows that all models reproduce the nearly flat angular dependence of the transferred polarizations $P'_{x'}$ and $P'_x$, which earlier analyses omitted. A sympathetic reader would care because the preferred steeper form factors support the physical suggestion that the data point to a more compact charge distribution for the baryon resonances, and because the models provide an updated phenomenological baseline for future kaon electroproduction measurements.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the two new electromagnetic form factors of Eqs. (12) and (13): $F^{B^*}_1(Q^2) = F_D(Q^2) \exp(-a_1 Q^2)$ and $F^{B^*}_2(Q^2) = F_D(Q^2) \operatorname{sech}^2(a_2 Q^2)$, where $F_D$ is the standard dipole $(1+Q^2/\Lambda^2)^{-2}$ and $a_1$, $a_2$ are free parameters fixed by the fit. They are inserted at the electromagnetic vertices of all 26 nucleon and 20 hyperon resonances (spins up to $13/2$) in the covariant isobar amplitude, whose propagators and vertex factors come from the authors' earlier photoproduction studies. The exponential and squared-hyperbolic-secant factors supply a steeper $Q^2$ fall-off with one extra parameter each, and it is this extra steepness that drives the improved $\chi^2$ and the interpretation of a more compact charge distribution.

What would settle it

Measure the $Q^2$ dependence of a single baryon-resonance transition form factor, for instance the $N(1440)$ electrocoupling, from a model-independent partial-wave analysis of pion or eta electroproduction over $Q^2 = 0$ to $2$ GeV$^2$; if the extracted form factor follows the dipole shape $(1+Q^2/\Lambda^2)^{-2}$ rather than the steeper exponential or squared-hyperbolic-secant shape preferred here, the paper's compact-charge-distribution conclusion is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the $Q^2$ dependence of the baryon-resonance electromagnetic vertices, as seen in $K^+\Lambda$ electroproduction, falls off faster than the conventional dipole form factor $F_D(Q^2) = (1+Q^2/\Lambda^2)^{-2}$. The authors construct two isobar models that replace $F_D$ at all nucleon- and hyperon-resonance vertices with $F^{B^*}_1 = F_D \exp(-a_1 Q^2)$ and $F^{B^*}_2 = F_D \operatorname{sech}^2(a_2 Q^2)$, leaving the kaon-resonance vertices at a monopole. When fitted to 1,953 experimental data points the new models reach $\chi^2/N = 2.16$ and 2.17, compared with 2.33 for the dipole, and they reproduce the angular behavior of the beam-recoil transferred polarizations $P'_{x'}$ and $P'_x$. The authors interpret the better fits as evidence that the $Q^2$ dependence of the observables decreases more rapidly than a dipole, implying a more compact charge distribution for the baryon resonances.

Load-bearing premise

The physical conclusion rests on the assumption that the exponential and sech-squared modifications of the dipole form factor describe the true $Q^2$ dependence of baryon-resonance electromagnetic vertices, rather than merely adding two flexible parameters that absorb model defects—an assumption the paper itself notes is not established by the lower $\chi^2$ alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The new models provide a better phenomenological description of $K^+\Lambda$ electroproduction over the fitted kinematic range than the dipole-based isobar model.
The dipole form factor is disfavored as the $Q^2$ dependence of baryon-resonance electrocouplings, at least within the covariant isobar framework.
The models reproduce the beam-recoil transferred polarizations $P'_{x'}$ and $P'_x$, whose near-constant angular behavior is consistent with angular-momentum conservation and whose inclusion in the fits distinguishes this analysis from earlier ones.
The extracted longitudinal coupling constants of nucleon resonances such as $N(1440)$, $N(1710)$, and $N(2300)$ provide a parameter set usable in subsequent partial-wave or coupled-channel analyses.
The forward-peaking structure functions $\sigma_U$ and $\sigma_{TT}$ are reproduced, confirming the dominance of $t$-channel kaon-resonance exchanges at forward angles.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's own caveat that the $\chi^2$ improvement is 'mathematically expected' from the extra parameters implies that a fair comparison of the three models should use a model-selection criterion that penalizes parameter count, such as the Akaike or Bayesian information criterion; a natural next step the authors do not carry out.
The steeper fall-off preferred by the fits could be tested directly against transition-form-factor measurements of individual resonances extracted from other channels, such as pion or eta electroproduction, where the same resonance electrocouplings appear.
The pronounced peak near $Q^2 = 0$ in Model 2's $\sigma_U$ and $\sigma_{TT}$, which is absent in the other models, may be an artifact of the sech-squared parameterization rather than a physical threshold effect; comparing Model 1 and Model 2 at finer $Q^2$ bins near the photoproduction point would separate the two.
If the compact-charge-distribution interpretation is taken literally, the extracted $a_1$ and $a_2$ parameters imply resonance transition radii smaller than the dipole value; computing the corresponding radii and comparing with lattice QCD or dispersion-relation results would give a quantitative, model-independent check.

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

Short version: this is a real, incremental extension of the authors' covariant isobar model from photoproduction to K+Lambda electroproduction, with spins up to 13/2, two new form factors, and a fit to 1953 CLAS points including beam-recoil polarization. The descriptive side is credible: the models reproduce the structure functions and the polarization observables about as well as this kind of model usually does. The inclusion of P'_x' and P'_x in the fit is genuinely new and is a useful step beyond earlier work.

The soft spot is the paper's physical claim about a more compact charge distribution. The dipole form factor is nested inside both new parameterizations: set a1 or a2 to zero and you recover Eq. (11). The improvement in chi2/N from 2.33 to 2.16/2.17 is exactly what you'd expect from adding flexibility. The authors acknowledge this—'mathematically expected'—but then still draw the physical conclusion. Applied to the numbers in Table 2, both AIC and BIC prefer the dipole by a meaningful margin (delta-AIC approx 576, delta-BIC approx 1260). So the data do not favor the new form factors; they favor a model with fewer parameters. Without a penalty-corrected comparison, or a validation on held-out data, the compact-charge-distribution statement is unsupported.

Two other weaknesses are worth naming, though they're less severe. No parameter uncertainties are reported, and only 8 of the 240 fitted parameters are shown. That's not unusual for this area, but it means the extracted couplings cannot be checked. The paper also doesn't release code or data, which limits reproducibility.

What earns credit: the extension to high-spin resonances is done consistently with the prior photoproduction work, and fitting the beam-recoil polarization data is a real advance. The figures show the models track the main features of sigma_U and sigma_TT, and the new models do reproduce the forward peaking of sigma_TT better than the dipole—though again, that's in-sample.

If this comes to you for review, I'd accept it but require major revision. The authors should either provide a proper model comparison (with AIC/BIC or a non-nested test), or drop the comparative claim and present the models as a working description of the data. The descriptive result is defensible; the physical conclusion is not. A serious referee could help them get this into a publishable state.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper extends a covariant isobar model for K+Λ photoproduction to electroproduction, including 26 nucleon and 20 hyperon resonances with spins up to 13/2. Two new electromagnetic form-factor parameterizations, an exponential modification and a sech-squared modification of the dipole form factor (Eqs. (12) and (13)), are fitted together with other parameters to 1953 CLAS data points. The authors report χ2/N values of 2.16 (Model 1) and 2.17 (Model 2), lower than the 2.33 obtained with the dipole form factor, and state that the models reproduce the structure functions and the beam-recoil polarization observables P'_x' and P'_x. The central claim is that the new models are 'satisfactorily consistent' with data and that the Q2 dependence suggests a more compact charge distribution for baryon resonances.

Significance. If the claims were fully supported, the paper would provide an updated phenomenological description of K+Λ electroproduction with high-spin resonances and a first inclusion of the CLAS beam-recoil polarization data in this model framework. The effort to incorporate polarization observables and to fit a large dataset is commendable. However, the central comparative and physical conclusions rest on a statistically fragile basis: the new models are nested extensions of the dipole model, no parameter uncertainties are given, and only 8 of 240 fitted parameters are tabulated. The lower χ2/N is acknowledged to be 'mathematically expected' from added flexibility, so the evidence for a physical improvement or a compact charge distribution is currently insufficient.

major comments (4)

[Section 5, Table 2 and Eqs. (11)-(13)] The comparison of χ2/N = 2.16 and 2.17 for Models 1 and 2 against 2.33 for the dipole model is not evidence of a better description, because the dipole form factor is nested in both new forms: setting a1=0 in Eq. (12) or a2=0 in Eq. (13) recovers Eq. (11). With Npar increasing from 117 to 240, the improvement Δχ2 ≈ 330 over 1953 points must be penalized. Applying a standard penalty, ΔAIC ≈ 576 and ΔBIC ≈ 1260, both favor the dipole model. The statement in Section 5 that the improvement is 'mathematically expected' concedes this point; the comparative claim therefore needs a model-selection criterion or an out-of-sample validation before it can support the conclusion that the new form factors are physically preferred.
[Section 5 and Table 2] The physical interpretation that the CLAS data imply a 'more compact charge distribution' is not supported by the presented numbers. The fitted parameters a1 and a2 in Eqs. (12) and (13) could absorb deficiencies elsewhere in the model, and no parameter uncertainties, correlations, or covariance information are reported. Only the longitudinal couplings for eight resonances are tabulated in Table 2, leaving 232 of 240 parameters undocumented. Without uncertainties on a_i and some demonstration that the form-factor parameterization survives a validation test (e.g., predictions for un-fitted Q2 bins or observables), the conclusion that the suppression is physical rather than phenomenological flexibility is unjustified.
[Section 5.2 and Section 6] The conclusion states that the angular distributions of P'_x' and P'_x are 'well reproduced, in contrast to previous analyses,' but Section 5.2 itself reports that none of the models accurately describe P'_x' at backward angles, where the models rise toward zero instead of maintaining P'_x' ≈ -0.2. Because this is a systematic discrepancy in one of the two polarization observables highlighted in the abstract and conclusions, the paper should quantify the disagreement (e.g., per-observable χ2) and temper the claim, or it should explain why the backward-angle failure is not relevant to the model's validity.
[Section 1 and Section 5] The statement of 'satisfactory consistency with the available experimental data' is based entirely on in-sample fits: the same 1953 CLAS points are used both to determine the parameters and to evaluate the agreement shown in Figs. 1-4. This is not by itself an error, but it is a limitation of the evidence. The paper would be substantially strengthened by reporting per-set χ2 values, a cross-validation exercise, or a comparison to a subset of data not included in the fit (for example, the newer JLab Hypernuclear Collaboration data cited as Ref. [30]).

minor comments (4)

[Section 5.2, discussion of Ref. [37]] The text says 'Figures 12 and 13 of Ref. [37] show that the values of P'_x' and P'_x follow a similar pattern,' but then states 'Meanwhile, the values of P'_x' remain close to zero'; the second occurrence should presumably refer to P'_x, not P'_x'.
[Figs. 2 and 3] The KAON-MAID predictions are rescaled by factors 0.2 and 0.1 in different panels; this makes visual comparison difficult. Please state the rescaling factor in each panel or use a consistent scale, and clarify that the rescaling is for display only.
[Table 2] The table lists only eight longitudinal coupling constants and no uncertainties; adding a column with the fitted values of Λ, a1, a2, Λ_K*, Λ_K1, and their uncertainties would greatly improve reproducibility.
[Introduction] The phrase 'in contrast to previous analyses' in Section 6 and the abstract's claim of 'satisfactory consistency' would benefit from a more precise definition of 'satisfactory' in terms of χ2 per degree of freedom or per observable set.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The reported superiority of Models 1 and 2 over the dipole model is an in-sample fit artifact: the new form factors nest the dipole, the extra parameters are fitted to the same 1953 points, and the resulting chi-square gain is then interpreted as physical evidence for a more compact charge distribution.

fitted input called prediction [Section 5, paragraph after Table 2]
"Additionally, from Table 2 it is evident that Models 1 and 2 yield lower values of χ2/N compared to the model employing a standard dipole form factor. This improvement is mathematically expected, as the inclusion of additional parameters ai in Eqs. (12) and (13) enhances the models’ flexibility in reproducing the experimental data."

The dipole form factor of Eq. (11) is nested inside both new parameterizations: setting a1=0 in Eq. (12) or a2=0 in Eq. (13) recovers Eq. (11). Since a1, a2, and the other couplings are determined by minimizing χ2 on the same 1953 CLAS data points, Models 1 and 2 are guaranteed by construction to give χ2 no larger than the dipole model's. The paper itself concedes that the improvement is 'mathematically expected'; nevertheless, the immediately following sentence uses this forced in-sample improvement as evidence that the data favor a more rapid Q2 dependence and a more compact charge distribution. This is treating a mathematical consequence of added fitted flexibility as an empirical discovery, i.e., a fitted parameter is renamed as a physical prediction.
fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
"The unknown parameters in the models, such as longitudinal coupling constants and form factor cutoffs, are determined by fitting the calculated observables to nearly 2000 experimental data points. The resulting models demonstrate satisfactory consistency with the available experimental data."

The claimed 'satisfactory consistency' is evaluated on exactly the same 1953 experimental points that were used to determine the model parameters (longitudinal couplings, form-factor cutoffs, and the new a_i parameters). The agreement is therefore an in-sample measure of the fit, not an out-of-sample prediction; reporting it as a demonstration that the models describe the data restates the outcome of the minimization rather than providing independent evidence. With no holdout set, cross-validation, or complexity penalty, the statement reduces to the definition of the fitting procedure.

full rationale

Most of the paper is a standard phenomenological fitting exercise and is not circular: the Born couplings are constrained to SU(3) predictions, the photoproduction parameters of Table 1 were extracted from a different reaction in previous work, and comparisons with KAON-MAID and with the CLAS data are explicit and falsifiable. The circularity is concentrated in the central comparative claim about the new form factors. Equations (12) and (13) reduce to the dipole form factor of Eq. (11) when a1=0 or a2=0, and all parameters in the models, including a1 and a2, are fitted to the same 1953 data points. Consequently, Models 1 and 2 must yield a χ2 no larger than the dipole model's; the observed lowering from 2.33 to 2.16/2.17 is a mathematical consequence of increased flexibility, as the paper itself states. Using that in-sample gain to conclude that the CLAS data 'suggest a more compact charge distribution' converts a fit artifact into a physical inference. The Abstract's claim of 'satisfactory consistency' is likewise a statement about the same data used for fitting rather than an independent prediction. The effect is amplified by the large parameter increase (117 to 240 parameters) with no penalty, no parameter uncertainties, and no validation on a separate dataset. No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem is present, so the score is 6 rather than higher; however, the central physical conclusion does reduce to the fitted flexibility of the model.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All parameters and assumptions needed to reproduce the central fit are not contained in the paper. The model leans on earlier photoproduction work for propagators, vertex factors, and many couplings; the present paper contributes the electroproduction extension, two ad hoc form factor shapes, and a 1953-point CLAS fit. The physical interpretation rests on the assumption that the new form factor shapes represent real Q^2 dependence rather than added flexibility.

free parameters (5)

Longitudinal coupling constants G_N(R) for nucleon resonances = 8 values in Table 2 (e.g., G_N(1440) = -4.678)
Fitted to the 1953 CLAS data points; only 8 of the model's fitted parameters are actually shown.
Form factor suppression parameters a1 and a2 = not reported in the paper
Introduce exponential and sech-squared Q^2 suppression in Eqs. (12)-(13); fitted to data but no values are given.
Dipole cutoff Lambda for baryon resonances = not reported for the electroproduction fit
Appears in all three form factors (Eq. 11); fitted to data.
Kaon resonance cutoffs Lambda_K* and Lambda_K1 = not reported
Monopole form factors in Eq. (14); fitted to data.
Fixed photoproduction parameters (g_KLambdaN, g_KSigmaN, G_V/T of K*/K1, Lambda_B, Lambda_R, theta_had, phi_had) = Table 1 values, e.g., Lambda_B=0.700 GeV, theta_had=114.4 deg
Taken from previous photoproduction fits and used as inputs; they are fitted constants of the overall model.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Covariant isobar model with Breit-Wigner propagators and the vertex factors of Refs. [32,33] adequately describes K+Lambda electroproduction.
The entire calculation is built on this framework; no alternative mechanism is tested.
domain assumption Masses, widths, and branching ratios of the 26 nucleon and 20 hyperon resonances are known inputs.
The paper does not list these inputs but relies on them to construct the amplitude.
domain assumption Born coupling constants are constrained to SU(3) predictions, as stated below Table 1.
This fixes background contributions and affects extracted resonance couplings.
domain assumption The CLAS experimental data of Refs. [28,29] are reliable and their systematic uncertainties can be ignored in the chi-square.
The fit uses 1953 points without discussing systematic error treatment.
ad hoc to paper The functional forms in Eqs. (12)-(13) are physically meaningful Q^2 dependences; the fitted parameters a_i are not merely absorbing missing physics.
No derivation from QCD is provided; the physical interpretation of compact charge distribution depends on this.
domain assumption The nonlinear least-squares fit converged to a global minimum with identifiable parameters despite 240 free parameters.
No fit diagnostics, starting values, or parameter uncertainties are given.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New Isobar Models for $K^+\Lambda$ Electroproduction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XIO2Q7A3

@misc{pith2026250707750,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New Isobar Models for $K^+\Lambda$ Electroproduction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XIO2Q7A3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07750}
}

read the original abstract

The electroproduction of kaon on proton has been studied using two covariant isobar models. The models incorporate propagators and vertex factors developed in our previous works. In total, the current study includes 26 nucleon resonances and 20 hyperon resonances, with spins up to 13/2. In the electromagnetic vertices, we consider two alternative electromagnetic form factors alongside the commonly used dipole model. The unknown parameters in the models, such as longitudinal coupling constants and form factor cutoffs, are determined by fitting the calculated observables to nearly 2000 experimental data points. The resulting models demonstrate satisfactory consistency with the available experimental data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07750 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Structure functions σU ≡ dσT/dΩK +ϵdσL/dΩK calculated using different models as a function of c.m. energy W. Experimental data are taken from Ref. [28]. 50 100 150 200 250 300 −0.5 0.5 σ U (nb/sr) W = 1.650 GeV 250 200 150 100 50 x0.2 x0.2 50 100 150 200 250 300 −0.5 0.5 σ U (nb/sr) W = 1.650 GeV 250 200 150 100 50 50 100 150 200 250 300 −0.5 0.5 σ U (nb/sr) W = 1.650 GeV 250 200 150 100 50 50 100 150 200 250 300 −0… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Angular distributions of the structure functions σU ≡ dσT/dΩK + ϵdσL/dΩK and σTT ≡ dσTT/dΩK predicted by different models in the present work compared with the prediction of KAONMAID and experimental data from the CLAS Collaboration [28] for two different values of the total c.m. energy W at Q2 = 0.65 GeV2 . Notation of the curves is as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Q2 distributions of the structure functions σU ≡ dσT/dΩK +ϵdσL/dΩK and σTT ≡ dσTT/dΩK predicted by different models in the present work compared with the prediction of KAON-MAID and experimental data from the CLAS Collaboration [28] for two different values of kaon scattering angle cos θ at W = 1.65 GeV. Notation of the curves is as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Angular distributions of the beam-recoil transferred polarizations P ′ x′ and P ′ x predicted by different models in the present work compared with experimental data from the CLAS Collaboration [29] and the prediction of KAON-MAID for a beam energy of E = 6.535 GeV. No…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

[30]

Electroproduction of the Lambda/Sigma^0 hyperons at Q^2~0.5 (GeV/c)^2 at forward angles

K. Okuyama et al. “Electroproduction of the Λ/Σ 0 hyperons at Q2 ≃ 0.5 (GeV/c) 2 at forward angles”. In: Phys. Rev. C 110.2 (2024), p. 025203. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.110.025203 . arXiv: 2403.01173 [nucl-ex]

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[1]

Kaon electroproduction

N. Levy, W. Majerotto, and B. J. Read. “Kaon electroproduction”. In: Nucl. Phys. B 55 (1973), pp. 513–523. doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(73)90394-5

work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(73)90394-5 1973
[2]

Threshold kaon photo- and electroproduction in SU(3) baryon chiral perturbation theory

S. Steininger and U.-G. Meissner. “Threshold kaon photoproduction and electroproduction in SU(3) baryon chiral perturbation theory”. In:Phys. Lett. B 391 (1997), pp. 446–450.doi: 10.1016/S0370- 2693(96)01490-6. arXiv: nucl-th/9609051

work page Pith review arXiv 1997
[3]

Covariant isobar model for K +Λ electroproduction

S. Sakinah and T. Mart. “Covariant isobar model for K +Λ electroproduction”. In: J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1245.1 (2019), p. 012079. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1245/1/012079

work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1245/1/012079 2019
[4]

Phenomenological analysis of K +Λ photoproduction

H. Thom. “Phenomenological analysis of K +Λ photoproduction”. In: Phys. Rev. 151 (1966), pp. 1322–

work page 1966
[5]

Kaon photoproduction operator for use in nuclear physics

R. A. Adelseck, C. Bennhold, and L. E. Wright. “Kaon photoproduction operator for use in nuclear physics”. In: Phys. Rev. C 32 (1985), pp. 1681–1692. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.32.1681

work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.32.1681 1985
[6]

Electroproductions of Light $\Lambda$- and $\Sigma$-Hypernuclei

S. Shinmura. “Electroproductions of light Λ and Σ hypernuclei”. In: Prog. Theor. Phys. 92 (1994), pp. 571–582. doi: 10.1143/PTP.92.571. arXiv: nucl-th/9401017

work page Pith review arXiv 1994
[7]

Kaon photoproduction in the color dielectric model

D.-H. Lu, R. H. Landau, and S. C. Phatak. “Kaon photoproduction in the color dielectric model”. In: Phys. Rev. C 52 (1995), pp. 1662–1667. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.52.1662

work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.52.1662 1995

Show all 38 references

[8]

Kaon photoproduction near threshold and their coupling constants

M. K. Cheoun et al. “Kaon photoproduction near threshold and their coupling constants”. In: Phys. Rev. C 54 (1996), pp. 1811–1824. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.54.1811

1996 doi
[9]

Kaon photoproduction: Background contributions, form-factors and missing res- onances

S. Janssen et al. “Kaon photoproduction: Background contributions, form-factors and missing res- onances”. In: Phys. Rev. C 65 (2002), p. 015201. doi: 10 . 1103 / PhysRevC . 65 . 015201. arXiv: nucl-th/0107028

2002 arXiv
[10]

An isobaric model for kaon photoproduction

B. S. Han et al. “An isobaric model for kaon photoproduction”. In: Nucl. Phys. A 691 (2001), pp. 713–749. doi: 10.1016/S0375-9474(01)00584-X. arXiv: nucl-th/9912011

2001 arXiv
[11]

Role of the high-spin nucleon and delta resonances in the KΛ and KΣ photoproduction off the nucleon

N. H. Luthfiyah and T. Mart. “Role of the high-spin nucleon and delta resonances in the KΛ and KΣ photoproduction off the nucleon”. In: Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021), p. 076022. doi: 10 . 1103 / PhysRevD.104.076022. arXiv: 2110.01789 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[12]

Note on the electromagnetic radius of proton

M. Ridwan and T. Mart. “Note on the electromagnetic radius of proton”. In: Mod. Phys. Lett. A 38.36n37 (2023), p. 2350157. doi: 10.1142/S0217732323501572. arXiv: 2308.14950 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[13]

Nonidentical protons

T. Mart and A. Sulaksono. “Nonidentical protons”. In: Phys. Rev. C 87.2 (2013), p. 025807. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.87.025807. arXiv: 1302.6012 [nucl-th]

2013 arXiv
[14]

The GDH sum rule and related integrals

D. Drechsel, S. S. Kamalov, and L. Tiator. “The GDH sum rule and related integrals”. In: Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001), p. 114010. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.63.114010. arXiv: hep-ph/0008306

2001 arXiv
[15]

Kaon contributions to the Gerasimov-Drell-Hearn integrals on the proton

T Mart. “Kaon contributions to the Gerasimov-Drell-Hearn integrals on the proton”. In: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 23 (2008), pp. 599–612. doi: 10.1142/S0217751X08038020

2008 doi
[16]

Kaon photoproduction on the nucleon: Contributions of kaon hy- peron final states to the magnetic moment of the nucleon

S. Sumowidagdo and T. Mart. “Kaon photoproduction on the nucleon: Contributions of kaon hy- peron final states to the magnetic moment of the nucleon”. In: Phys. Rev. C 60 (1999), p. 028201. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.60.028201. arXiv: nucl-th/9906026

1999 arXiv
[17]

Semirelativistic quark model for kaon photoproduction

A. Kumar and D. S. Onley. “Semirelativistic quark model for kaon photoproduction”. In: Ohio University Report (1994)

1994
[18]

The kaon photoproduction of nucleons in the chiral quark model

Z.-P. Li. “The kaon photoproduction of nucleons in the chiral quark model”. In: Phys. Rev. C 52 (1995), pp. 1648–1661. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.52.1648. arXiv: hep-ph/9502218

1995 arXiv
[19]

Kaon photoproduction in a multipole approach

T. Mart and A. Sulaksono. “Kaon photoproduction in a multipole approach”. In: Phys. Rev. C 74 (2006), p. 055203. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.74.055203. arXiv: nucl-th/0609077

2006 arXiv
[20]

Predicting K 0Λ photoproduction observables by using the multipole ap- proach

T. Mart and A. Rusli. “Predicting K 0Λ photoproduction observables by using the multipole ap- proach”. In: PTEP 2017.12 (2017). [Addendum: PTEP 2019, 069101 (2019)], p. 123D04. doi: 10.1093/ptep/ptx163

2017 doi
[21]

Photoproduction of K +Σ0 within the isobar model

D. Petrellis and D. Skoupil. “Photoproduction of K +Σ0 within the isobar model”. In: Phys. Rev. C 110.6 (2024), p. 065204. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.110.065204

2024 doi
[22]

Photo- and electroproduction ofK +Λ with unitarity-restored isobar model

D. Skoupil and P. Bydˇ zovsk´ y. “Photo- and electroproduction ofK +Λ with unitarity-restored isobar model”. In: Phys. Rev. C 97.2 (2018), p. 025202. doi: 10 . 1103 / PhysRevC . 97 . 025202. arXiv: 1801.07466 [nucl-th]

2018 arXiv
[23]

Electromagnetic production of kaons from protons, and baryon electromagnetic form factors

O. V. Maxwell. “Electromagnetic production of kaons from protons, and baryon electromagnetic form factors”. In: Phys. Rev. C 85 (2012), p. 034611. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.034611

2012 doi
[24]

A gauge invariant chiral unitary framework for kaon photo- and electroproduction on the proton

B. Borasoy et al. “A gauge invariant chiral unitary framework for kaon photo- and electroproduction on the proton”. In: Eur. Phys. J. A 34 (2007), pp. 161–183. doi: 10.1140/epja/i2007-10492-4 . arXiv: 0709.3181 [nucl-th]

2007 arXiv
[25]

Global data-driven determination of baryon transition form factors

Y.-F. Wang et al. “Global data-driven determination of baryon transition form factors”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 133.10 (2024), p. 101901. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.101901 . arXiv: 2404.17444 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[26]

Inclusion of KΛ electroproduction data in a coupled channel analysis

M. Mai et al. “Inclusion of KΛ electroproduction data in a coupled channel analysis”. In: Eur. Phys. J. A 59.12 (2023), p. 286. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050- 023- 01188- 0. arXiv: 2307.10051 [nucl-th]

2023 arXiv
[27]

Electromagnetic production of kaon in all isospin channels: Summary of the progress and application

T. Mart. “Electromagnetic production of kaon in all isospin channels: Summary of the progress and application”. In: Few Body Syst. 62.3 (2021), p. 31. doi: 10.1007/s00601-021-01617-0

2021 doi
[28]

Separated structure functions for the exclusive electroproduction of K +Λ and K +Σ0 final states

P. Ambrozewicz et al. “Separated structure functions for the exclusive electroproduction of K +Λ and K +Σ0 final states”. In: Phys. Rev. C 75 (2007), p. 045203. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.75.045203. arXiv: hep-ex/0611036

2007 arXiv
[29]

Beam-recoil transferred polarization in K +Y electroproduction in the nucleon resonance region with CLAS12

D. S. Carman et al. “Beam-recoil transferred polarization in K +Y electroproduction in the nucleon resonance region with CLAS12”. In:Phys. Rev. C 105.6 (2022), p. 065201. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC. 105.065201. arXiv: 2202.03398 [nucl-ex]

2022 arXiv
[31]

Extracting the pole and Breit-Wigner properties of nucleon and ∆ resonances from the γN →KΣ photoproduction

S. Clymton and T. Mart. “Extracting the pole and Breit-Wigner properties of nucleon and ∆ resonances from the γN →KΣ photoproduction”. In: Phys. Rev. D 104.5 (2021), p. 056015. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.056015. arXiv: 2104.10333 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[32]

Coupled K +Λ and K 0Λ photoproduction off the nucleon: Consequences from the recent CLAS and MAMI data and theN (1680)P11 narrow state

T. Mart. “Coupled K +Λ and K 0Λ photoproduction off the nucleon: Consequences from the recent CLAS and MAMI data and theN (1680)P11 narrow state”. In: Phys. Rev. D 100.5 (2019), p. 056008. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.056008. arXiv: 1909.02696 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[33]

Nucleon resonances with spin 3/2 and 5/2 in the isobar model for kaon photoproduction

T. Mart, S. Clymton, and A. J. Arifi. “Nucleon resonances with spin 3/2 and 5/2 in the isobar model for kaon photoproduction”. In: Phys. Rev. D 92.9 (2015), p. 094019. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92. 094019

2015 doi
[34]

Photoproduction and electroproduction of eta mesons

G. Knochlein, D. Drechsel, and L. Tiator. “Photoproduction and electroproduction of eta mesons”. In: Z. Phys. A 352 (1995), pp. 327–343. doi: 10.1007/BF01289506. arXiv: nucl-th/9506029

1995 arXiv
[35]

Electromagnetic production of kaon near threshold

T. Mart. “Electromagnetic production of kaon near threshold”. In: Phys. Rev. C 82 (2010), p. 025209. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.82.025209. arXiv: 1007.5366 [nucl-th]

2010 arXiv
[36]

Mart et al

T. Mart et al. KAON-MAID: An effective Lagrangian Model for Kaon Photo- and Electroproduction on the Nucleon . https://maid.kph.uni-mainz.de/kaon/. accessed on June 30, 2025

2025
[37]

Beam-recoil polarization transfer in the nucleon resonance region in the exclusive ⃗ ep→ e′K +⃗Λ and ⃗ ep→ e′K +Σ0 reactions at CLAS

D. S. Carman et al. “Beam-recoil polarization transfer in the nucleon resonance region in the exclusive ⃗ ep→ e′K +⃗Λ and ⃗ ep→ e′K +Σ0 reactions at CLAS”. In:Phys. Rev. C 79 (2009), p. 065205. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.79.065205. arXiv: 0904.3246 [hep-ex]

2009 arXiv
[1336]

doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.151.1322

doi

Pith tools

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

[1] [30]

Electroproduction of the Lambda/Sigma^0 hyperons at Q^2~0.5 (GeV/c)^2 at forward angles

K. Okuyama et al. “Electroproduction of the Λ/Σ 0 hyperons at Q2 ≃ 0.5 (GeV/c) 2 at forward angles”. In: Phys. Rev. C 110.2 (2024), p. 025203. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.110.025203 . arXiv: 2403.01173 [nucl-ex]

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[2] [1]

Kaon electroproduction

N. Levy, W. Majerotto, and B. J. Read. “Kaon electroproduction”. In: Nucl. Phys. B 55 (1973), pp. 513–523. doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(73)90394-5

work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(73)90394-5 1973

[3] [2]

Threshold kaon photo- and electroproduction in SU(3) baryon chiral perturbation theory

S. Steininger and U.-G. Meissner. “Threshold kaon photoproduction and electroproduction in SU(3) baryon chiral perturbation theory”. In:Phys. Lett. B 391 (1997), pp. 446–450.doi: 10.1016/S0370- 2693(96)01490-6. arXiv: nucl-th/9609051

work page Pith review arXiv 1997

[4] [3]

Covariant isobar model for K +Λ electroproduction

S. Sakinah and T. Mart. “Covariant isobar model for K +Λ electroproduction”. In: J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1245.1 (2019), p. 012079. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1245/1/012079

work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1245/1/012079 2019

[5] [4]

Phenomenological analysis of K +Λ photoproduction

H. Thom. “Phenomenological analysis of K +Λ photoproduction”. In: Phys. Rev. 151 (1966), pp. 1322–

work page 1966

[6] [5]

Kaon photoproduction operator for use in nuclear physics

R. A. Adelseck, C. Bennhold, and L. E. Wright. “Kaon photoproduction operator for use in nuclear physics”. In: Phys. Rev. C 32 (1985), pp. 1681–1692. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.32.1681

work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.32.1681 1985

[7] [6]

Electroproductions of Light $\Lambda$- and $\Sigma$-Hypernuclei

S. Shinmura. “Electroproductions of light Λ and Σ hypernuclei”. In: Prog. Theor. Phys. 92 (1994), pp. 571–582. doi: 10.1143/PTP.92.571. arXiv: nucl-th/9401017

work page Pith review arXiv 1994

[8] [7]

Kaon photoproduction in the color dielectric model

D.-H. Lu, R. H. Landau, and S. C. Phatak. “Kaon photoproduction in the color dielectric model”. In: Phys. Rev. C 52 (1995), pp. 1662–1667. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.52.1662

work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.52.1662 1995