SciPost logo

SciPost Submission Page

Hyperons - a strange key to the strong interaction

by Karin Schoenning

This is not the latest submitted version.

This Submission thread is now published as

Submission summary

Authors (as registered SciPost users): Karin Schoenning
Submission information
Preprint Link: scipost_201911_00044v1  (pdf)
Date submitted: 2019-11-28 01:00
Submitted by: Schoenning, Karin
Submitted to: SciPost Physics Proceedings
Proceedings issue: 24th European Few Body Conference (EFB2019)
Ontological classification
Academic field: Physics
  • High-Energy Physics - Experiment
  • Nuclear Physics - Experiment
Approach: Experimental


Hyperons provide new angles on two of the most challenging problems in contempo- rary physics: a coherent and quantitative description of the strong interaction, and the matter-antimatter asymmetry of the Universe. In these proceedings, I will demonstrate the merits of hyperons as a diagnostic tool using two recent measurements by the BE- SIII experiment as an illustrative example. Furthermore, I will highlight the prospect of future hyperon studies with the next-generation experiment PAND

Current status:
Has been resubmitted

Reports on this Submission

Anonymous Report 1 on 2019-12-10 (Invited Report)

  • Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:scipost_201911_00044v1, delivered 2019-12-10, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.1397


Comments on "Hyperons - a strange key to the strong interaction"

The ms is well written! I infer that the material has been extensively
reviewed by the BESIII and PANDA collaborations. My comments are related
almost exclusively to aspects of the ms that could be made clearer to the
non-expert reader and to grammatical questions.

1.The term "angles on", which appears in the first line of the abstract and
in another place in the text, seems as if it is a mis-translation. I believe
that a better choice of words would be "insights into". It took me some time
to interpret what was meant by the term "angles" in my reading of the ms.

2.In the last paragraph at the bottom of page 2, the statement is made "to
make a small change to the system". It does not seem that any of the three
changes cited would be considered "small" by most readers. For most readers I
believe that omitting that adjective would provide a better description of the
change suggested.
In the first line of that paragraph the comma following system seems

3.In the introductory paragraph in section 2 Hyperons, the meaning of the
sentence "Hyperons are strongly interacting objects and are therefore suitable
for studying the strong interaction." will not be clear to the majority of
physicists involved in the discussions of nucleons (as highlighted in the first
sentence of the introduction to this paper). That is, these readers would mean
something entirely different by "strong interaction" than does the author. In a
discussion of strong interactions of nucleons one more commonly means the
interaction of two of more strongly interacting objects (nucleons). The author
means instead the interaction that determines the internal structure of the
"strongly interacting object". It would be helpful to many readers were it made
clear in the beginning of this paragraph that the author is using the latter
meaning as the definition of the strong interaction (the interaction that
determines the structure of the hyperon) and not the more standard meaning of
the strong interaction (the interaction of two strongly interacting objects as
comes to mind for most people who consider the bound or scattering states of
two or more strongly interacting nucleons).

4.The discussion of space-like and time-like EMFF's on page 4 is well done!
In particular it is helpful to see the explanation of what can be accomplished
in terms of nucleons.

5.On page 6 in the opening sentence in section 3.2.2, "In this work, the ..."
would appear to read more clearly as "In this work, the reaction ...".
There is a question of English language terminology in the 3.2.3 Results
section. In line 3, the expression "... form factor ratio could be estimated
to R = 0.96 ..." seems to be missing a "be". That is, the expression should
read "... form factor ratio could be estimated to be R = 0.96 ...". Likewise,
the following "... phase to $\Delta..." should read "... phase to be $\Delta...".
Three lines below that, the expression "... contributions arise from
fit range ...." should read "... contributions arise from the fit range ...."
Eight lines below that, one finds the expression "... could be extracted
to |G| ...". I believe that should read "... could be extracted to be |G| ...".
In the second line of 3.3, there is an extraneous hyphen in "charge-".

6.On page 7 three lines from the end of the first paragraph, there seems to
be a comma needed after "ever been seen".
At the end of the third line of the next paragraph, it would seem that a
"the" is needed before "test".

7.On page 8, near the end of the paragraph in section 4.1, do the symbols
J$\Psi$ need a "/" inserted as in the first line of the paragraph.
In the first line in 4.1.1 Formalism "consider" should be replaced by
"considers", because "formalism" is singular.
In the second paragraph of section 4.1.2, "was measured to -0.758" should
read "was measured to be -0.758". The minus sign before "0.758" appears to be
a "dash". On the next line "decay to -0.692" should read "decay to be -0.692".
Again the minus sign appears to be a dash. Finally "was calculated to -0.006"
should read "was calculated to be -0.006"; again the minus sign appears to be a

8.On page 9, in the first line of section 4.1.3 "open up" should read "opens
up", because sample is singular.
In section 5 in the third line, "enable" should be "provide", and in the
next line "the" should be inserted before "SM", to be consistent the author's
earlier useage.
In the first line of the second paragraph under 5.1: "detector enable"
should read "detector will provide".
In the next line, "from e.g." should be "from, e.g." to be consistent with
the remainder of the ms.

9.On page 10 could there be some brief explanation of the PandaROOT
framework? If that is not possible, could there be a reference to such an

10.In the Conclusions section, in the second line "i" should read "in".
Two lines below that, "enable" is more correctly "provides" and again "angles
on" would better replaced by "insights into".
At the end of the next line, "milestones for hyperon structure" should probably
read "milestones in understanding hyperon structure".
At the end of the next line, it seems that a comma should follow "hyperon

Again, I would like to compliment the author on the manuscript. It is well

  • validity: -
  • significance: -
  • originality: -
  • clarity: -
  • formatting: -
  • grammar: -

Author:  Karin Schoenning  on 2020-01-08  [id 697]

(in reply to Report 1 on 2019-12-10)

Dear referee,

and thanks for the positive statements and useful feedback! I have implemented your suggestions, though No. 3 not exactly according to the recommendation. The strong interaction I refer to is the one from first principles (described by QCD), i.e. not the residual interaction between nucleons. From a particle physics perspective, this is more "standard", however in this very region where quarks form hadrons, it is a bit unclear how the interaction works. Since hadron structure is not some special case of strong interaction but a fundamental observable of the complex interaction between quarks, I would not like to change to "the interaction that determines the structure". Instead I changed to "the strong interaction at the scale where quarks form hadrons". I hope this is OK. In the last comment of point 8, I put the comma in a different place than suggested, since I think it reads better.

Best regards,
/Karin Schoenning

Anonymous on 2020-01-27  [id 720]

(in reply to Karin Schoenning on 2020-01-08 [id 697])

I have read the author's response to my report. I am satisfied with her implementation of the suggestions that I made in my report. I recommend that the editors accept the ms for publication in the proceedings.

Login to report or comment