the purpose of the present work is to improve the recent saclay - lyon ( sl ) study  @xcite on the strangeness electromagnetic production from the proton .
this latter investigation was based upon an effective hadronic lagrangian in the lowest ( tree ) approximation , often called the isobar approximation . in a number of aspects
one might safely say that sl is an improved version of its predecessors dealing with the same strangeness production processes . in particular
, it has incorporated the _
s-_channel nucleonic resonances with spin 3/2 and 5/2 , expected to be important should the model keep adequate as energy increases . in ref .
@xcite such resonances were also considered .
however , there the components of the amplitude growing undesirably with increasing channel energy were taken away by hand .    as we will see later ,
these contributions arise from the non - resonant terms associated to each considered resonance with spin  @xmath5  1/2 . in the sl study this was avoided by modifying the vertices and propagators in a manner adopted for spin 3/2 resonances in refs .
@xcite : a straightforward extension to higher spins , while preserving the electromagnetic gauge invariance .
this modification , however , has introduced an unwanted behavior for spin @xmath6 hyperonic resonances exchanged in the _ u-_channel : the corresponding propagators become singular in the physical region . thus in the sl approach only spin 1/2 hyperons have been considered in the _
u-_channel exchange .
the phenomenological success of the sl model might imply that , within the present state of the data , the main contributions from baryonic higher spin resonances come mainly from the _ s_-channel resonances ( we will come back to this point in section iv ) .    in the study of pion photoproduction ,
the rensselaer polytechnic institute ( rpi ) group  @xcite has shown that of several different forms of the spin 3/2 propagator in the literature only one of them has a correct inverse .
also the authors pointed out that there are extra degrees of freedom associated with the interaction vertices involving a spin 3/2 particle . by exploiting these facts , they successfully fitted the existing photo - pion data by the amplitudes generated from effective hadronic lagrangians , and made predictions for some observables as well as the @xmath7 ratio for the @xmath8 vertex .
a similar strategy has been applied also by the rpi group  @xcite to the photo- and electro - production of the @xmath9 meson .
it seems quite natural then , as an extension of the saclay - lyon approach  @xcite , as well as the works of the rpi group  @xcite , to exploit this treatment for spin 3/2 particles in the study of the photo- and electro - production of the strangeness off the nucleon .
yet , one needs to incorporate properly the _
u-_channel exchanges in the phenomenological approaches .
the reasons for such an effort are mainly two - fold : _
( i ) _ a consistent treatment of the higher spin baryonic resonances in both _ s- _ _ and _ _ u-_channels , _ ( ii ) _ very likely , more sophisticated formalisms will be needed to interpret the forthcoming data from new facilities , _
e.g. _ , the thomas jefferson national accelerator facility ( jlab ) , the electron stretcher accelerator ( elsa ) , the european synchrotron radiation facility ( esrf ) , and the 8  gev synchrotron facility ( spring-8 ) under construction in japan .    in this paper , we work out the general expressions valid for the processes with a kaon @xmath10 ( @xmath11  @xmath12 ) and an hyperon @xmath13 ( @xmath14 ) in the final state . a selected set of @xmath15 channel observables for the following processes are also reported : @xmath1 ( @xmath2 2.5 gev ) , @xmath3 , and @xmath4 .
similar investigations with the @xmath16 hyperons in the final state , _
i.e. _ @xmath17 and @xmath18 channels , are in progress and the results will be reported elsewhere .    in section ii , the approach by the rpi group is extended to the photo- and electroproduction of strangeness through _
s-_channel nucleonic resonances of spin 3/2 .
the off - shell parameters are introduced in the interaction lagrangians , and the dependence on these parameters of the non - pole part of the invariant amplitudes is clarified .
the approaches used previously where the off - shell effects were ignored are placed in the present context .
section iii is devoted to the treatment of spin 3/2 resonances in the _
the direct calculation proceeds along the same line as for the _
s-_channel resonance exchange .
the substitution rule which emerges from the direct calculation is worked out , leading to simple rules to obtain the _
u-_channel invariant amplitudes from the _ s-_channel ones . in section iv
, we give our results and we discuss the dependence of the relevant observables on the off - shell parameters .
the summary and conclusions are presented in the last section .
in this section we extend the approach by benmerrouche _
et al . _
@xcite , devoted to the @xmath19 and @xmath9 photoproduction , to obtain the amplitudes for the reactions @xmath20 ( @xmath21 ) for both real ( @xmath22 ) and virtual ( @xmath23 ) photons , through an _ s-_channel nucleonic resonance of spin 3/2 and positive parity .
once we obtain the amplitude , it is easy to establish its relation to the corresponding one obtained by renard & renard  @xcite as well as to the one in sl  @xcite .
also one finds that the amplitudes due to nucleonic _
s-_channel @xmath24 resonances may be trivially obtained by simple substitutions .
although some parts of this section should appear to be repetitive to those who are familiar with ref.@xcite , we give a comprehensive presentation of the matter for completeness , and present the explicit expressions of the invariant amplitudes for the photo- and electro - production .
we first define the nucleon field as @xmath25 and a spin 3/2 ( isospin 1/2 ) vector spin field ( resonance ) as @xmath26 .
then the free lagrangian for the spin 3/2 field reads    @xmath27    where @xmath28 is the usual dirac conjugate of @xmath29 , and @xmath30,\end{aligned}\ ] ]    with @xmath31 the mass of the resonance , and @xmath32 being a free parameter which preserves the invariance of the physical quantities constructed from the field under the point transformation    @xmath33    @xmath34 , but otherwise arbitrary .
the free spin 3/2 field satisfies the equation of motion and two constraints    @xmath35    the above constraints ensure that @xmath36 has spin 3/2 with upper ( positive energy ) and lower ( negative energy ) components .
the propagator associated with the @xmath36 field is obtained from the equation @xmath37    we may set @xmath38 to find the simplest form for the propagator    @xmath39 , \label{eq : prop32}\ ] ]    where @xmath40 is the four momentum of the resonance .
it is important to note @xcite that this propagator contains the spin 1/2 contribution , which is a consequence of the fact that the above @xmath41 has the correct inverse .
now we introduce the interactions for @xmath42 through the _
s_-channel spin 3/2 resonance discussed above .
again following ref .
@xcite with some modifications appropriate for the processes under consideration , the most general interaction lagrangian which preserves the symmetry under the point interaction introduced in the previous subsection reads    @xmath43 , \label{eq : intlag1 } \\ % { \cal l}_{\gamma p r}^{(1 ) } & = & \frac{i e g_1}{2 m_p } \left[\overline r^{\nu } \theta_{\mu\lambda}(y ) \gamma_{\nu}\gamma^5   n f^{\nu\lambda } + \overline n \gamma^5\gamma_{\nu } \theta_{\lambda\mu}(y ) r^{\mu }   f^{\nu\lambda } \right ] , \label{eq : intlag2 } \\ % { \cal l}_{\gamma p r}^{(2 ) } & = & \frac{- e g_2}{4 m_p^2 }     \left[\overline r^{\mu } \theta_{\mu\nu}(x ) \gamma^5   ( \partial_{\lambda } n ) f^{\nu\lambda } - ( \partial_{\lambda } \overline n ) \gamma^5 \theta_{\nu\mu}(x ) r^{\mu } f^{\nu\lambda } \right ] .
%        \label{eq : intlag3}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    in expression ( [ eq : intlag1 ] ) , @xmath44 specifies the lagrangian for the strong kaon - hyperon - resonance ( @xmath45 ) vertex in which @xmath10 denotes the iso - doublet    @xmath46    @xmath47 and @xmath48 are for the @xmath49 and _ derivative _ electromagnetic coupling terms , respectively .
there @xmath50 is the standard electromagnetic field tensor , and @xmath51 is defined as ( for our choice of @xmath38 in the previous subsection )    @xmath52    it is important to stress that in the above lagrangian , @xmath53 are arbitrary parameters which conserve the symmetry of the free lagrangian under the point transformation [ eq .
( [ eq : point ] ) ] , and are often called the _ off - shell parameters_. as will become clear later , we shall exploit this extra freedom to make the kaon electromagnetic production amplitudes well tamed . in
what follows we shall rather use @xmath54 , @xmath55 , @xmath56 .
the contribution to the @xmath57-matrix from the _ s_-channel resonance pole through the @xmath49 coupling reads    @xmath58    where @xmath59 is the time - ordering operator . using the above lagrangians , the matrix element for the @xmath49 term
is obtained as    @xmath60 u_p({\hbox{\boldmath{$p$}\unboldmath}}_{p } ) , \label{eq : gamma5}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where we have introduced the coupling constant    @xmath61    @xmath62 is the polarization vector of the photon , @xmath63 is the total momentum ( @xmath64 ) , and @xmath65 is the spin-3/2 propagator introduced in the last subsection , eq.([eq : prop32 ] ) .
using expression ( [ eq : teta ] ) for @xmath66 to calculate the terms on both sides of the propagator , we find    @xmath67   p^{\mu\nu}(q ) \nonumber \\ & & \times \left\ {   [ \epsilon_{\nu}{p } \hskip -0.16 cm / _ { \gamma } -(p_{\gamma})_{\nu}{\epsilon } \hskip -0.16 cm / ] - \widetilde y \gamma_{\nu }   [ { \epsilon } \hskip -0.16 cm / { p } \hskip -0.16 cm / _ { \gamma } -\epsilon { \cdot } p_{\gamma } ]   \right\ } \gamma^5 u_p({\hbox{\boldmath{$p$}\unboldmath}}_{p } ) .
\label{eq : dirac}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    a similar calculation leads to the _ derivative _ coupling contribution corresponding to @xmath48    @xmath68   p^{\mu\nu}(q ) \nonumber \\   & & \times \left\{[\epsilon { \cdot } p_p(p_{\gamma})_{\nu } -    p_{\gamma } { \cdot } p_p \,\epsilon_{\nu } ] + \widetilde x \gamma_{\nu }   [ p_{\gamma } { \cdot } p_p{\epsilon } \hskip -0.16 cm /    -                       \epsilon { \cdot } p_p{p } \hskip -0.16 cm / _ { \gamma } ] \right\ } \gamma^5 u_p({\hbox{\boldmath{$p$}\unboldmath}}_{p } ) ,     \label{eq : pauli}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    with @xmath69      adding the above two contributions given in eqs .
( [ eq : dirac ] ) and ( [ eq : pauli ] ) , we can write the scattering amplitude @xmath70 corresponding to the _ s-_channel exchange of an @xmath71 resonance as    @xmath72    where the @xmath73 vertex reads    @xmath74 , \label{eq : vertk}\ ] ]    and the @xmath75 vertex is    @xmath76 i\gamma^5 .
\label{eq : vert32 } \end{aligned}\ ] ]    note that , for the general case of electroproduction , the above vertex must be multiplied by @xmath77 , the second dirac form factor of the proton . in the case of photoproduction , this factor reduces to unity , and in addition we have @xmath78 .      the lorentz invariant matrix element for electroproduction
is written as    @xmath79    where @xmath80 and @xmath81 are the spinors of the hyperon and the proton , respectively , @xmath82 s are lorentz invariant scalar functions of the mandelstam variables , and @xmath83 s are the six usual gauge invariant matrices for the electroproduction    @xmath84    due to the second term , @xmath85 , the choice of @xmath86 is different from that used in refs .
@xcite and @xcite .
this results in a few modifications in the expressions of the cgln amplitudes for the electroproduction as given in appendix  [ app : cgln ] .
the advantage of this choice is its symmetric property under the exchange @xmath87 , thus leading to more transparent relations between the _
s- _ and _ u-_channels amplitudes , as shown in the next section . in the case of photoproduction , ( @xmath88 , @xmath78 ) , only the first four invariant amplitudes in eq .
( [ eq : mj ] ) are needed .
using the above expressions for the propagator and vertices , application of the dirac algebra leads to the invariant amplitudes @xmath82 , which are expressed as sums of resonant or pole ( @xmath89 ) and non - pole ( @xmath90 ) contributions . in the case of the photoproduction
we find    @xmath91                                        \quad , \quad ( j=1,\ldots,4 ) ,   \label{eq : ajphoto}\ ] ]    the expressions of the @xmath92 coefficients are given in appendix  [ app : invamp ] , eqs .
( [ eq : p1j ] ) to ( [ eq : p2j ] ) .
the electroproduction amplitudes can be written in a similar form    @xmath93                                        \quad , \quad ( j=1,\ldots,6 ) .
\label{eq : ajelec}\ ] ]    for @xmath94 , the @xmath95 coefficients are expressed in terms of the above defined photoproduction coefficients @xmath92 as    @xmath96    the extra terms @xmath97 are given in appendix  [ app : invamp ] , eqs .
( [ eq : r1j ] ) and ( [ eq : r2j ] ) .
note that this decomposition is not necessary for @xmath98 .
the corresponding coefficients @xmath99 are given in eqs .
( [ eq : e1 - 56 ] ) and ( [ eq : e2 - 56 ] ) of appendix  [ app : invamp ] .    note that in the calculation of the observables ( sec .
iv ) , the following replacement is made in the denominator of the pole contribution in eqs .
( [ eq : ajphoto ] ) and ( [ eq : ajelec ] )    @xmath100    where @xmath101 is the width of the resonance
.    it should be important to emphasize here that the _ pole _ contributions ( see appendix  [ app : invamp ] ) are completely _ independent _ of @xmath102 , hence with no off - shell dependence .
so far we have discussed the case in which the parity of the _
s_-channel resonance is positive . for a resonance with negative parity , we have only to make the following replacements : @xmath103 in eq .
( [ eq : vertk ] ) , and @xmath104 in eq .
( [ eq : vert32 ] ) . in the corresponding @xmath70 amplitude [ eq .
( [ eq : mfi ] ) ] , @xmath49 is now acting onto the left of the first vertex . using the anti - commutation property of @xmath49 with @xmath105 , it is easy to move the @xmath49 matrix in the same position as in the positive parity case , namely onto the right of the second vertex . by inspection
, we immediately obtain the parity rule for the invariant ( pole and non - pole ) amplitudes    @xmath106        the expressions used in ref .
@xcite for the propagator is the same as eq .
( [ eq : prop32 ] ) , but in the interaction lagrangian eqs .
( [ eq : intlag1])-([eq : intlag3 ] ) @xmath107 was set equal to @xmath108 .
in other words , the authors put @xmath109 in ( [ eq : teta ] ) ( or @xmath110 ) , thus no off - shell effect associated with the spin 3/2 particles was considered .
it is therefore clear from eqs .
( [ eq : vertk ] ) and ( [ eq : vert32 ] ) that the corresponding amplitude simplifies considerably . however , some of the _ non - pole _ contributions @xmath111 grow linearly in the _ s-_variable ( see appendix  [ app : invamp ] ) , causing an undesirable increase , for example , in the production cross section . for this reason _ all _
the resulting _ non - pole _ contributions were artificially thrown away in ref .
@xcite .      to avoid the difficulties encountered in the renard & renard model @xcite , adelseck _ et al . _
@xcite have suggested and applied the following prescriptions ( used also in ref .
the propagator is written from eq .
( [ eq : prop32 ] ) , with the mass of the resonance @xmath31 replaced by the total invariant energy @xmath112 , except in the denominator where the width of the resonance is introduced    @xmath113 .
\label{eq : prop32adel}\ ] ]    this modification provides an extra damping of the amplitude with increasing channel energy .
so together with the corresponding modification in the vertices discussed below , an unwanted growth in the production cross section due to the non - pole contribution could be reduced in the absence of the off - shell freedom ( in terms of @xmath114 ) .    in the photoproduction case ,
the @xmath45 vertex is    @xmath115    and the @xmath116 vertex factor for a positive parity resonance is written as    @xmath117 \gamma^5 .
\label{eq : vn32adel}\ ] ]    as stated by adelseck _
, these prescriptions were used to ensure gauge invariance of the scattering amplitude .
in fact , expressions ( [ eq : vkln32adel ] ) and ( [ eq : vn32adel ] ) may be reached from eqs .
( [ eq : vertk ] ) and ( [ eq : vert32 ] ) as demonstrated in appendix  [ app : nooff ] , where the coupling constants @xmath118 , @xmath119 , and @xmath120 are defined in terms of @xmath121 , @xmath122 , and @xmath123 , respectively . particularly , the photon coupling vertex in this choice contains damping factors in the _
s-_variable .
however , regarding the spin 3/2 propagator ( [ eq : prop32adel ] ) , when the same form is used for a _
u-_channel resonance exchange , namely the _
s-_variable replaced by the _
u-_variable , the latter may vanish at certain kinematical situations , leading to an unphysical behavior .
note also that as pointed out in @xcite , such propagators do not have inverses , and corresponding wave equations for the the spin-3/2 field can not be defined .
thus this approach is not appropriate for a consistent simultaneous description of the _ s- _ and _ u-_channels .
in this section we show some basic details on how the lowest order _ u-_channel exchange of a @xmath125 resonance contributes to the amplitude for @xmath126 production on the proton .
the exchange of a @xmath125 resonance in the _ u-_channel is treated along the same lines as in section ii for the _ s-_channel resonances exchange .
the part of the @xmath57-matrix corresponding to the * @xmath49 * photon coupling is    @xmath127    with @xmath128 .
the resulting matrix element takes the form    @xmath129 \theta_{\lambda\nu}(y ) \nonumber\\ & & \times p^{\nu\mu}(-q ' ) \theta_{\mu\chi}(z ) i p_k^{\chi } u_p({\hbox{\boldmath{$p$}\unboldmath}}_{p}).\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the momentum transfer is @xmath130 , with @xmath131 .
note that with a correct kinematical consideration it is easy to see that the propagator depends on @xmath132 ( not @xmath133 ! ) .
using eq .
( [ eq : teta ] ) just as before , one finds    @xmath134 - \widetilde y   [ { p } \hskip -0.16 cm / _
{ \gamma}{\epsilon } \hskip -0.16 cm /   -\epsilon { \cdot } p_{\gamma } ] \gamma_{\nu } \right \ } \nonumber \\ & & \times p^{\nu\mu}(-q ' ) [ ( p_k)_{\mu } - \widetilde z \gamma_{\mu }   { p } \hskip -0.16 cm / _ k ] u_p({\hbox{\boldmath{$p$}\unboldmath}}_{p } ) .
\label{eq : u - dirac}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the _ derivative _ coupling term is calculated along the same lines , leading to    @xmath135 +   \widetilde x [ p_{\gamma } { \cdot } p_{y}{\epsilon } \hskip -0.16 cm /    -             \epsilon { \cdot } p_{y } { p } \hskip -0.16 cm / _ { \gamma } ] \gamma_{\nu } \right\}\nonumber \\             & & \times p^{\nu\mu}(-q ' )   [ ( p_k)_{\mu } - \widetilde z \gamma_{\mu}{p } \hskip -0.16 cm / _ k ]   u_p({\hbox{\boldmath{$p$}\unboldmath}}_{p } ) .
\label{eq : u - pauli}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    in the above expressions , @xmath136 and @xmath137 are the two @xmath138 coupling constants , which are similar to @xmath121 and @xmath122 as in eqs .
( [ eq : intlag2 ] ) and ( [ eq : intlag3 ] ) .
note the similarity of the last two expressions with the corresponding ones for an _
s-_channel resonance exchange , eqs .
( [ eq : dirac ] ) and ( [ eq : pauli ] ) . adding the two above contributions , the scattering matrix in the _
u-_channel exchange reads    @xmath139    the two vertices are    @xmath140 , \label{eq : u - vertk}\ ] ]    @xmath141 .
\label{eq : u - vert32 } \end{aligned}\ ] ]    the propagator reads    @xmath142 .
\label{eq : u - prop32}\ ] ]    using the above expressions for the vertices and propagator , the decomposition of @xmath143 in terms of the gauge invariant matrices defined in eq .
( [ eq : mj ] ) can be done along the same lines as in section ii.d . however , comparing the _ s- _ and _ u-_channels vertices and propagators , it is easy to get out the rules regarding how to obtain the expressions for the _ u-_channel exchange from those for the _ s-_channel , namely : _
1 ) _ exchange @xmath87 ( including @xmath144 ) , _ 2 ) _
express the products of @xmath145 matrices in a reversed order , _ 3 ) _ change @xmath146 , @xmath147 , @xmath148 , and _ 4 ) _ exchange the two vertices and put the appropriate coupling constants .
in fact , these rules result from a substitution rule which is simpler to use , since it allows us to formally derive the invariant amplitudes for the _ u-_channel exchange directly from the corresponding _
s-_channel exchange amplitudes .
the derivation of the substitution rule and its application to obtain the invariant amplitudes are given in the next two subsections .
we now calculate the _
u-_channel results by substitution rule applied to the _
s-_channel expressions .
namely , we introduce in eq .
( [ eq : mfi ] ) the appropriate coupling constants , together with the following replacements : @xmath149 , @xmath150 , @xmath87 , @xmath151 , @xmath152 , with @xmath153 , @xmath154 being the negative energy spinors .
the resulting scattering matrix is    @xmath155    and the expressions of the vertices and propagator are [ cf .
( [ eq : vertk ] ) , ( [ eq : vert32 ] ) , and ( [ eq : prop32 ] ) ] :    @xmath156 , \label{eq : vertk - u}\ ] ]    @xmath157 \gamma_5 , \label{eq : vert32-u } \end{aligned}\ ] ]    @xmath158 , \label{eq : prop32-u}\ ] ]    with @xmath159 , as before .    using the relation between the @xmath160 and @xmath161 spinors : @xmath162 , with @xmath163 the charge conjugation operator , and @xmath164 the dirac adjoint of @xmath161 , eq .
( [ eq : mfi - u ] ) is written as :    @xmath165    by appropriately inserting @xmath166 , the above equation can be transformed into    @xmath167^c           \ [ p_{\mu \nu}(q')^t]^c           \ [ { \cal { v}}^{\mu}(k p r)^t]^c                     \ u_p({\hbox{\boldmath{$p$}\unboldmath}}_{p } ) , \label{eq : mfi - u3}\ ] ]    where we have defined the @xmath168-transform of @xmath169 as    @xmath170^c = c^{-1 } x^t c.\ ] ]    now , we exploit the properties of the charge conjugation matrix @xmath168 to calculate the @xmath168-transforms of the vertices and propagator .
for example , the @xmath168-transform of the @xmath171 vertex eq.([eq : vertk - u ] ) is    @xmath172^c = -\frac{g_{k p r}}{m_k }      c^{-1}[\ p_k^{\mu }     - { \widetilde z } { p } \hskip -0.16 cm / _ k \gamma^{\mu } ] ^t c. \label{eq : c - vertk - u}\ ] ]    from the properties of @xmath168 , we obtain @xmath173    and eq .
( [ eq : c - vertk - u ] ) becomes    @xmath172^c = -\frac{g_{k p r}}{m_k }      [ \ p_k^{\mu } - { \widetilde z } \gamma^{\mu } { p } \hskip -0.16 cm / _ k ] , \label{eq : c - vertk - u2}\ ] ]    a similar calculation leads to the @xmath174 vertex    @xmath175^c & = & i \gamma_5 \left [   - \frac{e g'_1}{2m_{y}}{\left ( \epsilon^{\nu}{p } \hskip -0.16 cm / _ { \gamma }   - p_{\gamma}^{\nu}{\epsilon } \hskip -0.16 cm /           -{\widetilde y }       ( { p } \hskip -0.16 cm / _ { \gamma } { \epsilon } \hskip -0.16 cm / -                       \epsilon { \cdot } p_{\gamma})\gamma^{\nu } \right ) }                                                             \right .
\cr    & -&\left .
\frac{e g'_2}{4m^2_{y } }   { \left ( \epsilon { \cdot } p_{y } p_{\gamma}^{\nu } -                            p_\gamma { \cdot } p_{y } \epsilon^{\nu } + { \widetilde x }   ( p_\gamma { \cdot } p_{y } { \epsilon } \hskip -0.16 cm /   -     \epsilon { \cdot } p_{y } { p } \hskip -0.16 cm / _ { \gamma})\gamma^{\nu } \right ) }   \right ] , \label{eq : c - vert32-u } \end{aligned}\ ] ]    and the propagator takes the form    @xmath176^c =   \frac{-{q'}\hskip -0.29 cm /+m_r}{3(u - m_r^2 ) } \left[3g_{\nu\mu}-\gamma_{\nu}\gamma_{\mu}-                                \frac{2}{m_r^2}q'_{\nu}q'_{\mu } + \frac{1}{m_r}(\gamma_{\nu}q'_{\mu}-\gamma_{\mu}q'_{\nu})\right ] .
\label{eq : c - prop32-u}\ ] ]    comparing with eq .
( [ eq : prop32-u ] ) leads to    @xmath176^c = p_{\nu\mu}(-q ' ) .
\label{eq : cc - prop32-u}\ ] ]    combining eqs .
( [ eq : mfi - u3 ] ) , ( [ eq : c - vertk - u2 ] ) , ( [ eq : c - vert32-u ] ) and ( [ eq : cc - prop32-u ] ) leads to the same result as the direct calculation eqs .
( [ eq : u - mfi])-([eq : u - prop32 ] ) .      in this subsection
, we apply the substitution rule to obtain the invariant amplitudes ( hereafter denoted as @xmath177 ) for the _ u-_channel exchange directly from the corresponding _
s-_channel exchange amplitudes @xmath82 .
let us write eq .
( [ eq : mfigen ] ) with specifying the relevant variables    @xmath178    where @xmath83 are the six gauge invariant amplitudes eq.([eq : mj ] ) , and @xmath82 have been made explicit in section ii.d .
we now apply the substitution rule ( see the previous subsection ) to eq .
( [ eq : mfi - s ] ) in order to obtain the scattering matrix in the _ u-_channel    @xmath179    from eq .
( [ eq : mj ] ) , it is clear that    @xmath180    we proceed as in the last subsection , and transform eq .
( [ eq : mfi - u4 ] ) into    @xmath181    then , we calculate the @xmath168-transforms of the @xmath182 matrices , which can easily be expressed in terms of the original @xmath183 matrices as    @xmath184    substituting these relations into eq .
( [ eq : mfi - u5 ] ) , the scattering matrix in the _ u-_channel can be written as    @xmath185    where the invariant amplitudes @xmath177 are related to the @xmath82 amplitudes in the _ s-_channel as follows    @xmath186    it is then quite easy to obtain these invariant amplitudes in a form similar to eq .
( [ eq : ajelec ] ) , which we will not present in this article .
in this section we _ illustrate _ the sensitivity of different @xmath187 channels observables to the off - shell effects .
we need , hence , a reliable dynamical model , with respect to the existing data , as starting point . in the following , we present first how a rather simple model was obtained and then , within the dynamical ingredients required by the available data , we report on the importance of the off - shell effects according to the observables and/or the phase space regions investigated .      to build a simple model with a reasonably realistic dynamical content , we take advantage of the sl model @xcite which has emerged from a comprehensive phenomenological study .
the underlying dynamics in the sl model is , besides extended born terms , resonances exchanges ( table  [ tab : abc ] ) in the following channels :    * _ s - channel : _
@xmath188(1/2 ) , @xmath189(3/2 ) , @xmath190(5/2 ) ; where the spin of each nucleonic resonance is given in parenthesis . *
_ u - channel : _ @xmath191 , @xmath192 , @xmath193 , @xmath194 ; all spin 1/2 hyperonic resonances . * _ t - channel : _
@xmath195 , @xmath196 ; both of them have also been included in the present work and we will not discuss them any further .    in the _ s-_channel ,
the most relevant resonance , in the frame of the present work , is the spin 3/2 resonance @xmath189 .
the @xmath188 resonance , @xmath197(1440 ) , was found to have a coupling compatible with zero ( see table  [ tab : abc ] and ref .
moreover , a recent model - independent nodal structure analysis  @xcite concludes that the present data do not require contributions from the @xmath197 resonances .
concerning another nucleonic resonance in the sl model , the @xmath198 , it was shown  @xcite that its contribution to the considered underlying dynamics _ is not crucial _ ( see table xi in ref .
@xcite ) .    for these reasons ,
_ we removed the @xmath188 and @xmath190 resonances in searching for a simple model to study the role of off - shell effects_. the parameters of this model , hereafter called model a , have been obtained by re - fitting the data .
note that the formalism used in this re - fitting is still within the context of adelseck _
et al . _ s treatment for the spin 3/2 resonance @xmath189 .
model a is the basis of our numerical results reported in the next subsection .
the first step was thus , using model a , to fit the same data base as used to obtain the sl model ( all available 312 data points for photo- , electro - production , as well as for the @xmath199 radiative capture process ) .
the coupling constants and the reduced @xmath200 are given in table  [ tab : abc ] .
although the resultant @xmath200 for model a ( 1.84 ) is slightly larger than that for the sl model ( 1.73 ) , it is still acceptable . anticipating the presentation of the observables in the next subsection
, the fit of the data with model a appears at a comparable level of quality as with the sl model , see the dotted and dash - dotted curves in figs .
[ fig : ds]-[fig : pol ] , and fig .
[ fig : ul ] .
hence , these results justify the use of model a as a starting point to investigate the sensitivity of the observables to the off - shell effects .    given that model a contains only one spin 3/2 baryonic resonance , we have also investigated possible contributions from other known spin 3/2 nucleonic resonances , namely ] .
] , [ @xmath201[@xmath202 ( @xmath203 ) or [ @xmath204[@xmath202 ( @xmath205 ) .
we performed minimizations for all possible configurations including one to three of the spin 3/2 resonances @xmath203 , @xmath205 , and @xmath189 . in these configurations , whenever at least one of the two resonances @xmath203 , and @xmath205 was retained , the corresponding @xmath206s were found significantly larger than that for model a , implying that the existing data base does not require contributions from these resonances . through the numerical investigations mentioned above , we have re - confirmed that model a is indeed a _ reasonable starting model _ for the present study .
then we adopted the correct propagator [ eq .
( [ eq : prop32 ] ) ] and introduced the off - shell treatments to the @xmath189 resonance , and fitted again the data to obtained model b ( table  [ tab : abc ] ) .
finally , for the sake of completeness we included the _
u-_channel spin 3/2 hyperonic resonance [ @xmath207[@xmath208 ( @xmath209 ) with the off - shell effect , and once again fitted the data ( model  c in table  [ tab : abc ] ) .
the choice of this resonance , as in the case of nucleonic resonances mentioned above , comes from the fact that the inclusion of any other spin 3/2 hyperonic resonance , [ @xmath210[@xmath211 ( @xmath212 ) or [ @xmath213[@xmath211 ( @xmath214 ) , deteriorates the reduced @xmath200 significantly .    here
we would like to point out that by adding any spin 3/2 baryonic resonance we introduce five additional free parameters , namely two coupling constants ( @xmath215 and @xmath216 ) and three off - shell parameters .
the fact that the @xmath200 associated with model c comes out larger than that for the model b , indicates that the dynamical content of the phenomenological approach discussed here is reliable enough , since _ additional free parameters _ due to apparently unrelevant resonances _ do not improve _ the @xmath200 ( reduced or per point ) .
model d in table  [ tab : abc ] , with two of the free parameters fixed , will be discussed in subsec .  c.      in this subsection
, we compare with the data the results of the four dynamical models ( sl , a , b , and c ) summarized in table  [ tab : abc ] . here
we will adhere closely to the observables reported for the sl model  @xcite , where a comprehensive discussion on other available phenomenological results  @xcite is also presented .      in fig .
[ fig : ds ] , angular distributions and excitation functions for the differential cross - section are shown .
all the models reproduce the data almost equally well . however , the excitation functions at @xmath218 = 90@xmath219 [ fig .
[ fig : ds](b ) ] and 150@xmath219 [ fig .
[ fig : ds](c ) ] split the four models into two families above @xmath220 1.5 gev : in the backward hemisphere , both the sl and a models predict significantly larger cross sections than the two others ( b and c ) which embody the off - shell effects .    for the angular distributions [ fig .
[ fig : ds](d ) , [ fig : ds](e ) , and [ fig : ds](f ) ] , the four models give similar results at @xmath221 = 1.0 and 1.45 gev , while at the highest energy [ @xmath221 = 2.1 gev ; fig .
[ fig : ds](f ) ] the off - shell treatments produce drastic effects at backward angles .    a striking manifestation of the above behaviors can be seen while investigating the total cross section ( fig .
[ fig : st ] ) .
the long lasting shortcoming of the phenomenological models based on effective lagrangian approaches is significantly cured by the inclusion of the off - shell effects(f ) and  [ fig : st ] . ] .
namely , the total cross - section does not any more show a diverging behavior above @xmath220 1.5 gev ( see also fig .  5 in ref .
@xcite ) .    in the explored phase space region , the excitation functions and angular distributions for single polarization asymmetries ( fig .
[ fig : pol ] ) show significant sensitivity to the off - shell treatments above roughly 1.8 gev for the @xmath222-polarization asymmetry ( @xmath89 ) and polarized target asymmetry ( @xmath59 ) . in the case of the linearly polarized beam asymmetry ( @xmath16 ) the effects are more drastic .
indeed , above @xmath220 1.6 gev the off - shell treatments produce a sign change with sizeable magnitudes around 2 gev .
the angular distributions for double polarization asymmetries , at @xmath221 = 1.45 and 2.1 gev , are shown in fig .
[ fig : coxz ] .
a general trend for these observables is that significant off - shell effects appear in the backward hemisphere . in the case of @xmath223 asymmetry
, this sensitivity gets attenuated with increasing photon energy . for the other asymmetry ( @xmath224 ) with circularly polarized beam , as well as for the two asymmetries ( @xmath225 and @xmath226 ) with linearly polarized beam , the effects are , on the contrary , enhanced with increasing photon energy .
it is worth noticing that the two models without off - shell treatments predict almost vanishing values for @xmath225 and @xmath226 asymmetries , while introducing these treatments results in a sign change and sizeable magnitudes for these asymmetries in the backward hemisphere .
we note that the curves depicted in figures  [ fig : ds]-[fig : coxz ] split in two families depending on whether the off - shell effects are included ( models b and c ) or not ( models sl and a ) .
the cross section for the electroproduction process is given by    @xmath228    with @xmath229 the angle between the outgoing kaon and the virtual photon , and @xmath230 the azimuthal angle between the kaon production plane and the electron scattering plane .
transverse and longitudinal polarization parameters @xmath231 and @xmath232 , respectively , are defined as    @xmath233 \quad , \quad \epsilon_l = - \frac{p_{\gamma}^2}{p_{\gamma 0}^2}\ > \epsilon , \ ] ]    with @xmath234 the angle between the momenta of the incoming and outgoing electrons .
moreover , @xmath235 is the cross section for an unpolarized incident photon beam , and the term containing @xmath236 is the asymmetry contribution of a transversally polarized beam .
the cross section of a longitudinally polarized virtual photon is given by @xmath237 , while @xmath238 contains the interference effects between the longitudinal and transverse components of the beam .
in the figures shown in the remaining of this section , the electromagnetic form factors used are the same as in the sl model ( see subsec .
iv.d in ref  @xcite ) .
figure  [ fig : ul ] shows the unpolarized component of the differential cross section @xmath239 = @xmath240 , [ see eq .
( [ eq : sigel ] ) ] , as a function of the momentum transfer .
all four models reproduce the data equally well .
we note again that models b and c give almost identical results .
the predictions for different components of the cross section [ eq .
( [ eq : sigel ] ) ] are reported in fig .
[ fig : ulip ] .
the transverse component ( t ) splits also the four curves in the same two families , with the off - shell effects producing significantly smaller values for this observable . on the contrary ,
these effects enhance the longitudinal ( l ) part .
the transverse - longitudinal ( tl ) interference term shows similar sensitivities . among the observables reported here ,
the ( l ) and ( tl ) terms are the only ones to produce the most sizeable differences between the models sl and a. finally , the transverse - transverse ( tt ) interference term shows rather negligible dependence on the ingredient of the models .    because of the above predictions on the suppression of the transverse component and the enhancement of the longitudinal one due to the off - shell treatments , the ratio @xmath241 is an interesting quantity to be investigated .
this latter was already found appealing in the sl approach while examining the effects of hadrons electromagnetic form factors . here ,
the off - shell treatments have sizeable effect ( fig .
[ fig : r ] ) : the ratio @xmath242 between @xmath243 0.5 and 1.0 gev@xmath244 is increased by a factor of @xmath245 2 to 4 , due to such treatments .
the amplitudes of the strangeness photoproduction can be related by crossing symmetry  @xcite to those of @xmath199 radiative capture processes    @xmath247    here , the relevant quantity is the branching ratio defined as    @xmath248    with stopped kaons .    in table
[ tab : br ] , the results of the four models are compared with the only available data point .
they all agree with the upper bound of the experimental result .
although in the sl model the presence of the @xmath189 resonance was found relevant in reproducing the measured branching ratio ( see table xi in ref  @xcite ) , the off - shell treatments are not affecting this observable .
this may be due to the fact that here we are dealing only with stopped kaons , and the reported behavior might be altered for kaons in flight .    before ending this section ,
we wish to make a few comments on some general features of the findings summarized in table  [ tab : abc ] and/or depicted in figures 1 to 7 .
the models discussed in this paper embody 12 ( model a ) to 20 ( model c ) free parameters , see table  [ tab : abc ] . in this subsection
, we emphasize that , in spite of rather large number of free parameters , our approach offers some meaningful insight into the dynamics of the strangeness electromagnetic production processes .      in the fitting procedures ,
the two main coupling constants ( table  [ tab : abc ] ) , @xmath249 and @xmath250 , have been allowed to vary within their broken @xmath251-symmetry limits  @xcite .
given that for the other couplings we do not dispose of any reliable values or constraints , we will discuss their variations , within the corresponding uncertainties , according to the models ingredients and/or off - shell treatments .
the values referred to concern models sl , a , b , and c in table  [ tab : abc ] .    * _ s - channel : _ no significant variations are observed .
* _ u - channel : _ in going from the sl model to model a , the couplings of the @xmath193 and @xmath194 resonances undergo variations of factor 2 to 3
. then the inclusion of off - shell effects ( going from model a to b ) brings them back close to their sl model values , stabilizing them for the c model .
these two consecutive variations might come from the observation  @xcite that in the sl model these two resonances are rather strongly correlated .
this fact , in the absence of any constraint , leads to large variations of the @xmath193 and @xmath194 coupling constants .
however , the combined contribution of these resonances to the observables does not show any drastic variation . * _ t - channel : _ significant variations are noticed comparing sl model with the other ones .
notice that a spin 5/2 resonance present in the sl model has been removed in the other models .
the global increase of the _ t-_channel strengths when discarding a spin 5/2 resonance is a manifestation of the duality hypothesis ( the interplay between s- and _ t-_channel strengths ) in the strangeness sector , as discussed in ref .
@xcite .
the above considerations indicate strongly that the underlying dynamics retained in this work are tightly constrained by the available data base .
hence , the reported sensitivities to off - shell treatments are not likely to be altered significantly by the rest of the free parameters of the models introduced here .
in obtaining models b and c we have treated the three parameters ( x , y , and z ) as free ones .
as shown in table  [ tab : abc ] , out of six off - shell parameters related to the n7 and l8 resonances , the largest one by far is the y parameter for the n7 resonance .
the z parameter related to this latter resonance comes out to be compatible with zero .
moreover , all three parameters of the n7 resonance are stable upon comparing b and c models .
notice that one of the main motivations in introducing the off - shell effects is to cure an undesirable increase in the predicted photoproduction total cross - section above roughly 1.5 gev . by examining the non - pole part @xmath252 of the amplitudes in appendix  [ app : invamp ]
, one finds  [ multiblock footnote omitted ] that for the off - shell parameters @xmath253 and @xmath254 , there are contributions to the invariant amplitudes which rise linearly as a function of the _ s-_variable ( observe that @xmath13 does not participate in this matter ) . hence , the cross section increase stated above might be due to the @xmath253 and @xmath254 values , as obtained from the present minimizations ( table  [ tab : abc ] ) exploiting the available data .    the authors of ref .
@xcite have discussed extensively different `` choices '' of these free parameters , and especially fixing two of them , as reported in the literature  @xcite .
they conclude that there is no physical basis to attribute fixed values to any of these off - shell parameters .
however , to numerically estimate the consequences of eliminating the undesirable _
s_-dependent terms by imposing @xmath255 and @xmath256 , we have performed a minimization within the context of model b. the results for the coupling constants and the only adjusted off - shell parameter ( @xmath13 ) are given in table  [ tab : abc ] as model d. we see that the only significant variation compared to model b concerns the @xmath13-parameter . notice that for model b we had already @xmath257 .
hence , decreasing the magnitude of the @xmath258 parameter by roughly a factor of 2 ( between models b and d ) leads to an increase of about 20% of the magnitude of the @xmath13-parameter . in figure
[ fig : xz ] the photoproduction total cross section and the electroproduction ratio @xmath241 are depicted for both b and d models . in both cases
the results from the two models are quite close and the photoproduction total cross section comes out to give slightly higher values using the _ ad hoc _ fixed values for @xmath258 and @xmath259 [ fig .
[ fig : xz](a ) ] .
other observables discussed in this paper show similar behaviors while comparing models b and d. the closeness of the predictions for the observables can be understood by noticing that the @xmath259 parameter in model b has a value compatible with zero , and the contributions due to the @xmath13-dependent terms dominate numerically over those coming from the @xmath259-dependent ones .    in the case of pion photoproduction , the rpi - group  @xcite found that imposing @xmath255 and @xmath256 leads to a significant increase of the @xmath200 .
this is not the case with the present investigation ( table  [ tab : abc ] ) .
the reason is that the pion photoproduction was studied in the @xmath260 resonance region , where the reaction mechanism is dominated by this spin-3/2 resonance , while in the case of strangeness production none of the resonances has a paramount role .
moreover , we recall that the model b ( c ) studied here contains one ( two ) spin-3/2 resonance and five spin-1/2 resonances .    to our knowledge , there are _ a priori _ no bounds on the values of the off - shell parameters . however , remembering that the off - shell freedom comes in only from the non - pole terms , and that the principal contribution from a given resonance must correspond to the propagation of its proper spin , we expect that the corresponding non - pole parts might not dominate the pole part
. this would give reasonable upper - bound to which values @xmath258 , @xmath13 , and @xmath259 may take .
this expectation was verified in the case of the models reported here .
finally , in the case of @xmath209 hyperonic resonance ( model c ) , very small values of the off - shell parameters , as well as those of coupling constants resulting from the minimization endorse our previous affirmations : contributions from this resonance are not required by the existing data base , and the smallness of the relevant free parameters explains why its inclusion in the underlying dynamics does not have significant consequences , neither on the @xmath200 nor on the predicted observables .
in the present article , focused on the electromagnetic production of strangeness , we have been concerned with the improvement on the effective hadronic lagrangian approaches by incorporating the correct spin-3/2 resonances propagators and what is called off - shell effects entering the vertices connected to these resonances .
the work presented here allows us to preserve the gauge invariance of the formalism , to ensure that each propagator associated with a spin-3/2 exchanged baryon has an inverse , and to include simultaneously both @xmath261 and @xmath262 spin-3/2 resonances .
applying our approach to the @xmath15 channels observables investigated in ref  @xcite , we have emphasized that the photo- and electro - production of @xmath263 observables show significant sensitivity to the off - shell effects , while these effects do not lead to measurable manifestations in the @xmath199 radiative capture branching ratio with stopped kaons .
the numerical results reported here are of course heavily based on the existing data . given the inconsistencies  @xcite within the present data , the dynamical content of the models reported here will very likely evolve with the forthcoming high quality data from several experiments , both ongoing and planned .
hence the presented numerical results should be considered as guidelines for relative effects .
the efforts in refining the phenomenological approaches are then meant to provide us with appropriate tools to interpret the upcoming data .    applying the formalism derived in this paper to the available data - base ,
our results show that the photoproduction data , especially polarization asymmetries , are crucial in pinning down the role of off - shell effects .
once these effects are under control , the electroproduction channel can be investigated in studying the electromagnetic form factors of the baryons , kaon and their resonances .
these conclusions were reached for the @xmath187 channels and we are currently investigating the complementary @xmath264 processes .
there are a few items not discussed in our investigation here for which some comments may be due .
in none of the reported approaches ( including this work ) the constructed amplitudes embody unitarity .
recently , there has been some attempts to unitarize the amplitude in this process .
et al . _
@xcite have performed a _
`` feasibility study '' _ within a chiral color dielectric model adopting a simple two - channel case and using the @xmath265 phase shifts to approximate the @xmath263 elastic scattering in the final state .
et al . _
@xcite have developed an su(3 ) chiral dynamics with an effective coupled - channel potential .
s_-wave approximation approach is limited to the near threshold region .
these works put forward some indications on the effects from the unitarization , but they do not offer a definitive conclusion about the importance of the final state interactions .
when several final channels are taken into account , to be realistic , a complete unitarization procedure becomes beyond our current capacity .
note also that there has not been any unique way the unitarization should be carried on .
we thus believe and hope that , since the finite widths of the resonances are included , some parts contributing towards unitarization have been effectively included in the models discussed in this paper .    before ending this section
, we wish to discuss briefly two recent and more fundamental approaches applied to some of the processes investigated in this paper .
\(i ) _ chiral perturbation theory ( chpt ) _ : this approach _ limited to the threshold region _ , incorporates the coupling to baryon multiplets , as has recently been done in ref .
@xcite putting more emphasis on the consequence from the strict chiral symmetry in the construction of lagrangian . here
we simply note that the predictions of this model reproduce reasonably the low energy total photoproduction cross sections and the recoil polarization @xmath89 , and are qualitatively consistent with our results . to establish the quality of the _ chpt _ predictions extended to three flavors and including baryons , more data near threshold are needed .
\(ii ) _ quark models _ : these models ( upon adopting some type of chiral quark model , for example ref .
@xcite ) can predict certain observables with less number of free parameters than the effective hadronic lagrangian ( ehl ) approaches , given the consequence of the difference in the underlying quark models is well within some controllable limit . right now _ the electroproduction process is rather hard to deal with _ by the existing quark model approaches to the strangeness production .
we observe that in the current stage of development , the quarks models and the ehl approaches are somewhat complementary . with available data and upon minimization
, ehl can supply the values of combined coupling constants like @xmath215 and @xmath216 in our present approach .
then , the thus obtained amplitudes are able to predict yet unmeasured observables .
once those observables are measured , they will serve in constraining the hadronic coupling values .
they are then decomposed into pure hadronic and strong - electromagnetic parts , to constrain the underlying sub - hadronic dynamics ( selecting certain quark models , for example ) .
some quantities are present in one approach which are absent in the other ( like the off - shell effects ) .
we still lack a microscopic covariant approach within quark models which could , in principle , answer questions related to these aspects .
concluding , the complementarity between the effective lagrangian approach and other promising investigations  @xcite , provide us with powerful theoretical means to interpret the copious and high quality data to come .
we would like to thank jean - christophe david , zhenping li and nimai mukhopadhyay for fruitful discussions , and dietmar menze and reinhard schumacher for helpful exchanges on the experimental results and projects .
the well - known chew , goldberger , low and nambu ( @xmath266 ) amplitudes entering into the expressions of the photo- and electro - production observables ( see for example ref .
@xcite ) are related to the @xmath267 invariant functions as follows :    @xmath268 % { \cal{f}}_2 & = & \frac{\vert { \bbox{p}}_{\gamma}\vert \vert   { \bbox{p}}_{k}\vert } { ( e_p + m_p)(e_y + m_y ) } \bigg[({\sqrt s } + m_p ) { \cal{a}}_1 + p_{\gamma } { \cdot}p_p { \cal{a}}_3 + p_{\gamma } { \cdot}p_y   { \cal{a}}_4 + p^2_{\gamma}\;{\cal{a}}_5\bigg ] , \\ [ 10pt ] % { \cal{f}}_3 & = & \frac{\vert { \bbox{p}}_{\gamma}\vert \vert   { \bbox{p}}_{k}\vert } { ( e_p + m_p ) } \bigg[- 2 p_{\gamma } { \cdot}p_p { \cal{a}}_2 + ( { \sqrt s } + m_p ) { \cal{a}}_4 + p^2_{\gamma}\;{\cal{a}}_6 \bigg ] , \\ [ 10pt ] % { \cal{f}}_4 & = & \frac{{\vert { \bbox{p}}_{k}\vert}^2 } { ( e_y + m_y ) } \bigg[2 p_{\gamma } { \cdot}p_p { \cal{a}}_2 + ( { \sqrt s } - m_p ) { \cal{a}}_4 -   p^2_{\gamma}\;{\cal{a}}_6 \bigg ] , \\ [ 10pt ] % { \cal{f}}_5 & = & \frac{{\vert { \bbox{p}}_{\gamma}\vert}^2 } { ( e_p + m_p ) } \bigg[- { \cal{a}}_1 + 2 p_{\gamma } { \cdot}p_y { \cal{a}}_2 + ( { \sqrt s } + m_p)({\cal{a}}_3 - { \cal{a}}_5 ) + ( p_{\gamma } { \cdot}p_y   - p_{\gamma } { \cdot}p_p - p^2_{\gamma } ) { \cal{a}}_6\bigg ] , \\ [ 10pt ] % { \cal{f}}_6 & = & \frac{\vert { \bbox{p}}_{\gamma}\vert \vert   { \bbox{p}}_{k}\vert } { ( e_y + m_y ) } \bigg[- 2 p_{\gamma } { \cdot}p_y { \cal{a}}_2 + ( { \sqrt s } - m_p ) { \cal{a}}_3 -   ( p_{\gamma } { \cdot}p_y   - p_{\gamma } { \cdot}p_p - p^2_{\gamma } ) { \cal{a}}_6 - \\   &   & \hskip 2.3 truecm { 1\over e_p + m_p } \bigg\ {   p_{\gamma 0 } { \cal{a}}_1 + p_{\gamma } { \cdot}p_p { \cal{a}}_3   + p_{\gamma } { \cdot}p_y { \cal{a}}_4 + p_{\gamma 0 } ( { \sqrt s } + m_p )   { \cal{a}}_5 \bigg\}\bigg ] .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the only differences with the relations given in appendix d of ref  @xcite appear in the amplitudes @xmath269 and @xmath270 ( contributing only in the electroproduction observables ) where we have the following extra term inside the braces : @xmath271 .          here
we present the concrete form for the invariant amplitudes decomposed into the pole ( p ) and non - pole ( np ) parts as discussed in eqs .
( [ eq : ajphoto ] ) to ( [ eq : decomp ] ) .
the calculation has been done both manually , and by using maple to confirm the validity of the former .
@xmath272 , \\
% { d}(\,{\widetilde x } , { \widetilde z}\ , ) & = &   { \displaystyle \frac { 1}{12 \,m_r^{2}\ , ( \,p_{\gamma}{\cdot}p_y - p_{\gamma}{\cdot}p_p\ , ) } } \left [ \,(\,2\,m_p - m_r\ , )       - 2\,(\,m_r + 2\,m_y + 2\,m_p\,)\,{\widetilde z }      \right . \cr       & & \mbox{\hspace{185pt } } -\left .
2\,m_r\,{\widetilde x }       + 4\,(\,m_y + 2\,m_r\,)\,{\widetilde x}\,{\widetilde z }      \ , \right ] , \\ % { e } & = &    \,{\displaystyle \frac { 1}{12\,m_r}}\ ,            \left [ \ , m_k^2 - \,(\ , m_y + m_r \,)^2 \,\right ] , \\ % { f}(\,{\widetilde x } , { \widetilde z}\ , ) & = &       { \displaystyle \frac { 1}{12\,m_r^2}}\ ,           [ \,m_r - 2\ , m_r\ , { \widetilde z } - 2\ , m_r\ , { \widetilde x }           + 4\,(\,m_y+ 2\,m_r\,)\,{\widetilde x}\,{\widetilde z } \ , ] .
% \end{aligned}\ ] ]                                                  where @xmath290 is the projection operator for spin @xmath124 states .
thus this choice of the propagator cuts out the propagation of spin 1/2 states . with this the scattering amplitude eq .
( [ eq : mfi ] ) reads                                              we now look at the @xmath304 vertex whose matrix element is defined in eq .
( [ eq : vert32adel ] ) . with no off - shell freedom implemented , the vertex eq .
( [ eq : vert32 ] ) reads @xmath305i\gamma^5 .
\label{eq : vert32noff}\ ] ]                                  j. c. david , c. fayard , g. h. lamot , and b. saghai , phys .
c * 53 * , 2613 ( 1996 ) .
f. m. renard and y. renard , nucl . phys . *
b25 * , 490 ( 1971 ) ; y. renard , _ ibid . _ * b40 * , 499 ( 1972 ) ; y. renard , thse de doctorat detat s - sciences physiques , universit des sciences et techniques du languedoc , 1971 ( in french ) .
r. a. adelseck and l. e. wright , phys .
c * 38 * , 1965 ( 1988 ) ; r. a. adelseck , ph.d .
thesis , ohio university , 1988 .
r. a. adelseck , c. bennhold , and l. e. wright , phys .
c * 32 * , 1681 ( 1985 ) .
m. benmerrouche , r. m. davidson , and nimai c. mukhopadhyay , phys .
c * 39 * , 2339 ( 1989 ) .
r. m. davidson , nimai c. mukhopadhyay , and r. s. wittman phys .
d * 43 * , 71 ( 1991 ) .
m. benmerrouche , nimai c. mukhopadhyay , and j. f. zhang , phys .
d * 51 * , 3237 ( 1995 ) .
m. benmerrouche , phd thesis , rensselaer polytechnic institute ( 1992 ) ; nimai c. mukhopadhyay , j. f. zhang , and m. benmerrouche , proceedings of the _ forth cebaf / int workshop on n * physics _ ,
seattle , wa , 9 - 13 sept .
1996 , editors : t .- s .
h. lee and w. roberts , ( world scientific , 1997 ) . j. d. bjorken and s. d. drell , _ relativistic quantum mechanics _ ( mcgraw - hill , new york , 1964 ) .
b. saghai and f. tabakin , phys .
c * 55 * , 917 ( 1997 ) .
r. a. adelseck and b. saghai , phys .
c * 42 * , 108 ( 1990 ) .
r. a. williams , c. r. ji , and s. r. cotanch , phys .
c * 46 * , 1617 ( 1992 ) .
m. bockhorst _
_ , z. phys .
* c 63 * , 37 ( 1994 ) .
p. l. donoho and r. l. walker , phys .
rev . * 112 * , 981 ( 1958 ) ; b. d. mcdaniel _
_ , _ ibid _ * 115 * , 1039 ( 1959 ) ; h. m. brody _
_ , _ ibid _ * 119 * , 1710 ( 1960 ) ; r. l. anderson _ et al .
* 9 * , 131 ( 1962 ) ; h. thom _ et al .
_ , _ ibid _ * 11 * , 434 ( 1963 ) ; c. w. peck , phys . rev . * 135 * , 830 ( 1964 ) ; r. l. anderson _
et al . _ , _ proc .
int . symp . on electron and photon interactions at high energies
_ , hamburg , ( 1965 ) ; s. mori , ph.d .
thesis , cornell university ( 1966 ) ; h. thom , phys .
151 * , 1322 ( 1966 ) ; d. e. groom and j. h. marshall , _
ibid _ * 159 * , 1213 ( 1967 ) ; r. erbe _ et al .
_ , _ ibid _ * 188 * , 2060 ( 1969 ) ; a. bleckmann _
et al . _ , z. phys . * 239 * , 1 ( 1970 ) ; t. fujii _
d * 2 * , 439 ( 1970 ) ; d. decamp _ et al .
_ , orsay report , lal 1236 ( 1970 ) ; th .
fourneron , thse de doctorat detat , universit de paris , report lal 1258 , 1971 , ( in french ) ; h. goeing _ et al . _ , nucl .
b*26 * , 121 ( 1971 ) ; p. feller _ et al .
_ ibid _ b*39 * , 413 ( 1972 ) . b. borgia _
_ , nuovo cimento * 32 * , 218 ( 1964 ) ; m. grilli _
_ , _ ibid _ * 38 * , 1467 ( 1965 ) ; d. e. groom and j. h. marshall , phys
. rev . * 159 * , 1213 ( 1967 ) ; r. hass _ et al .
b*137 * , 261 ( 1978 ) .
k. h. althoff _
_ , nucl . phys . *
b137 * , 269 ( 1978 ) .
c. n. brown _ et al .
* 28 * , 1086 , ( 1972 ) ; t. azemoon _ et al .
b * 95 * , 77 ( 1975 ) ; c. j. bebek _
et al . _ , phys .
d * 15 * , 594 ( 1977 ) ; _ ibid . _ d * 15 * , 3082 ( 1977 ) ; p. brauel _
et al . _ , z. phys .
c * 3 * , 101 ( 1979 ) .
saphir collaboration ( j. barth _ et al .
_ ) contributed paper to the _
6th conference on the intersections of particle and nuclear physics _
( cipanp 97 ) , big sky , mt , 27 may - 2 june 1997 ( nucl - th/9707025 ) ; d. menze , _ private communication_. c. r. ji , and s. r. cotanch , phys . rev .
c * 38 * , 2691 ( 1988 ) .
d. a. whitehouse _
et al . _ ,
* 63 * , 1352 ( 1989 ) .
b.  saghai and f.  tabakin , phys .
c * 53 * , 66 ( 1996 ) .
l. m. nath and b. bhattacharyya , z. phys .
c * 5 * , 9 ( 1980 ) .
d. lu , r. h. landau , and s. c. phatak , phys .
c * 52 * , 1662 ( 1995 ) .
n. kaiser , t. waas , and w. weise , nucl .
a * 612 * , 297 ( 1997 ) .
s. steininger and u .- g .
meiner , phys . lett . * b391 * , 446 ( 1997 ) . zhenping li , phys .
c * 52 * , 1648 ( 1995 ) ; zhenping li , hongxing ye , and minghui lu , _ ibid .
_ c * 56 * , 1099 ( 1997 ) .
.exchanged particles , coupling constants , and off - shell parameters ( @xmath314 ) for @xmath315 channels from models sl [ 1 ] , and this work ( a , b , and c ) . the reduced @xmath200 s are given in the last row .
model a is a simplified version of the sl model with @xmath188 ( spin 1/2 ) and @xmath190 ( spin 5/2 ) resonances removed .
all the baryonic resonances have spin 1/2 , except @xmath189 and @xmath209 ( spin 3/2 ) for which off - shell treatment is applied ( models b and c ) .
model d is identical to model b , with fixed values @xmath316 ,
@xmath317 , and @xmath13 free .
[ cols="<,^,^,^ , > , > , > , > , > " , ]