SI doesn’t give any improvement of the $\chi ^2$ in the fit. The difference between the (p$\Sigma$) and (p$\Lambda$) system is best seen in the cross section ratio which is shown in fig. \[lsratio\].

The cross section ratio $\sigma _{\Lambda} / \sigma_ {\Sigma^0}$ goes smoothly down to the low energy value.

The question arises whether the whole enhancement in the $\Lambda$ channel is due to the strong (p$\Lambda$) FSI as proposed by [@sib06] or the production process itself gives some enhancement for the $\Lambda$ channel. If its a pure FSI effect why is the (p$\Lambda$) so much larger than the (p$\Sigma$) FSI? When the first data on the cross section ratio were published several theory groups tried to describe the data in different models: coherent or incoherent $\pi$ and $K$ exchange or in addition an intermediate resonance excitation. Most of them indeed show a trend of increasing ratio towards the threshold, see fig. \[lsratio\], but there is no clear preference of any description suggested.

More data are needed to understand the hyperon production process as for instance data in other isospin channels. To illustrate this lets consider a specific model. In the Jülich model [@gas01] the $pp \rightarrow p K^+ \Lambda / \Sigma^0$ reactions are described by only pion and kaon exchange where a reduction of the $\Sigma^0$ cross section results from a destructive interference of the pion and kaon amplitudes. Calculations for the $pp \rightarrow n K^+ \Sigma^+$ channel within this model show a big difference between a destructive ($\sigma_{pp\rightarrow nK^+ \Sigma^+} / \sigma_{pp\rightarrow pK^+ \Sigma^0}
\ = 3.1$) and a constructive ($\sigma_{pp\rightarrow nK^+ \Sigma^+} / \sigma_{pp\rightarrow pK^+ \Sigma^0}
\ = 0.34$) interference. A similar high sensitivity is expected also in other models which include nucleon resonances.

Therefore the study was extended to the $\Sigma^+$ production in order to disentangle the different production mechanisms [@roz06]. From the experimental point of view a clean separation of the $pp \rightarrow n K^+ \Sigma^+$ channel was difficult due to the high background level which resulted in large error bars for the cross section determination
SI does n’t give any improvement of the $ \chi ^2 $ in the fit. The difference between the (p$\Sigma$) and (p$\Lambda$) system is well see in the cross section ratio which is prove in fig. \[lsratio\ ]. 

 The cross section proportion $ \sigma _ { \Lambda } / \sigma _ { \Sigma^0}$ goes smoothly down to the low energy value. 

 The doubt arises whether the whole enhancement in the $ \Lambda$ distribution channel is due to the strong (p$\Lambda$) FSI as nominate by [ @sib06 ] or the production procedure itself gives some enhancement for the $ \Lambda$ channel. If its a arrant FSI effect why is the (p$\Lambda$) so much bombastic than the (p$\Sigma$) FSI? When the first data on the cross section proportion were published respective theory groups tried to describe the datum in different models: coherent or incoherent $ \pi$ and $ K$ exchange or in addition an intermediate resonance excitation. Most of them indeed show a trend of increasing ratio towards the threshold, see fig. \[lsratio\ ], but there is no clear preference of any description propose. 

 More data are needed to sympathize the hyperon product summons as for instance data in early isospin channels. To exemplify this lets consider a specific model. In the Jülich exemplar [ @gas01 ] the $ pp \rightarrow p K^+ \Lambda / \Sigma^0 $ reactions are described by only pion and kaon exchange where a reduction of the $ \Sigma^0 $ cross section results from a destructive interference of the pion and kaon amplitudes. calculation for the $ pp \rightarrow n K^+ \Sigma^+$ channel within this exemplar show a big difference between a destructive ($ \sigma_{pp\rightarrow nK^+ \Sigma^+ } / \sigma_{pp\rightarrow pK^+ \Sigma^0 } 
 \ = 3.1 $) and a constructive ($ \sigma_{pp\rightarrow nK^+ \Sigma^+ } / \sigma_{pp\rightarrow pK^+ \Sigma^0 } 
 \ = 0.34 $) interference. A similar eminent sensitivity is expected also in other model which admit nucleon resonances. 

 Therefore the study was extended to the $ \Sigma^+$ production in decree to disentangle the unlike production mechanisms [ @roz06 ]. From the experimental point of view a uninfected separation of the $ pp \rightarrow n K^+ \Sigma^+$ distribution channel was difficult due to the high backdrop level which result in large erroneousness bars for the cross section determination
SI foesn’t give any improvemtnt of the $\chi ^2$ iu the fmt. The sifferenze between the (p$\Sigma$) and (p$\Lembdq$) sysuvm is best seen in thd cross svction rario xhich is shown ii fig. \[lsvctio\].

Tgc crovw section ratip $\sigma _{\Lakbda} / \sigma_ {\Sicmx^0}$ yoes smoothly down to the low energy value.

Tne question arisgs whtthqr tgv chole enhancement in the $\Lambda$ channen is due to tne strong (p$\Lambda$) FSI as pgopoded by [@sib06] or the oroduction kdocqws itself gixes some enhancement fkr the $\Lambda$ channel. If its a oure YSI effect qht id the (p$\Lambde$) so mlch larger than the (p$\Vigma$) FXI? When the fivst deta in the cross section catio were published several dhzory groups tried to eewcribg the datx in dirfxreht modfls: coherent kr incoherebt $\pi$ and $K$ exchangt ow in addition zn intqriediate resonance excitation. Most of thtm inseed show a trend of inxreasing ratio towardd the thrqshold, see fig. \[lsratio\], but there is no clear prefarencx uf ckn derxrlption suggested.

More data are needed to underffamd the hyperon pvoduction process ss fpt instance datx in ocged isospin channels. To illostratw this leus comsider a specific model. In rhe Jülich mobel [@gas01] the $pp \rightaxrow p K^+ \Lamyda / \Sogma^0$ teactions are described by knly pion ajd kaon eszhange where a rddubtiot of the $\Sigma^0$ cross sectijn resultw frpm a dertruvtive ynterferenfe of the pion and kaon wmplijudes. Walculatiojs for the $pp \rightarrow n K^+ \Sijka^+$ channel wotvin this mobel shpw a big diffqrence between a destxuctivd ($\sigma_{pp\rpghtarrow nK^+ \Sigma^+} / \figma_{pp\rightastow pK^+ \Sigma^0}
\ = 3.1$) and a sonsrrucrive ($\sieoa_{pp\rightarrow nK^+ \Sigma^+} / \sigma_{pp\rughtarrow pK^+ \Sigma^0}
\ = 0.34$) khterference. A snoular high sensiyivkty id xxpecead also in odher moarls wfich includc njclepn resonances.

Therefose tge study was extenceq to the $\Sigma^+$ pwoduction in prder to disentangpe thx diffxrent lroquction mechanisms [@roz06]. From ths experimfntwl point of diew a clean sepcration of the $pp \rightarrow n K^+ \Sigma^+$ ciannel was difficult doe to the high backgrpmnd level whmch refulted in large error bars foe the cross sectipn determination
SI doesn’t give any improvement of the in fit. The between the (p$\Sigma$) seen the cross section which is shown fig. \[lsratio\]. The cross section ratio _{\Lambda} / \sigma_ {\Sigma^0}$ goes smoothly down to the low energy value. The arises whether the whole enhancement in the $\Lambda$ channel is due to the (p$\Lambda$) as by or the production process itself gives some enhancement for the $\Lambda$ channel. If its a pure effect why is the (p$\Lambda$) so much larger the (p$\Sigma$) FSI? When first data on the cross ratio published several groups to the data in models: coherent or incoherent $\pi$ and $K$ exchange or in addition an intermediate resonance excitation. Most of indeed show of increasing towards threshold, fig. \[lsratio\], but no clear preference of any description are needed to understand the hyperon production process for instance in other isospin channels. To illustrate lets consider a specific model. In the Jülich [@gas01] the $pp \rightarrow p K^+ \Lambda / \Sigma^0$ reactions are described by only pion exchange where a reduction the $\Sigma^0$ cross results a interference the pion kaon amplitudes. Calculations for the $pp \rightarrow n K^+ \Sigma^+$ channel this model show a big difference between a destructive ($\sigma_{pp\rightarrow / pK^+ \Sigma^0} \ 3.1$) and a constructive nK^+ / \sigma_{pp\rightarrow pK^+ \Sigma^0} 0.34$) A is also other models which include resonances. Therefore the study was to the $\Sigma^+$ production different production mechanisms [@roz06]. From the experimental point view a clean separation of the $pp n K^+ \Sigma^+$ channel was difficult due to the high background level resulted in bars for the cross section determination
SI doesn’t give any improvemenT of the $\chi ^2$ iN the fIt. THe dIfFereNce bEtween the (p$\SigmA$) And (p$\lambda$) system is best seen In the CrOSs seCTiOn ratIo which IS sHOWn iN fIg. \[LsrAtIO\].

THe croSs sEction rAtio $\sigma _{\LAmbDa} / \Sigma_ {\Sigma^0}$ goES sMoothly dowN to The low energy ValUe.

The qUeStiON arisEs wHetheR the whOLe enhaNcement in ThE $\lambda$ CHannel iS DUe To thE strong (p$\Lambda$) FSI AS pROposed by [@sib06] or tHe prodUcTIoN PRocEss Itself giveS sOme enHAncemenT FoR THE $\LaMBda$ channel. If iTs a pure FSI eFFecT why is ThE (p$\LAMbda$) so Much lArGEr tHan the (p$\SigmA$) FSI? when the fiRst datA On the crOSs sectiOn ratiO weRe pUbliSHeD sEveRaL TheORy GroUPs tRied to deScRiBe the Data IN DIFferEnt ModeLs: cohErent or incoheRenT $\pi$ aND $K$ eXchanGe or iN addItIon an IntermEdiatE rEsonance excitatIon. MOst of them IndEeD shOw A trenD Of incrEasIng Ratio toWards thE ThrEsHOLD, sEe fig. \[lsratio\], but theRe IS No Clear preFerencE Of AnY DescriptIoN suGgesTED.

More Data ARe Needed to UndersTAnD tHe hyperOn ProducTiOn pRocEss as FOr inStance Data in otHer isOSpin channels. To ILlustrate this LEtS COnSIder A spEcific model. in thE jüliCh moDEl [@Gas01] THe $pp \rIghtaRrOW p k^+ \lambda / \Sigma^0$ reactionS aRe descRibed By only pion and Kaon exchanGE WHere a redUctiON oF The $\Sigma^0$ cross sEctioN results frOM a destruCtive InterferEnce of the PIOn and kaoN amPliTudEs. CALCuLations for the $PP \RighTaRrow n K^+ \SIgmA^+$ channeL wiThiN thIs mOdEl show a biG differeNcE bEtWeEn a DestrUCtive ($\sigMa_{Pp\rIgHtaRrow nk^+ \sigma^+} / \sIgma_{pP\rigHtArROw pk^+ \Sigma^0}
\ = 3.1$) aND a CONstrUcTiVe ($\siGma_{Pp\RightArroW NK^+ \SIgma^+} / \sigMa_{pp\rightArrOW pK^+ \SIgMa^0}
\ = 0.34$) InterfeRence. A similar HiGh sensitivItY is ExpectED Also in otHer models which include nuCLeon resOnaNces.

THereFore the stUdy Was extEndED to the $\sigma^+$ pRoducTiOn iN ORder tO DIsEntAnGle the diffEREnt ProduCtIon mEchanisMs [@roz06]. From the experiMEntAl point of view A clEan sEPArAtiON oF The $Pp \RIghTARrow n K^+ \Sigma^+$ chanNel was diffIcULt Due to the hiGH baCkGround lEvel whiCh resULted in lArge error Bars for thE cRoss SECtiOn determinAtion
SI doesn’t give any improv ement of t he $\ chi  ^2 $in t he f it. The differ e ncebetween the (p$\Sigma$ ) and  ( p $\La m bd a$) s ystem i s  b e s t s ee ninth e  c rosssec tion ra tio whichissh own in fig.\ [l sratio\].
Th e cross sect ion  ratio  $ \si g ma _{ \La mbda}  / \si g ma_ {\ Sigma^0}$  g o es smo o thly do w n  t o th e low energy valu e .The question a riseswh e th e r  th e w hole enhan ce menti n the $ \ La m b d a$c hannel is due  to the str o ng(p$\La mb da$ )  FSI a s pro po s edby [@sib06]  orthe produ ctionp rocessi tself g ives s ome  en hanc e me nt  fo rt he$ \L amb d a$channel.  I fits a  pur e F S I ef fec t wh y isthe (p$\Lambd a$)  som uch  larg er th an t he  (p$\ Sigma$ ) FSI ?When the firstdata  on the c ros ssec ti on ra t io wer e p ubl ished s everalt heo ry g r ou ps tried to descri be t he  data in  diffe r en tm odels: c oh ere nt o r incoh eren t  $ \pi$ and  $K$ e x ch an ge or i nadditi on  an  in terme d iate  reson ance exc itati o n. Most of the m  indeed showa  t r e nd of i ncr easing rati o to w ards  the th res h old,see f ig .  \ [ lsratio\], but ther eis noclear  preference o f any desc r i p tion sug gest e d. 
More data are  need ed to unde r stand th e hyp eron pro duction p r o cess asfor  in sta nce d at a in other is o s pinch annels.  To  illust rat e t his  le ts  consider  a speci fi cmo de l.In th e  Jülichmo del  [ @ga s01]t he $pp  \rig htar ro wp  K^ + \Lamb d a/ \Sig ma ^0 $ re act io ns ar e de s cri bed byonly pion  an d  kao nex changewhere a reduc ti on of the$\ Sig ma^0$c r oss sect ion results from a dest r uctiveint erfer ence  of the p ion  and k aon amplit udes.Calcu la tio n s  fort h e$pp  \ rightarrow n  K^ + \Si gm a^+$  channe l within this mode l  sh ow a big diff ere nceb e tw een ad est ru c tiv e ($\sigma_{pp\ri ghtarrow n K^ +  \ Sigma^+} / \si gm a_{pp\r ightarr ow pK ^ + \Sigm a^0}
\ =3.1$) and  a  con s t ruc tive ($\si gma_{pp\ rightarro w  nK^+ \S igma^ +}/ \sig ma _{p p\rig htarro w  pK ^+ \S igma^0 }\ = 0. 34$)in terferen ce. A similar high sens itivit y isexp ected als o i n  ot her model s wh ich includ e n ucl eon r eso n ances .

T h er efo r e the  stu d y was ext e nd edt o  t he $\Sigma^ + $ pro ducti oni n orde r to  disentangle thed ifferent produ ctio n mec han i sms[@ roz06]. From t heex p e rimental  p oint of vie w a clea ns epara tion o f the$pp \ri g h ta r row nK^+\Si gma^+$ ch ann el was dif fi cu l t dueto t he  highbackgr o undl e vel which result ed in l argee rro r bar sfor the cros s sectiondeterminati on
SI doesn’t_give any_improvement of the $\chi_^2$ in_the_fit. The_difference_between the (p$\Sigma$)_and (p$\Lambda$) system_is best seen in_the cross section_ratio_which is shown in fig. \[lsratio\].

The cross section ratio $\sigma _{\Lambda} / \sigma_ {\Sigma^0}$_goes_smoothly down_to_the_low energy value.

The question arises_whether the whole enhancement in_the $\Lambda$_channel is due to the strong (p$\Lambda$) FSI_as_proposed by [@sib06]_or the production process itself gives some enhancement for_the $\Lambda$ channel. If its a_pure FSI effect_why_is_the (p$\Lambda$) so much_larger than the (p$\Sigma$) FSI? When_the first data on the cross_section ratio were published several theory groups_tried to describe the data in_different models: coherent or incoherent_$\pi$ and_$K$ exchange or in addition_an intermediate resonance_excitation. Most_of them indeed_show a trend of increasing ratio_towards the threshold,_see fig. \[lsratio\], but there is_no_clear preference of_any_description_suggested.

More data_are needed to_understand_the hyperon_production_process as for instance data in_other_isospin channels. To illustrate this lets consider_a specific model. In_the_Jülich model [@gas01] the_$pp \rightarrow p K^+ \Lambda_/ \Sigma^0$ reactions are described by_only pion_and kaon_exchange where a reduction of the $\Sigma^0$ cross section results from_a destructive interference of the pion_and kaon amplitudes. Calculations_for the_$pp_\rightarrow n K^+_\Sigma^+$_channel within_this model show a big difference between_a destructive_($\sigma_{pp\rightarrow nK^+ \Sigma^+} / \sigma_{pp\rightarrow pK^+_\Sigma^0}
\ = 3.1$) and_a_constructive ($\sigma_{pp\rightarrow nK^+ \Sigma^+} / \sigma_{pp\rightarrow_pK^+ \Sigma^0}
\ = 0.34$) interference. A_similar high sensitivity is expected_also_in_other models which include nucleon_resonances.

Therefore the study was extended to_the $\Sigma^+$ production_in order to disentangle the different production_mechanisms_[@roz06]. From the experimental point of_view_a clean separation of the $pp_\rightarrow_n_K^+ \Sigma^+$ channel was difficult_due to the high background level_which resulted in large error bars for the cross_section determination