2022 264 21 November

Enhanced deuteron coalescence probability in jets

ALICE Collaboration††thanks: See Appendix A for the list of collaboration
members ALICE Collaboration

The transverse-momentum ($p_{\rm T}$) spectra and coalescence parameters
$B_{2}$ of (anti)deuterons are measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$13 TeV
for the first time in and out of jets. In this measurement, the direction of
the leading particle with the highest $p_{\rm T}$ in the event ($p_{\rm
T}^{\rm{lead}}>$ 5 GeV/$c$) is used as an approximation for the jet axis. The
event is consequently divided into three azimuthal regions and the jet signal
is obtained as the difference between the Toward region, that contains jet
fragmentation products in addition to the underlying event (UE), and the
Transverse region, which is dominated by the UE. The coalescence parameter in
the jet is found to be approximately a factor of 10 larger than that in the
underlying event. This experimental observation is consistent with the
coalescence picture and can be attributed to the smaller average phase-space
distance between nucleons in the jet cone as compared to the underlying event.
The results presented in this Letter are compared to predictions from a simple
nucleon coalescence model, where the phase space distributions of nucleons are
generated using PYTHIA 8 with the Monash 2013 tuning, and to predictions from
a deuteron production model based on ordinary nuclear reactions with
parametrized energy-dependent cross sections tuned on data. The latter model
is implemented in PYTHIA 8.3. Both models reproduce the observed large
difference between in-jet and out-of-jet coalescence parameters, although the
almost flat trend of the $B^{\rm Jet}_{2}$ is not reproduced by the models,
which instead give a decreasing trend.

The production mechanisms of light (anti)nuclei in high-energy hadronic
collisions is still unclear and currently under intense debate in the
scientific community, despite the plethora of results published in recent
years at different collision energies, ranging from the AGS [1, 2, 3, 4], to
the SPS [5], RHIC [6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11], and the LHC [12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27]. The experimental data are typically
described using two different phenomenological approaches: the baryon
coalescence approach and the statistical hadronization model (SHM). In the
coalescence model [28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34], multi-baryon states are
assumed to be formed by coalescence of baryons that are close in phase space
at kinetic freeze-out (occurring when the elastic scatterings among the
particles produced in the collision cease). In the simple coalescence approach
[29], only momentum correlations are considered, while in state-of-the-art
implementations [30], the quantum-mechanical properties of baryons and bound
states are taken into account and the coalescence probability is calculated
from the overlap between the phase-space distributions of individual (point-
like) baryons and the Wigner density of the final-state cluster. The phase-
space distributions of nucleons at freeze-out are generated using general-
purpose Monte Carlo (MC) event generators or relativistic hydrodynamical
simulations [31, 35]. In the SHM [36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43], light
(anti)nuclei, as well as other hadron species, are assumed to be emitted by a
source in local thermal and hadrochemical equilibrium with their abundances
being fixed at chemical freeze-out (occurring when the inelastic scatterings
stop). The grand-canonical approach provides an excellent description of the
measured hadron yields in central nucleus–nucleus collisions, in which a large
number of particles is produced, ranging from a few hundred to 2000 charged
particles per unit of rapidity with increasing collision energy [40]. For
small systems, such as those produced in proton-proton (pp) and proton–nucleus
collisions, the production of light nuclei can be described using a different
implementation of this model based on the canonical ensemble, where exact
conservation of quantum numbers is required [43]. Significant deviations in
this case are observed between the experimental data and the predictions from
the canonical SHM [24]. The study of the production mechanisms of multi-baryon
bound states in high-energy hadronic collisions is one of the goals of the
experimental program of ALICE.

Measurements of light (anti)nuclei produced at accelerators are also important
for indirect dark matter (DM) searches as they provide input for the estimates
of the background of antinuclei produced in space. Several experiments, such
as AMS-02 [44] and GAPS [45], are searching for antinuclei [46, 47], but, so
far, only antiprotons have been detected in space [48]. The possible presence
of antinuclei in our Galaxy could be explained either by reactions of cosmic
rays (CRs) with the interstellar medium (ISM) or by decays/annihilations of
dark matter candidates. Both CRs and the ISM mostly consist of hydrogen
(90$\%$), helium (8$\%$), and only in small percentage of heavier nuclei [49].
Hence, most of the relevant collisions for the production of CR antinuclei in
the Galaxy are pp, p–4He and 4He–p. Antinuclei are produced if the center-of-
mass energy per nucleon–nucleon collision ($\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$) of such
collisions is above a given energy threshold, which is 6 GeV for antideuterons
and 8 GeV for anti-3He, for instance. Hence, one of the goals of the existing
experimental programs at different accelerator facilities is to pin down the
microscopic production process of antinuclei in hadronic collisions or DM
decay, in order to be able to correctly interpret the future measurements in
space.

Further insight into the (anti)nuclei production mechanisms can be obtained by
measuring their production in and out of jets in pp collisions. Hadrons in the
jet cone are closer in phase space compared with hadrons out of the jet. In a
jet fragmentation, the produced particles are strongly correlated in phase
space, i.e., particles which are close in space have also similar momenta [50,
51]. In the coalescence picture, this condition should result in a larger
coalescence probability in jets compared with that out of jets, since the
proximity in both space and momentum is required for coalescence. Hence, the
probability of coalescence in jets is increased with respect to that in the
UE, where space and momentum are not correlated, i.e., close-by particles can
have very different momenta and vice-versa. The coalescence probability can be
quantified by the coalescence parameter $B_{A}$, defined, in the case of
deuterons, as the ratio between the invariant yield of the deuterons and the
square of the invariant yield of protons:

$B_{2}={\biggl{(}\dfrac{1}{2\pi
p^{\mathrm{d}}_{\mathrm{T}}}\dfrac{\mathrm{d}^{2}N_{\mathrm{d}}}{\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{d}}}\biggr{)}}\bigg{/}{\biggl{(}\dfrac{1}{2\pi
p^{\rm
p}_{\mathrm{T}}}\dfrac{\mathrm{d}^{2}N_{\mathrm{p}}}{\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{p}}}\biggr{)}^{2}},$
(1)

where the labels d and p indicate the deuteron and the proton, respectively,
and $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\rm p}$ = $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{d}}$/$2$, assuming
that protons and neutrons have the same production spectra, since they belong
to the same isospin doublet.

Deuteron production in jets has already been measured in pp collisions at
$\sqrt{s}=$13 TeV by the ALICE Collaboration using the two-particle
correlation method [22]. The $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ spectrum of (anti)deuterons in
the jet is found to be consistent with predictions based on the PYTHIA 8 event
generator [52] coupled to a simple coalescence afterburner [53]. In the
latter, deuteron formation is assumed to happen if a proton and a neutron have
a momentum difference $\Delta p<p_{0}$, with $p_{0}$ = 110 MeV$/c$, thus
ignoring the space coordinates in the calculation of the coalescence
probability. It was also concluded that the yield of deuterons in jets, in
events with a leading particle with $p_{\rm T}$ $>$5 GeV/$c$ at midrapidity,
is about 10$\%$ of that in the underlying event (UE).

This study is expanded in this Letter and complemented by the first
measurement of (anti)deuteron coalescence parameters in and out of jets. The
direction of a leading particle with high transverse-momentum ($p_{\rm
T}^{\rm{lead}}>$ 5 GeV/$c$) at midrapidity is used as an approximation for the
jet axis. The $p_{\rm T}$ spectra and coalescence parameters of
(anti)deuterons are measured in three different azimuthal regions defined
based on $\Delta\varphi=|\varphi_{\rm d}-\varphi_{\rm lead}|$, where
$\varphi_{\rm d}$ is the azimuthal angle of the deuterons and $\varphi_{\rm
lead}$ is that of the leading particle. The three $120^{\circ}$-wide azimuthal
regions and the corresponding $\Delta\varphi$ intervals are the same as those
defined in Refs. [54, 55]: the one around the leading particle (Toward,
$|\Delta\varphi|<60^{\circ}$), the one back-to-back to it (Away,
$|\Delta\varphi|>120^{\circ}$), and the one transverse to both of them
(Transverse, $60^{\circ}<|\Delta\varphi|<120^{\circ}$). The Toward and Away
regions contain contributions from the leading and recoil jets in addition to
the underlying event, while the Transverse region is dominated by the
underlying event.

A detailed description of the ALICE apparatus and its performance can be found
in Refs. [56] and [57]. Trajectories of charged particles are reconstructed in
the ALICE central barrel with the Inner Tracking System (ITS) [56] and the
Time Projection Chamber (TPC) [58], which cover the full azimuthal angle and
the pseudorapidity interval $|\eta|<$ 0.9. These are located within a large
solenoidal magnet, providing a highly homogeneous magnetic field of 0.5 T
parallel to the beam line. The TPC provides up to 159 spatial points per track
for charged-particle reconstruction and particle identification (PID) through
the measurement of the specific ionization energy loss d$E$/d$x$ in the gas
volume. The PID is complemented by the Time-Of-Flight (TOF) system [59]
located at a radial distance of 3.7 m from the nominal interaction point. It
measures the arrival time of particles relative to the event collision time
provided by the TOF detector itself or by the T0 detectors, two arrays of
Cherenkov counters located at forward and backward rapidities (4.6 $<\eta<$
4.9 and –3.3 $<\eta<$ –3.0) [60, 57].

The data used for this analysis were collected in 2016, 2017, and 2018 during
the LHC pp runs at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV. A minimum bias (MB) event trigger was
used, which requires coincident signals in the V0 detectors (two plastic
scintillator arrays located at forward and backward rapidities, $2.8<\eta<5.1$
and $-3.7<\eta<-1.7$ [61]) synchronous with the bunch crossing time defined by
the LHC clock. Events with multiple collision vertices, reconstructed from
track segments in the two innermost layers of the ITS, are tagged as pile-up
and removed from the analysis [57]. A total of approximately 1.7 billion MB pp
events are considered for further analysis, corresponding to an integrated
luminosity of about 30 nb-1. Events with at least one charged primary particle
with $p_{\rm T}$ $>$ 5 GeV/$c$ are selected, which correspond to approximately
1$\%$ of the MB pp collisions.

Deuteron candidates are selected from charged-particle tracks reconstructed in
the ITS and TPC in the pseudorapidity interval $|\eta|<0.8$. Basic track
quality criteria are applied, e.g., selecting on the number of space points
associated to the track in the TPC and ITS and on the $\chi^{2}$ of the track
fit, as done in previous light (anti)nucleus analyses, such as in Ref. [20].
The track selection criteria used for the leading particle are the same as in
Ref. [54].

(Anti)deuterons are identified in the rapidity interval $|y|<$ 0.5 in the
range $0.6<$ $p_{\rm T}$ $<1.2\ \mathrm{GeV}/\textit{c}$ by requiring that
their energy loss per unit of track length measured by the TPC is within
3$\sigma_{\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x}$ from the expected average for
(anti)deuterons, where $\sigma_{\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x}$ is the
$\textrm{d}E/\textrm{d}x$ resolution. For $1.2<$ $p_{\rm T}$ $<3.0\
\mathrm{GeV}/\textit{c}$, the particle identification is complemented by the
TOF and the (anti)deuteron signal is extracted from a fit to the
n$\sigma_{\rm{TOF}}$ = $(\Delta t-\Delta
t_{\mathrm{d}})/\sigma_{\mathrm{TOF}}$ distribution, where $\Delta t$ is the
measured time-of-flight, $\Delta t_{\mathrm{d}}$ its expected value for
deuterons and $\sigma_{\mathrm{TOF}}$ the resolution on the time-of-flight
measurement. The fit function consists of a Gaussian with an exponential tail
on the right side for the signal and the sum of two exponential functions for
the background [13]. The signal is extracted by integrating the signal
function in the asymmetric interval
[$\mu_{0}-3\sigma_{\mathrm{TOF}},\mu_{0}+3.5\sigma_{\mathrm{TOF}}$], where
$\mu_{0}$ is the mean of the Gaussian function.

The raw (anti)deuteron $p_{\rm T}$ spectra are corrected for the
reconstruction efficiency and, only for deuterons, for the fraction of
secondary deuterons produced by spallation in interactions between primary
particles and the detector material. This correction is based on fits to the
distance of closest approach (DCA) of the deuteron track to the primary vertex
using template distributions extracted from MC simulations, as described in
Refs. [20, 21, 23]. Both corrections are calculated using MC simulations in
which (anti)nuclei are embedded into pp collision events generated using
PYTHIA 8.1 with the Monash 2013 tune [62]. (Anti)nuclei are generated with
uniform $p_{\rm T}$ and rapidity distributions within 0 $<$ $p_{\rm T}$ $<$ 10
$\mathrm{GeV}/\textit{c}$ and $-1<y<1$. The passage of particles through the
ALICE detector is simulated using GEANT4 [63]. The reconstruction efficiency
is calculated as the ratio of the number of reconstructed and generated
(anti)deuterons in the simulation, after the proper re-weighting of the
generated $p_{\rm T}$ distribution according to the Lévy-Tsallis function. The
same track selection and PID criteria as those used in the data are applied.
The fraction of secondary deuterons is approximately 0.5 in the lowest $p_{\rm
T}$ interval ($0.6<p_{\rm T}<0.8$ GeV/$c$) and decreases exponentially with
increasing $p_{\rm T}$, becoming negligible for $p_{\rm T}>1.6$ GeV/$c$. The
fraction of secondary deuterons is weakly dependent on the azimuthal region.

The dominant contributions to the systematic uncertainties are related to the
track selection, the particle identification, the limited knowledge of the
ALICE material budget, the uncertainties on the hadronic interaction cross
section of (anti)deuterons, and the procedure used to estimate the fraction of
secondary nuclei. The uncertainty related to the track selection is estimated
by repeating the analysis using different track selection criteria and
considering the RMS of the distribution of the results in each $p_{\rm T}$
interval. This contribution is found to range between 8 (1)$\%$ and 6 (5)$\%$
for deuterons (antideuterons), depending on $p_{\rm T}$. Such uncertainty is
larger for deuterons at low $p_{\rm T}$, due to the DCA cut variations which
are sensitive to the secondary nuclei. The PID uncertainty is estimated by
varying the (anti)deuteron selection criteria in the TPC and TOF, the fit
functions, and the signal extraction strategy (bin counting or integral of the
fit function). The PID systematic uncertainty rises with $p_{\rm T}$, from
4$\%$ to 8$\%$. The systematic uncertainty due to the estimate of the primary
fraction correction is obtained by varying the conditions (selection criteria,
histogram bin width, fit range) of the fits to the DCA distributions used to
estimate the correction factors. This contribution depends on the azimuthal
region, and it ranges between 14$\%$ (10$\%$ and 7$\%$) and few percent for
the Away region (Toward and Transverse, respectively). The contribution from
ITS–TPC and TPC–TOF matching efficiencies are estimated from charged particle
tracks by comparing the probabilities of prolonging a track from the TPC to
the ITS (TOF) in the data and MC [20]. The uncertainty is approximately 2$\%$
for the ITS–TPC matching efficiency and 5$\%$ for the TPC–TOF one, weakly
dependent on $p_{\rm T}$. The uncertainty on the material budget (1$\%$) is
taken from Ref. [20]. The uncertainty on the hadronic interaction cross
section of (anti)deuterons is estimated by varying the default inelastic cross
section of (anti)deuterons in GEANT4 by the uncertainties of the measurements
[64, 65, 66, 67, 49] and is $\sim$1$\%$ (3$\%$) for deuterons (antideuterons).
The total uncertainty is obtained as the quadratic sum of each individual
contribution and is found to be about 10$\%$.

The average of the deuteron and antideuteron $p_{\rm T}$ distributions
measured in the three azimuthal regions discussed above, are shown in Fig. 1
left. Individual Lévy-Tsallis fits [68] are also shown. The $p_{\rm T}$
spectrum of (anti)deuterons in jets is obtained by subtracting the spectrum in
the Transverse region, dominated by the underlying event, from that in the
Toward region, which contains contributions from both jet fragmentation and
the underlying event. In the subtraction, the systematic uncertainties are
treated as independent, to be conservative. The resulting spectrum, with a
much harder shape compared to the UE spectrum, is shown in Fig. 1 right, with
squared markers, and compared to the in-jet deuteron spectrum measured with
the two-particle correlation method taken from Ref. [22]. Excellent agreement
is found between the deuteron $p_{\rm T}$ spectra in jets obtained with the
two methods, proving the validity of the subtraction method to obtain the
deuteron spectrum in jets. These results confirm that the integrated yield of
deuterons in jets, in events with $p_{\rm T}^{\rm{lead}}>$ 5 GeV/$c$ at
midrapidity, is only roughly 10$\%$ of that in the UE, as already pointed out
in Ref. [22].

Figure 1: Average of deuteron and antideuteron $p_{\rm T}$-differential yields
in the three azimuthal regions (on the left) and in jets (on the right),
measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV. Statistical and systematic
uncertainties are represented by vertical bars and boxes, respectively. On the
right, shaded (blue) boxes show the uncertainty on the results from Ref. [22]
related to the subtraction of the uncorrelated background using the ZYAM
method [69]. Individual Lévy-Tsallis fits are also shown.

The coalescence parameters in the jet ($B^{\rm Jet}_{2}$) and underlying event
($B^{\rm UE}_{2}$) are calculated using Eq. 1. The spectra for (anti)protons
are derived from the $R_{\rm T}$-differential $p_{\rm T}$ spectra published in
Ref. [70], integrating over the full $R_{\rm T}$, which is the underlying
event activity classifier defined as $R_{\rm T}=N^{\rm ch}_{\rm T}/\langle
N^{\rm ch}_{\rm T}\rangle$ ($N^{\rm ch}_{\rm T}$ being the charged-particle
multiplicity measured in the Transverse region and $\langle N^{\rm ch}_{\rm
T}\rangle$ its average) [54]. The $p_{\rm T}$ spectrum of (anti)protons in
jets is obtained by subtracting the efficiency-corrected $p_{\rm T}$ spectra
in the Transverse region from those in the Toward region taken from Ref. [70],
as done for deuterons. The coalescence parameters $B^{\rm Jet}_{2}$ and
$B^{\rm UE}_{2}$ are shown in Fig. 2 as a function of the transverse momentum
per nucleon, $p_{\rm T}/A$. The coalescence parameter $B^{\rm Jet}_{2}$ is
found to be about a factor of 10 larger than that in the underlying event,
with a significance of about 21$\sigma$. Hence, despite the limited
contribution of nuclei arising from jets to their total production yield, the
probability that two nucleons in the jet cone coalesce into a deuteron is
enhanced with respect to the corresponding coalescence probability in the
underlying event. This experimental observation can be interpreted, within the
coalescence model, as due to the reduced distance in phase space between
nucleons in the jets compared to those in the underlying event.

Figure 2: Coalescence parameter in jets, $B^{\rm Jet}_{2}$, and in the
underlying event, $B^{\rm UE}_{2}$, as a function of $p_{\rm T}/A$ in
comparison with the predictions from PYTHIA 8 with the Monash 2013 tune with a
coalescence afterburner (left panel) and the reaction-based PYTHIA 8.3 model
(right panel).

These results are compared to predictions from simple coalescence and
reaction-based deuteron production models. In the former approach, the phase-
space distributions of nucleons are generated with PYTHIA 8 with the Monash
2013 tune [62], and their $p_{\rm T}$ spectra are re-weighted to match the
proton $p_{\rm T}$ spectra measured by ALICE in the three different azimuthal
regions [70]. Spatial correlations are ignored and deuteron formation is
assumed to happen if a proton and a neutron have a momentum difference below a
given coalescence momentum $\Delta p<p_{0}$ in the deuteron rest frame. The
best estimate of the coalescence momentum, for this model, is $p_{0}=285\pm 1$
MeV/$c$, which is consistent with the value of Ref. [71]. A detailed
description of these coalescence calculations can be found in the Supplemental
Material [72].

In the reaction-based model [73], (anti)deuterons are generated by ordinary
nuclear reactions between nucleons produced in the collision with
parameterized energy-dependent cross sections tuned on available experimental
data [74]. The following nuclear reactions are considered: p +
n$\rightarrow\gamma$ \+ d, p + n$\rightarrow\pi^{0}$ \+ d, p + n
$\rightarrow\pi^{0}$ \+ $\pi^{0}$ \+ d, p + n $\rightarrow\pi^{+}$ \+
$\pi^{-}$ \+ d, p + p $\rightarrow\pi^{+}$ \+ d, p + p $\rightarrow\pi^{+}$ \+
$\pi^{0}$ \+ d, n + n $\rightarrow\pi^{-}$ \+ d, n + n $\rightarrow\pi^{-}$ \+
$\pi^{0}$ \+ d. Such a model is implemented in the MC event generator PYTHIA
8.3. Both simple coalescence and the reaction-based model are based on the
assumption that coalescence can happen only if protons and neutrons are close
in phase space. However, there are two main differences between the models.
The first concerns the $p_{0}$ cut off which is introduced as a step function
in the coalescence model, while in PYTHIA 8.3 the deuteron formation happens
according to the differential cross section of the reactions listed above. The
second difference is related to the kinematics of the process: in the
coalescence model the deuteron four-momentum is given by the sum of the proton
and neutron four-momenta, while in the reaction-based model, part of the
initial four-momentum is carried away by the pion(s) or photon according to
energy and momentum conservation rules. The uncertainties of the coalescence
model are discussed in the Supplemental Material [72], while for PYTHIA 8.3
only statistical uncertainties are shown.

As shown in Fig. 2, both models provide good qualitative descriptions of the
data. In particular, they are capable of reproducing the observed large
difference between $B^{\rm Jet}_{2}$ and $B^{\rm UE}_{2}$. While the $p_{\rm
T}$/$A$ dependence of $B^{\rm UE}_{2}$ is well described by both approaches
within the uncertainties, the observed nearly flat trend of $B^{\rm Jet}_{2}$
is not reproduced by the models, which instead give a decreasing trend with
increasing $p_{\rm T}$/$A$ and overestimate the $B^{\rm Jet}_{2}$ for low
$p_{\rm T}$/$A$.

In this Letter the first measurement of the (anti)deuteron coalescence
parameters in and out of jets in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV is
presented. The results of this work indicate for the first time an enhanced
deuteron coalescence probability in jets compared to the underlying event.
This enhancement, of a factor $\sim$ 10, is measured with a good precision and
a significance of about 21$\sigma$. This experimental observation is a
parameter-free and absolute prediction of coalescence, which decisively proves
the formation of bound states by coalescence when nucleons have a smaller
average phase-space distance, as it is the case in the jet cone. This study
will be extended to heavier (anti)nuclei, such as (anti)3He, and to p–Pb
collisions, with the LHC Run 3 data. Further investigations of the coalescence
parameters $B_{A}$ in the jet and in the underlying event, in small collision
systems, which reproduce the CR interactions originating nuclei in our Galaxy,
will provide additional insight into the production mechanisms and will
contribute to further constrain the coalescence models. These studies will be
crucial to correctly interpret any future measurement of antinuclei in
satellite and balloon-borne experiments in space.

## Acknowledgements

The ALICE Collaboration would like to thank all its engineers and technicians for their invaluable contributions to the construction of the experiment and the CERN accelerator teams for the outstanding performance of the LHC complex. The ALICE Collaboration gratefully acknowledges the resources and support provided by all Grid centres and the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid (WLCG) collaboration. The ALICE Collaboration acknowledges the following funding agencies for their support in building and running the ALICE detector: A. I. Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics Institute) Foundation (ANSL), State Committee of Science and World Federation of Scientists (WFS), Armenia; Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austrian Science Fund (FWF): [M 2467-N36] and Nationalstiftung für Forschung, Technologie und Entwicklung, Austria; Ministry of Communications and High Technologies, National Nuclear Research Center, Azerbaijan; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (Finep), Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) and Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Brazil; Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Science, within the National Roadmap for Research Infrastructures 2020-2027 (object CERN), Bulgaria; Ministry of Education of China (MOEC) , Ministry of Science & Technology of China (MSTC) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), China; Ministry of Science and Education and Croatian Science Foundation, Croatia; Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Cubaenergía, Cuba; Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic, Czech Republic; The Danish Council for Independent Research | Natural Sciences, the VILLUM FONDEN and Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF), Denmark; Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Finland; Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique (CEA) and Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (IN2P3) and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), France; Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) and GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Germany; General Secretariat for Research and Technology, Ministry of Education, Research and Religions, Greece; National Research, Development and Innovation Office, Hungary; Department of Atomic Energy Government of India (DAE), Department of Science and Technology, Government of India (DST), University Grants Commission, Government of India (UGC) and Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), India; National Research and Innovation Agency - BRIN, Indonesia; Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), Italy; Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI, Japan; Consejo Nacional de Ciencia (CONACYT) y Tecnología, through Fondo de Cooperación Internacional en Ciencia y Tecnología (FONCICYT) and Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Academico (DGAPA), Mexico; Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), Netherlands; The Research Council of Norway, Norway; Commission on Science and Technology for Sustainable Development in the South (COMSATS), Pakistan; Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Peru; Ministry of Education and Science, National Science Centre and WUT ID-UB, Poland; Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information and National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), Republic of Korea; Ministry of Education and Scientific Research, Institute of Atomic Physics, Ministry of Research and Innovation and Institute of Atomic Physics and University Politehnica of Bucharest, Romania; Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic, Slovakia; National Research Foundation of South Africa, South Africa; Swedish Research Council (VR) and Knut & Alice Wallenberg Foundation (KAW), Sweden; European Organization for Nuclear Research, Switzerland; Suranaree University of Technology (SUT), National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA), Thailand Science Research and Innovation (TSRI) and National Science, Research and Innovation Fund (NSRF), Thailand; Turkish Energy, Nuclear and Mineral Research Agency (TENMAK), Turkey; National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Ukraine; Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), United Kingdom; National Science Foundation of the United States of America (NSF) and United States Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Physics (DOE NP), United States of America. In addition, individual groups or members have received support from: Marie Skłodowska Curie, European Research Council, Strong 2020 - Horizon 2020 (grant nos. 950692, 824093, 896850), European Union; Academy of Finland (Center of Excellence in Quark Matter) (grant nos. 346327, 346328), Finland; Programa de Apoyos para la Superación del Personal Académico, UNAM, Mexico.

## References

  * [1] E878 Collaboration, M. J. Bennett et al., “Light nuclei production in relativistic Au + nucleus collisions”, Phys. Rev. C 58 (1998) 1155–1164.
  * [2] E802 Collaboration, L. Ahle et al., “Proton and deuteron production in Au + Au reactions at 11.6 A-GeV/$c$”, Phys. Rev. C 60 (1999) 064901.
  * [3] E864 Collaboration, T. A. Armstrong et al., “Measurements of light nuclei production in 11.5 A-GeV/$c$ Au + Pb heavy ion collisions”, Phys. Rev. C 61 (2000) 064908, arXiv:nucl-ex/0003009.
  * [4] E864 Collaboration, T. A. Armstrong et al., “Anti-deuteron yield at the AGS and coalescence implications”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 2685–2688, arXiv:nucl-ex/0005001.
  * [5] NA52 (NEWMASS) Collaboration, G. Ambrosini et al., “Baryon and anti-baryon production in lead-lead collisions at 158 A GeV/$c$”, Phys. Lett. B 417 (1998) 202–210.
  * [6] STAR Collaboration, C. Adler et al., “Antideuteron and anti-3He production in $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 130 GeV Au+Au collisions”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 262301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0108022. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 87, 279902 (2001)].
  * [7] PHENIX Collaboration, S. S. Adler et al., “Deuteron and antideuteron production in Au + Au collisions at 200 GeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 122302, arXiv:nucl-ex/0406004.
  * [8] BRAHMS Collaboration, I. Arsene et al., “Rapidity dependence of deuteron production in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 200 GeV”, Phys. Rev. C 83 (2011) 044906, arXiv:1005.5427 [nucl-ex].
  * [9] STAR Collaboration, H. Agakishiev et al., “Observation of the antimatter helium-4 nucleus”, Nature 473 (2011) 353, arXiv:1103.3312 [nucl-ex]. [Erratum: Nature 475 (2011) 412].
  * [10] STAR Collaboration, L. Adamczyk et al., “Measurement of elliptic flow of light nuclei at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=$ 200, 62.4, 39, 27, 19.6, 11.5, and 7.7 GeV at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider”, Phys. Rev. C 94 (2016) 034908, arXiv:1601.07052 [nucl-ex].
  * [11] STAR Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Beam energy dependence of (anti-)deuteron production in Au + Au collisions at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider”, Phys. Rev. C 99 (2019) 064905, arXiv:1903.11778 [nucl-ex].
  * [12] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Precision measurement of the mass difference between light nuclei and anti-nuclei”, Nature Phys. 11 (2015) 811–814, arXiv:1508.03986 [nucl-ex].
  * [13] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Production of light nuclei and anti-nuclei in pp and Pb–Pb collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider”, Phys. Rev. C93 (2016) 024917, arXiv:1506.08951 [nucl-ex].
  * [14] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Multiplicity dependence of (anti-)deuteron production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B794 (2019) 50–63, arXiv:1902.09290 [nucl-ex].
  * [15] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Measurement of deuteron spectra and elliptic flow in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 2.76 TeV at the LHC”, Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) 658, arXiv:1707.07304 [nucl-ex].
  * [16] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Production of deuterons, tritons, 3He nuclei and their antinuclei in pp collisions at $\mathbf{\sqrt{{\textit{s}}}}$ = 0.9, 2.76 and 7 TeV”, Phys. Rev. C97 (2018) 024615, arXiv:1709.08522 [nucl-ex].
  * [17] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Production of 4He and ${}^{4}\overline{\textrm{He}}$ in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 2.76 TeV at the LHC”, Nucl. Phys. A971 (2018) 1–20, arXiv:1710.07531 [nucl-ex].
  * [18] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Multiplicity dependence of light (anti-)nuclei production in p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 800 (2020) 135043, arXiv:1906.03136 [nucl-ex].
  * [19] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Production of (anti-)3He and (anti-)3H in p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV”, Phys. Rev. C101 (2020) 044906, arXiv:1910.14401 [nucl-ex].
  * [20] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “(Anti-)deuteron production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\ \text{TeV}$”, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 889, arXiv:2003.03184 [nucl-ex].
  * [21] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Production of light (anti)nuclei in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV”, JHEP 01 (2022) 106, arXiv:2109.13026 [nucl-ex].
  * [22] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Jet-associated deuteron production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 819 (2021) 136440, arXiv:2011.05898 [nucl-ex].
  * [23] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Production of light (anti)nuclei in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV”, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 289, arXiv:2112.00610 [nucl-ex].
  * [24] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Hypertriton Production in p–Pb Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=5.02 TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) 252003, arXiv:2107.10627 [nucl-ex].
  * [25] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Measurement of deuteron spectra and elliptic flow in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 2.76 TeV at the LHC”, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 658, arXiv:1707.07304 [nucl-ex].
  * [26] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Elliptic and triangular flow of (anti)deuterons in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV”, Phys. Rev. C 102 (2020) 055203, arXiv:2005.14639 [nucl-ex].
  * [27] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Measurement of the (anti-)3He elliptic flow in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 805 (2020) 135414, arXiv:1910.09718 [nucl-ex].
  * [28] S. T. Butler and C. A. Pearson, “Deuterons from High-Energy Proton Bombardment of Matter”, Phys. Rev. 129 (1963) 836–842.
  * [29] J. I. Kapusta, “Mechanisms for deuteron production in relativistic nuclear collisions”, Phys. Rev. C 21 (1980) 1301–1310.
  * [30] R. Scheibl and U. W. Heinz, “Coalescence and flow in ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions”, Phys. Rev. C59 (1999) 1585–1602, arXiv:nucl-th/9809092 [nucl-th].
  * [31] W. Zhao, L. Zhu, H. Zheng, C. M. Ko, and H. Song, “Spectra and flow of light nuclei in relativistic heavy ion collisions at energies available at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider and at the CERN Large Hadron Collider”, Phys. Rev. C98 (2018) 054905, arXiv:1807.02813 [nucl-th].
  * [32] K. Blum and M. Takimoto, “Nuclear coalescence from correlation functions”, Phys. Rev. C 99 (2019) 044913, arXiv:1901.07088 [nucl-th].
  * [33] K.-J. Sun, C. M. Ko, and B. D$\ddot{\mathrm{o}}$nigus, “Suppression of light nuclei production in collisions of small systems at the Large Hadron Collider”, Phys. Lett. B792 (2019) 132–137, arXiv:1812.05175 [nucl-th].
  * [34] M. Kachelrieß, S. Ostapchenko, and J. Tjemsland, “Alternative coalescence model for deuteron, tritium, helium-3 and their antinuclei”, Eur. Phys. J. A 56 (2020) 4, arXiv:1905.01192 [hep-ph].
  * [35] D. Oliinychenko, L.-G. Pang, H. Elfner, and V. Koch, “Microscopic study of deuteron production in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76$ TeV via hydrodynamics and a hadronic afterburner”, Phys. Rev. C 99 (2019) 044907, arXiv:1809.03071 [hep-ph].
  * [36] J. Cleymans, S. Kabana, I. Kraus, H. Oeschler, K. Redlich, and N. Sharma, “Antimatter production in proton-proton and heavy-ion collisions at ultrarelativistic energies”, Phys. Rev. C84 (2011) 054916, arXiv:1105.3719 [hep-ph].
  * [37] A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Stachel, and H. St$\ddot{\mathrm{o}}$cker, “Production of light nuclei, hypernuclei and their antiparticles in relativistic nuclear collisions”, Phys. Lett. B697 (2011) 203–207, arXiv:1010.2995 [nucl-th].
  * [38] F. Becattini, E. Grossi, M. Bleicher, J. Steinheimer, and R. Stock, “Centrality dependence of hadronization and chemical freeze-out conditions in heavy ion collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 2.76 TeV”, Phys. Rev. C90 (2014) 054907, arXiv:1405.0710 [nucl-th].
  * [39] V. Vovchenko and H. St$\ddot{\mathrm{o}}$cker, “Examination of the sensitivity of the thermal fits to heavy-ion hadron yield data to the modeling of the eigenvolume interactions”, Phys. Rev. C95 (2017) 044904, arXiv:1606.06218 [hep-ph].
  * [40] A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, “Decoding the phase structure of QCD via particle production at high energy”, Nature 561 (2018) 321–330, arXiv:1710.09425 [nucl-th].
  * [41] N. Sharma, J. Cleymans, B. Hippolyte, and M. Paradza, “A Comparison of p-p, p-Pb, Pb-Pb Collisions in the Thermal Model: Multiplicity Dependence of Thermal Parameters”, Phys. Rev. C99 (2019) 044914, arXiv:1811.00399 [hep-ph].
  * [42] V. Vovchenko, B. Dönigus, and H. Stoecker, “Canonical statistical model analysis of p-p , p–Pb, and Pb–Pb collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider”, Phys. Rev. C 100 (2019) 054906, arXiv:1906.03145 [hep-ph].
  * [43] V. Vovchenko, B. Dönigus, and H. Stoecker, “Multiplicity dependence of light nuclei production at LHC energies in the canonical statistical model”, Phys. Lett. B 785 (2018) 171–174, arXiv:1808.05245 [hep-ph].
  * [44] A. Kounine, “The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on the International Space Station”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 21 (2012) 1230005.
  * [45] C. J. Hailey, “An indirect search for dark matter using antideuterons: the GAPS experiment”, New J. Phys. 11 (2009) 105022.
  * [46] F. Donato, N. Fornengo, and D. Maurin, “Antideuteron fluxes from dark matter annihilation in diffusion models”, Phys. Rev. D78 (2008) 043506, arXiv:0803.2640 [hep-ph].
  * [47] M. Korsmeier, F. Donato, and N. Fornengo, “Prospects to verify a possible dark matter hint in cosmic antiprotons with antideuterons and antihelium”, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 103011, arXiv:1711.08465 [astro-ph.HE].
  * [48] AMS Collaboration, M. Aguilar et al., “Antiproton Flux, Antiproton-to-Proton Flux Ratio, and Properties of Elementary Particle Fluxes in Primary Cosmic Rays Measured with the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on the International Space Station”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 091103.
  * [49] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Measurement of the low-energy antideuteron inelastic cross section”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) 162001, arXiv:2005.11122 [nucl-ex].
  * [50] R. D. Field and R. P. Feynman, “A Parametrization of the Properties of Quark Jets”, Nucl. Phys. B 136 (1978) 1.
  * [51] B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, G. Ingelman, and T. Sjostrand, “Parton Fragmentation and String Dynamics”, Phys. Rept. 97 (1983) 31–145.
  * [52] T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, “A Brief Introduction to PYTHIA 8.1”, Comput. Phys. Commun. 178 (2008) 852–867, arXiv:0710.3820 [hep-ph].
  * [53] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Supplemental material: afterburner for generating light (anti-)nuclei with QCD-inspired event generators in pp collisions”, ALICE-PUBLIC-2017-010 (Sep, 2017) . https://cds.cern.ch/record/2285500.
  * [54] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Underlying Event properties in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV”, JHEP 04 (2020) 192, arXiv:1910.14400 [nucl-ex].
  * [55] ALICE Collaboration, “Underlying-event properties in pp and p$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02$ TeV”, JHEP 06 (2023) 023, arXiv:2204.10389 [nucl-ex].
  * [56] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC”, JINST 3 (2008) S08002. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08002.
  * [57] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Performance of the ALICE Experiment at the CERN LHC”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A29 (2014) 1430044, arXiv:1402.4476 [nucl-ex].
  * [58] J. Alme et al., “The ALICE TPC, a large 3-dimensional tracking device with fast readout for ultra-high multiplicity events”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A622 (2010) 316–367, arXiv:1001.1950 [physics.ins-det].
  * [59] ALICE Collaboration, A. Akindinov et al., “Performance of the ALICE Time-Of-Flight detector at the LHC”, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 128 (2013) 44.
  * [60] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Determination of the event collision time with the ALICE detector at the LHC”, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 132 (2017) 99, arXiv:1610.03055 [physics.ins-det].
  * [61] ALICE Collaboration, P. Cortese et al., “ALICE technical design report on forward detectors: FMD, T0 and V0”, (2004) CERN–LHCC–2004–025.
  * [62] P. Skands et al., “Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 Tune”, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3024, arXiv:1404.5630 [hep-ph].
  * [63] GEANT4 Collaboration, S. Agostinelli et al., “GEANT4–a simulation toolkit”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250–303.
  * [64] J. Jaros et al., “Nucleus-nucleus total cross sections for light nuclei at 1.55 and 2.89 GeV/$c$ per nucleon”, Phys. Rev. C 18 (1978) 2273–2292.
  * [65] A. Auce et al., “Reaction cross sections for 38, 65, and 97 MeV deuterons on targets from ${}^{9}\mathrm{Be}$ to ${}^{208}\mathrm{Pb}$”, Phys. Rev. C 53 (1996) 2919–2925.
  * [66] S. P. Denisov et al., “Measurements of anti-deuteron absorption and stripping cross sections at the momentum 13.3 GeV/c”, Nucl. Phys. B 31 (1971) 253–260.
  * [67] F. G. Binon et al., “Absorption cross-sections of 25 GeV/c antideuterons in Li, C, Al, Cu and Pb”, Phys. Lett. B 31 (1970) 230–232.
  * [68] C. Tsallis, “Possible Generalization of Boltzmann-Gibbs Statistics”, J. Statist. Phys. 52 (1988) 479–487.
  * [69] PHENIX Collaboration, S. S. Adler et al., “Dense-Medium Modifications to Jet-Induced Hadron Pair Distributions in Au+Au Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 200 GeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 052301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0507004.
  * [70] ALICE Collaboration, “Production of pions, kaons and protons as a function of the transverse event activity in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”, JHEP 06 (2023) 027, arXiv:2301.10120 [nucl-ex].
  * [71] S. Sombun et al., “Deuteron production from phase-space coalescence in the UrQMD approach”, Phys. Rev. C 99 (2019) 014901, arXiv:1805.11509 [nucl-th].
  * [72] ALICE Collaboration, “Enhanced deuteron coalescence probability in jets. Supplemental Material: a model based on PYTHIA 8 and simple nucleon coalescence”, ALICE-PUBLIC-2022-019 (Nov, 2022) . http://cds.cern.ch/record/2842026.
  * [73] C. Bierlich et al., “A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3”, arXiv:2203.11601 [hep-ph].
  * [74] L. A. Dal and A. R. Raklev, “Alternative formation model for antideuterons from dark matter”, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 123536, arXiv:1504.07242 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 92, 069903 (2015), Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 92, 089901 (2015)].

##  Appendix A The ALICE Collaboration

S. Acharya 125, D. Adamová 86, A. Adler69, G. Aglieri Rinella 32, M. Agnello
29, N. Agrawal 50, Z. Ahammed 132, S. Ahmad 15, S.U. Ahn 70, I. Ahuja 37, A.
Akindinov 140, M. Al-Turany 97, D. Aleksandrov 140, B. Alessandro 55, H.M.
Alfanda 6, R. Alfaro Molina 66, B. Ali 15, A. Alici 25, N. Alizadehvandchali
114, A. Alkin 32, J. Alme 20, G. Alocco 51, T. Alt 63, I. Altsybeev 140, M.N.
Anaam 6, C. Andrei 45, A. Andronic 135, V. Anguelov 94, F. Antinori 53, P.
Antonioli 50, N. Apadula 74, L. Aphecetche 103, H. Appelshäuser 63, C. Arata
73, S. Arcelli 25, M. Aresti 51, R. Arnaldi 55, J.G.M.C.A. Arneiro 110, I.C.
Arsene 19, M. Arslandok 137, A. Augustinus 32, R. Averbeck 97, M.D. Azmi 15,
A. Badalà 52, J. Bae 104, Y.W. Baek 40, X. Bai 118, R. Bailhache 63, Y.
Bailung 47, A. Balbino 29, A. Baldisseri 128, B. Balis 2, D. Banerjee 4, Z.
Banoo 91, R. Barbera 26, F. Barile 31, L. Barioglio 95, M. Barlou78, G.G.
Barnaföldi 136, L.S. Barnby 85, V. Barret 125, L. Barreto 110, C. Bartels 117,
K. Barth 32, E. Bartsch 63, N. Bastid 125, S. Basu 75, G. Batigne 103, D.
Battistini 95, B. Batyunya 141, D. Bauri46, J.L. Bazo Alba 101, I.G. Bearden
83, C. Beattie 137, P. Becht 97, D. Behera 47, I. Belikov 127, A.D.C. Bell
Hechavarria 135, F. Bellini 25, R. Bellwied 114, S. Belokurova 140, V. Belyaev
140, G. Bencedi 136, S. Beole 24, A. Bercuci 45, Y. Berdnikov 140, A.
Berdnikova 94, L. Bergmann 94, M.G. Besoiu 62, L. Betev 32, P.P. Bhaduri 132,
A. Bhasin 91, M.A. Bhat 4, B. Bhattacharjee 41, L. Bianchi 24, N. Bianchi 48,
J. Bielčík 35, J. Bielčíková 86, J. Biernat 107, A.P. Bigot 127, A. Bilandzic
95, G. Biro 136, S. Biswas 4, N. Bize 103, J.T. Blair 108, D. Blau 140, M.B.
Blidaru 97, N. Bluhme38, C. Blume 63, G. Boca 21,54, F. Bock 87, T. Bodova 20,
A. Bogdanov140, S. Boi 22, J. Bok 57, L. Boldizsár 136, A. Bolozdynya 140, M.
Bombara 37, P.M. Bond 32, G. Bonomi 131,54, H. Borel 128, A. Borissov 140,
A.G. Borquez Carcamo 94, H. Bossi 137, E. Botta 24, Y.E.M. Bouziani 63, L.
Bratrud 63, P. Braun-Munzinger 97, M. Bregant 110, M. Broz 35, G.E. Bruno
96,31, M.D. Buckland 23, D. Budnikov 140, H. Buesching 63, S. Bufalino 29, O.
Bugnon103, P. Buhler 102, Z. Buthelezi 67,121, S.A. Bysiak107, M. Cai 6, H.
Caines 137, A. Caliva 97, E. Calvo Villar 101, J.M.M. Camacho 109, P. Camerini
23, F.D.M. Canedo 110, M. Carabas 124, A.A. Carballo 32, F. Carnesecchi 32, R.
Caron 126, L.A.D. Carvalho 110, J. Castillo Castellanos 128, F. Catalano
24,29, C. Ceballos Sanchez 141, I. Chakaberia 74, P. Chakraborty 46, S.
Chandra 132, S. Chapeland 32, M. Chartier 117, S. Chattopadhyay 132, S.
Chattopadhyay 99, T.G. Chavez 44, T. Cheng 97,6, C. Cheshkov 126, B. Cheynis
126, V. Chibante Barroso 32, D.D. Chinellato 111, E.S. Chizzali II,95, J. Cho
57, S. Cho 57, P. Chochula 32, P. Christakoglou 84, C.H. Christensen 83, P.
Christiansen 75, T. Chujo 123, M. Ciacco 29, C. Cicalo 51, F. Cindolo 50, M.R.
Ciupek97, G. ClaiIII,50, F. Colamaria 49, J.S. Colburn100, D. Colella 96,31,
M. Colocci 32, M. Concas IV,55, G. Conesa Balbastre 73, Z. Conesa del Valle
72, G. Contin 23, J.G. Contreras 35, M.L. Coquet 128, T.M. CormierI,87, P.
Cortese 130,55, M.R. Cosentino 112, F. Costa 32, S. Costanza 21,54, C. Cot 72,
J. Crkovská 94, P. Crochet 125, R. Cruz-Torres 74, E. Cuautle64, P. Cui 6, A.
Dainese 53, M.C. Danisch 94, A. Danu 62, P. Das 80, P. Das 4, S. Das 4, A.R.
Dash 135, S. Dash 46, R.M.H. David44, A. De Caro 28, G. de Cataldo 49, J. de
Cuveland38, A. De Falco 22, D. De Gruttola 28, N. De Marco 55, C. De Martin
23, S. De Pasquale 28, S. Deb 47, R.J. Debski 2, K.R. Deja133, R. Del Grande
95, L. Dello Stritto 28, W. Deng 6, P. Dhankher 18, D. Di Bari 31, A. Di Mauro
32, R.A. Diaz 141,7, T. Dietel 113, Y. Ding 126,6, R. Divià 32, D.U. Dixit 18,
Ø. Djuvsland20, U. Dmitrieva 140, A. Dobrin 62, B. Dönigus 63, J.M. Dubinski
133, A. Dubla 97, S. Dudi 90, P. Dupieux 125, M. Durkac106, N. Dzalaiova12,
T.M. Eder 135, R.J. Ehlers 87, V.N. Eikeland20, F. Eisenhut 63, D. Elia 49, B.
Erazmus 103, F. Ercolessi 25, F. Erhardt 89, M.R. Ersdal20, B. Espagnon 72, G.
Eulisse 32, D. Evans 100, S. Evdokimov 140, L. Fabbietti 95, M. Faggin 27, J.
Faivre 73, F. Fan 6, W. Fan 74, A. Fantoni 48, M. Fasel 87, P. Fecchio29, A.
Feliciello 55, G. Feofilov 140, A. Fernández Téllez 44, L. Ferrandi 110, M.B.
Ferrer 32, A. Ferrero 128, C. Ferrero 55, A. Ferretti 24, V.J.G. Feuillard 94,
V. Filova 35, D. Finogeev 140, F.M. Fionda 51, F. Flor 114, A.N. Flores 108,
S. Foertsch 67, I. Fokin 94, S. Fokin 140, E. Fragiacomo 56, E. Frajna 136, U.
Fuchs 32, N. Funicello 28, C. Furget 73, A. Furs 140, T. Fusayasu 98, J.J.
Gaardhøje 83, M. Gagliardi 24, A.M. Gago 101, C.D. Galvan 109, D.R.
Gangadharan 114, P. Ganoti 78, C. Garabatos 97, J.R.A. Garcia 44, E. Garcia-
Solis 9, K. Garg 103, C. Gargiulo 32, K. Garner135, P. Gasik 97, A. Gautam
116, M.B. Gay Ducati 65, M. Germain 103, A. Ghimouz123, C. Ghosh132, M.
Giacalone 50,25, P. Giubellino 97,55, P. Giubilato 27, A.M.C. Glaenzer 128, P.
Glässel 94, E. Glimos 120, D.J.Q. Goh76, V. Gonzalez 134, L.H. González-Trueba
66, M. Gorgon 2, S. Gotovac33, V. Grabski 66, L.K. Graczykowski 133, E. Grecka
86, A. Grelli 58, C. Grigoras 32, V. Grigoriev 140, S. Grigoryan 141,1, F.
Grosa 32, J.F. Grosse-Oetringhaus 32, R. Grosso 97, D. Grund 35, G.G.
Guardiano 111, R. Guernane 73, M. Guilbaud 103, K. Gulbrandsen 83, T. Gundem
63, T. Gunji 122, W. Guo 6, A. Gupta 91, R. Gupta 91, S.P. Guzman 44, L.
Gyulai 136, M.K. Habib97, C. Hadjidakis 72, F.U. Haider 91, H. Hamagaki 76, A.
Hamdi 74, M. Hamid6, Y. Han 138, R. Hannigan 108, M.R. Haque 133, J.W. Harris
137, A. Harton 9, H. Hassan 87, D. Hatzifotiadou 50, P. Hauer 42, L.B. Havener
137, S.T. Heckel 95, E. Hellbär 97, H. Helstrup 34, M. Hemmer 63, T. Herman
35, G. Herrera Corral 8, F. Herrmann135, S. Herrmann 126, K.F. Hetland 34, B.
Heybeck 63, H. Hillemanns 32, C. Hills 117, B. Hippolyte 127, F.W. Hoffmann
69, B. Hofman 58, B. Hohlweger 84, G.H. Hong 138, M. Horst 95, A. Horzyk 2, R.
Hosokawa14, Y. Hou 6, P. Hristov 32, C. Hughes 120, P. Huhn63, L.M. Huhta 115,
C.V. Hulse 72, T.J. Humanic 88, A. Hutson 114, D. Hutter 38, J.P. Iddon 117,
R. Ilkaev140, H. Ilyas 13, M. Inaba 123, G.M. Innocenti 32, M. Ippolitov 140,
A. Isakov 86, T. Isidori 116, M.S. Islam 99, M. Ivanov12, M. Ivanov 97, V.
Ivanov 140, M. Jablonski 2, B. Jacak 74, N. Jacazio 32, P.M. Jacobs 74, S.
Jadlovska106, J. Jadlovsky106, S. Jaelani 82, L. Jaffe38, C. Jahnke 111, M.J.
Jakubowska 133, M.A. Janik 133, T. Janson69, M. Jercic89, S. Jia 10, A.A.P.
Jimenez 64, F. Jonas 87, J.M. Jowett 32,97, J. Jung 63, M. Jung 63, A. Junique
32, A. Jusko 100, M.J. Kabus 32,133, J. Kaewjai105, P. Kalinak 59, A.S.
Kalteyer 97, A. Kalweit 32, V. Kaplin 140, A. Karasu Uysal 71, D. Karatovic
89, O. Karavichev 140, T. Karavicheva 140, P. Karczmarczyk 133, E. Karpechev
140, U. Kebschull 69, R. Keidel 139, D.L.D. Keijdener58, M. Keil 32, B. Ketzer
42, A.M. Khan 6, S. Khan 15, A. Khanzadeev 140, Y. Kharlov 140, A. Khatun
116,15, A. Khuntia 107, M.B. Kidson113, B. Kileng 34, B. Kim 16, C. Kim 16,
D.J. Kim 115, E.J. Kim 68, J. Kim 138, J.S. Kim 40, J. Kim 68, M. Kim 18,94,
S. Kim 17, T. Kim 138, K. Kimura 92, S. Kirsch 63, I. Kisel 38, S. Kiselev
140, A. Kisiel 133, J.P. Kitowski 2, J.L. Klay 5, J. Klein 32, S. Klein 74, C.
Klein-Bösing 135, M. Kleiner 63, T. Klemenz 95, A. Kluge 32, A.G. Knospe 114,
C. Kobdaj 105, T. Kollegger97, A. Kondratyev 141, N. Kondratyeva 140, E.
Kondratyuk 140, J. Konig 63, S.A. Konigstorfer 95, P.J. Konopka 32, G.
Kornakov 133, S.D. Koryciak 2, A. Kotliarov 86, V. Kovalenko 140, M. Kowalski
107, V. Kozhuharov 36, I. Králik 59, A. Kravčáková 37, L. Kreis97, M. Krivda
100,59, F. Krizek 86, K. Krizkova Gajdosova 35, M. Kroesen 94, M. Krüger 63,
D.M. Krupova 35, E. Kryshen 140, V. Kučera 32, C. Kuhn 127, P.G. Kuijer 84, T.
Kumaoka123, D. Kumar132, L. Kumar 90, N. Kumar90, S. Kumar 31, S. Kundu 32, P.
Kurashvili 79, A. Kurepin 140, A.B. Kurepin 140, A. Kuryakin 140, S. Kushpil
86, J. Kvapil 100, M.J. Kweon 57, J.Y. Kwon 57, Y. Kwon 138, S.L. La Pointe
38, P. La Rocca 26, Y.S. Lai74, A. Lakrathok105, M. Lamanna 32, R. Langoy 119,
P. Larionov 32, E. Laudi 32, L. Lautner 32,95, R. Lavicka 102, T. Lazareva
140, R. Lea 131,54, H. Lee 104, G. Legras 135, J. Lehrbach 38, R.C. Lemmon 85,
I. León Monzón 109, M.M. Lesch 95, E.D. Lesser 18, M. Lettrich95, P. Lévai
136, X. Li10, X.L. Li6, J. Lien 119, R. Lietava 100, I. Likmeta 114, B. Lim
24,16, S.H. Lim 16, V. Lindenstruth 38, A. Lindner45, C. Lippmann 97, A. Liu
18, D.H. Liu 6, J. Liu 117, I.M. Lofnes 20, C. Loizides 87, S. Lokos 107, J.
Lomker 58, P. Loncar 33, J.A. Lopez 94, X. Lopez 125, E. López Torres 7, P. Lu
97,118, J.R. Luhder 135, M. Lunardon 27, G. Luparello 56, Y.G. Ma 39, A.
Maevskaya140, M. Mager 32, T. Mahmoud42, A. Maire 127, M.V. Makariev 36, M.
Malaev 140, G. Malfattore 25, N.M. Malik 91, Q.W. Malik19, S.K. Malik 91, L.
Malinina VII,141, D. Mal’Kevich 140, D. Mallick 80, N. Mallick 47, G.
Mandaglio 30,52, V. Manko 140, F. Manso 125, V. Manzari 49, Y. Mao 6, G.V.
Margagliotti 23, A. Margotti 50, A. Marín 97, C. Markert 108, P. Martinengo
32, J.L. Martinez114, M.I. Martínez 44, G. Martínez García 103, S. Masciocchi
97, M. Masera 24, A. Masoni 51, L. Massacrier 72, A. Mastroserio 129,49, O.
Matonoha 75, P.F.T. Matuoka110, A. Matyja 107, C. Mayer 107, A.L. Mazuecos 32,
F. Mazzaschi 24, M. Mazzilli 32, J.E. Mdhluli 121, A.F. Mechler63, Y. Melikyan
43,140, A. Menchaca-Rocha 66, E. Meninno 102,28, A.S. Menon 114, M. Meres 12,
S. Mhlanga113,67, Y. Miake123, L. Micheletti 55, L.C. Migliorin126, D.L.
Mihaylov 95, K. Mikhaylov 141,140, A.N. Mishra 136, D. Miśkowiec 97, A. Modak
4, A.P. Mohanty 58, B. Mohanty80, M. Mohisin Khan V,15, M.A. Molander 43, Z.
Moravcova 83, C. Mordasini 95, D.A. Moreira De Godoy 135, I. Morozov 140, A.
Morsch 32, T. Mrnjavac 32, V. Muccifora 48, S. Muhuri 132, J.D. Mulligan 74,
A. Mulliri22, M.G. Munhoz 110, R.H. Munzer 63, H. Murakami 122, S. Murray 113,
L. Musa 32, J. Musinsky 59, J.W. Myrcha 133, B. Naik 121, A.I. Nambrath 18,
B.K. Nandi 46, R. Nania 50, E. Nappi 49, A.F. Nassirpour 75, A. Nath 94, C.
Nattrass 120, M.N. Naydenov 36, A. Neagu19, A. Negru124, L. Nellen 64, S.V.
Nesbo34, G. Neskovic 38, D. Nesterov 140, B.S. Nielsen 83, E.G. Nielsen 83, S.
Nikolaev 140, S. Nikulin 140, V. Nikulin 140, F. Noferini 50, S. Noh 11, P.
Nomokonov 141, J. Norman 117, N. Novitzky 123, P. Nowakowski 133, A. Nyanin
140, J. Nystrand 20, M. Ogino 76, A. Ohlson 75, V.A. Okorokov 140, J. Oleniacz
133, A.C. Oliveira Da Silva 120, M.H. Oliver 137, A. Onnerstad 115, C.
Oppedisano 55, A. Ortiz Velasquez 64, J. Otwinowski 107, M. Oya92, K. Oyama
76, Y. Pachmayer 94, S. Padhan 46, D. Pagano 131,54, G. Paić 64, A. Palasciano
49, S. Panebianco 128, H. Park 123, H. Park 104, J. Park 57, J.E. Parkkila 32,
R.N. Patra91, B. Paul 22, H. Pei 6, T. Peitzmann 58, X. Peng 6, M. Pennisi 24,
L.G. Pereira 65, D. Peresunko 140, G.M. Perez 7, S. Perrin 128, Y. Pestov140,
V. Petráček 35, V. Petrov 140, M. Petrovici 45, R.P. Pezzi 103,65, S. Piano
56, M. Pikna 12, P. Pillot 103, O. Pinazza 50,32, L. Pinsky114, C. Pinto 95,
S. Pisano 48, M. Płoskoń 74, M. Planinic89, F. Pliquett63, M.G. Poghosyan 87,
B. Polichtchouk 140, S. Politano 29, N. Poljak 89, A. Pop 45, S. Porteboeuf-
Houssais 125, V. Pozdniakov 141, K.K. Pradhan 47, S.K. Prasad 4, S. Prasad 47,
R. Preghenella 50, F. Prino 55, C.A. Pruneau 134, I. Pshenichnov 140, M.
Puccio 32, S. Pucillo 24, Z. Pugelova106, S. Qiu 84, L. Quaglia 24, R.E.
Quishpe114, S. Ragoni 14,100, A. Rakotozafindrabe 128, L. Ramello 130,55, F.
Rami 127, S.A.R. Ramirez 44, T.A. Rancien73, M. Rasa 26, S.S. Räsänen 43, R.
Rath 50, M.P. Rauch 20, I. Ravasenga 84, K.F. Read 87,120, C. Reckziegel 112,
A.R. Redelbach 38, K. Redlich VI,79, C.A. Reetz 97, A. Rehman20, F. Reidt 32,
H.A. Reme-Ness 34, Z. Rescakova37, K. Reygers 94, A. Riabov 140, V. Riabov
140, R. Ricci 28, M. Richter 19, A.A. Riedel 95, W. Riegler 32, C. Ristea 62,
M. Rodríguez Cahuantzi 44, K. Røed 19, R. Rogalev 140, E. Rogochaya 141, T.S.
Rogoschinski 63, D. Rohr 32, D. Röhrich 20, P.F. Rojas44, S. Rojas Torres 35,
P.S. Rokita 133, G. Romanenko 141, F. Ronchetti 48, A. Rosano 30,52, E.D.
Rosas64, K. Roslon 133, A. Rossi 53, A. Roy 47, S. Roy 46, N. Rubini 25, O.V.
Rueda 114,75, D. Ruggiano 133, R. Rui 23, B. Rumyantsev141, P.G. Russek 2, R.
Russo 84, A. Rustamov 81, E. Ryabinkin 140, Y. Ryabov 140, A. Rybicki 107, H.
Rytkonen 115, W. Rzesa 133, O.A.M. Saarimaki 43, R. Sadek 103, S. Sadhu 31, S.
Sadovsky 140, J. Saetre 20, K. Šafařík 35, S.K. Saha 4, S. Saha 80, B. Sahoo
46, R. Sahoo 47, S. Sahoo60, D. Sahu 47, P.K. Sahu 60, J. Saini 132, K.
Sajdakova37, S. Sakai 123, M.P. Salvan 97, S. Sambyal 91, I. Sanna 32,95, T.B.
Saramela110, D. Sarkar 134, N. Sarkar132, P. Sarma 41, V. Sarritzu 22, V.M.
Sarti 95, M.H.P. Sas 137, J. Schambach 87, H.S. Scheid 63, C. Schiaua 45, R.
Schicker 94, A. Schmah94, C. Schmidt 97, H.R. Schmidt93, M.O. Schmidt 32, M.
Schmidt93, N.V. Schmidt 87, A.R. Schmier 120, R. Schotter 127, A. Schröter 38,
J. Schukraft 32, K. Schwarz97, K. Schweda 97, G. Scioli 25, E. Scomparin 55,
J.E. Seger 14, Y. Sekiguchi122, D. Sekihata 122, I. Selyuzhenkov 97,140, S.
Senyukov 127, J.J. Seo 57, D. Serebryakov 140, L. Šerkšnytė 95, A. Sevcenco
62, T.J. Shaba 67, A. Shabetai 103, R. Shahoyan32, A. Shangaraev 140, A.
Sharma90, B. Sharma 91, D. Sharma 46, H. Sharma 107, M. Sharma 91, S. Sharma
76, S. Sharma 91, U. Sharma 91, A. Shatat 72, O. Sheibani114, K. Shigaki 92,
M. Shimomura77, J. Shin11, S. Shirinkin 140, Q. Shou 39, Y. Sibiriak 140, S.
Siddhanta 51, T. Siemiarczuk 79, T.F. Silva 110, D. Silvermyr 75, T.
Simantathammakul105, R. Simeonov 36, B. Singh91, B. Singh 95, R. Singh 80, R.
Singh 91, R. Singh 47, S. Singh 15, V.K. Singh 132, V. Singhal 132, T. Sinha
99, B. Sitar 12, M. Sitta 130,55, T.B. Skaali19, G. Skorodumovs 94, M.
Slupecki 43, N. Smirnov 137, R.J.M. Snellings 58, E.H. Solheim 19, J. Song
114, A. Songmoolnak105, F. Soramel 27, R. Spijkers 84, I. Sputowska 107, J.
Staa 75, J. Stachel 94, I. Stan 62, P.J. Steffanic 120, S.F. Stiefelmaier 94,
D. Stocco 103, I. Storehaug 19, P. Stratmann 135, S. Strazzi 25, C.P.
Stylianidis84, A.A.P. Suaide 110, C. Suire 72, M. Sukhanov 140, M. Suljic 32,
R. Sultanov 140, V. Sumberia 91, S. Sumowidagdo 82, S. Swain60, I. Szarka 12,
M. Szymkowski 133, S.F. Taghavi 95, G. Taillepied 97, J. Takahashi 111, G.J.
Tambave 20, S. Tang 125,6, Z. Tang 118, J.D. Tapia Takaki 116, N. Tapus124,
L.A. Tarasovicova 135, M.G. Tarzila 45, G.F. Tassielli 31, A. Tauro 32, G.
Tejeda Muñoz 44, A. Telesca 32, L. Terlizzi 24, C. Terrevoli 114, G.
Tersimonov3, S. Thakur 4, D. Thomas 108, A. Tikhonov 140, A.R. Timmins 114, M.
Tkacik106, T. Tkacik 106, A. Toia 63, R. Tokumoto92, N. Topilskaya 140, M.
Toppi 48, F. Torales-Acosta18, T. Tork 72, A.G. Torres Ramos 31, A. Trifiró
30,52, A.S. Triolo 30,52, S. Tripathy 50, T. Tripathy 46, S. Trogolo 32, V.
Trubnikov 3, W.H. Trzaska 115, T.P. Trzcinski 133, A. Tumkin 140, R. Turrisi
53, T.S. Tveter 19, K. Ullaland 20, B. Ulukutlu 95, A. Uras 126, M. Urioni
54,131, G.L. Usai 22, M. Vala37, N. Valle 21, L.V.R. van Doremalen58, M. van
Leeuwen 84, C.A. van Veen 94, R.J.G. van Weelden 84, P. Vande Vyvre 32, D.
Varga 136, Z. Varga 136, M. Vasileiou 78, A. Vasiliev 140, O. Vázquez Doce 48,
V. Vechernin 140, E. Vercellin 24, S. Vergara Limón44, L. Vermunt 97, R.
Vértesi 136, M. Verweij 58, L. Vickovic33, Z. Vilakazi121, O. Villalobos
Baillie 100, A. Villani 23, G. Vino 49, A. Vinogradov 140, T. Virgili 28, V.
Vislavicius75, A. Vodopyanov 141, B. Volkel 32, M.A. Völkl 94, K. Voloshin140,
S.A. Voloshin 134, G. Volpe 31, B. von Haller 32, I. Vorobyev 95, N. Vozniuk
140, J. Vrláková 37, C. Wang 39, D. Wang39, Y. Wang 39, A. Wegrzynek 32, F.T.
Weiglhofer38, S.C. Wenzel 32, J.P. Wessels 135, S.L. Weyhmiller 137, J.
Wiechula 63, J. Wikne 19, G. Wilk 79, J. Wilkinson 97, G.A. Willems 135, B.
Windelband 94, M. Winn 128, J.R. Wright 108, W. Wu39, Y. Wu 118, R. Xu 6, A.
Yadav 42, A.K. Yadav 132, S. Yalcin 71, Y. Yamaguchi 92, S. Yang20, S. Yano
92, Z. Yin 6, I.-K. Yoo 16, J.H. Yoon 57, S. Yuan20, A. Yuncu 94, V. Zaccolo
23, C. Zampolli 32, F. Zanone 94, N. Zardoshti 32,100, A. Zarochentsev 140, P.
Závada 61, N. Zaviyalov140, M. Zhalov 140, B. Zhang 6, L. Zhang 39, S. Zhang
39, X. Zhang 6, Y. Zhang118, Z. Zhang 6, M. Zhao 10, V. Zherebchevskii 140, Y.
Zhi10, D. Zhou 6, Y. Zhou 83, J. Zhu 97,6, Y. Zhu6, S.C. Zugravel 55, N. Zurlo
131,54

## Affiliation Notes

I Deceased
II Also at: Max-Planck-Institut für Physik, Munich, Germany
III Also at: Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and
Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA), Bologna, Italy
IV Also at: Dipartimento DET del Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy
V Also at: Department of Applied Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh,
India
VI Also at: Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Wroclaw, Poland
VII Also at: An institution covered by a cooperation agreement with CERN

## Collaboration Institutes

1 A.I. Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics Institute)
Foundation, Yerevan, Armenia
2 AGH University of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland
3 Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, National Academy of Sciences
of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine
4 Bose Institute, Department of Physics and Centre for Astroparticle Physics
and Space Science (CAPSS), Kolkata, India
5 California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California, United
States
6 Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China
7 Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Havana,
Cuba
8 Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados (CINVESTAV), Mexico City and
Mérida, Mexico
9 Chicago State University, Chicago, Illinois, United States
10 China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China
11 Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea
12 Comenius University Bratislava, Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and
Informatics, Bratislava, Slovak Republic
13 COMSATS University Islamabad, Islamabad, Pakistan
14 Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, United States
15 Department of Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India
16 Department of Physics, Pusan National University, Pusan, Republic of Korea
17 Department of Physics, Sejong University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
18 Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, California,
United States
19 Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
20 Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
21 Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy
22 Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Cagliari, Italy
23 Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Trieste, Italy
24 Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy
25 Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN,
Bologna, Italy
26 Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN,
Catania, Italy
27 Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN,
Padova, Italy
28 Dipartimento di Fisica ‘E.R. Caianiello’ dell’Università and Gruppo
Collegato INFN, Salerno, Italy
29 Dipartimento DISAT del Politecnico and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy
30 Dipartimento di Scienze MIFT, Università di Messina, Messina, Italy
31 Dipartimento Interateneo di Fisica ‘M. Merlin’ and Sezione INFN, Bari,
Italy
32 European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
33 Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval
Architecture, University of Split, Split, Croatia
34 Faculty of Engineering and Science, Western Norway University of Applied
Sciences, Bergen, Norway
35 Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering, Czech Technical
University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
36 Faculty of Physics, Sofia University, Sofia, Bulgaria
37 Faculty of Science, P.J. Šafárik University, Košice, Slovak Republic
38 Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-
Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
39 Fudan University, Shanghai, China
40 Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, Republic of Korea
41 Gauhati University, Department of Physics, Guwahati, India
42 Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlen- und Kernphysik, Rheinische Friedrich-
Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany
43 Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Helsinki, Finland
44 High Energy Physics Group, Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
45 Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering,
Bucharest, Romania
46 Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT), Mumbai, India
47 Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore, India
48 INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
49 INFN, Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy
50 INFN, Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
51 INFN, Sezione di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
52 INFN, Sezione di Catania, Catania, Italy
53 INFN, Sezione di Padova, Padova, Italy
54 INFN, Sezione di Pavia, Pavia, Italy
55 INFN, Sezione di Torino, Turin, Italy
56 INFN, Sezione di Trieste, Trieste, Italy
57 Inha University, Incheon, Republic of Korea
58 Institute for Gravitational and Subatomic Physics (GRASP), Utrecht
University/Nikhef, Utrecht, Netherlands
59 Institute of Experimental Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Košice,
Slovak Republic
60 Institute of Physics, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Bhubaneswar, India
61 Institute of Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech
Republic
62 Institute of Space Science (ISS), Bucharest, Romania
63 Institut für Kernphysik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt,
Frankfurt, Germany
64 Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,
Mexico City, Mexico
65 Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS),
Porto Alegre, Brazil
66 Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City,
Mexico
67 iThemba LABS, National Research Foundation, Somerset West, South Africa
68 Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea
69 Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe Universität Frankfurt Institut für Informatik,
Fachbereich Informatik und Mathematik, Frankfurt, Germany
70 Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon, Republic of
Korea
71 KTO Karatay University, Konya, Turkey
72 Laboratoire de Physique des 2 Infinis, Irène Joliot-Curie, Orsay, France
73 Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie, Université Grenoble-
Alpes, CNRS-IN2P3, Grenoble, France
74 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, United States
75 Lund University Department of Physics, Division of Particle Physics, Lund,
Sweden
76 Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science, Nagasaki, Japan
77 Nara Women’s University (NWU), Nara, Japan
78 National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Science,
Department of Physics , Athens, Greece
79 National Centre for Nuclear Research, Warsaw, Poland
80 National Institute of Science Education and Research, Homi Bhabha National
Institute, Jatni, India
81 National Nuclear Research Center, Baku, Azerbaijan
82 National Research and Innovation Agency - BRIN, Jakarta, Indonesia
83 Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
84 Nikhef, National institute for subatomic physics, Amsterdam, Netherlands
85 Nuclear Physics Group, STFC Daresbury Laboratory, Daresbury, United Kingdom
86 Nuclear Physics Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Husinec-Řež,
Czech Republic
87 Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States
88 Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States
89 Physics department, Faculty of science, University of Zagreb, Zagreb,
Croatia
90 Physics Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
91 Physics Department, University of Jammu, Jammu, India
92 Physics Program and International Institute for Sustainability with Knotted
Chiral Meta Matter (SKCM2), Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan
93 Physikalisches Institut, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Tübingen,
Germany
94 Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg,
Germany
95 Physik Department, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany
96 Politecnico di Bari and Sezione INFN, Bari, Italy
97 Research Division and ExtreMe Matter Institute EMMI, GSI Helmholtzzentrum
für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany
98 Saga University, Saga, Japan
99 Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kolkata,
India
100 School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham,
United Kingdom
101 Sección Física, Departamento de Ciencias, Pontificia Universidad Católica
del Perú, Lima, Peru
102 Stefan Meyer Institut für Subatomare Physik (SMI), Vienna, Austria
103 SUBATECH, IMT Atlantique, Nantes Université, CNRS-IN2P3, Nantes, France
104 Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon City, Republic of Korea
105 Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand
106 Technical University of Košice, Košice, Slovak Republic
107 The Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of
Sciences, Cracow, Poland
108 The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States
109 Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Culiacán, Mexico
110 Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil
111 Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil
112 Universidade Federal do ABC, Santo Andre, Brazil
113 University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
114 University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
115 University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland
116 University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, United States
117 University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
118 University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China
119 University of South-Eastern Norway, Kongsberg, Norway
120 University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States
121 University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
122 University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
123 University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
124 University Politehnica of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania
125 Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France
126 Université de Lyon, CNRS/IN2P3, Institut de Physique des 2 Infinis de
Lyon, Lyon, France
127 Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, F-67000 Strasbourg, France,
Strasbourg, France
128 Université Paris-Saclay Centre d’Etudes de Saclay (CEA), IRFU, Départment
de Physique Nucléaire (DPhN), Saclay, France
129 Università degli Studi di Foggia, Foggia, Italy
130 Università del Piemonte Orientale, Vercelli, Italy
131 Università di Brescia, Brescia, Italy
132 Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kolkata,
India
133 Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland
134 Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, United States
135 Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Institut für Kernphysik,
Münster, Germany
136 Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
137 Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States
138 Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
139 Zentrum für Technologie und Transfer (ZTT), Worms, Germany
140 Affiliated with an institute covered by a cooperation agreement with CERN
141 Affiliated with an international laboratory covered by a cooperation
agreement with CERN.