2018 082 21 April

$\phi$ meson production at forward rapidity in Pb–Pb collisions at
$\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76$ TeV

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

$\phi$ meson measurements provide insight into strangeness production, which
is one of the key observables for the hot medium formed in high-energy heavy-
ion collisions. ALICE measured $\phi$ production through its decay in muon
pairs in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 2.76 TeV in the
intermediate transverse momentum range $2<p_{\mathrm{T}}<5$ GeV/c and in the
rapidity interval $2.5<y<4$. The $\phi$ yield was measured as a function of
the transverse momentum and collision centrality. The nuclear modification
factor was obtained as a function of the average number of participating
nucleons. Results were compared with the ones obtained via the kaon decay
channel in the same $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ range at midrapidity. The values of the
nuclear modification factor in the two rapidity regions are in agreement
within uncertainties.

##  1 Introduction

At small values of the baryochemical potential and at extreme high
temperatures, Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) predicts chiral and deconfinement
crossover transitions from hadronic matter to a state of strongly interacting
medium, where dominant degrees of freedom are gluons and light quarks (Quark-
Gluon Plasma, QGP). Ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions provide the tools
to study this phase of matter in the laboratory. Strangeness production is a
key tool to understand the properties of the medium formed in these
collisions. Indeed, an enhanced production of strange particles with respect
to elementary hadronic collisions was early proposed as one of the signatures
of the QGP [1]. This enhancement is currently interpreted as resulting from
the restoration of the chemical equilibrium between u, d and s quarks in
sufficiently central heavy-ion collisions, with respect to ee and pp
interactions, where strangeness production is expected to be canonically
suppressed [2].

The $\phi$ meson, due to its $s\bar{s}$ valence quark content, provides
insight into strangeness production. Since its cross section for interactions
with non-strange hadrons can be assumed to be small, the $\phi$ meson should
be less affected by hadronic rescattering during the expanding hadronic phase,
which follows the QGP phase. For this reason, the $\phi$ meson better reflects
the early evolution of the system [3]. Because of the long lifetime of the
$\phi$ meson, the rescattering effects that should affect the hadronic decay
channels are negligible [4, 5, 6, 7], making thus possible a direct comparison
between the hadronic and dileptonic decay channels.

Moreover, the $\phi$ meson may be sensitive to chiral symmetry restoration [8,
9, 10], that could be observed by measuring a mass shift of a few MeV/$c^{2}$
or a broadening of the spectral function of the hadronic resonances up to
several times their PDG value [11, 12, 13, 14]. However, no experimental
evidence of such a broadening or mass shift has been observed so far for the
$\phi$ meson in high-energy heavy-ion collisions neither in the hadronic nor
in the dilepton decay channel [15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 6].

The measurement of hadrons in different $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ ranges provides
important information on the relative contribution of different possible
hadronization mechanisms. Soft processes dominate the low transverse momentum
region ($p_{\mathrm{T}}\lesssim 2$ GeV/$c$), where the system evolution can be
described on the basis of hydrodynamical models and particle yields follow the
expectations of thermal models [20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28]. On the
other side, for high transverse momenta ($p_{\mathrm{T}}\gtrsim 5$ GeV/$c$),
hard parton-parton scattering processes and subsequent fragmentation become
the dominant production mechanisms. In the presence of a deconfined medium,
additionally, parton energy loss via elastic collisions and gluon
bremsstrahlung [29] modifies the spectral distributions, leading to a
suppression of hadron production in central heavy-ion collisions with respect
to the one measured in peripheral heavy-ion or in pp collisions, scaled by the
number of binary collisions.

At intermediate transverse momenta ($2<p_{\mathrm{T}}<5$ GeV/c), measurements
at RHIC showed an enhancement above unity of the ratio between the baryon and
meson yields, the so-called “baryon anomaly”. This has been attributed to the
recombination of quarks [30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35]. However, measurements at the
LHC [36] showed that the proton-to-pion ratio from low to intermediate
$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ could be described by hydrodynamical models [25, 26]. The
$\phi$, being a meson and having a mass close to that of the proton, is an
ideal probe to disentangle whether this effect is more related to the particle
mass or to its valence quark content, since recombination scales with the
number of quarks, while hydrodynamical models depend on the particle mass.

Recent measurements at the LHC [6] showed that the $p/\phi$ ratio at
midrapidity does not show a significant dependence on $p_{\mathrm{T}}$, while
the $p/\pi$ and $\phi/\pi$ ratios show similar increases as a function of the
transverse momentum, indicating that particle radial flow and therefore the
particle masses mainly determine the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ distributions of these
particles. Hence, it is interesting to test whether there is a dependence of
radial flow on rapidity and to compare the results at forward and midrapidity
within the same experiment. A comparison with hydrodynamical models at forward
rapidity would complement the results already obtained at midrapidity, where
they have shown to describe the data even in the intermediate $p_{\mathrm{T}}$
region.

This article presents a measurement of $\phi$ production in Pb–Pb collisions
at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76$ TeV at forward rapidity with the ALICE muon
spectrometer at the LHC. The $\phi$ meson was reconstructed in the rapidity
range $2.5<y<4$ for intermediate transverse momenta in the range
$2<p_{\mathrm{T}}<5$ GeV/$c$ via its decay in muon pairs.

The evolution of the $\phi$ yield with centrality and transverse momentum is
discussed and compared with the measurement at midrapidity in the kaon decay
channel [6]. Finally, the nuclear modification factors are determined.

##  2 Experimental apparatus

The ALICE detector is described in detail in [37]. The detectors relevant for
this analysis are the forward muon spectrometer, the V0 detector, the Silicon
Pixel Detector (SPD) of the Inner Tracking System (ITS) and the Zero Degree
Calorimeters (ZDC).

The muon spectrometer covers the pseudorapidity region $-4~{}<\eta<-2.5$ 111In
the ALICE reference frame the muon spectrometer covers negative $\eta$.
However, we use positive values when referring to $y$.; its elements are a
front hadron absorber, followed by a set of tracking stations, a dipole
magnet, an iron wall acting as muon filter and a trigger system. The front
hadron absorber is made of carbon, concrete and steel and is placed at a
distance of 0.9 m from the nominal interaction point (IP). Its total length of
material corresponds to ten hadronic interaction lengths. The 5 m long dipole
magnet provides a magnetic field of up to 0.7 T in the vertical direction,
which results in a field integral of 3 T$\cdot$m. A set of five tracking
stations, each one composed of two cathode pad chambers, provides the muon
tracking. The stations are located between 5.2 and 14.4 m from the IP, the
first two upstream of the dipole magnet, the third in the middle of the dipole
magnet gap and the last two downstream of it. A 1.2 m thick iron wall,
corresponding to 7.2 hadronic interaction lengths, is placed between the
tracking and trigger systems and absorbs the residual secondary hadrons
emerging from the front absorber. The front absorber together with the muon
filter stops muons with momenta lower than $\sim$4 GeV/c. The tracking
apparatus is completed by a muon triggering system (MTR) consisting of two
detector stations, placed at 16.1 and 17.1 m from the IP. Each station is
composed of two planes of resistive plate chambers.

The V0 detector is composed of two arrays of 32 scintillator sectors placed at
3.4 m and $-0.9$ m from the IP and covering the pseudorapidity regions 2.8
$<\eta<$ 5.1 (V0A) and $-3.7<\eta<-1.7$ (V0C), respectively. It is used to
reject the background from beam-gas interactions and estimate the collision
centrality and event plane. The SPD, used for the determination of the primary
vertex position, consists of two cylindrical layers of silicon pixel
detectors, positioned at a radius of 3.9 and 7.6 cm from the beam axis. The
pseudorapidity range covered by the inner and the outer layers is $|\eta|<$
2.0 and $|\eta|<$ 1.4, respectively. The ZDC are located at $\sim$114 m from
the IP and cover the pseudorapidity region $|\eta|>8.7$. In this analysis they
are used to reject electromagnetic interactions of lead ion beams.

##  3 Data analysis

The analysis presented in this paper is based on the data sample collected by
ALICE in 2011 during the Pb–Pb run at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76$ TeV.

The minimum bias (MB) trigger is defined as the coincidence of a signal in V0A
and V0C, synchronized with the passage of two colliding lead bunches. Data
were collected with a dimuon unlike-sign trigger ($\mu\mu$MB), which is
defined as the coincidence of a MB trigger and at least a pair of opposite-
sign (OS) tracks selected by the MTR system, each with a transverse momentum
above the threshold222The trigger threshold is not at a sharp value, but
defined here as the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ value for which the trigger probability
is 50%., $p_{\mathrm{T},\mu}\gtrsim 1$ GeV/c.

The background events coming from beam interactions with the residual gas were
reduced offline using the timing information on signals from the V0 and from
the ZDC [38].

The number of OS dimuon triggers collected is 1.7 $\cdot$ 107, corresponding
to an integrated luminosity of $L_{\mathrm{int}}=68.8\pm
0.9\mathrm{(stat)}^{+6.0}_{-5.1}\mathrm{(syst)}~{}\mu$b-1 [39].

The centrality determination is performed by fitting a distribution obtained
with the Glauber model approach to the V0 amplitude distribution [40]. In the
centrality range 0–90% the efficiency of the MB trigger is 100% and the
contamination from electromagnetic processes is negligible. Events
corresponding to the 90% most central collisions were thus selected. The
centrality classes considered in this analysis were 0–20%, 20–40%, 40–60% and
60–90%.

The Glauber model fit to the V0 signal distribution also allows to extract
variables related to the collision geometry, such as the average number of
participating nucleons $\left\langle N_{\mathrm{part}}\right\rangle$ and the
nuclear overlap function $\langle T_{\mathrm{AA}}\rangle$, as reported in
Table 1.

Centrality bin | $\left\langle N_{\mathrm{part}}\right\rangle$ |  $\langle T_{\mathrm{AA}}\rangle$ (mb${}^{-1})$
---|---|---
0–20% | 308.10 $\pm$ 3.70 | 18.91 $\pm$ 0.61
20–40% | 157.20 $\pm$ 3.10 | 6.85 $\pm$ 0.23
40–60% | 68.56 $\pm$ 2.00 | 2.00 $\pm$ 0.10
60–90% | 17.55 $\pm$ 0.72 | 0.31 $\pm$ 0.03
0–90% | 124.40 $\pm$ 2.20 | 6.27 $\pm$ 0.21
Table 1: Average number of participating nucleons $\left\langle
N_{\mathrm{part}}\right\rangle$ and nuclear overlap function $\langle
T_{\mathrm{AA}}\rangle$ for each centrality class [40].

Muon tracks were selected requiring a single muon $p_{\mathrm{T},\mu}>$ 0.85
GeV/c, to reject muons with a transverse momentum much below the hardware
$p_{\mathrm{T},\mu}$ threshold imposed by the trigger system. The selection of
the muon pseudorapidity $-4<\eta_{\mu}<-2.5$ was applied in order to remove
the tracks close to the acceptance borders. Tracks crossing the part of the
front absorber with the highest material density were rejected by restricting
the transverse radial coordinate of the track at the end of the absorber to
the range $17.6<R_{\mathrm{abs}}<89.5$ cm. Each track reconstructed in the
tracking chambers was required to match a track reconstructed in the trigger
chambers.

Dimuons were selected requiring that their rapidity was in the range 2.5 $<y<$
4\. The trigger threshold on the single muon transverse momentum strongly
reduces the detection efficiency for low mass, low $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ dimuons.
Therefore, the analysis was limited to dimuon transverse momenta in the range
$2<p_{\mathrm{T}}<5$ GeV/c, where the upper limit is only set by the currently
available statistics.

The opposite-sign dimuon invariant mass spectrum consists of correlated and
uncorrelated pairs. The latter come mostly from the decay of pions and kaons
and constitute the combinatorial background, which was evaluated via an event
mixing technique, described in detail in [41]. Events were assigned to classes
of similar vertex position, event plane orientation and centrality. Pairs were
then formed with muons coming from different events belonging to the same
classes. In this way, the resulting invariant mass spectrum consists of muon
pairs which are uncorrelated by construction. The mixed events mass spectra
were normalized to $2R\sqrt{N_{++}N_{--}}$, where $N_{++}$ ($N_{--}$) is the
number of like-sign positive (negative) pairs integrated in the full mass
range. The $R$ factor takes into account the differences between the
acceptances for like-sign and opposite-sign muon pairs and was estimated as
$R=N^{\mathrm{mixed}}_{+-}/(2\sqrt{N^{\mathrm{mixed}}_{++}N^{\mathrm{mixed}}_{--}})$,
where $N^{\mathrm{mixed}}_{\pm\pm}$ is the number of mixed pairs for a given
charge combination.

The quality of the combinatorial background determination was checked through
a Monte Carlo (MC) simulation in which uncorrelated muon pairs were generated.
The muon transverse momentum and rapidity distributions were parametrized to
reproduce those from the experimental data. The detector response for these
pairs was obtained with a simulation that uses GEANT3 [42]. The simulation
results were then subjected to the same reconstruction and selection chain as
the real data. In this way, all the possible correlations introduced by the
detector were properly taken into account. The event mixing technique was then
applied to the simulated pairs. The resulting opposite-sign mass spectrum was
compared to the corresponding one obtained from the muon pairs in the same
event. Differences within 2% in the two distributions were observed. The
limited precision in the combinatorial background subtraction was taken into
account in the evaluation of the systematic uncertainty, as described below.

Figure 1: Invariant mass spectra for opposite-sign muon pairs in different
centrality classes, in the range $2<p_{\mathrm{T}}<5$ GeV/c. The combinatorial
background, evaluated from opposite-sign pairs in mixed events, is also shown.

Figure 1 shows the invariant mass spectra for opposite-sign muon pairs in
different centrality classes, before the combinatorial background subtraction,
in the range $2<p_{\mathrm{T}}<5$ GeV/c. The combinatorial background,
evaluated from opposite-sign pairs in mixed events, is also shown.

The ratio between the invariant mass spectra of correlated and uncorrelated
pairs for the different centralities is shown in Fig. 2: for
$0.95<M_{\mu\mu}<1.1$ GeV/$c^{2}$ this ratio increases from $\sim$0.07 in
central collisions to $\sim$2 in peripheral collisions.

The raw invariant mass spectrum after combinatorial background subtraction is
shown in Fig. 3 in the four centrality classes considered in this analysis.
The $\phi$ peak is clearly visible in all the centrality bins, superimposed to
a correlated background due to the dimuon two-body and Dalitz decays of the
light resonances ($\eta$, $\eta^{\prime}$, $\rho$, $\omega$) and the semi-
muonic decays of open charm and open beauty. To reproduce the different
processes contributing to the dimuon mass spectrum, a Monte Carlo simulation
was performed using the hadronic cocktail generator first developed for the
analysis of pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV [41]. An exponential function

$\frac{1}{p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}}\propto
e^{-m_{\mathrm{T}}/T}$ (1)

was used as input $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ distribution of the $\phi$ meson in the
generator. In this formula $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ is the transverse mass. The value
of the parameter $T$ was tuned iteratively to the results from the present
analysis, as shown below, with $T=(437\pm 28)$ MeV, obtained from a fit to the
$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ distribution integrated over centrality.

The $\phi$ rapidity distribution was based on a parametrization of PYTHIA 6.4
[43]. We assume that the rapidity and $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ distributions
factorize.

Figure 2: Ratio between the mass spectra of correlated and uncorrelated pairs
for different centralities, in the range 2 $<p_{\mathrm{T}}<$ 5 GeV/c in Pb–Pb
collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 2.76 TeV.

The fit to the mass spectra obtained after the combinatorial background
subtraction is also shown in Fig. 3. In this fit, the shape of each
contribution was taken from the MC. The fit parameters allowed to vary freely
were the normalizations of the $\eta\rightarrow\mu^{+}\mu^{-}\gamma$,
$\omega\rightarrow\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$, $\phi\rightarrow\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ and open
charm contributions. The other processes ($\eta\rightarrow\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$,
$\eta^{\prime}\rightarrow\mu^{+}\mu^{-}\gamma$,
$\omega\rightarrow\mu^{+}\mu^{-}\pi^{0}$, $\rho\rightarrow\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ and
open beauty) were fixed to the ones mentioned above, according to the relative
branching ratios or cross sections, as done in [41]. In particular, the
normalization of the $\rho$ relative to the $\omega$ meson was fixed requiring
that $\sigma_{\rho}=\sigma_{\omega}$, as suggested both from models and pp
data [41, 44, 45, 46], while the $\eta^{\prime}$ contribution was derived from
the $\eta$ cross section by applying the ratio of the corresponding cross
sections $\sigma_{\eta^{\prime}}/\sigma_{\eta}$ = 0.3 taken from the PYTHIA
tunes ATLAS-CSC [47] and D6T [48]. The ratio between the open beauty and open
charm was fixed according to the results from the LHCb Collaboration in pp
collisions at 7 TeV [49, 50].

Figure 3: Invariant mass spectra in different centrality classes for 2
$<p_{\mathrm{T}}<$ 5 GeV/c in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ =
2.76 TeV. The solid red line represents the result of the fit to the hadronic
cocktail; the green dashed line represents the correlated background, given by
the sum of all the MC sources other than $\phi$, $\rho$ and $\omega$ mesons.

Other contributions may be present in Pb–Pb collisions, such as the in-medium
modification of the $\rho$ meson or a thermal dilepton continuum. According to
theoretical predictions based on [51, 52, 53], the magnitude of these
contributions is expected to be below the sensitivity of our measurement [54].
However, in order to take their possible effect into account and to allow the
$\phi$ signal extraction to be studied under various hypotheses on the shape
of the correlated background, two alternative empirical descriptions of the
correlated background were used: the superposition of an exponential and a
constant and of an exponential and a Landau distribution. In both cases, the
peaks of the $\phi$ and $\rho+\omega$ were described with a Crystal Ball
function [55] tuned on the MC. The differences among these two different
background descriptions and the one obtained with the hadronic cocktail
constitute one of the main sources of the systematic uncertainty in the signal
extraction. The width of the reconstructed $\phi$ peak is dominated by the
detector resolution. From the MC simulation it was determined to be
$\sigma_{\phi}\approx 50$ MeV/$c^{2}$ (Gaussian width). This width was used as
a fixed parameter in the fits to the invariant mass spectra at all
centralities, in order to reduce the sensitivity to statistical fluctuations.
Performing the fits with the peak width as free parameter results in values
compatible within uncertainties of about 10 MeV/$c^{2}$ with the MC result.
Likewise, if the $\phi$ peak position is left free, the result is compatible
with its PDG value within an uncertainty of about 10 MeV/$c^{2}$. The present
measurement does not allow to determine a broadening effect or a mass shift
smaller than these uncertainties. More stringent limits are set in [6].

The fits of the mass spectra integrated over centrality and for 0–40% and
40–90% centrality classes, in different $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bins were performed
as well. Two examples of these fits in two different $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bins
($2.5~{}<~{}p_{\mathrm{T}}~{}<3$ GeV/$c$ and $3.6~{}<~{}p_{\mathrm{T}}~{}<4.2$
GeV/$c$), for 0–90% centrality, are shown in Fig. 4.

Figure 4: Invariant mass spectra for $2.5<p_{\mathrm{T}}<3$ GeV/$c$ and
$3.6<p_{\mathrm{T}}<4.2$ GeV/$c$ in 0–90% Pb–Pb collisions at
$\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 2.76 TeV. The solid red line represents the result
of the fit to the hadronic cocktail; the green dashed line represents the
correlated background, given by the sum of all the MC sources other than
$\phi$, $\rho$ and $\omega$ mesons.

The raw number of $\phi$ mesons decaying into muon pairs
$N_{\phi}^{\mathrm{raw}}$ and the $\phi$ yield d$N$/d$y$ in the range
$2<p_{\mathrm{T}}<5$ GeV/c are reported in Table 2 for the centrality classes
considered in this analysis. Table 3 reports the $\phi$ yield
d${}^{2}N$/(d$y$d$p_{\mathrm{T}}$) as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for 0–40%
and 40–90% most central collisions. The systematic uncertainties will be
discussed below.

Centrality | $N_{\phi}^{\mathrm{raw}}$ | d$N_{\phi}$/d$y$
---|---|---
0–20% | 2337 $\pm$ 292 $\pm$ 278 | $0.880\pm 0.110\pm 0.156$
20–40% | 1058 $\pm$ 130 $\pm$ 86 | $0.387\pm 0.048\pm 0.060$
40–60% | 411 $\pm$ 51 $\pm$ 29 | $0.148\pm 0.018\pm 0.022$
60–90% | 105 $\pm$ 18 $\pm$ 6 | $0.025\pm 0.004\pm 0.004$
Table 2: $N_{\phi}^{\mathrm{raw}}$ and d$N_{\phi}$/d$y$ in different centrality bins for $2<p_{\mathrm{T}}<5$ GeV/c. $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ (GeV/$c$) | d${}^{2}N_{\phi}$/(d$y$d$p_{\mathrm{T}}$) (GeV/$c)^{-1}$
---|---
0–40% | 40–90%
2–2.5 | 0.841 $\pm$ 0.185 $\pm$ 0.105 | 0.094 $\pm$ 0.021 $\pm$ 0.012
2.5–3 | 0.332 $\pm$ 0.059 $\pm$ 0.043 | 0.036 $\pm$ 0.007 $\pm$ 0.005
3–3.6 | 0.093 $\pm$ 0.016 $\pm$ 0.014 | 0.013 $\pm$ 0.002 $\pm$ 0.002
3.6–4.2 | 0.037 $\pm$ 0.007 $\pm$ 0.005 | 0.0039 $\pm$ 0.0011 $\pm$ 0.0005
4.2–5 | 0.010 $\pm$ 0.003 $\pm$ 0.002 | 0.0018 $\pm$ 0.0005 $\pm$ 0.0002
Table 3: $\phi$ yield d${}^{2}N$/(d$y$d$p_{\mathrm{T}}$) in different
$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bins for 0–40% and 40–90% centrality classes.

The $\phi$ yield for each centrality class has been calculated as

$Y_{\phi}=\frac{N_{\phi}^{\mathrm{raw}}}{BR_{\phi\rightarrow e^{+}e^{-}}\cdot
A\times\varepsilon\cdot N_{MB}},$ (2)

where $A$ is the geometrical acceptance, $\varepsilon$ the reconstruction
efficiency, $N_{MB}$ the number of minimum bias events in a given centrality
class and $BR_{\phi\rightarrow e^{+}e^{-}}=(2.954\pm 0.030)\cdot 10^{-4}$ the
branching ratio of the $\phi$ meson decay into dielectrons [56]. Lepton
universality allows to use this value instead of the one of the dimuon decay,
which is known with a much larger uncertainty.

To estimate $A\times\varepsilon$ as a function of centrality, Monte Carlo
simulations were performed using the embedding technique, which consists in
simulating a signal decay and adding the corresponding simulated detector
response to the raw data of a real event. The resulting embedded event is then
reconstructed as if it were a normal real event. This technique has the
advantage of providing the most realistic background conditions, which is
necessary if the high particle multiplicity environment alters the track
reconstruction efficiency, as in central Pb–Pb collisions. The
$A\times\varepsilon$ is roughly independent from centrality, changing from
5.49% $\pm$ 0.31% (syst) in peripheral (60–90%) to 5.15% $\pm$ 0.30% (syst) in
central (0–20%) collisions. The embedded simulations were used also to
evaluate the $A\times\varepsilon$ as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$. The
$A\times\varepsilon$ increases as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ from
$\sim$2.5% for $2<p_{\mathrm{T}}<2.5$ GeV/$c$ to $\sim$21.4% for
$4.2<p_{\mathrm{T}}<5$ GeV/$c$.

The number of minimum bias events has been obtained from the number of
opposite-sign dimuon triggers, scaled by the normalization factor
$f_{\mathrm{norm}}$ [39], defined as the inverse of the probability of having
a dimuon trigger in a MB event. Its value, averaged over the entire data
sample, is $f_{\mathrm{norm}}=30.56\pm 0.01(\mathrm{stat.})\pm
1.10(\mathrm{syst.})$.

The systematic uncertainty on the $\phi$ yield was evaluated taking into
account several contributions:

  * •

Combinatorial background subtraction: this uncertainty was evaluated through a
Monte Carlo simulation. The correlated muon pairs coming from the hadronic
cocktail were added to the uncorrelated pairs, generated as described above.
The relative abundance of correlated and uncorrelated muon pairs was chosen
such that it reproduced the one in the data. The resulting mass spectrum was
then subjected to the same analysis chain applied to the data, including
background subtraction with the event mixing and fit with the hadronic
cocktail. The number of raw $\phi$ mesons obtained from the fit differs from
the one actually injected in the spectrum, which is known a priori. This
difference was taken as an estimate of the uncertainty related to the
combinatorial background subtraction. It decreases from 9% in central
collisions to less than 1% in peripheral collisions, while as a function of
$p_{\mathrm{T}}$, it amounts to 4.8% for 0–40% centrality and to 1.8% for
40–90% centrality.

  * •

Shape of the correlated background: this was evaluated using two alternative
empirical descriptions of the correlated background, as previously described.
The variations of $N_{\phi}^{\mathrm{raw}}$ decrease from 6.7% in central
collisions to 2.2% in peripheral collisions. As a function of
$p_{\mathrm{T}}$, it varies from 1.9% to 8.2% for 0–40% centrality and from 1%
to 4% for 40–90% centrality.

  * •

Range of the fit to the mass spectrum: three different fit ranges were tested:
0.2 $<M_{\mu\mu}<1.8$ GeV/$c^{2}$, $0.2<M_{\mu\mu}<2.0$ GeV/$c^{2}$ and
$0.2<M_{\mu\mu}<2.2$ GeV/$c^{2}$. The effect on $N_{\phi}^{\mathrm{raw}}$ is
below 1% for all centralities, except for the most peripheral bin, where it
amounts to 2.1%. As a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$, it varies between 1.2% and
2.9% in central and semi-central collisions and from 1% to 2% in semi-
peripheral and peripheral collisions.

  * •

Cut on single muon transverse momentum: this was evaluated by applying three
different cuts, $p_{\mathrm{T},\mu}>$ 0.7 GeV/c, $p_{\mathrm{T},\mu}>$ 0.85
GeV/c and $p_{\mathrm{T},\mu}>$ 1 GeV/c, which lead to variations of the
corresponding $A\times\varepsilon$ corrected $N_{\phi}^{\mathrm{raw}}$ ranging
from 4% to 6.3% as a function of centrality, from 1.1% to 10.4% as a function
of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for 0–40% centrality, and from 1% to 5.7% as a function of
$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for 40–90% centrality.

  * •

Systematic uncertainty of $A\times\varepsilon$: to evaluate this contribution,
the measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ distribution, shown in the next section, was
fitted with an exponential (Eq. 1). The value of the $T$ parameter was used as
an input to the simulation, that was then repeated varying $T$ by one standard
deviation $\sigma_{T}$. The half of the difference between the
$A\times\varepsilon$ values obtained using $T\pm\sigma_{T}$ as input parameter
was taken as an estimation of its systematic uncertainty. As a function of
centrality, it amounts to about 5.7% with no significant dependence on the
collision centrality; it is $<1$% as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$.

  * •

Tracking and trigger efficiencies: the corresponding systematic uncertainties
were determined from data and MC simulations as detailed in [39]. They are
correlated as a function of centrality, amounting respectively to 11% and 2%,
and uncorrelated as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$, varying in this case of
8–14% and 2–4% respectively.

  * •

Matching efficiency: the uncertainty on the matching efficiency between the
tracks reconstructed in the tracking chambers and the ones reconstructed in
the trigger chambers amounts to 1%. It is correlated as a function of
centrality and uncorrelated as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ [39].

  * •

Centrality limits: the effects of the uncertainty on the value of the V0
signal amplitude corresponding to 90% of the hadronic Pb–Pb cross section were
estimated by varying such a value by $\pm$0.5% [40] and redefining
correspondingly the centrality intervals. The systematic effect of
$N_{\phi}^{\mathrm{raw}}$ is negligible in all centrality bins, except for the
most peripheral one, where it amounts to 3%. It is correlated as a function of
$p_{\mathrm{T}}$, amounting to less than 1%.

  * •

Uncertainty of the $\phi$ branching ratio into dielectrons ($\sim$1%) [56],
correlated as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and centrality.

  * •

Uncertainty on $f_{\mathrm{norm}}$ ($\sim$3.6%), correlated as a function of
$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and centrality [39].

Source | vs centrality | vs $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ | vs $p_{\mathrm{T}}$
---|---|---|---
| (2 $<p_{\mathrm{T}}<$ 5 GeV/$c$) | (0–40%) | (40–90%)
Combinatorial background subtraction | 0.6–9.0% | 4.8% | 1.8%
Correlated background shape | 2.2–6.7% | 1.9–8.2% | 1.0–4.0%
Fit range | 0.4–2.1% | 1.2–2.9% | 1.0–2.0%
Cut on $p_{\mathrm{T},\mu}$ | 4.0–6.7% | 1.1–10.4% | 1.0–5.7%
$A\times\varepsilon$ ($\phi$) | 5.5–5.9% |  $<1$% |  $<1$%
Tracking efficiency | 11%∗ | 8–14% | 8–14%
Trigger efficiency | 2%∗ | 2–4% | 2–4%
Matching efficiency | 1%∗ | 1% | 1%
Centrality limits | 0-3% | $<1\%^{*}$ | $<1\%^{*}$
$BR_{\phi\rightarrow e^{+}e^{-}}$ | 1%∗ | 1%∗ | 1%∗
$f_{\mathrm{norm}}$ | 3.6%∗ | 3.6%∗ | 3.6%∗
Table 4: Systematic uncertainties on $\phi$ yield, for $2.5<y<4$; the
correlated uncertainties are marked with an ∗.

These values are summarized in Table 4.

##  4 Results

Figure 5: $\phi$ yield as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ at forward rapidity
in pp [57] and Pb–Pb collisions for different centralities. The distributions
have been scaled differently for better visibility.

Figure 5 shows the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ spectra in Pb–Pb collisions in the
centrality ranges 0–40% and 40–90%. The pp spectrum [57] is also reported for
comparison. The $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ distribution in Pb–Pb collisions is softer
than in pp in the measured transverse momentum range.

Figure 6: Top panel: comparison between the $\phi$ yield as a function of
$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ with the EPOS 3.101 [26, 58, 59] and HIJING 2.0 [60] event
generators, at forward and midrapidity [6], for 0-40% (left) and 40-90%
centrality (right). The same scale factors applied to data were also used for
the models. The transparent boxes represent the uncorrelated systematic
uncertainties at forward rapidity and the total systematic uncertainties
(including correlated and uncorrelated components) at midrapidity. Lower
panels: ratios between the measured yields and the calculations by EPOS and
HIJING.

In Fig. 6 the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ spectra are compared with the EPOS 3.101333We
used a version of the EPOS 3.101 generator, customized by the authors, in
which the spectra for the $\phi$ decaying into dimuons were determined by the
kinematics of the $\phi$ at the moment of its decay, assuming that the decay
muons do not interact with the surrounding medium. On the other side, kaons
originating from the $\phi$ decay are allowed to rescatter inside the hadronic
medium and thus emerge with an altered momentum distribution. event generator
[26, 58, 59], which utilizes a core–corona approach in which the core
component undergoes a hydrodynamic expansion, and the HIJING 2.0 model [60],
which does not include hydrodynamic effects in the calculation. The results
obtained at midrapidity [6] are also shown. EPOS fairly reproduces the data at
midrapidity for all centralities, although the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ spectra are
slightly harder than the measured ones. At forward rapidity, the calculation
underestimates the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ spectra at all centralities, approaching
the data only at $p_{\mathrm{T}}\sim$4 GeV/$c$. It has to be noted that this
disagreement is significantly worsened if the core component in EPOS were to
be switched off. Qualitatively, this suggests that the steepness of the
forward $\phi$ spectra in Pb–Pb is a consequence of the interplay between
radial flow at low- to mid-$p_{\mathrm{T}}$, which increases the $\phi$ yield
in the lowest measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ range, and a relatively unchanged
contribution from hard processes at higher transverse momenta. HIJING
underestimates the data and shows a harder $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ shape at both mid-
and forward rapidity. In particular, at forward rapidity, the disagreement
with the data on the shape of the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ distribution is stronger
than for EPOS.

Figure 7: Top panel: comparison between
$(\mathrm{d}N_{\phi}/\mathrm{d}y)/\left\langle N_{\mathrm{part}}\right\rangle$
as a function of $\left\langle N_{\mathrm{part}}\right\rangle$ measured in the
muon decay channel at forward rapidity and in the kaon decay channel at
midrapidity, in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76$ TeV, for
$2<p_{\mathrm{T}}<5$ GeV/c. The corresponding points in pp collisions at
$\left\langle N_{\mathrm{part}}\right\rangle=2$ are also shown. Transparent
boxes represent the uncorrelated systematic uncertainties at forward rapidity
and the total systematic uncertainties (including correlated and uncorrelated
components) at midrapidity. The shaded red box represents the correlated
systematic uncertainties at forward rapidity, the shaded blue box represents
the normalization uncertainty at midrapidity. Results from the EPOS 3.101 and
HIJING 2.0 event generators are shown for comparison. The rapidity density per
participant for pions at midrapidity is also reported, scaled to 0.1. Bottom
panel: ratio between $\phi$ rapidity densities per participant at mid- and
forward rapidity, in pp (open circle) and Pb–Pb collisions (full circles).

Figure 7 shows the $\phi$ rapidity density per participant as a function of
$\left\langle N_{\mathrm{part}}\right\rangle$. The result in pp collisions at
the same energy [57] is also shown: the $\phi$ yield per participant already
grows by a factor of about 1.8 when going from pp to peripheral Pb–Pb
collisions. This factor increases to about 4 when going from pp to central
Pb–Pb collisions. No sizeable dependence on rapidity is observed. The ratio
between the rapidity densities at mid- and forward rapidity is $\sim 2$, both
in pp and Pb–Pb collisions, where it is roughly constant as a function of
centrality, as shown in the lower panel of the same figure.

The rapidity density per participant is also plotted in Fig. 7 for pions at
midrapidity [61]. The rapidity density increases from pp to Pb–Pb collisions
faster for the $\phi$ than for pions. The increase of the $\phi/\pi$ ratio in
the intermediate $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ region is interpreted in terms of radial
flow, whose magnitude grows as a function of the collision centrality. The
similar increase of the $\phi$ at mid- and forward rapidity suggests that the
magnitude of radial flow is similar in the two rapidity regions considered.

The comparison with HIJING and EPOS at forward rapidity shows that both
calculations predict a similar evolution of the yield with the collision
centrality. In this rapidity region, both models underestimate the yield by
about a factor of two, independently of centrality. Different results are
obtained at midrapidity, where HIJING largely underestimates the yield, while
EPOS qualitatively reproduces the trend as a function of $\left\langle
N_{\mathrm{part}}\right\rangle$, even though it overestimates the data by
about 30% in peripheral collisions and 13% in central collisions.

Figure 8:  $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ of the $\phi$ meson as a function of $\langle
N_{\mathrm{part}}\rangle$ for $2.5<y<4$, compared with the ALICE measurement
for $|y|<0.5$. All the midrapidity points have been displaced by $\left\langle
N_{\mathrm{part}}\right\rangle$ = 10 for better visibility. Transparent boxes
represent the uncorrelated systematic uncertainties at forward rapidity and
the total systematic uncertainties (including correlated and uncorrelated
components) at midrapidity. The shaded red box represents the correlated
systematic uncertainties at forward rapidity, the shaded blue box represents
the normalization uncertainty at midrapidity. Results from PHENIX in Au-Au and
Cu-Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 200 GeV are also shown for
comparison.

The nuclear modification factor is defined as the yield ratio of
nucleus–nucleus collisions to inelastic pp collisions, scaled with the average
nuclear overlap function $\left\langle T_{\mathrm{AA}}\right\rangle$. For a
given centrality and integrated over the considered $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and $y$
ranges, it is obtained as

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}={\frac{\mathrm{d}N/\mathrm{d}y}{\mathrm{d}\sigma_{\mathrm{pp}}/\mathrm{d}y\left\langle
T_{\mathrm{AA}}\right\rangle}},$ (3)

where $\mathrm{d}N/\mathrm{d}y$ is the $\phi$ rapidity density and
$\mathrm{d}\sigma_{\mathrm{pp}}/\mathrm{d}y=113\pm 10\mathrm{(stat)}\pm
7\mathrm{(syst)}~{}\mu$b [57] is the $\phi$ production cross section in pp
collisions at the same energy, integrated over the corresponding
$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and rapidity range.

Figure 8 shows the $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ measured as a function of the average
number of participants. The systematic uncertainties at forward rapidity are
summarized in Table 5.

Source | Systematic uncertainty
---|---
$N_{\phi}^{raw}$ | 5.9–11.9%
$A\times\varepsilon$ ($\phi$) | 5.5–5.9%
$T_{\mathrm{AA}}$ | 3.2–9.7%
Centrality limits | 0-3%
Tracking efficiency | 11%∗
Trigger efficiency | 2%∗
Matching efficiency | 1%∗
$f_{\mathrm{norm}}$ | 3.6%∗
$\sigma_{\mathrm{pp}}$ | 7.2%∗
Table 5: Systematic uncertainties for $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ as a function of
$\left\langle N_{\mathrm{part}}\right\rangle$, for $2<p_{\mathrm{T}}<5$ GeV/c;
the correlated uncertainties are marked with an ∗.

In peripheral collisions, the nuclear modification factor is compatible with
unity within uncertainties, indicating that these collisions behave as a
superposition of incoherent pp collisions. In most central collisions,
$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ at forward rapidity is reduced to about 0.65, showing a
clear suppression of the $\phi$ multiplicity with respect to the pp reference
in the intermediate $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ region. A qualitatively similar behaviour
was observed also by the PHENIX experiment in Au-Au collisions at
$\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200$ GeV for $p_{\mathrm{T}}>2.2$ GeV/$c$ at
midrapidity [62].

The comparison with the ALICE results obtained at midrapidity shows that the
two data sets agree within the present uncertainties.

##  5 Conclusions

$\phi$ meson production was measured via its dimuon decay channel in Pb–Pb
collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76$ TeV at forward rapidity. For
intermediate transverse momenta ($2<p_{\mathrm{T}}<5$ GeV/$c$) the
$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ spectra in Pb–Pb collisions are softer than in pp.

The yield per participant increases with the collision centrality, similarly
to the yield measured in the kaon decay channel at midrapidity. The ratio
between the yields in the two rapidity regions is constant as a function of
centrality. The rapidity density increases from pp to Pb–Pb collisions faster
for the $\phi$ than for pions, suggesting the presence of radial flow, whose
effect increases with the collision centrality with similar magnitudes at
forward and midrapidity.

The measured yields as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ or centrality were
compared with results from the EPOS event generator and the HIJING Monte Carlo
model. The two calculations predict similar centrality dependencies at forward
rapidity, underestimating the measured yield by a factor of $\sim$2 for all
centralities. At midrapidity, EPOS qualitatively reproduces the trend as a
function of the collision centrality, while HIJING largely underestimates the
yield. Regarding the shape of the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ spectra, EPOS correctly
reproduces the data at midrapidity, while it predicts harder transverse
momentum distributions at forward rapidity. HIJING predicts harder
$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ distributions at both mid- and forward rapidity.

The integrated nuclear modification factor, measured as a function of
$\left\langle N_{\mathrm{part}}\right\rangle$, is compatible with unity for
peripheral and semi-peripheral collisions, while in most central collisions it
is reduced to about 0.65. The results at forward rapidity are in agreement
within the uncertainties with the ones at midrapidity. The similarity of the
two results hints for similar mechanisms driving the interaction of the $\phi$
meson with the bulk and its hydrodynamical evolution, in the two rapidity
ranges at intermediate $p_{\mathrm{T}}$.

## 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 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), Universidade Federal do
Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (Finep) and
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP), Brazil;
Ministry of Science & Technology of China (MSTC), National Natural Science
Foundation of China (NSFC) and Ministry of Education of China (MOEC) , China;
Ministry of Science and Education, Croatia; Ministry of Education, Youth and
Sports of the Czech Republic, Czech Republic; The Danish Council for
Independent Research — Natural Sciences, the Carlsberg Foundation 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, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie (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; Indonesian Institute of Science, Indonesia; Centro Fermi -
Museo Storico della Fisica e Centro Studi e Ricerche Enrico Fermi and Istituto
Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), Italy; Institute for Innovative Science
and Technology , Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science (IIST), Japan Society
for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI and Japanese Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), 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 Science and Higher Education and National Science Centre, 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 and Romanian National Agency
for Science, Technology and Innovation, Romania; Joint Institute for Nuclear
Research (JINR), Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation
and National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Russia; Ministry of
Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic, Slovakia;
National Research Foundation of South Africa, South Africa; Centro de
Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Cubaenergía, Cuba and
Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas
(CIEMAT), Spain; Swedish Research Council (VR) and Knut & Alice Wallenberg
Foundation (KAW), Sweden; European Organization for Nuclear Research,
Switzerland; National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSDTA),
Suranaree University of Technology (SUT) and Office of the Higher Education
Commission under NRU project of Thailand, Thailand; Turkish Atomic Energy
Agency (TAEK), 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.

## References

  * [1] P. Koch, B. Müller, and J. Rafelski, “Strangeness in relativistic heavy ion collisions,” Phys. Rept. 142 (1986) 167–262.
  * [2] A. Tounsi and K. Redlich, “Strangeness enhancement and canonical suppression,” arXiv:hep-ph/0111159 [hep-ph].
  * [3] A. Shor, “$\phi$-meson production as a probe of the Quark-Gluon Plasma,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 54 (1985) 1122–1125.
  * [4] CERES Collaboration, D. Adamová et al., “Leptonic and charged kaon decay modes of the $\phi$ meson measured in heavy-ion collisions at the CERN Super Proton Synchrotron,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 152301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0512007 [nucl-ex].
  * [5] NA60 Collaboration, R. Arnaldi et al., “A comparative measurement of $\phi\rightarrow K^{+}K^{-}$ and $\phi\rightarrow\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ in In–In collisions at the CERN SPS,” Phys. Lett. B 699 (2011) 325–329, arXiv:1104.4060 [nucl-ex].
  * [6] ALICE Collaboration, B. B. Abelev et al., “$K^{*}(892)^{0}$ and $\phi(1020)$ production in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 2.76 TeV,” Phys. Rev. C91 (2015) 024609, arXiv:1404.0495 [nucl-ex].
  * [7] A. G. Knospe, C. Markert, K. Werner, J. Steinheimer, and M. Bleicher, “Hadronic resonance production and interaction in partonic and hadronic matter in the EPOS3 model with and without the hadronic afterburner UrQMD,” Phys. Rev. C 93 (2016) 014911, arXiv:1509.07895 [nucl-th].
  * [8] D. Lissauer and E. Shuryak, “K meson modification in hot hadronic matter may be detected via $\phi$ meson decays,” Phys. Lett. B 253 (1991) 15–18.
  * [9] Y. Aoki, Z. Fodor, S. Katz, and K. Szabó, “The QCD transition temperature: results with physical masses in the continuum limit,” Phys. Lett. B 643 (2006) 46–54, arXiv:0903.4155 [hep-lat].
  * [10] M. Cheng, N. H. Christ, S. Datta, J. van der Heide, C. Jung, F. Karsch, O. Kaczmarek, E. Laermann, R. D. Mawhinney, C. Miao, P. Petreczky, K. Petrov, C. Schmidt, and T. Umeda, “Transition temperature in QCD,” Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 054507, arXiv:hep-lat/0608013 [hep-lat].
  * [11] F. Klingl, T. Waas, and W. Weise, “Modification of the $\phi$-meson spectrum in nuclear matter,” Phys. Lett. B 431 (1998) 254–262, arXiv:hep-ph/9709210 [hep-ph].
  * [12] S. Johnson, B. Jacak, and A. Drees, “Rescattering of vector meson daughters in high energy heavy ion collisions,” Eur. Phys. J. C 18 (2001) 645–649, arXiv:nucl-th/9909075 [nucl-th].
  * [13] R. Rapp, J. Wambach, and H. van Hees, “The chiral restoration transition of QCD and low mass dileptons,” Landolt-Bornstein 23 (2010) 134, arXiv:0901.3289 [hep-ph].
  * [14] V. L. Eletsky, M. Belkacem, P. J. Ellis, and J. I. Kapusta, “Properties of $\rho$ and $\omega$ mesons at finite temperature and density as inferred from experiment,” Phys. Rev. C 64 (2001) 035202, arXiv:nucl-th/0104029 [nucl-th].
  * [15] NA49 Collaboration, C. Alt et al., “Energy dependence of $\phi$ meson production in central Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 6 to 17 GeV,” Phys. Rev. C 78 (2008) 044907, arXiv:0806.1937 [nucl-ex].
  * [16] NA60 Collaboration, R. Arnaldi et al., “$\phi$ production in In–In Collisions at 158 A-GeV,” Eur. Phys. J. C 64 (2009) 1–18, arXiv:0906.1102 [hep-ex].
  * [17] STAR Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Measurements of $\phi$ meson production in relativistic heavy-ion collisions at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC),” Phys. Rev. C 79 (2009) 064903, arXiv:0809.4737 [nucl-ex].
  * [18] STAR Collaboration, L. Adamczyk et al., “Measurements of dielectron production in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200$ GeV from the STAR experiment,” Phys. Rev. C 92 (2015) 024912, arXiv:1504.01317 [hep-ex].
  * [19] PHENIX Collaboration, S. S. Adler et al., “Production of $\phi$ mesons at midrapidity in $\sqrt{{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200$ GeV Au+Au collisions at relativistic energies,” Phys. Rev. C 72 (2005) 014903, arXiv:nucl-ex/0410012 [nucl-ex].
  * [20] J. Cleymans, I. Kraus, H. Oeschler, K. Redlich, and S. Wheaton, “Statistical model predictions for particle ratios at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.5$ TeV,” Phys. Rev. C 74 (2006) 034903, arXiv:hep-ph/0604237 [hep-ph].
  * [21] J. Rafelski, J. Letessier, and G. Torrieri, “Centrality dependence of bulk fireball properties at RHIC,” Phys. Rev. C 72 (2005) 024905, arXiv:nucl-th/0412072 [nucl-th].
  * [22] M. Petrán, J. Letessier, V. Petráček, and J. Rafelski, “Hadron production and Quark-Gluon Plasma hadronization in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76$ TeV,” Phys. Rev. C 88 (2013) 034907, arXiv:1303.2098 [hep-ph].
  * [23] A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, and J. Stachel, “Thermal hadron production in relativistic nuclear collisions: the hadron mass spectrum, the horn, and the QCD phase transition,” Phys. Lett. B 673 (2009) 142–145, arXiv:0812.1186 [nucl-th]. [Erratum: Phys. Lett.B 678, 516(2009)].
  * [24] F. Becattini, P. Castorina, A. Milov, and H. Satz, “A comparative analysis of statistical hadron production,” Eur. Phys. J. C 66 (2010) 377–386, arXiv:0911.3026 [hep-ph].
  * [25] P. Bozek and I. Wyskiel-Piekarska, “Particle spectra in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 2.76 TeV,” Phys. Rev. C 85 (2012) 064915, arXiv:1203.6513 [nucl-th].
  * [26] K. Werner, I. Karpenko, M. Bleicher, T. Pierog, and S. Porteboeuf-Houssais, “Jets, bulk matter, and their interaction in heavy ion collisions at several TeV,” Phys. Rev. C 85 (2012) 064907, arXiv:1203.5704 [nucl-th].
  * [27] P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Stachel, J. Wessels, and N. Xu, “Thermal equilibration and expansion in nucleus-nucleus collisions at the AGS,” Phys. Lett. B 344 (1995) 43–48, arXiv:nucl-th/9410026 [nucl-th].
  * [28] P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Stachel, J. Wessels, and N. Xu, “Thermal and hadrochemical equilibration in nucleus-nucleus collisions at the SPS,” Phys. Lett. B 365 (1996) 1–6, arXiv:nucl-th/9508020 [nucl-th].
  * [29] D. d’Enterria, “Jet quenching,” Landolt-Bornstein 23 (2010) 471, arXiv:0902.2011 [nucl-ex].
  * [30] R. C. Hwa and C. B. Yang, “Scaling behavior at high ${p}_{T}$ and the $p/\pi$ ratio,” Phys. Rev. C 67 (2003) 034902, arXiv:nucl-th/0211010 [nucl-th].
  * [31] R. J. Fries, B. Müller, C. Nonaka, and S. A. Bass, “Hadronization in heavy-ion collisions: recombination and fragmentation of partons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 202303, arXiv:nucl-th/0301087 [nucl-th].
  * [32] V. Greco, C. M. Ko, and P. Lévai, “Parton coalescence and the antiproton/pion anomaly at RHIC,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 202302, arXiv:nucl-th/0301093 [nucl-th].
  * [33] PHENIX Collaboration, K. Adcox et al., “Centrality dependence of $\pi^{+}$ / $\pi^{-}$, K+ / K-, p and $\bar{\textrm{p}}$ production from $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=$ 130 GeV Au+Au collisions at RHIC,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 242301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0112006 [nucl-ex].
  * [34] PHENIX Collaboration, S. S. Adler et al., “Scaling properties of proton and anti-proton production in $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200$ GeV Au+Au collisions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 172301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0305036 [nucl-ex].
  * [35] STAR Collaboration, J. Adams et al., “Particle type dependence of azimuthal anisotropy and nuclear modification of particle production in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200$ GeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 052302, arXiv:nucl-ex/0306007 [nucl-ex].
  * [36] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Production of charged pions, kaons and protons at large transverse momenta in pp and Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 2.76 TeV,” Phys. Lett. B 736 (2014) 196–207, arXiv:1401.1250 [nucl-ex].
  * [37] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC,” JINST 3 (2008) S08002.
  * [38] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Performance of the ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29 (2014) 1430044, arXiv:1402.4476 [nucl-ex].
  * [39] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Centrality, rapidity and transverse momentum dependence of $J/\psi$ suppression in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 2.76 TeV,” Phys. Lett. B 734 (2014) 314–327, arXiv:1311.0214 [nucl-ex].
  * [40] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Centrality determination of Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 2.76 TeV with ALICE,” Phys. Rev. C 88 (2013) 044909, arXiv:1301.4361 [nucl-ex].
  * [41] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Light vector meson production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV,” Phys. Lett. B 710 (2012) 557–568, arXiv:1112.2222 [nucl-ex].
  * [42] R. Brun, F. Bruyant, M. Maire, A. C. McPherson, and P. Zanarini, “GEANT 3: user’s guide Geant 3.10, Geant 3.11; rev. version,” Tech. Rep. CERN-DD-EE-84-01, Geneva, 1987.
  * [43] T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, “PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual,” JHEP 05 (2006) 026, arXiv:hep-ph/0603175 [hep-ph].
  * [44] Aguilar-Benitez, M. et al., “Inclusive particle production in 400 GeV/c pp-interactions,” Z. Phys. C 50 405–426.
  * [45] G. Agakichiev et al., “Neutral meson production in p-Be and p-Au collisions at 450 GeV beam energy,” Eur. Phys. J. C 4 (1998) 249–257.
  * [46] A. Uras for the NA60 Collaboration, “Low mass dimuon production in p–A collisions at $\sqrt{s}=27.5$ GeV with NA60,” Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 38 (2011) 124180, arXiv:1108.0970 [hep-ex].
  * [47] C. M. Buttar, D. Clements, I. Dawson, and A. Moraes, “Simulations of minimum bias events and the underlying event, MC tuning and predictions for the LHC,” Acta Phys. Pol. B 35 $\mathrm{(2004)~{}433}$ .
  * [48] R. Field, “Physics at the Tevatron,” Acta Phys. Pol. B 39 $\mathrm{(2008)~{}2611}$ .
  * [49] LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Measurement of $\sigma(pp\to b\bar{b}X)$ at $\sqrt{s}=7~{}\rm{TeV}$ in the forward region,” Phys. Lett. B 694 (2010) 209–216, arXiv:1009.2731 [hep-ex].
  * [50] LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Prompt charm production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV,” Nucl. Phys. B 871 (2013) 1–20, arXiv:1302.2864 [hep-ex].
  * [51] R. Rapp and J. Wambach, “Low-mass dileptons at the CERN-SpS: evidence for chiral restoration?,” Eur. Phys. J. A 6 (1999) 415–420, arXiv:hep-ph/9907502 [hep-ph].
  * [52] H. van Hees and R. Rapp, “Dilepton radiation at the CERN Super-Proton Synchrotron,” Nucl. Phys. A 806 (2008) 339–387, arXiv:0711.3444 [hep-ph].
  * [53] R. Rapp, “Theory of soft electromagnetic emission in heavy-ion collisions,” Acta Phys. Pol. B 42 (2011) 2823, arXiv:1110.4345 [nucl-th].
  * [54] ALICE Collaboration, “Addendum of the Letter of Intent for the upgrade of the ALICE Experiment: the Muon Forward Tracker,” Tech. Rep. CERN-LHCC-2013-014, LHCC-I-022-ADD-1, CERN, Geneva, 2013.
  * [55] J. E. Gaiser, Charmonium Spectroscopy From Radiative Decays of the $J/\psi$ and $\psi^{\prime}$.  PhD thesis, SLAC, 1982.  SLAC-0255, UMI-83-14449-MC, SLAC-R-0255, SLAC-R-255.
  * [56] Particle Data Group Collaboration, C. Patrignani et al., “Review of Particle Physics,” Chin. Phys. C 40 (2016) 100001.
  * [57] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “$\phi$-meson production at forward rapidity in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV and in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 2.76 TeV,” Phys. Lett. B768 (2017) 203–217, arXiv:1506.09206 [nucl-ex].
  * [58] H. J. Drescher, M. Hladik, S. Ostapchenko, T. Pierog, and K. Werner, “Parton based Gribov-Regge theory,” Phys. Rept. 350 (2001) 93–289, arXiv:hep-ph/0007198 [hep-ph].
  * [59] K. Werner, B. Guiot, I. Karpenko, and T. Pierog, “Analyzing radial flow features in p-Pb and p-p collisions at several TeV by studying identified-particle production with the event generator EPOS3,” Phys. Rev. C 89 (2014) 064903, arXiv:1312.1233 [nucl-th].
  * [60] X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, “HIJING: a Monte Carlo model for multiple jet production in $\mathrm{pp}$, $\mathrm{pA}$, and $\mathrm{AA}$ collisions,” Phys. Rev. D 44 (1991) 3501–3516.
  * [61] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Centrality dependence of the nuclear modification factor of charged pions, kaons, and protons in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=2.76$ TeV,” Phys. Rev. C 93 (2016) 034913, arXiv:1506.07287 [nucl-ex].
  * [62] PHENIX Collaboration, A. Adare et al., “Nuclear modification factors of $\phi$ mesons in d+Au, Cu+Cu and Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200GeV$,” Phys. Rev. C 83 (2011) 024909, arXiv:1004.3532 [nucl-ex].

##  Appendix A The ALICE Collaboration

S. Acharyaorg138&F.T.-. Acostaorg22&D. Adamováorg94&J. Adolfssonorg81&M.M.
Aggarwalorg98&G. Aglieri Rinellaorg36&M. Agnelloorg33&N. Agrawalorg48&Z.
Ahammedorg138&S.U. Ahnorg77&S. Aiolaorg143&A. Akindinovorg64&M. Al-
Turanyorg104&S.N. Alamorg138&D.S.D. Albuquerqueorg119&D. Aleksandrovorg88&B.
Alessandroorg58&R. Alfaro Molinaorg72&Y. Aliorg16&A. Aliciorg29,org11,org53&A.
Alkinorg3&J. Almeorg24&T. Altorg69&L. Altenkamperorg24&I. Altsybeevorg137&C.
Andreiorg47&D. Andreouorg36&H.A. Andrewsorg108&A. Andronicorg104&M.
Angelettiorg36&V. Anguelovorg102&C. Ansonorg17&T. Antičićorg105&F.
Antinoriorg56&P. Antonioliorg53&N. Apadulaorg80&L. Aphecetcheorg111&H.
Appelshäuserorg69&S. Arcelliorg29&R. Arnaldiorg58&O.W.
Arnoldorg103,org114&I.C. Arseneorg23&M. Arslandokorg102&B. Audurierorg111&A.
Augustinusorg36&R. Averbeckorg104&M.D. Azmiorg18&A. Badalàorg55&Y.W.
Baekorg60,org76&S. Bagnascoorg58&R. Bailhacheorg69&R. Balaorg99&A.
Baldisseriorg134&M. Ballorg43&R.C. Baralorg66,org86&A.M. Barbanoorg28&R.
Barberaorg30&F. Barileorg35&L. Barioglioorg28&G.G. Barnaföldiorg142&L.S.
Barnbyorg93&V. Barretorg131&P. Bartaliniorg7&K. Barthorg36&E. Bartschorg69&N.
Bastidorg131&S. Basuorg140&G. Batigneorg111&B. Batyunyaorg75&P.C.
Batzingorg23&J.L. Bazo Albaorg109&I.G. Beardenorg89&H. Beckorg102&C.
Beddaorg63&N.K. Beheraorg60&I. Belikovorg133&F. Belliniorg36,org29&H. Bello
Martinezorg2&R. Bellwiedorg123&L.G.E. Beltranorg117&V. Belyaevorg92&G.
Bencediorg142&S. Beoleorg28&A. Bercuciorg47&Y. Berdnikovorg96&D.
Berenyiorg142&R.A. Bertensorg127&D. Berzanoorg58,org36&L. Betevorg36&P.P.
Bhaduriorg138&A. Bhasinorg99&I.R. Bhatorg99&B. Bhattacharjeeorg42&J.
Bhomorg115&A. Bianchiorg28&L. Bianchiorg123&N. Bianchiorg51&C.
Bianchinorg140&J. Bielčíkorg38&J. Bielčíkováorg94&A. Bilandzicorg114,org103&G.
Biroorg142&R. Biswasorg4&S. Biswasorg4&J.T. Blairorg116&D. Blauorg88&C.
Blumeorg69&G. Bocaorg135&F. Bockorg36&A. Bogdanovorg92&L. Boldizsárorg142&M.
Bombaraorg39&G. Bonomiorg136&M. Bonoraorg36&H. Borelorg134&A.
Borissovorg102,org20&M. Borriorg125&E. Bottaorg28&C. Bourjauorg89&L.
Bratrudorg69&P. Braun-Munzingerorg104&M. Bregantorg118&T.A. Brokerorg69&M.
Brozorg38&E.J. Bruckenorg44&E. Brunaorg58&G.E. Brunoorg36,org35&D.
Budnikovorg106&H. Bueschingorg69&S. Bufalinoorg33&P. Buhlerorg110&P.
Buncicorg36&O. Buschorg130&Z. Butheleziorg73&J.B. Buttorg16&J.T.
Buxtonorg19&J. Cabalaorg113&D. Caffarriorg36,org90&H. Cainesorg143&A.
Calivaorg63,org104&E. Calvo Villarorg109&R.S. Camachoorg2&P.
Cameriniorg27&A.A. Caponorg110&F. Carenaorg36&W. Carenaorg36&F.
Carnesecchiorg11,org29&J. Castillo Castellanosorg134&A.J. Castroorg127&E.A.R.
Casulaorg54&C. Ceballos Sanchezorg9&S. Chandraorg138&B. Changorg124&W.
Changorg7&S. Chapelandorg36&M. Chartierorg125&S. Chattopadhyayorg138&S.
Chattopadhyayorg107&A. Chauvinorg114,org103&C. Cheshkovorg132&B.
Cheynisorg132&V. Chibante Barrosoorg36&D.D. Chinellatoorg119&S. Choorg60&P.
Chochulaorg36&M. Chojnackiorg89&S. Choudhuryorg138&T. Chowdhuryorg131&P.
Christakoglouorg90&C.H. Christensenorg89&P. Christiansenorg81&T.
Chujoorg130&S.U. Chungorg20&C. Cicaloorg54&L. Cifarelliorg11,org29&F.
Cindoloorg53&J. Cleymansorg122&F. Colamariaorg52,org35&D.
Colellaorg36,org52,org65&A. Colluorg80&M. Colocciorg29&M. Concasorg58orgI&G.
Conesa Balbastreorg79&Z. Conesa del Valleorg61&J.G. Contrerasorg38&T.M.
Cormierorg95&Y. Corrales Moralesorg58&I. Cortés Maldonadoorg2&P.
Corteseorg34&M.R. Cosentinoorg120&F. Costaorg36&S. Costanzaorg135&J.
Crkovskáorg61&P. Crochetorg131&E. Cuautleorg70&L. Cunqueiroorg95,org141&T.
Dahmsorg103,org114&A. Daineseorg56&M.C. Danischorg102&A. Danuorg68&D.
Dasorg107&I. Dasorg107&S. Dasorg4&A. Dashorg86&S. Dashorg48&S. Deorg49&A. De
Caroorg32&G. de Cataldoorg52&C. de Contiorg118&J. de Cuvelandorg40&A. De
Falcoorg26&D. De Gruttolaorg32,org11&N. De Marcoorg58&S. De Pasqualeorg32&R.D.
De Souzaorg119&H.F. Degenhardtorg118&A. Deistingorg104,org102&A.
Delofforg85&S. Delsantoorg28&C. Deplanoorg90&P. Dhankherorg48&D. Di
Bariorg35&A. Di Mauroorg36&P. Di Nezzaorg51&B. Di Ruzzaorg56&R.A. Diazorg9&T.
Dietelorg122&P. Dillensegerorg69&Y. Dingorg7&R. Diviàorg36&Ø.
Djuvslandorg24&A. Dobrinorg36&D. Domenicis Gimenezorg118&B. Dönigusorg69&O.
Dordicorg23&L.V.R. Doremalenorg63&A.K. Dubeyorg138&A. Dublaorg104&L.
Ducrouxorg132&S. Dudiorg98&A.K. Duggalorg98&M. Dukhishyamorg86&P.
Dupieuxorg131&R.J. Ehlersorg143&D. Eliaorg52&E. Endressorg109&H. Engelorg74&E.
Eppleorg143&B. Erazmusorg111&F. Erhardtorg97&B. Espagnonorg61&G.
Eulisseorg36&J. Eumorg20&D. Evansorg108&S. Evdokimovorg91&L.
Fabbiettiorg103,org114&M. Fagginorg31&J. Faivreorg79&A. Fantoniorg51&M.
Faselorg95&L. Feldkamporg141&A. Felicielloorg58&G. Feofilovorg137&A. Fernández
Téllezorg2&A. Ferrettiorg28&A. Festantiorg31,org36&V.J.G.
Feuillardorg134,org131&J. Figielorg115&M.A.S. Figueredoorg118&S.
Filchaginorg106&D. Finogeevorg62&F.M. Fiondaorg24,org26&M. Florisorg36&S.
Foertschorg73&P. Fokaorg104&S. Fokinorg88&E. Fragiacomoorg59&A.
Francesconorg36&A. Franciscoorg111&U. Frankenfeldorg104&G.G. Fronzeorg28&U.
Fuchsorg36&C. Furgetorg79&A. Fursorg62&M. Fusco Girardorg32&J.J.
Gaardhøjeorg89&M. Gagliardiorg28&A.M. Gagoorg109&K. Gajdosovaorg89&M.
Gallioorg28&C.D. Galvanorg117&P. Ganotiorg84&C. Garabatosorg104&E. Garcia-
Solisorg12&K. Gargorg30&C. Gargiuloorg36&P. Gasikorg114,org103&E.F.
Gaugerorg116&M.B. Gay Ducatiorg71&M. Germainorg111&J. Ghoshorg107&P.
Ghoshorg138&S.K. Ghoshorg4&P. Gianottiorg51&P. Giubellinoorg58,org104,org36&P.
Giubilatoorg31&E. Gladysz-Dziadusorg115&P. Glässelorg102&D.M. Goméz
Coralorg72&A. Gomez Ramirezorg74&A.S. Gonzalezorg36&P. González-Zamoraorg2&S.
Gorbunovorg40&L. Görlichorg115&S. Gotovacorg126&V. Grabskiorg72&L.K.
Graczykowskiorg139&K.L. Grahamorg108&L. Greinerorg80&A. Grelliorg63&C.
Grigorasorg36&V. Grigorievorg92&A. Grigoryanorg1&S. Grigoryanorg75&J.M.
Gronefeldorg104&F. Grosaorg33&J.F. Grosse-Oetringhausorg36&R. Grossoorg104&F.
Guberorg62&R. Guernaneorg79&B. Guerzoniorg29&M. Guittiereorg111&K.
Gulbrandsenorg89&T. Gunjiorg129&A. Guptaorg99&R. Guptaorg99&I.B. Guzmanorg2&R.
Haakeorg36&M.K. Habiborg104&C. Hadjidakisorg61&H. Hamagakiorg82&G.
Hamarorg142&J.C. Hamonorg133&M.R. Haqueorg63&J.W. Harrisorg143&A.
Hartonorg12&H. Hassanorg79&D. Hatzifotiadouorg53,org11&S. Hayashiorg129&S.T.
Heckelorg69&E. Hellbärorg69&H. Helstruporg37&A. Herghelegiuorg47&E.G.
Hernandezorg2&G. Herrera Corralorg10&F. Herrmannorg141&B.A. Hessorg101&K.F.
Hetlandorg37&H. Hillemannsorg36&C. Hillsorg125&B. Hippolyteorg133&B.
Hohlwegerorg103&D. Horakorg38&S. Hornungorg104&R. Hosokawaorg130,org79&P.
Hristovorg36&C. Hughesorg127&P. Huhnorg69&T.J. Humanicorg19&H.
Hushnudorg107&N. Hussainorg42&T. Hussainorg18&D. Hutterorg40&D.S.
Hwangorg21&J.P. Iddonorg125&S.A. Iga Buitronorg70&R. Ilkaevorg106&M.
Inabaorg130&M. Ippolitovorg92,org88&M.S. Islamorg107&M. Ivanovorg104&V.
Ivanovorg96&V. Izucheevorg91&B. Jacakorg80&N. Jacazioorg29&P.M.
Jacobsorg80&M.B. Jadhavorg48&S. Jadlovskaorg113&J. Jadlovskyorg113&S.
Jaelaniorg63&C. Jahnkeorg118,org114&M.J. Jakubowskaorg139&M.A.
Janikorg139&P.H.S.Y. Jayarathnaorg123&C. Jenaorg86&M. Jercicorg97&R.T. Jimenez
Bustamanteorg104&P.G. Jonesorg108&A. Juskoorg108&P. Kalinakorg65&A.
Kalweitorg36&J.H. Kangorg144&V. Kaplinorg92&S. Karorg138&A. Karasu
Uysalorg78&O. Karavichevorg62&T. Karavichevaorg62&L. Karayanorg104,org102&P.
Karczmarczykorg36&E. Karpechevorg62&U. Kebschullorg74&R. Keidelorg46&D.L.D.
Keijdenerorg63&M. Keilorg36&B. Ketzerorg43&Z. Khabanovaorg90&S. Khanorg18&S.A.
Khanorg138&A. Khanzadeevorg96&Y. Kharlovorg91&A. Khatunorg18&A.
Khuntiaorg49&M.M. Kielbowiczorg115&B. Kilengorg37&B. Kimorg130&D.
Kimorg144&D.J. Kimorg124&E.J. Kimorg14&H. Kimorg144&J.S. Kimorg41&J.
Kimorg102&M. Kimorg60&S. Kimorg21&T. Kimorg144&S. Kirschorg40&I. Kiselorg40&S.
Kiselevorg64&A. Kisielorg139&G. Kissorg142&J.L. Klayorg6&C. Kleinorg69&J.
Kleinorg36&C. Klein-Bösingorg141&S. Klewinorg102&A. Klugeorg36&M.L.
Knichelorg102,org36&A.G. Knospeorg123&C. Kobdajorg112&M. Kofaragoorg142&M.K.
Köhlerorg102&T. Kolleggerorg104&V. Kondratievorg137&N. Kondratyevaorg92&E.
Kondratyukorg91&A. Konevskikhorg62&M. Konyushikhinorg140&M. Kopcikorg113&C.
Kouzinopoulosorg36&O. Kovalenkoorg85&V. Kovalenkoorg137&M. Kowalskiorg115&I.
Králikorg65&A. Kravčákováorg39&L. Kreisorg104&M. Krivdaorg108,org65&F.
Krizekorg94&M. Krügerorg69&E. Kryshenorg96&M. Krzewickiorg40&A.M.
Kuberaorg19&V. Kučeraorg94&C. Kuhnorg133&P.G. Kuijerorg90&J. Kumarorg48&L.
Kumarorg98&S. Kumarorg48&S. Kunduorg86&P. Kurashviliorg85&A. Kurepinorg62&A.B.
Kurepinorg62&A. Kuryakinorg106&S. Kushpilorg94&M.J. Kweonorg60&Y.
Kwonorg144&S.L. La Pointeorg40&P. La Roccaorg30&C. Lagana Fernandesorg118&Y.S.
Laiorg80&I. Lakomovorg36&R. Langoyorg121&K. Lapidusorg143&C. Laraorg74&A.
Lardeuxorg23&P. Larionovorg51&A. Lattucaorg28&E. Laudiorg36&R. Lavickaorg38&R.
Leaorg27&L. Leardiniorg102&S. Leeorg144&F. Lehasorg90&S. Lehnerorg110&J.
Lehrbachorg40&R.C. Lemmonorg93&E. Leograndeorg63&I. León Monzónorg117&P.
Lévaiorg142&X. Liorg13&X.L. Liorg7&J. Lienorg121&R. Lietavaorg108&B.
Limorg20&S. Lindalorg23&V. Lindenstruthorg40&S.W. Lindsayorg125&C.
Lippmannorg104&M.A. Lisaorg19&V. Litichevskyiorg44&A. Liuorg80&H.M.
Ljunggrenorg81&W.J. Llopeorg140&D.F. Lodatoorg63&P.I. Loenneorg24&V.
Loginovorg92&C. Loizidesorg95,org80&P. Loncarorg126&X. Lopezorg131&E. López
Torresorg9&A. Loweorg142&P. Luettigorg69&J.R. Luhderorg141&M. Lunardonorg31&G.
Luparelloorg59,org27&M. Lupiorg36&A. Maevskayaorg62&M. Magerorg36&S.M.
Mahmoodorg23&A. Maireorg133&R.D. Majkaorg143&M. Malaevorg96&L.
Malininaorg75orgII&D. Mal’Kevichorg64&P. Malzacherorg104&A. Mamonovorg106&V.
Mankoorg88&F. Mansoorg131&V. Manzariorg52&Y. Maoorg7&M.
Marchisoneorg73,org128,org132&J. Marešorg67&G.V. Margagliottiorg27&A.
Margottiorg53&J. Marguttiorg63&A. Marínorg104&C. Markertorg116&M.
Marquardorg69&N.A. Martinorg104&P. Martinengoorg36&J.A.L. Martinezorg74&M.I.
Martínezorg2&G. Martínez Garcíaorg111&M. Martinez Pedreiraorg36&S.
Masciocchiorg104&M. Maseraorg28&A. Masoniorg54&L. Massacrierorg61&E.
Massonorg111&A. Mastroserioorg52&A.M. Mathisorg103,org114&P.F.T.
Matuokaorg118&A. Matyjaorg127&C. Mayerorg115&J. Mazerorg127&M.
Mazzilliorg35&M.A. Mazzoniorg57&F. Meddiorg25&Y. Melikyanorg92&A. Menchaca-
Rochaorg72&E. Meninnoorg32&J. Mercado Pérezorg102&M. Meresorg15&S.
Mhlangaorg122&Y. Miakeorg130&L. Michelettiorg28&M.M. Mieskolainenorg44&D.L.
Mihaylovorg103&K. Mikhaylovorg64,org75&A. Mischkeorg63&D. Miśkowiecorg104&J.
Mitraorg138&C.M. Mituorg68&N. Mohammadiorg36,org63&A.P. Mohantyorg63&B.
Mohantyorg86&M. Mohisin Khanorg18orgIII&D.A. Moreira De Godoyorg141&L.A.P.
Morenoorg2&S. Morettoorg31&A. Morrealeorg111&A. Morschorg36&V.
Mucciforaorg51&E. Mudnicorg126&D. Mühlheimorg141&S. Muhuriorg138&M.
Mukherjeeorg4&J.D. Mulliganorg143&M.G. Munhozorg118&K. Münningorg43&M.I.A.
Munozorg80&R.H. Munzerorg69&H. Murakamiorg129&S. Murrayorg73&L. Musaorg36&J.
Musinskyorg65&C.J. Myersorg123&J.W. Myrchaorg139&B. Naikorg48&R.
Nairorg85&B.K. Nandiorg48&R. Naniaorg11,org53&E. Nappiorg52&A.
Narayanorg48&M.U. Naruorg16&H. Natal da Luzorg118&C. Nattrassorg127&S.R.
Navarroorg2&K. Nayakorg86&R. Nayakorg48&T.K. Nayakorg138&S.
Nazarenkoorg106&R.A. Negrao De Oliveiraorg36,org69&L. Nellenorg70&S.V.
Nesboorg37&G. Neskovicorg40&F. Ngorg123&M. Nicassioorg104&M. Niculescuorg68&J.
Niedzielaorg139,org36&B.S. Nielsenorg89&S. Nikolaevorg88&S. Nikulinorg88&V.
Nikulinorg96&A. Nobuhiroorg45&F. Noferiniorg11,org53&P. Nomokonovorg75&G.
Noorenorg63&J.C.C. Norisorg2&J. Normanorg79,org125&A. Nyaninorg88&J.
Nystrandorg24&H. Oeschlerorg20,org102org*&H. Ohorg144&A. Ohlsonorg102&L.
Olahorg142&J. Oleniaczorg139&A.C. Oliveira Da Silvaorg118&M.H. Oliverorg143&J.
Onderwaaterorg104&C. Oppedisanoorg58&R. Oravaorg44&M. Oravecorg113&A. Ortiz
Velasquezorg70&A. Oskarssonorg81&J. Otwinowskiorg115&K. Oyamaorg82&Y.
Pachmayerorg102&V. Pacikorg89&D. Paganoorg136&G. Paićorg70&P. Palniorg7&J.
Panorg140&A.K. Pandeyorg48&S. Panebiancoorg134&V. Papikyanorg1&P.
Pareekorg49&J. Parkorg60&S. Parmarorg98&A. Passfeldorg141&S.P.
Pathakorg123&R.N. Patraorg138&B. Paulorg58&H. Peiorg7&T. Peitzmannorg63&X.
Pengorg7&L.G. Pereiraorg71&H. Pereira Da Costaorg134&D.
Peresunkoorg92,org88&E. Perez Lezamaorg69&V. Peskovorg69&Y. Pestovorg5&V.
Petráčekorg38&M. Petroviciorg47&C. Pettaorg30&R.P. Pezziorg71&S. Pianoorg59&M.
Piknaorg15&P. Pillotorg111&L.O.D.L. Pimentelorg89&O. Pinazzaorg53,org36&L.
Pinskyorg123&S. Pisanoorg51&D.B. Piyarathnaorg123&M. Płoskońorg80&M.
Planinicorg97&F. Pliquettorg69&J. Plutaorg139&S. Pochybovaorg142&P.L.M.
Podesta-Lermaorg117&M.G. Poghosyanorg95&B. Polichtchoukorg91&N. Poljakorg97&W.
Poonsawatorg112&A. Poporg47&H. Poppenborgorg141&S. Porteboeuf-
Houssaisorg131&V. Pozdniakovorg75&S.K. Prasadorg4&R. Preghenellaorg53&F.
Prinoorg58&C.A. Pruneauorg140&I. Pshenichnovorg62&M. Puccioorg28&V.
Puninorg106&J. Putschkeorg140&S. Rahaorg4&S. Rajputorg99&J. Rakorg124&A.
Rakotozafindrabeorg134&L. Ramelloorg34&F. Ramiorg133&D.B. Ranaorg123&R.
Raniwalaorg100&S. Raniwalaorg100&S.S. Räsänenorg44&B.T. Rascanuorg69&D.
Ratheeorg98&V. Ratzaorg43&I. Ravasengaorg33&K.F. Readorg127,org95&K.
Redlichorg85orgIV&A. Rehmanorg24&P. Reicheltorg69&F. Reidtorg36&X. Renorg7&R.
Renfordtorg69&A. Reshetinorg62&K. Reygersorg102&V. Riabovorg96&T.
Richertorg63,org81&M. Richterorg23&P. Riedlerorg36&W. Rieglerorg36&F.
Riggiorg30&C. Risteaorg68&M. Rodríguez Cahuantziorg2&K. Røedorg23&R.
Rogalevorg91&E. Rogochayaorg75&D. Rohrorg36,org40&D. Röhrichorg24&P.S.
Rokitaorg139&F. Ronchettiorg51&E.D. Rosasorg70&K. Roslonorg139&P.
Rosnetorg131&A. Rossiorg31,org56&A. Rotondiorg135&F. Roukoutakisorg84&C.
Royorg133&P. Royorg107&O.V. Ruedaorg70&R. Ruiorg27&B. Rumyantsevorg75&A.
Rustamovorg87&E. Ryabinkinorg88&Y. Ryabovorg96&A. Rybickiorg115&S.
Saarinenorg44&S. Sadhuorg138&S. Sadovskyorg91&K. Šafaříkorg36&S.K.
Sahaorg138&B. Sahooorg48&P. Sahooorg49&R. Sahooorg49&S. Sahooorg66&P.K.
Sahuorg66&J. Sainiorg138&S. Sakaiorg130&M.A. Salehorg140&J. Salzwedelorg19&S.
Sambyalorg99&V. Samsonovorg96,org92&A. Sandovalorg72&A. Sarkarorg73&D.
Sarkarorg138&N. Sarkarorg138&P. Sarmaorg42&M.H.P. Sasorg63&E.
Scapparoneorg53&F. Scarlassaraorg31&B. Schaeferorg95&H.S. Scheidorg69&C.
Schiauaorg47&R. Schickerorg102&C. Schmidtorg104&H.R. Schmidtorg101&M.O.
Schmidtorg102&M. Schmidtorg101&N.V. Schmidtorg69,org95&J. Schukraftorg36&Y.
Schutzorg36,org133&K. Schwarzorg104&K. Schwedaorg104&G. Scioliorg29&E.
Scomparinorg58&M. Šefčíkorg39&J.E. Segerorg17&Y. Sekiguchiorg129&D.
Sekihataorg45&I. Selyuzhenkovorg92,org104&K. Senosiorg73&S. Senyukovorg133&E.
Serradillaorg72&P. Settorg48&A. Sevcencoorg68&A. Shabanovorg62&A.
Shabetaiorg111&R. Shahoyanorg36&W. Shaikhorg107&A. Shangaraevorg91&A.
Sharmaorg98&A. Sharmaorg99&N. Sharmaorg98&A.I. Sheikhorg138&K. Shigakiorg45&M.
Shimomuraorg83&S. Shirinkinorg64&Q. Shouorg7&K. Shtejerorg9,org28&Y.
Sibiriakorg88&S. Siddhantaorg54&K.M. Sielewiczorg36&T. Siemiarczukorg85&S.
Silaevaorg88&D. Silvermyrorg81&G. Simatovicorg90,org97&G.
Simonettiorg36,org103&R. Singarajuorg138&R. Singhorg86&V. Singhalorg138&T.
Sinhaorg107&B. Sitarorg15&M. Sittaorg34&T.B. Skaaliorg23&M. Slupeckiorg124&N.
Smirnovorg143&R.J.M. Snellingsorg63&T.W. Snellmanorg124&J. Songorg20&F.
Soramelorg31&S. Sorensenorg127&F. Sozziorg104&I. Sputowskaorg115&J.
Stachelorg102&I. Stanorg68&P. Stankusorg95&E. Stenlundorg81&D.
Stoccoorg111&M.M. Storetvedtorg37&P. Strmenorg15&A.A.P. Suaideorg118&T.
Sugitateorg45&C. Suireorg61&M. Suleymanovorg16&M. Suljicorg27&R.
Sultanovorg64&M. Šumberaorg94&S. Sumowidagdoorg50&K. Suzukiorg110&S.
Swainorg66&A. Szaboorg15&I. Szarkaorg15&U. Tabassamorg16&J.
Takahashiorg119&G.J. Tambaveorg24&N. Tanakaorg130&M. Tarhiniorg111,org61&M.
Tariqorg18&M.G. Tarzilaorg47&A. Tauroorg36&G. Tejeda Muñozorg2&A.
Telescaorg36&K. Terasakiorg129&C. Terrevoliorg31&B. Teyssierorg132&D.
Thakurorg49&S. Thakurorg138&D. Thomasorg116&F. Thoresenorg89&R.
Tieulentorg132&A. Tikhonovorg62&A.R. Timminsorg123&A. Toiaorg69&M.
Toppiorg51&S.R. Torresorg117&S. Tripathyorg49&S. Trogoloorg28&G.
Trombettaorg35&L. Tropporg39&V. Trubnikovorg3&W.H. Trzaskaorg124&T.P.
Trzcinskiorg139&B.A. Trzeciakorg63&T. Tsujiorg129&A. Tumkinorg106&R.
Turrisiorg56&T.S. Tveterorg23&K. Ullalandorg24&E.N. Umakaorg123&A.
Urasorg132&G.L. Usaiorg26&A. Utrobicicorg97&M. Valaorg113&J. Van Der
Maarelorg63&J.W. Van Hoorneorg36&M. van Leeuwenorg63&T. Vanatorg94&P. Vande
Vyvreorg36&D. Vargaorg142&A. Vargasorg2&M. Vargyasorg124&R. Varmaorg48&M.
Vasileiouorg84&A. Vasilievorg88&A. Vauthierorg79&O. Vázquez
Doceorg103,org114&V. Vecherninorg137&A.M. Veenorg63&A. Velureorg24&E.
Vercellinorg28&S. Vergara Limónorg2&L. Vermuntorg63&R. Vernetorg8&R.
Vértesiorg142&L. Vickovicorg126&J. Viinikainenorg124&Z. Vilakaziorg128&O.
Villalobos Baillieorg108&A. Villatoro Telloorg2&A. Vinogradovorg88&L.
Vinogradovorg137&T. Virgiliorg32&V. Vislaviciusorg81&A. Vodopyanovorg75&M.A.
Völklorg101&K. Voloshinorg64&S.A. Voloshinorg140&G. Volpeorg35&B. von
Hallerorg36&I. Vorobyevorg103,org114&D. Voscekorg113&D. Vranicorg36,org104&J.
Vrlákováorg39&B. Wagnerorg24&H. Wangorg63&M. Wangorg7&Y.
Watanabeorg129,org130&M. Weberorg110&S.G. Weberorg104&A. Wegrzynekorg36&D.F.
Weiserorg102&S.C. Wenzelorg36&J.P. Wesselsorg141&U. Westerhofforg141&A.M.
Whiteheadorg122&J. Wiechulaorg69&J. Wikneorg23&G. Wilkorg85&J.
Wilkinsonorg53&G.A. Willemsorg36,org141&M.C.S. Williamsorg53&E.
Willsherorg108&B. Windelbandorg102&W.E. Wittorg127&R. Xuorg7&S. Yalcinorg78&K.
Yamakawaorg45&P. Yangorg7&S. Yanoorg45&Z. Yinorg7&H.
Yokoyamaorg79,org130&I.-K. Yooorg20&J.H. Yoonorg60&E. Yunorg20&V.
Yurchenkoorg3&V. Zaccoloorg58&A. Zamanorg16&C. Zampolliorg36&H.J.C.
Zanoliorg118&N. Zardoshtiorg108&A. Zarochentsevorg137&P. Závadaorg67&N.
Zaviyalovorg106&H. Zbroszczykorg139&M. Zhalovorg96&H. Zhangorg24,org7&X.
Zhangorg7&Y. Zhangorg7&C. Zhangorg63&Z. Zhangorg7,org131&C. Zhaoorg23&N.
Zhigarevaorg64&D. Zhouorg7&Y. Zhouorg89&Z. Zhouorg24&H. Zhuorg7,org24&J.
Zhuorg7&Y. Zhuorg7&A. Zichichiorg29,org11&M.B. Zimmermannorg36&G.
Zinovjevorg3&J. Zmeskalorg110&S. Zouorg7&

## Affiliation notes

org*Deceased

orgIDipartimento DET del Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy

orgIIM.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, D.V. Skobeltsyn Institute of
Nuclear, Physics, Moscow, Russia

orgIIIDepartment of Applied Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India

orgIVInstitute of Theoretical Physics, University of Wroclaw, Poland

## Collaboration Institutes

org1A.I. Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics Institute)
Foundation, Yerevan, Armenia

org2Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico

org3Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, National Academy of Sciences
of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine

org4Bose Institute, Department of Physics and Centre for Astroparticle Physics
and Space Science (CAPSS), Kolkata, India

org5Budker Institute for Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia

org6California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California,
United States

org7Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China

org8Centre de Calcul de l’IN2P3, Villeurbanne, Lyon, France

org9Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Havana,
Cuba

org10Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados (CINVESTAV), Mexico City
and Mérida, Mexico

org11Centro Fermi - Museo Storico della Fisica e Centro Studi e Ricerche
“Enrico Fermi’, Rome, Italy

org12Chicago State University, Chicago, Illinois, United States

org13China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China

org14Chonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea

org15Comenius University Bratislava, Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and
Informatics, Bratislava, Slovakia

org16COMSATS Institute of Information Technology (CIIT), Islamabad, Pakistan

org17Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, United States

org18Department of Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India

org19Department of Physics, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United
States

org20Department of Physics, Pusan National University, Pusan, Republic of
Korea

org21Department of Physics, Sejong University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

org22Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, California,
United States

org23Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

org24Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen,
Norway

org25Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università ’La Sapienza’ and Sezione INFN,
Rome, Italy

org26Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Cagliari, Italy

org27Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Trieste, Italy

org28Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy

org29Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN,
Bologna, Italy

org30Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN,
Catania, Italy

org31Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN,
Padova, Italy

org32Dipartimento di Fisica ‘E.R. Caianiello’ dell’Università and Gruppo
Collegato INFN, Salerno, Italy

org33Dipartimento DISAT del Politecnico and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy

org34Dipartimento di Scienze e Innovazione Tecnologica dell’Università del
Piemonte Orientale and INFN Sezione di Torino, Alessandria, Italy

org35Dipartimento Interateneo di Fisica ‘M. Merlin’ and Sezione INFN, Bari,
Italy

org36European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland

org37Faculty of Engineering and Business Administration, Western Norway
University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway

org38Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering, Czech Technical
University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

org39Faculty of Science, P.J. Šafárik University, Košice, Slovakia

org40Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-
Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

org41Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, Republic of Korea

org42Gauhati University, Department of Physics, Guwahati, India

org43Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlen- und Kernphysik, Rheinische Friedrich-
Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany

org44Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Helsinki, Finland

org45Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan

org46Hochschule Worms, Zentrum für Technologietransfer und Telekommunikation
(ZTT), Worms, Germany

org47Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering,
Bucharest, Romania

org48Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT), Mumbai, India

org49Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore, India

org50Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Jakarta, Indonesia

org51INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy

org52INFN, Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy

org53INFN, Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

org54INFN, Sezione di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy

org55INFN, Sezione di Catania, Catania, Italy

org56INFN, Sezione di Padova, Padova, Italy

org57INFN, Sezione di Roma, Rome, Italy

org58INFN, Sezione di Torino, Turin, Italy

org59INFN, Sezione di Trieste, Trieste, Italy

org60Inha University, Incheon, Republic of Korea

org61Institut de Physique Nucléaire d’Orsay (IPNO), Institut National de
Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (IN2P3/CNRS), Université de
Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, Orsay, France

org62Institute for Nuclear Research, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

org63Institute for Subatomic Physics of Utrecht University, Utrecht,
Netherlands

org64Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia

org65Institute of Experimental Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Košice,
Slovakia

org66Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India

org67Institute of Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech
Republic

org68Institute of Space Science (ISS), Bucharest, Romania

org69Institut für Kernphysik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt,
Frankfurt, Germany

org70Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,
Mexico City, Mexico

org71Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS),
Porto Alegre, Brazil

org72Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico
City, Mexico

org73iThemba LABS, National Research Foundation, Somerset West, South Africa

org74Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe Universität Frankfurt Institut für Informatik,
Fachbereich Informatik und Mathematik, Frankfurt, Germany

org75Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR), Dubna, Russia

org76Konkuk University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

org77Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon, Republic
of Korea

org78KTO Karatay University, Konya, Turkey

org79Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie, Université
Grenoble-Alpes, CNRS-IN2P3, Grenoble, France

org80Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, United
States

org81Lund University Department of Physics, Division of Particle Physics,
Lund, Sweden

org82Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science, Nagasaki, Japan

org83Nara Women’s University (NWU), Nara, Japan

org84National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Science,
Department of Physics , Athens, Greece

org85National Centre for Nuclear Research, Warsaw, Poland

org86National Institute of Science Education and Research, HBNI, Jatni, India

org87National Nuclear Research Center, Baku, Azerbaijan

org88National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia

org89Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

org90Nikhef, National institute for subatomic physics, Amsterdam, Netherlands

org91NRC ¿Kurchatov Institute¿ ¿ IHEP , Protvino, Russia

org92NRNU Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, Moscow, Russia

org93Nuclear Physics Group, STFC Daresbury Laboratory, Daresbury, United
Kingdom

org94Nuclear Physics Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Řež u Prahy,
Czech Republic

org95Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States

org96Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina, Russia

org97Physics department, Faculty of science, University of Zagreb, Zagreb,
Croatia

org98Physics Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India

org99Physics Department, University of Jammu, Jammu, India

org100Physics Department, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, India

org101Physikalisches Institut, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Tübingen,
Germany

org102Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg,
Heidelberg, Germany

org103Physik Department, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

org104Research Division and ExtreMe Matter Institute EMMI, GSI
Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany

org105Rudjer Bošković Institute, Zagreb, Croatia

org106Russian Federal Nuclear Center (VNIIEF), Sarov, Russia

org107Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata, India

org108School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham,
United Kingdom

org109Sección Física, Departamento de Ciencias, Pontificia Universidad
Católica del Perú, Lima, Peru

org110Stefan Meyer Institut für Subatomare Physik (SMI), Vienna, Austria

org111SUBATECH, IMT Atlantique, Université de Nantes, CNRS-IN2P3, Nantes,
France

org112Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand

org113Technical University of Košice, Košice, Slovakia

org114Technische Universität München, Excellence Cluster ’Universe’, Munich,
Germany

org115The Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy
of Sciences, Cracow, Poland

org116The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States

org117Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Culiacán, Mexico

org118Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil

org119Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil

org120Universidade Federal do ABC, Santo Andre, Brazil

org121University College of Southeast Norway, Tonsberg, Norway

org122University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

org123University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States

org124University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

org125University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom

org126University of Split, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical
Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split, Croatia

org127University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States

org128University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

org129University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

org130University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan

org131Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France

org132Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, CNRS/IN2P3, IPN-Lyon,
Villeurbanne, Lyon, France

org133Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, F-67000 Strasbourg,
France, Strasbourg, France

org134 Université Paris-Saclay Centre d¿Études de Saclay (CEA), IRFU,
Department de Physique Nucléaire (DPhN), Saclay, France

org135Università degli Studi di Pavia, Pavia, Italy

org136Università di Brescia, Brescia, Italy

org137V. Fock Institute for Physics, St. Petersburg State University, St.
Petersburg, Russia

org138Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Kolkata, India

org139Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland

org140Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, United States

org141Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Institut für Kernphysik,
Münster, Germany

org142Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences,
Budapest, Hungary

org143Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States

org144Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea