2021 151 23 July

Measurement of the groomed jet radius and momentum splitting fraction

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

This article presents groomed jet substructure measurements in
$\mathrm{p\kern-0.50003ptp}$ and Pb–Pb collisions at
$\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV with the ALICE detector. The Soft Drop
grooming algorithm provides access to the hard parton splittings inside a jet
by removing soft wide-angle radiation. We report the groomed jet momentum
splitting fraction, $z_{\mathrm{g}}$, and the (scaled) groomed jet radius,
$\theta_{\mathrm{g}}$. Charged-particle jets are reconstructed at midrapidity
using the anti-$k_{\mathrm{T}}$ algorithm with resolution parameters $R=0.2$
and $R=0.4$. In heavy-ion collisions, the large underlying event poses a
challenge for the reconstruction of groomed jet observables, since
fluctuations in the background can cause groomed parton splittings to be
misidentified. By using strong grooming conditions to reduce this background,
we report these observables fully corrected for detector effects and
background fluctuations for the first time. A narrowing of the
$\theta_{\mathrm{g}}$ distribution in Pb–Pb collisions compared to
$\mathrm{p\kern-0.50003ptp}$ collisions is seen, which provides direct
evidence of the modification of the angular structure of jets in the
quark–gluon plasma. No significant modification of the $z_{\mathrm{g}}$
distribution in Pb–Pb collisions compared to $\mathrm{p\kern-0.50003ptp}$
collisions is observed. These results are compared with a variety of
theoretical models of jet quenching, and provide constraints on jet energy-
loss mechanisms and coherence effects in the quark–gluon plasma.

##  1 Introduction

Ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) are
used to study the high temperature deconfined phase of strongly interacting
matter known as the quark–gluon plasma (QGP) [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. Highly-energetic
jets created early in the collisions interact with the QGP medium and through
those interactions they can lose energy and their internal structure can be
modified. This process, known as jet quenching, can be used to reveal the
physical properties of the QGP itself such as its transport coefficients and
the quasi-particle nature of its degrees of freedom as a function of scale [6,
7, 8, 9]. Experimentally, jet quenching is evaluated by comparing jet
measurements in heavy-ion collisions to analogous measurements in
$\mathrm{p\kern-0.50003ptp}$ collisions [10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18].
Notably, measurements of the jet angularity [16] and jet transverse profile
[18], which are sensitive to a combination of the angular and momentum space
structure of jets, suggest a narrowing of the jet core in heavy-ion
collisions. Nonetheless, up to now, no direct modification of the intra-jet
angular distribution alone has been measured.

Jet grooming algorithms provide access to the hard (high-momentum transfer)
parton splittings inside a jet by removing soft wide-angle radiation [19, 20,
21]. Access to the hard splittings isolates substructures that are well-
controlled in perturbative QCD (pQCD), which in heavy-ion collisions may help
constrain various jet quenching effects such as energy loss, transverse-
momentum broadening, and color coherence. Measurements of groomed jet
observables in heavy-ion collisions have been performed by the ALICE and CMS
collaborations [22, 23, 24], and opened a new avenue in the study of jet
substructure in heavy-ion collisions.

The Soft Drop (SD) [19, 20, 21] grooming algorithm identifies a single
splitting by first reconstructing a jet with the anti-$k_{\rm T}$ algorithm
and then reclustering the constituents of the jet using the Cambridge/Aachen
(C/A) algorithm [25] in order to follow the angular ordering of the QCD parton
shower. The splitting is selected from within the history of the reclustering
with a grooming condition, $z>z_{\mathrm{cut}}\theta^{\beta}$, where $\beta$
and $z_{\mathrm{cut}}$ are tunable parameters, $z$ is the fraction of
transverse momentum ($p_{\mathrm{T}}$) carried by the sub-leading (lowest
$p_{\mathrm{T}}$) prong,

$z\equiv\frac{p_{\mathrm{T,subleading}}}{p_{\mathrm{T,leading}}+p_{\mathrm{T,subleading}}},$
(1)

and $\theta$ is the relative angular distance between the leading and sub-
leading prong,

$\theta\equiv\frac{\sqrt{\Delta y^{2}+\Delta\varphi^{2}}}{R},$ (2)

where $\Delta y$ and $\Delta\varphi$ are the distances measured in rapidity
and azimuthal angle, respectively, and $R$ is the jet resolution parameter.
The groomed splitting is then characterized by two relevant kinematic
observables: the groomed momentum fraction, $z_{\mathrm{g}}$, and the (scaled)
groomed jet radius, $\theta_{\mathrm{g}}$, which are the values of $z$ and
$\theta$ of Eq. (1) and (2) for the identified splitting, as shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 1: Graphical representation of the angularly ordered Cambridge-Aachen
reclustering of jet constituents and subsequent Soft Drop grooming procedure
[19], with the identified splitting denoted in black and the splittings that
were groomed away in light blue.

In $\mathrm{p\kern-0.50003ptp}$ collisions, measurements of the
$\theta_{\mathrm{g}}$ and $z_{\mathrm{g}}$ distributions were performed at
RHIC and the LHC [26, 27, 28, 23, 29]. At high-transverse momentum
$p_{\mathrm{T}}$, the data are described within uncertainties by pQCD
predictions [30].

In heavy-ion collisions, it was proposed that $\theta_{\mathrm{g}}$ may be
sensitive to several important jet-quenching physics mechanisms: the relative
suppression of gluon vs. quark jets, transverse-momentum broadening, and the
ability of the medium to resolve a color dipole as two independent color
charges [31, 32]. Uncertainty principle arguments suggest that wider
splittings are formed earlier in vacuum than narrower splittings ($t_{\rm
f}\sim 1/\theta_{\mathrm{g}}^{2}$ where $t_{\rm f}$ is the splitting formation
time). In heavy-ion collisions, this would result in wider splittings
traversing a longer path in the medium on average. Complementary to
$\theta_{\mathrm{g}}$, it has been argued that $z_{\mathrm{g}}$ may be
sensitive to the modification of the DGLAP splitting function in the QGP, the
breaking of color-coherence, and the response of the medium to the jet [33,
34, 35, 36]. By measuring both $\theta_{\mathrm{g}}$ and $z_{\mathrm{g}}$
simultaneously, and thereby both the angular and momentum scales of the hard
substructure of jets, these jet quenching mechanisms can be further
constrained.

Up to now, no measurement of $\theta_{\mathrm{g}}$ has been performed in
heavy-ion collisions. Previous measurements of the $z_{\mathrm{g}}$
distribution by the CMS [22] and ALICE collaborations [23] indicated
significant modification with respect to $\mathrm{p\kern-0.50003ptp}$
collisions. However, these results were not corrected for background and
detector effects, and are difficult to compare directly to theoretical
calculations [37]. In this letter, we report the first fully corrected
measurement of groomed substructure observables in heavy-ion collisions,
allowing for a rigorous comparison with theoretical calculations.

##  2 Experimental setup and data sets

A description of the ALICE detector and its performance can be found in Refs.
[38, 39]. The $\mathrm{p\kern-0.50003ptp}$ data set used in this analysis was
collected in 2017 during LHC Run 2 at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV using a minimum-bias
(MB) trigger defined by the coincidence of the signals from two scintillator
arrays in the forward region (V0 detectors) [40]. The Pb–Pb data set was
collected in 2018 at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV. Central and semi-
central triggers that select events in the 0–10% and 30–50% centrality
intervals based on the multiplicity of produced particles in the forward V0
detectors, were used [41, 42]. The event selection includes a primary-vertex
selection and the removal of beam-induced background events and pileup [10].
After these selections, the pp data sample contains 870 million events and
corresponds to an integrated luminosity of $18.0\pm 0.4$ nb-1 [43]. The Pb–Pb
data sample contains 92 million events in central collisions and 90 million
events in semi-central collisions, corresponding to an integrated luminosity
of 0.12 nb-1 and 0.06 nb-1, respectively.

This analysis uses charged-particle tracks reconstructed using information
from both the Time Projection Chamber (TPC) [44] and the Inner Tracking System
(ITS) [45]. While track-based observables are collinear-unsafe [46, 47, 48],
they can be measured with greater precision than calorimeter-based observables
and recent measurements have demonstrated that for the groomed jet observables
considered here, track-based distributions are compatible with the
corresponding collinear-safe distributions [49]. Tracks with
$0.15<p_{\mathrm{T}}<100\;\mathrm{GeV}\kern-0.50003pt/\kern-0.20004ptc$ were
accepted over pseudorapidity range $|\eta|<0.9$. Further details about the
track selection are described in Ref. [50]. The accepted tracks exhibit
approximately uniform azimuthal acceptance and momentum resolution
$\sigma(p_{\mathrm{T}})/p_{\mathrm{T}}$ ranging from about 1% at track
$p_{\mathrm{T}}=1$ $\mathrm{GeV}\kern-0.50003pt/\kern-0.20004ptc$ to 4% at
track ${p_{\mathrm{T}}=50\;\mathrm{GeV}\kern-0.50003pt/\kern-0.20004ptc}$.

##  3 Analysis method

Jets were reconstructed from charged-particle tracks with FastJet 3.2.1 [51]
using the anti-$k_{\mathrm{T}}$ algorithm with $E$-scheme recombination for
resolution parameters $R=0.2$ and $0.4$ [52, 53]. The pion mass is assumed for
all jet constituents. Jets in heavy-ion collisions have a large uncorrelated
background contribution due to fluctuations in the underlying event (UE) [54].
The event-by-event constituent subtraction method was used, which corrects the
overall jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and its substructure simultaneously by
subtracting UE energy constituent by constituent [55, 56]. A maximum
recombination distance $R_{\mathrm{max}}=0.25$ was used. After background
subtraction, the measured range is $40<p_{\mathrm{T,\;ch\;jet}}{}<120$
GeV$/c$. The jet axis is required to be within the fiducial volume of the TPC,
$\left|\eta_{\mathrm{jet}}\right|<0.9-R$, where $\eta_{\mathrm{jet}}$ is the
jet pseudorapidity.

Local background fluctuations in a heavy-ion collision environment can result
in an incorrect splitting (unrelated to the hard scattering) being identified
by the grooming algorithm. In order to address this issue, the measurement was
performed by applying a strong grooming condition, $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2$
(with $\beta=0$), which better mitigates these effects as compared to softer
grooming conditions (e.g. $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.1$) [37]. To further reduce the
mistagging effects, we report measurements with either a small resolution
parameter ($R=0.2$ in central collisions) or with more peripheral collisions
(30–50% for $R=0.4$).

The rate of prong mistagging from residual background effects was evaluated by
embedding jets simulated with the PYTHIA8 event generator [57] into measured
Pb–Pb data and following the procedure in Ref. [37]. The residual background
contribution ranges from approximately 5% up to 15% at lower $p_{\mathrm{T}}$,
in more central events, and at larger $R$. This level of background
contamination is small enough to allow the results to be unfolded for detector
effects and background fluctuations. The impact of the residual background
contribution remains one of the main sources of systematic uncertainty [50].

The reconstructed $p_{\mathrm{T,\;ch\;jet}}$, $\theta_{\mathrm{g}}$, and
$z_{\mathrm{g}}$ distributions were corrected for effects related to the
tracking inefficiency, particle-material interactions, and track
$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ resolution. Moreover, in Pb–Pb collisions, background
fluctuations significantly smear the reconstructed distributions of
$\theta_{\mathrm{g}}$ and $z_{\mathrm{g}}$. To account for these effects,
events were simulated with the PYTHIA8 generator using the Monash 2013 tune
[57] and the GEANT3 model [58] for the particle transport in the ALICE
detectors’ material. For the Pb–Pb data, we embedded the simulated events into
measured Pb–Pb data to mimic the background effects. A four-dimensional
response matrix describing the detector and background response in
$p_{\mathrm{T,\;ch\;jet}}$ and $\theta_{\mathrm{g}}$ or $z_{\mathrm{g}}$ was
constructed and used in the two-dimensional unfolding in
$p_{\mathrm{T,\;ch\;jet}}$, $\theta_{\mathrm{g}}$ or $z_{\mathrm{g}}$ using
the iterative Bayesian unfolding algorithm [59, 60].

##  4 Systematic uncertainties

The largest systematic uncertainties in this measurement originate from the
tracking inefficiency, the unfolding procedure, residual mistagged prongs, and
the background subtraction procedure. The total systematic uncertainty is
calculated as the quadratic sum of all of the individual systematic
uncertainties described below.

The systematic uncertainty due to the uncertainty of the tracking efficiency
is evaluated using random rejection of additional tracks in jet finding
according to the estimated tracking efficiency uncertainty of 4%, based on
variations in the track selection criteria and on the ITS-TPC track-matching
efficiency uncertainty. The systematic uncertainty arising from the unfolding
regularization procedure is evaluated by varying the number of unfolding
iterations by $\pm 2$ units, scaling the prior distribution, varying the
binning, and varying the lower bound in the detector-level charged-particle
jet transverse momentum $p_{\mathrm{T,det}}^{\mathrm{ch\;jet}}$ range by 5
$\mathrm{GeV}\kern-0.50003pt/\kern-0.20004ptc$. The systematic uncertainty due
to the model-dependence of the generator used to construct the response matrix
is estimated by comparing results obtained with PYTHIA [57], HERWIG [61], and
JEWEL [62]. The systematic uncertainty due to the bias introduced by the
constituent subtraction procedure is estimated by varying $R_{\mathrm{max}}$
from “under-subtraction” ($R_{\mathrm{max}}=0.05$) to “over-subtraction”
($R_{\mathrm{max}}=0.7$), around the nominal value of $R_{\mathrm{max}}=0.25$.
The systematic uncertainty due to a possible residual contamination of
mistagged splittings after unfolding is estimated with a closure test. The
total relative systematic uncertainty ranges from 3–24% for
$\theta_{\mathrm{g}}$ and 4–10% for $z_{\mathrm{g}}$. See Ref. [50] for more
details about the systematic uncertainties used in this measurement.

Figure 2: Unfolded $z_{\mathrm{g}}$ distributions for charged-particle jets in
$\mathrm{p\kern-0.50003ptp}$ collisions compared to those in Pb–Pb collisions
at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV with $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2$ for 0–10%
centrality for $R=0.2$ (left) and 30–50% centrality for $R=0.4$ (right). The
distributions are normalized to the inclusive jet cross section in the
$60<p_{\mathrm{T,\;ch\;jet}}<80$ GeV/$c$ interval, and $f_{\mathrm{tagged}}$
indicates the fraction of splittings that were tagged to pass the SD condition
in the selected $p_{\mathrm{T,\;ch\;jet}}$ interval. The ratios in the bottom
panel are compared to the following theoretical predictions: JETSCAPE [63],
JEWEL [64, 62], Caucal et al. [34, 65], Chien et al. [33], Qin et al. [35],
and Pablos et al. [66, 67, 36]. Further details can be found in Ref. [50].

##  5 Results

We report the $\theta_{\mathrm{g}}$ and $z_{\mathrm{g}}$ distributions in the
$p_{\mathrm{T,\;ch\;jet}}$ interval between 60 and 80 GeV/$c$ for
$z_{\mathrm{cut}}{}=0.2$ in central (0–10%, $R=0.2$) and semi-central (30–50%,
$R=0.4$) Pb–Pb collisions. The distributions are reported as normalized
differential cross sections,

$\frac{1}{\sigma_{\mathrm{jet,inc}}}\frac{\rm{d}\sigma}{\rm{d}z_{\mathrm{g}}}=\frac{1}{N_{\mathrm{jet,inc}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\rm{d}z_{\mathrm{g}}},$
(3)

where $N$ is the number of jets passing the SD condition with a given
$p_{\mathrm{T,\;ch\;jet}}$, $N_{\mathrm{jet,inc}}$ is the number of inclusive
jets, and $\sigma,\sigma_{\mathrm{jet,inc}}$ are the corresponding cross
sections. The analog of Eq. (3) also applies for $\theta_{\mathrm{g}}$.

The $z_{\mathrm{g}}$ and $\theta_{\mathrm{g}}$ distributions are shown in Fig.
2 and Fig. 3, respectively. The distributions from Pb–Pb collisions are
compared with the corresponding distributions from pp collisions, with their
ratios displayed in the bottom panels. The relative uncertainties are assumed
to be uncorrelated between $\mathrm{p\kern-0.50003ptp}$ and Pb–Pb collisions,
and are added in quadrature in the ratio. In Pb–Pb collisions the precision of
the measurements decreases as the jet resolution parameter is increased or the
centrality is decreased, as the prong mistagging probability decreases with
centrality and with decreasing $R$.

The fraction of jets that do not contain a splitting which passes the SD
condition ($f_{\mathrm{tagged}}$) differs by at most 1% between Pb–Pb and
$\mathrm{p\kern-0.50003ptp}$ collisions. Therefore, any modifications in Pb–Pb
compared to $\mathrm{p\kern-0.50003ptp}$ collisions can change the shape of
the distribution, but keep the integral approximately the same.

The $z_{\mathrm{g}}$ distributions in Pb–Pb and $\mathrm{p\kern-0.50003ptp}$
collisions are consistent within experimental uncertainties for all jet
momenta, jet resolution parameters, and centralities measured.

The situation is remarkably different when comparing the groomed jet radius,
$\theta_{\mathrm{g}}$, in both systems. For $R=0.2$ in central collisions, the
data suggests a narrowing of the Pb–Pb distribution relative to the
$\mathrm{p\kern-0.50003ptp}$ distribution is observed. This narrowing persists
even in semi-central Pb–Pb collisions for $R=0.4$ where quenching effects are
expected to be less than in central collisions.

Figure 3: Unfolded $\theta_{\mathrm{g}}$ distributions for charged-particle
jets in $\mathrm{p\kern-0.50003ptp}$ collisions compared to those in Pb–Pb
collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV with $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2$
for 0–10% centrality for $R=0.2$ (left) and 30–50% centrality for $R=0.4$
(right). The distributions are normalized to the inclusive jet cross section
in the $60<p_{\mathrm{T,\;ch\;jet}}<80$ GeV/$c$ interval, and
$f_{\mathrm{tagged}}$ indicates the fraction of splittings that were tagged to
pass the SD condition in the selected $p_{\mathrm{T,\;ch\;jet}}$ interval. The
ratios in the bottom panel are compared to the following theoretical
predictions: JETSCAPE [63], JEWEL [64, 62], Caucal et al. [34, 65], Pablos et
al. [66, 67, 36], and Yuan et al. [31]. Further details can be found in Ref.
[50].

We compare the ratio of the measurements in pp and Pb–Pb collisions with
several theoretical implementations of jet quenching:

  * •

JETSCAPE [63] consists of a medium-modified parton shower with the MATTER
model [68] controlling the high-virtuality phase and the Linear Boltzmann
Transport (LBT) model describing the low-virtuality phase [69]. The version of
JETSCAPE used for this calculation employs a jet transport coefficient,
$\hat{q}$, that includes dependence on parton virtuality, in addition to
dependence on the local temperature and running of the parton-medium coupling.

  * •

JEWEL [64, 62] consists a Monte Carlo implementation of BDMPS-based medium-
induced gluon radiation in a medium modeled with a Bjorken expansion. We
consider the impact of medium recoil by including calculations both with and
without recoils enabled [70].

  * •

Caucal et al. [34, 65] implements a pQCD parton shower with incoherent
interactions including both factorized vacuum and medium-induced emissions in
a static brick medium.

  * •

Chien et al. [33] (for $z_{\mathrm{g}}$ only) applies Soft Collinear Effective
Theory with Glauber gluon interactions.

  * •

Qin et al. [35] (for $z_{\mathrm{g}}$ only) applies the higher twist formalism
with coherent energy loss.

  * •

Pablos et al. [66, 67, 36] consists of partons produced by a vacuum shower
that interact with the medium according to a strongly-coupled AdS/CFT-based
model. The parameter $L_{\mathrm{res}}$ describes the degree to which the
medium can resolve the jet angular structure, where $L_{\mathrm{res}}=0$
corresponds to full resolution of all jet constituents (fully incoherent),
$L_{\mathrm{res}}=\infty$ corresponds to fully coherent energy loss, and
$L_{\mathrm{res}}=2/\pi T$ is an intermediate case, where $T$ is the local
medium temperature.

  * •

Yuan et al. [31] (for $\theta_{\mathrm{g}}$ only) “med $q$/$g$” and “quark”
consist of medium-modified quark-gluon fractions without any additional
effects, where the quark-gluon fractions in the “med $q$/$g$” case are
extracted in Ref. [71] with a relative suppression factor of approximately
four between gluon jets and quark jets. The calculation labeled “$\hat{q}L$”
includes an implementation of transverse-momentum broadening.

The Pb–Pb-to-pp ratios of the $z_{\mathrm{g}}$ distributions are consistent
with all theoretical predictions considered. The predicted modifications,
which have been constrained by previous measurements [22, 23], are small, and
the differences between them are yet smaller than the current uncertainty of
the data. Nevertheless, these new measurements are the first direct
comparisons of predictions to fully corrected data, and limit the possible in-
medium modifications of the momentum structure of hard splittings to be less
than 10–20% depending on the centrality, jet $R$, and the grooming settings
considered.

Despite employing different microscopic implementations of the jet-medium
interactions, the majority of the models capture the qualitative feature of
the narrowing seen in the $\theta_{\mathrm{g}}$ distributions. The theoretical
models can be grouped according to three distinct mechanisms by which
$\theta_{\mathrm{g}}$ is modified: incoherent energy loss, coherent energy
loss, and transverse broadening. The measurements are consistent with models
implementing (transverse) incoherent interaction of the jet shower
constituents with the medium. This is illustrated by calculations of Pablos et
al. where the data favor the incoherent energy loss ($L_{\mathrm{res}}=0$) and
is also supported by Caucal et al., JEWEL, and JETSCAPE. On the other hand,
the Yuan et al. calculation with medium-modified “quark–gluon” fractions
indicates that the data could be explained by the stronger suppression of
gluon showers, which are on average broader, with fully coherent energy loss.
These two physics mechanisms — the degree of incoherent energy loss, and the
relative quark/gluon suppression — both lead to a suppression of wide-angle
splittings. The prediction by Yuan et al. “$\hat{q}L$” exhibits the opposite
trend compared to the data, demonstrating that there is no strong transverse
broadening in the hard substructure.

The presented measurements indicate that the medium has a significant
resolving power for splittings with a particular dependence on the angular (or
coherence) scale, promoting narrow structures or filtering out wider jets
altogether.

##  6 Conclusions

We reported the groomed jet momentum fraction, $z_{\mathrm{g}}$, and the
(scaled) groomed jet radius, $\theta_{\mathrm{g}}$, of charged-particle jets
measured in $\mathrm{p\kern-0.50003ptp}$ and Pb–Pb collisions at
$\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV with the ALICE detector. By using stronger
grooming conditions in the SD grooming algorithm, we suppressed contamination
of mistagged splittings from the underlying event, and unfolded the final
distributions for detector and background fluctuation effects. This allows for
the first time the direct comparison of groomed jet measurements in heavy-ion
collisions with theoretical predictions of jet quenching in the QGP. The
$z_{\mathrm{g}}$ distributions are consistent with no modification in Pb–Pb
collisions compared to $\mathrm{p\kern-0.50003ptp}$ collisions. The
$\theta_{\mathrm{g}}$ distributions are narrower in Pb–Pb collisions compared
to $\mathrm{p\kern-0.50003ptp}$ collisions, which is the first direct
experimental evidence for the modification of the angular scale of groomed
jets in heavy-ion collisions.

These new results demonstrate sensitivity to the microscopic structure of the
QGP, including its angular resolving power. This marks an important step
towards quantitative understanding of the properties of the QGP, and provides
a new path for novel differential jet substructure measurements to further
elucidate the microscopic nature of the QGP.

## Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge Paul Caucal, Yang-Ting Chien, Daniel Pablos,
Chanwook Park, Guang-You Qin, Gregory Soyez, Feng Yuan, and the JETSCAPE
Collaboration for providing theoretical predictions. We thank Korinna Zapp for
discussions regarding recoil subtraction in the JEWEL model.

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; 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; Indonesian Institute of Science, Indonesia; Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), Italy; Institute for Innovative Science and Technology , Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science (IIST), 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 and Ministry of Research and Innovation and Institute of Atomic Physics, Romania; Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR), Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Russian Science Foundation and Russian Foundation for Basic Research, Russia; 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 (NSDTA) and Office of the Higher Education Commission under NRU project of Thailand, 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.

## References

  * [1] STAR Collaboration, J. Adams et al., “Experimental and theoretical challenges in the search for the quark gluon plasma: The STAR Collaboration’s critical assessment of the evidence from RHIC collisions”, Nucl. Phys. A 757 (2005) 102–183, arXiv:nucl-ex/0501009.
  * [2] PHENIX Collaboration, K. Adcox et al., “Formation of dense partonic matter in relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC: Experimental evaluation by the PHENIX collaboration”, Nucl. Phys. A 757 (2005) 184–283, arXiv:nucl-ex/0410003.
  * [3] B. Müller, J. Schukraft, and B. Wysłouch, “First Results from Pb+Pb Collisions at the LHC”, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. S. 62 (2012) 361–386.
  * [4] P. Braun-Munzinger, V. Koch, T. Schäfer, and J. Stachel, “Properties of hot and dense matter from relativistic heavy ion collisions”, Phys. Rept. 621 (2016) 76–126.
  * [5] W. Busza, K. Rajagopal, and W. van der Schee, “Heavy Ion Collisions: The Big Picture, and the Big Questions”, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68 (2018) 339–376.
  * [6] J. D. Bjorken, “Highly relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions: The central rapidity region”, Phys. Rev. D 27 (1983) 140–151.
  * [7] G.-Y. Qin and X.-N. Wang, “Jet quenching in high-energy heavy-ion collisions”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 24 (2015) 1530014.
  * [8] J.-P. Blaizot and Y. Mehtar-Tani, “Jet structure in heavy ion collisions”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 24 (2015) 1530012.
  * [9] A. Majumder and M. van Leeuwen, “The theory and phenomenology of perturbative QCD based jet quenching”, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 66 (2011) 41–92.
  * [10] ALICE Collaboration, “Measurements of inclusive jet spectra in $\mathrm{p\kern-0.50003ptp}$ and central Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02\phantom{\rule{1.60004pt}{0.0pt}}\mathrm{TeV}$”, Phys. Rev. C 101 (2020) 034911.
  * [11] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the nuclear modification factor for inclusive jets in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”, Phys. Lett. B 790 (2019) 108–128.
  * [12] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of inclusive jet cross sections in $\mathrm{p\kern-0.50003ptp}$ and Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76$ TeV”, Phys. Rev. C 96 (2017) 015202.
  * [13] STAR Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Measurement of inclusive charged-particle jet production in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=$200 GeV”, Phys. Rev. C 102 no. 5, (2020) 054913, arXiv:2006.00582 [nucl-ex].
  * [14] ALICE Collaboration, “Measurement of jet quenching with semi-inclusive hadron-jet distributions in central Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{{s}_{\rm NN}}=2.76$ TeV”, J. High Energ. Phys. 2015 (2015) 170.
  * [15] STAR Collaboration, “Measurements of jet quenching with semi-inclusive hadron+jet distributions in $\text{Au}+\text{Au}$ collisions at $\sqrt{{s}_{NN}}=200$ GeV”, Phys. Rev. C 96 (2017) 024905.
  * [16] ALICE Collaboration, “Medium modification of the shape of small-radius jets in central Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76$ TeV”, J. High Energ. Phys. 2018 (2018) 139.
  * [17] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of jet fragmentation in Pb–Pb and $\mathrm{p\kern-0.50003ptp}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”, Phys. Rev. C 98 (2018) 024908.
  * [18] CMS Collaboration, “Modification of jet shapes in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76$ TeV”, Physics Letters B 730 (2014) 243–263.
  * [19] A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and J. Thaler, “Soft Drop”, J. High Energ. Phys. 05 (2014) 146.
  * [20] M. Dasgupta, A. Fregoso, S. Marzani, and G. P. Salam, “Towards an understanding of jet substructure”, J. High Energ. Phys. 09 (2013) 029.
  * [21] A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, and J. Thaler, “Sudakov Safety in Perturbative QCD”, Phys. Rev. D91 (2015) 111501.
  * [22] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the Splitting Function in $\mathrm{p\kern-0.50003ptp}$ and Pb–Pb Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 142302.
  * [23] ALICE Collaboration, “Exploration of jet substructure using iterative declustering in pp and Pb–Pb collisions at LHC energies”, Phys. Lett. B 802 (2020) 135227.
  * [24] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the groomed jet mass in Pb–Pb and $\mathrm{p\kern-0.50003ptp}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV”, J. High Energ. Phys. 2018 (2018) 161.
  * [25] Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. D. Leder, S. Moretti, and B. R. Webber, “Better jet clustering algorithms”, JHEP 08 (1997) 001, arXiv:hep-ph/9707323.
  * [26] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of soft-drop jet observables in $\mathrm{p\kern-0.50003ptp}$ collisions with the ATLAS detector at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=13$ TeV”, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 052007.
  * [27] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of jet substructure observables in $t\overline{t}$ events from proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{TeV}$”, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 092014.
  * [28] A. Tripathee, W. Xue, A. Larkoski, S. Marzani, and J. Thaler, “Jet Substructure Studies with CMS Open Data”, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 074003.
  * [29] STAR Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Measurement of groomed jet substructure observables in p+p collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ =200 GeV with STAR”, Phys. Lett. B 811 (2020) 135846, arXiv:2003.02114 [hep-ex].
  * [30] Z.-B. Kang, K. Lee, X. Liu, D. Neill, and F. Ringer, “The soft drop groomed jet radius at NLL”, J. High Energ. Phys. 02 (2020) 054, arXiv:1908.01783 [hep-ph].
  * [31] F. Ringer, B.-W. Xiao, and F. Yuan, “Can we observe jet $P_{T}$-broadening in heavy-ion collisions at the LHC?”, Phys. Lett. B 808 (2020) 135634, arXiv:1907.12541 [hep-ph].
  * [32] J. Casalderrey-Solana, Y. Mehtar-Tani, C. A. Salgado, and K. Tywoniuk, “New picture of jet quenching dictated by color coherence”, Phys. Lett. B 725 (2013) 357–360.
  * [33] Y.-T. Chien and I. Vitev, “Probing the Hardest Branching within Jets in Heavy-Ion Collisions”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 112301.
  * [34] P. Caucal, E. Iancu, and G. Soyez, “Deciphering the $z_{g}$ distribution in ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions”, J. High Energ. Phys. 10 (2019) 273.
  * [35] N.-B. Chang, S. Cao, and G.-Y. Qin, “Probing medium-induced jet splitting and energy loss in heavy-ion collisions”, Physics Letters B 781 (2018) 423–432.
  * [36] J. Casalderrey-Solana, G. Milhano, D. Pablos, and K. Rajagopal, “Modification of Jet Substructure in Heavy Ion Collisions as a Probe of the Resolution Length of Quark-Gluon Plasma”, J. High Energ. Phys. 01 (2020) 044.
  * [37] J. Mulligan and M. Ploskon, “Identifying groomed jet splittings in heavy-ion collisions”, Phys. Rev. C 102 (2020) 044913, arXiv:2006.01812 [hep-ph].
  * [38] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC”, JINST 3 (2008) S08002.
  * [39] ALICE Collaboration, “Performance of the ALICE Experiment at the CERN LHC”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29 (2014) 1430044.
  * [40] ALICE Collaboration, “Performance of the ALICE VZERO system”, JINST 8 (2013) P10016.
  * [41] ALICE Collaboration, “Centrality determination of Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76$ TeV with ALICE”, Phys. Rev. C 88 (2013) 044909.
  * [42] ALICE Collaboration, “Centrality determination in heavy-ion collisions.”  http://cds.cern.ch/record/2636623.
  * [43] ALICE Collaboration, “ALICE 2017 luminosity determination for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$5 TeV”,. http://cds.cern.ch/record/2648933.
  * [44] J. Alme and et al., “The ALICE TPC, a large 3-dimensional tracking device with fast readout for ultra-high multiplicity events”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 622 (2010) 316–367.
  * [45] ALICE Collaboration, “Alignment of the ALICE Inner Tracking System with cosmic-ray tracks”, JINST 5 (2010) P03003.
  * [46] H.-M. Chang, M. Procura, J. Thaler, and W. J. Waalewijn, “Calculating Track-Based Observables for the LHC”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (Sep, 2013) 102002, arXiv:1303.6637 [hep-ph].
  * [47] H. Chen, I. Moult, X. Zhang, and H. X. Zhu, “Rethinking jets with energy correlators: Tracks, resummation, and analytic continuation”, Phys. Rev. D 102 no. 5, (Sep, 2020) 054012, arXiv:2004.11381 [hep-ph].
  * [48] Y.-T. Chien, R. Rahn, S. Schrijnder van Velzen, D. Y. Shao, W. J. Waalewijn, and B. Wu, “Recoil-free azimuthal angle for precision boson-jet correlation”, Phys. Lett. B 815 (2021) 136124, arXiv:2005.12279 [hep-ph].
  * [49] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Measurement of soft-drop jet observables in $pp$ collisions with the ATLAS detector at $\sqrt{s}$ =13 TeV”, Phys. Rev. D 101 no. 5, (2020) 052007, arXiv:1912.09837 [hep-ex].
  * [50] ALICE Collaboration, “Supplemental material: Measurements of the groomed jet radius and groomed momentum fraction in pp and Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV.”  https://cds.cern.ch/record/2725572.
  * [51] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “FastJet User Manual”, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1896.
  * [52] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-$k_{t}$ jet clustering algorithm”, J. High Energ. Phys. 04 (2008) 063.
  * [53] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The Catchment Area of Jets”, J. High Energ. Phys. 04 (2008) 005.
  * [54] ALICE Collaboration, “Measurement of event background fluctuations for charged particle jet reconstruction in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76$ TeV”, J. High Energ. Phys. 2012 (2012) 53.
  * [55] P. Berta, M. Spousta, D. W. Miller, and R. Leitner, “Particle-level pileup subtraction for jets and jet shapes”, J. High Energ. Phys. 06 (2014) 092.
  * [56] P. Berta, L. Masetti, D. Miller, and M. Spousta, “Pileup and Underlying Event Mitigation with Iterative Constituent Subtraction”, J. High Energ. Phys. 08 (2019) 175.
  * [57] T. Sjostrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen, and P. Z. Skands, “An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2”, Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159–177.
  * [58] 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.  CERN, Geneva, 1987.  https://cds.cern.ch/record/1119728.
  * [59] G. D’Agostini, “A multidimensional unfolding method based on bayes’ theorem”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 362 (1995) 487 – 498.
  * [60] “RooUnfold.”  http://hepunx.rl.ac.uk/~adye/software/unfold/RooUnfold.html. Access date: May 31 2020.
  * [61] J. Bellm et al., “Herwig 7.0/Herwig++ 3.0 release note”, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 no. 4, (Apr, 2016) 196, arXiv:1512.01178 [hep-ph].
  * [62] K. C. Zapp, “JEWEL 2.0.0: directions for use”, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 no. 2, (2014) 2762, arXiv:1311.0048 [hep-ph].
  * [63] JETSCAPE Collaboration, J. Putschke et al., “The JETSCAPE framework”, arXiv:1903.07706 [nucl-th].
  * [64] K. C. Zapp, F. Krauss, and U. A. Wiedemann, “A perturbative framework for jet quenching”, J. High Energ. Phys. 03 (2013) 080, arXiv:1212.1599 [hep-ph].
  * [65] P. Caucal, E. Iancu, A. H. Mueller, and G. Soyez, “Vacuum-like jet fragmentation in a dense QCD medium”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 232001, arXiv:1801.09703 [hep-ph].
  * [66] J. Casalderrey-Solana, D. C. Gulhan, J. G. Milhano, D. Pablos, and K. Rajagopal, “A Hybrid Strong/Weak Coupling Approach to Jet Quenching”, J. High Energ. Phys. 10 (2014) 019, arXiv:1405.3864 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: JHEP 09 (2015), 175].
  * [67] Z. Hulcher, D. Pablos, and K. Rajagopal, “Resolution Effects in the Hybrid Strong/Weak Coupling Model”, J. High Energ. Phys. 03 (2018) 010, arXiv:1707.05245 [hep-ph].
  * [68] A. Majumder, “Incorporating Space-Time Within Medium-Modified Jet Event Generators”, Phys. Rev. C 88 (2013) 014909, arXiv:1301.5323 [nucl-th].
  * [69] Y. He, T. Luo, X.-N. Wang, and Y. Zhu, “Linear Boltzmann Transport for Jet Propagation in the Quark-Gluon Plasma: Elastic Processes and Medium Recoil”, Phys. Rev. C 91 (2015) 054908, arXiv:1503.03313 [nucl-th]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 97 (2018), 019902].
  * [70] R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli and K. C. Zapp, “Medium response in JEWEL and its impact on jet shape observables in heavy ion collisions”, JHEP 07 (2017) 141, arXiv:1707.01539 [hep-ph].
  * [71] J.-W. Qiu, F. Ringer, N. Sato, and P. Zurita, “Factorization of jet cross sections in heavy-ion collisions”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) 252301.

##  Appendix A The ALICE Collaboration

S. Acharya143, D. Adamová98, A. Adler76, G. Aglieri Rinella35, M. Agnello31,
N. Agrawal55, Z. Ahammed143, S. Ahmad16, S.U. Ahn78, I. Ahuja39, Z. Akbar52,
A. Akindinov95, M. Al-Turany110, S.N. Alam16,41, D. Aleksandrov91, B.
Alessandro61, H.M. Alfanda7, R. Alfaro Molina73, B. Ali16, Y. Ali14, A.
Alici26, N. Alizadehvandchali127, A. Alkin35, J. Alme21, T. Alt70, L.
Altenkamper21, I. Altsybeev115, M.N. Anaam7, C. Andrei49, D. Andreou93, A.
Andronic146, M. Angeletti35, V. Anguelov107, F. Antinori58, P. Antonioli55, C.
Anuj16, N. Apadula82, L. Aphecetche117, H. Appelshäuser70, S. Arcelli26, R.
Arnaldi61, I.C. Arsene20, M. Arslandok148,107, A. Augustinus35, R.
Averbeck110, S. Aziz80, M.D. Azmi16, A. Badalà57, Y.W. Baek42, X. Bai131,110,
R. Bailhache70, Y. Bailung51, R. Bala104, A. Balbino31, A. Baldisseri140, B.
Balis2, M. Ball44, D. Banerjee4, R. Barbera27, L. Barioglio108, M. Barlou87,
G.G. Barnaföldi147, L.S. Barnby97, V. Barret137, C. Bartels130, K. Barth35, E.
Bartsch70, F. Baruffaldi28, N. Bastid137, S. Basu83, G. Batigne117, B.
Batyunya77, D. Bauri50, J.L. Bazo Alba114, I.G. Bearden92, C. Beattie148, I.
Belikov139, A.D.C. Bell Hechavarria146, F. Bellini26, R. Bellwied127, S.
Belokurova115, V. Belyaev96, G. Bencedi71, S. Beole25, A. Bercuci49, Y.
Berdnikov101, A. Berdnikova107, L. Bergmann107, M.G. Besoiu69, L. Betev35,
P.P. Bhaduri143, A. Bhasin104, I.R. Bhat104, M.A. Bhat4, B. Bhattacharjee43,
P. Bhattacharya23, L. Bianchi25, N. Bianchi53, J. Bielčík38, J. Bielčíková98,
J. Biernat120, A. Bilandzic108, G. Biro147, S. Biswas4, J.T. Blair121, D.
Blau91,84, M.B. Blidaru110, C. Blume70, G. Boca29,59, F. Bock99, A.
Bogdanov96, S. Boi23, J. Bok63, L. Boldizsár147, A. Bolozdynya96, M.
Bombara39, P.M. Bond35, G. Bonomi142,59, H. Borel140, A. Borissov84, H.
Bossi148, E. Botta25, L. Bratrud70, P. Braun-Munzinger110, M. Bregant123, M.
Broz38, G.E. Bruno109,34, M.D. Buckland130, D. Budnikov111, H. Buesching70, S.
Bufalino31, O. Bugnon117, P. Buhler116, Z. Buthelezi74,134, J.B. Butt14, S.A.
Bysiak120, M. Cai28,7, H. Caines148, A. Caliva110, E. Calvo Villar114, J.M.M.
Camacho122, R.S. Camacho46, P. Camerini24, F.D.M. Canedo123, F.
Carnesecchi35,26, R. Caron140, J. Castillo Castellanos140, E.A.R. Casula23, F.
Catalano31, C. Ceballos Sanchez77, P. Chakraborty50, S. Chandra143, S.
Chapeland35, M. Chartier130, S. Chattopadhyay143, S. Chattopadhyay112, A.
Chauvin23, T.G. Chavez46, T. Cheng7, C. Cheshkov138, B. Cheynis138, V.
Chibante Barroso35, D.D. Chinellato124, S. Cho63, P. Chochula35, P.
Christakoglou93, C.H. Christensen92, P. Christiansen83, T. Chujo136, C.
Cicalo56, L. Cifarelli26, F. Cindolo55, M.R. Ciupek110, G. ClaiII,55, J.
CleymansI,126, F. Colamaria54, J.S. Colburn113, D. Colella109,54,34,147, A.
Collu82, M. Colocci35, M. ConcasIII,61, G. Conesa Balbastre81, Z. Conesa del
Valle80, G. Contin24, J.G. Contreras38, M.L. Coquet140, T.M. Cormier99, P.
Cortese32, M.R. Cosentino125, F. Costa35, S. Costanza29,59, P. Crochet137, R.
Cruz-Torres82, E. Cuautle71, P. Cui7, L. Cunqueiro99, A. Dainese58, M.C.
Danisch107, A. Danu69, I. Das112, P. Das89, P. Das4, S. Das4, S. Dash50, S.
De89, A. De Caro30, G. de Cataldo54, L. De Cilladi25, J. de Cuveland40, A. De
Falco23, D. De Gruttola30, N. De Marco61, C. De Martin24, S. De Pasquale30, S.
Deb51, H.F. Degenhardt123, K.R. Deja144, L. Dello Stritto30, S. Delsanto25, W.
Deng7, P. Dhankher19, D. Di Bari34, A. Di Mauro35, R.A. Diaz8, T. Dietel126,
Y. Ding138,7, R. Divià35, D.U. Dixit19, Ø. Djuvsland21, U. Dmitrieva65, J.
Do63, A. Dobrin69, B. Dönigus70, O. Dordic20, A.K. Dubey143, A. Dubla110,93,
S. Dudi103, M. Dukhishyam89, P. Dupieux137, N. Dzalaiova13, T.M. Eder146, R.J.
Ehlers99, V.N. Eikeland21, F. Eisenhut70, D. Elia54, B. Erazmus117, F.
Ercolessi26, F. Erhardt102, A. Erokhin115, M.R. Ersdal21, B. Espagnon80, G.
Eulisse35, D. Evans113, S. Evdokimov94, L. Fabbietti108, M. Faggin28, J.
Faivre81, F. Fan7, A. Fantoni53, M. Fasel99, P. Fecchio31, A. Feliciello61, G.
Feofilov115, A. Fernández Téllez46, A. Ferrero140, A. Ferretti25, V.J.G.
Feuillard107, J. Figiel120, S. Filchagin111, D. Finogeev65, F.M. Fionda56,21,
G. Fiorenza35,109, F. Flor127, A.N. Flores121, S. Foertsch74, P. Foka110, S.
Fokin91, E. Fragiacomo62, E. Frajna147, U. Fuchs35, N. Funicello30, C.
Furget81, A. Furs65, J.J. Gaardhøje92, M. Gagliardi25, A.M. Gago114, A.
Gal139, C.D. Galvan122, P. Ganoti87, C. Garabatos110, J.R.A. Garcia46, E.
Garcia-Solis10, K. Garg117, C. Gargiulo35, A. Garibli90, K. Garner146, P.
Gasik110, E.F. Gauger121, A. Gautam129, M.B. Gay Ducati72, M. Germain117, P.
Ghosh143, S.K. Ghosh4, M. Giacalone26, P. Gianotti53, P. Giubellino110,61, P.
Giubilato28, A.M.C. Glaenzer140, P. Glässel107, D.J.Q. Goh85, V. Gonzalez145,
L.H. González-Trueba73, S. Gorbunov40, M. Gorgon2, L. Görlich120, S.
Gotovac36, V. Grabski73, L.K. Graczykowski144, L. Greiner82, A. Grelli64, C.
Grigoras35, V. Grigoriev96, S. Grigoryan77,1, O.S. Groettvik21, F. Grosa35,61,
J.F. Grosse-Oetringhaus35, R. Grosso110, G.G. Guardiano124, R. Guernane81, M.
Guilbaud117, K. Gulbrandsen92, T. Gunji135, W. Guo7, A. Gupta104, R. Gupta104,
S.P. Guzman46, L. Gyulai147, M.K. Habib110, C. Hadjidakis80, G. Halimoglu70,
H. Hamagaki85, G. Hamar147, M. Hamid7, R. Hannigan121, M.R. Haque144,89, A.
Harlenderova110, J.W. Harris148, A. Harton10, J.A. Hasenbichler35, H.
Hassan99, D. Hatzifotiadou55, P. Hauer44, L.B. Havener148, S. Hayashi135, S.T.
Heckel108, E. Hellbär110, H. Helstrup37, T. Herman38, E.G. Hernandez46, G.
Herrera Corral9, F. Herrmann146, K.F. Hetland37, H. Hillemanns35, C. Hills130,
B. Hippolyte139, B. Hofman64, B. Hohlweger93, J. Honermann146, G.H. Hong149,
D. Horak38, S. Hornung110, A. Horzyk2, R. Hosokawa15, Y. Hou7, P. Hristov35,
C. Hughes133, P. Huhn70, T.J. Humanic100, H. Hushnud112, L.A. Husova146, A.
Hutson127, D. Hutter40, J.P. Iddon35,130, R. Ilkaev111, H. Ilyas14, M.
Inaba136, G.M. Innocenti35, M. Ippolitov91, A. Isakov38,98, M.S. Islam112, M.
Ivanov110, V. Ivanov101, V. Izucheev94, M. Jablonski2, B. Jacak82, N.
Jacazio35, P.M. Jacobs82, S. Jadlovska119, J. Jadlovsky119, S. Jaelani64, C.
Jahnke124,123, M.J. Jakubowska144, A. Jalotra104, M.A. Janik144, T. Janson76,
M. Jercic102, O. Jevons113, A.A.P. Jimenez71, F. Jonas99,146, P.G. Jones113,
J.M. Jowett 35,110, J. Jung70, M. Jung70, A. Junique35, A. Jusko113, J.
Kaewjai118, P. Kalinak66, A. Kalweit35, V. Kaplin96, S. Kar7, A. Karasu
Uysal79, D. Karatovic102, O. Karavichev65, T. Karavicheva65, P.
Karczmarczyk144, E. Karpechev65, A. Kazantsev91, U. Kebschull76, R. Keidel48,
D.L.D. Keijdener64, M. Keil35, B. Ketzer44, Z. Khabanova93, A.M. Khan7, S.
Khan16, A. Khanzadeev101, Y. Kharlov94,84, A. Khatun16, A. Khuntia120, B.
Kileng37, B. Kim17,63, C. Kim17, D.J. Kim128, E.J. Kim75, J. Kim149, J.S.
Kim42, J. Kim107, J. Kim149, J. Kim75, M. Kim107, S. Kim18, T. Kim149, S.
Kirsch70, I. Kisel40, S. Kiselev95, A. Kisiel144, J.P. Kitowski2, J.L. Klay6,
J. Klein35, S. Klein82, C. Klein-Bösing146, M. Kleiner70, T. Klemenz108, A.
Kluge35, A.G. Knospe127, C. Kobdaj118, M.K. Köhler107, T. Kollegger110, A.
Kondratyev77, N. Kondratyeva96, E. Kondratyuk94, J. Konig70, S.A.
Konigstorfer108, P.J. Konopka35,2, G. Kornakov144, S.D. Koryciak2, L.
Koska119, A. Kotliarov98, O. Kovalenko88, V. Kovalenko115, M. Kowalski120, I.
Králik66, A. Kravčáková39, L. Kreis110, M. Krivda113,66, F. Krizek98, K.
Krizkova Gajdosova38, M. Kroesen107, M. Krüger70, E. Kryshen101, M.
Krzewicki40, V. Kučera35, C. Kuhn139, P.G. Kuijer93, T. Kumaoka136, D.
Kumar143, L. Kumar103, N. Kumar103, S. Kundu35,89, P. Kurashvili88, A.
Kurepin65, A.B. Kurepin65, A. Kuryakin111, S. Kushpil98, J. Kvapil113, M.J.
Kweon63, J.Y. Kwon63, Y. Kwon149, S.L. La Pointe40, P. La Rocca27, Y.S. Lai82,
A. Lakrathok118, M. Lamanna35, R. Langoy132, K. Lapidus35, P. Larionov35,53,
E. Laudi35, L. Lautner35,108, R. Lavicka38, T. Lazareva115, R. Lea142,24,59,
J. Lehrbach40, R.C. Lemmon97, I. León Monzón122, E.D. Lesser19, M.
Lettrich35,108, P. Lévai147, X. Li11, X.L. Li7, J. Lien132, R. Lietava113, B.
Lim17, S.H. Lim17, V. Lindenstruth40, A. Lindner49, C. Lippmann110, A. Liu19,
D.H. Liu7, J. Liu130, I.M. Lofnes21, V. Loginov96, C. Loizides99, P. Loncar36,
J.A. Lopez107, X. Lopez137, E. López Torres8, J.R. Luhder146, M. Lunardon28,
G. Luparello62, Y.G. Ma41, A. Maevskaya65, M. Mager35, T. Mahmoud44, A.
Maire139, M. Malaev101, N.M. Malik104, Q.W. Malik20, L. MalininaIV,77, D.
Mal’Kevich95, N. Mallick51, P. Malzacher110, G. Mandaglio33,57, V. Manko91, F.
Manso137, V. Manzari54, Y. Mao7, J. Mareš68, G.V. Margagliotti24, A.
Margotti55, A. Marín110, C. Markert121, M. Marquard70, N.A. Martin107, P.
Martinengo35, J.L. Martinez127, M.I. Martínez46, G. Martínez García117, S.
Masciocchi110, M. Masera25, A. Masoni56, L. Massacrier80, A.
Mastroserio141,54, A.M. Mathis108, O. Matonoha83, P.F.T. Matuoka123, A.
Matyja120, C. Mayer120, A.L. Mazuecos35, F. Mazzaschi25, M. Mazzilli35, M.A.
MazzoniI,60, J.E. Mdhluli134, A.F. Mechler70, F. Meddi22, Y. Melikyan65, A.
Menchaca-Rocha73, E. Meninno116,30, A.S. Menon127, M. Meres13, S.
Mhlanga126,74, Y. Miake136, L. Micheletti61,25, L.C. Migliorin138, D.L.
Mihaylov108, K. Mikhaylov77,95, A.N. Mishra147, D. Miśkowiec110, A. Modak4,
A.P. Mohanty64, B. Mohanty89, M. Mohisin KhanV,16, M.A. Molander45, Z.
Moravcova92, C. Mordasini108, D.A. Moreira De Godoy146, L.A.P. Moreno46, I.
Morozov65, A. Morsch35, T. Mrnjavac35, V. Muccifora53, E. Mudnic36, D.
Mühlheim146, S. Muhuri143, J.D. Mulligan82, A. Mulliri23, M.G. Munhoz123, R.H.
Munzer70, H. Murakami135, S. Murray126, L. Musa35, J. Musinsky66, J.W.
Myrcha144, B. Naik134,50, R. Nair88, B.K. Nandi50, R. Nania55, E. Nappi54,
A.F. Nassirpour83, A. Nath107, C. Nattrass133, A. Neagu20, L. Nellen71, S.V.
Nesbo37, G. Neskovic40, D. Nesterov115, B.S. Nielsen92, S. Nikolaev91, S.
Nikulin91, V. Nikulin101, F. Noferini55, S. Noh12, P. Nomokonov77, J.
Norman130, N. Novitzky136, P. Nowakowski144, A. Nyanin91, J. Nystrand21, M.
Ogino85, A. Ohlson83, V.A. Okorokov96, J. Oleniacz144, A.C. Oliveira Da
Silva133, M.H. Oliver148, A. Onnerstad128, C. Oppedisano61, A. Ortiz
Velasquez71, T. Osako47, A. Oskarsson83, J. Otwinowski120, M. Oya47, K.
Oyama85, Y. Pachmayer107, S. Padhan50, D. Pagano142,59, G. Paić71, A.
Palasciano54, J. Pan145, S. Panebianco140, P. Pareek143, J. Park63, J.E.
Parkkila128, S.P. Pathak127, R.N. Patra104,35, B. Paul23, H. Pei7, T.
Peitzmann64, X. Peng7, L.G. Pereira72, H. Pereira Da Costa140, D.
Peresunko91,84, G.M. Perez8, S. Perrin140, Y. Pestov5, V. Petráček38, M.
Petrovici49, R.P. Pezzi117,72, S. Piano62, M. Pikna13, P. Pillot117, O.
Pinazza55,35, L. Pinsky127, C. Pinto27, S. Pisano53, M. Płoskoń82, M.
Planinic102, F. Pliquett70, M.G. Poghosyan99, B. Polichtchouk94, S.
Politano31, N. Poljak102, A. Pop49, S. Porteboeuf-Houssais137, J. Porter82, V.
Pozdniakov77, S.K. Prasad4, R. Preghenella55, F. Prino61, C.A. Pruneau145, I.
Pshenichnov65, M. Puccio35, S. Qiu93, L. Quaglia25, R.E. Quishpe127, S.
Ragoni113, A. Rakotozafindrabe140, L. Ramello32, F. Rami139, S.A.R. Ramirez46,
A.G.T. Ramos34, T.A. Rancien81, R. Raniwala105, S. Raniwala105, S.S.
Räsänen45, R. Rath51, I. Ravasenga93, K.F. Read99,133, A.R. Redelbach40, K.
RedlichVI,88, A. Rehman21, P. Reichelt70, F. Reidt35, H.A. Reme-ness37, R.
Renfordt70, Z. Rescakova39, K. Reygers107, A. Riabov101, V. Riabov101, T.
Richert83, M. Richter20, W. Riegler35, F. Riggi27, C. Ristea69, M. Rodríguez
Cahuantzi46, K. Røed20, R. Rogalev94, E. Rogochaya77, T.S. Rogoschinski70, D.
Rohr35, D. Röhrich21, P.F. Rojas46, P.S. Rokita144, F. Ronchetti53, A.
Rosano33,57, E.D. Rosas71, A. Rossi58, A. Rotondi29,59, A. Roy51, P. Roy112,
S. Roy50, N. Rubini26, O.V. Rueda83, R. Rui24, B. Rumyantsev77, P.G. Russek2,
A. Rustamov90, E. Ryabinkin91, Y. Ryabov101, A. Rybicki120, H. Rytkonen128, W.
Rzesa144, O.A.M. Saarimaki45, R. Sadek117, S. Sadovsky94, J. Saetre21, K.
Šafařík38, S.K. Saha143, S. Saha89, B. Sahoo50, P. Sahoo50, R. Sahoo51, S.
Sahoo67, D. Sahu51, P.K. Sahu67, J. Saini143, S. Sakai136, S. Sambyal104, V.
SamsonovI,101,96, D. Sarkar145, N. Sarkar143, P. Sarma43, V.M. Sarti108,
M.H.P. Sas148, J. Schambach99,121, H.S. Scheid70, C. Schiaua49, R.
Schicker107, A. Schmah107, C. Schmidt110, H.R. Schmidt106, M.O. Schmidt35, M.
Schmidt106, N.V. Schmidt99,70, A.R. Schmier133, R. Schotter139, J.
Schukraft35, Y. Schutz139, K. Schwarz110, K. Schweda110, G. Scioli26, E.
Scomparin61, J.E. Seger15, Y. Sekiguchi135, D. Sekihata135, I.
Selyuzhenkov110,96, S. Senyukov139, J.J. Seo63, D. Serebryakov65, L.
Šerkšnytė108, A. Sevcenco69, T.J. Shaba74, A. Shabanov65, A. Shabetai117, R.
Shahoyan35, W. Shaikh112, A. Shangaraev94, A. Sharma103, H. Sharma120, M.
Sharma104, N. Sharma103, S. Sharma104, U. Sharma104, O. Sheibani127, K.
Shigaki47, M. Shimomura86, S. Shirinkin95, Q. Shou41, Y. Sibiriak91, S.
Siddhanta56, T. Siemiarczuk88, T.F. Silva123, D. Silvermyr83, G. Simonetti35,
B. Singh108, R. Singh89, R. Singh104, R. Singh51, V.K. Singh143, V.
Singhal143, T. Sinha112, B. Sitar13, M. Sitta32, T.B. Skaali20, G.
Skorodumovs107, M. Slupecki45, N. Smirnov148, R.J.M. Snellings64, C.
Soncco114, J. Song127, A. Songmoolnak118, F. Soramel28, S. Sorensen133, I.
Sputowska120, J. Stachel107, I. Stan69, P.J. Steffanic133, S.F.
Stiefelmaier107, D. Stocco117, I. Storehaug20, M.M. Storetvedt37, C.P.
Stylianidis93, A.A.P. Suaide123, T. Sugitate47, C. Suire80, M. Sukhanov65, M.
Suljic35, R. Sultanov95, M. Šumbera98, V. Sumberia104, S. Sumowidagdo52, S.
Swain67, A. Szabo13, I. Szarka13, U. Tabassam14, S.F. Taghavi108, G.
Taillepied137, J. Takahashi124, G.J. Tambave21, S. Tang137,7, Z. Tang131, J.D.
Tapia TakakiVII,129, M. Tarhini117, M.G. Tarzila49, A. Tauro35, G. Tejeda
Muñoz46, A. Telesca35, L. Terlizzi25, C. Terrevoli127, G. Tersimonov3, S.
Thakur143, D. Thomas121, R. Tieulent138, A. Tikhonov65, A.R. Timmins127, M.
Tkacik119, A. Toia70, N. Topilskaya65, M. Toppi53, F. Torales-Acosta19, T.
Tork80, S.R. Torres38, A. Trifiró33,57, S. Tripathy55,71, T. Tripathy50, S.
Trogolo35,28, G. Trombetta34, V. Trubnikov3, W.H. Trzaska128, T.P.
Trzcinski144, B.A. Trzeciak38, A. Tumkin111, R. Turrisi58, T.S. Tveter20, K.
Ullaland21, A. Uras138, M. Urioni59,142, G.L. Usai23, M. Vala39, N.
Valle59,29, S. Vallero61, N. van der Kolk64, L.V.R. van Doremalen64, M. van
Leeuwen93, P. Vande Vyvre35, D. Varga147, Z. Varga147, M. Varga-Kofarago147,
A. Vargas46, M. Vasileiou87, A. Vasiliev91, O. Vázquez Doce53,108, V.
Vechernin115, E. Vercellin25, S. Vergara Limón46, L. Vermunt64, R. Vértesi147,
M. Verweij64, L. Vickovic36, Z. Vilakazi134, O. Villalobos Baillie113, G.
Vino54, A. Vinogradov91, T. Virgili30, V. Vislavicius92, A. Vodopyanov77, B.
Volkel35, M.A. Völkl107, K. Voloshin95, S.A. Voloshin145, G. Volpe34, B. von
Haller35, I. Vorobyev108, D. Voscek119, N. Vozniuk65, J. Vrláková39, B.
Wagner21, C. Wang41, D. Wang41, M. Weber116, R.J.G.V. Weelden93, A.
Wegrzynek35, S.C. Wenzel35, J.P. Wessels146, J. Wiechula70, J. Wikne20, G.
Wilk88, J. Wilkinson110, G.A. Willems146, B. Windelband107, M. Winn140, W.E.
Witt133, J.R. Wright121, W. Wu41, Y. Wu131, R. Xu7, A.K. Yadav143, S.
Yalcin79, Y. Yamaguchi47, K. Yamakawa47, S. Yang21, S. Yano47, Z. Yin7, H.
Yokoyama64, I.-K. Yoo17, J.H. Yoon63, S. Yuan21, A. Yuncu107, V. Zaccolo24, C.
Zampolli35, H.J.C. Zanoli64, N. Zardoshti35, A. Zarochentsev115, P. Závada68,
N. Zaviyalov111, M. Zhalov101, B. Zhang7, S. Zhang41, X. Zhang7, Y. Zhang131,
V. Zherebchevskii115, Y. Zhi11, N. Zhigareva95, D. Zhou7, Y. Zhou92, J.
Zhu7,110, Y. Zhu7, A. Zichichi26, G. Zinovjev3, N. Zurlo142,59

## Affiliation notes

I Deceased
II Also at: Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and
Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA), Bologna, Italy
III Also at: Dipartimento DET del Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy
IV Also at: M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, D.V. Skobeltsyn Institute
of Nuclear, Physics, Moscow, Russia
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: University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, United States

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