2023 154 26 July

Jets and Event-Shape Engineering

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

Charged-particle jet yields have been measured in semicentral Pb–Pb collisions
at center-of-mass energy per nucleon–nucleon collision
$\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~{}=~{}5.02$ TeV with the ALICE detector at the LHC.
These yields are reported as a function of the jet transverse momentum, and
further classified by their angle with respect to the event plane and the
event shape, characterized by ellipticity, in an effort to study the path-
length dependence of jet quenching. Jets were reconstructed at midrapidity
from charged-particle tracks using the anti-$k_{\rm T}$ algorithm with
resolution parameters $R$ = 0.2 and 0.4, with event-plane angle and event-
shape values determined using information from forward scintillating
detectors. The results presented in this letter show that, in semicentral
Pb–Pb collisions, there is no significant difference between jet yields in
predominantly isotropic and elliptical events. However, out-of-plane jets are
observed to be more suppressed than in-plane jets. Further, this relative
suppression is greater for low transverse momentum ($<$ 50 GeV/c) $R$ = 0.2
jets produced in elliptical events, with out-of-plane to in-plane jet-yield
ratios varying up to 5.2$\sigma$ between different event-shape classes. These
results agree with previous studies indicating that jets experience
azimuthally anisotropic suppression when traversing the QGP medium, and can
provide additional constraints on the path-length dependence of jet energy
loss.

##  1 Introduction

At very high energy densities, ordinary hadronic matter undergoes a transition
to become a strongly interacting state of deconfined quarks and gluons. This
new state of matter is referred to as the quark–gluon plasma (QGP) [1].
Calculations using quantum chromodynamics (QCD) on the lattice predict a
crossover transition between these phases at a temperature of about $150$ MeV
that can be reached in the laboratory via ultrarelativistic collisions of
heavy ions [2, 3]. Experimental studies of heavy-ion collisions thus offer a
compelling opportunity to explore the properties of the strongly interacting
medium, and form the main physics program of the ALICE experiment at the LHC
[4].

Jets, sprays of hadrons resulting from high-transverse-momentum ($p_{\rm T}$)
partons produced in hard-scattering processes, are sensitive to a variety of
QGP properties [5, 6, 7]. Because jets are produced early in a collision,
indeed much earlier than the formation of the QGP at $\tau_{\mathrm{QGP}}\sim
0.5$ fm/c, they experience its whole evolution. Jets interact with and are
modified by this medium as they traverse it, resulting in a collection of
effects known as jet quenching. The observation of jet quenching at both RHIC
and LHC energies is therefore considered to be a main signature of QGP
formation [8, 9, 10, 11], and the microscopic mechanism by which jet quenching
occurs has been the subject of significant theoretical and experimental
investigation. Models predict that partons can lose energy collisionally
and/or radiatively in the weakly-coupled limit, with radiative contributions
expected to dominate in the high-$p_{\rm T}$ regime [12, 13]. Moreover, it is
predicted that there is a direct relationship between the path-length
dependence of parton energy loss and the relative contributions of the
different mechanisms. In a static medium, collisional and radiative energy
loss are expected to have a linear and quadratic dependence on the length of
plasma traversed, respectively [14, 15]. Measuring this dependence would
therefore offer a direct way to probe the underlying mechanisms of jet–medium
interactions, but doing so has so far proven to be challenging. Past
measurements, e.g. the dijet asymmetry [16, 17, 18], are heavily influenced by
fluctuations in jet–medium interactions, making it difficult to extract an
underlying path-length dependence [19]. Another such measurement, the jet
$v_{\rm 2}$ (the second Fourier coefficient in the azimuthal distribution of
jet momenta in the transverse plane), shows a significant azimuthal anisotropy
in jet yields in Pb–Pb collisions [20, 21, 22]. However, medium fluctuations
limit the ability to constrain the underlying physics mechanisms that drive
this behavior.

Event-shape engineering (ESE) [23], a technique that classifies events
according to their anisotropies using the magnitude of the reduced flow
vector, offers a new experimental approach to overcome these difficulties and
constrain the path-length dependence of jet energy loss [24]. This approach is
advantageous in that it allows for the selection of events for which the
thermodynamic properties are similar, but for which the spatial anisotropies
vary significantly. This is done by isolating events within a centrality class
that have particularly round or elliptical geometries. Previous measurements
have shown that the elliptic flow coefficient $v_{2}$ of charged particles
varies significantly at a fixed collision centrality [25, 26, 27]. In
addition, the mean $p_{\rm T}$ of the particle yields is larger for elliptical
events than for isotropic events. Results using ESE in the heavy-flavor sector
show similar indications [28, 29]. These measurements reveal the sizeable
potential that ESE has to connect observables from the soft and hard momentum
scales.

Combining the precision afforded by jet measurements with the control that ESE
provides to constrain the collision geometry, it is possible to learn about
this interplay of physics phenomena from high to low $p_{\rm T}$ [30]. In the
analysis presented in this letter, this interplay is studied by considering an
event shape in conjunction with the jet angle with respect to the event-plane
$\Psi_{\rm 2}$, which is defined by the beam axis and the vector of the
collision impact parameter. The distance the jet traverses through the medium
when traveling parallel to the event plane (in-plane) is, on average, shorter
than when it travels perpendicular to the event plane (out-of-plane). As such,
the azimuthal anisotropy of the jet spectra provides initial information about
the path-length dependence of parton energy loss. By then applying ESE, the
relative difference between in- and out-of-plane jet path-lengths can be
increased or decreased. This is especially true in the case of semicentral
collisions, where the system is usually (but not necessarily) elliptical [30].
In semicentral Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=2.76$ TeV, the charged-
particle $v_{\rm 2}$ ratio for the 30% most elliptical events compared to the
30% most isotropic events is $\sim$1.3 [26]. This ratio was approximated by
considering the average of the charged-particle $v_{\rm 2}$ values reported in
differentiated centrality and ellipticity windows. With this in consideration,
comparing in- and out-of-plane jet spectra for events with different
ellipticities can reduce the contribution of medium shape fluctuations and
increase understanding of the path-length dependence of jet energy loss.

In this letter, results of event-shape engineered jet yields in 30–50% Pb–Pb
collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~{}=~{}5.02$ TeV are presented. Jets were
reconstructed from charged-particle tracks for resolution parameters $R=0.2$
and $R=0.4$, within a jet transverse-momentum range of $35<p_{\rm
T,ch\>jet}<120~{}$GeV/c and $40<p_{\rm T,ch\>jet}<120~{}$GeV/c, respectively.
The in-plane and out-of-plane jet yields are presented according to the
ellipticity of the collision system quantified event-by-event, which allows
for the exploitation of average differences in jet path length.

##  2 Experimental Setup

The ALICE experiment is a general-purpose detector located at the LHC. It is
optimized to provide high momentum resolution and excellent particle
identification over a broad momentum range, up to the highest multiplicities
[31]. The primary ALICE sub-detectors used in this analysis are the Inner
Tracking System (ITS), Time Projection Chamber (TPC), and V0 detectors. For
more information on the ALICE apparatus and its performance, see Refs. [32,
33].

The ITS is a silicon-based tracking detector used for reconstruction of
charged tracks and primary vertex identification [34]. It consists of six
layers having increasing radii around the nominal collision point. The first
two layers are Silicon Pixel Detectors (SPD), followed by two layers of
Silicon Drift Detectors (SDD), and two layers of Silicon Strip Detectors
(SSD). The TPC is a large cylindrical gaseous detector, covering a
pseudorapidity range of $|\eta|<0.9$ over the full azimuthal angle [35] and
providing excellent tracking performance up to high particle multiplicities
and momenta. The tracks used for jet reconstruction in this analysis were
measured by both the ITS and the TPC, and were accepted for $p_{\rm T}>0.15$
GeV/c and pseudorapitidies of $|\eta|<0.9$. The tracks have a momentum
resolution of $\sigma_{p_{\rm T}}/p_{\rm T}\sim 0.8\%$ at $p_{\rm T}=1$ GeV/c,
which increases to $\sigma_{p_{\rm T}}/p_{\rm T}\sim 2\%$ at $p_{\rm T}=10$
GeV/c [33]. In central Pb–Pb collisions, the tracking efficiency ranges from
approximately $65\%$ to $82\%$ for increasing $p_{\rm T}$ [8].

The V0A and V0C, scintillation detectors located at pseudorapidities
$2.8<\eta<5.1$ and $-3.7<\eta<-1.7$, respectively, were used to select the
Pb–Pb minimum-bias and semicentral events according to their summed amplitudes
[36, 37]. In this analysis, the V0C was used for calculating the reduced flow
vector $q_{\rm 2}$, defined in Eq. 1, as it is closer to midrapidity than the
V0A. It can therefore produce a wider $q_{\rm 2}$ distribution, thus accessing
the best separation between different event shapes. The V0A was used for
calculating event-plane angles. Using these forward detectors to measure the
event shape and event-plane angle minimizes the autocorrelations between these
quantities and the charged-particle jets at midrapidity. Details of the
$q_{\rm 2}$ and event-plane angle measurements are given in the next section.

##  3 Data Analysis

The results presented in this letter are derived from a sample of Pb–Pb
collisions collected by the ALICE experiment during the 2018 LHC heavy-ion
run. The data sample considered in this work was recorded with a semicentral
trigger based on the V0 signal amplitude, which allowed for the collection of
a large sample of Pb–Pb collisions in the 30–50% centrality class [31]. Only
events having a primary vertex within $\pm 10~{}$cm of the nominal interaction
point along the beam line ($z$ direction) were accepted. An additional
selection criterion was applied to remove pile-up, utilizing the correlation
between the number of hits in the ITS and TPC detectors. After applying these
criteria, a total of approximately 54 million events were selected for this
study.

Jets were reconstructed from charged-particle tracks [38] with the FastJet
anti-$k_{\rm T}$ algorithm [39, 40]. The $p_{\rm T}$-scheme recombination
strategy was chosen to combine tracks using their transverse momenta [41, 39].
The resolution parameters $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ were studied, where each jet was
required to contain a leading track with $5<p_{\rm T}<100$ GeV/c. The leading
track requirement was chosen to reduce contamination from combinatorial jets.
The jet axis was required to be within $|\eta_{\mathrm{jet}}|<0.9-R$, where
$\eta_{\mathrm{jet}}$ is the pseudorapidity of the jet axis. Furthermore, for
each jet the quantity $\Delta\varphi=\varphi_{\rm jet}-\Psi_{\rm 2}$ was
calculated. This is the difference in azimuthal angle between the jet axis and
the event-plane angle $\Psi_{\rm 2}$, where $\Psi_{\rm 2}$ is determined from
the V0A signals. The average combinatorial background was subtracted using an
area-based technique [42, 43, 38]. With this method, the background
transverse-momentum density per unit area, $\rho$, was determined event-by-
event after removing the two leading $k_{\rm T}$ jets [44]. The jet energies
were corrected for the underlying-event contribution by subtracting the event-
averaged density multiplied by the jet area. The residual background
fluctuations, together with detector effects, were then corrected on a
statistical basis using a 2D Bayesian unfolding procedure [45, 46]. The choice
to use a 2D procedure was made so as to correct for the differences in
background arising from the jet angle with respect to $\Psi_{\rm 2}$, as well
as to account for any correlated bin migration in $\Delta\varphi$ and $p_{\rm
T,ch\>jet}$. This was done using a 4D response matrix constructed from PYTHIA
8 (Monash tune) [47, 48] jets transported through the ALICE detector by a
GEANT3-based simulation [49] and embedded into real Pb–Pb events. The data was
binned in $p_{\rm T,ch\>jet}$ and $|\cos(\Delta\varphi)|$ for both truth- and
reconstructed-level jets. Before filling the response matrix, 2% of simulated
tracks were randomly rejected before jet-finding to account for the worsened
tracking efficiency in the high track-density environment of Pb–Pb collisions.
This level of degradation was estimated using HIJING simulations of 0–10%
central Pb–Pb collisions [50]. The 2D jet distribution was then unfolded using
six iterations of the Bayesian procedure, with the PYTHIA 8 distribution used
as the prior.

After unfolding, corrections were applied to the jet yields for the kinematic
and reconstruction efficiencies. Here, the kinematic efficiency refers to the
inefficiency introduced by truth-level jets that were reconstructed outside of
the measured $p_{\rm T,ch\>jet}$ range, thus not entering the unfolding
procedure. This was computed for each bin by taking the ratio of the truth-
level spectrum reconstructed in the measured range to the truth level-spectrum
reconstructed within $10<p_{\rm T,ch\>jet}<200$ GeV/c. The reconstruction
efficiency accounts for truth-level jets that were not found at detector-
level. Corrections were also applied to account for the event-plane resolution
when the event-plane angle was considered. The reported $p_{\rm T,ch\>jet}$
ranges are $35-120$ GeV/c and $40-120$ GeV/c for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ jets,
respectively. These ranges were chosen to satisfy the requirement of having a
kinematic efficiency above 75% for each generator-level $p_{\rm T,ch\>jet}$
bin, as well as to ensure stability when varying the lower limit of the
$p_{\rm T,ch\>jet}$ range considered in the unfolding procedure.

To study the event-shape dependence, events were classified according to the
magnitude of the reduced flow vector $q_{\rm 2}$ [51] as measured with the
V0C, defined as

$q_{\rm 2}=|\textbf{Q}_{\rm 2}|/\sqrt{M},$ (1)

where M represents the charged-particle multiplicity and Q2 represents the
second harmonic flow vector, defined as

$\textbf{Q}_{2}=\left(\sum_{i}w_{i}\cos(2\varphi_{i}),\sum_{i}w_{i}\sin(2\varphi_{i})\right).$
(2)

Here, $\varphi_{i}$ and $w_{i}$ are the azimuthal angle and signal weight,
respectively, of the $i$-th segment of the V0C detector [52, 33]. Samples of
events with the $30\%$ smallest and largest $q_{\rm 2}$ were selected for this
study and will be henceforth referred to as $q_{\rm{2}}$-small and
$q_{\rm{2}}$-large. These designations represent isotropic and elliptical
event topologies, respectively. Figure 1 shows the distribution of
$q_{\rm{2}}$ values as a function of collision centrality in Pb–Pb collisions
at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~{}=~{}5.02$ TeV. The pink lines demarcate the 30th
and 70th percentiles in $q_{\rm{2}}$. Note that the $q_{\rm 2}$-small sample
contains a significant fraction of events with non-zero $v_{\rm 2}$, so, while
this sample is characterized as comparatively isotropic, there still exists
some significant anisotropy within the sample [26]. The slope of the
distribution indicates that the average values of $q_{\rm 2}$ are slightly
larger for more central collisions, which can introduce a centrality bias in
the event class selection. To avoid this correlation bias, the $q_{\rm{2}}$
classification was done within $1\%$-wide centrality intervals.

The event-plane angle $\Psi_{2}$, given by the direction of $\textbf{Q}_{2}$,
was measured with the V0A detector. The in- and out-of-plane axes were defined
as parallel and perpendicular to $\Psi_{2}$, respectively. Jets were
considered in- and out-of-plane when they were reconstructed within $30^{\rm
o}$ in azimuth of these axes. This restriction from the traditional $\pm
45^{\rm o}$ definition was made to enforce larger differences between in- and
out-of-plane path lengths and to increase the potential differences in jet
yields [30]. The use of opposed detectors for $q_{\rm 2}$ and $\Psi_{2}$ is
advantageous for avoiding autocorrelations between these observables and for
reducing detector-resolution corrections.

Figure 1: Distribution of $q_{\rm 2}$ values as a function of centrality in
Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~{}=~{}5.02$ TeV. Pink lines
demarcate the 30th and 70th $q_{\rm 2}$ percentiles, as calculated within
$1\%$-wide centrality intervals.

To account for the smearing of the reaction-plane angle due to the event-plane
resolution, the ratios of in- and out-of-plane jet yields were corrected using
a procedure analogous to that used for $v_{2}$ measurements [53]. First, the
$v_{2}$ was calculated using

$v_{\rm 2}=\frac{\pi}{3\sqrt{3}}\frac{1}{R_{\rm 2}}\frac{N_{\rm in}-N_{\rm
out}}{N_{\rm in}+N_{\rm out}},$ (3)

where $R_{\rm 2}$ is the second harmonic event-plane resolution, and $N_{\rm
in}$ and $N_{\rm out}$ are the in- and out-of-plane jet yields, respectively.
Note that the coefficient $\pi/(3\sqrt{3})$ in this formula is specific to
this analysis, in which the in- and out-of-plane definitions are at $\pm
30^{\rm o}$ around $\Psi_{2}$ and the vector perpendicular to it, as described
above. The event-plane resolution $R_{\rm 2}$ was calculated using the three-
sub-event method [53], where the particles measured by the V0A, V0C, and TPC
detectors were used to construct the three separate sub-events. For $q_{\rm
2}$-small samples, $R_{\rm 2}$ is 0.55, whereas for $q_{\rm 2}$-large samples
it is 0.68. After calculating the corrected $v_{\rm 2}$, the corrected ratio
$\mathcal{R}=N_{\rm out}/N_{\rm in}$ was obtained by inverting Eq. 3 and
assuming a perfect resolution $R_{2}=1$. To correct the individual spectra for
the event-plane resolution, conservation of jet yields within the fiducial
volume ($N_{\rm in}^{\rm measured}+N_{\rm out}^{\rm measured}=N_{\rm in}^{\rm
corrected}+N_{\rm out}^{\rm corrected}$) was additionally considered, such
that

$N_{\mathrm{in}}^{\mathrm{corrected}}=\frac{N_{\mathrm{in}}^{\mathrm{measured}}+N_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{measured}}}{1+\mathcal{R}},\quad
N_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{corrected}}=\frac{N_{\mathrm{in}}^{\mathrm{measured}}+N_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{measured}}}{1+1/\mathcal{R}}.$
(4)

For the ratio of out-of-plane to in-plane jet yields, the magnitude of this
correction varies from 5 to 25%. Note that $N_{\rm mid}$ remains unmodified,
where $N_{\rm mid}$ is the jet yield reconstructed between $\pm 30^{\rm
o}-60^{\rm o}$ of the event plane. This correction procedure is exact when
assuming a negligible contribution from higher order harmonics. Additionally,
the contribution of non-flow to the measured yield ratios was estimated using
PYTHIA 8. Here, non-flow refers to the $v_{\rm 2}$ contribution from forward
multi-jets that result in a biased determination of $\Psi_{\rm 2}$. It was
found that, for cases where an intermediate $p_{\rm T,ch\>jet}$ jet is
produced at midrapidity, a recoiling jet strikes the V0A in $<4\%$ of
instances. The relative contribution from these events to the jet $v_{2}$ is
estimated to be less than $20\%$. The presented results are not corrected for
this possible effect.

The systematic uncertainties of the charged-particle jet yields and their
ratios are summarized in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The ranges of
systematic uncertainties are listed for the measured $p_{\rm T,ch\>jet}$
range. The systematic uncertainty on the tracking efficiency was calculated by
randomly rejecting an additional $4\%$ of PYTHIA 8 tracks used in the
embedding procedure, representing the uncertainty in the single-track
efficiency in the Pb–Pb environment. The jet finding was then repeated and the
response matrix recalculated, resulting in the largest source of uncertainty
for the measured spectra. The uncertainty in the unfolding procedure was
quantified by varying the number of iterations of unfolding, the shape of the
prior $p_{\rm T,ch\>jet}$ and $\Delta\varphi$ spectra, and the lower limit of
the measured range (referred to as the truncation). The shape variation was
done by reweighting the unfolding prior according to the ratio between the
PYTHIA 8 and data spectra in both $p_{\rm T,ch\>jet}$ and event-plane angle.
The number of unfolding iterations was varied by $\pm$1\. The lower $p_{\rm
T,ch\>jet}$ limit for the jets that entered into the unfolding procedure was
varied by $\pm 5~{}{\rm GeV}/c$. Finally, the systematic uncertainty of the
event-plane resolution was obtained by varying $R_{2}$ by 2%. This $2\%$
variation accounts for the difference in event-plane resolution observed when
it is calculated using the $\chi$-ratio method as opposed to the three-sub-
event method [53, 26]. Note that this uncertainty is only considered for the
measurements that are differentiated in $\Delta\varphi$. For the ratios of the
spectra, the systematic uncertainties in the numerator and denominator were
treated as correlated, and the resulting systematic uncertainty was obtained
by making the above-described variations and calculating the deviations on the
ratio itself. The total systematic uncertainties were calculated as quadratic
sums of the different sources by assuming the independence of all
contributions.

Table 1: Relative systematic uncertainties for the charged-particle jet yields
as measured in 30–50% Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~{}=~{}5.02$
TeV. Values are reported as percentages. Reported ranges reflect the minimum
and maximum values of the uncertainties over the measured $p_{\rm T,ch\>jet}$
range. Here, $<$ 1 indicates an uncertainty with a decimal value greater than
zero but less than one.

| R = 0.2 | R = 0.4
---|---|---
|  $q_{\rm 2}$-small |  $q_{\rm 2}$-large |  $q_{\rm 2}$-small |  $q_{\rm 2}$-large
| in-plane | out-of-plane | in-plane | out-of-plane | in-plane | out-of-plane | in-plane | out-of-plane
Tracking efficiency | 6–15 | 6–12 | 8–10 | 6–16 | 4–15 | 6–15 | 6–20 |  $<$1–17
Unfolding iterations |  $<$1 |  $<$1 |  $<$1 |  $<$1 |  $<$1–2 |  $<$1–4 | 1–3 |  $<$1–3
Unfolding prior |  $<$1–3 |  $<$1–2 |  $<$1–2 |  $<$1–2 | 2–6 |  $<$1–5 |  $<$1–8 | 2–5
Unfolding truncation |  $<$1 |  $<$1 |  $<$1 |  $<$1 |  $<$1–10 |  $<$1–7 | 1–13 |  $<$1–9
Event-plane determination |  $<$1 |  $<$1 |  $<$1 |  $<$1 |  $<$1 |  $<$1 |  $<$1 |  $<$1
Total | 6–15 | 6–12 | 8–10 | 6–16 | 8–16 | 6–16 | 12–21 | 9–17

Table 2: Relative systematic uncertainties for the ratios of charged-particle
jet yields as measured in 30–50% Pb–Pb collisions at
$\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~{}=~{}5.02$ TeV. Values are reported as percentages.
Reported ranges reflect the minimum and maximum values of the uncertainties
over the measured $p_{\rm T,ch\>jet}$ range. Here, $<$ 1 indicates an
uncertainty with a decimal value greater than zero but less than one.

| R = 0.2 | R = 0.4
---|---|---
|  $q_{\rm 2}$-large/$q_{\rm 2}$-small |  $q_{\rm 2}$-small |  $q_{\rm 2}$-large |  $q_{\rm 2}$-large/$q_{\rm 2}$-small |  $q_{\rm 2}$-small |  $q_{\rm 2}$-large
|  | out-/in-plane | out-/in-plane |  | out-/in-plane | out-/in-plane
Tracking efficiency | 1–3 |  $<$1–2 |  $<$1–5 | 1–3 | 4–9 | 1–9
Unfolding iterations |  $<$1 |  $<$1 |  $<$1 |  $<$1 |  $<$1–6 | 2–6
Unfolding prior |  $<$1–3 |  $<$1–2 |  $<$1–3 |  $<$1–3 | 1–5 |  $<$1–12
Unfolding truncation |  $<$1 |  $<$1 |  $<$1 |  $<$1–3 | 1–18 | 1–21
Event-plane determination | N/A |  $<$1 |  $<$1 | N/A |  $<$1 |  $<$1
Total | 1–4 | 2–3 | 1–5 | 1–5 | 5–21 | 4–25

##  4 Results

Figure 2: Charged-particle jet yields for $R=0.2$ (left) and $R=0.4$ (right)
jets in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~{}=~{}5.02$ TeV. Results
are shown for the $q_{\rm 2}$-small and $q_{\rm 2}$-large event classes, for
in- and out-of-plane jets. The bars (boxes) represent statistical (systematic)
point-by-point uncertainties.

The $p_{\rm T,ch\>jet}$-differential charged-particle jet yields for
resolution parameters $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ are shown in Fig. 2. Included are
the results for the event classes $q_{\rm 2}$-small and $q_{\rm 2}$-large,
differentiated for in-plane and out-of-plane jets. The systematic
uncertainties are indicated by the boxes and are highly correlated among the
different measurements.

Figure 3: Ratio of the charged-particle jet yields of the $q_{\rm 2}$-large to
the $q_{\rm 2}$-small event classes, in Pb–Pb collisions at
$\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~{}=~{}5.02$ TeV. The results are reported for $R=0.2$
and $R=0.4$ jets.

The ratios of charged-particle jet yields for the $q_{\rm 2}$-large to $q_{\rm
2}$-small event classes are shown in Fig. 3, for both $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$.
Considering these results as ratios allowed for a reduction in the systematic
uncertainties due to correlations of the uncertainties between the spectra,
thus improving the sensitivity of this measurement. The results are consistent
with unity, indicating that azimuthally-integrated jet yields are not
sensitive to collision ellipticity. This stands in contrast to the yield
enhancement seen in elliptical collisions at low $p_{\rm T}$ [25], where
particle spectra are not governed by quenching, but rather by the hydrodynamic
expansion of the medium.

Figure 4: Ratios of out-of-plane to in-plane charged-particle jet yields for
the $q_{\rm 2}$-large and $q_{\rm 2}$-small event classes in Pb–Pb collisions
at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~{}=~{}5.02$ TeV. The results are reported for
$R=0.2$ (left) and $R=0.4$ (right) jets, and are corrected for the event-plane
resolution.

Figure 4 shows the ratio of out-of-plane to in-plane jet yields for the
$q_{\rm 2}$-small and $q_{\rm 2}$-large event classes, for jets with $R=0.2$
(left) and $R=0.4$ (right). These results were corrected for the event-plane
resolution, as described in the previous section. The measured ratios are
significantly below unity, indicating that jets lose more energy on average
when traveling out-of-plane than when traveling in-plane. This is consistent
with the idea that the magnitude of jet energy loss is driven, at least in
part, by the path length traversed in the medium. For $R=0.4$ jets, further
conclusions regarding event-shape dependent azimuthal anisotropy are limited
by the large experimental uncertainties. For $R=0.2$ jets, the ratios for
$q_{\rm 2}$-small and $q_{\rm 2}$-large are similar at high $p_{\rm
T,ch\>jet}$. For $p_{\rm T,ch\>jet}<50$ GeV/c, however, there is an indication
that out-of-plane jets in the $q_{\rm 2}$-large class are more suppressed
relative to in-plane jets than those in the $q_{\rm 2}$-small class. The
significance of this separation from $35<p_{\rm T,ch\>jet}<50$ GeV/c is
5.2$\sigma$. This result is qualitatively in agreement with observations of D
mesons [29].

This effect is expected due to the increased path-length differences between
in- and out-of-plane directions for highly elliptical collision geometries,
which is supported by Trajectum calculations [54, 30]. In these calculations,
probes were generated in the initial state at the location of nucleon–nucleon
collisions, and propagated through the hydrodynamically evolving medium while
remaining unmodified. The average path lengths of these probes were calculated
for events with varying $q_{\rm 2}$, and differentially for in- and out-of-
plane emission angles. While the results of this study show that the average
traversed path length of the probes does not vary significantly with event
$q_{\rm 2}$, it does change as a function of the probe angle with respect to
$\Psi_{\rm 2}$. This variation with $\Psi_{\rm 2}$ can be further augmented
when considering $q_{\rm 2}$-large events, and suppressed when considering
$q_{\rm 2}$-small events. The outcome of these Trajectum calculations shows
that by using ESE, the ratio of out-of-plane to in-plane path lengths can be
increased in semicentral collisions by $\sim$10% with respect to the inclusive
case. The results presented in this letter are consistent with these
calculations, assuming that the traversed path length of jets is an important
factor for determining their energy loss. These Trajectum studies do not,
however, allow one to conclude anything about the $p_{\rm
T,ch\>jet}$-dependence of this energy loss or explain the apparent convergence
of ratios at high $p_{\rm T,ch\>jet}$. Despite the absence of phenomenological
descriptions, a possible understanding of the experimental results at high
$p_{\rm T,ch\>jet}$ can be obtained by considering that the charged-particle
jet $R_{\rm AA}$ increases and the charged-particle jet $v_{\rm 2}$ decreases
with increasing $p_{\rm T,ch\>jet}$ [20, 55]. It is therefore expected that
any path-length-dependent signal accessible to ESE measurements would decrease
at high $p_{\rm T,ch\>jet}$. Moreover, the precision of the measurement
presented here is statistically limited at high $p_{\rm T,ch\>jet}$. It is
therefore difficult to establish if the convergence of out-of-plane to in-
plane ratios for elliptical and isotropic events is a true physics phenomenon,
or is rather a consequence of the limited experimental precision accessible at
high $p_{\rm T,ch\>jet}$.

This measurement demonstrates the potential of the ESE technique and paves the
way for future studies with larger data samples. However, a full
interpretation of these results requires detailed comparisons to model
calculations, which will allow for more quantitative conclusions on the path-
length dependence of energy loss.

##  5 Conclusions

In this letter, the measured event-shape engineered jet yields are reported
for resolution parameters $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ in semicentral Pb–Pb collisions
at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~{}=~{}5.02$ TeV. The magnitude of the reduced
second harmonic flow vector $q_{\rm 2}$ was used to select event classes that
are particularly isotropic ($q_{\rm 2}$-small) and elliptical ($q_{\rm
2}$-large). The jet spectra from these two event classes are consistent within
their uncertainties. However, a significant deviation between jet spectra is
observed when these jets are classified according to their azimuthal angle
with respect to the event plane. It is indicated that jets lose more energy
out-of-plane compared to in-plane, consistent with the measurement of a non-
zero $v_{2}$ of jets at the LHC. Furthermore, for $R=0.2$ jets in highly
elliptical events, the differences between the modification of out-of-plane
and in-plane jets at low $p_{\rm T,ch\>jet}$ are found to be more significant
than in more isotropic events. Model calculations employing a realistic parton
shower in event-by-event hydrodynamical simulations, such as LBT [56, 57],
JETSCAPE [58], or JEWEL on a (2+1)D background [59, 60], are needed to further
interpret these results and gain insight into the path-length dependence of
jet quenching.

## Acknowledgements

The ALICE Collaboration would like to thank all its engineers and technicians
for their invaluable contributions to the construction of the experiment and
the CERN accelerator teams for the outstanding performance of the LHC complex.
The ALICE Collaboration gratefully acknowledges the resources and support
provided by all Grid centres and the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid (WLCG)
collaboration. The ALICE Collaboration acknowledges the following funding
agencies for their support in building and running the ALICE detector: A. I.
Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics Institute) Foundation
(ANSL), State Committee of Science and World Federation of Scientists (WFS),
Armenia; Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austrian Science Fund (FWF): [M
2467-N36] and Nationalstiftung für Forschung, Technologie und Entwicklung,
Austria; Ministry of Communications and High Technologies, National Nuclear
Research Center, Azerbaijan; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e
Tecnológico (CNPq), Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (Finep), Fundação de
Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) and Universidade Federal do
Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Brazil; Bulgarian Ministry of Education and
Science, within the National Roadmap for Research Infrastructures 2020-2027
(object CERN), Bulgaria; Ministry of Education of China (MOEC) , Ministry of
Science & Technology of China (MSTC) and National Natural Science Foundation
of China (NSFC), China; Ministry of Science and Education and Croatian Science
Foundation, Croatia; Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear
(CEADEN), Cubaenergía, Cuba; Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the
Czech Republic, Czech Republic; The Danish Council for Independent Research —
Natural Sciences, the VILLUM FONDEN and Danish National Research Foundation
(DNRF), Denmark; Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Finland; Commissariat à
l’Energie Atomique (CEA) and Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de
Physique des Particules (IN2P3) and Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique (CNRS), France; Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
(BMBF) and GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Germany;
General Secretariat for Research and Technology, Ministry of Education,
Research and Religions, Greece; National Research, Development and Innovation
Office, Hungary; Department of Atomic Energy Government of India (DAE),
Department of Science and Technology, Government of India (DST), University
Grants Commission, Government of India (UGC) and Council of Scientific and
Industrial Research (CSIR), India; National Research and Innovation Agency -
BRIN, Indonesia; Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), Italy; Japanese
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI, Japan; Consejo
Nacional de Ciencia (CONACYT) y Tecnología, through Fondo de Cooperación
Internacional en Ciencia y Tecnología (FONCICYT) and Dirección General de
Asuntos del Personal Academico (DGAPA), Mexico; Nederlandse Organisatie voor
Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), Netherlands; The Research Council of Norway,
Norway; Commission on Science and Technology for Sustainable Development in
the South (COMSATS), Pakistan; Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Peru;
Ministry of Education and Science, National Science Centre and WUT ID-UB,
Poland; Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information and National
Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), Republic of Korea; Ministry of Education
and Scientific Research, Institute of Atomic Physics, Ministry of Research and
Innovation and Institute of Atomic Physics and Universitatea Nationala de
Stiinta si Tehnologie Politehnica Bucuresti, Romania; Ministry of Education,
Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic, Slovakia; National
Research Foundation of South Africa, South Africa; Swedish Research Council
(VR) and Knut & Alice Wallenberg Foundation (KAW), Sweden; European
Organization for Nuclear Research, Switzerland; Suranaree University of
Technology (SUT), National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA)
and National Science, Research and Innovation Fund (NSRF via PMU-B
B05F650021), Thailand; Turkish Energy, Nuclear and Mineral Research Agency
(TENMAK), Turkey; National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Ukraine; Science
and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), United Kingdom; National Science
Foundation of the United States of America (NSF) and United States Department
of Energy, Office of Nuclear Physics (DOE NP), United States of America. In
addition, individual groups or members have received support from: European
Research Council, Strong 2020 - Horizon 2020 (grant nos. 950692, 824093),
European Union; Academy of Finland (Center of Excellence in Quark Matter)
(grant nos. 346327, 346328), Finland.

## References

  * [1] 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, arXiv:1802.04801 [hep-ph].
  * [2] HotQCD Collaboration, A. Bazavov et al., “Equation of state in (2+1)-flavor QCD”, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 094503, arXiv:1407.6387 [hep-lat].
  * [3] C. Ratti, “Lattice QCD and heavy ion collisions: a review of recent progress”, Rept. Prog. Phys. 81 (2018) 084301, arXiv:1804.07810 [hep-lat].
  * [4] ALICE Collaboration, “The ALICE experiment - A journey through QCD”, arXiv:2211.04384 [nucl-ex].
  * [5] M. Gyulassy and M. Plumer, “Jet Quenching in Dense Matter”, Phys. Lett. B 243 (1990) 432–438.
  * [6] G.-Y. Qin and X.-N. Wang, “Jet quenching in high-energy heavy-ion collisions”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 24 (2015) 1530014, arXiv:1511.00790 [hep-ph].
  * [7] M. Connors, C. Nattrass, R. Reed, and S. Salur, “Jet measurements in heavy ion physics”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90 (2018) 025005, arXiv:1705.01974 [nucl-ex].
  * [8] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Measurements of inclusive jet spectra in pp and central Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV”, Phys. Rev. C 101 (2020) 034911, arXiv:1909.09718 [nucl-ex].
  * [9] STAR Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Measurement of inclusive charged-particle jet production in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=200~{}$GeV”, Phys. Rev. C 102 (2020) 054913, arXiv:2006.00582 [nucl-ex].
  * [10] CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al., “Measurement of inclusive jet cross sections in $pp$ and PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=$ 2.76 TeV”, Phys. Rev. C 96 (2017) 015202, arXiv:1609.05383 [nucl-ex].
  * [11] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Measurements of the Nuclear Modification Factor for Jets in Pb+Pb Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=2.76$ TeV with the ATLAS Detector”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 072302, arXiv:1411.2357 [hep-ex].
  * [12] R. Baier, Y. L. Dokshitzer, A. H. Mueller, S. Peigne, and D. Schiff, “Radiative energy loss of high-energy quarks and gluons in a finite volume quark-gluon plasma”, Nucl. Phys. B 483 (1997) 291–320, arXiv:hep-ph/9607355.
  * [13] M. Gyulassy, P. Levai, and I. Vitev, “NonAbelian energy loss at finite opacity”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 5535–5538, arXiv:nucl-th/0005032.
  * [14] M. Djordjevic, D. Zigic, M. Djordjevic, and J. Auvinen, “How to test path-length dependence in energy loss mechanisms: analysis leading to a new observable”, Phys. Rev. C 99 (2019) 061902, arXiv:1805.04030 [nucl-th].
  * [15] M. Djordjevic and M. Gyulassy, “Heavy quark radiative energy loss in QCD matter”, Nucl. Phys. A 733 (2004) 265–298, arXiv:nucl-th/0310076.
  * [16] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Observation of a Centrality-Dependent Dijet Asymmetry in Lead-Lead Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=2.76$ TeV with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 252303, arXiv:1011.6182 [hep-ex].
  * [17] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Measurements of the suppression and correlations of dijets in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02~{}$TeV”, Phys. Rev. C 107 (2023) 054908, arXiv:2205.00682 [nucl-ex].
  * [18] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., “Observation and studies of jet quenching in PbPb collisions at nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy $=2.76~{}$TeV”, Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 024906, arXiv:1102.1957 [nucl-ex].
  * [19] J. G. Milhano and K. C. Zapp, “Origins of the di-jet asymmetry in heavy ion collisions”, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 288, arXiv:1512.08107 [hep-ph].
  * [20] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Azimuthal anisotropy of charged jet production in $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=2.76$ TeV Pb–Pb collisions”, Phys. Lett. B 753 (2016) 511–525, arXiv:1509.07334 [nucl-ex].
  * [21] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Measurement of the Azimuthal Angle Dependence of Inclusive Jet Yields in Pb+Pb Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=$ 2.76 TeV with the ATLAS detector”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 152301, arXiv:1306.6469 [hep-ex].
  * [22] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Measurements of azimuthal anisotropies of jet production in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=$ 5.02 TeV with the ATLAS detector”, Phys. Rev. C 105 (2022) 064903, arXiv:2111.06606 [nucl-ex].
  * [23] J. Schukraft, A. Timmins, and S. A. Voloshin, “Ultra-relativistic nuclear collisions: event shape engineering”, Phys. Lett. B 719 (2013) 394–398, arXiv:1208.4563 [nucl-ex].
  * [24] P. Christiansen, “Event-Shape Engineering and Jet Quenching”, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 736 (2016) 012023, arXiv:1606.07963 [hep-ph].
  * [25] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Event shape engineering for inclusive spectra and elliptic flow in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=2.76$ TeV”, Phys. Rev. C 93 (2016) 034916, arXiv:1507.06194 [nucl-ex].
  * [26] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Constraining the magnitude of the Chiral Magnetic Effect with Event Shape Engineering in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=2.76$ TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 777 (2018) 151–162, arXiv:1709.04723 [nucl-ex].
  * [27] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Measurement of the correlation between flow harmonics of different order in lead-lead collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=2.76$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”, Phys. Rev. C 92 (2015) 034903, arXiv:1504.01289 [hep-ex].
  * [28] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Event-shape engineering for the D-meson elliptic flow in mid-central Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02$ TeV”, JHEP 02 (2019) 150, arXiv:1809.09371 [nucl-ex].
  * [29] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Transverse-momentum and event-shape dependence of D-meson flow harmonics in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02~{}$TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 813 (2021) 136054, arXiv:2005.11131 [nucl-ex].
  * [30] C. Beattie, G. Nijs, M. Sas, and W. van der Schee, “Hard probe path lengths and event-shape engineering of the quark-gluon plasma”, Phys. Lett. B 836 (2023) 137596, arXiv:2203.13265 [nucl-th].
  * [31] ALICE Collaboration, “Centrality determination in heavy ion collisions”, 2018.  https://cds.cern.ch/record/2636623.
  * [32] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC”, JINST 3 (2008) S08002.
  * [33] 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].
  * [34] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “Alignment of the ALICE Inner Tracking System with cosmic-ray tracks”, JINST 5 (2010) P03003, arXiv:1001.0502 [physics.ins-det].
  * [35] J. Alme et al., “The ALICE TPC, a large 3-dimensional tracking device with fast readout for ultra-high multiplicity events”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 622 (2010) 316–367, arXiv:1001.1950 [physics.ins-det].
  * [36] ALICE Collaboration, P. Cortese et al., “ALICE technical design report on forward detectors: FMD, T0 and V0”, 2004.  https://cds.cern.ch/record/781854.
  * [37] ALICE Collaboration, E. Abbas et al., “Performance of the ALICE VZERO system”, JINST 8 (2013) P10016, arXiv:1306.3130 [nucl-ex].
  * [38] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Measurement of Event Background Fluctuations for Charged Particle Jet Reconstruction in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=2.76$ TeV”, JHEP 03 (2012) 053, arXiv:1201.2423 [hep-ex].
  * [39] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “FastJet User Manual”, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1896, arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph].
  * [40] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-$k_{t}$ jet clustering algorithm”, JHEP 04 (2008) 063, arXiv:0802.1189 [hep-ph].
  * [41] OPAL Collaboration, M. Z. Akrawy et al., “A Study of the recombination scheme dependence of jet production rates and of $\alpha_{s}(M_{Z^{0}})$in hadronic $Z^{0}$ decays”, Z. Phys. C 49 (1991) 375–384.
  * [42] M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam, “Pileup subtraction using jet areas”, Phys. Lett. B 659 (2008) 119–126, arXiv:0707.1378 [hep-ph].
  * [43] M. Cacciari, J. Rojo, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “Jet Reconstruction in Heavy Ion Collisions”, Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1539, arXiv:1010.1759 [hep-ph].
  * [44] S. D. Ellis and D. E. Soper, “Successive combination jet algorithm for hadron collisions”, Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) 3160–3166, arXiv:hep-ph/9305266.
  * [45] G. D’Agostini, “A multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes’ theorem”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 362 (1995) 487–498.
  * [46] T. Adye, “Unfolding algorithms and tests using RooUnfold”, in Proceedings of the PHYSTAT 2011 Workshop, pp. 313–318.  CERN, Geneva, 2011.  arXiv:1105.1160 [physics.data-an].
  * [47] T. Sjöstrand et al., “An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2”, Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159–177, arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph].
  * [48] P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo, “Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 Tune”, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3024, arXiv:1404.5630 [hep-ph].
  * [49] R. Brun et al., “GEANT Detector Description and Simulation Tool”, 1994.  https://cds.cern.ch/record/1082634.
  * [50] M. Gyulassy and X.-N. Wang, “HIJING 1.0: A Monte Carlo program for parton and particle production in high-energy hadronic and nuclear collisions”, Comput. Phys. Commun. 83 (1994) 307, arXiv:nucl-th/9502021.
  * [51] STAR Collaboration, C. Adler et al., “Elliptic flow from two and four particle correlations in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=130~{}$GeV”, Phys. Rev. C 66 (2002) 034904, arXiv:nucl-ex/0206001.
  * [52] S. Voloshin and Y. Zhang, “Flow study in relativistic nuclear collisions by Fourier expansion of Azimuthal particle distributions”, Z. Phys. C 70 (1996) 665–672, arXiv:hep-ph/9407282.
  * [53] A. Poskanzer and S. Voloshin, “Methods for analyzing anisotropic flow in relativistic nuclear collisions”, Phys. Rev. C 58 (1998) 1671–1678.
  * [54] G. Nijs, W. van der Schee, U. Gürsoy, and R. Snellings, “Bayesian analysis of heavy ion collisions with the heavy ion computational framework Trajectum”, Phys. Rev. C 103 (2021) 054909, arXiv:2010.15134 [nucl-th].
  * [55] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Measurement of the radius dependence of charged-particle jet suppression in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 849 (2024) 138412, arXiv:2303.00592 [nucl-ex].
  * [56] 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, 019902 (2018)].
  * [57] Y. He, S. Cao, W. Chen, T. Luo, L.-G. Pang, and X.-N. Wang, “Interplaying mechanisms behind single inclusive jet suppression in heavy-ion collisions”, Phys. Rev. C 99 (2019) 054911, arXiv:1809.02525 [nucl-th].
  * [58] J. H. Putschke et al., “The JETSCAPE framework”, arXiv:1903.07706 [nucl-th].
  * [59] L. Barreto, F. M. Canedo, M. G. Munhoz, J. Noronha, and J. Noronha-Hostler, “Jet cone radius dependence of $R_{AA}$ and $v_{2}$ at PbPb 5.02 TeV from JEWEL+$\rm T_{R}ENTo$+v-USPhydro”, arXiv:2208.02061 [nucl-th].
  * [60] I. Kolbé, “JEWEL on a (2+1)D background with applications to small systems and substructure”, arXiv:2303.14166 [nucl-th].

##  Appendix A The ALICE Collaboration

S. Acharya 128, D. Adamová 87, G. Aglieri Rinella 33, M. Agnello 30, N.
Agrawal 52, Z. Ahammed 136, S. Ahmad 16, S.U. Ahn 72, I. Ahuja 38, A.
Akindinov 142, M. Al-Turany 98, D. Aleksandrov 142, B. Alessandro 57, H.M.
Alfanda 6, R. Alfaro Molina 68, B. Ali 16, A. Alici 26, N. Alizadehvandchali
117, A. Alkin 33, J. Alme 21, G. Alocco 53, T. Alt 65, A.R. Altamura 51, I.
Altsybeev 96, J.R. Alvarado 45, M.N. Anaam 6, C. Andrei 46, N. Andreou 116, A.
Andronic 127, V. Anguelov 95, F. Antinori 55, P. Antonioli 52, N. Apadula 75,
L. Aphecetche 104, H. Appelshäuser 65, C. Arata 74, S. Arcelli 26, M. Aresti
23, R. Arnaldi 57, J.G.M.C.A. Arneiro 111, I.C. Arsene 20, M. Arslandok 139,
A. Augustinus 33, R. Averbeck 98, M.D. Azmi 16, H. Baba125, A. Badalà 54, J.
Bae 105, Y.W. Baek 41, X. Bai 121, R. Bailhache 65, Y. Bailung 49, A. Balbino
30, A. Baldisseri 131, B. Balis 2, D. Banerjee 4, Z. Banoo 92, R. Barbera 27,
F. Barile 32, L. Barioglio 96, M. Barlou79, B. Barman42, G.G. Barnaföldi 47,
L.S. Barnby 86, V. Barret 128, L. Barreto 111, C. Bartels 120, K. Barth 33, E.
Bartsch 65, N. Bastid 128, S. Basu 76, G. Batigne 104, D. Battistini 96, B.
Batyunya 143, D. Bauri48, J.L. Bazo Alba 102, I.G. Bearden 84, C. Beattie 139,
P. Becht 98, D. Behera 49, I. Belikov 130, A.D.C. Bell Hechavarria 127, F.
Bellini 26, R. Bellwied 117, S. Belokurova 142, Y.A.V. Beltran 45, G. Bencedi
47, S. Beole 25, Y. Berdnikov 142, A. Berdnikova 95, L. Bergmann 95, M.G.
Besoiu 64, L. Betev 33, P.P. Bhaduri 136, A. Bhasin 92, M.A. Bhat 4, B.
Bhattacharjee 42, L. Bianchi 25, N. Bianchi 50, J. Bielčík 36, J. Bielčíková
87, J. Biernat 108, A.P. Bigot 130, A. Bilandzic 96, G. Biro 47, S. Biswas 4,
N. Bize 104, J.T. Blair 109, D. Blau 142, M.B. Blidaru 98, N. Bluhme39, C.
Blume 65, G. Boca 22,56, F. Bock 88, T. Bodova 21, A. Bogdanov142, S. Boi 23,
J. Bok 59, L. Boldizsár 47, M. Bombara 38, P.M. Bond 33, G. Bonomi 135,56, H.
Borel 131, A. Borissov 142, A.G. Borquez Carcamo 95, H. Bossi 139, E. Botta
25, Y.E.M. Bouziani 65, L. Bratrud 65, P. Braun-Munzinger 98, M. Bregant 111,
M. Broz 36, G.E. Bruno 97,32, M.D. Buckland 24, D. Budnikov 142, H. Buesching
65, S. Bufalino 30, P. Buhler 103, N. Burmasov 142, Z. Buthelezi 69,124, A.
Bylinkin 21, S.A. Bysiak108, M. Cai 6, H. Caines 139, A. Caliva 29, E. Calvo
Villar 102, J.M.M. Camacho 110, P. Camerini 24, F.D.M. Canedo 111, S.L.
Cantway 139, M. Carabas 114, A.A. Carballo 33, F. Carnesecchi 33, R. Caron
129, L.A.D. Carvalho 111, J. Castillo Castellanos 131, F. Catalano 33,25, C.
Ceballos Sanchez 143, I. Chakaberia 75, P. Chakraborty 48, S. Chandra 136, S.
Chapeland 33, M. Chartier 120, S. Chattopadhyay 136, S. Chattopadhyay 100, T.
Cheng 98,6, C. Cheshkov 129, B. Cheynis 129, V. Chibante Barroso 33, D.D.
Chinellato 112, E.S. Chizzali II,96, J. Cho 59, S. Cho 59, P. Chochula 33, D.
Choudhury42, P. Christakoglou 85, C.H. Christensen 84, P. Christiansen 76, T.
Chujo 126, M. Ciacco 30, C. Cicalo 53, F. Cindolo 52, M.R. Ciupek98, G.
ClaiIII,52, F. Colamaria 51, J.S. Colburn101, D. Colella 97,32, M. Colocci 26,
M. Concas 33, G. Conesa Balbastre 74, Z. Conesa del Valle 132, G. Contin 24,
J.G. Contreras 36, M.L. Coquet 131, P. Cortese 134,57, M.R. Cosentino 113, F.
Costa 33, S. Costanza 22,56, C. Cot 132, J. Crkovská 95, P. Crochet 128, R.
Cruz-Torres 75, P. Cui 6, A. Dainese 55, M.C. Danisch 95, A. Danu 64, P. Das
81, P. Das 4, S. Das 4, A.R. Dash 127, S. Dash 48, A. De Caro 29, G. de
Cataldo 51, J. de Cuveland39, A. De Falco 23, D. De Gruttola 29, N. De Marco
57, C. De Martin 24, S. De Pasquale 29, R. Deb 135, R. Del Grande 96, L. Dello
Stritto 29, W. Deng 6, P. Dhankher 19, D. Di Bari 32, A. Di Mauro 33, B. Diab
131, R.A. Diaz 143,7, T. Dietel 115, Y. Ding 6, J. Ditzel 65, R. Divià 33,
D.U. Dixit 19, Ø. Djuvsland21, U. Dmitrieva 142, A. Dobrin 64, B. Dönigus 65,
J.M. Dubinski 137, A. Dubla 98, S. Dudi 91, P. Dupieux 128, M. Durkac107, N.
Dzalaiova13, T.M. Eder 127, R.J. Ehlers 75, F. Eisenhut 65, R. Ejima93, D.
Elia 51, B. Erazmus 104, F. Ercolessi 26, F. Erhardt 90, M.R. Ersdal21, B.
Espagnon 132, G. Eulisse 33, D. Evans 101, S. Evdokimov 142, L. Fabbietti 96,
M. Faggin 28, J. Faivre 74, F. Fan 6, W. Fan 75, A. Fantoni 50, M. Fasel 88,
P. Fecchio30, A. Feliciello 57, G. Feofilov 142, A. Fernández Téllez 45, L.
Ferrandi 111, M.B. Ferrer 33, A. Ferrero 131, C. Ferrero IV,57, A. Ferretti
25, V.J.G. Feuillard 95, V. Filova 36, D. Finogeev 142, F.M. Fionda 53, F.
Flor 117, A.N. Flores 109, S. Foertsch 69, I. Fokin 95, S. Fokin 142, E.
Fragiacomo 58, E. Frajna 47, U. Fuchs 33, N. Funicello 29, C. Furget 74, A.
Furs 142, T. Fusayasu 99, J.J. Gaardhøje 84, M. Gagliardi 25, A.M. Gago 102,
T. Gahlaut48, C.D. Galvan 110, D.R. Gangadharan 117, P. Ganoti 79, C.
Garabatos 98, T. García Chávez 45, E. Garcia-Solis 9, C. Gargiulo 33, P. Gasik
98, A. Gautam 119, M.B. Gay Ducati 67, M. Germain 104, A. Ghimouz126, C.
Ghosh136, M. Giacalone 52, G. Gioachin 30, P. Giubellino 98,57, P. Giubilato
28, A.M.C. Glaenzer 131, P. Glässel 95, E. Glimos 123, D.J.Q. Goh77, V.
Gonzalez 138, M. Gorgon 2, K. Goswami 49, S. Gotovac34, V. Grabski 68, L.K.
Graczykowski 137, E. Grecka 87, A. Grelli 60, C. Grigoras 33, V. Grigoriev
142, S. Grigoryan 143,1, F. Grosa 33, J.F. Grosse-Oetringhaus 33, R. Grosso
98, D. Grund 36, N.A. Grunwald95, G.G. Guardiano 112, R. Guernane 74, M.
Guilbaud 104, K. Gulbrandsen 84, T. Gündem 65, T. Gunji 125, W. Guo 6, A.
Gupta 92, R. Gupta 92, R. Gupta 49, K. Gwizdziel 137, L. Gyulai 47, C.
Hadjidakis 132, F.U. Haider 92, S. Haidlova 36, H. Hamagaki 77, A. Hamdi 75,
Y. Han 140, B.G. Hanley 138, R. Hannigan 109, J. Hansen 76, M.R. Haque 137,
J.W. Harris 139, A. Harton 9, H. Hassan 118, D. Hatzifotiadou 52, P. Hauer 43,
L.B. Havener 139, S.T. Heckel 96, E. Hellbär 98, H. Helstrup 35, M. Hemmer 65,
T. Herman 36, G. Herrera Corral 8, F. Herrmann127, S. Herrmann 129, K.F.
Hetland 35, B. Heybeck 65, H. Hillemanns 33, B. Hippolyte 130, F.W. Hoffmann
71, B. Hofman 60, G.H. Hong 140, M. Horst 96, A. Horzyk 2, Y. Hou 6, P.
Hristov 33, C. Hughes 123, P. Huhn65, L.M. Huhta 118, T.J. Humanic 89, A.
Hutson 117, D. Hutter 39, R. Ilkaev142, H. Ilyas 14, M. Inaba 126, G.M.
Innocenti 33, M. Ippolitov 142, A. Isakov 85,87, T. Isidori 119, M.S. Islam
100, M. Ivanov13, M. Ivanov 98, V. Ivanov 142, K.E. Iversen 76, M. Jablonski
2, B. Jacak 75, N. Jacazio 26, P.M. Jacobs 75, S. Jadlovska107, J.
Jadlovsky107, S. Jaelani 83, C. Jahnke 112, M.J. Jakubowska 137, M.A. Janik
137, T. Janson71, S. Ji 17, S. Jia 10, A.A.P. Jimenez 66, F. Jonas 88,127,
D.M. Jones 120, J.M. Jowett 33,98, J. Jung 65, M. Jung 65, A. Junique 33, A.
Jusko 101, J. Kaewjai106, P. Kalinak 61, A.S. Kalteyer 98, A. Kalweit 33, V.
Kaplin 142, A. Karasu Uysal V,73, D. Karatovic 90, O. Karavichev 142, T.
Karavicheva 142, P. Karczmarczyk 137, E. Karpechev 142, M.J. Karwowska 33,137,
U. Kebschull 71, R. Keidel 141, D.L.D. Keijdener60, M. Keil 33, B. Ketzer 43,
S.S. Khade 49, A.M. Khan 121,6, S. Khan 16, A. Khanzadeev 142, Y. Kharlov 142,
A. Khatun 119, A. Khuntia 36, B. Kileng 35, B. Kim 105, C. Kim 17, D.J. Kim
118, E.J. Kim 70, J. Kim 140, J.S. Kim 41, J. Kim 59, J. Kim 70, M. Kim 19, S.
Kim 18, T. Kim 140, K. Kimura 93, S. Kirsch 65, I. Kisel 39, S. Kiselev 142,
A. Kisiel 137, J.P. Kitowski 2, J.L. Klay 5, J. Klein 33, S. Klein 75, C.
Klein-Bösing 127, M. Kleiner 65, T. Klemenz 96, A. Kluge 33, A.G. Knospe 117,
C. Kobdaj 106, T. Kollegger98, A. Kondratyev 143, N. Kondratyeva 142, E.
Kondratyuk 142, J. Konig 65, S.A. Konigstorfer 96, P.J. Konopka 33, G.
Kornakov 137, M. Korwieser 96, S.D. Koryciak 2, A. Kotliarov 87, V. Kovalenko
142, M. Kowalski 108, V. Kozhuharov 37, I. Králik 61, A. Kravčáková 38, L.
Krcal 33,39, M. Krivda 101,61, F. Krizek 87, K. Krizkova Gajdosova 33, M.
Kroesen 95, M. Krüger 65, D.M. Krupova 36, E. Kryshen 142, V. Kučera 59, C.
Kuhn 130, P.G. Kuijer 85, T. Kumaoka126, D. Kumar136, L. Kumar 91, N. Kumar91,
S. Kumar 32, S. Kundu 33, P. Kurashvili 80, A. Kurepin 142, A.B. Kurepin 142,
A. Kuryakin 142, S. Kushpil 87, M.J. Kweon 59, Y. Kwon 140, S.L. La Pointe 39,
P. La Rocca 27, A. Lakrathok106, M. Lamanna 33, A.R. Landou 74,116, R. Langoy
122, P. Larionov 33, E. Laudi 33, L. Lautner 33,96, R. Lavicka 103, R. Lea
135,56, H. Lee 105, I. Legrand 46, G. Legras 127, J. Lehrbach 39, T.M. Lelek2,
R.C. Lemmon 86, I. León Monzón 110, M.M. Lesch 96, E.D. Lesser 19, P. Lévai
47, X. Li10, J. Lien 122, R. Lietava 101, I. Likmeta 117, B. Lim 25, S.H. Lim
17, V. Lindenstruth 39, A. Lindner46, C. Lippmann 98, D.H. Liu 6, J. Liu 120,
G.S.S. Liveraro 112, I.M. Lofnes 21, C. Loizides 88, S. Lokos 108, J. Lömker
60, P. Loncar 34, X. Lopez 128, E. López Torres 7, P. Lu 98,121, J.R. Luhder
127, M. Lunardon 28, G. Luparello 58, Y.G. Ma 40, M. Mager 33, A. Maire 130,
E.M. Majerz2, M.V. Makariev 37, M. Malaev 142, G. Malfattore 26, N.M. Malik
92, Q.W. Malik20, S.K. Malik 92, L. Malinina I,VIII,143, D. Mallick 132,81, N.
Mallick 49, G. Mandaglio 31,54, S.K. Mandal 80, V. Manko 142, F. Manso 128, V.
Manzari 51, Y. Mao 6, R.W. Marcjan 2, G.V. Margagliotti 24, A. Margotti 52, A.
Marín 98, C. Markert 109, P. Martinengo 33, M.I. Martínez 45, G. Martínez
García 104, M.P.P. Martins 111, S. Masciocchi 98, M. Masera 25, A. Masoni 53,
L. Massacrier 132, O. Massen 60, A. Mastroserio 133,51, O. Matonoha 76, S.
Mattiazzo 28, A. Matyja 108, C. Mayer 108, A.L. Mazuecos 33, F. Mazzaschi 25,
M. Mazzilli 33, J.E. Mdhluli 124, Y. Melikyan 44, A. Menchaca-Rocha 68, E.
Meninno 103, A.S. Menon 117, M. Meres 13, S. Mhlanga115,69, Y. Miake126, L.
Micheletti 33, D.L. Mihaylov 96, K. Mikhaylov 143,142, A.N. Mishra 47, D.
Miśkowiec 98, A. Modak 4, B. Mohanty81, M. Mohisin Khan VI,16, M.A. Molander
44, S. Monira 137, C. Mordasini 118, D.A. Moreira De Godoy 127, I. Morozov
142, A. Morsch 33, T. Mrnjavac 33, V. Muccifora 50, S. Muhuri 136, J.D.
Mulligan 75, A. Mulliri 23, M.G. Munhoz 111, R.H. Munzer 65, H. Murakami 125,
S. Murray 115, L. Musa 33, J. Musinsky 61, J.W. Myrcha 137, B. Naik 124, A.I.
Nambrath 19, B.K. Nandi 48, R. Nania 52, E. Nappi 51, A.F. Nassirpour 18, A.
Nath 95, C. Nattrass 123, M.N. Naydenov 37, A. Neagu20, A. Negru114, L. Nellen
66, R. Nepeivoda 76, S. Nese 20, G. Neskovic 39, N. Nicassio 51, B.S. Nielsen
84, E.G. Nielsen 84, S. Nikolaev 142, S. Nikulin 142, V. Nikulin 142, F.
Noferini 52, S. Noh 12, P. Nomokonov 143, J. Norman 120, N. Novitzky 126, P.
Nowakowski 137, A. Nyanin 142, J. Nystrand 21, M. Ogino 77, S. Oh 18, A.
Ohlson 76, V.A. Okorokov 142, J. Oleniacz 137, A.C. Oliveira Da Silva 123, A.
Onnerstad 118, C. Oppedisano 57, A. Ortiz Velasquez 66, J. Otwinowski 108, M.
Oya93, K. Oyama 77, Y. Pachmayer 95, S. Padhan 48, D. Pagano 135,56, G. Paić
66, S. Paisano-Guzmán 45, A. Palasciano 51, S. Panebianco 131, H. Park 126, H.
Park 105, J. Park 59, J.E. Parkkila 33, Y. Patley 48, R.N. Patra92, B. Paul
23, H. Pei 6, T. Peitzmann 60, X. Peng 11, M. Pennisi 25, S. Perciballi 25, D.
Peresunko 142, G.M. Perez 7, Y. Pestov142, V. Petrov 142, M. Petrovici 46,
R.P. Pezzi 104,67, S. Piano 58, M. Pikna 13, P. Pillot 104, O. Pinazza 52,33,
L. Pinsky117, C. Pinto 96, S. Pisano 50, M. Płoskoń 75, M. Planinic90, F.
Pliquett65, M.G. Poghosyan 88, B. Polichtchouk 142, S. Politano 30, N. Poljak
90, A. Pop 46, S. Porteboeuf-Houssais 128, V. Pozdniakov 143, I.Y. Pozos 45,
K.K. Pradhan 49, S.K. Prasad 4, S. Prasad 49, R. Preghenella 52, F. Prino 57,
C.A. Pruneau 138, I. Pshenichnov 142, M. Puccio 33, S. Pucillo 25, Z.
Pugelova107, S. Qiu 85, L. Quaglia 25, S. Ragoni 15, A. Rai 139, A.
Rakotozafindrabe 131, L. Ramello 134,57, F. Rami 130, T.A. Rancien74, M. Rasa
27, S.S. Räsänen 44, R. Rath 52, M.P. Rauch 21, I. Ravasenga 85, K.F. Read
88,123, C. Reckziegel 113, A.R. Redelbach 39, K. Redlich VII,80, C.A. Reetz
98, H.D. Regules-Medel45, A. Rehman21, F. Reidt 33, H.A. Reme-Ness 35, Z.
Rescakova38, K. Reygers 95, A. Riabov 142, V. Riabov 142, R. Ricci 29, M.
Richter 20, A.A. Riedel 96, W. Riegler 33, A.G. Riffero 25, C. Ristea 64, M.V.
Rodriguez 33, M. Rodríguez Cahuantzi 45, S.A. Rodríguez Ramírez 45, K. Røed
20, R. Rogalev 142, E. Rogochaya 143, T.S. Rogoschinski 65, D. Rohr 33, D.
Röhrich 21, P.F. Rojas45, S. Rojas Torres 36, P.S. Rokita 137, G. Romanenko
26, F. Ronchetti 50, A. Rosano 31,54, E.D. Rosas66, K. Roslon 137, A. Rossi
55, A. Roy 49, S. Roy 48, N. Rubini 26, D. Ruggiano 137, R. Rui 24, P.G.
Russek 2, R. Russo 85, A. Rustamov 82, E. Ryabinkin 142, Y. Ryabov 142, A.
Rybicki 108, H. Rytkonen 118, J. Ryu 17, W. Rzesa 137, O.A.M. Saarimaki 44, S.
Sadhu 32, S. Sadovsky 142, J. Saetre 21, K. Šafařík 36, P. Saha42, S.K. Saha
4, S. Saha 81, B. Sahoo 48, B. Sahoo 49, R. Sahoo 49, S. Sahoo62, D. Sahu 49,
P.K. Sahu 62, J. Saini 136, K. Sajdakova38, S. Sakai 126, M.P. Salvan 98, S.
Sambyal 92, D. Samitz 103, I. Sanna 33,96, T.B. Saramela111, P. Sarma 42, V.
Sarritzu 23, V.M. Sarti 96, M.H.P. Sas 139, J. Schambach 88, H.S. Scheid 65,
C. Schiaua 46, R. Schicker 95, A. Schmah98, C. Schmidt 98, H.R. Schmidt94,
M.O. Schmidt 33, M. Schmidt94, N.V. Schmidt 88, A.R. Schmier 123, R. Schotter
130, A. Schröter 39, J. Schukraft 33, K. Schweda 98, G. Scioli 26, E.
Scomparin 57, J.E. Seger 15, Y. Sekiguchi125, D. Sekihata 125, M. Selina 85,
I. Selyuzhenkov 98, S. Senyukov 130, J.J. Seo 95,59, D. Serebryakov 142, L.
Šerkšnytė 96, A. Sevcenco 64, T.J. Shaba 69, A. Shabetai 104, R. Shahoyan33,
A. Shangaraev 142, A. Sharma91, B. Sharma 92, D. Sharma 48, H. Sharma 55,108,
M. Sharma 92, S. Sharma 77, S. Sharma 92, U. Sharma 92, A. Shatat 132, O.
Sheibani117, K. Shigaki 93, M. Shimomura78, J. Shin12, S. Shirinkin 142, Q.
Shou 40, Y. Sibiriak 142, S. Siddhanta 53, T. Siemiarczuk 80, T.F. Silva 111,
D. Silvermyr 76, T. Simantathammakul106, R. Simeonov 37, B. Singh92, B. Singh
96, K. Singh 49, R. Singh 81, R. Singh 92, R. Singh 49, S. Singh 16, V.K.
Singh 136, V. Singhal 136, T. Sinha 100, B. Sitar 13, M. Sitta 134,57, T.B.
Skaali20, G. Skorodumovs 95, M. Slupecki 44, N. Smirnov 139, R.J.M. Snellings
60, E.H. Solheim 20, J. Song 117, C. Sonnabend 33,98, F. Soramel 28, A.B.
Soto-hernandez 89, R. Spijkers 85, I. Sputowska 108, J. Staa 76, J. Stachel
95, I. Stan 64, P.J. Steffanic 123, S.F. Stiefelmaier 95, D. Stocco 104, I.
Storehaug 20, P. Stratmann 127, S. Strazzi 26, A. Sturniolo 31,54, C.P.
Stylianidis85, A.A.P. Suaide 111, C. Suire 132, M. Sukhanov 142, M. Suljic 33,
R. Sultanov 142, V. Sumberia 92, S. Sumowidagdo 83, S. Swain62, I. Szarka 13,
M. Szymkowski 137, S.F. Taghavi 96, G. Taillepied 98, J. Takahashi 112, G.J.
Tambave 81, S. Tang 6, Z. Tang 121, J.D. Tapia Takaki 119, N. Tapus114, L.A.
Tarasovicova 127, M.G. Tarzila 46, G.F. Tassielli 32, A. Tauro 33, A. Tavira
García 132, G. Tejeda Muñoz 45, A. Telesca 33, L. Terlizzi 25, C. Terrevoli
117, S. Thakur 4, D. Thomas 109, A. Tikhonov 142, A.R. Timmins 117, M.
Tkacik107, T. Tkacik 107, A. Toia 65, R. Tokumoto93, K. Tomohiro93, N.
Topilskaya 142, M. Toppi 50, T. Tork 132, V.V. Torres 104, A.G. Torres Ramos
32, A. Trifiró 31,54, A.S. Triolo 33,31,54, S. Tripathy 52, T. Tripathy 48, S.
Trogolo 33, V. Trubnikov 3, W.H. Trzaska 118, T.P. Trzcinski 137, A. Tumkin
142, R. Turrisi 55, T.S. Tveter 20, K. Ullaland 21, B. Ulukutlu 96, A. Uras
129, G.L. Usai 23, M. Vala38, N. Valle 22, L.V.R. van Doremalen60, M. van
Leeuwen 85, C.A. van Veen 95, R.J.G. van Weelden 85, P. Vande Vyvre 33, D.
Varga 47, Z. Varga 47, M. Vasileiou 79, A. Vasiliev 142, O. Vázquez Doce 50,
O. Vazquez Rueda 117, V. Vechernin 142, E. Vercellin 25, S. Vergara Limón45,
R. Verma48, L. Vermunt 98, R. Vértesi 47, M. Verweij 60, L. Vickovic34, Z.
Vilakazi124, O. Villalobos Baillie 101, A. Villani 24, A. Vinogradov 142, T.
Virgili 29, M.M.O. Virta 118, V. Vislavicius76, A. Vodopyanov 143, B. Volkel
33, M.A. Völkl 95, K. Voloshin142, S.A. Voloshin 138, G. Volpe 32, B. von
Haller 33, I. Vorobyev 96, N. Vozniuk 142, J. Vrláková 38, J. Wan40, C. Wang
40, D. Wang40, Y. Wang 40, Y. Wang 6, A. Wegrzynek 33, F.T. Weiglhofer39, S.C.
Wenzel 33, J.P. Wessels 127, J. Wiechula 65, J. Wikne 20, G. Wilk 80, J.
Wilkinson 98, G.A. Willems 127, B. Windelband 95, M. Winn 131, J.R. Wright
109, W. Wu40, Y. Wu 121, R. Xu 6, A. Yadav 43, A.K. Yadav 136, S. Yalcin 73,
Y. Yamaguchi 93, S. Yang21, S. Yano 93, Z. Yin 6, I.-K. Yoo 17, J.H. Yoon 59,
H. Yu12, S. Yuan21, A. Yuncu 95, V. Zaccolo 24, C. Zampolli 33, F. Zanone 95,
N. Zardoshti 33, A. Zarochentsev 142, P. Závada 63, N. Zaviyalov142, M. Zhalov
142, B. Zhang 6, C. Zhang 131, L. Zhang 40, S. Zhang 40, X. Zhang 6, Y.
Zhang121, Z. Zhang 6, M. Zhao 10, V. Zherebchevskii 142, Y. Zhi10, D. Zhou 6,
Y. Zhou 84, J. Zhu 55,6, Y. Zhu6, S.C. Zugravel 57, N. Zurlo 135,56

## Affiliation Notes

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

## Collaboration Institutes

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