2015 106 23 Apr

One-dimensional femtoscopy in Pb–Pb collisions

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

The size of the particle emission region in high-energy collisions can be
deduced using the femtoscopic correlations of particle pairs at low relative
momentum. Such correlations arise due to quantum statistics and Coulomb and
strong final state interactions. In this paper, results are presented from
femtoscopic analyses of $\pi^{\pm}\pi^{\pm}$, $\rm K^{\pm}\rm K^{\pm}$, $\rm
K^{0}_{S}\rm K^{0}_{S}$, $\rm p\rm p$, and $\rm\overline{p}\rm\overline{p}$
correlations from Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76$ TeV by the
ALICE experiment at the LHC. One-dimensional radii of the system are extracted
from correlation functions in terms of the invariant momentum difference of
the pair. The comparison of the measured radii with the predictions from a
hydrokinetic model is discussed. The pion and kaon source radii display a
monotonic decrease with increasing average pair transverse mass $m_{\rm T}$
which is consistent with hydrodynamic model predictions for central
collisions. The kaon and proton source sizes can be reasonably described by
approximate $m_{\rm T}$-scaling.

##  1 Introduction

Two-particle correlations at low relative momenta (commonly referred to as
_femtoscopy_), which are sensitive to quantum statistics (in the case of
identical particles) as well as strong and Coulomb final-state interactions
(FSI), are used to extract the space-time characteristics of the particle-
emitting sources created in heavy-ion collisions [1, 2, 3]. The source radii
extracted from these correlations describe the system at kinetic freeze-out,
i.e. the last stage of particle interactions. Pion femtoscopy, which is the
most common femtoscopic analysis, has shown signatures of hydrodynamic flow in
heavy-ion collisions, manifesting as a decrease in the source radii with
increasing transverse mass $m_{\rm T}=\sqrt{k_{\rm T}^{2}+m^{2}}$ [4, 5],
where $k_{\rm T}=|\mathbf{p}_{\mathrm{T,1}}+\mathbf{p}_{\mathrm{T,2}}|/2$ is
the average transverse momentum of the pair. This behavior can be interpreted
as one of the signatures of the formation of deconfined quark matter in these
collisions [6]. However, a necessary condition for collective behavior is for
${\it all}$ particles created in the collision, not just pions, to experience
hydrodynamic flow. Thus, femtoscopic studies with particles other than pions
are also needed. It was shown that the hydrodynamic picture of nuclear
collisions for the particular case of small transverse flow leads to the same
$m_{\rm T}$ behavior of the longitudinal radii ($R_{\rm long}$) for pions and
kaons [7]. This common $m_{\rm T}$-scaling for $\pi$ and $\rm K$ is an
indication that the thermal freeze-out occurs simultaneously for $\pi$ and
$\rm K$ and that these two particle species are subject to the same Lorentz
boost. Previous kaon femtoscopy studies carried out in Pb–Pb collisions at the
SPS by the NA44, NA49, and CERES Collaborations [8, 9, 10] reported the
decrease of $R_{\rm long}$ with $m_{\rm T}$ as $\sim m_{\rm T}^{-0.5}$ as a
consequence of the boost-invariant longitudinal flow. Subsequent studies
carried out in Au–Au collisions at RHIC [11, 12, 13] have shown the same level
in the $m_{\rm T}$-dependencies for $\pi$ and $\rm K$ radii, consistent with a
common freeze-out hyper-surface. Like the SPS analysis, no exact universal
$m_{\rm T}$-scaling for the 3D radii was observed at RHIC. In the case of the
one-dimensional correlation radius $R_{\rm inv}$, only approximate scaling
with $m_{\rm T}$ is expected as an additional confirmation of hydrodynamic
expansion [4]. In fact, $R_{\rm inv}$ source sizes as a function of $m_{\rm
T}$ for different particle types ($\pi$, $\rm K$, $\rm p$…) follow the common
curve with an accuracy of $\sim 10\%$.

The motivation for comparing femtoscopic analyses with different particle
species is not limited to studying $m_{\rm T}$ dependence. The kaon analyses
also offer a cleaner signal compared to pions, as they are less affected by
resonance decays, while the proton analysis provides a possibility for
checking if baryons are included in the collective motion. Studying charged
and neutral kaon correlations together provides a convenient experimental
consistency check, since they require different detection techniques (charged
tracks vs. decay vertex reconstruction) and call for different final-state
interaction fitting parametrizations (Coulomb-dominated vs. strong
interaction-dominated), yet they are predicted to exhibit the same femtoscopic
parameters [14]. In addition to the charged kaon analyses at the SPS and RHIC,
neutral kaon correlations were studied in Au-Au collisions at RHIC [15], and
ALICE has performed analyses on both charged and neutral kaons in $\rm p\rm p$
collisions [16, 17]. Recent pion femtoscopic results were obtained at RHIC
[18] and the LHC [5, 19, 20, 21], and proton femtoscopy has also been
previously studied at RHIC [22].

This paper presents the results of femtoscopic studies of
$\pi^{\pm}\pi^{\pm}$, $\rm K^{\pm}\rm K^{\pm}$, $\rm K^{0}_{S}\rm K^{0}_{S}$,
$\rm p\rm p$, and $\rm\overline{p}\rm\overline{p}$ correlations from Pb-Pb
collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76$ TeV by the ALICE experiment at the
LHC. The femtoscopic radii and $\lambda$ parameters (the latter describe the
decrease of the femtoscopic correlations due to e.g. long-lived resonances;
see Sec. 3.1 and 4) are extracted from one-dimensional correlation functions
in terms of the invariant momentum difference for a range of collision
centralities and $m_{\rm T}$ values. A hydrokinetic model [14] is used to
compare the kaon experimental results with hydrodynamic predictions.

The organization of the paper is as follows. In Sec. 2, we describe the data
selection criteria. In Sec. 3, the details of the correlation functions and
the fitting process are discussed. The results of the analysis are shown in
Sec. 4, and a summary is provided in Sec. 5.

##  2 Data analysis

The dataset analyzed in this paper is from Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm
NN}}=2.76$ TeV at the LHC measured by the ALICE detector [23]. About 8 million
events from 2010 and about 40 million events from 2011 were used (2010 data
were analyzed in the pion and $\rm K^{0}_{S}$ analyses only). Events were
classified according to their centrality determined using the measured
amplitudes in the V0 detectors [24]. Charged particle tracking is generally
performed using the Time Projection Chamber (TPC) [25] and the Inner Tracking
System (ITS) [23]. The ITS allows for high spatial resolution in determining
the primary (collision) vertex. In the pion, charged kaon, and proton
analyses, the determination of the momenta of the tracks was performed using
tracks reconstructed with the TPC only and constrained to the primary vertex.
Primary tracks were selected based on the distance of closest approach (DCA)
to the primary vertex. Additional track selections based on the quality of the
track reconstruction fit and the number of detected “hit” points in the TPC
were used. Also, all primary pairs sharing more than $5\%$ of TPC clusters
were rejected. In the neutral kaon analysis, the secondary daughter tracks
used global (TPC and ITS) track reconstruction and did not use any cuts based
on track reconstruction quality or number of used or shared TPC clusters. The
secondary vertex finder used to locate the neutral kaon decays employed the
“on-the-fly” reconstruction method [26], which recalculates the daughter track
momenta during the original tracking process under the assumption that the
tracks came from a decay vertex instead of the primary vertex.

Particle identification (PID) for reconstructed tracks was carried out using
both the TPC and the Time-of-Flight (TOF) detector [27] in the pseudorapidity
range $|\eta|<0.8$. For TPC PID, a parametrized Bethe-Bloch formula was used
to calculate the specific energy loss (d$E$/d$x$) in the detector expected for
a particle with a given mass and momentum. For PID with TOF, the particle mass
was used to calculate the expected time-of-flight as a function of track
length and momentum. For each PID method, a value $N_{\sigma}$ was assigned to
each track denoting the number of standard deviations between the measured
track information and the calculations mentioned above. Different cut values
of $N_{\sigma}$ were chosen based on detector performance for the various
particle types and track momentum (see Table 1 for specific values used in
each analysis) [28].

The analysis details specific to each particle species used in this study are
discussed separately below.

###  2.1 Pion selection

The main single-particle selection criteria used in the pion analysis are
summarized in Table 1. Pion identification was performed using the TPC only.
An overall purity of the pion candidate sample was estimated using TPC
d$E$/d$x$ distributions of the data and was found to be above 95%. The main
source of contamination comes from $\rm e^{\pm}$ in the region where the
d$E$/d$x$ curves for pions and electrons intersect.

Femtoscopic correlation functions of identical particles are sensitive to the
two-track reconstruction efficiency because the correlated particle pairs
(i.e. those with small relative momentum) generally have close trajectories.
The main two-track issues are splitting (two tracks reconstructed from one
particle) and merging (one track reconstructed from two particles), which are
generally avoided using a track separation cut. For pions, pairs were required
to have a separation of $|\Delta\eta|>0.016$ or
$\sqrt{\Delta\eta^{2}+\Delta\varphi^{*2}}>0.045$ measured at the radial
distance 1.2 m. Here, $\eta$ is the pseudorapidity, and $\varphi^{*}$ is the
azimuthal coordinate taking into account track bending due to the magnetic
field.

###  2.2 Charged kaon selection

The main single-particle selection criteria used in the charged kaon analysis
are listed in Table 1. $\rm K^{\pm}$ identification was performed using the
TPC (for all momenta) and TOF (for $p>0.5$ GeV/$c$) detectors. Figure 1 (a)
shows the momentum dependence of the single kaon purity, defined as the
fraction of accepted kaon tracks that correspond to true kaon particles. The
purity values were obtained from TPC d$E$/d$x$ distributions of the data and
by studying HIJING [29] simulations using GEANT3 [30] to model particle
transport through the detector. Like the pions, the dominant contamination for
charged kaons in the momentum region $0.4<p<0.5$ GeV/$c$ comes from $\rm
e^{\pm}$. The pair purity is calculated as a product of two single-particle
purities, where the momenta are taken from the experimental distribution. The
$\rm K^{\pm}$ pair purity as a function of $k_{\rm T}$ for three different
centralities is shown in Fig.1(b).

Regarding two-track selection criteria, charged kaon pairs were required to
have a separation of $|\Delta\eta|>0.02$ or $|\Delta\varphi^{*}|>0.017$
measured at the radial distance 1.6 m.

Pion selection
---
Transverse momentum $p_{\rm T}$ |  $0.14<p_{\rm T}<2.0$ GeV/$c$
$|\eta|$ | $<0.8$
Transverse $\rm DCA$ to primary vertex |  $<0.2$ cm
Longitudinal $\rm DCA$ to primary vertex |  $<0.15$ cm
$N_{\sigma,\rm TPC}$ | $<3$
Charged kaon selection
$p_{\rm T}$ |  $0.15<p_{\rm T}<1.5$ GeV/$c$
$|\eta|$ | $<0.8$
Transverse $\rm DCA$ to primary vertex |  $<2.4$ cm
Longitudinal $\rm DCA$ to primary vertex |  $<3.0$ cm
$N_{\sigma,\rm TPC}$ (for $p<0.5$ GeV/$c$) | $<2$
$N_{\sigma,\rm TPC}$ (for $p>0.5$ GeV/$c$) | $<3$
$N_{\sigma,\rm TOF}$ (for $0.5<p<0.8$ GeV/$c$) | $<2$
$N_{\sigma,\rm TOF}$ (for $0.8<p<1.0$ GeV/$c$) | $<1.5$
$N_{\sigma,\rm TOF}$ (for $1.0<p<1.5$ GeV/$c$) | $<1.0$
Neutral kaon selection
$|\eta|$ | $<0.8$
Daughter-daughter $\rm DCA_{3D}$ |  $<0.3$ cm
$\rm DCA_{3D}$ to primary vertex |  $<0.3$ cm
Decay length |  $<30$ cm
Cosine of pointing angle | $>0.99$
Invariant mass |  $0.480<m_{\pi^{+}\pi^{-}}<0.515$ GeV/${c}^{2}$
Daughter $p_{\rm T}$ |  $>0.15$ GeV/c
Daughter $|\eta|$ | $<0.8$
Daughter $\rm DCA_{3D}$ to primary vertex |  $>0.4$ cm
Daughter $N_{\sigma,\rm TPC}$ | $<3$
Daughter $N_{\sigma,\rm TOF}$ (for $p>0.8$ GeV/$c$) | $<3$
Proton selection
$p_{\rm T}$ |  $0.7<p_{\rm T}<4.0$ GeV/$c$
$|\eta|$ | $<0.8$
Transverse $\rm DCA$ to primary vertex |  $<2.4$ cm
Longitudinal $\rm DCA$ to primary vertex |  $<3.2$ cm
$N_{\sigma,\rm TPC}$ (for $p<0.8$ GeV/$c$) | $<3$
$\sqrt{{N_{\sigma,\rm TPC}^{2}+N_{\sigma,\rm TOF}^{2}}}$ (for $p>0.8$ GeV/$c$) | $<3$
Table 1: Single particle selection criteria.

Figure 1: (Color online) Single $\rm K^{\pm}$ purity (a) and $\rm K^{\pm}$
pair purity (b) for different centralities. In (b) the $k_{\rm T}$ values for
different centrality intervals are slightly offset for clarity.

###  2.3 Neutral kaon selection

The decay channel $\rm K^{0}_{S}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ was used for the
identification of neutral kaons. The single-particle cuts for parents ($\rm
K^{0}_{S}$) and daughters ($\pi^{\pm}$) used in the decay-vertex
reconstruction are shown in Table 1. PID for the pion daughters was performed
using both TPC (for all momenta) and TOF (for $p>0.8$ GeV/$c$). Figure 2 shows
an example of the $\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ invariant mass distribution where the $\rm
K^{0}_{S}$ peak is seen. The cuts used in this analysis were chosen to balance
statistics and signal purity. The neutral kaon purity (defined as
Sig./[Sig.+Bkg.] for $0.480<m_{\pi^{+}\pi^{-}}<0.515$ GeV/${\rm c}^{2}$) was
found to be greater than 0.95.

Figure 2: (Color online) Invariant mass distribution of $\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ pairs
showing the $\rm K^{0}_{S}$ peak for two centrality intervals. The 45-50%
centrality is scaled so that both distributions have the same integral in the
range $0.480<m_{\pi^{+}\pi^{-}}<0.515$ GeV/${\rm c}^{2}$.

Two main two-particle cuts were used in the neutral kaon analysis. To resolve
two-track inefficiencies associated with the daughter tracks, such as the
splitting or merging of tracks discussed above, a separation cut was employed
in the following way. For each kaon pair, the spatial separation between the
same-sign pion daughters was tabulated at several points throughout the TPC
(every 20 cm radially from 85 cm to 245 cm) and averaged. If the average
separation of either pair of tracks was below 5 cm, the kaon pair was not
used. Another cut was used to prevent two reconstructed kaons from using the
same daughter track. If two kaons shared a daughter track, one of them was cut
using a procedure which compared the two $\rm K^{0}_{S}$ candidates and kept
the candidate whose reconstructed parameters best matched those expected of a
true $\rm K^{0}_{S}$ particle in two of three categories (smaller $\rm
K^{0}_{S}$ DCA to primary vertex, smaller daughter-daughter DCA, and $\rm
K^{0}_{S}$ mass closer to the PDG value [31]). This procedure was shown, using
HIJING+GEANT3 simulations, to have a success rate of about 95% in selecting a
true $\rm K^{0}_{S}$ particle over a fake one. More details about $\rm
K^{0}_{S}\rm K^{0}_{S}$ analysis can be found in Ref. [16, 32].

###  2.4 Proton selection

The single-particle cuts used in the proton analysis are summarized in Table
1. The proton analysis used tracks with $0.7<p_{\mathrm{T}}<4.0$ GeV/$c$. The
lower $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ cut is used to suppress protons coming from weak decays
and interactions with the detector material. Particle identification for $\rm
p$ and $\rm\overline{p}$ was performed using both TPC (for all momenta) and
TOF (for $p>0.8$ GeV/$c$). The proton purity was estimated using HIJING+GEANT3
simulations and was found to be greater than $95\%$. The used DCA criteria do
not fully discriminate between primary protons and protons from weak decays.
This may lead to a significant contamination from protons from lambda
particles. The effect of this contamination is discussed in Sec. 3.4.

Regarding two-track selection criteria, pairs were required to have a
separation of $|\Delta\eta|>0.01$ or $|\Delta\varphi^{*}|>0.045$ measured at
the radial distance 1.2 m.

##  3 Construction of the correlation functions and fitting procedures

The experimental two-particle correlation function is defined as
$C(\textbf{q})=A(\textbf{q})/B(\textbf{q})$, where $A(\textbf{q})$ is the
measured distribution of same-event pair momentum difference,
$\textbf{q}=\textbf{p}_{1}-\textbf{p}_{2}$, and $B(\textbf{q})$ is the
reference distribution of pairs from mixed events. The pairs in the
denominator distribution $B(\textbf{q})$ are constructed by taking a particle
from one event and pairing it with a particle from another event with a
similar centrality and primary vertex position along the beam direction. Each
event is mixed with five (ten) others for the $\rm K^{0}_{S}$ ($\pi^{\pm}$,
$\rm K^{\pm}$, $\rm p$) analysis. The available statistics of proton pairs
with low $q$ ($<0.2$ GeV/$c$) allowed us to perform the analyses only for the
one-dimensional correlation function $C(q)$, where $q=\left|\textbf{q}\right|$
in the Pair Rest Frame (PRF). In the case of pions and kaons, the statistics
were high enough for three-dimensional studies, but these are beyond the scope
of this paper; here, only the one-dimensional analysis is presented in order
to compare results with heavier particles. The numerator and denominator are
normalized such that $C(q)\rightarrow 1$ as $q\rightarrow\infty$. Pair cuts
have been applied in exactly the same way for the same-event (signal) and
mixed-event (background) pairs.

All correlation functions have been corrected for momentum resolution effects.
The correction factors were determined using HIJING events to build simulated
correlation functions using theoretical correlation functions as weights. The
ratio of the correlation functions using HIJING generated momenta to those
using HIJING+GEANT3 reconstructed momenta forms the correction factor.

For the analyses presented in this paper, the theoretical femtoscopic
correlation function is defined as the square of the two-particle wavefunction
averaged over the relative distance $\textbf{r}^{*}$ of the emitters in the
PRF. This is performed using the Koonin-Pratt equation [33, 34]

$C(q)=\int S(\mathbf{r}^{*})\lvert\Psi(q,\mathbf{r}^{*})\rvert^{2}{\rm
d^{3}}\mathbf{r}^{*}.$ (1)

For the one-dimensional analysis, we assume a spherically symmetric Gaussian
distribution of the particle emitter spatial separation ${\bf r^{*}}$ in the
PRF with size $R_{\rm inv}$ [35],

$S(\mathbf{r}^{*})\sim\exp(-{\bf r}^{*2}/4R^{2}_{\rm inv}).$ (2)

The two-particle wavefunction is (anti-)symmetrized for identical bosons
(fermions) and may include terms incorporating Coulomb or strong final-state
interactions, depending on the type of particles being studied.

The methods used in constructing and fitting the various correlation functions
are discussed separately below.

###  3.1 Pions

Pion correlation functions were fitted using the Bowler-Sinyukov formula [36,
37]:

$C(q)=N\left[1-\lambda+\lambda K(q)\left(1+\exp{\left(-R_{\rm
inv}^{2}q^{2}\right)}\right)\right],$ (3)

where $N$ is the normalization factor. The $\lambda$ parameter (also used in
the other analyses) can be affected by long-lived resonances, coherent sources
[38, 19, 39], and non-Gaussian features of the particle-emission distribution.
$K(q)$ is a symmetrized $K$-factor calculated according to Ref. [37, 19] as

$K(q)=C({\rm QS+Coulomb})/C(\rm QS),$ (4)

where $C(\rm QS)$ and $C(\rm QS+\rm Coulomb)$ are the theoretical correlation
functions calculated with THERMINATOR 2 [40] using the quantum statistics
(“QS”) and “QS+Coulomb” weights (i.e. squared wavefunction), respectively
[41]. The effect of the strong interaction is neglected here, since for like-
sign pions, the contribution is small for the expected source sizes [41].
Figure 4 shows an example $\pi^{+}\pi^{+}$ correlation function with the
corresponding line of best fit. More details about the pion analysis may be
found in [42].

###  3.2 Charged kaons

Figure 4 shows an example $\rm K^{\pm}\rm K^{\pm}$ correlation function with
the corresponding line of best fit. A purity correction was applied to the
correlation function according to

$C_{\rm corrected}=(C_{\rm raw}-1+P)/P,$ (5)

where the pair purity $P$ is taken from Fig. 1. $\rm K^{\pm}\rm K^{\pm}$
correlation functions were fitted using the Bowler-Sinyukov formula of Eq. 3;
the procedure is essentially the same as for pions. There are no available
experimental data for $\rm K^{\pm}\rm K^{\pm}$ strong FSI. The influence of
the strong interaction to the correlation function was estimated with the
s-wave scattering length calculated within the fully-dynamical lattice QCD
[43]. The systematic uncertainty assigned to this effect was determined to be
4%.

Figure 3: (Color online) Example correlation function with fit for
$\pi^{+}\pi^{+}$ for centrality 5-10% and $\left<k_{\rm T}\right>=0.35$
GeV/$c$. Statistical uncertainties are shown as thin lines.

Figure 4: (Color online) Example correlation function with fit for $\rm
K^{\pm}\rm K^{\pm}$ for centrality 0-10% and $\left<k_{\rm T}\right>=0.35$
GeV/$c$. Systematic uncertainties (boxes) are shown; statistical uncertainties
are within the data markers. The main sources of systematic uncertainty are
the momentum resolution correction and PID selection.

Figure 5: (Color online) Example correlation function with fit for $\rm
K^{0}_{S}\rm K^{0}_{S}$ for centrality 0-10% and $\left<k_{\rm T}\right>=0.48$
GeV/$c$. Statistical (thin lines) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are
shown. The main source of systematic uncertainty is the variation of single-
particle cuts.

Figure 6: (Color online) Example correlation function with fit for
$\rm\overline{p}\rm\overline{p}$ for centrality 0-10% and $\left<k_{\rm
T}\right>=1.0$ GeV/$c$. Statistical (thin lines) and systematic (boxes)
uncertainties are shown. The main source of systematic uncertainty is the
variation of two-track cuts.

###  3.3 Neutral kaons

Figure 6 shows an example $\rm K^{0}_{S}\rm K^{0}_{S}$ correlation function
with the corresponding line of best fit. $\rm K^{0}_{S}\rm K^{0}_{S}$
correlation functions were fitted with a parametrization which includes Bose-
Einstein statistics as well as strong final-state interactions (FSI) [35, 15],

$C(q)=\left[1-\lambda+\lambda C^{\prime}(q)\right]\left(a+bq\right),$ (6)

where

$C^{\prime}(q)=1+e^{-q^{2}R^{2}}+C_{\rm strongFSI}(q,R),$ (7) $C_{\rm
strongFSI}(q,R)=\dfrac{1}{2}\left[\left|{f(q)}\over{R}\right|^{2}+{{4\Re
f(q)}\over{\sqrt{\pi}R}}F_{1}(qR)-{{2\Im f(q)}\over{R}}F_{2}(qR)\right],$ (8)

and

$F_{1}(z)=\int^{z}_{0}{\rm
d}x\frac{e^{x^{2}-z^{2}}}{z};\;\;F_{2}(z)=\frac{1-e^{-z^{2}}}{z}.$ (9)

$f(q)$ is the s-wave scattering amplitude for the $\rm
K^{0}\rm\overline{K}\,^{0}$ system; we neglect the scattering for $\rm
K^{0}\rm K^{0}$ and $\rm\overline{K}\,^{0}\rm\overline{K}\,^{0}$ due to small
scattering lengths $\approx 0.1$ fm [15]. The factor of 1/2 in Eq. 8 is due to
the fact that half of the $\rm K^{0}_{S}\rm K^{0}_{S}$ pairs come from $\rm
K^{0}\rm\overline{K}\,^{0}$. The strong FSI have a significant effect on the
$\rm K^{0}\rm\overline{K}\,^{0}$ contribution to the $\rm K^{0}_{S}\rm
K^{0}_{S}$ correlation function due to the near-threshold resonances, $\rm
f_{\rm 0}$(980) and $\rm a_{\rm 0}$(980). For the scattering amplitude, only
s-wave contributions were taken into account; the higher-order corrections
were small and therefore neglected [44]. The scattering amplitude $f(q)$ is
calculated using a a two-channel parametrization which accounts for the
elastic transition $\rm K^{0}\rm\overline{K}\,^{0}\rightarrow\rm
K^{0}\rm\overline{K}\,^{0}$ and the inelastic transition $\rm K^{+}\rm
K^{-}\rightarrow\rm K^{0}\rm\overline{K}\,^{0}$ (See Ref. [15] for more
detailed expressions describing the fit function). Equation 6 also includes an
additional factor to account for non-femtoscopic background correlations at
large $q$, with $a$ and $b$ being free parameters in the fit.

###  3.4 Protons

Figure 6 shows an example $\rm\overline{p}\rm\overline{p}$ correlation
function with the corresponding line of best fit. The femtoscopic correlations
of $\rm p\rm p$ and $\rm\overline{p}\rm\overline{p}$ pairs are due to a
combination of Fermi-Dirac statistics, Coulomb and strong FSI. A distinct
maximum is seen at ${q}\approx 40$ MeV/$c$ [35]; this enhancement is due to
the strong interaction, as both quantum statistics and Coulomb interaction
present a negative correlation. Due to the fact that feed-down from weak
decays cannot be neglected in high-energy heavy-ion collisions, the effects of
residual correlations related to the $\rm p\Lambda$ system are taken into
account. The proton daughter of a $\Lambda$ decay has similar momentum to the
$\Lambda$ itself and may survive the experimental selection for primary
protons. Thus, it may contribute to the measured correlations by forming a
pair with a primary proton. As can be seen in Fig. 6, attempting to fit the
measured correlation functions with the theoretical $\rm p\rm p$
($\rm\overline{p}\rm\overline{p}$) functions alone was unsuccessful due to the
additional positive correlation observed in the range $60<q<160$ MeV/$c$.
Thus, a method of simultaneous fitting of $\rm p\rm p$
($\rm\overline{p}\rm\overline{p}$) and $\rm p\Lambda$
($\rm\overline{p}\overline{\Lambda}$) correlations was applied. Contributions
from heavier baryon-baryon pairs are not taken into account since the original
correlation between the parent particles is not known due to unknown
interaction parameters, for example for the $\Lambda\Lambda$ pair. Moreover
such residual correlations are more smeared compared with $\rm p\Lambda$
because of larger decay momentum. In addition, the fraction of baryons heavier
than $\Lambda$ decaying to protons is smaller than the fraction of
$\Lambda$’s. Finally, comparing with baryon-antibaryon pairs analysed in [45],
the width of the correlation for baryon-baryon pairs is much smaller, and
therefore the effect is much more smeared due to decay kinematics.

The experimental correlation function of $\rm p\rm p$ and
$\rm\overline{p}\rm\overline{p}$ systems were fitted with [45]

$C_{\rm meas}(q_{\rm p\rm p})=1+\lambda_{\rm p\rm p}(C_{\rm p\rm p}(q_{\rm
p\rm p};R)-1)+\lambda_{\rm p\Lambda}(C_{\rm p\Lambda}(q_{\rm p\rm p};R)-1),$
(10)

where $\lambda_{\rm p\rm p}$ is the fraction of correlated $\rm p\rm p$ pairs
where both particles are primary, and $\lambda_{\rm p\Lambda}$ is the fraction
of correlated $\rm p\rm p$ pairs where one particle is primary and the other
is a daughter of $\Lambda$ decay. The theoretical proton-proton correlation
function was calculated as

$C(q_{\rm p\rm p})={1\over 4}\left[{{\int S({\mathbf{r^{*}}}){1\over
2}|\Psi^{\rm S}_{-\mathbf{q}_{\rm p\rm p}}({\mathbf{r^{*}}})+\Psi^{\rm
S}_{+\mathbf{q}_{\rm p\rm p}}({\mathbf{r^{*}}})|^{2}}\over{\int
S({\mathbf{r^{*}}}})}\right]+{3\over 4}\left[{{\int S({\mathbf{r^{*}}}){1\over
2}|\Psi^{\rm T}_{-\mathbf{q}_{\rm p\rm p}}({\mathbf{r^{*}}})-\Psi^{\rm
T}_{+\mathbf{q}_{\rm p\rm p}}({\mathbf{r^{*}}})|^{2}}\over{\int
S({\mathbf{r^{*}}}})}\right].$ (11)

This formulation takes into account the necessary (anti-)symmetrization of the
wavefunction for a $\rm p\rm p$ pair in the singlet (triplet) spin state with
a corresponding weight of 1/4 (3/4). The $\rm p\rm p$ pair wavefunction may be
written as [44]

$\Psi_{-\mathbf{q}_{\rm p\rm
p}}({\mathbf{r^{*}}})=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\delta_{c}}\sqrt{A_{\rm
c}(\eta)}\left[\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}\mathbf{q}_{\rm p\rm
p}\cdot\mathbf{r^{*}}/2}F(-\mathrm{i}\eta,1,\mathrm{i}\xi)+f_{\rm c}(q_{\rm
p\rm p}){{\tilde{G}(\rho,\eta)}\over{\lvert\mathbf{r^{*}}\rvert}}\right],$
(12)

where $\mathbf{r^{*}}$ is the spatial separation of particle emitters at
generally different emission moments in the PRF,
$\delta_{c}=\mathrm{arg}\,\Gamma(1+\mathrm{i}\eta)$ is the Coulomb s-wave
phase shift, $A_{\rm{c}}{(\eta)}=2\pi\eta(\mathrm{e}^{2\pi\eta}-1)^{-1}$ is
the Gamow factor (also referred to as Coulomb penetration factor),
$\eta=(\frac{1}{2}aq_{\rm p\rm p})^{-1}$, $a=(\mu z_{1}z_{2}e^{2})^{-1}$ is
the two-particle Bohr radius taking into account the sign of the interaction
($a=57.6$ fm for $\rm p\rm p$ pair), $F$ is the confluent hypergeometric
function, $\xi={1\over 2}q_{\rm p\rm p}r^{*}(1+\cos{\theta^{*}})$,
$\theta^{*}$ is the angle between $\mathbf{q}_{\rm p\rm p}$ and
$\mathbf{r^{*}}$, $\tilde{G}$ is the combination of the regular and singular
s-wave Coulomb functions, and $\rho={1\over 2}q_{\rm p\rm p}r^{*}$. The
amplitude of the low-energy s-wave elastic scattering due to the short range
interaction $f_{c}(q_{\rm p\rm p})$ may be expressed as

$f_{c}(q_{\rm p\rm p})=\left[{1\over f_{0}}+{d_{0}q_{\rm p\rm p}^{2}\over
8}-{1\over 2}\mathrm{i}q_{\rm p\rm p}A_{\rm c}(\eta)-{2\over
a}h(\eta)\right]^{-1},$ (13)

where $f_{0}$ is the scattering length, $d_{0}$ is the effective radius of the
interaction,
$h(\eta)=[\psi(\mathrm{i}\eta)+\psi(-\mathrm{i}\eta)-\mathrm{ln}(\eta^{2})]/2$,
and $\psi$ is the digamma function. For the $\rm p\rm p$ system in the singlet
(triplet) state, $f_{0}$ and $d_{0}$ are 7.77 fm (-5.4 fm) and 2.77 fm (1.7
fm).

For the feed-down term, the theoretical $\rm p\Lambda$ correlation function
for a given $R_{\rm p\Lambda}$ transformed into the $\rm p\rm p$ momentum
space is obtained from the Lednicky-Lyuboshitz model [35] and calculated as

$C_{\rm p\Lambda}(q_{\rm p\rm p};R_{\rm p\Lambda})=\sum\limits_{q_{\rm
p\Lambda}}{C_{\rm p\Lambda}(q_{\rm p\Lambda};R_{\rm p\Lambda})T(q_{\rm p\rm
p},q_{\rm p\Lambda})}/\sum\limits_{q_{\rm p\Lambda}}{T(q_{\rm p\rm p},q_{\rm
p\Lambda})},$ (14)

where $C_{\rm p\Lambda}(q_{\rm p\Lambda};R_{\rm p\Lambda})=1+C_{\rm
strongFSI}(q_{\rm p\Lambda};R_{\rm p\Lambda})$, and $T(q_{\rm p\rm p},q_{\rm
p\Lambda})$ are the transformation factors related to $\Lambda$ decay
kinematics, calculated with THERMINATOR 2 [40]. Here, a spin-dependent version
of Eq. 8 is used [35]:

$C_{\rm strongFSI}(q,R)=\sum_{S}\rho_{S}\left[{1\over
2}\left|{f^{S}(q)}\over{R}\right|^{2}\left(1-{{d_{0}^{S}}\over{2\sqrt{\pi}R}}\right)+{{2\Re
f^{S}(q)}\over{\sqrt{\pi}R}}F_{1}(qR)-{{\Im
f^{S}(q)}\over{R}}F_{2}(qR)\right],$ (15)

where $f^{S}(q)$ is the spin-dependent scattering amplitude, $\rho_{s}$ is the
fraction of pairs in each total spin state $S$, and $d_{0}^{S}$ is the
effective radius of the interaction. It is assumed that the radii of $\rm p\rm
p$ and $\rm p\Lambda$ sources are equal. Therefore, there are three free fit
parameters in Eq. 10: $\lambda_{\rm p\rm p}$, $\lambda_{\rm p\Lambda}$ , and
$R$. Theoretical $\rm p\rm p$ and $\rm p\Lambda$ correlation functions were
calculated using several values of the free parameters, and the fit function
(for the set of parameters given during each fit iteration) was formed by a
quadratic interpolation of the calculated correlation functions.

###  3.5 Systematic uncertainties

The effects of various sources of systematic uncertainty on the extracted fit
parameters were studied as functions of centrality and $k_{\rm T}$. Table 2
shows the minimum and maximum uncertainties from each source. The values of
the total uncertainty are not necessarily equal to the sum of the individual
uncertainties, as the latter can come from different centrality or $k_{\rm T}$
bins. All four analyses studied the effects of changing the selection criteria
for the events, particles and pairs used (variation of cut values up to
$\pm$25$\%$) and varying the range of $q$ values over which the fit is
performed (variation of $q$ limits up to $\pm$25$\%$). Uncertainties
associated with momentum resolution corrections are included in the $\pi$,
$\rm K^{\pm}$, and $\rm p$ analyses; the $\rm K^{0}_{S}$ analysis also studied
this and found the uncertainties to be negligible. The $\rm K^{\pm}$, $\rm
K^{0}_{S}$, and $\rm p$ analyses encountered uncertainties associated with the
non-flat background seen at large-$q$ for high-$k_{\rm T}$ pairs in peripheral
collisions (estimated by using different parametrizations (linear or
polynomial) to fit the large-$q$ region). Strong FSI uncertainties affect both
kaon analyses. For $\rm K^{0}_{S}$, the strong FSI uncertainty comes from the
fact that several sets of $\rm f_{0}(980)$ and $\rm a_{0}(980)$ parameters are
available [46, 47, 48, 49]; each set is used to fit the data, the results are
averaged, and the maximum difference was taken as the systematic error. The
$\pi$ and $\rm K^{\pm}$ analyses have uncertainties associated with the choice
of the Coulomb function used in the fitting procedure. The $\rm K^{\pm}$
analysis had additional uncertainties due to the misidentification of
particles and the associated purity correction. The $\rm p$ analysis also had
uncertainties associated with the uncertainty in the $R_{\rm p\rm p}/R_{\rm
p\Lambda}$ ratio and attempts to fix the $\lambda_{\rm p\rm p}$ parameter
using the single-particle purity. All of the analyses were performed
separately for the two different signs of the ALICE dipole magnetic field, but
the resulting systematic uncertainty was found to be negligible in all cases.

Systematic uncertainties on correlation functions (Figs. 4, 6 and 6) were
derived from the variation of single- and two-particle cuts.

| $\pi^{\pm}$ | $\rm K^{\pm}$ | $\rm K^{0}_{S}$ | $\rm p$
---|---|---|---|---
| $R_{\rm inv}$ | $\lambda$ | $R_{\rm inv}$ | $\lambda$ | $R_{\rm inv}$ | $\lambda$ | $R_{\rm inv}$ | $\lambda$
Event/particle/pair selection | 2-13 | 6 | 3-5 | 3-5 | 1-4 | 2-10 | 2-27 | 12-58
Non-flat background | - | - | 0.2-5 | 0.2-5 | 0-5 | 0-4 | 2-3 | 1-9
Fit range | 10 | 33 | 1-5 | 1-5 | 0-4 | 0-3 | 3-26 | 3-57
Strong FSI | - | - | 4 | 4 | 1-2 | 5-10 | n/a | n/a
Coulomb function | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a
PID and purity | - | - | - | 5-28 | - | - | 4-18 | 13-41
Momentum resolution | 2 | 3 | 3-5 | 5-10 | - | - | 3 | 1-8
Fixing $\lambda_{\rm p\rm p}$ | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 1-29 | n/a
$R_{\rm p\rm p}/R_{\rm p\Lambda}$ ratio | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 1-13 | 20-52
Total (quad. sum) | 11-21 | 34 | 6-9 | 10-32 | 2-7 | 7-15 | 10-40 | 30-80
Table 2: Minimal and maximal uncertainty values for various sources of
systematic uncertainty (in percent). The $\lambda$ for the proton analysis
refers to the sum of $\lambda_{\rm p\rm p}$ and $\lambda_{\rm p\Lambda}$.
Please note that each value is the minimum (maximum) uncertainty from a
specific source, but each can be from a different centrality or $k_{\rm T}$
bin. Thus, the minimum (maximum) total uncertainties are greater (smaller)
than (or equal to) the sum of the minimum (maximum) individual uncertainties.
’n/a’ denotes that the given descriptor of the systematic uncertainty is not
applicable for the specific pair type, and ’-’ means that the contribution
from the given source is negligible.

##  4 Results

Figures 7 and 8 present the extracted fit parameters from
$\pi^{\pm}\pi^{\pm}$, $\rm K^{\pm}\rm K^{\pm}$, $\rm K^{0}_{S}\rm K^{0}_{S}$,
and $\rm p\rm p$ correlations for several intervals of centrality and
transverse mass. Both statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown. The
quality of the fits used to extract the shown parameters can be assessed using
the $\chi^{2}/NDF$ values, which are in the ranges of 1.2-5.0, 0.8-3.5,
0.6-1.5, and 0.8-3.2 for the pion, charged kaon, neutral kaon, and proton
analyses, respectively.

Figure 7: (Color online) $\lambda$ parameters ($\lambda_{\rm p\rm
p}+\lambda_{\rm p\Lambda}$ in case of (anti)proton pairs) vs. $m_{\rm T}$ for
the three centralities considered for $\pi^{\pm}\pi^{\pm}$, $\rm K^{\pm}\rm
K^{\pm}$, $\rm K^{0}_{S}\rm K^{0}_{S}$, $\rm p\rm p$, and
$\rm\overline{p}\rm\overline{p}$. Statistical (thin lines) and systematic
(boxes) uncertainties are shown. The $m_{\rm T}$ values for different
centrality intervals are slightly offset for clarity. Figure 8: (Color online)
$R_{\rm inv}$ parameters vs. $m_{\rm T}$ for the three centralities considered
for $\pi^{\pm}\pi^{\pm}$, $\rm K^{\pm}\rm K^{\pm}$, $\rm K^{0}_{S}\rm
K^{0}_{S}$, $\rm p\rm p$, and $\rm\overline{p}\rm\overline{p}$. Statistical
(thin lines) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown.

Figure 7 shows the extracted $\lambda$ parameters vs. $m_{\rm T}$ for several
centralities. The proton $\lambda$ is the sum of $\lambda_{\rm pp}$ and
$\lambda_{\rm p\Lambda}$ from Eq. 10. The values for all species measured lie
mostly in the range 0.3-0.7 and show no significant centrality dependence. The
values of $\lambda$ are less than unity due to long-lived resonances which
dilute the correlation functions and also lead to non-Gaussian shapes of the
correlation functions, especially in the one-dimensional case [20]. Results
for kaons and protons are consistent with each other at similar $m_{\rm T}$.
Values of $\lambda$ for pions are lower than for kaons due to the stronger
influence of resonances; an additional cause could be a partial coherence of
pions [19].

Figure 8 shows the extracted $R_{\rm inv}$ parameters vs. $m_{\rm T}$ for
several centralities. For overlapping $m_{\rm T}$, the radius parameters are
mostly consistent with each other within uncertainties, though the pion radii
are generally larger than the kaon radii. The $\rm K^{0}_{S}$ radii are
slightly higher than $\rm K^{\pm}$ radii for central collisions, but the
difference is less than the systematic uncertainties. The radius parameters
show increasing size with increasing centrality as would be expected from a
simple geometric picture of the collisions. They also show a decreasing size
with increasing $m_{\rm T}$ as would be expected in the presence of collective
radial flow [6]. Both of these dependences can be seen in previous
$\pi^{\pm}\pi^{\pm}$ femtoscopic measurements [4, 5] and also reinforce the
interpretation that collective flow is present in these collisions for pions,
kaons (neutral and charged), and protons alike. Deviations from exact $m_{\rm
T}$-scaling of $R_{\rm inv}$ can be explained as a consequence of the increase
of the Lorentz factor with decreasing particle mass. In a hydrodynamic model
[50], scaling is observed for the three-dimensional radii measured in the
Longitudinally Co-Moving System (LCMS). The transformation from LCMS to PRF
involves a boost along the outward direction only, where the boost value is
proportional to the transverse velocity of the pair and inversely proportional
to the particle mass (for similar $m_{\rm T}$). Thus, a smaller mass leads to
an increase in the boosted $R_{\rm out}$ and, subsequently, $R_{\rm inv}$ in
the PRF. Indeed, we observe such an effect in the data, as pion radii are
systematically higher than kaon radii at the same $m_{\rm T}$.

A comparison of a hydrodynamic flow + kinetics model, HKM [14], with the
measured $R_{\rm inv}$ and $\lambda$ parameters for 0-5% centrality is shown
in Fig. 9. The HKM values in Fig. 9 are specifically from $\rm K^{\pm}\rm
K^{\pm}$, but the predictions for $\rm K^{0}_{S}\rm K^{0}_{S}$ and $\rm
K^{\pm}\rm K^{\pm}$ are consistent with each other. For $R_{\rm inv}$, the
charged kaon data show very good agreement with the predictions. The
experimental data for the neutral kaons are again slightly higher than for the
charged kaons, but this difference is still within systematic uncertainties.
For $\lambda$, both sets of kaon data match the decreasing trend with
increasing $k_{\rm T}$ exhibited by the HKM points, but the model slightly
overpredicts the data. It is shown in [14] that the most important resonances
for $\rm K\rm K$ pairs, $\rm K$*(890) and $\phi$(1020), do not significantly
influence the $\lambda$ parameter (due to their low contribution), and the
discrepancy between the model and experimental data can be explained by the
lower experimental kaon purity and deviations of the experimental correlation
function shape from a Gaussian distribution. For protons, the HKM prediction
is compatible with the data. HKM calculations for one-dimensional pion radii
are currently not available, but three-dimensional radii were reasonably
reproduced by this model [51].

Figure 9: (Color online) Comparison of the HKM model (see text) with measured
kaon $\lambda$ (a) and $R_{\rm inv}$ (b) parameters for 0-5% centrality.
Statistical (thin lines) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown.

##  5 Summary

Results from femtoscopic studies of $\pi^{\pm}\pi^{\pm}$, $\rm K^{\pm}\rm
K^{\pm}$, $\rm K^{0}_{S}\rm K^{0}_{S}$, $\rm p\rm p$, and
$\rm\overline{p}\rm\overline{p}$ correlations from Pb-Pb collisions at
$\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76$ TeV with ALICE at the LHC have been presented.
The femtoscopic radii and $\lambda$ parameters were extracted from one-
dimensional correlation functions in terms of the invariant momentum
difference. It was found that the emission source sizes of kaons and protons
measured in these collisions exhibit transverse mass scaling within
uncertainties, which is consistent with hydrodynamic model predictions
assuming collective flow. The deviation from the scaling for the pions can be
explained as a consequence of the increase of the Lorentz factor with
decreasing particle mass during the transformation from LCMS to PRF systems
[50]. The extracted $\lambda$ parameters are found to be less than unity, as
is expected due to long-lived resonances and non-Gaussian correlation
functions. The predictions of the hydrokinetic model (HKM) for the one-
dimensional femtoscopic radii for charged and neutral kaons and protons
coincide well with the observations.

## 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: State
Committee of Science, World Federation of Scientists (WFS) and Swiss Fonds
Kidagan, Armenia, 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); National Natural Science
Foundation of China (NSFC), the Chinese Ministry of Education (CMOE) and the
Ministry of Science and Technology of China (MSTC); Ministry of Education and
Youth of the Czech Republic; Danish Natural Science Research Council, the
Carlsberg Foundation and the Danish National Research Foundation; The European
Research Council under the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme;
Helsinki Institute of Physics and the Academy of Finland; French CNRS-IN2P3,
the ‘Region Pays de Loire’, ‘Region Alsace’, ‘Region Auvergne’ and CEA,
France; German Bundesministerium fur Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und
Technologie (BMBF) and the Helmholtz Association; General Secretariat for
Research and Technology, Ministry of Development, Greece; Hungarian Orszagos
Tudomanyos Kutatasi Alappgrammok (OTKA) and National Office for Research and
Technology (NKTH); Department of Atomic Energy and Department of Science and
Technology of the Government of India; Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare
(INFN) and Centro Fermi - Museo Storico della Fisica e Centro Studi e Ricerche
”Enrico Fermi”, Italy; MEXT Grant-in-Aid for Specially Promoted Research,
Japan; Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna; National Research
Foundation of Korea (NRF); Consejo Nacional de Cienca y Tecnologia (CONACYT),
Direccion General de Asuntos del Personal Academico(DGAPA), México, Amerique
Latine Formation academique - European Commission (ALFA-EC) and the EPLANET
Program (European Particle Physics Latin American Network); Stichting voor
Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM) and the Nederlandse Organisatie voor
Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), Netherlands; Research Council of Norway
(NFR); National Science Centre, Poland; Ministry of National
Education/Institute for Atomic Physics and National Council of Scientific
Research in Higher Education (CNCSI-UEFISCDI), Romania; Ministry of Education
and Science of Russian Federation, Russian Academy of Sciences, Russian
Federal Agency of Atomic Energy, Russian Federal Agency for Science and
Innovations and The Russian Foundation for Basic Research; Ministry of
Education of Slovakia; Department of Science and Technology, South Africa;
Centro de Investigaciones Energeticas, Medioambientales y Tecnologicas
(CIEMAT), E-Infrastructure shared between Europe and Latin America (EELA),
Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (MINECO) of Spain, Xunta de Galicia
(Consellería de Educación), Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo
Nuclear (CEADEN), Cubaenergía, Cuba, and IAEA (International Atomic Energy
Agency); Swedish Research Council (VR) and Knut $\&$ Alice Wallenberg
Foundation (KAW); Ukraine Ministry of Education and Science; United Kingdom
Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC); The United States Department
of Energy, the United States National Science Foundation, the State of Texas,
and the State of Ohio; Ministry of Science, Education and Sports of Croatia
and Unity through Knowledge Fund, Croatia; Council of Scientific and
Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi, India.

## References

  * [1] G. Goldhaber, S. Goldhaber, W.-Y. Lee, and A. Pais, “Influence of Bose-Einstein statistics on the anti-proton proton annihilation process”, Phys. Rev. 120 (1960) 300–312.
  * [2] G. Kopylov and M. Podgoretsky, “Correlations of identical particles emitted by highly excited nuclei”, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 15 (1972) 219–223.
  * [3] G. Kopylov, V. Lyuboshits, and M. Podgoretsky, “Correlations Between the Particles Which Have Small Relative Momenta”, JINR-P2-8069 (1974) .
  * [4] M. A. Lisa, S. Pratt, R. Soltz, and U. Wiedemann, “Femtoscopy in relativistic heavy ion collisions”, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 55 (2005) 357–402, arXiv:nucl-ex/0505014 [nucl-ex].
  * [5] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “Two-pion Bose-Einstein correlations in central Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B696 (2011) 328–337, arXiv:1012.4035 [nucl-ex].
  * [6] S. Akkelin and Y. Sinyukov, “The HBT interferometry of expanding sources”, Phys. Lett. B356 (1995) 525–530.
  * [7] A. Makhlin and Y. Sinyukov, “Hydrodynamics of Hadron Matter Under Pion Interferometric Microscope”, Z. Phys. C39 (1988) 69.
  * [8] NA44 Collaboration, I. Bearden et al., “Two kaon correlations in central Pb + Pb collisions at 158 AGeV/$c$”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 112301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0107005 [nucl-ex].
  * [9] NA49 Collaboration, S. Afanasiev, T. Anticic, B. Baatar, D. Barna, J. Bartke, et al., “Bose-Einstein correlations of charged kaons in central Pb + Pb collisions at E(beam) = 158 GeV per nucleon”, Phys. Lett. B557 (2003) 157–166, arXiv:nucl-ex/0210018 [nucl-ex].
  * [10] CERES Collaboration, D. Adamova et al., “Beam energy and centrality dependence of two pion Bose-Einstein correlations at SPS energies”, Nucl. Phys. A714 (2003) 124–144, arXiv:nucl-ex/0207005 [nucl-ex].
  * [11] STAR Collaboration, J. Adams et al., “Identified particle distributions in pp and Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=200 GeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 112301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0310004 [nucl-ex].
  * [12] STAR Collaboration, L. Adamczyk et al., “Freeze-out dynamics via charged kaon femtoscopy in $\sqrt{{s}_{\rm NN}}$=200 GeV central Au + Au collisions”, Phys. Rev. C88 no. 3, (2013) 034906, arXiv:1302.3168 [nucl-ex].
  * [13] PHENIX Collaboration, S. Afanasiev et al., “Kaon interferometric probes of space-time evolution in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=200 GeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 142301, arXiv:0903.4863 [nucl-ex].
  * [14] V. Shapoval, P. Braun-Munzinger, I. Karpenko, and Y. Sinyukov, “Femtoscopy correlations of kaons in Pb + Pb collisions at LHC within hydrokinetic model”, arXiv:1404.4501 [hep-ph].
  * [15] STAR Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Neutral kaon interferometry in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=200 GeV”, Phys. Rev. C74 (2006) 054902, arXiv:nucl-ex/0608012 [nucl-ex].
  * [16] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “$\rm K^{0}_{s}-\rm K^{0}_{s}$ correlations in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV from the LHC ALICE experiment”, Phys. Lett. B717 (2012) 151–161, arXiv:1206.2056 [hep-ex].
  * [17] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Charged kaon femtoscopic correlations in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”, Phys. Rev. D87 no. 5, (2013) 052016, arXiv:1212.5958 [hep-ex].
  * [18] A. Adare, S. Afanasiev, C. Aidala, N. Ajitanand, Y. Akiba, et al., “Systematic study of charged-pion and kaon femtoscopy in Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=200 GeV”, arXiv:1504.05168 [nucl-ex].
  * [19] ALICE Collaboration, B. B. Abelev et al., “Two and Three-Pion Quantum Statistics Correlations in Pb-Pb Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=2.76 TeV at the LHC”, Phys. Rev. C89 (2014) 024911, arXiv:1310.7808 [nucl-ex].
  * [20] ALICE Collaboration, B. B. Abelev et al., “Freeze-out radii extracted from three-pion cumulants in pp, p-Pb and Pb-Pb collisions at the LHC”, arXiv:1404.1194 [nucl-ex].
  * [21] CMS Collaboration, “Femtoscopy with identified charged hadrons in pp, pPb, and peripheral PbPb collisions at LHC energies”, Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-HIN-14-013, CERN, Geneva, 2014.  https://cds.cern.ch/record/1703272.
  * [22] H. Gos, “Proton proton, anti-proton anti-proton, proton anti-proton correlations in Au + Au collisions measured by STAR at RHIC”, Eur. Phys. J. C49 (2007) 75–80.
  * [23] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC”, JINST 3 (2008) S08002.
  * [24] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Centrality determination of Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=2.76 TeV with ALICE”, Phys. Rev. C88 no. 4, (2013) 044909, arXiv:1301.4361 [nucl-ex].
  * [25] ALICE Collaboration, G. Dellacasa et al., “ALICE: Technical design report of the time projection chamber”, tech. rep., Geneva, 2000.  http://cds.cern.ch/record/451098.  CERN-OPEN-2000-183.
  * [26] ALICE Collaboration, B. Alessandro et al., “ALICE: Physics performance report, volume II”, J. Phys. G32 (2006) 1295–2040.
  * [27] ALICE Collaboration, P. Cortese et al., “ALICE: Addendum to the technical design report of the time of flight system (TOF)”, tech. rep., Geneva, 2000.  http://cds.cern.ch/record/545834.  CERN-LHCC-2002-016.
  * [28] ALICE Collaboration, B. B. Abelev et al., “Performance of the ALICE Experiment at the CERN LHC”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A29 (2014) 1430044, arXiv:1402.4476 [nucl-ex].
  * [29] X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, “HIJING: A Monte Carlo model for multiple jet production in pp, pA and AA collisions”, Phys. Rev. D44 (1991) 3501–3516.
  * [30] R. Brun, F. Carminati, and S. Giani, “GEANT Detector Description and Simulation Tool”, 1994.  CERN-W5013, CERN-W-5013.
  * [31] Particle Data Group Collaboration, K. Olive et al., “Review of Particle Physics”, Chin. Phys. C38 (2014) 090001.
  * [32] M. Steinpreis, Neutral kaon femtoscopy in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=2.76$ $\rm TeV$ at the LHC with ALICE.  PhD thesis, The Ohio State University, 2014.  https://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1417696971.
  * [33] S. Koonin, “Proton Pictures of High-Energy Nuclear Collisions”, Phys. Lett. B70 (1977) 43–47.
  * [34] S. Pratt, T. Csorgo, and J. Zimanyi, “Detailed predictions for two pion correlations in ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions”, Phys. Rev. C42 (1990) 2646–2652.
  * [35] R. Lednicky and V. Lyuboshits, “Final State Interaction Effect on Pairing Correlations Between Particles with Small Relative Momenta”, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 35 (1982) 770.
  * [36] M. Bowler, “Coulomb corrections to Bose-Einstein correlations have been greatly exaggerated”, Phys. Lett. B270 (1991) 69–74.
  * [37] Y. Sinyukov, R. Lednicky, S. Akkelin, J. Pluta, and B. Erazmus, “Coulomb corrections for interferometry analysis of expanding hadron systems”, Phys. Lett. B432 (1998) 248–257.
  * [38] S. V. Akkelin, R. Lednicky, and Y. M. Sinyukov, “Correlation search for coherent pion emission in heavy ion collisions”, Phys. Rev. C 65 (Jun, 2002) 064904. http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.65.064904.
  * [39] U. A. Wiedemann and U. W. Heinz, “Resonance contributions to HBT correlation radii”, Phys. Rev. C56 (1997) 3265–3286, arXiv:nucl-th/9611031 [nucl-th].
  * [40] M. Chojnacki, A. Kisiel, W. Florkowski, and W. Broniowski, “THERMINATOR 2: THERMal heavy IoN generATOR 2”, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183 (2012) 746–773, arXiv:1102.0273 [nucl-th].
  * [41] R. Lednicky, “Correlation femtoscopy”, Nucl. Phys. A774 (2006) 189–198, arXiv:nucl-th/0510020 [nucl-th].
  * [42] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Centrality dependence of pion freeze-out radii in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{\mathbf{s_{NN}}}$=2.76 TeV”, arXiv:1507.06842 [nucl-ex].
  * [43] NPLQCD Collaboration, S. R. Beane et al., “The $\rm K^{+}\rm K^{+}$ scattering length from lattice QCD”, Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 094507, arXiv:0709.1169 [hep-lat].
  * [44] R. Lednicky, “Finite-size effects on two-particle production in continuous and discrete spectrum”, Phys. Part. Nucl. 40 (2009) 307–352, arXiv:nucl-th/0501065 [nucl-th].
  * [45] A. Kisiel, H. Zbroszczyk, and M. Szymanski, “Extracting baryon-antibaryon strong interaction potentials from p$\bar{\Lambda}$ femtoscopic correlation function”, Phys. Rev. C89 (2014) 054916, arXiv:1403.0433 [nucl-th].
  * [46] A. Martin, E. Ozmutlu, and E. Squires, “The $\pi\pi$ and ${\rm K}\bar{\rm K}$ amplitudes, the $\text{S}^{*}$ and the quark structure of $0^{++}$ resonances”, Nucl. Phys. B 121 (1977) 514–530.
  * [47] KLOE Collaboration, A. Antonelli, “Radiative phi decays”, eConf C020620 (2002) THAT06. arXiv:hep-ex/029069.
  * [48] N. Achasov and V. Gubin, “Analysis of the nature of the $\vec{\varphi}\gamma\pi\eta$ and $\vec{\varphi}\gamma\pi^{0}\pi^{0}$ decays”, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 094007.
  * [49] N. Achasov and A. Kiselev, “New analysis of the KLOE data on the $\vec{\varphi}\eta\pi^{0}\gamma$ decay”, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 014006.
  * [50] A. Kisiel, M. Galazyn, and P. Bozek, “Pion, kaon, and proton femtoscopy in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=2.76 TeV modeled in 3+1D hydrodynamics”, arXiv:1409.4571 [nucl-th].
  * [51] I. Karpenko, Y. Sinyukov, and K. Werner, “Uniform description of bulk observables in the hydrokinetic model of $A+A$ collisions at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider and the CERN Large Hadron Collider”, Phys. Rev. C87 (2013) 024914, arXiv:1204.5351 [nucl-th].

##  Appendix A The ALICE Collaboration

J. Adamorg40&D. Adamováorg83&M.M. Aggarwalorg87&G. Aglieri Rinellaorg36&M.
Agnelloorg111&N. Agrawalorg48&Z. Ahammedorg132&S.U. Ahnorg68&I.
Aimoorg94,org111&S. Aiolaorg137&M. Ajazorg16&A. Akindinovorg58&S.N.
Alamorg132&D. Aleksandrovorg100&B. Alessandroorg111&D. Alexandreorg102&R.
Alfaro Molinaorg64&A. Aliciorg105,org12&A. Alkinorg3&J. Almeorg38&T.
Altorg43&S. Altinpinarorg18&I. Altsybeevorg131&C. Alves Garcia Pradoorg120&C.
Andreiorg78&A. Andronicorg97&V. Anguelovorg93&J. Anielskiorg54&T.
Antičićorg98&F. Antinoriorg108&P. Antonioliorg105&L. Aphecetcheorg113&H.
Appelshäuserorg53&S. Arcelliorg28&N. Armestoorg17&R. Arnaldiorg111&I.C.
Arseneorg22&M. Arslandokorg53&B. Audurierorg113&A. Augustinusorg36&R.
Averbeckorg97&M.D. Azmiorg19&M. Bachorg43&A. Badalàorg107&Y.W. Baekorg44&S.
Bagnascoorg111&R. Bailhacheorg53&R. Balaorg90&A. Baldisseriorg15&F. Baltasar
Dos Santos Pedrosaorg36&R.C. Baralorg61&A.M. Barbanoorg111&R. Barberaorg29&F.
Barileorg33&G.G. Barnaföldiorg136&L.S. Barnbyorg102&V. Barretorg70&P.
Bartaliniorg7&K. Barthorg36&J. Bartkeorg117&E. Bartschorg53&M. Basileorg28&N.
Bastidorg70&S. Basuorg132&B. Bathenorg54&G. Batigneorg113&A. Batista
Camejoorg70&B. Batyunyaorg66&P.C. Batzingorg22&I.G. Beardenorg80&H.
Beckorg53&C. Beddaorg111&N.K. Beheraorg49,org48&I. Belikovorg55&F.
Belliniorg28&H. Bello Martinezorg2&R. Bellwiedorg122&R. Belmontorg135&E.
Belmont-Morenoorg64&V. Belyaevorg76&G. Bencediorg136&S. Beoleorg27&I.
Berceanuorg78&A. Bercuciorg78&Y. Berdnikovorg85&D. Berenyiorg136&R.A.
Bertensorg57&D. Berzanoorg36,org27&L. Betevorg36&A. Bhasinorg90&I.R.
Bhatorg90&A.K. Bhatiorg87&B. Bhattacharjeeorg45&J. Bhomorg128&L.
Bianchiorg122&N. Bianchiorg72&C. Bianchinorg135,org57&J. Bielčíkorg40&J.
Bielčíkováorg83&A. Bilandzicorg80&R. Biswasorg4&S. Biswasorg79&S.
Bjelogrlicorg57&F. Blancoorg10&D. Blauorg100&C. Blumeorg53&F.
Bockorg74,org93&A. Bogdanovorg76&H. Bøggildorg80&L. Boldizsárorg136&M.
Bombaraorg41&J. Bookorg53&H. Borelorg15&A. Borissovorg96&M. Borriorg82&F.
Bossúorg65&M. Botjeorg81&E. Bottaorg27&S. Böttgerorg52&P. Braun-
Munzingerorg97&M. Bregantorg120&T. Breitnerorg52&T.A. Brokerorg53&T.A.
Browningorg95&M. Brozorg40&E.J. Bruckenorg46&E. Brunaorg111&G.E. Brunoorg33&D.
Budnikovorg99&H. Bueschingorg53&S. Bufalinoorg111,org36&P. Buncicorg36&O.
Buschorg93,org128&Z. Butheleziorg65&J.B. Buttorg16&J.T. Buxtonorg20&D.
Caffarriorg36&X. Caiorg7&H. Cainesorg137&L. Calero Diazorg72&A. Calivaorg57&E.
Calvo Villarorg103&P. Cameriniorg26&F. Carenaorg36&W. Carenaorg36&J. Castillo
Castellanosorg15&A.J. Castroorg125&E.A.R. Casulaorg25&C. Cavicchioliorg36&C.
Ceballos Sanchezorg9&J. Cepilaorg40&P. Cerelloorg111&J. Cerkalaorg115&B.
Changorg123&S. Chapelandorg36&M. Chartierorg124&J.L. Charvetorg15&S.
Chattopadhyayorg132&S. Chattopadhyayorg101&V. Chelnokovorg3&M. Cherneyorg86&C.
Cheshkovorg130&B. Cheynisorg130&V. Chibante Barrosoorg36&D.D.
Chinellatoorg121&P. Chochulaorg36&K. Choiorg96&M. Chojnackiorg80&S.
Choudhuryorg132&P. Christakoglouorg81&C.H. Christensenorg80&P.
Christiansenorg34&T. Chujoorg128&S.U. Chungorg96&Z. Chunhuiorg57&C.
Cicaloorg106&L. Cifarelliorg12,org28&F. Cindoloorg105&J. Cleymansorg89&F.
Colamariaorg33&D. Colellaorg33,org59&A. Colluorg25&M. Colocciorg28&G. Conesa
Balbastreorg71&Z. Conesa del Valleorg51&M.E. Connorsorg137&J.G.
Contrerasorg11,org40&T.M. Cormierorg84&Y. Corrales Moralesorg27&I. Cortés
Maldonadoorg2&P. Corteseorg32&M.R. Cosentinoorg120&F. Costaorg36&P.
Crochetorg70&R. Cruz Albinoorg11&E. Cuautleorg63&L. Cunqueiroorg36&T.
Dahmsorg92,org37&A. Daineseorg108&A. Danuorg62&D. Dasorg101&I.
Dasorg51,org101&S. Dasorg4&A. Dashorg121&S. Dashorg48&S. Deorg120&A. De
Caroorg31,org12&G. de Cataldoorg104&J. de Cuvelandorg43&A. De Falcoorg25&D. De
Gruttolaorg12,org31&N. De Marcoorg111&S. De Pasqualeorg31&A.
Deistingorg97,org93&A. Delofforg77&E. Dénesorg136&G. D’Erasmoorg33&D. Di
Bariorg33&A. Di Mauroorg36&P. Di Nezzaorg72&M.A. Diaz Corcheroorg10&T.
Dietelorg89&P. Dillensegerorg53&R. Diviàorg36&Ø. Djuvslandorg18&A.
Dobrinorg57,org81&T. Dobrowolskiorg770&D. Domenicis Gimenezorg120&B.
Dönigusorg53&O. Dordicorg22&A.K. Dubeyorg132&A. Dublaorg57&L. Ducrouxorg130&P.
Dupieuxorg70&R.J. Ehlersorg137&D. Eliaorg104&H. Engelorg52&B.
Erazmusorg36,org113&I. Erdemirorg53&F. Erhardtorg129&D. Eschweilerorg43&B.
Espagnonorg51&M. Estienneorg113&S. Esumiorg128&J. Eumorg96&D. Evansorg102&S.
Evdokimovorg112&G. Eyyubovaorg40&L. Fabbiettiorg37,org92&D. Fabrisorg108&J.
Faivreorg71&A. Fantoniorg72&M. Faselorg74&L. Feldkamporg54&D. Feleaorg62&A.
Felicielloorg111&G. Feofilovorg131&J. Ferenceiorg83&A. Fernández
Téllezorg2&E.G. Ferreiroorg17&A. Ferrettiorg27&A. Festantiorg30&V.J.G.
Feuillardorg70,org15&J. Figielorg117&M.A.S. Figueredoorg124&S.
Filchaginorg99&D. Finogeevorg56&F.M. Fiondaorg104&E.M. Fioreorg33&M.G.
Fleckorg93&M. Florisorg36&S. Foertschorg65&P. Fokaorg97&S. Fokinorg100&E.
Fragiacomoorg110&A. Francesconorg30,org36&U. Frankenfeldorg97&U. Fuchsorg36&C.
Furgetorg71&A. Fursorg56&M. Fusco Girardorg31&J.J. Gaardhøjeorg80&M.
Gagliardiorg27&A.M. Gagoorg103&M. Gallioorg27&D.R. Gangadharanorg74&P.
Ganotiorg88&C. Gaoorg7&C. Garabatosorg97&E. Garcia-Solisorg13&C.
Gargiuloorg36&P. Gasikorg92,org37&M. Germainorg113&A. Gheataorg36&M.
Gheataorg62,org36&P. Ghoshorg132&S.K. Ghoshorg4&P. Gianottiorg72&P.
Giubellinoorg111,org36&P. Giubilatoorg30&E. Gladysz-Dziadusorg117&P.
Glässelorg93&A. Gomez Ramirezorg52&P. González-Zamoraorg10&S. Gorbunovorg43&L.
Görlichorg117&S. Gotovacorg116&V. Grabskiorg64&L.K. Graczykowskiorg134&K.L.
Grahamorg102&A. Grelliorg57&A. Grigorasorg36&C. Grigorasorg36&V.
Grigorievorg76&A. Grigoryanorg1&S. Grigoryanorg66&B. Grinyovorg3&N.
Grionorg110&J.F. Grosse-Oetringhausorg36&J.-Y. Grossiordorg130&R.
Grossoorg36&F. Guberorg56&R. Guernaneorg71&B. Guerzoniorg28&K.
Gulbrandsenorg80&H. Gulkanyanorg1&T. Gunjiorg127&A. Guptaorg90&R.
Guptaorg90&R. Haakeorg54&Ø. Haalandorg18&C. Hadjidakisorg51&M. Haiducorg62&H.
Hamagakiorg127&G. Hamarorg136&A. Hansenorg80&J.W. Harrisorg137&H.
Hartmannorg43&A. Hartonorg13&D. Hatzifotiadouorg105&S. Hayashiorg127&S.T.
Heckelorg53&M. Heideorg54&H. Helstruporg38&A. Herghelegiuorg78&G. Herrera
Corralorg11&B.A. Hessorg35&K.F. Hetlandorg38&T.E. Hildenorg46&H.
Hillemannsorg36&B. Hippolyteorg55&R. Hosokawaorg128&P. Hristovorg36&M.
Huangorg18&T.J. Humanicorg20&N. Hussainorg45&T. Hussainorg19&D.
Hutterorg43&D.S. Hwangorg21&R. Ilkaevorg99&I. Ilkivorg77&M. Inabaorg128&C.
Ionitaorg36&M. Ippolitovorg76,org100&M. Irfanorg19&M. Ivanovorg97&V.
Ivanovorg85&V. Izucheevorg112&P.M. Jacobsorg74&S. Jadlovskaorg115&C.
Jahnkeorg120&H.J. Jangorg68&M.A. Janikorg134&P.H.S.Y. Jayarathnaorg122&C.
Jenaorg30&S. Jenaorg122&R.T. Jimenez Bustamanteorg97&P.G. Jonesorg102&H.
Jungorg44&A. Juskoorg102&P. Kalinakorg59&A. Kalweitorg36&J. Kaminorg53&J.H.
Kangorg138&V. Kaplinorg76&S. Karorg132&A. Karasu Uysalorg69&O.
Karavichevorg56&T. Karavichevaorg56&E. Karpechevorg56&U. Kebschullorg52&R.
Keidelorg139&D.L.D. Keijdenerorg57&M. Keilorg36&K.H. Khanorg16&M.M.
Khanorg19&P. Khanorg101&S.A. Khanorg132&A. Khanzadeevorg85&Y. Kharlovorg112&B.
Kilengorg38&B. Kimorg138&D.W. Kimorg44,org68&D.J. Kimorg123&H. Kimorg138&J.S.
Kimorg44&M. Kimorg44&M. Kimorg138&S. Kimorg21&T. Kimorg138&S. Kirschorg43&I.
Kiselorg43&S. Kiselevorg58&A. Kisielorg134&G. Kissorg136&J.L. Klayorg6&C.
Kleinorg53&J. Kleinorg93&C. Klein-Bösingorg54&A. Klugeorg36&M.L.
Knichelorg93&A.G. Knospeorg118&T. Kobayashiorg128&C. Kobdajorg114&M.
Kofaragoorg36&T. Kolleggerorg97,org43&A. Kolojvariorg131&V.
Kondratievorg131&N. Kondratyevaorg76&E. Kondratyukorg112&A. Konevskikhorg56&M.
Kopcikorg115&C. Kouzinopoulosorg36&O. Kovalenkoorg77&V. Kovalenkoorg131&M.
Kowalskiorg117&S. Koxorg71&G. Koyithatta Meethaleveeduorg48&J. Kralorg123&I.
Králikorg59&A. Kravčákováorg41&M. Krelinaorg40&M. Kretzorg43&M.
Krivdaorg102,org59&F. Krizekorg83&E. Kryshenorg36&M. Krzewickiorg43&A.M.
Kuberaorg20&V. Kučeraorg83&T. Kugathasanorg36&C. Kuhnorg55&P.G. Kuijerorg81&I.
Kulakovorg43&J. Kumarorg48&L. Kumarorg79,org87&P. Kurashviliorg77&A.
Kurepinorg56&A.B. Kurepinorg56&A. Kuryakinorg99&S. Kushpilorg83&M.J.
Kweonorg50&Y. Kwonorg138&S.L. La Pointeorg111&P. La Roccaorg29&C. Lagana
Fernandesorg120&I. Lakomovorg36&R. Langoyorg42&C. Laraorg52&A. Lardeuxorg15&A.
Lattucaorg27&E. Laudiorg36&R. Leaorg26&L. Leardiniorg93&G.R. Leeorg102&S.
Leeorg138&I. Legrandorg36&R.C. Lemmonorg82&V. Lentiorg104&E. Leograndeorg57&I.
León Monzónorg119&M. Leoncinoorg27&P. Lévaiorg136&S. Liorg7,org70&X.
Liorg14&J. Lienorg42&R. Lietavaorg102&S. Lindalorg22&V. Lindenstruthorg43&C.
Lippmannorg97&M.A. Lisaorg20&H.M. Ljunggrenorg34&D.F. Lodatoorg57&P.I.
Loenneorg18&V.R. Logginsorg135&V. Loginovorg76&C. Loizidesorg74&X.
Lopezorg70&E. López Torresorg9&A. Loweorg136&P. Luettigorg53&M.
Lunardonorg30&G. Luparelloorg26&P.H.F.N.D. Luzorg120&A. Maevskayaorg56&M.
Magerorg36&S. Mahajanorg90&S.M. Mahmoodorg22&A. Maireorg55&R.D. Majkaorg137&M.
Malaevorg85&I. Maldonado Cervantesorg63&L. Malininaorg66&D. Mal’Kevichorg58&P.
Malzacherorg97&A. Mamonovorg99&L. Manceauorg111&V. Mankoorg100&F.
Mansoorg70&V. Manzariorg104,org36&M. Marchisoneorg27&J. Marešorg60&G.V.
Margagliottiorg26&A. Margottiorg105&J. Marguttiorg57&A. Marínorg97&C.
Markertorg118&M. Marquardorg53&N.A. Martinorg97&J. Martin Blancoorg113&P.
Martinengoorg36&M.I. Martínezorg2&G. Martínez Garcíaorg113&M. Martinez
Pedreiraorg36&Y. Martynovorg3&A. Masorg120&S. Masciocchiorg97&M.
Maseraorg27&A. Masoniorg106&L. Massacrierorg113&A. Mastroserioorg33&H.
Masuiorg128&A. Matyjaorg117&C. Mayerorg117&J. Mazerorg125&M.A.
Mazzoniorg109&D. Mcdonaldorg122&F. Meddiorg24&A. Menchaca-Rochaorg64&E.
Meninnoorg31&J. Mercado Pérezorg93&M. Meresorg39&Y. Miakeorg128&M.M.
Mieskolainenorg46&K. Mikhaylovorg58,org66&L. Milanoorg36&J.
Milosevicorg133,org22&L.M. Minerviniorg104,org23&A. Mischkeorg57&A.N.
Mishraorg49&D. Miśkowiecorg97&J. Mitraorg132&C.M. Mituorg62&N.
Mohammadiorg57&B. Mohantyorg79,org132&L. Molnarorg55&L. Montaño Zetinaorg11&E.
Montesorg10&M. Morandoorg30&D.A. Moreira De Godoyorg113,org54&S.
Morettoorg30&A. Morrealeorg113&A. Morschorg36&V. Mucciforaorg72&E.
Mudnicorg116&D. Mühlheimorg54&S. Muhuriorg132&M. Mukherjeeorg132&J.D.
Mulliganorg137&M.G. Munhozorg120&S. Murrayorg65&L. Musaorg36&J.
Musinskyorg59&B.K. Nandiorg48&R. Naniaorg105&E. Nappiorg104&M.U. Naruorg16&C.
Nattrassorg125&K. Nayakorg79&T.K. Nayakorg132&S. Nazarenkoorg99&A.
Nedosekinorg58&L. Nellenorg63&F. Ngorg122&M. Nicassioorg97&M.
Niculescuorg62,org36&J. Niedzielaorg36&B.S. Nielsenorg80&S. Nikolaevorg100&S.
Nikulinorg100&V. Nikulinorg85&F. Noferiniorg12,org105&P. Nomokonovorg66&G.
Noorenorg57&J.C.C. Norisorg2&J. Normanorg124&A. Nyaninorg100&J.
Nystrandorg18&H. Oeschlerorg93&S. Ohorg137&S.K. Ohorg67&A. Ohlsonorg36&A.
Okatanorg69&T. Okuboorg47&L. Olahorg136&J. Oleniaczorg134&A.C. Oliveira Da
Silvaorg120&M.H. Oliverorg137&J. Onderwaaterorg97&C. Oppedisanoorg111&A. Ortiz
Velasquezorg63&A. Oskarssonorg34&J. Otwinowskiorg117&K. Oyamaorg93&M.
Ozdemirorg53&Y. Pachmayerorg93&P. Paganoorg31&G. Paićorg63&C.
Pajaresorg17&S.K. Palorg132&J. Panorg135&A.K. Pandeyorg48&D. Pantorg48&P.
Papcunorg115&V. Papikyanorg1&G.S. Pappalardoorg107&P. Pareekorg49&W.J.
Parkorg97&S. Parmarorg87&A. Passfeldorg54&V. Paticchioorg104&R.N.
Patraorg132&B. Paulorg101&T. Peitzmannorg57&H. Pereira Da Costaorg15&E.
Pereira De Oliveira Filhoorg120&D. Peresunkoorg100,org76&C.E. Pérez
Laraorg81&E. Perez Lezamaorg43&V. Peskovorg53&Y. Pestovorg5&V.
Petráčekorg40&V. Petrovorg112&M. Petroviciorg78&C. Pettaorg29&S.
Pianoorg110&M. Piknaorg39&P. Pillotorg113&O. Pinazzaorg105,org36&L.
Pinskyorg122&D.B. Piyarathnaorg122&M. Płoskońorg74&M. Planinicorg129&J.
Plutaorg134&S. Pochybovaorg136&P.L.M. Podesta-Lermaorg119&M.G.
Poghosyanorg86&B. Polichtchoukorg112&N. Poljakorg129&W. Poonsawatorg114&A.
Poporg78&S. Porteboeuf-Houssaisorg70&J. Porterorg74&J. Pospisilorg83&S.K.
Prasadorg4&R. Preghenellaorg105,org36&F. Prinoorg111&C.A. Pruneauorg135&I.
Pshenichnovorg56&M. Puccioorg111&G. Pudduorg25&P. Pujahariorg135&V.
Puninorg99&J. Putschkeorg135&H. Qvigstadorg22&A. Rachevskiorg110&S.
Rahaorg4&S. Rajputorg90&J. Rakorg123&A. Rakotozafindrabeorg15&L.
Ramelloorg32&R. Raniwalaorg91&S. Raniwalaorg91&S.S. Räsänenorg46&B.T.
Rascanuorg53&D. Ratheeorg87&K.F. Readorg125&J.S. Realorg71&K.
Redlichorg77&R.J. Reedorg135&A. Rehmanorg18&P. Reicheltorg53&F.
Reidtorg93,org36&X. Renorg7&R. Renfordtorg53&A.R. Reolonorg72&A.
Reshetinorg56&F. Rettigorg43&J.-P. Revolorg12&K. Reygersorg93&V.
Riabovorg85&R.A. Ricciorg73&T. Richertorg34&M. Richterorg22&P. Riedlerorg36&W.
Rieglerorg36&F. Riggiorg29&C. Risteaorg62&A. Rivettiorg111&E. Roccoorg57&M.
Rodríguez Cahuantziorg2&A. Rodriguez Mansoorg81&K. Røedorg22&E.
Rogochayaorg66&D. Rohrorg43&D. Röhrichorg18&R. Romitaorg124&F.
Ronchettiorg72&L. Ronfletteorg113&P. Rosnetorg70&A. Rossiorg30,org36&F.
Roukoutakisorg88&A. Royorg49&C. Royorg55&P. Royorg101&A.J. Rubio
Monteroorg10&R. Ruiorg26&R. Russoorg27&E. Ryabinkinorg100&Y. Ryabovorg85&A.
Rybickiorg117&S. Sadovskyorg112&K. Šafaříkorg36&B. Sahlmullerorg53&P.
Sahooorg49&R. Sahooorg49&S. Sahooorg61&P.K. Sahuorg61&J. Sainiorg132&S.
Sakaiorg72&M.A. Salehorg135&C.A. Salgadoorg17&J. Salzwedelorg20&S.
Sambyalorg90&V. Samsonovorg85&X. Sanchez Castroorg55&L. Šándororg59&A.
Sandovalorg64&M. Sanoorg128&G. Santagatiorg29&D. Sarkarorg132&E.
Scapparoneorg105&F. Scarlassaraorg30&R.P. Scharenbergorg95&C. Schiauaorg78&R.
Schickerorg93&C. Schmidtorg97&H.R. Schmidtorg35&S. Schuchmannorg53&J.
Schukraftorg36&M. Schulcorg40&T. Schusterorg137&Y. Schutzorg113,org36&K.
Schwarzorg97&K. Schwedaorg97&G. Scioliorg28&E. Scomparinorg111&R.
Scottorg125&K.S. Seederorg120&J.E. Segerorg86&Y. Sekiguchiorg127&D.
Sekihataorg47&I. Selyuzhenkovorg97&K. Senosiorg65&J. Seoorg96,org67&E.
Serradillaorg64,org10&A. Sevcencoorg62&A. Shabanovorg56&A. Shabetaiorg113&O.
Shaduraorg3&R. Shahoyanorg36&A. Shangaraevorg112&A. Sharmaorg90&N.
Sharmaorg61,org125&K. Shigakiorg47&K. Shtejerorg9,org27&Y. Sibiriakorg100&S.
Siddhantaorg106&K.M. Sielewiczorg36&T. Siemiarczukorg77&D.
Silvermyrorg84,org34&C. Silvestreorg71&G. Simatovicorg129&G. Simonettiorg36&R.
Singarajuorg132&R. Singhorg79&S. Singhaorg79,org132&V. Singhalorg132&B.C.
Sinhaorg132&T. Sinhaorg101&B. Sitarorg39&M. Sittaorg32&T.B. Skaaliorg22&M.
Slupeckiorg123&N. Smirnovorg137&R.J.M. Snellingsorg57&T.W. Snellmanorg123&C.
Søgaardorg34&R. Soltzorg75&J. Songorg96&M. Songorg138&Z. Songorg7&F.
Soramelorg30&S. Sorensenorg125&M. Spacekorg40&E. Spiritiorg72&I.
Sputowskaorg117&M. Spyropoulou-Stassinakiorg88&B.K. Srivastavaorg95&J.
Stachelorg93&I. Stanorg62&G. Stefanekorg77&M. Steinpreisorg20&E.
Stenlundorg34&G. Steynorg65&J.H. Stillerorg93&D. Stoccoorg113&P.
Strmenorg39&A.A.P. Suaideorg120&T. Sugitateorg47&C. Suireorg51&M.
Suleymanovorg16&R. Sultanovorg58&M. Šumberaorg83&T.J.M. Symonsorg74&A.
Szaboorg39&A. Szanto de Toledoorg1200&I. Szarkaorg39&A.
Szczepankiewiczorg36&M. Szymanskiorg134&J. Takahashiorg121&N.
Tanakaorg128&M.A. Tangaroorg33&J.D. Tapia Takakiidp23053484,org51&A. Tarantola
Peloniorg53&M. Tarhiniorg51&M. Tariqorg19&M.G. Tarzilaorg78&A. Tauroorg36&G.
Tejeda Muñozorg2&A. Telescaorg36&K. Terasakiorg127&C. Terrevoliorg30,org25&B.
Teyssierorg130&J. Thäderorg74,org97&D. Thomasorg118&R. Tieulentorg130&A.R.
Timminsorg122&A. Toiaorg53&S. Trogoloorg111&V. Trubnikovorg3&W.H.
Trzaskaorg123&T. Tsujiorg127&A. Tumkinorg99&R. Turrisiorg108&T.S.
Tveterorg22&K. Ullalandorg18&A. Urasorg130&G.L. Usaiorg25&A.
Utrobicicorg129&M. Vajzerorg83&M. Valaorg59&L. Valencia Palomoorg70&S.
Valleroorg27&J. Van Der Maarelorg57&J.W. Van Hoorneorg36&M. van
Leeuwenorg57&T. Vanatorg83&P. Vande Vyvreorg36&D. Vargaorg136&A. Vargasorg2&M.
Vargyasorg123&R. Varmaorg48&M. Vasileiouorg88&A. Vasilievorg100&A.
Vauthierorg71&V. Vecherninorg131&A.M. Veenorg57&M. Veldhoenorg57&A.
Velureorg18&M. Venaruzzoorg73&E. Vercellinorg27&S. Vergara Limónorg2&R.
Vernetorg8&M. Verweijorg135&L. Vickovicorg116&G. Viestiorg300&J.
Viinikainenorg123&Z. Vilakaziorg126&O. Villalobos Baillieorg102&A.
Vinogradovorg100&L. Vinogradovorg131&Y. Vinogradovorg990&T. Virgiliorg31&V.
Vislaviciusorg34&Y.P. Viyogiorg132&A. Vodopyanovorg66&M.A. Völklorg93&K.
Voloshinorg58&S.A. Voloshinorg135&G. Volpeorg136,org36&B. von Hallerorg36&I.
Vorobyevorg92,org37&D. Vranicorg97,org36&J. Vrlákováorg41&B. Vulpescuorg70&A.
Vyushinorg99&B. Wagnerorg18&J. Wagnerorg97&H. Wangorg57&M. Wangorg7,org113&Y.
Wangorg93&D. Watanabeorg128&Y. Watanabeorg127&M. Weberorg36&S.G.
Weberorg97&J.P. Wesselsorg54&U. Westerhofforg54&J. Wiechulaorg35&J.
Wikneorg22&M. Wildeorg54&G. Wilkorg77&J. Wilkinsonorg93&M.C.S.
Williamsorg105&B. Windelbandorg93&M. Winnorg93&C.G. Yaldoorg135&H.
Yangorg57&P. Yangorg7&S. Yanoorg47&Z. Yinorg7&H. Yokoyamaorg128&I.-K.
Yooorg96&V. Yurchenkoorg3&I. Yushmanovorg100&A. Zaborowskaorg134&V.
Zaccoloorg80&A. Zamanorg16&C. Zampolliorg105&H.J.C. Zanoliorg120&S.
Zaporozhetsorg66&N. Zardoshtiorg102&A. Zarochentsevorg131&P. Závadaorg60&N.
Zaviyalovorg99&H. Zbroszczykorg134&I.S. Zguraorg62&M. Zhalovorg85&H.
Zhangorg18,org7&X. Zhangorg74&Y. Zhangorg7&C. Zhaoorg22&N. Zhigarevaorg58&D.
Zhouorg7&Y. Zhouorg80,org57&Z. Zhouorg18&H. Zhuorg18,org7&J. Zhuorg113,org7&X.
Zhuorg7&A. Zichichiorg12,org28&A. Zimmermannorg93&M.B.
Zimmermannorg54,org36&G. Zinovjevorg3&M. Zyzakorg43

## Affiliation notes

0Deceased

idp23053484Also at: University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, United States

## Collaboration Institutes

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

org2Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico

org3Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kiev, Ukraine

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

org5Budker Institute for Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia

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

org7Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China

org8Centre de Calcul de l’IN2P3, Villeurbanne, France

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

org10Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas
(CIEMAT), Madrid, Spain

org11Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados (CINVESTAV), Mexico City
and Mérida, Mexico

org12Centro Fermi - Museo Storico della Fisica e Centro Studi e Ricerche
“Enrico Fermi”, Rome, Italy

org13Chicago State University, Chicago, Illinois, USA

org14China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China

org15Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique, IRFU, Saclay, France

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

org17Departamento de Física de Partículas and IGFAE, Universidad de Santiago
de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain

org18Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen,
Norway

org19Department of Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India

org20Department of Physics, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United
States

org21Department of Physics, Sejong University, Seoul, South Korea

org22Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

org23Dipartimento di Elettrotecnica ed Elettronica del Politecnico, Bari,
Italy

org24Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università ’La Sapienza’ and Sezione INFN
Rome, Italy

org25Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Cagliari, Italy

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

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

org28Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN,
Bologna, Italy

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

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

org31Dipartimento di Fisica ‘E.R. Caianiello’ dell’Università and Gruppo
Collegato INFN, Salerno, Italy

org32Dipartimento di Scienze e Innovazione Tecnologica dell’Università del
Piemonte Orientale and Gruppo Collegato INFN, Alessandria, Italy

org33Dipartimento Interateneo di Fisica ‘M. Merlin’ and Sezione INFN, Bari,
Italy

org34Division of Experimental High Energy Physics, University of Lund, Lund,
Sweden

org35Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

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

org37Excellence Cluster Universe, Technische Universität München, Munich,
Germany

org38Faculty of Engineering, Bergen University College, Bergen, Norway

org39Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, Comenius University,
Bratislava, Slovakia

org40Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering, Czech Technical
University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

org41Faculty of Science, P.J. Šafárik University, Košice, Slovakia

org42Faculty of Technology, Buskerud and Vestfold University College,
Vestfold, Norway

org43Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-
Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

org44Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, South Korea

org45Gauhati University, Department of Physics, Guwahati, India

org46Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Helsinki, Finland

org47Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan

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

org49Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore (IITI), India

org50Inha University, Incheon, South Korea

org51Institut de Physique Nucléaire d’Orsay (IPNO), Université Paris-Sud,
CNRS-IN2P3, Orsay, France

org52Institut für Informatik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt,
Frankfurt, Germany

org53Institut für Kernphysik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt,
Frankfurt, Germany

org54Institut für Kernphysik, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster,
Münster, Germany

org55Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien (IPHC), Université de
Strasbourg, CNRS-IN2P3, Strasbourg, France

org56Institute for Nuclear Research, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

org57Institute for Subatomic Physics of Utrecht University, Utrecht,
Netherlands

org58Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia

org59Institute of Experimental Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Košice,
Slovakia

org60Institute of Physics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague,
Czech Republic

org61Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India

org62Institute of Space Science (ISS), Bucharest, Romania

org63Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,
Mexico City, Mexico

org64Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico
City, Mexico

org65iThemba LABS, National Research Foundation, Somerset West, South Africa

org66Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR), Dubna, Russia

org67Konkuk University, Seoul, South Korea

org68Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon, South
Korea

org69KTO Karatay University, Konya, Turkey

org70Laboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire (LPC), Clermont Université,
Université Blaise Pascal, CNRS–IN2P3, Clermont-Ferrand, France

org71Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie, Université
Grenoble-Alpes, CNRS-IN2P3, Grenoble, France

org72Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, INFN, Frascati, Italy

org73Laboratori Nazionali di Legnaro, INFN, Legnaro, Italy

org74Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, United
States

org75Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, United
States

org76Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, Moscow, Russia

org77National Centre for Nuclear Studies, Warsaw, Poland

org78National Institute for Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest,
Romania

org79National Institute of Science Education and Research, Bhubaneswar, India

org80Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

org81Nikhef, Nationaal instituut voor subatomaire fysica, Amsterdam,
Netherlands

org82Nuclear Physics Group, STFC Daresbury Laboratory, Daresbury, United
Kingdom

org83Nuclear Physics Institute, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Řež
u Prahy, Czech Republic

org84Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States

org85Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina, Russia

org86Physics Department, Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, United States

org87Physics Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India

org88Physics Department, University of Athens, Athens, Greece

org89Physics Department, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

org90Physics Department, University of Jammu, Jammu, India

org91Physics Department, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, India

org92Physik Department, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

org93Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg,
Heidelberg, Germany

org94Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy

org95Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, United States

org96Pusan National University, Pusan, South Korea

org97Research Division and ExtreMe Matter Institute EMMI, GSI Helmholtzzentrum
für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany

org98Rudjer Bošković Institute, Zagreb, Croatia

org99Russian Federal Nuclear Center (VNIIEF), Sarov, Russia

org100Russian Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia

org101Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata, India

org102School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham,
United Kingdom

org103Sección Física, Departamento de Ciencias, Pontificia Universidad
Católica del Perú, Lima, Peru

org104Sezione INFN, Bari, Italy

org105Sezione INFN, Bologna, Italy

org106Sezione INFN, Cagliari, Italy

org107Sezione INFN, Catania, Italy

org108Sezione INFN, Padova, Italy

org109Sezione INFN, Rome, Italy

org110Sezione INFN, Trieste, Italy

org111Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy

org112SSC IHEP of NRC Kurchatov institute, Protvino, Russia

org113SUBATECH, Ecole des Mines de Nantes, Université de Nantes, CNRS-IN2P3,
Nantes, France

org114Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand

org115Technical University of Košice, Košice, Slovakia

org116Technical University of Split FESB, Split, Croatia

org117The Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy
of Sciences, Cracow, Poland

org118The University of Texas at Austin, Physics Department, Austin, Texas,
USA

org119Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Culiacán, Mexico

org120Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil

org121Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil

org122University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States

org123University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

org124University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom

org125University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States

org126University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

org127University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

org128University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan

org129University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

org130Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, CNRS/IN2P3, IPN-Lyon,
Villeurbanne, France

org131V. Fock Institute for Physics, St. Petersburg State University, St.
Petersburg, Russia

org132Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Kolkata, India

org133Vinča Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia

org134Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland

org135Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, United States

org136Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences,
Budapest, Hungary

org137Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States

org138Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea

org139Zentrum für Technologietransfer und Telekommunikation (ZTT),
Fachhochschule Worms, Worms, Germany