2023 080 04 May

$|t|$-dependence of incoherent $\rm{J/\psi}$ photonuclear production

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

The first measurement of the cross section for incoherent photonuclear
production of $\rm{J/\psi}$ vector meson as a function of the Mandelstam $|t|$
variable is presented. The measurement was carried out with the ALICE detector
at midrapidity, $|y|<0.8$, using ultra-peripheral collisions of Pb nuclei at a
centre-of-mass energy per nucleon pair $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~{}=~{}5.02$
TeV. This rapidity interval corresponds to a Bjorken-$x$ range
$(0.3$–$1.4)\times 10^{-3}$. Cross sections are reported in five $|t|$
intervals in the range $0.04<|t|<1$ GeV2 and compared to the predictions of
different models. Models that ignore quantum fluctuations of the gluon density
in the colliding hadron predict a $|t|$-dependence of the cross section much
steeper than in data. The inclusion of such fluctuations in the same models
provides a better description of the data.

The fundamental structure of protons, neutrons, and nuclei is described in
terms of quarks and gluons by quantum chromodynamics (QCD). A new phenomenon
called gluon saturation—a dynamic equilibrium between the production and
annihilation of gluons—is predicted by QCD [1]. While the high-energy limit of
QCD has been found to be dominated by the gluon contribution in proton targets
[2], experimental work is yet needed to determine the onset of gluon
saturation [3]. Besides protons at high energy, saturation is expected for
large nuclei at even lower energies [4], thus the study of the structure of
heavy ions is an attractive area of exploration within the current collider
experiments. To discover gluon saturation in an unambiguous way, a
comprehensive set of measurements is needed. Since gluons are excitations of
quantum fields, it is important to study the structure of nuclei not only
through their average gluon distribution, but also by exploring the event-by-
event fluctuations in the gluon density in the colliding hadron [5]. The
search for the onset of saturation has motivated the construction of dedicated
QCD facilities such as the future Electron–Ion Collider [6].

Photons are ideal probes to study the interior of nuclei. In this context, the
diffractive photoproduction of a $\rm{J/\psi}$ vector meson is of particular
interest because of its sensitivity to both the average and the variance of
spatial distribution of the gluon field inside nuclei. In this process, a
quasi-real photon emitted by one of the highly Lorentz-contracted nuclei
interacts via the exchange of at least two gluons with the other nucleus,
producing the $\rm{J/\psi}$ vector meson [7].

This process can be divided in two contributions: coherent and incoherent
production. The former refers to photon interactions with the colour field of
the whole nucleus, and the latter to photon interactions with only one nucleon
inside the nucleus. The incoherent production can be further divided in the
interaction with a full nucleon or the interaction with sub-nucleon sized
structures inside the nucleon; at HERA, these two processes were called
elastic and dissociative, respectively. In this paper the same convention is
followed. The square of the momentum transferred during the interaction, the
Mandelstam variable $|t|$, is related through a Fourier transform to the
distribution of nuclear matter in the impact-parameter plane. This implies
that collisions with a large scattering object, such as the whole nucleus,
occur at small $|t|$, which for the case of Pb ions means $|t|\lesssim 0.01$
GeV2. In the same way, collisions with a small object, like a nucleon, lead to
larger $|t|$ values, of the order of 0.1 GeV2. If there are collisions with
even smaller objects at a sub-nucleon scale, they would have even larger
$|t|$. In the Good–Walker approach [8], the coherent process is related to the
average spatial distribution of gluons in the transverse plane, and the
incoherent case is related to its variance [9]. The applicability of this
approach to LHC data has some caveats discussed in [10]. A recent study using
this approach [11] demonstrated the importance of including fluctuations of
spatial distributions of gluons to describe the $|t|$-dependence of the
dissociative cross section off protons measured at HERA [12]. Further work in
this direction [13] revealed that the energy dependence of the dissociative
process provides another signature for saturation. When the gluon saturation
regime is reached, all gluon configurations in the proton appear similar, thus
the cross section, which is proportional to the variance of the gluon field,
decreases as the energy increases. Note that larger values of $|t|$ are
expected to be more sensitive to fluctuations, thus it is important to study
the energy dependence at different values of $|t|$.

Although the dissociative production of $\rm{J/\psi}$ off protons has been
measured at HERA [12], until now this process has not been measured using
heavy-ion targets. Most of the experimental effort has been put on coherent
vector meson photoproduction. At high energies, this has been carried out
using photon-induced processes in ultra-peripheral heavy-ion collisions (UPCs)
at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) [14, 15, 16]. In UPCs the two nuclei
collide at impact parameters larger than the sum of their radii; in this case,
the only possibility they have to interact strongly is that a photon from the
electromagnetic field of one of the nuclei fluctuates into a quark–antiquark
pair (or another more complex coloured state) which interacts with the other
nucleus. The diffractive photoproduction of a $\rm{J/\psi}$ vector meson at
the LHC has a very clean experimental signal with a sizeable cross section.
The coherent photoproduction of a $\rm{J/\psi}$ off the Pb nuclei has been
measured at the LHC at two different centre-of-mass energies per nucleon pair,
$\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~{}=~{}2.76$ TeV and 5.02 TeV, by the ALICE [17, 18,
19], CMS [20], and LHCb [21] collaborations. Together, these measurements
cover a range in $\rm{J/\psi}$ rapidity of $|y|<4.5$. More recently, the ALICE
Collaboration performed the first measurement of the $|t|$-dependence of the
coherent $\rm{J/\psi}$ photoproduction cross section [22]. The ALICE
Collaboration also presented a measurement of the cross section for incoherent
$\rm{J/\psi}$ production at midrapidity [17].

Several theoretical models have been put forward to describe the existing
vector meson photoproduction data with various degrees of success. In recent
years, great theoretical interest has been given to incoherent $\rm{J/\psi}$
photoproduction [23, 24, 25, 26], and in particular to its $|t|$-dependence
[27, 28, 29]. Theoretical approaches that describe correctly the coherent
production process differ widely in their predictions for incoherent
production, which is particularly sensitive to spatial fluctuations of sub-
nucleon degrees of freedom. Note that a better assessment of such quantum
fluctuations would significantly improve the determination of the initial
stage of nuclear collisions at high energies, improving not only models
related to photon-induced vector mesons processes, but also a wide variety of
heavy-ion physics models that take such fluctuations as essential inputs [5].

In this Letter, the first measurement of the $|t|$-dependence of the
incoherent photonuclear production of a $\rm{J/\psi}$ vector meson is
presented. The measurement was carried out in the rapidity range $|y|<0.8$
using UPCs of Pb nuclei at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~{}=~{}5.02$ TeV. Cross
sections are presented in five $|t|$ intervals in the range $0.04<|t|<1$ GeV2,
and compared to the predictions of four models discussed later on.

This analysis is based on the data set collected during the 2018 Pb–Pb data-
taking period. It utilises the same trigger and follows the same analysis
strategy as in Ref. [22]. The luminosity of the analysed sample is $(232\pm
7)~{}\mu$b-1. The measured $\rm{J/\psi}$ mesons have a rapidity $|y|<0.8$,
corresponding to Bjorken-$x$ values within $(0.3$–$1.4)\times 10^{-3}$, and
transverse momentum $0.2<p_{\rm T}<1$ GeV$/c$. In the kinematic region studied
here $|t|=p_{\mathrm{T}}^{2}$.

The $\rm{J/\psi}$ was reconstructed using its decay into a $\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$
pair. The signature of these events is then two tracks in an otherwise empty
detector. The only other particles that may be present in such an event are
the products from the dissociation of the interacting nucleus; these particles
would appear near beam rapidities. The muons were measured with the central
barrel detectors of ALICE [30, 31]: the ALICE Inner Tracking System (ITS) [32]
and the Time Projection Chamber (TPC) [33], both of them covering the full
azimuthal angle and surrounded by a large solenoid magnet producing a magnetic
field of 0.5 T. Any other activity in the event was vetoed by the V0 [34] and
the AD [35], which are scintillator based detectors consisting of two arms
each, located at both sides of the nominal interaction point along the beam
axis. They cover the pseudorapidity ranges $2.8<\eta<5.1$ and $-3.7<\eta<-1.7$
(V0), and $4.8<\eta<6.3$ and ${-7.0<\eta<-4.9}$ (AD). Each arm of V0 and AD
has a time resolution smaller than 1 ns.

The tracks were required to have opposite electric charges and to leave
signals in both the ITS and the TPC. Their pseudorapidity was constrained to
$|\eta|<0.8$ in order to have a large reconstruction efficiency. The muons
were identified by requiring an ionisation energy loss, measured in the TPC,
compatible with the muon hypothesis. For the momentum range of the muons in
this analysis (0.5 to 3 GeV/$c$) this criterion rejects completely the
contribution from the electron decay channel. The two tracks were required to
form a common interaction vertex with a coordinate along the nominal beam line
$|z_{\rm vtx}|<10$ cm to have uniform acceptance.

The $\rm{J/\psi}$ yield, $N_{\rm{J/\psi}}$, was extracted by fitting the muon-
pair invariant-mass ($m_{\mu\mu}$) distribution with two contributions: a
double sided Crystal Ball distribution [36] to represent the signal and an
exponential to describe the background. An unbinned extended likelihood fit
was performed in each one of the five $|t|$ intervals. The left panel of Fig.
1 shows the fit to the total sample. The extracted $\rm{J/\psi}$ yield is
$512\pm 26$ (stat.).

Figure 1:  Left: Invariant mass distribution of muon pairs (full symbols) and
fit to a model (solid blue line, see text). Right: transverse momentum
distribution of muon pairs with $3.0<m_{\mu\mu}<3.2$ GeV/$c^{2}$ (full
symbols) and fit to a model (solid blue line) along with the different
contributions to the fit (other lines, see text).

The $\rm{J/\psi}$ yield originates from three contributions: coherent and
incoherent production, as well as feed-down from $\psi^{\prime}$ diffractive
photoproduction. The yield from incoherent production, $N^{\rm
inc}_{\rm{J/\psi}}$, was computed in each $|t|$ range as $N^{\rm
inc}_{\rm{J/\psi}}=N_{\rm{J/\psi}}/(1+f_{\rm C}+f_{\rm D})$, where $f_{\rm C}$
($f_{\rm D}$) is the ratio of the number of $\rm{J/\psi}$ from coherent (feed-
down) to incoherent production. These ratios were determined from a binned
extended likelihood fit to the transverse-momentum distribution of the
$\rm{J/\psi}$ yield in the range ${3.0<m_{\mu\mu}<3.2}$ GeV$/c^{2}$. The
$\rm{J/\psi}$ yields were obtained by performing in each bin a fit to the
invariant mass distribution, using the model described above. The fit to the
transverse-momentum distribution is shown in the right panel of Fig. 1. The
data were fitted to the sum of five templates. Four of them come from the
STARlight Monte Carlo [37] and describe the contributions of coherent and
incoherent production of both $\rm{J/\psi}$ and $\psi^{\prime}$, which are
assumed to be transversely polarised. Note that the STARlight implementation
of the incoherent process does not include the dissociative contribution. For
this reason a fifth template was added, which uses the H1 parameterisation of
dissociative production off protons [12]. In this parametrisation, the values
corresponding to the H1 high-energy sample were used. Although the parameters
were obtained for free protons, they describe well the shape of the
distribution, as shown in Fig. 1. The template for coherent $\rm{J/\psi}$
production was tuned to describe the shape of data at low $|t|$. The
normalisation of the templates to account for feed-down was constrained taking
into account the acceptance and efficiency of each decay channel and the
measured ratio $R$ of the coherent $\psi^{\prime}$ to $\rm{J/\psi}$ cross
sections [19], thus leaving the normalisations of the templates describing
coherent, incoherent and dissociative $\rm{J/\psi}$ photoproduction as free
parameters. The value of $R$ was assumed to be the same for the ratio of
incoherent cross sections, which has not yet been measured. The values for
$f_{\rm C}$ and $f_{\rm D}$ are listed in Table 1.

The photonuclear cross section in each $|t|$ interval was computed as

$\frac{\text{d}\sigma_{\gamma{\rm Pb}}}{\text{d}|t|}=\frac{1}{2n_{\gamma{\rm
Pb}}}\frac{N^{\text{inc}}_{\rm{J/\psi}}}{(\text{Acc}\times\varepsilon)^{\text{inc}}_{\rm{J/\psi}}\times\text{BR}({\rm{J/\psi}}\rightarrow\mu^{+}\mu^{-})\times\mathcal{L}\times\Delta
y\times\Delta|t|}\,,$ (1)

where $n_{\gamma{\rm Pb}}=84.9\pm 1.7$ is the photon flux at $y=0$, obtained
in the semiclassical formalism following the prescription detailed in Ref.
[38]; the branching ratio
$\text{BR}(\rm{J/\psi}\rightarrow\mu^{+}\mu^{-})=(5.961\pm 0.033)\%$ is from
Ref. [39]; the luminosity $\mathcal{L}=(232\pm 7)~{}\mu$b-1 was determined
using reference triggers with cross sections measured in van der Meer scans
[40]; and $(\text{Acc}\times\varepsilon)^{\text{inc}}_{\rm{J/\psi}}$ is the
acceptance times efficiency. This last term is the product of three
contributions. The first one takes into account the response of the detector
to the muon tracks; this contribution was obtained from generated STARlight
events which were passed through a simulation of the ALICE detector using
GEANT 3.21 [41] and the full analysis chain. As shown in column
$(\text{Acc}\times\varepsilon)_{\text{MC}}$ of Table 1, the correction depends
on $|t|$ due to the trigger, which requires tracks that are back-to-back in
azimuth [22]. The second term contributing to
$(\text{Acc}\times\varepsilon)^{\text{inc}}_{\rm{J/\psi}}$ accounts for veto
inefficiencies due to pile-up of other collisions leaving a signal in AD or V0
and amounts to $0.940\pm 0.028$. The third term corrects the yield for events
lost because the dissociation of the nucleus produces particles leaving a
signal in the AD detectors; it amounts to $0.637\pm 0.024$. These last two
factors are $|t|$ independent, with the quoted uncertainty originating from
the size of the control data samples used to determine them.

Table 1: Measured cross sections, shown in the last column, and the numerical values used to compute them according to Eq. (1). The uncertainties on $N_{\rm{J/\psi}}$ and $(\text{Acc}\times\varepsilon)_{\text{MC}}$ are statistical; those on $f_{\textrm{C}}$ and $f_{\textrm{D}}$ are each correlated systematic; those on the cross sections are (in this order) statistical, uncorrelated systematic, and correlated systematic. $|t|$ (GeV2) | $N_{\rm{J/\psi}}$ |  $f_{\textrm{C}}$ (%) |  $f_{\textrm{D}}$ (%) |  $(\text{Acc}\times\varepsilon)_{\text{MC}}$ (%) |  $\frac{\text{d}\sigma_{\gamma\text{Pb}}}{\text{d}|t|}$ ($\mu$b/GeV2)
---|---|---|---|---|---
$(0.040,0.080)$ | $128\pm 12$ | $9.4\pm 0.8$ | $81.9\pm 11.7$ | $3.39\pm 0.03$ | $21.8\pm 2.1\pm 0.3\pm 2.1$
$(0.080,0.152)$ | $127\pm 12$ | $0.024\pm 0.002$ | $36.0\pm 4.9$ | $3.03\pm 0.02$ | $19.1\pm 1.9\pm 0.3\pm 1.5$
$(0.152,0.258)$ | $85\pm 10$ | $0$ | $9.3\pm 1.0$ | $2.49\pm 0.02$ | $13.1\pm 1.6\pm 0.4\pm 0.9$
$(0.258,0.477)$ | $86\pm 11$ | $0$ | $4.9\pm 0.4$ | $2.04\pm 0.02$ | $8.1\pm 1.1\pm 0.1\pm 0.6$
$(0.477,1.000)$ | $86\pm 11$ | $0$ | $2.7\pm 0.2$ | $1.57\pm 0.02$ | $4.6\pm 0.6\pm 0.1\pm 0.3$

The following systematic uncertainties were studied and their effect on the
cross section is summarised in Table 2. The upper and lower limits to the
invariant-mass fits to extract the signal were varied as well as the values of
the tail parameters of the Crystal Ball distribution; the central values and
variation of the latter were obtained by fitting STARlight simulated events.
The total effect on the cross section varied in the different $|t|$ ranges
between 1% and 2.9%. Requiring $|z_{\rm vtx}|<15$ cm, instead of $|z_{\rm
vtx}|<10$ cm, produced an uncertainty up to 2.9%. The variation of the $f_{\rm
C}$ factor within the uncertainties yielded by the fit to the $p_{\rm T}$
distribution produced uncertainties in the measured cross section up to 0.4%.
The uncertainty on $f_{\rm D}$ comes from the statistical uncertainty on the
measured value of $R$ and produces an effect from 0.2% to 6.5%. The
uncertainty on the luminosity has two contributions which were added in
quadrature: from the measurement of the reference cross sections in van der
Meer scans (2.5% [40]) and from the determination of the live-time of the
trigger used in this analysis (1.5%). The correction for pile-up utilises an
independent sample to obtain the dependence of pile-up on the average rate of
inelastic scattering; this dependence is linear and the corresponding
uncertainty comes from a fit to these data. The effect on the cross section is
3%. The probability of dissociation products leaving a signal in AD was
studied with an independent control sample as a function of the amount of
activity around beam rapidity. The propagation of the statistical uncertainty
of the correction factors when applied to this sample produces a 3.8% effect.
The uncertainty of 2% per track on the matching of ITS and TPC track segments
was estimated from the difference between matching efficiencies in data and MC
simulations. Contributions from both tracks were added in quadrature, giving a
total of 2.8%. The trigger efficiency uncertainty was determined using control
data samples and amounts to 1.3%. The uncertainty on the branching ratio was
taken from Ref. [39]. The uncertainty on the photon flux was estimated by
varying the nuclear radius parameter of the Woods–Saxon distribution in Pb,
used in the Glauber model, according to neutron-skin measurements [42] and
amounts to 2% [22]. All uncertainties except for the signal extraction and the
selection on $|z_{\text{vtx}}|$ are correlated in $|t|$.

Table 2: Summary of the identified systematic uncertainties to the cross section. The numbers in parentheses denote a range of values in the different $|t|$ intervals. Except for the first two uncertainties, all others are correlated in $|t|$. Source | Uncertainty (%)
---|---
Signal extraction | $(1.0,2.9)$
Selection on $|z_{\text{vtx}}|$ | $(0.0,2.9)$
$f_{\rm C}$ | $(0.0,0.4)$
$f_{\rm D}$ | $(0.2,6.5)$
Integrated luminosity | 2.9
Veto inefficiency due to pile-up | 3.0
Veto inefficiency due to dissociation | 3.8
ITS-TPC tracking | 2.8
Trigger efficiency | 1.3
Branching ratio | 0.6
Photon flux | 2.0

The cross sections for the incoherent photoproduction of $\rm{J/\psi}$ vector
mesons in ultra-peripheral Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$
TeV as a function of $|t|$ measured at midrapidity, $|y|<0.8$, are listed in
Table 1 and depicted in Fig. 2.

The measurements are compared to the work of two groups. Each of them provides
two predictions: one including only the elastic interaction with single
nucleons, and another where a dissociative-like component is contained. The
models are framed in the Good–Walker picture, which naturally considers all
possible configurations of the hadron participating in the interaction. The
model by Mäntysaari and Schenke (MS) [27] includes saturation through the
IPSat model [43] and offers two predictions. In one, sub-nucleon fluctuations
are not considered (MS-p), whereas in the other the proton is composed of
three hot spots whose positions in the impact-parameter plane change event-by-
event and fluctuations in the saturation scale are introduced (MS-hs). The
model by Guzey, Strikman, and Zhalov (GSZ) [29] expresses the incoherent cross
section as the sum of an elastic and a dissociative part (GSZ-el+diss), both
parameterised from HERA data, multiplied by a common factor representing
shadowing—the fact that the gluon distribution in nuclei is not just the sum
of gluon distributions in constituent nucleons, see e.g. Ref. [44]—computed
within the leading-twist approximation [45]. The inclusion of the dissociative
component is interpreted by the authors within a Good–Walker approach as due
to quantum fluctuations of the target. When the dissociative part is excluded
(GSZ-el), the differential cross section is suppressed in the region of larger
$|t|$. The uncertainty bands reflect the uncertainties on the parameters of
the leading-twist approximation.

When comparing the data with the model predictions, as shown in Fig. 2, two
aspects should be considered: the normalisation, mainly linked to the scaling
from proton to nuclear targets, and the $|t|$-dependence, driven by the size
of the scattering object. None of the models describe both aspects of data.
With regards to the normalization, it is worth noting that the same models
must also describe the coherent cross section [19], hence a global scaling
factor, such as what would be obtained by using a different prescription for
the wave function [46], would not necessarily improve the agreement of the
model with both the coherent and incoherent cross sections. As for the
$|t|$-dependence of the cross section, the predictions of both theory groups
substantially improve after the inclusion of sub-nucleon fluctuations, which
modify the $|t|$-dependence by making it less steep.

The cross section integrated over the interval $0.04<|t|<1$ GeV2, measured in
the rapidity region $|y|<0.8$, is $\sigma_{\gamma\mathrm{Pb}}=(7.82\pm 0.39\pm
0.57)~{}\mu$b, where the listed uncertainties are statistical and systematic,
respectively. The corresponding cross sections, in $\mu$b, for the models are
7.4, 11.8, $2.3\pm 1.0$, and $4.1\pm 1.8$ for MS-p, MS-hs, GSZ-el, and GSZ-
el+diss, respectively.

Figure 2: Cross section for the incoherent photoproduction of $\rm{J/\psi}$
vector mesons in ultra-peripheral Pb–Pb collisions at
$\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV measured at midrapidity. The uncorrelated
uncertainty (statistical and systematic added in quadrature) is indicated with
the vertical bar, while the correlated uncertainty by the grey band. The width
of each $|t|$ range is given by the horizontal bars. The lines show the
predictions of the different models described in the text. The bottom panel
presents the ratio of the integral of the predicted to that of the measured
cross section in each $|t|$ range. The relative uncertainties on the ratios
calculated from GSZ are 45%.

In summary, the first measurement of the incoherent photonuclear production of
$\rm{J/\psi}$ is presented in this letter. The measurement was carried out at
midrapidity, in a range corresponding to Bjorken-$x$ within $(0.3$–$1.4)\times
10^{-3}$, in Pb–Pb UPCs at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~{}=~{}5.02$ TeV. Cross
sections for five ranges in $|t|$ within $0.04<|t|<1$ GeV2 are reported. None
of the models describes both the absolute normalization and the
$|t|$-dependence observed in the data. However, a reasonably good description
of the measured $|t|$-slope is achieved when the predicted dependence is
softened by the inclusion of scattering structures at a sub-nucleon scale.
These results confirm the importance of sub-nucleon fluctuations to describe
the measured incoherent $\rm{J/\psi}$ process at high energies, representing
the first experimental step to use the quantum fluctuations of the gluon field
to search for saturation effects in heavy nuclei. In addition, this
measurement, when confronted to models, demonstrates that the contribution of
the dissociative component to the total incoherent cross section depends on
$|t|$. Thus, future analyses shall study the incoherent production of
$\rm{J/\psi}$ as a function of rapidity and $|t|$ [47]. Finally, this
analysis, together with recent measurements [18, 20], indicate that new or
improved theoretical models are needed to describe simultaneously the energy
and $|t|$-dependence of both the coherent and the incoherent processes of
$\rm{J/\psi}$ photoproduction, to gain a better understanding of saturation
effects at a more fundamental level.

## Acknowledgements

The ALICE Collaboration would like to thank all its engineers and technicians
for their invaluable contributions to the construction of the experiment and
the CERN accelerator teams for the outstanding performance of the LHC complex.
The ALICE Collaboration gratefully acknowledges the resources and support
provided by all Grid centres and the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid (WLCG)
collaboration. The ALICE Collaboration acknowledges the following funding
agencies for their support in building and running the ALICE detector: A. I.
Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics Institute) Foundation
(ANSL), State Committee of Science and World Federation of Scientists (WFS),
Armenia; Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austrian Science Fund (FWF): [M
2467-N36] and Nationalstiftung für Forschung, Technologie und Entwicklung,
Austria; Ministry of Communications and High Technologies, National Nuclear
Research Center, Azerbaijan; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e
Tecnológico (CNPq), Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (Finep), Fundação de
Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) and Universidade Federal do
Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Brazil; Bulgarian Ministry of Education and
Science, within the National Roadmap for Research Infrastructures 2020¿2027
(object CERN), Bulgaria; Ministry of Education of China (MOEC) , Ministry of
Science & Technology of China (MSTC) and National Natural Science Foundation
of China (NSFC), China; Ministry of Science and Education and Croatian Science
Foundation, Croatia; Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear
(CEADEN), Cubaenergía, Cuba; Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the
Czech Republic, Czech Republic; The Danish Council for Independent Research —
Natural Sciences, the VILLUM FONDEN and Danish National Research Foundation
(DNRF), Denmark; Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Finland; Commissariat à
l’Energie Atomique (CEA) and Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de
Physique des Particules (IN2P3) and Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique (CNRS), France; Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
(BMBF) and GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Germany;
General Secretariat for Research and Technology, Ministry of Education,
Research and Religions, Greece; National Research, Development and Innovation
Office, Hungary; Department of Atomic Energy Government of India (DAE),
Department of Science and Technology, Government of India (DST), University
Grants Commission, Government of India (UGC) and Council of Scientific and
Industrial Research (CSIR), India; National Research and Innovation Agency -
BRIN, Indonesia; Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), Italy; Japanese
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI, Japan; Consejo
Nacional de Ciencia (CONACYT) y Tecnología, through Fondo de Cooperación
Internacional en Ciencia y Tecnología (FONCICYT) and Dirección General de
Asuntos del Personal Academico (DGAPA), Mexico; Nederlandse Organisatie voor
Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), Netherlands; The Research Council of Norway,
Norway; Commission on Science and Technology for Sustainable Development in
the South (COMSATS), Pakistan; Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Peru;
Ministry of Education and Science, National Science Centre and WUT ID-UB,
Poland; Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information and National
Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), Republic of Korea; Ministry of Education
and Scientific Research, Institute of Atomic Physics, Ministry of Research and
Innovation and Institute of Atomic Physics and University Politehnica of
Bucharest, Romania; Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the
Slovak Republic, Slovakia; National Research Foundation of South Africa, South
Africa; Swedish Research Council (VR) and Knut & Alice Wallenberg Foundation
(KAW), Sweden; European Organization for Nuclear Research, Switzerland;
Suranaree University of Technology (SUT), National Science and Technology
Development Agency (NSTDA), Thailand Science Research and Innovation (TSRI)
and National Science, Research and Innovation Fund (NSRF), Thailand; Turkish
Energy, Nuclear and Mineral Research Agency (TENMAK), Turkey; National Academy
of Sciences of Ukraine, Ukraine; Science and Technology Facilities Council
(STFC), United Kingdom; National Science Foundation of the United States of
America (NSF) and United States Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear
Physics (DOE NP), United States of America. In addition, individual groups or
members have received support from: 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] L. V. Gribov, E. M. Levin, and M. G. Ryskin, “Semihard Processes in QCD”, Phys. Rept. 100 (1983) 1–150.
  * [2] H1, ZEUS Collaboration, H. Abramowicz et al., “Combination of measurements of inclusive deep inelastic ${\textrm{e}^{\pm}\textrm{p}}$ scattering cross sections and QCD analysis of HERA data”, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 580, arXiv:1506.06042 [hep-ex].
  * [3] A. Morreale and F. Salazar, “Mining for Gluon Saturation at Colliders”, Universe 7 (2021) 312, arXiv:2108.08254 [hep-ph].
  * [4] L. D. McLerran and R. Venugopalan, “Computing quark and gluon distribution functions for very large nuclei”, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 2233–2241, arXiv:hep-ph/9309289.
  * [5] H. Mäntysaari, “Review of proton and nuclear shape fluctuations at high energy”, Rept. Prog. Phys. 83 (2020) 082201, arXiv:2001.10705 [hep-ph].
  * [6] R. Abdul Khalek et al., “Science Requirements and Detector Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Report”, Nucl. Phys. A 1026 (2022) 122447, arXiv:2103.05419 [physics.ins-det].
  * [7] M. G. Ryskin, “Diffractive $\mathrm{J/}\psi$ electroproduction in LLA QCD”, Z. Phys. C 57 (1993) 89–92.
  * [8] M. L. Good and W. D. Walker, “Diffraction dissociation of beam particles”, Phys. Rev. 120 (1960) 1857–1860.
  * [9] H. I. Miettinen and J. Pumplin, “Diffraction Scattering and the Parton Structure of Hadrons”, Phys. Rev. D 18 (1978) 1696.
  * [10] S. R. Klein, “Challenges to the Good-Walker paradigm in coherent and incoherent photoproduction”, arXiv:2301.01408 [hep-ph].
  * [11] H. Mäntysaari and B. Schenke, “Evidence of strong proton shape fluctuations from incoherent diffraction”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 052301, arXiv:1603.04349 [hep-ph].
  * [12] H1 Collaboration, C. Alexa et al., “Elastic and Proton-Dissociative Photoproduction of $\textrm{J}/\psi$ Mesons at HERA”, Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2466, arXiv:1304.5162 [hep-ex].
  * [13] J. Cepila, J. G. Contreras, and J. D. Tapia Takaki, “Energy dependence of dissociative $\mathrm{J/}\psi$ photoproduction as a signature of gluon saturation at the LHC”, Phys. Lett. B 766 (2017) 186–191, arXiv:1608.07559 [hep-ph].
  * [14] A. J. Baltz et al., “The Physics of Ultraperipheral Collisions at the LHC”, Phys. Rept. 458 (2008) 1–171, arXiv:0706.3356 [nucl-ex].
  * [15] J. G. Contreras and J. D. Tapia Takaki, “Ultra-peripheral heavy-ion collisions at the LHC”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 30 (2015) 1542012.
  * [16] S. R. Klein and H. Mäntysaari, “Imaging the nucleus with high-energy photons”, Nature Rev. Phys. 1 (2019) 662–674, arXiv:1910.10858 [hep-ex].
  * [17] ALICE Collaboration, E. Abbas et al., “Charmonium and $\textrm{e}^{+}\textrm{e}^{-}$ pair photoproduction at mid-rapidity in ultra-peripheral Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{NN}}}=2.76$ TeV”, Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2617, arXiv:1305.1467 [nucl-ex].
  * [18] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Coherent $\textrm{J}/\psi$ photoproduction at forward rapidity in ultra-peripheral Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 798 (2019) 134926, arXiv:1904.06272 [nucl-ex].
  * [19] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Coherent $\textrm{J}/\psi$ and $\psi^{\prime}$ photoproduction at midrapidity in ultra-peripheral Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV”, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 712, arXiv:2101.04577 [nucl-ex].
  * [20] CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al., “Coherent $\textrm{J}/\psi$ photoproduction in ultra-peripheral PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{NN}}}=2.76$ TeV with the CMS experiment”, Phys. Lett. B 772 (2017) 489–511, arXiv:1605.06966 [nucl-ex].
  * [21] LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Study of coherent $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ production in lead-lead collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{NN}}}=5$ TeV”, JHEP 07 (2022) 117, arXiv:2107.03223 [hep-ex].
  * [22] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “First measurement of the $|t|$-dependence of coherent $\textrm{J}/\psi$ photonuclear production”, Phys. Lett. B 817 (2021) 136280, arXiv:2101.04623 [nucl-ex].
  * [23] J. Cepila, J. G. Contreras, M. Krelina, and J. D. Tapia Takaki, “Mass dependence of vector meson photoproduction off protons and nuclei within the energy-dependent hot-spot model”, Nucl. Phys. B 934 (2018) 330–340, arXiv:1804.05508 [hep-ph].
  * [24] A. Łuszczak and W. Schäfer, “Incoherent diffractive photoproduction of $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ and $\Upsilon$ on heavy nuclei in the color dipole approach”, Phys. Rev. C 97 (2018) 024903, arXiv:1712.04502 [hep-ph].
  * [25] V. P. Gonçalves, D. E. Martins, and C. R. Sena, “Coherent and incoherent $\textrm{J}/\psi$ photoproduction in Pb–Pb collisions at the LHC, HE-LHC and FCC”, Eur. Phys. J. A 57 (2021) 82, arXiv:2007.13625 [hep-ph].
  * [26] B. Sambasivam, T. Toll, and T. Ullrich, “Investigating saturation effects in ultraperipheral collisions at the LHC with the color dipole model”, Phys. Lett. B 803 (2020) 135277, arXiv:1910.02899 [hep-ph].
  * [27] H. Mäntysaari and B. Schenke, “Probing subnucleon scale fluctuations in ultraperipheral heavy ion collisions”, Phys. Lett. B 772 (2017) 832–838, arXiv:1703.09256 [hep-ph].
  * [28] J. Cepila, J. G. Contreras, and M. Krelina, “Coherent and incoherent $\mathrm{J/}\psi$ photonuclear production in an energy-dependent hot-spot model”, Phys. Rev. C 97 (2018) 024901, arXiv:1711.01855 [hep-ph].
  * [29] V. Guzey, M. Strikman, and M. Zhalov, “Nucleon dissociation and incoherent $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ photoproduction on nuclei in ion ultraperipheral collisions at the Large Hadron Collider”, Phys. Rev. C 99 (2019) 015201, arXiv:1808.00740 [hep-ph].
  * [30] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC”, JINST 3 (2008) S08002.
  * [31] 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].
  * [32] 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].
  * [33] 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].
  * [34] ALICE Collaboration, E. Abbas et al., “Performance of the ALICE VZERO system”, JINST 8 (2013) P10016, arXiv:1306.3130 [nucl-ex].
  * [35] M. Broz et al., “Performance of ALICE AD modules in the CERN PS test beam”, JINST 16 (2021) P01017, arXiv:2006.14982 [physics.ins-det].
  * [36] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Quarkonium signal extraction in ALICE”, ALICE-PUBLIC-2015-006. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2060096.
  * [37] S. R. Klein, J. Nystrand, J. Seger, Y. Gorbunov, and J. Butterworth, “STARlight: A Monte Carlo simulation program for ultra-peripheral collisions of relativistic ions”, Comput. Phys. Commun. 212 (2017) 258–268, arXiv:1607.03838 [hep-ph].
  * [38] J. G. Contreras, “Gluon shadowing at small $x$ from coherent $\mathrm{J/}\psi$ photoproduction data at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider”, Phys. Rev. C 96 (2017) 015203, arXiv:1610.03350 [nucl-ex].
  * [39] Particle Data Group Collaboration, R. L. Workman and Others, “Review of Particle Physics”, PTEP 2022 (2022) 083C01.
  * [40] ALICE Collaboration, “ALICE luminosity determination for Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV”, 2022.  https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.10148.
  * [41] R. Brun, F. Bruyant, F. Carminati, S. Giani, M. Maire, A. McPherson, G. Patrick, and L. Urban, GEANT: Detector Description and Simulation Tool; Oct 1994.  CERN Program Library. CERN, Geneva, 1993.  https://cds.cern.ch/record/1082634.  Long Writeup W5013.
  * [42] S. Abrahamyan et al., “Measurement of the Neutron Radius of 208Pb Through Parity-Violation in Electron Scattering”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 112502, arXiv:1201.2568 [nucl-ex].
  * [43] H. Kowalski and D. Teaney, “An Impact parameter dipole saturation model”, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 114005, arXiv:hep-ph/0304189.
  * [44] N. Armesto, “Nuclear shadowing”, J. Phys. G 32 (2006) R367–R394, arXiv:hep-ph/0604108.
  * [45] L. Frankfurt, V. Guzey, and M. Strikman, “Leading Twist Nuclear Shadowing Phenomena in Hard Processes with Nuclei”, Phys. Rept. 512 (2012) 255–393, arXiv:1106.2091 [hep-ph].
  * [46] J. Cepila, J. Nemchik, M. Krelina, and R. Pasechnik, “Theoretical uncertainties in exclusive electroproduction of S-wave heavy quarkonia”, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 495, arXiv:1901.02664 [hep-ph].
  * [47] V. Guzey, M. Strikman, and M. Zhalov, “Disentangling coherent and incoherent quasielastic $\textrm{J}/\psi$ photoproduction on nuclei by neutron tagging in ultraperipheral ion collisions at the LHC”, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 2942, arXiv:1312.6486 [hep-ph].

##  Appendix A The ALICE Collaboration

S. Acharya 126, D. Adamová 87, A. Adler70, G. Aglieri Rinella 33, M. Agnello
30, N. Agrawal 51, Z. Ahammed 133, S. Ahmad 16, S.U. Ahn 71, I. Ahuja 38, A.
Akindinov 141, M. Al-Turany 98, D. Aleksandrov 141, B. Alessandro 56, H.M.
Alfanda 6, R. Alfaro Molina 67, B. Ali 16, A. Alici 26, N. Alizadehvandchali
115, A. Alkin 33, J. Alme 21, G. Alocco 52, T. Alt 64, A.R. Altamura 50, I.
Altsybeev 141, M.N. Anaam 6, C. Andrei 46, A. Andronic 136, V. Anguelov 95, F.
Antinori 54, P. Antonioli 51, N. Apadula 75, L. Aphecetche 104, H.
Appelshäuser 64, C. Arata 74, S. Arcelli 26, M. Aresti 52, R. Arnaldi 56,
J.G.M.C.A. Arneiro 111, I.C. Arsene 20, M. Arslandok 138, A. Augustinus 33, R.
Averbeck 98, M.D. Azmi 16, H. Baba123, A. Badalà 53, J. Bae 105, Y.W. Baek 41,
X. Bai 119, R. Bailhache 64, Y. Bailung 48, A. Balbino 30, A. Baldisseri 129,
B. Balis 2, D. Banerjee 4, Z. Banoo 92, R. Barbera 27, F. Barile 32, L.
Barioglio 96, M. Barlou79, G.G. Barnaföldi 137, L.S. Barnby 86, V. Barret 126,
L. Barreto 111, C. Bartels 118, K. Barth 33, E. Bartsch 64, N. Bastid 126, S.
Basu 76, G. Batigne 104, D. Battistini 96, B. Batyunya 142, D. Bauri47, J.L.
Bazo Alba 102, I.G. Bearden 84, C. Beattie 138, P. Becht 98, D. Behera 48, I.
Belikov 128, A.D.C. Bell Hechavarria 136, F. Bellini 26, R. Bellwied 115, S.
Belokurova 141, G. Bencedi 137, S. Beole 25, A. Bercuci 46, Y. Berdnikov 141,
A. Berdnikova 95, L. Bergmann 95, M.G. Besoiu 63, L. Betev 33, P.P. Bhaduri
133, A. Bhasin 92, M.A. Bhat 4, B. Bhattacharjee 42, L. Bianchi 25, N. Bianchi
49, J. Bielčík 36, J. Bielčíková 87, J. Biernat 108, A.P. Bigot 128, A.
Bilandzic 96, G. Biro 137, S. Biswas 4, N. Bize 104, J.T. Blair 109, D. Blau
141, M.B. Blidaru 98, N. Bluhme39, C. Blume 64, G. Boca 22,55, F. Bock 88, T.
Bodova 21, A. Bogdanov141, S. Boi 23, J. Bok 58, L. Boldizsár 137, M. Bombara
38, P.M. Bond 33, G. Bonomi 132,55, H. Borel 129, A. Borissov 141, A.G.
Borquez Carcamo 95, H. Bossi 138, E. Botta 25, Y.E.M. Bouziani 64, L. Bratrud
64, P. Braun-Munzinger 98, M. Bregant 111, M. Broz 36, G.E. Bruno 97,32, M.D.
Buckland 24, D. Budnikov 141, H. Buesching 64, S. Bufalino 30, P. Buhler 103,
N. Burmasov 141, Z. Buthelezi 68,122, A. Bylinkin 21, S.A. Bysiak108, M. Cai
6, H. Caines 138, A. Caliva 29, E. Calvo Villar 102, J.M.M. Camacho 110, P.
Camerini 24, F.D.M. Canedo 111, M. Carabas 125, A.A. Carballo 33, F.
Carnesecchi 33, R. Caron 127, L.A.D. Carvalho 111, J. Castillo Castellanos
129, F. Catalano 33,25, C. Ceballos Sanchez 142, I. Chakaberia 75, P.
Chakraborty 47, S. Chandra 133, S. Chapeland 33, M. Chartier 118, S.
Chattopadhyay 133, S. Chattopadhyay 100, T.G. Chavez 45, T. Cheng 98,6, C.
Cheshkov 127, B. Cheynis 127, V. Chibante Barroso 33, D.D. Chinellato 112,
E.S. Chizzali I,96, J. Cho 58, S. Cho 58, P. Chochula 33, P. Christakoglou 85,
C.H. Christensen 84, P. Christiansen 76, T. Chujo 124, M. Ciacco 30, C. Cicalo
52, F. Cindolo 51, M.R. Ciupek98, G. ClaiII,51, F. Colamaria 50, J.S.
Colburn101, D. Colella 97,32, M. Colocci 26, G. Conesa Balbastre 74, Z. Conesa
del Valle 73, G. Contin 24, J.G. Contreras 36, M.L. Coquet 129, P. Cortese
131,56, M.R. Cosentino 113, F. Costa 33, S. Costanza 22,55, C. Cot 73, J.
Crkovská 95, P. Crochet 126, R. Cruz-Torres 75, P. Cui 6, A. Dainese 54, M.C.
Danisch 95, A. Danu 63, P. Das 81, P. Das 4, S. Das 4, A.R. Dash 136, S. Dash
47, A. De Caro 29, G. de Cataldo 50, J. de Cuveland39, A. De Falco 23, D. De
Gruttola 29, N. De Marco 56, C. De Martin 24, S. De Pasquale 29, R. Deb132, S.
Deb 48, R. Del Grande 96, L. Dello Stritto 29, W. Deng 6, P. Dhankher 19, D.
Di Bari 32, A. Di Mauro 33, B. Diab 129, R.A. Diaz 142,7, T. Dietel 114, Y.
Ding 6, R. Divià 33, D.U. Dixit 19, Ø. Djuvsland21, U. Dmitrieva 141, A.
Dobrin 63, B. Dönigus 64, J.M. Dubinski134, A. Dubla 98, S. Dudi 91, P.
Dupieux 126, M. Durkac107, N. Dzalaiova13, T.M. Eder 136, R.J. Ehlers 75, F.
Eisenhut 64, R. Ejima93, D. Elia 50, B. Erazmus 104, F. Ercolessi 26, F.
Erhardt 90, M.R. Ersdal21, B. Espagnon 73, G. Eulisse 33, D. Evans 101, S.
Evdokimov 141, L. Fabbietti 96, M. Faggin 28, J. Faivre 74, F. Fan 6, W. Fan
75, A. Fantoni 49, M. Fasel 88, P. Fecchio30, A. Feliciello 56, G. Feofilov
141, A. Fernández Téllez 45, L. Ferrandi 111, M.B. Ferrer 33, A. Ferrero 129,
C. Ferrero 56, A. Ferretti 25, V.J.G. Feuillard 95, V. Filova36, D. Finogeev
141, F.M. Fionda 52, F. Flor 115, A.N. Flores 109, S. Foertsch 68, I. Fokin
95, S. Fokin 141, E. Fragiacomo 57, E. Frajna 137, U. Fuchs 33, N. Funicello
29, C. Furget 74, A. Furs 141, T. Fusayasu 99, J.J. Gaardhøje 84, M. Gagliardi
25, A.M. Gago 102, T. Gahlaut47, C.D. Galvan 110, D.R. Gangadharan 115, P.
Ganoti 79, C. Garabatos 98, A.T. Garcia 73, J.R.A. Garcia 45, E. Garcia-Solis
9, C. Gargiulo 33, K. Garner136, P. Gasik 98, A. Gautam 117, M.B. Gay Ducati
66, M. Germain 104, A. Ghimouz124, C. Ghosh133, M. Giacalone 51,26, P.
Giubellino 98,56, P. Giubilato 28, A.M.C. Glaenzer 129, P. Glässel 95, E.
Glimos121, D.J.Q. Goh77, V. Gonzalez 135, M. Gorgon 2, K. Goswami 48, S.
Gotovac34, V. Grabski 67, L.K. Graczykowski 134, E. Grecka 87, A. Grelli 59,
C. Grigoras 33, V. Grigoriev 141, S. Grigoryan 142,1, F. Grosa 33, J.F.
Grosse-Oetringhaus 33, R. Grosso 98, D. Grund 36, G.G. Guardiano 112, R.
Guernane 74, M. Guilbaud 104, K. Gulbrandsen 84, T. Gundem 64, T. Gunji 123,
W. Guo 6, A. Gupta 92, R. Gupta 92, R. Gupta 48, S.P. Guzman 45, K. Gwizdziel
134, L. Gyulai 137, M.K. Habib98, C. Hadjidakis 73, F.U. Haider 92, H.
Hamagaki 77, A. Hamdi 75, M. Hamid6, Y. Han 139, B.G. Hanley 135, R. Hannigan
109, J. Hansen 76, M.R. Haque 134, J.W. Harris 138, A. Harton 9, H. Hassan 88,
D. Hatzifotiadou 51, P. Hauer 43, L.B. Havener 138, S.T. Heckel 96, E. Hellbär
98, H. Helstrup 35, M. Hemmer 64, T. Herman 36, G. Herrera Corral 8, F.
Herrmann136, S. Herrmann 127, K.F. Hetland 35, B. Heybeck 64, H. Hillemanns
33, B. Hippolyte 128, F.W. Hoffmann 70, B. Hofman 59, B. Hohlweger 85, G.H.
Hong 139, M. Horst 96, A. Horzyk 2, Y. Hou 6, P. Hristov 33, C. Hughes 121, P.
Huhn64, L.M. Huhta 116, T.J. Humanic 89, A. Hutson 115, D. Hutter 39, R.
Ilkaev141, H. Ilyas 14, M. Inaba 124, G.M. Innocenti 33, M. Ippolitov 141, A.
Isakov 87, T. Isidori 117, M.S. Islam 100, M. Ivanov13, M. Ivanov 98, V.
Ivanov 141, 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. Jahnke112, M.J.
Jakubowska 134, M.A. Janik 134, T. Janson70, M. Jercic90, S. Ji 17, S. Jia 10,
A.A.P. Jimenez 65, F. Jonas 88, D.M. Jones 118, J.M. Jowett 33,98, J. Jung 64,
M. Jung 64, A. Junique 33, A. Jusko 101, M.J. Kabus 33,134, J. Kaewjai106, P.
Kalinak 60, A.S. Kalteyer 98, A. Kalweit 33, V. Kaplin 141, A. Karasu Uysal
72, D. Karatovic 90, O. Karavichev 141, T. Karavicheva 141, P. Karczmarczyk
134, E. Karpechev 141, U. Kebschull 70, R. Keidel 140, D.L.D. Keijdener59, M.
Keil 33, B. Ketzer 43, S.S. Khade 48, A.M. Khan 119,6, S. Khan 16, A.
Khanzadeev 141, Y. Kharlov 141, A. Khatun 117, A. Khuntia 36, M.B. Kidson114,
B. Kileng 35, B. Kim 105, C. Kim 17, D.J. Kim 116, E.J. Kim 69, J. Kim 139,
J.S. Kim 41, J. Kim 58, J. Kim 69, M. Kim 19, S. Kim 18, T. Kim 139, K. Kimura
93, S. Kirsch 64, I. Kisel 39, S. Kiselev 141, A. Kisiel 134, J.P. Kitowski 2,
J.L. Klay 5, J. Klein 33, S. Klein 75, C. Klein-Bösing 136, M. Kleiner 64, T.
Klemenz 96, A. Kluge 33, A.G. Knospe 115, C. Kobdaj 106, T. Kollegger98, A.
Kondratyev 142, N. Kondratyeva 141, E. Kondratyuk 141, J. Konig 64, S.A.
Konigstorfer 96, P.J. Konopka 33, G. Kornakov 134, S.D. Koryciak 2, A.
Kotliarov 87, V. Kovalenko 141, M. Kowalski 108, V. Kozhuharov 37, I. Králik
60, A. Kravčáková 38, L. Krcal 33,39, M. Krivda 101,60, F. Krizek 87, K.
Krizkova Gajdosova 33, M. Kroesen 95, M. Krüger 64, D.M. Krupova 36, E.
Kryshen 141, V. Kučera 58, C. Kuhn 128, P.G. Kuijer 85, T. Kumaoka124, D.
Kumar133, L. Kumar 91, N. Kumar91, S. Kumar 32, S. Kundu 33, P. Kurashvili 80,
A. Kurepin 141, A.B. Kurepin 141, A. Kuryakin 141, S. Kushpil 87, M.J. Kweon
58, Y. Kwon 139, S.L. La Pointe 39, P. La Rocca 27, A. Lakrathok106, M.
Lamanna 33, R. Langoy 120, P. Larionov 33, E. Laudi 33, L. Lautner 33,96, R.
Lavicka 103, R. Lea 132,55, H. Lee 105, I. Legrand 46, G. Legras 136, J.
Lehrbach 39, T.M. Lelek2, R.C. Lemmon 86, I. León Monzón 110, M.M. Lesch 96,
E.D. Lesser 19, P. Lévai 137, X. Li10, X.L. Li6, J. Lien 120, R. Lietava 101,
I. Likmeta 115, B. Lim 25, S.H. Lim 17, V. Lindenstruth 39, A. Lindner46, C.
Lippmann 98, A. Liu 19, D.H. Liu 6, J. Liu 118, G.S.S. Liveraro 112, I.M.
Lofnes 21, C. Loizides 88, S. Lokos 108, J. Lomker 59, P. Loncar 34, J.A.
Lopez 95, X. Lopez 126, E. López Torres 7, P. Lu 98,119, J.R. Luhder 136, M.
Lunardon 28, G. Luparello 57, Y.G. Ma 40, M. Mager 33, A. Maire 128, M.V.
Makariev 37, M. Malaev 141, G. Malfattore 26, N.M. Malik 92, Q.W. Malik20,
S.K. Malik 92, L. Malinina V,142, D. Mallick 81, N. Mallick 48, G. Mandaglio
31,53, S.K. Mandal 80, V. Manko 141, F. Manso 126, V. Manzari 50, Y. Mao 6,
R.W. Marcjan 2, G.V. Margagliotti 24, A. Margotti 51, 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 52, L. Massacrier 73,
A. Mastroserio 130,50, O. Matonoha 76, S. Mattiazzo 28, P.F.T. Matuoka111, A.
Matyja 108, C. Mayer 108, A.L. Mazuecos 33, F. Mazzaschi 25, M. Mazzilli 33,
J.E. Mdhluli 122, A.F. Mechler64, Y. Melikyan 44, A. Menchaca-Rocha 67, E.
Meninno 103,29, A.S. Menon 115, M. Meres 13, S. Mhlanga114,68, Y. Miake124, L.
Micheletti 33, L.C. Migliorin127, D.L. Mihaylov 96, K. Mikhaylov 142,141, A.N.
Mishra 137, D. Miśkowiec 98, A. Modak 4, A.P. Mohanty 59, B. Mohanty81, M.
Mohisin Khan III,16, M.A. Molander 44, S. Monira 134, Z. Moravcova 84, C.
Mordasini 116, D.A. Moreira De Godoy 136, I. Morozov 141, A. Morsch 33, T.
Mrnjavac 33, V. Muccifora 49, S. Muhuri 133, J.D. Mulligan 75, A. Mulliri23,
M.G. Munhoz 111, R.H. Munzer 64, H. Murakami 123, S. Murray 114, L. Musa 33,
J. Musinsky 60, J.W. Myrcha 134, B. Naik 122, A.I. Nambrath 19, B.K. Nandi 47,
R. Nania 51, E. Nappi 50, A.F. Nassirpour 18,76, A. Nath 95, C. Nattrass 121,
M.N. Naydenov 37, A. Neagu20, A. Negru125, L. Nellen 65, R. Nepeivoda 76, S.
Nese 20, G. Neskovic 39, B.S. Nielsen 84, E.G. Nielsen 84, S. Nikolaev 141, S.
Nikulin 141, V. Nikulin 141, F. Noferini 51, S. Noh 12, P. Nomokonov 142, J.
Norman 118, N. Novitzky 124, P. Nowakowski 134, A. Nyanin 141, J. Nystrand 21,
M. Ogino 77, S. Oh 18, A. Ohlson 76, V.A. Okorokov 141, J. Oleniacz 134, A.C.
Oliveira Da Silva 121, M.H. Oliver 138, A. Onnerstad 116, C. Oppedisano 56, A.
Ortiz Velasquez 65, J. Otwinowski 108, M. Oya93, K. Oyama 77, Y. Pachmayer 95,
S. Padhan 47, D. Pagano 132,55, G. Paić 65, A. Palasciano 50, S. Panebianco
129, H. Park 124, H. Park 105, J. Park 58, J.E. Parkkila 33, Y. Patley 47,
R.N. Patra92, B. Paul 23, H. Pei 6, T. Peitzmann 59, X. Peng 11, M. Pennisi
25, D. Peresunko 141, G.M. Perez 7, Y. Pestov141, V. Petrov 141, M. Petrovici
46, R.P. Pezzi 104,66, S. Piano 57, M. Pikna 13, P. Pillot 104, O. Pinazza
51,33, L. Pinsky115, C. Pinto 96, S. Pisano 49, M. Płoskoń 75, M. Planinic90,
F. Pliquett64, M.G. Poghosyan 88, B. Polichtchouk 141, S. Politano 30, N.
Poljak 90, A. Pop 46, S. Porteboeuf-Houssais 126, V. Pozdniakov 142, I.Y.
Pozos 45, K.K. Pradhan 48, S.K. Prasad 4, S. Prasad 48, R. Preghenella 51, F.
Prino 56, C.A. Pruneau 135, I. Pshenichnov 141, M. Puccio 33, S. Pucillo 25,
Z. Pugelova107, S. Qiu 85, L. Quaglia 25, R.E. Quishpe115, S. Ragoni 15, A.
Rakotozafindrabe 129, L. Ramello 131,56, F. Rami 128, S.A.R. Ramirez 45, T.A.
Rancien74, M. Rasa 27, S.S. Räsänen 44, R. Rath 51, M.P. Rauch 21, I.
Ravasenga 85, K.F. Read 88,121, C. Reckziegel 113, A.R. Redelbach 39, K.
Redlich IV,80, C.A. Reetz 98, A. Rehman21, F. Reidt 33, H.A. Reme-Ness 35, Z.
Rescakova38, K. Reygers 95, A. Riabov 141, V. Riabov 141, R. Ricci 29, M.
Richter 20, A.A. Riedel 96, W. Riegler 33, C. Ristea 63, M.V. Rodriguez 33, M.
Rodríguez Cahuantzi 45, K. Røed 20, R. Rogalev 141, E. Rogochaya 142, T.S.
Rogoschinski 64, D. Rohr 33, D. Röhrich 21, P.F. Rojas45, S. Rojas Torres 36,
P.S. Rokita 134, G. Romanenko 142, F. Ronchetti 49, A. Rosano 31,53, E.D.
Rosas65, K. Roslon 134, A. Rossi 54, A. Roy 48, S. Roy 47, N. Rubini 26, O.V.
Rueda 115, D. Ruggiano 134, R. Rui 24, P.G. Russek 2, R. Russo 85, A. Rustamov
82, E. Ryabinkin 141, Y. Ryabov 141, A. Rybicki 108, H. Rytkonen 116, J. Ryu
17, W. Rzesa 134, O.A.M. Saarimaki 44, R. Sadek 104, S. Sadhu 32, S. Sadovsky
141, J. Saetre 21, K. Šafařík 36, P. Saha42, S.K. Saha 4, S. Saha 81, B. Sahoo
47, B. Sahoo 48, R. Sahoo 48, S. Sahoo61, D. Sahu 48, P.K. Sahu 61, J. Saini
133, K. Sajdakova38, S. Sakai 124, M.P. Salvan 98, S. Sambyal 92, I. Sanna
33,96, T.B. Saramela111, D. Sarkar 135, N. Sarkar133, P. Sarma42, V. Sarritzu
23, V.M. Sarti 96, M.H.P. Sas 138, J. Schambach 88, H.S. Scheid 64, C. Schiaua
46, R. Schicker 95, A. Schmah95, C. Schmidt 98, H.R. Schmidt94, M.O. Schmidt
33, M. Schmidt94, N.V. Schmidt 88, A.R. Schmier 121, R. Schotter 128, A.
Schröter 39, J. Schukraft 33, K. Schweda 98, G. Scioli 26, E. Scomparin 56,
J.E. Seger 15, Y. Sekiguchi123, D. Sekihata 123, M. Selina 85, I. Selyuzhenkov
98, S. Senyukov 128, J.J. Seo 95,58, D. Serebryakov 141, L. Šerkšnytė 96, A.
Sevcenco 63, T.J. Shaba 68, A. Shabetai 104, R. Shahoyan33, A. Shangaraev 141,
A. Sharma91, B. Sharma 92, D. Sharma 47, H. Sharma 54,108, M. Sharma 92, S.
Sharma 77, S. Sharma 92, U. Sharma 92, A. Shatat 73, O. Sheibani115, K.
Shigaki 93, M. Shimomura78, J. Shin12, S. Shirinkin 141, Q. Shou 40, Y.
Sibiriak 141, S. Siddhanta 52, T. Siemiarczuk 80, T.F. Silva 111, D. Silvermyr
76, T. Simantathammakul106, R. Simeonov 37, B. Singh92, B. Singh 96, K. Singh
48, R. Singh 81, R. Singh 92, R. Singh 48, S. Singh 16, V.K. Singh 133, V.
Singhal 133, T. Sinha 100, B. Sitar 13, M. Sitta 131,56, T.B. Skaali20, G.
Skorodumovs 95, M. Slupecki 44, N. Smirnov 138, R.J.M. Snellings 59, E.H.
Solheim 20, J. Song 115, A. Songmoolnak106, 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 63, P.J. Steffanic 121, S.F. Stiefelmaier 95, D. Stocco
104, I. Storehaug 20, P. Stratmann 136, S. Strazzi 26, C.P. Stylianidis85,
A.A.P. Suaide 111, C. Suire 73, M. Sukhanov 141, M. Suljic 33, R. Sultanov
141, V. Sumberia 92, S. Sumowidagdo 83, S. Swain61, I. Szarka 13, M.
Szymkowski134, S.F. Taghavi 96, G. Taillepied 98, J. Takahashi 112, G.J.
Tambave 81, S. Tang 6, Z. Tang 119, J.D. Tapia Takaki 117, N. Tapus125, L.A.
Tarasovicova 136, M.G. Tarzila 46, G.F. Tassielli 32, A. Tauro 33, G. Tejeda
Muñoz 45, A. Telesca 33, L. Terlizzi 25, C. Terrevoli 115, S. Thakur 4, D.
Thomas 109, A. Tikhonov 141, A.R. Timmins 115, M. Tkacik107, T. Tkacik 107, A.
Toia 64, R. Tokumoto93, K. Tomohiro93, N. Topilskaya 141, M. Toppi 49, T. Tork
73, V.V. Torres 104, A.G. Torres Ramos 32, A. Trifiró 31,53, A.S. Triolo
33,31,53, S. Tripathy 51, T. Tripathy 47, S. Trogolo 33, V. Trubnikov 3, W.H.
Trzaska 116, T.P. Trzcinski 134, A. Tumkin 141, R. Turrisi 54, T.S. Tveter 20,
K. Ullaland 21, B. Ulukutlu 96, A. Uras 127, M. Urioni 55,132, G.L. Usai 23,
M. Vala38, N. Valle 22, L.V.R. van Doremalen59, M. van Leeuwen 85, C.A. van
Veen 95, R.J.G. van Weelden 85, P. Vande Vyvre 33, D. Varga 137, Z. Varga 137,
M. Vasileiou 79, A. Vasiliev 141, O. Vázquez Doce 49, V. Vechernin 141, E.
Vercellin 25, S. Vergara Limón45, R. Verma47, L. Vermunt 98, R. Vértesi 137,
M. Verweij 59, L. Vickovic34, Z. Vilakazi122, O. Villalobos Baillie 101, A.
Villani 24, G. Vino 50, A. Vinogradov 141, T. Virgili 29, M.M.O. Virta 116, V.
Vislavicius76, A. Vodopyanov 142, B. Volkel 33, M.A. Völkl 95, K. Voloshin141,
S.A. Voloshin 135, G. Volpe 32, B. von Haller 33, I. Vorobyev 96, N. Vozniuk
141, 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 136, S.L.
Weyhmiller 138, J. Wiechula 64, J. Wikne 20, G. Wilk 80, J. Wilkinson 98, G.A.
Willems 136, B. Windelband95, M. Winn 129, J.R. Wright 109, W. Wu40, Y. Wu
119, R. Xu 6, A. Yadav 43, A.K. Yadav 133, S. Yalcin 72, Y. Yamaguchi93, S.
Yang21, S. Yano 93, Z. Yin 6, I.-K. Yoo 17, J.H. Yoon 58, H. Yu12, S. Yuan21,
A. Yuncu 95, V. Zaccolo 24, C. Zampolli 33, F. Zanone 95, N. Zardoshti 33, A.
Zarochentsev 141, P. Závada 62, N. Zaviyalov141, M. Zhalov 141, B. Zhang 6, C.
Zhang 129, L. Zhang 40, S. Zhang 40, X. Zhang 6, Y. Zhang119, Z. Zhang 6, M.
Zhao 10, V. Zherebchevskii 141, Y. Zhi10, D. Zhou 6, Y. Zhou 84, J. Zhu 98,6,
Y. Zhu6, S.C. Zugravel 56, N. Zurlo 132,55

## Affiliation Notes

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

## Collaboration Institutes

1 A.I. Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics Institute)
Foundation, Yerevan, Armenia
2 AGH University of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland
3 Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, National Academy of Sciences
of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine
4 Bose Institute, Department of Physics and Centre for Astroparticle Physics
and Space Science (CAPSS), Kolkata, India
5 California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California, United
States
6 Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China
7 Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Havana,
Cuba
8 Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados (CINVESTAV), Mexico City and
Mérida, Mexico
9 Chicago State University, Chicago, Illinois, United States
10 China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China
11 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 Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT), Mumbai, India
48 Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore, India
49 INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
50 INFN, Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy
51 INFN, Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
52 INFN, Sezione di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
53 INFN, Sezione di Catania, Catania, Italy
54 INFN, Sezione di Padova, Padova, Italy
55 INFN, Sezione di Pavia, Pavia, Italy
56 INFN, Sezione di Torino, Turin, Italy
57 INFN, Sezione di Trieste, Trieste, Italy
58 Inha University, Incheon, Republic of Korea
59 Institute for Gravitational and Subatomic Physics (GRASP), Utrecht
University/Nikhef, Utrecht, Netherlands
60 Institute of Experimental Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Košice,
Slovak Republic
61 Institute of Physics, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Bhubaneswar, India
62 Institute of Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech
Republic
63 Institute of Space Science (ISS), Bucharest, Romania
64 Institut für Kernphysik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt,
Frankfurt, Germany
65 Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,
Mexico City, Mexico
66 Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS),
Porto Alegre, Brazil
67 Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City,
Mexico
68 iThemba LABS, National Research Foundation, Somerset West, South Africa
69 Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea
70 Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe Universität Frankfurt Institut für Informatik,
Fachbereich Informatik und Mathematik, Frankfurt, Germany
71 Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon, Republic of
Korea
72 KTO Karatay University, Konya, Turkey
73 Laboratoire de Physique des 2 Infinis, Irène Joliot-Curie, Orsay, France
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 University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
115 University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
116 University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland
117 University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, United States
118 University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
119 University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China
120 University of South-Eastern Norway, Kongsberg, Norway
121 University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States
122 University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
123 University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
124 University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
125 University Politehnica of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania
126 Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France
127 Université de Lyon, CNRS/IN2P3, Institut de Physique des 2 Infinis de
Lyon, Lyon, France
128 Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, F-67000 Strasbourg, France,
Strasbourg, France
129 Université Paris-Saclay Centre d’Etudes de Saclay (CEA), IRFU, Départment
de Physique Nucléaire (DPhN), Saclay, France
130 Università degli Studi di Foggia, Foggia, Italy
131 Università del Piemonte Orientale, Vercelli, Italy
132 Università di Brescia, Brescia, Italy
133 Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kolkata,
India
134 Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland
135 Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, United States
136 Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Institut für Kernphysik,
Münster, Germany
137 Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
138 Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States
139 Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
140 Zentrum für Technologie und Transfer (ZTT), Worms, Germany
141 Affiliated with an institute covered by a cooperation agreement with CERN
142 Affiliated with an international laboratory covered by a cooperation
agreement with CERN.