<EMAIL_ADDRESS>$LastChangedDate:2015-11-1520:50:53+0000(Sun,15Nov2015)$
$LastChangedRevision:226$ $LastChangedBy:dialexan$

2015 327 18 December

Multi-strange baryon production in p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ =
5.02 TeV

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

The multi-strange baryon yields in Pb–Pb collisions have been shown to exhibit
an enhancement relative to pp reactions. In this work, $\Xi$ and $\Omega$
production rates have been measured with the ALICE detector as a function of
transverse momentum, $p_{\rm T}$, in p–Pb collisions at a centre-of-mass
energy of $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV. The results cover the kinematic
ranges 0.6 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_{\rm T}$ $<$ 7.2 GeV/$c$ and 0.8 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_{\rm
T}$ $<$ 5 GeV/$c$, for $\Xi$ and $\Omega$ respectively, in the common rapidity
interval -0.5 $<y_{\rm CMS}<$ 0\. Multi-strange baryons have been identified
by reconstructing their weak decays into charged particles. The $p_{\rm T}$
spectra are analysed as a function of event charged–particle multiplicity,
which in p–Pb collisions ranges over one order of magnitude and lies between
those observed in pp and Pb–Pb collisions. The measured $p_{\rm T}$
distributions are compared to the expectations from a Blast-Wave model. The
parameters which describe the production of lighter hadron species also
describe the hyperon spectra in high multiplicity p–Pb collisions. The yield
of hyperons relative to charged pions is studied and compared with results
from pp and Pb–Pb collisions. A statistical model is employed, which describes
the change in the ratios with volume using a canonical suppression mechanism,
in which the small volume causes a species-dependent relative reduction of
hadron production. The calculations, in which the magnitude of the effect
depends on the strangeness content, show good qualitative agreement with the
data.

$HeadURL:svn+ssh://svn.cern.ch/reps/alipap/id1537/paper/msppb-main.tex$
$LastChangedDate:2015-12-2214:34:00+0100(Tue,22Dec2015)$
$LastChangedRevision:1678$ $LastChangedBy:dialexan$

##  1 Introduction

Collisions of heavy nuclei at ultra-relativistic energies allow the study of a
deconfined state of matter, the Quark-Gluon Plasma, in which the degrees of
freedom are partonic, rather than hadronic. The role of strange hadron yields
in searching for this state was pointed out at an early stage [1]. It was
subsequently found that in high energy nucleus-nucleus (A–A) collisions at the
Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS), the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) and
the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) the abundances of strange and multi-strange
baryons are compatible with those from thermal statistical model calculations
[2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10].

In smaller collision systems at the same centre-of-mass energies, in
particular proton-proton (pp) collisions, the relative abundance of multi-
strange baryons is lower with respect to A–A collisions, whether normalised to
participant nucleons or produced particles (pions or charged hadrons). This
led to the interpretation that strangeness enhancement is observed in A–A
collisions. Attempts to explain this phenomenon include the application of a
canonical formalism in the statistical model, replacing the grand canonical
approach, in which the requirement to conserve the strangeness quantum number
when producing (multi-)strange baryons in small systems is imposed [11]. This
means that strange hadrons are produced with a lower relative abundance in
small systems, an effect known as canonical suppression. Such a theoretical
framework has been used to make predictions for LHC energies [12]. Further
complications in the interpretation arise when the produced system, although
small, is formed in peripheral A–A collisions where the particle production
may not be from a contiguous volume due to core-corona effects [13, 14].
Evidence for this effect was seen at RHIC where a canonical suppression
calculation based on the estimated number of participant nucleons could not
successfully reproduce the data [15]. A cleaner way to investigate canonical
suppression effects is provided by proton–nucleus (p–A) collisions.

Proton–nucleus collisions provide an opportunity to study the $p_{\rm
T}$-dependence of the particle spectra created in a system with a different,
more compact, initial geometry than A–A collisions where a similar number of
charged particles are produced. Studying this dependence is important in
determining the applicability of hydrodynamics [16] which has been successful
in describing the particle spectra in A–A collisions [17, 18, 19].

At the LHC the combination of the rise in particle production per nucleon-
nucleon collision with increasing $\sqrt{s}$ and a dedicated p–Pb data-taking
period have enabled the ALICE experiment to collect a large sample of
$\Xi^{\pm}$ and $\Omega^{\pm}$. In this Letter, we set out the methods for
these studies, present the results obtained and discuss how they fit into a
theoretical picture.

##  2 Sample and data analysis

The results presented in this Letter were obtained from a sample of the data
collected with the ALICE detector [20] during the LHC p–Pb run at
$\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV in the beginning of 2013. The two scintillator
arrays V0A (direction of Pb beam), and V0C (direction of p beam), covering
pseudo-rapidity ranges of $2.8<\eta<5.1$ and -3.7$<\eta<$-1.7, respectively,
served both as triggering detectors and for determining the event multiplicity
class [21]. The tracking of particles in the central barrel, covering
$|\eta|<0.9$, takes place in the Inner Tracking System (ITS), which consists
of the two innermost silicon pixel layers, surrounded by two silicon drift and
two silicon strip layers, all placed within a radius of 43 cm, and the Time
Projection Chamber (TPC), a large cylindrical drift chamber filled with a Ne-
CO2 gas mixture [20]. Measurements of the energy loss by charged particles in
the gas allow particles to be identified with this detector.

A trigger requiring a coincidence within less than 1 ns in the V0 detectors
selected around 100 million events, which are mainly non-single diffractive
(NSD) events and contain a negligible contribution from single diffractive
(SD) and electromagnetic (EM) processes [22]. A dedicated radiator-quartz
detector (T0) provided a measurement of the event time of the collisions. The
V0 and T0 time resolutions allowed discrimination of beam-beam interactions
from background events in the interaction region. Further background
suppression was applied in the offline analysis using time information from
two neutron Zero Degree Calorimeters (ZDC), as was performed in previous p–Pb
analyses [23]. Primary vertices (PVs) were selected if their position along
the beam axis was reconstructed within 10 cm of the geometrical centre of the
detector. In Monte Carlo (MC) studies an efficiency of 99.2$\%$ for this
trigger was obtained, while the joint trigger and primary vertex
reconstruction efficiency lies at 97.8$\%$ [22]. The estimated mean number of
interactions per bunch crossing was below 1$\%$ in the sample chosen for this
analysis.

The analysed events were divided into seven multiplicity percentile classes
according to the total number of particles measured in the forward V0A
detector. The efficiency-corrected mean number of charged primary particles
per unit rapidity
($\left\langle\mathrm{d}N_{\mathrm{ch}}/\mathrm{d}\eta\right\rangle$) within
$-0.5<\eta<0.5$ in the laboratory reference frame for each of these
multiplicity bins were published in [23].

Due to the asymmetric energies of the proton and lead ion beams, a consequence
of the 2-in-1 magnet design of the LHC, the nucleon-nucleon centre-of-mass
system is shifted by 0.465 units of rapidity in the direction of the proton
beam with respect to the laboratory frame. The measurements reported in this
Letter were performed in the central rapidity window defined in the centre-of-
mass frame within $-0.5<y<0$, where negative rapidity corresponds to the side
of the detector into which the Pb beam travels.

The identification of multi-strange baryons was based on the topology of their
weak decays through the reconstruction of the tracks left behind by the decay
products, referred to as the daughter particles. The daughters of the
$\Xi^{-}\rightarrow\Lambda\pi^{-}$ (BR: 99.9$\%$),
$\Omega^{-}\rightarrow\Lambda K^{-}$ (BR: 67.8$\%$) and the subsequent
$\Lambda\rightarrow p\pi^{-}$(BR: 63.9$\%$) weak decays [24], as well as the
corresponding decays of the $\overline{\Xi}^{+}$ and $\overline{\Omega}^{+}$,
were reconstructed by combining track information from the TPC and the ITS
[25]. Proton, anti-proton and charged $\pi$ and K tracks were identified in
the TPC via their measured energy deposition, which was compared with a mass-
dependent parameterisation of ionisation loss in the TPC gas as a function of
momentum [26]. All daughter candidates were required to lie within 4$\sigma$
of their characteristic Bethe-Bloch energy loss curve. Multi-strange
candidates were selected through the geometrical association of the $V^{0}$
component ($\Lambda$ or $\bar{\Lambda}$ decay) to a further secondary,
‘bachelor’ track (identified as $\pi^{\pm}$ or K±). In this process, several
geometrical variables were measured for each candidate, and criteria were set
on them in order to purify the selected sample: numerical values for the
selection cuts applied are reported in Table 1. These selections are similar
to those in the pp measurements [25], a consequence of the low multiplicities
present in the detector in the p–Pb collisions. As a result the correction
factors for the efficiency are also similar. In addition to the settings on
topological variables, a cut has been applied on the $V^{0}$ invariant mass
window of $\pm$8 MeV/$c^{2}$ from the nominal $\Lambda$ mass [24]. Further
restrictions were set on the proper lifetime of the $\Xi^{\pm}$ and
$\Omega^{\pm}$. By requiring this variable to be less than 3 times the mean
decay length (4.91 cm and 2.46 cm, respectively), we discarded low-momentum
secondary particles and false multi-strange candidates, the daughter tracks of
which originated from interactions with detector material.

$V^{0}$ finding criteria
---
DCA: h± to PV |  $>0.04$ (0.03) cm
DCA: h- to h+ |  $<1.5$ standard deviations
$\Lambda$ mass ($m_{\mathrm{V0}}$) |  $1.108<m_{\mathrm{V0}}<$ 1.124 GeV/$c^{2}$
Fiducial volume (R2D) |  $R_{\rm{2D}}>$ 1.1 (1.2) cm
$V^{0}$ pointing angle |  $\cos\theta_{\mathrm{V0}}>$ 0.97
Cascade finding criteria
Proper decay length |  $<3\times$ mean decay length
DCA: $\pi^{\pm}$ (K±) to PV |  $>0.04$ cm
DCA: $V^{0}$ to PV |  $>0.06$ cm
DCA: $\pi^{\pm}$ (K±) to $V^{0}$ |  $<1.3$ cm
Fiducial volume (R2D) |  $R_{\rm{2D}}>$ 0.5 (0.6) cm
Cascade pointing angle |  $\cos\theta_{\rm{casc}}>$ 0.97
Table 1: The parameters for $V^{0}$ ($\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$) and
cascades ($\Xi^{\pm}$ and $\Omega^{\pm}$) selection criteria. Where a
criterion for $\Xi^{\pm}$ and $\Omega^{\pm}$ finding differs, the value for
the $\Omega^{\pm}$ case is in parentheses. DCA represents “distance of closest
approach,” PV the primary vertex, $\theta$ is the angle between the momentum
vector of the reconstructed $V^{0}$ or cascade, and the displacement vector
between the decay and primary vertices. The curvature of the cascade
particle’s trajectory is neglected.

The invariant mass of the $\Xi$ and $\Omega$ hyperons was calculated by
assuming the known masses [24] of the $\Lambda$ and of the bachelor track. The
mass was reconstructed twice for each cascade candidate, once assuming the
bachelor to be a $\pi$ and once a K. This allowed the removal of an important
fraction of the $\Omega$ background, which contained a large contribution from
the $\Xi$ candidates that pass the $\Omega$ selection criteria. Most of these
false $\Omega$ were removed discarding all candidates that could be
reconstructed as $\Xi$ with a mass within 10 MeV/$c^{2}$ of the known mass
[24] of the $\Xi$ baryon. Figure 1 shows the invariant mass distributions for
the $\Xi^{-}$ and $\Omega^{-}$ hadrons in well populated $p_{\rm T}$ bins for
the lowest and highest multiplicity classes.

For the signal extraction, a peak region was defined within 4$\sigma$ of the
mean of a Gaussian invariant mass peak for every measured $p_{\rm T}$
interval. Adjacent background bands, covering an equal combined mass interval
as the peak region, were defined on both sides of that central region. This is
illustrated in Figure 1 with the shaded bands on either side of the peak. The
number of bin entries inside the side-bands was subtracted from the number of
candidates within the peak region, assuming the background to be linear across
the mass range considered.

Figure 1: Invariant mass distributions of the $\Xi^{-}$ and $\Omega^{-}$ in
the 1.1-1.2 GeV/$c$ and 1.2-1.6 GeV/$c$ $p_{\rm T}$ bins respectively, fitted
with a Gaussian peak and linear background (dashed red curves). The
distributions for highest (left) and lowest (right) multiplicity classes are
shown. The fits only serve to illustrate the peak position with respect to
which the bands were defined and the linear background assumption for the
applied signal extraction method.

The $p_{\rm T}$ distributions were corrected for detector acceptance and
reconstruction efficiencies. These were estimated with the use of DPMJet [27]
simulated Monte Carlo (MC) events, which were propagated through the detector
with GEANT3 [28].

###  2.1 Systematic uncertainties

Systematic uncertainties due to the choice of selection criteria were examined
separately in each $p_{\rm T}$ interval of the measured spectra. Individual
settings were loosened and tightened, in order to measure changes in the
signal loss correction. For the $\Xi$ hyperons, the signal extraction accounts
for an uncertainty of around 2% but reaches 5% at low-$p_{\rm T}$ and in high
multiplicity events, while for the $\Omega$, uncertainties of 3-5% were
measured. The uncertainty due to the topological selections is around 2(3)%
for the main $p_{\rm T}$ region, and up to 3(5)% at low momentum for
$\Xi$($\Omega$). The constraint on the $V^{0}$ mass window contributes to the
total uncertainty with around 0.5(1)% and both the TPC tracking and
identification cuts with 2(3)%. The proper decay length cut gives another
3(5)% uncertainty at low $p_{\rm T}$. A 4% error was added due to the material
budget, and for the $\Omega^{\pm}$ only, an additional 3% due to the mass
hypothesis cut. All these individual error contributions, which are listed in
Table 2, are added in quadrature. Apart from the low momentum region, no
$p_{\rm T}$ dependence is observed in the total uncertainty. The total
systematic error lies between 5-6(8)% across the whole spectrum, reaching up
to 8(14)% in the lowest $p_{\rm T}$ bins for the $\Xi$($\Omega$) baryons.

The fraction of the systematic error that is uncorrelated across multiplicity
was calculated by using the same method applied in [23], in which spectra
deviations in specific multiplicity classes were compared to those observed in
the integrated data sample. The choice of the topological parameter values and
the applied signal extraction method generates the dominant contribution to
the uncorrelated uncertainties across multiplicity. These uncertainties were
measured to be within 2% in the case of the $\Xi$ and 3% in the case of the
$\Omega$, which constitutes a fraction that lies between 20 and 40$\%$ of the
total systematic uncertainties.

Source | $\Xi^{\pm}$ | $\Omega^{\pm}$
---|---|---
Material budget | 4$\%$ | 4$\%$
Competing mass hypothesis | - | 3$\%$
Topological variables | 2-3(5)% | 3-5%
Signal extraction | 2(5)% | 3(5)%
Particle identification | 2$\%$ | 3$\%$
Track selection | 2$\%$ | 3$\%$
Proper decay length | 1(3)$\%$ | 2(5)$\%$
$V^{0}$ mass window | 0.5% | 1%
Table 2: Contributions to the total systematic uncertainties for the
$\Xi^{\pm}$ and $\Omega^{\pm}$ spectra measurements. The values in brackets
indicate the maximum uncertainties measured for low $p_{\rm T}$ cascades (see
text).

##  3 Results

###  3.1 Transverse momentum spectra

Figure 2: (colour online) Invariant $p_{\rm T}$-differential yields of
($\Xi^{-}$+$\overline{\Xi}^{+}$) and ($\Omega^{-}$+$\overline{\Omega}^{+}$) in
different multiplicity classes. Data have been scaled by successive factors of
2 for better visibility. Statistical (bars), full systematic (boxes) and
uncorrelated across multiplicity (transparent boxes) uncertainties are
plotted. The dashed curves represent Blast-Wave fits to each individual
distribution.

The $p_{\rm T}$ distributions of $\Xi^{-}$, $\overline{\Xi}^{+}$,
$\Omega^{-}$and $\overline{\Omega}^{+}$ in $-0.5<y<0$ are shown in Fig. 2 for
different multiplicity intervals, as defined in [23]. Since antiparticle and
particle spectra are identical within uncertainties, the average of the two is
shown. The spectra exhibit a progressive flattening with increasing
multiplicity, which is qualitatively reminiscent of what is observed in Pb–Pb
[10].

The calculation of $p_{\rm T}$-integrated yields can be performed by using
data in the measured region and a parametrisation-based extrapolation
elsewhere. The Boltzmann-Gibbs Blast-Wave (BG-BW) model [16] gives a good
description of each $p_{\rm T}$ spectrum and has been used as a tool for this
extrapolation. Other alternatives, such as the Levy-Tsallis [29] and Boltzmann
distributions, were used for estimating the systematic uncertainty due to the
extrapolation.

The extrapolation in the unmeasured $\Xi^{\pm}$ ($\Omega^{\pm}$) low-$p_{\rm
T}$ region grows progressively with decreasing multiplicity bins, from around
16$\%$(19$\%$) of the total yield in the 0–5$\%$ multiplicity class to around
27$\%$(40$\%$) in the 80–100$\%$ class. The systematic uncertainty assigned to
the yield due to the extrapolation technique is 2.8$\%$(7.8$\%$) for high
multiplicities and rises to 5.2$\%$(14.5$\%$) in the case where the fraction
of the extrapolated yield is highest.

###  3.2 Comparison to Blast-Wave model

In order to investigate whether the observed spectral shapes are consistent
with a system that exhibits hydrodynamical radial expansion, the measured
distributions have been further studied in the context of the BG-BW model
[16]. This model assumes a locally thermalised medium that expands
collectively with a common velocity field and then undergoes an instantaneous
freeze-out. In this framework, a simultaneous fit to identified particle
spectra allows for the determination of common freeze-out parameters. These
can be used to predict the $p_{\rm T}$ distribution for other particle species
in a collective expansion picture. It should be noted that such a simultaneous
fit differs from the individual fits mentioned in the previous section and
used only for extrapolating the spectra.

The $\Xi^{-}$, $\overline{\Xi}^{+}$, $\Omega^{-}$and $\overline{\Omega}^{+}$
$p_{\rm T}$ spectra in the 0–5$\%$ and 80–100$\%$ multiplicity classes are
compared to predictions from the BG-BW model with parameters acquired from a
simultaneous fit to $\pi^{\pm}$, K±, p($\rm\overline{p}$) and
$\Lambda$($\bar{\Lambda}$) [23] in Fig. 3. The model describes the measured
shapes within uncertainties up to a $p_{\rm T}$ of approximately 4 GeV/$c$ for
$\Xi$ and 5 GeV/$c$ for $\Omega$ in the highest multiplicity class. This
indicates that multi-strange hadrons also follow a common motion with the
lighter hadrons and is suggestive of the presence of radial flow in p–Pb
collisions. However, it is worth noting that some final state effects could
also modify the spectra in a similar manner to radial flow. For example,
PYTHIA [30] implements the colour reconnection mechanism, which fuses strings
originating from independent parton interactions, leading to fewer but more
energetic hadrons, which has been shown to mimic radial flow [31].

Applying the same technique to results from the lower multiplicity classes
reveals that the agreement of the data with the Blast-Wave predictions become
progressively worse. The comparison between lowest and highest multiplicity
cases can be seen in Fig. 3, where their respective ratios to the model
predictions are shown in the lower panels. These observations indicate that
common kinetic freeze-out conditions are able to better describe the spectra
in high multiplicity p–Pb collisions.

The multi-strange baryon spectra in central Pb–Pb collisions [10] have also
been investigated in a common freeze-out scenario [17, 18] and similar studies
were performed for Au–Au collisions [19]. In contrast to high multiplicity
p–Pb collisions, where all stable and long-lived hadron spectra are compatible
with a single set of kinetic freeze-out conditions (the temperature Tfo and
the mean transverse flow velocity $\left<\mathrm{\beta}_{\rm T}\right>$),
multi-strange particles in central heavy-ion collisions seem to experience
less transverse flow and may freeze out earlier in the evolution of the system
when compared to most of the other hadrons.

Figure 3: (colour online) ($\Xi^{-}$+$\overline{\Xi}^{+}$) and
($\Omega^{-}$+$\overline{\Omega}^{+}$) $p_{\rm T}$ spectra in the 0–5$\%$
(left) and 80–100$\%$ (right) multiplicity classes compared to predictions
from the BG-BW model (upper panels) with the ratios on a linear scale (lower
panels). The parameters are based on simultaneous fits to lighter hadrons
[23]. See text for details.

###  3.3 Hyperon to pion ratios

Event class | $\left\langle\mathrm{d}N_{\mathrm{ch}}/\mathrm{d}\eta\right\rangle$ | dN/dy($\Xi^{-}$\+ $\overline{\Xi}^{+}$) | dN/dy($\Omega^{-}$\+ $\overline{\Omega}^{+}$)
---|---|---|---
| $|\eta_{\rm lab}|<0.5$ |  |
0–5% | 45 $\pm$ 1 | 0.2354$\pm$0.0020$\pm$0.0161 | 0.0260$\pm$0.0011$\pm$0.0034
5–10% | 36.2 $\pm$ 0.8 | 0.1861$\pm$0.0016$\pm$0.0138 | 0.0215$\pm$0.0008$\pm$0.0029
10–20% | 30.5 $\pm$ 0.7 | 0.1500$\pm$0.0010$\pm$0.0112 | 0.0167$\pm$0.0006$\pm$0.0022
20–40% | 23.2 $\pm$ 0.5 | 0.1100$\pm$0.0006$\pm$0.0085 | 0.0120$\pm$0.0005$\pm$0.0016
40–60% | 16.1 $\pm$ 0.4 | 0.0726$\pm$0.0006$\pm$0.0065 | 0.0072$\pm$0.0003$\pm$0.0010
60–80% | 9.8 $\pm$ 0.2 | 0.0398$\pm$0.0004$\pm$0.0031 | 0.0042$\pm$0.0002$\pm$0.0006
80–100% | 4.3 $\pm$ 0.1 | 0.0143$\pm$0.0003$\pm$0.0015 | 0.0013$\pm$0.0003$\pm$0.0003
Table 3: The mid-rapidity
$\left\langle\mathrm{d}N_{\mathrm{ch}}/\mathrm{d}\eta\right\rangle$ values for
each of the 7 multiplicity classes and the $\Xi^{-}$\+ $\overline{\Xi}^{+}$and
$\Omega^{-}$\+ $\overline{\Omega}^{+}$integrated yields per unit rapidity
normalised to the visible cross section. The statistical uncertainty on the
yields is followed by the sytematic uncertainty.

Figure 4: (colour online)
($\Xi^{-}$+$\overline{\Xi}^{+}$)/($\pi^{+}$+$\pi^{-}$) (left) and
($\Omega^{-}$+$\overline{\Omega}^{+}$)/($\pi^{+}$+$\pi^{-}$) (right) ratios as
a function of
$\left\langle\mathrm{d}N_{\mathrm{ch}}/\mathrm{d}\eta\right\rangle$ for all
three colliding systems. The ratios for the seven multiplicity classes in p–Pb
data lie between the Minimum Bias pp ($\sqrt{s}$ = 900 GeV [32, 33] and
$\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV [25, 34]) and peripheral Pb–Pb results. The Pb–Pb points
[10] represent, from left to right, the 60-80$\%$, 40-60$\%$, 20-40$\%$ and
10-20$\%$ and 0-10$\%$ centrality classes. The chemical equilibrium
predictions by the GSI-Heidelberg [35] and the THERMUS 2.3 [36] models are
represented by the horizontal lines.

The measured integrated yields in the seven multiplicity classes are given in
Table 3. To study the relative production of strangeness and compare it with
results in pp and Pb–Pb collisions, the yield ratios to pions were calculated
as a function of charged particle multiplicity. Both the
($\Xi^{-}$+$\overline{\Xi}^{+}$)/($\pi^{+}$+$\pi^{-}$) and
($\Omega^{-}$+$\overline{\Omega}^{+}$)/($\pi^{+}$+$\pi^{-}$) ratios are
observed to increase as a function of multiplicity, as seen in Fig. 4. The
relative increase is more pronounced for the $\Omega^{-}$ and
$\overline{\Omega}^{+}$ than for $\Xi^{-}$ and $\overline{\Xi}^{+}$, being
approximately 100$\%$ for the former and 60$\%$ for the latter. These relative
increases are larger than the 30$\%$ increase observed for the $\Lambda/\pi$
ratio [23], indicating that strangeness content may control the rate of
increase with multiplicity.

These ratios are further compared to measurements performed in the pp [25, 34]
and Pb–Pb [10] collision systems. The
($\Xi^{-}$+$\overline{\Xi}^{+}$)/($\pi^{+}$+$\pi^{-}$) ratio for the highest
p–Pb multiplicity is compatible with the Pb–Pb measurements in the Pb–Pb 0-60%
centrality range and the
($\Omega^{-}$+$\overline{\Omega}^{+}$)/($\pi^{+}$+$\pi^{-}$) reaches a value
slightly below its Pb–Pb equivalent in this centrality range, although the
error bars still overlap. It is also noteworthy that the values obtained for
the p–Pb 80–100$\%$ multiplicity event class are similar to the ones measured
in minimum bias pp collisions.

Finally, the hyperon to pion ratios can also be compared with the values in
the Grand Canonical (GC) limit obtained from global fits to Pb–Pb data. Two
different implementations of the thermal model are shown in Fig. 4, where the
dashed lines represent the values from the THERMUS 2.3 model [36] and the
solid lines represent predictions from the GSI-Heidelberg model [35]. Both
models provide values that are consistent with the most central Pb–Pb
measurements.

In small multiplicity environments such as those produced in p–Pb collisions,
a grand canonical statistical description may not be appropriate. Instead,
local conservation laws might play an important role. The evolution of hyperon
to pion ratios in terms of the event multiplicity can be calculated with a
Strangeness Canonical (SC) model implemented in THERMUS [36]. This model
applies a local conservation law to the strangeness quantum number within a
correlation volume $V_{c}$ while treating the baryon and charge quantum
numbers grand-canonically within the fireball volume $V$. This implies a
decrease of the strangeness yields with respect to the pion yields with a
shrinking system size. To model this canonical suppression effect as a
function of pion rapidity density, yield calculations were repeated for
varying system sizes. Strangeness conservation was imposed within the size of
the fireball ($V_{c}=V$), and the strangeness saturation parameter
$\gamma_{\rm{S}}$ was fixed to 1, thus changes in the hadron to pion ratios
were due to the variations of the restraints on the system size only. The
chemical potentials ($\mu$) of the conserved strangeness, baryon and electric
charge quantum numbers were set to zero. The obtained suppression curves for
$\Lambda$, $\Xi$ and $\Omega$ are shown in Fig. 5 for a temperature of 155
MeV, the value extracted from a GC global fit to high multiplicity Pb–Pb data,
with a variation of $\pm$10 MeV (solid lines). Both the data and model points
were normalised to the high multiplicity limit. For the data, this limit is
the mean hyperon to pion ratio in the 0-60$\%$ most central Pb–Pb events,
whereas for the model it corresponds to the GC limit. The theoretical curves
for strangeness suppression computed with THERMUS are in qualitative agreement
with the effect observed in the data.

Figure 5: (colour online) Hyperon to pion ratios as a function of pion yields
for pp, p–Pb and Pb–Pb colliding systems compared to the THERMUS [36]
strangeness suppression model prediction, in which only the system size is
varied. The h/$\pi$ are the ratios of the particle and antiparticle sums,
except for the 2$\Lambda$/($\pi^{-}+\pi^{+}$) data points in pp [33], p–Pb
[23] and Pb–Pb [37]. All values are normalised to the high multiplicity limit,
which is given by the mean of the 0-60% highest multiplicity Pb–Pb
measurements for the data and by the GC limit for the model.

##  4 Conclusions

In summary, a measurement of the $p_{\rm T}$ spectra of $\Xi^{-}$,
$\overline{\Xi}^{+}$, $\Omega^{-}$and $\overline{\Omega}^{+}$ for seven
multiplicity classes in p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$= 5.02 TeV at
the LHC has been presented. These measurements represent an important
contribution to the understanding of strangeness production, as hyperon
production rates are now measured at LHC energies over a large range in
charged–particle multiplicity, from pp to central Pb–Pb collisions.

The multi-strange baryon spectra exhibit a progressive flattening with
increasing multiplicity suggesting the presence of radial flow. A comparison
with the Boltzmann-Gibbs Blast-Wave model indicates a common kinetic freeze-
out with lighter hadrons in the highest multiplicity p–Pb collisions. This is
in contrast to higher multiplicity heavy-ion collisions where there is an
indication for an earlier freeze-out of these particles.

For the first time, the lifting of strangeness suppression with system size
has been observed with measurements in a single collision system. Hyperon to
pion ratios are shown to increase with multiplicity in p–Pb collisions from
the values measured in pp to those observed in Pb–Pb. The rate of increase is
more pronounced for particles with higher strangeness content. Comparing these
results to the trends observed in statistical hadronisation models that
conserve strangeness across the created system indicates that the behaviour is
qualitatively consistent with the lifting of canonical suppression with
increasing multiplicity.

## 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; National Research,
Development and Innovation Office (NKFIH), Hungary; 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; Japan Society
for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI and MEXT, 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; Pontificia Universidad Católica
del Perú.

## References

  * [1] J. Rafelski and B. Müller, “Strangeness production in the quark-gluon plasma,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 48 (1982) 1066–1069. http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.48.1066. [Erratum Phys. Rev. Lett. 56 (1986) 2334-2334].
  * [2] WA97 Collaboration, E. Andersen et al., “Enhancement of central $\varLambda$, $\varXi$ and $\varOmega$ yields in Pb-Pb collisions at 158 A GeV/$c$,” Physics Letters B 433 (1998) 209 – 216. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269398006893.
  * [3] WA97 Collaboration, E. Andersen et al., “Strangeness enhancement at mid-rapidity in Pb–Pb collisions at 158 $A$ GeV/$c$,” Physics Letters B 449 (1999) 401 – 406. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269399001409.
  * [4] NA49 Collaboration, S. Afanasiev et al., “$\Xi^{-}$ and $\overline{\Xi}^{+}$ production in central Pb+Pb collisions at 158 GeV/$c$ per nucleon,” Physics Letters B 538 (2002) 275 – 281. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269302019706.
  * [5] NA57 Collaboration, F. Antinori et al., “Energy dependence of hyperon production in nucleus–nucleus collisions at SPS,” Physics Letters B 595 (2004) 68 – 74. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269304007725.
  * [6] NA49 Collaboration, T. Anticic et al., “$\Lambda$ and $\overline{\Lambda}$ production in central Pb-Pb collisions at 40, 80, and $158A\text{\,}\text{\,}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}$,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 022302. http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.022302.
  * [7] STAR Collaboration, J. Adams et al., “Multistrange baryon production in Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{{s}_{NN}}=130\text{\,\hskip 0.56pt\hskip 0.56pt}\mathrm{GeV}$,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 182301. http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.182301.
  * [8] STAR Collaboration, J. Adams et al., “Scaling properties of hyperon production in $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ collisions at $\sqrt{{s}_{NN}}=200\text{\,}\text{\,}\mathrm{GeV}$,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 062301. http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.062301.
  * [9] STAR Collaboration, B. I. Abelev et al., “Enhanced strange baryon production in Au+Au collisions compared to $p+p$ at $\sqrt{{s}_{\mathit{NN}}}=200$ GeV,” Phys. Rev. C 77 (2008) 044908. http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.77.044908.
  * [10] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Multi-strange baryon production at mid-rapidity in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV,” Physics Letters B 728 (2014) 216 – 227. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269313009544.
  * [11] K. Redlich and A. Tounsi, “Strangeness enhancement and energy dependence in heavy ion collisions,” The European Physical Journal C 24 (2002) 589–594. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10052-002-0983-1.
  * [12] I. Kraus, J. Cleymans, H. Oeschler, and K. Redlich, “Particle production in p-p collisions and predictions for $\sqrt{s}$ = 14 TeV at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC),” Phys. Rev. C 79 (2009) 014901. http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.79.014901.
  * [13] F. Becattini and J. Manninen, “Strangeness production from SPS to LHC,” Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 35 (2008) 104013. http://stacks.iop.org/0954-3899/35/i=10/a=104013.
  * [14] J. Aichelin and K. Werner, “Centrality Dependence of Strangeness Enhancement in Ultrarelativistic Heavy Ion Collisions: A Core-Corona Effect,” Phys. Rev. C79 (2009) 064907, arXiv:0810.4465 [nucl-th]. http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.79.064907. [Erratum: Phys. Rev. C81,029902(2010)].
  * [15] STAR Collaboration, G. Agakishiev et al., “Strangeness enhancement in Cu-Cu and Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 072301. http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.072301.
  * [16] E. Schnedermann, J. Sollfrank, and U. W. Heinz, “Thermal phenomenology of hadrons from 200$A$ GeV S+S collisions,” Phys. Rev. C 48 (1993) 2462–2475, arXiv:nucl-th/9307020 [nucl-th]. http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.48.2462.
  * [17] V. Begun, W. Florkowski, and M. Rybczynski, “Transverse-momentum spectra of strange particles produced in Pb + Pb collisions at $\sqrt{{s}_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV in the chemical nonequilibrium model,” Phys. Rev. C 90 (2014) 054912. http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.90.054912.
  * [18] I. Melo and B. Tomasik, “Blast wave fits with resonances to $p_{t}$ spectra from nuclear collisions at the LHC,” in 15th International Conference on Strangeness in Quark Matter (SQM 2015) Dubna, Moscow region, Russia, July 6-11, 2015.  2015\.  arXiv:1509.05383 [nucl-th].
  * [19] STAR Collaboration, J. Adams et al., “Experimental and theoretical challenges in the search for the quark–gluon plasma: The STAR collaboration’s critical assessment of the evidence from RHIC collisions,” Nuclear Physics A 757 (2005) 102–183, arXiv:nucl-ex/0501009 [nucl-ex]. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375947405005294.
  * [20] ALICE Collaboration, “The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC,” Journal of Instrumentation 3 (2008) S08002. http://stacks.iop.org/1748-0221/3/i=08/a=S08002.
  * [21] ALICE Collaboration, “Performance of the ALICE VZERO system,” Journal of Instrumentation 8 (2013) P10016. http://stacks.iop.org/1748-0221/8/i=10/a=P10016.
  * [22] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Pseudorapidity density of charged particles in $p$ \+ Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02$ TeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 032301. http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.032301.
  * [23] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Multiplicity dependence of pion, kaon, proton and lambda production in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV,” Physics Letters B 728 (2014) 25–38. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269313009234.
  * [24] Olive, K.A. et al. (Particle Data Group), Chinese Physics C38, 090001 (2014).  http://stacks.iop.org/1674-1137/38/i=9/a=090001.
  * [25] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Multi-strange baryon production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV with ALICE,” Physics Letters B 712 (2012) 309–318. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037026931200528X.
  * [26] ALICE Collaboration, “Performance of the ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC,” International Journal of Modern Physics A 29 (2014) 1430044. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217751X14300440.
  * [27] S. Roesler, R. Engel, and J. Ranft, “The Monte Carlo event generator DPMJET-III,” in Advanced Monte Carlo for Radiation Physics, Particle Transport Simulation and Applications, A. Kling, F. Baräo, M. Nakagawa, L. Távora, and P. Vaz, eds., pp. 1033–1038.  Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2001.  arXiv:hep-ph/0012252 [hep-ph].  http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18211-2_166.
  * [28] R. Brun, F. Carminati, and S. Giani, “GEANT Detector Description and Simulation Tool,”.
  * [29] C. Tsallis, “Possible Generalization of Boltzmann-Gibbs Statistics,” J. Statist. Phys. 52 (1988) 479–487.
  * [30] T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, “PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual,” JHEP 05 (2006) 026, arXiv:hep-ph/0603175 [hep-ph].
  * [31] A. Ortiz Velasquez, P. Christiansen, E. Cuautle Flores, I. A. Maldonado Cervantes, and G. Paić, “Color reconnection and flowlike patterns in $pp$ collisions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 042001. http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.042001.
  * [32] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “Production of pions, kaons and protons in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 900 GeV with ALICE at the LHC,” The European Physical Journal C 71 (2011) 1655. http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1655-9.
  * [33] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “Strange particle production in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 0.9 TeV with ALICE at the LHC,” The European Physical Journal C 71 (2011) 1594. http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1594-5.
  * [34] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Measurement of pion, kaon and proton production in proton–proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV,” The European Physical Journal C 75 (2015) 226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3422-9.
  * [35] A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, and J. Stachel, “Thermal hadron production in relativistic nuclear collisions: The hadron mass spectrum, the horn, and the QCD phase transition,” Physics Letters B 673 (2009) 142–145. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269309001609.
  * [36] S. Wheaton, J. Cleymans, and M. Hauer, “THERMUS — a thermal model package for ROOT,” Computer Physics Communications 180 (2009) 84 – 106. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010465508002750.
  * [37] ALICE Collaboration, B. B. Abelev et al., “$K^{0}_{S}$ and $\Lambda$ production in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 222301, arXiv:1307.5530 [nucl-ex].

##  Appendix A The ALICE Collaboration

J. Adamorg40&D. Adamováorg84&M.M. Aggarwalorg88&G. Aglieri Rinellaorg36&M.
Agnelloorg110&N. Agrawalorg48&Z. Ahammedorg132&S. Ahmadorg19&S.U. Ahnorg68&S.
Aiolaorg136&A. Akindinovorg58&S.N. Alamorg132&D. Aleksandrovorg80&B.
Alessandroorg110&D. Alexandreorg101&R. Alfaro Molinaorg64&A.
Aliciorg12,org104&A. Alkinorg3&J.R.M. Almarazorg119&J. Almeorg38&T.
Altorg43&S. Altinpinarorg18&I. Altsybeevorg131&C. Alves Garcia Pradoorg120&C.
Andreiorg78&A. Andronicorg97&V. Anguelovorg94&J. Anielskiorg54&T.
Antičićorg98&F. Antinoriorg107&P. Antonioliorg104&L. Aphecetcheorg113&H.
Appelshäuserorg53&S. Arcelliorg28&R. Arnaldiorg110&O.W. Arnoldorg37,org93&I.C.
Arseneorg22&M. Arslandokorg53&B. Audurierorg113&A. Augustinusorg36&R.
Averbeckorg97&M.D. Azmiorg19&A. Badalàorg106&Y.W. Baekorg67&S.
Bagnascoorg110&R. Bailhacheorg53&R. Balaorg91&S. Balasubramanianorg136&A.
Baldisseriorg15&R.C. Baralorg61&A.M. Barbanoorg27&R. Barberaorg29&F.
Barileorg33&G.G. Barnaföldiorg135&L.S. Barnbyorg101&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. Beardenorg81&H.
Beckorg53&C. Beddaorg110&N.K. Beheraorg50&I. Belikovorg55&F. Belliniorg28&H.
Bello Martinezorg2&R. Bellwiedorg122&R. Belmontorg134&E. Belmont-
Morenoorg64&V. Belyaevorg75&P. Benacekorg84&G. Bencediorg135&S. Beoleorg27&I.
Berceanuorg78&A. Bercuciorg78&Y. Berdnikovorg86&D. Berenyiorg135&R.A.
Bertensorg57&D. Berzanoorg36&L. Betevorg36&A. Bhasinorg91&I.R. Bhatorg91&A.K.
Bhatiorg88&B. Bhattacharjeeorg45&J. Bhomorg128&L. Bianchiorg122&N.
Bianchiorg72&C. Bianchinorg134,org57&J. Bielčíkorg40&J. Bielčíkováorg84&A.
Bilandzicorg81,org37,org93&G. Biroorg135&R. Biswasorg4&S. Biswasorg79&S.
Bjelogrlicorg57&J.T. Blairorg118&D. Blauorg80&C. Blumeorg53&F.
Bockorg74,org94&A. Bogdanovorg75&H. Bøggildorg81&L. Boldizsárorg135&M.
Bombaraorg41&J. Bookorg53&H. Borelorg15&A. Borissovorg96&M.
Borriorg83,org124&F. Bossúorg65&E. Bottaorg27&C. Bourjauorg81&P. Braun-
Munzingerorg97&M. Bregantorg120&T. Breitnerorg52&T.A. Brokerorg53&T.A.
Browningorg95&M. Brozorg40&E.J. Bruckenorg46&E. Brunaorg110&G.E. Brunoorg33&D.
Budnikovorg99&H. Bueschingorg53&S. Bufalinoorg36,org27&P. Buncicorg36&O.
Buschorg94,org128&Z. Butheleziorg65&J.B. Buttorg16&J.T. Buxtonorg20&D.
Caffarriorg36&X. Caiorg7&H. Cainesorg136&L. Calero Diazorg72&A. Calivaorg57&E.
Calvo Villarorg102&P. Cameriniorg26&F. Carenaorg36&W. Carenaorg36&F.
Carnesecchiorg28&J. Castillo Castellanosorg15&A.J. Castroorg125&E.A.R.
Casulaorg25&C. Ceballos Sanchezorg9&P. Cerelloorg110&J. Cerkalaorg115&B.
Changorg123&S. Chapelandorg36&M. Chartierorg124&J.L. Charvetorg15&S.
Chattopadhyayorg132&S. Chattopadhyayorg100&A. Chauvinorg93,org37&V.
Chelnokovorg3&M. Cherneyorg87&C. Cheshkovorg130&B. Cheynisorg130&V. Chibante
Barrosoorg36&D.D. Chinellatoorg121&S. Choorg50&P. Chochulaorg36&K.
Choiorg96&M. Chojnackiorg81&S. Choudhuryorg132&P. Christakoglouorg82&C.H.
Christensenorg81&P. Christiansenorg34&T. Chujoorg128&S.U. Chungorg96&C.
Cicaloorg105&L. Cifarelliorg12,org28&F. Cindoloorg104&J. Cleymansorg90&F.
Colamariaorg33&D. Colellaorg59,org36&A. Colluorg74,org25&M. Colocciorg28&G.
Conesa Balbastreorg71&Z. Conesa del Valleorg51&M.E.
Connorsidp1767392,org136&J.G. Contrerasorg40&T.M. Cormierorg85&Y. Corrales
Moralesorg110&I. Cortés Maldonadoorg2&P. Corteseorg32&M.R. Cosentinoorg120&F.
Costaorg36&P. Crochetorg70&R. Cruz Albinoorg11&E. Cuautleorg63&L.
Cunqueiroorg54,org36&T. Dahmsorg93,org37&A. Daineseorg107&A. Danuorg62&D.
Dasorg100&I. Dasorg100,org51&S. Dasorg4&A. Dashorg121,org79&S. Dashorg48&S.
Deorg120&A. De Caroorg12,org31&G. de Cataldoorg103&C. de Contiorg120&J. de
Cuvelandorg43&A. De Falcoorg25&D. De Gruttolaorg12,org31&N. De Marcoorg110&S.
De Pasqualeorg31&A. Deistingorg97,org94&A. Delofforg77&E. Dénesorg1350&C.
Deplanoorg82&P. Dhankherorg48&D. Di Bariorg33&A. Di Mauroorg36&P. Di
Nezzaorg72&M.A. Diaz Corcheroorg10&T. Dietelorg90&P. Dillensegerorg53&R.
Diviàorg36&Ø. Djuvslandorg18&A. Dobrinorg57,org82&D. Domenicis
Gimenezorg120&B. Dönigusorg53&O. Dordicorg22&T. Drozhzhovaorg53&A.K.
Dubeyorg132&A. Dublaorg57&L. Ducrouxorg130&P. Dupieuxorg70&R.J.
Ehlersorg136&D. Eliaorg103&E. Endressorg102&H. Engelorg52&E. Eppleorg136&B.
Erazmusorg113&I. Erdemirorg53&F. Erhardtorg129&B. Espagnonorg51&M.
Estienneorg113&S. Esumiorg128&J. Eumorg96&D. Evansorg101&S. Evdokimovorg111&G.
Eyyubovaorg40&L. Fabbiettiorg93,org37&D. Fabrisorg107&J. Faivreorg71&A.
Fantoniorg72&M. Faselorg74&L. Feldkamporg54&A. Felicielloorg110&G.
Feofilovorg131&J. Ferenceiorg84&A. Fernández Téllezorg2&E.G. Ferreiroorg17&A.
Ferrettiorg27&A. Festantiorg30&V.J.G. Feuillardorg15,org70&J.
Figielorg117&M.A.S. Figueredoorg124,org120&S. Filchaginorg99&D.
Finogeevorg56&F.M. Fiondaorg25&E.M. Fioreorg33&M.G. Fleckorg94&M.
Florisorg36&S. Foertschorg65&P. Fokaorg97&S. Fokinorg80&E. Fragiacomoorg109&A.
Francesconorg36,org30&U. Frankenfeldorg97&G.G. Fronzeorg27&U. Fuchsorg36&C.
Furgetorg71&A. Fursorg56&M. Fusco Girardorg31&J.J. Gaardhøjeorg81&M.
Gagliardiorg27&A.M. Gagoorg102&M. Gallioorg27&D.R. Gangadharanorg74&P.
Ganotiorg89&C. Gaoorg7&C. Garabatosorg97&E. Garcia-Solisorg13&C.
Gargiuloorg36&P. Gasikorg93,org37&E.F. Gaugerorg118&M. Germainorg113&A.
Gheataorg36&M. Gheataorg36,org62&P. Ghoshorg132&S.K. Ghoshorg4&P.
Gianottiorg72&P. Giubellinoorg110,org36&P. Giubilatoorg30&E. Gladysz-
Dziadusorg117&P. Glässelorg94&D.M. Goméz Coralorg64&A. Gomez Ramirezorg52&V.
Gonzalezorg10&P. González-Zamoraorg10&S. Gorbunovorg43&L. Görlichorg117&S.
Gotovacorg116&V. Grabskiorg64&O.A. Grachovorg136&L.K. Graczykowskiorg133&K.L.
Grahamorg101&A. Grelliorg57&A. Grigorasorg36&C. Grigorasorg36&V.
Grigorievorg75&A. Grigoryanorg1&S. Grigoryanorg66&B. Grinyovorg3&N.
Grionorg109&J.M. Gronefeldorg97&J.F. Grosse-Oetringhausorg36&J.-Y.
Grossiordorg130&R. Grossoorg97&F. Guberorg56&R. Guernaneorg71&B.
Guerzoniorg28&K. Gulbrandsenorg81&T. Gunjiorg127&A. Guptaorg91&R.
Guptaorg91&R. Haakeorg54&Ø. Haalandorg18&C. Hadjidakisorg51&M. Haiducorg62&H.
Hamagakiorg127&G. Hamarorg135&J.C. Hamonorg55&J.W. Harrisorg136&A.
Hartonorg13&D. Hatzifotiadouorg104&S. Hayashiorg127&S.T. Heckelorg53&H.
Helstruporg38&A. Herghelegiuorg78&G. Herrera Corralorg11&B.A. Hessorg35&K.F.
Hetlandorg38&H. Hillemannsorg36&B. Hippolyteorg55&D. Horakorg40&R.
Hosokawaorg128&P. Hristovorg36&M. Huangorg18&T.J. Humanicorg20&N.
Hussainorg45&T. Hussainorg19&D. Hutterorg43&D.S. Hwangorg21&R. Ilkaevorg99&M.
Inabaorg128&E. Incaniorg25&M. Ippolitovorg75,org80&M. Irfanorg19&M.
Ivanovorg97&V. Ivanovorg86&V. Izucheevorg111&N. Jacazioorg28&P.M.
Jacobsorg74&M.B. Jadhavorg48&S. Jadlovskaorg115&J. Jadlovskyorg115,org59&C.
Jahnkeorg120&M.J. Jakubowskaorg133&H.J. Jangorg68&M.A. Janikorg133&P.H.S.Y.
Jayarathnaorg122&C. Jenaorg30&S. Jenaorg122&R.T. Jimenez Bustamanteorg97&P.G.
Jonesorg101&H. Jungorg44&A. Juskoorg101&P. Kalinakorg59&A. Kalweitorg36&J.
Kaminorg53&J.H. Kangorg137&V. Kaplinorg75&S. Karorg132&A. Karasu Uysalorg69&O.
Karavichevorg56&T. Karavichevaorg56&L. Karayanorg97,org94&E. Karpechevorg56&U.
Kebschullorg52&R. Keidelorg138&D.L.D. Keijdenerorg57&M. Keilorg36&M. Mohisin
Khanidp3128880,org19&P. Khanorg100&S.A. Khanorg132&A. Khanzadeevorg86&Y.
Kharlovorg111&B. Kilengorg38&D.W. Kimorg44&D.J. Kimorg123&D. Kimorg137&H.
Kimorg137&J.S. Kimorg44&M. Kimorg44&M. Kimorg137&S. Kimorg21&T. Kimorg137&S.
Kirschorg43&I. Kiselorg43&S. Kiselevorg58&A. Kisielorg133&G. Kissorg135&J.L.
Klayorg6&C. Kleinorg53&J. Kleinorg36&C. Klein-Bösingorg54&S. Klewinorg94&A.
Klugeorg36&M.L. Knichelorg94&A.G. Knospeorg118&C. Kobdajorg114&M.
Kofaragoorg36&T. Kolleggerorg97&A. Kolojvariorg131&V. Kondratievorg131&N.
Kondratyevaorg75&E. Kondratyukorg111&A. Konevskikhorg56&M. Kopcikorg115&M.
Kourorg91&C. Kouzinopoulosorg36&O. Kovalenkoorg77&V. Kovalenkoorg131&M.
Kowalskiorg117&G. Koyithatta Meethaleveeduorg48&I. Králikorg59&A.
Kravčákováorg41&M. Kretzorg43&M. Krivdaorg59,org101&F. Krizekorg84&E.
Kryshenorg86,org36&M. Krzewickiorg43&A.M. Kuberaorg20&V. Kučeraorg84&C.
Kuhnorg55&P.G. Kuijerorg82&A. Kumarorg91&J. Kumarorg48&L. Kumarorg88&S.
Kumarorg48&P. Kurashviliorg77&A. Kurepinorg56&A.B. Kurepinorg56&A.
Kuryakinorg99&M.J. Kweonorg50&Y. Kwonorg137&S.L. La Pointeorg110&P. La
Roccaorg29&P. Ladron de Guevaraorg11&C. Lagana Fernandesorg120&I.
Lakomovorg36&R. Langoyorg42&C. Laraorg52&A. Lardeuxorg15&A. Lattucaorg27&E.
Laudiorg36&R. Leaorg26&L. Leardiniorg94&G.R. Leeorg101&S. Leeorg137&F.
Lehasorg82&R.C. Lemmonorg83&V. Lentiorg103&E. Leograndeorg57&I. León
Monzónorg119&H. León Vargasorg64&M. Leoncinoorg27&P. Lévaiorg135&S.
Liorg7,org70&X. Liorg14&J. Lienorg42&R. Lietavaorg101&S. Lindalorg22&V.
Lindenstruthorg43&C. Lippmannorg97&M.A. Lisaorg20&H.M. Ljunggrenorg34&D.F.
Lodatoorg57&P.I. Loenneorg18&V. Loginovorg75&C. Loizidesorg74&X. Lopezorg70&E.
López Torresorg9&A. Loweorg135&P. Luettigorg53&M. Lunardonorg30&G.
Luparelloorg26&T.H. Lutzorg136&A. Maevskayaorg56&M. Magerorg36&S.
Mahajanorg91&S.M. Mahmoodorg22&A. Maireorg55&R.D. Majkaorg136&M.
Malaevorg86&I. Maldonado Cervantesorg63&L. Malininaidp3835440,org66&D.
Mal’Kevichorg58&P. Malzacherorg97&A. Mamonovorg99&V. Mankoorg80&F.
Mansoorg70&V. Manzariorg36,org103&M. Marchisoneorg65,org126,org27&J.
Marešorg60&G.V. Margagliottiorg26&A. Margottiorg104&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&A. Masorg120&S. Masciocchiorg97&M. Maseraorg27&A.
Masoniorg105&L. Massacrierorg113&A. Mastroserioorg33&A. Matyjaorg117&C.
Mayerorg36,org117&J. Mazerorg125&M.A. Mazzoniorg108&D. Mcdonaldorg122&F.
Meddiorg24&Y. Melikyanorg75&A. Menchaca-Rochaorg64&E. Meninnoorg31&J. Mercado
Pérezorg94&M. Meresorg39&Y. Miakeorg128&M.M. Mieskolainenorg46&K.
Mikhaylovorg66,org58&L. Milanoorg74,org36&J. Milosevicorg22&L.M.
Minerviniorg103,org23&A. Mischkeorg57&A.N. Mishraorg49&D. Miśkowiecorg97&J.
Mitraorg132&C.M. Mituorg62&N. Mohammadiorg57&B. Mohantyorg79,org132&L.
Molnarorg55,org113&L. Montaño Zetinaorg11&E. Montesorg10&D.A. Moreira De
Godoyorg54,org113&L.A.P. Morenoorg2&S. Morettoorg30&A. Morrealeorg113&A.
Morschorg36&V. Mucciforaorg72&E. Mudnicorg116&D. Mühlheimorg54&S.
Muhuriorg132&M. Mukherjeeorg132&J.D. Mulliganorg136&M.G. Munhozorg120&R.H.
Munzerorg93,org37&H. Murakamiorg127&S. Murrayorg65&L. Musaorg36&J.
Musinskyorg59&B. Naikorg48&R. Nairorg77&B.K. Nandiorg48&R. Naniaorg104&E.
Nappiorg103&M.U. Naruorg16&H. Natal da Luzorg120&C. Nattrassorg125&S.R.
Navarroorg2&K. Nayakorg79&R. Nayakorg48&T.K. Nayakorg132&S. Nazarenkoorg99&A.
Nedosekinorg58&L. Nellenorg63&F. Ngorg122&M. Nicassioorg97&M.
Niculescuorg62&J. Niedzielaorg36&B.S. Nielsenorg81&S. Nikolaevorg80&S.
Nikulinorg80&V. Nikulinorg86&F. Noferiniorg104,org12&P. Nomokonovorg66&G.
Noorenorg57&J.C.C. Norisorg2&J. Normanorg124&A. Nyaninorg80&J.
Nystrandorg18&H. Oeschlerorg94&S. Ohorg136&S.K. Ohorg67&A. Ohlsonorg36&A.
Okatanorg69&T. Okuboorg47&L. Olahorg135&J. Oleniaczorg133&A.C. Oliveira Da
Silvaorg120&M.H. Oliverorg136&J. Onderwaaterorg97&C. Oppedisanoorg110&R.
Oravaorg46&A. Ortiz Velasquezorg63&A. Oskarssonorg34&J. Otwinowskiorg117&K.
Oyamaorg94,org76&M. Ozdemirorg53&Y. Pachmayerorg94&P. Paganoorg31&G.
Paićorg63&S.K. Palorg132&J. Panorg134&A.K. Pandeyorg48&P. Papcunorg115&V.
Papikyanorg1&G.S. Pappalardoorg106&P. Pareekorg49&W.J. Parkorg97&S.
Parmarorg88&A. Passfeldorg54&V. Paticchioorg103&R.N. Patraorg132&B.
Paulorg100&H. Peiorg7&T. Peitzmannorg57&H. Pereira Da Costaorg15&D.
Peresunkoorg80,org75&C.E. Pérez Laraorg82&E. Perez Lezamaorg53&V.
Peskovorg53&Y. Pestovorg5&V. Petráčekorg40&V. Petrovorg111&M.
Petroviciorg78&C. Pettaorg29&S. Pianoorg109&M. Piknaorg39&P.
Pillotorg113&L.O.D.L. Pimentelorg81&O. Pinazzaorg36,org104&L.
Pinskyorg122&D.B. Piyarathnaorg122&M. Płoskońorg74&M. Planinicorg129&J.
Plutaorg133&S. Pochybovaorg135&P.L.M. Podesta-Lermaorg119&M.G.
Poghosyanorg85,org87&B. Polichtchoukorg111&N. Poljakorg129&W.
Poonsawatorg114&A. Poporg78&S. Porteboeuf-Houssaisorg70&J. Porterorg74&J.
Pospisilorg84&S.K. Prasadorg4&R. Preghenellaorg104,org36&F. Prinoorg110&C.A.
Pruneauorg134&I. Pshenichnovorg56&M. Puccioorg27&G. Pudduorg25&P.
Pujahariorg134&V. Puninorg99&J. Putschkeorg134&H. Qvigstadorg22&A.
Rachevskiorg109&S. Rahaorg4&S. Rajputorg91&J. Rakorg123&A.
Rakotozafindrabeorg15&L. Ramelloorg32&F. Ramiorg55&R. Raniwalaorg92&S.
Raniwalaorg92&S.S. Räsänenorg46&B.T. Rascanuorg53&D. Ratheeorg88&K.F.
Readorg125,org85&K. Redlichorg77&R.J. Reedorg134&A. Rehmanorg18&P.
Reicheltorg53&F. Reidtorg94,org36&X. Renorg7&R. Renfordtorg53&A.R.
Reolonorg72&A. Reshetinorg56&J.-P. Revolorg12&K. Reygersorg94&V.
Riabovorg86&R.A. Ricciorg73&T. Richertorg34&M. Richterorg22&P. Riedlerorg36&W.
Rieglerorg36&F. Riggiorg29&C. Risteaorg62&E. Roccoorg57&M. Rodríguez
Cahuantziorg2,org11&A. Rodriguez Mansoorg82&K. Røedorg22&E. Rogochayaorg66&D.
Rohrorg43&D. Röhrichorg18&R. Romitaorg124&F. Ronchettiorg72,org36&L.
Ronfletteorg113&P. Rosnetorg70&A. Rossiorg30,org36&F. Roukoutakisorg89&A.
Royorg49&C. Royorg55&P. Royorg100&A.J. Rubio Monteroorg10&R. Ruiorg26&R.
Russoorg27&E. Ryabinkinorg80&Y. Ryabovorg86&A. Rybickiorg117&S.
Sadovskyorg111&K. Šafaříkorg36&B. Sahlmullerorg53&P. Sahooorg49&R.
Sahooorg49&S. Sahooorg61&P.K. Sahuorg61&J. Sainiorg132&S. Sakaiorg72&M.A.
Salehorg134&J. Salzwedelorg20&S. Sambyalorg91&V. Samsonovorg86&L.
Šándororg59&A. Sandovalorg64&M. Sanoorg128&D. Sarkarorg132&P. Sarmaorg45&E.
Scapparoneorg104&F. Scarlassaraorg30&C. Schiauaorg78&R. Schickerorg94&C.
Schmidtorg97&H.R. Schmidtorg35&S. Schuchmannorg53&J. Schukraftorg36&M.
Schulcorg40&T. Schusterorg136&Y. Schutzorg36,org113&K. Schwarzorg97&K.
Schwedaorg97&G. Scioliorg28&E. Scomparinorg110&R. Scottorg125&M.
Šefčíkorg41&J.E. Segerorg87&Y. Sekiguchiorg127&D. Sekihataorg47&I.
Selyuzhenkovorg97&K. Senosiorg65&S. Senyukovorg3,org36&E.
Serradillaorg10,org64&A. Sevcencoorg62&A. Shabanovorg56&A. Shabetaiorg113&O.
Shaduraorg3&R. Shahoyanorg36&A. Shangaraevorg111&A. Sharmaorg91&M.
Sharmaorg91&M. Sharmaorg91&N. Sharmaorg125&K. Shigakiorg47&K.
Shtejerorg9,org27&Y. Sibiriakorg80&S. Siddhantaorg105&K.M. Sielewiczorg36&T.
Siemiarczukorg77&D. Silvermyrorg34&C. Silvestreorg71&G. Simatovicorg129&G.
Simonettiorg36&R. Singarajuorg132&R. Singhorg79&S. Singhaorg132,org79&V.
Singhalorg132&B.C. Sinhaorg132&T. Sinhaorg100&B. Sitarorg39&M. Sittaorg32&T.B.
Skaaliorg22&M. Slupeckiorg123&N. Smirnovorg136&R.J.M. Snellingsorg57&T.W.
Snellmanorg123&C. Søgaardorg34&J. Songorg96&M. Songorg137&Z. Songorg7&F.
Soramelorg30&S. Sorensenorg125&R.D.de Souzaorg121&F. Sozziorg97&M.
Spacekorg40&E. Spiritiorg72&I. Sputowskaorg117&M. Spyropoulou-
Stassinakiorg89&J. Stachelorg94&I. Stanorg62&P. Stankusorg85&G.
Stefanekorg77&E. Stenlundorg34&G. Steynorg65&J.H. Stillerorg94&D.
Stoccoorg113&P. Strmenorg39&A.A.P. Suaideorg120&T. Sugitateorg47&C.
Suireorg51&M. Suleymanovorg16&M. Suljicorg260&R. Sultanovorg58&M.
Šumberaorg84&A. Szaboorg39&A. Szanto de Toledoorg1200&I. Szarkaorg39&A.
Szczepankiewiczorg36&M. Szymanskiorg133&U. Tabassamorg16&J.
Takahashiorg121&G.J. Tambaveorg18&N. Tanakaorg128&M.A. Tangaroorg33&M.
Tarhiniorg51&M. Tariqorg19&M.G. Tarzilaorg78&A. Tauroorg36&G. Tejeda
Muñozorg2&A. Telescaorg36&K. Terasakiorg127&C. Terrevoliorg30&B.
Teyssierorg130&J. Thäderorg74&D. Thomasorg118&R. Tieulentorg130&A.R.
Timminsorg122&A. Toiaorg53&S. Trogoloorg27&G. Trombettaorg33&V.
Trubnikovorg3&W.H. Trzaskaorg123&T. Tsujiorg127&A. Tumkinorg99&R.
Turrisiorg107&T.S. Tveterorg22&K. Ullalandorg18&A. Urasorg130&G.L.
Usaiorg25&A. Utrobicicorg129&M. Vajzerorg84&M. Valaorg59&L. Valencia
Palomoorg70&S. Valleroorg27&J. Van Der Maarelorg57&J.W. Van Hoorneorg36&M. van
Leeuwenorg57&T. Vanatorg84&P. Vande Vyvreorg36&D. Vargaorg135&A. Vargasorg2&M.
Vargyasorg123&R. Varmaorg48&M. Vasileiouorg89&A. Vasilievorg80&A.
Vauthierorg71&V. Vecherninorg131&A.M. Veenorg57&M. Veldhoenorg57&A.
Velureorg18&M. Venaruzzoorg73&E. Vercellinorg27&S. Vergara Limónorg2&R.
Vernetorg8&M. Verweijorg134&L. Vickovicorg116&G. Viestiorg300&J.
Viinikainenorg123&Z. Vilakaziorg126&O. Villalobos Baillieorg101&A. Villatoro
Telloorg2&A. Vinogradovorg80&L. Vinogradovorg131&Y. Vinogradovorg990&T.
Virgiliorg31&V. Vislaviciusorg34&Y.P. Viyogiorg132&A. Vodopyanovorg66&M.A.
Völklorg94&K. Voloshinorg58&S.A. Voloshinorg134&G. Volpeorg135&B. von
Hallerorg36&I. Vorobyevorg37,org93&D. Vranicorg97,org36&J. Vrlákováorg41&B.
Vulpescuorg70&B. Wagnerorg18&J. Wagnerorg97&H. Wangorg57&M. Wangorg7,org113&D.
Watanabeorg128&Y. Watanabeorg127&M. Weberorg36,org112&S.G. Weberorg97&D.F.
Weiserorg94&J.P. Wesselsorg54&U. Westerhofforg54&A.M. Whiteheadorg90&J.
Wiechulaorg35&J. Wikneorg22&M. Wildeorg54&G. Wilkorg77&J.
Wilkinsonorg94&M.C.S. Williamsorg104&B. Windelbandorg94&M. Winnorg94&C.G.
Yaldoorg134&H. Yangorg57&P. Yangorg7&S. Yanoorg47&C. Yasarorg69&Z. Yinorg7&H.
Yokoyamaorg128&I.-K. Yooorg96&J.H. Yoonorg50&V. Yurchenkoorg3&I.
Yushmanovorg80&A. Zaborowskaorg133&V. Zaccoloorg81&A. Zamanorg16&C.
Zampolliorg104&H.J.C. Zanoliorg120&S. Zaporozhetsorg66&N. Zardoshtiorg101&A.
Zarochentsevorg131&P. Závadaorg60&N. Zaviyalovorg99&H. Zbroszczykorg133&I.S.
Zguraorg62&M. Zhalovorg86&H. Zhangorg18&X. Zhangorg74&Y. Zhangorg7&C.
Zhangorg57&Z. Zhangorg7&C. Zhaoorg22&N. Zhigarevaorg58&D. Zhouorg7&Y.
Zhouorg81&Z. Zhouorg18&H. Zhuorg18&J. Zhuorg113,org7&A. Zichichiorg28,org12&A.
Zimmermannorg94&M.B. Zimmermannorg54,org36&G. Zinovjevorg3&M. Zyzakorg43

## Affiliation notes

0Deceased

idp1767392Also at: Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States

idp3128880Also at: Also at Department of Applied Physics, Aligarh Muslim
University, Aligarh, India

idp3835440Also at: M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, D.V. Skobeltsyn
Institute of Nuclear, Physics, Moscow, Russia

## 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

org75Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, Moscow, Russia

org76Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science, Nagasaki, Japan

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

org80National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia

org81Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

org82Nikhef, Nationaal instituut voor subatomaire fysica, Amsterdam,
Netherlands

org83Nuclear Physics Group, STFC Daresbury Laboratory, Daresbury, United
Kingdom

org84Nuclear Physics Institute, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Řež
u Prahy, Czech Republic

org85Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States

org86Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina, Russia

org87Physics Department, Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, United States

org88Physics Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India

org89Physics Department, University of Athens, Athens, Greece

org90Physics Department, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

org91Physics Department, University of Jammu, Jammu, India

org92Physics Department, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, India

org93Physik Department, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

org94Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg,
Heidelberg, Germany

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

org100Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata, India

org101School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham,
United Kingdom

org102Sección Física, Departamento de Ciencias, Pontificia Universidad
Católica del Perú, Lima, Peru

org103Sezione INFN, Bari, Italy

org104Sezione INFN, Bologna, Italy

org105Sezione INFN, Cagliari, Italy

org106Sezione INFN, Catania, Italy

org107Sezione INFN, Padova, Italy

org108Sezione INFN, Rome, Italy

org109Sezione INFN, Trieste, Italy

org110Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy

org111SSC IHEP of NRC Kurchatov institute, Protvino, Russia

org112Stefan Meyer Institut für Subatomare Physik (SMI), Vienna, Austria

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

org133Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland

org134Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, United States

org135Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences,
Budapest, Hungary

org136Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States

org137Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea

org138Zentrum für Technologietransfer und Telekommunikation (ZTT),
Fachhochschule Worms, Worms, Germany