2021 139 14 July

Hypertriton production in p–Pb collisions at the $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$
=5.02 TeV ALICE Collaboration††thanks: See Appendix A for the list of
collaboration members ALICE Collaboration

The study of nuclei and antinuclei production has proven to be a powerful tool
to investigate the formation mechanism of loosely bound states in high-energy
hadronic collisions. The first measurement of the production of
${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ in p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ =
5.02 TeV is presented in this Letter. Its production yield measured in the
rapidity interval $-1<y<0$ for the 40% highest multiplicity p–Pb collisions is
$\mathrm{d}N/\mathrm{d}y=[\mathrm{6.3\pm 1.8(stat.)\pm 1.2(syst.)]\times
10^{-7}}$. The measurement is compared with the expectations of statistical
hadronisation and coalescence models, which describe the nucleosynthesis in
hadronic collisions. These two models predict very different yields of the
hypertriton in charged particle multiplicity environments relevant to small
collision systems such as p–Pb and therefore the measurement of
$\mathrm{d}N/\mathrm{d}y$ is crucial to distinguish between them. The
precision of this measurement leads to the exclusion with a significance
larger than 6.9$\sigma$ of some configurations of the statistical
hadronization model, thus constraining the theory behind the production of
loosely bound states at hadron colliders.

In the last few decades, the production of deuterons, 3H, ${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$,
$\mathrm{{}^{4}He}$ and their charge conjugates was measured in many different
colliding systems and energies. The results of the measurements in hadronic
and heavy-ion collisions at the LHC [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7], in e+e- collisions
at LEP [8], at lower-energy collider [9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16] and fixed
target experiments [17, 18, 19, 20] significantly constrained the parameter
space for production models like coalescence [21, 22, 23] and statistical
hadronisation [24, 25], yet they were unable to decisively discriminate
between these two models. The interest in the phenomenon of nucleosynthesis in
the final state of hadronic collisions has risen again in recent years owing
to its relevance in dark matter searches in space [26, 27]. A precise
modelling of the production of nuclei and antinuclei is required for the
interpretation of the expected fluxes of antinuclei originating from dark
matter annihilation, and for the relevant Standard Model background channels.

For large colliding systems, such as Pb–Pb collisions at the LHC, the
predictions of statistical hadronisation and coalescence models are very
similar and they are both able to describe the measured production of nuclei
[28]. The statistical hadronisation model (SHM) describes the system as a
hadron-resonance gas (HRG) in thermal equilibrium at hadron emission, hence it
predicts particle yields starting from the volume and the temperature of the
system at chemical freeze-out ($T_{\mathrm{chem}}$). The Grand Canonical
formulation of the SHM describes the measured production yields of light
hadrons and nuclei in Pb–Pb collisions at 2.76 TeV with $T_{\mathrm{chem}}$ =
155 MeV [5]. This temperature, which successfully describes the yield of light
hadrons in central Pb–Pb collisions, is one to two orders of magnitude larger
than the typical binding energies of light nuclei (a few MeVs), and nuclei are
likely to interact with the other hadrons in the dense HRG after chemical
freeze-out due to the large cross sections [29], thus further modifying the
yield. How these loosely bound objects can be formed and survive in such a
hostile environment is still an unsolved question [30]. The coalescence model
uses a different approach to explain the production of nuclei: the size of the
nucleon-emitting source, accessible through the analysis of femtoscopic
correlations [31], and the nuclear wave function are the two inputs that
determine the formation probability of bound states [26, 23]. While the SHM
can compute directly the absolute yields of particles, in the hadron
coalescence model the yield of bound states can be computed only relative to
the yields of other particles.

The measurement of the production of large bound states in small collision
systems, such as pp and p–Pb, is considered to allow for conclusive tests [28,
32] of nucleosynthesis in hadronic collisions. An extreme example is the
hypertriton ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$, the bound state of a proton, a
neutron, and a $\Lambda$ baryon. This state is characterised by a very small
$\Lambda$ separation energy, of the order of a few hundreds of keV [33, 34],
and consequently it has a wide wave function that can extend up to a radius of
$\approx$ 10 fm [35, 36]. The size of the ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ wave
function is therefore much larger than the hadron emission radius estimated
with a femtoscopic technique in p–Pb collisions (1–2 fm, [37, 38]). For this
reason, the ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ yield in p–Pb collisions predicted by
the coalescence model, where the ratio of nucleus size to source size directly
influences its yield, is suppressed with respect to the statistical
hadronisation model expectations, where the nuclear size does not enter
explicitly [25, 28, 23].

The results presented in this Letter are based on data collected during the
2013 and 2016 p–Pb LHC runs at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV. With this
beam configuration, the nucleon–nucleon centre-of-mass system moves in
rapidity by $\Delta y_{\text{cms}}$ = 0.465 in the direction of the proton
beam. The ALICE detector and its performance are described in detail in [39,
40]. Collision events are selected by using the information from the V0A and
V0C scintillator arrays [41], located on both sides of the interaction point,
covering the pseudorapidity intervals $-3.7<\eta<-1.7$ and $2.8<\eta<5.1$. A
coincident signal in both arrays is used as a minimum-bias (MB) trigger. In
addition, only events with the primary vertex position within 10 cm along the
beam axis to the nominal centre of the experiment are selected to benefit from
the full acceptance of the detector. Furthermore, to ensure the best possible
performance of the detector and the proper normalisation of the results,
events with more than one reconstructed primary interaction vertex (pile-up
events) are rejected. In total, about 750 million MB events are selected for
analysis, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of
$\mathcal{L}_{\rm{int}}^{\rm{MB}}=359~{}\mathrm{\mu b}^{-1}$, with a relative
uncertainty determined by the van der Meer scan to be 3.7% [42]. For this
analysis, the 40% of events with the highest multiplicity measured by the V0A
detector are used.

The ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ candidates are reconstructed via the charged
two-body decay channel
${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}\rightarrow\mathrm{{}^{3}He}+\pi^{-}$ (and the
related charge conjugated particles for
$\mathrm{{}^{3}_{\overline{\Lambda}}\overline{H}}$). In this work,
${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ and
${}^{3}_{\overline{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$ are combined to reduce the
statistical uncertainty.

In the following, we use the notation ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ and
${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$ for both the particle and the antiparticle, as well as for
their average. The charged-particle tracks are reconstructed in the ALICE
central barrel with the Inner Tracking System (ITS) [43] and the Time
Projection Chamber (TPC) [44], which are located within a solenoid that
provides a homogeneous magnetic field of $0.5$ T in the direction of the beam
axis. These two subsystems provide full azimuthal coverage for charged-
particle trajectories in the pseudorapidity interval $|\eta|<0.8$. The TPC is
also used for the particle identification (PID) of the 3He and the $\pi^{-}$
via their specific energy loss $\textrm{d}E/\textrm{d}x$ in the gas volume,
with a $\textrm{d}E/\textrm{d}x$ resolution of about $5\%$ [44]. The
$n(\sigma^{\rm TPC}_{i})$ variable represents the PID response in the TPC
expressed in terms of the deviation between the measured and the expected
$\textrm{d}E/\textrm{d}x$ for a particle species $i$, normalized by the
detector resolution $\sigma$. The expected $\textrm{d}E/\textrm{d}x$ is
computed with a parameterised Bethe-Bloch function [40]. Pion and
${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$ tracks within $5\sigma^{\rm TPC}$ are selected. The
identified ${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$ and $\pi$ tracks are then used to reconstruct
the ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ weak decay topology with an algorithm similar
to that used in previous analyses [45, 46]. By combining the information on
the decay kinematics and decay vertex, several selection variables are
defined. Those used in the analysis are: the radial distance of the decay
vertex from the beam line, the distance of each daughter track from both the
primary and the decay vertex, the proper decay length of the candidate ($ct$)
and cos($\mathrm{\theta_{P}}$), where $\mathrm{\theta_{P}}$ is the angle
between the total momentum vector of the decay daughters and the straight line
connecting the primary and secondary vertices. The final candidate selection
based on these variables is performed with a gradient boosted decision tree
classifier (BDT) implemented by the XGBoost library [47, 48, 49] and trained
on a dedicated Monte Carlo (MC) simulated event sample. The MC sample is
created using the HIJING event generator [50] for simulating the underlying
p–Pb collisions, while ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ were injected with a
$p_{\rm T}$ distribution represented by a $m\mathrm{{}_{T}}$ exponential
function that describes the $p_{\rm T}$ distribution of ${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$ as
measured in p–Pb collisions [5]. The particles are transported through the
detector geometry using Geant4 [51], which simulates the interaction with the
material and the weak decay of the ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$. The BDT is a
supervised learning algorithm that determines how to discriminate between two
or more classes, signal and background in this case, by examining sets of
examples called the training sets. In this analysis, the training sets are
composed of ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ signal candidates extracted from the
MC sample and background candidates from paired like-sign $\mathrm{{}^{3}He}$
and $\mathrm{\pi}$ tracks from the data. For each ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$
candidate, the BDT combines topological and single track variables to return a
score, which is proportional to the candidate probability of being signal or
background. The selection is based on the BDT score, defining a threshold that
maximises the expected signal significance assuming thermal production. In
this analysis the default BDT score selection corresponds to a 72% signal
efficiency and a $\mathrm{{3}x10^{-5}}$ background rejection factor. The
candidates that pass the BDT selection are used to populate the invariant mass
distribution in the transverse momentum interval 0 $<$ $p_{\rm T}$ $<$ 9
GeV/$c$. An excess of entries is observed at a mass near 2.99 GeV/$c^{2}$, as
shown in Fig. 1. The unbinned distribution is fitted with a Kernel Density
Estimator (KDE) [52, 53] function tuned on the MC sample to describe the
signal and a linear function to describe the background component. The KDE is
chosen for smoothing the template extracted from the MC. The invariant mass
distribution with the superimposed fit is shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 1: Invariant mass distribution of the ${}^{3}\mathrm{He}+\pi^{-}$ and
charge conjugate pairs passing the analysis selections. Vertical lines
represent the statistical Poissonian uncertainties. The invariant mass
spectrum is fitted with a two-component model: the blue line represents the
total fit while the orange dashed line shows the background component only.

The significance associated with the signal is evaluated following the
procedure described in [54]: the probability for a background fluctuation to
be at least as large as the observed maximum excess (local p-value) is
computed by employing the asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests. The
local p-value is expressed as a corresponding number of standard deviations
using the one-sided Gaussian tail convention. The excess of entries observed
above the expected background has a local significance of 4.6 standard
deviations at the nominal ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ mass. The production
yield is obtained starting from the signal extracted from the fit to the
invariant mass spectrum. Then the fitted signal is corrected for the
reconstruction and the selection efficiency, including reconstruction
efficiencies for the daughter particles and the topology, the acceptance of
the ALICE detector, the number of analysed events, the branching ratio (B.R.)
of the ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ in the two-body decay channel and the
fraction of ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ that are absorbed in the ALICE
detector ($f_{\rm abs}$). The simulation of inelastic interactions of the
daughter particles is done with Geant4 and is taken into account in the
reconstruction efficiency computation. The B.R. value is assumed to be 0.25
according to the calculation published in [55].

The systematic uncertainties originate from (1) the
${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ selection and the signal extraction, (2) the
choice of the ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ input $p_{\rm T}$ distribution in
the Monte Carlo sample, and (3) the ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ absorption in
the detector. In addition (4), a $9\%$ systematic uncertainty is added due to
the uncertainty of the B.R. as explained later in the text. The total
uncertainty is obtained as the quadratic sum of the individual contributions.
The first contribution, which is the dominant one, is computed by varying
simultaneously the BDT threshold ($\pm 5\%$) and the background fit function
(constant, linear, exponential). The standard deviation (RMS) of the different
yields represents our systematic error associated with the BDT selection and
the signal extraction, and it amounts to 14%. The second contribution is
evaluated by using different input $p_{\rm T}$ distributions for the Monte
Carlo sample and evaluating the effects on the efficiency. Four different
$p_{\rm T}$ models ($\mathrm{m_{T}}$ exponential, $p_{\rm T}$ exponential,
Boltzmann and Blast Wave [56]) are fitted to the ${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$ $p_{\rm
T}$ distribution [5]. For each of them the efficiency and the yield are
computed assuming that the ${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$ and the
${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ have the same $p_{\rm T}$ distributions as
already seen for light flavour hadrons with similar masses in all collision
systems [1, 45, 57]. The RMS among the trials is calculated, yielding a
systematic uncertainty of $7\%$. Finally, the uncertainty of $f_{\rm abs}$ is
considered. According to [58], the expected absorption cross section of
${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ due to the inelastic interactions in the ALICE
detector material is ${\approx}$ 1.5 times that of
${}^{3}\overline{\mathrm{He}}$
($\mathrm{\sigma_{inel}^{{}^{3}\overline{\mathrm{He}}}}$). The value of
$f_{\rm abs}$ is computed by simulating the passage of hypertritons through
the ALICE detector using this cross section and gives a result of $\approx$
3$\%$. The systematic uncertainty of $f_{\rm abs}$ is evaluated by employing
different cross sections for the ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ from zero (no
interactions) to $2\mathrm{\sigma_{inel}^{{}^{3}\mathrm{He}}}$. For each
variation $f_{\rm abs}$ is recalculated. This results in a systematic
uncertainty on the yield of about $4\%$. Larger variations of the inelastic
cross section are here not considered as they spoil the exponential trend of
the proper decay length spectrum measured in Pb–Pb collisions.

The resulting corrected ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ yield in the rapidity
interval $-1<y<0$ together with its statistical and systematic uncertainties
is

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}=[\mathrm{6.3\pm 1.8(stat.)\pm
1.2(syst.)]x10^{-7}}.$

Figure 2: ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$/$\Lambda$ (on the left) and $S_{3}$ (on
the right) measurements in p–Pb (in red) and Pb–Pb collisions [45] (in blue)
as a function of mean charged-particle multiplicity. The vertical lines and
boxes are the statistical and systematic uncertainties (including the
uncertainty on the B.R.), respectively. The expectations for the canonical
statistical hadronization [25] and coalescence models are shown [23].

The result is compared with the expectations from the canonical SHM [25],
which assumes exact conservation of baryon number, strangeness, and electric
charge across a correlation volume $V_{c}$. The SHM predictions are computed
using a fixed chemical freeze-out temperature of $T_{\rm chem}$ = 155 MeV and
two correlation volumes extending across one unit
($V_{c}=\mathrm{d}V/\mathrm{d}y$), and three units
($V_{c}=3\mathrm{d}V/\mathrm{d}y$) of rapidity [25]. The size of the
correlation volume governs the influence of exact quantum number conservation,
with smaller values leading to a stronger suppression of conserved charges and
$V_{c}\rightarrow\infty$ leading to the grand canonical ensemble. The
${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ $p_{\rm T}$ integrated yield is
$\mathrm{{1.1}x10^{-6}}$ and $\mathrm{2.0x10^{-6}}$ with
$V_{c}=\mathrm{d}V/\mathrm{d}y$ and $V_{c}=3\mathrm{d}V/\mathrm{d}y$,
respectively. The $\mathrm{d}N/\mathrm{d}y$ predictions by the model were
obtained using the code released together with the publication [59].

As explained above, in the case of the coalescence model it is not possible to
compare directly the measured absolute yield to the model prediction. Hence,
this comparison is attained by computing the ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$
$/\Lambda$ ratio and the strangeness population factor
$S_{3}=(^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}/^{3}\mathrm{He})$/$(\mathrm{\Lambda/p})$ [60]
using previous ALICE measurements of p, $\Lambda$, and ${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$
yields [5, 57], as shown in Fig. 2. The yield of the $\Lambda$ baryon,
measured in $-0.5<y<0$, has been extrapolated to the
${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ rapidity region using MC generators [61, 62, 63]
that are known to reproduce the pseudorapidity density distribution of charged
hadrons [64]. The corresponding correction is approximately 2%. In central
Pb–Pb collisions the data are consistent with both coalescence and SHM
predictions, which are similar, as shown in Fig. 2. The situation is different
for p–Pb collisions where the two models are well separated. Taking into
account the uncertainties of the measurement as well as the model uncertainty,
the measured $S_{3}$ ratio is compatible with the two-body
(deuteron-$\Lambda$) and three-body (proton-neutron-$\Lambda$) coalescence
within 1.2$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$, respectively. With its large uncertainties,
also due to the large uncertainty on the ${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$ yield, the
$S_{3}$ is compatible within 2$\sigma$ with the SHM calculations too. Hence,
the ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ $/\Lambda$ ratio is used as a test for
coalescence and SHM predictions in the following. In this case, the
measurement is deviating by 3.2$\sigma$ and 7.9$\sigma$ from the SHM with
$V_{c}=1\mathrm{d}V/\mathrm{d}y$ and $V_{c}=3\mathrm{d}V/\mathrm{d}y$,
respectively. On the other hand, both the coalescence calculations are within
2$\sigma$ of the measured ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ $/\Lambda$. It has to
be noted that recent measurements of the ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ mass
[34] suggest a larger binding energy, and hence a smaller wave function, of
the ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$. This would further shift upward the
coalescence predictions.

Figure 3: ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$/$\Lambda$ times branching ratio as a
function of branching ratio. The horizontal line is the measured value and the
band represents statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.
The expectations for the canonical statistical hadronization [25] and
coalescence models are shown [23].

The value of B.R. = 0.25 for the ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$
$\rightarrow\mathrm{{}^{3}He}+\pi$ decay used in this analysis was computed
theoretically in Ref. [55]. To investigate the uncertainty resulting from this
assumption, Fig. 3 shows the measured
${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$/$\Lambda\,\times\,\text{B.R.}$ for different
theoretical model calculations [25, 23] assuming a possible variation of the
B.R. value. The variation range is chosen by evaluating the relative deviation
between the theoretical $\mathrm{R_{3}}$ and the world average of all the
$\mathrm{R_{3}}$ measurements including the most recent measurement in heavy-
ion collisions [65], where $\mathrm{R_{3}}$ is defined as:

$\mathrm{R_{3}=\frac{\Gamma(^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}\rightarrow\mathrm{{}^{3}He}+\pi^{-})}{\Gamma(^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}\rightarrow
all\ \pi^{-}\ decay\ channels)}}.$

This uncertainty on $\mathrm{R_{3}}$ is propagated to the
$\mathrm{B.R.(^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}\rightarrow\mathrm{{}^{3}He}+\pi^{-})}$
and corresponds to a variation range of $\pm 9\%$ around the nominal value.
While the two-body coalescence calculation is compatible with the data for the
nominal or larger B.R., a discrepancy of 2$\sigma$ is observed between data
and the three-body coalescence prediction. Furthermore, in the whole B.R.
variation interval, the SHM is more than 2.7$\sigma$ and 6.9$\sigma$ away from
the measured ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$/$\Lambda\,\times\,\text{B.R.}$ for
the $V_{c}=1\mathrm{d}V/\mathrm{d}y$ and $V_{c}=3\mathrm{d}V/\mathrm{d}y$
configurations, respectively.

In summary, the first measurement of the production yield of hypertriton in
p–Pb collisions at the LHC is reported. The measurements of yields of
${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ in p–Pb collisions provide an opportunity to
potentially discriminate between nucleosynthesis models. The measured $p_{\rm
T}$ integrated yield excludes, with high significance, canonical versions of
the SHM with $V_{c}\geq 3\mathrm{d}V/\mathrm{d}y$ to explain the (hyper)nuclei
production in p–Pb collisions. It remains to be seen if advanced versions of
the SHM using the S-matrix approach to account for the interactions among
hadrons [66] will be able to solve this discrepancy. The
${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}/\Lambda$ ratio is well described by the two-body
coalescence prediction, while the three-body formulation is slightly
disfavoured by our measurement. While the general conclusions of the
comparison with the models are unaltered even when considering large
variations of the
$\mathrm{B.R.(^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}\rightarrow\mathrm{{}^{3}He}+\pi^{-})}$
around the value available in literature, the significance of the comparison
between data and models is influenced by this uncertainty. Upcoming studies
using the LHC Run 2 Pb–Pb data will help to reduce this uncertainty by
measuring the ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}\rightarrow\mathrm{d+p+\pi^{-}}$
decay channel relative branching ratio. Furthermore, with the upgraded ALICE
apparatus and the upcoming LHC Run 3, it will be possible to reduce both the
statistical and the systematic uncertainties of the
${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ yield measurements in pp [67] and p–Pb collisions
and to study the ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ production as a function of the
size of the nucleon-emitting source measured with femtoscopic correlations.
These studies may make it possible to decisively distinguish between the two
production models.

## 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; Ministry of Education of China (MOEC) , Ministry of Science & Technology of China (MSTC) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), China; Ministry of Science and Education and Croatian Science Foundation, Croatia; Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Cubaenergía, Cuba; Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic, Czech Republic; The Danish Council for Independent Research | Natural Sciences, the VILLUM FONDEN and Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF), Denmark; Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Finland; Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique (CEA) and Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (IN2P3) and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), France; Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) and GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Germany; General Secretariat for Research and Technology, Ministry of Education, Research and Religions, Greece; National Research, Development and Innovation Office, Hungary; Department of Atomic Energy Government of India (DAE), Department of Science and Technology, Government of India (DST), University Grants Commission, Government of India (UGC) and Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), India; Indonesian Institute of Science, Indonesia; Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), Italy; Institute for Innovative Science and Technology , Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science (IIST), Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI, Japan; Consejo Nacional de Ciencia (CONACYT) y Tecnología, through Fondo de Cooperación Internacional en Ciencia y Tecnología (FONCICYT) and Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Academico (DGAPA), Mexico; Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), Netherlands; The Research Council of Norway, Norway; Commission on Science and Technology for Sustainable Development in the South (COMSATS), Pakistan; Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Peru; Ministry of Education and Science, National Science Centre and WUT ID-UB, Poland; Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information and National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), Republic of Korea; Ministry of Education and Scientific Research, Institute of Atomic Physics and Ministry of Research and Innovation and Institute of Atomic Physics, Romania; Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR), Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Russian Science Foundation and Russian Foundation for Basic Research, Russia; Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic, Slovakia; National Research Foundation of South Africa, South Africa; Swedish Research Council (VR) and Knut & Alice Wallenberg Foundation (KAW), Sweden; European Organization for Nuclear Research, Switzerland; Suranaree University of Technology (SUT), National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSDTA) and Office of the Higher Education Commission under NRU project of Thailand, Thailand; Turkish Energy, Nuclear and Mineral Research Agency (TENMAK), Turkey; National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Ukraine; Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), United Kingdom; National Science Foundation of the United States of America (NSF) and United States Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Physics (DOE NP), United States of America.

## References

  * [1] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Production of light nuclei and anti-nuclei in pp and Pb–Pb collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider”, Phys. Rev. C93 (2016) 024917, arXiv:1506.08951 [nucl-ex].
  * [2] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Measurement of deuteron spectra and elliptic flow in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 2.76 TeV at the LHC”, Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) 658, arXiv:1707.07304 [nucl-ex].
  * [3] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Multiplicity dependence of (anti-)deuteron production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B794 (2019) 50–63, arXiv:1902.09290 [nucl-ex].
  * [4] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Multiplicity dependence of light (anti-)nuclei production in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B800 (2020) 135043, arXiv:1906.03136 [nucl-ex].
  * [5] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Production of (anti-)3He and (anti-)3H in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV”, Phys. Rev. C 101 (2020) 044906, arXiv:1910.14401 [nucl-ex].
  * [6] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “(Anti-)deuteron production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\ \text{TeV}$”, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 889, arXiv:2003.03184 [nucl-ex].
  * [7] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Production of 4He and ${}^{4}\overline{\textrm{He}}$ in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 2.76 TeV at the LHC”, Nucl. Phys. A 971 (2018) 1–20, arXiv:1710.07531 [nucl-ex].
  * [8] ALEPH Collaboration, S. Schael et al., “Deuteron and anti-deuteron production in e+ e- collisions at the Z resonance”, Phys. Lett. B 639 (2006) 192–201, arXiv:hep-ex/0604023.
  * [9] British-Scandinavian Collaboration, B. Alper et al., “Large angle production of stable particles heavier than the proton and a search for quarks at the cern intersecting storage rings”, Phys. Lett. 46B (1973) 265–268.
  * [10] British-Scandinavian-MIT Collaboration, S. Henning et al., “Production of Deuterons and anti-Deuterons in Proton Proton Collisions at the CERN ISR”, Lett. Nuovo Cim. 21 (1978) 189.
  * [11] E735 Collaboration, T. Alexopoulos et al., “Cross-sections for deuterium, tritium, and helium production in p p collisions at s = 1.8-TeV”, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 072004.
  * [12] STAR Collaboration, C. Adler et al., “Anti-deuteron and anti-3He production in $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~{}=~{}130$ GeV Au+Au collisions”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 262301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0108022 [nucl-ex]. [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.87,279902(2001)].
  * [13] PHENIX Collaboration, S. S. Adler et al., “Deuteron and antideuteron production in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~{}=~{}200$ GeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 122302, arXiv:nucl-ex/0406004 [nucl-ex].
  * [14] H1 Collaboration, A. Aktas et al., “Measurement of anti-deuteron photoproduction and a search for heavy stable charged particles at HERA”, Eur. Phys. J. C 36 (2004) 413–423, arXiv:hep-ex/0403056.
  * [15] CLEO Collaboration, D. M. Asner et al., “Anti-deuteron production in Upsilon(nS) decays and the nearby continuum”, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 012009, arXiv:hep-ex/0612019.
  * [16] STAR Collaboration, H. Agakishiev et al., “Observation of the antimatter helium-4 nucleus”, Nature 473 (2011) 353, arXiv:1103.3312 [nucl-ex]. [Erratum: Nature 475, 412 (2011)].
  * [17] NA44 Collaboration, J. Simon-Gillo et al., “Deuteron and anti-deuteron production in CERN experiment NA44”, Nucl. Phys. A590 (1995) 483C–486C.
  * [18] E864 Collaboration, T. A. Armstrong et al., “Anti-deuteron yield at the AGS and coalescence implications”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 2685–2688, arXiv:nucl-ex/0005001 [nucl-ex].
  * [19] NA49 Collaboration, S. V. Afanasev et al., “Deuteron production in central Pb + Pb collisions at 158-A-GeV”, Phys. Lett. B486 (2000) 22–28.
  * [20] NA49 Collaboration, T. Anticic et al., “Energy and centrality dependence of deuteron and proton production in Pb + Pb collisions at relativistic energies”, Phys. Rev. C69 (2004) 024902.
  * [21] S. Mrowczynski, “Deuteron formation mechanism”, J. Phys. G 13 (1987) 1089–1097.
  * [22] R. Scheibl and U. W. Heinz, “Coalescence and flow in ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions”, Phys. Rev. C59 (1999) 1585–1602, arXiv:nucl-th/9809092 [nucl-th].
  * [23] K.-J. Sun, C. M. Ko, and B. Dönigus, “Suppression of light nuclei production in collisions of small systems at the Large Hadron Collider”, Phys. Lett. B 792 (2019) 132–137, arXiv:1812.05175 [nucl-th].
  * [24] A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Stachel, and H. Stocker, “Production of light nuclei, hypernuclei and their antiparticles in relativistic nuclear collisions”, Phys. Lett. B 697 (2011) 203–207, arXiv:1010.2995 [nucl-th].
  * [25] V. Vovchenko, B. Dönigus, and H. Stoecker, “Multiplicity dependence of light nuclei production at LHC energies in the canonical statistical model”, Phys. Lett. B785 (2018) 171–174, arXiv:1808.05245 [hep-ph].
  * [26] K. Blum, K. C. Y. Ng, R. Sato, and M. Takimoto, “Cosmic rays, antihelium, and an old navy spotlight”, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 103021, arXiv:1704.05431 [astro-ph.HE].
  * [27] M. Korsmeier, F. Donato, and N. Fornengo, “Prospects to verify a possible dark matter hint in cosmic antiprotons with antideuterons and antihelium”, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 103011, arXiv:1711.08465 [astro-ph.HE].
  * [28] F. Bellini and A. P. Kalweit, “Testing coalescence and statistical-thermal production scenarios for (anti-)(hyper-)nuclei and exotic QCD objects at LHC energies”, Phys. Rev. C99 (2019) 054905, arXiv:1807.05894 [hep-ph].
  * [29] D. Oliinychenko, L.-G. Pang, H. Elfner, and V. Koch, “Microscopic study of deuteron production in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s}=2.76TeV$ via hydrodynamics and a hadronic afterburner”, Phys. Rev. C 99 (2019) 044907, arXiv:1809.03071 [hep-ph].
  * [30] A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, “Decoding the phase structure of QCD via particle production at high energy”, Nature 561 (2018) 321–330, arXiv:1710.09425 [nucl-th].
  * [31] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Search for a common baryon source in high-multiplicity pp collisions at the LHC”, Phys. Lett. B 811 (2020) 135849, arXiv:2004.08018 [nucl-ex].
  * [32] F. Bellini, K. Blum, A. P. Kalweit, and M. Puccio, “Examination of coalescence as the origin of nuclei in hadronic collisions”, Phys. Rev. C 103 (2021) 014907, arXiv:2007.01750 [nucl-th].
  * [33] D. H. Davis, “50 years of hypernuclear physics. I. The early experiments”, Nucl. Phys. A 754 (2005) 3–13.
  * [34] STAR Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Measurement of the mass difference and the binding energy of the hypertriton and antihypertriton”, Nature Phys. 16 (2020) 409–412, arXiv:1904.10520 [hep-ex].
  * [35] H. Nemura, Y. Suzuki, Y. Fujiwara, and C. Nakamoto, “Study of light Lambda and Lambda-Lambda hypernuclei with the stochastic variational method and effective Lambda N potentials”, Prog. Theor. Phys. 103 (2000) 929–958, arXiv:nucl-th/9912065.
  * [36] F. Hildenbrand and H. W. Hammer, “Three-Body Hypernuclei in Pionless Effective Field Theory”, Phys. Rev. C 100 (2019) 034002, arXiv:1904.05818 [nucl-th]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 102, 039901 (2020)].
  * [37] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Freeze-out radii extracted from three-pion cumulants in pp, p–Pb and Pb–Pb collisions at the LHC”, Phys. Lett. B 739 (2014) 139–151, arXiv:1404.1194 [nucl-ex].
  * [38] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Two-pion femtoscopy in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02$ TeV”, Phys. Rev. C 91 (2015) 034906, arXiv:1502.00559 [nucl-ex].
  * [39] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC”, JINST 3 (2008) S08002.
  * [40] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Performance of the ALICE Experiment at the CERN LHC”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A29 (2014) 1430044, arXiv:1402.4476 [nucl-ex].
  * [41] ALICE Collaboration, E. Abbas et al., “Performance of the ALICE VZERO system”, JINST 8 (2013) P10016, arXiv:1306.3130 [nucl-ex].
  * [42] ALICE Collaboration, B. B. Abelev et al., “Measurement of visible cross sections in proton-lead collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV in van der Meer scans with the ALICE detector”, JINST 9 (2014) P11003, arXiv:1405.1849 [nucl-ex].
  * [43] 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].
  * [44] J. Alme et al., “The ALICE TPC, a large 3-dimensional tracking device with fast readout for ultra-high multiplicity events”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A622 (2010) 316–367, arXiv:1001.1950 [physics.ins-det].
  * [45] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ and ${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$ production in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=$ 2.76 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 754 (2016) 360–372, arXiv:1506.08453 [nucl-ex].
  * [46] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ and ${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\mathrm{\overline{H}}$ lifetime measurement in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=$ 5.02 TeV via two-body decay”, Phys. Lett. B 797 (2019) 134905, arXiv:1907.06906 [nucl-ex].
  * [47] T. Chen and C. Guestrin, “Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system”, in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD ’16, p. 785–794.  Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939785.
  * [48] ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et al., “Observation of Higgs boson production in association with a top quark pair at the LHC with the ATLAS detector”, Phys. Lett. B 784 (2018) 173–191, arXiv:1806.00425 [hep-ex].
  * [49] L. Barioglio, F. Catalano, M. Concas, P. Fecchio, F. Grosa, F. Mazzaschi, and M. Puccio, “hipe4ml/hipe4ml”, Nov., 2021.  https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5734093.
  * [50] X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, “HIJING: A Monte Carlo model for multiple jet production in pp, pA and AA collisions”, Phys. Rev. D 44 (1991) 3501–3516.
  * [51] GEANT4 Collaboration, S. Agostinelli et al., “GEANT4–a simulation toolkit”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250–303.
  * [52] K. S. Cranmer, “Kernel estimation in high-energy physics”, Comput. Phys. Commun. 136 (2001) 198–207, arXiv:hep-ex/0011057.
  * [53] W. Verkerke and D. P. Kirkby, “The RooFit toolkit for data modeling”, eConf C0303241 (2003) MOLT007, arXiv:physics/0306116.
  * [54] G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, “Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics”, Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1554, arXiv:1007.1727 [physics.data-an]. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 73, 2501 (2013)].
  * [55] H. Kamada, J. Golak, K. Miyagawa, H. Witala, and W. Gloeckle, “Pi mesonic decay of the hypertriton”, Phys. Rev. C 57 (1998) 1595–1603, arXiv:nucl-th/9709035.
  * [56] 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.
  * [57] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Multiplicity Dependence of Pion, Kaon, Proton and Lambda Production in p-Pb Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 728 (2014) 25–38, arXiv:1307.6796 [nucl-ex].
  * [58] M. V. Evlanov, A. M. Sokolov, V. K. Tartakovsky, S. A. Khorozov, and Y. Lukstinsh, “Interaction of hypertritons with nuclei at high-energies”, Nucl. Phys. A 632 (1998) 624–632.
  * [59] V. Vovchenko and H. Stoecker, “Thermal-FIST: A package for heavy-ion collisions and hadronic equation of state”, Comput. Phys. Commun. 244 (2019) 295–310, arXiv:1901.05249 [nucl-th].
  * [60] S. Zhang, J. H. Chen, H. Crawford, D. Keane, Y. G. Ma, and Z. B. Xu, “Searching for onset of deconfinement via hypernuclei and baryon-strangeness correlations”, Phys. Lett. B 684 (2010) 224–227, arXiv:0908.3357 [nucl-ex].
  * [61] M. Gyulassy and X.-N. Wang, “HIJING 1.0: A Monte Carlo program for parton and particle production in high-energy hadronic and nuclear collisions”, Comput. Phys. Commun. 83 (1994) 307, arXiv:nucl-th/9502021.
  * [62] T. Pierog, I. Karpenko, J. M. Katzy, E. Yatsenko, and K. Werner, “EPOS LHC: Test of collective hadronization with data measured at the CERN Large Hadron Collider”, Phys. Rev. C 92 (2015) 034906, arXiv:1306.0121 [hep-ph].
  * [63] S. Roesler, R. Engel, and J. Ranft, “The Monte Carlo event generator DPMJET-III”, in International Conference on Advanced Monte Carlo for Radiation Physics, Particle Transport Simulation and Applications (MC 2000), pp. 1033–1038.  Springer, Berlin, Dec, 2000.  arXiv:hep-ph/0012252.
  * [64] 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, arXiv:1210.3615 [nucl-ex].
  * [65] STAR Collaboration, L. Adamczyk et al., “Measurement of the ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}$H lifetime in Au+Au collisions at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider”, Phys. Rev. C 97 (2018) 054909, arXiv:1710.00436 [nucl-ex].
  * [66] J. Cleymans, P. M. Lo, K. Redlich, and N. Sharma, “Multiplicity dependence of (multi)strange baryons in the canonical ensemble with phase shift corrections”, Phys. Rev. C 103 (2021) 014904, arXiv:2009.04844 [hep-ph].
  * [67] ALICE Collaboration, “Future high-energy pp programme with ALICE”, 2020.  http://cds.cern.ch/record/2724925.

##  Appendix A The ALICE Collaboration

S. Acharya143, D. Adamová98, A. Adler76, G. Aglieri Rinella35, M. Agnello31,
N. Agrawal55, Z. Ahammed143, S. Ahmad16, S.U. Ahn78, I. Ahuja39, Z. Akbar52,
A. Akindinov95, M. Al-Turany110, S.N. Alam16,41, D. Aleksandrov91, B.
Alessandro61, H.M. Alfanda7, R. Alfaro Molina73, B. Ali16, Y. Ali14, A.
Alici26, N. Alizadehvandchali127, A. Alkin35, J. Alme21, T. Alt70, L.
Altenkamper21, I. Altsybeev115, M.N. Anaam7, C. Andrei49, D. Andreou93, A.
Andronic146, M. Angeletti35, V. Anguelov107, F. Antinori58, P. Antonioli55, C.
Anuj16, N. Apadula82, L. Aphecetche117, H. Appelshäuser70, S. Arcelli26, R.
Arnaldi61, I.C. Arsene20, M. Arslandok148,107, A. Augustinus35, R.
Averbeck110, S. Aziz80, M.D. Azmi16, A. Badalà57, Y.W. Baek42, X. Bai131,110,
R. Bailhache70, Y. Bailung51, R. Bala104, A. Balbino31, A. Baldisseri140, B.
Balis2, M. Ball44, D. Banerjee4, R. Barbera27, L. Barioglio108, M. Barlou87,
G.G. Barnaföldi147, L.S. Barnby97, V. Barret137, C. Bartels130, K. Barth35, E.
Bartsch70, F. Baruffaldi28, N. Bastid137, S. Basu83, G. Batigne117, B.
Batyunya77, D. Bauri50, J.L. Bazo Alba114, I.G. Bearden92, C. Beattie148, I.
Belikov139, A.D.C. Bell Hechavarria146, F. Bellini26, R. Bellwied127, S.
Belokurova115, V. Belyaev96, G. Bencedi71, S. Beole25, A. Bercuci49, Y.
Berdnikov101, A. Berdnikova107, L. Bergmann107, M.G. Besoiu69, L. Betev35,
P.P. Bhaduri143, A. Bhasin104, I.R. Bhat104, M.A. Bhat4, B. Bhattacharjee43,
P. Bhattacharya23, L. Bianchi25, N. Bianchi53, J. Bielčík38, J. Bielčíková98,
J. Biernat120, A. Bilandzic108, G. Biro147, S. Biswas4, J.T. Blair121, D.
Blau91, M.B. Blidaru110, C. Blume70, G. Boca29,59, F. Bock99, A. Bogdanov96,
S. Boi23, J. Bok63, L. Boldizsár147, A. Bolozdynya96, M. Bombara39, P.M.
Bond35, G. Bonomi142,59, H. Borel140, A. Borissov84, H. Bossi148, E. Botta25,
L. Bratrud70, P. Braun-Munzinger110, M. Bregant123, M. Broz38, G.E.
Bruno109,34, M.D. Buckland130, D. Budnikov111, H. Buesching70, S. Bufalino31,
O. Bugnon117, P. Buhler116, Z. Buthelezi74,134, J.B. Butt14, S.A. Bysiak120,
M. Cai28,7, H. Caines148, A. Caliva110, E. Calvo Villar114, J.M.M. Camacho122,
R.S. Camacho46, P. Camerini24, F.D.M. Canedo123, F. Carnesecchi35,26, R.
Caron140, J. Castillo Castellanos140, E.A.R. Casula23, F. Catalano31, C.
Ceballos Sanchez77, P. Chakraborty50, S. Chandra143, S. Chapeland35, M.
Chartier130, S. Chattopadhyay143, S. Chattopadhyay112, A. Chauvin23, T.G.
Chavez46, T. Cheng7, C. Cheshkov138, B. Cheynis138, V. Chibante Barroso35,
D.D. Chinellato124, S. Cho63, P. Chochula35, P. Christakoglou93, C.H.
Christensen92, P. Christiansen83, T. Chujo136, C. Cicalo56, L. Cifarelli26, F.
Cindolo55, M.R. Ciupek110, G. ClaiII,55, J. CleymansI,126, F. Colamaria54,
J.S. Colburn113, D. Colella109,54,34,147, A. Collu82, M. Colocci35, M.
ConcasIII,61, G. Conesa Balbastre81, Z. Conesa del Valle80, G. Contin24, J.G.
Contreras38, M.L. Coquet140, T.M. Cormier99, P. Cortese32, M.R. Cosentino125,
F. Costa35, S. Costanza29,59, P. Crochet137, R. Cruz-Torres82, E. Cuautle71,
P. Cui7, L. Cunqueiro99, A. Dainese58, M.C. Danisch107, A. Danu69, I. Das112,
P. Das89, P. Das4, S. Das4, S. Dash50, S. De89, A. De Caro30, G. de Cataldo54,
L. De Cilladi25, J. de Cuveland40, A. De Falco23, D. De Gruttola30, N. De
Marco61, C. De Martin24, S. De Pasquale30, S. Deb51, H.F. Degenhardt123, K.R.
Deja144, L. Dello Stritto30, S. Delsanto25, W. Deng7, P. Dhankher19, D. Di
Bari34, A. Di Mauro35, R.A. Diaz8, T. Dietel126, Y. Ding138,7, R. Divià35,
D.U. Dixit19, Ø. Djuvsland21, U. Dmitrieva65, J. Do63, A. Dobrin69, B.
Dönigus70, O. Dordic20, A.K. Dubey143, A. Dubla110,93, S. Dudi103, M.
Dukhishyam89, P. Dupieux137, N. Dzalaiova13, T.M. Eder146, R.J. Ehlers99, V.N.
Eikeland21, F. Eisenhut70, D. Elia54, B. Erazmus117, F. Ercolessi26, F.
Erhardt102, A. Erokhin115, M.R. Ersdal21, B. Espagnon80, G. Eulisse35, D.
Evans113, S. Evdokimov94, L. Fabbietti108, M. Faggin28, J. Faivre81, F. Fan7,
A. Fantoni53, M. Fasel99, P. Fecchio31, A. Feliciello61, G. Feofilov115, A.
Fernández Téllez46, A. Ferrero140, A. Ferretti25, V.J.G. Feuillard107, J.
Figiel120, S. Filchagin111, D. Finogeev65, F.M. Fionda56,21, G.
Fiorenza35,109, F. Flor127, A.N. Flores121, S. Foertsch74, P. Foka110, S.
Fokin91, E. Fragiacomo62, E. Frajna147, U. Fuchs35, N. Funicello30, C.
Furget81, A. Furs65, J.J. Gaardhøje92, M. Gagliardi25, A.M. Gago114, A.
Gal139, C.D. Galvan122, P. Ganoti87, C. Garabatos110, J.R.A. Garcia46, E.
Garcia-Solis10, K. Garg117, C. Gargiulo35, A. Garibli90, K. Garner146, P.
Gasik110, E.F. Gauger121, A. Gautam129, M.B. Gay Ducati72, M. Germain117, P.
Ghosh143, S.K. Ghosh4, M. Giacalone26, P. Gianotti53, P. Giubellino110,61, P.
Giubilato28, A.M.C. Glaenzer140, P. Glässel107, D.J.Q. Goh85, V. Gonzalez145,
L.H. González-Trueba73, S. Gorbunov40, M. Gorgon2, L. Görlich120, S.
Gotovac36, V. Grabski73, L.K. Graczykowski144, L. Greiner82, A. Grelli64, C.
Grigoras35, V. Grigoriev96, A. GrigoryanI,1, S. Grigoryan77,1, O.S.
Groettvik21, F. Grosa35,61, J.F. Grosse-Oetringhaus35, R. Grosso110, G.G.
Guardiano124, R. Guernane81, M. Guilbaud117, K. Gulbrandsen92, T. Gunji135, W.
Guo7, A. Gupta104, R. Gupta104, S.P. Guzman46, L. Gyulai147, M.K. Habib110, C.
Hadjidakis80, G. Halimoglu70, H. Hamagaki85, G. Hamar147, M. Hamid7, R.
Hannigan121, M.R. Haque144,89, A. Harlenderova110, J.W. Harris148, A.
Harton10, J.A. Hasenbichler35, H. Hassan99, D. Hatzifotiadou55, P. Hauer44,
L.B. Havener148, S. Hayashi135, S.T. Heckel108, E. Hellbär110, H. Helstrup37,
T. Herman38, E.G. Hernandez46, G. Herrera Corral9, F. Herrmann146, K.F.
Hetland37, H. Hillemanns35, C. Hills130, B. Hippolyte139, B. Hofman64, B.
Hohlweger93, J. Honermann146, G.H. Hong149, D. Horak38, S. Hornung110, A.
Horzyk2, R. Hosokawa15, Y. Hou7, P. Hristov35, C. Hughes133, P. Huhn70, T.J.
Humanic100, H. Hushnud112, L.A. Husova146, A. Hutson127, D. Hutter40, J.P.
Iddon35,130, R. Ilkaev111, H. Ilyas14, M. Inaba136, G.M. Innocenti35, M.
Ippolitov91, A. Isakov38,98, M.S. Islam112, M. Ivanov110, V. Ivanov101, V.
Izucheev94, M. Jablonski2, B. Jacak82, N. Jacazio35, P.M. Jacobs82, S.
Jadlovska119, J. Jadlovsky119, S. Jaelani64, C. Jahnke124,123, M.J.
Jakubowska144, A. Jalotra104, M.A. Janik144, T. Janson76, M. Jercic102, O.
Jevons113, A.A.P. Jimenez71, F. Jonas99,146, P.G. Jones113, J.M. Jowett
35,110, J. Jung70, M. Jung70, A. Junique35, A. Jusko113, J. Kaewjai118, P.
Kalinak66, A. Kalweit35, V. Kaplin96, S. Kar7, A. Karasu Uysal79, D.
Karatovic102, O. Karavichev65, T. Karavicheva65, P. Karczmarczyk144, E.
Karpechev65, A. Kazantsev91, U. Kebschull76, R. Keidel48, D.L.D. Keijdener64,
M. Keil35, B. Ketzer44, Z. Khabanova93, A.M. Khan7, S. Khan16, A.
Khanzadeev101, Y. Kharlov94, A. Khatun16, A. Khuntia120, B. Kileng37, B.
Kim17,63, C. Kim17, D.J. Kim128, E.J. Kim75, J. Kim149, J.S. Kim42, J. Kim107,
J. Kim149, J. Kim75, M. Kim107, S. Kim18, T. Kim149, S. Kirsch70, I. Kisel40,
S. Kiselev95, A. Kisiel144, J.P. Kitowski2, J.L. Klay6, J. Klein35, S.
Klein82, C. Klein-Bösing146, M. Kleiner70, T. Klemenz108, A. Kluge35, A.G.
Knospe127, C. Kobdaj118, M.K. Köhler107, T. Kollegger110, A. Kondratyev77, N.
Kondratyeva96, E. Kondratyuk94, J. Konig70, S.A. Konigstorfer108, P.J.
Konopka35,2, G. Kornakov144, S.D. Koryciak2, L. Koska119, A. Kotliarov98, O.
Kovalenko88, V. Kovalenko115, M. Kowalski120, I. Králik66, A. Kravčáková39, L.
Kreis110, M. Krivda113,66, F. Krizek98, K. Krizkova Gajdosova38, M.
Kroesen107, M. Krüger70, E. Kryshen101, M. Krzewicki40, V. Kučera35, C.
Kuhn139, P.G. Kuijer93, T. Kumaoka136, D. Kumar143, L. Kumar103, N. Kumar103,
S. Kundu35,89, P. Kurashvili88, A. Kurepin65, A.B. Kurepin65, A. Kuryakin111,
S. Kushpil98, J. Kvapil113, M.J. Kweon63, J.Y. Kwon63, Y. Kwon149, S.L. La
Pointe40, P. La Rocca27, Y.S. Lai82, A. Lakrathok118, M. Lamanna35, R.
Langoy132, K. Lapidus35, P. Larionov35,53, E. Laudi35, L. Lautner35,108, R.
Lavicka38, T. Lazareva115, R. Lea142,24,59, J. Lehrbach40, R.C. Lemmon97, I.
León Monzón122, E.D. Lesser19, M. Lettrich35,108, P. Lévai147, X. Li11, X.L.
Li7, J. Lien132, R. Lietava113, B. Lim17, S.H. Lim17, V. Lindenstruth40, A.
Lindner49, C. Lippmann110, A. Liu19, D.H. Liu7, J. Liu130, I.M. Lofnes21, V.
Loginov96, C. Loizides99, P. Loncar36, J.A. Lopez107, X. Lopez137, E. López
Torres8, J.R. Luhder146, M. Lunardon28, G. Luparello62, Y.G. Ma41, A.
Maevskaya65, M. Mager35, T. Mahmoud44, A. Maire139, M. Malaev101, N.M.
Malik104, Q.W. Malik20, L. MalininaIV,77, D. Mal’Kevich95, N. Mallick51, P.
Malzacher110, G. Mandaglio33,57, V. Manko91, F. Manso137, V. Manzari54, Y.
Mao7, J. Mareš68, G.V. Margagliotti24, A. Margotti55, A. Marín110, C.
Markert121, M. Marquard70, N.A. Martin107, P. Martinengo35, J.L. Martinez127,
M.I. Martínez46, G. Martínez García117, S. Masciocchi110, M. Masera25, A.
Masoni56, L. Massacrier80, A. Mastroserio141,54, A.M. Mathis108, O.
Matonoha83, P.F.T. Matuoka123, A. Matyja120, C. Mayer120, A.L. Mazuecos35, F.
Mazzaschi25, M. Mazzilli35, M.A. MazzoniI,60, J.E. Mdhluli134, A.F. Mechler70,
F. Meddi22, Y. Melikyan65, A. Menchaca-Rocha73, E. Meninno116,30, A.S.
Menon127, M. Meres13, S. Mhlanga126,74, Y. Miake136, L. Micheletti61,25, L.C.
Migliorin138, D.L. Mihaylov108, K. Mikhaylov77,95, A.N. Mishra147, D.
Miśkowiec110, A. Modak4, A.P. Mohanty64, B. Mohanty89, M. Mohisin KhanV,16,
M.A. Molander45, Z. Moravcova92, C. Mordasini108, D.A. Moreira De Godoy146,
L.A.P. Moreno46, I. Morozov65, A. Morsch35, T. Mrnjavac35, V. Muccifora53, E.
Mudnic36, D. Mühlheim146, S. Muhuri143, J.D. Mulligan82, A. Mulliri23, M.G.
Munhoz123, R.H. Munzer70, H. Murakami135, S. Murray126, L. Musa35, J.
Musinsky66, J.W. Myrcha144, B. Naik134,50, R. Nair88, B.K. Nandi50, R.
Nania55, E. Nappi54, A.F. Nassirpour83, A. Nath107, C. Nattrass133, A.
Neagu20, L. Nellen71, S.V. Nesbo37, G. Neskovic40, D. Nesterov115, B.S.
Nielsen92, S. Nikolaev91, S. Nikulin91, V. Nikulin101, F. Noferini55, S.
Noh12, P. Nomokonov77, J. Norman130, N. Novitzky136, P. Nowakowski144, A.
Nyanin91, J. Nystrand21, M. Ogino85, A. Ohlson83, V.A. Okorokov96, J.
Oleniacz144, A.C. Oliveira Da Silva133, M.H. Oliver148, A. Onnerstad128, C.
Oppedisano61, A. Ortiz Velasquez71, T. Osako47, A. Oskarsson83, J.
Otwinowski120, M. Oya47, K. Oyama85, Y. Pachmayer107, S. Padhan50, D.
Pagano142,59, G. Paić71, A. Palasciano54, J. Pan145, S. Panebianco140, P.
Pareek143, J. Park63, J.E. Parkkila128, S.P. Pathak127, R.N. Patra104,35, B.
Paul23, H. Pei7, T. Peitzmann64, X. Peng7, L.G. Pereira72, H. Pereira Da
Costa140, D. Peresunko91, G.M. Perez8, S. Perrin140, Y. Pestov5, V.
Petráček38, M. Petrovici49, R.P. Pezzi117,72, S. Piano62, M. Pikna13, P.
Pillot117, O. Pinazza55,35, L. Pinsky127, C. Pinto27, S. Pisano53, M.
Płoskoń82, M. Planinic102, F. Pliquett70, M.G. Poghosyan99, B. Polichtchouk94,
S. Politano31, N. Poljak102, A. Pop49, S. Porteboeuf-Houssais137, J. Porter82,
V. Pozdniakov77, S.K. Prasad4, R. Preghenella55, F. Prino61, C.A. Pruneau145,
I. Pshenichnov65, M. Puccio35, S. Qiu93, L. Quaglia25, R.E. Quishpe127, S.
Ragoni113, A. Rakotozafindrabe140, L. Ramello32, F. Rami139, S.A.R. Ramirez46,
A.G.T. Ramos34, T.A. Rancien81, R. Raniwala105, S. Raniwala105, S.S.
Räsänen45, R. Rath51, I. Ravasenga93, K.F. Read99,133, A.R. Redelbach40, K.
RedlichVI,88, A. Rehman21, P. Reichelt70, F. Reidt35, H.A. Reme-ness37, R.
Renfordt70, Z. Rescakova39, K. Reygers107, A. Riabov101, V. Riabov101, T.
Richert83, M. Richter20, W. Riegler35, F. Riggi27, C. Ristea69, M. Rodríguez
Cahuantzi46, K. Røed20, R. Rogalev94, E. Rogochaya77, T.S. Rogoschinski70, D.
Rohr35, D. Röhrich21, P.F. Rojas46, P.S. Rokita144, F. Ronchetti53, A.
Rosano33,57, E.D. Rosas71, A. Rossi58, A. Rotondi29,59, A. Roy51, P. Roy112,
S. Roy50, N. Rubini26, O.V. Rueda83, R. Rui24, B. Rumyantsev77, P.G. Russek2,
A. Rustamov90, E. Ryabinkin91, Y. Ryabov101, A. Rybicki120, H. Rytkonen128, W.
Rzesa144, O.A.M. Saarimaki45, R. Sadek117, S. Sadovsky94, J. Saetre21, K.
Šafařík38, S.K. Saha143, S. Saha89, B. Sahoo50, P. Sahoo50, R. Sahoo51, S.
Sahoo67, D. Sahu51, P.K. Sahu67, J. Saini143, S. Sakai136, S. Sambyal104, V.
SamsonovI,101,96, D. Sarkar145, N. Sarkar143, P. Sarma43, V.M. Sarti108,
M.H.P. Sas148, J. Schambach99,121, H.S. Scheid70, C. Schiaua49, R.
Schicker107, A. Schmah107, C. Schmidt110, H.R. Schmidt106, M.O. Schmidt35, M.
Schmidt106, N.V. Schmidt99,70, A.R. Schmier133, R. Schotter139, J.
Schukraft35, Y. Schutz139, K. Schwarz110, K. Schweda110, G. Scioli26, E.
Scomparin61, J.E. Seger15, Y. Sekiguchi135, D. Sekihata135, I.
Selyuzhenkov110,96, S. Senyukov139, J.J. Seo63, D. Serebryakov65, L.
Šerkšnytė108, A. Sevcenco69, T.J. Shaba74, A. Shabanov65, A. Shabetai117, R.
Shahoyan35, W. Shaikh112, A. Shangaraev94, A. Sharma103, H. Sharma120, M.
Sharma104, N. Sharma103, S. Sharma104, U. Sharma104, O. Sheibani127, K.
Shigaki47, M. Shimomura86, S. Shirinkin95, Q. Shou41, Y. Sibiriak91, S.
Siddhanta56, T. Siemiarczuk88, T.F. Silva123, D. Silvermyr83, T.
Simantathammakul118, G. Simonetti35, B. Singh108, R. Singh89, R. Singh104, R.
Singh51, V.K. Singh143, V. Singhal143, T. Sinha112, B. Sitar13, M. Sitta32,
T.B. Skaali20, G. Skorodumovs107, M. Slupecki45, N. Smirnov148, R.J.M.
Snellings64, C. Soncco114, J. Song127, A. Songmoolnak118, F. Soramel28, S.
Sorensen133, I. Sputowska120, J. Stachel107, I. Stan69, P.J. Steffanic133,
S.F. Stiefelmaier107, D. Stocco117, I. Storehaug20, M.M. Storetvedt37, C.P.
Stylianidis93, A.A.P. Suaide123, T. Sugitate47, C. Suire80, M. Sukhanov65, M.
Suljic35, R. Sultanov95, M. Šumbera98, V. Sumberia104, S. Sumowidagdo52, S.
Swain67, A. Szabo13, I. Szarka13, U. Tabassam14, S.F. Taghavi108, G.
Taillepied137, J. Takahashi124, G.J. Tambave21, S. Tang137,7, Z. Tang131, M.
Tarhini117, M.G. Tarzila49, A. Tauro35, G. Tejeda Muñoz46, A. Telesca35, L.
Terlizzi25, C. Terrevoli127, G. Tersimonov3, S. Thakur143, D. Thomas121, R.
Tieulent138, A. Tikhonov65, A.R. Timmins127, M. Tkacik119, A. Toia70, N.
Topilskaya65, M. Toppi53, F. Torales-Acosta19, T. Tork80, S.R. Torres38, A.
Trifiró33,57, S. Tripathy55,71, T. Tripathy50, S. Trogolo35,28, G.
Trombetta34, V. Trubnikov3, W.H. Trzaska128, T.P. Trzcinski144, B.A.
Trzeciak38, A. Tumkin111, R. Turrisi58, T.S. Tveter20, K. Ullaland21, A.
Uras138, M. Urioni59,142, G.L. Usai23, M. Vala39, N. Valle59,29, S. Vallero61,
N. van der Kolk64, L.V.R. van Doremalen64, M. van Leeuwen93, R.J.G. van
Weelden93, P. Vande Vyvre35, D. Varga147, Z. Varga147, M. Varga-Kofarago147,
A. Vargas46, M. Vasileiou87, A. Vasiliev91, O. Vázquez Doce53,108, V.
Vechernin115, E. Vercellin25, S. Vergara Limón46, L. Vermunt64, R. Vértesi147,
M. Verweij64, L. Vickovic36, Z. Vilakazi134, O. Villalobos Baillie113, G.
Vino54, A. Vinogradov91, T. Virgili30, V. Vislavicius92, A. Vodopyanov77, B.
Volkel35, M.A. Völkl107, K. Voloshin95, S.A. Voloshin145, G. Volpe34, B. von
Haller35, I. Vorobyev108, D. Voscek119, N. Vozniuk65, J. Vrláková39, B.
Wagner21, C. Wang41, D. Wang41, M. Weber116, A. Wegrzynek35, S.C. Wenzel35,
J.P. Wessels146, J. Wiechula70, J. Wikne20, G. Wilk88, J. Wilkinson110, G.A.
Willems146, B. Windelband107, M. Winn140, W.E. Witt133, J.R. Wright121, W.
Wu41, Y. Wu131, R. Xu7, A.K. Yadav143, S. Yalcin79, Y. Yamaguchi47, K.
Yamakawa47, S. Yang21, S. Yano47, Z. Yin7, H. Yokoyama64, I.-K. Yoo17, J.H.
Yoon63, S. Yuan21, A. Yuncu107, V. Zaccolo24, C. Zampolli35, H.J.C. Zanoli64,
N. Zardoshti35, A. Zarochentsev115, P. Závada68, N. Zaviyalov111, M.
Zhalov101, B. Zhang7, S. Zhang41, X. Zhang7, Y. Zhang131, V.
Zherebchevskii115, Y. Zhi11, N. Zhigareva95, D. Zhou7, Y. Zhou92, J. Zhu7,110,
Y. Zhu7, A. Zichichi26, G. Zinovjev3, N. Zurlo142,59

I Deceased

II Also at: Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and
Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA), Bologna, Italy

III Also at: Dipartimento DET del Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy

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

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

VI Also at: Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Wroclaw, Poland

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

2 AGH University of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland

3 Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, National Academy of Sciences
of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine

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

5 Budker Institute for Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia

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

7 Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China

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

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

10 Chicago State University, Chicago, Illinois, United States

11 China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China

12 Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea

13 Comenius University Bratislava, Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and
Informatics, Bratislava, Slovakia

14 COMSATS University Islamabad, Islamabad, Pakistan

15 Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, United States

16 Department of Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India

17 Department of Physics, Pusan National University, Pusan, Republic of Korea

18 Department of Physics, Sejong University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

19 Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, California,
United States

20 Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

21 Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

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

23 Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Cagliari, Italy

24 Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Trieste, Italy

25 Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy

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

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

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

29 Dipartimento di Fisica e Nucleare e Teorica, Università di Pavia, Pavia,
Italy

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

31 Dipartimento DISAT del Politecnico and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy

32 Dipartimento di Scienze e Innovazione Tecnologica dell’Università del
Piemonte Orientale and INFN Sezione di Torino, Alessandria, Italy

33 Dipartimento di Scienze MIFT, Università di Messina, Messina, Italy

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

35 European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland

36 Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval
Architecture, University of Split, Split, Croatia

37 Faculty of Engineering and Science, Western Norway University of Applied
Sciences, Bergen, Norway

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

39 Faculty of Science, P.J. Šafárik University, Košice, Slovakia

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

41 Fudan University, Shanghai, China

42 Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, Republic of Korea

43 Gauhati University, Department of Physics, Guwahati, India

44 Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlen- und Kernphysik, Rheinische Friedrich-
Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany

45 Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Helsinki, Finland

46 High Energy Physics Group, Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico

47 Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan

48 Hochschule Worms, Zentrum für Technologietransfer und Telekommunikation
(ZTT), Worms, Germany

49 Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering,
Bucharest, Romania

50 Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT), Mumbai, India

51 Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore, India

52 Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Jakarta, Indonesia

53 INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy

54 INFN, Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy

55 INFN, Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

56 INFN, Sezione di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy

57 INFN, Sezione di Catania, Catania, Italy

58 INFN, Sezione di Padova, Padova, Italy

59 INFN, Sezione di Pavia, Pavia, Italy

60 INFN, Sezione di Roma, Rome, Italy

61 INFN, Sezione di Torino, Turin, Italy

62 INFN, Sezione di Trieste, Trieste, Italy

63 Inha University, Incheon, Republic of Korea

64 Institute for Gravitational and Subatomic Physics (GRASP), Utrecht
University/Nikhef, Utrecht, Netherlands

65 Institute for Nuclear Research, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

66 Institute of Experimental Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Košice,
Slovakia

67 Institute of Physics, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Bhubaneswar, India

68 Institute of Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech
Republic

69 Institute of Space Science (ISS), Bucharest, Romania

70 Institut für Kernphysik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt,
Frankfurt, Germany

71 Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,
Mexico City, Mexico

72 Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS),
Porto Alegre, Brazil

73 Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City,
Mexico

74 iThemba LABS, National Research Foundation, Somerset West, South Africa

75 Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea

76 Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe Universität Frankfurt Institut für Informatik,
Fachbereich Informatik und Mathematik, Frankfurt, Germany

77 Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR), Dubna, Russia

78 Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon, Republic of
Korea

79 KTO Karatay University, Konya, Turkey

80 Laboratoire de Physique des 2 Infinis, Irène Joliot-Curie, Orsay, France

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

82 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, United States

83 Lund University Department of Physics, Division of Particle Physics, Lund,
Sweden

84 Moscow Institute for Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia

85 Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science, Nagasaki, Japan

86 Nara Women’s University (NWU), Nara, Japan

87 National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Science,
Department of Physics , Athens, Greece

88 National Centre for Nuclear Research, Warsaw, Poland

89 National Institute of Science Education and Research, Homi Bhabha National
Institute, Jatni, India

90 National Nuclear Research Center, Baku, Azerbaijan

91 National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia

92 Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

93 Nikhef, National institute for subatomic physics, Amsterdam, Netherlands

94 NRC Kurchatov Institute IHEP, Protvino, Russia

95 NRC «Kurchatov»Institute - ITEP, Moscow, Russia

96 NRNU Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, Moscow, Russia

97 Nuclear Physics Group, STFC Daresbury Laboratory, Daresbury, United Kingdom

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

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

100 Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States

101 Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina, Russia

102 Physics department, Faculty of science, University of Zagreb, Zagreb,
Croatia

103 Physics Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India

104 Physics Department, University of Jammu, Jammu, India

105 Physics Department, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, India

106 Physikalisches Institut, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Tübingen,
Germany

107 Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg,
Heidelberg, Germany

108 Physik Department, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

109 Politecnico di Bari and Sezione INFN, Bari, Italy

110 Research Division and ExtreMe Matter Institute EMMI, GSI Helmholtzzentrum
für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany

111 Russian Federal Nuclear Center (VNIIEF), Sarov, Russia

112 Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Homi Bhabha National Institute,
Kolkata, India

113 School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham,
United Kingdom

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

115 St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia

116 Stefan Meyer Institut für Subatomare Physik (SMI), Vienna, Austria

117 SUBATECH, IMT Atlantique, Université de Nantes, CNRS-IN2P3, Nantes, France

118 Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand

119 Technical University of Košice, Košice, Slovakia

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

121 The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States

122 Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Culiacán, Mexico

123 Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil

124 Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil

125 Universidade Federal do ABC, Santo Andre, Brazil

126 University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

127 University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States

128 University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

129 University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, United States

130 University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom

131 University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China

132 University of South-Eastern Norway, Tonsberg, Norway

133 University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States

134 University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

135 University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

136 University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan

137 Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France

138 Université de Lyon, CNRS/IN2P3, Institut de Physique des 2 Infinis de Lyon
, Lyon, France

139 Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, F-67000 Strasbourg, France,
Strasbourg, France

140 Université Paris-Saclay Centre d’Etudes de Saclay (CEA), IRFU, Départment
de Physique Nucléaire (DPhN), Saclay, France

141 Università degli Studi di Foggia, Foggia, Italy

142 Università di Brescia, Brescia, Italy

143 Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kolkata,
India

144 Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland

145 Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, United States

146 Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Institut für Kernphysik,
Münster, Germany

147 Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary

148 Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States

149 Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea