2016 003 05 January

Pion, kaon, and (anti)proton production in p–Pb collisions

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

The production of charged pions, kaons and (anti)protons has been measured at
mid-rapidity ($-0.5<y<0$) in p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}\,=5.02$ TeV
using the ALICE detector at the LHC. Exploiting particle identification
capabilities at high transverse momentum ($p_{\rm T}$), the previously
published $p_{\rm T}$ spectra have been extended to include measurements up to
20 GeV/$c$ for seven event multiplicity classes. The $p_{\rm T}$ spectra for
pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV, needed to interpolate a pp reference
spectrum, have also been extended up to 20 GeV/$c$ to measure the nuclear
modification factor ($R_{\rm pPb}$) in non-single diffractive p–Pb collisions.
At intermediate transverse momentum ($2<p_{\rm T}<10$ GeV/$c$) the proton-to-
pion ratio increases with multiplicity in p–Pb collisions, a similar effect is
not present in the kaon-to-pion ratio. The $p_{\rm T}$ dependent structure of
such increase is qualitatively similar to those observed in pp and heavy-ion
collisions. At high $p_{\rm T}$ ($>10$ GeV/$c$), the particle ratios are
consistent with those reported for pp and Pb–Pb collisions at the LHC
energies.
At intermediate $p_{\rm T}$ the (anti)proton $R_{\rm pPb}$ shows a Cronin-like
enhancement, while pions and kaons show little or no nuclear modification. At
high $p_{\rm T}$ the charged pion, kaon and (anti)proton $R_{\rm pPb}$ are
consistent with unity within statistical and systematic uncertainties.

##  1 Introduction

In heavy-ion collisions at ultra-relativistic energies, it is well established
that a strongly coupled Quark-Gluon-Plasma (sQGP) is formed [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].
Some of the characteristic features of the sQGP are strong collective flow and
opacity to jets. The collective behavior is observed both as an azimuthal
anisotropy of produced particles [6], where the magnitude is described by
almost ideal (reversible) hydrodynamics, and as a hardening of $p_{\text{T}}$
spectra for heavier hadrons, such as protons, by radial flow [7]. Jet
quenching is observed as a reduction of both high $p_{\text{T}}$ particles [8,
9] and also fully reconstructed jets [10]. The interpretation of these sQGP
properties requires comparisons with reference measurements like pp and p-A
collisions. Recent measurements in high multiplicity pp, p-A and d-A
collisions at different energies have revealed strong flow-like effects even
in these small systems [11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20]. The origin of
these phenomena is debated [21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29] and the data
reported here provide further inputs to this discussion.

In a previous work, we reported the evidence of radial flow-like patterns in
p–Pb collisions [30]. This effect was found to increase with increasing event
multiplicity and to be qualitatively consistent with calculations which
incorporate the hydrodynamical evolution of the system. It was also discussed
that in small systems, mechanisms like color-reconnection may produce radial
flow-like effects. The present paper reports complementary measurements
covering the intermediate $p_{\text{T}}$ region (2–10 GeV/$c$) and the
high-$p_{\text{T}}$ region (10–20 GeV/$c$) exploiting the capabilities of the
High Momentum Particle Identification Detector (HMPID) and the Time Projection
Chamber (TPC). In this way, high precision measurements are achieved in the
intermediate $p_{\text{T}}$ region where cold nuclear matter effects like the
Cronin enhancement [31, 32] have been reported by previous experiments [33,
34], and where the particle ratios, e.g., the proton (kaon) production
relative to that of pions, are affected by large final state effects in
central Pb–Pb collisions [35]. Particle ratios are expected to be modified by
flow, but hydrodynamics is typically expected to be applicable only up to a
few GeV/$c$ [36]. At higher $p_{\text{T}}$, ideas such as parton recombination
have been proposed leading to baryon-meson effects [37]. In this way the new
dataset complements the lower $p_{\text{T}}$ results.

In addition, particle identification at large transverse momenta in p–Pb
collisions provides new constraints on the nuclear parton distribution
functions (nPDF) which are key inputs in interpreting a large amount of
experimental data like d-Au and deep inelastic scattering [38]. Finally, the
measurement is also important to study the particle species dependency of the
nuclear modification factor ($R_{\rm pPb}$), to better understand parton
energy loss mechanisms in heavy-ion collisions.

In this paper, the charged pion, kaon and (anti)proton $R_{\rm pPb}$ are
reported for non-single diffractive (NSD) p–Pb collisions. The pp reference
spectra for this measurement were obtained using interpolations of data at
different collision energies. The already published $p_{\text{T}}$ spectra for
inelastic (INEL) pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7\text{\,TeV}$ [39] were extended
up to $20\text{\,GeV/$c$}$ and the results are presented here for the first
time. These measurements together with the results for INEL pp collisions at
$\sqrt{s}=2.76\text{\,TeV}$ ($p_{\text{T}}<20$ GeV/$c$) [35] were used to
determine pp reference spectra at $\sqrt{s}=5.02\text{\,TeV}$ using the
interpolation method described in [40].

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2 the ALICE detector as well as the
event and track selections are discussed. The analysis procedures for particle
identification using the HMPID and TPC detectors are outlined in Sec. 3 and
Sec. 4, respectively. Section 5 presents the results and discussions. Finally,
Sec. 6 summarizes the main results.

##  2 Data sample, event and track selection

The results are obtained using data collected with the ALICE detector during
the 2013 p–Pb run at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02\text{\,TeV}$. The detailed
description of the ALICE detector can be found in [41] and the performance
during run 1 (2009–2013) is described in [42]. Because of the LHC 2-in-1
magnet design, it is impossible to adjust the energy of the proton and lead-
ion beams independently. They are $4$ TeV per $Z$ which gives different
energies due to the different $Z/A$ of the colliding protons and lead ions.
The nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass system is moving in the laboratory frame
with a rapidity of $y_{\rm NN}$ = -0.465 in the direction of the proton beam
rapidity. In the following, $y_{\rm lab}$ ($\eta_{\rm lab}$) are used to
indicate the (pseudo)rapidity in the laboratory reference frame, whereas $y$
($\eta$) denotes the (pseudo)rapidity in the center-of-mass reference system
where the Pb beam is assigned positive rapidity.

In the analysis of the p–Pb data, the event selection follows that used in the
analysis of inclusive charged particle production [43]. The minimum bias (MB)
trigger signal was provided by the V0 counters [44], which contain two arrays
of 32 scintillator tiles each covering the full azimuth within $2.8<\eta_{\rm
lab}<5.1$ (V0A) and $-3.7<\eta_{\rm lab}<-1.7$ (V0C). The signal amplitude and
arrival time collected in each tile were recorded. A coincidence of signals in
both V0A and V0C detectors was required to remove contamination from single
diffractive and electromagnetic events. In the offline analysis, background
events were further suppressed by requiring the arrival time of signals on the
neutron Zero Degree Calorimeter A, which is positioned in the Pb-going
direction, to be compatible with a nominal p–Pb collision occurring close to
the nominal interaction point. The estimated mean number of interactions per
bunch crossing was below 1% in the sample chosen for this analysis. Due to the
weak correlation between collision geometry and multiplicity, the particle
production in p–Pb collisions is studied in event multiplicity classes instead
of centralities [45]. The multiplicity classes are defined using the total
charge deposited in the V0A detector as in [30], where V0A is positioned in
the Pb-going direction. The MB results have been normalized to the total
number of NSD events using a trigger and vertex reconstruction efficiency
correction which amounts to $3.6\,\%\pm 3.1\,\%$ [46]. The multiplicity
dependent results have been normalized to the visible (triggered) cross-
section correcting for the vertex reconstruction efficiency (this was not done
in [30]). This correction is of the order of 5% for the lowest V0A
multiplicity class (80–100%) and negligible for the other multiplicity classes
($<1\%$).

In the $\sqrt{s}=7\text{\,TeV}$ pp analysis the MB trigger required a hit in
the two innermost layers of the Inner Tracking System (ITS), the Silicon Pixel
Detector (SPD), or in at least one of the V0 scintillator arrays in
coincidence with the arrival of proton bunches from both directions. The
offline analysis to eliminate background was done using the time information
provided by the V0 detectors in correlation with the number of clusters and
tracklets111Tracklets are pairs of hits from the two layers of the SPD which
make a line pointing back to the collision vertex. in the SPD.

Tracks are required to be reconstructed in both the ITS and the TPC.
Additional track selection criteria are the same as in [47] and based on the
number of space points, the quality of the track fit, and the distance of
closest approach to the reconstructed collision vertex. Charged tracks where
the identity of the particle has changed due to a weak decay, e.g., ${\rm
K}^{-}\rightarrow\mu^{-}+\bar{\nu}_{\mu}$, are identified by the tracking
algorithm due to their distinct kink topologies [48] and rejected in this
analysis. The remaining contamination is negligible ($\ll$1%). In order to
have the same kinematic coverage as used in the p–Pb low $p_{\text{T}}$
analysis [30], the tracks were selected in the pseudorapidity interval
$-0.5<\eta<0$. In addition, for the HMPID analysis it is required that the
tracks are propagated and matched to a primary ionization cluster in the
Multi-Wire Proportional Chamber (MWPC) gap of the HMPID detector [39, 47].

The published results of charged pion, kaon and (anti)proton production at low
$p_{\text{T}}$ for pp [39] and p–Pb [30] collisions at
$\sqrt{s}=7\text{\,TeV}$ and $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02\text{\,TeV}$,
respectively, used different Particle IDentification (PID) detectors and
techniques. A summary of the $p_{\text{T}}$ ranges covered by the published
analyses and the analyses presented in this paper can be found in Table 1.

| Analysis |  | $\pi^{+}+\pi^{-}$ |  | ${\rm K}^{+}+{\rm K}^{-}$ |  | ${\rm p}+\bar{\rm p}$ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
| Published [39]* |  | $0.1-3.0$ |  | $0.2-6.0$ |  | $0.3-6.0$ |
pp | TPC ${\rm d}E$/${\rm d}x$ rel. rise |  | $2-20$ |  | $3-20$ |  | $3-20$ |
| Published [30]$\dagger$ |  | $0.1-3.0$ |  | $0.2-2.5$ |  | $0.3-4.0$ |
| HMPID |  | $1.5-4.0$ |  | $1.5-4.0$ |  | $1.5-6.0$ |
p–Pb | TPC ${\rm d}E$/${\rm d}x$ rel. rise |  | $2-20$ |  | $3-20$ |  | $3-20$ |

  * *

Included detectors: ITS, TPC, Time-of-Flight (TOF), HMPID. The results also
include the kink-topology identification of the weak decays of charged kaons.

  * $\dagger$

Included detectors: ITS, TPC, TOF.

Table 1: Transverse momentum ranges (GeV/$c$) covered by the individual and
combined analyses for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}\,=7$ TeV and p–Pb collisions
at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}\,=5.02$ TeV.

In the following, the analysis techniques used to obtain the identified
particle $p_{\text{T}}$ spectra in the intermediate and high-$p_{\text{T}}$
ranges using HMPID and TPC will be discussed.

##  3 HMPID analysis

The HMPID detector [49] is located about 5 m from the beam axis, covering a
limited acceptance of $|\eta_{\rm{lab}}|<0.5$ and 1.2∘ $<$ $\phi$ $<$ 58.5∘,
that corresponds to $\sim$5% of the TPC geometrical acceptance ($2\pi$ in
azimuthal angle and the pseudo-rapidity interval $|\eta|<0.9$ [50]) for high
$p_{\rm{T}}$ tracks. The HMPID analysis uses $\sim$9$\times$107 minimum-bias
p–Pb events at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02\text{\,TeV}$. The event and track
selection and the analysis technique are similar to those described in [39,
47]. It is required that tracks are propagated and matched to a primary
ionization cluster in the Multi-Wire Proportional Chamber (MWPC) gap of the
HMPID detector. The PID in the HMPID is done by measuring the Cherenkov angle,
$\theta_{\rm{Ch}}$ [49]:

$\cos\theta_{\rm{Ch}}=\frac{1}{n\beta}\Longrightarrow\theta_{\rm{Ch}}=\arccos\Bigg{(}\frac{\sqrt{p^{2}+m^{2}}}{np}\Bigg{)},$
(1)

where $n$ is the refractive index of the radiator used (liquid C6F14 with $n$
= 1.29 at $E_{\rm ph}$ = 6.68 eV and temperature $T=20$ ), $p$ and $m$ are the
momentum and the mass of the given particle, respectively. The measurement of
the single photon $\theta_{\rm{Ch}}$ angle in the HMPID requires the knowledge
of the track parameters, which are estimated by the track extrapolation from
the central tracking detectors up to the radiator volume, where the Cherenkov
photons are emitted. Only one charged particle cluster is associated to each
extrapolated track, selected as the closest cluster to the extrapolated track
point on the cathode plane. To reject the fake cluster-match associations in
the detector, a selection on the distance $d_{(\rm{track-MIP})}$ computed on
the cathode plane between the track extrapolation point and the reconstructed
charged-particle cluster position is applied. The distance has to be less than
5 cm, independent of track momentum. Starting from the photon cluster
coordinates on the photocathode, a back-tracking algorithm calculates the
corresponding emission angle. The Cherenkov photons are selected by the Hough
Transform Method (HTM) [51] that discriminates the signal from the background.
For a given track, the Cherenkov angle $\theta_{\rm{Ch}}$ is then computed as
the weighted mean of the single photon angles selected by the HTM. Figure 1
shows the $\theta_{\rm{Ch}}$ as a function of the track momentum. The
reconstructed angle distribution for a given momentum interval is fitted by a
sum of three Gaussian distributions, corresponding to the signals from pions,
kaons, and protons. The fitting is done in two steps. In the first step the
initial values of fit parameters are set to the expected values. The mean
values, $\langle\theta_{\rm{Ch}}\rangle_{i}$, are obtained from Eq. 1, tuning
the refractive index to match the observed Cherenkov angles, and the
resolution values are taken from a Monte Carlo simulation of the detector
response. After this first step, the $p_{\rm{T}}$ dependences of the mean and
width are fitted with the function given by Eq. 1 and a polynomial one,
respectively. In the second step, the fitting is repeated with the yields as
the only free parameters, constraining the mean and resolution values to the
fitted value. The second iteration is particularly important at high
$p_{\rm{T}}$ where the separation between different species is reduced. Figure
2 gives examples of fits to the reconstructed Cherenkov angle distributions in
two narrow $p_{\rm{T}}$ intervals for the 0–5% multiplicity class. The raw
yields are then corrected by the total reconstruction efficiency given by the
convolution of the tracking, PID efficiency, and distance cut correction. The
tracking efficiency, convoluted with the geometrical acceptance of the
detector, has been evaluated using Monte Carlo simulations. For all three
particle species this efficiency increases from $\sim$5% at 1.5 GeV/$c$ up to
$\sim$6% at high $p_{\text{T}}$. The PID efficiency is determined by the
Cherenkov angle reconstruction efficiency. It has been computed by means of
Monte-Carlo simulations and it reaches $\sim$90% for particles with velocity
$\beta$$\sim$1, with no significant difference between positive and negative
tracks. The distance cut correction, defined as the ratio between the number
of the tracks that pass the cut on $d_{(\rm{track-MIP})}$ and all the tracks
in the detector acceptance, has been evaluated from data. It is momentum
dependent, and it is equal to $\sim$53% at 1.5 GeV/$\it{c}$, reaches $\sim$70%
for particles with velocity $\beta$$\sim$1\. A small difference between
positive and negative tracks is present; negative tracks having a distance
correction $\sim$2% lower than the positive ones. This effect is caused by a
radial residual misalignment of the HMPID chambers and an imperfect estimation
of the energy loss in the material traversed by the track. Tracking
efficiency, PID efficiency and distance cut correction do not show variation
with the event track multiplicity.

Figure 1: (Color online.) Cherenkov angle measured in the HMPID as a function
of the track momentum in p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=\,5$.02 TeV for
the 0–5% V0A multiplicity class (see the text for further details). The dashed
lines represent the expected curves calculated using Eq. 1 for each particle
species. Figure 2: (Color online.) Distributions of the Cherenkov angle
measured in the HMPID for positive tracks having $p_{\rm{T}}$ between 2.5–2.6
GeV/$c$ (left) and between 3.8–4.0 GeV/$c$ (right), in p–Pb collisions at
$\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5$.02 TeV for the 0–5% V0A multiplicity class (see the text
for further details).

###  3.1 Systematic uncertainties

The systematic uncertainty on the results of the HMPID analysis has
contributions from tracking, PID and tracks association [39, 47]. The
uncertainties related to the tracking have been estimated by changing the
track selection cuts individually, e.g. the number of crossed readout rows in
the TPC and the value of the track’s $\chi^{2}$ normalized to the number of
TPC clusters. To estimate the PID contribution, the parameters (mean and
resolution) of the fit function used to extract the raw yields were varied by
a reasonable quantity, leaving them free in a given range; the range chosen
for the mean values is [$\langle\theta_{\rm Ch}\rangle-\sigma$,
$\langle\theta_{\rm Ch}\rangle+\sigma$] and for the resolution
[$\sigma-0.1\sigma$, $\sigma+0.1\sigma$]. A variation of 10% of the resolution
corresponds to its maximum expected variation when taking into account the
different running conditions of the detector during data taking which have an
impact on its performance. When the means are changed, the resolution values
are fixed to the default value and vice versa. The variation of parameters is
done for the three Gaussians (corresponding to the three particle species)
simultaneously. In addition, the uncertainty of the association of the track
to the charged particle signal is obtained by varying the default value of the
distance cut required for the match by $\pm$ 1 cm. These contributions do not
vary with the collision multiplicity. A summary of the different contributions
to the systematic uncertainty for the HMPID p–Pb analysis is shown in Table 2.

Effect | $\pi^{+}+\pi^{-}$ | ${\rm K}^{+}+{\rm K}^{-}$ | ${\rm p}+\bar{\rm p}$
---|---|---|---
$p_{\rm{T}}$ value (GeV/$c$) | 2.5 | 4 | 2.5 | 4 | 2.5 | 4
PID | 6% | 12% | 6% | 12% | 4% | 5%
Tracking efficiency | 6% | 6% | 7%
Distance cut correction | 6% | 2% | 6% | 2% | 4% | 2%
Table 2: Main sources of systematic uncertainties for the HMPID p–Pb analysis.

##  4 TPC $\text{d}E/\text{d}x$ relativistic rise analysis

The relativistic rise regime of the specific energy loss,
$\text{d}E/\text{d}x$, measured by the TPC allows identification of charged
pions, kaons, and (anti)protons up to $p_{\text{T}}=20\text{\,GeV/$c$}$. The
results presented in this paper were obtained using the method detailed in
[47]. In this analysis, around $8\times 10^{7}$ ($4.7\times 10^{7}$) p–Pb (pp)
MB triggered events were used. The event and track selection has already been
discussed in Section 2.

As discussed in [47], the $\text{d}E/\text{d}x$ is calibrated taking into
account chamber gain variations, track curvature and diffusion, to obtain a
response that essentially only depends on $\beta\gamma$. Inherently, tracks at
forward rapidity will have better resolution due to longer integrated track-
lengths, so in order to analyze homogeneous samples the analysis is performed
in four $\eta$ intervals. Samples of topologically identified pions (from
${\rm K}^{0}_{\rm S}$ decays), protons (from $\Lambda$ decays) and electrons
(from $\gamma$ conversions) were used to parametrize the Bethe-Bloch response,
$\left<\text{d}E/\text{d}x\right>$ $(\beta\gamma)$, and the relative
resolution, $\sigma_{\text{d}E/\text{d}x}$
($\left<\text{d}E/\text{d}x\right>$) [47]. For the p–Pb data, these response
functions are found to be slightly multiplicity dependent (the
$\left<\text{d}E/\text{d}x\right>$ changes by $\sim$0.4% and the sigma by
$\sim$2.0%). However, a single set of functions is used for all multiplicity
intervals, and the dependence is included in the systematic uncertainties.
Figure 3 shows $\text{d}E/\text{d}x$ as a function of momentum for p–Pb
events. The characteristic separation power between particle species in number
of standard deviations ($S_{\sigma}$) as a function of $p$, is shown in Fig. 4
for minimum bias p–Pb collisions. For example, $S_{\sigma}$ for pions and
kaons is calculated as:

$S_{\sigma}=\frac{\left\langle\frac{{\rm d}E}{{\rm
d}x}\right\rangle_{\pi^{+}+\pi^{-}}-\left\langle\frac{{\rm d}E}{{\rm
d}x}\right\rangle_{{\rm K}^{+}+{\rm
K}^{-}}}{0.5\left(\sigma_{\pi^{+}+\pi^{-}}+\sigma_{{\rm K}^{+}+{\rm
K}^{-}}\right)}.$ (2)

The separation in number of standard deviations is the largest (smallest)
between pions and protons (kaons and protons) and it is nearly constant at
large momenta.

Figure 3: (Color online.) Specific energy loss, ${\text{d}E/\text{d}x}$, as a
function of momentum $p$ in the pseudorapidity range $-0.5<\eta<-0.375$ for
minimum bias p–Pb collisions. In each momentum bin the ${\text{d}E/\text{d}x}$
spectra have been normalized to have unit integrals and only bins with more
than 2% of the counts are shown (making electrons not visible in the figure,
except at very low momentum). The curves show the
$\langle{\text{d}E/\text{d}x}\rangle$ response for pions, kaons, protons and
electrons. Figure 4: Separation in number of standard deviations between:
pions and protons (left panel), pions and kaons (middle panel), and kaons and
protons (right panel). Results for minimum bias p–Pb data and for two specific
pseudorapidity intervals are shown. More details can be found in [47].

The main part of this analysis is the determination of the relative particle
abundances, hereafter called particle fractions, which are defined as the
$\pi^{+}+\pi^{-}$, ${\rm K}^{+}+{\rm K}^{-}$, ${\rm p}+{\rm\bar{p}}$ and
$e^{+}+e^{-}$ yields normalized to that for inclusive charged particles. Since
the TPC $\text{d}E/\text{d}x$ signal is Gaussian distributed as illustrated in
[47], particle fractions are obtained using four-Gaussian fits to
$\text{d}E/\text{d}x$ distributions in $\eta$ and $p$ intervals. The
parameters (mean and width) of the fits are fixed using the parametrized
Bethe-Bloch and resolution curves mentioned earlier. Examples of these fits
can be seen in Fig. 5 for two momentum intervals, $3.4<p<3.6\text{\,GeV/$c$}$
and $8<p<9\text{\,GeV/$c$}$. The particle fractions in a $p_{\text{T}}$ range,
are obtained as the weighted average of the contributing $p$ intervals. Since
the particle fractions as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ are found to be
independent of $\eta$, they are averaged. The particle fractions measured in
p–Pb and pp collisions are corrected for relative efficiency differences using
DPMJET [52] and PHOJET [53] Monte Carlo (MC) generators, respectively.
Furthermore, the relative pion and proton abundances were corrected for the
contamination of secondary particles (feed-down), more details of the method
can be found in [47].

The invariant yields, $1/(2\pi p_{\text{T}})$ ${\rm d^{2}}N/{\rm d}y{\rm
d}p_{\text{T}}$, are constructed using two components: the corrected particle
fractions and the corrected invariant charged particle yields. For the pp
analysis at $\sqrt{s}=7\text{\,TeV}$, the latter component was taken directly
from the published results for inclusive charged particles [40]. However,
analogous results for p–Pb data are neither available for neither the
kinematic range $-0.5<y<0$ nor for the different multiplicity classes [54],
they were therefore measured here and the results used to determine the
invariant yields.

Figure 5: (Color online.) Four-Gaussian fits (lines) to the
${\text{d}E/\text{d}x}$ spectra (markers) for tracks having momentum
$3.4<p<3.6$ GeV/$c$ (top row) and $8.0<p<9.0$ GeV/$c$ (bottom row) within
$-0.125<\eta<0$. All of the spectra are normalized to have unit integrals.
Columns refer to different V0A multiplicity classes. Individual signals of
charged pions, kaons, and (anti)protons are shown as red, green, and blue
dashed areas, respectively. The contribution of electrons is not visible and
is negligible ($<1\%$).

###  4.1 Systematic uncertainties

| pp collisions
---|---
|  | $\pi^{+}+\pi^{-}$ |  | K${}^{+}+$K- |  | ${\rm p}+\bar{\rm p}$ |  | K/$\pi$ |  | ${\rm p}/\pi$
|  $p_{\rm T}$ (GeV/$c$) | 2.0 |  | 10 |  | 3.0 |  | 10 |  | 3.0 |  | 10 |  | 3.0 |  | 10 |  | 3.0 |  | 10
| Uncertainty |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Event and track selection* |  | 7.3% |  |  |  | 7.3% |  |  |  | 7.3% |  |  |  | $-$ |  |  |  | $-$ |
| Feed-down correction |  | 0.2% |  |  |  | $-$ |  |  |  | 1.2% |  |  |  | 0.2% |  |  |  | 1.2% |
| Efficiency correction |  | 3.2% |  |  |  | 3.2% |  |  |  | 3.2% |  |  |  | 4.5% |  |  |  | 4.5% |
| Correction for muons | 0.3% |  | 0.5% |  |  | $-$ |  |  |  | $-$ |  |  | 0.3% |  | 0.5% |  | 0.3% |  | 0.5%
| Parametrization of Bethe-Bloch |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| and resolution curves | 1.8% |  | 1.9% |  | 20% |  | 6.9% |  | 24% |  | 15% |  | 17% |  | 9.0% |  | 17% |  | 19%
| p–Pb collisions
| Uncertainty |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Event and track selection* | 3.3% |  | 3.6% |  | 3.3% |  | 3.6% |  | 3.3% |  | 3.6% |  |  | $-$ |  |  |  | $-$ |
| Feed-down correction |  |  $\leq$ 0.2% |  |  |  | $-$ |  |  | 2.6% |  | 0.7% |  |  |  $\leq$ 0.2% |  |  | 2.6% |  | 0.7%
| Efficiency correction |  | 3.2% |  |  |  | 3.2% |  |  |  | 3.2% |  |  |  | 4.5% |  |  |  | 4.5% |
| Correction for muons$\dagger$ | 0.3% |  | 0.4% |  |  | $-$ |  |  |  | $-$ |  |  | 0.3% |  | 0.4% |  | 0.3% |  | 0.4%
| Parametrization of Bethe-Bloch |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| and resolution curves |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 0-5 % | 1.7% |  | 1.9% |  | 17% |  | 8.0% |  | 15% |  | 13% |  | 16% |  | 10.4% |  | 12% |  | 11%
| 5-10 % | 1.7% |  | 2.0% |  | 17% |  | 5.6% |  | 16% |  | 12% |  | 18% |  | 7.2% |  | 14% |  | 24%
| 10-20 % | 1.6% |  | 1.9% |  | 16% |  | 7.2% |  | 16% |  | 12% |  | 18% |  | 9.5% |  | 16% |  | 15%
| 20-40 % | 1.6% |  | 2.0% |  | 16% |  | 6.7% |  | 17% |  | 15% |  | 18% |  | 8.0% |  | 17% |  | 18%
| 40-60 % | 1.5% |  | 1.9% |  | 15% |  | 6.5% |  | 17% |  | 12% |  | 18% |  | 8.3% |  | 18% |  | 13%
| 60-80 % | 1.6% |  | 1.8% |  | 16% |  | 6.3% |  | 20% |  | 13% |  | 21% |  | 8.3% |  | 22% |  | 18%
Multiplicity classes | 80-100 % | 1.4% |  | 1.5% |  | 13% |  | 5.9% |  | 20% |  | 13% |  | 16% |  | 7.3% |  | 23% |  | 21%

  * *

Common to all species, values taken from [54, 40].

  * $\dagger$

Found to be multiplicity independent.

Table 3: Summary of the systematic uncertainties for the charged pion, kaon,
and (anti)proton spectra and for the particle ratios. Note that ${\rm
K/\pi}=(\rm{K}^{+}+\rm{K}^{-})/(\pi^{+}+\pi^{-})$ and ${\rm
p}/\pi=(\rm{p}+\bar{\rm{p}})/(\pi^{+}+\pi^{-})$.

The systematic uncertainties mainly consist of two components: the first is
due to the event and track selection, and the second one is due to the PID.
The first component was obtained from the analysis of inclusive charged
particles [40, 54]. For INEL pp collisions at 7 TeV, the systematic
uncertainties have been taken from [40]. For p–Pb collisions, there are no
measurements in the $\eta$ interval reported here ($-0.5<\eta<0$); however, it
has been shown that the systematic uncertainty exhibits a negligible
dependence on $\eta$ and multiplicity [45]. Therefore, the systematic
uncertainties reported in [54] have been assigned to the identified charged
hadron $p_{\text{T}}$ spectra for all the V0A multiplicity classes.
The second component was measured following the procedure described in [47],
where the largest contribution is attributed to the uncertainties in the
parameterization of the Bethe-Bloch and resolution curves used to constrain
the fits. The uncertainty is calculated by varying the
$\left<\text{d}E/\text{d}x\right>$ and $\sigma_{\text{d}E/\text{d}x}$ in the
particle fraction fits (Fig. 5) within the precision of the
$\text{d}E/\text{d}x$ response calibration, $\sim$1% and 5% for
$\left<\text{d}E/\text{d}x\right>$ and $\sigma_{\text{d}E/\text{d}x}$,
respectively. A small fraction of this uncertainty was found to be
multiplicity dependent, it was estimated as done in the previous ALICE
publication [30].

A summary of the main systematic uncertainties on the $p_{\text{T}}$ spectra
and the particle ratios for p–Pb and pp collisions can be found in Table 3 for
two $p_{\text{T}}$ intervals. For pions, the main contribution is related to
event and track selection and the associated common corrections. In the case
of kaons and protons the largest uncertainty is attributed to the
parametrization of the $\text{d}E/\text{d}x$ response. For kaons, the
uncertainty decreases with $p_{\text{T}}$ and increases with multiplicity
while for protons the multiplicity dependence is opposite. This variation
mainly reflects the changes in the particle ratios with $p_{\text{T}}$ and
multiplicity.

Figure 6: (Color online.) The ratio of individual spectra to the combined
spectrum as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for pions (left), kaons (middle), and
protons (right). From top-to-bottom the rows show the V0A multiplicity class
0–5%, 20–40% and 60–80%. Statistical and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties
are shown as vertical error bars and error bands, respectively. Only the
$p_{\rm T}$ ranges where individual analysis overlap are shown. See the text
for further details.

##  5 Results and discussions

The total systematic uncertainty for all the spectra for a given particle
species is factorized for each $p_{\text{T}}$ interval into a multiplicity
independent and multiplicity dependent systematic uncertainty. The transverse
momentum distributions obtained from the different analyses are combined in
the overlapping $p_{\text{T}}$ region using a weighted average. The weight for
the combinations was done according to the total systematic uncertainty to
obtain the best overall precision. Since the systematic uncertainties due to
normalization and tracking are common to all the analyses, they were added
directly to the final combined results. The statistical uncertainties are much
smaller and therefore neglected in the combination weights. The multiplicity
dependent systematic uncertainty for the combined spectra is also propagated
using the same weights. For the results shown in this paper the full
systematic uncertainty is always used, but the multiplicity correlated and
uncorrelated systematic uncertainties are made available at HepData. Figure 6
shows examples of the comparisons among the individual analyses and the
combined $p_{\text{T}}$ spectra, focusing on the overlapping $p_{\text{T}}$
region. Within systematic and statistical uncertainties the new
high-$p_{\text{T}}$ results, measured with HMPID and TPC, agree with the
published results [30]. Similar agreement is obtained for the $p_{\text{T}}$
spectra in INEL pp collisions at 7 TeV [39].

###  5.1 Transverse momentum spectra and nuclear modification factor

The combined charged pion, kaon and (anti)proton $p_{\text{T}}$ spectra in
p–Pb collisions for different V0A multiplicity classes are shown in Fig. 7. As
reported in [30], for $p_{\text{T}}$ below 2–$3\text{\,GeV/$c$}$ the spectra
behave like in Pb–Pb collisions, i.e., the $p_{\text{T}}$ distributions become
harder as the multiplicity increases and the change is most pronounced for
protons and lambdas. In heavy-ion collisions this effect is commonly
attributed to radial flow. For larger momenta, the spectra follow a power-law
shape as expected from perturbative QCD.

Figure 7: (Color online.) Transverse momentum spectra of charged pions (left),
kaons (middle), and (anti)protons (right) measured in p–Pb collisions at
$\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}\,=5.02$ TeV. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are
plotted as vertical error bars and boxes, respectively. The spectra (measured
for NSD events and for different V0A multiplicity classes) have been scaled by
the indicated factors in the legend for better visibility. Figure 8: (Color
online.) Transverse momentum spectra of charged pions (left), kaons (middle),
and (anti)protons (right) measured in INEL pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}\,=2.76$
TeV and at $\sqrt{s}\,=7$ TeV. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are
plotted as vertical error bars and boxes, respectively. The spectrum at
$\sqrt{s}\,=5.02$ TeV represents the reference in INEL pp collisions,
constructed from measured spectra at $\sqrt{s}\,=2.76$ TeV and at
$\sqrt{s}\,=7$ TeV. See the text for further details. Panels on the bottom
show the ratio of the measured yields to the interpolated spectra. Only
uncertainties of the interpolated spectra are shown.

In order to quantify any particle species dependence of the nuclear effects in
p–Pb collisions, comparisons to reference $p_{\text{T}}$ spectra in pp
collisions are needed. In the absence of pp data at
$\sqrt{s}=5.02\text{\,TeV}$, the reference spectra are obtained by
interpolating data measured at $\sqrt{s}=2.76\text{\,TeV}$ and at
$\sqrt{s}=7\text{\,TeV}$. The invariant cross section for identified hadron
production in INEL pp collisions, $1/(2\pi p_{\text{T}})$ ${\rm
d^{2}}\sigma^{\rm INEL}_{\rm pp}/{\rm d}y{\rm d}p_{\text{T}}$, is interpolated
in each $p_{\text{T}}$ interval, assuming a power law dependence as a function
of $\sqrt{s}$. The method was cross-checked using events simulated by Pythia
8.201 [55], where the difference between the interpolated and the simulated
reference was found to be negligible. The maximum relative systematic
uncertainty of the spectra at $\sqrt{s}=2.76\text{\,TeV}$ and at
$\sqrt{s}=7\text{\,TeV}$ has been assigned as a systematic uncertainty to the
reference. In the transverse momentum interval $3<p_{\text{T}}<10$ GeV/$c$,
the total systematic uncertainties for pions and kaons are below 8.6% and 10%,
respectively. While for (anti)protons it is 7.7% and 18% at 3 GeV/$c$ and 10
GeV/$c$, respectively. The invariant yields are shown in Fig. 8, where the
interpolated $p_{\text{T}}$ spectra are compared to those measured in INEL pp
collisions at 2.76 TeV and 7 TeV.

The nuclear modification factor is then constructed as:

$R_{\rm pPb}=\frac{\text{d}^{2}N_{\text{pPb}}/\text{d}y\text{d}p_{\rm
T}}{\left<T_{\rm pPb}\right>\text{d}^{2}\sigma^{\rm INEL}_{\rm
pp}/\text{d}y\text{d}p_{\rm T}}$ (3)

where, for minimum bias (NSD) p–Pb collisions the average nuclear overlap
function, $\left<T_{\rm pPb}\right>$, is $0.0983\pm 0.0035\text{\,mb}^{-1}$
[43]. In absence of nuclear effects the $R_{\rm pPb}$ is expected to be one.

Figure 9 shows the identified hadron $R_{\rm pPb}$ compared to that for
inclusive charged particles (h±) [54] in NSD p–Pb events. At high
$p_{\text{T}}$ ($>10\text{\,GeV/$c$}$), all nuclear modification factors are
consistent with unity within systematic and statistical uncertainties. Around
$4\text{\,GeV/$c$}$, where a prominent Cronin enhancement has been seen at
lower energies [34, 33], the unidentified charged hadron $R_{\rm pPb}$ is
above unity, albeit barely significant within systematic uncertainties [54].
Remarkably, the (anti)proton enhancement is $\sim$3 times larger than that for
charged particles, while for charged pions and kaons the enhancement is below
that of charged particles. The STAR and PHENIX Collaborations have observed a
similar pattern at RHIC, where the nuclear modification factor for MB d-Au
collisions, $R_{\rm dAu}$, in the range $2<p_{\text{T}}<5$ GeV/$c$, is
$1.24\pm 0.13$ and $1.49\pm 0.17$ for charged pions and (anti)protons,
respectively [20].

An enhancement of protons in the same $p_{\text{T}}$ range is also observed in
heavy-ion collisions [35, 47], where it commonly is interpreted as radial-flow
and has a strong centrality dependence. In the next section, we study the
multiplicity dependence of the invariant yield ratios to see whether protons
are more enhanced as a function of multiplicity than pions.

Figure 9: (Color online.) The nuclear modification factor $R_{\rm pPb}$ as a
function of transverse momentum $p_{\rm T}$ for different particle species.
The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as vertical error bars
and boxes, respectively. The total normalization uncertainty is indicated by a
vertical scale of the empty box at $p_{\rm T}=\text{0\,GeV/}c$ and $R_{\rm
pPb}=\text{1}$. The result for inclusive charged hadrons [54] is also shown.

###  5.2 Transverse momentum and multiplicity dependence of particle ratios

The kaon-to-pion and the proton-to-pion ratios as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$
for different V0A multiplicity classes are shown in Fig. 10. The results for
p–Pb collisions are compared to those measured for INEL pp collisions at 2.76
TeV [35] and at 7 TeV [39]. Within systematic and statistical uncertainties,
the $p_{\text{T}}$ differential kaon-to-pion ratios do not show any
multiplicity dependence. In fact, the results are similar to those for INEL pp
collisions at both energies. The $p_{\text{T}}$ differential proton-to-pion
ratios show a clear multiplicity evolution at low and intermediate
$p_{\text{T}}$ ($<10\text{\,GeV/$c$}$). This multiplicity evolution is
qualitatively similar to the centrality evolution observed in Pb–Pb collisions
[35, 47].

Figure 10: (Color online.) Kaon-to-pion (upper panel) and proton-to-pion
(bottom panel) ratios as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for different V0A
multiplicity classes. Results for p–Pb collisions (full markers) are compared
to the ratios measured in INEL pp collisions at 2.76 TeV [35] (empty circles)
and at 7 TeV [39] (full circles). The statistical and systematic uncertainties
are plotted as vertical error bars and boxes, respectively.

It is worth noting that the average multiplicities at mid-rapidity for
peripheral Pb–Pb collisions (60–80%) and high multiplicity p–Pb collisions
(0–5% V0A multiplicity class) are very similar, $\langle{\rm d}N_{\rm ch}/{\rm
d}\eta\rangle$$\sim$50\. Even if the physical mechanisms for particle
production could be different, it seems interesting to compare these systems
with similar underlying activity as done in Fig. 11, where INEL
$\sqrt{s}=7\text{\,TeV}$ pp results are included as an approximate baseline.
Within systematic and statistical uncertainties, the kaon-to-pion ratios are
the same for all systems. On the other hand, the proton-to-pion ratios exhibit
similar flow-like features for the p–Pb and Pb–Pb systems, namely, the ratios
are below the pp baseline for $p_{\text{T}}<1$ GeV/$c$ and above for
$p_{\text{T}}>1.5$ GeV/$c$. Quantitative differences are observed between p–Pb
and Pb–Pb results, but they can be attributed to the differences in the
initial state overlap geometry and the beam energy.

Figure 11: (Color online.) Particle ratios as a function of transverse
momentum. Three different colliding systems are compared, pp (open squares),
0–5% p–Pb (open circles) and 60–80% Pb–Pb (full diamonds) collisions at
$\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=$ 7 TeV, 5.02 TeV and 2.76 TeV, respectively.  Figure 12:
(Color online.) Particle ratios as a function of $\langle{\rm d}N_{\rm
ch}/{\rm d}\eta\rangle$ in each V0A multiplicity class (see [30] for more
details). Three different colliding systems are compared: pp, p–Pb and
peripheral Pb–Pb collisions.

The results for the particle ratios suggest that the modification of the
(anti)proton spectral shape going from pp to p–Pb collisions could play the
dominant role in the Cronin enhancement observed for inclusive charged
particle $R_{\rm pPb}$ at LHC energies. To confirm this picture one would have
to study the nuclear modification factor as a function of multiplicity as we
did in [45], where, the possible biases in the evaluation of the multiplicity-
dependent average nuclear overlap function $\left<T_{\rm pPb}\right>$ were
discussed. These results will become available in the future.

In Fig. 12 we compare the particle ratios at high $p_{\text{T}}$
($10<p_{\text{T}}<20$ GeV/$c$) measured in INEL $\sqrt{s}=7\text{\,TeV}$ pp
collisions, peripheral Pb–Pb collisions and the multiplicity dependent results
in p–Pb collisions. Within statistical and systematic uncertainties, the
ratios do not show any evolution with multiplicity. Moreover, since it has
been already reported that in Pb–Pb collisions they are centrality independent
[47] we conclude that they are system-size independent.

The strong similarity of particle ratios as a function of multiplicity in p–Pb
and centrality in Pb–Pb collisions in the low, intermediate, and
high-$p_{\text{T}}$ regions is striking. In general, the results for p–Pb
collisions appear to raise questions about the long standing ideas of specific
physics models for small and large systems [56]. For example, in the low
$p_{\text{T}}$ publication [30], hydrodynamic inspired fits gave higher
transverse expansion velocities ($\langle\beta_{\rm T}\rangle$) for p–Pb than
for Pb–Pb collisions. Hydrodynamics, which successfully describes many
features of heavy-ion collisions, has been applied to small systems and can
explain this effect [21], but care needs to be taken since its applicability
to small systems is still under debate [56]. On the other hand, models like
color reconnection, where the soft and hard components are allowed to
interact, produce this kind of effects in pp collisions [29, 57]. Even more,
the hard collisions which could be enhanced via the multiplicity selection in
small systems, also contribute to increase $\langle\beta_{\rm T}\rangle$ [58].
In general, color reconnection effects in p–Pb and Pb–Pb collisions are under
investigation and models for the effect of strong color fields in small
systems are in general under development [59]. Finally, it has been proposed
that in d-Au collisions the recombination of soft and shower partons in the
final state could explain the behavior of the nuclear modification factor at
intermediate $p_{\text{T}}$ [32]. The CMS Collaboration has found that the
second-order ($v_{2}$) and the third-order ($v_{3}$) anisotropy harmonics
measured for ${\rm K}^{0}_{\rm S}$ and $\Lambda$ show constituent quark
scaling in p–Pb collisions [60].

##  6 Conclusions

We have reported on the charged pion, kaon and (anti)proton production up to
large transverse momenta ($p_{\text{T}}\leq 20\text{\,GeV/$c$}$) in p–Pb
collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=$5.02 TeV. The $p_{\text{T}}$ spectra in
$\sqrt{s}=7\text{\,TeV}$ pp collisions were also measured up to
$20\text{\,GeV/$c$}$ to allow the determination of the
$\sqrt{s}=5.02\text{\,TeV}$ pp reference cross section using the existing data
at 2.76 TeV and at 7 TeV.

At intermediate $p_{\text{T}}$ ($2<p_{\text{T}}<10\text{\,GeV/$c$}$), the
(anti)proton $R_{\rm pPb}$ for non-single diffractive p–Pb collisions was
found to be significantly larger than those for pions and kaons, in particular
in the region where the Cronin peak was observed by experiments at lower
energies. Hence, the modest enhancement which we already reported for
unidentified charged particles can be attributed to the modification of the
proton spectral shape going from pp to p–Pb collisions. At high $p_{\text{T}}$
the nuclear modification factors for charged pions, kaons and (anti)protons
are consistent with unity within systematic and statistical uncertainties.

The enhancement of protons with respect to pions at intermediate
$p_{\text{T}}$ shows a strong multiplicity dependence. This behavior is not
observed for the kaon-to-pion ratio. At high transverse momenta
($10<p_{\text{T}}<20\text{\,GeV/$c$}$) the $p_{\text{T}}$ integrated particle
ratios are system-size independent for pp, p–Pb and Pb–Pb collisions. For a
similar multiplicity at mid-rapidity, the $p_{\text{T}}$-differential particle
ratios are alike for p–Pb and Pb–Pb collisions over the broad $p_{\text{T}}$
range reported in this paper.

## 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] 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,” Nucl. Phys. A757 (2005) 102–183, arXiv:nucl-ex/0501009 [nucl-ex].
  * [2] PHENIX Collaboration, K. Adcox et al., “Formation of dense partonic matter in relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC: Experimental evaluation by the PHENIX collaboration,” Nucl. Phys. A757 (2005) 184–283, arXiv:nucl-ex/0410003 [nucl-ex].
  * [3] BRAHMS Collaboration, I. Arsene et al., “Quark gluon plasma and color glass condensate at RHIC? The Perspective from the BRAHMS experiment,” Nucl. Phys. A757 (2005) 1–27, arXiv:nucl-ex/0410020 [nucl-ex].
  * [4] PHOBOS Collaboration, B. B. Back et al., “The PHOBOS perspective on discoveries at RHIC,” Nucl. Phys. A757 (2005) 28–101, arXiv:nucl-ex/0410022 [nucl-ex].
  * [5] ALICE Collaboration, J. Schukraft, “Heavy Ion physics with the ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC,” Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A370 (2012) 917–932, arXiv:1109.4291 [hep-ex].
  * [6] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “Higher harmonic anisotropic flow measurements of charged particles in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=2.76 TeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 032301, arXiv:1105.3865 [nucl-ex].
  * [7] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Pion, Kaon, and Proton Production in Central Pb-Pb Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=2.76$ TeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 252301, arXiv:1208.1974 [hep-ex].
  * [8] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Centrality Dependence of Charged Particle Production at Large Transverse Momentum in Pb-Pb Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{NN}}}=2.76$ TeV,” Phys. Lett. B720 (2013) 52–62, arXiv:1208.2711 [hep-ex].
  * [9] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., “Study of high-pT charged particle suppression in PbPb compared to $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=2.76$ TeV,” Eur. Phys. J. C72 (2012) 1945, arXiv:1202.2554 [nucl-ex].
  * [10] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Measurement of charged jet suppression in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV,” JHEP 03 (2014) 013, arXiv:1311.0633 [nucl-ex].
  * [11] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Transverse sphericity of primary charged particles in minimum bias proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=0.9$, 2.76 and 7 TeV,” Eur. Phys. J. C72 (2012) 2124, arXiv:1205.3963 [hep-ex].
  * [12] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., “Study of the production of charged pions, kaons, and protons in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=\ $ 5.02 TeV,” Eur. Phys. J. C74 no. 6, (2014) 2847, arXiv:1307.3442 [hep-ex].
  * [13] CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al., “Observation of long-range near-side angular correlations in proton-proton collisions at the LHC,” JHEP 1009 (2010) 091, arXiv:1009.4122 [hep-ex].
  * [14] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., “Observation of long-range near-side angular correlations in proton-lead collisions at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B718 (2013) 795–814, arXiv:1210.5482 [nucl-ex].
  * [15] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Long-range angular correlations on the near and away side in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02$ TeV,” Phys. Lett. B719 (2013) 29–41, arXiv:1212.2001 [nucl-ex].
  * [16] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Observation of associated near-side and away-side long-range correlations in $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02$ TeV proton-lead collisions with the ATLAS detector,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 no. 18, (2013) 182302, arXiv:1212.5198 [hep-ex].
  * [17] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Measurement with the ATLAS detector of multi-particle azimuthal correlations in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02$ TeV,” Phys. Lett. B725 (2013) 60–78, arXiv:1303.2084 [hep-ex].
  * [18] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., “Multiplicity and transverse momentum dependence of two- and four-particle correlations in p-Pb and Pb-Pb collisions,” Phys. Lett. B724 (2013) 213–240, arXiv:1305.0609 [nucl-ex].
  * [19] PHENIX Collaboration, A. Adare, S. Afansaiev, et al., “Spectra and ratios of identified particles in Au+Au and $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{{s}_{\rm NN}}=200$ GeV,” Phys. Rev. C88 (Aug, 2013) 024906. http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.88.024906.
  * [20] STAR Collaboration, J. Adams et al., “Identified hadron spectra at large transverse momentum in p+p and d+Au collisions at 200 GeV,” Phys. Lett. B637 (2006) 161–169, arXiv:nucl-ex/0601033 [nucl-ex].
  * [21] E. Shuryak and I. Zahed, “High-multiplicity pp and pA collisions: Hydrodynamics at its edge,” Phys. Rev. C 88 no. 4, (2013) 044915, arXiv:1301.4470 [hep-ph].
  * [22] K. Werner, M. Bleicher, B. Guiot, I. Karpenko, and T. Pierog, “Evidence for Flow from Hydrodynamic Simulations of $p$-Pb Collisions at 5.02 TeV from $\nu_{2}$ Mass Splitting,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 no. 23, (2014) 232301, arXiv:1307.4379 [nucl-th].
  * [23] P. Bozek, W. Broniowski, and G. Torrieri, “Mass hierarchy in identified particle distributions in proton-lead collisions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 172303, arXiv:1307.5060 [nucl-th].
  * [24] A. Dumitru, K. Dusling, F. Gelis, J. Jalilian-Marian, T. Lappi, et al., “The Ridge in proton-proton collisions at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B697 (2011) 21–25.
  * [25] B. Schenke, S. Schlichting, and R. Venugopalan, “Azimuthal anisotropies in p-Pb collisions from classical Yang-Mills dynamics,” Phys. Lett. B747 (2015) 76–82, arXiv:1502.01331 [hep-ph].
  * [26] G.-L. Ma and A. Bzdak, “Long-range azimuthal correlations in proton-proton and proton-nucleus collisions from the incoherent scattering of partons,” Phys. Lett. B739 209–213, arXiv:1404.4129 [hep-ph].
  * [27] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, “A Brief Introduction to PYTHIA 8.1,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 178 (2008) 852–867.
  * [28] R. Corke and T. Sjöstrand, “Interleaved Parton Showers and Tuning Prospects,” JHEP 03 (2011) 032, arXiv:1011.1759 [hep-ph].
  * [29] A. Ortiz, P. Christiansen, E. Cuautle, I. A. Maldonado, and G. Paić, “Color reconnection and flowlike patterns in $pp$ collisions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (Jul, 2013) 042001. http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.042001.
  * [30] ALICE Collaboration, B. B. Abelev et al., “Multiplicity dependence of pion, kaon, proton and lambda production in p-Pb Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02$ TeV,” Phys. Lett. B728 (2014) 25–38, arXiv:1307.6796 [nucl-ex].
  * [31] B. Kopeliovich, J. Nemchik, A. Schafer, and A. Tarasov, “Cronin effect in hadron production off nuclei,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 232303, arXiv:hep-ph/0201010 [hep-ph].
  * [32] R. C. Hwa and C. B. Yang, “Final state interaction as the origin of the Cronin effect,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 082302, arXiv:nucl-th/0403001 [nucl-th].
  * [33] J. W. Cronin, H. J. Frisch, M. J. Shochet, J. P. Boymond, P. A. Piroué, and R. L. Sumner, “Production of Hadrons with Large Transverse Momentum at 200-GeV and 300-GeV.,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 31 (Dec, 1973) 1426–1429.
  * [34] J. W. Cronin, H. J. Frisch, M. J. Shochet, J. P. Boymond, P. A. Piroué, and R. L. Sumner, “Production of hadrons at large transverse momentum at 200, 300, and 400 gev,” Phys. Rev. D11 (Jun, 1975) 3105–3123. http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.11.3105.
  * [35] ALICE Collaboration, B. B. Abelev et al., “Production of charged pions, kaons and protons at large transverse momenta in pp and Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ =2.76 TeV,” Phys. Lett. B736 (2014) 196–207, arXiv:1401.1250 [nucl-ex].
  * [36] P. Huovinen, P. F. Kolb, U. W. Heinz, P. V. Ruuskanen, and S. A. Voloshin, “Radial and elliptic flow at RHIC: Further predictions,” Phys. Lett. B503 (2001) 58–64, arXiv:hep-ph/0101136 [hep-ph].
  * [37] K. P. Das and R. C. Hwa, “Quark - anti-Quark Recombination in the Fragmentation Region,” Phys. Lett. B68 (1977) 459. [Erratum: Phys. Lett.73B,504(1978)].
  * [38] N. Armesto, H. Paukkunen, J. M. Pen n, C. A. Salgado, and P. Zurita, “An analysis of the impact of LHC Run I proton-lead data on nuclear parton densities,” Eur. Phys. J. C76 no. 4, (2016) 218, arXiv:1512.01528 [hep-ph].
  * [39] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Measurement of pion, kaon and proton production in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV,” Eur. Phys. J. C75 no. 5, (2015) 226, arXiv:1504.00024 [nucl-ex].
  * [40] ALICE Collaboration, B. B. Abelev et al., “Energy dependence of the transverse momentum distributions of charged particles in pp collisions Measured by ALICE,” Eur. Phys. J. C73 no. 12, (2013) 2662, arXiv:1307.1093 [nucl-ex].
  * [41] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC,” JINST 3 (2008) S08002.
  * [42] ALICE Collaboration, B. B. Abelev et al., “Performance of the ALICE Experiment at the CERN LHC,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A29 (2014) 1430044, arXiv:1402.4476 [nucl-ex].
  * [43] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Transverse momentum distribution and nuclear modification factor of charged particles in $p$-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02$ TeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 no. 8, (2013) 082302, arXiv:1210.4520 [nucl-ex].
  * [44] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “Performance of the alice vzero system,” J. of Inst. 8 no. 10, (2013) P10016. http://stacks.iop.org/1748-0221/8/i=10/a=P10016.
  * [45] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Centrality dependence of particle production in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$= 5.02 TeV,” Phys. Rev. C91 no. 6, (2015) 064905, arXiv:1412.6828 [nucl-ex].
  * [46] 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 no. 3, (2013) 032301, arXiv:1210.3615 [nucl-ex].
  * [47] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Centrality dependence of the nuclear modification factor of charged pions, kaons, and protons in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=2.76$ TeV,” Phys. Rev. C93 no. 3, (2016) 034913, arXiv:1506.07287 [nucl-ex].
  * [48] 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,” Eur. Phys. J. C71 (2011) 1655, arXiv:1101.4110 [hep-ex].
  * [49] ALICE Collaboration, F. Piuz, W. Klempt, L. Leistam, J. De Groot, and J. Schukraft, ALICE high-momentum particle identification: Technical Design Report.  Technical Design Report ALICE. CERN, Geneva, 1998.  https://cds.cern.ch/record/381431.
  * [50] ALICE Collaboration, J. Alme, Y. Andres, et al., “The {ALICE} tpc, a large 3-dimensional tracking device with fast readout for ultra-high multiplicity events,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 622 no. 1, (2010) 316 – 367. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168900210008910.
  * [51] ALICE Collaboration, D. Di Bari, “The pattern recognition method for the CsI-RICH detector in ALICE,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A502 (2003) 300–304.
  * [52] 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. Proceedings, Conference, MC2000, Lisbon, Portugal, October 23-26, 2000, pp. 1033–1038.  2000\.  arXiv:hep-ph/0012252 [hep-ph].  http://www-public.slac.stanford.edu/sciDoc/docMeta.aspx?slacPubNumber=SLAC-PUB-8740.
  * [53] R. Engel, “Photoproduction within the two-component Dual Parton Model: amplitudes and cross sections,” Z. Phys. C66 (1995) 203–214.
  * [54] ALICE Collaboration, B. B. Abelev et al., “Transverse momentum dependence of inclusive primary charged-particle production in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02~{}\text{TeV}$,” Eur. Phys. J. C74 no. 9, (2014) 3054, arXiv:1405.2737 [nucl-ex].
  * [55] T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, et al., “An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159–177, arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph].
  * [56] F. Antinori et al., “Thoughts on opportunities from high-energy nuclear collisions,” arXiv:1409.2981 [hep-ph].
  * [57] C. Bierlich and J. R. Christiansen, “Effects of Colour Reconnection on Hadron Flavour Observables,” arXiv:1507.02091 [hep-ph].
  * [58] A. Ortiz, E. Cuautle, and G. Paić, “Mid-rapidity charged hadron transverse spherocity in pp collisions simulated with pythia,” Nucl. Phys. A941 no. 0, (2015) 78 – 86. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375947415001311.
  * [59] C. Bierlich, G. Gustafson, L. Lönnblad, and A. Tarasov, “Effects of Overlapping Strings in pp Collisions,” JHEP 1503 (2015) 148, arXiv:1412.6259 [hep-ph].
  * [60] CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al., “Long-range two-particle correlations of strange hadrons with charged particles in pPb and PbPb collisions at LHC energies,” Phys. Lett. B 742 (2015) 200–224, arXiv:1409.3392 [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&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.
Connorsidp1758928,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&M.C. Danischorg94&A.
Danuorg62&D. Dasorg100&I. Dasorg100&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. Dobrinorg62,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&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
Khanidp3119664,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. 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,org122&C. Kobdajorg114&M.
Kofaragoorg36&T. Kolleggerorg97&A. Kolojvariorg131&V. Kondratievorg131&N.
Kondratyevaorg75&E. Kondratyukorg111&A. Konevskikhorg56&M. Kopcikorg115&P.
Kostarakisorg89&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. Malininaidp3827184,org66&D.
Mal’Kevichorg58&P. Malzacherorg97&A. Mamonovorg99&V. Mankoorg80&F.
Mansoorg70&V. Manzariorg103,org36&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.
Mayerorg117,org36&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
Godoyorg113,org54&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&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.
Readorg85,org125&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
Cahuantziorg11,org2&A. Rodriguez Mansoorg82&K. Røedorg22&E. Rogochayaorg66&D.
Rohrorg43&D. Röhrichorg18&R. Romitaorg124&F. Ronchettiorg72,org36&L.
Ronfletteorg113&P. Rosnetorg70&A. Rossiorg36,org30&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&M.I. Shahzadorg16&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. Volpeorg33&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&G. Wilkorg77&J. Wilkinsonorg94&M.C.S.
Williamsorg104&B. Windelbandorg94&M. Winnorg94&H. Yangorg57&P. Yangorg7&S.
Yanoorg47&Z. Yasinorg16&Z. Yinorg7&H. Yokoyamaorg128&I.-K. Yooorg96&J.H.
Yoonorg50&V. Yurchenkoorg3&I. Yushmanovorg80&A. Zaborowskaorg133&V.
Zaccoloorg81&A. Zamanorg16&C. Zampolliorg36,org104&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

idp1758928Also at: Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States

idp3119664Also at: Also at Department of Applied Physics, Aligarh Muslim
University, Aligarh, India

idp3827184Also 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