2023 176 22 August

K∗(892)± resonance production in Pb$-$Pb collisions at
$\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV

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

The production of K∗(892)± meson resonance is measured at midrapidity ($|y|<$
0.5) in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=$ 5.02 TeV using the
ALICE detector at the Large Hadron Collider. The resonance is reconstructed
via its hadronic decay channel
K∗(892)${}^{\pm}\rightarrow\mathrm{K^{0}_{S}\pi^{\pm}}$. The transverse
momentum distributions are obtained for various centrality intervals in the
$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ range of 0.4$-$16 GeV/$c$. Measurements of integrated yields,
mean transverse momenta, and particle yield ratios are reported and found to
be consistent with previous ALICE measurements for K∗(892)0 within
uncertainties. The $p_{\mathrm{T}}$-integrated yield ratio
2K∗(892)±/($\rm{K^{+}+K^{-}}$) in central Pb$-$Pb collisions shows a
significant suppression at a level of 9.3$\sigma$ relative to pp collisions.
Thermal model calculations result in an overprediction of the particle yield
ratio. Although both HRG-PCE and MUSIC+SMASH simulations consider the hadronic
phase, only HRG-PCE accurately represents the measurements, whereas
MUSIC+SMASH simulations tend to overpredict the particle yield ratio. These
observations, along with the kinetic freeze-out temperatures extracted from
the yields measured for light-flavored hadrons using the HRG-PCE model,
indicate a finite hadronic phase lifetime, which decreases with increasing
collision centrality percentile. The $p_{\mathrm{T}}$-differential yield
ratios 2K∗(892)±/($\rm{K^{+}+K^{-}}$) and 2K∗(892)±/($\rm{\pi^{+}+\pi^{-}}$)
are presented and compared with measurements in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$
5.02 TeV. Both particle ratios are found to be suppressed by up to a factor of
five at $p_{\mathrm{T}}<$ 2.0 GeV/$c$ in central Pb$-$Pb collisions and are
qualitatively consistent with expectations for rescattering effects in the
hadronic phase. The nuclear modification factor ($R_{\mathrm{AA}}$) shows a
smooth evolution with centrality and is found to be below unity at
$p_{\mathrm{T}}>$ 8 GeV/$c$, consistent with measurements for other light-
flavored hadrons. The smallest values are observed in most central collisions,
indicating larger energy loss of partons traversing the dense medium.

##  1 Introduction

The primary goal of ultra-relativistic heavy-ion collisions is to map the
phase diagram of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) and to investigate the
properties of the strongly-interacting matter at extreme conditions of high
temperatures and net baryon densities. At LHC and RHIC energies, compelling
evidence for the formation of a strongly-interacting quark–gluon plasma (QGP),
where quarks and gluons are the primary degrees of freedom, has been observed
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]. Hydrodynamic models provide successful
descriptions of the evolution of the QGP by assuming local thermal equilibrium
and specific initial conditions [12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18]. As the system
expands and cools down to the hadronization temperature ($\sim$150 MeV), the
quark–gluon plasma turns into colorless hadrons in the process known as
hadronization [19, 20, 21, 22]. After the hadronization, the system reaches a
certain temperature called the chemical freeze-out temperature [23], where the
inelastic collisions among the hadrons cease, and the yields of stable
particles become fixed [24, 25]. After the chemical freeze-out, the hadrons
continue to interact among themselves via elastic scattering, which can
further modify the yields and shapes of their transverse momentum spectra.
Later, the system reaches a stage when the mean free path of the hadrons
becomes much larger than the system size, known as kinetic freeze-out [25]
after which the hadrons stream freely to the detectors. The phase between
chemical and kinetic freeze-out is called the hadronic phase [26]. The
dynamics of this hadronic phase can be probed by the measurements of hadronic
decays of short-lived resonances. The decay products of the resonances inside
the hadronic phase take part in two simultaneous processes called regeneration
and rescattering via elastic or pseudoelastic scattering (scattering through
an intermediate state), which can result in modification of the measured
resonance yields [27]. If at least one of the decay products scatters
elastically with other hadrons in the hadronic medium or pseudoelastically
scatters via a different resonance state (e.g. a pion from K∗(892)± decay
scatters with another pion in the hadronic medium,
$\mathrm{\pi^{-}\pi^{+}}\rightarrow\rho^{0}\rightarrow\mathrm{\pi^{-}\pi^{+}}$),
the four-momentum information about the parent resonance gets lost and the
particle can no longer be reconstructed. On the other hand, pseudoelastic
scatterings among the hadrons inside the medium can regenerate the resonance
state (eg. $\mathrm{K^{0}_{S}\pi^{\pm}}\rightarrow$
K∗(892)±$\rightarrow\mathrm{K^{0}_{S}\pi^{\pm}}$) which can lead to an
increase in resonance yield. The strength of these two processes depends on
the hadronic phase lifetime, density of the hadronic medium, hadronic
interaction cross section of decay products of the resonances, and the
lifetime of resonances. The dominance of one effect over the other can be
investigated by studying the yield ratios of resonances to longer-lived
hadrons with the same quark content as a function of the collision centrality.

ALICE has previously measured the K∗(892)0 and $\phi$(1020) meson resonance
production in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ $=$ 5.02 TeV and
$\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ $=$ 2.76 TeV [28, 29]. The K∗(892)0 resonance has a
lifetime of about 4.16 fm/$c$, which is comparable to that of the hadronic
phase lifetime [30] and decays predominantly to
K∗(892)${}^{0}\rightarrow\mathrm{K^{\mp}\pi^{\pm}}$, whereas the $\phi$ meson
has a longer lifetime of about 46.3 fm/$c$ decaying as $\phi\rightarrow$ K+K-.
Due to the smaller lifetime of the K∗(892)0 resonance, it can decay inside the
hadronic medium. As a result, the decay daughters are expected to take part in
rescattering and regeneration processes between chemical and kinetic freeze-
out, which can alter the reconstructible yield of K∗(892)0. In contrast, the
yield of the $\phi$(1020) meson is anticipated to be largely unaffected by
rescattering effects due to its significantly longer lifetime compared to the
hadronic phase. Specifically, its lifetime differs from that of the K∗(892)0
by a factor of ten. However, its yield can be enhanced by the regeneration of
kaons inside the hadronic medium. If rescattering dominates over regeneration,
one would observe a reduction of the K∗(892)0 yield with respect to the
longer-lived hadron yields with increasing system size, defined by collision
centrality. Indeed in Refs. [28, 29], the integrated yield ratio
2K∗(892)0/($\rm{K}^{+}+\rm{K}^{-}$) decreases with increasing system size
suggesting the dominance of rescattering over regeneration in the hadronic
phase of heavy-ion collisions. The study of $p_{\rm T}$-differential particle
ratios shows that the observed suppression occurs in the range of small
transverse momenta, $p_{\rm T}$ $<$ 2 GeV/$c$ [30]. In contrast,
2$\phi(1020)$/($\rm{K}^{+}+\rm{K}^{-}$) ratio remained fairly constant as a
function of centrality, ruling out a significant contribution of the
regeneration effect for $\phi$(1020) meson.

In high-energy heavy-ion collisions, the high-$p_{\rm T}$ partons lose their
energy while traversing the medium leading to jet quenching [31], manifesting
itself in a suppressed production of high-$p_{\rm T}$ hadrons. The suppression
is quantified using the nuclear modification factor ($R_{\mathrm{AA}}$) [32],
defined as

$R_{\rm{AA}}=\frac{1}{\langle
T_{\mathrm{AA}}\rangle}\frac{\mathrm{d}^{2}N^{\mathrm{AA}}/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}})}{\mathrm{d}^{2}\sigma^{\mathrm{pp}}/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}})},$
(1)

where $\mathrm{d}^{2}N^{\mathrm{AA}}$/$(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}})$
is the particle yield in heavy-ion collisions,
$\mathrm{d}^{2}\sigma^{\mathrm{pp}}$/$(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}})$
is the production cross section of the particle in pp collisions, $\langle
T_{\mathrm{AA}}\rangle=\langle
N_{\mathrm{coll}}\rangle$/$\sigma_{\mathrm{inel}}$ is the average nuclear
overlap function, $\langle N_{\mathrm{coll}}\rangle$ is the average number of
binary nucleon–nucleon collisions obtained from MC Glauber simulations [33]
and $\sigma_{\mathrm{inel}}$ is the inelastic pp cross section [34]. The
$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ measurements in Pb$-$Pb collisions at
$\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ $=$ 5.02 TeV and 2.76 TeV [28, 29, 35, 36] show that
at high $p_{\rm T}$ ($>$ 8 GeV/$c$) the nuclear modification factor for all
light-flavored hadrons, including K∗(892)0 are consistent with each other,
signifying flavor-independence of parton energy loss in the QGP.

In this article, the first measurement of K∗(892)± mesons at midrapidity,
$|y|<$ 0.5, in the transverse momentum range from 0.4 to 16 GeV/$c$ in Pb$-$Pb
collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ $=$ 5.02 TeV is presented. The K∗(892)±
resonance signal is reconstructed via the invariant mass method from the decay
channel K∗(892)${}^{\pm}\rightarrow\mathrm{K^{0}_{S}\pi^{\pm}}$ where
K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$, in turn, is obtained from its decay to a pair of
oppositely charged pions,
K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$$\rightarrow\mathrm{\pi^{+}\pi^{-}}$. As the quark
content of K∗(892)± (u$\overline{\rm s}$ and $\overline{\rm u}$s) is similar
to that of K∗(892)0 (d$\overline{\rm s}$ and $\overline{\rm d}$s), their
momentum distributions are expected to be comparable with each other. Their
masses differ by about (0.0067$\pm$0.0012) GeV/$c^{2}$
($M_{\mathrm{K^{*}}(892)^{0}}=$ (0.8955$\pm$0.0002) GeV/$c^{2}$ and
$M_{\mathrm{K^{*}}(892)^{\pm}}=$ (0.8916 $\pm$ 0.0002) GeV/$c^{2}$), and their
lifetimes by about 0.16 fm$/c$ ($\tau_{\mathrm{K^{*}}(892)^{0}}\sim$ 4.16
fm/$c$ and $\tau_{\mathrm{K^{*}}(892)^{\pm}}\sim$ 4 fm/$c$). Thus, this
measurement will complement and verify the experimental findings for K∗(892)0
[28] by using the particle reconstruction techniques characterized by
different systematic uncertainties. The measurement will also complete the
first excited state measurements of the kaon family. The system size
dependence of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$-integrated and $p_{\mathrm{T}}$-differential
particle yield ratios 2K∗(892)±/($\rm{K}^{+}+\rm{K}^{-}$) are presented along
with model comparisons to shed light on the rescattering and regeneration
effects in the hadronic phase. The variation of hadronic phase lifetime with
collision centrality is studied by extracting the kinetic freeze-out
temperature using the HRG-PCE model [37] assuming a constant chemical freeze-
out temperature as a function of centrality. The flavor dependence of
$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ is tested further with the inclusion of K∗(892)± meson along
with other light-flavored hadrons.
Throughout this article, the results for K∗(892)+, K∗(892)- and K∗(892)0,
$\overline{\mathrm{K^{\rm{*}}}}(892)^{0}$ are averaged and denoted as K∗±and
K∗0, respectively, unless otherwise stated. Also, K and $\mathrm{\pi}$ in this
article refer to the average of particle and antiparticle yields, (K+ \+ K-)/2
and ($\mathrm{\pi}$+ \+ $\mathrm{\pi}$-)/2, respectively. The article is
organized as follows. Section 2 describes the ALICE experimental setup. In
Section 3, the data analysis technique, including the event and track
selection criteria applied, yield extraction procedure, and systematic
uncertainties are described. Section 4 presents the results related to the K∗±
meson. Finally, the article is concluded with a summary in Section 5.

##  2 Experimental apparatus

The production yield of the K∗± mesons is measured in Pb$-$Pb collisions at
$\sqrt{\it{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=$ 5.02 TeV using the data collected by the ALICE
detector in the year 2018. A complete description of the ALICE detector can be
found in [38, 39]. This analysis is performed by using the information from
the Inner Tracking System (ITS) [40], Time Projection Chamber (TPC) [41],
Time-of-Flight (TOF) [42, 43] and V0 [44] detectors.
The ITS and TPC detectors are located inside a large solenoidal magnet with a
magnetic field strength of 0.5 T. They are used for charged-particle tracking,
reconstruction of the primary vertex and particle identification. The ITS,
TPC, and TOF detectors span the full azimuthal coverage, covering a
pseudorapidity range of $|\eta|<$ 0.9. The ITS detector consists of six
cylindrical layers of silicon detectors and is the innermost ALICE detector
surrounding the beam pipe. The layer radii vary between 3.9 and 43 cm. The ITS
is used for precise reconstruction of the event primary vertex (PV) and
improvement of the angular and momentum resolution of tracks reconstructed in
the TPC. The TPC is the main ALICE detector for tracking and identification of
charged particles. It provides three-dimensional space point information for
charged particles. The maximum number of crossed pad rows for a full-length
reconstructed track is 159 in the TPC. Particle identification (PID) in the
gas-filled TPC is achieved by the specific energy loss (d$E$/d$x$) measured
for reconstructed charged-particle tracks. The d$E$/d$x$ resolution of the TPC
detector is around 5$\%$ for tracks with 159 clusters, and when averaged over
all tracks, it is about 6.5$\%$. The TPC detector provides a 2$\sigma$
separation between pions and kaons in 0.2 $<p_{\rm T}<$ 0.7 GeV/$c$ and
between kaons and protons in 0.4 $<p_{\rm T}<$ 0.8 GeV/$c$ [34]. The TOF is a
gaseous detector, built of Multigap Resistive Plate Chambers (MRPC) with a
time resolution of 80 ps. The TOF detector provides a 2$\sigma$ separation
between pions and kaons at $p_{\rm T}$ $<$ 3.2 GeV/$c$ and between kaons and
protons at $p_{\rm T}$ $<$ 5.4 GeV/$c$ [34].

Two scintillator detectors, V0A (2.8 $<\eta<$ 5.1) and V0C ($-$3.7 $<\eta<$
$-$1.7), which are located on either side of the interaction point along the
beam line and have a time resolution of less than 1 ns, are used for event
triggering and beam induced background rejection. The measured V0M (V0A + V0C)
signal is proportional to the total charge accumulated in the detectors [44]
and is used to classify Pb$-$Pb events into different centrality classes. A
Glauber Monte Carlo model [33] is fitted to the measured V0M amplitude
distribution to compute the fraction of hadronic cross section sampled by the
trigger.

##  3 Data analysis

The yield of the K∗± meson is reconstructed via its hadronic decay channel,
K${}^{*\pm}\rightarrow\mathrm{K^{0}_{S}\pi^{\pm}}$, with BR $=$
(33$\pm$0.003)$\%$ [45] at midrapidity $|y|<$ 0.5, taking into consideration
the decay channel K${}^{*\pm}\rightarrow\mathrm{K^{0}\pi^{\pm}}$ and a
probability of 0.5 for K0 be K${}^{0}_{\mathrm{S}}$. The analysis is performed
in five different centrality intervals, 0$-$10$\%$, 10$-$20$\%$, 20$-$40$\%$,
40$-$60$\%$ and 60$-$80$\%$, in the transverse momentum range from 0.4 GeV/$c$
to 16 GeV/$c$. The K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$ is reconstructed by exploiting its
weak decay topology (V0 topology) into two oppositely charged particles
(K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$ $\rightarrow\mathrm{\pi^{-}\pi^{+}}$) with a branching
ratio of (69.2 $\pm$ 0.05)$\%$ [45].

###  3.1 Event and Track selections

The analyzed data, which correspond to an integrated luminosity of 20 $\mu$b-1
were collected in 2018 using a minimum bias (MB) trigger that requires a
coincidence of signals in both the V0A and V0C detectors. Only events with the
reconstructed event vertex lying within 10 cm from the nominal interaction
point are accepted in the analysis. The events containing more than one
reconstructed vertex are tagged as pile-up events in the same bunch crossing
and discarded from the analysis. After all the event section criteria, the
total number of analyzed events is $\sim$ 1.2$\times$108. Charged pions from
K${}^{*\pm}\rightarrow\mathrm{K^{0}_{S}\pi^{\pm}}$ decays are reconstructed as
primary tracks using signals measured both in the ITS and TPC detectors.
Charged pions from weak decays
(K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$$\rightarrow\rm{\pi^{-}\pi^{+}}$) are reconstructed as
secondary tracks using the TPC only. For high tracking efficiency, a minimum
requirement of 70 out of the maximum possible 159 TPC hits are required for
primary and secondary tracks. The $\chi^{2}$ of the reconstructed tracks,
which quantifies the deviation between the measured hits and the expected
positions of the tracks in the TPC and ITS detectors, normalized to the number
of measured hits in each detector is required to be less than 4 and 36,
respectively. These thresholds ensure that the reconstructed tracks closely
match the expected positions within a reasonable range of uncertainty. The
primary tracks are required to have a distance of closest approach to the
primary vertex, DCA${}_{\mathrm{xy}}<$ 7$\sigma$, where $\sigma=$ 0.0105 +
(0.0350/$p_{\rm T}^{1.1}$) in the transverse plane and within
$|$DCA${}_{\mathrm{z}}|<$ 2 cm along the beam direction. Only tracks with
transverse momentum $p_{\rm T}$ $>$ 0.15 GeV/$c$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|<$
0.8 are accepted for the analysis. The PID for primary charged-particle tracks
is achieved by requiring the specific energy loss (d$E$/d$x$) in the TPC gas
to be consistent with the signal expected for a charged pion within two
standard deviations 2$\sigma_{\mathrm{TPC}}$. If the track is matched with a
signal in the TOF, it is additionally required that the measured time of
flight is consistent with that expected for a charged pion within
3$\sigma_{\mathrm{TOF}}$ [46, 41].

The secondary particle, K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$, is reconstructed based on weak
decay topological criteria [47]. Selection criteria for K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$
reconstruction are listed in Table 1 . Two oppositely charged tracks lying in
the acceptance window $|\eta|<$ 0.8 are identified as pions (daughters of
K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$) based on a 4$\sigma_{\mathrm{TPC}}$ selection
criterion. The DCA between negatively and positively charged tracks is
required to be smaller than 0.8 cm. Furthermore, the DCA of charged tracks to
the primary vertex is required to be greater than 0.1 cm. Also, a requirement
of less than 0.3 cm on the DCA of the V0 particle to the primary vertex in the
transverse plane is applied. The cosine of the pointing angle, which refers to
the angle between the V0 momentum and the line connecting the secondary to the
primary vertex, is required to be greater than 0.98. Only those V0 candidates
with a radius of the reconstructed secondary vertex larger than 1.6 cm are
chosen. Furthermore, K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$ candidates exhibiting a proper
lifetime, calculated as $LM_{\rm{K^{0}{S}}}$/$p$, where $L$ represents the
linear distance between the primary and secondary vertex, $M{\rm{K^{0}_{S}}}$
denotes the mass of K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$, and $p$ indicates the total
momentum of K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$, exceeding 15 cm are eliminated to mitigate
the presence of combinatorial background arising from interactions with the
detector material. In order to improve the signal-to-background ratio under
the K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$ peak, a selection criterion is imposed on the
asymmetry of pion momenta (Armenteros parameter),
$(p_{\rm{\pi}^{-}}-p_{\rm{\pi}^{+}})$/$(p_{\rm{\pi}^{-}}+p_{\rm{\pi}^{+}})$,
allowing only pairs of pions with an Armenteros parameter value exceeding 0.2
to be considered. Finally, the invariant mass of $\mathrm{\pi^{+}\pi^{-}}$ is
required to be compatible within 2$\sigma$ of the K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$
nominal mass, where $\sigma$ is the detector mass resolution, which is found
to be equal to $\sim$5 MeV/$c^{2}$ with a very weak dependence on collision
centrality and particle momentum. After all these topological criteria, only
those K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$ candidates with $|y|<$ 0.5 are analyzed.

Table 1: Selection criteria for K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$. Selection criteria | Value | Variations
---|---|---
Crossed rows |  $>$70 | 60, 80
Acceptance window of pions ($|\eta|$) |  $<$ 0.8 | -
Pion dE$/$d$x$ ($\sigma$) |  $<$4 | 3, 5
DCA V0 daughters |  $<$ 0.8 cm | 0.4, 0.5 cm
DCA of V0 daughters to PV |  $>$ 0.1 cm | -
DCA of V0 particle to PV |  $<$ 0.3 cm | 0.4, 0.5 cm
V0 cosine pointing angle |  $>$ 0.98 | 0.985, 0.995
V0 radius |  $>$ 1.6 cm | 1 cm
Proper lifetime |  $<$ 15 cm | 12, 20 cm
Armenteros parameter |  $>$ 0.2 | -
K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$mass window ($\sigma$) |  $\pm$ 2 | -

###  3.2 Yield extraction

The reconstructed K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$ and $\pi^{\pm}$ candidates are paired
in the same events. Only pairs in the rapidity range $|y|<$ 0.5 are selected.
The invariant mass distribution of K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$$\pi^{\pm}$ consists
of a signal peak hidden under a large combinatorial background. The
combinatorial background from uncorrelated K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$$\pi^{\pm}$
pairs is estimated using a mixed-event technique. The mixed-event invariant
mass distribution is accumulated by pairing K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$ from one
event with $\pi^{\pm}$ from different events. The mixed events are required to
belong to the same centrality intervals, and the absolute difference between
the primary vertex positions in the beam direction is required to be less than
1 cm. Each event is mixed with ten other events to reduce the statistical
fluctuations in the mixed-event invariant mass distributions. The selected
number of mixed events led to minimal additional statistical uncertainties in
the results following the subtraction of the mixed-event background. This
approach ensured that computational efficiency was maintained at an acceptable
level. The K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$$\pi^{\pm}$ invariant mass distribution
obtained from the mixed events is normalized in the range of masses 1.2$-$1.3
GeV/$c^{\mathrm{2}}$ to have the same integral as for the same event
K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$$\pi^{\pm}$ invariant mass distribution. After the
subtraction of the normalized mixed-event combinatorial background from the
same event K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$$\pi^{\pm}$ distribution, the signal peak is
observed on top of a residual background. The sources of this residual
background are the correlated K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$$\pi^{\pm}$ pairs emitted
within a jet, correlated pairs from decaying particles, and correlated pairs
from misidentified decays. The shape of the correlated background in the
K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$$\pi^{\pm}$ invariant mass distribution was studied
using a simulated Monte Carlo sample that was used to evaluate efficiency
corrections as described in Section 3.3. Invariant mass distributions for
K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$$\pi^{\pm}$ pairs were obtained in the Monte Carlo
analysis using the same event and track selections as in data. The study
showed that the correlated background has a smooth dependence on the mass. The
left panel of Fig. 1 shows an example of the invariant mass distribution of
K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$$\pi^{\pm}$ pairs from the same events and the
normalized mixed event background distribution for the transverse momentum
range 2.5 $<$ $p_{\rm T}$ $<$ 3.0 GeV/$c$ for 0$-$10% Pb$-$Pb collisions. The
right panel of the same figure shows the invariant mass distribution after the
mixed-event background subtraction. The subtracted invariant mass distribution
is fitted using a combined function to describe both the signal peak, and
residual background. For the signal peak, a Breit–Wigner function is used, and
for the residual background, a product of an exponential function and a
polynomial of second order is used.

Figure 1:  (Left panel): Invariant mass distribution of
K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$$\pi^{\pm}$ pairs in same (black marker) and mixed
events (red marker). (Right panel): Invariant mass distribution of
K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$$\pi^{\pm}$ pairs after the subtraction of normalized
mixed-event background distribution. The solid red curve is the fit function
defined by Eq. 2, with the dotted blue line describing the residual background
distribution given by Eq. 3

The fit function is defined as

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{dM}=\frac{Y}{2\mathrm{\pi}}\frac{\Gamma_{0}}{(M-M_{0})^{2}+\Gamma^{2}_{0}/4}+\mathrm{Res.bkg},$
(2)

where $M_{0}$ and $\Gamma_{0}$ are the mass and width of K∗±, $M$ is invariant
mass of the K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$$\pi^{\pm}$ pair
($M_{\rm{K^{0}_{S}\pi^{\pm}}}$), and the parameter $Y$ is the normalization
constant. The mass resolution of the detector for reconstruction of K∗± is
negligible as compared to the vacuum width of the K∗± (0.0514 $\pm$ 0.0009)
GeV/$c^{2}$ [45], hence it is not included. The last term in Eq. 2 is a
residual background function (Res.bkg) taken as

$\mathrm{Res.bkg}=[M-(m_{\mathrm{\pi^{\pm}}}+M_{\mathrm{K_{S}^{0}}})]^{\mathrm{n}}\mathrm{exp(A+B}M+\mathrm{C}M^{2}),$
(3)

where $m_{\mathrm{\pi^{\pm}}}$ and $M_{\mathrm{K_{S}^{0}}}$ are the mass of
the pion, and K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$, respectively, and A, B, C, and n are the
fit parameters. This form of residual background is motivated by studying the
shape of correlated background in the invariant mass distribution of
K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$$\pi^{\pm}$ pairs in the simulated data sample described
in Section 3.3. During fitting, by default, the $\Gamma_{0}$ parameter was set
equal to the vacuum width of the K∗± meson. The raw particle yields are then
obtained by integrating the invariant mass distribution within the mass
interval $M_{0}\pm 2\Gamma_{0}$ and subtracting from it the integral of the
residual background function in the same mass region. The yield of the
resonance in the peak tails beyond the counting range is obtained by
integrating the tail part of the signal fit function in the corresponding mass
ranges. The tail part contributes $\sim$ 13$\%$ of the total yield, and the
fraction does not depend on $p_{\rm T}$ or collision centrality. The
significance of the K∗±peak presented in Fig. 1 is 23.

###  3.3 Efficiency and acceptance

The measured yields are corrected for the detector acceptance and
reconstruction efficiency (A$\times\epsilon_{\mathrm{rec}}$), which were
evaluated using a detailed Monte Carlo simulation of the ALICE detector. The
Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ $=$ 5.02 TeV were generated
using the HIJING event generator [48]. The produced particles were traced
through detector materials using GEANT3 simulations [49]. The
A$\times\epsilon_{\mathrm{rec}}$, defined as the ratio of reconstructed to
generated K∗±, was calculated as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ within $|y|<$ 0.5.
Only those K∗± that decay into K${}^{0}\mathrm{\pi}^{\pm}$ channel, taking
into account the 0.5 probability of K0 to be K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$, were
accounted in the denominator. The same track and PID selections used in data
were considered in the simulation as well. Since the reconstruction efficiency
depends on the shape of the generated K∗± meson $p_{\rm T}$ spectra, they were
reweighted to reproduce the measured ones. The reweighting procedure required
several iterations to converge. The reweighting resulted in the reduction of
A$\times\epsilon_{\mathrm{rec}}$ by $\sim$ 4$-$6$\%$ at low momentum, $p_{\rm
T}$ $<$ 1 GeV/$c$, and negligible corrections at higher momenta.
The evaluated detector acceptance and reconstruction efficiencies for
different centrality intervals are shown in Fig. 2. For each centrality
interval, A$\times\epsilon_{\mathrm{rec}}$ rises at low $p_{\rm T}$, reaches
the maximum at $p_{\rm T}$ $\sim$ 4 GeV/$c$ and then decreases at higher
momenta. This decrease in the efficiency at higher momenta is due to the
reduced probability of K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$ reconstruction with the
selection criteria described in the previous section. The efficiencies show a
strong centrality dependence with a maximum magnitude varying from 0.15 to
0.21 in 0–10% to 60–80% centrality intervals, respectively.

Figure 2:  The acceptance times efficiency correction for K∗± as a function of
transverse momentum for different centrality intervals.

The $p_{\rm T}$-differential raw yields of K∗± are finally corrected using the
A$\times\epsilon_{\mathrm{rec}}$ of the respective centrality intervals. The
corrected yields are given by

$\frac{1}{N_{\mathrm{event}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^{2}N}{\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}}=\frac{1}{N^{\mathrm{acc}}_{\mathrm{event}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^{2}N^{\mathrm{raw}}}{\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{1}{(\mathrm{A}\times\epsilon_{\mathrm{rec}})\mathrm{BR}},$
(4)

where d$y$, d$p_{\rm T}$ are the widths of the analyzed rapidity and $p_{\rm
T}$ intervals, respectively. As seen from the above equation, the raw yields
are normalized to the number of accepted events in the centrality interval
(${N^{\mathrm{acc}}_{\mathrm{event}}}$) and branching ratio (BR) of the decay
channel.

###  3.4 Systematic uncertainties

The systematic uncertainties in the measurement of K∗± yields are summarized
in Table 2. The total systematic uncertainty includes contributions from the
signal extraction method, primary and secondary track selection criteria, PID,
global tracking efficiency, knowledge of the ALICE material budget, and
interaction cross section of hadrons with the detector material. The total
uncertainty is calculated by summing the uncertainties from each source in
quadrature. The uncertainties are found to be similar in various measured
centrality intervals. The uncertainty values given in the table are reported
for three $p_{\rm T}$ intervals averaged over all measured centralities.

Table 2: Systematic uncertainties for K∗± in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ $=$ 5.02 TeV. The systematic uncertainties are shown for low, intermediate, and high $p_{\rm T}$ intervals averaged over all centralities. Systematic variation | Low $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ (Gev/$c$) | Mid $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ (Gev/$c$) | High $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ (Gev/$c$)
---|---|---|---
| 0.4$-$0.8 | 2.0$-$2.5 | 12.0$-$16.0
Signal extraction ($\%$) | 7.4 | 5.2 | 5.6
Primary track selection ($\%$) | 5 | 3.3 | 4.7
K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$ reconstruction ($\%$) | 5.4 | 3.8 | 4.6
PID ($\%$) | 3.7 | 2.3 | 3.2
Global tracking efficiency ($\%$) | 3 | 3.9 | 2.2
Material budget ($\%$) | 3.1 | 1.1 | 0.5
Hadronic interaction ($\%$) | 1 | 0.9 | negl.
Total ($\%$) | 12 | 8.8 | 9.6

The uncertainty in the signal extraction is assessed by varying several
factors, including fitting ranges, mixed-event background normalization
ranges, residual background fit functions, and yield extraction methods.
Additionally, the default fits to the invariant mass distributions are
repeated with the width of K∗± treated as a free parameter. The choice of
fitting range in the default case is determined based on the background shape.
As part of the systematic uncertainty evaluation, the boundaries of the
fitting ranges are adjusted by 20 MeV/$c^{2}$ on both sides. The mixed-event
normalization range is shifted from the default range of 1.2-1.3 GeV/$c^{2}$
to 1.1-1.2 GeV/$c^{2}$ and 1.3-1.4 GeV/$c^{2}$. To study systematic effects,
the residual background is modeled using second- and third-order polynomials.
The resultant uncertainty for signal extraction from different sources is
determined as the RMS of the particle yields obtained with different
variations and ranges from 5.2% to 7.5%. For primary track selection, the
criteria are varied following the procedure described in [28] to investigate
the systematic impact of track selections. The resulting uncertainty varies
from 3.3% to 5%. By varying the topological selection criteria provided in
Table 1, the uncertainty in K$\mathrm{{}^{0}_{S}}$ reconstruction is found to
be in the range of 3.7% to 5.8%. To determine the yield uncertainty associated
with the identification of primary daughter tracks, the selection criteria in
the TPC (1.5 $<|\mathrm{n}\sigma_{\mathrm{TPC}}|<$ 3.0) and TOF (3
$<|\mathrm{n}\sigma_{\mathrm{TOF}}|<$ 4.0) are varied. The resulting
uncertainty ranges from 1.7% to 3.9%. The global tracking uncertainty,
originating from efficiency of the ITS–TPC track matching, is determined based
on the single-particle tracking uncertainty of charged particles [34],
reaching a maximum of approximately 4%. Uncertainties related to the material
budget and hadronic cross section, as obtained from Ref. [47], contribute up
to 3% and 1% respectively. Taking all these factors into account, the average
total uncertainty ranges from 8.8% to 12%. The total uncertainty for K∗± is
found to be similar to that of K∗0 [28]. Among the systematic uncertainties,
only the signal extraction uncertainty is a fully uncorrelated source, while
track selection, PID, global tracking efficiency, material budget, and
hadronic interaction are correlated across different centrality intervals.

##  4 Results and discussions

###  4.1 Transverse momentum spectra

The fully corrected $p_{\rm T}$ distributions for K∗± meson at midrapidity for
centrality intervals 0$-$10$\%$, 10$-$20$\%$, 20$-$40$\%$, 40$-$60$\%$ and
60$-$80$\%$ are shown in Fig. 3. The transverse momentum spectra become harder
from peripheral to central collisions.

Figure 3:  The $p_{\rm T}$ distributions of K∗± meson in various centrality
intervals in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ $=$ 5.02 TeV. The
statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and boxes,
respectively.

Figure 4:  The $p_{\rm T}$ distributions of K∗±(blue circles) and K∗0(red
squares) [28] in 0$-$10$\%$ (left) and 40$-$60$\%$ (right) centrality
intervals in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ $=$ 5.02 TeV.
Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown by bars and shaded boxes,
respectively. The bottom panels show the K∗± to K∗0 ratio as a function of
$p_{\rm T}$.

Figure 4 compares the transverse momentum distributions of K∗± and K∗0 mesons
in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ $=$ 5.02 TeV for the
0$-$10$\%$ and 40$-$60$\%$ centrality intervals. The bottom panels of Fig. 4
show the ratio of K∗± to K∗0. The statistical and systematic uncertainties on
the ratio are obtained by propagating the corresponding statistical and total
systematic uncertainties on the K∗0 and K∗± $p_{\rm T}$ spectra. The ratio is
consistent with unity within uncertainties. A similar consistency of the
spectra for K∗± and K∗0 has been previously observed in pp collisions [47].

###  4.2 $\textbf{d\it{N}}/\textbf{d\it{y}}$ and $\langle
p_{\mathrm{T}}\rangle$

To extract the $p_{\rm T}$-integrated particle yield (d$N$/d$y$) and average
transverse momentum ($\langle p_{\mathrm{T}}\rangle$) for each centrality
interval, the measured $p_{\rm T}$ distributions of K∗± are integrated, while
fit functions are used to estimate the resonance yield in the unmeasured
$p_{\rm T}$ regions. The fully corrected $p_{\rm T}$ distributions are fitted
with Boltzmann-Gibbs blast-wave function [50] in the $p_{\rm T}$ range 0.4–3.5
GeV/$c$. The fit function is then extrapolated down to zero transverse
momentum. The low $p_{\rm T}$ extrapolation ($<$ 0.4 GeV/$c$) accounts for
8$\%$ (12$\%$) of the total yield in the 0$-$10$\%$ (60$-$80$\%$) centrality
interval.Various fitting functions, including Levy–Tsallis, Boltzmann–Gibbs,
and Bose–Einstein [51, 52], are employed to assess their impact on the
integrated d$N$/d$y$ and $\langle p_{\mathrm{T}}\rangle$. The variations in
d$N$/d$y$ and $\langle p_{\mathrm{T}}\rangle$ due to the choice of different
fitting functions are incorporated into the systematic uncertainties. The left
panel of Fig. 5 shows d$N$/d$y$ of K∗± measured at midrapidity ($|y|<$ 0.5) as
a function of average charged-particle pseudorapidity density
($\langle$d$N_{\mathrm{ch}}/$d$\eta\rangle_{|\eta|<0.5}$) in Pb$-$Pb
collisions at $\sqrt{\it{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=$ 5.02 TeV. The results for K∗0in
Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{\it{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=$ 5.02 TeV and
$\sqrt{\it{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=$ 2.76 TeV are also shown for comparison. For a
given charged-particle multiplicity, the d$N$/d$y$ of K∗± is consistent with
the K∗0 measurements at 2.76 TeV and 5.02 TeV. This signifies that resonance
production is purely driven by charged-particle multiplicity and not by
collision energy at the LHC. The right panel of Fig. 5 shows the $\langle
p_{\mathrm{T}}\rangle$ of K∗± at $\sqrt{\it{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=$ 5.02 TeV
together with K∗0 measurements at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ $=$ 5.02 TeV and
2.76 TeV. The $\langle p_{\mathrm{T}}\rangle$ values increase with increasing
charged-particle multiplicity, which is consistent with the picture of a
growing contribution of radial flow with
$\langle$d$N_{\mathrm{ch}}/$d$\eta\rangle_{|\eta|<0.5}$ [34]. The central
values of $\langle p_{\mathrm{T}}\rangle$ for K∗± and K∗0 at
$\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ $=$ 5.02 TeV are systematically higher than at
$\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ $=$ 2.76 TeV, although consistent within systematic
uncertainties, which are rather large in the latter case. The results are
compared with MUSIC with and without SMASH afterburner model predictions [53,
54]. MUSIC is a hydrodynamic-based model with SMASH as an afterburner on top
of the hydrodynamic expansion to simulate the hadronic interactions. In this
model, the probability of resonance disappearing is proportional to the
Knudsen number Kn$=\lambda$/$L$, where $\lambda$ is the mean free path of the
resonance and L is the system size. The model does not take into account the
regeneration of resonances. Rapid kinetic freeze-out simultaneously for all
species is assumed, and the centrality dependence of resonance suppression
originates from different temperatures of kinetic freeze-out for different
centrality intervals. MUSIC and MUSIC+SMASH results are only shown for K∗0 in
Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{\it{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=$ 5.02 TeV as no
significant quantitative difference between predictions for K∗0 and K∗± is
expected. MUSIC and MUSIC+SMASH both overpredict the yield measurements and
underpredict the $\langle p_{\mathrm{T}}\rangle$ of the K∗±. MUSIC+SMASH is
closer to the measurements than MUSIC only predictions.

Figure 5:  The d$N$/d$y$ (left) and $\langle p_{\rm T}\rangle$ (right) as a
function of system size for K∗±(closed marker) and K∗0(open markers) [28] in
Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ $=$ 5.02 TeV and
$\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ $=$ 2.76 TeV [55]. Comparison with predictions of
MUSIC hydrodynamic model with and without the hadronic phase afterburner
(SMASH) are presented by solid and dashed lines, respectively. Statistical
(systematic) uncertainties are shown by bars (boxes).

###  4.3 Freeze out temperature using the HRG-PCE model

The thermodynamic properties of the system created in heavy-ion collisions can
be studied using thermal model calculations. In this study, the hadron
resonance gas (HRG) model in partial chemical equilibrium (PCE) [37] is used
to extract the freeze-out parameters of the system. The evolution of the
system in partial chemical equilibrium follows the conservation of the total
yields and entropy of the stable hadrons. Resonance decays and formation take
place, obeying the law of mass action. Including resonances in the HRG-PCE
model fit is necessary for the PCE evolution of the system in the hadronic
phase. The model parameters are the baryon chemical potential
($\mu_{\mathrm{B}}$), the chemical freeze-out temperature ($T_{\mathrm{ch}}$),
the kinetic freeze-out temperature ($T_{\mathrm{kin}}$), the volume
($V_{\mathrm{ch}}$) of the system formed at freeze-out and the fugacity
parameters which regulate deviations from chemical equilibrium in the light
and strange quark sectors. It is assumed that $\mu_{\mathrm{B}}=$ 0, and
yields of particles and antiparticles are the same. The chemical freeze-out
temperature is fixed to 155 MeV, and all fugacity parameters to unity. The
free parameters of the fit are the kinetic freeze-out temperature, and the
volume. The kinetic freeze-out temperature is extracted from the HRG-PCE model
[37] fit to the yields of $\pi$, K, p, $\phi$, K∗0 and K∗± in Pb$-$Pb
collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ $=$ 5.02 TeV. The procedure for fitting
the HRG-PCE model to the data is implemented in THERMAL-FIST [56] since
version 1.3. The temperature is determined for five different centrality
intervals 0$-$10$\%$, 10$-$20$\%$, 20$-$40$\%$, 40$-$60$\%$ and 60$-$80$\%$ as
shown in Table 3 and compared with the results of blast-wave fits to the
$p_{\rm T}$ spectra of $\pi^{\pm}$, K±, p($\overline{\mathrm{p}}$) [34]. The
fitting of $p_{\rm T}$ spectra depends on the assumed flow velocity profile
and the freeze-out hypersurface within the blast-wave model. The concept of
the HRG-PCE model is free from these assumptions. Table 3 shows that results
from the HRG-PCE model are consistent within uncertainties with the published
blast-wave model results.

Table 3: HRG-PCE model fits results in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ $=$ 5.02 TeV. Numbers in brackets show the published kinetic freeze-out temperatures obtained using blast-wave fits to $\pi^{\pm}$, K±, p($\overline{\mathrm{p}}$) spectra [34]. Centrality ($\%$) |  $T_{\mathrm{kin}}$ (MeV) |  $\chi^{2}/$Ndf
---|---|---
0$-$10 | 95 $\pm$ 3 (91 $\pm$ 3) | 2.25
10$-$20 | 104 $\pm$ 4 (94 $\pm$ 3) | 2.17
20$-$40 | 109 $\pm$ 5 (99 $\pm$ 3) | 1.48
40$-$60 | 116 $\pm$ 6 (112 $\pm$ 3) | 0.77
60$-$80 | 124 $\pm$ 8 (138 $\pm$ 6) | 1.63

The extracted kinetic freeze-out temperature increases from 95 MeV in
0$-$10$\%$ Pb$-$Pb collisions to 124 MeV in 60$-$80$\%$ Pb$-$Pb collisions.
The results indicate the presence of the hadronic phase of a finite lifetime
in heavy-ion collisions, longer lived in central collision and shorter in
peripheral collision.

###  4.4 Particle ratios

Ratios of resonance yields to those of longer-lived particles with similar
quark contents are constructed to numerically study the effects of
rescattering and regeneration processes. Figure 6 shows the $p_{\rm
T}$-integrated yield ratios of K∗±/K, K∗0/K and $\phi$/K as a function of
$\langle$d$N_{\mathrm{ch}}/$d$\eta\rangle^{1/3}_{|\eta|<0.5}$ in Pb$-$Pb
collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ $=$ 5.02 TeV and K∗±/K in pp collisions
at $\sqrt{s}$ $=$ 5.02 TeV [28, 47, 34]. The
$\langle$d$N_{\mathrm{ch}}/$d$\eta\rangle^{1/3}_{|\eta|<0.5}$ is proportional
to the linear (radial) path through the produced matter. The kaon yields in
Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ $=$ 5.02 TeV are taken from
[34].

Figure 6:  The $p_{\rm T}$-integrated particle yield ratios K∗±/K, K∗0/K and
$\phi$/K measured at midrapidity ($|y|<$ 0.5) in pp and Pb$-$Pb collisions at
$\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ $=$ 5.02 TeV as a function of
$\langle$d$N_{\mathrm{ch}}/$d$\eta\rangle^{1/3}_{|\eta|<0.5}$. For Pb$-$Pb
collisions, K∗0/K and $\phi$/K data points are taken from Ref. [28] and for pp
collisions K∗±/K is taken from Ref. [47]. The results of the Gamma canonical
statistical model calculation [57] for K∗0/K, in addition to predictions from
the HRG-PCE model [37], as well as MUSIC with and without afterburner [53] are
shown. Statistical uncertainties are shown by bars, total systematic
uncertainties by open boxes, and the multiplicity-uncorrelated systematic
uncertainty by the shaded boxes. The two highest multiplicity data points for
K∗0 and $\phi$ mesons are slightly shifted for visibility.

The $p_{\rm T}$-integrated K∗±/K ratio decreases with increasing system size.
The suppression of the K∗±/K ratio is similar to that of K∗0/K at similar
multiplicity. This is consistent with the picture of the rescattering effect
for the decay products in the hadronic phase. The lifetime of the $\phi$ meson
is one order of magnitude longer than that of the K∗ meson, hence its decay
products are not expected to take part in rescattering processes, while the
regeneration of kaons can increase the measured $\phi$ meson yields. A
constant $\phi$/K ratio as a function of charged-particle multiplicity
indicates that neither rescattering nor regeneration plays an important role
for the $\phi$ meson in the hadronic medium.

For comparison, the predictions of the Gamma canonical statistical model
($\gamma_{\rm{S}}$CSM) [57], HRG-PCE [37], hydrodynamic model MUSIC with and
without hadronic afterburner [53] for K∗0/K are also shown in Fig.6.
Generally, the statistical models involve an ideal hadron resonance gas in
thermal and chemical equilibrium at the chemical freeze-out surface. The
baryon number, the strangeness, and the electric charges are fixed to a
particular value and remain conserved exactly across the correlation volume
$V_{\mathrm{c}}$. In the Gamma canonical statistical model, a multiplicity-
dependent chemical freeze-out temperature is considered, where the possibility
of incomplete chemical equilibrium in the strangeness sector is included via
the $\gamma_{\mathrm{S}}$ factor. The canonical volume considered in this
model corresponds to three units of rapidity $V_{\mathrm{c}}=$ 3 d$V$/d$y$.
The model overpredicts the measurements and predicts a relatively flat ratio
with increasing system size. The prediction from MUSIC with SMASH as an
afterburner also fails to describe the level of suppression as observed in the
experimental data. The hadron resonance gas model in partial chemical
equilibrium, which incorporates the hadronic phase, qualitatively describes
the experimental data. This suggests the importance of the rescattering effect
for the measured K∗± yields in the hadronic phase of heavy-ion collisions.

The significance of the suppression of the yield ratio (K∗±/K) in central
Pb–Pb collisions with respect to pp collisions can be quantified using the
double ratio (K∗±/K)PbPb/(K∗±/K)${}_{\mathrm{pp}}=$ 0.448 $\pm$ 0.057, where
the multiplicity uncorrelated uncertainty for K∗± and total uncertainty for K
are considered. This double ratio deviates from unity by 9.3 standard
deviations. The suppression of the K∗±/K ratio is found to be similar to that
of K∗0/K, but measured with higher precision (9.3$\sigma$ compared to
6.02$\sigma$) [28].

Figure 7:  The $p_{\rm T}$-differential particle yield ratios K∗±/K (a) and
K∗±/$\mathrm{\pi}$ (b) in pp (black marker) and Pb$-$Pb collisions at
$\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ $=$ 5.02 TeV for 0$-$10$\%$ (red marker) and
60$-$80$\%$ (blue marker) centrality intervals. The bottom panels (c) and (d)
show the ratios of Pb$-$Pb to pp results, compared with 0$-$10$\%$ K∗0 results
[28]. Statistical uncertainties are shown by bars and systematic uncertainties
by boxes. The statistical and systematic uncertainties on the data points are
obtained by propagating the statistical and total systematic uncertainties of
the measurements.

The $p_{\rm T}$-differential yield ratios are measured in order to study the
$p_{\rm T}$ dependence of the rescattering effect. The upper panels of Fig.7
show the $p_{\rm T}$-differential yield ratios of K∗±/K (a) and
K∗±/$\mathrm{\pi}$ (b) in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ $=$
5.02 TeV for 0$-$10$\%$, 60$-$80$\%$ centrality intervals compared with pp
collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ $=$ 5.02 TeV [47]. The bottom panels (c
and d) show the double ratios. At low $p_{\rm T}$ ($<$ 2 GeV/$c$), the double
ratios (K∗±/K)PbPb/(K∗±/K)pp and
(K∗±/$\mathrm{\pi}$)PbPb/(K∗±/$\mathrm{\pi}$)pp are suppressed by up to a
factor of five. The suppression is stronger in central collisions than
peripheral ones due to a stronger rescattering effect in the larger system
produced in the central collisions. For $p_{\rm T}$ ($>$ 5 GeV/$c$), the
double ratios are consistent with unity for both central and peripheral
collisions, suggesting that the rescattering effect is a low $p_{\rm T}$
phenomenon. The lower panels of Figure 7 (c and d) present the comparison of
results for K∗±and K∗0 [28] in the 0–10% centrality interval, demonstrating
their consistency with each other. In the intermediate $p_{\rm T}$ range (3–5
GeV/$c$), both the double ratios (c and d) show an enhancement in central
Pb$-$Pb collisions compared to peripheral and pp collisions. This enhancement
is more pronounced for K∗±/$\mathrm{\pi}$ yield ratio and is consistent with
the picture of larger radial flow in the most central collisions relative to
peripheral and pp collisions.

###  4.5 Nuclear modification factor

The left panel of Fig. 8 shows the species dependence of $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ for
0$-$10$\%$ Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ $=$ 5.02 TeV. The
species vary in mass from 0.139 GeV/$c^{2}$ for pions to 1.020 GeV/$c^{2}$ for
the $\phi$ meson. Both baryons and mesons have been considered. At low $p_{\rm
T}$ ($<$ 2 GeV/$c$), K∗± and K∗0 $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ values are the smallest
among the listed hadrons, which is consistent with the picture of the
rescattering effect. $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ values in the intermediate $p_{\rm T}$
range show species dependence with evidence of baryon–meson splitting.
$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ values in this $p_{\rm T}$ range are influenced by a
combination of effects like radial flow, parton recombination, enhanced
strangeness production, steepness of particle $p_{\rm T}$ spectra in reference
pp collisions, etc., which are difficult to disentangle from $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$
measurements alone. For $p_{\rm T}$ $>$ 8 GeV/$c$, all the particle species
show similar $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ within the uncertainties, including the K∗±.
This observation suggests that suppression of various light flavored hadrons
is independent of their quark content and mass. The right panel of Fig. 8
shows the evolution of $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ values with centrality for K∗±. The
$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ is found to be the smallest in most central collisions. It
gradually increases towards more peripheral collisions similarly for other
light hadrons. The results are consistent with centrality-dependent energy
loss of partons.

Figure 8:  Left panel shows the $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ comparison of various light-
flavored hadrons [28, 29, 35], and the right panel shows the $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$
of K∗± for different centrality intervals both as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ in
Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{\it{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=$ 5.02 TeV. Statistical
(systematic) uncertainties are shown by bars (shaded boxes). The shaded bands
around unity reprsents the normalisation uncertainty on $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$.

##  5 Conclusion

The first measurement of K∗± resonance in Pb$-$Pb collisions at
$\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ $=$ 5.02 TeV using the ALICE detector has been
presented. The transverse-momentum spectra are measured at midrapidity up to
$p_{\rm T}$ $=$ 16 GeV/$c$ in various centrality intervals. A good consistency
between the presented K∗± results and the previously published K∗0
measurements is observed. The $p_{\rm T}$-integrated yields and $\langle
p_{\mathrm{T}}\rangle$ values for K∗± and K∗0 at
$\sqrt{\it{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=$ 5.02 TeV and $\sqrt{\it{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=$
2.76 TeV exhibit a common smooth evolution with event multiplicity. A
suppression is observed in the K∗±/K yield ratio in central Pb$-$Pb collisions
compared to peripheral Pb$-$Pb collisions and pp collisions. The measured
suppression of the K∗±/K ratio is observed to be akin to that of K∗0/K, albeit
with higher precision (9.3$\sigma$ as opposed to 6.02$\sigma$). A suppression
factor of about five is observed for K∗/K at low $p_{\rm T}$. These
observations indicate the dominance of rescattering effect over regeneration
at low $p_{\rm T}$ in the hadronic phase of the system produced in heavy-ion
collisions, which is consistent with the observations made from K∗0
measurements at $\sqrt{\it{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=$ 5.02 TeV and 2.76 TeV.
The values of the $p_{\rm T}$-integrated K∗/K ratios in Pb$-$Pb collisions are
smaller than those obtained from thermal model predictions but qualitatively
consistent with models which include a finite hadronic phase lifetime.
Predictions of the hydrodynamic model MUSIC are noticeably closer to the
measurements when processed with the hadronic afterburner SMASH. HRG-PCE
qualitatively describes the suppression trend of K∗/K particle ratios. These
observations emphasize the importance of the hadronic phase in central heavy-
ion collisions. The kinetic freeze-out temperature is determined in different
centrality intervals using the HRG-PCE model fit to the experimental data at a
fixed chemical freeze-out temperature. The results suggest a longer-lived
hadronic phase in central collisions as compared to peripheral collisions. The
kinetic freeze-out temperature results are consistent with predictions
obtained from blast-wave fits to pion, kaon, and proton $p_{\rm T}$ spectra.
The values of the nuclear modification factor ($R_{\mathrm{AA}}$) for K∗ are
below unity at all centralities and are consistent with energy loss of partons
while traversing the hot and dense medium. The $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ values are
smaller in most central collisions and increase towards peripheral collisions.
No species dependence is observed at high $p_{\rm T}$.

## Acknowledgements

The ALICE Collaboration would like to thank all its engineers and technicians for their invaluable contributions to the construction of the experiment and the CERN accelerator teams for the outstanding performance of the LHC complex. The ALICE Collaboration gratefully acknowledges the resources and support provided by all Grid centres and the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid (WLCG) collaboration. The ALICE Collaboration acknowledges the following funding agencies for their support in building and running the ALICE detector: A. I. Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics Institute) Foundation (ANSL), State Committee of Science and World Federation of Scientists (WFS), Armenia; Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austrian Science Fund (FWF): [M 2467-N36] and Nationalstiftung für Forschung, Technologie und Entwicklung, Austria; Ministry of Communications and High Technologies, National Nuclear Research Center, Azerbaijan; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (Finep), Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) and Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Brazil; Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Science, within the National Roadmap for Research Infrastructures 2020–2027 (object CERN), Bulgaria; Ministry of Education of China (MOEC) , Ministry of Science & Technology of China (MSTC) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), China; Ministry of Science and Education and Croatian Science Foundation, Croatia; Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Cubaenergía, Cuba; Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic, Czech Republic; The Danish Council for Independent Research | Natural Sciences, the VILLUM FONDEN and Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF), Denmark; Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Finland; Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique (CEA) and Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (IN2P3) and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), France; Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) and GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Germany; General Secretariat for Research and Technology, Ministry of Education, Research and Religions, Greece; National Research, Development and Innovation Office, Hungary; Department of Atomic Energy Government of India (DAE), Department of Science and Technology, Government of India (DST), University Grants Commission, Government of India (UGC) and Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), India; National Research and Innovation Agency - BRIN, Indonesia; Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), Italy; Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI, Japan; Consejo Nacional de Ciencia (CONACYT) y Tecnología, through Fondo de Cooperación Internacional en Ciencia y Tecnología (FONCICYT) and Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Academico (DGAPA), Mexico; Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), Netherlands; The Research Council of Norway, Norway; Commission on Science and Technology for Sustainable Development in the South (COMSATS), Pakistan; Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Peru; Ministry of Education and Science, National Science Centre and WUT ID-UB, Poland; Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information and National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), Republic of Korea; Ministry of Education and Scientific Research, Institute of Atomic Physics, Ministry of Research and Innovation and Institute of Atomic Physics and University Politehnica of Bucharest, Romania; Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic, Slovakia; National Research Foundation of South Africa, South Africa; Swedish Research Council (VR) and Knut & Alice Wallenberg Foundation (KAW), Sweden; European Organization for Nuclear Research, Switzerland; Suranaree University of Technology (SUT), National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA), Thailand Science Research and Innovation (TSRI) and National Science, Research and Innovation Fund (NSRF), Thailand; Turkish Energy, Nuclear and Mineral Research Agency (TENMAK), Turkey; National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Ukraine; Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), United Kingdom; National Science Foundation of the United States of America (NSF) and United States Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Physics (DOE NP), United States of America. In addition, individual groups or members have received support from: European Research Council, Strong 2020 - Horizon 2020 (grant nos. 950692, 824093), European Union; Academy of Finland (Center of Excellence in Quark Matter) (grant nos. 346327, 346328), Finland.

## References

  * [1] ALICE Collaboration, “The ALICE experiment – A journey through QCD”, arXiv:2211.04384 [nucl-ex].
  * [2] W. Busza, K. Rajagopal, and W. van der Schee, “Heavy Ion Collisions: The Big Picture, and the Big Questions”, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68 (2018) 339–376, arXiv:1802.04801 [hep-ph].
  * [3] J. Schukraft, “Ultra-relativistic heavy-ion collisions: Searching for the quark-gluon plasma”, Nucl. Phys. A 553 (1993) 31–44.
  * [4] U. W. Heinz, “The Strongly coupled quark-gluon plasma created at RHIC”, J. Phys. A 42 (2009) 214003, arXiv:0810.5529 [nucl-th].
  * [5] S. Gupta, D. Mallick, D. K. Mishra, B. Mohanty, and N. Xu, “Limits of thermalization in relativistic heavy ion collisions”, Phys. Lett. B 829 (2022) 137021.
  * [6] E. V. Shuryak, “Quantum Chromodynamics and the Theory of Superdense Matter”, Phys. Rept. 61 (1980) 71–158.
  * [7] J. C. Collins and M. J. Perry, “Superdense Matter: Neutrons Or Asymptotically Free Quarks?”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 34 (1975) 1353.
  * [8] T. Niida and Y. Miake, “Signatures of QGP at RHIC and the LHC”, AAPPS Bull. 31 (2021) 12, arXiv:2104.11406 [nucl-ex].
  * [9] STAR Collaboration, J. Adams et al., “Evidence from d + Au measurements for final state suppression of high p(T) hadrons in Au+Au collisions at RHIC”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 072304, arXiv:nucl-ex/0306024.
  * [10] STAR Collaboration, C. Adler et al., “Disappearance of back-to-back high $p_{T}$ hadron correlations in central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200-GeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 082302, arXiv:nucl-ex/0210033.
  * [11] STAR Collaboration, J. Adams et al., “Particle type dependence of azimuthal anisotropy and nuclear modification of particle production in Au + Au collisions at s(NN)**(1/2) = 200-GeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 052302, arXiv:nucl-ex/0306007.
  * [12] J. P. Blaizot and J.-Y. Ollitrault, “Equation of State and Hydrodynamics of Quark Gluon Plasmas”, Phys. Lett. B 191 (1987) 21–26.
  * [13] D. A. Teaney, Viscous Hydrodynamics and the Quark Gluon Plasma, pp. 207–266.  2010\.  arXiv:0905.2433 [nucl-th].
  * [14] M. L. Miller, K. Reygers, S. J. Sanders, and P. Steinberg, “Glauber modeling in high energy nuclear collisions”, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57 (2007) 205–243, arXiv:nucl-ex/0701025.
  * [15] B. Schenke, C. Shen, and P. Tribedy, “Hybrid Color Glass Condensate and hydrodynamic description of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider small system scan”, Phys. Lett. B 803 (2020) 135322, arXiv:1908.06212 [nucl-th].
  * [16] J. Liu, C. Shen, and U. Heinz, “Pre-equilibrium evolution effects on heavy-ion collision observables”, Phys. Rev. C 91 (2015) 064906, arXiv:1504.02160 [nucl-th]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 92, 049904 (2015)].
  * [17] B. Schenke, P. Tribedy, and R. Venugopalan, “Fluctuating Glasma initial conditions and flow in heavy ion collisions”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 252301, arXiv:1202.6646 [nucl-th].
  * [18] B. Schenke, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, “Elliptic and triangular flow in event-by-event (3+1)D viscous hydrodynamics”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 042301, arXiv:1009.3244 [hep-ph].
  * [19] V. Greco, C. M. Ko, and P. Levai, “Parton coalescence and anti-proton / pion anomaly at RHIC”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 202302, arXiv:nucl-th/0301093.
  * [20] V. Greco, C. M. Ko, and P. Levai, “Parton coalescence at RHIC”, Phys. Rev. C 68 (2003) 034904, arXiv:nucl-th/0305024.
  * [21] R. J. Fries, B. Muller, C. Nonaka, and S. A. Bass, “Hadronization in heavy ion collisions: Recombination and fragmentation of partons”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 202303, arXiv:nucl-th/0301087.
  * [22] R. J. Fries, B. Muller, C. Nonaka, and S. A. Bass, “Hadron production in heavy ion collisions: Fragmentation and recombination from a dense parton phase”, Phys. Rev. C 68 (2003) 044902, arXiv:nucl-th/0306027.
  * [23] D. Teaney, “Chemical freezeout in heavy ion collisions”, arXiv:nucl-th/0204023.
  * [24] J. Manninen and F. Becattini, “Chemical freeze-out in ultra-relativistic heavy ion collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{NN}}}=$ 130 and 200 GeV”, Phys. Rev. C 78 (2008) 054901, arXiv:0806.4100 [nucl-th].
  * [25] U. W. Heinz and G. Kestin, “Jozso’s Legacy: Chemical and Kinetic Freeze-out in Heavy-Ion Collisions”, Eur. Phys. J. ST 155 (2008) 75–87, arXiv:0709.3366 [nucl-th].
  * [26] J. Steinheimer, J. Aichelin, M. Bleicher, and H. Stöcker, “Influence of the hadronic phase on observables in ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions”, Phys. Rev. C 95 (2017) 064902, arXiv:1703.06638 [nucl-th].
  * [27] C. Markert, “What do we learn from resonance production in heavy ion collisions?”, J. Phys. G 31 (2005) S169–S178, arXiv:nucl-ex/0503013.
  * [28] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Production of K${}^{*}(892)^{0}$ and $\phi(1020)$ in pp and Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02$ TeV”, Phys. Rev. C 106 (2022) 034907, arXiv:2106.13113 [nucl-ex].
  * [29] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “$K^{*}(892)^{0}$ and $\phi$(1020) production in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{NN}}}$ = 2.76 TeV”, Phys. Rev. C 91 (2015) 024609, arXiv:1404.0495 [nucl-ex].
  * [30] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Evidence of rescattering effect in Pb-Pb collisions at the LHC through production of $\rm{K}^{*}(892)^{0}$ and $\phi(1020)$ mesons”, Phys. Lett. B 802 (2020) 135225, arXiv:1910.14419 [nucl-ex].
  * [31] G.-Y. Qin and X.-N. Wang, “Jet quenching in high-energy heavy-ion collisions”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 24 (2015) 1530014, arXiv:1511.00790 [hep-ph].
  * [32] F.-X. Liu, Z.-L. She, H.-G. Xu, D.-M. Zhou, G. Chen, and B.-H. Sa, “Study of nuclear modification factors of deuteron and anti-deuteron in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76\ TeV$”, Sci. Rep. 12 (2022) 1772.
  * [33] C. Loizides, J. Nagle, and P. Steinberg, “Improved version of the PHOBOS Glauber Monte Carlo”, SoftwareX 1-2 (2015) 13–18, arXiv:1408.2549 [nucl-ex].
  * [34] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Production of charged pions, kaons, and (anti-)protons in Pb–Pb and inelastic $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV”, Phys. Rev. C 101 (2020) 044907, arXiv:1910.07678 [nucl-ex].
  * [35] ALICE Collaboration, 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. B 736 (2014) 196–207, arXiv:1401.1250 [nucl-ex].
  * [36] 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. C 93 (2016) 034913, arXiv:1506.07287 [nucl-ex].
  * [37] A. Motornenko, V. Vovchenko, C. Greiner, and H. Stoecker, “Kinetic freeze-out temperature from yields of short-lived resonances”, Phys. Rev. C 102 (2020) 024909, arXiv:1908.11730 [hep-ph].
  * [38] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC”, JINST 3 (2008) S08002.
  * [39] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Performance of the ALICE Experiment at the CERN LHC”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29 (2014) 1430044, arXiv:1402.4476 [nucl-ex].
  * [40] 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].
  * [41] J. Alme et al., “The ALICE TPC, a large 3-dimensional tracking device with fast readout for ultra-high multiplicity events”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 622 (2010) 316–367, arXiv:1001.1950 [physics.ins-det].
  * [42] ALICE Collaboration, G. Dellacasa et al., “ALICE technical design report of the time-of-flight system (TOF)”, CERN-LHCC-2000-012 .
  * [43] ALICE Collaboration, P. Cortese et al., “ALICE: Addendum to the technical design report of the time of flight system (TOF)”, CERN-LHCC-2002-016 .
  * [44] ALICE Collaboration, E. Abbas et al., “Performance of the ALICE VZERO system”, JINST 8 (2013) P10016, arXiv:1306.3130 [nucl-ex].
  * [45] Particle Data Group Collaboration, P. A. Zyla et al., “Review of Particle Physics”, PTEP 2020 (2020) 083C01.
  * [46] ALICE Collaboration, F. Carnesecchi, “Performance of the ALICE Time-Of-Flight detector at the LHC”, JINST 14 (2019) C06023, arXiv:1806.03825 [physics.ins-det].
  * [47] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Measurement of K∗(892)± production in inelastic pp collisions at the LHC”, Phys. Lett. B 828 (2022) 137013, arXiv:2105.05760 [nucl-ex].
  * [48] X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, “HIJING: A Monte Carlo model for multiple jet production in p p, p A and A A collisions”, Phys. Rev. D 44 (1991) 3501–3516.
  * [49] R. Brun, F. Bruyant, F. Carminati, S. Giani, M. Maire, A. McPherson, G. Patrick, and L. Urban, “GEANT Detector Description and Simulation Tool”, CERN Program Library, CERN, Geneva (1993) .
  * [50] 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.
  * [51] C. Tsallis, “Possible Generalization of Boltzmann-Gibbs Statistics”, J. Statist. Phys. 52 (1988) 479–487.
  * [52] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Production of light-flavor hadrons in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}~{}=~{}7\text{ and }\sqrt{s}=13\,\text{ TeV}$”, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 256, arXiv:2005.11120 [nucl-ex].
  * [53] D. Oliinychenko and C. Shen, “Resonance production in PbPb collisions at 5.02 TeV via hydrodynamics and hadronic afterburner”, arXiv:2105.07539 [hep-ph].
  * [54] J. Weil et al., “Particle production and equilibrium properties within a new hadron transport approach for heavy-ion collisions”, Phys. Rev. C 94 (2016) 054905, arXiv:1606.06642 [nucl-th].
  * [55] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Centrality dependence of $\pi$, K, p production in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV”, Phys. Rev. C 88 (2013) 044910, arXiv:1303.0737 [hep-ex].
  * [56] 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].
  * [57] V. Vovchenko, B. Dönigus, and H. Stoecker, “Canonical statistical model analysis of p-p , p -Pb, and Pb-Pb collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider”, Phys. Rev. C 100 (2019) 054906, arXiv:1906.03145 [hep-ph].

##  Appendix A The ALICE Collaboration

S. Acharya 126, D. Adamová 86, G. Aglieri Rinella 33, M. Agnello 30, N.
Agrawal 51, Z. Ahammed 134, S. Ahmad 16, S.U. Ahn 71, I. Ahuja 38, A.
Akindinov 142, M. Al-Turany 97, D. Aleksandrov 142, B. Alessandro 56, H.M.
Alfanda 6, R. Alfaro Molina 67, B. Ali 16, A. Alici 26, N. Alizadehvandchali
115, A. Alkin 33, J. Alme 21, G. Alocco 52, T. Alt 64, A.R. Altamura 50, I.
Altsybeev 95, M.N. Anaam 6, C. Andrei 46, N. Andreou 114, A. Andronic 137, V.
Anguelov 94, F. Antinori 54, P. Antonioli 51, N. Apadula 74, L. Aphecetche
103, H. Appelshäuser 64, C. Arata 73, S. Arcelli 26, M. Aresti 23, R. Arnaldi
56, J.G.M.C.A. Arneiro 110, I.C. Arsene 20, M. Arslandok 139, A. Augustinus
33, R. Averbeck 97, M.D. Azmi 16, H. Baba123, A. Badalà 53, J. Bae 104, Y.W.
Baek 41, X. Bai 119, R. Bailhache 64, Y. Bailung 48, A. Balbino 30, A.
Baldisseri 129, B. Balis 2, D. Banerjee 4, Z. Banoo 91, R. Barbera 27, F.
Barile 32, L. Barioglio 95, M. Barlou78, B. Barman42, G.G. Barnaföldi 138,
L.S. Barnby 85, V. Barret 126, L. Barreto 110, C. Bartels 118, K. Barth 33, E.
Bartsch 64, N. Bastid 126, S. Basu 75, G. Batigne 103, D. Battistini 95, B.
Batyunya 143, D. Bauri47, J.L. Bazo Alba 101, I.G. Bearden 83, C. Beattie 139,
P. Becht 97, D. Behera 48, I. Belikov 128, A.D.C. Bell Hechavarria 137, F.
Bellini 26, R. Bellwied 115, S. Belokurova 142, Y.A.V. Beltran 45, G. Bencedi
138, S. Beole 25, Y. Berdnikov 142, A. Berdnikova 94, L. Bergmann 94, M.G.
Besoiu 63, L. Betev 33, P.P. Bhaduri 134, A. Bhasin 91, M.A. Bhat 4, B.
Bhattacharjee 42, L. Bianchi 25, N. Bianchi 49, J. Bielčík 36, J. Bielčíková
86, J. Biernat 107, A.P. Bigot 128, A. Bilandzic 95, G. Biro 138, S. Biswas 4,
N. Bize 103, J.T. Blair 108, D. Blau 142, M.B. Blidaru 97, N. Bluhme39, C.
Blume 64, G. Boca 22,55, F. Bock 87, T. Bodova 21, A. Bogdanov142, S. Boi 23,
J. Bok 58, L. Boldizsár 138, M. Bombara 38, P.M. Bond 33, G. Bonomi 133,55, H.
Borel 129, A. Borissov 142, A.G. Borquez Carcamo 94, H. Bossi 139, E. Botta
25, Y.E.M. Bouziani 64, L. Bratrud 64, P. Braun-Munzinger 97, M. Bregant 110,
M. Broz 36, G.E. Bruno 96,32, M.D. Buckland 24, D. Budnikov 142, H. Buesching
64, S. Bufalino 30, P. Buhler 102, N. Burmasov 142, Z. Buthelezi 68,122, A.
Bylinkin 21, S.A. Bysiak107, M. Cai 6, H. Caines 139, A. Caliva 29, E. Calvo
Villar 101, J.M.M. Camacho 109, P. Camerini 24, F.D.M. Canedo 110, M. Carabas
125, A.A. Carballo 33, F. Carnesecchi 33, R. Caron 127, L.A.D. Carvalho 110,
J. Castillo Castellanos 129, F. Catalano 33,25, C. Ceballos Sanchez 143, I.
Chakaberia 74, P. Chakraborty 47, S. Chandra 134, S. Chapeland 33, M. Chartier
118, S. Chattopadhyay 134, S. Chattopadhyay 99, T.G. Chavez 45, T. Cheng 97,6,
C. Cheshkov 127, B. Cheynis 127, V. Chibante Barroso 33, D.D. Chinellato 111,
E.S. Chizzali I,95, J. Cho 58, S. Cho 58, P. Chochula 33, D. Choudhury42, P.
Christakoglou 84, C.H. Christensen 83, P. Christiansen 75, T. Chujo 124, M.
Ciacco 30, C. Cicalo 52, F. Cindolo 51, M.R. Ciupek97, G. ClaiII,51, F.
Colamaria 50, J.S. Colburn100, D. Colella 96,32, M. Colocci 26, M. Concas
III,33, G. Conesa Balbastre 73, Z. Conesa del Valle 130, G. Contin 24, J.G.
Contreras 36, M.L. Coquet 129, P. Cortese 132,56, M.R. Cosentino 112, F. Costa
33, S. Costanza 22,55, C. Cot 130, J. Crkovská 94, P. Crochet 126, R. Cruz-
Torres 74, P. Cui 6, A. Dainese 54, M.C. Danisch 94, A. Danu 63, P. Das 80, P.
Das 4, S. Das 4, A.R. Dash 137, S. Dash 47, R.M.H. David45, A. De Caro 29, G.
de Cataldo 50, J. de Cuveland39, A. De Falco 23, D. De Gruttola 29, N. De
Marco 56, C. De Martin 24, S. De Pasquale 29, R. Deb 133, R. Del Grande 95, L.
Dello Stritto 29, W. Deng 6, P. Dhankher 19, D. Di Bari 32, A. Di Mauro 33, B.
Diab 129, R.A. Diaz 143,7, T. Dietel 113, Y. Ding 6, J. Ditzel 64, R. Divià
33, D.U. Dixit 19, Ø. Djuvsland21, U. Dmitrieva 142, A. Dobrin 63, B. Dönigus
64, J.M. Dubinski 135, A. Dubla 97, S. Dudi 90, P. Dupieux 126, M. Durkac106,
N. Dzalaiova13, T.M. Eder 137, R.J. Ehlers 74, F. Eisenhut 64, R. Ejima92, D.
Elia 50, B. Erazmus 103, F. Ercolessi 26, B. Espagnon 130, G. Eulisse 33, D.
Evans 100, S. Evdokimov 142, L. Fabbietti 95, M. Faggin 28, J. Faivre 73, F.
Fan 6, W. Fan 74, A. Fantoni 49, M. Fasel 87, P. Fecchio30, A. Feliciello 56,
G. Feofilov 142, A. Fernández Téllez 45, L. Ferrandi 110, M.B. Ferrer 33, A.
Ferrero 129, C. Ferrero 56, A. Ferretti 25, V.J.G. Feuillard 94, V. Filova 36,
D. Finogeev 142, F.M. Fionda 52, F. Flor 115, A.N. Flores 108, S. Foertsch 68,
I. Fokin 94, S. Fokin 142, E. Fragiacomo 57, E. Frajna 138, U. Fuchs 33, N.
Funicello 29, C. Furget 73, A. Furs 142, T. Fusayasu 98, J.J. Gaardhøje 83, M.
Gagliardi 25, A.M. Gago 101, T. Gahlaut47, C.D. Galvan 109, D.R. Gangadharan
115, P. Ganoti 78, C. Garabatos 97, A.T. Garcia 130, J.R.A. Garcia 45, E.
Garcia-Solis 9, C. Gargiulo 33, P. Gasik 97, A. Gautam 117, M.B. Gay Ducati
66, M. Germain 103, A. Ghimouz124, C. Ghosh134, M. Giacalone 51, G. Gioachin
30, P. Giubellino 97,56, P. Giubilato 28, A.M.C. Glaenzer 129, P. Glässel 94,
E. Glimos 121, D.J.Q. Goh76, V. Gonzalez 136, M. Gorgon 2, K. Goswami 48, S.
Gotovac34, V. Grabski 67, L.K. Graczykowski 135, E. Grecka 86, A. Grelli 59,
C. Grigoras 33, V. Grigoriev 142, S. Grigoryan 143,1, F. Grosa 33, J.F.
Grosse-Oetringhaus 33, R. Grosso 97, D. Grund 36, N.A. Grunwald94, G.G.
Guardiano 111, R. Guernane 73, M. Guilbaud 103, K. Gulbrandsen 83, T. Gündem
64, T. Gunji 123, W. Guo 6, A. Gupta 91, R. Gupta 91, R. Gupta 48, S.P. Guzman
45, K. Gwizdziel 135, L. Gyulai 138, C. Hadjidakis 130, F.U. Haider 91, S.
Haidlova 36, H. Hamagaki 76, A. Hamdi 74, Y. Han 140, B.G. Hanley 136, R.
Hannigan 108, J. Hansen 75, M.R. Haque 135, J.W. Harris 139, A. Harton 9, H.
Hassan 116, D. Hatzifotiadou 51, P. Hauer 43, L.B. Havener 139, S.T. Heckel
95, E. Hellbär 97, H. Helstrup 35, M. Hemmer 64, T. Herman 36, G. Herrera
Corral 8, F. Herrmann137, S. Herrmann 127, K.F. Hetland 35, B. Heybeck 64, H.
Hillemanns 33, B. Hippolyte 128, F.W. Hoffmann 70, B. Hofman 59, G.H. Hong
140, M. Horst 95, A. Horzyk2, Y. Hou 6, P. Hristov 33, C. Hughes 121, P.
Huhn64, L.M. Huhta 116, T.J. Humanic 88, A. Hutson 115, D. Hutter 39, R.
Ilkaev142, H. Ilyas 14, M. Inaba 124, G.M. Innocenti 33, M. Ippolitov 142, A.
Isakov 84,86, T. Isidori 117, M.S. Islam 99, M. Ivanov13, M. Ivanov 97, V.
Ivanov 142, K.E. Iversen 75, M. Jablonski 2, B. Jacak 74, N. Jacazio 26, P.M.
Jacobs 74, S. Jadlovska106, J. Jadlovsky106, S. Jaelani 82, C. Jahnke 111,
M.J. Jakubowska 135, M.A. Janik 135, T. Janson70, S. Ji 17, S. Jia 10, A.A.P.
Jimenez 65, F. Jonas 87, D.M. Jones 118, J.M. Jowett 33,97, J. Jung 64, M.
Jung 64, A. Junique 33, A. Jusko 100, M.J. Kabus 33,135, J. Kaewjai105, P.
Kalinak 60, A.S. Kalteyer 97, A. Kalweit 33, V. Kaplin 142, A. Karasu Uysal
72, D. Karatovic 89, O. Karavichev 142, T. Karavicheva 142, P. Karczmarczyk
135, E. Karpechev 142, U. Kebschull 70, R. Keidel 141, D.L.D. Keijdener59, M.
Keil 33, B. Ketzer 43, S.S. Khade 48, A.M. Khan 119,6, S. Khan 16, A.
Khanzadeev 142, Y. Kharlov 142, A. Khatun 117, A. Khuntia 36, B. Kileng 35, B.
Kim 104, C. Kim 17, D.J. Kim 116, E.J. Kim 69, J. Kim 140, J.S. Kim 41, J. Kim
58, J. Kim 69, M. Kim 19, S. Kim 18, T. Kim 140, K. Kimura 92, S. Kirsch 64,
I. Kisel 39, S. Kiselev 142, A. Kisiel 135, J.P. Kitowski 2, J.L. Klay 5, J.
Klein 33, S. Klein 74, C. Klein-Bösing 137, M. Kleiner 64, T. Klemenz 95, A.
Kluge 33, A.G. Knospe 115, C. Kobdaj 105, T. Kollegger97, A. Kondratyev 143,
N. Kondratyeva 142, E. Kondratyuk 142, J. Konig 64, S.A. Konigstorfer 95, P.J.
Konopka 33, G. Kornakov 135, S.D. Koryciak 2, A. Kotliarov 86, V. Kovalenko
142, M. Kowalski 107, V. Kozhuharov 37, I. Králik 60, A. Kravčáková 38, L.
Krcal 33,39, M. Krivda 100,60, F. Krizek 86, K. Krizkova Gajdosova 33, M.
Kroesen 94, M. Krüger 64, D.M. Krupova 36, E. Kryshen 142, V. Kučera 58, C.
Kuhn 128, P.G. Kuijer 84, T. Kumaoka124, D. Kumar134, L. Kumar 90, N. Kumar90,
S. Kumar 32, S. Kundu 33, P. Kurashvili 79, A. Kurepin 142, A.B. Kurepin 142,
A. Kuryakin 142, S. Kushpil 86, M.J. Kweon 58, Y. Kwon 140, S.L. La Pointe 39,
P. La Rocca 27, A. Lakrathok105, M. Lamanna 33, R. Langoy 120, P. Larionov 33,
E. Laudi 33, L. Lautner 33,95, R. Lavicka 102, R. Lea 133,55, H. Lee 104, I.
Legrand 46, G. Legras 137, J. Lehrbach 39, T.M. Lelek2, R.C. Lemmon 85, I.
León Monzón 109, M.M. Lesch 95, E.D. Lesser 19, P. Lévai 138, X. Li10, J. Lien
120, R. Lietava 100, I. Likmeta 115, B. Lim 25, S.H. Lim 17, V. Lindenstruth
39, A. Lindner46, C. Lippmann 97, D.H. Liu 6, J. Liu 118, G.S.S. Liveraro 111,
I.M. Lofnes 21, C. Loizides 87, S. Lokos 107, J. Lomker 59, P. Loncar34, X.
Lopez 126, E. López Torres 7, P. Lu 97,119, F.V. Lugo 67, J.R. Luhder 137, M.
Lunardon 28, G. Luparello 57, Y.G. Ma 40, M. Mager 33, A. Maire 128, M.V.
Makariev 37, M. Malaev 142, G. Malfattore 26, N.M. Malik 91, Q.W. Malik20,
S.K. Malik 91, L. Malinina VI,143, D. Mallick 130,80, N. Mallick 48, G.
Mandaglio 31,53, S.K. Mandal 79, V. Manko 142, F. Manso 126, V. Manzari 50, Y.
Mao 6, R.W. Marcjan 2, G.V. Margagliotti 24, A. Margotti 51, A. Marín 97, C.
Markert 108, P. Martinengo 33, M.I. Martínez 45, G. Martínez García 103,
M.P.P. Martins 110, S. Masciocchi 97, M. Masera 25, A. Masoni 52, L.
Massacrier 130, O. Massen 59, A. Mastroserio 131,50, O. Matonoha 75, S.
Mattiazzo 28, A. Matyja 107, C. Mayer 107, A.L. Mazuecos 33, F. Mazzaschi 25,
M. Mazzilli 33, J.E. Mdhluli 122, Y. Melikyan 44, A. Menchaca-Rocha 67, J.E.M.
Mendez 65, E. Meninno 102,29, A.S. Menon 115, M. Meres 13, S. Mhlanga113,68,
Y. Miake124, L. Micheletti 33, D.L. Mihaylov 95, K. Mikhaylov 143,142, A.N.
Mishra 138, D. Miśkowiec 97, A. Modak 4, B. Mohanty80, M. Mohisin Khan IV,16,
M.A. Molander 44, S. Monira 135, C. Mordasini 116, D.A. Moreira De Godoy 137,
I. Morozov 142, A. Morsch 33, T. Mrnjavac 33, V. Muccifora 49, S. Muhuri 134,
J.D. Mulligan 74, A. Mulliri23, M.G. Munhoz 110, R.H. Munzer 64, H. Murakami
123, S. Murray 113, L. Musa 33, J. Musinsky 60, J.W. Myrcha 135, B. Naik 122,
A.I. Nambrath 19, B.K. Nandi 47, R. Nania 51, E. Nappi 50, A.F. Nassirpour 18,
A. Nath 94, C. Nattrass 121, M.N. Naydenov 37, A. Neagu20, A. Negru125, L.
Nellen 65, R. Nepeivoda 75, S. Nese 20, G. Neskovic 39, N. Nicassio 50, B.S.
Nielsen 83, E.G. Nielsen 83, S. Nikolaev 142, S. Nikulin 142, V. Nikulin 142,
F. Noferini 51, S. Noh 12, P. Nomokonov 143, J. Norman 118, N. Novitzky 87, P.
Nowakowski 135, A. Nyanin 142, J. Nystrand 21, M. Ogino 76, S. Oh 18, A.
Ohlson 75, V.A. Okorokov 142, J. Oleniacz 135, A.C. Oliveira Da Silva 121, A.
Onnerstad 116, C. Oppedisano 56, A. Ortiz Velasquez 65, J. Otwinowski 107, M.
Oya92, K. Oyama 76, Y. Pachmayer 94, S. Padhan 47, D. Pagano 133,55, G. Paić
65, A. Palasciano 50, S. Panebianco 129, H. Park 124, H. Park 104, J. Park 58,
J.E. Parkkila 33, Y. Patley 47, R.N. Patra91, B. Paul 23, H. Pei 6, T.
Peitzmann 59, X. Peng 11, M. Pennisi 25, S. Perciballi 25, D. Peresunko 142,
G.M. Perez 7, Y. Pestov142, V. Petrov 142, M. Petrovici 46, R.P. Pezzi 103,66,
S. Piano 57, M. Pikna 13, P. Pillot 103, O. Pinazza 51,33, L. Pinsky115, C.
Pinto 95, S. Pisano 49, M. Płoskoń 74, M. Planinic89, F. Pliquett64, M.G.
Poghosyan 87, B. Polichtchouk 142, S. Politano 30, N. Poljak 89, A. Pop 46, S.
Porteboeuf-Houssais 126, V. Pozdniakov 143, I.Y. Pozos 45, K.K. Pradhan 48,
S.K. Prasad 4, S. Prasad 48, R. Preghenella 51, F. Prino 56, C.A. Pruneau 136,
I. Pshenichnov 142, M. Puccio 33, S. Pucillo 25, Z. Pugelova106, S. Qiu 84, L.
Quaglia 25, S. Ragoni 15, A. Rai 139, A. Rakotozafindrabe 129, L. Ramello
132,56, F. Rami 128, S.A.R. Ramirez 45, T.A. Rancien73, M. Rasa 27, S.S.
Räsänen 44, R. Rath 51, M.P. Rauch 21, I. Ravasenga 84, K.F. Read 87,121, C.
Reckziegel 112, A.R. Redelbach 39, K. Redlich V,79, C.A. Reetz 97, A.
Rehman21, F. Reidt 33, H.A. Reme-Ness 35, Z. Rescakova38, K. Reygers 94, A.
Riabov 142, V. Riabov 142, R. Ricci 29, M. Richter 20, A.A. Riedel 95, W.
Riegler 33, A.G. Riffero 25, C. Ristea 63, M.V. Rodriguez 33, M. Rodríguez
Cahuantzi 45, K. Røed 20, R. Rogalev 142, E. Rogochaya 143, T.S. Rogoschinski
64, D. Rohr 33, D. Röhrich 21, P.F. Rojas45, S. Rojas Torres 36, P.S. Rokita
135, G. Romanenko 26, F. Ronchetti 49, A. Rosano 31,53, E.D. Rosas65, K.
Roslon 135, A. Rossi 54, A. Roy 48, S. Roy 47, N. Rubini 26, D. Ruggiano 135,
R. Rui 24, P.G. Russek 2, R. Russo 84, A. Rustamov 81, E. Ryabinkin 142, Y.
Ryabov 142, A. Rybicki 107, H. Rytkonen 116, J. Ryu 17, W. Rzesa 135, O.A.M.
Saarimaki 44, S. Sadhu 32, S. Sadovsky 142, J. Saetre 21, K. Šafařík 36, P.
Saha42, S.K. Saha 4, S. Saha 80, B. Sahoo 47, B. Sahoo 48, R. Sahoo 48, S.
Sahoo61, D. Sahu 48, P.K. Sahu 61, J. Saini 134, K. Sajdakova38, S. Sakai 124,
M.P. Salvan 97, S. Sambyal 91, D. Samitz 102, I. Sanna 33,95, T.B.
Saramela110, P. Sarma 42, V. Sarritzu 23, V.M. Sarti 95, M.H.P. Sas 139, S.
Sawan80, J. Schambach 87, H.S. Scheid 64, C. Schiaua 46, R. Schicker 94, A.
Schmah97, C. Schmidt 97, H.R. Schmidt93, M.O. Schmidt 33, M. Schmidt93, N.V.
Schmidt 87, A.R. Schmier 121, R. Schotter 128, A. Schröter 39, J. Schukraft
33, K. Schweda 97, G. Scioli 26, E. Scomparin 56, J.E. Seger 15, Y.
Sekiguchi123, D. Sekihata 123, M. Selina 84, I. Selyuzhenkov 97, S. Senyukov
128, J.J. Seo 94,58, D. Serebryakov 142, L. Šerkšnytė 95, A. Sevcenco 63, T.J.
Shaba 68, A. Shabetai 103, R. Shahoyan33, A. Shangaraev 142, A. Sharma90, B.
Sharma 91, D. Sharma 47, H. Sharma 54,107, M. Sharma 91, S. Sharma 76, S.
Sharma 91, U. Sharma 91, A. Shatat 130, O. Sheibani115, K. Shigaki 92, M.
Shimomura77, J. Shin12, S. Shirinkin 142, Q. Shou 40, Y. Sibiriak 142, S.
Siddhanta 52, T. Siemiarczuk 79, T.F. Silva 110, D. Silvermyr 75, T.
Simantathammakul105, R. Simeonov 37, B. Singh91, B. Singh 95, K. Singh 48, R.
Singh 80, R. Singh 91, R. Singh 48, S. Singh 16, V.K. Singh 134, V. Singhal
134, T. Sinha 99, B. Sitar 13, M. Sitta 132,56, T.B. Skaali20, G. Skorodumovs
94, M. Slupecki 44, N. Smirnov 139, R.J.M. Snellings 59, E.H. Solheim 20, J.
Song 17, C. Sonnabend 33,97, F. Soramel 28, A.B. Soto-hernandez 88, R.
Spijkers 84, I. Sputowska 107, J. Staa 75, J. Stachel 94, I. Stan 63, P.J.
Steffanic 121, S.F. Stiefelmaier 94, D. Stocco 103, I. Storehaug 20, P.
Stratmann 137, S. Strazzi 26, A. Sturniolo 31,53, C.P. Stylianidis84, A.A.P.
Suaide 110, C. Suire 130, M. Sukhanov 142, M. Suljic 33, R. Sultanov 142, V.
Sumberia 91, S. Sumowidagdo 82, S. Swain61, I. Szarka 13, M. Szymkowski 135,
S.F. Taghavi 95, G. Taillepied 97, J. Takahashi 111, G.J. Tambave 80, S. Tang
6, Z. Tang 119, J.D. Tapia Takaki 117, N. Tapus125, L.A. Tarasovicova 137,
M.G. Tarzila 46, G.F. Tassielli 32, A. Tauro 33, G. Tejeda Muñoz 45, A.
Telesca 33, L. Terlizzi 25, C. Terrevoli 115, S. Thakur 4, D. Thomas 108, A.
Tikhonov 142, A.R. Timmins 115, M. Tkacik106, T. Tkacik 106, A. Toia 64, R.
Tokumoto92, K. Tomohiro92, N. Topilskaya 142, M. Toppi 49, T. Tork 130, V.V.
Torres 103, A.G. Torres Ramos 32, A. Trifiró 31,53, A.S. Triolo 33,31,53, S.
Tripathy 51, T. Tripathy 47, S. Trogolo 33, V. Trubnikov 3, W.H. Trzaska 116,
T.P. Trzcinski 135, A. Tumkin 142, R. Turrisi 54, T.S. Tveter 20, K. Ullaland
21, B. Ulukutlu 95, A. Uras 127, G.L. Usai 23, M. Vala38, N. Valle 22, L.V.R.
van Doremalen59, M. van Leeuwen 84, C.A. van Veen 94, R.J.G. van Weelden 84,
P. Vande Vyvre 33, D. Varga 138, Z. Varga 138, M. Vasileiou 78, A. Vasiliev
142, O. Vázquez Doce 49, O. Vazquez Rueda 115, V. Vechernin 142, E. Vercellin
25, S. Vergara Limón45, R. Verma47, L. Vermunt 97, R. Vértesi 138, M. Verweij
59, L. Vickovic34, Z. Vilakazi122, O. Villalobos Baillie 100, A. Villani 24,
A. Vinogradov 142, T. Virgili 29, M.M.O. Virta 116, V. Vislavicius75, A.
Vodopyanov 143, B. Volkel 33, M.A. Völkl 94, K. Voloshin142, S.A. Voloshin
136, G. Volpe 32, B. von Haller 33, I. Vorobyev 95, N. Vozniuk 142, J.
Vrláková 38, J. Wan40, C. Wang 40, D. Wang40, Y. Wang 40, Y. Wang 6, A.
Wegrzynek 33, F.T. Weiglhofer39, S.C. Wenzel 33, J.P. Wessels 137, S.L.
Weyhmiller 139, J. Wiechula 64, J. Wikne 20, G. Wilk 79, J. Wilkinson 97, G.A.
Willems 137, B. Windelband 94, M. Winn 129, J.R. Wright 108, W. Wu40, Y. Wu
119, R. Xu 6, A. Yadav 43, A.K. Yadav 134, S. Yalcin 72, Y. Yamaguchi 92, S.
Yang21, S. Yano 92, Z. Yin 6, I.-K. Yoo 17, J.H. Yoon 58, H. Yu12, S. Yuan21,
A. Yuncu 94, V. Zaccolo 24, C. Zampolli 33, F. Zanone 94, N. Zardoshti 33, A.
Zarochentsev 142, P. Závada 62, N. Zaviyalov142, M. Zhalov 142, B. Zhang 6, C.
Zhang 129, L. Zhang 40, S. Zhang 40, X. Zhang 6, Y. Zhang119, Z. Zhang 6, M.
Zhao 10, V. Zherebchevskii 142, Y. Zhi10, D. Zhou 6, Y. Zhou 83, J. Zhu 97,6,
Y. Zhu6, S.C. Zugravel 56, N. Zurlo 133,55

## Affiliation Notes

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

## Collaboration Institutes

1 A.I. Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics Institute)
Foundation, Yerevan, Armenia
2 AGH University of Krakow, Cracow, Poland
3 Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, National Academy of Sciences
of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine
4 Bose Institute, Department of Physics and Centre for Astroparticle Physics
and Space Science (CAPSS), Kolkata, India
5 California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California, United
States
6 Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China
7 Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Havana,
Cuba
8 Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados (CINVESTAV), Mexico City and
Mérida, Mexico
9 Chicago State University, Chicago, Illinois, United States
10 China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China
11 China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, China
12 Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea
13 Comenius University Bratislava, Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and
Informatics, Bratislava, Slovak Republic
14 COMSATS University Islamabad, Islamabad, Pakistan
15 Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, United States
16 Department of Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India
17 Department of Physics, Pusan National University, Pusan, Republic of Korea
18 Department of Physics, Sejong University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
19 Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, California,
United States
20 Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
21 Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
22 Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy
23 Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Cagliari, Italy
24 Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Trieste, Italy
25 Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy
26 Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN,
Bologna, Italy
27 Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN,
Catania, Italy
28 Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN,
Padova, Italy
29 Dipartimento di Fisica ‘E.R. Caianiello’ dell’Università and Gruppo
Collegato INFN, Salerno, Italy
30 Dipartimento DISAT del Politecnico and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy
31 Dipartimento di Scienze MIFT, Università di Messina, Messina, Italy
32 Dipartimento Interateneo di Fisica ‘M. Merlin’ and Sezione INFN, Bari,
Italy
33 European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
34 Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval
Architecture, University of Split, Split, Croatia
35 Faculty of Engineering and Science, Western Norway University of Applied
Sciences, Bergen, Norway
36 Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering, Czech Technical
University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
37 Faculty of Physics, Sofia University, Sofia, Bulgaria
38 Faculty of Science, P.J. Šafárik University, Košice, Slovak Republic
39 Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-
Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
40 Fudan University, Shanghai, China
41 Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, Republic of Korea
42 Gauhati University, Department of Physics, Guwahati, India
43 Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlen- und Kernphysik, Rheinische Friedrich-
Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany
44 Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Helsinki, Finland
45 High Energy Physics Group, Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
46 Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering,
Bucharest, Romania
47 Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT), Mumbai, India
48 Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore, India
49 INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
50 INFN, Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy
51 INFN, Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
52 INFN, Sezione di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
53 INFN, Sezione di Catania, Catania, Italy
54 INFN, Sezione di Padova, Padova, Italy
55 INFN, Sezione di Pavia, Pavia, Italy
56 INFN, Sezione di Torino, Turin, Italy
57 INFN, Sezione di Trieste, Trieste, Italy
58 Inha University, Incheon, Republic of Korea
59 Institute for Gravitational and Subatomic Physics (GRASP), Utrecht
University/Nikhef, Utrecht, Netherlands
60 Institute of Experimental Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Košice,
Slovak Republic
61 Institute of Physics, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Bhubaneswar, India
62 Institute of Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech
Republic
63 Institute of Space Science (ISS), Bucharest, Romania
64 Institut für Kernphysik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt,
Frankfurt, Germany
65 Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,
Mexico City, Mexico
66 Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS),
Porto Alegre, Brazil
67 Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City,
Mexico
68 iThemba LABS, National Research Foundation, Somerset West, South Africa
69 Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea
70 Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe Universität Frankfurt Institut für Informatik,
Fachbereich Informatik und Mathematik, Frankfurt, Germany
71 Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon, Republic of
Korea
72 KTO Karatay University, Konya, Turkey
73 Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie, Université Grenoble-
Alpes, CNRS-IN2P3, Grenoble, France
74 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, United States
75 Lund University Department of Physics, Division of Particle Physics, Lund,
Sweden
76 Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science, Nagasaki, Japan
77 Nara Women’s University (NWU), Nara, Japan
78 National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Science,
Department of Physics , Athens, Greece
79 National Centre for Nuclear Research, Warsaw, Poland
80 National Institute of Science Education and Research, Homi Bhabha National
Institute, Jatni, India
81 National Nuclear Research Center, Baku, Azerbaijan
82 National Research and Innovation Agency - BRIN, Jakarta, Indonesia
83 Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
84 Nikhef, National institute for subatomic physics, Amsterdam, Netherlands
85 Nuclear Physics Group, STFC Daresbury Laboratory, Daresbury, United Kingdom
86 Nuclear Physics Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Husinec-Řež,
Czech Republic
87 Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States
88 Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States
89 Physics department, Faculty of science, University of Zagreb, Zagreb,
Croatia
90 Physics Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
91 Physics Department, University of Jammu, Jammu, India
92 Physics Program and International Institute for Sustainability with Knotted
Chiral Meta Matter (SKCM2), Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan
93 Physikalisches Institut, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Tübingen,
Germany
94 Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg,
Germany
95 Physik Department, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany
96 Politecnico di Bari and Sezione INFN, Bari, Italy
97 Research Division and ExtreMe Matter Institute EMMI, GSI Helmholtzzentrum
für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany
98 Saga University, Saga, Japan
99 Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kolkata,
India
100 School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham,
United Kingdom
101 Sección Física, Departamento de Ciencias, Pontificia Universidad Católica
del Perú, Lima, Peru
102 Stefan Meyer Institut für Subatomare Physik (SMI), Vienna, Austria
103 SUBATECH, IMT Atlantique, Nantes Université, CNRS-IN2P3, Nantes, France
104 Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon City, Republic of Korea
105 Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand
106 Technical University of Košice, Košice, Slovak Republic
107 The Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of
Sciences, Cracow, Poland
108 The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States
109 Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Culiacán, Mexico
110 Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil
111 Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil
112 Universidade Federal do ABC, Santo Andre, Brazil
113 University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
114 University of Derby, Derby, United Kingdom
115 University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
116 University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland
117 University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, United States
118 University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
119 University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China
120 University of South-Eastern Norway, Kongsberg, Norway
121 University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States
122 University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
123 University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
124 University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
125 University Politehnica of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania
126 Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France
127 Université de Lyon, CNRS/IN2P3, Institut de Physique des 2 Infinis de
Lyon, Lyon, France
128 Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, F-67000 Strasbourg, France,
Strasbourg, France
129 Université Paris-Saclay, Centre d’Etudes de Saclay (CEA), IRFU, Départment
de Physique Nucléaire (DPhN), Saclay, France
130 Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS/IN2P3, IJCLab, Orsay, France
131 Università degli Studi di Foggia, Foggia, Italy
132 Università del Piemonte Orientale, Vercelli, Italy
133 Università di Brescia, Brescia, Italy
134 Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kolkata,
India
135 Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland
136 Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, United States
137 Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Institut für Kernphysik,
Münster, Germany
138 Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
139 Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States
140 Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
141 Zentrum für Technologie und Transfer (ZTT), Worms, Germany
142 Affiliated with an institute covered by a cooperation agreement with CERN
143 Affiliated with an international laboratory covered by a cooperation
agreement with CERN.