105 30 April 2015 ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ and
${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$ production in Pb–Pb collisions

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

The production of the hypertriton nuclei ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ and
${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$ has been measured for the first
time in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 2.76 TeV with the ALICE
experiment at LHC. The $p_{\rm T}$-integrated ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$
yield in one unity of rapidity, d$N$/d$y$
$\times\mathrm{B.R.}_{\left({}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}\rightarrow^{3}\mathrm{He},\pi^{-}\right)}$
= $\left(3.86\pm 0.77(\mathrm{stat.})\pm 0.68(\mathrm{syst.})\right)\times$
10-5 in the 0–10% most central collisions, is consistent with the predictions
from a statistical thermal model using the same temperature as for the light
hadrons. The coalescence parameter $B_{3}$ shows a dependence on the
transverse momentum, similar to the $B_{2}$ of deuterons and the $B_{3}$ of
${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$ nuclei. The ratio of yields $S_{3}$ =
${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$/(${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$$\times\Lambda/\mathrm{p}$)
was measured to be $S_{3}$ = 0.60 $\pm$ 0.13 (stat.) $\pm$ 0.21 (syst.) in
0–10% centrality events; this value is compared to different theoretical
models. The measured $S_{3}$ is compatible with thermal model predictions. The
measured ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ lifetime,
$\tau=181^{+54}_{-39}(\mathrm{stat.})\pm 33(\mathrm{syst.})\ \mathrm{ps}$ is
in agreement within 1$\sigma$ with the world average value.

##  1 Introduction and Physics Motivations

High-energy heavy-ion collisions offer a unique way to study the behaviour of
nuclear matter under conditions of extreme energy densities. At LHC energies,
particles carrying strangeness are abundantly produced and light clusters of
nucleons and hyperons, called hypernuclei, are expected to be formed [1].
Since their first observation [2], there has been a constant interest in
searching for new hypernuclei as they offer an experimental way to study the
hyperon-baryon ($YN$) and the hyperon-hyperon ($YY$) interactions, which are
relevant for nuclear physics and nuclear astrophysics. For instance, the $YN$
interaction plays a key role in understanding the structure of neutron stars
[3, 4, 5, 6]. The production of hypernuclei in heavy-ion collisions has been
proposed and studied for a long time [7, 8] and at ultrarelativistic energies
it is possible to produce particles otherwise inaccessible, such as anti-
hypernuclei. In fact, while many $\Lambda$-hypernuclei have been observed, the
first observation of an anti-hypernucleus is rather recent and was reported
from the analysis of Au–Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 200 GeV by the
STAR Collaboration at RHIC [9]. Since hypernuclei are weakly bound nuclear
systems, they are sensitive probes of the final stages of the evolution of the
fireball formed in the heavy-ion collisions [10]. The yield of hypernuclei can
distinguish between different production scenarios, usually described using
two different theoretical approaches. The first one is based on a coalescence
model [11], while the second one is based on the assumption that all the
particle species can be described using a statistical thermal model [12]. In
the statistical thermal model a constant entropy over baryon ratio [13] could
explain why objects with such a small binding energy (few MeV) could survive
the high temperature ($\approx$ 170 MeV) expanding fireball. On the other
hand, if hypernuclei are produced through coalescence of protons, neutrons and
hyperons at freeze-out [14], they will provide a measurement of the local
correlation between baryons and hyperons (strangeness)[15].
This letter presents a study of hypertriton and anti-hypertriton production at
$\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 2.76 TeV Pb–Pb collisions by the ALICE
collaboration.The paper is organised as follows. In Section 2 the ALICE
detector is briefly described. The data sample, analysis details and
systematic uncertainties are presented in Section 3. In Section 4 the obtained
results are compared with theoretical models. Finally the conclusions are
drawn in Section 5.

##  2 The ALICE detector

A detailed description of the ALICE detector can be found in [16] and
references therein. For the present analysis the main sub-detectors used are
the V0 detectors, the Inner Tracking System (ITS) and the Time Projection
Chamber (TPC), which are located inside a 0.5 T solenoidal magnetic field. The
V0 [17] detectors are placed around the beam-pipe on either side of the
interaction point: one covering the pseudorapidity range $2.8<\eta<5.1$ (V0-A)
and the other one covering $-3.7<\eta<-1.7$ (V0-C). The collision centrality
is estimated by using the multiplicity measured in the V0 detectors along with
a Glauber model simulation to describe the multiplicity distribution as a
function of the impact parameter [18, 19]. The ITS [20] has six cylindrical
layers of silicon detectors with radii between 3.9 and 43 cm from the beam
axis, covering the full azimuthal angle and the pseudorapidity range of
$|\eta|<0.9$. The same pseudorapidity range is covered by the TPC [21], which
is the main tracking detector. Hits in the ITS and found clusters in the TPC
are used to reconstruct charged-particle tracks. These are used to determine
the primary collision vertex with a resolution of about 10 $\mu$m in the
direction transverse to the beams for heavy-ion collisions. The TPC is used
for particle identification through the d$E$/d$x$ (specific energy loss) in
the TPC gas.

##  3 Analysis

The (anti-)hypertriton (${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$)
${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ is the lightest observed hypernucleus and is a
bound state formed by a (anti-)proton, a (anti-)neutron and a
(anti-)$\Lambda$. The ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ and
${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$ production yields were measured
by detecting their mesonic decay (${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ $\rightarrow$
${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$ \+ $\pi^{-}$) and
(${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$ $\rightarrow$
${}^{3}\mathrm{\overline{He}}$ \+ $\pi^{+}$) via the topological
identification of secondary vertices and the analysis of the invariant mass
distributions of (${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$+$\pi^{-}$) and
(${}^{3}\mathrm{\overline{He}}$\+ $\pi^{+}$) pairs.
The analysis was done using Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ =
2.76 TeV taken in 2011. The events were collected with an interaction trigger
requiring a signal in both V0-A and V0-C. Only events with a primary vertex
reconstructed within $\pm$10 cm, along the beam axis, from the nominal
position of the interaction point were selected. The analysed sample,
collected with two different centrality trigger configurations corresponding
to the 0–10% and 10–50% centrality intervals, contained approximately
20$\times$106 and 17$\times$106 events, respectively.
The ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ can be identified via the invariant mass of
its decay products and, since it has a lifetime similar to the free $\Lambda$
($c\tau$ $\sim$ 8 cm), in most cases it is possible to identify its decay up
to a few cm away from the primary vertex. The decay vertex was determined by
exploiting a set of geometrical selections: i) the distance of closest
approach (DCA) between the two particle tracks identified using d$E$/d$x$ in
the TPC as ${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$ and $\pi$, ii) the DCA of the $\pi$± tracks
from the primary vertex, iii) the cosine of the angle between the total
momentum of the decay pairs at the secondary vertex and a vector connecting
the primary vertex and the secondary vertex (pointing angle), and iv) a
selection on the proper lifetime ($c\tau$) of the candidate. An additional
selection on the ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$
(${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$) rapidity ($|y|<$0.5) was
applied.
Figure 1 shows the invariant mass distribution of
(${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$,$\pi^{-}$) on the left and
(${}^{3}\mathrm{\overline{He}}$,$\pi^{+}$) on the right for events with 10–50%
centrality in the pair transverse momentum range 2 $\leq$ $p_{\rm T}$ $<10$
GeV$\kern-1.49994pt/\kern-1.19995ptc$. In order to estimate the background,
for each event the $\pi$ track detected at the secondary vertex was rotated 20
times by a random azimuthal angle. The shape of the corresponding
(${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$, $\pi$) invariant mass distribution was found to
reproduce the observed background outside the signal region. The data points
were fitted with a function which is the sum of a Gaussian and a third degree
polynomial, used to describe the signal and the background, respectively. The
background was normalized to the measured values in the 3.01 – 3.08
GeV$\kern-1.49994pt/\kern-1.19995ptc^{2}$ region. The fit to the background
distribution was used to fix the parameters of the polynomial in the combined
fit.

|
---|---
Figure 1: Invariant mass of (${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$,$\pi^{-}$) (left) and
(${}^{3}\mathrm{\overline{He}}$,$\pi^{+}$) (right) for events with 10–50%
centrality in the pair 2 $\leq$ $p_{\rm T}$ $<$ 10
GeV$\kern-1.49994pt/\kern-1.19995ptc$ interval. The data points are shown as
filled circles, while the squares represent the background distribution as
described in the text. The curve represents the function used to perform the
fit and used to evaluate the background and the raw signal. The significance
in $\pm$3$\sigma$ around the peak is 3.5 and 3.0 for the invariant mass
distribution of (${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$,$\pi^{-}$) and
(${}^{3}\mathrm{\overline{He}}$,$\pi^{+}$), respectively.

In the 0–10% most central collisions, a signal was extracted in three
transverse momentum intervals (2 $\leq$ $p_{\rm T}$ $<$ 4
GeV$\kern-1.49994pt/\kern-1.19995ptc$, 4 $\leq$ $p_{\rm T}$ $<$ 6
GeV$\kern-1.49994pt/\kern-1.19995ptc$, 6 $\leq$ $p_{\rm T}$ $<$ 10
GeV$\kern-1.49994pt/\kern-1.19995ptc$) , for both ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$
and ${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$. In the 10–50% centrality
class a signal both for ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ and
${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$ was obtained for the full
$p_{\rm T}$ range under study (2 $\leq$ $p_{\rm T}$ $<$ 10
GeV$\kern-1.49994pt/\kern-1.19995ptc$). From the combined fit results the mean
value, the width and the yield of the signal were extracted. The mean
invariant mass ($\mu$ = 2.991 $\pm$ 0.001 (stat.) $\pm$ 0.003 (syst.)
GeV$\kern-1.49994pt/\kern-1.19995ptc^{2}$) is compatible within uncertainties
with the mass from the literature [22]. The signal width, $\sigma$ = (3.01
$\pm$ 0.24 (stat.))$\times$10-3GeV$\kern-1.49994pt/\kern-1.19995ptc^{2}$
obtained as the mean value of all the measured widths, is reproduced by Monte
Carlo simulations and is driven by detector resolution. The raw yield of the
signal was defined as the integral of the Gaussian function in a $\pm$ 3
$\sigma$ region around the mean value. The significance of both matter and
anti-matter signals varies in the different $p_{\rm T}$ bins in the range of
3.0–3.2 $\sigma$ for the most central collisions (0–10%) and ranges from 3 to
3.5 $\sigma$ for the semi-central ones (10–50%).
A correction factor which takes into account the detector acceptance, the
reconstruction efficiency, and the absorption of ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$
(${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$) by the material crossed was
determined as a function of $p_{\rm T}$. Detector acceptance and
reconstruction efficiency were evaluated using a dedicated HIJING Monte Carlo
simulation [23], where the only allowed decay was the two-body decay to
charged particles, (${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ $\rightarrow$
${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$ \+ $\pi^{-}$) and
(${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$ $\rightarrow$
${}^{3}\mathrm{\overline{He}}$ \+ $\pi^{+}$). The simulated particles were
propagated through the detector using the GEANT3 transport code [24] and then
processed with the same reconstruction chain as for the data.
Since the absorption of (anti-)(hyper)nuclei is not properly implemented in
GEANT3, a correction based on the p ($\overline{\mathrm{p}}$) absorption was
applied in order to take into account the absorption of
${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ (${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$)
and ${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$ (${}^{3}\mathrm{\overline{He}}$) by the material of
the ALICE detector. In this approach, the ${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$ and
${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ were treated as states of three independent p
($\overline{\mathrm{p}}$). The ${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$ was considered as a bound
state of 3 protons because the proton absorption correction in the ALICE
detector was measured [Abbas:2013rua]. The direct measurement offers the
advantage of having a probability density which takes into account the
effective material of the detector crossed by a charged particle. The effect
of using protons instead of neutrons was tested with deuterons, which were
considered as a bound state of 2 protons and the absorption correction was
evaluated with the same model used for ${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$. The result was
compared with the one obtained with the absorption correction of GEANT3
patched with hadronic cross sections for d and $\overline{\mathrm{d}}$. The
two calculated absorption corrections where found to be consistent within
uncertainties. To take into account the small $\Lambda$ separation energy
($B_{\Lambda}({{}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}})=0.13\pm 0.05$ MeV [25]), the
absorption cross section of the ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ was increased by
50% with respect to the one of the ${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$. This choice was based
on the theoretical calculation of ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ absorption
cross-section [Evlanov:1998py] on 238U and its ratio with the extrapolation of
${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$ cross section on the same target [Kox:1985ex]. Using the
same extrapolation it was possible to evaluate the same ratio on ALICE
materials. The correction applied to the extracted yield was about 12% for
${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ and about 22% for
${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$. The total systematic
uncertainty takes into account, as lower and upper limits of the
${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$(${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$)
absorption cross section, values respectively equal to or two times higher
than the absorption cross section of
${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$(${}^{3}\mathrm{\overline{He}}$). This uncertainty is
$p_{\rm T}$ dependent, and its values are reported in Table 1. Other sources
of systematic uncertainties in the yield evaluation were estimated:

  * •

The systematic uncertainty due to the single-track efficiency, and the
different choices of the track quality selections was taken from [26]. A 10%
uncertainty is quoted for the two body decay of ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$.

  * •

${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ lifetime: since the ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$
lifetime is not accurately known, the influence of varying the
${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ lifetime on the efficiency was evaluated by
variation of the proper lifetime of the injected ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$
in the Monte Carlo simulation. The associated uncertainty was estimated using
two additional dedicated Monte Carlo simulations with different lifetimes. The
injected lifetime of ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$
(${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$) was varied ($\pm$1$\sigma$)
with respect to the result obtained in this analysis, leading to an
uncertainty of 8.5%.

  * •

The uncertainty related to the signal extraction procedure was evaluated by
constraining fit parameters ($\mu$ and $\sigma$) in different ways. This
source led to a 9% uncertainty.

The systematic uncertainty due to the uncertainty of the ALICE detector
material budget and $p_{\rm T}$ distribution in the Monte Carlo used for the
efficiency estimation led to a 1% systematic uncertainty.
The ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ and
${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$ spectra are shown in Figure 2
(left panel), multiplied by the branching ratio (B.R.) of the
${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ $\rightarrow$ ${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$ \+ $\pi^{-}$
decay. The anti-hypertriton to hypertriton ratio as a function of $p_{\rm T}$
is shown in Figure 2 (right panel). It is consistent with unity over the whole
considered $p_{\rm T}$ range, as expected from zero net baryon density at LHC
energies. In the ratio, the common systematic uncertainties (tracking
efficiency, lifetime, and signal extraction method) cancel out and have
therefore been removed.

|
---|---
Figure 2: Left: Transverse momentum spectra multiplied by the B.R. of the
${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ $\rightarrow$ ${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$ \+ $\pi^{-}$
decay for ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ (filled circles) and
${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$ (squares) for the most central
(0–10%) Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 2.76 TeV for $|y|<$
0.5. Symbols are displaced for better visibility. The dashed lines are the
Blast-Wave curves used to extract the particle yields integrated over the full
$p_{\rm T}$ range. In order to take into account the large binning used in the
analysis and the limited number of bins, the center of each bin was evaluated
weighting the actual bin center with the Blast-Wave function. Right:
${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$ to ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$
ratio as a function of $p_{\rm T}$. In both panels statistical uncertainties
are represented by bars and systematic uncertainties are represented by open
boxes.

In order to take into account the unmeasured $p_{\rm T}$ region and to extract
the particle yields integrated over the full $p_{\rm T}$ range, the spectra
were fitted using a blast-wave function [27] whose parameter values were taken
from the deuteron analysis [28] leaving the normalization free. The function
fits the data with a $\chi^{2}$/NDF of 0.92. The extrapolation in the $p_{\rm
T}$$<$ 2 GeV$\kern-1.49994pt/\kern-1.19995ptc$ region contributes 28% to the
final yield for both ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ and
${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$, while the contribution for
$p_{\rm T}$ $>$ 10 GeV$\kern-1.49994pt/\kern-1.19995ptc$ is negligible.
Different transverse momentum distributions were used to evaluate the
systematic uncertainty related to the extrapolation, which was found to be 5%.

| ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ | ${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$
---|---|---
|  $p_{\rm T}$ intervals (GeV$\kern-1.49994pt/\kern-1.19995ptc$) |  $p_{\rm T}$ intervals (GeV$\kern-1.49994pt/\kern-1.19995ptc$)
| 2–4 | 4–6 | 6–10 | F.R. | 2–4 | 4–6 | 6–10 | F.R.
Absorption | 5.4% | 5.3 % | 5.4% | 5.4% | 13% | 10% | 8.9 % | 10.6%
Tracking efficiency | 10 % | 10 % | 10 % | 10 % | 10 % | 10 % | 10 % | 10 %
${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ lifetime | 8.5% | 8.5% | 8.5% | 8.5 % | 8.5% | 8.5% | 8.5% | 8.5 %
Signal extraction method | 9 % | 9 % | 9 % | 9 % | 9 % | 9 % | 9 % | 9 %
Extrapolation at low $p_{\rm T}$ | - | - | - | 5 % | - | - | - | 5 %
Total | 16.8% | 16.8% | 16.8% | 17.5% | 20.5% | 18.8% | 18.2% | 19.8 %
Table 1: Summary of systematic uncertainties for the three $p_{\rm T}$
intervals and in the full range (F.R.) considered. These uncertainties are the
same for events with 0–10% and 10–50% centrality. For the final systematic
uncertainty evaluation they were added in quadrature.

To determine the lifetime, the (${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ \+
${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$) sample was divided into four
intervals in $ct$ = ${MLc}/{p}$, where $M$ is the mass, $L$ the decay length,
$c$ is the speed of light, and $p$ is the total momentum. The mass was fixed
to the value from the literature $M$ = 2.991
GeV$\kern-1.49994pt/\kern-1.19995ptc^{2}$ [22]. For the determination of the
lifetime, both centrality classes 0–10% and 10–50% were used. The signal was
extracted in the intervals: 1 $\leq$ $ct$ $<$4 cm, 4 $\leq$ $ct$ $<$ 7 cm, 7
$\leq$ $ct$ $<$ 10 cm and 10 $\leq$ $ct$ $<$ 28 cm. To estimate the lifetime,
the raw signal was corrected by the detector acceptance, the reconstruction
efficiency and the absorption of ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$
(${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$) in the material. The same
dedicated HIJING Monte Carlo simulation and the same procedure used to
determine the $p_{\rm T}$ dependence of the efficiency were used. The sources
of systematic uncertainty are shown in Table 2.

Source | Value
---|---
Signal extraction method | 9%
Tracking efficiency | 10%
Absorption | 12%
Total | 18%
Table 2: Summary of systematic uncertainties for the determination of the
proper lifetime of
${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$+${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$.

An exponential fit was performed to determine the lifetime. The d$N$/d($ct$)
distribution and the exponential fit are shown in Figure 3. The vertical bars
show the statistical uncertainties and the boxes represent the systematic
uncertainties. The slope of the fit results in a proper decay length of
$c\tau$ = $\left(5.4^{+1.6}_{-1.2}(\mathrm{stat.})\pm
1.0(\mathrm{syst.})\right)$ cm.

Figure 3: Measured d$N$/d($ct$) distribution and an exponential fit used to
determine the lifetime. The bars and boxes are the statistical and systematic
uncertainties, respectively. Figure 4: ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ lifetime
($\tau$) measured by in this analysis (red diamond) compared with published
results. The band represents the world average of ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$
lifetime measurements $\left(\tau=215^{+18}_{-16}\right)$ ps, while the dashed
line represent the lifetime of $\Lambda$ as reported by the Particle Data
Group [30].

The lifetimes of light $\Lambda$-hypernuclei ($A\leq 4$) are expected to be
very similar to that of the free $\Lambda$, if the $\Lambda$ in the
hypernucleus is weakly bound [31]. The measured lifetimes of light hypernuclei
such as ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ [32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 9] are not
known as precisely as the $\Lambda$ lifetime, and theoretical predictions [39,
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 31] are scattered over a large range, too.
Recently, a statistical combination of the experimental lifetime estimations
of ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ available in literature was published,
resulting in an average value $\tau=\left(216^{+19}_{-18}\right)\ \mathrm{ps}$
[47].
With the present data, a lifetime of
$\tau=\left(181^{+54}_{-39}(\mathrm{stat.})\pm 33(\mathrm{syst.})\right)$ ps
has been obtained. It is compared with the previously published results in
Figure 4. Our result, together with the previous ones, was used to re-evaluate
the world average of the existing results using the same procedure as
described in [47]. The obtained value, $\tau=\left(215^{+18}_{-16}\
\mathrm{ps}\right)$, is shown as a band in Figure 4. The result obtained in
this analysis is compatible with the computed average.

##  4 Comparison between experimental yields and theoretical models

The product of the $p_{\rm T}$-integrated yield and the B.R. of the
${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ $\rightarrow$ (${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$ \+ $\pi^{-}$)
decay for ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ and
${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$ for two centrality classes
(0–10% and 10–50%) are reported in Table 3. The systematic uncertainties also
include the contribution due to the low $p_{\rm T}$ extrapolation as described
in Section 3.
It is possible to compare the $p_{\rm T}$-integrated
${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ yield at different centralities by scaling them
according to the charged-particle densities $\langle\mathrm{d}N_{ch}/\rm
d\eta\rangle$. For central (0–10%) collisions $\langle\mathrm{d}N_{ch}/\rm
d\eta\rangle$ = 1447 $\pm$ 39, while for semi-central (10–50%)
$\langle\mathrm{d}N_{ch}/\rm d\eta\rangle$ = 575 $\pm$ 12\. The ratio

$\frac{\left(\frac{\left({}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}+^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}\right)_{(0-10\%)}}{\left({}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}+^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}\right)_{(10-50\%)}}\right)}{\left(\frac{\langle\mathrm{d}N_{ch}/\rm
d\eta\rangle_{(0-10\%)}}{\langle\mathrm{d}N_{ch}/\rm
d\eta\rangle_{(10-50\%)}}\right)}=1.34\pm 0.35(\mathrm{stat.})\pm
0.24(\mathrm{syst.})$ (1)

is compatible with unity within 1 $\sigma$. The ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$
(${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$) production scales with
centrality like the charged-particle production.

Centrality | $\langle\mathrm{d}N_{ch}/\rm d\eta\rangle$ |  ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ d$N$/d$y$ $\times\ \mathrm{B.R.}\times 10^{5}$ |  ${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$ d$N$/d$y$ $\times\ \mathrm{B.R.}\times 10^{5}$
---|---|---|---
0–10% | 1447 $\pm$ 39 | $3.86\pm 0.77(\mathrm{stat.})\pm 0.68(\mathrm{syst.})$ | $3.47\pm 0.81(\mathrm{stat.})\pm 0.69(\mathrm{syst.})$
10–50% | 575 $\pm$ 12 | $1.31\pm 0.37(\mathrm{stat.})\pm 0.23(\mathrm{syst.})$ | $0.85\pm 0.29(\mathrm{stat.})\pm 0.17(\mathrm{syst.})$
Table 3: $p_{\rm T}$-integrated ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ yield times the
B.R. of the ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ $\rightarrow$ (${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$ \+
$\pi^{-}$) decay, for ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ and
${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$ in Pb–Pb collisions at
$\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 2.76 TeV for different centrality classes in
$|\rm{y}|<0.5$. For each centrality interval the average
$\langle\mathrm{d}N_{ch}/\rm d\eta\rangle$ is also reported [18].

###  4.1 Comparison between thermal models and experimental yields

Since the decay branching ratio of the ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$
$\rightarrow$ ${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$ \+ $\pi^{-}$ was estimated only relative to
the charged-pion channels [37], the corresponding value (B.R. = 35%) provides
an upper limit for the absolute branching ratio. On the other hand, a
theoretical estimation for the ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ $\rightarrow$
${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$ \+ $\pi^{-}$ decay branching ratio, which also takes into
account decays with neutral mesons decays, gave a B.R. = 25% [31]. Assuming a
possible variation on the B.R. in the range 15–35%, we show in Figure 5 a
comparison of our result with different theoretical model calculations [1, 48,
49]. The measured d$N$/d$y$ $\times\leavevmode\nobreak\ \mathrm{B.R.}$ is
shown as a horizontal line, where the band represent statistical and
systematic uncertainties added in quadrature while the different theoretical
models are shown as lines. The data are compared with the following models:
two versions of the statistical hadronization model [1, 48] and the hybrid
UrQMD model [49], which combines the hadronic transport approach with an
initial hydrodynamical stage for the hot and dense phase of a heavy-ion
collision. The two versions of the statistical hadronization model used are
the equilibrium statistical model (GSI-Heidelberg), described in [1] and
references therein, with a temperature $T_{\mathrm{ch}}$ = 156 MeV and the
non-equilibrium thermal model (SHARE), described in [48] and references
therein, with $T_{\mathrm{ch}}$ = 138.3 MeV, $\gamma_{q}$ = 1.63 and
$\gamma_{s}$ = 2.08, where $\gamma_{q}$ and $\gamma_{s}$ represent the quark
and strangeness phase space occupancy of the system created after the
collision, respectively.
The non-equilibrium thermal model (SHARE) [48] overestimates the
(anti-)hypertriton $p_{\rm T}$-integrated yield by a factor from 2 to 5
depending on the branching ratio (B.R.). For the branching ratio expected
following [31] (B.R. = 25%) the equilibrium thermal model [1] (GSI-Heidelberg)
and the hybrid UrQMD model [49] describe the data best.

Figure 5: $p_{\rm T}$-integrated ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ yield times
branching ratio as a function of branching ratio (d$N$/d$y$
$\times\mathrm{B.R.}$ vs B.R.). The horizontal line is the measured value and
the band represents statistical and systematic uncertainties added in
quadrature. Lines are different theoretical expectations as explained in the
text.

A fit, based on the thermal fit described in [1], was performed to the
hypertriton yield and to yields from other light flavour hadrons, except K∗,
previously measured by our Collaboration at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 2.76
TeV [50, 51, 52, 53, 28]. The inclusion of the deuteron, ${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$
[28] and ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ in the thermal fit [54] in addition to
lighter particles, does not change the resulting freeze-out temperature
($T_{\mathrm{ch}}$ = 156 $\pm$ 2 MeV) and the measured yields of the nuclei
and the hypertriton agree with the model predictions within 1 $\sigma$. The
results on the hypertriton yields discussed above were also used to determine
the ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$/${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$ and
${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$/${}^{3}\mathrm{\overline{He}}$
ratios, which are shown in Table. 4. In order to compute the ratios, our
previous measurement of ${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$ and ${}^{3}\mathrm{\overline{He}}$
yields [28] were used. These results were compared with different theoretical
models [48, 55, 56] and results from the STAR experiment [9] at
$\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 200 GeV, which use the same B.R. = 25%. The
comparison is shown in Figure 6. STAR results are higher than ALICE results,
but still compatible within uncertainties.

Centrality |  ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ / ${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$ |  ${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$ / ${}^{3}\mathrm{\overline{He}}$
---|---|---
0–10% | $0.47\pm 0.10(\mathrm{stat.})\pm 0.13(\mathrm{syst.})$ | $0.42\pm 0.10(\mathrm{stat.})\pm 0.13(\mathrm{syst.})$
10–50% | $0.40\pm 0.11(\mathrm{stat.})\pm 0.11(\mathrm{syst.})$ | $0.26\pm 0.09(\mathrm{stat.})\pm 0.08(\mathrm{syst.})$
Table 4: Ratios of ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$/${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$ and
${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$/${}^{3}\mathrm{\overline{He}}$
assuming a B.R. = 25% for the ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ $\rightarrow$
${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$ \+ $\pi$ decay [31]. The results from ${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$
and ${}^{3}\mathrm{\overline{He}}$ analysis measured by the ALICE experiment
were used [28]. Figure 6: The ratios
${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$/${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$ and
${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$/${}^{3}\mathrm{\overline{He}}$
determined by the present analysis (filled circles) for matter and anti-matter
compared with STAR results (squares) [9] and theoretical predictions (lines)
[1, 48, 55, 56] as described in the legend.

###  4.2 Data comparison to coalescence models and $S_{3}$ ratio

At the moment no prediction of the ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ and
${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$ yields in a non-trivial
dynamical coalescence model is available at LHC energies. Nevertheless within
a simple coalescence model it is possible to evaluate some parameters which
are sensitive to the existence of coalescence mechanisms for hypernuclei
formation. In the empirical coalescence model [11] the cross section for the
production of a cluster with mass number $A$ is related to the probability
that $A$ nucleons have relative momenta less than $p_{0}$, which is a free
parameter of the model. This provides the following relation between the
production cross sections of the nuclear cluster emitted with a momentum
$p_{A}$ and the nucleon emitted with a momentum $p_{\mathrm{p}}$

$E_{A}\frac{\mathrm{d}^{3}N_{A}}{\mathrm{d}^{3}p_{A}}=B_{A}\left(E_{\mathrm{p}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^{3}N_{\mathrm{p}}}{\mathrm{d}^{3}p_{\mathrm{p}}}\right)^{A},$
(2)

where $p_{A}=Ap_{\mathrm{p}}$. For a given nucleus, the coalescence parameter
$B_{A}$ should not depend on the momentum since it depends only on the cluster
parameters:

$B_{A}=\left(\frac{4\pi}{3}p_{0}^{3}\right)^{(A-1)}\frac{M}{m^{A}}$ (3)

where $M$ and $m$ are the nucleus and the proton mass, respectively and
$p_{0}$ is the relative momentum between the constituent nucleons of the
nucleus. The parameter $B_{3}$ was computed for ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$
according to Equation 2 using the spectrum shown in Figure 2 and our previous
measurement of the proton [50] and $\Lambda$ [52] spectra.
Parameters $B_{2}^{\mathrm{d}}$ and $B_{3}^{{}^{3}{\rm{He}}}$ obtained in [28]
are compared with the hypertriton $B_{3}^{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}}$ from
this analysis using the relations

$B_{2}^{{}^{3}\mathrm{He}}=\sqrt{\frac{m_{\mathrm{d}}^{2}}{m_{{}^{3}{\mathrm{He}}}m_{\mathrm{p}}}B_{3}^{{}^{3}\mathrm{He}}},$
(4)

$B_{3}^{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}}=B_{3}^{{}^{3}\mathrm{He}}\frac{m_{\mathrm{p}}m_{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}}}{m_{{}^{3}{\mathrm{He}}}m_{\Lambda}}.$
(5)

and finally

$B_{2}^{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}}=\sqrt{\frac{m_{\mathrm{d}}^{2}m_{\Lambda}}{m_{\mathrm{p}}^{2}m_{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}}}B_{3}^{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}}}.$
(6)

In a simple coalescence model the $B_{A}$ parameter for all the light nuclei
should have the same behaviour. The coalescence parameter of deuteron
($B_{2}^{\mathrm{d}}$) and the coalescence parameters of ${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$
and ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ ($B_{3}^{{}^{3}{\rm{He}}}$ and
$B_{3}^{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}}$) can be directly compared deriving the
$B_{2}^{{}^{3}\mathrm{He}}$ and the $B_{2}^{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}}$ using
equation 4, equation 5 and equation 6. The comparison of the three coalescence
parameters is shown in the left panel of Figure 7. The
${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ coalescence parameter is not flat as a function
of $p_{\rm T}$ contrary to the prediction of the simple coalescence model
[11], which does not take into account the characteristics of the emitting
source. This is the same behaviour as observed for deuterons and
${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$ nuclei [28]. At low $p_{\rm T}$ the $B_{2}$ values are
compatible, suggesting that $p_{0}$ is similar for A = 2 and A = 3.
Using the measured ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ yield the ratio
$S_{3}=$${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$/(${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$$\times\Lambda/\mathrm{p}$),
also known as the strangeness population factor [57], was evaluated. This
ratio was first suggested by the authors of [8] in the expectation that
dividing the strange to non-strange baryon yield should result in a value near
unity in a simple coalescence model. According to the authors of [57], $S_{3}$
should be also a valuable tool to probe the nature of the matter created in
the collision, since it is sensitive to the local baryon-strangeness
correlation [58, 59, 60]: a value of $S_{3}$ close to unity would indicate
that the phase-space populations for strange and light quarks are similar and
would support the formation of high-temperature matter of deconfined quarks.
In the thermal model approach the $S_{3}$ ratio does not depend on the
chemical potential of particles and was found to be almost energy independent
[1, 61], while in a dynamical coalescence picture it increases with decreasing
beam energy and is in general larger than the thermal model predictions [61].
This leads to the conclusion that the information on correlations of baryon
number and strangeness is lost in the thermal calculation because $S_{3}$
essentially depends only on the temperature. The $\Lambda/\rm p$ ratio used in
the present analysis was taken from [50] and [52]. The $S_{3}$ values obtained
for particles (anti-particles) are summarised in Table 5 and the average of
the two measurements is shown in the right panel of Figure 7. These values
were compared with different theoretical models and to the results from
experiments at BNL-AGS [8] and RHIC [9].
The models used for the comparison are the statistical hadronization model
[1], the hybrid UrQMD model [61] and its extension at the LHC energy [49], the
DCM (Dubna Cascade Model) coalescence model (described in [61]) and two
versions – default and string melting – of the AMPT (A Multi-Phase Transport
Model for Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions) [62] plus coalescence described
in [57]. The present result at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{NN}}}$ = 2.76 TeV is comparable
to that measured at E864 experiment [8] at
$\sqrt{s_{\rm{NN}}}\leavevmode\nobreak\ \sim$ 5 GeV, while it does not confirm
the rising behaviour shown by STAR [9] and by the AMPT with string melting
plus coalescence model [57]. This result is consistent with the thermal model
approach, which predicts a constant S3 value from $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$
above a few GeV.

Centrality | $\frac{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}}{{}^{3}\rm{He}}\times\frac{\rm p}{\Lambda}$ | $\frac{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}\overline{\mathrm{H}}}{{}^{3}\rm{\overline{He}}}\times\frac{\rm\overline{p}}{\overline{\Lambda}}$
---|---|---
0–10% | $0.60\pm 0.13(\mathrm{stat.})\pm 0.21(\mathrm{syst.})$ | $0.54\pm 0.13(\mathrm{stat.})\pm 0.19(\mathrm{syst.})$
Table 5: $S_{3}$ for matter and anti-matter. To compute the ratio a B.R. of 25% was assumed for the ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ $\rightarrow$ ${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$\+ $\pi$ decay. |
---|---
Figure 7: Left: $B_{2}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ /A for d (filled circles)
[28], ${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$ (empty circles) [28], and
${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ (filled squares). The
$B_{2}^{(\mathrm{d},^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H})}$ and
$B_{2}^{(\mathrm{d},^{3}\mathrm{He})}$ were evaluated as explained in the
text.
k${}_{1}=\frac{m_{\mathrm{d}}^{2}}{m_{{}^{3}\mathrm{He}}m_{\mathrm{p}}}$, and
k${}_{2}=\frac{m_{\mathrm{d}}^{2}m_{\Lambda}}{m_{\mathrm{p}}^{2}m_{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}}}$.
Right: $S_{3}$ ratio measured in this analysis compared with previous
experimental results (E864 [8] and STAR [9] (triangle and star, respectively))
and different theoretical models as indicated in the legend.

##  5 Conclusions

Measurements of ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ and
${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$ in Pb–Pb collisions at
$\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 2.76 TeV were presented in this letter. The
${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ lifetime was measured and was found to agree with
previous measurements within uncertainties. The measured value was included in
the computation of the world average of the ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$
lifetime. Transverse momentum yields at mid-rapidity for central (0–10%) Pb–Pb
collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 2.76 TeV were measured in three
$p_{\rm T}$ intervals. The yields of particles and anti-particles were
measured in two centrality classes (0–10% and 10–50%) and compared with
different theoretical models. The ratio
${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$/${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ is
consistent with unity, as expected at the LHC energy. The measured yields
indicate that hypernuclei in high-energy heavy-ion collisions are produced
within an equilibrated thermal environment in which the temperature is the
same as for the other particles produced at the LHC. The
${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$/${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$
(${}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\overline{\mathrm{H}}$/${}^{3}\mathrm{\overline{He}}$)
ratio was also measured and compared with different theoretical models and
results from the STAR experiment. STAR results are higher than ALICE results,
but compatible within uncertainties. The ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$
coalescence parameter was also evaluated. Its value increases with $p_{\rm
T}$, and within the uncertainties, is consistent with those extracted for
deuteron and ${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$ nuclei [28]. The ratio
$S_{3}=$${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$/(${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$$\times\Lambda/\mathrm{p}$)
was evaluated and compared with different theoretical models and measurements
from previous experiments. The value of $S_{3}$ suggests that the production
of nuclei and hypernuclei at the LHC can be described with a thermodynamic
approach, and is similar to the one calculated by the Hybrid UrQMD model [49].
No conclusions can be drawn about the AMPT + coalescence model [57], since no
prediction of dynamical coalescence models is available at the LHC energy. The
measured $S_{3}$ value excludes the rising trend in AMPT seen up to RHIC
energies extends to LHC energies. The $S_{3}$ measured at AGS, RHIC and LHC
are compatible within uncertainty with a value which is independent of the
centre of mass energy of the collision.

## Acknowledgements

The ALICE Collaboration would like to thank all its engineers and technicians
for their invaluable contributions to the construction of the experiment and
the CERN accelerator teams for the outstanding performance of the LHC complex.
The ALICE Collaboration gratefully acknowledges the resources and support
provided by all Grid centres and the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid (WLCG)
collaboration. The ALICE Collaboration acknowledges the following funding
agencies for their support in building and running the ALICE detector: State
Committee of Science, World Federation of Scientists (WFS) and Swiss Fonds
Kidagan, Armenia, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e
Tecnológico (CNPq), Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (FINEP), Fundação de
Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP); National Natural Science
Foundation of China (NSFC), the Chinese Ministry of Education (CMOE) and the
Ministry of Science and Technology of China (MSTC); Ministry of Education and
Youth of the Czech Republic; Danish Natural Science Research Council, the
Carlsberg Foundation and the Danish National Research Foundation; The European
Research Council under the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme;
Helsinki Institute of Physics and the Academy of Finland; French CNRS-IN2P3,
the ‘Region Pays de Loire’, ‘Region Alsace’, ‘Region Auvergne’ and CEA,
France; German Bundesministerium fur Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und
Technologie (BMBF) and the Helmholtz Association; General Secretariat for
Research and Technology, Ministry of Development, Greece; Hungarian Orszagos
Tudomanyos Kutatasi Alappgrammok (OTKA) and National Office for Research and
Technology (NKTH); Department of Atomic Energy and Department of Science and
Technology of the Government of India; Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare
(INFN) and Centro Fermi - Museo Storico della Fisica e Centro Studi e Ricerche
”Enrico Fermi”, Italy; MEXT Grant-in-Aid for Specially Promoted Research,
Japan; Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna; National Research
Foundation of Korea (NRF); Consejo Nacional de Cienca y Tecnologia (CONACYT),
Direccion General de Asuntos del Personal Academico(DGAPA), México, Amerique
Latine Formation academique - European Commission (ALFA-EC) and the EPLANET
Program (European Particle Physics Latin American Network); Stichting voor
Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM) and the Nederlandse Organisatie voor
Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), Netherlands; Research Council of Norway
(NFR); National Science Centre, Poland; Ministry of National
Education/Institute for Atomic Physics and National Council of Scientific
Research in Higher Education (CNCSI-UEFISCDI), Romania; Ministry of Education
and Science of Russian Federation, Russian Academy of Sciences, Russian
Federal Agency of Atomic Energy, Russian Federal Agency for Science and
Innovations and The Russian Foundation for Basic Research; Ministry of
Education of Slovakia; Department of Science and Technology, South Africa;
Centro de Investigaciones Energeticas, Medioambientales y Tecnologicas
(CIEMAT), E-Infrastructure shared between Europe and Latin America (EELA),
Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (MINECO) of Spain, Xunta de Galicia
(Consellería de Educación), Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo
Nuclear (CEADEN), Cubaenergía, Cuba, and IAEA (International Atomic Energy
Agency); Swedish Research Council (VR) and Knut $\&$ Alice Wallenberg
Foundation (KAW); Ukraine Ministry of Education and Science; United Kingdom
Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC); The United States Department
of Energy, the United States National Science Foundation, the State of Texas,
and the State of Ohio; Ministry of Science, Education and Sports of Croatia
and Unity through Knowledge Fund, Croatia. Council of Scientific and
Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi, India

## References

  * [1] A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Stachel, and H. Stocker, “Production of light nuclei, hypernuclei and their antiparticles in relativistic nuclear collisions,” Phys.Lett. B697 (2011) 203–207, arXiv:1010.2995 [nucl-th].
  * [2] M. Danysz and J. Pniewski, “Delayed Disintegration of a Heavy Nuclear Fragment: I,” Phil. Mag. 44 (1953) 348–350.
  * [3] F. Weber, R. Negreiros, P. Rosenfield, and A. T. i. Cuadrat, “Neutron star interiors and the equation of state of ultradense matter,” AIP Conf.Proc. 892 (2007) 515–517, arXiv:astro-ph/0612132 [astro-ph].
  * [4] H. Heiselberg, “Phases of dense matter in neutron stars,” arXiv:astro-ph/9910200 [astro-ph].
  * [5] I. Vidaña, “Hyperons and neutron stars,” Nucl.Phys. A914 (2013) 367–376.
  * [6] D. Lonardoni, F. Pederiva, and S. Gandolfi, “From hypernuclei to the Inner Core of Neutron Stars: A Quantum Monte Carlo Study,” J.Phys.Conf.Ser. 529 (2014) 012012, arXiv:1408.4492 [nucl-th].
  * [7] P. Braun-Munzinger and J. Stachel, “Production of strange clusters and strange matter in nucleus-nucleus collisions at the AGS,” J.Phys. G21 (1995) L17–L20, arXiv:nucl-th/9412035 [nucl-th].
  * [8] E864 Collaboration, T. Armstrong et al., “Production of ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ and ${}^{4}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ in central 11.5-GeV/c Au + Pt heavy ion collisions,” Phys.Rev. C70 (2004) 024902, arXiv:nucl-ex/0211010 [nucl-ex].
  * [9] STAR Collaboration, B. Abelev, “Observation of an Antimatter Hypernucleus,” Science 328 (2010) 58–62, arXiv:1003.2030 [nucl-ex].
  * [10] E814 Collaboration, J. Barrette et al., “Production of light nuclei in relativistic heavy ion collisions,” Phys.Rev. C50 (1994) 1077–1084.
  * [11] L. Csernai and J. I. Kapusta, “Entropy and Cluster Production in Nuclear Collisions,” Phys.Rept. 131 (1986) 223–318.
  * [12] P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, “Particle production in heavy ion collisions,” arXiv:nucl-th/0304013 [nucl-th].
  * [13] P. Siemens and J. I. Kapusta, “Evidence for a soft nuclear matter equation of state,” Phys.Rev.Lett. 43 (1979) 1486–1489.
  * [14] H. Gutbrod, A. Sandoval, P. Johansen, A. M. Poskanzer, J. Gosset, et al., “Final State Interactions in the Production of Hydrogen and Helium Isotopes by Relativistic Heavy Ions on Uranium,” Phys.Rev.Lett. 37 (1976) 667–670.
  * [15] J. Steinheimer, M. Mitrovski, T. Schuster, H. Petersen, M. Bleicher, et al., “Strangeness fluctuations and MEMO production at FAIR,” Phys.Lett. B676 (2009) 126–131, arXiv:0811.4077 [hep-ph].
  * [16] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Performance of the ALICE Experiment at the CERN LHC,” Int.J.Mod.Phys. A29 (2014) 1430044, arXiv:1402.4476 [nucl-ex].
  * [17] ALICE Collaboration, E. Abbas et al., “Performance of the ALICE VZERO system,” JINST 8 (2013) P10016, arXiv:1306.3130 [nucl-ex].
  * [18] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “Centrality dependence of the charged-particle multiplicity density at mid-rapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV,” Phys.Rev.Lett. 106 (2011) 032301, arXiv:1012.1657 [nucl-ex].
  * [19] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Centrality determination of Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV with ALICE,” Phys.Rev. C88 no. 4, (2013) 044909, arXiv:1301.4361 [nucl-ex].
  * [20] 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].
  * [21] J. Alme, Y. Andres, H. Appelshäuser, S. Bablok, N. Bialas, et al., “The ALICE TPC, a large 3-dimensional tracking device with fast readout for ultra-high multiplicity events,” Nucl.Instrum.Meth. A622 (2010) 316–367, arXiv:1001.1950 [physics.ins-det].
  * [22] M. Juric, G. Bohm, J. Klabuhn, U. Krecker, F. Wysotzki, et al., “A new determination of the binding-energy values of the light hypernuclei (A $\leq$15),” Nucl.Phys. B52 (1973) 1–30.
  * [23] 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. D44 (1991) 3501–3516.
  * [24] R. Brun, F. Carminati, and S. Giani, “GEANT Detector Description and Simulation Tool,” Program Library Long Write-up W5013 (1994) .
  * [25] H. Bando, T. Motoba, and J. Zofka, “Production, structure and decay of hypernuclei,” Int.J.Mod.Phys. A5 (1990) 4021–4198.
  * [26] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Centrality Dependence of Charged Particle Production at Large Transverse Momentum in Pb–Pb Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{NN}}}=2.76$ TeV,” Phys.Lett. B720 (2013) 52–62, arXiv:1208.2711 [hep-ex].
  * [27] E. Schnedermann, J. Sollfrank, and U. W. Heinz, “Thermal phenomenology of hadrons from 200A GeV S+S collisions,” Phys.Rev. C48 (1993) 2462–2475, arXiv:nucl-th/9307020 [nucl-th].
  * [28] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Production of light nuclei and anti-nuclei in pp and Pb-Pb collisions at LHC energies,” arXiv:1506.08951 [nucl-ex].
  * [29] R. Brun and F. Rademakers, “ROOT: An object oriented data analysis framework,” Nucl.Instrum.Meth. A389 (1997) 81–86.
  * [30] Particle Data Group Collaboration, K. Olive et al., “Review of Particle Physics,” Chin.Phys. C38 (2014) 090001.
  * [31] H. Kamada, J. Golak, K. Miyagawa, H. Witala, and W. Gloeckle, “Pi mesonic decay of the hypertriton,” Phys.Rev. C57 (1998) 1595–1603, arXiv:nucl-th/9709035 [nucl-th].
  * [32] R. J. Prem and P. H. Steinberg, “Lifetimes of Hypernuclei, ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H},^{4}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H},^{5}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$,” Phys. Rev. 136 (1964) B1803–B1806.
  * [33] G. Keyes, M. Derrick, T. Fields, L. Hyman, J. Fetkovich, et al., “New Measurement of the ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ Lifetime,” Phys.Rev.Lett. 20 (1968) 819–821.
  * [34] R. Phillips and J. Schneps, “Lifetimes of light hyperfragments. ii,” Phys.Rev. 180 (1969) 1307–1318.
  * [35] G. Bohm, J. Klabuhn, U. Krecker, F. Wysotzki, G. Coremans, et al., “On the lifetime of the ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ hypernucleus,” Nucl.Phys. B16 (1970) 46–52.
  * [36] G. Keyes, M. Derrick, T. Fields, L. Hyman, J. Fetkovich, et al., “Properties of ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$,” Phys.Rev. D1 (1970) 66–77.
  * [37] G. Keyes, J. Sacton, J. Wickens, and M. Block, “A measurement of the lifetime of the ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ hypernucleus,” Nucl.Phys. B67 (1973) 269–283.
  * [38] C. Rappold, E. Kim, D. Nakajima, T. Saito, O. Bertini, et al., “Hypernuclear spectroscopy of products from 6Li projectiles on a carbon target at 2 AGeV,” Nucl.Phys. A913 (2013) 170–184, arXiv:1305.4871 [nucl-ex].
  * [39] R. Dalitz and L. Liu, “Pionic Decay Modes of Light Lambda Hypernuclei,” Phys.Rev. 116 (1959) 1312–1321.
  * [40] R. Dalitz and G. Rajasekharan, “The spins and lifetimes of the light hypernuclei,” Phys.Lett. 1 (1962) 58–60.
  * [41] M. Rayet and R. Dalitz, “Lifetime of ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$,” Nuovo Cim. A46 (1966) 786–794.
  * [42] B. Ram and W. Williams, “Decay rate and branching ratio ($\pi^{-}$ ${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$)/(all $\pi^{-}$ modes) of ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$,” Nucl.Phys. B28 (1971) 566–572.
  * [43] H. Mansour and K. Higgins, “The decay rate of ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$,” Nuovo Cim. A51 (1979) 180–186.
  * [44] N. Kolesnikov and V. Kopylov, “Meson decays of hypertritium,” Sov.Phys.J. 31 (1988) 210–213.
  * [45] J. Congleton, “A Simple model of the hypertriton,” J.Phys. G18 (1992) 339–357.
  * [46] W. Gloeckle, K. Miyagawa, H. Kamada, J. Golak, and H. Witala, “The hypertriton and its decays,” Nucl.Phys. A639 (1998) 297–306.
  * [47] C. Rappold, T. Saito, O. Bertini, S. Bianchin, V. Bozkurt, et al., “On the measured lifetime of light hypernuclei ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ and ${}^{4}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$,” Phys.Lett. B728 (2014) 543–548.
  * [48] M. Petráň, J. Letessier, V. Petráček, and J. Rafelski, “Hadron production and quark-gluon plasma hadronization in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV,” Phys.Rev. C88 no. 3, (2013) 034907, arXiv:1303.2098 [hep-ph].
  * [49] J. Steinheimer.  Calculation based on [61] (2015).
  * [50] 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. C88 (2013) 044910, arXiv:1303.0737 [hep-ex].
  * [51] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Multi-strange baryon production at mid-rapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV,” Phys.Lett. B728 (2014) 216–227, arXiv:1307.5543 [nucl-ex].
  * [52] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “K${}^{0}_{S}$ and $\Lambda$ production in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV,” Phys.Rev.Lett. 111 (2013) 222301, arXiv:1307.5530 [nucl-ex].
  * [53] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “K${}^{*}{(892)}^{0}$ and $\phi(1020)$ production in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{{s}_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV,” Phys.Rev. C91 (2015) 024609, arXiv:1404.0495 [nucl-ex].
  * [54] M. Floris, “Hadron yields and the phase diagram of strongly interacting matter,” Nucl.Phys. A931 (2014) 103–112, arXiv:1408.6403 [nucl-ex].
  * [55] J. Cleymans, S. Kabana, I. Kraus, H. Oeschler, K. Redlich, et al., “Antimatter production in proton-proton and heavy-ion collisions at ultrarelativistic energies,” Phys.Rev. C84 (2011) 054916, arXiv:1105.3719 [hep-ph].
  * [56] S. Pal and W. Greiner, “Production of antinuclei and hypernuclei in a relativistic Hagedorn resonance gas model,” Phys.Rev. C87 no. 5, (2013) 054905.
  * [57] S. Zhang, J. Chen, H. Crawford, D. Keane, Y. Ma, et al., “Searching for onset of deconfinement via hypernuclei and baryon-strangeness correlations,” Phys.Lett. B684 (2010) 224–227, arXiv:0908.3357 [nucl-ex].
  * [58] V. Koch, A. Majumder, and J. Randrup, “Baryon-strangeness correlations: A Diagnostic of strongly interacting matter,” Phys.Rev.Lett. 95 (2005) 182301, arXiv:nucl-th/0505052 [nucl-th].
  * [59] A. Majumder and B. Muller, “Baryonic strangeness and related susceptibilities in QCD,” Phys.Rev. C74 (2006) 054901, arXiv:nucl-th/0605079 [nucl-th].
  * [60] M. Cheng, P. Hegde, C. Jung, F. Karsch, O. Kaczmarek, et al., “Baryon Number, Strangeness and Electric Charge Fluctuations in QCD at High Temperature,” Phys.Rev. D79 (2009) 074505, arXiv:0811.1006 [hep-lat].
  * [61] J. Steinheimer, K. Gudima, A. Botvina, I. Mishustin, M. Bleicher, et al., “Hypernuclei, dibaryon and antinuclei production in high energy heavy ion collisions: Thermal production versus Coalescence,” Phys.Lett. B714 (2012) 85–91, arXiv:1203.2547 [nucl-th].
  * [62] Z.-W. Lin, C. M. Ko, B.-A. Li, B. Zhang, and S. Pal, “A Multi-phase transport model for relativistic heavy ion collisions,” Phys.Rev. C72 (2005) 064901, arXiv:nucl-th/0411110 [nucl-th].

##  Appendix A The ALICE Collaboration

J. Adamorg40&D. Adamováorg83&M.M. Aggarwalorg87&G. Aglieri Rinellaorg36&M.
Agnelloorg111&N. Agrawalorg48&Z. Ahammedorg132&S.U. Ahnorg68&I.
Aimoorg94,org111&S. Aiolaorg137&M. Ajazorg16&A. Akindinovorg58&S.N.
Alamorg132&D. Aleksandrovorg100&B. Alessandroorg111&D. Alexandreorg102&R.
Alfaro Molinaorg64&A. Aliciorg105,org12&A. Alkinorg3&J. Almeorg38&T.
Altorg43&S. Altinpinarorg18&I. Altsybeevorg131&C. Alves Garcia Pradoorg120&C.
Andreiorg78&A. Andronicorg97&V. Anguelovorg93&J. Anielskiorg54&T.
Antičićorg98&F. Antinoriorg108&P. Antonioliorg105&L. Aphecetcheorg113&H.
Appelshäuserorg53&S. Arcelliorg28&N. Armestoorg17&R. Arnaldiorg111&I.C.
Arseneorg22&M. Arslandokorg53&B. Audurierorg113&A. Augustinusorg36&R.
Averbeckorg97&M.D. Azmiorg19&M. Bachorg43&A. Badalàorg107&Y.W. Baekorg44&S.
Bagnascoorg111&R. Bailhacheorg53&R. Balaorg90&A. Baldisseriorg15&F. Baltasar
Dos Santos Pedrosaorg36&R.C. Baralorg61&A.M. Barbanoorg111&R. Barberaorg29&F.
Barileorg33&G.G. Barnaföldiorg136&L.S. Barnbyorg102&V. Barretorg70&P.
Bartaliniorg7&K. Barthorg36&J. Bartkeorg117&E. Bartschorg53&M. Basileorg28&N.
Bastidorg70&S. Basuorg132&B. Bathenorg54&G. Batigneorg113&A. Batista
Camejoorg70&B. Batyunyaorg66&P.C. Batzingorg22&I.G. Beardenorg80&H.
Beckorg53&C. Beddaorg111&N.K. Beheraorg49,org48&I. Belikovorg55&F.
Belliniorg28&H. Bello Martinezorg2&R. Bellwiedorg122&R. Belmontorg135&E.
Belmont-Morenoorg64&V. Belyaevorg76&G. Bencediorg136&S. Beoleorg27&I.
Berceanuorg78&A. Bercuciorg78&Y. Berdnikovorg85&D. Berenyiorg136&R.A.
Bertensorg57&D. Berzanoorg36,org27&L. Betevorg36&A. Bhasinorg90&I.R.
Bhatorg90&A.K. Bhatiorg87&B. Bhattacharjeeorg45&J. Bhomorg128&L.
Bianchiorg122&N. Bianchiorg72&C. Bianchinorg135,org57&J. Bielčíkorg40&J.
Bielčíkováorg83&A. Bilandzicorg80&R. Biswasorg4&S. Biswasorg79&S.
Bjelogrlicorg57&F. Blancoorg10&D. Blauorg100&C. Blumeorg53&F.
Bockorg74,org93&A. Bogdanovorg76&H. Bøggildorg80&L. Boldizsárorg136&M.
Bombaraorg41&J. Bookorg53&H. Borelorg15&A. Borissovorg96&M. Borriorg82&F.
Bossúorg65&M. Botjeorg81&E. Bottaorg27&S. Böttgerorg52&P. Braun-
Munzingerorg97&M. Bregantorg120&T. Breitnerorg52&T.A. Brokerorg53&T.A.
Browningorg95&M. Brozorg40&E.J. Bruckenorg46&E. Brunaorg111&G.E. Brunoorg33&D.
Budnikovorg99&H. Bueschingorg53&S. Bufalinoorg111,org36&P. Buncicorg36&O.
Buschorg93,org128&Z. Butheleziorg65&J.T. Buxtonorg20&D. Caffarriorg36&X.
Caiorg7&H. Cainesorg137&L. Calero Diazorg72&A. Calivaorg57&E. Calvo
Villarorg103&P. Cameriniorg26&F. Carenaorg36&W. Carenaorg36&J. Castillo
Castellanosorg15&A.J. Castroorg125&E.A.R. Casulaorg25&C. Cavicchioliorg36&C.
Ceballos Sanchezorg9&J. Cepilaorg40&P. Cerelloorg111&J. Cerkalaorg115&B.
Changorg123&S. Chapelandorg36&M. Chartierorg124&J.L. Charvetorg15&S.
Chattopadhyayorg132&S. Chattopadhyayorg101&V. Chelnokovorg3&M. Cherneyorg86&C.
Cheshkovorg130&B. Cheynisorg130&V. Chibante Barrosoorg36&D.D.
Chinellatoorg121&P. Chochulaorg36&K. Choiorg96&M. Chojnackiorg80&S.
Choudhuryorg132&P. Christakoglouorg81&C.H. Christensenorg80&P.
Christiansenorg34&T. Chujoorg128&S.U. Chungorg96&Z. Chunhuiorg57&C.
Cicaloorg106&L. Cifarelliorg12,org28&F. Cindoloorg105&J. Cleymansorg89&F.
Colamariaorg33&D. Colellaorg33,org59&A. Colluorg25&M. Colocciorg28&G. Conesa
Balbastreorg71&Z. Conesa del Valleorg51&M.E. Connorsorg137&J.G.
Contrerasorg11,org40&T.M. Cormierorg84&Y. Corrales Moralesorg27&I. Cortés
Maldonadoorg2&P. Corteseorg32&M.R. Cosentinoorg120&F. Costaorg36&P.
Crochetorg70&R. Cruz Albinoorg11&E. Cuautleorg63&L. Cunqueiroorg36&T.
Dahmsorg92,org37&A. Daineseorg108&A. Danuorg62&D. Dasorg101&I.
Dasorg51,org101&S. Dasorg4&A. Dashorg121&S. Dashorg48&S. Deorg120&A. De
Caroorg31,org12&G. de Cataldoorg104&J. de Cuvelandorg43&A. De Falcoorg25&D. De
Gruttolaorg12,org31&N. De Marcoorg111&S. De Pasqualeorg31&A.
Deistingorg97,org93&A. Delofforg77&E. Dénesorg136&G. D’Erasmoorg33&D. Di
Bariorg33&A. Di Mauroorg36&P. Di Nezzaorg72&M.A. Diaz Corcheroorg10&T.
Dietelorg89&P. Dillensegerorg53&R. Diviàorg36&Ø. Djuvslandorg18&A.
Dobrinorg57,org81&T. Dobrowolskiorg770&D. Domenicis Gimenezorg120&B.
Dönigusorg53&O. Dordicorg22&A.K. Dubeyorg132&A. Dublaorg57&L. Ducrouxorg130&P.
Dupieuxorg70&R.J. Ehlersorg137&D. Eliaorg104&H. Engelorg52&B.
Erazmusorg36,org113&I. Erdemirorg53&F. Erhardtorg129&D. Eschweilerorg43&B.
Espagnonorg51&M. Estienneorg113&S. Esumiorg128&J. Eumorg96&D. Evansorg102&S.
Evdokimovorg112&G. Eyyubovaorg40&L. Fabbiettiorg37,org92&D. Fabrisorg108&J.
Faivreorg71&A. Fantoniorg72&M. Faselorg74&L. Feldkamporg54&D. Feleaorg62&A.
Felicielloorg111&G. Feofilovorg131&J. Ferenceiorg83&A. Fernández
Téllezorg2&E.G. Ferreiroorg17&A. Ferrettiorg27&A. Festantiorg30&V.J.G.
Feuillardorg70,org15&J. Figielorg117&M.A.S. Figueredoorg124&S.
Filchaginorg99&D. Finogeevorg56&F.M. Fiondaorg104&E.M. Fioreorg33&M.G.
Fleckorg93&M. Florisorg36&S. Foertschorg65&P. Fokaorg97&S. Fokinorg100&E.
Fragiacomoorg110&A. Francesconorg30,org36&U. Frankenfeldorg97&U. Fuchsorg36&C.
Furgetorg71&A. Fursorg56&M. Fusco Girardorg31&J.J. Gaardhøjeorg80&M.
Gagliardiorg27&A.M. Gagoorg103&M. Gallioorg27&D.R. Gangadharanorg74&P.
Ganotiorg88&C. Gaoorg7&C. Garabatosorg97&E. Garcia-Solisorg13&C.
Gargiuloorg36&P. Gasikorg92,org37&M. Germainorg113&A. Gheataorg36&M.
Gheataorg62,org36&P. Ghoshorg132&S.K. Ghoshorg4&P. Gianottiorg72&P.
Giubellinoorg36&P. Giubilatoorg30&E. Gladysz-Dziadusorg117&P. Glässelorg93&A.
Gomez Ramirezorg52&P. González-Zamoraorg10&S. Gorbunovorg43&L.
Görlichorg117&S. Gotovacorg116&V. Grabskiorg64&L.K. Graczykowskiorg134&K.L.
Grahamorg102&A. Grelliorg57&A. Grigorasorg36&C. Grigorasorg36&V.
Grigorievorg76&A. Grigoryanorg1&S. Grigoryanorg66&B. Grinyovorg3&N.
Grionorg110&J.F. Grosse-Oetringhausorg36&J.-Y. Grossiordorg130&R.
Grossoorg36&F. Guberorg56&R. Guernaneorg71&B. Guerzoniorg28&K.
Gulbrandsenorg80&H. Gulkanyanorg1&T. Gunjiorg127&A. Guptaorg90&R.
Guptaorg90&R. Haakeorg54&Ø. Haalandorg18&C. Hadjidakisorg51&M. Haiducorg62&H.
Hamagakiorg127&G. Hamarorg136&A. Hansenorg80&J.W. Harrisorg137&H.
Hartmannorg43&A. Hartonorg13&D. Hatzifotiadouorg105&S. Hayashiorg127&S.T.
Heckelorg53&M. Heideorg54&H. Helstruporg38&A. Herghelegiuorg78&G. Herrera
Corralorg11&B.A. Hessorg35&K.F. Hetlandorg38&T.E. Hildenorg46&H.
Hillemannsorg36&B. Hippolyteorg55&R. Hosokawaorg128&P. Hristovorg36&M.
Huangorg18&T.J. Humanicorg20&N. Hussainorg45&T. Hussainorg19&D.
Hutterorg43&D.S. Hwangorg21&R. Ilkaevorg99&I. Ilkivorg77&M. Inabaorg128&C.
Ionitaorg36&M. Ippolitovorg76,org100&M. Irfanorg19&M. Ivanovorg97&V.
Ivanovorg85&V. Izucheevorg112&P.M. Jacobsorg74&S. Jadlovskaorg115&C.
Jahnkeorg120&H.J. Jangorg68&M.A. Janikorg134&P.H.S.Y. Jayarathnaorg122&C.
Jenaorg30&S. Jenaorg122&R.T. Jimenez Bustamanteorg97&P.G. Jonesorg102&H.
Jungorg44&A. Juskoorg102&P. Kalinakorg59&A. Kalweitorg36&J. Kaminorg53&J.H.
Kangorg138&V. Kaplinorg76&S. Karorg132&A. Karasu Uysalorg69&O.
Karavichevorg56&T. Karavichevaorg56&E. Karpechevorg56&U. Kebschullorg52&R.
Keidelorg139&D.L.D. Keijdenerorg57&M. Keilorg36&K.H. Khanorg16&M.M.
Khanorg19&P. Khanorg101&S.A. Khanorg132&A. Khanzadeevorg85&Y. Kharlovorg112&B.
Kilengorg38&B. Kimorg138&D.W. Kimorg44,org68&D.J. Kimorg123&H. Kimorg138&J.S.
Kimorg44&M. Kimorg44&M. Kimorg138&S. Kimorg21&T. Kimorg138&S. Kirschorg43&I.
Kiselorg43&S. Kiselevorg58&A. Kisielorg134&G. Kissorg136&J.L. Klayorg6&C.
Kleinorg53&J. Kleinorg93&C. Klein-Bösingorg54&A. Klugeorg36&M.L.
Knichelorg93&A.G. Knospeorg118&T. Kobayashiorg128&C. Kobdajorg114&M.
Kofaragoorg36&T. Kolleggerorg97,org43&A. Kolojvariorg131&V.
Kondratievorg131&N. Kondratyevaorg76&E. Kondratyukorg112&A. Konevskikhorg56&M.
Kopcikorg115&C. Kouzinopoulosorg36&O. Kovalenkoorg77&V. Kovalenkoorg131&M.
Kowalskiorg117&S. Koxorg71&G. Koyithatta Meethaleveeduorg48&J. Kralorg123&I.
Králikorg59&A. Kravčákováorg41&M. Krelinaorg40&M. Kretzorg43&M.
Krivdaorg102,org59&F. Krizekorg83&E. Kryshenorg36&M. Krzewickiorg43&A.M.
Kuberaorg20&V. Kučeraorg83&T. Kugathasanorg36&C. Kuhnorg55&P.G. Kuijerorg81&I.
Kulakovorg43&J. Kumarorg48&L. Kumarorg79,org87&P. Kurashviliorg77&A.
Kurepinorg56&A.B. Kurepinorg56&A. Kuryakinorg99&S. Kushpilorg83&M.J.
Kweonorg50&Y. Kwonorg138&S.L. La Pointeorg111&P. La Roccaorg29&C. Lagana
Fernandesorg120&I. Lakomovorg36&R. Langoyorg42&C. Laraorg52&A. Lardeuxorg15&A.
Lattucaorg27&E. Laudiorg36&R. Leaorg26&L. Leardiniorg93&G.R. Leeorg102&S.
Leeorg138&I. Legrandorg36&R.C. Lemmonorg82&V. Lentiorg104&E. Leograndeorg57&I.
León Monzónorg119&M. Leoncinoorg27&P. Lévaiorg136&S. Liorg7,org70&X.
Liorg14&J. Lienorg42&R. Lietavaorg102&S. Lindalorg22&V. Lindenstruthorg43&C.
Lippmannorg97&M.A. Lisaorg20&H.M. Ljunggrenorg34&D.F. Lodatoorg57&P.I.
Loenneorg18&V.R. Logginsorg135&V. Loginovorg76&C. Loizidesorg74&X.
Lopezorg70&E. López Torresorg9&A. Loweorg136&P. Luettigorg53&M.
Lunardonorg30&G. Luparelloorg26&P.H.F.N.D. Luzorg120&A. Maevskayaorg56&M.
Magerorg36&S. Mahajanorg90&S.M. Mahmoodorg22&A. Maireorg55&R.D. Majkaorg137&M.
Malaevorg85&I. Maldonado Cervantesorg63&L. Malininaorg66&D. Mal’Kevichorg58&P.
Malzacherorg97&A. Mamonovorg99&L. Manceauorg111&V. Mankoorg100&F.
Mansoorg70&V. Manzariorg36,org104&M. Marchisoneorg27&J. Marešorg60&G.V.
Margagliottiorg26&A. Margottiorg105&J. Marguttiorg57&A. Marínorg97&C.
Markertorg118&M. Marquardorg53&N.A. Martinorg97&J. Martin Blancoorg113&P.
Martinengoorg36&M.I. Martínezorg2&G. Martínez Garcíaorg113&M. Martinez
Pedreiraorg36&Y. Martynovorg3&A. Masorg120&S. Masciocchiorg97&M.
Maseraorg27&A. Masoniorg106&L. Massacrierorg113&A. Mastroserioorg33&H.
Masuiorg128&A. Matyjaorg117&C. Mayerorg117&J. Mazerorg125&M.A.
Mazzoniorg109&D. Mcdonaldorg122&F. Meddiorg24&A. Menchaca-Rochaorg64&E.
Meninnoorg31&J. Mercado Pérezorg93&M. Meresorg39&Y. Miakeorg128&M.M.
Mieskolainenorg46&K. Mikhaylovorg58,org66&L. Milanoorg36&J.
Milosevicorg22,org133&L.M. Minerviniorg23,org104&A. Mischkeorg57&A.N.
Mishraorg49&D. Miśkowiecorg97&J. Mitraorg132&C.M. Mituorg62&N.
Mohammadiorg57&B. Mohantyorg79,org132&L. Molnarorg55&L. Montaño Zetinaorg11&E.
Montesorg10&M. Morandoorg30&D.A. Moreira De Godoyorg113,org54&S.
Morettoorg30&A. Morrealeorg113&A. Morschorg36&V. Mucciforaorg72&E.
Mudnicorg116&D. Mühlheimorg54&S. Muhuriorg132&M. Mukherjeeorg132&J.D.
Mulliganorg137&M.G. Munhozorg120&S. Murrayorg65&L. Musaorg36&J.
Musinskyorg59&B.K. Nandiorg48&R. Naniaorg105&E. Nappiorg104&M.U. Naruorg16&C.
Nattrassorg125&K. Nayakorg79&T.K. Nayakorg132&S. Nazarenkoorg99&A.
Nedosekinorg58&L. Nellenorg63&F. Ngorg122&M. Nicassioorg97&M.
Niculescuorg62,org36&J. Niedzielaorg36&B.S. Nielsenorg80&S. Nikolaevorg100&S.
Nikulinorg100&V. Nikulinorg85&F. Noferiniorg12,org105&P. Nomokonovorg66&G.
Noorenorg57&J.C.C. Norisorg2&J. Normanorg124&A. Nyaninorg100&J.
Nystrandorg18&H. Oeschlerorg93&S. Ohorg137&S.K. Ohorg67&A. Ohlsonorg36&A.
Okatanorg69&T. Okuboorg47&L. Olahorg136&J. Oleniaczorg134&A.C. Oliveira Da
Silvaorg120&M.H. Oliverorg137&J. Onderwaaterorg97&C. Oppedisanoorg111&A. Ortiz
Velasquezorg63&A. Oskarssonorg34&J. Otwinowskiorg117&K. Oyamaorg93&M.
Ozdemirorg53&Y. Pachmayerorg93&P. Paganoorg31&G. Paićorg63&C.
Pajaresorg17&S.K. Palorg132&J. Panorg135&A.K. Pandeyorg48&D. Pantorg48&P.
Papcunorg115&V. Papikyanorg1&G.S. Pappalardoorg107&P. Pareekorg49&W.J.
Parkorg97&S. Parmarorg87&A. Passfeldorg54&V. Paticchioorg104&R.N.
Patraorg132&B. Paulorg101&T. Peitzmannorg57&H. Pereira Da Costaorg15&E.
Pereira De Oliveira Filhoorg120&D. Peresunkoorg76,org100&C.E. Pérez
Laraorg81&V. Peskovorg53&Y. Pestovorg5&V. Petráčekorg40&V. Petrovorg112&M.
Petroviciorg78&C. Pettaorg29&S. Pianoorg110&M. Piknaorg39&P. Pillotorg113&O.
Pinazzaorg105,org36&L. Pinskyorg122&D.B. Piyarathnaorg122&M. Płoskońorg74&M.
Planinicorg129&J. Plutaorg134&S. Pochybovaorg136&P.L.M. Podesta-
Lermaorg119&M.G. Poghosyanorg86&B. Polichtchoukorg112&N. Poljakorg129&W.
Poonsawatorg114&A. Poporg78&S. Porteboeuf-Houssaisorg70&J. Porterorg74&J.
Pospisilorg83&S.K. Prasadorg4&R. Preghenellaorg105,org36&F. Prinoorg111&C.A.
Pruneauorg135&I. Pshenichnovorg56&M. Puccioorg111&G. Pudduorg25&P.
Pujahariorg135&V. Puninorg99&J. Putschkeorg135&H. Qvigstadorg22&A.
Rachevskiorg110&S. Rahaorg4&S. Rajputorg90&J. Rakorg123&A.
Rakotozafindrabeorg15&L. Ramelloorg32&R. Raniwalaorg91&S. Raniwalaorg91&S.S.
Räsänenorg46&B.T. Rascanuorg53&D. Ratheeorg87&K.F. Readorg125&J.S.
Realorg71&K. Redlichorg77&R.J. Reedorg135&A. Rehmanorg18&P. Reicheltorg53&F.
Reidtorg93,org36&X. Renorg7&R. Renfordtorg53&A.R. Reolonorg72&A.
Reshetinorg56&F. Rettigorg43&J.-P. Revolorg12&K. Reygersorg93&V.
Riabovorg85&R.A. Ricciorg73&T. Richertorg34&M. Richterorg22&P. Riedlerorg36&W.
Rieglerorg36&F. Riggiorg29&C. Risteaorg62&A. Rivettiorg111&E. Roccoorg57&M.
Rodríguez Cahuantziorg2&A. Rodriguez Mansoorg81&K. Røedorg22&E.
Rogochayaorg66&D. Rohrorg43&D. Röhrichorg18&R. Romitaorg124&F.
Ronchettiorg72&L. Ronfletteorg113&P. Rosnetorg70&A. Rossiorg36,org30&F.
Roukoutakisorg88&A. Royorg49&C. Royorg55&P. Royorg101&A.J. Rubio
Monteroorg10&R. Ruiorg26&R. Russoorg27&E. Ryabinkinorg100&Y. Ryabovorg85&A.
Rybickiorg117&S. Sadovskyorg112&K. Šafaříkorg36&B. Sahlmullerorg53&P.
Sahooorg49&R. Sahooorg49&S. Sahooorg61&P.K. Sahuorg61&J. Sainiorg132&S.
Sakaiorg72&M.A. Salehorg135&C.A. Salgadoorg17&J. Salzwedelorg20&S.
Sambyalorg90&V. Samsonovorg85&X. Sanchez Castroorg55&L. Šándororg59&A.
Sandovalorg64&M. Sanoorg128&G. Santagatiorg29&D. Sarkarorg132&E.
Scapparoneorg105&F. Scarlassaraorg30&R.P. Scharenbergorg95&C. Schiauaorg78&R.
Schickerorg93&C. Schmidtorg97&H.R. Schmidtorg35&S. Schuchmannorg53&J.
Schukraftorg36&M. Schulcorg40&T. Schusterorg137&Y. Schutzorg113,org36&K.
Schwarzorg97&K. Schwedaorg97&G. Scioliorg28&E. Scomparinorg111&R.
Scottorg125&K.S. Seederorg120&J.E. Segerorg86&Y. Sekiguchiorg127&D.
Sekihataorg47&I. Selyuzhenkovorg97&K. Senosiorg65&J. Seoorg96,org67&E.
Serradillaorg64,org10&A. Sevcencoorg62&A. Shabanovorg56&A. Shabetaiorg113&O.
Shaduraorg3&R. Shahoyanorg36&A. Shangaraevorg112&A. Sharmaorg90&N.
Sharmaorg61,org125&K. Shigakiorg47&K. Shtejerorg9,org27&Y. Sibiriakorg100&S.
Siddhantaorg106&K.M. Sielewiczorg36&T. Siemiarczukorg77&D.
Silvermyrorg84,org34&C. Silvestreorg71&G. Simatovicorg129&G. Simonettiorg36&R.
Singarajuorg132&R. Singhorg79&S. Singhaorg79,org132&V. Singhalorg132&B.C.
Sinhaorg132&T. Sinhaorg101&B. Sitarorg39&M. Sittaorg32&T.B. Skaaliorg22&M.
Slupeckiorg123&N. Smirnovorg137&R.J.M. Snellingsorg57&T.W. Snellmanorg123&C.
Søgaardorg34&R. Soltzorg75&J. Songorg96&M. Songorg138&Z. Songorg7&F.
Soramelorg30&S. Sorensenorg125&M. Spacekorg40&E. Spiritiorg72&I.
Sputowskaorg117&M. Spyropoulou-Stassinakiorg88&B.K. Srivastavaorg95&J.
Stachelorg93&I. Stanorg62&G. Stefanekorg77&M. Steinpreisorg20&E.
Stenlundorg34&G. Steynorg65&J.H. Stillerorg93&D. Stoccoorg113&P.
Strmenorg39&A.A.P. Suaideorg120&T. Sugitateorg47&C. Suireorg51&M.
Suleymanovorg16&R. Sultanovorg58&M. Šumberaorg83&T.J.M. Symonsorg74&A.
Szaboorg39&A. Szanto de Toledoorg1200&I. Szarkaorg39&A.
Szczepankiewiczorg36&M. Szymanskiorg134&J. Takahashiorg121&N.
Tanakaorg128&M.A. Tangaroorg33&J.D. Tapia Takakiidp5907008,org51&A. Tarantola
Peloniorg53&M. Tarhiniorg51&M. Tariqorg19&M.G. Tarzilaorg78&A. Tauroorg36&G.
Tejeda Muñozorg2&A. Telescaorg36&K. Terasakiorg127&C. Terrevoliorg30,org25&B.
Teyssierorg130&J. Thäderorg74,org97&D. Thomasorg118&R. Tieulentorg130&A.R.
Timminsorg122&A. Toiaorg53&S. Trogoloorg111&V. Trubnikovorg3&W.H.
Trzaskaorg123&T. Tsujiorg127&A. Tumkinorg99&R. Turrisiorg108&T.S.
Tveterorg22&K. Ullalandorg18&A. Urasorg130&G.L. Usaiorg25&A.
Utrobicicorg129&M. Vajzerorg83&M. Valaorg59&L. Valencia Palomoorg70&S.
Valleroorg27&J. Van Der Maarelorg57&J.W. Van Hoorneorg36&M. van
Leeuwenorg57&T. Vanatorg83&P. Vande Vyvreorg36&D. Vargaorg136&A. Vargasorg2&M.
Vargyasorg123&R. Varmaorg48&M. Vasileiouorg88&A. Vasilievorg100&A.
Vauthierorg71&V. Vecherninorg131&A.M. Veenorg57&M. Veldhoenorg57&A.
Velureorg18&M. Venaruzzoorg73&E. Vercellinorg27&S. Vergara Limónorg2&R.
Vernetorg8&M. Verweijorg135&L. Vickovicorg116&G. Viestiorg300&J.
Viinikainenorg123&Z. Vilakaziorg126&O. Villalobos Baillieorg102&A.
Vinogradovorg100&L. Vinogradovorg131&Y. Vinogradovorg990&T. Virgiliorg31&V.
Vislaviciusorg34&Y.P. Viyogiorg132&A. Vodopyanovorg66&M.A. Völklorg93&K.
Voloshinorg58&S.A. Voloshinorg135&G. Volpeorg136,org36&B. von Hallerorg36&I.
Vorobyevorg92,org37&D. Vranicorg97,org36&J. Vrlákováorg41&B. Vulpescuorg70&A.
Vyushinorg99&B. Wagnerorg18&J. Wagnerorg97&H. Wangorg57&M. Wangorg7,org113&Y.
Wangorg93&D. Watanabeorg128&Y. Watanabeorg127&M. Weberorg36&S.G.
Weberorg97&J.P. Wesselsorg54&U. Westerhofforg54&J. Wiechulaorg35&J.
Wikneorg22&M. Wildeorg54&G. Wilkorg77&J. Wilkinsonorg93&M.C.S.
Williamsorg105&B. Windelbandorg93&M. Winnorg93&C.G. Yaldoorg135&H.
Yangorg57&P. Yangorg7&S. Yanoorg47&Z. Yinorg7&H. Yokoyamaorg128&I.-K.
Yooorg96&V. Yurchenkoorg3&I. Yushmanovorg100&A. Zaborowskaorg134&V.
Zaccoloorg80&A. Zamanorg16&C. Zampolliorg105&H.J.C. Zanoliorg120&S.
Zaporozhetsorg66&N. Zardoshtiorg102&A. Zarochentsevorg131&P. Závadaorg60&N.
Zaviyalovorg99&H. Zbroszczykorg134&I.S. Zguraorg62&M. Zhalovorg85&H.
Zhangorg18,org7&X. Zhangorg74&Y. Zhangorg7&C. Zhaoorg22&N. Zhigarevaorg58&D.
Zhouorg7&Y. Zhouorg80,org57&Z. Zhouorg18&H. Zhuorg18,org7&J. Zhuorg113,org7&X.
Zhuorg7&A. Zichichiorg12,org28&A. Zimmermannorg93&M.B.
Zimmermannorg54,org36&G. Zinovjevorg3&M. Zyzakorg43

## Affiliation notes

0Deceased

idp5907008Also at: University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, United States

## Collaboration Institutes

org1A.I. Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics Institute)
Foundation, Yerevan, Armenia

org2Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico

org3Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kiev, Ukraine

org4Bose Institute, Department of Physics and Centre for Astroparticle Physics
and Space Science (CAPSS), Kolkata, India

org5Budker Institute for Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia

org6California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California,
United States

org7Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China

org8Centre de Calcul de l’IN2P3, Villeurbanne, France

org9Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Havana,
Cuba

org10Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas
(CIEMAT), Madrid, Spain

org11Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados (CINVESTAV), Mexico City
and Mérida, Mexico

org12Centro Fermi - Museo Storico della Fisica e Centro Studi e Ricerche
“Enrico Fermi”, Rome, Italy

org13Chicago State University, Chicago, Illinois, USA

org14China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China

org15Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique, IRFU, Saclay, France

org16COMSATS Institute of Information Technology (CIIT), Islamabad, Pakistan

org17Departamento de Física de Partículas and IGFAE, Universidad de Santiago
de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain

org18Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen,
Norway

org19Department of Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India

org20Department of Physics, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United
States

org21Department of Physics, Sejong University, Seoul, South Korea

org22Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

org23Dipartimento di Elettrotecnica ed Elettronica del Politecnico, Bari,
Italy

org24Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università ’La Sapienza’ and Sezione INFN
Rome, Italy

org25Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Cagliari, Italy

org26Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Trieste, Italy

org27Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy

org28Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN,
Bologna, Italy

org29Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN,
Catania, Italy

org30Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN,
Padova, Italy

org31Dipartimento di Fisica ‘E.R. Caianiello’ dell’Università and Gruppo
Collegato INFN, Salerno, Italy

org32Dipartimento di Scienze e Innovazione Tecnologica dell’Università del
Piemonte Orientale and Gruppo Collegato INFN, Alessandria, Italy

org33Dipartimento Interateneo di Fisica ‘M. Merlin’ and Sezione INFN, Bari,
Italy

org34Division of Experimental High Energy Physics, University of Lund, Lund,
Sweden

org35Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

org36European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland

org37Excellence Cluster Universe, Technische Universität München, Munich,
Germany

org38Faculty of Engineering, Bergen University College, Bergen, Norway

org39Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, Comenius University,
Bratislava, Slovakia

org40Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering, Czech Technical
University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

org41Faculty of Science, P.J. Šafárik University, Košice, Slovakia

org42Faculty of Technology, Buskerud and Vestfold University College,
Vestfold, Norway

org43Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-
Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

org44Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, South Korea

org45Gauhati University, Department of Physics, Guwahati, India

org46Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Helsinki, Finland

org47Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan

org48Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT), Mumbai, India

org49Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore (IITI), India

org50Inha University, Incheon, South Korea

org51Institut de Physique Nucléaire d’Orsay (IPNO), Université Paris-Sud,
CNRS-IN2P3, Orsay, France

org52Institut für Informatik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt,
Frankfurt, Germany

org53Institut für Kernphysik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt,
Frankfurt, Germany

org54Institut für Kernphysik, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster,
Münster, Germany

org55Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien (IPHC), Université de
Strasbourg, CNRS-IN2P3, Strasbourg, France

org56Institute for Nuclear Research, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

org57Institute for Subatomic Physics of Utrecht University, Utrecht,
Netherlands

org58Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia

org59Institute of Experimental Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Košice,
Slovakia

org60Institute of Physics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague,
Czech Republic

org61Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India

org62Institute of Space Science (ISS), Bucharest, Romania

org63Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,
Mexico City, Mexico

org64Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico
City, Mexico

org65iThemba LABS, National Research Foundation, Somerset West, South Africa

org66Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR), Dubna, Russia

org67Konkuk University, Seoul, South Korea

org68Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon, South
Korea

org69KTO Karatay University, Konya, Turkey

org70Laboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire (LPC), Clermont Université,
Université Blaise Pascal, CNRS–IN2P3, Clermont-Ferrand, France

org71Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie, Université
Grenoble-Alpes, CNRS-IN2P3, Grenoble, France

org72Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, INFN, Frascati, Italy

org73Laboratori Nazionali di Legnaro, INFN, Legnaro, Italy

org74Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, United
States

org75Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, United
States

org76Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, Moscow, Russia

org77National Centre for Nuclear Studies, Warsaw, Poland

org78National Institute for Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest,
Romania

org79National Institute of Science Education and Research, Bhubaneswar, India

org80Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

org81Nikhef, National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, Netherlands

org82Nuclear Physics Group, STFC Daresbury Laboratory, Daresbury, United
Kingdom

org83Nuclear Physics Institute, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Řež
u Prahy, Czech Republic

org84Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States

org85Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina, Russia

org86Physics Department, Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, United States

org87Physics Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India

org88Physics Department, University of Athens, Athens, Greece

org89Physics Department, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

org90Physics Department, University of Jammu, Jammu, India

org91Physics Department, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, India

org92Physik Department, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

org93Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg,
Heidelberg, Germany

org94Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy

org95Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, United States

org96Pusan National University, Pusan, South Korea

org97Research Division and ExtreMe Matter Institute EMMI, GSI Helmholtzzentrum
für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany

org98Rudjer Bošković Institute, Zagreb, Croatia

org99Russian Federal Nuclear Center (VNIIEF), Sarov, Russia

org100Russian Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia

org101Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata, India

org102School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham,
United Kingdom

org103Sección Física, Departamento de Ciencias, Pontificia Universidad
Católica del Perú, Lima, Peru

org104Sezione INFN, Bari, Italy

org105Sezione INFN, Bologna, Italy

org106Sezione INFN, Cagliari, Italy

org107Sezione INFN, Catania, Italy

org108Sezione INFN, Padova, Italy

org109Sezione INFN, Rome, Italy

org110Sezione INFN, Trieste, Italy

org111Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy

org112SSC IHEP of NRC Kurchatov institute, Protvino, Russia

org113SUBATECH, Ecole des Mines de Nantes, Université de Nantes, CNRS-IN2P3,
Nantes, France

org114Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand

org115Technical University of Košice, Košice, Slovakia

org116Technical University of Split FESB, Split, Croatia

org117The Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy
of Sciences, Cracow, Poland

org118The University of Texas at Austin, Physics Department, Austin, Texas,
USA

org119Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Culiacán, Mexico

org120Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil

org121Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil

org122University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States

org123University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

org124University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom

org125University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States

org126University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

org127University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

org128University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan

org129University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

org130Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, CNRS/IN2P3, IPN-Lyon,
Villeurbanne, France

org131V. Fock Institute for Physics, St. Petersburg State University, St.
Petersburg, Russia

org132Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Kolkata, India

org133Vinča Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia

org134Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland

org135Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, United States

org136Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences,
Budapest, Hungary

org137Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States

org138Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea

org139Zentrum für Technologietransfer und Telekommunikation (ZTT),
Fachhochschule Worms, Worms, Germany