Elliptic and triangular flow of (anti)deuterons in Pb-Pb collisions at s NN − − − √ = 5.02 TeV
aa r X i v : . [ nu c l - e x ] M a y EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH
CERN-EP-2020-09929 May 2020c (cid:13)
Elliptic and triangular flow of (anti)deuterons in Pb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = 5.02 TeV ALICE Collaboration ∗ Abstract
The measurements of the (anti)deuterons elliptic flow ( v ) and the first measurements of triangu-lar flow ( v ) in Pb–Pb collisions at a center-of-mass energy per nucleon–nucleon collisions √ s NN =5.02 TeV are presented. A mass ordering at low transverse momentum ( p T ) is observed when com-paring these measurements with those of other identified hadrons, as expected from relativistic hydro-dynamics. The measured (anti)deuterons v lies between the predictions from the simple coalescenceand blast-wave models, which provide a good description of the data only for more peripheral andfor more central collisions, respectively. The mass number scaling, which is violated for v is ap-proximately valid for the (anti)deuterons v . The measured v and v are also compared with thepredictions from a coalescence approach with phase-space distributions of nucleons generated byiEBE-VISHNU with AMPT initial conditions coupled with UrQMD, and from a dynamical modelbased on relativistic hydrodynamics coupled to the hadronic afterburner SMASH. The model predic-tions are consistent with the data within the uncertainties in mid-central collisions, while a deviationis observed in central centrality intervals. ∗ See Appendix A for the list of collaboration members lliptic and triangular flow of (anti)deuterons ALICE Collaboration
The production mechanism of light (anti)nuclei in high-energy hadronic collisions is still not fully clearand is under intense debate in the scientific community [1–5]. The understanding of the production ofloosely-bound multi-baryon states in heavy-ion collisions has additional complications due to the factthat the phase transition is followed by a hadrons gas phase with intense re-scattering of hadrons. At theLarge Hadron Collider (LHC) energies, the lifetime of the hadronic phase between chemical and kineticfreezeout is in the range 4–7 fm/ c [6] and the kinetic freezeout temperature, when elastic interactionscease, is of the order of 100 MeV [7, 8]. The binding energy of multi-baryon systems such as light(anti)nuclei typically does not exceed a few MeV, which is almost two orders of magnitude smaller thanthe temperature of the system. Considering the high density of hadrons in the post-hadronization stageand the large dissociation cross sections of light (anti)nuclei, it is not clear how such loosely-boundsystems can survive under these extreme conditions.Existing phenomenological models provide very different interpretations for this observation. In thestatistical hadronization model [1–3, 9, 10], light (anti)nuclei as well as all other hadron species areassumed to be emitted by a source in local thermal and hadrochemical equilibrium. Their abundances arefixed at the chemical freeze-out, occurring at a temperature of T chem = ± c , while spatial coor-dinates are ignored. In the state-of-the-art implementations of the coalescence approach [4, 14], thequantum-mechanical properties of baryons and their bound states are taken into account and the coales-cence probability is calculated from the overlap between the wave functions of baryons and the Wignerdensity of the final-state cluster. All light (anti)nuclei produced at the phase transition are assumed to bedestroyed by the interactions in the hadron gas phase and regenerated with the same amount only at thelatest stage of the system evolution.To address the open question of the survival of loosely-bound multi-baryon states in the hadron gas phasewith intense re-scattering, models based on relativistic hydrodynamics coupled to a hadronic afterburnerhave been recently developed [4, 5]. In these models, nucleons and light nuclei are produced at the phasetransition using the Cooper-Frye formula [15], which describes the hadron production based on the localenergy density of the fireball, and their yields are fixed to the value predicted by the thermal modelat the chemical freeze-out temperature. Their propagation through the hadronic medium is simulatedbased on known interaction cross sections and resonant states using different transport codes. Existingcalculations are based on UrQMD [16, 17], with light nuclei being produced by nucleon coalescence, andSMASH [5], where (anti)deuterons are assumed to be destroyed and regenerated with equal rates in thehadronic stage. The model based on UrQMD with nucleon coalescence [4] provides a good descriptionof the elliptic flow of (anti)deuterons measured in Pb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = 2.76 TeV [18] and ofthat of (anti) He measured in Pb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = 5.02 TeV [19]. The model is able to describethe low- p T spectra of deuterons, but over-predicts the deuterons data above 2.5 GeV / c and the (anti) Hespectra in the full momentum interval. The hybrid model based on SMASH successfully describes themeasured (anti)deuterons p T -spectra and coalescence parameter B , defined as the ratio of the invariant2lliptic and triangular flow of (anti)deuterons ALICE Collaborationyield of deuterons and that of protons squared, measured in Pb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = 2.76 TeV [18].A conceptually similar approach, based on the analogy between the evolution of the early universe afterthe Big Bang and the space–time evolution of the system created in heavy-ion collisions, has recentlybeen developed [20]. The production of light (anti)(hyper)nuclei in heavy-ion collisions at the LHC isconsidered in the framework of the Saha equation assuming that disintegration and regeneration reactionsinvolving light nuclei proceed in relative chemical equilibrium after the chemical freeze-out of hadrons.The existing models depict radically different pictures of the post-hadronization stage for loosely-boundstates. Considering this scenario, the measurements of radial and anisotropic flow of light (anti)nuclei,i.e. the harmonics ( v n ) of the Fourier decomposition of their azimuthal production distribution withrespect to a symmetry plane of the collision, are relevant to study their propagation through the hadrongas phase and the dynamics of their interactions with other particles. Compared to the elliptic flow, thetriangular flow of light (anti)nuclei has a better sensitivity to the fluctuating initial conditions as well asthe properties of the created systems. Therefore, tighter constrains to on theoretical model that describethe production mechanism of light (anti)nuclei can be set.The elliptic flow of (anti)deuterons was measured as a function of the transverse momentum ( p T ) for dif-ferent centrality classes in Pb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = 2.76 TeV [18]. A clear mass ordering is observedat low p T ( p T < / c ) when this measurement is compared to that of other hadrons species [21],as expected from relativistic hydrodynamics. The simple coalescence model, based on the assumptionthat the (anti)deuterons invariant yield is proportional to the invariant yield of (anti)protons squared, isfound to overestimate the measured v in all centrality intervals. The data are better described by theblast-wave model, a simplified version of the relativistic hydrodynamic approach in which the collectiveexpansion is described using a parameterized hydrodynamic flow field. The elliptic flow of (anti) Hewas measured in Pb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = 5.02 TeV [19]. Also in the case of (anti) He, the massordering is observed for p T < / c and the measured elliptic flow lies between the predictions of theblast-wave [22] and the simple coalescence model. A better description of the measurement is providedby a more sophisticated coalescence model where the phase-space distributions of protons and neutronsare generated by the iEBE-VISHNU hybrid model with AMPT initial conditions [4]. The picture that hasemerged so far, regarding the elliptic flow of (anti)nuclei measured at LHC energies, is that the simplecoalescence and blast-wave models represent the upper and lower edges of a region where the data aremostly located. Recent developments in the coalescence approach, which take into account momentum-space correlations of nucleons and their quantum-mechanical properties, provide a better description ofthe data [4, 5].In this paper, a precision measurement of the (anti)deuterons elliptic flow and first ever measurementof (anti)deuterons triangular flow for different p T and centrality intervals in Pb–Pb collisions at √ s NN =5.02 TeV are presented. Thanks to the large data sample collected at higher energy, the elliptic flowmeasurement is performed in wider p T and up to a higher centrality intervals compared to that in Pb–Pbcollisions at √ s NN = 2.76 TeV, allowing for a more differential comparison with the theoretical models. A detailed description of the ALICE detector can be found in [23] and references therein. The main sub-detectors used for the present analysis are the V0 detector, the Inner Tracking System (ITS), the TimeProjection Chamber (TPC), and the Time-of-Flight detector (TOF), which are located inside a solenoidalmagnet that provides a uniform field of 0.5 T directed along the beam direction. The V0 detector [24]consists of two arrays of scintillation counters placed around the beam vacuum tube on either side ofthe interaction point: one covering the pseudorapidity interval 2 . < η < . − . < η < − . | η | < . is filled with a gas mixture containing 88% Ar and 12% CO . The trajectory of a charged particle isestimated using up to 159 space points. The charged-particle tracks are then built by combining the hitsin the ITS and the reconstructed space points in the TPC. The TPC is also used for particle identification(PID) by measuring the specific energy loss (d E /d x ) in the TPC gas.The TOF detector [29] covers the full azimuth in the pseudorapidity interval | η | < .
9. The detector isbased on the Multi-gap Resistive Plate Chambers (MRPCs) technology and it is located, with a cylin-drical symmetry, at an average radial distance of 380 cm from the beam axis. The TOF allows forPID, based on the difference between the measured time-of-flight and its expected value, computed foreach mass hypothesis from the track momentum and length. The resolution on the measurement of thetime-of-flight is about 60 ps in heavy-ion collisions.
The data sample used for the measurements presented in this paper was recorded by ALICE in 2015during the LHC Pb–Pb run at √ s NN = 5.02 TeV. A minimum bias trigger was used during the datataking, which required coincident signals in both V0 detectors. An offline event selection is applied toremove beam-gas collisions using the timing information provided by the V0 detectors and the Zero-Degree Calorimeters [23]. Events with multiple primary vertices identified with the SPD are tagged aspileup and removed from the analysis. In addition, events with significantly different charged-particlemultiplicities measured by the V0 detector and by the tracking detectors at midrapidity, which havedifferent readout times, are rejected. After the offline event selection, the remaining contribution ofbeam-gas events is smaller than 0.02% [23] and the fraction of pileup events is found to be negligible.The primary vertex position is determined from tracks reconstructed in the ITS and TPC as describedin [23] and only events with a reconstructed primary vertex position along the beam axis within 10 cmfrom the from the nominal interaction point are selected. The total number of events selected for theanalysis for centrality 0–70% is about 73 million.Deuteron (d) and antideuteron (d) candidates are selected from charged-particle tracks reconstructed inthe ITS and TPC in the kinematic range | η | < < p T < c . Only tracks with at least70 clusters out of a maximum of 159 and with a χ per degree-of-freedom for the track fit lower than 2are accepted. In addition, in order to guarantee a track-momentum resolution of 2% in the measured p T range and a d E /d x resolution of about 6%, each track is required to cross at least 70 of the TPC radialpad rows, and to be reconstructed from at least 80% of the number of expected TPC clusters and to have4lliptic and triangular flow of (anti)deuterons ALICE Collaborationat least one hit in either of the two innermost layers of the ITS. The distances of closest approach tothe primary vertex in the plane perpendicular and parallel to the beam axis for the selected tracks aredetermined with a resolution better than 300 µ m [23]. In order to suppress the contribution of secondaryparticles only tracks with a distance of closest approach to the reconstructed event vertex smaller than2 cm in the longitudinal direction are selected. The (anti)deuterons identification technique used in this analysis is similar to that used in the previousmeasurement in Pb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = 2.76 TeV [18]. For transverse momenta up to 1.4 GeV / c (anti)deuterons are identified using the only the TPC information by requiring that the average d E / d x iswithin 3 σ from the expected average value for the (anti)deuteron mass hypothesis. For p T > / c the 3 σ TPC identification is complemented by the signal provided by the TOF detector. The numberof (anti)deuterons in each p T interval is extracted from a fit of the ∆ M = m TOF − m d pdg , where m TOF is the particle mass calculated using the time-of-flight measured by the TOF and m d pdg is the nominalmass of deuterons taken from [30]. In the left panel of Fig. 1 the ∆ M distribution for (anti)deuteronswith 2 . ≤ p T < . c in the centrality interval 20–30%, is shown. The d+d signal is fitted using aGaussian with an exponential tail, while the background, originating from TOF hits incorrectly associatedto tracks extrapolated from the TPC, is modeled with an exponential function.Deuterons and antideuterons are summed together (d+d) in all the centrality intervals and for p T largerthan 1.4 GeV / c . This is possible since the v and v measured for v and v for d and d are consistentwithin the statistical uncertainties. At lower p T , deuterons produced by spallation in interactions betweenparticles and the detector material or in the beam vacuum tube constitute a significant background. Forthis reason, for p T < / c only antideuterons, which are not affected by this background, are usedin the analysis. Since no difference is expected for the v and v of dand d, hereafter deuterons willdenote results for antideuteron for p T < / c and the sum of d and d elsewhere. The contributionof secondary deuterons produced in weak decays of hypertritons is negligible considering that the pro-duction rate of (hyper)nuclei with mass number A = A = √ s NN = 2.76 TeV [31]. A similar suppression is expected inPb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = 5.02 TeV. The particle azimuthal distribution of charged particles with respect to the n -th order flow symmetryplane Ψ n [32–35] can be expressed as a Fourier series E d N d p = π d Np T d p T d y + ∞ ∑ n = v n cos ( n ( ϕ − Ψ n )) ! , (1)where E is the energy of the particle, p the momentum, ϕ the azimuthal angle, y the rapidity, and v n = h cos ( n ( ϕ − Ψ n )) i . (2)The second coefficient of the Fourier series ( v ) is called elliptic flow and is related to the initial geo-metrical anisotropy of the overlap region of the colliding nuclei. The third-order flow coefficient ( v ),called triangular flow, is generated by fluctuations in the initial distribution of nucleons and gluons inthe overlap region [34, 36, 37]. The same fluctuations are responsible for the v measured in most cen-tral collisions (centrality < v n coefficients are measured using the Scalar Product (SP)method [32, 39]. This is a two-particle correlation technique based on the scalar product of the unit flowvector of the particle of interest, k , and the Q-vector. The unit flow vector is denoted by u n , k = exp ( in ϕ k ) ,5lliptic and triangular flow of (anti)deuterons ALICE Collaborationwhere ϕ k is the azimuthal angle of the particle k . The Q-vector is computed from a set of reference flowparticles and is defined as: Q n = ∑ w i e in ϕ i (3)where, in general, ϕ i is the azimuthal angle for the i-th reference flow particle, n is the order of theharmonic, and w i is a weight applied to correct for reference flow.The v n flow coefficients are calculated as v n { SP } = hh u n , k Q ∗ n ii r h Q n Q A ∗ n ih Q n Q B ∗ n ih Q An Q B ∗ n i . (4)Single brackets h ... i denote an average over all events, while double brackets hh ... ii indicate an averageover all particles in all events, and ∗ denotes the complex conjugate. The denominator is a correctionfactor that is introduced to take into account the resolution of the Q n vector. In this analysis, the Q n vector is calculated from the azimuthal distribution of the energy deposition measured in the V0A, whilethe Q An and Q Bn vectors are determined from the azimuthal distribution of the energy deposited in the V0Cand the azimuthal distribution of tracks reconstructed in the TPC, respectively. Using these detectors, apseudorapidity gap | ∆η | > < p T < / c interval isaround 100%. In this transverse momentum interval the v and v coefficients were evaluated on a track-by-track basis and then averaged in each p T interval. For higher p T , the v n coefficients are calculated indifferent ranges of ∆ M. The v n ( ∆ M) contains contributions from the signal ( v sig n ) and from the background( v bkg n ) v n ( ∆ M ) = v sig n N sig N tot ( ∆ M ) + v bkg n ( ∆ M ) N bkg N tot ( ∆ M ) , (5)where N sig is the number of deuterons, N bkg the number of background particles and N tot is their sum.The signal v n is extracted from a fit to the observed v n as a function of ∆ M, in which the background isdescribed using a first-order polynomial function, the signal using a Gaussian with an exponential tail,while N sig and N bkg are obtained from the fit to the ∆ M distribution. The signal extraction procedure isillustrated in Fig. 1 for 2.2 ≤ p T < c (2.0 ≤ p T < c for v ) in the centrality interval20–30%.The elliptic and triangular flow of deuterons are measured in centrality intervals of 5% width and thenthe results in wider centrality intervals are obtained as weighted averages of these measurements usingthe number of deuteron candidates, in the same centrality interval of 5% width as a weight, similarly towhat was performed in [19]. The sources of systematic uncertainties for the elliptic and triangular flow of deuterons are related toevent selection, tracking, deuterons identification, and the technique used for the signal extraction. Thecontribution related to the event selection is estimated by taking into account the differences in the v and v measurements obtained using different event-selection criteria. In particular, the fiducial regionfor the vertex position along the beam axis is varied from the range [ − , ] cm to [ − , ] cm to probethe magnitude of potential edge effects. To probe possible effects due to charge asymmetries duringtracking and geometrical asymmetries in the detector, the differences between the results obtained by6lliptic and triangular flow of (anti)deuterons ALICE Collaboration − − − − ) c (GeV/ M ∆ ) c C oun t s / ( M e V / c < 2.4 GeV/ T p ≤ = 5.02 TeV NN s Pb − ALICE Pb30% −
20 dd + Signal + BackgroundBackground − − − − ) c (GeV/ M ∆ | > } η ∆ { SP , | T o t v c < 2.4 GeV/ T p ≤ NN s Pb − ALICE Pb 30% −
20 dd + Fit − − − − c (GeV/ M ∆ | > } η ∆ { SP , | T o t v c < 2.4 GeV/ T p ≤ NN s Pb − ALICE Pb 30% −
20 dd + Fit
Figure 1: (Color online) Raw yield (left), v (middle) and v (right) of d+d candidates as a function of ∆ M for2 . ≤ p T < . c (2 . ≤ p T < . c for v ) and in the centrality interval 20–30%. The data pointsrepresent the measurements. The curve on the left panel is the total fit (signal plus background) as described inthe text. The curves in the middle and right panel are the fits performed using Eq. 5. Vertical bars represent thestatistical uncertainties. using opposite magnetic field polarities were included. Analogously, the default centrality estimator waschanged to that based on the number of hits in the first or second layer of the ITS. Finally, the effectrelated to pileup rejection is tested by requiring a tighter correlation between the V0 and central barrelmultiplicities. These contributions are assumed to be independent and added in quadrature. The totalsystematic uncertainty due to event selection is found to be around 1.5% for both v and v .As far as the systematic uncertainties are concerned due to deuterons reconstruction and identification,the track selection and the TPC PID criteria are varied with respect to the default choice and the spread ofthe data points in each p T interval is considered. Namely, the number of sigma used to identify deuteronsin the TPC e and the selection used for selecting tracks were considered. To minimize the effect ofstatistical fluctuations, all variations smaller than 2 q(cid:12)(cid:12) σ − σ i (cid:12)(cid:12) are not considered in the estimation ofthe systematic uncertainties [40], where σ is the statistical uncertainty of the default value while σ i isthat corresponding to the i th selection criterion. The probability distribution for the variations of datapoints due to systematic effects related to tracking and PID is assumed to be uniform in each p T intervaland the difference between the maximum and minimum value divided by √
12 is assigned as systematicuncertainty. This contribution ranges from 1% and 3% depending on p T and centrality.To estimate the contribution to the systematic uncertainties due to the signal extraction, the function usedto describe the v bkg n is varied for a first-order polynomial to zero-degree polynomial and to a second-order polynomial. A contribution up to 5% is observed for central collisions and for p T < / c .Moreover, different functions and fitting ranges are used to describe the signal and the background ofEq. 5. This contribution is relevant only for p T > / c , where the TOF is used to extract thesignal, and is found to vary from 1% to 6% depending on p T and centrality. Table 1 shows the summaryof the different contributions to the systematic uncertainties for the v and v of deuterons. The totaluncertainties are given by their sum in quadrature, assuming that all contributions are independent. The v and v of deuterons measured in Pb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = 5.02 TeV are shown in Fig. 2 as afunction of p T for different centrality intervals. In the measured p T interval, an increasing trend is ob-served with increasing p T and going from central to more peripheral Pb–Pb collisions, as expected basedon the relativistic hydrodynamic description of the collective expansion of a hot and dense medium [41].The inhomogeneity effects due to initial state fluctuations of the energy density distribution of nucleonsand gluons in the colliding nuclei imply a non-zero v [42]. The measurement presented in this papershows that these effects, already observed for other hadron species at LHC energies [43, 44], are also7lliptic and triangular flow of (anti)deuterons ALICE Collaboration Table 1:
Summary of the systematic uncertainties for the deuterons v and v . The maximum deviation of thesystematic uncertainty is reported. Source Value v v Event selections 1.5% 1.5%Tracking and particle identification 1–3% 1–2%Signal extraction 1–4% 2–6%Total 2–7% 3–7%visible for deuterons. c (GeV/ T p | > } η ∆ { SP , | v − − −
10 30% −
20 40% −
30 50% −
40 60% −
50 70% − = 5.02 TeV NN s Pb − ALICE Pb dd + c (GeV/ T p | > } η ∆ { SP , | v − −
20 60% − = 5.02 TeV NN s Pb − ALICE Pb dd +
Figure 2: (Color online) Elliptic ( v , left) and triangular ( v , right) flow of deuterons as a function of p T fordifferent centrality intervals measured in Pb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = 5.02 TeV. The orizontal line at zero is toguide the eye. Vertical bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The measurement of the deuterons v in Pb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = 5.02 TeV is compared to that inPb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = 2.76 TeV [18] in Fig. 3 for two centrality intervals. The observed v andtheir trend are similar at the two energies, but a decrease of the observed elliptic flow for a given p T isobserved with increasing center-of-mass energy. This effect is more pronounced in peripheral rather thanin central collisions. A similar effect was observed for the proton v measurements [44] and is interpretedas partially due to the increasing radial flow with increasing the collision energy.The effect due to radial flow is assessed quantitatively by comparing the ratio of the deuteron and proton v as a function of p T at the two energies. The ratio between the deuteron v in Pb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = 5.02 TeV to that measured at √ s NN = 2.76 TeV, with v and p T scaled by the mass number A =
2, is shown in Fig. 4 for two centrality intervals in comparison with the same ratio for protons. Asindicated by these ratios, the radial flow effects are quantitatively very similar for protons and deuterons.It has to be noted that a mass scaling would lead to the same conclusion, since the binding energy ofdeuteron is of 2.2 MeV.The elliptic flow of deuterons is compared to that of pions, kaons, protons and (anti) He measured at thesame center-of-mass energy [19, 44] in Fig. 5. Since the (anti) He elliptic flow is measured in centralityintervals of 20% width due to its rarer production compared to that of lighter hadrons, the v of pions,8lliptic and triangular flow of (anti)deuterons ALICE Collaboration c (GeV/ T p − v ALICE Pb − Pb − dd + c (GeV/ T p − Figure 3: (Color online) Deuterons v measured in Pb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = 5.02 TeV (red square) comparedto that measured at √ s NN = 2.76 TeV [18] (light blue circles) for two centrality intervals (10–20% and 40–50%).Both protons and deuteron elliptic flow were measured for pseudorapidity gap between the particle of interest andthe reference flow particle | ∆η | > c (GeV/ A / T p . T e V . T e V : A / v ALICE Pb − Pb − c (GeV/ A / T p − pp + dd + Figure 4: (Color online) Ratio of the v of deuterons measured in Pb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = 5.02 TeV to thatmeasured at √ s NN = 2.76 TeV (red circles) compared with the same ratio obtained for protons (blue squares) fortwo centrality intervals (10–20% on the left panel and 40–50% on the right panel). For a direct comparison ofprotons and deuterons, the measured v and p T have were by A . Vertical bars and boxes represent the statisticaland systematic uncertainties, respectively. kaons, protons and deuterons are re-calculated to match the same centrality intervals. This is achievedby averaging the v measurements of these particles in narrower centrality intervals weighted by thecorresponding p T spectra [8, 45]. A clear mass ordering of v is observed at low p T , as expected for asystem expansion driven by the pressure gradient as described by relativistic hydrodynamics [41, 46, 47].In Fig. 6, the deuterons v is compared to that of pions, kaons, and protons at the same center-of-massenergy [44] for the centrality intervals 0–20% (left) and 20–40% (right). Also for the v , a clear mass9lliptic and triangular flow of (anti)deuterons ALICE Collaboration c (GeV/ T p v d d + He He + ± π ± K p p +
ALICE 20% − = 5.02 TeV, 0 NN s Pb, − Pb c (GeV/ T p − c (GeV/ T p − Figure 5: (Color online) Comparison of the elliptic flow of pions, kaons, protons, deuterons and (anti) He indifferent centrality intervals for Pb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = 5.02 TeV. (Anti) He v is measured using the EventPlane method [19]. Vertical bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. ordering is observed for p T < / c . c (GeV/ T p − | > } η ∆ { SP , | v − ± π ± K pp + dd + c (GeV/ T p −
20 = 5.02 TeV NN s Pb − ALICE Pb
Figure 6: (Color online) Triangular flow ( v ) of deuterons, pions, kaons, and protons [44] as a function of p T for the centrality intervals 0–20% and 20–40%. Vertical bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematicuncertainties, respectively. The elliptic flow of deuterons is compared with the expectations of the blast-wave model [22, 48, 49],which is based on the assumption that the system produced in heavy-ion collisions is locally thermal-ized and expands collectively with a common velocity field. The system is assumed to undergo aninstantaneous kinetic freeze-out at the temperature T kin and to be characterized by a common transverseradial flow velocity at the freeze-out surface. A simultaneous fit of the v and the p T spectra of pions,kaons, and protons [8, 44] with the blast-wave model is performed in the transverse-momentum ranges0.5 ≤ p π T < / c , 0 . ≤ p KT < / c , and 0 . ≤ p pT < . / c . The four free parameters of theblast-wave function are the kinetic freeze-out temperature ( T kin ), the variation in the azimuthal density ofthe source ( s ), the mean transverse expansion rapidity ( ρ ), and the amplitude of its azimuthal variation( ρ a ), as described in [48]. The values of these parameters extracted from the fits are reported in Table 2for each centrality interval. These values are employed to predict the elliptic flow of deuterons under theassumption that the same kinetic freeze-out conditions apply for all particles produced in the collision.The deuteron mass is taken from [30]. 10lliptic and triangular flow of (anti)deuterons ALICE Collaboration Table 2:
Blast-wave parameters extracted from the simultaneous fits of the p T spectra and v of pions, kaons, andprotons measured at √ s NN = 5.02 TeV. See text for details. The errors assigned to each parameter are the resultsof rounding procedure. Centrality Fit parameters T kin (MeV) s (10 − ) ρ (10 − ) ρ a (10 − )0–5% 104 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± v of pions, kaons, and protons and the predictions for the deuterons v arereported in Fig. 7 for the centrality intervals 10–20% and 40–50%. In the lower panels, the data-to-fitratios for pions, kaons, and protons and the ratios of the deuterons v to the model are shown. Becauseof the finite size of the p T intervals, the average of the blast-wave function within the interval, weightedusing the p T spectrum of the corresponding particle species, was considered in the calculation of theseratios.The predictions of the blast-wave model underestimate the deuterons elliptic flow experimental valuesin semi-peripheral collisions for p T > / c , while they are close to the measurements for centralevents in the measured p T interval. This is better observed in Fig. 8, which shows the centrality evolutionof the data-to-model ratios. The deuterons v and v are compared to the expectations of a coalescence approach based on mass num-ber scaling and isospin symmetry, for which the proton and neutron v ( v ) are identical. In particular,the v ( v ) measured for protons [44] was used to predict the v ( v ) of deuterons using the followingrelation [50] v ( ) , d ( p T ) = v ( ) , p ( p T / ) + v ( ) , p ( p T / ) . (6)The results of this calculation for different centrality intervals for v are shown in the left panel of Fig. 9.The measured elliptic flow in 10–20% and 40–50% centrality intervals of deuterons is compared withcoalescence model predictions from Eq. 6. Similarly, the right panel of Fig. 9 shows a comparisonbetween the calculated and measured v in the 0–20% and 20–40% centrality intervals.The coalescence model overestimates the deuteron v by about 20% to 30% in central collisions andis close to the data for semi-peripheral collisions, as illustrated in Fig. 10 which shows the centralityevolution of the data-to-model ratio. The coalescence approach seems to have a slightly better agreementwith deuterons v ; however, the large statistical uncertainties on the v measurements do not allow forconclusive statements. 11lliptic and triangular flow of (anti)deuterons ALICE Collaboration | > } η ∆ { SP , | v ALICE = 5.02 TeV NN s Pb − Pb 20% − ) c (GeV/ T p D a t a / M ode l Data ± π ± K pp + dd + blast-wave fitCombined ± π ± K pp + Predicteddd + − ) c (GeV/ T p Figure 7: (Color online) Blast-wave fits to the v ( p T ) of pions, kaons, and protons [44] and predictions of thedeuterons v ( p T ) for the centrality intervals 10–20% (left) and 40–50% (right). In the lower panels, the data-to-fitratios are shown for pions, kaons, and protons as well as the ratio of the deuterons v to the blast-wave predictions.Vertical bars and boxes sent the statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The dashed line at one is toguide the eye. c (GeV/ T p D a t a / B l a s t - w a v e − dd + D a t a / B l a s t - w a v e − c (GeV/ T p − − c (GeV/ T p − − c (GeV/ T p − = 5.02 TeV NN s Pb − ALICE Pb − Figure 8: (Color online) Data-to-model ratios of the deuterons v to the blast-wave predictions as a function of p T for different centrality intervals as indicated in each pad. Vertical bars and boxes represent the statistical andsystematic uncertainties, respectively. In Fig. 11, the deuterons v and v are compared to a model [4] implementing light nuclei formationvia coalescence of nucleons originating from a hydrodynamical evolution of the fireball coupled to anUrQMD simulation of the hadronic cascade [16, 17]. In this model, the coalescence probability is cal-culated as the superposition of the wave functions of protons and neutrons and the Wigner function of12lliptic and triangular flow of (anti)deuterons ALICE Collaboration | > } η ∆ { SP , | v ALICE = 5.02 TeV NN s Pb − Pb 20% − ) c (GeV/ T p ) c oa l v ) / ( d2 v ( Coalescencedd + 50% − ) c (GeV/ T p | > } η ∆ { SP , | v ALICE = 5.02 TeV NN s Pb − Pb 20% − ) c (GeV/ T p ) c oa l v ) / ( d3 v ( Coalescencedd + 40% − ) c (GeV/ T p Figure 9: (Color online) Measured deuterons v and v (red circles) compared with the expectations from simplecoalescence (Eq. 6) (blue shaded bands) for two centrality intervals. In the left panel, the v measurements in the10–20% and 40–50% centrality intervals is shown. The right panel displays the results of v in the 0–20% and 20–40% centrality intervals. The bottom panels show the ratio between the measured v ( v ) and the expectations fromthe coalescence model. In each panel, vertical bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties,respectively. The line at one is to guide the eye. c (GeV/ T p ) c oa l v ) / ( d2 v ( − Coalescencedd + ) c oa l v ) / ( d2 v ( − c (GeV/ T p − − c (GeV/ T p − − c (GeV/ T p − = 5.02 TeV NN s Pb − ALICE Pb − Figure 10: (Color online) Centrality evolution of the deuterons v compared with the expectations from simplecoalescence model (Eq. 6). Vertical bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties, respec-tively. the deuterons. The coalescence happens in a flowing medium introducing position-momentum correla-tions, which are absent in the simple coalescence approach. The phase-space distributions of protons andneutrons are generated from the iEBE-VISHNU hybrid model with AMPT [51] initial conditions. Thismodel provides a good description of the protons spectra up to 3 GeV / c and of the deuterons v measuredin Pb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = 2.76 TeV [4]. The predictions are consistent with the measured deuterons v for events with centrality larger than 20% and for measured v within the statistical and systemati-cal uncertainties, while some tension at the level of 2 σ (taking into account statistical and systematicaluncertainties in quadrature) are observed for for the centrality interval 10–20% as shown in Fig. 11. The deuterons v measured in the centrality intervals 10–20%, 20–30%, and 30–40% is compared inFig. 12 with the predictions from a hybrid model based on relativistic viscous hydrodynamics, with fluc-tuating initial conditions generated by T R ENTo [52], coupled to the hadronic afterburner SMASH [5].13lliptic and triangular flow of (anti)deuterons ALICE Collaboration | > } η ∆ { SP , | v dd + 20% − Data 10 30% − Data 20 40% − Data 30iEBE-VISHNU + Coalescence20% −
10 30% −
20 40% − ALICE = 5.02 TeV NN s Pb − Pb ) c (GeV/ T p − − M ode l − D a t a | > } η ∆ { SP , | v dd + 20% − Data 0 40% − Data 20iEBE-VISHNU + Coalescence20% − − ALICE = 5.02 TeV NN s Pb − Pb ) c (GeV/ T p − − M ode l − D a t a Figure 11:
Elliptic (left) and triangular (right) flow of deuterons compared to the predictions iEBE-VISHNUhybrid model with AMPT initial conditions [4]. The predictions are shown as bands whose widths represent thestatistical uncertainties associated with the model. The data-to-model ratios are shown in the lower panels. Verticalbars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively.
The simulations are obtained by using the JETSCAPE 1.0 event generator [53]. The parameters ofthis model, including the shear and bulk viscosities, are tuned to the measurements of p T spectra and az-imuthal flow of pions, kaons, and protons obtained by ALICE in Pb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = 2.76 TeV [7,21] and by PHENIX and STAR in Au–Au collisions at √ s NN = 200 GeV [54–56]. The interactions ofdeuterons with other hadrons in the hadron gas phase are simulated using SMASH in which all knownresonances and the experimentally known cross sections, most importantly π d → π np and its inversereaction, are included.In this model, the number of deuterons produced during the hadronic phase converges towards the samevalue predicted by the statistical hadronization model even if their number at the Cooper-Frye hypersur-face is set to zero. Considering that in this model only ∼
1% of the primordial deuterons survive thehadronic stage, the elliptic flow of deuterons observed after the kinetic freezeout is almost identical tothat of the regenerated ones. For this reason, deuterons are not sampled at the Cooper-Frye hypersurfacefor these predictions.The model predictions are consistent with the measured v within the uncertainties in the centralityintervals 20–30% and 30–40% for 0.8 < p T < / c , while the data are overestimated by up to 30%in the centrality interval 10–20% for p T > / c . The measurements of the deuterons v and the first measurement of v in Pb–Pb collisions at √ s NN =5.02 TeV are presented. The observed centrality and p T dependence are consistent with the expectationsfrom relativistic hydrodynamics. A mass ordering is observed at for p T < / c when comparing theseresults with the measured v and v of pions, kaons, and protons. The shift of the deuterons v towardshigher p T with respect to the measurement in Pb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = 2.76 TeV, partially due to a14lliptic and triangular flow of (anti)deuterons ALICE Collaboration | > } η ∆ { SP , | v dd + 20% − Data 10 30% − Data 20 40% − Data 30JETSCAPE 1.0 sims20% −
10 30% −
20 40% − ALICE = 5.02 TeV NN s Pb − Pb ) c (GeV/ T p − − M ode l − D a t a Figure 12:
Measured deuterons v compared to the predictions from a microscopic model [5] based on theJETSCAPE generator [53]. The model predictions, based on SMASH afterburner and which used TRENTo [52]initial conditions, are shown as bands. The width of the band represents the statistical uncertainty associated withthe model. In the lower panel the data-to-model ratios are shown. Vertical bars and boxes represent the statisticaland systematic uncertainties, respectively. stronger radial flow at higher center-of-mass energy, is consistent with that observed for the proton v measurement.The results of this measurement are compared with the expectations from the simple coalescence ap-proach, in which the deuterons v is obtained from that of protons assuming that the deuterons invariantyield is proportional to that of protons squared, and with the predictions of the blast-wave model. Thedeuterons v is overestimated by a simple coalescence approach, which describes the data only in periph-eral (centrality > He elliptic flow: these simplified models bracket a region wherethe light nuclei v is located and describe reasonably the data in different multiplicity regimes, indicatingthat none of these two models is able to describe the deuterons production measurement from low to highmultiplicity environments.Similar considerations apply for the deuterons v with some limitations due to the rather large statisticaluncertainties. This specific aspect will be addressed with the larger data sample that will be collectedin Run 3 following the ALICE upgrade, where a significant improvement of the statistical precision isexpected. This measurement will be crucial to better constrain models that describe the production oflight nuclei in heavy–ion collisions.A more advanced coalescence model coupled to hydrodynamics and the hadronic afterburner UrQMD,which takes into account the quantum-mechanical properties of nucleons and nuclei and space-momentum15lliptic and triangular flow of (anti)deuterons ALICE Collaborationcorrelations of nucleons, provides a good description of the deuterons v and v for p T > / c .Some tension is observed at lower p T , in particular for the centrality interval 10–20%, indicating thatsome aspects of light nuclei production in heavy–ion collisions are not fully understood. The same modelprovides a good description of the deuterons v measured in Pb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = 2.76 TeV andthat of He at √ s NN = 5.02 TeV. The deuterons v is also compared to the predictions from a hybrid modelbased on relativistic hydrodynamics coupled to the hadronic afterburner SMASH. The model predictionsare consistent with the data within the uncertainties in the centrality intervals 20–30% and 30–40%, whilea deviation of up to 30% is observed in the centrality interval 10–20% for 2 < p T < / c .In general the models based on the state-of-the-art implementation of coalescence and the dynamicalapproach provide better descriptions of the data compared to the simple coalescence and blast-wavemodels. However, some tension between the data and the coalescence approach applied to the hydro-dynamical calculations coupled to UrQMD is observed at low p T in central collisions, while deviationsup to 30% between the measurement and the predictions of the dynamical model based on SMASH areobserved for central collisions over the entire p T interval. Such comparisons indicate that some effortsboth on experimental and theoretical side are needed to fully understand light nuclei production. Acknowledgements
The ALICE Collaboration would like to thank all its engineers and technicians for their invaluable con-tributions to the construction of the experiment and the CERN accelerator teams for the outstandingperformance of the LHC complex. The ALICE Collaboration gratefully acknowledges the resources andsupport 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 buildingand running the ALICE detector: A. I. Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics In-stitute) 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 National-stiftung für Forschung, Technologie und Entwicklung, Austria; Ministry of Communications and HighTechnologies, National Nuclear Research Center, Azerbaijan; Conselho Nacional de DesenvolvimentoCientífico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (Finep), Fundação de Amparo àPesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) and Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS),Brazil; Ministry of Education of China (MOEC) , Ministry of Science & Technology of China (MSTC)and National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), China; Ministry of Science and Educationand Croatian Science Foundation, Croatia; Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear(CEADEN), Cubaenergía, Cuba; Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic, CzechRepublic; The Danish Council for Independent Research | Natural Sciences, the VILLUM FONDEN andDanish 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 Physiquedes Particules (IN2P3) and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), France; Bundesmin-isterium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) and GSI Helmholtzzentrum für SchwerionenforschungGmbH, Germany; General Secretariat for Research and Technology, Ministry of Education, Researchand Religions, Greece; National Research, Development and Innovation Office, Hungary; Departmentof Atomic Energy Government of India (DAE), Department of Science and Technology, Governmentof India (DST), University Grants Commission, Government of India (UGC) and Council of Scientificand Industrial Research (CSIR), India; Indonesian Institute of Science, Indonesia; Centro Fermi - MuseoStorico della Fisica e Centro Studi e Ricerche Enrico Fermi and Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare(INFN), Italy; Institute for Innovative Science and Technology , Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science(IIST), Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and Japan So-ciety 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) and16lliptic and triangular flow of (anti)deuterons ALICE CollaborationDirección General de Asuntos del Personal Academico (DGAPA), Mexico; Nederlandse Organisatievoor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), Netherlands; The Research Council of Norway, Norway;Commission on Science and Technology for Sustainable Development in the South (COMSATS), Pak-istan; Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Peru; Ministry of Science and Higher Education, NationalScience Centre and WUT ID-UB, Poland; Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information andNational Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), Republic of Korea; Ministry of Education and ScientificResearch, Institute of Atomic Physics and Ministry of Research and Innovation and Institute of AtomicPhysics, Romania; Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR), Ministry of Education and Science ofthe Russian Federation, National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Russian Science Foundation andRussian Foundation for Basic Research, Russia; Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport ofthe Slovak Republic, Slovakia; National Research Foundation of South Africa, South Africa; SwedishResearch Council (VR) and Knut & Alice Wallenberg Foundation (KAW), Sweden; European Organi-zation for Nuclear Research, Switzerland; Suranaree University of Technology (SUT), National Scienceand Technology Development Agency (NSDTA) and Office of the Higher Education Commission underNRU project of Thailand, Thailand; Turkish Atomic Energy Agency (TAEK), Turkey; National Academyof 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 ofEnergy, Office of Nuclear Physics (DOE NP), United States of America.
References [1] A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, “Decoding the phase structure ofQCD via particle production at high energy”,
Nature (2018) 321–330, arXiv:1710.09425 [nucl-th] .[2] V. Vovchenko and H. St¨ocker, “Examination of the sensitivity of the thermal fits to heavy-ionhadron yield data to the modeling of the eigenvolume interactions”,
Phys. Rev.
C95 (2017) 044904, arXiv:1606.06218 [hep-ph] .[3] A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Stachel, and H. St¨ocker, “Production of light nuclei,hypernuclei and their antiparticles in relativistic nuclear collisions”,
Phys. Lett.
B697 (2011) 203–207, arXiv:1010.2995 [nucl-th] .[4] W. Zhao, L. Zhu, H. Zheng, C. M. Ko, and H. Song, “Spectra and flow of light nuclei in relativisticheavy ion collisions at energies available at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider and at theCERN Large Hadron Collider”,
Phys. Rev.
C98 (2018) 054905, arXiv:1807.02813 [nucl-th] .[5] D. Oliinychenko, L.-G. Pang, H. Elfner, and V. Koch, “Microscopic study of deuteron productionin Pb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
76 TeV via hydrodynamics and a hadronic afterburner”,
Phys. Rev.
C99 no. 4, (2019) 044907, arXiv:1809.03071 [hep-ph] .[6]
ALICE
Collaboration, S. Acharya et al. , “Evidence of rescattering effect in Pb–Pb collisions atthe LHC through production of K ∗ ( ) and φ ( ) mesons”, Phys. Lett.
B802 (2020) 135225, arXiv:1910.14419 [nucl-ex] .[7]
ALICE
Collaboration, B. Abelev et al. , “Production of charged pions, kaons and protons at largetransverse momenta in pp and Pbâ ˘A ¸SPb collisions at √ s NN =2.76 TeV”, Phys. Lett.
B736 (2014) 196–207, arXiv:1401.1250 [nucl-ex] .[8]
ALICE
Collaboration, S. Acharya et al. , “Production of charged pions, kaons and (anti-)protonsin Pb–Pb and inelastic pp collisions at √ s NN = 5.02 TeV”, arXiv:1910.07678 [nucl-ex] .17lliptic and triangular flow of (anti)deuterons ALICE Collaboration[9] N. Sharma, J. Cleymans, B. Hippolyte, and M. Paradza, “A Comparison of p-p, p-Pb, Pb–PbCollisions in the Thermal Model: Multiplicity Dependence of Thermal Parameters”, Phys. Rev.
C99 (2019) 044914, arXiv:1811.00399 [hep-ph] .[10] F. Becattini, E. Grossi, M. Bleicher, J. Steinheimer, and R. Stock, “Centrality dependence ofhadronization and chemical freeze-out conditions in heavy ion collisions at √ s NN = 2.76 TeV”, Phys. Rev.
C90 (2014) 054907, arXiv:1405.0710 [nucl-th] .[11]
ALICE
Collaboration, S. Acharya et al. , “Production of He and He in Pb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = 2.76 TeV at the LHC”, Nucl. Phys.
A971 (2018) 1–20, arXiv:1710.07531 [nucl-ex] .[12] S. T. Butler and C. A. Pearson, “Deuterons from High-Energy Proton Bombardment of Matter”,
Phys. Rev. (1963) 836–842.[13] J. I. Kapusta, “Mechanisms for deuteron production in relativistic nuclear collisions”,
Phys. Rev.
C21 (1980) 1301–1310. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.21.1301 .[14] R. Scheibl and U. W. Heinz, “Coalescence and flow in ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions”,
Phys. Rev.
C59 (1999) 1585–1602, arXiv:nucl-th/9809092 [nucl-th] .[15] F. Cooper and G. Frye, “Single-particle distribution in the hydrodynamic and statisticalthermodynamic models of multiparticle production”,
Phys. Rev. D (Jul, 1974) 186–189. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.10.186 .[16] S. A. Bass et al. , “Microscopic models for ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions”, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. (1998) 255–369, arXiv:nucl-th/9803035 [nucl-th] .[17] M. Bleicher et al. , “Relativistic hadron hadron collisions in the ultrarelativistic quantum moleculardynamics model”, J. Phys.
G25 (1999) 1859–1896, arXiv:hep-ph/9909407 [hep-ph] .[18]
ALICE
Collaboration, S. Acharya et al. , “Measurement of deuteron spectra and elliptic flow inPb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = 2.76 TeV at the LHC”, Eur. Phys. J.
C77 (2017) 658, arXiv:1707.07304 [nucl-ex] .[19]
ALICE
Collaboration, S. Acharya et al. , “Measurement of the (anti-) He elliptic flow in Pb–Pbcollisions at √ s NN = 5.02 TeV”, arXiv:1910.09718 [nucl-ex] .[20] V. Vovchenko, K. Gallmeister, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and C. Greiner, “Nucleosynthesis in heavy-ioncollisions at the LHC via the Saha equation”, Physics Letters B (2020) 135131, arXiv:1903.10024 [hep-ph] .[21]
ALICE
Collaboration, B. Abelev et al. , “Elliptic flow of identified hadrons in Pb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
76 TeV”,
JHEP (2015) 190, arXiv:1405.4632 [nucl-ex] .[22] E. Schnedermann, J. Sollfrank, and U. W. Heinz, “Thermal phenomenology of hadrons from200-A/GeV S+S collisions”, Phys. Rev.
C48 (1993) 2462–2475, arXiv:nucl-th/9307020 [nucl-th] .[23]
ALICE
Collaboration, B. Abelev et al. , “Performance of the ALICE Experiment at the CERNLHC”,
Int. J. Mod. Phys.
A29 (2014) 1430044, arXiv:1402.4476 [nucl-ex] .[24]
ALICE
Collaboration, E. Abbas et al. , “Performance of the ALICE VZERO system”,
JINST (2013) P10016, arXiv:1306.3130 [nucl-ex] .18lliptic and triangular flow of (anti)deuterons ALICE Collaboration[25] ALICE
Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al. , “Centrality dependence of the charged-particlemultiplicity density at mid-rapidity in Pb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = 2.76 TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2011) 032301, arXiv:1012.1657 [nucl-ex] .[26]
ALICE
Collaboration, B. Abelev et al. , “Centrality determination of Pb–Pb collisions at √ s = 2.76 TeV with ALICE”, Phys. Rev.
C88 (2013) 044909, arXiv:1301.4361 [nucl-ex] .[27]
ALICE
Collaboration, S. Acharya et al. , “Centrality determination in heavy ion collisions”,. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2636623 .[28]
ALICE
Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al. , “Alignment of the ALICE Inner Tracking System withcosmic-ray tracks”,
JINST (2010) P03003, arXiv:1001.0502 [physics.ins-det] .[29] A. Akindinov et al. , “Performance of the ALICE Time-Of-Flight detector at the LHC”, Eur. Phys. J. Plus (2013) 44.[30]
Particle Data Group
Collaboration, M. Tanabashi et al. , “Review of particle physics”,
Phys. Rev. D (Aug, 2018) 030001. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.030001 .[31] ALICE
Collaboration, J. Adam et al. , “Production of light nuclei and anti-nuclei in pp and Pb–Pbcollisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider”,
Phys. Rev.
C93 no. 2, (2016) 024917, arXiv:1506.08951 [nucl-ex] .[32] S. A. Voloshin, A. M. Poskanzer, and R. Snellings, “Collective phenomena in non-central nuclearcollisions”,
Landolt-Bornstein (2010) 293–333, arXiv:0809.2949 [nucl-ex] .[33] J.-Y. Ollitrault, A. M. Poskanzer, and S. A. Voloshin, “Effect of flow fluctuations and nonflow onelliptic flow methods”, Phys. Rev.
C80 (2009) 014904, arXiv:0904.2315 [nucl-ex] .[34] B. Alver and G. Roland, “Collision geometry fluctuations and triangular flow in heavy-ioncollisions”,
Phys. Rev.
C81 (2010) 054905, arXiv:1003.0194 [nucl-th] . [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C82,039903(2010)].[35] Z. Qiu and U. W. Heinz, “Event-by-event shape and flow fluctuations of relativistic heavy-ioncollision fireballs”,
Phys. Rev.
C84 (2011) 024911, arXiv:1104.0650 [nucl-th] .[36] R. S. Bhalerao and J.-Y. Ollitrault, “Eccentricity fluctuations and elliptic flow at RHIC”,
Phys. Lett.
B641 (2006) 260–264, arXiv:nucl-th/0607009 [nucl-th] .[37] B. H. Alver, C. Gombeaud, M. Luzum, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, “Triangular flow in hydrodynamicsand transport theory”,
Phys. Rev.
C82 (2010) 034913, arXiv:1007.5469 [nucl-th] .[38]
ALICE
Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al. , “Higher harmonic anisotropic flow measurements ofcharged particles in Pb-Pb collisions at √ s NN =2.76 TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2011) 032301, arXiv:1105.3865 [nucl-ex] .[39]
STAR
Collaboration, C. Adler et al. , “Elliptic flow from two and four particle correlations inAu+Au collisions at s(NN)**(1/2) = 130-GeV”,
Phys. Rev.
C66 (2002) 034904, arXiv:nucl-ex/0206001 [nucl-ex] .[40] R. Barlow, “Systematic errors: Facts and fictions”, in
Advanced Statistical Techniques in ParticlePhysics. Proceedings, Conference, Durham, UK, March 18-22, 2002 , pp. 134–144. 2002. arXiv:hep-ex/0207026 [hep-ex] . .19lliptic and triangular flow of (anti)deuterons ALICE Collaboration[41] S. Jeon and U. Heinz, “Introduction to Hydrodynamics”, Int. J. Mod. Phys.
E24 (2015) 1530010, arXiv:1503.03931 [hep-ph] .[42] B. H. Alver, C. Gombeaud, M. Luzum, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, “Triangular flow in hydrodynamicsand transport theory”,
Phys. Rev.
C82 (2010) 034913, arXiv:1007.5469 [nucl-th] .[43]
ALICE
Collaboration, J. Adam et al. , “Higher harmonic flow coefficients of identified hadrons inPb-Pb collisions at √ s NN = 2.76 TeV”, JHEP (2016) 164, arXiv:1606.06057 [nucl-ex] .[44] ALICE
Collaboration, S. Acharya et al. , “Anisotropic flow of identified particles in Pb–Pbcollisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV”,
JHEP (2018) 006, arXiv:1805.04390 [nucl-ex] .[45] ALICE Collaboration
Collaboration, J. Adam et al. , “Preliminary Physics Summary: Deuteronand anti-deuteron production in pp collisions at √ s =
13 TeV and in Pbâ ˘A ¸SPb collisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV ”,. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2272148 .[46] P. Huovinen, P. F. Kolb, U. W. Heinz, P. V. Ruuskanen, and S. A. Voloshin, “Radial and ellipticflow at RHIC: Further predictions”,
Phys. Lett.
B503 (2001) 58–64, arXiv:hep-ph/0101136 [hep-ph] .[47] C. Shen, U. Heinz, P. Huovinen, and H. Song, “Radial and elliptic flow in Pb+Pb collisions at theLarge Hadron Collider from viscous hydrodynamic”,
Phys. Rev.
C84 (2011) 044903, arXiv:1105.3226 [nucl-th] .[48]
STAR
Collaboration, C. Adler et al. , “Identified particle elliptic flow in Au + Au collisions at √ s NN = 130 GeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2001) 182301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0107003 [nucl-ex] .[49] P. J. Siemens and J. O. Rasmussen, “Evidence for a blast wave from compressed nuclear matter”, Phys. Rev. Lett. (1979) 880–883. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.42.880 .[50] D. Molnar and S. A. Voloshin, “Elliptic flow at large transverse momenta from quarkcoalescence”, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2003) 092301, arXiv:nucl-th/0302014 [nucl-th] .[51] Z.-W. Lin, C. M. Ko, B.-A. Li, B. Zhang, and S. Pal, “A Multi-phase transport model forrelativistic heavy ion collisions”, Phys. Rev.
C72 (2005) 064901, arXiv:nucl-th/0411110 [nucl-th] .[52] J. S. Moreland, J. E. Bernhard, and S. A. Bass, “Alternative ansatz to wounded nucleon and binarycollision scaling in high-energy nuclear collisions”,
Phys. Rev.
C92 no. 1, (2015) 011901, arXiv:1412.4708 [nucl-th] .[53]
JETSCAPE
Collaboration, K. Kauder, “JETSCAPE v1.0 Quickstart Guide”,
Nucl. Phys.
A982 (2019) 615–618, arXiv:1807.09615 [hep-ph] .[54]
PHENIX
Collaboration, S. S. Adler et al. , “Identified charged particle spectra and yields in au+aucollisions at √ s NN = 200 gev”, Phys. Rev. C (Mar, 2004) 034909. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.69.034909 .[55] STAR
Collaboration, J. Adams et al. , “Identified particle distributions in pp and Au+Au collisionsat √ s NN = 200 GeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2004) 112301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0310004 [nucl-ex] .[56] STAR
Collaboration, J. Adams et al. , “Azimuthal anisotropy in Au+Au collisions at √ s NN = 200 GeV”, Phys. Rev.
C72 (2005) 014904, arXiv:nucl-ex/0409033 [nucl-ex] .20lliptic and triangular flow of (anti)deuterons ALICE Collaboration
A The ALICE Collaboration
S. Acharya , D. Adamová , A. Adler , J. Adolfsson , M.M. Aggarwal , G. Aglieri Rinella ,M. Agnello , N. Agrawal
10 ,54 , Z. Ahammed , S. Ahmad , S.U. Ahn , Z. Akbar , A. Akindinov ,M. Al-Turany , S.N. Alam
40 ,141 , D.S.D. Albuquerque , D. Aleksandrov , B. Alessandro ,H.M. Alfanda , R. Alfaro Molina , B. Ali , Y. Ali , A. Alici
10 ,26 ,54 , N. Alizadehvandchali ,A. Alkin , J. Alme , T. Alt , L. Altenkamper , I. Altsybeev , M.N. Anaam , C. Andrei ,D. Andreou , A. Andronic , M. Angeletti , V. Anguelov , C. Anson , T. Antiˇci´c , F. Antinori ,P. Antonioli , N. Apadula , L. Aphecetche , H. Appelshäuser , S. Arcelli , R. Arnaldi , M. Arratia ,I.C. Arsene , M. Arslandok , A. Augustinus , R. Averbeck , S. Aziz , M.D. Azmi , A. Badalà ,Y.W. Baek , S. Bagnasco , X. Bai , R. Bailhache , R. Bala , A. Balbino , A. Baldisseri , M. Ball ,S. Balouza , D. Banerjee , R. Barbera , L. Barioglio , G.G. Barnaföldi , L.S. Barnby , V. Barret ,P. Bartalini , C. Bartels , K. Barth , E. Bartsch , F. Baruffaldi , N. Bastid , S. Basu , G. Batigne ,B. Batyunya , D. Bauri , J.L. Bazo Alba , I.G. Bearden , C. Beattie , C. Bedda , I. Belikov ,A.D.C. Bell Hechavarria , F. Bellini , R. Bellwied , V. Belyaev , G. Bencedi , S. Beole ,A. Bercuci , Y. Berdnikov , D. Berenyi , R.A. Bertens , D. Berzano , M.G. Besoiu , L. Betev ,A. Bhasin , I.R. Bhat , M.A. Bhat , H. Bhatt , B. Bhattacharjee , A. Bianchi , L. Bianchi ,N. Bianchi , J. Bielˇcík , J. Bielˇcíková , A. Bilandzic , G. Biro , R. Biswas , S. Biswas , J.T. Blair ,D. Blau , C. Blume , G. Boca , F. Bock , A. Bogdanov , S. Boi , J. Bok , L. Boldizsár ,A. Bolozdynya , M. Bombara , G. Bonomi , H. Borel , A. Borissov , H. Bossi , E. Botta ,L. Bratrud , P. Braun-Munzinger , M. Bregant , M. Broz , E. Bruna , G.E. Bruno
33 ,106 ,M.D. Buckland , D. Budnikov , H. Buesching , S. Bufalino , O. Bugnon , P. Buhler , P. Buncic ,Z. Buthelezi
72 ,131 , J.B. Butt , S.A. Bysiak , D. Caffarri , A. Caliva , E. Calvo Villar ,J.M.M. Camacho , R.S. Camacho , P. Camerini , F.D.M. Canedo , A.A. Capon , F. Carnesecchi ,R. Caron , J. Castillo Castellanos , A.J. Castro , E.A.R. Casula , F. Catalano , C. Ceballos Sanchez ,P. Chakraborty , S. Chandra , W. Chang , S. Chapeland , M. Chartier , S. Chattopadhyay ,S. Chattopadhyay , A. Chauvin , C. Cheshkov , B. Cheynis , V. Chibante Barroso ,D.D. Chinellato , S. Cho , P. Chochula , T. Chowdhury , P. Christakoglou , C.H. Christensen ,P. Christiansen , T. Chujo , C. Cicalo , L. Cifarelli
10 ,26 , L.D. Cilladi , F. Cindolo , M.R. Ciupek ,G. Clai
54 ,ii , J. Cleymans , F. Colamaria , D. Colella , A. Collu , M. Colocci , M. Concas
59 ,iii , G. ConesaBalbastre , Z. Conesa del Valle , G. Contin
24 ,60 , J.G. Contreras , T.M. Cormier , Y. Corrales Morales ,P. Cortese , M.R. Cosentino , F. Costa , S. Costanza , P. Crochet , E. Cuautle , P. Cui ,L. Cunqueiro , D. Dabrowski , T. Dahms , A. Dainese , F.P.A. Damas
115 ,137 , M.C. Danisch ,A. Danu , D. Das , I. Das , P. Das , P. Das , S. Das , A. Dash , S. Dash , S. De , A. De Caro ,G. de Cataldo , J. de Cuveland , A. De Falco , D. De Gruttola , N. De Marco , S. De Pasquale ,S. Deb , H.F. Degenhardt , K.R. Deja , A. Deloff , S. Delsanto
25 ,131 , W. Deng , P. Dhankher , D. DiBari , A. Di Mauro , R.A. Diaz , T. Dietel , P. Dillenseger , Y. Ding , R. Divià , D.U. Dixit ,Ø. Djuvsland , U. Dmitrieva , A. Dobrin , B. Dönigus , O. Dordic , A.K. Dubey , A. Dubla
90 ,107 ,S. Dudi , M. Dukhishyam , P. Dupieux , R.J. Ehlers , V.N. Eikeland , D. Elia , B. Erazmus ,F. Erhardt , A. Erokhin , M.R. Ersdal , B. Espagnon , G. Eulisse , D. Evans , S. Evdokimov ,L. Fabbietti , M. Faggin , J. Faivre , F. Fan , A. Fantoni , M. Fasel , P. Fecchio , A. Feliciello ,G. Feofilov , A. Fernández Téllez , A. Ferrero , A. Ferretti , A. Festanti , V.J.G. Feuillard ,J. Figiel , S. Filchagin , D. Finogeev , F.M. Fionda , G. Fiorenza , F. Flor , A.N. Flores ,S. Foertsch , P. Foka , S. Fokin , E. Fragiacomo , U. Frankenfeld , U. Fuchs , C. Furget , A. Furs ,M. Fusco Girard , J.J. Gaardhøje , M. Gagliardi , A.M. Gago , A. Gal , C.D. Galvan , P. Ganoti ,C. Garabatos , J.R.A. Garcia , E. Garcia-Solis , K. Garg , C. Gargiulo , A. Garibli , K. Garner ,P. Gasik
105 ,107 , E.F. Gauger , M.B. Gay Ducati , M. Germain , J. Ghosh , P. Ghosh , S.K. Ghosh ,M. Giacalone , P. Gianotti , P. Giubellino
59 ,107 , P. Giubilato , A.M.C. Glaenzer , P. Glässel , A. GomezRamirez , V. Gonzalez
107 ,143 , L.H. González-Trueba , S. Gorbunov , L. Görlich , A. Goswami ,S. Gotovac , V. Grabski , L.K. Graczykowski , K.L. Graham , L. Greiner , A. Grelli , C. Grigoras ,V. Grigoriev , A. Grigoryan , S. Grigoryan , O.S. Groettvik , F. Grosa
30 ,59 , J.F. Grosse-Oetringhaus ,R. Grosso , R. Guernane , M. Guittiere , K. Gulbrandsen , T. Gunji , A. Gupta , R. Gupta ,I.B. Guzman , R. Haake , M.K. Habib , C. Hadjidakis , H. Hamagaki , G. Hamar , M. Hamid ,R. Hannigan , M.R. Haque
63 ,86 , A. Harlenderova , J.W. Harris , A. Harton , J.A. Hasenbichler ,H. Hassan , Q.U. Hassan , D. Hatzifotiadou
10 ,54 , P. Hauer , L.B. Havener , S. Hayashi ,S.T. Heckel , E. Hellbär , H. Helstrup , A. Herghelegiu , T. Herman , E.G. Hernandez , G. HerreraCorral , F. Herrmann , K.F. Hetland , H. Hillemanns , C. Hills , B. Hippolyte , B. Hohlweger , J. Honermann , D. Horak , A. Hornung , S. Hornung , R. Hosokawa
15 ,133 , P. Hristov , C. Huang ,C. Hughes , P. Huhn , T.J. Humanic , H. Hushnud , L.A. Husova , N. Hussain , S.A. Hussain ,D. Hutter , J.P. Iddon
34 ,127 , R. Ilkaev , H. Ilyas , M. Inaba , G.M. Innocenti , M. Ippolitov ,A. Isakov , M.S. Islam , M. Ivanov , V. Ivanov , V. Izucheev , B. Jacak , N. Jacazio
34 ,54 ,P.M. Jacobs , S. Jadlovska , J. Jadlovsky , S. Jaelani , C. Jahnke , M.J. Jakubowska ,M.A. Janik , T. Janson , M. Jercic , O. Jevons , M. Jin , F. Jonas
96 ,144 , P.G. Jones , J. Jung ,M. Jung , A. Jusko , P. Kalinak , A. Kalweit , V. Kaplin , S. Kar , A. Karasu Uysal , D. Karatovic ,O. Karavichev , T. Karavicheva , P. Karczmarczyk , E. Karpechev , A. Kazantsev , U. Kebschull ,R. Keidel , M. Keil , B. Ketzer , Z. Khabanova , A.M. Khan , S. Khan , A. Khanzadeev ,Y. Kharlov , A. Khatun , A. Khuntia , B. Kileng , B. Kim , B. Kim , D. Kim , D.J. Kim ,E.J. Kim , H. Kim , J. Kim , J.S. Kim , J. Kim , J. Kim , J. Kim , M. Kim , S. Kim ,T. Kim , T. Kim , S. Kirsch , I. Kisel , S. Kiselev , A. Kisiel , J.L. Klay , C. Klein , J. Klein
34 ,59 ,S. Klein , C. Klein-Bösing , M. Kleiner , T. Klemenz , A. Kluge , M.L. Knichel , A.G. Knospe ,C. Kobdaj , M.K. Köhler , T. Kollegger , A. Kondratyev , N. Kondratyeva , E. Kondratyuk ,J. Konig , S.A. Konigstorfer , P.J. Konopka , G. Kornakov , L. Koska , O. Kovalenko ,V. Kovalenko , M. Kowalski , I. Králik , A. Kravˇcáková , L. Kreis , M. Krivda
64 ,111 , F. Krizek ,K. Krizkova Gajdosova , M. Krüger , E. Kryshen , M. Krzewicki , A.M. Kubera , V. Kuˇcera
34 ,61 ,C. Kuhn , P.G. Kuijer , L. Kumar , S. Kundu , P. Kurashvili , A. Kurepin , A.B. Kurepin ,A. Kuryakin , S. Kushpil , J. Kvapil , M.J. Kweon , J.Y. Kwon , Y. Kwon , S.L. La Pointe , P. LaRocca , Y.S. Lai , M. Lamanna , R. Langoy , K. Lapidus , A. Lardeux , P. Larionov , E. Laudi ,R. Lavicka , T. Lazareva , R. Lea , L. Leardini , J. Lee , S. Lee , S. Lehner , J. Lehrbach ,R.C. Lemmon , I. León Monzón , E.D. Lesser , M. Lettrich , P. Lévai , X. Li , X.L. Li , J. Lien ,R. Lietava , B. Lim , V. Lindenstruth , A. Lindner , C. Lippmann , M.A. Lisa , A. Liu , J. Liu ,S. Liu , W.J. Llope , I.M. Lofnes , V. Loginov , C. Loizides , P. Loncar , J.A. Lopez , X. Lopez ,E. López Torres , J.R. Luhder , M. Lunardon , G. Luparello , Y.G. Ma , A. Maevskaya , M. Mager ,S.M. Mahmood , T. Mahmoud , A. Maire , R.D. Majka
146 ,i , M. Malaev , Q.W. Malik , L. Malinina
75 ,iv ,D. Mal’Kevich , P. Malzacher , G. Mandaglio
32 ,56 , V. Manko , F. Manso , V. Manzari , Y. Mao ,M. Marchisone , J. Mareš , G.V. Margagliotti , A. Margotti , A. Marín , C. Markert ,M. Marquard , C.D. Martin , N.A. Martin , P. Martinengo , J.L. Martinez , M.I. Martínez ,G. Martínez García , S. Masciocchi , M. Masera , A. Masoni , L. Massacrier , E. Masson ,A. Mastroserio
53 ,138 , A.M. Mathis , O. Matonoha , P.F.T. Matuoka , A. Matyja , C. Mayer ,F. Mazzaschi , M. Mazzilli , M.A. Mazzoni , A.F. Mechler , F. Meddi , Y. Melikyan
62 ,93 ,A. Menchaca-Rocha , C. Mengke , E. Meninno
29 ,114 , A.S. Menon , M. Meres , S. Mhlanga ,Y. Miake , L. Micheletti , L.C. Migliorin , D.L. Mihaylov , K. Mikhaylov
75 ,92 , A.N. Mishra ,D. Mi´skowiec , A. Modak , N. Mohammadi , A.P. Mohanty , B. Mohanty , M. Mohisin Khan
16 ,v ,Z. Moravcova , C. Mordasini , D.A. Moreira De Godoy , L.A.P. Moreno , I. Morozov , A. Morsch ,T. Mrnjavac , V. Muccifora , E. Mudnic , D. Mühlheim , S. Muhuri , J.D. Mulligan , A. Mulliri
23 ,55 ,M.G. Munhoz , R.H. Munzer , H. Murakami , S. Murray , L. Musa , J. Musinsky , C.J. Myers ,J.W. Myrcha , B. Naik , R. Nair , B.K. Nandi , R. Nania
10 ,54 , E. Nappi , M.U. Naru ,A.F. Nassirpour , C. Nattrass , R. Nayak , T.K. Nayak , S. Nazarenko , A. Neagu , R.A. Negrao DeOliveira , L. Nellen , S.V. Nesbo , G. Neskovic , D. Nesterov , L.T. Neumann , B.S. Nielsen ,S. Nikolaev , S. Nikulin , V. Nikulin , F. Noferini
10 ,54 , P. Nomokonov , J. Norman
79 ,127 , N. Novitzky ,P. Nowakowski , A. Nyanin , J. Nystrand , M. Ogino , A. Ohlson , J. Oleniacz , A.C. Oliveira DaSilva , M.H. Oliver , C. Oppedisano , A. Ortiz Velasquez , T. Osako , A. Oskarsson ,J. Otwinowski , K. Oyama , Y. Pachmayer , V. Pacik , S. Padhan , D. Pagano , G. Pai´c , J. Pan ,S. Panebianco , P. Pareek
50 ,141 , J. Park , J.E. Parkkila , S. Parmar , S.P. Pathak , B. Paul ,J. Pazzini , H. Pei , T. Peitzmann , X. Peng , L.G. Pereira , H. Pereira Da Costa , D. Peresunko ,G.M. Perez , S. Perrin , Y. Pestov , V. Petráˇcek , M. Petrovici , R.P. Pezzi , S. Piano , M. Pikna ,P. Pillot , O. Pinazza
34 ,54 , L. Pinsky , C. Pinto , S. Pisano
10 ,52 , D. Pistone , M. Płosko´n ,M. Planinic , F. Pliquett , M.G. Poghosyan , B. Polichtchouk , N. Poljak , A. Pop ,S. Porteboeuf-Houssais , V. Pozdniakov , S.K. Prasad , R. Preghenella , F. Prino , C.A. Pruneau ,I. Pshenichnov , M. Puccio , J. Putschke , S. Qiu , L. Quaglia , R.E. Quishpe , S. Ragoni ,S. Raha , S. Rajput , J. Rak , A. Rakotozafindrabe , L. Ramello , F. Rami , S.A.R. Ramirez ,R. Raniwala , S. Raniwala , S.S. Räsänen , R. Rath , V. Ratza , I. Ravasenga , K.F. Read
96 ,130 ,A.R. Redelbach , K. Redlich
85 ,vi , A. Rehman , P. Reichelt , F. Reidt , X. Ren , R. Renfordt ,Z. Rescakova , K. Reygers , A. Riabov , V. Riabov , T. Richert
81 ,89 , M. Richter , P. Riedler , W. Riegler , F. Riggi , C. Ristea , S.P. Rode , M. Rodríguez Cahuantzi , K. Røed , R. Rogalev ,E. Rogochaya , D. Rohr , D. Röhrich , P.F. Rojas , P.S. Rokita , F. Ronchetti , A. Rosano ,E.D. Rosas , K. Roslon , A. Rossi
28 ,57 , A. Rotondi , A. Roy , P. Roy , O.V. Rueda , R. Rui ,B. Rumyantsev , A. Rustamov , E. Ryabinkin , Y. Ryabov , A. Rybicki , H. Rytkonen ,O.A.M. Saarimaki , R. Sadek , S. Sadhu , S. Sadovsky , K. Šafaˇrík , S.K. Saha , B. Sahoo ,P. Sahoo , R. Sahoo , S. Sahoo , P.K. Sahu , J. Saini , S. Sakai , S. Sambyal , V. Samsonov
93 ,98 ,D. Sarkar , N. Sarkar , P. Sarma , V.M. Sarti , M.H.P. Sas , E. Scapparone , J. Schambach ,H.S. Scheid , C. Schiaua , R. Schicker , A. Schmah , C. Schmidt , H.R. Schmidt ,M.O. Schmidt , M. Schmidt , N.V. Schmidt
68 ,96 , A.R. Schmier , J. Schukraft , Y. Schutz ,K. Schwarz , K. Schweda , G. Scioli , E. Scomparin , J.E. Seger , Y. Sekiguchi , D. Sekihata ,I. Selyuzhenkov
93 ,107 , S. Senyukov , D. Serebryakov , A. Sevcenco , A. Shabanov , A. Shabetai ,R. Shahoyan , W. Shaikh , A. Shangaraev , A. Sharma , A. Sharma , H. Sharma , M. Sharma ,N. Sharma , S. Sharma , O. Sheibani , K. Shigaki , M. Shimomura , S. Shirinkin , Q. Shou ,Y. Sibiriak , S. Siddhanta , T. Siemiarczuk , D. Silvermyr , G. Simatovic , G. Simonetti , B. Singh ,R. Singh , R. Singh , R. Singh , V.K. Singh , V. Singhal , T. Sinha , B. Sitar , M. Sitta ,T.B. Skaali , M. Slupecki , N. Smirnov , R.J.M. Snellings , C. Soncco , J. Song ,A. Songmoolnak , F. Soramel , S. Sorensen , I. Sputowska , J. Stachel , I. Stan , P.J. Steffanic ,E. Stenlund , S.F. Stiefelmaier , D. Stocco , M.M. Storetvedt , L.D. Stritto , A.A.P. Suaide ,T. Sugitate , C. Suire , M. Suleymanov , M. Suljic , R. Sultanov , M. Šumbera , V. Sumberia ,S. Sumowidagdo , S. Swain , A. Szabo , I. Szarka , U. Tabassam , S.F. Taghavi , G. Taillepied ,J. Takahashi , G.J. Tambave , S. Tang , M. Tarhini , M.G. Tarzila , A. Tauro , G. Tejeda Muñoz ,A. Telesca , L. Terlizzi , C. Terrevoli , D. Thakur , S. Thakur , D. Thomas , F. Thoresen ,R. Tieulent , A. Tikhonov , A.R. Timmins , A. Toia , N. Topilskaya , M. Toppi , F. Torales-Acosta ,S.R. Torres , A. Trifiró
32 ,56 , S. Tripathy
50 ,69 , T. Tripathy , S. Trogolo , G. Trombetta , L. Tropp ,V. Trubnikov , W.H. Trzaska , T.P. Trzcinski , B.A. Trzeciak
37 ,63 , A. Tumkin , R. Turrisi ,T.S. Tveter , K. Ullaland , E.N. Umaka , A. Uras , G.L. Usai , M. Vala , N. Valle , S. Vallero ,N. van der Kolk , L.V.R. van Doremalen , M. van Leeuwen , P. Vande Vyvre , D. Varga , Z. Varga ,M. Varga-Kofarago , A. Vargas , M. Vasileiou , A. Vasiliev , O. Vázquez Doce , V. Vechernin ,E. Vercellin , S. Vergara Limón , L. Vermunt , R. Vernet , R. Vértesi , L. Vickovic , Z. Vilakazi ,O. Villalobos Baillie , G. Vino , A. Vinogradov , T. Virgili , V. Vislavicius , A. Vodopyanov ,B. Volkel , M.A. Völkl , K. Voloshin , S.A. Voloshin , G. Volpe , B. von Haller , I. Vorobyev ,D. Voscek , J. Vrláková , B. Wagner , M. Weber , S.G. Weber , A. Wegrzynek , S.C. Wenzel ,J.P. Wessels , J. Wiechula , J. Wikne , G. Wilk , J. Wilkinson , G.A. Willems , E. Willsher ,B. Windelband , M. Winn , W.E. Witt , J.R. Wright , Y. Wu , R. Xu , S. Yalcin , Y. Yamaguchi ,K. Yamakawa , S. Yang , S. Yano , Z. Yin , H. Yokoyama , I.-K. Yoo , J.H. Yoon , S. Yuan ,A. Yuncu , V. Yurchenko , V. Zaccolo , A. Zaman , C. Zampolli , H.J.C. Zanoli , N. Zardoshti ,A. Zarochentsev , P. Závada , N. Zaviyalov , H. Zbroszczyk , M. Zhalov , S. Zhang , X. Zhang ,Z. Zhang , V. Zherebchevskii , Y. Zhi , D. Zhou , Y. Zhou , Z. Zhou , J. Zhu , Y. Zhu ,A. Zichichi
10 ,26 , G. Zinovjev , N. Zurlo , Affiliation notes i Deceased ii Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA),Bologna, Italy iii
Dipartimento DET del Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy iv M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, D.V. Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear, Physics, Moscow, Russia v Department of Applied Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India vi Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Wroclaw, Poland
Collaboration Institutes A.I. Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics Institute) Foundation, Yerevan, Armenia Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine Bose Institute, Department of Physics and Centre for Astroparticle Physics and Space Science (CAPSS),Kolkata, India Budker Institute for Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California, United States Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China Centre de Calcul de l’IN2P3, Villeurbanne, Lyon, France Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Havana, Cuba Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados (CINVESTAV), Mexico City and Mérida, Mexico Centro Fermi - Museo Storico della Fisica e Centro Studi e Ricerche “Enrico Fermi’, Rome, Italy Chicago State University, Chicago, Illinois, United States China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China Comenius University Bratislava, Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, Bratislava, Slovakia COMSATS University Islamabad, Islamabad, Pakistan Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, United States Department of Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India Department of Physics, Pusan National University, Pusan, Republic of Korea Department of Physics, Sejong University, Seoul, Republic of Korea Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, California, United States Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università ’La Sapienza’ and Sezione INFN, Rome, Italy Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Cagliari, Italy Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Trieste, Italy Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Bologna, Italy Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Catania, Italy Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Padova, Italy Dipartimento di Fisica ‘E.R. Caianiello’ dell’Università and Gruppo Collegato INFN, Salerno, Italy Dipartimento DISAT del Politecnico and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy Dipartimento di Scienze e Innovazione Tecnologica dell’Università del Piemonte Orientale and INFNSezione di Torino, Alessandria, Italy Dipartimento di Scienze MIFT, Università di Messina, Messina, Italy Dipartimento Interateneo di Fisica ‘M. Merlin’ and Sezione INFN, Bari, Italy European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Split,Split, Croatia Faculty of Engineering and Science, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague,Czech Republic Faculty of Science, P.J. Šafárik University, Košice, Slovakia Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt,Germany Fudan University, Shanghai, China Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, Republic of Korea Gauhati University, Department of Physics, Guwahati, India Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlen- und Kernphysik, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn,Germany Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Helsinki, Finland High Energy Physics Group, Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan Hochschule Worms, Zentrum für Technologietransfer und Telekommunikation (ZTT), Worms, Germany Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest, Romania Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT), Mumbai, India Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore, India Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Jakarta, Indonesia INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy INFN, Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy INFN, Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, Italy INFN, Sezione di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy INFN, Sezione di Catania, Catania, Italy INFN, Sezione di Padova, Padova, Italy INFN, Sezione di Roma, Rome, Italy INFN, Sezione di Torino, Turin, Italy INFN, Sezione di Trieste, Trieste, Italy Inha University, Incheon, Republic of Korea Institute for Nuclear Research, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia Institute for Subatomic Physics, Utrecht University/Nikhef, Utrecht, Netherlands Institute of Experimental Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Košice, Slovakia Institute of Physics, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Bhubaneswar, India Institute of Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic Institute of Space Science (ISS), Bucharest, Romania Institut für Kernphysik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Brazil Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico iThemba LABS, National Research Foundation, Somerset West, South Africa Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe Universität Frankfurt Institut für Informatik, Fachbereich Informatik undMathematik, Frankfurt, Germany Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR), Dubna, Russia Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon, Republic of Korea KTO Karatay University, Konya, Turkey Laboratoire de Physique des 2 Infinis, Irène Joliot-Curie, Orsay, France Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie, Université Grenoble-Alpes, CNRS-IN2P3,Grenoble, France Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, United States Lund University Department of Physics, Division of Particle Physics, Lund, Sweden Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science, Nagasaki, Japan Nara Women’s University (NWU), Nara, Japan National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Science, Department of Physics , Athens,Greece National Centre for Nuclear Research, Warsaw, Poland National Institute of Science Education and Research, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Jatni, India National Nuclear Research Center, Baku, Azerbaijan National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark Nikhef, National institute for subatomic physics, Amsterdam, Netherlands NRC Kurchatov Institute IHEP, Protvino, Russia NRC «Kurchatov» Institute - ITEP, Moscow, Russia NRNU Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, Moscow, Russia Nuclear Physics Group, STFC Daresbury Laboratory, Daresbury, United Kingdom Nuclear Physics Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, ˇRež u Prahy, Czech Republic Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina, Russia Physics department, Faculty of science, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
Physics Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
Physics Department, University of Jammu, Jammu, India
Physics Department, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, India
Physikalisches Institut, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
Physik Department, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany
Politecnico di Bari, Bari, Italy
Research Division and ExtreMe Matter Institute EMMI, GSI Helmholtzzentrum fürSchwerionenforschung GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany
Rudjer Boškovi´c Institute, Zagreb, Croatia
Russian Federal Nuclear Center (VNIIEF), Sarov, Russia
Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kolkata, India
School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Sección Física, Departamento de Ciencias, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima, Peru
St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia
Stefan Meyer Institut für Subatomare Physik (SMI), Vienna, Austria
SUBATECH, IMT Atlantique, Université de Nantes, CNRS-IN2P3, Nantes, France
Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand
Technical University of Košice, Košice, Slovakia
The Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Cracow, Poland
The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States
Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Culiacán, Mexico
Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil
Universidade Federal do ABC, Santo Andre, Brazil
University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland
University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China
University of South-Eastern Norway, Tonsberg, Norway
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France
Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, CNRS/IN2P3, IPN-Lyon, Villeurbanne, Lyon, France
Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, F-67000 Strasbourg, France, Strasbourg, France
Université Paris-Saclay Centre d’Etudes de Saclay (CEA), IRFU, Départment de Physique Nucléaire(DPhN), Saclay, France
Università degli Studi di Foggia, Foggia, Italy
Università degli Studi di Pavia, Pavia, Italy
Università di Brescia, Brescia, Italy
Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kolkata, India
Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland
Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, United States
Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Institut für Kernphysik, Münster, Germany
Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States