Elliptic flow of electrons from beauty-hadron decays in Pb-Pb collisions at s NN − − − √ = 5.02 TeV
EEUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH
CERN-EP-2020-08519 May 2020c (cid:13)
Elliptic flow of electrons from beauty-hadron decays in Pb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = 5.02 TeV ALICE Collaboration ∗ Abstract
The elliptic flow of electrons from beauty hadron decays at midrapidity ( | y | < √ s NN = 5.02 TeV with the ALICE detector at the LHC. The azimuthal distri-bution of the particles produced in the collisions can be parameterized with a Fourier expansion, inwhich the second harmonic coefficient represents the elliptic flow, v . The v coefficient is measuredfor the first time in transverse momentum ( p T ) range 1.3–6 GeV/ c in the centrality class 30–50%.The measurement of electrons from beauty-hadron decays exploits their larger mean proper decaylength c τ ≈ µ m compared to that of charm hadrons and most of the other background sources.The v of electrons from beauty hadron decays at midrapidity is found to be positive with a signif-icance of 3.75 σ . The results provide insights on the degree of thermalization of beauty quarks inthe medium. A model assuming full thermalization of beauty quarks is strongly disfavoured by themeasurement at high p T , but is in agreement with the results at low p T . Transport models includingsubstantial interactions of beauty quarks with an expanding strongly-interacting medium describe themeasurement. ∗ See Appendix A for the list of collaboration members a r X i v : . [ nu c l - e x ] M a y lliptic flow of beauty decay electrons ALICE CollaborationThe main goal of the ALICE experiment [1] is the study of strongly-interacting matter at the high energydensity and temperature reached in ultra-relativistic heavy-ion collisions at the Large Hadron Collider(LHC). In these collisions, the formation of a deconfined state of quarks and gluons, the quark–gluonplasma (QGP), is predicted by quantum chromodynamic (QCD) calculations on the lattice [2–6]. Be-cause of their large masses, heavy quarks (charm (c) and beauty (b)) are mainly produced in hard scat-tering processes at the initial stage of the collision, before the formation of the QGP. Subsequently,they interact with the QGP, losing energy via radiative [7, 8] and collisional scattering [9–11] processes.Heavy-flavor hadrons and their decay products are thus effective probes to study the properties of themedium created in heavy-ion collisions. In non-central collisions, interactions among the medium con-stituents translate the initial spatial anisotropy in the coordinate space of nucleons participating in thecollision into a momentum space anisotropy of produced particles in the final state [12]. The momentumanisotropies are characterized by the flow harmonic coefficients v n from the Fourier expansion of theparticle azimuthal distribution with respect to the symmetry plane. The dominant flow harmonic is theelliptic flow v [13]. At low transverse momentum, p T < c , the measurements of positive v areconsidered a manifestation of the collective hydrodynamical expansion of the medium [14–17]. At high p T ( p T > c ), v measurements give insight into the path-length dependence of the in-mediumparton energy loss [18–20].The measurements of D-meson and J/ ψ v in heavy-ion collisions, performed at RHIC in Au–Au colli-sions at √ s NN = 200 GeV [21] and at the LHC in Pb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = 2.76 TeV and 5.02 TeV[22–28], suggest that the interaction of charm quarks with the medium is sufficiently strong to make themthermalize and thereby take part in the collective flow of the medium [29–35]. Additional mechanisms,like coalescence and recombination of charm quark with the lighter quarks produced in the medium,can contribute to the flow of heavy-flavor particles [36]. Models that describe the flow measurements ofcharm quarks require that their thermalization time is of the order of the system lifetime ( ≈
10 fm/ c ) [29].This indicates that low- p T charm quarks may be fully thermalized in the QGP due to their interactionwith the medium. Possibly a non-thermalized probe is required to assess the interaction with the mediummore thoroughly, with the heavier beauty quarks being the natural candidate. It has been predicted bytransport models that beauty quarks may experience sufficient scattering in the medium, resulting in pos-itive v values [34, 37, 38]. Measurements of the anisotropic flow of leptons from charm and beautyhadron decays also showed that heavy quarks undergo significant rescattering in the medium and thusparticipate in its expansion [39–42]. However, strong conclusions about the dynamics of the beautyquark can not be drawn from those measurements, and separation of the charm and beauty contributionis necessary. The measured v coefficient of the non-prompt J/ ψ carried out by the CMS collaborationis consistent with zero within large experimental uncertainties for p T > c [43]. Recent measure-ments of the v coefficient for ϒ (1S) by ALICE [44], for p T <
15 GeV/ c , are consistent both with zeroand with the small value predicted by transport models [45, 46] within uncertainties. Studies based onthe Blast-Wave model show that, due to the large ϒ (1S) mass, even with full thermalization a sizeableelliptic flow would only be expected at p T >
10 GeV/ c [47]. Hence lighter beauty hadrons, and theirdecay particles, would provide important additional information for the study of the interaction of beautyquarks with the medium. Recent ATLAS measurement of v of muons from heavy-flavor hadron decays,including the separation between charm and beauty quarks contributions, in Pb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = 5.02 TeV for p T > c revealed smaller flow coefficients for muons from beauty hadron decayscompared to those from charm hadrons [48].In this Letter, the measurement of the v of electrons (and positrons) from beauty hadron decays at midra-pidity ( | y | < √ s NN = 5.02 TeV recorded in 2018 with the ALICE detectoris reported. The measurement is performed for the first time in the p T interval 1.3 < p T < c .The measurement is based on 77 × minimum bias Pb–Pb collisions with a primary vertex recon-structed within ±
10 cm from the detector center [49] in the 30–50% centrality interval. Two forwardand backward scintillator arrays (V0A and V0C) are used to determine the collision centrality [50, 51].2lliptic flow of beauty decay electrons ALICE CollaborationElectron candidate tracks, reconstructed with up to 159 measurement points in the Time ProjectionChamber (TPC) and up to 6 in the Inner Tracking System (ITS), are required to fulfill standard trackselection criteria as listed in [22, 52]. To minimize the contribution of electrons from photon conversionsin the detector material of the ITS and the fraction of tracks with misassociated hits, tracks are requiredto have associated hits in both Silicon-Pixel-Detector (SPD) layers, which constitute the two innermostlayers of the ITS. This requirement removes particles produced outside the SPD from the track sample.However, in the high-multiplicity environment of heavy-ion collisions, such tracks can be misassociatedwith hits in the SPD layers produced by other particles. Electron identification is done using the TPCand the Time of Flight detector (TOF) [22, 52]. Electrons are identified by requiring the measured time-of-flight up to the TOF radius of 3.8 m on average to be within 3 σ of the expected value for electronsand their specific energy loss d E /d x in the TPC to be within -1 σ and +3 σ with respect to the expectedd E /d x of electrons.Electrons passing the track and identification selection criteria originate, besides from beauty-hadron de-cays, from Dalitz and di-electron decays of prompt light neutral mesons and charmonium states, photonconversions in the detector material, semi-leptonic decays of prompt-charm hadrons and decay chainsof hadrons carrying a strange (or anti-strange) quark. Measurements of electrons from beauty-hadrondecays exploit their larger average impact parameter ( d ), defined as distance of closest approach to theprimary vertex in the plane transverse to the beam line, compared to that of charm hadrons and mostother background sources. The sign of the impact parameter value is attributed based on the relative po-sition of the track and the primary vertex, i.e. if the primary vertex is on the left- or right-hand side of thetrack with respect to the particle momentum direction in the transverse plane. The impact parameter ismultiplied with the sign of the particle charge and the magnetic field configuration [52]. Electrons fromphoton conversions in the detector material are created at some distance from the primary vertex and inthe direction of the photon. Their tracks bend away from the primary vertex, leading to an asymmetrywith a mean impact parameter d <
0. This asymmetric impact parameter distribution allows for a betterseparation from the other electron sources, which are mostly symmetric around 0.The experimental estimate of the symmetry plane of the collision-geometry in the azimuthal direction,the event plane Ψ , is determined using the signals produced by charged particles in the eight azimuthalsectors of each V0 array. Non-uniformities in the V0 acceptance and efficiency are corrected for usingthe procedure described in [53].The v { EP } is given by v { EP } = R π N in − N out N in + N out , (1)where N in and N out are the number of beauty-decay electrons in two 90 ◦ -wide intervals of ∆ ϕ = ϕ − Ψ :in-plane ( − π < ∆ ϕ < π and π < ∆ ϕ < π ) and out-of-plane ( π < ∆ ϕ < π and π < ∆ ϕ < π ),respectively. The resolution ( R ) of the event plane is measured with the three sub-event method [25].The sub-events are defined according to the signals in the V0 detectors (both A and C sides) and thetracks in positive (0 < η < − < η <
0) pseudorapidity regions of the TPC. R iscalculated in 1% centrality intervals and a weighted average for the 30–50% interval is obtained using thenumber of binary nucleonâ ˘A ¸Snucleon collisions as weights [25]. The average R value in the 30–50%centrality class is 0.77 [24].The N in and N out yields of electrons from beauty-hadron decays are extracted by fitting the impact param-eter distribution of all electron candidates in data with Monte Carlo (MC) templates for different electronsources [52]. A MC sample of minimum-bias (MB) Pb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = 5.02 TeV, generated withHIJING v1.36 [54], is used to obtain the impact parameter distributions of photon conversions and Dalitzdecays. To increase the sample of electrons from charm- and beauty-hadron decays, a sample of charm3lliptic flow of beauty decay electrons ALICE Collaborationand beauty quarks generated with PYTHIA6 [55] is embedded into each Hijing MC event. The gener-ated particles are propagated through the ALICE apparatus using GEANT3 [56]. Four classes of electronsources are used: electrons from beauty-hadron decays, from charm-hadron decays, from photon con-versions, and electrons from other processes, dominated by Dalitz decays of light neutral mesons. Asthese decays happen essentially at the interaction vertex, the measured impact parameter distribution ofthese tracks represents the p T -dependent impact parameter resolution. Similarly, the remaining hadroncontamination mostly consists of hadrons produced close to the primary vertex, making its impact pa-rameter distribution similar to that of the Dalitz electrons. The slight difference in the distributions forDalitz electrons and hadrons results in an uncertainty of 0.009 on the final v in the first p T interval,falling quickly with p T . The yield of strange-hadron decays is small compared to other backgroundsources. The corresponding contribution is considered as part of the Dalitz electron template. Due to thelong lifetime, this contribution has a much wider impact parameter distribution and is therefore largelyreduced by the applied d range of [-0.1, 0.1] cm in the fitting procedure [52].The template fits are based on the method proposed in [57] and implemented as in [52]. Detailed correc-tions to the MC templates, listed and described below, are applied in order to take into account effects notsimulated in MC. Special care is taken to assess differences in the in-plane and out-of-plane templates asthe effects of the corrections do not cancel in the computation of the v . The main corrections applied inthe MC are: i) resolution of the d distribution, ii) misassociated electrons from photon conversions andtheir multiplicity dependence, iii) p T distribution of charm and beauty hadrons in-plane and out-of-planeand iv) baryon-to-meson ratio of charm and beauty hadrons.To ensure angular isotropy of the d reconstruction in data, the mean d of primary particles is comparedin different regions in azimuth, z -position and p T with a granularity smaller than the detector componentsand then recentered. Depending on p T , the d resolution in the MC simulations is about 11–13% betterthan in data [58, 59]. Primary pions and kaons are used for the comparison. It is observed that theresolution of the impact parameter does not depend significantly on the local track density.The correct template shape of electrons from photon conversions depends on the production vertex andon the track multiplicity. In-plane and out-of-plane events have different local track densities, requiringseparate corrections for the respective templates. This is achieved by choosing different centrality rangesfor each template in the simulations. The ranges are defined based on how well they describe either thein-plane or out-of-plane reconstruction efficiencies of pions from K decays, as the production vertex ofthese decays is more accurately reconstructed. The systematic uncertainties are estimated by varying thenominal centrality classes in the simulations and are estimated to be 0.006 at low p T and decreases to0.001 with increasing p T .Because electrons from heavy-flavor hadron decays at a given momentum may originate from decayingparticles over a broader momentum range, their d distributions depend on the p T distributions of thesedecaying particles. Hence it is necessary to correct for the difference in the p T distribution of particlesthat decay to electrons between data and MC. For the charm case, this can be done by making use ofthe measured charm mesons p T spectral shape and v at the same collision energy [26, 60]. From thesemeasurements, separate p T distributions and thus corrections are used for the in-plane and out-of-planetemplates. To assess the uncertainty, the result is compared to a case where the assumed D meson v ishalved. An absolute systematic uncertainty of 0.004 is assigned from this comparison.As there is no available measurement of the low- p T beauty hadron elliptic flow, the corrections for thebeauty template are based on FONLL calculation [61] multiplied with the p T -dependent correctionsdue to the nuclear modification factor ( R AA ) and the v to take into account beauty suppression andpossible anisotropy. The upper limit of the estimated R AA value is the case of no suppression, R AA = 1,while the lower limit is obtained by interpolating the TAMU prediction [38], which is consistent withmeasurements of R AA ≈ p T [52]. The arithmetic mean of the two cases is used for the4lliptic flow of beauty decay electrons ALICE Collaborationcentral values of the measurement, with the two limits used to estimate the systematic uncertainty. Anabsolute systematic variation of 0.0023 at low p T and of 0.011 at high p T is found and assigned as anuncertainty. A significant effect arises from the modification of the p T spectra due to beauty-hadron v since it gives a different correction for the in-plane and out-of-plane templates. For the central value ofthe measurement, the assumption of v = 0.014 × p e ( − / × p T ) (with p T in units of GeV/ c ) is chosen asa generic function inspired by the prediction of the TAMU model [38]. The systematic uncertainty isevaluated by varying the v value from zero to two times as large, the latter giving a peak of 0 .
14. Forthese variations, the change in the measured beauty hadron decay electron v is much smaller than thevariation of the assumed hadron v . This gives a flat systematic uncertainty of 0.006 up to p T = 4 GeV/ c and of 0.012 in the last p T interval.Differences in the lifetimes of the various charm and beauty hadrons cause variations in the associatedimpact parameter distributions of its decay electrons. For charm, the largest difference is in the decaysof the baryons with respect to the mesons, while for beauty the lifetime of mesons and baryons are verysimilar and the effect of their different fractions in MC compared to data is negligible. For the charmcase, a p T dependent correction is performed for the Λ c /D fraction similar to model predictions [62–64],which describe experimental measurements [65, 66, 66, 67]. This is compared to a p T -independent cor-rection, that increases the Λ c /D by a factor of 3, which gives no difference due to the effects cancellingout in the computation of the v .Multiplicity dependence of the efficiency in the particle identification with the TOF detector is evalu-ated, and it is found to be within 0.5%, which is propagated to an uncertainty of 0.0014 on the v . Nomultiplicity dependence is found for the efficiency of particle identification with the TPC.Figure 1 shows examples of the resulting fits in-plane (left panel) and out-of-plane (right panel) of elec-trons d distributions for the interval 2.5 < p T < c . In the figure the MC templates are correctedfor all effects described above. - - E n t r i e s ALICE = 5.02 TeV NN s Pb, -
50% Pb -
30 | < 0.8 y , | c < 3.0 GeV/ T p In-plane - - field) (cm) · sgn(charge · d ALICE dataFit Conversion electronsDalitz electrons e fi c e fi c) fi b ( Out-of-plane
Figure 1:
Examples of the electron transverse impact parameter fits in-plane (left) and out-of-plane (right) for 2.5 < p T < c . Distributions from data and the four MC templates, electrons from beauty (b ( → c) → e) andcharm (c → e) hadron decays, electrons from photon conversions (Conversion electrons) and from other sources(Dalitz electrons) used in the fit are shown. v of electrons from beauty hadron decays at midrapidity ( | y | < p T in Pb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = 5.02 TeV in the 30–50% centrality interval. A positive v with asignificance of 3.75 σ is observed for the first time in this low p T range (1.3–6 GeV/ c ) using the averagedeviation to positive v divided by the uncertainty as a test statistic. The systematic uncertainties areassumed to be fully correlated for this purpose. No significant p T dependence of the v is observed. ) c (GeV/ T p − v = 5.02 TeV NN s Pb, −
50% Pb − ALICE | < 0.8 y | e → c) → b ( 40%) − MC@sHQ+EPOS2 (20PHSDElliptic Blast WaveLIDO
Figure 2:
Elliptic flow of electrons from beauty hadron decays in the 30–50% centrality class in Pb–Pb collisionsat √ s NN = 5.02 TeV at midrapidity as function of p T compared with model calculations [30–32, 68]. The measured v of beauty decay electrons is compared with the predictions from several transport mod-els which include significant interaction of beauty quarks with a hydrodynamically-expanding QGP [30–32, 68]. These models are observed to well describe the D meson anisotropy and suppression in heavy-ion collisions at the LHC [23–27, 69–71]. The MC@sHQ+EPOS [30] is a perturbative QCD modelwhich includes radiative and collisional energy loss. The uncertainties of the model calculations areevaluated considering pure elastic and radiative energy losses, including also different scattering ratesand different rescaling factors. Modification of nuclear parton distribution functions, like shadowing, isnot considered for b quarks. The LIDO model [32, 68] also includes both radiative and collisional energyloss. This model uses experimental data to calibrate a Langevin-based transport model and thus extractthe transport coefficients directly from data via a Bayesian analysis. In the case of LIDO, the reportedmodel uncertainties are purely statistical. Within this model, the v for beauty hadrons is much smallerthan for charm hadrons. The PHSD model [31] is a microscopic off-shell transport model based on aBoltzmann approach which includes only collisional energy loss. Initial-state event-by-event fluctuationsare included in all transport models described here. Even though the models differ in several aspects re-lated to the interactions both in the QGP and in the hadronic phase as well as to the medium expansion,they all provide a fair description of the measurement. Similar agreement of these models was previouslyobserved when compared to the R AA of electrons from beauty-hadron decays [52]. With the current ex-perimental uncertainties, no model is clearly favoured or disfavoured. A model calculation based on anextension of the blast-wave model [47] is also compared with the measurement. The calculation shownis based on B mesons, and the PYTHIA8 decayer is used for their decays into electrons [72]. Assumingfull thermalization, this model predicts a v of ϒ (1S) close to zero in the range measured by ALICE,6lliptic flow of beauty decay electrons ALICE Collaborationwhich is consistent with the measurement. The results for beauty hadron decay electrons give a muchlarger v due to mass ordering effect. Thus, in this case the comparison is suitable to assess the degreeof thermalization of beauty quarks at low p T . The error band represents purely statistical uncertainty.This simple model is qualitatively in agreement with the measurement within the uncertainties for p T < c , while it significantly diverges from the data at higher p T . Within this model, the v in themeasured p T range mainly comes from beauty hadrons below p T = 10 GeV/ c , suggesting that beautyquarks may not fully thermalize in this p T interval.In summary, the measurement of the elliptic flow of electrons originating from beauty hadron decaysat midrapidity in semicentral Pb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = 5.02 TeV is presented for the first time inthis low p T interval 1.3–6 GeV/ c . The measurement is crucial for the understanding of the degree ofthermalization of beauty quarks in the QGP. The v of electrons from beauty hadron decays is found tobe positive with a significance of 3.75 σ . Comparison with models suggests that beauty quarks may notfully thermalize in the medium and the measurement is consistent with a lower beauty v than observedfor charm. The measurement provides new insights and constraints to theoretical models of beauty quarkinteractions in the QGP. 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) and7lliptic flow of beauty decay electrons 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]
ALICE
Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al. , “The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC”,
Journal ofInstrumentation no. 08, (2008) S08002. http://stacks.iop.org/1748-0221/3/i=08/a=S08002 .[2] F. Karsch, “Lattice simulations of the thermodynamics of strongly interacting elementary particlesand the exploration of new phases of matter in relativistic heavy ion collisions”, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. (2006) 122–131, arXiv:hep-lat/0608003 [hep-lat] .[3] Wuppertal-Budapest
Collaboration, S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg,C. Ratti, and K. K. Szabo, “Is there still any T c mystery in lattice QCD? Results with physicalmasses in the continuum limit III”, JHEP (2010) 073, arXiv:1005.3508 [hep-lat] .[4] Wuppertal-Budapest
Collaboration, S. Borsanyi, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, A. Jakovac, S. D. Katz,S. Krieg, C. Ratti, and K. K. Szabo, “The QCD equation of state with dynamical quarks”,
JHEP (2010) 077, arXiv:1007.2580 [hep-lat] .[5] A. Bazavov et al. , “The chiral and deconfinement aspects of the QCD transition”, Phys. Rev.
D85 (2012) 054503, arXiv:1111.1710 [hep-lat] .[6] P. Petreczky, “Review of recent highlights in lattice calculations at finite temperature and finitedensity”,
PoS
ConfinementX (2012) 028, arXiv:1301.6188 [hep-lat] .[7] M. Gyulassy and M. Plumer, “Jet Quenching in Dense Matter”,
Phys. Lett.
B243 (1990) 432–438.[8] R. Baier, Y. L. Dokshitzer, A. H. Mueller, S. Peigne, and D. Schiff, “Radiative energy loss and p T -broadening of high-energy partons in nuclei”, Nucl. Phys.
B484 (1997) 265–282, arXiv:hep-ph/9608322 [hep-ph] .[9] M. H. Thoma and M. Gyulassy, “Quark damping and energy loss in the high temperature QCD”,
Nuclear Physics
B351 no. 3, (1991) 491 – 506. .8lliptic flow of beauty decay electrons ALICE Collaboration[10] E. Braaten and M. H. Thoma, “Energy loss of a heavy fermion in a hot QED plasma”,
Phys. Rev.D (Aug, 1991) 1298–1310. http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.44.1298 .[11] E. Braaten and M. H. Thoma, “Energy loss of a heavy quark in the quark-gluon plasma”, Phys.Rev. D (Nov, 1991) R2625–R2630. http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.44.R2625 .[12] R. Snellings, “Elliptic Flow: A Brief Review”, New J. Phys. (2011) 055008, arXiv:1102.3010 [nucl-ex] .[13] S. Voloshin and Y. Zhang, “Flow study in relativistic nuclear collisions by Fourier expansion ofAzimuthal particle distributions”, Z.Phys.
C70 (1996) 665–672, arXiv:hep-ph/9407282[hep-ph] .[14] U. Heinz and R. Snellings, “Collective flow and viscosity in relativistic heavy-ion collisions”,
Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. (2013) 123–151, arXiv:1301.2826 [nucl-th] .[15] H. Niemi, K. J. Eskola, and R. Paatelainen, “Event-by-event fluctuations in a perturbative QCD +saturation + hydrodynamics model: Determining QCD matter shear viscosity in ultrarelativisticheavy-ion collisions”, Phys. Rev.
C93 no. 2, (2016) 024907, arXiv:1505.02677 [hep-ph] .[16] J. E. Bernhard, J. S. Moreland, S. A. Bass, J. Liu, and U. Heinz, “Applying Bayesian parameterestimation to relativistic heavy-ion collisions: simultaneous characterization of the initial state andquark-gluon plasma medium”,
Phys. Rev.
C94 no. 2, (2016) 024907, arXiv:1605.03954[nucl-th] .[17] A. Dubla, S. Masciocchi, J. M. Pawlowski, B. Schenke, C. Shen, and J. Stachel, “TowardsQCD-assisted hydrodynamics for heavy-ion collision phenomenology”,
Nucl. Phys.
A979 (2018)251–264, arXiv:1805.02985 [nucl-th] .[18] M. Gyulassy, I. Vitev, and X. N. Wang, “High p T azimuthal asymmetry in non-central A+A atRHIC”, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2001) 2537–2540, arXiv:nucl-th/0012092 [nucl-th] .[19] E. V. Shuryak, “Azimuthal asymmetry at large p T seem to be too large for a pure jet quenching”, Phys. Rev. C (Aug, 2002) 027902. http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.66.027902 .[20] J. Noronha-Hostler, B. Betz, J. Noronha, and M. Gyulassy, “Event-by-event hydrodynamics + jetenergy loss: A solution to the R AA ⊗ v puzzle”, Phys. Rev. Lett. no. 25, (2016) 252301, arXiv:1602.03788 [nucl-th] .[21]
STAR
Collaboration, L. Adamczyk et al. , “Measurement of D Azimuthal Anisotropy atMidrapidity in Au+Au Collisions at √ s NN =200 GeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. no. 21, (2017) 212301, arXiv:1701.06060 [nucl-ex] .[22]
ALICE
Collaboration, S. Acharya et al. , “Measurement of electrons from semileptonicheavy-flavour hadron decays at midrapidity in pp and Pb-Pb collisions at √ s NN = 5.02 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B (2020) 135377, arXiv:1910.09110 [nucl-ex] .[23]
ALICE
Collaboration, B. Abelev et al. , “D meson elliptic flow in non-central Pb–Pb collisions atenergy √ s NN = 2.76TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2013) 102301, arXiv:1305.2707 [nucl-ex] .[24]
ALICE
Collaboration, S. Acharya et al. , “Event-shape engineering for the D-meson elliptic flowin mid-central Pb-Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV”,
JHEP (2019) 150, arXiv:1809.09371[nucl-ex] . 9lliptic flow of beauty decay electrons ALICE Collaboration[25] ALICE
Collaboration, B. Abelev et al. , “Azimuthal anisotropy of D meson production in Pb–Pbcollisions at energy √ s NN = 2.76 TeV”, Phys.Rev.
C90 no. 3, (2014) 034904, arXiv:1405.2001[nucl-ex] .[26]
ALICE
Collaboration, S. Acharya et al. , “ D -meson azimuthal anisotropy in midcentral Pb-Pbcollisions at √ s NN = . TeV”,
Phys. Rev. Lett. no. 10, (2018) 102301, arXiv:1707.01005[nucl-ex] .[27]
CMS
Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al. , “Measurement of prompt D meson azimuthalanisotropy in Pb-Pb collisions at √ s NN = 5.02 TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. no. 20, (2018) 202301, arXiv:1708.03497 [nucl-ex] .[28]
ALICE
Collaboration, S. Acharya et al. , “J/ ψ elliptic flow in Pb-Pb collisions at √ s NN = . Phys. Rev. Lett. no. 24, (2017) 242301, arXiv:1709.05260 [nucl-ex] .[29] A. Beraudo, A. De Pace, M. Monteno, M. Nardi, and F. Prino, “Development of heavy-flavourflow-harmonics in high-energy nuclear collisions”,
JHEP (2018) 043, arXiv:1712.00588[hep-ph] .[30] M. Nahrgang, J. Aichelin, P. B. Gossiaux, and K. Werner, “Influence of hadronic bound statesabove T c on heavy-quark observables in Pb–Pb collisions at at the CERN Large Hadron Collider”, Phys.Rev.
C89 no. 1, (2014) 014905, arXiv:1305.6544 [hep-ph] .[31] T. Song, H. Berrehrah, D. Cabrera, W. Cassing, and E. Bratkovskaya, “Charm production in Pb +Pb collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider”,
Phys. Rev.
C93 no. 3,(2016) 034906, arXiv:1512.00891 [nucl-th] .[32] W. Ke, Y. Xu, and S. A. Bass, “Modified Boltzmann approach for modeling the splitting verticesinduced by the hot QCD medium in the deep Landau-Pomeranchuk-Migdal region”,
Phys. Rev.
C100 no. 6, (2019) 064911, arXiv:1810.08177 [nucl-th] .[33] R. Katz, C. A. G. Prado, J. Noronha-Hostler, J. Noronha, and A. A. P. Suaide, “DAB-MODsensitivity study of heavy flavor R AA and azimuthal anisotropies based on beam energy, initialconditions, hadronization, and suppression mechanisms”, arXiv:1906.10768 [nucl-th] .[34] M. He, R. J. Fries, and R. Rapp, “Heavy-Quark Diffusion and Hadronization in Quark-GluonPlasma”, Phys. Rev.
C86 (2012) 014903, arXiv:1106.6006 [nucl-th] .[35] D. Zigic, I. Salom, J. Auvinen, M. Djordjevic, and M. Djordjevic, “DREENA-B framework: firstpredictions of R AA and v within dynamical energy loss formalism in evolving QCD medium”, Phys. Lett.
B791 (2019) 236–241, arXiv:1805.04786 [nucl-th] .[36] V. Greco, C. M. Ko, and R. Rapp, “Quark coalescence for charmed mesons in ultrarelativisticheavy ion collisions”,
Phys. Lett.
B595 (2004) 202–208, arXiv:nucl-th/0312100 [nucl-th] .[37] S. Batsouli, S. Kelly, M. Gyulassy, and J. L. Nagle, “Does the charm flow at RHIC?”,
Phys. Lett.
B557 (2003) 26–32, arXiv:nucl-th/0212068 [nucl-th] .[38] M. He, R. J. Fries, and R. Rapp, “Heavy Flavor at the Large Hadron Collider in a Strong CouplingApproach”,
Phys.Lett.
B735 (2014) 445–450, arXiv:1401.3817 [nucl-th] .[39]
STAR
Collaboration, L. Adamczyk et al. , “Elliptic flow of electrons from heavy-flavor hadrondecays in Au + Au collisions at √ s NN = Phys. Rev.
C95 no. 3, (2017)034907, arXiv:1405.6348 [hep-ex] . 10lliptic flow of beauty decay electrons ALICE Collaboration[40]
PHENIX
Collaboration, A. Adare et al. , “Energy Loss and Flow of Heavy Quarks in Au+AuCollisions at s(NN)**(1/2) = 200-GeV”,
Phys. Rev. Lett. (2007) 172301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0611018 [nucl-ex] .[41] ALICE
Collaboration, J. Adam et al. , “Elliptic flow of electrons from heavy-flavour hadrondecays at mid-rapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
76 TeV”,
JHEP (2016) 028, arXiv:1606.00321 [nucl-ex] .[42] ATLAS
Collaboration, M. Aaboud et al. , “Measurement of the suppression and azimuthalanisotropy of muons from heavy-flavor decays in Pb+Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
76 TeV with theATLAS detector”,
Phys. Rev.
C98 no. 4, (2018) 044905, arXiv:1805.05220 [nucl-ex] .[43]
CMS
Collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al. , “Suppression and azimuthal anisotropy of prompt andnonprompt J / ψ production in PbPb collisions at √ s NN = .
76 TeV”,
Eur. Phys. J.
C77 no. 4,(2017) 252, arXiv:1610.00613 [nucl-ex] .[44]
ALICE
Collaboration, S. Acharya et al. , “Measurement of ϒ ( ) elliptic flow at forward rapidityin Pb-Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV”,
Phys. Rev. Lett. no. 19, (2019) 192301, arXiv:1907.03169 [nucl-ex] .[45] X. Du, R. Rapp, and M. He, “Color Screening and Regeneration of Bottomonia in High-EnergyHeavy-Ion Collisions”,
Phys. Rev.
C96 no. 5, (2017) 054901, arXiv:1706.08670 [hep-ph] .[46] P. P. Bhaduri, N. Borghini, A. Jaiswal, and M. Strickland, “Anisotropic escape mechanism andelliptic flow of bottomonia”,
Phys. Rev.
C100 no. 5, (2019) 051901, arXiv:1809.06235[hep-ph] .[47] K. Reygers, A. Schmah, A. Berdnikova, and X. Sun, “Blast-wave description of Upsilon ellipticflow at LHC energies”, arXiv:1910.14618 [hep-ph] .[48]
ATLAS
Collaboration, G. Aad et al. , “Measurement of azimuthal anisotropy of muons fromcharm and bottom hadrons in Pb+Pb collisions at √ s NN = arXiv:2003.03565 [nucl-ex] .[49] 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] .[50]
ALICE
Collaboration, E. Abbas et al. , “Performance of the ALICE VZERO system”,
JINST (2013) P10016, arXiv:1306.3130 [nucl-ex] .[51] ALICE
Collaboration, B. Abelev et al. , “Centrality determination of Pb-Pb collisions at √ s NN =2.76 TeV with ALICE”, Phys. Rev.
C88 no. 4, (2013) 044909, arXiv:1301.4361 [nucl-ex] .[52]
ALICE
Collaboration, J. Adam et al. , “Measurement of electrons from beauty-hadron decays inp-Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV and Pb-Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
76 TeV”,
JHEP (2017)052, arXiv:1609.03898 [nucl-ex] .[53] I. Selyuzhenkov and S. Voloshin, “Effects of non-uniform acceptance in anisotropic flowmeasurement”, Phys. Rev.
C77 (2008) 034904, arXiv:0707.4672 [nucl-th] .[54] M. Gyulassy and X.-N. Wang, “HIJING 1.0: A Monte Carlo program for parton and particleproduction in high-energy hadronic and nuclear collisions”,
Comput. Phys. Commun. (1994)307, arXiv:nucl-th/9502021 [nucl-th] .[55] T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, “PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual”, JHEP (2006)026, arXiv:hep-ph/0603175 [hep-ph] . 11lliptic flow of beauty decay electrons ALICE Collaboration[56] R. Brun, F. Bruyant, F. Carminati, S. Giani, M. Maire, A. McPherson, G. Patrick, and L. Urban, GEANT: Detector Description and Simulation Tool; Oct 1994 . CERN Program Library. CERN,Geneva, 1993. https://cds.cern.ch/record/1082634 . Long Writeup W5013.[57] R. Barlow and C. Beeston, “Fitting using finite monte carlo samples”,
Comp. Phys. Comm. no. 2, (1993) 219.[58] 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] .[59]
ALICE
Collaboration, B. Abelev et al. , “Suppression of high transverse momentum D mesons incentral Pb-Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
76 TeV”,
JHEP (2012) 112, arXiv:1203.2160[nucl-ex] .[60] ALICE
Collaboration, S. Acharya et al. , “Measurement of D , D + , D ∗ + and D + s production inPb-Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV”,
JHEP (2018) 174, arXiv:1804.09083 [nucl-ex] .[61] M. Cacciari, M. Greco, and P. Nason, “The p T spectrum in heavy flavor hadroproduction”, JHEP (1998) 007, arXiv:hep-ph/9803400 [hep-ph] .[62] A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, M. K. KÃ˝uhler, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, “Transversemomentum distributions of charmonium states with the statistical hadronization model”, Phys.Lett.
B797 (2019) 134836, arXiv:1901.09200 [nucl-th] .[63] S. Plumari, V. Minissale, S. K. Das, G. Coci, and V. Greco, “Charmed Hadrons from Coalescenceplus Fragmentation in relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC and LHC”,
Eur. Phys. J.
C78 no. 4, (2018) 348, arXiv:1712.00730 [hep-ph] .[64] J. Song, H.-h. Li, and F.-l. Shao, “New feature of low p T charm quark hadronization in pp collisions at √ s = Eur. Phys. J.
C78 no. 4, (2018) 344, arXiv:1801.09402 [hep-ph] .[65]
ALICE
Collaboration, S. Acharya et al. , “ Λ + c production in Pb-Pb collisions at √ s NN = . Phys. Lett.
B793 (2019) 212–223, arXiv:1809.10922 [nucl-ex] .[66]
STAR
Collaboration, J. Adam et al. , “Observation of enhancement of charmed baryon-to-mesonratio in Au+Au collisions at √ s NN = 200 GeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. no. 17, (2020) 172301, arXiv:1910.14628 [nucl-ex] .[67]
CMS
Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al. , “Production of Λ + c baryons in proton-proton andlead-lead collisions at √ s NN = Phys. Lett. B (2020) 135328, arXiv:1906.03322[hep-ex] .[68] W. Ke, Y. Xu, and S. A. Bass, “Linearized Boltzmann-Langevin model for heavy quark transportin hot and dense QCD matter”,
Phys. Rev.
C98 no. 6, (2018) 064901, arXiv:1806.08848[nucl-th] .[69]
ALICE
Collaboration, B. Abelev et al. , “Suppression of high transverse momentum D mesons incentral Pb–Pb collisions at energy √ s NN = 2.76 TeV”, JHEP (2012) 112, arXiv:1203.2160[nucl-ex] .[70] ALICE
Collaboration, J. Adam et al. , “Centrality dependence of high-p T D meson suppression inPb-Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
76 TeV”,
JHEP (2015) 205, arXiv:1506.06604 [nucl-ex] .[Addendum: JHEP06,032(2017)]. 12lliptic flow of beauty decay electrons ALICE Collaboration[71] CMS
Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al. , “Nuclear modification factor of D mesons in PbPbcollisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV”,
Phys. Lett. B (2018) 474–496, arXiv:1708.04962[nucl-ex] .[72] T. SjÃ˝ustrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O.Rasmussen, and P. Z. Skands, “An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2”,
Comput. Phys. Commun. (2015) 159–177, arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph] .13lliptic flow of beauty decay electrons 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 , N.K. Behera ,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 , 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
81 ,104 , J. Oleniacz , A.C. Oliveira DaSilva , M.H. Oliver , C. Oppedisano , A. Ortiz Velasquez , 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
10 ,54 , 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