# Measurement of the low-energy antitriton inelastic cross section

Shreyasi Acharya, Dagmar Adamova, Alexander Adler, Gianluca Aglieri

Rinella, Michelangelo Agnello, Neelima Agrawal, Zubayer Ahammed, Shakeel

Ahmad, Sang Un Ahn, Ishaan Ahuja, et al.

► To cite this version:

Shreyasi Acharya, Dagmar Adamova, Alexander Adler, Gianluca Aglieri, Rinella, Michelangelo Agnello, et al.. Measurement of the low-energy antitriton inelastic cross section. Phys.Lett.B, 2024, 848, pp.138337. 10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138337. hal-04158575

HAL Id: hal-04158575

https://hal.science/hal-04158575v1

Submitted on 4 Jun 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Letter

# Measurement of the low-energy antitriton inelastic cross section

ALICE Collaboration *

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

## ARTICLE INFO

Editor: M. Doser

Dataset link: https://www.hepdata.net/record/ins2675130

## ABSTRACT

In this Letter, the first measurement of the inelastic cross section for antitriton-nucleus interactions is reported, covering the momentum range of $0.8 \le p < 2.4$ GeV/c. The measurement is carried out using data recorded with the ALICE detector in pp and Pb-Pb collisions at a centre-of-mass energy per nucleon of 13 TeV and 5.02 TeV, respectively. The detector material serves as an absorber for antitriton nuclei. The raw yield of (anti)triton nuclei measured with the ALICE apparatus is compared to the results from detailed ALICE simulations based on the GEANT4 toolkit for the propagation of (anti)particles through matter, allowing one to quantify the inelastic interaction probability in the detector material. This analysis complements the measurement of the inelastic cross section of antinuclei up to $A = 3$ carried out by the ALICE Collaboration, and demonstrates the feasibility of the study of the isospin dependence of inelastic interaction cross section with the analysis techniques presented in this Letter.

## 1. Introduction

The properties of light antinuclei (such as antideuteron $\bar{d}$, antihelium $^3\overline{\text{He}}$ and antitriton $^3\overline{\text{H}}$) have been a subject of various studies at accelerators in the last few decades. These objects, composed of antiprotons and antineutrons, are stable in vacuum, but annihilate when coming into contact with normal matter. So far, light antinuclei have only been observed in high-energy particle collisions at various fixed-target and collider experiments, from the AGS [1-4], to the SPS [5], RHIC [6-11], and the LHC [12-29]. Their production mechanism has been actively studied in the context of matter-antimatter asymmetry and of understanding the formation of composite nuclear objects [24,30-34]. However, until very recently, the studies of their inelastic interactions with matter have been difficult, since obtaining an isolated beam of light antinuclei with precisely determined momentum comprises formidable challenges. In fact, only the antideuteron inelastic cross section had been measured at total momenta of 13.3 GeV/c [35] and 25 GeV/c [36].

Recently, new measurements of the inelastic cross sections of antinuclei with matter at low momenta ($p \le 8$ GeV/c) were reported by the ALICE Collaboration, both for $\bar{d}$ [37] and $^3\overline{\text{He}}$ [38]. While these measurements were mainly motivated by their impact on astrophysical dark-matter searches, they also allow a more detailed look into the physics of low-energy antinucleus-nucleus interactions, which can be used to improve Monte Carlo (MC) simulations of particle physics detectors and to better understand the properties of these composite objects at low kinetic energies. More accurate MC simulations of inelastic

interactions with the detector material also allow one to improve the measurements of the production yields of antinuclei [24,26,39]. However, one aspect which so far has not been accessible with these measurements is the isospin dependence of the inelastic cross section of composite antinuclei. This effect is difficult to evaluate since the lightest isospin-partner antinuclei are $^3\overline{\text{He}}$ and $^3\overline{\text{H}}$, which are only produced in limited quantities in high-energy hadronic collisions at accelerators [26].

In this Letter the first measurement of the antitriton-nucleus inelastic interaction cross section $\sigma_{\text{inel}}(^3\overline{\text{H}})$ is reported, which complements the measurements of the inelastic cross sections for light antinuclei up to $A = 3$ [37,38]. The results are compared to the calculations based on the Glauber approach as implemented in the GEANT4 toolkit, which is widely used in particle physics for the propagation of particles through the detector material [40,41]. The $\sigma_{\text{inel}}(^3\overline{\text{H}})$ results are also compared with the measurement of the $^3\overline{\text{He}}$ inelastic cross section and demonstrate the feasibility to investigate the isospin dependence of inelastic interactions of antinuclei.

## 2. Experimental apparatus and data sample

A detailed description of the performance of the ALICE detector and its subsystems can be found in Refs. [42,43]. The detectors used in this analysis for tracking and particle identification are briefly described in the following paragraph.

Trajectories of charged particles are reconstructed in the ALICE central barrel with the Inner Tracking System (ITS) [44] and the Time

<footnote>* E-mail address: alic Publications@cern.ch.</footnote>
Projection Chamber (TPC) [45]. Both these detectors cover the full azimuthal angle within the pseudorapidity interval of $|η| < 0.9$ and reside within a solenoid which provides a homogeneous magnetic field of 0.5 T along the beam axis. The ITS comprises six cylindrical layers of silicon detectors which are located at radial distances from the beam axis between 3.9 cm and 43 cm and provides important information to reconstruct the primary collision vertex and to aid in charged particle tracking. It is surrounded by the TPC – the main tracking device in the ALICE central barrel which is a 5 m long cylindrical gaseous detector extending from 85 cm to 247 cm in the radial direction. The TPC provides up to 159 spatial points for the reconstruction of charged-particle tracks and for particle identification (PID) through the measurement of the specific energy loss $dE/dx$ in the gas volume. The PID is complemented by the Time-of-Flight (TOF) detector [46] located at the radial distance of 3.7 m from the beam axis. The TOF measures the arrival time of particles relative to the event collision time which is provided either by the TOF itself or by the T0 detectors, two arrays of Cherenkov counters located at forward rapidities [47]. Together with the momentum of the particle obtained from the track curvature, the time-of-flight measurement allows one to determine the particle’s mass. Finally, a stainless steel space-frame supporting structure and the Transition Radiation Detector (TRD) are located between the TPC and the TOF; while neither the space-frame nor the TRD is used directly in this analysis, they significantly contribute to the total material budget in which antinuclei can interact inelastically [37,38].

The results presented in this Letter are based on the data collected during the 2016, 2017, and 2018 LHC operation with proton beams at a centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV with the high-multiplicity (HM) trigger, and the 2018 Pb-Pb campaign at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV with the minimum bias (MB), central (0–10%) or semi-central (30–50%) event triggers. The central event trigger corresponds to the selection of 10% of all inelastic events with the highest signal amplitude in the V0 detectors (0–10% centrality [48]), whereas semi-central trigger is tuned to select events within 30–50% centrality range. Collision events are selected by using the information from the V0 detectors [49], which consist of two plastic scintillator arrays located on both sides of the interaction point at forward and backward pseudorapidities. The V0 detectors are also used to reject other sources of tracks such as beam-gas interactions and interactions within the beampipe. For the MB event trigger, coincident signals in both V0 scintillators are required to be synchronous with the beam crossing time defined by the LHC clock. In order to trigger on events with high charged-particle multiplicities, the total signal amplitude measured in the V0 detector is additionally required to exceed a given threshold for a given event activity. This selects the 0.17% of events with the highest multiplicity in the V0 detectors in pp collisions. An additional cut is made on the z position of the primary vertex ($|Vtx_z| < 10$ cm).

In total, about $10^9$ events from the pp data sample are selected for further analysis, while for the Pb-Pb dataset about $230 \times 10^6$ events are analysed.

### 3. Data analysis

Once produced in the initial collisions between protons or heavy ions, antitriton nuclei traverse the detector, with some of them interacting inelastically with the detector material. In a traditional fixed-target experiment, the measurement of a cross section implies the availability of a beam of the particle of interest, which traverses the target in order to determine the loss of particles. Due to the unfeasibility of isolating a beam of low energy antinuclei, the measurements presented in this work rely on ratios that are sensitive to this loss without depending on the absolute number of produced antinuclei. Two methods have been applied to evaluate the inelastic cross section of antitritons, $\sigma_{inel}(^3\text{H})$, similarly to what has been done in Refs. [37,38] for the $^3\text{He}$ and $\overline{\text{d}}$ inelastic cross section measurements.

The first method, namely the antibaryon-to-baryon method, was used to analyse the high-multiplicity pp collisions and is based on the comparison of measured $^3\text{H}$ and $^3\text{H}$ yields. Due to the extra inelastic processes which occur as particles traverse the detector, less $^3\text{H}$ is detected than its matter counterpart. This loss is quantified by comparison with detailed MC simulations of the ALICE detector. This method makes use of the fact that the relative amounts of matter and antimatter produced at LHC energies are almost equal [50,51], and for $^3\text{H}$ and $^3\text{H}$ can be calculated from the antiproton-to-proton ratio [51,52] to be 0.994 $^{+0.006}_{-0.045}$. Thus, the antiparticle-to-particle ratio is sensitive to the loss of antinuclei. This method allows one to extend the measurement of $^3\text{H}$ up to $p_{\text{primary}} = 2.4$ GeV/c, but is unfeasible for application in Pb-Pb collisions due to copious $^3\text{H}$ background from spallation processes [19].

The second method, applied in the analysis of Pb-Pb data, relies on the measurement of the amount of raw $^3\text{H}$ reconstructed in the TOF detector and of those reconstructed in the TPC. This is the TOF-to-TPC method employed in Ref. [38]. In this case, the number of $^3\text{H}$ nuclei tagged in the TPC and measured in the TOF is compared to that of $^3\text{H}$ reconstructed in the TPC, which allows one to quantify the inelastic processes occurring in the material between the TPC and the TOF detectors. This is an almost direct analogy of a fixed target experiment, as the particles identified in the TPC act as the beam, while the ones reaching the TOF represent the particles surviving after the target. In order to extract the inelastic cross section while avoiding any bias due to finite detector acceptance and tracking efficiencies, data are compared to MC simulations that reproduce the conditions of the data taking. This method is applicable only in the momentum range in which $^3\text{H}$ can be clearly identified in both TPC and TOF detectors ($0.9 < p_{\text{primary}} < 1.5$ GeV/c) and is used in the analysis of Pb-Pb data due to the larger yield of produced $^3\text{H}$ nuclei compared to pp collisions.

For both methods, the experimental results are compared with the corresponding ratios evaluated by means of a full-scale MC GEANT4 simulation with varied $\sigma_{inel}(^3\text{H})$ cross sections, as described in section 3.4. In both cases, using ratios instead of individual particle yields allows one to extract the antitriton inelastic cross section independently from its production cross section. Further details on the data analysis are described in the following sections.

#### 3.1. Track selection and particle identification

(Anti)$^3\text{H}$ candidates are selected from a sample of charged-particle tracks reconstructed in the ITS and TPC in the pseudorapidity range $|η| < 0.8$ (0.75) for the Pb-Pb (pp) data sample, and at midrapidity with $|y| < 0.5$ for both samples. Several track quality criteria are applied, such as a minimum number of clusters in the TPC of at least 100 out of a maximum of 159, and at least 2 in the ITS, with at least one cluster located in any of the two innermost ITS layers. Furthermore, the number of TPC crossed rows is constrained to be more than 70. A good quality of the track fit is achieved by requiring the $\chi^2$ per TPC reconstructed point to be less than 2.5 (4) for the Pb-Pb (pp) data sample. These cuts are stricter in the Pb-Pb data sample due to the higher track density environment. The number of TPC clusters used in the calculation of the specific energy loss ($dE/dx$) is required to be larger than 100 (55) to ensure a good $dE/dx$ resolution in the Pb-Pb (pp) dataset. The contribution from secondary tracks in the pp data sample is reduced by selecting a maximum distance of closest approach (DCA) to the primary vertex in the transverse plane (DCA$_{xy}$) and in the longitudinal direction (DCA$_z$) lower than 0.1 cm.

The (anti)triton candidate tracks are identified using the information on the specific energy loss $dE/dx$ in the TPC gas volume, which is complemented by the information on the time-of-flight measurement in the TOF detector. The $n\sigma_{\text{TPC}}$ variable represents the PID response in the TPC expressed in terms of the deviation between the measured and expected $dE/dx$, normalised by the detector resolution $\sigma$. The expected $dE/dx$ is computed with a parameterised Bethe-Bloch
formula [43]. For the antibaryon-to-baryon method, (anti)tritons are selected in the TPC by applying the selection criterion $|n\sigma^{\text{TPC}}| < 3.0$, once the requirement on the squared mass hypothesis of the (anti)tritons $|m_{\text{TOF}}^2 - m_{\overline{3}\text{H}}^2| < 2$ (GeV/c$^2$)$^2$ measured with the TOF detector is fulfilled. Candidate tracks which do not reach the TOF are not considered in the analysis. This selection is sufficient to obtain a purity close to 100% for (anti)tritons in the full momentum range explored in this analysis ($1.3 < p < 2.4$ GeV/c).

For the TOF-to-TPC method, $^3\overline{H}$ candidates need to be reconstructed in both TPC and TOF detectors in the same momentum intervals, hence the analysis is restricted to the momentum range of $0.9 < p < 1.5$ GeV/c. Antitriton candidates are selected in the TPC by applying the selection of $-2.0 < n\sigma^{\text{TPC}} < 3.5$, and then matched to TOF hits. The asymmetric selection interval allows one to suppress the contamination due to other particle species, misidentified as $^3\overline{H}$ in the TPC, with lower $dE/dx$ signal. Any residual contamination in the $n\sigma^{\text{TPC}}$ distributions is fitted with an exponential function and subtracted. Such contribution is negligible at low momentum and amounts to < 1% in the momentum interval $1.3 < p < 1.5$ GeV/c. Similarly to the $n\sigma^{\text{TPC}}$, the $n\sigma^{\text{TOF}}$ variable represents the deviation between the measured and expected time-of-flight of antitritons, normalised by the resolution of the time-of-flight measurement. In the TOF, $^3\overline{H}$ nuclei are selected in the range of $-3.0 < n\sigma^{\text{TOF}} < 4.0$. The reason for an asymmetric interval is the presence of an exponential tail towards higher values of $n\sigma^{\text{TOF}}$, that reflects the TOF detector time response [46].

Particularly for this analysis, a special reconstruction of the Pb-Pb collisions was used, in order to minimise the sensitivity to elastic scattering in the material. In the TOF, tracks are only associated with a hit cluster if the cluster is within a certain distance from the extrapolated position of the track reconstructed in the TPC. This maximum distance was increased in this reconstruction, from 3 cm to 10 cm, with the latter being the usual window for pp collisions.

## 3.2. Corrections

The sample of $^3\overline{H}$ candidates reconstructed as described above includes both the nuclei produced in the initial collisions and those produced in the spallation processes occurring when particles traverse the beam pipe and the detector material. Since this process produces nuclei by spallation from other heavier nuclei, it can not produce antinuclei, but rather secondary nuclei only. The antibaryon-to-baryon ratio method employed in pp collisions is sensitive to these secondary nuclei, since it compares the yields of antitriton to those of triton in order to measure the inelastic cross section. Therefore, this effect needs to be corrected for. In order to distinguish between tritons originating from the initial collision and those originating from spallation processes, their different DCAs to the primary vertex in the transverse plane are used. While primary nuclei have DCA distributions peaked around zero, secondary nuclei show much broader DCA distributions which are flat over most of the studied DCA range. The different DCA distributions for the two types of nuclei are studied with templates from detailed MC simulations, and the relative contributions are therefore obtained, as shown in details in Ref. [19]. The uncertainty from this correction is estimated to be below 5%.

A second correction is applied to account for any energy loss which occurs before the inelastic interactions, due to ionisation and rescattering processes. The energy loss has to be estimated differently between the two approaches, as what needs to be corrected in the antibaryon-to-baryon method is the energy loss between the primary vertex and the point where the $^3\overline{H}$ inelastic interaction occurs, while for the TOF-to-TPC method it is the energy loss between the TPC and the interaction point. For the antibaryon-to-baryon method, the momentum of the tracks is estimated by measuring their curvature, and it is then propagated towards the primary vertex accounting for the measured energy loss, and thus is the momentum at the primary vertex $p_{\text{primary}}$.

Due to continuous energy-loss effects in the detector material, the inelastic interaction of the antinuclei with the detector material happens at a momentum $p$, which is lower than the momentum $p_{\text{primary}}$ reconstructed at the primary collision vertex. The corresponding effect is taken into account utilising MC simulations in which one has precise information about both momenta for each (anti)particle. In the analysis of pp collisions using the antibaryon-to-baryon method, the average values of $p/p_{\text{primary}}$ distributions in each analysed $p_{\text{primary}}$ interval are used to consider the energy loss. The root mean square (RMS) of these distributions is used to determine the uncertainty of the momentum $p$, which is propagated to the uncertainty of the measured cross section. For the analysis of the Pb-Pb data sample using the TOF-to-TPC method, the MC information on the momenta of daughter tracks originating from the $^3\overline{H}$ annihilation is used to estimate the momentum of the particle at annihilation. This is compared to $p_{\text{primary}}$ to estimate the magnitude of this effect and the resulting uncertainty. The uncertainty on the inelastic cross section from the continuous energy loss is evaluated to be less than 2% for the antibaryon-to-baryon method and less than 2.5% for the TOF-to-TPC method.

## 3.3. Systematic uncertainties

Several sources of systematic uncertainties have been considered, depending on the method used for the inelastic cross section extraction. The total uncertainty is obtained as the quadratic sum of the individual contributions, assuming uncorrelated contributions.

The first source of systematic uncertainty, investigated for both methods, is due to the track selection criteria. The criteria have been varied 100 times, both in data and MC, using random uniform distributions around the nominal values. In the case of the antibaryon-to-baryon method, the relative systematic uncertainty is given by the RMS divided by the mean value of the distributions of the $^3\overline{H}$-to-$^3\text{H}$ ratios in each momentum interval. For the TOF-to-TPC ratio method, the systematic uncertainty is evaluated as half the maximum difference between the resulting inelastic cross sections. Variations consistent with statistical fluctuations are rejected from the trials used to estimate the systematic uncertainties according to the Barlow criterion [53]. This contribution is 13% for the TOF-to-TPC method, flat in momentum, while it is rejected by the Barlow test in the other method, using a cutoff value of $2\sigma_{\text{Barlow}}$. This difference in the systematic uncertainty due to track selection criteria is due to the fact that in the antibaryon-to-baryon method, the effect of the track selection applies similarly to both the baryon and antibaryon tracks, and thus cancels out to a large extent.

For the antibaryon-to-baryon ratio method, the systematic uncertainty due to the effect of secondary nuclei from spallation on the ratio is considered. This correction is described in section 3.2. Variations of the binning and of the fit range (from $\pm 1$ cm to $\pm 2$ cm around the primary vertex) have been performed to evaluate this uncertainty, which is ~6% in the lowest momentum bin and < 1% at higher momenta. For the antibaryon-to-baryon method [37], three additional uncertainties are included: i) the uncertainty on the primordial antimatter-to-matter ratio produced in collisions, ii) the uncertainty due to the elastic cross section of $^3\text{H}$ and iii) the one due to the inelastic cross section of $^3\text{H}$. All three are considered as global uncertainties for the antibaryon-to-baryon method. These uncertainties are 4.5%, 1%, and 2.3% in the whole momentum interval, respectively.

For the TOF-to-TPC ratio method, additional sources of systematic uncertainties are related to the description of the material budget in the MC simulations, the PID, and the momentum correction evaluation. The material budget of ALICE is varied by $\pm 4.5\%$ in MC simulations, and the deviations of the final results from the default case are considered as an uncertainty. The value of 4.5% corresponds to the current uncertainty on the material obtained by photon conversion measurements [43] and by the studies of the TOF-to-TPC matching efficiency with pions [54]. The uncertainty related to the PID has been evaluated as the difference between the raw yields obtained by subtracting
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Left: raw primary $^{3}\overline{H}/^{3}\text{H}$ ratio as a function of the momentum $p_{\text{primary}}$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV. Right: ratio between the raw number of $^{3}\overline{H}$ candidates reconstructed in the TOF and the raw number of $^{3}\overline{H}$ reconstructed in the TPC in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\text{NN}}} = 5.02$ TeV as a function of the momentum $p_{\text{primary}}$. In both panels, data are shown in black, the statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as vertical bars and boxes, respectively. The results from ALICE MC simulations based on GEANT4 are shown as coloured bands, the different colours referring to the different inelastic cross sections implemented in the simulations, with default $\sigma_{\text{inel}}$ described in Ref. [56]. The width of the MC band represents the statistical uncertainty of the simulation.</figcaption></figure>

the background contribution from the $n\sigma^{\text{TPC}}$ distributions when varying the function used to fit the contamination (Gaussian, double Gaussian, Gaussian + 2 exponential functions). The contribution coming from the difference between the bin-counting method and the integral of the signal function is added in quadrature to the previous one. The deviation of the final results from the default case divided by $\sqrt{12}$ is considered as uncertainty.

The systematic uncertainty due to the energy loss correction is evaluated as described in section 3.2, and amounts to ~2% (~5%) in the analysis of Pb–Pb (pp) collisions.

### 3.4. Monte Carlo simulations

The experimental observables, shown in Fig. 1, are compared with the corresponding ratios from MC simulations based on GEANT4. The parameterisation of the inelastic cross section in GEANT4 is based on Glauber calculations [55,56], which are based on geometrically scaling the inelastic antiproton–proton cross sections to heavier systems. This parameterisation neglects the effect of Coulomb interactions, which are negligible for $p > 1$ GeV/c. The analysis described above is repeated using several MC simulations with varied values of the antitriton inelastic cross sections. In the case of the antibaryon-to-baryon method, three MC simulations are used, with $\sigma_{\text{inel}}(^{3}\overline{H})$ multiplied by a factor of 0.75, 1, and 4. The simulations with these factors were already available and were thus used. In the case of the TOF-to-TPC method, three MC simulations are used, with $\sigma_{\text{inel}}(^{3}\overline{H})$ multiplied by a factor of 0.5 and 1.5, in addition to the default one. The corresponding MC ratios for the two cases are shown as coloured bands in Fig. 1 and are used as references for the experimental ratios to obtain the $^{3}\overline{H}$ inelastic cross section as described in the following section.

### 3.5. Inelastic cross section determination

The determination of the inelastic cross section requires precise knowledge of the ALICE detector material budget. Detailed studies of the detector material have been carried out in previous works by the ALICE Collaboration [37,38]. These studies allow the determination of the effective target material. For the analysis based on the antibaryon-to-baryon method, the inelastic interactions can occur in the ITS, TPC, TRD, and TOF detectors, hence the average material corresponds to $\langle Z \rangle = 14.8$ and $\langle A \rangle = 31.8$. For the TOF-to-TPC method, instead, the average material is the TRD and space frame system, corresponding to $\langle Z \rangle = 16.1$ and $\langle A \rangle = 34.7$. Using the same procedure described in Refs. [37,38], the MC ratios obtained with the different multiplicative factors applied to $\sigma_{\text{inel}}(^{3}\overline{H})$ are fitted in each momentum interval using a Lambert–Beer function:

$$R = \exp(-a\sigma) \times b, \qquad (1)$$

where R refers to the MC ratios obtained with either of the two methods, a and b are the fit parameters, and $\sigma$ refers to the scaling factor of the $\sigma_{\text{inel}}(^{3}\overline{H})$. The experimental ratios are therefore projected on the fit function and a scaling factor for the GEANT4 parameterisation is obtained for each momentum interval. This scaling factor shows by how much the inelastic cross section needs to be changed in the GEANT4 MC implementation with respect to default to reach the same value for the observable (antitriton-to-triton ratio for pp, TPC-to-TOF ratio for Pb–Pb) as in the data. Finally, by multiplying the scaling factor in each interval by the default inelastic cross section implemented in GEANT4, the inelastic cross section is obtained. Since only cross sections on integer atomic numbers can be obtained in GEANT4, the inelastic cross section on the nearest available element was scaled according to the Glauber model [55] as described in equation (2)

$$\sigma(A_{\text{ALICE}}) = \sigma(A_{\text{GEANT4}}) \times \frac{1.34 \times A_{\text{GEANT4}}^{0.21} + 1.51 \times A_{\text{GEANT4}}^{-1/3}}{1.34 \times A_{\text{ALICE}}^{0.21} + 1.51 \times A_{\text{ALICE}}^{-1/3}} \qquad (2)$$

where $A_{\text{ALICE}}$ is the average atomic number seen by antinuclei as they travel through the ALICE detector and $A_{\text{GEANT4}}$ is the atomic number of the closest available element in GEANT4. The resulting $\sigma_{\text{inel}}(^{3}\overline{H})$ is shown in the left panel of Fig. 2, for the two analysed data samples. For the ease of comparison, the results from the antibaryon-to-baryon analysis have been scaled to the same average material as the results from the TOF-to-TPC analysis, also according to equation (2), and $\sigma(\text{GEANT4})$ is shown as well. Since $\sigma(\text{GEANT4})$ does not depend on the collision system, this allows for a fair comparison of the shown measurements. It can be seen that the measurements using the antibaryon-to-baryon method agree with $\sigma(\text{GEANT4})$ at a $1\sigma$ level, and the TOF-to-TPC ratio method at a $2\sigma$ level. The inelastic cross sections are shown as a function of the momentum $p$ at which the inelastic interaction occurs.

Comparing the inelastic cross sections for $^{3}\overline{H}$ and $^{3}\overline{He}$ shows that the two measurements are consistent within uncertainties (see right panel of Fig. 2). The uncertainties are dominated by statistical uncertainties, and thus do not cancel when taking the ratio of $\sigma_{\text{inel}}(^{3}\overline{H})$ and $\sigma_{\text{inel}}(^{3}\overline{He})$. There are no quantitative predictions for the expected difference between the two isospin partners, however, a naive approach would be to consider their size as the dominant factor. No measurements of the nuclear mass radii of these antinuclei exist, and thus the matter radii are taken as a proxy. However, since the difference in mass radii is expected to be smaller than the difference in matter radii, this is a conservative estimate. The measured matter radii of the two nuclei are 1.76 fm for $^{3}\overline{He}$ [57] and 1.59 fm for $^{3}\overline{H}$ [57]. While no independent measurement exists for the antinuclei counterparts, the antinuclei are assumed to have the same size as their matter counterparts by CPT symmetry.
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Left: inelastic interaction cross section for antitritons with the two analysis methods on an average material element of the ALICE detector as a function of the momentum p at which the interaction occurs. Dashed black lines represent the default GEANT4 parameterisations for antitritons. Right: comparison between the results reported in the left panel and the results for ³He inelastic cross section measured in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV from Ref. [38]. Note that ³He nuclei can be clearly identified in both TPC and TOF detectors over a much wider momentum range than ³H. In both panels, boxes show the statistical and systematic uncertainties summed in quadrature.</figcaption></figure>

This would suggest that the inelastic cross section of ³$\overline{\text{He}}$ should be a factor 0 – 20% larger than the one of ³$\overline{\text{H}}$. The current measurement is not sensitive enough to distinguish differences of that order and the cross sections of ³$\overline{\text{H}}$ and ³$\overline{\text{He}}$ are compatible within errors. The larger size of the data samples expected in the upcoming Run 3 and Run 4 campaigns of the LHC will allow a significant improvement over the current measurement.

## 4. Summary

The results presented in this Letter represent the first measurement of the antitriton inelastic cross section, and complete the set of measurements of antinuclei-matter inelastic cross section up to $A = 3$ of the projectile antinucleus by ALICE. The results have been found, within sizeable uncertainties, to be consistent with the parameterisation used in GEANT4 toolkit and with existing ³He measurements from Ref. [38]. They demonstrate the feasibility of studying the isospin dependence of inelastic interactions of composite antinuclei such as ³$\overline{\text{H}}$ and ³$\overline{\text{He}}$. Future studies of larger data samples collected during the LHC Run 3 and Run 4 campaigns (starting from 2022) with the upgraded ALICE apparatus will substantially improve on the measurements presented in this Letter. They will allow for more precise comparison between ³$\overline{\text{H}}$ and ³$\overline{\text{He}}$ results and for better calculations of the inelastic cross sections of antinuclei in the currently used models, improving also our understanding of antinucleus-matter inelastic interactions at momenta around 1 GeV/c.

## Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

## Data availability

This manuscript has associated data in a HEPData repository at: https://www.hepdata.net/record/ins2675130.

## Acknowledgements

The ALICE Collaboration would like to thank all its engineers and technicians for their invaluable contributions to the construction of the experiment and the CERN accelerator teams for the outstanding performance of the LHC complex. The ALICE Collaboration gratefully acknowledges the resources and support provided by all Grid centres and the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid (WLCG) collaboration. The ALICE

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

## References

[1] E878 Collaboration, M.J. Bennett, et al., Light nuclei production in relativistic Au + nucleus collisions, Phys. Rev. C 58 (1998) 1155-1164.

[2] E802 Collaboration, L. Ahle, et al., Proton and deuteron production in Au + Au reactions at 11.6 AGeV/c, Phys. Rev. C 60 (1999) 064901.

[3] E864 Collaboration, T.A. Armstrong, et al., Measurements of light nuclei production in 11.5 AGeV/c Au + Pb heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 61 (2000) 064908, arXiv:nucl-ex/0003009.

[4] E864 Collaboration, T. Armstrong, et al., Anti-deuteron yield at the AGS and coalescence implications, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 2685-2688, arXiv:nucl-ex/0005001.

[5] NA52 (NEWMASS) Collaboration, G. Ambrosini, et al., Baryon and anti-baryon production in lead-lead collisions at 158 AGeV/c, Phys. Lett. B 417 (1998) 202-210.

[6] STAR Collaboration, C. Adler, et al., Anti-deuteron and anti-He-3 production in $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 130 GeV Au+Au collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 262301, arXiv: nucl-ex/0108022, Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 279902.

[7] PHENIX Collaboration, S.S. Adler, et al., Deuteron and antideuteron production in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 122302, arXiv: nucl-ex/0406004 [nucl-ex].

[8] BRAHMS Collaboration, I. Arsene, et al., Rapidity dependence of deuteron production in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, Phys. Rev. C 83 (2011) 044906, arXiv:1005.5427 [nucl-ex].

[9] STAR Collaboration, H. Agakishiev, et al., Observation of the antimatter helium-4 nucleus, Nature 473 (2011) 353, arXiv:1103.3312 [nucl-ex], Erratum: Nature 475 (2011) 412.

[10] STAR Collaboration, L. Adamczyk, et al., Measurement of elliptic flow of light nuclei at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200, 62.4, 39, 27, 19.6, 11.5, and 7.7 GeV at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, Phys. Rev. C 94 (2016) 034908, arXiv:1601.07052 [nucl-ex].

[11] STAR Collaboration, J. Adam, et al., Beam energy dependence of (anti-)deuteron production in Au + Au collisions at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, Phys. Rev. C 99 (2019) 064905, arXiv:1903.11778 [nucl-ex].

[12] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam, et al., Precision measurement of the mass difference between light nuclei and anti-nuclei, Nat. Phys. 11 (2015) 811-814, arXiv:1508. 03986 [nucl-ex].

[13] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam, et al., Production of light nuclei and anti-nuclei in pp and Pb-Pb collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. C 93 (2016) 024917, arXiv:1506.08951 [nucl-ex].

[14] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Multiplicity dependence of (anti-)deuteron production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 794 (2019) 50-63, arXiv: 1902.09290 [nucl-ex].

[15] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Measurement of deuteron spectra and elliptic flow in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 658, arXiv:1707.07304 [nucl-ex].

[16] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Production of deuteron, tritons, $^3$He nuclei and their antinuclei in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 0.9, 2.76 and 7 TeV, Phys. Rev. C 97 (2018) 024615, arXiv:1709.08522 [nucl-ex].

[17] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Production of $^4$He and $\overline{^4}$He in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV at the LHC, Nucl. Phys. A 971 (2018) 1-20, arXiv:1710.07531 [nucl-ex].

[18] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Multiplicity dependence of light (anti-)nuclei production in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 800 (2020) 135043, arXiv:1906.03136 [nucl-ex].

[19] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Production of (anti-)³He and (anti-)³H in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, Phys. Rev. C 101 (2020) 044906, arXiv:1910. 14401 [nucl-ex].

[20] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., (Anti-)deuteron production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 889, arXiv:2003.03184 [nucl-ex].

[21] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Elliptic and triangular flow of (anti)deuteron in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, Phys. Rev. C 102 (2020) 055203, arXiv:2005.14639 [nucl-ex].

[22] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Measurement of the (anti-)³He elliptic flow in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 805 (2020) 135414, arXiv: 1910.09718 [nucl-ex].

[23] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Jet-associated deuteron production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 819 (2021) 136440, arXiv:2011.05898 [nucl-ex].

[24] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Production of light (anti)nuclei in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 289, arXiv:2112.00610 [nucl-ex].

[25] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Hypertriton production in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) 252003, arXiv:2107.10627 [nucl-ex].

[26] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Production of light (anti)nuclei in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2022) 106, arXiv:2109.13026 [nucl-ex].

[27] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Measurement of the production of (anti)nuclei in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 8.16 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 846 (2023) 137795, arXiv:2212.04777 [nucl-ex].

[28] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Light (anti)nuclei production in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, Phys. Rev. C 107 (2023) 064904, arXiv:2211.14015 [nucl-ex].

[29] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Enhanced deuteron coalescence probability in jets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) 042301, arXiv:2211.15204 [nucl-ex].

[30] A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Stachel, H. Stocker, Production of light nuclei, hypernuclei and their antiparticles in relativistic nuclear collisions, Phys. Lett. B 697 (2011) 203-207, arXiv:1010.2995 [nucl-th].

[31] J. Cleymans, S. Kabana, I. Kraus, H. Oeschler, K. Redlich, N. Sharma, Antimatter production in proton-proton and heavy-ion collisions at ultrarelativistic energies, Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 054916, arXiv:1105.3719 [hep-ph].

[32] V. Vovchenko, B. Dónígus, H. Stoeker, Multiplicity dependence of light nuclei production at LHC energies in the canonical statistical model, Phys. Lett. B 785 (2018) 171-174, arXiv:1808.05245 [hep-ph].

[33] S.T. Butler, C.A. Pearson, Deuterons from high-energy proton bombardment of matter, Phys. Rev. 129 (1963) 836-842.

[34] R. Scheibl, U.W. Heinz, Coalescence and flow in ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 59 (1999) 1585-1602, arXiv:nucl-th/9809092 [nucl-th].

[35] S.P. Denisov, et al., Measurements of anti-deuteron absorption and stripping cross sections at the momentum 13.3 GeV/c, Nucl. Phys. B 31 (1971) 253-260.

[36] F.G. Binon, et al., Absorption cross-sections of 25 GeV/c antideuteron in Li, C, Al, Cu and Pb, Phys. Lett. B 31 (1970) 230-232.

[37] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Measurement of the low-energy antideuteron inelastic cross section, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) 162001, arXiv: 2005.11122 [nucl-ex].

[38] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Measurement of anti-³He nuclei absorption in matter and impact on their propagation in the Galaxy, Nat. Phys. 19 (2023) 61-71, arXiv:2202.01549 [nucl-ex].

[39] ALICE Collaboration, First measurement of antideuteron number fluctuations at energies available at the Large Hadron Collider, arXiv:2204.10166 [nucl-ex].

[40] GEANT4 Collaboration, S. Agostinelli, et al., GEANT4: a Simulation toolkit, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 506 (2003) 250-303.

[41] J. Allison, et al., Geant4 developments and applications, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 53 (2006) 270.

[42] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt, et al., The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC, J. Instrum. 3 (2008) S08002.

[43] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev, et al., Performance of the ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29 (2014) 1430044, arXiv:1402.4476 [nucl-ex].

[44] ALICE Collaboration, G. Dellacasa, et al., ALICE technical design report of the inner tracking system (ITS), CERN-LHCC-99-12, 6, 1999.

[45] ALICE-TPC Collaboration, J. Alme, et al., The ALICE TPC, a large 3-dimensional tracking device with fast readout for ultra-high multiplicity events, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 622 (2010) 316-367, arXiv:1001.1950 [physics.ins-det].

[46] A. Akindinov, et al., Performance of the ALICE Time-Of-Flight detector at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 128 (2013) 44.

[47] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam, et al., Determination of the event collision time with the ALICE detector at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 132 (2017) 99, arXiv:1610.03055 [physics.ins-det].

[48] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev, et al., Centrality determination of Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV with ALICE, Phys. Rev. C 88 (2013) 044909, arXiv:1301.4361 [nucl-ex].

[49] ALICE Collaboration, E. Abbas, et al., Performance of the ALICE VZERO system, J. Instrum. 8 (2013) P10016, arXiv:1306.3130 [nucl-ex].
[50] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt, et al., Midrapidity antiproton-to-proton ratio in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 0.9$ and 7 TeV measured by the ALICE experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 072002, arXiv:1006.5432 [hep-ex].

[51] ALICE Collaboration, E. Abbas, et al., Mid-rapidity anti-baryon to baryon ratios in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 0.9, 2.76$ and 7 TeV measured by ALICE, Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2496, arXiv:1305.1562 [nucl-ex].

[52] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt, et al., Midrapidity antiproton-to-proton ratio in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 0.9$ and 7 TeV measured by the ALICE experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 072002, arXiv:1006.5432 [hep-ex].

[53] R. Barlow, Systematic errors: facts and fictions, in: Conference on Advanced Statistical Techniques in Particle Physics, 7, 2002, pp. 134–144, arXiv:hep-ex/0207026.

[54] ALICE Collaboration, Validation of the ALICE material budget between TPC and TOF detectors, ALICE-PUBLIC-2022-001, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2800896, Feb 2022.

[55] V.M. Grinine, Integral cross-sections of light nuclei in the Glauber-Gribov representation, Nucl. Instrum. Methods B 427 (2018) 60–62.

[56] V. Uzhinsky, et al., Antinucleus-nucleus cross sections implemented in GEANT4, Phys. Lett. B 705 (2011) 235–239.

[57] G. Ropke, Light nuclei quasiparticle energy shift in hot and dense nuclear matter, Phys. Rev. C 79 (2009) 014002, arXiv:0810.4645 [nucl-th].

ALICE Collaboration

S. Acharya¹²⁷, D. Adamová⁸⁷, A. Adler⁷¹, G. Aglieri Rinella³³, M. Agnello³⁰, N. Agrawal⁵², Z. Ahammed¹³⁵, S. Ahmad¹⁶, S.U. Ahn⁷², I. Ahuja³⁸, A. Akindinov¹⁴¹, M. Al-Turany⁹⁸, D. Aleksandrov¹⁴¹, B. Alessandro⁵⁷, H.M. Alfanda⁶, R. Alfaro Molina⁶⁸, B. Ali¹⁶, A. Alici²⁶, N. Alizadehvandchali¹¹⁶, A. Alkin³³, J. Alme²¹, G. Alocco⁵³, T. Alt⁶⁵, A.R. Altamura⁵¹, I. Altsybeev¹⁴¹, M.N. Anaam⁶, C. Andrei⁴⁶, A. Andronic¹²⁶, V. Anguelov⁹⁵, F. Antinori⁵⁵, P. Antonioli⁵², N. Apadula⁷⁵, L. Aphecetche¹⁰⁴, H. Appelshäuser⁶⁵, C. Arata⁷⁴, S. Arcelli²⁶, M. Aresti⁵³, R. Arnaldi⁵⁷, J.G.M.C.A. Arneiro¹¹¹, I.C. Arsene²⁰, M. Arslandok¹³⁸, A. Augustinus³³, R. Averbeck⁹⁸, M.D. Azmi¹⁶, H. Baba¹²⁴, A. Badalà⁵⁴, J. Bae¹⁰⁵, Y.W. Baek⁴¹, X. Bai¹²⁰, R. Bailhache⁶⁵, Y. Bailung⁴⁹, A. Balbino³⁰, A. Baldisseri¹³⁰, B. Balis², D. Banerjee⁴, Z. Banoo⁹², R. Barbera²⁷, F. Barile³², L. Barioglio⁹⁶, M. Barlou⁷⁹, G.G. Barnaföldi⁴⁷, L.S. Barnby⁸⁶, V. Barret¹²⁷, L. Barreto¹¹¹, C. Bartels¹¹⁹, K. Barth³³, E. Bartsch⁶⁵, N. Bastid¹²⁷, S. Basu⁷⁶, G. Batigne¹⁰⁴, D. Battistini⁹⁶, B. Batyunya¹⁴², D. Bauri⁴⁸, J.L. Bazo Alba¹⁰², I.G. Bearden⁸⁴, C. Beattie¹³⁸, P. Becht⁹⁸, D. Behera⁴⁹, I. Belikov¹²⁹, A.D.C. Bell Hechavarria¹²⁶, F. Bellini²⁶, R. Bellwied¹¹⁶, S. Belokurova¹⁴¹, G. Bencedi⁴⁷, S. Beole²⁵, A. Bercuci⁴⁶, Y. Berdnikov¹⁴¹, A. Berdnikova⁹⁵, L. Bergmann⁹⁵, M.G. Besoiu⁶⁴, L. Betev³³, P.P. Bhaduri¹³⁵, A. Bhasin⁹², M.A. Bhat⁴, B. Bhattacharjee⁴², L. Bianchi²⁵, N. Bianchi⁵⁰, J. Bielčík³⁶, J. Bielčíková⁸⁷, J. Biernat¹⁰⁸, A.P. Bigot¹²⁹, A. Bilandzic⁹⁶, G. Biro⁴⁷, S. Biswas⁴, N. Bize¹⁰⁴, J.T. Blair¹⁰⁹, D. Blau¹⁴¹, M.B. Blidaru⁹⁸, N. Bluhme³⁹, C. Blume⁶⁵, G. Boca²²,⁵⁶, F. Bock⁸⁸, T. Bodova²¹, A. Bogdanov¹⁴¹, S. Boi²³, J. Bok⁵⁹, L. Boldizsár⁴⁷, M. Bombara³⁸, P.M. Bond³³, G. Bonomi¹³⁴,⁵⁶, H. Borel¹³⁰, A. Borissov¹⁴¹, A.G. Borquez Carcamo⁹⁵, H. Bossi¹³⁸, E. Botta²⁵, Y.E.M. Bouziani⁶⁵, L. Bratrud⁶⁵, P. Braun-Munzinger⁹⁸, M. Bregant¹¹¹, M. Broz³⁶, G.E. Bruno⁹⁷,³², M.D. Buckland²⁴, D. Budnikov¹⁴¹, H. Buesching⁶⁵, S. Bufalino³⁰, P. Buhler¹⁰³, N. Burmasov¹⁴¹, Z. Buthelezi⁶⁹,¹²³, A. Bylinkin²¹, S.A. Bysiak¹⁰⁸, M. Cai⁶, H. Caines¹³⁸, A. Caliva²⁹, E. Calvo Villar¹⁰², J.M.M. Camacho¹¹⁰, P. Camerini²⁴, F.D.M. Canedo¹¹¹, S.L. Cantway¹³⁸, M. Carabas¹¹⁴, A.A. Carballo³³, F. Carnesecchi³³, R. Caron¹²⁸, L.A.D. Carvalho¹¹¹, J. Castillo Castellanos¹³⁰, F. Catalano³³,⁵², C. Ceballos Sanchez¹⁴², I. Chakaberia⁷⁵, P. Chakraborty⁴⁸, S. Chandra¹³⁵, S. Chapeland³³, M. Chartier¹¹⁹, S. Chattopadhyay¹³⁵, S. Chattopadhyay¹⁰⁰, T.G. Chavez⁴⁵, T. Cheng⁹⁸,⁶, C. Cheshkov¹²⁸, B. Cheynis¹²⁸, V. Chibante Barroso³³, D.D. Chinellato¹¹², E.S. Chizzali⁹⁶,II, J. Cho⁵⁹, S. Cho⁵⁹, P. Chochula³³, P. Christakoglou⁸⁵, C.H. Christensen⁸⁴, P. Christiansen⁷⁶, T. Chujo¹²⁵, M. Ciacco³⁰, C. Cicalo⁵³, F. Cindolo⁵², M.R. Ciuepek⁹⁸, G. Clai⁵²,III, F. Colamaria⁵¹, J.S. Colburn¹⁰¹, D. Colella⁹⁷,³², M. Colocci²⁶, M. Concas⁵⁷,IV, G. Conesa Balbastre⁷⁴, Z. Conesa del Valle¹³¹, G. Contin²⁴, J.G. Contreras³⁶, M.L. Coquet¹³⁰, P. Cortese¹³³,⁵⁷, M.R. Cosentino¹¹³, F. Costa³³, S. Costanza²²,⁵⁶, C. Cot¹³¹, J. Crkovská⁹⁵, P. Crochet¹²⁷, R. Cruz-Torres⁷⁵, P. Cui⁶, A. Dainese⁵⁵, M.C. Danisch⁹⁵, A. Danu⁶⁴, P. Das⁸¹, P. Das⁴, S. Das⁴, A.R. Dash¹²⁶,
S. Dash 48, ID,
R.M.H. David 45, A. De Caro 29, ID,
G. de Cataldo 51, ID,
J. de Cuveland 39, A. De Falco 23, ID,
D. De Gruttola 29, ID,
N. De Marco 57, ID,
C. De Martin 24, ID,
S. De Pasquale 29, ID,
R. Deb 134, ID,
S. Deb 49, ID,
R. Del Grande 96, ID,
L. Dello Stritto 29, ID,
W. Deng 6, ID,
P. Dhankher 19, ID,
D. Di Bari 32, ID,
A. Di Mauro 33, ID,
B. Diab 130, ID,
R.A. Diaz 142,7, ID,
T. Dietel 115, ID,
Y. Ding 6, ID,
R. Divià 33, ID,
D.U. Dixit 19, ID,
Ø. Djuvsland 21,
U. Dmitrieva 141, ID,
A. Dobrin 64, ID,
B. Dönigus 65, ID,
J.M. Dubinski 136, ID,
A. Dubla 98, ID,
S. Dudi 91, ID,
P. Dupieux 127, ID,
M. Durkac 107, N. Dzalaiova 13,
T.M. Eder 126, ID,
R.J. Ehlers 75, ID,
F. Eisenhut 65, ID,
R. Ejima 93,
D. Elia 51, ID,
B. Erazmus 104, ID,
F. Ercolessi 26, ID,
F. Erhardt 90, ID,
M.R. Ersdal 21, B. Espagnon 131, ID,
G. Eulisse 33, ID,
D. Evans 101, ID,
S. Evdokimov 141, ID,
L. Fabbietti 96, ID,
M. Faggin 28, ID,
J. Faivre 74, ID,
F. Fan 6, ID,
W. Fan 75, ID,
A. Fantoni 50, ID,
M. Fasel 88, ID,
P. Fecchio 30, A. Feliciello 57, ID,
G. Feofilov 141, ID,
A. Fernández Téllez 45, ID,
L. Ferrandi 111, ID,
M.B. Ferrer 33, ID,
A. Ferrero 130, ID,
C. Ferrero 57, ID,
A. Ferretti 25, ID,
V.J.G. Feuillard 95, ID,
V. Filova 36, ID,
D. Finogeev 141, ID,
F.M. Fionda 53, ID,
F. Flor 116, ID,
A.N. Flores 109, ID,
S. Foertsch 69, ID,
I. Fokin 95, ID,
S. Fokin 141, ID,
E. Fragiacomo 58, ID,
E. Frajna 47, ID,
U. Fuchs 33, ID,
N. Funicello 29, ID,
C. Furget 74, ID,
A. Furs 141, ID,
T. Fusayasu 99, ID,
J.J. Gaardhøje 84, ID,
M. Gagliardi 25, ID,
A.M. Gago 102, ID,
T. Gahlaut 48, C.D. Galvan 110, ID,
D.R. Gangadharan 116, ID,
P. Ganoti 79, ID,
C. Garabatos 98, ID,
A.T. Garcia 131, ID,
J.R.A. Garcia 45, ID,
E. Garcia-Solis 9, ID,
C. Gargiulo 33, ID,
K. Garner 126, P. Gasik 98, ID,
A. Gautam 118, ID,
M.B. Gay Ducati 67, ID,
M. Germain 104, ID,
A. Ghimouz 125, C. Ghosh 135, M. Giacalone 52,26, ID,
P. Giubellino 98,57, ID,
P. Giubilato 28, ID,
A.M.C. Glaenzer 130, ID,
P. Glässel 95, ID,
E. Glimos 122, ID,
D.J.Q. Goh 77,
V. Gonzalez 137, ID,
M. Gorgon 2, ID,
K. Goswami 49, ID,
S. Gotovac 34, V. Grabski 68, ID,
L.K. Graczykowski 136, ID,
E. Grecka 87, ID,
A. Grelli 60, ID,
C. Grigoras 33, ID,
V. Grigoriev 141, ID,
S. Grigoryan 142,1, ID,
F. Grosa 33, ID,
J.F. Grosse-Oetringhaus 33, ID,
R. Grosso 98, ID,
D. Grund 36, ID,
G.G. Guardiano 112, ID,
R. Guernane 74, ID,
M. Guilbaud 104, ID,
K. Gulbrandsen 84, ID,
T. Gündem 65, ID,
T. Gunji 124, ID,
W. Guo 6, ID,
A. Gupta 92, ID,
R. Gupta 92, ID,
R. Gupta 49, ID,
S.P. Guzman 45, ID,
K. Gwizdziel 136, ID,
L. Gyulai 47, ID,
M.K. Habib 98,
C. Hadjidakis 131, ID,
F.U. Haider 92, ID,
H. Hamagaki 77, ID,
A. Hamdi 75, ID,
Y. Han 139, ID,
B.G. Hanley 137, ID,
R. Hannigan 109, ID,
J. Hansen 76, ID,
M.R. Haque 136, ID,
J.W. Harris 138, ID,
A. Harton 9, ID,
H. Hassan 88, ID,
D. Hatzifotiadou 52, ID,
P. Hauer 43, ID,
L.B. Havener 138, ID,
S.T. Heckel 96, ID,
E. Hellbär 98, ID,
H. Helstrup 35, ID,
M. Hemmer 65, ID,
T. Herman 36, ID,
G. Herrera Corral 8, ID,
F. Herrmann 126, S. Herrmann 128, ID,
K.F. Hetland 35, ID,
B. Heybeck 65, ID,
H. Hillemanns 33, ID,
B. Hippolyte 129, ID,
F.W. Hoffmann 71, ID,
B. Hofman 60, ID,
G.H. Hong 139, ID,
M. Horst 96, ID,
A. Horzyk 2, ID,
Y. Hou 6, ID,
P. Hristov 33, ID,
C. Hughes 122, ID,
P. Huhn 65, L.M. Huhta 117, ID,
T.J. Humanic 89, ID,
A. Hutson 116, ID,
D. Hutter 39, ID,
R. Ilkaev 141, H. Ilyas 14, ID,
M. Inaba 125, ID,
G.M. Innocenti 33, ID,
M. Ippolitov 141, ID,
A. Isakov 87, ID,
T. Isidori 118, ID,
M.S. Islam 100, ID,
M. Ivanov 98, ID,
M. Ivanov 13, V. Ivanov 141, ID,
K.E. Iversen 76, ID,
M. Jablonski 2, ID,
B. Jacak 75, ID,
N. Jacazio 26, ID,
P.M. Jacobs 75, ID,
S. Jadlovska 107, J. Jadlovsky 107, S. Jaelani 83, ID,
C. Jahnke 112, ID,
M.J. Jakubowska 136, ID,
M.A. Janik 136, ID,
T. Janson 71, M. Jercic 90, S. Ji 17, ID,
S. Jia 10, ID,
A.A.P. Jimenez 66, ID,
F. Jonas 88,126, ID,
D.M. Jones 119, ID,
J.M. Jowett 33,98, ID,
J. Jung 65, ID,
M. Jung 65, ID,
A. Unique 33, ID,
A. Jusko 101, ID,
M.J. Kabus 33,136, ID,
J. Kaewjai 106, P. Kalinak 61, ID,
A.S. Kalteyer 98, ID,
A. Kalweit 33, ID,
V. Kaplin 141, ID,
A. Karasu Uysal 73, ID,
D. Karatovic 90, ID,
O. Karavichev 141, ID,
T. Karavicheva 141, ID,
P. Karczmarczyk 136, ID,
E. Karpechev 141, ID,
U. Kebschull 71, ID,
R. Keidel 140, ID,
D.L.D. Keijdener 60, M. Keil 33, ID,
B. Ketzer 43, ID,
S.S. Khade 49, ID,
A.M. Khan 120,6, ID,
S. Khan 16, ID,
A. Khanzadeev 141, ID,
Y. Kharlov 141, ID,
A. Khatun 118, ID,
A. Khuntia 36, ID,
M.B. Kidson 115, B. Kileng 35, ID,
B. Kim 105, ID,
C. Kim 17, ID,
D.J. Kim 117, ID,
E.J. Kim 70, ID,
J. Kim 139, ID,
J.S. Kim 41, ID,
J. Kim 59, ID,
J. Kim 70, ID,
M. Kim 19, ID,
S. Kim 18, ID,
T. Kim 139, ID,
K. Kimura 93, ID,
S. Kirsch 65, ID,
I. Kisel 39, ID,
S. Kiselev 141, ID,
A. Kisiel 136, ID,
J.P. Kitowski 2, ID,
J.L. Klay 5, ID,
J. Klein 33, ID,
S. Klein 75, ID,
C. Klein-Bösing 126, ID,
M. Kleiner 65, ID,
T. Klemenz 96, ID,
A. Kluge 33, ID,
A.G. Knospe 116, ID,
C. Kobdaj 106, ID, T. Kollegger 98, A. Kondratyev 142, ID, N. Kondratyeva 141, ID, E. Kondratyuk 141, ID, J. König 65, ID, S.A. Königstorfer 96, ID, P.J. Konopka 33, ID, G. Kornakov 136, ID, M. Korwieser 96, ID, S.D. Koryciak 2, ID, A. Kotliarov 87, ID, V. Kovalenko 141, ID, M. Kowalski 108, ID, V. Kozhuharov 37, ID, I. Králik 61, ID, A. Kravčáková 38, ID, L. Krcal 33,39, ID, M. Krivda 101,61, ID, F. Krizek 87, ID, K. Krizkova Gajdosova 33, ID, M. Kroesen 95, ID, M. Krüger 65, ID, D.M. Krupova 36, ID, E. Kryshen 141, ID, V. Kučera 59, ID, C. Kuhn 129, ID, P.G. Kuijer 85, ID, T. Kumaoka 125, D. Kumar 135, L. Kumar 91, ID, N. Kumar 91, S. Kumar 32, ID, S. Kundu 33, ID, P. Kurashvili 80, ID, A. Kurepin 141, ID, A.B. Kurepin 141, ID, A. Kuryakin 141, ID, S. Kushpil 87, ID, M.J. Kweon 59, ID, Y. Kwon 139, ID, S.L. La Pointe 39, ID, P. La Rocca 27, ID, A. Lakrathok 106, M. Lamanna 33, ID, A.R. Landou 74, ID, R. Langoy 121, ID, P. Larionov 33, ID, E. Laudi 33, ID, L. Lautner 33,96, ID, R. Lavicka 103, ID, R. Lea 134,56, ID, H. Lee 105, ID, I. Legrand 46, ID, G. Legras 126, ID, J. Lehrbach 39, ID, T.M. Lelek 2, R.C. Lemmon 86, ID, I. León Monzón 110, ID, M.M. Lesch 96, ID, E.D. Lesser 19, ID, P. Lévai 47, ID, X. Li 10, X.L. Li 6, J. Lien 121, ID, R. Lietava 101, ID, I. Likmeta 116, ID, B. Lim 25, ID, S.H. Lim 17, ID, V. Lindenstruth 39, ID, A. Lindner 46, C. Lippmann 98, ID, A. Liu 19, ID, D.H. Liu 6, ID, J. Liu 119, ID, G.S.S. Liveraro 112, ID, I.M. Lofnes 21, ID, C. Loizides 88, ID, S. Lokos 108, ID, J. Lomker 60, ID, P. Loncar 34, ID, J.A. Lopez 95, ID, X. Lopez 127, ID, E. López Torres 7, ID, P. Lu 98,120, ID, J.R. Luhder 126, ID, M. Lunardon 28, ID, G. Luparello 58, ID, Y.G. Ma 40, ID, M. Mager 33, ID, A. Maire 129, ID, M.V. Makariev 37, ID, M. Malaev 141, ID, G. Malfattore 26, ID, N.M. Malik 92, ID, Q.W. Malik 20, S.K. Malik 92, ID, L. Malinina 142, ID,I,VII, D. Mallick 81, ID, N. Mallick 49, ID, G. Mandaglio 31,54, ID, S.K. Mandal 80, ID, V. Manko 141, ID, F. Manso 127, ID, V. Manzari 51, ID, Y. Mao 6, ID, R.W. Marcjan 2, ID, G.V. Margagliotti 24, ID, A. Margotti 52, ID, A. Marín 98, ID, C. Markert 109, ID, P. Martinengo 33, ID, M.I. Martínez 45, ID, G. Martínez García 104, ID, M.P.P. Martins 111, ID, S. Masciocchi 98, ID, M. Masera 25, ID, A. Masoni 53, ID, L. Massacrier 131, ID, A. Mastroserio 132,51, ID, O. Matonoha 76, ID, S. Mattiazzo 28, ID, P.F.T. Matuoka 111, A. Matyja 108, ID, C. Mayer 108, ID, A.L. Mazuecos 33, ID, F. Mazzaschi 25, ID, M. Mazzilli 33, ID, J.E. Mdhluli 123, ID, A.F. Mechler 65, Y. Melikyan 44, ID, A. Menchaca-Rocha 68, ID, E. Meninno 103, ID, A.S. Menon 116, ID, M. Meres 13, ID, S. Mhlanga 115,69, Y. Miake 125, L. Micheletti 33, ID, L.C. Migliorin 128, D.L. Mihaylov 96, ID, K. Mikhaylov 142,141, ID, A.N. Mishra 47, ID, D. Miśkowiec 98, ID, A. Modak 4, ID, A.P. Mohanty 60, ID, B. Mohanty 81, M. Mohisin Khan 16, ID,V, M.A. Molander 44, ID, S. Monira 136, ID, Z. Moravcova 84, ID, C. Mordasini 117, ID, D.A. Moreira De Godoy 126, ID, I. Morozov 141, ID, A. Morsch 33, ID, T. Mrnjavac 33, ID, V. Muccifora 50, ID, S. Muhuri 135, ID, J.D. Mulligan 75, ID, A. Mulliri 23, M.G. Munhoz 111, ID, R.H. Munzer 65, ID, H. Murakami 124, ID, S. Murray 115, ID, L. Musa 33, ID, J. Musinsky 61, ID, J.W. Myrcha 136, ID, B. Naik 123, ID, A.I. Nambrath 19, ID, B.K. Nandi 48, ID, R. Nania 52, ID, E. Nappi 51, ID, A.F. Nassirpour 18,76, ID, A. Nath 95, ID, C. Nattrass 122, ID, M.N. Naydenov 37, ID, A. Neagu 20, A. Negru 114, L. Nellen 66, ID, R. Nepeivoda 76, ID, S. Nese 20, ID, G. Neskovic 39, ID, B.S. Nielsen 84, ID, E.G. Nielsen 84, ID, S. Nikolaev 141, ID, S. Nikulin 141, ID, V. Nikulin 141, ID, F. Noferini 52, ID, S. Noh 12, ID, P. Nomokonov 142, ID, J. Norman 119, ID, N. Novitzky 125, ID, P. Nowakowski 136, ID, A. Nyanin 141, ID, J. Nystrand 21, ID, M. Ogino 77, ID, S. Oh 18, ID, A. Ohlson 76, ID, V.A. Okorokov 141, ID, J. Oleniacz 136, ID, A.C. Oliveira Da Silva 122, ID, M.H. Oliver 138, ID, A. Onnerstad 117, ID, C. Oppedisano 57, ID, A. Ortiz Velasquez 66, ID, J. Otwinowski 108, ID, M. Oya 93, K. Oyama 77, ID, Y. Pachmayer 95, ID, S. Padhan 48, ID, D. Pagano 134,56, ID, G. Paić 66, ID, A. Palasciano 51, ID, S. Panebianco 130, ID, H. Park 125, ID, H. Park 105, ID, J. Park 59, ID, J.E. Parkkila 33, ID, Y. Patley 48, ID, R.N. Patra 92, B. Paul 23, ID, H. Pei 6, ID, T. Peitzmann 60, ID, X. Peng 11, ID, M. Pennisi 25, ID, D. Peresunko 141, ID, G.M. Perez 7, ID, Y. Pestov 141, V. Petrov 141, ID, M. Petrovici 46, ID, R.P. Pezzi 104,67, ID, S. Piano 58, ID, M. Pikna 13, ID, P. Pillot 104, ID, O. Pinazza 52,33, ID, L. Pinsky 116, C. Pinto 96, ID, S. Pisano 50, ID, M. Płoskoń 75, ID, M. Planinic 90, F. Pliquett 65, M.G. Poghosyan 88, ID, B. Polichtchouk 141, ID, S. Politano 30, ID, N. Poljak 90, ID, A. Pop 46, ID, S. Porteboeuf-Houssais 127, ID, V. Pozdniakov 142, ID, I.Y. Pozos 45, ID, K.K. Pradhan 49, ID, S.K. Prasad 4, ID,
S. Prasad 49, ID, R. Prephenella 52, ID, F. Prino 57, ID, C.A. Pruneau 137, ID, I. Pshenichnov 141, ID, M. Puccio 33, ID, S. Pucillo 25, ID, Z. Pugelova 107, S. Qiu 85, ID, L. Quaglia 25, ID, R.E. Quishpe 116, S. Ragoni 15, ID, A. Rakotozafindrabe 130, ID, L. Ramello 133,57, ID, F. Rami 129, ID, S.A.R. Ramirez 45, ID, T.A. Rancien 74, M. Rasa 27, ID, S.S. Räsänen 44, ID, R. Rath 52, ID, M.P. Rauch 21, ID, I. Ravasenga 85, ID, K.F. Read 88,122, ID, C. Reckziegel 113, ID, A.R. Redelbach 39, ID, K. Redlich 80, ID, VI, C.A. Reetz 98, ID, A. Rehman 21, F. Reidt 33, ID, H.A. Reme-Ness 35, ID, Z. Rescakova 38, K. Reygers 95, ID, A. Riabov 141, ID, V. Riabov 141, ID, R. Ricci 29, ID, M. Richter 20, ID, A.A. Riedel 96, ID, W. Riegler 33, ID, C. Ristea 64, ID, M.V. Rodriguez 33, ID, M. Rodríguez Cahuantzi 45, ID, K. Røed 20, ID, R. Rogalev 141, ID, E. Rogochaya 142, ID, T.S. Rogoschinski 65, ID, D. Rohr 33, ID, D. Röhrich 21, ID, P.F. Rojas 45, S. Rojas Torres 36, ID, P.S. Rokita 136, ID, G. Romanenko 142, ID, F. Ronchetti 50, ID, A. Rosano 31,54, ID, E.D. Rosas 66, K. Roslon 136, ID, A. Rossi 55, ID, A. Roy 49, ID, S. Roy 48, ID, N. Rubini 26, ID, D. Ruggiano 136, ID, R. Rui 24, ID, P.G. Russek 2, ID, R. Russo 85, ID, A. Rustamov 82, ID, E. Ryabinkin 141, ID, Y. Ryabov 141, ID, A. Rybicki 108, ID, H. Rytkonen 117, ID, J. Ryu 17, ID, W. Rzesa 136, ID, O.A.M. Saarimaki 44, ID, R. Sadek 104, ID, S. Sadhu 32, ID, S. Sadovsky 141, ID, J. Saetre 21, ID, K. Šafařík 36, ID, P. Saha 42, S.K. Saha 4, ID, S. Saha 81, ID, B. Sahoo 48, ID, B. Sahoo 49, ID, R. Sahoo 49, ID, S. Sahoo 62, D. Sahu 49, ID, P.K. Sahu 62, ID, J. Saini 135, ID, K. Sajdakova 38, S. Sakai 125, ID, M.P. Salvan 98, ID, S. Sambyal 92, ID, D. Samitz 103, ID, I. Sanna 33,96, ID, T.B. Saramela 111, D. Sarkar 137, ID, N. Sarkar 135, P. Sarma 42, ID, V. Sarritzu 23, ID, V.M. Sarti 96, ID, M.H.P. Sas 138, ID, J. Schambach 88, ID, H.S. Scheid 65, ID, C. Schiaua 46, ID, R. Schicker 95, ID, A. Schmah 95, C. Schmidt 98, ID, H.R. Schmidt 94, M.O. Schmidt 33, ID, M. Schmidt 94, N.V. Schmidt 88, ID, A.R. Schmier 122, ID, R. Schotter 129, ID, A. Schröter 39, ID, J. Schukraft 33, ID, K. Schweda 98, ID, G. Scioli 26, ID, E. Scomparin 57, ID, J.E. Seger 15, ID, Y. Sekiguchi 124, D. Sekihata 124, ID, M. Selina 85, ID, I. Selyuzhenkov 98, ID, S. Senyukov 129, ID, J.J. Seo 95,59, ID, D. Serebryakov 141, ID, L. Šerkšnytė 96, ID, A. Sevcenco 64, ID, T.J. Shaba 69, ID, A. Shabetai 104, ID, R. Shahoyan 33, A. Shangaraev 141, ID, A. Sharma 91, B. Sharma 92, ID, D. Sharma 48, ID, H. Sharma 55,108, ID, M. Sharma 92, ID, S. Sharma 77, ID, S. Sharma 92, ID, U. Sharma 92, ID, A. Shatat 131, ID, O. Sheibani 116, K. Shigaki 93, ID, M. Shimomura 78, J. Shin 12, S. Shirinkin 141, ID, Q. Shou 40, ID, Y. Sibiriak 141, ID, S. Siddhanta 53, ID, T. Siemiarczuk 80, ID, T.F. Silva 111, ID, D. Silvermyr 76, ID, T. Simantathammakul 106, R. Simeonov 37, ID, B. Singh 92, B. Singh 96, ID, K. Singh 49, ID, R. Singh 81, ID, R. Singh 92, ID, R. Singh 49, ID, S. Singh 16, ID, V.K. Singh 135, ID, V. Singhal 135, ID, T. Sinha 100, ID, B. Sitar 13, ID, M. Sitta 133,57, ID, T.B. Skaali 20, G. Skorodumovs 95, ID, M. Slupecki 44, ID, N. Smirnov 138, ID, R.J.M. Snellings 60, ID, E.H. Solheim 20, ID, J. Song 116, ID, A. Songmoolnak 106, C. Sonnabend 33,98, ID, F. Soramel 28, ID, A.B. Soto-hernandez 89, ID, R. Spijkers 85, ID, I. Sputowska 108, ID, J. Staa 76, ID, J. Stachel 95, ID, I. Stan 64, ID, P.J. Steffanic 122, ID, S.F. Stiefelmaier 95, ID, D. Stocco 104, ID, I. Storehaug 20, ID, P. Stratmann 126, ID, S. Strazzi 26, ID, C.P. Stylianidis 85, A.A.P. Suaide 111, ID, C. Suire 131, ID, M. Sukhanov 141, ID, M. Suljic 33, ID, R. Sultanov 141, ID, V. Sumberia 92, ID, S. Sumowidagdo 83, ID, S. Swain 62, I. Szarka 13, ID, M. Szymkowski 136, ID, S.F. Taghavi 96, ID, G. Taillepied 98, ID, J. Takahashi 112, ID, G.J. Tambave 81, ID, S. Tang 6, ID, Z. Tang 120, ID, J.D. Tapia Takaki 118, ID, N. Tapus 114, L.A. Tarasovicova 126, ID, M.G. Tarzila 46, ID, G.F. Tassielli 32, ID, A. Tauro 33, ID, G. Tejeda Muñoz 45, ID, A. Telesca 33, ID, L. Terlizzi 25, ID, C. Terrevoli 116, ID, S. Thakur 4, ID, D. Thomas 109, ID, A. Tikhonov 141, ID, A.R. Timmins 116, ID, M. Tkacik 107, T. Tkacik 107, ID, A. Toia 65, ID, R. Tokumoto 93, K. Tomohiro 93, N. Topilskaya 141, ID, M. Toppi 50, ID, T. Tork 131, ID, V.V. Torres 104, ID, A.G. Torres Ramos 32, ID, A. Trifiró 31,54, ID, A.S. Triolo 33,31,54, ID, S. Tripathy 52, ID, T. Tripathy 48, ID, S. Trogolo 33, ID, V. Trubnikov 3, ID, W.H. Trzaska 117, ID, T.P. Trzcinski 136, ID, A. Tumkin 141, ID, R. Turrisi 55, ID, T.S. Tveter 20, ID, K. Ullaland 21, ID, B. Ulukutlu 96, ID, A. Uras 128, ID, M. Urioni 56,134, ID, G.L. Usai 23, ID, M. Vala 38, N. Valle 22, ID, L.V.R. van Doremalen 60, M. van Leeuwen 85, ID, C.A. van Veen 95, ID, R.J.G. van Weelden 85, ID, P. Vande Vyvre 33, ID, D. Varga 47, ID, Z. Varga 47, ID, M. Vasileiou 79, ID, A. Vasiliev 141, ID
O. Vázquez Doce 50,<fnref n="1" />⁾, O. Vazquez Rueda 116,<fnref n="1" />⁾, V. Vechernin 141,<fnref n="1" />⁾, E. Vercellin 25,<fnref n="1" />⁾, S. Vergara Limón 45, R. Verma 48, L. Vermunt 98,<fnref n="1" />⁾, R. Vértesi 47,<fnref n="1" />⁾, M. Verweij 60,<fnref n="1" />⁾, L. Vickovic 34, Z. Vilakazi 123, O. Villalobos Baillie 101,<fnref n="1" />⁾, A. Villani 24,<fnref n="1" />⁾, G. Vino 51,<fnref n="1" />⁾, A. Vinogradov 141,<fnref n="1" />⁾, T. Virgili 29,<fnref n="1" />⁾, M.M.O. Virta 117,<fnref n="1" />⁾, V. Vislavicius 76, A. Vodopyanov 142,<fnref n="1" />⁾, B. Volkel 33,<fnref n="1" />⁾, M.A. Völkl 95,<fnref n="1" />⁾, K. Voloshin 141, S.A. Voloshin 137,<fnref n="1" />⁾, G. Volpe 32,<fnref n="1" />⁾, B. von Haller 33,<fnref n="1" />⁾, I. Vorobey 96,<fnref n="1" />⁾, N. Vozniuk 141,<fnref n="1" />⁾, J. Vrláková 38,<fnref n="1" />⁾, J. Wan 40, C. Wang 40,<fnref n="1" />⁾, D. Wang 40, Y. Wang 40,<fnref n="1" />⁾, Y. Wang 6,<fnref n="1" />⁾, A. Wegrzynek 33,<fnref n="1" />⁾, F.T. Weiglhofer 39, S.C. Wenzel 33,<fnref n="1" />⁾, J.P. Wessels 126,<fnref n="1" />⁾, J. Wiechula 65,<fnref n="1" />⁾, J. Wikne 20,<fnref n="1" />⁾, G. Wilk 80,<fnref n="1" />⁾, J. Wilkinson 98,<fnref n="1" />⁾, G.A. Willems 126,<fnref n="1" />⁾, B. Windelband 95,<fnref n="1" />⁾, M. Winn 130,<fnref n="1" />⁾, J.R. Wright 109,<fnref n="1" />⁾, W. Wu 40, Y. Wu 120,<fnref n="1" />⁾, R. Xu 6,<fnref n="1" />⁾, A. Yadav 43,<fnref n="1" />⁾, A.K. Yadav 135,<fnref n="1" />⁾, S. Yalcin 73,<fnref n="1" />⁾, Y. Yamaguchi 93,<fnref n="1" />⁾, S. Yang 21, S. Yano 93,<fnref n="1" />⁾, Z. Yin 6,<fnref n="1" />⁾, I.-K. Yoo 17,<fnref n="1" />⁾, J.H. Yoon 59,<fnref n="1" />⁾, H. Yu 12, S. Yuan 21, A. Yuncu 95,<fnref n="1" />⁾, V. Zaccolo 24,<fnref n="1" />⁾, C. Zampolli 33,<fnref n="1" />⁾, F. Zanone 95,<fnref n="1" />⁾, N. Zardoshti 33,<fnref n="1" />⁾, A. Zarochentsev 141,<fnref n="1" />⁾, P. Závada 63,<fnref n="1" />⁾, N. Zaviyalov 141, M. Zhalov 141,<fnref n="1" />⁾, B. Zhang 6,<fnref n="1" />⁾, C. Zhang 130,<fnref n="1" />⁾, L. Zhang 40,<fnref n="1" />⁾, S. Zhang 40,<fnref n="1" />⁾, X. Zhang 6,<fnref n="1" />⁾, Y. Zhang 120, Z. Zhang 6,<fnref n="1" />⁾, M. Zhao 10,<fnref n="1" />⁾, V. Zherebchevskii 141,<fnref n="1" />⁾, Y. Zhi 10, D. Zhou 6,<fnref n="1" />⁾, Y. Zhou 84,<fnref n="1" />⁾, J. Zhu 98,6,<fnref n="1" />⁾, Y. Zhu 6, S.C. Zugravel 57,<fnref n="1" />⁾, N. Zurlo 134,56,<fnref n="1" />⁾

<footnote n="1">¹ A.I. Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics Institute) Foundation, Yerevan, Armenia</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² AGH University of Krakow, Cracow, Poland</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Bose Institute, Department of Physics and Centre for Astroparticle Physics and Space Science (CAPSS), Kolkata, India</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, United States</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Havana, Cuba</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados (CINVESTAV), Mexico City and Mérida, Mexico</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ Chicago State University, Chicago, IL, United States</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, China</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ Comenius University Bratislava, Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, Bratislava, Slovak Republic</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ COMSATS University Islamabad, Islamabad, Pakistan</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ Creighton University, Omaha, NE, United States</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ Department of Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ Department of Physics, Pusan National University, Pusan, Republic of Korea</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ Department of Physics, Sejong University, Seoul, Republic of Korea</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA, United States</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰ Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹ Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway</footnote>

<footnote n="22">²² Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³ Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Università and Sezione INFN, Cagliari, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="24">²⁴ Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Università and Sezione INFN, Trieste, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="25">²⁵ Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Università and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶ Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell'Università and Sezione INFN, Bologna, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="27">²⁷ Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell'Università and Sezione INFN, Catania, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="28">²⁸ Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell'Università and Sezione INFN, Padova, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="29">²⁹ Dipartimento di Fisica 'E.R. Caianiello' dell'Università and Gruppo Collegato INFN, Salerno, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="30">³⁰ Dipartimento DISAT del Politecnico and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="31">³¹ Dipartimento di Scienze MIFT, Università di Messina, Messina, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="32">³² Dipartimento Interateneo di Fisica 'M. Merlin' and Sezione INFN, Bari, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="33">³³ European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland</footnote>

<footnote n="34">³⁴ Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Split, Split, Croatia</footnote>

<footnote n="35">³⁵ Faculty of Engineering and Science, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway</footnote>

<footnote n="36">³⁶ Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic</footnote>

<footnote n="37">³⁷ Faculty of Physics, Sofia University, Sofia, Bulgaria</footnote>

<footnote n="38">³⁸ Faculty of Science, P.J. Šafárik University, Košice, Slovak Republic</footnote>

<footnote n="39">³⁹ Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰ Fudan University, Shanghai, China</footnote>

<footnote n="41">⁴¹ Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, Republic of Korea</footnote>

<footnote n="42">⁴² Gauhati University, Department of Physics, Guwahati, India</footnote>

<footnote n="43">⁴³ Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlen- und Kernphysik, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="44">⁴⁴ Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Helsinki, Finland</footnote>

<footnote n="45">⁴⁵ High Energy Physics Group, Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico</footnote>

<footnote n="46">⁴⁶ Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest, Romania</footnote>

<footnote n="47">⁴⁷ HUN-REN Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary</footnote>

<footnote n="48">⁴⁸ Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT), Mumbai, India</footnote>

<footnote n="49">⁴⁹ Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore, India</footnote>

<footnote n="50">⁵⁰ INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="51">⁵¹ INFN, Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="52">⁵² INFN, Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="53">⁵³ INFN, Sezione di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy</footnote>
54 INFN, Sezione di Catania, Catania, Italy

55 INFN, Sezione di Padova, Padova, Italy

56 INFN, Sezione di Pavia, Pavia, Italy

57 INFN, Sezione di Torino, Turin, Italy

58 INFN, Sezione di Trieste, Trieste, Italy

59 Inha University, Incheon, Republic of Korea

60 Institute for Gravitational and Subatomic Physics (GRASP), Utrecht University/Nikhef, Utrecht, Netherlands

61 Institute of Experimental Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Košice, Slovak Republic

62 Institute of Physics, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Bhubaneswar, India

63 Institute of Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic

64 Institute of Space Science (ISS), Bucharest, Romania

65 Institut für Kernphysik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

66 Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico

67 Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Brazil

68 Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico

69 iThemba LABS, National Research Foundation, Somerset West, South Africa

70 Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea

71 Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe-Universität Frankfurt Institut für Informatik, Fachbereich Informatik und Mathematik, Frankfurt, Germany

72 Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon, Republic of Korea

73 KTO Karatay University, Konya, Turkey

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

75 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, United States

76 Lund University Department of Physics, Division of Particle Physics, Lund, Sweden

77 Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science, Nagasaki, Japan

78 Nara Women's University (NWU), Nara, Japan

79 National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Science, Department of Physics, Athens, Greece

80 National Centre for Nuclear Research, Warsaw, Poland

81 National Institute of Science Education and Research, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Jatni, India

82 National Nuclear Research Center, Baku, Azerbaijan

83 National Research and Innovation Agency - BRIN, Jakarta, Indonesia

84 Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

85 Nikhef, National institute for subatomic physics, Amsterdam, Netherlands

86 Nuclear Physics Group, STFC Daresbury Laboratory, Daresbury, United Kingdom

87 Nuclear Physics Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Husinec-Řež, Czech Republic

88 Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, United States

89 Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States

90 Physics department, Faculty of science, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

91 Physics Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India

92 Physics Department, University of Jammu, Jammu, India

93 Physics Program and International Institute for Sustainability with Knotted Chiral Meta Matter (SKCM2), Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan

94 Physikalisches Institut, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

95 Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

96 Physik Department, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

97 Politecnico di Bari and Sezione INFN, Bari, Italy

98 Research Division and ExtreMe Matter Institute EMMI, GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany

99 Saga University, Saga, Japan

100 Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kolkata, India

101 School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom

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

103 Stefan Meyer Institut für Subatomare Physik (SMI), Vienna, Austria

104 SUBATECH, IMT Atlantique, Nantes Université, CNRS-IN2P3, Nantes, France

105 Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon City, Republic of Korea

106 Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand

107 Technical University of Košice, Košice, Slovak Republic

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

109 The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States

110 Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Culiacán, Mexico

111 Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil

112 Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil

113 Universidade Federal do ABC, Santo Andre, Brazil

114 Universitatea Naționala de Stiința și Tehnologie Politehnică București, Bucharest, Romania

115 University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

116 University of Houston, Houston, TX, United States

117 University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

118 University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, United States

119 University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom

120 University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China

121 University of South-Eastern Norway, Kongsberg, Norway

122 University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, United States

123 University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

124 University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

125 University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan

126 Universität Münster, Institut für Kernphysik, Münster, Germany

127 Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France

128 Université de Lyon, CNRS/IN2P3, Institut de Physique des 2 Infinités de Lyon, Lyon, France

129 Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, F-67000 Strasbourg, France, Strasbourg, France

130 Université Paris-Saclay, Centre d'Etudes de Saclay (CEA), IRFU, Département de Physique Nucléaire (DPhN), Saclay, France

131 Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS/IN2P3, IJCLab, Orsay, France

132 Università degli Studi di Foggia, Foggia, Italy

133 Università di Piemonte Orientale, Vercelli, Italy
134 Università di Brescia, Brescia, Italy

135 Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kolkata, India

136 Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland

137 Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, United States

138 Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States

139 Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

140 Zentrum für Technologie und Transfer (ZTT), Worms, Germany

141 Affiliated with an institute covered by a cooperation agreement with CERN

142 Affiliated with an international laboratory covered by a cooperation agreement with CERN

¹ Deceased.

II Also at: Max-Planck-Institut fur Physik, Munich, Germany.

III Also at: Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA), Bologna, Italy.

IV Also at: Dipartimento DET del Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy.

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

VI Also at: Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Wroclaw, Poland.

VII Also at: An institution covered by a cooperation agreement with CERN.