# Observation of abnormal suppression of $f_0(980)$ production in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV

Shreyasi Acharya, Dagmar Adamova, Gianluca Aglieri Rinella, Michelangelo Agnello, Neelima Agrawal, Zubayer Ahammed, Shakeel Ahmad, Sang Un Ahn, Ishaan Ahuja, Alexander Akindinov, et al.

► To cite this version:

Shreyasi Acharya, Dagmar Adamova, Gianluca Aglieri Rinella, Michelangelo Agnello, Neelima Agrawal, et al.. Observation of abnormal suppression of $f_0(980)$ production in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV. Phys.Lett.B, 2024, 853, pp.138665. 10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138665. hal-04297440

HAL Id: hal-04297440

https://hal.science/hal-04297440

Submitted on 24 May 2024

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

Letter

# Observation of abnormal suppression of $f_0(980)$ production in p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV

ALICE Collaboration *

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

Check for
updates

## ARTICLE INFO

Editor: M. Doser

Dataset link: https://www.hepdata.net/record/ins2724206

## ABSTRACT

The dependence of $f_0(980)$ production on the final-state charged-particle multiplicity in p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV is reported. The production of $f_0(980)$ is measured with the ALICE detector via the $f_0(980) \to \pi^+\pi^-$ decay channel in a midrapidity region of $-0.5 < y < 0$. Particle yield ratios of $f_0(980)$ to $\pi$ and $K^*(892)^0$ are found to be decreasing with increasing charged-particle multiplicity. The magnitude of the suppression of the $f_0(980)/\pi$ and $f_0(980)/K^*(892)^0$ yield ratios is found to be dependent on the transverse momentum $p_T$, suggesting different mechanisms responsible for the measured effects. Furthermore, the nuclear modification factor $Q_{pPb}$ of $f_0(980)$ is measured in various multiplicity ranges. The $Q_{pPb}$ shows a strong suppression of the $f_0(980)$ production in the $p_T$ region up to about 4 GeV/c. The results on the particle yield ratios and $Q_{pPb}$ for $f_0(980)$ may help to understand the late hadronic phase in p–Pb collisions and the nature of the internal structure of $f_0(980)$ particle.

## 1. Introduction

Light scalar mesons, whose spin and parity are zero and even, respectively, are of particular interest as their nature can be explained with an exotic structure [1]. Among them, a long-standing puzzle is related to the quark composition of the $f_0(980)$ particle [2–4]. The $f_0(980)$ is suggested to be either a conventional meson (q\bar{q}) [5], a compact tetraquark [6], or a $K\bar{K}$ molecule [7]. By comparing different observables in heavy-ion collisions with those in pp interactions, the structure of the $f_0(980)$ can be probed.

The theory of the strong interaction, quantum chromodynamics (QCD), predicts the formation of a state of strongly interacting matter, the so-called quark–gluon plasma (QGP), under the conditions of high temperature and high energy density reached in relativistic heavy-ion collisions. Many observations at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), such as collective flow [8–11] and jet quenching [12–14], which is also manifest in the suppression of the yield of high-momentum hadrons [15,16] due to in-medium partonic energy loss, contribute to the understanding of the QGP properties [17,18]. Specifically, the nuclear modification factors for different particle species, defined as the ratio of the transverse momentum ($p_T$) distributions measured in heavy-ion collisions to the corresponding yields in pp interactions scaled by the number of nucleon–nucleon collisions, show a strong modification of the $p_T$ spectra in large collision systems due to the presence of the hot and dense

QGP medium. However, the nuclear modification factors are measured to be close to unity in minimum bias (MB) proton–nucleus (pA) collisions for $p_T > 8$ GeV/c [19], indicating no substantial modification in pA collisions in the high $p_T$ range.

Another effect observed in pp and pA collisions at the LHC is a multiplicity-dependent enhancement of the production of strange hadrons relative to hadrons composed of up and down quarks, which is usually referred to as “strangeness enhancement” [20]. The measurement of particle yield ratios of $f_0(980)$ to $\pi$ and $K^*(892)^0$ can be helpful to examine whether the $f_0(980)$ yield is influenced by the strangeness enhancement, thus providing sensitivity to the strange quark content inside the $f_0(980)$ [21,22]. Moreover, other features observed in heavy-ion collisions, such as the strong enhancement of the nuclear modification factors of baryons at intermediate $p_T$ ($2 < p_T < 5$ GeV/c) [18,23] compared to those of mesons and the baryon and meson grouping of the elliptic flow [24], show an apparent dependence on the number of constituent quarks (NCQ) [24], reflecting the formation of hadrons from the QGP via quark coalescence [23]. Hence, measurements of $f_0(980)$ production in systems where a QGP may be created can help to constrain the number of quarks forming the $f_0(980)$.

Short-lived resonances, such as $\rho(770)^0$ [25], $K^*(892)^0$ [26,27], $\Sigma(1385)^{\pm}$ [28], and $\Lambda(1520)$ [29] as well as $f_0(980)$, are good probes to study the properties of the system that results from the hadronization of a QGP [30,31]. In the late stage of the evolution of the system formed in heavy-ion collisions, there are two relevant temperatures

<footnote>* E-mail address: alice-publications@cern.ch.</footnote>
Letter

Observation of abnormal suppression of $f_0(980)$ production in p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV

ALICE Collaboration *

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

Check for
updates

ARTICLE INFO

Editor: M. Doser

Dataset link: https://www.hepdata.net/record/ins2724206

ABSTRACT

The dependence of $f_0(980)$ production on the final-state charged-particle multiplicity in p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV is reported. The production of $f_0(980)$ is measured with the ALICE detector via the $f_0(980) \to \pi^+\pi^-$ decay channel in a midrapidity region of $-0.5 < y < 0$. Particle yield ratios of $f_0(980)$ to $\pi$ and $K^*(892)^0$ are found to be decreasing with increasing charged-particle multiplicity. The magnitude of the suppression of the $f_0(980)/\pi$ and $f_0(980)/K^*(892)^0$ yield ratios is found to be dependent on the transverse momentum $p_T$, suggesting different mechanisms responsible for the measured effects. Furthermore, the nuclear modification factor $Q_{pPb}$ of $f_0(980)$ is measured in various multiplicity ranges. The $Q_{pPb}$ shows a strong suppression of the $f_0(980)$ production in the $p_T$ region up to about 4 GeV/c. The results on the particle yield ratios and $Q_{pPb}$ for $f_0(980)$ may help to understand the late hadronic phase in p–Pb collisions and the nature of the internal structure of $f_0(980)$ particle.

1. Introduction

Light scalar mesons, whose spin and parity are zero and even, respectively, are of particular interest as their nature can be explained with an exotic structure [1]. Among them, a long-standing puzzle is related to the quark composition of the $f_0(980)$ particle [2–4]. The $f_0(980)$ is suggested to be either a conventional meson (q\bar{q}) [5], a compact tetraquark [6], or a $K\bar{K}$ molecule [7]. By comparing different observables in heavy-ion collisions with those in pp interactions, the structure of the $f_0(980)$ can be probed.

The theory of the strong interaction, quantum chromodynamics (QCD), predicts the formation of a state of strongly interacting matter, the so-called quark–gluon plasma (QGP), under the conditions of high temperature and high energy density reached in relativistic heavy-ion collisions. Many observations at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), such as collective flow [8–11] and jet quenching [12–14], which is also manifest in the suppression of the yield of high-momentum hadrons [15,16] due to in-medium partonic energy loss, contribute to the understanding of the QGP properties [17,18]. Specifically, the nuclear modification factors for different particle species, defined as the ratio of the transverse momentum ($p_T$) distributions measured in heavy-ion collisions to the corresponding yields in pp interactions scaled by the number of nucleon–nucleon collisions, show a strong modification of the $p_T$ spectra in large collision systems due to the presence of the hot and dense

QGP medium. However, the nuclear modification factors are measured to be close to unity in minimum bias (MB) proton–nucleus (pA) collisions for $p_T > 8$ GeV/c [19], indicating no substantial modification in pA collisions in the high $p_T$ range.

Another effect observed in pp and pA collisions at the LHC is a multiplicity-dependent enhancement of the production of strange hadrons relative to hadrons composed of up and down quarks, which is usually referred to as “strangeness enhancement” [20]. The measurement of particle yield ratios of $f_0(980)$ to $\pi$ and $K^*(892)^0$ can be helpful to examine whether the $f_0(980)$ yield is influenced by the strangeness enhancement, thus providing sensitivity to the strange quark content inside the $f_0(980)$ [21,22]. Moreover, other features observed in heavy-ion collisions, such as the strong enhancement of the nuclear modification factors of baryons at intermediate $p_T$ ($2 < p_T < 5$ GeV/c) [18,23] compared to those of mesons and the baryon and meson grouping of the elliptic flow [24], show an apparent dependence on the number of constituent quarks (NCQ) [24], reflecting the formation of hadrons from the QGP via quark coalescence [23]. Hence, measurements of $f_0(980)$ production in systems where a QGP may be created can help to constrain the number of quarks forming the $f_0(980)$.

Short-lived resonances, such as $\rho(770)^0$ [25], $K^*(892)^0$ [26,27], $\Sigma(1385)^{\pm}$ [28], and $\Lambda(1520)$ [29] as well as $f_0(980)$, are good probes to study the properties of the system that results from the hadronization of a QGP [30,31]. In the late stage of the evolution of the system formed in heavy-ion collisions, there are two relevant temperatures

<footnote>* E-mail address: alice-publications@cern.ch.</footnote>
and corresponding timescales: the chemical freeze-out, when the in-
elastic interactions among the constituents are expected to cease, and
the later kinetic freeze-out, when all (elastic) interactions stop [32].
Since the time interval between the chemical and the kinetic freeze-
outs of the system (~ 10 fm/c) is comparable with the lifetime of
resonances [33,34], their decay products can actively interact with the
hadronic gas via rescattering whereas regeneration can occur from in-
teractions between particle pairs in the hadron gas. These two processes
are designated as hadronic interactions in this Letter. The hadronic
interactions result in modifications of resonance yields. The modifi-
cations can be studied by comparing the yield of resonances with
those of long-lived or ground-state particles [35]. Measurements of
$\rho(770)^0/\pi^+ + \pi^-)$ [25] and $K^*(892)^0/(K^+ + K^-)$ [26,27] yield ra-
tios are good examples to study the properties of the late hadronic
phase after the chemical freeze-out. It is worth mentioning that the
ratios of particles with the same strangeness can eliminate potential
strangeness enhancement effects in the ratio. Recently, system-size-
dependent modifications of particle yields are also observed in small
collision systems [26,27], suggesting that rescattering and regenera-
tion may also occur in high-multiplicity pp and p-Pb collisions. These
hadronic interactions depend on the hadronic cross section of the decay
products inside the hadronic medium, the lifetimes of the resonance,
and the duration of the hadronic phase. The suppression of resonance
yields in the hadronic gas can be explained by rescattering dominating
over regeneration. In addition, the final states of resonances decaying
to $\pi\pi$, such as $f_0(980)$, $\rho(770)^0$, and $f_2(1270)$, are affected by the same
cross section of pions and the medium, while the amount of hadronic
interactions differs due to different lifetimes of these resonances. In this
context, measuring the modification of the $f_0(980)$ yield may contribute
to further understanding of the late hadronic phase.

In this Letter, multiplicity-dependent measurements of $f_0(980)$ pro-
duction in p-Pb collisions at center-of-mass energy per nucleon-nucleon
collision $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV are reported for the first time. The $f_0(980)$ is
measured at midrapidity ($-0.5 < y < 0$) in $0 < p_T < 8$ GeV/c for differ-
ent multiplicity classes. In Sec. 2, the experimental setup is described,
while the reconstruction of $f_0(980)$ and the relative corrections are
explained in Sec. 3. The study of systematic uncertainties for the mea-
surement is reported in Sec. 4. In Sec. 5, $p_T$ spectra, particle yield ratios,
the nuclear modification factors, and model comparisons are discussed.
Finally, conclusions are outlined in Sec. 6.

## 2. Experimental setup

The sample of MB p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV used for the present analysis was recorded using the ALICE detector in 2016. Due to the different energies of the proton and lead beams, the center-of-mass reference system in p-Pb collisions is shifted in rapidity by $\Delta y_{cms} = 0.465$ along the direction of the proton beam. In the following, the convention that $y$ stands for $y_{cms}$ is used. The ALICE apparatus during the LHC Run 2 is described in detail in Ref. [36]. The present analysis is carried out using the following detectors: the V0 [37], the Zero Degree Calorimeters (ZDC) [38], the Inner Tracking System (ITS) [39], the Time Projection Chamber (TPC) [40], and the Time-Of-Flight (TOF) [41].

The V0 detector consists of two arrays of scintillators located on both sides of the interaction point (IP), denoted as V0A and V0C, each made of 32 plastic scintillator strips, covering the full azimuthal angle within the pseudorapidity intervals $2.8 < \eta < 5.1$ and $-3.7 < \eta < -1.7$, respectively. Minimum bias p-Pb collisions are selected online by requiring a signal in both V0A and V0C detectors in coincidence with the LHC bunch crossing. The total charge deposited in the V0A on the Pb-going side is utilized to define the multiplicity classes. The collected MB sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity of $0.3 \text{ nb}^{-1}$ [42]. The ZDC detects nucleons emitted from the colliding nucleus by nuclear de-excitation processes or knocked out from wounded nucleons, the so-called "slow" nucleons. Two identical sets of ZDCs, each com-

posed of a neutron (ZN) and a proton (ZP) calorimeter, are located at 112.5 m from the ALICE IP on both sides, covering very forward rapidity regions. The ZDC provides the least biased centrality selection in p-Pb collisions [43].

The primary vertex position is reconstructed using the measured track segments in the Silicon Pixel Detector (SPD) [44], the innermost two layers of the ITS. The primary vertex position along the beam direction ($z_{vtx}$) is required to be in $|z_{vtx}| < 10$ cm from the nominal interaction point ($z_{vtx} = 0$). The pileup is reduced by rejecting events with multiple reconstructed vertices with the additional requirement that the distance between the primary vertex and any additional reconstructed vertex is larger than 0.8 cm. In addition, an inconsistency between the number of track candidates in the ITS and clusters in the SPD is used to further reduce the pileup events [45]. After these selections, the probability of pileup events is expected to be about 0.1% in the MB sample [46]. Charged particles are reconstructed down to $p_T = 0.15$ GeV/c in the pseudorapidity range $|\eta| < 0.9$ over the full azimuth with the TPC and the ITS detectors, which are located inside a large solenoidal magnet, providing a uniform magnetic field of 0.5 T directed along the beam axis. Particle identification (PID) can be performed with the TPC and TOF. The TPC measures specific ionization energy loss $dE/dx$ of charged tracks to separate particle species. The TOF is used for PID by measuring the flight time of charged particles from the primary vertex to the TOF.

## 3. Data analysis

The $f_0(980)$ resonances are reconstructed via the decay channel $f_0(980) \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$, for which the branching ratio is reported to be B.R. = (46 $\pm$ 6)% [47]. The $f_0(980)$ candidates are built from pairs of charged tracks reconstructed in the ITS and TPC. The tracks and required to have $p_T > 0.15$ GeV/c and $|\eta| < 0.8$ for a uniform detector acceptance. The reconstructed tracks are required to satisfy the standard selection criteria, as reported in Ref. [48], to guarantee that only tracks with high quality are selected. To ensure good track momentum resolution, the reconstructed tracks are required to have crossed at least 70 read-out pad rows (out of a maximum of 159) in the TPC and to have at least two associated hits in the ITS (out of a maximum of 6), with at least one in the SPD. Selection criteria, which are dependent on $p_T$, are applied to the distance of closest approach of the track to the primary vertex in the transverse ($d_{xy}$) and longitudinal ($d_z$) directions, requiring $|d_z| < 2$ cm and $|d_{xy}| < (0.0105 + 0.0350 \times p_T^{-1.1})$ cm (with $p_T$ in GeV/c), respectively, to suppress contamination from secondary charged particles originating from weakly decaying hadrons and interactions with the material.

The identification of charged pions is performed using the combined information of the TPC and TOF. The difference between the measured ionization energy loss and the expected value from a Bethe-Bloch parameterization obtained by assuming the particle is a pion is required to be within two standard deviations for the pion identification in the TPC. The difference between the measured flight time of the particle and the expected flight time for a pion is required to be within three standard deviations for the particle to be identified as a pion in the TOF. Tracks not having a signal associated in the TOF are identified using only the $dE/dx$ information from the TPC.

The $f_0(980)$ signals are extracted using an invariant mass analysis by associating two opposite-charge pions in the same event within $-0.5 < y < 0$ [49]. The combinatorial background is subtracted using the like-sign method [50]. The like-sign background is constructed as the geometric average of $\pi^+\pi^+$ and $\pi^-\pi^-$ distributions, $2\sqrt{N_{\pi^+\pi^+} N_{\pi^-\pi^-}}$. After subtracting the like-sign background from the $\pi^+\pi^-$ distribution, peaks of resonances decaying to $\pi^+\pi^-$ can be identified. Fig. 1 shows the like-sign-subtracted $\pi^+\pi^-$ invariant mass ($M_{\pi\pi}$) distributions for $1.0 < p_T < 1.5$ GeV/c ($5.0 < p_T < 6.0$ GeV/c) in MB events in the left (right) panel. Because $\rho(770)^0$ and $f_2(1270)$ dominantly decay to $\pi^+\pi^-$
and corresponding timescales: the chemical freeze-out, when the in-
elastic interactions among the constituents are expected to cease, and
the later kinetic freeze-out, when all (elastic) interactions stop [32].
Since the time interval between the chemical and the kinetic freeze-
outs of the system (~ 10 fm/c) is comparable with the lifetime of
resonances [33,34], their decay products can actively interact with the
hadronic gas via rescattering whereas regeneration can occur from in-
teractions between particle pairs in the hadron gas. These two processes
are designated as hadronic interactions in this Letter. The hadronic
interactions result in modifications of resonance yields. The modifi-
cations can be studied by comparing the yield of resonances with
those of long-lived or ground-state particles [35]. Measurements of
$\rho(770)^0/(\pi^+ + \pi^-)$ [25] and $K^*(892)^0/(K^+ + K^-)$ [26,27] yield ra-
tios are good examples to study the properties of the late hadronic
phase after the chemical freeze-out. It is worth mentioning that the
ratios of particles with the same strangeness can eliminate potential
strangeness enhancement effects in the ratio. Recently, system-size-
dependent modifications of particle yields are also observed in small
collision systems [26,27], suggesting that rescattering and regenera-
tion may also occur in high-multiplicity pp and p-Pb collisions. These
hadronic interactions depend on the hadronic cross section of the decay
products inside the hadronic medium, the lifetimes of the resonance,
and the duration of the hadronic phase. The suppression of resonance
yields in the hadronic gas can be explained by rescattering dominating
over regeneration. In addition, the final states of resonances decaying
to $\pi\pi$, such as $f_0(980)$, $\rho(770)^0$, and $f_2(1270)$, are affected by the same
cross section of pions and the medium, while the amount of hadronic
interactions differs due to different lifetimes of these resonances. In this
context, measuring the modification of the $f_0(980)$ yield may contribute
to further understanding of the late hadronic phase.

In this Letter, multiplicity-dependent measurements of $f_0(980)$ pro-
duction in p-Pb collisions at center-of-mass energy per nucleon-nucleon
collision $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV are reported for the first time. The $f_0(980)$ is
measured at midrapidity ($-0.5 < y < 0$) in $0 < p_T < 8$ GeV/c for differ-
ent multiplicity classes. In Sec. 2, the experimental setup is described,
while the reconstruction of $f_0(980)$ and the relative corrections are
explained in Sec. 3. The study of systematic uncertainties for the mea-
surement is reported in Sec. 4. In Sec. 5, $p_T$ spectra, particle yield ratios,
the nuclear modification factors, and model comparisons are discussed.
Finally, conclusions are outlined in Sec. 6.

## 2. Experimental setup

The sample of MB p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV used for the present analysis was recorded using the ALICE detector in 2016. Due to the different energies of the proton and lead beams, the center-of-mass reference system in p-Pb collisions is shifted in rapidity by $\Delta y_{cms} = 0.465$ along the direction of the proton beam. In the following, the convention that $y$ stands for $y_{cms}$ is used. The ALICE apparatus during the LHC Run 2 is described in detail in Ref. [36]. The present analysis is carried out using the following detectors: the V0 [37], the Zero Degree Calorimeters (ZDC) [38], the Inner Tracking System (ITS) [39], the Time Projection Chamber (TPC) [40], and the Time-Of-Flight (TOF) [41].

The V0 detector consists of two arrays of scintillators located on both sides of the interaction point (IP), denoted as V0A and V0C, each made of 32 plastic scintillator strips, covering the full azimuthal angle within the pseudorapidity intervals $2.8 < \eta < 5.1$ and $-3.7 < \eta < -1.7$, respectively. Minimum bias p-Pb collisions are selected online by requiring a signal in both V0A and V0C detectors in coincidence with the LHC bunch crossing. The total charge deposited in the V0A on the Pb-going side is utilized to define the multiplicity classes. The collected MB sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity of $0.3 \text{ nb}^{-1}$ [42]. The ZDC detects nucleons emitted from the colliding nucleus by nuclear de-excitation processes or knocked out from wounded nucleons, the so-called "slow" nucleons. Two identical sets of ZDCs, each com-

posed of a neutron (ZN) and a proton (ZP) calorimeter, are located at 112.5 m from the ALICE IP on both sides, covering very forward rapidity regions. The ZDC provides the least biased centrality selection in p-Pb collisions [43].

The primary vertex position is reconstructed using the measured track segments in the Silicon Pixel Detector (SPD) [44], the innermost two layers of the ITS. The primary vertex position along the beam direction ($z_{vtx}$) is required to be in $|z_{vtx}| < 10$ cm from the nominal interaction point ($z_{vtx} = 0$). The pileup is reduced by rejecting events with multiple reconstructed vertices with the additional requirement that the distance between the primary vertex and any additional reconstructed vertex is larger than 0.8 cm. In addition, an inconsistency between the number of track candidates in the ITS and clusters in the SPD is used to further reduce the pileup events [45]. After these selections, the probability of pileup events is expected to be about 0.1% in the MB sample [46]. Charged particles are reconstructed down to $p_T = 0.15$ GeV/c in the pseudorapidity range $|\eta| < 0.9$ over the full azimuth with the TPC and the ITS detectors, which are located inside a large solenoidal magnet, providing a uniform magnetic field of 0.5 T directed along the beam axis. Particle identification (PID) can be performed with the TPC and TOF. The TPC measures specific ionization energy loss $dE/dx$ of charged tracks to separate particle species. The TOF is used for PID by measuring the flight time of charged particles from the primary vertex to the TOF.

## 3. Data analysis

The $f_0(980)$ resonances are reconstructed via the decay channel $f_0(980) \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$, for which the branching ratio is reported to be B.R. = (46 $\pm$ 6)% [47]. The $f_0(980)$ candidates are built from pairs of charged tracks reconstructed in the ITS and TPC. The tracks and required to have $p_T > 0.15$ GeV/c and $|\eta| < 0.8$ for a uniform detector acceptance. The reconstructed tracks are required to satisfy the standard selection criteria, as reported in Ref. [48], to guarantee that only tracks with high quality are selected. To ensure good track momentum resolution, the reconstructed tracks are required to have crossed at least 70 read-out pad rows (out of a maximum of 159) in the TPC and to have at least two associated hits in the ITS (out of a maximum of 6), with at least one in the SPD. Selection criteria, which are dependent on $p_T$, are applied to the distance of closest approach of the track to the primary vertex in the transverse ($d_{xy}$) and longitudinal ($d_z$) directions, requiring $|d_z| < 2$ cm and $|d_{xy}| < (0.0105 + 0.0350 \times p_T^{-1.1})$ cm (with $p_T$ in GeV/c), respectively, to suppress contamination from secondary charged particles originating from weakly decaying hadrons and interactions with the material.

The identification of charged pions is performed using the combined information of the TPC and TOF. The difference between the measured ionization energy loss and the expected value from a Bethe-Bloch parameterization obtained by assuming the particle is a pion is required to be within two standard deviations for the pion identification in the TPC. The difference between the measured flight time of the particle and the expected flight time for a pion is required to be within three standard deviations for the particle to be identified as a pion in the TOF. Tracks not having a signal associated in the TOF are identified using only the $dE/dx$ information from the TPC.

The $f_0(980)$ signals are extracted using an invariant mass analysis by associating two opposite-charge pions in the same event within $-0.5 < y < 0$ [49]. The combinatorial background is subtracted using the like-sign method [50]. The like-sign background is constructed as the geometric average of $\pi^+\pi^+$ and $\pi^-\pi^-$ distributions, $2\sqrt{N_{\pi^+\pi^+} N_{\pi^-\pi^-}}$. After subtracting the like-sign background from the $\pi^+\pi^-$ distribution, peaks of resonances decaying to $\pi^+\pi^-$ can be identified. Fig. 1 shows the like-sign-subtracted $\pi^+\pi^-$ invariant mass ($M_{\pi\pi}$) distributions for $1.0 < p_T < 1.5$ GeV/c ($5.0 < p_T < 6.0$ GeV/c) in MB events in the left (right) panel. Because $\rho(770)^0$ and $f_2(1270)$ dominantly decay to $\pi^+\pi^-$
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Invariant mass distribution of $\pi^+\pi^-$ pairs in $-0.5 < y < 0$ after the like-sign background subtraction in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV. The left (right) plot is obtained at low (high) $p_T$ of $\pi^+\pi^-$ pairs in minimum bias events. The abbreviation of Res. bkg represents the residual background.</figcaption></figure>

and have large widths, $f_0(980)$ signals are overlapped with contributions from those two resonances. In addition, a residual background ($f_{bkg}$) is present, which is mainly attributed to misidentified particles and mini-jets. The measured invariant mass distribution is fitted with a function accounting for the contributions of this residual background and of the three resonances. Each resonance contribution is described with a relativistic Breit-Wigner function (rBW) [25,48]. Note that the detector resolution of $\mathcal{O}(1 \text{ MeV})$ gives a negligible contribution to the widths of broad resonances [27]. The rBW can be expressed as

$$r\text{BW}(M_{\pi\pi}) = \frac{A M_{\pi\pi} \Gamma(M_{\pi\pi}) M_0}{(M_{\pi\pi}^2 - M_0^2)^2 + M_0^2 \Gamma^2(M_{\pi\pi})}, \quad (1)$$

where $\Gamma(M_{\pi\pi})$ is defined as

$$\Gamma(M_{\pi\pi}) = \left[ \frac{(M_{\pi\pi}^2 - 4m_{\pi}^2)}{(M_0^2 - 4m_{\pi}^2)} \right]^{(2J+1)/2} \times \frac{\Gamma_0 M_0}{M_{\pi\pi}}. \quad (2)$$

Here, $\Lambda$ and $M_0$ are the amplitude of the rBW and the rest mass of the resonance, respectively. The rest width of the resonance, the spin, and the charged pion mass of $139.6 \text{ MeV/c}^2$ are represented as $\Gamma_0$, $J$, and $m_\pi$, respectively. The spins for $f_0(980)$, $\rho(770)^0$, and $f_2(1270)$ are 0, 1, and 2, respectively. Each resonance rBW is corrected for the phase space factor [25], which can be expressed as

$$\text{PS}(M_{\pi\pi}) = \frac{M_{\pi\pi}}{\sqrt{M_{\pi\pi}^2 + p_T^2}} \times \exp(-\sqrt{M_{\pi\pi}^2 + p_T^2}/T_{\text{kin}}), \quad (3)$$

where $p_T$ denotes the transverse momentum of the $\pi\pi$ pair and is set to be the median of each $p_T$ interval, and $T_{\text{kin}}$ is the kinetic freeze-out temperature, set to be 160 MeV [25] for all the defined multiplicity classes. The fit function for the background, $f_{bkg}$, is modeled with a Maxwell-Boltzmann-like distribution, which can be expressed as [51]

$$f_{\text{bkg}}(M_{\pi\pi}) = B(M_{\pi\pi} - 2m_{\pi})^n \exp(c_1 M_{\pi\pi} + c_2 M_{\pi\pi}^2), \quad (4)$$

where, $B$, $n$, $c_1$, and $c_2$ are free parameters.

The total fit function consists of the sum of three rBWs, one for each resonance and one function for the background, $f_{bkg}$. This function has nine free parameters: three for $f_0(980)$ resonance (mass, width, and amplitude), two amplitudes for $\rho(770)^0$ and $f_2(1270)$ resonances, and four parameters for $f_{bkg}$. In particular, the width of the $f_0(980)$ which is not yet constrained by measurements ($10 < \Gamma_0^f < 100 \text{ MeV/c}^2$ [1]) is left as a free parameter in the fit. The masses and widths of $\rho(770)^0$ and $f_2(1270)$ are fixed to their world-average values from Ref. [1], namely $m_\rho = 766.5 \text{ MeV/c}^2$, $\Gamma_0^\rho = 149.1 \text{ MeV/c}^2$, $m_{f_2} = 1,275.5 \text{ MeV/c}^2$, and $\Gamma_0^f = 186.7 \text{ MeV/c}^2$. Due to the many free parameters in the fit function, the procedure is split into three steps to prevent parameter values

from converging to local minima. The purpose of the first step is to obtain an unbiased initial value for the $f_0(980)$ width. This step is performed using the MB sample over a coarse $p_T$ binning to reduce the effect of statistical fluctuations. This coarse $p_T$ binning is defined by merging 2 or 3 $p_T$ bins of the finer $p_T$ binning used for the analysis. All nine parameters are left free in the first step. The second step aims at constraining the $f_{bkg}$. The $f_0(980)$ width is fixed to the value determined from the wider $p_T$ interval used in the previous step. The last step is processed fixing the parameters of $f_{bkg}$ to those extracted in the previous step, while the $f_0(980)$ width is allowed to vary in the range of $10 < \Gamma_0^f < 100 \text{ MeV/c}^2$. In this procedure, the amplitudes of the three resonances and the mass of the $f_0(980)$ are left free, and the fit range is set to $0.8 < M_{\pi\pi} < 1.76 \text{ GeV/c}^2$. In the last step, the extracted width of $f_0(980)$ ranges between 40 and $70 \text{ MeV/c}^2$ in the different $p_T$ and multiplicity intervals used in this analysis. The determination of the $f_0(980)$ width is sensitive to the modeling of the background and the other two resonances in the fit.

While for the $f_0(980)$ analysis performed in pp collisions [48], the width was constrained to be $55 \text{ MeV/c}^2$, the present analysis leaves the $f_0(980)$ width as a free parameter. In the previous analysis, no phase space correction was applied. On the other hand, the present analysis considers the phase space correction for a possibly larger probability of $\pi\pi$ interference [52] owing to higher multiplicity in p-Pb collisions. It is found that consistent invariant yields in pp collisions are obtained from the two different analysis methods.

The raw yields of $f_0(980)$ ($N_{f0}$) in each $p_T$ interval are obtained by integrating the $f_0(980)$ rBW function. They are corrected for the acceptance, the tracking efficiency, and the PID efficiency and then normalized for the number of selected p-Pb collisions, the width of the $p_T$ and rapidity interval, and the B.R. [47]. The fully corrected yield can be expressed as

$$\frac{1}{N_{\text{NSD}}} \frac{\text{d}^2 N}{\text{dyd}p_T} = \frac{1}{N_{\text{evt}}} \frac{N_{f_0}}{\Delta y \Delta p_T} \frac{\epsilon_{\text{trig}} f_{\text{vtx}} f_{\text{SL}}}{\text{Acc} \times \epsilon \times \text{B.R.}} \quad (5)$$

Here, the number of events satisfying the event selection criteria in the specific multiplicity class is represented as $N_{\text{evt}}$. The corrected yield is then normalized to $N_{\text{NSD}}$, which is the number of non-single diffrac- tive (NSD) events, via the factors $\epsilon_{\text{trig}} \times f_{\text{vtx}} \times f_{\text{SL}}$. The width of the rapidity interval (of 0.5 units) is represented as $\Delta y$. Coefficients for the acceptance (Acc) and the efficiency ($\epsilon$) of the tracking and PID for pion pairs are estimated from a detailed simulation of the ALICE detector response. The p-Pb collisions are simulated using the DPMJET [53] event generator with the injection of $f_0(980)$ signals. The generated particles (signal and background) are transported through the detector using GEANT3 [54]. The $\text{Acc} \times \epsilon$ is estimated to be 26% in the $0 < p_T < 0.3 \text{ GeV/c}$ interval and gradually increasing up to 60% as
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Invariant mass distribution of $\pi^+\pi^-$ pairs in $-0.5 < y < 0$ after the like-sign background subtraction in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV. The left (right) plot is obtained at low (high) $p_T$ of $\pi^+\pi^-$ pairs in minimum bias events. The abbreviation of Res. bkg represents the residual background.</figcaption></figure>

and have large widths, $f_0(980)$ signals are overlapped with contributions from those two resonances. In addition, a residual background ($f_{bkg}$) is present, which is mainly attributed to misidentified particles and mini-jets. The measured invariant mass distribution is fitted with a function accounting for the contributions of this residual background and of the three resonances. Each resonance contribution is described with a relativistic Breit-Wigner function (rBW) [25,48]. Note that the detector resolution of $\mathcal{O}(1 \text{ MeV})$ gives a negligible contribution to the widths of broad resonances [27]. The rBW can be expressed as

$$ \text{rBW}(M_{\pi\pi}) = \frac{AM_{\pi\pi}\Gamma(M_{\pi\pi})M_0}{(M_{\pi\pi}^2 - M_0^2)^2 + M_0^2\Gamma^2(M_{\pi\pi})}, \quad (1) $$

where $\Gamma(M_{\pi\pi})$ is defined as

$$ \Gamma(M_{\pi\pi}) = \left[ \frac{(M_{\pi\pi}^2 - 4m_{\pi}^2)}{(M_0^2 - 4m_{\pi}^2)} \right]^{(2J+1)/2} \times \frac{\Gamma_0 M_0}{M_{\pi\pi}}. \quad (2) $$

Here, $\Lambda$ and $M_0$ are the amplitude of the rBW and the rest mass of the resonance, respectively. The rest width of the resonance, the spin, and the charged pion mass of $139.6 \text{ MeV/c}^2$ are represented as $\Gamma_0$, $J$, and $m_\pi$, respectively. The spins for $f_0(980)$, $\rho(770)^0$, and $f_2(1270)$ are 0, 1, and 2, respectively. Each resonance rBW is corrected for the phase space factor [25], which can be expressed as

$$ \text{PS}(M_{\pi\pi}) = \frac{M_{\pi\pi}}{\sqrt{M_{\pi\pi}^2 + p_T^2}} \times \exp(-\sqrt{M_{\pi\pi}^2 + p_T^2}/T_{\text{kin}}), \quad (3) $$

where $p_T$ denotes the transverse momentum of the $\pi\pi$ pair and is set to be the median of each $p_T$ interval, and $T_{\text{kin}}$ is the kinetic freeze-out temperature, set to be 160 MeV [25] for all the defined multiplicity classes. The fit function for the background, $f_{bkg}$, is modeled with a Maxwell-Boltzmann-like distribution, which can be expressed as [51]

$$ f_{bkg}(M_{\pi\pi}) = B(M_{\pi\pi} - 2m_{\pi})^n \exp(c_1 M_{\pi\pi} + c_2 M_{\pi\pi}^2), \quad (4) $$

where, $B$, $n$, $c_1$, and $c_2$ are free parameters.

The total fit function consists of the sum of three rBWs, one for each resonance and one function for the background, $f_{bkg}$. This function has nine free parameters: three for $f_0(980)$ resonance (mass, width, and amplitude), two amplitudes for $\rho(770)^0$ and $f_2(1270)$ resonances, and four parameters for $f_{bkg}$. In particular, the width of the $f_0(980)$ which is not yet constrained by measurements ($10 < \Gamma_0^f < 100 \text{ MeV/c}^2$ [1]) is left as a free parameter in the fit. The masses and widths of $\rho(770)^0$ and $f_2(1270)$ are fixed to their world-average values from Ref. [1], namely $m_\rho = 766.5 \text{ MeV/c}^2$, $\Gamma_0^\rho = 149.1 \text{ MeV/c}^2$, $m_{f_2} = 1,275.5 \text{ MeV/c}^2$, and $\Gamma_0^f = 186.7 \text{ MeV/c}^2$. Due to the many free parameters in the fit function, the procedure is split into three steps to prevent parameter values

from converging to local minima. The purpose of the first step is to obtain an unbiased initial value for the $f_0(980)$ width. This step is performed using the MB sample over a coarse $p_T$ binning to reduce the effect of statistical fluctuations. This coarse $p_T$ binning is defined by merging 2 or 3 $p_T$ bins of the finer $p_T$ binning used for the analysis. All nine parameters are left free in the first step. The second step aims at constraining the $f_{bkg}$. The $f_0(980)$ width is fixed to the value determined from the wider $p_T$ interval used in the previous step. The last step is processed fixing the parameters of $f_{bkg}$ to those extracted in the previous step, while the $f_0(980)$ width is allowed to vary in the range of $10 < \Gamma_0^f < 100 \text{ MeV/c}^2$. In this procedure, the amplitudes of the three resonances and the mass of the $f_0(980)$ are left free, and the fit range is set to $0.8 < M_{\pi\pi} < 1.76 \text{ GeV/c}^2$. In the last step, the extracted width of $f_0(980)$ ranges between 40 and $70 \text{ MeV/c}^2$ in the different $p_T$ and multiplicity intervals used in this analysis. The determination of the $f_0(980)$ width is sensitive to the modeling of the background and the other two resonances in the fit.

While for the $f_0(980)$ analysis performed in pp collisions [48], the width was constrained to be $55 \text{ MeV/c}^2$, the present analysis leaves the $f_0(980)$ width as a free parameter. In the previous analysis, no phase space correction was applied. On the other hand, the present analysis considers the phase space correction for a possibly larger probability of $\pi\pi$ interference [52] owing to higher multiplicity in p-Pb collisions. It is found that consistent invariant yields in pp collisions are obtained from the two different analysis methods.

The raw yields of $f_0(980)$ ($N_{f0}$) in each $p_T$ interval are obtained by integrating the $f_0(980)$ rBW function. They are corrected for the acceptance, the tracking efficiency, and the PID efficiency and then normalized for the number of selected p-Pb collisions, the width of the $p_T$ and rapidity interval, and the B.R. [47]. The fully corrected yield can be expressed as

$$ \frac{1}{N_{\text{NSD}}} \frac{\mathrm{d}^2 N}{\mathrm{d}y \mathrm{d}p_T} = \frac{1}{N_{\text{evt}}} \frac{N_{f_0}}{\Delta y \Delta p_T} \frac{\epsilon_{\text{trig}} f_{\text{vtx}} f_{\text{SL}}}{\text{Acc} \times \epsilon \times \text{B.R.}} \quad (5) $$

Here, the number of events satisfying the event selection criteria in the specific multiplicity class is represented as $N_{\text{evt}}$. The corrected yield is then normalized to $N_{\text{NSD}}$, which is the number of non-single diffrac- tive (NSD) events, via the factors $\epsilon_{\text{trig}} \times f_{\text{vtx}} \times f_{\text{SL}}$. The width of the rapidity interval (of 0.5 units) is represented as $\Delta y$. Coefficients for the acceptance (Acc) and the efficiency ($\epsilon$) of the tracking and PID for pion pairs are estimated from a detailed simulation of the ALICE detector response. The p-Pb collisions are simulated using the DPMJET [53] event generator with the injection of $f_0(980)$ signals. The generated particles (signal and background) are transported through the detector using GEANT3 [54]. The $\text{Acc} \times \epsilon$ is estimated to be 26% in the $0 < p_T < 0.3 \text{ GeV/c}$ interval and gradually increasing up to 60% as
<caption>**Table 1**</caption>

Relative systematic uncertainties of the $f_0(980)$ $p_T$-differential yields. Numbers given in ranges correspond to minimum and maximum uncertainties.

<table><thead><tr><th>Sources</th><th>Systematic uncertainty (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Primary vertex selection</td><td>negligible</td></tr><tr><td>Pileup rejection</td><td>negligible</td></tr><tr><td>Tracking</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Particle identification</td><td>4–12</td></tr><tr><td>$f_2(1270)$ parameters</td><td>2–10</td></tr><tr><td>$\rho(770)^0$ parameters</td><td>2–9</td></tr><tr><td>Fit range</td><td>0–7</td></tr><tr><td>Initial $f_0$ width</td><td>2–13</td></tr><tr><td>Phase space correction</td><td>2–9</td></tr><tr><td>Total (in quadrature)</td><td>11–23</td></tr></tbody></table>

$p_T$ increases, without any dependence on the multiplicity class. The B.R. is the branching ratio of the $f_0(980) \to \pi^+\pi^-$ decay channel. The $f_0(980)$ yield is normalized for the trigger efficiency ($\epsilon_{\text{trig}}$), vertex reconstruction efficiency ($f_{\text{vtx}}$), and signal loss ($f_{\text{SL}}$) due to the event selection. The $\epsilon_{\text{trig}}$ depends on the multiplicity class increasing from 0.84 to 1 as the multiplicity increases. The $f_{\text{vtx}}$ is estimated to be larger than 0.99 in all measured multiplicity classes. The $f_{\text{SL}}$ corrects for the $f_0(980)$ signal loss due to the event selection. Because general Monte Carlo event generators do not generate primary $f_0(980)$ particles, the $f_{\text{SL}}$ is estimated using a different particle, the $\phi$ meson, exploiting the universal $m_T$ scaling [55]. This approach shows that $f_{\text{SL}}$ does not depend on particle species [34], and it is found to be 1.03 for $0 < p_T < 0.3$ GeV/c and approaching unity for $p_T > 2$ GeV/c.

## 4. Systematic uncertainties

The systematic uncertainties of the $f_0(980)$ yields are estimated by varying the analysis selection criteria, the configuration of the fit used to extract the raw yield, and the treatment of the phase space correction. The estimated uncertainties are summarized in Table 1. The total systematic uncertainty is calculated as the quadratic sum of the different contributing sources. The estimated uncertainties are different in the different multiplicity classes and the $p_T$ intervals, but they do not show a clear trend as a function of multiplicity and $p_T$. In Table 1, the minimum and maximum uncertainty values are reported for each source. The relative uncertainty of the B.R. is 13% [47] and is not included in the total uncertainty.

The systematic uncertainty from the primary vertex selection is estimated by repeating the analysis with a different selection of $|z_{\text{vtx}}| < 7$ cm and found to be negligible. The systematic uncertainty from the pileup rejection is tested by varying the minimum number of track segments contributing to the reconstruction of pileup collision vertices from 5 to 3. The uncertainty is estimated to be negligible.

The systematic uncertainty from tracking is taken from [49], where uncertainties are evaluated by varying the requirements to select reconstructed primary tracks such as those on $d_{xy}$, $d_z$, and the number of crossed rows. The estimated uncertainty is 4%. The systematic uncertainty from the PID is tested with different requirements on the number of standard deviations ($\pm 0.5\sigma$ with respect to the default selections) for the TPC and TOF selection. The uncertainties are estimated to range from 4% to 13% in the different $p_T$ intervals and multiplicity classes.

The uncertainties due to the $f_0(980)$ yield extraction via the fits to the invariant mass distributions are estimated by varying some of the configurations in the fit procedure. The contributions coming from masses and widths of $f_2(1270)$ and $\rho(770)^0$ are evaluated by shifting the masses and the widths by three standard deviations with respect to their world-average values using the uncertainties reported in Ref. [1]. The estimated systematic uncertainties are 2–10% and 2–9%, respectively. Furthermore, the invariant mass range used in the fit is changed inward or outward by 40 MeV/c$^2$, and the resulting systematic uncertainty is

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** Transverse momentum spectra of $f_0(980)$ in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV for different multiplicity classes, which are scaled for visibility. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as error bars and boxes, respectively. The normalization uncertainty of 13% due to the uncertainty of the B.R. is not shown in the figure. The lower panel shows the ratios of the spectra in multiplicity classes to the NSD spectrum.</figcaption></figure>

found to be less than 7%. The contribution from the initial guess for the $f_0(980)$ width value, which is obtained in the first fit step described in Sec. 3, is estimated by varying the width within the statistical uncertainties, which is about 5 MeV/c$^2$ on average, in both directions. The variations affect the background distribution determined in the second step, and the estimated systematic uncertainties range from 2% to 13%. The systematic uncertainty from the phase space correction is estimated by varying the kinetic freeze-out temperature in the range of $140 < T_{\text{kin}} < 180$ MeV. The estimated uncertainties range from 2% to 9%.

The correlations of the systematic uncertainties in different multiplicity classes are quantified. The uncertainty is considered more closely correlated when the directions of the systematic deviations are the same for different multiplicity classes. This is tested by comparing the directions of the systematic deviations between a given multiplicity class and the MB class. For all the sources of systematic uncertainty it is found that approximately half of the total systematic uncertainties are uncorrelated.

## 5. Results

Fig. 2 shows the $p_T$ spectra of $f_0(980)$ in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV measured in the range of $0 < p_T < 8$ GeV/c for different multiplicity classes and NSD events. The multiplicity classes are defined based on the V0A amplitudes, which are proportional to the multiplicity of particles in the forward rapidity region of the Pb-going side. Each spectrum is scaled by a multiplicative factor denoted in the figure for visibility. The lower panel of Fig. 2 shows the ratios of the $p_T$ spectra in different multiplicity classes to the NSD one. The systematic uncertainties of the ratios are estimated by propagating the multiplicity-uncorrelated uncertainties on the individual spectra. For $p_T < 4$ GeV/c, a hardening of the $p_T$ spectrum from low- to high-multiplicity events is clearly seen, while the spectral shapes in the different multiplicity classes are found to become consistent among each other for $p_T > 4$ GeV/c. Such trends are similar to those observed for other hadronic species [15,56] and are understood as due to the radial flow.
<table><caption>**Table 1**
Relative systematic uncertainties of the $f_0(980)$ $p_T$-differential yields. Numbers given in ranges correspond to minimum and maximum uncertainties.</caption><thead><tr><th>Sources</th><th>Systematic uncertainty (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Primary vertex selection</td><td>negligible</td></tr><tr><td>Pileup rejection</td><td>negligible</td></tr><tr><td>Tracking</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Particle identification</td><td>4–12</td></tr><tr><td>$f_2(1270)$ parameters</td><td>2–10</td></tr><tr><td>$\rho(770)^0$ parameters</td><td>2–9</td></tr><tr><td>Fit range</td><td>0–7</td></tr><tr><td>Initial $f_0$ width</td><td>2–13</td></tr><tr><td>Phase space correction</td><td>2–9</td></tr><tr><td>Total (in quadrature)</td><td>11–23</td></tr></tbody></table>

$p_T$ increases, without any dependence on the multiplicity class. The B.R. is the branching ratio of the $f_0(980) \to \pi^+\pi^-$ decay channel. The $f_0(980)$ yield is normalized for the trigger efficiency ($\epsilon_{\text{trig}}$), vertex reconstruction efficiency ($f_{\text{vtx}}$), and signal loss ($f_{\text{SL}}$) due to the event selection. The $\epsilon_{\text{trig}}$ depends on the multiplicity class increasing from 0.84 to 1 as the multiplicity increases. The $f_{\text{vtx}}$ is estimated to be larger than 0.99 in all measured multiplicity classes. The $f_{\text{SL}}$ corrects for the $f_0(980)$ signal loss due to the event selection. Because general Monte Carlo event generators do not generate primary $f_0(980)$ particles, the $f_{\text{SL}}$ is estimated using a different particle, the $\phi$ meson, exploiting the universal $m_T$ scaling [55]. This approach shows that $f_{\text{SL}}$ does not depend on particle species [34], and it is found to be 1.03 for $0 < p_T < 0.3$ GeV/c and approaching unity for $p_T > 2$ GeV/c.

## 4. Systematic uncertainties

The systematic uncertainties of the $f_0(980)$ yields are estimated by varying the analysis selection criteria, the configuration of the fit used to extract the raw yield, and the treatment of the phase space correction. The estimated uncertainties are summarized in Table 1. The total systematic uncertainty is calculated as the quadratic sum of the different contributing sources. The estimated uncertainties are different in the different multiplicity classes and the $p_T$ intervals, but they do not show a clear trend as a function of multiplicity and $p_T$. In Table 1, the minimum and maximum uncertainty values are reported for each source. The relative uncertainty of the B.R. is 13% [47] and is not included in the total uncertainty.

The systematic uncertainty from the primary vertex selection is estimated by repeating the analysis with a different selection of $|z_{\text{vtx}}| < 7$ cm and found to be negligible. The systematic uncertainty from the pileup rejection is tested by varying the minimum number of track segments contributing to the reconstruction of pileup collision vertices from 5 to 3. The uncertainty is estimated to be negligible.

The systematic uncertainty from tracking is taken from [49], where uncertainties are evaluated by varying the requirements to select reconstructed primary tracks such as those on $d_{xy}$, $d_z$, and the number of crossed rows. The estimated uncertainty is 4%. The systematic uncertainty from the PID is tested with different requirements on the number of standard deviations ($\pm 0.5\sigma$ with respect to the default selections) for the TPC and TOF selection. The uncertainties are estimated to range from 4% to 13% in the different $p_T$ intervals and multiplicity classes.

The uncertainties due to the $f_0(980)$ yield extraction via the fits to the invariant mass distributions are estimated by varying some of the configurations in the fit procedure. The contributions coming from masses and widths of $f_2(1270)$ and $\rho(770)^0$ are evaluated by shifting the masses and the widths by three standard deviations with respect to their world-average values using the uncertainties reported in Ref. [1]. The estimated systematic uncertainties are 2–10% and 2–9%, respectively. Furthermore, the invariant mass range used in the fit is changed inward or outward by 40 MeV/c$^2$, and the resulting systematic uncertainty is

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** Transverse momentum spectra of $f_0(980)$ in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV for different multiplicity classes, which are scaled for visibility. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as error bars and boxes, respectively. The normalization uncertainty of 13% due to the uncertainty of the B.R. is not shown in the figure. The lower panel shows the ratios of the spectra in multiplicity classes to the NSD spectrum.</figcaption></figure>

found to be less than 7%. The contribution from the initial guess for the $f_0(980)$ width value, which is obtained in the first fit step described in Sec. 3, is estimated by varying the width within the statistical uncertainties, which is about 5 MeV/c$^2$ on average, in both directions. The variations affect the background distribution determined in the second step, and the estimated systematic uncertainties range from 2% to 13%. The systematic uncertainty from the phase space correction is estimated by varying the kinetic freeze-out temperature in the range of $140 < T_{\text{kin}} < 180$ MeV. The estimated uncertainties range from 2% to 9%.

The correlations of the systematic uncertainties in different multiplicity classes are quantified. The uncertainty is considered more closely correlated when the directions of the systematic deviations are the same for different multiplicity classes. This is tested by comparing the directions of the systematic deviations between a given multiplicity class and the MB class. For all the sources of systematic uncertainty it is found that approximately half of the total systematic uncertainties are uncorrelated.

## 5. Results

Fig. 2 shows the $p_T$ spectra of $f_0(980)$ in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV measured in the range of $0 < p_T < 8$ GeV/c for different multiplicity classes and NSD events. The multiplicity classes are defined based on the V0A amplitudes, which are proportional to the multiplicity of particles in the forward rapidity region of the Pb-going side. Each spectrum is scaled by a multiplicative factor denoted in the figure for visibility. The lower panel of Fig. 2 shows the ratios of the $p_T$ spectra in different multiplicity classes to the NSD one. The systematic uncertainties of the ratios are estimated by propagating the multiplicity-uncorrelated uncertainties on the individual spectra. For $p_T < 4$ GeV/c, a hardening of the $p_T$ spectrum from low- to high-multiplicity events is clearly seen, while the spectral shapes in the different multiplicity classes are found to become consistent among each other for $p_T > 4$ GeV/c. Such trends are similar to those observed for other hadronic species [15,56] and are understood as due to the radial flow.
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3. Double ratios of $\phi$ [27], $K^*(892)^0$ [27], and $f_0(980)$ to $\pi$ [19] (left) and $f_0(980)$ to $K^*(892)^0$ (right) as a function of charged-particle multiplicity raised to the power of 1/3. The ratio in each multiplicity class is divided by the ratio in low-multiplicity (LM, 60–100%) events to allow for a direct comparison among different hadron species and reduce systematic uncertainties. VOA is utilized to categorize events based on their multiplicity. Predictions from the canonical statistical model are represented with lines.</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Table 2**</caption>

The values of $dN/dy$ and $\langle p_T \rangle$ for $f_0(980)$ measured in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV for different multiplicity classes [57]. The first and second uncertainties represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively.

<table><thead><tr><th>Multiplicity class (VOA)</th><th>dN/dy</th><th>⟨p<sub>T</sub>⟩ (GeV/c)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0–20%</td><td>0.206±0.005±0.014</td><td>1.287±0.034±0.010</td></tr><tr><td>20–40%</td><td>0.153±0.004±0.010</td><td>1.250±0.029±0.082</td></tr><tr><td>40–60%</td><td>0.113±0.002±0.008</td><td>1.142±0.025±0.088</td></tr><tr><td>60–100%</td><td>0.064±0.001±0.005</td><td>0.999±0.014±0.080</td></tr></tbody></table>

The integrated yield ($dN/dy$) and mean $p_T$ ($\langle p_T \rangle$) of $f_0(980)$ are calculated by integrating and averaging the $p_T$ spectrum, respectively. Table 2 shows the $dN/dy$ and $\langle p_T \rangle$ of $f_0(980)$ for different multiplicity classes in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV. The $dN/dy$ of $f_0(980)$ is found to increase linearly with charged-particle multiplicity when considering the $\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta \rangle$ values from Ref. [57], while the $\langle p_T \rangle$ exhibits a weak dependence on the charged-particle multiplicity.

The multiplicity dependence of $f_0(980)$ production is studied by comparing the ratio of the yields of different hadron species to that of pions in different multiplicity classes. A double ratio is calculated by dividing the hadron-to-pion yield ratios to their values measured in the lowest multiplicity interval (60–100%), $(h/\pi)/(h/\pi)_{LM}$, allowing a direct comparison of multiplicity dependence among different hadron species and the reduction of the systematic uncertainties. The left panel of Fig. 3 shows the double ratios of different particles to charged pion yields as a function of charged-particle multiplicity raised to the power of 1/3 in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV. The $\langle dN/d\eta \rangle_{|\eta|<0.5}$ is a proxy for the size of the system [58]. The systematic uncertainty of the double ratio is calculated considering only the uncorrelated part of the uncertainty. The pion [19], $K^*(892)^0$ [27], and $\phi$ [27] mesons can be classified according to their lifetimes and to their (anti-)strange quark content. The strangeness enhancement and hadronic interactions can be studied by comparing the yield of particles with different characteristics. The double ratio of $\phi$ to $\pi$ increases with increasing multiplicity, which is consistent with the effect of the strangeness enhancement [20]. Due to the long lifetime ($\approx 46.2$ fm/c) of $\phi$ meson, little effect is expected from interactions in the hadronic phase. On the other hand, the double ratio of $K^*(892)^0$ to $\pi$ is independent of multiplicity within the uncertainties even if $K^*(892)^0$ contains one strange quark. The flat trend could be explained by two competing effects, the strangeness enhancement and the interactions of the decay particles in the hadronic medium, due to the short lifetime ($\approx 4.2$ fm/c) of $K^*(892)^0$ [1]. One can expect that hadronic interactions reduce the

$K^*(892)^0$ yield if the rescattering dominates over the regeneration. The double ratio of $f_0(980)$ to $\pi$ decreases as the multiplicity increases because of the short lifetime ($\approx 3–5$ fm/c from the $\Gamma_0^{f_0}$ range estimated from our fits to the $f_0(980)$ line shape) of $f_0(980)$, suggesting that rescattering effects may play a role. Predictions of the ratio of $f_0(980)$ to $\pi$ are shown in Fig. 3 (left) for different hidden strangeness ($|S|$) assumptions for $f_0(980)$ in the $\gamma_s$-Canonical Statistical Model (CSM) [59], where $|S|$ is the number of strange and anti-strange quarks. The CSM considers system-size-dependent hadrochemistry at vanishing baryon density with local conservation of electric charge, baryon density, and strangeness while allowing for undersaturation of strangeness. Note that $\gamma_s$ is the parameter for the undersaturation of strangeness and is derived from a fit to the measured particle yields. The CSM hypothesis with two hidden strange quarks predicts an increase of the double ratio, contrary to what is observed experimentally. Moreover, the CSM with zero hidden strangeness predicts the $f_0(980)/\pi$ ratio to decrease much less than what is measured. When comparing the predicted trend to the measured one, it should however be considered that the CSM does not model interactions in the hadronic phase. The prediction of the CSM for the $\phi/\pi$ ratio qualitatively reproduces the increasing trend of the data with increasing multiplicity, where the hidden strangeness of $\phi$ is two. However, the CSM overestimates the ratio of $K^*(892)^0$ to $\pi$ at high multiplicity because the modification of $K^*(892)^0$ yields due to rescattering effects is not implemented in the CSM, while the strangeness enhancement for $K^*(892)^0$ is included.

The right panel of Fig. 3 shows the double ratio of the $f_0(980)$ to $K^*(892)^0$ yield as a function of $\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta \rangle^{1/3}$ together with the predictions from the CSM with different hidden strangeness assumptions. The lifetimes of $f_0(980)$ and $K^*(892)^0$ are estimated to be of similar order of magnitude and both smaller than the duration of the hadronic phase in p-Pb collisions [1]. This leads to the expectation that the $f_0(980)/K^*(892)^0$ ratio is weakly affected by hadronic interactions, which depend on the hadronic cross section of the different decay products of the two resonances. The measured double ratio shows a decreasing trend with increasing multiplicity, which is qualitatively described with the zero-hidden-strangeness assumption for $f_0(980)$ and can be explained by the strangeness enhancement of the $K^*(892)^0$ yield. The CSM prediction with the assumption of two hidden strange quarks is mildly increasing as the multiplicity increases, a trend that is opposite to the experimental result. The differences between the data point at the highest multiplicity and the two predictions with zero and two strange quarks amount to 2.3 and 5.2 standard deviations, calculated using the total uncertainty on the measurement, respectively. Therefore, the decreasing trend of the double ratio of $f_0(980)$ to $K^*(892)^0$ can suggest no effective strangeness enhancement for the $f_0(980)$. The discrepancies
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3. Double ratios of $\phi$ [27], $K^*(892)^0$ [27], and $f_0(980)$ to $\pi$ [19] (left) and $f_0(980)$ to $K^*(892)^0$ (right) as a function of charged-particle multiplicity raised to the power of 1/3. The ratio in each multiplicity class is divided by the ratio in low-multiplicity (LM, 60–100%) events to allow for a direct comparison among different hadron species and reduce systematic uncertainties. VOA is utilized to categorize events based on their multiplicity. Predictions from the canonical statistical model are represented with lines.</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Table 2**</caption>

The values of $dN/dy$ and $\langle p_T \rangle$ for $f_0(980)$ measured in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV for different multiplicity classes [57]. The first and second uncertainties represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively.

<table><thead><tr><th>Multiplicity class (VOA)</th><th>dN/dy</th><th>⟨p<sub>T</sub>⟩ (GeV/c)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0–20%</td><td>0.206±0.005±0.014</td><td>1.287±0.034±0.010</td></tr><tr><td>20–40%</td><td>0.153±0.004±0.010</td><td>1.250±0.029±0.082</td></tr><tr><td>40–60%</td><td>0.113±0.002±0.008</td><td>1.142±0.025±0.088</td></tr><tr><td>60–100%</td><td>0.064±0.001±0.005</td><td>0.999±0.014±0.080</td></tr></tbody></table>

The integrated yield ($dN/dy$) and mean $p_T$ ($\langle p_T \rangle$) of $f_0(980)$ are calculated by integrating and averaging the $p_T$ spectrum, respectively. Table 2 shows the $dN/dy$ and $\langle p_T \rangle$ of $f_0(980)$ for different multiplicity classes in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV. The $dN/dy$ of $f_0(980)$ is found to increase linearly with charged-particle multiplicity when considering the $\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta \rangle$ values from Ref. [57], while the $\langle p_T \rangle$ exhibits a weak dependence on the charged-particle multiplicity.

The multiplicity dependence of $f_0(980)$ production is studied by comparing the ratio of the yields of different hadron species to that of pions in different multiplicity classes. A double ratio is calculated by dividing the hadron-to-pion yield ratios to their values measured in the lowest multiplicity interval (60–100%), $(h/\pi)/(h/\pi)_{LM}$, allowing a direct comparison of multiplicity dependence among different hadron species and the reduction of the systematic uncertainties. The left panel of Fig. 3 shows the double ratios of different particles to charged pion yields as a function of charged-particle multiplicity raised to the power of 1/3 in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV. The $\langle dN/d\eta \rangle_{|\eta|<0.5}$ is a proxy for the size of the system [58]. The systematic uncertainty of the double ratio is calculated considering only the uncorrelated part of the uncertainty. The pion [19], $K^*(892)^0$ [27], and $\phi$ [27] mesons can be classified according to their lifetimes and to their (anti-)strange quark content. The strangeness enhancement and hadronic interactions can be studied by comparing the yield of particles with different characteristics. The double ratio of $\phi$ to $\pi$ increases with increasing multiplicity, which is consistent with the effect of the strangeness enhancement [20]. Due to the long lifetime ($\approx 46.2$ fm/c) of $\phi$ meson, little effect is expected from interactions in the hadronic phase. On the other hand, the double ratio of $K^*(892)^0$ to $\pi$ is independent of multiplicity within the uncertainties even if $K^*(892)^0$ contains one strange quark. The flat trend could be explained by two competing effects, the strangeness enhancement and the interactions of the decay particles in the hadronic medium, due to the short lifetime ($\approx 4.2$ fm/c) of $K^*(892)^0$ [1]. One can expect that hadronic interactions reduce the

$K^*(892)^0$ yield if the rescattering dominates over the regeneration. The double ratio of $f_0(980)$ to $\pi$ decreases as the multiplicity increases because of the short lifetime ($\approx 3–5$ fm/c from the $\Gamma_0^{f_0}$ range estimated from our fits to the $f_0(980)$ line shape) of $f_0(980)$, suggesting that rescattering effects may play a role. Predictions of the ratio of $f_0(980)$ to $\pi$ are shown in Fig. 3 (left) for different hidden strangeness ($|S|$) assumptions for $f_0(980)$ in the $\gamma_s$-Canonical Statistical Model (CSM) [59], where $|S|$ is the number of strange and anti-strange quarks. The CSM considers system-size-dependent hadrochemistry at vanishing baryon density with local conservation of electric charge, baryon density, and strangeness while allowing for undersaturation of strangeness. Note that $\gamma_s$ is the parameter for the undersaturation of strangeness and is derived from a fit to the measured particle yields. The CSM hypothesis with two hidden strange quarks predicts an increase of the double ratio, contrary to what is observed experimentally. Moreover, the CSM with zero hidden strangeness predicts the $f_0(980)/\pi$ ratio to decrease much less than what is measured. When comparing the predicted trend to the measured one, it should however be considered that the CSM does not model interactions in the hadronic phase. The prediction of the CSM for the $\phi/\pi$ ratio qualitatively reproduces the increasing trend of the data with increasing multiplicity, where the hidden strangeness of $\phi$ is two. However, the CSM overestimates the ratio of $K^*(892)^0$ to $\pi$ at high multiplicity because the modification of $K^*(892)^0$ yields due to rescattering effects is not implemented in the CSM, while the strangeness enhancement for $K^*(892)^0$ is included.

The right panel of Fig. 3 shows the double ratio of the $f_0(980)$ to $K^*(892)^0$ yield as a function of $\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta \rangle^{1/3}$ together with the predictions from the CSM with different hidden strangeness assumptions. The lifetimes of $f_0(980)$ and $K^*(892)^0$ are estimated to be of similar order of magnitude and both smaller than the duration of the hadronic phase in p-Pb collisions [1]. This leads to the expectation that the $f_0(980)/K^*(892)^0$ ratio is weakly affected by hadronic interactions, which depend on the hadronic cross section of the different decay products of the two resonances. The measured double ratio shows a decreasing trend with increasing multiplicity, which is qualitatively described with the zero-hidden-strangeness assumption for $f_0(980)$ and can be explained by the strangeness enhancement of the $K^*(892)^0$ yield. The CSM prediction with the assumption of two hidden strange quarks is mildly increasing as the multiplicity increases, a trend that is opposite to the experimental result. The differences between the data point at the highest multiplicity and the two predictions with zero and two strange quarks amount to 2.3 and 5.2 standard deviations, calculated using the total uncertainty on the measurement, respectively. Therefore, the decreasing trend of the double ratio of $f_0(980)$ to $K^*(892)^0$ can suggest no effective strangeness enhancement for the $f_0(980)$. The discrepancies
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4. The particle yield ratios of $f_0(980)$ to $\pi$ as a function of $p_T$ in high-multiplicity (circles) and low-multiplicity (squares) p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV. The lower panel shows the double ratio of $f_0(980)/\pi$ between the high-multiplicity and low-multiplicity events. VOA is utilized to categorize events based on their multiplicity.</figcaption></figure>

between the data and the model predictions can be attributed to the assumption of the same modification of $f_0(980)$ and $K^*(892)^0$ yields from hadronic interactions while the decay products from $f_0(980)$ and $K^*(892)^0$ differ.

Fig. 4 shows the $p_T$-differential particle yield ratio of $f_0(980)$ to $\pi$ in high-multiplicity (HM, 0–20%) and low-multiplicity (LM, 60–100%) p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV. The ratios are consistent with each other within one sigma at $p_T > 4$ GeV/c, while at lower $p_T$ the $f_0(980)$ to $\pi$ ratio is systematically lower in the HM class as compared to the LM one. This suppression of $f_0(980)$ production at high multiplicity and low $p_T$ is quantified via the double ratio reported in the lower panel of Fig. 4. In the double ratio, the correlated uncertainties across multiplicity classes cancel. The $p_T$ dependence of the double ratio indicates that the suppression of the $p_T$-integrated yield shown in Fig. 3 is mainly occurring at low $p_T$ values ($p_T < 3.5$ GeV/c), showing a qualitatively similar $p_T$ dependence as the one reported in Ref. [26] for the suppression of the $K^*(892)^0$/K ratios.

Fig. 5 shows the $p_T$-differential particle yield ratio of $f_0(980)$ to $K^*(892)^0$ in HM and LM p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV. The ratio in HM events is lower than that in LM events in the entire $p_T$ range, in contrast to what is observed for $K^*(892)^0$/K and $f_0(980)/\pi$ ratios for which the suppression is observed only at low $p_T$. The suppression of the $f_0(980)/K^*(892)^0$ ratio in HM events for $p_T > 4$ GeV/c is evaluated to be $0.70 \pm 0.04$ (stat) $\pm 0.05$ (syst) by fitting the double ratio with a constant function and indicates that other effects, beyond hadronic interactions, are present. For instance, the strangeness enhancement can explain the suppression of the $f_0(980)$ yield relative to that of $K^*(892)^0$ under the assumption that the $f_0(980)$ does not have strange quark content. This argument is also consistent with the decreasing trend of the $p_T$-integrated $f_0(980)/K^*(892)^0$ ratio with increasing multiplicity and their comparison to the CSM calculations shown in Fig. 3. In summary, the suppression of the $f_0(980)/K^*(892)^0$ ratio may suggest that the $f_0(980)$ does not contain strange quarks, and its production is therefore not affected by the strangeness enhancement. In addition, the enhancement of baryon-to-meson ratio at intermediate $p_T$, observed for $p/\pi$, $\Lambda/K_s^0$, $\Xi/\phi$, and $\Omega/\phi$ ratios [60], is not seen in the $f_0(980)/K^*(892)^0$ ratio, providing a hint that the number of constituent quarks for $f_0(980)$ is two.

The $p_T$-differential yield of $f_0(980)$ in p-Pb collisions can be compared to the one in pp collisions at the same center-of-mass energy by computing the nuclear modification factor $Q_{pPb}$, defined as

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5. The particle yield ratio of $f_0(980)$ to $K^*(892)^0$ as a function of $p_T$ in high-multiplicity (circles) and low-multiplicity (squares) p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV. The lower panel shows the double ratio of high-multiplicity to low-multiplicity $f_0(980)/K^*(892)^0$. VOA is utilized to categorize events based on their multiplicity.</figcaption></figure>

$$Q_{pPb} = \frac{\frac{d^2 N_{f_0(980)}^{pPb}}{dp_T dy}}{\langle T_{pPb} \rangle \frac{d^2 \sigma_{f_0(980)}^{pp}}{dp_T dy}}, \quad (6)$$

where $\langle T_{pPb} \rangle$ is the average nuclear overlap function, which is proportional to the number of binary nucleon-nucleon collisions, for the considered centrality class, and $\frac{d^2 \sigma_{f_0(980)}^{pp}}{dp_T dy}$ is the $p_T$ differential cross section for $f_0(980)$ production in pp collisions taken from Ref. [48]. For this study, the centrality classes are defined using an event selection based on the ZN calorimeter in the Pb-going direction (ZNA) to minimize the possible selection biases, as reported in Ref [43].

Fig. 6 shows the $Q_{pPb}$ of $f_0(980)$ in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV in different multiplicity classes. The systematic uncertainties are calculated with the assumption that there is no correlated uncertainty between the yield in pp and p-Pb collisions except for the B.R. uncertainty, which cancels out in the ratio. The scaling uncertainty on the $Q_{pPb}$ shown in Fig. 6 is due to the uncertainty on $\langle T_{pPb} \rangle$, which is taken from Ref. [43]. The $Q_{pPb}$ distributions of $f_0(980)$ are compared to those of charged hadrons [43]. At low $p_T$ ($p_T < 4$ GeV/c), the $Q_{pPb}$ of $f_0(980)$ is lower than unity indicating a suppression of the production in p-Pb collisions relative to pp collisions. This suppression becomes more pronounced with increasing multiplicity for $p_T < 2$ GeV/c. Moreover, for $p_T < 4$ GeV/c the $Q_{pPb}$ of $f_0(980)$ is also lower than that of charged hadrons. The $f_0(980)$ yield is further suppressed by 30% in high-multiplicity (0–20%) events relative to low-multiplicity events (60–80%), with a 4.7 to 4.9 sigma significance near zero $p_T$. As $p_T$ increases, $f_0(980)$ $Q_{pPb}$ values become compatible with those for charged particles, reaching unity. The dependencies of the nuclear modification factor on the multiplicity and $p_T$ clearly indicate that rescattering largely contributes to the strong suppression of the $f_0(980)$ yield for $p_T < 4$ GeV/c. In addition, the $Q_{pPb}$ does not exhibit a significant Cronin-like enhancement [61] at intermediate $p_T$ in HM events. Since baryons show a more pronounced Cronin peak as compared to conventional mesons [19,62], the absence of a significant Cronin-like enhancement of $f_0(980)$ might suggest that the $f_0(980)$ is composed of two quarks.

## 6. Conclusions

The multiplicity and $p_T$ dependence of $f_0(980)$ production in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV is presented. The $f_0(980)$ is reconstructed via the $f_0(980) \to \pi^+\pi^-$ decay channel at midrapidity ($-0.5 < y < 0$) in the transverse momentum region of $0 < p_T < 8$ GeV/c. A hard-
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4. The particle yield ratios of $f_0(980)$ to $\pi$ as a function of $p_T$ in high-multiplicity (circles) and low-multiplicity (squares) p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV. The lower panel shows the double ratio of $f_0(980)/\pi$ between the high-multiplicity and low-multiplicity events. VOA is utilized to categorize events based on their multiplicity.</figcaption></figure>

between the data and the model predictions can be attributed to the assumption of the same modification of $f_0(980)$ and $K^*(892)^0$ yields from hadronic interactions while the decay products from $f_0(980)$ and $K^*(892)^0$ differ.

Fig. 4 shows the $p_T$-differential particle yield ratio of $f_0(980)$ to $\pi$ in high-multiplicity (HM, 0–20%) and low-multiplicity (LM, 60–100%) p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV. The ratios are consistent with each other within one sigma at $p_T > 4$ GeV/c, while at lower $p_T$ the $f_0(980)$ to $\pi$ ratio is systematically lower in the HM class as compared to the LM one. This suppression of $f_0(980)$ production at high multiplicity and low $p_T$ is quantified via the double ratio reported in the lower panel of Fig. 4. In the double ratio, the correlated uncertainties across multiplicity classes cancel. The $p_T$ dependence of the double ratio indicates that the suppression of the $p_T$-integrated yield shown in Fig. 3 is mainly occurring at low $p_T$ values ($p_T < 3.5$ GeV/c), showing a qualitatively similar $p_T$ dependence as the one reported in Ref. [26] for the suppression of the $K^*(892)^0$/K ratios.

Fig. 5 shows the $p_T$-differential particle yield ratio of $f_0(980)$ to $K^*(892)^0$ in HM and LM p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV. The ratio in HM events is lower than that in LM events in the entire $p_T$ range, in contrast to what is observed for $K^*(892)^0$/K and $f_0(980)/\pi$ ratios for which the suppression is observed only at low $p_T$. The suppression of the $f_0(980)/K^*(892)^0$ ratio in HM events for $p_T > 4$ GeV/c is evaluated to be $0.70 \pm 0.04$ (stat) $\pm 0.05$ (syst) by fitting the double ratio with a constant function and indicates that other effects, beyond hadronic interactions, are present. For instance, the strangeness enhancement can explain the suppression of the $f_0(980)$ yield relative to that of $K^*(892)^0$ under the assumption that the $f_0(980)$ does not have strange quark content. This argument is also consistent with the decreasing trend of the $p_T$-integrated $f_0(980)/K^*(892)^0$ ratio with increasing multiplicity and their comparison to the CSM calculations shown in Fig. 3. In summary, the suppression of the $f_0(980)/K^*(892)^0$ ratio may suggest that the $f_0(980)$ does not contain strange quarks, and its production is therefore not affected by the strangeness enhancement. In addition, the enhancement of baryon-to-meson ratio at intermediate $p_T$, observed for $p/\pi$, $\Lambda/K_s^0$, $\Xi/\phi$, and $\Omega/\phi$ ratios [60], is not seen in the $f_0(980)/K^*(892)^0$ ratio, providing a hint that the number of constituent quarks for $f_0(980)$ is two.

The $p_T$-differential yield of $f_0(980)$ in p-Pb collisions can be compared to the one in pp collisions at the same center-of-mass energy by computing the nuclear modification factor $Q_{pPb}$, defined as

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5. The particle yield ratio of $f_0(980)$ to $K^*(892)^0$ as a function of $p_T$ in high-multiplicity (circles) and low-multiplicity (squares) p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV. The lower panel shows the double ratio of high-multiplicity to low-multiplicity $f_0(980)/K^*(892)^0$. VOA is utilized to categorize events based on their multiplicity.</figcaption></figure>

$$Q_{pPb} = \frac{d^2 N_{f_0(980)}^{pPb}/dp_T dy}{\langle T_{pPb} \rangle d^2 \sigma_{f_0(980)}^{pp}/dp_T dy}, \quad (6)$$

where $\langle T_{pPb} \rangle$ is the average nuclear overlap function, which is proportional to the number of binary nucleon-nucleon collisions, for the considered centrality class, and $d^2\sigma_{f_0(980)}^{pp}/dp_T dy$ is the $p_T$ differential cross section for $f_0(980)$ production in pp collisions taken from Ref. [48]. For this study, the centrality classes are defined using an event selection based on the ZN calorimeter in the Pb-going direction (ZNA) to minimize the possible selection biases, as reported in Ref [43].

Fig. 6 shows the $Q_{pPb}$ of $f_0(980)$ in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV in different multiplicity classes. The systematic uncertainties are calculated with the assumption that there is no correlated uncertainty between the yield in pp and p-Pb collisions except for the B.R. uncertainty, which cancels out in the ratio. The scaling uncertainty on the $Q_{pPb}$ shown in Fig. 6 is due to the uncertainty on $\langle T_{pPb} \rangle$, which is taken from Ref. [43]. The $Q_{pPb}$ distributions of $f_0(980)$ are compared to those of charged hadrons [43]. At low $p_T$ ($p_T < 4$ GeV/c), the $Q_{pPb}$ of $f_0(980)$ is lower than unity indicating a suppression of the production in p-Pb collisions relative to pp collisions. This suppression becomes more pronounced with increasing multiplicity for $p_T < 2$ GeV/c. Moreover, for $p_T < 4$ GeV/c the $Q_{pPb}$ of $f_0(980)$ is also lower than that of charged hadrons. The $f_0(980)$ yield is further suppressed by 30% in high-multiplicity (0–20%) events relative to low-multiplicity events (60–80%), with a 4.7 to 4.9 sigma significance near zero $p_T$. As $p_T$ increases, $f_0(980)$ $Q_{pPb}$ values become compatible with those for charged particles, reaching unity. The dependencies of the nuclear modification factor on the multiplicity and $p_T$ clearly indicate that rescattering largely contributes to the strong suppression of the $f_0(980)$ yield for $p_T < 4$ GeV/c. In addition, the $Q_{pPb}$ does not exhibit a significant Cronin-like enhancement [61] at intermediate $p_T$ in HM events. Since baryons show a more pronounced Cronin peak as compared to conventional mesons [19,62], the absence of a significant Cronin-like enhancement of $f_0(980)$ might suggest that the $f_0(980)$ is composed of two quarks.

## 6. Conclusions

The multiplicity and $p_T$ dependence of $f_0(980)$ production in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV is presented. The $f_0(980)$ is reconstructed via the $f_0(980) \to \pi^+\pi^-$ decay channel at midrapidity ($-0.5 < y < 0$) in the transverse momentum region of $0 < p_T < 8$ GeV/c. A hard-
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6.** Nuclear modification factor ($Q_{pPb}$) of $f_0(980)$ as a function of $p_T$ in p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV for different multiplicity classes. The multiplicity class is defined with the ZNA, which is the ZN placed on the Pb-going side. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as error bars and boxes, respectively. Black boxes around unity represent the binary collision scaling uncertainties. The $Q_{pPb}$ of charged hadrons [43] are reported for comparison.</figcaption></figure>

ening of the $p_T$ spectra and a consequent increase of the mean $p_T$ are observed with increasing multiplicity.

The $p_T$-integrated particle yield ratio of $f_0(980)$ to $\pi$ decreases with increasing multiplicity, and the $p_T$-differential studies show a clear suppression of the $f_0(980)$ to $\pi$ ratio for $p_T < 3.5$ GeV/c, indicating that rescattering effects for $f_0(980)$ particles exist in p–Pb collisions. The CSM overestimates the $f_0(980)/\pi$ ratio, and it does not describe the decreasing trend because the CSM does not consider rescattering processes. The $p_T$-integrated $f_0(980)/K^*(892)^0$ yield ratio also decreases with increasing multiplicity. The suppression of the $f_0(980)$ to $K^*(892)^0$ ratio is observed in the entire measured $p_T$ range, showing a different $p_T$ dependence relative to the one expected from a rescattering scenario. The CSM qualitatively describes the decreasing trend for the $p_T$-integrated $f_0(980)/K^*(892)^0$ ratio as a function of multiplicity with the assumption of no hidden strangeness for $f_0(980)$, while it overestimates the $f_0(980)/K^*(892)^0$ with the assumption of two strange quarks. These results indicate that the production of $K^*(892)^0$ is relatively enhanced compared with $f_0(980)$ due to the strangeness enhancement.

Additionally, the $p_T$-differential $f_0(980)/K^*(892)^0$ ratio does not exhibit the characteristic enhancement of baryon-to-meson ratios, suggesting a structure with two constituent quarks for the $f_0(980)$ resonance. Furthermore, the multiplicity-dependent nuclear modification factor ($Q_{pPb}$) for $f_0(980)$ exhibits a strong suppression at low $p_T$ with a clear dependence on multiplicity, which can be explained by the rescattering effects. In addition, no Cronin-like enhancement is observed in $Q_{pPb}$, even in high-multiplicity events. The absence of Cronin-like enhancement in the $f_0(980)$ may suggest that the $f_0(980)$ is composed of two quarks.

The abnormal suppression in terms of multiplicity and transverse momentum relative to other particles sheds light on the internal structure of $f_0(980)$ suggesting that it is a conventional meson with no hidden strange quarks and provides insight into the properties of the late hadronic phase in p–Pb collisions.

## 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/ins2724206.

## 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
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6.** Nuclear modification factor ($Q_{pPb}$) of $f_0(980)$ as a function of $p_T$ in p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV for different multiplicity classes. The multiplicity class is defined with the ZNA, which is the ZN placed on the Pb-going side. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as error bars and boxes, respectively. Black boxes around unity represent the binary collision scaling uncertainties. The $Q_{pPb}$ of charged hadrons [43] are reported for comparison.</figcaption></figure>

ening of the $p_T$ spectra and a consequent increase of the mean $p_T$ are observed with increasing multiplicity.

The $p_T$-integrated particle yield ratio of $f_0(980)$ to $\pi$ decreases with increasing multiplicity, and the $p_T$-differential studies show a clear suppression of the $f_0(980)$ to $\pi$ ratio for $p_T < 3.5$ GeV/c, indicating that rescattering effects for $f_0(980)$ particles exist in p–Pb collisions. The CSM overestimates the $f_0(980)/\pi$ ratio, and it does not describe the decreasing trend because the CSM does not consider rescattering processes. The $p_T$-integrated $f_0(980)/K^*(892)^0$ yield ratio also decreases with increasing multiplicity. The suppression of the $f_0(980)$ to $K^*(892)^0$ ratio is observed in the entire measured $p_T$ range, showing a different $p_T$ dependence relative to the one expected from a rescattering scenario. The CSM qualitatively describes the decreasing trend for the $p_T$-integrated $f_0(980)/K^*(892)^0$ ratio as a function of multiplicity with the assumption of no hidden strangeness for $f_0(980)$, while it overestimates the $f_0(980)/K^*(892)^0$ with the assumption of two strange quarks. These results indicate that the production of $K^*(892)^0$ is relatively enhanced compared with $f_0(980)$ due to the strangeness enhancement.

Additionally, the $p_T$-differential $f_0(980)/K^*(892)^0$ ratio does not exhibit the characteristic enhancement of baryon-to-meson ratios, suggesting a structure with two constituent quarks for the $f_0(980)$ resonance. Furthermore, the multiplicity-dependent nuclear modification factor ($Q_{pPb}$) for $f_0(980)$ exhibits a strong suppression at low $p_T$ with a clear dependence on multiplicity, which can be explained by the rescattering effects. In addition, no Cronin-like enhancement is observed in $Q_{pPb}$, even in high-multiplicity events. The absence of Cronin-like enhancement in the $f_0(980)$ may suggest that the $f_0(980)$ is composed of two quarks.

The abnormal suppression in terms of multiplicity and transverse momentum relative to other particles sheds light on the internal structure of $f_0(980)$ suggesting that it is a conventional meson with no hidden strange quarks and provides insight into the properties of the late hadronic phase in p–Pb collisions.

## 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/ins2724206.

## 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) y Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Academicum (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 Universitatea Nationala de Stiința și Tehnologie Politehnică București, 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) and National Science, Research and Innovation Fund (NSRF via PMU-B 05F650021), 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: Czech Science Foundation (grant no. 23-07499S), Czech Republic; European Research Council, Strong 2020 - Horizon 2020 (grant nos. 950692, 824093), European Union; ICSC - Centro Nazionale di Ricerca in High Performance Computing, Big Data and Quantum Computing, European Union - NextGenerationEU; Academy of Finland (Center of Excellence in Quark Matter) (grant nos. 346327, 346328), Finland.

## References

[1] Particle Data Group Collaboration, R.L. Workman, et al., Review of particle physics, PTEP 2022 (2022) 083C01.

[2] ExHIC Collaboration, S. Cho, et al., Multi-quark hadrons from heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 212001, arXiv:1011.0852 [nucl-th].

[3] R.L. Jaffe, Multi-quark hadrons. 1. The phenomenology of (2 quark 2 anti-quark) mesons, Phys. Rev. D 15 (1977) 267.

[4] L. Maiani, F. Piccinini, A.D. Polosa, V. Riquer, A new look at scalar mesons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 212002, arXiv:hep-ph/0407017.

[5] C.-H. Chen, Evidence for two quark content of $f(0)$ (980) in exclusive b → c decays, Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 094011, arXiv:hep-ph/0302059.

[6] N.N. Achasov, J.V. Bennett, A.V. Kiselev, E.A. Kozyrev, G.N. Shestakov, Evidence of the four-quark nature of $f_0(980)$ and $f_0(500)$, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 014010, arXiv:2009.04191 [hep-ph].

[7] H.A. Ahmed, C.W. Xiao, Study the molecular nature of $\sigma$, $f_0(980)$, and $a_0(980)$ states, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 094034, arXiv:2001.08141 [hep-ph].

[8] R.S. Bhalerao, Collectivity in large and small systems formed in ultrarelativistic collisions, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 230 (2021) 635–654, arXiv:2009.09586 [nucl-th].

[9] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Investigations of anisotropic flow using multiparticle azimuthal correlations in pp, p-Pb, Xe-Xe, and Pb-Pb collisions at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 142301, arXiv:1903.01790 [nucl-ex].

[10] STAR Collaboration, J. Adams, et al., Experimental and theoretical challenges in the search for the quark gluon plasma: the STAR Collaboration's critical assessment of the evidence from RHIC collisions, Nucl. Phys. A 757 (2005) 102–183, arXiv: nucl-ex/0501009 [nucl-ex].

[11] PHENIX Collaboration, K. Adcox, et al., Formation of dense partonic matter in relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC: experimental evaluation by the PHENIX collaboration, Nucl. Phys. A 757 (2005) 184–283, arXiv:nucl-ex/0410003 [nucl-ex].

[12] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Measurements of inclusive jet spectra in pp and central Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, Phys. Rev. C 101 (2020) 034911, arXiv:1909.09718 [nucl-ex].

[13] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad, et al., Observation of a centrality-dependent dijet asymmetry in lead-lead collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.77 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 252303, arXiv:1011.6182 [hep-ex].

[14] PHENIX Collaboration, A. Adare, et al., Azimuthal anisotropy of neutral pion production in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV: path-length dependence of jet quenching and the role of initial geometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 142301, arXiv:1006.3740 [nucl-ex].

[15] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Production of charged pions, kaons, and (anti-)protons in Pb-Pb and inelastic pp collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, Phys. Rev. C 101 (2020) 044907, arXiv:1910.07678 [nucl-ex].

[16] PHENIX Collaboration, S.S. Adler, et al., Common suppression pattern of $\eta$ and $\pi^0$ mesons at high transverse momentum in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 202301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0601037.

[17] U.W. Heinz, M. Jacob, Evidence for a new state of matter: an assessment of the results from the CERN lead beam program, arXiv:nucl-th/0002042.

[18] ALICE Collaboration, The ALICE experiment – a journey through QCD, arXiv:2211. 04384 [nucl-ex].

[19] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam, et al., Multiplicity dependence of charged pion, kaon, and (anti)proton production at large transverse momentum in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 760 (2016) 720–735, arXiv:1601.03658 [nucl-ex].

[20] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam, et al., Enhanced production of multi-strange hadrons in high-multiplicity proton-proton collisions, Nat. Phys. 13 (2017) 535–539, arXiv: 1606.07424 [nucl-ex].

[21] LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij, et al., Measurement of resonant and CP components in $B^0 \to J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^-$ decays, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 092006, arXiv:1402.6248 [hep-ex].

[22] LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij, et al., Measurement of the resonant and CP components in $\bar{B}^0 \to J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^-$ decays, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 012003, arXiv:1404.5673 [hep-ex].

[23] R.J. Fries, B. Muller, C. Nonaka, S.A. Bass, Hadronization in heavy ion collisions: recombination and fragmentation of partons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 202303, arXiv:nucl-th/0301087.

[24] M. Wang, J.-Q. Tao, H. Zheng, W.-C. Zhang, L.-L. Zhu, A. Bonasera, Number-of-constituent-quark scaling of elliptic flow: a quantitative study, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 33 (2022) 37, arXiv:2203.10353 [hep-ph].

[25] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Production of the $\rho(770)^0$ meson in pp and Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV, Phys. Rev. C 99 (2019) 064901, arXiv: 1805.04365 [nucl-ex].

[26] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Multiplicity dependence of $K^*(892)^0$ and $\phi(1020)$ production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 807 (2020) 135501, arXiv:1910.14397 [nucl-ex].

[27] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam, et al., Production of $K^*(892)^0$ and $\phi(1020)$ in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 245, arXiv:1601.07868 [nucl-ex].

[28] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., $\Sigma(1385)^{\pm}$ resonance production in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 351, arXiv:2205.13998 [nucl-ex].

[29] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Suppression of $\Lambda(1520)$ resonance production in central Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV, Phys. Rev. C 99 (2019) 024905, arXiv:1805.04361 [nucl-ex].

[30] C. Bierlich, T. Sjöstrand, M. Utheim, Hadronic rescattering in pA and AA collisions, Eur. Phys. J. A 57 (2021) 227, arXiv:2103.09665 [hep-ph].

[31] A.G. Knospe, C. Markert, K. Werner, J. Steinheimer, M. Bleicher, Hadronic resonance production and interaction in partonic and hadronic matter in the EPOS3 model with and without the hadronic afterburner UrQMD, Phys. Rev. C 93 (2016) 014911, arXiv:1509.07895 [nucl-th].

[32] C. Song, V. Koch, Chemical relaxation time of pions in hot hadronic matter, Phys. Rev. C 55 (1997) 3026–3037, arXiv:nucl-th/9611034.

[33] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt, et al., Two-pion Bose-Einstein correlations in central Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 696 (2011) 328–337, arXiv:1012.4035 [nucl-ex].

[34] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Evidence of rescattering effect in Pb-Pb collisions at the LHC through production of $K^*(892)^0$ and $\phi(1020)$ mesons, Phys. Lett. B 802 (2020) 135225, arXiv:1910.14419 [nucl-ex].

[35] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Multiplicity dependence of light-flavor hadron production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV, Phys. Rev. C 99 (2019) 024906, arXiv:1807.11321 [nucl-ex].

[36] ALICE Collaboration, B.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].

[37] ALICE Collaboration, E. Abbas, et al., Performance of the ALICE VZERO system, J. Instrum. 8 (2013) P10016, arXiv:1306.3130 [nucl-ex].

[38] ALICE Collaboration, P. Cortese, Performance of the ALICE Zero Degree Calorimeters and upgrade strategy, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1162 (2019) 012006.

[39] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt, et al., Alignment of the ALICE Inner Tracking System with cosmic-ray tracks, J. Instrum. 5 (2010) P03003, arXiv:1001.0502 [physics.ins-det].

[40] 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].

[41] ALICE Collaboration, N. Jacazio, PID performance of the ALICE-TOF detector at Run 2, PoS LHC2018 (2018) 232, arXiv:1809.00574 [physics.ins-det].

[42] ALICE Collaboration, B.B. Abelev, et al., Measurement of visible cross sections in proton-lead collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV in van der Meer scans with the ALICE detector, J. Instrum. 9 (2014) P11003, arXiv:1405.1849 [nucl-ex].

[43] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam, et al., Centrality dependence of particle production in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, Phys. Rev. C 91 (2015) 064905, arXiv: 1412.6828 [nucl-ex].

[44] R. Santoro, et al., The ALICE Silicon Pixel Detector: readiness for the first proton beam, J. Instrum. 4 (2009) P03023.
(CONACYT) y Tecnología, through Fondo de Cooperación Internacional en Ciencia y Tecnología (FONCICYT) y Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Academicum (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 Universitatea Nationala de Stiința și Tehnologie Politehnică București, 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) and National Science, Research and Innovation Fund (NSRF via PMU-B 05F650021), 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: Czech Science Foundation (grant no. 23-07499S), Czech Republic; European Research Council, Strong 2020 - Horizon 2020 (grant nos. 950692, 824093), European Union; ICSC - Centro Nazionale di Ricerca in High Performance Computing, Big Data and Quantum Computing, European Union - NextGenerationEU; Academy of Finland (Center of Excellence in Quark Matter) (grant nos. 346327, 346328), Finland.

## References

[1] Particle Data Group Collaboration, R.L. Workman, et al., Review of particle physics, PTEP 2022 (2022) 083C01.

[2] ExHIC Collaboration, S. Cho, et al., Multi-quark hadrons from heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 212001, arXiv:1011.0852 [nucl-th].

[3] R.L. Jaffe, Multi-quark hadrons. 1. The phenomenology of (2 quark 2 anti-quark) mesons, Phys. Rev. D 15 (1977) 267.

[4] L. Maiani, F. Piccinini, A.D. Polosa, V. Riquer, A new look at scalar mesons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 212002, arXiv:hep-ph/0407017.

[5] C.-H. Chen, Evidence for two quark content of $f(0)$ (980) in exclusive b → c decays, Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 094011, arXiv:hep-ph/0302059.

[6] N.N. Achasov, J.V. Bennett, A.V. Kiselev, E.A. Kozyrev, G.N. Shestakov, Evidence of the four-quark nature of $f_0(980)$ and $f_0(500)$, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 014010, arXiv:2009.04191 [hep-ph].

[7] H.A. Ahmed, C.W. Xiao, Study the molecular nature of $\sigma$, $f_0(980)$, and $a_0(980)$ states, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 094034, arXiv:2001.08141 [hep-ph].

[8] R.S. Bhalerao, Collectivity in large and small systems formed in ultrarelativistic collisions, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 230 (2021) 635-654, arXiv:2009.09586 [nucl-th].

[9] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Investigations of anisotropic flow using multiparticle azimuthal correlations in pp, p-Pb, Xe-Xe, and Pb-Pb collisions at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 142301, arXiv:1903.01790 [nucl-ex].

[10] STAR Collaboration, J. Adams, et al., Experimental and theoretical challenges in the search for the quark gluon plasma: the STAR Collaboration's critical assessment of the evidence from RHIC collisions, Nucl. Phys. A 757 (2005) 102-183, arXiv: nucl-ex/0501009 [nucl-ex].

[11] PHENIX Collaboration, K. Adcox, et al., Formation of dense partonic matter in relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC: experimental evaluation by the PHENIX collaboration, Nucl. Phys. A 757 (2005) 184-283, arXiv:nucl-ex/0410003 [nucl-ex].

[12] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Measurements of inclusive jet spectra in pp and central Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, Phys. Rev. C 101 (2020) 034911, arXiv:1909.09718 [nucl-ex].

[13] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad, et al., Observation of a centrality-dependent dijet asymmetry in lead-lead collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.77 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 252303, arXiv:1011.6182 [hep-ex].

[14] PHENIX Collaboration, A. Adare, et al., Azimuthal anisotropy of neutral pion production in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV: path-length dependence of jet quenching and the role of initial geometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 142301, arXiv:1006.3740 [nucl-ex].

[15] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Production of charged pions, kaons, and (anti-)protons in Pb-Pb and inelastic pp collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, Phys. Rev. C 101 (2020) 044907, arXiv:1910.07678 [nucl-ex].

[16] PHENIX Collaboration, S.S. Adler, et al., Common suppression pattern of $\eta$ and $\pi^0$ mesons at high transverse momentum in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 202301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0601037.

[17] U.W. Heinz, M. Jacob, Evidence for a new state of matter: an assessment of the results from the CERN lead beam program, arXiv:nucl-th/0002042.

[18] ALICE Collaboration, The ALICE experiment – a journey through QCD, arXiv:2211.04384 [nucl-ex].

[19] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam, et al., Multiplicity dependence of charged pion, kaon, and (anti)proton production at large transverse momentum in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 760 (2016) 720-735, arXiv:1601.03658 [nucl-ex].

[20] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam, et al., Enhanced production of multi-strange hadrons in high-multiplicity proton-proton collisions, Nat. Phys. 13 (2017) 535-539, arXiv: 1606.07424 [nucl-ex].

[21] LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij, et al., Measurement of resonant and CP components in $B^0 \to J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^-$ decays, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 092006, arXiv:1402.6248 [hep-ex].

[22] LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij, et al., Measurement of the resonant and CP components in $\bar{B}^0 \to J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^-$ decays, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 012003, arXiv:1404.5673 [hep-ex].

[23] R.J. Fries, B. Muller, C. Nonaka, S.A. Bass, Hadronization in heavy ion collisions: recombination and fragmentation of partons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 202303, arXiv:nucl-th/0301087.

[24] M. Wang, J.-Q. Tao, H. Zheng, W.-C. Zhang, L.-L. Zhu, A. Bonasera, Number-of-constituent-quark scaling of elliptic flow: a quantitative study, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 33 (2022) 37, arXiv:2203.10353 [hep-ph].

[25] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Production of the $\rho(770)^0$ meson in pp and Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV, Phys. Rev. C 99 (2019) 064901, arXiv: 1805.04365 [nucl-ex].

[26] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Multiplicity dependence of $K^*(892)^0$ and $\phi(1020)$ production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 807 (2020) 135501, arXiv:1910.14397 [nucl-ex].

[27] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam, et al., Production of $K^*(892)^0$ and $\phi(1020)$ in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 245, arXiv:1601.07868 [nucl-ex].

[28] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., $\Sigma(1385)^{\pm}$ resonance production in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 351, arXiv:2205.13998 [nucl-ex].

[29] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Suppression of $\Lambda(1520)$ resonance production in central Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV, Phys. Rev. C 99 (2019) 024905, arXiv:1805.04361 [nucl-ex].

[30] C. Bierlich, T. Sjöstrand, M. Utheim, Hadronic rescattering in pA and AA collisions, Eur. Phys. J. A 57 (2021) 227, arXiv:2103.09665 [hep-ph].

[31] A.G. Knospe, C. Markert, K. Werner, J. Steinheimer, M. Bleicher, Hadronic resonance production and interaction in partonic and hadronic matter in the EPOS3 model with and without the hadronic afterburner UrQMD, Phys. Rev. C 93 (2016) 014911, arXiv:1509.07895 [nucl-th].

[32] C. Song, V. Koch, Chemical relaxation time of pions in hot hadronic matter, Phys. Rev. C 55 (1997) 3026-3037, arXiv:nucl-th/9611034.

[33] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt, et al., Two-pion Bose-Einstein correlations in central Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 696 (2011) 328-337, arXiv:1012.4035 [nucl-ex].

[34] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Evidence of rescattering effect in Pb-Pb collisions at the LHC through production of $K^*(892)^0$ and $\phi(1020)$ mesons, Phys. Lett. B 802 (2020) 135225, arXiv:1910.14419 [nucl-ex].

[35] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Multiplicity dependence of light-flavor hadron production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV, Phys. Rev. C 99 (2019) 024906, arXiv:1807.11321 [nucl-ex].

[36] ALICE Collaboration, B.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].

[37] ALICE Collaboration, E. Abbas, et al., Performance of the ALICE VZERO system, J. Instrum. 8 (2013) P10016, arXiv:1306.3130 [nucl-ex].

[38] ALICE Collaboration, P. Cortese, Performance of the ALICE Zero Degree Calorimeters and upgrade strategy, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1162 (2019) 012006.

[39] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt, et al., Alignment of the ALICE Inner Tracking System with cosmic-ray tracks, J. Instrum. 5 (2010) P03003, arXiv:1001.0502 [physics.ins-det].

[40] 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].

[41] ALICE Collaboration, N. Jacazio, PID performance of the ALICE-TOF detector at Run 2, PoS LHC2018 (2018) 232, arXiv:1809.00574 [physics.ins-det].

[42] ALICE Collaboration, B.B. Abelev, et al., Measurement of visible cross sections in proton-lead collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV in van der Meer scans with the ALICE detector, J. Instrum. 9 (2014) P11003, arXiv:1405.1849 [nucl-ex].

[43] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam, et al., Centrality dependence of particle production in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, Phys. Rev. C 91 (2015) 064905, arXiv: 1412.6828 [nucl-ex].

[44] R. Santoro, et al., The ALICE Silicon Pixel Detector: readiness for the first proton beam, J. Instrum. 4 (2009) P03023.
[45] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam, et al., Charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 0.9$ to 8 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 33, arXiv:1509.07541 [nucl-ex].

[46] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Constraints on jet quenching in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV measured by the event-activity dependence of semi-inclusive hadron-jet distributions, Phys. Lett. B 783 (2018) 95-113, arXiv:1712.05603 [nucl-ex].

[47] S. Stone, L. Zhang, Use of $B \to J/\psi f_0$ decays to discern the $q\bar{q}$ or tetraquark nature of scalar mesons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 062001, arXiv:1305.6554 [hep-ex].

[48] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., $f_0(980)$ production in inelastic pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 5.02$ TeV, Phys. Lett. B 846 (2023) 137644, arXiv:2206.06216 [nucl-ex].

[49] ALICE Collaboration, B.B. Abelev, et al., Multiplicity dependence of pion, kaon, proton and lambda production in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV, Phys. Lett. B 728 (2014) 25-38, arXiv:1307.6796 [nucl-ex].

[50] T. Sjöstrand, M. van Zijl, A multiple-interaction model for the event structure in hadron collisions, Phys. Rev. D 36 (Oct 1987) 2019-2041, https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.36.2019.

[51] OPAL Collaboration, K. Ackerstaff, et al., Photon and light meson production in hadronic $Z^0$ decays, Eur. Phys. J. C 5 (1998) 411-437, arXiv:hep-ex/9805011.

[52] STAR Collaboration, J. Adams, et al., $\rho^0$ production and possible modification in Au+Au and p+p collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 092301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0307023.

[53] A. Fedynitch, Cascade equations and hadronic interactions at very high energies, PhD thesis, CERN-THESIS-2015-371 Dept. Phys., 11, KIT, Karlsruhe.

[54] R. Brun, F. Bruyant, F. Carminati, S. Giani, M. Maire, A. McPherson, G. Patrick, L. Urban, GEANT Detector Description and Simulation Tool, CERN-W5013, 1994.

[55] L. Altenkämper, F. Bock, C. Loizides, N. Schmidt, Applicability of transverse mass scaling in hadronic collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. C 96 (2017) 064907, arXiv:1710.01933 [hep-ph].

[56] E. Schnedermann, J. Sollfrank, U.W. Heinz, Thermal phenomenology of hadrons from 200-A/GeV S+S collisions, Phys. Rev. C 48 (1993) 2462-2475, arXiv:nucl-th/9307020.

[57] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev, et al., Pseudorapidity density of charged particles in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 032301, arXiv:1210.3615 [nucl-ex].

[58] P. Liu, R.A. Lacey, System-size dependence of the viscous attenuation of anisotropic flow in p + Pb and Pb + Pb collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. C 98 (2018) 031901, arXiv:1804.04618 [nucl-ex].

[59] V. Vovchenko, B. Döñigus, H. Stoecker, Canonical statistical model analysis of p-p, p-Pb, and Pb-Pb collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. C 100 (2019) 054906, arXiv:1906.03145 [hep-ph].

[60] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Production of light-flavor hadrons in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 7$ and $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 256, arXiv:2005.11120 [nucl-ex].

[61] J.W. Cronin, H.J. Frisch, M.J. Shochet, J.P. Boymond, R. Mermod, P.A. Piroue, R.L. Sumner, Production of hadrons with large transverse momentum at 200, 300, and 400 GeV, Phys. Rev. D 11 (1975) 3105-3123.

[62] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., $K^*(892)^0$ and $\phi(1020)$ production in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 8.16$ TeV, Phys. Rev. C 107 (2023) 055201, arXiv:2110.10042 [nucl-ex].

## ALICE Collaboration

S. Acharya¹²⁸, D. Adamová⁸⁷, G. Aglieri Rinella³³, M. Agnello³⁰, N. Agrawal⁵², Z. Ahammed¹³⁶, S. Ahmad¹⁶, S.U. Ahn⁷², I. Ahuja³⁸, A. Akindinov¹⁴², M. Al-Turany⁹⁸, D. Aleksandrov¹⁴², B. Alessandro⁵⁷, H.M. Alfanda⁶, R. Alfaro Molina⁶⁸, B. Ali¹⁶, A. Alici²⁶, N. Alizadehvandchali¹¹⁷, A. Alkin³³, J. Alme²¹, G. Alocco⁵³, T. Alt⁶⁵, A.R. Altamura⁵¹, I. Altsybeev⁹⁶, J.R. Alvarado⁴⁵, M.N. Anaam⁶, C. Andrei⁴⁶, N. Andreou¹¹⁶, A. Andronic¹²⁷, E. Andronov¹⁴², V. Anguelov⁹⁵, F. Antinori⁵⁵, P. Antonioli⁵², N. Apadula⁷⁵, L. Aphecetche¹⁰⁴, H. Appelshäuser⁶⁵, C. Arata⁷⁴, S. Arcelli²⁶, M. Aresti²³, R. Arnaldi⁵⁷, J.G.M.C.A. Arneiro¹¹¹, I.C. Arsene²⁰, M. Arslandok¹³⁹, A. Augustinus³³, R. Averbeck⁹⁸, M.D. Azmi¹⁶, H. Baba¹²⁵, A. Badalà⁵⁴, J. Bae¹⁰⁵, Y.W. Baek⁴¹, X. Bai¹²¹, R. Bailhache⁶⁵, Y. Bailung⁴⁹, R. Bala⁹², A. Balbino³⁰, A. Baldisseri¹³¹, B. Balis², D. Banerjee⁴, Z. Banoo⁹², F. Barile³², L. Barioglio⁹⁶, M. Barlou⁷⁹, B. Barman⁴², G.G. Barnaföldi⁴⁷, L.S. Barnby⁸⁶, E. Barreau¹⁰⁴, V. Barret¹²⁸, L. Barreto¹¹¹, C. Bartels¹²⁰, K. Barth³³, E. Bartsch⁶⁵, N. Bastid¹²⁸, S. Basu⁷⁶, G. Batigne¹⁰⁴, D. Battistini⁹⁶, B. Batyunya¹⁴³, D. Bauri⁴⁸, J.L. Bazo Alba¹⁰², I.G. Bearden⁸⁴, C. Beattie¹³⁹, P. Becht⁹⁸, D. Behera⁴⁹, I. Belikov¹³⁰, A.D.C. Bell Hechavarria¹²⁷, F. Bellini²⁶, R. Bellwied¹¹⁷, S. Belokurova¹⁴², L.G.E. Beltran¹¹⁰, Y.A.V. Beltran⁴⁵, G. Bencedi⁴⁷, S. Beole²⁵, Y. Berdnikov¹⁴², A. Berdnikova⁹⁵, L. Bergmann⁹⁵, M.G. Besoiu⁶⁴, L. Betev³³, P.P. Bhaduri¹³⁶, A. Bhasin⁹², M.A. Bhat⁴, B. Bhattacharjee⁴², L. Bianchi²⁵, N. Bianchi⁵⁰, J. Bielčík³⁶, J. Bielčíková⁸⁷, A.P. Bigot¹³⁰, A. Bilandzic⁹⁶, G. Biro⁴⁷, S. Biswas⁴, N. Bize¹⁰⁴, J.T. Blair¹⁰⁹, D. Blau¹⁴², M.B. Blidaru⁹⁸, N. Bluhme³⁹, C. Blume⁶⁵, G. Boca²², F. Bock⁸⁸, T. Bodova²¹, S. Boi²³, J. Bok¹⁷, L. Boldizsár⁴⁷, M. Bombara³⁸, P.M. Bond³³, G. Bonomi¹³⁵, H. Borel¹³¹, A. Borissov¹⁴², A.G. Borquez Carcamo⁹⁵, H. Bossi¹³⁹, E. Botta²⁵, Y.E.M. Bouziani⁶⁵, L. Bratrud⁶⁵, P. Braun-Munzinger⁹⁸, M. Bregant¹¹¹, M. Broz³⁶, G.E. Bruno⁹⁷, N.D. Buckland²⁴, D. Budnikov¹⁴², H. Buesching⁶⁵, S. Bufalino³⁰, P. Buhler¹⁰³, N. Burmasov¹⁴², Z. Buthelezi⁶⁹, A. Bylinkin²¹, S.A. Bysiak¹⁰⁸, J.C. Cabanillas Noris¹¹⁰, M. Cai⁶, H. Caines¹³⁹, A. Caliva²⁹, E. Calvo Villar¹⁰², J.M.M. Camacho¹¹⁰, P. Camerini²⁴, F.D.M. Canedo¹¹¹, S.L. Cantway¹³⁹, M. Carabas¹¹⁴, A.A. Carballo³³, F. Carnesecchi³³, R. Caron¹²⁹, L.A.D. Carvalho¹¹¹, J. Castillo Castellanos¹³¹, F. Catalano³³, C. Ceballos Sanchez¹⁴³, I. Chakaberia⁷⁵, P. Chakraborty⁴⁸,
[45] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam, et al., Charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 0.9$ to 8 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 33, arXiv:1509.07541 [nucl-ex].

[46] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Constraints on jet quenching in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV measured by the event-activity dependence of semi-inclusive hadron-jet distributions, Phys. Lett. B 783 (2018) 95-113, arXiv:1712.05603 [nucl-ex].

[47] S. Stone, L. Zhang, Use of $B \to J/\psi f_0$ decays to discern the $q\bar{q}$ or tetraquark nature of scalar mesons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 062001, arXiv:1305.6554 [hep-ex].

[48] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., $f_0(980)$ production in inelastic pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 5.02$ TeV, Phys. Lett. B 846 (2023) 137644, arXiv:2206.06216 [nucl-ex].

[49] ALICE Collaboration, B.B. Abelev, et al., Multiplicity dependence of pion, kaon, proton and lambda production in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV, Phys. Lett. B 728 (2014) 25-38, arXiv:1307.6796 [nucl-ex].

[50] T. Sjöstrand, M. van Zijl, A multiple-interaction model for the event structure in hadron collisions, Phys. Rev. D 36 (Oct 1987) 2019-2041, https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.36.2019.

[51] OPAL Collaboration, K. Ackerstaff, et al., Photon and light meson production in hadronic $Z^0$ decays, Eur. Phys. J. C 5 (1998) 411-437, arXiv:hep-ex/9805011.

[52] STAR Collaboration, J. Adams, et al., $\rho^0$ production and possible modification in Au+Au and p+p collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 092301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0307023.

[53] A. Fedynitch, Cascade equations and hadronic interactions at very high energies, PhD thesis, CERN-THESIS-2015-371 Dept. Phys., 11, KIT, Karlsruhe.

[54] R. Brun, F. Bruyant, F. Carminati, S. Giani, M. Maire, A. McPherson, G. Patrick, L. Urban, GEANT Detector Description and Simulation Tool, CERN-W5013, 1994.

[55] L. Altenkämper, F. Bock, C. Loizides, N. Schmidt, Applicability of transverse mass scaling in hadronic collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. C 96 (2017) 064907, arXiv:1710.01933 [hep-ph].

[56] E. Schnedermann, J. Sollfrank, U.W. Heinz, Thermal phenomenology of hadrons from 200-A/GeV S+S collisions, Phys. Rev. C 48 (1993) 2462-2475, arXiv:nucl-th/9307020.

[57] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev, et al., Pseudorapidity density of charged particles in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 032301, arXiv:1210.3615 [nucl-ex].

[58] P. Liu, R.A. Lacey, System-size dependence of the viscous attenuation of anisotropic flow in p + Pb and Pb + Pb collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. C 98 (2018) 031901, arXiv:1804.04618 [nucl-ex].

[59] V. Vovchenko, B. Döñigus, H. Stoecker, Canonical statistical model analysis of p-p, p-Pb, and Pb-Pb collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. C 100 (2019) 054906, arXiv:1906.03145 [hep-ph].

[60] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Production of light-flavor hadrons in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 7$ and $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 256, arXiv:2005.11120 [nucl-ex].

[61] J.W. Cronin, H.J. Frisch, M.J. Shochet, J.P. Boymond, R. Mermod, P.A. Piroue, R.L. Sumner, Production of hadrons with large transverse momentum at 200, 300, and 400 GeV, Phys. Rev. D 11 (1975) 3105-3123.

[62] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., $K^*(892)^0$ and $\phi(1020)$ production in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 8.16$ TeV, Phys. Rev. C 107 (2023) 055201, arXiv:2110.10042 [nucl-ex].

## ALICE Collaboration

S. Acharya¹²⁸, D. Adamová⁸⁷, G. Aglieri Rinella³³, M. Agnello³⁰, N. Agrawal⁵², Z. Ahammed¹³⁶, S. Ahmad¹⁶, S.U. Ahn⁷², I. Ahuja³⁸, A. Akindinov¹⁴², M. Al-Turany⁹⁸, D. Aleksandrov¹⁴², B. Alessandro⁵⁷, H.M. Alfanda⁶, R. Alfaro Molina⁶⁸, B. Ali¹⁶, A. Alici²⁶, N. Alizadehvandchali¹¹⁷, A. Alkin³³, J. Alme²¹, G. Alocco⁵³, T. Alt⁶⁵, A.R. Altamura⁵¹, I. Altsybeev⁹⁶, J.R. Alvarado⁴⁵, M.N. Anaam⁶, C. Andrei⁴⁶, N. Andreou¹¹⁶, A. Andronic¹²⁷, E. Andronov¹⁴², V. Anguelov⁹⁵, F. Antinori⁵⁵, P. Antonioli⁵², N. Apadula⁷⁵, L. Aphecetche¹⁰⁴, H. Appelshäuser⁶⁵, C. Arata⁷⁴, S. Arcelli²⁶, M. Aresti²³, R. Arnaldi⁵⁷, J.G.M.C.A. Arneiro¹¹¹, I.C. Arsene²⁰, M. Arslandok¹³⁹, A. Augustinus³³, R. Averbeck⁹⁸, M.D. Azmi¹⁶, H. Baba¹²⁵, A. Badalà⁵⁴, J. Bae¹⁰⁵, Y.W. Baek⁴¹, X. Bai¹²¹, R. Bailhache⁶⁵, Y. Bailung⁴⁹, R. Bala⁹², A. Balbino³⁰, A. Baldisseri¹³¹, B. Balis², D. Banerjee⁴, Z. Banoo⁹², F. Barile³², L. Barioglio⁹⁶, M. Barlou⁷⁹, B. Barman⁴², G.G. Barnaföldi⁴⁷, L.S. Barnby⁸⁶, E. Barreau¹⁰⁴, V. Barret¹²⁸, L. Barreto¹¹¹, C. Bartels¹²⁰, K. Barth³³, E. Bartsch⁶⁵, N. Bastid¹²⁸, S. Basu⁷⁶, G. Batigne¹⁰⁴, D. Battistini⁹⁶, B. Batyunya¹⁴³, D. Bauri⁴⁸, J.L. Bazo Alba¹⁰², I.G. Bearden⁸⁴, C. Beattie¹³⁹, P. Becht⁹⁸, D. Behera⁴⁹, I. Belikov¹³⁰, A.D.C. Bell Hechavarria¹²⁷, F. Bellini²⁶, R. Bellwied¹¹⁷, S. Belokurova¹⁴², L.G.E. Beltran¹¹⁰, Y.A.V. Beltran⁴⁵, G. Bencedi⁴⁷, S. Beole²⁵, Y. Berdnikov¹⁴², A. Berdnikova⁹⁵, L. Bergmann⁹⁵, M.G. Besoiu⁶⁴, L. Betev³³, P.P. Bhaduri¹³⁶, A. Bhasin⁹², M.A. Bhat⁴, B. Bhattacharjee⁴², L. Bianchi²⁵, N. Bianchi⁵⁰, J. Bielčík³⁶, J. Bielčíková⁸⁷, A.P. Bigot¹³⁰, A. Bilandzic⁹⁶, G. Biro⁴⁷, S. Biswas⁴, N. Bize¹⁰⁴, J.T. Blair¹⁰⁹, D. Blau¹⁴², M.B. Blidaru⁹⁸, N. Bluhme³⁹, C. Blume⁶⁵, G. Boca²², F. Bock⁸⁸, T. Bodova²¹, S. Boi²³, J. Bok¹⁷, L. Boldizsár⁴⁷, M. Bombara³⁸, P.M. Bond³³, G. Bonomi¹³⁵, H. Borel¹³¹, A. Borissov¹⁴², A.G. Borquez Carcamo⁹⁵, H. Bossi¹³⁹, E. Botta²⁵, Y.E.M. Bouziani⁶⁵, L. Bratrud⁶⁵, P. Braun-Munzinger⁹⁸, M. Bregant¹¹¹, M. Broz³⁶, G.E. Bruno⁹⁷, N.D. Buckland²⁴, D. Budnikov¹⁴², H. Buesching⁶⁵, S. Bufalino³⁰, P. Buhler¹⁰³, N. Burmasov¹⁴², Z. Buthelezi⁶⁹, A. Bylinkin²¹, S.A. Bysiak¹⁰⁸, J.C. Cabanillas Noris¹¹⁰, M. Cai⁶, H. Caines¹³⁹, A. Caliva²⁹, E. Calvo Villar¹⁰², J.M.M. Camacho¹¹⁰, P. Camerini²⁴, F.D.M. Canedo¹¹¹, S.L. Cantway¹³⁹, M. Carabas¹¹⁴, A.A. Carballo³³, F. Carnesecchi³³, R. Caron¹²⁹, L.A.D. Carvalho¹¹¹, J. Castillo Castellanos¹³¹, F. Catalano³³, C. Ceballos Sanchez¹⁴³, I. Chakaberia⁷⁵, P. Chakraborty⁴⁸,
S. Chandra 136, ID,
S. Chapeland 33, ID,
M. Chartier 120, ID,
S. Chattopadhyay 136, ID,
S. Chattopadhyay 100, ID,
T. Cheng 98,6, ID,
C. Cheshkov 129, ID,
B. Cheynis 129, ID,
V. Chibante Barroso 33, ID,
D.D. Chinellato 112, ID,
E.S. Chizzali 96, ID,II,
J. Cho 59, ID,
S. Cho 59, ID,
P. Chochula 33, ID,
D. Choudhury 42, ID,
P. Christakoglou 85, ID,
C.H. Christensen 84, ID,
P. Christiansen 76, ID,
T. Chujo 126, ID,
M. Ciacco 30, ID,
C. Cicalo 53, ID,
M.R. Ciupek 98,
G. Clai 52,III, ID,
F. Colamaria 51, ID,
J.S. Colburn 101, ID,
D. Colella 97,32, ID,
M. Colocci 26, ID,
M. Concas 33, ID,
G. Conesa Balbastre 74, ID,
Z. Conesa del Valle 132, ID,
G. Contin 24, ID,
J.G. Contreras 36, ID,
M.L. Coquet 131, ID,
P. Cortese 134,57, ID,
M.R. Cosentino 113, ID,
F. Costa 33, ID,
S. Costanza 22,56, ID,
C. Cot 132, ID,
J. Crkovská 95, ID,
P. Crochet 128, ID,
R. Cruz-Torres 75, ID,
P. Cui 6, ID,
A. Dainese 55, ID,
M.C. Danisch 95, ID,
A. Danu 64, ID,
P. Das 81, ID,
P. Das 4, ID,
S. Das 4, ID,
A.R. Dash 127, ID,
S. Dash 48, ID,
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 135, ID,
R. Del Grande 96, ID,
L. Dello Stritto 33,29, ID,
W. Deng 6, ID,
P. Dhankher 19, ID,
D. Di Bari 32, ID,
A. Di Mauro 33, ID,
B. Diab 131, ID,
R.A. Diaz 143,7, ID,
T. Dietel 115, ID,
Y. Ding 6, ID,
J. Ditzel 65, ID,
R. Divià 33, ID,
D.U. Dixit 19, ID,
Ø. Djuvsland 21, ID,
U. Dmitrieva 142, ID,
A. Dobrin 64, ID,
B. Dönigus 65, ID,
J.M. Dubinski 137, ID,
A. Dubla 98, ID,
S. Dudi 91, ID,
P. Dupieux 128, ID,
M. Durkac 107, ID,
N. Dzalaiova 13, ID,
T.M. Eder 127, ID,
R.J. Ehlers 75, ID,
F. Eisenhut 65, ID,
R. Ejima 93, ID,
D. Elia 51, ID,
B. Erazmus 104, ID,
F. Ercolessi 26, ID,
B. Espagnon 132, ID,
G. Eulisse 33, ID,
D. Evans 101, ID,
S. Evdokimov 142, 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,
A. Feliciello 57, ID,
G. Feofilov 142, ID,
A. Fernández Téllez 45, ID,
L. Ferrandi 111, ID,
M.B. Ferrer 33, ID,
A. Ferrero 131, ID,
C. Ferrero 57, ID,IV,
A. Ferretti 25, ID,
V.J.G. Feuillard 95, ID,
V. Filova 36, ID,
D. Finogeev 142, ID,
F.M. Fionda 53, ID,
E. Flatland 33, ID,
F. Flor 117, ID,
A.N. Flores 109, ID,
S. Foertsch 69, ID,
I. Fokin 95, ID,
S. Fokin 142, ID,
E. Fragiacomo 58, ID,
E. Frajna 47, ID,
U. Fuchs 33, ID,
N. Funicello 29, ID,
C. Furget 74, ID,
A. Furs 142, ID,
T. Fusayasu 99, ID,
J.J. Gaardhøje 84, ID,
M. Gagliardi 25, ID,
A.M. Gago 102, ID,
T. Gahlaut 48, ID,
C.D. Galvan 110, ID,
D.R. Gangadharan 117, ID,
P. Ganoti 79, ID,
C. Garabatos 98, ID,
T. García Chávez 45, ID,
E. Garcia-Solis 9, ID,
C. Gargiulo 33, ID,
P. Gasik 98, ID,
A. Gautam 119, ID,
M.B. Gay Ducati 67, ID,
M. Germain 104, ID,
A. Ghimouz 126,
C. Ghosh 136, ID,
M. Giacalone 52, ID,
G. Gioachin 30, ID,
P. Giubellino 98,57, ID,
P. Giubilato 28, ID,
A.M.C. Glaenzer 131, ID,
P. Glässel 95, ID,
E. Glimos 123, ID,
D.J.Q. Goh 77, ID,
V. Gonzalez 138, ID,
P. Gordeev 142, ID,
M. Gorgon 2, ID,
K. Goswami 49, ID,
S. Gotovac 34, ID,
V. Grabski 68, ID,
L.K. Graczykowski 137, ID,
E. Grecka 87, ID,
A. Grelli 60, ID,
C. Grigoras 33, ID,
V. Grigoriev 142, ID,
S. Grigoryan 143,1, ID,
F. Grosa 33, ID,
J.F. Grosse-Oetringhaus 33, ID,
R. Grosso 98, ID,
D. Grund 36, ID,
N.A. Grunwald 95, ID,
G.G. Guardiano 112, ID,
R. Guernane 74, ID,
M. Guilbaud 104, ID,
K. Gulbrandsen 84, ID,
T. Gündem 65, ID,
T. Gunji 125, ID,
W. Guo 6, ID,
A. Gupta 92, ID,
R. Gupta 92, ID,
R. Gupta 49, ID,
K. Gwizdziel 137, ID,
L. Gyulai 47, ID,
C. Hadjidakis 132, ID,
F.U. Haider 92, ID,
S. Haidlova 36, ID,
M. Haldar 4,
H. Hamagaki 77, ID,
A. Hamdi 75, ID,
Y. Han 140, ID,
B.G. Hanley 138, ID,
R. Hannigan 109, ID,
J. Hansen 76, ID,
J.W. Harris 139, ID,
A. Harton 9, ID,
M.V. Hartung 65, ID,
H. Hassan 118, ID,
D. Hatzifotiadou 52, ID,
P. Hauer 43, ID,
L.B. Havener 139, ID,
E. Hellbär 98, ID,
H. Helstrup 35, ID,
M. Hemmer 65, ID,
T. Herman 36, ID,
G. Herrera Corral 8, ID,
F. Herrmann 127, ID,
S. Herrmann 129, ID,
K.F. Hetland 35, ID,
B. Heybeck 65, ID,
H. Hillemanns 33, ID,
B. Hippolyte 130, ID,
F.W. Hoffmann 71, ID,
B. Hofman 60, ID,
G.H. Hong 140, ID,
M. Horst 96, ID,
A. Horzyk 2, ID,
Y. Hou 6, ID,
P. Hristov 33, ID,
C. Hughes 123, ID,
P. Huhn 65, ID,
L.M. Huhta 118, ID,
T.J. Humanic 89, ID,
A. Hutson 117, ID,
D. Hutter 39, ID,
M.C. Hwang 19, ID,
R. Ilkaev 142, ID,
H. Ilyas 14, ID,
M. Inaba 126, ID,
G.M. Innocenti 33, ID,
M. Ippolitov 142, ID,
A. Isakov 85, ID,
T. Isidori 119, ID,
M.S. Islam 100, ID,
M. Ivanov 98, ID,
M. Ivanov 13, ID,
V. Ivanov 142, ID,
K.E. Iversen 76, ID,
M. Jablonski 2, ID,
B. Jacak 19,75, ID,
N. Jacazio 26, ID,
P.M. Jacobs 75, ID,
S. Jadlovska 107, ID,
J. Jadlovsky 107,
S. Jaelani 83, ID,
C. Jahnke 111, ID,
M.J. Jakubowska 137, ID,
M.A. Janik 137, ID,
T. Janson 71, ID,
S. Ji 17, ID,
S. Jia 10, ID,
A.A.P. Jimenez 66, ID,
F. Jonas 75,88,127, ID,
D.M. Jones 120, ID,
J.M. Jowett 33,98, ID,
J. Jung 65, ID,
M. Jung 65, ID,
A. Junique 33, ID,
A. Jusko 101, ID,
J. Kaewjai 106, ID,
P. Kalinak 61, ID,
A.S. Kalteyer 98, ID,
A. Kalweit 33, ID,
A. Karasu
S. Chandra 136, ID,
S. Chapeland 33, ID,
M. Chartier 120, ID,
S. Chattopadhyay 136, ID,
S. Chattopadhyay 100, ID,
T. Cheng 98,6, ID,
C. Cheshkov 129, ID,
B. Cheynis 129, ID,
V. Chibante Barroso 33, ID,
D.D. Chinellato 112, ID,
E.S. Chizzali 96, ID,II,
J. Cho 59, ID,
S. Cho 59, ID,
P. Chochula 33, ID,
D. Choudhury 42, ID,
P. Christakoglou 85, ID,
C.H. Christensen 84, ID,
P. Christiansen 76, ID,
T. Chujo 126, ID,
M. Ciacco 30, ID,
C. Cicalo 53, ID,
M.R. Ciupek 98,
G. Clai 52,III, ID,
F. Colamaria 51, ID,
J.S. Colburn 101, ID,
D. Colella 97,32, ID,
M. Colocci 26, ID,
M. Concas 33, ID,
G. Conesa Balbastre 74, ID,
Z. Conesa del Valle 132, ID,
G. Contin 24, ID,
J.G. Contreras 36, ID,
M.L. Coquet 131, ID,
P. Cortese 134,57, ID,
M.R. Cosentino 113, ID,
F. Costa 33, ID,
S. Costanza 22,56, ID,
C. Cot 132, ID,
J. Crkovská 95, ID,
P. Crochet 128, ID,
R. Cruz-Torres 75, ID,
P. Cui 6, ID,
A. Dainese 55, ID,
M.C. Danisch 95, ID,
A. Danu 64, ID,
P. Das 81, ID,
P. Das 4, ID,
S. Das 4, ID,
A.R. Dash 127, ID,
S. Dash 48, ID,
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 135, ID,
R. Del Grande 96, ID,
L. Dello Stritto 33,29, ID,
W. Deng 6, ID,
P. Dhankher 19, ID,
D. Di Bari 32, ID,
A. Di Mauro 33, ID,
B. Diab 131, ID,
R.A. Diaz 143,7, ID,
T. Dietel 115, ID,
Y. Ding 6, ID,
J. Ditzel 65, ID,
R. Divià 33, ID,
D.U. Dixit 19, ID,
Ø. Djuvsland 21, ID,
U. Dmitrieva 142, ID,
A. Dobrin 64, ID,
B. Dönigus 65, ID,
J.M. Dubinski 137, ID,
A. Dubla 98, ID,
S. Dudi 91, ID,
P. Dupieux 128, ID,
M. Durkac 107, ID,
N. Dzalaiova 13, ID,
T.M. Eder 127, ID,
R.J. Ehlers 75, ID,
F. Eisenhut 65, ID,
R. Ejima 93, ID,
D. Elia 51, ID,
B. Erazmus 104, ID,
F. Ercolessi 26, ID,
B. Espagnon 132, ID,
G. Eulisse 33, ID,
D. Evans 101, ID,
S. Evdokimov 142, 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,
A. Feliciello 57, ID,
G. Feofilov 142, ID,
A. Fernández Téllez 45, ID,
L. Ferrandi 111, ID,
M.B. Ferrer 33, ID,
A. Ferrero 131, ID,
C. Ferrero 57, ID,IV,
A. Ferretti 25, ID,
V.J.G. Feuillard 95, ID,
V. Filova 36, ID,
D. Finogeev 142, ID,
F.M. Fionda 53, ID,
E. Flatland 33, ID,
F. Flor 117, ID,
A.N. Flores 109, ID,
S. Foertsch 69, ID,
I. Fokin 95, ID,
S. Fokin 142, ID,
E. Fragiacomo 58, ID,
E. Frajna 47, ID,
U. Fuchs 33, ID,
N. Funicello 29, ID,
C. Furget 74, ID,
A. Furs 142, ID,
T. Fusayasu 99, ID,
J.J. Gaardhøje 84, ID,
M. Gagliardi 25, ID,
A.M. Gago 102, ID,
T. Gahlaut 48, ID,
C.D. Galvan 110, ID,
D.R. Gangadharan 117, ID,
P. Ganoti 79, ID,
C. Garabatos 98, ID,
T. García Chávez 45, ID,
E. Garcia-Solis 9, ID,
C. Gargiulo 33, ID,
P. Gasik 98, ID,
A. Gautam 119, ID,
M.B. Gay Ducati 67, ID,
M. Germain 104, ID,
A. Ghimouz 126,
C. Ghosh 136, ID,
M. Giacalone 52, ID,
G. Gioachin 30, ID,
P. Giubellino 98,57, ID,
P. Giubilato 28, ID,
A.M.C. Glaenzer 131, ID,
P. Glässel 95, ID,
E. Glimos 123, ID,
D.J.Q. Goh 77, ID,
V. Gonzalez 138, ID,
P. Gordeev 142, ID,
M. Gorgon 2, ID,
K. Goswami 49, ID,
S. Gotovac 34, ID,
V. Grabski 68, ID,
L.K. Graczykowski 137, ID,
E. Grecka 87, ID,
A. Grelli 60, ID,
C. Grigoras 33, ID,
V. Grigoriev 142, ID,
S. Grigoryan 143,1, ID,
F. Grosa 33, ID,
J.F. Grosse-Oetringhaus 33, ID,
R. Grosso 98, ID,
D. Grund 36, ID,
N.A. Grunwald 95, ID,
G.G. Guardiano 112, ID,
R. Guernane 74, ID,
M. Guilbaud 104, ID,
K. Gulbrandsen 84, ID,
T. Gündem 65, ID,
T. Gunji 125, ID,
W. Guo 6, ID,
A. Gupta 92, ID,
R. Gupta 92, ID,
R. Gupta 49, ID,
K. Gwizdziel 137, ID,
L. Gyulai 47, ID,
C. Hadjidakis 132, ID,
F.U. Haider 92, ID,
S. Haidlova 36, ID,
M. Haldar 4,
H. Hamagaki 77, ID,
A. Hamdi 75, ID,
Y. Han 140, ID,
B.G. Hanley 138, ID,
R. Hannigan 109, ID,
J. Hansen 76, ID,
J.W. Harris 139, ID,
A. Harton 9, ID,
M.V. Hartung 65, ID,
H. Hassan 118, ID,
D. Hatzifotiadou 52, ID,
P. Hauer 43, ID,
L.B. Havener 139, ID,
E. Hellbär 98, ID,
H. Helstrup 35, ID,
M. Hemmer 65, ID,
T. Herman 36, ID,
G. Herrera Corral 8, ID,
F. Herrmann 127, ID,
S. Herrmann 129, ID,
K.F. Hetland 35, ID,
B. Heybeck 65, ID,
H. Hillemanns 33, ID,
B. Hippolyte 130, ID,
F.W. Hoffmann 71, ID,
B. Hofman 60, ID,
G.H. Hong 140, ID,
M. Horst 96, ID,
A. Horzyk 2, ID,
Y. Hou 6, ID,
P. Hristov 33, ID,
C. Hughes 123, ID,
P. Huhn 65, ID,
L.M. Huhta 118, ID,
T.J. Humanic 89, ID,
A. Hutson 117, ID,
D. Hutter 39, ID,
M.C. Hwang 19, ID,
R. Ilkaev 142, ID,
H. Ilyas 14, ID,
M. Inaba 126, ID,
G.M. Innocenti 33, ID,
M. Ippolitov 142, ID,
A. Isakov 85, ID,
T. Isidori 119, ID,
M.S. Islam 100, ID,
M. Ivanov 98, ID,
M. Ivanov 13, ID,
V. Ivanov 142, ID,
K.E. Iversen 76, ID,
M. Jablonski 2, ID,
B. Jacak 19,75, ID,
N. Jacazio 26, ID,
P.M. Jacobs 75, ID,
S. Jadlovska 107, ID,
J. Jadlovsky 107,
S. Jaelani 83, ID,
C. Jahnke 111, ID,
M.J. Jakubowska 137, ID,
M.A. Janik 137, ID,
T. Janson 71, ID,
S. Ji 17, ID,
S. Jia 10, ID,
A.A.P. Jimenez 66, ID,
F. Jonas 75,88,127, ID,
D.M. Jones 120, ID,
J.M. Jowett 33,98, ID,
J. Jung 65, ID,
M. Jung 65, ID,
A. Junique 33, ID,
A. Jusko 101, ID,
J. Kaewjai 106, ID,
P. Kalinak 61, ID,
A.S. Kalteyer 98, ID,
A. Kalweit 33, ID,
A. Karasu
Uysal 73, V, D. Karatovic 90, , O. Karavichev 142, , T. Karavicheva 142, , P. Karczmarczyk 137, , E. Karpechev 142, , M.J. Karwowska 33,137, , U. Kebschull 71, , R. Keidel 141, , D.L.D. Keijdener 60, M. Keil 33, , B. Ketzer 43, , S.S. Khade 49, , A.M. Khan 121, , S. Khan 16, , A. Khanzadeev 142, , Y. Kharlov 142, , A. Khatun 119, , A. Khuntia 36, , Z. Khuranova 65, , B. Kileng 35, , B. Kim 105, , C. Kim 17, , D.J. Kim 118, , E.J. Kim 70, , J. Kim 140, , J. Kim 59, , J. Kim 70, , M. Kim 19, , S. Kim 18, , T. Kim 140, , K. Kimura 93, , S. Kirsch 65, , I. Kisel 39, , S. Kiselev 142, , A. Kisiel 137, , J.P. Kitowski 2, , J.L. Klay 5, , J. Klein 33, , S. Klein 75, , C. Klein-Bösing 127, , M. Kleiner 65, , T. Klemenz 96, , A. Kluge 33, , C. Kobdaj 106, , T. Kollegger 98, , A. Kondratyev 143, , N. Kondratyeva 142, , J. Konig 65, , S.A. Konigstorfer 96, , P.J. Konopka 33, , G. Kornakov 137, , M. Korwieser 96, , S.D. Koryciak 2, , A. Kotliarov 87, , N. Kovacic 90, V. Kovalenko 142, , M. Kowalski 108, , V. Kozhuharov 37, , I. Králik 61, , A. Kravčáková 38, , L. Krcal 33,39, , M. Krivda 101,61, , F. Krizek 87, , K. Krizkova Gajdosova 33, , M. Kroesen 95, , M. Krüger 65, , D.M. Krupova 36, , E. Kryshen 142, , V. Kučera 59, , C. Kuhn 130, , P.G. Kuijer 85, , T. Kumaoka 126, D. Kumar 136, L. Kumar 91, , N. Kumar 91, S. Kumar 32, , S. Kundu 33, , P. Kurashvili 80, , A. Kurepin 142, , A.B. Kurepin 142, , A. Kuryakin 142, , S. Kushpil 87, , V. Kuskov 142, , M. Kutyla 137, M.J. Kweon 59, , Y. Kwon 140, , S.L. La Pointe 39, , P. La Rocca 27, , A. Lakrathok 106, M. Lamanna 33, , A.R. Landou 74, , R. Langoy 122, , P. Larionov 33, , E. Laudi 33, , L. Lautner 33,96, , R. Lavicka 103, , R. Lea 135,56, , H. Lee 105, , I. Legrand 46, , G. Legras 127, , J. Lehrbach 39, , T.M. Lelek 2, R.C. Lemmon 86, , I. León Monzón 110, , M.M. Lesch 96, , E.D. Lesser 19, , P. Lévai 47, , X. Li 10, B.E. Liang-gilman 19, , J. Lien 122, , R. Lietava 101, , I. Likmeta 117, , B. Lim 25, , S.H. Lim 17, , V. Lindenstruth 39, , A. Lindner 46, C. Lippmann 98, , D.H. Liu 6, , J. Liu 120, , G.S.S. Liveraro 112, , I.M. Lofnes 21, , C. Loizides 88, , S. Lokos 108, , J. Lömker 60, , P. Loncar 34, , X. Lopez 128, , E. López Torres 7, , P. Lu 98,121, , F.V. Lugo 68, , J.R. Luhder 127, , M. Lunardon 28, , G. Luparello 58, , Y.G. Ma 40, , M. Mager 33, , A. Maire 130, , E.M. Majerz 2, M.V. Makariev 37, , M. Malaev 142, , G. Malfattore 26, , N.M. Malik 92, , Q.W. Malik 20, S.K. Malik 92, , L. Malinina 143, , I.VIII, D. Mallick 132, , N. Mallick 49, , G. Mandaglio 31,54, , S.K. Mandal 80, , V. Manko 142, , F. Manso 128, , V. Manzari 51, , Y. Mao 6, , R.W. Marcjan 2, , G.V. Margagliotti 24, , A. Margotti 52, , A. Marín 98, , C. Markert 109, , P. Martinengo 33, , M.I. Martínez 45, , G. Martínez García 104, , M.P.P. Martins 111, , S. Masciocchi 98, , M. Masera 25, , A. Masoni 53, , L. Massacrier 132, , O. Massen 60, , A. Mastroserio 133,51, , O. Matonoha 76, , S. Mattiazzo 28, , A. Matyja 108, , C. Mayer 108, , A.L. Mazuecos 33, , F. Mazzaschi 25, , M. Mazzilli 33, , J.E. Mdhluli 124, , Y. Melikyan 44, , A. Menchaca-Rocha 68, , J.E.M. Mendez 66, , E. Meninno 103, , A.S. Menon 117, , M. Meres 13, , Y. MIAKE 126, L. Micheletti 33, , D.L. Mihaylov 96, , K. Mikhaylov 143,142, , D. Miśkowiec 98, , A. Modak 4, , B. Mohanty 81, M. Mohisin Khan 16, VI, M.A. Molander 44, , S. Monira 137, , C. Mordasini 118, , D.A. Moreira De Godoy 127, , I. Morozov 142, , A. Morsch 33, , T. Mrnjavac 33, , V. Muccifora 50, , S. Muhuri 136, , J.D. Mulligan 75, , A. Mulliri 23, , M.G. Munhoz 111, , R.H. Munzer 65, , H. Murakami 125, , S. Murray 115, , L. Musa 33, , J. Musinsky 61, , J.W. Myrcha 137, , B. Naik 124, , A.I. Nambrath 19, , B.K. Nandi 48, , R. Nania 52, , E. Nappi 51, , A.F. Nassirpour 18, , A. Nath 95, , C. Nattrass 123, , M.N. Naydenov 37, , A. Neagu 20, A. Negru 114, E. Nekrasova 142, L. Nellen 66, , R. Nepeivoda 76, , S. Nese 20, , G. Neskovic 39, , N. Nicassio 51, , B.S. Nielsen 84, , E.G. Nielsen 84, , S. Nikolaev 142, , S. Nikulin 142, , V. Nikulin 142, , F. Noferini 52, , S. Noh 12, , P. Nomokonov 143, , J. Norman 120, , N. Novitzky 88, , P. Nowakowski 137, , A. Nyanin 142, , J. Nystrand 21, , S. Oh 18, , A. Ohlson 76, , V.A. Okorokov 142, , J. Oleniacz 137, , A. Onnerstad 118, , C. Oppedisano 57, , A. Ortiz Velasquez 66, , J. Otwinowski 108, , M. Oya 93, K. Oyama 77, , Y. Pachmayer 95, , S. Padhan 48, , D. Pagano 135,56, , G. Paić 66, , S. Paisano-Guzmán 45, , A. Palasciano 51, ,
Uysal 73, V, D. Karatovic 90, , O. Karavichev 142, , T. Karavicheva 142, , P. Karczmarczyk 137, , E. Karpechev 142, , M.J. Karwowska 33,137, , U. Kebschull 71, , R. Keidel 141, , D.L.D. Keijdener 60, M. Keil 33, , B. Ketzer 43, , S.S. Khade 49, , A.M. Khan 121, , S. Khan 16, , A. Khanzadeev 142, , Y. Kharlov 142, , A. Khatun 119, , A. Khuntia 36, , Z. Khuranova 65, , B. Kileng 35, , B. Kim 105, , C. Kim 17, , D.J. Kim 118, , E.J. Kim 70, , J. Kim 140, , J. Kim 59, , J. Kim 70, , M. Kim 19, , S. Kim 18, , T. Kim 140, , K. Kimura 93, , S. Kirsch 65, , I. Kisel 39, , S. Kiselev 142, , A. Kisiel 137, , J.P. Kitowski 2, , J.L. Klay 5, , J. Klein 33, , S. Klein 75, , C. Klein-Bösing 127, , M. Kleiner 65, , T. Klemenz 96, , A. Kluge 33, , C. Kobdaj 106, , T. Kollegger 98, , A. Kondratyev 143, , N. Kondratyeva 142, , J. Konig 65, , S.A. Konigstorfer 96, , P.J. Konopka 33, , G. Kornakov 137, , M. Korwieser 96, , S.D. Koryciak 2, , A. Kotliarov 87, , N. Kovacic 90, V. Kovalenko 142, , M. Kowalski 108, , V. Kozhuharov 37, , I. Králik 61, , A. Kravčáková 38, , L. Krcal 33,39, , M. Krivda 101,61, , F. Krizek 87, , K. Krizkova Gajdosova 33, , M. Kroesen 95, , M. Krüger 65, , D.M. Krupova 36, , E. Kryshen 142, , V. Kučera 59, , C. Kuhn 130, , P.G. Kuijer 85, , T. Kumaoka 126, D. Kumar 136, L. Kumar 91, , N. Kumar 91, S. Kumar 32, , S. Kundu 33, , P. Kurashvili 80, , A. Kurepin 142, , A.B. Kurepin 142, , A. Kuryakin 142, , S. Kushpil 87, , V. Kuskov 142, , M. Kutyla 137, M.J. Kweon 59, , Y. Kwon 140, , S.L. La Pointe 39, , P. La Rocca 27, , A. Lakrathok 106, M. Lamanna 33, , A.R. Landou 74, , R. Langoy 122, , P. Larionov 33, , E. Laudi 33, , L. Lautner 33,96, , R. Lavicka 103, , R. Lea 135,56, , H. Lee 105, , I. Legrand 46, , G. Legras 127, , J. Lehrbach 39, , T.M. Lelek 2, R.C. Lemmon 86, , I. León Monzón 110, , M.M. Lesch 96, , E.D. Lesser 19, , P. Lévai 47, , X. Li 10, B.E. Liang-gilman 19, , J. Lien 122, , R. Lietava 101, , I. Likmeta 117, , B. Lim 25, , S.H. Lim 17, , V. Lindenstruth 39, , A. Lindner 46, C. Lippmann 98, , D.H. Liu 6, , J. Liu 120, , G.S.S. Liveraro 112, , I.M. Lofnes 21, , C. Loizides 88, , S. Lokos 108, , J. Lömker 60, , P. Loncar 34, , X. Lopez 128, , E. López Torres 7, , P. Lu 98,121, , F.V. Lugo 68, , J.R. Luhder 127, , M. Lunardon 28, , G. Luparello 58, , Y.G. Ma 40, , M. Mager 33, , A. Maire 130, , E.M. Majerz 2, M.V. Makariev 37, , M. Malaev 142, , G. Malfattore 26, , N.M. Malik 92, , Q.W. Malik 20, S.K. Malik 92, , L. Malinina 143, , I.VIII, D. Mallick 132, , N. Mallick 49, , G. Mandaglio 31,54, , S.K. Mandal 80, , V. Manko 142, , F. Manso 128, , V. Manzari 51, , Y. Mao 6, , R.W. Marcjan 2, , G.V. Margagliotti 24, , A. Margotti 52, , A. Marín 98, , C. Markert 109, , P. Martinengo 33, , M.I. Martínez 45, , G. Martínez García 104, , M.P.P. Martins 111, , S. Masciocchi 98, , M. Masera 25, , A. Masoni 53, , L. Massacrier 132, , O. Massen 60, , A. Mastroserio 133,51, , O. Matonoha 76, , S. Mattiazzo 28, , A. Matyja 108, , C. Mayer 108, , A.L. Mazuecos 33, , F. Mazzaschi 25, , M. Mazzilli 33, , J.E. Mdhluli 124, , Y. Melikyan 44, , A. Menchaca-Rocha 68, , J.E.M. Mendez 66, , E. Meninno 103, , A.S. Menon 117, , M. Meres 13, , Y. MIAKE 126, L. Micheletti 33, , D.L. Mihaylov 96, , K. Mikhaylov 143,142, , D. Miśkowiec 98, , A. Modak 4, , B. Mohanty 81, M. Mohisin Khan 16, VI, M.A. Molander 44, , S. Monira 137, , C. Mordasini 118, , D.A. Moreira De Godoy 127, , I. Morozov 142, , A. Morsch 33, , T. Mrnjavac 33, , V. Muccifora 50, , S. Muhuri 136, , J.D. Mulligan 75, , A. Mulliri 23, , M.G. Munhoz 111, , R.H. Munzer 65, , H. Murakami 125, , S. Murray 115, , L. Musa 33, , J. Musinsky 61, , J.W. Myrcha 137, , B. Naik 124, , A.I. Nambrath 19, , B.K. Nandi 48, , R. Nania 52, , E. Nappi 51, , A.F. Nassirpour 18, , A. Nath 95, , C. Nattrass 123, , M.N. Naydenov 37, , A. Neagu 20, A. Negru 114, E. Nekrasova 142, L. Nellen 66, , R. Nepeivoda 76, , S. Nese 20, , G. Neskovic 39, , N. Nicassio 51, , B.S. Nielsen 84, , E.G. Nielsen 84, , S. Nikolaev 142, , S. Nikulin 142, , V. Nikulin 142, , F. Noferini 52, , S. Noh 12, , P. Nomokonov 143, , J. Norman 120, , N. Novitzky 88, , P. Nowakowski 137, , A. Nyanin 142, , J. Nystrand 21, , S. Oh 18, , A. Ohlson 76, , V.A. Okorokov 142, , J. Oleniacz 137, , A. Onnerstad 118, , C. Oppedisano 57, , A. Ortiz Velasquez 66, , J. Otwinowski 108, , M. Oya 93, K. Oyama 77, , Y. Pachmayer 95, , S. Padhan 48, , D. Pagano 135,56, , G. Paić 66, , S. Paisano-Guzmán 45, , A. Palasciano 51, ,
S. Panebianco 131, ID, H. Park 126, ID, H. Park 105, ID, J. Park 59, ID, J.E. Parkkila 33, ID, Y. Patley 48, ID, B. Paul 23, ID, M.M.D.M. Paulino 111, ID, H. Pei 6, ID, T. Peitzmann 60, ID, X. Peng 11, ID, M. Pennisi 25, ID, S. Perciballi 25, ID, D. Peresunko 142, ID, G.M. Perez 7, ID, Y. Pestov 142, V. Petrov 142, 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 117, 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 142, ID, S. Politano 30, ID, N. Poljak 90, ID, A. Pop 46, ID, S. Porteboeuf-Houssais 128, ID, V. Pozdniakov 143, ID, I.Y. Pozos 45, ID, K.K. Pradhan 49, ID, S.K. Prasad 4, ID, S. Prasad 49, ID, R. Preghenella 52, ID, F. Prino 57, ID, C.A. Pruneau 138, ID, I. Pshenichnov 142, ID, M. Puccio 33, ID, S. Pucillo 25, ID, Z. Pugelova 107, S. Qiu 85, ID, L. Quaglia 25, ID, S. Ragoni 15, ID, A. Rai 139, ID, A. Rakotozafindrabe 131, ID, L. Ramello 134,57, ID, F. Rami 130, 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 33, ID, K.F. Read 88,123, ID, C. Reckziegel 113, ID, A.R. Redelbach 39, ID, K. Redlich 80, ID, VII, C.A. Reetz 98, ID, H.D. Regules-Medel 45, A. Rehman 21, F. Reidt 33, ID, H.A. Reme-Ness 35, ID, Z. Rescakova 38, K. Reygers 95, ID, A. Riabov 142, ID, V. Riabov 142, ID, R. Ricci 29, ID, M. Richter 20, ID, A.A. Riedel 96, ID, W. Riegler 33, ID, A.G. Riffero 25, ID, C. Ristea 64, ID, M.V. Rodriguez 33, ID, M. Rodríguez Cahuantzi 45, ID, S.A. Rodríguez Ramírez 45, ID, K. Røed 20, ID, R. Rogalev 142, ID, E. Rogochaya 143, 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 137, ID, G. Romanenko 26, ID, F. Ronchetti 50, ID, A. Rosano 31,54, ID, E.D. Rosas 66, K. Roslon 137, ID, A. Rossi 55, ID, A. Roy 49, ID, S. Roy 48, ID, N. Rubini 26, ID, D. Ruggiano 137, ID, R. Rui 24, ID, P.G. Russek 2, ID, R. Russo 85, ID, A. Rustamov 82, ID, E. Ryabinkin 142, ID, Y. Ryabov 142, ID, A. Rybicki 108, ID, H. Rytkonen 118, ID, J. Ryu 17, ID, W. Rzesa 137, ID, O.A.M. Saarimaki 44, ID, S. Sadhu 32, ID, S. Sadovsky 142, 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 136, ID, K. Sajdakova 38, S. Sakai 126, 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 84, ID, P. Sarma 42, ID, V. Sarritzu 23, ID, V.M. Sarti 96, ID, M.H.P. Sas 33, ID, S. Sawan 81, ID, E. Scapparone 52, ID, J. Schambach 88, ID, H.S. Scheid 65, ID, C. Schiaua 46, ID, R. Schicker 95, ID, F. Schlepper 95, ID, A. Schmah 98, C. Schmidt 98, ID, H.R. Schmidt 94, M.O. Schmidt 33, ID, M. Schmidt 94, N.V. Schmidt 88, ID, A.R. Schmier 123, ID, R. Schotter 130, 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 125, D. Sekihata 125, ID, M. Selina 85, ID, I. Selyuzhenkov 98, ID, S. Senyukov 130, ID, J.J. Seo 95, ID, D. Serebryakov 142, ID, L. Serkin 66, ID, L. Šerkšnytė 96, ID, A. Sevcenco 64, ID, T.J. Shaba 69, ID, A. Shabetai 104, ID, R. Shahoyan 33, A. Shangaraev 142, ID, B. Sharma 92, ID, D. Sharma 48, ID, H. Sharma 55, ID, M. Sharma 92, ID, S. Sharma 77, ID, S. Sharma 92, ID, U. Sharma 92, ID, A. Shatat 132, ID, O. Sheibani 117, K. Shigaki 93, ID, M. Shimomura 78, J. Shin 12, S. Shirinkin 142, ID, Q. Shou 40, ID, Y. Sibiriak 142, 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, K. Singh 49, ID, R. Singh 81, ID, R. Singh 92, ID, R. Singh 98,49, ID, S. Singh 16, ID, V.K. Singh 136, ID, V. Singhal 136, ID, T. Sinha 100, ID, B. Sitar 13, ID, M. Sitta 134,57, ID, T.B. Skaali 20, G. Skorodumovs 95, ID, M. Slupecki 44, ID, N. Smirnov 139, ID, R.J.M. Snellings 60, ID, E.H. Solheim 20, ID, J. Song 17, ID, C. Sonnabend 33,98, ID, J.M. Sonneveld 85, 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 123, ID, S.F. Stiefelmaier 95, ID, D. Stocco 104, ID, I. Storehaug 20, ID, P. Stratmann 127, ID, S. Strazzi 26, ID, A. Sturniolo 31,54, ID, C.P. Stylianidis 85, A.A.P. Suaide 111, ID, C. Suire 132, ID, M. Sukhanov 142, ID, M. Suljic 33, ID, R. Sultanov 142, ID, V. Sumberia 92, ID, S. Sumowidagdo 83, ID, I. Szarka 13, ID, M. Szymkowski 137, 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 121, ID, J.D. Tapia Takaki 119, ID, N. Tapus 114, L.A. Tarasovicova 127, ID, M.G. Tarzila 46, ID, G.F. Tassielli 32, ID, A. Tauro 33, ID, A. Tavira García 132, ID, G. Tejeda Muñoz 45, ID, A. Telesca 33, ID, L. Terlizzi 25, ID, C. Terrevoli 117, ID,
S. Panebianco 131, ID, H. Park 126, ID, H. Park 105, ID, J. Park 59, ID, J.E. Parkkila 33, ID, Y. Patley 48, ID, B. Paul 23, ID, M.M.D.M. Paulino 111, ID, H. Pei 6, ID, T. Peitzmann 60, ID, X. Peng 11, ID, M. Pennisi 25, ID, S. Perciballi 25, ID, D. Peresunko 142, ID, G.M. Perez 7, ID, Y. Pestov 142, V. Petrov 142, 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 117, 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 142, ID, S. Politano 30, ID, N. Poljak 90, ID, A. Pop 46, ID, S. Porteboeuf-Houssais 128, ID, V. Pozdniakov 143, ID, I.Y. Pozos 45, ID, K.K. Pradhan 49, ID, S.K. Prasad 4, ID, S. Prasad 49, ID, R. Preghenella 52, ID, F. Prino 57, ID, C.A. Pruneau 138, ID, I. Pshenichnov 142, ID, M. Puccio 33, ID, S. Pucillo 25, ID, Z. Pugelova 107, S. Qiu 85, ID, L. Quaglia 25, ID, S. Ragoni 15, ID, A. Rai 139, ID, A. Rakotozafindrabe 131, ID, L. Ramello 134,57, ID, F. Rami 130, 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 33, ID, K.F. Read 88,123, ID, C. Reckziegel 113, ID, A.R. Redelbach 39, ID, K. Redlich 80, ID, VII, C.A. Reetz 98, ID, H.D. Regules-Medel 45, A. Rehman 21, F. Reidt 33, ID, H.A. Reme-Ness 35, ID, Z. Rescakova 38, K. Reygers 95, ID, A. Riabov 142, ID, V. Riabov 142, ID, R. Ricci 29, ID, M. Richter 20, ID, A.A. Riedel 96, ID, W. Riegler 33, ID, A.G. Riffero 25, ID, C. Ristea 64, ID, M.V. Rodriguez 33, ID, M. Rodríguez Cahuantzi 45, ID, S.A. Rodríguez Ramírez 45, ID, K. Røed 20, ID, R. Rogalev 142, ID, E. Rogochaya 143, 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 137, ID, G. Romanenko 26, ID, F. Ronchetti 50, ID, A. Rosano 31,54, ID, E.D. Rosas 66, K. Roslon 137, ID, A. Rossi 55, ID, A. Roy 49, ID, S. Roy 48, ID, N. Rubini 26, ID, D. Ruggiano 137, ID, R. Rui 24, ID, P.G. Russek 2, ID, R. Russo 85, ID, A. Rustamov 82, ID, E. Ryabinkin 142, ID, Y. Ryabov 142, ID, A. Rybicki 108, ID, H. Rytkonen 118, ID, J. Ryu 17, ID, W. Rzesa 137, ID, O.A.M. Saarimaki 44, ID, S. Sadhu 32, ID, S. Sadovsky 142, 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 136, ID, K. Sajdakova 38, S. Sakai 126, 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 84, ID, P. Sarma 42, ID, V. Sarritzu 23, ID, V.M. Sarti 96, ID, M.H.P. Sas 33, ID, S. Sawan 81, ID, E. Scapparone 52, ID, J. Schambach 88, ID, H.S. Scheid 65, ID, C. Schiaua 46, ID, R. Schicker 95, ID, F. Schlepper 95, ID, A. Schmah 98, C. Schmidt 98, ID, H.R. Schmidt 94, M.O. Schmidt 33, ID, M. Schmidt 94, N.V. Schmidt 88, ID, A.R. Schmier 123, ID, R. Schotter 130, 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 125, D. Sekihata 125, ID, M. Selina 85, ID, I. Selyuzhenkov 98, ID, S. Senyukov 130, ID, J.J. Seo 95, ID, D. Serebryakov 142, ID, L. Serkin 66, ID, L. Šerkšnytė 96, ID, A. Sevcenco 64, ID, T.J. Shaba 69, ID, A. Shabetai 104, ID, R. Shahoyan 33, A. Shangaraev 142, ID, B. Sharma 92, ID, D. Sharma 48, ID, H. Sharma 55, ID, M. Sharma 92, ID, S. Sharma 77, ID, S. Sharma 92, ID, U. Sharma 92, ID, A. Shatat 132, ID, O. Sheibani 117, K. Shigaki 93, ID, M. Shimomura 78, J. Shin 12, S. Shirinkin 142, ID, Q. Shou 40, ID, Y. Sibiriak 142, 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, K. Singh 49, ID, R. Singh 81, ID, R. Singh 92, ID, R. Singh 98,49, ID, S. Singh 16, ID, V.K. Singh 136, ID, V. Singhal 136, ID, T. Sinha 100, ID, B. Sitar 13, ID, M. Sitta 134,57, ID, T.B. Skaali 20, G. Skorodumovs 95, ID, M. Slupecki 44, ID, N. Smirnov 139, ID, R.J.M. Snellings 60, ID, E.H. Solheim 20, ID, J. Song 17, ID, C. Sonnabend 33,98, ID, J.M. Sonneveld 85, 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 123, ID, S.F. Stiefelmaier 95, ID, D. Stocco 104, ID, I. Storehaug 20, ID, P. Stratmann 127, ID, S. Strazzi 26, ID, A. Sturniolo 31,54, ID, C.P. Stylianidis 85, A.A.P. Suaide 111, ID, C. Suire 132, ID, M. Sukhanov 142, ID, M. Suljic 33, ID, R. Sultanov 142, ID, V. Sumberia 92, ID, S. Sumowidagdo 83, ID, I. Szarka 13, ID, M. Szymkowski 137, 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 121, ID, J.D. Tapia Takaki 119, ID, N. Tapus 114, L.A. Tarasovicova 127, ID, M.G. Tarzila 46, ID, G.F. Tassielli 32, ID, A. Tauro 33, ID, A. Tavira García 132, ID, G. Tejeda Muñoz 45, ID, A. Telesca 33, ID, L. Terlizzi 25, ID, C. Terrevoli 117, ID,
S. Thakur 4,10, A. Tikhonov 142, N. Tiltmann 127, A.R. Timmins 117, M. Tkacik 107,
T. Tkacik 107, A. Toia 65, R. Tokumoto 93, K. Tomohiro 93, N. Topilskaya 142, M. Toppi 50, T. Tork 132,
V.V. Torres 104, A.G. Torres Ramos 32, A. Trifiró 31,54, A.S. Triolo 33,51, S. Tripathy 52,
T. Tripathy 48, S. Trogolo 33, V. Trubnikov 3, W.H. Trzaska 118, T.P. Trzcinski 137, A. Tumkin 142,
R. Turrisi 55, T.S. Tveter 20, K. Ullaland 21, B. Ulukutlu 96, A. Uras 129, M. Urioni 135, G.L. Usai 23,
M. Vala 38, N. Valle 22, L.V.R. van Doremalen 60, M. van Leeuwen 85, C.A. van Veen 95, R.J.G. van
Weelden 85, P. Vande Vyvre 33, D. Varga 47, Z. Varga 47, P. Vargas Torres 66, M. Vasileiou 79,
A. Vasiliev 142, O. Vázquez Doce 50, O. Vazquez Rueda 117, V. Vechernin 142, E. Vercellin 25,
S. Vergara Limón 45, R. Verma 48, L. Vermunt 98, R. Vértesi 47, M. Verweij 60, L. Vickovic 34,
Z. Vilakazi 124, O. Villalobos Baillie 101, A. Villani 24, A. Vinogradov 142, T. Virgili 29,
M.M.O. Virta 118, V. Vislavicius 76, A. Vodopyanov 143, B. Volkel 33, M.A. Völkl 95, S.A. Voloshin 138,
G. Volpe 32, B. von Haller 33, I. Vorobyev 33, N. Vozniuk 142, J. Vrláková 38, J. Wan 40, C. Wang 40,
D. Wang 40, Y. Wang 40, Y. Wang 6, A. Wegrzynek 33, F.T. Weiglhofer 39, S.C. Wenzel 33,
J.P. Wessels 127, J. Wiechula 65, J. Wikne 20, G. Wilk 80, J. Wilkinson 98, G.A. Willems 127,
B. Windelband 95, M. Winn 131, J.R. Wright 109, W. Wu 40, Y. Wu 121, Z. Xiong 121, R. Xu 6,
A. Yadav 43, A.K. Yadav 136, S. Yalcin 73, Y. Yamaguchi 93, S. Yang 21, S. Yano 93, E.R. Yeats 19,
Z. Yin 6, I.-K. Yoo 17, J.H. Yoon 59, H. Yu 12, S. Yuan 21, A. Yuncu 95, V. Zaccolo 24, C. Zampolli 33,
F. Zanone 95, N. Zardoshti 33, A. Zarochentsev 142, P. Závada 63, N. Zaviyalov 142, M. Zhalov 142,
B. Zhang 6, C. Zhang 131, L. Zhang 40, M. Zhang 6, S. Zhang 40, X. Zhang 6, Y. Zhang 121, Z. Zhang 6,
M. Zhao 10, V. Zherebchevskii 142, Y. Zhi 10, C. Zhong 40, D. Zhou 6, Y. Zhou 84, J. Zhu 55, Y. Zhu 6,
S.C. Zugravel 57, N. Zurlo 135, 56

<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. Šafářík 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>
S. Thakur 4,10, A. Tikhonov 142, N. Tiltmann 127, A.R. Timmins 117, M. Tkacik 107,
T. Tkacik 107, A. Toia 65, R. Tokumoto 93, K. Tomohiro 93, N. Topilskaya 142, M. Toppi 50, T. Tork 132,
V.V. Torres 104, A.G. Torres Ramos 32, A. Trifiró 31,54, A.S. Triolo 33,51, S. Tripathy 52,
T. Tripathy 48, S. Trogolo 33, V. Trubnikov 3, W.H. Trzaska 118, T.P. Trzcinski 137, A. Tumkin 142,
R. Turrisi 55, T.S. Tveter 20, K. Ullaland 21, B. Ulukutlu 96, A. Uras 129, M. Urioni 135, G.L. Usai 23,
M. Vala 38, N. Valle 22, L.V.R. van Doremalen 60, M. van Leeuwen 85, C.A. van Veen 95, R.J.G. van
Weelden 85, P. Vande Vyvre 33, D. Varga 47, Z. Varga 47, P. Vargas Torres 66, M. Vasileiou 79,
A. Vasiliev 142, O. Vázquez Doce 50, O. Vazquez Rueda 117, V. Vechernin 142, E. Vercellin 25,
S. Vergara Limón 45, R. Verma 48, L. Vermunt 98, R. Vértesi 47, M. Verweij 60, L. Vickovic 34,
Z. Vilakazi 124, O. Villalobos Baillie 101, A. Villani 24, A. Vinogradov 142, T. Virgili 29,
M.M.O. Virta 118, V. Vislavicius 76, A. Vodopyanov 143, B. Volkel 33, M.A. Völkl 95, S.A. Voloshin 138,
G. Volpe 32, B. von Haller 33, I. Vorobyev 33, N. Vozniuk 142, J. Vrláková 38, J. Wan 40, C. Wang 40,
D. Wang 40, Y. Wang 40, Y. Wang 6, A. Wegrzynek 33, F.T. Weiglhofer 39, S.C. Wenzel 33,
J.P. Wessels 127, J. Wiechula 65, J. Wikne 20, G. Wilk 80, J. Wilkinson 98, G.A. Willems 127,
B. Windelband 95, M. Winn 131, J.R. Wright 109, W. Wu 40, Y. Wu 121, Z. Xiong 121, R. Xu 6,
A. Yadav 43, A.K. Yadav 136, S. Yalcin 73, Y. Yamaguchi 93, S. Yang 21, S. Yano 93, E.R. Yeats 19,
Z. Yin 6, I.-K. Yoo 17, J.H. Yoon 59, H. Yu 12, S. Yuan 21, A. Yuncu 95, V. Zaccolo 24, C. Zampolli 33,
F. Zanone 95, N. Zardoshti 33, A. Zarochentsev 142, P. Závada 63, N. Zaviyalov 142, M. Zhalov 142,
B. Zhang 6, C. Zhang 131, L. Zhang 40, M. Zhang 6, S. Zhang 40, X. Zhang 6, Y. Zhang 121, Z. Zhang 6,
M. Zhao 10, V. Zherebchevskii 142, Y. Zhi 10, C. Zhong 40, D. Zhou 6, Y. Zhou 84, J. Zhu 55, Y. Zhu 6,
S.C. Zugravel 57, N. Zurlo 135, 56

<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. Šafářík 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>
41 Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, Republic of Korea

42 Gauhati University, Department of Physics, Guwahati, India

43 Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlen- und Kernphysik, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany

44 Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Helsinki, Finland

45 High Energy Physics Group, Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico

46 Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest, Romania

47 HUN-REN Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary

48 Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT), Mumbai, India

49 Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore, India

50 INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy

51 INFN, Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy

52 INFN, Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

53 INFN, Sezione di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy

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 Nationala de Stiința și Tehnologie Politehnica Bucuresti, Bucharest, Romania

115 University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

116 University of Derby, Derby, United Kingdom

117 University of Houston, Houston, TX, United States

118 University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

119 University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, United States

120 University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
41 Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, Republic of Korea

42 Gauhati University, Department of Physics, Guwahati, India

43 Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlen- und Kernphysik, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany

44 Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Helsinki, Finland

45 High Energy Physics Group, Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico

46 Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest, Romania

47 HUN-REN Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary

48 Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT), Mumbai, India

49 Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore, India

50 INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy

51 INFN, Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy

52 INFN, Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

53 INFN, Sezione di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy

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 Nationala de Stiinta si Tehnologie Politehnica Bucuresti, Bucharest, Romania

115 University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

116 University of Derby, Derby, United Kingdom

117 University of Houston, Houston, TX, United States

118 University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

119 University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, United States

120 University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
121 University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China

122 University of South-Eastern Norway, Kongsberg, Norway

123 University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, United States

124 University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

125 University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

126 University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan

127 Universität Münster, Institut für Kernphysik, Münster, Germany

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

129 Université de Lyon, CNRS/IN2P3, Institut de Physique des 2 Infinis de Lyon, Lyon, France

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

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

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

133 Università degli Studi di Foggia, Foggia, Italy

134 Università del Piemonte Orientale, Vercelli, Italy

135 Università di Brescia, Brescia, Italy

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

137 Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland

138 Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, United States

139 Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States

140 Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

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

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

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

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: Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Türkiye.

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

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

VIII Also at: An institution covered by a cooperation agreement with CERN.
121 University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China

122 University of South-Eastern Norway, Kongsberg, Norway

123 University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, United States

124 University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

125 University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

126 University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan

127 Universität Münster, Institut für Kernphysik, Münster, Germany

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

129 Université de Lyon, CNRS/IN2P3, Institut de Physique des 2 Infinis de Lyon, Lyon, France

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

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

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

133 Università degli Studi di Foggia, Foggia, Italy

134 Università del Piemonte Orientale, Vercelli, Italy

135 Università di Brescia, Brescia, Italy

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

137 Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland

138 Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, United States

139 Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States

140 Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

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

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

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

¹ Deceased.

II Also at: Max-Planck-Institut für 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: Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Türkiye.

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

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

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