# Measurement of $\Omega^0_c$ baryon production and branching-fraction ratio

$BR(\Omega^0_c \rightarrow \Omega^-e^+\nu_e)/BR(\Omega^0_c \rightarrow \Omega^-\pi^+)$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV

Shreyasi Acharya, Dagmar Adamova, Apar Agarwal, Gianluca Aglieri Rinella, Luca Aglietta, Michelangelo Agnello, Neelima Agrawal, Zubayer Ahammed, Shakeel Ahmad, Sang Un Ahn, et al.

► To cite this version:

Shreyasi Acharya, Dagmar Adamova, Apar Agarwal, Gianluca Aglieri Rinella, Luca Aglietta, et al.. Measurement of $\Omega^0_c$ baryon production and branching-fraction ratio $BR(\Omega^0_c \rightarrow \Omega^-e^+\nu_e)/BR(\Omega^0_c \rightarrow \Omega^-\pi^+)$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV. Phys.Rev.D, 2024, 110 (3), pp.032014. 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.032014. hal-04562289

HAL Id: hal-04562289

https://hal.science/hal-04562289v1

Submitted on 4 Jun 2025

**HAL** is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published 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
Measurement of $\Omega_c^0$ baryon production and branching-fraction ratio
$$ \text{BR}(\Omega_c^0 \rightarrow \Omega^- e^+ \nu_e) / \text{BR}(\Omega_c^0 \rightarrow \Omega^- \pi^+) $$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV

S. Acharya et al.\*

(ALICE Collaboration)

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

(Received 10 May 2024; accepted 24 June 2024; published 12 August 2024)

The inclusive production of the charm-strange baryon $\Omega_c^0$ is measured for the first time via its semileptonic decay into $\Omega^- e^+ \nu_e$ at midrapidity ($|y| < 0.8$) in proton-proton (pp) collisions at the center-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV with the ALICE detector at the LHC. The transverse momentum ($p_T$) differential cross section multiplied by the branching ratio is presented in the interval $2 < p_T < 12$ GeV/c. The branching-fraction ratio $\text{BR}(\Omega_c^0 \rightarrow \Omega^- e^+ \nu_e) / \text{BR}(\Omega_c^0 \rightarrow \Omega^- \pi^+)$ is measured to be $1.12 \pm 0.22$ (stat) $\pm 0.27$ (syst). Comparisons with other experimental measurements, as well as with theoretical calculations, are presented.

DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.032014

# I. INTRODUCTION

Production measurements of heavy-flavor hadrons (i.e., hadrons containing charm or beauty quarks) in high-energy proton-proton (pp) collisions provide essential tests of calculations based on the quantum chromodynamics (QCD) factorization approach [1]. These frameworks exploit the fact that the heavy-quark masses are much larger than the QCD energy scale, $\Lambda_{QCD}$, to calculate the production of heavy-flavor hadrons as a convolution of three factors: (i) the parton distribution functions (PDFs) of the incoming protons; (ii) the cross section of the partonic hard scattering; and (iii) the fragmentation functions that parametrize the nonperturbative evolution of a heavy quark into a given heavy-flavor hadron species. Heavy-quark hadronization is typically studied via the measurement of hadron-to-hadron yield ratios, because the PDFs and partonic scattering cross sections are common to the charm- or beauty- hadron species and, therefore, with appropriate choice of the scheme of calculation it can be canceled out in the yield ratios.

At the LHC, extensive production measurements of $D^0$, $D^+$, $D_s^+$, $D^{*+}$ charmed mesons [2–8] and of $\Lambda_c^+$, $\Sigma_c^{0,++}$, $\Xi_c^{0,+}$, $\Omega_c^0$ charmed baryons [9–16] have been conducted. The meson-to-meson production yield ratios, for both the respective prompt (i.e., produced in the hadronization of charm quarks or from the decay of excited open charm and charmonium states) and nonprompt (coming from beauty

hadron decays) components of the D-meson production, are observed to be independent of the transverse momentum ($p_T$) within uncertainties. These ratios are well described by perturbative calculations at next-to-leading order, with next-to-leading-log resummation [1,17–19], which incorporate fragmentation functions tuned on $e^+e^-$ and $e^-p$ collision measurements. In contrast, these calculations underestimate the observed enhancement of the production of baryons relative to mesons in hadronic collisions [20,21], with respect to the same measurements performed in $e^+e^-$ or $e^\pm p$ collisions. Several models have been proposed to explain the baryon enhancement. They either include dynamical processes that are relevant in quark-and-gluon enriched systems (e.g., color reconnection beyond leading color approximation [22] and quark coalescence [23,24]), or that treat hadronization as a statistical process while considering a set of yet-unobserved higher-mass charm-baryon states [25].

Currently, a significant limitation in interpreting the production results of heavier strange-charm baryons is the absence of precise branching ratio measurements. In the recent inclusive $\Omega_c^0 \rightarrow \Omega^- \pi^+$ measurement reported in Ref. [16], model calculations were multiplied by the branching ratio, $\text{BR}(\Omega_c^0 \rightarrow \Omega^- \pi^+) = (0.51^{+2.19}_{-0.31})\%$. This value was obtained by considering the estimate reported in Ref. [26] for the central value, and the envelope of the values (including their uncertainties) reported in Refs. [26–30] to determine the uncertainty. This large uncertainty limited the understanding of $\Omega_c^0$ production, meaning it is, therefore, imperative to measure its branching ratios. The Belle and CLEO Collaborations published measurements of $\text{BR}(\Omega_c^0 \rightarrow \Omega^- e^+ \nu_e) / \text{BR}(\Omega_c^0 \rightarrow \Omega^- \pi^+)$ and found $1.98 \pm 0.13(\text{stat}) \pm 0.08(\text{syst})$ [31] and $2.4 \pm 1.1(\text{stat}) \pm 0.2(\text{syst})$ [32], respectively. Model calculations based on the light-front approach and the light-cone sum rules predict lower values of the

<footnote>\*Full author list given at the end of the article.</footnote>

<footnote>Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI. Funded by SCOAP³.</footnote>
branching fraction ratio of 1.1 ± 0.2 [26] and 0.71 [33], respectively. These models provide a way to relate the properties of hadrons, such as their masses, decay constants, and form factors, to fundamental QCD parameters and quark–gluon distributions within the hadrons. The hadronic part of the weak decay is parametrized in those models in terms of form factors, which belong to the nonperturbative region of QCD. Another tool to study the charmed baryon decays is based on the flavor symmetry of SU(3)ₚ in the quark model, which allows the calculations of decay modes and relative probabilities of charmed baryon decays [34–36]. By applying the effective color approach under the framework of SU(3)ₚ symmetry, a branching fraction ratio of 1.35 [36] is computed. The differences between the model calculations and the experimental values underscore the need for further experimental measurements and theoretical developments.

This letter presents the first $p_T$-differential inclusive production measurement of the semileptonic decay channel $\Omega_c^0 \to \Omega^-e^+\nu_e$ and the branching-fraction ratio $\text{BR}(\Omega_c^0 \to \Omega^-e^+\nu_e)/\text{BR}(\Omega_c^0 \to \Omega^-\pi^+)$ at midrapidity ($|y| < 0.8$) in pp collisions at the center-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV. The $\Omega_c^0$ baryon is reconstructed together with its charge conjugate in three $p_T$ intervals, $2 < p_T < 4$ GeV/c, $4 < p_T < 6$ GeV/c, and $6 < p_T < 12$ GeV/c.

## II. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND DATA SAMPLES

The ALICE experiment and its performance are presented in detail in Refs. [37,38]. The main detectors used in this analysis are the inner tracking system (ITS) [39], the time projection chamber (TPC) [40], and the Time-Of-Flight detector (TOF) [41] for vertexing, tracking, and particle identification (PID) purposes. They are located in the central barrel covering the pseudorapidity interval ($|\eta| < 0.9$) and lie inside a solenoidal magnet that provides a magnetic field $B = 0.5$ T parallel to the beam direction. The analyzed data sample consists of pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV recorded with a minimum-bias (MB) trigger. The MB trigger requires a pair of coincident signals in two scintillator arrays (V0) [42], which are located on both sides of the nominal interaction point along the beam direction. Further offline event selection was applied to remove the contamination from beam-gas collisions and other machine-related backgrounds. These criteria were based on the timing information of the two V0 arrays and a selection on the correlation between clusters and tracklets reconstructed in the two innermost layers of the ITS (Silicon Pixel Detector, SPD). Only events with a reconstructed vertex position within ±10 cm along the beam axis from the nominal interaction point were analyzed, to maintain a uniform ITS acceptance in pseudorapidity. The primary-vertex position was defined using tracks reconstructed in the TPC and ITS detectors. Events with

multiple reconstructed primary vertices, which amount to about 1% of the total event sample, were rejected to reduce the contamination from the superposition of several collisions within the same colliding bunches (pile-up events). After the aforementioned selection criteria, the data sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity $\mathcal{L}_{\text{int}} = (32.08 \pm 0.51) \text{ nb}^{-1}$ [43].

## III. ANALYSIS METHOD

The $\Omega_c^0$ candidates were built by pairing an electron or positron candidate track with an $\Omega$ cascade candidate using a Kalman-Filter (KF) vertexing algorithm [44]. Charge conjugate modes are included everywhere unless otherwise stated.

The $\Omega$ candidates were reconstructed via the decay chain $\Omega^- \to \Lambda K^- (\text{BR} = (67.8 \pm 0.7)\%)$, followed by the decay $\Lambda \to p\pi^- (\text{BR} = (63.9 \pm 0.5)\%)$ [45], exploiting the characteristic decay topology as reported in Refs. [16,46]. Charged-particle tracks used in this analysis were required to be within the pseudorapidity interval $|\eta| < 0.8$ and to have a number of crossed TPC pad rows larger than 70 out of a maximum of 159. Particle identification (PID) selection was based on the differences between the measured and expected response for a given particle species hypothesis, in units of the detector resolution ($n\sigma_{\text{det}}$). For proton, pion, and kaon tracks, a selection on the measured specific energy loss $dE/dx$ in the TPC of $|n\sigma_{\text{TPC}}| < 4$ was applied for the respective particle hypothesis. An additional PID selection of $|n\sigma_{\text{TOF}}| < 5$ was applied for the kaon candidates when information from the TOF detector was available. Tracks without TOF hits were identified using only the TPC information.

Electron candidate tracks were selected by requiring to have a minimum of three (out of a maximum of six) hits in the ITS with two in the SPD layers [47,48], at least 50 clusters in the TPC, a number of crossed TPC pad rows larger than 70, and $p_T > 0.5$ GeV/c. These requirements help suppressing the contribution from short tracks, which are unlikely to originate from the $\Omega_c^0$ decay. The dominant source of electron background is photon conversions. They were rejected by requiring hits in the SPD layers, minimizing the effective material budget. The electron candidate tracks were identified by using $dE/dx$ and time-of-flight information in the TPC and TOF detectors, respectively. Two selection criteria on the PID of electron candidates, $|n\sigma_{\text{TPC}}^e| < 4$ and $|n\sigma_{\text{TOF}}^e| < 5$, were required. The remaining electrons steaming from photon conversion and those originating from Dalitz decays of neutral mesons were further rejected with an invariant-mass technique [49,50]. The electron candidates were paired with opposite-sign tracks from the same event passing loose identification criteria ($|n\sigma_{\text{TPC}}^e| < 5$ without any TOF requirement) and were rejected if they formed at least one $e^+e^-$ pairs with an invariant mass smaller than 50 MeV/c².
The $\Omega_c^0$ candidates were selected by requiring the cosine of the opening angle between the electron and the $\Omega$ candidate tracks to be greater than 0 for $2 < p_T < 4$ GeV/c, 0.25 for $4 < p_T < 6$ GeV/c and 0.5 for $6 < p_T < 12$ GeV/c. The $p_T$ dependence of this selection was chosen by looking at its correlation with the $e\Omega$-pair mass distribution in data and Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, minimizing the rejection of signal candidates in the data.

After applying the selections described above, further separation of the signal and background was based on the boosted decision tree (BDT) algorithm implemented in the XGBOOST library [51,52]. Independent BDT models were trained for each $p_T$ interval with a sample of signal and background candidates as performed in Refs [3,11,53]. For the reconstructed signal, $e\Omega$ pairs from $\Omega_c^0$ decays were obtained from simulations with the PYTHIA 8.2 event generator [54]. Each PYTHIA event was required to contain a $c\bar{c}$ or $b\bar{b}$ quark pair and $\Omega_c^0$ baryons were forced to decay into the $\Omega^-e^+\nu_e$ channel. The mean proper lifetime of $\Omega_c^0$ baryons in the simulation was set to 268 fs based on the latest LHCb measurement [55]. The transport of simulated particles within the detector was performed with the GEANT 3 package [56]. The conditions of all the ALICE detectors in terms of active channels, gain, noise level, and alignment, as well as the evolution of the detector configurations during the data-taking period, were taken into account in the simulations. A mixed-event (ME) technique was used to increase statistics in the background sample. The ME technique exploited randomized subsamples of the full dataset, using the same filtering selections described above, generating $e\Omega$ pairs with the opposite charge. The ME background was obtained by correlating $\Omega$ candidates in an event with electron candidate tracks from other events with similar multiplicity and primary-vertex position along the beam direction. Exploiting a background sample using the same-charge $e\Omega$ pairs in the same event (SE) was also

tested. The resulting background distributions were found to be consistent with each other, and the SE pairs were used to normalize the more statistically abundant ME background sample.

The BDT training variables included topological properties of the decays and PID variables. The training variables related to the PID information were obtained by combining the ones coming from the TPC and TOF, $n\sigma_{\text{combined}}^{\text{K,e}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{(n\sigma_{\text{TPC}}^{\text{K,e}})^2 + (n\sigma_{\text{TOF}}^{\text{K,e}})^2}$, on the electron and kaon tracks, respectively. The training variables describing the $\Omega$ decay topology were the distance of the closest approach (DCA) of the charged decay particles, the pointing angle of the reconstructed $\Omega$ momentum to the primary vertex, the $\chi^2_{\text{topo}}$/NDF, which, in this analysis, characterizes whether the momentum vector of the $\Omega$ candidate points back to the reconstructed primary vertex of the event, and the $\chi^2_{\text{geo}}$/NDF, which is related to the geometrical intersection of the daughter-particle trajectories, taking their uncertainties into account. The training variables related to the $\Lambda$ were the DCA to the primary vertex, the radial distance of the $\Lambda$ decay vertex from the beam axis, and the DCA between the decay particles. The BDT model output is a single response variable related to the probability that the candidate is a signal. The selection on the BDT output was tuned in each $p_T$ interval to maximize the expected statistical significance, which was estimated using: the expected signal obtained from the $\Omega_c^0$ production cross section reported in Ref. [16] multiplied by the BDT selection efficiency and the expected background estimated from the normalized ME. The resulting BDT output thresholds were 0.86, 0.84, and 0.81 for the three $p_T$ intervals, respectively.

The left panel of Fig. 1 shows the invariant-mass distribution of $e\Omega$ pairs in SE (same-sign and opposite-sign) and ME (opposite-sign) in the interval $2 < p_T^{e\Omega} < 12$ GeV/c.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>FIG. 1. Left panel: invariant-mass distribution of opposite-sign pairs (black solid circle marker) and same-sign pairs (red solid square marker) in SE, and opposite-sign pairs (blue open square marker) in ME. Right panel: invariant-mass distribution of the $\Omega_c^0$ candidates obtained by subtracting the opposite-sign charge $e\Omega$ pairs in ME from the opposite-sign charge pairs in SE (black solid circle marker), and $e\Omega$ opposite-sign charge pairs coming from $\Omega_c^0$ decay from PYTHIA 8 (green open circle marker).</figcaption></figure>
The raw yield was obtained by subtracting the combinatorial background computed using the ME technique from the invariant-mass distribution of eΩ pairs with opposite-sign charge in the SE. The right panel of Fig. 1 shows the invariant-mass distribution of eΩ candidates, obtained after background subtraction, in comparison with eΩ opposite-sign charge pairs coming from the Ω_c^0 decay computed with the PYTHIA 8 event generator [54]. Only eΩ pairs satisfying 1.7 < m_eΩ < 2.7 GeV/c^2 were considered for further analysis. The number of reconstructed eΩ signal pairs consists of 232 ± 15 candidates. The missing momentum of the neutrino was corrected by using the Bayesian-unfolding technique [57] implemented in the RooUnfold package [58]. The response matrix, which represents the correlation between the generated Ω_c^0 and reconstructed eΩ transverse momenta, used in the unfolding procedure is shown in the left panel of Fig. 2. In this analysis, the Bayesian procedure requires two iterations to converge. Additional information on the unfolding procedure is explained in Ref. [15]. The response matrix was determined with the same simulation setup used for the BDT training.

The p_T-differential production cross section of inclusive Ω_c^0 baryons in the rapidity interval |y| < 0.8 multiplied by the BR into the considered semileptonic decay channel was calculated from the yields obtained from the unfolding procedure as follows:

$$BR \times \frac{d^2 \sigma_{\Omega_c^0}}{dp_T dy} = \frac{1}{2 \Delta y \Delta p_T} \times \frac{N_{\text{raw}}^{\Omega_c^0}}{(A \times \epsilon)} \times \frac{1}{\mathcal{L}_{\text{int}}}, \quad (1)$$

where $N_{\text{raw}}^{\Omega_c^0}$ is the raw yield (sum of particles and anti-particles) in a given p_T and rapidity interval with width Δp_T and Δy. The factor 1/2 takes into account that the raw yield includes both particles and antiparticles, while the cross section is given for particles only. The $\mathcal{L}_{\text{int}}$ is the

integrated luminosity. Since the feed-down contribution is not subtracted, the $(A \times \epsilon)$ factor is the product of the acceptance and efficiency for inclusive Ω_c^0 baryons, where $\epsilon$ accounts for the reconstruction and selection of the Ω_c^0 decay-product tracks and the Ω_c^0-candidate selection. The $(A \times \epsilon)$ correction was obtained from a simulation with the same configuration as the one used for the BDT training and the response matrix. The $(A \times \epsilon)$ correction factors of prompt, beauty feed-down (nonprompt), and inclusive Ω_c^0 as a function of p_T are observed to be consistent with each other within uncertainties, because the selection variables used are not sensitive to the displacement by a few hundred micrometres of the prompt and beauty feed-down Ω_c^0 decay vertices from the collision point. The Ω_c^0-baryon p_T distribution from the PYTHIA 8 simulation was reweighted to match the true distribution, which was parametrized via a Tsallis fit to the differential production cross section of Ω_c^0 as measured in Ref. [16]. The right panel of Fig. 2 shows the product of the final $(A \times \epsilon)$ correction factor for inclusive, prompt and feed-down Ω_c^0 as a function of p_T.

## IV. SYSTEMATIC UNCERTAINTIES

The different contributions to the total systematic uncertainty of the Ω_c^0 production cross section in 2 < p_T < 12 GeV/c are summarized in Table I. The various systematic sources were defined as the rms of the distribution of the corrected yields obtained from the reported variations, if not differently specified.

The systematic uncertainty on the raw-yield extraction was evaluated by investigating possible contaminations to eΩ pairs with the opposite charge from other decays. The contamination of different decay channels mentioned in Refs. [32,59] are the Ω_c^0 → Ξ_c^+e^-ν_e, Ξ_c^0 → Ω^-e^+ν_eK^0, Ξ_c^+ → Ω^-e^+ν_eK^+, and Ω_c^0 → Ω^-e^+ν_eπ^+π^-.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>FIG. 2. Left panel: correlation matrix between the generated Ω_c^0 baryon p_T and the reconstructed opposite-sign charge pairs, obtained from the simulation based on PYTHIA 8 described in Ref. [15]. Right panel: product of $(A \times \epsilon)$ for inclusive Ω_c^0 baryons in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV as a function of p_T.</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>TABLE I. Contributions to the systematic uncertainty of the $\Omega_c^0$ cross section for the $p_T$ intervals $2 < p_T < 4$ GeV/c, $4 < p_T < 6$ GeV/c, and $6 < p_T < 12$ GeV/c. The global uncertainty on the luminosity is quoted separately and it is not added in quadrature to the other sources.</caption><thead><tr><th><i>p</i><sub>T</sub> (GeV/c)</th><th>2–4</th><th>4–6</th><th>6–12</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Raw-yield extraction</td><td>10%</td><td>10%</td><td>10%</td></tr><tr><td>ITS–TPC matching efficiency</td><td>2%</td><td>2%</td><td>2%</td></tr><tr><td>Track efficiency</td><td>4%</td><td>4%</td><td>4%</td></tr><tr><td>Bayesian-unfolding iterations</td><td>4%</td><td>4%</td><td>4%</td></tr><tr><td>Unfolding method</td><td>4%</td><td>4%</td><td>4%</td></tr><tr><td>Response-matrix <i>p</i><sub>T</sub> range and binning</td><td>10%</td><td>10%</td><td>negl.</td></tr><tr><td>BDT selection</td><td>15%</td><td>15%</td><td>15%</td></tr><tr><td>Generated <i>p</i><sub>T</sub> shape</td><td>10%</td><td>2%</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Total systematic uncertainty</td><td>24%</td><td>22%</td><td>19%</td></tr><tr><td>Luminosity</td><td></td><td>1.6%</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

contribute to a mass region below $2.2$ GeV/c$^2$. A maximum variation of 10% at the corrected yield level was found by varying the lower limit of the integration mass range for the signal extraction in the $e\Omega$ mass from 1.7 to 2.2 GeV/c$^2$, which was assigned as systematic uncertainty. Note that those decay channels are not experimentally observed, therefore the Belle [31] and CLEO [32] Collaborations do not correct for it in addition to not assigning a corresponding systematic uncertainty.

The systematic uncertainty on the tracking efficiency was determined by comparing the matching efficiency of prolonging a track from the TPC to the ITS in data and simulation, and by varying the track quality selection criteria. The uncertainty on the matching efficiency, defined as the relative difference in the ITS-TPC matching efficiency between the data and simulation, affected only the electron track. For the tracks of the $\Omega$ decay particles, the prolongation to the ITS was not required. The uncertainties on electron tracks were propagated to the $\Omega_c^0$ candidates according to the decay kinematics, resulting in an uncertainty of 2%. The second contribution to the track reconstruction was estimated by varying the track quality selection criteria and 4% uncertainty was assigned.

The systematic uncertainty on the unfolding procedure was determined by considering three contributions. The first contribution was due to the regularization procedure in the Bayesian unfolding. It was estimated by varying the iteration number between 2 and 5, and an uncertainty of 4% was assigned. The second contribution was estimated by unfolding with the singular value decomposition algorithm [60], and a 4% uncertainty was assigned, independent of $\Omega_c^0$ $p_T$. The third source was related to the sensitivity of the unfolding to bin edge effects and was estimated by varying the $p_T$ range and the binning of the response matrix. An uncertainty of 10% was assigned in the interval $2 < p_T < 6$ GeV/c. At higher $p_T$, no variations were

observed when using finer $p_T$ intervals in the unfolding procedure.

The systematic uncertainty on the selection efficiency originates from imperfections in the description of the detector response and alignment in the simulation. It was estimated from the ratios of the corrected yields obtained by varying the selections on the BDT outputs, which results in modification of the efficiencies, raw yield, and background values. The systematic evaluation was extended using a BDT model with different training variables (no PID included in the training) and preselection (PID selections were varied when not included in the BDT). A value of 15% was assigned as systematic uncertainty.

The systematic uncertainty due to the difference in the shape of the true and generated $\Omega_c^0$ $p_T$ distributions was estimated by varying the Tsallis fit used to determine the $p_T$ weights within the statistical and $p_T$ uncorrelated uncertainties. The assigned uncertainty, defined as the maximum variation observed, was 10% in the interval $2 < p_T < 4$ GeV/c, 2% in the interval $4 < p_T < 6$ GeV/c, and 1% for the highest $p_T$ interval.

All systematic uncertainties are considered uncorrelated and summed in quadrature to obtain the total systematic uncertainty. The production cross section has an additional global normalization uncertainty of 1.6% due to the uncertainties of the integrated luminosity [43].

## V. RESULTS

The $p_T$-differential cross section of inclusive $\Omega_c^0$ baryon production multiplied by the branching ratio into $\Omega^-e^+\nu_e$, in pp collision at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV, measured in rapidity interval $|y| < 0.8$ and the $p_T$ interval $2 < p_T < 12$ GeV/c, is shown in the top panel of Fig. 3. It is compared with the previously published measurements of inclusive $\Omega_c^0$ baryon production in the hadronic decay channel $\Omega_c^0 \to \Omega^-\pi^+$. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic uncertainty, respectively. The uncertainty of the integrated luminosity is not included in the boxes. In the bottom panel of Fig. 3 the branching-fraction ratio $BR(\Omega_c^0 \to \Omega^-e^+\nu_e)/BR(\Omega_c^0 \to \Omega^-\pi^+)$ is shown as function of $p_T$. The systematic uncertainties on the branching-fraction ratio were calculated assuming all the uncertainties between the two measurements as uncorrelated, except for the ITS-TPC matching efficiency, track quality selection, and the MC $p_T$ shape. The uncertainty of the luminosity cancels in the ratio, as it is fully correlated.

The ratio of the two measurements, shown in the bottom panel of Fig. 3, is used to calculate the $p_T$ independent branching-fraction ratio. The result was averaged over $p_T$ using the inverse uncorrelated relative uncertainties as weights [61]. The weights were defined as the sum in quadrature of the relative statistical uncertainties and the $p_T$-uncorrelated part of the systematic uncertainties. All the systematic uncertainties were considered as $p_T$-correlated
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>FIG. 3. Top panel: $p_T$-differential production cross sections of inclusive $\Omega_c^0$ baryons multiplied by the branching ratios (BR) into $\Omega^-e^+\nu_e$ and $\Omega^-\pi^+$ [16] in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV. Bottom panel: $p_T$-differential branching-fraction ratio $\text{BR}(\Omega_c^0 \to \Omega^-e^+\nu_e)/\text{BR}(\Omega_c^0 \to \Omega^-\pi^+)$.</figcaption></figure>

in the semileptonic decay. For the hadronic decay, all systematic uncertainties were considered as $p_T$-correlated, except for the raw yield extraction. The $p_T$-correlated systematic uncertainties were propagated by recomputing the ratio after shifting up and down the ratios with the corresponding $p_T$-correlated systematic uncertainties. The final systematic uncertainty on the ratio is obtained by summing the $p_T$-correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties in quadrature. The measured ratio is $\text{BR}(\Omega_c^0 \to \Omega^-e^+\nu_e)/\text{BR}(\Omega_c^0 \to \Omega^-\pi^+) = 1.12 \pm 0.22(\text{stat}) \pm 0.27(\text{syst})$.

In Fig. 4, the measured $p_T$-independent branching-fraction ratio is compared with previous experimental measurements from the CLEO Collaboration [32] and Belle Collaboration [31], and with the theory predictions based on the light-front approach and light-cone sum rules calculations [26,33]. The ALICE result is compatible within $1\sigma$ with the CLEO result and is $2.3\sigma$ lower than the one measured by the Belle Collaboration. The ALICE measurement is also consistent within $1\sigma$ with the available theoretical predictions, which showed some tensions with the Belle results. The present result is also compatible within the uncertainties with the $\text{BR}(\Xi_c^0 \to \Xi^-e^+\nu_e)/\text{BR}(\Xi_c^0 \to \Xi^-\pi^+)$ measured by the ALICE Collaboration [14]. The agreement between those two measurements is also predicted by the light-front approach calculations [26,62]. More precise measurements are expected to be performed during Runs

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>FIG. 4. Comparison of $\text{BR}(\Omega_c^0 \to \Omega^-e^+\nu_e)/\text{BR}(\Omega_c^0 \to \Omega^-\pi^+)$ between experiments and theoretical calculations [26,31–33,36].</figcaption></figure>

3 and 4 of the LHC. In view of those future measurements, it would be beneficial to compare also with additional model calculations, like LQCD [63] and RQM [64], which already provide their prediction for the branching-fraction ratio $\text{BR}(\Xi_c^0 \to \Xi^-e^+\nu_e)/\text{BR}(\Xi_c^0 \to \Xi^-\pi^+)$.

## VI. SUMMARY

The inclusive $p_T$-differential production cross section of the charm-baryon $\Omega_c^0$ multiplied by the branching ratio $\text{BR}(\Omega_c^0 \to \Omega^-e^+\nu_e)$ is measured for the first time at midrapidity ($|y| < 0.8$), in the $p_T$ interval $2 < p_T < 12$ GeV/c, in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV. The $\text{BR}(\Omega_c^0 \to \Omega^-e^+\nu_e)/\text{BR}(\Omega_c^0 \to \Omega^-\pi^+)$ is measured to be $1.12 \pm 0.22(\text{stat}) \pm 0.27(\text{syst})$, using the inclusive production cross section measured in Ref. [16]. The branching-fraction ratio is consistent with theory calculations and is $2.3\sigma$ lower than the value reported by the Belle Collaboration [31].

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

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), Cubaenergía, 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'Energie Atomique (CEA) and Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (IN2P3) and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), France; Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) and GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Germany; General Secretariat for Research and Technology, Ministry of Education, Research and Religions, Greece; National Research, Development and Innovation Office, Hungary; Department of Atomic Energy Government of India (DAE), Department of Science and Technology, Government of India (DST), University Grants Commission, Government of India (UGC) and Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), India; National Research and Innovation Agency—BRIN, Indonesia; Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), Italy; Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and Japan

Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI, Japan; Consejo Nacional de Ciencia (CONACYT) y Tecnología, through Fondo de Cooperación Internacional en Ciencia y Tecnología (FONCICYT) and Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Academico (DGAPA), Mexico; Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), Netherlands; The Research Council of Norway, Norway; 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 Stiinta si Tehnologie Politehnica Bucuresti, 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 B05F650021), 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 (Grant No. 950692), 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) (Grants No. 346327, No. 346328), Finland.

<footnote>[1] M. Cacciari, M. Greco, and P. Nason, The $p_T$ spectrum in heavy-flavor hadroproduction, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (1998) 007.</footnote>

<footnote>[2] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Measurement of $D^0$, $D^+$, $D^{*+}$ and $D_s^+$ production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 5.02$ TeV with ALICE, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 388 (2019).</footnote>

<footnote>[3] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Measurement of beauty and charm production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 5.02$ TeV via non-prompt and prompt D mesons, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2021) 220.</footnote>

<footnote>[4] G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Measurement of $D^{*±}$, $D^±$ and $D_s^±$ meson production cross sections in</footnote>
pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 7$ TeV with the ATLAS detector, Nucl. Phys. **B907**, 717 (2016).

[5] A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Nuclear modification factor of $D^0$ mesons in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV, Phys. Lett. B **782**, 474 (2018).

[6] A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Studies of Beauty suppression via nonprompt $D^0$ mesons in Pb–Pb collisions at $Q^2 = 4$ GeV$^2$, Phys. Rev. Lett. **123**, 022001 (2019).

[7] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Measurements of prompt charm production cross-sections in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 5$ TeV, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2017) 147.

[8] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Measurements of prompt charm production cross-sections in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2016) 159; 09 (2016) 013(E); 05 (2017) 074(E).

[9] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), $\Lambda_c^+$ production and baryon-to-meson ratios in pp and p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett. **127**, 202301 (2021).

[10] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), $\Lambda_c^+$ production in pp and in p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV, Phys. Rev. C **104**, 054905 (2021).

[11] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), First measurement of $\Lambda_c^+$ production down to $p_T = 0$ in pp and p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV, Phys. Rev. C **107**, 064901 (2023).

[12] A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Production of $\Lambda_c^+$ baryons in proton-proton and lead–lead collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV, Phys. Lett. B **803**, 135328 (2020).

[13] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Measurement of prompt $D^0$, $\Lambda_c^+$, and $\Sigma_{c^0}^{0,++}$ (2455) production in proton–proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. **128**, 012001 (2022).

[14] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Measurement of the cross sections of $\Xi_c^0$ and $\Xi_c^+$ Baryons and of the branching-fraction ratio $BR(\Xi_c^0 \rightarrow \Xi^- e^+ \nu_e)/BR(\Xi_c^0 \rightarrow \Xi^- \pi^+)$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. **127**, 272001 (2021).

[15] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Measurement of the production cross section of prompt $\Xi_c^0$ baryons at midrapidity in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 5.02$ TeV, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2021) 159.

[16] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), First measurement of $\Omega_c^0$ production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV, Phys. Lett. B **846**, 137625 (2023).

[17] B. A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, I. Schienbein, and H. Spiesberger, Collinear subtractions in hadroproduction of heavy quarks, Eur. Phys. J. C **41**, 199 (2005).

[18] B. A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, I. Schienbein, and H. Spiesberger, Inclusive charmed-meson production at the CERN LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C **72**, 2082 (2012).

[19] M. Cacciari, S. Frixione, N. Houdeau, M. L. Mangano, P. Nason, and G. Ridolfi, Theoretical predictions for charm and bottom production at the LHC, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2012) 137.

[20] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Charm-quark fragmentation fractions and production cross section at midrapidity in pp collisions at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D **105**, L011103 (2022).

[21] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Charm production and fragmentation fractions at midrapidity in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2023) 086.

[22] J. R. Christiansen and P. Z. Skands, String formation beyond leading colour, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2015) 003.

[23] J. Song, H.-h. Li, and F.-l. Shao, New feature of low $p_T$ charm quark hadronization in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 7$ TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C **78**, 344 (2018).

[24] V. Minissale, S. Plumari, and V. Greco, Charm hadrons in pp collisions at LHC energy within a coalescence plus fragmentation approach, Phys. Lett. B **821**, 136622 (2021).

[25] M. He and R. Rapp, Charm-baryon production in proton-proton collisions, Phys. Lett. B **795**, 117 (2019).

[26] Y.-K. Hsiao, L. Yang, C.-C. Lih, and S.-Y. Tsai, Charmed $\Omega_c$ weak decays into $\Omega$ in the light-front quark model, Eur. Phys. J. C **80**, 1066 (2020).

[27] T. Gutsche, M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Körner, and V. E. Lyubovitskij, Nonleptonic two-body decays of single heavy baryons $\Lambda_Q$, $\Xi_Q$, and $\Omega_Q$ ($Q = b, c$) induced by W emission in the covariant confined quark model, Phys. Rev. D **98**, 074011 (2018).

[28] H.-Y. Cheng, Nonleptonic weak decays of bottom baryons, Phys. Rev. D **56**, 2799 (1997); **99**, 079901(E) (2019).

[29] S. Hu, G. Meng, and F. Xu, Hadronic weak decays of the charmed baryon $\Omega_c$, Phys. Rev. D **101**, 094033 (2020).

[30] K.-L. Wang, Q.-F. Lü, J.-J. Xie, and X.-H. Zhong, Toward discovering the excited $\Omega$ baryons through nonleptonic weak decays of $\Omega_c$, Phys. Rev. D **107**, 034015 (2023).

[31] Y. B. Li et al. (Belle Collaboration), First test of lepton flavor universality in the charmed baryon decays $\Omega_c^0 \rightarrow \Omega^- l^+ \nu_l$ using data of the Belle experiment, Phys. Rev. D **105**, L091101 (2022).

[32] R. Ammar et al. (CLEO Collaboration), Observation of the decay $\Omega_c^0 \rightarrow \Omega^- e^+ \nu_e$, Phys. Rev. Lett. **89**, 171803 (2002).

[33] T. M. Aliev, S. Bilmis, and M. Savci, Charmed baryon $\Omega_c^0 \rightarrow \Omega^- l^+ \nu_l$ and $\Omega_c^0 \rightarrow \Omega_c^- \pi^+(\rho^+)$ decays in light cone sum rules, Phys. Rev. D **106**, 074022 (2022).

[34] C.-Q. Geng, C.-W. Liu, T.-H. Tsai, and S.-W. Yeh, Semileptonic decays of anti-triplet charmed baryons, Phys. Lett. B **792**, 214 (2019).

[35] C. Q. Geng, Y. K. Hsiao, C.-W. Liu, and T.-H. Tsai, Three-body charmed baryon Decays with SU(3) flavor symmetry, Phys. Rev. D **99**, 073003 (2019).

[36] C.-W. Liu, Nonleptonic two-body weak decays of charmed baryons, Phys. Rev. D **109**, 033004 (2024).

[37] B. Abelev et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Performance of the ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A **29**, 1430044 (2014).

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

[39] K. Aamodt et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Alignment of the ALICE inner tracking system with cosmic-ray tracks, J. Instrum. **5**, P03003 (2010).

[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 Phys. Res., Sect. A **622**, 316 (2010).
[41] A. Akindinov et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Performance of the ALICE time-of-flight detector at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. Plus **128**, 44 (2013).

[42] E. Abbas et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Performance of the ALICE VZERO system, J. Instrum. **8**, P10016 (2013).

[43] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), ALICE 2016-2017-2018 luminosity determination for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV, Technical Report No. ALICE-PUBLIC-2021-005, CERN, 2021, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2776672.

[44] I. Kisel, I. Kulakov, and M. Zyzak, Standalone first level event selection package for the CBM Experiment, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. **60**, 3703 (2013).

[45] R. L. Workman et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. **2022**, 083C01 (2022).

[46] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Multiplicity dependence of (multi-)strange hadron production in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C **80**, 167 (2020).

[47] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Measurements of low-$p_T$ electrons from semileptonic heavy-flavour hadron decays at mid-rapidity in pp and Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV, J. High Energy Phys. **10** (2018) 061.

[48] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Measurement of electrons from semileptonic heavy-flavour hadron decays at midrapidity in pp and Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, Phys. Lett. B **804**, 135377 (2020).

[49] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Centrality and transverse momentum dependence of inclusive $J/\psi$ production at midrapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, Phys. Lett. B **805**, 135434 (2020).

[50] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Inclusive $J/\psi$ production at mid-rapidity in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV, J. High Energy Phys. **10** (2019) 084.

[51] T. Chen and C. Guestrin, XGBoost, in *Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining*, KDD '16 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 2016), pp. 785-794.

[52] L. Barioglio, F. Catalano, M. Concas, P. Fecchio, F. Grosa, F. Mazzaschi, and M. Puccio, hipe4ml/hipe4ml, 10.5281/zenodo.5734093 (2021).

[53] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Measurement of prompt $D_v^+$-meson production and azimuthal anisotropy in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, Phys. Lett. B **827**, 136986 (2022).

[54] T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Iten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen, and P. Z. Skands, An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput. Phys. Commun. **191**, 159 (2015).

[55] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Measurement of the $\Omega_\c$ baryon lifetime, Phys. Rev. Lett. **121**, 092003 (2018).

[56] R. Brun, F. Bruyant, F. Carminati, S. Giani, M. Maire, A. McPherson, G. Patrick, and L. Urban, GEANT: Detector Description and Simulation Tool, CERN Program Library (CERN, Geneva, 1993).

[57] G. D'Agostini, A Multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes' theorem, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A **362**, 487 (1995).

[58] T. Adye, Unfolding algorithms and tests using RooUnfold, in *Proceedings of the PHYSTAT 2011 Workshop*, CERN-2011-006 (CERN, Geneva, Switzerland, 2011), pp. 313-318.

[59] S. Faller and T. Mannel, Light-quark decays in heavy hadrons, Phys. Lett. B **750**, 653 (2015).

[60] A. Hocker and V. Kartvelishvili, SVD approach to data unfolding, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A **372**, 469 (1996).

[61] M. Bonamente, *Statistics and Analysis of Scientific Data*, Graduate Texts in Physics (Springer-Verlag, New York, 2013).

[62] Z.-X. Zhao, Weak decays of heavy baryons in the light-front approach, Chin. Phys. C **42**, 093101 (2018).

[63] Q.-A. Zhang, J. Hua, F. Huang, R. Li, Y. Li, C. Lü, P. Sun, W. Sun, W. Wang, and Y. Yang, First lattice QCD calculation of semileptonic decays of charmed-strange baryons $\Xi_c^*$, Chin. Phys. C **46**, 011002 (2022).

[64] R. N. Faustov and V. O. Galkin, Semileptonic $\Xi_c$ baryon decays in the relativistic quark model, Eur. Phys. J. C **79**, 695 (2019).

S. Acharya,¹²⁷ D. Adamová,⁸⁶ A. Agarwal,¹³⁵ G. Aglieri Rinella,³² L. Aglietta,²⁴,²⁴b M. Agnello,²⁹ N. Agrawal,²⁵a,²⁵b Z. Ahammed,¹³⁵ S. Ahmad,¹⁵ S. U. Ahn,⁷¹ I. Ahuja,³⁷ A. Akindinov,¹⁴¹ V. Akishina,³⁸ M. Al-Turany,⁹⁷ D. Aleksandrov,¹⁴¹ B. Alessandro,⁵⁶ H. M. Alfanda,⁶ R. Alfaro Molina,⁶⁷ B. Ali,¹⁵

A. Alici,²⁵a,²⁵b N. Alizadehvandchali,¹¹⁶ A. Alkin,¹⁰⁴ J. Alme,²⁰ G. Alocco,⁵² T. Alt,⁶⁴ A. R. Altamura,⁵⁰

I. Altsybeev,⁹⁵ J. R. Alvarado,⁴⁴ M. N. Anaam,⁶ C. Andrei,⁴⁵ N. Andreou,¹¹⁵ A. Andronic,¹²⁶ E. Andronov,¹⁴¹

V. Anguelov,⁹⁴ F. Antinori,⁵⁴ P. Antonioli,⁵¹ N. Apadula,⁷⁴ L. Aphecetche,¹⁰³ H. Appelshäuser,⁶⁴ C. Arata,⁷³

S. Arcelli,²⁵a,²⁵b M. Aresti,²²a,²²b R. Arnaldi,⁵⁶ J. G. M. C. A. Arneiro,¹¹⁰ I. C. Arsene,¹⁹ M. Arslandok,¹³⁸

A. Augustinus,³² R. Averbeck,⁹⁷ M. D. Azmi,¹⁵ H. Baba,¹²⁴ A. Badalà,⁵³ J. Bae,¹⁰⁴ Y. W. Baek,⁴⁰ X. Bai,¹²⁰ R. Bailhache,⁶⁴ Y. Bailung,⁴⁸ R. Bala,⁹¹ A. Balbino,²⁹ A. Baldisseri,¹³⁰ B. Balis,² D. Banerjee,⁴a,⁴b

Z. Banoo,⁹¹ V. Barbasova,³⁷ F. Barile,³¹a,³¹b L. Barioglio,⁵⁶ M. Barlou,⁷⁸ B. Barman,⁴¹ G. G. Barnaföldi,⁴⁶

L. S. Barnby,¹¹⁵ E. Barreau,¹⁰³ V. Barret,¹²⁷ L. Barreto,¹¹⁰ C. Bartels,¹¹⁹ K. Barth,³² E. Bartsch,⁶⁴ N. Bastid,¹²⁷

S. Basu,⁷⁵ G. Batigne,¹⁰³ D. Battistini,⁹⁵ B. Batyunya,¹⁴² D. Bauri,⁴⁷ J. L. Bazo Alba,¹⁰¹ I. G. Bearden,⁸³

C. Beattie,¹³⁸ P. Becht,⁹⁷ D. Behera,⁴⁸ I. Belikov,¹²⁹ A. D. C. Bell Hechavarria,¹²⁶ F. Bellini,²⁵a,²⁵b
R. Bellwied,¹¹⁶ S. Belokurova,¹⁴¹ L. G. E. Beltran,¹⁰⁹ Y. A. V. Beltran,⁴⁴ G. Bencedi,⁴⁶ A. Bensaoula,¹¹⁶

S. Beole,²⁴,²⁴b Y. Berdnikov,¹⁴¹ A. Berdnikova,⁹⁴ L. Bergmann,⁹⁴ M. G. Besoiu,⁶³ L. Betev,³² P. P. Bhaduri,¹³⁵

A. Bhasin,⁹¹ B. Bhattacharjee,⁴¹ L. Bianchi,²⁴,²⁴b N. Bianchi,⁴⁹ J. Bielčík,³⁵ J. Bielčíková,⁸⁶ A. P. Bigot,¹²⁹

A. Bilandzic,⁹⁵ G. Biro,⁴⁶ S. Biswas,⁴,⁴b N. Bize,¹⁰³ J. T. Blair,¹⁰⁸ D. Blau,¹⁴¹ M. B. Blidaru,⁹⁷ N. Bluhme,³⁸

C. Blume,⁶⁴ G. Boca,²¹,⁵⁵ F. Bock,⁸⁷ T. Bodova,²⁰ J. Bok,¹⁶ L. Boldizsár,⁴⁶ M. Bombara,³⁷ P. M. Bond,³²
G. Bonomi,⁵⁵,¹³⁴ H. Borel,¹³⁰ A. Borissov,¹⁴¹ A. G. Borquez Carcamo,⁹⁴ H. Bossi,¹³⁸ E. Botta,²⁴,²⁴b

Y. E. M. Bouziani,⁶⁴ L. Bratrud,⁶⁴ P. Braun-Munzinger,⁹⁷ M. Bregant,¹¹⁰ M. Broz,³⁵ G. E. Bruno,³¹,³¹b,⁹⁶

M. D. Buckland,²³,²³b D. Budnikov,¹⁴¹ H. Buesching,⁶⁴ S. Bufalino,²⁹ P. Buhler,¹⁰² N. Burmasov,¹⁴¹

Z. Buthelezi,⁶⁸,¹²³ A. Bylinkin,²⁰ S. A. Bysiak,¹⁰⁷ J. C. Cabanillas Noris,¹⁰⁹ M. F. T. Cabrera,¹¹⁶ M. Cai,⁶

H. Caines,¹³⁸ A. Caliva,²⁸,²⁸b E. Calvo Villar,¹⁰¹ J. M. M. Camacho,¹⁰⁹ P. Camerini,²³,²³b F. D. M. Canedo,¹¹⁰

S. L. Cantway,¹³⁸ M. Carabas,¹¹³ A. A. Carballo,³² F. Carnesecchi,³² R. Caron,¹²⁸ L. A. D. Carvalho,¹¹⁰

J. Castillo Castellanos,¹³⁰ M. Castoldi,³² F. Catalano,³² S. Cattaruzzi,²³,²³b C. Ceballos Sanchez,¹⁴² R. Cerri,²⁴,²⁴b

I. Chakaberia,⁷⁴ P. Chakraborty,⁴⁷,¹³⁶ S. Chandra,¹³⁵ S. Chapeland,³² M. Chartier,¹¹⁹ S. Chattopadhay,¹³⁵

S. Chattopadhyay,¹³⁵ S. Chattopadhyay,⁹⁹ T. Cheng,⁶,⁹⁷ C. Cheshkov,¹²⁸ V. Chibante Barroso,³²

D. D. Chinellato,¹¹¹ E. S. Chizzali,⁹⁵,‡ J. Cho,⁵⁸ S. Cho,⁵⁸ P. Chochula,³² Z. A. Chochulska,¹³⁶ D. Choudhury,⁴¹

P. Christakoglou,⁸⁴ C. H. Christensen,⁸³ P. Christiansen,⁷⁵ T. Chujo,¹²⁵ M. Ciacco,²⁹ C. Cicalo,⁵² M. R. Ciupek,⁹⁷
G. Clai,⁵¹,⁸ F. Colamaria,⁵⁰ J. S. Colburn,¹⁰⁰ D. Colella,³¹,³¹b M. Colocci,²⁵,²⁵b M. Concas,³²

G. Conesa Balbastre,⁷³ Z. Conesa del Valle,¹³¹ G. Contin,²³,²³b J. G. Contreras,³⁵ M. L. Coquet,¹⁰³,¹³⁰

P. Cortese,⁵⁶,¹³³ M. R. Cosentino,¹¹² F. Costa,³² S. Costanza,²¹,⁵⁵ C. Cot,¹³¹ J. Crkovská,⁹⁴ P. Crochet,¹²⁷

R. Cruz-Torres,⁷⁴ P. Cui,⁶ M. M. Czarnynoga,¹³⁶ A. Dainese,⁵⁴ G. Dange,³⁸ M. C. Danisch,⁹⁴ A. Danu,⁶³ P. Das,⁸⁰

P. Das,⁴,⁴b S. Das,⁴,⁴b A. R. Dash,¹²⁶ S. Dash,⁴⁷ A. De Caro,²⁸,²⁸b G. de Cataldo,⁵⁰ J. de Cuveland,³⁸

A. De Falco,²²,²²b D. De Gruttola,²⁸,²⁸b N. De Marco,⁵⁶ C. De Martin,²³,²³b S. De Pasquale,²⁸,²⁸b R. Deb,¹³⁴
R. Del Grande,⁹⁵ L. Dello Stritto,³² W. Deng,⁶ K. C. Devereaux,¹⁸ P. Dhankher,¹⁸ D. Di Bari,³¹,³¹b

A. Di Mauro,³² B. Diab,¹³⁰ R. A. Diaz,⁷,¹⁴² T. Dietel,¹¹⁴ Y. Ding,⁶ J. Ditzel,⁶⁴ R. Divià,³² Ø. Djuvsland,²⁰

U. Dmitrieva,¹⁴¹ A. Dobrin,⁶³ B. Dönigus,⁶⁴ J. M. Dubinski,¹³⁶ A. Dubla,⁹⁷ P. Dupieux,¹²⁷ N. Dzalaiova,¹³
T. M. Eder,¹²⁶ R. J. Ehlers,⁷⁴ F. Eisenhut,⁶⁴ R. Ejima,⁹² D. Elia,⁵⁰ B. Erazmus,¹⁰³ F. Ercolessi,²⁵,²⁵b

B. Espagnon,¹³¹ G. Eulisse,³² D. Evans,¹⁰⁰ S. Evdokimov,¹⁴¹ L. Fabbietti,⁹⁵ M. Faggin,²⁷,²⁷b J. Faivre,⁷³
F. Fan,⁶ W. Fan,⁷⁴ A. Fantoni,⁴⁹ M. Fasel,⁸⁷ A. Feliciello,⁵⁶ G. Feofilov,¹⁴¹ A. Fernández Téllez,⁴⁴

L. Ferrandi,¹¹⁰ M. B. Ferrer,³² A. Ferrero,¹³⁰ C. Ferrero,⁵⁶,|| A. Ferretti,²⁴,²⁴b V. J. G. Feuillard,⁹⁴ V. Filova,³⁵

D. Finogeev,¹⁴¹ F. M. Fionda,⁵² E. Flatland,³² F. Flor,¹¹⁶ A. N. Flores,¹⁰⁸ S. Foertsch,⁶⁸ I. Fokin,⁹⁴ S. Fokin,¹⁴¹
U. Follo,⁵⁶,|| E. Fragiacomo,⁵⁷ E. Frajna,³² N. Funicello,²⁸,²⁸b C. Furget,⁷³ A. Furs,¹⁴¹

T. Fusayasu,⁹⁸ J. J. Gaardhøje,⁸³ M. Gagliardi,²⁴,²⁴b A. M. Gago,¹⁰¹ T. Gahlaut,⁴⁷ C. D. Galvan,¹⁰⁹

D. R. Gangadharan,¹¹⁶ P. Ganoti,⁷⁸ C. Garabatos,⁹⁷ J. M. Garcia,⁴⁴ T. García Chávez,⁴⁴ E. Garcia-Solis,⁹

C. Gargiulo,³² P. Gasik,⁹⁷ H. M. Gaur,³⁸ A. Gautam,¹¹⁸ M. B. Gay Ducati,⁶⁶ M. Germain,¹⁰³ C. Ghosh,¹³⁵

M. Giacalone,⁵¹ G. Gioachin,²⁹ P. Giubellino,⁵⁶,⁹⁷ P. Giubilato,²⁷,²⁷b A. M. C. Glaenzer,¹³⁰ P. Glässel,⁹⁴

E. Glimos,¹²² D. J. Q. Goh,⁷⁶ V. Gonzalez,¹³⁷ P. Gordeev,¹⁴¹ M. Gorgon,² K. Goswami,⁴⁸ S. Gotovac,³³

V. Grabski,⁶⁷ L. K. Graczykowski,¹³⁶ E. Grecka,⁸⁶ A. Grelli,⁵⁹ C. Grigoras,³² V. Grigoriev,¹⁴¹ S. Grigoryan,¹,¹⁴²
F. Grosa,³² J. F. Grosse-Oetringhaus,³² R. Grosso,⁹⁷ D. Grund,³⁵ N. A. Grunwald,⁹⁴ G. G. Guardiano,¹¹¹

R. Guernane,⁷³ M. Guilbaud,¹⁰³ K. Gulbrandsen,⁸³ J. J. W. K. Gumprecht,¹⁰² T. Gündem,⁶⁴ T. Gunji,¹²⁴ W. Guo,⁶
A. Gupta,⁹¹ R. Gupta,⁹¹ R. Gupta,⁴⁸ K. Gwizdziel,¹³⁶ L. Gyulai,⁴⁶ C. Hadjidakis,¹³¹ F. U. Haider,⁹¹

S. Haidlova,³⁵ M. Haldar,⁴,⁴b H. Hamagaki,⁷⁶ A. Hamdi,⁷⁴ Y. Han,¹³⁹ B. G. Hanley,¹³⁷ R. Hannigan,¹⁰⁸

J. Hansen,⁷⁵ M. R. Haque,⁹⁷ J. W. Harris,¹³⁸ A. Harton,⁹ M. V. Hartung,⁶⁴ H. Hassan,¹¹⁷ D. Hatzifotiadou,⁵¹

P. Hauer,⁴² L. B. Havener,¹³⁸ E. Hellbär,⁹⁷ H. Helstrup,³⁴ M. Hemmer,⁶⁴ T. Herman,³⁵ S. G. Hernandez,¹¹⁶
G. Herrera Corral,⁸ S. Herrmann,¹²⁸ K. F. Hetland,³⁴ B. Heybeck,⁶⁴ H. Hillemanns,³² B. Hippolyte,¹²⁹

F. W. Hoffmann,⁷⁰ B. Hofman,⁵⁹ G. H. Hong,¹³⁹ M. Horst,⁹⁵ A. Horzyk,² Y. Hou,⁶ P. Hristov,³² P. Huhn,⁶⁴
L. M. Huhta,¹¹⁷ T. J. Humanic,⁸⁸ A. Hutson,¹¹⁶ D. Hutter,³⁸ M. C. Hwang,¹⁸ R. Ilkaev,¹⁴¹ M. Inaba,¹²⁵

G. M. Innocenti,³² M. Ippolitov,¹⁴¹ A. Isakov,⁸⁴ T. Isidori,¹¹⁸ M. S. Islam,⁹⁹ S. Iurchenko,¹⁴¹ M. Ivanov,⁹⁷
M. Ivanov,¹³ V. Ivanov,¹⁴¹ K. E. Iversen,⁷⁵ M. Jablonski,² B. Jacak,¹⁸,⁷⁴ N. Jacazio,²⁵,²⁵b P. M. Jacobs,⁷⁴

S. Jadlovska,¹⁰⁶ J. Jadlovsky,¹⁰⁶ S. Jaelani,⁸² C. Jahnke,¹¹⁰ M. J. Jakubowska,¹³⁶ M. A. Janik,¹³⁶ T. Janson,⁷⁰ S. Ji,¹⁶
S. Jia,¹⁰ A. A. P. Jimenez,⁶⁵ F. Jonas,⁷⁴ D. M. Jones,¹¹⁹ J. M. Jowett,³²,⁹⁷ J. Jung,⁶⁴ M. Jung,⁶⁴ A. Junique,³²

A. Jusko,¹⁰⁰ J. Kaewjai,¹⁰⁵ P. Kalinak,⁶⁰ A. Kalweit,³² A. Karasu Uysal,⁷²¶ D. Karatovic,⁸⁹ N. Karatzenis,¹⁰⁰

O. Karavichev,¹⁴¹ T. Karavicheva,¹⁴¹ E. Karpechev,¹⁴¹ M. J. Karwowska,³²,¹³⁶ U. Kebschull,⁷⁰ R. Keidel,¹⁴⁰ M. Keil,³² B. Ketzer,⁴² S. S. Khade,⁴⁸ A. M. Khan,¹²⁰ S. Khan,¹⁵ A. Khanzadeev,¹⁴¹ Y. Kharlov,¹⁴¹

A. Khatun,¹¹⁸ A. Khuntia,³⁵ Z. Khuranova,⁶⁴ B. Kileng,³⁴ B. Kim,¹⁰⁴ C. Kim,¹⁶ D. J. Kim,¹¹⁷ E. J. Kim,⁶⁹

J. Kim,¹³⁹ J. Kim,⁵⁸ J. Kim,³²,⁶⁹ M. Kim,¹⁸ S. Kim,¹⁷ T. Kim,¹³⁹ K. Kimura,⁹² A. Kirkova,³⁶ S. Kirsch,⁶⁴

I. Kisel,³⁸ S. Kiselev,¹⁴¹ A. Kisiel,¹³⁶ J. P. Kitowski,² J. L. Klay,⁵ J. Klein,³² S. Klein,⁷⁴ C. Klein-Bösing,¹²⁶ M. Kleiner,⁶⁴ T. Klemenz,⁹⁵ A. Kluge,³² C. Kobdaj,¹⁰⁵ R. Kohara,¹²⁴ T. Kollegger,⁹⁷ A. Kondratyev,¹⁴² N. Kondratyeva,¹⁴¹ J. Konig,⁶⁴ S. A. Konigstorfer,⁹⁵ P. J. Konopka,³² G. Kornakov,¹³⁶ M. Korwieser,⁹⁵

S. D. Koryciak,² C. Koster,⁸⁴ A. Kotliarov,⁸⁶ N. Kovacic,⁸⁹ V. Kovalenko,¹⁴¹ M. Kowalski,¹⁰⁷ V. Kozhuharov,³⁶

I. Králik,⁶⁰ A. Kravčáková,³⁷ L. Krcal,³²,³⁸ M. Krivda,⁶⁰,¹⁰⁰ F. Krizek,⁸⁶ K. Krizkova Gajdosova,³² C. Krug,⁶⁶ M. Krüger,⁶⁴ D. M. Krupova,³⁵ E. Kryshen,¹⁴¹ V. Kučera,⁵⁸ C. Kuhn,¹²⁹ P. G. Kuijer,⁸⁴ T. Kumaoka,¹²⁵ D. Kumar,¹³⁵ L. Kumar,⁹⁰ N. Kumar,⁹⁰ S. Kumar,³¹,³¹b S. Kundu,³² P. Kurashvili,⁷⁹ A. Kurepin,¹⁴¹

A. B. Kurepin,¹⁴¹ A. Kuryakin,¹⁴¹ S. Kushpil,⁸⁶ V. Kuskov,¹⁴¹ M. Kutyla,¹³⁶ M. J. Kweon,⁵⁸ Y. Kwon,¹³⁹

S. L. La Pointe,³⁸ P. La Rocca,²⁶a,²⁶b A. Lakrathok,¹⁰⁵ M. Lamanna,³² A. R. Landou,⁷³ R. Langoy,¹²¹

P. Larionov,³² E. Laudi,³² L. Lautner,³²,⁹⁵ R. A. N. Laveaga,¹⁰⁹ R. Lavicka,¹⁰² R. Lea,⁵⁵,¹³⁴ H. Lee,¹⁰⁴

I. Legrand,⁴⁵ G. Legras,¹²⁶ J. Lehrbach,³⁸ T. M. Lelek,² R. C. Lemmon,⁸⁵ I. León Monzón,¹⁰⁹ M. M. Lesch,⁹⁵

E. D. Lesser,¹⁸ P. Lévai,⁴⁶ M. Li,⁶ X. Li,¹⁰ B. E. Liang-gilman,¹⁸ J. Lien,¹²¹ R. Lietava,¹⁰⁰ I. Likmeta,¹¹⁶

B. Lim,²⁴a,²⁴b S. H. Lim,¹⁶ V. Lindenstruth,³⁸ A. Lindner,⁴⁵ C. Lippmann,⁹⁷ D. H. Liu,⁶ J. Liu,¹¹⁹

G. S. S. Liveraro,¹¹¹ I. M. Lofnes,²⁰ C. Loizides,⁸⁷ S. Lokos,¹⁰⁷ J. Lömker,⁵⁹ X. Lopez,¹²⁷ E. López Torres,⁷

P. Lu,⁹⁷,¹²⁰ F. V. Lugo,⁶⁷ J. R. Luhder,¹²⁶ M. Lunardon,²⁷a,²⁷b G. Luparello,⁵⁷ Y. G. Ma,³⁹ M. Mager,³²

A. Maire,¹²⁹ E. M. Majerz,² M. V. Makariev,³⁶ M. Malaev,¹⁴¹ G. Malfattore,²⁵a,²⁵b N. M. Malik,⁹¹ Q. W. Malik,¹⁹

S. K. Malik,⁹¹ L. Malinina,¹⁴²,†,‡‡ D. Mallick,¹³¹ N. Mallick,⁴⁸ G. Mandaglio,³⁰,⁵³ S. K. Mandal,⁷⁹ A. Manea,⁶³

V. Manko,¹⁴¹ F. Manso,¹²⁷ V. Manzari,⁵⁰ Y. Mao,⁶ R. W. Marcjan,² G. V. Margagliotti,²³a,²³b A. Margotti,⁵¹

A. Marín,⁹⁷ C. Markert,¹⁰⁸ P. Martinengo,³² M. I. Martínez,⁴⁴ G. Martínez García,¹⁰³ M. P. P. Martins,¹¹⁰

S. Masciocchi,⁹⁷ M. Masera,²⁴a,²⁴b A. Masoni,⁵² L. Massacrier,¹³¹ O. Massen,⁵⁹ A. Mastroserio,⁵⁰,¹³²

O. Matonoha,⁷⁵ S. Mattiazzo,²⁷a,²⁷b A. Matyja,¹⁰⁷ A. L. Mazuecos,³² F. Mazzaschi,²⁴a,²⁴b,³² M. Mazzilli,¹¹⁶

J. E. Mdhluli,¹²³ Y. Melikyan,⁴³ A. Menchaca-Rocha,⁶⁷ J. E. M. Mendez,⁶⁵ E. Meninno,¹⁰² A. S. Menon,¹¹⁶

M. W. Menzel,³²,⁹⁴ M. Meres,¹³ Y. MIAKE,¹²⁵ L. MICHELETTI,³² D. L. Mihaylov,⁹⁵ K. Mikhaylov,¹⁴¹,¹⁴² N. Minafra,¹¹⁸

D. Miśkowiec,⁹⁷ A. Modak,⁴a,⁴b,¹³⁴ B. Mohanty,⁸⁰ M. Mohisin Khan,¹⁵,** M. A. Molander,⁴³ S. Monira,¹³⁶

C. Mordasini,¹¹⁷ D. A. Moreira De Godoy,¹²⁶ I. Morozov,¹⁴¹ A. Morsch,³² T. Mrnjavac,³² V. Muccifora,⁴⁹

S. Muhuri,¹³⁵ J. D. Mulligan,⁷⁴ A. Mulliri,²²a,²²b M. G. Munhoz,¹¹⁰ R. H. Munzer,⁶⁴ H. Murakami,¹²⁴

S. Murray,¹¹⁴ L. Musa,³² J. Musinsky,⁶⁰ J. W. Myrcha,¹³⁶ B. Naik,¹²³ A. I. Nambrath,¹⁸ B. K. Nandi,⁴⁷

R. Nania,⁵¹ E. Nappi,⁵⁰ A. F. Nassirpour,¹⁷ A. Nath,⁹⁴ C. Nattrass,¹²² M. N. Naydenov,³⁶ A. Neagu,¹⁹

A. Negru,¹¹³ E. Nekrasova,¹⁴¹ L. Nellen,⁶⁵ R. Nepeivoda,⁷⁵ S. Nese,¹⁹ G. Neskovic,³⁸ N. Nicassio,⁵⁰

B. S. Nielsen,⁸³ E. G. Nielsen,⁸³ S. Nikolaev,¹⁴¹ S. Nikulin,¹⁴¹ V. Nikulin,¹⁴¹ F. Noferini,⁵¹ S. Noh,¹²

P. Nomokonov,¹⁴² J. Norman,¹¹⁹ N. Novitzky,⁸⁷ P. Nowakowski,¹³⁶ A. Nyanin,¹⁴¹ J. Nystrand,²⁰ S. Oh,¹⁷

A. Ohlson,⁷⁵ V. A. Okorokov,¹⁴¹ J. Oleniacz,¹³⁶ A. Onnerstad,¹¹⁷ C. Oppedisano,⁵⁶ A. Ortiz Velasquez,⁶⁵

J. Otwinowski,¹⁰⁷ M. Oya,⁹² K. Oyama,⁷⁶ Y. Pachmayer,⁹⁴ S. Padhan,⁴⁷ D. Pagano,⁵⁵,¹³⁴ G. Paić,⁶⁵

S. Paisano-Guzmán,⁴⁴ A. Palasciano,⁵⁰ S. Panebianco,¹³⁰ H. Park,¹²⁵ H. Park,¹⁰⁴ J. Park,¹²⁵ J. E. Parkkila,³²

Y. Patley,⁴⁷ B. Paul,²²a,²²b M. M. D. M. Paulino,¹¹⁰ H. Pei,⁶ T. Peitzmann,⁵⁹ X. Peng,¹¹ M. Pennisi,²⁴a,²⁴b

S. Perciballi,²⁴a,²⁴b D. Peresunko,¹⁴¹ G. M. Perez,⁷ Y. Pestov,¹⁴¹ M. T. Petersen,⁸³ V. Petrov,¹⁴¹ M. Petrovici,⁴⁵

S. Piano,⁵⁷ M. Pikna,¹³ P. Pillot,¹⁰³ O. Pinazza,³²,⁵¹ L. Pinsky,¹¹⁶ C. Pinto,⁹⁵ S. Pisano,⁴⁹ M. Płoskoń,⁷⁴

M. Planinic,⁸⁹ F. Pliquett,⁶⁴ M. G. Poghosyan,⁸⁷ B. Polichtchouk,¹⁴¹ S. Politano,²⁹ N. Poljak,⁸⁹ A. Pop,⁴⁵

S. Porteboeuf-Houssais,¹²⁷ V. Pozdniakov,¹⁴²,† I. Y. Pozos,⁴⁴ K. K. Pradhan,⁴⁸ S. K. Prasad,⁴a,⁴b S. Prasad,⁴⁸

R. Preghenella,⁵¹ F. Prino,⁵⁶ C. A. Pruneau,¹³⁷ I. Pshenichnov,¹⁴¹ M. Puccio,³² S. Pucillo,²⁴a,²⁴b S. Qiu,⁸⁴

L. Quaglia,²⁴a,²⁴b S. Ragoni,¹⁴ A. Rai,¹³⁸ A. Rakotozafindrabe,¹³⁰ L. Ramello,⁵⁶,¹³³ F. Rami,¹²⁹ M. Rasa,²⁶a,²⁶b

S. S. Räsänen,⁴³ R. Rath,⁵¹ M. P. Rauch,²⁰ I. Ravasenga,³² K. F. Read,⁸⁷,¹²² C. Reckziegel,¹¹²

A. R. Redelbach,³⁸ K. Redlich,⁷⁹,† C. A. Reetz,⁹⁷ H. D. Regules-Medel,⁴⁴ A. Rehman,²⁰ F. Reidt,³²
H. A. Reme-Ness,³⁴ Z. Rescakova,³⁷ K. Reygers,⁹⁴ A. Riabov,¹⁴¹ V. Riabov,¹⁴¹ R. Ricci,²⁸a,²⁸b M. Richter,²⁰

A. A. Riedel,⁹⁵ W. Riegler,³² A. G. Riffero,²⁴a,²⁴b C. Ripoli,²⁸a,²⁸b C. Ristea,⁶³ M. V. Rodriguez,³²

M. Rodríguez Cahuantzi,⁴⁴ S. A. Rodríguez Ramírez,⁴⁴ K. Røed,¹⁹ R. Rogalev,¹⁴¹ E. Rogochaya,¹⁴²

T. S. Rogoschinski,⁶⁴ D. Rohr,³² D. Röhrich,²⁰ S. Rojas Torres,³⁵ P. S. Rokita,¹³⁶ G. Romanenko,²⁵a,²⁵b

F. Ronchetti,⁴⁹ E. D. Rosas,⁶⁵ K. Roslon,¹³⁶ A. Rossi,⁵⁴ A. Roy,⁴⁸ S. Roy,⁴⁷ N. Rubini,²⁵a,²⁵b J. A. Rudolph,⁸⁴

D. Ruggiano,¹³⁶ R. Rui,²³a,²³b P. G. Russek,² R. Russo,⁸⁴ A. Rustamov,⁸¹ E. Ryabinkin,¹⁴¹ Y. Ryabov,¹⁴¹

A. Rybicki,¹⁰⁷ J. Ryu,¹⁶ W. Rzesa,¹³⁶ S. Sadhu,³¹a,³¹b S. Sadovsky,¹⁴¹ J. Saetre,²⁰ K. Šafařík,³⁵ S. K. Saha,⁴a,⁴b

S. Saha,⁸⁰ B. Sahoo,⁴⁸ R. Sahoo,⁴⁸ S. Sahoo,⁶¹ D. Sahu,⁴⁸ P. K. Sahu,⁶¹ J. Saini,¹³⁵ K. Sajdakova,³⁷ S. Sakai,¹²⁵

M. P. Salvan,⁹⁷ S. Sambyal,⁹¹ D. Samitz,¹⁰² I. Sanna,³²,⁹⁵ T. B. Saramela,¹¹⁰ D. Sarkar,⁸³ P. Sarma,⁴¹

V. Sarritzu,²²a,²²b V. M. Sarti,⁹⁵ M. H. P. Sas,³² S. Sawan,⁸⁰ E. Scapparone,⁵¹ J. Schambach,⁸⁷ H. S. Scheid,⁶⁴

C. Schiaua,⁴⁵ R. Schicker,⁹⁴ F. Schlepper,⁹⁴ A. Schmah,⁹⁷ C. Schmidt,⁹⁷ H. R. Schmidt,⁹³ M. O. Schmidt,³²

M. Schmidt,⁹³ N. V. Schmidt,⁸⁷ A. R. Schmier,¹²² R. Schotter,¹²⁹ A. Schröter,³⁸ J. Schukraft,³² K. Schweda,⁹⁷

G. Scioli,²⁵a,²⁵b E. Scomparin,⁵⁶ J. E. Seger,¹⁴ Y. Sekiguchi,¹²⁴ D. Sekihata,¹²⁴ M. Selina,⁸⁴ I. Selyuzhenkov,⁹⁷

S. Senyukov,¹²⁹ J. J. Seo,⁹⁴ D. Serebryakov,¹⁴¹ L. Serkin,⁶⁵ L. Šerkšnytė,⁹⁵ A. Sevcenco,⁶³ T. J. Shaba,⁶⁸

A. Shabetai,¹⁰³ R. Shahoyan,³² A. Shangaraev,¹⁴¹ B. Sharma,⁹¹ D. Sharma,⁴⁷ H. Sharma,⁵⁴ M. Sharma,⁹¹

S. Sharma,⁷⁶ S. Sharma,⁹¹ U. Sharma,⁹¹ A. Shatat,¹³¹ O. Sheibani,¹¹⁶ K. Shigaki,⁹² M. Shimomura,⁷⁷ J. Shin,¹²

S. Shirinkin,¹⁴¹ Q. Shou,³⁹ Y. Sibiriak,¹⁴¹ S. Siddhanta,⁵² T. Siemiarczuk,⁷⁹ T. F. Silva,¹¹⁰ D. Silvermyr,⁷⁵

T. Simantathammakul,¹⁰⁵ R. Simeonov,³⁶ B. Singh,⁹¹ B. Singh,⁹⁵ K. Singh,⁴⁸ R. Singh,⁸⁰ R. Singh,⁹¹

R. Singh,⁴⁸,⁹⁷ S. Singh,¹⁵ V. K. Singh,¹³⁵ V. Singhal,¹³⁵ T. Sinha,⁹⁹ B. Sitar,¹³ M. Sitta,⁵⁶,¹³³ T. B. Skaali,¹⁹

G. Skorodumovs,⁹⁴ N. Smirnov,¹³⁸ R. J. M. Snellings,⁵⁹ E. H. Solheim,¹⁹ J. Song,¹⁶ C. Sonnabend,³²,⁹⁷

J. M. Sonneveld,⁸⁴ F. Soramel,²⁷a,²⁷b A. B. Soto-hernandez,⁸⁸ R. Spijkers,⁸⁴ I. Sputowska,¹⁰⁷ J. Staa,⁷⁵

J. Stachel,⁹⁴ I. Stan,⁶³ P. J. Steffanic,¹²² S. F. Stiefelmaier,⁹⁴ D. Stocco,¹⁰³ I. Storehaug,¹⁹ N. J. Strangmann,⁶⁴

P. Stratmann,¹²⁶ S. Strazzi,²⁵a,²⁵b A. Sturniolo,³⁰,⁵³ C. P. Stylianidis,⁸⁴ A. A. P. Suaide,¹¹⁰ C. Suire,¹³¹

M. Sukhanov,¹⁴¹ M. Suljic,³² R. Sultanov,¹⁴¹ V. Sumberia,⁹¹ S. Sumowidagdo,⁸² I. Szarka,¹³

M. Szymkowski,¹³⁶ S. F. Taghavi,⁹⁵ G. Taillepied,⁹⁷ J. Takahashi,¹¹¹ G. J. Tambave,⁸⁰ S. Tang,⁶ Z. Tang,¹²⁰

J. D. Tapia Takaki,¹¹⁸ N. Tapus,¹¹³ L. A. Tarasovicova,¹²⁶ M. G. Tarzila,⁴⁵ G. F. Tassielli,³¹a,³¹b A. Tauro,³²

A. Tavira García,¹³¹ G. Tejeda Muñoz,⁴⁴ A. Telesca,³² L. Terlizzi,²⁴a,²⁴b C. Terrevoli,⁵⁰ S. Thakur,⁴a,⁴b

D. Thomas,¹⁰⁸ A. Tikhonov,¹⁴¹ N. Tiltmann,³²,¹²⁶ A. R. Timmins,¹¹⁶ M. Tkacik,¹⁰⁶ T. Tkacik,¹⁰⁶ A. Toia,⁶⁴

R. Tokumoto,⁹² S. Tomassini,²⁵a,²⁵b K. Tomohiro,⁹² N. Topilskaya,¹⁴¹ M. Toppi,⁴⁹ T. Tork,¹³¹ V. V. Torres,¹⁰³

A. G. Torres Ramos,³¹a,³¹b A. Trifiró,³⁰,⁵³ T. Triloki,⁹⁶ A. S. Triolo,³⁰,³²,⁵³ S. Tripathy,³² T. Tripathy,⁴⁷

V. Trubnikov,³ W. H. Trzaska,¹¹⁷ T. P. Trzcinski,¹³⁶ C. Tsolanta,¹⁹ A. Tumkin,¹⁴¹ R. Turrisi,⁵⁴ T. S. Tveter,¹⁹

K. Ullaland,²⁰ B. Ulukutlu,⁹⁵ A. Uras,¹²⁸ M. Urioni,¹³⁴ G. L. Usai,²²a,²²b M. Vala,³⁷ N. Valle,⁵⁵

L. V. R. van Doremalen,⁵⁹ M. van Leeuwen,⁸⁴ C. A. van Veen,⁹⁴ R. J. G. van Weelden,⁸⁴ P. Vande Vyvre,³²

D. Varga,⁴⁶ Z. Varga,⁴⁶ P. Vargas Torres,⁶⁵ M. Vasileiou,⁷⁸ A. Vasiliev,¹⁴¹ O. Vázquez Doce,⁴⁹

O. Vazquez Rueda,¹¹⁶ V. Vechernin,¹⁴¹ E. Vercellin,²⁴a,²⁴b S. Vergara Limón,⁴⁴ R. Verma,⁴⁷ L. Vermunt,⁹⁷

R. Vértesi,⁴⁶ M. Verweij,⁵⁹ L. Vickovic,³³ Z. Vilakazi,¹²³ O. Villalobos Baillie,¹⁰⁰ A. Villani,²³a,²³b

A. Vinogradov,¹⁴¹ T. Virgili,²⁸a,²⁸b M. M. O. Virta,¹¹⁷ V. Vislavicius,⁷⁵ A. Vodopyanov,¹⁴² B. Volkel,³²

M. A. Völkl,⁹⁴ S. A. Voloshin,¹³⁷ G. Volpe,³¹a,³¹b B. von Haller,³² I. Vorobyev,³² N. Vozniuk,¹⁴¹ J. Vrláková,³⁷

J. Wan,³⁹ C. Wang,³⁹ D. Wang,³⁹ Y. Wang,³⁹ Y. Wang,⁶ A. Wegrzynek,³² F. T. Weiglhofer,³⁸ S. C. Wenzel,³²

J. P. Wessels,¹²⁶ J. Wiechula,⁶⁴ J. Wikne,¹⁹ G. Wilk,⁷⁹ J. Wilkinson,⁹⁷ G. A. Willems,¹²⁶ B. Windelband,⁹⁴

M. Winn,¹³⁰ J. R. Wright,¹⁰⁸ W. Wu,³⁹ Y. Wu,¹²⁰ Z. Xiong,¹²⁰ R. Xu,⁶ A. Yadav,⁴² A. K. Yadav,¹³⁵

Y. Yamaguchi,⁹² S. Yang,²⁰ S. Yano,⁹² E. R. Yeats,¹⁸ Z. Yin,⁶ I.-K. Yoo,¹⁶ J. H. Yoon,⁵⁸ H. Yu,¹² S. Yuan,²⁰

A. Yuncu,⁹⁴ V. Zaccolo,²³a,²³b C. Zampolli,³² M. Zang,⁶ F. Zanone,⁹⁴ N. Zardoshti,³² A. Zarochentsev,¹⁴¹

P. Závada,⁶² N. Zaviyalov,¹⁴¹ M. Zhalov,¹⁴¹ B. Zhang,⁶ C. Zhang,¹³⁰ L. Zhang,³⁹ M. Zhang,⁶,¹²⁷ S. Zhang,³⁹

X. Zhang,⁶ Y. Zhang,¹²⁰ Z. Zhang,⁶ M. Zhao,¹⁰ V. Zherebchevskii,¹⁴¹ Y. Zhi,¹⁰ D. Zhou,⁶ Y. Zhou,⁸³ J. Zhu,⁶,⁵⁴

S. Zhu,¹²⁰ Y. Zhu,⁶ S. C. Zugravel,⁵⁶ and N. Zurlo,⁵⁵,¹³⁴

(ALICE Collaboration)
¹A.I. Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics Institute) Foundation, Yerevan, Armenia

²AGH University of Krakow, Cracow, Poland

³Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine

⁴⁴Bose Institute, Department of Physics, Kolkata, India

⁴⁸Centre for Astroparticle Physics and Space Science (CAPSS), Kolkata, India

⁵California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California, USA

⁶Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China

⁷Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Havana, Cuba

⁸Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados (CINVESTAV), Mexico City and Mérida, Mexico

⁹Chicago State University, Chicago, Illinois, USA

¹⁰China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China

¹¹China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, China

¹²Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea

¹³Comenius University Bratislava, Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, Bratislava, Slovak Republic

¹⁴Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, USA

¹⁵Department of Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India

¹⁶Department of Physics, Pusan National University, Pusan, Republic of Korea

¹⁷Department of Physics, Sejong University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

¹⁸Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA

¹⁹Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

²⁰Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

²¹Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy

²²aDipartimento di Fisica dell'Università, Cagliari, Italy

²²bSezione INFN, Cagliari, Italy

²³aDipartimento di Fisica dell'Università, Trieste, Italy

²³bSezione INFN, Trieste, Italy

²⁴aDipartimento di Fisica dell'Università, Turin, Italy

²⁴bSezione INFN, Turin, Italy

²⁵aDipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell'Università, Bologna, Italy

²⁵bSezione INFN, Bologna, Italy

²⁶aDipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell'Università, Catania, Italy

²⁶bSezione INFN, Catania, Italy

²⁷aDipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell'Università, Padova, Italy

²⁷bSezione INFN, Padova, Italy

²⁸aDipartimento di Fisica 'E.R. Caianiello' dell'Università, Salerno, Italy

²⁸bGruppo Collegato INFN, Salerno, Italy

²⁹Dipartimento DISAT del Politecnico and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy

³⁰Dipartimento di Scienze MIFT, Università di Messina, Messina, Italy

³¹aDipartimento Interateneo di Fisica 'M. Merlin', Bari, Italy

³¹bSezione INFN, Bari, Italy

³²European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland

³³Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Split, Split, Croatia

³⁴Faculty of Engineering and Science, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway

³⁵Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

³⁶Faculty of Physics, Sofia University, Sofia, Bulgaria

³⁷Faculty of Science, P.J. Šafárik University, Košice, Slovak Republic

³⁸Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

³⁹Fudan University, Shanghai, China

⁴⁰Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, Republic of Korea

⁴¹Gauhati University, Department of Physics, Guwahati, India

⁴²Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlen- und Kernphysik, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany

⁴³Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Helsinki, Finland

⁴⁴High Energy Physics Group, Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico

⁴⁵Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest, Romania

⁴⁶HUN-REN Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
<footnote n="47">⁴⁷Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT), Mumbai, India</footnote>

<footnote n="48">⁴⁸Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore, India</footnote>

<footnote n="49">⁴⁹INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="50">⁵⁰INFN, Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy</footnote>

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

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

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

<footnote n="54">⁵⁴INFN, Sezione di Padova, Padova, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="55">⁵⁵INFN, Sezione di Pavia, Pavia, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="56">⁵⁶INFN, Sezione di Torino, Turin, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="57">⁵⁷INFN, Sezione di Trieste, Trieste, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="58">⁵⁸Inha University, Incheon, Republic of Korea</footnote>

<footnote n="59">⁵⁹Institute for Gravitational and Subatomic Physics (GRASP), Utrecht University/Nikhef, Utrecht, Netherlands</footnote>

<footnote n="60">⁶⁰Institute of Experimental Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Košice, Slovak Republic</footnote>

<footnote n="61">⁶¹Institute of Physics, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Bhubaneswar, India</footnote>

<footnote n="62">⁶²Institute of Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic</footnote>

<footnote n="63">⁶³Institute of Space Science (ISS), Bucharest, Romania</footnote>

<footnote n="64">⁶⁴Institut für Kernphysik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="65">⁶⁵Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico</footnote>

<footnote n="66">⁶⁶Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Brazil</footnote>

<footnote n="67">⁶⁷Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico</footnote>

<footnote n="68">⁶⁸iThemba LABS, National Research Foundation, Somerset West, South Africa</footnote>

<footnote n="69">⁶⁹Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea</footnote>

<footnote n="70">⁷⁰Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe Universität Frankfurt Institut für Informatik, Fachbereich Informatik und Mathematik, Frankfurt, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="71">⁷¹Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon, Republic of Korea</footnote>

<footnote n="72">⁷²KTO Karatay University, Konya, Turkey</footnote>

<footnote n="73">⁷³Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie, Université Grenoble-Alpes, CNRS-IN2P3, Grenoble, France</footnote>

<footnote n="74">⁷⁴Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="75">⁷⁵Lund University Department of Physics, Division of Particle Physics, Lund, Sweden</footnote>

<footnote n="76">⁷⁶Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science, Nagasaki, Japan</footnote>

<footnote n="77">⁷⁷Nara Women's University (NWU), Nara, Japan</footnote>

<footnote n="78">⁷⁸National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Science, Department of Physics, Athens, Greece</footnote>

<footnote n="79">⁷⁹National Centre for Nuclear Research, Warsaw, Poland</footnote>

<footnote n="80">⁸⁰National Institute of Science Education and Research, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Jatni, India</footnote>

<footnote n="81">⁸¹National Nuclear Research Center, Baku, Azerbaijan</footnote>

<footnote n="82">⁸²National Research and Innovation Agency—BRIN, Jakarta, Indonesia</footnote>

<footnote n="83">⁸³Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark</footnote>

<footnote n="84">⁸⁴Nikhef, National institute for subatomic physics, Amsterdam, Netherlands</footnote>

<footnote n="85">⁸⁵Nuclear Physics Group, STFC Daresbury Laboratory, Daresbury, United Kingdom</footnote>

<footnote n="86">⁸⁶Nuclear Physics Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Husinec-Řež, Czech Republic</footnote>

<footnote n="87">⁸⁷Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="88">⁸⁸Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="89">⁸⁹Physics department, Faculty of science, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia</footnote>

<footnote n="90">⁹⁰Physics Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India</footnote>

<footnote n="91">⁹¹Physics Department, University of Jammu, Jammu, India</footnote>

<footnote n="92">⁹²Physics Program and International Institute for Sustainability with Knotted Chiral Meta Matter (SKCM2), Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan</footnote>

<footnote n="93">⁹³Physikalisches Institut, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="94">⁹⁴Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="95">⁹⁵Physik Department, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="96">⁹⁶Politecnico di Bari and Sezione INFN, Bari, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="97">⁹⁷Research Division and ExtreMe Matter Institute EMMI, GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="98">⁹⁸Saga University, Saga, Japan</footnote>

<footnote n="99">⁹⁹Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kolkata, India</footnote>

<footnote n="100">¹⁰⁰School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom</footnote>
¹⁰¹Sección Física, Departamento de Ciencias, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima, Peru

¹⁰²Stefan Meyer Institut für Subatomare Physik (SMI), Vienna, Austria

¹⁰³SUBATECH, IMT Atlantique, Nantes Université, CNRS-IN2P3, Nantes, France

¹⁰⁴Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon City, Republic of Korea

¹⁰⁵Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand

¹⁰⁶Technical University of Košice, Košice, Slovak Republic

¹⁰⁷The Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Cracow, Poland

¹⁰⁸The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA

¹⁰⁹Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Culiacán, Mexico

¹¹⁰Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil

¹¹¹Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil

¹¹²Universidade Federal do ABC, Santo Andre, Brazil

¹¹³Universitatea Nationala de Stiinta si Tehnologie Politehnica Bucuresti, Bucharest, Romania

¹¹⁴University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

¹¹⁵University of Derby, Derby, United Kingdom

¹¹⁶University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA

¹¹⁷University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

¹¹⁸University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA

¹¹⁹University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom

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

¹²¹University of South-Eastern Norway, Kongsberg, Norway

¹²²University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA

¹²³University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

¹²⁴University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

¹²⁵University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan

¹²⁶Universität Münster, Institut für Kernphysik, Münster, Germany

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

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

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

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

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

¹³²Università degli Studi di Foggia, Foggia, Italy

¹³³Università del Piemonte Orientale, Vercelli, Italy

¹³⁴Università di Brescia, Brescia, Italy

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

¹³⁶Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland

¹³⁷Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA

¹³⁸Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA

¹³⁹Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

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

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

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

†Deceased.

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

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

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

¶Also at Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Türkiye.

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

††Also at Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Wroclaw, Poland.

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