# Measurement of the fraction of jet longitudinal momentum carried by Λc+ baryons in pp collisions

S Acharya, D Adamová, A Adler, G Aglieri Rinella, M Agnello, N Agrawal, Z Ahammed, S Ahmad, S.U Ahn, I Ahuja, et al.

► To cite this version:

S Acharya, D Adamová, A Adler, G Aglieri Rinella, M Agnello, et al.. Measurement of the fraction of jet longitudinal momentum carried by Λc+ baryons in pp collisions. Phys.Rev.D, 2024, 109 (7), pp.072005. 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.072005. hal-04536153

HAL Id: hal-04536153

https://hal.science/hal-04536153v1

Submitted on 4 Jun 2025

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

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

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

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Measurement of the fraction of jet longitudinal momentum
carried by Λ<sup>+</sup> baryons in pp collisions

S. Acharya et al. *

(ALICE Collaboration)

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

(Received 18 February 2023; revised 25 August 2023; accepted 16 February 2024; published 5 April 2024)

Recent measurements of charm-baryon production in hadronic collisions have questioned the universality of charm-quark fragmentation across different collision systems. In this work the fragmentation of charm quarks into charm baryons is probed, by presenting the first measurement of the longitudinal jet momentum fraction carried by Λ<sup>+</sup> baryons, z<sup>ch</sup><sub>∥</sub>, in hadronic collisions. The results are obtained in proton-proton (pp) collisions at √s = 13 TeV at the LHC, with Λ<sup>+</sup> baryons and charged (track-based) jets reconstructed in the transverse momentum intervals of 3 ≤ p<sub>T</sub><sup>Λ+</sup> < 15 GeV/c and 7 ≤ p<sub>T</sub><sup>jet ch</sup> < 15 GeV/c, respectively. The z<sup>ch</sup><sub>∥</sub> distribution is compared to a measurement of D<sup>0</sup>-tagged charged jets in pp collisions as well as to PYTHIA 8 simulations. The data hints that the fragmentation of charm quarks into charm baryons is softer with respect to charm mesons, in the measured kinematic interval, as predicted by hadronization models which include color correlations beyond leading-color in the string formation.

DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.072005

Heavy-flavor hadrons are produced in high-energy par-
ticle collisions through the fragmentation of heavy (charm
and beauty) quarks, which typically originate in hard
scattering processes in the early stages of the collisions.
The most common theoretical approach to describe heavy-
flavor production in hadronic collisions is based on the
quantum chromodynamics (QCD) factorization approach
[1], and consists of a convolution of three independent terms;
the parton distribution functions of the incoming hadrons, the
cross sections of the partonic scattering producing the heavy
quarks, and the fragmentation functions that parametrize the
evolution of a heavy quark into given species of heavy-flavor
hadrons. As the transition of quarks to hadrons cannot be
described in perturbation theory, the fragmentation functions
cannot be calculated and must be extracted from data.

Fragmentation functions of charm quarks to charm
baryons and mesons have been constrained in e⁺e⁻
[2–4] and e⁻p [5,6] collisions, using a variety of different
observables, such as the hadron momentum as a fraction
of its maximum possible momentum, as dictated by the
center-of-mass energy of the collision. Another method to
probe the fragmentation of quarks to hadrons is to para-
metrize the hadron momentum in relation to the momen-
tum of jets, which are collimated bunches of hadrons

giving experimental access to the properties of the
scattered quark. Recently, the production of charm mes-
ons in jets, probed via the fractional longitudinal momen-
tum of the jet carried by the D meson, was measured in pp
collisions at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) [7–9] and
appears consistent with Monte Carlo (MC) simulations
tuned on e⁺e⁻ data. These measurements support the
assumption of fragmentation universality across collision
systems in the charm-meson sector. This assumption
underpins theoretical calculations describing the produc-
tion of heavy-flavor hadrons in hadronic collisions, which
make use of fragmentation functions tuned on e⁺e⁻ and
e⁻p data.

Measurements of the production cross sections of
baryons in pp collisions have questioned the hypothesis
of fragmentation universality across collision systems [10].
In the charm sector, which provides a clean probe of
hadronization phenomena due to the large mass of the
charm quark, recent measurements performed by the
ALICE Collaboration [11–19] in pp collisions have
shown that the ratio of the Λ<sup>+</sup> (and other charm baryons)
and D<sup>0</sup> production cross sections measured at low p<sub>T</sub>
(≤12 GeV/c) is significantly larger than the value
expected from MC simulations in which the charm frag-
mentation is tuned on e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>−</sup> and e<sup>−</sup>p measurements, such as
PYTHIA 8 [20] with the Monash tune [21] or Herwig 7 [22]. A
recent measurement of the Λ<sup>+</sup>/D<sup>0</sup> ratio in pp collisions,
performed by the ALICE Collaboration in intervals of
charged-particle multiplicity, also points to a substantial
increase of the Λ<sup>+</sup>/D<sup>0</sup> ratio with increasing multiplicity,
with respect to e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>−</sup> collisions, starting at very low
multiplicities [15].

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. Open access publication funded by CERN.

<footnote>*Full author list given at the end of the article.</footnote>
The study of charm-baryon production in jets can provide more differential insights into hadronization mechanisms in pp collisions, compared to $p_T$-differential cross sections and yield ratios of heavy-flavor hadrons, allowing for a more accurate study of the dynamical properties of baryon production. In this paper, the first measurement of the longitudinal momentum fraction of the jet carried by $\Lambda_c^+$ baryons, $z_\parallel^{ch}$, is presented. The measurement is performed in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV in the interval $0.4 \le z_\parallel^{ch} \le 1.0$. The $z_\parallel^{ch}$ distribution, fully corrected to particle level, is presented for prompt (charm-quark initiated) $\Lambda_c^+$-tagged jets with $7 \le p_T^{jet ch} < 15$ GeV/c and $3 \le p_T^{\Lambda_c^+} < 15$ GeV/c. The results are then compared to PYTHIA 8 simulations [20,23], including a version where mechanisms beyond the leading-color approximation are considered in string formation processes during hadronization [21], and to an analogous measurement of the $z_\parallel^{ch}$ distribution of D$^0$ mesons, performed by the ALICE Collaboration [7].

A full description of the ALICE setup and apparatus can be found in Refs. [24,25]. The main detectors used in this analysis are the Inner Tracking System (ITS), which is used for vertex reconstruction and tracking; the Time Projection Chamber (TPC), which is used for tracking and particle identification (PID); and the Time-Of-Flight (TOF) detector, which is used for PID. These detectors cover a pseudorapidity interval of $|\eta| < 0.9$. The analysis was performed on pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV, collected using a minimum-bias (MB) trigger during the years 2016, 2017, and 2018. The trigger condition required coincident signals in the two scintillator arrays of the V0 detector, with background events originating from beam-gas interactions removed offline using timing information from the V0. To mitigate against pileup effects, events with multiple reconstructed primary vertices were rejected. To ensure uniform acceptance, only events with a primary-vertex position along the beam axis direction of $|z_{\text{vtx}}| < 10$ cm around the nominal interaction point were accepted. After the selections described above, the data sample consisted of $1.7 \times 10^9$ events, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $\mathcal{L}_{\text{int}} = 29 \text{ nb}^{-1}$ [26].

The $\Lambda_c^+$ candidates and their charge conjugates were reconstructed via the hadronic $\Lambda_c^+ \to pK_S^0 \to p\pi^+\pi^-$ decay channel with a total branching ratio of $(1.10 \pm 0.06)\%$ [27], in the $\Lambda_c^+$ transverse-momentum interval of $3 \le p_T^{\Lambda_c^+} < 15$ GeV/c. Only tracks with $|\eta| < 0.8$ and $p_T > 0.4$ GeV/c, which fulfilled the track quality selections described in Ref. [14], were considered for the $\Lambda_c^+$ reconstruction. The $\Lambda_c^+$ candidates themselves were reconstructed in the $|y^{\Lambda_c^+}| < 0.8$ rapidity interval. The $\Lambda_c^+$-candidate selection was performed using a multivariate technique based on the boosted decision tree (BDT) algorithm provided by the XGBoost package [28].

The features considered in the optimization include the PID signal for the proton track, the invariant mass of the $K_S^0$-meson candidate, and topological variables that exploit the kinematic properties of the displaced $K_S^0$-meson decay vertex. The training was performed in intervals of $\Lambda_c^+$-candidate $p_T$, considering prompt signal candidates from PYTHIA 8 events with the Monash tune [20,21], transported through a realistic description of the detector geometry and material budget using Geant 3 [29]. Background candidates were extracted from the sidebands of the invariant-mass distributions in data. The probability thresholds of the BDT selections were tuned, using MC simulations, to maximise the statistical significance for the signal. Further details on the $\Lambda_c^+$-candidate reconstruction and machine learning procedure are provided in Ref. [15], where the same reconstruction and BDT model were employed.

For the events where at least one selected $\Lambda_c^+$ candidate was identified, a jet-finding procedure was performed, using the FastJet package [30]. Prior to jet clustering, the $\Lambda_c^+$-candidate daughter tracks were replaced by the reconstructed $\Lambda_c^+$-candidate four-momentum vector. Charged jet finding was carried out on charged tracks with $|\eta| < 0.9$ and $p_T > 0.15$ GeV/c, using the anti-$k_T$ algorithm [31], with a resolution parameter of $R = 0.4$. Tracks were combined using the E-scheme recombination [32], with the jet transverse momentum limited to the interval of $5 \le p_T^{jet ch} < 35$ GeV/c. The full jet cone was required to be within the ALICE central barrel acceptance, limiting the jet axis to the interval $|\eta_{\text{jet}}| < 0.5$. Only jets tagged via the presence of a reconstructed $\Lambda_c^+$ candidate amongst their constituents were considered for the analysis. For events where more than one $\Lambda_c^+$ candidate was found, the jet finding and tagging pass was performed independently for each candidate, with only the daughters of that particular candidate replaced by the corresponding $\Lambda_c^+$ four-vector each time. In mechanisms of hadronization that include color correlations beyond the leading-color approximation [21], which have been shown to be relevant in hadronic collisions at LHC energies [10], hadrons can be formed in processes that combine quarks from the parton shower with those from the underlying event [33]. As such, the underlying event is not well defined with respect to the measured hadron distributions. Therefore, no underlying event correction is implemented in this work.

The fragmentation of charm quarks to $\Lambda_c^+$ baryons is probed by measuring the fraction of the jet momentum carried by the $\Lambda_c^+$ along the direction of the jet axis, $z_\parallel^{ch}$. This is calculated for each jet using

$$z_\parallel^{ch} = \frac{\mathbf{p}_{\text{jet}} \cdot \mathbf{p}_{\Lambda_c^+}}{\mathbf{p}_{\text{jet}} \cdot \mathbf{p}_{\text{jet}}}, \qquad (1)$$

where $\mathbf{p}_{\text{jet}}$ and $\mathbf{p}_{\Lambda_c^+}$ are the jet and $\Lambda_c^+$ three-momentum vectors, respectively.
The $z_{\parallel}^{\text{ch}}$ distributions of true $\Lambda_c^+$-tagged charged jets were extracted in intervals of $\Lambda_c^+ p_T$ and $p_T^{\text{jet ch}}$ using a sideband subtraction procedure. To enact this subtraction, the invariant-mass ($m_{\text{inv}}$) distributions of $\Lambda_c^+$ candidates, obtained for each $\Lambda_c^+ p_T$ and $p_T^{\text{jet ch}}$ interval, were fitted with a function comprising a Gaussian for the signal and an exponential for the background. The fit parameters were then used to define signal (containing the majority of true signal candidates) and sideband (entirely composed of background candidates) regions, defined by $|m_{\text{inv}} - \mu_{\text{fit}}| < 2\sigma_{\text{fit}}$ and $4\sigma_{\text{fit}} < |m_{\text{inv}} - \mu_{\text{fit}}| < 9\sigma_{\text{fit}}$, respectively, where $\mu_{\text{fit}}$ and $\sigma_{\text{fit}}$ represent the mean and sigma of the fitted Gaussian distributions. The $z_{\parallel}^{\text{ch}}(p_T^{\Lambda_c^+}, p_T^{\text{jet ch}})$ distributions were extracted in the signal and sideband regions, with the sideband distribution scaled by the ratio of the background function integrals in the signal and sideband regions. The sideband distribution was then subtracted from the signal one, with the resulting distribution scaled to account for the fact that the $2\sigma_{\text{fit}}$ width of the signal region only encompasses approximately 95% of the total signal, to obtain the sideband subtracted $z_{\parallel}^{\text{ch}}$ yield in each $p_T^{\Lambda_c^+}$ and $p_T^{\text{jet ch}}$ interval.

To account for the reconstruction and selection efficiency of the $\Lambda_c^+$-tagged jet signal, the sideband subtracted $z_{\parallel}^{\text{ch}}$ distributions in each $p_T^{\Lambda_c^+}$ and $p_T^{\text{jet ch}}$ interval, $N(z_{\parallel}^{\text{ch}}, p_T^{\Lambda_c^+}, p_T^{\text{jet ch}})$, were scaled by the reconstruction efficiency of prompt $\Lambda_c^+$-tagged jets, $\epsilon_{\text{prompt}}$, and summed over the entire $p_T^{\Lambda_c^+}$ interval to obtain the efficiency-corrected $z_{\parallel}^{\text{ch}}$ yield of $\Lambda_c^+$-tagged jets, $N^{\text{corr}}(z_{\parallel}^{\text{ch}}, p_T^{\text{jet ch}})$, given by

$$N^{\text{corr}}(z_{\parallel}^{\text{ch}}, p_T^{\text{jet ch}}) = \sum_{p_T^{\Lambda_c^+}} \frac{N(z_{\parallel}^{\text{ch}}, p_T^{\Lambda_c^+}, p_T^{\text{jet ch}})}{\epsilon_{\text{prompt}}(p_T^{\Lambda_c^+})} \quad (2)$$

The $\epsilon_{\text{prompt}}(p_T^{\Lambda_c^+})$ efficiency is strongly dependent on $p_T^{\Lambda_c^+}$, ranging from about 20% at $3 < p_T^{\Lambda_c^+} < 4$ GeV/c to 40% at $12 < p_T^{\Lambda_c^+} < 24$ GeV/c, and was calculated using PYTHIA 8 simulations with the Monash tune containing prompt $\Lambda_c^+$-tagged jets, transported through the detector using Geant 3. This efficiency does not exhibit a $p_T^{\text{jet ch}}$ dependence.

In order to isolate the $N^{\text{corr}}(z_{\parallel}^{\text{ch}}, p_T^{\text{jet ch}})$ distribution of prompt $\Lambda_c^+$-tagged jets, a feed-down subtraction was employed to remove the nonprompt (beauty-quark initiated) contribution. The nonprompt cross section was obtained from particle level POWHEG [34] + PYTHIA 6 [35] + EvtGen [36] simulations, as a function of $p_T^{\Lambda_c^+}$, $p_T^{\Lambda_c^+}$, and $z_{\parallel}^{\text{ch}}$, and was scaled according to the integrated luminosity of the analyzed data sample and the branching

ratio of the $\Lambda_c^+ \to pK_S^0 \to p\pi^+\pi^-$ decay channel. The resulting particle-level yield was multiplied by the ratio of the nonprompt to prompt $\Lambda_c^+$-tagged jet reconstruction and selection efficiency in intervals of $p_T^{\Lambda_c^+}$ and integrated over the $p_T^{\Lambda_c^+}$ range. The simulated nonprompt results were then folded to reconstructed level, using a four-dimensional response matrix generated using nonprompt $\Lambda_c^+$-tagged jets in PYTHIA 8 with the Monash tune, transported through a simulation of the ALICE detector using Geant 3. The response matrix was constructed as a function of $p_T^{\text{jet ch}}$ and $z_{\parallel}^{\text{ch}}$ at generator and reconstruction levels. The folded results were then subtracted from the measured $N^{\text{corr}}(z_{\parallel}^{\text{ch}}, p_T^{\text{jet ch}})$ distribution in data, removing the non-prompt contribution. The estimated fraction of $\Lambda_c^+$-tagged jets coming from b-quark fragmentation is found to be about 5%, with no significant $z_{\parallel}^{\text{ch}}$ dependence.

A two-dimensional Bayesian unfolding procedure [37] was performed to correct for detector effects and obtain the $z_{\parallel}^{\text{ch}}$ distribution for prompt $\Lambda_c^+$-tagged jets at particle level. A four-dimensional response matrix as a function of $p_T^{\text{jet ch}}$ and $z_{\parallel}^{\text{ch}}$, at generator and reconstruction levels, was populated with prompt $\Lambda_c^+$-tagged jets, obtained with PYTHIA 8 simulations with the Monash tune, passed through a simulation of the ALICE detector using Geant 3. The measured data and response matrix were provided in the intervals of $5 \le p_T^{\text{jet ch}} < 35$ GeV/c and $0.4 \le z_{\parallel}^{\text{ch}} \le 1.0$, with the final unfolded results reported in the intervals $7 \le p_T^{\text{jet ch}} < 15$ GeV/c and $0.4 \le z_{\parallel}^{\text{ch}} \le 1.0$. The extended $p_T^{\text{jet ch}}$ range includes two padding intervals for the unfolding from $5 \le p_T^{\text{jet ch}} < 7$ GeV/c and $15 \le p_T^{\text{jet ch}} < 35$ GeV/c, which allow the unfolding to account for migrations in and out of the reported $7 \le p_T^{\text{jet ch}} < 15$ GeV/c interval. Corrections accounting for migrating entries in and out of the response matrix ranges, as modeled by the same MC simulation, were also applied. The corrected $z_{\parallel}^{\text{ch}}$ distribution is normalized to the total number of $\Lambda_c^+$-tagged jets in the reported $z_{\parallel}^{\text{ch}}$ and $p_T^{\text{jet ch}}$ interval.

The systematic uncertainties affecting the measurement were evaluated, in each $z_{\parallel}^{\text{ch}}$ interval, by modifying the strategy adopted at various steps of the analysis procedure and assessing the impact on the unfolded $z_{\parallel}^{\text{ch}}$ distribution. The total systematic uncertainty includes contributions from multiple sources. The first considered source is the sideband subtraction procedure, whose contribution (ranging from 3.7% to 7.6% depending on the $z_{\parallel}^{\text{ch}}$ interval) was estimated by varying the invariant-mass fit parameters as well as the invariant-mass intervals of the signal and sideband regions. The contribution from the BDT selection of $\Lambda_c^+$ candidates (from 7.3% to 19%) was estimated by
varying the BDT probability thresholds to induce a 25% variation in the $\Lambda_c^+$-tagged jet reconstruction and selection efficiency. The uncertainty from the jet energy resolution (from 4.5% to 19%) was estimated by recalculating the response matrix used for unfolding with a 4% reduced tracking efficiency. The reduction in the tracking efficiency was evaluated by varying the track-selection criteria and propagating the ITS-TPC track-matching efficiency uncertainty. The uncertainty on the feed-down subtraction (< 2%) was estimated by varying the choice of POWHEG parameters considered to generate the feed-down cross section, including the factorization and renormalization scales, as well as the mass of the beauty quark, which were varied according to theoretical prescriptions [38]. Finally the contribution from the unfolding procedure (from 1.1% to 2.7%) was estimated by altering the choice of prior, regularization parameter, and ranges of the response matrix. For each of the aforementioned categories, several variations were made and the root-mean-square of the resulting distributions was considered. The exceptions are related to the contribution associated to the choice of parameters of the POWHEG calculations, where only the largest deviation from the central result, in each direction, was considered, as well as the uncertainty on the jet energy resolution where the variation with respect to the central result was taken as the uncertainty. All uncertainties (other than from the feed-down subtraction) were then symmetrized. The uncertainties were combined in quadrature to obtain

the total systematic uncertainty on the measurement, which ranges from 13% to 28%.

The fully corrected $z_\parallel^{\text{ch}}$ distribution of prompt $\Lambda_c^+$-tagged charged jets in the intervals of $7 \le p_T^{\text{jet ch}} < 15$ GeV/c and $3 \le p_T^{\Lambda_c^+} < 15$ GeV/c is presented in the left-hand panel of Fig. 1 and compared to PYTHIA 8 simulations with two different tunes. In PYTHIA 8 the Lund string model of fragmentation is employed, where endpoints are confined by linear potentials encoded in strings. For the case of heavy quarks, the Lund fragmentation function is modified to account for the slower propagation of the massive endpoints compared to their massless counterparts. The Monash tune (red-dotted line) [16], in which the charm fragmentation is tuned on $e^+e^-$ measurements, predicts a harder fragmentation than the measurement. An evaluation of the $\chi^2/\text{ndf}$ between the measured data points and the model was performed, combining the statistical and systematic uncertainties on the data in quadrature and assuming the uncertainties are uncorrelated across the $z_\parallel^{\text{ch}}$ intervals. This exercise determines that there is a 0.4% probability that the model describes the data. A better agreement is achieved by PYTHIA 8 with the CR-BLC Mode 2 tune, which includes color reconnection mechanisms beyond the leading-color approximation [23] (green-dashed line). In this model, the minimization of the string potential is implemented considering the SU(3) multiplet structure of QCD in a more realistic way than in the

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>FIG. 1. Left: fully corrected normalized $z_\parallel^{\text{ch}}$ distribution of $\Lambda_c^+$-tagged charged jets (black open circles) measured in the $7 \le p_T^{\text{jet ch}} < 15$ GeV/c and $3 \le p_T^{\Lambda_c^+} < 15$ GeV/c intervals in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV, compared with predictions from different PYTHIA 8 tunes [20,21,23] (red-dotted and green-dashed lines). The ratios of the MC simulations to the data are shown in the bottom panel. Right: comparison of the measured $z_\parallel^{\text{ch}}$ distribution of $\Lambda_c^+$-tagged jets and the previously measured $z_\parallel^{\text{ch}}$ distribution of D$^0$-tagged jets [7], obtained in the same kinematic interval. The ratio of the $z_\parallel^{\text{ch}}$ distribution of $\Lambda_c^+$-tagged and D$^0$-tagged jets is shown in the bottom panel for both the data and the different PYTHIA tunes.</figcaption></figure>
leading-color approximation, allowing for the formation of “baryonic” configurations where for example two colors can combine coherently to form an anticolor. The same $\chi^2/ndf$ approach results in a 78% probability that the model describes the data. The simulation with PYTHIA 8 with the CR-BLC Mode 2 tune also provides a much more accurate description of the $\Lambda_c^+/D^0$ cross section ratio, previously measured in pp collisions at the LHC [11–15,39].

In the right-hand panel of Fig. 1, a comparison of the $z_{\parallel}^{ch}$ distribution of $\Lambda_c^+$-tagged jets and the $z_{\parallel}^{ch}$ distribution previously measured for $D^0$-tagged jets [7] is presented. The latter is consistent with PYTHIA 8 simulations using both the Monash and CR-BLC Mode 2 tunes. The ratio of the two distributions is also presented in the bottom panel. The uncertainty from the jet-energy resolution was considered to be correlated between the $\Lambda_c^+$-tagged jet and $D^0$-tagged jet measurements and was evaluated directly on the ratio of the distributions. The remaining uncertainties were considered uncorrelated when taking the ratio and were then combined in quadrature with the uncertainty of the jet-energy resolution. The uncertainties were considered uncorrelated across the $z_{\parallel}^{ch}$ intervals. The same $\chi^2/ndf$ exercise described above determines that there is a 12% probability that the measured ratio is described by a flat distribution at unity, hinting at a softer fragmentation of charm quarks into charm baryons than charm mesons. The ratio is better described by the PYTHIA 8 simulations with the CR-BLC Mode 2 compared to the ones with the Monash tune, with the former describing the data with 88% probability compared to a 0.03% probability for the latter.

In summary the first measurement in hadronic collisions of the longitudinal momentum fraction of the charged jet carried by $\Lambda_c^+$ baryons was presented for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV. The result is fully corrected to particle level and obtained in the jet and $\Lambda_c^+$ transverse momentum intervals of $7 \le p_T^{jet ch} < 15$ GeV/c and $3 \le p_T^{\Lambda_c^+} < 15$ GeV/c, respectively. The measurement presented in this paper hints that charm quarks have a softer fragmentation into $\Lambda_c^+$ baryons compared to $D^0$ mesons, in the measured kinematic interval. One possible explanation is that charm-baryon production is favored in the presence of higher particle multiplicity originating from both the jet fragmentation and the underlying event, which could be tested with future measurements of the in-jet multiplicity of $\Lambda_c^+$-tagged jets. The fragmentation of charm quarks into $\Lambda_c^+$ baryons in hadronic collisions exhibits tension with simulations tuned on $e^+e^-$ data that employ a leading-color formalism of hadronization, such as in the Monash tune of PYTHIA 8. This occurs despite their successful description of the fragmentation of charm quarks into $D^0$ mesons. However, the inclusion of mechanisms sensitive to the surrounding partonic density that feature color reconnection beyond the leading-color approximation results in a

better agreement with data. This result also partially explains the $p_T$ shape of the prompt $\Lambda_c^+/D^0$ cross section ratio [11–15,39], which shows a peak at low $p_T$ ($\approx 3$ GeV/c) and is also described within uncertainties by PYTHIA 8 with the CR-BLC Mode 2 tune. The $p_T$ trend of this ratio is driven by the fact that the $\Lambda_c^+$ baryons produced from the fragmenting charm quark carry a significantly lower fraction of the charm-quark transverse momentum than the $D^0$ mesons produced in a similar way.

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; 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 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 sup-
port from: European Research Council, Strong 2020—
Horizon 2020, Marie Skłodowska Curie (Grants
No. 950692, No. 824093, No. 896850), European Union;
Academy of Finland (Center of Excellence in Quark Matter)
(Grants No. 346327, No. 346328), Finland; Programa de
Apoyos para la Superación del Personal Académico,
UNAM, Mexico.

[1] J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper, and G. F. Sterman, Factorization of hard processes in QCD, Adv. Ser. Dir. High Energy Phys. 5, 1 (1989).

[2] R. Seuster et al. (Belle Collaboration), Charm hadrons from fragmentation and B decays in $e^{+}e^{-}$ annihilation at $\sqrt{s} = 10.6$ GeV, Phys. Rev. D 73, 032002 (2006).

[3] M. Niiyama et al. (Belle Collaboration), Production cross sections of hyperons and charmed baryons from $e^{+}e^{-}$ annihilation near $\sqrt{s} = 10.52$ GeV, Phys. Rev. D 97, 072005 (2018).

[4] R. Barate et al. (ALEPH Collaboration), Study of charm production in Z decays, Eur. Phys. J. C 16, 597 (2000).

[5] ZEUS Collaboration, Measurement of the charm fragmentation function in D* photoproduction at HERA, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2009) 082.

[6] F. D. Aaron et al. (H1 Collaboration), Study of charm fragmentation into D\*± mesons in deep-inelastic scattering at HERA, Eur. Phys. J. C 59, 589 (2009).

[7] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Measurement of the production of charm jets tagged with D⁰ mesons in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 5.02$ and 13 TeV, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2023) 133.

[8] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Measurement of the production of charm jets tagged with D⁰ mesons in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 7$ TeV, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2019) 133.

[9] G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Measurement of D\*± meson production in jets from pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 7$ TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D 85, 052005 (2012).

[10] J. Adam et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Enhanced production of multi-strange hadrons in high-multiplicity proton-proton collisions, Nat. Phys. 13, 535 (2017).

[11] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), $\Lambda_c^+$ production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 7$ TeV and in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2018) 108.

[12] 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).

[13] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Measurement of prompt D⁰, $\Lambda_c^+$, and $\Sigma_c^{0++}$ (2455) production in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 012001 (2022).

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

[15] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Observation of a multiplicity dependence in the $p_T$-differential charm baryon-to-meson ratios in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV, Phys. Lett. B 829, 137065 (2022).

[16] 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).

[17] 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).

[18] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), First measurement of $\Xi_c^0$ production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 7$ TeV, Phys. Lett. B **781**, 8 (2018).

[19] 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 13 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. **127**, 272001 (2021).

[20] P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo, Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: The Monash 2013 tune, Eur. Phys. J. C **74**, 3024 (2014).

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

[22] M. Bahr et al., Herwig++ physics and manual, Eur. Phys. J. C **58**, 639 (2008).

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

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

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

[26] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), ALICE 2016-2017-2018 luminosity determination for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2776672.

[27] P. Zyla et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. **2020**, 083C01 (2020).

[28] T. Chen and C. Guestrin, XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system, 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, arXiv: 1603.02754.

[29] R. Brun, F. Bruyant, M. Maire, A. C. McPherson, and P. Zanarini, Geant 3: User's guide Geant 3.10, Geant 3.11; rev. version (CERN, Geneva, 1987), https://cds.cern.ch/record/1119728.

[30] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, FastJet user manual, Eur. Phys. J. C **72**, 1896 (2012).

[31] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, The anti-$k_t$ jet clustering algorithm, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2008) 063.

[32] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, The catchment area of jets, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2008) 005.

[33] K. C. Han, R. J. Fries, and C. M. Ko, Jet fragmentation via recombination of parton showers, Phys. Rev. C **93**, 045207 (2016).

[34] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: The POWHEG BOX, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2010) 043.

[35] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2006) 026.

[36] D. J. Lange, The EvtGen particle decay simulation package, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A **462**, 152 (2001).

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

[38] M. Cacciari, P. Nason, and R. Vogt, QCD predictions for charm and bottom quark production at RHIC, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 122001 (2005).

[39] 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).

S. Acharya$^{126}$, D. Adamová$^{86}$, A. Adler$^{70}$, G. Aglieri Rinella$^{32}$, M. Agnello$^{29}$, N. Agrawal$^{51}$, Z. Ahammed$^{134}$

S. Ahmad$^{15}$, S. U. Ahn$^{71}$, I. Ahuja$^{37}$, A. Akindinov$^{140}$, M. Al-Turany$^{97}$, D. Aleksandrov$^{140}$, B. Alessandro$^{56}$

H. M. Alfanda$^{6}$, R. Alfaro Molina$^{67}$, B. Ali$^{15}$, A. Alici$^{25a,25b}$, N. Alizadehvandchali$^{115}$, A. Alkin$^{32}$, J. Alme$^{20}$

G. Alocco$^{52}$, T. Alt$^{64}$, I. Altsybeev$^{140}$, J. R. Alvarado$^{44}$, M. N. Anaam$^{6}$, C. Andrei$^{45}$, A. Andronic$^{125}$

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$^{52}$, R. Arnaldi$^{56}$, J. G. M. C. A. Arneiro$^{110}$, I. C. Arsene$^{19}$, M. Arslandok$^{137}$

A. Augustinus$^{32}$, R. Averbeck$^{97}$, M. D. Azmi$^{15}$, A. Badalà$^{53}$, J. Bae$^{104}$, Y. W. Baek$^{40}$, X. Bai$^{119}$

R. Bailhache$^{64}$, Y. Bailung$^{48}$, A. Balbino$^{29}$, A. Baldisseri$^{129}$, B. Balis$^{2}$, D. Banerjee$^{4a,4b}$, Z. Banoo$^{91}$

R. Barbera$^{26a,26b}$, F. Barile$^{31a,31b}$, L. Barioglio$^{95}$, M. Barlou$^{78}$, G. G. Barnaföldi$^{46}$, L. S. Barnby$^{85}$, V. Barret$^{126}$

L. Barreto$^{110}$, C. Bartels$^{118}$, K. Barth$^{32}$, E. Bartsch$^{64}$, N. Bastid$^{126}$, S. Basu$^{75}$, G. Batigne$^{103}$, D. Battistini$^{95}$

B. Batyunya$^{141}$, D. Bauri$^{47}$, J. L. Bazo Alba$^{101}$, I. G. Bearden$^{83}$, C. Beattie$^{137}$, P. Becht$^{97}$, D. Behera$^{48}$

I. Belikov$^{128}$, A. D. C. Bell Hechavarria$^{125}$, F. Bellini$^{25a,25b}$, R. Bellwied$^{115}$, S. Belokurova$^{140}$, V. Belyaev$^{140}$

G. Bencedi$^{46}$, S. Beole$^{24a,24b}$, A. Bercuci$^{45}$, Y. Berdnikov$^{140}$, A. Berdnikova$^{94}$, L. Bergmann$^{94}$, M. G. Besoiu$^{63}$

L. Betev$^{32}$, P. P. Bhaduri$^{134}$, A. Bhasin$^{91}$, M. A. Bhat$^{4a,4b}$, B. Bhattacharjee$^{41}$, L. Bianchi$^{24a,24b}$, N. Bianchi$^{49}$

J. Bielčík$^{35}$, J. Bielčíková$^{86}$, J. Biernat$^{107}$, A. P. Bigot$^{128}$, A. Bilandzic$^{95}$, G. Biro$^{46}$, S. Biswas$^{4a,4b}$, N. Bize$^{103}$

J. T. Blair$^{108}$, D. Blau$^{140}$, M. B. Blidaru$^{97}$, N. Bluhme$^{38}$, C. Blume$^{64}$, G. Boca$^{21,55}$, F. Bock$^{87}$, T. Bodova$^{20}$
A. Bogdanov,¹⁴⁰ S. Boi,²²a,²²b J. Bok,⁵⁸ L. Boldizsár,⁴⁶ M. Bombara,³⁷ P. M. Bond,³² G. Bonomi,⁵⁵,¹³⁴
H. Borel,¹²⁹ A. Borissov,¹⁴⁰ A. G. Borquez Carcamo,⁹⁴ H. Bossi,¹³⁷ E. Botta,²⁴a,²⁴b Y. E. M. Bouziani,⁶⁴
L. Bratrud,⁶⁴ P. Braun-Munzinger,⁹⁷ M. Bregant,¹¹⁰ M. Broz,³⁵ G. E. Bruno,³¹a,³¹b,⁹⁶ M. D. Buckland,²³a,²³b
D. Budnikov,¹⁴⁰ H. Buesching,⁶⁴ S. Bufalino,²⁹ O. Bugnon,¹⁰³ P. Buhler,¹⁰² Z. Buthelezi,⁶⁸,¹²² S. A. Bysiak,¹⁰⁷
M. Cai,⁶ H. Caines,¹³⁷ A. Caliva,⁹⁷ E. Calvo Villar,¹⁰¹ J. M. M. Camacho,¹⁰⁹ P. Camerini,²³a,²³b
F. D. M. Canedo,¹¹⁰ S. L. Cantway,¹³⁷ M. Carabas,¹¹³ A. A. Carballo,³² F. Carnesecchi,³² R. Caron,¹²⁷
L. A. D. Carvalho,¹¹⁰ J. Castillo Castellanos,¹²⁹ F. Catalano,²⁴a,²⁴b C. Ceballos Sanchez,¹⁴¹ I. Chakaberia,⁷⁴
P. Chakraborty,⁴⁷ S. Chandra,¹³⁴ S. Chapeland,³² M. Chartier,¹¹⁸ S. Chattopadhyay,¹³⁴ S. Chattopadhyay,⁹⁹
T. Cheng,⁶,⁹⁷ C. Cheshkov,¹²⁷ B. Cheynis,¹²⁷ V. Chibante Barroso,³² D. D. Chinellato,¹¹¹ E. S. Chizzali,⁹⁵,‡
J. Cho,⁵⁸ S. Cho,⁵⁸ P. Chochula,³² P. Christakoglou,⁸⁴ C. H. Christensen,⁸³ P. Christiansen,⁷⁵ T. Chujo,¹²⁴
M. Ciacco,²⁹ C. Cicalo,⁵² F. Cindolo,⁵¹ M. R. Ciupek,⁹⁷ G. Clai,⁵¹,§ F. Colamaria,⁵⁰ J. S. Colburn,¹⁰⁰
D. Colella,³¹a,³¹b,⁹⁶ M. Colocci,³² M. Concas,⁵⁶|| G. Conesa Balbastre,⁷³ Z. Conesa del Valle,¹³⁰ G. Contin,²³a,²³b
J. G. Contreras,³⁵ M. L. Coquet,¹²⁹ T. M. Cormier,⁷⁸,† P. Cortese,⁵⁶,¹³² M. R. Cosentino,¹¹² F. Costa,³²
S. Costanza,²¹,⁵⁵ C. Cot,¹³⁰ J. Crkovská,⁹⁴ P. Crochet,¹²⁶ R. Cruz-Torres,⁷⁴ E. Cuautle,⁶⁵ P. Cui,⁶ A. Dainese,⁵⁴
M. C. Danisch,⁹⁴ A. Danu,⁶³ P. Das,⁸⁰ P. Das,⁴a,⁴b S. Das,⁴a,⁴b A. R. Dash,¹²⁵ S. Dash,⁴⁷ A. De Caro,²⁸a,²⁸b
G. de Cataldo,⁵⁰ J. de Cuveland,³⁸ A. De Falco,²²a,²²b D. De Gruttola,²⁸a,²⁸b N. De Marco,⁵⁶ C. De Martin,²³a,²³b
S. De Pasquale,²⁸a,²⁸b S. Deb,⁴⁸ R. J. Debski,² K. R. Deja,¹³⁵ R. Del Grande,⁹⁵ L. Dello Stritto,²⁸a,²⁸b W. Deng,⁶
P. Dhankher,¹⁸ D. Di Bari,³¹a,³¹b A. Di Mauro,³² R. A. Diaz,⁷,¹⁴¹ T. Dietel,¹¹⁴ Y. Ding,⁶,¹²⁷ R. Divià,³²
D. U. Dixit,¹⁸ Ø. Djuvsland,²⁰ U. Dmitrieva,¹⁴⁰ A. Dobrin,⁶³ B. Dönigus,⁶⁴ J. M. Dubinski,¹³⁵ A. Dubla,⁹⁷
S. Dudi,⁹⁰ P. Dupieux,¹²⁶ M. Durkac,¹⁰⁶ N. Dzalaiova,¹² T. M. Eder,¹²⁵ R. J. Ehlers,⁸⁷ V. N. Eikeland,²⁰
F. Eisenhut,⁶⁴ D. Elia,⁵⁰ B. Erazmus,¹⁰³ F. Ercolessi,²⁵a,²⁵b F. Erhardt,⁸⁹ M. R. Ersdal,²⁰ B. Espagnon,¹³⁰
G. Eulisse,³² D. Evans,¹⁰⁰ S. Evdokimov,¹⁴⁰ L. Fabbietti,⁹⁵ M. Faggin,²⁷a,²⁷b J. Faivre,⁷³ F. Fan,⁶ W. Fan,⁷⁴
A. Fantoni,⁴⁹ M. Fasel,⁸⁷ P. Fecchio,²⁹ A. Feliciello,⁵⁶ G. Feofilov,¹⁴⁰ A. Fernández Téllez,⁴⁴ L. Ferrandi,¹¹⁰
M. B. Ferrer,³² A. Ferrero,¹²⁹ C. Ferrero,⁵⁶ A. Ferretti,²⁴a,²⁴b V. J. G. Feuillard,⁹⁴ V. Filova,³⁵ D. Finogeev,¹⁴⁰
F. M. Fionda,⁵² F. Flor,¹¹⁵ A. N. Flores,¹⁰⁸ S. Foertsch,⁶⁸ I. Fokin,⁹⁴ S. Fokin,¹⁴⁰ E. Fragiacomo,⁵⁷ E. Frajna,⁴⁶
U. Fuchs,³² N. Funicello,²⁸a,²⁸b C. Furget,⁷³ A. Furs,¹⁴⁰ T. Fusayasu,⁹⁸ J. J. Gaardhøje,⁸³ M. Gagliardi,²⁴a,²⁴b
A. M. Gago,¹⁰¹ C. D. Galvan,¹⁰⁹ D. R. Gangadharan,¹¹⁵ P. Ganoti,⁷⁸ C. Garabatos,⁹⁷ T. García Chávez,⁴⁴
E. Garcia-Solis,⁹ K. Garg,¹⁰³ C. Gargiulo,³² K. Garner,¹²⁵ P. Gasik,⁹⁷ A. Gautam,¹¹⁷ M. B. Gay Ducati,⁶⁶
M. Germain,¹⁰³ A. Ghimouz,¹²⁴ C. Ghosh,¹³⁴ M. Giacalone,²⁵a,²⁵b,⁵¹ P. Giubellino,⁵⁶,⁹⁷ P. Giubilato,²⁷a,²⁷b
A. M. C. Glaenzer,¹²⁹ P. Glässel,⁹⁴ E. Glimos,¹²¹ D. J. Q. Goh,⁷⁶ V. Gonzalez,¹³⁶ L. H. González-Trueba,⁶⁷
M. Gorgon,² S. Gotovac,³³ V. Grabski,⁶⁷ L. K. Graczykowski,¹³⁵ E. Grecka,⁸⁶ A. Grelli,⁵⁹ C. Grigoras,³²
V. Grigoriev,¹⁴⁰ S. Grigoryan,¹,¹⁴¹ F. Grosa,³² J. F. Grosse-Oetringhaus,³² R. Grosso,⁹⁷ D. Grund,³⁵
G. G. Guardiano,¹¹¹ R. Guernane,⁷³ M. Guilbaud,¹⁰³ K. Gulbrandsen,⁸³ T. Gündem,⁶⁴ T. Gunji,¹²³ W. Guo,⁶
A. Gupta,⁹¹ R. Gupta,⁹¹ L. Gyulai,⁴⁶ M. K. Habib,⁹⁷ C. Hadjidakis,¹³⁰ F. U. Haider,⁹¹ H. Hamagaki,⁷⁶
A. Hamdi,⁷⁴ M. Hamid,⁶ Y. Han,¹³⁸ R. Hannigan,¹⁰⁸ M. R. Haque,¹³⁵ J. W. Harris,¹³⁷ A. Harton,⁹ H. Hassan,⁸⁷
D. Hatzifotiadou,⁵¹ P. Hauer,⁴² L. B. Havener,¹³⁷ S. T. Heckel,⁹⁵ E. Hellbär,⁹⁷ H. Helstrup,³⁴ M. Hemmer,⁶⁴
T. Herman,³⁵ G. Herrera Corral,⁸ F. Herrmann,¹²⁵ S. Herrmann,¹²⁷ K. F. Hetland,³⁴ B. Heybeck,⁶⁴
H. Hillemanns,³² C. Hills,¹¹⁸ B. Hippolyte,¹²⁸ F. W. Hoffmann,⁷⁰ B. Hofman,⁵⁹ B. Hohlweger,⁸⁴ G. H. Hong,¹³⁸
M. Horst,⁹⁵ A. Horzyk,² Y. Hou,⁶ P. Hristov,³² C. Hughes,¹²¹ P. Huhn,⁶⁴ L. M. Huhta,¹¹⁶ T. J. Humanic,⁸⁸
A. Hutson,¹¹⁵ D. Hutter,³⁸ J. P. Iddon,¹¹⁸ R. Ilkaev,¹⁴⁰ H. Ilyas,¹³ M. Inaba,¹²⁴ G. M. Innocenti,³²
M. Ippolitov,¹⁴⁰ A. Isakov,⁸⁶ T. Isidori,¹¹⁷ M. S. Islam,⁹⁹ M. Ivanov,⁹⁷ M. Ivanov,¹² V. Ivanov,¹⁴⁰ M. Jablonski,²
B. Jacak,⁷⁴ N. Jacazio,³² P. M. Jacobs,⁷⁴ S. Jadlovska,¹⁰⁶ J. Jadlovsky,¹⁰⁶ S. Jaelani,⁸² L. Jaffe,³⁸ C. Jahnke,¹¹¹
M. J. Jakubowska,¹³⁵ M. A. Janik,¹³⁵ T. Janson,⁷⁰ M. Jercic,⁸⁹ S. Jia,¹⁰ A. A. P. Jimenez,⁶⁵ F. Jonas,⁸⁷,¹²⁵
J. M. Jowett,³²,⁹⁷ J. Jung,⁶⁴ M. Jung,⁶⁴ A. Junique,³² A. Jusko,¹⁰⁰ M. J. Kabus,³²,¹³⁵ J. Kaewjai,¹⁰⁵ P. Kalinak,⁶⁰
A. S. Kalteyer,⁹⁷ A. Kalweit,³² V. Kaplin,¹⁴⁰ A. Karasu Uysal,⁷² D. Karatovic,⁸⁹ O. Karavichev,¹⁴⁰
T. Karavicheva,¹⁴⁰ P. Karczmarczyk,¹³⁵ E. Karpechev,¹⁴⁰ U. Kebschull,⁷⁰ R. Keidel,¹³⁹ D. L. D. Keijdener,⁵⁹
M. Keil,³² B. Ketzer,⁴² A. M. Khan,⁶ S. Khan,¹⁵ A. Khanzadeev,¹⁴⁰ Y. Kharlov,¹⁴⁰ A. Khatun,¹⁵,¹¹⁷
A. Khuntia,¹⁰⁷ M. B. Kidson,¹¹⁴ B. Kileng,³⁴ B. Kim,¹⁶ C. Kim,¹⁶ D. J. Kim,¹¹⁶ E. J. Kim,⁶⁹ J. Kim,¹³⁸
J. S. Kim,⁴⁰ J. Kim,⁶⁹ M. Kim,¹⁸,⁹⁴ S. Kim,¹⁷ T. Kim,¹³⁸ K. Kimura,⁹² S. Kirsch,⁶⁴ I. Kisel,³⁸ S. Kiselev,¹⁴⁰
A. Kisiel,¹³⁵ J. P. Kitowski,² J. L. Klay,⁵ J. Klein,³² S. Klein,⁷⁴ C. Klein-Bösing,¹²⁵ M. Kleiner,⁶⁴

T. Klemenz,⁹⁵ A. Kluge,³² A. G. Knospe,¹¹⁵ C. Kobdaj,¹⁰⁵ T. Kollegger,⁹⁷ A. Kondratyev,¹⁴¹ N. Kondratyeva,¹⁴⁰

E. Kondratyuk,¹⁴⁰ J. König,⁶⁴ S. A. Königstorfer,⁹⁵ P. J. Konopka,³² G. Kornakov,¹³⁵ M. Korwieser,⁹⁵

S. D. Koryciak,² A. Kotliarov,⁸⁶ V. Kovalenko,¹⁴⁰ M. Kowalski,¹⁰⁷ V. Kozhuharov,³⁶ I. Králik,⁶⁰

A. Kravčáková,³⁷ L. Kreis,⁹⁷ M. Krivda,⁶⁰,¹⁰⁰ F. Krizek,⁸⁶ K. Krizkova Gajdosova,³⁵ M. Kroesen,⁹⁴ M. Krüger,⁶⁴

D. M. Krupova,³⁵ E. Kryshen,¹⁴⁰ V. Kučera,³² C. Kuhn,¹²⁸ P. G. Kuijer,⁸⁴ T. Kumaoka,¹²⁴ D. Kumar,¹³⁴

L. Kumar,⁹⁰ N. Kumar,⁹⁰ S. Kumar,³¹,³¹b S. Kundu,³² P. Kurashvili,⁷⁹ A. Kurepin,¹⁴⁰ A. B. Kurepin,¹⁴⁰

A. Kuryakin,¹⁴⁰ S. Kushpil,⁸⁶ J. Kvapil,¹⁰⁰ M. J. Kweon,⁵⁸ J. Y. Kwon,⁵⁸ Y. Kwon,¹³⁸ S. L. La Pointe,³⁸

P. La Rocca,²⁶a,²⁶b Y. S. Lai,⁷⁴ A. Lakrathok,¹⁰⁵ M. Lamanna,³² R. Langoy,¹²⁰ P. Larionov,³² E. Laudi,³²

L. Lautner,³²,⁹⁵ R. Lavicka,¹⁰² T. Lazareva,¹⁴⁰ R. Lea,⁵⁵,¹³³ H. Lee,¹⁰⁴ G. Legras,¹²⁵ J. Lehrbach,³⁸

R. C. Lemmon,⁸⁵ I. León Monzón,¹⁰⁹ M. M. Lesch,⁹⁵ E. D. Lesser,¹⁸ M. Lettrich,⁹⁵ P. Lévai,⁴⁶ X. Li,¹⁰ X. L. Li,⁶

J. Lien,¹²⁰ R. Lietava,¹⁰⁰ I. Likmeta,¹¹⁵ B. Lim,¹⁶,²⁴a,²⁴b S. H. Lim,¹⁶ V. Lindenstruth,³⁸ A. Lindner,⁴⁵

C. Lippmann,⁹⁷ A. Liu,¹⁸ D. H. Liu,⁶ J. Liu,¹¹⁸ I. M. Lofnes,²⁰ C. Loizides,⁸⁷ S. Lokos,¹⁰⁷ J. Lömker,⁵⁹

P. Loncar,³³ J. A. Lopez,⁹⁴ X. Lopez,¹²⁶ E. López Torres,⁷ P. Lu,⁹⁷,¹¹⁹ J. R. Luhder,¹²⁵ M. Lunardon,²⁷a,²⁷b

G. Luparello,⁵⁷ Y. G. Ma,³⁹ A. Maevskaya,¹⁴⁰ M. Mager,³² T. Mahmoud,⁴² A. Maire,¹²⁸ M. V. Makariev,³⁶

M. Malaev,¹⁴⁰ G. Malfattore,²⁵a,²⁵b N. M. Malik,⁹¹ Q. W. Malik,¹⁹ S. K. Malik,⁹¹ L. Malinina,¹⁴¹,†,¶

D. Mal'Kevich,¹⁴⁰ D. Mallick,⁸⁰ N. Mallick,⁴⁸ G. Mandaglio,³⁰,⁵³ V. Manko,¹⁴⁰ F. Manso,¹²⁶ V. Manzari,⁵⁰

Y. Mao,⁶ G. V. Margagliotti,²³a,²³b A. Margotti,⁵¹ A. Marín,⁹⁷ C. Markert,¹⁰⁸ P. Martinengo,³² J. L. Martinez,¹¹⁵

M. I. Martínez,⁴⁴ G. Martínez García,¹⁰³ S. Masciocchi,⁹⁷ M. Masera,²⁴a,²⁴b A. Masoni,⁵² L. Massacrier,¹³⁰

A. Mastroserio,⁵⁰,¹³¹ O. Matonoha,⁷⁵ P. F. T. Matuoka,¹¹⁰ A. Matyja,¹⁰⁷ C. Mayer,¹⁰⁷ A. L. Mazuecos,³²

F. Mazzaschi,²⁴a,²⁴b M. Mazzilli,³² J. E. Mdhluli,¹²² A. F. Mechler,⁶⁴ Y. Melikyan,⁴³,¹⁴⁰ A. Menchaca-Rocha,⁶⁷

E. Meninno,¹⁰² A. S. Menon,¹¹⁵ M. Meres,¹² S. Mhlanga,⁶⁸,¹¹⁴ Y. Miake,¹²⁴ L. Micheletti,⁵⁶ L. C. Migliorin,¹²⁷

D. L. Mihaylov,⁹⁵ K. Mikhaylov,¹⁴⁰,¹⁴¹ A. N. Mishra,⁴⁶ D. Miśkowiec,⁹⁷ A. Modak,⁴a,⁴b A. P. Mohanty,⁵⁹

B. Mohanty,⁸⁰ M. Mohisin Khan,¹⁵,** M. A. Molander,⁴³ Z. Moravcova,⁸³ C. Mordasini,⁹⁵

D. A. Moreira De Godoy,¹²⁵ I. Morozov,¹⁴⁰ A. Morsch,³² T. Mrnjavac,³² V. Muccifora,⁴⁹ S. Muhuri,¹³⁴

J. D. Mulligan,⁷⁴ A. Mulliri,²²a,²²b M. G. Munhoz,¹¹⁰ R. H. Munzer,⁶⁴ H. Murakami,¹²³ S. Murray,¹¹⁴ L. Musa,³²

J. Musinsky,⁶⁰ J. W. Myrcha,¹³⁵ B. Naik,¹²² A. I. Nambrath,¹⁸ B. K. Nandi,⁴⁷ R. Nania,⁵¹ E. Nappi,⁵⁰

A. F. Nassirpour,⁷⁵ A. Nath,⁹⁴ C. Nattrass,¹²¹ M. N. Naydenov,³⁶ A. Neagu,¹⁹ A. Negru,¹¹³ L. Nellen,⁶⁵

S. V. Nesbo,³⁴ G. Neskovic,³⁸ D. Nesterov,¹⁴⁰ B. S. Nielsen,⁸³ E. G. Nielsen,⁸³ S. Nikolaev,¹⁴⁰ S. Nikulin,¹⁴⁰

V. Nikulin,¹⁴⁰ F. Noferini,⁵¹ S. Noh,¹¹ P. Nomokonov,¹⁴¹ J. Norman,¹¹⁸ N. Novitzky,¹²⁴ P. Nowakowski,¹³⁵

A. Nyanin,¹⁴⁰ J. Nystrand,²⁰ M. Ogino,⁷⁶ A. Ohlson,⁷⁵ V. A. Okorokov,¹⁴⁰ J. Oleniacz,¹³⁵

A. C. Oliveira Da Silva,¹²¹ M. H. Oliver,¹³⁷ A. Onnerstad,¹¹⁶ C. Oppedisano,⁵⁶ A. Ortiz Velasquez,⁶⁵

J. Otwinowski,¹⁰⁷ M. Oya,⁹² K. Oyama,⁷⁶ Y. Pachmayer,⁹⁴ S. Padhan,⁴⁷ D. Pagano,⁵⁵,¹³³ G. Paić,⁶⁵

S. Paisano-Guzmán,⁴⁴ A. Palasciano,⁵⁰ S. Panebianco,¹²⁹ H. Park,¹²⁴ H. Park,¹⁰⁴ J. Park,⁵⁸ J. E. Parkkila,³²

R. N. Patra,⁹¹ B. Paul,²²a,²²b H. Pei,⁶ T. Peitzmann,⁵⁹ X. Peng,⁶ M. Pennisi,²⁴a,²⁴b L. G. Pereira,⁶⁶

D. Peresunko,¹⁴⁰ G. M. Perez,⁷ S. Perrin,¹²⁹ Y. Pestov,¹⁴⁰ V. Petráček,³⁵ V. Petrov,¹⁴⁰ M. Petrovici,⁴⁵

R. P. Pezzi,⁶⁶,¹⁰³ S. Piano,⁵⁷ M. Pikna,¹² P. Pillot,¹⁰³ O. Pinazza,³²,⁵¹ L. Pinsky,¹¹⁵ C. Pinto,⁹⁵ S. Pisano,⁴⁹

M. Płoskoń,⁷⁴ M. Planinic,⁸⁹ F. Pliquett,⁶⁴ M. G. Poghosyan,⁸⁷ B. Polichtchouk,¹⁴⁰ S. Politano,²⁹ N. Poljak,⁸⁹

A. Pop,⁴⁵ S. Porteboeuf-Houssais,¹²⁶ V. Pozdniakov,¹⁴¹ K. K. Pradhan,⁴⁸ S. K. Prasad,⁴a,⁴b S. Prasad,⁴⁸

R. Preghenella,⁵¹ F. Prino,⁵⁶ C. A. Pruneau,¹³⁶ I. Pshenichnov,¹⁴⁰ M. Puccio,³² S. Pucillo,²⁴a,²⁴b Z. Pugelova,¹⁰⁶

S. Qiu,⁸⁴ L. Quaglia,²⁴a,²⁴b R. E. Quishpe,¹¹⁵ S. Ragoni,¹⁴,¹⁰⁰ A. Rakotozafindrabe,¹²⁹ L. Ramello,⁵⁶,¹³²

F. Rami,¹²⁸ T. A. Rancien,⁷³ M. Rasa,²⁶a,²⁶b S. S. Räsänen,⁴³ R. Rath,⁵¹ M. P. Rauch,²⁰ I. Ravasenga,⁸⁴

K. F. Read,⁸⁷,¹²¹ 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,¹⁴⁰ V. Riabov,¹⁴⁰

R. Ricci,²⁸a,²⁸b M. Richter,¹⁹ A. A. Riedel,⁹⁵ W. Riegler,³² C. Ristea,⁶³ M. Rodríguez Cahuantzi,⁴⁴

S. A. Rodríguez Ramírez,⁴⁴ K. Røed,¹⁹ R. Rogalev,¹⁴⁰ E. Rogochaya,¹⁴¹ T. S. Rogoschinski,⁶⁴ D. Rohr,³²

D. Röhrich,²⁰ P. F. Rojas,⁴⁴ S. Rojas Torres,³⁵ P. S. Rokita,¹³⁵ G. Romanenko,¹⁴¹ F. Ronchetti,⁴⁹ A. Rosano,³⁰,⁵³

E. D. Rosas,⁶⁵ K. Roslon,¹³⁵ A. Rossi,⁵⁴ A. Roy,⁴⁸ S. Roy,⁴⁷ N. Rubini,²⁵a,²⁵b D. Ruggiano,¹³⁵ R. Rui,²³a,²³b

B. Rumyantsev,¹⁴¹ P. G. Russek,² R. Russo,⁸⁴ A. Rustamov,⁸¹ E. Ryabinkin,¹⁴⁰ Y. Ryabov,¹⁴⁰ A. Rybicki,¹⁰⁷
H. Rytkonen,¹¹⁶ W. Rzesa,¹³⁵ O. A. M. Saarimaki,⁴³ R. Sadek,¹⁰³ S. Sadhu,³¹a,³¹b S. Sadovsky,¹⁴⁰ J. Saetre,²⁰ K. Šafařík,³⁵ S. K. Saha,⁴a,⁴b S. Saha,⁸⁰ B. Sahoo,⁴⁷ R. Sahoo,⁴⁸ S. Sahoo,⁶¹ D. Sahu,⁴⁸ P. K. Sahu,⁶¹ J. Saini,¹³⁴ K. Sajdakova,³⁷ S. Sakai,¹²⁴ M. P. Salvan,⁹⁷ S. Sambyal,⁹¹ I. Sanna,³²,⁹⁵ T. B. Saramela,¹¹⁰ D. Sarkar,¹³⁶ N. Sarkar,¹³⁴ P. Sarma,⁴¹ V. Sarritzu,²²a,²²b V. M. Sarti,⁹⁵ M. H. P. Sas,¹³⁷ J. Schambach,⁸⁷ H. S. Scheid,⁶⁴ C. Schiaua,<fnref n="45" /> R. Schicker,⁹⁴ A. Schmah,⁹⁴ C. Schmidt,⁹⁷ H. R. Schmidt,⁹³ M. O. Schmidt,³² M. Schmidt,⁹³ N. V. Schmidt,⁸⁷ A. R. Schmier,¹²¹ R. Schotter,¹²⁸ A. Schröter,³⁸ J. Schukraft,³² K. Schwarz,⁹⁷ K. Schweda,⁹⁷ G. Scioli,²⁵a,²⁵b E. Scomparin,⁵⁶ J. E. Seger,¹⁴ Y. Sekiguchi,¹²³ D. Sekihata,¹²³ I. Selyuzhenkov,⁹⁷,¹⁴⁰ S. Senyukov,¹²⁸ J. J. Seo,⁵⁸ D. Serebryakov,¹⁴⁰ L. Šerkšnytė,⁹⁵ A. Sevcenco,⁶³ T. J. Shaba,⁶⁸ A. Shabetai,¹⁰³ R. Shahoyan,³² A. Shangaraev,¹⁴⁰ A. Sharma,⁹⁰ B. Sharma,⁹¹ D. Sharma,⁴⁷ H. Sharma,¹⁰⁷ M. Sharma,⁹¹ S. Sharma,⁷⁶ S. Sharma,⁹¹ U. Sharma,⁹¹ A. Shatat,¹³⁰ O. Sheibani,¹¹⁵ K. Shigaki,⁹² M. Shimomura,⁷⁷ J. Shin,¹¹ S. Shirinkin,¹⁴⁰ Q. Shou,³⁹ Y. Sibiriak,¹⁴⁰ 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 R. Singh,⁸⁰ R. Singh,⁹¹ R. Singh,⁴⁸ S. Singh,¹⁵ V. K. Singh,¹³⁴ V. Singhal,¹³⁴ T. Sinha,⁹⁹ B. Sitar,¹² M. Sitta,⁵⁶,¹³² T. B. Skaali,¹⁹ G. Skorodumovs,⁹⁴ M. Slupecki,⁴³ N. Smirnov,¹³⁷ R. J. M. Snellings,⁵⁹ E. H. Solheim,¹⁹ J. Song,¹¹⁵ A. Songmoolnak,¹⁰⁵ F. Soramel,²⁷a,²⁷b R. Spijkers,⁸⁴ I. Sputowska,¹⁰⁷ J. Staa,⁷⁵ J. Stachel,⁹⁴ I. Stan,⁶³ P. J. Steffanic,¹²¹ S. F. Stiefelmaier,⁹⁴ D. Stocco,¹⁰³ I. Storehaug,¹⁹ P. Stratmann,¹²⁵ S. Strazzi,²⁵a,²⁵b C. P. Stylianidis,⁸⁴ A. A. P. Suaide,¹¹⁰ C. Suire,¹³⁰ M. Sukhanov,¹⁴⁰ M. Suljic,³² R. Sultanov,¹⁴⁰ V. Sumberia,⁹¹ S. Sumowidagdo,⁸² S. Swain,⁶¹ I. Szarka,¹² M. Szymkowski,¹³⁵ S. F. Taghavi,⁹⁵ G. Taillepied,⁹⁷ J. Takahashi,¹¹¹ G. J. Tambave,²⁰ S. Tang,<fnref n="6" />,¹²⁶ Z. Tang,¹¹⁹ J. D. Tapia Takaki,¹¹⁷ N. Tapus,¹¹³ L. A. Tarasovicova,¹²⁵ M. G. Tarzila,<fnref n="45" /> G. F. Tassielli,³¹a,³¹b A. Tauro,³² G. Tejeda Muñoz,<fnref n="44" /> A. Telesca,³² L. Terlizzi,²⁴a,²⁴b C. Terrevoli,¹¹⁵ G. Tersimonov,<fnref n="3" /> S. Thakur,⁴a,⁴b D. Thomas,¹⁰⁸ A. Tikhonov,¹⁴⁰ A. R. Timmins,¹¹⁵ M. Tkacik,¹⁰⁶ T. Tkacik,¹⁰⁶ A. Toia,⁶⁴ R. Tokumoto,⁹² N. Topilskaya,¹⁴⁰ M. Toppi,⁴⁹ F. Torales-Acosta,¹⁸ T. Tork,¹³⁰ A. G. Torres Ramos,³¹a,³¹b A. Trifiró,³⁰,⁵³ A. S. Triolo,³⁰,⁵³ S. Tripathy,⁵¹ T. Tripathy,⁴⁷ S. Trogolo,³² V. Trubnikov,<fnref n="3" /> W. H. Trzaska,¹¹⁶ T. P. Trzcinski,¹³⁵ A. Tumkin,¹⁴⁰ R. Turrisi,⁵⁴ T. S. Tveter,¹⁹ K. Ullaland,²⁰ B. Ulukutlu,⁹⁵ A. Uras,¹²⁷ M. Urioni,⁵⁵,¹³³ G. L. Usai,²²a,²²b M. Vala,³⁷ N. Valle,²¹ L. V. R. van Doremalen,⁵⁹ C. Van Hulse,¹³⁰ 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 M. Vasileiou,⁷⁸ A. Vasiliev,¹⁴⁰ O. Vázquez Doce,⁴⁹ O. Vazquez Rueda,⁷⁵,¹¹⁵ V. Vechernin,¹⁴⁰ E. Vercellin,²⁴a,²⁴b S. Vergara Limón,<fnref n="44" /> L. Vermunt,⁹⁷ R. Vértesi,⁴⁶ M. Verweij,⁵⁹ L. Vickovic,³³ Z. Vilakazi,¹²² O. Villalobos Baillie,¹⁰⁰ A. Villani,²³a,²³b G. Vino,⁵⁰ A. Vinogradov,¹⁴⁰ T. Virgili,²⁸a,²⁸b V. Vislavicius,⁷⁵ A. Vodopyanov,¹⁴¹ B. Volkel,³² M. A. Völkl,⁹⁴ K. Voloshin,¹⁴⁰ S. A. Voloshin,¹³⁶ G. Volpe,³¹a,³¹b B. von Haller,³² I. Vorobyev,⁹⁵ N. Vozniuk,¹⁴⁰ J. Vrláková,³⁷ C. Wang,³⁹ D. Wang,³⁹ Y. Wang,³⁹ A. Wegrzynek,³² F. T. Weiglhofer,³⁸ S. C. Wenzel,³² J. P. Wessels,¹²⁵ J. Wiechula,⁶⁴ J. Wikne,¹⁹ G. Wilk,⁷⁹ J. Wilkinson,⁹⁷ G. A. Willems,¹²⁵ B. Windelband,⁹⁴ M. Winn,¹²⁹ J. R. Wright,¹⁰⁸ W. Wu,³⁹ Y. Wu,¹¹⁹ R. Xu,<fnref n="6" /> A. Yadav,⁴² A. K. Yadav,¹³⁴ S. Yalcin,⁷² Y. Yamaguchi,⁹² S. Yang,²⁰ S. Yano,⁹² Z. Yin,<fnref n="6" /> I.-K. Yoo,¹⁶ J. H. Yoon,⁵⁸ S. Yuan,²⁰ A. Yuncu,⁹⁴ V. Zaccolo,²³a,²³b C. Zampolli,³² F. Zanone,⁹⁴ N. Zardoshti,³²,¹⁰⁰ A. Zarochentsev,¹⁴⁰ P. Závada,⁶² N. Zaviyalov,¹⁴⁰ M. Zhalov,¹⁴⁰ B. Zhang,<fnref n="6" /> L. Zhang,³⁹ S. Zhang,³⁹ X. Zhang,<fnref n="6" /> Y. Zhang,¹¹⁹ Z. Zhang,<fnref n="6" /> M. Zhao,¹⁰ V. Zherebchevskii,¹⁴⁰ Y. Zhi,¹⁰ D. Zhou,<fnref n="6" /> Y. Zhou,⁸³ J. Zhu,<fnref n="6" />,⁹⁷ Y. Zhu,<fnref n="6" /> S. C. Zugravel,⁵⁶ and N. Zurlo,⁵⁵,¹³³

(ALICE Collaboration)

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

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

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

<footnote n="44">⁴⁴Bose Institute, Department of Physics, Kolkata, India</footnote>

<footnote n="45">⁴⁵Centre for Astroparticle Physics and Space Science (CAPSS), Kolkata, India</footnote>

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

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

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

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

<footnote n="9">⁹Chicago State University, Chicago, Illinois, USA</footnote>
¹⁰China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China

¹¹Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea

¹²Comenius University Bratislava, Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, Bratislava, Slovak Republic

¹³COMSATS University Islamabad, Islamabad, Pakistan

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

⁴⁷Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT), Mumbai, India

⁴⁸Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore, India

⁴⁹INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy

⁵⁰INFN, Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy

⁵¹INFN, Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

⁵²INFN, Sezione di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy

⁵³INFN, Sezione di Catania, Catania, Italy

⁵⁴INFN, Sezione di Padova, Padova, Italy

⁵⁵INFN, Sezione di Pavia, Pavia, Italy

⁵⁶INFN, Sezione di Torino, Turin, Italy
⁵⁷INFN, Sezione di Trieste, Trieste, Italy

⁵⁸Inha University, Incheon, Republic of Korea

⁵⁹Institute for Gravitational and Subatomic Physics (GRASP), Utrecht University/Nikhef, Utrecht, Netherlands

⁶⁰Institute of Experimental Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Košice, Slovak Republic

⁶¹Institute of Physics, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Bhubaneswar, India

⁶²Institute of Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic

⁶³Institute of Space Science (ISS), Bucharest, Romania

⁶⁴Institut für Kernphysik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

⁶⁵Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico

⁶⁶Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Brazil

⁶⁷Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico

⁶⁸iThemba LABS, National Research Foundation, Somerset West, South Africa

⁶⁹Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea

⁷⁰Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe Universität Frankfurt Institut für Informatik, Fachbereich Informatik und Mathematik, Frankfurt, Germany

⁷¹Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon, Republic of Korea

⁷²KTO Karatay University, Konya, Turkey

⁷³Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie, Université Grenoble-Alpes, CNRS-IN2P3, Grenoble, France

⁷⁴Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, USA

⁷⁵Lund University Department of Physics, Division of Particle Physics, Lund, Sweden

⁷⁶Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science, Nagasaki, Japan

⁷⁷Nara Women's University (NWU), Nara, Japan

⁷⁸National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Science, Department of Physics, Athens, Greece

⁷⁹National Centre for Nuclear Research, Warsaw, Poland

⁸⁰National Institute of Science Education and Research, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Jatni, India

⁸¹National Nuclear Research Center, Baku, Azerbaijan

⁸²National Research and Innovation Agency—BRIN, Jakarta, Indonesia

⁸³Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

⁸⁴Nikhef, National institute for subatomic physics, Amsterdam, Netherlands

⁸⁵Nuclear Physics Group, STFC Daresbury Laboratory, Daresbury, United Kingdom

⁸⁶Nuclear Physics Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Husinec-Řež, Czech Republic

⁸⁷Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA

⁸⁸Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA

⁸⁹Physics department, Faculty of science, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

⁹⁰Physics Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India

⁹¹Physics Department, University of Jammu, Jammu, India

⁹²Physics Program and International Institute for Sustainability with Knotted Chiral Meta Matter (SKCM2), Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan

⁹³Physikalisches Institut, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

⁹⁴Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

⁹⁵Physik Department, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

⁹⁶Politecnico di Bari and Sezione INFN, Bari, Italy

⁹⁷Research Division and ExtreMe Matter Institute EMMI, GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany

⁹⁸Saga University, Saga, Japan

⁹⁹Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kolkata, India

¹⁰⁰School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom

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 Houston, Houston, Texas, USA

¹¹⁶University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

¹¹⁷University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA

¹¹⁸University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom

¹¹⁹University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China

¹²⁰University of South-Eastern Norway, Kongsberg, Norway

¹²¹University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA

¹²²University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

¹²³University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

¹²⁴University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan

¹²⁵Universität Münster, Institut für Kernphysik, Münster, Germany

¹²⁶Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France

¹²⁷Université de Lyon, CNRS/IN2P3, Institut de Physique des 2 Infinis de Lyon, Lyon, France

¹²⁸Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, F-67000 Strasbourg, France, Strasbourg, France

¹²⁹Université Paris-Saclay, Centre d'Etudes de Saclay (CEA), IRFU, Département de Physique Nucléaire (DPhN), Saclay, France

¹³⁰Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS/IN2P3, IJCLab, Orsay, France

¹³¹Università degli Studi di Foggia, Foggia, Italy

¹³²Università del Piemonte Orientale, Vercelli, Italy

¹³³Università di Brescia, Brescia, Italy

¹³⁴Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kolkata, India

¹³⁵Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland

¹³⁶Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA

¹³⁷Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA

¹³⁸Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

¹³⁹Zentrum für Technologie und Transfer (ZTT), Worms, Germany

¹⁴⁰Affiliated with an institute covered by a cooperation agreement with CERN

¹⁴¹Affiliated with an international laboratory covered by a cooperation agreement with CERN

<footnote>†Deceased.</footnote>

<footnote>‡Also at Max-Planck-Institut fur Physik, Munich, Germany.</footnote>

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

<footnote>||Also at Dipartimento DET del Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy.</footnote>

<footnote>¶Also at An institution covered by a cooperation agreement with CERN.</footnote>

<footnote>**Also at Department of Applied Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India.</footnote>

<footnote>††Also at Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Wroclaw, Wroclaw, Poland.</footnote>