Search for the Chiral Magnetic Effect with
charge-dependent azimuthal correlations in Xe-Xe
collisions at sNN=5.44 TeV

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

► To cite this version:

Shreyasi Acharya, Dagmar Adamova, Alexander Adler, Gianluca Aglieri Rinella, Michelangelo Agnello, et al.. Search for the Chiral Magnetic Effect with charge-dependent azimuthal correlations in Xe-Xe collisions at sNN=5.44 TeV. Phys.Lett.B, 2024, 856, pp.138862. 10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138862. hal-04757628

HAL Id: hal-04757628

https://hal.science/hal-04757628v1

Submitted on 15 Jan 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
# Search for the Chiral Magnetic Effect with charge-dependent azimuthal correlations in Xe-Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.44 TeV

ALICE Collaboration*

## Abstract

Charge-dependent two- and three-particle correlations measured in Xe-Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.44 TeV are presented. Results are obtained for charged particles in the pseudorapidity range $|\eta| < 0.8$ and transverse momentum interval $0.2 \le p_T < 5.0$ GeV/c for different collision centralities. The three-particle correlator $\gamma_{\alpha\beta} \equiv \langle\cos(\varphi_\alpha + \varphi_\beta - 2\Psi_2)\rangle$, calculated for different combinations of charge sign $\alpha$ and $\beta$, is expected to be sensitive to the presence of the Chiral Magnetic Effect (CME). Its magnitude is similar to the one observed in Pb-Pb collisions in contrast to a smaller CME signal in Xe-Xe collisions than in Pb-Pb collisions predicted by Monte Carlo (MC) calculations including a magnetic field induced by the spectator protons. These observations point to a large non-CME contribution to the correlator. Furthermore, the charge dependence of $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ can be described by a blast wave model calculation that incorporates background effects and by the Anomalous Viscous Fluid Dynamics model with values of the CME signal consistent with zero. The Xe-Xe and Pb-Pb results are combined with the expected CME signal dependence on the system size from the MC calculations including a magnetic field to obtain the fraction of CME contribution in $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$, $f_{CME}$. The CME fraction is compatible with zero for the 30% most central events in both systems and then becomes positive. This yields an upper limit of 2% (3%) and 25% (32%) at 95% (99.7%) confidence level for the CME signal contribution to $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ in the 0-70% Xe-Xe and Pb-Pb collisions, respectively.

<footnote>*See Appendix A for the list of collaboration members</footnote>
# 1 Introduction

The theory of the strong interaction applied to many-body systems predicts that, at sufficiently high densities and temperatures, the protons and neutrons that compose ordinary matter melt into a plasma where quarks and gluons are no longer confined into hadrons. This hot and dense state of matter is called the quark-gluon plasma (QGP) [1]. The transition from normal hadronic matter to a QGP is supported by Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) calculations on the lattice [2-5], where it is found to occur at a temperature of about 155 MeV, and at an energy density $\epsilon$ of about 0.5 GeV/fm$^3$ [6-8]. Collisions between heavy ions accelerated to ultrarelativistic energies can produce the necessary conditions for such a transition to take place [9-11].

Heavy-ion collisions may also allow us to access novel QCD phenomena associated with parity violation in strong interactions [12-20]. Theoretical expectations indicate that the interaction of quarks with gluonic fields describing transitions between topologically different QCD vacuum states changes the quark chirality and leads to a local chiral imbalance. In the presence of the strong magnetic field produced by the colliding ions [21-23], this leads to a charge separation (electric current) relative to the reaction plane, the plane defined by the impact parameter and the beam axis. This phenomenon is known as the Chiral Magnetic Effect (CME) [20].

The effects from local parity violation are quantified via the coefficient $a_{1,\alpha}$ in a Fourier decomposition of the particle azimuthal distribution [24, 25]

$$ \frac{dN}{d\Delta\varphi_{\alpha}} \sim 1 + 2v_{1,\alpha}\cos(\Delta\varphi_{\alpha}) + 2a_{1,\alpha}\sin(\Delta\varphi_{\alpha}) + 2v_{2,\alpha}\cos(2\Delta\varphi_{\alpha}) + \dots, \quad (1) $$

where $\Delta\varphi_{\alpha} = \varphi_{\alpha} - \Psi_{RP}$, $\varphi_{\alpha}$ is the azimuthal angle of the particle of charge $\alpha$ (+, -), and $\Psi_{RP}$ is the reaction plane angle. The coefficients $v_{n,\alpha}$ characterise the anisotropic flow, i.e., the azimuthal anisotropies in particle production relative to $\Psi_{RP}$ due to initial spatial asymmetries of the collision. The degree of overlap between the two colliding nuclei is estimated by the centrality, with low percentage values corresponding to head-on collisions. The first- and second-order flow coefficients ($v_{1,\alpha}$ and $v_{2,\alpha}$) are called directed and elliptic flow, respectively. Since $a_{1,\alpha}$ changes sign from event to event and the average $\langle a_{1,\alpha} \rangle$ over many events is equal to zero, one can only measure $\langle a_{1,\alpha}^2 \rangle$ or $\langle a_{1,+}a_{1,-} \rangle$ that can be accessed through azimuthal correlation techniques. Thus the CME is expected to have an experimentally accessible signal imprinted in the azimuthal correlations between two particles relative to the reaction plane [25] of the form $\gamma_{\alpha\beta} \equiv \langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{RP}) \rangle$. The charge-dependent difference of $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ is commonly used to search for the CME. In practice, the reaction plane angle is estimated by constructing the second harmonic symmetry plane angle $\Psi_2$ using azimuthal particle distributions [26], which is why $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ is often referred to as a three-particle correlator. The $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ correlator measures the difference between the correlations projected onto the reaction plane and perpendicular to it. The contributions from correlations in- and out-of-plane can also be evaluated by measuring the charge-dependent two-particle correlator $\delta_{\alpha\beta} \equiv \langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} - \varphi_{\beta}) \rangle$.

The first experimental results in Au-Au collisions at a centre-of-mass energy per nucleon-nucleon collision $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV at the Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collider (RHIC) [27, 28] were compatible with initial expectations for the existence of the CME. The subsequent first measurements at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 2.76$ TeV [29] showed a surprising agreement with the results at lower energies, despite the differences in magnitude of the magnetic field [21-23]. Considering that the charged-particle density, $dN_{ch}/d\eta$, at the LHC is about three times larger than at RHIC [30, 31], any signal due to CME will be considerably diluted since it is expected to follow a $1/(dN_{ch}/d\eta)$ scaling [19]. This effect will be referred to as dilution in the following. The similarity of the two measurements was indicative of the existence of background effects, coming mostly from “flowing clusters” – charge-dependent correlations modified by elliptic flow [25, 32-34]. It was shown in Refs. [35, 36] that the local charge conservation coupled to the anisotropic expansion of the medium could explain most if not all the measurements.
To study background effects, the CMS Collaboration performed measurements of charge-dependent correlations in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV [37] and the STAR Collaboration in p-Au and d-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 0.2 TeV [38]. The results suggest that these correlations are similar to those measured in peripheral Pb-Pb and Au-Au collisions. These results might further indicate the dominance of background effects in peripheral collisions where there is no strong correlation between the magnetic field direction and the orientation of the medium via $\Psi_{RP}$.

These measurements highlighted the need to identify ways of isolating the CME signal from the background. A first attempt was presented by the ALICE Collaboration in Ref. [39] using the Event Shape Engineering method [40]. This method utilises the fluctuations in the shape of the initial state of the system and allows one to select events with the same centrality but different initial geometry, thus varying the background contributions. The study sets an upper limit of 26-33% at 95% confidence level for the CME signal contribution to the charge dependence of $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ in the 10-50% centrality interval. A similar study was performed by the CMS Collaboration [41] and the results agree with the measurements in Ref. [39]. A recent study by the ALICE Collaboration [42] found that charge-dependent correlations relative to the higher harmonic symmetry planes can be used as a proxy for the background, assuming that the correlations relative to $\Psi_2$ and $\Psi_3$ can be factorised. An upper limit of 15-18% at 95% confidence level for the CME signal has been reported for the 0-40% centrality interval, consistent with previous measurements.

Another approach to address the large backgrounds experimentally is to compare measurements performed in collision systems where the CME contribution is expected to vary significantly, while the background is similar. The STAR Collaboration has recently reported the results of the CME search in an analysis of the three-particle correlator $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ measured in collisions of isobar $^{96}_{44}\text{Ru}$-$^{96}_{44}\text{Ru}$ and $^{96}_{40}\text{Zr}$-$^{96}_{40}\text{Zr}$ nuclei at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV [43]. No anticipated CME signature (i.e., a larger magnitude of $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ in Ru-Ru than in Zr-Zr collisions due to a larger magnetic field in the former) was observed in that analysis. However, a quantitative analysis taking into account the small geometrical differences between the isobar nuclei is needed for the interpretation of the measurements. One can also try to separate the CME signal and background by comparing the results from Pb-Pb and Xe-Xe collisions at the LHC since the differences in $v_2$ are typically within 10% in the 5-70% centrality interval [44] but the magnetic field is expected to be significantly larger in Pb-Pb collisions [45], leading to an increase in the CME contribution.

In this article, measurements of charge-dependent azimuthal correlations from Xe-Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.44 TeV are presented. The results are compared with earlier measurements in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV [42] and calculations from a blast wave parameterisation that incorporate background effects and from the Anomalous Viscous Fluid Dynamics (AVFD) model [46-48]. Furthermore, Monte Carlo (MC) simulations of the magnetic field induced by spectator protons with different initial conditions are used to evaluate the expected change in the CME signal between the Xe-Xe and Pb-Pb collisions. This change is then employed to estimate the fraction of the CME signal in both collision systems.

## 2 Analysis details

The data set used for these measurements was recorded with the ALICE detector during the 2017 Xe-Xe run at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.44 TeV. A detailed overview of the ALICE detector and its performance are available in Refs. [49, 50]. The Inner Tracking System (ITS) [51], the Time Projection Chamber (TPC) [52], the V0 [53], and the Zero Degree Calorimeter (ZDC) [54], the main subsystems used in this analysis, are briefly described in the following. The ITS and TPC cover the full azimuth within the pseudorapidity range $|\eta| < 0.9$. The ITS consists of six layers of silicon detectors and is employed for tracking, vertex reconstruction, and event selection. The TPC is used to reconstruct charged-particle tracks and to identify
particles via specific energy loss, $dE/dx$. The V0 detector, two arrays of 32 scintillator tiles covering $-3.7 < \eta < -1.7$ (V0C) and $2.8 < \eta < 5.1$ (V0A), is used for triggering, event selection, and the determination of centrality [55] and symmetry plane $\Psi_2$. Both V0 detectors are segmented in four rings in the radial direction with each ring divided into eight sectors in the azimuthal direction. Two tungsten-quartz neutron ZDCs, installed 112.5 meters from the interaction point on each side, are also used for event selection.

The trigger conditions and the event selection criteria can be found in Ref. [56]. Beam-induced background and pileup events are removed using an offline event selection, employing information from the V0, ZDC, and tracking detectors. The primary vertex position is determined from tracks reconstructed in the ITS and TPC as described in Ref. [50]. Approximately $10^6$ Xe-Xe events in the 0-70% centrality interval, with a primary vertex position within $\pm 10$ cm from the nominal interaction point along the beam direction, are used in the analysis. The centrality of the collision is estimated from the energy deposition measured in the V0 detector [55].

The charged-particle tracks reconstructed using the ITS and TPC within $|\eta| < 0.8$ and $0.2 \le p_T < 5.0$ GeV/c are used to measure the charge-dependent correlations. Each track is required to have a minimum number of 70 space points (out of a maximum of 159) with a $\chi^2$ per TPC space point lower than 4, to cross at least 70 TPC readout rows, and to have the ratio between the number of crossed rows and the number of findable space points in the TPC larger than 0.8. The selected tracks are also required to have at least 2 ITS hits and a $\chi^2$ per ITS hit smaller than 36. In addition, tracks are selected with a distance of closest approach (DCA) to the reconstructed vertex position smaller than 3.2 cm and 2.4 cm in the longitudinal direction (z) and transverse plane (xy), respectively. These selection criteria reduce the contamination from secondary charged particles (i.e., particles originating from weak decays, conversions, and secondary hadronic interactions in the detector material) and fake tracks (random associations of space points) and ensure a track momentum resolution better than 4% in the considered $p_T$ interval [56]. The charged-particle track reconstruction efficiency is estimated from simulations with the HIJING event generator [57, 58] combined with the GEANT3 transport model [59]. These simulations include a detailed description of the detector response. The $p_T$ averaged charge-dependent correlations are corrected for track reconstruction efficiency.

The charge-dependent correlations are measured using two- and three-particle correlators expressed as

$$ \begin{aligned} \delta_{\alpha\beta} &\equiv \langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} - \varphi_{\beta}) \rangle = \langle \cos(\Delta\varphi_{\alpha}) \cos(\Delta\varphi_{\beta}) \rangle + \langle \sin(\Delta\varphi_{\alpha}) \sin(\Delta\varphi_{\beta}) \rangle \\ &= \langle v_{1,\alpha}v_{1,\beta} \rangle + B_{\text{in}} + \langle a_{1,\alpha}a_{2,\beta} \rangle + B_{\text{out}}, \end{aligned} \quad (2) $$

$$ \begin{aligned} \gamma_{\alpha\beta} &\equiv \langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_2) \rangle = \langle \cos(\Delta\varphi_{\alpha}) \cos(\Delta\varphi_{\beta}) \rangle - \langle \sin(\Delta\varphi_{\alpha}) \sin(\Delta\varphi_{\beta}) \rangle \\ &= \langle v_{1,\alpha}v_{1,\beta} \rangle + B_{\text{in}} - \langle a_{1,\alpha}a_{2,\beta} \rangle - B_{\text{out}}, \end{aligned} \quad (3) $$

where $\Delta\varphi_{\alpha(\beta)} = \varphi_{\alpha(\beta)} - \Psi_2$, and $B_{\text{in}}$ and $B_{\text{out}}$ denote background contributions projected onto $\Psi_2$ and perpendicular to it, respectively. The term $\langle v_{1,\alpha}v_{1,\beta} \rangle$ is expected to have negligible charge dependence at midrapidity [60]. In addition, $\langle v_1 \rangle$ at midrapidity is zero for a symmetric collision. While $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ suppresses background contributions at the level of $v_2$ (i.e., the relative difference between the particle production in-plane and out-of-plane), $\delta_{\alpha\beta}$ is dominated by short-range correlations unrelated to $\Psi_2$ ("non-flow"), such as inter-jet correlations and resonance decays.

The orientation of the symmetry plane $\Psi_2$ is estimated from the azimuthal distribution of the energy deposition measured by the V0A detector, with the x and y components given by

$$ Q_{2,x} = \sum_j w_j \cos(2\varphi_j), \quad Q_{2,y} = \sum_j w_j \sin(2\varphi_j), \quad (4) $$

where the index j runs over the 32 sectors of the V0A detector, $\varphi_j$ is the azimuthal angle of sector j defined by the geometric centre, and $w_j$ is the amplitude of the measured signal in that sector. The symmetry plane resolution is calculated from correlations between the symmetry planes determined with
<table><caption>**Table 1:** Summary of absolute systematic uncertainties on the charge-dependent correlations. The uncertainties depend on centrality, whose minimum and maximum values are listed here.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Opposite charge</th><th>Same charge</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th scope="row">δ<sub>αβ</sub></th><td>(6.8 – 33) × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>(3.8 – 13) × 10<sup>-5</sup></td></tr><tr><th scope="row">γ<sub>αβ</sub></th><td>(1.0 – 8.3) × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>(1.4 – 5.9) × 10<sup>-5</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

the TPC, the V0A, and the VOC detectors [26]. The effect of the decorrelation of $\Psi_2$ between mid and forward pseudorapidity has been estimated to be less than 3% for $v_2$ [61]. Any non-uniform detector response is taken into account by adjusting the components of the $Q_2$ vector using a recentering procedure (i.e., subtraction of the $Q_2$ vector averaged over many events from the $Q_2$ vector of each event) [62]. The non-flow contributions to the charge-dependent azimuthal correlations are greatly suppressed by the large pseudorapidity separation between the TPC and the V0A ($|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$).

The absolute systematic uncertainties were estimated from the variation of the results with different event and track-selection criteria. The event selection contributions were determined by varying the range of the reconstructed collision vertex position from the nominal interaction point along the beam direction, estimating centrality from the number of hits in the first or second layer of the ITS, and imposing stricter pileup rejection criteria than the default selection. Systematic uncertainties related to track selection criteria were evaluated by changing the ITS hit requirements, varying the minimum number of TPC space points, changing the minimum number of crossed TPC readout rows and the ratio between the number of crossed rows and the number of findable space points in the TPC, rejecting tracks close to the TPC sector boundaries to which the sensitive readout rows do not extend, and comparing any differences between results with only positive and only negative charges for pairs of particles with same charge. Finally, changes of the results due to uncertainties in the tracking efficiency arising from an imperfect description in the simulation of the relative abundances of different particle species and their different reconstruction efficiencies [63] were considered as part of the systematic uncertainties. The largest contribution to the systematic uncertainties for $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ and $\delta_{\alpha\beta}$ is given by the centrality estimation and track-selection criteria, respectively. The systematic uncertainties are evaluated for each centrality interval. The different sources are assumed uncorrelated and are added in quadrature as an estimate of the total systematic uncertainties if their deviations from the nominal values are significant according to the Barlow criterion [64]. The resulting systematic uncertainties increase from central to peripheral collisions and are summarised in Table 1.

## 3 Results

Figure 1 compares the $\delta_{\alpha\beta}$ and $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ correlators for same- and opposite-charge pairs in Xe-Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.44$ TeV to those measured in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV [42] as a function of centrality and average charged-particle multiplicity density $\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta \rangle$ at midrapidity [65, 66]. The results for same-charge pairs denote the average between pairs of particles with only positive and only negative charges since the two combinations are consistent within statistical uncertainties. Both correlators exhibit strong dependence on the charge-sign combination and qualitatively similar centrality dependence in the two systems. For $\delta_{\alpha\beta}$, the magnitude of the same- and opposite-charge pair correlations is positive and increases from central to peripheral collisions. In contrast to the CME expectation, the correlation for the opposite-charge pairs is stronger than for the same-charge combinations, indicating that background dominates these measurements. For $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$, the magnitude of opposite-charge pair correlations is close to zero within uncertainties for most of the centrality intervals, while it decreases from central to peripheral collisions becoming more negative for same-charge pairs. Thus, the correlation of opposite-charge pairs is weaker than for same-charge pairs. This ordering is compatible with a charge separation with respect to the reaction plane expected in the presence of the CME.

The $\delta_{\alpha\beta}$ for same-charge pairs shows small (if any) differences between Xe-Xe and Pb-Pb collisions
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1:** The $\delta_{\alpha\beta}$ (top panels) and $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ (bottom panels) correlators as a function of centrality (left panels) and charged-particle density [65, 66] (right panels) for pairs of particles with same (closed markers) and opposite (open markers) charges from Xe-Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.44$ TeV (red circles) compared to Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV (black squares) [42]. The Pb-Pb points are slightly shifted along the horizontal axis for better visibility in the left panels. Bars (boxes) denote statistical (systematic) uncertainties.</figcaption></figure>

within uncertainties, while the correlations for opposite-charge pairs have larger magnitude in Xe-Xe collisions in the 10–70% centrality interval. The $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ for same- and opposite-charge pairs from Xe-Xe and Pb-Pb collisions have similar magnitudes within uncertainties in the 0–10% and 50–70% centrality ranges, while the correlations are stronger in Xe-Xe collisions in the 10–50% centrality interval. These observations can be attributed to the different number of particles produced in the collision within a given centrality interval between the two systems that dilutes the correlations. This is supported by the fact that the $\delta_{\alpha\beta}$ and $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ for same- and opposite-charge pairs from Xe-Xe collisions are consistent within uncertainties with the corresponding Pb–Pb results when reported as a function of $\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta \rangle$.

The $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ correlator is also investigated as a function of the pseudorapidity difference $\Delta\eta = |\eta_{\alpha} - \eta_{\beta}|$, the transverse momentum difference $\Delta p_{\mathrm{T}} = |p_{\mathrm{T}_{\alpha}} - p_{\mathrm{T}_{\beta}}|$, and the average transverse momentum $\langle p_{\mathrm{T}} \rangle = (p_{\mathrm{T}_{\alpha}} + p_{\mathrm{T}_{\beta}})/2$ of the pair. Figure 2 presents these results for same- and opposite-charge pairs in the 20–30% centrality interval compared to measurements performed in 30–40% Pb-Pb collisions [42]. Different Xe-Xe and Pb-Pb centrality intervals are selected since they have similar transverse densities $(1/S dN_{ch}/d\eta \sim 10 \text{ fm}^{-2}$ with S being the transverse area) and transverse sizes ($R = \sqrt{s}/\pi \sim 4 \text{ fm}$) [44], thus the contribution from dilution effects is comparable. In addition, the value of $v_2/\epsilon_2$ ($\epsilon_2$ is the second-order eccentricity coefficient and characterises the elliptic shape of the initial geometry) and the influence of radial flow are similar in the two systems for these centrality classes [44, 56]. The opposite-charge pair correlations from Xe-Xe collisions show a weak dependence on $\Delta\eta$ and $\langle p_{\mathrm{T}} \rangle$, while they increase with increasing $\Delta p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the pair. The correlations for the same-charge pairs do not exhibit any significant dependence on $\Delta p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and $\langle p_{\mathrm{T}} \rangle$ within uncertainties. These correlations show a strong
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2:** The dependence of $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ on the pseudorapidity difference $|\eta_{\alpha} - \eta_{\beta}|$ (left panel), the transverse momentum difference $|p_{T_{\alpha}} - p_{T_{\beta}}|$ (middle panel), and the average transverse momentum $(p_{T_{\alpha}} + p_{T_{\beta}})/2$ (right panel) for pairs of particles with same (closed markers) and opposite (open markers) charges from 20–30% Xe-Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.44$ TeV (red circles) compared to results from 30–40% Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV (black squares) [42]. The Pb-Pb and Xe-Xe same-charge points are slightly shifted along the horizontal axis for better visibility in all panels. Bars (boxes) denote statistical (systematic) uncertainties.</figcaption></figure>

dependence on $\Delta\eta$ with a width of approximately one unit in pseudorapidity difference. The Xe-Xe and Pb-Pb results are compatible within uncertainties demonstrating similar behaviour of this observable despite the differences in the magnetic field.

To get insight into the origin of the charge-dependent effects observed in Xe-Xe collisions, two different approaches were investigated. The first one relies on a blast wave (BW) model based on a parameterisation from Ref. [67]. Input parameters of the model are tuned to describe the $p_T$ spectra [68] and the $p_T$-differential $v_2$ values [69] of charged pions and kaons, as well as of protons and antiprotons, measured in the same collision system and centre-of-mass energy. To account for the main source of background in the measurements reported in this article, the model was further extended by including effects from local charge conservation (LCC). This was done by generating sources uniformly at the surface of the ellipse that surrounds the centre of the system and allowing them to decay into particles with opposite charge. In this extension of the BW model, the number of sources that emit oppositely-charged pairs is tuned separately for each centrality interval to reproduce the centrality dependence of $\Delta\delta_{\alpha\beta} \equiv \delta_{\alpha\beta}^{\text{opp.}} - \delta_{\alpha\beta}^{\text{same}}$, the correlator that is mainly sensitive to background effects. This is illustrated in the upper panel of Fig. 3, where the BW curve is represented by the blue, solid line that goes through the experimental data points. The tuned model is then used to extract the expectation for the centrality dependence of $\Delta\gamma_{\alpha\beta} \equiv \gamma_{\alpha\beta}^{\text{opp.}} - \gamma_{\alpha\beta}^{\text{same}}$, shown in the lower panel of Fig. 3. The width of the band reflects the uncertainty obtained by propagating the corresponding uncertainties of the model parameters using a sub-sampling method. It can be seen that the BW model describes fairly well the measured data points for all centrality intervals. This is in contrast to the picture that emerged in Pb-Pb collisions, where following a similar procedure the same model underestimated the measurements of $\Delta\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ by as much as $\approx 40\%$ [42].

Additional insight can be obtained by comparing the results with calculations from the Anomalous Viscous Fluid Dynamics (AVFD) model [46–48]. It relies on a Glauber model description of the initial state of the collision and accounts for the development of the early-stage electromagnetic fields as well as for the propagation of anomalous fermion currents. The expanding medium is described using a 2+1 dimensional viscous hydrodynamics (VISH2+1) code [70] which is coupled to a hadron cascade model (UrQMD) [71, 72]. Within AVFD, the final-state CME signal induced by the initial chirality imbalance is controlled by the axial current density $n_5$/s. At the same time, the relevant background in AVFD is
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3:** Centrality evolution of the difference between opposite- and same-charge pair correlations for $\delta_{\alpha\beta}$ (top panel) and $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ (bottom panel) compared to model calculations: blast wave (BW) parameterisation [67] coupled to local charge conservation (LCC) effects (blue curves) and Anomalous Viscous Fluid Dynamics (AVFD) [46, 47] (green curves). The BW+LCC model is tuned to reproduce the centrality dependence of $\Delta\delta_{\alpha\beta}$, while AVFD is tuned to describe simultaneously the centrality dependence of $\Delta\delta_{\alpha\beta}$ and $\Delta\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$. Bars (boxes) denote statistical (systematic) uncertainties on the data points, while the thickness of the curves represents the uncertainties on the model calculations.</figcaption></figure>

governed by the amount of positive and negative charged partners emitted from the same fluid element relative to the total multiplicity of the event, i.e., the LCC percentage. The model was first calibrated to describe the centrality dependence of both the charged-particle density [66] and the elliptic flow [44]. As a second step, the dependence of $\Delta\delta_{\alpha\beta}$ and $\Delta\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ on both the CME signal and the background was determined, by analysing samples with either increasing values of $n_5/s$ or LCC percentage, respectively [45]. These results made it possible to extract the combination of $n_5/s$ and LCC percentage that describes the data and led to a quantitative simultaneous description of the centrality dependence of $\Delta\delta_{\alpha\beta}$ and $\Delta\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ [45]. This is illustrated in the two panels of Fig. 3. Also in this case, the width of the band reflects the uncertainty obtained by propagating the corresponding uncertainties of the model parameters using a sub-sampling method. The experimental data points can be described by large values of LCC contribution, between 40% and 60% for peripheral and more central Xe-Xe collisions, respectively. In addition, the values of $n_5/s$ extracted from this procedure did not exhibit any significant centrality dependence and
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4:** Difference between opposite- and same-charge pair correlations for $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ divided by $v_2$ [44] as a function of centrality (left) and charged-particle density (right) compared to results from Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV [42]. The Pb-Pb points are slightly shifted along the horizontal axis for better visibility in the left panel. Bars (boxes) denote statistical (systematic) uncertainties.</figcaption></figure>

were compatible with zero within uncertainties [45]. Similar to the conclusion extracted from the BW model, the study within the AVFD framework indicates that the experimental measurements in Xe-Xe collisions are dominated by background.

The charge separation effect can be further studied using the difference between opposite- and same-charge pair correlations $\Delta\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ and the CME signal expectations from MC calculations employed as guidance. A comparison between $\Delta\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ divided by $v_2$ [44] in Xe-Xe collisions and that measured in Pb-Pb collisions [42] is presented as a function of centrality and charged-particle density [65, 66] in Fig. 4. The value of $\Delta\gamma_{\alpha\beta}/v_2$ is positive for all centralities and its magnitude increases from central to peripheral collisions. Furthermore, it is slightly higher in Xe-Xe than Pb-Pb collisions in the 10-60% centrality interval. However, the Xe-Xe and Pb-Pb data points fall approximately onto the same curve when reported as a function of $\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta \rangle$.

The expected centrality dependence of the CME signal in Xe-Xe and Pb-Pb collisions is estimated from MC Glauber [73] simulations including a magnetic field [39]. In these calculations, the $^{208}$Pb nucleus is spherical while the $^{129}$Xe nucleus is deformed with a deformation parameter $\beta_2 = 0.18 \pm 0.02$ [55]. The centrality classes are determined from the multiplicity of charged particles in the acceptance of the V0 detector, which is generated according to a negative binomial distribution with parameters taken from Ref. [74]. The magnetic field is calculated at the origin from the number of spectator protons using Eq. (A.6) from Ref. [19] with the proper time $\tau = 0.1$ fm/c. Figure 5 shows the centrality dependence of $\langle (eB)^2 \cos(2(\Psi_B - \Psi_2)) \rangle$ ($\Psi_B$ is the direction of the magnetic field $\vec{B}$), which is the expected CME signal contribution in $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$, for the two collision systems. The expected CME signal is stronger in Pb-Pb than Xe-Xe collisions in a given centrality interval due to the smaller magnetic field strength and a larger decorrelation between $\Psi_B$ and $\Psi_2$ in Xe-Xe collisions. Similar results are found using TRENTO [75] initial conditions. This observation coupled to the agreement of $\Delta\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ between the two collision systems (see Fig. 4) points to a large background contribution to $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ in Xe-Xe collisions.

The large differences in the CME signal expectations and the small variations in $v_2$ ($< 10\%$ for the 5-70% centrality interval) [44] between the two collision systems can be used to disentangle the potential
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5: The expected CME signal as a function of centrality from MC Glauber simulations for Xe-Xe and Pb-Pb collisions [73] (see text for details).</figcaption></figure>

CME signal from the background in Xe-Xe and Pb-Pb collisions. Assuming that both the CME signal and the background scale with $dN_{ch}/d\eta$, the charge dependence of $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ for the two collision systems can be expressed using a two-component approach similar to the one proposed in Ref. [76]

$$ \Gamma^{\text{Xe-Xe}} = sB^{\text{Xe-Xe}} + b\nu_2^{\text{Xe-Xe}}, \qquad (5) $$

$$ \Gamma^{\text{Pb-Pb}} = sB^{\text{Pb-Pb}} + b\nu_2^{\text{Pb-Pb}}, \qquad (6) $$

where $\Gamma \equiv \gamma_{\alpha\beta} dN_{ch}/d\eta$, $B \equiv \langle (eB)^2 \cos(2(\Psi_B - \Psi_2)) \rangle$, and $\nu_2$ is taken from Ref. [44] and $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}^{\text{Pb-Pb}}$ from Ref. [42]. The $s$ and $b$ parameters quantify the signal and background contributions, respectively, and do not depend on collision system within a given centrality interval as a result of the assumption that both scale with $dN_{ch}/d\eta$. While the $dN_{ch}/d\eta$ scaling is expected for $b$ since it is dominated by flowing clusters [25], the domains responsible for $s$ can be considered small and thus they can be regarded as “usual” clusters which scale with $dN_{ch}/d\eta$. This scaling is further supported by the AVFD calculations performed for Pb-Pb and Xe-Xe collisions [45]. The $s$ and $b$ parameters can be used to calculate the fractions of the CME signal (denoted as $f_{\text{CME}}$) in Xe-Xe and Pb-Pb collisions as

$$ f_{\text{CME}} = \frac{sB}{sB + b\nu_2}. \qquad (7) $$

The smaller CME signal in Xe-Xe collisions also results in a tighter limit on $f_{\text{CME}}$ in Xe-Xe than in Pb-Pb collisions. It is worth noting that the CME fractions in the two collision systems are correlated because both are calculated with the same $s$ and $b$ parameters, extracted from the data using Eqs. 5 and 6.

Figure 6 presents the centrality dependence of $f_{\text{CME}}$ in Xe-Xe and Pb-Pb collisions for the two models used in this study. The uncertainties in the CME fractions are obtained adding in quadrature the statistical and systematic uncertainties in Eqs. 5 and 6. The $f_{\text{CME}}$ does not depend significantly on the proper time used to calculate the magnetic field since varying the value from 0.1 fm/c to 0.01 fm/c, 0.5 fm/c, and 1 fm/c yields similar CME fractions. Furthermore, the dependence on the centrality range used in Pb-Pb collisions has been studied. The analysis was performed using only a single centrality interval of Pb-Pb collisions and all Xe-Xe centrality classes. For all eight Pb-Pb centrality intervals, a good
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6:** Centrality dependence of the CME fraction extracted using Eq. 7 with the expected CME signal from MC Glauber [73] (closed markers) and $T_{\text{RENTo}}$ [75] (open markers) models (see text for details). The $T_{\text{RENTo}}$ points are slightly shifted along the horizontal axis for better visibility.</figcaption></figure>

agreement is found with the nominal $f_{\text{CME}}$. The $f_{\text{CME}}$ is compatible with zero up to 30% centrality in both systems and then becomes positive for midcentral and peripheral collisions with larger values in Pb-Pb than in Xe-Xe. The CME fraction for the 0-30% centrality interval in Pb-Pb collisions agrees with the one reported in Ref. [42]. Fitting the data points in the centrality range 0-70% with a constant function neglecting any centrality dependence gives $f_{\text{CME}} = -0.003 \pm 0.010$ ($f_{\text{CME}} = -0.001 \pm 0.012$) and $f_{\text{CME}} = 0.147 \pm 0.061$ ($f_{\text{CME}} = 0.150 \pm 0.062$) for MC Glauber ($T_{\text{RENTo}}$) initial conditions in Xe-Xe and Pb-Pb collisions, respectively. These results are consistent with zero CME fraction in Xe-Xe collisions and correspond to upper limits on $f_{\text{CME}}$ of 2% (3%) and 25% (32%) at 95% (99.7%) confidence level for the 0-70% centrality interval in Xe-Xe and Pb-Pb collisions, respectively. The limits are estimated assuming Gaussian uncertainties.

# 4 Summary

The charge-dependent two- and three-particle correlators $\delta_{\alpha\beta}$ and $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ have been measured in Xe-Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.44$ TeV. The charge dependence of these correlators is strongly correlated with centrality, increasing from central to peripheral collisions, and is qualitatively similar to those reported in Pb-Pb collisions. The difference between the Xe-Xe and Pb-Pb results mostly arises from dilution effects since the data points from both collision systems fall approximately onto the same curve when presented as a function of charged-particle density. Monte Carlo simulations with different initial state models predict a significantly larger magnitude of the CME signal in Pb-Pb than Xe-Xe collisions, which implies that the dominant contribution to $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ in Xe-Xe collisions is due to background effects. The magnitude of the charge dependence of $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ is described over the entire centrality range by a blast wave parameterisation that incorporates local charge conservation tuned to reproduce the components of the background. This magnitude is also reproduced by Anomalous Viscous Fluid Dynamics calculations with large contributions from local charge conservation effects and values of the CME signal close to zero, thus indicating that the background is the dominant contribution to the three-particle correlator. In order to get a quantitative estimate of the signal and background contributions, the measured values of $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ in Xe-Xe and Pb-Pb collisions are compared using a two-component approach. This procedure allows one to estimate the fraction of the CME signal in both collision systems. Averaging over the
0-70% centrality interval, an upper limit of 2% (3%) and 25% (32%) is estimated at 95% (99.7%) confidence level for the CME contribution to the charge dependence of $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ in Xe-Xe and Pb-Pb collisions, respectively.

## Acknowledgements

The ALICE Collaboration would like to thank all its engineers and technicians for their invaluable contributions to the construction of the experiment and the CERN accelerator teams for the outstanding performance of the LHC complex. The ALICE Collaboration gratefully acknowledges the resources and support provided by all Grid centres and the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid (WLCG) collaboration. The ALICE Collaboration acknowledges the following funding agencies for their support in building and running the ALICE detector: A. I. Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics Institute) Foundation (ANSL), State Committee of Science and World Federation of Scientists (WFS), Armenia; Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austrian Science Fund (FWF): [M 2467-N36] and Nationalstiftung für Forschung, Technologie und Entwicklung, Austria; Ministry of Communications and High Technologies, National Nuclear Research Center, Azerbaijan; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (Finep), Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) and Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Brazil; Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Science, within the National Roadmap for Research Infrasstructures 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 support from: Marie Skłodowska Curie, European Research Council, Strong 2020 - Horizon 2020 (grant nos. 950692, 824093, 896850), European Union; ICSC - Centro Nazionale di Ricerca in High Performance Computing, Big Data and Quantum Computing, European Union - NextGenerationEU; Academy of Finland (Center of Excellence in Quark Matter) (grant nos. 346327, 346328), Finland; Programa de Apoyos para la Superación del Personal Académico, UNAM, Mexico.

## References

[1] E. V. Shuryak, “Quark-Gluon Plasma and Hadronic Production of Leptons, Photons and Psions”, *Phys. Lett. B* **78** (1978) 150.

[2] F. Karsch, E. Laermann, and A. Peikert, “Quark mass and flavor dependence of the QCD phase transition”, *Nucl. Phys. B* **605** (2001) 579–599, arXiv:hep-lat/0012023.

[3] F. Karsch, E. Laermann, and A. Peikert, “The Pressure in two flavor, (2+1)-flavor and three flavor QCD”, *Phys. Lett. B* **478** (2000) 447–455, arXiv:hep-lat/0002003.

[4] F. Karsch, “Lattice results on QCD thermodynamics”, *Nucl. Phys. A* **698** (2002) 199–208, arXiv:hep-ph/0103314.

[5] C. R. Allton et al., “The QCD thermal phase transition in the presence of a small chemical potential”, *Phys. Rev. D* **66** (2002) 074507, arXiv:hep-lat/0204010.

[6] A. Bazavov et al., “Equation of state and QCD transition at finite temperature”, *Phys. Rev. D* **80** (2009) 014504, arXiv:0903.4379 [hep-lat].

[7] A. Bazavov et al., “The chiral and deconfinement aspects of the QCD transition”, *Phys. Rev. D* **85** (2012) 054503, arXiv:1111.1710 [hep-lat].

[8] S. Borsanyi et al., “The QCD equation of state with dynamical quarks”, *JHEP* **11** (2010) 077, arXiv:1007.2580 [hep-lat].

[9] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., “Measurement of the pseudorapidity and centrality dependence of the transverse energy density in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV”, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **109** (2012) 152303, arXiv:1205.2488 [nucl-ex].

[10] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Direct photon production in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV”, *Phys. Lett. B* **754** (2016) 235–248, arXiv:1509.07324 [nucl-ex].

[11] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Measurement of transverse energy at midrapidity in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV”, *Phys. Rev. C* **94** (2016) 034903, arXiv:1603.04775 [nucl-ex].

[12] T. Lee, “A Theory of Spontaneous T Violation”, *Phys. Rev. D* **8** (1973) 1226–1239.

[13] T. Lee and G. Wick, “Vacuum Stability and Vacuum Excitation in a Spin 0 Field Theory”, *Phys. Rev. D* **9** (1974) 2291–2316.

[14] P. Morley and I. Schmidt, “Strong P, CP, T Violations in Heavy Ion Collisions”, *Z. Phys. C* **26** (1985) 627.
[15] D. Kharzeev, R. Pisarski, and M. H. Tytgat, “Possibility of spontaneous parity violation in hot QCD”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 512–515, arXiv:hep-ph/9804221.

[16] D. Kharzeev and R. D. Pisarski, “Pionic measures of parity and CP violation in high-energy nuclear collisions”, Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 111901, arXiv:hep-ph/9906401.

[17] D. E. Kharzeev, “Topology, magnetic field, and strongly interacting matter”, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 65 (2015) 193–214, arXiv:1501.01336 [hep-ph].

[18] D. Kharzeev and A. Zhitnitsky, “Charge separation induced by P-odd bubbles in QCD matter”, Nucl. Phys. A 797 (2007) 67–79, arXiv:0706.1026 [hep-ph].

[19] D. E. Kharzeev, L. D. McLerran, and H. J. Warringa, “The Effects of topological charge change in heavy ion collisions: ’Event by event P and CP violation’”, Nucl. Phys. A 803 (2008) 227–253, arXiv:0711.0950 [hep-ph].

[20] K. Fukushima, D. E. Kharzeev, and H. J. Warringa, “The Chiral Magnetic Effect”, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 074033, arXiv:0808.3382 [hep-ph].

[21] V. Skokov, A. Illarionov, and V. Toneev, “Estimate of the magnetic field strength in heavy-ion collisions”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 24 (2009) 5925–5932, arXiv:0907.1396 [nucl-th].

[22] A. Bzdak and V. Skokov, “Event-by-event fluctuations of magnetic and electric fields in heavy ion collisions”, Phys. Lett. B 710 (2012) 171–174, arXiv:1111.1949 [hep-ph].

[23] W.-T. Deng and X.-G. Huang, “Event-by-event generation of electromagnetic fields in heavy-ion collisions”, Phys. Rev. C 85 (2012) 044907, arXiv:1201.5108 [nucl-th].

[24] S. Voloshin and Y. Zhang, “Flow study in relativistic nuclear collisions by Fourier expansion of Azimuthal particle distributions”, Z. Phys. C70 (1996) 665–672, arXiv:hep-ph/9407282.

[25] S. A. Voloshin, “Parity violation in hot QCD: How to detect it”, Phys. Rev. C70 (2004) 057901, arXiv:hep-ph/0406311.

[26] A. M. Poskanzer and S. A. Voloshin, “Methods for analyzing anisotropic flow in relativistic nuclear collisions”, Phys. Rev. C58 (1998) 1671–1678, arXiv:nucl-ex/9805001.

[27] STAR Collaboration, B. I. Abelev et al., “Azimuthal Charged-Particle Correlations and Possible Local Strong Parity Violation”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 251601, arXiv:0909.1739 [nucl-ex].

[28] STAR Collaboration, B. I. Abelev et al., “Observation of charge-dependent azimuthal correlations and possible local strong parity violation in heavy ion collisions”, Phys. Rev. C 81 (2010) 054908, arXiv:0909.1717 [nucl-ex].

[29] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Charge separation relative to the reaction plane in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 012301, arXiv:1207.0900 [nucl-ex].

[30] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “Charged-particle multiplicity density at mid-rapidity in central Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 252301, arXiv:1011.3916 [nucl-ex].

[31] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “Centrality dependence of the charged-particle multiplicity density at mid-rapidity in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 032301, arXiv:1012.1657 [nucl-ex].
[32] F. Wang, "Effects of Cluster Particle Correlations on Local Parity Violation Observables", Phys. Rev. C 81 (2010) 064902, arXiv:0911.1482 [nucl-ex].

[33] A. Bzdak, V. Koch, and J. Liao, "Remarks on possible local parity violation in heavy ion collisions", Phys. Rev. C 81 (2010) 031901, arXiv:0912.5050 [nucl-th].

[34] J. Liao, V. Koch, and A. Bzdak, "Charge separation effect in relativistic heavy ion collisions", Phys. Rev. C 82 (Nov, 2010) 054902.

[35] S. Schlichting and S. Pratt, "Charge conservation at energies available at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider and contributions to local parity violation observables", Phys. Rev. C 83 (2011) 014913, arXiv:1009.4283 [nucl-th].

[36] S. Pratt, S. Schlichting, and S. Gavin, "Effects of Momentum Conservation and Flow on Angular Correlations at RHIC", Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 024909, arXiv:1011.6053 [nucl-th].

[37] CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al., "Observation of charge-dependent azimuthal correlations in p-Pb collisions and its implication for the search for the chiral magnetic effect", Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 122301, arXiv:1610.00263 [nucl-ex].

[38] STAR Collaboration, J. Adam et al., "Charge-dependent pair correlations relative to a third particle in p + Au and d+ Au collisions at RHIC", Phys. Lett. B 798 (2019) 134975, arXiv:1906.03373 [nucl-ex].

[39] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., "Constraining the magnitude of the Chiral Magnetic Effect with Event Shape Engineering in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV", Phys. Lett. B777 (2018) 151-162, arXiv:1709.04723 [nucl-ex].

[40] J. Schukraft, A. Timmins, and S. A. Voloshin, "Ultra-relativistic nuclear collisions: event shape engineering", Phys. Lett. B719 (2013) 394-398, arXiv:1208.4563 [nucl-ex].

[41] CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., "Constraints on the chiral magnetic effect using charge-dependent azimuthal correlations in pPb and PbPb collisions at the CERN Large Hadron Collider", Phys. Rev. C 97 (2018) 044912, arXiv:1708.01602 [nucl-ex].

[42] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., "Constraining the Chiral Magnetic Effect with charge-dependent azimuthal correlations in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 and 5.02 TeV", JHEP 09 (2020) 160, arXiv:2005.14640 [nucl-ex].

[43] STAR Collaboration, M. Abdallah et al., "Search for the chiral magnetic effect with isobar collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=200 GeV by the STAR Collaboration at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider", Phys. Rev. C 105 (2022) 014901, arXiv:2109.00131 [nucl-ex].

[44] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., "Anisotropic flow in Xe-Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.44 TeV", Phys. Lett. B 784 (2018) 82-95, arXiv:1805.01832 [nucl-ex].

[45] P. Christakoglou, S. Qiu, and J. Staa, "Systematic study of the chiral magnetic effect with the AVFD model at LHC energies", Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 717, arXiv:2106.03537 [nucl-th].

[46] S. Shi, Y. Jiang, E. Lilleskov, and J. Liao, "Anomalous Chiral Transport in Heavy Ion Collisions from Anomalous-Viscous Fluid Dynamics", Annals Phys. 394 (2018) 50-72, arXiv:1711.02496 [nucl-th].

[47] Y. Jiang, S. Shi, Y. Yin, and J. Liao, "Quantifying the chiral magnetic effect from anomalous-viscous fluid dynamics", Chin. Phys. C 42 (2018) 011001, arXiv:1611.04586 [nucl-th].
[48] S. Shi, H. Zhang, D. Hou, and J. Liao, “Signatures of Chiral Magnetic Effect in the Collisions of Isobars”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) 242301, arXiv:1910.14010 [nucl-th].

[49] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC”, JINST 3 (2008) S08002.

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

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

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

[53] ALICE Collaboration, E. Abbas et al., “Performance of the ALICE VZERO system”, JINST 8 (2013) P10016, arXiv:1306.3130 [nucl-ex].

[54] R. Arnaldi et al., “The zero degree calorimeters for the ALICE experiment”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 581 (2007) 397–401. [Erratum: Nucl.Instrum.Meth.A 604, 765 (2009)].

[55] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Centrality determination using the Glauber model in Xe-Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.44 TeV”, ALICE-PUBLIC-2018-003 (2018) 1–23. http://cds.cern.ch/record/2315401.

[56] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Transverse momentum spectra and nuclear modification factors of charged particles in Xe-Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.44 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 788 (2019) 166–179, arXiv:1805.04399 [nucl-ex].

[57] X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, “HIJING: A Monte Carlo model for multiple jet production in pp, pA and AA collisions”, Phys. Rev. D44 (1991) 3501–3516.

[58] M. Gyulassy and X.-N. Wang, “HIJING 1.0: A Monte Carlo program for parton and particle production in high-energy hadronic and nuclear collisions”, Comput. Phys. Commun. 83 (1994) 307, arXiv:nucl-th/9502021.

[59] R. Brun et al., “GEANT Detector Description and Simulation Tool”, CERN-W5013 1 (1994) 1. https://cds.cern.ch/record/1082634.

[60] U. Gürsoy, D. Kharzeev, E. Marcus, K. Rajagopal, and C. Shen, “Charge-dependent Flow Induced by Magnetic and Electric Fields in Heavy Ion Collisions”, Phys. Rev. C 98 (2018) 055201, arXiv:1806.05288 [hep-ph].

[61] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Longitudinal Flow Decorrelations in Xe+Xe Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.44 TeV with the ATLAS Detector”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) 122301, arXiv:2001.04201 [nucl-ex].

[62] I. Selyuzhenkov and S. Voloshin, “Effects of non-uniform acceptance in anisotropic flow measurement”, Phys. Rev. C 77 (2008) 034904, arXiv:0707.4672 [nucl-th].

[63] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Transverse momentum spectra and nuclear modification factors of charged particles in pp, p-Pb and Pb-Pb collisions at the LHC”, JHEP 11 (2018) 013, arXiv:1802.09145 [nucl-ex].
[64] R. Barlow, “Systematic errors: Facts and fictions”, in *Conference on Advanced Statistical Techniques in Particle Physics*, pp. 134–144. 7, 2002. arXiv:hep-ex/0207026.

[65] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Centrality dependence of the charged-particle multiplicity density at midrapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. **116** (2016) 222302, arXiv:1512.06104 [nucl-ex].

[66] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Centrality and pseudorapidity dependence of the charged-particle multiplicity density in Xe-Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.44 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B **790** (2019) 35–48, arXiv:1805.04432 [nucl-ex].

[67] F. Retiere and M. A. Lisa, “Observable implications of geometrical and dynamical aspects of freeze out in heavy ion collisions”, Phys. Rev. C **70** (2004) 044907, arXiv:nucl-th/0312024.

[68] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Production of pions, kaons, (anti-)protons and $\phi$ mesons in Xe-Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.44 TeV”, Eur. Phys. J. C **81** (2021) 584, arXiv:2101.03100 [nucl-ex].

[69] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Anisotropic flow of identified hadrons in Xe-Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.44 TeV”, JHEP **10** (2021) 152, arXiv:2107.10592 [nucl-ex].

[70] H. Song and U. W. Heinz, “Suppression of elliptic flow in a minimally viscous quark-gluon plasma”, Phys. Lett. B **658** (2008) 279–283, arXiv:0709.0742 [nucl-th].

[71] S. A. Bass et al., “Microscopic models for ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions”, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. **41** (1998) 255–369, arXiv:nucl-th/9803035.

[72] M. Bleicher et al., “Relativistic hadron-hadron collisions in the ultrarelativistic quantum molecular dynamics model”, J. Phys. G **25** (1999) 1859–1896, arXiv:hep-ph/9909407.

[73] M. L. Miller, K. Reygers, S. J. Sanders, and P. Steinberg, “Glauber modeling in high energy nuclear collisions”, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. **57** (2007) 205–243, arXiv:nucl-ex/0701025.

[74] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Centrality determination in heavy ion collisions”, ALICE-PUBLIC-2018-011 (2018) 1–28. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2636623.

[75] J. S. Moreland, J. E. Bernhard, and S. A. Bass, “Alternative ansatz to wounded nucleon and binary collision scaling in high-energy nuclear collisions”, Phys. Rev. C **92** (2015) 011901, arXiv:1412.4708 [nucl-th].

[76] W.-T. Deng, X.-G. Huang, G.-L. Ma, and G. Wang, “Test the chiral magnetic effect with isobaric collisions”, Phys. Rev. C **94** (2016) 041901, arXiv:1607.04697 [nucl-th].
A The ALICE Collaboration

S. Acharya 126, D. Adamová 86, A. Adler70, 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 25,
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 25,
M. Aresti 52, R. Arnaldi 56, 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 4, Z. Banoo 91, R. Barbera 26, F. Barile 31,
L. Barioglio 95, M. Barlou78, 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. Bauri47, 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 25, R. Bellwied 115,
S. Belokurova 140, V. Belyaev 140, G. Bencedi 46, S. Beole 24, 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 4, B. Bhattacharjee 41, L. Bianchi 24, N. Bianchi 49, J. Bielčík 35, J. Bielčíková 86,
J. Biernat 107, A.P. Bigot 128, A. Bilandzic 95, G. Biro 46, S. Biswas 4, N. Bize 103, J.T. Blair 108,
D. Blau 140, M.B. Blidaru 97, N. Bluhme38, C. Blume 64, G. Boca 21,55, F. Bock 87, T. Bodova 20,
A. Bogdanov140, S. Boi 22, J. Bok 58, L. Boldizsár 46, A. Bolozdynya 140, M. Bombara 37,
P.M. Bond 32, G. Bonomi 133,55, H. Borel 129, A. Borissov 140, A.G. Borquez Carcamo 94, H. Bossi 137,
E. Botta 24, Y.E.M. Bouziani 64, L. Bratrud 64, P. Braun-Munzinger 97, M. Bregant 110, M. Broz 35,
G.E. Bruno 96,31, M.D. Buckland 23, D. Budnikov 140, H. Buesching 64, S. Bufalino 29, O. Bugnon 103,
P. Buhler 102, Z. Buthelezi 68,122, S.A. Bysiak107, M. Cai 6, H. Caines 137, A. Caliva 97, E. Calvo
Villar 101, J.M.M. Camacho 109, P. Camerini 23, 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 24,29, 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 97,6,
C. Cheshkov 127, B. Cheynis 127, V. Chibante Barroso 32, D.D. Chinellato 111, E.S. Chizzali 11,95,
J. Cho 58, S. Cho 58, P. Chochula 32, P. Christakoglou 84, C.H. Christensen 83, P. Christiansen 75,
T. Chuj0 124, M. Ciacco 29, C. Cicalo 52, F. Cindolo 51, M.R. Ciupek97, G. ClaiIII,51, F. Colamaria 50,
J.S. Colburn100, D. Colella 96,31, M. Colocci 32, M. Concas 56, G. Conesa Balbastre 73, Z. Conesa del
Valle 130, G. Contin 23, J.G. Contreras 35, M.L. Coquet 129, T.M. Cormier1,87, P. Cortese 132,56,
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. Cuautle65, P. Cui 6, A. Dainese 54, M.C. Danisch 94, A. Danu 63, P. Das 80,
P. Das 4, S. Das 4, A.R. Dash 125, S. Dash 47, A. De Caro 28, G. de Cataldo 50, J. de Cuveland38, A. De
Falco 22, D. De Gruttola 28, N. De Marco 56, C. De Martin 23, S. De Pasquale 28, S. Deb 48,
R.J. Debski 2, K.R. Deja135, R. Del Grande 95, L. Dello Stritto 28, W. Deng 6, P. Dhankher 18, D. Di
Bari 31, A. Di Mauro 32, R.A. Diaz 141,7, T. Dietel 114, Y. Ding 127,6, R. Divià 32, D.U. Dixit 18,
Ø. Djuvsland20, U. Dmitrieva 140, A. Dobrin 63, B. Dönigus 64, J.M. Dubinski 135, A. Dubla 97,
S. Dudi 90, P. Dupieux 126, M. Durkac106, N. Dzalaiova12, T.M. Eder 125, R.J. Ehlers 87, V.N. Eikeland20,
F. Eisenhut 64, D. Elia 50, B. Erazmus 103, F. Ercolessi 25, F. Erhardt 89, M.R. Ersdal20,
B. Espagnon 130, G. Eulisse 32, D. Evans 100, S. Evdokimov 140, L. Fabbietti 95, M. Faggin 27,
J. Faivre 73, F. Fan 6, W. Fan 74, A. Fantoni 49, M. Fasel 87, P. Fecchio29, A. Feliciello 56,
G. Feofilov 140, A. Fernández Téllez 44, L. Ferrandi 110, M.B. Ferrer 32, A. Ferrero 129,
C. Ferrero 14,56, A. Ferretti 24, 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 28, C. Furget 73, A. Furs 140, T. Fusayasu 98, J.J. Gaardhøje 83,
M. Gagliardi 24, 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. Garner125, P. Gasik 97,
A. Gautam 117, M.B. Gay Ducati 66, M. Germain 103, C. Ghosh134, M. Giacalone 25, P. Giubellino 97,56,
P. Giubilato 27, A.M.C. Glaenzer 129, P. Glässel 94, E. Glimos 121, D.J.Q. Goh76, V. Gonzalez 136,
L.H. González-Trueba 67, M. Gorgon 2, S. Gotovac33, V. Grabski 67, L.K. Graczykowski 135,
E. Grecka 86, A. Grelli 59, C. Grigoras 32, V. Grigoriev 140, S. Grigoryan 141,1, 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. Habib⁹⁷, C. Hadjidakis Ⓟ 130, F.U. Haider Ⓟ 91, H. Hamagaki Ⓟ 76, A. Hamdi Ⓟ 74,
M. Hamid⁶, 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. Herrmann¹²⁵, S. Herrmann Ⓟ 127, K.F. Hetland Ⓟ 34,
B. Heybeck Ⓟ 64, H. Hillemanns Ⓟ 32 C. Hills Ⓟ 118, B. Hippolyte Ⓟ 128, B. Hofman Ⓟ 59, B. Hohlweger Ⓟ 84,
G.H. Hong Ⓟ 138, M. Horst Ⓟ 95, A. Horzyk Ⓟ 2, R. Hosokawa¹⁴, Y. Hou Ⓟ 6, P. Hristov Ⓟ 32, C. Hughes Ⓟ 121,
P. Huhn⁶⁴, L.M. Huhta Ⓟ 116, T.J. Humanic Ⓟ 88, A. Hutson Ⓟ 115, D. Hutter Ⓟ 38, J.P. Iddon Ⓟ 118, R. Ilkaev¹⁴⁰,
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. Ivanov¹², V. Ivanov Ⓟ 140, M. Jablonski Ⓟ 2, B. Jacak Ⓟ 74, N. Jacazio Ⓟ 32,
P.M. Jacobs Ⓟ 74, S. Jadlovska¹⁰⁶, J. Jadlovsky¹⁰⁶, S. Jaelani Ⓟ 82, L. Jaffe³⁸, C. Jahnke Ⓟ 111,
M.J. Jakubowska Ⓟ 135, M.A. Janik Ⓟ 135, T. Janson⁷⁰, M. Jercic⁸⁹, 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, J. Kaewjai¹⁰⁵,
P. Kalinak Ⓟ 60, A.S. Kalteyer Ⓟ 97, A. Kalweit Ⓟ 32, V. Kaplin Ⓟ 140, A. Karasu Uysal Ⓟ V, 72, D. Karatovic Ⓟ 89,
O. Karavichev Ⓟ 140, T. Karavicheva Ⓟ 140, P. Karczmarczyk Ⓟ 135, E. Karpechev Ⓟ 140, M.J. Karwowska Ⓟ 32, 135,
U. Kebschull Ⓟ 70, R. Keidel Ⓟ 139, D.L.D. Keijdener⁵⁹, M. Keil Ⓟ 32, B. Ketzer Ⓟ 42, A.M. Khan Ⓟ 6, S. Khan Ⓟ 15,
A. Khanzadeev Ⓟ 140, Y. Kharlov Ⓟ 140, A. Khatun Ⓟ 117, 15, A. Khuntia Ⓟ 107, M.B. Kidson¹¹⁴, 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 Ⓟ 94, 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. Kollegger⁹⁷, A. Kondratyev Ⓟ 141,
N. Kondratyeva Ⓟ 140, E. Kondratyuk Ⓟ 140, J. Konig Ⓟ 64, S.A. Konigstorfer Ⓟ 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. Kreis⁹⁷, M. Krivda Ⓟ 100, 60,
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. Kumaoka¹²⁴, D. Kumar¹³⁴, L. Kumar Ⓟ 90,
N. Kumar⁹⁰, S. Kumar Ⓟ 31, 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 Ⓟ 26, Y.S. Lai⁷⁴, A. Lakrathok¹⁰⁵, M. Lamanna Ⓟ 32, R. Langoy Ⓟ 120, P. Larionov Ⓟ 32,
E. Laudi Ⓟ 32, L. Lautner Ⓟ 32, 95, R. Lavicka Ⓟ 102, T. Lazareva Ⓟ 140, R. Lea Ⓟ 133, 55, 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. Lettrich⁹⁵,
P. Lévai Ⓟ 46, X. Li¹⁰, X.L. Li⁶, J. Lien Ⓟ 120, R. Lietava Ⓟ 100, B. Lim Ⓟ 24, 16, S.H. Lim Ⓟ 16, V. Lindenstruth Ⓟ 38,
A. Lindner⁴⁵, 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 Ⓟ 27, G. Luparello Ⓟ 57, Y.G. Ma Ⓟ 39, A. Maevskaya¹⁴⁰, M. Mager Ⓟ 32,
T. Mahmoud⁴², A. Maire Ⓟ 128, M.V. Makariev Ⓟ 36, M. Malaev Ⓟ 140, G. Malfattore Ⓟ 25, N.M. Malik Ⓟ 91,
Q.W. Malik¹⁹, S.K. Malik Ⓟ 91, L. Malinina I, VIII, 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 Ⓟ 23,
A. Margotti Ⓟ 51, A. Marín Ⓟ 97, C. Markert Ⓟ 108, P. Martinengo Ⓟ 32, J.L. Martinez¹¹⁵, M.I. Martínez Ⓟ 44,
G. Martínez García Ⓟ 103, S. Masciocchi Ⓟ 97, M. Masera Ⓟ 24, A. Masoni Ⓟ 52, L. Massacrier Ⓟ 130,
A. Mastroserio Ⓟ 131, 50, O. Matonoha Ⓟ 75, P.F.T. Matuoka¹¹⁰, A. Matyja Ⓟ 107, C. Mayer Ⓟ 107,
A.L. Mazuecos Ⓟ 32, F. Mazzaschi Ⓟ 24, M. Mazzilli Ⓟ 32, J.E. Mdhluli Ⓟ 122, A.F. Mechler⁶⁴, Y. Melikyan Ⓟ 43, 140,
A. Menchaca-Rocha Ⓟ 67, E. Meninno Ⓟ 102, A.S. Menon Ⓟ 115, M. Meres Ⓟ 12, S. Mhlanga¹¹⁴, 68, Y. Miake¹²⁴,
L. Micheletti Ⓟ 56, L.C. Migliorin¹²⁷, D.L. Mihaylov Ⓟ 95, K. Mikhaylov Ⓟ 141, 140, A.N. Mishra Ⓟ 46,
D. Miśkowiec Ⓟ 97, A. Modak Ⓟ 4, A.P. Mohanty Ⓟ 59, B. Mohanty⁸⁰, M. Mohisin Khan Ⓟ VI, 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 Ⓟ 22,
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. Neagu¹⁹, A. Negru¹¹³,
L. Nellen Ⓟ 65, S.V. Nesbo³⁴, 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. Oya⁹², K. Oyama Ⓟ 76,
Y. Pachmayer Ⓟ 94, S. Padhan Ⓟ 47, D. Pagano Ⓟ 133, 55, 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. Patra⁹¹, B. Paul Ⓟ 22,
H. Pei 6, T. Peitzmann 59, X. Peng 6, M. Pennisi 24, 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 103,66, S. Piano 57,
M. Pikna 12, P. Pillot 103, O. Pinazza 51,32, L. Pinsky 115, C. Pinto 95, S. Pisano 49, M. Płoskoń 74,
M. Planinic89, F. Pliquett64, 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 4, S. Prasad 48,
R. Preghenella 51, F. Prino 56, C.A. Pruneau 136, I. Pshenichnov 140, M. Puccio 32, S. Pucillo 24,
Z. Pugelova106, S. Qiu 84, L. Quaglia 24, R.E. Quishpe115, S. Ragoni 14,100, A. Rakotozafindrabe 129,
L. Ramello 132,56, F. Rami 128, T.A. Rancien73, M. Rasa 26, 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 77,79,
C.A. Reetz 97, H.D. Regules-Medel44, A. Rehman20, F. Reidt 32, H.A. Reme-Ness 34, Z. Rescakova37,
K. Reygers 94, A. Riabov 140, V. Riabov 140, R. Ricci 28, 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. Rojas44, S. Rojas Torres 35,
P.S. Rokita 135, G. Romanenko 141, F. Ronchetti 49, A. Rosano 30,53, E.D. Rosas65, K. Roslon 135,
A. Rossi 54, A. Roy 48, S. Roy 47, N. Rubini 25, D. Ruggiano 135, R. Rui 23, B. Rumyantsev141,
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 31, S. Sadovsky 140,
J. Saetre 20, K. Šafařík 35, S.K. Saha 4, S. Saha 80, B. Sahoo 47, R. Sahoo 48, S. Sahoo61, D. Sahu 48,
P.K. Sahu 61, J. Saini 134, K. Sajdakova37, S. Sakai 124, M.P. Salvan 97, S. Sambyal 91, I. Sanna 32,95,
T.B. Saramela110, D. Sarkar 136, N. Sarkar134, P. Sarma 41, V. Sarritzu 22, V.M. Sarti 95, M.H.P. Sas 137,
J. Schambach 87, H.S. Scheid 64, C. Schiaua 45, R. Schicker 94, A. Schmah94, C. Schmidt 97,
H.R. Schmidt93, M.O. Schmidt 32, M. Schmidt93, N.V. Schmidt 87, A.R. Schmier 121, R. Schotter 128,
A. Schröter 38, J. Schukraft 32, K. Schwarz97, K. Schweda 97, G. Scioli 25, E. Scomparin 56,
J.E. Seger 14, Y. Sekiguchi123, 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. Shahoyan32,
A. Shangaraev 140, A. Sharma90, 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. Sheibani115, K. Shigaki 92, M. Shimomura77,
J. Shin11, S. Shirinkin 140, Q. Shou 39, Y. Sibiriak 140, S. Siddhanta 52, T. Siemiarczuk 79,
T.F. Silva 110, D. Silvermyr 75, T. Simantathammakul105, R. Simeonov 36, B. Singh91, 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 132,56, T.B. Skaali19, G. Skorodumovs 94, M. Slupecki 43, N. Smirnov 137,
R.J.M. Snellings 59, E.H. Solheim 19, J. Song 115, A. Songmoolnak105, F. Soramel 27, 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 25, C.P. Stylianidis84, A.A.P. Suaide 110,
C. Suire 130, M. Sukhanov 140, M. Suljic 32, R. Sultanov 140, V. Sumberia 91, S. Sumowidagdo 82,
S. Swain61, I. Szarka 12, S.F. Taghavi 95, G. Taillepied 97, J. Takahashi 111, G.J. Tambave 20,
S. Tang 126,6, Z. Tang 119, J.D. Tapia Takaki 117, N. Tapus113, L.A. Tarasovicova 125, M.G. Tarzila 45,
G.F. Tassielli 31, A. Tauro 32, G. Tejeda Muñoz 44, A. Telesca 32, L. Terlizzi 24, C. Terrevoli 115,
G. Tersimonov3, S. Thakur 4, D. Thomas 108, A. Tikhonov 140, A.R. Timmins 115, M. Tkacik106,
T. Tkacik 106, A. Toia 64, R. Tokumoto92, N. Topilskaya 140, M. Toppi 49, F. Torales-Acosta18,
T. Tork 130, A.G. Torres Ramos 31, A. Trifiró 30,53, A.S. Triolo 30,53, S. Tripathy 51, T. Tripathy 47,
S. Trogolo 32, V. Trubnikov 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 22, M. Vala37,
N. Valle 21, L.V.R. van Doremlen59, 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 115,75, V. Vechernin 140, E. Vercellin 24, S. Vergara Limón44, L. Vermunt 97,
R. Vértesi 46, M. Verweij 59, L. Vickovic33, Z. Vilakazi122, O. Villalobos Baillie 100, G. Vino 50,
A. Vinogradov 140, T. Virgili 28, V. Vislavicius83, A. Vodopyanov 141, B. Volkel 32, M.A. Völkl 94,
K. Voloshin140, S.A. Voloshin 136, G. Volpe 31, B. von Haller 32, I. Vorobyev 95, N. Vozniuk 140,
J. Vrláková 37, C. Wang 39, D. Wang39, Y. Wang 39, A. Wegrzynek 32, F.T. Weiglhofer38, 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. Wu39, Y. Wu 119, R. Xu 6, A. Yadav 42,
A.K. Yadav 134, S. Yalcin 72, Y. Yamaguchi 92, S. Yang20, S. Yano 92, Z. Yin 6, I.-K. Yoo 16,
J.H. Yoon 58, S. Yuan20, A. Yuncu 94, V. Zaccolo 23, C. Zampolli 32, F. Zanone 94, N. Zardoshti 32,100,
A. Zarochentsev 140, P. Závada 62, N. Zaviyalov140, M. Zhalov 140, B. Zhang 6, L. Zhang 39, M. Zhang6,
S. Zhang 39, X. Zhang 6, Y. Zhang119, Z. Zhang 6, M. Zhao 10, V. Zherebchevskii 140, Y. Zhi10,
D. Zhou ◦ 6, Y. Zhou ◦ 83, J. Zhu ◦ 97, 6, Y. Zhu 6, S.C. Zugravel ◦ 56, N. Zurlo ◦ 133, 55

## Affiliation Notes

1. Deceased

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

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

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

V. Also at: Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Türkiye

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

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

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

## Collaboration Institutes

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

2. AGH University of Krakow, Cracow, Poland

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

4. Bose Institute, Department of Physics and Centre for Astroparticle Physics and Space Science (CAPSS), Kolkata, India

5. California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California, United States

6. Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China

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

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

9. Chicago State University, Chicago, Illinois, United States

10. China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China

11. Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea

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

13. COMSATS University Islamabad, Islamabad, Pakistan

14. Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, United States

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

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

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

18. Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, California, United States

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

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

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

22. Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Università and Sezione INFN, Cagliari, Italy

23. Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Università and Sezione INFN, Trieste, Italy

24. Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Università and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy

25. Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell'Università and Sezione INFN, Bologna, Italy

26. Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell'Università and Sezione INFN, Catania, Italy

27. Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell'Università and Sezione INFN, Padova, Italy

28. Dipartimento di Fisica 'E.R. Caianiello' dell'Università and Gruppo Collegato INFN, Salerno, Italy

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

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

31. Dipartimento Interateneo di Fisica 'M. Merlin' and Sezione INFN, Bari, Italy

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

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

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

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

36. Faculty of Physics, Sofia University, Sofia, Bulgaria

37. Faculty of Science, P.J. Šafárik University, Košice, Slovak Republic
38 Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

39 Fudan University, Shanghai, China

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

41 Gauhati University, Department of Physics, Guwahati, India

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

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

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

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

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

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

48 Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore, India

49 INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy

50 INFN, Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy

51 INFN, Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

52 INFN, Sezione di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy

53 INFN, Sezione di Catania, Catania, Italy

54 INFN, Sezione di Padova, Padova, Italy

55 INFN, Sezione di Pavia, Pavia, Italy

56 INFN, Sezione di Torino, Turin, Italy

57 INFN, Sezione di Trieste, Trieste, Italy

58 Inha University, Incheon, Republic of Korea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

69 Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea

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

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

72 KTO Karatay University, Konya, Turkey

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

74 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, United States

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

76 Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science, Nagasaki, Japan

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

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

79 National Centre for Nuclear Research, Warsaw, Poland

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

81 National Nuclear Research Center, Baku, Azerbaijan

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

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

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

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

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

87 Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States

88 Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States

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

90 Physics Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
91 Physics Department, University of Jammu, Jammu, India

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

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

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

95 Physik Department, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

96 Politecnico di Bari and Sezione INFN, Bari, Italy

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

98 Saga University, Saga, Japan

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

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

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

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

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

104 Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon City, Republic of Korea

105 Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand

106 Technical University of Košice, Košice, Slovak Republic

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

108 The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States

109 Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Culiacán, Mexico

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

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

112 Universidade Federal do ABC, Santo Andre, Brazil

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

114 University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

115 University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States

116 University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

117 University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, United States

118 University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom

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

120 University of South-Eastern Norway, Kongsberg, Norway

121 University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States

122 University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

123 University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

124 University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan

125 Universität Münster, Institut für Kernphysik, Münster, Germany

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

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

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

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

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

131 Università degli Studi di Foggia, Foggia, Italy

132 Università del Piemonte Orientale, Vercelli, Italy

133 Università di Brescia, Brescia, Italy

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

135 Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland

136 Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, United States

137 Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States

138 Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

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

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

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