# Modification of charged-particle jets in event-shape engineered Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5 TeV

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

► To cite this version:

Shreyasi Acharya, Dagmar Adamova, Gianluca Aglieri Rinella, Michelangelo Agnello, Neelima Agrawal, et al. Modification of charged-particle jets in event-shape engineered Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5 TeV. Phys.Lett.B, 2024, 851, pp.138584. 10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138584. hal-04178567

HAL Id: hal-04178567

https://hal.science/hal-04178567v1

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
Letter

# Modification of charged-particle jets in event-shape engineered Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV

ALICE Collaboration *

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

## ARTICLE INFO

Editor: M. Doser

Dataset link: https://www.hepdata.net/record/ins2681682

## ABSTRACT

Charged-particle jet yields have been measured in semicentral Pb-Pb collisions at center-of-mass energy per nucleon-nucleon collision $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV with the ALICE detector at the LHC. These yields are reported as a function of the jet transverse momentum, and further classified by their angle with respect to the event plane and the event shape, characterized by ellipticity, in an effort to study the path-length dependence of jet quenching. Jets were reconstructed at midrapidity from charged-particle tracks using the anti-$k_T$ algorithm with resolution parameters $R = 0.2$ and 0.4, with event-plane angle and event-shape values determined using information from forward scintillating detectors. The results presented in this letter show that, in semicentral Pb-Pb collisions, there is no significant difference between jet yields in predominantly isotropic and elliptical events. However, out-of-plane jets are observed to be more suppressed than in-plane jets. Further, this relative suppression is greater for low transverse momentum ($< 50 \text{ GeV/c}$) $R = 0.2$ jets produced in elliptical events, with out-of-plane to in-plane jet-yield ratios varying up to $5.2\sigma$ between different event-shape classes. These results agree with previous studies indicating that jets experience azimuthally anisotropic suppression when traversing the QGP medium, and can provide additional constraints on the path-length dependence of jet energy loss.

## 1. Introduction

At very high energy densities, ordinary hadronic matter undergoes a transition to become a strongly interacting state of deconfined quarks and gluons. This new state of matter is referred to as the quark-gluon plasma (QGP) [1]. Calculations using quantum chromodynamics (QCD) on the lattice predict a crossover transition between these phases at a temperature of about 150 MeV that can be reached in the laboratory via ultrarelativistic collisions of heavy ions [2,3]. Experimental studies of heavy-ion collisions thus offer a compelling opportunity to explore the properties of the strongly interacting medium, and form the main physics program of the ALICE experiment at the LHC [4].

Jets, sprays of hadrons resulting from high-transverse-momentum ($p_T$) partons produced in hard-scattering processes, are sensitive to a variety of QGP properties [5-7]. Because jets are produced early in a collision, indeed much earlier than the formation of the QGP at $\tau_{QGP} \sim 0.5$ fm/c, they experience its whole evolution. Jets interact with and are modified by this medium as they traverse it, resulting in a collection of effects known as jet quenching. The observation of jet quenching at both RHIC and LHC energies is therefore considered to be a main signature of QGP formation [8-11], and the microscopic mechanism by which jet quenching occurs has been the subject of significant theoretical and experimental investigation. Models predict that partons can lose energy

collisionally and/or radiatively in the weakly-coupled limit, with radiative contributions expected to dominate in the high-$p_T$ regime [12,13]. Moreover, it is predicted that there is a direct relationship between the path-length dependence of parton energy loss and the relative contributions of the different mechanisms. In a static medium, collisional and radiative energy loss are expected to have a linear and quadratic dependence on the length of plasma traversed, respectively [14,15]. Measuring this dependence would therefore offer a direct way to probe the underlying mechanisms of jet-medium interactions, but doing so has so far proven to be challenging. Past measurements, e.g. the dijet asymmetry [16-18], are heavily influenced by fluctuations in jet-medium interactions, making it difficult to extract an underlying path-length dependence [19]. Another such measurement, the jet $v_2$ (the second Fourier coefficient in the azimuthal distribution of jet momenta in the transverse plane), shows a significant azimuthal anisotropy in jet yields in Pb-Pb collisions [20-22]. However, medium fluctuations limit the ability to constrain the underlying physics mechanisms that drive this behavior.

Event-shape engineering (ESE) [23], a technique that classifies events according to their anisotropies using the magnitude of the reduced flow vector, offers a new experimental approach to overcome these difficulties and constrain the path-length dependence of jet energy loss [24]. This approach is advantageous in that it allows for the

<footnote>* E-mail address: alice-publications@cern.ch.</footnote>
selection of events for which the thermodynamic properties are similar, but for which the spatial anisotropies vary significantly. This is done by isolating events within a centrality class that have particularly round or elliptical geometries. Previous measurements have shown that the el- liptic flow coefficient $v_2$ of charged particles varies significantly at a fixed collision centrality [25–27]. In addition, the mean $p_T$ of the parti- cle yields is larger for elliptical events than for isotropic events. Results using ESE in the heavy-flavor sector show similar indications [28,29]. These measurements reveal the sizeable potential that ESE has to con- nect observables from the soft and hard momentum scales.

Combining the precision afforded by jet measurements with the con- trol that ESE provides to constrain the collision geometry, it is possible to learn about this interplay of physics phenomena from high to low $p_T$ [30]. In the analysis presented in this letter, this interplay is studied by considering an event shape in conjunction with the jet angle with re- spect to the event-plane $\Psi_2$, which is defined by the beam axis and the vector of the collision impact parameter. The distance the jet traverses through the medium when traveling parallel to the event plane (in- plane) is, on average, shorter than when it travels perpendicular to the event plane (out-of-plane). As such, the azimuthal anisotropy of the jet spectra provides initial information about the path-length dependence of parton energy loss. By then applying ESE, the relative difference between in- and out-of-plane jet path-lengths can be increased or de- creased. This is especially true in the case of semicentral collisions, where the system is usually (but not necessarily) elliptical [30]. In semicentral Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 2.76$ TeV, the charged-particle $v_2$ ratio for the 30% most elliptical events compared to the 30% most isotropic events is ~1.3 [26]. This ratio was approximated by consid- ering the average of the charged-particle $v_2$ values reported in differ- entiated centrality and ellipticity windows. With this in consideration, comparing in- and out-of-plane jet spectra for events with different el- lipticities can reduce the contribution of medium shape fluctuations and increase understanding of the path-length dependence of jet energy loss.

In this letter, results of event-shape engineered jet yields in 30–50% Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV are presented. Jets were recon- structed from charged-particle tracks for resolution parameters $R = 0.2$ and $R = 0.4$, within a jet transverse-momentum range of $35 < p_{T,ch jet} < 120$ GeV/c and $40 < p_{T,ch jet} < 120$ GeV/c, respectively. The in-plane and out-of-plane jet yields are presented according to the ellipticity of the collision system quantified event-by-event, which allows for the ex- ploitation of average differences in jet path length.

## 2. Experimental setup

The ALICE experiment is a general-purpose detector located at the LHC. It is optimized to provide high momentum resolution and excellent particle identification over a broad momentum range, up to the high- est multiplicities [31]. The primary ALICE sub-detectors used in this analysis are the Inner Tracking System (ITS), Time Projection Chamber (TPC), and V0 detectors. For more information on the ALICE apparatus and its performance, see Refs. [32,33].

The ITS is a silicon-based tracking detector used for reconstruction of charged tracks and primary vertex identification [34]. It consists of six layers having increasing radii around the nominal collision point. The first two layers are Silicon Pixel Detectors (SPD), followed by two layers of Silicon Drift Detectors (SDD), and two layers of Silicon Strip Detectors (SSD). The TPC is a large cylindrical gaseous detector, covering a pseudorapidity range of $|\eta| < 0.9$ over the full azimuthal angle [35] and providing excellent tracking performance up to high particle multiplicities and momenta. The tracks used for jet reconstruc- tion in this analysis were measured by both the ITS and the TPC, and were accepted for $p_T > 0.15$ GeV/c and pseudorapidities of $|\eta| < 0.9$. The tracks have a momentum resolution of $\sigma_{p_T}/p_T \sim 0.8\%$ at $p_T = 1$ GeV/c, which increases to $\sigma_{p_T}/p_T \sim 2\%$ at $p_T = 10$ GeV/c [33]. In cen- tral Pb–Pb collisions, the tracking efficiency ranges from approximately 65% to 82% for increasing $p_T$ [8].

The V0A and VOC, scintillation detectors located at pseudorapidities $2.8 < \eta < 5.1$ and $-3.7 < \eta < -1.7$, respectively, were used to select the Pb–Pb minimum-bias and semicentral events according to their summed amplitudes [36,37]. In this analysis, the VOC was used for calculating the reduced flow vector $q_2$, defined in Eq. (1), as it is closer to midrapid- ity than the V0A. It can therefore produce a wider $q_2$ distribution, thus accessing the best separation between different event shapes. The V0A was used for calculating event-plane angles. Using these forward detec- tors to measure the event shape and event-plane angle minimizes the autocorrelations between these quantities and the charged-particle jets at midrapidity. Details of the $q_2$ and event-plane angle measurements are given in the next section.

## 3. Data analysis

The results presented in this letter are derived from a sample of Pb–Pb collisions collected by the ALICE experiment during the 2018 LHC heavy-ion run. The data sample considered in this work was recorded with a semicentral trigger based on the V0 signal amplitude, which allowed for the collection of a large sample of Pb–Pb collisions in the 30–50% centrality class [31]. Only events having a primary vertex within $\pm 10$ cm of the nominal interaction point along the beam line (z direction) were accepted. An additional selection criterion was applied to remove pile-up, utilizing the correlation between the number of hits in the ITS and TPC detectors. After applying these criteria, a total of approximately 54 million events were selected for this study.

Jets were reconstructed from charged-particle tracks [38] with the FastJet anti-$k_T$ algorithm [39,40]. The $p_T$-scheme recombination strategy was chosen to combine tracks using their transverse mo- menta [39,41]. The resolution parameters $R = 0.2$ and $R = 0.4$ were studied, where each jet was required to contain a leading track with $5 < p_T < 100$ GeV/c. The leading track requirement was chosen to re- duce contamination from combinatorial jets. The jet axis was required to be within $|\eta_{jet}| < 0.9 - R$, where $\eta_{jet}$ is the pseudorapidity of the jet axis. Furthermore, for each jet the quantity $\Delta\phi = \phi_{jet} - \Psi_2$ was cal- culated. This is the difference in azimuthal angle between the jet axis and the event-plane angle $\Psi_2$, where $\Psi_2$ is determined from the V0A signals. The average combinatorial background was subtracted using an area-based technique [38,42,43]. With this method, the background transverse-momentum density per unit area, $\rho$, was determined event- by-event after removing the two leading $k_T$ jets [44]. The jet energies were corrected for the underlying-event contribution by subtracting the event-averaged density multiplied by the jet area. The residual back- ground fluctuations, together with detector effects, were then corrected on a statistical basis using a 2D Bayesian unfolding procedure [45,46]. The choice to use a 2D procedure was made so as to correct for the dif- ferences in background arising from the jet angle with respect to $\Psi_2$, as well as to account for any correlated bin migration in $\Delta\phi$ and $p_{T,ch jet}$. This was done using a 4D response matrix constructed from PYTHIA 8 (Monash tune) [47,48] jets transported through the ALICE detector by a GEANT3-based simulation [49] and embedded into real Pb–Pb events. The data was binned in $p_{T,ch jet}$ and $|\cos(\Delta\phi)|$ for both truth- and reconstructed-level jets. Before filling the response matrix, 2% of simulated tracks were randomly rejected before jet-finding to account for the worsened tracking efficiency in the high track-density environ- ment of Pb–Pb collisions. This level of degradation was estimated using HIJING simulations of 0–10% central Pb–Pb collisions [50]. The 2D jet distribution was then unfolded using six iterations of the Bayesian pro- cedure, with the PYTHIA 8 distribution used as the prior.

After unfolding, corrections were applied to the jet yields for the kinematic and reconstruction efficiencies. Here, the kinematic effi- ciency refers to the inefficiency introduced by truth-level jets that were reconstructed outside of the measured $p_{T,ch jet}$ range, thus not entering the unfolding procedure. This was computed for each bin by taking the ratio of the truth-level spectrum reconstructed in the measured range to the truth level-spectrum reconstructed within $10 < p_{T,ch jet} < 200$ GeV/c.
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Distribution of $q_2$ values as a function of centrality in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV. Pink lines demarcate the 30th and 70th $q_2$ percentiles, as calculated within 1%-wide centrality intervals.</figcaption></figure>

The reconstruction efficiency accounts for truth-level jets that were not found at detector-level. Corrections were also applied to account for the event-plane resolution when the event-plane angle was considered. The reported $p_{T, ch jet}$ ranges are 35–120 GeV/c and 40–120 GeV/c for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ jets, respectively. These ranges were chosen to satisfy the requirement of having a kinematic efficiency above 75% for each generator-level $p_{T, ch jet}$ bin, as well as to ensure stability when varying the lower limit of the $p_{T, ch jet}$ range considered in the unfolding procedure.

To study the event-shape dependence, events were classified according to the magnitude of the reduced flow vector $q_2$ [51] as measured with the VOC, defined as

$$q_2 = |Q_2| / \sqrt{M}, \qquad (1)$$

where M represents the charged-particle multiplicity and $Q_2$ represents the second harmonic flow vector, defined as

$$Q_2 = \left( \sum_i w_i \cos(2\phi_i), \sum_i w_i \sin(2\phi_i) \right). \qquad (2)$$

Here, $\phi_i$ and $w_i$ are the azimuthal angle and signal weight, respectively, of the i-th segment of the VOC detector [33,52]. Samples of events with the 30% smallest and largest $q_2$ were selected for this study and will be henceforth referred to as $q_2$-small and $q_2$-large. These designations represent isotropic and elliptical event topologies, respectively. Fig. 1 shows the distribution of $q_2$ values as a function of collision centrality in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV. The pink lines demarcate the 30th and 70th percentiles in $q_2$. Note that the $q_2$-small sample contains a significant fraction of events with non-zero $v_2$, so, while this sample is characterized as comparatively isotropic, there still exists some significant anisotropy within the sample [26]. The slope of the distribution indicates that the average values of $q_2$ are slightly larger for more central collisions, which can introduce a centrality bias in the event class selection. To avoid this correlation bias, the $q_2$ classification was done within 1%-wide centrality intervals.

The event-plane angle $\Psi_2$, given by the direction of $Q_2$, was measured with the VOA detector. The in- and out-of-plane axes were defined as parallel and perpendicular to $\Psi_2$, respectively. Jets were considered in- and out-of-plane when they were reconstructed within 30° in azimuth of these axes. This restriction from the traditional ±45° definition was made to enforce larger differences between in- and out-of-plane path lengths and to increase the potential differences in jet yields [30]. The use of opposed detectors for $q_2$ and $\Psi_2$ is advantageous for avoiding autocorrelations between these observables and for reducing detector-resolution corrections.

To account for the smearing of the reaction-plane angle due to the event-plane resolution, the ratios of in- and out-of-plane jet yields were corrected using a procedure analogous to that used for $v_2$ measurements [53]. First, the $v_2$ was calculated using

$$v_2 = \frac{\pi}{3\sqrt{3}} \frac{1}{R_2} \frac{N_{in} - N_{out}}{N_{in} + N_{out}}, \qquad (3)$$

where $R_2$ is the second harmonic event-plane resolution, and $N_{in}$ and $N_{out}$ are the in- and out-of-plane jet yields, respectively. Note that the coefficient $\pi/(3\sqrt{3})$ in this formula is specific to this analysis, in which the in- and out-of-plane definitions are at ±30° around $\Psi_2$ and the vector perpendicular to it, as described above. The event-plane resolution $R_2$ was calculated using the three-sub-event method [53], where the particles measured by the VOA, VOC, and TPC detectors were used to construct the three separate sub-events. For $q_2$-small samples, $R_2$ is 0.55, whereas for $q_2$-large samples it is 0.68. After calculating the corrected $v_2$, the corrected ratio $R = N_{out}/N_{in}$ was obtained by inverting Eq. (3) and assuming a perfect resolution $R_2 = 1$. To correct the individual spectra for the event-plane resolution, conservation of jet yields within the fiducial volume ($N_{in}^{measured} + N_{out}^{measured} = N_{in}^{corrected} + N_{out}^{corrected}$) was additionally considered, such that

$$N_{in}^{corrected} = \frac{N_{in}^{measured} + N_{out}^{measured}}{1 + R}, \qquad N_{out}^{corrected} = \frac{N_{in}^{measured} + N_{out}^{measured}}{1 + 1/R}. \qquad (4)$$

For the ratio of out-of-plane to in-plane jet yields, the magnitude of this correction varies from 5 to 25%. Note that $N_{mid}$ remains unmodified, where $N_{mid}$ is the jet yield reconstructed between ±30°–60° of the event plane. This correction procedure is exact when assuming a negligible contribution from higher order harmonics. Additionally, the contribution of non-flow to the measured yield ratios was estimated using PYTHIA 8. Here, non-flow refers to the $v_2$ contribution from forward multi-jets that result in a biased determination of $\Psi_2$. It was found that, for cases where an intermediate $p_{T, ch jet}$ jet is produced at midrapidity, a recoiling jet strikes the VOA in < 4% of instances. The relative contribution from these events to the jet $v_2$ is estimated to be less than 20%. The presented results are not corrected for this possible effect.

The systematic uncertainties of the charged-particle jet yields and their ratios are summarized in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The ranges of systematic uncertainties are listed for the measured $p_{T, ch jet}$ range. The systematic uncertainty on the tracking efficiency was calculated by randomly rejecting an additional 4% of PYTHIA 8 tracks used in the embedding procedure, representing the uncertainty in the single-track efficiency in the Pb–Pb environment. The jet finding was then repeated and the response matrix recalculated, resulting in the largest source of uncertainty for the measured spectra. The uncertainty in the unfolding procedure was quantified by varying the number of iterations of unfolding, the shape of the prior $p_{T, ch jet}$ and $\Delta\phi$ spectra, and the lower limit of the measured range (referred to as the truncation). The shape variation was done by reweighting the unfolding prior according to the ratio between the PYTHIA 8 and data spectra in both $p_{T, ch jet}$ and event-plane angle. The number of unfolding iterations was varied by ±1. The lower $p_{T, ch jet}$ limit for the jets that entered into the unfolding procedure was varied by ±5 GeV/c. Finally, the systematic uncertainty of the event-plane resolution was obtained by varying $R_2$ by 2%. This 2% variation accounts for the difference in event-plane resolution observed when it is calculated using the $\chi$-ratio method as opposed to the three-sub-event method [26,53]. Note that this uncertainty is only considered for the measurements that are differentiated in $\Delta\phi$. For the ratios of the spectra, the systematic uncertainties in the numerator and denominator were treated as correlated, and the resulting systematic uncertainty was
<caption>**Table 1**</caption>

Relative systematic uncertainties for the charged-particle jet yields as measured in 30–50% Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV. Values are reported as percentages. Reported ranges reflect the minimum and maximum values of the uncertainties over the measured $p_{T, ch, jet}$ range. Here, < 1 indicates an uncertainty with a decimal value greater than zero but less than one.

<table><caption>**Table 2**</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3"></th><th colspan="4">R = 0.2</th><th colspan="4">R = 0.4</th></tr><tr><th colspan="2">q<sub>2</sub>-small</th><th colspan="2">q<sub>2</sub>-large</th><th colspan="2">q<sub>2</sub>-small</th><th colspan="2">q<sub>2</sub>-large</th></tr><tr><th>in-plane</th><th>out-of-plane</th><th>in-plane</th><th>out-of-plane</th><th>in-plane</th><th>out-of-plane</th><th>in-plane</th><th>out-of-plane</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Tracking efficiency</th><td>6–15</td><td>6–12</td><td>8–10</td><td>6–16</td><td>4–15</td><td>6–15</td><td>6–20</td><td>&lt;1–17</td></tr><tr><th>Unfolding iterations</th><td>&lt;1</td><td>&lt;1</td><td>&lt;1</td><td>&lt;1</td><td>&lt;1–2</td><td>&lt;1–4</td><td>1–3</td><td>&lt;1–3</td></tr><tr><th>Unfolding prior</th><td>&lt;1–3</td><td>&lt;1–2</td><td>&lt;1–2</td><td>&lt;1–2</td><td>2–6</td><td>&lt;1–5</td><td>&lt;1–8</td><td>2–5</td></tr><tr><th>Unfolding truncation</th><td>&lt;1</td><td>&lt;1</td><td>&lt;1</td><td>&lt;1</td><td>&lt;1–10</td><td>&lt;1–7</td><td>1–13</td><td>&lt;1–9</td></tr><tr><th>Event-plane determination</th><td>&lt;1</td><td>&lt;1</td><td>&lt;1</td><td>&lt;1</td><td>&lt;1</td><td>&lt;1</td><td>&lt;1</td><td>&lt;1</td></tr><tr><th>Total</th><td>6–15</td><td>6–12</td><td>8–10</td><td>6–16</td><td>8–16</td><td>6–16</td><td>12–21</td><td>9–17</td></tr></tbody></table>

Relative systematic uncertainties for the ratios of charged-particle jet yields as measured in 30–50% Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV. Values are reported as percentages. Reported ranges reflect the minimum and maximum values of the uncertainties over the measured $p_{T, ch, jet}$ range. Here, < 1 indicates an uncertainty with a decimal value greater than zero but less than one.

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="3">R = 0.2</th><th colspan="3">R = 0.4</th></tr><tr><th>q<sub>2</sub>-large/q<sub>2</sub>-small</th><th>q<sub>2</sub>-small<br>out-/in-plane</th><th>q<sub>2</sub>-large<br>out-/in-plane</th><th>q<sub>2</sub>-large/q<sub>2</sub>-small</th><th>q<sub>2</sub>-small<br>out-/in-plane</th><th>q<sub>2</sub>-large<br>out-/in-plane</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Tracking efficiency</th><td>1–3</td><td>&lt;1–2</td><td>&lt;1–5</td><td>1–3</td><td>4–9</td><td>1–9</td></tr><tr><th>Unfolding iterations</th><td>&lt;1</td><td>&lt;1</td><td>&lt;1</td><td>&lt;1</td><td>&lt;1–6</td><td>2–6</td></tr><tr><th>Unfolding prior</th><td>&lt;1–3</td><td>&lt;1–2</td><td>&lt;1–3</td><td>&lt;1–3</td><td>1–5</td><td>&lt;1–12</td></tr><tr><th>Unfolding truncation</th><td>&lt;1</td><td>&lt;1</td><td>&lt;1</td><td>&lt;1–3</td><td>1–18</td><td>1–21</td></tr><tr><th>Event-plane determination</th><td>N/A</td><td>&lt;1</td><td>&lt;1</td><td>N/A</td><td>&lt;1</td><td>&lt;1</td></tr><tr><th>Total</th><td>1–4</td><td>2–3</td><td>1–5</td><td>1–5</td><td>5–21</td><td>4–25</td></tr></tbody></table>

obtained by making the above-described variations and calculating the deviations on the ratio itself. The total systematic uncertainties were calculated as quadratic sums of the different sources by assuming the independence of all contributions.

## 4. Results

The $p_{T, ch, jet}$-differential charged-particle jet yields for resolution parameters $R = 0.2$ and $R = 0.4$ are shown in Fig. 2. Included are the results for the event classes $q_2$-small and $q_2$-large, differentiated for in-plane and out-of-plane jets. The systematic uncertainties are indicated by the boxes and are highly correlated among the different measurements.

The ratios of charged-particle jet yields for the $q_2$-large to $q_2$-small event classes are shown in Fig. 3, for both $R = 0.2$ and $R = 0.4$. Considering these results as ratios allowed for a reduction in the systematic uncertainties due to correlations of the uncertainties between the spectra, thus improving the sensitivity of this measurement. The results are consistent with unity, indicating that azimuthally-integrated jet yields are not sensitive to collision ellipticity. This stands in contrast to the yield enhancement seen in elliptical collisions at low $p_T$ [25], where particle spectra are not governed by quenching, but rather by the hydrodynamic expansion of the medium.

Fig. 4 shows the ratio of out-of-plane to in-plane jet yields for the $q_2$-small and $q_2$-large event classes, for jets with $R = 0.2$ (left) and $R = 0.4$ (right). These results were corrected for the event-plane resolution, as described in the previous section. The measured ratios are significantly below unity, indicating that jets lose more energy on average when traveling out-of-plane than when traveling in-plane. This is consistent with the idea that the magnitude of jet energy loss is driven, at least in part, by the path length traversed in the medium. For $R = 0.4$ jets, further conclusions regarding event-shape dependent azimuthal anisotropy are limited by the large experimental uncertainties. For $R = 0.2$ jets, the ratios for $q_2$-small and $q_2$-large are similar at high $p_{T, ch, jet}$. For $p_{T, ch, jet} < 50$ GeV/c, however, there is an indication that out-of-plane jets in the $q_2$-large class are more suppressed relative to in-plane jets than those in the

$q_2$-small class. The significance of this separation from $35 < p_{T, ch, jet} < 50$ GeV/c is 5.2$\sigma$. This result is qualitatively in agreement with observations of D mesons [29].

This effect is expected due to the increased path-length differences between in- and out-of-plane directions for highly elliptical collision geometries, which is supported by Trajectum calculations [30,54]. In these calculations, probes were generated in the initial state at the location of nucleon–nucleon collisions, and propagated through the hydrodynamically evolving medium while remaining unmodified. The average path lengths of these probes were calculated for events with varying $q_2$, and differentially for in- and out-of-plane emission angles. While the results of this study show that the average traversed path length of the probes does not vary significantly with event $q_2$, it does change as a function of the probe angle with respect to $\Psi_2$. This variation with $\Psi_2$ can be further augmented when considering $q_2$-large events, and suppressed when considering $q_2$-small events. The outcome of these Trajectum calculations shows that by using ESE, the ratio of out-of-plane to in-plane path lengths can be increased in semicentral collisions by ~10% with respect to the inclusive case. The results presented in this letter are consistent with these calculations, assuming that the traversed path length of jets is an important factor for determining their energy loss. These Trajectum studies do not, however, allow one to conclude anything about the $p_{T, ch, jet}$-dependence of this energy loss or explain the apparent convergence of ratios at high $p_{T, ch, jet}$. Despite the absence of phenomenological descriptions, a possible understanding of the experimental results at high $p_{T, ch, jet}$ can be obtained by considering that the charged-particle jet $R_{AA}$ increases and the charged-particle jet $v_2$ decreases with increasing $p_{T, ch, jet}$ [20,55]. It is therefore expected that any path-length-dependent signal accessible to ESE measurements would decrease at high $p_{T, ch, jet}$. Moreover, the precision of the measurement presented here is statistically limited at high $p_{T, ch, jet}$. It is therefore difficult to establish if the convergence of out-of-plane to in-plane ratios for elliptical and isotropic events is a true physics phenomenon, or is rather a consequence of the limited experimental precision accessible at high $p_{T, ch, jet}$.
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Charged-particle jet yields for $R = 0.2$ (left) and $R = 0.4$ (right) jets in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV. Results are shown for the $q_2$-small and $q_2$-large event classes, for in- and out-of-plane jets. The bars (boxes) represent statistical (systematic) point-by-point uncertainties.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3. Ratio of the charged-particle jet yields of the $q_2$-large to the $q_2$-small event classes, in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV. The results are reported for $R = 0.2$ and $R = 0.4$ jets.</figcaption></figure>

This measurement demonstrates the potential of the ESE technique and paves the way for future studies with larger data samples. However, a full interpretation of these results requires detailed comparisons to model calculations, which will allow for more quantitative conclusions on the path-length dependence of energy loss.

## 5. Conclusions

In this letter, the measured event-shape engineered jet yields are reported for resolution parameters $R = 0.2$ and $R = 0.4$ in semicentral Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV. The magnitude of the reduced second harmonic flow vector $q_2$ was used to select event classes that are particularly isotropic ($q_2$-small) and elliptical ($q_2$-large). The jet spectra from these two event classes are consistent within their uncertainties. However, a significant deviation between jet spectra is observed when

these jets are classified according to their azimuthal angle with respect to the event plane. It is indicated that jets lose more energy out-of-plane compared to in-plane, consistent with the measurement of a non-zero $v_2$ of jets at the LHC. Furthermore, for $R = 0.2$ jets in highly elliptical events, the differences between the modification of out-of-plane and in-plane jets at low $p_{T, ch jet}$ are found to be more significant than in more isotropic events. Model calculations employing a realistic parton shower in event-by-event hydrodynamical simulations, such as LBT [56,57], JETSCAPE [58], or JEWEL on a (2+1)D background [59,60], are needed to further interpret these results and gain insight into the path-length dependence of jet quenching.

## Declaration of competing interest

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

## Data availability

This manuscript has associated data in a HEPData repository at: https://www.hepdata.net/record/ins2681682.

## 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
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.** Ratios of out-of-plane to in-plane charged-particle jet yields for the $q_2$-large and $q_2$-small event classes in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV. The results are reported for $R = 0.2$ (left) and $R = 0.4$ (right) jets, and are corrected for the event-plane resolution.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

(FWF): [M 2467-N36] and Nationalstiftung für Forschung, Technologie und Entwicklung, Austria; Ministry of Communications and High Technologies, National Nuclear Research Center, Azerbaijan; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (Finep), Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) and Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Brazil; Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Science, within the National Roadmap for Research Infrastructures 2020-2027 (object CERN), Bulgaria; Ministry of Education of China (MOEC), Ministry of Science & Technology of China (MSTC) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), China; Ministry of Science and Education and Croatian Science Foundation, Croatia; Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Cuba; Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic, Czech Republic; The Danish Council for Independent Research—Natural Sciences, the Villum Fonden and Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF), Denmark; Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Finland; Commissariat à l'Énergie Atomique (CEA) and Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (IN2P3) and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), France; Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) and GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Germany; General Secretariat for Research and Technology, Ministry of Education, Research and Religions, Greece; National Research, Development and Innovation Office, Hungary; Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India (DAE), Department of Science and Technology, Government of India (DST), University Grants Commission, Government of India (UGC) and Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), India; National Research and Innovation Agency - BRIN, Indonesia; Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), Italy; Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI, Japan; Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT), 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: European Research Council, Strong 2020 - Horizon 2020 (grant nos. 950692, 824093), European Union; Academy of Finland (Center of Excellence in Quark Matter) (grant nos. 346327, 346328), Finland.

References

[1] W. Busza, K. Rajagopal, W. van der Schee, Heavy ion collisions: the big picture, and the big questions, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68 (2018) 339–376, arXiv:1802.04801 [hep-ph].

[2] HotQCD Collaboration, A. Bazavov, et al., Equation of state in (2+1)-flavor QCD, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 094503, arXiv:1407.6387 [hep-lat].

[3] C. Ratti, Lattice QCD and heavy ion collisions: a review of recent progress, Rep. Prog. Phys. 81 (2018) 084301, arXiv:1804.07810 [hep-lat].

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

[5] M. Gyulassy, M. Plumer, Jet quenching in dense matter, Phys. Lett. B 243 (1990) 432–438.

[6] G.-Y. Qin, X.-N. Wang, Jet quenching in high-energy heavy-ion collisions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 24 (2015) 1530014, arXiv:1511.00790 [hep-ph].

[7] M. Connors, C. Nattrass, R. Reed, S. Salur, Jet measurements in heavy ion physics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90 (2018) 025005, arXiv:1705.01974 [nucl-ex].

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

[9] STAR Collaboration, J. Adam, et al., Measurement of inclusive charged-particle jet production in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, Phys. Rev. C 102 (2020) 054913, arXiv:2006.00582 [nucl-ex].

[10] CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryan, et al., Measurement of inclusive jet cross sections in $p\bar{p}$ and PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV, Phys. Rev. C 96 (2017) 015202, arXiv:1609.05383 [nucl-ex].

[11] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad, et al., Measurements of the nuclear modification factor for jets in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 072302, arXiv:1411.2357 [hep-ex].

[12] R. Baier, Y.L. Dokshitzer, A.H. Mueller, S. Peigne, D. Schiff, Radiative energy loss of high-energy quarks and gluons in a finite volume quark-gluon plasma, Nucl. Phys. B 483 (1997) 291–320, arXiv:hep-ph/9607355.

[13] M. Gyulassy, P. Levai, I. Vitei, NonAbelian energy loss at finite opacity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 5535–5538, arXiv:nucl-th/0005032.
[14] M. Djordjevic, D. Zigic, M. Djordjevic, J. Auvinen, How to test path-length dependence in energy loss mechanisms: analysis leading to a new observable, Phys. Rev. C 99 (2019) 061902, arXiv:1805.04030 [nucl-th].

[15] M. Djordjevic, M. Gyulassy, Heavy quark radiative energy loss in QCD matter, Nucl. Phys. A 733 (2004) 265-298, arXiv:nucl-th/0310076.

[16] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad, et al., Observation of a centrality-dependent dijet asymmetry in lead-lead collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 252303, arXiv:1011.6182 [hep-ex].

[17] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad, et al., Measurements of the suppression and correlations of dijets in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, Phys. Rev. C 107 (2023) 054908, arXiv:2205.00682 [nucl-ex].

[18] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan, et al., Observation and studies of jet quenching in PbPb collisions at nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy = 2.76 TeV, Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 024906, arXiv:1102.1957 [nucl-ex].

[19] J.G. Milhano, K.C. Zapp, Origins of the di-jet asymmetry in heavy ion collisions, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 288, arXiv:1512.08107 [hep-ph].

[20] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam, et al., Azimuthal anisotropy of charged jet production in $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV Pb-Pb collisions, Phys. Lett. B 753 (2016) 511-525, arXiv: 1509.07334 [nucl-ex].

[21] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad, et al., Measurement of the azimuthal angle dependence of inclusive jet yields in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 152301, arXiv:1306.6469 [hep-ex].

[22] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad, et al., Measurements of azimuthal anisotropies of jet production in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. C 105 (2022) 064903, arXiv:2111.06606 [nucl-ex].

[23] J. Schukraft, A. Timmins, S.A. Voloshin, Ultra-relativistic nuclear collisions: event shape engineering, Phys. Lett. B 719 (2013) 394-398, arXiv:1208.4563 [nucl-ex].

[24] P. Christiansen, Event-shape engineering and jet quenching, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 736 (2016) 012023, arXiv:1606.07963 [hep-ph].

[25] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam, et al., Event shape engineering for inclusive spectra and elliptic flow in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV, Phys. Rev. C 93 (2016) 034916, arXiv:1507.06194 [nucl-ex].

[26] 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. B 777 (2018) 151-162, arXiv:1709.04723 [nucl-ex].

[27] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad, et al., Measurement of the correlation between flow harmonics of different order in lead-lead collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. C 92 (2015) 034903, arXiv:1504.01289 [hep-ex].

[28] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Event-shape engineering for the D-meson elliptic flow in mid-central Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2019) 150, arXiv:1809.09371 [nucl-ex].

[29] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Transverse-momentum and event-shape dependence of D-meson flow harmonics in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 813 (2021) 136054, arXiv:2005.11131 [nucl-ex].

[30] C. Beattie, G. Nijs, M. Sas, W. van der Schee, Hard probe path lengths and event-shape engineering of the quark-gluon plasma, Phys. Lett. B 836 (2023) 137596, arXiv:2203.13265 [nucl-th].

[31] ALICE Collaboration, Centrality determination in heavy ion collisions, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2636623, 2018.

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

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

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

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

[36] ALICE Collaboration, P. Cortese, et al., ALICE technical design report on forward detectors: FMD, T0 and V0, https://cds.cern.ch/record/781854, 2004.

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

[38] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev, et al., Measurement of event background fluctuations for charged particle jet reconstruction in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2012) 053, arXiv:1201.2423 [hep-ex].

[39] M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, G. Soyez, FastJet user manual, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1896, arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph].

[40] M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, G. Soyez, The anti-$k_t$ jet clustering algorithm, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2008) 063, arXiv:0802.1189 [hep-ph].

[41] OPAL Collaboration, M.Z. Akrawy, et al., A study of the recombination scheme dependence of jet production rates and of $\alpha_{\epsilon}(M_{Z^0})$ in hadronic $Z^0$ decays, Z. Phys. C 49 (1991) 375-384.

[42] M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, Pileup subtraction using jet areas, Phys. Lett. B 659 (2008) 119-126, arXiv:0707.1378 [hep-ph].

[43] M. Cacciari, J. Rojo, G.P. Salam, G. Soyez, Jet reconstruction in heavy ion collisions, Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1539, arXiv:1010.1759 [hep-ph].

[44] S.D. Ellis, D.E. Soper, Successive combination jet algorithm for hadron collisions, Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) 3160-3166, arXiv:hep-ph/9305266.

[45] G. D'Agostini, A multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes' theorem, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 362 (1995) 487-498.

[46] T. Adye, Unfolding algorithms and tests using RooUnfold, in: Proceedings of the PHYSTAT 2011 Workshop, CERN, Geneva, 2011, pp. 313-318, arXiv:1105.1160 [physics.data-an].

[47] T. Sjöstrand, et al., An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159-177, arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph].

[48] P. Skands, S. Carrazza, J. Rojo, Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 tune, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3024, arXiv:1404.5630 [hep-ph].

[49] R. Brun, et al., GEANT detector description and simulation tool, https://cds.cern.ch/record/1082634, 1994.

[50] M. Gyulassy, 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.

[51] STAR Collaboration, C. Adler, et al., Elliptic flow from two and four particle correlations in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 130 GeV, Phys. Rev. C 66 (2002) 034904, arXiv:nucl-ex/0206001.

[52] S. Voloshin, Y. Zhang, Flow study in relativistic nuclear collisions by Fourier expansion of azimuthal particle distributions, Z. Phys. C 70 (1996) 665-672, arXiv: hep-ph/9407282.

[53] A. Poskanzer, S. Voloshin, Methods for analyzing anisotropic flow in relativistic nuclear collisions, Phys. Rev. C 58 (1998) 1671-1678.

[54] G. Nijs, W. van der Schee, U. Gürsoy, R. Snellings, Bayesian analysis of heavy ion collisions with the heavy ion computational framework Trajectum, Phys. Rev. C 103 (2021) 054909, arXiv:2010.15134 [nucl-th].

[55] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Measurement of the radius dependence of charged-particle jet suppression in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 849 (2024) 138412, arXiv:2303.00592 [nucl-ex].

[56] Y. He, T. Luo, X.-N. Wang, Y. Zhu, Linear Boltzmann transport for jet propagation in the quark-gluon plasma: elastic processes and medium recoil, Phys. Rev. C 91 (2015) 054908, arXiv:1503.03313 [nucl-th], Erratum: Phys. Rev. C 97 (2018) 019902.

[57] Y. He, S. Cao, W. Chen, T. Luo, L.-G. Pang, X.-N. Wang, Interplaying mechanisms behind single inclusive jet suppression in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 99 (2019) 054911, arXiv:1809.02525 [nucl-th].

[58] J.H. Putschke, et al., The JETSCAPE framework, arXiv:1903.07706 [nucl-th].

[59] L. Barreto, F.M. Canedo, M.G. Munhoz, J. Noronha, J. Noronha-Hostler, Jet cone radius dependence of $R_{AA}$ and $v_2$ at PbPb 5.02 TeV from JEWEL+T_RENTO+vUShydro, arXiv:2208.02061 [nucl-th].

[60] I. Kolbé, JEWEL on a (2+1) D background with applications to small systems and substructure, arXiv:2303.14166 [nucl-th].

## ALICE Collaboration

S. Acharya¹²⁸, D. Adamová⁸⁷, G. Aglieri Rinella³³, M. Agnello³⁰, N. Agrawal⁵², Z. Ahammed¹³⁶, S. Ahmad¹⁶, S.U. Ahn⁷², I. Ahuja³⁸, A. Akindinov¹⁴², M. Al-Turany⁹⁸, D. Aleksandrov¹⁴², B. Alessandro⁵⁷, H.M. Alfanda⁶, R. Alfaro Molina⁶⁸, B. Ali¹⁶, A. Alici²⁶, N. Alizadehvandchali¹¹⁷, A. Alkin³³, J. Alme²¹, G. Alocco⁵³, T. Alt⁶⁵, A.R. Altamura⁵¹, I. Altsybeev⁹⁶, J.R. Alvarado⁴⁵, M.N. Anaam⁶, C. Andrei⁴⁶, N. Andreou¹¹⁶, A. Andronic¹²⁷, V. Anguelov⁹⁵, F. Antinori⁵⁵, P. Antonioli⁵², N. Apadula⁷⁵, L. Aphecetche¹⁰⁴, H. Appelshäuser⁶⁵, C. Arata⁷⁴, S. Arcelli²⁶, M. Aresti²³, R. Arnaldi⁵⁷, J.G.M.C.A. Arneiro¹¹¹, I.C. Arsene²⁰, M. Arslandok¹³⁹, A. Augustinus³³, R. Averbeck⁹⁸, M.D. Azmi¹⁶, H. Baba¹²⁵, A. Badalà⁵⁴, J. Bae¹⁰⁵, Y.W. Baek⁴¹, X. Bai¹²¹, R. Bailhache⁶⁵, Y. Bailung⁴⁹, A. Balbino³⁰,
A. Baldisseri 131, ID,
B. Balis 2, ID,
D. Banerjee 4, ID,
Z. Banoo 92, ID,
R. Barbera 27, ID,
F. Barile 32, ID,
L. Barioglio 96, ID,
M. Barlou 79, ID,
B. Barman 42, ID,
G.G. Barnaföldi 47, ID,
L.S. Barnby 86, ID,
V. Barret 128, ID,
L. Barreto 111, ID,
C. Bartels 120, ID,
K. Barth 33, ID,
E. Bartsch 65, ID,
N. Bastid 128, ID,
S. Basu 76, ID,
G. Batigne 104, ID,
D. Battistini 96, ID,
B. Batyunya 143, ID,
D. Bauri 48, ID,
J.L. Bazo Alba 102, ID,
I.G. Bearden 84, ID,
C. Beattie 139, ID,
P. Becht 98, ID,
D. Behera 49, ID,
I. Belikov 130, ID,
A.D.C. Bell Hechavarria 127, ID,
F. Bellini 26, ID,
R. Bellwied 117, ID,
S. Belokurova 142, ID,
Y.A.V. Beltran 45, ID,
G. Bencedi 47, ID,
S. Beole 25, ID,
Y. Berdnikov 142, ID,
A. Berdnikova 95, ID,
L. Bergmann 95, ID,
M.G. Besoiu 64, ID,
L. Betev 33, ID,
P.P. Bhaduri 136, ID,
A. Bhasin 92, ID,
M.A. Bhat 4, ID,
B. Bhattacharjee 42, ID,
L. Bianchi 25, ID,
N. Bianchi 50, ID,
J. Bielčík 36, ID,
J. Bielčíková 87, ID,
J. Biernat 108, ID,
A.P. Bigot 130, ID,
A. Bilandzic 96, ID,
G. Biro 47, ID,
S. Biswas 4, ID,
N. Bize 104, ID,
J.T. Blair 109, ID,
D. Blau 142, ID,
M.B. Blidaru 98, ID,
N. Bluhme 39, ID,
C. Blume 65, ID,
G. Boca 22,56, ID,
F. Bock 88, ID,
T. Bodova 21, ID,
A. Bogdanov 142,
S. Boi 23, ID,
J. Bok 59, ID,
L. Boldizsár 47, ID,
M. Bombara 38, ID,
P.M. Bond 33, ID,
G. Bonomi 135,56, ID,
H. Borel 131, ID,
A. Borissov 142, ID,
A.G. Borquez Carcamo 95, ID,
H. Bossi 139, ID,
E. Botta 25, ID,
Y.E.M. Bouziani 65, ID,
L. Bratrud 65, ID,
P. Braun-Munzinger 98, ID,
M. Bregant 111, ID,
M. Broz 36, ID,
G.E. Bruno 97,32, ID,
M.D. Buckland 24, ID,
D. Budnikov 142, ID,
H. Buesching 65, ID,
S. Bufalino 30, ID,
P. Buhler 103, ID,
N. Burmasov 142, ID,
Z. Buthelezi 69,124, ID,
A. Bylinkin 21, ID,
S.A. Bysiak 108, ID,
M. Cai 6, ID,
H. Caines 139, ID,
A. Caliva 29, ID,
E. Calvo
Villar 102, ID,
J.M.M. Camacho 110, ID,
P. Camerini 24, ID,
F.D.M. Canedo 111, ID,
S.L. Cantway 139, ID,
M. Carabas 114, ID,
A.A. Carballo 33, ID,
F. Carnesecchi 33, ID,
R. Caron 129, ID,
L.A.D. Carvalho 111, ID,
J. Castillo Castellanos 131, ID,
F. Catalano 33,25, ID,
C. Ceballos Sanchez 143, ID,
I. Chakaberia 75, ID,
P. Chakraborty 48, ID,
S. Chandra 136, ID,
S. Chapeland 33, ID,
M. Chartier 120, ID,
S. Chattopadhyay 136, ID,
S. Chattopadhyay 100, ID,
T. Cheng 98,6, ID,
C. Cheshkov 129, ID,
B. Cheynis 129, ID,
V. Chibante Barroso 33, ID,
D.D. Chinellato 112, ID,
E.S. Chizzali 96, ID,II,
J. Cho 59, ID,
S. Cho 59, ID,
P. Chochula 33, ID,
D. Choudhury 42, ID,
P. Christakoglou 85, ID,
C.H. Christensen 84, ID,
P. Christiansen 76, ID,
T. Chujo 126, ID,
M. Ciacco 30, ID,
C. Cicalo 53, ID,
F. Cindolo 52, ID,
M.R. Ciupek 98, ID,
G. Clai 52,III,
F. Colamaria 51, ID,
J.S. Colburn 101, ID,
D. Colella 97,32, ID,
M. Colocci 26, ID,
M. Concas 33, ID,
G. Conesa Balbastre 74, ID,
Z. Conesa del Valle 132, ID,
G. Contin 24, ID,
J.G. Contreras 36, ID,
M.L. Coquet 131, ID,
P. Cortese 134,57, ID,
M.R. Cosentino 113, ID,
F. Costa 33, ID,
S. Costanza 22,56, ID,
C. Cot 132, ID,
J. Crkovská 95, ID,
P. Crochet 128, ID,
R. Cruz-Torres 75, ID,
P. Cui 6, ID,
A. Dainese 55, ID,
M.C. Danisch 95, ID,
A. Danu 64, ID,
P. Das 81, ID,
P. Das 4, ID,
S. Das 4, ID,
A.R. Dash 127, ID,
S. Dash 48, ID,
A. De Caro 29, ID,
G. de Cataldo 51, ID,
J. de Cuveland 39, ID,
A. De
Falco 23, ID,
D. De Gruttola 29, ID,
N. De Marco 57, ID,
C. De Martin 24, ID,
S. De Pasquale 29, ID,
R. Deb 135, ID,
R. Del
Grande 96, ID,
L. Dello Stritto 29, ID,
W. Deng 6, ID,
P. Dhankher 19, ID,
D. Di Bari 32, ID,
A. Di Mauro 33, ID,
B. Diab 131, ID,
R.A. Diaz 143,7, ID,
T. Dietel 115, ID,
Y. Ding 6, ID,
J. Ditzel 65, ID,
R. Divià 33, ID,
D.U. Dixit 19, ID,
Ø. Djuvsland 21, ID,
U. Dmitrieva 142, ID,
A. Dobrin 64, ID,
B. Dönigus 65, ID,
J.M. Dubinski 137, ID,
A. Dubla 98, ID,
S. Dudi 91, ID,
P. Dupieux 128, ID,
M. Durkac 107, ID,
N. Dzalaiova 13, ID,
T.M. Eder 127, ID,
R.J. Ehlers 75, ID,
F. Eisenhut 65, ID,
R. Ejima 93, ID,
D. Elia 51, ID,
B. Erazmus 104, ID,
F. Ercolessi 26, ID,
F. Erhardt 90, ID,
M.R. Ersdal 21, ID,
B. Espagnon 132, ID,
G. Eulisse 33, ID,
D. Evans 101, ID,
S. Evdokimov 142, ID,
L. Fabbietti 96, ID,
M. Faggin 28, ID,
J. Faivre 74, ID,
F. Fan 6, ID,
W. Fan 75, ID,
A. Fantoni 50, ID,
M. Fasel 88, ID,
P. Fecchio 30, ID,
A. Feliciello 57, ID,
G. Feofilov 142, ID,
A. Fernández
Téllez 45, ID,
L. Ferrandi 111, ID,
M.B. Ferrer 33, ID,
A. Ferrero 131, ID,
C. Ferrero 57, ID,IV,
A. Ferretti 25, ID,
V.J.G. Feuillard 95, ID,
V. Filova 36, ID,
D. Finogeev 142, ID,
F.M. Fionda 53, ID,
F. Flor 117, ID,
A.N. Flores 109, ID,
S. Foertsch 69, ID,
I. Fokin 95, ID,
S. Fokin 142, ID,
E. Fragiacomo 58, ID,
E. Frajna 47, ID,
U. Fuchs 33, ID,
N. Funicello 29, ID,
C. Furget 74, ID,
A. Furs 142, ID,
T. Fusayasu 99, ID,
J.J. Gaardhøje 84, ID,
M. Gagliardi 25, ID,
A.M. Gago 102, ID,
T. Gahlaut 48, ID,
C.D. Galvan 110, ID,
D.R. Gangadharan 117, ID,
P. Ganoti 79, ID,
C. Garabatos 98, ID,
T. García Chávez 45, ID,
E. Garcia-Solis 9, ID,
C. Gargiulo 33, ID,
P. Gasik 98, ID,
A. Gautam 119, ID,
M.B. Gay
Ducati 67, ID,
M. Germain 104, ID,
A. Ghimouz 126, ID,
C. Ghosh 136, ID,
M. Giacalone 52, ID,
G. Gioachin 30, ID,
P. Giubellino<sup>98,57,1</sup>, P. Giubilato<sup>28,1</sup>, A.M.C. Glaenzer<sup>131,1</sup>, P. Glässel<sup>95,1</sup>, E. Glimos<sup>123,1</sup>, D.J.Q. Goh<sup>77</sup>, V. Gonzalez<sup>138,1</sup>, M. Gorgon<sup>2,1</sup>, K. Goswami<sup>49,1</sup>, S. Gotovac<sup>34</sup>, V. Grabski<sup>68,1</sup>, L.K. Graczykowski<sup>137,1</sup>, E. Grecka<sup>87,1</sup>, A. Grelli<sup>60,1</sup>, C. Grigoras<sup>33,1</sup>, V. Grigoriev<sup>142,1</sup>, S. Grigoryan<sup>143,1,1</sup>, F. Grosa<sup>33,1</sup>, J.F. Grosse-Oetringhaus<sup>33,1</sup>, R. Grosso<sup>98,1</sup>, D. Grund<sup>36,1</sup>, N.A. Grunwald<sup>95</sup>, G.G. Guardiano<sup>112,1</sup>, R. Guernane<sup>74,1</sup>, M. Guilbaud<sup>104,1</sup>, K. Gulbrandsen<sup>84,1</sup>, T. Gündem<sup>65,1</sup>, T. Gunji<sup>125,1</sup>, W. Guo<sup>6,1</sup>, A. Gupta<sup>92,1</sup>, R. Gupta<sup>92,1</sup>, R. Gupta<sup>49,1</sup>, K. Gwizdziel<sup>137,1</sup>, L. Gyulai<sup>47,1</sup>, C. Hadjidakis<sup>132,1</sup>, F.U. Haider<sup>92,1</sup>, S. Haidlova<sup>36,1</sup>, H. Hamagaki<sup>77,1</sup>, A. Hamdi<sup>75,1</sup>, Y. Han<sup>140,1</sup>, B.G. Hanley<sup>138,1</sup>, R. Hannigan<sup>109,1</sup>, J. Hansen<sup>76,1</sup>, M.R. Haque<sup>137,1</sup>, J.W. Harris<sup>139,1</sup>, A. Harton<sup>9,1</sup>, H. Hassan<sup>118,1</sup>, D. Hatzifotiadou<sup>52,1</sup>, P. Hauer<sup>43,1</sup>, L.B. Havener<sup>139,1</sup>, S.T. Heckel<sup>96,1</sup>, E. Hellbär<sup>98,1</sup>, H. Helstrup<sup>35,1</sup>, M. Hemmer<sup>65,1</sup>, T. Herman<sup>36,1</sup>, G. Herrera Corral<sup>8,1</sup>, F. Herrmann<sup>127</sup>, S. Herrmann<sup>129,1</sup>, K.F. Hetland<sup>35,1</sup>, B. Heybeck<sup>65,1</sup>, H. Hillemanns<sup>33,1</sup>, B. Hippolyte<sup>130,1</sup>, F.W. Hoffmann<sup>71,1</sup>, B. Hofman<sup>60,1</sup>, G.H. Hong<sup>140,1</sup>, M. Horst<sup>96,1</sup>, A. Horzyk<sup>2,1</sup>, Y. Hou<sup>6,1</sup>, P. Hristov<sup>33,1</sup>, C. Hughes<sup>123,1</sup>, P. Huhn<sup>65</sup>, L.M. Huhta<sup>118,1</sup>, T.J. Humanic<sup>89,1</sup>, A. Hutson<sup>117,1</sup>, D. Hutter<sup>39,1</sup>, R. Ilkaev<sup>142</sup>, H. Ilyas<sup>14,1</sup>, M. Inaba<sup>126,1</sup>, G.M. Innocenti<sup>33,1</sup>, M. Ippolitov<sup>142,1</sup>, A. Isakov<sup>85,87,1</sup>, T. Isidori<sup>119,1</sup>, M.S. Islam<sup>100,1</sup>, M. Ivanov<sup>13</sup>, M. Ivanov<sup>98,1</sup>, V. Ivanov<sup>142,1</sup>, K.E. Iversen<sup>76,1</sup>, M. Jablonski<sup>2,1</sup>, B. Jacak<sup>75,1</sup>, N. Jacazio<sup>26,1</sup>, P.M. Jacobs<sup>75,1</sup>, S. Jadlovska<sup>107</sup>, J. Jadlovsky<sup>107</sup>, S. Jaelani<sup>83,1</sup>, C. Jahnke<sup>112,1</sup>, M.J. Jakubowska<sup>137,1</sup>, M.A. Janik<sup>137,1</sup>, T. Janson<sup>71</sup>, S. Ji<sup>17,1</sup>, S. Jia<sup>10,1</sup>, A.A.P. Jimenez<sup>66,1</sup>, F. Jonas<sup>88,127,1</sup>, D.M. Jones<sup>120,1</sup>, J.M. Jowett<sup>33,98,1</sup>, J. Jung<sup>65,1</sup>, M. Jung<sup>65,1</sup>, A. Junique<sup>33,1</sup>, A. Jusko<sup>101,1</sup>, J. Kaewjai<sup>106</sup>, P. Kalinak<sup>61,1</sup>, A.S. Kalteyer<sup>98,1</sup>, A. Kalweit<sup>33,1</sup>, V. Kaplin<sup>142,1</sup>, A. Karasu Uysal<sup>73,1,V</sup>, D. Karatovic<sup>90,1</sup>, O. Karavichev<sup>142,1</sup>, T. Karavicheva<sup>142,1</sup>, P. Karczmarczyk<sup>137,1</sup>, E. Karpechev<sup>142,1</sup>, M.J. Karwowska<sup>33,137,1</sup>, U. Kebschull<sup>71,1</sup>, R. Keidel<sup>141,1</sup>, D.L.D. Keijdener<sup>60</sup>, M. Keil<sup>33,1</sup>, B. Ketzer<sup>43,1</sup>, S.S. Khade<sup>49,1</sup>, A.M. Khan<sup>121,6,1</sup>, S. Khan<sup>16,1</sup>, A. Khanzadeev<sup>142,1</sup>, Y. Kharlov<sup>142,1</sup>, A. Khatun<sup>119,1</sup>, A. Khuntia<sup>36,1</sup>, B. Kileng<sup>35,1</sup>, B. Kim<sup>105,1</sup>, C. Kim<sup>17,1</sup>, D.J. Kim<sup>118,1</sup>, E.J. Kim<sup>70,1</sup>, J. Kim<sup>140,1</sup>, J.S. Kim<sup>41,1</sup>, J. Kim<sup>59,1</sup>, J. Kim<sup>70,1</sup>, M. Kim<sup>19,1</sup>, S. Kim<sup>18,1</sup>, T. Kim<sup>140,1</sup>, K. Kimura<sup>93,1</sup>, S. Kirsch<sup>65,1</sup>, I. Kisel<sup>39,1</sup>, S. Kiselev<sup>142,1</sup>, A. Kisiel<sup>137,1</sup>, J.P. Kitowski<sup>2,1</sup>, J.L. Klay<sup>5,1</sup>, J. Klein<sup>33,1</sup>, S. Klein<sup>75,1</sup>, C. Klein-Bösing<sup>127,1</sup>, M. Kleiner<sup>65,1</sup>, T. Klemenz<sup>96,1</sup>, A. Kluge<sup>33,1</sup>, A.G. Knospe<sup>117,1</sup>, C. Kobdaj<sup>106,1</sup>, T. Kollegger<sup>98</sup>, A. Kondratyev<sup>143,1</sup>, N. Kondratyeva<sup>142,1</sup>, E. Kondratyuk<sup>142,1</sup>, J. Konig<sup>65,1</sup>, S.A. Konigstorfer<sup>96,1</sup>, P.J. Konopka<sup>33,1</sup>, G. Kornakov<sup>137,1</sup>, M. Korwieser<sup>96,1</sup>, S.D. Koryciak<sup>2,1</sup>, A. Kotliarov<sup>87,1</sup>, V. Kovalenko<sup>142,1</sup>, M. Kowalski<sup>108,1</sup>, V. Kozhuharov<sup>37,1</sup>, I. Králik<sup>61,1</sup>, A. Kravčáková<sup>38,1</sup>, L. Krcal<sup>33,39,1</sup>, M. Krivda<sup>101,61,1</sup>, F. Krizek<sup>87,1</sup>, K. Krizkova Gajdosova<sup>33,1</sup>, M. Kroesen<sup>95,1</sup>, M. Krüger<sup>65,1</sup>, D.M. Krupova<sup>36,1</sup>, E. Kryshen<sup>142,1</sup>, V. Kučera<sup>59,1</sup>, C. Kuhn<sup>130,1</sup>, P.G. Kuijer<sup>85,1</sup>, T. Kumaoka<sup>126</sup>, D. Kumar<sup>136</sup>, L. Kumar<sup>91,1</sup>, N. Kumar<sup>91</sup>, S. Kumar<sup>32,1</sup>, S. Kundu<sup>33,1</sup>, P. Kurashvili<sup>80,1</sup>, A. Kurepin<sup>142,1</sup>, A.B. Kurepin<sup>142,1</sup>, A. Kuryakin<sup>142,1</sup>, S. Kushpil<sup>87,1</sup>, M.J. Kweon<sup>59,1</sup>, Y. Kwon<sup>140,1</sup>, S.L. La Pointe<sup>39,1</sup>, P. La Rocca<sup>27,1</sup>, A. Lakrathok<sup>106</sup>, M. Lamanna<sup>33,1</sup>, A.R. Landou<sup>74,116,1</sup>, R. Langoy<sup>122,1</sup>, P. Larionov<sup>33,1</sup>, E. Laudi<sup>33,1</sup>, L. Lautner<sup>33,96,1</sup>, R. Lavicka<sup>103,1</sup>, R. Lea<sup>135,56,1</sup>, H. Lee<sup>105,1</sup>, I. Legrand<sup>46,1</sup>, G. Legras<sup>127,1</sup>, J. Lehrbach<sup>39,1</sup>, T.M. Lelek<sup>2</sup>, R.C. Lemmon<sup>86,1</sup>, I. León Monzón<sup>110,1</sup>, M.M. Lesch<sup>96,1</sup>, E.D. Lesser<sup>19,1</sup>, P. Lévai<sup>47,1</sup>, X. Li<sup>10</sup>, J. Lien<sup>122,1</sup>, R. Lietava<sup>101,1</sup>, I. Likmeta<sup>117,1</sup>, B. Lim<sup>25,1</sup>, S.H. Lim<sup>17,1</sup>, V. Lindenstruth<sup>39,1</sup>, A. Lindner<sup>46</sup>, C. Lippmann<sup>98,1</sup>, D.H. Liu<sup>6,1</sup>, J. Liu<sup>120,1</sup>, G.S.S. Liveraro<sup>112,1</sup>, I.M. Lofnes<sup>21,1</sup>, C. Loizides<sup>88,1</sup>, S. Lokos<sup>108,1</sup>, J. Lömker<sup>60,1</sup>, P. Loncar<sup>34,1</sup>, X. Lopez<sup>128,1</sup>, E. López Torres<sup>7,1</sup>, P. Lu<sup>98,121,1</sup>, J.R. Luhder<sup>127,1</sup>, M. Lunardon<sup>28,1</sup>, G. Luparello<sup>58,1</sup>, Y.G. Ma<sup>40,1</sup>, M. Mager<sup>33,1</sup>, A. Maire<sup>130,1</sup>, E.M. Majerz<sup>2</sup>, M.V. Makariev<sup>37,1</sup>, M. Malaev<sup>142,1</sup>, G. Malfattore<sup>26,1</sup>, N.M. Malik<sup>92,1</sup>, Q.W. Malik<sup>20</sup>, S.K. Malik<sup>92,1</sup>, L. Malinina<sup>143,1,VIII</sup>, D. Mallick<sup>132,81,1</sup>, N. Mallick<sup>49,1</sup>, G. Mandaglio<sup>31,54,1</sup>,
S.K. Mandal 80, ID, V. Manko 142, ID, F. Manso 128, ID, V. Manzari 51, ID, Y. Mao 6, ID, R.W. Marcjan 2, ID,
G.V. Margagliotti 24, ID, A. Margotti 52, ID, A. Marín 98, ID, C. Markert 109, ID, P. Martinengo 33, ID, M.I. Martínez 45, ID,
G. Martínez García 104, ID, M.P.P. Martins 111, ID, S. Masciocchi 98, ID, M. Masera 25, ID, A. Masoni 53, ID,
L. Massacrier 132, ID, O. Massen 60, ID, A. Mastroserio 133,51, ID, O. Matonoha 76, ID, S. Mattiazzo 28, ID,
A. Matyja 108, ID, C. Mayer 108, ID, A.L. Mazuecos 33, ID, F. Mazzaschi 25, ID, M. Mazzilli 33, ID, J.E. Mdhluli 124, ID,
Y. Melikyan 44, ID, A. Menchaca-Rocha 68, ID, E. Meninno 103, ID, A.S. Menon 117, ID, M. Meres 13, ID,
S. Mhlanga 115,69, Y. Miake 126, L. Micheletti 33, ID, D.L. Mihaylov 96, ID, K. Mikhaylov 143,142, ID, A.N. Mishra 47, ID,
D. Miśkowiec 98, ID, A. Modak 4, ID, B. Mohanty 81, M. Mohisin Khan 16, ID, VI, M.A. Molander 44, ID, S. Monira 137, ID,
C. Mordasini 118, ID, D.A. Moreira De Godoy 127, ID, I. Morozov 142, ID, A. Morsch 33, ID, T. Mrnjavac 33, ID,
V. Muccifora 50, ID, S. Muhuri 136, ID, J.D. Mulligan 75, ID, A. Mulliri 23, ID, M.G. Munhoz 111, ID, R.H. Munzer 65, ID,
H. Murakami 125, ID, S. Murray 115, ID, L. Musa 33, ID, J. Musinsky 61, ID, J.W. Myrcha 137, ID, B. Naik 124, ID,
A.I. Nambrath 19, ID, B.K. Nandi 48, ID, R. Nania 52, ID, E. Nappi 51, ID, A.F. Nassirpour 18, ID, A. Nath 95, ID,
C. Nattrass 123, ID, M.N. Naydenov 37, ID, A. Neagu 20, A. Negru 114, L. Nellen 66, ID, R. Nepeivoda 76, ID, S. Nese 20, ID,
G. Neskovic 39, ID, N. Nicassio 51, ID, B.S. Nielsen 84, ID, E.G. Nielsen 84, ID, S. Nikolaev 142, ID, S. Nikulin 142, ID,
V. Nikulin 142, ID, F. Noferini 52, ID, S. Noh 12, ID, P. Nomokonov 143, ID, J. Norman 120, ID, N. Novitzky 126, ID,
P. Nowakowski 137, ID, A. Nyanin 142, ID, J. Nystrand 21, ID, M. Ogino 77, ID, S. Oh 18, ID, A. Ohlson 76, ID,
V.A. Okorokov 142, ID, J. Oleniacz 137, ID, A.C. Oliveira Da Silva 123, ID, A. Onnerstad 118, ID, C. Oppedisano 57, ID,
A. Ortiz Velasquez 66, ID, J. Otwinowski 108, ID, M. Oya 93, K. Oyama 77, ID, Y. Pachmayer 95, ID, S. Padhan 48, ID,
D. Pagano 135,56, ID, G. Paić 66, ID, S. Paisano-Guzmán 45, ID, A. Palasciano 51, ID, S. Panebianco 131, ID, H. Park 126, ID,
H. Park 105, ID, J. Park 59, ID, J.E. Parkkila 33, ID, Y. Patley 48, ID, R.N. Patra 92, B. Paul 23, ID, H. Pei 6, ID,
T. Peitzmann 60, ID, X. Peng 11, ID, M. Pennisi 25, ID, S. Perciballi 25, ID, D. Peresunko 142, ID, G.M. Perez 7, ID,
Y. Pestov 142, V. Petrov 142, ID, M. Petrovici 46, ID, R.P. Pezzi 104,67, ID, S. Piano 58, ID, M. Pikna 13, ID, P. Pillot 104, ID,
O. Pinazza 52,33, ID, L. Pinsky 117, C. Pinto 96, ID, S. Pisano 50, ID, M. Płoskoń 75, ID, M. Planinic 90, F. Pliquett 65,
M.G. Poghosyan 88, ID, B. Polichtchouk 142, ID, S. Politano 30, ID, N. Poljak 90, ID, A. Pop 46, ID,
S. Porteboeuf-Houssais 128, ID, V. Pozdniakov 143, ID, I.Y. Pozos 45, ID, K.K. Pradhan 49, ID, S.K. Prasad 4, ID,
S. Prasad 49, ID, R. Preghenella 52, ID, F. Prino 57, ID, C.A. Pruneau 138, ID, I. Pshenichnov 142, ID, M. Puccio 33, ID,
S. Pucillo 25, ID, Z. Pugelova 107, S. Qiu 85, ID, L. Quaglia 25, ID, S. Ragoni 15, ID, A. Rai 139, ID,
A. Rakotozafindrabe 131, ID, L. Ramello 134,57, ID, F. Rami 130, ID, T.A. Rancien 74, M. Rasa 27, ID, S.S. Räsänen 44, ID,
R. Rath 52, ID, M.P. Rauch 21, ID, I. Ravasenga 85, ID, K.F. Read 88,123, ID, C. Reckziegel 113, ID, A.R. Redelbach 39, ID,
K. Redlich 80, ID, VII, C.A. Reetz 98, ID, H.D. Regules-Medel 45, A. Rehman 21, F. Reidt 33, ID, H.A. Reme-Ness 35, ID,
Z. Rescakova 38, K. Reygers 95, ID, A. Riabov 142, ID, V. Riabov 142, ID, R. Ricci 29, ID, M. Richter 20, ID,
A.A. Riedel 96, ID, W. Riegler 33, ID, A.G. Riffero 25, ID, C. Ristea 64, ID, M.V. Rodriguez 33, ID, M. Rodríguez
Cahuantzi 45, ID, S.A. Rodríguez Ramírez 45, ID, K. Røed 20, ID, R. Rogalev 142, ID, E. Rogochaya 143, ID,
T.S. Rogoschinski 65, ID, D. Rohr 33, ID, D. Röhrich 21, ID, P.F. Rojas 45, S. Rojas Torres 36, ID, P.S. Rokita 137, ID,
G. Romanenko 26, ID, F. Ronchetti 50, ID, A. Rosano 31,54, ID, E.D. Rosas 66, K. Roslon 137, ID, A. Rossi 55, ID,
A. Roy 49, ID, S. Roy 48, ID, N. Rubini 26, ID, D. Ruggiano 137, ID, R. Rui 24, ID, P.G. Russek 2, ID, R. Russo 85, ID,
A. Rustamov 82, ID, E. Ryabinkin 142, ID, Y. Ryabov 142, ID, A. Rybicki 108, ID, H. Rytkonen 118, ID, J. Ryu 17, ID,
W. Rzesa 137, ID, O.A.M. Saarimaki 44, ID, S. Sadhu 32, ID, S. Sadovsky 142, ID, J. Saetre 21, ID, K. Šafařík 36, ID,
P. Saha 42, S.K. Saha 4, ID, S. Saha 81, ID, B. Sahoo 48, ID, B. Sahoo 49, ID, R. Sahoo 49, ID, S. Sahoo 62, D. Sahu 49, ID,
P.K. Sahu 62, ID, J. Saini 136, ID, K. Sajdakova 38, S. Sakai 126, ID, M.P. Salvan 98, ID, S. Sambyal 92, ID, D. Samitz 103, ID,
I. Sanna 33,96, ID, T.B. Saramela 111, P. Sarma 42, ID, V. Sarritzu 23, ID, V.M. Sarti 96, ID, M.H.P. Sas 139, ID,
J. Schambach 88, ID, H.S. Scheid 65, ID, C. Schiaua 46, ID, R. Schicker 95, ID, A. Schmah 98, C. Schmidt 98, ID,
H.R. Schmidt 94, M.O. Schmidt 33, M. Schmidt 94, N.V. Schmidt 88, A.R. Schmier 123, R. Schotter 130,
A. Schröter 39, J. Schukraft 33, K. Schweda 98, G. Scioli 26, E. Scomparin 57, J.E. Seger 15,
Y. Sekiguchi 125, D. Sekihata 125, M. Selina 85, I. Selyuzhenkov 98, S. Senyukov 130, J.J. Seo 95,59,
D. Serebryakov 142, L. Šerkšnytė 96, A. Sevcenco 64, T.J. Shaba 69, A. Shabetai 104, R. Shahoyan 33,
A. Shangaraev 142, A. Sharma 91, B. Sharma 92, D. Sharma 48, H. Sharma 55,108, M. Sharma 92,
S. Sharma 77, S. Sharma 92, U. Sharma 92, A. Shatat 132, O. Sheibani 117, K. Shigaki 93,
M. Shimomura 78, J. Shin 12, S. Shirinkin 142, Q. Shou 40, Y. Sibiriak 142, S. Siddhanta 53,
T. Siemiarczuk 80, T.F. Silva 111, D. Silvermyr 76, T. Simantathammakul 106, R. Simeonov 37, B. Singh 92,
B. Singh 96, K. Singh 49, R. Singh 81, R. Singh 92, R. Singh 49, S. Singh 16, V.K. Singh 136,
V. Singhal 136, T. Sinha 100, B. Sitar 13, M. Sitta 134,57, T.B. Skaali 20, G. Skorodumovs 95,
M. Slupecki 44, N. Smirnov 139, R.J.M. Snellings 60, E.H. Solheim 20, J. Song 117, C. Sonnabend 33,98,
F. Soramel 28, A.B. Soto-hernandez 89, R. Spijkers 85, I. Sputowska 108, J. Staa 76, J. Stachel 95,
I. Stan 64, P.J. Steffanic 123, S.F. Stiefelmaier 95, D. Stocco 104, I. Storehaug 20, P. Stratmann 127,
S. Strazzi 26, A. Sturniolo 31,54, C.P. Stylianidis 85, A.A.P. Suaide 111, C. Suire 132, M. Sukhanov 142,
M. Suljic 33, R. Sultanov 142, V. Sumberia 92, S. Sumowidagdo 83, S. Swain 62, I. Szarka 13,
M. Szymkowski 137, S.F. Taghavi 96, G. Taillepied 98, J. Takahashi 112, G.J. Tambave 81, S. Tang 6,
Z. Tang 121, J.D. Tapia Takaki 119, N. Tapus 114, L.A. Tarasovicova 127, M.G. Tarzila 46,
G.F. Tassielli 32, A. Tauro 33, A. Tavira García 132, G. Tejeda Muñoz 45, A. Telesca 33, L. Terlizzi 25,
C. Terrevoli 117, S. Thakur 4, D. Thomas 109, A. Tikhonov 142, A.R. Timmins 117, M. Tkacik 107,
T. Tkacik 107, A. Toia 65, R. Tokumoto 93, K. Tomohiro 93, N. Topilskaya 142, M. Toppi 50, T. Tork 132,
V.V. Torres 104, A.G. Torres Ramos 32, A. Trifiró 31,54, A.S. Triolo 33,31,54, S. Tripathy 52,
T. Tripathy 48, S. Trogolo 33, V. Trubnikov 3, W.H. Trzaska 118, T.P. Trzcinski 137, A. Tumkin 142,
R. Turrisi 55, T.S. Tveter 20, K. Ullaland 21, B. Ulukutlu 96, A. Uras 129, G.L. Usai 23, M. Vala 38,
N. Valle 22, L.V.R. van Doremalen 60, M. van Leeuwen 85, C.A. van Veen 95, R.J.G. van Weelden 85,
P. Vande Vyvre 33, D. Varga 47, Z. Varga 47, M. Vasileiou 79, A. Vasiliev 142, O. Vázquez Doce 50,
O. Vazquez Rueda 117, V. Vechernin 142, E. Vercellin 25, S. Vergara Limón 45, R. Verma 48,
L. Vermunt 98, R. Vértesi 47, M. Verweij 60, L. Vickovic 34, Z. Vilakazi 124, O. Villalobos Baillie 101,
A. Villani 24, A. Vinogradov 142, T. Virgili 29, M.M.O. Virta 118, V. Vislavicius 76, A. Vodopyanov 143,
B. Volkel 33, M.A. Völkl 95, K. Voloshin 142, S.A. Voloshin 138, G. Volpe 32, B. von Haller 33,
I. Vorobyev 96, N. Vozniuk 142, J. Vrláková 38, J. Wan 40, C. Wang 40, D. Wang 40, Y. Wang 40,
Y. Wang 6, A. Wegrzynek 33, F.T. Weiglhofer 39, S.C. Wenzel 33, J.P. Wessels 127, J. Wiechula 65,
J. Wikne 20, G. Wilk 80, J. Wilkinson 98, G.A. Willems 127, B. Windelband 95, M. Winn 131,
J.R. Wright 109, W. Wu 40, Y. Wu 121, R. Xu 6, A. Yadav 43, A.K. Yadav 136, S. Yalcin 73,
Y. Yamaguchi 93, S. Yang 21, S. Yano 93, Z. Yin 6, I.-K. Yoo 17, J.H. Yoon 59, H. Yu 12, S. Yuan 21,
A. Yuncu 95, V. Zaccolo 24, C. Zampolli 33, F. Zanone 95, N. Zardoshti 33, A. Zarochentsev 142,
P. Závada 63, N. Zaviyalov 142, M. Zhalov 142, B. Zhang 6, C. Zhang 131, L. Zhang 40, S. Zhang 40,
X. Zhang 6, Y. Zhang 121, Z. Zhang 6, M. Zhao 10, V. Zherebchevskii 142, Y. Zhi 10, D. Zhou 6,
Y. Zhou 84, J. Zhu 55,6, Y. Zhu 6, S.C. Zugravel 57, N. Zurlo 135,56

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<footnote n="8">⁸ Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados (CINVESTAV), Mexico City and Mérida, Mexico</footnote>
⁹ Chicago State University, Chicago, IL, United States

¹⁰ China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China

¹¹ China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, China

¹² Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea

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

¹⁴ COMSATS University Islamabad, Islamabad, Pakistan

¹⁵ Creighton University, Omaha, NE, United States

¹⁶ Department of Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India

¹⁷ Department of Physics, Pusan National University, Pusan, Republic of Korea

¹⁸ Department of Physics, Sejong University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

¹⁹ Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA, United States

²⁰ Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

²¹ Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

²² Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy

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

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

²⁵ Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Università and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy

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

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

²⁸ Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell'Università and Sezione INFN, Padova, Italy

²⁹ Dipartimento di Fisica 'E.R. Caianiello' dell'Università and Gruppo Collegato INFN, Salerno, Italy

³⁰ Dipartimento DISAT del Politecnico and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy

³¹ Dipartimento di Scienze MIFT, Università di Messina, Messina, Italy

³² Dipartimento Interateneo di Fisica 'M. Merlin' and Sezione INFN, Bari, Italy

³³ European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland

³⁴ Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Split, Split, Croatia

³⁵ Faculty of Engineering and Science, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway

³⁶ Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

³⁷ Faculty of Physics, Sofia University, Sofia, Bulgaria

³⁸ Faculty of Science, P.J. Šafárik University, Košice, Slovak Republic

³⁹ Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

⁴⁰ Fudan University, Shanghai, China

⁴¹ Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, Republic of Korea

⁴² Gauhati University, Department of Physics, Guwahati, India

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

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

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

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

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

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

⁴⁹ Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore, India

⁵⁰ INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy

⁵¹ INFN, Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy

⁵² INFN, Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

⁵³ INFN, Sezione di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy

⁵⁴ INFN, Sezione di Catania, Catania, Italy

⁵⁵ INFN, Sezione di Padova, Padova, Italy

⁵⁶ INFN, Sezione di Pavia, Pavia, Italy

⁵⁷ INFN, Sezione di Torino, Turin, Italy

⁵⁸ INFN, Sezione di Trieste, Trieste, Italy

⁵⁹ Inha University, Incheon, Republic of Korea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⁷⁰ Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea

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

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

⁷³ KTO Karatay University, Konya, Turkey

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

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

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

⁷⁷ Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science, Nagasaki, Japan

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

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

⁸⁰ National Centre for Nuclear Research, Warsaw, Poland

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

⁸² National Nuclear Research Center, Baku, Azerbaijan

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

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

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

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

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

⁸⁸ Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, United States
⁸⁹ Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States

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

⁹¹ Physics Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India

⁹² Physics Department, University of Jammu, Jammu, India

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

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

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

⁹⁶ Physik Department, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

⁹⁷ Politecnico di Bari and Sezione INFN, Bari, Italy

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

⁹⁹ Saga University, Saga, Japan

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

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

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

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

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

¹⁰⁵ Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon City, Republic of Korea

¹⁰⁶ Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand

¹⁰⁷ Technical University of Košice, Košice, Slovak Republic

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

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

¹¹⁰ Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Culiacán, Mexico

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

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

¹¹³ Universidade Federal do ABC, Santo Andre, Brazil

¹¹⁴ Universitatea Naționala de Știința și Tehnologie Politehnica București, Bucharest, Romania

¹¹⁵ University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

¹¹⁶ University of Derby, Derby, United Kingdom

¹¹⁷ University of Houston, Houston, TX, United States

¹¹⁸ University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

¹¹⁹ University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, United States

¹²⁰ University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom

¹²¹ University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China

¹²² University of South-Eastern Norway, Kongsberg, Norway

¹²³ University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, United States

¹²⁴ University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

¹²⁵ University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

¹²⁶ University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan

¹²⁷ Universität Münster, Institut für Kernphysik, Münster, Germany

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

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

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

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

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

¹³³ Università degli Studi di Foggia, Foggia, Italy

¹³⁴ Università del Piemonte Orientale, Vercelli, Italy

¹³⁵ Università di Brescia, Brescia, Italy

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

¹³⁷ Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland

¹³⁸ Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, United States

¹³⁹ Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States

¹⁴⁰ Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

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

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

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

¹ Deceased.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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