# Pseudorapidity dependence of anisotropic flow and its decorrelations using long-range multiparticle correlations in Pb-Pb and Xe-Xe collisions

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. Pseudorapidity dependence of anisotropic flow and its decorrelations using long-range multiparticle correlations in Pb-Pb and Xe-Xe collisions. Phys.Lett.B, 2024, 850, pp.138477. 10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138477. hal-04170227

HAL Id: hal-04170227

https://hal.science/hal-04170227v1

Submitted on 16 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
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Letter

# Pseudorapidity dependence of anisotropic flow and its decorrelations using long-range multiparticle correlations in Pb-Pb and Xe-Xe collisions

ALICE Collaboration *

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

ARTICLE INFO

Editor: M. Doser

Dataset link: https://www.hepdata.net/record/ins2679248

ABSTRACT

The pseudorapidity dependence of elliptic ($v_2$), triangular ($v_3$), and quadrangular ($v_4$) flow coefficients of charged particles measured in Pb-Pb collisions at a centre-of-mass energy per nucleon pair of $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV and in Xe-Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.44$ TeV with ALICE at the LHC are presented. The measurements are performed in the pseudorapidity range $-3.5 < \eta < 5$ for various centrality intervals using two- and multi-particle cumulants with the subevent method. The flow probability density function (p.d.f.) is studied with the ratio of flow coefficient $v_2$ calculated with four- and two-particle cumulant, and suggests that the variance of flow p.d.f. is independent of pseudorapidity. The decorrelation of the flow vector in the longitudinal direction is probed using two-particle correlations. The results measured with respect to different reference regions in pseudorapidity exhibit differences, argued to be a result of saturating decorrelation effect above a certain pseudorapidity separation, in contrast to previous publications which assign this observation to non-flow effects. The results are compared to 3 + 1 dimensional hydrodynamic and the AMPT transport model calculations. Neither of the models is able to simultaneously describe the pseudorapidity dependence of measurements of anisotropic flow and its fluctuations. The results presented in this work highlight shortcomings in our current understanding of initial conditions and subsequent system expansion in the longitudinal direction. Therefore, they provide input for its improvement.

1. Introduction

There is significant evidence for the production of strongly coupled plasma of quarks and gluons (QGP) in ultra relativistic heavy-ion collisions, as measured by RHIC and LHC experiments [1–5]. Several probes are used to determine the properties of this medium, with measurements of anisotropic flow being among the most powerful ones [6]. The nuclear overlap region of two colliding nuclei forms an initial spatial anisotropy, which is transformed, during the expansion of the subsequently created medium, into an anisotropic azimuthal particle distribution. This anisotropy is quantified based on the Fourier transform of the azimuthal particle distribution [7]

$$ \frac{dN}{d\varphi} \propto f(\varphi) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \left[ 1 + 2 \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} v_n \cos(n[\varphi - \Psi_n]) \right], $$

where $\varphi$ is the azimuthal angle of the emitted particles, $\Psi_n$ is the $n^{th}$ order flow symmetry plane and $v_n = \langle \cos(n[\varphi - \Psi_n]) \rangle$ the $n^{th}$ anisotropic flow coefficient. Here, $\langle \dots \rangle$ denotes an average over all particles in a single event. Together the $v_n$ and $\Psi_n$ define the $n^{th}$ order

(complex) anisotropic flow $V_n \equiv v_n e^{in\Psi_n}$, with $v_n = |V_n|$ representing the magnitude of $V_n$ and $\Psi_n$ its angle.

Anisotropic flow characterises the degree of collective motion of produced particles relative to the symmetry plane vector of a heavy-ion collision. It arises as a direct response to the initial geometry of the overlapping region of colliding nuclei, expressed in terms of eccentricity $\epsilon_n$ for $n \le 4$ [8,9]. The most pronounced component is the elliptic flow, $V_2$, related to the collision ellipticity that reflects the almond shape of the nucleus overlap, while higher order harmonics appear as a result of event-by-event fluctuations of the initial transverse density profiles. Anisotropic flow measurements have been studied in great detail both experimentally and theoretically, thereby allowing the determination of crucial information on the initial conditions and the transport properties of the QGP [10–13], such as the shear viscosity over entropy density ratio, $\eta/s$, which was found to be near to the universal lower bound of $1/4\pi$ [14]. In these studies, anisotropic flow was usually assumed to be driven by a boost invariant initial spatial anisotropy, and experimental measurements were interpreted as anisotropy with respect to an event-averaged symmetry plane.

This assumption has been challenged by several measurements of the pseudorapidity ($\eta$) dependence of anisotropic flow that revealed

<footnote>* E-mail address: alice-publications@cern.ch.</footnote>
longitudinal fluctuations of the flow vectors $V_n$ [15–18]. This can be interpreted as decorrelation of the flow magnitudes and/or symmetry plane angles between two different $\eta$ windows. Measurements exploiting multiparticle correlations suggest that fluctuations in both the flow magnitude and the symmetry plane contribute equally to the flow vector decorrelation [17]. It was argued in Ref. [19] that these effects are connected to the fluctuating initial state, where the transverse shape of the initially produced system fluctuates not only on an event-by-event basis, but also within an event, and it depends on $\eta$. Indeed, many theoretical studies based on hydrodynamic [20–22] and transport models [19,23] showed that the decorrelations are connected to the longitudinal fluctuations in the initial state, with a possible additional contribution from early time hydrodynamic fluctuations [24], but only weak dependence on the $\eta/s$ of the QGP [21,24]. Measurements of anisotropic flow and its fluctuations as a function of pseudorapidity, therefore, represent an important ingredient to constrain the three-dimensional initial conditions and the QGP expansion in longitudinal direction [25–27].

It was found that comparison between measurements from Pb–Pb and Xe–Xe collisions offers a unique possibility to test the hydrodynamic framework under variations of the nuclear mass number and geometry of the collisions [28–30]. Recent results on longitudinal flow fluctuations in both Pb–Pb and Xe–Xe collisions showed that the hydrodynamic models that successfully describe the transverse dynamics of the medium evolution, do not reproduce the longitudinal structure of the initial state [18]. Thus, studying results from collision systems of different sizes can bring additional insight into our understanding of the properties of the QGP.

This letter presents measurements of the pseudorapidity dependence of anisotropic flow coefficients $v_2$, $v_3$ and $v_4$ in Pb–Pb collisions at collision energy $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV and Xe–Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.44$ TeV within a wide pseudorapidity range, $-3.5 < \eta < 5.0$, with the ALICE detector. The measurements are based on two- and four-particle cumulants, $v_n\{2\}$ and $v_n\{4\}$, respectively [31,32]. To suppress contamination from short-range correlations, denoted as non-flow, particles are measured in different subevents widely separated in phase space by imposing a pseudorapidity gap, $|\Delta\eta|$, between them. The large detector acceptance, together with the state-of-the-art measurement techniques, enables us to perform these studies in a wider pseudorapidity range and with a larger pseudorapidity separation of $|\Delta\eta| > 3.8$ compared to previous measurements done at the LHC [16,17,33]. The results presented in this letter improve previous ALICE measurements [34] by significantly reducing the systematic uncertainties dominated by those stemming from corrections for secondary particles and non-flow contamination. In addition, the longitudinal flow vector fluctuations are investigated using the ratio of two-particle correlators calculated in subevents at different pseudorapidities. Both centrality and pseudorapidity dependences are discussed. The results are compared with calculations from a 3 + 1 dimensional CLVisc hydrodynamic model [35] and the AMPT transport model [36].

## 2. Observable definitions

Anisotropic flow and its fluctuations are measured with two- and four-particle cumulants, and a decorrelation ratio, respectively, with the use of m-particle azimuthal correlations. The m-particle azimuthal correlations are calculated with the generic framework [32], which is an effective way to obtain correlation of any order corrected for detector effects.

Differential observables, such as those presented in this work, are measured by correlating the so-called particles of interest, POI, in the desired narrow pseudorapidity interval with respect to reference particles, RFP, measured in a wide pseudorapidity range. If the $\eta$ intervals of POI and RFP are close to each other, such correlations are affected by non-flow contamination, that mainly arise from correlations among the jet constituents. These are suppressed by imposing a pseudorapidity

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Illustration of correlator methods showing calculation of $v_n\{2\}$ using either a small (a) or large (b) separation in pseudorapidity. Darker bands indicate where the differential measurement is performed (i.e. particles of interest) while the other end of the connecting lines indicate reference particles.</figcaption></figure>

gap, $|\Delta\eta|$, between regions called subevents. In this analysis, correlations are calculated in specific regions in $\eta$, which can naturally be considered as subevents. The choice of these subevents allows us to perform longitudinal flow measurements while suppressing the contribution from non-flow.

The regions used for the measurements presented in this article are schematically illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2. Regions A and D correspond to very forward pseudorapidities, while regions B and C are on either side of the symmetry line $\eta = 0$.

Within a traditional approach, flow coefficients differential in pseudorapidity are obtained from two-particle cumulants as

$$v_n^{X}(2) = \frac{\langle\langle 2' \rangle\rangle}{\sqrt{\langle\langle 2 \rangle\rangle}} = \frac{\langle v_n^{X} v_n^{Y} \rangle}{\sqrt{\langle v_n^{X} v_n^{Y} \rangle}}, \quad (1)$$

where the $v_n$ and $v'_n$ are the reference and differential flow, respectively, and X, Y stand for different reference regions for particle correlations in pseudorapidity. The single angular brackets $\langle\cdot\rangle$ represent an average over events with similar centrality, and the double angular brackets $\langle\langle\cdot\rangle\rangle$ an average over particles within an event, and over events. It is further assumed that the reference flow is symmetric, $v_n^X = v_n^Y$, as warranted for symmetric collision systems such as Pb–Pb and Xe–Xe, presented in this work. The $\langle\langle m \rangle\rangle$ denotes the m-particle correlation, in particular the $\langle\langle 2 \rangle\rangle$ represents correlations between two RFP, and $\langle\langle 2' \rangle\rangle$ correlation between RFP and POI. These correlations are defined as:

$$\langle\langle 2 \rangle\rangle = \langle\langle \cos[n(\phi_1^X - \phi_2^Y)] \rangle\rangle, \quad (2) \\ \langle\langle 2' \rangle\rangle = \langle\langle \cos[n(\phi_1'^X - \phi_2'^Y)] \rangle\rangle,$$

with $\phi_k^{X,Y}$ representing the azimuthal angle of RFP from reference regions X or Y, and $\phi_k'^X$ representing the azimuthal angle of POI in a given narrow interval in $\eta$.

The analysis is carried out with two choices of reference region, as illustrated in Fig. 1. In the first case, the reference region is chosen from midrapidity, i.e. either region B or C. In this configuration, the RFP are correlated with POI in region C or D, or B or A, respectively. That is, RFP at negative (positive) midrapidity are correlated with POI at positive (negative) mid or forward rapidity. In such configurations where the correlated particles are taken from neighbouring regions, it is important to suppress non-flow by avoiding correlations near the edge of the regions, i.e. when the difference between POI and RFP is $|\Delta\eta| \approx 0$. Therefore, only a specific $\eta$ range in the corresponding reference region is chosen, in particular $0.8 < |\eta| < 1.0$. This choice effectively results in an $\eta$-gap for midrapidity measurements of $|\Delta\eta| > 0.8$, while forward measurements have a larger separation of $|\Delta\eta| > 2.6$.

The case where the reference region is positioned in C is illustrated in Fig. 1(a).

In the second case, the reference region is chosen to be at forward rapidity. In this configuration, there are again several options to cor-
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Illustration of correlator methods showing calculation of the decorrelation effect (a) as well as $v_n\{4\}$ (b). Darker bands indicate where the differential measurement is performed (i.e. particles of interest) while the other end of the connecting lines indicate reference particles.</figcaption></figure>

relate the RFP with POI. The particles taken from reference regions A (or D), can be correlated with POI from C or D (or A or B). In this way, the pseudorapidity separation between RFP and POI is increased to $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ and $|\Delta\eta| > 3.8$ for mid- and forward rapidity measurements, respectively. Therefore, this configuration excludes more short-range correlations arising from non-flow as compared to the first case. This configuration, in particular the case where the reference region is chosen to be D, is illustrated in Fig. 1(b).

The advantage of measuring flow coefficients via m-particle cumulants for $m > 2$ is the suppression of lower order non-flow correlations by definition [31], including those that stem from non-flow effects. To further suppress remaining non-flow originating in multiparticle short-range correlations, the subevent method was recently introduced to higher order cumulants, too [37,38]. The differential flow is determined using the four-particle cumulant defined as

$$v_n^{\prime X}\{4\} = - \frac{\langle\langle 4' \rangle\rangle - 2 \cdot \langle\langle 2' \rangle\rangle \langle\langle 2 \rangle\rangle}{(-\langle\langle 4 \rangle\rangle - 2 \cdot \langle\langle 2 \rangle\rangle)^{3/4}} = \frac{\langle v_n^{\prime X} v_n^Y \rangle}{\langle v_n^A \rangle^{3/4}}, \quad (3)$$

where the two-particle correlations are calculated in the same way as in Eq. (2). Four-particle correlations are obtained as

$$\begin{aligned} \langle\langle 4 \rangle\rangle &= \langle\langle \cos[n(\phi_1^X + \phi_2^X - \phi_3^Y - \phi_4^Y)] \rangle\rangle, \\ \langle\langle 4' \rangle\rangle &= \langle\langle \cos[n(\phi_1^{\prime X} + \phi_2^{\prime X} - \phi_3^Y - \phi_4^Y)] \rangle\rangle. \end{aligned} \quad (4)$$

The choice of the subevents for the $v_n\{4\}$ measurements is the same as in the case of the two-particle cumulant measurement discussed above and as illustrated in Fig. 2(b). Reference regions only at midrapidity, B or C, are used for this measurement. As this observable is less influenced by non-flow, it is possible to exploit the whole $\eta$ range of the reference region to minimise statistical uncertainties, yielding an $\eta$-gap of $|\Delta\eta| > 0$ for midrapidity measurements, and $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ for forward measurements.

In order to investigate the longitudinal fluctuations of the flow vector, a decorrelation ratio $r_{n|n}$ [16] is used. As illustrated in Fig. 2(a), it is formed as the ratio of the opposite-side two-particle correlation between the reference region and the region of interest (i.e. RFP from region A (D) correlated with POI in narrow $\eta$ intervals from region C (B)) to the same-side correlation (i.e. RFP from region A (D) correlated with POI in narrow $\eta$ intervals from region B (C)),

$$r_{n|n} = \frac{\langle\langle \cos[n(\phi_1^{\prime -X} - \phi_2^Y)] \rangle\rangle}{\langle\langle \cos[n(\phi_1^{\prime X} - \phi_2^Y)] \rangle\rangle} = \frac{\langle v_n^{\prime -X} v_n^Y \cos[n(\Psi_n^{\prime -X} - \Psi_n^Y)] \rangle}{\langle v_n^{\prime X} v_n^Y \cos[n(\Psi_n^{\prime X} - \Psi_n^Y)] \rangle}, \quad (5)$$

where the $\Psi_n^Y$ is the average symmetry plane of a reference region Y, and $\Psi_n^{\prime X}$ is the symmetry plane of the given narrow interval in $\eta$. Flow vector fluctuations arise from two sources. First, the decorrelation of the symmetry plane, which would manifest in a non-vanishing cosine term, as the symmetry planes $\Psi_n$ at different pseudorapidities would not be equal to each other, or twisted, $\Psi_n^X \neq \Psi_n^Y$. Second, the decorrelation

of the flow magnitude would lead to the product of flow coefficients not being factorised due to additional fluctuation terms dependent on $\eta$: $\langle v_n^X v_n^Y \rangle \neq \sqrt{\langle v_n^{\prime X} \rangle \langle v_n^{\prime Y} \rangle}$. To measure the absolute signal of flow vector fluctuation, the correlations between particles from different $\eta$ intervals in the numerator of $r_{n|n}$ would be ideally divided with correlations performed between particles from the same $\eta$ window in the denominator. Such configuration would, however, introduce significant non-flow background, as the main characteristic of these correlations is the proximity of particles in $\eta$. Therefore, the $r_{n|n}$ observable defined in Eq. (5) is used, which quantifies the relative flow fluctuations between $\eta$ and $-\eta$. It ensures that POI have the same absolute pseudorapidity ($\eta = \eta^C = -\eta^B$). If neither $v_n$ nor $\Psi_n$ fluctuate along the longitudinal direction, then $r_{n|n}$ is expected to converge to unity. If either of these effects, or both, are present, then the numerator of $r_{n|n}$ is smaller than the denominator, and hence $r_{n|n}$ will deviate from unity, with deviations growing stronger with increasing $\eta$ (i.e. larger relative pseudorapidity difference). However, remaining short-range non-flow effects may also give rise to a fake decorrelation signal, as they would increase the value of the denominator.

### 3. Experimental setup

A detailed description of the ALICE apparatus can be found in Ref. [39,40]. The relevant detectors for the presented results are the Inner Tracking System (ITS) [41], a silicon detector consisting of 6 cylindrical layers close to the collision point; the Time Projection Chamber (TPC) [42], which is the main tracking detector in ALICE; and the Forward Multiplicity Detector (FMD) [43], a silicon strip detector which measures the multiplicity of charged particles at forward rapidities. Finally, the V0 scintillator arrays are used for online event selection and offline centrality determination. These two arrays are placed at very forward rapidities and provide high-resolution timing and approximate sum multiplicity measurements offline [44].

Charged-particle trajectories measured by both ITS and TPC combined are limited to $|\eta| < 0.9$. However, tracks measured with the TPC only, that is, without matching tracks to other hit-producing devices, can be extended to $|\eta| < 1.5$, with a slightly reduced transverse momentum resolution. Particle trajectories are reconstructed in $0.2 < p_T < 5$ GeV/c, with the requirement of at least one space point in the two inner most layers of the ITS, at least 70 (out of 159) space points in the TPC, and a largest transverse and longitudinal distance (DCA) to the primary vertex of 0.0182 cm and 2 cm, respectively. The upper cut-off on transverse momentum is imposed to limit the contribution from high-$p_T$ particles mostly from jets and to ensure relatively uniform tracking efficiency. The limit on pseudorapidity is imposed to ensure full TPC coverage. Tracking efficiencies and detector acceptance effects are corrected for using per-particle weights (for details see Ref. [32]). The flow measurements in the central region of pseudorapidity are extrapolated to $p_T = 0$, based on simulations with AMPT model calculations as input, to make the measurements comparable to those at forward pseudorapidity. The correction was obtained as the ratio of $v_n$ with no $p_T$ cut to $v_n$ with the cut used for the analysis. Only primary particles were used to remove any detector effects in the calculations.

The FMD covers $-3.5 < \eta < -1.8$ and $1.8 < \eta < 5$ with high resolution in pseudorapidity and 20 segments in azimuth. Due to various technical and engineering considerations, the direct line-of-sight from the FMD sub-detectors to the collision point is obscured by relatively large amounts of material which require careful study of secondary particle production and associated corrections [45]. The FMD does not provide any tracking capabilities on its own and can therefore not distinguish between primary particles [46] and particles produced in decays or surrounding material. Instead, the effect of secondary particles on the observed azimuthal particle distribution was studied, with emphasis on the relative deflection of secondary particles with respect to the primary particle ($\delta\phi$). The Fourier transform $\mathcal{F}$ of the resulting $dN/d(\delta\phi)$ distribution then corrects for the deflection of secondary
particles relative to their primary origin, so that the differential flow measurement becomes $\langle\langle v'_n v_n \rangle\rangle^{\text{primary}} = F^{-1} \langle\langle v'_n v_n \rangle\rangle^{\text{inclusive}}$, where *inclusive* means the measured correlation of both primary and secondary particles. The transformation $F$ (a factor in Fourier space) depends on the material traversed by the particles and, as such, is dependent on the pseudorapidity of the particles and on the position of the interaction point in the beam direction $z$. The first order effect of the material is to amplify the primary signal proportionally, and no significant dependence of $F$ on collision centrality is found. The resulting correction for the effect of secondary particles ranges from 1.1 to 1.6, depending on the pseudorapidity, primary vertex $z$ coordinate, and the order of the flow harmonic. Detector acceptances are corrected for using per-azimuth-segment weights.

The results presented in this letter are based on data acquired during LHC Run 2 in 2015 for Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV and in 2017 for Xe-Xe at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.44$ TeV. The event selection involves a centrality estimate based on the amplitudes of the signals in both arrays of the V0 detectors [47], and a constraint on events within 10 cm from the primary vertex. Selection criteria on the correlation between the forward detectors V0 and FMD as well as a veto on multi-vertex events are applied to select beam-crossings and reject pileup as well as outlier events. In total, $10^7$ and $10^6$ collisions of Pb-Pb and Xe-Xe, respectively, were analysed.

## 4. Systematic uncertainties

The systematic uncertainties stemming from event selection, multi-vertex veto, and outlier rejection are investigated by tightening and relaxing the selection criteria used in this analysis, and the effects are found to be negligible. Variations in the accepted primary vertex $z$ coordinate influence the acceptance of the detectors. This contribution accounts for at most 1% uncertainty in the most peripheral collisions. The systematic uncertainty associated with estimating collision centrality is studied by defining centrality intervals using the multiplicity distribution measured at midrapidity [48] rather than in the V0 amplitude. The uncertainty is found to be at most 1% in midcentral collisions and negligible in the most peripheral and central collisions.

The effects of the track selection at midrapidity are explored by performing an independent analysis with varied values of the selection criteria, and is summarised in the following. Increasing the number of required TPC space points was found to be negligible. Variations in the required DCA of tracks in both transverse and longitudinal direction to provide different sensitivity to contamination from secondary tracks result in a 1 to 3% systematic uncertainty, larger for most central collisions and $v_n\{4\}$ results. *Hybrid tracks*, which combine information from three different types of tracks in order to achieve uniform azimuthal acceptance and the best transverse momentum resolution, are used for systematic variation of the track reconstruction procedure. A 1 to 6% systematic uncertainty is found, smallest for $v_2$, and largest for the highest harmonic, $v_4$. The uncertainty arising from the extrapolation of midrapidity $v_n$ to $p_T = 0$ was estimated by varying the maximum value of the $p_T$ selection, and was found to be 1%.

Systematic uncertainties originating from secondary particle production on a material in front of the FMD are investigated by varying the material density by ±10% using Monte Carlo simulations. The resulting systematic uncertainty of 2.5% for $v_2$, 3% for $v_3$, and 3.5% for $v_4$, is found. This represents a significant improvement with respect to the previous results [34]. An effective correction for secondary particle production, which compares generator level to post-simulated detector response, to the Fourier space correction ($F$), gives a systematic uncertainty ranging from 1% for $v_2$ to 4% for $v_4$. Finally, the systematic uncertainty from generating the secondary correction on simulated rather than experimental data, via detailed analysis of simulated particle trajectories, ranges between 0.5–3%, with values dependent on the order of the harmonic investigated.

As the effects from secondary particles arising from including the FMD detector in the analysis has little or no dependence on centrality nor collision systems, the same corrections for secondary particles in Pb-Pb collisions are applied to the Xe-Xe data, taking into account the smaller overall particle production in these collisions [49].

The weights introduced to account for non-uniform acceptance and efficiencies are in principle dependent on the granularity by which these are determined. The uncertainty related to varying the granularity is investigated and found to be negligible at both mid- and forward rapidity.

The systematic uncertainty of blind regions ('holes') in the FMD is evaluated by comparing the generator level results to full detector response simulations results with interpolation in these holes. This exercise results in 2% systematic uncertainty, applied only in the pseudorapidity regions affected by the acceptance holes of the FMD. Also, the positive and negative pseudorapidity results are compared, as these are expected to be symmetric in symmetric collision systems such as Pb-Pb and Xe-Xe. An uncertainty of at most 2% and 4% at mid- and forward rapidity, respectively, in Pb-Pb collisions, and 2% and 5% in Xe-Xe collisions is assigned, due to the asymmetry introduced into the analysis procedure by corrections for efficiency, acceptance, and secondary particles.

It should be noted that the choice of using two- or multiparticle correlations, with a rapidity gap between POI and RFP to suppress correlations from non-collective behaviour, effectively removes the 2–10% uncertainty that was applied to the previous ALICE results [34].

The different sources listed above were assumed to be uncorrelated and added in quadrature to determine the total systematic uncertainty on the measurement of $v_n$. These contributions, however, cancel out in the decorrelation ratio $r_{2|2}$, since uncertainties are shared between the numerator and denominator. Therefore, only the statistical uncertainties are reported on this quantity.

## 5. Results

Fig. 3 presents the measurements of $v_3\{2\}$, $v_3\{2\}$ and $v_4\{2\}$ as a function of pseudorapidity and centrality in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV. The $v_4\{2\}$ measurement at 50–60% collision centrality is not shown due to large statistical uncertainties. The reference region is at midrapidity, and the $\eta$-gap between the POI and RFP at mid and forward rapidity is $|\Delta\eta| > 0.8$ and $|\Delta\eta| > 2.6$, respectively (corresponding to the subevent topology illustrated in Fig. 1(a)). The $v_2\{2\}$ measurements show a stronger dependence on collision centrality, while $v_3\{2\}$ and $v_4\{2\}$ reveal only a modest dependence. This is consistent with pseudorapidity integrated measurements [50] explained by $v_2$ being driven by the average elliptic geometry, while higher order harmonics originate predominantly from its fluctuations.

Fig. 4 shows the pseudorapidity dependence of flow coefficients obtained with large $\eta$-gap ($|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ and $|\Delta\eta| > 3.8$ for mid and forward rapidities, respectively) between POI and RFP choosing forward rapidity for the reference region (corresponding to the subevent topology illustrated in Fig. 1(b)). Also shown are the results of the four-particle cumulant $v_2\{4\}$. A similar trend of $v_n\{m\}$ as a function of centrality and pseudorapidity can be seen as in Fig. 3, except at midrapidity, where the increased $\eta$-gap for $v_n\{2\}$, or using higher order cumulant $v_2\{4\}$, leads to almost constant dependence on pseudorapidity compared to the measurements with smaller $\eta$-gap reported in Fig. 3.

To better appreciate the difference between the results shown in Figs. 3 and 4, Fig. 5 presents the ratio of $v_n\{2\}$ with reference region at midrapidity, and the $v_2\{4\}$ results, to the $v_n\{2\}$ results using the forward reference region. The relevant ratio for $v_4\{2\}$ has large statistical uncertainties and is therefore not shown. The fluctuation of data points at large pseudorapidity, in particular for larger centralities, are remnants of systematic effects which have not been identified and therefore not quantified, and are further accentuated when calculating the ratio. The ratio exhibits no significant dependence on the pseudorapidity, except near $\eta = 0$. This qualitative difference only at midrapidity could be
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3. The differential flow measurements, $v_n\{2\}(\eta)$, measured with the 2-particle cumulant and choosing reference particles from the TPC in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV. The choice of the reference particles results in $|\Delta\eta| > 0.8$ and 2.6 in the mid and forward pseudorapidity regions, respectively. At midrapidity, the results are extrapolated to $p_T = 0$. AMPT and CLVisc model calculations are compared with the results.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4. Two-particle cumulant with reference particles chosen from the FMD and 4-particle cumulant with reference particles chosen from the TPC in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV. The pseudorapidity separations are $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ and 3.8 for two-particle cumulants for mid and forward rapidities, respectively. For the $v_2\{4\}$ the separations are $|\Delta\eta| > 0$ and 2.0 for mid and forward rapidities, respectively. At mid rapidity, the results are extrapolated to $p_T = 0$. AMPT and CLVisc model calculations are compared with the results.</figcaption></figure>

understood as a result of better suppression of short-range correlations, or non-flow, when a larger $\eta$-gap is used. At forward pseudorapidity, where the $\eta$-gap is large, the contribution from such correlations may be already sufficiently suppressed, as the data suggest.

The clear difference between the values of $v_2$ using two- and four-particle cumulants, reflected by their ratio being significantly smaller than unity, can be mainly attributed to opposite contributions of the event-by-event fluctuations of the flow probability density function, in

particular its variance, to different order cumulants [51–54], and partly also to better suppression of non-flow correlations in case of $v_2\{4\}$. The ratio $v_2\{4\}/v_2\{2\}$ is assumed to reflect the ratio $\epsilon_2\{4\}/\epsilon_2\{2\}$, since the second order flow magnitude $v_2$ is proportional to the second order eccentricity $\epsilon_2$ of the initial overlap region [55–59]. It has previously been reported for the integrated flow measurements that this ratio exhibits a deviation from unity. This deviation is larger in more central collisions, affected by fluctuations in the initial spatial asymmetry [30,60,61], and
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5. Ratio of two-particle results with a medium-sized pseudorapidity separation and 4-particle results to the two-particle results employing a large pseudorapidity separation between particles of interest and reference particles in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV. Also shown are the same ratios for the AMPT and CLVisc models. For the latter, the ratios are compatible with unity as the CLVisc model produces negligible non-flow [35].</figcaption></figure>

shows potential to constrain the different initial state models. Our measurements of pseudorapidity differential ratio of $v_2\{4\}/v_2\{2\}$, shown in Fig. 5, provide more detailed understanding of flow fluctuations. Similar dependence on centrality as the integrated measurements [60] is reported, but the results indicate that the variance of $v_n$, thus also the variance of $\epsilon_n$ in the initial state, is invariant with pseudorapidity. The same observation was reported in Ref. [25] based on hydrodynamic calculations. The authors confirmed that the event-by-event flow fluctuations are only weakly sensitive to pseudorapidity, and are close to the relative eccentricity fluctuations over a wide rapidity range. Therefore, ratios of cumulants of $v_n$ distributions presented here as a function of pseudorapidity provide important input to constraining fluctuations of the 3D initial state [25].

Comparisons with calculations from the AMPT model [62] and hydrodynamic model CLVisc [35] are shown in Figs. 3 and 4 with dashed and full lines, respectively. The AMPT is a hybrid model that evolves fluctuating initial conditions from the HIJING model [63], followed by partonic and hadronic interactions. It gives reasonable descriptions of the rapidity distributions measured in heavy-ion collisions. The CLVisc is a (3 + 1)-dimensional hydrodynamic model that simulates the dynamic evolution of the QGP fireball based on the initial conditions computed with the AMPT model. Because of extra parameters tuning and additional parton smearing in the CLVisc to fit the experimental data, the initial conditions from CLVisc are not identical to those of the AMPT model. The AMPT and CLVisc calculations of the $v_n$ coefficients shown in Fig. 3 and 4 were carried out in a similar way as the analysis of ALICE data presented in this article, using the pseudorapidity ranges and $\eta$-gap as illustrated in Fig. 1.

Both AMPT and CLVisc calculations qualitatively follow the trend of the pseudorapidity dependence of $v_n$ found in data. Both models, however, overestimate the $v_n$ coefficients over the whole presented pseudorapidity range in the 30% most central Pb–Pb collisions. In the case of AMPT, that trend continues down to the most peripheral collisions, while CLVisc underestimates the experimental results for the 40–60% collision centrality range. The AMPT calculations with a small $\eta$-gap (Fig. 3) show peaked pseudorapidity dependence near $\eta = 0$, while this trend vanishes with large $\eta$-gap (Fig. 4), similarly as in data. In contrast, the CLVisc calculations remain unchanged for the two cases. This

further substantiates the origin of this peak to be caused by non-flow contributions from short range correlations, since CLVisc produces less of these than the transport AMPT model. Nevertheless, comparison with measurements with forward reference regions (i.e. large $\eta$-gap) in Fig. 4 reveals that the CLVisc model predicts a systematically more peaked distribution near midrapidity, while AMPT shows a constant $\eta$ dependence of $v_n$, which is in qualitative agreement with the data. Other calculations of hydrodynamical models [25,26,35] attempted to describe the prior datasets, with no quantitative agreement being reached so far. This suggests, that the longitudinal structure of the initial state or longitudinal evolution of the system are not yet properly understood in these models and more theoretical investigations are warranted.

The flow coefficients $v_n\{2\}$ in Xe–Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.44 TeV are shown as a function of pseudorapidity and centrality in Fig. 6 for the case where the reference region is at midrapidity (i.e. a modest $\eta$-gap), and in Fig. 7 when the reference region resides at forward rapidity (i.e. a large $\eta$-gap). Due to limited amount of data available from Xe–Xe collisions, the choice of $\eta$-gap separation for $v_2\{2\}$ and $v_3\{2\}$ was decreased down to $|\Delta\eta| > 0.4$ at midrapidity and to 2.2 at forward rapidity, and neither the $v_4\{2\}$ nor $v_2\{4\}$ could be measured in these collisions. The results from Xe–Xe collisions show a similar trend as seen in Pb–Pb collisions with roughly 30% larger magnitude in the 5% most central collisions, which was explained by larger deformation of the xenon nucleus [30]. Similarly to Pb–Pb collisions, measurements with RFP from a forward $\eta$ region lead to a less pronounced dependence on pseudorapidity near midrapidity due to a larger $\eta$-gap between the correlated RFP and POI. This is further illustrated in Fig. 8 by the ratio of $v_n$ coefficients obtained with different reference regions, thus different $\eta$-gap.

Calculations from the CLVisc model [35] are compared with the experimental results in Figs. 6 and 7. The model qualitatively describes the data, although with a more peaked $\eta$ dependence at midrapidity compared with the results using a large $\eta$-gap, and it also overestimates (underestimates) the $v_n$ measurements at central (peripheral) collisions. The shift between the two scenarios happens at higher centrality (around 20%) as compared with the Pb–Pb collisions (around 40%).
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 6. The differential flow measurements, $v_n\{2\}$, measured with the 2-particle cumulant and choosing reference particles from the TPC in Xe-Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.44$ TeV. The choice of the reference particles results in pseudorapidity separations of $|\Delta\eta| > 0.4$ and 2.2 at mid and forward rapidities, respectively. Also shown are results from the CLVisc model.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 7. The differential flow measurements, $v_n\{2\}$, measured with the 2-particle cumulant and choosing reference particles chosen from the FMD in Xe-Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV, with pseudorapidity separations of $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ and 3.8 at mid and forward rapidities, respectively. Also shown are results from the CLVisc model.</figcaption></figure>

Measurements of $r_{2|2}$ as a function of absolute pseudorapidity $\eta$ for different centrality classes of Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV are presented in Fig. 9. The red and blue markers represent two different cases of the absolute reference pseudorapidity regions, chosen to be $2 < \eta_{\text{ref}} < 2.4$ or $2.8 < \eta_{\text{ref}} < 3.2$, respectively (Fig. 2(d)). It can be observed that the measurements of $r_{2|2}$ generally deviate from unity and this deviation is stronger in most central and peripheral collisions, while it is less pronounced in midcentral collisions, in line with dominant average elliptic geometry at these collision centralities.

Two perspectives of flow vector fluctuations can be studied from Fig. 9. First, for fixed $\eta_{\text{ref}}$, when $\eta$ increases, the longitudinal decorrelation between two narrow intervals of POI, $\eta$ and $-\eta$ is studied. At $\eta \sim 0$ (i.e. no relative separation), the correlations in both numerator and denominator of $r_{2|2}$ have similar longitudinal separation with respect to $\eta_{\text{ref}}$, therefore any effects arising from this $\eta$-gap cancel out in the $r_{2|2}$ ratio. On the contrary, the $r_{2|2}$ measurements at $\eta \sim 1.0$ have a large $\eta$-gap between correlated hadrons in the numerator ($| - \eta - \eta_{\text{ref}} |$), and a small $\eta$-gap in the denominator ($|\eta - \eta_{\text{ref}}|$), which in the presence of
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 8. Ratio of two-particle results with a medium-sized separation to the two-particle results employing a large separation between particles of interest and reference particles in Xe-Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.44$ TeV. Also shown are the same ratios for the AMPT and CLVisc models. For the latter, the ratios are compatible with unity as the CLVisc model produces negligible non-flow [35].</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 9. $r_{2|2}$ with different choices for of reference region $\eta$ in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV. AMPT and CLVisc model calculations are compared with the results.</figcaption></figure>

flow vector fluctuations would lead to $r_{2|2} < 1$. The results presented in Fig. 9 therefore suggest the presence of longitudinal flow vector fluctuations, in agreement with prior observations in Refs. [16–18].

Secondly, for fixed $\eta$ of the POI, the evolution of flow vector fluctuations with pseudorapidity can be addressed by investigating different choices of $\eta_{\text{ref}}$. If the fluctuations increase linearly with pseudorapidity, then the decorrelation effect from the pseudorapidity separation $\eta - \eta_{\text{ref}}$ would cancel out in $r_{2|2}$, and $r_{2|2}$ will only reflect the decorrelation between $\eta$ and $-\eta$. That is, a linear increase in fluctuations would lead to a $r_{2|2}$ ratio independent of the choice of $\eta_{\text{ref}}$. The measurements of $r_{2|2}$ shown in Fig. 9 however exhibit a significant difference for different choices of the reference region, with more distant $\eta_{\text{ref}}$ showing smaller decorrelation. This suggests, that the effect of flow fluctuations saturates at a particular value of $\eta$-gap. In case of a distant $\eta_{\text{ref}}$, the numerator would reach a saturation point, while the $\eta$-gap in the denominator is insufficient to reach it. On the contrary, in case of a close $\eta_{\text{ref}}$, neither the numerator nor the denominator would reach the sat-

uration point, resulting in larger deviation of $r_{2|2}$ from unity. Under this assumption, $r_{2|2} \sim 1$ in the limiting case when both numerator and denominator would have the $\eta$-gap large enough for the fluctuations effect to be saturated. Therefore, the fact that our results with large $\eta_{\text{ref}}$ exhibit smaller, but still statistically significant, decorrelation effect, suggests that the limiting $\eta$-gap is in the range $|\Delta\eta| > 2$.

A similar dependence on $\eta_{\text{ref}}$ was found in Refs. [16–18], where it was argued that the difference of $r_{2|2}$ from different $\eta_{\text{ref}}$ configurations may alter the presence of short-range non-flow correlations, leading to stronger artificial deviation of $r_{2|2}$ from unity in case $\eta_{\text{ref}}$ is positioned closer to midrapidity. However, the same analysis in the HIJING model [63], which does not include any collective motion (not shown in the article), demonstrated that even with modest $\eta$-gap, the non-flow contamination in both numerator and denominator of $r_{n|n}$ in heavy-ion collisions is negligible. In addition, non-flow effects tend to be more dominant in peripheral collisions, in contrast to the observations made in Fig. 9, where the largest difference of $r_{2|2}$ from different
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 10. $r_{3|3}$ with different choices for reference region $\eta$ in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV. AMPT and CLVisc model calculations are compared with the results.</figcaption></figure>

$\eta_{\text{ref}}$ configurations was found in the most central collisions. The difference between the measurements with respect to the two $\eta_{\text{ref}}$ regions seen in Fig. 9, therefore, cannot be explained solely by non-flow effects, and the deviation of $r_{2|2}$ from unity hints to sizable longitudinal flow vector fluctuations, which saturate at large pseudorapidity separations.

The measurements of $r_{3|3}$ in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV are presented in Fig. 10 as a function of absolute $\eta$ at different centrality classes, and for the two choices of the absolute $\eta_{\text{ref}}$ regions. Results of $r_{3|3}$ for collision centralities larger than 40% are omitted due to large statistical uncertainties. Overall, $r_{3|3}$ shows a clear deviation from unity with larger magnitude than $r_{2|2}$. This observation is analogous to results presented in Ref. [16,17] that included also the 4th harmonic, and is in line with expectations from fluctuation-driven harmonics of higher order. In addition, $r_{3|3}$ exhibits weaker centrality dependence as compared to $r_{2|2}$, similar to the observations of $v_2$ and $v_3$ coefficients shown in Figs. 3 and 4. Similarly as in Ref. [16,17], measurements with different ranges of $\eta_{\text{ref}}$ are compatible with each other within the statistical uncertainties, which suggest different $\eta$ dependence of the longitudinal flow vector fluctuations compared with the $r_{2|2}$ measurement.

Results presented in Figs. 9 and 10 are compared with the AMPT and CLVisc model calculations. As opposed to the measurements, the models do not distinguish between the choices of the $\eta_{\text{ref}}$ regions used for correlations. This substantiates the observation that the deviation from unity is not driven by short range correlations. In case of $2.8 < |\eta_{\text{ref}}| < 3.2$, both models reproduce the trend of the data within uncertainties. On the contrary, when the reference region is chosen as $2.0 < |\eta_{\text{ref}}| < 2.4$, the CLVisc significantly underestimates the effect of longitudinal flow fluctuations, while AMPT reproduces the trend of the data except for the 5% most central collisions. Both models are able to reproduce the magnitude and trend of decorrelation of the $r_{3|3}$ results shown in Fig. 10 within the uncertainties.

## 6. Summary

The pseudorapidity and centrality dependence of $v_2$, $v_3$, and $v_4$ in both Pb-Pb at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV and Xe-Xe at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.44$ TeV is measured over the widest possible longitudinal range. The results show a smooth pseudorapidity dependence modulated by a strong collision centrality dependence. Non-flow contributions are minimised by using a pseudorapidity gap $|\Delta\eta| > 2$ or by using four-particle cumulants. The ratio of the second order flow coefficient calculated with four-particle cumulant ($v_2\{4, |\Delta\eta| > 0\}$) to the one obtained with two-particle cumulant with a large $\eta$-gap ($v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2, 3.8\}$) is almost constant over the whole pseudorapidity range. This result suggests that the variance

of flow probability density function is independent of pseudorapidity, providing constraints to the models of fluctuating initial state. The longitudinal flow vector fluctuations are investigated via the measurements of the ratio $r_{n|n}$ to further quantify this observation. The $r_{2|2}$ exhibits a clear deviation from unity, which is more pronounced in central than peripheral collisions. The difference between the measured decorrelation with respect to different $\eta_{\text{ref}}$ regions points to potential saturation effect of longitudinal flow vector fluctuations above a certain pseudorapidity separation. This is in contrast to current understanding based on previous publications at the LHC. The $r_{3|3}$ measurements reveal the effect of flow vector fluctuations of stronger magnitude, but with a weaker centrality dependence, compared to $r_{2|2}$. This confirms the fluctuation-driven nature of higher order harmonics. Both the AMPT and the CLVisc models can qualitatively reproduce the experimental results of $v_n$, but differ in important details such as overall amplitude and exact pseudorapidity dependence, especially near midrapidity. The measurements of $r_{n|n}$ are qualitatively reproduced by both models, except for the dependence on the choice of the reference region $\eta_{\text{ref}}$ of $r_{2|2}$, which was not observed in the model calculations. These findings reveal that the current state-of-the-art models are not able to simultaneously describe the pseudorapidity dependence of anisotropic flow and its fluctuations. Our results highlight the inadequacies in the current understanding of particle production, particularly in the longitudinal direction, and shall help to improve the modelling of longitudinal fluctuations of initial conditions and the subsequent system evolution.

## 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/ins2679248.

## Acknowledgements

The ALICE Collaboration would like to thank all its engineers and technicians for their invaluable contributions to the construction of the experiment and the CERN accelerator teams for the outstanding performance of the LHC complex. The ALICE Collaboration gratefully acknowledges the resources and support provided by all Grid centres and
the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid (WLCG) collaboration. The ALICE Collaboration acknowledges the following funding agencies for their support in building and running the ALICE detector: A. I. Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics Institute) Foundation (ANSL), State Committee of Science and World Federation of Scientists (WFS), Armenia; Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austrian Science Fund (FWF): [M 2467-N36] and Nationalstiftung für Forschung, Technologie und Entwicklung, Austria; Ministry of Communications and High Technologies, National Nuclear Research Center, Azerbaijan; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (Finep), Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) and Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Brazil; Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Science, within the National Roadmap for Research Infrastructures 2020-2027 (object CERN), Bulgaria; Ministry of Education of China (MOEC), Ministry of Science & Technology of China (MSTC) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), China; Ministry of Science and Education and Croatian Science Foundation, Croatia; Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), 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'Énergie Atomique (CEA) and Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (IN2P3) and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), France; Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) and GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Germany; General Secretariat for Research and Technology, Ministry of Education, Research and Religions, Greece; National Research, Development and Innovation Office, Hungary; Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India (DAE), Department of Science and Technology, Government of India (DST), University Grants Commission, Government of India (UGC) and Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), India; National Research and Innovation Agency - BRIN, Indonesia; Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), Italy; Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI, Japan; Consejo Nacional de Ciencia (CONACYT) y Tecnología, through Fondo de Cooperación Internacional en Ciencia y Tecnología (FONCICYT) and Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico (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] BRAHMS Collaboration, I. Arsene, et al., Quark gluon plasma and color glass condensate at RHIC? The perspective from the BRAHMS experiment, Nucl. Phys. A 757 (2005) 1-27, arXiv:nucl-ex/0410020.

[2] PHOBOS Collaboration, B.B. Back, et al., The PHOBOS perspective on discoveries at RHIC, Nucl. Phys. A 757 (2005) 28-101, arXiv:nucl-ex/0410022.

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

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

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

[6] J.-Y. Ollitrault, Anisotropy as a signature of transverse collective flow, Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 229-245.

[7] 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.

[8] F.G. Gardim, F. Grassi, M. Luzum, J.-Y. Ollitrault, Breaking of factorization of two-particle correlations in hydrodynamics, Phys. Rev. C 87 (2013) 031901, arXiv:1211.0989 [nucl-th].

[9] U. Heinz, Z. Qiu, C. Shen, Fluctuating flow angles and anisotropic flow measurements, Phys. Rev. C 87 (2013) 034913, arXiv:1302.3535 [nucl-th].

[10] U. Heinz, R. Snellings, Collective flow and viscosity in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63 (2013) 123-151, arXiv:1301.2826 [nucl-th].

[11] M. Luzum, H. Petersen, Initial state fluctuations and final state correlations in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, J. Phys. G 41 (2014) 063102, arXiv:1312.5503 [nucl-th].

[12] E. Shuryak, Strongly coupled quark-gluon plasma in heavy ion collisions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89 (2017) 035001, arXiv:1412.8393 [hep-ph].

[13] H. Song, Y. Zhou, K. Gajdosova, Collective flow and hydrodynamics in large and small systems at the LHC, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 28 (2017) 99, arXiv:1703.00670 [nucl-th].

[14] P. Kovtun, D.T. Son, A.O. Starinets, Viscosity in strongly interacting quantum field theories from black hole physics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 111601, arXiv:hep-th/0405231 [hep-th].

[15] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Searches for transverse momentum dependent flow vector fluctuations in Pb-Pb and p-Pb collisions at the LHC, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2017) 032, arXiv:1707.05690 [nucl-ex].

[16] CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryan, et al., Evidence for transverse momentum and pseudorapidity dependent event plane fluctuations in PbPb and pPb collisions, Phys. Rev. C 92 (2015) 034911, arXiv:1503.01692 [nucl-ex].

[17] ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud, et al., Measurement of longitudinal flow decorrelations in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 and 5.02 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 142, arXiv:1709.02301 [nucl-ex].

[18] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad, et al., Longitudinal flow decorrelations in $^{13}$C+13C collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.44 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) 122301, arXiv:2001.04201 [nucl-ex].

[19] J. Jia, P. Huo, Forward-backward eccentricity and participant-plane angle fluctuations and their influences on longitudinal dynamics of collective flow, Phys. Rev. C 90 (2014) 034915, arXiv:1403.6077 [nucl-th].

[20] P. Bozek, W. Broniowski, The torque effect and fluctuations of entropy deposition in rapidity in ultra-relativistic nuclear collisions, Phys. Lett. B 752 (2016) 206-211, arXiv:1506.02817 [nucl-th].

[21] L.-G. Pang, H. Petersen, G.-Y. Qin, V. Roy, X.-N. Wang, Correlation of anisotropic flow along the longitudinal direction, Eur. Phys. J. A 52 (2016) 97, arXiv:1511.04131 [nucl-th].

[22] P. Bozek, W. Broniowski, Longitudinal decorrelation measures of flow magnitude and event-plane angles in ultrarelativistic nuclear collisions, Phys. Rev. C 97 (2018) 034913, arXiv:1711.03325 [nucl-th].

[23] K. Xiao, F. Liu, F. Wang, Event-plane decorrelation over pseudorapidity and its effect on azimuthal anisotropy measurements in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 87 (2013) 011901, arXiv:1208.1195 [nucl-th].

[24] A. Sakai, K. Murase, T. Hirano, RAPIDITY CORRELATION OF ANISOTROPIC FLOW CAUSED BY HYDRODYNAMIC FLUCTUATIONS, Phys. Rev. C 102 (2020) 064903, arXiv:2003.13496 [nucl-th].

[25] G. Denicol, A. Monnai, B. Schenke, Moving forward to constrain the shear viscosity of QCD matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 212301, arXiv:1512.01538 [nucl-th].

[26] E. Molnar, H. Holopainen, P. Huovinen, H. Niemi, Influence of temperature-dependent shear viscosity on elliptic flow at backward and forward rapidities in ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 90 (2014) 044904, arXiv:1407.8152 [nucl-th].

[27] C. Shen, B. Schenke, Dynamical initial state model for relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 97 (2018) 024907, arXiv:1710.00881 [nucl-th].
[28] K.J. Eskola, H. Niemi, R. Paatelainen, K. Tuominen, Predictions for multiplicities and flow harmonics in 5.44 TeV Xe+Xe collisions at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. C 97 (2018) 034911, arXiv:1711.09803 [hep-ph].

[29] G. Giacalone, J. Noronha-Hostler, M. Luzum, J.-Y. Ollitrault, Hydrodynamic predictions for 5.44 TeV Xe+Xe collisions, Phys. Rev. C 97 (2018) 034904, arXiv:1711.08499 [nucl-th].

[30] 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].

[31] N. Borghini, P.M. Dinh, J.-Y. Ollitrault, A new method for measuring azimuthal distributions in nucleus-nucleus collisions, Phys. Rev. C 63 (2001) 054906, arXiv: nucl-th/0007063.

[32] A. Bilandzic, C.H. Christensen, K. Gulbrandsen, A. Hansen, Y. Zhou, Generic framework for anisotropic flow analyses with multiparticle azimuthal correlations, Phys. Rev. C 89 (2014) 064904, arXiv:1312.3572 [nucl-ex].

[33] CMS Collaboration, A.M. Sirunyan, et al., Pseudorapidity and transverse momentum dependence of flow harmonics in pPb and PbPb collisions, Phys. Rev. C 98 (2018) 044902, arXiv:1710.07864 [nucl-ex].

[34] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam, et al., Pseudorapidity dependence of the anisotropic flow of charged particles in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 762 (2016) 376–388, arXiv:1605.02035 [nucl-ex].

[35] X.-Y. Wu, L.-G. Pang, G.-Y. Qin, X.-N. Wang, Longitudinal fluctuations and decorrelations of anisotropic flows at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider and at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, Phys. Rev. C 98 (2018) 024913, arXiv:1805.03762 [nucl-th].

[36] Z.-W. Lin, C.M. Ko, B.-A. Li, B. Zhang, S. Pal, A multi-phase transport model for relativistic heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 72 (2005) 064901, arXiv:nucl-th/0411110.

[37] J. Jia, M. Zhou, A. Trzupek, Revealing long-range multiparticle collectivity in small collision systems via subevent cumulants, Phys. Rev. C 96 (2017) 034906, arXiv: 1701.03830 [nucl-th].

[38] P. Huo, K. Gajdošová, J. Jia, Y. Zhou, Importance of non-flow in mixed-harmonic multi-particle correlations in small collision systems, Phys. Lett. B 777 (2018) 201–206, arXiv:1710.07567 [nucl-ex].

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

[40] 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].

[41] 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].

[42] 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].

[43] ALICE Collaboration, P. Cortese, et al., ALICE technical design report on forward detectors: FMD, T0 and V0, CERN-LHCC-2004-025, https://cds.cern.ch/record/781854.

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

[45] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam, et al., Centrality evolution of the charged-particle pseudorapidity density over a broad pseudorapidity range in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 754 (2016) 373–385, arXiv:1509.07299 [nucl-ex].

[46] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., The ALICE definition of primary particles, ALICE-PUBLIC-2017-005, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2270008.

[47] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev, et al., Centrality determination of Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV with ALICE, Phys. Rev. C 88 (2013) 044909, arXiv:1301.4361 [nucl-ex].

[48] ALICE Collaboration, Centrality determination in heavy ion collisions, ALICE-PUBLIC-2018-011, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2636623.

[49] 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].

[50] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam, et al., Anisotropic flow of charged particles in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 132302, arXiv:1602.01119 [nucl-ex].

[51] S.A. Voloshin, A.M. Poskanzer, A. Tang, G. Wang, Elliptic flow in the Gaussian model of eccentricity fluctuations, Phys. Lett. B 659 (2008) 537–541, arXiv:0708.0800 [nucl-th].

[52] L. Yan, J.-Y. Ollitrault, Universal fluctuation-driven eccentricities in proton-proton, proton-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 082301, arXiv:1312.6555 [nucl-th].

[53] L. Yan, J.-Y. Ollitrault, A.M. Poskanzer, Eccentricity distributions in nucleus-nucleus collisions, Phys. Rev. C 90 (2014) 024903, arXiv:1405.6595 [nucl-th].

[54] H. Grönqvist, J.-P. Blaizot, J.-Y. Ollitrault, Non-Gaussian eccentricity fluctuations, Phys. Rev. C 94 (2016) 034905, arXiv:1604.07230 [nucl-th].

[55] H. Holopainen, H. Niemi, K.J. Eskola, Event-by-event hydrodynamics and elliptic flow from fluctuating initial state, Phys. Rev. C 83 (2011) 034901, arXiv:1007.0368 [hep-ph].

[56] G.-Y. Qin, H. Petersen, S.A. Bass, B. Muller, Translation of collision geometry fluctuations into momentum anisotropies in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 82 (2010) 064903, arXiv:1009.1847 [nucl-th].

[57] Z. Qiu, U.W. Heinz, Event-by-event shape and flow fluctuations of relativistic heavy-ion collision fireballs, Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 024911, arXiv:1104.0650 [nucl-th].

[58] C. Gale, S. Jeon, B. Schenke, P. Tribedy, R. Venugopalan, Event-by-event anisotropic flow in heavy-ion collisions from combined Yang-Mills and viscous fluid dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 012302, arXiv:1209.6330 [nucl-th].

[59] H. Niemi, G.S. Denicol, H. Holopainen, P. Huovinen, Event-by-event distributions of azimuthal asymmetries in ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 87 (2013) 054901, arXiv:1212.1008 [nucl-th].

[60] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Energy dependence and fluctuations of anisotropic flow in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 and 2.76 TeV, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2018) 103, arXiv:1804.02944 [nucl-ex].

[61] CMS Collaboration, A.M. Sirunyan, et al., Charged-particle angular correlations in XeXe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.44 TeV, Phys. Rev. C 100 (2019) 044902, arXiv:1901.07997 [hep-ex].

[62] G.-L. Ma, Z.-W. Lin, Predictions for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV Pb+Pb collisions from a multiphase transport model, Phys. Rev. C 93 (2016) 054911, arXiv:1601.08160 [nucl-th].

[63] 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 [nucl-th].

## ALICE Collaboration

S. Acharya¹²⁸, D. Adamová⁷⁸, A. Adler⁷¹, 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. Baldisseri¹³¹, B. Balis², D. Banerjee⁴, Z. Banoo⁹², R. Barbera²⁷, F. Barile³², L. Barioglio⁹⁶, M. Barlou⁷⁹, G.G. Barnaföldi⁴⁷, L.S. Barnby⁸⁶, V. Barret¹²⁸, L. Barreto¹¹¹, C. Bartels¹²⁰, K. Barth³³, E. Bartsch⁶⁵, N. Bastid¹²⁸, S. Basu⁷⁶, G. Batigne¹⁰⁴, D. Battistini⁹⁶, B. Batyunya¹⁴³, D. Bauri⁴⁸, J.L. Bazo Alba¹⁰², I.G. Bearden⁸⁴, C. Beattie¹³⁹, P. Becht⁹⁸, D. Behera⁴⁹, I. Belikov¹³⁰, A.D.C. Bell Hechavarria¹²⁷, F. Bellini²⁶, R. Bellwied¹¹⁷, S. Belokurova¹⁴²,
G. Bencedi 47, S. Beole 25, Y. Berdnikov 142, A. Berdnikova 95, L. Bergmann 95, M.G. Besoiu 64, L. Betev 33, P.P. Bhaduri 136, A. Bhasin 92, M.A. Bhat 4, B. Bhattacharjee 42, L. Bianchi 25, N. Bianchi 50, J. Bielčík 36, J. Bielčíková 87, J. Biernat 108, A.P. Bigot 130, A. Bilandzic 96, G. Biro 47, S. Biswas 4, N. Bize 104, J.T. Blair 109, D. Blau 142, M.B. Blidaru 98, N. Bluhme 39, C. Blume 65, G. Boca 22,56, F. Bock 88, T. Bodova 21, A. Bogdanov 142, S. Boi 23, J. Bok 59, L. Boldizsár 47, M. Bombara 38, P.M. Bond 33, G. Bonomi 135,56, H. Borel 131, A. Borissov 142, A.G. Borquez Carcamo 95, H. Bossi 139, E. Botta 25, Y.E.M. Bouziani 65, L. Bratrud 65, P. Braun-Munzinger 98, M. Bregant 111, M. Broz 36, G.E. Bruno 97,32, M.D. Buckland 24, D. Budnikov 142, H. Buesching 65, S. Bufalino 30, P. Buhler 103, N. Burmasov 142, Z. Buthelezi 69,124, A. Bylinkin 21, S.A. Bysiak 108, M. Cai 6, H. Caines 139, A. Caliva 29, E. Calvo Villar 102, J.M.M. Camacho 110, P. Camerini 24, F.D.M. Canedo 111, S.L. Cantway 139, M. Carabas 114, A.A. Carballo 33, F. Carnesecchi 33, R. Caron 129, L.A.D. Carvalho 111, J. Castillo Castellanos 131, F. Catalano 33,25, C. Ceballos Sanchez 143, I. Chakaberia 75, P. Chakraborty 48, S. Chandra 136, S. Chapeland 33, M. Chartier 120, S. Chattopadhyay 136, S. Chattopadhyay 100, T. Cheng 98,6, C. Cheshkov 129, B. Cheynis 129, V. Chibante Barroso 33, D.D. Chinellato 112, E.S. Chizzali 96, II, J. Cho 59, S. Cho 59, P. Chochula 33, P. Christakoglou 85, C.H. Christensen 84, P. Christiansen 76, T. Chujo 126, M. Ciacco 30, C. Cicalo 53, F. Cindolo 52, M.R. Ciupek 98, G. Clai 52,III, F. Colamaria 51, J.S. Colburn 101, D. Colella 97,32, M. Colocci 26, M. Concas 57, IV, G. Conesa Balbastre 74, Z. Conesa del Valle 132, G. Contin 24, J.G. Contreras 36, M.L. Coquet 131, P. Cortese 134,57, M.R. Cosentino 113, F. Costa 33, S. Costanza 22,56, C. Cot 132, J. Crkovská 95, P. Crochet 128, R. Cruz-Torres 75, P. Cui 6, A. Dainese 55, M.C. Danisch 95, A. Danu 64, P. Das 81, P. Das 4, S. Das 4, A.R. Dash 127, S. Dash 48, A. De Caro 29, G. de Cataldo 51, J. de Cuveland 39, A. De Falco 23, D. De Gruttola 29, N. De Marco 57, C. De Martin 24, S. De Pasquale 29, R. Deb 135, R. Del Grande 96, L. Dello Stritto 29, W. Deng 6, P. Dhankher 19, D. Di Bari 32, A. Di Mauro 33, B. Diab 131, R.A. Diaz 143,7, T. Dietel 115, Y. Ding 6, R. Divià 33, D.U. Dixit 19, Ø. Djuvsland 21, U. Dmitrieva 142, A. Dobrin 64, B. Dönigus 65, J.M. Dubinski 137, A. Dubla 98, S. Dudi 91, P. Dupieux 128, M. Durkac 107, N. Dzalaiova 13, T.M. Eder 127, R.J. Ehlers 75, F. Eisenhut 65, R. Ejima 93, D. Elia 51, B. Erazmus 104, F. Ercolessi 26, F. Erhardt 90, M.R. Ersdal 21, B. Espagnon 132, G. Eulisse 33, D. Evans 101, S. Evdokimov 142, L. Fabbietti 96, M. Faggin 28, J. Faivre 74, F. Fan 6, W. Fan 75, A. Fantoni 50, M. Fasel 88, P. Fecchio 30, A. Feliciello 57, G. Feofilov 142, A. Fernández Téllez 45, L. Ferrandi 111, M.B. Ferrer 33, A. Ferrero 131, C. Ferrero 57, A. Ferretti 25, V.J.G. Feuillard 95, V. Filova 36, D. Finogeev 142, F.M. Fionda 53, F. Flor 117, A.N. Flores 109, S. Foertsch 69, I. Fokin 95, S. Fokin 142, E. Fragiacomo 58, E. Frajna 47, U. Fuchs 33, N. Funicello 29, C. Furget 74, A. Furs 142, T. Fusayasu 99, J.J. Gaardhøje 84, M. Gagliardi 25, A.M. Gago 102, T. Gahlaut 48, C.D. Galvan 110, D.R. Gangadharan 117, P. Ganoti 79, C. Garabatos 98, T. García Chávez 45, E. Garcia-Solis 9, C. Gargiulo 33, K. Garner 127, P. Gasik 98, A. Gautam 119, M.B. Gay Ducati 67, M. Germain 104, A. Ghimouz 126, C. Ghosh 136, M. Giacalone 52, G. Gioachin 30, P. Giubellino 98,57, P. Giubilato 28, A.M.C. Glaenzer 131, P. Glässel 95, E. Glimos 123, D.J.Q. Goh 77, V. Gonzalez 138, M. Gorgon 2, K. Goswami 49, S. Gotovac 34, V. Grabski 68, L.K. Graczykowski 137, E. Grecka 87, A. Grelli 60, C. Grigoras 33, V. Grigoriev 142, S. Grigoryan 143,1, F. Grosa 33, J.F. Grosse-Oetringhaus 33, R. Grosso 98, D. Grund 36, G.G. Guardiano 112, R. Guernane 74, M. Guilbaud 104, K. Gulbrandsen 84, T. Gündem 65, T. Gunji 125, W. Guo 6, A. Gupta 92, R. Gupta 92, R. Gupta 49, K. Gwizdziel 137,
L. Gyulai 47, ID, C. Hadjidakis 132, ID, F.U. Haider 92, ID, H. Hamagaki 77, ID, A. Hamdi 75, ID, Y. Han 140, ID,
B.G. Hanley 138, ID, R. Hannigan 109, ID, J. Hansen 76, ID, M.R. Haque 137, ID, J.W. Harris 139, ID, A. Harton 9, ID,
H. Hassan 88, ID, D. Hatzifotiadou 52, ID, P. Hauer 43, ID, L.B. Havener 139, ID, S.T. Heckel 96, ID, E. Hellbär 98, ID,
H. Helstrup 35, ID, M. Hemmer 65, ID, T. Herman 36, ID, G. Herrera Corral 8, ID, F. Herrmann 127, S. Herrmann 129, ID,
K.F. Hetland 35, ID, B. Heybeck 65, ID, H. Hillemanns 33, ID, B. Hippolyte 130, ID, F.W. Hoffmann 71, ID,
B. Hofman 60, ID, G.H. Hong 140, ID, M. Horst 96, ID, A. Horzyk 2, ID, Y. Hou 6, ID, P. Hristov 33, ID, C. Hughes 123, ID,
P. Huhn 65, L.M. Huhta 118, ID, T.J. Humanic 89, ID, A. Hutson 117, ID, D. Hutter 39, ID, R. Ilkaev 142, H. Ilyas 14, ID,
M. Inaba 126, ID, G.M. Innocenti 33, ID, M. Ippolitov 142, ID, A. Isakov 85,87, ID, T. Isidori 119, ID, M.S. Islam 100, ID,
M. Ivanov 13, M. Ivanov 98, ID, V. Ivanov 142, ID, K.E. Iversen 76, ID, M. Jablonski 2, ID, B. Jacak 75, ID, N. Jacazio 26, ID,
P.M. Jacobs 75, ID, S. Jadlovska 107, J. Jadlovsky 107, S. Jaelani 83, ID, C. Jahnke 112, ID, M.J. Jakubowska 137, ID,
M.A. Janik 137, ID, T. Janson 71, S. Ji 17, ID, S. Jia 10, ID, A.A.P. Jimenez 66, ID, F. Jonas 88,127, ID, D.M. Jones 120, ID,
J.M. Jowett 33,98, ID, J. Jung 65, ID, M. Jung 65, ID, A. Junique 33, ID, A. Jusko 101, ID, M.J. Kabus 33,137, ID,
J. Kaewjai 106, P. Kalinak 61, ID, A.S. Kalteyer 98, ID, A. Kalweit 33, ID, V. Kaplin 142, ID, A. Karasu Uysal 73, ID,
D. Karatovic 90, ID, O. Karavichev 142, ID, T. Karavicheva 142, ID, P. Karczmarczyk 137, ID, E. Karpechev 142, ID,
U. Kebschull 71, ID, R. Keidel 141, ID, D.L.D. Keijdener 60, M. Keil 33, ID, B. Ketzer 43, ID, S.S. Khade 49, ID,
A.M. Khan 121,6, ID, S. Khan 16, ID, A. Khanzadeev 142, ID, Y. Kharlov 142, ID, A. Khatun 119, ID, A. Khuntia 36, ID,
B. Kileng 35, ID, B. Kim 105, ID, C. Kim 17, ID, D.J. Kim 118, ID, E.J. Kim 70, ID, J. Kim 140, ID, J.S. Kim 41, ID, J. Kim 59, ID,
J. Kim 70, ID, M. Kim 19, ID, S. Kim 18, ID, T. Kim 140, ID, K. Kimura 93, ID, S. Kirsch 65, ID, I. Kisel 39, ID, S. Kiselev 142, ID,
A. Kisiel 137, ID, J.P. Kitowski 2, ID, J.L. Klay 5, ID, J. Klein 33, ID, S. Klein 75, ID, C. Klein-Bösing 127, ID, M. Kleiner 65, ID,
T. Klemenz 96, ID, A. Kluge 33, ID, A.G. Knospe 117, ID, C. Kobdaj 106, ID, T. Kollegger 98, A. Kondratyev 143, ID,
N. Kondratyeva 142, ID, E. Kondratyuk 142, ID, J. Konig 65, ID, S.A. Konigstorfer 96, ID, P.J. Konopka 33, ID,
G. Kornakov 137, ID, M. Korwieser 96, ID, S.D. Koryciak 2, ID, A. Kotliarov 87, ID, V. Kovalenko 142, ID,
M. Kowalski 108, ID, V. Kozhuharov 37, ID, I. Králik 61, ID, A. Kravčáková 38, ID, L. Krcal 33,39, ID, M. Krivda 101,61, ID,
F. Krizek 87, ID, K. Krizkova Gajdosova 33, ID, M. Kroesen 95, ID, M. Krüger 65, ID, D.M. Krupova 36, ID,
E. Kryshen 142, ID, V. Kučera 59, ID, C. Kuhn 130, ID, P.G. Kuijer 85, ID, T. Kumaoka 126, D. Kumar 136, L. Kumar 91, ID,
N. Kumar 91, S. Kumar 32, ID, S. Kundu 33, ID, P. Kurashvili 80, ID, A. Kurepin 142, ID, A.B. Kurepin 142, ID,
A. Kuryakin 142, ID, S. Kushpil 87, ID, M.J. Kweon 59, ID, Y. Kwon 140, ID, S.L. La Pointe 39, ID, P. La Rocca 27, ID,
A. Lakrathok 106, M. Lamanna 33, ID, A.R. Landou 74,116, ID, R. Langoy 122, ID, P. Larionov 33, ID, E. Laudi 33, ID,
L. Lautner 33,96, ID, R. Lavicka 103, ID, R. Lea 135,56, ID, H. Lee 105, ID, I. Legrand 46, ID, G. Legras 127, ID,
J. Lehrbach 39, ID, T.M. Lelek 2, R.C. Lemmon 86, ID, I. León Monzón 110, ID, M.M. Lesch 96, ID, E.D. Lesser 19, ID,
P. Lévai 47, ID, X. Li 10, X.L. Li 6, J. Lien 122, ID, R. Lietava 101, ID, I. Likmeta 117, ID, B. Lim 25, ID, S.H. Lim 17, ID,
V. Lindenstruth 39, ID, A. Lindner 46, C. Lippmann 98, ID, A. Liu 19, ID, D.H. Liu 6, ID, J. Liu 120, ID,
G.S.S. Liveraro 112, ID, I.M. Lofnes 21, ID, C. Loizides 88, ID, S. Lokos 108, ID, J. Lömker 60, ID, P. Loncar 34, ID,
X. Lopez 128, ID, E. López Torres 7, ID, P. Lu 98,121, ID, J.R. Luhder 127, ID, M. Lunardon 28, ID, G. Luparello 58, ID,
Y.G. Ma 40, ID, M. Mager 33, ID, A. Maire 130, ID, E.M. Majerz 2, M.V. Makariev 37, ID, M. Malaev 142, ID,
G. Malfattore 26, ID, N.M. Malik 92, ID, Q.W. Malik 20, S.K. Malik 92, ID, L. Malinina 143, ID,I,VII, D. Mallick 132,81, ID,
N. Mallick 49, ID, G. Mandaglio 31,54, ID, 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, P.F.T. Matuoka 111, 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, A.F. Mechler 65, Y. Melikyan 44, ID, A. Menchaca-Rocha 68, ID,
E. Meninno<sup>103, ID</sup>, A.S. Menon<sup>117, ID</sup>, M. Meres<sup>13, ID</sup>, S. Mhlanga<sup>115,69</sup>, Y. MIAKE<sup>126, ID</sup>, L. Micheletti<sup>33, ID</sup>, L.C. Migliorin<sup>129</sup>, D.L. Mihaylov<sup>96, ID</sup>, K. Mikhaylov<sup>143,142, ID</sup>, A.N. Mishra<sup>47, ID</sup>, D. Miśkowiec<sup>98, ID</sup>, A. Modak<sup>4, ID</sup>, A.P. Mohanty<sup>60, ID</sup>, B. Mohanty<sup>81</sup>, M. Mohisin Khan<sup>16, ID, V</sup>, M.A. Molander<sup>44, ID</sup>, S. Monira<sup>137, ID</sup>, Z. Moravcova<sup>84, ID</sup>, C. Mordasini<sup>118, ID</sup>, D.A. Moreira De Godoy<sup>127, ID</sup>, I. Morozov<sup>142, ID</sup>, A. Morsch<sup>33, ID</sup>, T. Mrnjavac<sup>33, ID</sup>, V. Muccifora<sup>50, ID</sup>, S. Muhuri<sup>136, ID</sup>, J.D. Mulligan<sup>75, ID</sup>, A. Mulliri<sup>23</sup>, M.G. Munhoz<sup>111, ID</sup>, R.H. Munzer<sup>65, ID</sup>, H. Murakami<sup>125, ID</sup>, S. Murray<sup>115, ID</sup>, L. Musa<sup>33, ID</sup>, J. Musinsky<sup>61, ID</sup>, J.W. Myrcha<sup>137, ID</sup>, B. Naik<sup>124, ID</sup>, A.I. Nambrath<sup>19, ID</sup>, B.K. Nandi<sup>48, ID</sup>, R. Nania<sup>52, ID</sup>, E. Nappi<sup>51, ID</sup>, A.F. Nassirpour<sup>18,76, ID</sup>, A. Nath<sup>95, ID</sup>, C. Nattrass<sup>123, ID</sup>, M.N. Naydenov<sup>37, ID</sup>, A. Neagu<sup>20</sup>, A. Negru<sup>114</sup>, L. Nellen<sup>66, ID</sup>, R. Nepeivoda<sup>76, ID</sup>, S. Nese<sup>20, ID</sup>, G. Neskovic<sup>39, ID</sup>, N. Nicassio<sup>51, ID</sup>, B.S. Nielsen<sup>84, ID</sup>, E.G. Nielsen<sup>84, ID</sup>, S. Nikolaev<sup>142, ID</sup>, S. Nikulin<sup>142, ID</sup>, V. Nikulin<sup>142, ID</sup>, F. Noferini<sup>52, ID</sup>, S. Noh<sup>12, ID</sup>, P. Nomokonov<sup>143, ID</sup>, J. Norman<sup>120, ID</sup>, N. Novitzky<sup>126, ID</sup>, P. Nowakowski<sup>137, ID</sup>, A. Nyanin<sup>142, ID</sup>, J. Nystrand<sup>21, ID</sup>, M. Ogino<sup>77, ID</sup>, S. Oh<sup>18, ID</sup>, A. Ohlson<sup>76, ID</sup>, V.A. Okorokov<sup>142, ID</sup>, J. Oleniacz<sup>137, ID</sup>, A.C. Oliveira Da Silva<sup>123, ID</sup>, M.H. Oliver<sup>139, ID</sup>, A. Onnerstad<sup>118, ID</sup>, C. Oppedisano<sup>57, ID</sup>, A. Ortiz Velasquez<sup>66, ID</sup>, J. Otwinowski<sup>108, ID</sup>, M. Oya<sup>93</sup>, K. Oyama<sup>77, ID</sup>, Y. Pachmayer<sup>95, ID</sup>, S. Padhan<sup>48, ID</sup>, D. Pagano<sup>135,56, ID</sup>, G. Paić<sup>66, ID</sup>, S. Paisano-Guzmán<sup>45, ID</sup>, A. Palasciano<sup>51, ID</sup>, S. Panebianco<sup>131, ID</sup>, H. Park<sup>126, ID</sup>, H. Park<sup>105, ID</sup>, J. Park<sup>59, ID</sup>, J.E. Parkkila<sup>33, ID</sup>, Y. Patley<sup>48, ID</sup>, R.N. Patra<sup>92</sup>, B. Paul<sup>23, ID</sup>, H. Pei<sup>6, ID</sup>, T. Peitzmann<sup>60, ID</sup>, X. Peng<sup>11, ID</sup>, M. Pennisi<sup>25, ID</sup>, S. Perciballi<sup>25, ID</sup>, D. Peresunko<sup>142, ID</sup>, G.M. Perez<sup>7, ID</sup>, Y. Pestov<sup>142</sup>, V. Petrov<sup>142, ID</sup>, M. Petrovici<sup>46, ID</sup>, R.P. Pezzi<sup>104,67, ID</sup>, S. Piano<sup>58, ID</sup>, M. Pikna<sup>13, ID</sup>, P. Pillot<sup>104, ID</sup>, O. Pinazza<sup>52,33, ID</sup>, L. Pinsky<sup>117</sup>, C. Pinto<sup>96, ID</sup>, S. Pisano<sup>50, ID</sup>, M. Płoskoń<sup>75, ID</sup>, M. Planinic<sup>90</sup>, F. Pliquett<sup>65</sup>, M.G. Poghosyan<sup>88, ID</sup>, B. Polichtchouk<sup>142, ID</sup>, S. Politano<sup>30, ID</sup>, N. Poljak<sup>90, ID</sup>, A. Pop<sup>46, ID</sup>, S. Porteboeuf-Houssais<sup>128, ID</sup>, V. Pozdniakov<sup>143, ID</sup>, I.Y. Pozos<sup>45, ID</sup>, K.K. Pradhan<sup>49, ID</sup>, S.K. Prasad<sup>4, ID</sup>, S. Prasad<sup>49, ID</sup>, R. Preghenella<sup>52, ID</sup>, F. Prino<sup>57, ID</sup>, C.A. Pruneau<sup>138, ID</sup>, I. Pshenichnov<sup>142, ID</sup>, M. Puccio<sup>33, ID</sup>, S. Pucillo<sup>25, ID</sup>, Z. Pugelova<sup>107</sup>, S. Qiu<sup>85, ID</sup>, L. Quaglia<sup>25, ID</sup>, R.E. Quishpe<sup>117</sup>, S. Ragoni<sup>15, ID</sup>, A. Rai<sup>139, ID</sup>, A. Rakotozafindrabe<sup>131, ID</sup>, L. Ramello<sup>134,57, ID</sup>, F. Rami<sup>130, ID</sup>, T.A. Rancien<sup>74</sup>, M. Rasa<sup>27, ID</sup>, S.S. Räsänen<sup>44, ID</sup>, R. Rath<sup>52, ID</sup>, M.P. Rauch<sup>21, ID</sup>, I. Ravasenga<sup>85, ID</sup>, K.F. Read<sup>88,123, ID</sup>, C. Reckziegel<sup>113, ID</sup>, A.R. Redelbach<sup>39, ID</sup>, K. Redlich<sup>80, ID, VI</sup>, C.A. Reetz<sup>98, ID</sup>, H.D. Regules-Medel<sup>45</sup>, A. Rehman<sup>21</sup>, F. Reidt<sup>33, ID</sup>, H.A. Reme-Ness<sup>35, ID</sup>, Z. Rescakova<sup>38</sup>, K. Reygers<sup>95, ID</sup>, A. Riabov<sup>142, ID</sup>, V. Riabov<sup>142, ID</sup>, R. Ricci<sup>29, ID</sup>, M. Richter<sup>20, ID</sup>, A.A. Riedel<sup>96, ID</sup>, W. Riegler<sup>33, ID</sup>, A.G. Riffero<sup>25, ID</sup>, C. Ristea<sup>64, ID</sup>, M.V. Rodriguez<sup>33, ID</sup>, M. Rodríguez Cahuantzi<sup>45, ID</sup>, S.A. Rodríguez Ramírez<sup>45, ID</sup>, K. Røed<sup>20, ID</sup>, R. Rogalev<sup>142, ID</sup>, E. Rogochaya<sup>143, ID</sup>, T.S. Rogoschinski<sup>65, ID</sup>, D. Rohr<sup>33, ID</sup>, D. Röhrich<sup>21, ID</sup>, P.F. Rojas<sup>45</sup>, S. Rojas Torres<sup>36, ID</sup>, P.S. Rokita<sup>137, ID</sup>, G. Romanenko<sup>26, ID</sup>, F. Ronchetti<sup>50, ID</sup>, A. Rosano<sup>31,54, ID</sup>, E.D. Rosas<sup>66</sup>, K. Roslon<sup>137, ID</sup>, A. Rossi<sup>55, ID</sup>, A. Roy<sup>49, ID</sup>, S. Roy<sup>48, ID</sup>, N. Rubini<sup>26, ID</sup>, D. Ruggiano<sup>137, ID</sup>, R. Rui<sup>24, ID</sup>, P.G. Russek<sup>2, ID</sup>, R. Russo<sup>85, ID</sup>, A. Rustamov<sup>82, ID</sup>, E. Ryabinkin<sup>142, ID</sup>, Y. Ryabov<sup>142, ID</sup>, A. Rybicki<sup>108, ID</sup>, H. Rytkonen<sup>118, ID</sup>, J. Ryu<sup>17, ID</sup>, W. Rzesa<sup>137, ID</sup>, O.A.M. Saarimaki<sup>44, ID</sup>, S. Sadhu<sup>32, ID</sup>, S. Sadovsky<sup>142, ID</sup>, J. Saetre<sup>21, ID</sup>, K. Šafařík<sup>36, ID</sup>, P. Saha<sup>42</sup>, S.K. Saha<sup>4, ID</sup>, S. Saha<sup>81, ID</sup>, B. Sahoo<sup>48, ID</sup>, B. Sahoo<sup>49, ID</sup>, R. Sahoo<sup>49, ID</sup>, S. Sahoo<sup>62</sup>, D. Sahu<sup>49, ID</sup>, P.K. Sahu<sup>62, ID</sup>, J. Saini<sup>136, ID</sup>, K. Sajdakova<sup>38</sup>, S. Sakai<sup>126, ID</sup>, M.P. Salvan<sup>98, ID</sup>, S. Sambyal<sup>92, ID</sup>, D. Samitz<sup>103, ID</sup>, I. Sanna<sup>33,96, ID</sup>, T.B. Saramela<sup>111</sup>, P. Sarma<sup>42, ID</sup>, V. Sarritzu<sup>23, ID</sup>, V.M. Sarti<sup>96, ID</sup>, M.H.P. Sas<sup>139, ID</sup>, J. Schambach<sup>88, ID</sup>, H.S. Scheid<sup>65, ID</sup>, C. Schiaua<sup>46, ID</sup>, R. Schicker<sup>95, ID</sup>, A. Schmah<sup>98</sup>, C. Schmidt<sup>98, ID</sup>, H.R. Schmidt<sup>94</sup>, M.O. Schmidt<sup>33, ID</sup>, M. Schmidt<sup>94</sup>, N.V. Schmidt<sup>88, ID</sup>, A.R. Schmier<sup>123, ID</sup>, R. Schotter<sup>130, ID</sup>, A. Schröter<sup>39, ID</sup>, J. Schukraft<sup>33, ID</sup>, K. Schweda<sup>98, ID</sup>, G. Scioli<sup>26, ID</sup>, E. Scomparin<sup>57, ID</sup>, J.E. Seger<sup>15, ID</sup>, Y. Sekiguchi<sup>125</sup>, D. Sekihata<sup>125, ID</sup>, M. Selina<sup>85, ID</sup>, I. Selyuzhenkov<sup>98, ID</sup>, S. Senyukov<sup>130, ID</sup>, J.J. Seo<sup>95,59, ID</sup>, D. Serebryakov<sup>142, ID</sup>, L. Šerkšnytė<sup>96, ID</sup>, A. Sevcenco<sup>64, ID</sup>, T.J. Shaba<sup>69, ID</sup>, A. Shabetai<sup>104, ID</sup>, R. Shahoyan<sup>33</sup>, A. Shangaraev<sup>142, ID</sup>, A. Sharma<sup>91</sup>, B. Sharma<sup>92, ID</sup>, D. Sharma<sup>48, ID</sup>, H. Sharma<sup>55,108, ID</sup>, M. Sharma<sup>92, ID</sup>,
S. Sharma 77, ID
S. Sharma 92, ID
U. Sharma 92, ID
A. Shatat 132, ID
O. Sheibani 117, K. Shigaki 93, ID
M. Shimomura 78, J. Shin 12, S. Shirinkin 142, ID
Q. Shou 40, ID
Y. Sibiriak 142, ID
S. Siddhanta 53, ID
T. Siemiarczuk 80, ID
T.F. Silva 111, ID
D. Silvermyr 76, ID
T. Simantathammakul 106, R. Simeonov 37, ID
B. Singh 92, B. Singh 96, ID
K. Singh 49, ID
R. Singh 81, ID
R. Singh 92, ID
R. Singh 49, ID
S. Singh 16, ID
V.K. Singh 136, ID
V. Singhal 136, ID
T. Sinha 100, ID
B. Sitar 13, ID
M. Sitta 134,57, ID
T.B. Skaali 20, G. Skorodumovs 95, ID
M. Slupecki 44, ID
N. Smirnov 139, ID
R.J.M. Snellings 60, ID
E.H. Solheim 20, ID
J. Song 117, ID
A. Songmoolnak 106, C. Sonnabend 33,98, ID
F. Soramel 28, ID
A.B. Soto-hernandez 89, ID
R. Spijkers 85, ID
I. Sputowska 108, ID
J. Staa 76, ID
J. Stachel 95, ID
I. Stan 64, ID
P.J. Steffanic 123, ID
S.F. Stiefelmaier 95, ID
D. Stocco 104, ID
I. Storehaug 20, ID
P. Stratmann 127, ID
S. Strazzi 26, ID
A. Sturniolo 31,54, ID
C.P. Stylianidis 85, A.A.P. Suaide 111, ID
C. Suire 132, ID
M. Sukhanov 142, ID
M. Suljic 33, ID
R. Sultanov 142, ID
V. Sumberia 92, ID
S. Sumowidagdo 83, ID
S. Swain 62, I. Szarka 13, ID
M. Szymkowski 137, ID
S.F. Taghavi 96, ID
G. Taillepied 98, ID
J. Takahashi 112, ID
G.J. Tambave 81, ID
S. Tang 6, ID
Z. Tang 121, ID
J.D. Tapia Takaki 119, ID
N. Tapus 114, L.A. Tarasovicova 127, ID
M.G. Tarzila 46, ID
G.F. Tassielli 32, ID
A. Tauro 33, ID
A. Tavira García 132, ID
G. Tejeda Muñoz 45, ID
A. Telesca 33, ID
L. Terlizzi 25, ID
C. Terrevoli 117, ID
S. Thakur 4, ID
D. Thomas 109, ID
F. Thoresen ID
A. Tikhonov 142, ID
A.R. Timmins 117, ID
M. Tkacik 107, T. Tkacik 107, ID
A. Toia 65, ID
R. Tokumoto 93, K. Tomohiro 93, N. Topilskaya 142, ID
M. Toppi 50, ID
T. Tork 132, ID
V.V. Torres 104, ID
A.G. Torres Ramos 32, ID
A. Trifiró 31,54, ID
A.S. Triolo 33,31,54, ID
S. Tripathy 52, ID
T. Tripathy 48, ID
S. Trogolo 33, ID
V. Trubnikov 3, ID
W.H. Trzaska 118, ID
T.P. Trzcinski 137, ID
A. Tumkin 142, ID
R. Turrisi 55, ID
T.S. Tveter 20, ID
K. Ullaland 21, ID
B. Ulukutlu 96, ID
A. Uras 129, ID
G.L. Usai 23, ID
M. Vala 38, N. Valle 22, ID
L.V.R. van Doremalen 60, M. van Leeuwen 85, ID
C.A. van Veen 95, ID
R.J.G. van Weelden 85, ID
P. Vande Vyvre 33, ID
D. Varga 47, ID
Z. Varga 47, ID
M. Vasileiou 79, ID
A. Vasiliev 142, ID
O. Vázquez Doce 50, ID
O. Vazquez Rueda 117, ID
V. Vechernin 142, ID
E. Vercellin 25, ID
S. Vergara Limón 45, R. Verma 48, L. Vermunt 98, ID
R. Vértesi 47, ID
M. Verweij 60, ID
L. Vickovic 34, Z. Vilakazi 124, O. Villalobos Baillie 101, ID
A. Villani 24, ID
G. Vino 51, ID
A. Vinogradov 142, ID
T. Virgili 29, ID
M.M.O. Virta 118, ID
V. Vislavicius 76, A. Vodopyanov 143, ID
B. Volkel 33, ID
M.A. Völkl 95, ID
K. Voloshin 142, S.A. Voloshin 138, ID
G. Volpe 32, ID
B. von Haller 33, ID
I. Vorobyev 96, ID
N. Vozniuk 142, ID
J. Vrláková 38, ID
J. Wan 40, C. Wang 40, ID
D. Wang 40, Y. Wang 40, ID
Y. Wang 6, ID
A. Wegrzynek 33, ID
F.T. Weiglhofer 39, S.C. Wenzel 33, ID
J.P. Wessels 127, ID
J. Wiechula 65, ID
J. Wikne 20, ID
G. Wilk 80, ID
J. Wilkinson 98, ID
G.A. Willems 127, ID
B. Windelband 95, ID
M. Winn 131, ID
J.R. Wright 109, ID
W. Wu 40, Y. Wu 121, ID
R. Xu 6, ID
A. Yadav 43, ID
A.K. Yadav 136, ID
S. Yalcin 73, ID
Y. Yamaguchi 93, ID
S. Yang 21, S. Yano 93, ID
Z. Yin 6, ID
I.-K. Yoo 17, ID
J.H. Yoon 59, ID
H. Yu 12, S. Yuan 21, A. Yuncu 95, ID
V. Zaccolo 24, ID
C. Zampolli 33, ID
F. Zanone 95, ID
N. Zardoshti 33, ID
A. Zarochentsev 142, ID
P. Závada 63, ID
N. Zaviyalov 142, M. Zhalov 142, ID
B. Zhang 6, ID
C. Zhang 131, ID
L. Zhang 40, ID
S. Zhang 40, ID
X. Zhang 6, ID
Y. Zhang 121, Z. Zhang 6, ID
M. Zhao 10, ID
V. Zherebchevskii 142, ID
Y. Zhi 10, D. Zhou 6, ID
Y. Zhou 84, ID
J. Zhu 55,6, ID
Y. Zhu 6, S.C. Zugravel 57, ID
N. Zurlo 135,56, ID

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<footnote n="9">⁹ Chicago State University, Chicago, IL, United States</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, China</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ Comenius University Bratislava, Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, Bratislava, Slovak Republic</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ COMSATS University Islamabad, Islamabad, Pakistan</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ Creighton University, Omaha, NE, United States</footnote>
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 Nationala de Stiinta si Tehnologie Politehnica Bucuresti, Bucharest, Romania

¹¹⁵ University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

¹¹⁶ University of Derby, Derby, United Kingdom

¹¹⁷ University of Houston, Houston, TX, United States

¹¹⁸ University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

¹¹⁹ University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, United States

¹²⁰ University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom

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

¹²² University of South-Eastern Norway, Kongsberg, Norway

¹²³ University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, United States

¹²⁴ University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

¹²⁵ University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

¹²⁶ University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan

¹²⁷ Universität Münster, Institut für Kernphysik, Münster, Germany

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

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

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

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

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

¹³³ Università degli Studi di Foggia, Foggia, Italy

¹³⁴ Università del Piemonte Orientale, Vercelli, Italy

¹³⁵ Università di Brescia, Brescia, Italy

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

¹³⁷ Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland

¹³⁸ Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, United States

¹³⁹ Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States

¹⁴⁰ Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

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

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

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

¹ Deceased.

II Also at: Max-Planck-Institut 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: Department of Applied Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India.

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

VII Also at: An institution covered by a cooperation agreement with CERN.
**Update**

Physics Letters B

Volume 853, Issue , June 2024, Page

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138659
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

ELSEVIER

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Physics Letters B

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/physletb

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

Corrigendum

Corrigendum to “Pseudorapidity dependence of anisotropic flow and its decorrelations using long-range multiparticle correlations in Pb–Pb and Xe–Xe collisions”

ALICE Collaboration*

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

Reference: Phys. Lett. B 850 (2024) 138477.

The authors regret that after publication of the article, a small issue was spotted in the author list. The issue is that the affiliation is missing for one of the authors, namely F. Thoresen.

Correction: on page 15, add the affiliation number 84 (corresponding

to “Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark”) to the author F. Thoresen:

F.~Thoresen\,$^{\{$\rm 84\}$\,\orcidlink{0000-0003-2569-550X},
The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

DOI of original article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138477.

* Corresponding author details: ALICE Publication team

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138659