2020 053 15 April

Search for a common particle emitting source

ALICE Collaboration††thanks: See Appendix A for the list of collaboration
members ALICE Collaboration

We report on the measurement of the size of the particle-emitting source from
two-baryon correlations with ALICE in high-multiplicity pp collisions at
$\sqrt{s}~{}=~{}13$ TeV. The source radius is studied with low relative
momentum p–p, $\rm\overline{p}$–$\rm\overline{p}$, p–$\Lambda$, and
$\rm\overline{p}$–$\overline{\Lambda}$ pairs as a function of the pair
transverse mass $m_{\rm T}$ considering for the first time in a quantitative
way the effect of strong resonance decays. After correcting for this effect,
the radii extracted for pairs of different particle species agree. This
indicates that protons, antiprotons, $\Lambda$s, and $\overline{\Lambda}$s
originate from the same source. Within the measured $m_{\rm T}$ range
($1.1$–$2.2$) $\mathrm{GeV}\text{/}{\mathrm{\text{$c$}}}^{2}$ the invariant
radius of this common source varies between $1.3$ and
$0.85\text{\,}\mathrm{fm}\text{/}$. These results provide a precise reference
for studies of the strong hadron–hadron interactions and for the investigation
of collective properties in small colliding systems.

##  1 Introduction

Correlation techniques have been used in particle physics since the 1960s [1].
Significant theoretical progress has been made to relate two-particle
correlations at small relative momenta to the study of the space-time
properties of the particle-emitting source and the final state interactions
between the two particles [2, 3]. Eventually, these methods were used to study
the source size, also referred to as Hanbury Brown and Twiss (HBT) radius,
created in heavy-ion collisions [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14].
Collective effects such as hydrodynamic flow introduce position-momentum
correlations to the particle emission, and hence modify the source radii in
heavy-ion collisions at LHC energies [5]. In these systems, the decrease of
the measured source radii with increasing pair transverse momentum $k_{\rm
T}=\mid\vec{p}_{\rm{T},~{}1}+\vec{p}_{\rm{T},~{}2}\mid/2$, where $p_{\rm{T}}$
is the transverse momentum of each of the particles, and the transverse mass
$m_{\rm T}=\sqrt{k_{\rm T}^{2}+m^{2}}$, where $m$ is the average mass of the
particle pair, is attributed to the collective expansion of the system created
in the collision [5, 15]. In this context, there are predictions of a common
$m_{\rm T}$ scaling of the radius for different particle pairs, which are
based on the assumption of the same flow velocities and freeze-out times for
all particle species [16, 17]. There also is experimental evidence that a
common $m_{\rm T}$ scaling of the source radius is present for protons and
kaons in heavy-ion collisions [18]. On the other hand, for pions the scaling
seems to be only approximate [18, 19], which could be explained by the larger
effect of the Lorentz boost for lighter particles [16, 18] but could also be
influenced by the effect of feed-down from short-lived resonance decays. The
radii obtained for Pb–Pb collisions at the LHC can be compared to the freeze-
out volume obtained from statistical hadronization models [20] and are also
essential ingredients for coalescence models [21, 22, 23].

Recent studies of high-multiplicity pp collisions reveal unexpected
similarities to heavy-ion reactions when considering variables normally linked
to collective effects, angular correlations, and strangeness production [24,
25, 26, 27]. The hadronization in pp collisions is expected to occur on a
similar time scale for all particles, and if a common radial velocity for all
particles should be present, this would lead to a similar $m_{\rm T}$ scaling
of the source size as measured for heavy-ion collisions. Unfortunately, the
information regarding the $m_{\rm T}$ dependence of the source size measured
in pp collisions is limited to low values of $m_{\rm T}$, as the existing data
are based on analyses carried out with $\uppi\mbox{--}\uppi$ and K–K pairs.
These studies point to a variation of the radius as a function of the event
multiplicity and of the pair $m_{\rm T}$ [28, 29, 30, 31, 32]. However, aside
a qualitative consideration of a $\beta_{\mathrm{T}}$ scaling [33], no
quantitative description could be determined so far.

It is known that strongly decaying resonances may lead to significant
exponential tails of the source distribution, which can influence in
particular the measured $\uppi\mbox{--}\uppi$ correlations in heavy-ion
collisions [34, 35, 36, 37]. This effect is even more pronounced in small
collision systems such as pp and p–Pb [38, 39], and can substantially modify
the measured source radii, not only for mesons, but for baryons as well. So
far a solid modeling of the strong resonance contribution to the source
function is still missing.

In this work, we present the first study of the source function with a
quantitative evaluation of the effect of strong resonance decays. The search
for a common particle-emitting source is conducted employing data measured in
high-multiplicity pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}~{}=~{}13$ TeV. The emission
sources of protons and $\Lambda\mathrm{\,baryons}$ are studied using p–p and
p–$\Lambda$ correlations as a function of the pair $m_{\rm T}$. After
correcting for the effect of strong resonance decays, the overall source size
decreases significantly by up to $20\text{\,}\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$
and the values extracted from the different pair combinations are in
agreement. The common particle-emitting source described in this work will
allow for direct comparisons of the source sizes to the ones resulting from
theoretical models and the presence of collective phenomena in small colliding
systems to be studied in a complementary way to analyses carried out so far
[28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 38, 39]. These analyses concentrated on
$\uppi\mbox{--}\uppi$ and K–K correlation studies in pp collisions, probing
the $k_{\rm T}$ and $m_{\rm T}$ ranges of up to
$\mathrm{1}$–$1.5\text{\,}\mathrm{GeV}\text{/}{\mathrm{\text{$c$}}}^{2}$ and
observing a decrease of the source radius at higher $m_{\rm T}$, with the
measured radii reaching values even below $1\text{\,}\mathrm{fm}\text{/}$ in
the case of minimum bias events. The higher $m_{\rm T}$ range is only
accessible with baryon femtoscopy.

Additionally, recent ALICE studies revealed that small collision systems, such
as pp, are a suitable environment to study the interaction potential between
more exotic pairs, like $\mbox{p--}\mathrm{K}^{-}$, p–$\Lambda$,
$\Lambda$–$\Lambda$, p–$\Sigma^{0}$, and p–$\Xi^{-}$ [40, 41, 42, 43, 44]. The
data of high-multiplicity triggered pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}~{}=~{}13$ TeV
provides a significantly improved precision compared to the previously
analysed minimum bias data. Detailed studies of the interactions will be
enabled by a precise knowledge of the size of the common source for particle
emission, once corrected for the broadening due to the resonance decays, which
depends on the pair type. Moreover, the effective source size is an important
input for the modeling of coalescence and has consequences for the prediction
of antimatter formation [22, 21, 23, 45, 46].

##  2 Data analysis

This paper presents measurements of the p–p,
$\rm\overline{p}$–$\rm\overline{p}$, p–$\Lambda$, and
$\rm\overline{p}$–$\overline{\Lambda}$ correlation functions in high-
multiplicity pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}~{}=~{}13$ TeV performed with ALICE
[47, 48]. The high-multiplicity trigger selected events based on the measured
amplitude in the V0 detector system [49], comprising two arrays of plastic
scintillators at $$2.8$<\eta<$5.1$$ and $$-3.7$<\eta<$-1.7$$. The threshold
was adjusted such that the selected events correspond to the highest
$0.17\text{\,}\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$ fraction of the multiplicity
distribution of all INEL$>$0$$ collisions. In such events, an average of $30$
charged-particle tracks are found in the range $\mid\eta\mid<$0.5$$ [50],
which constitutes an increase by a factor of about four with respect to the
minimum bias data sample [42]. The V0 timing information was evaluated with
respect to the LHC clock to distinguish collisions with the beam pipe material
or beam–gas interactions.

The Inner Tracking System (ITS) [48] and Time Projection Chamber (TPC) [51]
are the main tracking devices in ALICE. They cover the full azimuthal angle
and the pseudorapidity range of $\mid\eta\mid<$0.9$$. The solenoid surrounding
these detectors creates a homogeneous magnetic field of
$B=$0.5\text{\,}\mathrm{T}$$ directed along the beam axis which defines the
$z$ direction. The spatial coordinates of the primary event vertex (PV) are
reconstructed once using global tracks reconstructed with the TPC and ITS and
once using ITS tracklets [47]. If both methods yield a vertex, the
longitudinal difference between the two, $\Delta z$, is required to be less
than $5\text{\,}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{m}$. The $z$ component of the vertex,
preferably determined by global tracks, has to lay within $\mid
V_{z}\mid<$10\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}$$ of the nominal interaction point
to ensure a uniform detector coverage. Multiple reactions per bunch crossing
are identified by the presence of secondary collision vertices [47].
Approximately ${10}^{9}$ events fulfill the above requirements and are
available for the analysis. The identification of protons and their respective
antiparticles follows the complete set of criteria listed in Refs. [41, 42].
Primary protons are selected in the transverse- momentum range between
$0.5\text{\,}\mathrm{GeV}\text{/}\mathrm{\text{$c$}}$ and
$4.05\text{\,}\mathrm{GeV}\text{/}\mathrm{\text{$c$}}$ within
$\mid\eta\mid<$0.8$$. Particle identification (PID) is performed by using the
information provided by the TPC and the Time-Of-Flight (TOF) [52] detectors.
The energy loss in the TPC gas is measured for each track, while the timing
information of TOF is required for tracks with
$p>$$0.75\text{\,}\mathrm{GeV}\text{/}\mathrm{\text{$c$}}$. Particles are
identified by a selection on the deviations from the signal hypotheses in
units of the respective detector resolution $\sigma_{\rm{TPC}}$ and
$\sigma_{\rm{TOF}}$, according to
$n_{\sigma}=\sqrt{n_{\sigma,{\rm{TPC}}}^{2}+n_{\sigma,{\rm{TOF}}}^{2}}<$3$$.

The distance of closest approach (DCA) to the PV is restricted to a maximum of
$0.1\text{\,}\mathrm{cm}\text{/}$ in the transverse plane and
$0.2\text{\,}\mathrm{cm}\text{/}$ in the $z$ direction, in order to suppress
weak decay products or particles created in interactions with the detector
material. The composition of the sample is obtained following the methods
described in [41]. For this purpose, events were generated with Pythia 8.2
[53] (Monash tune [54]), processed by GEANT3 [55], filtered through the ALICE
detector response and subsequently handled by the reconstruction algorithm
[48]. These simulations were used to estimate that the selected protons and
antiprotons have a momentum-averaged purity of $99\text{\,}\mathrm{\char
37\relax}\text{/}$. The fraction of primary and secondary contributions was
estimated by a fit of templates of their individual DCA distributions from MC
to the $p_{\rm T}$-integrated measured distributions. This way the sample was
found to consist of $82\text{\,}\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$ primary
particles. The remainder is due to weak decays of $\Lambda$ ($\Sigma^{+}$)
baryons contributing with $13\text{\,}\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$
($5\text{\,}\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$).

The $\Lambda$ ($\overline{\Lambda}$) candidates are selected following the
procedures discussed in [41, 42] by reconstructing the weak decay
$\Lambda\rightarrow\rm{p}\uppi^{-}$
($\overline{\Lambda}\rightarrow\rm\overline{p}\uppi^{+}$), which has a
branching ratio of $63.9\text{\,}\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$ [56]. The
combinatorial background is reduced by requiring the distance of closest
approach between the daughter tracks at the secondary vertex to be smaller
than $1.5\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}$. A straight line connecting the
secondary vertex with the PV defines the trajectory of the $\Lambda$
candidate. Primary $\Lambda\mathrm{\,baryons}$ are selected by requiring a
cosine of the pointing angle (CPA) between the momentum vector of the
$\Lambda$ candidate and its trajectory to be larger than $0.99$. The
reconstructed daughter particle tracks are required to have an associated hit
either in the Silicon Pixel Detector (SPD) or the Silicon Strip Detector (SSD)
layers of the ITS or the TOF detector in order to use their timing information
to reduce the remaining contributions from out-of-bunch pile-up. The proton-
pion invariant mass distribution is fitted using the sum of a double Gaussian
to describe the signal and a second order polynomial for the combinatorial
background. In the $p_{\rm T}$ range between $0.3\text{\,}\mathrm{t}$o
$4.3\text{\,}\mathrm{GeV}\text{/}\mathrm{\text{$c$}}$, the $\Lambda$ and
$\overline{\Lambda}$ candidates are reconstructed with a mass resolution
between $1.5\text{\,}\mathrm{MeV}\text{/}{\mathrm{\text{$c$}}}^{2}$ and
$1.8\text{\,}\mathrm{MeV}\text{/}{\mathrm{\text{$c$}}}^{2}$. Choosing a mass
window of $4\text{\,}\mathrm{MeV}\text{/}{\mathrm{\text{$c$}}}^{2}$ around the
nominal mass [56] results in a $p_{\rm T}$-averaged purity of
$96\text{\,}\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$. Similarly to the case of
protons, CPA templates of the primary and secondary contributions are
generated using MC simulations. These and a production ratio between $\Lambda$
and $\Sigma^{0}$ of $1\text{/}3$ [57, 58, 59, 60], are used to decompose the
sample of selected $\Lambda$ and $\overline{\Lambda}$ candidates. It is found
to consist of $59\text{\,}\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$
$\Lambda\mathrm{\,baryons}$ directly produced in the collision, while
$19\text{\,}\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$ originate from electromagnetic
decays of a $\Sigma^{0}$. Additional contributions from weak decays of
$\Xi^{-}$ and $\Xi^{0}$ amount to $11\text{\,}\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$
each.

##  3 Correlation function

The observable in femtoscopic measurements is the correlation function
$C(k^{*})$, where
$k^{*}=\frac{1}{2}\cdot|\mathbf{p}^{*}_{2}-\mathbf{p}^{*}_{1}|$ denotes the
relative momentum of particle pairs and $\mathbf{p}^{*}_{1}\text{ and
}\mathbf{p}^{*}_{2}$ are the particle momenta in the pair rest frame (PRF,
$\mathbf{p}^{*}_{1}=-\mathbf{p}^{*}_{2}$). It is computed as
$C(k^{*})=\mathcal{N}\frac{A(k^{*})}{B(k^{*})}$, where $A(k^{*})$ is the
relative momentum distribution of correlated particle pairs, obtained from the
same event, and $B(k^{*})$ the corresponding distribution of uncorrelated
pairs. The latter is obtained by pairing identified particles of one event
with particles from a different (“mixed“) event. In order to avoid any bias
due to acceptance and reconstruction effects, only those events are mixed, for
which the difference between the positions of the vertex in $z$ direction is
less than $2\text{\,}\mathrm{cm}\text{/}$ and the numbers of global tracks
within $\mid\eta\mid<$0.8$$ differ by less than four. The normalization factor
$\mathcal{N}$ is calculated in the region $k^{*}$ $\in$ [$240$,$340$]
$\mathrm{MeV}\text{/}\mathrm{\text{$c$}}$, where no femtoscopic signal is
present and $C(k^{*})$ theoretically approaches unity. In the laboratory
frame, the single-particle trajectories of p–p and
$\rm\overline{p}$–$\rm\overline{p}$ pairs at low $k^{*}$ are almost collinear
and hence have a $\Delta\eta$ and $\Delta\varphi^{*}$ $\sim$0$$. Here, $\eta$
refers to the pseudorapidity of the track and $\varphi^{*}$ is the azimuthal
track coordinate measured at 9 radii in the TPC, ranging from
$85\text{\,}\mathrm{cm}\text{/}$ to $245\text{\,}\mathrm{cm}\text{/}$, taking
into account track bending because of the magnetic field. Due to detector
effects like track splitting and merging [18] the reconstruction efficiency
for pairs in same and mixed events differs. In order to avoid a bias in the
correlation function, a close-pair-rejection (CPR) criterion is applied by
removing p–p and $\rm\overline{p}$–$\rm\overline{p}$ pairs fulfilling
$\sqrt{\Delta\eta^{2}+\Delta\varphi^{*2}}<$0.01$$. For p–$\Lambda$ and
$\rm\overline{p}$–$\overline{\Lambda}$ pairs no rejection is considered.

A total number of $1.7\text{\times}{10}^{6}$ ($1.3\text{\times}{10}^{6}$) p–p
($\rm\overline{p}$–$\rm\overline{p}$) and $0.6\text{\times}{10}^{6}$
($0.5\text{\times}{10}^{6}$) p–$\Lambda$
($\rm\overline{p}$–$\overline{\Lambda}$) pairs are found in the region
$k^{*}<$200\text{\,}\mathrm{MeV}\text{/}\mathrm{\text{$c$}}$$. The correlation
functions of baryon–baryon pairs agree within statistical uncertainties with
their antibaryon–antibaryon pairs [18, 61]. Therefore in the following p–p
denotes the combination of $\mbox{p--
p}\oplus\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mbox{--}\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ and accordingly
for p–$\Lambda$. The p–p and p–$\Lambda$ correlation functions were obtained
separately in $7$ and $6$ $m_{\rm T}$ intervals, respectively, chosen such
that the total amount of particle pairs is evenly distributed.

The theoretical correlation function is related to the two-particle emitting
source $S(r^{*})$ and wave function $\psi(\vec{r^{*}},\vec{k^{*}})$ [5]. It
can be written as

$C(k^{*})=\int\,\textrm{d}^{3}r^{*}S(r^{*})|\psi(\vec{r^{*}},\vec{k^{*}})|^{2},$
(1)

where $r^{*}$ is the relative distance between the particle pair defined in
the PRF. When fitting this function to the data in this analysis, the free
parameters are solely related to $S(r^{*})$. The
$\psi(\vec{r^{*}},\vec{k^{*}})$ and the resulting $C(k^{*})$ can be determined
with the help of the correlation analysis tool using the Schrödinger equation
(CATS) [62]. The framework was developed in order to model the correlation
function in small systems, where the strong interaction can give rise to a
particularly pronounced correlation signal. Therefore,
$\psi(\vec{r^{*}},\vec{k^{*}})$ is precisely calculated as the numerical
solution of the single-channel Schrödinger equation, such that additionally to
quantum statistics and Coulomb interactions the strong interaction can be
included via a local potential $V(r^{*})$.

Residual correlations from impurities and feed-down of long-lived resonances
decaying weakly or electromagnetically [34] are taken into account by
calculating the model correlation function $C_{\mathrm{model}}(k^{*})$ as

$C_{\mathrm{model}}(k^{*})=1+\sum_{i}\lambda_{i}(C_{i}(k^{*})-1),$ (2)

where the sum runs over all contributions and with the method discussed in
Ref. [41]. In particular the weights $\lambda_{i}$, which are listed
separately for p–p and p–$\Lambda$ in Table 1, are calculated from purity and
feed-down fractions reported in Sec. 2.

Table 1: Weight parameters of the individual components of the p–p and p–$\Lambda$ correlation function. Misidentifications of particle species X are denoted as $\tilde{\rm{X}}$ and feed-down contributions have the mother particle listed as a sub-index. For the contributions in bold text, the correlation functions are modeled according to the interaction potential, while the others are assumed to be flat.  p–p | p–$\Lambda$
---|---
Pair |  $\lambda$ parameter ($\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$) | Pair |  $\lambda$ parameter ($\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$) | Pair |  $\lambda$ parameter ($\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$)
pp |  67.0 | p$\Lambda$ |  46.1 | p${}_{\Sigma^{+}}\Lambda_{\Xi^{0}}$ |  0.5
pΛp |  20.3 | p$\Lambda_{\Xi^{-}}$ |  8.5 | p${}_{\Sigma^{+}}\Lambda_{\Sigma^{0}}$ |  1.0
pΛpΛ |  1.5 | p$\Lambda_{\Xi^{0}}$ |  8.5 | $\tilde{\mathrm{p}}\Lambda$ |  0.3
p${}_{\Sigma^{+}}$p |  8.5 | p$\Lambda_{\Sigma^{0}}$ |  15.4 | $\tilde{\mathrm{p}}\Lambda_{\Xi^{-}}$ |  0.1
p${}_{\Sigma^{+}}$p${}_{\Sigma^{+}}$ |  0.3 | p${}_{\Lambda}\Lambda$ |  7.0 | $\tilde{\mathrm{p}}\Lambda_{\Xi^{0}}$ |  0.1
pΛp${}_{\Sigma^{+}}$ |  1.3 | p${}_{\Lambda}\Lambda_{\Xi^{-}}$ |  1.3 | $\tilde{\mathrm{p}}\Lambda_{\Sigma^{0}}$ |  0.1
$\tilde{\mathrm{p}}$p |  0.9 | p${}_{\Lambda}\Lambda_{\Xi^{0}}$ |  1.3 | p$\tilde{\Lambda}$ |  3.3
$\tilde{\mathrm{p}}$pΛ |  0.1 | p${}_{\Lambda}\Lambda_{\Sigma^{0}}$ |  2.3 | p${}_{\Lambda}\tilde{\Lambda}$ |  0.5
$\tilde{\mathrm{p}}$p${}_{\Sigma^{+}}$ |  0.1 | p${}_{\Sigma^{+}}\Lambda$ |  2.9 | p${}_{\Sigma^{+}}\tilde{\Lambda}$ |  0.2
$\tilde{\mathrm{p}}\tilde{\mathrm{p}}$ |  $0$ | p${}_{\Sigma^{+}}\Lambda_{\Xi^{-}}$ |  0.5 | $\tilde{\mathrm{p}}\tilde{\Lambda}$ |  $0$

To model the p–p (p–$\Lambda$) correlation function, residual correlations due
to the feed-down from p–$\Lambda$ (p–$\Sigma^{0}$ and p–$\Xi^{-}$) pairs are
explicitly considered, while all other contributions are assumed to be flat.
The residual correlations are modeled with CATS assuming the same source
radius as the initial particle pair and use theoretical descriptions of their
interactions following Ref. [63, 64] for p–$\Xi^{-}$ and Ref. [65, 66, 67] for
p–$\Sigma^{0}$. The models describing the p–$\Lambda$ interaction will be
discussed later in this section. The contributions of these pairs to the p–p
and p–$\Lambda$ correlation functions have to be scaled by $\lambda_{i}$ and
their signal smeared via a decay matrix [41, 68] which is built according to
the kinematics of the decay. Therefore, the residual signal of the initial
pair is transformed to the momentum basis of the measured pair. Additionally,
each contribution $C_{i}$ is smeared to take into account effects of the
finite momentum resolution of the ALICE detector. Except for the genuine
correlations, these steps result in a $C_{i}(k^{*})\sim$1$$ for all
combinations, in particular due to the rather small $\lambda$ parameters of
most residual contributions as shown in Table 1. Either a constant or a linear
baseline $C_{\mathrm{\rm{non-femto}}}(k^{*})$ is included in the total fit
function $C_{\mathrm{\rm{fit}}}(k^{*})=C_{\mathrm{\rm{non-femto}}}(k^{*})\cdot
C_{\mathrm{\rm{model}}}(k^{*})$. The constant factor can, if necessary,
introduce a slight correction of the normalization $\mathcal{N}$. The linear
baseline function extrapolates any remaining slope of $C(k^{*})$ in the
normalization region, which may arise due to energy and momentum conservation
[69, 41], to the femtoscopic region. The default assumption is a constant,
with $C_{\mathrm{\rm{non-femto}}}(k^{*})=a$.

The source function $S(r^{*})$ is assumed to have a Gaussian profile

$S(r^{*})=\frac{1}{(4\pi
r_{0}^{2})^{3/2}}\exp{\left(-\dfrac{r^{*2}}{4r_{0}^{2}}\right)},$ (3)

where $r_{0}$ represents the source radius. The best fit to the p–p
correlation function with $C_{\mathrm{\rm{fit}}}(k^{*})$ is performed in the
region $k^{*}\in[$0$,$375$]~{}$\mathrm{MeV}\text{/}\mathrm{\text{$c$}}$$ and
determines simultaneously all free parameters, namely $r_{0}$ and the ones
related to $C_{\mathrm{\rm{non-femto}}}(k^{*})$. The genuine p–p correlation
function is calculated by using CATS [62] and the strong Argonne $v_{18}$
potential [70] in $S$, $P$, and $D$ waves. The systematic uncertainties on
$r_{0}$ associated with the fitting procedure are estimated by i) modifying
the upper limit of the fit region to
$350\text{\,}\mathrm{MeV}\text{/}\mathrm{\text{$c$}}$ and
$400\text{\,}\mathrm{MeV}\text{/}\mathrm{\text{$c$}}$, ii) replacing the
normalization $C_{\mathrm{\rm{non-femto}}}(k^{*})=a$ by a linear function,
iii) employing different models describing the residual p–$\Lambda$
interaction as discussed later in the text, and iv) modifying the $\lambda$
parameters by varying the composition of secondary contributions by
$\pm$20\text{\,}\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$$, while keeping the sum of
primary and secondary fractions constant.

In comparison to p–p, the theoretical models describing the p–$\Lambda$
interaction are much less constrained since data from hypernuclei and
scattering experiments are scarce [71, 72, 73, 41, 74]. The femtoscopic fit is
performed in the range
$k^{*}\in[$0$,$224$]~{}$\mathrm{MeV}\text{/}\mathrm{\text{$c$}}$$. The limited
amount of experimental data leaves room for different theoretical descriptions
of the p–$\Lambda$ interaction. In the measurement this is accounted for by
performing the fits twice, where the $S$ wave function of the p–$\Lambda$ pair
is obtained once from chiral effective field theory calculations ($\chi$EFT)
at leading order (LO) [71] and once from the one at next-to-leading order
(NLO) [74]. The systematic uncertainties on $r_{0}$ associated with the fit
procedure are estimated by i) changing the upper limit of the fit region to
$204\text{\,}\mathrm{MeV}\text{/}\mathrm{\text{$c$}}$ and
$244\text{\,}\mathrm{MeV}\text{/}\mathrm{\text{$c$}}$, ii) replacing the
normalization constant $C_{\mathrm{\rm{non-femto}}}(k^{*})=a$ by a linear
function, and iii) modifying the $\lambda$ parameters by varying
$R_{\Sigma^{0}/\Lambda}$ by $\pm$20\text{\,}\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$$.

Figure 1: (Color online) The correlation function of p–p (left) and
p–$\Lambda$ (right) as a function of $k^{*}$ in one exemplary $m_{\rm T}$
interval. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown
separately. The filled bands depict $1\sigma$ uncertainties of the fits with
$C_{\mathrm{\rm{fit}}}(k^{*})$ and are obtained by using the Argonne $v_{18}$
[70] (blue), $\chi$EFT LO [71] (green) and $\chi$EFT NLO [74] (red)
potentials. See text for details.

The systematic uncertainties of the experimental p–p and p–$\Lambda$
correlation function take into consideration all single-particle selection
criteria introduced in the previous section, as well as the CPR criteria on
the p–p pairs. All criteria are varied simultaneously up to
$20\text{\,}\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$ around the nominal values. To
limit the bias of statistical fluctuations, only variations with a maximum
change of the pair yield of $20\text{\,}\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$ are
considered. To obtain the final systematic uncertainty on the source size, the
fit procedure is repeated for all variations of the experimental correlation
function, using all possible configurations of the fit function. The standard
deviation of the resulting distribution for $r_{0}$ is considered as the final
systematic uncertainty.

In Fig. 1 the p–p and p–$\Lambda$ correlation functions of one representative
$m_{\rm T}$ interval are shown. The grey boxes represent the systematic
uncertainties of the data and correspond to the $$1$\sigma$ interval extracted
from the variations of the selection criteria. The resulting relative
uncertainty of the p–p (p–$\Lambda$) correlation function reaches a maximum of
$2.4\text{\,}\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$ ($6.3\text{\,}\mathrm{\char
37\relax}\text{/}$) in the lowest measured $k^{*}$ interval. Unlike for
meson–meson or baryon–antibaryon pairs, the broad background related to mini-
jets is absent for baryon–baryon pairs [41, 75]. The width of the fit curves
corresponds to the $$1$\sigma$ interval extracted from the variations of all
the fits. In case of the p–p correlation function, this results in a
$\chi^{2}/\textrm{ndf}=$1.9$$. The fit of the p–$\Lambda$ correlation function
using $\chi$EFT calculations at LO yields a $\chi^{2}/\textrm{ndf}=$0.91$$
while the fit using $\chi$EFT calculations at NLO yields a
$\chi^{2}/\textrm{ndf}=$0.67$$.

Each correlation function in every $m_{\rm T}$ interval is fitted and the
resulting radii are shown in Fig. 2. The central value corresponds to the mean
estimated from the distribution of $r_{0}$ obtained from the systematic
variations. The statistical uncertainties are marked with solid lines, while
the boxes correspond to the systematic uncertainties. The relative value of
the latter is at most $2.4\text{\,}\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$ for the
radii extracted from p–p correlations and $8.3\text{\,}\mathrm{\char
37\relax}\text{/}$ and $5.7\text{\,}\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$ for those
extracted from p–$\Lambda$ correlations using the NLO and LO calculations,
respectively. The decrease of the source size with increasing $m_{\rm T}$ is
consistent with a hydrodynamic picture, however, the expected common scaling
[16] of the different particle species is not observed for the two considered
pair types. The two measurements show a similar trend that is shifted by an
offset, indicating that there are differences in the emission of particles.

Figure 2: (Color online) Source radius r0 as a function of $\langle m_{\rm
T}\rangle$ for the assumption of a purely Gaussian source. The blue crosses
result from fitting the p–p correlation function with the strong Argonne
$v_{18}$ [70] potential. The green squared crosses (red diagonal crosses)
result from fitting the p–$\Lambda$ correlation functions with the strong
$\chi$EFT LO [71] (NLO [74]) potential. Statistical (lines) and systematic
(boxes) uncertainties are shown separately.

##  4 Modeling the short-lived resonances

The effect of short-lived resonances ($c\tau\lesssim$
$10\text{\,}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{m}$) feeding into protons and
$\Lambda\mathrm{\,baryons}$ could be a possible explanation for the difference
between the source sizes determined from p–p and p–$\Lambda$ correlations,
which was observed in Fig. 2. In the past, Bose-Einstein correlations between
identical pions, measured in heavy-ion collisions, were interpreted in terms
of a two-component source. It constitutes a core, which is the origin of
primary particles, and a halo, which is the origin of pions produced by the
decay of resonances [76]. In a detailed investigation of MC simulations of
heavy-ion collisions the source sizes were extracted from
$\uppi\mbox{--}\uppi$ pairs for systems both with and without the presence of
these contributions, and indeed differences of about
$1\text{\,}\mathrm{fm}\text{/}$ were found [77, 35]. Similar effects are
expected to arise for baryons, since short-lived resonances such as $\Delta$
and N∗ decay mainly into a baryon and a pion. The exponential nature of the
decay is reflected in the appearance of exponential tails in the source
distribution and an effective increase of the source size. Inspired by this
picture, a source distribution for baryons is built starting from two
components: a Gaussian core and a non-Gaussian halo.

In this work, the resonance yields are taken from the statistical
hadronization model (SHM) [78]. Since this study aims at quantifying the
effect of strongly decaying resonances on the source distribution, in the
following only primordial particles and secondary decay products of short-
lived resonances will be considered. According to the SHM, the amount of
primordial protons ($\Lambda\mathrm{\,baryons}$) are only
$P_{\rm{p}}=$35.8\text{\,}\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$$
($P_{\Lambda}=$35.6\text{\,}\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$$) [79], implying
that the effect of the secondaries is substantial. For protons, $57$ different
resonances with lifetimes
$$0.5\text{\,}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{m}$<c\tau<$13\text{\,}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{m}$$
are considered. Relative to the total number of protons,
$22\text{\,}\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$ originate from the decay of a
$\Delta^{++}$ resonance, $15\text{\,}\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$ from the
decay of a $\Delta^{+}$ resonance, and $7.2\text{\,}\mathrm{\char
37\relax}\text{/}$ from a $\Delta^{0}$ resonance. The remaining secondary
protons originate from heavier $\rm{N}^{*}$, $\Delta$ and $\Lambda$
resonances, which contribute individually with less than
$2\text{\,}\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$. Similarly, secondary
$\Lambda\mathrm{\,baryons}$ stem from $32$ considered resonances with
lifetimes
$$0.5\text{\,}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{m}$<c\tau<$8.5\text{\,}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{m}$$.
Most prominently $\Sigma^{*+}$, $\Sigma^{*0}$, and $\Sigma^{*-}$ are each the
origin of $12\text{\,}\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$ of all
$\Lambda\mathrm{\,baryons}$, while decays of heavier $\rm{N}^{*}$, $\Lambda$,
and $\Sigma$ resonances individually contribute with less than
$1\text{\,}\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$. The weighted average of the
lifetimes ($c\tau_{\mathrm{res}}$) of the resonances feeding into protons
($\Lambda\mathrm{\,baryons}$) is $1.65\text{\,}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{m}$
($4.69\text{\,}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{m}$), while the weighted average of the
masses is $1.36\text{\,}\mathrm{GeV}\text{/}{\mathrm{\text{$c$}}}^{2}$
($1.46\text{\,}\mathrm{GeV}\text{/}{\mathrm{\text{$c$}}}^{2}$). Although the
amount of secondaries is similar for protons and $\Lambda\mathrm{\,baryons}$,
there is a significant difference in the mean lifetime of the corresponding
resonances, which is much longer for the $\Lambda$. Qualitatively this will
imply a larger effective source size for p–$\Lambda$, as observed in Fig. 2.

In the following the source function $S(r^{*})$ is constructed including the
effect of short-lived resonances, assuming that all primordial particles and
resonances are emitted from a common Gaussian source of width
$r_{\mathrm{core}}$. Consequently, the particles studied in the final state
can either be primordials or decay products of short-lived resonances. For a
pair of particles there are four different scenarios regarding their origin,
the frequency of each given by $P_{1}P_{2}$, $P_{1}\tilde{P}_{2}$,
$\tilde{P}_{1}P_{2}$ and $\tilde{P}_{1}\tilde{P}_{2}$. Here $P_{1,2}$ are the
fractions of primordial particles and $\tilde{P}_{1,2}=1-P_{1,2}$ the
fractions of particles originating from short-lived resonances. The total
source is

$S(r^{*})=P_{1}P_{2}\times S_{P_{1}P_{2}}(r^{*})+P_{1}\tilde{P}_{2}\times
S_{P_{1}\tilde{P}_{2}}(r^{*})+\tilde{P}_{1}P_{2}\times
S_{\tilde{P}_{1}P_{2}}(r^{*})+\tilde{P}_{1}\tilde{P}_{2}\times
S_{\tilde{P}_{1}\tilde{P}_{2}}(r^{*}).$ (4)

To evaluate $S(r^{*})$, the required ingredients are the fractions of
primordial and secondary particles, and the individual source functions
corresponding to the possible combinations for the particle emission.
Depending on the average mass and lifetime of the resonances feeding to the
particle pair of interest, each of these scenarios will result in slightly
different source sizes and shapes. These composite source functions are
difficult to compute analytically, however, a simple numerical evaluation,
outlined in the following, allows to iteratively build the full source
distribution $S(r^{*})$ for a given $r_{\mathrm{core}}$. The primordial
emission of particles with a relative distance $r^{*}_{\mathrm{core}}$ is
randomly sampled from a Gaussian with width equal to $r_{\mathrm{core}}$. The
resulting particles are then, based on the probabilities $P_{1,2}$ and
$\tilde{P}_{1,2}$, assigned to be either primordial particles or resonances.
The resonances are propagated and their decays are simulated. For simplicity
it is assumed that each decay produces one proton ($\Lambda$) and one pion. It
was checked that including three-body decays at this stage would have a
negligible effect on the extracted radii.

Figure 3: (Color online) A sketch representing the modification of
$r^{*}_{\mathrm{core}}$ into $r^{*}$ (dash-dotted lines), due to the presence
of resonances (gray disks), decaying into the particles of interest (blue
disks). The coordinate system is determined by the rest frame of the two
daughters and consistent with Eq. 1, where $k^{*}$ represents their momenta
(solid blue lines). The blue dotted lines represent the remaining decay
products, which are assumed to be single pions. In case of a primordial
particle in the initial state instead of a resonance, the latter is not
considered ($\vec{s}^{*}_{\mathrm{res,i}}=0$).

Figure 3 is a schematic representation of the source modification, which in
vector form is given as:

$\vec{r}^{*}=\vec{r}^{*}_{\mathrm{core}}-\vec{s}^{*}_{\mathrm{res,1}}+\vec{s}^{*}_{\mathrm{res,2}},$
(5)

where $\vec{s}^{*}_{\mathrm{res,1(2)}}$ is the distance traveled by the first
(second) resonance. This is linked to the flight time $t_{\mathrm{res}}$,
which is sampled from an exponential distribution based on the lifetime of the
resonance $\tau_{\mathrm{res}}$:

$\vec{s}^{*}_{\mathrm{res}}=\vec{\beta}^{*}_{\mathrm{res}}\gamma^{*}_{\mathrm{res}}t_{\mathrm{res}}=\frac{\vec{p}^{*}_{\mathrm{res}}}{M_{\mathrm{res}}}t_{\mathrm{res}},$
(6)

where $\vec{p}^{*}_{\mathrm{res}}$ is the momentum and $M_{\mathrm{res}}$ the
mass of the corresponding resonance. For the one-dimensional source function
$S(r^{*})$ the absolute value $r^{*}=|\vec{r}^{*}|$ needs to be evaluated.
Given the definitions in Eq. 5 and Eq. 6, the required ingredients are
$r^{*}_{\mathrm{core}}$, the momenta, masses and lifetimes of the resonances,
as well as the angles formed by the three vectors
$\vec{r}^{*}_{\mathrm{core}}$, $\vec{s}^{*}_{\mathrm{res,1}}$ and
$\vec{s}^{*}_{\mathrm{res,2}}$.

The masses and lifetimes of the resonances are fixed to the average values
reported above. The remaining unknown parameters, the momenta of the
resonances and their relative orientation with respect to
$\vec{r}^{*}_{\mathrm{core}}$, are related to the kinematics of the emission.
In this work, the EPOS transport model [80] is used to quantify these
parameters, by generating high-multiplicity pp events at $\sqrt{s}~{}=~{}13$
TeV and selecting the produced primordial protons, $\Lambda\mathrm{\,baryons}$
and resonances that feed into these particles. Since the yields of the heavier
resonances are over-predicted by EPOS, they are weighted such that their
average mass $M_{\mathrm{res}}$ reproduces the expectation from the SHM. The
source function $S(r^{*})$ is built by selecting a random
$r^{*}_{\mathrm{core}}$ and a random emission scenario based on the weights
$P_{1,2}$, which are known from the SHM. A random EPOS event with the same
emission scenario is used to determine $\vec{p}^{*}_{\mathrm{res,1(2)}}$ and
their relative direction to $\vec{r}^{*}_{\mathrm{core}}$. To obtain $r^{*}$
the resonances are propagated, using Eq. 5 and 6, and the $k^{*}$ of their
daughters is evaluated. Only events with small $k^{*}$ are relevant for
femtoscopy, thus, if the resulting
$k^{*}>$200\text{\,}\mathrm{MeV}\text{/}\mathrm{\text{$c$}}$$, a new EPOS
event is picked. The above procedure is repeated until the resulting
$S(r^{*})$ achieves the desired statistical significance.

With this method, the modification of the source size due to the decay of
resonances is fixed based on the SHM and EPOS, while the only free fit
parameter is the size $r_{\mathrm{core}}$ of the primordial (core) source.
This procedure is used to refit the p–p and p–$\Lambda$ correlation functions.
The uncertainties are evaluated in the same way as in the case of the pure
Gaussian source. Additional uncertainties due to short-lived resonances
decaying into protons ($\Lambda\mathrm{\,baryons}$) are accounted for by
repeating the fit and altering the mass by $0.2\text{\,}\mathrm{\char
37\relax}\text{/}$ ($0.6\text{\,}\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$) and the
lifetimes by $2\text{\,}\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$
($13\text{\,}\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$) [56]. When comparing the
individual fits of the correlation functions in one $m_{\rm T}$ interval with
the ones assuming a pure Gaussian source the resulting $\chi^{2}$ is found to
be similar. This implies that each system can still be described by an
effective Gaussian source, albeit loosing the direct physical interpretation
of the source size.

Figure 4: (Color online) The source functions for p–p (blue circles) and
p–$\Lambda$ (red open circles), generated by folding the exponential expansion
due to the decay of the respective parent resonances with a common Gaussian
core with $r_{\mathrm{core}}=$1.2\text{\,}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{m}$$ (dashed black
line). Additionally shown are fits with Gaussian distributions (dotted lines)
to extract the effective Gaussian source sizes.

This property becomes evident from Fig. 4, in which the different source
functions, used to describe the $m_{\rm T}$ bin plotted in Fig. 1, are shown.
As expected, after the inclusion of the resonances, the same core function
results in different effective sources for p–p and p–$\Lambda$. The Gaussian
parametrization yields an almost equivalent description of the source function
up to about $r^{*}\sim$6\text{\,}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{m}$$, while for larger
values the new parametrization with inclusion of the resonances shows an
exponential tail. Since most of the particles are emitted at lower $r^{*}$
values, the corresponding correlation functions are similar. However, one
major difference with the new approach is the resulting source size, as the
Gaussian core is more compact than the effective sources. The resulting
$m_{\rm T}$ dependence of $r_{\mathrm{core}}$ measured with p–p and
p–$\Lambda$ pairs is shown in Fig. 5. The relative systematic uncertainty is
at most $2.6\text{\,}\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$ for the core radii
extracted from p–p correlations and $8.4\text{\,}\mathrm{\char
37\relax}\text{/}$ and $6.2\text{\,}\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$ for those
extracted from p–$\Lambda$ correlations using the NLO and LO calculations,
respectively. In contrast to a Gaussian source, the new parametrization of the
source function provides a common $m_{\rm T}$ scaling of $r_{\mathrm{core}}$
for both p–p and p–$\Lambda$. This result is compatible with the picture of a
common emission source for all baryons and their parent resonances.

Figure 5: (Color online) Source radius $r_{\textrm{core}}$ as a function of
$\langle m_{\rm T}\rangle$ for the assumption of a Gaussian source with added
resonances. The blue crosses result from fitting the p–p correlation function
with the strong Argonne $v_{18}$ [70] potential. The green squared crosses
(red diagonal crosses) result from fitting the p–$\Lambda$ correlation
functions with the strong $\chi$EFT LO [71] (NLO [74]) potential. Statistical
(lines) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately.

##  5 Summary

The results for p–p and p–$\Lambda$ correlations in high-multiplicity pp
collisions at $\sqrt{s}~{}=~{}13$ TeV demonstrate a clear difference in the
effective proton and $\Lambda$ source sizes if a simple Gaussian source is
assumed. A new procedure was developed to quantify for the first time the
modification of the source function due to the effect of short-lived
resonances. The required input is provided by the statistical hadronization
model and the EPOS transport model. The ansatz is that the source function is
determined by the convolution of a universal Gaussian core source of size
$r_{\mathrm{core}}$ and a non-Gaussian halo. The former represents a universal
emission region for all primordial particles and resonances, while the latter
is formed by the decay points of the short-lived resonances. This picture is
confirmed by the observation of a common $m_{\rm T}$ scaling of
$r_{\mathrm{core}}$ for the p–p and p–$\Lambda$ pairs in high-multiplicity pp
collisions, with $r_{\mathrm{core}}\in[$0.85$,$1.3$]$ $\mathrm{f}\mathrm{m}$
for $m_{\rm T}\in[1.1,2.2]~{}$\mathrm{GeV}\text{/}{\mathrm{\text{$c$}}}^{2}$$.
Compared to the values obtained when an effective Gaussian parametrization is
used, the overall values are significantly decreased by up to
$20\text{\,}\mathrm{\char 37\relax}\text{/}$.

The measurement of the core size of a common particle-emitting source,
corrected for the effect of strong resonances, will allow for direct
comparisons with theoretical models. Additionally, detailed studies of the
$m_{\rm T}$ dependence of the core radius will enable complementary
investigations of collective phenomena in small collision systems.

On the other hand, the assumption of a common core source, modified by the
resonances feeding to the particle pair of interest, allows for a quantitative
determination of the effective source for any kind of particle pair. First of
all, it enables high-precision studies of the interaction potentials of more
exotic baryon–baryon pairs [41, 42, 44] that rely on two-particle correlation
measurements in momentum space and use the p–p correlation as a reference to
fix the emission source. It is also relevant for coalescence approaches
addressing the production of (anti) (hyper) nuclear clusters. A crucial next
step is to investigate the applicability of the new method for meson–meson and
baryon–meson correlations. If the same $m_{\rm T}$ scaling is observed as for
baryons, this will provide an even more precise quantitative understanding of
the common particle-emitting source. In any case, such a study will shed
further light on the production mechanism of particles and will be a valuable
input for transport models.

## 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; Ministry of Education of China (MOEC) , Ministry of Science & Technology of China (MSTC) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), China; Ministry of Science and Education and Croatian Science Foundation, Croatia; Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Cubaenergía, Cuba; Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic, Czech Republic; The Danish Council for Independent Research | Natural Sciences, the VILLUM FONDEN and Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF), Denmark; Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Finland; Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique (CEA) and Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (IN2P3) and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), France; Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) and GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Germany; General Secretariat for Research and Technology, Ministry of Education, Research and Religions, Greece; National Research, Development and Innovation Office, Hungary; Department of Atomic Energy Government of India (DAE), Department of Science and Technology, Government of India (DST), University Grants Commission, Government of India (UGC) and Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), India; Indonesian Institute of Science, Indonesia; Centro Fermi - Museo Storico della Fisica e Centro Studi e Ricerche Enrico Fermi and Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), Italy; Institute for Innovative Science and Technology , Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science (IIST), Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI, Japan; Consejo Nacional de Ciencia (CONACYT) y Tecnología, through Fondo de Cooperación Internacional en Ciencia y Tecnología (FONCICYT) and Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Academico (DGAPA), Mexico; Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), Netherlands; The Research Council of Norway, Norway; Commission on Science and Technology for Sustainable Development in the South (COMSATS), Pakistan; Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Peru; Ministry of Science and Higher Education, 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 and Ministry of Research and Innovation and Institute of Atomic Physics, Romania; Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR), Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Russian Science Foundation and Russian Foundation for Basic Research, Russia; 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 (NSDTA) and Office of the Higher Education Commission under NRU project of Thailand, Thailand; Turkish Atomic Energy Agency (TAEK), 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.

## References

  * [1] G. Goldhaber, S. Goldhaber, W.-Y. Lee, and A. Pais, “Influence of Bose-Einstein statistics on the antiproton proton annihilation process,” Phys. Rev. 120 (1960) 300–312.
  * [2] G. I. Kopylov, “Like particle correlations as a tool to study the multiple production mechanism,” Phys. Lett. B 50 (1974) 472–474.
  * [3] R. Lednicky and V. L. Lyuboshits, “Final State Interaction Effect on Pairing Correlations Between Particles with Small Relative Momenta,” Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 35 (1982) 770.
  * [4] M. Gyulassy and S. S. Padula, “Implications of Pion Interferometry for O + Au at 200 AGeV,” Phys. Lett. B 217 (1989) 181–185.
  * [5] M. A. Lisa, S. Pratt, R. Soltz, and U. Wiedemann, “Femtoscopy in relativistic heavy ion collisions,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 55 (2005) 357–402.
  * [6] M. A. Lisa and S. Pratt, “Femtoscopically Probing the Freeze-out Configuration in Heavy Ion Collisions,” in Relativistic Heavy Ion Physics.  Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2010.
  * [7] V. Henzl et al., “Angular Dependence in Proton-Proton Correlation Functions in Central ${}^{40}\mathrm{Ca}+^{40}\mathrm{Ca}$ and ${}^{48}\mathrm{Ca}+^{48}\mathrm{Ca}$ Reactions,” Phys. Rev. C 85 (2012) 014606.
  * [8] HADES Collaboration, G. Agakishiev et al., “pp and $\uppi\uppi$ intensity interferometry in collisions of Ar + KCl at 1.76 AGeV,” Eur. Phys. J. A 47 (2011) 63.
  * [9] FOPI Collaboration, R. Kotte et al., “Two-proton small-angle correlations in central heavy-ion collisions: A Beam-energy and system-size dependent study,” Eur. J. Phys. A 23 (2005) 271–278.
  * [10] WA98 Collaboration, M. M. Aggarwal et al., “Source radii at target rapidity from two-proton and two-deuteron correlations in central Pb + Pb collisions at 158 AGeV,” arXiv:0709.2477 [nucl-ex].
  * [11] STAR Collaboration, J. Adams et al., “Pion interferometry in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\phantom{\rule{3.00003pt}{0.0pt}}\mathrm{GeV}$,” Phys. Rev. C 71 (2005) 044906.
  * [12] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “Two-pion Bose-Einstein correlations in central Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=$ 2.76 TeV,” Phys. Lett. B 696 (2011) 328–337.
  * [13] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Freeze-out radii extracted from three-pion cumulants in pp, p–Pb and Pb–Pb collisions at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B 739 (2014) 139–151.
  * [14] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Centrality dependence of pion freeze-out radii in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}=$ 2.76 TeV,” Phys. Rev. C 93 no. 2, (2016) 024905.
  * [15] I. Bearden et al., “Space-time evolution of the hadronic source in peripheral to central Pb+Pb collisions,” Eur. Phys. J. C 18 (2000) 317–325.
  * [16] A. Kisiel, M. Gałażyn, and P. Bożek, “Pion, kaon, and proton femtoscopy in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=2.76 TeV modeled in (3+1)D hydrodynamics,” Phys. Rev. C 90 (2014) 064914.
  * [17] V. M. Shapoval, P. Braun-Munzinger, I. A. Karpenko, and Yu. M. Sinyukov, “Femtoscopy correlations of kaons in Pb+Pb collisions at LHC within hydrokinetic model,” Nucl. Phys. A 929 (2014) 1–8.
  * [18] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “One-dimensional pion, kaon, and proton femtoscopy in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{NN}}}$ =2.76 TeV,” Phys. Rev. C 92 (2015) 054908.
  * [19] STAR Collaboration, J. Adams et al., “Pion-Kaon Correlations in Central $\mathrm{A}\mathrm{u}+\mathrm{A}\mathrm{u}$ Collisions at $\sqrt{{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=130$ GeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 262302.
  * [20] A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, “Decoding the phase structure of QCD via particle production at high energy,” Nature 561 (2018) 321–330.
  * [21] K.-J. Sun, C. M. Ko, and B. Dönigus, “Suppression of light nuclei production in collisions of small systems at the Large Hadron Collider,” Phys. Lett. B792 (2019) 132–137.
  * [22] K. Blum and M. Takimoto, “Nuclear coalescence from correlation functions,” Phys. Rev. C 99 (2019) 044913.
  * [23] F. Bellini and A. P. Kalweit, “Testing production scenarios for (anti-)(hyper-)nuclei and exotica at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider,” Phys. Rev. C 99 (2019) 054905.
  * [24] CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al., “Evidence for collectivity in pp collisions at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B 765 (2017) 193–220.
  * [25] CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al., “Observation of Long-Range Near-Side Angular Correlations in Proton-Proton Collisions at the LHC,” JHEP 09 (2010) 091.
  * [26] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Enhanced production of multi-strange hadrons in high-multiplicity proton-proton collisions,” Nat. Phys. 13 (2017) 535 – 539.
  * [27] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Multiplicity dependence of light-flavor hadron production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV,” Phys. Rev. C99 no. 2, (2019) 024906.
  * [28] CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., “Bose-Einstein correlations in pp, pPb, and $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions at $\sqrt{{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=0.9\mbox{--}7$ $\mathrm{TeV}$,” Phys. Rev. C 97 (2018) 064912.
  * [29] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Two-particle Bose–Einstein correlations in pp collisions at $\sqrt{{s}}$=0.9 and 7 TeV measured with the ATLAS detector,” Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 466.
  * [30] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Charged kaon femtoscopic correlations in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}\mathbf{=}7\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{TeV}$,” Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 052016.
  * [31] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “$\mathrm{K}^{0}_{\mathrm{S}}-\mathrm{K}^{0}_{\mathrm{S}}$ correlations in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV from the LHC ALICE experiment,” Phys. Lett. B 717 (2012) 151–161.
  * [32] CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., “Bose-Einstein correlations of charged hadrons in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV,” JHEP 03 (2020) 014.
  * [33] T. J. Humanic, “Transverse-velocity scaling of femtoscopy in $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV proton-proton collisions,” J. Phys. G 45 (2018) 055101.
  * [34] U. A. Wiedemann and U. W. Heinz, “Resonance contributions to HBT correlation radii,” Phys. Rev. C 56 (1997) 3265–3286.
  * [35] A. Kisiel, W. Florkowski, and W. Broniowski, “Femtoscopy in hydro-inspired models with resonances,” Phys. Rev. C 73 (2006) 064902.
  * [36] Yu. M. Sinyukov, V. M. Shapoval, and V. Yu. Naboka, “On $\mathrm{m}_{T}$ dependence of femtoscopy scales for meson and baryon pairs,” Nucl. Phys. A 946 (2016) 227–239.
  * [37] A. Kisiel, “Nonidentical-particle femtoscopy at $\sqrt{{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200$ GeV in hydrodynamics with statistical hadronization,” Phys. Rev. C 81 (2010) 064906.
  * [38] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “Femtoscopy of pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=0.9$ and 7 TeV at the LHC with two-pion Bose-Einstein correlations,” Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 112004.
  * [39] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Two-pion femtoscopy in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02$ TeV,” Phys. Rev. C 91 (2015) 034906.
  * [40] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Scattering studies with low-energy kaon-proton femtoscopy in proton-proton collisions at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 no. 9, (2020) 092301.
  * [41] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “p-p, p-$\Lambda$ and $\Lambda$-$\Lambda$ correlations studied via femtoscopy in pp reactions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV,” Phys. Rev. C 99 (2019) 024001.
  * [42] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Study of the $\Lambda$-$\Lambda$ interaction with femtoscopy correlations in pp and p-Pb collisions at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B 797 (2019) 134822.
  * [43] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Investigation of the p-$\Sigma^{0}$ interaction via femtoscopy in pp collisions,” Phys. Lett. B 805 (2020) 135419.
  * [44] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “First observation of an attractive interaction between a proton and a multi-strange baryon,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 112002.
  * [45] K. Blum, R. Sato, and E. Waxman, “Cosmic-ray Antimatter,” arXiv:1709.06507 [astro-ph.HE].
  * [46] K. Blum, K. C. Y. Ng, R. Sato, and M. Takimoto, “Cosmic rays, antihelium, and an old navy spotlight,” Phys. Rev. D96 no. 10, (2017) 103021, arXiv:1704.05431 [astro-ph.HE].
  * [47] ALICE Collaboration, B. B. Abelev et al., “Performance of the ALICE Experiment at the CERN LHC,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29 (2014) 1430044.
  * [48] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC,” J. Instr. 3 (2008) S08002.
  * [49] ALICE Collaboration, E. Abbas et al., “Performance of the ALICE VZERO system,” J. Instr. (2013) P10016.
  * [50] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “A new laboratory to study hadron-hadron interactions,” arXiv:2005.11495 [nucl-ex].
  * [51] J. Alme et al., “The ALICE TPC, a large 3-dimensional tracking device with fast readout for ultra-high multiplicity events,” Nucl. Instr. Methods A 622 (2010) 316–367.
  * [52] A. Akindinov et al., “Performance of the ALICE Time-Of-Flight detector at the LHC,” Eur. Phys. J. Plus 128 (2013) 44.
  * [53] T. Sjöstrand et al., “An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159–177.
  * [54] P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo, “Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 Tune,” Eur. Phys. J. C74 no. 8, (2014) 3024.
  * [55] R. Brun, F. Bruyant, M. Maire, A. McPherson, and P. Zanarini, “GEANT3,”.
  * [56] Particle Data Group Collaboration, M. Tanabashi et al., “Review of particle physics,” Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 030001.
  * [57] M. Acciarri et al., “Inclusive $\Sigma^{+}$ and $\Sigma^{0}$ production in hadronic Z decays,” Physics Letters B 479 (2000) 79 – 88.
  * [58] M. Acciarri and other, “Measurement of inclusive production of neutral hadrons from z decays,” Physics Letters B 328 (1994) 223 – 233.
  * [59] HADES Collaboration, J. Adamczewski-Musch et al., “$\Sigma^{0}$ production in proton nucleus collisions near threshold,” Phys. Lett. B 781 (2018) 735–740.
  * [60] STAR Collaboration, G. Van Buren, “The Sigma0 / Lambda ratio in high energy nuclear collisions,” J. Phys. G31 (2005) S1127–S1130.
  * [61] STAR Collaboration, L. Adamczyk et al., “Measurement of interaction between antiprotons,” Nature 527 (2015) 345–348.
  * [62] D. L. Mihaylov, V. Mantovani Sarti, O. W. Arnold, L. Fabbietti, B. Hohlweger, and A. M. Mathis, “A femtoscopic Correlation Analysis Tool using the Schrödinger equation (CATS),” Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 394.
  * [63] T. Hatsuda, K. Morita, A. Ohnishi, and K. Sasaki, “p$\Xi^{-}$ Correlation in Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions with Nucleon-Hyperon Interaction from Lattice QCD,” Nucl. Phys. A 967 (2017) 856 – 859.
  * [64] K. Sasaki et al., “Baryon interactions from lattice QCD with physical masses – $S=-2$ sector –,” PoS LATTICE2016 (2017) 116.
  * [65] A. Stavinskiy, K. Mikhailov, B. Erazmus, and R. Lednický, “Residual correlations between decay products of $\pi^{0}\pi^{0}$ and $p\Sigma^{0}$ systems,” arXiv:0704.3290 [nucl-th].
  * [66] Y. Fujiwara, Y. Suzuki, and C. Nakamoto, “Baryon–Baryon interactions in the SU(6) quark model and their applications to light nuclear systems,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 58 (2007) 439–520.
  * [67] M. M. Nagels, T. A. Rijken, and Y. Yamamoto, “Extended-soft-core baryon–baryon model ESC16. II. Hyperon–nucleon interactions,” Phys. Rev. C99 (2019) 044003.
  * [68] A. Kisiel, H. Zbroszczyk, and M. Szymański, “Extracting baryon-antibaryon strong-interaction potentials from $\mathrm{p}\overline{\Lambda}$ femtoscopic correlation functions,” Phys. Rev. C 89 (2014) 054916.
  * [69] N. Bock, Femtoscopy of proton-proton collisions in the ALICE experiment.  PhD thesis, Ohio State University, 2011.  https://cds.cern.ch/record/2283140.
  * [70] R. B. Wiringa, V. G. J. Stoks, and R. Schiavilla, “An Accurate nucleon-nucleon potential with charge independence breaking,” Phys. Rev. C 51 (1995) 38–51.
  * [71] H. Polinder, J. Haidenbauer, and U.-G. Meißner, “Hyperon–nucleon interactions—a chiral effective field theory approach,” Nucl. Phys. A 779 (2006) 244 – 266.
  * [72] J. Haidenbauer, S. Petschauer, N. Kaiser, U. G. Meissner, A. Nogga, and W. Weise, “Hyperon-nucleon interaction at next-to-leading order in chiral effective field theory,” Nucl. Phys. A 915 (2013) 24–58.
  * [73] A. R. Bodmer, Q. N. Usmani, and J. Carlson, “Binding energies of hypernuclei and three-body $\Lambda\mathrm{NN}$ forces,” Phys. Rev. C 29 (1984) 684–687.
  * [74] J. Haidenbauer, U. G. Meißner, and A. Nogga, “Hyperon-nucleon interaction within chiral effective field theory revisited,” arXiv:1906.11681 [nucl-th].
  * [75] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Insight into particle production mechanisms via angular correlations of identified particles in pp collisions at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}}=7$ TeV,” Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 569.
  * [76] T. Csorgo, B. Lorstad, and J. Zimanyi, “Bose-Einstein correlations for systems with large halo,” Z. Phys. C71 (1996) 491–497.
  * [77] J. Bolz, U. Ornik, M. Plümer, B. R. Schlei, and R. M. Weiner, “Resonance decays and partial coherence in bose-einstein correlations,” Phys. Rev. D47 (May, 1993) 3860–3870.
  * [78] F. Becattini, P. Castorina, A. Milov, and H. Satz, “Predictions of hadron abundances in pp collisions at the LHC,” J. Phys. G 38 (2011) 025002.
  * [79] F. Becattini, “Predictions of hadron abundances in pp collisions at the LHC; The results on the amount of primordial protons and $\Lambda$’s are private communications based on this work,” J. Phys. G 38 (2011) 025002.
  * [80] T. Pierog, I. Karpenko, J. M. Katzy, E. Yatsenko, and K. Werner, “EPOS LHC: Test of collective hadronization with data measured at the CERN Large Hadron Collider,” Phys. Rev. C 92 (2015) 034906.

##  Appendix A The ALICE Collaboration

S. Acharyaorg141&D. Adamováorg95&A. Adlerorg74&J. Adolfssonorg81&M.M.
Aggarwalorg100&G. Aglieri Rinellaorg34&M. Agnelloorg30&N.
Agrawalorg10,org54&Z. Ahammedorg141&S. Ahmadorg16&S.U. Ahnorg76&Z.
Akbarorg51&A. Akindinovorg92&M. Al-Turanyorg107&S.N. Alamorg40,org141&D.S.D.
Albuquerqueorg122&D. Aleksandrovorg88&B. Alessandroorg59&H.M. Alfandaorg6&R.
Alfaro Molinaorg71&B. Aliorg16&Y. Aliorg14&A. Aliciorg10,org26,org54&A.
Alkinorg2,org34&J. Almeorg21&T. Altorg68&L. Altenkamperorg21&I.
Altsybeevorg113&M.N. Anaamorg6&C. Andreiorg48&D. Andreouorg34&H.A.
Andrewsorg111&A. Andronicorg144&M. Angelettiorg34&V. Anguelovorg104&C.
Ansonorg15&T. Antičićorg108&F. Antinoriorg57&P. Antonioliorg54&N.
Apadulaorg80&L. Aphecetcheorg115&H. Appelshäuserorg68&S. Arcelliorg26&R.
Arnaldiorg59&M. Arratiaorg80&I.C. Arseneorg20&M. Arslandokorg104&A.
Augustinusorg34&R. Averbeckorg107&S. Azizorg78&M.D. Azmiorg16&A.
Badalàorg56&Y.W. Baekorg41&S. Bagnascoorg59&X. Baiorg107&R. Bailhacheorg68&R.
Balaorg101&A. Balbinoorg30&A. Baldisseriorg137&M. Ballorg43&S.
Balouzaorg105&D. Banerjeeorg3&R. Barberaorg27&L. Barioglioorg25&G.G.
Barnaföldiorg145&L.S. Barnbyorg94&V. Barretorg134&P. Bartaliniorg6&K.
Barthorg34&E. Bartschorg68&F. Baruffaldiorg28&N. Bastidorg134&S. Basuorg143&G.
Batigneorg115&B. Batyunyaorg75&D. Bauriorg49&J.L. Bazo Albaorg112&I.G.
Beardenorg89&C. Beattieorg146&C. Beddaorg63&N.K. Beheraorg61&I.
Belikovorg136&A.D.C. Bell Hechavarriaorg144&F. Belliniorg34&R.
Bellwiedorg125&V. Belyaevorg93&G. Bencediorg145&S. Beoleorg25&A.
Bercuciorg48&Y. Berdnikovorg98&D. Berenyiorg145&R.A. Bertensorg130&D.
Berzanoorg59&M.G. Besoiuorg67&L. Betevorg34&A. Bhasinorg101&I.R.
Bhatorg101&M.A. Bhatorg3&H. Bhattorg49&B. Bhattacharjeeorg42&A.
Bianchiorg25&L. Bianchiorg25&N. Bianchiorg52&J. Bielčíkorg37&J.
Bielčíkováorg95&A. Bilandzicorg105&G. Biroorg145&R. Biswasorg3&S.
Biswasorg3&J.T. Blairorg119&D. Blauorg88&C. Blumeorg68&G. Bocaorg139&F.
Bockorg96&A. Bogdanovorg93&S. Boiorg23&J. Bokorg61&L. Boldizsárorg145&A.
Bolozdynyaorg93&M. Bombaraorg38&G. Bonomiorg140&H. Borelorg137&A.
Borissovorg93&H. Bossiorg146&E. Bottaorg25&L. Bratrudorg68&P. Braun-
Munzingerorg107&M. Bregantorg121&M. Brozorg37&E. Brunaorg59&G.E.
Brunoorg106&M.D. Bucklandorg127&D. Budnikovorg109&H. Bueschingorg68&S.
Bufalinoorg30&O. Bugnonorg115&P. Buhlerorg114&P. Buncicorg34&Z.
Butheleziorg72,org131&J.B. Buttorg14&S.A. Bysiakorg118&D. Caffarriorg90&A.
Calivaorg107&E. Calvo Villarorg112&R.S. Camachoorg45&P. Cameriniorg24&A.A.
Caponorg114&F. Carnesecchiorg26&R. Caronorg137&J. Castillo
Castellanosorg137&A.J. Castroorg130&E.A.R. Casulaorg55&F. Catalanoorg30&C.
Ceballos Sanchezorg53&P. Chakrabortyorg49&S. Chandraorg141&W. Changorg6&S.
Chapelandorg34&M. Chartierorg127&S. Chattopadhyayorg141&S.
Chattopadhyayorg110&A. Chauvinorg23&C. Cheshkovorg135&B. Cheynisorg135&V.
Chibante Barrosoorg34&D.D. Chinellatoorg122&S. Choorg61&P. Chochulaorg34&T.
Chowdhuryorg134&P. Christakoglouorg90&C.H. Christensenorg89&P.
Christiansenorg81&T. Chujoorg133&C. Cicaloorg55&L. Cifarelliorg10,org26&F.
Cindoloorg54&G. Claiorg54orgI&J. Cleymansorg124&F. Colamariaorg53&D.
Colellaorg53&A. Colluorg80&M. Colocciorg26&M. Concasorg59orgII&G. Conesa
Balbastreorg79&Z. Conesa del Valleorg78&G. Continorg24,org60&J.G.
Contrerasorg37&T.M. Cormierorg96&Y. Corrales Moralesorg25&P. Corteseorg31&M.R.
Cosentinoorg123&F. Costaorg34&S. Costanzaorg139&P. Crochetorg134&E.
Cuautleorg69&P. Cuiorg6&L. Cunqueiroorg96&D. Dabrowskiorg142&T. Dahmsorg105&A.
Daineseorg57&F.P.A. Damasorg115,org137&M.C. Danischorg104&A. Danuorg67&D.
Dasorg110&I. Dasorg110&P. Dasorg86&P. Dasorg3&S. Dasorg3&A. Dashorg86&S.
Dashorg49&S. Deorg86&A. De Caroorg29&G. de Cataldoorg53&J. de Cuvelandorg39&A.
De Falcoorg23&D. De Gruttolaorg10&N. De Marcoorg59&S. De Pasqualeorg29&S.
Deborg50&H.F. Degenhardtorg121&K.R. Dejaorg142&A. Delofforg85&S.
Delsantoorg25,org131&W. Dengorg6&D. Devetakorg107&P. Dhankherorg49&D. Di
Bariorg33&A. Di Mauroorg34&R.A. Diazorg8&T. Dietelorg124&P.
Dillensegerorg68&Y. Dingorg6&R. Diviàorg34&D.U. Dixitorg19&Ø.
Djuvslandorg21&U. Dmitrievaorg62&A. Dobrinorg67&B. Dönigusorg68&O.
Dordicorg20&A.K. Dubeyorg141&A. Dublaorg90,org107&S. Dudiorg100&M.
Dukhishyamorg86&P. Dupieuxorg134&R.J. Ehlersorg96,org146&V.N. Eikelandorg21&D.
Eliaorg53&E. Eppleorg146&B. Erazmusorg115&F. Erhardtorg99&A.
Erokhinorg113&M.R. Ersdalorg21&B. Espagnonorg78&G. Eulisseorg34&D.
Evansorg111&S. Evdokimovorg91&L. Fabbiettiorg105&M. Fagginorg28&J.
Faivreorg79&F. Fanorg6&A. Fantoniorg52&M. Faselorg96&P. Fecchioorg30&A.
Felicielloorg59&G. Feofilovorg113&A. Fernández Téllezorg45&A. Ferreroorg137&A.
Ferrettiorg25&A. Festantiorg34&V.J.G. Feuillardorg104&J. Figielorg118&S.
Filchaginorg109&D. Finogeevorg62&F.M. Fiondaorg21&G. Fiorenzaorg53&F.
Flororg125&A.N. Floresorg119&S. Foertschorg72&P. Fokaorg107&S. Fokinorg88&E.
Fragiacomoorg60&U. Frankenfeldorg107&U. Fuchsorg34&C. Furgetorg79&A.
Fursorg62&M. Fusco Girardorg29&J.J. Gaardhøjeorg89&M. Gagliardiorg25&A.M.
Gagoorg112&A. Galorg136&C.D. Galvanorg120&P. Ganotiorg84&C. Garabatosorg107&E.
Garcia-Solisorg11&K. Gargorg115&C. Gargiuloorg34&A. Garibliorg87&K.
Garnerorg144&P. Gasikorg105,org107&E.F. Gaugerorg119&M.B. Gay Ducatiorg70&M.
Germainorg115&J. Ghoshorg110&P. Ghoshorg141&S.K. Ghoshorg3&M.
Giacaloneorg26&P. Gianottiorg52&P. Giubellinoorg59,org107&P. Giubilatoorg28&P.
Glässelorg104&A. Gomez Ramirezorg74&V. Gonzalezorg107,org143&L.H. González-
Truebaorg71&S. Gorbunovorg39&L. Görlichorg118&A. Goswamiorg49&S.
Gotovacorg35&V. Grabskiorg71&L.K. Graczykowskiorg142&K.L. Grahamorg111&L.
Greinerorg80&A. Grelliorg63&C. Grigorasorg34&V. Grigorievorg93&A.
Grigoryanorg1&S. Grigoryanorg75&O.S. Groettvikorg21&F. Grosaorg30,org59&J.F.
Grosse-Oetringhausorg34&R. Grossoorg107&R. Guernaneorg79&M. Guittiereorg115&K.
Gulbrandsenorg89&T. Gunjiorg132&A. Guptaorg101&R. Guptaorg101&I.B.
Guzmanorg45&R. Haakeorg146&M.K. Habiborg107&C. Hadjidakisorg78&H.
Hamagakiorg82&G. Hamarorg145&M. Hamidorg6&R. Hanniganorg119&M.R.
Haqueorg63,org86&A. Harlenderovaorg107&J.W. Harrisorg146&A. Hartonorg11&J.A.
Hasenbichlerorg34&H. Hassanorg96&D. Hatzifotiadouorg10,org54&P.
Hauerorg43&L.B. Havenerorg146&S. Hayashiorg132&S.T. Heckelorg105&E.
Hellbärorg68&H. Helstruporg36&A. Herghelegiuorg48&T. Hermanorg37&E.G.
Hernandezorg45&G. Herrera Corralorg9&F. Herrmannorg144&K.F. Hetlandorg36&H.
Hillemannsorg34&C. Hillsorg127&B. Hippolyteorg136&B. Hohlwegerorg105&J.
Honermannorg144&D. Horakorg37&A. Hornungorg68&S. Hornungorg107&R.
Hosokawaorg15&P. Hristovorg34&C. Huangorg78&C. Hughesorg130&P. Huhnorg68&T.J.
Humanicorg97&H. Hushnudorg110&L.A. Husovaorg144&N. Hussainorg42&S.A.
Hussainorg14&D. Hutterorg39&J.P. Iddonorg34,org127&R. Ilkaevorg109&H.
Ilyasorg14&M. Inabaorg133&G.M. Innocentiorg34&M. Ippolitovorg88&A.
Isakovorg95&M.S. Islamorg110&M. Ivanovorg107&V. Ivanovorg98&V.
Izucheevorg91&B. Jacakorg80&N. Jacazioorg34&P.M. Jacobsorg80&S.
Jadlovskaorg117&J. Jadlovskyorg117&S. Jaelaniorg63&C. Jahnkeorg121&M.J.
Jakubowskaorg142&M.A. Janikorg142&T. Jansonorg74&M. Jercicorg99&O.
Jevonsorg111&M. Jinorg125&F. Jonasorg96,org144&P.G. Jonesorg111&J.
Jungorg68&M. Jungorg68&A. Juskoorg111&P. Kalinakorg64&A. Kalweitorg34&V.
Kaplinorg93&S. Karorg6&A. Karasu Uysalorg77&O. Karavichevorg62&T.
Karavichevaorg62&P. Karczmarczykorg34&E. Karpechevorg62&U. Kebschullorg74&R.
Keidelorg47&M. Keilorg34&B. Ketzerorg43&Z. Khabanovaorg90&A.M. Khanorg6&S.
Khanorg16&S.A. Khanorg141&A. Khanzadeevorg98&Y. Kharlovorg91&A. Khatunorg16&A.
Khuntiaorg118&B. Kilengorg36&B. Kimorg61&B. Kimorg133&D. Kimorg147&D.J.
Kimorg126&E.J. Kimorg73&H. Kimorg17&J. Kimorg147&J.S. Kimorg41&J. Kimorg104&J.
Kimorg147&J. Kimorg73&M. Kimorg104&S. Kimorg18&T. Kimorg147&T. Kimorg147&S.
Kirschorg68&I. Kiselorg39&S. Kiselevorg92&A. Kisielorg142&J.L. Klayorg5&C.
Kleinorg68&J. Kleinorg34,org59&S. Kleinorg80&C. Klein-Bösingorg144&M.
Kleinerorg68&A. Klugeorg34&M.L. Knichelorg34&A.G. Knospeorg125&C.
Kobdajorg116&M.K. Köhlerorg104&T. Kolleggerorg107&A. Kondratyevorg75&N.
Kondratyevaorg93&E. Kondratyukorg91&J. Konigorg68&S.A. Konigstorferorg105&P.J.
Konopkaorg34&G. Kornakovorg142&L. Koskaorg117&O. Kovalenkoorg85&V.
Kovalenkoorg113&M. Kowalskiorg118&I. Králikorg64&A. Kravčákováorg38&L.
Kreisorg107&M. Krivdaorg64,org111&F. Krizekorg95&K. Krizkova Gajdosovaorg37&M.
Krügerorg68&E. Kryshenorg98&M. Krzewickiorg39&A.M. Kuberaorg97&V.
Kučeraorg34,org61&C. Kuhnorg136&P.G. Kuijerorg90&L. Kumarorg100&S.
Kunduorg86&P. Kurashviliorg85&A. Kurepinorg62&A.B. Kurepinorg62&A.
Kuryakinorg109&S. Kushpilorg95&J. Kvapilorg111&M.J. Kweonorg61&J.Y.
Kwonorg61&Y. Kwonorg147&S.L. La Pointeorg39&P. La Roccaorg27&Y.S. Laiorg80&R.
Langoyorg129&K. Lapidusorg34&A. Lardeuxorg20&P. Larionovorg52&E. Laudiorg34&R.
Lavickaorg37&T. Lazarevaorg113&R. Leaorg24&L. Leardiniorg104&J. Leeorg133&S.
Leeorg147&F. Lehasorg90&S. Lehnerorg114&J. Lehrbachorg39&R.C. Lemmonorg94&I.
León Monzónorg120&E.D. Lesserorg19&M. Lettrichorg34&P. Lévaiorg145&X.
Liorg12&X.L. Liorg6&J. Lienorg129&R. Lietavaorg111&B. Limorg17&V.
Lindenstruthorg39&A. Lindnerorg48&S.W. Lindsayorg127&C. Lippmannorg107&M.A.
Lisaorg97&A. Liuorg19&J. Liuorg127&S. Liuorg97&W.J. Llopeorg143&I.M.
Lofnesorg21&V. Loginovorg93&C. Loizidesorg96&P. Loncarorg35&J.A.
Lopezorg104&X. Lopezorg134&E. López Torresorg8&J.R. Luhderorg144&M.
Lunardonorg28&G. Luparelloorg60&Y.G. Maorg40&A. Maevskayaorg62&M.
Magerorg34&S.M. Mahmoodorg20&T. Mahmoudorg43&A. Maireorg136&R.D.
Majkaorg146org*&M. Malaevorg98&Q.W. Malikorg20&L. Malininaorg75orgIII&D.
Mal’Kevichorg92&P. Malzacherorg107&G. Mandaglioorg32,org56&V. Mankoorg88&F.
Mansoorg134&V. Manzariorg53&Y. Maoorg6&M. Marchisoneorg135&J. Marešorg66&G.V.
Margagliottiorg24&A. Margottiorg54&J. Marguttiorg63&A. Marínorg107&C.
Markertorg119&M. Marquardorg68&C.D. Martinorg24&N.A. Martinorg104&P.
Martinengoorg34&J.L. Martinezorg125&M.I. Martínezorg45&G. Martínez
Garcíaorg115&S. Masciocchiorg107&M. Maseraorg25&A. Masoniorg55&L.
Massacrierorg78&E. Massonorg115&A. Mastroserioorg53,org138&A.M.
Mathisorg105&O. Matonohaorg81&P.F.T. Matuokaorg121&A. Matyjaorg118&C.
Mayerorg118&F. Mazzaschiorg25&M. Mazzilliorg53&M.A. Mazzoniorg58&A.F.
Mechlerorg68&F. Meddiorg22&Y. Melikyanorg62,org93&A. Menchaca-Rochaorg71&C.
Mengkeorg6&E. Meninnoorg29,org114&M. Meresorg13&S. Mhlangaorg124&Y.
Miakeorg133&L. Michelettiorg25&L.C. Migliorinorg135&D.L. Mihaylovorg105&K.
Mikhaylovorg75,org92&A.N. Mishraorg69&D. Miśkowiecorg107&A. Modakorg3&N.
Mohammadiorg34&A.P. Mohantyorg63&B. Mohantyorg86&M. Mohisin Khanorg16orgIV&Z.
Moravcovaorg89&C. Mordasiniorg105&D.A. Moreira De Godoyorg144&L.A.P.
Morenoorg45&I. Morozovorg62&A. Morschorg34&T. Mrnjavacorg34&V.
Mucciforaorg52&E. Mudnicorg35&D. Mühlheimorg144&S. Muhuriorg141&J.D.
Mulliganorg80&M.G. Munhozorg121&R.H. Munzerorg68&H. Murakamiorg132&S.
Murrayorg124&L. Musaorg34&J. Musinskyorg64&C.J. Myersorg125&J.W.
Myrchaorg142&B. Naikorg49&R. Nairorg85&B.K. Nandiorg49&R. Naniaorg10,org54&E.
Nappiorg53&M.U. Naruorg14&A.F. Nassirpourorg81&C. Nattrassorg130&R.
Nayakorg49&T.K. Nayakorg86&S. Nazarenkoorg109&A. Neaguorg20&R.A. Negrao De
Oliveiraorg68&L. Nellenorg69&S.V. Nesboorg36&G. Neskovicorg39&D.
Nesterovorg113&L.T. Neumannorg142&B.S. Nielsenorg89&S. Nikolaevorg88&S.
Nikulinorg88&V. Nikulinorg98&F. Noferiniorg10,org54&P. Nomokonovorg75&J.
Normanorg79,org127&N. Novitzkyorg133&P. Nowakowskiorg142&A. Nyaninorg88&J.
Nystrandorg21&M. Oginoorg82&A. Ohlsonorg81,org104&J. Oleniaczorg142&A.C.
Oliveira Da Silvaorg130&M.H. Oliverorg146&C. Oppedisanoorg59&A. Ortiz
Velasquezorg69&A. Oskarssonorg81&J. Otwinowskiorg118&K. Oyamaorg82&Y.
Pachmayerorg104&V. Pacikorg89&D. Paganoorg140&G. Paićorg69&J. Panorg143&S.
Panebiancoorg137&P. Pareekorg50,org141&J. Parkorg61&J.E. Parkkilaorg126&S.
Parmarorg100&S.P. Pathakorg125&B. Paulorg23&H. Peiorg6&T. Peitzmannorg63&X.
Pengorg6&L.G. Pereiraorg70&H. Pereira Da Costaorg137&D. Peresunkoorg88&G.M.
Perezorg8&Y. Pestovorg4&V. Petráčekorg37&M. Petroviciorg48&R.P. Pezziorg70&S.
Pianoorg60&M. Piknaorg13&P. Pillotorg115&O. Pinazzaorg34,org54&L.
Pinskyorg125&C. Pintoorg27&S. Pisanoorg10,org52&D. Pistoneorg56&M.
Płoskońorg80&M. Planinicorg99&F. Pliquettorg68&M.G. Poghosyanorg96&B.
Polichtchoukorg91&N. Poljakorg99&A. Poporg48&S. Porteboeuf-Houssaisorg134&V.
Pozdniakovorg75&S.K. Prasadorg3&R. Preghenellaorg54&F. Prinoorg59&C.A.
Pruneauorg143&I. Pshenichnovorg62&M. Puccioorg34&J. Putschkeorg143&S.
Qiuorg90&L. Quagliaorg25&R.E. Quishpeorg125&S. Ragoniorg111&S. Rahaorg3&S.
Rajputorg101&J. Rakorg126&A. Rakotozafindrabeorg137&L. Ramelloorg31&F.
Ramiorg136&S.A.R. Ramirezorg45&R. Raniwalaorg102&S. Raniwalaorg102&S.S.
Räsänenorg44&R. Rathorg50&V. Ratzaorg43&I. Ravasengaorg90&K.F.
Readorg96,org130&A.R. Redelbachorg39&K. Redlichorg85orgV&A. Rehmanorg21&P.
Reicheltorg68&F. Reidtorg34&X. Renorg6&R. Renfordtorg68&Z. Rescakovaorg38&K.
Reygersorg104&V. Riabovorg98&T. Richertorg81,org89&M. Richterorg20&P.
Riedlerorg34&W. Rieglerorg34&F. Riggiorg27&C. Risteaorg67&S.P. Rodeorg50&M.
Rodríguez Cahuantziorg45&K. Røedorg20&R. Rogalevorg91&E. Rogochayaorg75&D.
Rohrorg34&D. Röhrichorg21&P.S. Rokitaorg142&F. Ronchettiorg52&A.
Rosanoorg56&E.D. Rosasorg69&K. Roslonorg142&A. Rossiorg28,org57&A.
Rotondiorg139&A. Royorg50&P. Royorg110&O.V. Ruedaorg81&R. Ruiorg24&B.
Rumyantsevorg75&A. Rustamovorg87&E. Ryabinkinorg88&Y. Ryabovorg98&A.
Rybickiorg118&H. Rytkonenorg126&O.A.M. Saarimakiorg44&S. Sadhuorg141&S.
Sadovskyorg91&K. Šafaříkorg37&S.K. Sahaorg141&B. Sahooorg49&P. Sahooorg49&R.
Sahooorg50&S. Sahooorg65&P.K. Sahuorg65&J. Sainiorg141&S. Sakaiorg133&S.
Sambyalorg101&V. Samsonovorg93,org98&D. Sarkarorg143&N. Sarkarorg141&P.
Sarmaorg42&V.M. Sartiorg105&M.H.P. Sasorg63&E. Scapparoneorg54&J.
Schambachorg119&H.S. Scheidorg68&C. Schiauaorg48&R. Schickerorg104&A.
Schmahorg104&C. Schmidtorg107&H.R. Schmidtorg103&M.O. Schmidtorg104&M.
Schmidtorg103&N.V. Schmidtorg68,org96&A.R. Schmierorg130&J. Schukraftorg89&Y.
Schutzorg136&K. Schwarzorg107&K. Schwedaorg107&G. Scioliorg26&E.
Scomparinorg59&J.E. Segerorg15&Y. Sekiguchiorg132&D. Sekihataorg132&I.
Selyuzhenkovorg93,org107&S. Senyukovorg136&D. Serebryakovorg62&A.
Sevcencoorg67&A. Shabanovorg62&A. Shabetaiorg115&R. Shahoyanorg34&W.
Shaikhorg110&A. Shangaraevorg91&A. Sharmaorg100&A. Sharmaorg101&H.
Sharmaorg118&M. Sharmaorg101&N. Sharmaorg100&S. Sharmaorg101&K.
Shigakiorg46&M. Shimomuraorg83&S. Shirinkinorg92&Q. Shouorg40&Y.
Sibiriakorg88&S. Siddhantaorg55&T. Siemiarczukorg85&D. Silvermyrorg81&G.
Simatovicorg90&G. Simonettiorg34&B. Singhorg105&R. Singhorg86&R.
Singhorg101&R. Singhorg50&V.K. Singhorg141&V. Singhalorg141&T. Sinhaorg110&B.
Sitarorg13&M. Sittaorg31&T.B. Skaaliorg20&M. Slupeckiorg44&N.
Smirnovorg146&R.J.M. Snellingsorg63&C. Sonccoorg112&J. Songorg125&A.
Songmoolnakorg116&F. Soramelorg28&S. Sorensenorg130&I. Sputowskaorg118&J.
Stachelorg104&I. Stanorg67&P.J. Steffanicorg130&E. Stenlundorg81&S.F.
Stiefelmaierorg104&D. Stoccoorg115&M.M. Storetvedtorg36&L.D.
Strittoorg29&A.A.P. Suaideorg121&T. Sugitateorg46&C. Suireorg78&M.
Suleymanovorg14&M. Suljicorg34&R. Sultanovorg92&M. Šumberaorg95&V.
Sumberiaorg101&S. Sumowidagdoorg51&S. Swainorg65&A. Szaboorg13&I.
Szarkaorg13&U. Tabassamorg14&S.F. Taghaviorg105&G. Taillepiedorg134&J.
Takahashiorg122&G.J. Tambaveorg21&S. Tangorg6,org134&M. Tarhiniorg115&M.G.
Tarzilaorg48&A. Tauroorg34&G. Tejeda Muñozorg45&A. Telescaorg34&L.
Terlizziorg25&C. Terrevoliorg125&D. Thakurorg50&S. Thakurorg141&D.
Thomasorg119&F. Thoresenorg89&R. Tieulentorg135&A. Tikhonovorg62&A.R.
Timminsorg125&A. Toiaorg68&N. Topilskayaorg62&M. Toppiorg52&F. Torales-
Acostaorg19&S.R. Torresorg37&A. Trifiróorg32,org56&S. Tripathyorg50,org69&T.
Tripathyorg49&S. Trogoloorg28&G. Trombettaorg33&L. Tropporg38&V.
Trubnikovorg2&W.H. Trzaskaorg126&T.P. Trzcinskiorg142&B.A.
Trzeciakorg37,org63&A. Tumkinorg109&R. Turrisiorg57&T.S. Tveterorg20&K.
Ullalandorg21&E.N. Umakaorg125&A. Urasorg135&G.L. Usaiorg23&M. Valaorg38&N.
Valleorg139&S. Valleroorg59&N. van der Kolkorg63&L.V.R. van Doremalenorg63&M.
van Leeuwenorg63&P. Vande Vyvreorg34&D. Vargaorg145&Z. Vargaorg145&M. Varga-
Kofaragoorg145&A. Vargasorg45&M. Vasileiouorg84&A. Vasilievorg88&O. Vázquez
Doceorg105&V. Vecherninorg113&E. Vercellinorg25&S. Vergara Limónorg45&L.
Vermuntorg63&R. Vernetorg7&R. Vértesiorg145&L. Vickovicorg35&Z.
Vilakaziorg131&O. Villalobos Baillieorg111&G. Vinoorg53&A. Vinogradovorg88&T.
Virgiliorg29&V. Vislaviciusorg89&A. Vodopyanovorg75&B. Volkelorg34&M.A.
Völklorg103&K. Voloshinorg92&S.A. Voloshinorg143&G. Volpeorg33&B. von
Hallerorg34&I. Vorobyevorg105&D. Voscekorg117&J. Vrlákováorg38&B.
Wagnerorg21&M. Weberorg114&A. Wegrzynekorg34&S.C. Wenzelorg34&J.P.
Wesselsorg144&J. Wiechulaorg68&J. Wikneorg20&G. Wilkorg85&J.
Wilkinsonorg10,org54&G.A. Willemsorg144&E. Willsherorg111&B.
Windelbandorg104&M. Winnorg137&W.E. Wittorg130&J.R. Wrightorg119&Y.
Wuorg128&R. Xuorg6&S. Yalcinorg77&Y. Yamaguchiorg46&K. Yamakawaorg46&S.
Yangorg21&S. Yanoorg137&Z. Yinorg6&H. Yokoyamaorg63&I.-K. Yooorg17&J.H.
Yoonorg61&S. Yuanorg21&A. Yuncuorg104&V. Yurchenkoorg2&V. Zaccoloorg24&A.
Zamanorg14&C. Zampolliorg34&H.J.C. Zanoliorg63&N. Zardoshtiorg34&A.
Zarochentsevorg113&P. Závadaorg66&N. Zaviyalovorg109&H. Zbroszczykorg142&M.
Zhalovorg98&S. Zhangorg40&X. Zhangorg6&Z. Zhangorg6&V. Zherebchevskiiorg113&D.
Zhouorg6&Y. Zhouorg89&Z. Zhouorg21&J. Zhuorg6,org107&Y. Zhuorg6&A.
Zichichiorg10,org26&G. Zinovjevorg2&N. Zurloorg140&

## Affiliation notes

org*Deceased

orgIItalian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable
Economic Development (ENEA), Bologna, Italy

orgIIDipartimento DET del Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy

orgIIIM.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, D.V. Skobeltsyn Institute of
Nuclear, Physics, Moscow, Russia

orgIVDepartment of Applied Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India

orgVInstitute of Theoretical Physics, University of Wroclaw, Poland

## Collaboration Institutes

org1A.I. Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics Institute)
Foundation, Yerevan, Armenia

org2Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, National Academy of Sciences
of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine

org3Bose Institute, Department of Physics and Centre for Astroparticle Physics
and Space Science (CAPSS), Kolkata, India

org4Budker Institute for Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia

org5California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California,
United States

org6Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China

org7Centre de Calcul de l’IN2P3, Villeurbanne, Lyon, France

org8Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Havana,
Cuba

org9Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados (CINVESTAV), Mexico City
and Mérida, Mexico

org10Centro Fermi - Museo Storico della Fisica e Centro Studi e Ricerche
“Enrico Fermi’, Rome, Italy

org11Chicago State University, Chicago, Illinois, United States

org12China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China

org13Comenius University Bratislava, Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and
Informatics, Bratislava, Slovakia

org14COMSATS University Islamabad, Islamabad, Pakistan

org15Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, United States

org16Department of Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India

org17Department of Physics, Pusan National University, Pusan, Republic of
Korea

org18Department of Physics, Sejong University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

org19Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, California,
United States

org20Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

org21Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen,
Norway

org22Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università ’La Sapienza’ and Sezione INFN,
Rome, Italy

org23Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Cagliari, Italy

org24Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Trieste, Italy

org25Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy

org26Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN,
Bologna, Italy

org27Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN,
Catania, Italy

org28Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN,
Padova, Italy

org29Dipartimento di Fisica ‘E.R. Caianiello’ dell’Università and Gruppo
Collegato INFN, Salerno, Italy

org30Dipartimento DISAT del Politecnico and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy

org31Dipartimento di Scienze e Innovazione Tecnologica dell’Università del
Piemonte Orientale and INFN Sezione di Torino, Alessandria, Italy

org32Dipartimento di Scienze MIFT, Università di Messina, Messina, Italy

org33Dipartimento Interateneo di Fisica ‘M. Merlin’ and Sezione INFN, Bari,
Italy

org34European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland

org35Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval
Architecture, University of Split, Split, Croatia

org36Faculty of Engineering and Science, Western Norway University of Applied
Sciences, Bergen, Norway

org37Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering, Czech Technical
University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

org38Faculty of Science, P.J. Šafárik University, Košice, Slovakia

org39Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-
Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

org40Fudan University, Shanghai, China

org41Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, Republic of Korea

org42Gauhati University, Department of Physics, Guwahati, India

org43Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlen- und Kernphysik, Rheinische Friedrich-
Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany

org44Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Helsinki, Finland

org45High Energy Physics Group, Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico

org46Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan

org47Hochschule Worms, Zentrum für Technologietransfer und Telekommunikation
(ZTT), Worms, Germany

org48Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering,
Bucharest, Romania

org49Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT), Mumbai, India

org50Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore, India

org51Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Jakarta, Indonesia

org52INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy

org53INFN, Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy

org54INFN, Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

org55INFN, Sezione di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy

org56INFN, Sezione di Catania, Catania, Italy

org57INFN, Sezione di Padova, Padova, Italy

org58INFN, Sezione di Roma, Rome, Italy

org59INFN, Sezione di Torino, Turin, Italy

org60INFN, Sezione di Trieste, Trieste, Italy

org61Inha University, Incheon, Republic of Korea

org62Institute for Nuclear Research, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

org63Institute for Subatomic Physics, Utrecht University/Nikhef, Utrecht,
Netherlands

org64Institute of Experimental Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Košice,
Slovakia

org65Institute of Physics, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Bhubaneswar, India

org66Institute of Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech
Republic

org67Institute of Space Science (ISS), Bucharest, Romania

org68Institut für Kernphysik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt,
Frankfurt, Germany

org69Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,
Mexico City, Mexico

org70Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS),
Porto Alegre, Brazil

org71Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico
City, Mexico

org72iThemba LABS, National Research Foundation, Somerset West, South Africa

org73Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea

org74Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe Universität Frankfurt Institut für Informatik,
Fachbereich Informatik und Mathematik, Frankfurt, Germany

org75Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR), Dubna, Russia

org76Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon, Republic
of Korea

org77KTO Karatay University, Konya, Turkey

org78Laboratoire de Physique des 2 Infinis, Irène Joliot-Curie, Orsay, France

org79Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie, Université
Grenoble-Alpes, CNRS-IN2P3, Grenoble, France

org80Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, United
States

org81Lund University Department of Physics, Division of Particle Physics,
Lund, Sweden

org82Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science, Nagasaki, Japan

org83Nara Women’s University (NWU), Nara, Japan

org84National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Science,
Department of Physics , Athens, Greece

org85National Centre for Nuclear Research, Warsaw, Poland

org86National Institute of Science Education and Research, Homi Bhabha
National Institute, Jatni, India

org87National Nuclear Research Center, Baku, Azerbaijan

org88National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia

org89Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

org90Nikhef, National institute for subatomic physics, Amsterdam, Netherlands

org91NRC Kurchatov Institute IHEP, Protvino, Russia

org92NRC «Kurchatov Institute» - ITEP, Moscow, Russia

org93NRNU Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, Moscow, Russia

org94Nuclear Physics Group, STFC Daresbury Laboratory, Daresbury, United
Kingdom

org95Nuclear Physics Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Řež u Prahy,
Czech Republic

org96Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States

org97Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States

org98Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina, Russia

org99Physics department, Faculty of science, University of Zagreb, Zagreb,
Croatia

org100Physics Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India

org101Physics Department, University of Jammu, Jammu, India

org102Physics Department, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, India

org103Physikalisches Institut, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Tübingen,
Germany

org104Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg,
Heidelberg, Germany

org105Physik Department, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

org106Politecnico di Bari, Bari, Italy

org107Research Division and ExtreMe Matter Institute EMMI, GSI
Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany

org108Rudjer Bošković Institute, Zagreb, Croatia

org109Russian Federal Nuclear Center (VNIIEF), Sarov, Russia

org110Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Homi Bhabha National Institute,
Kolkata, India

org111School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham,
United Kingdom

org112Sección Física, Departamento de Ciencias, Pontificia Universidad
Católica del Perú, Lima, Peru

org113St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia

org114Stefan Meyer Institut für Subatomare Physik (SMI), Vienna, Austria

org115SUBATECH, IMT Atlantique, Université de Nantes, CNRS-IN2P3, Nantes,
France

org116Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand

org117Technical University of Košice, Košice, Slovakia

org118The Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy
of Sciences, Cracow, Poland

org119The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States

org120Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Culiacán, Mexico

org121Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil

org122Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil

org123Universidade Federal do ABC, Santo Andre, Brazil

org124University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

org125University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States

org126University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

org127University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom

org128University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China

org129University of South-Eastern Norway, Tonsberg, Norway

org130University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States

org131University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

org132University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

org133University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan

org134Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France

org135Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, CNRS/IN2P3, IPN-Lyon,
Villeurbanne, Lyon, France

org136Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, F-67000 Strasbourg,
France, Strasbourg, France

org137Université Paris-Saclay Centre d’Etudes de Saclay (CEA), IRFU,
Départment de Physique Nucléaire (DPhN), Saclay, France

org138Università degli Studi di Foggia, Foggia, Italy

org139Università degli Studi di Pavia, Pavia, Italy

org140Università di Brescia, Brescia, Italy

org141Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute,
Kolkata, India

org142Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland

org143Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, United States

org144Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Institut für Kernphysik,
Münster, Germany

org145Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary

org146Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States

org147Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea