Systematic study of flow vector fluctuations in √sNN = 5.02 TeV Pb-Pb collisions
Full text
This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Systematic study of flow vector fluctuations in √sNN = 5.02 TeV Pb-Pb collisions © 2024 CERN Published version ALICE Collaboration ALICE Collaboration. (2024). Systematic study of flow vector fluctuations in √sNN = 5.02 TeV PbPb collisions. Physical Review C, 109(6), Article 065202. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevc.109.065202 2024
PHYSICAL REVIEW C 109, 065202 (2024) Systematic study of flow vector fluctuations in √sNN =5.02 TeV Pb-Pb collisions S. Acharya et al.∗ (ALICE Collaboration) (Received 4 April 2024; accepted 10 May 2024; published 13 June 2024) Measurements of the pT-dependent flow vector fluctuations in Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV using azimuthal correlations with the ALICE experiment at the Large Hadron Collider are presented. A four-particle correlation approach [ALICE Collaboration, Phys.Rev.C107, L051901 (2023)] is used to quantify the effects of flow angle and magnitude fluctuations separately. This paper extends previous studies to additional centrality intervals and provides measurements of the pT-dependent flow vector fluctuations at √sNN =5.02 TeV with two-particle correlations. Significant pT-dependent fluctuations of the V2flow vector in Pb–Pb collisions are found across different centrality ranges, with the largest fluctuations of up to ∼15% being present in the 5% most central collisions. In parallel, no evidence of significant pT-dependent fluctuations of V3or V4is found. Additionally, evidence of flow angle and magnitude fluctuations is observed with more than 5σsignificance in central collisions. These observations in Pb–Pb collisions indicate where the classical picture of hydrodynamic modeling with a common symmetry plane breaks down. This has implications for hard probes at high pT,which might be biased by pT-dependent flow angle fluctuations of at least 23% in central collisions. Given the presented results, existing theoretical models should be reexamined to improve our understanding of initial conditions, quark–gluon plasma properties, and the dynamic evolution of the created system. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.109.065202 I. INTRODUCTION Studies of ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) have demonstrated the formation of a strongly interacting matter called quark–gluon plasma (QGP) [1–7]. The space–time evolution of the QGP is well described by relativistic viscous hydrodynamic models [8,9]. An observable consequence of the QGP creation in these collisions is the anisotropic flow in the plane transverse to the beam direction [10–16]. This anisotropy can be quantified by the Fourier decomposition of the distribution of the azimuthal angle of the final-state particles relative to the common symmetry planes [17], d3N dpTdηdϕ=d2N 2πdpTdη ×1+2∞ n=1 vn(pT,η) cos[n(ϕ−n(pT,η))] , (1) ∗Full author list given at the end of the article. Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Open access publication funded by CERN. where ϕis the azimuthal angle of the emitted particles. The vn(pT,η) and n(pT,η) are the magnitude and orientation of the nth-order flow vector Vn(pT,η)=vn(pT,η)einn(pT,η), respectively, which may depend on the transverse momentum (pT) and the pseudorapidity (η) of the particles. This flow vector is affected by the initial collision geometry, which is dominated by the shape of the overlap region in the transverse plane between the colliding nuclei [18]. The initial anisotropy, the magnitude and orientation of which is quantified by the eccentricities nand corresponding participant planes n [19–21], respectively, is converted into final-state momentum anisotropy by the interactions among the constituents of the QGP. For a uniform nuclear matter distribution in the initial state, the various symmetry plane angles, n, coincide with the reaction plane defined by the impact parameter and beam direction for n⩾1[17]. However, due to event-byevent fluctuations of the position of the nucleons inside the nuclei and of the partonic constituents inside the nucleon, the symmetry plane angles, n, fluctuate around the reaction plane, leading to nonzero odd flow coefficients [19,22– 24]. Nonzero and large values of flow coefficients have been observed at both RHIC [4–7] and the LHC [14–16,25–32]. The flow coefficients vnand their event-by-event fluctuations serve as excellent probes for constraining the initial state of heavy-ion collisions and for quantifying some of the QGP properties, such as the transport coefficients [18,23,33–39]. The anisotropic flow coefficients can be measured in a pTdifferential way by assuming that the two-particle correlation factorizes into a product of two single-particle flow coefficients, each a function of the properties of only one of the particles. Keeping the terminology from dihadron correlation 2469-9985/2024/109(6)/065202(19) 065202-1 ©2024 CERN, for the ALICE Collaboration
S. ACHARYA et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW C 109, 065202 (2024) measurements of Vn[40–43], one particle is denoted as the associated (a) and the other particle is denoted the trigger (t). The associated and trigger particles are chosen from a variable and fixed pTrange, denoted pa Tand pt T, respectively. Factorization of the two-particle correlation Vnbetween the trigger and associated particles can be described as Vnpa T,pt T=vnpa Tvnpt T,(2) where the vn(pa T) and vn(pt T) are the flow coefficients for the associated and trigger particles with transverse momenta pa T and pt T, respectively. The factorization breaks down in hydrodynamic calculations due to the event-by-event fluctuations of the initial energy density of the heavy-ion collision [44,45]. The breakdown of factorization has been observed at the LHC in Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN =2.76 TeV and p–Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV [41,46,47]. This breakdown is directly related to the flow vector fluctuations in different kinematic regions. The flow vector may fluctuate as a function of pTin both magnitude and angle [19,21]. As such, the flow angle, n(pT), will “wander” around the common symmetry plane angle n[44]. This, in turn, implies that the pT-integrated flow magnitude, vn, should be interpreted as the flow of particles with respect to an integrated symmetry plane determined with particles from a specific and typically wide pTrange. The pT-dependent flow angles also contribute to breaking the factorization in Eq. (2), as the equality in Eq. (2) assumes a single common symmetry plane angle for all particles in an event. The pT-dependent flow fluctuations can be probed with the principal component analysis (PCA) [48–52], which can isolate subleading flow modes. The PCA has been successfully used to measure the event-by-event flow fluctuations [53] and the factorization breaking of two-particle correlations Vnas a function of both pTand pseudorapidity η[54]. The decorrelation effects measured in ηprovide insight into the longitudinal hydrodynamic evolution of the system created in heavy-ion collisions and go beyond the assumption of a boost-invariant system used in many theoretical models [47,55]. However, measurements with the PCA technique have yet to isolate the flow angle and flow magnitude fluctuations. In this paper the flow vector fluctuations are integrated over pseudorapidity and are only studied as a function of pT. The usual way of measuring the flow vector fluctuations is with observables constructed from two-particle correlations [44,45]. Such measurements have shown significant flow vector fluctuations in central Pb–Pb collisions [46,47]. However, such measurements do not allow quantifying the individual contributions of the flow angle and magnitude fluctuations to the total flow vector fluctuations. Hydrodynamic models have predicted that the fluctuations of nconstitute more than half of the overall flow vector fluctuations [44]. Observables constructed from four-particle correlations are necessary to cancel out contributions from the flow angle or magnitude. Such observables were first presented in Ref. [56] in selected centrality intervals and revealed significant flow angle and magnitude fluctuations in central Pb–Pb collisions. In this paper the study in Ref. [56] is extended to additional centrality intervals, and measurements of flow vector fluctuations with two-particle correlations at a collision energy of √sNN =5.02 TeV are also presented. The paper is structured as follows: Section II describes the method used to calculate the observables, while the experiment and data are described in Sec. III. The treatment of statistical and systematic uncertainties is covered in Sec. IV, and the results are presented in Sec. V. Finally, a summary is given in Sec. VI. II. METHOD The m-particle correlations are calculated with the generic framework [57], an algorithm that calculates multiparticle azimuthal correlations corrected for nonuniform azimuthal detector acceptance and nonuniform detector efficiency. The flow coefficients are defined from the Fourier expansion in Eq. (1), vn=cos n(ϕ−n),(3) where the single set of brackets, , denotes an average over events, while the double set of brackets, , denotes an average over both particles and events. The flow angles, n, cannot be measured experimentally event-by-event, so the root-mean-square of the flow coefficients are calculated with two-particle correlations [58], v2 n=cos n(ϕ1−ϕ2).(4) The pTdependence of the flow coefficient is usually studied with the differential flow coefficient vn{2}(pT)[58]: vn{2}(pT)=cos nϕPOI 1−ϕ2 √cos[n(ϕ1−ϕ2)] =vn(pT)vncos[n(n(pT)−n)] v2 n .(5) The ϕPOI and ϕrefer to the azimuthal angles of the particles of interest (POI) and reference flow particles. The pTrefers to the pTof the POIs selected from narrow pTranges. The reference flow particles are chosen from a wide kinematic range, which should ideally be limited to a region dominated by collective behavior. The n(pT) represents the pT-differential symmetry plane angles at a specific pTrange, which might fluctuate around the reference symmetry plane angles n.The effect of the difference between n(pT) and n, due to pTdependent flow angle fluctuations, is quantified by the cosine term cos[n(n(pT)−n)]. The effects of the pT-dependent flow coefficient fluctuations are observed when the factorization hypothesis is broken: vn(pT)vn = vn(pT)2v2 n.(6) Aside from the effects of the pT-dependent fluctuations of the flow angle and the flow magnitude, vn{2}also has contributions from nonflow sources such as jets or resonance decays. Such sources provide a flow signal but are not associated with bulk particle production or correlated with the symmetry plane angles n. 065202-2
SYSTEMATIC STUDY OF FLOW VECTOR FLUCTUATIONS … PHYSICAL REVIEW C 109, 065202 (2024) To account for these effects, another two-particle correlation was proposed in Ref. [44], vn[2](pT)=cos nϕPOI 1−ϕPOI 2 =vn(pT)2,(7) that is not affected by fluctuations in the flow angle or flow coefficient, and it is less affected by nonflow effects than vn{2}. The difference between vn{2}and vn[2] is that the former takes the reference flow from a wide kinematic range and the POIs from a small pTinterval, and the latter takes two POIs from the same narrow pTrange. Since vn[2] is not affected by the flow angle and flow magnitude fluctuations, the pT-dependent flow vector fluctuations can be probed by taking the ratio of vn{2}and vn[2]: vn{2} vn[2] =vn(pT)vncos n[n(pT)−n] vn(pT)2v2 n .(8) If the ratio vn{2}/vn[2] is smaller than unity, it indicates the presence of pT-dependent flow vector fluctuations. Another way to study flow vector fluctuations is to examine the factorization of two-particle correlations from different transverse momentum regions. Factorization of two-particle correlations was observed to hold in some kinematical ranges in Refs. [29,31,41,59] but is shown not to hold in general in Ref. [45]. The factorization can be tested with the factorization ratio rn[45]: rn=Vnpa T,pt T Vnpa T,pa TVnpt T,pt T =vnpa Tvnpt Tcos nnpa T−npt T v2 npa Tv2 npt T ,(9) which is a particular case of the ratio shown in Eq. (8), obtained by taking particles from two different narrow pT ranges. Most known sources of nonflow do not factorize at low pT[60], so rn=1 does not always hold. In a system dominated by flow, with no or negligible nonflow effects, rn is smaller than or equal to unity due to the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality [45]. The factorization holds when rnequals unity, while rnsmaller than unity indicates the presence of pTdependent flow vector fluctuations. If the triggered particles are selected from a wide kinematic range (making them equivalent to the reference particles), then rnbecomes identical to vn{2}/vn[2]. In general, however, rnprovides information about the structure of the two-particle correlations for triggered and associated particles, probing the fluctuations of the flow vector at pa Tand pt T. In contrast, the ratio vn{2}/vn[2] includes the pT-integrated information and probes the pTdifferential flow vector with respect to the pT-integrated flow vector. The ratio vn{2}/vn[2] and the factorization ratio rncarry information about the flow angle and magnitude fluctuations but cannot isolate both contributions. Thus, it is desirable to separate these two effects to quantify the contributions from each source. The flow angle fluctuations are studied with the observable Af n, which aims to isolate the pT-dependent fluctuations of the flow angle [56], Af n=cos nϕPOI 1+ϕPOI 2−ϕ3−ϕ4 cos nϕPOI 1+ϕ2−ϕPOI 3−ϕ4 =vn(pT)2v2 ncos 2n[n(pT)−n] vn(pT)2v2 n ≃cos 2n[n(pT)−n]w,(10) where the third equality holds if the nonflow contribution is approximately the same for the numerator and denominator. The wsubscript denotes that Af nis a weighted average with each event having a weight of v4 n[61]. If the flow angle fluctuates as a function of pT, then Af nwill be smaller than unity. If there are no pT-dependent fluctuations of the flow angle, then Af nis equal to unity. The Af ncorresponds to the cosine term in Eq. (8) but with twice the angle. Only a lower limit of the single-flow-angle fluctuations, cos n[n(pT)−n)], can be obtained with the trigonometric double-angle formula due to the event averaging Af n+1 2≃cos2n[n(pT)−n] ⩾cos n[n(pT)−n].(11) It is also possible to probe the upper limit on the two-particle flow magnitude fluctuations since it must correspond to the remaining fluctuations of the flow vector. The ratio with vn{2}/vn[2] quantifies the upper limit of the first-moment flow magnitude fluctuations, since vn{2}/vn[2] cos2nnpa T−n ⩽ vn{2}/vn[2] cos nnpa T−n =vn(pT)vncos n[n(pT)−n] vn(pT)2v2 ncos n[n(pT)−n] ≈vn(pT)vn vn(pT)2v2 n .(12) The above equation provides an upper limit on the first-moment flow magnitude fluctuations, but an exact measurement of the second-moment flow magnitude fluctuations can be obtained by taking the ratio of the four-particle correlations with opposite signs on the azimuthal angle belonging to particles from the same kinematic region: cos nϕPOI 1+ϕ2−ϕPOI 3−ϕ4 cos nϕPOI 1−ϕPOI 3cos n(ϕ2−ϕ4)=v2 n(pT)v2 n v2 n(pT)v2 n. (13) Considering the pT-integrated v4 n/v2 n2as the baseline, deviations from such a baseline indicate the presence of pTdependent flow magnitude fluctuations. The expression in 065202-3
S. ACHARYA et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW C 109, 065202 (2024) Eq. (13) is therefore normalized with the baseline to obtain a double ratio correlator Mf nfor measuring the pT-dependent flow magnitude fluctuations: Mf n=v2 n(pT)v2 nv2 n(pT)v2 n v4 nv2 n2.(14) Together, these observables, Af nand Mf n, allow us to probe the flow angle and magnitude fluctuations separately and provide a quantification of both of them. Additionally, the limits extracted with the trigonometric formula are comparable with the previous methods of measuring pT-dependent flow vector fluctuations [46]. III. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND DATA SAMPLE ALICE [62] is a dedicated heavy-ion experiment at the LHC. One of its focuses is the study of the properties of the QGP. The central barrel of the ALICE detector is encased in a large solenoid magnet. The inner tracking system (ITS) [63] is the innermost detector in the ALICE experiment. Its primary function is to localize the primary vertex with a resolution better than 100 μm, to reconstruct secondary vertices, and to track and identify low-momentum particles (pT<200 MeV/c). It also improves momentum and angle resolution for particles reconstructed by the time projection chamber (TPC) [64]. The TPC is the primary tracking detector in ALICE. It is optimized for high-resolution charged-particle momentum measurements ranging from several hundred MeV/cup to 100 GeV/c. In the TPC, a pseudorapidity coverage of |η|<0.8 ensures maximal coverage without loss of efficiency at the TPC edges. Additionally, the TPC has full 2πcoverage in the azimuthal direction. The V0 system [65] consists of two arrays, V0A and V0C, which cover the pseudorapidity ranges of 2.8<η<5.1 and −3.7< η<−1.7, respectively. It is designed to provide triggers for the experiment and to separate beam-beam interactions from the background, such as beam-gas interactions. It is also used to measure charged-particle multiplicity in the forward region, which is used to determine the centrality of nucleus-nucleus collisions [66]. The events are selected according to a minimum bias trigger criterion which requires at least two of the following [65]: (1) hits in the silicon pixel detector of the ITS, (2) a signal in V0A, and (3) a signal in the V0C, as well as a reconstructed primary vertex within ±10 cm of the nominal interaction point along the beam axis. The centrality of the events is determined by the sum of V0 signal amplitude in the scintillator arrays V0A and V0C [66]. Pileup events refer to events that are contaminated by one or more out-of-bunch or in-bunch collisions occurring within the readout time of the TPC. Such contaminated events cannot be accurately assigned to a proper centrality interval. Pileup events are therefore rejected based either on the presence of multiple reconstructed vertices or on the correlations between the number of tracks measured in the TPC and the number of tracks reconstructed with relatively fast detectors such as the ITS and time-of-flight (TOF) [67]. This effect is most significant in central collisions due to the large multiplicity of the pileup events. In this paper, 54M Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV measured in the 2015 data-taking period at the LHC pass the event selection criteria. Charged tracks are reconstructed using the ITS and the TPC. Tracks are selected with at least 70 TPC space points out of a maximum of 159 possible points and a χ2per degree of freedom of the track fit to TPC space points less than 4. Tracks are required to have at least one hit in the silixon pixel detector (SPD). Additionally, tracks must have a distance of closest approach (DCA) to the primary vertex of less than 2 cm in the longitudinal direction and a pT-dependent selection in the transverse direction ranging from 0.2cm at 0.2GeV/cto 0.016 cm at 5 GeV/c. Finally, the charged tracks are taken from the kinematic range of |η|<0.8, and the tracks used for reference particles are also within 0.2<pref T< 5.0GeV/c.ThepTrange is selected to extend beyond the upper bound of validity for hydrodynamics (∼3GeV/c)asthe flow angle and magnitude fluctuations may increase beyond this regime. Nonflow correlations are suppressed by requiring a pseudorapidity gap, |η|, greater than or equal to 0.8 between particles in the calculation of the flow coefficients with two-particle correlations, and a subevent method with no pseudorapidity gap is used in the calculation of four-particle correlations. IV. STATISTICAL AND SYSTEMATIC UNCERTAINTIES The statistical uncertainties of the measurements are estimated with the bootstrap method of random sampling with replacement [68]. Ten similarly sized subsamples are sampled uniformly from the entire event ensemble. From these ten subsamples, 1000 generated event samples are constructed by randomly selecting ten subsamples from the original ten subsamples with replacement, i.e., the same subsample can be selected multiple times. For each of the 1000 generated event ensembles, the observables are calculated as a weighted average, providing a distribution for each observable. The statistical uncertainty is then estimated from the variance of the distribution for a given observable, which should approach the actual distribution given a large enough sampling. The systematic uncertainties of the measurements are evaluated by varying the event and track selection criteria and are shown in Table I. The systematic uncertainties related to the event selection are investigated by repeating the analysis using different detectors for the centrality determination, changing the selection on the position of the primary vertex along the beam direction |Vz|, testing different magnetic field polarities, and testing different pileup selections. The systematic uncertainty associated with the centrality determination (Cent. est.) is estimated by conducting the full analysis with the SPD as an alternative centrality estimator. It is negligible for most observables but contributes up to 2.4% for r3. The systematic uncertainty related to different primary vertex position criteria (|Vz|) is studied by changing the criterion from |Vz|<10 cm to |Vz|<7 cm, 8 cm, and 9 cm and is found to contribute at most up to 0.6% for r3. The effects of the magnetic field polarity (Mag. Field) are tested by analyzing datasets with different magnetic configurations and yield a systematic uncertainty ranging from negligible and up to 2.4% for v4{2}/v4[2]. The systematic effect of pileup is estimated by changing the pileup 065202-4
SYSTEMATIC STUDY OF FLOW VECTOR FLUCTUATIONS … PHYSICAL REVIEW C 109, 065202 (2024) TABLE I. Systematic uncertainties estimated from variations of event and track selection criteria. The uncertainties may vary with centrality and are, in those cases, given as a lower and upper bounds. Systematic uncertainties that are not statistically significant are listed as N/S. See text for details. v2{2}/v2[2] v3{2}/v3[2] v4{2}/v4[2] r2r3Af 2Mf 2 Cent. est. N/S 0%–0.2% 0%–0.7% 0%–0.3% 0%–2.4% 0%–0.1% 0%–0.1% |Vz|N/SN/SN/S 0%–0.1% 0%–0.6% 0%–0.1% 0%–0.1% Mag. field 0%–0.1% 0.1%–1% 0%–2.4% 0%–0.5% 0%–2% 0.4% 0.4% Pileup N/S 0%–0.3% 0%–1.2% 0%–0.5% 0%–1.1% N/SN/S #TPCcls. N/SN/S 0%–0.7% 0%–2% 0%–2% 0.7% 0.7% Track type 0%–0.2% 0.5%–1.3% 1.1%–2.2% 0%–1.8% 0%–1.3% 0%–0.1% 0%–0.1% |DCAz|N/SN/SN/SN/SN/SN/SN/S |DCAxy|N/S 0%–1% N/SN/S 0%–1% 0%–0.1% 0%–0.1% χ2TPC cls. 0%–0.1% 0%–0.3% 0%–3.1% 0%–0.8% 0%–0.5% 0.4% 0.4% Nonflow 0%–0.6% 0.6%–1.7% 2%–3.4% 0.1%–2.3% 0%–5.9% 1.1% 1.1% selection in centrality interval 0–10% (Pileup), where the pileup events are expected to have the largest impact due to large multiplicities in the TPC. The pileup selection variation contribution to the systematic uncertainty ranges from negligible to at most ∼1% for r3and v4{2}/v4[2]. The quality of the reconstructed tracks is varied by changing the track type to include tracks without hits in the SPD (track type) and by modifying the minimum number of TPC space points required (# TPC cls.) from 70 to 80 and 90. This variation yields up to a 2% systematic uncertainty in the rnobservables and less than 1% in the other observables. Additionally, the requirement of maximum DCA in the longitudinal (z) direction (|DCAz|) is changed from 2 cm to 0.5 and 1 cm, and in the transverse (xy) direction (|DCAxy|)it is changed from a pT-dependent selection (|DCAxy|⩽Nσ× (0.0015 +0.005/p1.1 T)) corresponding to 7σdeviation from the expected functional form to one corresponding to 4σ.Both variations of the |DCAz|and the variation of |DCAxy|selection criteria yield negligible contributions to the systematic uncertainty for most of the observables. The last variation considered for the track quality is the χ2per TPC cluster (χ2TPC cls.), which is tightened from 4 to 2.5 and yields a systematic uncertainty of up to 3.1% for v4{2}/v4[2] but less than half a percent for the other observables. To estimate the systematic uncertainty associated with the nonflow suppression in two-particle correlations (Non-flow), the analysis is repeated with pseudorapidity gaps of |η|<0.6,1.0,1.2. The consistency between results with different pseudorapidity gaps suggests that short-range nonflow correlations are suppressed. It is possible that remaining long-range nonflow correlations such as those from momentum conservation and di-jets could influence the results, even though an additional Monte Carlo study with HIJING [69], a heavy-ion model that does not contain collective effects, showed results for the correlators in Eqs. (10) and (12) consistent with zero. Based on the above studies, it is found that the remaining nonflow contribution to the observables is less than ∼2% for the elliptic flow observables. The systematic uncertainty is estimated for each centrality interval separately (and additionally for each pt Trange for the calculation of rn). The statistical significance of the systematic uncertainty is evaluated with the Barlow check introduced in Ref. [70]. Only systematic uncertainties found to be statistically significant according to this check are considered for the final systematic uncertainty. The total systematic uncertainty is calculated as the quadratic sum of the individual sources. Only the variation resulting in the largest uncertainty is added to the total systematic uncertainty for sources with more than one variation. V. R E S U LT S In this paper, precision measurements of the ratio vn{2}/vn[2] are presented for n=2,3 and 4 in Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV. The results are compared with the existing measurements at √sNN =2.76 TeV. Figure 1shows the ratio v2{2}/v2[2] with |η|>0.8asafunctionofpT for various centrality intervals ranging from 0%–5% up to 40%–50%. For the most central collisions (0%–5%), the ratio for n=2 is consistent with unity up to pT≈2GeV/c.Itstarts to deviate from unity as the pTincreases with a significance higher than 2σ,3σ, and 5σin the three bins above 2 GeV/c, respectively. The ratio reaches a deviation of 15% from unity at pT>3GeV/c. For centrality intervals larger than 20%, the ratios are close to unity within 2% for the presented pTrange. This trend was already observed with measurements based on ALICE data at √sNN =2.76 GeV/c[46]. The data are compared to several theoretical models. The iEBE-VISHNU model is a (2+1)D event-by-event relativistic viscous hydrodynamic model coupled to a hadronic cascade model [72]. In this paper, two sets of calculations with the iEBE-VISHNU model are used: one with TRENTo [73] and one with AMPT [74] initial conditions. The model calculations with TRENTo initial conditions use a temperature-dependent specific shear viscosity η/s(T), while the calculations with AMPT initial conditions use a η/s=0.08. The input parameters of iEBEVISHNU are tuned according to [71]. The hydrodynamic calculations are performed in a pTrange up to 3 GeV/c,as this is the region where hard processes are expected to take over. The theory curves describe quantitatively v2{2}/v2[2] within the uncertainties for both sets of model calculations. The large uncertainties of the hydrodynamic calculations are due to limited number of produced Monte Carlo events. 065202-5
S. ACHARYA et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW C 109, 065202 (2024) 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 [2] 2 v/{2} 2 v 0-5% ALICE 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 )c (GeV/ T p 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 [2] 2 v/{2} 2 v 20-30% 5-10% = 5.02 TeVPb−Pb = 2.76 TeVPb−Pb 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 )c (GeV/ T p 30-40% c < 5 GeV/p0.2 < 10-20% TRENTo+iEBE-VISHNU AMPT+iEBE-VISHNU 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 )c (GeV/ T p 40-50% FIG. 1. The ratio v2{2}/v2[2] in Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV (solid dark blue circles) and 2.76 TeV [46] (open light blue circles) as a function of transverse momentum. The different panels display results in different centrality intervals. Statistical (systematic) uncertainties are represented by solid bars (faded boxes). Predictions from the iEBE-VISHNU hydrodynamic model with TRENTo initial conditions and temperature-dependent η/s(T)[71], and with AMPT initial conditions and η/s=0.08 [71], are shown in colored bands. Higher-order anisotropic flow measurements were measured for the first time in Ref. [25] and were found to be more sensitive to the initial conditions and properties of the QGP [22]. The ratio v3{2}/v3[2] with |η|>0.8isshown in Fig. 2. It can be seen that the ratio agrees with unity in the presented centrality and pTranges, unlike v2{2}/v2[2], as shown in Fig. 1. The agreement with unity suggests that the triangular flow vector V3does not fluctuate strongly with pTin the presented pTand centrality ranges. Previously published measurements [46] have substantial uncertainties for v3{2}/v3[2] and found no significant V3fluctuations. With these results, the findings in Ref. [46] are confirmed with substantially increased statistics, and it can be concluded that there are no significant pT-dependent V3fluctuations in Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV within the current experimental uncertainties. The hydrodynamic calculations with the iEBE-VISHNU hydrodynamic models describe the data. The models with TRENTo and AMPT initial conditions show agreement with unity and the data. At small pTin central collisions, the hydrodynamical calculations deviate slightly from unity and overestimate the effect of the flow vector fluctuations observed in the data. The ratio v4{2}/v4[2] with |η|>0.8 shown in Fig. 3is consistent with unity within the uncertainties across all centrality intervals. The previous measurements of v4{2}/v4[2] [46] had large statistical uncertainties and showed no statistically significant deviation from unity. The results presented in this paper do not show any sign of significant fluctuations of V4as a function of transverse momentum with significantly smaller uncertainties compared to the measurements in 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 [2] 3 v/{2} 3 v 0-5% ALICE 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 )c (GeV/ T p 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 [2] 3 v/{2} 3 v 20-30% 5-10% = 5.02 TeVPb−Pb = 2.76 TeVPb−Pb 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 )c (GeV/ T p 30-40% c < 5 GeV/p0.2 < 10-20% TRENTo+iEBE-VISHNU AMPT+iEBE-VISHNU 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 )c (GeV/ T p 40-50% FIG. 2. The ratio v3{2}/v3[2] for Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV (solid dark red squares) and 2.76 TeV [46] (open light red squares) as a function of transverse momentum. The different panels display results in different centrality intervals. Statistical (systematic) uncertainties are represented by solid bars (faded boxes). Predictions from iEBE-VISHNU hydrodynamic model with TRENTo initial conditions and temperature-dependent η/s(T)[71], and with AMPT initial conditions and η/s=0.08 [71], are shown in colored bands. 065202-6
SYSTEMATIC STUDY OF FLOW VECTOR FLUCTUATIONS … PHYSICAL REVIEW C 109, 065202 (2024) 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 [2] 4 v/{2} 4 v 0-5% ALICE 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 )c (GeV/ T p 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 [2] 4 v/{2} 4 v 20-30% 5-10% = 5.02 TeVPb−Pb = 2.76 TeVPb−Pb 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 )c (GeV/ T p 30-40% c < 5 GeV/p0.2 < 10-20% TRENTo+iEBE-VISHNU AMPT+iEBE-VISHNU 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 )c (GeV/ T p 40-50% FIG. 3. The ratio v4{2}/v4[2] for Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV (solid dark cyan triangles) and 2.76 TeV [46] (open light cyan triangles) as a function of transverse momentum. The different panels display results in different centrality intervals. Statistical (systematic) uncertainties are represented by solid bars (faded boxes). Comparison with iEBE-VISHNU hydrodynamic model with TRENTo initial conditions and temperature-dependent η/s(T)[71], and with AMPT initial conditions and η/s=0.08 [71], are shown in colored bands. Ref. [46]. The hydrodynamic calculations are consistent with unity for pT>0.6GeV/cbut show a deviation from unity at low pTinconsistent with the measured v4{2}/v4[2]. This paper also presents precision measurements of the factorization ratios rnin Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV for n=2 and 3, calculated according to Eq. (9). Figure 4 shows r2with a pseudorapidity gap |η|>0.8 as a function of pa Tin centrality intervals 0%–5%, 10%–20%, and 40%– 50% in various bins of pt T. For all pt Tbins, it is observed that the deviations from unity are largest in central collisions, where the initial-state geometry fluctuations dominate, and that the effect becomes more pronounced as the difference |pa T−pt T|increases. The largest deviations from unity are observed in central collisions for 0.2<pt T<0.6GeV/c with 3.0<pa T<4.0GeV/c(first row, left panel) and for 3.0<pt T<4.0GeV/cwith 0.2<pa T<0.6GeV/c(last row, left panel), since this is the momentum region where the difference |pa T−pt T|is the largest. For 40%–50% centrality, the deviation from unity is at most 3% across the different pt Tranges. The factorization is broken in central collisions, which, in turn, implies the presence of pT-dependent flow vector fluctuations as described in Ref. [45]. At a higher pt T, the deviations from unity become less pronounced since the difference |pa T−pt T|reaches the largest value in the lowest pt Tbin. Significant deviations of r2from unity have been measured at lower energy [46] and confirmed here in Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV. Compared with previous results, the precision of r2is drastically improved, with the deviations from unity being significant to more than 5σat 3.0<pa T<4.0GeV/cacross the presented centralities. The centrality dependence of r2is more clearly seen in Fig. 5, where r2is presented in the centrality intervals 0%–5% to 40%–50% in the lowest pt Tbin of 0.2<pt T<0.6GeV/c. The comparison with the hydrodynamic calculations from iEBE-VISHNU with AMPT and TRENTo initial conditions is presented. Both hydrodynamic calculations qualitatively describe the trend of r2. However, they also underestimate the deviations from unity at higher pTin central collisions. The hydrodynamic model with AMPT initial conditions produces a slightly larger deviation of r2from unity at pT>2.5GeV/c in central collisions than the one with TRENTo initial conditions, while both provide a reasonable description of the data in peripheral collisions. Figure 6shows r3with |η|>0.8asafunctionofpa T for different bins of pt T, and in centrality intervals 0%–5%, 10%–20% and 40%–50%. Here, r3is consistent with unity in the presented centralities and pa Trange for all pt T. The agreement with unity over the presented centrality range suggests no significant V3fluctuations independently of the centrality. The lack of a centrality dependence agrees with the picture that triangular flow is driven by initial-state fluctuations rather than the average geometry. The factorization is also observed to hold over the presented ranges of pa Tand pt T, as opposed to r2. The previous measurements [46] showed deviations from unity at high pTin several bins of pt Tbut without a large significance (less than 3σ). It was noted that a possible breakdown of the factorization would be within 10% when both pa Tand pt T are below 3 GeV/c. The precision measurements presented in this paper lowers the possible breakdown of factorization of the triangular flow, v3, down to 1% across the presented pT and centrality ranges within a 95% confidence interval. The measurements of the pT-dependent flow angle fluctuations Af 2are shown in Fig. 7as a function of the transverse momentum pTin centrality intervals 0%–5% to 40%–50%. More than a 5σsignificance is observed in all centralities for the flow angle fluctuations at the highest pTvalues. A deviation from unity of up to 23% is observed in the 5% most central collisions for the highest pTvalue with a significance of 13σ. The strength of the fluctuations decreases towards more peripheral collisions to around 5% in 20%– 30% and 30%–40% and then slightly increases in 40%–50% centrality up to 7%. These measurements provide evidence of pT-dependent flow angle fluctuations. As the systematic uncertainty accounts for any potential remaining nonflow 065202-7
S. ACHARYA et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW C 109, 065202 (2024) 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 c < 0.6 GeV/ t T p0.2 < ALICE 0-5% 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 c < 1.0 GeV/ t T p0.6 < 0-5% 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 c < 1.5 GeV/ t T p1.0 < 0-5% 2 r 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 c < 2.0 GeV/ t T p1.5 < 0-5% 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 c < 2.5 GeV/ t T p2.0 < 0-5% 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 c < 3.0 GeV/ t T p2.5 < 0-5% 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 )c (GeV/ a T p 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 c < 4.0 GeV/ t T p3.0 < 0-5% 20-30% = 5.02 TeV NN sPb−Pb = 2.76 TeV NN sPb−Pb 20-30% 20-30% 20-30% 20-30% 20-30% 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 )c (GeV/ a T p 20-30% 40-50% 40-50% 40-50% 40-50% 40-50% 40-50% 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 )c (GeV/ a T p 40-50% FIG. 4. The factorization ratio r2for Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV (dark blue circles) and 2.76 TeV [46] (light blue circles) as a function of associated particle pa T. The columns show the results in centrality intervals 0%–5%, 20%–30%, and 40%–50%, while the rows show the results for different trigger particle pt Tintervals. Statistical (systematic) uncertainties are represented by solid bars (faded boxes). 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 2 r 0-5% ALICE = 5.02 TeV Pb −Pb 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 )c (GeV/ a T p 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 2 r 20-30% c < 0.6 GeV/p0.2 < 5-10% TRENTo+iEBE-VISHNU AMPT+iEBE-VISHNU 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 )c (GeV/ a T p 30-40% 10-20% 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 )c (GeV/ a T p 40-50% FIG. 5. The factorization ratio r2for Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV (blue circles) as a function of pa Tfor 0.2<pt T<0.6 GeV/c. The different panels display results in different centrality intervals. Statistical (systematic) uncertainties are represented by solid bars (faded boxes). Predictions from iEBE-VISHNU hydrodynamic model with TRENTo initial conditions and temperature-dependent η/s(T)[71], and with AMPT initial conditions and η/s=0.08 [71], are shown in colored bands. 065202-8
SYSTEMATIC STUDY OF FLOW VECTOR FLUCTUATIONS … PHYSICAL REVIEW C 109, 065202 (2024) B. Bhattacharjee ,41 L. Bianchi ,24 N. Bianchi ,49 J. Bielˇ cík ,35 J. Bielˇ cíková ,86 A. P. Bigot ,129 A. Bilandzic ,95 G. Biro ,46 S. Biswas ,4N. Bize ,103 J. T. Blair ,108 D. Blau ,141 M. B. Blidaru ,97 N. Bluhme,38 C. Blume ,64 G. Boca ,21,55 F. Bock ,87 T. Bodova ,20 J. Bok ,16 L. Boldizsár ,46 M. Bombara ,37 P. M. Bond ,32 G. Bonomi ,134,55 H. Borel ,130 A. Borissov ,141 A. G. Borquez Carcamo ,94 H. Bossi ,138 E. Botta ,24 Y. E. M. Bouziani ,64 L. Bratrud ,64 P. Braun-Munzinger ,97 M. Bregant ,110 M. Broz ,35 G. E. Bruno ,96,31 M. D. Buckland ,23 D. Budnikov ,141 H. Buesching ,64 S. Bufalino ,29 P. Buhler ,102 N. Burmasov ,141 Z. Buthelezi ,68,123 A. Bylinkin ,20 S. A. Bysiak,107 J. C. Cabanillas Noris ,109 M. F. T. Cabrera,116 M. Cai ,6H. Caines ,138 A. Caliva ,28 E. Calvo Villar ,101 J. M. M. Camacho ,109 P. Camerini ,23 F. D. M. Canedo ,110 S. L. Cantway ,138 M. Carabas ,113 A. A. Carballo ,32 F. Carnesecchi ,32 R. Caron ,128 L. A. D. Carvalho ,110 J. Castillo Castellanos ,130 M. Castoldi ,32 F. Catalano ,32 S. Cattaruzzi ,23 C. Ceballos Sanchez ,142 R. Cerri,24 I. Chakaberia ,74 P. Chakraborty ,136,47 S. Chandra ,135 S. Chapeland ,32 M. Chartier ,119 S. Chattopadhay,135 S. Chattopadhyay ,135 S. Chattopadhyay ,99 T. Cheng ,97,6 C. Cheshkov ,128 V. Chibante Barroso ,32 D. D. Chinellato ,111 E. S. Chizzali ,95,aJ. Cho ,58 S. Cho ,58 P. Chochula ,32 Z. A. Chochulska,136 D. Choudhury,41 P. Christakoglou ,84 C. H. Christensen ,83 P. Christiansen ,75 T. Chujo ,125 M. Ciacco ,29 C. Cicalo ,52 M. R. Ciupek,97 G. Clai,51,bF. Colamaria ,50 J. S. Colburn,100 D. Colella ,96,31 M. Colocci ,25 M. Concas ,32 G. Conesa Balbastre ,73 Z. Conesa del Valle ,131 G. Contin ,23 J. G. Contreras ,35 M. L. Coquet ,103,130 P. Cortese ,133,56 M. R. Cosentino ,112 F. Costa ,32 S. Costanza ,21,55 C. Cot ,131 J. Crkovská ,94 P. Crochet ,127 R. Cruz-Torres ,74 P. Cui ,6A. Dainese ,54 G. Dange,38 M. C. Danisch ,94 A. Danu ,63 P. Das ,80 P. Das ,4S. Das ,4 A. R. Dash ,126 S. Dash ,47 A. De Caro ,28 G. de Cataldo ,50 J. de Cuveland,38 A. De Falco ,22 D. De Gruttola ,28 N. De Marco ,56 C. De Martin ,23 S. De Pasquale ,28 R. Deb ,134 R. Del Grande ,95 L. Dello Stritto ,32 W. Deng ,6 K. C. Devereaux,18 P. Dhankher ,18 D. Di Bari ,31 A. Di Mauro ,32 B. Diab ,130 R. A. Diaz ,142,7T. Dietel ,114 Y. Ding ,6J. Ditzel ,64 R. Divià ,32 D. U. Dixit ,18 Ø. Djuvsland,20 U. Dmitrieva ,141 A. Dobrin ,63 B. Dönigus ,64 J. M. Dubinski ,136 A. Dubla ,97 S. Dudi ,90 P. Dupieux ,127 N. Dzalaiova,13 T. M. Eder ,126 R. J. Ehlers ,74 F. Eisenhut ,64 R. Ejima,92 D. Elia ,50 B. Erazmus ,103 F. Ercolessi ,25 B. Espagnon ,131 G. Eulisse ,32 D. Evans ,100 S. Evdokimov ,141 L. Fabbietti ,95 M. Faggin ,27 J. Faivre ,73 F. Fan ,6W. Fan ,74 A. Fantoni ,49 M. Fasel ,87 A. Feliciello ,56 G. Feofilov ,141 A. Fernández Téllez ,44 L. Ferrandi ,110 M. B. Ferrer ,32 A. Ferrero ,130 C. Ferrero ,56,cA. Ferretti ,24 V. J. G. Feuillard ,94 V. Filova ,35 D. Finogeev ,141 F. M. Fionda ,52 E. Flatland,32 F. Flor ,116 A. N. Flores ,108 S. Foertsch ,68 I. Fokin ,94 S. Fokin ,141 U. Follo,56,cE. Fragiacomo ,57 E. Frajna ,46 U. Fuchs ,32 N. Funicello ,28 C. Furget ,73 A. Furs ,141 T. Fusayasu ,98 J. J. Gaardhøje ,83 M. Gagliardi ,24 A. M. Gago ,101 T. Gahlaut,47 C. D. Galvan ,109 D. R. Gangadharan ,116 P. Ganoti ,78 C. Garabatos ,97 J. M. Garcia,44 T. García Chávez ,44 E. Garcia-Solis ,9C. Gargiulo ,32 P. Gasik ,97 H. M. Gaur,38 A. Gautam ,118 M. B. Gay Ducati ,66 M. Germain ,103 A. Ghimouz,125 C. Ghosh,135 M. Giacalone ,51 G. Gioachin ,29 P. Giubellino ,97,56 P. Giubilato ,27 A. M. C. Glaenzer ,130 P. Glässel ,94 E. Glimos ,122 D. J. Q. Goh,76 V. Gonzalez ,137 P. Gordeev ,141 M. Gorgon ,2 K. Goswami ,48 S. Gotovac,33 V. Grabski ,67 L. K. Graczykowski ,136 E. Grecka ,86 A. Grelli ,59 C. Grigoras ,32 V. Grigoriev ,141 S. Grigoryan ,142,1F. Grosa ,32 J. F. Grosse-Oetringhaus ,32 R. Grosso ,97 D. Grund ,35 N. A. Grunwald,94 G. G. Guardiano ,111 R. Guernane ,73 M. Guilbaud ,103 K. Gulbrandsen ,83 T. Gündem ,64 T. Gunji ,124 W. Guo ,6A. Gupta ,91 R. Gupta ,91 R. Gupta ,48 K. Gwizdziel ,136 L. Gyulai ,46 C. Hadjidakis ,131 F. U. Haider ,91 S. Haidlova ,35 M. Haldar,4H. Hamagaki ,76 A. Hamdi ,74 Y. Han ,139 B. G. Hanley ,137 R. Hannigan ,108 J. Hansen ,75 M. R. Haque ,97 J. W. Harris ,138 A. Harton ,9M. V. Hartung ,64 H. Hassan ,117 D. Hatzifotiadou ,51 P. Hauer ,42 L. B. Havener ,138 E. Hellbär ,97 H. Helstrup ,34 M. Hemmer ,64 T. Herman ,35 S. G. Hernandez,116 G. Herrera Corral ,8F. Herrmann,126 S. Herrmann ,128 K. F. Hetland ,34 B. Heybeck ,64 H. Hillemanns ,32 B. Hippolyte ,129 F. W. Hoffmann ,70 B. Hofman ,59 G. H. Hong ,139 M. Horst ,95 A. Horzyk ,2 Y. Hou ,6P. Hristov ,32 P. Huhn,64 L. M. Huhta ,117 T. J. Humanic ,88 A. Hutson ,116 D. Hutter ,38 M. C. Hwang ,18 R. Ilkaev,141 M. Inaba ,125 G. M. Innocenti ,32 M. Ippolitov ,141 A. Isakov ,84 T. Isidori ,118 M. S. Islam ,99 S. Iurchenko,141 M. Ivanov,13 M. Ivanov ,97 V. Ivanov ,141 K. E. Iversen ,75 M. Jablonski ,2B. Jacak ,18,74 N. Jacazio ,25 P. M. Jacobs ,74 S. Jadlovska,106 J. Jadlovsky,106 S. Jaelani ,82 C. Jahnke ,110 M. J. Jakubowska ,136 M. A. Janik ,136 T. Janson,70 S. Ji ,16 S. Jia ,10 A. A. P. Jimenez ,65 F. Jonas ,74 D. M. Jones ,119 J. M. Jowett ,32,97 J. Jung ,64 M. Jung ,64 A. Junique ,32 A. Jusko ,100 J. Kaewjai,105 P. Kalinak ,60 A. Kalweit ,32 A. Karasu Uysal ,72,d D. Karatovic ,89 O. Karavichev ,141 T. Karavicheva ,141 E. Karpechev ,141 M. J. Karwowska ,32,136 U. Kebschull ,70 R. Keidel ,140 M. Keil ,32 B. Ketzer ,42 S. S. Khade ,48 A. M. Khan ,120 S. Khan ,15 A. Khanzadeev ,141 Y. Kharlov ,141 A. Khatun ,118 A. Khuntia ,35 Z. Khuranova ,64 B. Kileng ,34 B. Kim ,104 C. Kim ,16 D. J. Kim ,117 E. J. Kim ,69 J. Kim ,139 J. Kim ,58 J. Kim ,69 M. Kim ,18 S. Kim ,17 T. Kim ,139 K. Kimura ,92 A. Kirkova,36 S. Kirsch ,64 I. Kisel ,38 S. Kiselev ,141 A. Kisiel ,136 J. P. Kitowski ,2J. L. Klay ,5J. Klein ,32 S. Klein ,74 C. Klein-Bösing ,126 M. Kleiner ,64 T. Klemenz ,95 A. Kluge ,32 C. Kobdaj ,105 R. Kohara,124 T. Kollegger,97 A. Kondratyev ,142 N. Kondratyeva ,141 J. Konig ,64 S. A. Konigstorfer ,95 P. J. Konopka ,32 G. Kornakov ,136 M. Korwieser ,95 S. D. Koryciak ,2C. Koster,84 A. Kotliarov ,86 N. Kovacic,89 V. Kovalenko ,141 M. Kowalski ,107 V. Kozhuharov ,36 I. Králik ,60 A. Kravˇ cáková ,37 L. Krcal ,32,38 M. Krivda ,100,60 F. Krizek ,86 K. Krizkova Gajdosova ,32 C. Krug ,66 M. Krüger ,64 D. M. Krupova ,35 E. Kryshen ,141 V. Ku ˇ cera ,58 C. Kuhn ,129 P. G. Kuijer ,84 T. Kumaoka,125 D. Kumar,135 L. Kumar ,90 N. Kumar,90 S. Kumar ,31 S. Kundu ,32 P. Kurashvili ,79 065202-15
S. ACHARYA et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW C 109, 065202 (2024) A. Kurepin ,141 A. B. Kurepin ,141 A. Kuryakin ,141 S. Kushpil ,86 V. Kuskov ,141 M. Kutyla,136 M. J. Kweon ,58 Y. Kwon ,139 S. L. La Pointe ,38 P. La Rocca ,26 A. Lakrathok,105 M. Lamanna ,32 A. R. Landou ,73 R. Langoy ,121 P. Larionov ,32 E. Laudi ,32 L. Lautner ,32,95 R. A. N. Laveaga,109 R. Lavicka ,102 R. Lea ,134,55 H. Lee ,104 I. Legrand ,45 G. Legras ,126 J. Lehrbach ,38 T. M. Lelek,2R. C. Lemmon ,85 I. León Monzón ,109 M. M. Lesch ,95 E. D. Lesser ,18 P. Lévai ,46 M. Li,6X. Li,10 B. E. Liang-gilman ,18 J. Lien ,121 R. Lietava ,100 I. Likmeta ,116 B. Lim ,24 S. H. Lim ,16 V. Lindenstruth ,38 A. Lindner,45 C. Lippmann ,97 D. H. Liu ,6J. Liu ,119 G. S. S. Liveraro ,111 I. M. Lofnes ,20 C. Loizides ,87 S. Lokos ,107 J. Lömker ,59 X. Lopez ,127 E. López Torres ,7 P. Lu ,97,120 F. V. Lugo ,67 J. R. Luhder ,126 M. Lunardon ,27 G. Luparello ,57 Y. G. Ma ,39 M. Mager ,32 A. Maire ,129 E. M. Majerz,2M. V. Makariev ,36 M. Malaev ,141 G. Malfattore ,25 N. M. Malik ,91 Q. W. Malik,19 S. K. Malik ,91 L. Malinina ,142,e,fD. Mallick ,131 N. Mallick ,48 G. Mandaglio ,30,53 S. K. Mandal ,79 A. Manea ,63 V. Manko ,141 F. Manso ,127 V. Manzari ,50 Y. Mao ,6R. W. Marcjan ,2G. V. Margagliotti ,23 A. Margotti ,51 A. Marín ,97 C. Markert ,108 P. Martinengo ,32 M. I. Martínez ,44 G. Martínez García ,103 M. P. P. Martins ,110 S. Masciocchi ,97 M. Masera ,24 A. Masoni ,52 L. Massacrier ,131 O. Massen ,59 A. Mastroserio ,132,50 O. Matonoha ,75 S. Mattiazzo ,27 A. Matyja ,107 A. L. Mazuecos ,32 F. Mazzaschi ,24 M. Mazzilli ,116 J. E. Mdhluli ,123 Y. Melikyan ,43 A. Menchaca-Rocha ,67 J. E. M. Mendez ,65 E. Meninno ,102 A. S. Menon ,116 M. W. Menzel,32,94 M. Meres ,13 Y. Miake,125 L. Micheletti ,32 D. L. Mihaylov ,95 K. Mikhaylov ,142,141 N. Minafra ,118 D. Mi´ skowiec ,97 A. Modak ,4 B. Mohanty,80 M. Mohisin Khan ,15,gM. A. Molander ,43 S. Monira ,136 C. Mordasini ,117 D. A. Moreira De Godoy ,126 I. Morozov ,141 A. Morsch ,32 T. Mrnjavac ,32 V. Muccifora ,49 S. Muhuri ,135 J. D. Mulligan ,74 A. Mulliri ,22 M. G. Munhoz ,110 R. H. Munzer ,64 H. Murakami ,124 S. Murray ,114 L. Musa ,32 J. Musinsky ,60 J. W. Myrcha ,136 B. Naik ,123 A. I. Nambrath ,18 B. K. Nandi ,47 R. Nania ,51 E. Nappi ,50 A. F. Nassirpour ,17 A. Nath ,94 C. Nattrass ,122 M. N. Naydenov ,36 A. Neagu,19 A. Negru,113 E. Nekrasova,141 L. Nellen ,65 R. Nepeivoda ,75 S. Nese ,19 G. Neskovic ,38 N. Nicassio ,50 B. S. Nielsen ,83 E. G. Nielsen ,83 S. Nikolaev ,141 S. Nikulin ,141 V. Nikulin ,141 F. Noferini ,51 S. Noh ,12 P. Nomokonov ,142 J. Norman ,119 N. Novitzky ,87 P. Nowakowski ,136 A. Nyanin ,141 J. Nystrand ,20 S. Oh ,17 A. Ohlson ,75 V. A. Okorokov ,141 J. Oleniacz ,136 A. Onnerstad ,117 C. Oppedisano ,56 A. Ortiz Velasquez ,65 J. Otwinowski ,107 M. Oya,92 K. Oyama ,76 Y. Pachmayer ,94 S. Padhan ,47 D. Pagano ,134,55 G. Pai´ c ,65 S. Paisano-Guzmán ,44 A. Palasciano ,50 S. Panebianco ,130 H. Park ,125 H. Park ,104 J. E. Parkkila ,32 Y. Patley ,47 B. Paul ,22 M. M. D. M. Paulino ,110 H. Pei ,6T. Peitzmann ,59 X. Peng ,11 M. Pennisi ,24 S. Perciballi ,24 D. Peresunko ,141 G. M. Perez ,7Y. Pestov,141 V. Petrov ,141 M. Petrovici ,45 S. Piano ,57 M. Pikna ,13 P. Pillot ,103 O. Pinazza ,51,32 L. Pinsky,116 C. Pinto ,95 S. Pisano ,49 M. Płosko´ n ,74 M. Planinic,89 F. Pliquett,64 M. G. Poghosyan ,87 B. Polichtchouk ,141 S. Politano ,29 N. Poljak ,89 A. Pop ,45 S. Porteboeuf-Houssais ,127 V. Pozdniakov ,142,eI. Y. Pozos ,44 K. K. Pradhan ,48 S. K. Prasad ,4S. Prasad ,48 R. Preghenella ,51 F. Prino ,56 C. A. Pruneau ,137 I. Pshenichnov ,141 M. Puccio ,32 S. Pucillo ,24 S. Qiu ,84 L. Quaglia ,24 S. Ragoni ,14 A. Rai ,138 A. Rakotozafindrabe ,130 L. Ramello ,133,56 F. Rami ,129 M. Rasa ,26 S. S. Räsänen ,43 R. Rath ,51 M. P. Rauch ,20 I. Ravasenga ,32 K. F. Read ,87,122 C. Reckziegel ,112 A. R. Redelbach ,38 K. Redlich ,79,hC. A. Reetz ,97 H. D. Regules-Medel,44 A. Rehman,20 F. Reidt ,32 H. A. Reme-Ness ,34 Z. Rescakova,37 K. Reygers ,94 A. Riabov ,141 V. Riabov ,141 R. Ricci ,28 M. Richter ,20 A. A. Riedel ,95 W. Riegler ,32 A. G. Riffero ,24 C. Ripoli,28 C. Ristea ,63 M. V. Rodriguez ,32 M. Rodríguez Cahuantzi ,44 S. A. Rodríguez Ramírez ,44 K. Røed ,19 R. Rogalev ,141 E. Rogochaya ,142 T. S. Rogoschinski ,64 D. Rohr ,32 D. Röhrich ,20 S. Rojas Torres ,35 P. S. Rokita ,136 G. Romanenko ,25 F. Ronchetti ,49 E. D. Rosas,65 K. Roslon ,136 A. Rossi ,54 A. Roy ,48 S. Roy ,47 N. Rubini ,25 D. Ruggiano ,136 R. Rui ,23 P. G. Russek ,2R. Russo ,84 A. Rustamov ,81 E. Ryabinkin ,141 Y. Ryabov ,141 A. Rybicki ,107 J. Ryu ,16 W. Rzesa ,136 S. Sadhu ,31 S. Sadovsky ,141 J. Saetre ,20 K. Šafaˇ rík ,35 S. K. Saha ,4S. Saha ,80 B. Sahoo ,48 R. Sahoo ,48 S. Sahoo,61 D. Sahu ,48 P. K. Sahu ,61 J. Saini ,135 K. Sajdakova,37 S. Sakai ,125 M. P. Salvan ,97 S. Sambyal ,91 D. Samitz ,102 I. Sanna ,32,95 T. B. Saramela,110 D. Sarkar ,83 P. Sarma ,41 V. Sarritzu ,22 V. M. Sarti ,95 M. H. P. Sas ,32 S. Sawan ,80 E. Scapparone ,51 J. Schambach ,87 H. S. Scheid ,64 C. Schiaua ,45 R. Schicker ,94 F. Schlepper ,94 A. Schmah,97 C. Schmidt ,97 H. R. Schmidt,93 M. O. Schmidt ,32 M. Schmidt,93 N. V. Schmidt ,87 A. R. Schmier ,122 R. Schotter ,129 A. Schröter ,38 J. Schukraft ,32 K. Schweda ,97 G. Scioli ,25 E. Scomparin ,56 J. E. Seger ,14 Y. Sekiguchi,124 D. Sekihata ,124 M. Selina ,84 I. Selyuzhenkov ,97 S. Senyukov ,129 J. J. Seo ,94 D. Serebryakov ,141 L. Serkin ,65 L. Šerkšnyt˙ e ,95 A. Sevcenco ,63 T. J. Shaba ,68 A. Shabetai ,103 R. Shahoyan,32 A. Shangaraev ,141 B. Sharma ,91 D. Sharma ,47 H. Sharma ,54 M. Sharma ,91 S. Sharma ,76 S. Sharma ,91 U. Sharma ,91 A. Shatat ,131 O. Sheibani,116 K. Shigaki ,92 M. Shimomura,77 J. Shin,12 S. Shirinkin ,141 Q. Shou ,39 Y. Sibiriak ,141 S. Siddhanta ,52 T. Siemiarczuk ,79 T. F. Silva ,110 D. Silvermyr ,75 T. Simantathammakul,105 R. Simeonov ,36 B. Singh,91 B. Singh ,95 K. Singh ,48 R. Singh ,80 R. Singh ,91 R. Singh ,97,48 S. Singh ,15 V. K. Singh ,135 V. Singhal ,135 T. Sinha ,99 B. Sitar ,13 M. Sitta ,133,56 T. B. Skaali,19 G. Skorodumovs ,94 N. Smirnov ,138 R. J. M. Snellings ,59 E. H. Solheim ,19 J. Song ,16 C. Sonnabend ,32,97 J. M. Sonneveld ,84 F. Soramel ,27 A. B. Soto-hernandez ,88 R. Spijkers ,84 I. Sputowska ,107 J. Staa ,75 J. Stachel ,94 I. Stan ,63 P. J. Steffanic ,122 S. F. Stiefelmaier ,94 D. Stocco ,103 I. Storehaug ,19 N. J. Strangmann ,64 P. Stratmann ,126 S. Strazzi ,25 A. Sturniolo ,30,53 C. P. Stylianidis,84 A. A. P. Suaide ,110 C. Suire ,131 M. Sukhanov ,141 M. Suljic ,32 R. Sultanov ,141 V. Sumberia ,91 S. Sumowidagdo ,82 I. Szarka ,13 M. Szymkowski ,136 S. F. Taghavi ,95 065202-16
SYSTEMATIC STUDY OF FLOW VECTOR FLUCTUATIONS … PHYSICAL REVIEW C 109, 065202 (2024) G. Taillepied ,97 J. Takahashi ,111 G. J. Tambave ,80 S. Tang ,6Z. Tang ,120 J. D. Tapia Takaki ,118 N. Tapus,113 L. A. Tarasovicova ,126 M. G. Tarzila ,45 G. F. Tassielli ,31 A. Tauro ,32 A. Tavira García ,131 G. Tejeda Muñoz ,44 A. Telesca ,32 L. Terlizzi ,24 C. Terrevoli ,50 S. Thakur ,4D. Thomas ,108 A. Tikhonov ,141 N. Tiltmann ,32,126 A. R. Timmins ,116 M. Tkacik,106 T. Tkacik ,106 A. Toia ,64 R. Tokumoto,92 S. Tomassini,25 K. Tomohiro,92 N. Topilskaya ,141 M. Toppi ,49 T. Tork ,131 V. V. Torres ,103 A. G. Torres Ramos ,31 A. Trifiró ,30,53 A. S. Triolo ,32,30,53 S. Tripathy ,32 T. Tripathy ,47 V. Trubnikov ,3W. H. Trzaska ,117 T. P. Trzcinski ,136 A. Tumkin ,141 R. Turrisi ,54 T. S. Tveter ,19 K. Ullaland ,20 B. Ulukutlu ,95 A. Uras ,128 M. Urioni ,134 G. L. Usai ,22 M. Vala,37 N. Valle ,55 L. V. R. van Doremalen,59 M. van Leeuwen ,84 C. A. van Veen ,94 R. J. G. van Weelden ,84 P. Vande Vyvre ,32 D. Varga ,46 Z. Varga ,46 P. Vargas Torres,65 M. Vasileiou ,78 A. Vasiliev ,141 O. Vázquez Doce ,49 O. Vazquez Rueda ,116 V. Vechernin ,141 E. Vercellin ,24 S. Vergara Limón,44 R. Verma,47 L. Vermunt ,97 R. Vértesi ,46 M. Verweij ,59 L. Vickovic,33 Z. Vilakazi,123 O. Villalobos Baillie ,100 A. Villani ,23 A. Vinogradov ,141 T. Virgili ,28 M. M. O. Virta ,117 V. Vislavicius,75 A. Vodopyanov ,142 B. Volkel ,32 M. A. Völkl ,94 S. A. Voloshin ,137 G. Volpe ,31 B. von Haller ,32 I. Vorobyev ,32 N. Vozniuk ,141 J. Vrláková ,37 J. Wan,39 C. Wang ,39 D. Wang,39 Y. Wang ,39 Y. Wang ,6A. Wegrzynek ,32 F. T. Weiglhofer,38 S. C. Wenzel ,32 J. P. Wessels ,126 J. Wiechula ,64 J. Wikne ,19 G. Wilk ,79 J. Wilkinson ,97 G. A. Willems ,126 B. Windelband ,94 M. Winn ,130 J. R. Wright ,108 W. Wu,39 Y. Wu ,120 Z. Xiong,120 R. Xu ,6A. Yadav ,42 A. K. Yadav ,135 Y. Yamaguchi ,92 S. Yang,20 S. Yano ,92 E. R. Yeats,18 Z. Yin ,6 I.-K. Yoo ,16 J. H. Yoon ,58 H. Yu,12 S. Yuan,20 A. Yuncu ,94 V. Zaccolo ,23 C. Zampolli ,32 M. Zang,6F. Zanone ,94 N. Zardoshti ,32 A. Zarochentsev ,141 P. Závada ,62 N. Zaviyalov,141 M. Zhalov ,141 B. Zhang ,6C. Zhang ,130 L. Zhang ,39 M. Zhang,6S. Zhang ,39 X. Zhang ,6Y. Zhang,120 Z. Zhang ,6M. Zhao ,10 V. Zherebchevskii ,141 Y. Zhi,10 C. Zhong,39 D. Zhou ,6Y. Zhou ,83 J. Zhu ,54,6S. Zhu,120 Y. Zhu,6S. C. Zugravel ,56 and N. Zurlo 134,55 (ALICE Collaboration) 1A.I. Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics Institute) Foundation, Yerevan, Armenia 2AGH University of Krakow, Cracow, Poland 3Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine 4Bose Institute, Department of Physics and Centre for Astroparticle Physics and Space Science (CAPSS), Kolkata, India 5California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California, USA 6Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China 7Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Havana, Cuba 8Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados (CINVESTAV), Mexico City and Mérida, Mexico 9Chicago State University, Chicago, Illinois, USA 10China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China 11China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, China 12Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea 13Comenius University Bratislava, Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, Bratislava, Slovak Republic 14Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, USA 15Department of Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India 16Department of Physics, Pusan National University, Pusan, Republic of Korea 17Department of Physics, Sejong University, Seoul, Republic of Korea 18Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA 19Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway 20Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway 21Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Pavia,Pavia,Italy 22Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Cagliari, Italy 23Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Trieste, Italy 24Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy 25Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Bologna, Italy 26Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Catania, Italy 27Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Padova, Italy 28Dipartimento di Fisica ‘E.R. Caianiello’ dell’Università and Gruppo Collegato INFN, Salerno, Italy 29Dipartimento DISAT del Politecnico and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy 30Dipartimento di Scienze MIFT, Università di Messina, Messina, Italy 31Dipartimento Interateneo di Fisica ‘M. Merlin’ and Sezione INFN, Bari, Italy 32European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland 33Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Split, Split, Croatia 34Faculty of Engineering and Science, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway 35Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic 065202-17
S. ACHARYA et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW C 109, 065202 (2024) 36Faculty of Physics, Sofia University, Sofia, Bulgaria 37Faculty of Science, P.J. Šafárik University, Košice, Slovak Republic 38Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany 39Fudan University, Shanghai, China 40Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, Republic of Korea 41Gauhati University, Department of Physics, Guwahati, India 42Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlenund Kernphysik, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany 43Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Helsinki, Finland 44High Energy Physics Group, Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico 45Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest, Romania 46HUN-REN Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary 47Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT), Mumbai, India 48Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore, India 49INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy 50INFN, Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy 51INFN, Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, Italy 52INFN, Sezione di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy 53INFN, Sezione di Catania, Catania, Italy 54INFN, Sezione di Padova,Padova,Italy 55INFN, Sezione di Pavia, Pavia, Italy 56INFN, Sezione di Torino, Turin, Italy 57INFN, Sezione di Trieste,Trieste,Italy 58Inha University, Incheon, Republic of Korea 59Institute for Gravitational and Subatomic Physics (GRASP), Utrecht University/Nikhef, Utrecht, Netherlands 60Institute of Experimental Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Košice, Slovak Republic 61Institute of Physics, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Bhubaneswar, India 62Institute of Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic 63Institute of Space Science (ISS), Bucharest, Romania 64Institut für Kernphysik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany 65Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico 66Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Brazil 67Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico 68iThemba LABS, National Research Foundation, Somerset West, South Africa 69Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea 70Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe Universität Frankfurt Institut für Informatik, Fachbereich Informatik und Mathematik, Frankfurt, Germany 71Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon, Republic of Korea 72KTO Karatay University, Konya, Turkey 73Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie, Université Grenoble-Alpes, CNRS-IN2P3, Grenoble, France 74Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, USA 75Lund University Department of Physics, Division of Particle Physics, Lund, Sweden 76Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science, Nagasaki, Japan 77Nara Women’s University (NWU), Nara, Japan 78National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Science, Department of Physics, Athens, Greece 79National Centre for Nuclear Research, Warsaw, Poland 80National Institute of Science Education and Research, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Jatni, India 81National Nuclear Research Center, Baku, Azerbaijan 82National Research and Innovation Agency - BRIN, Jakarta, Indonesia 83Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark 84Nikhef, National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, Netherlands 85Nuclear Physics Group, STFC Daresbury Laboratory, Daresbury, United Kingdom 86Nuclear Physics Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Husinecˇ Rež, Czech Republic 87Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA 88Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA 89Physics Department, Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia 90Physics Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India 91Physics Department, University of Jammu, Jammu, India 92Physics Program and International Institute for Sustainability with Knotted Chiral Meta Matter (SKCM2), Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan 93Physikalisches Institut, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany 065202-18
SYSTEMATIC STUDY OF FLOW VECTOR FLUCTUATIONS … PHYSICAL REVIEW C 109, 065202 (2024) 94Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany 95Physik Department, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany 96Politecnico di Bari and Sezione INFN, Bari, Italy 97Research Division and ExtreMe Matter Institute EMMI, GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany 98Saga University, Saga, Japan 99Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kolkata, India 100School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom 101Sección Física, Departamento de Ciencias, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú,Lima,Peru 102Stefan Meyer Institut für Subatomare Physik (SMI), Vienna, Austria 103SUBATECH, IMT Atlantique, Nantes Université, CNRS-IN2P3, Nantes, France 104Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon City, Republic of Korea 105Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand 106Technical University of Košice, Košice, Slovak Republic 107The Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Cracow, Poland 108The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA 109Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Culiacán, Mexico 110Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil 111Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil 112Universidade Federal do ABC, Santo Andre, Brazil 113Universitatea Nationala de Stiinta si Tehnologie Politehnica Bucuresti, Bucharest, Romania 114University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa 115University of Derby, Derby, United Kingdom 116University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA 117University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland 118University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA 119University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom 120University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China 121University of South-Eastern Norway, Kongsberg, Norway 122University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA 123University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa 124University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan 125University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan 126Universität Münster, Institut für Kernphysik, Münster, Germany 127Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France 128Université de Lyon, CNRS/IN2P3, Institut de Physique des 2 Infinis de Lyon, Lyon, France 129Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, F-67000 Strasbourg, France, Strasbourg, France 130Université Paris-Saclay, Centre d’Etudes de Saclay (CEA), IRFU, Départment de Physique Nucléaire (DPhN), Saclay, France 131Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS/IN2P3, IJCLab, Orsay, France 132Università degli Studi di Foggia, Foggia, Italy 133Università del Piemonte Orientale, Vercelli, Italy 134Università di Brescia, Brescia, Italy 135Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kolkata, India 136Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland 137Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA 138Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA 139Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea 140Zentrum für Technologie und Transfer (ZTT), Worms, Germany 141Affiliated with an institute covered by a cooperation agreement with CERN 142Affiliated with an international laboratory covered by a cooperation agreement with CERN aAlso at Max-Planck-Institut fur Physik, Munich, Germany. bAlso at Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy, Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA), Bologna, Italy. cAlso at Dipartimento DET del Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy. dAlso at Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Türkiye. eDeceased. fAlso at an institution covered by a cooperation agreement with CERN. gAlso at Department of Applied Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India. hAlso at Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Wroclaw, Poland. 065202-19