Probing the chiral magnetic wave with charge-dependent flow measurements in Pb-Pb collisions at the LHC

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/ Probing the chiral magnetic wave with charge-dependent flow measurements in Pb-Pb collisions at the LHC © Copyright CERN, for the beneft of the ALICE Collaboration. Article funded by SCOAP3 Published version The ALICE collaboration The ALICE collaboration. (2023). Probing the chiral magnetic wave with charge-dependent flow measurements in Pb-Pb collisions at the LHC. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2023, Article 67. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2023)067 2023 JHEP12(2023)067 Published for SISSA by Springer Received:September 26, 2023 Accepted:November 23, 2023 Published:December 12, 2023 Probing the chiral magnetic wave with charge-dependent flow measurements in Pb-Pb collisions at the LHC The ALICE collaboration E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: The Chiral Magnetic Wave (CMW) phenomenon is essential to provide insights into the strong interaction in QCD, the properties of the quark-gluon plasma, and the topological characteristics of the early universe, offering a deeper understanding of fundamental physics in high-energy collisions. Measurements of the charge-dependent anisotropic flow coefficients are studied in Pb-Pb collisions at center-of-mass energy per nucleon-nucleon collision √sNN = 5.02 TeV to probe the CMW. In particular, the slope of the normalized difference in elliptic (v2) and triangular (v3) flow coefficients of positively and negatively charged particles as a function of their event-wise normalized number difference, is reported for inclusive and identified particles. The slope rNorm 3is found to be larger than zero and to have a magnitude similar to rNorm 2, thus pointing to a large background contribution for these measurements. Furthermore, rNorm 2can be described by a blast wave model calculation that incorporates local charge conservation. In addition, using the event shape engineering technique yields a fraction of CMW (fCMW) contribution to this measurement which is compatible with zero. This measurement provides the very first upper limit for fCMW, and in the 10–60% centrality interval it is found to be 26% (38%) at 95% (99.7%) confidence level. Keywords: Collective Flow, Heavy Ion Experiments, Quark Deconfinement ArXiv ePrint: 2308.16123 Open Access, Copyright CERN, for the benefit of the ALICE Collaboration. Article funded by SCOAP3. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2023)067 JHEP12(2023)067 Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Experimental apparatus and data sample 4 3 Analysis procedure 5 4 Systematic uncertainties 7 5 Results 9 5.1 Ach dependence of vnand centrality dependence of the slope rNorm n9 5.2 Constraining the fraction of the CMW with the ESE 12 6 Summary 13 The ALICE collaboration 22 1 Introduction The primary goal of relativistic heavy-ion collisions at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is to study the properties of the emerging strongly interacting medium called the quarkgluon plasma (QGP) [1–6]. The transition from normal hadronic matter to the QGP is predicted by quantum chromodynamics (QCD) calculations on the lattice [7,8]. Heavy-ion collisions are also characterized by extremely strong short-lived electromagnetic fields (B ∼1018 Gauss), primarily induced by protons from the incoming nuclei that do not undergo any inelastic collision and are referred to as spectators [9]. The direction of Bis perpendicular to the reaction plane, the plane spanned by the impact parameter of the colliding nuclei and the beam direction. The presence of this intense magnetic field allows for the possibility to study novel QCD phenomena, such as parity violation in strong interactions [10–12]. The potential to observe parity violation in strong interactions using ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions was first discussed in refs. [12–14] and further reviewed in refs. [15– 18]. Theoretically, the interactions of quarks with gluonic fields describing transitions between topologically different QCD vacuum states change the quark chirality, leading to a local chiral imbalance. The strong magnetic field leads to a charge separation (electric current) relative to the reaction plane, which is known as the Chiral Magnetic Effect (CME) [12,19–24]. The experimental search for the CME using heavy-ion collisions has intensified over the past decade. Though early measurements pointed to some similarities between the results and the theoretical predictions [25–27], there is substantial evidence that background sources, i.e., collective phenomena and local charge conservation (LCC), play a significant role in the experimental measurements [28,29]. The LCC here refers to – 1 – JHEP12(2023)067 the principle that within a local region of a physical system, the balance or conservation of quantum numbers for eg., electric charge is upheld. Experimental results indicate that the upper limit of the CME signal contribution ranges from 7% to 20% at 95% confidence level in semicentral heavy-ion collisions [25–39]. A dual phenomenon to the CME is the Chiral Separation Effect (CSE) [40,41], which is theorized to induce a chirality current along Bin the presence of a finite electric chemical potential (µe). The CME and the CSE interact with one another forming a long wavelength collective excitation, called the Chiral Magnetic Wave (CMW) [42–46]. Similar to the CME-induced electric dipole moment, the CMW would manifest itself in a finite electric quadrupole moment in the final state [42]. This effect, if present, can be measured by charge-dependent anisotropic flow measurements [42]. The anisotropic flow is quantified in terms of the Fourier coefficients vnof the azimuthal distribution of the produced particles with respect to the nth-order event plane angle Ψn[47–49] dN dφ ∝1 + ∞ X n=1 2vncos [n(φ−Ψn)] ,(1.1) where φis the azimuthal angle of a particle. The first three coefficients v1,v2, and v3 are known as the directed, elliptic, and triangular flow, respectively. The CMW-induced electric quadrupole moment evolves with the medium expansion, leading to an increase (decrease) of v2for negatively (positively) charged hadrons [42]. The difference between negatively and positively charged hadron v2(∆v2) is expected to be proportional to the event-by-event charge asymmetry (Ach) [42,43], ∆v2=v− 2−v+ 2∝r2Ach.(1.2) In the above equation, r2denotes the slope parameter between ∆v2and event-by-event charge asymmetry, and Ach is defined as Ach =(N+−N−) (N++N−),(1.3) where N+(N−) are positively (negatively) charged hadrons measured in a given event. The first experimental search for the CMW was performed by the STAR Collaboration at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) with charged pions in Au-Au collisions at center-of-mass energy per nucleon-nucleon collision √sNN = 200GeV [50], in which a positive linear dependence on Ach was observed for the v2difference between π−and π+. The extracted positive slopes as well as their centrality dependence agree well with theoretical calculations [42–44]. A similar positive correlation was measured by the ALICE Collaboration at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) with charged hadrons in semicentral Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV [51]. Comparable slopes to those from Au-Au collisions in semicentral collisions were reported. However, the lifetime of the magnetic field in vacuum is expected to drop much faster at LHC energies compared to that at RHIC energies [52]. Thus, it is highly unlikely that an identical slope value would be observed by different experiments with orders of magnitude difference in collision energies. Furthermore, a similar – 2 – JHEP12(2023)067 linear dependence was observed by the precision measurements of the CMS collaboration in p-Pb and Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV [53]. This similarity questioned the CMW interpretation since the CMW signal is not expected to be present in p-Pb collisions due to the decoupling of the magnetic field from the reaction plane in such collisions [34,54]. In addition, both STAR and CMS collaborations have observed a linear dependence between Ach and ∆v3, i.e. the difference between the v3coefficients of negatively and positively charged hadrons [53,55] ∆v3=v− 3−v+ 3∝r3Ach.(1.4) However, this should not originate from the CMW-induced electric quadrupole configuration in the medium as the CMW is mainly driven by the magnetic field which is uncorrelated with the third order event plane. As a result of these observations, it appears likely that the slope observed in ∆v2as a function of Ach is not due to the CMW processes only. To ease the comparison between measurements performed by different experiments, one can define a normalized slope parameter as, ∆vNorm n=v− n−v+ n (v− n+v+ n)/2∝rNorm nAch,(1.5) where n=2 or 3. Recently, it was proposed in ref. [56], that one can also utilize the event shape engineering (ESE) technique [57] to estimate the CMW signal. This selection methodology was already employed to constrain the CME [33,36]. The ESE approach utilizes the fluctuations in the shape of the initial state of the system and allows one to select events with the same centrality but different initial geometry, thus varying the background contributions. Instead of the Ach-v2slope, an alternative observable, the integral covariance [51] can be used. It is defined as ∆IC = ⟨v− 2Ach⟩−⟨Ach⟩⟨v− 2⟩−⟨v+ 2Ach⟩−⟨Ach⟩⟨v+ 2⟩,(1.6) where the angular bracket denotes the average over the events. This observable, by definition, calculates the covariance between Ach and v2and is equivalent to the slope parameter. The main advantage of such a covariance is the removal of the dependence on the detector acceptance and on the reconstruction efficiency of charged hadrons when expressed differentially [51]. In addition, one no longer needs to divide each sub-sample of v2into several Ach intervals allowing for a reduction of the statistical fluctuations. Understanding the background components and how they contribute to the experimental measurements is crucial to isolate the CMW signal. Among several background sources [58–65], the most dominant one is expected to be the LCC, convoluted with the collective motion of the QGP medium. The LCC mechanism depicts a scenario where pairs of particles with opposite charges are usually generated from resonance decays. Such particle production mechanism is studied with balance function measurements in heavy-ion collisions [66,67]. In the CMW measurement, when one of the particles from the chargeconserving pair escapes from the limited detector acceptance, a non-zero Ach is consequently generated [58]. It is demonstrated in ref. [68] that the selection of specific Ach values automatically biases the η-pTphase space. This can trivially give rise to a Ach-∆v2correlation – 3 – JHEP12(2023)067 because of the v2dependence on ηand pTleading to non-zero slopes, even in absence of CMW phenomena. Theoretical studies on Ach-∆v2correlations, without the CMW process, have been extensively investigated in refs. [69–73]. The consensus is that the LCC interpretation can effectively explain both the observed Ach-∆v3and Ach-∆v2relations. A pure LCC mechanism is expected to lead to an identical [53,58] positive linear correlation between Ach-∆vNorm 2and Ach-∆vNorm 3. Consequently, this implies that any difference between the normalized slopes rNorm 2and rNorm 3may indicate the existence of the CMW signal. Although there are several measurements of CMW at LHC energies, there is lack of measurements with identified hadrons. Given that the predominant background influence on CMW arises from the interplay of LCC and elliptic flow (v2), it would be useful to measure the CMW for identified particles, as it would provide us a better handle to control the background related to v2[42]. The first theoretical study [42] predicted that only light quarks, i.e., u and d, are influenced by the chiral anomaly. However, recent theoretical calculations [74] suggest that the mass difference between the strange quark (s) and the u, d quarks can be neglected, indicating the possibility of exploring CMW effects with charged kaons. Nevertheless, the significant differences in the absorption cross section for (anti-)protons and kaons in the hadronic matter might obscure the signal. Additionally, a hydrodynamic study [62] suggests that the isospin chemical potential (µI) and the strangeness chemical potential (µS) can play essential roles. This study predicts a negative slope for kaons at RHIC energies [62]. Therefore, it is difficult to disentangle the CMW signal and various background contributions, if the measurements are performed only with inclusive charged hadrons. This paper presents the first measurement of normalized slopes rNorm 2and rNorm 3for charged hadrons and identified π±,K±, and p+p in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02TeV. These measurements will provide experimental input to the ongoing theoretical developments for the flavor dependence of the chiral anomalies. Measurements from data are further compared with a recently developed blast wave model calculation, incorporating the LCC background (BW+LCC) [75]. The measurement of integral covariance is also utilized to estimate an upper limit on the CMW contribution, for the first time, in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV. This article is organized as follows: section 2briefly describes the experimental setup, while section 3discusses the data sample, the selection criteria, and the analysis details. Section 4describes the evaluation of the systematic uncertainties. The results are discussed and compared with model calculations in section 5. A summary is outlined in section 6. 2 Experimental apparatus and data sample The ALICE detector and its performance are described in detail in refs. [76,77]. The apparatus consists of a central barrel at midrapidity (|η|<0.9), embedded in a cylindrical solenoid which provides a magnetic field of 0.5 T parallel to the beam direction, and a set of forward detectors. Charged particles produced in the collisions at midrapidity are tracked by the Inner Tracking System (ITS) [76] and the Time Projection Chamber (TPC) [78]. The ITS, com- – 4 – JHEP12(2023)067 posed of the Silicon Pixel Detector (SPD), Silicon Drift Detector (SDD), and Silicon Strip Detector (SSD), consists of six cylindrical silicon layers surrounding the beam vacuum pipe. The TPC, surrounding the ITS, provides up to 159 points for track reconstruction along with specific energy loss (dE/dx) measurements, which are utilized for charged-particle identification (PID). The PID is complemented by a Time-Of-Flight (TOF) detector [79], which measures the flight time of charged particles. The TOF detector provides pion-kaon separation at 3σlevel up to pT≃2.5GeV/cand pion-proton separation up to pT≃4 GeV/c. On either sides of the interaction point, the V0 scintillator arrays [80], are used for triggering and event classification. The V0 detector consists of two arrays of 32 scintillator tiles covering the pseudorapidity ranges 2.8< η < 5.1(V0A) and −3.7< η < −1.7 (V0C). Both V0 detectors are segmented in four rings in the radial direction with each ring divided into eight sectors in the azimuthal direction. The V0C is also used for ESE and event selection. Two tungsten-quartz neutron Zero Degree Calorimeters (ZDCs) [76], positioned 112.5 meters from the interaction point on each side, are used to reduce the contamination from beam-induced background. Using the time information from V0 and ZDC, offline event selection is performed to reject background from beam-gas collisions, from parasitic beam-beam interactions, and pileup events [77,81]. The analysis is performed using the data sample collected with the ALICE apparatus in the 2018 LHC Pb-Pb run at √sNN = 5.02 TeV. The centrality intervals were defined in terms of percentiles of the hadronic Pb-Pb cross section, determined from selections on the sum of the V0 signal amplitudes [82]. Central and semicentral Pb-Pb collisions were selected online by applying thresholds on the V0 signal amplitudes resulting in two separate trigger classes (central and semicentral triggers). Only events with a reconstructed primary vertex located between ±10 cm with respect to the nominal interaction point along the beam direction (zaxis of the ALICE reference frame) are considered. The analysis is performed in different centrality intervals spanning from 0–5% which corresponds to the most central collisions to 50–60% corresponding to peripheral collisions. The total number of analyzed events after the event selection is approximately 240 million. 3 Analysis procedure Charged particles reconstructed using the TPC and the ITS information within |η|<0.8 and 0.2< pT<10 GeV/care considered to determine Ach. For the measurement of flow coefficients, charged particles are restricted to 0.2< pT<2.0GeV/c. Tracks are selected requiring |η|<0.8, at least 70 (out of a maximum of 159) TPC space points, and χ2per TPC cluster <2.5 for the momentum fit in the TPC. In order to reduce the contamination from secondary particles (i.e., particles originating from weak decays, conversions, and secondary hadronic interactions in the detector material) only tracks with a maximum distance of closest approach (DCA) to the reconstructed primary vertex in the transverse (|DCAxy|<2.4 cm) and the longitudinal directions (|DCAz|<3.2 cm) are accepted. Furthermore, tracks are required to have at least one hit in the two SPD layers. Charged pions, kaons, and (anti)protons are identified from the difference between the measured and – 5 – JHEP12(2023)067 expected values of dE/dxin TPC and time of flight to the TOF detector, expressed in units of resolution(|nσ|TPC,|nσ|TOF), and applying a selection on the number of accepted nσ (see table 1). Additionally, tracks without TOF information with pTlarger than 0.5GeV/c for pions, 0.45 GeV/cfor kaons, and 0.6 GeV/cfor protons are rejected. All particle species are required to lie within the rapidity range |y|<0.5. By applying these selection criteria, the efficiency of identifying charged hadrons is approximately 70% around pT=0.5 GeV/c and increases to about 80% for pTvalues above 1 GeV/c. Moreover, these selection criteria guarantee a purity exceeding 90% for all particle species across the entire range of pTvalues considered in the analysis. An example of the measured raw Ach distribution is shown in the left panel of figure 1 for the 40–50% centrality interval. The raw Ach distribution is divided into ten Ach intervals, each roughly containing equal number of events. The edges of the ten Ach classes are displayed by the dashed lines in the left panel of figure 1. The raw Ach is corrected to account for the limited detector acceptance and the reconstruction and identification efficiency of charged hadrons. Using simulations based on the HIJING event generator [83] combined with the GEANT3 model [84] for particle transport in the detector material, a correlation is built between the raw and the true values of Ach [55]. A linear fit to this correlation is performed and the fit function is used to map the raw Ach to the true Ach as shown in the right panel of figure 1. Within each Ach interval, the flow coefficients v2and v3are measured separately for positively and negatively (identified and inclusive) charged hadrons. The measurements are performed using the two-particle cumulant method [85] with a pseudorapidity gap of |∆η|>0.4 to suppress non-flow, i.e. correlations not related to the reaction plane [86]. The normalized slope parameters, rNorm 2and rNorm 3, are then calculated for various centrality intervals with eq. 1.5 using the values of Ach corrected for detector effects as described above. The ESE technique is further employed to estimate possible CMW signal contribution to the ∆IC as proposed in ref. [56]. In particular, the residual magnitude of this observable when v2goes to zero can be used to disentangle the potential CMW signal from the background contributions [33]. The second-order reduced flow vector q2is used for event shape selection as in ref. [33]. It is defined as q2=Q2/√M,(3.1) where Q2is the magnitude of the flow vector and M is the multiplicity. The Q2is calculated from the azimuthal distribution of the energy deposited in the V0C detector. In order to account for a non-uniform detector response, the V0 detector is calibrated using two procedures: gain equalization and recentering. The former flattens the mean multiplicity distribution of the eight azimuthal sectors in each ring, while the latter corrects for systematic shifts of the mean values of the Q2vector components [48]. For each centrality interval, ten q2ranges are explored, ranging from the most elliptic to the most isotropic event classes. To separate the LCC background contributions from the potential CMW signal, the dependence of the ∆IC on v2(defined in section 1) is fitted with a linear function. The CMW fraction to the ∆IC is then obtained by the ratio between the observable at zero v2 – 6 – JHEP12(2023)067 0.2−0 0.2 Raw ch A 10 4 10 7 10 9 10 Counts ALICE = 5.02 TeV NN sPb −Pb 50%−40 | < 0.8 η Charged hadrons, | ± h 0.2−0 0.2 Raw ch A 0.2− 0.0 0.2 0.4 〉 ch A〈True ALICE Simulation HIJING c < 10.0 GeV/ T p0.2 < y = mx + c 0.001±m = 0.71 0.0001±c = -0.006 Figure 1. (Left panel): raw Ach distribution in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV for the 40–50% centrality interval. Red dotted lines depict the edges of the ten Ach classes. (Right panel): correlation between true and raw Ach obtained from HIJING simulations combined with a GEANT3 detector model for Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV in the 40–50% centrality interval. and at finite v2 fCMW ≡b a⟨v2⟩+b,(3.2) where aand bare the slope and the intercept of the linear function, respectively, and ⟨v2⟩ is the average value over the measured v2range. 4 Systematic uncertainties To estimate the systematic uncertainties on the normalized slopes and fCMW, the event and track selection criteria are varied from their nominal values. Table 1provides a list of variables used in the selections along with their default and varied values. These include modifying the range of zcoordinate of the primary vertex (Vz) from |Vz| ≤10 cm to |Vz| ≤8 cm to examine the detector acceptance dependence. The impact of the trackquality selections is evaluated by changing the minimum number of TPC space points from 70 to 80 and varying the χ2 TPC per TPC space point from 2.5 to 2.0. To test the influence of the contamination from secondary particles on the measurement, tighter selection criteria than the nominal ones are applied to both DCAxy and DCAz. To estimate the effects of non-flow contributions, the pseudorapidity gap (∆η) is varied from |∆η| ≥ 0.4 to |∆η| ≥ 0.6 for charged hadrons and pions, and to |∆η| ≥ 0.5 for kaons and protons. Particle identification criteria, namely |nσ|TPC and |nσ|TOF, are also subject to variations to account for potential systematic effects in the particle identification process and their impact on the final analysis results. The reconstruction efficiency for charged hadrons is – 7 – JHEP12(2023)067 10 20 30 40 50 60 Centrality (%) 0 0.5 1 CMW f ALICE = 5.02 TeV NN sPb −Pb | < 0.8 η | Data (Stat. Uncert.) Syst. Uncert. (Correlated) 0.055 (Constant fit)±0.081 Upper limit: 0.26 (95% C.L.) Figure 6. Centrality dependence of the extracted CMW fraction. The 95% confidence level of the upper limit is also shown by the dotted magenta line. Statistical uncertainties are depicted by bars, while the correlated systematic uncertainty is represented by a shaded band on the right edge. The blue line is the constant fit line of the data points. Acknowledgments 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 2467N36] and Nationalstiftung für Forschung, Technologie und Entwicklung, Austria; Ministry of Communications and High Technologies, National Nuclear Research Center, Azerbaijan; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (Finep), Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) and Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Brazil; Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Science, within the National Roadmap for Research Infrastructures 2020–2027 (object CERN), Bulgaria; Ministry of Education of China (MOEC), Ministry of Science & Technology of China (MSTC) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), China; Ministry of Science and Education and Croatian Science Foundation, Croatia; Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Cubaenergía, Cuba; Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic, Czech Republic; The Danish Council for Independent Research | Natural Sciences, the VILLUM – 14 – JHEP12(2023)067 FONDEN and Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF), Denmark; Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Finland; Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique (CEA) and Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (IN2P3) and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), France; Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) and GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Germany; General Secretariat for Research and Technology, Ministry of Education, Research and Religions, Greece; National Research, Development and Innovation Office, Hungary; Department of Atomic Energy Government of India (DAE), Department of Science and Technology, Government of India (DST), University Grants Commission, Government of India (UGC) and Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), India; National Research and Innovation Agency — BRIN, Indonesia; Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), Italy; Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI, Japan; Consejo Nacional de Ciencia (CONACYT) y Tecnología, through Fondo de Cooperación Internacional en Ciencia y Tecnología (FONCICYT) and Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Academico (DGAPA), Mexico; Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), Netherlands; The Research Council of Norway, Norway; Commission on Science and Technology for Sustainable Development in the South (COMSATS), Pakistan; Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Peru; Ministry of Education and Science, National Science Centre and WUT ID-UB, Poland; Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information and National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), Republic of Korea; Ministry of Education and Scientific Research, Institute of Atomic Physics, Ministry of Research and Innovation and Institute of Atomic Physics and University Politehnica of Bucharest, Romania; Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic, Slovakia; National Research Foundation of South Africa, South Africa; Swedish Research Council (VR) and Knut & Alice Wallenberg Foundation (KAW), Sweden; European Organization for Nuclear Research, Switzerland; Suranaree University of Technology (SUT), National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA), Thailand Science Research and Innovation (TSRI) and National Science, Research and Innovation Fund (NSRF), Thailand; Turkish Energy, Nuclear and Mineral Research Agency (TENMAK), Turkey; National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Ukraine; Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), United Kingdom; National Science Foundation of the United States of America (NSF) and United States Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Physics (DOE NP), United States of America. In addition, individual groups or members have received support from: European Research Council, Strong 2020 — Horizon 2020 (grant nos. 950692, 824093), European Union; Academy of Finland (Center of Excellence in Quark Matter) (grant nos. 346327, 346328), Finland. Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. – 15 – JHEP12(2023)067 References [1] W. Busza, K. Rajagopal and W. van der Schee, Heavy ion collisions: the big picture, and the big questions,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68 (2018) 339 [arXiv:1802.04801] [INSPIRE]. [2] J. Schukraft, Ultra-relativistic heavy-ion collisions: searching for the quark-gluon plasma, Nucl. Phys. A 553 (1993) 31 [INSPIRE]. [3] U.W. Heinz, The strongly coupled quark-gluon plasma created at RHIC,J. Phys. A 42 (2009) 214003 [arXiv:0810.5529] [INSPIRE]. [4] E.V. Shuryak, Quantum chromodynamics and the theory of superdense matter,Phys. Rept. 61 (1980) 71 [INSPIRE]. [5] J.C. Collins and M.J. Perry, Superdense matter: neutrons or asymptotically free quarks?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 34 (1975) 1353 [INSPIRE]. [6] ALICE collaboration, The ALICE experiment — a journey through QCD, arXiv:2211.04384 [INSPIRE]. [7] Y. Aoki et al., The order of the quantum chromodynamics transition predicted by the standard model of particle physics,Nature 443 (2006) 675 [hep-lat/0611014] [INSPIRE]. [8] F.R. Brown et al., On the existence of a phase transition for QCD with three light quarks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 (1990) 2491 [INSPIRE]. [9] A. Bzdak and V. Skokov, Event-by-event fluctuations of magnetic and electric fields in heavy ion collisions,Phys. Lett. B 710 (2012) 171 [arXiv:1111.1949] [INSPIRE]. [10] T.D. Lee, A theory of spontaneous T violation,Phys. Rev. D 8(1973) 1226 [INSPIRE]. [11] T.D. Lee and G.C. Wick, Vacuum stability and vacuum excitation in a spin 0field theory, Phys. Rev. D 9(1974) 2291 [INSPIRE]. [12] D. Kharzeev, R.D. Pisarski and M.H.G. Tytgat, Possibility of spontaneous parity violation in hot QCD,Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 512 [hep-ph/9804221] [INSPIRE]. [13] P.D. Morley and I.A. Schmidt, Strong P, CP, T violations in heavy ion collisions,Z. Phys. C 26 (1985) 627 [INSPIRE]. [14] D. Kharzeev and R.D. Pisarski, Pionic measures of parity and CP violation in high-energy nuclear collisions,Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 111901 [hep-ph/9906401] [INSPIRE]. [15] D.E. Kharzeev, The chiral magnetic effect and anomaly-induced transport,Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 75 (2014) 133 [arXiv:1312.3348] [INSPIRE]. [16] D.E. Kharzeev, Topology, magnetic field, and strongly interacting matter,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 65 (2015) 193 [arXiv:1501.01336] [INSPIRE]. [17] D.E. Kharzeev and J. Liao, Chiral magnetic effect reveals the topology of gauge fields in heavy-ion collisions,Nature Rev. Phys. 3(2021) 55 [arXiv:2102.06623] [INSPIRE]. [18] S.A. Voloshin, Parity violation in hot QCD: how to detect it,Phys. Rev. C 70 (2004) 057901 [hep-ph/0406311] [INSPIRE]. [19] D. Kharzeev and A. Zhitnitsky, Charge separation induced by P-odd bubbles in QCD matter, Nucl. Phys. A 797 (2007) 67 [arXiv:0706.1026] [INSPIRE]. [20] K. Fukushima, D.E. Kharzeev and H.J. Warringa, The chiral magnetic effect,Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 074033 [arXiv:0808.3382] [INSPIRE]. – 16 – JHEP12(2023)067 [21] D.E. Kharzeev, L.D. McLerran and H.J. Warringa, The effects of topological charge change in heavy ion collisions: ‘event by event P and CP violation’,Nucl. Phys. A 803 (2008) 227 [arXiv:0711.0950] [INSPIRE]. [22] Q. Li et al., Observation of the chiral magnetic effect in ZrTe5,Nature Phys. 12 (2016) 550 [arXiv:1412.6543] [INSPIRE]. [23] Y.-C. Liu and X.-G. Huang, Anomalous chiral transports and spin polarization in heavy-ion collisions,Nucl. Sci. Tech. 31 (2020) 56 [arXiv:2003.12482] [INSPIRE]. [24] J.-H. Gao, G.-L. Ma, S. Pu and Q. Wang, Recent developments in chiral and spin polarization effects in heavy-ion collisions,Nucl. Sci. Tech. 31 (2020) 90 [arXiv:2005.10432] [INSPIRE]. [25] STAR collaboration, Azimuthal charged-particle correlations and possible local strong parity violation,Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 251601 [arXiv:0909.1739] [INSPIRE]. [26] STAR collaboration, Observation of charge-dependent azimuthal correlations and possible local strong parity violation in heavy ion collisions,Phys. Rev. C 81 (2010) 054908 [arXiv:0909.1717] [INSPIRE]. [27] ALICE collaboration, Charge separation relative to the reaction plane in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV,Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 012301 [arXiv:1207.0900] [INSPIRE]. [28] S. Schlichting and S. Pratt, Charge conservation at energies available at the BNL relativistic heavy ion collider and contributions to local parity violation observables,Phys. Rev. C 83 (2011) 014913 [arXiv:1009.4283] [INSPIRE]. [29] S. Pratt, S. Schlichting and S. Gavin, Effects of momentum conservation and flow on angular correlations at RHIC,Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 024909 [arXiv:1011.6053] [INSPIRE]. [30] STAR collaboration, Measurement of charge multiplicity asymmetry correlations in high-energy nucleus-nucleus collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV,Phys. Rev. C 89 (2014) 044908 [arXiv:1303.0901] [INSPIRE]. [31] STAR collaboration, Fluctuations of charge separation perpendicular to the event plane and local parity violation in √sNN = 200 GeV Au+Au collisions at the BNL relativistic heavy ion collider,Phys. Rev. C 88 (2013) 064911 [arXiv:1302.3802] [INSPIRE]. [32] STAR collaboration, Beam-energy dependence of charge separation along the magnetic field in Au+Au collisions at RHIC,Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 052302 [arXiv:1404.1433] [INSPIRE]. [33] ALICE collaboration, Constraining the magnitude of the chiral magnetic effect with event shape engineering in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV,Phys. Lett. B 777 (2018) 151 [arXiv:1709.04723] [INSPIRE]. [34] CMS collaboration, Observation of charge-dependent azimuthal correlations in p-Pb collisions and its implication for the search for the chiral magnetic effect,Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 122301 [arXiv:1610.00263] [INSPIRE]. [35] STAR collaboration, Charge-dependent pair correlations relative to a third particle in p+Au and d+Au collisions at RHIC,Phys. Lett. B 798 (2019) 134975 [arXiv:1906.03373] [INSPIRE]. [36] CMS collaboration, Constraints on the chiral magnetic effect using charge-dependent azimuthal correlations in p-Pb and Pb-Pb collisions at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. C 97 (2018) 044912 [arXiv:1708.01602] [INSPIRE]. – 17 – JHEP12(2023)067 [37] W. Li and G. Wang, Chiral magnetic effects in nuclear collisions,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 70 (2020) 293 [arXiv:2002.10397] [INSPIRE]. [38] STAR collaboration, Methods for a blind analysis of isobar data collected by the STAR collaboration,Nucl. Sci. Tech. 32 (2021) 48 [arXiv:1911.00596] [INSPIRE]. [39] STAR collaboration, Search for the chiral magnetic effect with isobar collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV by the STAR collaboration at the BNL relativistic heavy ion collider,Phys. Rev. C 105 (2022) 014901 [arXiv:2109.00131] [INSPIRE]. [40] D.T. Son and A.R. Zhitnitsky, Quantum anomalies in dense matter,Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 074018 [hep-ph/0405216] [INSPIRE]. [41] M.A. Metlitski and A.R. Zhitnitsky, Anomalous axion interactions and topological currents in dense matter,Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 045011 [hep-ph/0505072] [INSPIRE]. [42] Y. Burnier, D.E. Kharzeev, J. Liao and H.-U. Yee, Chiral magnetic wave at finite baryon density and the electric quadrupole moment of quark-gluon plasma in heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 052303 [arXiv:1103.1307] [INSPIRE]. [43] Y. Burnier, D.E. Kharzeev, J. Liao and H.-U. Yee, From the chiral magnetic wave to the charge dependence of elliptic flow,arXiv:1208.2537 [INSPIRE]. [44] D.E. Kharzeev and H.-U. Yee, Chiral magnetic wave,Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 085007 [arXiv:1012.6026] [INSPIRE]. [45] H.-U. Yee and Y. Yin, Realistic implementation of chiral magnetic wave in heavy ion collisions,Phys. Rev. C 89 (2014) 044909 [arXiv:1311.2574] [INSPIRE]. [46] S.F. Taghavi and U.A. Wiedemann, Chiral magnetic wave in an expanding QCD fluid,Phys. Rev. C 91 (2015) 024902 [arXiv:1310.0193] [INSPIRE]. [47] S. Voloshin and Y. Zhang, Flow study in relativistic nuclear collisions by Fourier expansion of azimuthal particle distributions,Z. Phys. C 70 (1996) 665 [hep-ph/9407282] [INSPIRE]. [48] A.M. Poskanzer and S.A. Voloshin, Methods for analyzing anisotropic flow in relativistic nuclear collisions,Phys. Rev. C 58 (1998) 1671 [nucl-ex/9805001] [INSPIRE]. [49] M. Wang et al., Number-of-constituent-quark scaling of elliptic flow: a quantitative study, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 33 (2022) 37 [arXiv:2203.10353] [INSPIRE]. [50] STAR collaboration, Observation of charge asymmetry dependence of pion elliptic flow and the possible chiral magnetic wave in heavy-ion collisions,Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 252302 [arXiv:1504.02175] [INSPIRE]. [51] ALICE collaboration, Charge-dependent flow and the search for the chiral magnetic wave in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV,Phys. Rev. C 93 (2016) 044903 [arXiv:1512.05739] [INSPIRE]. [52] W.-T. Deng and X.-G. Huang, Event-by-event generation of electromagnetic fields in heavy-ion collisions,Phys. Rev. C 85 (2012) 044907 [arXiv:1201.5108] [INSPIRE]. [53] CMS collaboration, Probing the chiral magnetic wave in pPb and PbPb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV using charge-dependent azimuthal anisotropies,Phys. Rev. C 100 (2019) 064908 [arXiv:1708.08901] [INSPIRE]. [54] R. Belmont and J.L. Nagle, To CME or not to CME? Implications of p+Pb measurements of the chiral magnetic effect in heavy ion collisions,Phys. Rev. C 96 (2017) 024901 [arXiv:1610.07964] [INSPIRE]. – 18 – JHEP12(2023)067 [55] STAR collaboration, Search for the chiral magnetic wave using anisotropic flow of identified particles at energies available at the BNL relativistic heavy ion collider,Phys. Rev. C 108 (2023) 014908 [arXiv:2210.14027] [INSPIRE]. [56] C.-Z. Wang et al., Interpreting the charge-dependent flow and constraining the chiral magnetic wave with event shape engineering,Phys. Lett. B 820 (2021) 136580 [arXiv:2104.05551] [INSPIRE]. [57] J. Schukraft, A. Timmins and S.A. Voloshin, Ultra-relativistic nuclear collisions: event shape engineering,Phys. Lett. B 719 (2013) 394 [arXiv:1208.4563] [INSPIRE]. [58] A. Bzdak and P. Bozek, Contributions to the event-by-event charge asymmetry dependence for the elliptic flow of π+and π−in heavy-ion collisions,Phys. Lett. B 726 (2013) 239 [arXiv:1303.1138] [INSPIRE]. [59] M. Stephanov and H.-U. Yee, Charged elliptic flow at zero charge asymmetry,Phys. Rev. C 88 (2013) 014908 [arXiv:1304.6410] [INSPIRE]. [60] J.M. Campbell and M.A. Lisa, Can baryon stopping explain the breakdown of constituent quark scaling and proposed signals of chiral magnetic waves at RHIC?,J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 446 (2013) 012014 [INSPIRE]. [61] S.A. Voloshin and R. Belmont, Measuring and interpreting charge dependent anisotropic flow,Nucl. Phys. A 931 (2014) 992 [arXiv:1408.0714] [INSPIRE]. [62] Y. Hatta, A. Monnai and B.-W. Xiao, Elliptic flow difference of charged pions in heavy-ion collisions,Nucl. Phys. A 947 (2016) 155 [arXiv:1507.04690] [INSPIRE]. [63] M. Hongo, Y. Hirono and T. Hirano, Anomalous-hydrodynamic analysis of charge-dependent elliptic flow in heavy-ion collisions,Phys. Lett. B 775 (2017) 266 [arXiv:1309.2823] [INSPIRE]. [64] X.-L. Zhao, G.-L. Ma and Y.-G. Ma, Novel mechanism for electric quadrupole moment generation in relativistic heavy-ion collisions,Phys. Lett. B 792 (2019) 413 [arXiv:1901.04156] [INSPIRE]. [65] H.-J. Xu, J. Zhao, Y. Feng and F. Wang, Complications in the interpretation of the charge asymmetry dependent πflow for the chiral magnetic wave,Phys. Rev. C 101 (2020) 014913 [arXiv:1910.02896] [INSPIRE]. [66] S.A. Bass, P. Danielewicz and S. Pratt, Clocking hadronization in relativistic heavy ion collisions with balance functions,Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 2689 [nucl-th/0005044] [INSPIRE]. [67] ALICE collaboration, Charge correlations using the balance function in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV,Phys. Lett. B 723 (2013) 267 [arXiv:1301.3756] [INSPIRE]. [68] W.-Y. Wu et al., Charge-dependent transverse momentum and its impact on the search for the chiral magnetic wave,Phys. Rev. C 103 (2021) 034906 [arXiv:2010.09955] [INSPIRE]. [69] G.-L. Ma, Final state effects on charge asymmetry of pion elliptic flow in high-energy heavy-ion collisions,Phys. Lett. B 735 (2014) 383 [arXiv:1401.6502] [INSPIRE]. [70] W.-H. Zhou and J. Xu, Simulating the chiral magnetic wave in a box system,Phys. Rev. C 98 (2018) 044904 [arXiv:1810.01030] [INSPIRE]. [71] Z.-Z. Han and J. Xu, Charge asymmetry dependence of the elliptic flow splitting in relativistic heavy-ion collisions,Phys. Rev. C 99 (2019) 044915 [arXiv:1904.03544] [INSPIRE]. – 19 – JHEP12(2023)067 [72] D. Shen et al., Charge asymmetry dependence of flow and a novel correlator to detect the chiral magnetic wave in a multiphase transport model,Phys. Rev. C 100 (2019) 064907 [arXiv:1911.00839] [INSPIRE]. [73] N. Magdy et al., An extended R(2) Ψm(∆S2)correlator for detecting and characterizing the chiral magnetic wave,Phys. Lett. B 811 (2020) 135986 [arXiv:2003.02396] [INSPIRE]. [74] S. Shi, Y. Jiang, E. Lilleskov and J. Liao, Anomalous chiral transport in heavy ion collisions from anomalous-viscous fluid dynamics,Annals Phys. 394 (2018) 50 [arXiv:1711.02496] [INSPIRE]. [75] W.-Y. Wu et al., Global constraint on the magnitude of anomalous chiral effects in heavy-ion collisions,Phys. Rev. C 107 (2023) L031902 [arXiv:2211.15446] [INSPIRE]. [76] ALICE collaboration, The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC,2008 JINST 3S08002 [INSPIRE]. [77] ALICE collaboration, Performance of the ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29 (2014) 1430044 [arXiv:1402.4476] [INSPIRE]. [78] J. Alme et al., The ALICE TPC, a large 3-dimensional tracking device with fast readout for ultra-high multiplicity events,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 622 (2010) 316 [arXiv:1001.1950] [INSPIRE]. [79] ALICE collaboration, ALICE Time-Of-Flight system (TOF): technical design report, CERN-LHCC-2000-012, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland (2000). [80] ALICE collaboration, Performance of the ALICE VZERO system,2013 JINST 8P10016 [arXiv:1306.3130] [INSPIRE]. [81] ALICE collaboration, Constraining the chiral magnetic effect with charge-dependent azimuthal correlations in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 and 5.02 TeV,JHEP 09 (2020) 160 [arXiv:2005.14640] [INSPIRE]. [82] ALICE collaboration, Centrality determination of Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV with ALICE,Phys. Rev. C 88 (2013) 044909 [arXiv:1301.4361] [INSPIRE]. [83] M. Gyulassy and X.-N. Wang, HIJING 1.0: a Monte Carlo program for parton and particle production in high-energy hadronic and nuclear collisions,Comput. Phys. Commun. 83 (1994) 307 [nucl-th/9502021] [INSPIRE]. [84] R. Brun et al., GEANT detector description and simulation tool, CERN-W5013, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland (1994) [DOI:10.17181/CERN.MUHF.DMJ1] [INSPIRE]. [85] A. Bilandzic, R. Snellings and S. Voloshin, Flow analysis with cumulants: direct calculations, Phys. Rev. C 83 (2011) 044913 [arXiv:1010.0233] [INSPIRE]. [86] Y. Zhou, X. Zhu, P. Li and H. Song, Investigation of possible hadronic flow in √sNN = 5.02 TeV p-Pb collisions,Phys. Rev. C 91 (2015) 064908 [arXiv:1503.06986] [INSPIRE]. [87] R. Barlow, Systematic errors: facts and fictions, in the proceedings of the Conference on advanced statistical techniques in particle physics, (2002), p. 134 [hep-ex/0207026] [INSPIRE]. [88] H.-J. Xu, J. Zhao, Y. Feng and F. Wang, Importance of non-flow background on the chiral magnetic wave search,Nucl. Phys. A 1005 (2021) 121770 [arXiv:2002.05220] [INSPIRE]. – 20 – JHEP12(2023)067 [89] ALICE collaboration, Correlated event-by-event fluctuations of flow harmonics in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV,Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 182301 [arXiv:1604.07663] [INSPIRE]. [90] ALICE collaboration, Higher harmonic anisotropic flow measurements of charged particles in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV,Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 032301 [arXiv:1105.3865] [INSPIRE]. [91] ATLAS collaboration, Measurement of event-plane correlations in √sNN = 2.76 TeV lead-lead collisions with the ATLAS detector,Phys. Rev. C 90 (2014) 024905 [arXiv:1403.0489] [INSPIRE]. [92] Y. Hatta, Analytic approaches to relativistic hydrodynamics,Nucl. Phys. A 956 (2016) 152 [arXiv:1601.04128] [INSPIRE]. – 21 – JHEP12(2023)067 The ALICE collaboration S. Acharya 128, D. Adamová 87, G. Aglieri Rinella 33, M. Agnello 30, N. Agrawal 52, Z. Ahammed 136, S. Ahmad 16, S.U. Ahn 72, I. Ahuja 38, A. Akindinov 142, M. Al-Turany 98, D. Aleksandrov 142, B. Alessandro 57, H.M. Alfanda 6, R. Alfaro Molina 68, B. Ali 16, A. Alici 26, N. Alizadehvandchali 117, A. Alkin 33, J. Alme 21, G. Alocco 53, T. Alt 65, A.R. Altamura 51, I. Altsybeev 96, J.R. Alvarado45, M.N. Anaam 6, C. Andrei 46, N. Andreou 116, A. Andronic 127, V. Anguelov 95, F. Antinori 55, P. Antonioli 52, N. Apadula 75, L. Aphecetche 104, H. Appelshäuser 65, C. Arata 74, S. Arcelli 26, M. Aresti 23, R. Arnaldi 57, J.G.M.C.A. Arneiro 111, I.C. Arsene 20, M. Arslandok 139, A. Augustinus 33, R. Averbeck 98, M.D. Azmi 16, H. Baba125, A. Badalà 54, J. Bae 105, Y.W. Baek 41, X. Bai 121, R. Bailhache 65, Y. Bailung 49, A. Balbino 30, A. Baldisseri 131, B. Balis 2, D. Banerjee 4, Z. Banoo 92, R. Barbera 27, F. Barile 32, L. Barioglio 96, M. Barlou79, B. Barman42, G.G. Barnaföldi 47, L.S. Barnby 86, V. Barret 128, L. Barreto 111, C. Bartels 120, K. Barth 33, E. Bartsch 65, N. Bastid 128, S. Basu 76, G. Batigne 104, D. Battistini 96, B. Batyunya 143, D. Bauri48, J.L. Bazo Alba 102, I.G. Bearden 84, C. Beattie 139, P. Becht 98, D. Behera 49, I. Belikov 130, A.D.C. Bell Hechavarria 127, F. Bellini 26, R. Bellwied 117, S. Belokurova 142, Y.A.V. Beltran 45, G. Bencedi 47, S. Beole 25, Y. Berdnikov 142, A. Berdnikova 95, L. Bergmann 95, M.G. Besoiu 64, L. Betev 33, P.P. Bhaduri 136, A. Bhasin 92, M.A. Bhat 4, B. Bhattacharjee 42, L. Bianchi 25, N. Bianchi 50, J. Bielčík 36, J. Bielčíková 87, J. Biernat 108, A.P. Bigot 130, A. Bilandzic 96, G. Biro 47, S. Biswas 4, N. Bize 104, J.T. Blair 109, D. Blau 142, M.B. Blidaru 98, N. Bluhme39, C. Blume 65, G. Boca 22,56, F. Bock 88, T. Bodova 21, A. Bogdanov142, S. Boi 23, J. Bok 59, L. Boldizsár 47, M. Bombara 38, P.M. Bond 33, G. Bonomi 135,56, H. Borel 131, A. Borissov 142, A.G. Borquez Carcamo 95, H. Bossi 139, E. Botta 25, Y.E.M. Bouziani 65, L. Bratrud 65, P. Braun-Munzinger 98, M. Bregant 111, M. Broz 36, G.E. Bruno 97,32, M.D. Buckland 24, D. Budnikov 142, H. Buesching 65, S. Bufalino 30, P. Buhler 103, N. Burmasov 142, Z. Buthelezi 69,124, A. Bylinkin 21, S.A. Bysiak108, M. Cai 6, H. Caines 139, A. Caliva 29, E. Calvo Villar 102, J.M.M. Camacho 110, P. Camerini 24, F.D.M. Canedo 111, S.L. Cantway 139, M. Carabas 114, A.A. Carballo 33, F. Carnesecchi 33, R. Caron 129, L.A.D. Carvalho 111, J. Castillo Castellanos 131, F. Catalano 33,25, C. Ceballos Sanchez 143, I. Chakaberia 75, P. Chakraborty 48, S. Chandra 136, S. Chapeland 33, M. Chartier 120, S. Chattopadhyay 136, S. Chattopadhyay 100, T. Cheng 98,6, C. Cheshkov 129, B. Cheynis 129, V. Chibante Barroso 33, D.D. Chinellato 112, E.S. Chizzali II,96, J. Cho 59, S. Cho 59, P. Chochula 33, D. Choudhury42, P. Christakoglou 85, C.H. Christensen 84, P. Christiansen 76, T. Chujo 126, M. Ciacco 30, C. Cicalo 53, F. Cindolo 52, M.R. Ciupek98, G. ClaiIII,52, F. Colamaria 51, J.S. Colburn101, D. Colella 97,32, M. Colocci 26, M. Concas IV,33, G. Conesa Balbastre 74, Z. Conesa del Valle 132, G. Contin 24, J.G. Contreras 36, M.L. Coquet 131, P. Cortese 134,57, M.R. Cosentino 113, F. Costa 33, S. Costanza 22,56, C. Cot 132, J. Crkovská 95, P. Crochet 128, R. Cruz-Torres 75, P. Cui 6, A. Dainese 55, M.C. Danisch 95, A. Danu 64, P. Das 81, P. Das 4, S. Das 4, A.R. Dash 127, S. Dash 48, A. De Caro 29, G. de – 22 – JHEP12(2023)067 Cataldo 51, J. de Cuveland39, A. De Falco 23, D. De Gruttola 29, N. De Marco 57, C. De Martin 24, S. De Pasquale 29, R. Deb 135, R. Del Grande 96, L. Dello Stritto 29, W. Deng 6, P. Dhankher 19, D. Di Bari 32, A. Di Mauro 33, B. Diab 131, R.A. Diaz 143,7, T. Dietel 115, Y. Ding 6, J. Ditzel 65, R. Divià 33, D.U. Dixit 19, Ø. Djuvsland21, U. Dmitrieva 142, A. Dobrin 64, B. Dönigus 65, J.M. Dubinski 137, A. Dubla 98, S. Dudi 91, P. Dupieux 128, M. Durkac107, N. Dzalaiova13, T.M. Eder 127, R.J. Ehlers 75, F. Eisenhut 65, R. Ejima93, D. Elia 51, B. Erazmus 104, F. Ercolessi 26, B. Espagnon 132, G. Eulisse 33, D. Evans 101, S. Evdokimov 142, L. Fabbietti 96, M. Faggin 28, J. Faivre 74, F. Fan 6, W. Fan 75, A. Fantoni 50, M. Fasel 88, A. Feliciello 57, G. Feofilov 142, A. Fernández Téllez 45, L. Ferrandi 111, M.B. Ferrer 33, A. Ferrero 131, C. Ferrero 57, A. Ferretti 25, V.J.G. Feuillard 95, V. Filova 36, D. Finogeev 142, F.M. Fionda 53, E. Flatland33, F. Flor 117, A.N. Flores 109, S. Foertsch 69, I. Fokin 95, S. Fokin 142, E. Fragiacomo 58, E. Frajna 47, U. Fuchs 33, N. Funicello 29, C. Furget 74, A. Furs 142, T. Fusayasu 99, J.J. Gaardhøje 84, M. Gagliardi 25, A.M. Gago 102, T. Gahlaut48, C.D. Galvan 110, D.R. Gangadharan 117, P. Ganoti 79, C. Garabatos 98, A.T. Garcia 132, T. García Chávez45, E. Garcia-Solis 9, C. Gargiulo 33, P. Gasik 98, A. Gautam 119, M.B. Gay Ducati 67, M. Germain 104, A. Ghimouz126, C. Ghosh136, M. Giacalone 52, G. Gioachin 30, P. Giubellino 98,57, P. Giubilato 28, A.M.C. Glaenzer 131, P. Glässel 95, E. Glimos 123, D.J.Q. Goh77, V. Gonzalez 138, P. Gordeev 142, M. Gorgon 2, K. Goswami 49, S. Gotovac34, V. Grabski 68, L.K. Graczykowski 137, E. Grecka 87, A. Grelli 60, C. Grigoras 33, V. Grigoriev 142, S. Grigoryan 143,1, F. Grosa 33, J.F. Grosse-Oetringhaus 33, R. Grosso 98, D. Grund 36, N.A. Grunwald95, G.G. Guardiano 112, R. Guernane 74, M. Guilbaud 104, K. Gulbrandsen 84, T. Gündem 65, T. Gunji 125, W. Guo 6, A. Gupta 92, R. Gupta 92, R. Gupta 49, K. Gwizdziel 137, L. Gyulai 47, C. Hadjidakis 132, F.U. Haider 92, S. Haidlova 36, H. Hamagaki 77, A. Hamdi 75, Y. Han 140, B.G. Hanley 138, R. Hannigan 109, J. Hansen 76, M.R. Haque 137, J.W. Harris 139, A. Harton 9, H. Hassan 118, D. Hatzifotiadou 52, P. Hauer 43, L.B. Havener 139, S.T. Heckel 96, E. Hellbär 98, H. Helstrup 35, M. Hemmer 65, T. Herman 36, G. Herrera Corral 8, F. Herrmann127, S. Herrmann 129, K.F. Hetland 35, B. Heybeck 65, H. Hillemanns 33, B. Hippolyte 130, F.W. Hoffmann 71, B. Hofman 60, G.H. Hong 140, M. Horst 96, A. Horzyk 2, Y. Hou 6, P. Hristov 33, C. Hughes 123, P. Huhn65, L.M. Huhta 118, T.J. Humanic 89, A. Hutson 117, D. Hutter 39, R. Ilkaev142, H. Ilyas 14, M. Inaba 126, G.M. Innocenti 33, M. Ippolitov 142, A. Isakov 85,87, T. Isidori 119, M.S. Islam 100, M. Ivanov13, M. Ivanov 98, V. Ivanov 142, K.E. Iversen 76, M. Jablonski 2, B. Jacak 75, N. Jacazio 26, P.M. Jacobs 75, S. Jadlovska107, J. Jadlovsky107, S. Jaelani 83, C. Jahnke 111, M.J. Jakubowska 137, M.A. Janik 137, T. Janson71, S. Ji 17, S. Jia 10, A.A.P. Jimenez 66, F. Jonas 88,127, D.M. Jones 120, J.M. Jowett 33,98, J. Jung 65, M. Jung 65, A. Junique 33, A. Jusko 101, M.J. Kabus 33,137, J. Kaewjai106, P. Kalinak 61, A.S. Kalteyer 98, A. Kalweit 33, V. Kaplin 142, A. Karasu Uysal 73, D. Karatovic 90, O. Karavichev 142, T. Karavicheva 142, P. Karczmarczyk 137, E. Karpechev 142, U. Kebschull 71, R. Keidel 141, D.L.D. Keijdener60, M. Keil 33, B. Ketzer 43, S.S. Khade 49, A.M. Khan 121, S. Khan 16, A. Khanzadeev 142, Y. Kharlov 142, A. Khatun 119, A. Khuntia 36, B. Kileng 35, B. Kim 105, C. Kim 17, D.J. Kim 118, E.J. Kim 70, J. Kim 140, J.S. Kim 41, J. Kim 59, – 23 –