Production of (anti-)He-3 and (anti-)H-3 in p-Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV

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/ Production of (anti-)He-3 and (anti-)H-3 in p-Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV © 2020 CERN, for the ALICE Collaboration Published version ALICE Collaboration ALICE Collaboration. (2020). Production of (anti-)He-3 and (anti-)H-3 in p-Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV. Physical Review C, 101(4), Article 044906. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.101.044906 2020 PHYSICAL REVIEW C 101, 044906 (2020) Production of (anti-)3He and (anti-)3Hin p-Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV S. Acharya et al.∗ (ALICE Collaboration) (Received 16 November 2019; accepted 23 March 2020; published 28 April 2020) The transverse momentum (pT) differential yields of (anti-)3He and (anti-)3Hmeasured in p-Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV with ALICE at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) are presented. The ratios of the pTintegrated yields of (anti-)3He and (anti-)3Hto the proton yields are reported, as well as the pTdependence of the coalescence parameters B3for (anti-)3He and (anti-)3H. For (anti-)3He, the results obtained in four classes of the mean charged-particle multiplicity density are also discussed. These results are compared to predictions from a canonical statistical hadronization model and coalescence approaches. An upper limit on the total yield of 4He is determined. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.101.044906 I. INTRODUCTION In ultrarelativistic nuclear collisions, midrapidity production yields of ordinary hadrons, i.e., mesons and baryons, can be described within the statistical hadronization model (SHM), for which the temperature and the baryo-chemical potential are the parameters regulating hadron production [1,2]. In this model, hadrons are produced from an expanding medium in local thermodynamic equilibrium. Their abundances are fixed when the rate of inelastic collisions becomes negligible. This chemical freeze-out is associated with a characteristic temperature which is found to be Tchem ≈156 MeV in Pb-Pb collisions at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) [1]. The yields of hadrons in central Pb-Pb collisions are reproduced by this approach [2] within uncertainties. Elastic and quasielastic scattering might still occur among hadrons during the further evolution of the system. The transverse momentum distributions can be modified until also the elastic interactions cease at the kinetic freeze-out. At LHC energies, baryon number transport from the initial nuclei at beam rapidity to midrapidity is completely negligible. This implies that particles and their corresponding antiparticles are produced in approximately equal amounts which is accounted for by a vanishing baryochemical potential μB. Light (anti)nuclei are composite objects of (anti)baryons with radii that are substantially larger than those of ordinary hadrons and their sizes reach a significant fraction of the volume of the expanding medium. Their production yields can also be described within the SHM. This may be surprising as the separation energy of nucleons is much smaller than the ∗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. system temperature, thus raising the question of how nuclei can survive during the hadronic phase. Alternative approaches were developed that are able to describe production yields of light nuclei via the coalescence of protons and neutrons which are close by in phase space at kinetic freeze-out [3,4]. In this simplified approach, the invariant yield of nuclei with mass number A,EA(d3NA/dp 3 A), is related to that of nucleons via EA d3NA dp 3 A=BAEp d3Np dp 3 pA pp= pA/A ,(1) where Ep(d3Np/dp 3 p) is the invariant yield of protons, which is expected to be identical to that of neutrons at midrapidity and LHC energies [5]. Here, the coalescence probability is given by the parameter BA. Both the SHM and the coalescence approach result in similar predictions, as demonstrated for the production of deuterons [6–8]. A review can be found in Ref. [9]. However, recent studies [5] have shown a sizable difference for the BAparameter as a function of the size of the particle emitting source between predictions by the SHM with kinetic freeze-out conditions from a simple hydrodynamical model and the coalescence model. Here, information from Hanbury Brown–Twiss (HBT) correlations is used to determine the source size. This effect is more pronounced for (hyper)nuclei with larger radii. Thus, the ideal benchmark would be to study the production of hypertriton (3 H)asa function of the mean charged-particle multiplicity density, which is not yet possible due to the size of the data sets available. Thus, the difference between the production of 3He and 3Hwas studied, which is expected to offer similar insight on the comparison of the SHM and the coalescence approaches, especially for smaller collision systems [5,10]. The production yields for (anti-)3He in pp and Pb-Pb [11,12] collisions measured by ALICE do not cover completely the evolution from small to large source sizes. To bridge this gap, measurements in p-Pb collisions are needed which cover the intermediate source sizes. 2469-9985/2020/101(4)/044906(20) 044906-1 ©2020 CERN, for the ALICE Collaboration S. ACHARYA et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW C 101, 044906 (2020) In a broader context, the measurement of the production of nuclei in pp and p-Pb collisions contributes significantly and decisively to indirect searches for segregated primordial antimatter and dark matter via satellite-borne instruments, such as AMS-02 [13]. These experiments search for an excess in the measured production of antinuclei above the background stemming from pp and p-A collisions in the interstellar medium. This background is predicted by calculations [14] that use measurements of the production of antinuclei in accelerator experiments as a key ingredient. This paper reports on the transverse momentum differential yields of the isospin partners (anti-)3He and (anti-)3Hin p-Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV in the rapidity range −1⩽ ycms <0. In case of (anti-)3He, the multiplicity dependence of the pT-differential and integrated yields is also presented. An upper limit on the production yield of 4He is given. The paper is organized as follows. The experimental setup and data sample are described in Sec. II. Section III summarizes the data analysis, while the techniques to evaluate the systematic uncertainties are presented in Sec. IV. The results are discussed in Sec. Vand conclusions are given in Sec. VI. II. DATA SAMPLE AND EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS The results presented in this paper were obtained by analyzing the data sample of p-Pb collisions at a center-of-mass energy per nucleon–nucleon pair √sNN =5.02 TeV collected in 2016. ALICE is a general-purpose detector system at the LHC designed to investigate high-energy heavy-ion collisions. The excellent tracking and particle identification (PID) capabilities over a broad momentum range and the low material budget make this detector ideally suited for measurements of light (anti)nuclei production. The characteristics of the ALICE detectors are described in detail in Refs. [15,16]. In the ALICE coordinate system, the nominal interaction point is at the origin of a right-handed Cartesian coordinate system. The zaxis corresponds to the beam line, the xaxis points to the center of the accelerator, and the yaxis points upward. The beam configuration was chosen such that the protons travel toward the negative zdirection and Pb nuclei travel in the positive direction of the ALICE reference frame. The inner tracking system (ITS) [17], the time projection chamber (TPC) [18], and the time-of-flight detector (TOF) [19] are the main detectors used for track reconstruction and particle identification in these analyses. They are located in the central barrel within a large solenoidal magnet, which provides a homogeneous field of B=0.5 T parallel to the beam line. The ITS consists of six cylindrical layers of silicon detectors, concentric and coaxial to the beam pipe, with a minimum pseudorapidity coverage |ηlab|<0.9 calculated for the nominal interaction region. Three different technologies are used for this detector: The two innermost layers consist of silicon pixel detectors (SPD), the two central layers of silicon drift detectors (SDD), and the two outermost layers of doublesided silicon strip detectors (SSD). The radial positions of the detectors range from 3.9 cm up to 43 cm from the interaction region. The ITS is used in the track reconstruction and helps TABLE I. Summary of the V0A multiplicity classes and their corresponding mean charged-particle multiplicity densities at midrapidity. The values and their uncertainties are taken from Ref. [24]. V0A Classes dNch/dηlab|ηlab|<0.5 0–10% 40.6±0.9 10–20% 30.5±0.7 20–40% 23.2±0.4 40–100% 10.1±0.2 to improve the pTresolution of tracks by providing highresolution tracking points close to the beam line. Thanks to this information, the distance of closest approach (DCA) of a track to the primary vertex can be measured with a resolution below 75 μm for tracks with pT>1GeV/c[17,20]. The TPC is the main tracking device in the ALICE central barrel with a pseudorapidity coverage |ηlab|<0.9. It is used for track reconstruction and for particle identification via the measurement of the specific ionization energy loss of charged particles (dE/dx) in the TPC gas. The TPC is cylindrical in shape, coaxial with the beam pipe, with an active gas volume ranging from 85 to 250 cm in the radial direction, and a length of 500 cm in the beam direction. The gas mixture used, 90% Ar and 10% CO2at atmospheric pressure, is characterized by low diffusion and low Z. These requirements are essential to guarantee the highest possible data acquisition rate, the excellent transverse momentum resolution (ranging from about 1% at 1 GeV/cto about 3% at 10 GeV/c), and the high dE/dx resolution, which is approximately 5.5% for minimum ionizing particles crossing the full detector [16]. The TOF detector is made of multigap resistive plate chambers (MRPC), with a pseudorapidity coverage |ηlab|< 0.9[19]. This detector is arranged in a modular structure with 18 blocks in azimuthal angle matching the TPC sectors and is used for particle identification by measuring the time of flight of charged particles. The collision time is provided on an event-by-event basis by the TOF detector itself or by the T0 detector [21]. The latter consists of two arrays of Cherenkov counters (T0C and T0A) positioned around the beam pipe, on both sides of the nominal interaction point. A weighted average is performed when both detectors have measured the start time [22]. The total time resolution for the analyzed data sample is ≈80 ps. The last detector used for this analysis is the V0, which consists of two scintillator hodoscopes (V0C and V0A) [23], covering the pseudorapidity regions −3.7<η lab <−1.7 and 2.8<η lab <5.1. It is used to define the minimum-bias trigger, which requires a coincident signal in V0A and V0C to reduce the contamination from single-diffractive and asymmetric electromagnetic interactions. In addition, the V0A signal is proportional to the mean charged-particle multiplicity density in the direction of the Pb beam. The minimum-bias data sample is divided into four multiplicity classes defined as percentiles of the V0A signal. These are summarized in Table I, where the corresponding mean charged-particle multiplicity densities at midrapidity dNch/dηlab|ηlab|<0.5are also listed. These values and their uncertainties are taken from Ref. [24]. 044906-2 PRODUCTION OF (ANTI-)3He AND (ANTI-)3H… PHYSICAL REVIEW C 101, 044906 (2020) III. DATA ANALYSIS In this section, the analysis technique is described. In particular, the criteria used for the event and track selection, the signal extraction techniques used for 3Hand 3He, the corrections based on Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, and the evaluation of the systematic uncertainties are illustrated and discussed. The reconstruction efficiencies of (anti-)3Hand (anti-)3He, the estimate of the contribution of secondary nuclei produced by spallation in the detector material, and the subtraction of the feed-down from the weak decay of hypertriton are obtained using Monte Carlo simulations. Nuclei and antinuclei were generated with a flat distribution in transverse momentum and rapidity within 0 ⩽pT⩽8GeV/cand −1⩽ ycms ⩽1. Ten deuterons, 3H,3He, and 4He as well as their antinuclei were injected into each p-Pb collision simulated with the EPOS-LHC event generator [25]. In addition, 20 hypertritons and antihypertritons were injected per event. For particle propagation and simulation of the detector response, GEANT3isused[26]. A. Event and track selection In order to keep the conditions of the detectors as uniform as possible, to avoid edge effects, and reject residual background collisions, the coordinate of the primary vertex along the beam axis is required to be within ±10 cm from the nominal interaction point. The primary vertices are identified either using tracks reconstructed in the full central barrel or with the SPD. The contamination from pile-up events is reduced to a negligible level by rejecting events with multiple vertices. Pile-up vertices identified with the SPD are required to be reconstructed using a minimum number of contributors dependent on the total number of SPD track segments (tracklets) in the event and have to be compatible with the expected collision region. A tracklet is defined as a straight line connecting two SPD hits which points back to the primary vertex. For the vertices identified using tracks reconstructed in the full central barrel, a minimum number of contributing tracks and a maximum χ2per contributor for the vertex fit are required to reject fake pile-up vertices. The events are rejected as pile-up events if they contain pile-up vertex candidates which are well separated in the zdirection. The total number of events that survive the event selection is 5.4×108, corresponding to ≈85% of all recorded collision events. Because of the different magnetic rigidity and the 2-in-1 magnet design of the LHC, the momenta of the particle beams are different for asymmetric collision systems such as p-Pb. As a consequence, the center-of-mass system (CMS) is shifted in the laboratory frame by a rapidity offset y=0.465 in the direction of the proton beam. Primary track candidates with transverse momentum pT>1.5GeV/c, pseudorapidity |ηlab|⩽0.9 and −1⩽ycms <0 are selected from those reconstructed both in the ITS and TPC by applying quality criteria that were optimized to ensure a good track momentum and dE/dx resolution. Tracks are required to have a minimum number of reconstructed space points in the TPC (NTPC cls )of70for3He and 120 for 3Hout of a maximum of 159 clusters, respectively. For 3Hcandidates, a stronger selection is used in order to reduce the contamination from other particle species. In addition, at least two hits in the ITS (NITS cls ⩾2), with at least one in the SPD, are requested. The latter requirement significantly suppresses the contribution of secondary tracks. During the data collection, the SDD was only read out for about half of the events recorded in order to maximize the data acquisition speed. To maximize the size of the data set and to unify the reconstruction of the events, the information from the SDD is not used for the current analyses, which reduces the maximum number of hits in the ITS to 4. The quality of the track fit is quantified by the value of χ2/NTPC cls , which is required to be less than 4. In addition, the ratio of the number of reconstructed TPC clusters to the number of findable TPC clusters is required to be larger than 80%. The number of findable clusters is the maximum number of geometrically possible clusters which can be assigned to a track. The contribution from secondary tracks that are produced, e.g., by spallation in the detector material, is further suppressed by restricting the DCA to the primary vertex. The absolute values of the DCA in the transverse plane (DCAxy) and in the beam direction (DCAz) are required to be smaller than 0.1 and 1 cm, respectively. B. Particle identification The identification of tracks as 3He and 3His based on the specific energy loss dE/dx measured by the TPC. For 3He, this provides excellent separation from other particle species due to the quadratic dependence of dE/dx on the particle charge. The only relevant contamination is caused by secondary 3Hdue to the similar specific energy loss in the kinetic region of pT<3GeV/c. As shown in the left panel of Fig. 1, the fraction of contamination is estimated from data by fitting the slope on the left side of the 3He peak in the dE/dx distribution with a Gaussian function. This contamination is found to be below 0.5% for 3He, while the signal extraction of 3He is not affected. For 3H, the PID signal in the TPC contains a large background from other, more abundant particle species because 3Hhas only one elementary charge. This background is largely suppressed by applying a preselection based on the measured time of flight, which is required to be within 3σTOF from the value expected for 3H, where σTOF is the resolution of the time-of-flight measurement. At pT>2.0GeV/c,theTOF preselection does not efficiently suppress the contamination by other particles, like electrons and pions, anymore, which leads to an increasingly large contamination for higher pT. The contamination of the signal is estimated following the same approach as for the signal extraction of 3He. For 3H(3H) in the transverse momentum regions pT=2–2.5GeV/cand pT=2.5–3 GeV/c, the contamination is found to be ≈7(9)% and ≈34(21)%, respectively. The 3He (3H) candidates are selected using the difference between the measured dE/dx and the expected value for 3He (3H), in units of the energy loss resolution of the TPC, nTPC σ. The signal is extracted by subtracting the contamination and counting the number of candidates inside the interval [−3σ,3σ]. 044906-3 S. ACHARYA et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW C 101, 044906 (2020) 4−2−024 He) 3 ( TPC σ n 0 10 20 30 40 50 Counts ALICE = 5.02 TeV NN sPb −p c < 2.0 GeV/ T p ≤1.5 < 0 cms y ≤ 1 − He 3 Background 4−2−024 H) 3 ( TPC σ n 0 10 20 30 40 50 Counts ALICE = 5.02 TeV NN sPb −p c < 2.5 GeV/ T p ≤2.0 < 0 cms y ≤ 1 − H 3 Background FIG. 1. The distribution of the specific ionization energy loss (dE/dx) in the TPC of the candidate tracks compared to the expected value for 3He or 3H(nTPC σ)inthepTrange of 1.5 ⩽pT<2.0 GeV/cand 2.0 GeV/c⩽pT<2.5 GeV/cfor 3He (left panel) and 3H(right panel), respectively. The background, which is visible as a slope on the left side of the signal, is fitted with a Gaussian function shown in red to estimate the contamination. C. Secondary nuclei from material Secondary nuclei are produced as spallation fragments in the interactions between primary particles and nuclei in the detector material or in the beam pipe. The contribution of secondary nuclei can be experimentally separated from that of primary nuclei using the DCAxy to the primary vertex. The DCAxy distribution of primary nuclei is peaked at zero, while the one of secondary nuclei is flat over most of the DCAxy range and has a small peak around DCAxy =0cmforlowpT, as shown in Fig. 2. This structure is artificially created by the tracking algorithm and is due to incorrect cluster association in the first ITS layer. The DCAxy distribution of 3He in data is obtained by applying stricter PID requirements compared to those described in Sec. III B to ensure a pure 3He sample. In particular, the difference between the measured dE/dx and the expected average for 3He is required to be in the range [−2σ,3σ]for 1−0.5−0 0.5 1 (cm) xy DCA 0 20 40 60 80 Counts He 3 Fit Primary Secondary ALICE = 5.02 TeV NN sPb −p c < 2.0 GeV/ T p ≤ 1.5 < 0 cms y ≤1 − 1−0.5−0 0.5 1 (cm) xy DCA 0 20 40 60 80 Counts H 3 Fit Primary Secondary ALICE = 5.02 TeV NN sPb −p c < 2.0 GeV/ T p ≤ 1.5 < 0 cms y ≤1 − FIG. 2. The DCAxy distribution within 1.5 ⩽pT<2.0 GeV/cis shown together with the MC template fit for 3He (left panel) and 3H(right panel). The corresponding primary and secondary contributions are also indicated. 044906-4 PRODUCTION OF (ANTI-)3He AND (ANTI-)3H… PHYSICAL REVIEW C 101, 044906 (2020) TABLE II. The primary fraction calculated for 3He and 3Hwith its uncertainty. pT(GeV/c)3He 3H 1.5–2.0(73±1)% (65 ±1)% 2.0–2.5(94.5±0.2)% (97 ±1)% Above 2.5 100% 100% pT<2GeV/cand in the range [−2.5σ,3σ]for2<pT< 2.5GeV/c. The remaining contamination is at maximum 0.1% for 3He and 1.2% for 3Hfor pT<2.5GeV/c. The fraction of primary nuclei is obtained by a twocomponent fit to the measured DCAxy distribution, one for the signal and the other for the secondaries. The distribution of both components is obtained from Monte Carlo simulations. Because of the lack of secondary 3He in the MC simulation, the distributions of secondary deuterons are used as a proxy. For a given pT, the template of deuterons at pT/2isusedto compensate for the charge difference. The different multiple scattering for deuterons and 3He has a negligible impact on the DCAxy distribution. This is confirmed by comparing the DCAxy distributions of antideuteron and 3He candidates in data for the same interval of transverse rigidity (pT/q). For pT>2.5GeV/c,theDCA xy distributions of 3He and 3Hare well reproduced using only the template for primary nuclei, which implies that the fractions of secondary 3He and 3H are negligible or below the sensitivity of this measurement. The fraction of primary nuclei is calculated in the range |DCAxy|⩽0.1 cm. The resulting values are summarized in Table II. The fractions of primary nuclei calculated in different multiplicity intervals are consistent with those calculated for the minimum-bias data sample within uncertainties. Because of the limited number of 3He candidates, the fit is highly unstable for the lowest multiplicity. Therefore, the primary fraction is calculated using the minimum-bias data sample and used to correct the spectra in all the multiplicity intervals. D. Efficiency and acceptance The product of the acceptance and the efficiency is calculated as the ratio between reconstructed and generated primary nuclei in the MC simulation within −1⩽ycms <0 and 1⩽pT<5GeV/cor 1 ⩽pT<3GeV/cfor (anti-)3He and (anti-)3H, respectively. The same track selection criteria that are used in data are applied to the reconstructed particles in the simulation. The acceptance ×efficiency of (anti-)3Hand (anti-)3He are shown in Fig. 3as a function of pT. The efficiency for (anti-)3His lower compared to that of (anti-)3He due to the larger number of TPC clusters required and the additional requirement of a hit in the TOF detector. The latter implies the crossing of the additional material between the TPC and the TOF detector. Nuclear absorption and multiple Coulomb scattering reduce the TPC-TOF matching efficiency, leading to a lower efficiency for 3H. Furthermore, the efficiency and the acceptance of the TOF detector have to be taken into account. The efficiency for the antinuclei is 12345 )c (GeV/ T p 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 efficiency×Acceptance ALICE = 5.02 TeV NN sPb −p < 0 cms y 1 − He 3He 3 H 3H 3 FIG. 3. The acceptance ×efficiency as a function of pTis shown for 3He and 3He as well as for 3Hand3H. reduced compared to the one for the nuclei due to annihilation processes with the beam pipe and the detector material. E. Feed-down from hypertriton The transverse momentum distribution of (anti-)3He and (anti-)3Hcontains a contribution from weak decays of (anti)hypertriton, 3 H→3He +π−and 3 H→3H+π0and charge conjugates. The (anti)hypertriton represents the only relevant source of feed-down at LHC energies. The goal of this study is the measurement of primary (anti-)3He and (anti-)3Hproduced in the collision. For this reason, the contribution of secondary (anti-)3He and (anti-)3Hproduced in weak decays of (anti)hypertriton, estimated using the simulations, is subtracted from the inclusive pTdistribution. The fraction of secondary (anti-)3He from (anti)hypertriton decays is given by ffeed-down(pT)=feed-down(pT) 3He(pT)BR 3 H 3He (2) where feed-down and 3He are the reconstruction efficiencies of secondary 3He from (anti)hypertriton decays and primary 3He, respectively. The DCA selection introduced to suppress the secondaries from the interaction with material also reduces the reconstruction efficiency for feed-down 3He by about 40% compared to the one for primary 3He. BR denotes the branching ratio of the decay of 3 Hinto 3He which is about 25% [27]. The (anti-)3 H-to-(anti-)3He ratio is extrapolated to the analyzed multiplicity class from those measured as a function of dN/dηlab in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN =2.76 TeV [28]. An upper limit for this contribution to 3His evaluated as half of the contribution for 3He since the branching ratio of the two-body decay with neutral daughters is half the one with charged particles [27]. The measured pTspectra of (anti-)3He and (anti-)3Hare corrected for the fraction of secondary (anti-)3He and (anti-)3Hfrom (anti-)hypertriton decays, which is estimated to be about 3.7% and 1.9%, respectively. 044906-5 S. ACHARYA et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW C 101, 044906 (2020) TABLE III. Summary of the individual contributions to the total systematic uncertainty in the lowest and highest pTinterval measured for 3He and 3H. The values for the antinuclei are shown in the parentheses if they differ from the corresponding values for the nuclei. Particle 3He (3He) 3H( 3H) pTinterval (GeV/c) 1.5–2.0 4.5–5.0 1.5–2.0 2.5–3.0 Tracking 4%5%5%5% PID and contamination 3% (1%) 1% 3% (5%) 20% (30%) Primary fraction estimation 9% (negl.) negl. 6% (negl.) 3% (negl.) Material budget 0.3% (0.5%) 0.2% (0.5%) 2.0% (3.4%) 0.7% (1.3%) Hadronic cross section 9% (6%) 1% (2%) 2% (8%) negl. (11%) Feed-down 1.5% 1.5% 0.8% 0.8% Total systematic uncertainty 13% (7%) 5% (6%) 9% (12%) 20% (32%) IV. SYSTEMATIC UNCERTAINTIES The main sources of systematic uncertainties on the (anti-)3He and (anti-)3Hyields are summarized in Table III and discussed in the following. The procedures used for the evaluation of the systematic uncertainties quantify effects due to residual discrepancies between the data and the MC used to evaluate the reconstruction efficiency. The total systematic uncertainties are calculated as the sum in quadrature of the individual contributions assuming that they are uncorrelated. The systematic uncertainty related to track reconstruction contains contributions coming from the different matching efficiencies between ITS and TPC for 3He and 3Hand between TPC and TOF for 3Hin data and MC and a contribution due to the track selection criteria used in the analysis. The latter is estimated by varying the track selection criteria, both for data and in the MC for the efficiency calculation. For each transverse momentum interval, the systematic uncertainty is given by the root mean square (rms) of the spread of data points, each corresponding to a given track selection. The corresponding uncertainty is found to be 4–5%. The uncertainties due to the different ITS-TPC and TPC-TOF matching efficiencies are both about 1%. The total tracking systematic uncertainty is obtained as the sum in quadrature of each contribution and is found to be about 4–5% for both 3He and 3H, independent of pT. The uncertainty from the particle identification is estimated by varying the fit function used to describe the contamination and by changing the fitting ranges in the TPC and TOF for the signal extraction as well as for the evaluation of the contamination. The latter has only a minor effect on the uncertainty for 3He due to its clear separation from other charged particles. In contrast, the effect of the contamination on 3His much larger because the separation from other charged particles, which are much more abundant, decreases with increasing pT.An exponential function is also used, besides a simple Gaussian, to describe the 3Hcontamination in the 3He signal and the contamination in the 3Hsignal. The resulting difference is included in the systematic uncertainty due to the PID and the contamination which amounts to maximally 3% and 30% for 3He and 3H, respectively. The systematic uncertainty associated with the fraction of primary nuclei contains three sources: the uncertainty of the template fit, the stability against including more secondaries, and the possible bias of the templates used. For the latter contribution, a Gaussian function is used to describe the DCAxy distribution of secondary nuclei, while the distribution of antinuclei is used as a template for the primary nuclei. The parameters of the Gaussian function are obtained by fitting the DCAxy distribution excluding the region |DCAxy|⩽0.1cm. The fraction of primary nuclei is calculated using two methods: In one case, the template for primary nuclei and the Gaussian background are used, and in the other case, only the Gaussian function is used. In addition, the primary fraction is calculated using MC templates from secondary 3Hscaled in the same way as the deuteron templates. The maximum difference between the fraction of primary nuclei obtained from these methods is divided by √12 to estimate the systematic uncertainty. The stability of the primary fraction correction is tested by varying the DCA selection and, thus, varying the number of secondary nuclei taken into account. The primary fraction should adjust accordingly. This uncertainty is evaluated using an rms approach. The total uncertainty linked to the primary fraction estimate is given by the sum in quadrature of the three components. It is found to be at maximum 9% for 3He and 6% for 3Hand follows a decreasing trend with pT. The material budget of the detector, i.e., the thickness up to the middle of the TPC, expressed in units of the radiation length, is known with a relative uncertainty of 4.5% [16], which leads to an uncertainty on the reconstruction efficiency. The impact of this uncertainty on the results is studied by evaluating the relative uncertainty on the reconstruction efficiency using a dedicated MC production with 4.5% higher or lower material budget. The relative uncertainty σmaterial budget is calculated via σmaterial budget(pT)=max(pT)−min(pT) 2default(pT),(3) where max and min are the largest and the smallest efficiencies obtained in a given pTinterval. default denotes the efficiency calculated with the default material budget. The effect is larger for 3Hthan for 3He because of the additional detector material which has to be taken into account when including the TOF detector in the analysis. To evaluate the reconstruction efficiency GEANT3 was used to propagate the particles through the detectors. In the GEANT3 version used for this analysis, an empirical parametrization of the antideuteron absorption cross section, based on the 044906-6 PRODUCTION OF (ANTI-)3He AND (ANTI-)3H… PHYSICAL REVIEW C 101, 044906 (2020) measurements carried out at the U-70 Serpukhov accelerator [29,30], is used. Elastic scattering processes are not taken into account by this description. In GEANT4[31], a Glauber model based on the well-measured total and elastic ppcross section is implemented [32]. Thus, the systematic effect due to the incomplete knowledge about the hadronic interaction cross section of nuclei is evaluated using half of the relative difference between the reconstruction efficiency evaluated with GEANT3 and GEANT4. This contribution is found to be smaller than 12% for (anti-)3He and (anti-)3H. The last contribution to the systematic uncertainties is the feed-down from weak decays of hypertritons. In Sec. IIIE, this contribution is estimated using an extrapolation of the measured 3 H-to-3He ratio assuming a linear trend with the charged particle multiplicity. This extrapolation is repeated after shifting the measured data points up and down by their uncertainties such that the resulting slope is maximal or minimal. The resulting maximal or minimal 3 H-to-3He ratios are used to calculate the relative uncertainty on the feed-down contribution given by the difference of the maximum (6.3%) and the minimum (1.1%) feed-down contribution divided by √12. The corresponding contribution to the total systematic uncertainty is found to be 1.5% for 3He and 0.75% 3H. V. R E S U LT S A. Transverse momentum spectra The production yields of (anti-)3He and (anti-)3Has a function of pTare obtained by multiplying the observed number of candidate nuclei after the statistical subtraction of the contamination (Nobs) with the fraction of primary nuclei (fprim) and correcting for the reconstruction efficiency () in each pTinterval. Afterward, the feed-down nuclei from hypertriton decays are subtracted. The corrected number of observed nuclei is divided by the number of selected events (Nevents), the width of the transverse momentum bins (pT) and the rapidity interval (y): d2N dydpT=1 ypTNevents fprim(pT)Nobs(pT) (pT) ×[1 −ffeed-down(pT)].(4) The resulting pT-differential yields of (anti-)3He and (anti-)3H correspond to the ones in INEL >0 events because the signal and event loss due to the event selection and the trigger were found to match within less than 1% and thus no corrections are applied. The event class INEL >0 contains events in which the colliding ions interact via inelastic collisions and at least one charged particle could be measured in |η|<1. The minimum-bias pT-differential yields of (anti-)3He and (anti-)3Hmeasured in p-Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV and the corresponding antiparticle-to-particle ratios are shown in Fig. 4. The antiparticle-to-particle ratio is consistent with unity within uncertainties. This indicates that matter and antimatter are produced in equal amounts in p-Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV. This is also observed for other light (anti)nuclei in different collision systems and center-of-mass energies at the LHC [11,12]. For the calculation of the systematic uncertainty of the antiparticle-to-particle ratio, the 8− 10 7− 10 ] -1 )c [(GeV/ T p dyd N 2 d evt N 1 He 3 He 3 2345 )c (GeV/ T p 0 1 2 3 Ratio He 3 / He 3 ALICE = 5.02 TeV NN sPb −p < 0 cms y 1 − H 3 H 3 2345 )c (GeV/ T p H 3 / H 3 FIG. 4. pTspectra of (anti-)3He (left) and (anti-)3H(right) measuredinINEL>0p-Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV. The bottom panels show the corresponding antiparticle-to-particle ratios as a function of pT. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are indicated by vertical bars and boxes, respectively. systematic uncertainties on the spectra were propagated, taking into account that some of them are correlated between antiparticles and particles, i.e., the uncertainty linked to the tracking, the material budget, and the feed-down. The pTspectra, which are the average of 3He and 3He, are summarized in Fig. 5for different multiplicity classes and INEL >0 events. The pTspectra of 3He and 3He, as well as of 3Hand 3H have to be extrapolated to the unmeasured regions in order to obtain the integrated yield (dN/dy). For the extrapolation, the measured pTspectra are fitted with the following functional forms: pT-exponential, mT-exponential, Boltzmann, Bose-Einstein, and Fermi-Dirac function. The extrapolated yield is calculated by integrating each of these functions outside the measured pTrange and taking the 12345 )c (GeV/ T p 8− 10 7− 10 6− 10 5− 10 4− 10 3− 10 2− 10 ] -1 )c [(GeV/ T p dyd N 2 d evt N 1 V0A Multiplicity Classes 10% (x8)−020% (x4)−10 40% (x2)−20 100%−40 INEL>0 (x100) ALICE = 5.02 TeV NN sPb −p < 0 cms y 1 − )/2He 3 He + 3 ( FIG. 5. Transverse momentum spectra obtained from the average of 3He and 3He for four different multiplicity classes and INEL >0 events in p-Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV. Different scaling factors are used for better visibility. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are indicated by vertical bars and boxes, respectively. 044906-7 S. ACHARYA et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW C 101, 044906 (2020) TABLE IV. Fraction of extrapolated yields below and above the measured pTinterval. 3He Event class pT<1.5 GeV/cp T>5 GeV/c 0–10% (39 ±5)% (2.4±0.8)% 10–20% (46 ±7)% (0.8±0.4)% 20–40% (38 ±7)% (2 ±1)% 40–100% (55 ±8)% (0.3±0.2)% INEL >0(43±5)% (1.4±0.4)% 3HEvent class pT<1.5 GeV/cp T>3 GeV/c INEL >0(24±13)% (38 ±16)% average. The result is added to the integral of the measured spectrum to obtain the total pT-integrated yield. For the calculation of the statistical uncertainty on the yield, the transverse momentum spectrum is modified by shifting the data points for different transverse momentum bins independently by random numbers with Gaussian distributions centered around the measured values with a width given by the statistical uncertainties. In addition, the extrapolated yields at pTbelow and above the measured range are varied following a Gaussian function centered at the default value with a width given by the uncertainty on the extrapolated yield. The standard deviation of the distribution of measured yields determines the statistical uncertainty for each functional form fitted. For the systematic uncertainty of the total yield, the uncertainties which are correlated in pT, i.e., the material budget, the hadronic cross section, feed-down uncertainty, and the uncertainty linked to the estimation of the primary fraction, are treated separately from the remaining uncertainties for each of the functional forms. The resulting contribution is evaluated as the average difference between the default value and the yield obtained by shifting the measured points up or down by the correlated part of the systematic uncertainties. The remaining part of the total uncertainty, i.e., the uncertainty linked to the track selection, PID, and contamination, is partially uncorrelated between pTbins. Therefore, the Gaussian sampling procedure is also used to evaluate the contributions of these sources to the systematic uncertainty of the pT-integrated yield. The contribution for each functional form is given by the sum in quadrature of the uncorrelated and the correlated uncertainty. To obtain the total systematic uncertainty on the integrated yield, the average of the contributions from the different functional forms is calculated and added in quadrature to the uncertainty given by the spread of the values obtained with the different functional forms. The latter is calculated as the difference of the maximum and the minimum yield divided by √12. The extrapolated fraction of the integrated yield below and above the measured pTinterval is summarized in Table IV. Based on the extrapolation, the mean transverse momenta (pT) of the average 3He and 3He yields are calculated for the different multiplicity classes. The statistical and systematic uncertainties on pTare calculated in a similar way as for the integrated yield. The result is shown and compared with the pTmeasured in ppcollisions at √s=7TeV[11] and in PbPb collisions at √sNN =2.76 [12] in the left panel of Fig. 6. The pTmeasured in p-Pb collisions increases with the mean charged-particle multiplicity density, connecting the measured results in pp [11] and Pb-Pb collisions [12]inasmooth way. This indicates a hardening of the pTspectra with increasing mean charged-particle multiplicity density, which might be caused by production in jets [35] or by collective expansion effects [24]. The latter would also result in a shift of the maximum of the pTdistribution, which cannot be observed in the present measurements due to the limited statistical precision. If the system evolves following a hydrodynamic expansion, the mean transverse momenta of different particle species should follow a mass ordering, as a result of the radial flow. In the right panel of Fig. 6,thepTas a function of the particle mass is shown for different mean charged-particle multiplicity densities. For similar dNch/dηlab, a clear mass ordering is observed for the different particle species. The measurements for the nuclei prefer a scaling which does not follow the same linear trend as the results for π,K,p,[24], , and [33]. B. Ratiotoprotons The ratio of the integrated yields of (anti-)3He to those of (anti)protons (3He /p) is calculated for the four multiplicity classes used in this analysis, while the yield ratio of (anti-)3H to (anti)protons (3H/p) is calculated for INEL >0 events. The pT-integrated proton yields are taken from Ref. [24]. The 3He /pand the 3H/pratios are shown as a function of the mean charged-particle multiplicity density in Fig. 7, together with the ones from ppcollisions at √s=7TeV[11] and from Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN =2.76 TeV [12]. The measured ratio is larger in Pb-Pb collisions with respect to ppcollisions. The value measured in central Pb-Pb collisions is consistent with the prediction of the grand canonical version of the SHM [1,36]. The results obtained in p-Pb collisions show an increasing trend as a function of the mean charged-particle multiplicity density and indicate a smooth transition from pp to Pb-Pb collisions. In Fig. 7, the data are compared to the expectations from the canonical statistical hadronization model (CSM) [8] and two coalescence approaches [37]. The trend observed in the data can be qualitatively reproduced over the full multiplicity range using the CSM approach, which is based on exact conservation of charges across the correlation volume Vc[8]. The predictions were calculated using a temperature T= 155 MeV and a correlation volume extending across one unit (Vc=dV/dy) and three units (Vc=3dV/dy) of rapidity. The temperature value is constrained by the ratio measured in Pb-Pb collisions [12]. It is very close to the chemical freezeout temperature which results in the best description by the grand canonical SHM [1] of the ALICE measurements of the integrated yields of particles measured in most-central Pb-Pb collisions. For the mean charged-particle multiplicity density region covered by the results obtained in Pb-Pb collisions, the CSM has reached the grand canonical limit and thus matches the version of the SHM using the grand canonical ensemble. The 3He /pand 3H/pratios measured in p-Pb collisions, which cover the gap in the multiplicity between the existing 044906-8 PRODUCTION OF (ANTI-)3He AND (ANTI-)3H… PHYSICAL REVIEW C 101, 044906 (2020) [32] V. Uzhinsky, J. Apostolakis, A. Galoyan, G. Folger, V. M. Grichine, V. N. Ivanchenko, and D. H. Wright, Antinucleusnucleus cross sections implemented in GEANT4, Phys. Lett. B 705,235 (2011). [33] J. Adam et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Multi-strange baryon production in p-Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV, Phys. Lett. B758,389 (2016). [34] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Multiplicity dependence of light (anti-)nuclei production in p-Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 800,135043 (2020). [35] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Charged-particle production as a function of multiplicity and transverse spherocity in pp collisions at √s=5.02 and 13 TeV, Eur.Phys.J.C79, 857 (2019). [36] A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Stachel, and H. Stocker, Production of light nuclei, hypernuclei, and their antiparticles in relativistic nuclear collisions, Phys. Lett. B 697,203 (2011). [37] K.-J. Sun, C. M. Ko, and B. Dönigus, Suppression of light nuclei production in collisions of small systems at the Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Lett. B 792,132 (2019). [38] V. Vovchenko, B. Dönigus, and H. Stoecker, Canonical statistical model analysis of p-p,p-Pb, and Pb-Pb collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys.Rev.C100, 054906 (2019). [39] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Multiplicity dependence of (anti-)deuteron production in pp collisions at √s= 7 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 794,50 (2019). [40] B. Abelev et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Centrality dependence of π,K,pproduction in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN =2.76 TeV, Phys.Rev.C88,044910 (2013). [41] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Measurement of the (anti-)3He elliptic flow in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 805,135414 (2020). [42] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Measurement of deuteron spectra and elliptic flow in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN =2.76 TeV at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C 77,658 (2017). [43] G. J. Feldman and R. D. Cousins, A Unified approach to the classical statistical analysis of small signals, Phys. Rev. D 57, 3873 (1998). [44] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Production of 4He and 4He in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN =2.76 TeV at the LHC, Nucl. Phys. A 971,1(2018). [45] J. Conrad, O. Botner, A. Hallgren, and C. Perez de los Heros, Including systematic uncertainties in confidence interval construction for Poisson statistics, Phys. Rev. D 67,012002 (2003). [46] G. C. Hill, Comment on “Including systematic uncertainties in confidence interval construction for Poisson statistics,” Phys. Rev. D 67,118101 (2003). S. Acharya,141 D. Adamová,94 A. Adler,74 J. Adolfsson,80 M. M. Aggarwal,99 G. Aglieri Rinella,33 M. Agnello,30 N. Agrawal,10,53 Z. Ahammed,141 S. Ahmad,16 S. U. Ahn,76 A. Akindinov,91 M. Al-Turany,106 S. N. Alam,141 D. S. D. Albuquerque,122 D. Aleksandrov,87 B. Alessandro,58 H. M. Alfanda,6R. Alfaro Molina,71 B. Ali,16 Y. Ali,14 A. Alici,26,10,53 A. Alkin,2J. Alme,21 T. Alt,68 L. Altenkamper,21 I. Altsybeev,112 M. N. Anaam,6C. Andrei,47 D. Andreou,33 H. A. Andrews,110 A. Andronic,144 M. Angeletti,33 V. Anguelov,103 C. Anson,15 T. Antiˇ ci´ c,107 F. Antinori,56 P. Antonioli,53 R. Anwar,125 N. Apadula,79 L. Aphecetche,114 H. Appelshäuser,68 S. Arcelli,26 R. Arnaldi,58 M. Arratia,79 I. C. Arsene,20 M. Arslandok,103 A. Augustinus,33 R. Averbeck,106 S. Aziz,61 M. D. Azmi,16 A. Badalà,55 Y. W. Baek,40 S. Bagnasco,58 X. Bai,106 R. Bailhache,68 R. Bala,100 A. Baldisseri,137 M. Ball,42 S. Balouza,104 R. Barbera,27 L. Barioglio,25 G. G. Barnaföldi,145 L. S. Barnby,93 V. Barret,134 P. Bartalini,6K. Barth,33 E. Bartsch,68 F. Baruffaldi,28 N. Bastid,134 S. Basu,143 G. Batigne,114 B. Batyunya,75 D. Bauri,48 J. L. Bazo Alba,111 I. G. Bearden,88 C. Bedda,63 N. K. Behera,60 I. Belikov,136 A. D. C. Bell Hechavarria,144 F. Bellini,33 R. Bellwied,125 V. Belyaev,92 G. Bencedi,145 S. Beole,25 A. Bercuci,47 Y. Berdnikov,97 D. Berenyi,145 R. A. Bertens,130 D. Berzano,58 M. G. Besoiu,67 L. Betev,33 A. Bhasin,100 I. R. Bhat,100 M. A. Bhat,3H. Bhatt,48 B. Bhattacharjee,41 A. Bianchi,25 L. Bianchi,25 N. Bianchi,51 J. Bielˇ cík,36 J. Bielˇ cíková,94 A. Bilandzic,104,117 G. Biro,145 R. Biswas,3S. Biswas,3J. T. Blair,119 D. Blau,87 C. Blume,68 G. Boca,139 F. Bock,33,95 A. Bogdanov,92 S. Boi,23 L. Boldizsár,145 A. Bolozdynya,92 M. Bombara,37 G. Bonomi,140 H. Borel,137 A. Borissov,144,92 H. Bossi,146 E. Botta,25 L. Bratrud,68 P. Braun-Munzinger,106 M. Bregant,121 M. Broz,36 E. J. Brucken,43 E. Bruna,58 G. E. Bruno,105 M. D. Buckland,127 D. Budnikov,108 H. Buesching,68 S. Bufalino,30 O. Bugnon,114 P. Buhler,113 P. Buncic,33 Z. Buthelezi,72,131 J. B. Butt,14 J. T. Buxton,96 S. A. Bysiak,118 D. Caffarri,89 A. Caliva,106 E. Calvo Villar,111 R. S. Camacho,44 P. Camerini,24 A. A. Capon,113 F. Carnesecchi,10,26 R. Caron,137 J. Castillo Castellanos,137 A. J. Castro,130 E. A. R. Casula,54 F. Catalano,30 C. Ceballos Sanchez,52 P. Chakraborty,48 S. Chandra,141 W. Chang,6S. Chapeland,33 M. Chartier,127 S. Chattopadhyay,141 S. Chattopadhyay,109 A. Chauvin,23 C. Cheshkov,135 B. Cheynis,135 V. Chibante Barroso,33 D. D. Chinellato,122 S. Cho,60 P. Chochula,33 T. Chowdhury,134 P. Christakoglou,89 C. H. Christensen,88 P. Christiansen,80 T. Chujo,133 C. Cicalo,54 L. Cifarelli,10,26 F. Cindolo,53 J. Cleymans,124 F. Colamaria,52 D. Colella,52 A. Collu,79 M. Colocci,26 M. Concas,58,aG. Conesa Balbastre,78 Z. Conesa del Valle,61 G. Contin,127,24 J. G. Contreras,36 T. M. Cormier,95 Y. Corrales Morales,58,25 P. Cortese,31 M. R. Cosentino,123 F. Costa,33 S. Costanza,139 P. Crochet,134 E. Cuautle,69 P. Cui,6 L. Cunqueiro,95 D. Dabrowski,142 T. Dahms,104,117 A. Dainese,56 F. P. A. Damas,137,114 M. C. Danisch,103 A. Danu,67 D. Das,109 I. Das,109 P. Das,85 P. Das,3S. Das,3A. Dash,85 S. Dash,48 S. De,85 A. De Caro,29 G. de Cataldo,52 J. de Cuveland,38 A. De Falco,23 D. De Gruttola,10 N. De Marco,58 S. De Pasquale,29 S. Deb,49 B. Debjani,3H. F. Degenhardt,121 K. R. Deja,142 A. Deloff,84 S. Delsanto,25,131 D. Devetak,106 P. Dhankher,48 D. Di Bari,32 A. Di Mauro,33 R. A. Diaz,8T. Dietel,124 P. Dillenseger,68 Y. Ding,6R. Divià,33 D. U. Dixit,19 Ø. Djuvsland,21 U. Dmitrieva,62 A. Dobrin,33,67 B. Dönigus,68 O. Dordic,20 A. K. Dubey,141 A. Dubla,106 S. Dudi,99 M. Dukhishyam,85 P. Dupieux,134 R. J. Ehlers,146 V. N. Eikeland,21 044906-15 S. ACHARYA et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW C 101, 044906 (2020) D. Elia,52 H. Engel,74 E. Epple,146 B. Erazmus,114 F. Erhardt,98 A. Erokhin,112 M. R. Ersdal,21 B. Espagnon,61 G. Eulisse,33 D. Evans,110 S. Evdokimov,90 L. Fabbietti,104,117 M. Faggin,28 J. Faivre,78 F. Fan,6A. Fantoni,51 M. Fasel,95 P. Fecchio,30 A. Feliciello,58 G. Feofilov,112 A. Fernández Téllez,44 A. Ferrero,137 A. Ferretti,25 A. Festanti,33 V. J. G. Feuillard,103 J. Figiel,118 S. Filchagin,108 D. Finogeev,62 F. M. Fionda,21 G. Fiorenza,52 F. Flor,125 S. Foertsch,72 P. Foka,106 S. Fokin,87 E. Fragiacomo,59 U. Frankenfeld,106 U. Fuchs,33 C. Furget,78 A. Furs,62 M. Fusco Girard,29 J. J. Gaardhøje,88 M. Gagliardi,25 A. M. Gago,111 A. Gal,136 C. D. Galvan,120 P. Ganoti,83 C. Garabatos,106 E. Garcia-Solis,11 K. Garg,27 C. Gargiulo,33 A. Garibli,86 K. Garner,144 P. Gasik,104,117 E. F. Gauger,119 M. B. Gay Ducati,70 M. Germain,114 J. Ghosh,109 P. Ghosh,141 S. K. Ghosh,3P. Gianotti,51 P. Giubellino,106,58 P. Giubilato,28 P. Glässel,103 D. M. Goméz Coral,71 A. Gomez Ramirez,74 V. Gonzalez,106 P. González-Zamora,44 S. Gorbunov,38 L. Görlich,118 S. Gotovac,34 V. Grabski,71 L. K. Graczykowski,142 K. L. Graham,110 L. Greiner,79 A. Grelli,63 C. Grigoras,33 V. Grigoriev,92 A. Grigoryan,1S. Grigoryan,75 O. S. Groettvik,21 F. Grosa,30 J. F. Grosse-Oetringhaus,33 R. Grosso,106 R. Guernane,78 M. Guittiere,114 K. Gulbrandsen,88 T. Gunji,132 A. Gupta,100 R. Gupta,100 I. B. Guzman,44 R. Haake,146 M. K. Habib,106 C. Hadjidakis,61 H. Hamagaki,81 G. Hamar,145 M. Hamid,6R. Hannigan,119 M. R. Haque,63,85 A. Harlenderova,106 J. W. Harris,146 A. Harton,11 J. A. Hasenbichler,33 H. Hassan,95 D. Hatzifotiadou,53,10 P. Hauer,42 S. Hayashi,132 S. T. Heckel,104,68 E. Hellbär,68 H. Helstrup,35 A. Herghelegiu,47 T. Herman,36 E. G. Hernandez,44 G. Herrera Corral,9F. Herrmann,144 K. F. Hetland,35 T. E. Hilden,43 H. Hillemanns,33 C. Hills,127 B. Hippolyte,136 B. Hohlweger,104 D. Horak,36 A. Hornung,68 S. Hornung,106 R. Hosokawa,15,133 P. Hristov,33 C. Huang,61 C. Hughes,130 P. Huhn,68 T. J. Humanic,96 H. Hushnud,109 L. A. Husova,144 N. Hussain,41 S. A. Hussain,14 D. Hutter,38 J. P. Iddon,127,33 R. Ilkaev,108 M. Inaba,133 G. M. Innocenti,33 M. Ippolitov,87 A. Isakov,94 M. S. Islam,109 M. Ivanov,106 V. Ivanov,97 V. Izucheev,90 B. Jacak,79 N. Jacazio,53 P. M. Jacobs,79 S. Jadlovska,116 J. Jadlovsky,116 S. Jaelani,63 C. Jahnke,121 M. J. Jakubowska,142 M. A. Janik,142 T. Janson,74 M. Jercic,98 O. Jevons,110 M. Jin,125 F. Jonas,144,95 P. G. Jones,110 J. Jung,68 M. Jung,68 A. Jusko,110 P. Kalinak,64 A. Kalweit,33 V. Kaplin,92 S. Kar,6A. Karasu Uysal,77 O. Karavichev,62 T. Karavicheva,62 P. Karczmarczyk,33 E. Karpechev,62 U. Kebschull,74 R. Keidel,46 M. Keil,33 B. Ketzer,42 Z. Khabanova,89 A. M. Khan,6S. Khan,16 S. A. Khan,141 A. Khanzadeev,97 Y. Kharlov,90 A. Khatun,16 A. Khuntia,118 B. Kileng,35 B. Kim,60 B. Kim,133 D. Kim,147 D. J. Kim,126 E. J. Kim,73 H. Kim,17,147 J. Kim,147 J. S. Kim,40 J. Kim,103 J. Kim,147 J. Kim,73 M. Kim,103 S. Kim,18 T. Kim,147 T. Kim,147 S. Kirsch,68,38 I. Kisel,38 S. Kiselev,91 A. Kisiel,142 J. L. Klay,5 C. Klein,68 J. Klein,58 S. Klein,79 C. Klein-Bösing,144 M. Kleiner,68 A. Kluge,33 M. L. Knichel,33 A. G. Knospe,125 C. Kobdaj,115 M. K. Köhler,103 T. Kollegger,106 A. Kondratyev,75 N. Kondratyeva,92 E. Kondratyuk,90 J. Konig,68 P. J. Konopka,33 L. Koska,116 O. Kovalenko,84 V. Kovalenko,112 M. Kowalski,118 I. Králik,64 A. Kravˇ cáková,37 L. Kreis,106 M. Krivda,110,64 F. Krizek,94 K. Krizkova Gajdosova,36 M. Krüger,68 E. Kryshen,97 M. Krzewicki,38 A. M. Kubera,96 V. Ku ˇ cera,60 C. Kuhn,136 P. G. Kuijer,89 L. Kumar,99 S. Kumar,48 S. Kundu,85 P. Kurashvili,84 A. Kurepin,62 A. B. Kurepin,62 A. Kuryakin,108 S. Kushpil,94 J. Kvapil,110 M. J. Kweon,60 J. Y. Kwon,60 Y. Kwon,147 S. L. La Pointe,38 P. La Rocca,27 Y. S. Lai,79 R. Langoy,129 K. Lapidus,33 A. Lardeux,20 P. Larionov,51 E. Laudi,33 R. Lavicka,36 T. Lazareva,112 R. Lea,24 L. Leardini,103 J. Lee,133 S. Lee,147 F. Lehas,89 S. Lehner,113 J. Lehrbach,38 R. C. Lemmon,93 I. León Monzón,120 E. D. Lesser,19 M. Lettrich,33 P. Lévai,145 X. Li,12 X. L. Li,6J. Lien,129 R. Lietava,110 B. Lim,17 V. Lindenstruth,38 S. W. Lindsay,127 C. Lippmann,106 M. A. Lisa,96 V. Litichevskyi,43 A. Liu,19 S. Liu,96 W. J. Llope,143 I. M. Lofnes,21 V. Loginov,92 C. Loizides,95 P. Loncar,34 X. Lopez,134 E. López Torres,8J. R. Luhder,144 M. Lunardon,28 G. Luparello,59 Y. Ma,39 A. Maevskaya,62 M. Mager,33 S. M. Mahmood,20 T. Mahmoud,42 A. Maire,136 R. D. Majka,146 M. Malaev,97 Q. W. Malik,20 L. Malinina,75,bD. Mal’Kevich,91 P. Malzacher,106 G. Mandaglio,55 V. Manko,87 F. Manso,134 V. Manzari,52 Y. Mao,6M. Marchisone,135 J. Mareš,66 G. V. Margagliotti,24 A. Margotti,53 J. Margutti,63 A. Marín,106 C. Markert,119 M. Marquard,68 N. A. Martin,103 P. Martinengo,33 J. L. Martinez,125 M. I. Martínez,44 G. Martínez García,114 M. Martinez Pedreira,33 S. Masciocchi,106 M. Masera,25 A. Masoni,54 L. Massacrier,61 E. Masson,114 A. Mastroserio,138,52 A. M. Mathis,104,117 O. Matonoha,80 P. F. T. Matuoka,121 A. Matyja,118 C. Mayer,118 M. Mazzilli,52 M. A. Mazzoni,57 A. F. Mechler,68 F. Meddi,22 Y. Melikyan,92,62 A. Menchaca-Rocha,71 C. Mengke,6E. Meninno,113,29 M. Meres,13 S. Mhlanga,124 Y. Miake,133 L. Micheletti,25 D. L. Mihaylov,104 K. Mikhaylov,75,91 A. Mischke,63,cA. N. Mishra,69 D. Mi´ skowiec,106 A. Modak,3N. Mohammadi,33 A. P. Mohanty,63 B. Mohanty,85 M. Mohisin Khan,16,dC. Mordasini,104 D. A. Moreira De Godoy,144 L. A. P. Moreno,44 I. Morozov,62 A. Morsch,33 T. Mrnjavac,33 V. Muccifora,51 E. Mudnic,34 D. Mühlheim,144 S. Muhuri,141 J. D. Mulligan,79 M. G. Munhoz,121 R. H. Munzer,68 H. Murakami,132 S. Murray,124 L. Musa,33 J. Musinsky,64 C. J. Myers,125 J. W. Myrcha,142 B. Naik,48 R. Nair,84 B. K. Nandi,48 R. Nania,53,10 E. Nappi,52 M. U. Naru,14 A. F. Nassirpour,80 C. Nattrass,130 R. Nayak,48 T. K. Nayak,85 S. Nazarenko,108 A. Neagu,20 R. A. Negrao De Oliveira,68 L. Nellen,69 S. V. Nesbo,35 G. Neskovic,38 D. Nesterov,112 L. T. Neumann,142 B. S. Nielsen,88 S. Nikolaev,87 S. Nikulin,87 V. Nikulin,97 F. Noferini,53,10 P. Nomokonov,75 J. Norman,78 N. Novitzky,133 P. Nowakowski,142 A. Nyanin,87 J. Nystrand,21 M. Ogino,81 A. Ohlson,103,80 J. Oleniacz,142 A. C. Oliveira Da Silva,130,121 M. H. Oliver,146 C. Oppedisano,58 R. Orava,43 A. Ortiz Velasquez,69 A. Oskarsson,80 J. Otwinowski,118 K. Oyama,81 Y. Pachmayer,103 V. Pacik,88 D. Pagano,140 G. Pai´ c,69 J. Pan,143 A. K. Pandey,48 S. Panebianco,137 P. Pareek,49,141 J. Park,60 J. E. Parkkila,126 S. Parmar,99 S. P. Pathak,125 R. N. Patra,141 B. Paul,58,23 H. Pei,6T. Peitzmann,63 X. Peng,6L. G. Pereira,70 H. Pereira Da Costa,137 D. Peresunko,87 G. M. Perez,8E. Perez Lezama,68 V. Peskov,68 Y. Pestov,4V. Petrᡠcek,36 M. Petrovici,47 R. P. Pezzi,70 S. Piano,59 M. Pikna,13 P. Pillot,114 L. O. D. L. Pimentel,88 O. Pinazza,53,33 L. Pinsky,125 C. Pinto,27 S. Pisano,10,51 D. Pistone,55 M. Płosko´ n,79 M. Planinic,98 F. Pliquett,68 J. Pluta,142 S. Pochybova,145,cM. G. Poghosyan,95 B. Polichtchouk,90 N. Poljak,98 A. Pop,47 044906-16 PRODUCTION OF (ANTI-)3He AND (ANTI-)3H… PHYSICAL REVIEW C 101, 044906 (2020) H. Poppenborg,144 S. Porteboeuf-Houssais,134 V. Pozdniakov,75 S. K. Prasad,3R. Preghenella,53 F. Prino,58 C. A. Pruneau,143 I. Pshenichnov,62 M. Puccio,25,33 V. Punin,108 J. Putschke,143 R. E. Quishpe,125 S. Ragoni,110 S. Raha,3S. Rajput,100 J. Rak,126 A. Rakotozafindrabe,137 L. Ramello,31 F. Rami,136 R. Raniwala,101 S. Raniwala,101 S. S. Räsänen,43 R. Rath,49 V. Ratza,42 I. Ravasenga,30 K. F. Read,95,130 K. Redlich,84,eA. Rehman,21 P. Reichelt,68 F. Reidt,33 X. Ren,6R. Renfordt,68 Z. Rescakova,37 J.-P. Revol,10 K. Reygers,103 V. Riabov,97 T. Richert,80,88 M. Richter,20 P. Riedler,33 W. Riegler,33 F. Riggi,27 C. Ristea,67 S. P. Rode,49 M. Rodríguez Cahuantzi,44 K. Røed,20 R. Rogalev,90 E. Rogochaya,75 D. Rohr,33 D. Röhrich,21 P. S. Rokita,142 F. Ronchetti,51 E. D. Rosas,69 K. Roslon,142 A. Rossi,28,56 A. Rotondi,139 A. Roy,49 P. Roy,109 O. V. Rueda,80 R. Rui,24 B. Rumyantsev,75 A. Rustamov,86 E. Ryabinkin,87 Y. Ryabov,97 A. Rybicki,118 H. Rytkonen,126 O. A. M. Saarimaki,43 S. Sadhu,141 S. Sadovsky,90 K. Šafaˇ rík,33,36 S. K. Saha,141 B. Sahoo,48 P. Sahoo,48,49 R. Sahoo,49 S. Sahoo,65 P. K. Sahu,65 J. Saini,141 S. Sakai,133 S. Sambyal,100 V. Samsonov,97,92 D. Sarkar,143 N. Sarkar,141 P. Sarma,41 V. M. Sarti,104 M. H. P. Sas,63 E. Scapparone,53 B. Schaefer,95 J. Schambach,119 H. S. Scheid,68 C. Schiaua,47 R. Schicker,103 A. Schmah,103 C. Schmidt,106 H. R. Schmidt,102 M. O. Schmidt,103 M. Schmidt,102 N. V. Schmidt,68,95 A. R. Schmier,130 J. Schukraft,88 Y. Schutz,136,33 K. Schwarz,106 K. Schweda,106 G. Scioli,26 E. Scomparin,58 M. Šefˇ cík,37 J. E. Seger,15 Y. Sekiguchi,132 D. Sekihata,132 I. Selyuzhenkov,106,92 S. Senyukov,136 D. Serebryakov,62 E. Serradilla,71 A. Sevcenco,67 A. Shabanov,62 A. Shabetai,114 R. Shahoyan,33 W. Shaikh,109 A. Shangaraev,90 A. Sharma,99 A. Sharma,100 H. Sharma,118 M. Sharma,100 N. Sharma,99 A. I. Sheikh,141 K. Shigaki,45 M. Shimomura,82 S. Shirinkin,91 Q. Shou,39 Y. Sibiriak,87 S. Siddhanta,54 T. Siemiarczuk,84 D. Silvermyr,80 G. Simatovic,89 G. Simonetti,33,104 R. Singh,85 R. Singh,100 R. Singh,49 V. K. Singh,141 V. Singhal,141 T. Sinha,109 B. Sitar,13 M. Sitta,31 T. B. Skaali,20 M. Slupecki,126 N. Smirnov,146 R. J. M. Snellings,63 T. W. Snellman,126,43 C. Soncco,111 J. Song,60,125 A. Songmoolnak,115 F. Soramel,28 S. Sorensen,130 I. Sputowska,118 J. Stachel,103 I. Stan,67 P. Stankus,95 P. J. Steffanic,130 E. Stenlund,80 D. Stocco,114 M. M. Storetvedt,35 L. D. Stritto,29 A. A. P. Suaide,121 T. Sugitate,45 C. Suire,61 M. Suleymanov,14 M. Suljic,33 R. Sultanov,91 M. Šumbera,94 S. Sumowidagdo,50 S. Swain,65 A. Szabo,13 I. Szarka,13 U. Tabassam,14 G. Taillepied,134 J. Takahashi,122 G. J. Tambave,21 S. Tang,6,134 M. Tarhini,114 M. G. Tarzila,47 A. Tauro,33 G. Tejeda Muñoz,44 A. Telesca,33 C. Terrevoli,125 D. Thakur,49 S. Thakur,141 D. Thomas,119 F. Thoresen,88 R. Tieulent,135 A. Tikhonov,62 A. R. Timmins,125 A. Toia,68 N. Topilskaya,62 M. Toppi,51 F. Torales-Acosta,19 S. R. Torres,9,120 A. Trifiro,55 S. Tripathy,49 T. Tripathy,48 S. Trogolo,28 G. Trombetta,32 L. Tropp,37 V. Trubnikov,2W. H. Trzaska,126 T. P. Trzcinski,142 B. A. Trzeciak,63 T. Tsuji,132 A. Tumkin,108 R. Turrisi,56 T. S. Tveter,20 K. Ullaland,21 E. N. Umaka,125 A. Uras,135 G. L. Usai,23 A. Utrobicic,98 M. Vala,37 N. Valle,139 S. Vallero,58 N. van der Kolk,63 L. V. R. van Doremalen,63 M. van Leeuwen,63 P. Vande Vyvre,33 D. Varga,145 Z. Varga,145 M. Varga-Kofarago,145 A. Vargas,44 M. Vasileiou,83 A. Vasiliev,87 O. Vázquez Doce,104,117 V. Vechernin,112 A. M. Veen,63 E. Vercellin,25 S. Vergara Limón,44 L. Vermunt,63 R. Vernet,7R. Vértesi,145 L. Vickovic,34 Z. Vilakazi,131 O. Villalobos Baillie,110 A. Villatoro Tello,44 G. Vino,52 A. Vinogradov,87 T. Virgili,29 V. Vislavicius,88 A. Vodopyanov,75 B. Volkel,33 M. A. Völkl,102 K. Voloshin,91 S. A. Voloshin,143 G. Volpe,32 B. von Haller,33 I. Vorobyev,104 D. Voscek,116 J. Vrláková,37 B. Wagner,21 M. Weber,113 S. G. Weber,144 A. Wegrzynek,33 D. F. Weiser,103 S. C. Wenzel,33 J. P. Wessels,144 J. Wiechula,68 J. Wikne,20 G. Wilk,84 J. Wilkinson,53,10 G. A. Willems,33 E. Willsher,110 B. Windelband,103 M. Winn,137 W. E. Witt,130 Y. Wu,128 R. Xu,6S. Yalcin,77 K. Yamakawa,45 S. Yang,21 S. Yano,137 Z. Yin,6H. Yokoyama,63 I.-K. Yoo,17 J. H. Yoon,60 S. Yuan,21 A. Yuncu,103 V. Yurchenko,2V. Zaccolo,24 A. Zaman,14 C. Zampolli,33 H. J. C. Zanoli,63,121 N. Zardoshti,33 A. Zarochentsev,112 P. Závada,66 N. Zaviyalov,108 H. Zbroszczyk,142 M. Zhalov,97 S. Zhang,39 X. Zhang,6Z. Zhang,6V. Zherebchevskii,112 D. Zhou,6Y. Zhou,88 Z. Zhou,21 J. Zhu,6,106 Y. Zhu,6A. Zichichi,10,26 M. B. Zimmermann,33 G. Zinovjev,2and N. Zurlo140 (ALICE Collaboration) 1A. I. Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics Institute) Foundation, Yerevan, Armenia 2Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine 3Bose Institute, Department of Physics and Centre for Astroparticle Physics and Space Science (CAPSS), Kolkata, India 4Budker Institute for Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia 5California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California, USA 6Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China 7Centre de Calcul de l’IN2P3, Villeurbanne, Lyon, France 8Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Havana, Cuba 9Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados (CINVESTAV), Mexico City and Mérida, Mexico 10Centro Fermi–Museo Storico della Fisica e Centro Studi e Ricerche “Enrico Fermi,” Rome, Italy 11Chicago State University, Chicago, Illinois, USA 12China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China 13Comenius University Bratislava, Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, Bratislava, Slovakia 14COMSATS University Islamabad, Islamabad, Pakistan 15Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, USA 16Department of Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India 17Department of Physics, Pusan National University, Pusan, Republic of Korea 044906-17 S. ACHARYA et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW C 101, 044906 (2020) 18Department of Physics, Sejong University, Seoul, Republic of Korea 19Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA 20Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway 21Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway 22Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università “La Sapienza” and Sezione INFN, Rome, Italy 23Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Cagliari, Italy 24Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Trieste, Italy 25Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy 26Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Bologna, Italy 27Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Catania, Italy 28Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Padova, Italy 29Dipartimento di Fisica “E. R. Caianiello” dell’Università and Gruppo Collegato INFN, Salerno, Italy 30Dipartimento DISAT del Politecnico and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy 31Dipartimento di Scienze e Innovazione Tecnologica dell’Università del Piemonte Orientale and INFN Sezione di Torino, Alessandria, Italy 32Dipartimento Interateneo di Fisica “M. Merlin” and Sezione INFN, Bari, Italy 33European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland 34Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Split, Split, Croatia 35Faculty of Engineering and Science, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway 36Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic 37Faculty of Science, P. J. Šafárik University, Košice, Slovakia 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 45Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan 46Hochschule Worms, Zentrum für Technologietransfer und Telekommunikation (ZTT), Worms, Germany 47Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest, Romania 48Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT), Mumbai, India 49Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore, India 50Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Jakarta, Indonesia 51INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy 52INFN, Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy 53INFN, Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, Italy 54INFN, Sezione di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy 55INFN, Sezione di Catania, Catania, Italy 56INFN, Sezione di Padova, Padova, Italy 57INFN, Sezione di Roma, Rome, Italy 58INFN, Sezione di Torino, Turin, Italy 59INFN, Sezione di Trieste, Trieste, Italy 60Inha University, Incheon, Republic of Korea 61Institut de Physique Nucléaire d’Orsay (IPNO), Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (IN2P3/CNRS), Université de Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, Orsay, France 62Institute for Nuclear Research, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia 63Institute for Subatomic Physics, Utrecht University/Nikhef, Utrecht, Netherlands 64Institute of Experimental Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Košice, Slovakia 65Institute of Physics, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Bhubaneswar, India 66Institute of Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic 67Institute of Space Science (ISS), Bucharest, Romania 68Institut für Kernphysik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany 69Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico 70Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Brazil 71Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico 72iThemba LABS, National Research Foundation, Somerset West, South Africa 73Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea 74Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe Universität Frankfurt Institut für Informatik, Fachbereich Informatik und Mathematik, Frankfurt, Germany 75Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR), Dubna, Russia 044906-18 PRODUCTION OF (ANTI-)3He AND (ANTI-)3H… PHYSICAL REVIEW C 101, 044906 (2020) 76Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon, Republic of Korea 77KTO Karatay University, Konya, Turkey 78Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie, Université Grenoble-Alpes, CNRS-IN2P3, Grenoble, France 79Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, USA 80Lund University Department of Physics, Division of Particle Physics, Lund, Sweden 81Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science, Nagasaki, Japan 82Nara Women’s University (NWU), Nara, Japan 83National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Science, Department of Physics, Athens, Greece 84National Centre for Nuclear Research, Warsaw, Poland 85National Institute of Science Education and Research, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Jatni, India 86National Nuclear Research Center, Baku, Azerbaijan 87National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia 88Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark 89Nikhef, National institute for subatomic physics, Amsterdam, Netherlands 90NRC Kurchatov Institute IHEP, Protvino, Russia 91NRC Kurchatov Institute ITEP, Moscow, Russia 92NRNU Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, Moscow, Russia 93Nuclear Physics Group, STFC Daresbury Laboratory, Daresbury, United Kingdom 94Nuclear Physics Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, ˇ Rež u Prahy, Czech Republic 95Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA 96Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA 97Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina, Russia 98Physics Department, Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia 99Physics Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India 100Physics Department, University of Jammu, Jammu, India 101Physics Department, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, India 102Physikalisches Institut, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany 103Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany 104Physik Department, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany 105Politecnico di Bari, Bari, Italy 106Research Division and ExtreMe Matter Institute EMMI, GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany 107Rudjer Boškovi´c Institute, Zagreb, Croatia 108Russian Federal Nuclear Center (VNIIEF), Sarov, Russia 109Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kolkata, India 110School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom 111Sección Física, Departamento de Ciencias, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima, Peru 112St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia 113Stefan Meyer Institut für Subatomare Physik (SMI), Vienna, Austria 114SUBATECH, IMT Atlantique, Université de Nantes, CNRS-IN2P3, Nantes, France 115Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand 116Technical University of Košice, Košice, Slovakia 117Technische Universität München, Excellence Cluster “Universe,” Munich, Germany 118The Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Cracow, Poland 119The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA 120Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Culiacán, Mexico 121Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil 122Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil 123Universidade Federal do ABC, Santo Andre, Brazil 124University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa 125University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA 126University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland 127University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom 128University of Science and Techonology of China, Hefei, China 129University of South-Eastern Norway, Tonsberg, Norway 130University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA 131University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa 132University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan 133University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan 134Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France 044906-19 S. ACHARYA et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW C 101, 044906 (2020) 135Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, CNRS/IN2P3, IPN-Lyon, Villeurbanne, Lyon, France 136Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, F-67000 Strasbourg, France, Strasbourg, France 137Université Paris-Saclay Centre d’Etudes de Saclay (CEA), IRFU, Départment de Physique Nucléaire (DPhN), Saclay, France 138Università degli Studi di Foggia, Foggia, Italy 139Università degli Studi di Pavia, Pavia, Italy 140Università di Brescia, Brescia, Italy 141Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kolkata, India 142Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland 143Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA 144Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Institut für Kernphysik, Münster, Germany 145Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary 146Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA 147Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea aPresent address: Dipartimento DET del Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy. bPresent address: M. V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, D. V. Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear, Physics, Moscow, Russia. cDeceased. dPresent address: Department of Applied Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India. ePresent address: Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Wroclaw, Poland. 044906-20