Constraining the magnitude of the Chiral Magnetic Effect with Event Shape Engineering in Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV

This is an electronic reprint of the original article. This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Please cite the original version: All material supplied via JYX is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, and duplication or sale of all or part of any of the repository collections is not permitted, except that material may be duplicated by you for your research use or educational purposes in electronic or print form. You must obtain permission for any other use. Electronic or print copies may not be offered, whether for sale or otherwise to anyone who is not an authorised user. Constraining the magnitude of the Chiral Magnetic Effect with Event Shape Engineering in Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV ALICE Collaboration ALICE Collaboration. (2018). Constraining the magnitude of the Chiral Magnetic Effect with Event Shape Engineering in Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV. Physics Letters B, 777, 151-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2017.12.021 2018 Physics Letters B 777 (2018) 151–162 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Physics Letters B www.elsevier.com/locate/physletb Constraining the magnitude of the Chiral Magnetic Effect with Event Shape Engineering in Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN =2.76 TeV .ALICE Collaboration a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Received 27 September 2017 Received in revised form 21 November 2017 Accepted 8 December 2017 Available online 12 December 2017 Editor: L. Rolandi In ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions, the event-by-event variation of the elliptic flow v2reflects fluctuations in the shape of the initial state of the system. This allows to select events with the same centrality but different initial geometry. This selection technique, Event Shape Engineering, has been used in the analysis of charge-dependent two- and three-particle correlations in Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN =2.76 TeV. The two-particle correlator cos(ϕα−ϕβ), calculated for different combinations of charges αand β, is almost independent of v2(for a given centrality), while the three-particle correlator cos(ϕα+ϕβ−22)scales almost linearly both with the event v2and charged-particle pseudorapidity density. The charge dependence of the three-particle correlator is often interpreted as evidence for the Chiral Magnetic Effect (CME), a parity violating effect of the strong interaction. However, its measured dependence on v2points to a large non-CME contribution to the correlator. Comparing the results with Monte Carlo calculations including a magnetic field due to the spectators, the upper limit of the CME signal contribution to the three-particle correlator in the 10–50% centrality interval is found to be 26–33% at 95% confidence level. ©2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Funded by SCOAP3. Parity symmetry is conserved in electromagnetism and is maximally violated in weak interactions. In strong interactions, global parity violation is not observed even though it is allowed by quantum chromodynamics. Local parity violation in strong interactions might occur in microscopic domains under conditions of finite temperature [1–4] due to the existence of the topologically non-trivial configurations of the gluonic field, instantons and sphalerons. The interactions between quarks and gluonic fields with non-zero topological charge [5] change the quark chirality. A local imbalance of chirality, coupled with the strong magnetic field produced in heavy-ion collisions (B ∼1015 T) [6–8], would lead to charge separation along the direction of the magnetic field, which is on average perpendicular to the reaction plane (the plane of symmetry defined by the impact parameter vector and the beam direction), a phenomenon called Chiral Magnetic Effect (CME) [9–12]. Since the sign of the topological charge is equally probable to be positive or negative, the charge separation averaged over many events is zero. This makes the observation of the CME experimentally difficult and possible only via correlation techniques. E-mail address: [email protected]. Azimuthal anisotropies in particle production relative to the reaction plane, often referred to as anisotropic flow, are an important observable to study the system created in heavy-ion collisions [13, 14]. Anisotropic flow arises from the asymmetry in the initial geometry of the collision. Its magnitude is quantified via the coefficients vnin a Fourier decomposition of the charged particle azimuthal distribution [15,16]. Local parity violation would result in an additional sine term [17] dN dϕα∼1+2v1,αcos(ϕα)+2a1,αsin(ϕα) +2v2,αcos(2ϕα)+..., (1) where ϕα=ϕα−RP, ϕαis the azimuthal angle of the particle of charge α(+, −) and RP is the reaction-plane angle. The first (v1,α) and the second (v2,α) coefficients are called directed and elliptic flow, respectively. The a1,αcoefficient quantifies the effects from local parity violation. Since the average a1,α =0over many events, one can only measure a2 1,αor a1,+a1,−. The chargedependent two-particle correlator δαβ≡cos(ϕα−ϕβ) =cos(ϕα)cos(ϕβ)+sin(ϕα)sin(ϕβ)(2) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2017.12.021 0370-2693/©2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Funded by SCOAP3. 152 ALICE Collaboration / Physics Letters B 777 (2018) 151–162 is not convenient for such a study, because along with the signal a1,αa1,β (βdenotes the charge) there is a much stronger contribution from correlations unrelated to the azimuthal asymmetry in the initial geometry (“non-flow”). These correlations largely come from the inter-jet correlations and resonance decays. To increase the CME contribution it was proposed to use the following correlator [17] γαβ≡cos(ϕα+ϕβ−2RP) =cos(ϕα)cos(ϕβ)−sin(ϕα)sin(ϕβ)(3) that measures the difference between the correlation projected onto the reaction plane and perpendicular to it. In practice, the reaction-plane angle is estimated by constructing the event plane angle 2using azimuthal particle distributions, which is why this correlator is often described as a three-particle correlator. This correlator suppresses background contributions at the level of v2, the difference between the particle production in-plane and out-of- plane. Examples of such background sources are the local charge conservation (LCC) coupled with elliptic flow [18,19], momentum conservation [19–21], and directed-flow fluctuations [22]. The most significant background source for CME measurements is the LCC. The measurements of charge-dependent azimuthal correlations performed at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) [23–26] and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) [27,28] are in qualitative agreement with the expectations for the CME. However, the interpretation of these experimental results is complicated due to possible background contributions. The Event Shape Engineering (ESE) technique was proposed to disentangle background contributions from the potential CME signal [29]. This method makes it possible to select events with eccentricity values significantly larger or smaller than the average in a given centrality class [30,31] since v2scales approximately linearly with eccentricity [32]. Centrality estimates the degree of overlap between the two colliding nuclei, with low percentage values corresponding to head-on collisions. The CME contribution is expected to mainly scale with the magnetic field strength and to not have a strong dependence on the eccentricity [33], while the background varies significantly. Therefore ESE provides a unique tool to separate the CME signal from the background for the three-particle correlator. The CMS Collaboration has recently reported the measurement of the three-particle correlator γαβin p–Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV [34], where the direction of the magnetic field is expected to be uncorrelated to the reaction plane [35]. The magnitude of the correlator in p–Pb and Pb–Pb collisions is comparable for similar final-state charged-particle multiplicities. This measurement indicates that the contribution of the CME to this observable in this multiplicity range is small. In this paper we report the measurements of the two-particle correlator δαβ, the three-particle correlator γαβ, and the elliptic flow v2of unidentified charged particles. These measurements are performed for shape selected and unbiased events in Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN =2.76 TeV. An upper limit on the CME contribution is deduced from comparisons of the observed dependence of the correlations on the event v2to that estimated using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations of the magnetic field of spectators with different initial conditions. While this paper was in preparation, a paper employing a similar approach to estimate the fraction of the CME signal in the three-particle correlator was submitted by the CMS Collaboration [36]. The data sample recorded by ALICE during the 2010 LHC Pb–Pb run at √sNN =2.76 TeV is used for this analysis. General information on the ALICE detector and its performance can be found in [37,38]. The Time Projection Chamber (TPC) [37,39] and Inner Tracking System (ITS) [37,40] are used to reconstruct charged-particle tracks and measure their momenta with a trackmomentum resolution better than 2% for the transverse momentum interval 0.2 <pT<5.0GeV/c[38]. The two innermost layers of the ITS, the Silicon Pixel Detector (SPD), are employed for triggering and event selection. Two scintillator arrays (V0) [37,41], which cover the pseudorapidity ranges −3.7 <η<−1.7(V0C) and 2.8 <η<5.1(V0A), are used for triggering, event selection, and the determination of centrality [42] and 2. The trigger conditions and the event selection criteria are described in [38]. An offline event selection is applied to remove beam induced background and pileup events. Approximately 9.8 ·106minimum-bias Pb–Pb events with a reconstructed primary vertex within ±10 cm from the nominal interaction point in the beam direction belonging to the 0–60% centrality interval are used for this analysis. Charged particles reconstructed using the combined information from the ITS and TPC in |η| <0.8 and 0.2 <pT<5.0GeV/c are selected with full azimuthal coverage. Additional quality cuts are applied to reduce the contamination from secondary charged particles (i.e. particles originating from weak decays, conversions and secondary hadronic interactions in the detector material) and fake tracks (with random associations of space points). Only tracks with at least 70 space points in the TPC (out of a maximum of 159) with an average χ2per degree-of-freedom for the track fit lower than 2, a distance of closest approach (DCA) to the reconstructed event vertex smaller than 2.4 cm in the transverse plane (xy) and 3.2 cm in the longitudinal direction (z) are accepted. The charged particle track reconstruction efficiency was estimated from HIJING simulations [43,44] combined with a GEANT3 [45] detector model, and found to be independent of the collision centrality. The reconstruction efficiency of primary particles defined in [46], which may bias the determination of the pTaveraged charge-dependent correlations and flow, increases from 70% at pT=0.2GeV/cto 85% at pT∼1.5 GeV/cwhere it has a maximum. It then gradually decreases and is flat at 80% for pT>3.0GeV/c. The systematic uncertainty of the efficiency is about 5%. The event shape selection is performed as in [30] based on the magnitude of the second-order reduced flow vector, q2[47], defined as q2=|Q2| √M,(4) where |Q2| =Q2 2,x+Q2 2,yis the magnitude of the second order harmonic flow vector and Mis the multiplicity. The vector Q2is calculated from the azimuthal distribution of the energy deposition measured in the V0C. Its xand ycomponents and the multiplicity are given by Q2,x= i wicos(2ϕi), Q2,y= i wisin(2ϕi), M= i wi, (5) where the sum runs over all channels iof the V0C detector (i =1 −32), ϕiis the azimuthal angle of channel iand wiis the amplitude measured in channel i. The large gap in pseudorapidity (|η| >0.9) between the charged particles in the TPC used to determine v2, δαβand γαβand those in the V0C suppresses non-flow effects. Ten event-shape classes with the lowest (highest) q2value corresponding to the 0–10% (90–100%) range are investigated for each centrality interval. The flow coefficient v2is measured using the event plane method [16]. The orientation of the event plane 2is estimated from the azimuthal distribution of the energy deposition measured by the V0A detector. The event plane resolution is calculated from correlations between the event planes determined in the TPC and ALICE Collaboration / Physics Letters B 777 (2018) 151–162 153 Table 1 Summary of absolute systematic uncertainties. The uncertainties depend on centrality and shape selection, whose minimum and maximum values are listed here. Opposite charge Same charge δαβ(3.4−25)×10−5(3.1−10)×10−5 γαβ(2.6−34)×10−6(4.1−74)×10−6 v2(1.2−4.7)×10−3 Fig. 1. (Colour online.) Unidentified charged particle v2for shape selected and unbiased events as a function of collision centrality. The event selection is based on q2determined in the V0C with the lowest (highest) value corresponding to 0–10% (90–100%) q2. Points are slightly shifted along the horizontal axis for better visibility. Error bars (shaded boxes) represent the statistical (systematic) uncertainties. the two V0 detectors separately [16]. The non-flow contributions to the v2coefficient and charge-dependent azimuthal correlations are greatly suppressed by the large rapidity separation between the TPC and the V0A (|η| >2.0). The absolute systematic uncertainties are evaluated from the variation of the results with different selection criteria on the reconstructed collision vertex, different magnetic field polarities, as well as by estimating the centrality from multiplicities measured by the TPC or the SPD rather than the V0 detector. Changes of the results due to variations of the track-selection criteria (e.g. changing the DCA xy and zranges, number of the TPC space points, using tracks reconstructed by the TPC only) are considered as part of the systematic uncertainties. The effect of reconstruction efficiency on the measurements is checked by randomly rejecting tracks to ensure a flat acceptance in pT. The detector response is studied using HIJING and AMPT [48] simulations, where the v2 coefficients and the charge-dependent azimuthal correlations obtained directly from the models are compared with those from reconstructed tracks. The largest contribution to the systematic uncertainties is given by the detector response. The checks related to the reconstruction efficiency, magnetic field polarity and trackselection criteria also yield significant deviations from the nominal values for v2, γαβand δαβ, respectively. The contributions from all sources are added in quadrature as an estimate of the total systematic uncertainty. The resulting systematic uncertainties are summarized in Table 1. Fig. 1 presents the unidentified charged particle v2averaged over 0.2 <pT<5.0GeV/cfor shape selected and unbiased samples as a function of collision centrality. The measured v2for the shape selected events differs from the average by up to 25%, which demonstrates that events with the desired initial spatial anisotropy can be experimentally selected. Sensitivity of the event shape selection deteriorates for peripheral collisions (already visible for the Fig. 2. (Colour online.) Top: Centrality dependence of γαβfor pairs of particles with same and opposite charge for shape selected and unbiased events. Bottom: Centrality dependence of δαβfor pairs of particles with same and opposite charge for shape selected and unbiased events. The event selection is based on q2determined in the V0C with the lowest (highest) value corresponding to 0–10% (90–100%) q2. Points are slightly shifted along the horizontal axis for better visibility in both panels. Error bars (shaded boxes) represent the statistical (systematic) uncertainties. 50–60% centrality class) due to the low multiplicity and for central collisions due to the reduced magnitude of flow [30]. The centrality dependence of γαβfor pairs of particles with same and opposite charge for shape selected and unbiased events is shown in the top panel of Fig. 2. The same charge results denote the average between pairs of particles with only positive and only negative charges since the two combinations are found to be consistent within statistical uncertainties. The correlation of pairs with the same charge is stronger than the correlation for pairs of opposite charge for both shape selected and unbiased events. The ordering of the correlations of pairs with same and opposite charge indicates a charge separation with respect to the reaction plane. The magnitude of the same and opposite charge pair correlations depends weakly on the event-shape selection (q2, i.e. v2) in a given centrality bin. The bottom panel of Fig. 2 shows the centrality dependence of δαβfor pairs of particles with same and opposite charge for shape selected and unbiased samples. As reported in [27], the magnitude of the correlation for the same charge pairs is smaller than for the opposite charge combinations. This is in contrast to the CME expectation, indicating that background dominates the correlations. The same and opposite charge pair correlations are insensitive to the event-shape selection in a given centrality bin. The difference between opposite and same charge pair correlations for γαβcan be used to study the charge separation effect. This difference is presented as a function of v2for various centrality classes in the top panel of Fig. 3. The difference is positive 154 ALICE Collaboration / Physics Letters B 777 (2018) 151–162 Fig. 3. (Colour online.) Top: Difference between opposite and same charge pair correlations for γαβas a function of v2for shape selected events together with a linear fit (dashed lines) for various centrality classes. Bottom: Difference between opposite and same charge pair correlations for γαβmultiplied by the charged-particle density [49] as a function of v2for shape selected events for various centrality classes. The event selection is based on q2determined in the V0C with the lowest (highest) value corresponding to 0–10% (90–100%) q2. Error bars (shaded boxes) represent the statistical (systematic) uncertainties. for all centralities and its magnitude decreases for more central collisions and with decreasing v2(in a given centrality bin). At least two effects could be responsible for the centrality dependence: the reduction of the magnetic field with decreasing centrality and the dilution of the correlation due to the increase in the number of particles [24] in more central collisions. The difference between opposite and same charge pair correlations multiplied by the charged-particle density in a given centrality bin, dNch/dη(taken from [49]), to compensate for the dilution effect, is presented as a function of v2in the bottom panel of Fig. 3. All the data points fall approximately onto the same line. This is qualitatively consistent with expectations from LCC where an increase in v2, which modulates the correlation between balancing charges with respect to the reaction plane [50], results in a strong effect. Therefore, the observed dependence on v2points to a large background contribution to γαβ. The expected dependence of the CME signal on v2was evaluated with the help of a Monte Carlo Glauber [51] calculation including a magnetic field. In this simulation, the centrality classes are determined from the multiplicity of charged particles in the acceptance of the V0 detector following the method presented in [42]. The multiplicity is generated according to a negative binomial distribution with parameters taken from [42] based on the number of participant nucleons and binary collisions. The elliptic flow is assumed to be proportional to the eccentricity of the participant nucleons and approximately reproduces the measured Fig. 4. (Colour online.) The expected dependence of the CME signal on v2for various centrality classes from a MC-Glauber simulation [51] (see text for details). No event shape selection is performed in the model, and therefore a large range in v2is covered. The solid lines depict linear fits based on the v2variation observed within each centrality interval. pT-integrated v2values [52]. The magnetic field is evaluated at the geometrical centre of the overlap region from the number of spectator nucleons following Eq. (A.6) from [11] with the proper time τ=0.1fm/c. The magnetic field is calculated in 1% centrality classes and averaged into the centrality intervals used for data analysis. It is assumed that the CME signal is proportional to |B|2cos(2(B−2)), where |B|and Bare the magnitude and direction of the magnetic field, respectively. Fig. 4 presents the expected dependence of the CME signal on v2for various centrality classes. Similar results are found using MC-KLN CGC [53,54] and EKRT [55] initial conditions. The MC-KLN CGC simulation was performed using version 32 of the Monte Carlo kT-factorization code (mckt) available at [56], while the TRENTO model [57] was employed for EKRT initial conditions. To disentangle the potential CME signal from background, the dependence on v2of the difference between opposite and same charge pair correlations for γαβand the CME signal expectations are fitted with a linear function (see lines in Figs. 3 (top panel) and 4, respectively): F1(v2)=p0(1+p1(v2−v2)/v2), (6) where p0accounts for the overall scale, which cannot be fixed in the MC calculations, and p1reflects the slope normalised such that in a pure background scenario, where the correlator is directly proportional to v2, it is equal to unity. The presence of a significant CME contribution, on the other hand, would result in non-zero intercepts at v2=0of the linear functions shown in Fig. 3. The ranges used in these fits are based on the v2variation observed in data and the corresponding MC interval within each centrality range. The centrality dependence of p1from fits to data and to the signal expectations based on MC-Glauber, MC-KLN CGC and EKRT models is reported in Fig. 5. The observed p1from data is a superposition of a possible CME signal and background. Assuming a pure background case, p1from data and MC models can be related according to fCME ×p1,MC +(1−fCME)×1=p1,data,(7) where fCME denotes the CME fraction to the charge dependence of γαβand is given by fCME =(γopp −γsame)CME (γopp −γsame)CME +(γopp −γsame)Bkg .(8) ALICE Collaboration / Physics Letters B 777 (2018) 151–162 155 Fig. 5. (Colour online.) Centrality dependence of the p1parameter from a linear fit to the difference between opposite and same charge pair correlations for γαβ and from linear fits to the CME signal expectations from MC-Glauber [51], MC-KLN CGC [53,54] and EKRT [55] models (see text for details). Points from MC simulations are slightly shifted along the horizontal axis for better visibility. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Fig. 6. (Colour online.) Centrality dependence of the CME fraction extracted from the slope parameter of fits to data and MC-Glauber [51], MC-KLN CGC [53,54] and EKRT [55] models, respectively (see text for details). The dashed lines indicate the physical parameter space of the CME fraction. Points are slightly shifted along the horizontal axis for better visibility. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Fig. 6 presents fCME for the three models used in this study. The CME fraction cannot be precisely extracted for central (0–10%) and peripheral (50–60%) collisions due to the large statistical uncertainties on p1extracted from data. The negative values for the CME fraction obtained for the 40–50% centrality range (deviating from zero by one σ), if confirmed, would indicate that our expectations for the background contribution to be linearly proportional to v2are not accurate. Combining the points from 10–50% neglecting a possible centrality dependence gives fCME =0.10 ±0.13, fCME =0.08 ±0.10 and fCME =0.08 ±0.11 for the MC-Glauber, MC-KLN CGC and EKRT models, respectively. These results are consistent with zero CME fraction and correspond to upper limits on fCME of 33%, 26% and 29%, respectively, at 95% confidence level for the 10–50% centrality interval. The CME fraction agrees with the observations in [36] where the centrality intervals overlap. In summary, the Event Shape Engineering technique has been applied to measure the dependence on v2of the charge-dependent two- and three-particle correlators δαβand γαβin Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN =2.76 TeV. While for δαβwe observe no significant v2dependence in a given centrality bin, γαβis found to be almost linearly dependent on v2. When the charge dependence of γαβis multiplied by the corresponding charged-particle density, to compensate for the dilution effect, a linear dependence on v2is observed consistently across all centrality classes. Using a Monte Carlo simulation with different initial-state models, we have found that the CME signal is expected to exhibit a weak dependence on v2in the measured range. The observations imply that the dominant contribution to γαβis due to non-CME effects. In order to get a quantitative estimate of the signal and background contributions to the measurements, we fit both γαβand the expected signal dependence on v2with a first order polynomial. This procedure allows to estimate the fraction of the CME signal in the centrality range 10–50%, but not for the most central (0–10%) and peripheral (50–60%) collisions due to large statistical uncertainties. Averaging over the centrality range 10–50% gives an upper limit of 26% to 33% (depending on the initial-state model) at 95% confidence level for the CME contribution to the difference between opposite and same charge pair correlations for γαβ. Acknowledgements The ALICE Collaboration would like to thank all its engineers and technicians for their invaluable contributions to the construction of the experiment and the CERN accelerator teams for the outstanding performance of the LHC complex. The ALICE Collaboration gratefully acknowledges the resources and support provided by all Grid centres and the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid (WLCG) collaboration. The ALICE Collaboration acknowledges the following funding agencies for their support in building and running the ALICE detector: A.I. Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics Institute) Foundation (ANSL), State Committee of Science and World Federation of Scientists (WFS), Armenia; Austrian Academy of Sciences 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), Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (Finep) and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP), Brazil; Ministry of Science & Technology of China (MSTC), National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) and Ministry of Education of China (MOEC), China; Ministry of Science, Education and Sport and Croatian Science Foundation, Croatia; Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic, Czech Republic; The Danish Council for Independent Research – Natural Sciences, the Carlsberg Foundation 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, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie (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) and Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi, India; Indonesian Institute of Science, Indonesia; Centro Fermi – Museo Storico della Fisica e Centro Studi e Ricerche Enrico Fermi and Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), Italy; Institute for Innovative Science and Technology, Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science (IIST), Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI and Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan; Consejo Nacional 156 ALICE Collaboration / Physics Letters B 777 (2018) 151–162 de Ciencia (CONACYT) y Tecnología, through Fondo de Cooperación Internacional en Ciencia y Tecnología (FONCICYT) and Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Academico (DGAPA), Mexico; Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), Netherlands; The Research Council of Norway, Norway; Commission on Science and Technology for Sustainable Development in the South (COMSATS), Pakistan; Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Peru; Ministry of Science and Higher Education and National Science Centre, Poland; Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information and National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), Republic of Korea; Ministry of Education and Scientific Research, Institute of Atomic Physics and Romanian National Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation, Romania; Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR), Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation and National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Russia; Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic, Slovakia; National Research Foundation of South Africa, South Africa; Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Cubaenergía, Cuba, Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion and Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Spain; Swedish Research Council (VR) and Knut & Alice Wallenberg Foundation (KAW), Sweden; European Organization for Nuclear Research, Switzerland; National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSDTA), Suranaree University of Technology (SUT) and Office of the Higher Education Commission under NRU project of Thailand, Thailand; Turkish Atomic Energy Agency (TAEK), Turkey; National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Ukraine; Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), United Kingdom; National Science Foundation of the United States of America (NSF) and U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Physics (DOE NP), United States of America. References [1] T.D. Lee, A theory of spontaneous T violation, Phys. Rev. D 8 (1973) 1226–1239. [2] T.D. Lee, G.C. Wick, Vacuum stability and vacuum excitation in a spin 0 field theory, Phys. Rev. D 9 (1974) 2291–2316. [3] P.D. Morley, I.A. Schmidt, Strong P, CP, T violations in heavy ion collisions, Z. Phys. C 26 (1985) 627. [4] D. Kharzeev, R.D. Pisarski, M.H.G. Tytgat, Possibility of spontaneous parity violation in hot QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 512–515, arXiv:hep-ph/9804221. [5] S.-S. Chern, J. Simons, Characteristic forms and geometric invariants, Ann. Math. 99 (1974) 48–69. [6] A. Bzdak, V. Skokov, Event-by-event fluctuations of magnetic and electric fields in heavy ion collisions, Phys. Lett. B 710 (2012) 171–174, arXiv:1111.1949 [hepph]. [7] W.-T. Deng, X.-G. Huang, Event-by-event generation of electromagnetic fields in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 85 (2012) 044907, arXiv:1201.5108 [nucl-th]. [8] U. Gursoy, D. Kharzeev, K. Rajagopal, Magnetohydrodynamics, charged currents and directed flow in heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 89 (5) (2014) 054905, arXiv:1401.3805 [hep-ph]. [9] D. Kharzeev, Parity violation in hot QCD: why it can happen, and how to look for it, Phys. Lett. B 633 (2006) 260–264, arXiv:hep-ph/0406125. [10] D. Kharzeev, A. Zhitnitsky, Charge separation induced by P-odd bubbles in QCD matter, Nucl. Phys. A 797 (2007) 67–79, arXiv:0706.1026 [hep-ph]. [11] D.E. Kharzeev, L.D. McLerran, 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) 227–253, arXiv:0711.0950 [hep-ph]. [12] K. Fukushima, D.E. Kharzeev, H.J. Warringa, The chiral magnetic effect, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 074033, arXiv:0808.3382 [hep-ph]. [13] S.A. Voloshin, A.M. Poskanzer, R. Snellings, Collective phenomena in noncentral nuclear collisions, arXiv:0809.2949 [nucl-ex]. [14] U. Heinz, R. Snellings, Collective flow and viscosity in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63 (2013) 123–151, arXiv:1301.2826 [nucl-th]. [15] S. Voloshin, Y. Zhang, Flow study in relativistic nuclear collisions by Fourier expansion of Azimuthal particle distributions, Z. Phys. C 70 (1996) 665–672, arXiv:hep-ph/9407282. [16] A.M. Poskanzer, S.A. Voloshin, Methods for analyzing anisotropic flow in relativistic nuclear collisions, Phys. Rev. C 58 (1998) 1671–1678, arXiv:nuclex/9805001. [17] S.A. Voloshin, Parity violation in hot QCD: how to detect it, Phys. Rev. C 70 (2004) 057901, arXiv:hep-ph/0406311. [18] S. Schlichting, 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 [nucl-th]. [19] S. Pratt, S. Schlichting, S. Gavin, Effects of momentum conservation and flow on angular correlations at RHIC, Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 024909, arXiv:1011.6053 [nucl-th]. [20] J. Liao, V. Koch, A. Bzdak, On the charge separation effect in relativistic heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 82 (2010) 054902, arXiv:1005.5380 [nucl-th]. [21] A. Bzdak, V. Koch, J. Liao, Azimuthal correlations from transverse momentum conservation and possible local parity violation, Phys. Rev. C 83 (2011) 014905, arXiv:1008.4919 [nucl-th]. [22] D. Teaney, L. Yan, Triangularity and dipole asymmetry in heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 83 (2011) 064904, arXiv:1010.1876 [nucl-th]. [23] STAR Collaboration, B.I. Abelev, et al., Azimuthal charged-particle correlations and possible local strong parity violation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 251601, arXiv:0909.1739 [nucl-ex]. [24] STAR Collaboration, B.I. Abelev, et al., 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 [nucl-ex]. [25] STAR Collaboration, L. Adamczyk, et al., 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 (6) (2013) 064911, arXiv:1302.3802 [nucl-ex]. [26] STAR Collaboration, L. Adamczyk, et al., 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 [nucl-ex]. [27] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev, et al., Charge separation relative to the reaction plane in Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN =2.76 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (1) (2013) 012301, arXiv:1207.0900 [nucl-ex]. [28] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam, et al., Charge-dependent flow and the search for the chiral magnetic wave in Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN =2.76 TeV, Phys. Rev. C 93 (4) (2016) 044903, arXiv:1512.05739 [nucl-ex]. [29] J. Schukraft, A. Timmins, S.A. Voloshin, Ultra-relativistic nuclear collisions: event shape engineering, Phys. Lett. B 719 (2013) 394–398, arXiv:1208.4563 [nucl-ex]. [30] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam, et al., Event shape engineering for inclusive spectra and elliptic flow in Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN =2.76 TeV, Phys. Rev. C 93 (3) (2016) 034916, arXiv:1507.06194 [nucl-ex]. [31] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad, et al., Measurement of the correlation between flow harmonics of different order in lead-lead collisions at √sNN =2.76 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. C 92 (3) (2015) 034903, arXiv:1504.01289 [hep-ex]. [32] F.G. Gardim, F. Grassi, M. Luzum, J.-Y. Ollitrault, Mapping the hydrodynamic response to the initial geometry in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 85 (2012) 024908, arXiv:1111.6538 [nucl-th]. [33] A. Bzdak, Suppression of elliptic flow induced correlations in an observable of possible local parity violation, Phys. Rev. C 85 (2012) 044919, arXiv:1112.4066 [nucl-th]. [34] CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryan, et al., 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 (12) (2017) 122301, arXiv: 1610.00263 [nucl-ex]. [35] R. Belmont, 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 (2) (2017) 024901, arXiv:1610.07964 [nucl-th]. [36] CMS Collaboration, A.M. Sirunyan, et al., Constraints on the chiral magnetic effect using charge-dependent azimuthal correlations in pPb and PbPb collisions at the LHC, arXiv:1708.01602 [nucl-ex]. [37] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt, et al., The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC, J. Instrum. 3 (2008) S08002. [38] ALICE Collaboration, B.B. Abelev, et al., Performance of the ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29 (2014) 1430044, arXiv:1402.4476 [nuclex]. [39] J. Alme, et al., The ALICE TPC, a large 3-dimensional tracking device with fast readout for ultra-high multiplicity events, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, Accel. Spectrom. Detect. Assoc. Equip. 622 (2010) 316–367, arXiv:1001. 1950 [physics.ins-det]. [40] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt, et al., Alignment of the ALICE Inner Tracking System with cosmic-ray tracks, J. Instrum. 5 (2010) P03003, arXiv:1001.0502 [physics.ins-det]. [41] ALICE Collaboration, E. Abbas, et al., Performance of the ALICE VZERO system, J. Instrum. 8 (2013) P10016, arXiv:1306.3130 [nucl-ex]. [42] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev, et al., Centrality determination of Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN =2.76 TeV with ALICE, Phys. Rev. C 88 (4) (2013) 044909, arXiv:1301.4361 [nucl-ex]. [43] X.-N. Wang, M. Gyulassy, HIJING: a Monte Carlo model for multiple jet production in p p, p A and A A collisions, Phys. Rev. D 44 (1991) 3501–3516. [44] M. Gyulassy, X.-N. Wang, HIJING 1.0: a Monte Carlo program for parton and particle production in high-energy hadronic and nuclear collisions, Comput. Phys. Commun. 83 (1994) 307, arXiv:nucl-th/9502021. ALICE Collaboration / Physics Letters B 777 (2018) 151–162 157 [45] R. Brun, F. Bruyant, F. Carminati, S. Giani, M. Maire, A. McPherson, G. Patrick, L. Urban, GEANT detector description and simulation tool, CERN-W5013 1 (1994) 1. [46] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., The ALICE definition of primary particles, ALICE-PUBLIC-2017-005, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2270008. [47] STAR Collaboration, C. Adler, et al., Elliptic flow from two and four particle correlations in Au+Au collisions at √sNN =130 GeV, Phys. Rev. C 66 (2002) 034904, arXiv:nucl-ex/0206001. [48] Z.-W. Lin, C.M. Ko, B.-A. Li, B. Zhang, S. Pal, A multi-phase transport model for relativistic heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 72 (2005) 064901, arXiv:nucl-th/ 0411110. [49] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt, et al., Centrality dependence of the chargedparticle multiplicity density at mid-rapidity in Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 032301, arXiv:1012.1657 [nucl-ex]. [50] Y. Hori, T. Gunji, H. Hamagaki, S. Schlichting, Collective flow effects on charge balance correlations and local parity-violation observables in √sNN =2.76 TeV Pb+Pb collisions at the LHC, arXiv:1208.0603 [nucl-th]. [51] M.L. Miller, K. Reygers, S.J. Sanders, P. Steinberg, Glauber modeling in high energy nuclear collisions, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57 (2007) 205–243, arXiv: nucl-ex/0701025. [52] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt, et al., Elliptic flow of charged particles in Pb– Pb collisions at 2.76 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 252302, arXiv:1011.3914 [nucl-ex]. [53] H.-J. Drescher, Y. Nara, Eccentricity fluctuations from the color glass condensate at RHIC and LHC, Phys. Rev. C 76 (2007) 041903, arXiv:0707.0249 [nucl-th]. [54] J.L. Albacete, A. Dumitru, A model for gluon production in heavy-ion collisions at the LHC with rcBK unintegrated gluon densities, arXiv:1011.5161 [hep-ph]. [55] H. Niemi, K.J. Eskola, R. Paatelainen, Event-by-event fluctuations in a perturbative QCD + saturation + hydrodynamics model: determining QCD matter shear viscosity in ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 93 (2) (2016) 024907, arXiv:1505.02677 [hep-ph]. [56] http://faculty.baruch.cuny.edu/naturalscience/physics/dumitru/CGC_IC.html. [57] J.S. Moreland, J.E. Bernhard, S.A. Bass, Alternative ansatz to wounded nucleon and binary collision scaling in high-energy nuclear collisions, Phys. Rev. C 92 (1) (2015) 011901, arXiv:1412.4708 [nucl-th]. ALICE Collaboration S. Acharya139, J. Adam98, D. Adamová95, J. Adolfsson34, M.M. Aggarwal100, G. Aglieri Rinella 35, M. Agnello31, N. Agrawal48, Z. Ahammed139, N. Ahmad 17, S.U. Ahn80, S. Aiola143, A. Akindinov65, M. Al-Turany 108, S.N. Alam 139, D.S.D. Albuquerque 124, D. Aleksandrov91, B. Alessandro59, R. Alfaro Molina75, A. Alici 27,54,12, A. Alkin 3, J. Alme22, T. Alt 71, L. Altenkamper22, I. Altsybeev138, C. Alves Garcia Prado123, C. Andrei88, D. Andreou35, H.A. Andrews112, A. Andronic108, V. Anguelov105, C. Anson98, T. Antiˇ ci´ c109, F. Antinori57, P. Antonioli 54, R. Anwar126, L. Aphecetche116, H. Appelshäuser71, S. Arcelli27, R. Arnaldi59, O.W. Arnold106,36, I.C. Arsene 21, M. Arslandok105, B. Audurier116, A. Augustinus35, R. Averbeck108, M.D. Azmi17, A. Badalà56, Y.W. Baek 61,79, S. Bagnasco59, R. Bailhache71, R. Bala 102, A. Baldisseri 76, M. Ball45, R.C. Baral68,89, A.M. Barbano26, R. Barbera28, F. Barile 53,33, L. Barioglio 26, G.G. Barnaföldi142, L.S. Barnby94, V. Barret133, P. Bartalini7, K. Barth35, E. Bartsch71, M. Basile 27, N. Bastid133, S. Basu141, G. Batigne 116, B. Batyunya 78, P.C. Batzing21, J.L. Bazo Alba 113, I.G. Bearden92, H. Beck105, C. Bedda 64, N.K. Behera61, I. Belikov135, F. Bellini27,35, H. Bello Martinez 2, R. Bellwied 126, L.G.E. Beltran122, V. Belyaev84, G. Bencedi142, S. Beole26, A. Bercuci88, Y. Berdnikov 97, D. Berenyi142, R.A. Bertens129, D. Berzano 35, L. Betev35, A. Bhasin102, I.R. Bhat 102, A.K. Bhati100, B. Bhattacharjee44, J. Bhom 120, A. Bianchi26, L. Bianchi126, N. Bianchi51, C. Bianchin141, J. Bielˇ cík39, J. Bielˇ cíková95, A. Bilandzic36,106, G. Biro142, R. Biswas4, S. Biswas4, J.T. Blair121, D. Blau91, C. Blume71, G. Boca136, F. Bock 83,35,105, A. Bogdanov84, L. Boldizsár142, M. Bombara40, G. Bonomi 137, M. Bonora35, J. Book71, H. Borel76, A. Borissov105,19, M. Borri128, E. Botta26, C. Bourjau92, L. Bratrud71, P. Braun-Munzinger108, M. Bregant123, T.A. Broker 71, M. Broz39, E.J. Brucken46, E. Bruna59, G.E. Bruno 35,33, D. Budnikov110, H. Buesching71, S. Bufalino31, P. Buhler 115, P. Buncic 35, O. Busch132, Z. Buthelezi 77, J.B. Butt15, J.T. Buxton18, J. Cabala 118, D. Caffarri35,93, H. Caines143, A. Caliva64,108, E. Calvo Villar113, P. Camerini 25, A.A. Capon115, F. Carena 35, W. Carena 35, F. Carnesecchi27,12, J. Castillo Castellanos76, A.J. Castro129, E.A.R. Casula 55, C. Ceballos Sanchez9, P. Cerello59, S. Chandra139, B. Chang 127, S. Chapeland35, M. Chartier128, S. Chattopadhyay139, S. Chattopadhyay111, A. Chauvin36,106, C. Cheshkov 134, B. Cheynis134, V. Chibante Barroso35, D.D. Chinellato124, S. Cho61, P. Chochula 35, M. Chojnacki92, S. Choudhury 139, T. Chowdhury 133, P. Christakoglou93, C.H. Christensen92, P. Christiansen34, T. Chujo 132, S.U. Chung19, C. Cicalo55, L. Cifarelli12,27, F. Cindolo 54, J. Cleymans101, F. Colamaria33, D. Colella35,66,53, A. Collu83, M. Colocci27, M. Concas 59,ii, G. Conesa Balbastre82, Z. Conesa del Valle62, M.E. Connors143,iii, J.G. Contreras 39, T.M. Cormier96, Y. Corrales Morales59, I. Cortés Maldonado 2, P. Cortese 32, M.R. Cosentino125, F. Costa 35, S. Costanza136, J. Crkovská62, P. Crochet 133, E. Cuautle73, L. Cunqueiro72, T. Dahms 36,106, A. Dainese 57, M.C. Danisch105, A. Danu69, D. Das111, I. Das 111, S. Das4, A. Dash 89, S. Dash48, S. De 49,123, A. De Caro30, G. de Cataldo 53, C. de Conti123, J. de Cuveland42, A. De Falco24, D. De Gruttola30,12, N. De Marco59, S. De Pasquale 30, R.D. De Souza 124, H.F. Degenhardt123, A. Deisting108,105, A. Deloff87, C. Deplano93, P. Dhankher 48, D. Di Bari33, A. Di Mauro35, P. Di Nezza51, B. Di Ruzza57, M.A. Diaz Corchero 10, T. Dietel 101, P. Dillenseger71, R. Divià35, Ø. Djuvsland22, A. Dobrin35, D. Domenicis Gimenez 123, B. Dönigus71, O. Dordic21, L.V.R. Doremalen64, A.K. Dubey139, 158 ALICE Collaboration / Physics Letters B 777 (2018) 151–162 A. Dubla108, L. Ducroux134, A.K. Duggal100, M. Dukhishyam89, P. Dupieux133, R.J. Ehlers 143, D. Elia 53, E. Endress113, H. Engel70, E. Epple 143, B. Erazmus116, F. Erhardt 99, B. Espagnon 62, S. Esumi132, G. Eulisse35, J. Eum 19, D. Evans112, S. Evdokimov114, L. Fabbietti106,36, J. Faivre82, A. Fantoni51, M. Fasel 96,83, L. Feldkamp72, A. Feliciello59, G. Feofilov138, A. Fernández Téllez2, E.G. Ferreiro16, A. Ferretti26, A. Festanti29,35, V.J.G. Feuillard76,133, J. Figiel120, M.A.S. Figueredo123, S. Filchagin110, D. Finogeev63, F.M. Fionda 22,24, M. Floris35, S. Foertsch77, P. Foka 108, S. Fokin91, E. Fragiacomo60, A. Francescon35, A. Francisco116, U. Frankenfeld 108, G.G. Fronze26, U. Fuchs 35, C. Furget82, A. Furs63, M. Fusco Girard30, J.J. Gaardhøje92, M. Gagliardi26, A.M. Gago113, K. Gajdosova92, M. Gallio26, C.D. Galvan122, P. Ganoti 86, C. Garabatos108, E. Garcia-Solis13, K. Garg28, C. Gargiulo35, P. Gasik 106,36, E.F. Gauger121, M.B. Gay Ducati74, M. Germain116, J. Ghosh111, P. Ghosh 139, S.K. Ghosh4, P. Gianotti51, P. Giubellino 35,108,59, P. Giubilato29, E. Gladysz-Dziadus120, P. Glässel105, D.M. Goméz Coral75, A. Gomez Ramirez70, A.S. Gonzalez 35, V. Gonzalez10, P. González-Zamora10,2, S. Gorbunov42, L. Görlich120, S. Gotovac119, V. Grabski75, L.K. Graczykowski140, K.L. Graham112, L. Greiner83, A. Grelli64, C. Grigoras 35, V. Grigoriev84, A. Grigoryan1, S. Grigoryan78, J.M. Gronefeld108, F. Grosa31, J.F. Grosse-Oetringhaus35, R. Grosso108, L. Gruber 115, F. Guber 63, R. Guernane82, B. Guerzoni27, K. Gulbrandsen92, T. Gunji131, A. Gupta102, R. Gupta102, I.B. Guzman2, R. Haake35, C. Hadjidakis 62, H. Hamagaki85, G. Hamar142, J.C. Hamon 135, M.R. Haque64, J.W. Harris143, A. Harton13, H. Hassan 82, D. Hatzifotiadou12,54, S. Hayashi 131, S.T. Heckel71, E. Hellbär71, H. Helstrup37, A. Herghelegiu88, E.G. Hernandez2, G. Herrera Corral11, F. Herrmann72, B.A. Hess104, K.F. Hetland37, H. Hillemanns 35, C. Hills128, B. Hippolyte135, J. Hladky67, B. Hohlweger106, D. Horak39, S. Hornung108, R. Hosokawa82,132, P. Hristov35, C. Hughes129, T.J. Humanic 18, N. Hussain 44, T. Hussain17, D. Hutter42, D.S. Hwang20, S.A. Iga Buitron73, R. Ilkaev110, M. Inaba132, M. Ippolitov84,91, M. Irfan17, M.S. Islam 111, M. Ivanov108, V. Ivanov 97, V. Izucheev114, B. Jacak 83, N. Jacazio 27, P.M. Jacobs83, M.B. Jadhav48, J. Jadlovsky118, S. Jaelani64, C. Jahnke36, M.J. Jakubowska140, M.A. Janik 140, P.H.S.Y. Jayarathna126, C. Jena89, S. Jena 126, M. Jercic99, R.T. Jimenez Bustamante108, P.G. Jones112, A. Jusko112, P. Kalinak 66, A. Kalweit35, J.H. Kang 144, V. Kaplin 84, S. Kar139, A. Karasu Uysal 81, O. Karavichev63, T. Karavicheva 63, L. Karayan108,105, P. Karczmarczyk 35, E. Karpechev63, U. Kebschull 70, R. Keidel145, D.L.D. Keijdener64, M. Keil35, B. Ketzer45, Z. Khabanova93, P. Khan 111, S.A. Khan139, A. Khanzadeev97, Y. Kharlov 114, A. Khatun17, A. Khuntia49, M.M. Kielbowicz120, B. Kileng 37, B. Kim 132, D. Kim144, D.J. Kim127, H. Kim144, J.S. Kim 43, J. Kim 105, M. Kim61, M. Kim144, S. Kim 20, T. Kim 144, S. Kirsch42, I. Kisel42, S. Kiselev65, A. Kisiel140, G. Kiss142, J.L. Klay6, C. Klein 71, J. Klein35, C. Klein-Bösing72, S. Klewin105, A. Kluge35, M.L. Knichel35,105, A.G. Knospe126, C. Kobdaj 117, M. Kofarago142, M.K. Köhler 105, T. Kollegger 108, V. Kondratiev138, N. Kondratyeva84, E. Kondratyuk114, A. Konevskikh63, M. Konyushikhin141, M. Kopcik118, M. Kour102, C. Kouzinopoulos35, O. Kovalenko87, V. Kovalenko138, M. Kowalski 120, G. Koyithatta Meethaleveedu48, I. Králik 66, A. Kravˇ cáková 40, L. Kreis108, M. Krivda66,112, F. Krizek 95, E. Kryshen97, M. Krzewicki42, A.M. Kubera18, V. Kuˇ cera95, C. Kuhn135, P.G. Kuijer 93, A. Kumar102, J. Kumar48, L. Kumar100, S. Kumar48, S. Kundu89, P. Kurashvili87, A. Kurepin63, A.B. Kurepin63, A. Kuryakin110, S. Kushpil95, M.J. Kweon61, Y. Kwon 144, S.L. La Pointe42, P. La Rocca28, C. Lagana Fernandes123, Y.S. Lai83, I. Lakomov35, R. Langoy41, K. Lapidus143, C. Lara70, A. Lardeux76,21, A. Lattuca 26, E. Laudi35, R. Lavicka39, R. Lea25, L. Leardini105, S. Lee144, F. Lehas93, S. Lehner115, J. Lehrbach42, R.C. Lemmon94, V. Lenti53, E. Leogrande64, I. León Monzón122, P. Lévai 142, X. Li14, J. Lien 41, R. Lietava112, B. Lim 19, S. Lindal 21, V. Lindenstruth42, S.W. Lindsay128, C. Lippmann108, M.A. Lisa 18, V. Litichevskyi46, W.J. Llope 141, D.F. Lodato64, P.I. Loenne22, V. Loginov84, C. Loizides83, P. Loncar 119, X. Lopez133, E. López Torres9, A. Lowe142, P. Luettig71, J.R. Luhder72, M. Lunardon29, G. Luparello60,25, M. Lupi 35, T.H. Lutz 143, A. Maevskaya63, M. Mager35, S. Mahajan 102, S.M. Mahmood21, A. Maire135, R.D. Majka 143, M. Malaev97, L. Malinina 78,iv, D. Mal’Kevich65, P. Malzacher108, A. Mamonov110, V. Manko91, F. Manso 133, V. Manzari53, Y. Mao 7, M. Marchisone77,130, J. Mareš67, G.V. Margagliotti25, A. Margotti54, J. Margutti64, A. Marín108, C. Markert121, M. Marquard71, N.A. Martin108, P. Martinengo35, J.A.L. Martinez 70, M.I. Martínez2, G. Martínez García116, M. Martinez Pedreira35, S. Masciocchi108, M. Masera26, A. Masoni55, E. Masson116, A. Mastroserio53, A.M. Mathis 106,36, P.F.T. Matuoka123, A. Matyja 129, C. Mayer 120, J. Mazer129, M. Mazzilli 33, M.A. Mazzoni58, F. Meddi23, Y. Melikyan 84, A. Menchaca-Rocha75,