2024 112 23 April

Measurement of the $\Omega^{0}_{\rm c}$ branching-fraction ratio

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

The inclusive production of the charm-strange baryon $\Omega_{\rm c}^{0}$ is
measured for the first time via its semileptonic decay into $\Omega^{-}\rm
e^{+}\nu_{e}$ at midrapidity ($|y|<0.8$) in proton–proton (pp) collisions at
the centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ALICE detector at the
LHC. The transverse momentum ($p_{\rm T}$) differential cross section
multiplied by the branching ratio is presented in the interval $2<p_{\rm
T}<12~{}{\rm GeV}/c$. The branching-fraction ratio ${\rm BR}(\Omega^{0}_{\rm
c}\rightarrow\Omega^{-}{\rm e}^{+}\nu_{\rm e})/{\rm BR}(\Omega^{0}_{\rm
c}\rightarrow\Omega^{-}{\pi}^{+})$ is measured to be 1.12 $\pm$ 0.22 (stat.)
$\pm$ 0.27 (syst.). Comparisons with other experimental measurements, as well
as with theoretical calculations, are presented.

##  1 Introduction

Production measurements of heavy-flavour hadrons (i.e. hadrons containing
charm or beauty quarks) in high-energy proton–proton (pp) collisions provide
essential tests of calculations based on the quantum chromodynamics (QCD)
factorisation approach [1]. These frameworks exploit the fact that the heavy-
quark masses are much larger than the QCD energy scale, $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$,
to calculate the production of heavy-flavour hadrons as a convolution of three
factors: i) the parton distribution functions (PDFs) of the incoming protons;
ii) the cross section of the partonic hard scattering; and iii) the
fragmentation functions that parametrise the non-perturbative evolution of a
heavy quark into a given heavy-flavour hadron species. Heavy-quark
hadronisation is typically studied via the measurement of hadron-to-hadron
yield ratios, because the PDFs and partonic scattering cross sections are
common to the charm- or beauty- hadron species and, therefore, with
appropriate choice of the scheme of calculation it can be cancelled out in the
yield ratios.

At the LHC, extensive production measurements of $\rm D^{0}$, $\rm D^{+}$,
$\rm D^{+}_{s}$, $\rm D^{*+}$ charm mesons [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] and of
$\Lambda_{\rm c}^{+}$, $\Sigma_{\rm c}^{0,++}$, $\Xi^{0,+}_{\rm c}$,
$\Omega^{0}_{\rm c}$ charm baryons [9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16] have been
conducted. The meson-to-meson production yield ratios, for both the respective
prompt (i.e. produced in the hadronisation of charm quarks or from the decay
of excited open charm and charmonium states) and non-prompt (coming from
beauty hadron decays) components of the D-meson production, are observed to be
independent of the transverse momentum ($p_{\rm T}$) within uncertainties.
These ratios are well described by perturbative calculations at next-to-
leading order, with next-to-leading-log resummation [17, 18, 1, 19], which
incorporate fragmentation functions tuned on $\rm e^{+}e^{-}$ and $\rm e^{-}p$
collision measurements. In contrast, these calculations underestimate the
observed enhancement of the production of baryons relative to mesons in
hadronic collisions [20, 21], with respect to the same measurements performed
in $\rm e^{+}e^{-}$ or $\rm e^{\pm}p$ collisions. Several models have been
proposed to explain the baryon enhancement. They either include dynamical
processes that are relevant in quark-and-gluon enriched systems (e.g. colour
reconnection beyond leading colour approximation [22] and quark coalescence
[23, 24]), or that treat hadronisation as a statistical process while
considering a set of yet-unobserved higher-mass charm-baryon states [25].

Currently, a significant limitation in interpreting the production results of
heavier strange-charm baryons is the absence of precise branching ratio
measurements. In the recent inclusive $\Omega^{0}_{\rm
c}\rightarrow\Omega^{-}\pi^{+}$ measurement reported in Ref. [16], model
calculations were multiplied by the branching ratio, $\rm
BR(\Omega_{c}^{0}\rightarrow\Omega^{-}\pi^{+})$ $=(0.51^{+2.19}_{-0.31})\%$.
This value was obtained by considering the estimate reported in Ref. [26] for
the central value, and the envelope of the values (including their
uncertainties) reported in Refs. [26, 27, 28, 29, 30] to determine the
uncertainty. This large uncertainty limited the understanding of
$\Omega^{0}_{\rm c}$ production, meaning it is, therefore, imperative to
measure its branching ratios. The Belle and CLEO Collaborations published
measurements of ${\rm BR}(\Omega^{0}_{\rm c}\rightarrow\Omega^{-}{\rm
e}^{+}\nu_{\rm e})/{\rm BR}(\Omega^{0}_{\rm c}\rightarrow\Omega^{-}{\pi}^{+})$
and found 1.98 $\pm$ 0.13 (stat.) $\pm$ 0.08 (syst.) [31] and 2.4 $\pm$ 1.1
(stat.) $\pm$ 0.2 (syst.) [32], respectively. Model calculations based on the
light-front approach and the light-cone sum rules predict lower values of the
branching fraction ratio of $1.1\pm 0.2$ [26] and $0.71$ [33], respectively.
These models provide a way to relate the properties of hadrons, such as their
masses, decay constants, and form factors, to fundamental QCD parameters and
quark–gluon distributions within the hadrons. The hadronic part of the weak
decay is parameterised in those models in terms of form factors, which belong
to the non-perturbative region of QCD. The differences between the model
calculations and the experimental values underscore the need for further
experimental measurements and theoretical developments.

This letter presents the first $p_{\rm T}$-differential inclusive production
measurement of the semileptonic decay channel $\Omega^{0}_{\rm
c}\rightarrow\Omega^{-}{\rm e}^{+}\nu_{\rm e}$ and the branching-fraction
ratio ${\rm BR}(\Omega^{0}_{\rm c}\rightarrow\Omega^{-}{\rm e}^{+}\nu_{\rm
e})/{\rm BR}(\Omega^{0}_{\rm c}\rightarrow\Omega^{-}{\pi}^{+})$ at midrapidity
($|y|<0.8$) in pp collisions at the centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV.
The $\Omega^{0}_{\rm c}$ baryon is reconstructed together with its charge
conjugate in three $p_{\rm T}$ intervals, 2 $<p_{\rm T}<$ 4 GeV$/c$, 4
$<p_{\rm T}<$ 6 GeV$/c$, and 6 $<p_{\rm T}<$ 12 GeV$/c$.

##  2 Experimental setup and data samples

The ALICE experiment and its performance are presented in detail in Refs. [34,
35]. The main detectors used in this analysis are the Inner Tracking System
(ITS) [36], the Time Projection Chamber (TPC) [37], and the Time-Of-Flight
detector (TOF) [38] for vertexing, tracking, and particle identification (PID)
purposes. They are located in the central barrel covering the pseudorapidity
interval ($|\eta|<0.9$) and lie inside a solenoidal magnet that provides a
magnetic field $B=$ 0.5 T parallel to the beam direction. The analysed data
sample consists of pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV recorded with a
minimum-bias (MB) trigger. The MB trigger requires a pair of coincident
signals in two scintillator arrays (V0) [39], which are located on both sides
of the nominal interaction point along the beam direction. Further offline
event selection was applied to remove the contamination from beam–gas
collisions and other machine-related backgrounds. These criteria were based on
the timing information of the two V0 arrays and a selection on the correlation
between clusters and tracklets reconstructed in the two innermost layers of
the ITS (Silicon Pixel Detector, SPD). Only events with a reconstructed vertex
position within $\pm 10$ cm along the beam axis from the nominal interaction
point were analysed, to maintain a uniform ITS acceptance in pseudorapidity.
The primary-vertex position was defined using tracks reconstructed in the TPC
and ITS detectors. Events with multiple reconstructed primary vertices, which
amount to about 1% of the total event sample, were rejected to reduce the
contamination from the superposition of several collisions within the same
colliding bunches (pile-up events). After the aforementioned selection
criteria, the data sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity
$\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}=$ (32.08 $\pm$ 0.51) ${\rm nb^{-1}}$ [40].

##  3 Analysis method

The $\Omega_{\rm c}^{0}$ candidates were built by pairing an electron or
positron candidate track with an $\Omega$ cascade candidate using a Kalman-
Filter (KF) vertexing algorithm [41]. Charge conjugate modes are included
everywhere unless otherwise stated.

The $\Omega$ candidates were reconstructed via the decay chain
$\Omega^{-}\rightarrow\Lambda\rm K^{-}$ (BR = ($67.8\pm 0.7)\%$), followed by
the decay $\Lambda\rightarrow{\rm p}\pi^{-}$ (BR = ($63.9\pm 0.5)\%$) [42],
exploiting the characteristic decay topology as reported in Refs. [43, 16].
Charged-particle tracks used in this analysis were required to be within the
pseudorapidity interval $|\eta|<$ 0.8 and to have a number of crossed TPC pad
rows larger than 70 out of a maximum of 159. Particle identification (PID)
selection was based on the differences between the measured and expected
response for a given particle species hypothesis, in units of the detector
resolution ($n\sigma_{\rm det}$). For proton, pion, and kaon tracks, a
selection on the measured specific energy loss d$E/$d$x$ in the TPC of
$|n\sigma_{\rm TPC}|<4$ was applied for the respective particle hypothesis. An
additional PID selection of $|n\sigma_{\rm TOF}|<5$ was applied for the kaon
candidates when information from the TOF detector was available. Tracks
without TOF hits were identified using only the TPC information.

Electron candidate tracks were selected by requiring to have a minimum of
three (out of a maximum of six) hits in the ITS with two in the SPD layers
[44, 45], at least 50 clusters in the TPC, a number of crossed TPC pad rows
larger than 70, and $p_{\rm T}>$ 0.5 GeV$/c$. These requirements help
suppressing the contribution from short tracks, which are unlikely to
originate from the $\Omega_{\rm c}^{0}$ decay. The dominant source of electron
background is photon conversions. They were rejected by requiring hits in the
SPD layers, minimising the effective material budget. The electron candidate
tracks were identified by using d$E/$d$x$ and time-of-flight information in
the TPC and TOF detectors, respectively. Two selection criteria on the PID of
electron candidates, $|n\sigma_{\rm TPC}^{\rm e}|<4$ and $|n\sigma_{\rm
TOF}^{\rm e}|<5$, were required. The remaining electrons steaming from photon
conversion and those originating from Dalitz decays of neutral mesons were
further rejected with an invariant-mass technique [46, 47]. The electron
candidates were paired with opposite-sign tracks from the same event passing
loose identification criteria ($|n\sigma_{\rm TPC}^{\rm e}|<5$ without any TOF
requirement) and were rejected if they formed at least one $\rm e^{+}e^{-}$
pairs with an invariant mass smaller than 50 MeV$/c^{2}$.

The $\Omega_{\rm c}^{0}$ candidates were selected by requiring the cosine of
the opening angle between the electron and the $\Omega$ candidate tracks to be
greater than 0 for $2<p_{\rm T}<4$ GeV$/c$, 0.25 for $4<p_{\rm T}<6$ GeV$/c$
and 0.5 for $6<p_{\rm T}<12$ GeV$/c$. The $p_{\rm T}$ dependence of this
selection was chosen by looking at its correlation with the ${\rm
e}\Omega$-pair mass distribution in data and Monte Carlo (MC) simulations,
minimising the rejection of signal candidates in the data.

After applying the selections described above, further separation of the
signal and background was based on the Boosted Decision Tree (BDT) algorithm
implemented in the XGBoost library [48, 49]. Independent BDT models were
trained for each $p_{\rm T}$ interval with a sample of signal and background
candidates as performed in Refs [50, 11, 3]. For the reconstructed signal,
${\rm e}\Omega$ pairs from $\Omega_{\rm c}^{0}$ decays were obtained from
simulations with the PYTHIA 8.2 event generator [51]. Each PYTHIA event was
required to contain a $\rm c\overline{c}$ or $\rm b\overline{b}$ quark pair
and $\Omega_{\rm c}^{0}$ baryons were forced to decay into the $\Omega^{-}\rm
e^{+}\nu_{e}$ channel. The mean proper lifetime of $\Omega_{\rm c}^{0}$
baryons in the simulation was set to 268 fs based on the latest LHCb
measurement [52]. The transport of simulated particles within the detector was
performed with the GEANT 3 package [53]. The conditions of all the ALICE
detectors in terms of active channels, gain, noise level, and alignment, as
well as the evolution of the detector configurations during the data-taking
period, were taken into account in the simulations. A mixed-event (ME)
technique was used to increase statistics in the background sample. The ME
technique exploited randomised sub-samples of the full dataset, using the same
filtering selections described above, generating ${\rm e}\Omega$ pairs with
the opposite charge. The ME background was obtained by correlating $\Omega$
candidates in an event with electron candidate tracks from other events with
similar multiplicity and primary-vertex position along the beam direction.
Exploiting a background sample using the same-charge ${\rm e}\Omega$ pairs in
the same event (SE) was also tested. The resulting background distributions
were found to be consistent with each other, and the SE pairs were used to
normalise the more statistically abundant ME background sample.

The BDT training variables included topological properties of the decays and
PID variables. The training variables related to the PID information were
obtained by combining the ones coming from the TPC and TOF, $n\sigma^{\rm
K,e}_{\rm combined}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{\big{(}n\sigma_{\rm TPC}^{\rm
K,e}\big{)}^{2}+\big{(}n\sigma_{\rm TOF}^{\rm K,e}\big{)}^{2}}$, on the
electron and kaon tracks, respectively. The training variables describing the
$\Omega$ decay topology were the distance of the closest approach (DCA) of the
charged decay particles, the pointing angle of the reconstructed $\Omega$
momentum to the primary vertex, the $\chi^{2}_{\rm topo}/{\rm NDF}$, which, in
this analysis, characterises whether the momentum vector of the $\Omega$
candidate points back to the reconstructed primary vertex of the event, and
the $\chi^{2}_{\rm geo}/{\rm NDF}$, which is related to the geometrical
intersection of the daughter-particle trajectories, taking their uncertainties
into account. The training variables related to the $\Lambda$ were the DCA to
the primary vertex, the radial distance of the $\Lambda$ decay vertex from the
beam axis, and the DCA between the decay particles. The BDT model output is a
single response variable related to the probability that the candidate is a
signal. The selection on the BDT output was tuned in each $p_{\rm T}$ interval
to maximise the expected statistical significance, which was estimated using:
the expected signal obtained from the $\Omega_{\rm c}^{0}$ production cross
section reported in Ref. [16] multiplied by the BDT selection efficiency and
the expected background estimated from the normalised ME.

The left panel of Fig. 1 shows the invariant-mass distribution of ${\rm
e}\Omega$ pairs in SE (same-sign and opposite-sign) and ME (opposite-sign) in
the interval $2<p_{\rm T}^{\rm e\Omega}<12$ GeV$/c$. The raw yield was
obtained by subtracting the combinatorial background computed using the ME
technique from the invariant-mass distribution of ${\rm e}\Omega$ pairs with
opposite-sign charge in the SE. The right panel of Fig. 1 shows the invariant-
mass distribution of ${\rm e}\Omega$ candidates, obtained after background
subtraction, in comparison with ${\rm e}\Omega$ opposite-sign charge pairs
coming from the $\Omega_{\rm c}^{0}$ decay computed with the PYTHIA 8 event
generator [51]. Only $\rm e\Omega$ pairs satisfying $1.7<m_{\rm e\Omega}<2.7$
GeV$/c^{2}$ were considered for further analysis. The number of reconstructed
${\rm e}\Omega$ signal pairs consists of 232 $\pm$ 15 candidates. The missing
momentum of the neutrino was corrected by using the Bayesian-unfolding
technique [54] implemented in the RooUnfold package [55]. The response matrix,
which represents the correlation between the generated $\Omega_{\rm c}^{0}$
and reconstructed ${\rm e}\Omega$ transverse momenta, used in the unfolding
procedure is shown in the left panel of Fig. 2. In this analysis, the Bayesian
procedure requires two iterations to converge. Additional information on the
unfolding procedure is explained in Ref. [15]. The response matrix was
determined with the same simulation setup used for the BDT training.

Figure 1: Left panel: invariant-mass distribution of opposite-sign pairs
(black solid circle marker) and same-sign pairs (red solid square marker) in
SE, and opposite-sign pairs (blue open square marker) in ME. Right panel:
invariant-mass distribution of the $\Omega_{\rm c}^{0}$ candidates obtained by
subtracting the opposite-sign charge ${\rm e}\Omega$ pairs in ME from the
opposite-sign charge pairs in SE (black solid circle marker), and ${\rm
e}\Omega$ opposite-sign charge pairs coming from $\Omega_{\rm c}^{0}$ decay
from PYTHIA 8 (green open circle marker).

The $p_{\rm T}$-differential production cross section of inclusive
$\Omega_{\rm c}^{0}$ baryons in the rapidity interval $|y|<0.8$ multiplied by
the BR into the considered semileptonic decay channel was calculated from the
yields obtained from the unfolding procedure as follows:

${\rm BR}\times\frac{\text{d}^{2}\sigma^{\Omega^{0}_{\rm
c}}}{\text{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\text{d}y}=\frac{1}{2\Delta y\Delta
p_{\mathrm{T}}}\times\frac{N^{\Omega^{0}_{\rm c}}_{\text{raw}}}{({\rm
A}\times\varepsilon)}\times\frac{1}{\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}},$ (1)

where $N^{\Omega^{0}_{\rm c}}_{\rm raw}$ is the raw yield (sum of particles
and antiparticles) in a given $p_{\rm T}$ and rapidity interval with width
$\Delta p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and $\Delta y$. The factor $1/2$ takes into account
that the raw yield includes both particles and antiparticles, while the cross
section is given for particles only. The $\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}$ is the
integrated luminosity. Since the feed-down contribution is not subtracted, the
$({\rm A}\times\varepsilon)$ factor is the product of the acceptance and
efficiency for inclusive $\Omega^{0}_{\rm c}$ baryons, where $\varepsilon$
accounts for the reconstruction and selection of the $\Omega^{0}_{\rm c}$
decay-product tracks and the $\Omega^{0}_{\rm c}$-candidate selection. The
$({\rm A}\times\varepsilon)$ correction was obtained from a simulation with
the same configuration as the one used for the BDT training and the response
matrix. The $({\rm A}\times\varepsilon)$ correction factors of prompt, beauty
feed-down (non-prompt), and inclusive $\rm\Omega_{c}^{0}$ as a function of
$p_{\rm T}$ are observed to be consistent with each other within
uncertainties, because the selection variables used are not sensitive to the
displacement by a few hundred micrometres of the prompt and beauty feed-down
$\rm\Omega_{c}^{0}$ decay vertices from the collision point. The $\Omega_{\rm
c}^{0}$-baryon $p_{\rm T}$ distribution from the PYTHIA 8 simulation was
reweighted to match the true distribution, which was parametrised via a
Tsallis fit to the differential production cross section of $\Omega_{\rm
c}^{0}$ as measured in Ref. [16]. The right panel of Fig. 2 shows the product
of the final $({\rm A}\times\varepsilon)$ correction factor for inclusive,
prompt and feed-down $\Omega_{\rm c}^{0}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$.

Figure 2: Left panel: correlation matrix between the generated $\Omega_{\rm
c}^{0}$ baryon $p_{\rm T}$ and the reconstructed opposite-sign charge pairs,
obtained from the simulation based on PYTHIA 8 described in Ref. [15]. Right
panel: product of $({\rm A}\times\varepsilon)$ for inclusive $\Omega^{0}_{\rm
c}$ baryons in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV as a function of $p_{\rm
T}$.

##  4 Systematic uncertainties

Table 1: Contributions to the systematic uncertainty of the $\Omega^{0}_{\rm{c}}$ cross section for the $p_{\rm T}$ intervals  $2<p_{\rm T}<4$ GeV$/c$, $4<p_{\rm T}<6$ GeV$/c$, and $6<p_{\rm T}<12$ GeV$/c$. The global uncertainty on the luminosity is quoted separately and it is not added in quadrature to the other sources. $p_{\rm T}$ (GeV/$c$) | 2–4 | 4–6 | 6–12
---|---|---|---
Raw-yield extraction | 10% | 10% | 10%
ITS–TPC matching efficiency | 2% | 2% | 2%
Track efficiency | 4% | 4% | 4%
Bayesian-unfolding iterations | 4% | 4% | 4%
Unfolding method | 4% | 4% | 4%
Response-matrix $p_{\rm T}$ range and binning | 10% | 10% | –
BDT selection | 15% | 15% | 15%
Generated $p_{\rm T}$ shape | 10% | 2% | 1%
Total systematic uncertainty | 24% | 22% | 19%
Luminosity |  | 1.6% |

The different contributions to the total systematic uncertainty of the
$\Omega_{\rm c}^{0}$ production cross section in  $2<p_{\rm T}<12$ GeV$/c$ are
summarised in Table 1. The various systematic sources were defined as the RMS
of the distribution of the corrected yields obtained from the reported
variations, if not differently specified.

The systematic uncertainty on the raw-yield extraction was evaluated by
investigating possible contaminations to ${\rm e}\Omega$ pairs with the
opposite charge from other decays. The contamination of different decay
channels mentioned in Refs. [32, 56] are the $\Omega_{\rm
c}^{0}\rightarrow\Xi^{+}_{\rm c}\rm e^{-}\nu_{e}$, $\Xi^{0}_{\rm
c}\rightarrow\Omega^{-}\rm e^{+}\nu_{e}K^{0}$, and $\Xi^{+}_{\rm
c}\rightarrow\Omega^{-}\rm e^{+}\nu_{e}K^{+}$. From PYTHIA 8 simulation
studies, it was found that these decays mainly contribute to a mass region
below 2 GeV$/c^{2}$. A maximum variation of 10% at the corrected yield level
was found by varying the lower limit of the integration mass range for the
signal extraction in the ${\rm e}\Omega$ mass from 1.7 to 2.2 GeV$/c^{2}$,
which was assigned as systematic uncertainty. Note that those decay channels
are not experimentally observed, therefore the Belle [31] and CLEO [32]
Collaborations do not correct for it in addition to not assigning a
corresponding systematic uncertainty.

The systematic uncertainty on the tracking efficiency was determined by
comparing the matching efficiency of prolonging a track from the TPC to the
ITS in data and simulation, and by varying the track quality selection
criteria. The uncertainty on the matching efficiency, defined as the relative
difference in the ITS–TPC matching efficiency between the data and simulation,
affected only the electron track. For the tracks of the $\Omega$ decay
particles, the prolongation to the ITS was not required. The uncertainties on
electron tracks were propagated to the $\Omega_{\rm c}^{0}$ candidates
according to the decay kinematics, resulting in an uncertainty of 2%. The
second contribution to the track reconstruction was estimated by varying the
track quality selection criteria and 4% uncertainty was assigned.

The systematic uncertainty on the unfolding procedure was determined by
considering three contributions. The first contribution was due to the
regularisation procedure in the Bayesian unfolding. It was estimated by
varying the iteration number between 2 and 5, and an uncertainty of 4% was
assigned. The second contribution was estimated by unfolding with the singular
value decomposition algorithm [57], and a 4% uncertainty was assigned,
independent of $\Omega_{\rm c}^{0}$ $p_{\rm T}$. The third source was related
to the sensitivity of the unfolding to bin edge effects and was estimated by
varying the $p_{\rm T}$ range and the binning of the response matrix. An
uncertainty of 10% was assigned in the interval $2<p_{\rm T}<6$ GeV$/c$. At
higher $p_{\rm T}$, no variations were observed when using finer $p_{\rm T}$
intervals in the unfolding procedure.

The systematic uncertainty on the selection efficiency originates from
imperfections in the description of the detector response and alignment in the
simulation. It was estimated from the ratios of the corrected yields obtained
by varying the selections on the BDT outputs, which results in modification of
the efficiencies, raw yield, and background values. The systematic evaluation
was extended using a BDT model with different training variables (no PID
included in the training) and preselection (PID selections were varied when
not included in the BDT). A value of 15% was assigned as systematic
uncertainty.

The systematic uncertainty due to the difference in the shape of the true and
generated $\Omega_{\rm c}^{0}$ $p_{\rm T}$ distributions was estimated by
varying the Tsallis fit used to determine the $p_{\rm T}$ weights within the
statistical and $p_{\rm T}$ uncorrelated uncertainties. The assigned
uncertainty, defined as the maximum variation observed, was 10% in the
interval $2<p_{\rm T}<4$ GeV$/c$, 2% in the interval $4<p_{\rm T}<6$ GeV$/c$,
and 1% for the highest $p_{\rm T}$ interval.

All systematic uncertainties are considered uncorrelated and summed in
quadrature to obtain the total systematic uncertainty. The production cross
section has an additional global normalisation uncertainty of 1.6% due to the
uncertainties of the integrated luminosity [40].

##  5 Results

Figure 3: Top panel: $p_{\rm T}$-differential production cross sections of
inclusive $\Omega_{\rm c}^{0}$ baryons multiplied by the branching ratios (BR)
into $\Omega^{-}{\rm e}^{+}\nu_{\rm e}$ and $\Omega^{-}\pi^{+}$ [16] in pp
collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV. Bottom panel: $p_{\rm T}$-differential
branching-fraction ratio ${\rm BR}(\Omega^{0}_{\rm c}\rightarrow\Omega^{-}{\rm
e}^{+}\nu_{\rm e})/{\rm BR}(\Omega^{0}_{\rm
c}\rightarrow\Omega^{-}{\pi}^{+})$.

The $p_{\rm T}$-differential cross section of inclusive $\Omega_{\rm c}^{0}$
baryon production multiplied by the branching ratio into $\Omega^{-}{\rm
e}^{+}\nu_{\rm e}$, in pp collision at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV, measured in
rapidity interval $|y|<$ 0.8 and the $p_{\rm T}$ interval $2<p_{\rm T}<12$
GeV$/c$, is shown in the top panel of Fig. 3. It is compared with the
previously published measurements of inclusive $\Omega_{\rm c}^{0}$ baryon
production in the hadronic decay channel $\Omega_{\rm
c}^{0}\rightarrow\Omega^{-}\pi^{+}$. The error bars and boxes represent the
statistical and systematic uncertainty, respectively. The uncertainty of the
integrated luminosity is not included in the boxes. In the bottom panel of
Fig. 3 the branching-fraction ratio ${\rm BR}(\Omega^{0}_{\rm
c}\rightarrow\Omega^{-}{\rm e}^{+}\nu_{\rm e})/{\rm BR}(\Omega^{0}_{\rm
c}\rightarrow\Omega^{-}{\pi}^{+})$ is shown as function of $p_{\rm T}$. The
systematic uncertainties on the branching-fraction ratio were calculated
assuming all the uncertainties between the two measurements as uncorrelated,
except for the ITS–TPC matching efficiency, track quality selection, and the
MC $p_{\rm T}$ shape. The uncertainty of the luminosity cancels in the ratio,
as it is fully correlated.

Figure 4: Comparison of ${\rm BR}(\Omega^{0}_{\rm c}\rightarrow\Omega^{-}{\rm
e}^{+}\nu_{\rm e})/{\rm BR}(\Omega^{0}_{\rm c}\rightarrow\Omega^{-}{\pi}^{+})$
between experiments and theoretical calculations [32, 31, 26, 33].

The ratio of the two measurements, shown in the bottom panel of Fig. 3, is
used to calculate the $p_{\rm T}$ independent branching-fraction ratio. The
result was averaged over $p_{\rm T}$ using the inverse uncorrelated relative
uncertainties as weights [58]. The weights were defined as the sum in
quadrature of the relative statistical uncertainties and the $p_{\rm
T}$-uncorrelated part of the systematic uncertainties. All the systematic
uncertainties were considered as $p_{\rm T}$-correlated in the semileptonic
decay. For the hadronic decay, all systematic uncertainties were considered as
$p_{\rm T}$-correlated, except for the raw yield extraction. The $p_{\rm
T}$-correlated systematic uncertainties were propagated by recomputing the
ratio after shifting up and down the ratios with the corresponding $p_{\rm
T}$-correlated systematic uncertainties. The final systematic uncertainty on
the ratio is obtained by summing the $p_{\rm T}$-correlated and uncorrelated
systematic uncertainties in quadrature. The measured ratio is ${\rm
BR}(\Omega^{0}_{\rm c}\rightarrow\Omega^{-}{\rm e}^{+}\nu_{\rm e})/{\rm
BR}(\Omega^{0}_{\rm c}\rightarrow\Omega^{-}{\pi}^{+})$ = 1.12 $\pm$ 0.22
(stat.) $\pm$ 0.27 (syst.).

In Fig. 4, the measured $p_{\rm T}$-independent branching-fraction ratio is
compared with previous experimental measurements from the CLEO Collaboration
[32] and Belle Collaboration [31], and with the theory predictions based on
the light-front approach and light-cone sum rules calculations [26, 33]. The
ALICE result is compatible within $1\sigma$ with the CLEO result and is
$2.3\sigma$ lower than the one measured by the Belle Collaboration. The ALICE
measurement is also consistent within $1\sigma$ with the available theoretical
predictions, which showed some tensions with the Belle results. The present
result is also compatible within the uncertainties with the ${\rm
BR}(\Xi^{0}_{\rm c}\rightarrow\Xi^{-}{\rm e}^{+}\nu_{\rm e})/{\rm
BR}(\Xi^{0}_{\rm c}\rightarrow\Xi^{-}{\pi}^{+})$ measured by the ALICE
Collaboration [14]. The agreement between those two measurements is also
predicted by the light-front approach calculations [26, 59]. More precise
measurements are expected to be performed during Runs 3 and 4 of the LHC. In
view of those future measurements, it would be beneficial to compare also with
additional model calculations, like LQCD [60], RQM [61], and $\rm SU(3)_{\rm
f}$ [62], which already provide their prediction for the branching-fraction
ratio ${\rm BR}(\Xi^{0}_{\rm c}\rightarrow\Xi^{-}{\rm e}^{+}\nu_{\rm e})/{\rm
BR}(\Xi^{0}_{\rm c}\rightarrow\Xi^{-}{\pi}^{+})$.

##  6 Summary

The inclusive $p_{\rm T}$-differential production cross section of the charm-
baryon $\Omega_{\rm c}^{0}$ multiplied by the branching ratio ${\rm
BR}(\Omega^{0}_{\rm c}\rightarrow\Omega^{-}{\rm e}^{+}\nu_{\rm e})$ is
measured for the first time at midrapidity ($|y|<0.8$), in the $p_{\rm T}$
interval $2<p_{\rm T}<12$ GeV$/c$, in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV. The
${\rm BR}(\Omega^{0}_{\rm c}\rightarrow\Omega^{-}{\rm e}^{+}\nu_{\rm e})/{\rm
BR}(\Omega^{0}_{\rm c}\rightarrow\Omega^{-}{\pi}^{+})$ is measured to be 1.12
$\pm$ 0.22 (stat.) $\pm$ 0.27 (syst.), using the inclusive production cross
section measured in Ref. [16]. The branching-fraction ratio is consistent with
theory calculations and is 2.3$\sigma$ lower than the value reported by the
Belle Collaboration [31].

## Acknowledgements

The ALICE Collaboration would like to thank all its engineers and technicians for their invaluable contributions to the construction of the experiment and the CERN accelerator teams for the outstanding performance of the LHC complex. The ALICE Collaboration gratefully acknowledges the resources and support provided by all Grid centres and the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid (WLCG) collaboration. The ALICE Collaboration acknowledges the following funding agencies for their support in building and running the ALICE detector: A. I. Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics Institute) Foundation (ANSL), State Committee of Science and World Federation of Scientists (WFS), Armenia; Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austrian Science Fund (FWF): [M 2467-N36] and Nationalstiftung für Forschung, Technologie und Entwicklung, Austria; Ministry of Communications and High Technologies, National Nuclear Research Center, Azerbaijan; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (Finep), Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) and Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Brazil; Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Science, within the National Roadmap for Research Infrastructures 2020-2027 (object CERN), Bulgaria; Ministry of Education of China (MOEC) , Ministry of Science & Technology of China (MSTC) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), China; Ministry of Science and Education and Croatian Science Foundation, Croatia; Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Cubaenergía, Cuba; Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic, Czech Republic; The Danish Council for Independent Research | Natural Sciences, the VILLUM FONDEN and Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF), Denmark; Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Finland; Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique (CEA) and Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (IN2P3) and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), France; Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) and GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Germany; General Secretariat for Research and Technology, Ministry of Education, Research and Religions, Greece; National Research, Development and Innovation Office, Hungary; Department of Atomic Energy Government of India (DAE), Department of Science and Technology, Government of India (DST), University Grants Commission, Government of India (UGC) and Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), India; National Research and Innovation Agency - BRIN, Indonesia; Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), Italy; Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI, Japan; Consejo Nacional de Ciencia (CONACYT) y Tecnología, through Fondo de Cooperación Internacional en Ciencia y Tecnología (FONCICYT) and Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Academico (DGAPA), Mexico; Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), Netherlands; The Research Council of Norway, Norway; Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Peru; Ministry of Education and Science, National Science Centre and WUT ID-UB, Poland; Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information and National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), Republic of Korea; Ministry of Education and Scientific Research, Institute of Atomic Physics, Ministry of Research and Innovation and Institute of Atomic Physics and Universitatea Nationala de Stiinta si Tehnologie Politehnica Bucuresti, Romania; Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic, Slovakia; National Research Foundation of South Africa, South Africa; Swedish Research Council (VR) and Knut & Alice Wallenberg Foundation (KAW), Sweden; European Organization for Nuclear Research, Switzerland; Suranaree University of Technology (SUT), National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA) and National Science, Research and Innovation Fund (NSRF via PMU-B B05F650021), Thailand; Turkish Energy, Nuclear and Mineral Research Agency (TENMAK), Turkey; National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Ukraine; Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), United Kingdom; National Science Foundation of the United States of America (NSF) and United States Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Physics (DOE NP), United States of America. In addition, individual groups or members have received support from: Czech Science Foundation (grant no. 23-07499S), Czech Republic; European Research Council (grant no. 950692), European Union; ICSC - Centro Nazionale di Ricerca in High Performance Computing, Big Data and Quantum Computing, European Union - NextGenerationEU; Academy of Finland (Center of Excellence in Quark Matter) (grant nos. 346327, 346328), Finland.

## References

  * [1] M. Cacciari, M. Greco, and P. Nason, “The $p_{T}$ spectrum in heavy-flavour hadroproduction”, JHEP 05 (1998) 007, arXiv:hep-ph/9803400.
  * [2] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Measurement of ${{\mathrm{D}}^{0}}$ , ${{\mathrm{D}}^{+}}$ , ${{\mathrm{D}}^{*+}}$ and ${{\mathrm{D}}^{+}_{\mathrm{s}}}$ production in pp collisions at ${\sqrt{{\textit{s}}}~{}=~{}5.02~{}{\text{TeV}}}$ with ALICE”, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 388, arXiv:1901.07979 [nucl-ex].
  * [3] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Measurement of beauty and charm production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 5.02 TeV via non-prompt and prompt D mesons”, JHEP 05 (2021) 220, arXiv:2102.13601 [nucl-ex].
  * [4] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Measurement of $D^{*\pm}$, $D^{\pm}$ and $D_{s}^{\pm}$ meson production cross sections in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector”, Nucl. Phys. B 907 (2016) 717–763, arXiv:1512.02913 [hep-ex].
  * [5] CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., “Nuclear modification factor of D0 mesons in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 782 (2018) 474–496, arXiv:1708.04962 [nucl-ex].
  * [6] CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., “Studies of Beauty Suppression via Nonprompt $D^{0}$ Mesons in Pb–Pb Collisions at $Q^{2}=4$ $\rm GeV^{2}$”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 022001, arXiv:1810.11102 [hep-ex].
  * [7] LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Measurements of prompt charm production cross-sections in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 5 TeV”, JHEP 06 (2017) 147, arXiv:1610.02230 [hep-ex].
  * [8] LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Measurements of prompt charm production cross-sections in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”, JHEP 03 (2016) 159, arXiv:1510.01707 [hep-ex]. [Erratum: JHEP 09, 013 (2016), Erratum: JHEP 05, 074 (2017)].
  * [9] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “$\Lambda^{+}_{\mathrm{c}}$ production and baryon-to-meson ratios in pp and p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02\,\text{Te\kern-1.00006ptV}$ at the LHC”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021) 202301, arXiv:2011.06078 [nucl-ex].
  * [10] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “$\rm\Lambda^{+}_{c}$ production in pp and in p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02{\rm TeV}$ ”, Phys. Rev. C 104 (2021) 054905, arXiv:2011.06079 [nucl-ex].
  * [11] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “First measurement of $\rm\Lambda_{c}^{+}$ production down to $p_{\rm T}$ = 0 in pp and p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02$ TeV”, Phys. Rev. C 107 (2023) 064901, arXiv:2211.14032 [nucl-ex].
  * [12] CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., “Production of $\Lambda_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ baryons in proton-proton and lead–lead collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=$ 5.02 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 803 (2020) 135328, arXiv:1906.03322 [hep-ex].
  * [13] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Measurement of prompt D0, $\rm\Lambda_{c}^{+}$, and $\rm\Sigma_{c}^{0,++}$(2455) production in proton–Pproton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) 012001, arXiv:2106.08278 [hep-ex].
  * [14] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Measurement of the cross sections of $\Xi^{0}_{\rm c}$ and $\Xi^{+}_{\rm c}$ Baryons and of the branching-fraction ratio BR($\Xi^{0}_{\rm c}\rightarrow\Xi^{-}{\rm e}^{+}\nu_{\rm e}$)/BR($\Xi^{0}_{\rm c}\rightarrow\Xi^{-}\pi^{+}$) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021) 272001, arXiv:2105.05187 [nucl-ex].
  * [15] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Measurement of the production cross section of prompt ${\Xi}_{\mathrm{c}}^{0}$ baryons at midrapidity in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 5.02 TeV”, JHEP 10 (2021) 159, arXiv:2105.05616 [nucl-ex].
  * [16] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “First measurement of $\rm\Omega_{c}^{0}$ production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 846 (2023) 137625, arXiv:2205.13993 [nucl-ex].
  * [17] B. A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, I. Schienbein, and H. Spiesberger, “Collinear subtractions in hadroproduction of heavy quarks”, Eur. Phys. J. C 41 (2005) 199–212, arXiv:hep-ph/0502194.
  * [18] B. A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, I. Schienbein, and H. Spiesberger, “Inclusive Charmed-Meson Production at the CERN LHC”, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 2082, arXiv:1202.0439 [hep-ph].
  * [19] M. Cacciari, S. Frixione, N. Houdeau, M. L. Mangano, P. Nason, and G. Ridolfi, “Theoretical predictions for charm and bottom production at the LHC”, JHEP 10 (2012) 137, arXiv:1205.6344 [hep-ph].
  * [20] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Charm-quark fragmentation fractions and production cross section at midrapidity in pp collisions at the LHC”, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) L011103, arXiv:2105.06335 [nucl-ex].
  * [21] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Charm production and fragmentation fractions at midrapidity in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”, JHEP 12 (2023) 086, arXiv:2308.04877 [hep-ex].
  * [22] J. R. Christiansen and P. Z. Skands, “String Formation Beyond Leading Colour”, JHEP 08 (2015) 003, arXiv:1505.01681 [hep-ph].
  * [23] J. Song, H.-h. Li, and F.-l. Shao, “New feature of low $p_{T}$ charm quark hadronization in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 344, arXiv:1801.09402 [hep-ph].
  * [24] V. Minissale, S. Plumari, and V. Greco, “Charm hadrons in pp collisions at LHC energy within a coalescence plus fragmentation approach”, Phys. Lett. B 821 (2021) 136622, arXiv:2012.12001 [hep-ph].
  * [25] M. He and R. Rapp, “Charm-Baryon Production in Proton-Proton Collisions”, Phys. Lett. B 795 (2019) 117–121, arXiv:1902.08889 [nucl-th].
  * [26] Y.-K. Hsiao, L. Yang, C.-C. Lih, and S.-Y. Tsai, “Charmed $\Omega_{c}$ weak decays into $\Omega$ in the light-front quark model”, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 1066, arXiv:2009.12752 [hep-ph].
  * [27] T. Gutsche, M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Körner, and V. E. Lyubovitskij, “Nonleptonic two-body decays of single heavy baryons $\Lambda_{Q}$, $\Xi_{Q}$, and $\Omega_{Q}$ $(Q=b,c)$ induced by $W$ emission in the covariant confined quark model”, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 074011, arXiv:1806.11549 [hep-ph].
  * [28] H.-Y. Cheng, “Nonleptonic weak decays of bottom baryons”, Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 2799–2811, arXiv:hep-ph/9612223. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 99, 079901 (2019)].
  * [29] S. Hu, G. Meng, and F. Xu, “Hadronic weak decays of the charmed baryon $\Omega_{c}$”, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 094033, arXiv:2003.04705 [hep-ph].
  * [30] K.-L. Wang, Q.-F. Lü, J.-J. Xie, and X.-H. Zhong, “Toward discovering the excited $\Omega$ baryons through nonleptonic weak decays of $\Omega_{c}$”, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 034015, arXiv:2203.04458 [hep-ph].
  * [31] Belle Collaboration, Y. B. Li et al., “First test of lepton flavor universality in the charmed baryon decays $\Omega_{c}^{0}$→$\Omega^{-}$$l^{+}$$\nu_{l}$ using data of the Belle experiment”, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) L091101, arXiv:2112.10367 [hep-ex].
  * [32] CLEO Collaboration, R. Ammar et al., “Observation of the decay $\Omega_{c}^{0}\rightarrow\Omega^{-}e^{+}\nu_{e}$”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 171803, arXiv:hep-ex/0207078.
  * [33] T. M. Aliev, S. Bilmis, and M. Savci, “Charmed baryon $\Omega_{c}^{0}\rightarrow\Omega^{-}l^{+}\nu_{l}$ and $\Omega_{c}^{0}\rightarrow\Omega_{c}^{-}\pi^{+}(\rho^{+})$ decays in light cone sum rules”, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 074022, arXiv:2208.10365 [hep-ph].
  * [34] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Performance of the ALICE Experiment at the CERN LHC”, Int.J.Mod.Phys. A29 (2014) 1430044, arXiv:1402.4476 [nucl-ex].
  * [35] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC”, JINST 3 (2008) S08002.
  * [36] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “Alignment of the ALICE Inner Tracking System with cosmic-ray tracks”, JINST 5 (2010) P03003, arXiv:1001.0502 [physics.ins-det].
  * [37] J. Alme et al., “The ALICE TPC, a large 3-dimensional tracking device with fast readout for ultra-high multiplicity events”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 622 (2010) 316–367, arXiv:1001.1950 [physics.ins-det].
  * [38] ALICE Collaboration, A. Akindinov et al., “Performance of the ALICE Time-Of-Flight detector at the LHC”, The European Physical Journal Plus 128 (2013) 44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjp/i2013-13044-x.
  * [39] ALICE Collaboration, E. Abbas et al., “Performance of the ALICE VZERO system”, JINST 8 (2013) P10016, arXiv:1306.3130 [nucl-ex].
  * [40] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “ALICE 2016-2017-2018 luminosity determination for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”, Tech. Rep. ALICE-PUBLIC-2021-005, CERN, 2021.  https://cds.cern.ch/record/2776672.
  * [41] I. Kisel, I. Kulakov, and M. Zyzak, “Standalone first level event selection package for the CBM Experiment”, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 60 (2013) 3703–3708.
  * [42] Particle Data Group Collaboration, R. L. Workman et al., “Review of Particle Physics”, PTEP 2022 (2022) 083C01.
  * [43] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Multiplicity dependence of (multi-)strange hadron production in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 167, arXiv:1908.01861 [nucl-ex].
  * [44] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Measurements of low-$p_{\rm T}$ electrons from semileptonic heavy-flavour hadron decays at mid-rapidity in pp and Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76$ TeV”, JHEP 10 (2018) 061, arXiv:1805.04379 [nucl-ex].
  * [45] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Measurement of electrons from semileptonic heavy-flavour hadron decays at midrapidity in pp and Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{NN}}}=$ 5.02 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 804 (2020) 135377, arXiv:1910.09110 [nucl-ex].
  * [46] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Centrality and transverse momentum dependence of inclusive J/$\psi$ production at midrapidity in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=$ 5.02 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 805 (2020) 135434, arXiv:1910.14404 [nucl-ex].
  * [47] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Inclusive J/$\psi$ production at mid-rapidity in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 5.02 TeV”, JHEP 10 (2019) 084, arXiv:1905.07211 [nucl-ex].
  * [48] T. Chen and C. Guestrin, “XGBoost”, in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining.  Aug, 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1145%2F2939672.2939785.
  * [49] L. Barioglio, F. Catalano, M. Concas, P. Fecchio, F. Grosa, F. Mazzaschi, and M. Puccio, “hipe4ml/hipe4ml”, Nov., 2021.  https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5734093.
  * [50] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Measurement of prompt $D_{s}^{+}$-meson production and azimuthal anisotropy in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=5.02TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 827 (2022) 136986, arXiv:2110.10006 [nucl-ex].
  * [51] T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen, and P. Z. Skands, “An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2”, Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159–177, arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph].
  * [52] LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Measurement of the $\Omega_{c}^{0}$ baryon lifetime”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 092003, arXiv:1807.02024 [hep-ex].
  * [53] R. Brun, F. Bruyant, F. Carminati, S. Giani, M. Maire, A. McPherson, G. Patrick, and L. Urban, GEANT: Detector Description and Simulation Tool.  CERN Program Library. CERN, Geneva, 1993.  https://cds.cern.ch/record/1082634.
  * [54] G. D’Agostini, “A Multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes’ theorem”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 362 (1995) 487–498.
  * [55] T. Adye, “Unfolding algorithms and tests using RooUnfold”, in PHYSTAT 2011, pp. 313–318.  CERN, Geneva, 2011.  arXiv:1105.1160 [physics.data-an].
  * [56] S. Faller and T. Mannel, “Light-Quark Decays in Heavy Hadrons”, Phys. Lett. B 750 (2015) 653–659, arXiv:1503.06088 [hep-ph].
  * [57] A. Hocker and V. Kartvelishvili, “SVD approach to data unfolding”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 372 (1996) 469–481, arXiv:hep-ph/9509307.
  * [58] M. Bonamente, Statistics and Analysis of Scientific Data.  Graduate Texts in Physics. Springer-Verlag New York, 2013.  https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9781489994806.
  * [59] Z.-X. Zhao, “Weak decays of heavy baryons in the light-front approach”, Chin. Phys. C 42 (2018) 093101, arXiv:1803.02292 [hep-ph].
  * [60] Q.-A. Zhang et al., “First lattice QCD calculation of semileptonic decays of charmed-strange baryons $\Xi$c*”, Chin. Phys. C 46 (2022) 011002, arXiv:2103.07064 [hep-lat].
  * [61] R. N. Faustov and V. O. Galkin, “Semileptonic $\Xi_{c}$ baryon decays in the relativistic quark model”, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 695, arXiv:1905.08652 [hep-ph].
  * [62] C.-Q. Geng, C.-W. Liu, T.-H. Tsai, and S.-W. Yeh, “Semileptonic decays of anti-triplet charmed baryons”, Phys. Lett. B 792 (2019) 214–218, arXiv:1901.05610 [hep-ph].

##  Appendix A The ALICE Collaboration

S. Acharya 127, D. Adamová 86, A. Agarwal135, G. Aglieri Rinella 32, L.
Aglietta24, M. Agnello 29, N. Agrawal 25, Z. Ahammed 135, S. Ahmad 15, S.U.
Ahn 71, I. Ahuja 37, A. Akindinov 141, V. Akishina38, M. Al-Turany 97, D.
Aleksandrov 141, B. Alessandro 56, H.M. Alfanda 6, R. Alfaro Molina 67, B. Ali
15, A. Alici 25, N. Alizadehvandchali 116, A. Alkin 104, J. Alme 20, G. Alocco
52, T. Alt 64, A.R. Altamura 50, I. Altsybeev 95, J.R. Alvarado 44, M.N. Anaam
6, C. Andrei 45, N. Andreou 115, A. Andronic 126, E. Andronov 141, V. Anguelov
94, F. Antinori 54, P. Antonioli 51, N. Apadula 74, L. Aphecetche 103, H.
Appelshäuser 64, C. Arata 73, S. Arcelli 25, M. Aresti 22, R. Arnaldi 56,
J.G.M.C.A. Arneiro 110, I.C. Arsene 19, M. Arslandok 138, A. Augustinus 32, R.
Averbeck 97, M.D. Azmi 15, H. Baba124, A. Badalà 53, J. Bae 104, Y.W. Baek 40,
X. Bai 120, R. Bailhache 64, Y. Bailung 48, R. Bala 91, A. Balbino 29, A.
Baldisseri 130, B. Balis 2, D. Banerjee 4, Z. Banoo 91, V. Barbasova37, F.
Barile 31, L. Barioglio 56, M. Barlou78, B. Barman41, G.G. Barnaföldi 46, L.S.
Barnby 115, E. Barreau 103, V. Barret 127, L. Barreto 110, C. Bartels 119, K.
Barth 32, E. Bartsch 64, N. Bastid 127, S. Basu 75, G. Batigne 103, D.
Battistini 95, B. Batyunya 142, D. Bauri47, J.L. Bazo Alba 101, I.G. Bearden
83, C. Beattie 138, P. Becht 97, D. Behera 48, I. Belikov 129, A.D.C. Bell
Hechavarria 126, F. Bellini 25, R. Bellwied 116, S. Belokurova 141, L.G.E.
Beltran 109, Y.A.V. Beltran 44, G. Bencedi 46, A. Bensaoula116, S. Beole 24,
Y. Berdnikov 141, A. Berdnikova 94, L. Bergmann 94, M.G. Besoiu 63, L. Betev
32, P.P. Bhaduri 135, A. Bhasin 91, B. Bhattacharjee 41, L. Bianchi 24, N.
Bianchi 49, J. Bielčík 35, J. Bielčíková 86, A.P. Bigot 129, A. Bilandzic 95,
G. Biro 46, S. Biswas 4, N. Bize 103, J.T. Blair 108, D. Blau 141, M.B.
Blidaru 97, N. Bluhme38, C. Blume 64, G. Boca 21,55, F. Bock 87, T. Bodova 20,
J. Bok 16, L. Boldizsár 46, M. Bombara 37, P.M. Bond 32, G. Bonomi 134,55, H.
Borel 130, A. Borissov 141, A.G. Borquez Carcamo 94, H. Bossi 138, E. Botta
24, Y.E.M. Bouziani 64, L. Bratrud 64, P. Braun-Munzinger 97, M. Bregant 110,
M. Broz 35, G.E. Bruno 96,31, M.D. Buckland 23, D. Budnikov 141, H. Buesching
64, S. Bufalino 29, P. Buhler 102, N. Burmasov 141, Z. Buthelezi 68,123, A.
Bylinkin 20, S.A. Bysiak107, J.C. Cabanillas Noris 109, M.F.T. Cabrera116, M.
Cai 6, H. Caines 138, A. Caliva 28, E. Calvo Villar 101, J.M.M. Camacho 109,
P. Camerini 23, F.D.M. Canedo 110, S.L. Cantway 138, M. Carabas 113, A.A.
Carballo 32, F. Carnesecchi 32, R. Caron 128, L.A.D. Carvalho 110, J. Castillo
Castellanos 130, M. Castoldi 32, F. Catalano 32, S. Cattaruzzi 23, C. Ceballos
Sanchez 142, R. Cerri24, I. Chakaberia 74, P. Chakraborty 136,47, S. Chandra
135, S. Chapeland 32, M. Chartier 119, S. Chattopadhay135, S. Chattopadhyay
135, S. Chattopadhyay 99, T. Cheng 97,6, C. Cheshkov 128, V. Chibante Barroso
32, D.D. Chinellato 111, E.S. Chizzali II,95, J. Cho 58, S. Cho 58, P.
Chochula 32, Z.A. Chochulska136, D. Choudhury41, P. Christakoglou 84, C.H.
Christensen 83, P. Christiansen 75, T. Chujo 125, M. Ciacco 29, C. Cicalo 52,
M.R. Ciupek97, G. ClaiIII,51, F. Colamaria 50, J.S. Colburn100, D. Colella 31,
M. Colocci 25, M. Concas 32, G. Conesa Balbastre 73, Z. Conesa del Valle 131,
G. Contin 23, J.G. Contreras 35, M.L. Coquet 103,130, P. Cortese 133,56, M.R.
Cosentino 112, F. Costa 32, S. Costanza 21,55, C. Cot 131, J. Crkovská 94, P.
Crochet 127, R. Cruz-Torres 74, P. Cui 6, M.M. Czarnynoga136, A. Dainese 54,
G. Dange38, M.C. Danisch 94, A. Danu 63, P. Das 80, P. Das 4, S. Das 4, A.R.
Dash 126, S. Dash 47, A. De Caro 28, G. de Cataldo 50, J. de Cuveland38, A. De
Falco 22, D. De Gruttola 28, N. De Marco 56, C. De Martin 23, S. De Pasquale
28, R. Deb 134, R. Del Grande 95, L. Dello Stritto 32, W. Deng 6, K.C.
Devereaux18, P. Dhankher 18, D. Di Bari 31, A. Di Mauro 32, B. Diab 130, R.A.
Diaz 142,7, T. Dietel 114, Y. Ding 6, J. Ditzel 64, R. Divià 32, Ø.
Djuvsland20, U. Dmitrieva 141, A. Dobrin 63, B. Dönigus 64, J.M. Dubinski 136,
A. Dubla 97, P. Dupieux 127, N. Dzalaiova13, T.M. Eder 126, R.J. Ehlers 74, F.
Eisenhut 64, R. Ejima92, D. Elia 50, B. Erazmus 103, F. Ercolessi 25, B.
Espagnon 131, G. Eulisse 32, D. Evans 100, S. Evdokimov 141, L. Fabbietti 95,
M. Faggin 27, J. Faivre 73, F. Fan 6, W. Fan 74, A. Fantoni 49, M. Fasel 87,
A. Feliciello 56, G. Feofilov 141, A. Fernández Téllez 44, L. Ferrandi 110,
M.B. Ferrer 32, A. Ferrero 130, C. Ferrero IV,56, A. Ferretti 24, V.J.G.
Feuillard 94, V. Filova 35, D. Finogeev 141, F.M. Fionda 52, E. Flatland32, F.
Flor 116, A.N. Flores 108, S. Foertsch 68, I. Fokin 94, S. Fokin 141, U.
FolloIV,56, E. Fragiacomo 57, E. Frajna 46, U. Fuchs 32, N. Funicello 28, C.
Furget 73, A. Furs 141, T. Fusayasu 98, J.J. Gaardhøje 83, M. Gagliardi 24,
A.M. Gago 101, T. Gahlaut47, C.D. Galvan 109, D.R. Gangadharan 116, P. Ganoti
78, C. Garabatos 97, J.M. Garcia44, T. García Chávez 44, E. Garcia-Solis 9, C.
Gargiulo 32, P. Gasik 97, H.M. Gaur38, A. Gautam 118, M.B. Gay Ducati 66, M.
Germain 103, C. Ghosh135, M. Giacalone 51, G. Gioachin 29, P. Giubellino
97,56, P. Giubilato 27, A.M.C. Glaenzer 130, P. Glässel 94, E. Glimos 122,
D.J.Q. Goh76, V. Gonzalez 137, P. Gordeev 141, M. Gorgon 2, K. Goswami 48, S.
Gotovac33, V. Grabski 67, L.K. Graczykowski 136, E. Grecka 86, A. Grelli 59,
C. Grigoras 32, V. Grigoriev 141, S. Grigoryan 142,1, F. Grosa 32, J.F.
Grosse-Oetringhaus 32, R. Grosso 97, D. Grund 35, N.A. Grunwald94, G.G.
Guardiano 111, R. Guernane 73, M. Guilbaud 103, K. Gulbrandsen 83, J.J.W.K.
Gumprecht102, T. Gündem 64, T. Gunji 124, W. Guo 6, A. Gupta 91, R. Gupta 91,
R. Gupta 48, K. Gwizdziel 136, L. Gyulai 46, C. Hadjidakis 131, F.U. Haider
91, S. Haidlova 35, M. Haldar4, H. Hamagaki 76, A. Hamdi 74, Y. Han 139, B.G.
Hanley 137, R. Hannigan 108, J. Hansen 75, M.R. Haque 97, J.W. Harris 138, A.
Harton 9, M.V. Hartung 64, H. Hassan 117, D. Hatzifotiadou 51, P. Hauer 42,
L.B. Havener 138, E. Hellbär 97, H. Helstrup 34, M. Hemmer 64, T. Herman 35,
S.G. Hernandez116, G. Herrera Corral 8, S. Herrmann 128, K.F. Hetland 34, B.
Heybeck 64, H. Hillemanns 32, B. Hippolyte 129, F.W. Hoffmann 70, B. Hofman
59, G.H. Hong 139, M. Horst 95, A. Horzyk 2, Y. Hou 6, P. Hristov 32, P.
Huhn64, L.M. Huhta 117, T.J. Humanic 88, A. Hutson 116, D. Hutter 38, M.C.
Hwang 18, R. Ilkaev141, M. Inaba 125, G.M. Innocenti 32, M. Ippolitov 141, A.
Isakov 84, T. Isidori 118, M.S. Islam 99, S. Iurchenko141, M. Ivanov 97, M.
Ivanov13, V. Ivanov 141, K.E. Iversen 75, M. Jablonski 2, B. Jacak 18,74, N.
Jacazio 25, P.M. Jacobs 74, S. Jadlovska106, J. Jadlovsky106, S. Jaelani 82,
C. Jahnke 110, M.J. Jakubowska 136, M.A. Janik 136, T. Janson70, S. Ji 16, S.
Jia 10, A.A.P. Jimenez 65, F. Jonas 74, D.M. Jones 119, J.M. Jowett 32,97, J.
Jung 64, M. Jung 64, A. Junique 32, A. Jusko 100, J. Kaewjai105, P. Kalinak
60, A. Kalweit 32, A. Karasu Uysal V,72, D. Karatovic 89, N. Karatzenis100, O.
Karavichev 141, T. Karavicheva 141, E. Karpechev 141, M.J. Karwowska 32,136,
U. Kebschull 70, R. Keidel 140, M. Keil 32, B. Ketzer 42, S.S. Khade 48, A.M.
Khan 120, S. Khan 15, A. Khanzadeev 141, Y. Kharlov 141, A. Khatun 118, A.
Khuntia 35, Z. Khuranova 64, B. Kileng 34, B. Kim 104, C. Kim 16, D.J. Kim
117, E.J. Kim 69, J. Kim 139, J. Kim 58, J. Kim 32,69, M. Kim 18, S. Kim 17,
T. Kim 139, K. Kimura 92, A. Kirkova36, S. Kirsch 64, I. Kisel 38, S. Kiselev
141, A. Kisiel 136, J.P. Kitowski 2, J.L. Klay 5, J. Klein 32, S. Klein 74, C.
Klein-Bösing 126, M. Kleiner 64, T. Klemenz 95, A. Kluge 32, C. Kobdaj 105, R.
Kohara124, T. Kollegger97, A. Kondratyev 142, N. Kondratyeva 141, J. Konig 64,
S.A. Konigstorfer 95, P.J. Konopka 32, G. Kornakov 136, M. Korwieser 95, S.D.
Koryciak 2, C. Koster84, A. Kotliarov 86, N. Kovacic89, V. Kovalenko 141, M.
Kowalski 107, V. Kozhuharov 36, I. Králik 60, A. Kravčáková 37, L. Krcal
32,38, M. Krivda 100,60, F. Krizek 86, K. Krizkova Gajdosova 32, C. Krug 66,
M. Krüger 64, D.M. Krupova 35, E. Kryshen 141, V. Kučera 58, C. Kuhn 129, P.G.
Kuijer 84, T. Kumaoka125, D. Kumar135, L. Kumar 90, N. Kumar90, S. Kumar 31,
S. Kundu 32, P. Kurashvili 79, A. Kurepin 141, A.B. Kurepin 141, A. Kuryakin
141, S. Kushpil 86, V. Kuskov 141, M. Kutyla136, M.J. Kweon 58, Y. Kwon 139,
S.L. La Pointe 38, P. La Rocca 26, A. Lakrathok105, M. Lamanna 32, A.R. Landou
73, R. Langoy 121, P. Larionov 32, E. Laudi 32, L. Lautner 32,95, R.A.N.
Laveaga109, R. Lavicka 102, R. Lea 134,55, H. Lee 104, I. Legrand 45, G.
Legras 126, J. Lehrbach 38, T.M. Lelek2, R.C. Lemmon 85, I. León Monzón 109,
M.M. Lesch 95, E.D. Lesser 18, P. Lévai 46, M. Li6, X. Li10, B.E. Liang-gilman
18, J. Lien 121, R. Lietava 100, I. Likmeta 116, B. Lim 24, S.H. Lim 16, V.
Lindenstruth 38, A. Lindner45, C. Lippmann 97, D.H. Liu 6, J. Liu 119, G.S.S.
Liveraro 111, I.M. Lofnes 20, C. Loizides 87, S. Lokos 107, J. Lömker 59, X.
Lopez 127, E. López Torres 7, P. Lu 97,120, F.V. Lugo 67, J.R. Luhder 126, M.
Lunardon 27, G. Luparello 57, Y.G. Ma 39, M. Mager 32, A. Maire 129, E.M.
Majerz2, M.V. Makariev 36, M. Malaev 141, G. Malfattore 25, N.M. Malik 91,
Q.W. Malik19, S.K. Malik 91, L. Malinina I,VIII,142, D. Mallick 131, N.
Mallick 48, G. Mandaglio 30,53, S.K. Mandal 79, A. Manea 63, V. Manko 141, F.
Manso 127, V. Manzari 50, Y. Mao 6, R.W. Marcjan 2, G.V. Margagliotti 23, A.
Margotti 51, A. Marín 97, C. Markert 108, P. Martinengo 32, M.I. Martínez 44,
G. Martínez García 103, M.P.P. Martins 110, S. Masciocchi 97, M. Masera 24, A.
Masoni 52, L. Massacrier 131, O. Massen 59, A. Mastroserio 132,50, O. Matonoha
75, S. Mattiazzo 27, A. Matyja 107, A.L. Mazuecos 32, F. Mazzaschi 32,24, M.
Mazzilli 116, J.E. Mdhluli 123, Y. Melikyan 43, A. Menchaca-Rocha 67, J.E.M.
Mendez 65, E. Meninno 102, A.S. Menon 116, M.W. Menzel32,94, M. Meres 13, Y.
Miake125, L. Micheletti 32, D.L. Mihaylov 95, K. Mikhaylov 142,141, N. Minafra
118, D. Miśkowiec 97, A. Modak 134,4, B. Mohanty80, M. Mohisin Khan VI,15,
M.A. Molander 43, S. Monira 136, C. Mordasini 117, D.A. Moreira De Godoy 126,
I. Morozov 141, A. Morsch 32, T. Mrnjavac 32, V. Muccifora 49, S. Muhuri 135,
J.D. Mulligan 74, A. Mulliri 22, M.G. Munhoz 110, R.H. Munzer 64, H. Murakami
124, S. Murray 114, L. Musa 32, J. Musinsky 60, J.W. Myrcha 136, B. Naik 123,
A.I. Nambrath 18, B.K. Nandi 47, R. Nania 51, E. Nappi 50, A.F. Nassirpour 17,
A. Nath 94, C. Nattrass 122, M.N. Naydenov 36, A. Neagu19, A. Negru113, E.
Nekrasova141, L. Nellen 65, R. Nepeivoda 75, S. Nese 19, G. Neskovic 38, N.
Nicassio 50, B.S. Nielsen 83, E.G. Nielsen 83, S. Nikolaev 141, S. Nikulin
141, V. Nikulin 141, F. Noferini 51, S. Noh 12, P. Nomokonov 142, J. Norman
119, N. Novitzky 87, P. Nowakowski 136, A. Nyanin 141, J. Nystrand 20, S. Oh
17, A. Ohlson 75, V.A. Okorokov 141, J. Oleniacz 136, A. Onnerstad 117, C.
Oppedisano 56, A. Ortiz Velasquez 65, J. Otwinowski 107, M. Oya92, K. Oyama
76, Y. Pachmayer 94, S. Padhan 47, D. Pagano 134,55, G. Paić 65, S. Paisano-
Guzmán 44, A. Palasciano 50, S. Panebianco 130, H. Park 125, H. Park 104, J.
Park 125, J.E. Parkkila 32, Y. Patley 47, B. Paul 22, M.M.D.M. Paulino 110, H.
Pei 6, T. Peitzmann 59, X. Peng 11, M. Pennisi 24, S. Perciballi 24, D.
Peresunko 141, G.M. Perez 7, Y. Pestov141, M.T. Petersen83, V. Petrov 141, M.
Petrovici 45, S. Piano 57, M. Pikna 13, P. Pillot 103, O. Pinazza 51,32, L.
Pinsky116, C. Pinto 95, S. Pisano 49, M. Płoskoń 74, M. Planinic89, F.
Pliquett64, M.G. Poghosyan 87, B. Polichtchouk 141, S. Politano 29, N. Poljak
89, A. Pop 45, S. Porteboeuf-Houssais 127, V. Pozdniakov I,142, I.Y. Pozos 44,
K.K. Pradhan 48, S.K. Prasad 4, S. Prasad 48, R. Preghenella 51, F. Prino 56,
C.A. Pruneau 137, I. Pshenichnov 141, M. Puccio 32, S. Pucillo 24, S. Qiu 84,
L. Quaglia 24, S. Ragoni 14, A. Rai 138, A. Rakotozafindrabe 130, L. Ramello
133,56, F. Rami 129, M. Rasa 26, S.S. Räsänen 43, R. Rath 51, M.P. Rauch 20,
I. Ravasenga 32, K.F. Read 87,122, C. Reckziegel 112, A.R. Redelbach 38, K.
Redlich VII,79, C.A. Reetz 97, H.D. Regules-Medel44, A. Rehman20, F. Reidt 32,
H.A. Reme-Ness 34, Z. Rescakova37, K. Reygers 94, A. Riabov 141, V. Riabov
141, R. Ricci 28, M. Richter 20, A.A. Riedel 95, W. Riegler 32, A.G. Riffero
24, C. Ripoli28, C. Ristea 63, M.V. Rodriguez 32, M. Rodríguez Cahuantzi 44,
S.A. Rodríguez Ramírez 44, K. Røed 19, R. Rogalev 141, E. Rogochaya 142, T.S.
Rogoschinski 64, D. Rohr 32, D. Röhrich 20, S. Rojas Torres 35, P.S. Rokita
136, G. Romanenko 25, F. Ronchetti 49, E.D. Rosas65, K. Roslon 136, A. Rossi
54, A. Roy 48, S. Roy 47, N. Rubini 25, J.A. Rudolph84, D. Ruggiano 136, R.
Rui 23, P.G. Russek 2, R. Russo 84, A. Rustamov 81, E. Ryabinkin 141, Y.
Ryabov 141, A. Rybicki 107, J. Ryu 16, W. Rzesa 136, S. Sadhu 31, S. Sadovsky
141, J. Saetre 20, K. Šafařík 35, S.K. Saha 4, S. Saha 80, B. Sahoo 48, R.
Sahoo 48, S. Sahoo61, D. Sahu 48, P.K. Sahu 61, J. Saini 135, K. Sajdakova37,
S. Sakai 125, M.P. Salvan 97, S. Sambyal 91, D. Samitz 102, I. Sanna 32,95,
T.B. Saramela110, D. Sarkar 83, P. Sarma 41, V. Sarritzu 22, V.M. Sarti 95,
M.H.P. Sas 32, S. Sawan 80, E. Scapparone 51, J. Schambach 87, H.S. Scheid 64,
C. Schiaua 45, R. Schicker 94, F. Schlepper 94, A. Schmah97, C. Schmidt 97,
H.R. Schmidt93, M.O. Schmidt 32, M. Schmidt93, N.V. Schmidt 87, A.R. Schmier
122, R. Schotter 129, A. Schröter 38, J. Schukraft 32, K. Schweda 97, G.
Scioli 25, E. Scomparin 56, J.E. Seger 14, Y. Sekiguchi124, D. Sekihata 124,
M. Selina 84, I. Selyuzhenkov 97, S. Senyukov 129, J.J. Seo 94, D. Serebryakov
141, L. Serkin 65, L. Šerkšnytė 95, A. Sevcenco 63, T.J. Shaba 68, A. Shabetai
103, R. Shahoyan32, A. Shangaraev 141, B. Sharma 91, D. Sharma 47, H. Sharma
54, M. Sharma 91, S. Sharma 76, S. Sharma 91, U. Sharma 91, A. Shatat 131, O.
Sheibani116, K. Shigaki 92, M. Shimomura77, J. Shin12, S. Shirinkin 141, Q.
Shou 39, Y. Sibiriak 141, S. Siddhanta 52, T. Siemiarczuk 79, T.F. Silva 110,
D. Silvermyr 75, T. Simantathammakul105, R. Simeonov 36, B. Singh91, B. Singh
95, K. Singh 48, R. Singh 80, R. Singh 91, R. Singh 97,48, S. Singh 15, V.K.
Singh 135, V. Singhal 135, T. Sinha 99, B. Sitar 13, M. Sitta 133,56, T.B.
Skaali19, G. Skorodumovs 94, N. Smirnov 138, R.J.M. Snellings 59, E.H. Solheim
19, J. Song 16, C. Sonnabend 32,97, J.M. Sonneveld 84, F. Soramel 27, A.B.
Soto-hernandez 88, R. Spijkers 84, I. Sputowska 107, J. Staa 75, J. Stachel
94, I. Stan 63, P.J. Steffanic 122, S.F. Stiefelmaier 94, D. Stocco 103, I.
Storehaug 19, N.J. Strangmann 64, P. Stratmann 126, S. Strazzi 25, A.
Sturniolo 30,53, C.P. Stylianidis84, A.A.P. Suaide 110, C. Suire 131, M.
Sukhanov 141, M. Suljic 32, R. Sultanov 141, V. Sumberia 91, S. Sumowidagdo
82, I. Szarka 13, M. Szymkowski 136, S.F. Taghavi 95, G. Taillepied 97, J.
Takahashi 111, G.J. Tambave 80, S. Tang 6, Z. Tang 120, J.D. Tapia Takaki 118,
N. Tapus113, L.A. Tarasovicova 126, M.G. Tarzila 45, G.F. Tassielli 31, A.
Tauro 32, A. Tavira García 131, G. Tejeda Muñoz 44, A. Telesca 32, L. Terlizzi
24, C. Terrevoli 50, S. Thakur 4, D. Thomas 108, A. Tikhonov 141, N. Tiltmann
32,126, A.R. Timmins 116, M. Tkacik106, T. Tkacik 106, A. Toia 64, R.
Tokumoto92, S. Tomassini25, K. Tomohiro92, N. Topilskaya 141, M. Toppi 49, T.
Tork 131, V.V. Torres 103, A.G. Torres Ramos 31, A. Trifiró 30,53, T.
Triloki96, A.S. Triolo 32,30,53, S. Tripathy 32, T. Tripathy 47, V. Trubnikov
3, W.H. Trzaska 117, T.P. Trzcinski 136, C. Tsolanta19, A. Tumkin 141, R.
Turrisi 54, T.S. Tveter 19, K. Ullaland 20, B. Ulukutlu 95, A. Uras 128, M.
Urioni 134, G.L. Usai 22, M. Vala37, N. Valle 55, L.V.R. van Doremalen59, M.
van Leeuwen 84, C.A. van Veen 94, R.J.G. van Weelden 84, P. Vande Vyvre 32, D.
Varga 46, Z. Varga 46, P. Vargas Torres65, M. Vasileiou 78, A. Vasiliev 141,
O. Vázquez Doce 49, O. Vazquez Rueda 116, V. Vechernin 141, E. Vercellin 24,
S. Vergara Limón44, R. Verma47, L. Vermunt 97, R. Vértesi 46, M. Verweij 59,
L. Vickovic33, Z. Vilakazi123, O. Villalobos Baillie 100, A. Villani 23, A.
Vinogradov 141, T. Virgili 28, M.M.O. Virta 117, V. Vislavicius75, A.
Vodopyanov 142, B. Volkel 32, M.A. Völkl 94, S.A. Voloshin 137, G. Volpe 31,
B. von Haller 32, I. Vorobyev 32, N. Vozniuk 141, J. Vrláková 37, J. Wan39, C.
Wang 39, D. Wang39, Y. Wang 39, Y. Wang 6, A. Wegrzynek 32, F.T. Weiglhofer38,
S.C. Wenzel 32, J.P. Wessels 126, J. Wiechula 64, J. Wikne 19, G. Wilk 79, J.
Wilkinson 97, G.A. Willems 126, B. Windelband 94, M. Winn 130, J.R. Wright
108, W. Wu39, Y. Wu 120, Z. Xiong120, R. Xu 6, A. Yadav 42, A.K. Yadav 135, Y.
Yamaguchi 92, S. Yang20, S. Yano 92, E.R. Yeats18, Z. Yin 6, I.-K. Yoo 16,
J.H. Yoon 58, H. Yu12, S. Yuan20, A. Yuncu 94, V. Zaccolo 23, C. Zampolli 32,
M. Zang6, F. Zanone 94, N. Zardoshti 32, A. Zarochentsev 141, P. Závada 62, N.
Zaviyalov141, M. Zhalov 141, B. Zhang 6, C. Zhang 130, L. Zhang 39, M.
Zhang127,6, S. Zhang 39, X. Zhang 6, Y. Zhang120, Z. Zhang 6, M. Zhao 10, V.
Zherebchevskii 141, Y. Zhi10, D. Zhou 6, Y. Zhou 83, J. Zhu 54,6, S. Zhu120,
Y. Zhu6, S.C. Zugravel 56, N. Zurlo 134,55

## Affiliation Notes

I Deceased
II Also at: Max-Planck-Institut fur Physik, Munich, Germany
III Also at: Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and
Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA), Bologna, Italy
IV Also at: Dipartimento DET del Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy
V Also at: Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Türkiye
VI Also at: Department of Applied Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh,
India
VII Also at: Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Wroclaw, Poland
VIII Also at: An institution covered by a cooperation agreement with CERN

## Collaboration Institutes

1 A.I. Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics Institute)
Foundation, Yerevan, Armenia
2 AGH University of Krakow, Cracow, Poland
3 Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, National Academy of Sciences
of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine
4 Bose Institute, Department of Physics and Centre for Astroparticle Physics
and Space Science (CAPSS), Kolkata, India
5 California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California, United
States
6 Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China
7 Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Havana,
Cuba
8 Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados (CINVESTAV), Mexico City and
Mérida, Mexico
9 Chicago State University, Chicago, Illinois, United States
10 China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China
11 China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, China
12 Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea
13 Comenius University Bratislava, Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and
Informatics, Bratislava, Slovak Republic
14 Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, United States
15 Department of Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India
16 Department of Physics, Pusan National University, Pusan, Republic of Korea
17 Department of Physics, Sejong University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
18 Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, California,
United States
19 Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
20 Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
21 Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy
22 Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Cagliari, Italy
23 Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Trieste, Italy
24 Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy
25 Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN,
Bologna, Italy
26 Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN,
Catania, Italy
27 Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN,
Padova, Italy
28 Dipartimento di Fisica ‘E.R. Caianiello’ dell’Università and Gruppo
Collegato INFN, Salerno, Italy
29 Dipartimento DISAT del Politecnico and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy
30 Dipartimento di Scienze MIFT, Università di Messina, Messina, Italy
31 Dipartimento Interateneo di Fisica ‘M. Merlin’ and Sezione INFN, Bari,
Italy
32 European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
33 Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval
Architecture, University of Split, Split, Croatia
34 Faculty of Engineering and Science, Western Norway University of Applied
Sciences, Bergen, Norway
35 Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering, Czech Technical
University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
36 Faculty of Physics, Sofia University, Sofia, Bulgaria
37 Faculty of Science, P.J. Šafárik University, Košice, Slovak Republic
38 Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-
Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
39 Fudan University, Shanghai, China
40 Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, Republic of Korea
41 Gauhati University, Department of Physics, Guwahati, India
42 Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlen- und Kernphysik, Rheinische Friedrich-
Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany
43 Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Helsinki, Finland
44 High Energy Physics Group, Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
45 Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering,
Bucharest, Romania
46 HUN-REN Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
47 Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT), Mumbai, India
48 Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore, India
49 INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
50 INFN, Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy
51 INFN, Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
52 INFN, Sezione di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
53 INFN, Sezione di Catania, Catania, Italy
54 INFN, Sezione di Padova, Padova, Italy
55 INFN, Sezione di Pavia, Pavia, Italy
56 INFN, Sezione di Torino, Turin, Italy
57 INFN, Sezione di Trieste, Trieste, Italy
58 Inha University, Incheon, Republic of Korea
59 Institute for Gravitational and Subatomic Physics (GRASP), Utrecht
University/Nikhef, Utrecht, Netherlands
60 Institute of Experimental Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Košice,
Slovak Republic
61 Institute of Physics, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Bhubaneswar, India
62 Institute of Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech
Republic
63 Institute of Space Science (ISS), Bucharest, Romania
64 Institut für Kernphysik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt,
Frankfurt, Germany
65 Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,
Mexico City, Mexico
66 Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS),
Porto Alegre, Brazil
67 Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City,
Mexico
68 iThemba LABS, National Research Foundation, Somerset West, South Africa
69 Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea
70 Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe Universität Frankfurt Institut für Informatik,
Fachbereich Informatik und Mathematik, Frankfurt, Germany
71 Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon, Republic of
Korea
72 KTO Karatay University, Konya, Turkey
73 Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie, Université Grenoble-
Alpes, CNRS-IN2P3, Grenoble, France
74 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, United States
75 Lund University Department of Physics, Division of Particle Physics, Lund,
Sweden
76 Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science, Nagasaki, Japan
77 Nara Women’s University (NWU), Nara, Japan
78 National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Science,
Department of Physics , Athens, Greece
79 National Centre for Nuclear Research, Warsaw, Poland
80 National Institute of Science Education and Research, Homi Bhabha National
Institute, Jatni, India
81 National Nuclear Research Center, Baku, Azerbaijan
82 National Research and Innovation Agency - BRIN, Jakarta, Indonesia
83 Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
84 Nikhef, National institute for subatomic physics, Amsterdam, Netherlands
85 Nuclear Physics Group, STFC Daresbury Laboratory, Daresbury, United Kingdom
86 Nuclear Physics Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Husinec-Řež,
Czech Republic
87 Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States
88 Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States
89 Physics department, Faculty of science, University of Zagreb, Zagreb,
Croatia
90 Physics Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
91 Physics Department, University of Jammu, Jammu, India
92 Physics Program and International Institute for Sustainability with Knotted
Chiral Meta Matter (SKCM2), Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan
93 Physikalisches Institut, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Tübingen,
Germany
94 Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg,
Germany
95 Physik Department, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany
96 Politecnico di Bari and Sezione INFN, Bari, Italy
97 Research Division and ExtreMe Matter Institute EMMI, GSI Helmholtzzentrum
für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany
98 Saga University, Saga, Japan
99 Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kolkata,
India
100 School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham,
United Kingdom
101 Sección Física, Departamento de Ciencias, Pontificia Universidad Católica
del Perú, Lima, Peru
102 Stefan Meyer Institut für Subatomare Physik (SMI), Vienna, Austria
103 SUBATECH, IMT Atlantique, Nantes Université, CNRS-IN2P3, Nantes, France
104 Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon City, Republic of Korea
105 Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand
106 Technical University of Košice, Košice, Slovak Republic
107 The Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of
Sciences, Cracow, Poland
108 The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States
109 Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Culiacán, Mexico
110 Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil
111 Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil
112 Universidade Federal do ABC, Santo Andre, Brazil
113 Universitatea Nationala de Stiinta si Tehnologie Politehnica Bucuresti,
Bucharest, Romania
114 University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
115 University of Derby, Derby, United Kingdom
116 University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
117 University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland
118 University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, United States
119 University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
120 University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China
121 University of South-Eastern Norway, Kongsberg, Norway
122 University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States
123 University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
124 University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
125 University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
126 Universität Münster, Institut für Kernphysik, Münster, Germany
127 Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France
128 Université de Lyon, CNRS/IN2P3, Institut de Physique des 2 Infinis de
Lyon, Lyon, France
129 Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, F-67000 Strasbourg, France,
Strasbourg, France
130 Université Paris-Saclay, Centre d’Etudes de Saclay (CEA), IRFU, Départment
de Physique Nucléaire (DPhN), Saclay, France
131 Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS/IN2P3, IJCLab, Orsay, France
132 Università degli Studi di Foggia, Foggia, Italy
133 Università del Piemonte Orientale, Vercelli, Italy
134 Università di Brescia, Brescia, Italy
135 Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kolkata,
India
136 Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland
137 Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, United States
138 Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States
139 Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
140 Zentrum für Technologie und Transfer (ZTT), Worms, Germany
141 Affiliated with an institute covered by a cooperation agreement with CERN
142 Affiliated with an international laboratory covered by a cooperation
agreement with CERN.