Centrality dependence of J/ ψ and ψ (2S) production and nuclear modification in p-Pb collisions at s NN − − − √ = 8.16 TeV
EEUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH
CERN-EP-2020-13314 July 2020c (cid:13)
Centrality dependence of J / ψ and ψ ( ) production and nuclearmodification in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = . TeV
ALICE Collaboration ∗ Abstract
The inclusive production of the J/ ψ and ψ (2S) charmonium states is studied as a function of centralityin p–Pb collisions at a centre-of-mass energy per nucleon pair √ s NN = .
16 TeV at the LHC. Themeasurement is performed in the dimuon decay channel with the ALICE apparatus in the centre-of-mass rapidity intervals − . < y cms < − .
96 (Pb-going direction) and 2 . < y cms < .
53 (p-goingdirection), down to zero transverse momentum ( p T ). The J/ ψ and ψ (2S) production cross sectionsare evaluated as a function of the collision centrality, estimated through the energy deposited in thezero degree calorimeter located in the Pb-going direction. The p T -differential J/ ψ production crosssection is measured at backward and forward rapidity for several centrality classes, together withthe corresponding average (cid:104) p T (cid:105) and (cid:104) p (cid:105) values. The nuclear effects affecting the production ofboth charmonium states are studied using the nuclear modification factor. In the p-going direction,a suppression of the production of both charmonium states is observed, which seems to increasefrom peripheral to central collisions. In the Pb-going direction, however, the centrality dependenceis different for the two states: the nuclear modification factor of the J/ ψ increases from below unityin peripheral collisions to above unity in central collisions, while for the ψ (2S) it stays below orconsistent with unity for all centralities with no significant centrality dependence. The results arecompared with measurements in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV and no significant dependenceon the energy of the collision is observed. Finally, the results are compared with theoretical modelsimplementing various nuclear matter effects. ∗ See Appendix A for the list of collaboration members a r X i v : . [ nu c l - e x ] A ug entrality dependence of J / ψ and ψ ( ) production in p–Pb collisions ALICE Collaboration Quarkonia, bound states of a heavy quark and its antiquark, are prominent probes of the properties ofthe strong interaction, which is described by quantum chromodynamics (QCD). In high-energy hadroniccollisions, the production of quarkonia is usually factorised in a two-step process: the creation of aheavy-quark pair, mainly by gluon fusion at LHC energies, followed by its evolution and binding into acolour-singlet state. The former is well described using perturbative QCD calculations, while the latterinvolves non-perturbative processes and is described using effective models [1–3].In high-energy heavy-ion collisions, the creation of a deconfined state of nuclear matter made of quarksand gluons, the so-called quark–gluon plasma (QGP), modifies the production rates of the variousquarkonium states. On the one hand, the production of quarkonium states is expected to be suppressedby the large density of colour charges in the QGP [4], with the suppression increasing with decreasingbinding energy of the resonance [5]. Such sequential suppression has been observed, most notably inthe bottomonium (bb) sector in PbPb collisions at the LHC by the CMS [6–9] and ALICE [10] collab-orations. On the other hand, quarkonia could also be regenerated during the QGP phase [11] or at itslate boundary [12] by recombination of deconfined heavy quarks. Strong indications supporting sucha regeneration mechanism, which (partially) compensates the aforementioned suppression, have beenreported by the ALICE Collaboration in the charmonium (cc) sector for the J/ ψ in PbPb collisions at theLHC [13–17].However, to fully exploit those experimental results for the understanding of the inner-workings of theQGP, other nuclear effects, not related to the presence of the QGP, must be addressed. These are typi-cally referred to as cold nuclear matter (CNM) effects, as opposed to those related to the hot medium,and include the effects described below. A significant contribution involves the nuclear modification ofthe parton distribution function (PDF) of the nucleons inside the nucleus [18], i.e. the modification ofthe probability for a parton (quark or gluon) to carry a fraction x of the momentum of the nucleon. Thegluon nuclear parton distribution function (nPDF) includes, most notably, a shadowing region at low x ( x (cid:46) .
01) corresponding to a suppression of gluons and an antishadowing region at intermediate x (0 . (cid:46) x (cid:46) .
3) corresponding to an enhancement of gluons. The modification of the initial state of thenucleus with respect to an incoherent superposition of free nucleons can also be described in terms ofthe saturation of low- x gluons as implemented in the Colour Glass Condensate (CGC) effective field the-ory [19]. In addition, coherent energy-loss effects involving the initial- and final-state partons can modifythe production of heavy-quark pairs and thus of quarkonium states [20]. The pre-resonant quarkoniumstate could also interact with the surrounding spectator nucleons. This nuclear absorption is expectedto be negligible at LHC energies due to the short crossing time of the colliding nuclei [21]. The CNMeffects discussed above are expected to affect similarly all states of the same quarkonium family, as theyact on the production cross section of heavy-quark pairs or on the pre-resonant quarkonium state. On thecontrary, final-state interactions with the co-moving medium [22] or with a medium including a short-lived QGP and a hadron resonance gas [23]) could affect differently the various states of the same family.Soft-color exchanges between the hadronising cc pair and long-lived co-moving partons [24] could alsoaffect differently the various charmonium states.Cold nuclear matter effects are typically investigated using protonnucleus collisions where the forma-tion of the QGP is not expected. At the LHC, the production of quarkonia was extensively studied inpPb collisions at a centre-of-mass energy per nucleon pair √ s NN = .
02 TeV by the ALICE [25–31],ATLAS [32], CMS [33, 34] and LHCb [35–37] collaborations. In the charmonium sector, a significantsuppression of J/ ψ yields is observed at forward rapidity y , i.e. in the p-going direction, at low trans-verse momentum p T , with the effect vanishing with increasing p T . The suppression at midrapidity iscompatible with the one at forward y , while at backward y , i.e. in the Pb-going direction, no suppressionof the J/ ψ yields is observed [25, 28, 31]. Interestingly, the ψ (2S) appears to be more suppressed thanthe J/ ψ at both forward and backward rapidity [26]. This observation cannot be explained by the first2entrality dependence of J / ψ and ψ ( ) production in p–Pb collisions ALICE Collaborationgroup of CNM effects discussed above and seems to indicate the need to consider additional final-stateeffects. The centrality dependence of the J/ ψ and ψ (2S) suppression was also measured in pPb collisionsat √ s NN = .
02 TeV [29, 30]. The difference between the ψ (2S) and J/ ψ suppression increases with in-creasing centrality, especially at backward rapidity, indicating, once again, that shadowing or coherentparton energy-loss mechanisms are not enough to explain the ψ (2S) suppression [30]. Complementar-ily, the ALICE Collaboration also studied the J/ ψ production at forward, mid, and backward rapidity asa function of the multiplicity of charged particles measured at midrapidity [38]. Such study does notrequire the interpretation of the centrality classes in terms of collision geometry and allows for the in-vestigation of rare events with the highest charged particle multiplicities. An increase of the relative J/ ψ yields with the relative charged-particle multiplicity is observed. At forward rapidity the increase satu-rates towards the highest multiplicities, while at backward rapidity a hint of a faster-than-linear increasewith multiplicity is seen.Also, in high-multiplicity p–Pb events, long-range angular correlations between the J/ ψ at large rapidityand charged particles at midrapidity are observed [39]. These correlations are reminiscent of thoseobserved in Pb–Pb collisions, which are often interpreted as signatures of the collective motion of theparticles during the hydrodynamic evolution of the hot and dense medium.More recently, the J/ ψ and ψ (2S) production were also measured in pPb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeVas a function of transverse momentum and rapidity [40–42] confirming, with better statistical precision,the earlier findings. Namely, a significant suppression of the J/ ψ is observed at forward rapidity but not atbackward rapidity, and a stronger suppression of the ψ (2S) is seen, especially at backward rapidity. TheJ/ ψ production at forward and backward rapidity as a function of the multiplicity of charged particlesmeasured at midrapidity was also studied at √ s NN = .
16 TeV [43] confirming the earlier observations.In the bottomonium sector, a significant suppression of the ϒ (1S) yield is observed at mid and forwardrapidity, vanishing from low to high transverse momentum, while at backward rapidity the yields areconsistent with the expectations from pp collisions [27, 32, 36, 44, 45]. Interestingly, the excited ϒ (2S)state at midrapidity [32, 46] and ϒ (3S) state at backward rapidity [45] appear to be more suppressed thanthe fundamental ϒ (1S) state, which is similar to the comparison of the ψ (2S) and J/ ψ discussed above.This paper presents the centrality dependence of the production of inclusive J/ ψ and ψ (2S) in pPb col-lisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV. The inclusive ψ (nS) production contains contributions from direct ψ (nS),from decays of higher-mass excited states in the case of the J/ ψ (mainly ψ (2S) and χ c ), as well as fromnon-prompt ψ (nS), from weak decays of beauty hadrons. Section 2 briefly presents the experimentalsetup and event selection, Section 3 describes the data analysis procedure, while the results are presentedand discussed in Section 4. A summary is given in Section 5. A detailed description of the ALICE apparatus and its performance can be found in Refs. [47, 48]. Themain detectors used in this analysis are briefly discussed below.The ALICE muon spectrometer is used to detect muons in the pseudorapidity region − < η lab < − . · m. Two trigger stations, each composedof two planes of resistive plate chambers, provide the trigger for single muon as well as dimuon eventswith a programmable single-muon p T threshold. The setup is completed by a set of absorbers. A frontabsorber made of carbon, concrete, and steel is placed between the nominal interaction point (IP) andthe first tracking station, to remove hadrons coming from the interaction vertex. An iron filter is posi-tioned between the tracking and trigger stations and absorbs the remaining hadrons escaping the frontabsorber and the low p T muons originating from the decay of pions and kaons. Finally, a conical ab-3entrality dependence of J / ψ and ψ ( ) production in p–Pb collisions ALICE Collaborationsorber surrounding the beam pipe protects the muon spectrometer against secondary particles producedby the primary particles emerging at large pseudorapidities and interacting with the beam pipe.The Silicon Pixel Detector (SPD), corresponding to the two innermost layers of the Inner Tracking Sys-tem [49] and covering the pseudorapidity ranges | η lab | < | η lab | < . . < η lab < . − . < η lab < − .
7. The coincidence of signals from the two hodoscopes defines the minimum bias(MB) trigger condition and a first luminosity signal during van der Meer scans [51]. The V0s are alsoused to remove beam-induced background. A second luminosity signal in van der Meer scans is definedby the coincidence of signals from the two T0 arrays, which are located on opposite sides of the IP(4 . < η lab < . − . < η lab < − . ± . − . < y cms < − .
96 and 2 . < y cms < .
53. The backwardand forward rapidity intervals correspond to the muon spectrometer being located in the Pb-going andp-going direction, and are denoted as Pb–p and p–Pb, respectively.The non-symmetric rapidity ranges arise from the energy-per-nucleon asymmetry of the p and Pb beams,which shifts the rapidity of the nucleonnucleon centre-of-mass system with respect to the laboratorysystem by 0.465 units of rapidity in the direction of the proton beam. The events were collected usingan opposite-sign dimuon trigger, which requires the coincidence of the MB trigger condition and twoopposite-sign track segments in the muon trigger chambers. For the data samples used here, the pro-grammable online p T threshold for each muon track was set to 0.5 GeV/ c . This threshold is not sharp in p T and the single-muon trigger efficiency is about 50% at p µ T = . c and reaches a plateau valueof about 96% at p µ T (cid:39) . c . Beam-induced background was removed using the timing informationprovided by the V0 and the ZDC. The events are classified in classes of centrality according to the en-ergy deposited in the ZN located in the direction of the Pb beam, as will be discussed in Sec. 3. Eventsin which two or more interactions occur in the same colliding bunch (in-bunch pile-up) or during thereadout time of the SPD (out-of-bunch pile-up) are removed using the information from the SPD andV0. The integrated luminosity for the two beam configurations is L int = . ± . − for Pb–p and L int = . ± . − for p–Pb collisions. In this section the various elements involved in the cross section and the nuclear modification factorcalculations are discussed.In p–Pb collisions, a centrality determination based on the charged-particle multiplicity can be biased byfluctuations related to the variation of the event topology, which are unrelated to the collision geometry.In contrast, an event selection depending on the energy deposited in the ZDC by nucleons emitted inthe nuclear de-excitation process after the collision or knocked out by the nucleons participating in thecollision (participant or wounded nucleons) should not be affected by this kind of bias. In this analysisthe centrality estimation is based on a hybrid method, as described in details in Refs. [54, 55]. In thisapproach, the centrality classes are determined using the ZN detector, while the average number of binarynucleon–nucleon collisions (cid:104) N coll (cid:105) and the average nuclear overlap function (cid:104) T pPb (cid:105) for each centrality4entrality dependence of J / ψ and ψ ( ) production in p–Pb collisions ALICE Collaborationclass are obtained assuming that the charged-particle multiplicity measured at midrapidity scales withthe number of participant nucleons N part = N coll +
1. The centrality classes used in this analysis and thecorresponding (cid:104) N coll (cid:105) and (cid:104) T pPb (cid:105) as well as their uncertainties, which reflect possible remaining biases (asdiscussed in Refs. [54, 55]), are shown in Table 1. Monte Carlo (MC) simulations reproducing the LHCrunning conditions indicate that a residual pile-up may be present in the most central 0–2% collisions.The 0–2% centrality interval is therefore excluded and a 2% systematic uncertainty is conservativelyassigned to the results in the other centrality classes. Furthermore, the 90–100% centrality interval isalso excluded as the dimuon trigger may suffer from residual background contamination. It is worthnoting that the previous analysis at √ s NN = .
02 TeV was performed in the wider 80–100% centralityclass where such possible contamination was not apparent.
Table 1:
The average number of binary nucleon–nucleon collisions (cid:104) N coll (cid:105) and average nuclear overlap function (cid:104) T pPb (cid:105) , along with their systematic uncertainty, for the used centrality classes. ZN class (cid:104) N coll (cid:105) Total syst on (cid:104) N coll (cid:105) (%) (cid:104) T pPb (cid:105) Total syst on (cid:104) T pPb (cid:105) (%)2–10% 12.7 4.8 0.175 4.810–20% 11.5 3.1 0.159 3.320–40% 9.81 1.7 0.135 2.140–60% 7.09 4.1 0.0978 4.260–80% 4.28 4.6 0.0590 4.820–30% 10.4 1.8 0.143 2.230–40% 9.21 2.0 0.127 2.440–50% 7.82 3.4 0.108 3.750–60% 6.37 4.6 0.0879 4.860–70% 4.93 5.1 0.0680 5.370–80% 3.63 4.4 0.0501 4.680–90% 2.53 1.7 0.0349 2.1Charmonium candidates are built by forming pairs of opposite-sign charged tracks that were recon-structed by the tracking chambers of the muon spectrometer satisfying the following criteria: Each muontrack candidate should be within − < η µ lab < − . . < R abs < . p T thresholdof 0.5 GeV/ c . The rapidity of the muon pair should be within the fiducial acceptance of the muon spec-trometer, namely 2 . < y cms < .
53 and − . < y cms < − .
96, for the p–Pb and Pb–p data samples,respectively.The charmonium signal is estimated with a binned maximum likelihood fit to the dimuon invariant massdistribution. The J / ψ and ψ ( ) mass shapes are described with a Crystal Ball function with asymmetrictails on both sides of the peak (denoted as extended Crystal Ball) or a pseudo-Gaussian function [56].The J / ψ mass and width are free parameters of the fit, while the other parameters, which correspondto the non-Gaussian tails of the signal shape, are fixed to those extracted from MC simulations. Inaddition, other sets of tails obtained from fits to the centrality-integrated invariant mass distribution inp–Pb at √ s NN = .
16 TeV and in pp collisions at √ s = ψ ( ) fitparameters, apart from the amplitude, are constrained to those of the J / ψ , since its signal-to-backgroundratio is rather small. For the position of the mass peak, the following relation is used m ψ ( ) = m J / ψ + m PDG ψ ( ) − m PDGJ / ψ , where the value obtained from the J / ψ fit is shifted by the difference between the twomass poles reported by the PDG [57]. The ψ ( ) width is fixed to the J / ψ one, applying a correctionfactor given by the ratio of the widths obtained in MC simulations ( σ ψ ( ) = σ J / ψ × σ MC ψ ( ) (cid:14) σ MCJ / ψ ). The5entrality dependence of J / ψ and ψ ( ) production in p–Pb collisions ALICE Collaborationbackground continuum is parameterised by either a Gaussian having a mass-dependent width or theproduct of a fourth degree polynomial function and an exponential. Finally, to test the backgrounddescription, the signal is extracted using different fit ranges (2 < m µµ < c and 2 . < m µµ < . c ). The number of J / ψ and ψ ( ) and their statistical uncertainties are evaluated as the averagesof the results of each test, i.e. the aforementioned signal extraction variations, and of their statisticaluncertainty, respectively. The systematic uncertainty is given by the root-mean-square of the distributionof the results. For the ψ (2S), an additional uncertainty of 5% is added in quadrature. It corresponds to theuncertainty on the ψ (2S) width obtained from the large pp data sample used to validate the assumptionon the relative widths for J/ ψ and ψ (2S) from the MC [58]. In Fig. 1 the fits to the dimuon invariantmass distribution for the forward and the backward rapidity ranges are shown for two centrality classes.The product of the detector acceptance and the reconstruction efficiency ( A × ε ) is evaluated with aMC simulation in which J / ψ and ψ ( ) are generated unpolarised according to the results obtainedin pp collisions by the ALICE [59, 60], CMS [61], and LHCb [62, 63] collaborations. In order torealistically describe the J / ψ and ψ ( ) spectra, the MC input p T and y shapes are tuned directly on c (GeV/ mm m c C oun t s pe r M e V / - m + m fi (2S) y , y ALICE, Inclusive J/ c < 20 GeV/ T p = 8.16 TeV, NN s Pb - p < 3.53 y - ZN class 20
DataTotal fitBackground y J/(2S) y c (GeV/ mm m c C oun t s pe r M e V / - m + m fi (2S) y , y ALICE, Inclusive J/ c < 20 GeV/ T p = 8.16 TeV, NN s Pb - p < 3.53 y - ZN class 60
DataTotal fitBackground y J/(2S) y c (GeV/ mm m c C oun t s pe r M e V / - m + m fi (2S) y , y ALICE, Inclusive J/ c < 20 GeV/ T p = 8.16 TeV, NN s Pb - p 2.96 - < y - - ZN class 20
DataTotal fitBackground y J/(2S) y c (GeV/ mm m c C oun t s pe r M e V / - m + m fi (2S) y , y ALICE, Inclusive J/ c < 20 GeV/ T p = 8.16 TeV, NN s Pb - p 2.96 - < y - - ZN class 60
DataTotal fitBackground y J/(2S) y Figure 1:
Fit to the dimuon invariant mass distribution for the p–Pb (top panels) and Pb–p (bottom panels) datasets, for the 20–40% (left panels) and 60–80% (right panels) ZN centrality classes. The extended Crystal Ballfunction is used to describe the J / ψ and ψ ( ) signals, while a Variable Width Gaussian function is used for thebackground. The red line and band represents the total fit and its uncertainty. / ψ and ψ ( ) production in p–Pb collisions ALICE Collaborationdata performing an iterative procedure [40]. The decay products of the generated charmonia are thenpropagated inside a realistic description of the ALICE detector, based on GEANT 3.21 [64]. The p T -and y -integrated ( A × ε ) values are 0 . ± .
001 (0 . ± . / ψ and 0 . ± .
008 (0 . ± . ψ ( ) . The larger ( A × ε ) in the p–Pb than Pb–pdata taking period is due to different running conditions. The quoted uncertainties are the systematicuncertainties on the input p T and y shapes used for the MC generation, which are evaluated comparingthe ( A × ε ) values obtained using different input MC distributions. For the J/ ψ , these were obtained byadjusting the input MC distributions to the data in various p T and y intervals. For the ψ ( S ) , due to thelarger statistical uncertainties of the data, the input p T and y shapes used for the J/ ψ were consideredin addition to the the ones tuned directly on the ψ ( S ) data. For the J / ψ the uncertainty on the p T -integrated ( A × ε ) is 0.5% for both p–Pb and Pb–p, varying with p T from 1% to 3%, while for the ψ ( ) the uncertainty amounts to 3% and 1.5% in p–Pb and Pb–p collisions, respectively. The same valuesof ( A × ε ) are used for all centrality classes since no dependence on the detector occupancy is observedwithin the multiplicities reached in p–Pb collisions. Possible changes of ( A × ε ) due to shape variations ofthe p T - and y -differential cross sections with centrality are accounted for in the systematic uncertaintiesby using different p T shapes extracted from different centrality intervals as inputs to the MC simulations.The corresponding systematic uncertainty on the p T -integrated J / ψ ( A × ε ) varies from 1.6% (2.5%) to1.7% (2.7%) as a function of centrality, while as a function of p T in different centrality classes it variesfrom 1.2% (1.4%) to 4.4% (2.2%) in Pb–p (p–Pb) collisions.The normalisation of the J / ψ and ψ ( ) yields is obtained following the prescription described inRef. [54]. It is based on the evaluation of the number of minimum bias events N i MB for each central-ity class i as N i MB = F i µ / MB × N i µ , where F i µ / MB is the inverse of the probability of having a dimuon-triggered event in a MB-triggered one, and N i µ is the number of analyzed dimuon-triggered events. Thevalue of F i µ / MB depends on the centrality class and increases from central to peripheral events, passingfrom 384 ± ±
18 in p–Pb and from 161 ± ±
16 in Pb–p collisions, for the 2–10%and 80–90% centrality classes, respectively. The quoted systematic uncertainties, which vary between1% and 1.4%, contain two contributions. The first one, which is correlated in p T and centrality andamounts to 1%, is estimated by comparing the centrality-integrated F µ / MB obtained with the method de-scribed above with the one obtained using the information of the online trigger counters, as described inRef. [25]. The second one, which is not correlated in centrality, is obtained comparing F i µ / MB evaluatedwith two different methods, as detailed in [29]. Namely, F i µ / MB can be evaluated directly in each cen-trality class, or derived from the centrality integrated F µ / MB factor normalised by the ratio of N i MB / N MB to N i µ / N µ . The resulting systematic uncertainty varies from 0.1% (0.1%) to 0.8% (1%) in Pb–p (p–Pb)collisions.The inclusive cross section for J / ψ and ψ ( ) for centrality class i is calculated using the followingexpression σ i , ψ ( nS ) pPb = N i ψ ( nS ) → µ + µ − ( A × ε ) ψ ( nS ) → µ + µ − × N i MB × B . R . ψ ( nS ) → µ + µ − × σ MB , (1)where N i ψ ( nS ) → µ + µ − is the raw yield for the given resonance, ( A × ε ) ψ ( nS ) → µ + µ − is the correspondingproduct of the detector acceptance and reconstruction efficiency, and B . R . ψ ( nS ) → µ + µ − is the branchingratio of the corresponding dimuon decay channel as reported in Ref. [57]. The integrated luminosity L int of the analyzed data sample is given by the ratio of the equivalent number of minimum bias events N MB to the cross section for events satisfying the minimum bias trigger condition σ MB . The latter is evaluatedthrough a van der Meer scan and results in a value of 2 . ± .
04 b for p–Pb collisions and 2 . ± .
04 bfor Pb–p [51], where the quoted uncertainties are the systematic uncertainties. The integrated luminositycan be independently calculated using the luminosity signal provided by the T0 detector. The differencebetween the integrated luminosity obtained with the V0 and T0 detectors amounts to 1.1% (0.6%) [51] inthe p–Pb (Pb–p) data sample and is assigned as a further systematic uncertainty of σ MB . The correlated7entrality dependence of J / ψ and ψ ( ) production in p–Pb collisions ALICE Collaborationuncertainty on σ MB for the p–Pb and Pb–p data samples are 0.5% and 0.7%, respectively [51].The relative modification between the two charmonium states in proton–nucleus collisions can be firstlyobserved through the evaluation of the ratio B . R . ψ ( ) → µ + µ − σ ψ ( ) / B . R . J / ψ → µ + µ − σ J / ψ , where the sys-tematic uncertainties on trigger, tracking, and matching efficiencies, as well as on the luminosity, whichare common for the J / ψ and ψ ( ) , cancel out. The only remaining systematic uncertainties are thoserelated to the signal extraction and to the shape of the input p T and y distribution used for the MC sim-ulations. In turn this ratio can be normalised to the same quantity evaluated in pp collisions, providinga direct access to the relative ψ ( ) production modification with respect to J / ψ moving from a pp toa p–Pb collision system. Since there is no measurement available at √ s = .
16 TeV in pp collisions,the ratio ψ ( ) / J / ψ is evaluated through an interpolation procedure using ALICE data at √ s =
5, 7, 8and 13 TeV in the interval 2 . < y < √ s , according to the NRQCD+CGC calculations[67, 68].The nuclear modification factor as a function of centrality is calculated using the following expression Q i , ψ ( nS ) → µ + µ − pPb = N i ψ ( nS ) → µ + µ − (cid:104) T i pPb (cid:105) × N i MB × ( A × ε ) × B . R . ψ ( nS ) → µ + µ − × σ pp ψ ( nS ) , (2)where (cid:104) T i pPb (cid:105) is the nuclear overlap function for the centrality class i , while σ pp ψ ( nS ) is the ψ ( n S ) productioncross section in proton–proton collisions. The notation Q pPb is used instead of the usual R pPb in orderto point out the possible bias in the centrality determination, which depends on the loose correlationbetween the centrality estimator and the collision geometry [54]. The J/ ψ cross section in pp collisionsat √ s = .
16 TeV is obtained from the available results in the interval 2 . < y < ψ production at √ s = p T , y , and centrality. A second contribution of 1.8%(1.5%) for the p T -integrated cross section and ranging from 3.0% to 4.6% (2.9% to 4.7%) for the p T -differential cross section at backward (forward) rapidity, correlated with centrality, arises from the energyand rapidity interpolation procedures (see Ref. [40] for details). The ψ (2S) cross section in pp collisionsat √ s = .
16 TeV is obtained from the extrapolated J/ ψ cross section and the interpolated J/ ψ / ψ (2S)ratio. The related total systematic uncertainty is 9.4% and is correlated in p T , y , and centrality.In addition to the various contributions to the systematic uncertainty discussed above, the followingsources, which are common for the J/ ψ and ψ (2S) states, are also taken into account. The systematicuncertainty of the trigger efficiency includes two contributions, one related to the intrinsic efficiency ofeach trigger chamber and one related to the muon trigger response function. The former is calculatedfrom the uncertainties on the trigger chamber efficiencies measured from data and applied to simulationsand it amounts to 1%. The latter is obtained from the difference between the ( A × ε ) obtained using theresponse function in data or in MC simulations and for the p T -integrated case this uncertainty is 2.9%for Pb–p and 2.4% for p–Pb, and it varies between 1% and 4% as a function of p T . The total systematicuncertainty of the trigger efficiency, obtained by adding in quadrature the aforementioned contributions,is 3.1% for Pb–p and 2.6% for p–Pb, varying as a function of p T from 1.4% up to 4.1%. The evaluationof the systematic uncertainty on the tracking efficiency follows a similar approach as reported in [26].The discrepancy between the efficiencies in data and MC corresponds to 2% in Pb–p and 1% in p–Pb,without any appreciable dependence on the dimuon kinematics and event centrality. Finally, the choiceof the χ selection applied for the definition of the matching between tracks in the trigger and trackingchambers determines a 1% systematic uncertainty.In Table 2, a summary of all the sources of systematic uncertainty which contribute to the cross section8entrality dependence of J / ψ and ψ ( ) production in p–Pb collisions ALICE Collaborationand nuclear modification factor measurements is reported. Table 2:
Summary of the systematic uncertainties (in percentage) of the quantities associated to the measurementsof the differential J/ ψ cross section and Q pPb of J/ ψ and ψ (2S). The uncertainties for the p T -differential caseare indicated in parentheses if the values are different from the p T -integrated case. When appropriate, a rangeof variation (for centrality, rapidity, or p T intervals) of the uncertainty is given. Type I, II and III stands foruncertainties correlated over centrality, rapidity, or p T , respectively. J/ ψ ψ (2S)Sources of uncertainty − < y cms < − < y cms < − < y cms < − < y cms < p T ) cent. (cent. and p T ) cent. cent.Signal extraction 3.0–3.3 (2.2–6.8) 2.8–3.1 (2.6–4.2) 7.1–15.9 7.6–12.8Trigger efficiency (I) 3.1 (1.4–4.1) 2.6 (1.4–4.1) 3.1 2.6Tracking efficiency (I) 2 1 2 1Matching efficiency (I) 1 1 1 1MC input (I) 0.5 (1–2) 0.5 (1–3) 1.5 3MC input 1.6–1.7 (1.2–4.4) 2.5–2.7 (1.4–2.2) 1.6–1.7 2.5–2.7 F norm (I,III) 1 1 1 1 F norm (III) 0.1–0.8 0.1–1.0 0.1–0.8 0.1–1.0Pile-up (III) 2 2 2 2Uncertainties related to cross section only σ MB (I,III) 2.2 2.1 – – σ MB (I,II,III) 0.7 0.5 – –BR (I,II,III) 0.6 0.6 – –Uncertainties related to Q pPb only (cid:104) T pPb (cid:105) (II,III) 2.1–4.8 2.1–4.8 2.1–4.8 2.1–4.8pp reference (I) 1.8 (3.0–4.6) 1.5 (2.9–4.7) – –pp reference (I,II,III) 7.1 7.1 9.4 9.4 p T -differential cross section of inclusive J / ψ for various centrality classes Figure 2 shows the p T -differential cross section of inclusive J/ ψ at backward (left) and forward (right) ra-pidity measured in six centrality classes: 2–10%, 10–20%, 20–40%, 40–60%, 60–80% and 80–90%. Thevertical error bars represent the statistical uncertainties and the open boxes the uncorrelated systematicuncertainties. A global systematic uncertainty, which is correlated over centrality, rapidity, and p T andis obtained as the quadratic sum of the systematic uncertainty of the branching ratio and the correlatedsystematic uncertainty of σ MB amounts to 0.9% (0.7%) at backward (forward) rapidity. J / ψ average transverse momentum and p T broadening A first insight into the modification of J / ψ production in p–Pb collisions can be obtained by studying theaverage transverse momentum (cid:104) p T (cid:105) and the average squared transverse momentum (cid:104) p (cid:105) as a function ofthe collision centrality. The (cid:104) p T (cid:105) and (cid:104) p (cid:105) are extracted for each centrality class by performing a fit ofthe p T -differential cross section with a widely used function proposed in Ref. [70] and defined as f ( p T ) = C p T ( + ( p T / p ) ) n , (3)where C , p , and n are free parameters of the fit. The central values of (cid:104) p T (cid:105) and (cid:104) p (cid:105) are obtained fromthe fit using the quadratic sum of statistical and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties of the data points.The uncertainties on the free parameters obtained from the fit are propagated to the values of (cid:104) p T (cid:105) and (cid:104) p (cid:105) . The statistical and systematic uncertainties on (cid:104) p T (cid:105) and (cid:104) p (cid:105) are obtained by performing the fitusing, respectively, only the statistical or the uncorrelated systematic uncertainties on the data points.The range of integration on p T for this calculation is limited to the p T interval 0 < p T <
16 GeV/ c .9entrality dependence of J / ψ and ψ ( ) production in p–Pb collisions ALICE Collaboration ) c (GeV/ T p )) c b / ( G e V / m ( T p d y / d s d - - - m + m fi y ALICE, Inclusive J/ - < cms y - = 8.16 TeV, NN s Pb - p Glob. syst. 0.9%ZN classes: ) · - (2 ) · - (10 ) · - (20 ) · - (40 ) · - (60 ) · - (80 ) c (GeV/ T p )) c b / ( G e V / m ( T p d y / d s d - - - m + m fi y ALICE, Inclusive J/ < 3.53 cms y = 8.16 TeV, 2.03 < NN s Pb - p Glob. syst. 0.7%ZN classes: ) · - (2 ) · - (10 ) · - (20 ) · - (40 ) · - (60 ) · - (80 Figure 2:
Inclusive J/ ψ p T -differential cross section for different centrality classes at backward (left) and forward(right) rapidity in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV. The vertical error bars, representing the statistical uncer-tainties, and the boxes around the points, representing the uncorrelated systematic uncertainties, are smaller thanthe marker. The global systematic uncertainty, which is correlated over centrality, rapidity, and p T and is obtainedas the quadratic sum of the systematic uncertainty of the branching ratio and the correlated systematic uncertaintyof σ MB , amounts to 0.9% (0.7%) at backward (forward) rapidity and is shown as text. Extending the integration range to infinity has a negligible effect with respect to the quoted uncertainties.Table 3 shows the values of (cid:104) p T (cid:105) and (cid:104) p (cid:105) of inclusive J / ψ for each centrality class. Both (cid:104) p T (cid:105) and (cid:104) p (cid:105) increase with increasing centrality, which indicates a hardening of the J / ψ p T distribution fromperipheral to central collisions in both rapidity intervals.The p T broadening defined as the difference between the average squared transverse momentum in p–Pband pp collisions ( ∆ (cid:104) p (cid:105) = (cid:104) p (cid:105) pPb − (cid:104) p (cid:105) pp ) can be used to quantify the nuclear effects on the J / ψ production [71–73]. The value of (cid:104) p (cid:105) pp is evaluated from the p T -differential cross section in pp colli-sions at √ s = .
16 TeV obtained with the interpolation procedure described in Ref. [40], and using thesame p T integration range as for p–Pb collisions. Figure 3 shows ∆ (cid:104) p (cid:105) as a function of the numberof binary collisions at backward and forward rapidity. In all cases, ∆ (cid:104) p (cid:105) is larger than zero, indicatinga broadening of the p T distribution in p–Pb collisions compared to pp collisions. For the most periph-eral collisions, corresponding to (cid:104) N coll (cid:105) ∼ .
5, the ∆ (cid:104) p (cid:105) measured at backward y is compatible, withinuncertainties, with that at forward y . In both backward and forward rapidity ranges the p T broadeningincreases with increasing centrality. However, the increase of ∆ (cid:104) p (cid:105) is stronger in the p-going directionthan in the Pb-going direction. Thus, nuclear effects appear to increase with the centrality of the collisionand to be stronger in the p-going than in the Pb-going direction. Here, it is worth noting that under the Table 3:
Values of (cid:104) p T (cid:105) and (cid:104) p (cid:105) of inclusive J / ψ in the range 0 < p T <
16 GeV/ c . The first uncertainty isstatistical while the second one is systematic. The values along with the systematic uncertainty obtained from thepp cross section interpolated to √ s = .
16 TeV are also indicated.
Pb–p ( − < y cms < − < y cms < (cid:104) p T (cid:105) (GeV/ c ) (cid:104) p (cid:105) (GeV / c ) (cid:104) p T (cid:105) (GeV/ c ) (cid:104) p (cid:105) (GeV / c )2–10% 2.753 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± / ψ and ψ ( ) production in p–Pb collisions ALICE Collaboration æ coll N Æ ) c / ( G e V pp æ T p Æ - p P b æ T p Æ - m + m fi y ALICE, Inclusive J/ = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb - p c < 16 GeV/ T p - < cms y - < 3.53 cms y = 5.02 TeV NN s Pb - p c < 15 GeV/ T p - < cms y - < 3.53 cms y = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb - p )eEnergy loss (Arleo and Peign - < cms y - < 3.53 cms y Figure 3: p T broadening of J/ ψ , ∆ (cid:104) p (cid:105) , as a function of (cid:104) N coll (cid:105) at backward (blue circles) and forward (redsquares) rapidity in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV compared to the results at √ s NN = .
02 TeV [29] and tothe energy loss model calculations [20]. The vertical error bars represent the statistical uncertainties and the boxesaround the data points the systematic uncertainties. naive assumption of a 2 → → ψ ( nS ) ), the sampled x ranges of the lead nucleicorrespond to the shadowing and anti-shadowing regions for the p-going and lead-going direction mea-surements, respectively. Also shown in Fig. 3 are the results at √ s NN = .
02 TeV [29]. The same trend of ∆ (cid:104) p (cid:105) as a function of (cid:104) N coll (cid:105) is seen at both collision energies in the two rapidity ranges. Overall, ∆ (cid:104) p (cid:105) slightly increases with the collision energy. The ∆ (cid:104) p (cid:105) as function of (cid:104) N coll (cid:105) is also compared in Fig. 3to the results of the energy loss model, which is based on a parameterisation of the prompt J/ ψ pp crosssection and includes coherent energy loss effects from the incoming and outgoing partons [20]. The bandin this model represents the uncertainty on the parton transport coefficient and the parameterisation usedfor the pp reference cross section. The model describes the centrality dependence of ∆ (cid:104) p (cid:105) at forwardrapidity reasonably well, but it underestimates the data at backward rapidity. J / ψ nuclear modification factor Figure 4 shows the p T -integrated Q pPb of J/ ψ as a function of (cid:104) N coll (cid:105) in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = . y , the production of inclusive J/ ψ in p–Pb collisionsis suppressed with respect to expectations from pp collisions for all centrality classes. Furthermore, Q pPb decreases with increasing collision centrality from a value of 0 . ± . ( stat . ) ± . ( syst . ) for the 80–90% centrality class to 0 . ± . ( stat . ) ± . ( syst . ) for the 2–10% centrality class. At backward y ,on the contrary, a significant suppression is seen for the most peripheral collisions ( Q − = . ± . ( stat . ) ± . ( syst . ) ) with Q pPb increasing with increasing centrality and reaching values above unityfor the most central collisions ( Q − = . ± . ( stat . ) ± . ( syst . ) ). The Q pPb as a function of (cid:104) N coll (cid:105) is compared with the results at √ s NN = .
02 TeV [29]. No strong dependence with the energy ofthe collision is observed in the two rapidity intervals.Three model calculations are also shown in Fig. 4 for comparison. First, a next-to-leading order (NLO)Colour Evaporation Model (CEM) [74] using the EPS09 parameterisation of the nuclear modification ofthe gluon PDF at NLO is shown and denoted as “EPS09s NLO + CEM". The band represents the system-atic uncertainty of the calculation, which is dominated by the uncertainty of the EPS09 parameterisation.The second one is the energy loss model that was described in the Section 4.2. Finally, the third one isa transport model [23] based on a thermal-rate equation framework, which implements the dissociationof charmonia in a hadron resonance gas. The fireball evolution implemented in this model includes thetransition from a short QGP phase into the hadron resonance gas, through a mixed phase. The modeluses a cc production cross section d σ cc / d y = .
57 mb and a prompt J/ ψ production cross section in ppcollisions of d σ ppJ / ψ / d y = . µ b. Shadowing effects are included through the EPS09 parameterisation.11entrality dependence of J / ψ and ψ ( ) production in p–Pb collisions ALICE CollaborationIn this case, the upper (lower) limit of this calculation corresponds to a 10% (25%) contribution of nu-clear shadowing. The three models provide a satisfactory description of the centrality dependence ofthe inclusive J/ ψ Q pPb at forward rapidity. However, at backward rapidity, all three calculations show aslightly decreasing trend of Q pPb with increasing centrality that appears opposite to the one indicated bythe data.It is worth noting that the model calculations discussed above are for prompt J/ ψ while the inclusivemeasurements contain a contribution from non-prompt J/ ψ too. The Q promptpPb can be extracted from Q inclpPb using the relation Q promptpPb = Q inclpPb + f B · ( Q inclpPb − Q non-promptpPb ), where f B is the ratio of non-prompt to promptJ/ ψ production cross sections in pp collisions and Q non-promptpPb is the nuclear modification factor of the non-prompt J/ ψ mesons. The value of f B is about 0.12 and was calculated from the LHCb measurements for2 < y < . p T <
14 GeV/ c in pp collisions at √ s = ψ with p T <
14 GeV/ c measured by LHCb varies between 0 . ± .
11 and 1 . ± . . ± .
07 and 0 . ± .
09) in the backward (forward) rapidity interval of interest in p–Pb collisionsat √ s NN = .
16 TeV [41]. However, the centrality dependence of Q non-promptpPb has not been measured yet,therefore Q promptpPb is estimated for each centrality class under the two extreme hypotheses of Q non-promptpPb = .
75 (0.85) and Q non-promptpPb = .
95 (1.25) at forward (backward) rapidity. These hypotheses correspondto the same relative variation of Q non-promptpPb with centrality as observed for Q inclpPb . The differences between Q promptpPb and Q inclpPb are found to be below 9% and 5% at backward and forward rapidity, respectively. Thus,the conclusions outlined above, and also in the following, are expected to remain valid also for promptJ/ ψ . J / ψ Q pPb as a function of p T Figure 5 shows the inclusive J/ ψ Q pPb as a function of p T at backward and forward rapidity for allcentrality classes considered in this analysis. At backward rapidity, a slight suppression is seen at low p T for all centralities. However, while almost no p T dependence is observed for the most peripheralcollisions, for all other centralities Q pPb increases with p T reaching a plateau for p T (cid:38) c , with thevalue of the plateau being largest for more central collisions. For the three most central classes, Q pPb isabove unity for p T (cid:38) c . A similar behavior is also observed for prompt D mesons at midrapidity æ coll N Æ p P b Q - m + m fi y ALICE, Inclusive J/ c < 20 GeV/ T p - < cms y - = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb - p = 5.02 TeV NN s Pb - p = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb - p EPS09s NLO + CEM (Vogt et al.))eEnergy loss (Arleo and PeignTransport Model (Du and Rapp) æ coll N Æ p P b Q - m + m fi y ALICE, Inclusive J/ c < 20 GeV/ T p < 3.53, cms y NN s Pb - p = 5.02 TeV NN s Pb - p = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb - p EPS09s NLO + CEM (Vogt et al.))eEnergy loss (Arleo and PeignTransport Model (Du and Rapp) Figure 4:
Inclusive J/ ψ Q pPb as a function of (cid:104) N coll (cid:105) at backward (left) and forward (right) rapidity in p–Pb colli-sions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV compared with the results at √ s NN = .
02 TeV [29] and theoretical models [20, 23, 74].The vertical error bars represent the statistical uncertainties and the boxes around the data points the uncorrelatedsystematic uncertainties. The boxes centered at Q pPb = / ψ and ψ ( ) production in p–Pb collisions ALICE Collaboration ) c (GeV/ T p p P b Q - m + m fi y ALICE, Inclusive J/ 2.96 - < cms y - = 8.16 TeV, NN s Pb - p - -
10 40% -
20 60% -
40 80% -
60 90% - ) c (GeV/ T p p P b Q - m + m fi y ALICE, Inclusive J/ < 3.53 cms y = 8.16 TeV, 2.03 < NN s Pb - p - -
10 40% -
20 60% -
40 80% -
60 90% - Figure 5:
Inclusive J/ ψ Q pPb as a function of p T for various centrality classes at backward (left) and forward(right) rapidity. The vertical error bars represent the statistical uncertainties and the open boxes around the datapoints the uncorrelated systematic uncertainties. The full coloured boxes centered at Q pPb = (cid:104) T pPb (cid:105) , and F norm , while the full black box on the left of each panel showsthe global systematic uncertainties. ( − . < y cms < .
04) measured in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV [75]. In contrast, at forwardrapidity, Q pPb is below or consistent with unity for all p T in all centrality classes. At low p T , a centralitydependent hierarchy of Q pPb is observed, showing a stronger suppression in central collisions comparedto peripheral ones. For all centralities, Q pPb smoothly increases towards unity at high p T .The different shapes of the evolution of Q pPb with p T for the various centralities can be better appreciatedby forming the ratio Q PC of the Q pPb in peripheral to that in central collisions. Figure 6 shows the inclu-sive J/ ψ Q PC as a function of p T at backward and forward rapidity. The centrality-correlated systematicuncertainties cancel when calculating the ratio. The Q PC could, therefore, provide stronger constraints tothe theoretical calculations. Transport model calculations by Du et al. [23] are also shown in Fig. 6 forcomparison. At backward rapidity, the model calculations tend to overestimate the measured Q PC for allcentrality classes. The centrality dependent hierarchy of the measured Q PC is also not reproduced by themodel calculation. At forward rapidity, the transport model calculations qualitatively describe the p T andcentrality dependence of the inclusive J/ ψ Q PC , but do systematically overestimate the measurements.The J/ ψ Q pPb as a function of p T is shown separately for the six centrality classes in Figs. 7 and 8 forthe backward and forward rapidity regions and is compared with the results at √ s NN = .
02 TeV [29]and the same model calculations discussed previously. The results are similar at both collision energiesin the two rapidity ranges, indicating that the mechanisms behind the modification of the J/ ψ productionin p–Pb collisions do not depend strongly on the collision energy. It is worth noting that the p T range isextended up to 16 GeV/c at √ s NN = .
16 TeV and that the most peripheral centrality is 80–90% at thehighest energy while it was 80–100% at the lowest one.At backward rapidity, the EPS09s NLO + CEM [74] calculations show a mild increase of Q pPb with p T for all centralities, but more pronounced towards more central collisions. The EPS09s NLO + CEM Q pPb is above unity for all centralities but the strength of the anti-shadowing effect is stronger the morecentral the collisions are. The description of the data by the EPS09s NLO + CEM calculations is ratherpoor, except for the 40–60% centrality class. For more central collisions the calculations underestimatethe data, but overestimate them for more peripheral collisions. Similar observations can be drawn fromthe energy loss [20] calculations, which in the common p T region are compatible with the EPS09s NLO+ CEM calculations. Only for the more central collisions the p T dependence appears steeper for theenergy loss model and closer to the data, but the overall magnitude is lower than the measured Q pPb . The13entrality dependence of J / ψ and ψ ( ) production in p–Pb collisions ALICE Collaborationtransport model [23] calculations, which are in general terms lower than the EPS09 + CEM and quitesimilar to the energy loss ones, only describe the inclusive J/ ψ Q pPb in the 40–60% centrality class, whileunderestimating it for more central collisions and overestimating it for more peripheral ones.At forward rapidity, the differences between the EPS09 + CEM and the energy loss calculations are morepronounced. On the contrary, the transport model calculations are rather similar to the EPS09 + CEMones, though on the lower edge. The uncertainties of the model calculations are also larger at forwardthan at backward rapidity, especially for the most central collisions. The description of the data by theEPS09 + CEM calculations is fair for all centralities, especially for p T (cid:38) c . Below 4 GeV/ c ,the model tends to overestimate the measured Q pPb . The p T dependence of the energy loss calculationappears steeper than that in data, except for the most peripheral class. The model tends to underestimatethe measured Q pPb at low p T and to overestimate it at high p T in all the other centrality classes. Thetransport model describes the data fairly well in all centrality classes for p T (cid:46) c but tends tooverestimate the Q pPb at higher p T . ) c (GeV/ T p P C Q - < cms y - = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb - , p - m + m fi y ALICE, Inclusive J/
Data Transport Model (Du and Rapp) PC Q 10% -
20% / 2 -
10 10% -
40% / 2 -
20 10% -
60% / 2 -
40 10% -
80% / 2 -
60 10% -
90% / 2 -
80 00000 00000 ) c (GeV/ T p P C Q < 2.53 cms y NN s Pb - , p - m + m fi y ALICE, Inclusive J/
Data Transport Model (Du and Rapp) PC Q 10% -
20% / 2 -
10 10% -
40% / 2 -
20 10% -
60% / 2 -
40 10% -
80% / 2 -
60 10% -
90% / 2 -
80 00000 00000
Figure 6:
Inclusive J/ ψ Q PC as a function of p T for various centrality classes at backward (left) and forward (right)rapidity compared to the theoretical calculations [23]. The vertical error bars represent the statistical uncertaintiesand the boxes around the data points the uncorrelated systematic uncertainties. The boxes centered at Q PC = (cid:104) T pPb (cid:105) , and F norm . / ψ and ψ ( ) production in p–Pb collisions ALICE Collaboration (GeV/c) T p p P b Q - - < cms y - , - m + m fi y ALICE, Inclusive J/ = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb - p = 5.02 TeV NN s Pb - p = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb - p EPS09s NLO + CEM (Vogt et al.))eEnergy loss (Arleo and PeignTransport Model (Du and Rapp) (GeV/c) T p p P b Q - - < cms y - , - m + m fi y ALICE, Inclusive J/ = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb - p = 5.02 TeV NN s Pb - p = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb - p EPS09s NLO + CEM (Vogt et al.))eEnergy loss (Arleo and PeignTransport Model (Du and Rapp) (GeV/c) T p p P b Q - - < cms y - , - m + m fi y ALICE, Inclusive J/ = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb - p = 5.02 TeV NN s Pb - p = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb - p EPS09s NLO + CEM (Vogt et al.))eEnergy loss (Arleo and PeignTransport Model (Du and Rapp) (GeV/c) T p p P b Q - - < cms y - , - m + m fi y ALICE, Inclusive J/ = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb - p = 5.02 TeV NN s Pb - p = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb - p EPS09s NLO + CEM (Vogt et al.))eEnergy loss (Arleo and PeignTransport Model (Du and Rapp) (GeV/c) T p p P b Q - - < cms y - , - m + m fi y ALICE, Inclusive J/ = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb - p = 5.02 TeV NN s Pb - p = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb - p EPS09s NLO + CEM (Vogt et al.))eEnergy loss (Arleo and PeignTransport Model (Du and Rapp) (GeV/c) T p p P b Q - < cms y - , - m + m fi y ALICE, Inclusive J/ - = 8.16 TeV, 80 NN s Pb - p 100% - = 5.02 TeV, 80 NN s Pb - p = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb - p EPS09s NLO + CEM (Vogt et al.))eEnergy loss (Arleo and PeignTransport Model (Du and Rapp) Figure 7:
Inclusive J/ ψ Q pPb as a function of p T for 2–10%, 10–20%, 20–40%, 40–60%, 60–80% and 80–90%ZN centrality classes at backward rapidity in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV compared with the results at √ s NN = .
02 TeV [29] and with the theoretical calculations [20, 23, 74]. The vertical error bars show the statisticaluncertainties, the open boxes the uncorrelated systematic uncertainties, and the full boxes centered at Q pPb = / ψ and ψ ( ) production in p–Pb collisions ALICE Collaboration (GeV/c) T p p P b Q - < 3.53, 2 cms y , 2.03 < - m + m fi y ALICE, Inclusive J/ = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb - p = 5.02 TeV NN s Pb - p = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb - p EPS09s NLO + CEM (Vogt et al.))eEnergy loss (Arleo and PeignTransport Model (Du and Rapp) (GeV/c) T p p P b Q - < 3.53, 10 cms y , 2.03 < - m + m fi y ALICE, Inclusive J/ = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb - p = 5.02 TeV NN s Pb - p = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb - p EPS09s NLO + CEM (Vogt et al.))eEnergy loss (Arleo and PeignTransport Model (Du and Rapp) (GeV/c) T p p P b Q - < 3.53, 20 cms y , 2.03 < - m + m fi y ALICE, Inclusive J/ = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb - p = 5.02 TeV NN s Pb - p = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb - p EPS09s NLO + CEM (Vogt et al.))eEnergy loss (Arleo and PeignTransport Model (Du and Rapp) (GeV/c) T p p P b Q - < 3.53, 40 cms y , 2.03 < - m + m fi y ALICE, Inclusive J/ = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb - p = 5.02 TeV NN s Pb - p = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb - p EPS09s NLO + CEM (Vogt et al.))eEnergy loss (Arleo and PeignTransport Model (Du and Rapp) (GeV/c) T p p P b Q - < 3.53, 60 cms y , 2.03 < - m + m fi y ALICE, Inclusive J/ = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb - p = 5.02 TeV NN s Pb - p = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb - p EPS09s NLO + CEM (Vogt et al.))eEnergy loss (Arleo and PeignTransport Model (Du and Rapp) (GeV/c) T p p P b Q < 3.53 cms y , 2.03 < - m + m fi y ALICE, Inclusive J/ 90% - = 8.16 TeV, 80 NN s Pb - p 100% - = 5.02 TeV, 80 NN s Pb - p = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb - p EPS09s NLO + CEM (Vogt et al.))eEnergy loss (Arleo and PeignTransport Model (Du and Rapp) Figure 8:
Inclusive J/ ψ Q pPb as a function of p T for 2–10%, 10–20%, 20–40%, 40–60%, 60–80% and 80–90%ZN centrality classes at forward rapidity in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV compared with the results at √ s NN = .
02 TeV [29] and with theoretical calculations [20, 23, 74]. The vertical error bars show the statisticaluncertainties, the open boxes the uncorrelated systematic uncertainties, and the full boxes centered at Q pPb = ψ (2S) to J/ ψ ratio and double ratio The relative production of the excited ψ (2S) state compared to that of the J/ ψ state can be quantifiedby the ψ (2S)/J/ ψ ratio, which is defined here as B.R. ψ ( ) → µ + µ − σ ψ ( ) /B.R. J / ψ → µ + µ − σ J / ψ . The relativemodification of the production of the two states in p–Pb collisions with respect to pp collisions is thenobtained by comparing ψ (2S)/J/ ψ ratio in the two collisions systems. Several systematic uncertainties16entrality dependence of J / ψ and ψ ( ) production in p–Pb collisions ALICE Collaborationcancel in the ψ (2S)/J/ ψ ratio, and the remaining ones are due to the signal extraction and the MC inputshapes. The centrality dependence of the ψ (2S)/J/ ψ ratio at backward and forward rapidity in p–Pbcollisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV are shown in Fig. 9. The results are compared with the same ratio in p–Pbcollisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV [30] as well as in pp collisions at √ s = ψ (2S)/J/ ψ ratio does not exhibit any significant dependence on the collision energy. Secondly, the ratio appearsto be smaller in p–Pb than in pp collisions, in both explored rapidity regions and for all centralities,except the most peripheral, where the uncertainty is considerably large, and the most central ones. Here,it is important to note that also no significant energy dependence is observed in the ψ (2S)/J/ ψ ratioin pp collisions [58]. Thus, the production of the ψ (2S) in p–Pb collisions appears to be suppressedcompared to that of the J/ ψ with respect to the expectation from pp collisions. Thirdly, given the currentexperimental uncertainties, no clear trend of the ratio as a function of centrality can be drawn. Finally,the suppression of the ψ (2S) relative to the J/ ψ in p–Pb compared to pp collisions appears to be strongerin the Pb-going than in the p-going direction.The same conclusions can be also drawn from the so-called double ratio, i.e. the ratio of the ψ (2S) to the J/ ψ cross section in p–Pb collisions divided by the same ratio in pp collisions, [ σ ψ ( ) / σ J / ψ ] pPb / [ σ ψ ( ) / σ J / ψ ] pp . Figure 10 shows the double ratio [ σ ψ ( ) / σ J / ψ ] pPb / [ σ ψ ( ) / σ J / ψ ] pp asa function of centrality in the backward and forward rapidity regions for p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = . √ s NN = .
02 TeV [30]. Calculations from the Comovers + EPS09LO model [22] are also shown inFig. 10 for comparison. In the Comovers + EPS09LO model, resonances may be dissociated via inter-actions with “comoving particles" (their nature, partonic or hadronic, not being defined in the model)produced in the same rapidity region. The dissociation is governed by the comover interaction crosssections, σ co − J / ψ = .
65 mb and σ co − ψ ( ) = ψ and the ψ (2S) and is thus canceled in the ratio. Overall, the agreement betweenthe model calculations and the measurements is good at both collision energies. The decrease of thedouble ratio with increasing collision energy in the model is due to the increase of the comover density.The measurement uncertainties do not allow for the experimental confirmation of such decrease of thedouble ratio. æ coll N Æ y J / s -m + mfiy J / / B . R . ( S ) ys -m + mfi ( S ) y B . R . = 8.16 TeV, global unc = 5.2% NN s Pb - p = 5.02 TeV, global unc = 2% NN s Pb - p < 4 cms y = 7 TeV, 2.5 < s pp - m + m fi (2S) y , y ALICE, Inclusive J/ c < 20 GeV/ T p - < cms y - æ coll N Æ y J / s -m + mfiy J / / B . R . ( S ) ys -m + mfi ( S ) y B . R . = 8.16 TeV, global unc = 5.9% NN s Pb - p = 5.02 TeV, global unc = 1% NN s Pb - p < 4 cms y = 7 TeV, 2.5 < s pp - m + m fi (2S) y , y ALICE, Inclusive J/ c < 20 GeV/ T p < 3.53, cms y Figure 9:
B.R. ψ ( ) → µ + µ − σ ψ ( ) /B.R. J / ψ → µ + µ − σ J / ψ as a function of (cid:104) N coll (cid:105) at backward (left) and forward (right)rapidity compared with the measurement in pp collisions at √ s = √ s NN = .
02 TeV [30]. Vertical error bars represent the statisticaluncertainties, while the open boxes correspond to the systematic uncertainties. / ψ and ψ ( ) production in p–Pb collisions ALICE Collaboration æ coll N Æ pp ] y J / s / ( S ) ys / [ p P b ] y J / s / ( S ) ys [ Data Comovers (Ferreiro) = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb - p = 5.02 TeV NN s Pb - p - m + m fi (2S) y , y ALICE, Inclusive J/ c < 20 GeV/ T p - < cms y - æ coll N Æ pp ] y J / s / ( S ) ys / [ p P b ] y J / s / ( S ) ys [ Data Comovers (Ferreiro) = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb - p = 5.02 TeV NN s Pb - p - m + m fi (2S) y , y ALICE, Inclusive J/ c < 20 GeV/ T p < 3.53, cms y Figure 10:
Double ratio [ σ ψ ( ) / σ J / ψ ] pPb / [ σ ψ ( ) / σ J / ψ ] pp as a function of (cid:104) N coll (cid:105) at backward (left) and forward(right) rapidity compared with the one at √ s NN = .
02 TeV [29]. The vertical error bars represent the statistical un-certainties and the open boxes around the data points the uncorrelated systematic uncertainties. The boxes aroundunity represent the correlated systematic uncertainty and correspond to the uncertainty on the ratio ψ ( S ) / J / ψ in pp collisions. Experimental points are compared with the theoretical predictions of the comovers model at √ s NN = .
02 TeV (green line [22]) and √ s NN = .
16 TeV (blue line [76, 77]). ψ (2S) nuclear modification factor The nuclear modification factor of the ψ (2S) is calculated using Eq. 2. Figure 11 shows the inclusive ψ (2S) Q pPb as a function of (cid:104) N coll (cid:105) , for the backward and forward rapidity intervals, compared with theinclusive J/ ψ Q pPb . At forward rapidity, the suppression and its centrality dependence are similar for the ψ (2S) and the J/ ψ . At backward rapidity, on the contrary, a systematically stronger suppression of the ψ (2S) relative to the J/ ψ is observed, except for the most peripheral and most central collisions, wherethe large uncertainties prevent a firm conclusion. The ψ (2S) Q pPb at √ s NN = .
16 TeV shows the samedependence with the centrality of the collision than at √ s NN = .
02 TeV [29].Also shown in Fig. 11 are the results of model calculations. The EPS09s NLO + CEM calculations [74]of Q pPb are very similar for both ψ (2S) and J/ ψ . The model fails to describe ψ (2S) results at forwardrapidity, while the J/ ψ results lie in the lower edge of the model calculation. At backward rapidity,the model calculation is close to the J/ ψ data, although exhibiting different centrality trends, but failsat explaining the stronger ψ (2S) suppression. The transport model [23] calculations yield significantlysmaller Q pPb for the ψ (2S) than for the J/ ψ , with the difference being more pronounced in the Pb-goingdirection, where this difference increases with increasing centrality. The description of the forwardrapidity results is fair for both charmonium states. At backward rapidity, the model tends to overestimatethe ψ (2S) measurement in the most peripheral centrality classes. In this model, the lower Q pPb forthe ψ (2S) than for the J/ ψ is caused by a larger suppression of the ψ (2S) in the short QGP and thehadron resonance gas phases. Finally, the Comovers + EPS09LO model [22] predicts a significantlylower Q pPb for the ψ (2S) than for the J/ ψ in the backward rapidity region. In the forward rapidityregion the model uncertainties are too large to draw any firm conclusion. It is worth noting that themodel uncertainties are largely correlated between the J/ ψ and ψ (2S), as they are dominantly due to thenPDF parameterisation, and thus mostly cancel when calculating the double ratio as shown in Fig. 10.Nuclear shadowing is included using the EPS09 LO parameterisation [18] and the uncertainties of thisparameterisation dominate the uncertainties of the model. The effect of the comovers, responsible for thestronger suppression of the ψ (2S) compared to the J/ ψ , is stronger at backward rapidity due to the largerdensity of comovers in the Pb-going direction [22]. This model provides a fair description of ψ (2S) Q pPb at backward rapidity. However, the trend with centrality exhibited for the J/ ψ does not reproduce the one18entrality dependence of J / ψ and ψ ( ) production in p–Pb collisions ALICE Collaboration æ coll N Æ p P b Q (2S) y y J/ - m + m fi (2S) y , y = 8.16 TeV, Inclusive J/ NN s Pb - ALICE, p c < 20 GeV/ T p - < cms y - Transport Model (Du and Rapp) y J/ (2S) y EPS09LO (Ferreiro) + Comovers y J/ (2S) y EPS09sNLO + CEM (Vogt et al.) y J/ (2S) y æ coll N Æ p P b Q (2S) y y J/ - m + m fi (2S) y , y = 8.16 TeV, Inclusive J/ NN s Pb - ALICE, p c < 20 GeV/ T p < 3.53, cms y y J/ (2S) y EPS09LO (Ferreiro) + Comovers y J/ (2S) y EPS09sNLO + CEM (Vogt et al.) y J/ (2S) y Figure 11:
Inclusive ψ (2S) Q pPb as a function of (cid:104) N coll (cid:105) at backward (left) and forward (right) rapidity comparedto J/ ψ Q pPb and with the theoretical models. Vertical error bars represent the statistical uncertainties, while theopen boxes around the data points correspond to the uncorrelated systematic uncertainties. The red and blue boxesaround unity represent the correlated systematic uncertainty specific to the J/ ψ and ψ (2S), respectively. The greybox corresponds to the common systematic uncertainty correlated over (cid:104) N coll (cid:105) . observed in the data. Although not shown in the figure, the energy loss model [20] predicts sensibly thesame Q pPb for the two reported charmonium states. Only models including final-state interactions areable to describe, at least qualitatively, a stronger suppression of the less bound ψ ( S ) state than of themore tightly bound J/ ψ state.As for J / ψ , it is possible to estimate the Q promptpPb of ψ ( ) . In this case, the value of f B is about 0.18and it is calculated using the LHCb measurements in pp collisions at √ s = p T <
16 GeV/ c and 2 < y < . ψ ( ) Q pPb has not been measured yet as a function ofcentrality, it is conservatively assumed to vary between 0.4 and 1 in all centrality classes for both forwardand backward rapidity. That variation range for non-prompt ψ ( ) Q pPb englobes centrality-integratednon-prompt ψ ( ) R pPb measured by LHCb at backward and forward rapidity in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV [37] as well as all the inclusive ψ ( ) Q pPb reported here. The Q promptpPb calculatedunder these assumptions is compatible within uncertainties with the inclusive one, showing a maximumdifference of 25% with respect to the latter. The study of the centrality dependence of the J/ ψ and ψ (2S) production in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV using the energy deposited in the neutron ZDC located in the Pb-going direction as the cen-trality estimator is presented. The J/ ψ (cid:104) p T (cid:105) and (cid:104) p (cid:105) are reported for different centrality classes in theforward and backward rapidity regions covered by the ALICE muon spectrometer. The ∆ (cid:104) p (cid:105) measure-ment shows a p T broadening, relative to pp collisions, that increases from peripheral to central collisions,with larger values at forward than at backward y , except for the most peripheral events where similar val-ues are seen in both rapidity intervals.At forward rapidity, a clear suppression of J/ ψ in p–Pb collisions compared to pp collisions is observed,which increases from peripheral to central collisions. At backward rapidity, the trend is opposite: theproduction of J/ ψ relative to expectations from pp collisions is suppressed in peripheral collisions butenhanced in central collisions. The p T - and centrality-differential measurements of the J/ ψ Q pPb indicatea stronger suppression in central than in peripheral collisions at low p T and forward rapidity, but with Q pPb approaching unity at high p T for all centrality classes. At backward rapidity, an enhancement is19entrality dependence of J / ψ and ψ ( ) production in p–Pb collisions ALICE Collaborationobserved in central compared to peripheral collisions for p T > c .The ratio B.R. ψ ( ) → µ + µ − σ ψ ( ) /B.R. J / ψ → µ + µ − σ J / ψ is compatible with the pp measurement in the mostcentral and most peripheral collisions (within large uncertainties), whereas a decrease is observed in thesemi-central and semi-peripheral events. Thus, in those centrality classes, the ψ (2S) production relativeto the J/ ψ is suppressed in p–Pb collisions compared to pp collisions. The nuclear modification factor ofthe ψ (2S) is compatible, within large uncertainties, with the one of the J/ ψ in the most central and mostperipheral events, but a stronger suppression of the ψ (2S) is observed in semi-central and semi-peripheralevents, especially at backward rapidity.The results presented here at √ s NN = .
16 TeV confirm with improved statistical precision the earlierobservations at √ s NN = .
02 TeV and extend the p T reach up to 16 GeV/ c for the J/ ψ analysis. Nosignificant dependence with collision energy is observed.Theoretical models employing nPDF or energy loss mechanisms describe the centrality dependence ofthe J/ ψ nuclear modification factor at forward rapidity but do not reproduce the shape at backwardrapidity. The p T dependence of the J/ ψ Q pPb in central collisions is not well described by the nPDF orenergy loss based models, while the agreement is fair in peripheral collisions.Among the three models considered, the one based only on nPDF cannot reproduce the ψ (2S) suppres-sion. The model including final-state comover interactions describes the stronger ψ (2S) suppression atbackward and forward rapidity, although the large model uncertainty prevents a firm conclusion at for-ward rapidity. The transport model is in good agreement at forward rapidity, but overestimates the ψ (2S)results at backward rapidity, especially in peripheral collisions.The results presented here stress the need for a sound theoretical understanding of the production ofquarkonia, including the excited states, in proton–nucleus collisions. Further experimental results ex-pected from the future Run 3 and Run 4 of the LHC will push further our understanding of nucleareffects. Acknowledgements
The ALICE Collaboration would like to thank all its engineers and technicians for their invaluable con-tributions to the construction of the experiment and the CERN accelerator teams for the outstandingperformance of the LHC complex. The ALICE Collaboration gratefully acknowledges the resources andsupport 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 buildingand running the ALICE detector: A. I. Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics In-stitute) 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 National-stiftung für Forschung, Technologie und Entwicklung, Austria; Ministry of Communications and HighTechnologies, National Nuclear Research Center, Azerbaijan; Conselho Nacional de DesenvolvimentoCientífico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (Finep), Fundação de Amparo àPesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) and Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS),Brazil; 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 Educationand Croatian Science Foundation, Croatia; Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear(CEADEN), Cubaenergía, Cuba; Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic, CzechRepublic; The Danish Council for Independent Research | Natural Sciences, the VILLUM FONDEN andDanish 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 Physiquedes Particules (IN2P3) and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), France; Bundesmin-20entrality dependence of J / ψ and ψ ( ) production in p–Pb collisions ALICE Collaborationisterium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) and GSI Helmholtzzentrum für SchwerionenforschungGmbH, Germany; General Secretariat for Research and Technology, Ministry of Education, Researchand Religions, Greece; National Research, Development and Innovation Office, Hungary; Departmentof Atomic Energy Government of India (DAE), Department of Science and Technology, Governmentof India (DST), University Grants Commission, Government of India (UGC) and Council of Scientificand Industrial Research (CSIR), India; Indonesian Institute of Science, Indonesia; Centro Fermi - MuseoStorico 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), Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and Japan So-ciety 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) andDirección General de Asuntos del Personal Academico (DGAPA), Mexico; Nederlandse Organisatievoor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), Netherlands; The Research Council of Norway, Norway;Commission on Science and Technology for Sustainable Development in the South (COMSATS), Pak-istan; Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Peru; Ministry of Science and Higher Education, NationalScience Centre and WUT ID-UB, Poland; Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information andNational Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), Republic of Korea; Ministry of Education and ScientificResearch, Institute of Atomic Physics and Ministry of Research and Innovation and Institute of AtomicPhysics, Romania; Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR), Ministry of Education and Science ofthe Russian Federation, National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Russian Science Foundation andRussian Foundation for Basic Research, Russia; Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport ofthe Slovak Republic, Slovakia; National Research Foundation of South Africa, South Africa; SwedishResearch Council (VR) and Knut & Alice Wallenberg Foundation (KAW), Sweden; European Organi-zation for Nuclear Research, Switzerland; Suranaree University of Technology (SUT), National Scienceand Technology Development Agency (NSDTA) and Office of the Higher Education Commission underNRU project of Thailand, Thailand; Turkish Atomic Energy Agency (TAEK), Turkey; National Academyof 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 ofEnergy, Office of Nuclear Physics (DOE NP), United States of America. References [1] G. T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, and G. Lepage, “Rigorous QCD analysis of inclusive annihilation andproduction of heavy quarkonium”,
Phys. Rev. D (1995) 1125–1171, arXiv:hep-ph/9407339 .[Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 55, 5853 (1997)].[2] B. Paul, M. Mandal, P. Roy, and S. Chattapadhyay, “Systematic study of charmonium productionin p − p collisions at LHC energies”, J. Phys. G no. 6, (2015) 065101, arXiv:1411.6783[hep-ph] .[3] H. Fritzsch, “Producing Heavy Quark Flavors in Hadronic Collisions: A Test of QuantumChromodynamics”, Phys. Lett. B (1977) 217–221.[4] T. Matsui and H. Satz, “ J / ψ Suppression by Quark-Gluon Plasma Formation”,
Phys. Lett.
B178 (1986) 416–422.[5] S. Digal, P. Petreczky, and H. Satz, “Quarkonium feed down and sequential suppression”,
Phys.Rev.
D64 (2001) 094015, arXiv:hep-ph/0106017 [hep-ph] .[6]
CMS
Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al. , “Observation of Sequential Upsilon Suppression inPbPb Collisions”,
Phys. Rev. Lett. (2012) 222301, arXiv:1208.2826 [nucl-ex] . [Erratum:Phys. Rev. Lett.120,no.19,199903(2018)]. 21entrality dependence of J / ψ and ψ ( ) production in p–Pb collisions ALICE Collaboration[7] CMS
Collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al. , “Suppression of ϒ ( S ) , ϒ ( S ) and ϒ ( S ) production inPbPb collisions at √ s NN = .
76 TeV”,
Phys. Lett.
B770 (2017) 357–379, arXiv:1611.01510[nucl-ex] .[8]
CMS
Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al. , “Suppression of Excited ϒ States Relative to theGround State in Pb − Pb Collisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV”,
Phys. Rev. Lett. no. 14, (2018)142301, arXiv:1706.05984 [hep-ex] .[9]
CMS
Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al. , “Measurement of nuclear modification factors of ϒ (1S), ϒ (2S), and ϒ (3S) mesons in PbPb collisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV”,
Phys. Lett.
B790 (2019)270–293, arXiv:1805.09215 [hep-ex] .[10]
ALICE
Collaboration, S. Acharya et al. , “ ϒ suppression at forward rapidity in Pb − Pb collisionsat √ s NN = .
02 TeV”,
Phys. Lett.
B790 (2019) 89–101, arXiv:1805.04387 [nucl-ex] .[11] R. L. Thews, M. Schroedter, and J. Rafelski, “Enhanced J / ψ production in deconfined quarkmatter”, Phys. Rev.
C63 (2001) 054905, arXiv:hep-ph/0007323 [hep-ph] .[12] P. Braun-Munzinger and J. Stachel, “(Non)thermal aspects of charmonium production and a newlook at J/ ψ suppression”, Phys. Lett.
B490 (2000) 196–202, arXiv:nucl-th/0007059[nucl-th] .[13]
ALICE
Collaboration, B. Abelev et al. , “ J / ψ suppression at forward rapidity in Pb − Pb collisionsat √ s NN = .
76 TeV”,
Phys. Rev. Lett. (2012) 072301, arXiv:1202.1383 [hep-ex] .[14]
ALICE
Collaboration, B. Abelev et al. , “Centrality, rapidity and transverse momentumdependence of J / ψ suppression in Pb − Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
76 TeV”,
Phys. Lett.
B734 (2014) 314–327, arXiv:1311.0214 [nucl-ex] .[15]
ALICE
Collaboration, J. Adam et al. , “Differential studies of inclusive J/ ψ and ψ (2S) productionat forward rapidity in Pb − Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
76 TeV”,
JHEP (2016) 179, arXiv:1506.08804 [nucl-ex] .[16] ALICE
Collaboration, J. Adam et al. , “J/ ψ suppression at forward rapidity in Pb − Pb collisions at √ s NN = . TeV”,
Phys. Lett.
B766 (2017) 212–224, arXiv:1606.08197 [nucl-ex] .[17]
ALICE
Collaboration, S. Acharya et al. , “Studies of J/ ψ production at forward rapidity in Pb − Pbcollisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV”,
JHEP (2020) 041, arXiv:1909.03158 [nucl-ex] .[18] K. Eskola, H. Paukkunen, and C. Salgado, “EPS09: A New Generation of NLO and LO NuclearParton Distribution Functions”, JHEP (2009) 065, arXiv:0902.4154 [hep-ph] .[19] H. Fujii and K. Watanabe, “Heavy quark pair production in high energy pA collisions:Quarkonium”, Nucl.Phys.A (2013) 1–23, arXiv:1304.2221 [hep-ph] .[20] F. Arleo and S. Peigné, “Quarkonium suppression in heavy-ion collisions from coherent energyloss in cold nuclear matter”,
JHEP (2014) 073, arXiv:1407.5054 [hep-ph] .[21] E. Ferreiro, F. Fleuret, J. Lansberg, N. Matagne, and A. Rakotozafindrabe, “Upsilon production inp(d)A collisions at RHIC and the LHC”, Eur.Phys.J.C (2013) 2427, arXiv:1110.5047[hep-ph] .[22] E. G. Ferreiro, “Excited charmonium suppression in proton − nucleus collisions as a consequenceof comovers”, Phys. Lett.
B749 (2015) 98–103, arXiv:1411.0549 [hep-ph] .22entrality dependence of J / ψ and ψ ( ) production in p–Pb collisions ALICE Collaboration[23] X. Du and R. Rapp, “Sequential Regeneration of Charmonia in Heavy-Ion Collisions”, Nucl.Phys.
A943 (2015) 147–158, arXiv:1504.00670 [hep-ph] .[24] Y.-Q. Ma, R. Venugopalan, K. Watanabe, and H.-F. Zhang, “ ψ ( S ) versus J / ψ suppression inproton − nucleus collisions from factorization violating soft color exchanges”, Phys. Rev. C no. 1, (2018) 014909, arXiv:1707.07266 [hep-ph] .[25] ALICE
Collaboration, B. Abelev et al. , “ J / ψ production and nuclear effects in p − Pb collisions at √ S NN = .
02 TeV”,
JHEP (2014) 073, arXiv:1308.6726 [nucl-ex] .[26] ALICE
Collaboration, B. Abelev et al. , “Suppression of ψ (2S) production in p − Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV”,
JHEP (2014) 073, arXiv:1405.3796 [nucl-ex] .[27] ALICE
Collaboration, B. Abelev et al. , “Production of inclusive ϒ (1S) and ϒ (2S) in p − Pbcollisions at √ s NN = . TeV”,
Phys. Lett.
B740 (2015) 105–117, arXiv:1410.2234[nucl-ex] .[28]
ALICE
Collaboration, J. Adam et al. , “Rapidity and transverse-momentum dependence of theinclusive J/ ψ nuclear modification factor in p − Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV”,
JHEP (2015) 055, arXiv:1503.07179 [nucl-ex] .[29] ALICE
Collaboration, J. Adam et al. , “Centrality dependence of inclusive J/ ψ production inp − Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV”,
JHEP (2015) 127, arXiv:1506.08808 [nucl-ex] .[30] ALICE
Collaboration, J. Adam et al. , “Centrality dependence of ψ (2S) suppression in p − Pbcollisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV”,
JHEP (2016) 050, arXiv:1603.02816 [nucl-ex] .[31] ALICE
Collaboration, S. Acharya et al. , “Prompt and non-prompt J / ψ production and nuclearmodification at mid-rapidity in pPb collisions at √ s NN = . TeV”,
Eur. Phys. J.
C78 no. 6,(2018) 466, arXiv:1802.00765 [nucl-ex] .[32]
ATLAS
Collaboration, M. Aaboud et al. , “Measurement of quarkonium production in protonleadand protonproton collisions at 5 .
02 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,
Eur. Phys. J.
C78 no. 3,(2018) 171, arXiv:1709.03089 [nucl-ex] .[33]
CMS
Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al. , “Measurement of prompt and nonprompt J / ψ production in pp and pPb collisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV”,
Eur. Phys. J.
C77 no. 4, (2017) 269, arXiv:1702.01462 [nucl-ex] .[34]
CMS
Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al. , “Measurement of prompt ψ (2S) production crosssections in proton − lead and proton − proton collisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV”,
Phys. Lett.
B790 (2019) 509–532, arXiv:1805.02248 [hep-ex] .[35]
LHCb
Collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , “Study of J / ψ production and cold nuclear matter effects in p Pb collisions at √ s NN = JHEP (2014) 072, arXiv:1308.6729 [nucl-ex] .[36] LHCb
Collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , “Study of ϒ production and cold nuclear matter effects in p Pbcollisions at √ s NN = JHEP (2014) 094, arXiv:1405.5152 [nucl-ex] .[37] LHCb
Collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , “Study of ψ ( S ) production and cold nuclear matter effects in p Pb collisions at √ s NN = JHEP (2016) 133, arXiv:1601.07878 [nucl-ex] .[38] ALICE
Collaboration, D. Adamová et al. , “J/ ψ production as a function of charged-particlepseudorapidity density in p − Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV”,
Phys. Lett.
B776 (2018) 91–104, arXiv:1704.00274 [nucl-ex] . 23entrality dependence of J / ψ and ψ ( ) production in p–Pb collisions ALICE Collaboration[39] ALICE
Collaboration, S. Acharya et al. , “Search for collectivity with azimuthal J/ ψ -hadroncorrelations in high multiplicity p − Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
02 and 8.16 TeV”,
Phys. Lett.
B780 (2018) 7–20, arXiv:1709.06807 [nucl-ex] .[40]
ALICE
Collaboration, S. Acharya et al. , “Inclusive J/ ψ production at forward and backwardrapidity in p − Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV”,
JHEP (2018) 160, arXiv:1805.04381[nucl-ex] .[41] LHCb
Collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , “Prompt and nonprompt J/ ψ production and nuclearmodification in p Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV”,
Phys. Lett.
B774 (2017) 159.[42]
ALICE
Collaboration, S. Acharya et al. , “Measurement of nuclear effects on ψ ( ) production inp − Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV”, arXiv:2003.06053 [nucl-ex] .[43]
ALICE
Collaboration, S. Acharya et al. , “J/ ψ production as a function of charged-particlemultiplicity in p − Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV”, arXiv:2004.12673 [nucl-ex] .[44]
ALICE
Collaboration, S. Acharya et al. , “ ϒ production in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV”,
Phys. Lett. B (2020) 135486, arXiv:1910.14405 [nucl-ex] .[45]
LHCb
Collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , “Study of ϒ production in p Pb collisions at √ s NN = . JHEP (2018) 194, arXiv:1810.07655 [hep-ex] .[46] CMS
Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al. , “Event Activity Dependence of Y(nS) Production in √ s NN = .
02 TeV pPb and √ s = .
76 TeV pp Collisions”,
JHEP (2014) 103, arXiv:1312.6300 [nucl-ex] .[47] ALICE
Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al. , “The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC”,
JINST (2008) S08002.[48] ALICE
Collaboration, B. Abelev et al. , “Performance of the ALICE Experiment at the CERNLHC”,
Int. J. Mod. Phys.
A29 (2014) 1430044, arXiv:1402.4476 [nucl-ex] .[49]
ALICE
Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al. , “Alignment of the ALICE Inner Tracking System withcosmic-ray tracks”,
JINST (2010) P03003, arXiv:1001.0502 [physics.ins-det] .[50] ALICE
Collaboration, E. Abbas et al. , “Performance of the ALICE VZERO system”,
JINST (2013) P10016, arXiv:1306.3130 [nucl-ex] .[51] ALICE
Collaboration, “ALICE luminosity determination for p − Pb collisions at √ s NN = . ALICE-PUBLIC-2018-002 (Apr, 2018) . http://cds.cern.ch/record/2314660 .[52] M. Bondila et al. , “ALICE T0 detector”,
IEEE Trans.Nucl.Sci. (2005) 1705–1711.[53] ALICE
Collaboration, B. Abelev et al. , “Measurement of the Cross Section for ElectromagneticDissociation with Neutron Emission in Pb − Pb Collisions at √ s NN = .
76 TeV”,
Phys.Rev.Lett. (2012) 252302, arXiv:1203.2436 [nucl-ex] .[54]
ALICE
Collaboration, J. Adam et al. , “Centrality dependence of particle production in p − Pbcollisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV”,
Phys. Rev.
C91 no. 6, (2015) 064905, arXiv:1412.6828[nucl-ex] .[55]
ALICE
Collaboration, “Centrality determination in heavy ion collisions”,
ALICE-PUBLIC-2018-011 (Aug, 2018) . http://cds.cern.ch/record/2636623 .[56]
ALICE
Collaboration, “Quarkonium signal extraction in ALICE”,
ALICE-PUBLIC-2015-006 (Oct, 2015) . https://cds.cern.ch/record/2060096 .24entrality dependence of J / ψ and ψ ( ) production in p–Pb collisions ALICE Collaboration[57] Particle Data Group
Collaboration, M. Tanabashi et al. , “Review of Particle Physics”,
Phys. Rev.
D98 no. 3, (2018) 030001.[58]
ALICE
Collaboration, S. Acharya et al. , “Energy dependence of forward-rapidity J / ψ and ψ ( ) production in pp collisions at the LHC”, Eur. Phys. J.
C77 no. 6, (2017) 392, arXiv:1702.00557[hep-ex] .[59]
ALICE
Collaboration, B. Abelev et al. , “ J / ψ polarization in pp collisions at √ s = Phys.Rev. Lett. (2012) 082001, arXiv:1111.1630 [hep-ex] .[60]
ALICE
Collaboration, S. Acharya et al. , “Measurement of the inclusive J/ ψ polarization atforward rapidity in pp collisions at √ s = TeV”,
Eur. Phys. J.
C78 no. 7, (2018) 562, arXiv:1805.04374 [hep-ex] .[61]
CMS
Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al. , “Measurement of the Prompt J / ψ and ψ (2S)Polarizations in pp Collisions at √ s = Phys. Lett.
B727 (2013) 381–402, arXiv:1307.6070 [hep-ex] .[62]
LHCb
Collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , “Measurement of J / ψ polarization in pp collisions at √ s = Eur. Phys. J.
C73 no. 11, (2013) 2631, arXiv:1307.6379 [hep-ex] .[63]
LHCb
Collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , “Measurement of ψ ( S ) polarisation in pp collisions at √ s = Eur. Phys. J.
C74 no. 5, (2014) 2872, arXiv:1403.1339 [hep-ex] .[64] R. Brun, F. Bruyant, F. Carminati, S. Giani, M. Maire, A. McPherson, G. Patrick, and L. Urban,“GEANT Detector Description and Simulation Tool”,
CERN-W5013, CERN-W-5013, W5013,W-5013 (1994) .[65]
ALICE
Collaboration, B. Abelev et al. , “Measurement of quarkonium production at forwardrapidity in pp collisions at √ s = Eur. Phys. J.
C74 no. 8, (2014) 2974, arXiv:1403.3648[nucl-ex] .[66]
ALICE
Collaboration, J. Adam et al. , “Inclusive quarkonium production at forward rapidity in ppcollisions at √ s = Eur. Phys. J.
C76 no. 4, (2016) 184, arXiv:1509.08258 [hep-ex] .[67] Y.-Q. Ma, K. Wang, and K.-T. Chao, “ J / ψ ( ψ (cid:48) ) production at the Tevatron and LHC at O ( α s v ) innonrelativistic QCD”, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2011) 042002, arXiv:1009.3655 [hep-ph] .[68] Y.-Q. Ma and R. Venugopalan, “Comprehensive Description of J/ ψ Production in Proton − ProtonCollisions at Collider Energies”,
Phys. Rev. Lett. no. 19, (2014) 192301, arXiv:1408.4075[hep-ph] .[69]
LHCb
Collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , “Production of J/ ψ and ϒ mesons in pp collisions at √ s = JHEP (2013) 064, arXiv:1304.6977 [hep-ex] .[70] J. K. Yoh et al. , “Study of Scaling in Hadronic Production of Dimuons”, Phys. Rev. Lett. (1978)684. [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.41,1083(1978)].[71] Z.-B. Kang and J.-W. Qiu, “Transverse momentum broadening of vector boson production in highenergy nuclear collisions”, Phys. Rev. D (2008) 114027, arXiv:0802.2904 [hep-ph] .[72] Z.-B. Kang and J.-W. Qiu, “Nuclear modification of vector boson production in proton-leadcollisions at the LHC”, Phys. Lett. B (2013) 277–283, arXiv:1212.6541 [hep-ph] .[73] F. Arleo, R. Kolevatov, S. Peigné, and M. Rustamova, “Centrality and pT dependence of J/psisuppression in proton − nucleus collisions from parton energy loss”, JHEP (2013) 155, arXiv:1304.0901 [hep-ph] . 25entrality dependence of J / ψ and ψ ( ) production in p–Pb collisions ALICE Collaboration[74] D. C. McGlinchey, A. D. Frawley, and R. Vogt, “Impact parameter dependence of the nuclearmodification of J / ψ production in d + Au collisions at √ S NN =
200 GeV”,
Phys. Rev.
C87 no. 5,(2013) 054910, arXiv:1208.2667 [nucl-th] .[75]
ALICE
Collaboration, S. Acharya et al. , “Measurement of prompt D , D + , D ∗ + , and D + S production in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = 5.02 TeV”, JHEP (2019) 092, arXiv:1906.03425[nucl-ex] .[76] J. L. Albacete et al. , “Predictions for p + Pb Collisions at √ s NN = Int. J. Mod. Phys. E no. 9, (2016) 1630005, arXiv:1605.09479 [hep-ph] .[77] J. L. Albacete et al. , “Predictions for Cold Nuclear Matter Effects in p + Pb Collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV”,
Nucl. Phys.
A972 (2018) 18–85, arXiv:1707.09973 [hep-ph] .[78]
LHCb
Collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , “Measurement of ψ ( S ) meson production in pp collisions at √ s = Eur. Phys. J.
C72 (2012) 2100, arXiv:1204.1258 [hep-ex] . [Erratum: Eur.Phys. J.C80,no.1,49(2020)]. 26entrality dependence of J / ψ and ψ ( ) production in p–Pb collisions ALICE Collaboration A The ALICE Collaboration
S. Acharya , D. Adamová , A. Adler , J. Adolfsson , M.M. Aggarwal , S. Agha , G. Aglieri Rinella ,M. Agnello , N. Agrawal
10 ,54 , Z. Ahammed , S. Ahmad , S.U. Ahn , Z. Akbar , A. Akindinov ,M. Al-Turany , S.N. Alam , D.S.D. Albuquerque , D. Aleksandrov , B. Alessandro , H.M. Alfanda ,R. Alfaro Molina , B. Ali , Y. Ali , A. Alici
10 ,26 ,54 , N. Alizadehvandchali , A. Alkin , J. Alme ,T. Alt , L. Altenkamper , I. Altsybeev , M.N. Anaam , C. Andrei , D. Andreou , A. Andronic ,M. Angeletti , V. Anguelov , T. Antiˇci´c , F. Antinori , P. Antonioli , N. Apadula , L. Aphecetche ,H. Appelshäuser , S. Arcelli , R. Arnaldi , M. Arratia , I.C. Arsene , M. Arslandok , A. Augustinus ,R. Averbeck , S. Aziz , M.D. Azmi , A. Badalà , Y.W. Baek , S. Bagnasco , X. Bai ,R. Bailhache , R. Bala , A. Balbino , A. Baldisseri , M. Ball , S. Balouza , D. Banerjee ,R. Barbera , L. Barioglio , G.G. Barnaföldi , L.S. Barnby , V. Barret , P. Bartalini , C. Bartels ,K. Barth , E. Bartsch , F. Baruffaldi , N. Bastid , S. Basu , G. Batigne , B. Batyunya , D. Bauri ,J.L. Bazo Alba , I.G. Bearden , C. Beattie , C. Bedda , I. Belikov , A.D.C. Bell Hechavarria ,F. Bellini , R. Bellwied , V. Belyaev , G. Bencedi , S. Beole , A. Bercuci , Y. Berdnikov ,A. Berdnikova , D. Berenyi , R.A. Bertens , D. Berzano , M.G. Besoiu , L. Betev , A. Bhasin ,I.R. Bhat , M.A. Bhat , H. Bhatt , B. Bhattacharjee , A. Bianchi , L. Bianchi , N. Bianchi ,J. Bielˇcík , J. Bielˇcíková , A. Bilandzic , G. Biro , R. Biswas , S. Biswas , J.T. Blair , D. Blau ,C. Blume , G. Boca , F. Bock , A. Bogdanov , S. Boi , J. Bok , L. Boldizsár , A. Bolozdynya ,M. Bombara , G. Bonomi , H. Borel , A. Borissov , H. Bossi , E. Botta , L. Bratrud ,P. Braun-Munzinger , M. Bregant , M. Broz , E. Bruna , G.E. Bruno
33 ,106 , M.D. Buckland ,D. Budnikov , H. Buesching , S. Bufalino , O. Bugnon , P. Buhler , P. Buncic , Z. Buthelezi
72 ,131 ,J.B. Butt , S.A. Bysiak , D. Caffarri , A. Caliva , E. Calvo Villar , J.M.M. Camacho ,R.S. Camacho , P. Camerini , F.D.M. Canedo , A.A. Capon , F. Carnesecchi , R. Caron , J. CastilloCastellanos , A.J. Castro , E.A.R. Casula , F. Catalano , C. Ceballos Sanchez , P. Chakraborty ,S. Chandra , W. Chang , S. Chapeland , M. Chartier , S. Chattopadhyay , S. Chattopadhyay ,A. Chauvin , C. Cheshkov , B. Cheynis , V. Chibante Barroso , D.D. Chinellato , S. Cho ,P. Chochula , T. Chowdhury , P. Christakoglou , C.H. Christensen , P. Christiansen , T. Chujo ,C. Cicalo , L. Cifarelli
10 ,26 , F. Cindolo , M.R. Ciupek , G. Clai
54 ,ii , J. Cleymans , F. Colamaria ,J.S. Colburn , D. Colella , A. Collu , M. Colocci , M. Concas
59 ,iii , G. Conesa Balbastre , Z. Conesa delValle , G. Contin
24 ,60 , J.G. Contreras , T.M. Cormier , Y. Corrales Morales , P. Cortese ,M.R. Cosentino , F. Costa , S. Costanza , P. Crochet , E. Cuautle , P. Cui , L. Cunqueiro ,D. Dabrowski , T. Dahms , A. Dainese , F.P.A. Damas
115 ,137 , M.C. Danisch , A. Danu , D. Das ,I. Das , P. Das , P. Das , S. Das , A. Dash , S. Dash , S. De , A. De Caro , G. de Cataldo , L. DeCilladi , J. de Cuveland , A. De Falco , D. De Gruttola , N. De Marco , C. De Martin , S. DePasquale , S. Deb , H.F. Degenhardt , K.R. Deja , A. Deloff , S. Delsanto
25 ,131 , W. Deng ,P. Dhankher , D. Di Bari , A. Di Mauro , R.A. Diaz , T. Dietel , P. Dillenseger , Y. Ding , R. Divià ,D.U. Dixit , Ø. Djuvsland , U. Dmitrieva , A. Dobrin , B. Dönigus , O. Dordic , A.K. Dubey ,A. Dubla
90 ,107 , S. Dudi , M. Dukhishyam , P. Dupieux , R.J. Ehlers , V.N. Eikeland , D. Elia ,B. Erazmus , F. Erhardt , A. Erokhin , M.R. Ersdal , B. Espagnon , G. Eulisse , D. Evans ,S. Evdokimov , L. Fabbietti , M. Faggin , J. Faivre , F. Fan , A. Fantoni , M. Fasel , P. Fecchio ,A. Feliciello , G. Feofilov , A. Fernández Téllez , A. Ferrero , A. Ferretti , A. Festanti ,V.J.G. Feuillard , J. Figiel , S. Filchagin , D. Finogeev , F.M. Fionda , G. Fiorenza , F. Flor ,A.N. Flores , S. Foertsch , P. Foka , S. Fokin , E. Fragiacomo , U. Frankenfeld , U. Fuchs ,C. Furget , A. Furs , M. Fusco Girard , J.J. Gaardhøje , M. Gagliardi , A.M. Gago , A. Gal ,C.D. Galvan , P. Ganoti , C. Garabatos , J.R.A. Garcia , E. Garcia-Solis , K. Garg , C. Gargiulo ,A. Garibli , K. Garner , P. Gasik
105 ,107 , E.F. Gauger , M.B. Gay Ducati , M. Germain , J. Ghosh ,P. Ghosh , S.K. Ghosh , M. Giacalone , P. Gianotti , P. Giubellino
59 ,107 , P. Giubilato ,A.M.C. Glaenzer , P. Glässel , A. Gomez Ramirez , V. Gonzalez
107 ,143 , L.H. González-Trueba ,S. Gorbunov , L. Görlich , A. Goswami , S. Gotovac , V. Grabski , L.K. Graczykowski ,K.L. Graham , L. Greiner , A. Grelli , C. Grigoras , V. Grigoriev , A. Grigoryan , S. Grigoryan ,O.S. Groettvik , F. Grosa
30 ,59 , J.F. Grosse-Oetringhaus , R. Grosso , R. Guernane , M. Guittiere ,K. Gulbrandsen , T. Gunji , A. Gupta , R. Gupta , I.B. Guzman , R. Haake , M.K. Habib ,C. Hadjidakis , H. Hamagaki , G. Hamar , M. Hamid , R. Hannigan , M.R. Haque ,A. Harlenderova , J.W. Harris , A. Harton , J.A. Hasenbichler , H. Hassan , Q.U. Hassan ,D. Hatzifotiadou
10 ,54 , P. Hauer , L.B. Havener , S. Hayashi , S.T. Heckel , E. Hellbär , H. Helstrup ,A. Herghelegiu , T. Herman , E.G. Hernandez , G. Herrera Corral , F. Herrmann , K.F. Hetland , / ψ and ψ ( ) production in p–Pb collisions ALICE Collaboration H. Hillemanns , C. Hills , B. Hippolyte , B. Hohlweger , J. Honermann , D. Horak , A. Hornung ,S. Hornung , R. Hosokawa , P. Hristov , C. Huang , C. Hughes , P. Huhn , T.J. Humanic ,H. Hushnud , L.A. Husova , N. Hussain , S.A. Hussain , D. Hutter , J.P. Iddon
34 ,127 , R. Ilkaev ,H. Ilyas , M. Inaba , G.M. Innocenti , M. Ippolitov , A. Isakov , M.S. Islam , M. Ivanov ,V. Ivanov , V. Izucheev , B. Jacak , N. Jacazio
34 ,54 , P.M. Jacobs , S. Jadlovska , J. Jadlovsky ,S. Jaelani , C. Jahnke , M.J. Jakubowska , M.A. Janik , T. Janson , M. Jercic , O. Jevons ,M. Jin , F. Jonas
96 ,144 , P.G. Jones , J. Jung , M. Jung , A. Jusko , P. Kalinak , A. Kalweit ,V. Kaplin , S. Kar , A. Karasu Uysal , D. Karatovic , O. Karavichev , T. Karavicheva ,P. Karczmarczyk , E. Karpechev , A. Kazantsev , U. Kebschull , R. Keidel , M. Keil , B. Ketzer ,Z. Khabanova , A.M. Khan , S. Khan , A. Khanzadeev , Y. Kharlov , A. Khatun , A. Khuntia ,B. Kileng , B. Kim , B. Kim , D. Kim , D.J. Kim , E.J. Kim , H. Kim , J. Kim , J.S. Kim ,J. Kim , J. Kim , J. Kim , M. Kim , S. Kim , T. Kim , T. Kim , S. Kirsch , I. Kisel ,S. Kiselev , A. Kisiel , J.L. Klay , C. Klein , J. Klein
34 ,59 , S. Klein , C. Klein-Bösing , M. Kleiner ,T. Klemenz , A. Kluge , M.L. Knichel , A.G. Knospe , C. Kobdaj , M.K. Köhler , T. Kollegger ,A. Kondratyev , N. Kondratyeva , E. Kondratyuk , J. Konig , S.A. Konigstorfer , P.J. Konopka ,G. Kornakov , L. Koska , O. Kovalenko , V. Kovalenko , M. Kowalski , I. Králik ,A. Kravˇcáková , L. Kreis , M. Krivda
64 ,111 , F. Krizek , K. Krizkova Gajdosova , M. Krüger ,E. Kryshen , M. Krzewicki , V. Kuˇcera
34 ,61 , C. Kuhn , P.G. Kuijer , L. Kumar , S. Kundu ,P. Kurashvili , A. Kurepin , A.B. Kurepin , A. Kuryakin , S. Kushpil , J. Kvapil , M.J. Kweon ,J.Y. Kwon , Y. Kwon , S.L. La Pointe , P. La Rocca , Y.S. Lai , A. Lakrathok , M. Lamanna ,R. Langoy , K. Lapidus , A. Lardeux , P. Larionov , E. Laudi , R. Lavicka , T. Lazareva , R. Lea ,L. Leardini , J. Lee , S. Lee , S. Lehner , J. Lehrbach , R.C. Lemmon , I. León Monzón ,E.D. Lesser , M. Lettrich , P. Lévai , X. Li , X.L. Li , J. Lien , R. Lietava , B. Lim ,V. Lindenstruth , A. Lindner , C. Lippmann , M.A. Lisa , A. Liu , J. Liu , W.J. Llope ,I.M. Lofnes , V. Loginov , C. Loizides , P. Loncar , J.A. Lopez , X. Lopez , E. López Torres ,J.R. Luhder , M. Lunardon , G. Luparello , Y.G. Ma , A. Maevskaya , M. Mager , S.M. Mahmood ,T. Mahmoud , A. Maire , R.D. Majka
146 ,i , M. Malaev , Q.W. Malik , L. Malinina
75 ,iv , D. Mal’Kevich ,P. Malzacher , G. Mandaglio
32 ,56 , V. Manko , F. Manso , V. Manzari , Y. Mao , M. Marchisone ,J. Mareš , G.V. Margagliotti , A. Margotti , A. Marín , C. Markert , M. Marquard , N.A. Martin ,P. Martinengo , J.L. Martinez , M.I. Martínez , G. Martínez García , S. Masciocchi , M. Masera ,A. Masoni , L. Massacrier , E. Masson , A. Mastroserio
53 ,138 , A.M. Mathis , O. Matonoha ,P.F.T. Matuoka , A. Matyja , C. Mayer , F. Mazzaschi , M. Mazzilli , M.A. Mazzoni ,A.F. Mechler , F. Meddi , Y. Melikyan
62 ,93 , A. Menchaca-Rocha , C. Mengke , E. Meninno
29 ,114 ,A.S. Menon , M. Meres , S. Mhlanga , Y. Miake , L. Micheletti , L.C. Migliorin ,D.L. Mihaylov , K. Mikhaylov
75 ,92 , A.N. Mishra , D. Mi´skowiec , A. Modak , N. Mohammadi ,A.P. Mohanty , B. Mohanty , M. Mohisin Khan
16 ,v , Z. Moravcova , C. Mordasini , D.A. Moreira DeGodoy , L.A.P. Moreno , I. Morozov , A. Morsch , T. Mrnjavac , V. Muccifora , E. Mudnic ,D. Mühlheim , S. Muhuri , J.D. Mulligan , A. Mulliri
23 ,55 , M.G. Munhoz , R.H. Munzer ,H. Murakami , S. Murray , L. Musa , J. Musinsky , C.J. Myers , J.W. Myrcha , B. Naik ,R. Nair , B.K. Nandi , R. Nania
10 ,54 , E. Nappi , M.U. Naru , A.F. Nassirpour , C. Nattrass ,R. Nayak , T.K. Nayak , S. Nazarenko , A. Neagu , R.A. Negrao De Oliveira , L. Nellen ,S.V. Nesbo , G. Neskovic , D. Nesterov , L.T. Neumann , B.S. Nielsen , S. Nikolaev , S. Nikulin ,V. Nikulin , F. Noferini
10 ,54 , P. Nomokonov , J. Norman
79 ,127 , N. Novitzky , P. Nowakowski ,A. Nyanin , J. Nystrand , M. Ogino , A. Ohlson , J. Oleniacz , A.C. Oliveira Da Silva ,M.H. Oliver , C. Oppedisano , A. Ortiz Velasquez , T. Osako , A. Oskarsson , J. Otwinowski ,K. Oyama , Y. Pachmayer , V. Pacik , S. Padhan , D. Pagano , G. Pai´c , J. Pan , S. Panebianco ,P. Pareek
50 ,141 , J. Park , J.E. Parkkila , S. Parmar , S.P. Pathak , B. Paul , J. Pazzini , H. Pei ,T. Peitzmann , X. Peng , L.G. Pereira , H. Pereira Da Costa , D. Peresunko , G.M. Perez , S. Perrin ,Y. Pestov , V. Petráˇcek , M. Petrovici , R.P. Pezzi , S. Piano , M. Pikna , P. Pillot , O. Pinazza
34 ,54 ,L. Pinsky , C. Pinto , S. Pisano
10 ,52 , D. Pistone , M. Płosko´n , M. Planinic , F. Pliquett ,M.G. Poghosyan , B. Polichtchouk , N. Poljak , A. Pop , S. Porteboeuf-Houssais , V. Pozdniakov ,S.K. Prasad , R. Preghenella , F. Prino , C.A. Pruneau , I. Pshenichnov , M. Puccio , J. Putschke ,S. Qiu , L. Quaglia , R.E. Quishpe , S. Ragoni , S. Raha , S. Rajput , J. Rak ,A. Rakotozafindrabe , L. Ramello , F. Rami , S.A.R. Ramirez , R. Raniwala , S. Raniwala ,S.S. Räsänen , R. Rath , V. Ratza , I. Ravasenga , K.F. Read
96 ,130 , A.R. Redelbach , K. Redlich
85 ,vi ,A. Rehman , P. Reichelt , F. Reidt , X. Ren , R. Renfordt , Z. Rescakova , K. Reygers , A. Riabov , / ψ and ψ ( ) production in p–Pb collisions ALICE Collaboration V. Riabov , T. Richert
81 ,89 , M. Richter , P. Riedler , W. Riegler , F. Riggi , C. Ristea , S.P. Rode ,M. Rodríguez Cahuantzi , K. Røed , R. Rogalev , E. Rogochaya , D. Rohr , D. Röhrich , P.F. Rojas ,P.S. Rokita , F. Ronchetti , A. Rosano , E.D. Rosas , K. Roslon , A. Rossi , A. Rotondi , A. Roy ,P. Roy , O.V. Rueda , R. Rui , B. Rumyantsev , A. Rustamov , E. Ryabinkin , Y. Ryabov ,A. Rybicki , H. Rytkonen , O.A.M. Saarimaki , R. Sadek , S. Sadhu , S. Sadovsky , K. Šafaˇrík ,S.K. Saha , B. Sahoo , P. Sahoo , R. Sahoo , S. Sahoo , P.K. Sahu , J. Saini , S. Sakai ,S. Sambyal , V. Samsonov
93 ,98 , D. Sarkar , N. Sarkar , P. Sarma , V.M. Sarti , M.H.P. Sas ,E. Scapparone , J. Schambach , H.S. Scheid , C. Schiaua , R. Schicker , A. Schmah , C. Schmidt ,H.R. Schmidt , M.O. Schmidt , M. Schmidt , N.V. Schmidt
68 ,96 , A.R. Schmier , J. Schukraft ,Y. Schutz , K. Schwarz , K. Schweda , G. Scioli , E. Scomparin , J.E. Seger , Y. Sekiguchi ,D. Sekihata , I. Selyuzhenkov
93 ,107 , S. Senyukov , D. Serebryakov , A. Sevcenco , A. Shabanov ,A. Shabetai , R. Shahoyan , W. Shaikh , A. Shangaraev , A. Sharma , A. Sharma , H. Sharma ,M. Sharma , N. Sharma , S. Sharma , O. Sheibani , K. Shigaki , M. Shimomura , S. Shirinkin ,Q. Shou , Y. Sibiriak , S. Siddhanta , T. Siemiarczuk , D. Silvermyr , G. Simatovic , G. Simonetti ,B. Singh , R. Singh , R. Singh , R. Singh , V.K. Singh , V. Singhal , T. Sinha , B. Sitar ,M. Sitta , T.B. Skaali , M. Slupecki , N. Smirnov , R.J.M. Snellings , C. Soncco , J. Song ,A. Songmoolnak , F. Soramel , S. Sorensen , I. Sputowska , J. Stachel , I. Stan , P.J. Steffanic ,E. Stenlund , S.F. Stiefelmaier , D. Stocco , M.M. Storetvedt , L.D. Stritto , A.A.P. Suaide ,T. Sugitate , C. Suire , M. Suleymanov , M. Suljic , R. Sultanov , M. Šumbera , V. Sumberia ,S. Sumowidagdo , S. Swain , A. Szabo , I. Szarka , U. Tabassam , S.F. Taghavi , G. Taillepied ,J. Takahashi , G.J. Tambave , S. Tang , M. Tarhini , M.G. Tarzila , A. Tauro , G. Tejeda Muñoz ,A. Telesca , L. Terlizzi , C. Terrevoli , D. Thakur , S. Thakur , D. Thomas , F. Thoresen ,R. Tieulent , A. Tikhonov , A.R. Timmins , A. Toia , N. Topilskaya , M. Toppi , F. Torales-Acosta ,S.R. Torres , A. Trifiró
32 ,56 , S. Tripathy
50 ,69 , T. Tripathy , S. Trogolo , G. Trombetta , L. Tropp ,V. Trubnikov , W.H. Trzaska , T.P. Trzcinski , B.A. Trzeciak
37 ,63 , A. Tumkin , R. Turrisi ,T.S. Tveter , K. Ullaland , E.N. Umaka , A. Uras , G.L. Usai , M. Vala , N. Valle , S. Vallero ,N. van der Kolk , L.V.R. van Doremalen , M. van Leeuwen , P. Vande Vyvre , D. Varga , Z. Varga ,M. Varga-Kofarago , A. Vargas , M. Vasileiou , A. Vasiliev , O. Vázquez Doce , V. Vechernin ,E. Vercellin , S. Vergara Limón , L. Vermunt , R. Vernet , R. Vértesi , M. Verweij , L. Vickovic ,Z. Vilakazi , O. Villalobos Baillie , G. Vino , A. Vinogradov , T. Virgili , V. Vislavicius ,A. Vodopyanov , B. Volkel , M.A. Völkl , K. Voloshin , S.A. Voloshin , G. Volpe , B. von Haller ,I. Vorobyev , D. Voscek , J. Vrláková , B. Wagner , M. Weber , S.G. Weber , A. Wegrzynek ,S.C. Wenzel , J.P. Wessels , J. Wiechula , J. Wikne , G. Wilk , J. Wilkinson , G.A. Willems ,E. Willsher , B. Windelband , M. Winn , W.E. Witt , J.R. Wright , Y. Wu , R. Xu , S. Yalcin ,Y. Yamaguchi , K. Yamakawa , S. Yang , S. Yano , Z. Yin , H. Yokoyama , I.-K. Yoo , J.H. Yoon ,S. Yuan , A. Yuncu , V. Yurchenko , V. Zaccolo , A. Zaman , C. Zampolli , H.J.C. Zanoli ,N. Zardoshti , A. Zarochentsev , P. Závada , N. Zaviyalov , H. Zbroszczyk , M. Zhalov , S. Zhang ,X. Zhang , Z. Zhang , V. Zherebchevskii , Y. Zhi , D. Zhou , Y. Zhou , Z. Zhou , J. Zhu , Y. Zhu ,A. Zichichi
10 ,26 , G. Zinovjev , N. Zurlo , Affiliation notes i Deceased ii Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA),Bologna, Italy iii
Dipartimento DET del Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy iv M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, D.V. Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear, Physics, Moscow, Russia v Department of Applied Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India vi Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Wroclaw, Poland
Collaboration Institutes A.I. Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics Institute) Foundation, Yerevan, Armenia Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine Bose Institute, Department of Physics and Centre for Astroparticle Physics and Space Science (CAPSS),Kolkata, India Budker Institute for Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia / ψ and ψ ( ) production in p–Pb collisions ALICE Collaboration California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California, United States Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China Centre de Calcul de l’IN2P3, Villeurbanne, Lyon, France Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Havana, Cuba Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados (CINVESTAV), Mexico City and Mérida, Mexico Centro Fermi - Museo Storico della Fisica e Centro Studi e Ricerche “Enrico Fermi’, Rome, Italy Chicago State University, Chicago, Illinois, United States China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China Comenius University Bratislava, Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, Bratislava, Slovakia COMSATS University Islamabad, Islamabad, Pakistan Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, United States Department of Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India Department of Physics, Pusan National University, Pusan, Republic of Korea Department of Physics, Sejong University, Seoul, Republic of Korea Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, California, United States Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università ’La Sapienza’ and Sezione INFN, Rome, Italy Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Cagliari, Italy Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Trieste, Italy Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Bologna, Italy Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Catania, Italy Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Padova, Italy Dipartimento di Fisica ‘E.R. Caianiello’ dell’Università and Gruppo Collegato INFN, Salerno, Italy Dipartimento DISAT del Politecnico and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy Dipartimento di Scienze e Innovazione Tecnologica dell’Università del Piemonte Orientale and INFNSezione di Torino, Alessandria, Italy Dipartimento di Scienze MIFT, Università di Messina, Messina, Italy Dipartimento Interateneo di Fisica ‘M. Merlin’ and Sezione INFN, Bari, Italy European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Split,Split, Croatia Faculty of Engineering and Science, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague,Czech Republic Faculty of Science, P.J. Šafárik University, Košice, Slovakia Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt,Germany Fudan University, Shanghai, China Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, Republic of Korea Gauhati University, Department of Physics, Guwahati, India Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlen- und Kernphysik, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn,Germany Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Helsinki, Finland High Energy Physics Group, Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan Hochschule Worms, Zentrum für Technologietransfer und Telekommunikation (ZTT), Worms, Germany Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest, Romania Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT), Mumbai, India Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore, India Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Jakarta, Indonesia INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy INFN, Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy INFN, Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, Italy INFN, Sezione di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy / ψ and ψ ( ) production in p–Pb collisions ALICE Collaboration INFN, Sezione di Catania, Catania, Italy INFN, Sezione di Padova, Padova, Italy INFN, Sezione di Roma, Rome, Italy INFN, Sezione di Torino, Turin, Italy INFN, Sezione di Trieste, Trieste, Italy Inha University, Incheon, Republic of Korea Institute for Nuclear Research, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia Institute for Subatomic Physics, Utrecht University/Nikhef, Utrecht, Netherlands Institute of Experimental Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Košice, Slovakia Institute of Physics, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Bhubaneswar, India Institute of Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic Institute of Space Science (ISS), Bucharest, Romania Institut für Kernphysik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Brazil Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico iThemba LABS, National Research Foundation, Somerset West, South Africa Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe Universität Frankfurt Institut für Informatik, Fachbereich Informatik undMathematik, Frankfurt, Germany Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR), Dubna, Russia Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon, Republic of Korea KTO Karatay University, Konya, Turkey Laboratoire de Physique des 2 Infinis, Irène Joliot-Curie, Orsay, France Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie, Université Grenoble-Alpes, CNRS-IN2P3,Grenoble, France Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, United States Lund University Department of Physics, Division of Particle Physics, Lund, Sweden Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science, Nagasaki, Japan Nara Women’s University (NWU), Nara, Japan National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Science, Department of Physics , Athens,Greece National Centre for Nuclear Research, Warsaw, Poland National Institute of Science Education and Research, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Jatni, India National Nuclear Research Center, Baku, Azerbaijan National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark Nikhef, National institute for subatomic physics, Amsterdam, Netherlands NRC Kurchatov Institute IHEP, Protvino, Russia NRC «Kurchatov»Institute - ITEP, Moscow, Russia NRNU Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, Moscow, Russia Nuclear Physics Group, STFC Daresbury Laboratory, Daresbury, United Kingdom Nuclear Physics Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, ˇRež u Prahy, Czech Republic Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina, Russia Physics department, Faculty of science, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
Physics Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
Physics Department, University of Jammu, Jammu, India
Physics Department, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, India
Physikalisches Institut, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
Physik Department, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany
Politecnico di Bari, Bari, Italy
Research Division and ExtreMe Matter Institute EMMI, GSI Helmholtzzentrum fürSchwerionenforschung GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany / ψ and ψ ( ) production in p–Pb collisions ALICE Collaboration Rudjer Boškovi´c Institute, Zagreb, Croatia
Russian Federal Nuclear Center (VNIIEF), Sarov, Russia
Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kolkata, India
School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Sección Física, Departamento de Ciencias, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima, Peru
St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia
Stefan Meyer Institut für Subatomare Physik (SMI), Vienna, Austria
SUBATECH, IMT Atlantique, Université de Nantes, CNRS-IN2P3, Nantes, France
Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand
Technical University of Košice, Košice, Slovakia
The Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Cracow, Poland
The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States
Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Culiacán, Mexico
Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil
Universidade Federal do ABC, Santo Andre, Brazil
University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland
University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China
University of South-Eastern Norway, Tonsberg, Norway
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France
Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, CNRS/IN2P3, IPN-Lyon, Villeurbanne, Lyon, France
Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, F-67000 Strasbourg, France, Strasbourg, France
Université Paris-Saclay Centre d’Etudes de Saclay (CEA), IRFU, Départment de Physique Nucléaire(DPhN), Saclay, France
Università degli Studi di Foggia, Foggia, Italy
Università degli Studi di Pavia, Pavia, Italy
Università di Brescia, Brescia, Italy
Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kolkata, India
Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland
Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, United States
Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Institut für Kernphysik, Münster, Germany
Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States