Measurement of nuclear effects on ψ(2S) production in p-Pb collisions at s NN − − − √ =8.16 TeV
EEUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH
CERN-EP-2020-03610 March 2020© 2020 CERN for the benefit of the ALICE Collaboration.Reproduction of this article or parts of it is allowed as specified in the CC-BY-4.0 license.
Measurement of nuclear effects on ψ (2S) productionin p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = . TeV
ALICE Collaboration * Abstract
Inclusive ψ (2S) production is measured in p–Pb collisions at the centre-of-mass energy per nucleon–nucleon pair √ s NN = .
16 TeV, using the ALICE detector at the CERN LHC. The production of ψ (2S) is studied at forward (2 . < y cms < .
53) and backward ( − . < y cms < − .
96) centre-of-mass rapidity and for transverse momentum p T <
12 GeV/ c via the decay to muon pairs. Inthis paper, we report the integrated as well as the y cms - and p T -differential inclusive productioncross sections. Nuclear effects on ψ (2S) production are studied via the determination of the nuclearmodification factor that shows a strong suppression at both forward and backward centre-of-massrapidities. Comparisons with corresponding results for inclusive J/ ψ show a similar suppressionfor the two states at forward rapidity (p-going direction), but a stronger suppression for ψ (2S) atbackward rapidity (Pb-going direction). As a function of p T , no clear dependence of the nuclearmodification factor is found. The relative size of nuclear effects on ψ (2S) production compared toJ/ ψ is also studied via the double ratio of production cross sections [ σ ψ ( ) / σ J / ψ ] pPb / [ σ ψ ( ) / σ J / ψ ] pp between p–Pb and pp collisions. The results are compared with theoretical models that includevarious effects related to the initial and final state of the collision system and also with previousmeasurements at √ s NN = .
02 TeV. * See Appendix A for the list of collaboration members a r X i v : . [ nu c l - e x ] F e b easurement of nuclear effects on ψ (2S) in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV ALICE Collaboration
The study of charmonia, bound states of charm (c) and anticharm (c) quarks, is an important and interest-ing research domain. High-energy pp collisions provide a testground to apply quantum chromodynamics(QCD) theory for understanding the charmonium production mechanism. The production of heavy-quarkpairs, cc in the present case, is an inherently perturbative process since the momentum transfer is at leastas large as the heavy-quark pair mass. On the contrary, the formation of the bound state is achieved ona longer time scale and thus has to be considered as a non-perturbative process. QCD-based approachessuch as Non-Relativistic QCD (NRQCD) [1] give a good description of the main features of quarkoniumproduction cross sections in pp collisions. When the production of heavy quarkonium occurs inside amedium, as it happens in case of heavy-ion collisions, it is influenced by the properties of the mediumand various effects are present. They are mainly categorised in two groups, hot matter effects and coldnuclear matter (CNM) effects. Among the former, those related to the formation of a Quark–GluonPlasma (QGP), a high energy-density medium created in ultra-relativistic heavy-ion collisions wherequarks and gluons are deconfined, are currently scrutinised at collider experiments at RHIC (mainly Au–Au) [2], up to √ s NN = . √ s NN = .
02 TeV. For the J/ ψ (1S state with J PC = −− ), a reduced production with respect to pp collisions was reported, ascribed todissociation in the QGP as a result of color Debye screening [7]. However, LHC experiments reported asignificantly reduced suppression for J/ ψ with respect to RHIC, now commonly ascribed to a recombina-tion mechanism [8, 9] related to the much larger multiplicity of charm quarks observed at the LHC [10].When considering the weakly bound ψ (2S) state, Debye screening should lead to a stronger suppres-sion, which at the same time could be influenced by recombination effects. Results currently availableat LHC energies on the relative suppression of ψ (2S) and J/ ψ [11–13] generally show a stronger effectfor the former, except for CMS data on Pb–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
76 TeV in the kinematic window3 < p T <
30 GeV/c, 1 . < | y | < . x of the nucleonmomentum and, as a consequence, it affects the production cross section of the cc pair. At low x , thiseffect could originate from the formation of a Color Glass Condensate (CGC) [17], which can happenwhen, at high energy, the density of low- x quarks and gluons becomes very large, leading to saturationeffects. A further mechanism which can also modify the parton kinematics is coherent energy loss, aneffect involving partons in the initial and final state [18]. Finally, hadronic/nuclear break-up of the final-state cc pair [19] can also occur, and leads to suppression effects. The common way to investigate CNMeffects is via proton–nucleus collisions, where hot-matter effects are, in principle, negligible.Various results on CNM effects on charmonium production are available at LHC energies for p–Pbcollisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV. For J/ ψ , extensive studies were performed at forward/backward centre-of-mass rapidity y cms by ALICE [20–23] and LHCb [24], as well as at midrapidity by ALICE [22],ATLAS [25] and CMS [26]. A general feature of the results is the observation of a significant J/ ψ suppression at forward y cms (p-going direction), which becomes weaker and finally disappears movingtowards backward rapidity (Pb-going direction). Theory models which include shadowing effects basedon various parameterizations of the nuclear modifications of parton distribution functions are able to re-produce the results [27, 28]. At the same time, also models based on a CGC approach [29], or includingcoherent energy loss as a main CNM mechanism [30], are in good agreement with data. Such an agree-ment with the models described above also implies that the presence of significant break-up effects ofthe cc pair, which are not included in these models, is disfavoured.2easurement of nuclear effects on ψ (2S) in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV ALICE CollaborationFor ψ (2S), results at √ s NN = .
02 TeV [31–35] clearly showed a larger suppression with respect to J/ ψ ,in particular at backward rapidity. The CNM effects mentioned in the previous paragraph in conjunctionwith J/ ψ results are initial-state effects or anyway directly related to the hard production of the heavy-quark pair, and are expected to affect similarly both charmonium final states. The additional suppressionexhibited by the ψ (2S) was therefore attributed to a break-up of this more loosely bound state via colli-sions with the dense system of interacting particles produced in p–Pb collision [14, 36, 37]. It has to benoted that a similar effect was observed, although with larger uncertainties, by the PHENIX experimentin p-Al and p-Au collisions at √ s NN = . √ s NN = .
16 TeV became available. Firstresults on J/ ψ , obtained by ALICE [39] and LHCb [40], were compatible within uncertainties with thoseobtained at √ s NN = .
02 TeV. In this paper, we show the first results on inclusive ψ (2S) production inp–Pb collision at √ s NN = .
16 TeV. Section 2 provides a short description of the apparatus and eventselection criteria, while the data analysis for ψ (2S) production is described in Sect. 3. Section 4 containsthe results, with model comparisons and discussion, and finally a short summary is given in Sect. 5. Extensive descriptions of the ALICE apparatus and its performance can be found in Refs. [41, 42].The analysis presented in this paper is based on muons detected at forward rapidity with the muonspectrometer [43]. The spectrometer covers the pseudo-rapidity range − < η lab < − . · m field integral. Each tracking station consists of two tracking chambers aimed at measuringmuons in the bending (vertical) and non-bending (horizontal) planes. Two trigger stations (ResistivePlate Chambers), positioned downstream of the tracking system, provide a single muon as well as adimuon trigger, with a programmable muon p T threshold that was set to 0.5 GeV/ c for this data sample.An absorber, made of concrete, carbon and steel (with a thickness of 10 interaction lengths) is positionedin front of the tracking system, to remove hadrons produced at the interaction vertex. Hadrons whichescape this front absorber are further filtered out by a second absorber, placed between the trackingand the triggering system, which also removes low-momentum muons originating from pion and kaondecays, thereby reducing the background. The position of the interaction vertex is determined by thetwo layers of the Silicon Pixel Detector (SPD) [44], corresponding to the inner part of the ALICE InnerTracking System (ITS), which cover the pseudo-rapidity intervals | η lab | < | η lab | < .
4. The V0detector [45], composed of scintillators located at both sides of the interaction point, and covering thepseudo-rapidity intervals − . < η lab < − . . < η lab < .
1, provides the minimum bias trigger.In addition, the V0 is used for luminosity determination, which is also independently estimated by meansof the two T0 Cherenkov detectors [46], which cover the pseudo-rapidity intervals − . < η lab < − . . < η lab < . . < y cms < .
53 and − . < y cms < − .
96 for dimuons. These configurations wereobtained by reversing the direction of the two beams, and are respectively named p–Pb (forward) andPb–p (backward) in the following. Positive rapidities correspond to the situation where the proton beamtravels towards the muon spectrometer. The integrated luminosities collected for the two configurationsare L int = . ± . − for p–Pb and L int = . ± . − for Pb–p collisions [47].Events selected for this analysis were collected by requiring a coincidence between the minimum biasand the dimuon trigger conditions. In order to reject tracks at the edge of the spectrometer acceptance, thepseudo-rapidity selection − < η µ , lab < − . R abs ) at the end of the absorber must be in therange 17 . < R abs < . χ minimization algorithm between a3easurement of nuclear effects on ψ (2S) in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV ALICE Collaborationtrack in the tracking chambers and a track reconstructed in the trigger system is required.
The analysis procedure reported here is similar to the one discussed in Refs. [31, 39]. The cross sectionfor inclusive ψ (2S) production times the branching ratio B.R. ψ ( ) → µ + µ − = ( . ± . ) % [48] is givenby B . R . ψ ( ) → µ + µ − · d σ ψ ( ) pPb d p T d y = N corr ψ ( ) ( y , p T ) L int · ∆ y ∆ p T (1)where N corr ψ ( ) ( y , p T ) is the number of ψ (2S) in the corresponding y and p T interval, corrected by theproduct of acceptance times reconstruction efficiency A · ε ( y , p T ) , L int is the integrated luminosity and ∆ y , ∆ p T are the width of the rapidity and transverse momentum intervals. The choice of not correctingfor the decay branching ratio is due to the non-negligible systematic uncertainty it would introduce( ∼
8% [48]).The number of reconstructed J/ ψ and ψ (2S) resonances are extracted via fits to the invariant mass spec-trum of opposite-sign muon pairs. More in detail, an extended Crystal Ball function (CB2) [49] is usedto describe the shape of the invariant mass signal of the J/ ψ and ψ (2S). Alternatively, a pseudo-Gaussianfunction with a mass-dependent width is also adopted [49]. The background continuum is empiricallyparameterised either with a Gaussian function with a mass dependent width (VWG) or with a fourthorder polynomial times an exponential function, keeping the parameters free in the fit procedure. ForJ/ ψ , the mass and width are also kept as free parameters in the fit, while the other parameters, relatedto the non-Gaussian tails of the mass shape, are fixed to the values obtained from Monte Carlo (MC)simulations. As a remark, the position of the mass pole of the J/ ψ extracted from the fit is in excellentagreement with the PDG value [48] (in most cases within 1 MeV/ c ). As additional tests, the J/ ψ tailparameters were either kept free in the fitting procedure, or fixed to those extracted from spectra cor-responding to pp collisions at √ s = ψ (2S), the mass and width are fixed to thoseof the J/ ψ , since the relatively low signal to background ratio does not allow the same approach. Therelations that are used are m ψ ( ) = m J / ψ + m PDG ψ ( ) − m PDGJ / ψ (where m PDGi is the mass value from [48])and σ ψ ( ) = σ J / ψ · σ MC ψ ( ) / σ MCJ / ψ , with the latter giving a 5% increase between the J/ ψ and ψ (2S) widths.This value is validated using results from a large data sample of pp collisions at √ s =
13 TeV [51], wherethe ψ (2S) mass and width are kept free in the fit procedure, and the observed increase between σ J / ψ and σ ψ ( ) is also 5%. The non-Gaussian tails used for the J/ ψ are also adopted for the ψ (2S).Various fits, combining the options described above were performed, also using two different fit ranges,in order to further test the background description (2 < m µµ < c and 2.2 < m µµ < c ).The raw ψ (2S) yields and their statistical uncertainties are taken to be the average of the results ofthe various performed fits, while the standard deviation of their distribution is assigned as a systematicuncertainty. An additional 5% uncertainty, corresponding to the uncertainty on the ψ (2S) width in thelarge pp data sample used to validate the assumption on the relative widths for J/ ψ and ψ (2S) [51], isquadratically added.For the two rapidity intervals under study, the values N ψ ( ) pPb = ± ±
243 and N ψ ( ) Pbp = ± ±
368 were determined, with the first and second uncertainties being statistical and systematic. Themeasurement is performed in the dimuon pair transverse momentum range p T <
12 GeV/ c . As an ex-ample, Fig. 1 shows fits to the invariant mass spectra for the two y cms regions. The same procedure isadopted for the evaluation of the differential yields in y cms (2 sub-ranges each for p–Pb and Pb–p) and p T (5 intervals, up to p T =
12 GeV/ c ). In the interval with largest p T (8 < p T <
12 GeV/ c ) the raw ψ (2S)4easurement of nuclear effects on ψ (2S) in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV ALICE Collaborationyields are N ψ ( ) pPb = ± ±
30 and N ψ ( ) Pbp = ± ± ) c (GeV/ mm m c c oun t s pe r M e V /
10 = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb, - ALICE p < 3.53 cms y c < 12 GeV/ T p Signal+background y J/(2S) y Background ) c (GeV/ mm m c c oun t s pe r M e V /
10 = 8.16 TeV NN s Pb, - ALICE p 2.96 - < cms y - c < 12 GeV/ T p Signal+background y J/(2S) y Background
Figure 1:
Fit examples of the p T and y integrated mass spectrum for the forward (left) and backward (right)rapidity data samples. The contribution of the resonances and of the background are also shown separately. Thesefits are performed using the CB2 as signal function and the VWG background shape. The product of acceptance and reconstruction efficiency ( A · ε ) for ψ (2S) is evaluated via MC simulations,performed individually for each run, in order to correctly reproduce the evolution of the detector condi-tions during data taking. The p T and y cms input shapes used for the simulation of ψ (2S) are tuned directlyon data, by performing a differential analysis in narrower intervals and using an iterative method [39].The procedure is found to converge after only two iterations. The decay products of the ψ (2S) are thenpropagated through a realistic description of the ALICE set-up, based on GEANT3.21 [52]. The A · ε values, averaged over the data taking periods and integrated over y cms and p T , amount to 0.272 for p–Pband 0.258 for Pb–p collisions, with a negligible statistical uncertainty. The systematic uncertainties onthe acceptance are evaluated by performing an alternative simulation based on the corresponding inputshapes for the J/ ψ [31]. A 3% and 1.5% effect is found for p–Pb and Pb–p, respectively. When consider-ing differential values as a function of y cms and p T , the uncertainties vary between 0.4–4.0% (0.1–4.4%)for p–Pb (Pb–p). The reconstruction efficiency is the product of trigger, tracking and matching efficiencyterms. The latter term refers to the procedure used to pair tracks reconstructed in the tracking systemwith the corresponding track segments in the trigger detector. The systematic uncertainties on the threeefficiencies mentioned above are evaluated in the same way, and have the same values as those reportedfor the J/ ψ analysis [39]. The largest contribution is that from the trigger which amounts to 2.6% (3.1%)for the integrated p–Pb (Pb–p) data sample.The integrated luminosities for the two data samples, as detailed in Ref. [39], are obtained from L int = N MB / σ MB , where N MB is the number of MB events and σ MB the cross section corresponding to the MBtrigger condition, obtained through a van der Meer scan [47]. The N MB quantity was estimated as thenumber of analysed dimuon triggers times the inverse of the probability of having a triggered dimuon ina MB event. These values are quoted in Ref. [39].The suppression of ψ (2S) with respect to the corresponding pp yield is quantified by the nuclear modifi-cation factor R ψ ( ) pPb . Its evaluation is performed through the following expression: R ψ ( ) pPb ( p T , y cms ) = d σ ψ ( ) pPb / d p T d y cms A Pb · d σ ψ ( ) pp / d p T d y cms (2)where A Pb =
208 is the mass number of the lead nucleus and the production cross sections in p–Pb5easurement of nuclear effects on ψ (2S) in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV ALICE Collaborationand pp are evaluated at the same collision energy and in the same kinematic domain. For this analysis,the ψ (2S) production cross section in pp collisions, integrated over p T and for each of the two rapidityranges is evaluated from the average of the J/ ψ cross sections measured by ALICE [50] and LHCb [53]at √ s = [ σ ψ ( ) / σ J / ψ ] pp , obtained via an interpolation ofALICE results at √ s =
5, 7, 8 and 13 TeV [51] assuming no energy dependence. The interpolation is invery good agreement with the pp results, and allows the uncertainties on this quantity to be significantlyreduced. To account for the slight difference in collision energy between pp and p–Pb data (8 TeV vs8.16 TeV) a 1.5% correction factor on the J/ ψ cross section at √ s = ψ production cross sections measured at various √ s [51]. Finally, both the J/ ψ cross section and the [ σ ψ ( ) / σ J / ψ ] pp ratio must be evaluated in the rapidity domain covered by the p–Pband Pb–p configurations. For the J/ ψ cross section, the procedure detailed in Ref. [39] and based on apolynomial or Gaussian interpolation of the y cms -dependence is adopted. For the ratio [ σ ψ ( ) / σ J / ψ ] pp a small correction factor, related to the slightly different rapidity distributions for J/ ψ and ψ (2S), asdiscussed in Ref. [31], and amounting to ∼ [ σ ψ ( ) / σ J / ψ ] pp include a term (6.0%) corresponding to the uncertainty on theinterpolation procedure and a further 1% obtained by assuming, rather than a flat √ s dependence of theratio, the one calculated by NRQCD+CGC models [54, 55] as quoted in Ref. [51]. Finally, there is acontribution from the uncertainty on the J/ ψ cross section in pp collisions at √ s = p T isperformed with the same procedure summarised above. More in detail, for each y cms and p T interval, ppresults at various √ s are again interpolated with a constant function, which is found to well reproduce thedata. For this differential study, the relatively small data sample for pp collisions at √ s = .
02 TeV [51]is not used in the interpolation.A summary of the systematic uncertainties on the determination of the ψ (2S) cross sections and of thenuclear modification factor is given in Tab. 1. The contribution from the signal extraction procedure is thelargest, and is uncorrelated among the various p T and y cms intervals. The uncertainties on the MC inputshapes and on the various efficiencies are also considered as uncorrelated as a function of p T and y cms .The uncertainties on the p–Pb luminosity values correspond to those quoted in Ref. [39]. Concerningthe pp reference, the uncertainties corresponding to the luminosity measurement affecting the J/ ψ crosssections in pp are correlated [39], while the remaining contributions are uncorrelated over y cms and p T .The various uncorrelated and correlated uncertainties are added in quadrature and separately quoted inthe numerical results and in the figures of the next section. The measured inclusive ψ (2S) production cross sections for p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV, multi-plied by the branching ratio to muon pairs and integrated over p T <
12 GeV/ c are:B . R . ψ ( ) → µ + µ − · σ ψ ( ) pPb ( . < y cms < . ) = . ± . ± . ± . µ bB . R . ψ ( ) → µ + µ − · σ ψ ( ) Pbp ( − . < y cms < − . ) = . ± . ± . ± . µ bwhere the first uncertainty is statistical, the second and third are uncorrelated and correlated systematic,respectively. The differential ψ (2S) cross sections are determined as a function of y cms (splitting theforward and backward intervals in two sub-intervals) and p T (5 intervals). The results are shown inFigs. 2 and 3. The reported values include, in addition to the prompt component, a contribution from thedecays of b-hadrons, which was shown by LHCb in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV [33] to amountto ∼ ψ (2S) in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV ALICE Collaboration
Table 1:
Systematic uncertainties on the determination of the ψ (2S) cross sections times branching ratio andnuclear modification factors, shown separately for the p–Pb and Pb–p configurations. When a single value isquoted, it refers to quantities that have no p T or y cms dependence. In the other cases, the number outside parenthesesis for integrated quantities, while the ranges in parentheses indicate the variation of the systematic uncertainties inthe p T and y cms intervals. source p–Pb (%) Pb–p (%)signal extraction 7.7 (8.0–20.0) 10.2 (9.1–24.9)trigger efficiency 2.6 (1.0–5.0) 3.1 (1.0–6.0)tracking efficiency 1.0 2.0matching efficiency 1.0 1.0MC input 3 (0.4–4.0) 1.5 (0.1–4.4) L pPbint (corr.) 0.5 0.7 L pPbint (uncorr.) 2.1 2.2pp reference (corr.) 7.1 7.1pp reference (uncorr.) 6.3 (7.0–11.8) 6.5 (7.2–11.9)pp cross section obtained with the interpolation procedure described in the previous section, scaled byA Pb . - - - - - cms y ( nb ) y / d ( S ) ys d -m + mfi ( S ) y B . R . y /d pPb s B.R. d y /d pp s B.R. d · Pb A - m + m fi (2S) y ALICE, Inclusive c < 12 GeV/ T p = 8.16 TeV, NN s p-Pb Figure 2:
The differential cross section times branching ratio B . R . ψ ( ) → µ + µ − d σ ψ ( ) / d y for p T <
12 GeV/ c .The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties, while the boxes correspond to total systematic uncertainties.The latter are uncorrelated among the points, except for a very small correlated uncertainty (0.5% and 0.7% for theforward and backward y cms samples, respectively). The grey bands correspond to the reference pp cross sectionscaled by A Pb . The ratio of the ψ (2S) and J/ ψ cross sections is an interesting quantity for the comparison of the pro-duction of the two resonances across different systems, because the terms related to the luminosity andefficiencies and the corresponding uncertainties cancel. It has been computed in this analysis as the ratioof the acceptance-corrected number of ψ (2S) and J/ ψ . In Fig. 4 the p T -integrated cross section ratio isshown for the two rapidity intervals. In the same figure, this quantity is compared with the correspond-ing pp result at the same collision energy, obtained through the interpolation procedure described in theprevious section. At backward rapidity, the ratio is significantly lower (2.9 σ effect) than in pp, whileat forward rapidity the values are compatible. In the same figure, the results are compared with thoseobtained in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV [31]. No √ s NN -dependence can be observed within7easurement of nuclear effects on ψ (2S) in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV ALICE Collaboration c (GeV/ T p )) c ( nb / ( G e V / y d T p / d ( S ) ys d -m + mfi ( S ) y B . R . y d T p /d pPb s B.R. d y d T p /d pp s B.R. d · Pb A - m + m fi (2S) y ALICE, p-Pb, Inclusive = 8.16 TeV NN s < 3.53, cms y c (GeV/ T p )) c ( nb / ( G e V / y d T p / d ( S ) ys d -m + mfi ( S ) y B . R . y d T p /d pPb s B.R. d y d T p /d pp s B.R. d · Pb A - m + m fi (2S) y ALICE, p-Pb, Inclusive = 8.16 TeV NN s - < cms y - Figure 3:
The differential cross sections B . R . ψ ( ) → µ + µ − d σ ψ ( ) / d y d p T for p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV,shown separately for the forward and backward y cms samples. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties,while the boxes correspond to total systematic uncertainties. The latter are uncorrelated among the points, exceptfor a very small correlated uncertainty (0.5% and 0.7% for the forward and backward y cms samples, respectively).The grey bands correspond to the reference pp cross section scaled by A Pb . uncertainties. - - - - - cms y y J / s -m + mfiy J / / B . R . ( S ) ys -m + mfi ( S ) y B . R . c < 12 GeV/ T p = 8.16 TeV, NN s p-Pb c < 8 GeV/ T p = 5.02 TeV, NN s p-Pb c < 12 GeV/ T p = 8.16 TeV, s pp - m + m fi y (2S), J/ y ALICE, Inclusive
Figure 4:
The ratio B . R . ψ ( ) → µ + µ − σ ψ ( ) / B . R . J / ψ → µ + µ − σ J / ψ as a function of y cms for p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV, compared with the corresponding pp quantity, shown as a grey band and obtained via an inter-polation of results at √ s =
5, 7, 8 and 13 TeV [51]. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties, while theboxes correspond to uncorrelated systematic uncertainties. The published p–Pb results at √ s NN = .
02 TeV [31]are also shown.
In Fig. 5 the p T -dependence of the ratio of the ψ (2S) and J/ ψ cross section is shown. It is comparedwith the corresponding pp ratio obtained through the interpolation procedure described in the previoussection. Also here a stronger relative suppression of ψ (2S) with respect to J/ ψ is visible at backwardrapidity.The suppression of ψ (2S) can be more directly quantified by considering the nuclear modification factors,estimated following the procedure described in the previous section. The numerical values, integratedover the interval p T <
12 GeV/ c , are: R ψ ( ) pPb ( . < y cms < . ) = . ± . ( stat . ) ± . ( syst . uncorr . ) ± . ( syst . corr . ) ψ (2S) in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV ALICE Collaboration c (GeV/ T p y J / s -m + mfiy J / / B . R . ( S ) ys -m + mfi ( S ) y B . R . ppp-Pb - m + m fi y (2S), J/ y ALICE, Inclusive < 3.53 cms y = 8.16 TeV, 2.03 < NN s p-Pb c (GeV/ T p y J / s -m + mfiy J / / B . R . ( S ) ys -m + mfi ( S ) y B . R . ppp-Pb - m + m fi y (2S), J/ y ALICE, Inclusive 2.96 - < cms y - = 8.16 TeV, NN s p-Pb Figure 5:
The ratio B . R . ψ ( ) → µ + µ − σ ψ ( ) / B . R . J / ψ → µ + µ − σ J / ψ as a function of p T , for p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV, compared with the corresponding pp quantity, shown as a grey band and obtained via an interpolationof results at √ s =
7, 8 and 13 TeV [51]. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties, while the boxescorrespond to uncorrelated systematic uncertainties. R ψ ( ) Pbp ( − . < y cms < − . ) = . ± . ( stat . ) ± . ( syst . uncorr . ) ± . ( syst . corr . ) The reported values refer to inclusive production. It was shown by LHCb, when studying p–Pb colli-sions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV, that inclusive and prompt nuclear modification factors are compatible withinuncertainties [33]. In Fig. 6, R ψ ( ) pPb is shown splitting the forward and backward rapidity samples intwo intervals. The results are compared with those for R J / ψ pPb [39]. For ψ (2S), the suppression reachesup to 30–40% and is compatible, within uncertainties, at forward and backward y cms . Relatively to J/ ψ ,a stronger suppression is visible at backward rapidity, whereas the results are compatible at forward ra-pidity. The data are also compared (left panel) with theoretical calculations based on initial-state effectsor coherent energy loss, whose output is largely independent on the specific charmonium resonance,and can therefore be compared with both J/ ψ and ψ (2S) results. Calculations based on the CGC ap-proach [56, 57], on nuclear shadowing [57, 58], implemented according to different parameterizations(EPS09NLO [59], nCTEQ15 [60]) or finally on coherent energy loss [57, 61], show good agreementwith the J/ ψ results but fail to describe the ψ (2S) R pPb at backward rapidity.The possible influence of final-state interactions, leading to a break-up of the charmonium resonances,is taken into account in theory calculations where these effects are due to either soft color exchangesin the hadronizing cc pair [36], or final-state interactions with the comoving medium [37]. The formercalculation describes the initial state in terms of a CGC state, and results are available only at forwardrapidity, corresponding to low Bjorken- x values in the Pb nucleus, where the system may be describedusing this approach. The two models reach a fair agreement with data for both ψ (2S) and J/ ψ , as shownin the right panel of Fig. 6.The present data sample allows a p T -differential study of R ψ ( ) pPb up to p T =
12 GeV/ c . The results areplotted in Fig. 7, separately for forward and backward rapidity, and compared with published results forJ/ ψ [39]. At forward rapidity the ψ (2S) suppression is compatible with that of J/ ψ , while at backwardrapidity the ψ (2S) suppression, which is independent of p T within uncertainties, is significantly stronger.The CGC-based model [36] results are found to fairly match the experimental findings. No theorycomparison is yet available for backward rapidity.In Fig. 8, a comparison of the rapidity dependence of ψ (2S) suppression at √ s NN = .
16 TeV and 5.02TeV [39] is presented, together with the corresponding results from theoretical models which implementfinal-state effects [36, 37]. Both models fairly describe the ψ (2S) nuclear modification factor at both9easurement of nuclear effects on ψ (2S) in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV ALICE Collaboration - - - - - cms y p P b R (2S) y (JHEP 07 (2018) 160) y J/ - m + m fi y (2S), J/ y ALICE, Inclusive c < 12 GeV/ T p = 8.16 TeV, NN s p-Pb EPS09NLO + CEM (R. Vogt)nCTEQ15 + HELAC-Onia (J. Lansberg et al.)CGC + CEM (B. Ducloue et al.)Energy loss (F. Arleo et al.) - - - - - cms y p P b R (2S) y (JHEP 07 (2018) 160) y J/ CGC+ICEM (Y.Ma et al, PRC 97 (2018) 014909) (2S) y y J/ Comovers (E. Ferreiro, PLB 749 (2015) 98) (2S) y y J/ - m + m fi y (2S), J/ y ALICE, Inclusive c < 12 GeV/ T p = 8.16 TeV, NN s p-Pb Figure 6:
The y cms -dependence of R pPb for ψ (2S) and J/ ψ [39] in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV. The errorbars represent the statistical uncertainties, while the boxes correspond to uncorrelated systematic uncertainties andthe box at R pPb = c (GeV/ T p p P b R (2S) y (JHEP 07 (2018) 160) y J/ CGC+ICEM, Y. Ma et al (PRC 97,014909(2018)) (2S) y y J/ - m + m fi y (2S), J/ y ALICE, Inclusive < 3.53 cms y = 8.16 TeV, 2.03 < NN s p-Pb c (GeV/ T p p P b R (2S) y (JHEP 07 (2018) 160) y J/ - m + m fi y (2S), J/ y ALICE, Inclusive 2.96 - < cms y - = 8.16 TeV, NN s p-Pb Figure 7:
The p T -dependence of R pPb for ψ (2S) and J/ ψ at forward (left) and backward (right) rapidity in p–Pbcollisions, at √ s NN = .
16 TeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties, while the boxes correspondto uncorrelated systematic uncertainties and the box at R pPb = ψ (2S) in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV ALICE Collaboration cms y - - - - - p P b R CGC+ICEM (Y.Ma et al, PRC 97 (2018) 014909) = 5.02 TeV NN s p-Pb = 8.16 TeV NN s p-Pb Comovers (E. Ferreiro, PLB 749 (2015) 98) = 5.02 TeV NN s p-Pb = 8.16 TeV NN s p-Pb c < 12 GeV/ T p = 8.16 TeV, NN s p-Pb (JHEP 12 (2014) 073) c < 8 GeV/ T p = 5.02 TeV, NN s p-Pb - m + m fi (2S) y ALICE, Inclusive
Figure 8:
Comparison of the rapidity dependence of R pPb for ψ (2S) in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 and5.02 TeV [31]. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties, while the boxes correspond to uncorrelatedsystematic uncertainties and the boxes at R pPb = energies. The data at the two energies are in agreement within uncertainties. In Ref. [31], the referencefor the ψ (2S) R pPb evaluation at √ s NN = .
02 TeV was based only on the √ s = √ s NN = .
02 TeVresult, the reference pp cross section would be lower by 12% (corresponding to 0.9 σ on that quantity)and the R pPb values would therefore be higher by the same amount. In any case, the slightly strongersuppression predicted at √ s NN = .
16 TeV and backward rapidity in Ref. [37, 57], related to the largerdensity of produced particles at higher energy, is beyond the sensitivity of the current measurement.In Fig. 9, the results on the p T -dependence of R ψ ( ) pPb at the two energies studied by ALICE are pre-sented. Within uncertainties, there is a fair agreement between the results, without a clear indication ofa p T -dependence, except possibly for the backward-rapidity results at √ s NN = .
02 TeV which show atendency to an increase at high p T .Finally, also to ease comparisons with future results from other experiments, we present in Fig. 10, asa function of y cms and Fig. 11, as a function of p T , the values of the double ratio of the ψ (2S) andJ/ ψ cross sections between p–Pb and pp. Clearly, these results confirm the features observed whencomparing the nuclear modification factors for the two resonances, i.e., the y cms -dependence shows arelative suppression of the ψ (2S) with respect to the J/ ψ at backward rapidity, while the p T -dependencedoes not indicate a clear trend. The results of studies on the inclusive ψ (2S) production in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV, per-formed by ALICE, were shown. The data sample is about two times larger than the one at √ s NN = . ψ (2S) suppression at both forwardand backward rapidity, with no significant transverse momentum dependence. When compared with thecorresponding values for J/ ψ , a similar suppression is found at forward rapidity, likely dominated byinitial-state effects such as nuclear shadowing. At backward rapidity, the ψ (2S) suppression is signifi-11easurement of nuclear effects on ψ (2S) in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV ALICE Collaboration c (GeV/ T p p P b R = 8.16 TeV NN s p-Pb = 5.02 TeV NN s p-Pb < 3.53 cms y , 2.03 < - m + m fi (2S) y ALICE, Inclusive c (GeV/ T p p P b R = 8.16 TeV NN s p-Pb = 5.02 TeV NN s p-Pb 2.96 - < cms y - , - m + m fi (2S) y ALICE, Inclusive
Figure 9:
Comparison of the transverse-momentum dependence of R pPb for ψ (2S) in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 and 5.02 TeV [31]. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties, while the boxes correspond touncorrelated systematic uncertainties and the boxes at R pPb = - - - - - cms y pp ] y J / s / ( S ) ys / [ p P b ] y J / s / ( S ) ys [ c < 12 GeV/ T p = 8.16 TeV, NN s p-Pb c < 8 GeV/ T p = 5.02 TeV, NN s p-Pb - m + m fi (2S) y , y ALICE, Inclusive J/
Figure 10:
Double ratio of ψ (2S) and J/ ψ cross sections in p–Pb and pp collisions as a function of rapidity, at √ s NN = .
16 TeV, compared with the corresponding results at √ s NN = .
02 TeV [31]. The error bars representthe statistical uncertainties, while the boxes correspond to uncorrelated systematic uncertainties. cantly stronger than that of J/ ψ . This effect is well reproduced by theoretical models that complementinitial-state with final-state break-up effects, which should be more important for the loosely bound ψ (2S) state. These results also confirm, with a better accuracy and extending the p T reach, the previousobservations carried out by ALICE in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV.
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 building12easurement of nuclear effects on ψ (2S) in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV ALICE Collaboration c (GeV/ T p pp ] y J / s / ( S ) ys / [ p P b ] y J / s / ( S ) ys [ = 5.02 TeV NN s = 8.16 TeV NN s - m + m fi (2S) y , y ALICE, Inclusive J/ < 3.53 cms y c (GeV/ T p pp ] y J / s / ( S ) ys / [ p P b ] y J / s / ( S ) ys [ = 5.02 TeV NN s = 8.16 TeV NN s - m + m fi (2S) y , y ALICE, Inclusive J/ 2.96 - < cms y - Figure 11:
Double ratio of ψ (2S) and J/ ψ cross sections in p–Pb and pp collisions as a function of transversemomentum, at forward (left) and backward (right) rapidity at √ s NN = .
16 TeV, compared with the correspondingresults at √ s NN = .
02 TeV [31]. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties, while the boxes correspondto uncorrelated systematic uncertainties. and 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), Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique desParticules (IN2P3) and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) and Région des Pays dela Loire, France; Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) and GSI Helmholtzzentrumfür Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Germany; General Secretariat for Research and Technology, Ministryof Education, Research and Religions, Greece; National Research, Development and Innovation Office,Hungary; Department of Atomic Energy Government of India (DAE), Department of Science and Tech-nology, Government of India (DST), University Grants Commission, Government of India (UGC) andCouncil of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), India; Indonesian Institute of Science, Indonesia;Centro Fermi - Museo Storico della Fisica e Centro Studi e Ricerche Enrico Fermi and Istituto Nazionaledi Fisica Nucleare (INFN), Italy; Institute for Innovative Science and Technology , Nagasaki Instituteof Applied Science (IIST), Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology(MEXT) and Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI, Japan; Consejo Nacionalde Ciencia (CONACYT) y Tecnología, through Fondo de Cooperación Internacional en Ciencia y Tec-nología (FONCICYT) and Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Academico (DGAPA), Mexico;Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), Netherlands; The Research Coun-cil of Norway, Norway; Commission on Science and Technology for Sustainable Development in theSouth (COMSATS), Pakistan; Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Peru; Ministry of Science andHigher Education and National Science Centre, Poland; Korea Institute of Science and Technology In-formation and National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), Republic of Korea; Ministry of Education13easurement of nuclear effects on ψ (2S) in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV ALICE Collaborationand Scientific Research, Institute of Atomic Physics and Ministry of Research and Innovation and Insti-tute of Atomic Physics, Romania; Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR), Ministry of Education andScience of the Russian Federation, National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Russian Science Foun-dation and Russian Foundation for Basic Research, Russia; Ministry of Education, Science, Research andSport of the Slovak Republic, Slovakia; National Research Foundation of South Africa, South Africa;Swedish Research Council (VR) and Knut & Alice Wallenberg Foundation (KAW), Sweden; EuropeanOrganization for Nuclear Research, Switzerland; Suranaree University of Technology (SUT), NationalScience and Technology Development Agency (NSDTA) and Office of the Higher Education Commis-sion under NRU project of Thailand, Thailand; Turkish Atomic Energy Agency (TAEK), Turkey; Na-tional Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Ukraine; Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC),United Kingdom; National Science Foundation of the United States of America (NSF) and United StatesDepartment of Energy, Office of Nuclear Physics (DOE NP), United States of America.
References [1] G. T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, and G. P. Lepage, “Rigorous QCD analysis of inclusive annihilation andproduction of heavy quarkonium,”
Phys. Rev.
D51 (1995) 1125–1171, arXiv:hep-ph/9407339[hep-ph] . [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D55,5853(1997)].[2]
STAR
Collaboration, J. Adam et al. , “Measurement of inclusive J / ψ suppression in Au+Aucollisions at √ s NN = 200 GeV through the dimuon channel at STAR,” Phys. Lett.
B797 (2019)134917, arXiv:1905.13669 [nucl-ex] .[3]
ALICE
Collaboration, J. Adam et al. , “J/ ψ suppression at forward rapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV,”
Phys. Lett.
B766 (2017) 212–224, arXiv:1606.08197 [nucl-ex] .[4]
ALICE
Collaboration, S. Acharya et al. , “Centrality and transverse momentum dependence ofinclusive J/ ψ production at midrapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at √ s NN = 5.02 TeV,” arXiv:1910.14404 [nucl-ex] .[5] CMS
Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al. , “Measurement of prompt and nonprompt charmoniumsuppression in PbPb collisions at 5.02 TeV,”
Eur. Phys. J.
C78 no. 6, (2018) 509, arXiv:1712.08959 [nucl-ex] .[6]
ATLAS
Collaboration, M. Aaboud et al. , “Prompt and non-prompt J / ψ and ψ ( ) suppression athigh transverse momentum in 5 .
02 TeV Pb+Pb collisions with the ATLAS experiment,”
Eur. Phys.J.
C78 no. 9, (2018) 762, arXiv:1805.04077 [nucl-ex] .[7] T. Matsui and H. Satz, “J/ ψ Suppression by Quark-Gluon Plasma Formation,”
Phys. Lett.
B178 (1986) 416–422.[8] 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] .[9] 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] .[10]
ALICE
Collaboration, J. Adam et al. , “ D -meson production in p -Pb collisions at √ s NN = √ s = Phys. Rev.
C94 no. 5, (2016) 054908, arXiv:1605.07569 [nucl-ex] .[11]
CMS
Collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al. , “Measurement of Prompt ψ ( S ) → J / ψ Yield Ratiosin Pb-Pb and p − p Collisions at √ s NN = Phys. Rev. Lett. no. 26, (2014) 262301, arXiv:1410.1804 [nucl-ex] . 14easurement of nuclear effects on ψ (2S) in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV ALICE Collaboration[12]
CMS
Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al. , “Relative Modification of Prompt ψ (2S) and J/ ψ Yields from pp to PbPb Collisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV,”
Phys. Rev. Lett. no. 16, (2017)162301, arXiv:1611.01438 [nucl-ex] .[13]
ALICE
Collaboration, J. Adam et al. , “Differential studies of inclusive J/ ψ and ψ ( ) productionat forward rapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
76 TeV,”
JHEP (2016) 179, arXiv:1506.08804 [nucl-ex] .[14] X. Du and R. Rapp, “Sequential Regeneration of Charmonia in Heavy-Ion Collisions,” Nucl. Phys.
A943 (2015) 147–158, arXiv:1504.00670 [hep-ph] .[15] A. Dainese, M. Mangano, A. B. Meyer, A. Nisati, G. Salam, and M. A. Vesterinen, “Report on thePhysics at the HL-LHC, and Perspectives for the HE-LHC,” Tech. Rep. CERN-2019-007, Geneva,Switzerland, 2019. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2703572 .[16] K. J. Eskola, P. Paakkinen, H. Paukkunen, and C. A. Salgado, “EPPS16: Nuclear partondistributions with LHC data,”
Eur. Phys. J.
C77 no. 3, (2017) 163, arXiv:1612.05741[hep-ph] .[17] F. Gelis, E. Iancu, J. Jalilian-Marian, and R. Venugopalan, “The Color Glass Condensate,”
Ann.Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. (2010) 463–489, arXiv:1002.0333 [hep-ph] .[18] F. Arleo and S. Peigné, “J/ ψ suppression in p-A collisions from parton energy loss in cold QCDmatter,” Phys. Rev. Lett. (2012) 122301, arXiv:1204.4609 [hep-ph] .[19] 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] .[20]
ALICE
Collaboration, B. Abelev et al. , “ J / ψ production and nuclear effects in p-Pb collisions at √ s NN = 5.02 TeV,” JHEP (2014) 073, arXiv:1308.6726 [nucl-ex] .[21] ALICE
Collaboration, J. Adam et al. , “Centrality dependence of inclusive J/ ψ production in p-Pbcollisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV,”
JHEP (2015) 127, arXiv:1506.08808 [nucl-ex] .[22] 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 = JHEP (2015)055, arXiv:1503.07179 [nucl-ex] .[23] ALICE
Collaboration, D. Adamovà 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] .[24]
LHCb
Collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , “Study of J / ψ production and cold nuclear matter effects in pPb collisions at √ s NN = JHEP (2014) 072, arXiv:1308.6729 [nucl-ex] .[25] ATLAS
Collaboration, G. Aad et al. , “Measurement of differential J / ψ production cross sectionsand forward-backward ratios in p + Pb collisions with the ATLAS detector,” Phys. Rev.
C92 no. 3,(2015) 034904, arXiv:1505.08141 [hep-ex] .[26]
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] .[27] J. L. Albacete et al. , “Predictions for p + Pb Collisions at √ s NN = Int. J. Mod. Phys.
E22 (2013) 1330007, arXiv:1301.3395 [hep-ph] .15easurement of nuclear effects on ψ (2S) in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV ALICE Collaboration[28] J.-P. Lansberg and H.-S. Shao, “Towards an automated tool to evaluate the impact of the nuclearmodification of the gluon density on quarkonium, D and B meson production in proton-nucleuscollisions,”
Eur. Phys. J.
C77 no. 1, (2017) 1, arXiv:1610.05382 [hep-ph] .[29] Y.-Q. Ma, R. Venugopalan, and H.-F. Zhang, “J/ ψ production and suppression in high energyproton-nucleus collisions,” Phys. Rev.
D92 (2015) 071901, arXiv:1503.07772 [hep-ph] .[30] F. Arleo, R. Kolevatov, S. Peignè, and M. Rustamova, “Centrality and p T dependence of J/ ψ suppression in proton-nucleus collisions from parton energy loss,” JHEP (2013) 155, arXiv:1304.0901 [hep-ph] .[31] ALICE
Collaboration, B. Abelev et al. , “Suppression of ψ (2S) production in p-Pb collisions at √ s NN = 5.02 TeV,” JHEP (2014) 073, arXiv:1405.3796 [nucl-ex] .[32] ALICE
Collaboration, J. Adam et al. , “Centrality dependence of ψ (2S) suppression in p-Pbcollisions at √ s NN = 5.02 TeV,” JHEP (2016) 050, arXiv:1603.02816 [nucl-ex] .[33] LHCb
Collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , “Study of ψ ( S ) production and cold nuclear matter effects inpPb collisions at √ s NN = JHEP (2016) 133, arXiv:1601.07878 [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 = Phys. Lett.
B790 (2019)509–532, arXiv:1805.02248 [hep-ex] .[35]
ATLAS
Collaboration, M. Aaboud et al. , “Measurement of quarkonium production in proton-leadand proton-proton collisions at 5 .
02 TeV with the ATLAS detector,”
Eur. Phys. J.
C78 no. 3,(2018) 171, arXiv:1709.03089 [nucl-ex] .[36] 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.
C97 no. 1,(2018) 014909, arXiv:1707.07266 [hep-ph] .[37] E. G. Ferreiro, “Excited charmonium suppression in proton-nucleus collisions as a consequence ofcomovers,”
Phys. Lett.
B749 (2015) 98–103, arXiv:1411.0549 [hep-ph] .[38]
PHENIX
Collaboration, A. Adare et al. , “Measurement of the relative yields of ψ ( S ) to ψ ( S ) mesons produced at forward and backward rapidity in p + p , p + Al, p + Au, and He + Au collisionsat √ s NN =
200 GeV,”
Phys. Rev.
C95 no. 3, (2017) 034904, arXiv:1609.06550 [nucl-ex] .[39]
ALICE
Collaboration, S. Acharya et al. , “Inclusive J/ ψ production at forward and backwardrapidity in p-Pb collisions at √ s NN = 8.16 TeV,” JHEP (2018) 160, arXiv:1805.04381[nucl-ex] .[40] 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) 159–178, arXiv:1706.07122 [hep-ex] .[41]
ALICE
Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al. , “The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC,”
JINST (2008) S08002.[42] 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] .[43]
ALICE
Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al. , “Rapidity and transverse momentum dependence ofinclusive J/ ψ production in pp collisions at √ s = Phys. Lett.
B704 (2011) 442, arXiv:1105.0380 [hep-ex] . 16easurement of nuclear effects on ψ (2S) in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV ALICE Collaboration[44]
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] .[45] ALICE
Collaboration, E. Abbas et al. , “Performance of the ALICE VZERO system,”
JINST (2013) P10016, arXiv:1306.3130 [nucl-ex] .[46] M. Bondila et al. , “ALICE T0 detector,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. (2005) 1705–1711.[47] ALICE
Collaboration, S. Acharya et al. , “ALICE luminosity determination for p-Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV,”. http://cds.cern.ch/record/2314660 . ALICE-PUBLIC-2018-002.[48]
Particle Data Group
Collaboration, M. Tanabashi et al. , “Review of Particle Physics,”
Phys. Rev.
D98 no. 3, (2018) 030001.[49]
ALICE
Collaboration, J. Adam et al. , “Quarkonium signal extraction in ALICE,”. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2060096 . ALICE-PUBLIC-2015-006.[50]
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] .[51]
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] .[52] R. Brun, F. Bruyant, F. Carminati, S. Giani, M. Maire, A. McPherson, G. Patrick, and L. Urban,
GEANT: Detector Description and Simulation Tool; Oct 1994 . CERN Program Library. CERN,Geneva, 1993. http://cds.cern.ch/record/1082634 . Long Writeup W5013.[53]
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] .[54] 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] .[55] 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] .[56] B. Ducloué, T. Lappi, and H. Mäntysaari, “Forward J / ψ production at high energy: centralitydependence and mean transverse momentum,” Phys. Rev.
D94 no. 7, (2016) 074031, arXiv:1605.05680 [hep-ph] .[57] 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] .[58] A. Kusina, J.-P. Lansberg, I. Schienbein, and H.-S. Shao, “Gluon Shadowing in Heavy-FlavorProduction at the LHC,”
Phys. Rev. Lett. no. 5, (2018) 052004, arXiv:1712.07024[hep-ph] .[59] K. J. Eskola, H. Paukkunen, and C. A. Salgado, “EPS09: A New Generation of NLO and LONuclear Parton Distribution Functions,”
JHEP (2009) 065, arXiv:0902.4154 [hep-ph] .[60] K. Kovarik et al. , “nCTEQ15 - Global analysis of nuclear parton distributions with uncertainties inthe CTEQ framework,” Phys. Rev.
D93 no. 8, (2016) 085037, arXiv:1509.00792 [hep-ph] .[61] 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] .17easurement of nuclear effects on ψ (2S) in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV ALICE Collaboration[62]
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] . 18easurement of nuclear effects on ψ (2S) in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV ALICE Collaboration
A The ALICE Collaboration
S. Acharya , D. Adamová , A. Adler , J. Adolfsson , M.M. Aggarwal , G. Aglieri Rinella ,M. Agnello , N. Agrawal
10 ,54 , Z. Ahammed , S. Ahmad , S.U. Ahn , A. Akindinov , M. Al-Turany ,S.N. Alam , D.S.D. Albuquerque , D. Aleksandrov , B. Alessandro , H.M. Alfanda , R. AlfaroMolina , B. Ali , Y. Ali , A. Alici
10 ,26 ,54 , A. Alkin , J. Alme , T. Alt , L. Altenkamper ,I. Altsybeev , M.N. Anaam , C. Andrei , D. Andreou , H.A. Andrews , A. Andronic , M. Angeletti ,V. Anguelov , C. Anson , 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 , 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 , N.K. Behera , I. Belikov , A.D.C. Bell Hechavarria ,F. Bellini , R. Bellwied , V. Belyaev , G. Bencedi , S. Beole , A. Bercuci , Y. Berdnikov ,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
34 ,96 , A. Bogdanov , S. Boi , 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 , M.D. Buckland , D. Budnikov , H. Buesching ,S. Bufalino , O. Bugnon , P. Buhler , P. Buncic , Z. Buthelezi
72 ,131 , J.B. Butt , J.T. Buxton ,S.A. Bysiak , D. Caffarri , A. Caliva , E. Calvo Villar , R.S. Camacho , P. Camerini ,A.A. Capon , F. Carnesecchi
10 ,26 , R. Caron , J. Castillo Castellanos , 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 , G. Clai
54 ,ii ,J. Cleymans , F. Colamaria , D. Colella , A. Collu , M. Colocci , M. Concas
59 ,iii , G. ConesaBalbastre , Z. Conesa del Valle , 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 , J. de Cuveland , A. De Falco , D. De Gruttola , N. De Marco , S. De Pasquale ,S. Deb , H.F. Degenhardt , K.R. Deja , A. Deloff , S. Delsanto
25 ,131 , W. Deng , D. Devetak ,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 , S. Dudi , M. Dukhishyam , P. Dupieux , R.J. Ehlers
96 ,146 , V.N. Eikeland , D. Elia ,E. Epple , 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 ,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 , E. Garcia-Solis , K. Garg , C. Gargiulo , A. Garibli , K. Garner , P. Gasik ,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 , 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 , 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
63 ,86 , A. Harlenderova , J.W. Harris , A. Harton , J.A. Hasenbichler , H. Hassan ,D. Hatzifotiadou
10 ,54 , P. Hauer , S. Hayashi , S.T. Heckel
68 ,105 , E. Hellbär , H. Helstrup ,A. Herghelegiu , T. Herman , E.G. Hernandez , G. Herrera Corral , F. Herrmann , K.F. Hetland ,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 , ψ (2S) in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV ALICE Collaboration
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 , 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 , O. Karavichev , T. Karavicheva , P. Karczmarczyk ,E. Karpechev , U. Kebschull , R. Keidel , M. Keil , B. Ketzer , Z. Khabanova , A.M. Khan ,S. Khan , S.A. 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
17 ,147 , 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 , A. Kluge ,M.L. Knichel , A.G. Knospe , C. Kobdaj , M.K. Köhler , T. Kollegger , A. Kondratyev ,N. Kondratyeva , E. Kondratyuk , J. Konig , 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 ,A.M. Kubera , 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 , R. Langoy , K. Lapidus , A. Lardeux ,P. Larionov , E. Laudi , R. Lavicka , T. Lazareva , R. Lea , L. Leardini , J. Lee , S. Lee ,F. Lehas , 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 ,S.W. Lindsay , C. Lippmann , M.A. Lisa , A. Liu , J. Liu , S. 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 , J. Margutti , A. Marín , C. Markert , M. Marquard ,C.D. Martin , 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 , 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 , 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
81 ,104 , J. Oleniacz , A.C. Oliveira Da Silva , M.H. Oliver , C. Oppedisano ,A. Ortiz Velasquez , A. Oskarsson , J. Otwinowski , K. Oyama , Y. Pachmayer , V. Pacik ,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 , H. Pei , T. Peitzmann , X. Peng , L.G. Pereira , H. Pereira Da Costa ,D. Peresunko , G.M. Perez , 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 , 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 , 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.S. Rokita , F. Ronchetti , A. Rosano , E.D. Rosas , K. Roslon , A. Rossi
28 ,57 , A. Rotondi , ψ (2S) in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV ALICE Collaboration
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 , 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
34 ,136 ,K. Schwarz , K. Schweda , G. Scioli , E. Scomparin , M. Šefˇcík , 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 , A.I. Sheikh , 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. Stankus ,P.J. Steffanic , E. Stenlund , 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
37 ,120 , 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 , 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 , A. Wegrzynek , S.C. Wenzel , J.P. Wessels ,J. Wiechula , J. Wikne , G. Wilk , J. Wilkinson
10 ,54 , G.A. Willems , E. Willsher , B. Windelband ,M. Winn , W.E. Witt , 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 ,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 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 ψ (2S) in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV ALICE Collaboration 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 INFN, Sezione di Catania, Catania, Italy INFN, Sezione di Padova, Padova, Italy INFN, Sezione di Roma, Rome, Italy INFN, Sezione di Torino, Turin, Italy ψ (2S) in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV ALICE Collaboration 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
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 ψ (2S) in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
16 TeV ALICE Collaboration
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