Rapidity and transverse-momentum dependence of the inclusive J/ ψ nuclear modification factor in p-Pb collisions at s NN − − − − √ =5.02 TeV
EEUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH
CERN-PH-EP–2015-030February 12, 2015c (cid:13)
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.
Rapidity and transverse-momentum dependence of the inclusive J/ ψ nuclear modification factor in p-Pb collisions at √ s NN = . TeV
ALICE Collaboration
Abstract
We have studied the transverse-momentum ( p T ) dependence of the inclusive J/ ψ production in p–Pbcollisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV, in three center-of-mass rapidity ( y cms ) regions, down to zero p T .Results in the forward and backward rapidity ranges (2 . < y cms < .
53 and − . < y cms < − . ψ decay to µ + µ − , while the mid-rapidity region ( − . < y cms < .
43) is investigated by measuring the e + e − decay channel. The p T dependence of the J/ ψ productioncross section and nuclear modification factor are presented for each of the rapidity intervals, as well asthe J/ ψ mean p T values. Forward and mid-rapidity results show a suppression of the J/ ψ yield, withrespect to pp collisions, which decreases with increasing p T . At backward rapidity no significant J/ ψ suppression is observed. Theoretical models including a combination of cold nuclear matter effectssuch as shadowing and partonic energy loss, are in fair agreement with the data, except at forwardrapidity and low transverse momentum. The implications of the p–Pb results for the evaluation ofcold nuclear matter effects on J/ ψ production in Pb–Pb collisions are also discussed. a r X i v : . [ nu c l - e x ] M a r apidity and transverse-momentum dependence of the inclusive J/ ψ R pPb ALICE CollaborationThe suppression of charmonia, bound states of c and ¯ c quarks, and in particular of the J/ ψ state, haslong been proposed as a signature for the formation of a plasma of quarks and gluons (QGP) [1] inultrarelativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions. However, it was soon realized that charmonium productioncan also be modified by nuclear effects not necessarily related to QGP formation [2]. These so-called coldnuclear matter (CNM) effects can be investigated by studying charmonium production in proton-nucleus(p–A) collisions as confirmed by the analysis of results obtained by several fixed-target (SPS [3, 4],HERA [5] and Tevatron [6]) and collider (RHIC [7] and LHC [8, 9]) experiments.Theoretical models have studied the production of charmonium in p–A collisions and the effects of thesurrounding cold nuclear medium by introducing various mechanisms which include nuclear shadowing,gluon saturation, energy loss and nuclear absorption. Models [10–12] inspired by Quantum ChromoDy-namics (QCD) describe charmonium production as a two-step process, with the cc pair created in a hardparton scattering, followed by its evolution into a bound state with specific quantum numbers. The paircreation is sensitive to the Parton Distribution Functions (PDFs) in both colliding partners and, at highenergy, occurs mainly via gluon fusion. Although PDFs are known to be modified in a nuclear environ-ment, information on the dependence of such modifications on the fraction x (Bjorken- x ) of the nucleonmomentum carried by the gluons and on the four-momentum squared Q transferred in the scatteringis still limited [13–15]. Charmonium production measurements can therefore provide insight into theso-called nuclear shadowing, i.e., on how the nucleon gluon PDFs are modified in a nucleus.Modifications of the initial state of the nucleus are also addressed by approaches assuming that at suffi-ciently high energies, when the quark pair is produced from a dense gluon system carrying small x -valuesin the nuclear target, a coherent effect known as gluon saturation sets in. Such an effect can be describedby the Color Glass Condensate (CGC) effective theory, which is characterized by a saturation momentumscale ( Q s ). When combined with a specific quarkonium production model [16, 17], it is able to providepredictions for charmonium production in p–A collisions. In the context of shadowing and CGC models,a measurement of the charmonium yield as a function of transverse momentum ( p T ) and rapidity ( y ) isimportant as it gives access to specific ranges of values of the gluon x and/or Q .In addition to these purely initial state effects, both the incoming partons and the cc pair propagatingthrough the nucleus may lose energy by gluon radiation at the various stages of the charmonium forma-tion process [18]. The interference of gluons radiated before and after the hard production vertex canlead to coherent energy loss effects, expected to induce a modification of the charmonium kinematicdistributions [19].Finally, while travelling through nuclear matter, the evolving cc pair or, if crossing times are sufficientlylarge, the fully formed resonance, may break-up into open charm meson pairs. Although this mecha-nism, known as nuclear absorption, plays an important role at lower collision energies [4], at the LHCthe contribution of this effect to the production cross section is expected to be small, due to the very shortcrossing time of the pair through the nuclear environment.Understanding the role of the cold nuclear matter effects outlined above is essential to further our knowl-edge of various aspects of the physics of strong interactions, and it is crucial for the interpretation of theresults on charmonium production in heavy-ion collisions, where the formation of a QGP is expected.In such a hot and dense deconfined medium the color screening mechanism (the QCD analogue of theDebye screening in QED) can prevent the formation of the heavy-quark bound states, leading to a sup-pression of quarkonium production [1]. In addition, at LHC energies, the large charm quark densitymay lead to a (re)generation of charmonium by (re)combination of charm quarks [20, 21] in the QGPphase and/or when the system cools down and the formation of hadrons occurs. This effect enhancescharmonium production and is expected to be particularly sizeable at low p T . In heavy-ion collisions,a superposition of hot and cold nuclear matter effects is expected, and a quantitative evaluation of thelatter is an important prerequisite for a detailed understanding of the former. At lower energy, bothat SPS [22–24] and RHIC [25, 26], a suppression of J/ ψ production, in addition to the CNM effectsestimated from p–A(d-A) collisions, was indeed observed.2apidity and transverse-momentum dependence of the inclusive J/ ψ R pPb ALICE CollaborationA suppression of J/ ψ production has been measured in Pb–Pb collisions at the LHC [27–31]. It was quan-tified via the nuclear modification factor, i.e., the ratio of the Pb–Pb yields with respect to those measuredin pp at the same energy, scaled by the number of binary nucleon-nucleon collisions. The suppressionhas been found to be stronger at forward rapidity and at high p T [30, 31], in agreement with expectationsfrom (re)combination models. Similar to the lower energy experiments, accurate measurements in p–Acollisions are needed to quantitatively assess the contribution of hot and cold nuclear matter effects inPb–Pb.The first measurements of inclusive J/ ψ production in p–Pb collisions at the LHC at √ s NN = . ψ ( S ) charmonium state are presented in [34]. In addition, an extrapolation toPb–Pb collisions of the J/ ψ suppression measured in p–Pb showed that the effects observed in Pb–Pbcannot be ascribed only to CNM [8].In this situation, a study of the transverse-momentum dependence of J/ ψ production at LHC energies forvarious rapidity regions is particularly interesting in order to: (i) reach a deeper understanding and betterquantify the complicated interplay of CNM effects, which are expected to exhibit a well-defined kine-matical dependence [33,35,36]; (ii) determine if the differential features of the Pb–Pb results that suggestthe presence of (re)combination effects are still present when the contribution of CNM is considered.In this paper, we present ALICE results on the transverse-momentum dependence of the inclusive J/ ψ production in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV, measured in three center-of-mass rapidity ( y cms )ranges: backward ( − . < y cms < − . − . < y cms < .
43) and forward (2 . < y cms < . ψ are reconstructed in the e + e − decay channel with the ALICE central barrel detectors,covering the pseudorapidity range | η lab | < ψ aredetected, through their µ + µ − decay channel in the muon spectrometer, in the pseudorapidity range − < η lab < − . E p = E Pb = . · A Pb TeV, where A Pb =208 is the Pb atomic mass number), the nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass is shifted, with respect to thelaboratory frame, by ∆ y = .
465 in the direction of the proton beam. Since data were collected intwo configurations, interchanging the direction of the proton and the Pb beams in the LHC, the muonspectrometer acceptance covers the forward and backward y cms regions quoted above, where positive(negative) rapidities refer to the direction of the proton (Pb) beam. In the following, the notation p–Pb(Pb–p) will refer to the first (second) configuration.For the dielectron analysis, the central barrel detectors used for the J/ ψ reconstruction are the InnerTracking System (ITS) [37] and the Time Projection Chamber (TPC) [38]. The ITS contains six cylin-drical layers of silicon detectors, with the innermost layer at a radius of 3.9 cm with respect to the beamaxis and the outermost layer at 43 cm. This detector is used for reconstructing the primary interaction ver-tex as well as vertices from different interactions and secondary vertices from decays of heavy-flavoredparticles. The TPC has a cylindrical geometry with an active volume that extends from 85 to 247 cmin the radial direction and 500 cm longitudinally. It is the main central barrel tracking detector and alsoprovides particle identification via the measurement of the specific energy loss (d E / d x ) in the detectorgas.The muon spectrometer [39] is the main detector used in the dimuon analysis. It consists of a 3 T · mdipole magnet, coupled with a tracking and a triggering system. Between the interaction point and the3apidity and transverse-momentum dependence of the inclusive J/ ψ R pPb ALICE Collaborationmuon spectrometer, a ten interaction-length ( λ I ) front absorber filters out the hadrons produced in theinteraction. Muon tracking is performed by means of five tracking stations, each one made of two planesof Cathode Pad Chambers. A 7.2 λ I iron wall, which stops secondary hadrons escaping the front absorberand low momentum muons, is placed after the tracking stations. It is followed by a muon trigger system,based on two stations equipped with Resistive Plate Chambers. A conical absorber made of tungsten,lead and steel protects the spectrometer against secondary particles produced by the interaction of large- η primary particles in the beam pipe. In the dimuon analysis, the determination of the interaction vertex isprovided by the two innermost Si-pixel layers of the ITS (Silicon Pixel Detector, SPD).For both analyses, timing information from the Zero Degree Calorimeters [40], placed symmetricallyat 112.5 m with respect to the interaction point, is used to remove de-bunched proton-lead collisions.Furthermore, two scintillator hodoscopes (VZERO) [41], with pseudorapidity coverage 2 . < η lab < . − . < η lab < − .
7, are used to remove beam-induced background. More details on the ALICEapparatus can be found in [39].A coincidence of signals in the two VZERO detectors provides the minimum bias (MB) trigger, whichhas a >
99% efficiency for selecting non single-diffractive p–Pb collisions [42]. While the dielectronanalysis is based on MB-triggered events, the study of J/ ψ in the µ + µ − decay channel relies on a dimuontrigger which requires, in addition to the MB condition, the detection of two opposite-sign tracks in thetrigger system. The dimuon trigger selects two muon candidates with transverse momenta p T , µ largerthan 0.5 GeV/ c . The trigger threshold is not sharp, and the single muon trigger efficiency reaches itsplateau value ( ∼ p T , µ ∼ . c . The dielectron analysis was performed on a data samplecorresponding to the p–Pb configuration, with an integrated luminosity L int = . ± . µ b − , whilefor the dimuon analysis the corresponding values are 5 . ± .
19 nb − for p–Pb and 5 . ± .
20 nb − for Pb–p (the quoted uncertainties are systematic) [43].The dielectron analysis is based on 1.07 × events, collected with a low MB interaction rate ( ∼ ±
10 cm from the nominal collision pointalong the beam axis, in order to obtain a uniform acceptance of the central barrel detector system inthe fiducial range | η lab | < .
9. Electron candidates are selected with criteria very similar to those usedin previous analyses of pp collisions at √ s = √ s NN = .
76 TeV[30]. To ensure a uniform tracking efficiency and particle identification resolution in the TPC, onlytracks within | η lab | < . E / d x signal to be compatible with the electron assumption within 3 σ , where σ denotes the resolution of the d E / d x measurement. Furthermore, the TPC tracks that are compatiblewith the pion and proton assumptions within 3.5 σ are rejected. A slightly looser rejection condition(3 σ ) is applied when considering tracks corresponding to dielectron candidates with p T > c in order to enhance the statistics. A cut on the transverse momentum ( p T , e > . c ) is appliedto remove combinatorial background from low-momentum electrons. The efficiency loss induced bythis cut amounts to only ∼ ψ decay products. Theelectron candidates must have at least one hit in the innermost two layers of the ITS, thus rejecting alarge fraction of background electrons from photon conversions. For dielectrons with p T < c theelectron candidates are required to have a hit in the first layer, to further reduce background. The tracksare required to have at least 70 out of a maximum of 159 clusters in the TPC and a χ normalized to thenumber of clusters attached to the track smaller than 4.The J/ ψ yields are obtained by counting the number of entries in the invariant mass range 2 . < m e + e − < .
16 GeV/ c after background subtraction. The J/ ψ radiative decay channel and the energy loss of theelectrons due to bremsstrahlung in the detector material produce a long tail towards low invariant masses.A fit using a Crystal Ball (CB) [45] function for the J/ ψ signal gives compatible values in Monte-Carlo(MC) and data ( ∼
20 MeV/ c for the width of the Gaussian component of the CB). Taking into account4apidity and transverse-momentum dependence of the inclusive J/ ψ R pPb ALICE Collaboration ) c (GeV/ p i n T P C ( a r b . un i t s ) x / d E d p e K p d t = 5.02 TeV NN sp-Pb ALICE = 5.02 TeV NN s p-Pb p deK p Fig. 1:
Charged particle specific energy loss (d E / d x ) as a function of momentum, as measured in the TPC in p–Pbcollisions. The black lines are the corresponding Bethe-Bloch parametrizations for the various particle species. c C oun t s pe r M e V / = 5.02 TeV NN s ALICE, p-Pb <0.43 cms y -1.37< c < 1.3 GeV/ T p c < 3 GeV/ T p c < 5 GeV/ T p c < 7 GeV/ T p ) c (GeV/ - e + e m c < 10 GeV/ T p Fig. 2:
Opposite-sign dielectron invariant mass spectra (blue symbols) for various p T intervals, compared to thebackground (black curve) estimated through mixed events. The background is scaled to match the data in the massranges 2 . < m e + e − < . c and 3 . < m e + e − < . c . such a mass resolution and the presence of the bremsstrahlung tail, 67 −
73% of the signal, dependingon p T , falls within the counting window. The background shape is obtained from event mixing. Eventmixing is performed by pairing leptons from different events having similar global characteristics suchas the primary-vertex position and the track multiplicity (the result being quite insensitive to the rapidityrange, either forward or central, chosen for the multiplicity measurements). The mixed-event backgroundis then scaled to match the same-event opposite-sign distribution in the mass ranges 2 . < m e + e − < . c and 3 . < m e + e − < . c (the contribution of the bremsstrahlung tail in the formerrange and of the ψ ( S ) in the latter are negligible). Consistent results are found when the same-eventlike-sign distributions are used, instead of event mixing, to estimate the background. The systematicuncertainty on the signal extraction comes from the variation of the mass range where the normalizationof the mixed-event background shape is performed and from the choice of the mass window where the5apidity and transverse-momentum dependence of the inclusive J/ ψ R pPb ALICE Collaborationsignal is counted. The signal extraction has been performed in five transverse-momentum bins, p T < . . < p T <
3, 3 < p T <
5, 5 < p T < < p T <
10 GeV/ c . The J/ ψ counts in these bins varyfrom 25 to 132, with a significance, computed in the 2 . < m e + e − < .
16 GeV/ c mass region, rangingfrom 4.6 to 8.7. An analysis of the p T -integrated data sample, using the procedure detailed above, gives465 ± ( stat . ) ± ( syst . ) J/ ψ signal counts. The systematic uncertainty on the signal extraction islargest at low p T (10% for p T < . c and 12% for 1 . < p T < c ), due to a less favorablesignal over background ratio, and decreases to ∼ p T bins. Figure 2 shows theinvariant mass distributions for the opposite-sign dielectrons compared with the mixed-event backgroundfor the different intervals of p T .The dimuon analysis is performed as detailed in [8], and is shortly summarized hereafter. Data werecollected with the dimuon trigger, and the MB interaction rate (up to 200 kHz) was much higher thanin the sample used for the dielectron analysis. This leads to a ∼
2% interaction pile-up probability.However, the probability of having more than one dimuon in the same bunch crossing satisfying thetrigger condition is negligible. Muon candidate tracks are reconstructed in the tracking system by usingthe standard reconstruction algorithm [44]. The quality of the tracks is ensured by requiring the singlemuon pseudorapidity to be in the range − < η lab , µ < − .
5, in order to remove particles at the edgesof the muon spectrometer acceptance. In addition, a cut on the radial coordinate of the track at theend of the front absorber (17 . < R abs < . . < y cms < . − . < y cms < − .
96) for the forward (backward) rapidity analysis. The number of J/ ψ is extractedin transverse-momentum bins, in the range p T <
15 GeV/ c , through fits to the invariant mass spectra ofopposite-sign dimuons. The spectra are fitted with a superposition of background and resonance shapes.The background is described with a Gaussian function with a mass-dependent width or, alternatively,with an exponential function times a fourth-order polynomial function. For the J/ ψ shape an extendedCrystal Ball function, which accommodates a non-Gaussian tail both on the right and on the left side ofthe resonance peak, is adopted. Alternatively, a pseudo-Gaussian function [46] is used, corresponding toa Gaussian core around the J/ ψ pole, and tails on the right and left side of it, parameterized by varyingthe width of the Gaussian as a function of the mass. The value of the J/ ψ mass and its width ( σ ) at thepole position are free parameters of the fit. The mass coincides with the PDG value within less than 5MeV/ c and the width is ∼
70 MeV/ c , slightly increasing with p T , due to a small relative decrease in thetracking resolution for harder muons. Although the signal over background ratios, calculated for a ± σ interval around the resonance peak, are relatively large (ranging from 1.4 to ∼ p T ), the parameters of the tails of the J/ ψ distributions cannot be reliably tuned on the data (in particularat large p T , where statistics is limited), but are fixed, for each p T bin, to the values extracted from fitsto reconstructed samples from a signal-only MC generation. The contribution of the ψ (2S) resonanceis also included in the fitting procedure, even if its influence on the determination of the J/ ψ yield isnegligible. Finally, all the fits are performed in two different invariant mass ranges, either 2 < m µµ < c or 2 . < m µµ < . c . Examples of fits to the invariant mass spectra, in the p T bins understudy, are shown in Fig. 3.For each p T bin, the number of J/ ψ is evaluated as the average of the integrals of the resonance functionsobtained in the various fits. The RMS of the corresponding yield distributions (0 . − p T ) provides the systematic uncertainty on the signal extraction. Additional sets of tails, obtained fromthe MC, but referring to other y cms and p T phase space regions, have also been tested and the dependenceof the extracted yields on the variation of the tails (2%) is included in the systematic uncertainty onthe signal extraction. As a function of p T , the number of J/ ψ in the p–Pb (Pb–p) configuration rangesbetween ∼ ∼ < p T < c ) and less than ∼
900 ( ∼ p T bin (10 < p T <
15 GeV/ c ). 6apidity and transverse-momentum dependence of the inclusive J/ ψ R pPb ALICE Collaboration C oun t s pe r M e V / c < 1 GeV/c T p = 5.02 TeV NN s ALICE, p-Pb <3.53 cms y < 2 GeV/c T p < 3 GeV/c T p < 4 GeV/c T p < 5 GeV/c T p C oun t s pe r M e V / c < 6 GeV/c T p < 7 GeV/c T p < 8 GeV/c T p < 10 GeV/c T p ) c (GeV/ - m + m m < 15 GeV/c T p
10 <
Fig. 3:
The opposite-sign dimuon invariant mass spectra for the various p T bins, relative to the p–Pb data sample(blue symbols). The fits shown in this Figure (blue curves) were performed by using the sum of extended CrystalBall functions for the J/ ψ and ψ (2S) signals, and a variable width Gaussian for the background. The signal andbackground components are shown separately as red curves. The J/ ψ yields are then corrected for the product of acceptance times efficiency ( A × ε ), evaluated bymeans of a MC simulation. J/ ψ production is assumed to be unpolarized, as motivated by the smalldegree of polarization measured in pp collisions at √ s = + e − decay channel, A × ε is calculated using a MC simulation where J/ ψ are injected into p–Pb collisions simulated withHIJING [50]. The decay products of the J/ ψ are then propagated through a realistic description ofthe ALICE set-up, based on GEANT3.21 [51], taking into account the time evolution of the detectorperformance. Finally, J/ ψ candidates are reconstructed with the same procedure applied to data. The p T -integrated A × ε factor amounts to 8.9%. Its p T -dependence exhibits a minimum ( ∼ p T = c , due to the kinematical acceptance, and it reaches ∼
12% at high p T . The integrated value of A × ε is affected by a 3% systematic uncertainty related to the choice of the J/ ψ p T - and y -distributions usedin the MC simulation. This value is obtained using as input several distributions, determined by varyingwithin uncertainties the differential spectra extracted from the ALICE p–Pb data themselves. For p T -differential studies, the values of A × ε are found to be sensitive only at a sub-percent level to the adoptedinput p T - and y -distributions. A further small systematic uncertainty reaching 1.5% in the highest p T interval and related to the statistical uncertainty of the MC sample is also introduced. The systematicuncertainty on the dielectron reconstruction efficiency is strongly dominated by the particle identificationuncertainty and amounts to 4%. It was obtained by comparing the single track reconstruction efficiencyfor topologically identified positrons and electrons from photon conversions with the corresponding MCquantities. In the dimuon analysis, the J/ ψ A × ε is obtained with a MC simulation, by generatingsignal-only samples, tracking them in the experimental set-up modeled with GEANT3.21 and usingthe same reconstruction procedure applied to data. The use of a pure signal MC is justified, since thetracking efficiency does not show a dependence on the hadronic multiplicity of the collision. A realisticdescription of the set-up is adopted, including the time evolution of the efficiencies of tracking andtriggering detectors. As for the dielectron analysis, the differential distributions used as an input to theMC are tuned directly on the data. The J/ ψ A × ε values, integrated over p T , are 25.4% and 17.1%for p–Pb and Pb–p respectively [8], and exhibit a dependence on transverse momentum, being of theorder of ∼
24% ( ∼ p T and reaches ∼
50% ( ∼ p T bin(10 < p T <
15 GeV/ c ). The systematically lower A × ε values in Pb–p reflect the smaller detector7apidity and transverse-momentum dependence of the inclusive J/ ψ R pPb ALICE CollaborationSource σ J / ψ pPb , R pPb σ J / ψ pPb , R pPb σ J / ψ Pbp , R Pbp -1.37 < y cms < < y cms < < y cms < -2.96 Uncorrelated
Tracking efficiency ( µ + µ − ) - 4 6Trigger efficiency ( µ + µ − ) - 2.7 − − µ + µ − ) - 1 1Reconstruction efficiency (e + e − ) − − − − − − σ J / ψ pp − − − Partially correlated σ J / ψ pp (corr. vs y and p T ) - 2.8 − − Correlated
B.R. (J/ ψ → l + l − ) 1 1 1 L int (corr. vs. p T , uncorr. vs. y ) 3.3 3.4 3.1 L int (corr. vs. y and p T ) 1.6 1.6 1.6 σ J / ψ pp Table 1:
Systematic uncertainties (in percent) on the measurement of inclusive J/ ψ cross sections and nuclearmodification factors. For p T -dependent uncertainties, the minimum and maximum values are given. The degree ofcorrelation (uncorrelated, partially correlated, correlated) refers to the p T -dependence, unless specified otherwise.It cannot be excluded that a degree of correlation, difficult to quantify, is present also in uncertainties currentlylabelled as uncorrelated. Uncertainties on L int and branching ratios are relevant for cross sections, while those on σ J / ψ pp contribute only to the uncertainty on the nuclear modification factors. L int uncertainties are split into twocomponents, respectively uncorrelated and correlated between p–Pb and Pb–p, as detailed in [43]. efficiency in the corresponding data taking period. The systematic uncertainty on the integrated A × ε dueto the input shapes is 1.5% for both p–Pb and Pb–p, and has been estimated using various distributionsobtained from data and corresponding to smaller intervals in y , p T and centrality (see [8] for details).For p T -differential studies, the corresponding uncertainties are below 1.5%. The uncertainty on thedimuon tracking efficiency amounts to 4% (6%) for p–Pb (Pb–p) and is taken as constant for the full p T range. It is evaluated by combining the uncertainties on single muon tracking efficiencies, consideredas uncorrelated. The efficiency of each tracking plane is obtained using the redundancy of the trackingsystem (two independent planes per station) and then single muon efficiencies for the full tracking systemare calculated according to the tracking algorithm [52]. Their uncertainty is determined by comparing theefficiency obtained with tracks from MC and real data. The systematic uncertainty on the dimuon triggerefficiency includes: (i) a contribution due to the uncertainty in the evaluation of the trigger detectorefficiency ( ∼ p T ); (ii) a 0 . − p T -dependent contribution (2% for the integratedefficiency), related to small differences in the trigger response function between data and MC in theregion close to the trigger threshold; (iii) a 0 . − . p T -dependent contribution due to a small fractionof opposite-sign pairs which were misidentified as like-sign by the trigger system. Finally, a ∼ p T , is included, due to the choice of the value of the χ cut applied to thematching of tracks reconstructed in the muon tracking and triggering systems.The differential cross section for inclusive J/ ψ production is defined as:d σ J / ψ pPb d y d p T = N J / ψ ( ∆ y , ∆ p T ) L pPbint · ( A × ε ) ( ∆ y , ∆ p T ) · B . R . ( J / ψ → l + l − ) · ∆ y · ∆ p T (1)where N J / ψ ( ∆ y , ∆ p T ) is the number of J/ ψ for a given ∆ y and ∆ p T interval. The branching ratio to dilep-8apidity and transverse-momentum dependence of the inclusive J/ ψ R pPb ALICE Collaborationtons, B . R . ( J / ψ → l + l − ) , is 5 . ± .
06% (5 . ± . L pPbint , is the ratio between N MB , the number of MB collisions, and σ MBpPb , the corre-sponding cross section, measured in a van der Meer scan to be 2.09 ± ± N DIMU dimuontriggered events, the number of equivalent MB collisions is computed as N MB = F · N DIMU , where F is afactor accounting for the probability of having a dimuon trigger when the MB condition is satisfied andfor the small ( ∼ ψ cross sections are shown in Fig. 4,in the ranges p T <
10 GeV/ c for the dielectron analysis and p T <
15 GeV/ c for the dimuon analysis. Thenumerical values can be found in Table 2.For the dielectron analysis, the p T -integrated cross section was also determined, obtainingd σ J / ψ pPb / d y ( − . < y cms < . ) = ± ( stat . ) ± ( syst . ) µ b . The corresponding p T -integrated cross sections for the dimuon analysis were published in [8]. ) c (GeV/ T p ) - ) c b ( G e V / m ( T p d y / d s d = 5.02 TeV NN s ALICE, p-Pb y inclusive J/ -1 = 5.0 nb int L <3.53, cms y , 2.03< - m + m -1 = 5.8 nb int L <-2.96, cms y , -4.46< - m + m -1 b m = 51 int L <0.43, cms y , -1.37< - e + e Fig. 4: p T -differential inclusive J/ ψ cross sections for the various rapidity regions under study. The vertical errorbars correspond to the statistical uncertainties, while open boxes represent the uncorrelated systematic uncertaintiesand the shaded boxes the quadratic sum of the fully and partially correlated ones. The numerical values can beread in Table 2. The horizontal bars correspond to the widths of the p T bins. Starting from the p T -differential J/ ψ cross sections it is possible to evaluate, as additional information,the mean p T ( (cid:104) p T (cid:105) ) for the various y -ranges, by means of fits based on the empirical function:d σ J / ψ pPb d y d p T = C × p T (cid:20) + (cid:16) p T p (cid:17) (cid:21) n (2)9apidity and transverse-momentum dependence of the inclusive J/ ψ R pPb ALICE Collaboration p T d σ J / ψ pPb / d y d p T p T R pPb d σ J / ψ pp / d y d p T (interpol.)(GeV/ c ) ( µ b/(GeV/ c )) (GeV/ c ) ( µ b/(GeV/ c )) − . < y cms < − .
96 ( µ + µ − ) [
0; 1 ] ± ± ± [
0; 1 ] ± ± ± ± ± ± ± [
1; 2 ] ± ± ± [
1; 2 ] ± ± ± ± ± ± ± [
2; 3 ] ± ± ± [
2; 3 ] ± ± ± ± ± ± ± [
3; 4 ] ± ± ± [
3; 4 ] ± ± ± ± ± ± ± [
4; 5 ] ± ± ± [
4; 5 ] ± ± ± ± ± ± ± [
5; 6 ] ± ± ± [
5; 6 ] ± ± ± ± ± ± ± [
6; 7 ] ± ± ± [
6; 8 ] ± ± ± ± ± ± ± [
7; 8 ] ± ± ± [
8; 10 ] ± ± ± [
10; 15 ] ± ± ± − . < y cms < .
43 (e + e − ) [
0; 1 . ] ± ± ± [
0; 1 . ] ± ± ± ± ± [ .
3; 3 ] ± ± ± [ .
3; 3 ] ± ± ± ± ± [
3; 5 ] ± ± ± [
3; 5 ] ± ± ± ± ± [
5; 7 ] ± ± ± [
5; 7 ] ± ± ± ± ± [
7; 10 ] ± ± ± [
7; 10 ] ± ± ± ± ± . < y cms < .
53 ( µ + µ − ) [
0; 1 ] ± ± ± [
0; 1 ] ± ± ± ± ± ± ± [
1; 2 ] ± ± ± [
1; 2 ] ± ± ± ± ± ± ± [
2; 3 ] ± ± ± [
2; 3 ] ± ± ± ± ± ± ± [
3; 4 ] ± ± ± [
3; 4 ] ± ± ± ± ± ± ± [
4; 5 ] ± ± ± [
4; 5 ] ± ± ± ± ± ± ± [
5; 6 ] ± ± ± [
5; 6 ] ± ± ± ± ± ± ± [
6; 7 ] ± ± ± [
6; 8 ] ± ± ± ± ± ± ± [
7; 8 ] ± ± ± [
8; 10 ] ± ± ± [
10; 15 ] ± ± ± Table 2:
Summary of the results on the inclusive J/ ψ differential cross sections and nuclear modification factorsfor p–Pb collisions. The results of the cross section interpolation for pp collisions are also shown. For p–Pb crosssection results, the first quoted uncertainty is statistical. The following uncertainties are systematic, the secondone being p T -uncorrelated and the third one p T -correlated. For R pPb the first quoted uncertainty is statistical. Thefollowing uncertainties are systematic, the second one being p T -uncorrelated. For dielectron results the third un-certainty is p T -correlated, while for dimuon results the third uncertainty is partially p T -correlated and the fourth is p T -correlated. For the results on the interpolated pp cross section, the first quoted uncertainty combines statisticaland p T -uncorrelated systematic uncertainties. For dielectron results the second uncertainty is p T -correlated sys-tematic, while for dimuon results the second uncertainty is partially p T -correlated, and the third is p T -correlated. ψ R pPb ALICE Collaborationwhere C , p and n are free parameters. The quality of the fits is satisfactory ( χ / ndf ∼
1) and the resulting (cid:104) p T (cid:105) values, computed for the measured p T ranges, are (cid:104) p T (cid:105) ( − . < y cms < − . ) = . ± . ( stat . ) ± . ( syst . ) GeV / c (cid:104) p T (cid:105) ( − . < y cms < . ) = . ± . ( stat . ) ± . ( syst . ) GeV / c (cid:104) p T (cid:105) ( . < y cms < . ) = . ± . ( stat . ) ± . ( syst . ) GeV / c The quoted uncertainties were obtained by performing fits including only statistical (or uncorrelatedsystematic) uncertainties on differential cross sections.In order to perform a meaningful comparison of (cid:104) p T (cid:105) results in the dielectron and dimuon analysis, thevalues from the dimuon analysis have also been extracted, with the same procedure detailed above, inthe range p T <
10 GeV/ c , obtaining results which are smaller by less than 2% with respect to the full p T range. It is found that (cid:104) p T (cid:105) is larger at central rapidity. Furthermore, the (cid:104) p T (cid:105) measured at forward y cms is significantly larger than at backward y cms . This difference, which could be partly due to the slightlydifferent | y | -coverage, persists when (cid:104) p T (cid:105) is calculated in the | y cms | region common to p–Pb and Pb–p(2 . < | y cms | < . . ± . ( stat . ) ± . ( syst . ) GeV / c and2 . ± . ( stat . ) ± . ( syst . ) GeV / c , respectively at backward and forward y cms , and differ by ∼ σ .The J/ ψ nuclear modification factor R pPb is obtained as the ratio of the differential cross sections betweenproton-nucleus and proton-proton collisions, normalized to A Pb : R pPb ( y , p T ) = d σ J / ψ pPb / d y d p T A Pb · d σ J / ψ pp / d y d p T (3)Since no pp data are available at √ s = .
02 TeV, the d σ J / ψ pp / d y d p T reference cross sections were ob-tained by means of an interpolation/extrapolation procedure. For the dielectron analysis, the startingpoint of the interpolation procedure is the determination of d σ / d y for inclusive J/ ψ in pp collisions at y cms ∼ √ s = .
02 TeV, carried out as for the analysis described in [30]. Available mid-rapidity dataat √ s = 0.2 [54], 1.96 [55], 2.76 [56] and 7 TeV [44] are interpolated using several empirical functions(exponential, logarithmic and power-law, covering in this way the various possibilities for the curvatureof the √ s -dependence) obtaining d σ / d y = . ± . µ b. Even if the y cms range covered in this anal-ysis is shifted by 0.465 units with respect to mid-rapidity, the rapidity-dependence of the cross sectionis negligible compared to the uncertainty on the interpolation procedure. Then, a method similar to theone in [57] is applied to derive the p T -differential cross section. It is based on the empirical observa-tion that pp and pp results on differential spectra obtained at various collision energies and in differentrapidity ranges [44, 48, 54, 55, 58] exhibit scaling properties when plotted as a function of p T / (cid:104) p T (cid:105) . Thenormalized spectra, with the statistical and the bin-by-bin uncorrelated systematic uncertainties addedin quadrature, can be fitted with a one-parameter function described in [57]. The p T -differential crosssections at mid-rapidity and √ s = .
02 TeV can then be obtained by rescaling the fitted universal dis-tribution using the previously estimated d σ / d y and its corresponding (cid:104) p T (cid:105) . The latter value is obtainedby an interpolation of the energy-dependence of (cid:104) p T (cid:105) values evaluated fitting the available experimentalmid-rapidity results [44, 54, 55] with exponential, logarithmic and power-law functions. One obtains inthis way, in the range p T <
10 GeV/ c , (cid:104) p T (cid:105) = . ± .
10 GeV/ c as an average of the results calculatedwith the various empirical functions. As outlined above for d σ / d y , the 0.465 y -unit shift of the data withrespect to mid-rapidity has a negligible effect also on (cid:104) p T (cid:105) .For the dimuon analysis, thanks to the smaller uncertainties with respect to mid-rapidity results, anapproach equivalent to that described in [59], exclusively based on the ALICE data collected at √ s = .
76 TeV [56] and 7 TeV [60] in 2 . < y cms < p T < c has been used. The reference cross11apidity and transverse-momentum dependence of the inclusive J/ ψ R pPb ALICE Collaborationsections are obtained with a two-step procedure, corresponding to an energy interpolation followed bya rapidity extrapolation. In the first step, for each p T bin, the d σ J / ψ pp / d y d p T values at √ s = .
76 and7 TeV are interpolated, using three different empirical functions (linear, power-law and exponential) toestimate the cross section values at √ s = .
02 TeV. The central values are calculated as the average of theresults obtained with the three functions, while the associated uncertainties come from the experimentaluncertainties on the points used for the interpolation, added in quadrature to a contribution chosen as themaximum spread of the results from the different interpolating functions. In the second step, this resultis extrapolated from 2 . < y cms < y cms ranges, using the scaling factors for the p T -integrated cross sections computed in [59]. Finally, since the LHCb Collaboration has shown that theJ/ ψ p T distributions slightly depend on y cms [48] in the rapidity range covered in the dimuon analysis, a p T -dependent correction tuned on these data (10% maximum at large p T ) is applied.The inclusive J/ ψ nuclear modification factor is shown in Fig. 5 for the three rapidity regions under study.The numerical values of R pPb , as well as the results of the interpolation procedure for the estimate of thepp cross sections, can be found in Table 2. For the dimuon analysis, the evaluation of R pPb is restricted to p T < c , the region covered by the pp measurements used in the evaluation of the reference crosssections. The sources of systematic uncertainties on R pPb and their values are summarized in Table 1. Theterms related to the pp reference cross sections contribute to uncorrelated, partially or fully correlateduncertainties on R pPb , depending on their origin. In particular, for the dimuon analysis: (i) the statisti-cal and p T -uncorrelated systematic uncertainties on the √ s = .
76 and 7 TeV pp data contribute to theuncorrelated uncertainty; (ii) the spread of the results obtained with various interpolating/extrapolatingfunctions in √ s and y cms contribute to the partially correlated uncertainty; (iii) the √ s -correlated uncer-tainties between the √ s = .
76 and 7 TeV pp data contribute to the correlated uncertainty. At forwardand mid-rapidity the J/ ψ R pPb shows a clear suppression at low p T , vanishing at high p T . At backwardrapidity no suppression is present, within uncertainties.For the dielectron analysis, the p T -integrated nuclear modification factor was also calculated, carryingout the signal extraction procedure on the p T -integrated invariant mass spectrum. The obtained value R pPb = . ± . ( stat . ) ± . ( syst . ) is consistent with the forward rapidity (2 . < y cms < .
53) dimuon result, and smaller than the backwardone ( − . < y cms < − .
96) by ∼ σ [8].In Fig. 5 predictions from various models are compared to the data. A calculation based on the next-to-leading order (NLO) Color Evaporation Model (CEM) for the prompt J/ ψ production and the EPS09shadowing parametrization [33] reproduces within uncertainties the p T -dependence and the amplitudeof the suppression for p T > . c in the three rapidity regions under study. The theoretical uncer-tainties arise from the uncertainties on EPS09 as well as on the values of charm quark mass and of therenormalization and factorization scales used for the cross section calculation. Data are also comparedto two calculations based on a parametrization of experimental results on prompt J/ ψ production in ppcollisions and including the effects of coherent energy loss [35] in the cold nuclear medium. One ofthe calculations includes only coherent energy loss, while the other combines coherent energy loss withEPS09 shadowing. The uncertainty bands include, for the coherent energy loss mechanism, a variationof both the q parameter (gluon transport coefficient evaluated at x = .
01) and the parametrization ofthe production cross section. At forward rapidity the pure energy loss scenario predicts a much steeper p T -dependence, while better agreement is found when the EPS09 contribution is included. However, atlow p T , a discrepancy between data and both calculations is observed. Also at mid-rapidity the coherentenergy loss model including the EPS09 contribution better describes the data, although the larger un-certainties prevent a firm conclusion. The same features can be observed at backward rapidity, wherethe calculation including coherent energy loss and shadowing agrees with the data in showing weak nu-clear effects on J/ ψ production. Finally, the results at central and forward rapidities are compared with12apidity and transverse-momentum dependence of the inclusive J/ ψ R pPb ALICE Collaboration ) c (GeV/ T p p P b R EPS09 NLO (Vogt) /fm (Arleo et al.) =0.075 GeV q ELoss with /fm (Arleo et al.) =0.055 GeV q EPS09 NLO + ELoss with = 5.02 TeV NN s ALICE, p-Pb - m + mfiy inclusive J/<-2.96 cms y -4.46< ) c (GeV/ T p p P b R = 5.02 TeV NN s ALICE, p-Pb - e + e fiy inclusive J/<0.43 cms y -1.37< EPS09 NLO (Vogt)CGC (Fujii et al.) /fm (Arleo et al.) =0.075 GeV q Eloss with /fm (Arleo et al.) =0.055 GeV q EPS09 NLO + Eloss with ) c (GeV/ T p p P b R EPS09 NLO (Vogt)CGC (Fujii et al.) /fm (Arleo et al.) =0.075 GeV q ELoss with /fm (Arleo et al.) =0.055 GeV q EPS09 NLO + ELoss with = 5.02 TeV NN s ALICE, p-Pb - m + mfiy inclusive J/<3.53 cms y Fig. 5:
The J/ ψ nuclear modification factor as a function of p T at backward (top), mid (center) and forward(bottom) rapidities. Statistical uncertainties are represented by vertical error bars, while open boxes correspondto uncorrelated uncertainties and the shaded areas to uncertainties partially correlated in p T . The boxes around R pPb = p T bins.Results from various models are also shown, including a pure shadowing calculation [33] based on the EPS09parameterization, a CGC-inspired model [36], and the results of the coherent energy loss calculation [35], with orwithout the inclusion of an EPS09 shadowing contribution. ψ R pPb ALICE Collaborationa prediction based on the CGC framework and using CEM for the prompt J/ ψ production [36]. In thebackward rapidity region, higher gluon x in the nucleus are probed and the CGC model is out of its rangeof applicability. The quoted uncertainties are related to the choices of Q s and of the charm quark mass.While the model is in fair agreement with mid-rapidity data, it clearly underpredicts the J/ ψ R pPb in thefull p T range at forward rapidity.The theoretical calculations discussed above are carried out for prompt J/ ψ (i.e., direct J/ ψ and thecontribution from χ c and ψ (2S) decays), while the measurements are for inclusive J/ ψ which includea non-prompt contribution from B-hadron decays. The contribution of the latter source to R inclpPb canbe evaluated from the measured fraction f B of non-prompt to prompt J/ ψ production in pp collisionsand on the suppression R non − promptpPb of non-prompt J/ ψ in p–Pb collisions. More in detail, in the range2 < y cms < .
5, the fraction f B measured by LHCb in pp collisions at √ s = p T = c [48]. This quantity has a small variation within the y cms range covered andis also not strongly √ s -dependent (similar values are obtained for √ s = f B was measured by ALICE in pp collisions at √ s = p T increasingfrom 1.3 to 10 GeV/ c [61]. R non − promptpPb was measured at √ s NN = .
02 TeV by LHCb, integrated over p T , obtaining 0.83 ± ± . < y cms < ± ± − < y cms < − . p T -bin a variation of R non − promptpPb between 0.6 and 1.3, a conservative choice due tothe unavailability of a p T -differential result, and considering the p T -dependence of f B at √ s = R promptpPb as R promptpPb = R inclpPb + f B · ( R inclpPb − R non − promptpPb ) . The maximum differences betweenthe inclusive and prompt R pPb obtained in this way are, for low and high p T : (i) 3 and 10% at backwardrapidity; (ii) 11 and 16% at central rapidity; (iii) 10 and 8% at forward rapidity. These variations are, atmost, of the same order of magnitude as the quoted uncertainties on inclusive R pPb .The R pPb results shown in this paper can be considered as a valuable tool to improve our understandingof the contribution of CNM to the suppression of the J/ ψ yields observed in Pb–Pb [30, 31]. Indeed,as verified in [8] for the dimuon analysis, in Pb–Pb collisions the Bjorken- x ranges probed by the J/ ψ production process in the two colliding nuclei, assuming a gg → J / ψ (2 →
1) [62] mechanism, are shiftedby only ∼
10% with respect to the corresponding intervals for p–Pb and Pb–p, despite the different energy( √ s NN = 2.76 TeV) and the slightly different y cms range (2 . < y <
4) for Pb–Pb. A similar conclusionholds at mid-rapidity, where the covered x -intervals, calculated for p T = (cid:104) p T (cid:105) , are 6 . × − < x < . × − and 7 . × − < x < . × − for p–Pb and Pb–Pb collisions, respectively. Under the assumptionthat shadowing is the main CNM-related mechanism that plays a role in the J/ ψ production and that itseffect on the two colliding nuclei in Pb–Pb collisions can be factorized, the product R pPb × R Pbp ( R )can be considered as an estimate of CNM effects in Pb–Pb collisions at forward (central) rapidity [63,64].This conclusion holds not only for the 2 → → gg → J / ψ g ) is considered.In Fig. 6 the comparison of the measured R PbPb with the quantities defined above is carried out. Sucha comparison should be considered as qualitative, in view of the slight x -mismatch detailed above andof the fact that, at mid-rapidity, the centrality ranges probed in p–Pb and Pb–Pb are not the same (0-100% and 0-50%, respectively). In both rapidity regions, the extrapolation of CNM effects shows a clear p T -dependence, corresponding to a strong suppression at low p T , which vanishes for large transversemomenta. At low p T and central rapidity, there might be an indication for a Pb–Pb suppression smallerthan the CNM extrapolation, consistent with the presence of a contribution related to the (re)combinationof c ¯ c pairs [30], taking place in the hot medium. A similar effect can be seen at forward rapidity. Atlarge p T and forward rapidity, the observed suppression in Pb–Pb collisions is much larger than CNMextrapolations, showing that, in this transverse-momentum region, suppression effects in hot matter,possibly related to color screening, become dominant.Finally, a more direct comparison of Pb–Pb results with the CNM extrapolation can be obtained bydefining the ratio S J / ψ = R PbPb / ( R pPb × R Pbp ) . Such a quantity, for forward rapidity results, is shown in14apidity and transverse-momentum dependence of the inclusive J/ ψ R pPb ALICE Collaboration ) c (GeV/ T p P b P b R , P b R - e + e fi y ALICE inclusive J/ = 5.02 TeV NN s <0.43), cms y (-1.37< R = 2.76 TeV, 0-50 % NN s |<0.8), cms y (| PbPb R ) c (GeV/ T p P b P b R , ba ck w p P b R x f o r w p P b R - m + mfiy ALICE inclusive J/ = 5.02 TeV NN s <-2.96), cms y (-4.46< backwpPb R <3.53) x cms y (2.03< forwpPb R = 2.76 TeV, 0-90% NN s <4), cms y (2.5< PbPb R (Phys. Lett. B734 (2014) 314) Fig. 6:
The estimate of the p T -dependence of CNM effects in Pb–Pb, calculated as R for mid-rapidity data (top)and as R pPb × R Pbp (bottom) at forward rapidity. The quantities are compared to R PbPb measured in Pb–Pb colli-sions in the (approximately) corresponding y -ranges [30, 31]. The vertical error bars correspond to the statisticaluncertainties, the open boxes (shaded areas) represent p T -uncorrelated (partially correlated) systematic uncertain-ties, while the boxes around R pPb = p T bins. The Pb–Pb points in the bottom panel were slightly displaced in p T , to improvevisibility. ψ R pPb ALICE CollaborationFig. 7 and confirms the main features detailed above, i.e., a strong suppression of J/ ψ at large p T , anda hint for an enhancement at low p T . At central rapidity, due to the sizeable uncertainties on both p–Pband Pb–Pb results, only the p T -integrated ratio can be obtained. Using the R PbPb in the 0-90% centralityrange [30], and the integrated R pPb given above, one gets 1 . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) . More precisemeasurements are needed to draw a firm conclusion in this rapidity range. ) c (GeV/ T p y J / S - m + mfiy ALICE inclusive J/ <3.53 cms y = 5.02 TeV, 2.03< NN s : forwpPb R <-2.96 cms y = 5.02 TeV, -4.46< NN s : backwpPb R <4, 0-90% cms y = 2.76 TeV, 2.5< NN s : PbPb R (Phys. Lett. B734 (2014) 314) backwpPb R · forwpPb R PbPb R = y J/ S Fig. 7:
The ratio between R PbPb for inclusive J/ ψ at forward rapidity and the product R pPb × R Pbp of the nuclearmodification factors at forward and backward rapidity. None of the uncertainties cancels out in the ratio. Statisticaluncertainties are shown as vertical error bars, while the boxes around the points represent a quadratic combina-tion of uncorrelated and partially correlated systematic uncertainties. The box around S J / ψ = p T bins. In summary, we have presented results on the inclusive J/ ψ production in p–Pb collisions at √ s NN = . p T -differential cross sections, the (cid:104) p T (cid:105) and the nuclear modification factors have been evaluatedin three rapidity regions: − . < y cms < − . − . < y cms < .
43 and 2 . < y cms < .
53. Atforward and mid-rapidity a significant suppression is observed at low p T , with a vanishing trend athigh p T . At backward rapidity no significant suppression or enhancement is visible. Comparisons withtheoretical models based on a combination of nuclear shadowing and coherent energy loss effects providea fair description of the observed patterns, except at forward rapidity and low transverse momentum.These results can be used to provide a qualitative estimate of the influence of cold nuclear matter effectson the J/ ψ suppression observed in Pb–Pb collisions. Under the assumption that shadowing representsthe main CNM contribution, we find that it cannot account for the observed suppression in Pb–Pb at high p T . At low p T , the observed CNM effects alone may suggest a suppression larger than that observed inPb–Pb, which is consistent with the presence of a charm quark (re)combination component to the J/ ψ production in nucleus-nucleus collisions. Acknowledgements
The ALICE Collaboration would like to thank all its engineers and technicians for their invaluablecontributions to the construction of the experiment and the CERN accelerator teams for the outstandingperformance of the LHC complex. The ALICE Collaboration gratefully acknowledges the resourcesand support provided by all Grid centres and the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid (WLCG)collaboration. The ALICE Collaboration acknowledges the following funding agencies for their support16apidity and transverse-momentum dependence of the inclusive J/ ψ R pPb ALICE Collaborationin building and running the ALICE detector: State Committee of Science, World Federation ofScientists (WFS) and Swiss Fonds Kidagan, Armenia, Conselho Nacional de DesenvolvimentoCient´ıfico e Tecnol´ogico (CNPq), Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (FINEP), Fundac¸ ˜ao de Amparo `aPesquisa do Estado de S˜ao Paulo (FAPESP); National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC),the Chinese Ministry of Education (CMOE) and the Ministry of Science and Technology of China(MSTC); Ministry of Education and Youth of the Czech Republic; Danish Natural Science ResearchCouncil, the Carlsberg Foundation and the Danish National Research Foundation; The EuropeanResearch Council under the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme; Helsinki Instituteof Physics and the Academy of Finland; French CNRS-IN2P3, the ‘Region Pays de Loire’, ‘RegionAlsace’, ‘Region Auvergne’ and CEA, France; German Bundesministerium fur Bildung, Wissenschaft,Forschung und Technologie (BMBF) and the Helmholtz Association; General Secretariat for Researchand Technology, Ministry of Development, Greece; Hungarian Orszagos Tudomanyos KutatasiAlappgrammok (OTKA) and National Office for Research and Technology (NKTH); Department ofAtomic Energy and Department of Science and Technology of the Government of India; IstitutoNazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN) and Centro Fermi - Museo Storico della Fisica e Centro Studi eRicerche ”Enrico Fermi”, Italy; MEXT Grant-in-Aid for Specially Promoted Research, Japan; JointInstitute for Nuclear Research, Dubna; National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF); ConsejoNacional de Cienca y Tecnologia (CONACYT), Direccion General de Asuntos del PersonalAcademico(DGAPA), M´exico, :Amerique Latine Formation academique EuropeanCommission(ALFA-EC) and the EPLANET Program (European Particle Physics Latin AmericanNetwork) Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM) and the Nederlandse Organisatievoor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), Netherlands; Research Council of Norway (NFR); NationalScience Centre, Poland; Ministry of National Education/Institute for Atomic Physics and ConsiliulNaional al Cercetrii tiinifice - Executive Agency for Higher Education Research Development andInnovation Funding (CNCS-UEFISCDI) - Romania; Ministry of Education and Science of RussianFederation, Russian Academy of Sciences, Russian Federal Agency of Atomic Energy, Russian FederalAgency for Science and Innovations and The Russian Foundation for Basic Research; Ministry ofEducation of Slovakia; Department of Science and Technology, South Africa; Centro de InvestigacionesEnergeticas, Medioambientales y Tecnologicas (CIEMAT), E-Infrastructure shared between Europe andLatin America (EELA), Ministerio de Econom´ıa y Competitividad (MINECO) of Spain, Xunta deGalicia (Conseller´ıa de Educaci´on), Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnolgicas y Desarrollo Nuclear(CEADEN), Cubaenerg´ıa, Cuba, and IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency); Swedish ResearchCouncil (VR) and Knut & Alice Wallenberg Foundation (KAW); Ukraine Ministry of Education andScience; United Kingdom Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC); The United StatesDepartment of Energy, the United States National Science Foundation, the State of Texas, and the Stateof Ohio; Ministry of Science, Education and Sports of Croatia and Unity through Knowledge Fund,Croatia. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi, India
References [1] T. Matsui and H. Satz, “ J / ψ Suppression by Quark-Gluon Plasma Formation,”
Phys.Lett.
B178 (1986) 416.[2] C. Gerschel and J. H¨ufner, “A Contribution to the Suppression of the J / ψ Meson Produced inHigh-Energy Nucleus Nucleus Collisions,”
Phys.Lett.
B207 (1988) 253–256.[3]
NA50
Collaboration, B. Alessandro et al. , “ J / ψ and ψ ’ production and their normal nuclearabsorption in proton-nucleus collisions at 400-GeV,” Eur.Phys.J.
C48 (2006) 329, arXiv:nucl-ex/0612012 [nucl-ex] .[4]
NA60
Collaboration, R. Arnaldi et al. , “ J / ψ production in proton-nucleus collisions at 158 and400 GeV,” Phys.Lett.
B706 (2012) 263–267, arXiv:1004.5523 [nucl-ex] .17apidity and transverse-momentum dependence of the inclusive J/ ψ R pPb ALICE Collaboration[5]
HERA-B
Collaboration, I. Abt et al. , “Kinematic distributions and nuclear effects of J / ψ production in 920-GeV fixed-target proton-nucleus collisions,” Eur.Phys.J.
C60 (2009) 525–542, arXiv:0812.0734 [hep-ex] .[6]
E866
Collaboration, M. Leitch et al. , “Measurement of J / ψ and ψ ’ suppression in p-A collisionsat 800-GeV/c,” Phys.Rev.Lett. (2000) 3256–3260, arXiv:nucl-ex/9909007 [nucl-ex] .[7] PHENIX
Collaboration, A. Adare et al. , “Transverse-Momentum Dependence of the J / ψ NuclearModification in d + Au Collisions at √ s NN =
200 GeV,”
Phys.Rev.
C87 no. 3, (2013) 034904, arXiv:1204.0777 [nucl-ex] .[8]
ALICE
Collaboration, B. B. Abelev et al. , “ J / ψ production and nuclear effects in p-Pb collisionsat √ s NN = 5.02 TeV,” JHEP (2014) 073, arXiv:1308.6726 [nucl-ex] .[9]
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] .[10] 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] .[11] J. Amundson, O. J. Eboli, E. Gregores, and F. Halzen, “Quantitative tests of color evaporation:Charmonium production,”
Phys.Lett.
B390 (1997) 323–328, arXiv:hep-ph/9605295[hep-ph] .[12] R. Baier and R. Ruckl, “Hadronic Production of J / ψ and Upsilon: Transverse MomentumDistributions,” Phys.Lett.
B102 (1981) 364.[13] 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] .[14] D. de Florian, R. Sassot, P. Zurita, and M. Stratmann, “Global Analysis of Nuclear PartonDistributions,”
Phys.Rev.
D85 (2012) 074028, arXiv:1112.6324 [hep-ph] .[15] M. Hirai, S. Kumano, and T.-H. Nagai, “Determination of nuclear parton distribution functionsand their uncertainties in next-to-leading order,”
Phys.Rev.
C76 (2007) 065207, arXiv:0709.3038 [hep-ph] .[16] D. Kharzeev and K. Tuchin, “Signatures of the color glass condensate in J / ψ production offnuclear targets,” Nucl.Phys.
A770 (2006) 40–56, arXiv:hep-ph/0510358 [hep-ph] .[17] H. Fujii, F. Gelis, and R. Venugopalan, “Quark pair production in high energy pA collisions:General features,”
Nucl.Phys.
A780 (2006) 146–174, arXiv:hep-ph/0603099 [hep-ph] .[18] R. Sharma and I. Vitev, “High transverse momentum quarkonium production and dissociation inheavy ion collisions,”
Phys.Rev.
C87 no. 4, (2013) 044905, arXiv:1203.0329 [hep-ph] .[19] F. Arleo and S. Peign´e, “Heavy-quarkonium suppression in p-A collisions from parton energy lossin cold QCD matter,”
JHEP (2013) 122, arXiv:1212.0434 [hep-ph] .[20] 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] .[21] 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] .[22]
NA50
Collaboration, B. Alessandro et al. , “A new measurement of J / ψ suppression in Pb-Pbcollisions at 158-GeV per nucleon,” Eur.Phys.J.
C39 (2005) 335–345, arXiv:hep-ex/0412036[hep-ex] .[23]
NA60
Collaboration, R. Arnaldi et al. , “ J / ψ production in indium-indium collisions at158-GeV/nucleon,” Phys.Rev.Lett. (2007) 132302.[24] NA60
Collaboration, R. Arnaldi, “ J / ψ production in p-A and A-A collisions at fixed targetexperiments,” Nucl.Phys.
A830 (2009) 345C–352C, arXiv:0907.5004 [nucl-ex] .18apidity and transverse-momentum dependence of the inclusive J/ ψ R pPb ALICE Collaboration[25]
PHENIX
Collaboration, A. Adare et al. , “ J / ψ suppression at forward rapidity in Au+Aucollisions at √ s NN =
200 GeV,”
Phys.Rev.
C84 (2011) 054912, arXiv:1103.6269 [nucl-ex] .[26]
STAR
Collaboration, B. Abelev et al. , “ J / ψ production at high transverse momentum in p+p andCu+Cu collisions at √ s NN =
200 GeV,”
Phys.Rev.
C80 (2009) 041902, arXiv:0904.0439[nucl-ex] .[27]
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] .[28]
CMS
Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al. , “Suppression of non-prompt J / ψ , prompt J / ψ , and ϒ (1S) in PbPb collisions at √ s NN = .
76 TeV,”
JHEP (2012) 063, arXiv:1201.5069[nucl-ex] .[29]
ATLAS
Collaboration, G. Aad et al. , “Measurement of the centrality dependence of J / ψ yieldsand observation of Z production in lead-lead collisions with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,” Phys.Lett.
B697 (2011) 294–312, arXiv:1012.5419 [hep-ex] .[30]
ALICE
Collaboration, B. B. Abelev et al. , “Centrality, rapidity and transverse momentumdependence of J / ψ suppression in Pb-Pb collisions at √ s NN =2.76 TeV,” Phys.Lett.
B734 (2014)314–327, arXiv:1311.0214 [nucl-ex] .[31]
ALICE
Collaboration, J. Adam et al. , “Inclusive, prompt and non-prompt J/ ψ production atmid-rapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at √ s NN = 2.76 TeV,” JHEP (2015) 051, arXiv:1504.07151[nucl-ex] .[32] E. Ferreiro, F. Fleuret, J. Lansberg, and A. Rakotozafindrabe, “Impact of the Nuclear Modificationof the Gluon Densities on J / ψ production in p Pb collisions at √ s NN = Phys.Rev.
C88 no. 4, (2013) 047901, arXiv:1305.4569 [hep-ph] .[33] J. Albacete, N. Armesto, R. Baier, G. Barnafoldi, J. Barrette, et al. , “Predictions for p + PbCollisions at √ s NN = 5 TeV,” Int.J.Mod.Phys.
E22 (2013) 1330007, arXiv:1301.3395[hep-ph] .[34]
ALICE
Collaboration, B. 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] .[35] F. Arleo, R. Kolevatov, S. Peign´e, and M. Rustamova, “Centrality and p ⊥ dependence of J / ψ suppression in proton-nucleus collisions from parton energy loss,” JHEP (2013) 155, arXiv:1304.0901 [hep-ph] .[36] H. Fujii and K. Watanabe, “Heavy quark pair production in high energy pA collisions:Quarkonium,”
Nucl.Phys.
A915 (2013) 1–23, arXiv:1304.2221 [hep-ph] .[37]
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] .[38] J. Alme, Y. Andres, H. Appelsh¨auser, S. Bablok, N. Bialas, et al. , “The ALICE TPC, a large3-dimensional tracking device with fast readout for ultra-high multiplicity events,” Nucl.Instrum.Meth.
A622 (2010) 316–367, arXiv:1001.1950 [physics.ins-det] .[39]
ALICE
Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al. , “The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC,”
JINST (2008) S08002.[40] ALICE
Collaboration, B. Abelev et al. , “Measurement of the Cross Section for ElectromagneticDissociation with Neutron Emission in Pb-Pb Collisions at √ s NN = 2.76 TeV,” Phys.Rev.Lett. (2012) 252302, arXiv:1203.2436 [nucl-ex] .[41]
ALICE
Collaboration, E. Abbas et al. , “Performance of the ALICE VZERO system,”
JINST (2013) P10016, arXiv:1306.3130 [nucl-ex] .[42] ALICE
Collaboration, B. Abelev et al. , “Pseudorapidity density of charged particles in p-Pbcollisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV,”
Phys.Rev.Lett. (2013) 032301, arXiv:1210.3615[nucl-ex] . 19apidity and transverse-momentum dependence of the inclusive J/ ψ R pPb ALICE Collaboration[43]
ALICE
Collaboration, B. B. Abelev et al. , “Measurement of visible cross sections in proton-leadcollisions at √ s NN = 5.02 TeV in van der Meer scans with the ALICE detector,” JINST no. 11,(2014) P11003, arXiv:1405.1849 [nucl-ex] .[44] ALICE
Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al. , “Rapidity and transverse momentum dependence ofinclusive J / ψ production in pp collisions at √ s = Phys.Lett.
B704 (2011) 442–455,Erratum
Phys. Lett.
B718 (2012) 692–698, arXiv:1105.0380 [hep-ex] .[45] J. Gaiser (1983) .[46] R. Shahoyan, “Ph.D. Thesis,” .[47]
ALICE
Collaboration, B. Abelev et al. , “ J / ψ polarization in pp collisions at √ s = Phys.Rev.Lett. (2012) 082001, arXiv:1111.1630 [hep-ex] .[48]
LHCb
Collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , “Measurement of J / ψ production in pp collisions at √ s = Eur.Phys.J.
C71 (2011) 1645, arXiv:1103.0423 [hep-ex] .[49]
CMS
Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al. , “Measurement of the prompt J / ψ and ψ (2S)polarizations in pp collisions at √ s = 7 TeV,” Phys.Lett.
B727 (2013) 381–402, arXiv:1307.6070 [hep-ex] .[50] X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, “HIJING: A Monte Carlo model for multiple jet production in pp,p-A and A-A collisions,”
Phys.Rev.
D44 (1991) 3501–3516.[51] R. Brun, F. Carminati, and S. Giani, “GEANT detector description and simulation tool,”
CERN-W-5013 .[52] L. Aphecetche et al. , ALICE Internal Note ALICE-INT-2009-044,https://edms.cern.ch/document/1054937/1 .[53]
Particle Data Group
Collaboration, J. Beringer et al. , “Review of Particle Physics (RPP),”
Phys.Rev.
D86 (2012) 010001.[54]
PHENIX
Collaboration, A. Adare et al. , “ J / ψ production versus transverse momentum andrapidity in p+p collisions at √ s = 200-GeV,” Phys.Rev.Lett. (2007) 232002, arXiv:hep-ex/0611020 [hep-ex] .[55] CDF
Collaboration, D. Acosta et al. , “Measurement of the J / ψ meson and b − hadron productioncross sections in p ¯ p collisions at √ s = Phys.Rev.
D71 (2005) 032001, arXiv:hep-ex/0412071 [hep-ex] .[56]
ALICE
Collaboration, B. Abelev et al. , “Inclusive J / ψ production in pp collisions at √ s = . Phys.Lett.
B718 (2012) 295–306, arXiv:1203.3641 [hep-ex] .[57] F. Boss´u, Z. C. del Valle, A. de Falco, M. Gagliardi, S. Grigoryan, et al. , “Phenomenologicalinterpolation of the inclusive J / ψ cross section to proton-proton collisions at 2.76 TeV and 5.5TeV,” arXiv:1103.2394 [nucl-ex] .[58] 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] .[59]
ALICE, LHCb
Collaboration, ALICE and L. Collaborations, “Reference pp cross-sections for J / ψ studies in proton-lead collisions at √ s NN = .
02 TeV and comparisons between ALICE andLHCb results,”.[60]
ALICE
Collaboration, B. 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] .[61]
ALICE
Collaboration, B. Abelev et al. , “Measurement of prompt J / ψ and beauty hadronproduction cross sections at mid-rapidity in pp collisions at √ s = JHEP (2012) 065, arXiv:1205.5880 [hep-ex] . 20apidity and transverse-momentum dependence of the inclusive J/ ψ R pPb ALICE Collaboration[62] R. Vogt, “Shadowing and absorption effects on J / ψ production in dA collisions,” Phys.Rev.
C71 (2005) 054902, arXiv:hep-ph/0411378 [hep-ph] .[63] R. Vogt, “Cold Nuclear Matter Effects on J / ψ and ϒ Production at the LHC,”
Phys.Rev.
C81 (2010) 044903, arXiv:1003.3497 [hep-ph] .[64] E. Ferreiro, F. Fleuret, J. Lansberg, and A. Rakotozafindrabe, “Cold nuclear matter effects on J / ψ production: intrinsic and extrinsic transverse momentum effects,” Phys.Lett.
B680 (2009) 50–55, arXiv:0809.4684 [hep-ph] . 21apidity and transverse-momentum dependence of the inclusive J/ ψ R pPb ALICE Collaboration
A The ALICE Collaboration
J. Adam , D. Adamov´a , M.M. Aggarwal , G. Aglieri Rinella , M. Agnello , N. Agrawal ,Z. Ahammed , I. Ahmed , S.U. Ahn , I. Aimo
93 ,110 , S. Aiola , M. Ajaz , A. Akindinov ,S.N. Alam , D. Aleksandrov , B. Alessandro , D. Alexandre , R. Alfaro Molina , A. Alici
104 ,12 ,A. Alkin , J. Alme , T. Alt , S. Altinpinar , I. Altsybeev , C. Alves Garcia Prado , C. Andrei ,A. Andronic , V. Anguelov , J. Anielski , T. Antiˇci´c , F. Antinori , P. Antonioli , L. Aphecetche ,H. Appelsh¨auser , S. Arcelli , N. Armesto , R. Arnaldi , T. Aronsson , I.C. Arsene , M. Arslandok ,A. Augustinus , R. Averbeck , M.D. Azmi , M. Bach , A. Badal`a , Y.W. Baek , S. Bagnasco ,R. Bailhache , R. Bala , A. Baldisseri , F. Baltasar Dos Santos Pedrosa , R.C. Baral , A.M. Barbano ,R. Barbera , F. Barile , G.G. Barnaf¨oldi , L.S. Barnby , V. Barret , P. Bartalini , J. Bartke ,E. Bartsch , M. Basile , N. Bastid , S. Basu , B. Bathen , G. Batigne , A. Batista Camejo ,B. Batyunya , P.C. Batzing , I.G. Bearden , H. Beck , C. Bedda , N.K. Behera , I. Belikov ,F. Bellini , H. Bello Martinez , R. Bellwied , R. Belmont , E. Belmont-Moreno , V. Belyaev ,G. Bencedi , S. Beole , I. Berceanu , A. Bercuci , Y. Berdnikov , D. Berenyi , R.A. Bertens ,D. Berzano
36 ,27 , L. Betev , A. Bhasin , I.R. Bhat , A.K. Bhati , B. Bhattacharjee , J. Bhom ,L. Bianchi
27 ,120 , N. Bianchi , C. Bianchin
133 ,56 , J. Bielˇc´ık , J. Bielˇc´ıkov´a , A. Bilandzic , S. Biswas ,S. Bjelogrlic , F. Blanco , D. Blau , C. Blume , F. Bock
73 ,92 , A. Bogdanov , H. Bøggild ,L. Boldizs´ar , M. Bombara , J. Book , H. Borel , A. Borissov , M. Borri , F. Boss´u , M. Botje ,E. Botta , S. B¨ottger , P. Braun-Munzinger , M. Bregant , T. Breitner , T.A. Broker , T.A. Browning ,M. Broz , E.J. Brucken , E. Bruna , G.E. Bruno , D. Budnikov , H. Buesching , S. Bufalino
36 ,110 ,P. Buncic , O. Busch , Z. Buthelezi , J.T. Buxton , D. Caffarri
36 ,30 , X. Cai , H. Caines , L. CaleroDiaz , A. Caliva , E. Calvo Villar , P. Camerini , F. Carena , W. Carena , J. Castillo Castellanos ,A.J. Castro , E.A.R. Casula , C. Cavicchioli , C. Ceballos Sanchez , J. Cepila , P. Cerello ,B. Chang , S. Chapeland , M. Chartier , J.L. Charvet , S. Chattopadhyay , S. Chattopadhyay ,V. Chelnokov , M. Cherney , C. Cheshkov , B. Cheynis , V. Chibante Barroso , D.D. Chinellato ,P. Chochula , K. Choi , M. Chojnacki , S. Choudhury , P. Christakoglou , C.H. Christensen ,P. Christiansen , T. Chujo , S.U. Chung , C. Cicalo , L. Cifarelli
12 ,28 , F. Cindolo , J. Cleymans ,F. Colamaria , D. Colella , A. Collu , M. Colocci , G. Conesa Balbastre , Z. Conesa del Valle ,M.E. Connors , J.G. Contreras
39 ,11 , T.M. Cormier , Y. Corrales Morales , I. Cort´es Maldonado ,P. Cortese , M.R. Cosentino , F. Costa , P. Crochet , R. Cruz Albino , E. Cuautle , L. Cunqueiro ,T. Dahms , A. Dainese , A. Danu , D. Das , I. Das
100 ,50 , S. Das , A. Dash , S. Dash , S. De ,A. De Caro
31 ,12 , G. de Cataldo , J. de Cuveland , A. De Falco , D. De Gruttola
12 ,31 , N. De Marco ,S. De Pasquale , A. Deisting
96 ,92 , A. Deloff , E. D´enes , G. D’Erasmo , D. Di Bari , A. Di Mauro ,P. Di Nezza , M.A. Diaz Corchero , T. Dietel , P. Dillenseger , R. Divi`a , Ø. Djuvsland ,A. Dobrin
56 ,80 , T. Dobrowolski
76 ,i , D. Domenicis Gimenez , B. D¨onigus , O. Dordic , A.K. Dubey ,A. Dubla , L. Ducroux , P. Dupieux , R.J. Ehlers , D. Elia , H. Engel , B. Erazmus
112 ,36 ,F. Erhardt , D. Eschweiler , B. Espagnon , M. Estienne , S. Esumi , J. Eum , D. Evans ,S. Evdokimov , G. Eyyubova , L. Fabbietti , D. Fabris , J. Faivre , A. Fantoni , M. Fasel ,L. Feldkamp , D. Felea , A. Feliciello , G. Feofilov , J. Ferencei , A. Fern´andez T´ellez ,E.G. Ferreiro , A. Ferretti , A. Festanti , J. Figiel , M.A.S. Figueredo , S. Filchagin , D. Finogeev ,F.M. Fionda , E.M. Fiore , M. Floris , S. Foertsch , P. Foka , S. Fokin , E. Fragiacomo ,A. Francescon
36 ,30 , U. Frankenfeld , U. Fuchs , C. Furget , A. Furs , M. Fusco Girard ,J.J. Gaardhøje , M. Gagliardi , A.M. Gago , M. Gallio , D.R. Gangadharan , P. Ganoti , C. Gao ,C. Garabatos , E. Garcia-Solis , C. Gargiulo , P. Gasik , M. Germain , A. Gheata , M. Gheata
61 ,36 ,P. Ghosh , S.K. Ghosh , P. Gianotti , P. Giubellino , P. Giubilato , E. Gladysz-Dziadus , P. Gl¨assel ,A. Gomez Ramirez , P. Gonz´alez-Zamora , S. Gorbunov , L. G¨orlich , S. Gotovac , V. Grabski ,L.K. Graczykowski , A. Grelli , A. Grigoras , C. Grigoras , V. Grigoriev , A. Grigoryan ,S. Grigoryan , B. Grinyov , N. Grion , J.F. Grosse-Oetringhaus , J.-Y. Grossiord , R. Grosso ,F. Guber , R. Guernane , B. Guerzoni , K. Gulbrandsen , H. Gulkanyan , T. Gunji , A. Gupta ,R. Gupta , R. Haake , Ø. Haaland , C. Hadjidakis , M. Haiduc , H. Hamagaki , G. Hamar ,L.D. Hanratty , A. Hansen , J.W. Harris , H. Hartmann , A. Harton , D. Hatzifotiadou ,S. Hayashi , S.T. Heckel , M. Heide , H. Helstrup , A. Herghelegiu , G. Herrera Corral , B.A. Hess ,K.F. Hetland , T.E. Hilden , H. Hillemanns , B. Hippolyte , P. Hristov , M. Huang , T.J. Humanic ,N. Hussain , T. Hussain , D. Hutter , D.S. Hwang , R. Ilkaev , I. Ilkiv , M. Inaba , C. Ionita ,M. Ippolitov
75 ,99 , M. Irfan , M. Ivanov , V. Ivanov , V. Izucheev , P.M. Jacobs , C. Jahnke ,H.J. Jang , M.A. Janik , P.H.S.Y. Jayarathna , C. Jena , S. Jena , R.T. Jimenez Bustamante , ψ R pPb ALICE Collaboration
P.G. Jones , H. Jung , A. Jusko , P. Kalinak , A. Kalweit , J. Kamin , J.H. Kang , V. Kaplin ,S. Kar , A. Karasu Uysal , O. Karavichev , T. Karavicheva , E. Karpechev , U. Kebschull ,R. Keidel , D.L.D. Keijdener , M. Keil , K.H. Khan , M.M. Khan , P. Khan , S.A. Khan ,A. Khanzadeev , Y. Kharlov , B. Kileng , B. Kim , D.W. Kim
43 ,67 , D.J. Kim , H. Kim ,J.S. Kim , M. Kim , M. Kim , S. Kim , T. Kim , S. Kirsch , I. Kisel , S. Kiselev , A. Kisiel ,G. Kiss , J.L. Klay , C. Klein , J. Klein , C. Klein-B¨osing , A. Kluge , M.L. Knichel ,A.G. Knospe , T. Kobayashi , C. Kobdaj , M. Kofarago , M.K. K¨ohler , T. Kollegger
96 ,42 ,A. Kolojvari , V. Kondratiev , N. Kondratyeva , E. Kondratyuk , A. Konevskikh , C. Kouzinopoulos ,O. Kovalenko , V. Kovalenko , M. Kowalski
36 ,115 , S. Kox , G. Koyithatta Meethaleveedu , J. Kral ,I. Kr´alik , A. Kravˇc´akov´a , M. Krelina , M. Kretz , M. Krivda
58 ,101 , F. Krizek , E. Kryshen ,M. Krzewicki
42 ,96 , A.M. Kubera , V. Kuˇcera , T. Kugathasan , C. Kuhn , P.G. Kuijer , I. Kulakov ,J. Kumar , L. Kumar
78 ,86 , P. Kurashvili , A. Kurepin , A.B. Kurepin , A. Kuryakin , S. Kushpil ,M.J. Kweon , Y. Kwon , S.L. La Pointe , P. La Rocca , C. Lagana Fernandes , I. Lakomov
50 ,36 ,R. Langoy , C. Lara , A. Lardeux , A. Lattuca , E. Laudi , R. Lea , L. Leardini , G.R. Lee ,S. Lee , I. Legrand , R.C. Lemmon , V. Lenti , E. Leogrande , I. Le´on Monz´on , M. Leoncino ,P. L´evai , S. Li , X. Li , J. Lien , R. Lietava , S. Lindal , V. Lindenstruth , C. Lippmann ,M.A. Lisa , H.M. Ljunggren , D.F. Lodato , P.I. Loenne , V.R. Loggins , V. Loginov , C. Loizides ,X. Lopez , E. L´opez Torres , A. Lowe , X.-G. Lu , P. Luettig , M. Lunardon , G. Luparello
26 ,56 ,P.H.F.N.D. Luz , A. Maevskaya , M. Mager , S. Mahajan , S.M. Mahmood , A. Maire ,R.D. Majka , M. Malaev , I. Maldonado Cervantes , L. Malinina , D. Mal’Kevich , P. Malzacher ,A. Mamonov , L. Manceau , V. Manko , F. Manso , V. Manzari
36 ,103 , M. Marchisone , J. Mareˇs ,G.V. Margagliotti , A. Margotti , J. Margutti , A. Mar´ın , C. Markert , M. Marquard , N.A. Martin ,J. Martin Blanco , P. Martinengo , M.I. Mart´ınez , G. Mart´ınez Garc´ıa , M. Martinez Pedreira ,Y. Martynov , A. Mas , S. Masciocchi , M. Masera , A. Masoni , L. Massacrier , A. Mastroserio ,H. Masui , A. Matyja , C. Mayer , J. Mazer , M.A. Mazzoni , D. Mcdonald , F. Meddi ,A. Menchaca-Rocha , E. Meninno , J. Mercado P´erez , M. Meres , Y. Miake , M.M. Mieskolainen ,K. Mikhaylov
57 ,65 , L. Milano , J. Milosevic
22 ,131 , L.M. Minervini
23 ,103 , A. Mischke , A.N. Mishra ,D. Mi´skowiec , J. Mitra , C.M. Mitu , N. Mohammadi , B. Mohanty
130 ,78 , L. Molnar , L. Monta˜noZetina , E. Montes , M. Morando , D.A. Moreira De Godoy , S. Moretto , A. Morreale ,A. Morsch , V. Muccifora , E. Mudnic , D. M¨uhlheim , S. Muhuri , M. Mukherjee , H. M¨uller ,J.D. Mulligan , M.G. Munhoz , S. Murray , L. Musa , J. Musinsky , B.K. Nandi , R. Nania ,E. Nappi , M.U. Naru , C. Nattrass , K. Nayak , T.K. Nayak , S. Nazarenko , A. Nedosekin ,L. Nellen , F. Ng , M. Nicassio , M. Niculescu
61 ,36 , J. Niedziela , B.S. Nielsen , S. Nikolaev ,S. Nikulin , V. Nikulin , F. Noferini
104 ,12 , P. Nomokonov , G. Nooren , J. Norman , A. Nyanin ,J. Nystrand , H. Oeschler , S. Oh , S.K. Oh , A. Ohlson , A. Okatan , T. Okubo , L. Olah ,J. Oleniacz , A.C. Oliveira Da Silva , M.H. Oliver , J. Onderwaater , C. Oppedisano , A. OrtizVelasquez , A. Oskarsson , J. Otwinowski
96 ,115 , K. Oyama , M. Ozdemir , Y. Pachmayer , P. Pagano ,G. Pai´c , C. Pajares , S.K. Pal , J. Pan , D. Pant , V. Papikyan , G.S. Pappalardo , P. Pareek ,W.J. Park , S. Parmar , A. Passfeld , V. Paticchio , B. Paul , T. Pawlak , T. Peitzmann , H. PereiraDa Costa , E. Pereira De Oliveira Filho , D. Peresunko
75 ,99 , C.E. P´erez Lara , V. Peskov , Y. Pestov ,V. Petr´aˇcek , V. Petrov , M. Petrovici , C. Petta , S. Piano , M. Pikna , P. Pillot , O. Pinazza
104 ,36 ,L. Pinsky , D.B. Piyarathna , M. Płosko´n , M. Planinic , J. Pluta , S. Pochybova ,P.L.M. Podesta-Lerma , M.G. Poghosyan , B. Polichtchouk , N. Poljak , W. Poonsawat , A. Pop ,S. Porteboeuf-Houssais , J. Porter , J. Pospisil , S.K. Prasad , R. Preghenella
104 ,36 , F. Prino ,C.A. Pruneau , I. Pshenichnov , M. Puccio , G. Puddu , P. Pujahari , V. Punin , J. Putschke ,H. Qvigstad , A. Rachevski , S. Raha , S. Rajput , J. Rak , A. Rakotozafindrabe , L. Ramello ,R. Raniwala , S. Raniwala , S.S. R¨as¨anen , B.T. Rascanu , D. Rathee , K.F. Read , J.S. Real ,K. Redlich , R.J. Reed , A. Rehman , P. Reichelt , M. Reicher , F. Reidt
36 ,92 , X. Ren , R. Renfordt ,A.R. Reolon , A. Reshetin , F. Rettig , J.-P. Revol , K. Reygers , V. Riabov , R.A. Ricci , T. Richert ,M. Richter , P. Riedler , W. Riegler , F. Riggi , C. Ristea , A. Rivetti , E. Rocco , M. Rodr´ıguezCahuantzi , A. Rodriguez Manso , K. Røed , E. Rogochaya , D. Rohr , D. R¨ohrich , R. Romita ,F. Ronchetti , L. Ronflette , P. Rosnet , A. Rossi , F. Roukoutakis , A. Roy , C. Roy , P. Roy ,A.J. Rubio Montero , R. Rui , R. Russo , E. Ryabinkin , Y. Ryabov , A. Rybicki , S. Sadovsky ,K. ˇSafaˇr´ık , B. Sahlmuller , P. Sahoo , R. Sahoo , S. Sahoo , P.K. Sahu , J. Saini , S. Sakai ,M.A. Saleh , C.A. Salgado , J. Salzwedel , S. Sambyal , V. Samsonov , X. Sanchez Castro ,L. ˇS´andor , A. Sandoval , M. Sano , G. Santagati , D. Sarkar , E. Scapparone , F. Scarlassara , ψ R pPb ALICE Collaboration
R.P. Scharenberg , C. Schiaua , R. Schicker , C. Schmidt , H.R. Schmidt , S. Schuchmann ,J. Schukraft , M. Schulc , T. Schuster , Y. Schutz
112 ,36 , K. Schwarz , K. Schweda , G. Scioli ,E. Scomparin , R. Scott , K.S. Seeder , J.E. Seger , Y. Sekiguchi , I. Selyuzhenkov , K. Senosi ,J. Seo
66 ,95 , E. Serradilla
10 ,63 , A. Sevcenco , A. Shabanov , A. Shabetai , O. Shadura , R. Shahoyan ,A. Shangaraev , A. Sharma , N. Sharma
60 ,123 , K. Shigaki , K. Shtejer , Y. Sibiriak , S. Siddhanta ,K.M. Sielewicz , T. Siemiarczuk , D. Silvermyr
83 ,34 , C. Silvestre , G. Simatovic , G. Simonetti ,R. Singaraju , R. Singh , S. Singha
78 ,130 , V. Singhal , B.C. Sinha , T. Sinha , B. Sitar , M. Sitta ,T.B. Skaali , M. Slupecki , N. Smirnov , R.J.M. Snellings , T.W. Snellman , C. Søgaard , R. Soltz ,J. Song , M. Song , Z. Song , F. Soramel , S. Sorensen , M. Spacek , E. Spiriti , I. Sputowska ,M. Spyropoulou-Stassinaki , B.K. Srivastava , J. Stachel , I. Stan , G. Stefanek , M. Steinpreis ,E. Stenlund , G. Steyn , J.H. Stiller , D. Stocco , P. Strmen , A.A.P. Suaide , T. Sugitate , C. Suire ,M. Suleymanov , R. Sultanov , M. ˇSumbera , T.J.M. Symons , A. Szabo , A. Szanto de Toledo ,I. Szarka , A. Szczepankiewicz , M. Szymanski , J. Takahashi , N. Tanaka , M.A. Tangaro ,J.D. Tapia Takaki , A. Tarantola Peloni , M. Tariq , M.G. Tarzila , A. Tauro , G. Tejeda Mu˜noz ,A. Telesca , K. Terasaki , C. Terrevoli
30 ,25 , B. Teyssier , J. Th¨ader
96 ,73 , D. Thomas , R. Tieulent ,A.R. Timmins , A. Toia , S. Trogolo , V. Trubnikov , W.H. Trzaska , T. Tsuji , A. Tumkin ,R. Turrisi , T.S. Tveter , K. Ullaland , A. Uras , G.L. Usai , A. Utrobicic , M. Vajzer , M. Vala ,L. Valencia Palomo , S. Vallero , J. Van Der Maarel , J.W. Van Hoorne , M. van Leeuwen , T. Vanat ,P. Vande Vyvre , D. Varga , A. Vargas , M. Vargyas , R. Varma , M. Vasileiou , A. Vasiliev ,A. Vauthier , V. Vechernin , A.M. Veen , M. Veldhoen , A. Velure , M. Venaruzzo , E. Vercellin ,S. Vergara Lim´on , R. Vernet , M. Verweij , L. Vickovic , G. Viesti
30 ,i , J. Viinikainen , Z. Vilakazi ,O. Villalobos Baillie , A. Vinogradov , L. Vinogradov , Y. Vinogradov , T. Virgili , V. Vislavicius ,Y.P. Viyogi , A. Vodopyanov , M.A. V¨olkl , K. Voloshin , S.A. Voloshin , G. Volpe
36 ,134 , B. vonHaller , I. Vorobyev , D. Vranic
96 ,36 , J. Vrl´akov´a , B. Vulpescu , A. Vyushin , B. Wagner ,J. Wagner , H. Wang , M. Wang , Y. Wang , D. Watanabe , M. Weber , S.G. Weber ,J.P. Wessels , U. Westerhoff , J. Wiechula , J. Wikne , M. Wilde , G. Wilk , J. Wilkinson ,M.C.S. Williams , B. Windelband , M. Winn , C.G. Yaldo , Y. Yamaguchi , H. Yang , P. Yang ,S. Yano , S. Yasnopolskiy , Z. Yin , H. Yokoyama , I.-K. Yoo , V. Yurchenko , I. Yushmanov ,A. Zaborowska , V. Zaccolo , A. Zaman , C. Zampolli , H.J.C. Zanoli , S. Zaporozhets ,A. Zarochentsev , P. Z´avada , N. Zaviyalov , H. Zbroszczyk , I.S. Zgura , M. Zhalov , H. Zhang ,X. Zhang , Y. Zhang , C. Zhao , N. Zhigareva , D. Zhou , Y. Zhou , Z. Zhou , H. Zhu , J. Zhu ,X. Zhu , A. Zichichi
12 ,28 , A. Zimmermann , M.B. Zimmermann
53 ,36 , G. Zinovjev , M. Zyzak Affiliation notes i Deceased
Collaboration Institutes A.I. Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics Institute) Foundation, Yerevan, Armenia Benem´erita Universidad Aut´onoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, 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, France Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnol´ogicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Havana, Cuba Centro de Investigaciones Energ´eticas Medioambientales y Tecnol´ogicas (CIEMAT), Madrid, Spain Centro de Investigaci´on y de Estudios Avanzados (CINVESTAV), Mexico City and M´erida, Mexico Centro Fermi - Museo Storico della Fisica e Centro Studi e Ricerche “Enrico Fermi”, Rome, Italy Chicago State University, Chicago, Illinois, USA China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China Commissariat `a l’Energie Atomique, IRFU, Saclay, France COMSATS Institute of Information Technology (CIIT), Islamabad, Pakistan ψ R pPb ALICE Collaboration Departamento de F´ısica de Part´ıculas and IGFAE, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago deCompostela, Spain Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway Department of Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India Department of Physics, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States Department of Physics, Sejong University, Seoul, South Korea Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway Dipartimento di Elettrotecnica ed Elettronica del Politecnico, Bari, Italy Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Universit`a ’La Sapienza’ and Sezione INFN Rome, Italy Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Universit`a and Sezione INFN, Cagliari, Italy Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Universit`a and Sezione INFN, Trieste, Italy Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Universit`a and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Universit`a and Sezione INFN, Bologna, Italy Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Universit`a and Sezione INFN, Catania, Italy Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Universit`a and Sezione INFN, Padova, Italy Dipartimento di Fisica ‘E.R. Caianiello’ dell’Universit`a and Gruppo Collegato INFN, Salerno, Italy Dipartimento di Scienze e Innovazione Tecnologica dell’Universit`a del Piemonte Orientale and GruppoCollegato INFN, Alessandria, Italy Dipartimento Interateneo di Fisica ‘M. Merlin’ and Sezione INFN, Bari, Italy Division of Experimental High Energy Physics, University of Lund, Lund, Sweden Eberhard Karls Universit¨at T¨ubingen, T¨ubingen, Germany European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland Faculty of Engineering, Bergen University College, Bergen, Norway Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague,Czech Republic Faculty of Science, P.J. ˇSaf´arik University, Koˇsice, Slovakia Faculty of Technology, Buskerud and Vestfold University College, Vestfold, Norway Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universit¨at Frankfurt, Frankfurt,Germany Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, South Korea Gauhati University, Department of Physics, Guwahati, India Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Helsinki, Finland Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT), Mumbai, India Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore (IITI), India Inha University, Incheon, South Korea Institut de Physique Nucl´eaire d’Orsay (IPNO), Universit´e Paris-Sud, CNRS-IN2P3, Orsay, France Institut f¨ur Informatik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universit¨at Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany Institut f¨ur Kernphysik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universit¨at Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany Institut f¨ur Kernphysik, Westf¨alische Wilhelms-Universit¨at M¨unster, M¨unster, Germany Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien (IPHC), Universit´e de Strasbourg, CNRS-IN2P3, Strasbourg,France Institute for Nuclear Research, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia Institute for Subatomic Physics of Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia Institute of Experimental Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Koˇsice, Slovakia Institute of Physics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India Institute of Space Science (ISS), Bucharest, Romania Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Aut´onoma de M´exico, Mexico City, Mexico Instituto de F´ısica, Universidad Nacional Aut´onoma de M´exico, Mexico City, Mexico iThemba LABS, National Research Foundation, Somerset West, South Africa Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR), Dubna, Russia Konkuk University, Seoul, South Korea Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon, South Korea ψ R pPb ALICE Collaboration KTO Karatay University, Konya, Turkey Laboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire (LPC), Clermont Universit´e, Universit´e Blaise Pascal,CNRS–IN2P3, Clermont-Ferrand, France Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie, Universit´e Grenoble-Alpes, CNRS-IN2P3,Grenoble, France Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, INFN, Frascati, Italy Laboratori Nazionali di Legnaro, INFN, Legnaro, Italy Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, United States Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, United States Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, Moscow, Russia National Centre for Nuclear Studies, Warsaw, Poland National Institute for Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest, Romania National Institute of Science Education and Research, Bhubaneswar, India Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark Nikhef, National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, Netherlands Nuclear Physics Group, STFC Daresbury Laboratory, Daresbury, United Kingdom Nuclear Physics Institute, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, ˇReˇz u Prahy, Czech Republic Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina, Russia Physics Department, Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, United States Physics Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India Physics Department, University of Athens, Athens, Greece Physics Department, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa Physics Department, University of Jammu, Jammu, India Physics Department, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, India Physik Department, Technische Universit¨at M¨unchen, Munich, Germany Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universit¨at Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, United States Pusan National University, Pusan, South Korea Research Division and ExtreMe Matter Institute EMMI, GSI Helmholtzzentrum f¨urSchwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany Rudjer Boˇskovi´c Institute, Zagreb, Croatia Russian Federal Nuclear Center (VNIIEF), Sarov, Russia Russian Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia
Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata, India
School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Secci´on F´ısica, Departamento de Ciencias, Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Lima, Peru
Sezione INFN, Bari, Italy
Sezione INFN, Bologna, Italy
Sezione INFN, Cagliari, Italy
Sezione INFN, Catania, Italy
Sezione INFN, Padova, Italy
Sezione INFN, Rome, Italy
Sezione INFN, Trieste, Italy
Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy
SSC IHEP of NRC Kurchatov institute, Protvino, Russia
SUBATECH, Ecole des Mines de Nantes, Universit´e de Nantes, CNRS-IN2P3, Nantes, France
Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand
Technical University of Split FESB, Split, Croatia
The Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Cracow, Poland
The University of Texas at Austin, Physics Department, Austin, Texas, USA
Universidad Aut´onoma de Sinaloa, Culiac´an, Mexico
Universidade de S˜ao Paulo (USP), S˜ao Paulo, Brazil
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil
University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States ψ R pPb ALICE Collaboration
University of Jyv¨askyl¨a, Jyv¨askyl¨a, Finland
University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
Universit´e de Lyon, Universit´e Lyon 1, CNRS/IN2P3, IPN-Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
V. Fock Institute for Physics, St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia
Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Kolkata, India
Vinˇca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland
Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, United States
Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States
Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea