HIN-18-009

$HeadURL$ $Id$

HIN-18-009

# Production of $\PcgLp$ baryons in proton-proton and lead-lead collisions at
$\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$

###### Abstract

The transverse momentum ($\pt$) spectra of inclusively produced $\PcgLp$
baryons are measured via the exclusive decay channel $\PcgLp\to\Pp\PKm\Pgpp$
using the CMS detector at the LHC. Spectra are measured as a function of
transverse momentum in proton-proton ($\Pp\Pp$) and lead-lead (PbPb)
collisions at a nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy of 5.02. The measurement
is performed within the $\PcgLp$ rapidity interval $\abs{y}<1$ in the $\pt$
range of 5–20in $\Pp\Pp$ and 10–20in PbPb collisions. The observed yields of
$\PcgLp$ for $\pt$ of 10–20suggest a suppression in central PbPb collisions
compared to $\Pp\Pp$ collisions scaled by the number of nucleon-nucleon (NN)
interactions. The $\PcgLp/\PDz$ production ratio in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions is
compared to theoretical models. In PbPb collisions, this ratio is consistent
with the result from $\Pp\Pp$ collisions in their common $\pt$ range.

##  0.1 Introduction

Measurements of heavy-quark production provide unique inputs in understanding
the parton energy loss and the degree of thermalization in the quark-gluon
plasma (QGP) [1] formed in high energy heavy ion collisions. Compared to light
quarks, different energy loss mechanisms [2] are expected to dominate the
interaction between heavy quarks and the medium. Besides the in-medium
interactions, a detailed study of the hadronization process is critical for
the interpretation of experimental data. In relativistic heavy ion collisions,
in addition to the fragmentation process present in proton-proton ($\Pp\Pp$)
collisions, hadron production can also occur via coalescence, where partons
combine with each other while traversing the QGP medium or at the phase
boundary [3, 4]. At high transverse momentum ($\pt\gtrsim 6\GeVc$), the
probability of coalescence is reduced, and therefore the hadronization process
is expected to be dominated by fragmentation. In the intermediate $\pt$ region
($2\lesssim\pt\lesssim 6\GeVc$), a significant enhancement of the baryon-to-
meson ratio is observed in heavy ion collisions for hadrons with up, down, or
strange quarks [5, 6]. This enhancement, and its dependence on centrality (,
the degree of overlap of the two colliding nuclei) can be explained in a
scenario with hadronization via coalescence. Furthermore, elliptic flow, the
second Fourier component of the azimuthal distribution of emitted particles,
is found to roughly scale with the number of constituent quarks in the $\pt$
range of 2–5at RHIC [7], an observation which is also consistent with the
expectation for coalescence.

A significant contribution of coalescence to the hadronization of charm quarks
from the QGP medium is supported by various measurements of charmonium and
open charm production at RHIC and LHC energies [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
16]. One such observable is the nuclear modification factor,
$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$, which is the ratio of the yield in heavy ion collisions to
that in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions scaled by the number of nucleon-nucleon (NN)
interactions. At RHIC, the $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ for $\JPsi$ mesons with $\pt\leq
7\GeVc$ produced in AuAu collisions decreases significantly from peripheral to
central collisions [8]. In contrast, in higher energy PbPb collisions at the
LHC, the $\JPsi$ $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ has a much smaller centrality dependence
[9, 10]. The difference between the AuAu and PbPb results can be explained by
a larger coalescence probability in PbPb collisions because of the larger
number of produced charm and anti-charm quarks at the higher center-of-mass
energy. For $\PDz$ meson production in AuAu collisions, $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ is
observed to increase with $\pt$ up to 1.5and decrease with $\pt$ from 2 to 6,
an effect that can be qualitatively reproduced by models involving coalescence
[11, 12]. At the LHC, the measurements of $\PDz$ $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ and $\PDz$
azimuthal anisotropy [13, 14, 15, 16] are well explained by models involving
coalescence. The relative coalescence contribution to baryon production is
expected to be more significant than for mesons because of their larger number
of constituent quarks. In particular, models involving coalescence of charm
and light-flavor quarks predict a large enhancement in the $\PcgLp/\PDz$
production ratio in heavy ion collisions relative to $\Pp\Pp$ collisions and
also predict that the enhancement has a strong $\pt$ dependence [17, 18, 19,
20]. Comparison of $\PcgLp$ baryon production in $\Pp\Pp$ and lead-lead (PbPb)
collisions can thus shed new light on understanding heavy-quark transport in
the medium and heavy-quark hadronization via coalescence. All discussions of
$\PcgLp$ and $\PDz$ also include the corresponding charge conjugate states.

Recently, the production of $\PcgLp$ baryons for a variety of collision
configurations has been measured in a similar range by the LHC experiments
ALICE and LHCb in the central and forward rapidity regions, respectively [21,
22, 23, 24]. Both experiments measured the $\PcgLp$ -differential cross
sections in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=7\TeV$
and compared them to theoretical predictions using the next-to-leading order
Generalized Mass Variable Flavor Number Scheme [25]. The LHCb results for the
rapidity range $2.0<y<4.5$ were found to be compatible with theory [23], while
the ALICE values for $\abs{y}<0.5$ were larger than the predictions [21]. The
ALICE experiment also reported $\PcgLp/\PDz$ production ratios in 7$\Pp\Pp$
collisions, as well as in proton-lead ($\Pp$Pb) and PbPb collisions at an NN
center-of-mass energy of $\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$. The ALICE ratios from $\Pp\Pp$
and $\Pp$Pb collisions [21] were found to be above the corresponding LHCb
values [24] (however in different rapidity ranges), with the latter agreeing
with theoretical predictions. The ALICE $\PcgLp/\PDz$ production ratio for
$6<\pt<12\GeVc$ in PbPb collisions was measured to be larger than in $\Pp\Pp$
and $\Pp$Pb collisions [22], and this difference can be described using a
model involving only coalescence in hadronization [20]. The ALICE measurements
of the $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ of $\PcgLp$ baryons in $\Pp$Pb and PbPb collisions
were found to be compatible with unity and less than unity, respectively, but
have limited power to constrain models owing to large uncertainties [21, 22].

In this letter, we report measurements of inclusive $\PcgLp$ baryon production
in $\Pp\Pp$ and PbPb collisions at high $\pt$ where inclusive refers to both
prompt (directly produced in charm quark hadronization or from strong decays
of excited charmed hadron states) and nonprompt (from $\Pb$ hadron decays)
production. The data were collected at $\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$ in 2015 using the
CMS detector. The $\PcgLp$ baryons are reconstructed in the central region
($\abs{y}<1$) via the hadronic decay channel $\PcgLp\to\Pp\PKm\Pgpp$. The
spectrum and $\PcgLp/\PDz$ production ratio are measured in the $\pt$ ranges
5–20 and 10–20in $\Pp\Pp$ and PbPb collisions, respectively. The $\PcgLp/\PDz$
production ratios use the corresponding CMS measurements of prompt $\PDz$
production [14]. Centrality bins for PbPb collisions are given in percentage
ranges of the total inelastic hadronic cross section, with the 0–30%
centrality bin corresponding to the 30% of collisions having the largest
overlap of the two nuclei. The values of $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ are obtained for
three centrality intervals: 0–100%, 0–30%, and 30–100%.

##  0.2 The CMS detector

The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6m
internal diameter, providing a magnetic field of 3.8T. Within the solenoid
volume are a silicon tracker, a lead tungstate crystal electromagnetic
calorimeter, and a brass and scintillator hadron calorimeter, each composed of
a barrel and two endcap sections. The tracker measures charged particles
within the pseudorapidity range $\abs{\eta}<2.5$ and the calorimeters record
deposited energy for particles with $\abs{\eta}<3.0$. Two forward hadron (HF)
calorimeters use steel as an absorber and quartz fibers as the sensitive
material. The two HF calorimeters are located 11.2m from the interaction
region, one on each end, and together they extend the calorimeter coverage
from $\abs{\eta}=3.0$ to 5.2. Each HF calorimeter consists of 432 readout
towers, containing long and short quartz fibers running parallel to the beam,
providing information on the shower energy and the relative contribution
originating from hadrons versus electrons and photons. A detailed description
of the CMS experiment can be found in Ref. [26].

##  0.3 Event reconstruction and simulated samples

The total transverse energy deposited in both HF calorimeters is used to
determine the collision centrality in PbPb collisions and was utilized by the
triggers for both data sets included in this analysis [27]. One trigger
selected minimum-bias (MB) events by requiring transverse energy deposits in
one (both) HF calorimeters above approximately 1for $\Pp\Pp$ $(\text{PbPb})$
collisions. As not all MB events could be saved, an additional trigger
selected the more peripheral centrality region of 30–100% for PbPb events. The
integrated luminosities of $\Pp\Pp$ collisions, PbPb collisions with
centrality 0–100%, and PbPb collisions with centrality 30–100% are 38, 44, and
102, respectively.

The track reconstruction algorithms used in this study for $\Pp\Pp$ and PbPb
collisions are described in Refs. [28] and [29], respectively. In PbPb
collisions, minor modifications are made to the $\Pp\Pp$ reconstruction
algorithm in order to accommodate the much larger track multiplicities. Tracks
are required to have a relative $\pt$ uncertainty of less than 30% in PbPb
collisions and 10% in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions. In PbPb collisions, tracks must
also have at least 11 hits and satisfy a stringent fit quality requirement,
specifically that the $\chi^{2}$ per degree of freedom be less than 0.15 times
the number of tracker layers with a hit.

For the offline analysis, events must pass selection criteria designed to
reject events from background processes (beam-gas interactions and nonhadronic
collisions), as described in Ref. [29]. Events are required to have at least
one reconstructed primary interaction vertex [28] with a distance from the
center of the nominal interaction region of less than 15cm along the beam
axis. In addition, in PbPb collisions, the shapes of the clusters in the pixel
detector have to be compatible with those expected from particles produced at
the primary vertex location [30]. The PbPb collision events are also required
to have at least three towers in each HF detector with energy deposits of more
than 3 GeV per tower. These criteria select $(99\pm 2)\%$ of inelastic
hadronic PbPb collisions. Fractions above 100% reflect the possible presence
of ultra-peripheral (nonhadronic) collisions in the selected event sample.

Monte Carlo (MC) simulated event samples are used to optimize the selection
criteria, calculate the acceptance times efficiency, and estimate the
systematic uncertainties. Proton-proton collisions are generated with 8.212
[31] tune CUETP8M1 [32], hereafter referred to as 8, and includes both prompt
and nonprompt $\PcgLp$ baryon events. For the PbPb MC samples, each 8 event
containing a $\PcgLp$ baryon is embedded into a PbPb collision event generated
with $\HYDJET$ 1.8 [33], which is tuned to reproduce global event properties
such as the charged-hadron $\pt$ spectrum and particle multiplicity. The
$\PcgLp\to\Pp\PKm\Pgpp$ decay is performed by $\EVTGEN$ 1.3.0 [34] through
four sub-channels: $\PcgLp\to\Pp\PAK^{*}(892)^{0}\to\Pp\PKm\Pgpp$,
$\PcgLp\to\Delta(1232)^{++}\PKm\to\Pp\PKm\Pgpp$,
$\PcgLp\to\Lambda(1520)\Pgpp\to\Pp\PKm\Pgpp$, and $\PcgLp\to\Pp\PKm\Pgpp$
(nonresonant), with no modeling of interference between the sub-channels. All
particles are propagated through the CMS detector using the $\GEANTfour$
package [35].

##  0.4 Signal extraction

The $\PcgLp\to\Pp\PKm\Pgpp$ candidates are reconstructed by selecting three
charged tracks with $\abs{\eta}<1.2$ and a net charge of ${+}1$. All tracks
must have $\pt>0.7\>(1.0)\,\GeVc$ for $\Pp\Pp$ (PbPb) events. During the
invariant mass reconstruction, both possibilities for the mass assignments of
the same-sign tracks are considered, while the kaon mass is assigned to the
opposite-signed track. Using simulated events, the incorrect assignment was
found to produce a broad distribution in the invariant mass (about 30 times
the signal width) and is indistinguishable from the combinatorial background.

As the event multiplicities for $\Pp\Pp$ and PbPb collisions are substantially
different, the selection criteria were optimized separately. In the
optimization, simulated events in which a reconstructed $\PcgLp$ candidate is
matched to a generated $\PcgLp$ baryon are used as the signal sample, and data
events from the mass sideband region are used as the background sample.
Requirements are made on three topological and three kinematic variables. The
three topological criteria are: the $\chi^{2}$ probability of the vertex fit
to the three charged tracks making up the $\PcgLp$ candidate, the angle
between the $\PcgLp$ candidate momentum and the vector connecting the
production and decay vertices in radians ($\alpha$), and the separation
between the two vertices. While more than one collision per bunch crossing is
rare in PbPb collisions, it is common in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions. Therefore, two-
dimensional variables in the transverse plane with respect to the beamline are
used for $\alpha$ and decay length in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions, while three-
dimensional variables with respect to the primary vertex are used for PbPb
collisions. For the PbPb events, the topological requirements are $\chi^{2}$
probability above 20%, $\alpha<0.1$, and decay length greater than
3.75$\sigma$, where $\sigma$ is the uncertainty in the separation. For
$\Pp\Pp$ events, the corresponding requirements are $\chi^{2}$ probability
above 8%, $\alpha<0.4$, and decay length greater than 2.25$\sigma$. The
kinematic requirements are kaon (proton) $\pt$ divided by the $\PcgLp$
candidate $\pt$ greater than 0.14 (0.28) for all events and pion $\pt$ divided
by the $\PcgLp$ candidate $\pt$ greater than 0.12 for PbPb events.

The $\PcgLp$ baryon yields in each $\pt$ interval are obtained from unbinned
maximum likelihood fits to the invariant mass distribution in the range of
2.11–2.45. The signal shape is modeled by the sum of two Gaussian functions
with the same mean, but different widths that are fixed on the basis of the
simulated signal sample. One fit parameter scales both widths to accommodate a
potential difference in the mass resolution between simulation and data, with
the exception of the lowest region (5–6) in the $\Pp\Pp$ data, where this
parameter was found to cause instability in the fit and the unmodified mass
resolution from the simulation was used. The background is modeled with a
third-order Chebyshev polynomial. Representative invariant mass distributions
in $\Pp\Pp$ and PbPb collisions are shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 1: Invariant mass distribution of $\PcgLp$ candidates with $\pt$ =
5–6(left), 10–20(middle) in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions, and $\pt$ = 10–20in PbPb
collisions within the centrality range 0–100% (right). The solid line
represents the full fit and the dashed line represents the background
component.

The $\PcgLp$ baryon differential cross section in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions is
defined as:

$\left.\frac{\rd\sigma^{\PcgLp}_{\Pp\Pp}}{\rd\pt}\right|_{\abs{y}<1}=\frac{1}{2\lumi\Delta\pt\mathcal{B}}\left.\frac{N_{\Pp\Pp}^{\PcgLp}|_{\abs{y}<1}}{A\epsilon}\right.,$
(1)

where $N_{\Pp\Pp}^{\PcgLp}|_{\abs{y}<1}$ is the $\PcgLp$ yield extracted in
each $\pt$ bin, $\lumi$ is the integrated luminosity, $\Delta\pt$ is the width
of each $\pt$ bin, $\mathcal{B}$ is the branching fraction of the decay, and
$A\epsilon$ is the product of the acceptance and efficiency. The factor of 1/2
accounts for averaging the particle and antiparticle contributions. The
normalized $\PcgLp$ spectrum in PbPb collisions is defined as:

$\frac{1}{\langle T_{\text{AA}}\rangle}\left.\frac{\rd
N^{\PcgLp}_{\text{PbPb}}}{\rd\pt}\right|_{\abs{y}<1}=\frac{1}{\langle
T_{\text{AA}}\rangle}\frac{1}{2N_{\text{events}}\Delta\pt\mathcal{B}}\left.\frac{N_{\text{PbPb}}^{\PcgLp}|_{\abs{y}<1}}{A\epsilon}\right.,$
(2)

where $N_{\text{events}}$ is the number of MB events used for the analysis
(corrected by the 99% selection efficiency) and $\langle
T_{\mathrm{AA}}\rangle$ is the nuclear overlap function, which is equal to the
average number of NN binary collisions ($\langle N_{\text{coll}}\rangle$)
divided by the NN inelastic cross section, and can be interpreted as the NN-
equivalent integrated luminosity per heavy ion collision. The values of
$\langle T_{\mathrm{AA}}\rangle$, $\langle N_{\text{coll}}\rangle$, and the
average number of participating nucleons ($\langle N_{\text{part}}\rangle$)
are calculated using a Monte Carlo Glauber model [36], in which the NN
inelastic cross section (70mb) is used as an input parameter. The averages of
these quantities over the events in the given centrality ranges are listed in
Table 0.4.

Summary of the $\langle N_{\text{coll}}\rangle$, $\langle
T_{\mathrm{AA}}\rangle$, and $\langle N_{\text{part}}\rangle$ values for three
PbPb centrality ranges.  Centrality $\langle T_{\mathrm{AA}}\rangle[{\mbinv}]$
$\langle N_{\text{part}}\rangle$ $\langle N_{\text{coll}}\rangle$ 0–30%
$15.41^{+0.33}_{-0.47}$ $270.7^{+3.2}_{-3.4}$ $1079^{+74}_{-78}$ 30–100%
$1.41^{+0.09}_{-0.06}$ $46.8^{+2.4}_{-1.2}$ $98^{+8}_{-6}$ 0–100%
$5.61^{+0.16}_{-0.19}$ $114.0^{+2.6}_{-2.6}$ $393^{+26}_{-28}$

The nuclear modification factor $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ is computed as:

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}(\pt)=\frac{1}{\langle T_{\text{AA}}\rangle}\left.\frac{\rd
N_{\text{PbPb}}^{\PcgLp}}{\rd\pt}\middle/\frac{\rd\sigma_{\Pp\Pp}^{\PcgLp}}{\rd\pt}\right..$
(3)

The values of $A\epsilon$ are obtained from MC simulation as a fraction in
which the denominator is the number of generated $\PcgLp$ baryons with
$\abs{y}<1$ and the numerator is the number of reconstructed $\PcgLp$
candidates that pass the selection criteria and are matched to a generated
$\PcgLp$ baryon. The simulation includes both prompt and nonprompt $\PcgLp$
baryons estimated from 8 and contains an appropriately weighted combination of
decays in the four known sub-channels. For the $\Pp\Pp$ simulation, the $\pt$
spectrum of the generated $\PcgLp$ baryons is weighted to match a fit to the
observed data (iterating until convergence is reached). For $\Pp\Pp$
collisions, $A\epsilon$ increases from 7 to 19% as $\pt$ increases. As the
PbPb results are given for just one $\pt$ range, an alternative method is used
to correct the $\pt$ spectra in simulation. Under the transverse mass scaling
hypothesis ($\mT$ scaling) [37], the $\PcgLp$ baryon $\pt$ spectrum is
obtained for the 0–100% centrality region from the $\PDz$ measurements [14]
using the function $m^{2}(\PcgLp)+\pt^{2}(\PcgLp)=m^{2}(\PDz)+\pt^{2}(\PDz)$.
For the PbPb data set, the centrality distribution in simulation is reweighted
to match the data. There is one additional correction applied to $A\epsilon$
for the PbPb data set. Previous CMS results have found more suppression for
prompt than nonprompt $\PDz$ mesons [14, 38], which can be quantified for
$10<\pt<20\GeVc$ as
$R_{\mathrm{AA}}^{\text{nonprompt}}/R_{\mathrm{AA}}^{\text{prompt}}=1.66\pm
0.38$. As nonprompt baryons tend to have greater and decay farther from the
collision point than prompt baryons, the requirement for the decay length
significance results in a value of $A\epsilon$ that is larger for nonprompt
baryons. Changing the nonprompt fraction to account for the different
suppression increases $A\epsilon$ by 15%. After applying the corrections,
$A\epsilon=5\%$ for PbPb collisions.

##  0.5 Systematic uncertainties

Systematic uncertainties arise from the extraction of the raw signal yield,
the ability of the MC simulation to reproduce the combined acceptance and
efficiency, the branching fraction of the decay mode, and the integrated
luminosity. Unless otherwise indicated, systematic uncertainties are combined
by adding the individual contributions in quadrature.

The systematic uncertainty in the signal yields is obtained by varying the
modeling functions that are used for the signal and background contributions.
The background function is changed from the default third- to second- and
fourth-order Chebyshev polynomials, with the maximum difference in yield
between these two alternative functions and the default fit function taken as
the systematic uncertainty. This amounts to 4–10% and 7–9% for $\Pp\Pp$ in
different $\pt$ bins and PbPb collisions in three centrality classes,
respectively. The default signal model function is the sum of two Gaussian
functions with parameters chosen as described in Section 0.4. For the $\Pp\Pp$
(PbPb) collision data, the alternative model is a triple (single) Gaussian
function with similar procedures used for the parameters. As the signal width
is fixed for events in the lowest $\PcgLp$ $\pt$ bin for $\Pp\Pp$ collisions,
an additional systematic uncertainty is assessed by varying the width by
$\pm$40%, corresponding to the maximum deviations with respect to the
simulation observed in other $\pt$ bins in $\Pp\Pp$ and PbPb collisions. The
uncertainty due to the modeling of the signal is 3–28% for $\Pp\Pp$ collisions
and 2–4% for PbPb collisions.

Five sources of systematic uncertainties associated with the MC modeling of
the data are evaluated. The first uncertainty measures the effect of the
selection criteria variation. We define a double ratio as:

$\mathcal{DR}=\left.\frac{N_{\text{Data}}\text{(varied)}}{N_{\text{Data}}\text{(nominal)}}\middle/\frac{N_{\text{MC}}\text{(varied)}}{N_{\text{MC}}\text{(nominal)}}\right.,$
(4)

where $N_{\text{Data}}\text{(nominal)}$ and $N_{\text{Data}}\text{(varied)}$
are the yields obtained from data using the default and alternative selection
criteria, respectively, and $N_{\text{MC}}\text{(nominal)}$ and
$N_{\text{MC}}\text{(varied)}$ are the corresponding yields from the simulated
events. For each of the topological selection criteria, the double ratio is
evaluated at many different values of the selection criterion. The specific
ranges for $\Pp\Pp$ collision events are ${>}1.5\sigma$ to ${>}6\sigma$,
${>}5\%$ to ${>}45\%$, and ${<}0.1$ to no cut for decay length, vertex fit
probability, and $\alpha$, respectively. The corresponding ranges for PbPb
collision events are ${>}2.5\sigma$ to ${>}8\sigma$, ${>}5\%$ to ${>}45\%$,
and ${<}0.05$ to ${<}0.2$. For all but the $\alpha$ cut in PbPb collisions,
$\mathcal{DR}$ is plotted as a function of the selection value and fit to a
linear function. The systematic uncertainty is taken as the difference between
unity and the value of the fitted line at the point where no selection is
applied. For the $\alpha$ requirement in PbPb collisions, the systematic
uncertainty is obtained from the biggest differences between unity and the
value of $\mathcal{DR}$ from all of the alternative selection values.
Combining the results of the three topological selection criteria systematic
uncertainties in quadrature results in uncertainties of 6% for the $\Pp\Pp$
data set and 19% for the PbPb data sets.

The second uncertainty arises from a potential mismodeling of the $\pt$
distribution of $\PcgLp$ baryons because $A\epsilon$ is strongly dependent on
the $\PcgLp$ . In $\Pp\Pp$ collisions, the default $\pt$ shape is derived from
the data. For PbPb collisions, the default $\pt$ shape is obtained from $\mT$
scaling of the measured $\PDz$ $\pt$ spectrum. For each data set, two
alternative $\pt$ spectra, one from 8 and one from 8 with color reconnection
(described in Section 0.6) are considered and the maximum deviation in
$A\epsilon$ is taken as the systematic uncertainty. The resulting systematic
uncertainty is 0–3% for $\Pp\Pp$ collisions and 5.2% for PbPb collisions.

The third uncertainty arises from imprecise knowledge of the resonant
substructure of the $\Pp\PKm\Pgpp$ decay mode [39]. The calculation of
$A\epsilon$ uses the appropriately weighted sum of the four known sub-channels
and the systematic uncertainty associated with this is evaluated by
determining $A\epsilon$ for each sub-channel and randomly adjusting the
weights by the uncertainties of each branching fraction. The individual values
of $A\epsilon$ vary by about ${\pm}30\%$ relative to the average. The
systematic uncertainty is obtained from the standard deviation of a Gaussian
fit to the different average $A\epsilon$ values and is 8% for both $\Pp\Pp$
and PbPb events.

The fourth uncertainty associated with the MC modeling of the data is the
track reconstruction efficiency, which is 4% for $\Pp\Pp$ collisions [14] and
5% for PbPb collisions [40]. As there are three tracks in the $\PcgLp$ decay,
the corresponding uncertainties on the measured $\pt$ spectra are 12 and 15%
for $\Pp\Pp$ and PbPb, respectively, while for the $\PcgLp/\PDz$ production
ratio, the uncertainties are 4 and 5%, respectively.

The fifth uncertainty arises from possible mismodeling of the nonprompt
component, namely $\PcgLp$ from $\Pb$ hadron decays, in the inclusive $\PcgLp$
sample. The inclusive $A\epsilon$ is the weighted sum of prompt and nonprompt
$A\epsilon$ according to the prompt and nonprompt fractions. As found using
the standard 8 MC sample, the nonprompt $A\epsilon$ is generally 3–4 times
larger than the prompt $A\epsilon$ and so an incorrect nonprompt fraction in 8
will result in an incorrect $A\epsilon$ for the inclusive sample. To evaluate
this systematic uncertainty, an alternative method is used to obtain the final
result that does not rely on the 8 prediction for the nonprompt fraction. A
generator-only 8 sample of nonprompt $\PcgLp$ events is reweighted to match
the $\pt$-differential $\Pb$ hadron cross section from a fixed-order plus
next-to-leading logarithm (FONLL) calculation [41]. The resulting
$\pt$-differential cross section for nonprompt $\PcgLp$ baryons is multiplied
by the appropriate luminosity, branching fractions, and $A\epsilon$ for
nonprompt $\PcgLp$ events to obtain an estimate of the number of reconstructed
nonprompt $\PcgLp$ baryons in each bin. Subtracting this value from the
measured number of reconstructed $\PcgLp$ baryons gives the number of
reconstructed prompt $\PcgLp$ baryons. These reconstructed prompt yields are
then corrected using the prompt $A\epsilon$ as well as luminosity and
branching fractions to estimate the -differential cross section for prompt
$\PcgLp$ baryons. Finally, the two cross sections give an alternative estimate
of the nonprompt fraction in each bin, and therefore an alternative estimate
of the weighted inclusive $A\epsilon$ value. The systematic uncertainty is
taken as the difference between the nominal and alternative $A\epsilon$
values. The nonprompt fraction for events passing the $\Pp\Pp$ selection
criteria is found to be 28–34% for the nominal scenario (8 only) and 4–7% for
the alternative method, with higher values associated with larger $\PcgLp$ .
The resulting systematic uncertainty varies by only $\pm 1\%$ as a function of
so an average value of 18% is used for all bins. The same method is applied to
the PbPb data set, where the systematic uncertainty is found to be 25% as a
result of the more stringent selection criteria. For PbPb collisions, an
additional systematic uncertainty is assessed by taking the difference between
applying and not applying the correction for different values of
$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ for nonprompt and prompt $\PcgLp$ baryons as discussed in
Section 0.4, raising the systematic uncertainty to 29%.

The overall $\PcgLp\to\Pp\PKm\Pgpp$ branching fraction uncertainty is 5.3%
[39]. The uncertainties in the integrated luminosity in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions
and the MB selection efficiency in PbPb collisions are 2.3% [42] and 2.0%
[29], respectively. The uncertainties in $T_{\mathrm{AA}}$ are listed in Table
0.4.

For the measurement of the $\pt$ spectra, the uncertainties associated with
the $\PcgLp\to\Pp\PKm\Pgpp$ branching fraction and subresonant contributions,
the luminosity and MB selection efficiency, and the nonprompt fraction
contribute only to the overall normalization and are labeled global
uncertainties. Adding these contributions in quadrature yields global
uncertainties of 21% (31%) for $\Pp\Pp$ $(\text{PbPb})$ collisions. In
measuring the nuclear modification factor $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$, the uncertainties
associated with the branching fraction and subresonant contributions cancel
and the nonprompt fraction uncertainty partially cancels. In calculating the
$\PcgLp/\PDz$ production ratio, the uncertainties associated with $\PDz$ from
the yield extraction, selection criteria efficiency, and $\pt$ shape are
obtained from Ref. [14], while the uncertainties in the integrated luminosity
in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions and the MB selection efficiency in PbPb collisions
cancel.

##  0.6 Results and discussion

Figure 2 shows the -differential cross section of inclusive $\PcgLp$ baryon
production in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions for the range of $5<\pt<20\GeVc$ and the
$T_{\mathrm{AA}}$-scaled yields in PbPb collisions for the range of
$10<\pt<20\GeVc$, for three centrality classes. The 21% (31%) normalization
uncertainty for the $\Pp\Pp$ (PbPb) results is not included in the boxes
representing the systematic uncertainties for each data point. While the shape
of the $\pt$ distribution in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions is consistent with the
inclusive production calculation from 8 using tune CUETP8M1 and activating the
“SoftQCD:nondiffractive” processes, the data are systematically higher. The
hadronization in 8 can be modified by adding a color reconnection (CR)
mechanism in which the final partons in the string fragmentation are
considered to be color connected in such a way that the total string length
becomes as short as possible [43]. The calculations using the recommended
color reconnection model from Ref. [43] are consistent with our -differential
cross section in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions. The -differential cross section in
$\Pp\Pp$ collisions is also compared to the GM-VFNS perturbative QCD
calculations [44], which includes only prompt $\PcgLp$ baryon production. The
GM-VFNS prediction is significantly below our data for $\pt<10\GeVc$, similar
to the difference found by ALICE [21]. 8 predicts that 8–15% of generated
$\PcgLp$ baryons arise from $\Pb$ hadrons, with the low (high) value
corresponding to the $\PcgLp$ interval $5<\pt<6\GeVc$ $(10<\pt<20\GeVc)$.
Therefore, accounting for the effects of nonprompt $\PcgLp$ production will
only marginally reduce the disagreement with the GM-VFNS prediction.

Figure 2: The -differential cross sections for inclusive $\PcgLp$ production
in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions and the $T_{\text{AA}}$-scaled yields for three
centrality regions of PbPb collisions. The boxes and error bars represent the
systematic and statistical uncertainties, respectively. The PbPb data points
are shifted in the horizontal axis for clarity. Predictions for $\Pp\Pp$
collisions are displayed for 8 with the CUETP8M1 tune (open crosses), 8 with
color reconnection [43] (open stars), and GM-VFNS [44] (open circles labeled
“JHEP 12 (2017) 021”) along with ratios to the data in the lower two panels.
The 8 (GM-VFNS) predictions are for inclusive (prompt) $\PcgLp$ production.
The error bars on the GM-VFNS prediction account for the scale variation
uncertainty. The lower panels show the data-to-prediction ratio for $\Pp\Pp$
collisions with inner and outer error bars corresponding to the statistical
and total uncertainty in the data, respectively, and the shaded box at unity
indicating the 21% normalization uncertainty. The shaded boxes in the bottom
panel represent the GM-VFNS uncertainty.

The nuclear modification factor $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ for inclusive $\PcgLp$
baryons in the $\pt$ range 10–20is shown in Fig. 3 as a function of the number
of participating nucleons $\langle N_{\text{part}}\rangle$ for PbPb
collisions. The results suggest that $\PcgLp$ is suppressed in PbPb collisions
for $\pt>10\GeVc$, but no conclusion can be drawn because of the large
uncertainties. The difference in $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ values between the 0–30%
and 30–100% centrality ranges is consistent with an enhanced suppression in
the more central PbPb collisions.

Figure 3: The nuclear modification factor $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $\langle
N_{\text{part}}\rangle$ for inclusive $\PcgLp$ production. The error bars
represent the PbPb yield statistical uncertainties. The boxes at each point
include the PbPb systematic uncertainties associated with the signal
extraction, $\pt$ spectrum, selection criteria, track reconstruction, and
$T_{\mathrm{AA}}$. The band at unity labeled $\Pp\Pp$ uncertainty includes
these same uncertainties for the $\Pp\Pp$ data (except for $T_{\mathrm{AA}}$)
plus the uncertainties in $\Pp\Pp$ yield and luminosity. The band at unity
labeled PbPb includes the uncertainty from the nonprompt fraction (accounting
for a partial cancelation between $\Pp\Pp$ and PbPb) and MB selection
efficiency.

Figure 4 shows the $\PcgLp/\PDz$ production ratio as a function of $\pt$ for
$\Pp\Pp$ collisions and PbPb collisions in the centrality range 0–100%. The
production ratio found from $\Pp\Pp$ collisions is similar in shape versus
$\pt$ but about three times larger in magnitude compared to the calculation
from 8.212 tune CUETP8M1. Results using the Monash 2013 [45] tune are found to
be consistent with those from the CUETP8M1 tune. Besides providing a
reasonable description of $\PcgLp$ baryon -differential cross sections, Fig. 4
shows that calculations using a color reconnection model are consistent with
our results for the $\PcgLp/\PDz$ production ratio in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions.

Figure 4: The ratio of the production cross sections of inclusive $\PcgLp$ to
prompt $\PDz$ versus from $\Pp\Pp$ collisions as well as 0–100% centrality
PbPb collisions. The boxes and error bars represent the systematic and
statistical uncertainties, respectively. The PbPb data point is shifted in the
horizontal axis for clarity. The 20 and 31% normalization uncertainties in
$\Pp\Pp$ and PbPb collisions, respectively, are not included in the boxes
representing the systematic uncertainties for each data point. The open
crosses and open stars represent the predictions of 8 with the CUETP8M1 tune
and with color reconnection [43], respectively. The solid and dashed lines are
the calculations for prompt $\PcgLp$ over prompt $\PDz$ production ratio from
Ref. [20] and Ref. [46], respectively. All predictions are for $\Pp\Pp$
collisions.

The $\Pp\Pp$ data are also compared with two predictions which are for the
prompt $\PcgLp$ over $\PDz$ production ratio. Calculations using a model that
includes both coalescence and fragmentation in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions [20] are
shown in Fig. 4 by the solid line. Compared to the data, this model predicts a
stronger dependence on $\pt$ and underestimates the measurements. Another
recent model [46] attempts to use a statistical hadronization approach to
explain the large $\PcgLp/\PDz$ production ratio as arising from $\PcgLp$
baryons that are produced from the decay of excited charm baryon states not
included in Ref. [39] and are therefore not included in the hadronization
simulation in 8. The prediction of this model, also shown in Fig. 4 by the
dashed line, provides a reasonable description of the data for $\pt<10\GeVc$.

While the ALICE results indicate an enhancement in the $\PcgLp/\PDz$
production ratio in the $\pt$ range of 6–12for PbPb [22] compared to $\Pp$Pb
and $\Pp\Pp$ collisions, the CMS PbPb measurement in the $\pt$ range 10–20is
consistent with the $\Pp\Pp$ result. This lack of an enhancement may suggest
that there is no significant contribution from the coalescence process for
$\pt>10\GeVc$ in PbPb collisions.

##  0.7 Summary

The -differential cross sections of $\PcgLp$ baryons, including both prompt
and nonprompt contributions, have been measured in $\Pp\Pp$ and PbPb
collisions at a nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy of 5.02. The shape of
the $\pt$ distribution in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions is well described by the 8 event
generator. A hint of suppression of $\PcgLp$ production for $10<\pt<20\GeVc$
is observed in PbPb when compared to $\Pp\Pp$ data, with central PbPb events
showing stronger suppression. This is consistent with the suppression observed
in $\PDz$ meson measurements, which is understood to originate from the strong
interaction between the charm quark and the quark-gluon plasma. The
$\PcgLp/\PDz$ production ratios in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions are consistent with a
model obtained by adding color reconnection in hadronization to 8, and also
with a model that includes enhanced contributions from the decay of excited
charm baryons. The $\PcgLp/\PDz$ production ratios in $\Pp\Pp$ and PbPb
collisions for $\pt$ = 10–20are found to be consistent with each other. These
two observations may suggest that the coalescence process does not play a
significant role in $\PcgLp$ baryon production in this $\pt$ range.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank V. Greco for providing the theoretical calculations of the
$\PcgLp/\PDz$ production ratios used for comparisons with our measurements in
$\Pp\Pp$ collisions. We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator
departments for the excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical
and administrative staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their
contributions to the success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully
acknowledge the computing centres and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing
Grid for delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to
our analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the
construction and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the
following funding agencies: BMBWF and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium);
CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, FAPERGS, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS,
MoST, and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RPF
(Cyprus); SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC IUT, PUT and ERDF (Estonia); Academy
of Finland, MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG,
and HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); NKFIA (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM
(Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); MES
(Latvia); LAS (Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT,
LNS, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MOS (Montenegro); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC
(Pakistan); MSHE and NSC (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom,
RAS, RFBR, and NRC KI (Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI, and FEDER
(Spain); MOSTR (Sri Lanka); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); MST
(Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR, and NSTDA (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK
(Turkey); NASU and SFFR (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA).
Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie programme and the
European Research Council and Horizon 2020 Grant, contract Nos. 675440,
752730, and 765710 (European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A.P. Sloan
Foundation; the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science
Policy Office; the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et
dans l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door
Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the F.R.S.-FNRS and FWO (Belgium)
under the “Excellence of Science – EOS” – be.h project n. 30820817; the
Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission, No. Z181100004218003; the
Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the
Lendület (“Momentum”) Programme and the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of
the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the New National Excellence Program ÚNKP,
the NKFIA research grants 123842, 123959, 124845, 124850, 125105, 128713,
128786, and 129058 (Hungary); the Council of Science and Industrial Research,
India; the HOMING PLUS programme of the Foundation for Polish Science,
cofinanced from European Union, Regional Development Fund, the Mobility Plus
programme of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, the National
Science Center (Poland), contracts Harmonia 2014/14/M/ST2/00428, Opus
2014/13/B/ST2/02543, 2014/15/B/ST2/03998, and 2015/19/B/ST2/02861, Sonata-bis
2012/07/E/ST2/01406; the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar
National Research Fund; the Ministry of Science and Education, grant no.
3.2989.2017 (Russia); the Programa Estatal de Fomento de la Investigación
Científica y Técnica de Excelencia María de Maeztu, grant MDM-2015-0509 and
the Programa Severo Ochoa del Principado de Asturias; the Thalis and Aristeia
programmes cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot
Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University and the
Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century Project Advancement Project
(Thailand); the Welch Foundation, contract C-1845; and the Weston Havens
Foundation (USA).

## References

  * [1] E. V. Shuryak, “Theory of hadronic plasma”, Sov. Phys. JETP 47 (1978) 212\. [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 74 (1978) 408].
  * [2] A. Beraudo et al., “Extraction of heavy-flavor transport coefficients in QCD matter”,  Nucl. Phys. A 979 (2018) 21, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2018.09.002, arXiv:1803.03824.
  * [3] V. Greco, C. M. Ko, and P. Lévai, “Parton coalescence and the antiproton/pion anomaly at RHIC”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 202302, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.202302, arXiv:nucl-th/0301093.
  * [4] R. J. Fries, V. Greco, and P. Sorensen, “Coalescence models for hadron formation from quark gluon plasma”,  Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 58 (2008) 177, 10.1146/annurev.nucl.58.110707.171134, arXiv:0807.4939.
  * [5] STAR Collaboration, “Identified baryon and meson distributions at large transverse momenta from Au+Au collisions at = 200 $\mathrm{GeV}$”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 152301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.152301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0606003.
  * [6] STAR Collaboration, “Systematic measurements of identified particle spectra in pp, d+Au and Au+Au collisions from STAR”,  Phys. Rev. C 79 (2009) 034909, 10.1103/PhysRevC.79.034909, arXiv:0808.2041.
  * [7] STAR Collaboration, “Centrality dependence of charged hadron and strange hadron elliptic flow from = 200 Au+Au collisions”,  Phys. Rev. C 77 (2008) 054901, 10.1103/PhysRevC.77.054901, arXiv:0801.3466.
  * [8] PHENIX Collaboration, “ suppression at forward rapidity in Au+Au collisions at ${\sqrtsNN}=200$ ”,  Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 054912, 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.054912, arXiv:1103.6269.
  * [9] ALICE Collaboration, “ suppression at forward rapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at = 5.02 ”,  Phys. Lett. B 766 (2017) 212, 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.12.064, arXiv:1606.08197.
  * [10] ALICE Collaboration, “Centrality, rapidity and transverse momentum dependence of suppression in Pb-Pb collisions at = 2.76 ”,  Phys. Lett. B 734 (2014) 314, 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.05.064, arXiv:1311.0214.
  * [11] STAR Collaboration, “Observation of meson nuclear modifications in $\mathrm{Au}$+$\mathrm{Au}$ collisions at = 200 $\mathrm{GeV}$”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 142301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.142301, arXiv:1404.6185. [Erratum: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.229901].
  * [12] STAR Collaboration, “Centrality and transverse momentum dependence of $\PDz$-meson production at mid-rapidity in Au+Au collisions at = 200 $\mathrm{GeV}$”,  Phys. Rev. C 99 (2019) 034908, 10.1103/PhysRevC.99.034908, arXiv:1812.10224.
  * [13] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of prompt $\PDz$ meson azimuthal anisotropy in Pb-Pb collisions at = 5.02 ”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 202301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.202301, arXiv:1708.03497.
  * [14] CMS Collaboration, “Nuclear modification factor of D0 mesons in PbPb collisions at = 5.02 ”,  Phys. Lett. B 782 (2018) 474, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.05.074, arXiv:1708.04962.
  * [15] ALICE Collaboration, “$D$-meson azimuthal anisotropy in midcentral Pb-Pb collisions at = 5.02 ”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 102301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.102301, arXiv:1707.01005.
  * [16] ALICE Collaboration, “Measurement of , , D∗+ and production in Pb-Pb collisions at =5.02 ”,  JHEP 10 (2018) 174, 10.1007/JHEP10(2018)174, arXiv:1804.09083.
  * [17] Y. Oh, C. M. Ko, S. H. Lee, and S. Yasui, “Heavy baryon/meson ratios in relativistic heavy ion collisions”,  Phys. Rev. C 79 (2009) 044905, 10.1103/PhysRevC.79.044905, arXiv:0901.1382.
  * [18] S. H. Lee et al., “$\Lambda_{\text{c}}$ enhancement from strongly coupled quark-gluon plasma”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 222301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.222301, arXiv:0709.3637.
  * [19] S. Ghosh et al., “Diffusion of $\Lambda_{\text{c}}$ in hot hadronic medium and its impact on $\Lambda_{\text{c}}/D$ ratio”,  Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 054018, 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.054018, arXiv:1407.5069.
  * [20] S. Plumari et al., “Charmed hadrons from coalescence plus fragmentation in relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC and LHC”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 348, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5828-7, arXiv:1712.00730.
  * [21] ALICE Collaboration, “$\Lambda_{\text{c}}^{+}$ production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV and in p-Pb collisions at = 5.02 ”,  JHEP 04 (2018) 108, 10.1007/JHEP04(2018)108, arXiv:1712.09581.
  * [22] ALICE Collaboration, “$\Lambda_{\text{c}}^{+}$ production in Pb-Pb collisions at = 5.02 ”,  Phys. Lett. B 793 (2019) 212, 10.1016/j.physletb.2019.04.046, arXiv:1809.10922.
  * [23] LHCb Collaboration, “Prompt charm production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”,  Nucl. Phys. B 871 (2013) 1, 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2013.02.010, arXiv:1302.2864.
  * [24] LHCb Collaboration, “Prompt $\Lambda^{+}_{c}$ production in pPb collisions at = 5.02 ”,  JHEP 02 (2019) 102, 10.1007/JHEP02(2019)102, arXiv:1809.01404.
  * [25] M. A. G. Aivazis, J. C. Collins, F. I. Olness, and W.-K. Tung, “Leptoproduction of heavy quarks. II. A unified QCD formulation of charged and neutral current processes from fixed-target to collider energies”,  Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 3102, 10.1103/PhysRevD.50.3102.
  * [26] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [27] CMS Collaboration, “Observation and studies of jet quenching in PbPb collisions at nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy = 2.76 TeV”,  Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 024906, 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.024906, arXiv:1102.1957.
  * [28] CMS Collaboration, “Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker”,  JINST 9 (2014) P10009, 10.1088/1748-0221/9/10/P10009, arXiv:1405.6569.
  * [29] CMS Collaboration, “Charged-particle nuclear modification factors in PbPb and pPb collisions at = 5.02 ”,  JHEP 04 (2017) 039, 10.1007/JHEP04(2017)039, arXiv:1611.01664.
  * [30] CMS Collaboration, “Transverse-momentum and pseudorapidity distributions of charged hadrons in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=0.9$ and 2.36 ”,  JHEP 02 (2010) 041, 10.1007/JHEP02(2010)041, arXiv:1002.0621.
  * [31] T. Sjöstrand et al., “An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159, 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024, arXiv:1410.3012.
  * [32] CMS Collaboration, “Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 155, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3988-x, arXiv:1512.00815.
  * [33] I. P. Lokhtin and A. M. Snigirev, “A model of jet quenching in ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions and high-hadron spectra at RHIC”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 45 (2006) 211, 10.1140/epjc/s2005-02426-3, arXiv:hep-ph/0506189.
  * [34] D. J. Lange, “The EvtGen particle decay simulation package”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 462 (2001) 152, 10.1016/S0168-9002(01)00089-4.
  * [35] GEANT4 Collaboration, “—a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [36] M. L. Miller, K. Reygers, S. J. Sanders, and P. Steinberg, “Glauber modeling in high energy nuclear collisions”,  Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57 (2007) 205, 10.1146/annurev.nucl.57.090506.123020, arXiv:nucl-ex/0701025.
  * [37] PHENIX Collaboration, “Detailed measurement of the $e^{+}e^{-}$ pair continuum in $p+p$ and Au+Au collisions at = 200 $\mathrm{GeV}$ and implications for direct photon production”,  Phys. Rev. C 81 (2010) 034911, 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.034911, arXiv:0912.0244.
  * [38] CMS Collaboration, “Studies of beauty suppression via nonprompt mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at = 5.02 ”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 022001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.022001, arXiv:1810.11102.
  * [39] Particle Data Group, M. Tanabashi et al., “Review of particle physics”,  Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 030001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.030001.
  * [40] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the ${B}^{\pm}$ meson nuclear modification factor in Pb-Pb collisions at = 5.02 ”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 152301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.152301, arXiv:1705.04727.
  * [41] M. Cacciari, M. Greco, and P. Nason, “The spectrum in heavy flavor hadroproduction”,  JHEP 05 (1998) 007, 10.1088/1126-6708/1998/05/007, arXiv:hep-ph/9803400.
  * [42] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity calibration for the pp reference run at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-16-001, 2016.
  * [43] J. R. Christiansen and P. Z. Skands, “String formation beyond leading colour”,  JHEP 08 (2015) 003, 10.1007/JHEP08(2015)003, arXiv:1505.01681.
  * [44] M. Benzke et al., “Prompt neutrinos from atmospheric charm in the general-mass variable-flavor-number scheme”,  JHEP 12 (2017) 021, 10.1007/JHEP12(2017)021, arXiv:1705.10386.
  * [45] P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo, “Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 tune”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3024, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3024-y, arXiv:1404.5630.
  * [46] M. He and R. Rapp, “Charm-baryon production in proton-proton collisions”,  Phys. Lett. B 795 (2019) 117, 10.1016/j.physletb.2019.06.004, arXiv:1902.08889.

##  .8 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, A. Tumasyan Institut für
Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, T. Bergauer, J. Brandstetter, M. Dragicevic, J. Erö, A.
Escalante Del Valle, M. Flechl, R. Frühwirth1, M. Jeitler1, N. Krammer, I.
Krätschmer, D. Liko, T. Madlener, I. Mikulec, N. Rad, J. Schieck1, R.
Schöfbeck, M. Spanring, D. Spitzbart, W. Waltenberger, J. Wittmann, C.-E.
Wulz1, M. Zarucki Institute for Nuclear Problems, Minsk, Belarus
V. Drugakov, V. Mossolov, J. Suarez Gonzalez Universiteit Antwerpen,
Antwerpen, Belgium
M.R. Darwish, E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, J. Lauwers, A. Lelek, M.
Pieters, H. Rejeb Sfar, H. Van Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, S. Van Putte, N.
Van Remortel Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
F. Blekman, E.S. Bols, S.S. Chhibra, J. D’Hondt, J. De Clercq, D. Lontkovskyi,
S. Lowette, I. Marchesini, S. Moortgat, L. Moreels, Q. Python, K. Skovpen, S.
Tavernier, W. Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders, I. Van Parijs Université Libre de
Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
D. Beghin, B. Bilin, H. Brun, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, H. Delannoy, B.
Dorney, L. Favart, A. Grebenyuk, A.K. Kalsi, J. Luetic, A. Popov, N. Postiau,
E. Starling, L. Thomas, C. Vander Velde, P. Vanlaer, D. Vannerom, Q. Wang
Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, I. Khvastunov2, C. Roskas, D. Trocino, M. Tytgat, W.
Verbeke, B. Vermassen, M. Vit, N. Zaganidis Université Catholique de Louvain,
Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
O. Bondu, G. Bruno, C. Caputo, P. David, C. Delaere, M. Delcourt, A.
Giammanco, G. Krintiras, V. Lemaitre, A. Magitteri, K. Piotrzkowski, J.
Prisciandaro, A. Saggio, M. Vidal Marono, P. Vischia, J. Zobec Centro
Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
F.L. Alves, G.A. Alves, G. Correia Silva, C. Hensel, A. Moraes, P. Rebello
Teles Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato3, E. Coelho, E.M.
Da Costa, G.G. Da Silveira4, D. De Jesus Damiao, C. De Oliveira Martins, S.
Fonseca De Souza, L.M. Huertas Guativa, H. Malbouisson, J. Martins5, D. Matos
Figueiredo, M. Medina Jaime6, M. Melo De Almeida, C. Mora Herrera, L. Mundim,
H. Nogima, W.L. Prado Da Silva, L.J. Sanchez Rosas, A. Santoro, A. Sznajder,
M. Thiel, E.J. Tonelli Manganote3, F. Torres Da Silva De Araujo, A. Vilela
Pereira Universidade Estadual Paulista a, Universidade Federal do ABC b, São
Paulo, Brazil
S. Ahujaa, C.A. Bernardesa, L. Calligarisa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M.
Gregoresb, D.S. Lemos, P.G. Mercadanteb, S.F. Novaesa, SandraS. Padulaa
Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of
Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, G. Antchev, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, A. Marinov, M. Misheva,
M. Rodozov, M. Shopova, G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Dimitrov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov Beihang University, Beijing, China
W. Fang7, X. Gao7, L. Yuan Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, G.M. Chen, H.S. Chen, M. Chen, C.H. Jiang, D. Leggat, H. Liao, Z.
Liu, S.M. Shaheen8, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, E. Yazgan, H. Zhang, S. Zhang8, J.
Zhao State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking
University, Beijing, China
A. Agapitos, Y. Ban, G. Chen, A. Levin, J. Li, L. Li, Q. Li, Y. Mao, S.J.
Qian, D. Wang Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Z. Hu, Y. Wang Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, L.F. Chaparro Sierra, C. Florez, C.F. González
Hernández, M.A. Segura Delgado University of Split, Faculty of Electrical
Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split, Croatia
D. Giljanović, N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak, T. Sculac University of
Split, Faculty of Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, S. Ceci, D. Ferencek, K. Kadija, B. Mesic, M. Roguljic, A.
Starodumov9, T. Susa University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, E. Erodotou, A. Ioannou, M. Kolosova, S. Konstantinou,
G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos, P.A. Razis, H.
Rykaczewski, D. Tsiakkouri Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
M. Finger10, M. Finger Jr.10, A. Kveton, J. Tomsa Escuela Politecnica
Nacional, Quito, Ecuador
E. Ayala Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
E. Carrera Jarrin Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab
Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt
M.A. Mahmoud11,12, Y. Mohammed11 National Institute of Chemical Physics and
Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
S. Bhowmik, A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveira, R.K. Dewanjee, K. Ehataht, M.
Kadastik, M. Raidal, C. Veelken Department of Physics, University of Helsinki,
Helsinki, Finland
P. Eerola, L. Forthomme, H. Kirschenmann, K. Osterberg, J. Pekkanen, M.
Voutilainen Helsinki Institute of Physics, Helsinki, Finland
F. Garcia, J. Havukainen, J.K. Heikkilä, T. Järvinen, V. Karimäki, R.
Kinnunen, T. Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Laurila, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, P.
Luukka, T. Mäenpää, H. Siikonen, E. Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi Lappeenranta
University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
T. Tuuva IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, B. Fabbro, J.L. Faure, F.
Ferri, S. Ganjour, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry,
C. Leloup, E. Locci, J. Malcles, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M.Ö. Sahin, A. Savoy-
Navarro13, M. Titov Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, CNRS/IN2P3, Ecole
Polytechnique, Institut Polytechnique de Paris
C. Amendola, F. Beaudette, P. Busson, C. Charlot, B. Diab, R. Granier de
Cassagnac, I. Kucher, A. Lobanov, C. Martin Perez, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, P.
Paganini, J. Rembser, R. Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A. Zabi, A. Zghiche
Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram14, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, G. Bourgatte, J.-M. Brom, E.C. Chabert, C.
Collard, E. Conte14, J.-C. Fontaine14, D. Gelé, U. Goerlach, M. Jansová, A.-C.
Le Bihan, N. Tonon, P. Van Hove Centre de Calcul de l’Institut National de
Physique Nucleaire et de Physique des Particules, CNRS/IN2P3, Villeurbanne,
France
S. Gadrat Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3,
Institut de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, C. Camen, N. Chanon, R. Chierici, D.
Contardo, P. Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, B.
Ille, Sa. Jain, F. Lagarde, I.B. Laktineh, H. Lattaud, M. Lethuillier, L.
Mirabito, S. Perries, V. Sordini, G. Touquet, M. Vander Donckt, S. Viret
Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
A. Khvedelidze10 Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
Z. Tsamalaidze10 RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen,
Germany
C. Autermann, L. Feld, M.K. Kiesel, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, D. Meuser, A.
Pauls, M. Preuten, M.P. Rauch, C. Schomakers, J. Schulz, M. Teroerde, B.
Wittmer RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
A. Albert, M. Erdmann, S. Erdweg, T. Esch, B. Fischer, R. Fischer, S. Ghosh,
T. Hebbeker, K. Hoepfner, H. Keller, L. Mastrolorenzo, M. Merschmeyer, A.
Meyer, P. Millet, G. Mocellin, S. Mondal, S. Mukherjee, D. Noll, A. Novak, T.
Pook, A. Pozdnyakov, T. Quast, M. Radziej, Y. Rath, H. Reithler, M. Rieger, A.
Schmidt, S.C. Schuler, A. Sharma, S. Thüer, S. Wiedenbeck RWTH Aachen
University, III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany
G. Flügge, W. Haj Ahmad15, O. Hlushchenko, T. Kress, T. Müller, A. Nehrkorn,
A. Nowack, C. Pistone, O. Pooth, D. Roy, H. Sert, A. Stahl16 Deutsches
Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
M. Aldaya Martin, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, P. Asmuss, I. Babounikau, H.
Bakhshiansohi, K. Beernaert, O. Behnke, U. Behrens, A. Bermúdez Martínez, D.
Bertsche, A.A. Bin Anuar, K. Borras17, V. Botta, A. Campbell, A. Cardini, P.
Connor, S. Consuegra Rodríguez, C. Contreras-Campana, V. Danilov, A. De Wit,
M.M. Defranchis, C. Diez Pardos, D. Domínguez Damiani, G. Eckerlin, D.
Eckstein, T. Eichhorn, A. Elwood, E. Eren, E. Gallo18, A. Geiser, J.M. Grados
Luyando, A. Grohsjean, M. Guthoff, M. Haranko, A. Harb, N.Z. Jomhari, H. Jung,
A. Kasem17, M. Kasemann, J. Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, J. Knolle, D. Krücker, W.
Lange, T. Lenz, J. Leonard, J. Lidrych, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann19, R. Mankel,
I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, A.B. Meyer, M. Meyer, M. Missiroli, G. Mittag, J.
Mnich, A. Mussgiller, V. Myronenko, D. Pérez Adán, S.K. Pflitsch, D. Pitzl, A.
Raspereza, A. Saibel, M. Savitskyi, V. Scheurer, P. Schütze, C.
Schwanenberger, R. Shevchenko, A. Singh, H. Tholen, O. Turkot, A. Vagnerini,
M. Van De Klundert, G.P. Van Onsem, R. Walsh, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C. Wissing,
O. Zenaiev, R. Zlebcik University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, L. Benato, A. Benecke, V. Blobel, T. Dreyer, A.
Ebrahimi, A. Fröhlich, C. Garbers, E. Garutti, D. Gonzalez, P. Gunnellini, J.
Haller, A. Hinzmann, A. Karavdina, G. Kasieczka, R. Klanner, R. Kogler, N.
Kovalchuk, S. Kurz, V. Kutzner, J. Lange, T. Lange, A. Malara, D. Marconi, J.
Multhaup, M. Niedziela, C.E.N. Niemeyer, D. Nowatschin, A. Perieanu, A.
Reimers, O. Rieger, C. Scharf, P. Schleper, S. Schumann, J. Schwandt, J.
Sonneveld, H. Stadie, G. Steinbrück, F.M. Stober, M. Stöver, B. Vormwald, I.
Zoi Karlsruher Institut fuer Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany
M. Akbiyik, C. Barth, M. Baselga, S. Baur, T. Berger, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T.
Chwalek, W. De Boer, A. Dierlamm, K. El Morabit, N. Faltermann, M. Giffels, P.
Goldenzweig, A. Gottmann, M.A. Harrendorf, F. Hartmann16, U. Husemann, S.
Kudella, S. Mitra, M.U. Mozer, Th. Müller, M. Musich, A. Nürnberg, G. Quast,
K. Rabbertz, M. Schröder, I. Shvetsov, H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, M. Weber, C.
Wöhrmann, R. Wolf Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics (INPP), NCSR
Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
G. Anagnostou, P. Asenov, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas,
G. Paspalaki National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
M. Diamantopoulou, G. Karathanasis, P. Kontaxakis, A. Panagiotou, I.
Papavergou, N. Saoulidou, A. Stakia, K. Theofilatos, K. Vellidis National
Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece
G. Bakas, K. Kousouris, I. Papakrivopoulos, G. Tsipolitis University of
Ioánnina, Ioánnina, Greece
I. Evangelou, C. Foudas, P. Gianneios, P. Katsoulis, P. Kokkas, S. Mallios, K.
Manitara, N. Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, J. Strologas, F.A. Triantis, D.
Tsitsonis MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
M. Bartók20, M. Csanad, P. Major, K. Mandal, A. Mehta, M.I. Nagy, G. Pasztor,
O. Surányi, G.I. Veres Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath21, F. Sikler, T.Á. Vámi, V. Veszpremi, G.
Vesztergombi${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$ Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI,
Debrecen, Hungary
N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi20, A. Makovec, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi
Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
P. Raics, D. Teyssier, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari Eszterhazy Karoly University,
Karoly Robert Campus, Gyongyos, Hungary
T.F. Csorgo, W.J. Metzger, F. Nemes, T. Novak Indian Institute of Science
(IISc), Bangalore, India
S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri, P.C. Tiwari National Institute of Science
Education and Research, HBNI, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati23, C. Kar, G. Kole, P. Mal, V.K. Muraleedharan Nair Bindhu, A.
Nayak24, S. Roy Chowdhury, D.K. Sahoo23, S.K. Swain Panjab University,
Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, S. Chauhan, R. Chawla, N. Dhingra, R.
Gupta, A. Kaur, M. Kaur, S. Kaur, P. Kumari, M. Lohan, M. Meena, K. Sandeep,
S. Sharma, J.B. Singh, A.K. Virdi University of Delhi, Delhi, India
A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, M. Gola, S. Keshri, Ashok Kumar, S.
Malhotra, M. Naimuddin, P. Priyanka, K. Ranjan, Aashaq Shah, R. Sharma Saha
Institute of Nuclear Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India
R. Bhardwaj25, M. Bharti25, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, U. Bhawandeep25,
D. Bhowmik, S. Dey, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh, M. Maity26, K. Mondal, S. Nandan, A.
Purohit, P.K. Rout, A. Roy, G. Saha, S. Sarkar, T. Sarkar26, M. Sharan, B.
Singh25, S. Thakur25 Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera, P. Kalbhor, A. Muhammad, P.R. Pujahari, A. Sharma, A.K. Sikdar
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
R. Chudasama, D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, D.K. Mishra, P.K. Netrakanti, L.M.
Pant, P. Shukla Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A, Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, M.A. Bhat, S. Dugad, G.B. Mohanty, N. Sur, RavindraKumar Verma Tata
Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, P. Das, M. Guchait, S. Karmakar,
S. Kumar, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, S. Sawant Indian Institute of Science
Education and Research (IISER), Pune, India
S. Chauhan, S. Dube, V. Hegde, A. Kapoor, K. Kothekar, S. Pandey, A. Rane, A.
Rastogi, S. Sharma Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM),
Tehran, Iran
S. Chenarani27, E. Eskandari Tadavani, S.M. Etesami27, M. Khakzad, M.
Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri, F. Rezaei Hosseinabadi University College
Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
M. Felcini, M. Grunewald INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b,
Politecnico di Bari c, Bari, Italy
M. Abbresciaa,b, C. Calabriaa,b, A. Colaleoa, D. Creanzaa,c, L. Cristellaa,b,
N. De Filippisa,c, M. De Palmaa,b, A. Di Florioa,b, L. Fiorea, A. Gelmia,b, G.
Iasellia,c, M. Incea,b, S. Lezkia,b, G. Maggia,c, M. Maggia, G. Minielloa,b,
S. Mya,b, S. Nuzzoa,b, A. Pompilia,b, G. Pugliesea,c, R. Radognaa, A.
Ranieria, G. Selvaggia,b, L. Silvestrisa, R. Vendittia, P. Verwilligena INFN
Sezione di Bologna a, Università di Bologna b, Bologna, Italy
G. Abbiendia, C. Battilanaa,b, D. Bonacorsia,b, L. Borgonovia,b, S. Braibant-
Giacomellia,b, R. Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A. Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa,
C. Cioccaa, G. Codispotia,b, M. Cuffiania,b, G.M. Dallavallea, F. Fabbria, A.
Fanfania,b, E. Fontanesi, P. Giacomellia, C. Grandia, L. Guiduccia,b, F.
Iemmia,b, S. Lo Meoa,28, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, F.L. Navarriaa,b, A.
Perrottaa, F. Primaveraa,b, A.M. Rossia,b, T. Rovellia,b, G.P. Sirolia,b, N.
Tosia INFN Sezione di Catania a, Università di Catania b, Catania, Italy
S. Albergoa,b,29, S. Costaa,b, A. Di Mattiaa, R. Potenzaa,b, A. Tricomia,b,29,
C. Tuvea,b INFN Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b, Firenze, Italy
G. Barbaglia, R. Ceccarelli, K. Chatterjeea,b, V. Ciullia,b, C. Civininia, R.
D’Alessandroa,b, E. Focardia,b, G. Latino, P. Lenzia,b, M. Meschinia, S.
Paolettia, L. Russoa,30, G. Sguazzonia, D. Stroma, L. Viliania INFN Laboratori
Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, D. Piccolo INFN Sezione di Genova a, Università di
Genova b, Genova, Italy
M. Bozzoa,b, F. Ferroa, R. Mulargiaa,b, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia,b INFN Sezione
di Milano-Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, Italy
A. Benagliaa, A. Beschia,b, F. Brivioa,b, V. Cirioloa,b,16, S. Di Guidaa,b,16,
M.E. Dinardoa,b, P. Dinia, S. Fiorendia,b, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P.
Govonia,b, L. Guzzia,b, M. Malbertia, S. Malvezzia, D. Menascea, F. Montia,b,
L. Moronia, G. Ortonaa,b, M. Paganonia,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Ragazzia,b, T.
Tabarelli de Fatisa,b, D. Zuoloa,b INFN Sezione di Napoli a, Università di
Napoli ’Federico II’ b, Napoli, Italy, Università della Basilicata c, Potenza,
Italy, Università G. Marconi d, Roma, Italy
S. Buontempoa, N. Cavalloa,c, A. De Iorioa,b, A. Di Crescenzoa,b, F.
Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa, G. Galatia, A.O.M. Iorioa,b, L. Listaa,b, S.
Meolaa,d,16, P. Paoluccia,16, B. Rossia, C. Sciaccaa,b, E. Voevodinaa,b INFN
Sezione di Padova a, Università di Padova b, Padova, Italy, Università di
Trento c, Trento, Italy
P. Azzia, N. Bacchettaa, D. Biselloa,b, A. Bolettia,b, A. Bragagnolo, R.
Carlina,b, P. Checchiaa, P. De Castro Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa, U. Dossellia, F.
Gasparinia,b, U. Gasparinia,b, A. Gozzelinoa, S.Y. Hoh, P. Lujan, M.
Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,b, J. Pazzinia,b, M. Presillab, P. Ronchesea,b, R.
Rossina,b, F. Simonettoa,b, A. Tiko, M. Tosia,b, M. Zanettia,b, P. Zottoa,b,
G. Zumerlea,b INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
A. Braghieria, P. Montagnaa,b, S.P. Rattia,b, V. Rea, M. Ressegottia,b, C.
Riccardia,b, P. Salvinia, I. Vaia,b, P. Vituloa,b INFN Sezione di Perugia a,
Università di Perugia b, Perugia, Italy
M. Biasinia,b, G.M. Bileia, C. Cecchia,b, D. Ciangottinia,b, L. Fanòa,b, P.
Laricciaa,b, R. Leonardia,b, E. Manonia, G. Mantovania,b, V. Mariania,b, M.
Menichellia, A. Rossia,b, A. Santocchiaa,b, D. Spigaa INFN Sezione di Pisa a,
Università di Pisa b, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa c, Pisa, Italy
K. Androsova, P. Azzurria, G. Bagliesia, V. Bertacchia,c, L. Bianchinia, T.
Boccalia, R. Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, G. Fedia, F. Fioria,c,
L. Gianninia,c, A. Giassia, M.T. Grippoa, F. Ligabuea,c, E. Mancaa,c, G.
Mandorlia,c, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, A. Rizzia,b, G. Rolandi31, A.
Scribanoa, P. Spagnoloa, R. Tenchinia, G. Tonellia,b, N. Turini, A. Venturia,
P.G. Verdinia INFN Sezione di Roma a, Sapienza Università di Roma b, Rome,
Italy
F. Cavallaria, M. Cipriania,b, D. Del Rea,b, E. Di Marcoa,b, M. Diemoza, E.
Longoa,b, B. Marzocchia,b, P. Meridiania, G. Organtinia,b, F. Pandolfia, R.
Paramattia,b, C. Quarantaa,b, S. Rahatloua,b, C. Rovellia, F.
Santanastasioa,b, L. Soffia,b INFN Sezione di Torino a, Università di Torino
b, Torino, Italy, Università del Piemonte Orientale c, Novara, Italy
N. Amapanea,b, R. Arcidiaconoa,c, S. Argiroa,b, M. Arneodoa,c, N. Bartosika,
R. Bellana,b, C. Biinoa, A. Cappatia,b, N. Cartigliaa, S. Comettia, M.
Costaa,b, R. Covarellia,b, N. Demariaa, B. Kiania,b, C. Mariottia, S.
Masellia, E. Migliorea,b, V. Monacoa,b, E. Monteila,b, M. Montenoa, M.M.
Obertinoa,b, L. Pachera,b, N. Pastronea, M. Pelliccionia, G.L. Pinna
Angionia,b, A. Romeroa,b, M. Ruspaa,c, R. Sacchia,b, R. Salvaticoa,b, K.
Shchelinaa,b, V. Solaa, A. Solanoa,b, D. Soldia,b, A. Staianoa INFN Sezione di
Trieste a, Università di Trieste b, Trieste, Italy
S. Belfortea, V. Candelisea,b, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, A. Da Rolda,b, G.
Della Riccaa,b, F. Vazzolera,b, A. Zanettia Kyungpook National University,
Daegu, Korea
B. Kim, D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, M.S. Kim, J. Lee, S.W. Lee, C.S. Moon, Y.D. Oh,
S.I. Pak, S. Sekmen, D.C. Son, Y.C. Yang Chonnam National University,
Institute for Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju, Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon, G. Oh Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
B. Francois, T.J. Kim, J. Park Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, D. Gyun, S. Ha, B. Hong, K. Lee, K.S. Lee, J. Lim, J.
Park, S.K. Park, Y. Roh Kyung Hee University, Department of Physics
J. Goh Sejong University, Seoul, Korea
H.S. Kim Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J.H. Bhyun, J. Choi, S. Jeon, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, H. Lee, K. Lee, S.
Lee, K. Nam, S.B. Oh, B.C. Radburn-Smith, S.h. Seo, U.K. Yang, H.D. Yoo, I.
Yoon, G.B. Yu University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea
D. Jeon, H. Kim, J.H. Kim, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park, I. Watson Sungkyunkwan
University, Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, C. Hwang, Y. Jeong, J. Lee, Y. Lee, I. Yu Riga Technical University,
Riga, Latvia
V. Veckalns32 Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
V. Dudenas, A. Juodagalvis, J. Vaitkus National Centre for Particle Physics,
Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Z.A. Ibrahim, F. Mohamad Idris33, W.A.T. Wan Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli
Universidad de Sonora (UNISON), Hermosillo, Mexico
J.F. Benitez, A. Castaneda Hernandez, J.A. Murillo Quijada, L. Valencia Palomo
Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, I. Heredia-De La Cruz34, R. Lopez-
Fernandez, A. Sanchez-Hernandez Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City,
Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, M. Ramirez-Garcia, F. Vazquez Valencia
Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
J. Eysermans, I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada Universidad
Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, Mexico
A. Morelos Pineda University of Montenegro, Podgorica, Montenegro
N. Raicevic University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
S. Bheesette, P.H. Butler National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam
University, Islamabad, Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M. Ahmad, Q. Hassan, H.R. Hoorani, W.A. Khan, M.A. Shah, M. Shoaib,
M. Waqas AGH University of Science and Technology Faculty of Computer Science,
Electronics and Telecommunications, Krakow, Poland
V. Avati, L. Grzanka, M. Malawski National Centre for Nuclear Research,
Swierk, Poland
H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, M. Górski, M. Kazana, M. Szleper, P.
Zalewski Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of Physics, University of
Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk35, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J.
Krolikowski, M. Misiura, M. Olszewski, A. Pyskir, M. Walczak Laboratório de
Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas, Lisboa, Portugal
M. Araujo, P. Bargassa, D. Bastos, A. Di Francesco, P. Faccioli, B. Galinhas,
M. Gallinaro, J. Hollar, N. Leonardo, J. Seixas, G. Strong, O. Toldaiev, J.
Varela Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
M. Gavrilenko, A. Golunov, I. Golutvin, N. Gorbounov, A. Kamenev, V.
Karjavine, V. Korenkov, G. Kozlov, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev36,37, P.
Moisenz, V. Palichik, V. Perelygin, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, N. Voytishin, B.S.
Yuldashev38, A. Zarubin, V. Zhiltsov Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute,
Gatchina (St. Petersburg), Russia
L. Chtchipounov, V. Golovtsov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim39, E. Kuznetsova40, P.
Levchenko, V. Murzin, V. Oreshkin, I. Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L.
Uvarov, A. Vorobyev Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, M. Kirsanov,
N. Krasnikov, A. Pashenkov, D. Tlisov, A. Toropin Institute for Theoretical
and Experimental Physics named by A.I. Alikhanov of NRC ‘Kurchatov Institute’,
Moscow, Russia
V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, A. Nikitenko41, V. Popov, I.
Pozdnyakov, G. Safronov, A. Spiridonov, A. Stepennov, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A.
Zhokin Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
R. Chistov42, M. Danilov42, S. Polikarpov42, E. Tarkovskii P.N. Lebedev
Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin, I. Dremin37, M. Kirakosyan, A. Terkulov Skobeltsyn
Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow,
Russia
A. Belyaev, E. Boos, A. Demiyanov, A. Ershov, A. Gribushin, O. Kodolova, V.
Korotkikh, I. Lokhtin, S. Obraztsov, S. Petrushanko, V. Savrin, A. Snigirev,
I. Vardanyan Novosibirsk State University (NSU), Novosibirsk, Russia
A. Barnyakov43, V. Blinov43, T. Dimova43, L. Kardapoltsev43, Y. Skovpen43
Institute for High Energy Physics of National Research Centre ‘Kurchatov
Institute’, Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, S. Bitioukov, V. Kachanov, D. Konstantinov, P.
Mandrik, V. Petrov, R. Ryutin, S. Slabospitskii, A. Sobol, S. Troshin, N.
Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University,
Tomsk, Russia
A. Babaev, A. Iuzhakov, V. Okhotnikov Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russia
V. Borchsh, V. Ivanchenko, E. Tcherniaev University of Belgrade: Faculty of
Physics and VINCA Institute of Nuclear Sciences
P. Adzic44, P. Cirkovic, D. Devetak, M. Dordevic, P. Milenovic, J. Milosevic,
M. Stojanovic Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y
Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid, Spain
M. Aguilar-Benitez, J. Alcaraz Maestre, A. Álvarez Fernández, I. Bachiller, M.
Barrio Luna, J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, C.A. Carrillo Montoya, M. Cepeda, M.
Cerrada, N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris, C. Fernandez Bedoya, J.P.
Fernández Ramos, J. Flix, M.C. Fouz, O. Gonzalez Lopez, S. Goy Lopez, J.M.
Hernandez, M.I. Josa, D. Moran, Á. Navarro Tobar, A. Pérez-Calero Yzquierdo,
J. Puerta Pelayo, I. Redondo, L. Romero, S. Sánchez Navas, M.S. Soares, A.
Triossi, C. Willmott Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
C. Albajar, J.F. de Trocóniz Universidad de Oviedo, Instituto Universitario de
Ciencias y Tecnologías Espaciales de Asturias (ICTEA), Oviedo, Spain
B. Alvarez Gonzalez, J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, S. Folgueras,
I. Gonzalez Caballero, J.R. González Fernández, E. Palencia Cortezon, V.
Rodríguez Bouza, S. Sanchez Cruz Instituto de Física de Cantabria (IFCA),
CSIC-Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain
I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, B. Chazin Quero, J. Duarte Campderros, M.
Fernandez, P.J. Fernández Manteca, A. García Alonso, G. Gomez, C. Martinez
Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del Arbol, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, C. Prieels,
T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno, L. Scodellaro, N. Trevisani, I. Vila, J.M. Vizan
Garcia University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka
K. Malagalage University of Ruhuna, Department of Physics, Matara, Sri Lanka
W.G.D. Dharmaratna, N. Wickramage CERN, European Organization for Nuclear
Research, Geneva, Switzerland
D. Abbaneo, B. Akgun, E. Auffray, G. Auzinger, J. Baechler, P. Baillon, A.H.
Ball, D. Barney, J. Bendavid, M. Bianco, A. Bocci, E. Bossini, C. Botta, E.
Brondolin, T. Camporesi, A. Caratelli, G. Cerminara, E. Chapon, G. Cucciati,
D. d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, N. Daci, V. Daponte, A. David, A. De Roeck, N.
Deelen, M. Deile, M. Dobson, M. Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, F.
Fallavollita45, D. Fasanella, G. Franzoni, J. Fulcher, W. Funk, S. Giani, D.
Gigi, A. Gilbert, K. Gill, F. Glege, M. Gruchala, M. Guilbaud, D. Gulhan, J.
Hegeman, C. Heidegger, Y. Iiyama, V. Innocente, A. Jafari, P. Janot, O.
Karacheban19, J. Kaspar, J. Kieseler, M. Krammer1, C. Lange, P. Lecoq, C.
Lourenço, L. Malgeri, M. Mannelli, A. Massironi, F. Meijers, J.A. Merlin, S.
Mersi, E. Meschi, F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, J. Ngadiuba, S. Nourbakhsh, S.
Orfanelli, L. Orsini, F. Pantaleo16, L. Pape, E. Perez, M. Peruzzi, A.
Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, F.M. Pitters, M. Quinto, D.
Rabady, A. Racz, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Selvaggi,
A. Sharma, P. Silva, W. Snoeys, P. Sphicas46, J. Steggemann, V.R. Tavolaro, D.
Treille, A. Tsirou, A. Vartak, M. Verzetti, W.D. Zeuner Paul Scherrer
Institut, Villigen, Switzerland
L. Caminada47, K. Deiters, W. Erdmann, R. Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C.
Kaestli, D. Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, T. Rohe, S.A. Wiederkehr ETH Zurich -
Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics (IPA), Zurich, Switzerland
M. Backhaus, P. Berger, N. Chernyavskaya, G. Dissertori, M. Dittmar, M.
Donegà, C. Dorfer, T.A. Gómez Espinosa, C. Grab, D. Hits, T. Klijnsma, W.
Lustermann, R.A. Manzoni, M. Marionneau, M.T. Meinhard, F. Micheli, P.
Musella, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, F. Pauss, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, S. Pigazzini, M.
Reichmann, C. Reissel, T. Reitenspiess, D. Ruini, D.A. Sanz Becerra, M.
Schönenberger, L. Shchutska, M.L. Vesterbacka Olsson, R. Wallny, D.H. Zhu
Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, C. Amsler48, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, R. Del
Burgo, S. Donato, C. Galloni, B. Kilminster, S. Leontsinis, V.M. Mikuni, I.
Neutelings, G. Rauco, P. Robmann, D. Salerno, K. Schweiger, C. Seitz, Y.
Takahashi, S. Wertz, A. Zucchetta National Central University, Chung-Li,
Taiwan
T.H. Doan, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, S.S. Yu National Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei,
Taiwan
P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, W.-S. Hou, Y.y. Li, R.-S. Lu, E.
Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen Chulalongkorn University, Faculty of Science,
Department of Physics, Bangkok, Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, N. Srimanobhas, N. Suwonjandee Çukurova University, Physics
Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
A. Bat, F. Boran, S. Cerci49, S. Damarseckin50, Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, C.
Dozen, I. Dumanoglu, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, I. Hos51, C. Isik, E.E. Kangal52,
O. Kara, A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, M. Oglakci, G. Onengut, K. Ozdemir53,
S. Ozturk54, A. Polatoz, A.E. Simsek, B. Tali49, U.G. Tok, S. Turkcapar, I.S.
Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East Technical University, Physics Department,
Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak55, G. Karapinar56, M. Yalvac Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey
I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya57, O. Kaya58, B. Kaynak, Ö. Özçelik, S.
Ozkorucuklu59, S. Tekten, E.A. Yetkin60 Istanbul Technical University,
Istanbul, Turkey
A. Cakir, K. Cankocak, Y. Komurcu, S. Sen61 Institute for Scintillation
Materials of National Academy of Science of Ukraine, Kharkov, Ukraine
B. Grynyov National Scientific Center, Kharkov Institute of Physics and
Technology, Kharkov, Ukraine
L. Levchuk University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
F. Ball, E. Bhal, S. Bologna, J.J. Brooke, D. Burns, E. Clement, D. Cussans,
O. Davignon, H. Flacher, J. Goldstein, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, S.
Paramesvaran, B. Penning, T. Sakuma, S. Seif El Nasr-Storey, D. Smith, V.J.
Smith, J. Taylor, A. Titterton Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United
Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev62, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, D. Cieri, D.J.A. Cockerill, J.A.
Coughlan, K. Harder, S. Harper, J. Linacre, K. Manolopoulos, D.M. Newbold, E.
Olaiya, D. Petyt, T. Reis, T. Schuh, C.H. Shepherd-Themistocleous, A. Thea,
I.R. Tomalin, T. Williams, W.J. Womersley Imperial College, London, United
Kingdom
R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A. Bundock,
GurpreetSingh CHAHAL63, D. Colling, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M. Della Negra, R.
Di Maria, P. Everaerts, G. Hall, G. Iles, T. James, M. Komm, C. Laner, L.
Lyons, A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, A. Martelli, V. Milosevic, J. Nash64, V.
Palladino, M. Pesaresi, D.M. Raymond, A. Richards, A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez,
A. Shtipliyski, M. Stoye, T. Strebler, S. Summers, A. Tapper, K. Uchida, T.
Virdee16, N. Wardle, D. Winterbottom, J. Wright, A.G. Zecchinelli, S.C. Zenz
Brunel University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, C.K. Mackay, A. Morton, I.D. Reid,
L. Teodorescu, S. Zahid Baylor University, Waco, USA
K. Call, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, C. Madrid, B. McMaster, N. Pastika, C.
Smith Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez, R. Uniyal The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
A. Buccilli, S.I. Cooper, C. Henderson, P. Rumerio, C. West Boston University,
Boston, USA
D. Arcaro, T. Bose, Z. Demiragli, D. Gastler, S. Girgis, D. Pinna, C.
Richardson, J. Rohlf, D. Sperka, I. Suarez, L. Sulak, D. Zou Brown University,
Providence, USA
G. Benelli, B. Burkle, X. Coubez, D. Cutts, M. Hadley, J. Hakala, U. Heintz,
J.M. Hogan65, K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, J. Lee, Z. Mao, M. Narain,
S. Sagir66, R. Syarif, E. Usai, D. Yu University of California, Davis, Davis,
USA
R. Band, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez, M. Chertok,
J. Conway, R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, G. Funk, F. Jensen, W.
Ko, O. Kukral, R. Lander, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, J. Pilot, M. Shi, D. Stolp,
D. Taylor, K. Tos, M. Tripathi, Z. Wang, F. Zhang University of California,
Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, C. Bravo, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, A. Florent, J. Hauser, M.
Ignatenko, N. Mccoll, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg, C. Schnaible, V. Valuev
University of California, Riverside, Riverside, USA
K. Burt, R. Clare, J.W. Gary, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi, G. Hanson, G.
Karapostoli, E. Kennedy, O.R. Long, M. Olmedo Negrete, M.I. Paneva, W. Si, L.
Wang, H. Wei, S. Wimpenny, B.R. Yates, Y. Zhang University of California, San
Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, P. Chang, S. Cittolin, M. Derdzinski, R. Gerosa, D. Gilbert, B.
Hashemi, D. Klein, V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, M. Masciovecchio, S. May, S. Padhi,
M. Pieri, V. Sharma, M. Tadel, F. Würthwein, A. Yagil, G. Zevi Della Porta
University of California, Santa Barbara - Department of Physics, Santa
Barbara, USA
N. Amin, R. Bhandari, C. Campagnari, M. Citron, V. Dutta, M. Franco Sevilla,
L. Gouskos, J. Incandela, B. Marsh, H. Mei, A. Ovcharova, H. Qu, J. Richman,
U. Sarica, D. Stuart, S. Wang, J. Yoo California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, USA
D. Anderson, A. Bornheim, J.M. Lawhorn, N. Lu, H.B. Newman, T.Q. Nguyen, J.
Pata, M. Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, S. Xie, Z. Zhang, R.Y. Zhu Carnegie Mellon
University, Pittsburgh, USA
M.B. Andrews, T. Ferguson, T. Mudholkar, M. Paulini, M. Sun, I. Vorobiev, M.
Weinberg University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, A. Johnson, E. MacDonald, T. Mulholland, R. Patel, A.
Perloff, K. Stenson, K.A. Ulmer, S.R. Wagner Cornell University, Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, J. Chaves, Y. Cheng, J. Chu, A. Datta, A. Frankenthal, K.
Mcdermott, N. Mirman, J.R. Patterson, D. Quach, A. Rinkevicius67, A. Ryd, S.M.
Tan, Z. Tao, J. Thom, P. Wittich, M. Zientek Fermi National Accelerator
Laboratory, Batavia, USA
S. Abdullin, M. Albrow, M. Alyari, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S.
Banerjee, L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, K. Burkett,
J.N. Butler, A. Canepa, G.B. Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M. Cremonesi,
J. Duarte, V.D. Elvira, J. Freeman, Z. Gecse, E. Gottschalk, L. Gray, D.
Green, S. Grünendahl, O. Gutsche, AllisonReinsvold Hall, J. Hanlon, R.M.
Harris, S. Hasegawa, R. Heller, J. Hirschauer, B. Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani,
M. Johnson, U. Joshi, B. Klima, M.J. Kortelainen, B. Kreis, S. Lammel, J.
Lewis, D. Lincoln, R. Lipton, M. Liu, T. Liu, J. Lykken, K. Maeshima, J.M.
Marraffino, D. Mason, P. McBride, P. Merkel, S. Mrenna, S. Nahn, V. O’Dell, V.
Papadimitriou, K. Pedro, C. Pena, G. Rakness, F. Ravera, L. Ristori, B.
Schneider, E. Sexton-Kennedy, N. Smith, A. Soha, W.J. Spalding, L. Spiegel, S.
Stoynev, J. Strait, N. Strobbe, L. Taylor, S. Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran, L. Uplegger,
E.W. Vaandering, C. Vernieri, M. Verzocchi, R. Vidal, M. Wang, H.A. Weber
University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, P. Bortignon, D. Bourilkov, A. Brinkerhoff, L. Cadamuro,
A. Carnes, V. Cherepanov, D. Curry, F. Errico, R.D. Field, S.V. Gleyzer, B.M.
Joshi, M. Kim, J. Konigsberg, A. Korytov, K.H. Lo, P. Ma, K. Matchev, N.
Menendez, G. Mitselmakher, D. Rosenzweig, K. Shi, J. Wang, S. Wang, X. Zuo
Florida International University, Miami, USA
Y.R. Joshi Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
T. Adams, A. Askew, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F. Johnson, R. Khurana, T.
Kolberg, G. Martinez, T. Perry, H. Prosper, C. Schiber, R. Yohay, J. Zhang
Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, V. Bhopatkar, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, M. Rahmani, M. Saunders,
F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago, USA
M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, D. Berry, R.R. Betts, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, S.
Dittmer, O. Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, K. Jung, C.
Mills, T. Roy, M.B. Tonjes, N. Varelas, H. Wang, X. Wang, Z. Wu The University
of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, B. Bilki68, W. Clarida, K. Dilsiz69, S. Durgut, R.P.
Gandrajula, M. Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko, O.K. Köseyan, J.-P. Merlo, A.
Mestvirishvili70, A. Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul71, Y. Onel, F. Ozok72, A.
Penzo, C. Snyder, E. Tiras, J. Wetzel Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
B. Blumenfeld, A. Cocoros, N. Eminizer, D. Fehling, L. Feng, A.V. Gritsan,
W.T. Hung, P. Maksimovic, J. Roskes, M. Swartz, M. Xiao The University of
Kansas, Lawrence, USA
C. Baldenegro Barrera, P. Baringer, A. Bean, S. Boren, J. Bowen, A. Bylinkin,
T. Isidori, S. Khalil, J. King, A. Kropivnitskaya, C. Lindsey, D. Majumder, W.
Mcbrayer, N. Minafra, M. Murray, C. Rogan, C. Royon, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz,
J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang, J. Williams Kansas State University, Manhattan,
USA
S. Duric, A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, D. Kim, Y. Maravin, D.R. Mendis, T. Mitchell,
A. Modak, A. Mohammadi Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright University of Maryland, College Park, USA
A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, S.C. Eno, Y. Feng, N.J. Hadley, S. Jabeen,
G.Y. Jeng, R.G. Kellogg, J. Kunkle, A.C. Mignerey, S. Nabili, F. Ricci-Tam, M.
Seidel, Y.H. Shin, A. Skuja, S.C. Tonwar, K. Wong Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, A. Baty, R. Bi, S. Brandt, W. Busza, I.A. Cali, M.
D’Alfonso, G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov, P. Harris, D. Hsu, M. Hu, M.
Klute, D. Kovalskyi, Y.-J. Lee, P.D. Luckey, B. Maier, A.C. Marini, C. Mcginn,
C. Mironov, S. Narayanan, X. Niu, C. Paus, D. Rankin, C. Roland, G. Roland, Z.
Shi, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Sumorok, K. Tatar, D. Velicanu, J. Wang, T.W. Wang,
B. Wyslouch University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
A.C. Benvenuti${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, S. Guts,
P. Hansen, J. Hiltbrand, S. Kalafut, Y. Kubota, Z. Lesko, J. Mans, R. Rusack,
M.A. Wadud University of Mississippi, Oxford, USA
J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
K. Bloom, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, L. Finco, F. Golf, R. Gonzalez Suarez, R.
Kamalieddin, I. Kravchenko, J.E. Siado, G.R. Snow, B. Stieger State University
of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
C. Harrington, I. Iashvili, A. Kharchilava, C. Mclean, D. Nguyen, A. Parker,
S. Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani Northeastern University, Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, Y. Haddad, A. Hortiangtham, G. Madigan,
D.M. Morse, T. Orimoto, L. Skinnari, A. Tishelman-Charny, T. Wamorkar, B.
Wang, A. Wisecarver, D. Wood Northwestern University, Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, J. Bueghly, T. Gunter, K.A. Hahn, N. Odell, M.H. Schmitt, K.
Sung, M. Trovato, M. Velasco University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, USA
R. Bucci, N. Dev, R. Goldouzian, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop,
D.J. Karmgard, K. Lannon, W. Li, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, I. Mcalister, F.
Meng, C. Mueller, Y. Musienko36, M. Planer, R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, G.
Smith, S. Taroni, M. Wayne, A. Wightman, M. Wolf, A. Woodard The Ohio State
University, Columbus, USA
J. Alimena, B. Bylsma, L.S. Durkin, S. Flowers, B. Francis, C. Hill, W. Ji, A.
Lefeld, T.Y. Ling, B.L. Winer Princeton University, Princeton, USA
S. Cooperstein, G. Dezoort, P. Elmer, J. Hardenbrook, N. Haubrich, S.
Higginbotham, A. Kalogeropoulos, S. Kwan, D. Lange, M.T. Lucchini, J. Luo, D.
Marlow, K. Mei, I. Ojalvo, J. Olsen, C. Palmer, P. Piroué, J. Salfeld-Nebgen,
D. Stickland, C. Tully, Z. Wang University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
A. Barker, V.E. Barnes, S. Das, L. Gutay, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, A. Khatiwada,
B. Mahakud, D.H. Miller, G. Negro, N. Neumeister, C.C. Peng, S. Piperov, H.
Qiu, J.F. Schulte, J. Sun, F. Wang, R. Xiao, W. Xie Purdue University
Northwest, Hammond, USA
T. Cheng, J. Dolen, N. Parashar Rice University, Houston, USA
K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Kilpatrick, Arun Kumar, W. Li, B.P.
Padley, R. Redjimi, J. Roberts, J. Rorie, W. Shi, A.G. Stahl Leiton, Z. Tu, A.
Zhang University of Rochester, Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, Y.t. Duh, J.L. Dulemba, C. Fallon, M.
Galanti, A. Garcia-Bellido, J. Han, O. Hindrichs, A. Khukhunaishvili, E.
Ranken, P. Tan, R. Taus Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,
Piscataway, USA
B. Chiarito, J.P. Chou, A. Gandrakota, Y. Gershtein, E. Halkiadakis, A. Hart,
M. Heindl, E. Hughes, S. Kaplan, S. Kyriacou, I. Laflotte, A. Lath, R.
Montalvo, K. Nash, M. Osherson, H. Saka, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, D. Sheffield,
S. Somalwar, R. Stone, S. Thomas, P. Thomassen University of Tennessee,
Knoxville, USA
H. Acharya, A.G. Delannoy, J. Heideman, G. Riley, S. Spanier Texas A&M
University, College Station, USA
O. Bouhali73, A. Celik, M. Dalchenko, M. De Mattia, A. Delgado, S. Dildick, R.
Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T. Kamon74, S. Luo, D. Marley, R. Mueller, D.
Overton, L. Perniè, D. Rathjens, A. Safonov Texas Tech University, Lubbock,
USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, F. De Guio, S. Kunori, K. Lamichhane, S.W. Lee, T.
Mengke, S. Muthumuni, T. Peltola, S. Undleeb, I. Volobouev, Z. Wang, A.
Whitbeck Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H. Ni, K.
Padeken, F. Romeo, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska, M. Verweij University of
Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
M.W. Arenton, P. Barria, B. Cox, G. Cummings, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A.
Ledovskoy, C. Neu, B. Tannenwald, Y. Wang, E. Wolfe, F. Xia Wayne State
University, Detroit, USA
R. Harr, P.E. Karchin, N. Poudyal, J. Sturdy, P. Thapa, S. Zaleski University
of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI, USA
J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, D. Carlsmith, S. Dasu, I. De Bruyn, L. Dodd, B.
Gomber75, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, P. Klabbers, A. Lanaro, A.
Loeliger, K. Long, R. Loveless, J. Madhusudanan Sreekala, T. Ruggles, A.
Savin, V. Sharma, W.H. Smith, D. Teague, S. Trembath-reichert, N. Woods †:
Deceased
1: Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria
2: Also at IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
3: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
4: Also at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
5: Also at UFMS, Nova Andradina, Brazil
6: Also at Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil
7: Also at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
8: Also at University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
9: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics named by A.I.
Alikhanov of NRC ‘Kurchatov Institute’, Moscow, Russia
10: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
11: Also at Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt
12: Now at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt
13: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
14: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
15: Also at Erzincan Binali Yildirim University, Erzincan, Turkey
16: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
17: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
18: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
19: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
20: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary,
Debrecen, Hungary
21: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
22: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary, Budapest, Hungary
23: Also at IIT Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India, Bhubaneswar, India
24: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
25: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India
26: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
27: Also at Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
28: Also at Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and
Sustainable Economic Development, Bologna, Italy
29: Also at Centro Siciliano di Fisica Nucleare e di Struttura Della Materia,
Catania, Italy
30: Also at Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy
31: Also at Scuola Normale e Sezione dell’INFN, Pisa, Italy
32: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia, Riga, Latvia
33: Also at Malaysian Nuclear Agency, MOSTI, Kajang, Malaysia
34: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico City, Mexico
35: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems,
Warsaw, Poland
36: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
37: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
38: Also at Institute of Nuclear Physics of the Uzbekistan Academy of
Sciences, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
39: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
40: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
41: Also at Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
42: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
43: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
44: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
45: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy,
Pavia, Italy
46: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
47: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
48: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics, Vienna, Austria,
Vienna, Austria
49: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
50: Also at Şırnak University, Sirnak, Turkey
51: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey
52: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
53: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
54: Also at Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey
55: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
56: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
57: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
58: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
59: Also at Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
60: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
61: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
62: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
63: Also at IPPP Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom
64: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia
65: Also at Bethel University, St. Paul, Minneapolis, USA, St. Paul, USA
66: Also at Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey
67: Also at Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
68: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey, Istanbul, Turkey
69: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
70: Also at Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
71: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
72: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
73: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
74: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea, Daegu, Korea
75: Also at University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India