HIN-14-014

$HeadURL$ $Id$

HIN-14-014

# Centrality and pseudorapidity dependence of the transverse energy density in
${\Pp}\text{Pb}$ collisions at $\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$

###### Abstract

The almost hermetic coverage of the CMS detector is used to measure the
distribution of transverse energy, , over 13.2 units of pseudorapidity,
$\eta$, for ${\Pp}\text{Pb}$ collisions at a center-of-mass energy per nucleon
pair of $\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$. The huge angular acceptance exploits the fact
that the CASTOR calorimeter at $-6.6<\eta<-5.2$ is effectively present on both
sides of the colliding system because of a switch in the proton-going and
lead-going beam directions. This wide acceptance enables the study of
correlations between well-separated angular regions and makes the measurement
a particularly powerful test of event generators. For minimum bias
${\Pp}\text{Pb}$ collisions the maximum value of $\rd\ET/\rd\eta$ is 22, which
implies an per participant nucleon pair comparable to that of peripheral PbPb
collisions at $\sqrtsNN=2.76\TeV$. The increase of $\rd\ET/\rd\eta$ with
centrality is much stronger for the lead-going side than for the proton-going
side. The $\eta$ dependence of $\rd\ET/\rd\eta$ is sensitive to the $\eta$
range in which the centrality variable is defined. Several modern generators
are compared to these results but none is able to capture all aspects of the
$\eta$ and centrality dependence of the data and the correlations observed
between different $\eta$ regions.

##  0.1 Introduction

In a heavy ion or proton nucleus collision the total transverse energy, , is a
measure of the energy liberated by the deceleration, or “stopping power” of
the colliding nucleons while $\rd\ET/\rd y$ measures the total energy carried
by the system of particles or medium, produced in the collision, which is
moving with longitudinal rapidity $y$ [1]. In heavy ion collisions the energy
density, $\epsilon_{\text{BJ}}$, of this medium at proper time $\tau_{0}$
shortly after the impact of the two nuclei can be estimated using the Bjorken
formula

$\epsilon_{\text{BJ}}=\frac{\rd\ET}{\rd y}\frac{1}{\tau_{0}A_{\perp}},$ (1)

where $A_{\perp}$ is the nuclear transverse area, , the initial size of the
medium [2]. The time $\tau_{0}$ at which it is first appropriate to speak
about an energy density is a model assumption. Some collaborations have chosen
to report the product of energy density and proper time
$\epsilon_{\text{BJ}}\tau_{0}$ [2, 3] while others have used
$\tau_{0}=1\unit{fm}/c$ as a reference value [4, 5].

For the top 5% most central lead-lead collisions at $\sqrtsNN=2.76\TeV$, this
formula gives energy densities up to 14$\GeV/\text{fm}^{3}$ at a time
$\tau_{0}=1\unit{fm}/c$ [4]. This value is above the expected threshold of
$\epsilon>1\GeV/\text{fm}^{3}$ for the production of a quark-gluon plasma
estimated from quantum chromodynamics, QCD, calculations performed on a
lattice [6]. Collective phenomena such as azimuthal flow and strangeness
enhancement have been observed in proton-lead (${\Pp}\text{Pb}$) [7, 8, 9] and
even high-multiplicity proton-proton () collisions [10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15].
Given such evidence of collective motion and strangeness enhancement in small
systems, it is relevant to study the energy densities achieved in
${\Pp}\text{Pb}$ collisions to see if a quark-gluon plasma could be formed in
${\Pp}\text{Pb}$ collisions.

The spectra in proton-nucleus, ${\Pp}\text{A}$ and deuteron-nucleus,
${\PQd}\text{A}$, collisions have been measured at center-of-mass energies
ranging from $\sqrtsNN=5.5$ to 200with nuclei ranging from deuterium (atomic
number $A=2$) to uranium (U, $A=238$) [16, 17, 18, 19]. At $\sqrtsNN=5.5\GeV$,
only a weak correlation is observed between the total and the charged-particle
multiplicity in the forward region [17]. At $\sqrtsNN=5.5$, 20, and 30, the
mean pseudorapidity $\eta$ moves backward, , in the ion-going direction, and
the pseudorapidity width of the $\rd\ET/\rd\eta$ distribution decreases as the
total $\ET$ in the event increases [16, 17, 18].

In this paper, we report $\rd\ET/\rd\eta$ distributions measured in
${\Pp}\text{Pb}$ collisions at $\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$ by the CMS experiment at
the CERN LHC. This beam energy is 25 times larger than that for the previous
highest energy measurements at RHIC [20]. The analysis combines measurements
from both ${\Pp}\text{Pb}$ and Pb data taking to cover 13.2 units of $\eta$, ,
$\abs{\eta}<6.6$ in the laboratory frame. Since the energy per nucleon of the
proton beam is higher than that of the lead one, the nucleon-nucleon center-
of-mass is at a pseudorapidity of $\eta_{\text{lab}}=0.465$ in the laboratory
frame of reference. For symmetric heavy ion collisions, the shape of
$\rd\ET/\rd\eta$ $\eta$ has only a weak dependence on the $\eta$ region, which
is used to classify the centrality of the events [4]. To test if this is the
case for the much smaller system created in ${\Pp}\text{Pb}$ collisions,
events are classified according to the or charged-particle multiplicity in
several different $\eta$ regions, and the $\rd\ET/\rd\eta$ distributions
produced by the different classification procedures are compared to each
other.

The comparison of these collider data with modern event generator calculations
is a significant motivation for this work. The data presented here reach into
the forward region that is crucial for understanding the development of cosmic
ray air showers. A significant uncertainty in cosmic ray physics arises from
the simulation of very high energy hadron-air collisions [21]. This
uncertainty has an important effect on the modeling of air showers and the
energy calibration of modern cosmic ray observatories. For a proper
description of the development of cosmic ray air showers it is crucial to
understand the rapidity region within four units of the rapidity of the
incoming proton or nucleus [22]. The data are compared in detail to
calculations from three event generators: hijing v2.1, epos-lhc and qgsjet
ii-04 [23, 24, 25].

##  0.2 The CMS apparatus

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 pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal
electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), and a brass and scintillator hadron
calorimeter (HCAL), each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. Muons
are measured in gas-ionization detectors embedded in the steel flux-return
yoke outside the solenoid. The silicon detectors provide tracking in the
region $\abs{\eta}<2.5$, ECAL and HCAL cover the pseudorapidity interval
$\abs{\eta}<3.0$ while the muon system covers the region $\abs{\eta}<2.4$. In
the forward region, the hadron forward (HF) calorimeters cover the region
$3.0<\abs{\eta}<5.2$.

Each HF calorimeter consists of 432 readout towers, containing long and short
quartz fibers running parallel to the beam. By reading out the two sets of
fibers separately, it is possible to distinguish showers generated by
electrons and photons from those generated by hadrons. Very forward angles are
covered at one end of CMS ($-6.6<\eta<-5.2$) by the CASTOR calorimeter, and at
both ends ($\abs{\eta}>8.3$) by the zero-degree calorimeters (ZDCs). Both
CASTOR and the ZDCs consist of quartz plates or fibers embedded in tungsten
absorbers. They are segmented longitudinally to allow the separation of
electromagnetic and hadronic components of the showers produced by incoming
particles. A more detailed description of the CMS detector, together with a
definition of the coordinate system used and the relevant kinematic variables,
can be found in Ref. [26].

Analysis in the midrapidity region is based upon objects produced by the CMS
particle-flow algorithm [27], which reconstructs and identifies each
individual particle-flow candidate with an optimized combination of
information from the various elements of the CMS detector. The energy of
photons is directly obtained from the ECAL measurement, corrected for the
effects of the zero-suppression algorithm. The zero-suppression algorithm both
speeds up the readout and reduces the volume of data that must be recorded.
The energy of electrons is determined from a combination of the electron
momentum at the primary interaction vertex, as determined by the tracker, the
energy of the corresponding ECAL cluster, and the energy sum of all
bremsstrahlung photons compatible with originating from the electron track.
The energy of muons is obtained from the curvature of the corresponding track,
reconstructed using information from both tracker and muon stations. For
$\abs{\eta}<2.5$ the energy of charged hadrons is determined from a
combination of their momentum measured in the tracker and the matching of ECAL
and HCAL energy deposits. These energy deposits are corrected for the effects
of the zero-suppression algorithm and the response function of the
calorimeters to hadronic showers. Finally, the energy of neutral hadrons is
obtained from the corresponding corrected ECAL and HCAL energy.

For the forward detectors, HF, CASTOR, and ZDC, there is no tracking
information, therefore information from the calorimeter towers only is used
for the analysis. The two HF calorimeters are each segmented into 13 rings in
$\eta$. For this analysis, the first two rings, covering
$3.00<\abs{\eta}<3.15$, are excluded since they are partially located in the
shadow of the endcap calorimeter. The subsequent ten rings of width
$\delta\eta=0.175$ are grouped into 5 pairs of consecutive rings. The last
ring has a width of $\delta\eta=0.3$. In total, the transverse energy is
measured in these six $\eta$ bins in each HF calorimeter. The calibration of
the HF calorimeter is derived from test beam data, and radioactive sources and
has an accuracy of 10% [28]. The energy flow in the HF calorimeter is measured
by summing all energy deposits above the threshold of 4in a given ring. Since
CASTOR has no $\eta$ segmentation, all energy deposits within it are summed
together. The absolute calibration of the CASTOR calorimeter is achieved by a
combination of extrapolation from the HF region for 7$\Pp\Pp$ data and
simulation-based corrections. The accuracy of the energy scale is estimated to
be 22%. The calibration of the ZDCs is based on electromagnetic interactions
that produce single neutrons in the calorimeters with the energy
$E_{\text{beam}}/A$ [29].

##  0.3 Data taking and event selection

The data for this analysis were recorded during the CERN LHC 2013
${\Pp}\text{Pb}$ and Pb data taking. During these runs, 31of data were
collected by CMS, of which 1.14are used for this analysis. For this luminosity
the statistical uncertainties on the data are very small compared to the
systematic ones. For this paper the proton-going direction is defined to be
towards positive rapidity, which implies that negative $\eta$ is in the lead-
going direction. The switch in the proton and lead beam directions allows the
use of CASTOR for measuring on both the lead- and proton-going sides of the
collision. For this analysis, events are selected with an unbiased hardware
trigger requiring only the presence of proton and lead bunches in the CMS
detector. These bunches are detected by induction counters placed 175m from
the interaction point on each side of the experiment. Furthermore, the
presence of at least one single reconstructed charged-particle track with
$\abs{\eta}<2.4$ and $\pt>400\MeVc$ is required. An offline selection reduces
events from beam-gas or electromagnetic interactions [30]. Events are required
to have at least one HF calorimeter tower with more than 3of total energy on
both the positive and negative sides of the interaction point and at least one
reconstructed primary vertex with at least two associated tracks. The effect
of noise on the measurement is estimated from a sample of events collected
with a random trigger when no beams are present.

##  0.4 Event centrality

In heavy ion collisions the activity or violence of a collision can be
classified by several theoretical constructs [1]: the number of nucleons that
participate in the collision, $N_{\text{part}}$, by the number of collisions
between participants, $N_{\text{coll}}$, and by the closest distance between
the centers of the colliding nuclei, which is called the impact parameter,
$b$. The term centrality is used as an estimator of the impact parameter of
the collisions. It is generally defined in terms of the multiplicity of
charged-particles or the produced in a given $\eta$ region. While in Monte
Carlo (MC) simulations $N_{\text{part}}$, $N_{\text{coll}}$, and b are known,
in data, these variables cannot be measured directly. These quantities are
estimated using $\ET$ or charged-particle multiplicity, which are both
believed to scale monotonically with $N_{\text{part}}$ or $b$.

The centrality of a particular event is defined to be the percentile of events
with values of the estimator larger than for that particular event. A Glauber
model is then used to relate the centrality to $N_{\text{part}}$,
$N_{\text{coll}}$, and $b$ [31].

For symmetric heavy ion collisions the correlation of centrality with
$N_{\text{part}}$ is strong [4], but for the much smaller ${\Pp}\text{Pb}$
system the fluctuations of $N_{\text{part}}$ with a given experimental
observable are large [32]. For this paper three different measures of
centrality are investigated:

  * •

HF-Single: $\ET$ deposited in the Pb-going side of HF, in $-5.0<\eta<-4.0$,

  * •

HF-Double: The sum of $\ET$ deposited in both sides of HF, in
$4.0<\abs{\eta}<5.0$,

  * •

$N_{\text{track}}$: number of reconstructed tracks with $\pt>400\MeVc$ and
$\abs{\eta}<2.4$.

When using the charged-particle multiplicity or $\ET$ in given $\eta$ regions
to define centrality there is an obvious autocorrelation between the
centrality and the multiplicity or $\ET$ in that region. It is not known,
however, how far these correlations extend over larger $\eta$ regions. The
near hermetic coverage of the CMS calorimeters, 13.2 units of $\eta$, allow
for the most complete picture of energy production yet performed for proton-
lead collisions at the LHC. In order to understand the correlation that can
arise from a choice of the centrality variable, a study needs to be made over
a large pseudorapidity range for several centrality classes.

##  0.5 Data analysis

The measured transverse energy densities are are presented for
$\abs{\eta}<2.0$ in the tracker region, for $3.15<\abs{\eta}<5.20$ in the HF
calorimeter, and for $5.2<\abs{\eta}<6.6$ in the CASTOR calorimeter. Because
of a switch of the beam direction during the data taking, the CASTOR
calorimeter can be used for both positive and negative $\eta$.

The transverse energy density is calculated using the following equation

$\frac{\rd\ET}{\rd\eta}(\eta)=\frac{C(\eta)}{N\Delta\eta}\sum_{j}\ET^{j}(\text{if}~{}\ET^{j}>\text{noise}),$
(2)

where $N$ is the number of good events that pass the online and the offline
event selection, $C(\eta)$ is a correction factor that accounts for the
reconstruction and triggering inefficiencies, and the index $j$ in the
summation runs over all reconstructed particle-flow objects. The correction is
deduced from simulations and is defined as

$C(\eta)=\frac{\sum_{k}\ET^{k}(\text{generated})}{\sum_{j}\ET^{j}(\text{reconstructed})(\text{if}~{}\ET^{j}>\text{noise})},$
(3)

where the index $k$ in the top summation runs over all generated particles.
Using this definition $C(\eta)$ corrects the data from the detector level of
the data to the stable-particle level, , those particles with lifetimes
$c\tau>1\unit{cm}$. This correction accounts for the nonlinearity of the
calorimeter response and the noise thresholds. The correction factor depends
on the particle mix and average transverse momentum of the particles. The
epos-lhc, hijing and, qgsjet ii generators are used to estimate $C(\eta)$. For
the analysis of the reconstructed simulated events, the event selection and
noise reduction requirements are the same as for the data analysis. Events are
selected by requiring at least one stable particle to be within the HF $\eta$
range, $3.2<\abs{\eta}<5.2$, on both sides.

In order to focus on the centrality dependence of the transverse energy as a
function of $\eta$, the events are divided into 10 bins of centrality, 0–10%,
10–20%, . Here we consider 0–10% to be _central_ and any other centrality to
be _peripheral_. Using these definitions the ratio of peripheral to central
$\rd\ET/\rd\eta$ is defined as

$S_{\text{PC}}(\eta)=\frac{\frac{\rd\ET}{\rd\eta}(\text{peripheral},\eta)}{\frac{\rd\ET}{\rd\eta}(\text{central},\eta)}.$
(4)

This can be written as

$S_{\text{PC}}(\eta)=\frac{\sum_{i}\ET^{i}(\text{peripheral})}{\sum_{i}\ET^{i}(\text{central})}\frac{N_{\text{peripheral}}}{N_{\text{central}}}\frac{C(\text{peripheral},\eta)}{C(\text{central},\eta)}.$
(5)

Since $S_{\text{PC}}$ represents a ratio of results for two data samples
multiplied by a ratio of two correction factors, correlated uncertainties tend
to cancel, which is a major advantage of this approach. This method of
studying the centrality dependence, rather than the more traditional ratio of
central to peripheral events, exploits the fact that the 0–10% centrality
class has the smallest fractional uncertainties and so minimizes the
correlated uncertainties when comparing data from different centrality
classes.

##  0.6 Systematic uncertainties

In this analysis, there are several sources of systematic uncertainties on
$\rd\ET/\rd\eta$:

  1. 1.

The differences in $\ET$ spectra and particle composition between data and the
MC simulation used to generate correction factors. The impact of these
differences is estimated by generating MC samples with different particle
mixes and spectra. These effects are most important in the tracker,
$\abs{\eta}<2.4$, and HF regions, $3.15<\abs{\eta}<5.20$, and are less than
3%.

  2. 2.

Uncertainties in the calorimeter energy scale. These are estimated by the
differences in calibration from various methods. These contribute less than 1%
in the tracker region, 10% for HF, and 22% for CASTOR.

  3. 3.

Method of handling the noise in the calorimeters. These uncertainties are
estimated by using different sets of noise reduction requirements in the
analysis. These uncertainties are less than 3% in the tracker and HF regions,
and are negligible for CASTOR.

  4. 4.

Any asymmetries between the positive and negative sides of CMS, e.g., from
dead channels, . The data from ${\Pp}\text{Pb}$ collisions at a given positive
$\eta$ are compared to those of Pb events at the corresponding negative
$\eta$. These uncertainties are up to 5.0% in the tracker region, and up to
3.5% in the HF region.

The uncertainties described above are evaluated separately in the tracker, HF,
and CASTOR regions and summed in quadrature. For the CASTOR region the
uncertainty in the energy scale dominates the total systematic uncertainty.
Table 0.6 lists the systematic uncertainties on $\rd\ET/\rd\eta$ and
$S_{\text{PC}}$ for each $\eta$ region as a function centrality as defined by
HF-Double. The systematic uncertainties are the smallest for the most central
events. For $S_{\text{PC}}$, there is a high degree of cancellation between
the uncertainties in different centrality classes. In particular the energy
scale and forward/backward systematic uncertainties cancel almost completely
while the uncertainties related to the simulation and noise reduction only
partially cancel. The net result is that the systematic uncertainties in
$S_{\text{PC}}$ are considerably smaller than those in .

Systematic uncertainties in $\rd\ET/\rd\eta$ and $S_{\text{PC}}$ for the
tracker region, the HF region, and the CASTOR region as a function of
centrality defined by HF-Double. The $S_{\text{PC}}$ ratio is by construction
unity for 0 - 10% centrality and is not defined for minimum bias events.
ccccccc $\rd\ET/\rd\eta$ systematic (%) $S_{\text{PC}}$ systematic (%)
Centrality Tracker HF CASTOR Tracker HF CASTOR
0–10% 3.7 10.1 22
10–20% 3.8 10.1 22 1.0 1.1 1.3
20–30% 3.8 10.1 22 1.3 1.1 1.5
30–40% 3.8 10.1 22 1.3 1.2 4.1
40–50% 4.2 10.1 22 1.3 1.2 4.1
50–60% 4.5 10.1 22 1.3 1.2 4.1
60–70% 5.1 10.2 22 1.6 1.3 4.1
70–80% 7.0 10.4 23 3.5 1.3 4.1
Min. bias 4.2 10.1 22

##  0.7 Results

The most basic measurement of production is performed for the minimum bias
selection as a function of $\eta$. Figure 1 shows the resulting
$\rd\ET/\rd\eta$ versus $\eta$ for data and for predictions from the epos-lhc,
qgsjet ii and hijing models. The hijing event generator is based on a two-
component model for hadron production in high-energy nucleon and nuclear
collisions. Hard parton scattering is assumed to be described by perturbative
QCD, and soft interactions are approximated by string excitations with an
effective cross section. For heavy nuclei, initial parton distributions are
modified with respect to those of free protons. Also, multiple scatterings
inside a nucleus lead to transverse momentum ($\pt$) broadening of both
initial- and final-state partons. Both the epos-lhc and qgsjet ii models use
Gribov–Regge theory to give a self consistent quantum mechanical treatment of
the initial parton-level interactions without an arbitrary division into soft
and hard interactions [33]. The epos-lhc generator also includes a
phenomenological implementation of gluon saturation. After the initial
interactions, this model uses a hydrodynamic approach to evolve regions of
high energy density. The qgsjet ii generator allows parton cascades to split
and merge via pomeron-pomeron interactions, but does not include a
hydrodynamic component. Saturation effects are produced via higher-order
pomeron-pomeron interactions.

From Fig. 1 it can be seen that $\rd\ET/\rd\eta|_{\eta=0}\approx 22\GeV$. This
is 1/40 of the value observed for the $2.5\%$ most central PbPb collisions
[4]. However, since the cross sectional area of a ${\Pp}\text{Pb}$ collision
is much smaller than that of a central PbPb collision [34, 35], this result
implies that the maximum energy density in ${\Pp}\text{Pb}$ collisions is
comparable to that achieved in PbPb collisions.

By comparing $\rd\ET/\rd\eta$ to $\rd N_{\text{ch}}/\rd\eta$, which was
previously measured by our experiment in proton-lead collisions at the same
energy [36], it is possible to calculate the transverse energy per charged-
particle. At the center-of-mass pseudorapidity we find
$\ET/N_{\text{ch}}=1.31\pm 0.07\GeV/\text{particle}$ for minimum bias
${\Pp}\text{Pb}$ collisions at $\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$. This is somewhat higher
than the value of $1.0\pm 0.1\GeV/\text{particle}$ reported by PHENIX for
${\PQd}\text{Au}$ collisions at $\sqrtsNN=200\GeV$ [37].

Predictions from the epos-lhc model are close to the data over the entire
pseudorapidity range while those from the hijing model are consistent with the
data for $\eta<-3$ and $\eta>2$, but are significantly below the data at
midrapidity, , $\abs{\eta}<2$. Predictions from the qgsjet ii generator are
consistently above the data over the entire $\eta$ range. The peak of the data
distribution is around $\eta=-0.5$. Both epos-lhc and qgsjet ii generators
peak close to this value while hijing has a maximum at $\eta=-2.5.$

Figure 1: Transverse energy density versus $\eta$ from minimum bias
${\Pp}\text{Pb}$ collisions at . at $\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$. The proton is moving
towards positive $\eta$. The statistical uncertainties are smaller than the
size of the data points and the total errors are dominated by the systematics.
The systematic uncertainties are largely correlated point to point within the
central and with the HF regions and so shown by gray bands there. The
systematic uncertainties for the most forward and backward data points
$\eta=\pm 5.9$ are uncorrelated with those of central and HF regions and so
are shown as vertical bars. Predictions from the epos-lhc (red solid), qgsjet
ii (green dashed), and hijing (blue dotted) event generators are also shown.

Figure 2 shows the transverse energy density at midrapidity,
$\rd\ET/\rd\eta|_{\eta=0}$, versus $\sqrtsNN$ for minimum bias ${\Pp}\text{A}$
and ${\PQd}\text{A}$ collisions for several experiments [18, 38, 19]. The data
are averaged over a small region around the center-of-mass pseudorapidity,
with a typical $\abs{\eta-\eta_{\text{cm}}}<0.5$. To account for the different
system sizes the $\rd\ET/\rd\eta$ values are normalized to the number of
participating pairs of nucleons in the collisions. For the CMS data
$N_{\text{part}}$ was estimated to be $8.0\pm 0.2$ using the method described
in [31]. Figure 2 also shows a compilation of results for central AA
collisions from Ref. [19] with the addition of a recent ALICE PbPb data point
[3]. Although the geometries and lifetimes of ${\Pp}\text{A}$ and AA
collisions are very different, it is interesting to note that the
${\Pp}\text{Pb}$ minimum bias value of $5.33\pm$0.25per participant pair is
higher than the central AuAu result at $\sqrtsNN=200\GeV$ [19] and consistent
with the peripheral PbPb result at 2.76 [4].

Figure 2: Transverse energy density per participating nucleon-nucleon pair
evaluated at $\eta_{\text{cm}}$ versus $\sqrtsNN$ for minimum bias
${\Pp}\text{Au}$, ${\Pp}\text{U}$, ${\PQd}\text{Au}$, and ${\Pp}\text{Pb}$
collisions. For the CMS ${\Pp}\text{Pb}$ data at $\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$,
$N_{\text{part}}$ was estimated to be $8.0\pm 0.2$ using the method described
in [31]. The uncertainties are generally smaller than the size of the data
points. Also shown are the corresponding results for central AuAu and PbPb
collisions, as well as simulation for minimum bias ${\Pp}\text{Pb}$ collisions
from three event generators [18, 4, 3, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45,
46].

The rate of increase of $\rd\ET/\rd\eta|_{\eta=0}$ with $\sqrtsNN$ is stronger
for AA than for ${\Pp}\text{A}$ collisions. This is expected because of the
increased stopping power, , the ability to decelerate nucleons, of heavy
nuclei compared to protons [47, 48]. The stopping power controls the total
amount of energy available for particle production. The rapidity shift of the
incoming nucleons is proportional to the beam rapidity for energies up to
$\sqrtsNN=63\GeV$, but then seems to saturate [48, 49, 50, 51]. This limit to
the deceleration may be the reason for the change in slope of the AA data near
$\sqrtsNN\approx 10\GeV$. The ${\Pp}\text{A}$ data also seems to change slope
in this region but unfortunately the sparsity of data with $\sqrtsNN$ between
5 and 20make it difficult to determine where this change happens in
${\Pp}\text{A}$ collisions.

For energies above $\sqrtsNN\approx 10\GeV$ the scaled transverse energy
density increases as a power law according to $s_{\text{NN}}^{\gamma}$. Such
an energy dependence has been previously observed for the charged-particle
multiplicity density, $\rd N^{\pm}/\rd\eta$, near $\eta=0$ [19, 3, 36]. Table
0.7 lists the results of fitting the energy dependence of the scaled $\rd
N^{\pm}/\rd\eta$ and $\rd\ET/\rd\eta$ for central events to a function of the
form $s_{\text{NN}}^{\gamma}$. The rises more rapidly with energy than the
charged-particle multiplicity. Again this is expected because the mean
transverse momentum is also increasing with beam energy [52]. This difference
in the energy dependence of and multiplicity production is stronger for AA
than for ${\Pp}\text{A}$ collisions. This suggests that the mean transverse
momentum rises faster with energy in AA than in ${\Pp}\text{A}$ collisions.

Values of exponents from fitting the energy dependence of $\rd
N^{\pm}/\rd\eta$ [36] and $\rd\ET/\rd\eta$ at midrapidity to a function of the
form $s_{\text{NN}}^{\gamma}$ for minimum bias proton-nucleus and central
nucleus-nucleus collisions. ccc Collision & $\gamma$ for N${}_{\text{ch}}$
$\gamma$ for
pA $0.103\pm.005$ $0.135\pm.003$
AA $0.158\pm.004$ $0.205\pm.005$

Figure 2 also shows simulations of ${\Pp}\text{Pb}$ interactions at various
energies. Predictions from the epos-lhc model are consistent with the data
from $\sqrtsNN=20\GeV$ to 5.02. The qgsjet model is consistent with the 20 and
200data, but is somewhat higher than the data at $\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$. The
hijing generator has a similar energy dependence of the data, but is
consistently below the experimental results.

Figure 3 shows $\rd\ET/\rd\eta$ versus $\eta$ for ${\Pp}\text{Pb}$ collisions
at $\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$ for several centralities and for three different
definitions of centrality for both data and simulations. For 0–10% most
central collisions, $\rd\ET/\rd\eta|_{\eta=0}$ exceeds 50. For the top 10%
central ${\Pp}\text{Pb}$ collisions it is reasonable to assume a complete
overlap of the incoming proton with the lead nucleus. Thus, the transverse
area $A_{\perp}$ corresponds to the total proton-proton () cross section,
$\sigma_{\Pp\Pp}^{\text{tot}}$, at $\sqrt{s}=5.02\TeV$. The TOTEM
collaboration has measured $\sigma_{\Pp\Pp}^{\text{tot}}$ at 2.76, 7, 8, and
13 TeV [53, 54, 55, 56]. Based on these results we estimate
$\sigma_{\Pp\Pp}^{\text{tot}}=94\pm 1$ mb at $\sqrt{s}=5.02\TeV$. Furthermore,
the factor $\rd y/\rd\eta$ needed for Eq. (1) depends upon the particle mix
and spectra. This factor is evaluated using simulated events from the three MC
generators and is found to be $1.12\pm 0.03$. With these considerations Eq.
(1) implies an energy density at a time $\tau_{0}=1\unit{fm}/c$ of the order
of $4.5\GeV/\text{fm}^{3}$ for the top 10% ${\Pp}\text{Pb}$ collisions. This
is above the expected threshold for the production of a quark-gluon plasma
estimated from lattice QCD calculations [6].

Figure 3: Transverse energy density versus $\eta$ and centrality from
5.02${\Pp}\text{Pb}$ collisions for the HF-Double (left), HF-Single (center),
and $N_{\text{track}}$ (right) centrality definitions for data and for
predictions from the epos-lhc, qgsjet ii, and hijing event generators, for
0–10% (upper), 40–50% (middle), and 70–80% (lower) central collisions. The
uncertainties are dominated by the systematic components, which are largely
correlated point-to-point in the central region and in HF, and which are shown
by gray bands there.

For peripheral events the peak of $\rd\ET/\rd\eta$ is close to the nucleon-
nucleon center-of-mass pseudorapidity, $\eta_{\text{cm}}=0.465$. The peak
moves towards the Pb side as the centrality increases, reflecting the
increased momentum from the lead-going nucleons. For the most central events,
the peak of $\rd\ET/\rd\eta$ is at $\eta\approx-1.0$, , 1.4 units below
$\eta_{\text{cm}}$. This is very close to the pseudorapidity shift observed
for central ${\Pp}\text{U}$ collisions at $\sqrtsNN=20\GeV$ [18], suggesting
that the stopping power of heavy nuclei for protons is almost independent of
the center-of-mass energy for energies above 20. For AA collisions a similar
energy independence of the stopping power has been observed for $\sqrtsNN$
greater than 63 [49, 50, 51].

All three event generators show a large increase of $\rd\ET/\rd\eta|_{\eta=0}$
and a shift of $\langle\eta\rangle$ towards the lead-going side as the
centrality increases. However, for the 0–10%, centrality selection the hijing
distribution peaks at significantly lower $\eta$ than the data. Predictions
from the epos-lhc model are closest to the data for $\abs{\eta}<2$, whereas
the hijing generator gives a better description of the data in the lead-going
region, , $\eta<-3$. In the proton-going region, , $\eta>3$, the two
generators are closer to each other and the data. The qgsjet ii predictions
significantly exceed the data at all rapidities for the 0–10% most central
collisions, but are close to the data for the 40–50% and 70–80% centrality
classes. As the centrality increases, $\rd\ET/\rd\eta|_{\eta=0}$ increases
faster for the $N_{\text{track}}$ centrality definition than for the HF-Single
or HF-Double definitions. This effect results from the autocorrelation with
the centrality definition.

Figure 4 shows $\rd\ET/\rd\eta$ scaled by the number of participant nucleon
pairs as a function of $N_{\text{part}}$ for the far lead-going region
$-6.6<\eta<-5.2$, the midrapidity region $\abs{\eta}<0.8$, and the far proton-
going region $5.2<\eta<6.6$. The centrality definition is based on the HF-
Single selection, , $-5.0<\eta<-4.0$. It is clear that the centrality
dependence of production varies strongly with $\eta$. For $N_{\text{part}}>3$
we find that $\rd\ET/\rd\eta$ per participant nucleon pair rises with
$N_{\text{part}}$ in the lead-going and midrapidity regions, but falls for the
far proton-going region. This is consistent with the backward shift of the
mean $\eta$ with centrality observed in Fig. 3.

Figure 4 also shows model predictions from epos-lhc, qgsjet ii, and hijing. At
midrapidity none of the generators is consistent with the data over the whole
range of $N_{\text{part}}$. In particular, the qgsjet ii model has a much
stronger centrality dependence than the data. For the lead-going region all
three generators are consistent with the data within errors. For the proton-
going region, all three generators are above the data, but predictions from
the qgsjet ii model are closer to the data than those from either epos-lhc or
hijing.

Figure 4: Transverse energy density per participating nucleon-nucleon pair
versus $N_{\text{part}}$ for different $\eta$ ranges. The $N_{\text{part}}$
values are based on the method described in [31]. The HF-Single method was
used to define centrality. The total experimental uncertainties are shown by
gray bands. The values of $N_{\text{part}}$ were calculated using the method
described in [31].

Figure 5 shows $S_{\text{PC}}$ as a function of $\eta$ for three centrality
ranges and for all three centrality definitions for data as well as for
predictions from the epos-lhc, qgsjet ii, and hijing event generators. Note
that as per the definition, for each centrality bin, say 40–50%,
$S_{\text{PC}}$ shows the ratio of the $\rd\ET/\rd\eta$ in that “peripheral”
bin to $\rd\ET/\rd\eta$ for the 0–10% most central events. As expected,
$S_{\text{PC}}$ increases with centrality for all centrality definitions. The
$S_{\text{PC}}$ value tends to rise with $\eta$ since the centrality
dependence of $\ET$ production is stronger on the lead-going side than on the
proton-going side. This is presumably because particles moving in the lead
direction are more likely to have multiple interactions than particles moving
in the proton-going region.

Figure 5: Ratio of peripheral to central production, $S_{\text{PC}}$, as a
function of $\eta$ for three centrality ranges for HF-Double (left), HF-Single
(middle), and $N_{\text{track}}$ (right) for data, and for the epos-lhc,
qgsjet ii, and hijing event generators. The systematic uncertainties are
dominant and are of comparable size to the data points.

The autocorrelation between the centrality definition and the measure of
$\rd\ET/\rd\eta$ suppresses $\rd\ET/\rd\eta$ for peripheral events and
enhances it for central events in the $\eta$ region that is used for the
centrality determination. These two effects naturally induce a dip in the
ratio of peripheral to central distributions in that particular $\eta$ region.
This effect is strongest for $S_{\text{PC}}$ in the 70–80% centrality class
for the HF-Single and HF-Double centrality definitions. While the HF
centrality is based on $4<\abs{\eta}<5$, the impact of the autocorrelations is
very clearly visible over one to two more units of $\eta$. In contrast, the
$N_{\text{track}}$ centrality definition uses all tracks with
$\abs{\eta}<2.4$, resulting in a much smoother $S_{\text{PC}}$ as a function
of $\eta$.

The qgsjet ii model gives the best description of $S_{\text{PC}}$ in the
10–20% centrality range, however, it significantly underestimates the
magnitude of $S_{\text{PC}}$ in all other cases, implying that it
significantly overestimates the increase of $\rd\ET/\rd\eta$ with centrality.
The hijing and epos-lhc generators in general do a better job in describing
the magnitude of $S_{\text{PC}}$ with epos-lhc, giving the best description in
the 70–80% centrality range. None of the models gives a complete description
of the centrality dependence of the data.

The qgsjet ii generator also underestimates the dips in $S_{\text{PC}}$ as a
function of $\eta$ for both the HF-Double and HF-Single definitions, of
centrality. This is most clearly seen for the HF-Double definition in the
forward region where the data show significant dips but the qgsjet ii
distributions increase monotonically with $\eta$. The hijing and epos-lhc
models both produce dips in the same $\eta$ regions as the data for both HF
centrality definitions but neither generator is able to predict the shape of
$S_{\text{PC}}$ over the full $\eta$ range. This failure to reproduce the
$\eta$ dependence of $S_{\text{PC}}$ suggests that the generators do not
correctly model the correlations present in proton-lead collisions.

##  0.8 Summary

In this paper we report the centrality and pseudorapidity ($\eta$) dependence
of transverse energy () production from ${\Pp}\text{Pb}$ collisions at
$\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$ over 13.2 units of $\eta$. The per participant pair in
minimum bias ${\Pp}\text{Pb}$ events at $\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$ is comparable to
that of peripheral PbPb collisions at 2.76. At midrapidity the energy density
at a proper time $\tau_{0}=1\unit{fm}/c$ is of order of
4.5$\GeV/\text{fm}^{3}$ for the top 10% most central ${\Pp}\text{Pb}$
collisions, which is comparable to those observed in PbPb collisions. As the
centrality of the collision increases, the total increases dramatically and
the mean $\eta$ of the distribution moves towards the lead-going side of the
collision. For central collisions, the peak of $\rd\ET/\rd\eta$ is 1.4 units
below the center-of-mass pseudorapidity. This pseudorapidity shift is almost
the same as for ${\Pp}\text{U}$ collisions at $\sqrtsNN=20\GeV$.

The epos-lhc event generator gives a good description of the minimum bias
$\rd\ET/\rd\eta$ distribution and peaks at an $\eta$ value close to that of
the data for all centralities. The centrality dependence of production for
qgsjet ii is stronger than that of the data. This model is below the data for
70–80% peripheral events and almost a factor of two above the data for the 10%
most central events. Near midrapidity the hijing generator tends to
underestimate the magnitude of $\rd\ET/\rd\eta$ and for central collisions
predicts a peak that is at significantly lower $\eta$ than in the data.

Similarly to what has been seen in particle production at lower energy [57],
the $\rd\ET/\rd\eta$ per participating nucleon-nucleon pair increases with the
number of nucleons that participate in the collisions ($N_{\text{part}}$) for
$\eta$ values on the lead side; it is rather independent of $N_{\text{part}}$
near midrapidity; and it decreases with $N_{\text{part}}$ for $\eta$ values on
the proton side. The $\eta$ region used to define centrality has a strong
impact on the nature of the events selected. There is a significant
autocorrelation of the $\eta$ range used to define centrality with
$\rd\ET/\rd\eta$ both for data, and the epos-lhc, qgsjet ii and hijing event
generators. None of the tested event generators are able to capture all
aspects of the autocorrelations seen in data.

It is clear that cosmic ray event generators have difficulties modeling both
the centrality and $\eta$ dependence of proton-lead collisions. While the
proton-lead system is significantly larger than the proton-nitrogen and
proton-oxygen collisions occurring in air showers, these data illustrate the
need for a better understanding of nuclear effects. Ultimately, protons
colliding with light nuclei would be most valuable for this purpose.

###### Acknowledgements.

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 centers 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, 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 program and the
European Research Council and Horizon 2020 Grant, contract No. 675440
(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 Ministry of
Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Lendület
(“Momentum”) program 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 and 125105 (Hungary); the
Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; the HOMING PLUS program of
the Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from European Union, Regional
Development Fund, the Mobility Plus program 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 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 programs 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] W. Busza, K. Rajagopal, and W. van der Schee, “Heavy Ion Collisions: The Big Picture, and the Big Questions”,  Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68 (2018) 339, 10.1146/annurev-nucl-101917-020852, arXiv:1802.04801.
  * [2] J. D. Bjorken, “Highly relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions: The central rapidity region”,  Phys. Rev. D 27 (1983) 140, 10.1103/PhysRevD.27.140.
  * [3] ALICE Collaboration, “Measurement of transverse energy at midrapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\text{NN}}}=2.76$ TeV”,  Phys. Rev. C 94 (2016) 034903, 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.034903, arXiv:1603.04775.
  * [4] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the pseudorapidity and centrality dependence of the transverse energy density in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\text{NN}}}=2.76$ TeV”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 152303, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.152303, arXiv:1205.2488.
  * [5] NA49 Collaboration, “Transverse energy production in 208Pb + Pb collisions at 158 GeV per nucleon”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 3814–3817, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.3814.
  * [6] F. Karsch, “Lattice QCD at high temperature and density”, in  Lectures on Quark Matter, p. 209.  Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2002.  arXiv:hep-lat/0106019.  Lecture Notes in Physics, volume 583. 10.1007/3-540-45792-5_6.
  * [7] CMS Collaboration, “Evidence for collective multiparticle correlations in p-Pb Collisions”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 012301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.012301, arXiv:1502.05382.
  * [8] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement with the ATLAS detector of multi-particle azimuthal correlations in p+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\text{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 725 (2013) 60, 10.1016/j.physletb.2013.06.057, arXiv:1303.2084.
  * [9] ALICE Collaboration, “Search for collectivity with azimuthal J/$\psi$-hadron correlations in high multiplicity p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\text{NN}}}$ = 5.02 and 8.16 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 780 (2018) 7, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.02.039, arXiv:1709.06807.
  * [10] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of long-range near-side angular correlations in proton-proton collisions at the LHC”,  JHEP 09 (2010) 091, 10.1007/JHEP09(2010)091, arXiv:1009.4122.
  * [11] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of long-range near-side two-particle angular correlations in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016), no. 17, 172302, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.172302, arXiv:1510.03068.
  * [12] CMS Collaboration, “Evidence for collectivity in pp collisions at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 765 (2017) 193, 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.12.009, arXiv:1606.06198.
  * [13] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of multi-particle azimuthal correlations in pp, p+Pb and low-multiplicity Pb+Pb collisions with the ATLAS detector”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 428, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4988-1, arXiv:1705.04176.
  * [14] ALICE Collaboration, “Multi-strange baryon production in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\text{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 758 (2016) 389, 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.05.027, arXiv:1512.07227.
  * [15] ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of long-range elliptic azimuthal anisotropies in $\sqrt{s}=$13 and 2.76 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016), no. 17, 172301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.172301, arXiv:1509.04776.
  * [16] E-802 Collaboration, “Measurement of energy emission from O+A and p+A collisions at 14.5per nucleon with a lead glass Array”,  Phys. Lett. B 197 (1987) 285, 10.1016/0370-2693(87)90385-6.
  * [17] E814 Collaboration, “Transverse energy and charged particle multiplicity in p nucleus collisions at 14.6 GeV/$c$”,  Phys. Rev. C 52 (1995) 2028, 10.1103/PhysRevC.52.2028.
  * [18] HELIOS Collaboration, “Transverse energy measurements in proton-nucleus interactions at high-energy”,  Z. Phys. C 58 (1993) 239, 10.1007/BF01560341.
  * [19] PHENIX Collaboration, “Transverse energy production and charged-particle multiplicity at midrapidity in various systems from $\sqrt{s_{\text{NN}}}=7.7$ to 200 GeV”,  Phys. Rev. C 93 (2016) 024901, 10.1103/PhysRevC.93.024901, arXiv:1509.06727.
  * [20] PHENIX Collaboration, “Transverse-energy distributions at midrapidity in p+p, d+Au, and Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\text{NN}}}=62.4-200$ GeV and implications for particle-production models”,  Phys. Rev. C 89 (2014) 044905, 10.1103/PhysRevC.89.044905, arXiv:1312.6676.
  * [21] R. Ulrich, R. Engel, and M. Unger, “Hadronic multiparticle production at ultra-high energies and extensive air showers”,  Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 054026, 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.054026, arXiv:1010.4310.
  * [22] L. Kheyn, “Shower center of gravity and hadronic interaction characteristics”,  Astropart. Phys. 92 (2017) 7, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2017.04.003, arXiv:1202.4989.
  * [23] X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, “HIJING: A Monte Carlo model for multiple jet production in pp, pA and AA collisions”,  Phys. Rev. D 44 (1991) 3501, 10.1103/PhysRevD.44.3501.
  * [24] T. Pierog et al., “EPOS LHC: Test of collective hadronization with data measured at the CERN Large Hadron Collider”,  Phys. Rev. C 92 (2015) 034906, 10.1103/PhysRevC.92.034906, arXiv:1306.0121.
  * [25] S. Ostapchenko, “Monte Carlo treatment of hadronic interactions in enhanced pomeron scheme: I. QGSJET-II model”,  Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 014018, 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.014018, arXiv:1010.1869.
  * [26] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [27] CMS Collaboration, “Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector”,  JINST 12 (2017) P10003, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/10/P10003, arXiv:1706.04965.
  * [28] G. Bayatian et al., “Design, performance and calibration of the CMS forward calorimeter wedges”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 53 (2008) 139, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0459-4.
  * [29] CMS Collaboration, “Status of zero degree calorimeter for CMS experiment”,  AIP Conf. Proc. 867 (2006) 258, 10.1063/1.2396962, arXiv:nucl-ex/0608052.
  * [30] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of inclusive jet production and nuclear modifications in pPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\text{NN}}}=$ 5.02 TeV”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 372, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4205-7, arXiv:1601.02001.
  * [31] 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.
  * [32] CMS Collaboration, “Studies of dijet transverse momentum balance and pseudorapidity distributions in pPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\text{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 2951, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2951-y, arXiv:1401.4433.
  * [33] H. J. Drescher et al., “Parton based Gribov-Regge theory”,  Phys. Rept. 350 (2001) 93, 10.1016/S0370-1573(00)00122-8, arXiv:hep-ph/0007198.
  * [34] K. S. Krane, “Introductory nuclear physics”.  Wiley, 1987.
  * [35] I. Angeli and K. P. Marinova, “Table of experimental nuclear ground state charge radii: An update”,  Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 99 (2013) 69, 10.1016/j.adt.2011.12.006.
  * [36] CMS Collaboration, “Pseudorapidity distributions of charged hadrons in proton-lead collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\text{NN}}}=$ 5.02 and 8.16”,  JHEP 01 (2018) 045, 10.1007/JHEP01(2018)045, arXiv:1710.09355.
  * [37] PHENIX Collaboration, “Systematic studies of the centrality and $\sqrt{s_{\text{NN}}}$ dependence of the $\text{d}E_{\text{T}}/\text{d}\eta$ and $\text{d}N^{\text{ch}}/\text{d}\eta$ in heavy ion collisions at mid-rapidity”,  Phys. Rev. C 71 (2005) 034908, 10.1103/PhysRevC.71.034908, arXiv:nucl-ex/0409015. [Erratum: 10.1103/PhysRevC.71.049901].
  * [38] T. Abbott et al., “Systematics of mid-rapidity transverse energy distributions in limited apertures from p+Be to Au+Au collisions at relativistic energies”,  Phys. Rev. C 63 (2001) 064602, 10.1103/PhysRevC.63.064602. [Erratum: 10.1103/PhysRevC.64.029901].
  * [39] NA49 Collaboration, “Hadron production in nuclear collisions from the NA49 experiment at 158 GeV/$c$ /A”,  Nucl. Phys. A 661 (1999) 45, 10.1016/S0375-9474(99)85007-6.
  * [40] NA49 Collaboration, “Recent results on spectra and yields from NA49”,  Nucl. Phys. A 715 (2003) 161, 10.1016/S0375-9474(02)01424-0, arXiv:nucl-ex/0208014.
  * [41] NA49 Collaboration, “Energy dependence of pion and kaon production in central Pb+Pb collisions”,  Phys. Rev. C 66 (2002) 054902, 10.1103/PhysRevC.66.054902, arXiv:nucl-ex/0205002.
  * [42] FOPI Collaboration, “Central collisions of Au on Au at 150, 250 and 400 MeV/nucleon”,  Nucl. Phys. A 612 (1997) 493, 10.1016/S0375-9474(96)00388-0, arXiv:nucl-ex/9610009.
  * [43] FOPI Collaboration, “Charged pion production in Au on Au collisions at 1 A GeV”,  Z. Phys. A 357 (1997) 215, 10.1007/s002180050236.
  * [44] FOPI Collaboration, “Proton and pion distributions in heavy-ion collisions at SIS energies”,  Phys. Rev. C 66 (2002) 034901, 10.1103/PhysRevC.66.034901.
  * [45] STAR Collaboration, “Measurements of transverse energy distributions in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\text{NN}}}=$ 200”,  Phys. Rev. C 70 (2004) 054907, 10.1103/PhysRevC.70.054907, arXiv:nucl-ex/0407003.
  * [46] E802 Collaboration, “Simultaneous multiplicity and forward energy characterization of particle spectra in Au+Au collisions at 11.6 A”,  Phys. Rev. C 59 (1999) 2173, 10.1103/PhysRevC.59.2173.
  * [47] F. Videbaek and O. Hansen, “Baryon rapidity loss and mid-rapidity stacking in high-energy nucleus-nucleus collisions”,  Phys. Rev. C 52 (1995) 2684, 10.1103/PhysRevC.52.2684.
  * [48] W. Busza and A. S. Goldhaber, “Nuclear stopping power”,  Phys. Lett. B 139 (1984) 235, 10.1016/0370-2693(84)91070-0.
  * [49] BRAHMS Collaboration, “Nuclear stopping in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\text{NN}}}$ = 200 GeV”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 102301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.102301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0312023.
  * [50] BRAHMS Collaboration, “Nuclear stopping and rapidity loss in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\text{NN}}}$ = 62.4 GeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 677 (2009) 267, 10.1016/j.physletb.2009.05.049, arXiv:0901.0872.
  * [51] CMS Collaboration, “Studies of the nuclear stopping power in PbPb collisions at 2.76 TeV with CMS”,  Nucl. Phys. A 904-905 (2013) 787c, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2013.02.134.
  * [52] STAR Collaboration, “Bulk properties of the medium produced in relativistic heavy-ion collisions from the beam energy scan program”,  Phys. Rev. C 96 (2017) 044904, 10.1103/PhysRevC.96.044904, arXiv:1701.07065.
  * [53] TOTEM Collaboration, “Luminosity-independent measurement of the proton-proton total cross section at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013), no. 1, 012001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.012001.
  * [54] TOTEM Collaboration, “Measurement of elastic pp scattering at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV in the Coulomb-nuclear interference region: determination of the $\rho$-parameter and the total cross-section”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016), no. 12, 661, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4399-8, arXiv:1610.00603.
  * [55] TOTEM Collaboration, “Luminosity-independent measurements of total, elastic and inelastic cross-sections at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”,  Europhys. Lett. 101 (2013), no. 2, 21004, 10.1209/0295-5075/101/21004.
  * [56] TOTEM Collaboration, “First measurement of elastic, inelastic and total cross-section at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV by TOTEM and overview of cross-section data at LHC energies”, arXiv:1712.06153.
  * [57] W. Busza, “Structure and fine structure in multiparticle production data at high energies”, Acta Phys. Polon. B 35 (2004) 2873, arXiv:nucl-ex/0410035.

##  .9 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan Institut für Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, E. Asilar, T. Bergauer, J. Brandstetter, E. Brondolin, M.
Dragicevic, J. Erö, A. Escalante Del Valle, M. Flechl, R. Frühwirth1, V.M.
Ghete, J. Hrubec, M. Jeitler1, N. Krammer, I. Krätschmer, D. Liko, T.
Madlener, I. Mikulec, N. Rad, H. Rohringer, J. Schieck1, R. Schöfbeck, M.
Spanring, D. Spitzbart, A. Taurok, W. Waltenberger, J. Wittmann, C.-E. Wulz1,
M. Zarucki Institute for Nuclear Problems, Minsk, Belarus
V. Chekhovsky, V. Mossolov, J. Suarez Gonzalez Universiteit Antwerpen,
Antwerpen, Belgium
E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, J. Lauwers, M. Pieters, M. Van De
Klundert, H. Van Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, N. Van Remortel Vrije
Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
S. Abu Zeid, F. Blekman, J. D’Hondt, I. De Bruyn, J. De Clercq, K. Deroover,
G. Flouris, 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, G. Fasanella, L. Favart, R. Goldouzian, A. Grebenyuk, A.K. Kalsi, T.
Lenzi, J. Luetic, N. Postiau, E. Starling, L. Thomas, C. Vander Velde, P.
Vanlaer, D. Vannerom, Q. Wang Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, A. Fagot, M. Gul, I. Khvastunov2, D. Poyraz, C. Roskas,
D. Trocino, M. Tytgat, W. Verbeke, B. Vermassen, M. Vit, N. Zaganidis
Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
H. Bakhshiansohi, O. Bondu, S. Brochet, G. Bruno, C. Caputo, P. David, C.
Delaere, M. Delcourt, B. Francois, A. Giammanco, G. Krintiras, V. Lemaitre, A.
Magitteri, A. Mertens, M. Musich, K. Piotrzkowski, A. Saggio, M. Vidal Marono,
S. Wertz, J. Zobec Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil
F.L. Alves, G.A. Alves, L. Brito, G. Correia Silva, C. Hensel, A. Moraes, M.E.
Pol, 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, H. Malbouisson, D. Matos Figueiredo, 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, P.G. Mercadanteb, S.F. Novaesa, SandraS. Padulaa, D. Romero Abadb
Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of
Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, 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. Fang5, X. Gao5, L. Yuan Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, J.G. Bian, G.M. Chen, H.S. Chen, M. Chen, Y. Chen, C.H. Jiang, D.
Leggat, H. Liao, Z. Liu, F. Romeo, S.M. Shaheen, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, C. Wang,
Z. Wang, E. Yazgan, H. Zhang, J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics
and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
Y. Ban, G. Chen, A. Levin, J. Li, L. Li, Q. Li, Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang, Z.
Xu Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Y. Wang Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, C.A. Carrillo Montoya, 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
B. Courbon, 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, D. Ferencek, K. Kadija, B. Mesic, A. Starodumov6, T. Susa
University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos,
P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
M. Finger7, M. Finger Jr.7 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. Mahmoud8,9, A. Mahrous10, Y. Mohammed8 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, H. Kirschenmann, J. Pekkanen, M. Voutilainen Helsinki Institute of
Physics, Helsinki, Finland
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, J.L. Faure, F. Ferri, S.
Ganjour, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry, C. Leloup,
E. Locci, J. Malcles, G. Negro, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M.Ö. Sahin, M. Titov
Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole polytechnique, CNRS/IN2P3, Université
Paris-Saclay, Palaiseau, France
A. Abdulsalam11, C. Amendola, I. Antropov, F. Beaudette, P. Busson, C.
Charlot, R. Granier de Cassagnac, I. Kucher, S. Lisniak, A. Lobanov, J. Martin
Blanco, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, G. Ortona, P. Paganini, P. Pigard, R. Salerno,
J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A.G. Stahl Leiton, A. Zabi, A. Zghiche Université de
Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram12, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, J.-M. Brom, E.C. Chabert, V. Cherepanov,
C. Collard, E. Conte12, J.-C. Fontaine12, 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, N. Chanon, R. Chierici, D. Contardo, P.
Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, L. Finco, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, G.
Grenier, B. Ille, F. Lagarde, I.B. Laktineh, H. Lattaud, M. Lethuillier, L.
Mirabito, A.L. Pequegnot, S. Perries, A. Popov13, V. Sordini, M. Vander
Donckt, S. Viret, S. Zhang Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
T. Toriashvili14 Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
D. Lomidze RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen, Germany
C. Autermann, L. Feld, M.K. Kiesel, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, M. Preuten, M.P.
Rauch, C. Schomakers, J. Schulz, M. Teroerde, B. Wittmer, V. Zhukov13 RWTH
Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany
A. Albert, D. Duchardt, M. Endres, M. Erdmann, T. Esch, R. Fischer, S. Ghosh,
A. Güth, T. Hebbeker, C. Heidemann, K. Hoepfner, H. Keller, S. Knutzen, L.
Mastrolorenzo, M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, P. Millet, S. Mukherjee, T. Pook, M.
Radziej, H. Reithler, M. Rieger, F. Scheuch, A. Schmidt, D. Teyssier RWTH
Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany
G. Flügge, O. Hlushchenko, B. Kargoll, T. Kress, A. Künsken, T. Müller, A.
Nehrkorn, A. Nowack, C. Pistone, O. Pooth, H. Sert, A. Stahl15 Deutsches
Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
M. Aldaya Martin, T. Arndt, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, I. Babounikau, K.
Beernaert, O. Behnke, U. Behrens, A. Bermúdez Martínez, D. Bertsche, A.A. Bin
Anuar, K. Borras16, V. Botta, A. Campbell, P. Connor, C. Contreras-Campana, F.
Costanza, V. Danilov, A. De Wit, M.M. Defranchis, C. Diez Pardos, D. Domínguez
Damiani, G. Eckerlin, T. Eichhorn, A. Elwood, E. Eren, E. Gallo17, A. Geiser,
J.M. Grados Luyando, A. Grohsjean, P. Gunnellini, M. Guthoff, M. Haranko, A.
Harb, J. Hauk, H. Jung, M. Kasemann, J. Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, J. Knolle, D.
Krücker, W. Lange, A. Lelek, T. Lenz, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann18, R. Mankel, I.-A.
Melzer-Pellmann, A.B. Meyer, M. Meyer, M. Missiroli, G. Mittag, J. Mnich, V.
Myronenko, S.K. Pflitsch, D. Pitzl, A. Raspereza, M. Savitskyi, P. Saxena, P.
Schütze, C. Schwanenberger, R. Shevchenko, A. Singh, N. Stefaniuk, H. Tholen,
A. Vagnerini, G.P. Van Onsem, R. Walsh, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C. Wissing, O.
Zenaiev University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, L. Benato, A. Benecke, V. Blobel, M. Centis Vignali, T.
Dreyer, E. Garutti, D. Gonzalez, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, A. Karavdina, G.
Kasieczka, R. Klanner, R. Kogler, N. Kovalchuk, S. Kurz, V. Kutzner, J. Lange,
D. Marconi, J. Multhaup, M. Niedziela, 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, D. Troendle, A. Vanhoefer, B.
Vormwald Karlsruher Institut fuer Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany
M. Akbiyik, C. Barth, M. Baselga, S. Baur, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, F.
Colombo, W. De Boer, A. Dierlamm, N. Faltermann, B. Freund, M. Giffels, M.A.
Harrendorf, F. Hartmann15, S.M. Heindl, U. Husemann, F. Kassel15, I. Katkov13,
S. Kudella, H. Mildner, S. Mitra, M.U. Mozer, Th. Müller, M. Plagge, G. Quast,
K. Rabbertz, M. Schröder, I. Shvetsov, G. Sieber, H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, S.
Wayand, M. Weber, T. Weiler, S. Williamson, C. Wöhrmann, R. Wolf Institute of
Nuclear and Particle Physics (INPP), NCSR Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
G. Anagnostou, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas, G.
Paspalaki, I. Topsis-Giotis National and Kapodistrian University of Athens,
Athens, Greece
G. Karathanasis, S. Kesisoglou, P. Kontaxakis, A. Panagiotou, N. Saoulidou, E.
Tziaferi, K. Vellidis National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece
K. Kousouris, I. Papakrivopoulos, G. Tsipolitis University of Ioánnina,
Ioánnina, Greece
I. Evangelou, C. Foudas, P. Gianneios, P. Katsoulis, P. Kokkas, S. Mallios, N.
Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, E. Paradas, J. Strologas, F.A. Triantis, D.
Tsitsonis MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
M. Bartók19, M. Csanad, N. Filipovic, P. Major, M.I. Nagy, G. Pasztor, O.
Surányi, G.I. Veres Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath20, Á. Hunyadi, F. Sikler, T.Á. Vámi, V.
Veszpremi, G. Vesztergombi${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$ Institute of Nuclear
Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi21, A. Makovec, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi
Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari 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. Bahinipati22, C. Kar, P. Mal, K. Mandal, A. Nayak23, D.K. Sahoo22, S.K.
Swain Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, S. Chauhan, R. Chawla, N. Dhingra, R.
Gupta, A. Kaur, A. Kaur, M. Kaur, S. Kaur, R. Kumar, P. Kumari, M. Lohan, A.
Mehta, K. Sandeep, S. Sharma, J.B. Singh, G. Walia 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. Bhardwaj24, M. Bharti, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, U. Bhawandeep24,
D. Bhowmik, S. Dey, S. Dutt24, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh, K. Mondal, S. Nandan, A.
Purohit, P.K. Rout, A. Roy, S. Roy Chowdhury, S. Sarkar, M. Sharan, B. Singh,
S. Thakur24 Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
R. Chudasama, D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, 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, B. Sutar, RavindraKumar
Verma Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, P. Das, M. Guchait, Sa. Jain, S.
Kumar, M. Maity25, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, N. Sahoo, T. Sarkar25 Indian
Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, India
S. Chauhan, S. Dube, V. Hegde, A. Kapoor, K. Kothekar, S. Pandey, A. Rane, S.
Sharma Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran
S. Chenarani26, E. Eskandari Tadavani, S.M. Etesami26, M. Khakzad, M.
Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri, F. Rezaei Hosseinabadi, B. Safarzadeh27, M.
Zeinali 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, F. Erricoa,b, L. Fiorea,
A. Gelmia,b, G. Iasellia,c, 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, A. Sharmaa, L. Silvestrisa,15, R.
Vendittia, P. Verwilligena, G. Zitoa 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, L. Brigliadoria,b, R. Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A.
Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa, S.S. Chhibraa,b, C. Cioccaa, G. Codispotia,b, M.
Cuffiania,b, G.M. Dallavallea, F. Fabbria, A. Fanfania,b, P. Giacomellia, C.
Grandia, L. Guiduccia,b, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, A. Montanaria, F.L.
Navarriaa,b, A. Perrottaa, 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, A. Di Mattiaa, R. Potenzaa,b, A. Tricomia,b, C. Tuvea,b INFN
Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b, Firenze, Italy
G. Barbaglia, 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,28, G. Sguazzonia, D. Stroma, L. Viliania INFN Laboratori
Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, F. Fabbri, D. Piccolo, F. Primavera15 INFN Sezione di
Genova a, Università di Genova b, Genova, Italy
F. Ferroa, F. Raveraa,b, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia,b INFN Sezione di Milano-
Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, Italy
A. Benagliaa, A. Beschib, L. Brianzaa,b, F. Brivioa,b, V. Cirioloa,b,15, S. Di
Guidaa,d,15, M.E. Dinardoa,b, S. Fiorendia,b, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P.
Govonia,b, M. Malbertia,b, S. Malvezzia, A. Massironia,b, D. Menascea, L.
Moronia, M. Paganonia,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Ragazzia,b, T. Tabarelli de Fatisa,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. Di Crescenzoa,b, F. Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa,
G. Galatia, A.O.M. Iorioa,b, W.A. Khana, L. Listaa, S. Meolaa,d,15, P.
Paoluccia,15, 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, M. Dall’Ossoa,b, P. De Castro Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa,
U. Dossellia, F. Gasparinia,b, U. Gasparinia,b, A. Gozzelinoa, S. Lacapraraa,
P. Lujan, M. Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,b, P. Ronchesea,b, R. Rossina,b, F.
Simonettoa,b, A. Tiko, E. Torassaa, M. Zanettia,b, P. Zottoa,b, G. Zumerlea,b
INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
A. Braghieria, A. Magnania, 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
L. Alunni Solestizia,b, M. Biasinia,b, G.M. Bileia, C. Cecchia,b, D.
Ciangottinia,b, L. Fanòa,b, P. Laricciaa,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, L. Bianchinia, T. Boccalia, L.
Borrello, R. Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, G. Fedia, 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, P. Spagnoloa, R.
Tenchinia, G. Tonellia,b, A. Venturia, P.G. Verdinia INFN Sezione di Roma a,
Sapienza Università di Roma b, Rome, Italy
L. Baronea,b, F. Cavallaria, M. Cipriania,b, N. Dacia, D. Del Rea,b, E. Di
Marcoa,b, M. Diemoza, S. Gellia,b, E. Longoa,b, B. Marzocchia,b, P.
Meridiania, G. Organtinia,b, F. Pandolfia, R. Paramattia,b, F. Preiatoa,b, S.
Rahatloua,b, C. Rovellia, F. Santanastasioa,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, N. Cartigliaa, F. Cennaa,b, S. Cometti, 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, K. Shchelinaa,b, V. Solaa, A. Solanoa,b, D. Soldi,
A. Staianoa INFN Sezione di Trieste a, Università di Trieste b, Trieste, Italy
S. Belfortea, V. Candelisea,b, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, G. Della Riccaa,b,
F. Vazzolera,b, A. Zanettia Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea
D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, M.S. Kim, J. Lee, S. Lee, S.W. Lee, C.S. Moon, Y.D. Oh, 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
J. Goh, T.J. Kim Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, D. Gyun, S. Ha, B. Hong, Y. Jo, K. Lee, K.S. Lee, S.
Lee, J. Lim, S.K. Park, Y. Roh Sejong University, Seoul, Korea
H.S. Kim Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, H. Lee, K. Lee, K. Nam, S.B. Oh, B.C. Radburn-
Smith, S.h. Seo, U.K. Yang, H.D. Yoo, G.B. Yu University of Seoul, Seoul,
Korea
D. Jeon, H. Kim, J.H. Kim, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park Sungkyunkwan University,
Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, C. Hwang, J. Lee, I. Yu Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
V. Dudenas, A. Juodagalvis, J. Vaitkus National Centre for Particle Physics,
Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
I. Ahmed, Z.A. Ibrahim, M.A.B. Md Ali29, F. Mohamad Idris30, W.A.T. Wan
Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios
Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, M.C. Duran-Osuna, I. Heredia-De La
Cruz31, R. Lopez-Fernandez, J. Mejia Guisao, R.I. Rabadan-Trejo, G. Ramirez-
Sanchez, R Reyes-Almanza, A. Sanchez-Hernandez Universidad Iberoamericana,
Mexico City, Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, 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 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, M.I. Asghar, Q. Hassan, H.R. Hoorani, A. Saddique, M.A.
Shah, M. Shoaib, M. Waqas National Centre for Nuclear Research, Swierk, Poland
H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, T. Frueboes, M. Górski, M. Kazana, K.
Nawrocki, M. Szleper, P. Traczyk, P. Zalewski Institute of Experimental
Physics, Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk32, 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
P. Bargassa, C. Beirão Da Cruz E Silva, A. Di Francesco, P. Faccioli, B.
Galinhas, M. Gallinaro, J. Hollar, N. Leonardo, L. Lloret Iglesias, M.V.
Nemallapudi, J. Seixas, G. Strong, O. Toldaiev, D. Vadruccio, J. Varela Joint
Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
A. Baginyan, A. Golunov, I. Golutvin, V. Karjavin, I. Kashunin, V. Korenkov,
A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev33,34, V.V. Mitsyn, P. Moisenz, V. Palichik,
V. Perelygin, S. Shmatov, N. Skatchkov, V. Smirnov, V. Trofimov, B.S.
Yuldashev35, A. Zarubin Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St.
Petersburg), Russia
V. Golovtsov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim36, E. Kuznetsova37, P. Levchenko, V. Murzin,
V. Oreshkin, I. Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Vavilov, 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, Moscow, Russia
V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, V. Popov, I. Pozdnyakov, G.
Safronov, A. Spiridonov, A. Stepennov, V. Stolin, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A.
Zhokin Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev, A. Bylinkin P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin34, I. Dremin34, M. Kirakosyan34, S.V. Rusakov, A.
Terkulov Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
A. Baskakov, A. Belyaev, E. Boos, A. Ershov, A. Gribushin, L. Khein, O.
Kodolova, V. Korotkikh, I. Lokhtin, O. Lukina, I. Miagkov, S. Obraztsov, S.
Petrushanko, V. Savrin, A. Snigirev, I. Vardanyan Novosibirsk State University
(NSU), Novosibirsk, Russia
V. Blinov38, T. Dimova38, L. Kardapoltsev38, D. Shtol38, Y. Skovpen38
Institute for High Energy Physics of National Research Centre ’Kurchatov
Institute’, Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, S. Bitioukov, D. Elumakhov, A. Godizov, V. Kachanov,
A. Kalinin, 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, S. Baidali University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca
Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic39, P. Cirkovic, D. Devetak, M. Dordevic, J. Milosevic Centro de
Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid,
Spain
J. Alcaraz Maestre, A. Álvarez Fernández, I. Bachiller, M. Barrio Luna, J.A.
Brochero Cifuentes, 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, A. Pérez-Calero Yzquierdo,
J. Puerta Pelayo, I. Redondo, L. Romero, M.S. Soares, A. Triossi Universidad
Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
C. Albajar, J.F. de Trocóniz Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain
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, P. Vischia, J.M. Vizan Garcia 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, J. Garcia-Ferrero, G.
Gomez, A. Lopez Virto, J. Marco, 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, R. Vilar Cortabitarte CERN, European
Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland
D. Abbaneo, B. Akgun, E. Auffray, P. Baillon, A.H. Ball, D. Barney, J.
Bendavid, M. Bianco, A. Bocci, C. Botta, T. Camporesi, M. Cepeda, G.
Cerminara, E. Chapon, Y. Chen, G. Cucciati, D. d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, V.
Daponte, A. David, A. De Roeck, N. Deelen, M. Dobson, T. du Pree, M. Dünser,
N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, P. Everaerts, F. Fallavollita40, D. Fasanella,
G. Franzoni, J. Fulcher, W. Funk, D. Gigi, A. Gilbert, K. Gill, F. Glege, D.
Gulhan, J. Hegeman, V. Innocente, A. Jafari, P. Janot, O. Karacheban18, J.
Kieseler, A. Kornmayer, M. Krammer1, C. Lange, P. Lecoq, C. Lourenço, L.
Malgeri, M. Mannelli, F. Meijers, J.A. Merlin, S. Mersi, E. Meschi, P.
Milenovic41, F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, J. Ngadiuba, S. Orfanelli, L. Orsini, F.
Pantaleo15, L. Pape, E. Perez, M. Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A.
Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, F.M. Pitters, D. Rabady, A. Racz, T. Reis, G. Rolandi42,
M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Seidel, M. Selvaggi, A.
Sharma, P. Silva, P. Sphicas43, A. Stakia, J. Steggemann, M. Tosi, D. Treille,
A. Tsirou, V. Veckalns44, W.D. Zeuner Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen,
Switzerland
L. Caminada45, 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, L. Bäni, P. Berger, N. Chernyavskaya, G. Dissertori, M. Dittmar,
M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, C. Grab, C. Heidegger, D. Hits, J. Hoss, T. Klijnsma, W.
Lustermann, R.A. Manzoni, M. Marionneau, M.T. Meinhard, F. Micheli, P.
Musella, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, J. Pata, F. Pauss, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, S.
Pigazzini, M. Quittnat, D. Ruini, D.A. Sanz Becerra, M. Schönenberger, L.
Shchutska, V.R. Tavolaro, K. Theofilatos, M.L. Vesterbacka Olsson, R. Wallny,
D.H. Zhu Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, C. Amsler46, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, R. Del
Burgo, S. Donato, C. Galloni, T. Hreus, B. Kilminster, I. Neutelings, D.
Pinna, G. Rauco, P. Robmann, D. Salerno, K. Schweiger, C. Seitz, Y. Takahashi,
A. Zucchetta National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan
Y.H. Chang, K.y. Cheng, T.H. Doan, Sh. Jain, R. Khurana, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A.
Pozdnyakov, S.S. Yu National Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, W.-S. Hou, Arun Kumar, Y.y. Li, R.-S.
Lu, E. Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen, J.f. Tsai 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
M.N. Bakirci47, A. Bat, F. Boran, S. Cerci48, S. Damarseckin, Z.S. Demiroglu,
F. Dolek, C. Dozen, I. Dumanoglu, E. Eskut, S. Girgis, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler,
E. Gurpinar, I. Hos49, C. Isik, E.E. Kangal50, O. Kara, U. Kiminsu, M.
Oglakci, G. Onengut, K. Ozdemir51, A. Polatoz, D. Sunar Cerci48, U.G. Tok, S.
Turkcapar, I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East Technical University,
Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak52, G. Karapinar53, M. Yalvac, M. Zeyrek Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya54, O. Kaya55, S. Ozkorucuklu56, S. Tekten,
E.A. Yetkin57 Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
M.N. Agaras, S. Atay, A. Cakir, K. Cankocak, Y. Komurcu, S. Sen58 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, L. Beck, J.J. Brooke, D. Burns, E. Clement, D. Cussans, O. Davignon,
H. Flacher, J. Goldstein, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, D.M. Newbold59,
S. Paramesvaran, B. Penning, T. Sakuma, D. Smith, V.J. Smith, J. Taylor, A.
Titterton Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
A. Belyaev60, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, D. Cieri, D.J.A. Cockerill, J.A. Coughlan,
K. Harder, S. Harper, J. Linacre, E. Olaiya, D. Petyt, C.H. Shepherd-
Themistocleous, A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin, T. Williams, W.J. Womersley Imperial
College, London, United Kingdom
G. Auzinger, R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A.
Bundock, S. Casasso, D. Colling, L. Corpe, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M. Della
Negra, R. Di Maria, Y. Haddad, G. Hall, G. Iles, T. James, M. Komm, C. Laner,
L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, A. Martelli, J. Nash61, A. Nikitenko6, V.
Palladino, M. Pesaresi, A. Richards, A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A.
Shtipliyski, G. Singh, M. Stoye, T. Strebler, S. Summers, A. Tapper, K.
Uchida, T. Virdee15, N. Wardle, D. Winterbottom, J. Wright, 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, H. Liu, C. Madrid, B. Mcmaster, N.
Pastika, C. Smith Catholic University of America, Washington DC, USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez 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, D. Gastler, D. Rankin, C. Richardson, J. Rohlf, L. Sulak,
D. Zou Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, X. Coubez, D. Cutts, M. Hadley, J. Hakala, U. Heintz, J.M.
Hogan62, K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, J. Lee, Z. Mao, M. Narain, J.
Pazzini, S. Piperov, S. Sagir63, R. Syarif, E. Usai, D. Yu University of
California, Davis, Davis, USA
R. Band, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, D. Burns, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez,
M. Chertok, J. Conway, R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, G. Funk,
W. Ko, O. Kukral, R. Lander, C. Mclean, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, J. Pilot, S.
Shalhout, 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
E. Bouvier, K. Burt, R. Clare, J.W. Gary, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi, G. Hanson, G.
Karapostoli, E. Kennedy, F. Lacroix, O.R. Long, M. Olmedo Negrete, M.I.
Paneva, W. Si, L. Wang, H. Wei, S. Wimpenny, B.R. Yates University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, S. Cittolin, M. Derdzinski, R. Gerosa, D. Gilbert, B. Hashemi,
A. Holzner, D. Klein, G. Kole, V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, M. Masciovecchio, D.
Olivito, S. Padhi, M. Pieri, M. Sani, V. Sharma, S. Simon, M. Tadel, A.
Vartak, S. Wasserbaech64, J. Wood, F. Würthwein, A. Yagil, G. Zevi Della Porta
University of California, Santa Barbara - Department of Physics, Santa
Barbara, USA
N. Amin, R. Bhandari, J. Bradmiller-Feld, C. Campagnari, M. Citron, A. Dishaw,
V. Dutta, M. Franco Sevilla, L. Gouskos, R. Heller, J. Incandela, A.
Ovcharova, H. Qu, J. Richman, D. Stuart, I. Suarez, S. Wang, J. Yoo California
Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
D. Anderson, A. Bornheim, J.M. Lawhorn, H.B. Newman, T.Q. Nguyen, M.
Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, R. Wilkinson, 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, F. Jensen, A. Johnson, M. Krohn, S. Leontsinis, E.
MacDonald, T. Mulholland, K. Stenson, K.A. Ulmer, S.R. Wagner Cornell
University, Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, J. Chaves, Y. Cheng, J. Chu, A. Datta, K. Mcdermott, N. Mirman,
J.R. Patterson, D. Quach, A. Rinkevicius, A. Ryd, L. Skinnari, L. Soffi, S.M.
Tan, Z. Tao, J. Thom, J. Tucker, 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, G.
Bolla${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, 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, J. Hanlon, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, J. Hirschauer, Z. Hu, B.
Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, B. Klima, M.J. Kortelainen,
B. Kreis, S. Lammel, 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, K. Pedro, C. Pena, O. Prokofyev, G. Rakness, L. Ristori, A.
Savoy-Navarro65, B. Schneider, E. Sexton-Kennedy, 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, A. Whitbeck University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, P. Bortignon, D. Bourilkov, A. Brinkerhoff, L. Cadamuro,
A. Carnes, M. Carver, D. Curry, R.D. Field, S.V. Gleyzer, B.M. Joshi, J.
Konigsberg, A. Korytov, P. Ma, K. Matchev, H. Mei, G. Mitselmakher, K. Shi, D.
Sperka, J. Wang, S. Wang Florida International University, Miami, USA
Y.R. Joshi, S. Linn Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
A. Ackert, T. Adams, A. Askew, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F. Johnson, T.
Kolberg, G. Martinez, T. Perry, H. Prosper, A. Saha, A. Santra, V. Sharma, R.
Yohay Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, V. Bhopatkar, S. Colafranceschi, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, M.
Rahmani, T. Roy, 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, J.
Kamin, C. Mills, I.D. Sandoval Gonzalez, M.B. Tonjes, N. Varelas, H. Wang, X.
Wang, Z. Wu, J. Zhang The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, B. Bilki66, W. Clarida, K. Dilsiz67, S. Durgut, R.P.
Gandrajula, M. Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko, J.-P. Merlo, A. Mestvirishvili, A.
Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul68, Y. Onel, F. Ozok69, 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, U. Sarica, M. Swartz, M. Xiao, C. You The
University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA
A. Al-bataineh, A. Anderson, P. Baringer, A. Bean, S. Boren, J. Bowen, C.
Bruner, J. Castle, S. Khalil, A. Kropivnitskaya, D. Majumder, W. Mcbrayer, M.
Murray, C. Rogan, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang Kansas
State University, Manhattan, USA
A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, D. Kim, Y. Maravin, D.R. Mendis, T. Mitchell, A. Modak,
A. Mohammadi, L.K. Saini, N. Skhirtladze 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, C. Ferraioli, N.J. Hadley,
S. Jabeen, G.Y. Jeng, R.G. Kellogg, J. Kunkle, A.C. Mignerey, F. Ricci-Tam,
Y.H. Shin, A. Skuja, S.C. Tonwar, K. Wong Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, V. Azzolini, A. Baty, G. Bauer, R. Bi, S. Brandt, W.
Busza, I.A. Cali, M. D’Alfonso, Z. Demiragli, G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov,
P. Harris, D. Hsu, M. Hu, Y. Iiyama, G.M. Innocenti, 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, C. Roland, G. Roland, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Sumorok,
K. Tatar, D. Velicanu, J. Wang, T.W. Wang, B. Wyslouch, S. Zhaozhong
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
A.C. Benvenuti, R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, P. Hansen, S. Kalafut, Y. Kubota,
Z. Lesko, J. Mans, S. Nourbakhsh, N. Ruckstuhl, R. Rusack, J. Turkewitz, M.A.
Wadud University of Mississippi, Oxford, USA
J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
E. Avdeeva, K. Bloom, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, F. Golf, R. Gonzalez Suarez,
R. Kamalieddin, I. Kravchenko, J. Monroy, J.E. Siado, G.R. Snow, B. Stieger
State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
A. Godshalk, C. Harrington, I. Iashvili, A. Kharchilava, D. Nguyen, A. Parker,
S. Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani Northeastern University, Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, A. Hortiangtham, D.M. Morse, T. Orimoto,
R. Teixeira De Lima, T. Wamorkar, B. Wang, A. Wisecarver, D. Wood Northwestern
University, Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, O. Charaf, K.A. Hahn, N. Mucia, N. Odell, M.H. Schmitt, K.
Sung, M. Trovato, M. Velasco University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, USA
R. Bucci, N. Dev, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop, D.J. Karmgard, N.
Kellams, K. Lannon, W. Li, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, F. Meng, C. Mueller, Y.
Musienko33, M. Planer, A. Reinsvold, R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, G. Smith, S.
Taroni, M. Wayne, A. Wightman, M. Wolf, A. Woodard The Ohio State University,
Columbus, USA
J. Alimena, L. Antonelli, B. Bylsma, L.S. Durkin, S. Flowers, B. Francis, A.
Hart, C. Hill, W. Ji, T.Y. Ling, W. Luo, B.L. Winer, H.W. Wulsin Princeton
University, Princeton, USA
S. Cooperstein, P. Elmer, J. Hardenbrook, P. Hebda, S. Higginbotham, A.
Kalogeropoulos, 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
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, N. Neumeister, C.C. Peng, 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
Z. Chen, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Guilbaud, M. Kilpatrick, W.
Li, B. Michlin, B.P. Padley, J. Roberts, J. Rorie, W. Shi, Z. Tu, J. Zabel, A.
Zhang University of Rochester, Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, Y.t. Duh, J.L. Dulemba, C. Fallon, T.
Ferbel, M. Galanti, A. Garcia-Bellido, J. Han, O. Hindrichs, A.
Khukhunaishvili, K.H. Lo, P. Tan, R. Taus, M. Verzetti Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey, Piscataway, USA
A. Agapitos, J.P. Chou, Y. Gershtein, T.A. Gómez Espinosa, E. Halkiadakis, M.
Heindl, E. Hughes, S. Kaplan, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, S. Kyriacou, A. Lath,
R. Montalvo, K. Nash, M. Osherson, H. Saka, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, D.
Sheffield, S. Somalwar, R. Stone, S. Thomas, P. Thomassen, M. Walker
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
A.G. Delannoy, J. Heideman, G. Riley, K. Rose, S. Spanier, K. Thapa Texas A&M
University, College Station, USA
O. Bouhali70, A. Castaneda Hernandez70, A. Celik, M. Dalchenko, M. De Mattia,
A. Delgado, S. Dildick, R. Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T. Kamon71, S. Luo,
R. Mueller, Y. Pakhotin, R. Patel, A. Perloff, L. Perniè, D. Rathjens, A.
Safonov, A. Tatarinov Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, F. De Guio, P.R. Dudero, S. Kunori, K. Lamichhane,
S.W. Lee, T. Mengke, S. Muthumuni, T. Peltola, S. Undleeb, I. Volobouev, Z.
Wang Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H. Ni, K.
Padeken, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska, M. Verweij, Q.
Xu University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
M.W. Arenton, P. Barria, B. Cox, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A. Ledovskoy, H. Li, C.
Neu, T. Sinthuprasith, 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
M. Brodski, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, D. Carlsmith, S. Dasu, L. Dodd, S. Duric,
B. Gomber, M. Grothe, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, P. Klabbers, A.
Lanaro, A. Levine, K. Long, R. Loveless, T. Ruggles, A. Savin, N. Smith, W.H.
Smith, 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 Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
6: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
7: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
8: Also at Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt
9: Now at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt
10: Now at Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
11: Also at Department of Physics, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia
12: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
13: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
14: Also at Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
15: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
16: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
17: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
18: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
19: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
20: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
21: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
22: Also at Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India
23: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
24: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India
25: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
26: Also at Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
27: Also at Plasma Physics Research Center, Science and Research Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
28: Also at Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy
29: Also at International Islamic University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
30: Also at Malaysian Nuclear Agency, MOSTI, Kajang, Malaysia
31: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico city, Mexico
32: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems,
Warsaw, Poland
33: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
34: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
35: Also at Institute of Nuclear Physics of the Uzbekistan Academy of
Sciences, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
36: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
37: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
38: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
39: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
40: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
41: Also at University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of
Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
42: Also at Scuola Normale e Sezione dell’INFN, Pisa, Italy
43: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
44: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
45: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
46: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics (SMI), Vienna,
Austria
47: Also at Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey
48: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
49: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey
50: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
51: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
52: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
53: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
54: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
55: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
56: Also at Istanbul University, Faculty of Science, Istanbul, Turkey
57: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
58: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
59: Also at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
60: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
61: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia
62: Also at Bethel University, St. Paul, USA
63: Also at Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey
64: Also at Utah Valley University, Orem, USA
65: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
66: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey
67: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
68: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
69: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
70: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
71: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea