2015 262 17 September

Measurement of electrons from heavy-flavour hadron decays in p–Pb collisions

ALICE Collaboration††thanks: See Appendix A for the list of collaboration
members ALICE Collaboration

The production of electrons from heavy-flavour hadron decays was measured as a
function of transverse momentum ($p_{\rm T}$) in minimum-bias p–Pb collisions
at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV using the ALICE detector at the LHC. The
measurement covers the $p_{\rm T}$ interval $0.5<p_{\rm
T}<12~{}\textrm{GeV}/c$ and the rapidity range $-1.065<y_{\rm cms}<0.135$ in
the centre-of-mass reference frame. The contribution of electrons from
background sources was subtracted using an invariant mass approach. The
nuclear modification factor $R_{\rm pPb}$ was calculated by comparing the
$p_{\rm T}$-differential invariant cross section in p–Pb collisions to a pp
reference at the same centre-of-mass energy, which was obtained by
interpolating measurements at $\sqrt{s}$ = 2.76 TeV and $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV.
The $R_{\rm pPb}$ is consistent with unity within uncertainties of about 25%,
which become larger for $p_{\rm T}$ below 1 $\textrm{GeV}/c$. The measurement
shows that heavy-flavour production is consistent with binary scaling, so that
a suppression in the high-$p_{\rm T}$ yield in Pb–Pb collisions has to be
attributed to effects induced by the hot medium produced in the final state.
The data in p–Pb collisions are described by recent model calculations that
include cold nuclear matter effects.

##  1 Introduction

The Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP) [1, 2], a colour-deconfined state of strongly-
interacting matter, is predicted to exist at high temperature according to
lattice Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) calculations [3]. These conditions can be
reached in ultra-relativistic heavy-ion collisions [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10].
Charm and beauty (heavy-flavour) quarks are mostly produced in initial hard
scattering processes on a very short time scale, shorter than the formation
time of the QGP medium [11], and thus experience the full temporal and spatial
evolution of the collision. While interacting with the QGP medium, heavy
quarks lose energy via elastic and radiative processes [12, 13, 14]. Heavy-
flavour hadrons are therefore well-suited probes to study the properties of
the QGP. The effect of energy loss on heavy-flavour production can be
characterised via the nuclear modification factor ($R_{\rm AA}$) of heavy-
flavour hadrons. The $R_{\rm AA}$ is defined as the ratio of the heavy-flavour
hadron yield in nucleus–nucleus (A–A) collisions to that in proton–proton (pp)
collisions scaled by the average number of binary nucleon–nucleon collisions.
The $R_{\rm AA}$ is studied differentially as a function of transverse
momentum ($p_{\rm T}$), rapidity ($y$) and collision centrality. It was
measured at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) [15, 16, 17, 18] and at
the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) [19, 20, 21, 22]. At RHIC, in central Au–Au
collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}~{}$= 200 GeV the $R_{\rm AA}$ of charmed
mesons and of electrons from heavy-flavour hadron decays shows that their
production is strongly suppressed by a factor of about 5 for $p_{\rm T}$ $>$ 3
$\textrm{GeV}/c$ at mid-rapidity. For the most central Pb–Pb collisions at
$\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}~{}$= 2.76 TeV at the LHC, a suppression by a factor of 5–6
is observed for charmed mesons for $p_{\rm T}$ $>$ 5 $\textrm{GeV}/c$ at mid-
rapidity [22].

The interpretation of the measurements in A–A collisions requires the study of
heavy-flavour production in p–A collisions, which provides access to cold
nuclear matter (CNM) effects. These effects are not related to the formation
of a colour-deconfined medium, but are present in case of colliding nuclei (or
proton–nucleus). An important CNM effect in the initial state is parton-
density shadowing or saturation, which can be described using modified parton
distribution functions (PDF) in the nucleus [23] or using the Color Glass
Condensate (CGC) effective theory [24]. Further CNM effects include energy
loss [25] in the initial and final states and a Cronin-like enhancement [26]
as a consequence of multiple scatterings [27, 25].

The influence of the CNM effects can be studied by measuring the nuclear
modification factor $R_{\rm pA}$. Like the $R_{\rm AA}$, the $R_{\rm pA}$ is
defined such that it is unity if there are no nuclear effects. For minimum-
bias p–A collisions, it can be expressed as [28]

$R_{\rm pA}~{}=\frac{1}{A}\frac{{\rm d}\sigma_{\rm pA}/{\rm d}p_{\rm T}}{{\rm
d}\sigma_{\rm pp}/{\rm d}p_{\rm T}}~{},$ (1)

where ${\rm d}\sigma_{\rm pA}/{\rm d}p_{\rm T}$ and ${\rm d}\sigma_{\rm
pp}/{\rm d}p_{\rm T}$ are the $p_{\rm T}$-differential production cross
sections of a given particle species in p–A and pp collisions, respectively,
and $A$ is the number of nucleons in the nucleus.

Cold nuclear matter effects were recently investigated at the RHIC and the LHC
[29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44]. At RHIC, the
nuclear modification factor of electrons from heavy-flavour hadron decays in
central d–Au collisions (0–20%) at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}~{}$= 200 GeV is larger
than unity at mid-rapidity in the transverse momentum interval $1.5<p_{\rm
T}<5~{}\textrm{GeV}/c$ [42]. The corresponding measurement for muons from
heavy-flavour hadron decays in central d–Au collisions shows a suppression at
forward rapidity and an enhancement at backward rapidity [43]. Theoretical
models that include the modification of the PDF in the nucleus can neither
explain the enhancement nor the large difference between forward and backward
rapidity. Possible explanations include the Cronin-like enhancement [26] due
to radial flow of heavy mesons [45]. At the LHC, the $p_{\rm T}$-differential
nuclear modification factor $R_{\rm pPb}$ of D mesons measured in p–Pb
collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV [44] is consistent with unity for
$p_{\rm T}$ $>$ 1 $\textrm{GeV}/c$ and is described by theoretical
calculations that include gluon saturation effects. Both at RHIC and at the
LHC, the p/d–A measurements indicate that initial-state effects alone cannot
explain the strong suppression seen at high-$p_{\rm T}$ in nucleus–nucleus
collisions.

In this Letter, the $p_{\rm T}$-differential invariant cross section and the
nuclear modification factor $R_{\rm pPb}$ of electrons from heavy-flavour
hadron decays measured in minimum-bias p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$
= 5.02 TeV with ALICE at the LHC are presented. The measurement covers the
rapidity range $-1.065<y_{\rm cms}<0.135$ in the centre-of-mass system (cms)
for electrons with transverse momentum $0.5<p_{\rm T}<12~{}\textrm{GeV}/c$.
This rapidity coverage results from the same rigidity of the p and Pb beams at
the LHC, leading to a rapidity shift of $|y_{\rm NN}|$ = 0.465 between the
nucleon–nucleon cms and the laboratory reference frame, in the direction of
the p beam. At low $p_{\rm T}$, the measurement probes the production of
charm-hadron decays [46], providing sensitivity to the gluon PDF in the regime
of Bjorken-$x$ of the order of $10^{-4}$ [47], where a substantial shadowing
effect is expected [48].

To obtain the nuclear modification factor $R_{\rm pPb}$ of electrons from
heavy-flavour hadron decays, the $p_{\rm T}$-differential invariant cross
section in p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV was compared to a
pp reference multiplied by 208, the Pb mass number. The pp reference was
obtained by interpolating the $p_{\rm T}$-differential cross section
measurements at $\sqrt{s}=2.76$ TeV and 7 TeV.

The Letter is organised as follows. The experimental apparatus, data sample
and event selection are described in Section 2. The electron reconstruction
strategy and the pp reference spectrum are explained in Sections 3 and 4,
respectively. The measured $p_{\rm T}$-differential invariant cross section,
the nuclear modification factor $R_{\rm pPb}$ of electrons from heavy-flavour
hadron decays and comparison of $R_{\rm pPb}$ to model calculations are
reported in Section 5.

##  2 Experimental apparatus, data sample and event selection

A detailed description of the ALICE apparatus can be found in [49, 50].
Electrons are reconstructed at mid-rapidity using the central barrel detectors
(described below) located inside a solenoid magnet, which generates a magnetic
field $\mathrm{B}=0.5$ T along the beam direction.

The Inner Tracking System (ITS), the closest detector to the interaction
point, includes six cylindrical layers of silicon detectors with three
different technologies (pixel, drift and strip) at radii between 3.9 cm and 43
cm with a pseudorapidity coverage in the laboratory reference frame in the
full azimuth between $|\eta_{\rm lab}|<$ 2.0 at small radii and $|\eta_{\rm
lab}|<$ 0.9 at large radii [49, 51]. The two innermost layers form the Silicon
Pixel Detector (SPD), which plays a key role in primary and secondary vertex
reconstruction. At an incident angle perpendicular to the detector surfaces,
the total material budget of the ITS corresponds on average to 7.7% of a
radiation length [51]. The main tracking device in the central barrel is the
Time Projection Chamber (TPC) [52], which surrounds the ITS and covers a
pseudorapidity range of $|\eta_{\rm lab}|<$ 0.9 in the full azimuth. The track
reconstruction proceeds inward from the outer radius of the TPC to the
innermost layer of the ITS [50]. The TPC provides particle identification via
the measurement of the specific energy loss d$E$/d$x$. The Time-Of-Flight
array (TOF), based on Multi-gap Resistive Plate Chambers, covers the full
azimuth and $|\eta_{\rm lab}|<$ 0.9 at a radial distance of 3.7 m from the
interaction point [53]. Using the particle time-of-flight measurement,
electrons can be distinguished from hadrons for $p_{\rm T}$ $\leq$ 2.5
$\textrm{GeV}/c$. The collision time, used for the calculation of the time-of-
flight to the TOF detector, is measured by an array of Cherenkov counters, the
T0 detector, located at $+350$ cm and $-70$ cm from the interaction point
along the beam direction [54]. The Electromagnetic Calorimeter (EMCal),
situated behind the TOF, is a sampling calorimeter based on Shashlik
technology [55]. Its geometrical acceptance is 107∘ in azimuth and $|\eta_{\rm
lab}|<$ 0.7. In this analysis, the azimuthal angle and $\eta$ coverage were
limited to 100∘ and 0.6, respectively, to ensure uniform detector performance.

The minimum-bias (MB) p–Pb data sample used in this analysis was collected in
2013. The trigger condition required a coincidence of signals between the two
V0 scintillator hodoscopes, placed on either side of the interaction point at
2.8 $<\eta_{\rm lab}<$ 5.1 and $-$3.7 $<\eta_{\rm lab}<$ $-$1.7, synchronised
with the passage of bunches from both beams [54]. The background due to
interactions of one of the two beams and residual particles in the beam vacuum
tube was rejected in the offline event selection by correlating the time
information of the V0 detectors with that from the two Zero Degree
Calorimeters (ZDC) [50], that are located 112.5 m away from the interaction
point along the beam pipe, symmetrically on either side. The primary vertex
was reconstructed with tracks in the ITS and the TPC [50]. Events with a
primary vertex located farther than $\pm$ 10 cm from the centre of the
interaction region along the beam direction were rejected. About 10% of the
events do not fulfil this selection criterion. A sample of 100 million events
passed the offline event selection, corresponding to an integrated luminosity
$L_{\mathrm{int}}=47.8\pm 1.6~{}\mu\mathrm{b}^{-1}$, given the cross section
$\sigma_{\rm MB}^{\rm V0}=2.09\pm 0.07$ b for the minimum-bias V0 trigger
condition [56]. The efficiency for the trigger condition and offline event
selection is larger than $99\%$ for non-single-diffractive (NSD) p–Pb
collisions [57].

##  3 Analysis

A combination of electron identification (eID) strategies with different
detectors offers the largest $p_{\rm T}$ reach for the measurement of
electrons from heavy-flavour hadron decays. In particular, it ensures that the
systematic uncertainties and the hadron contamination are small over the whole
transverse momentum range. Throughout the paper, the term ‘electron’ is used
for electrons and positrons. The capability of the TPC to identify electrons
via specific energy loss $\textrm{d}E/\textrm{d}x$ in the detector was used
over the whole momentum range $0.5<p_{\rm T}<12~{}\textrm{GeV}/c$. However, it
is subject to ambiguous identification of hadrons (pions, kaons, protons and
deuterons) below 2.5 $\textrm{GeV}/c$ and above 6 $\textrm{GeV}/c$ in
transverse momentum. At low transverse momentum ($0.5<p_{\rm
T}<2.5~{}\textrm{GeV}/c$), these ambiguities were resolved by measuring the
time-of-flight of the particle from the interaction region to the TOF detector
and combining it with the momentum measurement, to determine the particle
mass. In the high momentum region ($6<p_{\rm T}<12~{}\textrm{GeV}/c$), the
EMCal was used to reduce the hadron contamination. Electrons are separated
from hadrons by calculating the ratio of the energy deposited ($E$) in the
EMCal to the momentum ($p$). Since electrons deposit all of their energy in
the EMCal, the ratio $E/p$ is around unity for electrons, while the ratio for
charged hadrons is much smaller on average.

The selection criteria for charged-particle tracks are similar to those
applied in previous analyses measuring the production of electrons from heavy-
flavour hadron decays in pp collisions [58, 59]. In order to have optimal eID
performance with the TPC, the analysis was restricted to the pseudorapidity
range $|\eta_{\rm lab}|<$ 0.6 in the laboratory frame for electrons with
transverse momentum $0.5<p_{\rm T}<12~{}\textrm{GeV}/c$. Up to a $p_{\rm T}$
of 6 $\textrm{GeV}/c$, a signal in the innermost layer of the SPD was required
in order to reduce the background from photon conversions. In addition, this
selection was further constrained by requiring hits in both SPD layers, to
reduce the number of incorrect matches between candidate tracks and hits
reconstructed in the first layer of the SPD. At high $p_{\rm T}$, where the
EMCal was used, tracks with hits in either of the SPD layers were selected in
order to minimise the effect of dead areas of the first SPD layer within the
acceptance region of the EMCal, as in previous analyses [58, 59].

The electron identification with TPC and TOF was based on the number of
standard deviations ($n_{\sigma}^{\textrm{TPC}}$ or
$n_{\sigma}^{\textrm{TOF}}$) for the specific energy loss and time-of-flight
measurements, respectively. The $n_{\sigma}$ variable is computed as a
difference between the measured signal and the expected one for electrons
divided by the energy loss ($\sigma_{\textrm{TPC}}$) or time-of-flight
($\sigma_{\textrm{TOF}}$) resolution. The expected signal and resolution
originate from parametrisations of the detector signal, which are described in
detail in [50]. In the transverse momentum interval $0.5<p_{\rm
T}<2.5~{}\textrm{GeV}/c$, particles were identified as electrons if they
satisfied $-0.5<n_{\sigma}^{\textrm{TPC}}<3$, which yields an identification
efficiency of 69%. In the transverse momentum interval $2.5<p_{\rm
T}<6~{}\textrm{GeV}/c$, a tighter selection criterion of
$0<n_{\sigma}^{\textrm{TPC}}<3$ was applied (with an eID efficiency of 50%) to
reduce the hadron contamination at higher transverse momentum. To resolve the
aforementioned ambiguities at low transverse momentum ($p_{\rm T}$ $\leq$ 2.5
$\textrm{GeV}/c$), only tracks with $|n_{\sigma}^{\textrm{TOF}}|<3$ were
accepted. Figure 1 shows the measured $\textrm{d}E/\textrm{d}x$ in the TPC
with respect to the expected $\textrm{d}E/\textrm{d}x$ for electrons
normalised to the expected resolution $\sigma_{\textrm{TPC}}$ after the eID
with TOF. The solid lines indicate the selection criteria used for the
transverse momentum interval $0.5<p_{\rm T}<2.5~{}\textrm{GeV}/c$, indicating
that the hadron contamination within the resulting electron candidate sample
is small. In the high momentum region ($6<p_{\rm T}<12~{}\textrm{GeV}/c$),
electrons were selected if they satisfied $-1<n_{\sigma}^{\textrm{TPC}}<3$ and
$0.8<E/p<1.2$ (see Fig. 1).

Figure 1: (a): Measured $\textrm{d}E/\textrm{d}x$ in the TPC as function of
momentum $p$ expressed as a deviation from the expected energy loss of
electrons, normalised by the energy-loss resolution ($\sigma_{\textrm{TPC}}$)
after eID with TOF. The solid lines indicate the $n_{\sigma}^{\textrm{TPC}}$
selection criteria for the TPC and TOF eID strategy. (b): $E/p$ distribution
of electrons ($-1<n_{\sigma}^{\textrm{TPC}}<3$) and hadrons
($n_{\sigma}^{\textrm{TPC}}<-3.5$) in the transverse momentum interval
$6<p_{\rm T}<8~{}\textrm{GeV}/c$. The $E/p$ distribution of hadrons was
normalised to that of electrons in the lower $E/p$ range (0.4–0.6), where
hadrons dominate. The solid lines indicate the applied electron selection
criteria.

The hadron contamination in the electron candidate sample was determined by
parametrising the TPC signal in momentum slices for $p_{\rm T}$ $\leq$ 6
$\textrm{GeV}/c$ as done in previous analyses [58, 59]. In the transverse
momentum interval $6<p_{\rm T}<12~{}\textrm{GeV}/c$, the $E/p$ distribution
for hadrons identified via the specific energy loss measured in the TPC
($n_{\sigma}^{\textrm{TPC}}<-3.5$) was normalised in the lower $E/p$ range
(0.4–0.6) to the corresponding $E/p$ distribution for identified electrons
($-1<n_{\sigma}^{\textrm{TPC}}<3$) (see Fig. 1). The number of hadrons with an
$E/p$ ratio between 0.8 and 1.2 was thus determined in momentum slices. The
hadron contamination ranged from 2% at $5<p_{\rm T}<6~{}\textrm{GeV}/c$ to 15%
at $10<p_{\rm T}<12~{}\textrm{GeV}/c$ and was correspondingly subtracted. For
$p_{\rm T}$ $<$ 5 $\textrm{GeV}/c$, the contamination was found to be
negligible.

The resulting electron candidate sample, also referred to as the ‘inclusive
electron sample’ in the following, still contains electrons from sources other
than heavy-flavour hadron decays. The majority of the remaining background
originates from photon conversions in the detector material
($\gamma\rightarrow\rm{e^{+}e^{-}}$) and Dalitz decays of neutral mesons, e.g.
$\pi^{0}\rightarrow\gamma\ \rm{e^{+}}\rm{e^{-}}$ and $\eta\rightarrow\gamma\
\rm{e^{+}e^{-}}$. These electrons are hereafter denoted as ‘photonic
electrons’.

In previous analyses of electrons from heavy-flavour hadron decays in pp
collisions by the ALICE Collaboration, the contribution of electrons from
background sources was estimated via a data-tuned Monte Carlo cocktail and
subtracted from the inclusive electron sample [58, 59]. The pion input to the
cocktail was based on pion measurements with ALICE [60, 61], while heavier
mesons were implemented via $m_{\rm T}$ scaling [62], and photons from hard
scattering processes (direct $\gamma$, $\gamma^{\ast}$) were obtained from
next-to-leading order (NLO) calculations [63]. The resulting systematic
uncertainty of the sum of all background sources was large, in particular at
low $p_{\rm T}$, where the signal-to-background ratio is small [58, 59]. In
order to reduce this uncertainty, in this analysis an invariant mass technique
[16] was used to estimate the number of electrons coming from background
sources.

Photonic electrons are produced in $\rm{e^{+}e^{-}}$ pairs and can thus be
identified using an invariant mass technique (photonic method). All inclusive
electrons were paired with other tracks in the same event passing looser track
selection and electron identification criteria (e.g.
$-3<n_{\sigma}^{\textrm{TPC}}<3$). Looser selection criteria were applied to
increase the efficiency to find the photonic partner. Figure 2 shows the
invariant mass distributions of unlike-sign and like-sign electron pairs for
the inclusive electron in the interval $0.5<p_{\rm T}<0.6~{}\textrm{GeV}/c$.
The like-sign distribution estimates the uncorrelated pairs. Subtracting these
from the unlike-sign pairs yields the number of electrons with a photonic
partner $N_{\rm phot}^{\rm raw}$ (see Fig. 2). An invariant mass smaller than
0.14 GeV/${c^{2}}$ was required. According to simulations, the peak around
zero in the photonic electron pair distribution is due to photon conversions;
the exponential tail to higher values originates from Dalitz decays of neutral
mesons.

The efficiency $\varepsilon_{\rm phot}$ to find photonic electron pairs was
estimated using Monte Carlo simulations. A sample of p–Pb collisions was
generated with HIJING v1.36 [64]. To increase the statistical precision at
high $p_{\rm T}$, one $\rm c\overline{c}$ or $\rm b\overline{b}$ pair decaying
semileptonically using the generator PYTHIA v6.4.21 [65] with the Perugia-0
tune [66] was added in each event. The generated particles were propagated
through the apparatus using GEANT3 [67] and a realistic detector response was
applied to reproduce the performance of the detector system during data taking
period. The simulated transverse momentum distributions of the $\pi^{0}$ and
$\eta$ mesons were weighted to match the measured shapes, where the $\pi^{0}$
input was based on the measured charged-pion spectra [68, 69] assuming
$N_{\pi^{0}}=1/2(N_{\pi^{+}}+N_{\pi^{-}})$ and the $\eta$ input was derived
via $m_{\rm T}$ scaling. The efficiency $\varepsilon_{\rm phot}$ is defined as
the fraction of electrons from photonic origin for which the partner could be
found within the defined acceptance of the analysis, i.e. the geometrical
acceptance of the ALICE apparatus together with the superimposed track
selection and electron identification criteria. The efficiency
$\varepsilon_{\rm phot}$ increases sharply with $p_{\rm T}$ from 35% to 80%
between 0.5 and 3 $\textrm{GeV}/c$ and remains at 80% up to 12
$\textrm{GeV}/c$. The raw photonic electron distribution $N_{\rm phot}^{\rm
raw}$ was then corrected by the efficiency $\varepsilon_{\rm phot}$ as $N_{\rm
phot}(p_{\rm T})=N_{\rm phot}^{\rm raw}(p_{\rm T})/\varepsilon_{\rm
phot}(p_{\rm T})$ and subtracted from the inclusive electron yield to obtain
the yield of electrons from heavy-flavour hadron decays. The signal-to-
background ratio (ratio of non-photonic to photonic yield) ranges from 0.2 at
0.5 GeV/$c$ to 4 at 10 GeV/$c$.

Figure 2: Invariant mass distributions of unlike-sign and like-sign electron
pairs for the inclusive electron $p_{\rm T}$ interval $0.5<p_{\rm
T}<0.6~{}\textrm{GeV}/c$. The difference between the distributions yields the
photonic contribution.

The remaining electrons are then those from semileptonic heavy-flavour hadron
decays ($N_{\rm hfe}^{\rm raw}$), besides a small residual background
contribution originating from semileptonic kaon decays and dielectron decays
of J/$\psi$ mesons. The latter is the only non-negligible contribution from
quarkonia. These contributions were subtracted from the corrected invariant
cross section, as described later on in this section.

The $p_{\rm T}$-differential invariant cross section $\sigma_{\rm hfe}$ of
electrons from heavy-flavour hadron decays, $1/2(\rm{e^{+}+e^{-}})$, was
calculated as

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\rm T}}\frac{{\rm d}^{2}\sigma_{\rm hfe}}{{\rm d}p_{\rm
T}{\rm d}y}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\Delta\varphi p_{\rm
T}^{\rm{centre}}}\frac{1}{\Delta y\Delta p_{\rm T}}\frac{{\rm c_{\rm
unfold}}N_{\rm hfe}^{\rm raw}}{(\epsilon^{\rm geo}\times\epsilon^{\rm
reco}\times\epsilon^{\rm eID})}\frac{\sigma_{\rm MB}^{\rm V0}}{N_{\rm MB}},$
(2)

where $p_{\rm T}^{\rm{centre}}$ are the centres of the $p_{\rm T}$ bins with
widths $\Delta p_{\rm T}$, and $\Delta\varphi$ and $\Delta y$ denote the
geometrical acceptance in azimuth and rapidity to which the analysis was
restricted, respectively. $N_{\rm MB}$ is the number of events that pass the
selection criteria described in Section 2 and $\sigma_{\rm MB}^{\rm V0}$ is
the p–Pb cross section for the minimum-bias V0 trigger condition. The raw
spectrum of electrons from heavy-flavour hadron decays ($N_{\rm hfe}^{\rm
raw}$) was corrected for the acceptance of the detectors in the selected
geometrical region of the analysis ($\epsilon^{\rm geo}$), the track
reconstruction and selection efficiency ($\epsilon^{\rm reco}$), and the eID
efficiency ($\epsilon^{\rm eID}$). These corrections were computed using the
aforementioned Monte Carlo simulations. Only the efficiency of the TPC
electron identification selection criterion for $p_{\rm T}<6~{}\textrm{GeV}/c$
was determined using a data-driven approach based on the
$n_{\sigma}^{\textrm{TPC}}$ distribution [59]. The measurement of the electron
$p_{\rm T}$ is affected by the finite momentum resolution and by electron
energy loss due to bremsstrahlung in the detector material [49], which is not
corrected for in the track reconstruction algorithm. These effects distort the
shape of the $p_{\rm T}$ distribution, which falls steeply with increasing
momentum. To determine this correction ($c_{\rm unfold}$), an iterative
unfolding procedure based on Bayes’ theorem was applied [70, 71].

The aforementioned residual background contributions, electrons from
semileptonic kaon decays and dielectron decays of J/$\psi$ mesons, were
estimated as an invariant cross section with Monte Carlo simulations and found
to be less than 3% per $p_{\rm T}$ bin and subtracted from the corrected
invariant cross section of non-photonic electrons. More specifically, the
contribution from J/$\psi$ mesons was implemented by using a parametrisation
for pp collisions based on the interpolation of J/$\psi$ measurements from
RHIC at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV, Tevatron at $\sqrt{s}$ = 1.96 TeV, and the LHC
at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV according to [72]. Decays of J/$\psi$ mesons within
$|y_{\rm lab}|<$ 1.0 were considered. The parametrisation and its associated
systematic uncertainty were scaled from pp to p–Pb collisions assuming binary
collision scaling. Potential deviations from binary collision scaling were
considered by assigning a 50% systematic uncertainty on the normalisation. The
parametrisation with its uncertainties used as input for the Monte Carlo
simulations is consistent with the measured J/$\psi$ cross section in p–Pb
collisions [38].

The systematic uncertainties were estimated as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ by
repeating the analysis with different selection criteria. The systematic
uncertainties were evaluated for the spectrum obtained after the subtraction
of the photonic yield $N_{\rm phot}$ from the inclusive spectrum and before
removing the remaining background contributions originating from semileptonic
kaon decays and dielectron decays of J/$\psi$ mesons. The sources of
systematic uncertainty for the inclusive analysis and the determination of the
electron background are listed in Table 1.

The systematic uncertainties for tracking and eID are $p_{\rm T}$ dependent
due to the usage of the various detectors in the different momentum intervals.
The latter also includes the uncertainties due to the determination of the
hadron contamination. The 3% systematic uncertainty for the matching between
ITS and TPC was taken from [73], where the matching efficiency of charged
particles in data was compared to Monte Carlo simulations. The uncertainty of
the TOF-TPC matching efficiency was estimated by comparing the matching
efficiency in data and Monte Carlo simulations using electrons from photon
conversions, which were identified via topological cuts. The uncertainty
amounts to 3%. The TPC-EMCal matching uncertainty was assigned to be 1%, as
determined by varying the size of the matching window in $\eta$ and azimuth
$\varphi$ for charged-particle tracks that were extrapolated to the
calorimeter. The resulting matching uncertainties were combined in quadrature
for the various $p_{\rm T}$ intervals shown in Table 1.

The listed uncertainties for the photonic method include the uncertainties on
eID and tracking. In addition, the Monte Carlo sample was divided into two
halves. The first was treated as real data and the second was used to correct
the resulting spectrum. Deviations from the expected $p_{\rm T}$ spectrum of
electrons from heavy-flavour hadron decays resulted in a 2% systematic
uncertainty for $p_{\rm T}$ $\leq$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 4% above. The uncertainty on
the re-weighting of the $\pi^{0}$\- and $\eta$-meson $p_{\rm T}$ distributions
in Monte Carlo simulations was estimated by changing the weights by $\pm$ 10%.
The variation yielded a 2% uncertainty for $p_{\rm T}$ $\leq$ 2.5 GeV/$c$ on
the $p_{\rm T}$-differential invariant cross section of electrons from heavy-
flavour hadron decays. This source of uncertainty is negligible at higher
$p_{\rm T}$. The invariant mass technique gives a systematic uncertainty
smaller by a factor of $\geq$ 4 and of about 1.4 for $p_{\rm T}$ $\leq$ 1
$\textrm{GeV}/c$ and $3<p_{\rm T}<12~{}\textrm{GeV}/c$, respectively, compared
to the one of the cocktail subtraction method [59]. The reduction in
uncertainty, in particular at low $p_{\rm T}$, proves the advantage of using
the invariant mass technique for the estimation of electrons from background
sources.

The uncertainty of the $p_{\rm T}$ unfolding procedure was determined by
employing an alternative unfolding method (matrix inversion) and, as described
in [59], by correcting the data with two different Monte Carlo samples
corresponding to different $p_{\rm T}$ distributions. In addition to the
aforementioned signal-enhanced Monte Carlo sample, a minimum-bias sample was
used. The comparison of the resulting $p_{\rm T}$ spectra revealed an
uncertainty of 1% for $p_{\rm T}$ $\leq$ 6 $\textrm{GeV}/c$, and smaller than
1% above 6 $\textrm{GeV}/c$. The systematic uncertainties of the heavy-flavour
electron yield due to the subtraction of the remaining background originating
from semileptonic kaon decays and dielectron decays from J/$\psi$ mesons are
smaller than 0.5%. This was estimated by changing the particle yields by $\pm$
50% and $\pm$ 100% for the J/$\psi$ meson and the semileptonic kaon decays,
respectively.

The individual sources of systematic uncertainties are uncorrelated.
Therefore, they were added in quadrature to give a total systematic
uncertainty ranging from 5.8% to 16.4% depending on the $p_{\rm T}$ bin. The
normalisation uncertainty on the luminosity is of 3.7% [56].

Variable | $0.5<p_{\rm T}<2.5~{}\textrm{GeV}/c$ | $2.5<p_{\rm T}<6~{}\textrm{GeV}/c$ | $6<p_{\rm T}<12~{}\textrm{GeV}/c$
---|---|---|---
Tracking | 4.3% | 2.2% | 3%
Matching | 4.2% | 3% | 3.2%
eID | 3.6% | 3.6% |  | 3.2% (6–8 $\textrm{GeV}/c$)
---
5.1% (8–10 $\textrm{GeV}/c$)
15.1% (10–12 $\textrm{GeV}/c$)
| Photonic
---
method
| 6.9% (0.5–1 $\textrm{GeV}/c$)
---
3.7% (1–2.5 $\textrm{GeV}/c$)
2.4% | 4.5%
Unfolding | 1% | 1% |  $<$1%
Total |  | 9.9% (0.5–1 $\textrm{GeV}/c$)
---
8.0% (1–2.5 $\textrm{GeV}/c$)
5.8% |  | 7.1% (6–8 $\textrm{GeV}/c$)
---
8.1% (8–10 $\textrm{GeV}/c$)
16.4% (10–12 $\textrm{GeV}/c$)

Table 1: Systematic uncertainties for the different momentum intervals.

Figure 3 shows the interval $2.5<p_{\rm T}<8~{}\textrm{GeV}/c$ of the $p_{\rm
T}$-differential invariant cross section of electrons from heavy-flavour
hadron decays in minimum-bias p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02
TeV, comparing the results of the various eID strategies in the two transition
regions at 2.5 $\textrm{GeV}/c$ and 6 $\textrm{GeV}/c$. A consistency within
1% is found.

Figure 3: The $p_{\rm T}$-differential invariant cross section of electrons
from heavy-flavour hadron decays in minimum-bias p–Pb collisions at
$\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, comparing the results of the eID strategies in
the two transition regions at 2.5 and 6 $\textrm{GeV}/c$. The centre values
are slightly shifted along the $p_{\rm T}$-axis in the transition regions for
better visibility. The results agree within 1%. Details on the eID strategies
can be found in the text.

##  4 pp reference

In order to calculate the nuclear modification factor $R_{\rm pPb}$, a
reference cross section for pp collisions at the same centre-of-mass energy is
needed. Since pp data at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV are currently not available, the
reference was obtained by interpolating the $p_{\rm T}$-differential cross
sections of electrons from heavy-flavour hadron decays measured in pp
collisions at $\sqrt{s}=2.76$ TeV and at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV [58, 59]. The
analysis described in this paper requires a reference in the interval
$0.5<p_{\rm T}<12~{}\textrm{GeV}/c$. While the $\sqrt{s}=2.76$ TeV analysis
was carried out in this $p_{\rm T}$ range, the $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV measurement is
limited to the $p_{\rm T}$ interval $0.5<p_{\rm T}<8~{}\textrm{GeV}/c$. Thus,
to extend the $p_{\rm T}$ interval up to 12 $\textrm{GeV}/c$ a measurement by
the ATLAS Collaboration in the $p_{\rm T}$ interval $7<p_{\rm
T}<12~{}\textrm{GeV}/c$ was used [74]. The published ATLAS measurement,
d$\sigma$/d$p_{\rm T}$, was divided by 1/(2$\pi p_{\rm T}^{\rm{centre}}\Delta
y$), where $p_{\rm T}^{\rm{centre}}$ denotes the central values of the $p_{\rm
T}$ bins, and $\Delta y$ the rapidity range covered by the measurement. In the
overlap interval $7<p_{\rm T}<8~{}\textrm{GeV}/c$ the mboxALICE and ATLAS
measurements, which agree within uncertainties, were combined as a weighted
average. The inverse quadratic sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties
of the two spectra were used as weights. Perturbative QCD (pQCD) calculations
at fixed order with next-to-leading-log (FONLL) resummation [75, 76, 77]
describe all aforementioned pp results [58, 59] within experimental and
theoretical uncertainties. The pp references are measured in a symmetric
rapidity window ($|y_{\textrm{cms}}|<0.8$ at $\sqrt{s}=2.76$ TeV and
$|y_{\textrm{cms}}|<0.5$ at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV). The effect due to the different
asymmetric rapidity window in this analysis was estimated with FONLL and is
much smaller than the systematic uncertainties of the data, therefore is was
neglected.

An assumption about the $\sqrt{s}$ dependence of the heavy-flavour production
cross sections is required for the interpolation. Calculations based on pQCD
are consistent with a power-law scaling of the heavy-flavour production cross
section with $\sqrt{s}$ [78]. Therefore, this scaling was used to calculate
the interpolated data points. The statistical uncertainties of the spectra at
$\sqrt{s}=2.76$ TeV and $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV were added in quadrature with weights
according to the $\sqrt{s}$ interpolation. The weighted correlated systematic
uncertainties (tracking, matching and eID) of the spectra at $\sqrt{s}=2.76$
TeV and $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV were added linearly, while the weighted uncorrelated
uncertainties (ITS layer conditions, unfolding and cocktail systematics) were
added in quadrature. The weights were determined according to the $\sqrt{s}$
interpolation. The uncorrelated and correlated uncertainties were then added
in quadrature.

The systematic uncertainty of the bin-by-bin interpolation procedure was added
in quadrature to the previous ones. It was estimated by using a linear or
exponential dependence on $\sqrt{s}$ instead of a power law. The ratios of the
resulting $p_{\rm T}$ spectra to the baseline pp reference were used to
estimate a systematic uncertainty of ${}^{+\phantom{a}5}_{-10}$%.

The resulting pp reference cross section is well described by FONLL
calculations. The systematic uncertainties of the normalisations related to
the determination of the minimum-bias nucleon–nucleon cross sections of the
input spectra were likewise interpolated, yielding a normalisation uncertainty
of 2.3% for the pp reference spectrum, assuming that they are uncorrelated.

##  5 Results

The $p_{\rm T}$-differential invariant cross section of electrons from heavy-
flavour hadron decays in the rapidity range $-1.065<y_{\rm cms}<0.135$ for
p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV is shown in Fig. 4 and
compared with the pp reference cross section. The vertical bars represent the
statistical uncertainties, while the boxes indicate the systematic
uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties of the p–Pb cross section are
smaller than those of the pp cross section, in particular at low transverse
momentum, mainly as a consequence of the estimation of the electron background
via the invariant mass technique. For the pp analysis, the background was
subtracted via the cocktail method. At low $p_{\rm T}$, the electrons mainly
originate from charm-hadron decays, while for $p_{\rm T}$ $\geq$ 4 GeV/$c$
beauty-hadron decays are the dominant source in pp collisions [46].

Figure 4: The $p_{\rm T}$-differential invariant cross section of electrons
from heavy-flavour hadron decays in minimum-bias p–Pb collisions at
$\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV. The pp reference obtained via the
interpolation method is shown, not scaled by $A$, for comparison. The
statistical uncertainties are indicated for both spectra by error bars, the
systematic uncertainties are shown as boxes.

The nuclear modification factor $R_{\rm pPb}$ of electrons from heavy-flavour
hadron decays as a function of transverse momentum is shown in Fig. 5. The
statistical and systematic uncertainties of the spectra in p–Pb and pp were
propagated as independent uncertainties. The normalisation uncertainties of
the pp reference and the p–Pb spectrum were added in quadrature and are shown
as a filled box at high transverse momentum in Fig. 5.

The $R_{\rm pPb}$ is consistent with unity within uncertainties over the whole
$p_{\rm T}$ range of the measurement. The production of electrons from heavy-
flavour hadron decays is thus consistent with binary collision scaling of the
reference spectrum for pp collisions at the same centre-of-mass energy. The
suppression of the yield of heavy-flavour production in Pb–Pb collisions at
high-$p_{\rm T}$ is therefore a final state effect induced by the produced hot
medium.

Given the large systematic uncertainties, our measurement is also compatible
with an enhancement in the transverse momentum interval $1<p_{\rm
T}<6~{}\textrm{GeV}/c$ as seen at mid-rapidity in d–Au collisions at
$\sqrt{s_{{\rm NN}}}=$ 200 GeV [42]. Such an enhancement might be caused by
radial flow as suggested by studies on the mean $p_{\rm T}$ as a function of
the identified particle multiplicity [68].

The data are described within the uncertainties by pQCD calculations including
initial-state effects (FONLL [75] \+ EPS09NLO [48] nuclear shadowing
parametrisation). The results suggest that initial-state effects are small at
high transverse momentum in Pb–Pb collisions. Calculations by Sharma et al.
which include CNM energy loss, nuclear shadowing and coherent multiple
scattering at the partonic level also describe the data [27]. Calculations
based on incoherent multiple scatterings by Kang et al. predict an enhancement
at low $p_{\rm T}$ [25]. The formation of a hydrodynamically expanding medium
and consequently flow of charm and beauty quarks are expected to result in an
enhancement in the nuclear modification factor $R_{\rm pPb}$ [45]. To quantify
the possible effect on $R_{\rm pPb}$, a blast wave calculation with parameters
extracted from fits to the $p_{\rm T}$ spectra of light-flavour hadrons [68]
measured in p–Pb collisions was employed. The model calculation agrees with
the data. However, the present uncertainties of the measurement do not allow
us to discriminate among the aforementioned theoretical approaches.

Figure 5:  Nuclear modification factor $R_{\rm pPb}$ of electrons from heavy-
flavour hadron decays as a function of transverse momentum for minimum-bias
p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, compared with theoretical
models [75, 48, 27, 25, 45], as described in the text. The vertical bars
represent the statistical uncertainties, and the boxes indicate the systematic
uncertainties. The systematic uncertainty from the normalisation, common to
all points, is shown as a filled box at high $p_{\rm T}$.

##  6 Summary and conclusions

The $p_{\rm T}$-differential invariant cross section for electrons from heavy-
flavour hadron decays in minimum-bias p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ =
5.02 TeV was measured in the rapidity range $-1.065<y_{\rm cms}<0.135$ and the
transverse momentum interval $0.5<p_{\rm T}<12~{}\textrm{GeV}/c$ using the
combination of three electron identification methods. The application of the
invariant mass technique to subtract electrons not originating from open
heavy-flavour hadron decays largely reduced the systematic uncertainties with
respect to the cocktail subtraction method, in particular at low transverse
momentum. The pp reference for the nuclear modification factor $R_{\rm pPb}$
was obtained by interpolating the measured $p_{\rm T}$-differential cross
sections of electrons from heavy-flavour hadron decays at $\sqrt{s}$ = 2.76
TeV and $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV. The $R_{\rm pPb}$ is consistent with unity within
uncertainties of about 25%, which become larger for $p_{\rm T}$ below 1
$\textrm{GeV}/c$. The presented calculations describe the data within
uncertainties. The results suggest that heavy-flavour production in minimum-
bias p–Pb collisions scales with the number of binary collisions, although
within uncertainties the data are also consistent with an enhancement above
this scaling. The consistency with unity of the $R_{\rm pPb}$ at high $p_{\rm
T}$ indicates that the suppression of heavy-flavour production in Pb–Pb
collisions is of different origin than cold nuclear matter effects.

## Acknowledgements

The ALICE Collaboration would like to thank all its engineers and technicians
for their invaluable contributions to the construction of the experiment and
the CERN accelerator teams for the outstanding performance of the LHC complex.
The ALICE Collaboration gratefully acknowledges the resources and support
provided by all Grid centres and the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid (WLCG)
Collaboration. The ALICE Collaboration acknowledges the following funding
agencies for their support in building and running the ALICE detector: State
Committee of Science, World Federation of Scientists (WFS) and Swiss Fonds
Kidagan, Armenia; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e
Tecnológico (CNPq), Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (FINEP), Fundação de
Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP); National Natural Science
Foundation of China (NSFC), the Chinese Ministry of Education (CMOE) and the
Ministry of Science and Technology of China (MSTC); Ministry of Education and
Youth of the Czech Republic; Danish Natural Science Research Council, the
Carlsberg Foundation and the Danish National Research Foundation; The European
Research Council under the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme;
Helsinki Institute of Physics and the Academy of Finland; French CNRS-IN2P3,
the ‘Region Pays de Loire’, ‘Region Alsace’, ‘Region Auvergne’ and CEA,
France; German Bundesministerium fur Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und
Technologie (BMBF) and the Helmholtz Association; General Secretariat for
Research and Technology, Ministry of Development, Greece; Hungarian Orszagos
Tudomanyos Kutatasi Alappgrammok (OTKA) and National Office for Research and
Technology (NKTH); Department of Atomic Energy and Department of Science and
Technology of the Government of India; Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare
(INFN) and Centro Fermi - Museo Storico della Fisica e Centro Studi e Ricerche
“Enrico Fermi”, Italy; MEXT Grant-in-Aid for Specially Promoted Research,
Japan; Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna; National Research
Foundation of Korea (NRF); Consejo Nacional de Cienca y Tecnologia (CONACYT),
Direccion General de Asuntos del Personal Academico(DGAPA), México, Amerique
Latine Formation academique - European Commission (ALFA-EC) and the EPLANET
Program (European Particle Physics Latin American Network); Stichting voor
Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM) and the Nederlandse Organisatie voor
Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), Netherlands; Research Council of Norway
(NFR); National Science Centre, Poland; Ministry of National
Education/Institute for Atomic Physics and National Council of Scientific
Research in Higher Education (CNCSI-UEFISCDI), Romania; Ministry of Education
and Science of Russian Federation, Russian Academy of Sciences, Russian
Federal Agency of Atomic Energy, Russian Federal Agency for Science and
Innovations and The Russian Foundation for Basic Research; Ministry of
Education of Slovakia; Department of Science and Technology, South Africa;
Centro de Investigaciones Energeticas, Medioambientales y Tecnologicas
(CIEMAT), E-Infrastructure shared between Europe and Latin America (EELA),
Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (MINECO) of Spain, Xunta de Galicia
(Consellería de Educación), Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo
Nuclear (CEADEN), Cubaenergía, Cuba, and IAEA (International Atomic Energy
Agency); Swedish Research Council (VR) and Knut $\&$ Alice Wallenberg
Foundation (KAW); Ukraine Ministry of Education and Science; United Kingdom
Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC); The United States Department
of Energy, the United States National Science Foundation, the State of Texas,
and the State of Ohio; Ministry of Science, Education and Sports of Croatia
and Unity through Knowledge Fund, Croatia; Council of Scientific and
Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi, India; Pontificia Universidad Católica
del Perú.

## References

  * [1] J. D. Bjorken, “Highly Relativistic Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions: The Central Rapidity Region,” Phys. Rev. D27 (1983) 140–151.
  * [2] F. Karsch, “Lattice QCD at high temperature and density,” Lect. Notes Phys. 583 (2002) 209–249, arXiv:hep-lat/0106019 [hep-lat].
  * [3] S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, and K. K. Szabo, “Full result for the QCD equation of state with 2+1 flavors,” Phys. Lett. B730 (2014) 99–104, arXiv:1309.5258 [hep-lat].
  * [4] BRAHMS Collaboration, I. Arsene et al., “Quark gluon plasma and color glass condensate at RHIC? The Perspective from the BRAHMS experiment,” Nucl. Phys. A757 (2005) 1–27, arXiv:nucl-ex/0410020 [nucl-ex].
  * [5] B. B. Back et al., “The PHOBOS perspective on discoveries at RHIC,” Nucl. Phys. A757 (2005) 28–101, arXiv:nucl-ex/0410022 [nucl-ex].
  * [6] STAR Collaboration, J. Adams et al., “Experimental and theoretical challenges in the search for the quark gluon plasma: The STAR Collaboration’s critical assessment of the evidence from RHIC collisions,” Nucl. Phys. A757 (2005) 102–183, arXiv:nucl-ex/0501009 [nucl-ex].
  * [7] PHENIX Collaboration, K. Adcox et al., “Formation of dense partonic matter in relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC: Experimental evaluation by the PHENIX collaboration,” Nucl. Phys. A757 (2005) 184–283, arXiv:nucl-ex/0410003 [nucl-ex].
  * [8] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “Charged-particle multiplicity density at mid-rapidity in central Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 252301, arXiv:1011.3916 [nucl-ex].
  * [9] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “Elliptic flow of charged particles in Pb-Pb collisions at 2.76 TeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 252302, arXiv:1011.3914 [nucl-ex].
  * [10] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “Suppression of Charged Particle Production at Large Transverse Momentum in Central Pb–Pb Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV,” Phys. Lett. B696 (2011) 30–39, arXiv:1012.1004 [nucl-ex].
  * [11] F.-M. Liu and S.-X. Liu, “Quark-gluon plasma formation time and direct photons from heavy ion collisions,” Phys. Rev. C89 no. 3, (2014) 034906, arXiv:1212.6587 [nucl-th].
  * [12] E. Braaten and M. H. Thoma, “Energy loss of a heavy fermion in a hot plasma,” Phys. Rev. D44 (1991) 1298–1310.
  * [13] R. Baier, Y. L. Dokshitzer, A. H. Mueller, S. Peigne, and D. Schiff, “Radiative energy loss of high-energy quarks and gluons in a finite volume quark–gluon plasma,” Nucl. Phys. B483 (1997) 291–320, arXiv:hep-ph/9607355 [hep-ph].
  * [14] S. Wicks, W. Horowitz, M. Djordjevic, and M. Gyulassy, “Heavy quark jet quenching with collisional plus radiative energy loss and path length fluctuations,” Nucl. Phys. A783 (2007) 493–496, arXiv:nucl-th/0701063 [nucl-th].
  * [15] PHENIX Collaboration, A. Adare et al., “Energy Loss and Flow of Heavy Quarks in $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ Collisions at $\sqrt{{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{GeV}$,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 172301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0611018 [nucl-ex].
  * [16] STAR Collaboration, B. I. Abelev et al., “Transverse momentum and centrality dependence of high-$p_{T}$ non-photonic electron suppression in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 192301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0607012 [nucl-ex]. [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.106,159902(2011)].
  * [17] PHENIX Collaboration, A. Adare et al., “Nuclear-Modification Factor for Open-Heavy-Flavor Production at Forward Rapidity in Cu+Cu Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV,” Phys. Rev. C86 (2012) 024909, arXiv:1204.0754 [nucl-ex].
  * [18] STAR Collaboration, L. Adamczyk et al., “Observation of $D^{0}$ Meson Nuclear Modifications in Au+Au Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 no. 14, (2014) 142301, arXiv:1404.6185 [nucl-ex].
  * [19] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Production of muons from heavy flavour decays at forward rapidity in pp and Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 112301, arXiv:1205.6443 [hep-ex].
  * [20] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., “Suppression of non-prompt $J/\psi$, prompt $J/\psi$, and Y(1S) in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV,” JHEP 05 (2012) 063, arXiv:1201.5069 [nucl-ex].
  * [21] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Inclusive, prompt and non-prompt J/$\psi$ production at mid-rapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV,” JHEP 07 (2015) 051, arXiv:1504.07151 [nucl-ex].
  * [22] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Centrality dependence of high-$p_{\rm T}$ D meson suppression in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV,” arXiv:1506.06604 [nucl-ex].
  * [23] N. Armesto, “Nuclear shadowing,” J. Phys. G32 (2006) R367–R394, arXiv:hep-ph/0604108 [hep-ph].
  * [24] H. Fujii, F. Gelis, and R. Venugopalan, “Quark pair production in high energy pA collisions: General features,” Nucl. Phys. A780 (2006) 146–174, arXiv:hep-ph/0603099 [hep-ph].
  * [25] Z.-B. Kang, I. Vitev, E. Wang, H. Xing, and C. Zhang, “Multiple scattering effects on heavy meson production in p+A collisions at backward rapidity,” Phys. Lett. B740 (2015) 23–29, arXiv:1409.2494 [hep-ph].
  * [26] J. W. Cronin, H. J. Frisch, M. J. Shochet, J. P. Boymond, R. Mermod, P. A. Piroue, and R. L. Sumner, “Production of Hadrons with Large Transverse Momentum at 200-GeV, 300-GeV, and 400-GeV,” Phys. Rev. D11 (1975) 3105.
  * [27] R. Sharma, I. Vitev, and B.-W. Zhang, “Light-cone wave function approach to open heavy flavor dynamics in QCD matter,” Phys. Rev. C80 (2009) 054902, arXiv:0904.0032 [hep-ph].
  * [28] D. G. d’Enterria, “Hard scattering cross-sections at LHC in the Glauber approach: From pp to pA and AA collisions,” arXiv:nucl-ex/0302016 [nucl-ex].
  * [29] STAR Collaboration, J. Adams et al., “Open Charm Yields in $d+\mathrm{A}\mathrm{u}$ Collisions at $\sqrt{{s}_{NN}}=200\text{ }\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}$,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 062301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0407006 [nucl-ex].
  * [30] PHENIX Collaboration, A. Adare et al., “$\upsilon(1S+2S+3S)$ production in $d+$Au and $p+p$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV and cold-nuclear matter effects,” Phys. Rev. C87 (2013) 044909, arXiv:1211.4017 [nucl-ex].
  * [31] PHENIX Collaboration, A. Adare et al., “Transverse-Momentum Dependence of the $J/\psi$ Nuclear Modification in $d+$Au Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV,” Phys. Rev. C87 no. 3, (2013) 034904, arXiv:1204.0777 [nucl-ex].
  * [32] PHENIX Collaboration, A. Adare et al., “Nuclear Modification of $ψ′,χ_{c}$, and J/ψ Production in d+Au Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=200 GeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 no. 20, (2013) 202301, arXiv:1305.5516 [nucl-ex].
  * [33] PHENIX Collaboration, A. Adare et al., “Heavy-flavor electron-muon correlations in $p$$+$$p$ and $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{{}_{NN}}}$ = 200 GeV,” Phys. Rev. C89 no. 3, (2014) 034915, arXiv:1311.1427 [nucl-ex].
  * [34] STAR Collaboration, L. Adamczyk et al., “Suppression of $\Upsilon$ production in d+Au and Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=200 GeV,” Phys. Lett. B735 (2014) 127–137, arXiv:1312.3675 [nucl-ex]. [Erratum: Phys. Lett.B743,537(2015)].
  * [35] PHENIX Collaboration, A. Adare et al., “Cross section for $b\bar{b}$ production via dielectrons in d$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{{}_{NN}}}=200$ GeV,” Phys. Rev. C91 no. 1, (2015) 014907, arXiv:1405.4004 [nucl-ex].
  * [36] ALICE Collaboration, B. B. Abelev et al., “Suppression of $\psi$(2S) production in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV,” JHEP 12 (2014) 073, arXiv:1405.3796 [nucl-ex].
  * [37] ALICE Collaboration, B. B. Abelev et al., “Production of inclusive $\Upsilon$(1S) and $\Upsilon$(2S) in p-Pb collisions at $\mathbf{\sqrt{s_{{\rm NN}}}=5.02}$ TeV,” Phys. Lett. B740 (2015) 105–117, arXiv:1410.2234 [nucl-ex].
  * [38] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Rapidity and transverse-momentum dependence of the inclusive J/$\psi$ nuclear modification factor in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N\ N}}=$ 5.02 TeV,” JHEP 06 (2015) 055, arXiv:1503.07179 [nucl-ex].
  * [39] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Measurement of differential $J/\psi$ production cross sections and forward-backward ratios in p + Pb collisions with the ATLAS detector,” Phys. Rev. C92 no. 3, (2015) 034904, arXiv:1505.08141 [hep-ex].
  * [40] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., “Event activity dependence of Y(nS) production in $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=5.02 TeV pPb and $\sqrt{s}$=2.76 TeV pp collisions,” JHEP 04 (2014) 103, arXiv:1312.6300 [nucl-ex].
  * [41] CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al., “Study of B meson production in pPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{NN}}}=$ 5.02 TeV,” arXiv:1508.06678 [nucl-ex].
  * [42] PHENIX Collaboration, A. Adare et al., “Cold-nuclear-matter effects on heavy-quark production in $d+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 no. 24, (2012) 242301, arXiv:1208.1293 [nucl-ex].
  * [43] PHENIX Collaboration, A. Adare et al., “Cold-Nuclear-Matter Effects on Heavy-Quark Production at Forward and Backward Rapidity in d+Au Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 no. 25, (2014) 252301, arXiv:1310.1005 [nucl-ex].
  * [44] ALICE Collaboration, B. B. Abelev et al., “Measurement of prompt $D$-meson production in $p-Pb$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 no. 23, (2014) 232301, arXiv:1405.3452 [nucl-ex].
  * [45] A. M. Sickles, “Possible Evidence for Radial Flow of Heavy Mesons in d+Au Collisions,” Phys. Lett. B731 (2014) 51–56, arXiv:1309.6924 [nucl-th].
  * [46] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Measurement of electrons from beauty hadron decays in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV,” Phys. Lett. B721 (2013) 13–23, arXiv:1208.1902 [hep-ex].
  * [47] A. Dainese, Charm production and in-medium QCD energy loss in nucleus–nucleus collisions with ALICE: A Performance study.  PhD thesis, Padua U., 2003.  arXiv:nucl-ex/0311004 [nucl-ex].
  * [48] K. J. Eskola, H. Paukkunen, and C. A. Salgado, “EPS09: A New Generation of NLO and LO Nuclear Parton Distribution Functions,” JHEP 04 (2009) 065, arXiv:0902.4154 [hep-ph].
  * [49] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC,” JINST 3 (2008) S08002.
  * [50] ALICE Collaboration, B. B. Abelev et al., “Performance of the ALICE Experiment at the CERN LHC,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A29 (2014) 1430044, arXiv:1402.4476 [nucl-ex].
  * [51] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “Alignment of the ALICE Inner Tracking System with cosmic-ray tracks,” JINST 5 (2010) P03003, arXiv:1001.0502 [physics.ins-det].
  * [52] J. Alme et al., “The ALICE TPC, a large 3-dimensional tracking device with fast readout for ultra-high multiplicity events,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A622 (2010) 316–367, arXiv:1001.1950 [physics.ins-det].
  * [53] ALICE Collaboration, P. Cortese et al., “ALICE: Addendum to the technical design report of the time of flight system (TOF),”. https://cds.cern.ch/record/545834.
  * [54] ALICE Collaboration, P. Cortese et al., “ALICE technical design report on forward detectors: FMD, T0 and V0,”. https://cds.cern.ch/record/781854.
  * [55] ALICE Collaboration, P. Cortese et al., “ALICE electromagnetic calorimeter technical design report,”. https://cds.cern.ch/record/1121574.
  * [56] ALICE Collaboration, B. B. Abelev et al., “Measurement of visible cross sections in proton-lead collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV in van der Meer scans with the ALICE detector,” JINST 9 no. 11, (2014) P11003, arXiv:1405.1849 [nucl-ex].
  * [57] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Pseudorapidity density of charged particles in p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02$ TeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 no. 3, (2013) 032301, arXiv:1210.3615 [nucl-ex].
  * [58] ALICE Collaboration, B. B. Abelev et al., “Measurement of electrons from semileptonic heavy-flavor hadron decays in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=2.76$ TeV,” Phys. Rev. D91 no. 1, (2015) 012001, arXiv:1405.4117 [nucl-ex].
  * [59] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Measurement of electrons from semileptonic heavy-flavour hadron decays in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV,” Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 112007, arXiv:1205.5423 [hep-ex].
  * [60] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Neutral pion and $\eta$ meson production in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=0.9$ TeV and $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV,” Phys. Lett. B717 (2012) 162–172, arXiv:1205.5724 [hep-ex].
  * [61] ALICE Collaboration, B. B. Abelev et al., “Neutral pion production at midrapidity in pp and Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{{\mathrm{NN}}}}=2.76\,{\mathrm{TeV}}$,” Eur. Phys. J. C74 no. 10, (2014) 3108, arXiv:1405.3794 [nucl-ex].
  * [62] PHENIX Collaboration, A. Adare et al., “Detailed measurement of the $e^{+}e^{-}$ pair continuum in $p+p$ and Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV and implications for direct photon production,” Phys. Rev. C81 (2010) 034911, arXiv:0912.0244 [nucl-ex].
  * [63] L. E. Gordon and W. Vogelsang, “Polarized and unpolarized isolated prompt photon production beyond the leading order,” Phys. Rev. D50 (1994) 1901–1916.
  * [64] M. Gyulassy and X.-N. Wang, “HIJING 1.0: A Monte Carlo program for parton and particle production in high-energy hadronic and nuclear collisions,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 83 (1994) 307, arXiv:nucl-th/9502021 [nucl-th].
  * [65] T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, “PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual,” JHEP 05 (2006) 026, arXiv:hep-ph/0603175 [hep-ph].
  * [66] P. Z. Skands, “Tuning Monte Carlo Generators: The Perugia Tunes,” Phys. Rev. D82 (2010) 074018, arXiv:1005.3457 [hep-ph].
  * [67] R. Brun, F. Carminati, and S. Giani, “GEANT Detector Description and Simulation Tool,”.
  * [68] ALICE Collaboration, B. B. Abelev et al., “Multiplicity Dependence of Pion, Kaon, Proton and Lambda Production in p-Pb Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV,” Phys. Lett. B728 (2014) 25–38, arXiv:1307.6796 [nucl-ex].
  * [69] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Multiplicity dependence of charged pion, kaon, and (anti)proton production at large transverse momentum in p-Pb collisions at $\mathbf{\sqrt{{\textit{s}}_{\rm NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV,” arXiv:1601.03658 [nucl-ex].
  * [70] G. D’Agostini, “Bayesian reasoning in high-energy physics: Principles and applications,”. http://cds.cern.ch/record/395902.
  * [71] J. F. Grosse-Oetringhaus, Measurement of the Charged-Particle Multiplicity in Proton-Proton Collisions with the ALICE Detector.  PhD thesis, Munster U., 2009.  https://inspirehep.net/record/887184/files/CERN-THESIS-2009-033.pdf.
  * [72] F. Bossu, Z. C. del Valle, A. de Falco, M. Gagliardi, S. Grigoryan, and G. Martinez Garcia, “Phenomenological interpolation of the inclusive J/psi cross section to proton-proton collisions at 2.76 TeV and 5.5 TeV,” arXiv:1103.2394 [nucl-ex].
  * [73] ALICE Collaboration, B. B. Abelev et al., “Transverse momentum dependence of inclusive primary charged-particle production in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{{NN}}}}=5.02~{}\text{TeV}$,” Eur. Phys. J. C74 no. 9, (2014) 3054, arXiv:1405.2737 [nucl-ex].
  * [74] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Measurements of the electron and muon inclusive cross-sections in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV with the ATLAS detector,” Phys. Lett. B707 (2012) 438–458, arXiv:1109.0525 [hep-ex].
  * [75] M. Cacciari, M. Greco, and P. Nason, “The P(T) spectrum in heavy flavor hadroproduction,” JHEP 05 (1998) 007, arXiv:hep-ph/9803400 [hep-ph].
  * [76] M. Cacciari, S. Frixione, and P. Nason, “The p(T) spectrum in heavy flavor photoproduction,” JHEP 03 (2001) 006, arXiv:hep-ph/0102134 [hep-ph].
  * [77] M. Cacciari, S. Frixione, N. Houdeau, M. L. Mangano, P. Nason, and G. Ridolfi, “Theoretical predictions for charm and bottom production at the LHC,” JHEP 10 (2012) 137, arXiv:1205.6344 [hep-ph].
  * [78] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Measurement of charm production at central rapidity in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=2.76$ TeV,” JHEP 07 (2012) 191, arXiv:1205.4007 [hep-ex].

##  Appendix A The ALICE Collaboration

J. Adamorg40&D. Adamováorg83&M.M. Aggarwalorg87&G. Aglieri Rinellaorg36&M.
Agnelloorg110&N. Agrawalorg48&Z. Ahammedorg132&S.U. Ahnorg68&S. Aiolaorg136&A.
Akindinovorg58&S.N. Alamorg132&D. Aleksandrovorg99&B. Alessandroorg110&D.
Alexandreorg101&R. Alfaro Molinaorg64&A. Aliciorg12,org104&A. Alkinorg3&J.R.M.
Almarazorg119&J. Almeorg38&T. Altorg43&S. Altinpinarorg18&I.
Altsybeevorg131&C. Alves Garcia Pradoorg120&C. Andreiorg78&A. Andronicorg96&V.
Anguelovorg93&J. Anielskiorg54&T. Antičićorg97&F. Antinoriorg107&P.
Antonioliorg104&L. Aphecetcheorg113&H. Appelshäuserorg53&S. Arcelliorg28&R.
Arnaldiorg110&O.W. Arnoldorg37,org92&I.C. Arseneorg22&M. Arslandokorg53&B.
Audurierorg113&A. Augustinusorg36&R. Averbeckorg96&M.D. Azmiorg19&A.
Badalàorg106&Y.W. Baekorg67&S. Bagnascoorg110&R. Bailhacheorg53&R.
Balaorg90&A. Baldisseriorg15&R.C. Baralorg61&A.M. Barbanoorg27&R.
Barberaorg29&F. Barileorg33&G.G. Barnaföldiorg135&L.S. Barnbyorg101&V.
Barretorg70&P. Bartaliniorg7&K. Barthorg36&J. Bartkeorg117&E. Bartschorg53&M.
Basileorg28&N. Bastidorg70&S. Basuorg132&B. Bathenorg54&G. Batigneorg113&A.
Batista Camejoorg70&B. Batyunyaorg66&P.C. Batzingorg22&I.G. Beardenorg80&H.
Beckorg53&C. Beddaorg110&N.K. Beheraorg50&I. Belikovorg55&F. Belliniorg28&H.
Bello Martinezorg2&R. Bellwiedorg122&R. Belmontorg134&E. Belmont-
Morenoorg64&V. Belyaevorg75&G. Bencediorg135&S. Beoleorg27&I. Berceanuorg78&A.
Bercuciorg78&Y. Berdnikovorg85&D. Berenyiorg135&R.A. Bertensorg57&D.
Berzanoorg36&L. Betevorg36&A. Bhasinorg90&I.R. Bhatorg90&A.K. Bhatiorg87&B.
Bhattacharjeeorg45&J. Bhomorg128&L. Bianchiorg122&N. Bianchiorg72&C.
Bianchinorg57,org134&J. Bielčíkorg40&J. Bielčíkováorg83&A. Bilandzicorg80&R.
Biswasorg4&S. Biswasorg79&S. Bjelogrlicorg57&J.T. Blairorg118&D. Blauorg99&C.
Blumeorg53&F. Bockorg93,org74&A. Bogdanovorg75&H. Bøggildorg80&L.
Boldizsárorg135&M. Bombaraorg41&J. Bookorg53&H. Borelorg15&A. Borissovorg95&M.
Borriorg82,org124&F. Bossúorg65&E. Bottaorg27&S. Böttgerorg52&C.
Bourjauorg80&P. Braun-Munzingerorg96&M. Bregantorg120&T. Breitnerorg52&T.A.
Brokerorg53&T.A. Browningorg94&M. Brozorg40&E.J. Bruckenorg46&E.
Brunaorg110&G.E. Brunoorg33&D. Budnikovorg98&H. Bueschingorg53&S.
Bufalinoorg27,org36&P. Buncicorg36&O. Buschorg93,org128&Z. Butheleziorg65&J.B.
Buttorg16&J.T. Buxtonorg20&D. Caffarriorg36&X. Caiorg7&H. Cainesorg136&L.
Calero Diazorg72&A. Calivaorg57&E. Calvo Villarorg102&P. Cameriniorg26&F.
Carenaorg36&W. Carenaorg36&F. Carnesecchiorg28&J. Castillo
Castellanosorg15&A.J. Castroorg125&E.A.R. Casulaorg25&C. Ceballos
Sanchezorg9&J. Cepilaorg40&P. Cerelloorg110&J. Cerkalaorg115&B. Changorg123&S.
Chapelandorg36&M. Chartierorg124&J.L. Charvetorg15&S. Chattopadhyayorg132&S.
Chattopadhyayorg100&V. Chelnokovorg3&M. Cherneyorg86&C. Cheshkovorg130&B.
Cheynisorg130&V. Chibante Barrosoorg36&D.D. Chinellatoorg121&S. Choorg50&P.
Chochulaorg36&K. Choiorg95&M. Chojnackiorg80&S. Choudhuryorg132&P.
Christakoglouorg81&C.H. Christensenorg80&P. Christiansenorg34&T.
Chujoorg128&S.U. Chungorg95&C. Cicaloorg105&L. Cifarelliorg12,org28&F.
Cindoloorg104&J. Cleymansorg89&F. Colamariaorg33&D.
Colellaorg59,org33,org36&A. Colluorg74,org25&M. Colocciorg28&G. Conesa
Balbastreorg71&Z. Conesa del Valleorg51&M.E. Connorsidp1745584,org136&J.G.
Contrerasorg40&T.M. Cormierorg84&Y. Corrales Moralesorg110&I. Cortés
Maldonadoorg2&P. Corteseorg32&M.R. Cosentinoorg120&F. Costaorg36&P.
Crochetorg70&R. Cruz Albinoorg11&E. Cuautleorg63&L. Cunqueiroorg36&T.
Dahmsorg92,org37&A. Daineseorg107&A. Danuorg62&D. Dasorg100&I.
Dasorg51,org100&S. Dasorg4&A. Dashorg121,org79&S. Dashorg48&S. Deorg120&A. De
Caroorg31,org12&G. de Cataldoorg103&C. de Contiorg120&J. de Cuvelandorg43&A.
De Falcoorg25&D. De Gruttolaorg12,org31&N. De Marcoorg110&S. De
Pasqualeorg31&A. Deistingorg96,org93&A. Delofforg77&E. Dénesorg1350&C.
Deplanoorg81&P. Dhankherorg48&D. Di Bariorg33&A. Di Mauroorg36&P. Di
Nezzaorg72&M.A. Diaz Corcheroorg10&T. Dietelorg89&P. Dillensegerorg53&R.
Diviàorg36&Ø. Djuvslandorg18&A. Dobrinorg57,org81&D. Domenicis
Gimenezorg120&B. Dönigusorg53&O. Dordicorg22&T. Drozhzhovaorg53&A.K.
Dubeyorg132&A. Dublaorg57&L. Ducrouxorg130&P. Dupieuxorg70&R.J.
Ehlersorg136&D. Eliaorg103&H. Engelorg52&E. Eppleorg136&B. Erazmusorg113&I.
Erdemirorg53&F. Erhardtorg129&B. Espagnonorg51&M. Estienneorg113&S.
Esumiorg128&J. Eumorg95&D. Evansorg101&S. Evdokimovorg111&G. Eyyubovaorg40&L.
Fabbiettiorg92,org37&D. Fabrisorg107&J. Faivreorg71&A. Fantoniorg72&M.
Faselorg74&L. Feldkamporg54&A. Felicielloorg110&G. Feofilovorg131&J.
Ferenceiorg83&A. Fernández Téllezorg2&E.G. Ferreiroorg17&A. Ferrettiorg27&A.
Festantiorg30&V.J.G. Feuillardorg15,org70&J. Figielorg117&M.A.S.
Figueredoorg124,org120&S. Filchaginorg98&D. Finogeevorg56&F.M.
Fiondaorg25&E.M. Fioreorg33&M.G. Fleckorg93&M. Florisorg36&S. Foertschorg65&P.
Fokaorg96&S. Fokinorg99&E. Fragiacomoorg109&A. Francesconorg30,org36&U.
Frankenfeldorg96&U. Fuchsorg36&C. Furgetorg71&A. Fursorg56&M. Fusco
Girardorg31&J.J. Gaardhøjeorg80&M. Gagliardiorg27&A.M. Gagoorg102&M.
Gallioorg27&D.R. Gangadharanorg74&P. Ganotiorg88,org36&C. Gaoorg7&C.
Garabatosorg96&E. Garcia-Solisorg13&C. Gargiuloorg36&P. Gasikorg37,org92&E.F.
Gaugerorg118&M. Germainorg113&A. Gheataorg36&M. Gheataorg62,org36&P.
Ghoshorg132&S.K. Ghoshorg4&P. Gianottiorg72&P. Giubellinoorg36,org110&P.
Giubilatoorg30&E. Gladysz-Dziadusorg117&P. Glässelorg93&D.M. Goméz
Coralorg64&A. Gomez Ramirezorg52&V. Gonzalezorg10&P. González-Zamoraorg10&S.
Gorbunovorg43&L. Görlichorg117&S. Gotovacorg116&V. Grabskiorg64&O.A.
Grachovorg136&L.K. Graczykowskiorg133&K.L. Grahamorg101&A. Grelliorg57&A.
Grigorasorg36&C. Grigorasorg36&V. Grigorievorg75&A. Grigoryanorg1&S.
Grigoryanorg66&B. Grinyovorg3&N. Grionorg109&J.M. Gronefeldorg96&J.F. Grosse-
Oetringhausorg36&J.-Y. Grossiordorg130&R. Grossoorg96&F. Guberorg56&R.
Guernaneorg71&B. Guerzoniorg28&K. Gulbrandsenorg80&T. Gunjiorg127&A.
Guptaorg90&R. Guptaorg90&R. Haakeorg54&Ø. Haalandorg18&C. Hadjidakisorg51&M.
Haiducorg62&H. Hamagakiorg127&G. Hamarorg135&J.W. Harrisorg136&A.
Hartonorg13&D. Hatzifotiadouorg104&S. Hayashiorg127&S.T. Heckelorg53&M.
Heideorg54&H. Helstruporg38&A. Herghelegiuorg78&G. Herrera Corralorg11&B.A.
Hessorg35&K.F. Hetlandorg38&H. Hillemannsorg36&B. Hippolyteorg55&R.
Hosokawaorg128&P. Hristovorg36&M. Huangorg18&T.J. Humanicorg20&N.
Hussainorg45&T. Hussainorg19&D. Hutterorg43&D.S. Hwangorg21&R. Ilkaevorg98&M.
Inabaorg128&M. Ippolitovorg75,org99&M. Irfanorg19&M. Ivanovorg96&V.
Ivanovorg85&V. Izucheevorg111&P.M. Jacobsorg74&M.B. Jadhavorg48&S.
Jadlovskaorg115&J. Jadlovskyorg115,org59&C. Jahnkeorg120&M.J.
Jakubowskaorg133&H.J. Jangorg68&M.A. Janikorg133&P.H.S.Y. Jayarathnaorg122&C.
Jenaorg30&S. Jenaorg122&R.T. Jimenez Bustamanteorg96&P.G. Jonesorg101&H.
Jungorg44&A. Juskoorg101&P. Kalinakorg59&A. Kalweitorg36&J. Kaminorg53&J.H.
Kangorg137&V. Kaplinorg75&S. Karorg132&A. Karasu Uysalorg69&O.
Karavichevorg56&T. Karavichevaorg56&L. Karayanorg93,org96&E. Karpechevorg56&U.
Kebschullorg52&R. Keidelorg138&D.L.D. Keijdenerorg57&M. Keilorg36&M. Mohisin
Khanorg19&P. Khanorg100&S.A. Khanorg132&A. Khanzadeevorg85&Y. Kharlovorg111&B.
Kilengorg38&D.W. Kimorg44&D.J. Kimorg123&D. Kimorg137&H. Kimorg137&J.S.
Kimorg44&M. Kimorg44&M. Kimorg137&S. Kimorg21&T. Kimorg137&S. Kirschorg43&I.
Kiselorg43&S. Kiselevorg58&A. Kisielorg133&G. Kissorg135&J.L. Klayorg6&C.
Kleinorg53&J. Kleinorg93,org36&C. Klein-Bösingorg54&S. Klewinorg93&A.
Klugeorg36&M.L. Knichelorg93&A.G. Knospeorg118&T. Kobayashiorg128&C.
Kobdajorg114&M. Kofaragoorg36&T. Kolleggerorg43,org96&A. Kolojvariorg131&V.
Kondratievorg131&N. Kondratyevaorg75&E. Kondratyukorg111&A. Konevskikhorg56&M.
Kopcikorg115&M. Kourorg90&C. Kouzinopoulosorg36&O. Kovalenkoorg77&V.
Kovalenkoorg131&M. Kowalskiorg117&G. Koyithatta Meethaleveeduorg48&I.
Králikorg59&A. Kravčákováorg41&M. Kretzorg43&M. Krivdaorg59,org101&F.
Krizekorg83&E. Kryshenorg36&M. Krzewickiorg43&A.M. Kuberaorg20&V.
Kučeraorg83&C. Kuhnorg55&P.G. Kuijerorg81&A. Kumarorg90&J. Kumarorg48&L.
Kumarorg87&S. Kumarorg48&P. Kurashviliorg77&A. Kurepinorg56&A.B.
Kurepinorg56&A. Kuryakinorg98&M.J. Kweonorg50&Y. Kwonorg137&S.L. La
Pointeorg110&P. La Roccaorg29&P. Ladron de Guevaraorg11&C. Lagana
Fernandesorg120&I. Lakomovorg36&R. Langoyorg42&C. Laraorg52&A. Lardeuxorg15&A.
Lattucaorg27&E. Laudiorg36&R. Leaorg26&L. Leardiniorg93&G.R. Leeorg101&S.
Leeorg137&F. Lehasorg81&R.C. Lemmonorg82&V. Lentiorg103&E. Leograndeorg57&I.
León Monzónorg119&H. León Vargasorg64&M. Leoncinoorg27&P. Lévaiorg135&S.
Liorg70,org7&X. Liorg14&J. Lienorg42&R. Lietavaorg101&S. Lindalorg22&V.
Lindenstruthorg43&C. Lippmannorg96&M.A. Lisaorg20&H.M. Ljunggrenorg34&D.F.
Lodatoorg57&P.I. Loenneorg18&V. Loginovorg75&C. Loizidesorg74&X. Lopezorg70&E.
López Torresorg9&A. Loweorg135&P. Luettigorg53&M. Lunardonorg30&G.
Luparelloorg26&A. Maevskayaorg56&M. Magerorg36&S. Mahajanorg90&S.M.
Mahmoodorg22&A. Maireorg55&R.D. Majkaorg136&M. Malaevorg85&I. Maldonado
Cervantesorg63&L. Malininaidp3781840,org66&D. Mal’Kevichorg58&P.
Malzacherorg96&A. Mamonovorg98&V. Mankoorg99&F. Mansoorg70&V.
Manzariorg36,org103&M. Marchisoneorg27,org65,org126&J. Marešorg60&G.V.
Margagliottiorg26&A. Margottiorg104&J. Marguttiorg57&A. Marínorg96&C.
Markertorg118&M. Marquardorg53&N.A. Martinorg96&J. Martin Blancoorg113&P.
Martinengoorg36&M.I. Martínezorg2&G. Martínez Garcíaorg113&M. Martinez
Pedreiraorg36&A. Masorg120&S. Masciocchiorg96&M. Maseraorg27&A.
Masoniorg105&L. Massacrierorg113&A. Mastroserioorg33&A. Matyjaorg117&C.
Mayerorg117&J. Mazerorg125&M.A. Mazzoniorg108&D. Mcdonaldorg122&F.
Meddiorg24&Y. Melikyanorg75&A. Menchaca-Rochaorg64&E. Meninnoorg31&J. Mercado
Pérezorg93&M. Meresorg39&Y. Miakeorg128&M.M. Mieskolainenorg46&K.
Mikhaylovorg66,org58&L. Milanoorg36&J. Milosevicorg22&L.M.
Minerviniorg103,org23&A. Mischkeorg57&A.N. Mishraorg49&D. Miśkowiecorg96&J.
Mitraorg132&C.M. Mituorg62&N. Mohammadiorg57&B. Mohantyorg79,org132&L.
Molnarorg55,org113&L. Montaño Zetinaorg11&E. Montesorg10&D.A. Moreira De
Godoyorg54,org113&L.A.P. Morenoorg2&S. Morettoorg30&A. Morrealeorg113&A.
Morschorg36&V. Mucciforaorg72&E. Mudnicorg116&D. Mühlheimorg54&S.
Muhuriorg132&M. Mukherjeeorg132&J.D. Mulliganorg136&M.G. Munhozorg120&R.H.
Munzerorg92,org37&S. Murrayorg65&L. Musaorg36&J. Musinskyorg59&B. Naikorg48&R.
Nairorg77&B.K. Nandiorg48&R. Naniaorg104&E. Nappiorg103&M.U. Naruorg16&H.
Natal da Luzorg120&C. Nattrassorg125&K. Nayakorg79&T.K. Nayakorg132&S.
Nazarenkoorg98&A. Nedosekinorg58&L. Nellenorg63&F. Ngorg122&M.
Nicassioorg96&M. Niculescuorg62&J. Niedzielaorg36&B.S. Nielsenorg80&S.
Nikolaevorg99&S. Nikulinorg99&V. Nikulinorg85&F. Noferiniorg12,org104&P.
Nomokonovorg66&G. Noorenorg57&J.C.C. Norisorg2&J. Normanorg124&A.
Nyaninorg99&J. Nystrandorg18&H. Oeschlerorg93&S. Ohorg136&S.K. Ohorg67&A.
Ohlsonorg36&A. Okatanorg69&T. Okuboorg47&L. Olahorg135&J. Oleniaczorg133&A.C.
Oliveira Da Silvaorg120&M.H. Oliverorg136&J. Onderwaaterorg96&C.
Oppedisanoorg110&R. Oravaorg46&A. Ortiz Velasquezorg63&A. Oskarssonorg34&J.
Otwinowskiorg117&K. Oyamaorg93,org76&M. Ozdemirorg53&Y. Pachmayerorg93&P.
Paganoorg31&G. Paićorg63&S.K. Palorg132&J. Panorg134&A.K. Pandeyorg48&P.
Papcunorg115&V. Papikyanorg1&G.S. Pappalardoorg106&P. Pareekorg49&W.J.
Parkorg96&S. Parmarorg87&A. Passfeldorg54&V. Paticchioorg103&R.N.
Patraorg132&B. Paulorg100&H. Peiorg7&T. Peitzmannorg57&H. Pereira Da
Costaorg15&E. Pereira De Oliveira Filhoorg120&D. Peresunkoorg99,org75&C.E.
Pérez Laraorg81&E. Perez Lezamaorg53&V. Peskovorg53&Y. Pestovorg5&V.
Petráčekorg40&V. Petrovorg111&M. Petroviciorg78&C. Pettaorg29&S.
Pianoorg109&M. Piknaorg39&P. Pillotorg113&O. Pinazzaorg104,org36&L.
Pinskyorg122&D.B. Piyarathnaorg122&M. Płoskońorg74&M. Planinicorg129&J.
Plutaorg133&S. Pochybovaorg135&P.L.M. Podesta-Lermaorg119&M.G.
Poghosyanorg84,org86&B. Polichtchoukorg111&N. Poljakorg129&W.
Poonsawatorg114&A. Poporg78&S. Porteboeuf-Houssaisorg70&J. Porterorg74&J.
Pospisilorg83&S.K. Prasadorg4&R. Preghenellaorg104,org36&F. Prinoorg110&C.A.
Pruneauorg134&I. Pshenichnovorg56&M. Puccioorg27&G. Pudduorg25&P.
Pujahariorg134&V. Puninorg98&J. Putschkeorg134&H. Qvigstadorg22&A.
Rachevskiorg109&S. Rahaorg4&S. Rajputorg90&J. Rakorg123&A.
Rakotozafindrabeorg15&L. Ramelloorg32&F. Ramiorg55&R. Raniwalaorg91&S.
Raniwalaorg91&S.S. Räsänenorg46&B.T. Rascanuorg53&D. Ratheeorg87&K.F.
Readorg125,org84&K. Redlichorg77&R.J. Reedorg134&A. Rehmanorg18&P.
Reicheltorg53&F. Reidtorg93,org36&X. Renorg7&R. Renfordtorg53&A.R.
Reolonorg72&A. Reshetinorg56&J.-P. Revolorg12&K. Reygersorg93&V.
Riabovorg85&R.A. Ricciorg73&T. Richertorg34&M. Richterorg22&P. Riedlerorg36&W.
Rieglerorg36&F. Riggiorg29&C. Risteaorg62&E. Roccoorg57&M. Rodríguez
Cahuantziorg2,org11&A. Rodriguez Mansoorg81&K. Røedorg22&E. Rogochayaorg66&D.
Rohrorg43&D. Röhrichorg18&R. Romitaorg124&F. Ronchettiorg72,org36&L.
Ronfletteorg113&P. Rosnetorg70&A. Rossiorg30,org36&F. Roukoutakisorg88&A.
Royorg49&C. Royorg55&P. Royorg100&A.J. Rubio Monteroorg10&R. Ruiorg26&R.
Russoorg27&E. Ryabinkinorg99&Y. Ryabovorg85&A. Rybickiorg117&S.
Sadovskyorg111&K. Šafaříkorg36&B. Sahlmullerorg53&P. Sahooorg49&R.
Sahooorg49&S. Sahooorg61&P.K. Sahuorg61&J. Sainiorg132&S. Sakaiorg72&M.A.
Salehorg134&J. Salzwedelorg20&S. Sambyalorg90&V. Samsonovorg85&L.
Šándororg59&A. Sandovalorg64&M. Sanoorg128&D. Sarkarorg132&E.
Scapparoneorg104&F. Scarlassaraorg30&C. Schiauaorg78&R. Schickerorg93&C.
Schmidtorg96&H.R. Schmidtorg35&S. Schuchmannorg53&J. Schukraftorg36&M.
Schulcorg40&T. Schusterorg136&Y. Schutzorg113,org36&K. Schwarzorg96&K.
Schwedaorg96&G. Scioliorg28&E. Scomparinorg110&R. Scottorg125&M.
Šefčíkorg41&J.E. Segerorg86&Y. Sekiguchiorg127&D. Sekihataorg47&I.
Selyuzhenkovorg96&K. Senosiorg65&S. Senyukovorg3,org36&E.
Serradillaorg10,org64&A. Sevcencoorg62&A. Shabanovorg56&A. Shabetaiorg113&O.
Shaduraorg3&R. Shahoyanorg36&A. Shangaraevorg111&A. Sharmaorg90&M.
Sharmaorg90&M. Sharmaorg90&N. Sharmaorg125&K. Shigakiorg47&K.
Shtejerorg9,org27&Y. Sibiriakorg99&S. Siddhantaorg105&K.M. Sielewiczorg36&T.
Siemiarczukorg77&D. Silvermyrorg84,org34&C. Silvestreorg71&G.
Simatovicorg129&G. Simonettiorg36&R. Singarajuorg132&R. Singhorg79&S.
Singhaorg132,org79&V. Singhalorg132&B.C. Sinhaorg132&T. Sinhaorg100&B.
Sitarorg39&M. Sittaorg32&T.B. Skaaliorg22&M. Slupeckiorg123&N.
Smirnovorg136&R.J.M. Snellingsorg57&T.W. Snellmanorg123&C. Søgaardorg34&J.
Songorg95&M. Songorg137&Z. Songorg7&F. Soramelorg30&S. Sorensenorg125&F.
Sozziorg96&M. Spacekorg40&E. Spiritiorg72&I. Sputowskaorg117&M. Spyropoulou-
Stassinakiorg88&J. Stachelorg93&I. Stanorg62&G. Stefanekorg77&E.
Stenlundorg34&G. Steynorg65&J.H. Stillerorg93&D. Stoccoorg113&P.
Strmenorg39&A.A.P. Suaideorg120&T. Sugitateorg47&C. Suireorg51&M.
Suleymanovorg16&M. Suljicorg260&R. Sultanovorg58&M. Šumberaorg83&A.
Szaboorg39&A. Szanto de Toledoorg1200&I. Szarkaorg39&A.
Szczepankiewiczorg36&M. Szymanskiorg133&U. Tabassamorg16&J.
Takahashiorg121&G.J. Tambaveorg18&N. Tanakaorg128&M.A. Tangaroorg33&M.
Tarhiniorg51&M. Tariqorg19&M.G. Tarzilaorg78&A. Tauroorg36&G. Tejeda
Muñozorg2&A. Telescaorg36&K. Terasakiorg127&C. Terrevoliorg30&B.
Teyssierorg130&J. Thäderorg74&D. Thomasorg118&R. Tieulentorg130&A.R.
Timminsorg122&A. Toiaorg53&S. Trogoloorg27&G. Trombettaorg33&V.
Trubnikovorg3&W.H. Trzaskaorg123&T. Tsujiorg127&A. Tumkinorg98&R.
Turrisiorg107&T.S. Tveterorg22&K. Ullalandorg18&A. Urasorg130&G.L.
Usaiorg25&A. Utrobicicorg129&M. Vajzerorg83&M. Valaorg59&L. Valencia
Palomoorg70&S. Valleroorg27&J. Van Der Maarelorg57&J.W. Van Hoorneorg36&M. van
Leeuwenorg57&T. Vanatorg83&P. Vande Vyvreorg36&D. Vargaorg135&A. Vargasorg2&M.
Vargyasorg123&R. Varmaorg48&M. Vasileiouorg88&A. Vasilievorg99&A.
Vauthierorg71&V. Vecherninorg131&A.M. Veenorg57&M. Veldhoenorg57&A.
Velureorg18&M. Venaruzzoorg73&E. Vercellinorg27&S. Vergara Limónorg2&R.
Vernetorg8&M. Verweijorg134&L. Vickovicorg116&G. Viestiorg300&J.
Viinikainenorg123&Z. Vilakaziorg126&O. Villalobos Baillieorg101&A. Villatoro
Telloorg2&A. Vinogradovorg99&L. Vinogradovorg131&Y. Vinogradovorg980&T.
Virgiliorg31&V. Vislaviciusorg34&Y.P. Viyogiorg132&A. Vodopyanovorg66&M.A.
Völklorg93&K. Voloshinorg58&S.A. Voloshinorg134&G. Volpeorg135&B. von
Hallerorg36&I. Vorobyevorg37,org92&D. Vranicorg96,org36&J. Vrlákováorg41&B.
Vulpescuorg70&A. Vyushinorg98&B. Wagnerorg18&J. Wagnerorg96&H. Wangorg57&M.
Wangorg7,org113&D. Watanabeorg128&Y. Watanabeorg127&M. Weberorg112,org36&S.G.
Weberorg96&D.F. Weiserorg93&J.P. Wesselsorg54&U. Westerhofforg54&A.M.
Whiteheadorg89&J. Wiechulaorg35&J. Wikneorg22&M. Wildeorg54&G. Wilkorg77&J.
Wilkinsonorg93&M.C.S. Williamsorg104&B. Windelbandorg93&M. Winnorg93&C.G.
Yaldoorg134&H. Yangorg57&P. Yangorg7&S. Yanoorg47&C. Yasarorg69&Z. Yinorg7&H.
Yokoyamaorg128&I.-K. Yooorg95&J.H. Yoonorg50&V. Yurchenkoorg3&I.
Yushmanovorg99&A. Zaborowskaorg133&V. Zaccoloorg80&A. Zamanorg16&C.
Zampolliorg104&H.J.C. Zanoliorg120&S. Zaporozhetsorg66&N. Zardoshtiorg101&A.
Zarochentsevorg131&P. Závadaorg60&N. Zaviyalovorg98&H. Zbroszczykorg133&I.S.
Zguraorg62&M. Zhalovorg85&H. Zhangorg18&X. Zhangorg74&Y. Zhangorg7&C.
Zhangorg57&Z. Zhangorg7&C. Zhaoorg22&N. Zhigarevaorg58&D. Zhouorg7&Y.
Zhouorg80&Z. Zhouorg18&H. Zhuorg18&J. Zhuorg113,org7&A. Zichichiorg28,org12&A.
Zimmermannorg93&M.B. Zimmermannorg54,org36&G. Zinovjevorg3&M. Zyzakorg43

## Affiliation notes

0Deceased

idp1745584Also at: Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States

idp3781840Also at: M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, D.V. Skobeltsyn
Institute of Nuclear, Physics, Moscow, Russia

## Collaboration Institutes

org1A.I. Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics Institute)
Foundation, Yerevan, Armenia

org2Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico

org3Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kiev, Ukraine

org4Bose Institute, Department of Physics and Centre for Astroparticle Physics
and Space Science (CAPSS), Kolkata, India

org5Budker Institute for Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia

org6California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California,
United States

org7Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China

org8Centre de Calcul de l’IN2P3, Villeurbanne, France

org9Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Havana,
Cuba

org10Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas
(CIEMAT), Madrid, Spain

org11Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados (CINVESTAV), Mexico City
and Mérida, Mexico

org12Centro Fermi - Museo Storico della Fisica e Centro Studi e Ricerche
“Enrico Fermi”, Rome, Italy

org13Chicago State University, Chicago, Illinois, USA

org14China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China

org15Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique, IRFU, Saclay, France

org16COMSATS Institute of Information Technology (CIIT), Islamabad, Pakistan

org17Departamento de Física de Partículas and IGFAE, Universidad de Santiago
de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain

org18Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen,
Norway

org19Department of Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India

org20Department of Physics, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United
States

org21Department of Physics, Sejong University, Seoul, South Korea

org22Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

org23Dipartimento di Elettrotecnica ed Elettronica del Politecnico, Bari,
Italy

org24Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università ’La Sapienza’ and Sezione INFN
Rome, Italy

org25Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Cagliari, Italy

org26Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Trieste, Italy

org27Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy

org28Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN,
Bologna, Italy

org29Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN,
Catania, Italy

org30Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN,
Padova, Italy

org31Dipartimento di Fisica ‘E.R. Caianiello’ dell’Università and Gruppo
Collegato INFN, Salerno, Italy

org32Dipartimento di Scienze e Innovazione Tecnologica dell’Università del
Piemonte Orientale and Gruppo Collegato INFN, Alessandria, Italy

org33Dipartimento Interateneo di Fisica ‘M. Merlin’ and Sezione INFN, Bari,
Italy

org34Division of Experimental High Energy Physics, University of Lund, Lund,
Sweden

org35Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

org36European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland

org37Excellence Cluster Universe, Technische Universität München, Munich,
Germany

org38Faculty of Engineering, Bergen University College, Bergen, Norway

org39Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, Comenius University,
Bratislava, Slovakia

org40Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering, Czech Technical
University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

org41Faculty of Science, P.J. Šafárik University, Košice, Slovakia

org42Faculty of Technology, Buskerud and Vestfold University College,
Vestfold, Norway

org43Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-
Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

org44Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, South Korea

org45Gauhati University, Department of Physics, Guwahati, India

org46Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Helsinki, Finland

org47Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan

org48Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT), Mumbai, India

org49Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore (IITI), India

org50Inha University, Incheon, South Korea

org51Institut de Physique Nucléaire d’Orsay (IPNO), Université Paris-Sud,
CNRS-IN2P3, Orsay, France

org52Institut für Informatik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt,
Frankfurt, Germany

org53Institut für Kernphysik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt,
Frankfurt, Germany

org54Institut für Kernphysik, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster,
Münster, Germany

org55Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien (IPHC), Université de
Strasbourg, CNRS-IN2P3, Strasbourg, France

org56Institute for Nuclear Research, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

org57Institute for Subatomic Physics of Utrecht University, Utrecht,
Netherlands

org58Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia

org59Institute of Experimental Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Košice,
Slovakia

org60Institute of Physics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague,
Czech Republic

org61Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India

org62Institute of Space Science (ISS), Bucharest, Romania

org63Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,
Mexico City, Mexico

org64Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico
City, Mexico

org65iThemba LABS, National Research Foundation, Somerset West, South Africa

org66Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR), Dubna, Russia

org67Konkuk University, Seoul, South Korea

org68Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon, South
Korea

org69KTO Karatay University, Konya, Turkey

org70Laboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire (LPC), Clermont Université,
Université Blaise Pascal, CNRS–IN2P3, Clermont-Ferrand, France

org71Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie, Université
Grenoble-Alpes, CNRS-IN2P3, Grenoble, France

org72Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, INFN, Frascati, Italy

org73Laboratori Nazionali di Legnaro, INFN, Legnaro, Italy

org74Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, United
States

org75Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, Moscow, Russia

org76Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science, Nagasaki, Japan

org77National Centre for Nuclear Studies, Warsaw, Poland

org78National Institute for Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest,
Romania

org79National Institute of Science Education and Research, Bhubaneswar, India

org80Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

org81Nikhef, Nationaal instituut voor subatomaire fysica, Amsterdam,
Netherlands

org82Nuclear Physics Group, STFC Daresbury Laboratory, Daresbury, United
Kingdom

org83Nuclear Physics Institute, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Řež
u Prahy, Czech Republic

org84Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States

org85Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina, Russia

org86Physics Department, Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, United States

org87Physics Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India

org88Physics Department, University of Athens, Athens, Greece

org89Physics Department, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

org90Physics Department, University of Jammu, Jammu, India

org91Physics Department, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, India

org92Physik Department, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

org93Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg,
Heidelberg, Germany

org94Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, United States

org95Pusan National University, Pusan, South Korea

org96Research Division and ExtreMe Matter Institute EMMI, GSI Helmholtzzentrum
für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany

org97Rudjer Bošković Institute, Zagreb, Croatia

org98Russian Federal Nuclear Center (VNIIEF), Sarov, Russia

org99Russian Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia

org100Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata, India

org101School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham,
United Kingdom

org102Sección Física, Departamento de Ciencias, Pontificia Universidad
Católica del Perú, Lima, Peru

org103Sezione INFN, Bari, Italy

org104Sezione INFN, Bologna, Italy

org105Sezione INFN, Cagliari, Italy

org106Sezione INFN, Catania, Italy

org107Sezione INFN, Padova, Italy

org108Sezione INFN, Rome, Italy

org109Sezione INFN, Trieste, Italy

org110Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy

org111SSC IHEP of NRC Kurchatov institute, Protvino, Russia

org112Stefan Meyer Institut für Subatomare Physik (SMI), Vienna, Austria

org113SUBATECH, Ecole des Mines de Nantes, Université de Nantes, CNRS-IN2P3,
Nantes, France

org114Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand

org115Technical University of Košice, Košice, Slovakia

org116Technical University of Split FESB, Split, Croatia

org117The Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy
of Sciences, Cracow, Poland

org118The University of Texas at Austin, Physics Department, Austin, Texas,
USA

org119Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Culiacán, Mexico

org120Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil

org121Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil

org122University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States

org123University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

org124University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom

org125University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States

org126University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

org127University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

org128University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan

org129University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

org130Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, CNRS/IN2P3, IPN-Lyon,
Villeurbanne, France

org131V. Fock Institute for Physics, St. Petersburg State University, St.
Petersburg, Russia

org132Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Kolkata, India

org133Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland

org134Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, United States

org135Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences,
Budapest, Hungary

org136Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States

org137Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea

org138Zentrum für Technologietransfer und Telekommunikation (ZTT),
Fachhochschule Worms, Worms, Germany