HIN-16-025

$Revision:461854$
$HeadURL:svn+ssh://svn.cern.ch/reps/tdr2/papers/HIN-16-025/trunk/HIN-16-025.tex$
$Id:HIN-16-025.tex4618542018-05-2720:36:13Zalverson$

HIN-16-025

# Measurement of prompt and nonprompt charmonium suppression in PbPb
collisions at 5.02

###### Abstract

The nuclear modification factors of and $\psi\text{(2S)}$ mesons are measured
in PbPb collisions at a centre-of-mass energy per nucleon pair of
$\sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{{}_{\text{NN}}}}}=5.02\TeV$. The analysis is based on PbPb
and $\Pp\Pp$ data samples collected by CMS at the LHC in 2015, corresponding
to integrated luminosities of 464and 28, respectively. The measurements are
performed in the dimuon rapidity range of $\abs{y}<2.4$ as a function of
centrality, rapidity, and transverse momentum () from $\pt=3$in the most
forward region and up to 50. Both prompt and nonprompt (coming from b hadron
decays) mesons are observed to be increasingly suppressed with centrality,
with a magnitude similar to the one observed at
$\sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{{}_{\text{NN}}}}}=2.76\TeV$ for the two meson components.
No dependence on rapidity is observed for either prompt or nonprompt mesons.
An indication of a lower prompt meson suppression at $\pt>25$is seen with
respect to that observed at intermediate . The prompt $\psi\text{(2S)}$ meson
yield is found to be more suppressed than that of the prompt mesons in the
entire range.

##  0.1 Introduction

Quarkonium production in heavy ion collisions has a rich history. In their
original article [1], Matsui and Satz proposed that Debye color screening of
the heavy-quark potential in a hot medium prevents the production of mesons
(and this applies also to other heavy-quark bound states such as
$\psi\text{(2S)}$, and $\Upsilon\text{(1S)}$ mesons [2]). Consequently, the
suppression of quarkonium yields in heavy ion collisions, relative to those in
$\Pp\Pp$ collisions, has long been considered to be a sensitive probe of
deconfinement and quark-gluon plasma formation. The meson suppression observed
in PbPb collisions at the CERN SPS [3] and AuAu collisions at the BNL RHIC [4]
is compatible with this picture. Similarly, the disappearance of $\Upsilon$
resonances in PbPb collisions at the CERN LHC [5, 6] is consistent with the
Debye screening scenario.

When produced abundantly in a single heavy ion collision, uncorrelated heavy
quarks may combine to form quarkonia states in the medium [7, 8]. This
additional source of quarkonium, commonly referred to as _recombination_ ,
would enhance its production in heavy ion collisions, in contradistinction
with the Debye screening scenario. Signs of this effect can be seen in the
recent results from the ALICE Collaboration at the LHC [9, 10], which measured
a weaker meson suppression than at RHIC [4, 11], despite the higher medium
energy density. Note that recombination is only expected to affect charmonium
production at low transverse momenta ($p_{\text{T}}$), typically for values
smaller than the charmonium mass ($\pt\lesssim m_{\psi}\,c$), where the number
of charm quarks initially produced in the collision is the largest [8].

At large , other mechanisms may contribute to charmonium suppression. Until
recently, no quarkonium results were available at high $\pt$, because of
kinematic constraints at the SPS and too low counting rates at RHIC. At the
LHC, a strong suppression has been measured up to $\pt=30$by the CMS
Collaboration [12] in PbPb collisions at a centre-of-mass energy per nucleon
pair of $\sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{{}_{\text{NN}}}}}=2.76\TeV$. Results at $5.02\TeV$
have also been reported, up to $\pt=10$, by the ALICE Collaboration [10].
According to Refs. [13, 14], quarkonium suppression by Debye screening may
occur even at high $\pt$. At the same time, when $\pt\gg m_{\psi}\,c$, heavy
quarkonium is likely to be produced by parton fragmentation, hence it should
rather be sensitive to the parton energy loss in the quark-gluon plasma. The
similarity of meson suppression with the quenching of jets, light hadrons, and
D mesons supports this picture [15, 16, 12].

At the LHC, the inclusive meson yield also contains a significant nonprompt
contribution coming from hadron decays [17, 18, 19]. The nonprompt component
should reflect medium effects on hadron production in heavy ion collisions,
such as b quark energy loss. Measuring both prompt and nonprompt meson
production in PbPb collisions thus offers the opportunity to study both hidden
charm and open beauty production in the same data sample.

In this paper we report on a new measurement of the prompt and nonprompt and
$\psi\text{(2S)}$ nuclear modification factors ($R_{\text{AA}}$) using PbPb
data, collected at the end of 2015 with the CMS experiment at
$\sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{{}_{\text{NN}}}}}=5.02\TeV$. The analysis is performed via
the dimuon decay channel. The results are compared to those obtained at 2.76
[12]. The larger integrated luminosities allow for more precise and more
differential measurements of $R_{\text{AA}}$, as functions of centrality,
rapidity ($y$), and up to 50.

##  0.2 The CMS detector

The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6m
internal diameter, providing a magnetic field of 3.8T. Within the solenoid
volume are a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal
electromagnetic calorimeter, and a brass and scintillator hadron calorimeter,
each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. Forward calorimeters extend
the coverage provided by the barrel and endcap detectors. Muons are measured
in the pseudorapidity range $\abs{\eta}<2.4$ in gas-ionisation detectors
embedded in the steel flux-return yoke outside the solenoid, with detection
planes made using three technologies: drift tubes, cathode strip chambers, and
resistive-plate chambers. The hadron forward (HF) calorimeters use steel as an
absorber and quartz fibres as the sensitive material. The two HF calorimeters
are located 11.2m from the interaction region, one on each side, and together
they provide coverage in the range $2.9<\abs{\eta}<5.2$. They also serve as
luminosity monitors. Two beam pick-up timing detectors are located at 175m on
both sides of the interaction point, and provide information about the timing
structure of the LHC beam. Events of interest are selected using a two-tiered
trigger system [20]. The first level (L1), composed of custom hardware
processors, uses information from the calorimeters and muon detectors to
select events. The second level, known as the high-level trigger (HLT),
consists of a farm of processors running a version of the full event
reconstruction software optimised for fast processing. 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. [21].

For $\Pp\Pp$ data the vertices are reconstructed with a deterministic
annealing vertex fitting algorithm using all of the fully reconstructed tracks
[22]. The physics objects used to determine the primary vertex are defined
based on a jet finding algorithm [23, 24] applied to all charged tracks
associated with the vertex, plus the corresponding associated missing
transverse momentum. The reconstructed vertex with the largest value of summed
physics object $\pt^{2}$ is taken to be the primary $\Pp\Pp$ interaction
vertex. In the case of PbPb data, a single primary vertex is reconstructed
using a gap clustering algorithm [22], using pixel tracks only.

##  0.3 Data selection

###  0.3.1 Event selection

Hadronic collisions are selected offline using information from the HF
calorimeters. In order to select PbPb collisions, at least three towers with
energy deposits above 3are required in each of the HF calorimeters, both at
forward and backward rapidities. A primary vertex reconstructed with at least
two tracks is also required. In addition, a filter on the compatibility of the
silicon pixel cluster width and the vertex position is applied [25]. The
combined efficiency for this event selection, including the remaining non-
hadronic contamination, is $(99\pm 2)$%. Values higher than 100% are possible,
reflecting the possible presence of ultra-peripheral (i.e. non-hadronic)
collisions in the selected event sample.

The PbPb sample is divided into bins of collision centrality, which is a
measure of the degree of overlap of the colliding nuclei and is related to the
number of participating nucleons ($N_{\text{part}}$). Centrality is defined as
the percentile of the inelastic hadronic cross section corresponding to a HF
energy deposit above a certain threshold [26]. The most central (highest HF
energy deposit) and most peripheral (lowest HF energy deposit) centrality bins
used in the analysis are 0–5% and 70–100% respectively. Variables related to
the centrality, such as $N_{\text{part}}$ and the nuclear overlap function
($T_{\text{AA}}$) [27], are estimated using a Glauber model simulation
described in Ref. [28].

The $\Pp\Pp$ and PbPb data sets correspond to integrated luminosities of
28.0and 464, respectively. Both and $\psi\text{(2S)}$ mesons are reconstructed
using their dimuon decay channel. The dimuon events were selected online by
the L1 trigger system, requiring two tracks in the muon detectors with no
explicit momentum threshold, in coincidence with a bunch crossing identified
by beam pick-up timing detectors. No additional selection was applied by the
HLT. Because of the high rate of the most central dimuon events, a prescale
was applied at the HLT level during part of the PbPb data taking: as a
consequence only 79% of all the dimuon events were recorded, resulting in an
effective luminosity of 368. For peripheral events we were able to sample the
entire integrated luminosity of 464. This was done by adding an additional
requirement that events be in the centrality range of 30–100% to the dimuon
trigger. The prescaled data sample is used for the results integrated over
centrality and those in the centrality range 0–30%, while for the results in
the 30–100% range the data sample with 464was used instead. The results
reported in this paper are unaffected by the small number of extra collisions
potentially present in the collected events: the mean of the Poisson
distribution of the number of collisions per bunch crossing (pileup), averaged
over the full data sample, is approximately 0.9 for the $\Pp\Pp$ data and less
than 0.01 for PbPb collisions.

Simulated events are used to tune the muon selection criteria and the signal
fitting parameters, as well as for acceptance and efficiency studies. These
samples, produced using 8.212 [29], and decaying the hadrons with evtgen 1.3.0
[30], are embedded in a realistic PbPb background event generated with hydjet
1.9 [31] and propagated through the CMS detector with [32]. The prompt is
simulated unpolarised, a scenario in good agreement with pp measurements [33,
34, 35]. For nonprompt , the polarisation is the one predicted by evtgen,
roughly $\lambda_{\theta}=0.4$. The resulting events are processed through the
trigger emulation and the event reconstruction sequences. The assumptions made
on the quarkonium polarisation affect the computation of the acceptance.
Quantitative estimates of the possible effect evaluated for several
polarisation scenarios can be found in Refs. [36, 37]. While there are no
measurements on quarkonium polarisations in PbPb collisions, a study in
$\Pp\Pp$ collisions as a function of the event activity [38] has not revealed
significant changes. Therefore the effects of the polarisation on the
acceptance are not considered as systematic uncertainties.

###  0.3.2 Muon selection

The muon reconstruction algorithm starts by finding tracks in the muon
detectors, which are then fitted together with tracks reconstructed in the
silicon tracker. Kinematic selections are imposed to single muons so that
their combined trigger, reconstruction and identification efficiency stays
above 10%. These selections are: $\pt^{\PGm}>3.50\GeVc$ for
$\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}<1.2$ and $\pt^{\PGm}>1.89\GeVc$ for
$2.1<\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}<2.4$, linearly interpolated in the intermediate
$\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}$ region. The muons are required to match the ones selected
by the dimuon trigger, and _soft_ muon selection criteria are applied to
_global muons_ (i.e. muons reconstructed using the combined information of the
tracker and muon detectors), as defined in Ref. [39]. Matching muons to tracks
measured in the silicon tracker results in a relative resolution for muons
between 1 and 2% for a typical muon in this analysis [39]. In order to remove
cosmic and in-flight decay muons, the transverse and longitudinal distances of
approach to the measured vertex of the muons entering in the analysis are
required to be less than 0.3 and 20 cm, respectively. The probability that the
two muon tracks originate from a common vertex is required to be larger than
1%, lowering the background from and hadron semileptonic decays.

##  0.4 Signal extraction

Because of the long lifetime of hadrons compared to that of mesons, the
separation of the prompt and nonprompt components relies on the measurement of
a secondary $\PGmp\PGmm$ vertex displaced from the primary collision vertex.
The mesons originating from the decay of hadrons can be resolved using the
pseudo-proper decay length [40]
$\ell_{\JPsi}=L_{xyz}\>m_{\JPsi}\>c/|p_{\mu\mu}|$, where $L_{xyz}$ is the
distance between the primary and dimuon vertices, $m_{\JPsi}$ is the Particle
Data Group [41] world average value of the meson mass (assumed for all dimuon
candidates), and $p_{\mu\mu}$ is the dimuon momentum. Note that due to
resolution effects and background dimuons the pseudo-proper decay length can
take negative values. To measure the fraction of mesons coming from hadron
decays (the so-called nonprompt fraction), the invariant mass spectrum of
$\PGmp\PGmm$ pairs and their $\ell_{\JPsi}$ distribution are fitted using a
two-dimensional (2D) extended unbinned maximum-likelihood fit. In order to
obtain the parameters of the different components of the 2D probability
density function (PDF), the invariant mass and the $\ell_{\JPsi}$
distributions are fitted sequentially prior to the final 2D fits, as explained
below. These fits are performed for each , rapidity and centrality bin of the
analysis, and separately in $\Pp\Pp$ and PbPb collisions.

Figure 1: Invariant mass spectrum of $\PGmp\PGmm$ pairs (left) and pseudo-
proper decay length distribution (right) in PbPb collisions for
$1.8<\abs{y}<2.4$, $4.5<\pt<5.5\GeVc$, for all centralities. The result of the
fit described in the text is also shown.

The sum of two Crystal Ball functions [42], with different widths but common
mean and tail parameters, is used to extract the nominal yield values from the
$\Pp\Pp$ and PbPb invariant mass distributions. The tail parameters, as well
as the ratio of widths in the PbPb case, are fixed to the values obtained from
simulation. The background is described by a polynomial function of order $N$,
where $N$ is the lowest value that provides a good description of the data,
and is determined by performing a log-likelihood ratio test between
polynomials of different orders, in each analysis bin, while keeping the tail
and width ratio parameters fixed. The order of the polynomial is chosen in
such a way that increasing the order does not significantly improve the
quality of the fit. The typical order of the polynomial is 1 for most of the
analysis bins. The invariant mass signal and background parameters are
obtained in an initial fit of the invariant mass distribution only and then
fixed on the 2D fits of mass and $\ell_{\JPsi}$ distributions, while the
number of extracted mesons and background dimuons are left as free parameters.

The prompt, nonprompt, and background components of the $\ell_{\JPsi}$
distributions are parameterised using collision data and Monte Carlo (MC)
simulated events, and the signal and background contributions unfolded with
the ${}_{s}\mathcal{P}lot$ technique [43]. In the context of this analysis,
this technique uses the invariant mass signal and background PDFs to
discriminate signal from background in the $\ell_{\JPsi}$ distribution. The
$\ell_{\JPsi}$ per-event uncertainty distributions of signal and background,
provided by the reconstruction algorithm of primary and secondary vertices,
are extracted from data and used as templates. The $\ell_{\JPsi}$ resolution
is also obtained from the data by fitting the distribution of events with
$\ell_{\JPsi}<0$ with a combination of three Gaussian functions. The
resolution varies event-by-event, so the per-event uncertainty is used as the
width of the Gaussian function that describes the core. To take into account
the difference on the per-event uncertainty distributions of signal and
background dimuons, the resolution PDF is multiplied by the per-event
uncertainty distribution of signal and background dimuons separately. All the
resolution parameters are fixed in the 2D fits. The hadron decay length is
allowed to float freely in the fit, and it is initialised to the value
extracted by fitting the $\ell_{\JPsi}$ distribution of nonprompt mesons from
a MC sample with an exponential decay function, at generator level. The
$\ell_{\JPsi}$ distribution of background dimuons is obtained from fits to the
data, using an empirical combination of exponential functions. The parameters
of the $\ell_{\JPsi}$ background distribution are also fixed in the 2D fits.
Finally, the number of extracted mesons, the number of background dimuons and
the nonprompt fraction are extracted from the 2D fits. An example of a 2D fit
of the invariant mass and pseudo-proper decay length for the PbPb data is
shown in Fig. 1 for a representative analysis bin.

##  0.5 Acceptance and efficiency corrections

Correction factors are applied to all results to account for detector
acceptance, trigger, reconstruction, and selection efficiencies of the
$\PGmp\PGmm$ pairs. The corrections are derived from prompt and nonprompt
meson MC samples in $\Pp\Pp$ and PbPb, and are evaluated in the same bins of ,
centrality, and rapidity used in the $R_{\text{AA}}$ and cross section
analyses. The prompt and nonprompt meson distributions in bins of rapidity in
MC samples are compared to those in data, and the ratios of data over MC are
used to weight the MC distributions to describe the data better. This
weighting accounts for possible mis-modelling of kinematics in MC. The
acceptance in a given analysis bin is defined as the fraction of generated
mesons in that bin which decay into two muons entering the kinematic limits
defined above, and reflects the geometrical coverage of the CMS detector. The
value of the acceptance correction ranges from 4 to 70%, depending on the
dimuon , both for prompt and nonprompt mesons in $\Pp\Pp$ and PbPb collisions.
The efficiency in a given analysis bin is defined as the ratio of the number
of reconstructed mesons in which both muons pass the analysis selection and
the number of generated mesons in which both muons pass the analysis
selection. The efficiency correction depends on the dimuon , rapidity and
event centrality, and ranges from 20 to 75% (15 to 75%) for prompt (nonprompt)
mesons in PbPb data, and from 40 to 85% for both prompt and nonprompt mesons
in $\Pp\Pp$ data. The efficiency is lower at low than at high , and it
decreases from mid to forward rapidity; it is also lower for central than
peripheral events. The individual components of the efficiency (tracking
reconstruction, standalone muon reconstruction, global muon fit, muon
identification and selection, and triggering) are also measured using single
muons from meson decays in both simulated and collision data, using the _tag-
and-probe_ (T$\&$P) technique [44, 36]. The values obtained from data and
simulation are seen to differ only for the muon trigger efficiency and the
ratio of the data over simulated efficiencies is used as a correction factor
for the efficiency. The correction factor for dimuons is at most 1.35 (1.38)
for the $\Pp\Pp$ (PbPb) efficiency in the $3<\pt<4.5$and forward rapidity bin,
but the and rapidity integrated value of the correction is about 1.03. The
other T$\&$P efficiency components are compatible, hence only used as a cross-
check, as well as to estimate systematic uncertainties.

##  0.6 Systematic uncertainties

The systematic uncertainties in these measurements arise from the invariant
mass signal and background fitting model assumptions, the parameterisation of
the $\ell_{\JPsi}$ distribution, the acceptance and efficiency computation,
and sample normalisation (integrated luminosity in $\Pp\Pp$ data, counting of
the equivalent number of minimum bias events in PbPb, and nuclear overlap
function). These systematic uncertainties are derived separately for $\Pp\Pp$
and PbPb results, and the total systematic uncertainty is computed as the
quadratic sum of the partial terms.

The systematic uncertainty due to each component of the 2D fits is estimated
from the difference between the nominal value and the result obtained with the
variations of the different components mentioned below, in the extracted
number of prompt and nonprompt mesons, or nonprompt fraction separately. In
the following, the typical uncertainty is given for the observable on which
each source has the biggest impact.

In order to determine the uncertainty associated with the invariant mass
fitting procedure, the signal and background PDFs are independently varied, in
each analysis bin. For the uncertainty in the signal, the parameters that were
fixed in the nominal fits are left free with a certain constraint. The
constraint for each parameter is determined from fits to the data, by leaving
only one of the parameters free, and it is chosen as the root mean square of
the variations over the different analysis bins. A different signal shape is
also used: a Crystal Ball function plus a Gaussian function, with the CB tail
parameters, as well as the ratio of widths in the PbPb case, again fixed from
MC. The dominant uncertainty comes from the variation of the signal shape,
yielding values for the number of extracted nonprompt mesons ranging from 0.1
to 2.9% (0.3 to 5.5%) in $\Pp\Pp$ (PbPb) data. For the background model, the
following changes are considered, while keeping the nominal signal shape.
First, the log-likelihood ratio tests are done again with two variations of
the threshold used to choose the order of the polynomial function in each
analysis bin. Also the fitted mass range is varied. Finally, an exponential of
a polynomial function is also used. The dominant uncertainty in the background
model arises from the assumed shape (invariant mass range) in $\Pp\Pp$ (PbPb)
data. The corresponding uncertainty ranges from 0.1 to 2.1% (0.1 to 2.8%). The
maximum difference of each of these variations, in each analysis bin and
separately for the signal and the background, is taken as an independent
systematic uncertainty.

For the $\ell_{\JPsi}$ distribution fitting procedure, four independent
variations of the different components entering in the 2D fits are considered.
For the $\ell_{\JPsi}$ uncertainty distribution, instead of using the
distributions corresponding to signal and background, the total distribution
is assumed. The contribution to the systematic uncertainty in the number of
extracted nonprompt mesons ranges from 0.3 to 2% (0.3 to 9.5%) in $\Pp\Pp$
(PbPb) data. The $\ell_{\JPsi}$ resolution obtained from prompt meson MC is
used instead of that evaluated from data. The corresponding uncertainty in the
nonprompt fraction ranges from 1 to 5% (1 to 11%) in $\Pp\Pp$ (PbPb) data. A
nonprompt meson MC template replaces the exponential decay function for the
hadron decay length. In this case, the contribution of this source to the
systematic uncertainty in the nonprompt yield ranges from 0.2 to 8% (0.2 to
20%) in $\Pp\Pp$ (PbPb) data. A template of the $\ell_{\JPsi}$ distribution of
background dimuons obtained from the data is used to describe the background,
instead of the empirical combination of exponential functions. This variation
has an impact on the nonprompt yield ranging from 0.1 to 1.3% (0.2 to 22%) in
$\Pp\Pp$ (PbPb) data. Therefore the dominant sources of uncertainty in the
$\ell_{\JPsi}$ fitting are the background parameterisation and the MC template
for the nonprompt signal. They have an important impact on the nonprompt meson
yield, especially at the lowest reached in this analysis for the most central
events in PbPb collisions. The reason for this is that the background dimuons
largely dominate over the nonprompt signal.

The uncertainties in the acceptance and efficiency determination are evaluated
with MC studies considering a broad range of and angular spectra compatible
with the pp and PbPb data within their uncertainties. These variations yield
an uncertainty about 0.2% ($<$1.7%) in $\Pp\Pp$ (PbPb) collisions, both for
prompt and nonprompt acceptance and efficiency. The statistical uncertainty of
the weighting of the MC distributions, reflecting the impact of the limited
knowledge on the kinematic distribution of mesons on the acceptance and
efficiency corrections, is used as systematic uncertainty. This uncertainty is
at most 6% (11%) in $\Pp\Pp$ (PbPb) collisions at the largest but it usually
ranges from 1 to 3% in both collision systems. In addition, the systematic
uncertainties in the T&P correction factors, arising from the limited data
sample available and from the procedure itself, are taken into account,
covering all parts of the muon efficiency: inner tracking and muon
reconstruction, identification, and triggering. The dominant uncertainty in
the T&P correction factors arises from muon reconstruction and ranges from 2
to 10% for both collision systems.

The global uncertainty in the pp luminosity measurement is 2.3% [45]. The
number of minimum bias events corresponding to our dimuon sample in PbPb
($N_{\mathrm{MB}}$) comes from a simple event counting in the events selected
by the Minimum Bias triggers, taking into account the trigger prescale. The
corresponding uncertainty arises from the inefficiency of trigger and event
selection, and is estimated to be 2%. Finally, the uncertainty in the
$T_{\text{AA}}$ is estimated by varying the Glauber model parameters within
their uncertainty and taking into account the uncertainty on the trigger and
event selection efficiency, and ranges from 3 to 16% from the most central to
the most peripheral events used in this analysis.

##  0.7 Results

In this section, the results obtained for nonprompt fractions, prompt and
nonprompt cross sections for each collision system, and nuclear modification
factors $R_{\text{AA}}$ are presented and discussed. In addition, a derivation
of the $\psi\text{(2S)}$ $R_{\text{AA}}$ is also presented and discussed. For
all results plotted versus or $\abs{y}$, the abscissae of the points
correspond to the centre of the respective bin, and the horizontal error bars
reflect the width of the bin. The lower thresholds in the different rapidity
intervals reflect the detector acceptance. In the range $1.8<\abs{y}<2.4$ are
measured down to 3, while for the bins with $\abs{y}<1.8$ they are measured
down to 6.5. When plotted as a function of centrality, the abscissae are the
average $N_{\text{part}}$ values for minimum bias events within each
centrality bin. The weighted average $N_{\text{part}}$ values (weighted for
the number of binary nucleon-nucleon collisions) correspond in most cases to
the average $N_{\text{part}}$ values for minimum bias events, with the
exception of the most peripheral bin (50–100%) where $N_{\text{part}}$ changes
from 22 to 43. The centrality binning used is
0–5–10–15–20–25–30–35–40–45–50–60–70–100% for the results in $\abs{y}<2.4$,
and 0–10–20–30–40–50–100% for the results differential in rapidity.

###  0.7.1 Nonprompt meson fractions

The nonprompt meson fraction is defined as the proportion of measured mesons
coming from b hadron decays, corrected for acceptance and efficiency. It is
presented in Fig. 2 for $\Pp\Pp$ and PbPb collisions, as a function of and
rapidity, in the full $\abs{y}<2.4$ and $6.5<\pt<50\GeVc$ range. No
significant rapidity dependence is observed, while there is a strong
dependence, from about 20% at low to 60% at high , reflecting the different
distributions of prompt and nonprompt mesons, which highlights the necessity
of separating the two contributions.

Figure 2: Fraction of mesons coming from the decay of b hadrons, i.e.
nonprompt meson fraction, as a function of dimuon (left) and rapidity (right)
for $\Pp\Pp$ and PbPb collisions, for all centralities. The bars (boxes)
represent statistical (systematic) point-by-point uncertainties.

###  0.7.2 Prompt and nonprompt meson cross sections in $\Pp\Pp$ and PbPb
collisions

The measurements of the prompt and nonprompt cross sections can help to test
the existing theoretical models of both quarkonium production and b hadron
production. The cross sections are computed from the corrected yields,

$\frac{\rd^{2}N}{\rd\pt\,\rd{}y}=\frac{1}{\Delta\pt\,\Delta
y}\,\frac{N_{\JPsi}}{\mathcal{A}\,\epsilon},$ (1)

where $N_{\JPsi}$ is the number of prompt or nonprompt mesons, $\mathcal{A}$
is the acceptance, $\epsilon$ is the efficiency, and $\Delta\pt$ and $\Delta
y$ are the and rapidity bin widths, respectively. To put the $\Pp\Pp$ and PbPb
data on a comparable scale, the corrected yields are normalised by the
measured integrated luminosity for pp collisions ($\sigma=N/\mathcal{L}$), and
by the product of the number of corresponding minimum bias events and the
centrality-integrated nuclear overlap value for PbPb collisions
($N/(N_{\mathrm{MB}}T_{\text{AA}})$). Global uncertainties (common to all
measurements) arise from these normalisation factors and account for the
integrated luminosity uncertainty in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions ($\pm$2.3%) and the
$N_{\text{MB}}$ and $T_{\text{AA}}$ uncertainty for PbPb collisions
$\left({}^{+3.4\%}_{-3.9\%}\right)$, respectively.

The cross sections for the production of prompt and nonprompt mesons that
decay into two muons ($\mathcal{B}\sigma$, where $\mathcal{B}$ is the
branching ratio of to dimuons) are reported as a function of and rapidity in
Fig. 3.

Figure 3: Differential cross section of prompt mesons (left) and mesons from b
hadrons (nonprompt ) (right) decaying into two muons as a function of dimuon
(upper) and rapidity (lower) in $\Pp\Pp$ and PbPb collisions. The PbPb cross
sections are normalised by $T_{\text{AA}}$ for direct comparison. The bars
(boxes) represent statistical (systematic) point-by-point uncertainties, while
global uncertainties are written on the plots.

###  0.7.3 Prompt meson nuclear modification factor

In order to compute the nuclear modification factor $R_{\text{AA}}$ in a given
bin of centrality (cent.), the above-mentioned PbPb and $\Pp\Pp$ normalised
cross sections are divided in the following way:

$R_{\text{AA}}=\frac{N^{\text{PbPb}}_{\JPsi}(\text{cent.})}{N^{{\Pp\Pp}}_{\JPsi}}\times\frac{\mathcal{A}^{{\Pp\Pp}}\times\epsilon^{{\Pp\Pp}}}{\mathcal{A}^{\text{PbPb}}\,\epsilon^{\text{PbPb}}(\text{cent.})}\times\frac{\mathcal{L}^{{\Pp\Pp}}}{N_{\text{MB}}\,\langle
T_{\text{AA}}\rangle\,(\text{cent. fraction})},$

where the centrality fraction is the fraction of the inclusive inelastic cross
section probed in the analysis bin. Global uncertainties (indicated as boxes
in the plots at $R_{\text{AA}}=1$) arise from the full $\Pp\Pp$ statistical
and systematic uncertainties and the PbPb $N_{\text{MB}}$ uncertainty when
binning as a function of the centrality; and from the integrated luminosity of
the $\Pp\Pp$ data, and the $N_{\text{MB}}$ and $T_{\text{AA}}$ uncertainties
of the PbPb data, when binning as a function of rapidity or .

Figure 4: Nuclear modification factor of prompt mesons as a function of dimuon
rapidity (upper left), $N_{\text{part}}$ (upper right) and dimuon (lower) at
$\sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{{}_{\text{NN}}}}}=5.02$. For the results as a function of
$N_{\text{part}}$ the most central bin corresponds to 0–5%, and the most
peripheral one to 70–100%. Results obtained at 2.76are overlaid for comparison
[12]. The bars (boxes) represent statistical (systematic) point-by-point
uncertainties. The boxes plotted at $R_{\text{AA}}=1$ indicate the size of the
global relative uncertainties.

In Fig. 4, the $R_{\text{AA}}$ of prompt mesons as a function of rapidity,
$N_{\text{part}}$ and are shown, integrating in each case over the other two
non-plotted variables. The results are compared to those obtained at
$\sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{{}_{\text{NN}}}}}=2.76$ [12], and they are found to be in
good overall agreement. No strong rapidity dependence of the suppression is
observed. As a function of centrality, the $R_{\text{AA}}$ is suppressed even
for the most peripheral bin (70–100%), with the suppression slowly increasing
with $N_{\text{part}}$. The $R_{\text{AA}}$ value for the most central events
(0–5%) is measured for $6.5<\pt<50$and $\abs{y}<2.4$ to be $0.219\pm
0.005\stat\pm 0.013\syst$. As a function of the $R_{\text{AA}}$ is
approximately constant in the range of 5–20, but an indication of less
suppression at higher is seen for the first time in quarkonia. Charged
hadrons, for which the suppression is usually attributed to parton energy loss
[16, 46], show a similar increase in $R_{\text{AA}}$ at high for PbPb
collisions at $\sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{{}_{\text{NN}}}}}=5.02$ [27].

Double-differential studies are also performed. Figure 5 shows the (left) and
centrality (right) dependence of prompt $R_{\text{AA}}$ measured in the mid-
and most forward rapidity intervals. A similar suppression pattern is observed
for both rapidities. Figure 6 (left) shows the dependence of $R_{\text{AA}}$
as a function of , for three centrality intervals. Although the mean level of
suppression strongly depends on the sampled centrality range, the general
trend of the dependence appears similar in all three centrality ranges,
including the increase of $R_{\text{AA}}$ at high . Finally, Fig. 6 (right)
considers the rapidity interval $1.8<\abs{y}<2.4$, where the acceptance goes
down at lower . The suppression is found to be similar in peripheral events at
moderate ($3<\pt<6.5$) and high ($6.5<\pt<50$) transverse momentum ranges, but
it is weaker for lower in the most central region. This is also reflected in
the first bin of the most forward measurement in Fig. 5 (left). A similarly
reduced suppression at low is observed by the ALICE Collaboration, which is
attributed to a regeneration contribution [9, 10].

Figure 5: Nuclear modification factor of prompt meson as a function of dimuon
(left) and $N_{\text{part}}$ (right), in the mid- and most forward rapidity
intervals. For the results as a function of $N_{\text{part}}$ the most central
bin corresponds to 0–10%, and the most peripheral one to 50–100%. The bars
(boxes) represent statistical (systematic) point-by-point uncertainties. The
boxes plotted at $R_{\text{AA}}=1$ indicate the size of the global relative
uncertainties.

Figure 6: Nuclear modification factor of prompt mesons. Left: as a function of
dimuon in three centrality bins. Right: as a function of $N_{\text{part}}$ at
moderate and high , in the forward $1.8<\abs{y}<2.4$ range. For the results as
a function of $N_{\text{part}}$ the most central bin corresponds to 0–10%, and
the most peripheral one to 50–100%. The bars (boxes) represent statistical
(systematic) point-by-point uncertainties. The boxes plotted at
$R_{\text{AA}}=1$ indicate the size of the global relative uncertainties.

###  0.7.4 Prompt $\psi\text{(2S)}$ meson nuclear modification factor

Having measured the prompt $R_{\text{AA}}$, one can derive that of the
$\psi\text{(2S)}$ meson by multiplying it by the double ratio
$(N_{\psi\text{(2S)}}/N_{\JPsi})_{\text{PbPb}}/(N_{\psi\text{(2S)}}/N_{\JPsi})_{{\Pp\Pp}}$
of the relative modification of the prompt $\psi\text{(2S)}$ and meson yields
from $\Pp\Pp$ to PbPb collisions published in Ref. [47]. Since the
$\psi\text{(2S)}$ yield suffers from lower statistics, the current analysis is
repeated using the wider bins of Ref. [47]. The centrality binning used is
0–10–20–30–40–50–100% for the results in $\abs{y}<1.6$, and 0–20–40–100% for
the results in $1.6<\abs{y}<2.4$. Since the statistical uncertainty in the
$\psi\text{(2S)}$ largely dominates, the uncertainties are propagated by
considering them to be uncorrelated to the double ratio uncertainties.

The results are presented in Fig. 7 as a function of dimuon and
$N_{\text{part}}$, in two rapidity ranges of different reach. In the bins
where the double ratio is consistent with 0, 95% CL intervals on the prompt
$\psi\text{(2S)}$ $R_{\text{AA}}$ are derived using the Feldman–Cousins
procedure [48]. The procedure to obtain the CL intervals is the same as in the
double ratio measurement, incorporating the $R_{\text{AA}}$ statistical and
systematic uncertainties as a nuisance parameter. It can be observed that the
$\psi\text{(2S)}$ meson production is more suppressed than that of mesons, in
the entire measured range. The $\psi\text{(2S)}$ meson $R_{\text{AA}}$ shows
no clear dependence of the suppression with , and hints of an increasing
suppression with collision centrality. These results show that the
$\psi\text{(2S)}$ mesons are more strongly affected by the medium created in
PbPb collisions than the mesons.

Figure 7: Nuclear modification factor of prompt and $\psi\text{(2S)}$ mesons
as a function of $N_{\text{part}}$ (left) and dimuon (right), at central
(upper, starting at $\pt=6.5$) and forward (lower, starting at $\pt=3.0$)
rapidity. The vertical arrows represent 95% confidence intervals in the bins
where the double ratio measurement is consistent with 0 (see text). For the
results as a function of $N_{\text{part}}$ the most central bin corresponds to
0–10% (0–20%), and the most peripheral one to 50–100% (40–100%), for
$\abs{y}<1.6$ ($1.6<\abs{y}<2.4$). The bars (boxes) represent statistical
(systematic) point-by-point uncertainties. The boxes plotted at
$R_{\text{AA}}=1$ indicate the size of the global relative uncertainties.

###  0.7.5 Nonprompt meson nuclear modification factor

The procedure applied to derive the prompt meson $R_{\text{AA}}$ is applied to
the nonprompt component. In Fig. 8, the $R_{\text{AA}}$ of nonprompt as a
function of rapidity, centrality and are shown, integrating in each case over
the other two non-plotted variables. The results are compared to those
obtained at $\sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{{}_{\text{NN}}}}}=2.76$ [12]. A good overall
agreement is found, although no rapidity dependence is observed in the present
analysis, while the suppression was slowly increasing towards forward
rapidities in the lower-energy measurement. A steady increase of the
suppression is observed with increasing centrality of the collision. The
$R_{\text{AA}}$ for the most central events (0–5%) measured for
$6.5<\pt<50$and $\abs{y}<2.4$ is $0.365\pm 0.009\stat\pm 0.022\syst$.

Figure 8: Nuclear modification factor of mesons from b hadrons (nonprompt ) as
a function of dimuon rapidity (upper left), $N_{\text{part}}$ (upper right)
and dimuon (lower) at $\sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{{}_{\text{NN}}}}}=5.02$. For the
results as a function of $N_{\text{part}}$ the most central bin corresponds to
0–5%, and the most peripheral one to 70–100%. Results obtained at 2.76are
overlaid for comparison [12]. The bars (boxes) represent statistical
(systematic) point-by-point uncertainties. The boxes plotted at
$R_{\text{AA}}=1$ indicate the size of the global relative uncertainties.

As for the prompt production case, double-differential studies are also
performed. Figure 9 shows the (left) and centrality (right) dependence of
nonprompt meson $R_{\text{AA}}$ measured in the mid- and most forward rapidity
intervals. No strong rapidity dependence is observed, and a hint of a smaller
suppression at low is seen in the $1.8<\abs{y}<2.4$ range. Figure 10 (left)
shows the dependence of $R_{\text{AA}}$ as a function of , for three
centrality ranges. While the nonprompt meson $R_{\text{AA}}$ does not seem to
depend on rapidity, the data indicates a larger dependence in peripheral
events. Finally, Fig. 10 (right) shows, for $1.8<\abs{y}<2.4$, $R_{\text{AA}}$
as a function of $N_{\text{part}}$, for two intervals. Hints of a stronger
suppression are seen for $\pt>6.5\GeVc$ at all centralities.

Figure 9: Nuclear modification factor of mesons from b hadrons (nonprompt ) as
a function of dimuon (left) and $N_{\text{part}}$ (right) and in the mid- and
most forward rapidity intervals. For the results as a function of
$N_{\text{part}}$ the most central bin corresponds to 0–10%, and the most
peripheral one to 50–100%. The bars (boxes) represent statistical (systematic)
point-by-point uncertainties. The boxes plotted at $R_{\text{AA}}=1$ indicate
the size of the global relative uncertainties.

Figure 10: Nuclear modification factor of mesons from b hadrons (nonprompt ).
Left: as a function of dimuon in three centrality bins. Right: as a function
of $N_{\text{part}}$ at moderate and high , in the forward $1.8<\abs{y}<2.4$
range. For the results as a function of $N_{\text{part}}$ the most central bin
corresponds to 0–10%, and the most peripheral one to 50–100%. The bars (boxes)
represent statistical (systematic) point-by-point uncertainties. The boxes
plotted at $R_{\text{AA}}=1$ indicate the size of the global relative
uncertainties.

##  0.8 Conclusions

Prompt and nonprompt meson production has been studied in $\Pp\Pp$ and PbPb
collisions at $\sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{{}_{\text{NN}}}}}=5.02\TeV$, as a function
of rapidity, transverse momentum (), and collision centrality, in different
kinematic and centrality ranges. Three observables were measured: nonprompt
fractions, prompt and nonprompt cross sections for each collision system, and
nuclear modification factors $R_{\text{AA}}$. The $R_{\text{AA}}$ results show
a strong centrality dependence, with an increasing suppression for increasing
centrality. For both prompt and nonprompt mesons no significant dependence on
rapidity is observed. An indication of less suppression in the lowest range at
forward rapidity is seen for both components. Double-differential measurements
show the same trend, and also suggest a stronger dependence in peripheral
events. An indication of less suppression of the prompt meson at high is seen
with respect to that observed at intermediate . The measurements are
consistent with previous results at
$\sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{{}_{\text{NN}}}}}=2.76\TeV$.

Combined with previous results for the double ratio
$(N_{\psi\text{(2S)}}/N_{\JPsi})_{\text{PbPb}}/(N_{\psi\text{(2S)}}/N_{\JPsi})_{{\Pp\Pp}}$,
the current $R_{\text{AA}}$ values for mesons are used to derive the prompt
$\psi\text{(2S)}$ meson $R_{\text{AA}}$ in PbPb collisions at
$\sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{{}_{\text{NN}}}}}=5.02\TeV$, as a function of and
collision centrality, in two different rapidity ranges. The results show that
the $\psi\text{(2S)}$ is more suppressed than the meson for all the
kinematical ranges studied. No dependence is observed within the current
uncertainties. Hints of an increase in suppression with increasing collision
centrality are also observed.

###### 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 centres and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for
delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our
analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction
and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following
funding agencies: BMWFW and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq,
CAPES, FAPERJ, 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); OTKA and NIH (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM
(Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); LAS
(Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT, LNS, SEP, and
UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC
(Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom, RAS, RFBR and RAEP
(Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI and FEDER (Spain); Swiss Funding
Agencies (Switzerland); MST (Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR, and NSTDA
(Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); NASU and SFFR (Ukraine); STFC (United
Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA). Individuals have received support from the Marie-
Curie programme and the European Research Council and Horizon 2020 Grant,
contract 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 Ministry of Education, Youth and
Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Council of Science and Industrial
Research, India; the HOMING PLUS programme of the Foundation for Polish
Science, cofinanced from European Union, Regional Development Fund, the
Mobility Plus programme of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, the
National Science Center (Poland), contracts Harmonia 2014/14/M/ST2/00428, Opus
2014/13/B/ST2/02543, 2014/15/B/ST2/03998, and 2015/19/B/ST2/02861, Sonata-bis
2012/07/E/ST2/01406; the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar
National Research Fund; the Programa Severo Ochoa del Principado de Asturias;
the Thalis and Aristeia programmes cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF;
the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn
University and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century Project
Advancement Project (Thailand); the Welch Foundation, contract C-1845; and the
Weston Havens Foundation (USA).

## References

  * [1] T. Matsui and H. Satz, “ suppression by quark-gluon plasma formation”,  Phys. Lett. B 178 (1986) 416, 10.1016/0370-2693(86)91404-8.
  * [2] S. Digal, P. Petreczky, and H. Satz, “Quarkonium feed down and sequential suppression”,  Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 094015, 10.1103/PhysRevD.64.094015, arXiv:hep-ph/0106017.
  * [3] NA50 Collaboration, “A new measurement of suppression in PbPb collisions at 158 per nucleon”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 39 (2005) 335, 10.1140/epjc/s2004-02107-9, arXiv:hep-ex/0412036.
  * [4] PHENIX Collaboration, “ production versus centrality, transverse momentum, and rapidity in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{{}_{\text{NN}}}}}$ = 200”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 232301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.232301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0611020.
  * [5] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of sequential $\Upsilon$ suppression in PbPb collisions”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 222301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.222301, arXiv:1208.2826.
  * [6] ALICE Collaboration, “Suppression of $\Upsilon(1S)$ at forward rapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{{}_{\text{NN}}}}}=2.76$ TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 738 (2014) 361, 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.10.001, arXiv:1405.4493.
  * [7] P. Braun-Munzinger and J. Stachel, “(non)thermal aspects of charmonium production and a new look at J$/\psi$ suppression”,  Phys. Lett. B 490 (2000) 196, 10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00991-6, arXiv:nucl-th/0007059.
  * [8] R. L. Thews, M. Schroedter, and J. Rafelski, “Enhanced production in deconfined quark matter”,  Phys. Rev. C 63 (2001) 054905, 10.1103/PhysRevC.63.054905, arXiv:hep-ph/0007323.
  * [9] ALICE Collaboration, “suppression at forward rapidity in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{{}_{\text{NN}}}}}$ = 2.76”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 072301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.072301, arXiv:1202.1383.
  * [10] ALICE Collaboration, “suppression at forward rapidity in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{{}_{\text{NN}}}}}$ = 5.02”,  Phys. Lett. B 766 (2017) 212, 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.12.064, arXiv:1606.08197.
  * [11] PHENIX Collaboration, “ suppression at forward rapidity in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{{}_{\text{NN}}}}}$ = 200”,  Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 054912, 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.054912, arXiv:1103.6269.
  * [12] CMS Collaboration, “Suppression and azimuthal anisotropy of prompt and nonprompt ${\mathrm{J}}/\psi$ production in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{{s_{{}_{\text{NN}}}}}=2.76$ $\,\mathrm{TeV}$”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 252, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4781-1, arXiv:1610.00613.
  * [13] M. Strickland, “Thermal $\Upsilon_{1S}$ and $\chi_{\mathrm{b}1}$ suppression in $\sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{{}_{\text{NN}}}}}=2.76$ TeV Pb-Pb collisions at the LHC”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 132301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.132301, arXiv:1106.2571.
  * [14] X. Du and R. Rapp, “Sequential regeneration of charmonia in heavy-ion collisions”,  Nucl. Phys. A 943 (2015) 147, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2015.09.006, arXiv:1504.00670.
  * [15] M. Spousta, “On similarity of jet quenching and charmonia suppression”,  Phys. Lett. B 767 (2017) 10, 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.01.041, arXiv:1606.00903.
  * [16] F. Arleo, “Quenching of hadron spectra in heavy ion collisions at the LHC”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 062302, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.062302, arXiv:1703.10852.
  * [17] LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of production in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1645, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1645-y, arXiv:1103.0423.
  * [18] CMS Collaboration, “Prompt and non-prompt production in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1575, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1575-8, arXiv:1011.4193.
  * [19] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the differential cross-sections of inclusive, prompt and non-prompt production in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7TeV”,  Nucl. Phys. B 850 (2011) 387, 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2011.05.015, arXiv:1104.3038.
  * [20] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [21] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [22] CMS Collaboration, “Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker”,  JINST 9 (2014) P10009, 10.1088/1748-0221/9/10/P10009.
  * [23] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-$k_{t}$ jet clustering algorithm”,  JHEP 04 (2008) 063, 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063, arXiv:0802.1189.
  * [24] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “FastJet user manual”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1896, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2.
  * [25] CMS Collaboration, “Transverse momentum and pseudorapidity distributions of charged hadrons in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=0.9$ and 2.36 TeV”,  JHEP 02 (2010) 041, 10.1007/JHEP02(2010)041, arXiv:1002.0621.
  * [26] CMS Collaboration, “Dependence on pseudorapidity and centrality of charged hadron production in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{{}_{\text{NN}}}}}$ = 2.76”,  JHEP 08 (2011) 141, 10.1007/JHEP08(2011)141, arXiv:1107.4800.
  * [27] CMS Collaboration, “Charged-particle nuclear modification factors in PbPb and pPb collisions at $\sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{{}_{\text{NN}}}}}=5.02$ TeV”,  JHEP 04 (2017) 039, 10.1007/JHEP04(2017)039, arXiv:1611.01664.
  * [28] 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.
  * [29] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, “A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1”,  Comp. Phys. Comm. 178 (2008) 852, 10.1016/j.cpc.2008.01.036, arXiv:0710.3820.
  * [30] D. J. Lange, “The EvtGen particle decay simulation package”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 462 (2001) 152, 10.1016/S0168-9002(01)00089-4.
  * [31] I. P. Lokhtin and A. M. Snigirev, “A model of jet quenching in ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions and high-hadron spectra at RHIC”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 45 (2006) 211, 10.1140/epjc/s2005-02426-3, arXiv:hep-ph/0506189.
  * [32] GEANT Collaboration, “GEANT4 — a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [33] ALICE Collaboration, “ polarization in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2011) 082001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.082001, arXiv:1111.1630.
  * [34] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the prompt and $\psi\text{(2S)}$ polarizations in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7”,  Phys. Lett. B 727 (2013) 381, 10.1016/j.physletb.2013.10.055, arXiv:1307.6070.
  * [35] LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of polarization in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2631, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2631-3, arXiv:1307.6379.
  * [36] CMS Collaboration, “Suppression of non-prompt , prompt , and $\Upsilon\text{(1S)}$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{{}_{\text{NN}}}}}$ = 2.76 TeV”,  JHEP 05 (2012) 063, 10.1007/JHEP05(2012)063, arXiv:1201.5069.
  * [37] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of quarkonium production cross sections in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 780 (2018) 251–272, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.02.033, arXiv:1710.11002.
  * [38] CMS Collaboration, “$\Upsilon(\mathrm{nS})$ polarizations versus particle multiplicity in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 7 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 761 (2016) 31–52, 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.07.065, arXiv:1603.02913.
  * [39] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in pp collision events at $\sqrt{s}=7$”,  JINST 7 (2012) P10002, 10.1088/1748-0221/7/10/P10002, arXiv:1206.4071.
  * [40] ALEPH Collaboration, “Measurement of the anti-B0 and B- meson lifetimes”,  Phys. Lett. B 307 (1993) 194, 10.1016/0370-2693(93)90211-Y. [Errata: 10.1016/0370-2693(94)90054-X].
  * [41] Particle Data Group, C. Patrignani et al., “Review of particle physics”,  Chin. Phys. C 40 (2016) 100001, 10.1088/1674-1137/40/10/100001.
  * [42] M. J. Oreglia, “A study of the reactions $\psi^{\prime}\to\gamma\gamma\psi$”.  PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1980.  SLAC Report SLAC-R-236, see Appendix D.
  * [43] M. Pivk and F. R. Le Diberder, “sPlot: a statistical tool to unfold data distributions”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 555 (2005) 356, 10.1016/j.nima.2005.08.106, arXiv:physics/0402083.
  * [44] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of inclusive $W$ and $Z$ cross sections in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”,  JHEP 01 (2011) 080, 10.1007/JHEP01(2011)080, arXiv:1012.2466.
  * [45] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity calibration for the pp reference run at $\sqrt{s}=5.02\,\mathrm{TeV}$”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-16-001, 2016.
  * [46] D. d’Enterria, “Jet quenching”, in  Springer Materials - The Landolt-Börnstein Database, R. Stock, ed., volume 23: Relativistic Heavy Ion Physics, p. 99.  Springer-Verlag, 2010.  arXiv:0902.2011.  10.1007/978-3-642-01539-7_16.
  * [47] CMS Collaboration, “Relative modification of prompt $\psi$(2S) and yields from $pp$ to PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{{}_{\text{NN}}}}}=5.02$ TeV”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 162301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.162301, arXiv:1611.01438.
  * [48] G. J. Feldman and R. D. Cousins, “A unified approach to the classical statistical analysis of small signals”,  Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 3873, 10.1103/PhysRevD.57.3873, arXiv:physics/9711021.

##  .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, M. Friedl, R.
Frühwirth1, V.M. Ghete, J. Grossmann, J. Hrubec, M. Jeitler1, A. König, N.
Krammer, I. Krätschmer, D. Liko, T. Madlener, I. Mikulec, E. Pree, N. Rad, H.
Rohringer, J. Schieck1, R. Schöfbeck, M. Spanring, D. Spitzbart, 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. 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, T. Maerschalk, A. Marinov, T. Seva, E. Starling, C. Vander
Velde, P. Vanlaer, D. Vannerom, R. Yonamine, F. Zenoni Ghent University,
Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, A. Fagot, M. Gul, I. Khvastunov2, D. Poyraz, C. Roskas,
S. Salva, M. Tytgat, W. Verbeke, N. Zaganidis Université Catholique de
Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
H. Bakhshiansohi, O. Bondu, S. Brochet, G. Bruno, C. Caputo, A. Caudron, P.
David, S. De Visscher, C. Delaere, M. Delcourt, B. Francois, A. Giammanco, M.
Komm, G. Krintiras, V. Lemaitre, A. Magitteri, A. Mertens, M. Musich, K.
Piotrzkowski, L. Quertenmont, A. Saggio, M. Vidal Marono, S. Wertz, J. Zobec
Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
W.L. Aldá Júnior, F.L. Alves, G.A. Alves, L. Brito, M. Correa Martins Junior,
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, S. Fonseca De Souza, L.M.
Huertas Guativa, H. Malbouisson, M. Melo De Almeida, C. Mora Herrera, L.
Mundim, H. Nogima, 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, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M. Gregoresb, P.G.
Mercadanteb, S.F. Novaesa, Sandra S. Padulaa, D. Romero Abadb, J.C. Ruiz
Vargasa Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy
of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, 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, S. Zhang, J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of
Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
Y. Ban, G. Chen, J. Li, Q. Li, S. Liu, Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang, Z. Xu, F.
Zhang5 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, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, 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, P.M. Ribeiro Cipriano, 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 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, Y. Mohammed8, E. Salama9,10 National Institute of Chemical
Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
R.K. Dewanjee, M. Kadastik, L. Perrini, M. Raidal, A. Tiko, 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, 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, S. Ghosh, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry, I. Kucher, C.
Leloup, E. Locci, M. Machet, 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. Abdulsalam, C. Amendola, I. Antropov, S. Baffioni, F. Beaudette, P. Busson,
L. Cadamuro, C. Charlot, R. Granier de Cassagnac, M. Jo, 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, T. Strebler, Y.
Yilmaz, A. Zabi, A. Zghiche Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178,
F-67000 Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram11, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, J.-M. Brom, M. Buttignol, E.C. Chabert, N.
Chanon, C. Collard, E. Conte11, X. Coubez, J.-C. Fontaine11, 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, 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, M. Lethuillier, L. Mirabito, A.L. Pequegnot, S.
Perries, A. Popov12, V. Sordini, M. Vander Donckt, S. Viret Georgian Technical
University, Tbilisi, Georgia
T. Toriashvili13 Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
Z. Tsamalaidze7 RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen,
Germany
C. Autermann, L. Feld, M.K. Kiesel, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, M. Preuten, C.
Schomakers, J. Schulz, M. Teroerde, V. Zhukov12 RWTH Aachen University, III.
Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany
A. Albert, E. Dietz-Laursonn, D. Duchardt, M. Endres, M. Erdmann, S. Erdweg,
T. Esch, R. Fischer, A. Güth, M. Hamer, T. Hebbeker, C. Heidemann, K.
Hoepfner, S. Knutzen, M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, P. Millet, S. Mukherjee, T.
Pook, M. Radziej, H. Reithler, M. Rieger, F. Scheuch, D. Teyssier, S. Thüer
RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany
G. Flügge, B. Kargoll, T. Kress, A. Künsken, T. Müller, A. Nehrkorn, A.
Nowack, C. Pistone, O. Pooth, A. Stahl14 Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron,
Hamburg, Germany
M. Aldaya Martin, T. Arndt, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, K. Beernaert, O. Behnke, U.
Behrens, A. Bermúdez Martínez, A.A. Bin Anuar, K. Borras15, V. Botta, A.
Campbell, P. Connor, C. Contreras-Campana, F. Costanza, C. Diez Pardos, G.
Eckerlin, D. Eckstein, T. Eichhorn, E. Eren, E. Gallo16, J. Garay Garcia, A.
Geiser, J.M. Grados Luyando, A. Grohsjean, P. Gunnellini, M. Guthoff, A. Harb,
J. Hauk, M. Hempel17, H. Jung, M. Kasemann, J. Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, I.
Korol, D. Krücker, W. Lange, A. Lelek, T. Lenz, J. Leonard, K. Lipka, W.
Lohmann17, R. Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, A.B. Meyer, G. Mittag, J. Mnich,
A. Mussgiller, E. Ntomari, D. Pitzl, A. Raspereza, M. Savitskyi, P. Saxena, R.
Shevchenko, N. Stefaniuk, G.P. Van Onsem, R. Walsh, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C.
Wissing, O. Zenaiev University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, V. Blobel, M. Centis Vignali, T. Dreyer, E. Garutti, D.
Gonzalez, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, M. Hoffmann, A. Karavdina, R. Klanner, R.
Kogler, N. Kovalchuk, S. Kurz, T. Lapsien, D. Marconi, M. Meyer, M. Niedziela,
D. Nowatschin, F. Pantaleo14, T. Peiffer, A. Perieanu, C. Scharf, P. Schleper,
A. Schmidt, S. Schumann, J. Schwandt, J. Sonneveld, H. Stadie, G. Steinbrück,
F.M. Stober, M. Stöver, H. Tholen, D. Troendle, E. Usai, A. Vanhoefer, B.
Vormwald Institut für Experimentelle Kernphysik, 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, R. Friese, M.
Giffels, M.A. Harrendorf, F. Hartmann14, S.M. Heindl, U. Husemann, F.
Kassel14, S. Kudella, H. Mildner, 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, I. Topsis-
Giotis National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
G. Karathanasis, S. Kesisoglou, A. Panagiotou, N. Saoulidou National Technical
University of Athens, Athens, Greece
K. Kousouris 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. Csanad, N. Filipovic, G. Pasztor, O. Surányi, G.I. Veres18 Wigner Research
Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath19, Á. Hunyadi, F. Sikler, V. Veszpremi
Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi20, A. Makovec, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi
Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
M. Bartók18, P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari Indian Institute of Science
(IISc), Bangalore, India
S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri National Institute of Science Education and
Research, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati21, S. Bhowmik, P. Mal, K. Mandal, A. Nayak22, D.K. Sahoo21, N.
Sahoo, S.K. Swain Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, R. Chawla, N. Dhingra, A. Kaur, M. Kaur,
S. Kaur, R. Kumar, P. Kumari, A. Mehta, J.B. Singh, G. Walia University of
Delhi, Delhi, India
A. Bhardwaj, S. Chauhan, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, S. Keshri, A. Kumar, Ashok
Kumar, S. Malhotra, M. Naimuddin, K. Ranjan, Aashaq Shah, R. Sharma Saha
Institute of Nuclear Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India
R. Bhardwaj, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, U. Bhawandeep, S. Dey, S. Dutt,
S. Dutta, S. Ghosh, N. Majumdar, A. Modak, K. Mondal, S. Mukhopadhyay, S.
Nandan, A. Purohit, A. Roy, S. Roy Chowdhury, S. Sarkar, M. Sharan, S. Thakur
Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
R. Chudasama, D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, A.K. Mohanty14, P.K. Netrakanti,
L.M. Pant, P. Shukla, A. Topkar Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A,
Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, S. Dugad, B. Mahakud, S. Mitra, G.B. Mohanty, N. Sur, B. Sutar Tata
Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, P. Das, M. Guchait, Sa. Jain, S.
Kumar, M. Maity23, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, T. Sarkar23, N. Wickramage24
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. Chenarani25, E. Eskandari Tadavani, S.M. Etesami25, M. Khakzad, M.
Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri, S. Paktinat Mehdiabadi26, 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, F. Erricoa,b, L. Fiorea, 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,14, R. Vendittia, P. Verwilligena INFN Sezione di
Bologna a, Università di Bologna b, Bologna, Italy
G. Abbiendia, C. Battilanaa,b, D. Bonacorsia,b, L. Borgonovia,b, S. Braibant-
Giacomellia,b, R. Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A. Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa,
S.S. Chhibraa, G. Codispotia,b, M. Cuffiania,b, G.M. Dallavallea, F. Fabbria,
A. Fanfania,b, D. Fasanellaa,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, S. Costaa,b, A. Di Mattiaa, F. Giordanoa,b, 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, 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. Primavera14 INFN Sezione di
Genova a, Università di Genova b, Genova, Italy
V. Calvellia,b, 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,14, M.E.
Dinardoa,b, S. Fiorendia,b, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P. Govonia,b, M.
Malbertia,b, S. Malvezzia, R.A. Manzonia,b, D. Menascea, L. Moronia, M.
Paganonia,b, K. Pauwelsa,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Pigazzinia,b,29, 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, S. Di Guidaa,d,14, F. Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa,b,
A.O.M. Iorioa,b, W.A. Khana, L. Listaa, S. Meolaa,d,14, P. Paoluccia,14, C.
Sciaccaa,b, F. Thyssena INFN Sezione di Padova a, Università di Padova b,
Padova, Italy, Università di Trento c, Trento, Italy
P. Azzia, N. Bacchettaa, L. Benatoa,b, D. Biselloa,b, A. Bolettia,b, R.
Carlina,b, A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveiraa,b, P. Checchiaa, M. Dall’Ossoa,b,
P. De Castro Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa, F. Gasparinia,b, U. Gasparinia,b, A.
Gozzelinoa, S. Lacapraraa, P. Lujan, M. Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,b, N.
Pozzobona,b, P. Ronchesea,b, R. Rossina,b, F. Simonettoa,b, E. Torassaa, S.
Venturaa, M. Zanettia,b, P. Zottoa,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, R. Leonardia,b, E. Manonia, G. Mantovania,b, V.
Mariania,b, M. Menichellia, A. Rossia,b, A. Santocchiaa,b, D. Spigaa INFN
Sezione di Pisa a, Università di Pisa b, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa c,
Pisa, Italy
K. Androsova, P. Azzurria,14, G. Bagliesia, T. Boccalia, L. Borrello, R.
Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, G. Fedia, L. Gianninia,c, A.
Giassia, M.T. Grippoa,28, F. Ligabuea,c, T. Lomtadzea, E. Mancaa,c, G.
Mandorlia,c, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, A. Rizzia,b, A. Savoy-Navarroa,30, 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,14, E. Di
Marcoa,b, M. Diemoza, S. Gellia,b, E. Longoa,b, F. Margarolia,b, B.
Marzocchia,b, P. Meridiania, G. Organtinia,b, 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, M. Costaa,b, R.
Covarellia,b, A. Deganoa,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, A. Staianoa, P. Traczyka,b INFN Sezione di Trieste a,
Università di Trieste b, Trieste, Italy
S. Belfortea, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, G. Della Riccaa,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 Chonbuk National University, Jeonju, Korea
A. Lee Chonnam National University, Institute for Universe and Elementary
Particles, Kwangju, Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon, G. Oh Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, J. Goh, T.J. Kim Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, D. Gyun, S. Ha, B. Hong, Y. Jo, Y. Kim, K. Lee, K.S.
Lee, S. Lee, J. Lim, S.K. Park, Y. Roh 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
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 Ali31, F. Mohamad Idris32, W.A.T. Wan
Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios
Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
Duran-Osuna, M. C., H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, Ramirez-Sanchez,
G., I. Heredia-De La Cruz33, Rabadan-Trejo, R. I., R. Lopez-Fernandez, J.
Mejia Guisao, Reyes-Almanza, R, 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
P.H. Butler National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam University, Islamabad,
Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M. Ahmad, 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. Zalewski Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty
of Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk34, 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, V. Korenkov, G. Kozlov, A.
Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev35,36, V.V. Mitsyn, V. Palichik, V. Perelygin,
S. Shmatov, N. Skatchkov, V. Smirnov, B.S. Yuldashev37, A. Zarubin, V.
Zhiltsov Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg),
Russia
Y. Ivanov, V. Kim38, E. Kuznetsova39, 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, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A. Zhokin Moscow
Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev, A. Bylinkin36 National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow
Engineering Physics Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
M. Chadeeva40, P. Parygin, D. Philippov, S. Polikarpov, E. Popova, V. Rusinov
P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin36, I. Dremin36, M. Kirakosyan36, A. Terkulov Skobeltsyn
Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow,
Russia
A. Baskakov, A. Belyaev, E. Boos, A. Demiyanov, A. Ershov, A. Gribushin, O.
Kodolova, V. Korotkikh, I. Lokhtin, I. Miagkov, S. Obraztsov, S. Petrushanko,
V. Savrin, A. Snigirev, I. Vardanyan Novosibirsk State University (NSU),
Novosibirsk, Russia
V. Blinov41, D. Shtol41, Y. Skovpen41 State Research Center of Russian
Federation, Institute for High Energy Physics of NRC &quot, Kurchatov
Institute&quot, , Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, S. Bitioukov, D. Elumakhov, A. Godizov, V. Kachanov,
A. Kalinin, D. Konstantinov, P. Mandrik, V. Petrov, R. Ryutin, A. Sobol, S.
Troshin, N. Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov University of Belgrade, Faculty of
Physics and Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic42, P. Cirkovic, D. Devetak, M. Dordevic, J. Milosevic, V. Rekovic
Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas
(CIEMAT), Madrid, Spain
J. Alcaraz Maestre, A. Álvarez Fernández, I. Bachiller, M. Barrio Luna, 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,
A. Quintario Olmeda, I. Redondo, L. Romero, M.S. Soares Universidad Autónoma
de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
C. Albajar, J.F. de Trocóniz, M. Missiroli Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo,
Spain
J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, I. Gonzalez Caballero, J.R.
González Fernández, E. Palencia Cortezon, 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, E. Curras, J. Duarte Campderros,
M. Fernandez, J. Garcia-Ferrero, G. Gomez, A. Lopez Virto, J. Marco, C.
Martinez Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del Arbol, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, 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, P. Bloch, A. Bocci, C. Botta, T. Camporesi, R. Castello,
M. Cepeda, G. Cerminara, E. Chapon, Y. Chen, D. d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, V.
Daponte, A. David, M. De Gruttola, A. De Roeck, N. Deelen, M. Dobson, T. du
Pree, M. Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, P. Everaerts, F. Fallavollita,
G. Franzoni, J. Fulcher, W. Funk, D. Gigi, A. Gilbert, K. Gill, F. Glege, D.
Gulhan, P. Harris, J. Hegeman, V. Innocente, A. Jafari, P. Janot, O.
Karacheban17, J. Kieseler, V. Knünz, A. Kornmayer, M.J. Kortelainen, M.
Krammer1, C. Lange, P. Lecoq, C. Lourenço, M.T. Lucchini, L. Malgeri, M.
Mannelli, A. Martelli, F. Meijers, J.A. Merlin, S. Mersi, E. Meschi, P.
Milenovic43, F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, H. Neugebauer, J. Ngadiuba, S.
Orfanelli, L. Orsini, L. Pape, E. Perez, M. Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G.
Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, D. Rabady, A. Racz, T. Reis, G.
Rolandi44, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Seidel, M.
Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva, P. Sphicas45, A. Stakia, J. Steggemann, M.
Stoye, M. Tosi, D. Treille, A. Triossi, A. Tsirou, V. Veckalns46, M. Verweij,
W.D. Zeuner Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland
W. Bertl${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, L. Caminada47, K. Deiters, W. Erdmann, R.
Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C. Kaestli, D. Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, T. Rohe,
S.A. Wiederkehr ETH Zurich - Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics
(IPA), Zurich, Switzerland
M. Backhaus, L. Bäni, P. Berger, L. Bianchini, B. Casal, G. Dissertori, M.
Dittmar, M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, C. Grab, C. Heidegger, D. Hits, J. Hoss, G.
Kasieczka, T. Klijnsma, W. Lustermann, B. Mangano, M. Marionneau, M.T.
Meinhard, D. Meister, F. Micheli, P. Musella, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, F. Pandolfi,
J. Pata, F. Pauss, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, M. Quittnat, M. Reichmann, 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. Amsler48, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, R. Del Burgo, S.
Donato, C. Galloni, T. Hreus, B. Kilminster, D. Pinna, G. Rauco, P. Robmann,
D. Salerno, K. Schweiger, C. Seitz, Y. Takahashi, A. Zucchetta National
Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan
V. Candelise, 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, F. Fiori, W.-S. Hou, Y. Hsiung, Arun
Kumar, Y.F. Liu, R.-S. Lu, E. Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen, J.f. Tsai
Chulalongkorn University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok,
Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, K. Kovitanggoon, G. Singh, N. Srimanobhas Çukurova University,
Physics Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
M.N. Bakirci49, A. Bat, F. Boran, S. Damarseckin, Z.S. Demiroglu, C. Dozen, E.
Eskut, S. Girgis, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, I. Hos50, E.E. Kangal51, O. Kara, U.
Kiminsu, M. Oglakci, G. Onengut52, K. Ozdemir53, S. Ozturk49, D. Sunar
Cerci54, U.G. Tok, H. Topakli49, S. Turkcapar, I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez
Middle East Technical University, Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey
G. Karapinar55, K. Ocalan56, M. Yalvac, M. Zeyrek Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
E. Gülmez, M. Kaya57, O. Kaya58, S. Tekten, E.A. Yetkin59 Istanbul Technical
University, Istanbul, Turkey
M.N. Agaras, S. Atay, A. Cakir, K. Cankocak, I. Köseoglu 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. Newbold60,
S. Paramesvaran, T. Sakuma, S. Seif El Nasr-storey, D. Smith, V.J. Smith
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
A. Belyaev61, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, L. Calligaris, 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 Imperial College,
London, United Kingdom
G. Auzinger, R. Bainbridge, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A. Bundock, S.
Casasso, M. Citron, D. Colling, L. Corpe, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, A. De Wit, M.
Della Negra, R. Di Maria, A. Elwood, Y. Haddad, G. Hall, G. Iles, T. James, R.
Lane, C. Laner, L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, L. Mastrolorenzo, T.
Matsushita, J. Nash, A. Nikitenko6, V. Palladino, M. Pesaresi, D.M. Raymond,
A. Richards, A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A. Shtipliyski, S. Summers, A.
Tapper, K. Uchida, M. Vazquez Acosta62, T. Virdee14, N. Wardle, D.
Winterbottom, J. Wright, S.C. Zenz Brunel University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, I.D. Reid, L. Teodorescu, S. Zahid
Baylor University, Waco, USA
A. Borzou, K. Call, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, H. Liu, 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, A. Avetisyan, T. Bose, D. Gastler, D. Rankin, C. Richardson, J.
Rohlf, L. Sulak, D. Zou Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, D. Cutts, A. Garabedian, M. Hadley, J. Hakala, U. Heintz, J.M.
Hogan, K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, J. Lee, Z. Mao, M. Narain, J.
Pazzini, S. Piperov, S. Sagir, R. Syarif, 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, R. Lander, C. Mclean, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, J. Pilot, S. Shalhout,
M. Shi, J. Smith, D. Stolp, K. Tos, M. Tripathi, Z. Wang 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. Ellison, J.W. Gary, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi,
G. Hanson, J. Heilman, 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, M. Tadel, A. Vartak, S.
Wasserbaech63, 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, A. Dishaw, V. Dutta,
M. Franco Sevilla, L. Gouskos, R. Heller, J. Incandela, A. Ovcharova, H. Qu,
J. Richman, D. Stuart, I. Suarez, J. Yoo California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, USA
D. Anderson, A. Bornheim, J.M. Lawhorn, H.B. Newman, T. Nguyen, C. Pena, M.
Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, S. Xie, Z. Zhang, R.Y. Zhu Carnegie Mellon
University, Pittsburgh, USA
M.B. Andrews, T. Ferguson, T. Mudholkar, M. Paulini, J. Russ, M. Sun, H.
Vogel, I. Vorobiev, M. Weinberg University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, F. Jensen, A. Johnson, M. Krohn, S. Leontsinis, T.
Mulholland, K. Stenson, S.R. Wagner Cornell University, Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, J. Chaves, J. Chu, S. Dittmer, 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, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, J. Hirschauer, Z. Hu, B. Jayatilaka, S.
Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, B. Klima, B. Kreis, S. Lammel, D. Lincoln,
R. Lipton, M. Liu, T. Liu, R. Lopes De Sá, J. Lykken, K. Maeshima, N. Magini,
J.M. Marraffino, D. Mason, P. McBride, P. Merkel, S. Mrenna, S. Nahn, V.
O’Dell, K. Pedro, O. Prokofyev, G. Rakness, L. Ristori, 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, A. Carnes, M.
Carver, D. Curry, R.D. Field, I.K. Furic, S.V. Gleyzer, B.M. Joshi, J.
Konigsberg, A. Korytov, K. Kotov, P. Ma, K. Matchev, H. Mei, G. Mitselmakher,
K. Shi, D. Sperka, N. Terentyev, L. Thomas, J. Wang, S. Wang, J. Yelton
Florida International University, Miami, USA
Y.R. Joshi, S. Linn, P. Markowitz, J.L. Rodriguez 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, 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, O.
Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, K. Jung, J. Kamin, I.D.
Sandoval Gonzalez, M.B. Tonjes, H. Trauger, N. Varelas, H. Wang, Z. Wu, J.
Zhang The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
B. Bilki64, W. Clarida, K. Dilsiz65, S. Durgut, R.P. Gandrajula, M.
Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko, J.-P. Merlo, H. Mermerkaya66, A. Mestvirishvili,
A. Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul67, Y. Onel, F. Ozok68, A. Penzo, C. Snyder,
E. Tiras, J. Wetzel, K. Yi Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
B. Blumenfeld, A. Cocoros, N. Eminizer, D. Fehling, L. Feng, A.V. Gritsan, P.
Maksimovic, J. Roskes, U. Sarica, M. Swartz, M. Xiao, C. You The University of
Kansas, Lawrence, USA
A. Al-bataineh, P. Baringer, A. Bean, S. Boren, J. Bowen, J. Castle, S.
Khalil, A. Kropivnitskaya, D. Majumder, W. Mcbrayer, M. Murray, C. Royon, S.
Sanders, E. Schmitz, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang Kansas State University,
Manhattan, USA
A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, Y. Maravin, A. Mohammadi, L.K. Saini, N. Skhirtladze
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright University of Maryland, College Park, USA
C. Anelli, 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 Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, V. Azzolini, R. Barbieri, A. Baty, R. Bi, S. Brandt,
W. Busza, I.A. Cali, M. D’Alfonso, Z. Demiragli, G. Gomez Ceballos, M.
Goncharov, D. Hsu, M. Hu, Y. Iiyama, G.M. Innocenti, M. Klute, D. Kovalskyi,
Y.-J. Lee, A. Levin, P.D. Luckey, B. Maier, A.C. Marini, C. Mcginn, C.
Mironov, S. Narayanan, X. Niu, C. Paus, C. Roland, G. Roland, J. Salfeld-
Nebgen, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Tatar, D. Velicanu, J. Wang, T.W. Wang, B.
Wyslouch University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
A.C. Benvenuti, R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, P. Hansen, J. Hiltbrand, 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
J. Dolen, A. Godshalk, C. Harrington, I. Iashvili, D. Nguyen, A. Parker, S.
Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani Northeastern University, Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, A. Hortiangtham, A. Massironi, D.M. Morse,
T. Orimoto, R. Teixeira De Lima, D. Trocino, 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.
Musienko35, 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, B. Liu, W. Luo, B.L. Winer, H.W. Wulsin Princeton
University, Princeton, USA
S. Cooperstein, O. Driga, P. Elmer, J. Hardenbrook, P. Hebda, S. Higginbotham,
A. Kalogeropoulos, D. Lange, J. Luo, D. Marlow, K. Mei, I. Ojalvo, J. Olsen,
C. Palmer, P. Piroué, 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, S. Folgueras, L. Gutay, M.K. Jha, M. Jones,
A.W. Jung, A. Khatiwada, 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, N. Parashar, J. Stupak 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, T. Ferbel, M. Galanti, A.
Garcia-Bellido, J. Han, O. Hindrichs, A. Khukhunaishvili, K.H. Lo, P. Tan, M.
Verzetti The Rockefeller University, New York, USA
R. Ciesielski, K. Goulianos, C. Mesropian 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. Bouhali69, A. Castaneda Hernandez69, A. Celik, M. Dalchenko, M. De Mattia,
A. Delgado, S. Dildick, R. Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T. Kamon70, R.
Mueller, Y. Pakhotin, R. Patel, A. Perloff, L. Perniè, D. Rathjens, A.
Safonov, A. Tatarinov, K.A. Ulmer Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, F. De Guio, P.R. Dudero, J. Faulkner, E. Gurpinar, S.
Kunori, K. Lamichhane, S.W. Lee, T. Libeiro, 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, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska, 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, 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, D. Taylor,
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 Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, 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 Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
11: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
12: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics; Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
13: Also at Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
14: Also at CERN; European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
15: Also at RWTH Aachen University; III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
16: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
17: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
18: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group; Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
19: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
20: Also at Institute of Physics; University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
21: Also at Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India
22: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
23: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
24: Also at University of Ruhuna, Matara, Sri Lanka
25: Also at Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
26: Also at Yazd University, Yazd, 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 INFN Sezione di Milano-Bicocca; Università di Milano-Bicocca,
Milano, Italy
30: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
31: Also at International Islamic University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
32: Also at Malaysian Nuclear Agency; MOSTI, Kajang, Malaysia
33: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico city, Mexico
34: Also at Warsaw University of Technology; Institute of Electronic Systems,
Warsaw, Poland
35: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
36: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
37: Also at Institute of Nuclear Physics of the Uzbekistan Academy of
Sciences, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
38: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
39: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
40: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
41: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
42: Also at Faculty of Physics; University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
43: Also at University of Belgrade; Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of
Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
44: Also at Scuola Normale e Sezione dell’INFN, Pisa, Italy
45: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
46: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
47: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
48: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics (SMI), Vienna,
Austria
49: Also at Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey
50: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey
51: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
52: Also at Cag University, Mersin, Turkey
53: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
54: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
55: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
56: Also at Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
57: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
58: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
59: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
60: Also at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
61: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy; University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
62: Also at Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, La Laguna, Spain
63: Also at Utah Valley University, Orem, USA
64: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey
65: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
66: Also at Erzincan University, Erzincan, Turkey
67: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
68: Also at Mimar Sinan University; Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
69: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
70: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea