The European Physical Journal. C, Particles and Fields

Eur Phys J C Part Fields. 77(6): 392

Energy dependence of forward-rapidity J/ψ and ψ(2S) production in pp collisions at the LHC

S. Acharya¹³⁹, D. Adamová⁸⁷, M. M. Aggarwal⁹¹, G. Aglieri Rinella³⁴, M. Agnello³⁰, N. Agrawal⁴⁷, Z. Ahammed¹³⁹, N. Ahmad¹⁷, S. U. Ahn⁶⁹, S. Aiola¹⁴³, A. Akindinov⁵⁴, S. N. Alam¹³⁹, D. S. D. Albuquerque¹²⁴, D. Aleksandrov⁸³, B. Alessandro¹¹³, D. Alexandre¹⁰⁴, R. Alfaro Molina⁶⁴, A. Alici¹²²⁶¹⁰⁷, A. Alkin³, J. Alme²¹, T. Alt⁴¹, I. Altsybeev¹³⁸, C. Alves Garcia Prado¹²³, M. An⁷, C. Andrei⁸⁰, H. A. Andrews¹⁰⁴, A. Andronic¹⁰⁰, V. Anguelov⁹⁶, C. Anson⁹⁰, T. Antičić¹⁰¹, F. Antinori¹¹⁰, P. Antonioli¹⁰⁷, R. Anwar¹²⁶, L. Aphecetche¹¹⁶, H. Appelshäuser⁶⁰, S. Arcelli²⁶, R. Arnaldi¹¹³, O. W. Arnold³⁵⁹⁷, I. C. Arsene²⁰, M. Arslandok⁶⁰, B. Audurier¹¹⁶, A. Augustinus³⁴, R. Averbeck¹⁰⁰, M. D. Azmi¹⁷, A. Badalà¹⁰⁹, Y. W. Baek⁶⁸, S. Bagnasco¹¹³, R. Bailhache⁶⁰, R. Bala⁹³, A. Baldisseri⁶⁵, M. Ball⁴⁴, R. C. Baral⁵⁷, A. M. Barbano²⁵, R. Barbera²⁷, F. Barile³²¹⁰⁶, L. Barioglio²⁵, G. G. Barnaföldi¹⁴², L. S. Barnby³⁴¹⁰⁴, V. Barret⁷¹, P. Bartalini⁷, K. Barth³⁴, J. Bartke¹²⁰, E. Bartsch⁶⁰, M. Basile²⁶, N. Bastid⁷¹, S. Basu¹³⁹, B. Bathen⁶¹, G. Batigne¹¹⁶, A. Batista Camejo⁷¹, B. Batyunya⁶⁷, P. C. Batzing²⁰, I. G. Bearden⁸⁴, H. Beck⁹⁶, C. Bedda³⁰, N. K. Behera⁵⁰, I. Belikov¹³⁵, F. Bellini²⁶, H. Bello Martinez², R. Bellwied¹²⁶, L. G. E. Beltran¹²², V. Belyaev⁷⁶, G. Bencedi¹⁴², S. Beole²⁵, A. Bercuci⁸⁰, Y. Berdnikov⁸⁹, D. Berenyi¹⁴², R. A. Bertens⁵³¹²⁹, D. Berzano³⁴, L. Betev³⁴, A. Bhasin⁹³, I. R. Bhat⁹³, A. K. Bhati⁹¹, B. Bhattacharjee⁴³, J. Bhom¹²⁰, L. Bianchi¹²⁶, N. Bianchi⁷³, C. Bianchin¹⁴¹, J. Bielčík³⁸, J. Bielčíková⁸⁷, A. Bilandzic³⁵⁹⁷, G. Biro¹⁴², R. Biswas⁴, S. Biswas⁴, J. T. Blair¹²¹, D. Blau⁸³, C. Blume⁶⁰, G. Boca¹³⁶, F. Bock⁷⁵⁹⁶, A. Bogdanov⁷⁶, L. Boldizsár¹⁴², M. Bombara³⁹, G. Bonomi¹³⁷, M. Bonora³⁴, J. Book⁶⁰, H. Borel⁶⁵, A. Borissov⁹⁹, M. Borri¹²⁸, E. Botta²⁵, C. Bourjau⁸⁴, P. Braun-Munzinger¹⁰⁰, M. Bregant¹²³, T. A. Broker⁶⁰, T. A. Browning⁹⁸, M. Broz³⁸, E. J. Brucken⁴⁵, E. Bruna¹¹³, G. E. Bruno³², D. Budnikov¹⁰², H. Buesching⁶⁰, S. Bufalino³⁰, P. Buhler¹¹⁵, S. A. I. Buitron⁶², P. Buncic³⁴, O. Busch¹³², Z. Buthelezi⁶⁶, J. B. Butt¹⁵, J. T. Buxton¹⁸, J. Cabala¹¹⁸, D. Caffarri³⁴, H. Caines¹⁴³, A. Caliva⁵³, E. Calvo Villar¹⁰⁵, P. Camerini²⁴, A. A. Capon¹¹⁵, F. Carena³⁴, W. Carena³⁴, F. Carnesecchi¹²²⁶, J. Castillo Castellanos⁶⁵, A. J. Castro¹²⁹, E. A. R. Casula²³¹⁰⁸, C. Ceballos Sanchez⁹, P. Cerello¹¹³, B. Chang¹²⁷, S. Chapeland³⁴, M. Chartier¹²⁸, J. L. Charvet⁶⁵, S. Chattopadhyay¹³⁹, S. Chattopadhyay¹⁰³, A. Chauvin³⁵⁹⁷, M. Cherney⁹⁰, C. Cheshkov¹³⁴, B. Cheynis¹³⁴, V. Chibante Barroso³⁴, D. D. Chinellato¹²⁴, S. Cho⁵⁰, P. Chochula³⁴, K. Choi⁹⁹, M. Chojnacki⁸⁴, S. Choudhury¹³⁹, P. Christakoglou⁸⁵, C. H. Christensen⁸⁴, P. Christiansen³³, T. Chujo¹³², S. U. Chung⁹⁹, C. Cicalo¹⁰⁸, L. Cifarelli¹²²⁶, F. Cindolo¹⁰⁷, J. Cleymans⁹², F. Colamaria³², D. Colella³⁴⁵⁵, A. Collu⁷⁵, M. Colocci²⁶, M. Concas¹¹³, G. Conesa Balbastre⁷², Z. Conesa del Valle⁵¹, M. E. Connors¹⁴³, J. G. Contreras³⁸, T. M. Cormier⁸⁸, Y. Corrales Morales¹¹³, I. Cortés Maldonado², P. Cortese³¹, M. R. Cosentino¹²⁵, F. Costa³⁴, S. Costanza¹³⁶, J. Crkovská⁵¹, P. Crochet⁷¹, E. Cuautle⁶², L. Cunqueiro⁶¹, T. Dahms³⁵⁹⁷, A. Dainese¹¹⁰, M. C. Danisch⁹⁶, A. Danu⁵⁸, D. Das¹⁰³, I. Das¹⁰³, S. Das⁴, A. Dash⁸¹, S. Dash⁴⁷, S. De⁴⁸¹²³, A. De Caro²⁹, G. de Cataldo¹⁰⁶, C. de Conti¹²³, J. de Cuveland⁴¹, A. De Falco²³, D. De Gruttola¹²²⁹, N. De Marco¹¹³, S. De Pasquale²⁹, R. D. De Souza¹²⁴, H. F. Degenhardt¹²³, A. Deisting⁹⁶¹⁰⁰, A. Deloff⁷⁹, C. Deplano⁸⁵, P. Dhankher⁴⁷, D. Di Bari³², A. Di Mauro³⁴, P. Di Nezza⁷³, B. Di Ruzza¹¹⁰, M. A. Diaz Corchero¹⁰, T. Dietel⁹², P. Dillenseger⁶⁰, R. Divià³⁴, Ø. Djuvsland²¹, A. Dobrin³⁴⁵⁸, D. Domenicis Gimenez¹²³, B. Dönigus⁶⁰, O. Dordic²⁰, T. Drozhzhova⁶⁰, A. K. Dubey¹³⁹, A. Dubla¹⁰⁰, L. Ducroux¹³⁴, A. K. Duggal⁹¹, P. Dupieux⁷¹, R. J. Ehlers¹⁴³, D. Elia¹⁰⁶, E. Endress¹⁰⁵, H. Engel⁵⁹, E. Epple¹⁴³, B. Erazmus¹¹⁶, F. Erhardt¹³³, B. Espagnon⁵¹, S. Esumi¹³², G. Eulisse³⁴, J. Eum⁹⁹, D. Evans¹⁰⁴, S. Evdokimov¹¹⁴, L. Fabbietti³⁵⁹⁷, J. Faivre⁷², A. Fantoni⁷³, M. Fasel⁷⁵⁸⁸, L. Feldkamp⁶¹, A. Feliciello¹¹³, G. Feofilov¹³⁸, J. Ferencei⁸⁷, A. Fernández Téllez², E. G. Ferreiro¹⁶, A. Ferretti²⁵, A. Festanti²⁸, V. J. G. Feuillard⁶⁵⁷¹, J. Figiel¹²⁰, M. A. S. Figueredo¹²³, S. Filchagin¹⁰², D. Finogeev⁵², F. M. Fionda²³, E. M. Fiore³², M. Floris³⁴, S. Foertsch⁶⁶, P. Foka¹⁰⁰, S. Fokin⁸³, E. Fragiacomo¹¹², A. Francescon³⁴, A. Francisco¹¹⁶, U. Frankenfeld¹⁰⁰, G. G. Fronze²⁵, U. Fuchs³⁴, C. Furget⁷², A. Furs⁵², M. Fusco Girard²⁹, J. J. Gaardhøje⁸⁴, M. Gagliardi²⁵, A. M. Gago¹⁰⁵, K. Gajdosova⁸⁴, M. Gallio²⁵, C. D. Galvan¹²², P. Ganoti⁷⁸, C. Gao⁷, C. Garabatos¹⁰⁰, E. Garcia-Solis¹³, K. Garg²⁷, P. Garg⁴⁸, C. Gargiulo³⁴, P. Gasik³⁵⁹⁷, E. F. Gauger¹²¹, M. B. Gay Ducati⁶³, M. Germain¹¹⁶, P. Ghosh¹³⁹, S. K. Ghosh⁴, P. Gianotti⁷³, P. Giubellino³⁴¹¹³, P. Giubilato²⁸, E. Gladysz-Dziadus¹²⁰, P. Glässel⁹⁶, D. M. Goméz Coral⁶⁴, A. Gomez Ramirez⁵⁹, A. S. Gonzalez³⁴, V. Gonzalez¹⁰, P. González-Zamora¹⁰, S. Gorbunov⁴¹, L. Görlich¹²⁰, S. Gotovac¹¹⁹, V. Grabski⁶⁴, L. K. Graczykowski¹⁴⁰, K. L. Graham¹⁰⁴, L. Greiner⁷⁵, A. Grelli⁵³, C. Grigoras³⁴, V. Grigoriev⁷⁶, A. Grigoryan¹, S. Grigoryan⁶⁷, N. Grion¹¹², J. M. Gronefeld¹⁰⁰, F. Grosa³⁰, J. F. Grosse-Oetringhaus³⁴, R. Grosso¹⁰⁰, L. Gruber¹¹⁵, F. R. Grull⁵⁹, F. Guber⁵², R. Guernane⁷², B. Guerzoni²⁶, K. Gulbrandsen⁸⁴, T. Gunji¹³¹, A. Gupta⁹³, R. Gupta⁹³, I. B. Guzman², R. Haake³⁴, C. Hadjidakis⁵¹, H. Hamagaki⁷⁷¹³¹, G. Hamar¹⁴², J. C. Hamon¹³⁵, J. W. Harris¹⁴³, A. Harton¹³, D. Hatzifotiadou¹⁰⁷, S. Hayashi¹³¹, S. T. Heckel⁶⁰, E. Hellbär⁶⁰, H. Helstrup³⁶, A. Herghelegiu⁸⁰, G. Herrera Corral¹¹, F. Herrmann⁶¹, B. A. Hess⁹⁵, K. F. Hetland³⁶, H. Hillemanns³⁴, B. Hippolyte¹³⁵, J. Hladky⁵⁶, B. Hohlweger⁹⁷, D. Horak³⁸, R. Hosokawa¹³², P. Hristov³⁴, C. Hughes¹²⁹, T. J. Humanic¹⁸, N. Hussain⁴³, T. Hussain¹⁷, D. Hutter⁴¹, D. S. Hwang¹⁹, R. Ilkaev¹⁰², M. Inaba¹³², M. Ippolitov⁷⁶⁸³, M. Irfan¹⁷, V. Isakov⁵², M. S. Islam⁴⁸, M. Ivanov³⁴¹⁰⁰, V. Ivanov⁸⁹, V. Izucheev¹¹⁴, B. Jacak⁷⁵, N. Jacazio²⁶, P. M. Jacobs⁷⁵, M. B. Jadhav⁴⁷, S. Jadlovska¹¹⁸, J. Jadlovsky¹¹⁸, S. Jaelani⁵³, C. Jahnke³⁵, M. J. Jakubowska¹⁴⁰, M. A. Janik¹⁴⁰, P. H. S. Y. Jayarathna¹²⁶, C. Jena⁸¹, S. Jena¹²⁶, M. Jercic¹³³, R. T. Jimenez Bustamante¹⁰⁰, P. G. Jones¹⁰⁴, A. Jusko¹⁰⁴, P. Kalinak⁵⁵, A. Kalweit³⁴, J. H. Kang¹⁴⁴, V. Kaplin⁷⁶, S. Kar¹³⁹, A. Karasu Uysal⁷⁰, O. Karavichev⁵², T. Karavicheva⁵², L. Karayan⁹⁶¹⁰⁰, E. Karpechev⁵², U. Kebschull⁵⁹, R. Keidel¹⁴⁵, D. L. D. Keijdener⁵³, M. Keil³⁴, B. Ketzer⁴⁴, M. Mohisin Khan¹⁷, P. Khan¹⁰³, S. A. Khan¹³⁹, A. Khanzadeev⁸⁹, Y. Kharlov¹¹⁴, A. Khatun¹⁷, A. Khuntia⁴⁸, M. M. Kielbowicz¹²⁰, B. Kileng³⁶, D. Kim¹⁴⁴, D. W. Kim⁴², D. J. Kim¹²⁷, H. Kim¹⁴⁴, J. S. Kim⁴², J. Kim⁹⁶, M. Kim⁵⁰, M. Kim¹⁴⁴, S. Kim¹⁹, T. Kim¹⁴⁴, S. Kirsch⁴¹, I. Kisel⁴¹, S. Kiselev⁵⁴, A. Kisiel¹⁴⁰, G. Kiss¹⁴², J. L. Klay⁶, C. Klein⁶⁰, J. Klein³⁴, C. Klein-Bösing⁶¹, S. Klewin⁹⁶, A. Kluge³⁴, M. L. Knichel⁹⁶, A. G. Knospe¹²⁶, C. Kobdaj¹¹⁷, M. Kofarago³⁴, T. Kollegger¹⁰⁰, A. Kolojvari¹³⁸, V. Kondratiev¹³⁸, N. Kondratyeva⁷⁶, E. Kondratyuk¹¹⁴, A. Konevskikh⁵², M. Kopcik¹¹⁸, M. Kour⁹³, C. Kouzinopoulos³⁴, O. Kovalenko⁷⁹, V. Kovalenko¹³⁸, M. Kowalski¹²⁰, G. Koyithatta Meethaleveedu⁴⁷, I. Králik⁵⁵, A. Kravčáková³⁹, M. Krivda⁵⁵¹⁰⁴, F. Krizek⁸⁷, E. Kryshen⁸⁹, M. Krzewicki⁴¹, A. M. Kubera¹⁸, V. Kučera⁸⁷, C. Kuhn¹³⁵, P. G. Kuijer⁸⁵, A. Kumar⁹³, J. Kumar⁴⁷, L. Kumar⁹¹, S. Kumar⁴⁷, S. Kundu⁸¹, P. Kurashvili⁷⁹, A. Kurepin⁵², A. B. Kurepin⁵², A. Kuryakin¹⁰², S. Kushpil⁸⁷, M. J. Kweon⁵⁰, Y. Kwon¹⁴⁴, S. L. La Pointe⁴¹, P. La Rocca²⁷, C. Lagana Fernandes¹²³, I. Lakomov³⁴, R. Langoy⁴⁰, K. Lapidus¹⁴³, C. Lara⁵⁹, A. Lardeux²⁰⁶⁵, A. Lattuca²⁵, E. Laudi³⁴, R. Lavicka³⁸, L. Lazaridis³⁴, R. Lea²⁴, L. Leardini⁹⁶, S. Lee¹⁴⁴, F. Lehas⁸⁵, S. Lehner¹¹⁵, J. Lehrbach⁴¹, R. C. Lemmon⁸⁶, V. Lenti¹⁰⁶, E. Leogrande⁵³, I. León Monzón¹²², P. Lévai¹⁴², S. Li⁷, X. Li¹⁴, J. Lien⁴⁰, R. Lietava¹⁰⁴, S. Lindal²⁰, V. Lindenstruth⁴¹, C. Lippmann¹⁰⁰, M. A. Lisa¹⁸, V. Litichevskyi⁴⁵, H. M. Ljunggren³³, W. J. Llope¹⁴¹, D. F. Lodato⁵³, P. I. Loenne²¹, V. Loginov⁷⁶, C. Loizides⁷⁵, P. Loncar¹¹⁹, X. Lopez⁷¹, E. López Torres⁹, A. Lowe¹⁴², P. Luettig⁶⁰, M. Lunardon²⁸, G. Luparello²⁴, M. Lupi³⁴, T. H. Lutz¹⁴³, A. Maevskaya⁵², M. Mager³⁴, S. Mahajan⁹³, S. M. Mahmood²⁰, A. Maire¹³⁵, R. D. Majka¹⁴³, M. Malaev⁸⁹, I. Maldonado Cervantes⁶², L. Malinina⁶⁷, D. Mal’Kevich⁵⁴, P. Malzacher¹⁰⁰, A. Mamonov¹⁰², V. Manko⁸³, F. Manso⁷¹, V. Manzari¹⁰⁶, Y. Mao⁷, M. Marchisone⁶⁶¹³⁰, J. Mareš⁵⁶, G. V. Margagliotti²⁴, A. Margotti¹⁰⁷, J. Margutti⁵³, A. Marín¹⁰⁰, C. Markert¹²¹, M. Marquard⁶⁰, N. A. Martin¹⁰⁰, P. Martinengo³⁴, J. A. L. Martinez⁵⁹, M. I. Martínez², G. Martínez García¹¹⁶, M. Martinez Pedreira³⁴, A. Mas¹²³, S. Masciocchi¹⁰⁰, M. Masera²⁵, A. Masoni¹⁰⁸, A. Mastroserio³², A. M. Mathis³⁵⁹⁷, A. Matyja¹²⁰¹²⁹, C. Mayer¹²⁰, J. Mazer¹²⁹, M. Mazzilli³², M. A. Mazzoni¹¹¹, F. Meddi²², Y. Melikyan⁷⁶, A. Menchaca-Rocha⁶⁴, E. Meninno²⁹, J. Mercado Pérez⁹⁶, M. Meres³⁷, S. Mhlanga⁹², Y. Miake¹³², M. M. Mieskolainen⁴⁵, D. L. Mihaylov⁹⁷, K. Mikhaylov⁵⁴⁶⁷, L. Milano⁷⁵, J. Milosevic²⁰, A. Mischke⁵³, A. N. Mishra⁴⁸, D. Miśkowiec¹⁰⁰, J. Mitra¹³⁹, C. M. Mitu⁵⁸, N. Mohammadi⁵³, B. Mohanty⁸¹, E. Montes¹⁰, D. A. Moreira De Godoy⁶¹, L. A. P. Moreno², S. Moretto²⁸, A. Morreale¹¹⁶, A. Morsch³⁴, V. Muccifora⁷³, E. Mudnic¹¹⁹, D. Mühlheim⁶¹, S. Muhuri¹³⁹, M. Mukherjee⁴¹³⁹, J. D. Mulligan¹⁴³, M. G. Munhoz¹²³, K. Münning⁴⁴, R. H. Munzer⁶⁰, H. Murakami¹³¹, S. Murray⁶⁶, L. Musa³⁴, J. Musinsky⁵⁵, C. J. Myers¹²⁶, B. Naik⁴⁷, R. Nair⁷⁹, B. K. Nandi⁴⁷, R. Nania¹⁰⁷, E. Nappi¹⁰⁶, M. U. Naru¹⁵, H. Natal da Luz¹²³, C. Nattrass¹²⁹, S. R. Navarro², K. Nayak⁸¹, R. Nayak⁴⁷, T. K. Nayak¹³⁹, S. Nazarenko¹⁰², A. Nedosekin⁵⁴, R. A. Negrao De Oliveira³⁴, L. Nellen⁶², S. V. Nesbo³⁶, F. Ng¹²⁶, M. Nicassio¹⁰⁰, M. Niculescu⁵⁸, J. Niedziela³⁴, B. S. Nielsen⁸⁴, S. Nikolaev⁸³, S. Nikulin⁸³, V. Nikulin⁸⁹, F. Noferini¹²¹⁰⁷, P. Nomokonov⁶⁷, G. Nooren⁵³, J. C. C. Noris², J. Norman¹²⁸, A. Nyanin⁸³, J. Nystrand²¹, H. Oeschler⁹⁶, S. Oh¹⁴³, A. Ohlson³⁴⁹⁶, T. Okubo⁴⁶, L. Olah¹⁴², J. Oleniacz¹⁴⁰, A. C. Oliveira Da Silva¹²³, M. H. Oliver¹⁴³, J. Onderwaater¹⁰⁰, C. Oppedisano¹¹³, R. Orava⁴⁵, M. Oravec¹¹⁸, A. Ortiz Velasquez⁶², A. Oskarsson³³, J. Otwinowski¹²⁰, K. Oyama⁷⁷, Y. Pachmayer⁹⁶, V. Pacik⁸⁴, D. Pagano¹³⁷, P. Pagano²⁹, G. Paić⁶², P. Palni⁷, J. Pan¹⁴¹, A. K. Pandey⁴⁷, S. Panebianco⁶⁵, V. Papikyan¹, G. S. Pappalardo¹⁰⁹, P. Pareek⁴⁸, J. Park⁵⁰, W. J. Park¹⁰⁰, S. Parmar⁹¹, A. Passfeld⁶¹, S. P. Pathak¹²⁶, V. Paticchio¹⁰⁶, R. N. Patra¹³⁹, B. Paul¹¹³, H. Pei⁷, T. Peitzmann⁵³, X. Peng⁷, L. G. Pereira⁶³, H. Pereira Da Costa⁶⁵, D. Peresunko⁷⁶⁸³, E. Perez Lezama⁶⁰, V. Peskov⁶⁰, Y. Pestov⁵, V. Petráček³⁸, V. Petrov¹¹⁴, M. Petrovici⁸⁰, C. Petta²⁷, R. P. Pezzi⁶³, S. Piano¹¹², M. Pikna³⁷, P. Pillot¹¹⁶, L. O. D. L. Pimentel⁸⁴, O. Pinazza³⁴¹⁰⁷, L. Pinsky¹²⁶, D. B. Piyarathna¹²⁶, M. Płoskoń⁷⁵, M. Planinic¹³³, J. Pluta¹⁴⁰, S. Pochybova¹⁴², P. L. M. Podesta-Lerma¹²², M. G. Poghosyan⁸⁸, B. Polichtchouk¹¹⁴, N. Poljak¹³³, W. Poonsawat¹¹⁷, A. Pop⁸⁰, H. Poppenborg⁶¹, S. Porteboeuf-Houssais⁷¹, J. Porter⁷⁵, J. Pospisil⁸⁷, V. Pozdniakov⁶⁷, S. K. Prasad⁴, R. Preghenella³⁴¹⁰⁷, F. Prino¹¹³, C. A. Pruneau¹⁴¹, I. Pshenichnov⁵², M. Puccio²⁵, G. Puddu²³, P. Pujahari¹⁴¹, V. Punin¹⁰², J. Putschke¹⁴¹, H. Qvigstad²⁰, A. Rachevski¹¹², S. Raha⁴, S. Rajput⁹³, J. Rak¹²⁷, A. Rakotozafindrabe⁶⁵, L. Ramello³¹, F. Rami¹³⁵, D. B. Rana¹²⁶, R. Raniwala⁹⁴, S. Raniwala⁹⁴, S. S. Räsänen⁴⁵, B. T. Rascanu⁶⁰, D. Rathee⁹¹, V. Ratza⁴⁴, I. Ravasenga³⁰, K. F. Read⁸⁸¹²⁹, K. Redlich⁷⁹, A. Rehman²¹, P. Reichelt⁶⁰, F. Reidt³⁴, X. Ren⁷, R. Renfordt⁶⁰, A. R. Reolon⁷³, A. Reshetin⁵², K. Reygers⁹⁶, V. Riabov⁸⁹, R. A. Ricci⁷⁴, T. Richert³³⁵³, M. Richter²⁰, P. Riedler³⁴, W. Riegler³⁴, F. Riggi²⁷, C. Ristea⁵⁸, M. Rodríguez Cahuantzi², K. Røed²⁰, E. Rogochaya⁶⁷, D. Rohr⁴¹, D. Röhrich²¹, P. S. Rokita¹⁴⁰, F. Ronchetti³⁴⁷³, L. Ronflette¹¹⁶, P. Rosnet⁷¹, A. Rossi²⁸, A. Rotondi¹³⁶, F. Roukoutakis⁷⁸, A. Roy⁴⁸, C. Roy¹³⁵, P. Roy¹⁰³, A. J. Rubio Montero¹⁰, O. V. Rueda⁶², R. Rui²⁴, R. Russo²⁵, A. Rustamov⁸², E. Ryabinkin⁸³, Y. Ryabov⁸⁹, A. Rybicki¹²⁰, S. Saarinen⁴⁵, S. Sadhu¹³⁹, S. Sadovsky¹¹⁴, K. Šafařík³⁴, S. K. Saha¹³⁹, B. Sahlmuller⁶⁰, B. Sahoo⁴⁷, P. Sahoo⁴⁸, R. Sahoo⁴⁸, S. Sahoo⁵⁷, P. K. Sahu⁵⁷, J. Saini¹³⁹, S. Sakai⁷³¹³², M. A. Saleh¹⁴¹, J. Salzwedel¹⁸, S. Sambyal⁹³, V. Samsonov⁷⁶⁸⁹, A. Sandoval⁶⁴, D. Sarkar¹³⁹, N. Sarkar¹³⁹, P. Sarma⁴³, M. H. P. Sas⁵³, E. Scapparone¹⁰⁷, F. Scarlassara²⁸, R. P. Scharenberg⁹⁸, H. S. Scheid⁶⁰, C. Schiaua⁸⁰, R. Schicker⁹⁶, C. Schmidt¹⁰⁰, H. R. Schmidt⁹⁵, M. O. Schmidt⁹⁶, M. Schmidt⁹⁵, S. Schuchmann⁶⁰, J. Schukraft³⁴, Y. Schutz³⁴¹¹⁶¹³⁵, K. Schwarz¹⁰⁰, K. Schweda¹⁰⁰, G. Scioli²⁶, E. Scomparin¹¹³, R. Scott¹²⁹, M. Šefčík³⁹, J. E. Seger⁹⁰, Y. Sekiguchi¹³¹, D. Sekihata⁴⁶, I. Selyuzhenkov¹⁰⁰, K. Senosi⁶⁶, S. Senyukov³³⁴¹³⁵, E. Serradilla¹⁰⁶⁴, P. Sett⁴⁷, A. Sevcenco⁵⁸, A. Shabanov⁵², A. Shabetai¹¹⁶, O. Shadura³, R. Shahoyan³⁴, A. Shangaraev¹¹⁴, A. Sharma⁹¹, A. Sharma⁹³, M. Sharma⁹³, M. Sharma⁹³, N. Sharma⁹¹¹²⁹, A. I. Sheikh¹³⁹, K. Shigaki⁴⁶, Q. Shou⁷, K. Shtejer⁹²⁵, Y. Sibiriak⁸³, S. Siddhanta¹⁰⁸, K. M. Sielewicz³⁴, T. Siemiarczuk⁷⁹, D. Silvermyr³³, C. Silvestre⁷², G. Simatovic¹³³, G. Simonetti³⁴, R. Singaraju¹³⁹, R. Singh⁸¹, V. Singhal¹³⁹, T. Sinha¹⁰³, B. Sitar³⁷, M. Sitta³¹, T. B. Skaali²⁰, M. Slupecki¹²⁷, N. Smirnov¹⁴³, R. J. M. Snellings⁵³, T. W. Snellman¹²⁷, J. Song⁹⁹, M. Song¹⁴⁴, F. Soramel²⁸, S. Sorensen¹²⁹, F. Sozzi¹⁰⁰, E. Spiriti⁷³, I. Sputowska¹²⁰, B. K. Srivastava⁹⁸, J. Stachel⁹⁶, I. Stan⁵⁸, P. Stankus⁸⁸, E. Stenlund³³, J. H. Stiller⁹⁶, D. Stocco¹¹⁶, P. Strmen³⁷, A. A. P. Suaide¹²³, T. Sugitate⁴⁶, C. Suire⁵¹, M. Suleymanov¹⁵, M. Suljic²⁴, R. Sultanov⁵⁴, M. Šumbera⁸⁷, S. Sumowidagdo⁴⁹, K. Suzuki¹¹⁵, S. Swain⁵⁷, A. Szabo³⁷, I. Szarka³⁷, A. Szczepankiewicz¹⁴⁰, M. Szymanski¹⁴⁰, U. Tabassam¹⁵, J. Takahashi¹²⁴, G. J. Tambave²¹, N. Tanaka¹³², M. Tarhini⁵¹, M. Tariq¹⁷, M. G. Tarzila⁸⁰, A. Tauro³⁴, G. Tejeda Muñoz², A. Telesca³⁴, K. Terasaki¹³¹, C. Terrevoli²⁸, B. Teyssier¹³⁴, D. Thakur⁴⁸, S. Thakur¹³⁹, D. Thomas¹²¹, R. Tieulent¹³⁴, A. Tikhonov⁵², A. R. Timmins¹²⁶, A. Toia⁶⁰, S. Tripathy⁴⁸, S. Trogolo²⁵, G. Trombetta³², V. Trubnikov³, W. H. Trzaska¹²⁷, B. A. Trzeciak⁵³, T. Tsuji¹³¹, A. Tumkin¹⁰², R. Turrisi¹¹⁰, T. S. Tveter²⁰, K. Ullaland²¹, E. N. Umaka¹²⁶, A. Uras¹³⁴, G. L. Usai²³, A. Utrobicic¹³³, M. Vala⁵⁵¹¹⁸, J. Van Der Maarel⁵³, J. W. Van Hoorne³⁴, M. van Leeuwen⁵³, T. Vanat⁸⁷, P. Vande Vyvre³⁴, D. Varga¹⁴², A. Vargas², M. Vargyas¹²⁷, R. Varma⁴⁷, M. Vasileiou⁷⁸, A. Vasiliev⁸³, A. Vauthier⁷², O. Vázquez Doce³⁵⁹⁷, V. Vechernin¹³⁸, A. M. Veen⁵³, A. Velure²¹, E. Vercellin²⁵, S. Vergara Limón², R. Vernet⁸, R. Vértesi¹⁴², L. Vickovic¹¹⁹, S. Vigolo⁵³, J. Viinikainen¹²⁷, Z. Vilakazi¹³⁰, O. Villalobos Baillie¹⁰⁴, A. Villatoro Tello², A. Vinogradov⁸³, L. Vinogradov¹³⁸, T. Virgili²⁹, V. Vislavicius³³, A. Vodopyanov⁶⁷, M. A. Völkl⁹⁶, K. Voloshin⁵⁴, S. A. Voloshin¹⁴¹, G. Volpe³², B. von Haller³⁴, I. Vorobyev³⁵⁹⁷, D. Voscek¹¹⁸, D. Vranic³⁴¹⁰⁰, J. Vrláková³⁹, B. Wagner²¹, J. Wagner¹⁰⁰, H. Wang⁵³, M. Wang⁷, D. Watanabe¹³², Y. Watanabe¹³¹, M. Weber¹¹⁵, S. G. Weber¹⁰⁰, D. F. Weiser⁹⁶, J. P. Wessels⁶¹, U. Westerhoff⁶¹, A. M. Whitehead⁹², J. Wiechula⁶⁰, J. Wikne²⁰, G. Wilk⁷⁹, J. Wilkinson⁹⁶, G. A. Willems⁶¹, M. C. S. Williams¹⁰⁷, B. Windelband⁹⁶, W. E. Witt¹²⁹, S. Yalcin⁷⁰, P. Yang⁷, S. Yano⁴⁶, Z. Yin⁷, H. Yokoyama⁷²¹³², I.-K. Yoo³⁴⁹⁹, J. H. Yoon⁵⁰, V. Yurchenko³, V. Zaccolo⁸⁴¹¹³, A. Zaman¹⁵, C. Zampolli³⁴, H. J. C. Zanoli¹²³, N. Zardoshti¹⁰⁴, A. Zarochentsev¹³⁸, P. Závada⁵⁶, N. Zaviyalov¹⁰², H. Zbroszczyk¹⁴⁰, M. Zhalov⁸⁹, H. Zhang⁷²¹, X. Zhang⁷, Y. Zhang⁷, C. Zhang⁵³, Z. Zhang⁷, C. Zhao²⁰, N. Zhigareva⁵⁴, D. Zhou⁷, Y. Zhou⁸⁴, Z. Zhou²¹, H. Zhu⁷²¹, J. Zhu⁷¹¹⁶, X. Zhu⁷, A. Zichichi¹²²⁶, A. Zimmermann⁹⁶, M. B. Zimmermann³⁴⁶¹, S. Zimmermann¹¹⁵, G. Zinovjev³, J. Zmeskal¹¹⁵, ALCE Collaboration

alice-publications@cern.ch

¹⁴⁶

1. 0000 0004 0482 7128grid.48507.3eA.I. Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics Institute) Foundation, Yerevan, Armenia

2. 0000 0001 2112 2750grid.411659.eBenemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico

3. 0000 0004 0451 7939grid.418413.bBogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kiev, Ukraine

4. 0000 0004 1768 2239grid.418423.8Department of Physics, Centre for Astroparticle Physics and Space Science (CAPSS), Bose Institute, Kolkata, India

5. grid.418495.5Budker Institute for Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia

6. 000000012222461Xgrid.253547.2California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA USA

7. 0000 0004 1760 2614grid.411407.7Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China

8. Centre de Calcul de l’IN2P3, Villeurbanne, Lyon, France

9. 0000 0004 0498 8482grid.450274.0Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Havana, Cuba

10. 0000 0001 1959 5823grid.420019.eCentro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid, Spain

11. 0000 0001 2165 8782grid.418275.dCentro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados (CINVESTAV), Mexico City, Mérida, Mexico

12. Centro Fermi-Museo Storico della Fisica e Centro Studi e Ricerche “Enrico Fermi’, Rome, Italy

13. 0000 0001 2222 4636grid.254130.1Chicago State University, Chicago, IL USA

14. 0000 0001 0157 8259grid.410655.3China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China

15. 0000 0000 9284 9490grid.418920.6COMSATS Institute of Information Technology (CIIT), Islamabad, Pakistan

16. 0000000109410645grid.11794.3aDepartamento de Física de Partículas and IGFAE, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain

17. 0000 0004 1937 0765grid.411340.3Department of Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India

18. 0000 0001 2285 7943grid.261331.4Department of Physics, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH USA

19. 0000 0001 0727 6358grid.263333.4Department of Physics, Sejong University, Seoul, South Korea

20. 0000 0004 1936 8921grid.5510.1Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

21. 0000 0004 1936 7443grid.7914.bDepartment of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

22. 0000 0004 1757 5281grid.6045.7Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università ‘La Sapienza’ and Sezione INFN, Rome, Italy

23. Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Cagliari, Italy

24. Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Trieste, Italy

25. Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy

26. Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Bologna, Italy

27. Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Catania, Italy

28. Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Padua, Italy

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

30. Dipartimento DISAT del Politecnico and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy

31. Dipartimento di Scienze e Innovazione Tecnologica dell’Università del Piemonte Orientale and INFN Sezione di Torino, Alessandria, Italy

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

33. 0000 0001 0930 2361grid.4514.4Division of Experimental High Energy Physics, University of Lund, Lund, Sweden

34. 0000 0001 2156 142Xgrid.9132.9European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland

35. 0000000123222966grid.6936.aExcellence Cluster Universe, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

36. grid.477239.cFaculty of Engineering, Bergen University College, Bergen, Norway

37. 0000000109409708grid.7634.6Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia

38. 0000000121738213grid.6652.7Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

39. 0000 0004 0576 0391grid.11175.33Faculty of Science, P.J. Šafárik University, Kosice, Slovakia

40. 0000 0004 0473 0254grid.412820.dFaculty of Technology, Buskerud and Vestfold University College, Tonsberg, Norway

41. 0000 0004 1936 9721grid.7839.5Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

42. 0000 0004 0532 811Xgrid.411733.3Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, South Korea

43. 0000 0001 2109 4622grid.411779.dDepartment of Physics, Gauhati University, Guwahati, India

44. 0000 0001 2240 3300grid.10388.32Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlen- und Kernphysik, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany

45. 0000 0001 1106 2387grid.470106.4Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Helsinki, Finland

46. 0000 0000 8711 3200grid.257022.0Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan

47. 0000 0001 2198 7527grid.417971.dIndian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT), Mumbai, India

48. 0000 0004 1769 7721grid.450280.bIndian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore, India

49. 0000 0004 0644 6054grid.249566.aIndonesian Institute of Sciences, Jakarta, Indonesia

50. 0000 0001 2364 8385grid.202119.9Inha University, Incheon, South Korea

51. 0000 0001 2171 2558grid.5842.bInstitut de Physique Nucléaire d’Orsay (IPNO), Université Paris-Sud, CNRS-IN2P3, Orsay, France

52. 0000 0001 2192 9124grid.4886.2Institute for Nuclear Research, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

53. 0000000120346234grid.5477.1Institute for Subatomic Physics of Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

54. 0000 0001 0125 8159grid.21626.31Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia

55. 0000 0001 2180 9405grid.419303.cInstitute of Experimental Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Kosice, Slovakia

56. 0000 0001 1015 3316grid.418095.1Institute of Physics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic

57. 0000 0004 0504 1311grid.418915.0Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India

58. grid.450283.8Institute of Space Science (ISS), Bucharest, Romania

59. 0000 0004 1936 9721grid.7839.5Institut für Informatik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

60. 0000 0004 1936 9721grid.7839.5Institut für Kernphysik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

61. 0000 0001 2172 9288grid.5949.1Institut für Kernphysik, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Münster, Germany

62. 0000 0001 2159 0001grid.9486.3Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico

63. 0000 0001 2200 7498grid.8532.cInstituto de Física, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Brazil

64. 0000 0001 2159 0001grid.9486.3Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico

65. IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, Saclay, France

66. 0000 0000 9399 6812grid.425534.1iThemba LABS, National Research Foundation, Somerset West, South Africa

67. 0000000406204119grid.33762.33Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR), Dubna, Russia

68. 0000 0004 0532 8339grid.258676.8Konkuk University, Seoul, South Korea

69. 0000 0001 0523 5253grid.249964.4Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon, South Korea

70. grid.440457.6KTO Karatay University, Konya, Turkey

71. 0000000115480420grid.7907.9Laboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire (LPC), Clermont Université, Université Blaise Pascal, CNRS-IN2P3, Clermont-Ferrand, France

72. Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie, Université Grenoble-Alpes, CNRS-IN2P3, Grenoble, France

73. 0000 0004 0648 0236grid.463190.9Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, INFN, Frascati, Italy

74. 0000 0004 1757 5281grid.6045.7Laboratori Nazionali di Legnaro, INFN, Legnaro, Italy

75. 0000 0001 2231 4551grid.184769.5Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA USA

76. 0000 0000 8868 5198grid.183446.cMoscow Engineering Physics Institute, Moscow, Russia

77. 0000 0000 9853 5396grid.444367.6Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science, Nagasaki, Japan

78. 0000 0001 2155 0800grid.5216.0Physics Department, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

79. 0000 0001 0941 0848grid.450295.fNational Centre for Nuclear Studies, Warsaw, Poland

80. 0000 0000 9463 5349grid.443874.8National Institute for Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest, Romania

81. 0000 0004 1764 227Xgrid.419643.dNational Institute of Science Education and Research, Bhubaneswar, India

82. National Nuclear Research Center, Baku, Azerbaijan

83. 0000000406204151grid.18919.38National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia

84. 0000 0001 0674 042Xgrid.5254.6Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

85. 0000 0004 0646 2193grid.420012.5Nikhef, Nationaal instituut voor subatomaire fysica, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

86. 0000 0001 0727 2226grid.482271.aNuclear Physics Group, STFC Daresbury Laboratory, Daresbury, UK

87. 0000 0001 1015 3316grid.418095.1Nuclear Physics Institute, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Řež u Prahy, Czech Republic

88. 0000 0004 0446 2659grid.135519.aOak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN USA

89. 0000 0004 0619 3376grid.430219.dPetersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina, Russia

90. 0000 0004 1936 8876grid.254748.8Physics Department, Creighton University, Omaha, NE USA

91. 0000 0001 2174 5640grid.261674.0Physics Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India

92. 0000 0004 1937 1151grid.7836.aPhysics Department, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

93. 0000 0001 0705 4560grid.412986.0Physics Department, University of Jammu, Jammu, India

94. 0000 0000 8498 7826grid.412746.2Physics Department, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, India

95. 0000 0001 2190 1447grid.10392.39Physikalisches Institut, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

96. 0000 0001 2190 4373grid.7700.0Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

97. 0000000123222966grid.6936.aPhysik Department, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

98. 0000 0004 1937 2197grid.169077.ePurdue University, West Lafayette, IN USA

99. 0000 0001 0719 8572grid.262229.fPusan National University, Pusan, South Korea

100. 0000 0000 9127 4365grid.159791.2Research Division and ExtreMe Matter Institute EMMI, GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany

101. 0000 0004 0635 7705grid.4905.8Rudjer Bošković Institute, Zagreb, Croatia

102. 0000 0004 0471 5062grid.426132.0Russian Federal Nuclear Center (VNIIEF), Sarov, Russia

103. 0000 0001 0664 9773grid.59056.3fSaha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata, India

104. 0000 0004 1936 7486grid.6572.6School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

105. 0000 0001 2288 3308grid.440592.eSección Física, Departamento de Ciencias, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima, Peru

106. grid.470190.bSezione INFN, Bari, Italy

107. grid.470193.8Sezione INFN, Bologna, Italy

108. Sezione INFN, Cagliari, Italy

109. Sezione INFN, Catania, Italy

110. grid.470212.2Sezione INFN, Padua, Italy

111. 0000 0004 1757 5281grid.6045.7Sezione INFN, Rome, Italy

112. Sezione INFN, Trieste, Italy

113. Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy

114. 0000000406204151grid.18919.38SSC IHEP of NRC Kurchatov Institute, Protvino, Russia

115. 0000 0000 9532 5705grid.475784.dStefan Meyer Institut für Subatomare Physik (SMI), Vienna, Austria

116. grid.4817.aSUBATECH, IMT Atlantique, Université de Nantes, CNRS-IN2P3, Nantes, France

117. 0000 0001 0739 3220grid.6357.7Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand

118. 0000 0001 2235 0982grid.6903.cTechnical University of Košice, Kosice, Slovakia

119. 0000 0004 0644 1675grid.38603.3eTechnical University of Split FESB, Split, Croatia

120. 0000 0001 1958 0162grid.413454.3The Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Cracow, Poland

121. 0000 0004 1936 9924grid.89336.37Physics Department, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX USA

122. 0000 0001 2192 9271grid.412863.aUniversidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Culiacán, Mexico

123. 0000 0004 1937 0722grid.11899.38Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil

124. 0000 0001 0723 2494grid.411087.bUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil

125. 0000 0004 0643 8839grid.412368.aUniversidade Federal do ABC, Santo Andre, Brazil

126. 0000 0004 1569 9707grid.266436.3University of Houston, Houston, TX USA

127. 0000 0001 1013 7965grid.9681.6University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

128. 0000 0004 1936 8470grid.10025.36University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

129. 0000 0001 2315 1184grid.411461.7University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN USA

130. 0000 0004 1937 1135grid.11951.3dUniversity of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

131. 0000 0001 2151 536Xgrid.26999.3dUniversity of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

132. 0000 0001 2369 4728grid.20515.33University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan

133. 0000 0001 0657 4636grid.4808.4University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

134. 0000 0001 2150 7757grid.7849.2Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, CNRS/IN2P3, IPN-Lyon, Villeurbanne, Lyon, France

135. 0000 0001 2157 9291grid.11843.3fUniversité de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, 67000 Strasbourg, France

136. 0000 0004 1762 5736grid.8982.bUniversità degli Studi di Pavia, Pavia, Italy

137. 0000000417571846grid.7637.5Università di Brescia, Brescia, Italy

138. 0000 0001 2289 6897grid.15447.33V. Fock Institute for Physics, St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia

139. 0000 0004 0636 1616grid.482273.8Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Kolkata, India

140. 0000000099214842grid.1035.7Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland

141. 0000 0001 1456 7807grid.254444.7Wayne State University, Detroit, MI USA

142. 0000 0001 2149 4407grid.5018.cWigner Research Centre for Physics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary

143. 0000000419368710grid.47100.32Yale University, New Haven, CT USA

144. 0000 0004 0470 5454grid.15444.30Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea

145. Zentrum für Technologietransfer und Telekommunikation (ZTT), Fachhochschule Worms, Worms, Germany

146. 0000 0001 2156 142Xgrid.9132.9CERN, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland

© The Author(s) 2017

DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4940-4

Published online: 14 June 2017

Published in print: 2017

Abstract

We present results on transverse momentum (pT) and rapidity (y) differential production cross sections, mean transverse momentum and mean transverse momentum square of inclusive J/ψ and ψ(2S) at forward rapidity (2.5 < y < 4) as well as ψ(2S)-to-J/ψ cross section ratios. These quantities are measured in pp collisions at center of mass energies s=5.02 and 13 TeV with the ALICE detector. Both charmonium states are reconstructed in the dimuon decay channel, using the muon spectrometer. A comprehensive comparison to inclusive charmonium cross sections measured at s=2.76, 7 and 8 TeV is performed. A comparison to non-relativistic quantum chromodynamics and fixed-order next-to-leading logarithm calculations, which describe prompt and non-prompt charmonium production respectively, is also presented. A good description of the data is obtained over the full pT range, provided that both contributions are summed. In particular, it is found that for pT > 15 GeV/c the non-prompt contribution reaches up to 50% of the total charmonium yield.

Introduction

Charmonia, such as J/ψ and ψ(2S), are bound states of a charm and anti-charm quark (cc¯). At LHC energies, their hadronic production results mostly from the hard scattering of two gluons into a cc¯ pair followed by the evolution of this pair into a charmonium state. Charmonium measurements in pp collisions are essential to the investigation of their production mechanisms. They also provide a baseline for proton-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus results which in turn are used to quantify the properties of the quark-gluon plasma [1, 2].

Mainly three theoretical approaches are used to describe the hadronic production of charmonium: the Color Evaporation Model (CEM) [3, 4], the Color Singlet Model (CSM) [5] and the Non-Relativistic Quantum Chromo-Dynamics model (NRQCD) [6]. These approaches differ mainly in the treatment of the evolution of the heavy-quark pair into a bound state. In the CEM, the production cross section of a given charmonium is proportional to the cc¯ cross section, integrated between the mass of the charmonium and twice the mass of the lightest D meson, with the proportionality factor being independent of the charmonium transverse momentum pT, rapidity y and of the collision center of mass energy s. In the CSM, perturbative QCD is used to describe the cc¯ production with the same quantum numbers as the final-state meson. In particular, only color-singlet (CS) cc¯ pairs are considered. Finally, in the NRQCD framework charmonium can be formed from a cc¯ pair produced either in a CS or in a color-octet (CO) state. The color neutralization of the CO state is treated as a non-perturbative process. For a given order in αs, it is expanded in powers of the relative velocity between the two charm quarks and parametrized using universal Long Distance Matrix Elements (LDME) which are fitted to the data. The predictive power of NRQCD calculations is tested by fitting the LDME to a subset of the data and comparing cross sections calculated with these LDME to measurements performed at different energies. It is therefore crucial to confront these models to as many measurements as possible, over a wide range of pT, y and s, and with as many different charmonium states as possible. The comparison can also be extended to observables other than cross sections, such as charmonium polarization [7–9].

In this paper we present results on the production cross sections of inclusive J/ψ and ψ(2S) at forward rapidity (2.5 < y < 4) measured in pp collisions at center of mass energies s=13 and 5.02 TeV. For J/ψ at s=5.02 TeV, the pT-differential cross sections have been published in [10] while the y-differential cross sections are presented here for the first time.

The J/ψ and ψ(2S) are measured in the dimuon decay channel. The inclusive differential cross sections are obtained as a function of pT and y over the ranges 0 < pT < 30 GeV/c for J/ψ at s=13 TeV, 0 < pT < 12 GeV/c for J/ψ at s=5.02 TeV and 0 < pT < 16 GeV/c for ψ(2S) at s=13 TeV. At s=5.02 TeV only the pT-integrated ψ(2S) cross section is measured due to the limited integrated luminosity. The J/ψ result at s=13 TeV extends significantly the pT reach of measurements performed in a similar rapidity range by LHCb [11]. The J/ψ result at s=5.02 TeV and the ψ(2S) results at both s are the first at this rapidity. The inclusive ψ(2S)-to-J/ψ cross section ratios as a function of both pT and y are also presented. These results are compared to similar measurements performed at s=2.76 [12], 7 [13] and 8 TeV [14]. These comparisons allow studying the variations of quantities such as the mean transverse momentum ⟨pT⟩, mean transverse momentum square ⟨pT2⟩ and the pT-integrated cross section as a function of s. Put together, these measurements constitute a stringent test for models of charmonium production. In particular, an extensive comparison of the J/ψ and ψ(2S) cross sections at all available collision energies to the calculations from two NRQCD groups is presented towards the end of the paper (Sect. 4). In addition, the pT-integrated J/ψ cross section as a function of s is also compared to a CEM calculation. No comparison to the CSM is performed since complete calculations are not available at these energies beside the ones published in [13, 15].

All cross sections reported in this paper are inclusive and contain, on top of the direct production of the charmonium, a contribution from the decay of heavier charmonium states as well as contributions from the decay of long-lived beauty flavored hadrons (b-hadrons). The first two contributions (direct production and decay from heavier charmonium states) are commonly called prompt, whereas the contribution from b-hadron decays is called non-prompt because of the large mean proper decay length of these hadrons ( ∼  500 μm).

The paper is organized as follows: the ALICE apparatus and the data samples used for this analysis are described in Sect. 2, the analysis procedure is discussed in Sect. 3 while the results are presented and compared to measurements at different s as well as to models in Sect. 4.

Apparatus and data samples

The ALICE detector is described in detail in [16, 17]. In this section, we introduce the detector subsystems relevant to the present analysis: the muon spectrometer, the Silicon Pixel Detector (SPD), the V0 scintillator hodoscopes and the T0 Cherenkov detectors.

The muon spectrometer [18] allows the detection and characterization of muons in the pseudorapidity range - 4 < η <  - 2.5.1 It consists of a ten-interaction-lengths front absorber followed by a 3 T m dipole magnet coupled to a system of tracking (MCH) and triggering (MTR) devices. The front absorber is placed between 0.9 and 5 m from the Interaction Point (IP) and filters out hadrons and low-momentum muons emitted at forward rapidity. Tracking in the MCH is performed using five stations, each one consisting of two planes of cathode pad chambers positioned between 5.2 and 14.4 m from the IP. The MTR is positioned downstream of a 1.2 m thick iron wall which absorbs the remaining hadrons that escape the front absorber as well as low-momentum muons. It is composed of two stations equipped with two planes of resistive plate chambers each placed at 16.1 and 17.1 m from the IP. A conical absorber (θ < 2∘) protects the muon spectrometer against secondary particles produced mainly by large-η primary particles interacting with the beam pipe throughout its full length. Finally, a rear absorber located downstream of the spectrometer protects the MTR from the background generated by beam-gas interactions.

The SPD is used to reconstruct the primary vertex of the collision. It is a cylindrically-shaped silicon pixel tracker and corresponds to the two innermost layers of the Inner Tracking System (ITS) [19]. These two layers surround the beam pipe at average radii of 3.9 and 7.6 cm and cover the pseudorapidity intervals |η| < 2 and |η| < 1.4, respectively.

The V0 hodoscopes [20] consist of two scintillator arrays positioned on each side of the IP at z =  - 90 and 340 cm and covering the η range - 3.7 < η <  - 1.7 and 2.8 < η < 5.1 respectively. They are used for online triggering and to reject beam-gas events by means of offline timing cuts together with the T0 detectors.

Finally, the T0 detectors [21] are used for the luminosity determination. They consist of two arrays of quartz Cherenkov counters placed on both sides of the IP covering the η ranges - 3.3 < η <  - 3 and 4.6 < η < 4.9.

The data used for this paper were collected in 2015. They correspond to pp collisions at s=13 and 5.02 TeV. The data at s=13 TeV are divided into several sub-periods corresponding to different beam conditions and leading to different pile-up rates. The pile-up rate, defined as the probability that one recorded event contains two or more collisions, reaches up to 25% in the muon spectrometer for beams with the highest luminosity. The data at s=5.02 TeV were collected during the 5 days immediately after the s=13 TeV campaign. During this period the pile-up rate was stable and below 2.5%.

Events used for this analysis were collected using a dimuon trigger which requires that two muons of opposite sign are detected in the MTR in coincidence with the detection of a signal in each side of the V0. In addition, the transverse momentum pTtrig of each muon, evaluated online, is required to pass a threshold of 0.5 GeV/c (1 GeV/c) for the data taking at s=5.02 (13) TeV in order to reject soft muons from π and K decays and to limit the trigger rate when the instantaneous luminosity is high. This threshold is defined as the pT value for which the single muon trigger efficiency reaches 50% [22].

The data samples available after the event selection described above correspond to an integrated luminosity Lint = 3.19 ± 0.11 pb⁻¹ and Lint = 106.3 ± 2.2 nb⁻¹ for s=13 TeV and s=5.02 TeV respectively. These integrated luminosities are measured following the procedure described in [23] for the data at s=13 TeV and in [24] for those at s=5.02 TeV. The systematic uncertainty on these quantities contains contributions from the measurement of the T0 trigger cross section using the Van der Meer scan technique [25] and the stability of the T0 trigger during data taking. The quadratic sum of these contributions amounts to 3.4% at s=13 TeV and 2.1% at s=5.02 TeV.

Analysis

The differential production cross section for a charmonium state ψ in a given pT and y interval is:

1. d2σψdpTdy=1ΔpTΔy1LintNψ(pT,y)BRψ→μ+μ-Aε(pT,y),[Image: 10052_2017_4940_Article_Equ1.gif]

where BRψ→μ⁺μ⁻ is the branching ratio of the charmonium state ψ into a pair of muons (5.96 ± 0.03% for J/ψ and 0.79 ± 0.09% for ψ(2S) [26]), ΔpT and Δy are the widths of the pT and y interval under consideration, Nψ(pT, y) is the number of charmonia measured in this interval, Aε(pT, y) are the corresponding acceptance and efficiency corrections and Lint is the integrated luminosity of the data sample. The large pile-up rates mentioned in Sect. 2 for the s=13 TeV data sample are accounted for in the calculation of Lint [23].

Track selection

The number of charmonia in a given pT and y interval is obtained by forming pairs of opposite-sign muon tracks detected in the muon spectrometer and by calculating the invariant mass of these pairs, mμμ. The resulting distribution is then fitted with several functions that account for both the charmonium signal and the background.

The procedure used to reconstruct muon candidates in the muon spectrometer is described in [18]. Once muon candidates are reconstructed, additional offline criteria are applied in order to improve the quality of the dimuon sample and the signal-to-background (S/B) ratio.

Tracks reconstructed in the MCH are required to match a track in the MTR which satisfies the single muon trigger condition mentioned in Sect. 2. Each muon candidate is required to have a pseudorapidity in the interval - 4 < η <  - 2.5 in order to match the acceptance of the muon spectrometer. Finally, a cut on the transverse coordinate of the muon (Rabs) measured at the end of the front absorber, 17.5 < Rabs < 89 cm, ensures that muons emitted at small angles and passing through the high density section of the front absorber are rejected.

These selection criteria remove most of the background tracks consisting of hadrons escaping from or produced in the front absorber, low-pT muons from π and K decays, secondary muons produced in the front absorber and fake tracks. They improve the S/B ratio by up to 30% for the J/ψ and by a factor 2 for ψ(2S).

Signal extraction

In each dimuon pT and y interval, several fits to the invariant mass distribution are performed over different invariant mass ranges and using various fitting functions in order to obtain the number of J/ψ and ψ(2S) and to evaluate the corresponding systematic uncertainty. In all cases, the fit function consists of a background to which two signal functions are added, one for the J/ψ and one for the ψ(2S).

Fig. 1View larger versionFig. 1. Example of fit to the opposite-sign dimuon invariant mass distributions in pp collisions at s=13 TeV (left) and 5.02 TeV (right). Dashed lines correspond to either signal or background functions, whereas the solid line corresponds to the sum of the signal and background functions

At s=13 TeV, the fits are performed over the invariant mass ranges 2.2 < mμμ < 4.5 GeV/c² and 2 < mμμ < 5 GeV/c². The background is described by either a pseudo-Gaussian function whose width varies linearly with the invariant mass or the product of a fourth-order polynomial and an exponential form. The J/ψ and ψ(2S) signals are described by the sum of either two Crystal Ball or two pseudo-Gaussian functions [27]. These two signal functions consist of a Gaussian core with tails added on the sides that fall off slower than a Gaussian function. In most pT and y intervals the parameters entering the definition of these tails cannot be left free in the fit due to the poor S/B ratio in the corresponding invariant mass region. They are instead fixed either to the values obtained from Monte Carlo (MC) simulations described in Sect. 3.3, or to those obtained when fitting the measured pT- and y-integrated invariant mass distribution with these parameters left free. For the J/ψ, the position, width and normalization of the signal are free parameters of the fit. For the ψ(2S) only the normalization is free, whereas the position and width are bound to those of the J/ψ following the same procedure as in [14]. Finally, in all fits the background parameters are left free.

An identical approach is used at s=5.02 TeV, albeit with different invariant mass fitting ranges (1.7 < mμμ < 4.8 GeV/c² and 2 < mμμ < 4.4 GeV/c²) and a different set of background functions (a pseudo-Gaussian function or the ratio between a first- and a second-order polynomial function). For the signal the tails parameters are either fixed to those obtained in MC or taken from the s=13 TeV analysis.

The number of charmonia measured in a given pT and y interval and the corresponding statistical uncertainty are taken as the mean of the values and uncertainties obtained from all the fits performed in this interval. The root mean square of these values is used as a systematic uncertainty.

Examples of fits to the pT- and y-integrated invariant mass distributions are shown in Fig. 1, at s=13 (left) and 5.02 TeV (right). About 331 × 10³ J/ψ and 8.1 × 10³ ψ(2S) are measured at s=13 TeV whereas about 8.6 × 10³ J/ψ and 160 ψ(2S) are measured at s=5.02 TeV. Corresponding S/B ratios, evaluated within three standard deviations with respect to the charmonium pole mass, are 3.4 (4.5) for J/ψ and 0.15 (0.18) for ψ(2S) at s=13 (5.02) TeV.

Acceptance and efficiency corrections

Acceptance and efficiency corrections are obtained using MC simulations by computing the ratio between the number of charmonia reconstructed in the muon spectrometer and the number of generated charmonia in the same pT and y interval. Independent simulations are performed for J/ψ and ψ(2S) and for each collision energy. Charmonia are generated using input pT and y distributions obtained iteratively from the data. They are decayed into two muons using EVTGEN [28] and PHOTOS [29] to properly account for the possible emission of accompanying radiative photons. It is assumed that both J/ψ and ψ(2S) are unpolarized consistently with the small longitudinal values reported in [7–9] and accounting for further dilution coming from non-prompt charmonia. The decay muons are tracked through a GEANT3 [30] model of the apparatus that includes a realistic description of the detectors and their performance during data taking. Track reconstruction and signal extraction are performed from the simulated hits generated in the detector using the same procedure and selection criteria as those used for the data.

The systematic uncertainty on acceptance and efficiency corrections contains the following contributions: (i) the parametrization of the input pT and y distributions, (ii) the uncertainty on the tracking efficiency in the MCH, (iii) the uncertainty on the MTR efficiency and (iv) the matching between tracks reconstructed in the MCH and tracks in the MTR.

For the parametrization of the MC input distributions, two sources of systematic uncertainty are considered: the correlations between pT and y (more explicitly, the fact that the pT distribution of a given charmonium state varies with the rapidity interval in which it is measured [11]) and the effect of finite statistics in the data used to parametrize these distributions. At s=5.02TeV, both contributions are evaluated by varying the input pT and y distributions within limits that correspond to these effects and re-calculating the Aε corrections in each case as done in [13]. This corresponds to a variation of the input yields of at most 15% as a function of y and 50% as a function of pT. For J/ψ measurements at s=13 TeV a slightly different approach is adopted in order to further reduce the sensitivity of the simulations to the input pT and y distributions. It consists in evaluating the acceptance and efficiency corrections in small 2-dimensional bins of y and pT. These corrections are then applied on a dimuon pair-by-pair basis when forming the invariant mass distribution rather than applying them on the total number of measured charmonia in a given (larger) pT and y interval. For each pair the corrections that match its pT and y are used, thus making the resulting Aε-corrected invariant mass distribution largely independent from the pT and y distributions used as input to the simulations. For ψ(2S) this improved procedure is not applied because the uncertainties on the measurement are dominated by statistics and the same method as for J/ψ at s=5.02 TeV is used instead.

The other three sources of systematic uncertainty (tracking efficiency in the MCH, MTR efficiency, and matching between MTR and MCH tracks) are evaluated using the same procedure as in [13], by comparing data and MC at the single muon level and propagating the observed differences to the dimuon case.

Summary of the systematic uncertainties

Table 1 gives a summary of the relative systematic uncertainties on the charmonium cross sections measured at s=13 and s=5.02 TeV. The total systematic uncertainty is the quadratic sum of all the sources listed in this table. The uncertainty on the branching ratio is fully correlated between all measurements of a given state. The uncertainty on the integrated luminosity is fully correlated between measurements performed at the same s and considered as uncorrelated from one s to the other. The uncertainty on the signal extraction is considered as uncorrelated as a function of pT, y and s, but partially correlated between J/ψ and ψ(2S). Finally, all other sources of uncertainty are considered as partially correlated across measurements at the same energy and uncorrelated from one energy to the other.

The systematic uncertainties on the MTR and MCH efficiencies are significantly smaller for the data at s=5.02 TeV than at s=13 TeV. This is due to the fact that the corresponding data taking period being very short, the detector conditions were more stable and therefore simpler to describe in the simulation.

See full tableTable 1. Relative systematic uncertainties associated to the J/ψ and ψ(2S) cross section measurements at s=13 and 5.02 TeV. Values in parenthesis correspond to the minimum and maximum values as a function of pT and y. For ψ(2S) at s=5.02 TeV, only the pT-integrated values are reported

Results

Cross sections and cross section ratios at s=13 and 5.02 TeV

Figure 2 summarizes the inclusive J/ψ and ψ(2S) cross sections measured by ALICE in pp collisions at s=13 TeV as a function of the charmonium pT (left column) and y (right column). The top row shows the J/ψ cross sections, middle row the ψ(2S) cross sections and bottom row the ψ(2S)-to-J/ψ cross section ratios. In all figures except Figs. 5 and 6, systematic uncertainties are represented by boxes, while vertical lines are used for statistical uncertainties.

Fig. 2View larger versionFig. 2. Inclusive J/ψ cross sections (top), ψ(2S) cross sections (middle) and ψ(2S)-to-J/ψ cross section ratios (bottom) as a function of pT (left) and y (right) in pp collisions at s=13 TeV. J/ψ cross sections are compared to LHCb measurements at the same s [11]. Open symbols are the reflection of the positive-y measurements with respect to y = 0

The J/ψ production cross sections as a function of pT and y are compared to measurements published by LHCb [11] at the same energy. The quoted LHCb values correspond to the sum of the prompt and the non-prompt contributions to the J/ψ production. For the comparison as a function of pT, the provided double-differential (pT and y) cross sections are summed to match ALICE y coverage. The measurements of the two experiments are consistent within 1σ of their uncertainties. The ALICE measurement extends the pT reach from 14 GeV/c to 30 GeV/c with respect to the LHCb results. For the ψ(2S) measurement, no comparisons are performed as this is the only measurement available to date at this energy and y range.

Systematic uncertainties on the signal extraction are reduced when forming the ψ(2S)-to-J/ψ cross section ratios shown in the bottom panels of Fig. 2 due to correlations between the numerator and the denominator. All other sources of systematic uncertainties cancel except for the uncertainties on the MC input pT and y parametrizations. Measured ratios show a steady increase as a function of pT and little or no dependence on y within uncertainties. This is also the case at lower s as it will be discussed in the next section.

Figure 3 shows the inclusive J/ψ production cross section measurements performed by ALICE in pp collisions at s=5.02 TeV as a function of pT (left) and y (right). The pT-differential cross sections are published in [10] and serve as a reference for the J/ψ nuclear modification factors in Pb-- Pb collisions at the same s. The y-differential cross sections are new to this analysis. Due to the limited integrated luminosity, only the pT- and y-integrated ψ(2S) cross section is measured using this data sample. It is discussed in the next section.

Fig. 3View larger versionFig. 3. Inclusive J/ψ cross sections as function of pT (left) and y (right) in pp collisions at s=5.02 TeV. Open symbols are the reflection of the positive-y measurements with respect to y = 0

Comparison to measurements at s=2.76, 7 and 8 TeV

Fig. 4View larger versionFig. 4. Inclusive J/ψ cross sections (top), ψ(2S) cross sections (middle) and ψ(2S)-to-J/ψ cross section ratios (bottom) as function of pT (left) and y (right) in pp collisions at several values of s

In Fig. 4, the cross sections and cross section ratios presented in the previous section are compared to other forward-y measurements in pp collisions at s=2.76 [12], 7 [13] and 8 TeV [14]. We note that the integrated luminosity used for each measurement increases almost systematically with increasing s, starting from 19.9 nb⁻¹ at s=2.76 TeV up to 3.2 pb⁻¹ at s=13 TeV. This, combined with the fact that the charmonium cross-section also increases with s, has allowed to reach increasingly higher values of pT for both J/ψ and ψ(2S) measurements. For the J/ψ this corresponds to an increase of the pT reach from 8 GeV/c at s=2.76 TeV up to 30 GeV/c at s=13 TeV. For the ψ(2S) the corresponding increase goes from 12 GeV/c at s=7 TeV to 16 GeV/c at s=13 TeV.

The J/ψ pT-differential cross section measurements shown in the top-left panel of Fig. 4 indicate a hardening of the spectra with increasing s. Also, for s≥7 TeV, a change in the slope of the pT-differential cross section is visible for pT > 10 GeV/c. This change in slope is attributed to the onset of the contribution from non-prompt J/ψ to the inclusive cross section as it will be discussed in Sect. 4.3.

The corresponding ψ(2S) differential cross section measurements are shown in the middle panels of Fig. 4. The smaller cross sections with respect to J/ψ result in a smaller pT reach as well as larger statistical uncertainties as a function of both pT (left panel) and y (right panel).

In the bottom panels of Fig. 4 the measured ψ(2S)-to-J/ψ cross section ratios are compared as a function of pT (left) and y (right) for pp collisions at s=7, 8 and 13 TeV. No significant change neither in shape nor magnitude of the ratio is observed among the three energies within the current uncertainties.

Fig. 5View larger versionFig. 5. ⟨pT⟩ (left) and ⟨pT2⟩ (right) as a function of s for J/ψ (top) and ψ(2S) (bottom). Circles correspond to ALICE data, while the other symbols correspond to measurements at lower s. Vertical lines around the data points correspond to the quadratic sum of the statistical and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties. The solid lines correspond to calculating ⟨pT⟩ and ⟨pT2⟩ when extrapolating the pT coverage to the largest available range in ALICE data (0 < pT < 30 GeV/c for J/ψ and 0 < pT < 16 GeV/c for ψ(2S)), while the dashed lines correspond to truncating the data to the smallest pT range available (0 < pT < 8 GeV/c for J/ψ and 0 < pT < 12 GeV/c for ψ(2S))

To better quantify the hardening of the J/ψ and ψ(2S) pT spectra with increasing s, a computation of the corresponding mean transverse momentum ⟨pT⟩ and mean transverse momentum square ⟨pT2⟩ is performed. This is achieved by fitting the J/ψ and ψ(2S) pT-differential cross sections with the following function:

2. f(pT)=C×pT1+pTp02n,[Image: 10052_2017_4940_Article_Equ2.gif]

with the parameters C, p₀ and n left free.

The ⟨pT⟩ and ⟨pT2⟩ are then obtained as the first and second moments of the above function in a given pT range. The uncertainty on these quantities is evaluated by multiplying the covariance matrix of the fit on each side by the relevant Jacobian matrix, evaluated numerically and taking the square root of the result. This is performed either considering separately the statistical and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties, or by using their quadratic sum in order to obtain the corresponding statistical, systematic or total uncertainty. A similar approach was adopted in [12].

Figure 5 shows the ⟨pT⟩ (left) and ⟨pT2⟩ (right) results for J/ψ (top) and ψ(2S) (bottom). In this figure as well as in Fig. 6, the vertical lines correspond to the quadratic sum of the statistical and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties.

For J/ψ at s=2.76 TeV the value from [12] is used. At s=7 TeV the data from [13] are used instead of the result from [12] because the available integrated luminosity is much larger ( × 90) and the pT reach increased from 8 to 20 GeV/c. It was checked that both results are consistent when truncated to the same pT range. At s=8 TeV the data from [14] are used, while for s=5.02 and 13 TeV the results are from this analysis.

In the top panels of Fig. 5, ALICE measurements are compared to lower energy results from CDF [31], PHENIX [32] and NA3 [33]. A steady increase of ⟨pT⟩ and ⟨pT2⟩ is observed with increasing s. This is consistent with the expected hardening of the corresponding pT distributions. Moreover, values at mid- are systematically larger than at forward-rapidity. As discussed in [32], this observation could be attributed to an increase in the longitudinal momentum at forward-rapidity leaving less energy available in the transverse plane. The bottom panels of Fig. 5 show the corresponding measurements for ψ(2S) at s=7, 8 and 13 TeV. An increase with s is also observed similar to that of the J/ψ.

Part of the increase observed for ALICE measurements shown in all four panels of Fig. 5 is due to the fact that the pT range used for evaluating ⟨pT⟩ and ⟨pT2⟩, chosen to be the same as in the corresponding data, also increases with s. To illustrate this effect, these quantities were re-calculated either when truncating the data to the smallest available pT range (0 < pT < 8 GeV/c for J/ψ and 0 < pT < 12 GeV/c for ψ(2S)) or when using the fit based on Eq. 2 to extrapolate the data to the largest available range (0 < pT < 30 GeV/c for J/ψ and 0 < pT < 16 GeV/c for ψ(2S)). The resulting values are shown in the figures as dashed lines for the truncation and solid lines for the extrapolation. In all cases the observed increasing trend still holds.

Fig. 6View larger versionFig. 6. J/ψ (left) and ψ(2S) (right) inclusive cross section dσ/dy as a function of s. Vertical lines correspond to the quadratic sum of the statistical and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties. J/ψ cross sections are compared to a CEM calculation from [34]

Finally, Fig. 6 shows the J/ψ (left) and ψ(2S) (right) pT- and y-integrated inclusive cross sections as a function of s, measured by ALICE in the y range 2.5 < y < 4. For both particles a steady increase of dσ/dy is observed as a function of increasing s. For the J/ψ, the cross sections are compared to a calculation done by Nelson, Vogt and Frawley in the CEM framework [34]. While the data and the model are compatible within uncertainties, the data lie on the upper side of the calculation and the difference to the central value becomes larger with increasing s.

Comparisons to models

As discussed in the introduction, all ALICE J/ψ and ψ(2S) measurements presented in this paper are inclusive and consist of a prompt and a non-prompt contribution. In order to compare model calculations to the data both contributions must be accounted for. This is illustrated in Fig. 7 for the J/ψ production cross section as a function of pT in pp collisions at s=13 TeV.

In the left panel of Fig. 7, ALICE data are compared to three calculations: (i) in grey to a prompt J/ψ Next-to-Leading-Order (NLO) NRQCD calculation from Ma, Wang and Chao [35], (ii) in blue to a prompt J/ψ Leading Order (LO) NRQCD calculation coupled to a Color Glass Condensate (CGC) description of the low-x gluons in the proton from Ma and Venugopalan [36] and (iii) in red to a non-prompt J/ψ Fixed-Order Next-to-Leading Logarithm (FONLL) calculation by Cacciari et al. [37].

Both NRQCD prompt J/ψ calculations account for the decay of ψ(2S) and χc into J/ψ.

Fig. 7View larger versionFig. 7. Left panel J/ψ differential cross sections (red circles) in pp collisions at s=13 TeV compared to NLO NRQCD (grey) [35], LO NRQCD coupled with CGC (blue) [36] and FONLL (red) [37]. Right panel The non-prompt J/ψ contribution estimated with FONLL is summed to the two calculations for prompt J/ψ production and compared to the same data

For pT < 8 GeV/c where the contribution from non-prompt J/ψ estimated using FONLL is below 10%, the NRQCD+CGC prompt J/ψ calculation reproduces the data reasonably well. For higher pT on the other hand, the NLO NRQCD calculation underestimates the measured cross sections and the disagreement increases with increasing pT. This disagreement is explained by the corresponding increase of the non-prompt J/ψ contribution, which according to FONLL, becomes as high as the prompt contribution and even exceeds it for pT > 15 GeV/c. This is consistent with the measured non-prompt J/ψ fractions reported by LHCb in [11].

In the right panel of Fig. 7, the NRQCD and FONLL calculations for prompt and non-prompt J/ψ production are summed in order to obtain an ad hoc model of inclusive J/ψ production. The sum is performed separately for the NRQCD+CGC calculation at low pT and the NLO NRQCD at high pT. In both cases, the uncertainties on FONLL and NRQCD are considered as uncorrelated when calculating the uncertainty band on the sum. This is motivated by the fact that the NRQCD calculations refer to the production of charm quarks and charmed mesons, while the FONLL calculation applies to the production of beauty quarks and b-hadrons which are then decayed into J/ψ mesons. A good description of the data is obtained over the full pT range and spanning more than four orders of magnitude in the cross sections.

Fig. 8View larger versionFig. 8. Comparisons between ALICE J/ψ and ψ(2S) data and summed NRQCD and FONLL model calculations from [35–37]. The first five panels correspond to inclusive J/ψ production cross sections as a function of pT in pp collisions at s=13, 8, 7, 5.02 and 2.76 TeV (red), the next three panels to inclusive ψ(2S) cross sections as a function of pT at s=13, 8 and 7 TeV (blue) and the last three panels to ψ(2S)-to-J/ψ cross section ratios as a function of pT at the same s (black)

The same groups have also provided NRQCD calculations for inclusive J/ψ production in pp collisions at s=8, 7, 5.02 and 2.76 TeV, and for ψ(2S) at s=13, 8 and 7 TeV. These calculations are compared to ALICE measurements in Fig. 8. Also shown in this figure are comparisons from the high-pT NLO NRQCD calculations to ALICE ψ(2S)-to-J/ψ cross section ratios as a function of pT. The motivation for showing this comparison of the cross section ratios is that many of the systematic uncertainties cancel both for the data (as discussed in Sect. 4.1) and for the theory.

Except for the cross section ratios, in all other panels the same strategy as in Fig. 7 is applied and the non-prompt contribution to inclusive charmonium production is added to the model using FONLL before comparing to the data. The FONLL+NRQCD summation is not performed for ψ(2S)-to-J/ψ cross section ratios due to the added complexity introduced by the estimation of the error cancellation between the models. Moreover, the impact of the non-prompt charmonium contribution on these ratios is expected to be small because it enters both the numerator and the denominator with a similar magnitude (according to FONLL) and largely cancels out. We note that similar high-pT NLO NRQCD calculations [38] were already compared to ALICE J/ψ and ψ(2S) cross sections at s=7 TeV in [13], albeit with a different strategy to account for the non-prompt charmonia.

Fig. 9View larger versionFig. 9. Comparisons between ALICE J/ψ and ψ(2S) data and summed NRQCD and FONLL model calculations from [36, 37]. The first five panels correspond to inclusive J/ψ production cross sections as a function of y in pp collisions at s=13, 8 and 7, 5.02 and 2.76 TeV (red), while the next three panels to inclusive ψ(2S) cross sections as a function of y at s=13, 8 and 7 TeV (blue)

Since the NRQCD+CGC calculation from [36] extends down to zero pT, it can be integrated over pT and directly compared to ALICE pT-integrated cross sections as a function of y. This calculation neglects the contribution from charmonium with pT > 8 GeV/c to the total cross section, which anyway contributes by less than 3%. The results of this comparison as a function of y are shown in Fig. 9.

Overall, a good agreement between the model and the data is observed for all measured cross sections, for both J/ψ and ψ(2S) as a function of either pT or y and for all the collision energies considered. For ψ(2S)-to-J/ψ cross section ratios as a function of pT however, the model tends to be slightly above the data especially at s=13 TeV. This tension appears mainly because of the error cancellation between the uncertainties on the J/ψ and ψ(2S) cross sections mentioned above.

Fig. 10View larger versionFig. 10. Comparisons between ALICE J/ψ and ψ(2S) data and summed NRQCD and FONLL model calculations from [37, 39]. The first five panels correspond to inclusive J/ψ production cross sections as a function of pT in pp collisions at s=13, 8, 7, 5.02 and 2.76 TeV (red), the next three panels to inclusive ψ(2S) cross sections as a function of pT at s=13, 8 and 7 TeV (blue) and the last three panels to ψ(2S)-to-J/ψ cross section ratios as a function of pT at the same s (black)

In Fig. 10, the ALICE measurements are compared to a second set of NLO NRQCD calculations from Butenschön and Kniehl [39]. In this case only high-pT calculations (pT > 3 GeV/c) are available. The ALICE pT-integrated cross sections as a function of y cannot be thus compared to the theory due to this pT cut. As was the case for the comparisons shown in Figs. 8 and 9, FONLL is used to estimate the contribution from non-prompt charmonium production and added to the NRQCD calculation.

The two NLO NRQCD calculations from Butenschön and Kniehl (Fig. 10) and from Ma, Wang and Chao (Fig. 8) differ in the parametrization of the Long Distance Matrix Elements (LDME) used to calculate the color-octet contributions to the charmonium production cross section. The first calculation uses three matrix elements whereas the second uses only two linear combinations of these three elements. Other differences include: the data sets used to fit these matrix elements, the minimum pT above which the calculation is applicable and the way by which contributions from χc and ψ(2S) decays to prompt J/ψ production are accounted for.

Although the agreement between the model and the data is of similar quality in Fig. 8 and 10, some differences are visible. In particular, in Fig. 10, the calculation tends to overestimate the measured J/ψ cross sections towards high-pT and the uncertainties are larger than in Fig. 8. The uncertainties on the ψ(2S)-to-J/ψ cross section ratios are also significantly larger and consequently the agreement to the data is better. These observations are a consequence of the differences between the two calculations detailed above and in particular the fact that the fits of the LDME start at a lower pT and include a larger number of data sets in the second case.

Conclusions

The inclusive J/ψ and ψ(2S) differential cross sections as well as ψ(2S)-to-J/ψ cross section ratios as a function of pT and y have been measured in pp collisions at s=5.02 and 13 TeV with the ALICE detector. Combined with similar measurements performed at s=2.76 [12], 7 [13] and 8 TeV [14], these results constitute a stringent test for models of charmonium production and allow the study of quantities such as ⟨pT⟩, ⟨pT2⟩ and pT-integrated dσ/dy as a function of s.

The results at s=13 TeV significantly extend the pT reach for both charmonium states with respect to measurements performed by ALICE at lower energies, up to 30 GeV/c for the J/ψ and 16 GeV/c for the ψ(2S). When comparing the J/ψ cross sections vs pT to measurements at lower s, a hardening of the spectra is observed with increasing collision energy. This is confirmed by measurements of the J/ψ ⟨pT⟩ and ⟨pT2⟩, while a similar trend is observed for the ψ(2S). Regarding inclusive ψ(2S)-to-J/ψ cross section ratios, no s dependence is observed within uncertainties.

Comparisons of J/ψ and ψ(2S) cross sections and cross section ratios as a function of both pT and y to NLO NRQCD and LO NRQCD+CGC prompt-charmonium calculations have been presented for all available collision energies. Concerning the J/ψ cross section as a function of pT, an excellent agreement is observed between data and theory, provided that the non-prompt contribution to the inclusive cross section is included using FONLL. This comparison indicates that for pT > 15 GeV/c, the non-prompt contribution can reach up to 50%. An overall good agreement is also observed for ψ(2S) production and for the cross sections as a function of y albeit with larger uncertainties.

With the large contribution from non-prompt J/ψ to the inclusive cross sections observed for high pT at s=13 TeV, it is of relatively little interest to try to further extend the pT reach of the inclusive measurement for understanding charmonium production. This is as long as one is not capable of separating experimentally the prompt and the non-prompt contributions and relies on models instead. This separation will become possible in ALICE starting from 2021 with the addition of the Muon Forward Tracker [40].

Footnotes

1. We note that the ALICE reference frame defines the positive z direction along the counter-clockwise beam direction, resulting in a negative pseudorapidity range for detectors like the muon spectrometer. However, due to the symmetry of pp collisions, the rapidity is kept positive when presenting results.

Acknowledgements

The ALICE Collaboration would like to thank Mathias Butenschön, Matteo Cacciari, Yan-Qing Ma and Ramona Vogt for providing the NRQCD, FONLL and CEM calculations used in this paper. The ALICE Collaboration would like to thank all its engineers and technicians for their invaluable contributions to the construction of the experiment and the CERN accelerator teams for the outstanding performance of the LHC complex. The ALICE Collaboration gratefully acknowledges the resources and support provided by all Grid centres and the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid (WLCG) collaboration. The ALICE Collaboration acknowledges the following funding agencies for their support in building and running the ALICE detector: A. I. Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics Institute) Foundation (ANSL), State Committee of Science and World Federation of Scientists (WFS), Armenia; Austrian Academy of Sciences and Nationalstiftung für Forschung, Technologie und Entwicklung, Austria; Ministry of Communications and High Technologies, National Nuclear Research Center, Azerbaijan; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (Finep) and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP), Brazil; Ministry of Science and Technology of China (MSTC), National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) and Ministry of Education of China (MOEC) , China; Ministry of Science, Education and Sport and Croatian Science Foundation, Croatia; Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic, Czech Republic; The Danish Council for Independent Research | Natural Sciences, the Carlsberg Foundation and Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF), Denmark; Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Finland; Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique (CEA) and Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (IN2P3) and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), France; Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie (BMBF) and GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Germany; Ministry of Education, Research and Religious Affairs, Greece; National Research, Development and Innovation Office, Hungary; Department of Atomic Energy Government of India (DAE) and Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi, India; Indonesian Institute of Science, Indonesia; Centro Fermi - Museo Storico della Fisica e Centro Studi e Ricerche Enrico Fermi and Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), Italy; Institute for Innovative Science and Technology, Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science (IIST), Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI and Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan; Consejo Nacional de Ciencia (CONACYT) y Tecnología, through Fondo de Cooperación Internacional en Ciencia y Tecnología (FONCICYT) and Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Academico (DGAPA), Mexico; Nationaal instituut voor subatomaire fysica (Nikhef), Netherlands; The Research Council of Norway, Norway; Commission on Science and Technology for Sustainable Development in the South (COMSATS), Pakistan; Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Peru; Ministry of Science and Higher Education and National Science Centre, Poland; Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information and National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), Republic of Korea; Ministry of Education and Scientific Research, Institute of Atomic Physics and Romanian National Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation, Romania; Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR), Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation and National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Russia; Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic, Slovakia; National Research Foundation of South Africa, South Africa; Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Cubaenergía, Cuba, Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion and Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Spain; Swedish Research Council (VR) and Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation (KAW), Sweden; European Organization for Nuclear Research, Switzerland; National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSDTA), Suranaree University of Technology (SUT) and Office of the Higher Education Commission under NRU project of Thailand, Thailand; Turkish Atomic Energy Agency (TAEK), Turkey; National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Ukraine; Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), United Kingdom; National Science Foundation of the United States of America (NSF) and United States Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Physics (DOE NP), United States of America.

Articles from are provided here courtesy of Springer

PMC Copyright Notice

The articles available from the PMC site are protected by copyright, even though access is free. Copyright is held by the respective authors or publishers who provide these articles to PMC. Users of PMC are responsible for complying with the terms and conditions defined by the copyright holder.

Users should assume that standard copyright protection applies to articles in PMC, unless an article contains an explicit license statement that gives a user additional reuse or redistribution rights. PMC does not allow automated/bulk downloading of articles that have standard copyright protection.

See the copyright notice on the PMC site, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/copyright/, for further details and specific exceptions.

References

Brambilla N, et al., authors. Heavy quarkonium: progress, puzzles, and opportunities. Eur. Phys. J. C. 2011;71:1534 [Cross Ref]

Andronic A, et al., authors. Heavy-flavour and quarkonium production in the LHC era: from proton–proton to heavy-ion collisions. Eur. Phys. J. C. 2016;76(3):107 [Cross Ref] [PubMed]

Fritzsch H, author. Producing heavy quark flavors in hadronic collisions: a test of quantum chromodynamics. Phys. Lett. B. 1977;67:217–221. [Cross Ref]

Amundson JF, Eboli OJP, Gregores EM, Halzen F, authors. Quantitative tests of color evaporation: charmonium production. Phys. Lett. B. 1997;390:323–328. [Cross Ref]

Baier R, Ruckl R, authors. Hadronic production of J/ψ and upsilon: transverse momentum distributions. Phys. Lett. B. 1981;102:364–370. [Cross Ref]

G.T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, G.P. Lepage, Rigorous QCD analysis of inclusive annihilation and production of heavy quarkonium. Phys. Rev. D 51, 1125–1171 (1995). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.51.1125. arXiv:hep-ph/9407339 [hep-ph] [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 55, 5853 (1997). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.55.5853]

ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$J/\psi $$\end{document}J/ψ polarization in pp collisions at \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\sqrt{s}}=7$$\end{document}s=7 TeV. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 082001 (2012). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.082001. arXiv:1111.1630 [hep-ex]

LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Measurement of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$J/\psi $$\end{document}J/ψ polarization in pp collisions at \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\sqrt{s}=7$$\end{document}s=7 TeV. Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2631 (2013). doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2631-3. arXiv:1307.6379 [hep-ex]

LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Measurement of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\psi (2S)$$\end{document}ψ(2S) polarisation in \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$pp$$\end{document}pp collisions at \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\sqrt{s}=7$$\end{document}s=7 TeV. Eur. Phys. J. C 74(5), 2872 (2014). doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2872-9. arXiv:1403.1339 [hep-ex]

ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., J/\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\psi $$\end{document}ψ suppression at forward rapidity in Pb–Pb collisions at \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\sqrt{{\varvec {s}_{{\rm NN}}} = 5.02}$$\end{document}sNN=5.02 TeV. Phys. Lett. B 766, 212–224 (2017). doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.12.064. arXiv:1606.08197 [nucl-ex]

LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Measurement of forward \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$J/\psi $$\end{document}J/ψ production cross-sections in \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$pp$$\end{document}pp collisions at \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\sqrt{s}=13$$\end{document}s=13 TeV. JHEP 10, 172 (2015). doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2015)172. arXiv:1509.00771 [hep-ex]. [Erratum: JHEP 05, 063 (2017). doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2017)063]

ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., Inclusive \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$J/\psi $$\end{document}J/ψ production in \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$pp$$\end{document}pp collisions at \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\sqrt{s} = 2.76$$\end{document}s=2.76 TeV. Phys. Lett. B 718, 295–306 (2012). doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.. arXiv:1203.3641 [hep-ex]. [Erratum: Phys. Lett. B 748, 472 (2015). doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.06.058]

ALICE Collaboration, B.B. Abelev et al., Measurement of quarkonium production at forward rapidity in \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$pp$$\end{document}pp collisions at \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\sqrt{s} = 7$$\end{document}s=7 TeV. Eur. Phys. J. C 74(8), 2974 (2014). doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2974-4. arXiv:1403.3648 [nucl-ex]

ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., Inclusive quarkonium production at forward rapidity in pp collisions at \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\sqrt{s}=8$$\end{document}s=8 TeV. Eur. Phys. J. C 76(4), 184 (2016). doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3987-y. arXiv:1509.08258 [hep-ex]

J.P. Lansberg, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$J/\psi $$\end{document}J/ψ production at sqrt(s) \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$=$$\end{document}= 1.96 and 7 TeV: color-singlet model, NNLO* and polarisation. J. Phys. G 38, 124110 (2011). doi:10.1088/0954-3899/38/12/124110. arXiv:1107.0292 [hep-ph]

ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC. JINST 3, S08002 (2008). doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08002

ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., Performance of the ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29, 1430044 (2014). arXiv:1402.4476 [nucl-ex]

ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., Rapidity and transverse momentum dependence of inclusive J\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$/\psi $$\end{document}/ψ production in \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$pp$$\end{document}pp collisions at \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\sqrt{s} = 7$$\end{document}s=7 TeV. Phys. Lett. B 704, 442–455 (2011). doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2011.09.054. arXiv:1105.0380 [hep-ex]. [Erratum: Phys. Lett. B 718, 692 (2012). doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.]

ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., Alignment of the ALICE inner tracking system with cosmic-ray tracks. JINST 5, P03003 (2010). doi:10.1088/1748-0221/5/03/P03003. arXiv:1001.0502 [physics.ins-det]

ALICE Collaboration, E. Abbas et al., Performance of the ALICE VZERO system. JINST 8, P10016 (2013). doi:10.1088/1748-0221/8/10/P10016. arXiv:1306.3130 [nucl-ex]

Bondila M, et al., authors. ALICE T0 detector. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 2005;52:1705–1711. [Cross Ref]

ALICE Collaboration, F. Bossù, M. Gagliardi, M. Marchisone, Performance of the RPC-based ALICE muon trigger system at the LHC. J. Instrum. 7(12), T12002 (2012). http://stacks.iop.org/1748-0221/7/i=12/a=T12002

ALICE Collaboration, ALICE luminosity determination for pp collisions at \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\sqrt{s}=13$$\end{document}s=13 TeV. ALICE-PUBLIC-2016-002. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2160174

ALICE Collaboration, ALICE luminosity determination for pp collisions at \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\sqrt{s}=5$$\end{document}s=5 TeV. ALICE-PUBLIC-2016-005. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2202638

S. van der Meer, Calibration of the effective beam height in the ISR. CERN-ISR-PO-68-31 (1968). https://cds.cern.ch/record/296752

Particle Data Group Collaboration, C. Patrignani et al., Review of particle physics. Chin. Phys. C 40(10), 100001 (2016)

ALICE Collaboration, Quarkonium signal extraction in ALICE. ALICE-PUBLIC-2015-006. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2060096

Lange DJ, author. The EvtGen particle decay simulation package. Nucl. Instrum. Methods A. 2001;462:152–155. [Cross Ref]

Barberio E, van Eijk B, Was Z, authors. PHOTOS: a universal Monte Carlo for QED radiative corrections in decays. Comput. Phys. Commun. 1991;66:115–128. [Cross Ref]

GEANT Collaboration, Detector description and simulation tool. CERN Program Library Long Write-up W5013, CERN Geneva

CDF Collaboration, D. Acosta et al., Measurement of the \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$J/\psi $$\end{document}J/ψ meson and \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$b$$\end{document}b-hadron production cross sections in \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$p\bar{p}$$\end{document}pp¯ collisions at \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\sqrt{s} = 1960$$\end{document}s=1960 GeV. Phys. Rev. D 71, 032001 (2005). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.032001. arXiv:hep-ex/0412071 [hep-ex]

PHENIX Collaboration, A. Adare et al., \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$J/\psi $$\end{document}J/ψ production versus transverse momentum and rapidity in \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$p+p$$\end{document}p+p collisions at \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\sqrt{s}=200$$\end{document}s=200 GeV. Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 232002 (2007). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.232002. arXiv:hep-ex/0611020 [hep-ex]

NA3 Collaboration, J. Badier et al., Experimental \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$J/\psi $$\end{document}J/ψ hadronic production from 150 GeV/c to 280 GeV/c. Z. Phys. C 20, 101 (1983). doi:10.1007/BF01573213

Nelson RE, Vogt R, Frawley AD, authors. Narrowing the uncertainty on the total charm cross section and its effect on the J/ cross section. Phys. Rev. C. 2013;87(1):014908 [Cross Ref]

Ma Y-Q, Wang K, Chao K-T, authors. J/ψ(ψ′) production at the Tevatron and LHC at O(αs4v4) in nonrelativistic QCD. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2011;106:042002 [Cross Ref] [PubMed]

Ma Y-Q, Venugopalan R, authors. Comprehensive description of J/ψ production in proton–proton collisions at collider energies. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2014;113(19):192301 [Cross Ref] [PubMed]

Cacciari M, Frixione S, Houdeau N, Mangano ML, Nason P, Ridolfi G, authors. Theoretical predictions for charm and bottom production at the LHC. JHEP. 2012;10:137 [Cross Ref]

Ma Y-Q, Wang K, Chao K-T, authors. A complete NLO calculation of the J/ψ and ψ′ production at hadron colliders. Phys. Rev. D. 2011;84:114001 [Cross Ref]

Butenschoen M, Kniehl BA, authors. Reconciling J/ψ production at HERA, RHIC, Tevatron, and LHC with NRQCD factorization at next-to-leading order. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2011;106:022003 [Cross Ref] [PubMed]

ALICE Collaboration, Technical design report for the muon forward tracker. Technical Report. CERN-LHCC-2015-001. ALICE-TDR-018, Jan 2015. https://cds.cern.ch/record/1981898

[Back]

Fig. 1.

Example of fit to the opposite-sign dimuon invariant mass distributions in pp collisions at s=13 TeV (left) and 5.02 TeV (right). Dashed lines correspond to either signal or background functions, whereas the solid line corresponds to the sum of the signal and background functions

[Back]

[Back]

Table 1.

Relative systematic uncertainties associated to the J/ψ and ψ(2S) cross section measurements at s=13 and 5.02 TeV. Values in parenthesis correspond to the minimum and maximum values as a function of pT and y. For ψ(2S) at s=5.02 TeV, only the pT-integrated values are reported

Source | s=13 TeV | s=5.02 TeV
J/ψ (%) | ψ(2S) (%) | J/ψ (%) | ψ(2S) (%)
Branching ratio | 0.6 | 11 | 0.6 | 11
Luminosity | 3.4 | 3.4 | 2.1 | 2.1
Signal extraction | 3 (3–8) | 5 (5–9) | 3 (1.5–10) | 8
MC input | 0.5 (0.5–1.5) | 1 (0.5–4) | 2 (0.5–2.5) | 2.5
MCH efficiency | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1
MTR efficiency | 4 (1.5–4) | 4 (1.5–4) | 2 (1.5–2) | 2
Matching | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1

[Back]

[Back]

Fig. 2.

Inclusive J/ψ cross sections (top), ψ(2S) cross sections (middle) and ψ(2S)-to-J/ψ cross section ratios (bottom) as a function of pT (left) and y (right) in pp collisions at s=13 TeV. J/ψ cross sections are compared to LHCb measurements at the same s [11]. Open symbols are the reflection of the positive-y measurements with respect to y = 0

[Back]

[Back]

Fig. 3.

Inclusive J/ψ cross sections as function of pT (left) and y (right) in pp collisions at s=5.02 TeV. Open symbols are the reflection of the positive-y measurements with respect to y = 0

[Back]

[Back]

Fig. 4.

Inclusive J/ψ cross sections (top), ψ(2S) cross sections (middle) and ψ(2S)-to-J/ψ cross section ratios (bottom) as function of pT (left) and y (right) in pp collisions at several values of s

[Back]

[Back]

Fig. 5.

⟨pT⟩ (left) and ⟨pT2⟩ (right) as a function of s for J/ψ (top) and ψ(2S) (bottom). Circles correspond to ALICE data, while the other symbols correspond to measurements at lower s. Vertical lines around the data points correspond to the quadratic sum of the statistical and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties. The solid lines correspond to calculating ⟨pT⟩ and ⟨pT2⟩ when extrapolating the pT coverage to the largest available range in ALICE data (0 < pT < 30 GeV/c for J/ψ and 0 < pT < 16 GeV/c for ψ(2S)), while the dashed lines correspond to truncating the data to the smallest pT range available (0 < pT < 8 GeV/c for J/ψ and 0 < pT < 12 GeV/c for ψ(2S))

[Back]

[Back]

Fig. 6.

J/ψ (left) and ψ(2S) (right) inclusive cross section dσ/dy as a function of s. Vertical lines correspond to the quadratic sum of the statistical and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties. J/ψ cross sections are compared to a CEM calculation from [34]

[Back]

[Back]

Fig. 7.

Left panel J/ψ differential cross sections (red circles) in pp collisions at s=13 TeV compared to NLO NRQCD (grey) [35], LO NRQCD coupled with CGC (blue) [36] and FONLL (red) [37]. Right panel The non-prompt J/ψ contribution estimated with FONLL is summed to the two calculations for prompt J/ψ production and compared to the same data

[Back]

[Back]

Fig. 8.

Comparisons between ALICE J/ψ and ψ(2S) data and summed NRQCD and FONLL model calculations from [35–37]. The first five panels correspond to inclusive J/ψ production cross sections as a function of pT in pp collisions at s=13, 8, 7, 5.02 and 2.76 TeV (red), the next three panels to inclusive ψ(2S) cross sections as a function of pT at s=13, 8 and 7 TeV (blue) and the last three panels to ψ(2S)-to-J/ψ cross section ratios as a function of pT at the same s (black)

[Back]

[Back]

Fig. 9.

Comparisons between ALICE J/ψ and ψ(2S) data and summed NRQCD and FONLL model calculations from [36, 37]. The first five panels correspond to inclusive J/ψ production cross sections as a function of y in pp collisions at s=13, 8 and 7, 5.02 and 2.76 TeV (red), while the next three panels to inclusive ψ(2S) cross sections as a function of y at s=13, 8 and 7 TeV (blue)

[Back]

[Back]

Fig. 10.

Comparisons between ALICE J/ψ and ψ(2S) data and summed NRQCD and FONLL model calculations from [37, 39]. The first five panels correspond to inclusive J/ψ production cross sections as a function of pT in pp collisions at s=13, 8, 7, 5.02 and 2.76 TeV (red), the next three panels to inclusive ψ(2S) cross sections as a function of pT at s=13, 8 and 7 TeV (blue) and the last three panels to ψ(2S)-to-J/ψ cross section ratios as a function of pT at the same s (black)

[Back]