Inclusive J/ψ production in Xe–Xe collisions at √sNN = 5.44 TeV

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Inclusive J/ψ production in Xe–Xe collisions at √sNN = 5.44 TeV © 2018 Organisation européenne pour la recherche nucléaire. Published by Elsevier B.V. . Funded by SCOAP3. Published version ALICE Collaboration ALICE Collaboration. (2018). Inclusive J/ψ production in Xe–Xe collisions at √sNN = 5.44 TeV. Physics Letters B, 785, 419-428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2018.08.047 2018 Physics Letters B 785 (2018) 419–428 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Physics Letters B www.elsevier.com/locate/physletb Inclusive J/ψproduction in Xe–Xe collisions at √sNN =5.44 TeV .ALICE Collaboration a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Received 23 May 2018 Received in revised form 26 July 2018 Accepted 23 August 2018 Available online 31 August 2018 Editor: W.-D. Schlatter Inclusive J/ψproduction is studied in Xe–Xe interactions at a centre-of-mass energy per nucleon pair of √sNN =5.44 TeV, using the ALICE detector at the CERN LHC. The J/ψmeson is reconstructed via its decay into a muon pair, in the centre-of-mass rapidity interval 2.5 <y <4and down to zero transverse momentum. In this Letter, the nuclear modification factors RAA for inclusive J/ψ, measured in the centrality range 0–90% as well as in the centrality intervals 0–20% and 20–90% are presented. The RAA values are compared to previously published results for Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV and to the calculation of a transport model. A good agreement is found between Xe–Xe and Pb–Pb results as well as between data and the model. ©2018 Organisation européenne pour la recherche nucléaire. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Funded by SCOAP3. The study of the production of quarkonium states plays an important role in the characterization of the properties of the QuarkGluon Plasma (QGP) [1]. This state of matter, where quarks and gluons are not confined into hadrons, can be produced in heavyion collisions at ultrarelativistic energies. Quarkonia are bound states of heavy quark-antiquark pairs (charmonia, cc and bottomonia, bb) and their production rate is significantly affected by the QGP. In particular, the color force responsible for the binding of heavy quarks is expected to be screened in the QGP, leading to a suppression of quarkonium production which can be related to the initial temperature of the system [2,3]. In addition, at very high energies, such as those available at the LHC, the abundant production of charm-anticharm pairs leads to a recombination process, which may occur both in the QGP phase or when the system cools down and hadrons are formed out of the free quarks and gluons [4,5]. The study of the interplay between suppression and recombination processes offers the possibility of a quantitative investigation of the existence of colorless bound states of heavy quarks in the QGP. An extended set of results was obtained for the J/ψ, a charmonium state with quantum numbers JPC =1−−, at LHC energies (√sNN =2.76 and 5.02 TeV) in Pb–Pb collisions [6–12]. Comparison of these results to theoretical models [13–17] and to lower energy data [18,19]favors the picture described above. The study of the collision of nuclei lighter than Pb may give additional important information on the relative contribution of suppression and recombination mechanisms. A step in this direction is performed in this Letter, where first results on J/ψproduction at LHC energies in Xe–Xe, a collision sys- E-mail address: alice -publications @cern .ch. tem (AXe =129) lighter than Pb–Pb (APb =208), are presented. Data were collected by the ALICE Collaboration at the centre-ofmass energy per nucleon pair √sNN =5.44 TeV, during a short run carried out at the end of 2017. Due to the limited integrated luminosity, Lint ∼0.34 μb−1, the statistical uncertainties are significantly larger than those of the Pb–Pb results [10], but nevertheless allow a meaningful comparison between the two systems, in terms of the nuclear modification factor RAA. This quantity is obtained as the ratio between the production yields in nucleus–nucleus collisions and the corresponding proton–proton (pp) cross section, normalized to the nuclear thickness function TAA[20]. Values of RAA smaller (larger) than unity indicate suppression (enhancement) effects for the particle under study. The results shown in this Letter correspond to the centre-of-mass rapidity range 2.5 <y <4, are integrated over transverse momentum (pT) and were obtained by studying the J/ψ→μ+μ−decay channel. The nuclear modification factor is studied as a function of the centrality of the collision [21], expressed as a percentage of the hadronic Xe–Xe cross section. The results correspond to inclusive J/ψproduction, which is the sum of a prompt component (directly produced J/ψ and feed-down from other charmonium states) and a non-prompt component, due to the decay of particles containing a b quark. ALICE is the LHC experiment dedicated to the study of nuclear collisions, and is described in detail in Refs. [22,23]. The main detector used in this analysis is a muon spectrometer [24], covering the pseudorapidity range −4 <η<−2.5.1It includes tracking and trigger chambers, and reconstructs muons with pTlarger than a 1In the ALICE reference frame, the muon spectrometer covers a negative ηrange and consequently a negative yrange. We have chosen to present our results with a positive ynotation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2018.08.047 0370-2693/©2018 Organisation européenne pour la recherche nucléaire. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Funded by SCOAP3. 420 ALICE Collaboration / Physics Letters B 785 (2018) 419–428 Fig. 1. Fits to invariant mass distributions of opposite-sign dimuons, for 0–90% Xe–Xe collisions. In the left panel, the result of a fit to the raw invariant mass spectrum is shown, while in the right panel the fit to the same distribution after subtraction of the mixed-event background is presented. The fit curves shown in blue represent the sum of the signal and background shapes, while the red lines correspond to the J/ψsignal and the blue dashed ones to the background (see text for details). (For interpretation of the colors in the figure(s), the reader is referred to the web version of this article.) given threshold, which is set at the trigger level. In addition, the V0 [25], a set of scintillator detectors covering 2.8 <η<5.1 and −3.7 <η<−1.7, is used to define the minimum bias (MB) interaction trigger via a coincidence of signals at positive and negative ηvalues. The V0 is also used for the centrality estimate via a fit of the distribution of the total signal amplitudes in the framework of the Glauber model [21]. The reconstruction of the primary collision vertex is carried out in the two layers of the Silicon Pixel Detector (SPD), the innermost part of the Inner Tracking System of the experiment [26], covering |η| <2 and |η| <1.4 respectively. Finally, rejection of non-hadronic Xe–Xe collisions is performed using the Zero Degree Calorimeters (ZDC) [27], which identifies electromagnetic interactions, while the V0 detects beam-gas collisions occurring outside the nominal interaction point region. The data analyzed in this Letter are taken with a trigger formed by the coincidence of the MB trigger signal and of at least one muon triggered in the muon spectrometer, with a pT=0.5GeV/c threshold. The definition of the trigger is less restrictive than the one usually adopted for Pb–Pb data taking (1 GeV/cthreshold and two detected muons), due to the much smaller instantaneous luminosity for Xe–Xe collisions. Standard selection criteria [10]are then applied to such events and to the muon candidates. In particular, it is required (i) that two opposite-sign tracks reconstructed in the tracking chambers of the muon spectrometer are matched to track segments in the trigger system, (ii) that both muons belonging to the pair (dimuon) have −4 <ημ<−2.5, and (iii) that their transverse position Rabs at the end of the hadron absorber of the muon spectrometer satisfies the condition 17.6 <Rabs <89.5cm. Finally, the reconstructed dimuon should lay in the fiducial rapidity region of the muon spectrometer, 2.5 <y <4. The nuclear modification factor RAA for the collision system under study is defined, for the centrality interval i, as Ri AA = Ni J/ψ BRJ/ψ→μ+μ−Ni MB AεiTi AAσpp J/ψ ,(1) where Ni J/ψ is the number of detected J/ψin the i-th centrality interval, BRJ/ψ→μ+μ−=(5.96 ±0.03)% is the branching ratio of the dimuon decay channel [28], Ni MB is the number of MB events corresponding to the analyzed triggered event sample, Aεiis the product of the detector acceptance times the reconstruction efficiency, Ti AAis the average nuclear thickness function [29], and σpp J/ψ is the inclusive J/ψcross section for pp collisions, at the same energy and in the same kinematic range as the Xe–Xe data. Results are given for the centrality interval 0–90% and for the two sub-intervals 0–20% and 20–90%. Except for the determination of σpp J/ψ , the other quantities entering the definition of RAA are evaluated following the same procedure used for the analysis of the Pb–Pb data sample and detailed in Ref. [10]. The extraction of NJ/ψ is performed with two different approaches. In the first, the raw opposite-sign dimuon invariant mass distribution is fitted with a superposition of resonance and background shapes [30], the former being tuned to Monte Carlo (MC) simulations and the latter corresponding to empirical functions. In the second, the background is estimated via a mixed-event invariant mass distribution, obtained from the collected sample of muon-triggered events and subtracted from the raw spectrum [9]. The resulting distribution is then fitted with the sum of a resonance shape and a continuum function accounting for the small residual background component. Due to the low statistical significance of the present data sample, the width of the J/ψmeson, which is usually kept as a free parameter in the invariant mass fits, is fixed to σJ/ψ =70 MeV/c2, corresponding to the value of this quantity obtained in previous analyses [10,31,32]. For each of the two approaches, several fits were performed varying the fit mass range, the signal and background shapes and the J/ψ width by ±1MeV/c2. The obtained value for the centrality interval 0–90% is NJ/ψ =241 ±47(stat.) ±26(syst.), where the central value and the statistical uncertainty correspond to the average of the fit results and to the average of the corresponding statistical uncertainties, respectively. The systematic uncertainty is obtained as the root mean square of the distribution of the NJ/ψ values obtained with the various fits. The corresponding values for the 0–20% and 20–90% centrality sub-intervals are NJ/ψ = 175 ±42(stat.) ±23(syst.) and NJ/ψ =77 ±20(stat.) ±7(syst.), respectively. Fig. 1shows as an example the results of two fits to the 0–90% Xe–Xe dimuon invariant mass distribution, corresponding to fitting the raw spectrum (left panel) or the mixed-event background subtracted mass distribution (right panel). The product of the acceptance times the reconstruction efficiency Aεfor J/ψis evaluated via a MC simulation, based on the GEANT3 transport model [33], which takes into account the ALICE Collaboration / Physics Letters B 785 (2018) 419–428 421 alignment of the muon spectrometer detectors and their efficiency. The input pTand ydistributions for the J/ψacceptance calculation cannot be tuned directly to data, due to the low integrated luminosity of the data sample. It is therefore assumed that the shape of the yand pTdistributions is similar for different collision systems in centrality intervals corresponding to the same average number of participant nucleons, weighted by the corresponding number of nucleon–nucleon collisions, Nw part. The weighting is introduced to take into account that the J/ψproduction cross section is proportional to the number of nucleon–nucleon collisions and that therefore the average Npart in wide centrality bins is systematically shifted towards higher values. Following this argument, the differential distributions measured in Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV [10]for the 20–40% centrality range are used as input distribution for the MC calculation, since Nw partPbPb,20−40% is equal, within ∼2%, to Nw partXeXe,0−90%, estimated via a Glauber MC calculation. The systematic uncertainty on the J/ψacceptance value due to the choice of the J/ψrapidity and transverse momentum distributions amounts to 2% and is evaluated by choosing alternative input shapes corresponding to other Pb–Pb centrality ranges. Concerning the reconstruction efficiency, it slightly depends on the collision centrality, due to the detector occupancy in the muon spectrometer. The effect was evaluated in the analysis of Pb–Pb events [10]by embedding the simulated J/ψsignal into real events corresponding to various centralities. For this analysis, starting from the Pb–Pb results, the decrease in AεXeXe,0−90% with respect to a simulation containing only J/ψis estimated to be 4.2% (values for 0–20% and 20–90% centrality ranges are 5.5% and 1.6%, respectively). The systematic uncertainty on the reconstruction efficiency is evaluated following the procedure used in Ref. [10], leading to a 3.6% effect. The resulting value for the product of acceptance times reconstruction efficiency for J/ψproduction in 0–90% Xe–Xe collisions is AεXeXe,0−90% =0.228 ±0.009(syst.), with a negligible statistical uncertainty. The normalization factor NMB is evaluated by multiplying the number of opposite-sign dimuon triggers by a factor Fnorm, corresponding to the inverse of the probability of having a triggered muon in a MB event. This quantity is computed from the event trigger input information and the level-0 trigger mask. The procedure and the evaluation of the systematic uncertainty are described in Ref. [10]. The obtained value is Fnorm =2.428 ± 0.001(stat.) ±0.024(syst.). The reference cross section for the calculation of RAA is obtained starting from the measured value of the inclusive J/ψcross section in pp collisions at √s=5.02 TeV [10]. This quantity is then corrected to account for the different centre-of-mass energy of the Xe–Xe data, using an interpolation of available ALICE pp results at √s=2.76, 5.02, 7, 8 and 13 TeV [32]. The obtained value is σpp J/ψ =5.99 ±0.09(stat.) ±0.30(syst.) μb−1, where the systematic uncertainty contains a small term (0.4%) related to the interpolation procedure, calculated as the maximum spread between results obtained with various interpolating functions [34]. The nuclear thickness function TAAis evaluated for the various centrality intervals via a Glauber model calculation, and its uncertainty is estimated by varying within uncertainties the density parameters of the Xe nucleus [29,35]. For 0–90% centrality its value amounts to TAA =3.25 ±0.25 mb−1, while for 0–20% and 20–90% one obtains TAA =9.90 ±0.62 mb−1and TAA = 1.35 ±0.14 mb−1, respectively. Finally, a systematic uncertainty on the definition of the centrality intervals is evaluated by varying the value of the V0 signal amplitude corresponding to 90% centrality by ±0.5% and recalculating correspondingly the centrality intervals. Table 1 Summary of systematic uncertainties on the calculation of the nuclear modification factors. The tracking efficiency term includes a 1% contribution due to the choice of the χ2cut of the matching between the information of tracking and trigger detectors. All the uncertainties are correlated among the various centrality ranges, except those on the signal extraction, TAAand the definition of the centrality intervals. Source 0–90% 0–20% 20–90% Signal extraction 11% 13% 8% MC input 2% 2% 2% Tracking efficiency 2% 2% 2% Trigger efficiency 3% 3% 3% Fnorm 1% 1% 1% TAA8% 6% 10% Centrality 0% 0% 1% pp reference 5% 5% 5% Fig. 2. The inclusive J/ψnuclear modification factor for Xe–Xe collisions at √sNN = 5.44 TeV. The results are plotted using as centrality variable Nw part, obtained by weighting, in each centrality interval, the Npart distribution with the corresponding distribution of the number of nucleon–nucleon collisions. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties, the boxes around the points the uncorrelated systematic uncertainties. Correlated uncertainties are shown as a filled box around unity. The results are compared with the same quantity for Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV [10]and to the results of the calculation of a transport model [13, 14]. For Pb–Pb, the weighting of Npart with the number of nucleon–nucleon collisions was not performed, since it leads to a negligible effect when the centrality intervals are narrow. Table 1shows a summary of the systematic uncertainties for the RAA measurement for the three analyzed centrality ranges. The main contributions come from the estimate of TAAand from the signal extraction. The former is dominated by the uncertainty on the surface thickness of the Xe nucleus. The latter, being estimated in a data-driven way as detailed above, may suffer from the statistical limitations of the data sample. The quoted values can therefore be considered to be a conservative estimate. The pT-integrated nuclear modification factor for inclusive J/ψ production in Xe–Xe collisions at √sNN =5.44 TeV, measured in 2.5 <y <4 and in the 0–90% centrality range, is RAA = 0.54 ±0.11(stat.) ±0.08(syst.). This value can be compared with the corresponding one for Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV, RPbPb AA =0.65 ±0.01(stat.) ±0.04(syst.) [10]. Their ratio amounts to 0.84 ±0.16(stat.) ±0.13(syst.), showing that the two values agree within about 0.8σ. Following the approach of Ref. [9], it can be shown that the Xe–Xe nuclear modification factor for prompt J/ψ could be up to 10% higher (lower) than the inclusive RAA if the non-prompt J/ψcomponent from the decays of hadrons containing a b quark is not (completely) suppressed. In Fig. 2the RAA values for 0–20% and 20–90% Xe–Xe collisions are plotted, and compared 422 ALICE Collaboration / Physics Letters B 785 (2018) 419–428 with the centrality dependence of the nuclear modification factor for Pb–Pb collisions [10]. The latter shows, after a decrease up to Npart ∼100, a saturation at RAA ∼0.65–0.7 towards more central events, and the two Xe–Xe points are found to be in agreement, within their larger uncertainties, with the Pb–Pb results. The Xe–Xe and Pb–Pb results are also compared with the calculation of a transport model by Du and Rapp [13,14]. A close similarity of the predicted suppression patterns for Pb–Pb and Xe–Xe is observed, which fairly reproduces the experimental results. In summary, we have measured inclusive J/ψproduction in Xe–Xe collisions at √sNN =5.44 TeV. Results on the nuclear modification factors were given for various centrality selections and compared to corresponding results for Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV and to a theoretical model. Within the experimental uncertainties, a good agreement is found between the RAA measured in the two systems and with the calculation. These results show that the relative contribution of suppression and regeneration processes is similar for collisions producing similar Npart values from different collision systems. Acknowledgements The ALICE Collaboration would like to thank all its engineers and technicians for their invaluable contributions to the construction of the experiment and the CERN accelerator teams for the outstanding performance of the LHC complex. The ALICE Collaboration gratefully acknowledges the resources and support provided by all Grid centres and the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid (WLCG) collaboration. The ALICE Collaboration acknowledges the following funding agencies for their support in building and running the ALICE detector: 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 & Technology of China (MSTC), National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) and Ministry of Education of China (MOEC), China; Ministry of Science and Education, 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; General Secretariat for Research and Technology, Ministry of Education, Research and Religions, Greece; National Research, Development and Innovation Office, Hungary; Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India (DAE), Department of Science and Technology, Government of India (DST), University Grants Commission, Government of India (UGC) and Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), 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; Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), 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 and Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Spain; Swedish Research Council (VR) and Knut & 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. References [1] E.V. Shuryak, Quark-gluon plasma and hadronic production of leptons, photons and psions, Phys. Lett. B 78 (1978) 150, Yad. Fiz. 28 (1978) 796. [2] T. Matsui, H. Satz, J/ψ suppression by quark-gluon plasma formation, Phys. Lett. B 178 (1986) 416. [3] S. Digal, P. Petreczky, H. Satz, Quarkonium feed down and sequential suppression, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 094015, arXiv:hep -ph /0106017 [hep -ph]. [4] P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Stachel, (Non)thermal aspects of charmonium production and a new look at J/ψ suppression, Phys. Lett. B 490 (2000) 196–202. [5] R.L. Thews, M. Schroedter, J. Rafelski, Enhanced J/ψ production in deconfined quark matter, Phys. Rev. C 63 (2001) 054905, arXiv:hep -ph /0007323 [hep -ph]. [6] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev, et al., J/ψ suppression at forward rapidity in Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN =2.76 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 072301, arXiv: 1202 .1383 [hep -ex]. [7] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan, et al., Suppression of non-prompt J/ψ, prompt J/ψ, and Y(1S) in PbPb collisions at √sNN =2.76 TeV, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2012) 063, arXiv:1201.5069 [nucl -ex]. [8] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev, et al., Centrality, rapidity and transverse momentum dependence of J/ψ suppression in Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 743 (2014) 314–327, arXiv:1311.0214 [nucl -ex]. [9] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam, et al., Differential studies of inclusive J/ψand ψ(2S) production at forward rapidity in Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN =2.76 TeV, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2016) 179, arXiv:1506 .08804 [nucl -ex]. [10] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam, et al., J/ψsuppression at forward rapidity in Pb– Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 766 (2017) 212–224, arXiv: 1606 .08197 [nucl -ex]. [11] CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryan, et al., Suppression and azimuthal anisotropy of prompt and nonprompt J/ψ production in PbPb collisions at √sNN =2.76 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (4) (2017) 252, arXiv:1610 .00613 [nucl -ex]. [12] CMS Collaboration, A.M. Sirunyan, et al., Measurement of prompt and nonprompt charmonium suppression in PbPb collisions at 5.02 TeV, arXiv:1712 . 08959 [nucl -ex]. [13] X. Zhao, R. Rapp, Medium modifications and production of charmonia at LHC, Nucl. Phys. A 859 (2011) 114–125, arXiv:1102 .2194 [hep -ph]. [14] X. Du, R. Rapp, Sequential regeneration of charmonia in heavy-ion collisions, Nucl. Phys. A 943 (2015) 147–158, arXiv:1504 .00670 [hep -ph]. [15] A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, J. Stachel, The statistical model in Pb–Pb collisions at the LHC, Nucl. Phys. A 904–905 (2013) 535c–538c, arXiv: 1210 .7724 [nucl -th]. ALICE Collaboration / Physics Letters B 785 (2018) 419–428 423 [16] E.G. Ferreiro, Excited charmonium suppression in proton-nucleus collisions as a consequence of comovers, Phys. Lett. B 749 (2015) 98–103, arXiv:1411.0549 [hep -ph]. [17] K. Zhou, N. Xu, Z. Xu, P. Zhuang, Medium effects on charmonium production at ultrarelativistic energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. C 89 (5) (2014) 054911, arXiv:1401.5845 [nucl -th]. [18] PHENIX Collaboration, A. Adare, et al., J/ψ suppression at forward rapidity in Au+Au collisions at √sNN =200 GeV, Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 054912, arXiv: 1103 .6269 [nucl -ex]. [19] STAR Collaboration, B.I. Abelev, et al., J/ψproduction at high transverse momentum in p+p and Cu+Cu collisions at √sNN =200 GeV, Phys. Rev. C 80 (2009) 041902, arXiv:0904 .0439 [nucl -ex]. [20] M.L. Miller, K. Reygers, S.J. Sanders, P. Steinberg, Glauber modeling in high energy nuclear collisions, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57 (2007) 205–243, arXiv: nucl -ex /0701025 [nucl -ex]. [21] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev, et al., Centrality determination of Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN =2.76 TeV with ALICE, Phys. Rev. C 88 (4) (2013) 044909, arXiv:1301.4361 [nucl -ex]. [22] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt, et al., The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC, J. Instrum. 3 (2008) S08002. [23] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev, et al., Performance of the ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29 (2014) 1430044, arXiv:1402 .4476 [nucl - ex]. [24] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt, et al., Rapidity and transverse momentum dependence of inclusive J/ψproduction in pp collisions at √s=7TeV, Phys. Lett. B 704 (2011) 442–455, http://arxiv.org /abs /1105 .0380. [25] ALICE Collaboration, E. Abbas, et al., Performance of the ALICE VZERO system, J. Instrum. 8 (2013) P10016, arXiv:1306 .3130 [nucl -ex]. [26] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt, et al., Alignment of the ALICE inner tracking system with cosmic-ray tracks, J. Instrum. 5 (2010) P03003, arXiv:1001.0502 [physics .ins -det]. [27] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev, et al., Measurement of the cross section for electromagnetic dissociation with neutron emission in Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 252302, arXiv:1203 .2436 [nucl -ex]. [28] Particle Data Group Collaboration, C. Patrignani, et al., Review of particle physics, Chin. Phys. C 40 (10) (2016) 100001. [29] ALICE Collaboration, Centrality determination using the Glauber model in Xe– Xe collisions at √sNN =5.44 TeV, http://cds .cern .ch /record /2315401. [30] ALICE Collaboration, Quarkonium signal extraction in ALICE, ALICE-PUBLIC2015-006, 2015. [31] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev, et al., J/ψ production and nuclear effects in p-Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV, J. High Energy Phys. 1402 (2014) 073, arXiv:1308 .6726 [nucl -ex]. [32] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya, et al., Energy dependence of forward-rapidity J/ψ and ψ(2S)production in pp collisions at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (6) (2017) 392, arXiv:1702 .00557 [hep -ex]. [33] R. Brun, F. Carminati, S. Giani, GEANT Detector Description and Simulation Tool, CERN Program Library Long Writeup, CERN-W5013, 1994. [34] ALICE Collaboration, LHCb Collaboration, Reference pp cross-sections for J/ψ studies in proton-lead collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV and comparisons between ALICE and LHCb results, http://cds .cern .ch /record /1639617, CONF-2013-013. [35] C. Loizides, J. Kamin, D. d’Enterria, Improved Monte Carlo Glauber predictions at present and future nuclear colliders, Phys. Rev. C 97 (5) (2018) 054910, arXiv:1710 .07098 [nucl -ex]. ALICE Collaboration S. Acharya139, F.T.-. Acosta 22, D. Adamová94, J. Adolfsson 81, M.M. Aggarwal98, G. Aglieri Rinella 36, M. Agnello33, N. Agrawal49, Z. Ahammed 139, S.U. Ahn 77, S. Aiola144, A. Akindinov65, M. Al-Turany104, S.N. Alam139, D.S.D. Albuquerque120, D. Aleksandrov 88, B. Alessandro59, R. Alfaro Molina73, Y. Ali 16, A. Alici11,54,29, A. Alkin 3, J. Alme24, T. Alt 70, L. Altenkamper24, I. Altsybeev138, M.N. Anaam 7, C. Andrei48, D. Andreou 36, H.A. Andrews108, A. Andronic142,104, M. Angeletti 36, V. Anguelov102, C. Anson17, T. Antiˇ ci´ c105, F. Antinori 57, P. Antonioli 54, R. Anwar 124, N. Apadula80, L. Aphecetche112, H. Appelshäuser70, S. Arcelli29, R. Arnaldi59, O.W. Arnold 103,115, I.C. Arsene23, M. Arslandok102, B. Audurier112, A. Augustinus 36, R. Averbeck 104, M.D. Azmi18, A. Badalà56, Y.W. Baek 61,42, S. Bagnasco59, R. Bailhache70, R. Bala 99, A. Baldisseri134, M. Ball 44, R.C. Baral86, A.M. Barbano28, R. Barbera30, F. Barile 53, L. Barioglio28, G.G. Barnaföldi 143, L.S. Barnby93, V. Barret 131, P. Bartalini7, K. Barth36, E. Bartsch70, N. Bastid131, S. Basu 141, G. Batigne112, B. Batyunya 76, P.C. Batzing23, J.L. Bazo Alba109, I.G. Bearden89, H. Beck102, C. Bedda 64, N.K. Behera61, I. Belikov133, F. Bellini36, H. Bello Martinez2, R. Bellwied 124, L.G.E. Beltran118, V. Belyaev92, G. Bencedi143, S. Beole 28, A. Bercuci48, Y. Berdnikov 96, D. Berenyi 143, R.A. Bertens127, D. Berzano36,59, L. Betev 36, P.P. Bhaduri 139, A. Bhasin99, I.R. Bhat99, H. Bhatt 49, B. Bhattacharjee43, J. Bhom116, A. Bianchi28, L. Bianchi124, N. Bianchi52, J. Bielˇ cík39, J. Bielˇ cíková94, A. Bilandzic115,103, G. Biro143, R. Biswas4, S. Biswas 4, J.T. Blair 117, D. Blau88, C. Blume 70, G. Boca136, F. Bock 36, A. Bogdanov92, L. Boldizsár143, M. Bombara40, G. Bonomi137, M. Bonora36, H. Borel134, A. Borissov 20,142, M. Borri126, E. Botta28, C. Bourjau89, L. Bratrud70, P. Braun-Munzinger104, M. Bregant 119, T.A. Broker 70, M. Broz39, E.J. Brucken 45, E. Bruna59, G.E. Bruno36,35, D. Budnikov 106, H. Buesching70, S. Bufalino33, P. Buhler 111, P. Buncic 36, O. Busch130,i, Z. Buthelezi 74, J.B. Butt16, J.T. Buxton19, J. Cabala 114, D. Caffarri90, H. Caines144, A. Caliva104, E. Calvo Villar 109, R.S. Camacho2, P. Camerini 27, A.A. Capon111, F. Carena 36, W. Carena 36, F. Carnesecchi29,11, J. Castillo Castellanos 134, A.J. Castro127, E.A.R. Casula55, C. Ceballos Sanchez9, S. Chandra139, B. Chang 125, W. Chang 7, S. Chapeland36, M. Chartier 126, S. Chattopadhyay139, S. Chattopadhyay107, A. Chauvin103,115, C. Cheshkov132, B. Cheynis132, V. Chibante Barroso36, D.D. Chinellato120, S. Cho61, P. Chochula 36, T. Chowdhury 131, P. Christakoglou90, C.H. Christensen89, P. Christiansen81, T. Chujo 130, S.U. Chung 20, C. Cicalo55, L. Cifarelli11,29, F. Cindolo 54, J. Cleymans123, F. Colamaria53, D. Colella 66,36,53, A. Collu 80, M. Colocci29, M. Concas 59,ii, G. Conesa Balbastre 79, Z. Conesa del Valle62, J.G. Contreras39, T.M. Cormier95, Y. Corrales Morales59, P. Cortese 34, M.R. Cosentino121, F. Costa 36, S. Costanza136, J. Crkovská 62, P. Crochet 131, E. Cuautle71, L. Cunqueiro142,95, T. Dahms 103,115, A. Dainese57, S. Dani 67, M.C. Danisch102, A. Danu69, D. Das107, 424 ALICE Collaboration / Physics Letters B 785 (2018) 419–428 I. Das107, S. Das4, A. Dash 86, S. Dash49, S. De50, A. De Caro32, G. de Cataldo 53, C. de Conti119, J. de Cuveland41, A. De Falco26, D. De Gruttola11,32, N. De Marco59, S. De Pasquale32, R.D. De Souza120, H.F. Degenhardt 119, A. Deisting104,102, A. Deloff85, S. Delsanto28, C. Deplano 90, P. Dhankher49, D. Di Bari35, A. Di Mauro36, B. Di Ruzza57, R.A. Diaz9, T. Dietel 123, P. Dillenseger70, Y. Ding 7, R. Divià 36, Ø. Djuvsland24, A. Dobrin36, D. Domenicis Gimenez119, B. Dönigus 70, O. Dordic23, L.V.R. Doremalen64, A.K. Dubey139, A. Dubla104, L. Ducroux132, S. Dudi 98, A.K. Duggal98, M. Dukhishyam86, P. Dupieux131, R.J. Ehlers144, D. Elia 53, E. Endress109, H. Engel75, E. Epple144, B. Erazmus112, F. Erhardt 97, M.R. Ersdal24, B. Espagnon62, G. Eulisse 36, J. Eum20, D. Evans108, S. Evdokimov 91, L. Fabbietti103,115, M. Faggin31, J. Faivre79, A. Fantoni52, M. Fasel 95, L. Feldkamp 142, A. Feliciello59, G. Feofilov 138, A. Fernández Téllez2, A. Ferretti28, A. Festanti31,36, V.J.G. Feuillard102, J. Figiel116, M.A.S. Figueredo119, S. Filchagin106, D. Finogeev 63, F.M. Fionda 24, G. Fiorenza53, F. Flor124, M. Floris36, S. Foertsch74, P. Foka 104, S. Fokin88, E. Fragiacomo60, A. Francescon36, A. Francisco112, U. Frankenfeld 104, G.G. Fronze28, U. Fuchs 36, C. Furget79, A. Furs63, M. Fusco Girard32, J.J. Gaardhøje89, M. Gagliardi28, A.M. Gago109, K. Gajdosova89, M. Gallio 28, C.D. Galvan118, P. Ganoti 84, C. Garabatos104, E. Garcia-Solis12, K. Garg30, C. Gargiulo36, P. Gasik 115,103, E.F. Gauger 117, M.B. Gay Ducati72, M. Germain112, J. Ghosh107, P. Ghosh139, S.K. Ghosh 4, P. Gianotti52, P. Giubellino 104,59, P. Giubilato31, P. Glässel102, D.M. Goméz Coral73, A. Gomez Ramirez75, V. Gonzalez104, P. González-Zamora2, S. Gorbunov 41, L. Görlich 116, S. Gotovac37, V. Grabski73, L.K. Graczykowski140, K.L. Graham108, L. Greiner80, A. Grelli64, C. Grigoras36, V. Grigoriev92, A. Grigoryan 1, S. Grigoryan 76, J.M. Gronefeld 104, F. Grosa33, J.F. Grosse-Oetringhaus36, R. Grosso104, R. Guernane 79, B. Guerzoni29, M. Guittiere112, K. Gulbrandsen89, T. Gunji129, A. Gupta99, R. Gupta99, I.B. Guzman2, R. Haake36, M.K. Habib104, C. Hadjidakis62, H. Hamagaki82, G. Hamar143, M. Hamid7, J.C. Hamon133, R. Hannigan117, M.R. Haque 64, J.W. Harris144, A. Harton12, H. Hassan 79, D. Hatzifotiadou54,11, S. Hayashi129, S.T. Heckel 70, E. Hellbär70, H. Helstrup38, A. Herghelegiu48, E.G. Hernandez2, G. Herrera Corral10, F. Herrmann 142, K.F. Hetland38, T.E. Hilden 45, H. Hillemanns36, C. Hills126, B. Hippolyte133, B. Hohlweger103, D. Horak39, S. Hornung 104, R. Hosokawa130,79, J. Hota67, P. Hristov36, C. Huang 62, C. Hughes127, P. Huhn 70, T.J. Humanic 19, H. Hushnud107, N. Hussain 43, T. Hussain 18, D. Hutter41, D.S. Hwang21, J.P. Iddon126, S.A. Iga Buitron71, R. Ilkaev106, M. Inaba130, M. Ippolitov 88, M.S. Islam107, M. Ivanov104, V. Ivanov96, V. Izucheev 91, B. Jacak80, N. Jacazio 29, P.M. Jacobs 80, M.B. Jadhav49, S. Jadlovska114, J. Jadlovsky 114, S. Jaelani64, C. Jahnke119,115, M.J. Jakubowska 140, M.A. Janik140, C. Jena86, M. Jercic97, O. Jevons 108, R.T. Jimenez Bustamante 104, M. Jin124, P.G. Jones108, A. Jusko108, P. Kalinak 66, A. Kalweit36, J.H. Kang145, V. Kaplin 92, S. Kar7, A. Karasu Uysal 78, O. Karavichev63, T. Karavicheva63, P. Karczmarczyk 36, E. Karpechev 63, U. Kebschull 75, R. Keidel47, D.L.D. Keijdener64, M. Keil36, B. Ketzer44, Z. Khabanova90, A.M. Khan7, S. Khan 18, S.A. Khan139, A. Khanzadeev96, Y. Kharlov 91, A. Khatun18, A. Khuntia50, M.M. Kielbowicz 116, B. Kileng38, B. Kim 130, D. Kim145, D.J. Kim125, E.J. Kim 14, H. Kim145, J.S. Kim 42, J. Kim102, M. Kim 61,102, S. Kim21, T. Kim 145, T. Kim 145, S. Kirsch41, I. Kisel41, S. Kiselev65, A. Kisiel140, J.L. Klay6, C. Klein70, J. Klein 36,59, C. Klein-Bösing142, S. Klewin102, A. Kluge36, M.L. Knichel36, A.G. Knospe 124, C. Kobdaj 113, M. Kofarago143, M.K. Köhler 102, T. Kollegger104, N. Kondratyeva92, E. Kondratyuk91, A. Konevskikh63, M. Konyushikhin141, O. Kovalenko 85, V. Kovalenko138, M. Kowalski 116, I. Králik 66, A. Kravˇ cáková40, L. Kreis104, M. Krivda 66,108, F. Krizek 94, M. Krüger70, E. Kryshen96, M. Krzewicki 41, A.M. Kubera19, V. Kuˇ cera94,61, C. Kuhn133, P.G. Kuijer 90, J. Kumar49, L. Kumar98, S. Kumar 49, S. Kundu86, P. Kurashvili85, A. Kurepin63, A.B. Kurepin63, A. Kuryakin106, S. Kushpil94, J. Kvapil108, M.J. Kweon 61, Y. Kwon 145, S.L. La Pointe 41, P. La Rocca30, Y.S. Lai 80, I. Lakomov36, R. Langoy 122, K. Lapidus144, C. Lara75, A. Lardeux23, P. Larionov52, E. Laudi36, R. Lavicka39, R. Lea27, L. Leardini102, S. Lee145, F. Lehas 90, S. Lehner111, J. Lehrbach41, R.C. Lemmon93, I. León Monzón 118, P. Lévai 143, X. Li 13, X.L. Li7, J. Lien122, R. Lietava 108, B. Lim20, S. Lindal23, V. Lindenstruth41, S.W. Lindsay126, C. Lippmann 104, M.A. Lisa19, V. Litichevskyi 45, A. Liu80, H.M. Ljunggren81, W.J. Llope 141, D.F. Lodato64, V. Loginov92, C. Loizides 95,80, P. Loncar 37, X. Lopez131, E. López Torres9, A. Lowe143, P. Luettig70, J.R. Luhder142, M. Lunardon31, G. Luparello60, M. Lupi36, A. Maevskaya 63, M. Mager36, S.M. Mahmood23, A. Maire133, R.D. Majka 144, M. Malaev96, Q.W. Malik 23, L. Malinina 76,iii, D. Mal’Kevich65, P. Malzacher104, A. Mamonov106, V. Manko88, F. Manso131, V. Manzari 53, Y. Mao 7, M. Marchisone128,74,132, J. Mareš68, G.V. Margagliotti27, ALICE Collaboration / Physics Letters B 785 (2018) 419–428 425 A. Margotti54, J. Margutti64, A. Marín104, C. Markert117, M. Marquard70, N.A. Martin104, P. Martinengo36, J.L. Martinez 124, M.I. Martínez2, G. Martínez García112, M. Martinez Pedreira36, S. Masciocchi104, M. Masera28, A. Masoni55, L. Massacrier62, E. Masson112, A. Mastroserio53,135, A.M. Mathis115,103, P.F.T. Matuoka 119, A. Matyja116,127, C. Mayer116, M. Mazzilli 35, M.A. Mazzoni58, F. Meddi25, Y. Melikyan 92, A. Menchaca-Rocha73, E. Meninno32, J. Mercado Pérez 102, M. Meres15, C.S. Meza109, S. Mhlanga123, Y. Miake130, L. Micheletti28, M.M. Mieskolainen45, D.L. Mihaylov103, K. Mikhaylov65,76, A. Mischke 64, A.N. Mishra71, D. Mi´ skowiec104, J. Mitra139, C.M. Mitu69, N. Mohammadi36, A.P. Mohanty64, B. Mohanty86, M. Mohisin Khan 18,iv, D.A. Moreira De Godoy142, L.A.P. Moreno2, S. Moretto31, A. Morreale112, A. Morsch36, V. Muccifora 52, E. Mudnic 37, D. Mühlheim142, S. Muhuri139, M. Mukherjee 4, J.D. Mulligan144, M.G. Munhoz 119, K. Münning44, M.I.A. Munoz80, R.H. Munzer70, H. Murakami129, S. Murray 74, L. Musa36, J. Musinsky66, C.J. Myers124, J.W. Myrcha 140, B. Naik 49, R. Nair85, B.K. Nandi 49, R. Nania54,11, E. Nappi53, A. Narayan49, M.U. Naru16, A.F. Nassirpour81, H. Natal da Luz119, C. Nattrass 127, S.R. Navarro2, K. Nayak86, R. Nayak49, T.K. Nayak 139, S. Nazarenko106, R.A. Negrao De Oliveira 70,36, L. Nellen71, S.V. Nesbo38, G. Neskovic41, F. Ng 124, M. Nicassio104, J. Niedziela140,36, B.S. Nielsen89, S. Nikolaev88, S. Nikulin 88, V. Nikulin 96, F. Noferini11,54, P. Nomokonov 76, G. Nooren 64, J.C.C. Noris2, J. Norman79, A. Nyanin88, J. Nystrand24, H. Oh145, A. Ohlson 102, J. Oleniacz140, A.C. Oliveira Da Silva119, M.H. Oliver144, J. Onderwaater104, C. Oppedisano 59, R. Orava 45, M. Oravec114, A. Ortiz Velasquez71, A. Oskarsson81, J. Otwinowski116, K. Oyama 82, Y. Pachmayer 102, V. Pacik89, D. Pagano 137, G. Pai´ c71, P. Palni 7, J. Pan 141, A.K. Pandey49, S. Panebianco134, V. Papikyan 1, P. Pareek 50, J. Park61, J.E. Parkkila125, S. Parmar98, A. Passfeld142, S.P. Pathak124, R.N. Patra 139, B. Paul 59, H. Pei7, T. Peitzmann64, X. Peng7, L.G. Pereira 72, H.PereiraDaCosta 134, D. Peresunko88, E. Perez Lezama70, V. Peskov70, Y. Pestov 5, V. Petrᡠcek39, M. Petrovici 48, C. Petta30, R.P. Pezzi72, S. Piano60, M. Pikna15, P. Pillot112, L.O.D.L. Pimentel89, O. Pinazza54,36, L. Pinsky124, S. Pisano52, D.B. Piyarathna124, M. Płosko´ n80, M. Planinic97, F. Pliquett 70, J. Pluta140, S. Pochybova143, P.L.M. Podesta-Lerma 118, M.G. Poghosyan 95, B. Polichtchouk91, N. Poljak97, W. Poonsawat113, A. Pop48, H. Poppenborg142, S. Porteboeuf-Houssais131, V. Pozdniakov 76, S.K. Prasad4, R. Preghenella54, F. Prino59, C.A. Pruneau141, I. Pshenichnov63, M. Puccio 28, V. Punin106, J. Putschke141, S. Raha4, S. Rajput99, J. Rak125, A. Rakotozafindrabe134, L. Ramello34, F. Rami 133, R. Raniwala100, S. Raniwala 100, S.S. Räsänen45, B.T. Rascanu70, V. Ratza 44, I. Ravasenga33, K.F. Read127,95, K. Redlich85,v, A. Rehman24, P. Reichelt 70, F. Reidt36, X. Ren 7, R. Renfordt70, A. Reshetin63, J.-P. Revol11, K. Reygers102, V. Riabov 96, T. Richert64,81, M. Richter23, P. Riedler 36, W. Riegler36, F. Riggi30, C. Ristea69, S.P. Rode 50, M. Rodríguez Cahuantzi 2, K. Røed23, R. Rogalev91, E. Rogochaya76, D. Rohr 36, D. Röhrich24, P.S. Rokita 140, F. Ronchetti52, E.D. Rosas71, K. Roslon140, P. Rosnet131, A. Rossi31, A. Rotondi136, F. Roukoutakis 84, C. Roy133, P. Roy 107, O.V. Rueda71, R. Rui27, B. Rumyantsev76, A. Rustamov87, E. Ryabinkin 88, Y. Ryabov 96, A. Rybicki116, S. Saarinen45, S. Sadhu139, S. Sadovsky 91, K. Šafaˇ rík36, S.K. Saha139, B. Sahoo49, P. Sahoo50, R. Sahoo50, S. Sahoo 67, P.K. Sahu 67, J. Saini 139, S. Sakai130, M.A. Saleh141, S. Sambyal99, V. Samsonov96,92, A. Sandoval73, A. Sarkar74, D. Sarkar139, N. Sarkar139, P. Sarma43, M.H.P. Sas64, E. Scapparone54, F. Scarlassara 31, B. Schaefer 95, H.S. Scheid70, C. Schiaua 48, R. Schicker102, C. Schmidt104, H.R. Schmidt101, M.O. Schmidt102, M. Schmidt101, N.V. Schmidt95,70, J. Schukraft 36, Y. Schutz 36,133, K. Schwarz104, K. Schweda104, G. Scioli 29, E. Scomparin59, M. Šefˇ cík40, J.E. Seger17, Y. Sekiguchi129, D. Sekihata46, I. Selyuzhenkov104,92, K. Senosi74, S. Senyukov133, E. Serradilla73, P. Sett 49, A. Sevcenco69, A. Shabanov63, A. Shabetai112, R. Shahoyan36, W. Shaikh 107, A. Shangaraev91, A. Sharma98, A. Sharma99, M. Sharma99, N. Sharma98, A.I. Sheikh 139, K. Shigaki46, M. Shimomura83, S. Shirinkin 65, Q. Shou7,110, K. Shtejer28, Y. Sibiriak 88, S. Siddhanta55, K.M. Sielewicz36, T. Siemiarczuk85, D. Silvermyr 81, G. Simatovic90, G. Simonetti36,103, R. Singaraju139, R. Singh86, R. Singh99, V. Singhal 139, T. Sinha107, B. Sitar 15, M. Sitta34, T.B. Skaali 23, M. Slupecki125, N. Smirnov 144, R.J.M. Snellings64, T.W. Snellman 125, J. Song20, F. Soramel31, S. Sorensen127, F. Sozzi104, I. Sputowska116, J. Stachel102, I. Stan 69, P. Stankus 95, E. Stenlund81, D. Stocco112, M.M. Storetvedt38, P. Strmen 15, A.A.P. Suaide119, T. Sugitate46, C. Suire62, M. Suleymanov16, M. Suljic 36,27, R. Sultanov65, M. Šumbera94, S. Sumowidagdo 51, K. Suzuki111, S. Swain 67, A. Szabo15, I. Szarka15, U. Tabassam 16, J. Takahashi 120, G.J. Tambave24, N. Tanaka 130, M. Tarhini112, M. Tariq18, M.G. Tarzila48, A. Tauro36, G. Tejeda Muñoz2, A. Telesca36, C. Terrevoli31, B. Teyssier132, D. Thakur50, S. Thakur139, D. Thomas117, 426 ALICE Collaboration / Physics Letters B 785 (2018) 419–428 F. Thoresen89, R. Tieulent132, A. Tikhonov63, A.R. Timmins124, A. Toia70, N. Topilskaya 63, M. Toppi 52, S.R. Torres118, S. Tripathy 50, S. Trogolo 28, G. Trombetta35, L. Tropp40, V. Trubnikov3, W.H. Trzaska 125, T.P. Trzcinski140, B.A. Trzeciak64, T. Tsuji 129, A. Tumkin106, R. Turrisi 57, T.S. Tveter23, K. Ullaland 24, E.N. Umaka 124, A. Uras132, G.L. Usai26, A. Utrobicic97, M. Vala 114, J.W. Van Hoorne36, M. van Leeuwen64, P. Vande Vyvre36, D. Varga143, A. Vargas2, M. Vargyas125, R. Varma49, M. Vasileiou84, A. Vasiliev88, A. Vauthier79, O. Vázquez Doce103,115, V. Vechernin138, A.M. Veen64, E. Vercellin28, S. Vergara Limón2, L. Vermunt64, R. Vernet8, R. Vértesi 143, L. Vickovic37, J. Viinikainen125, Z. Vilakazi128, O. Villalobos Baillie108, A. Villatoro Tello 2, A. Vinogradov88, T. Virgili32, V. Vislavicius89,81, A. Vodopyanov76, M.A. Völkl101, K. Voloshin 65, S.A. Voloshin141, G. Volpe35, B. von Haller36, I. Vorobyev115,103, D. Voscek114, D. Vranic104,36, J. Vrláková40, B. Wagner24, H. Wang 64, M. Wang7, Y. Watanabe 130, M. Weber 111, S.G. Weber 104, A. Wegrzynek 36, D.F. Weiser102, S.C. Wenzel36, J.P. Wessels 142, U. Westerhoff 142, A.M. Whitehead123, J. Wiechula70, J. Wikne23, G. Wilk85, J. Wilkinson 54, G.A. Willems142,36, M.C.S. Williams 54, E. Willsher108, B. Windelband 102, W.E. Witt127, R. Xu7, S. Yalcin78, K. Yamakawa46, S. Yano46, Z. Yin 7, H. Yokoyama 79,130, I.-K. Yoo 20, J.H. Yoon 61, V. Yurchenko3, V. Zaccolo59, A. Zaman16, C. Zampolli36, H.J.C. Zanoli 119, N. Zardoshti108, A. Zarochentsev138, P. Závada 68, N. Zaviyalov106, H. Zbroszczyk 140, M. Zhalov96, X. Zhang 7, Y. Zhang 7, Z. Zhang7,131, C. Zhao 23, V. Zherebchevskii138, N. Zhigareva65, D. Zhou7, Y. Zhou 89, Z. Zhou24, H. Zhu 7, J. Zhu7, Y. Zhu 7, A. Zichichi29,11, M.B. Zimmermann36, G. Zinovjev3, J. Zmeskal 111, S. Zou7 1A.I. Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics Institute) Foundation, Yerevan, Armenia 2Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico 3Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine 4Bose Institute, Department of Physics and Centre for Astroparticle Physics and Space Science (CAPSS), Kolkata, India 5Budker Institute for Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia 6California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, United States 7Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China 8Centre de Calcul de l’IN2P3, Villeurbanne, Lyon, France 9Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Havana, Cuba 10 Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados (CINVESTAV), Mexico City and Mérida, Mexico 11 Centro Fermi – Museo Storico della Fisica e Centro Studi e Ricerche “Enrico Fermi”, Rome, Italy 12 Chicago State University, Chicago, IL, United States 13 China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China 14 Chonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea 15 Comenius University Bratislava, Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, Bratislava, Slovakia 16 COMSATS Institute of Information Technology (CIIT), Islamabad, Pakistan 17 Creighton University, Omaha, NE, United States 18 Department of Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India 19 Department of Physics, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States 20 Department of Physics, Pusan National University, Pusan, Republic of Korea 21 Department of Physics, Sejong University, Seoul, Republic of Korea 22 Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA, United States 23 Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway 24 Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway 25 Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università ‘La Sapienza’ and Sezione INFN, Rome, Italy 26 Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Cagliari, Italy 27 Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Trieste, Italy 28 Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy 29 Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Bologna, Italy 30 Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Catania, Italy 31 Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Padova, Italy 32 Dipartimento di Fisica ‘E.R. Caianiello’ dell’Università and Gruppo Collegato INFN, Salerno, Italy 33 Dipartimento DISAT del Politecnico and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy 34 Dipartimento di Scienze e Innovazione Tecnologica dell’Università del Piemonte Orientale and INFN Sezione di Torino, Alessandria, Italy 35 Dipartimento Interateneo di Fisica ‘M. Merlin’ and Sezione INFN, Bari, Italy 36 European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland 37 Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Split, Split, Croatia 38 Faculty of Engineering and Science, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway 39 Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic 40 Faculty of Science, P.J. Šafárik University, Košice, Slovakia 41 Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany 42 Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, Republic of Korea 43 Gauhati University, Department of Physics, Guwahati, India 44 Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlenund Kernphysik, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany 45 Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Helsinki, Finland 46 Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan 47 Hochschule Worms, Zentrum für Technologietransfer und Telekommunikation (ZTT), Worms, Germany 48 Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest, Romania 49 Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT), Mumbai, India 50 Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore, India 51 Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Jakarta, Indonesia