[table]capposition=top

2020 243 14 April

$\Upsilon$ production in p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 8.16 TeV

ALICE CollaborationALICE Collaboration

$\Upsilon$ production in p–Pb interactions is studied at the centre-of-mass
energy per nucleon–nucleon collision $\sqrt{s_{{}_{\rm{NN}}}}=8.16$ TeV with
the ALICE detector at the CERN LHC. The measurement is performed
reconstructing bottomonium resonances via their dimuon decay channel, in the
centre-of-mass rapidity intervals $2.03<y_{\rm{cms}}<3.53$ and
$-4.46<y_{\rm{cms}}<-2.96$, down to zero transverse momentum. In this work,
results on the $\Upsilon$(1S) production cross section as a function of
rapidity and transverse momentum are presented. The corresponding nuclear
modification factor shows a suppression of the $\Upsilon$(1S) yields with
respect to pp collisions, both at forward and backward rapidity. This
suppression is stronger in the low transverse momentum region and shows no
significant dependence on the centrality of the interactions. Furthermore, the
$\Upsilon$(2S) nuclear modification factor is evaluated, suggesting a
suppression similar to that of the $\Upsilon$(1S). A first measurement of the
$\Upsilon$(3S) has also been performed. Finally, results are compared with
previous ALICE measurements in p–Pb collisions at
$\sqrt{s_{{}_{\rm{NN}}}}=5.02$ TeV and with theoretical calculations.

##  1 Introduction

Quarkonium resonances, i.e. bound states of a heavy quark ($\rm{Q}$) and anti-
quark ($\overline{\rm{Q}}$), are well-known probes of the formation of a
quark–gluon plasma (QGP) which can occur in heavy-ions collisions. The high
colour-charge density reached in such a medium can, in fact, screen the
binding force between the $\rm{Q}$ and $\overline{\rm{Q}}$, leading to a
temperature-dependent melting of the quarkonium states according to their
binding energies [1].

A suppression of bottomonium resonances, the bound states formed by $\rm{b}$
and $\overline{\rm{b}}$ quarks, was observed in Pb–Pb collisions, at the LHC
energies of $\sqrt{s_{{}_{\rm{NN}}}}=2.76$ TeV and
$\sqrt{s_{{}_{\rm{NN}}}}=5.02$ TeV by the ALICE [2, 3] and CMS [4, 5, 6]
experiments. All the $\Upsilon$ resonances show a reduction in their
production yields compared to pp interactions at the same centre-of-mass
energy, scaled by the number of nucleon–nucleon collisions. Furthermore, the
magnitude of the suppression is significantly different for the three
resonances and it increases from the tightly bound $\Upsilon$(1S) to the
loosely bound $\Upsilon$(3S) [4, 5, 6], as expected in a sequential
suppression scenario, with the binding energies of the $\Upsilon$ states
ranging between $\sim$1 GeV for the $\Upsilon$(1S) to $\sim$0.2 GeV for the
$\Upsilon$(3S) [7]. Modifications to the bottomonium production might also be
induced by cold nuclear matter (CNM) mechanisms not related to the formation
of the QGP. The modification of the quark and gluon structure functions for
nucleons inside nuclei, modeled either via nuclear parton distribution
functions (nPDFs) [8, 9, 10, 11] or through a Color Glass Condensate effective
theory [12], or the coherent energy loss of the $\rm{Q\overline{Q}}$ pair
during its path through the cold nuclear medium [13] are examples of CNM
effects which can influence quarkonium production [14]. The size of these
effects is usually assessed in proton–nucleus collisions. These interactions
also allow for the investigation of additional final state mechanisms, which
can modify the production in particular of the more loosely bound resonances
[15, 16, 17].

ALICE has published results on the modification of the $\Upsilon$(1S)
production yields as a function of the centre-of-mass rapidity
($y_{\mathrm{cms}}$) using the 2013 p–Pb collisions data sample at
$\sqrt{s_{{}_{\rm{NN}}}}=5.02$ TeV [18]. The size of the observed suppression
was found to be similar in the forward and backward rapidity regions.
Theoretical calculations based on the aforementioned CNM mechanisms fairly
describe the forward-$y_{\mathrm{cms}}$ measurements, while they slightly
overestimate the results obtained at backward rapidity. Furthermore, the
measurement of the $\Upsilon$(2S) to $\Upsilon$(1S) ratio [18],
$\Upsilon$(2S)/$\Upsilon$(1S), was consistent, albeit within large
uncertainties, with the one obtained in pp collisions [19], suggesting CNM
effects of the same size on the two resonances both at forward and backward
rapidity. Consistent results were also obtained by the LHCb experiment [20] in
a similar kinematic region. However, it should be noted that ATLAS [21] and
CMS [22] measurements of $\Upsilon$(2S)/$\Upsilon$(1S) at midrapidity suggest
a stronger suppression of the $\Upsilon$(2S) with respect to the
$\Upsilon$(1S) state, as expected if final state effects are at play [15].

In 2016, the LHC delivered p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{{}_{\rm{NN}}}}=8.16$
TeV. The increase both in integrated luminosity, about a factor of 2 larger
than the one collected in 2013, and in the bottomonium production cross
section, due to the higher centre-of-mass energy, allows a more detailed study
of the production of the $\Upsilon$ states. In this paper, results on the
$\Upsilon$(1S) production as a function of $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$, transverse
momentum ($p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$) and centrality of the collisions will be
discussed and compared with the measurements performed in p–Pb collisions at
$\sqrt{s_{{}_{\rm{NN}}}}=5.02$ TeV and with theoretical calculations. A
comparison of the $\Upsilon$(2S) and $\Upsilon$(3S) to $\Upsilon$(1S)
production yields and nuclear modification factors, integrated over
$y_{\mathrm{cms}}$, $p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$ and centrality, will also be presented.
Finally, the results will be compared with the corresponding measurements
obtained by LHCb at the same energy [23]. It should be noted that all the
presented results refer to the $\Upsilon$ inclusive production, i.e. to
$\Upsilon$ either produced directly or coming from the feed-down of higher-
mass excited states.

##  2 Experimental apparatus and data sample

A detailed description of the ALICE apparatus and performance can be found in
[24, 25]. The forward muon spectrometer [26] is the main detector used in this
analysis. It consists of five tracking stations made of two planes of Cathode
Pad Chambers each, followed by two trigger stations each one composed by two
planes of Resistive Plate Chambers. A 10 interaction-length ($\lambda_{\rm
I}$) absorber, placed in front of the tracking system, filters out most of the
hadrons produced in the collisions. Low-momentum muons and hadrons escaping
the first absorber are stopped by a second 7.2 $\lambda_{\rm I}$-thick iron
wall, placed in front of the trigger stations. The momentum of the particles
is evaluated by measuring their curvature in a dipole magnet with a 3
T$\times$m integrated field. The muon spectrometer measures muons in the
pseudorapidity interval $-4<\eta<-2.5$ in the laboratory reference frame. It
also provides single and unlike- or like-sign dimuon triggers based on the
detection in the trigger system of one or two muons, respectively, having a
transverse momentum higher than a programmable threshold set to
$p_{{\mathrm{T}},\mu}=0.5$ GeV/$c$. This threshold is not sharp and the single
muon trigger efficiency reaches a plateau value of $\sim$98% at about
$p_{{\mathrm{T}},\mu}\sim$1.5 GeV/$c$.

The primary interaction vertex of the collision is reconstructed using the two
innermost layers of the Inner Tracking System (Silicon Pixel Detector, SPD)
[27], extending over the pseudorapidity intervals $|\eta|<2$ and $|\eta|<1.4$,
respectively. The V0 detector [28], composed of two sets of scintillators
covering the pseudorapidity intervals $2.8<\eta<5.1$ and $-3.7<\eta<-1.7$,
provides the luminosity measurement, which can also be obtained independently
from the information of the T0 Cherenkov detectors [29], covering the regions
$4.6<\eta<4.9$ and $-3.3<\eta<-3$. The V0 detector is also used to provide the
minimum bias (MB) trigger, defined by the coincidence of signals in the two
sets of scintillators. The trigger condition used in this analysis is based on
the coincidence of the MB trigger with the unlike-sign dimuon one
($\mu\mu$-$\rm{MB}$). The removal of beam-induced background is based on the
timing information provided by the V0 and by two sets of Zero Degree
Calorimeters (ZDC) [30] placed at $\pm$112.5 m from the interaction point,
along the beamline. The ZDCs are also used for the centrality estimation as it
will be discussed in Sec. 3. Finally, for the study of the $\Upsilon$
production as a function of the centrality of the collisions, pile-up events
in which two or more interactions occur in the same colliding bunch are
removed using the information from SPD and V0.

Further selection criteria, commonly adopted in the ALICE quarkonium analyses
(see e.g. [31, 18]), are applied to the muon tracks forming the dimuon pair.
Muon tracks must have a pseudorapidity value in the range
$-4<\eta_{\rm{\mu}}<-2.5$, corresponding to the muon spectrometer acceptance,
and they should point to the interaction vertex to remove fake tracks and
particles not directly produced in beam–beam interactions. Their transverse
coordinate at the end of the front absorber ($R_{\rm{abs}}$) must be within
$17.6$ cm $<R_{\rm{abs}}<89.5$ cm, to remove muons not passing the homogeneous
region of the absorber. Finally, tracks reconstructed in the tracking chambers
of the muon spectrometer should match the track segments reconstructed in the
trigger system. This matching request helps to further reject hadron
contamination and ensures that the reconstructed muons fulfill the trigger
condition.

The data were collected with two beam configurations obtained by inverting the
directions of the proton and Pb beams circulating inside the LHC. In this way
it was possible to cover both a forward ($2.03<y_{\mathrm{cms}}<3.53$) and a
backward ($-4.46<y_{\mathrm{cms}}<-2.96$) dimuon rapidity interval, where the
positive (negative) $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$ refers to the proton (Pb) beam going
towards the muon spectrometer. The collected integrated luminosities for the
corresponding data samples, referred to as p–Pb (forward rapidity) and Pb–p
(backward rapidity) in the following, are
$\mathcal{L}_{\rm{int}}^{\rm{pPb}}=8.4\pm 0.2$ nb-1 and
$\mathcal{L}_{\rm{int}}^{\rm{Pbp}}=12.8\pm 0.3$ nb-1 [32].

##  3 Data analysis

The results presented in this paper are based on an analysis procedure similar
to the one described in [18] for the study of the $\Upsilon$ production in
p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{{}_{\rm{NN}}}}=5.02$ TeV.

The $\Upsilon$(1S), $\Upsilon$(2S) and $\Upsilon$(3S) production cross
sections, corrected by the branching ratio for the decay in a muon pair
($\rm{B.R.}_{\rm{\Upsilon}\rightarrow\rm{\mu^{+}\mu^{-}}}$), are obtained, for
a given ($\Delta y_{\rm cms},\Delta p_{\rm T}$) interval, as

$\frac{\rm{d}^{2}\sigma^{\Upsilon}_{\rm pPb}}{\rm{d}\it{y}_{\rm
cms}\rm{d}\it{p}_{\rm T}}=\frac{N_{\Upsilon}}{\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}^{\rm
pPb}\times(A\times\epsilon)\times\Delta y_{\rm cms}\times\Delta p_{\rm
T}\times{\rm{B.R.}}_{\Upsilon\rightarrow\mu^{+}\mu^{-}}},$ (1)

where $N_{\rm{\Upsilon}}$ is the number of signal counts and
($A\times\epsilon$) is the corresponding acceptance and efficiency correction
in the kinematic bin under study, while the branching ratios are ($2.48\pm
0.05$)% for $\Upsilon$(1S), ($1.93\pm 0.17$)% for $\Upsilon$(2S) and ($2.18\pm
0.21$)% for $\Upsilon$(3S) [33].

The number of $\Upsilon\rm{(nS)}$ is obtained by fitting the unlike-sign
dimuon invariant mass spectrum with a combination of signal shapes to describe
the $\Upsilon$ resonances and an empirical function to model the background.
More in detail, the background is described by several combinations of
exponential and polynomial functions or by a Gaussian function with a mass-
dependent width. For the resonance shapes, extended Crystal Ball functions
[34], with power-law tails on the right and left sides of the mass peak are
used. Alternatively, pseudo-Gaussian functions with a mass-dependent width are
also adopted [34]. The same signal shape is chosen for all the $\Upsilon$
states. The mass of the $\Upsilon$(1S) and its width
$\sigma_{\rm{\Upsilon\rm{(1S)}}}$ are free parameters of the fit, while the
mass and the width of the $\Upsilon$(2S) and $\Upsilon$(3S) states are bound
to those of the $\Upsilon$(1S) in the following way:
$m_{\rm{\Upsilon\rm{(nS)}}}=m_{\rm{\Upsilon\rm{(1S)}}}+(m_{\rm{\Upsilon\rm{(nS)}}}^{\rm{PDG}}-m_{\rm{\Upsilon\rm{(1S)}}}^{\rm{PDG}})$
and
$\sigma_{\rm{\Upsilon\rm{(nS)}}}=\sigma_{\rm{\Upsilon\rm{(1S)}}}\times\sigma_{\rm{\Upsilon\rm{(nS)}}}^{\rm{MC}}/\sigma_{\rm{\Upsilon\rm{(1S)}}}^{\rm{MC}}$.
The mass value $m_{\rm{\Upsilon\rm{(nS)}}}^{\rm{PDG}}$ is taken from [33] and
$\sigma_{\rm{\Upsilon\rm{(nS)}}}^{\rm{MC}}$ is the width of the resonance as
evaluated from a fit, with the aforementioned signal functions, to the
spectrum obtained from the Monte Carlo (MC) simulation also used for the
($A\times\epsilon$) correction. Due to the signal-over-background ratio of the
order of $\sim$0.7 ($\sim$1) in p–Pb (Pb–p), measured in a 3$\sigma$ region
around the $\Upsilon$(1S) mass, the non-Gaussian tails of the extended Crystal
Ball function can not be kept as free parameters of the fits. Hence, they are
tuned on pp data at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV, the largest data sample collected by
ALICE so far, or, alternatively, on p–Pb or pp MC simulations at
$\sqrt{s_{{}_{\rm{NN}}}}=8.16$ TeV and $\sqrt{s}$ = 8 TeV, respectively. The
same tails are adopted for the $\Upsilon$(2S) and $\Upsilon$(3S) mass shapes.
Examples of the fit to the invariant mass spectrum, for both the p–Pb and Pb–p
samples, are shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 1: Invariant mass spectra of unlike-sign dimuons, integrated over
$p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$, for Pb–p (left panel) and p–Pb (right panel) collisions.
The shapes of the $\Upsilon$(1S), $\Upsilon$(2S) and $\Upsilon$(3S) resonances
are shown (dash-dotted lines), together with the background function (dashed
line) and the total fit (solid line).

The number of $\Upsilon$ candidates, $N_{\Upsilon}$, is evaluated as the
average of the values obtained by varying the signal and background functions
as well as the fitting intervals (6 GeV/${c^{2}}$ $<m_{\rm{\mu\mu}}<$ 13
GeV/${c^{2}}$ or 7 GeV/${c^{2}}$ $<m_{\rm{\mu\mu}}<$ 12 GeV/${c^{2}}$). The
statistical uncertainties are calculated as the average of the statistical
uncertainties over the various fits and the standard deviation of the
distribution of the $N_{\Upsilon}$ values provides the systematic
uncertainties on the signal extraction. For the $\Upsilon$(2S) and
$\Upsilon$(3S) cases, an additional contribution to the systematic uncertainty
is included, to account for possible variations of their width with respect to
that of the $\Upsilon$(1S). In particular, their widths are allowed to vary
between a minimum value $\sigma_{\rm{\Upsilon\rm{(1S)}}}$ and a maximum value
$\sigma_{\rm{\Upsilon\rm{(1S)}}}\times\sigma_{\rm{\Upsilon\rm{(nS)}}}^{\rm{MC}}/\sigma_{\rm{\Upsilon\rm{(1S)}}}^{\rm{MC}}$,
where the ratio
$\sigma_{\rm{\Upsilon\rm{(nS)}}}^{\rm{MC}}/\sigma_{\rm{\Upsilon\rm{(1S)}}}^{\rm{MC}}$
is obtained from MC simulations alternative to the ones used for the
($A\times\epsilon$) correction, i.e. based on different $\Upsilon$ kinematic
input shapes, as it will be discussed later on. A further 5% systematic
uncertainty is also included to account for possible residual discrepancies
between the detector resolution in MC and in the data.

The total number of $\Upsilon$(1S), integrated over the full kinematic range,
amounts to $N_{\rm{\Upsilon\rm{(1S)}}}=909\pm 62\,\rm{(stat.)}\pm
58\,\rm{(syst.)}$ and $N_{\rm{\Upsilon\rm{(1S)}}}=918\pm 55\,\rm{(stat.)}\pm
51\,\rm{(syst.)}$ for the forward and backward-rapidity regions, respectively.
Corresponding values for $\Upsilon$(2S) are $N_{\rm{\Upsilon\rm{(2S)}}}=192\pm
39\,\rm{(stat.)}\pm 17\,\rm{(syst.)}$ and $N_{\rm{\Upsilon\rm{(2S)}}}=194\pm
34\,\rm{(stat.)}\pm 16\,\rm{(syst.)}$, while for the $\Upsilon$(3S) the values
are $N_{\rm{\Upsilon\rm{(3S)}}}=48\pm 36\,\rm{(stat.)}\pm 8\,\rm{(syst.)}$ and
$N_{\rm{\Upsilon\rm{(3S)}}}=95\pm 30\,\rm{(stat.)}\pm 12\,\rm{(syst.)}$. The
systematic uncertainty, amounting to $\sim$6% for the $\Upsilon$(1S) and
$\sim$8% for the $\Upsilon$(2S), is dominated by the choice of the tail
parameters in the fit functions and, in the $\Upsilon$(2S) case, also by the
allowed range of variation for the $\sigma_{\rm{\Upsilon\rm{(2S)}}}$. In the
$\Upsilon$(3S) case, the systematic uncertainties are slightly larger,
amounting to $\sim$17% at forward rapidity and $\sim$12% at backward rapidity.
For $p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$\- or $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$-differential $\Upsilon$(1S)
studies, the systematic uncertainties have a similar size, reaching $\sim$15%
only in the highest $p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$ bin (8 GeV/$c$ $<p_{\mathrm{T}}<$ 15
GeV/$c$).

The acceptance and efficiency correction is calculated in a MC simulation,
based on the GEANT3 transport code [35]. The MC simulation is performed on a
run-by-run basis to closely follow the evolution of the performance of the
detectors during the data taking. The $\Upsilon$(1S) are generated using
rapidity and transverse momentum distributions tuned on p–Pb or Pb–p data at
$\sqrt{s_{{}_{\rm{NN}}}}=8.16$ TeV, through an iterative procedure [31]. The
$p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$ integrated ($A\times\epsilon$)
amounts to $0.300\pm 0.006$ for the $\Upsilon$(1S) at forward rapidity and
$0.273\pm 0.007$ at backward rapidity, where the quoted uncertainties are
systematic, the statistical uncertainties being negligible. The lower
($A\times\epsilon$) values measured in the Pb–p period, with respect to the
p–Pb one, are due to detector instabilities which affected temporarily the
behaviour of two tracking chambers. The limited size of the data sample do not
allow for a similar tuning of the $p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$
distributions on data for the $\Upsilon$(2S) and $\Upsilon$(3S) resonances,
hence the same shapes as for the $\Upsilon$(1S) are used. The resulting
($A\times\epsilon$) values show a negligible difference with respect to the
$\Upsilon$(1S) ones. The systematic uncertainties on ($A\times\epsilon$)
include contributions related to the choice of the MC $p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$ and
$y_{\mathrm{cms}}$ input distributions for the $\Upsilon$ states and to the
evaluation of the tracking and trigger efficiencies. The systematic
uncertainties associated to the MC $\Upsilon$ input shapes are evaluated as
the maximum difference between the ($A\times\epsilon$) evaluated with the
aforementioned MC tuned on data and the values extracted from alternative MC
samples based on $p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$ $\Upsilon$
distributions either measured by the LHCb experiment in pp collisions at
$\sqrt{s}$ = 8 TeV [36] or obtained from existing CDF and LHC pp measurements
[37, 38, 39] via a procedure similar to the one described in [40]. Nuclear
shadowing is also included to account for its influence on the bottomonium
kinematic distributions. These systematic uncertainties amount to 1% (1.3%)
for p–Pb and 1% (1.6%) for Pb–p for the three resonances. They have a
negligible $p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$-dependence, while they reach up to 4% at the
edges of the rapidity intervals. The systematic uncertainty on the trigger
efficiency consists of two contributions, one related to the evaluation of the
intrinsic efficiency of each muon-trigger chamber (1%) and one to small
differences between the trigger response function estimated via data and MC
(0.6% in p–Pb and 0.2% in Pb–p, when integrating over $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$ and
$p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$). This last source of uncertainty is below 1% also for the
$p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$ or $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$-differential studies. The systematic
uncertainty associated to the tracking efficiency is evaluated comparing the
dimuon tracking efficiencies computed both in data and MC. These efficiencies
are computed combining the efficiency of each single muon-tracking chamber,
obtained relying on the redundancy of the tracking system. The resulting
systematic uncertainties amount to 1% for p–Pb and 2% for Pb–p, for both the
$y_{\mathrm{cms}}$ and $p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$ differential studies and for results
integrated over the kinematic domain. Finally, an additional 1% systematic
uncertainty on the choice of the $\chi^{2}$ cut on the matching between the
tracks reconstructed in the tracking and in the trigger systems is included.
The systematic uncertainties associated to the trigger, tracking and matching
efficiencies are considered to be identical for both the $\Upsilon$(1S) and
$\Upsilon$(2S) resonances.

The integrated luminosities are obtained as
$\mathcal{L}_{\rm{int}}=N_{\rm{MB}}/\sigma_{\rm MB}$. The number of equivalent
minimum bias events, $N_{\rm MB}$, is evaluated by multiplying the number of
events collected with the $\mu\mu$-$\rm{MB}$ trigger by a factor
$F_{\rm{norm}}$, corresponding to the inverse of the probability of having a
triggered dimuon in a MB event [31]. This quantity is computed, run by run, as
the ratio between the number of collected MB triggers and the number of times
the dimuon trigger condition is verified in the MB trigger sample. Once
averaged over all the runs, considering as weight the number of
$\mu\mu$-$\rm{MB}$ triggers in each run, $F_{\rm{norm}}$ amounts to $679\pm 7$
at forward rapidity and $372\pm 4$ at backward rapidity. The quoted
uncertainty (1%) is systematic and accounts for differences coming from an
alternative evaluation method, based on the information provided by the
level-0 trigger scalers, as detailed in [41]. The V0-based MB cross section
($\sigma_{\rm MB}$) is measured from a van der Meer scan, and it amounts to
$2.09\pm 0.04$ b for the p–Pb configuration and $2.10\pm 0.04$ b for the Pb–p
one [32]. In the luminosity systematic uncertainty quoted in Table 1, the
uncertainties on $F_{\rm{norm}}$ and $\sigma_{\rm MB}$ are combined, together
with a 1.1% (0.6%) contribution due to the difference between the luminosities
obtained with the V0 and T0 detectors in the p–Pb (Pb–p) configurations [32].

The nuclear effects on the $\Upsilon$ production are studied comparing the
corresponding p–Pb production cross section to the one measured in pp
collisions, $\rm{d}^{2}\sigma^{\Upsilon}_{\rm pp}/\rm{d}\it{y}_{\rm
cms}\rm{d}\it{p}_{\rm T}$, obtained at the same centre-of-mass energy and
scaled by the atomic mass number of the Pb nucleus ($A_{\rm Pb}=208$), through
the so-called nuclear modification factor $R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$, defined as

$R_{\rm{pPb}}=\frac{\rm{d}^{2}\sigma^{\Upsilon}_{\rm pPb}/\rm{d}\it{y}_{\rm
cms}\rm{d}\it{p}_{\rm T}}{A_{\rm Pb}\times\rm{d}^{2}\sigma^{\Upsilon}_{\rm
pp}/\rm{d}\it{y}_{\rm cms}\rm{d}\it{p}_{\rm T}}.$ (2)

The proton–proton reference is based on the LHCb measurements of the
bottomonium production cross section in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 8 TeV
[36], in $-4.5<y_{\mathrm{cms}}<-2.5$ and $2<y_{\mathrm{cms}}<4$, corrected by
a factor to account for the slightly different centre-of-mass energies of the
interactions. This correction factor is evaluated interpolating the LHCb
measurements at $\sqrt{s}=$ 7, 8 and 13 TeV [36, 42], as detailed in [43]. It
amounts to $1.02$ for both the $\Upsilon$(1S) and $\Upsilon$(2S), showing a
negligible $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$ dependence and varying by 1% from low to high
$p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$. A systematic uncertainty on the determination of this
factor (1%) is assigned, based on the choice of the different functions used
for the energy-interpolation. The $\Upsilon$ production cross sections in pp
collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 8 TeV are also measured by ALICE [44]. The results
show good agreement with the corresponding LHCb values, but unlike the LHCb
measurements, they cover a slightly narrower rapidity region,
$2.5<y_{\mathrm{cms}}<4$, which does not match the rapidity coverage of the
p–Pb measurements. The $\sigma^{\rm{\Upsilon(1S)}}_{\rm{pp}}$ cross sections,
integrated over $p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$, are $98.5\pm
0.1\;\rm{(stat.)}\pm 3.4\;\rm{(syst.)}\;{\rm nb}$ in the range
$2.03<y_{\mathrm{cms}}<3.53$ and $62.0\pm 0.1\;\rm{(stat.)}\pm
2.1\;\rm{(syst.)}\;{\rm nb}$ in the range $-4.46<y_{\mathrm{cms}}<-2.96$. The
corresponding cross sections for the $\Upsilon$(2S) are about a factor 3
smaller, being $\sigma^{\rm{\Upsilon(2S)}}_{\rm{pp}}=31.9\pm
0.1\;\rm{(stat.)}\pm 2.9\;\rm{(syst.)}\;{\rm nb}$ at forward rapidity and
$19.7\pm 0.05\;\rm{(stat.)}\pm 1.8\;\rm{(syst.)}\;{\rm nb}$ at backward
rapidity. The $\Upsilon$(3S) production cross sections are
$\sigma^{\rm{\Upsilon(3S)}}_{\rm{pp}}=12.9\pm 0.1\;\rm{(stat.)}\pm
1.3\;\rm{(syst.)}\;{\rm nb}$ at forward rapidity and $8.3\pm
0.1\;\rm{(stat.)}\pm 0.8\;\rm{(syst.)}\;{\rm nb}$ at backward rapidity.

The large data sample collected in p–Pb collisions in 2016 allows the
$\Upsilon$(1S) production also to be studied as a function of the collision
centrality. The centrality determination is based on a hybrid model, as
discussed in detail in [45]. In this approach, the centrality is determined by
measuring the energy released in the ZDC positioned in the Pb-going direction.
For each ZDC-selected centrality class, the average number of collisions
$\langle N_{\mathrm{coll}}\rangle$ is obtained as $\langle
N_{\mathrm{coll}}\rangle=\langle N_{\rm{part}}\rangle$-1, assuming the charged
particle multiplicity measured at midrapidity is proportional to the number of
participant nucleons, $N_{\rm{part}}$. The centrality classes used in this
analysis correspond to 2–20%, 20–40%, 40–60% and 60–90% of the MB cross
section. The 0–2% most central collisions are excluded from this analysis
because the fraction of events coming from pile-up in the ZDC is large in this
centrality interval and a residual contamination might still be present in
spite of the applied pile-up rejection cuts [46].

For centrality studies, the modification induced by the nuclear matter on the
$\Upsilon$(1S) production is quantified through the nuclear modification
factor denoted by $Q_{\mathrm{pPb}}$, to be distinguished from
$R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ since potential biases from the centrality estimation,
unrelated to nuclear effects, might be present [45]. The $Q_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ is
defined as

$Q_{\rm{pPb}}=\frac{N_{\rm{\Upsilon}}}{\rm{B.R.}_{\rm{\Upsilon}\rightarrow\rm{\mu^{+}\mu^{-}}}\times\mathit{N}_{\mathrm{MB}}\times(\mathit{A}\times\epsilon)\times\langle\mathit{T}_{\mathrm{pPb}}\rangle\times\sigma^{\rm{\Upsilon}}_{\mathrm{pp}}}.$
(3)

The quantities entering Eq. 3 are evaluated according to the previously
discussed procedure, with few minor differences. When extracting the
$\Upsilon$(1S) signal, for example, no significant variation of the
$\Upsilon$(1S) width as a function of the collision centrality is foreseen.
Hence for centrality studies, the $\Upsilon$(1S) width is fixed to the value
obtained in the fit to the centrality-integrated invariant mass spectrum. The
uncertainty associated to the choice of the width is accounted for in the
evaluation of the systematic uncertainty on the signal extraction. No
significant centrality dependence is expected for the ($A\times\epsilon$)
either, so the centrality-integrated values are also used for all the
centrality classes. To evaluate the number of MB events in each centrality
class $i$, $F_{\rm{norm}}^{i}$ is obtained from the centrality-integrated
quantity scaled by the ratio of the number of minimum bias and dimuon-
triggered events in each centrality interval with respect to the corresponding
centrality integrated quantities,
$(N_{\rm{MB}}^{i}/N_{\rm{MB}})/(N_{\mu\mu-\rm{MB}}^{i}/N_{\mu\mu-\rm{MB}})$.
Alternatively, $F_{\rm{norm}}^{i}$ is computed directly for each centrality
class and a further 1% difference between the two approaches is included in
the systematic uncertainty. The statistical uncertainty on $F_{\rm{norm}}^{i}$
is negligible. Finally, $\langle T_{\rm{pPb}}\rangle$ is the centrality-
dependent average nuclear thickness function, computed with the Glauber
framework [47, 45].

The systematic uncertainties entering the cross section and nuclear
modification factor evaluation are summarised in Table 1.

Sources |  $\Upsilon$(1S) |  $\Upsilon$(2S) |  $\Upsilon$(3S)
---|---|---|---
| p–Pb | Pb–p | p–Pb | Pb–p | p–Pb | Pb–p
Signal extraction | 6.4 (5.1–15.9) | 5.7 (5.5–8.5) | 8.8 | 8.4 | 17.4 | 12.6
Trigger efficiency (II) | 1.2 (1.1–1.3) | 1.0 (1.0–1.1) | 1.2 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.0
Tracking efficiency (II) | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 2.0
Matching efficiency (II) | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0
MC inputs | 1.0 (0.5–4.0) | 1.0 (0.4–4.0) | 1.3 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 1.8
pp reference (II) | 0.2 (0.1–0.4) | 0.2 (0.1–0.4) | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2
pp reference (I,II) | 2.8 | 2.8 | 2.8
$\mathcal{L}_{\rm{int}}^{\rm pPb}$ (II) | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 2.2
$\mathcal{L}_{\rm{int}}^{\rm pPb}$ (I,II) | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.7
Pile-up | 2.0 | 2.0 | – | –
$\langle T_{\mathrm{pPb}}\rangle$ | 2.1–5.8 | – | –
B.R. (I) | 2.0 | 8.8 | 9.6
Table 1: Systematic uncertainties, in percentage, on the three $\Upsilon$
cross sections and nuclear modification factors for both p–Pb and Pb–p
collisions. Ranges in parentheses refer to the maximum variation as a function
of centrality, $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$ or $p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$. When no ranges are
specified, the quoted values are valid for both the integrated and the
differential measurements. Error type I means that the uncertainties are
correlated over $p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$ or $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$, while error type II
refers to uncertainties correlated versus centrality. If no error type is
specified, the uncertainties are considered as uncorrelated. The uncertainties
on the pp reference and luminosity result from the combination of
$y_{\mathrm{cms}}$-uncorrelated and correlated contributions. For the
systematic uncertainty on the luminosity determination, the two terms, defined
according to [32], are separately quoted in the table, but combined when
results are shown in the figures. Uncertainties on the B.R. are taken from
[33].

When $R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ is computed as a function of $p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$ or
$y_{\mathrm{cms}}$, the systematic uncertainties on the signal extraction,
tracking, trigger and matching efficiencies, MC input shapes and a fraction of
the uncertainty on the pp reference are considered as bin-by-bin uncorrelated.
On the contrary, the correlated contributions to the pp reference and the
luminosity uncertainties, which are common to the p–Pb or Pb–p systems, are
considered as correlated over $p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$ or $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$. In the
$Q_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ evaluation, the uncertainties on signal extraction, on the
MC input shapes and on $\langle T_{\mathrm{pPb}}\rangle$ depend on the
centrality of the collision, while the other uncertainties are common to all
classes and, therefore, considered as correlated over centrality. Even if most
central events are not included in this analysis, a further 2% centrality-
uncorrelated systematic uncertainty is assigned to the $Q_{\mathrm{pPb}}$
values, to account for residual pile-up which might still introduce a bias in
the measurement. This systematic uncertainty is evaluated by comparing the
expected pile-up fraction, computed from the pile-up probability associated to
the observed interaction rate, and the amount of pile-up events removed by the
event selection procedure. For the $\Upsilon$(2S) and $\Upsilon$(3S) studies,
similar values of the systematic uncertainties are obtained, the main
difference being the larger signal extraction uncertainties.

##  4 Results

The inclusive $\Upsilon$(1S) production cross sections are evaluated in the
rapidity regions $2.03<y_{\rm{cms}}<3.53$ and $-4.46<y_{\rm{cms}}<-2.96$ and
their values, computed according to Eq. 1, are:

$\displaystyle\sigma_{\rm{pPb}}^{\rm{\Upsilon{(1S)}}}(2.03<y_{\rm{cms}}<3.53)=14.5\pm
1.0\;\rm{(stat.)}\pm 1.0\;\rm{(uncor.\,syst.)}\pm
0.3\;\rm{(cor.\,syst.)}\;\mu{\rm b},$
$\displaystyle\sigma_{\rm{pPb}}^{\rm{\Upsilon{(1S)}}}(-4.46<y_{\rm{cms}}<-2.96)=10.5\pm
0.6\;\rm{(stat.)}\pm 0.7\;\rm{(uncor.\,syst.)}\pm
0.2\;\rm{(cor.\,syst.)}\;\mu{\rm b}.$

The corresponding values for the $\Upsilon$(2S) production cross sections are:

$\displaystyle\sigma_{\rm{pPb}}^{\rm{\Upsilon{(2S)}}}(2.03<y_{\rm{cms}}<3.53)=3.9\pm
0.8\;\rm{(stat.)}\pm 0.4\;\rm{(uncor.\,syst.)}\pm
0.3\;\rm{(cor.\,syst.)}\;\mu{\rm b},$
$\displaystyle\sigma_{\rm{pPb}}^{\rm{\Upsilon{(2S)}}}(-4.46<y_{\rm{cms}}<-2.96)=2.8\pm
0.5\;\rm{(stat.)}\pm 0.3\;\rm{(uncor.\,syst.)}\pm
0.3\;\rm{(cor.\,syst.)}\;\mu{\rm b},$

and for the $\Upsilon$(3S) are:

$\displaystyle\sigma_{\rm{pPb}}^{\rm{\Upsilon{(3S)}}}(2.03<y_{\rm{cms}}<3.53)=0.87\pm
0.66\;\rm{(stat.)}\pm 0.15\;\rm{(uncor.\,syst.)}\pm
0.08\;\rm{(cor.\,syst.)}\;\mu{\rm b},$
$\displaystyle\sigma_{\rm{pPb}}^{\rm{\Upsilon{(3S)}}}(-4.46<y_{\rm{cms}}<-2.96)=1.24\pm
0.39\;\rm{(stat.)}\pm 0.15\;\rm{(uncor.\,syst.)}\pm
0.12\;\rm{(cor.\,syst.)}\;\mu{\rm b}.$

The systematic uncertainties have two terms, one correlated and one
uncorrelated as a function of rapidity.

The data collected in p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{{}_{\rm{NN}}}}=8.16$ TeV
allow for the measurement of the $\Upsilon$(1S) production cross sections
differentially in $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$ bins or in $p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$ intervals,
up to $p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$ $<$ 15 GeV/$\it{c}$. The resulting cross sections are
shown in Fig. 2 as a function of rapidity, integrated over transverse
momentum, and in Fig. 3, as a function of $p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$, in the forward-
and backward-rapidity regions. In these figures, as in all the following ones,
the statistical uncertainties are shown as vertical error bars, while the
systematic uncertainties are represented as boxes around the points. The
horizontal error bars correspond to the $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$ or
$p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$ bin widths. The cross sections evaluated at forward and
backward rapidities are compared with the pp ones, obtained through the
aforementioned interpolation procedure, scaled by the Pb atomic mass number.

Figure 2: $\Upsilon$(1S), $\Upsilon$(2S) and $\Upsilon$(3S) differential cross
sections as a function of $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$ in p–Pb collisions at
$\sqrt{s_{{}_{\rm{NN}}}}=8.16$ TeV. The corresponding pp reference cross
sections, obtained through the procedure described in Sec. 3 and scaled by
$A_{\rm Pb}$, are shown as bands. Figure 3: $\Upsilon$(1S) differential cross
section as a function of $p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$, at forward (closed symbols) and
backward (open symbols) rapidity, at $\sqrt{s_{{}_{\rm{NN}}}}=8.16$ TeV. The
pp reference cross section, obtained through the procedure described in Sec. 3
and scaled by $A_{\rm Pb}$, is shown as a band.

The comparison shows that in the forward-rapidity region the $\Upsilon$(1S)
cross sections are smaller than the pp ones, in particular at low
$p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$, suggesting the presence of CNM effects at play in p–Pb
collisions. On the contrary, in the backward-rapidity range the pp and the
p–Pb cross sections are closer and nuclear effects seem to have a less
prominent role.

The limited available data sample allows for the evaluation of the
$\Upsilon$(2S) and $\Upsilon$(3S) cross sections in the forward and backward-
rapidity regions only integrating over the corresponding $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$
and $p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$ ranges, as shown in Fig. 2. A suppression with respect
to the corresponding pp reference cross sections, scaled by $A_{\rm Pb}$, is
observed.

Given the relatively small mass difference between the $\Upsilon$(1S) and
$\Upsilon$(2S) (or $\Upsilon$(3S)) resonances, most of the systematic
uncertainties, except those on the signal extraction and on the choice of the
$p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$\- and $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$-input shapes used in the MC,
cancel in the ratio of the resonance yields, multiplied by their branching
ratios, defined as

${[\Upsilon\mathrm{(nS)}/\Upsilon\mathrm{(1S)}]}_{\mathrm{pPb}}=\frac{N_{\Upsilon\mathrm{(nS)}}/(\mathit{A}\times\epsilon)_{\Upsilon\mathrm{(nS)}}}{N_{\Upsilon\mathrm{(1S)}}/(\mathit{A}\times\epsilon)_{\Upsilon\mathrm{(1S)}}}.$

The values of the $\Upsilon$(2S) over $\Upsilon$(1S) ratio, obtained at
forward and backward rapidity, are similar:

$\displaystyle[\Upsilon\rm{(2S)}/\Upsilon\rm{(1S)}]_{\rm{pPb}}(2.03<{\it
y}_{\rm{cms}}<3.53)=0.21\pm 0.05\;\rm{(stat.)}\pm 0.02\;\rm{(syst.)},$
$\displaystyle[\Upsilon\rm{(2S)}/\Upsilon\rm{(1S)}]_{\rm{pPb}}(-4.46<{\it
y}_{\rm{cms}}<-2.96)=0.21\pm 0.04\;\rm{(stat.)}\pm 0.01\;\rm{(syst.)}.$

As shown in Fig. 4, the ratio
$[\Upsilon\rm{(2S)}/\Upsilon\rm{(1S)}]_{\rm{pPb}}$ at
$\sqrt{s_{{}_{\rm{NN}}}}=8.16$ TeV is compatible, within uncertainties, with
the results obtained by the LHCb Collaboration in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$
= 8 TeV [36], in a slightly wider kinematic range ($2<y_{\rm{cms}}<4.5$,
$p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$ $<15$ GeV/$c$).

Figure 4: Ratio of $\Upsilon\rm{(nS)}$ over $\Upsilon$(1S) yields in p–Pb
collisions at $\sqrt{s_{{}_{\rm{NN}}}}=8.16$ TeV and in pp collisions at
$\sqrt{s}$ = 8 TeV [36].

Similar conclusions can be obtained from the comparison of the $\Upsilon$(3S)
over $\Upsilon$(1S) ratio, also shown in Fig. 4. The corresponding values at
forward and backward rapidity are:

$\displaystyle[\Upsilon\rm{(3S)}/\Upsilon\rm{(1S)}]_{\rm{pPb}}(2.03<{\it
y}_{\rm{cms}}<3.53)=0.053\pm 0.039\;\rm{(stat.)}\pm 0.007\;\rm{(syst.)},$
$\displaystyle[\Upsilon\rm{(3S)}/\Upsilon\rm{(1S)}]_{\rm{pPb}}(-4.46<{\it
y}_{\rm{cms}}<-2.96)=0.102\pm 0.032\;\rm{(stat.)}\pm 0.009\;\rm{(syst.)}.$

The size of nuclear effects in p–Pb collisions can be better quantified
through the nuclear modification factor defined in Eq. 2. The numerical values
for the $\Upsilon$(1S) $R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ in the forward- and in the backward-
rapidity regions, integrating over $p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$, are:

$\displaystyle
R_{\rm{pPb}}^{\rm{\Upsilon(1S)}}(2.03<y_{\rm{cms}}<3.53)=0.71\pm
0.05\;\rm{(stat.)}\pm 0.05\;\rm{(uncor.\,syst.)}\pm 0.02\;\rm{(cor.\,syst.)},$
$\displaystyle
R_{\rm{pPb}}^{\rm{\Upsilon(1S)}}(-4.46<y_{\rm{cms}}<-2.96)=0.81\pm
0.05\;\rm{(stat.)}\pm 0.05\;\rm{(uncor.\,syst.)\pm 0.02\;\rm{(cor.\,syst.)}},$

where (uncor. syst.) and (cor. syst.) refer to uncorrelated and correlated
systematic uncertainties as a function of rapidity.

Figure 5: $\Upsilon$(1S) $R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ values at
$\sqrt{s_{{}_{\rm{NN}}}}=8.16$ TeV compared to those obtained at
$\sqrt{s_{{}_{\rm{NN}}}}=5.02$ TeV in the same $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$ interval
[18]. All systematic uncertainties are considered as uncorrelated between the
results at $\sqrt{s_{{}_{\rm{NN}}}}=8.16$ TeV and
$\sqrt{s_{{}_{\rm{NN}}}}=5.02$ TeV. The $R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ values at the two
energies are slightly displaced horizontally to improve visibility.

The measured $R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ values, shown in Fig. 5, indicate a
suppression of the $\Upsilon$(1S) production in p–Pb collisions, with respect
to the one in pp collisions, both at forward and backward rapidity, with a
slightly stronger suppression at forward $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$. The
$R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ is found to be 4.0$\sigma$ and 2.4$\sigma$ below unity in
p–Pb and Pb–p collisions, respectively. The results are compatible with the
corresponding $R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ values measured in p–Pb collisions at
$\sqrt{s_{{}_{\rm{NN}}}}=5.02$ TeV [18], also shown in Fig. 5. From the
comparison between the results obtained at the two energies, an improvement in
the precision of the $\Upsilon$(1S) $R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ measurements at
$\sqrt{s_{{}_{\rm{NN}}}}=8.16$ TeV can be noticed, given the reduced size of
the statistical and systematic uncertainties. The improvement of the latter
contribution is mainly related to the reduction in the uncertainties
associated to the tracking efficiencies and to refinements in the
determination of the pp reference [18].

The rapidity dependence of the $\Upsilon$(1S) $R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$, explored in
narrower $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$ intervals, is shown in Fig. 6, confirming the
suppression already observed in the $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$-integrated case. The
results are also compared with the $\Upsilon$(1S) LHCb measurements [23] at
the same centre-of-mass energy and in slightly wider kinematic ranges
($-4.5<y_{\rm{cms}}<-2.5$ and $2<y_{\rm{cms}}<4$, $p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$ $<25$
GeV/$c$). Fair agreement between the two sets of results can be seen.

Figure 6: $\Upsilon$(1S) $R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ values at
$\sqrt{s_{{}_{\rm{NN}}}}=8.16$ TeV compared with the corresponding LHCb
results [23], as a function of $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$. The $R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$
values are also compared to model calculations based on several
implementations of nuclear shadowing (EPS09 NLO [48, 14, 8], EPPS16 and
nCTEQ15 [49, 11, 50, 51, 10, 9]) and on parton coherent energy loss
predictions, with or without the inclusion of the EPS09 shadowing contribution
[13, 14]. A theoretical model including a shadowing contribution based on
nCTEQ15 nPDFs on top of a suppression induced by comover interactions [52, 15]
is also shown. For the LHCb results, the vertical error bars represent the
quadratic sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

The $p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$ dependence of the $\Upsilon$(1S) $R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ is
shown in Fig. 7. A slight decrease of the $\Upsilon$(1S) nuclear modification
factor, with decreasing $p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$, is observed. The behaviour is
similar both at backward and forward rapidities.

Figure 7: $\Upsilon$(1S) $R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ as a function of
$p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$ for Pb–p (left panel) and p–Pb collisions (right panel).
The $R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ values are compared with theoretical calculations based
on EPS09 NLO [48, 14], nCTEQ15 and EPPS16 [49, 11, 50, 51, 10, 9] shadowing
implementations. Details on the theory uncertainty bands are discussed in the
text.

The $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$ and $p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$ dependence of the $\Upsilon$(1S)
$R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ are compared, in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, to several models
(referred in the following as nuclear shadowing models), based on EPS09 [8],
nCTEQ15 [10] or EPPS16 [9] sets of nuclear parton distribution functions. The
EPS09 next-to-leading order (NLO) parametrisation is combined with a NLO
Colour Evaporation Model (CEM) [48], which describes the $\Upsilon$
production. The corresponding uncertainty bands, shown in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7,
are dominated by the uncertainties of the EPS09 parametrisation. The nCTEQ15
and the EPPS16 NLO nPDFs sets are implemented following the Bayesian
reweighting procedure described in [49, 11, 50, 51]. The uncertainty bands, in
this case, represent the convolution of the uncertainties on the nPDFs sets
and those on the factorisation scales. It can be observed that the shadowing
calculations describe fairly well the $p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$ and
$y_{\mathrm{cms}}$ dependence of the $\Upsilon$(1S) nuclear modification
factor in $2.03<y_{\rm{cms}}<3.05$, while they overestimate the results
obtained in $-4.46<y_{\rm{cms}}<-2.96$. Furthermore, while the
$p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$ dependence of the ALICE measurements indicate slightly
stronger cold nuclear matter effects at low $p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$, the shadowing
calculations suggest a flatter behaviour. Finally, the $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$
dependence of the $R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ is also compared with a model which
includes the effects of parton coherent energy loss with or without the
contribution of the EPS09 nuclear shadowing [13, 14]. The model predicts a
mild dependence of the energy loss mechanism on rapidity. When the nuclear
shadowing contribution is included, the model describes the forward-rapidity
results, while it slightly overestimates the backward-rapidity
$R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$. The $\Upsilon$(1S) $R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ is also compared
with a theoretical model which includes a shadowing contribution, based on the
nCTEQ15 set of nPDFs, on top of a suppression of the $\Upsilon$(1S) production
due to interactions with comoving particles [52, 15]. The uncertainties
associated to this theoretical calculation include a small contribution from
the uncertainty on the comovers cross section and are dominated by the
uncertainties on the shadowing. Also in this case the calculation slightly
overestimates the ALICE measurements at backward $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$, while at
forward $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$ the data agree with the model. It can be noted that
the interpretation of the $\Upsilon$(1S) behaviour in p–Pb collisions would
also benefit from a precise knowledge, so far still affected by large
uncertainties, of the feed-down contribution of the excited states into the
$\Upsilon$(1S).

The $\Upsilon$(1S) nuclear modification factor is evaluated as a function of
the collision centrality. The $Q_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ results, shown in Fig. 8, are
presented as a function of the average number of collisions, $\langle
N_{\mathrm{coll}}\rangle$ and it can be observed that both at forward and
backward rapidity the $\Upsilon$(1S) centrality dependence is rather flat.

Figure 8: $\Upsilon$(1S) $Q_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ as a function of $\langle
N_{\mathrm{coll}}\rangle$, for Pb–p (left panel) and p–Pb collisions (right
panel).

Finally, the nuclear modification factor is also evaluated for the
$\Upsilon$(2S) and $\Upsilon$(3S) resonances, in the forward and
backward-$y_{\mathrm{cms}}$ intervals, as shown in Fig. 9. The corresponding
$\Upsilon$(2S) $R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ values are:

$\displaystyle
R_{\rm{pPb}}^{\Upsilon\rm{(2S)}}(2.03<y_{\rm{cms}}<3.53)=0.59\pm
0.12\;\rm{(stat.)}\pm 0.05\;\rm{(uncor.\,syst.)}\pm 0.02\;\rm{(cor.\,syst.)}$
$\displaystyle
R_{\rm{pPb}}^{\Upsilon\rm{(2S)}}(-4.46<y_{\rm{cms}}<-2.96)=0.69\pm
0.12\;\rm{(stat.)}\pm 0.05\;\rm{(uncor.\,syst.)}\pm 0.02\;\rm{(cor.\,syst.)}$

the $\Upsilon$(2S) suppression being compatible with unity within 3.1$\sigma$
at forward $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$ and 2.3$\sigma$ at backward $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$.
The $\Upsilon$(3S) $R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ values are:

$\displaystyle
R_{\rm{pPb}}^{\Upsilon\rm{(3S)}}(2.03<y_{\rm{cms}}<3.53)=0.32\pm
0.24\;\rm{(stat.)}\pm 0.06\;\rm{(uncor.\,syst.)}\pm 0.01\;\rm{(cor.\,syst.)}$
$\displaystyle
R_{\rm{pPb}}^{\Upsilon\rm{(3S)}}(-4.46<y_{\rm{cms}}<-2.96)=0.71\pm
0.23\;\rm{(stat.)}\pm 0.09\;\rm{(uncor.\,syst.)}\pm 0.02\;\rm{(cor.\,syst.)}$

The $\Upsilon$(3S) suppression is compatible with unity within 2.7$\sigma$ at
forward $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$ and 1.2$\sigma$ at backward $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$. The
difference in the $R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ of the $\Upsilon$(2S) and $\Upsilon$(1S)
amounts to 0.5$\sigma$ in both rapidity intervals, suggesting, in p–Pb
collisions, a similar modification of the production yields of the two
$\Upsilon$ states, with respect to pp collisions. Unfortunately, the large
uncertainties on the $\Upsilon$(3S) prevent robust conclusions on the
behaviour of the most loosely bound bottomonium state. The model which
includes both the nuclear shadowing contribution (nCTEQ15) and interactions
with comoving particles [52, 15] suggests a small difference between the
nuclear modification factors of the three $\Upsilon$ states. This difference
is slightly more important in the backward-rapidity range, while it becomes
negligible at forward $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$. By evaluating the ratio of the
$\Upsilon\rm{(nS)}$ to $\Upsilon$(1S) nuclear modification factors, the
shadowing contribution and most of the theory uncertainties, as well as some
of the uncertainties on the data, cancel out. The shape of the theoretical
calculation is, hence, mainly driven by the interactions with the comoving
particles, which affect mostly the excited $\Upsilon$ states in the backward
rapidity region. As shown in the lower panel of Fig. 9, the ALICE measurements
and the model are in fair agreement, even if the uncertainties on the data do
not yet allow a firm conclusion on the role of comovers to be drawn.

Figure 9: $\Upsilon$(1S), $\Upsilon$(2S) and $\Upsilon$(3S) $R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$
at $\sqrt{s_{{}_{\rm{NN}}}}=8.16$ TeV as a function of $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$. The
$R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ values of the three resonances are slightly displaced
horizontally to improve visibility. Theoretical calculations including nCTEQ15
shadowing contribution and interactions between the $\Upsilon$ states and
comoving particles [52, 15] are also shown for all the resonances. The grey
box around unity represents the global uncertainty common to the three
$\Upsilon$ states. In the lower panel, the ratio of the $\Upsilon$(2S) to
$\Upsilon$(1S) and $\Upsilon$(3S) to $\Upsilon$(1S) $R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ is
shown, together with a calculation based on the aforementioned theory model
[52, 15].

##  5 Conclusions

The ALICE measurements of the rapidity, transverse momentum and centrality
dependence of the inclusive $\Upsilon$(1S) nuclear modification factor in p–Pb
collisions at $\sqrt{s_{{}_{\rm{NN}}}}=8.16$ TeV have been presented. The
results show a suppression of the $\Upsilon$(1S) yields, with respect to the
ones measured in pp collisions at the same centre-of-mass energy. The
$R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ values are similar at forward and backward rapidity with a
slightly stronger suppression at low $p_{{\mathrm{T}}}$, while in both
rapidity intervals there is no evidence for a centrality dependence of the
$\Upsilon$(1S) $Q_{\mathrm{pPb}}$. The results obtained at
$\sqrt{s_{{}_{\rm{NN}}}}=8.16$ TeV are similar within uncertainties to those
measured by ALICE in p–Pb collisions at the lower energy of
$\sqrt{s_{{}_{\rm{NN}}}}=5.02$ TeV and show a good agreement with the LHCb
measurements at the same centre-of-mass energy. Models based on nuclear
shadowing, coherent parton energy loss or interactions with comoving particles
fairly describe the data at forward rapidity, while they tend to overestimate
the $R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ at backward $y_{\mathrm{cms}}$. The $\Upsilon$(2S)
$R_{\mathrm{pPb}}$ has also been measured, showing a strong suppression,
similar to the one measured for the $\Upsilon$(1S), in the two investigated
rapidity intervals. Finally, a first measurement of the $\Upsilon$(3S) has
also been performed, even if the large uncertainties prevent a detailed
comparison of its behaviour in p–Pb collisions with respect to the other
bottomonium states. These new bottomonium measurements represent an important
baseline for the understanding of the role of CNM effects in p–Pb collisions
and open up the way for future precision analyses with the upcoming LHC Run 3
and Run 4 data taking periods.

## 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, Austrian Science Fund (FWF): [M 2467-N36] 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), Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (Finep), Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) and Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Brazil; Ministry of Education of China (MOEC) , Ministry of Science & Technology of China (MSTC) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), China; Ministry of Science and Education and Croatian Science Foundation, Croatia; Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Cubaenergía, Cuba; Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic, Czech Republic; The Danish Council for Independent Research | Natural Sciences, the VILLUM FONDEN and Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF), Denmark; Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Finland; Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique (CEA), Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (IN2P3) and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) and Région des Pays de la Loire, France; Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (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), Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI, 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 Ministry of Research and Innovation and Institute of Atomic Physics, Romania; Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR), Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Russian Science Foundation and Russian Foundation for Basic Research, Russia; Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic, Slovakia; National Research Foundation of South Africa, South Africa; Swedish Research Council (VR) and Knut & Alice Wallenberg Foundation (KAW), Sweden; European Organization for Nuclear Research, Switzerland; Suranaree University of Technology (SUT), National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSDTA) 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] T. Matsui and H. Satz, “$J/\psi$ Suppression by Quark-Gluon Plasma Formation”, Phys. Lett. B178 (1986) 416–422.
  * [2] ALICE Collaboration, B. B. Abelev et al., “Suppression of $\Upsilon(1S)$ at forward rapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=2.76$ TeV”, Phys. Lett. B738 (2014) 361–372, arXiv:1405.4493 [nucl-ex].
  * [3] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “$\Upsilon$ suppression at forward rapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B790 (2019) 89–101, arXiv:1805.04387 [nucl-ex].
  * [4] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., “Indications of suppression of excited $\Upsilon$ states in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 052302, arXiv:1105.4894 [nucl-ex].
  * [5] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., “Observation of sequential $\Upsilon$ suppression in PbPb collisions”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 222301, arXiv:1208.2826 [nucl-ex].
  * [6] CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., “Measurement of nuclear modification factors of $\Upsilon$(1S), $\Upsilon$(2S), and $\Upsilon$(3S) mesons in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{{}_{\mathrm{NN}}}}=$ 5.02 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B790 (2019) 270–293, arXiv:1805.09215 [hep-ex].
  * [7] H. Satz, “Quarkonium Binding and Dissociation: The Spectral Analysis of the QGP”, Nucl. Phys. A783 (2007) 249–260, arXiv:hep-ph/0609197 [hep-ph].
  * [8] K. J. Eskola, H. Paukkunen, and C. A. Salgado, “EPS09: A New Generation of NLO and LO Nuclear Parton Distribution Functions”, JHEP 04 (2009) 065, arXiv:0902.4154 [hep-ph].
  * [9] K. J. Eskola, P. Paakkinen, H. Paukkunen, and C. A. Salgado, “EPPS16: Nuclear parton distributions with LHC data”, Eur. Phys. J. C77 no. 3, (2017) 163, arXiv:1612.05741 [hep-ph].
  * [10] K. Kovarik et al., “nCTEQ15 - Global analysis of nuclear parton distributions with uncertainties in the CTEQ framework”, Phys. Rev. D93 no. 8, (2016) 085037, arXiv:1509.00792 [hep-ph].
  * [11] A. Kusina, J. P. Lansberg, I. Schienbein, and H.-S. Shao, “Gluon Shadowing in Heavy-Flavor Production at the LHC”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 no. 5, (2018) 052004, arXiv:1712.07024 [hep-ph].
  * [12] H. Fujii and K. Watanabe, “Heavy quark pair production in high energy pA collisions: Quarkonium”, Nucl. Phys. A915 (2013) 1–23, arXiv:1304.2221 [hep-ph].
  * [13] F. Arleo and S. Peigné, “Heavy-quarkonium suppression in p-A collisions from parton energy loss in cold QCD matter”, JHEP 03 (2013) 122, arXiv:1212.0434 [hep-ph].
  * [14] J. L. Albacete et al., “Predictions for Cold Nuclear Matter Effects in $p+$Pb Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{{}_{NN}}}=8.16$ TeV”, Nucl. Phys. A972 (2018) 18–85, arXiv:1707.09973 [hep-ph].
  * [15] E. G. Ferreiro and J. P. Lansberg, “Is bottomonium suppression in proton-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus collisions at LHC energies due to the same effects?”, JHEP 10 (2018) 094, arXiv:1804.04474 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: JHEP03,063(2019)].
  * [16] E. G. Ferreiro, “Charmonium dissociation and recombination at LHC: Revisiting comovers”, Phys. Lett. B731 (2014) 57–63, arXiv:1210.3209 [hep-ph].
  * [17] X. Du and R. Rapp, “In-Medium Charmonium Production in Proton-Nucleus Collisions”, JHEP 03 (2019) 015, arXiv:1808.10014 [nucl-th].
  * [18] ALICE Collaboration, B. B. Abelev et al., “Production of inclusive $\Upsilon$(1S) and $\Upsilon$(2S) in p-Pb collisions at $\mathbf{\sqrt{s_{{\rm NN}}}=5.02}$ TeV”, Phys. Lett. B740 (2015) 105–117, arXiv:1410.2234 [nucl-ex].
  * [19] ALICE Collaboration, B. B. Abelev et al., “Measurement of quarkonium production at forward rapidity in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”, Eur. Phys. J. C74 no. 8, (2014) 2974, arXiv:1403.3648 [nucl-ex].
  * [20] LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Study of $\Upsilon$ production and cold nuclear matter effects in $p$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=5 TeV”, JHEP 07 (2014) 094, arXiv:1405.5152 [nucl-ex].
  * [21] ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et al., “Measurement of quarkonium production in proton–lead and proton–proton collisions at $5.02~{}\mathrm{TeV}$ with the ATLAS detector”, Eur. Phys. J. C78 no. 3, (2018) 171, arXiv:1709.03089 [nucl-ex].
  * [22] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., “Event activity dependence of Y(nS) production in $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=5.02 TeV pPb and $\sqrt{s}$=2.76 TeV pp collisions”, JHEP 04 (2014) 103, arXiv:1312.6300 [nucl-ex].
  * [23] LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Study of $\Upsilon$ production in $p$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=8.16$ TeV”, JHEP 11 (2018) 194, arXiv:1810.07655 [hep-ex].
  * [24] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC”, JINST 3 (2008) S08002.
  * [25] ALICE Collaboration, B. B. Abelev et al., “Performance of the ALICE Experiment at the CERN LHC”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A29 (2014) 1430044, arXiv:1402.4476 [nucl-ex].
  * [26] ALICE Collaboration, “Technical design report of the dimuon forward spectrometer”,. https://edms.cern.ch/document/470838/1.
  * [27] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “Alignment of the ALICE Inner Tracking System with cosmic-ray tracks”, JINST 5 (2010) P03003, arXiv:1001.0502 [physics.ins-det].
  * [28] ALICE Collaboration, E. Abbas et al., “Performance of the ALICE VZERO system”, JINST 8 (2013) P10016, arXiv:1306.3130 [nucl-ex].
  * [29] M. Bondila et al., “ALICE T0 detector”, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 52 (2005) 1705–1711.
  * [30] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Measurement of the Cross Section for Electromagnetic Dissociation with Neutron Emission in Pb-Pb Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 252302, arXiv:1203.2436 [nucl-ex].
  * [31] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Inclusive J/$\psi$ production at forward and backward rapidity in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 8.16 TeV”, JHEP 07 (2018) 160, arXiv:1805.04381 [nucl-ex].
  * [32] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “ALICE luminosity determination for p-Pb and Pb-p collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=8.16$ TeV”, ALICE-PUBLIC-2018-002. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2314660.
  * [33] Particle Data Group Collaboration, M. Tanabashi et al., “Review of Particle Physics”, Phys. Rev. D98 no. 3, (2018) 030001.
  * [34] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Quarkonium signal extraction in ALICE”, ALICE-PUBLIC-2015-006. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2060096.
  * [35] R. Brun et al., “GEANT3 Detector Description and Simulation Tool”, CERN Program Library, CERN-W5013. https://cds.cern.ch/record/1082634.
  * [36] LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Forward production of $\Upsilon$ mesons in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8TeV”, JHEP 11 (2015) 103, arXiv:1509.02372 [hep-ex].
  * [37] CDF Collaboration, D. Acosta et al., “$\Upsilon$ production and polarization in $p\bar{p}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 1.8-TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 161802.
  * [38] LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Measurement of $\Upsilon$ production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV”, Eur. Phys. J. C72 (2012) 2025, arXiv:1202.6579 [hep-ex].
  * [39] CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al., “$\Upsilon$ Production Cross-Section in pp Collisions at $sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”, Phys. Rev. D83 (2011) 112004, arXiv:1012.5545 [hep-ex].
  * [40] F. Bossu, Z. C. del Valle, A. de Falco, M. Gagliardi, S. Grigoryan, and G. Martinez Garcia, “Phenomenological interpolation of the inclusive J/$\psi$ cross section to proton-proton collisions at 2.76 TeV and 5.5 TeV”, arXiv:1103.2394 [nucl-ex].
  * [41] ALICE Collaboration, B. B. Abelev et al., “$J/\psi$ production and nuclear effects in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV”, JHEP 02 (2014) 073, arXiv:1308.6726 [nucl-ex].
  * [42] LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Measurement of $\Upsilon$ production in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$= 13 TeV”, JHEP 07 (2018) 134, arXiv:1804.09214 [hep-ex].
  * [43] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Reference pp cross-sections for $\Upsilon$(1S) studies in pPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{NN}}}$=5.02 TeV and comparisons between ALICE and LHCb results”, ALICE-PUBLIC-2014-002. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2314660.
  * [44] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Inclusive quarkonium production at forward rapidity in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV”, Eur. Phys. J. C76 no. 4, (2016) 184, arXiv:1509.08258 [hep-ex].
  * [45] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Centrality dependence of particle production in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$= 5.02 TeV”, Phys. Rev. C91 no. 6, (2015) 064905, arXiv:1412.6828 [nucl-ex].
  * [46] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Centrality dependence of inclusive $J/\psi$ production in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV”, JHEP 11 (2015) 127, arXiv:1506.08808 [nucl-ex].
  * [47] M. L. Miller, K. Reygers, S. J. Sanders, and P. Steinberg, “Glauber modeling in high energy nuclear collisions”, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57 (2007) 205–243, arXiv:nucl-ex/0701025 [nucl-ex].
  * [48] R. Vogt, “Shadowing effects on $J/\psi$ and $\Upsilon$ production at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider”, Phys. Rev. C92 no. 3, (2015) 034909, arXiv:1507.04418 [hep-ph].
  * [49] J. P. Lansberg and H. S. Shao, “Towards an automated tool to evaluate the impact of the nuclear modification of the gluon density on quarkonium, D and B meson production in proton–nucleus collisions”, Eur. Phys. J. C77 no. 1, (2017) 1, arXiv:1610.05382 [hep-ph].
  * [50] H. S. Shao, “HELAC-Onia 2.0: an upgraded matrix-element and event generator for heavy quakonium physics”, Comput. Phys. Commun. 198 (2016) 238–259, arXiv:1507.03435 [hep-ph].
  * [51] H. S. Shao, “HELAC-Onia: An automatic matrix element generator for heavy quarkonium physics”, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184 (2013) 2562–2570, arXiv:1212.5293 [hep-ph].
  * [52] E. G. Ferreiro, “Global description of bottomonium suppression in proton-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus collisions at LHC energies”, PoS DIS2018 (2018) 130, arXiv:1810.12874 [hep-ph].

##  Appendix A The ALICE Collaboration

S. Acharyaorg141&D. Adamováorg94&A. Adlerorg74&J. Adolfssonorg80&M.M.
Aggarwalorg99&G. Aglieri Rinellaorg33&M. Agnelloorg30&N. Agrawalorg10,org53&Z.
Ahammedorg141&S. Ahmadorg16&S.U. Ahnorg76&A. Akindinovorg91&M. Al-
Turanyorg106&S.N. Alamorg141&D.S.D. Albuquerqueorg122&D. Aleksandrovorg87&B.
Alessandroorg58&H.M. Alfandaorg6&R. Alfaro Molinaorg71&B. Aliorg16&Y.
Aliorg14&A. Aliciorg10,org26,org53&A. Alkinorg2&J. Almeorg21&T. Altorg68&L.
Altenkamperorg21&I. Altsybeevorg112&M.N. Anaamorg6&C. Andreiorg47&D.
Andreouorg33&H.A. Andrewsorg110&A. Andronicorg144&M. Angelettiorg33&V.
Anguelovorg103&C. Ansonorg15&T. Antičićorg107&F. Antinoriorg56&P.
Antonioliorg53&R. Anwarorg125&N. Apadulaorg79&L. Aphecetcheorg114&H.
Appelshäuserorg68&S. Arcelliorg26&R. Arnaldiorg58&M. Arratiaorg79&I.C.
Arseneorg20&M. Arslandokorg103&A. Augustinusorg33&R. Averbeckorg106&S.
Azizorg61&M.D. Azmiorg16&A. Badalàorg55&Y.W. Baekorg40&S. Bagnascoorg58&X.
Baiorg106&R. Bailhacheorg68&R. Balaorg100&A. Baldisseriorg137&M. Ballorg42&S.
Balouzaorg104&R. Barberaorg27&L. Barioglioorg25&G.G. Barnaföldiorg145&L.S.
Barnbyorg93&V. Barretorg134&P. Bartaliniorg6&K. Barthorg33&E. Bartschorg68&F.
Baruffaldiorg28&N. Bastidorg134&S. Basuorg143&G. Batigneorg114&B.
Batyunyaorg75&D. Bauriorg48&J.L. Bazo Albaorg111&I.G. Beardenorg88&C.
Beddaorg63&N.K. Beheraorg60&I. Belikovorg136&A.D.C. Bell Hechavarriaorg144&F.
Belliniorg33&R. Bellwiedorg125&V. Belyaevorg92&G. Bencediorg145&S.
Beoleorg25&A. Bercuciorg47&Y. Berdnikovorg97&D. Berenyiorg145&R.A.
Bertensorg130&D. Berzanoorg58&M.G. Besoiuorg67&L. Betevorg33&A.
Bhasinorg100&I.R. Bhatorg100&M.A. Bhatorg3&H. Bhattorg48&B.
Bhattacharjeeorg41&A. Bianchiorg25&L. Bianchiorg25&N. Bianchiorg51&J.
Bielčíkorg36&J. Bielčíkováorg94&A. Bilandzicorg104,org117&G. Biroorg145&R.
Biswasorg3&S. Biswasorg3&J.T. Blairorg119&D. Blauorg87&C. Blumeorg68&G.
Bocaorg139&F. Bockorg33,org95&A. Bogdanovorg92&S. Boiorg23&L.
Boldizsárorg145&A. Bolozdynyaorg92&M. Bombaraorg37&G. Bonomiorg140&H.
Borelorg137&A. Borissovorg92,org144&H. Bossiorg146&E. Bottaorg25&L.
Bratrudorg68&P. Braun-Munzingerorg106&M. Bregantorg121&M. Brozorg36&E.J.
Bruckenorg43&E. Brunaorg58&G.E. Brunoorg105&M.D. Bucklandorg127&D.
Budnikovorg108&H. Bueschingorg68&S. Bufalinoorg30&O. Bugnonorg114&P.
Buhlerorg113&P. Buncicorg33&Z. Butheleziorg72,org131&J.B. Buttorg14&J.T.
Buxtonorg96&S.A. Bysiakorg118&D. Caffarriorg89&A. Calivaorg106&E. Calvo
Villarorg111&R.S. Camachoorg44&P. Cameriniorg24&A.A. Caponorg113&F.
Carnesecchiorg10,org26&R. Caronorg137&J. Castillo Castellanosorg137&A.J.
Castroorg130&E.A.R. Casulaorg54&F. Catalanoorg30&C. Ceballos Sanchezorg52&P.
Chakrabortyorg48&S. Chandraorg141&W. Changorg6&S. Chapelandorg33&M.
Chartierorg127&S. Chattopadhyayorg141&S. Chattopadhyayorg109&A.
Chauvinorg23&C. Cheshkovorg135&B. Cheynisorg135&V. Chibante Barrosoorg33&D.D.
Chinellatoorg122&S. Choorg60&P. Chochulaorg33&T. Chowdhuryorg134&P.
Christakoglouorg89&C.H. Christensenorg88&P. Christiansenorg80&T.
Chujoorg133&C. Cicaloorg54&L. Cifarelliorg10,org26&F. Cindoloorg53&J.
Cleymansorg124&F. Colamariaorg52&D. Colellaorg52&A. Colluorg79&M.
Colocciorg26&M. Concasorg58orgI&G. Conesa Balbastreorg78&Z. Conesa del
Valleorg61&G. Continorg24,org127&J.G. Contrerasorg36&T.M. Cormierorg95&Y.
Corrales Moralesorg25&P. Corteseorg31&M.R. Cosentinoorg123&F. Costaorg33&S.
Costanzaorg139&P. Crochetorg134&E. Cuautleorg69&P. Cuiorg6&L.
Cunqueiroorg95&D. Dabrowskiorg142&T. Dahmsorg104,org117&A. Daineseorg56&F.P.A.
Damasorg114,org137&M.C. Danischorg103&A. Danuorg67&D. Dasorg109&I.
Dasorg109&P. Dasorg85&P. Dasorg3&S. Dasorg3&A. Dashorg85&S. Dashorg48&S.
Deorg85&A. De Caroorg29&G. de Cataldoorg52&J. de Cuvelandorg38&A. De
Falcoorg23&D. De Gruttolaorg10&N. De Marcoorg58&S. De Pasqualeorg29&S.
Deborg49&B. Debjaniorg3&H.F. Degenhardtorg121&K.R. Dejaorg142&A.
Delofforg84&S. Delsantoorg25,org131&D. Devetakorg106&P. Dhankherorg48&D. Di
Bariorg32&A. Di Mauroorg33&R.A. Diazorg8&T. Dietelorg124&P.
Dillensegerorg68&Y. Dingorg6&R. Diviàorg33&D.U. Dixitorg19&Ø.
Djuvslandorg21&U. Dmitrievaorg62&A. Dobrinorg33,org67&B. Dönigusorg68&O.
Dordicorg20&A.K. Dubeyorg141&A. Dublaorg106&S. Dudiorg99&M. Dukhishyamorg85&P.
Dupieuxorg134&R.J. Ehlersorg146&V.N. Eikelandorg21&D. Eliaorg52&H.
Engelorg74&E. Eppleorg146&B. Erazmusorg114&F. Erhardtorg98&A.
Erokhinorg112&M.R. Ersdalorg21&B. Espagnonorg61&G. Eulisseorg33&D.
Evansorg110&S. Evdokimovorg90&L. Fabbiettiorg104,org117&M. Fagginorg28&J.
Faivreorg78&F. Fanorg6&A. Fantoniorg51&M. Faselorg95&P. Fecchioorg30&A.
Felicielloorg58&G. Feofilovorg112&A. Fernández Téllezorg44&A. Ferreroorg137&A.
Ferrettiorg25&A. Festantiorg33&V.J.G. Feuillardorg103&J. Figielorg118&S.
Filchaginorg108&D. Finogeevorg62&F.M. Fiondaorg21&G. Fiorenzaorg52&F.
Flororg125&S. Foertschorg72&P. Fokaorg106&S. Fokinorg87&E. Fragiacomoorg59&U.
Frankenfeldorg106&U. Fuchsorg33&C. Furgetorg78&A. Fursorg62&M. Fusco
Girardorg29&J.J. Gaardhøjeorg88&M. Gagliardiorg25&A.M. Gagoorg111&A.
Galorg136&C.D. Galvanorg120&P. Ganotiorg83&C. Garabatosorg106&E. Garcia-
Solisorg11&K. Gargorg27&C. Gargiuloorg33&A. Garibliorg86&K. Garnerorg144&P.
Gasikorg104,org117&E.F. Gaugerorg119&M.B. Gay Ducatiorg70&M. Germainorg114&J.
Ghoshorg109&P. Ghoshorg141&S.K. Ghoshorg3&P. Gianottiorg51&P.
Giubellinoorg58,org106&P. Giubilatoorg28&P. Glässelorg103&D.M. Goméz
Coralorg71&A. Gomez Ramirezorg74&V. Gonzalezorg106&P. González-Zamoraorg44&S.
Gorbunovorg38&L. Görlichorg118&S. Gotovacorg34&V. Grabskiorg71&L.K.
Graczykowskiorg142&K.L. Grahamorg110&L. Greinerorg79&A. Grelliorg63&C.
Grigorasorg33&V. Grigorievorg92&A. Grigoryanorg1&S. Grigoryanorg75&O.S.
Groettvikorg21&F. Grosaorg30&J.F. Grosse-Oetringhausorg33&R. Grossoorg106&R.
Guernaneorg78&M. Guittiereorg114&K. Gulbrandsenorg88&T. Gunjiorg132&A.
Guptaorg100&R. Guptaorg100&I.B. Guzmanorg44&R. Haakeorg146&M.K. Habiborg106&C.
Hadjidakisorg61&H. Hamagakiorg81&G. Hamarorg145&M. Hamidorg6&R.
Hanniganorg119&M.R. Haqueorg63,org85&A. Harlenderovaorg106&J.W.
Harrisorg146&A. Hartonorg11&J.A. Hasenbichlerorg33&H. Hassanorg95&D.
Hatzifotiadouorg10,org53&P. Hauerorg42&S. Hayashiorg132&S.T.
Heckelorg68,org104&E. Hellbärorg68&H. Helstruporg35&A. Herghelegiuorg47&T.
Hermanorg36&E.G. Hernandezorg44&G. Herrera Corralorg9&F. Herrmannorg144&K.F.
Hetlandorg35&T.E. Hildenorg43&H. Hillemannsorg33&C. Hillsorg127&B.
Hippolyteorg136&B. Hohlwegerorg104&D. Horakorg36&A. Hornungorg68&S.
Hornungorg106&R. Hosokawaorg15,org133&P. Hristovorg33&C. Huangorg61&C.
Hughesorg130&P. Huhnorg68&T.J. Humanicorg96&H. Hushnudorg109&L.A.
Husovaorg144&N. Hussainorg41&S.A. Hussainorg14&D. Hutterorg38&J.P.
Iddonorg33,org127&R. Ilkaevorg108&M. Inabaorg133&G.M. Innocentiorg33&M.
Ippolitovorg87&A. Isakovorg94&M.S. Islamorg109&M. Ivanovorg106&V.
Ivanovorg97&V. Izucheevorg90&B. Jacakorg79&N. Jacazioorg53&P.M. Jacobsorg79&S.
Jadlovskaorg116&J. Jadlovskyorg116&S. Jaelaniorg63&C. Jahnkeorg121&M.J.
Jakubowskaorg142&M.A. Janikorg142&T. Jansonorg74&M. Jercicorg98&O.
Jevonsorg110&M. Jinorg125&F. Jonasorg95,org144&P.G. Jonesorg110&J.
Jungorg68&M. Jungorg68&A. Juskoorg110&P. Kalinakorg64&A. Kalweitorg33&V.
Kaplinorg92&S. Karorg6&A. Karasu Uysalorg77&O. Karavichevorg62&T.
Karavichevaorg62&P. Karczmarczykorg33&E. Karpechevorg62&A. Kazantsevorg87&U.
Kebschullorg74&R. Keidelorg46&M. Keilorg33&B. Ketzerorg42&Z.
Khabanovaorg89&A.M. Khanorg6&S. Khanorg16&S.A. Khanorg141&A.
Khanzadeevorg97&Y. Kharlovorg90&A. Khatunorg16&A. Khuntiaorg118&B.
Kilengorg35&B. Kimorg60&B. Kimorg133&D. Kimorg147&D.J. Kimorg126&E.J.
Kimorg73&H. Kimorg17,org147&J. Kimorg147&J.S. Kimorg40&J. Kimorg103&J.
Kimorg147&J. Kimorg73&M. Kimorg103&S. Kimorg18&T. Kimorg147&T. Kimorg147&S.
Kirschorg38,org68&I. Kiselorg38&S. Kiselevorg91&A. Kisielorg142&J.L.
Klayorg5&C. Kleinorg68&J. Kleinorg58&S. Kleinorg79&C. Klein-Bösingorg144&M.
Kleinerorg68&A. Klugeorg33&M.L. Knichelorg33&A.G. Knospeorg125&C.
Kobdajorg115&M.K. Köhlerorg103&T. Kolleggerorg106&A. Kondratyevorg75&N.
Kondratyevaorg92&E. Kondratyukorg90&J. Konigorg68&P.J. Konopkaorg33&L.
Koskaorg116&O. Kovalenkoorg84&V. Kovalenkoorg112&M. Kowalskiorg118&I.
Králikorg64&A. Kravčákováorg37&L. Kreisorg106&M. Krivdaorg64,org110&F.
Krizekorg94&K. Krizkova Gajdosovaorg36&M. Krügerorg68&E. Kryshenorg97&M.
Krzewickiorg38&A.M. Kuberaorg96&V. Kučeraorg60&C. Kuhnorg136&P.G.
Kuijerorg89&L. Kumarorg99&S. Kumarorg48&S. Kunduorg85&P. Kurashviliorg84&A.
Kurepinorg62&A.B. Kurepinorg62&A. Kuryakinorg108&S. Kushpilorg94&J.
Kvapilorg110&M.J. Kweonorg60&J.Y. Kwonorg60&Y. Kwonorg147&S.L. La
Pointeorg38&P. La Roccaorg27&Y.S. Laiorg79&R. Langoyorg129&K. Lapidusorg33&A.
Lardeuxorg20&P. Larionovorg51&E. Laudiorg33&R. Lavickaorg36&T.
Lazarevaorg112&R. Leaorg24&L. Leardiniorg103&J. Leeorg133&S. Leeorg147&F.
Lehasorg89&S. Lehnerorg113&J. Lehrbachorg38&R.C. Lemmonorg93&I. León
Monzónorg120&E.D. Lesserorg19&M. Lettrichorg33&P. Lévaiorg145&X. Liorg12&X.L.
Liorg6&J. Lienorg129&R. Lietavaorg110&B. Limorg17&V. Lindenstruthorg38&S.W.
Lindsayorg127&C. Lippmannorg106&M.A. Lisaorg96&V. Litichevskyiorg43&A.
Liuorg19&S. Liuorg96&W.J. Llopeorg143&I.M. Lofnesorg21&V. Loginovorg92&C.
Loizidesorg95&P. Loncarorg34&X. Lopezorg134&E. López Torresorg8&J.R.
Luhderorg144&M. Lunardonorg28&G. Luparelloorg59&Y. Maorg39&A.
Maevskayaorg62&M. Magerorg33&S.M. Mahmoodorg20&T. Mahmoudorg42&A.
Maireorg136&R.D. Majkaorg146&M. Malaevorg97&Q.W. Malikorg20&L.
Malininaorg75orgII&D. Mal’Kevichorg91&P. Malzacherorg106&G. Mandaglioorg55&V.
Mankoorg87&F. Mansoorg134&V. Manzariorg52&Y. Maoorg6&M. Marchisoneorg135&J.
Marešorg66&G.V. Margagliottiorg24&A. Margottiorg53&J. Marguttiorg63&A.
Marínorg106&C. Markertorg119&M. Marquardorg68&N.A. Martinorg103&P.
Martinengoorg33&J.L. Martinezorg125&M.I. Martínezorg44&G. Martínez
Garcíaorg114&M. Martinez Pedreiraorg33&S. Masciocchiorg106&M. Maseraorg25&A.
Masoniorg54&L. Massacrierorg61&E. Massonorg114&A. Mastroserioorg52,org138&A.M.
Mathisorg104,org117&O. Matonohaorg80&P.F.T. Matuokaorg121&A. Matyjaorg118&C.
Mayerorg118&M. Mazzilliorg52&M.A. Mazzoniorg57&A.F. Mechlerorg68&F.
Meddiorg22&Y. Melikyanorg62,org92&A. Menchaca-Rochaorg71&C. Mengkeorg6&E.
Meninnoorg29,org113&M. Meresorg13&S. Mhlangaorg124&Y. Miakeorg133&L.
Michelettiorg25&D.L. Mihaylovorg104&K. Mikhaylovorg75,org91&A.
Mischkeorg63org*&A.N. Mishraorg69&D. Miśkowiecorg106&A. Modakorg3&N.
Mohammadiorg33&A.P. Mohantyorg63&B. Mohantyorg85&M. Mohisin Khanorg16orgIII&C.
Mordasiniorg104&D.A. Moreira De Godoyorg144&L.A.P. Morenoorg44&I.
Morozovorg62&A. Morschorg33&T. Mrnjavacorg33&V. Mucciforaorg51&E.
Mudnicorg34&D. Mühlheimorg144&S. Muhuriorg141&J.D. Mulliganorg79&M.G.
Munhozorg121&R.H. Munzerorg68&H. Murakamiorg132&S. Murrayorg124&L.
Musaorg33&J. Musinskyorg64&C.J. Myersorg125&J.W. Myrchaorg142&B. Naikorg48&R.
Nairorg84&B.K. Nandiorg48&R. Naniaorg10,org53&E. Nappiorg52&M.U.
Naruorg14&A.F. Nassirpourorg80&C. Nattrassorg130&R. Nayakorg48&T.K.
Nayakorg85&S. Nazarenkoorg108&A. Neaguorg20&R.A. Negrao De Oliveiraorg68&L.
Nellenorg69&S.V. Nesboorg35&G. Neskovicorg38&D. Nesterovorg112&L.T.
Neumannorg142&B.S. Nielsenorg88&S. Nikolaevorg87&S. Nikulinorg87&V.
Nikulinorg97&F. Noferiniorg10,org53&P. Nomokonovorg75&J. Normanorg78,org127&N.
Novitzkyorg133&P. Nowakowskiorg142&A. Nyaninorg87&J. Nystrandorg21&M.
Oginoorg81&A. Ohlsonorg80,org103&J. Oleniaczorg142&A.C. Oliveira Da
Silvaorg121,org130&M.H. Oliverorg146&C. Oppedisanoorg58&R. Oravaorg43&A. Ortiz
Velasquezorg69&A. Oskarssonorg80&J. Otwinowskiorg118&K. Oyamaorg81&Y.
Pachmayerorg103&V. Pacikorg88&D. Paganoorg140&G. Paićorg69&J. Panorg143&A.K.
Pandeyorg48&S. Panebiancoorg137&P. Pareekorg49,org141&J. Parkorg60&J.E.
Parkkilaorg126&S. Parmarorg99&S.P. Pathakorg125&R.N. Patraorg141&B.
Paulorg23,org58&H. Peiorg6&T. Peitzmannorg63&X. Pengorg6&L.G. Pereiraorg70&H.
Pereira Da Costaorg137&D. Peresunkoorg87&G.M. Perezorg8&E. Perez
Lezamaorg68&V. Peskovorg68&Y. Pestovorg4&V. Petráčekorg36&M.
Petroviciorg47&R.P. Pezziorg70&S. Pianoorg59&M. Piknaorg13&P. Pillotorg114&O.
Pinazzaorg33,org53&L. Pinskyorg125&C. Pintoorg27&S. Pisanoorg10,org51&D.
Pistoneorg55&M. Płoskońorg79&M. Planinicorg98&F. Pliquettorg68&J.
Plutaorg142&S. Pochybovaorg145org*&M.G. Poghosyanorg95&B. Polichtchoukorg90&N.
Poljakorg98&A. Poporg47&H. Poppenborgorg144&S. Porteboeuf-Houssaisorg134&V.
Pozdniakovorg75&S.K. Prasadorg3&R. Preghenellaorg53&F. Prinoorg58&C.A.
Pruneauorg143&I. Pshenichnovorg62&M. Puccioorg25,org33&J. Putschkeorg143&R.E.
Quishpeorg125&S. Ragoniorg110&S. Rahaorg3&S. Rajputorg100&J. Rakorg126&A.
Rakotozafindrabeorg137&L. Ramelloorg31&F. Ramiorg136&R. Raniwalaorg101&S.
Raniwalaorg101&S.S. Räsänenorg43&R. Rathorg49&V. Ratzaorg42&I.
Ravasengaorg30,org89&K.F. Readorg95,org130&K. Redlichorg84orgIV&A.
Rehmanorg21&P. Reicheltorg68&F. Reidtorg33&X. Renorg6&R. Renfordtorg68&Z.
Rescakovaorg37&J.-P. Revolorg10&K. Reygersorg103&V. Riabovorg97&T.
Richertorg80,org88&M. Richterorg20&P. Riedlerorg33&W. Rieglerorg33&F.
Riggiorg27&C. Risteaorg67&S.P. Rodeorg49&M. Rodríguez Cahuantziorg44&K.
Røedorg20&R. Rogalevorg90&E. Rogochayaorg75&D. Rohrorg33&D. Röhrichorg21&P.S.
Rokitaorg142&F. Ronchettiorg51&E.D. Rosasorg69&K. Roslonorg142&A.
Rossiorg28,org56&A. Rotondiorg139&A. Royorg49&P. Royorg109&O.V. Ruedaorg80&R.
Ruiorg24&B. Rumyantsevorg75&A. Rustamovorg86&E. Ryabinkinorg87&Y.
Ryabovorg97&A. Rybickiorg118&H. Rytkonenorg126&O.A.M. Saarimakiorg43&S.
Sadhuorg141&S. Sadovskyorg90&K. Šafaříkorg36&S.K. Sahaorg141&B. Sahooorg48&P.
Sahooorg48,org49&R. Sahooorg49&S. Sahooorg65&P.K. Sahuorg65&J. Sainiorg141&S.
Sakaiorg133&S. Sambyalorg100&V. Samsonovorg92,org97&D. Sarkarorg143&N.
Sarkarorg141&P. Sarmaorg41&V.M. Sartiorg104&M.H.P. Sasorg63&E.
Scapparoneorg53&B. Schaeferorg95&J. Schambachorg119&H.S. Scheidorg68&C.
Schiauaorg47&R. Schickerorg103&A. Schmahorg103&C. Schmidtorg106&H.R.
Schmidtorg102&M.O. Schmidtorg103&M. Schmidtorg102&N.V. Schmidtorg68,org95&A.R.
Schmierorg130&J. Schukraftorg88&Y. Schutzorg33,org136&K. Schwarzorg106&K.
Schwedaorg106&G. Scioliorg26&E. Scomparinorg58&M. Šefčíkorg37&J.E.
Segerorg15&Y. Sekiguchiorg132&D. Sekihataorg132&I. Selyuzhenkovorg92,org106&S.
Senyukovorg136&D. Serebryakovorg62&E. Serradillaorg71&A. Sevcencoorg67&A.
Shabanovorg62&A. Shabetaiorg114&R. Shahoyanorg33&W. Shaikhorg109&A.
Shangaraevorg90&A. Sharmaorg99&A. Sharmaorg100&H. Sharmaorg118&M.
Sharmaorg100&N. Sharmaorg99&A.I. Sheikhorg141&K. Shigakiorg45&M.
Shimomuraorg82&S. Shirinkinorg91&Q. Shouorg39&Y. Sibiriakorg87&S.
Siddhantaorg54&T. Siemiarczukorg84&D. Silvermyrorg80&G. Simatovicorg89&G.
Simonettiorg33,org104&R. Singhorg85&R. Singhorg100&R. Singhorg49&V.K.
Singhorg141&V. Singhalorg141&T. Sinhaorg109&B. Sitarorg13&M. Sittaorg31&T.B.
Skaaliorg20&M. Slupeckiorg126&N. Smirnovorg146&R.J.M. Snellingsorg63&T.W.
Snellmanorg43,org126&C. Sonccoorg111&J. Songorg60,org125&A.
Songmoolnakorg115&F. Soramelorg28&S. Sorensenorg130&I. Sputowskaorg118&J.
Stachelorg103&I. Stanorg67&P. Stankusorg95&P.J. Steffanicorg130&E.
Stenlundorg80&D. Stoccoorg114&M.M. Storetvedtorg35&L.D. Strittoorg29&A.A.P.
Suaideorg121&T. Sugitateorg45&C. Suireorg61&M. Suleymanovorg14&M.
Suljicorg33&R. Sultanovorg91&M. Šumberaorg94&S. Sumowidagdoorg50&S.
Swainorg65&A. Szaboorg13&I. Szarkaorg13&U. Tabassamorg14&G.
Taillepiedorg134&J. Takahashiorg122&G.J. Tambaveorg21&S. Tangorg6,org134&M.
Tarhiniorg114&M.G. Tarzilaorg47&A. Tauroorg33&G. Tejeda Muñozorg44&A.
Telescaorg33&C. Terrevoliorg125&D. Thakurorg49&S. Thakurorg141&D.
Thomasorg119&F. Thoresenorg88&R. Tieulentorg135&A. Tikhonovorg62&A.R.
Timminsorg125&A. Toiaorg68&N. Topilskayaorg62&M. Toppiorg51&F. Torales-
Acostaorg19&S.R. Torresorg9,org120&A. Trifiroorg55&S. Tripathyorg49&T.
Tripathyorg48&S. Trogoloorg28&G. Trombettaorg32&L. Tropporg37&V.
Trubnikovorg2&W.H. Trzaskaorg126&T.P. Trzcinskiorg142&B.A. Trzeciakorg63&T.
Tsujiorg132&A. Tumkinorg108&R. Turrisiorg56&T.S. Tveterorg20&K.
Ullalandorg21&E.N. Umakaorg125&A. Urasorg135&G.L. Usaiorg23&A.
Utrobicicorg98&M. Valaorg37&N. Valleorg139&S. Valleroorg58&N. van der
Kolkorg63&L.V.R. van Doremalenorg63&M. van Leeuwenorg63&P. Vande Vyvreorg33&D.
Vargaorg145&Z. Vargaorg145&M. Varga-Kofaragoorg145&A. Vargasorg44&M.
Vasileiouorg83&A. Vasilievorg87&O. Vázquez Doceorg104,org117&V.
Vecherninorg112&A.M. Veenorg63&E. Vercellinorg25&S. Vergara Limónorg44&L.
Vermuntorg63&R. Vernetorg7&R. Vértesiorg145&L. Vickovicorg34&Z.
Vilakaziorg131&O. Villalobos Baillieorg110&A. Villatoro Telloorg44&G.
Vinoorg52&A. Vinogradovorg87&T. Virgiliorg29&V. Vislaviciusorg88&A.
Vodopyanovorg75&B. Volkelorg33&M.A. Völklorg102&K. Voloshinorg91&S.A.
Voloshinorg143&G. Volpeorg32&B. von Hallerorg33&I. Vorobyevorg104&D.
Voscekorg116&J. Vrlákováorg37&B. Wagnerorg21&M. Weberorg113&S.G.
Weberorg144&A. Wegrzynekorg33&D.F. Weiserorg103&S.C. Wenzelorg33&J.P.
Wesselsorg144&J. Wiechulaorg68&J. Wikneorg20&G. Wilkorg84&J.
Wilkinsonorg10,org53&G.A. Willemsorg33&E. Willsherorg110&B.
Windelbandorg103&M. Winnorg137&W.E. Wittorg130&Y. Wuorg128&R. Xuorg6&S.
Yalcinorg77&K. Yamakawaorg45&S. Yangorg21&S. Yanoorg137&Z. Yinorg6&H.
Yokoyamaorg63&I.-K. Yooorg17&J.H. Yoonorg60&S. Yuanorg21&A. Yuncuorg103&V.
Yurchenkoorg2&V. Zaccoloorg24&A. Zamanorg14&C. Zampolliorg33&H.J.C.
Zanoliorg63&N. Zardoshtiorg33&A. Zarochentsevorg112&P. Závadaorg66&N.
Zaviyalovorg108&H. Zbroszczykorg142&M. Zhalovorg97&S. Zhangorg39&X.
Zhangorg6&Z. Zhangorg6&V. Zherebchevskiiorg112&D. Zhouorg6&Y. Zhouorg88&Z.
Zhouorg21&J. Zhuorg6,org106&Y. Zhuorg6&A. Zichichiorg10,org26&M.B.
Zimmermannorg33&G. Zinovjevorg2&N. Zurloorg140&

## Affiliation notes

org*Deceased

orgIDipartimento DET del Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy

orgIIM.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, D.V. Skobeltsyn Institute of
Nuclear, Physics, Moscow, Russia

orgIIIDepartment of Applied Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India

orgIVInstitute of Theoretical Physics, University of Wroclaw, Poland

## Collaboration Institutes

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

org2Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, National Academy of Sciences
of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine

org3Bose Institute, Department of Physics and Centre for Astroparticle Physics
and Space Science (CAPSS), Kolkata, India

org4Budker Institute for Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia

org5California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California,
United States

org6Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China

org7Centre de Calcul de l’IN2P3, Villeurbanne, Lyon, France

org8Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Havana,
Cuba

org9Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados (CINVESTAV), Mexico City
and Mérida, Mexico

org10Centro Fermi - Museo Storico della Fisica e Centro Studi e Ricerche
“Enrico Fermi’, Rome, Italy

org11Chicago State University, Chicago, Illinois, United States

org12China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China

org13Comenius University Bratislava, Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and
Informatics, Bratislava, Slovakia

org14COMSATS University Islamabad, Islamabad, Pakistan

org15Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, United States

org16Department of Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India

org17Department of Physics, Pusan National University, Pusan, Republic of
Korea

org18Department of Physics, Sejong University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

org19Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, California,
United States

org20Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

org21Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen,
Norway

org22Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università ’La Sapienza’ and Sezione INFN,
Rome, Italy

org23Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Cagliari, Italy

org24Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Trieste, Italy

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

org26Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN,
Bologna, Italy

org27Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN,
Catania, Italy

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

org29Dipartimento di Fisica ‘E.R. Caianiello’ dell’Università and Gruppo
Collegato INFN, Salerno, Italy

org30Dipartimento DISAT del Politecnico and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy

org31Dipartimento di Scienze e Innovazione Tecnologica dell’Università del
Piemonte Orientale and INFN Sezione di Torino, Alessandria, Italy

org32Dipartimento Interateneo di Fisica ‘M. Merlin’ and Sezione INFN, Bari,
Italy

org33European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland

org34Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval
Architecture, University of Split, Split, Croatia

org35Faculty of Engineering and Science, Western Norway University of Applied
Sciences, Bergen, Norway

org36Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering, Czech Technical
University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

org37Faculty of Science, P.J. Šafárik University, Košice, Slovakia

org38Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-
Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

org39Fudan University, Shanghai, China

org40Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, Republic of Korea

org41Gauhati University, Department of Physics, Guwahati, India

org42Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlen- und Kernphysik, Rheinische Friedrich-
Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany

org43Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Helsinki, Finland

org44High Energy Physics Group, Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico

org45Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan

org46Hochschule Worms, Zentrum für Technologietransfer und Telekommunikation
(ZTT), Worms, Germany

org47Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering,
Bucharest, Romania

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

org49Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore, India

org50Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Jakarta, Indonesia

org51INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy

org52INFN, Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy

org53INFN, Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

org54INFN, Sezione di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy

org55INFN, Sezione di Catania, Catania, Italy

org56INFN, Sezione di Padova, Padova, Italy

org57INFN, Sezione di Roma, Rome, Italy

org58INFN, Sezione di Torino, Turin, Italy

org59INFN, Sezione di Trieste, Trieste, Italy

org60Inha University, Incheon, Republic of Korea

org61Institut de Physique Nucléaire d’Orsay (IPNO), Institut National de
Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (IN2P3/CNRS), Université de
Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, Orsay, France

org62Institute for Nuclear Research, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

org63Institute for Subatomic Physics, Utrecht University/Nikhef, Utrecht,
Netherlands

org64Institute of Experimental Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Košice,
Slovakia

org65Institute of Physics, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Bhubaneswar, India

org66Institute of Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech
Republic

org67Institute of Space Science (ISS), Bucharest, Romania

org68Institut für Kernphysik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt,
Frankfurt, Germany

org69Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,
Mexico City, Mexico

org70Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS),
Porto Alegre, Brazil

org71Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico
City, Mexico

org72iThemba LABS, National Research Foundation, Somerset West, South Africa

org73Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea

org74Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe Universität Frankfurt Institut für Informatik,
Fachbereich Informatik und Mathematik, Frankfurt, Germany

org75Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR), Dubna, Russia

org76Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon, Republic
of Korea

org77KTO Karatay University, Konya, Turkey

org78Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie, Université
Grenoble-Alpes, CNRS-IN2P3, Grenoble, France

org79Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, United
States

org80Lund University Department of Physics, Division of Particle Physics,
Lund, Sweden

org81Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science, Nagasaki, Japan

org82Nara Women’s University (NWU), Nara, Japan

org83National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Science,
Department of Physics , Athens, Greece

org84National Centre for Nuclear Research, Warsaw, Poland

org85National Institute of Science Education and Research, Homi Bhabha
National Institute, Jatni, India

org86National Nuclear Research Center, Baku, Azerbaijan

org87National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia

org88Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

org89Nikhef, National institute for subatomic physics, Amsterdam, Netherlands

org90NRC Kurchatov Institute IHEP, Protvino, Russia

org91NRC «Kurchatov Institute» - ITEP, Moscow, Russia

org92NRNU Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, Moscow, Russia

org93Nuclear Physics Group, STFC Daresbury Laboratory, Daresbury, United
Kingdom

org94Nuclear Physics Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Řež u Prahy,
Czech Republic

org95Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States

org96Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States

org97Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina, Russia

org98Physics department, Faculty of science, University of Zagreb, Zagreb,
Croatia

org99Physics Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India

org100Physics Department, University of Jammu, Jammu, India

org101Physics Department, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, India

org102Physikalisches Institut, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Tübingen,
Germany

org103Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg,
Heidelberg, Germany

org104Physik Department, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

org105Politecnico di Bari, Bari, Italy

org106Research Division and ExtreMe Matter Institute EMMI, GSI
Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany

org107Rudjer Bošković Institute, Zagreb, Croatia

org108Russian Federal Nuclear Center (VNIIEF), Sarov, Russia

org109Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Homi Bhabha National Institute,
Kolkata, India

org110School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham,
United Kingdom

org111Sección Física, Departamento de Ciencias, Pontificia Universidad
Católica del Perú, Lima, Peru

org112St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia

org113Stefan Meyer Institut für Subatomare Physik (SMI), Vienna, Austria

org114SUBATECH, IMT Atlantique, Université de Nantes, CNRS-IN2P3, Nantes,
France

org115Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand

org116Technical University of Košice, Košice, Slovakia

org117Technische Universität München, Excellence Cluster ’Universe’, Munich,
Germany

org118The Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy
of Sciences, Cracow, Poland

org119The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States

org120Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Culiacán, Mexico

org121Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil

org122Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil

org123Universidade Federal do ABC, Santo Andre, Brazil

org124University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

org125University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States

org126University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

org127University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom

org128University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China

org129University of South-Eastern Norway, Tonsberg, Norway

org130University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States

org131University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

org132University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

org133University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan

org134Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France

org135Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, CNRS/IN2P3, IPN-Lyon,
Villeurbanne, Lyon, France

org136Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, F-67000 Strasbourg,
France, Strasbourg, France

org137Université Paris-Saclay Centre d’Etudes de Saclay (CEA), IRFU,
Départment de Physique Nucléaire (DPhN), Saclay, France

org138Università degli Studi di Foggia, Foggia, Italy

org139Università degli Studi di Pavia, Pavia, Italy

org140Università di Brescia, Brescia, Italy

org141Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute,
Kolkata, India

org142Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland

org143Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, United States

org144Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Institut für Kernphysik,
Münster, Germany

org145Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary

org146Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States

org147Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea