2021 077 7 May

$\rm{J}/\psi$ production in p$-$Pb collisions at midrapidity at
$\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV

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

A measurement of inclusive, prompt, and non-prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$ production in
p$-$Pb collisions at a nucleon–nucleon centre-of-mass energy
$\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV is presented. The inclusive $\rm{J}/\psi$
mesons are reconstructed in the dielectron decay channel at midrapidity down
to a transverse momentum $p_{\rm T}=0$. The inclusive $\rm{J}/\psi$ nuclear
modification factor $R_{\rm pPb}$ is calculated by comparing the new results
in p$-$Pb collisions to a recently measured proton$-$proton reference at the
same centre-of-mass energy. Non-prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$ mesons, which originate
from the decay of beauty hadrons, are separated from promptly produced
$\rm{J}/\psi$ on a statistical basis for $p_{\rm T}$ larger than 1.0 GeV/$c$.
These results are based on the data sample collected by the ALICE detector
during the 2016 LHC p$-$Pb run, corresponding to an integrated luminosity
${\cal L}_{\rm int}=292\pm 11\;{\rm\mu b}^{-1}$, which is six times larger
than the previous publications. The total uncertainty on the $p_{\rm
T}$-integrated inclusive $\rm{J}/\psi$ and non-prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$ cross
section are reduced by a factor 1.7 and 2.2, respectively. The measured cross
sections and $R_{\rm pPb}$ are compared with theoretical models that include
various combinations of cold nuclear matter effects. From the non-prompt
$\rm{J}/\psi$ production cross section, the $\rm{b}\rm{\overline{b}}$
production cross section at midrapidity,
$\mathrm{d}\sigma_{\rm{b}\rm{\overline{b}}}/\mathrm{d}y$, and the total cross
section extrapolated over full phase space, $\sigma_{\rm b\overline{b}}$, are
derived.

##  1 Introduction

The production of the $\rm{J}/\psi$ meson in hadronic interactions represents
a challenging testing ground for models based on quantum chromodynamics (QCD).
In proton$-$proton (pp) and proton$-$antiproton (p$\rm{\overline{p}}$)
collisions, charmonium production has been intensively studied experimentally
at the Tevatron [1, 2, 3, 4], RHIC [5, 6] and the LHC [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19], and it can be described in the framework of the
non-relativistic quantum chromodynamics (NRQCD) effective theory [20, 21, 22,
23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28].

In heavy-ion collisions, charmonium production is highly sensitive to the
nature of the hot and dense matter created in these collisions, the
quark$-$gluon plasma (QGP), see Ref. [23, 24, 29] for recent reviews. For a
precise interpretation of the heavy-ion results, detailed comparisons with
both the reference results obtained in elementary pp collisions and those in
proton$-$nucleus (p$-$A) collisions are indispensable. The latter is used to
disentangle effects due to interaction between the charmonium states and the
QGP medium created in heavy-ion collisions from those that can be ascribed to
cold nuclear matter (CNM). In fact, the nuclear environment affects the free
nucleon parton distribution functions (PDFs), inducing modifications that
depend on the parton fractional momentum $x_{\rm B}$, the four-momentum
transfer squared ($Q^{2}$) and the mass number A, as first discovered by the
European Muon Collaboration [30]. The modified distributions can be described
using nuclear parton distribution functions (nPDFs) [31, 32, 33]. In the
$x_{\rm B}$ and $Q^{2}$ domain of “shadowing” reached for nuclear collisions
at LHC energies in charm and beauty production, the parton density, and most
notably the one of the gluons, is reduced with respect to the free nucleon
[34, 35, 36]. At very small $x_{\rm B}$ values, where the gluon density
becomes very large, the nuclear environment is expected to favour a saturation
process, which can be described using the colour glass condensate (CGC)
effective theory [37, 38, 39]. In addition, in the nuclear environment partons
can lose energy via initial-state radiation, thus reducing the centre-of-mass
energy of the partonic system [40], experience transverse momentum broadening
due to multiple soft collisions before the production of the
$\mathup{{{c}}}\mathup{{\overline{{c}}}}$ pair [41, 42, 43], or loose energy
through coherent effects [44]. Finally, once produced, the charmonium state
could be dissociated via inelastic interactions with the surrounding nucleons
[45]. This process, which is dominant among the CNM effects at low collision
energy [46, 47], should become negligible at the LHC, where the crossing time
of the two nuclei is much shorter than the resonance formation time [48, 49,
50].

The comparison of the production measured in p$-$A collisions to the one in pp
collisions allows the CNM effects to be constrained. The size of these effects
can be quantified by the nuclear modification factor, which is defined as the
production cross section in p$-$A collisions ($\sigma_{\rm pA}$) divided by
that in pp collisions ($\sigma_{\rm pp})$ scaled by the mass number $A$,

$R_{\rm pA}(y,p_{\rm T})=\frac{1}{\rm A}\frac{{\rm d}^{2}\sigma_{\rm pA}/{\rm
d}y{\rm d}p_{\rm T}}{{\rm d}^{2}\sigma_{\rm pp}/{\rm d}y{\rm d}p_{\rm T}},$
(1)

where $y$ is the rapidity of the observed hadron in the nucleon$-$nucleon
centre-of-mass frame, and $p_{\rm T}$ its transverse momentum. In the absence
of nuclear effects, $R_{\rm pA}$ is expected to be equal to unity.

The inclusive $\rm{J}/\psi$ yield is composed of three contributions: prompt
$\rm{J}/\psi$ produced directly in the primary hadronic collision, prompt
$\rm{J}/\psi$ produced indirectly via the decay of heavier charmonium states
such as $\chi_{\rm{c}}$ and
${\mathrm{\psi(2S)}}{\mathup{{\left({2S}\right)}}}$, and non-prompt
$\rm{J}/\psi$ from the decay of beauty hadrons ($\rm h_{b}$). By subtracting
the non-prompt component from the inclusive $\rm{J}/\psi$ production, more
direct comparisons with models describing the charmonium production can be
considered. However, this contribution is not large, in particular at low
$p_{\rm T}$ ($\approx 10$–$20$% for $p_{\rm T}<10$ GeV/$c$ [51]), where the
bulk of the production is located, and the inclusive $\rm{J}/\psi$ production
represents already a valuable observable.

The measurement of the non-prompt component gives access to study open beauty
production through the inclusive decay channel $\rm
h_{b}\rightarrow\rm{J}/\psi+X$. In pp collisions, the production cross section
of beauty hadrons can be computed with factorisation approaches, either in
terms of $Q^{2}$ (collinear factorisation) [52] as a convolution of the PDFs
of the incoming protons, the partonic hard-scattering cross sections, and the
fragmentation functions, or of the partonic transverse momentum $k_{\rm T}$
[53]. The cold-medium processes that affect the charmonium production in
proton$-$nucleus and nucleus$-$nucleus collisions can also affect the beauty
hadron production [31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 40, 54].
Also in this case, the nuclear modification factor $R_{\rm pA}$ can be useful
to study these effects.

Charmonium and open-beauty production cross sections in p$-$Pb collisions have
been measured at LHC energies by the ALICE [55, 50, 56, 57, 51, 58, 59], ATLAS
[60, 14], CMS [61, 62, 15, 63] and LHCb [64, 65, 66, 67] collaborations over a
wide range of rapidity and transverse momentum. Thanks to its moderate
magnetic field, particle identification capability, and low material budget of
the tracking system in the central barrel, the ALICE apparatus has a unique
coverage for $\rm{J}/\psi$ measurements at midrapidity and low transverse
momentum. Previous ALICE measurements were published based on the p$-$Pb data
sample collected in 2013 [57, 51, 56, 68]. This paper presents new
measurements of the $p_{\rm T}$-differential cross sections for the inclusive,
prompt, and non-prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$ production in p$-$Pb collisions at
$\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV, using the data sample collected in 2016,
which is six times larger than that of 2013. Moreover, the cross section of
inclusive $\rm{J}/\psi$ production measured in pp collisions at
$\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV [7] is used to derive the $R_{\rm pA}$ results instead of
the interpolation procedure adopted in the previous p–Pb publication [57].
Therefore, the new results, which are significantly more precise and are
obtained differentially in $p_{\rm T}$ and in finer $p_{\rm T}$ intervals,
supersede the measurements published in Refs. [57, 51].

##  2 Data Analysis

A complete description of the ALICE apparatus and its performance is presented
in Refs. [69, 70]. The central-barrel detectors employed for the analysis
presented in this paper are the Inner Tracking System (ITS) and the Time
Projection Chamber (TPC). The ITS [71] provides tracking and vertex
reconstruction close to the interaction point (IP). It is made up of six
concentric cylindrical layers of silicon detectors surrounding the beam pipe
with radial positions between 3.9 cm and 43.0 cm. The two innermost layers
consist of Silicon Pixel Detectors (SPD), the two central layers are made up
of Silicon Drift Detectors (SDD), and the two outermost layers of Silicon
Strip Detectors (SSD). The TPC [72] consists of a large cylindrical drift
chamber surrounding the ITS and extending from 85 cm to 247 cm along the
radial direction and from $-$250 cm to $+$250 cm along the beam direction
($z$) relative to the IP. It is the main ALICE tracking device and allows also
charged particles to be identified through specific energy loss
($\textup{d}E/\textup{d}x$) measurements in the detector gas. Both the TPC and
ITS are embedded in a solenoidal magnet that generates a 0.5 T magnetic field
along the beam direction. They cover the pseudorapidity interval $|\eta|<$ 0.9
and allow $\rm{J}/\psi$ mesons to be reconstructed through the $\rm
e^{+}e^{-}$ decay channel in the central rapidity region down to zero $p_{\rm
T}$.

The measurements presented in this paper are based on the set of minimum bias
(MB) p$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV collected in 2016
during the LHC Run 2 data taking period, corresponding to an integrated
luminosity ${\cal L}_{\rm int}=292\pm 11\ {\rm\mu b}^{-1}$. The latter is
determined from the number of MB events and the MB-trigger cross section,
which was measured via a van der Meer scan, with negligible statistical
uncertainty and a systematic uncertainty of 3.7% [73]. Collisions were
realized by delivering proton and Pb beams with energies of 4 TeV and 1.58 TeV
per nucleon, respectively. The proton and Pb beams circulated in the LHC
anticlockwise and clockwise, respectively, during the period of data taking
considered for this analysis. The MB trigger condition is provided by the V0
detector [74]: a system made up of two arrays of plastic scintillators placed
on either side of the IP and covering the full azimuthal angle and the
pseudorapidity intervals $2.8<\eta<5.1$ and $-3.7<\eta<-1.7$. The trigger
condition required at least one hit in both the two arrays during the nominal
bunch crossing time frame, allowing non-single-diffractive p$-$Pb collisions
to be selected with an efficiency higher than 99% [75]. The timing information
from the V0 detectors is also used, in combination with that from the SPD, to
implement an offline rejection of beam-induced background interactions
occurring outside the nominal colliding bunch crossings. Events with more than
one interaction per bunch crossing are reduced down to a negligible amount by
means of a dedicated algorithm employing reconstructed tracks to detect the
presence of multiple collision vertices. Only collision events with a
reconstructed primary vertex lying within $\pm 10$ cm from the nominal IP
along the beam direction are considered in order to obtain a uniform coverage
for the central-barrel detectors. An event sample of about $6\times 10^{8}$ MB
events is obtained after the application of the above described selection
criteria.

###  2.1 Inclusive $\rm{J}/\psi$

Electron candidates are selected following similar procedures as those
described in Ref. [57]. The tracks, reconstructed with the ITS and TPC
detectors, are required to have a transverse momentum $p_{\rm T}^{\rm
e}~{}>~{}1.0$ GeV/$c$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta^{\rm e}|<0.9$, as well as at
least 70 (out of a maximum of 159) attached TPC clusters and a track fit
$\chi^{2}/{\rm dof}<2$ in order to ensure a uniform tracking efficiency in the
TPC. Electron identification is performed by requiring the measured
$\textup{d}E/\textup{d}x$ to be compatible with the expected specific energy
loss for electrons within $3\sigma$, with $\sigma$ denoting the specific
energy-loss resolution of the TPC. Tracks compatible with the pion and proton
energy loss expectations within $3\sigma$ are rejected. At least one hit in
either of the two SPD layers is required to remove background electrons
produced from the conversion of photons in the detector materials at large
radii. Additional suppression of this background is realized by discarding
electron (positron) candidates, which are compatible with a photon conversion
when combined with a positron (electron) candidate of the same event, through
the application of dedicated topological selections. These selections were
verified, employing Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, to have a negligible impact
on the $\rm{J}/\psi$ signal. Finally, in order to reduce the overall
background at low transverse momentum, a set of slightly tighter SPD and
particle identification (PID) requirements is applied to electrons and
positrons forming candidate pairs with $p_{\rm T}<3$ GeV/$c$. A hit in the
first SPD layer and a $3.5\sigma$ pion and proton rejection condition is
required instead of $3\sigma$ for higher $p_{\rm T}$ values. The sample of
$\rm{J}/\psi$ candidates is obtained by combining the selected opposite-sign
tracks in the same event and requiring the $\rm{J}/\psi$ rapidity to be within
$|y_{\rm lab}|<0.9$ in the laboratory system. Due to the energy asymmetry of
the proton and lead beams, such a requirement corresponds to a selection of
$\rm{J}/\psi$ candidates within $-1.37<y<0.43$ in the nucleon$-$nucleon
centre-of-mass system. The resulting dielectron invariant mass ($m_{\rm
e^{+}e^{-}}$) distributions are shown in Fig. 1 for eight selected transverse
momentum intervals, from 0 to 14 GeV/$c$. The signal component is
characterised by an asymmetric shape, with a long tail towards low invariant
masses due to the $\rm{J}/\psi$ radiative decay channel
($\rm{J}/\psi\rightarrow\rm e^{+}e^{-}\gamma$ ) and the bremsstrahlung-induced
energy loss of daughter electrons in the detector material. The background
component is composed of both a combinatorial and a correlated part, with the
latter mainly originating from the semileptonic decay of correlated open
heavy-flavour hadrons.

Figure 1: Opposite-sign dielectron invariant mass distributions for the
$p_{\rm T}$-intervals used for this analysis. The signal plus total background
(blue), the combinatorial background (red), and the correlated background
(green), evaluated as described in the text, are shown separately in each
panel. The $\chi^{2}/{\rm ndf}$ values of the signal template plus the total
background function are also reported along with the raw yields in the range
$2.92~{}<~{}m_{\rm e^{+}e^{-}}~{}<~{}3.16$ GeV/$c^{2}$.

The inclusive $\rm{J}/\psi$ yield is determined from the invariant mass
distributions using the same technique as described in Ref. [7]. At first, the
combinatorial background shape is modelled by means of a mixed event (ME)
technique and then scaled to the invariant mass distribution of like-sign
track pairs. Then, the combinatorial background is subtracted from the
opposite-sign dielectron invariant mass distribution, and the correlated
background is evaluated by fitting the resulting distribution with a two-
component function composed of a MC template for the $\rm{J}/\psi$ signal and
of an empirical function for the correlated background. The latter is defined
to be either an exponential or a combination of an exponential and a
polynomial. The former is obtained by a detailed MC simulation of
$\rm{J}/\psi$ decays in the ALICE detectors, based on GEANT3 [76] and the full
reconstruction chain as for real events, which is then also used to correct
the raw yield for the selection procedure and detector inefficiencies and
described in details in the next paragraph. After subtracting from the
opposite-sign dielectron invariant mass distribution also the correlated
background, the raw $\rm{J}/\psi$ yield is obtained by counting the number of
entries within the invariant mass interval $2.92~{}<~{}m_{\rm
e^{+}e^{-}}~{}<~{}3.16$ GeV/$c^{2}$. In Fig. 1, the different components used
in the procedure to describe the opposite-sign dielectron invariant mass
distributions are shown superimposed. An alternative method was also
considered, where the invariant mass distribution after the subtraction of the
correlated background is fitted with a Crystal Ball (CB) function [77] for the
signal plus either an exponential or a combination of an exponential and a
polynomial for the background, and the raw yield is obtained from the integral
of the best-fit CB function. The alternative method yields results compatible
with those from the standard approach.

In order to correct the raw yield for the chosen selection procedure as well
as for detector inefficiencies, a MC simulation was implemented by injecting
$\rm{J}/\psi$ signal events into MB p$-$Pb collision events simulated with the
EPOS-LHC model [78]. The $\rm{J}/\psi$ component was generated starting with
$p_{\rm T}$ and $y$ distributions that match well a next-to-leading order
(NLO) Colour Evaporation Model (CEM) calculations [79, 80] with the inclusion
of nuclear effects based on the EPS09 parameterisation [81]. The $\rm{J}/\psi$
decay into dielectrons was simulated using the EvtGen package [82] in
combination with the PHOTOS model [83] in order to provide a proper
description of the radiative decay channel. In the simulation, GEANT3 [76] was
used to reproduce the propagation of particles through the ALICE experimental
setup, taking into account the response of the detectors. The same
reconstruction procedure used for data was then applied to the simulated
events in order to evaluate the product of acceptance times efficiency
($A\times\epsilon$), which accounts for: the detector acceptance, the track
quality requirements, the electron identification criteria, and the fraction
of the signal counted within the invariant mass interval $2.92<m_{\rm
e^{+}e^{-}}<3.16$ GeV/$c^{2}$. The $A\times\epsilon$ retrieved from MC
exhibits a smooth and mild variation with the $\rm{J}/\psi$ $p_{\rm T}$,
ranging from $\sim$8.5% to $\sim$16% in the $p_{\rm T}$ range from 0 to 14
GeV/$c$. Consequently, the resulting $\left\langle
A\times\epsilon\right\rangle$ correction factor, which is the average of
$A\times\epsilon$ over $p_{\rm T}$ in a finite-size $p_{\rm T}$ interval,
shows a weak dependence on the $p_{\rm T}$ shape assumed in the simulation for
the $\rm{J}/\psi$ component. In the end, the final correction factors were
computed by re-weighting the original MC distribution to best-fit the
inclusive $\rm{J}/\psi$ spectrum already measured in p–Pb collisions at the
same energy [57].

The $p_{\rm T}$-differential cross section for inclusive $\rm{J}/\psi$
production is calculated as

$\frac{{\rm d}^{2}\sigma_{\rm{J}/\psi}}{{\rm d}y{\rm d}p_{\rm
T}}=\frac{N_{\rm{J}/\psi}\left({\rm\Delta}y,{\rm\Delta}p_{\rm T}\right)}{{\rm
BR}\left(\rm{J}/\psi\rightarrow\rm e^{+}e^{-}\right)\times\left\langle
A\times\epsilon\right\rangle\left({\rm\Delta}y,{\rm\Delta}p_{\rm
T}\right)\times{\rm\Delta}y\times{\rm\Delta}p_{\rm T}\times{\cal L}_{\rm
int}}\ ,$ (2)

where ${\rm\Delta}y=1.8$ corresponds to the width of the analysed rapidity
interval, ${\rm\Delta}p_{\rm T}$ is the width of the considered $p_{\rm T}$
interval, $N_{\rm{J}/\psi}$ is the raw $\rm{J}/\psi$ yield in the interval,
and ${\rm BR}\left(\rm{J}/\psi\rightarrow\rm e^{+}e^{-}\right)=(5.97\pm
0.03)\%$ is the branching ratio for $\rm{J}/\psi$ decaying into dielectrons
[84].

The inclusive $\rm{J}/\psi$ nuclear modification factor is obtained, according
to Eq. 1, by dividing the $p_{\rm T}$-differential cross section by the
reference cross section measured up to $p_{\rm T}=10$ GeV/$c$ in pp collisions
at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV [7]. The rapidity shift of $\Delta y=0.465$ between the
p–Pb and pp samples is expected to introduce a 1% effect on the $R_{\rm pPb}$,
which is negligible with respect to the other uncertainties. An interpolation
procedure, which is described in Ref. [51], is adopted for the computation of
the reference cross section in the last $p_{\rm T}$ interval, $10<p_{\rm
T}<14$ GeV/$c$, that was not measured in pp collisions at this energy. The
interpolated value of $\textup{d}^{2}\sigma_{\rm
pp}/\textup{d}y\textup{d}p_{\rm T}$ for this interval amounts to $10\pm 2\
{\rm nb}/({\rm GeV}/c)$, where the quoted uncertainty refers to the total
systematic uncertainty arising from the interpolation procedure and is
uncorrelated with the uncertainties of the measured $\textup{d}^{2}\sigma_{\rm
pp}/\textup{d}y\textup{d}p_{\rm T}$ for $p_{\rm T}<10$ GeV/$c$.

The estimated systematic uncertainties affecting the inclusive $\rm{J}/\psi$
measurements are listed in Table 1. The dominant sources of uncertainty are
related to the tracking and electron identification procedures. The remaining
contributions are related to the signal extraction procedure, the
$\rm{J}/\psi$ input kinematic distributions used in the MC simulation, the
dielectron decay channel branching ratio, and the integrated luminosity
determination.

Table 1: Summary of the systematic uncertainties, in percentage, of the inclusive $\rm{J}/\psi$ cross section ${\rm d}^{2}\sigma_{\rm{J}/\psi}/{\rm d}y{\rm d}p_{\rm T}$ and nuclear modification factor $R_{\rm pPb}$ in different $p_{\rm T}$ intervals. All contributions to the ${\rm d}^{2}\sigma_{\rm{J}/\psi}/{\rm d}y{\rm d}p_{\rm T}$ uncertainty are considered to be highly correlated over the $p_{\rm T}$ bins, except that for the background subtraction which is considered as fully uncorrelated. The reported values for the measured $\sigma_{\rm pp}$ reference cross section, which was determined up to $p_{\rm T}=10$ GeV/$c$ [7], are the total uncertainties, both of statistical and systematic origins. The uncertainty of $\sigma_{\rm pp}$ for the interval $10<p_{\rm T}<14$ GeV/$c$ is also the total uncertainty from the interpolation procedure as discussed in the text.  |  $p_{\rm T}$ (GeV/$c$)
---|---
Source | 0–1 | 1–2 | 2–3 | 3–4 | 4–5 | 5–7 | 7–10 | 10–14
Tracking | 4.4 | 4.4 | 2.9 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.7
PID | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 2.1 | 4.4 | 6.1
Signal shape | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 2.4
Background subtraction | 1.9 | 1.8 | 2.0 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9
MC input | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 1.7
$\sigma_{\rm pp}$ | 11.2 | 9.6 | 10.5 | 11.3 | 12.4 | 12.8 | 18.5 | 22.2
Luminosity | 3.7
Branching ratio | 0.5
Total (${\rm d}^{2}\sigma_{\rm{J}/\psi}/{\rm d}y{\rm d}p_{\rm T}$) | 6.4 | 6.4 | 5.6 | 5.3 | 5.2 | 5.5 | 6.7 | 8.1
Total ($R_{\rm pPb}$) | 12.9 | 11.5 | 11.9 | 12.5 | 13.4 | 13.9 | 19.7 | 23.7

The uncertainty of the tracking procedure dominates at low $p_{\rm T}$ values
and is related to both the ITS-TPC matching efficiency and to the adopted
track quality requirements. The first component is estimated by evaluating the
discrepancy in the matching probability of TPC tracks to ITS hits between data
and Monte Carlo [85]. The observed discrepancy is used to re-scale the
tracking efficiency of electrons in MC simulations in order to evaluate the
difference in the resulting number of reconstructed $\rm{J}/\psi$ candidates.
The second component is assessed by employing several variations to the
adopted track selection criteria and by computing the RMS of the corrected
$\rm{J}/\psi$ yield distribution resulting after these variations. The sum in
quadrature of the uncertainties related to both these components is taken as
systematic uncertainty on the tracking procedure. The uncertainty related to
the electron identification is estimated by evaluating the TPC electron PID
response for a clean sample of topologically identified electrons from
conversion processes in data and computing the difference with the
corresponding quantity from MC simulations. This per-track uncertainty is then
propagated to the reconstructed $\rm{J}/\psi$ candidates with the use of MC
simulations. The resulting uncertainty on the $\rm{J}/\psi$ cross section
increases up to $\sim 6\%$ towards high $p_{\rm T}$ values, where it is the
largest uncertainty contribution. The systematic uncertainty related to the
signal extraction procedure is due to both the background subtraction and the
assumptions on the signal shape. It is estimated as the RMS of the yield
distributions corresponding to variations of the mass interval used for the
signal counting, the alternative parameterisations employed to fit the
correlated background, and the alternative method using the CB function to fit
the signal. The uncertainty on the signal shape ranges between $\sim$2% at low
$p_{\rm T}$ and $\sim$2.5% at high $p_{\rm T}$, whereas the uncertainty due to
the background subtraction varies between $\sim$1% and $\sim$2% and is largest
for the lowest $p_{\rm T}$ intervals. The systematic uncertainty on the
$\rm{J}/\psi$ $p_{\rm T}$ distribution used as input for the computation of
the efficiency corrections is determined by randomly varying, within one
standard deviation contour, the parameters of a function fitted to the
measured $p_{\rm T}$ distribution in p$-$Pb collisions [57], taking into
account their correlations. The functional form used for this fit is discussed
in Ref. [86] and very well describes the measured $\rm{J}/\psi$ $p_{\rm T}$
distribution. The uncertainty of the integrated luminosity amounts to 3.7% and
is determined from the visible p$-$Pb cross sections measured in van der Meer
scans as detailed in Ref. [73]. Both the uncertainty on the integrated
luminosity and that on the branching ratio ${\rm
BR}\left(\rm{J}/\psi\rightarrow\rm e^{+}e^{-}\right)=(5.97\pm 0.03)\%$ [84]
constitute global uncertainties for the inclusive $\rm{J}/\psi$ cross section,
fully correlated between all $p_{\rm T}$ intervals. All the other discussed
sources of uncertainty are considered to be highly correlated 111With high
correlation, we mean a Pearson coefficient larger than 0.7. over $p_{\rm T}$,
with the exception of the background uncertainty, which is considered as
uncorrelated.

The total relative uncertainty for the reference pp cross section,
$\sigma_{\rm pp}$, is also reported in Table 1. In this case, the values up to
$p_{\rm T}=10$ GeV/$c$, are the total uncertainties, of both statistical and
systematic origin, associated to the measurement performed up to $p_{\rm
T}=10$ GeV/$c$ [7], while that for the $10<p_{\rm T}<14$ GeV/$c$ interval is
the relative uncertainty of the interpolated cross section ($10\pm 2\ {\rm
nb}/({\rm GeV}/c)$) quoted before. The uncertainty of $\sigma_{\rm pp}$
propagates only to the $R_{\rm pPb}$ observable and it varies between
$\sim$10% and $\sim$20% and is largest for the highest $p_{\rm T}$ intervals.

###  2.2 Determination of the non-prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$ fraction

The fraction $f_{\rm b}$ of the $\rm{J}/\psi$ yield originating from b-hadron
decays is measured for $p_{\rm T}>1$ GeV/$c$ by discriminating, on a
statistical basis, the reconstructed $\rm{J}/\psi$ candidates according to the
displacement between their production vertex and the primary p$-$Pb collision
vertex. The discrimination is realized by means of an unbinned two-dimensional
likelihood fit, following the same technique adopted in previous analyses for
the pp [13], p$-$Pb [51], and Pb–Pb [87] systems. In particular, it is
performed by maximising the following log-likelihood function

${\rm ln}L=\sum_{1}^{N}{\rm ln}\left[f_{\rm Sig}\times F_{\rm Sig}(x)\times
M_{\rm Sig}(m_{\rm e^{+}e^{-}})+(1-f_{\rm Sig})\times F_{\rm Bkg}(x)\times
M_{\rm Bkg}(m_{\rm e^{+}e^{-}})\right]\ ,$ (3)

in which $N$ indicates the number of $\rm e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs within the
$2.32<m_{\rm e^{+}e^{-}}<4.00$ GeV/$c^{2}$ invariant mass interval. The
pseudoproper decay length $x$ is introduced to separate $\rm{J}/\psi$
originating from the decay of b-hadrons from prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$. It is
defined as

$x=\frac{c\times L_{\rm xy}\times m_{\rm{J}/\psi}}{p_{\rm T}}\ ,$ (4)

where $c$ is the speed of light, $L_{\rm xy}=\vec{L}\cdot\vec{p_{\rm
T}}/p_{\rm T}$ is the signed projection of the pair flight distance,
$\vec{L}$, onto its transverse momentum vector, $\vec{p_{\rm T}}$, and
$m_{\rm{J}/\psi}$ is the $\rm{J}/\psi$ pole mass value [84]. The terms $F_{\rm
Sig}$ ($F_{\rm Bkg}$) and $M_{\rm Sig}$ ($M_{\rm Bkg}$) in Eq. 3 represent the
probability density functions (PrDFs) describing the signal (background) pair
distributions as a function of $x$ and $m_{\rm e^{+}e^{-}}$, respectively,
whereas $f_{\rm Sig}$ denotes the ratio of signal to all candidates within the
considered mass interval. The signal $x$ PrDF is given by

$F_{\rm Sig}(x)=f^{\prime}_{\rm b}\times F_{\rm b}(x)+(1-f^{\prime}_{\rm
b})\times F_{\rm prompt}(x),$ (5)

with $F_{\rm prompt}(x)$ and $F_{\rm b}(x)$ indicating the prompt and non-
prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$ PrDFs, and $f^{\prime}_{\rm b}$ being the uncorrected
fraction of $\rm{J}/\psi$ coming from b-hadron decays.

The evaluation of the different PrDFs used in Eq. 3 is performed relying
either on data or on MC simulations and following the same procedures
described in previous analyses [13, 87]. For the MC simulations, the prompt
$\rm{J}/\psi$ component was generated with the $p_{\rm T}$ and $y$
distributions obtained with a procedure analogue to that previously discussed
for the inclusive $\rm{J}/\psi$ analysis, while the non-prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$
component was obtained using PYTHIA 6.4 [88] with Perugia-0 tuning [89] to
simulate the production of beauty hadrons. Also in this case, the
$\rm{J}/\psi$ decay into dielectrons was simulated using the EvtGen package
[82] in combination with the PHOTOS model [83] in order to provide a proper
description of the radiative decay channel. The background $x$ PrDF, $F_{\rm
Bkg}(x)$, is determined in three invariant mass ranges by fitting the $x$
distributions of dielectron candidates in the lower ($2.32<m_{\rm
e^{+}e^{-}}<2.68$ GeV/$c^{2}$) and upper ($3.20<m_{\rm e^{+}e^{-}}<4.00$
GeV/$c^{2}$) side bands of the invariant mass distributions and by
interpolating the resulting fit functions to the region under the invariant
mass signal peak ($2.68<m_{\rm e^{+}e^{-}}<3.20$ GeV/$c^{2}$). The
experimental resolution function, $R(x)$, which is the key ingredient in the
$F_{\rm prompt}(x)$, $F_{\rm b}(x)$ and $F_{\rm Bkg}(x)$ PrDFs, is evaluated
from the $x$ distributions of prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$ in MC simulations,
reconstructed after applying the same selection criteria as in data. In order
to improve the resolution of the secondary decay vertices, it is required that
at least one of the two $\rm{J}/\psi$ candidate decay tracks has a hit in the
innermost SPD layer. A tune-on-data procedure [51] is applied to the MC sample
in order to reproduce the observed single-track impact parameter
distributions. This minimises the discrepancy between data and simulation,
reducing the systematic uncertainty related to the $R(x)$ determination. The
$F_{\rm b}(x)$ PrDF is obtained as the convolution of the $R(x)$ function and
a template of the $x$ distribution for the mixture of b-hadrons decaying into
$\rm{J}/\psi$. The latter is obtained with a MC simulation study of the
kinematics of the b-hadron decays. In this simulation, the $p_{\rm
T}$-distribution of the b-hadrons is obtained from pQCD calculations at fixed
order with next-to leading-log re-summation (FONLL) [90]. The decay
description is based on the EvtGen package [82], and the relative abundance of
b-hadron species as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ is based on the precise
measurements reported by the LHCb collaboration in pp collisions [91], which
are consistent with those measured in p–Pb collisions [67]. The $x$ resolution
estimated from the MC simulations is characterised by a pronounced dependence
as a function of the $\rm{J}/\psi$ $p_{\rm T}$: for events with both
$\rm{J}/\psi$ decay tracks yielding a hit in the first SPD layer, the RMS of
the $R(x)$ distribution ranges from $\sim$140 $\mu$m at $p_{\rm T}=1.5$
GeV/$c$ to $\sim$50 $\mu$m at $p_{\rm T}>7$ GeV/$c$. This allows the fraction
of non-prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$ to be determined for events with $\rm{J}/\psi$
$p_{\rm T}$ greater than 1 GeV/$c$ as well as in five transverse momentum
intervals (1–3, 3–5, 5–7, 7–10 and 10–14 GeV/$c$). The projections of the
maximised likelihood fit function superimposed over the $m_{\rm e^{+}e^{-}}$
and $x$ distributions of $\rm{J}/\psi$ candidates with $p_{\rm T}>1$ GeV/$c$
are shown as an example in Fig. 2.

Figure 2: Invariant mass (left panel) and pseudoproper decay length (right
panel) distributions for $\rm{J}/\psi$ candidates with $p_{\rm T}>1$ GeV/$c$.
The latter distribution is limited to the $\rm{J}/\psi$ candidates under the
signal peak region $2.92~{}<~{}m_{\rm e^{+}e^{-}}~{}<~{}3.16$ GeV/$c^{2}$. The
projections of the maximum likelihood fit functions are shown superimposed and
the $\chi^{2}$ values of these projections are also reported for both
distributions.

The $f_{\rm b}$ fraction is obtained after correcting the $f^{\prime}_{\rm b}$
values (Eq. 6 ) to account for slightly different $\left\langle
A\times\epsilon\right\rangle$ factors of prompt and non-prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$:

$f_{\rm b}=\left(1+\frac{1-f^{\prime}_{\rm b}}{f^{\prime}_{\rm
b}}\times\frac{\left\langle A\times\epsilon\right\rangle_{\rm B}}{\left\langle
A\times\epsilon\right\rangle_{\rm prompt}}\right)^{-1}\ .$ (6)

This small correction is computed relying on MC simulations assuming prompt
$\rm{J}/\psi$ to be unpolarised. A small residual polarisation, resulting from
the admixture of the different b-hadron decay channels, is assumed for non-
prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$ as predicted by EvtGen [82]. Under these conditions, the
correction mainly originates from the difference in the $p_{\rm T}$
distribution between the two components and is found to be significant only
for the $p_{\rm T}$-integrated case. Small relative variations of the
corrected $f_{\rm b}$ values, in the order of $\sim$1–4%, are expected in the
case of a null-polarisation assumption for non-prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$ [51]. The
variations estimated in extreme polarisation scenarios for prompt
$\rm{J}/\psi$ are discussed in Ref. [13]. Considering the null or very small
degree of polarisation measured in pp collisions at the LHC [17, 92, 93, 94],
these variations are not further propagated to the final results, and only the
choice of the $p_{\rm T}$ shapes used as input for the MC simulations is taken
into account for the systematic uncertainty evaluation, as discussed below.

The evaluated systematic uncertainties affecting the measurements of $f_{\rm
b}$ in the five $p_{\rm T}$ intervals as well as in the $p_{\rm T}$-integrated
range ($p_{\rm T}>1$ GeV/$c$) are listed in Table 2. Most of the listed
contributions are due to incomplete knowledge of the different PrDFs used as
input for the likelihood fits. An additional contribution originates from the
assumptions on the $p_{\rm T}$ distributions employed for the computation of
the correction factor of Eq. 6. The uncertainties affecting the evaluation of
the resolution function and of the background PrDF constitute the largest
contributions to the total systematic uncertainty of the $f_{\rm b}$
measurements. The former is estimated by propagating to the $R(x)$ PrDF the
residual discrepancy of the single-track impact parameter distributions
between data and MC simulations after the application of the previously
discussed tuning procedure. The latter is evaluated by repeating the
likelihood fits after varying the procedure used for the determination of the
$F_{\rm Bkg}(x)$ PrDFs, following the same approach described in Ref. [87].
Both uncertainties increase towards low transverse momenta and are largest for
the lowest $p_{\rm T}$ interval, where they amount to 10% and 8.5%,
respectively. The uncertainty related to the invariant mass PrDF of the
$\rm{J}/\psi$ signal is estimated by changing the width of the CB function
used to parameterise the $M_{\rm Sig}$ PrDF so as to vary the fraction of
signal enclosed within the $2.92<m_{\rm e^{+}e^{-}}<3.16$ GeV/$c^{2}$ interval
by $\pm$2.5%. The likelihood fits are repeated, and the variation of the
resulting $f_{\rm b}$ values is taken as systematic uncertainty. The
uncertainty related to the invariant mass background PrDF is estimated as the
RMS of the $f_{\rm b}$ value distributions obtained after employing different
parameterisations and alternative fitting approaches for the evaluation of the
$M_{\rm Bkg}$ PrDF. The estimate of the systematic uncertainty affecting the
non-prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$ $x$ PrDF is performed by repeating the likelihood
fits after employing PYTHIA 6.4 for the description of the $p_{\rm
T}$-distribution, decay kinematics, and relative abundance of the beauty
hadrons in the MC simulations used to model the $F_{\rm b}(x)$ PrDF. The
relative variation of the resulting $f_{\rm b}$ values, assumed as systematic
uncertainty, increases up to $\sim$3% towards low transverse momenta. This
uncertainty also contemplates any conservative assumption for a rapidity
dependence of the relative abundances of beauty hadrons at the LHC. The
uncertainty related to the acceptance times efficiency correction procedure is
assessed by testing different hypothesis for the kinematic $p_{\rm T}$-spectra
used to compute the $\left\langle A\times\epsilon\right\rangle$ values that
enter into Eq. 6. Among the tested variations, a tune-on-data parameterisation
based on the Run 1 measurement [51] for prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$, a $p_{\rm
T}$-distribution based on FONLL calculations [90] for the non-prompt
component, and the inclusion or exclusion of nuclear shadowing modifications
according to the EPPS16 parameterisation [95] are considered. The resulting
variations of the correction factors are largest for the $p_{\rm
T}$-integrated measurement, where they amount to $\sim$3%, while they are
smaller than $\sim$1% within the analysed $p_{\rm T}$-intervals. The overall
systematic uncertainty of the $f_{\rm b}$ measurements is found to increase up
to 13.7% towards low transverse momenta, mostly as a consequence of both the
increasing combinatorial background and the worsening of the $x$ resolution.

Table 2: List of the systematic uncertainties (in percent) for the fraction of $\rm{J}/\psi$ from b-hadron decays in the different analysed $p_{\rm T}$ intervals. The symbol “$-$" denotes a negligible contribution. | $p_{\rm T}$ (GeV/$c$)
---|---
Source | $>1$ | 1–3 | 3–5 | 5–7 | 7–10 | 10–14
Resolution function | 6.3 | 10.0 | 5.5 | 2.4 | 1.3 | 1.1
$x$ PrDF of non-prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$ | 1.7 | 3.2 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.3
$x$ PrDF of background | 5.0 | 8.5 | 3.2 | 3.2 | 2.6 | 1.8
Invariant mass PrDF of signal | 1.4 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 1.8
Invariant mass PrDF of background | 1.5 | 1.8 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 1.2
Acceptance $\times$ efficiency | 3.0 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.2 | $-$ | $-$
Total | 9.0 | 13.7 | 6.7 | 4.5 | 3.5 | 3.0

The prompt and non-prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$ nuclear modification factors are
computed by combining the measurements of $f_{\rm b}$ with the previously
discussed nuclear modification factors $R_{\rm pPb}^{\rm incl.\ \rm{J}/\psi}$
of inclusive $\rm{J}/\psi$:

$R_{\rm pPb}^{\text{non-prompt}\ \rm{J}/\psi}=\frac{f_{\rm b}^{\rm
pPb}}{f_{\rm b}^{\rm pp}}\ R_{\rm pPb}^{\rm incl.\ \rm{J}/\psi}\ ,\ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ R_{\rm pPb}^{\text{prompt}\ \rm{J}/\psi}=\frac{1-f_{\rm
b}^{\rm pPb}}{1-f_{\rm b}^{\rm pp}}\ R_{\rm pPb}^{\rm incl.\ \rm{J}/\psi}\ .$
(7)

The value of $f_{\rm b}$ in pp collision at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV, indicated as
$f_{\rm b}^{\rm pp}$ in Eq. 7, is determined by means of the same
interpolation procedure adopted in previous analyses for the p$-$Pb [51] and
Pb–Pb [87] systems. The procedure consists of fitting to existing midrapidity
$f_{\rm b}$ measurements at $\sqrt{s}=1.96$ TeV (from CDF [3]) and
$\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV (from ALICE [13], ATLAS [96], and CMS [97]) the semi-
phenomenological function discussed in Ref. [87], which includes FONLL
predictions [90] for the non-prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$ production cross section. An
energy interpolation is then performed to derive the $f_{\rm b}^{\rm
pp}(p_{\rm T})$ at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV as a function of $p_{\rm T}$. The
average value of $f_{\rm b}^{\rm pp}$ in a given $p_{\rm T}$ interval is
obtained by weighting $f_{\rm b}^{\rm pp}(p_{\rm T})$ over the inclusive
$\rm{J}/\psi$ spectrum in pp collisions in that $p_{\rm T}$ interval. Compared
to our previous estimates [51], a tune-on-data spectrum based on the inclusive
$\rm{J}/\psi$ yield measured by ALICE in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV
[7] is now employed for this purpose. The values of $f_{\rm b}^{\rm pp}$ at
$\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV, computed in the considered momentum intervals, are
reported in Table 3. The quoted uncertainties take into account the
uncertainties of both data and FONLL predictions, as well as an additional
systematic uncertainty due to the choice of the functional form (either a
linear, or an exponential, or a power law function) employed for the energy
interpolation procedure.

Table 3: Fraction of non-prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV computed in different transverse momentum intervals. The reported values and uncertainties are derived following the interpolation procedure detailed in the text and in Ref. [87]. $p_{\rm T}$ (GeV/$c$) |  $f_{\rm b}^{\rm pp}$ at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV
---|---
$>0$ | $0.135\pm 0.013$
1–3 | $0.117\pm 0.013$
3–5 | $0.144\pm 0.012$
5–7 | $0.188\pm 0.014$
7–10 | $0.246\pm 0.019$
10–14 | $0.333\pm 0.038$

##  3 Results

The inclusive $\rm{J}/\psi$ cross section is measured in $-1.37<y<0.43$ both
for $p_{\rm T}>0$ and differentially in $p_{\rm T}$ considering seven $p_{\rm
T}$ intervals, with the first and last bins being [0$-$1] GeV/$c$ and
[10$-$14] GeV/$c$, respectively. The value of the $p_{\rm T}$-integrated
inclusive $\rm{J}/\psi$ cross section per unit of rapidity is
$\textup{d}\sigma/\textup{d}y=\rm 999\pm 33\ (stat.)\pm 56\ (syst.)\ \mu$b.
The $p_{\rm T}$-differential cross section of inclusive $\rm{J}/\psi$ per unit
of rapidity, $\textup{d}^{2}\sigma_{\rm
incl.\,\rm{J}/\psi}/\textup{d}y\textup{d}p_{\rm T}$, is shown in Fig. 3 in
comparison with the cross section measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$
TeV [7] multiplied by ${\rm A}=208$. The latter extends up to $p_{\rm T}=10$
GeV/$c$. The highest $p_{\rm T}$ point for pp collisions, which is shown in
the figure with the empty symbol, was obtained using the interpolation
procedure as described before.

Figure 3: The $p_{\rm T}$-differential inclusive $\rm{J}/\psi$ cross section
per unit of rapidity, $\textup{d}^{2}\sigma_{\rm
incl.\,\rm{J}/\psi}/\textup{d}y\textup{d}p_{\rm T}$, as a function of $p_{\rm
T}$ in p–Pb collisions (red circles) compared with the analogous cross section
measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV [7] multiplied by the Pb mass
number (${\rm A}=208$) (black closed squares, shifted horizontally by 150
MeV/$c$ for better visibility). The vertical error bar and the box on top of
each point represent the statistical and systematic uncertainty, respectively.
The open square symbol (also shifted by 150 MeV/$c$) shows the value for pp
collisions in the $p_{\rm T}$ interval 10-14 GeV/$c$, which was obtained with
the interpolation procedure. In this case the error bar corresponds to the
total uncertainty.

The fraction of $\rm{J}/\psi$ from b-hadron decays in the kinematic range
$p_{\rm T}>1$ GeV/$c$ and $-1.37<y<0.43$, which is referred to as "visible
region" in the following, is found to be $f_{\rm b}=\rm 0.125\pm
0.017\;{\rm(stat.)}\pm 0.011\;{\rm(syst.)}$, where the first quoted
uncertainty is statistical and the second one is systematic. The $f_{\rm b}$
measurements in the five analysed $p_{\rm T}$ intervals are shown in Fig. 4 in
comparison with our previous results [51] and with the results from the ATLAS
collaboration [60], measured for $p_{\rm T}>8$ GeV/$c$ within a similar
rapidity interval ($-1.94<y<0$). The measurements from the CDF [3], ATLAS
[98], and CMS [97] experiments in pp and p$\rm\overline{p}$ collisions at
midrapidity are also shown for comparison. With respect to our previous
results [51], the present measurements are performed over a wider $p_{\rm T}$
range, with a more granular binning, and show a significantly improved
precision, with about half of the statistical uncertainty within similar
$p_{\rm T}$ intervals.

Figure 4: Fraction of $\rm{J}/\psi$ from b-hadron decays at midrapidity as a
function of the $\rm{J}/\psi$ $p_{\rm T}$ in p–Pb collisions at
$\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV (red closed circles) compared with results
from the ALICE [51] and ATLAS [60] collaborations in the same collision system
(blue and green closed circles, and the blue arrow that shows an upper limit
at 95% CL in the range $1.3<p_{\rm T}<3$ GeV/$c$). The results from CDF [3] in
p$\rm\overline{p}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=1.96$ TeV and those of the ALICE
[13], ATLAS [96, 98], and CMS [97] collaborations in pp collisions at
$\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV or $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV are also shown (black symbols). For all
experiments, vertical error bars represent the quadratic sum of the
statistical and systematic uncertainties. The data points of ALICE are placed
horizontally at the mean value of the $p_{\rm T}$ distribution within each
$p_{\rm T}$-interval, determined from the MC simulations described in the
text.

The prompt and non-prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$ production cross sections are obtained
from the combination of the $f_{\rm b}$ fractions with the measurements of the
inclusive $\rm{J}/\psi$ cross section $\sigma_{\rm\rm{J}/\psi}$:

$\sigma_{\rm\rm{J}/\psi\ from\ h_{\rm b}}=f_{\rm
b}\times\sigma_{\rm\rm{J}/\psi},\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \sigma_{\rm prompt\
\rm{J}/\psi}=(1-f_{\rm b})\times\sigma_{\rm\rm{J}/\psi}.$ (8)

The non-prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$ cross section in the visible region,
$\sigma_{\rm\rm{J}/\psi\ from\ h_{\rm b}}^{\rm vis}=\rm 201\pm 28\ (stat.)\pm
21\ (syst.)\ {\rm\mu b}$, is computed using the inclusive $\rm{J}/\psi$ cross
section for $p_{\rm T}>1$ GeV/$c$, which amounts to $\rm 1603\pm 55\
(stat.)\pm 89\ (syst.)\ {\rm\mu b}$.

In order to derive the $p_{\rm T}$-integrated values of the prompt and non-
prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$ cross section at midrapidity, $\sigma_{\rm\rm{J}/\psi\
from\ h_{\rm b}}^{\rm vis}$ is extrapolated down to $p_{\rm T}=0$ following
the approach described in our previous work [51]. The extrapolation is
performed assuming the shape of the $p_{\rm T}$ distribution of b-quarks
obtained from FONLL [90] with the CTEQ6.6 PDFs [99] modified according to
EPPS16 nPDF parameterisation [95]. The fragmentation of b-quarks into hadrons
is then modelled using PYTHIA 6.4 [88] with the Perugia-0 tune [89]. The ratio
of the extrapolated cross section for $p_{\rm T}>0$ and $-1.37<y<0.43$ to that
in the visible region ($p_{\rm T}>1$ GeV/$c$ and $-1.37<y<0.43$) equals
$1.127^{+0.014}_{-0.025}$ , where the quoted uncertainty takes into account
the FONLL, CTEQ6.6 and EPPS16 uncertainties, as described in Ref. [51], as
well as an additional uncertainty, which is related to that on the relative
abundance of beauty hadron species in the extrapolated range. The latter is
estimated to be about 0.4% after changing the assumed fractions of beauty
hadrons according to the recent LHCb measurements [91]. Also, in this case,
the considered variation largely includes a possible dependence of these
fractions on rapidity. Thus, the measured cross section corresponds to more
than 85% of the $p_{\rm T}$-integrated cross section at midrapidity. Dividing
by the rapidity range $\Delta y=1.8$, the following value is derived for the
non-prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$ cross section per unit of rapidity ($p_{\rm T}>0$ and
$-1.37<y<0.43$):

$\frac{\textup{d}\sigma_{\rm\rm{J}/\psi\ from\ h_{\rm b}}}{\textup{d}y}=\rm
125.6\pm 17.6\ (stat.)\pm 13.3\ (syst.)\ ^{+1.6}_{-2.8}\ (extr.)\ \mu b.$

The corresponding value for the prompt component is obtained as the difference
between the inclusive $\rm{J}/\psi$ cross section, which is measured for
$p_{\rm T}>0$, and that of $\rm{J}/\psi$ from b-hadron decays, as determined
with the extrapolation procedure described above. It is ($p_{\rm T}>0$ and
$-1.37<y<0.43$)

$\frac{\textup{d}\sigma_{\rm prompt\ \rm{J}/\psi}}{\textup{d}y}=\rm 873.1\pm
33.6\ (stat.)\pm 50.4\ (syst.)\ ^{+1.6}_{-2.8}\ (extr.)\ \mu b.$

Figure 5: $\textup{d}\sigma_{\rm prompt\ \rm{J}/\psi}/\textup{d}y$ as a
function of the rapidity in the centre-of-mass frame (left panel) as obtained
in this work at midrapidity and by the LHCb collaboration in the forward and
backward rapidity regions [64], and $\textup{d}^{2}\sigma_{\rm prompt\
\rm{J}/\psi}/\textup{d}y\textup{d}p_{\rm T}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$
(right panel) compared with ATLAS results [14] (reported up to $p_{\rm T}=20$
GeV/$c$). The vertical error bars and the boxes on top of each point represent
the statistical and systematic uncertainties. In the left panel, the
systematic uncertainty of the ALICE data point includes also the contribution
from the extrapolation procedure to go from the visible region ($p_{\rm T}>1$
GeV/$c$) to $p_{\rm T}>0$, as described in the text. For the measurements as a
function of $p_{\rm T}$, the data symbols are placed within each bin at the
mean of the $p_{\rm T}$ distribution determined from MC simulations. The
results of a model [100, 101, 102, 103] including nuclear shadowing based on
the EPPS16 [95] and nCTEQ15 [104] nPDFs are shown superimposed on both panels
(see text for details). In the right panel, the computations refer only to the
ALICE rapidity range.

Figure 6:  $\textup{d}\sigma_{\rm\rm{J}/\psi\ from\ h_{\rm b}}/\textup{d}y$ as
a function of rapidity (left panel) as obtained at midrapidity in this work
for $p_{\rm T}>0$ and by the LHCb collaboration in the forward and backward
rapidity regions [64] for $0<p_{\rm T}<14$ GeV/$c$, and
$\textup{d}^{2}\sigma_{\rm\rm{J}/\psi\ from\ h_{\rm
b}}/\textup{d}y\textup{d}p_{\rm T}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ (right panel)
compared with ATLAS measurements [14] (shown up to $p_{\rm T}=20$ GeV/$c$).
The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as vertical error bars
and hollow boxes, respectively. The extrapolation uncertainty related to the
procedure to go from the visible region ($p_{\rm T}>1$ GeV/$c$) to $p_{\rm
T}>0$ for the ALICE data point in the left panel is indicated with a dashed
band. For the measurements as a function of $p_{\rm T}$, data symbols are
placed at the mean value of the $p_{\rm T}$ distribution within each bin. The
results are compared to FONLL computations [90] with EPPS16 [95] nPDFs,
highlighting the total theoretical uncertainty (empty band) and the
contribution from EPPS16 (coloured band). In the right panel, model
computations are obtained in the same rapidity range of the ALICE results,
namely $-1.37<y<0.43$.

In Fig. 5 (left panel) this result is shown as a function of rapidity together
with the results from the LHCb experiment at positive (“forward”) and negative
(“backward”) rapidity [64], corresponding respectively to the p-going and Pb-
going direction. The $p_{\rm T}$-differential cross section of prompt
$\rm{J}/\psi$ is shown, in comparison with ATLAS measurements [14] at high
$p_{\rm T}$ and for $-2<y<1.5$, in the right panel of Fig. 5. The ALICE
results, covering the low $p_{\rm T}$ region at midrapidity, are complementary
to the measurements from both the LHCb and ATLAS collaborations. The data are
reported in comparison with model calculations for prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$
(Lansberg et al. [100, 101, 102, 103]) based on the EPPS16 [95] and the
nCTEQ15 [104] sets of nuclear parton distribution functions (nPDFs). In both
cases, the shaded bands represent the envelope of the computations for
different assumptions of the values of the pQCD factorisation ($\mu_{\rm F}$)
and renormalisation ($\mu_{\rm R}$) scales (varied within $0.5<\mu_{\rm
F}/\mu_{\rm R}<2$) computed at the 90% confidence level. The predictions show
good agreement with data within the large model uncertainties, which are
dominated by those on the pQCD scales. The results of a Bayesian reweighting
approach from the same authors [101], employing LHCb measurements of
$\rm{J}/\psi$ [66, 105] as a constraint for the computations, are also shown
in the left panel of Fig. 5. Both the size of uncertainties and the difference
between the nPDF sets are largely reduced after the reweighting.

In Fig. 6, the cross sections of non-prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$, computed either for
$p_{\rm T}>0$ (left panel) or differentially in $p_{\rm T}$ (right panel), are
reported together with the corresponding results from the LHCb [64] and ATLAS
[14] collaborations. The results are compared with theoretical predictions
based on FONLL pQCD calculations [90] with the inclusion of nuclear shadowing
effects according to the EPPS16 nPDFs [95]. In each panel, the coloured curves
delimit the total theoretical uncertainty on the production cross section,
which is dominated by that of the b-quark mass and the pQCD scales, while the
shaded bands refer to the theoretical uncertainty of the EPPS16 nPDFs.

Figure 7: $R_{\rm pPb}$ of prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$ as a function of rapidity
(left panel) and as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ along with that of inclusive
$\rm{J}/\psi$ at midrapidity (right panel). Results are shown in comparison
with LHCb measurements [64] at backward and forward rapidity in the left panel
and with ATLAS results [14] (shown up to $p_{\rm T}=20$ GeV/$c$) in the right-
hand panel. Statistical uncertainties are represented by vertical error bars,
while open boxes correspond to systematic uncertainties. In the left panel,
the systematic uncertainty of the ALICE data point includes also the
contribution from the extrapolation procedure to go from the visible region
($p_{\rm T}>1$ GeV/$c$) to $p_{\rm T}>0$. The filled box around $R_{\rm
pPb}=1$ in the right panel indicates the size of the global relative
uncertainty of the ALICE measurements. The results of various model
predictions for prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$ implementing different CNM effects are
also shown [101, 44, 106, 107, 108].

The nuclear modification factor of inclusive $\rm{J}/\psi$, measured for
$p_{\rm T}>0$ and $-1.37<y<0.43$, amounts to $\rm 0.851\pm 0.028\ (stat.)\pm
0.079\ (syst.)$. This quantity is obtained using the measured inclusive
$\rm{J}/\psi$ cross section in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV [7].
Similarly, the $p_{\rm T}$-differential $R_{\rm pPb}$ of inclusive
$\rm{J}/\psi$ is obtained on the basis of the measured pp reference, except
for the highest $p_{\rm T}$ interval (10–14 GeV/$c$), where the statistical
sample is limited and the interpolation procedure [57] is still used. In Fig.
7, the $R_{\rm pPb}$ of prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$ is reported either for $p_{\rm
T}>0$ in comparison with LHCb measurements [64] at backward and forward
rapidity (left panel) or as a function of $p_{\rm T}$, computed according to
Eq. 7, together with that of inclusive $\rm{J}/\psi$ (right panel) in
comparison with ATLAS results [14]. The $p_{\rm T}$-integrated $R_{\rm pPb}$
of prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$ at midrapidity ($p_{\rm T}>0$ and $-1.37<y<0.43$) is
measured to be smaller than unity and amounts to $\rm 0.860\pm
0.033~{}(stat.)\pm 0.081~{}(syst.)$. Given also the relatively small fraction
of $\rm{J}/\psi$ from b-hadron decays for $p_{\rm T}<14$ GeV/$c$, the $R_{\rm
pPb}$ of inclusive $\rm{J}/\psi$ is comparable with that of the prompt
component. As shown in the right panel of Fig. 7, both trends indicate that
the suppression observed at midrapidity is a low-$p_{\rm T}$ effect,
concentrated for $p_{\rm T}\lesssim 3$ GeV/$c$. The measurements are compared
with results from various model predictions which embed different CNM effects
into prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$ production. In addition to the previously described
computations by Lansberg et al., which include a reweighting of the EPPS16 and
nCTE15 nPDFs [101], the central values of a computation based on EPS09 nPDF
with or without interaction with a nuclear medium (Ferreiro et al. [106]) are
shown. A calculation including the effects of coherent energy loss (Arleo et
al. [44]), with or without the introduction of nuclear shadowing effects
according to EPS09 nPDF, provides a fairly good description of the
measurements either as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ or as a function of rapidity.
Two model calculations based on the CGC effective theory coupled with
different elementary production models (Ducloué et al. [107], Ma et al.
[108]), are also reported within their domain of validity, in the forward-$y$
region.

Figure 8: Nuclear modification factor $R_{\rm pPb}$ of non-prompt
$\rm{J}/\psi$ as a function of rapidity (left panel) and as a function of
$p_{\rm T}$ at midrapidity (right panel). The results are compared with
similar measurements from the LHCb [64] and ATLAS [14] experiments. Vertical
bars and the open boxes indicate the statistical and systematic uncertainties,
respectively. The uncertainty due to the extrapolation to $p_{\rm T}=0$
GeV/$c$ for the ALICE measurement is reported as a shaded box in left panel,
while the filled box around $R_{\rm pPb}=1$ in the right-hand panel denotes
the size of the global normalisation uncertainty. The predicted nuclear
modification factors according to the nDSg [109] (central value shown in the
left panel only) and EPPS16 [95] parameterisations (including a reweighted
computation from [101]) are shown superimposed on both panels.

The nuclear modification factor for non-prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$, determined
according to Eq. 7, is shown in Fig. 8. The measured value of the $p_{\rm
T}$-integrated $R_{\rm pPb}$ for $p_{\rm T}>0$ and $-1.37<y<0.43$ is found to
be $\rm 0.79\pm 0.11\ (stat.)\pm 0.13\ (syst.)\ ^{+0.01}_{-0.02}\ (extr.)$,
suggesting the presence of nuclear effects also for the non-prompt
$\rm{J}/\psi$ component. Within uncertainties, the measurements are found to
be compatible with those of the LHCb collaboration [64] at both forward and
backward rapidity as well as with those of the ATLAS collaboration [14] for
$p_{\rm T}\gtrsim 9$ GeV/$c$. All data are in fair agreement with the mild
degree of suppression predicted by FONLL computations employing the EPPS16
nPDFs. The nuclear modification factor, as predicted from the Bayesian
reweighting approach [101] of the EPPS16 nPDFs previously introduced for the
prompt component, also provides a good description of the measurements. The
central value of an alternative parameterisation of the nuclear PDF, nDSgLO
[109], is reported in the left-hand panel. Despite the larger relative
uncertainties, the comparison with the results shown for the prompt component
(right panel of Fig. 7) suggests that a reduced suppression as well as a less
pronounced $p_{\rm T}$-dependence affect the component of $\rm{J}/\psi$ from
b-hadron decays.

Similarly as for our previous work [51], the low $p_{\rm T}$ coverage of the
measured non-prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$ cross section at midrapidity, now extending
down to $p_{\rm T}=1$ GeV/$c$, allows the $p_{\rm T}$-integrated
b$\rm{\overline{b}}$ cross section per unit of rapidity,
$\textup{d}\sigma_{\rm{b\overline{b}}}/\textup{d}y$, and the total
b$\rm{\overline{b}}$ production cross section, $\sigma(\rm pPb\rightarrow
b\overline{b}+X)$, to be derived with small extrapolation uncertainties. By
using FONLL with CTEQ6.6 and EPPS16 nPDFs as input model for the computation
of the extrapolation factor, the b$\rm{\overline{b}}$ production cross section
at midrapidity is derived as

$\frac{\textup{d}\sigma_{\rm
b\overline{b}}}{\textup{d}y}=\frac{\textup{d}\sigma^{\rm model}_{\rm
b\overline{b}}}{\textup{d}y}\times\frac{\sigma^{\rm vis}_{\rm\rm{J}/\psi\
from\ h_{\rm b}}}{\sigma^{\rm vis,\ model}_{\rm\rm{J}/\psi\ from\ h_{\rm b}}}\
.$ (9)

Assuming the average branching ratio of $\rm{J}/\psi$ from b-hadron decays
measured at LEP [110, 111, 112], $BR(\rm
h_{b}\rightarrow\rm{J}/\psi+\textit{X})=(1.16\pm 0.10)\%$, for the computation
of $\sigma^{\rm vis,\ model}_{\rm\rm{J}/\psi\ from\ h_{\rm b}}$, the resulting
midrapidity cross section per unit of rapidity is

$\frac{\textup{d}\sigma_{\rm b\overline{b}}}{\textup{d}y}=\rm 5.52\pm 0.77\
(stat.)\pm 0.75\ (syst.)\ ^{+0.07}_{-0.12}\ (extr.)\ mb.$

With a similar approach, the total b$\rm{\overline{b}}$ production cross
section is obtained by extrapolating the visible cross section to the full
phase space:

$\sigma(\rm p+Pb\rightarrow b\overline{b}+\textit{X})=\alpha_{\rm
4\pi}\frac{\sigma^{\rm vis}_{\rm\rm{J}/\psi\ from\ h_{\rm
b}}}{2\times\textit{BR}(\rm h_{b}\rightarrow\rm{J}/\psi+\textit{X})},$ (10)

where the factor $\alpha_{\rm 4\pi}$ is defined as the ratio of the yield of
non-prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$ produced in the full phase space to that in the
visible region, and the factor 2 takes into account that hadrons with b or
$\overline{\rm b}$ valence quark can decay into $\rm{J}/\psi$. The value of
the $\alpha_{\rm 4\pi}$ factor obtained from FONLL pQCD calculations with
EPPS16 nPDFs, with the b-quark fragmentation performed using PYTHIA 6.4 with
the Perugia-0 tune, is $\alpha_{\rm 4\pi}=4.10\ ^{+0.14}_{-0.12}$. Using
PYTHIA 8 instead of FONLL for the generation of b$\overline{\rm b}$ quark
pairs provides the value 4.02, which is 2% smaller than the used value for the
extrapolation based on FONLL. The total cross section is222The extrapolation
uncertainties for the $\textup{d}\sigma_{\rm{b\overline{b}}}/\textup{d}y$ and
for the total b$\rm{\overline{b}}$ cross section include the contributions
related to the FONLL, CTEQ6.6 and EPPS16 uncertainties as discussed in Ref.
[51], and also a minor contribution of about 0.4% related to the uncertainty
on the $p_{\rm T}$-dependence of the relative abundance of b-hadron species.

$\sigma(\rm p+Pb\rightarrow b\overline{b}+\textit{X})=\rm 35.5\pm 5.0\
(stat.)\pm 4.8\ (syst.)\ ^{+1.2}_{-1.0}\ (extr.)\ mb.$

The reported results for the extrapolated $\rm b\overline{b}$ production cross
sections are consistent with our previous derivations [51]. The total
uncertainty is reduced by a factor of 2 thanks to the larger data sample, the
smaller systematic uncertainty, and the slightly extended coverage of the
visible region where the non-prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$ cross section is measured.

In p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV the LHCb Collaboration
measured the non-prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$ production cross section at forward and
backward rapidities for $p_{\rm T}<14$ GeV/$c$, reporting [64]
$\sigma_{\rm\rm{J}/\psi\ from\ h_{\rm b}}(1.5<y<4.0)=166.0\pm 4.1\pm 8.2$
$\mu$b and $\sigma_{\rm\rm{J}/\psi\ from\ h_{\rm b}}(-5.0<y<-2.5)=118.2\pm
6.8\pm 11.7$ $\mu$b, respectively. A more precise estimate of the total
b$\rm{\overline{b}}$ cross section can be obtained by repeating the same
procedure with including also these results from the LHCb collaboration [64],
to obtain a wider visible region: $(-5<y<-2.5,p_{\rm T}<14~{}{\rm
GeV}/c)\cup(-1.37<y<0.43,p_{\rm T}>1.0~{}{\rm GeV}/c)\cup(1.5<y<4,p_{\rm
T}<14~{}{\rm GeV}/c)$. The cross section in this wider visible region is
obtained as the sum of the cross sections measured in this work at central
rapidity and those from LHCb. All the uncertainties are uncorrelated except
that of the branching ratio. In this case, the $\alpha_{\rm 4\pi}$ factor,
which is calculated as the ratio of the yield from the model in full phase
space to that in the wider region covered by the ALICE and LHCb experiments,
is reduced to $1.60\pm 0.02$, and the corresponding total cross section is

$\sigma(\rm p+Pb\rightarrow b\overline{b}+\textit{X})=\rm 33.8\pm 2.0\
(stat.)\pm 3.4\ (syst.)\ ^{+0.4}_{-0.5}\ (extr.)\ mb\ \ \ \rm(ALICE\ and\
LHCb).$

##  4 Summary

The production of $\rm{J}/\psi$ mesons in p$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm
NN}}=5.02$ TeV is studied based on a data sample about six times larger than
that of previously published results yielding smaller uncertainties and
extending the $p_{\rm T}$ coverage. The inclusive $\rm{J}/\psi$ production
cross section at midrapidity is measured down to $p_{\rm T}=0$ after
reconstructing the $\rm{J}/\psi$ mesons in the dielectron decay channel. The
fraction of the inclusive $\rm{J}/\psi$ yield originated from b-hadron decays
is then determined on a statistical basis, allowing the prompt and non-prompt
$\rm{J}/\psi$ production cross sections at midrapidity to be derived for
$p_{\rm T}>1$ GeV/$c$ and as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ in five momentum
intervals. The results are scaled to reference measurements from pp collisions
at the same centre-of-mass energy in order to investigate the presence of
nuclear effects on $\rm{J}/\psi$ production. The nuclear modification factor
of prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$ shows a significant suppression for $p_{\rm T}\lesssim
3$ GeV/$c$, whereas there is a hint of a less pronounced suppression of the
non-prompt component over the inspected $p_{\rm T}$ range. The results can be
described by theoretical calculations including various combinations of cold
nuclear matter effects, although a precise discrimination among the different
models is impaired by the uncertainties affecting the currently available
predictions. Finally, the measurement of the non-prompt $\rm{J}/\psi$
production cross section is used to derive the extrapolated midrapidity
$\textup{d}\sigma_{\rm b\overline{b}}/\textup{d}y$ and total cross section,
$\sigma_{\rm b\overline{b}}$, of beauty quark production.

## 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) and Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (IN2P3) and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), 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; 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 Education and Science, National Science Centre and WUT ID-UB, 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 Energy, Nuclear and Mineral Research Agency (TENMAK), 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.

In addition, individual groups and members have received support from the
Horizon 2020 programme, European Union.

## References

  * [1] D0 Collaboration, S. Abachi et al., “$\rm{J}/\psi$ production in $\mathrm{p}\rm{\overline{p}}$ Collisions at $\sqrt{s}=1.8$ TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 370 (1996) 279.
  * [2] D0 Collaboration, B. Abbott et al., “Small Angle $\rm{J}/\psi$ Production in $\mathrm{p}\rm{\overline{p}}$ Collisions at $\sqrt{s}=1.8$ TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 35.
  * [3] CDF Collaboration, D. Acosta et al., “Measurement of the $\rm{J}/\psi$ meson and b-hadron production cross sections in $\mathrm{p}\rm{\overline{p}}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=1960$ GeV ”, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 032001.
  * [4] CDF Collaboration, A. Abulencia et al., “Polarizations of $\rm{J}/\psi$ and ${\mathrm{\psi(2S)}}{\mathup{{\left({2S}\right)}}}$ Mesons Produced in $\mathrm{p}\rm{\overline{p}}$ Collisions at $\sqrt{s}=1.96$ TeV ”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007) 132001.
  * [5] PHENIX Collaboration, A. Adare et al., “$J/\psi$ production versus transverse momentum and rapidity in $p+p$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 232002, arXiv:hep-ex/0611020 [hep-ex].
  * [6] STAR Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Measurements of the transverse-momentum-dependent cross sections of $J/\psi$ production at mid-rapidity in proton+proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 510 and 500 GeV with the STAR detector”, Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) 052009, arXiv:1905.06075 [hep-ex].
  * [7] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Inclusive J/$\psi$ production at mid-rapidity in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV”, J. High Energ. Phys. 10 (2019) 084, arXiv:1905.07211 [nucl-ex].
  * [8] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Inclusive $J/\psi$ production in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=2.76$ TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 718 (2012) 295–306, arXiv:1203.3641 [hep-ex]. [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 748, 472–473 (2015)].
  * [9] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “Rapidity and transverse momentum dependence of inclusive J$/\psi$ production in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 704 (2011) 442–455, arXiv:1105.0380 [hep-ex]. [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 718, 692–698 (2012)].
  * [10] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “J/$\psi$ suppression at forward rapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at $\mathbf{\sqrt{s_{{\rm NN}}}=5.02}$ TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 766 (2017) 212–224, arXiv:1606.08197 [nucl-ex].
  * [11] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Inclusive quarkonium production at forward rapidity in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV”, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 184, arXiv:1509.08258 [hep-ex].
  * [12] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Energy dependence of forward-rapidity $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ and $\psi\mathrm{(2S)}$ production in pp collisions at the LHC”, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 392, arXiv:1702.00557 [hep-ex].
  * [13] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Measurement of prompt $J/\psi$ and beauty hadron production cross sections at mid-rapidity in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”, J. High Energ. Phys. 11 (2012) 065, arXiv:1205.5880 [hep-ex].
  * [14] 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 (2018) 171, arXiv:1709.03089 [nucl-ex].
  * [15] CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., “Measurement of prompt and nonprompt $\mathrm{J}/{\psi}$ production in $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}$ and $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{Pb}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02\,\text{TeV}$”, Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) 269, arXiv:1702.01462 [nucl-ex].
  * [16] LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Measurement of $J/\psi$ production in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=2.76$ TeV”, J. High Energ. Phys. 02 (2013) 041, arXiv:1212.1045 [hep-ex].
  * [17] LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Measurement of $J/\psi$ production in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7~{}\rm{TeV}$”, Eur. Phys. J. C71 (2011) 1645, arXiv:1103.0423 [hep-ex].
  * [18] LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Production of $\rm{J}/\psi$ and $\Upsilon$ mesons in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV”, J. High Energ. Phys. 06 (2013) 064, arXiv:1304.6977 [hep-ex].
  * [19] LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Measurement of forward $J/\psi$ production cross-sections in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”, J. High Energ. Phys. 10 (2015) 172, arXiv:1509.00771 [hep-ex]. [Erratum: J. High Energ. Phys. 05, 063 (2017)].
  * [20] G. T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, and G. P. Lepage, “Rigorous QCD analysis of inclusive annihilation and production of heavy quarkonium”, Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995) 1125, arXiv:hep-ph/9407339 [hep-ph].
  * [21] P. Cho and A. Leibovich, “Color-octet quarkonia production”, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 150.
  * [22] P. Cho and A. Leibovich, “Color-octet quarkonia production II”, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 6203.
  * [23] N. Brambilla et al., “Heavy quarkonium: progress, puzzles, and opportunities”, Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1534, arXiv:1010.5827 [hep-ph].
  * [24] A. Andronic et al., “Heavy-flavour and quarkonium production in the LHC era: from proton-proton to heavy-ion collisions”, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 107, arXiv:1506.03981 [nucl-ex].
  * [25] M. Butenschoen and B. A. Kniehl, “NEXT-TO-LEADING ORDER TESTS OF NON-RELATIVISTIC-QCD FACTORIZATION WITH $J/\psi$ YIELD AND POLARIZATION”, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 28 (2013) 1350027, arXiv:1212.2037 [hep-ph].
  * [26] H. Han, Y.-Q. Yan-Qing Ma, C. Meng, H.-S. Shao, and K.-T. Chao, “$\eta_{\rm c}$ production at lhc and implications for the understanding of j/$\psi$ production”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 092005, arXiv:1411.7350 [hep-ph].
  * [27] H.-F. Zhang, Z. Sun, W.-L. Sang, and R. Li, “Impact of $\eta_{\rm c}$ hadroproduction data on charmonium production and polarization within the nonrelativistic qcd framework”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 092006, arXiv:1412.0508 [hep-ph].
  * [28] M. Butenschoen, Z.-G. He, and B. A. Kniehl, “$\eta_{\rm c}$ production at the lhc challenges nonrelativistic qcd factorization”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 092004, arXiv:1411.5287 [hep-ph].
  * [29] G. Aarts et al., “Heavy-flavor production and medium properties in high-energy nuclear collisions — What next?”, Eur. Phys. J. A 53 (2017) 93, arXiv::1612.08032 [nucl-th].
  * [30] European Muon Collaboration, “The ratio of the nucleon structure functions $f^{2}_{n}$ for iron and deuterium”, Phys. Lett. B 123 (1983) 275.
  * [31] A. Kusina et al., “nCTEQ15 - Global analysis of nuclear parton distributions with uncertainties”, PoS DIS2015 (2015) 041, arXiv:1509.01801 [hep-ph].
  * [32] K. J. Eskola, P. Paakkinen, H. Paukkunen, and C. A. Salgado, “EPPS16: Nuclear parton distributions with LHC data”, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 163, arXiv:1612.05741 [hep-ph].
  * [33] R. Abdul Khalek, J. J. Ethier, J. Rojo, and G. van Weelden, “nNNPDF2.0: quark flavor separation in nuclei from LHC data”, JHEP 09 (2020) 183, arXiv:2006.14629 [hep-ph].
  * [34] K. J. Eskola, I. Helenius, P. Paakkinen, and H. Paukkunen, “A QCD analysis of LHCb D-meson data in p+Pb collisions”, JHEP 05 (2020) 037, arXiv:1906.02512 [hep-ph].
  * [35] K. J. Eskola, I. Helenius, P. Paakkinen, and H. Paukkunen, “Impact of dijet and D-meson data from 5.02 TeV p+Pb collisions on nuclear PDFs”, Nucl. Phys. A 1005 (2021) 121944, arXiv:2001.10385 [hep-ph].
  * [36] A. Kusina, J.-P. Lansberg, I. Schienbein, and H.-S. Shao, “Reweighted nuclear PDFs using Heavy-Flavor Production Data at the LHC: nCTEQ15_rwHF & EPPS16_rwHF”, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 014010, arXiv:2012.11462 [hep-ph].
  * [37] J.-P. Blaizot, F. Gelis, and R. Venugopalan, “High energy pA collisions in the color glass condensate approach II: quark pair production”, Nucl. Phys. A 743 (2004) 57, hep-ph/0402257.
  * [38] F. Gelis, “Color Glass Condensate and Glasma”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28 (2013) 1330001, arXiv:1211.3327 [hep-ph].
  * [39] H. Fujii and K. Watanabe, “Heavy quark pair production in high energy pA collisions: Open heavy flavors”, Nucl. Phys. A 920 (2013) 78–93, arXiv:1308.1258 [hep-ph].
  * [40] I. Vitev, “Non-Abelian energy loss in cold nuclear matter”, Phys. Rev. C 75 (2007) 064906, hep-th/0703002.
  * [41] M. Lev and B. Petersson, “Nuclear effects at large transverse momentum in a QCD parton model”, Z. Phys. C 21 (1983) 155.
  * [42] X. Wang, “Systematic study of high $p_{\rm T}$ hadron spectra in pp, pA, and AA collisions at ultrarelativistic energies”, Phys. Rev. C 61 (2000) 064910, nucl-th/9812021.
  * [43] B. Kopeliovich, J. Nemchik, A. Schäfer, and A. Tarasov, “Cronin Effect in Hadron Production Off Nuclei”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 232303, hep-ph/0201010.
  * [44] F. Arleo, R. Kolevatov, S. Peigné, and M. Rustamova, “Centrality and $p_{\perp}$ dependence of $\rm{J}/\psi$ suppression in proton-nucleus collisions from parton energy loss”, J. High Energ. Phys. 05 (2013) 155, arXiv:1304.0901 [hep-ph].
  * [45] C. Gerschel and H. J., “A Contribution to the Suppression of the $\rm{J}/\psi$ Meson Produced in High-Energy Nucleus Nucleus Collisions”, Phys. Lett. B 207 (1988) 253–256, hep-ph/0201010.
  * [46] NA50 Collaboration, B. Alessandro et al., “Charmonia and Drell-Yan production in proton-nucleus collisions at the CERN SPS”, Phys. Lett. B 553 (2003) 167–178.
  * [47] PHENIX Collaboration, A. Adare et al., “Transverse-Momentum Dependence of the $\rm{J}/\psi$ Nuclear Modification in d+Au Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200$ GeV ”, Phys. Rev. C 87 (2013) 034904, arXiv:1204.0777 [nucl-ex].
  * [48] J. Hufner, Y. Ivanov, B. Kopeliovich, and A. Tarasov, “Photoproduction of charmonia and total charmonium proton cross-sections”, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 094022, hep-ph/0007111.
  * [49] D. Kharzeev and R. L. Thews, “Quarkonium formation time in a model independent approach”, Phys. Rev. C 60 (1999) 041901, nucl-th/9907021.
  * [50] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Centrality dependence of ${\mathrm{\psi(2S)}}{\mathup{{\left({2S}\right)}}}$ suppression in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV”, J. High Energ. Phys. 06 (2016) 050, arXiv:1603.02816 [nucl-ex].
  * [51] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Prompt and non-prompt $\hbox{J}/\psi$ production and nuclear modification at mid-rapidity in p–Pb collisions at $\mathbf{\sqrt{{s}_{\text{NN}}}=5.02}$ TeV”, Eur. Phys. J. C78 (2018) 466, arXiv:1802.00765 [nucl-ex].
  * [52] J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper, and G. F. Sterman, “Factorization of Hard Processes in QCD”, Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 5 (1989) 1–91, hep-ph/0409313.
  * [53] S. Catani, M. Ciafaloni, and F. Hautmann, “High-energy factorization and small $x$ heavy flavor production”, Nucl. Phys. B 336 (1991) 135–188.
  * [54] F. Arleo, S. Peigne, and T. Sami, “Revisiting scaling properties of medium-induced gluon radiation”, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 114036, arXiv:1006.0818 [hep-ph].
  * [55] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “$\rm{J}/\psi$ production and nuclear effects in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV”, J. High Energ. Phys. 2014 (2014) 73, arXiv:1308.6726 [nucl-ex].
  * [56] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Centrality dependence of inclusive $\rm{J}/\psi$ production in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV”, J. High Energ. Phys. 11 (2015) 127, arXiv:1506.08808 [nucl-ex].
  * [57] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Rapidity and transverse-momentum dependence of the inclusive J/$\psi$ nuclear modification factor in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N\ N}}=$ 5.02 TeV”, J. High Energ. Phys. 06 (2015) 055, arXiv:1503.07179 [nucl-ex].
  * [58] 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”, J. High Energ. Phys. 07 (2018) 160, arXiv:1805.04381 [nucl-ex].
  * [59] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Measurement of electrons from beauty-hadron decays in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV and Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76$ TeV”, J. High Energ. Phys. 07 (2017) 052, arXiv:1609.03898 [nucl-ex].
  * [60] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Measurement of differential $J/\psi$ production cross sections and forward-backward ratios in p + Pb collisions with the ATLAS detector”, Phys. Rev. C92 (2015) 034904, arXiv:1505.08141 [hep-ex].
  * [61] CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al., “Transverse momentum spectra of inclusive b jets in pPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=$ 5.02 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B754 (2016) 59, arXiv:1510.03373 [nucl-ex].
  * [62] CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al., “Study of B Meson Production in p$+$Pb Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02$ TeV Using Exclusive Hadronic Decays”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 032301, arXiv:1508.06678 [nucl-ex].
  * [63] CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., “Measurement of prompt $\psi$(2S) production cross sections in proton-lead and proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s_{{}_{\mathrm{NN}}}}=$ 5.02 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B790 (2019) 509–532, arXiv:1805.02248 [hep-ex].
  * [64] LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Study of $J/\psi$ production and cold nuclear matter effects in $pPb$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5$ TeV”, J. High Energ. Phys. 02 (2014) 072, arXiv:1308.6729 [nucl-ex].
  * [65] LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Study of $\psi(2S)$ production and cold nuclear matter effects in pPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5~{}\mathrm{TeV}$”, J. High Energ. Phys. 03 (2016) 133, arXiv:1601.07878 [nucl-ex].
  * [66] LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Prompt and nonprompt J/$\psi$ production and nuclear modification in $p$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\text{NN}}}=8.16$ TeV”, Phys. Lett. B774 (2017) 159–178, arXiv:1706.07122 [hep-ex].
  * [67] LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Measurement of $B^{+}$, $B^{0}$ and $\Lambda_{b}^{0}$ production in $p\mkern 1.0mu\mathrm{Pb}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=8.16\,{\rm TeV}$”, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 052011, arXiv:1902.05599 [hep-ex].
  * [68] ALICE Collaboration, D. Adamová et al., “J/$\psi$ production as a function of charged-particle pseudorapidity density in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02$ TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 776 (2018) 91–104, arXiv:1704.00274 [nucl-ex].
  * [69] ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC”, JINST 3 (2008) S08002.
  * [70] ALICE Collaboration, 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].
  * [71] 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].
  * [72] J. Alme et al., “The ALICE TPC, a large 3-dimensional tracking device with fast readout for ultra-high multiplicity events”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A622 (2010) 316–367, arXiv:1001.1950 [physics.ins-det].
  * [73] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Measurement of visible cross sections in proton-lead collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV in van der Meer scans with the ALICE detector”, JINST 9 (2014) P11003, arXiv:1405.1849 [nucl-ex].
  * [74] ALICE Collaboration, E. Abbas et al., “Performance of the ALICE VZERO system”, JINST 8 (2013) P10016, arXiv:1306.3130 [nucl-ex].
  * [75] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Pseudorapidity density of charged particles in $p$ \+ Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02$ TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 032301, arXiv:1210.3615 [nucl-ex].
  * [76] R. Brun, F. Bruyant, F. Carminati, S. Giani, M. Maire, A. McPherson, G. Patrick, and L. Urban, “GEANT Detector Description and Simulation Tool”, CERN-W5013, CERN-W-5013, W5013, W-5013. http://cds.cern.ch/record/1082634.
  * [77] J. Gaiser et al., “Charmonium Spectroscopy from Inclusive $\psi^{\prime}$ and $\rm{J}/\psi$ Radiative Decays”, Phys. Rev. D34 (1986) 711.
  * [78] T. Pierog, I. Karpenko, J. M. Katzy, E. Yatsenko, and K. Werner, “EPOS LHC: Test of collective hadronization with data measured at the CERN Large Hadron Collider”, Phys. Rev. C92 (2015) 034906, arXiv:1306.0121 [hep-ph].
  * [79] H. Fritzsch, “Producing Heavy Quark Flavors in Hadronic Collisions: A Test of Quantum Chromodynamics”, Phys. Lett. 67B (1977) 217–221.
  * [80] J. L. Albacete et al., “Predictions for p–Pb Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5$ TeV”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E22 (2013) 1330007, arXiv:1301.3395 [hep-ph].
  * [81] K. J. Eskola, H. Paukkunen, and C. A. Salgado, “EPS09: A New Generation of NLO and LO Nuclear Parton Distribution Functions”, J. High Energ. Phys. 04 (2009) 065, arXiv:0902.4154 [hep-ph].
  * [82] D. J. Lange, “The EvtGen particle decay simulation package”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A462 (2001) 152–155.
  * [83] E. Barberio and Z. Was, “PHOTOS: A Universal Monte Carlo for QED radiative corrections. Version 2.0”, Comput. Phys. Commun. 79 (1994) 291–308.
  * [84] Particle Data Group Collaboration, M. Tanabashi et al., “Review of Particle Physics”, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 030001.
  * [85] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Measurement of D-meson production at mid-rapidity in pp collisions at ${\sqrt{s}=7}$ TeV”, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 550, arXiv:1702.00766 [hep-ex].
  * [86] 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].
  * [87] ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Inclusive, prompt and non-prompt J/$\psi$ production at mid-rapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV”, J. High Energ. Phys. 07 (2015) 051, arXiv:1504.07151 [nucl-ex].
  * [88] T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, “PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual”, J. High Energ. Phys. 05 (2006) 026, arXiv:hep-ph/0603175 [hep-ph].
  * [89] P. Z. Skands, “Tuning Monte Carlo Generators: The Perugia Tunes”, Phys. Rev. D82 (2010) 074018, arXiv:1005.3457 [hep-ph].
  * [90] M. Cacciari, S. Frixione, N. Houdeau, M. L. Mangano, P. Nason, and G. Ridolfi, “Theoretical predictions for charm and bottom production at the LHC”, J. High Energ. Phys. 10 (2012) 137, arXiv:1205.6344 [hep-ph].
  * [91] LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Measurement of $b$ hadron fractions in 13 TeV $pp$ collisions”, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 031102, arXiv:1902.06794 [hep-ex].
  * [92] ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “$J/\psi$ polarization in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 082001, arXiv:1111.1630 [hep-ex].
  * [93] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., “Measurement of the Prompt $J/\psi$ and $\psi$(2S) Polarizations in $pp$ Collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B727 (2013) 381–402, arXiv:1307.6070 [hep-ex].
  * [94] ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Measurement of the inclusive J/ $\psi$ polarization at forward rapidity in pp collisions at $\mathbf{\sqrt{s}=8}$ TeV”, Eur. Phys. J. C78 (2018) 562, arXiv:1805.04374 [hep-ex].
  * [95] K. J. Eskola, P. Paakkinen, H. Paukkunen, and C. A. Salgado, “EPPS16: Nuclear parton distributions with LHC data”, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 163, arXiv:1612.05741 [hep-ph].
  * [96] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Measurement of the differential cross-sections of inclusive, prompt and non-prompt $J/\psi$ production in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”, Nucl. Phys. B850 (2011) 387–444, arXiv:1104.3038 [hep-ex].
  * [97] CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al., “Prompt and Non-Prompt $J/\psi$ Production in $pp$ Collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”, Eur. Phys. J. C71 (2011) 1575, arXiv:1011.4193 [hep-ex].
  * [98] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Measurement of the differential cross-sections of prompt and non-prompt production of $J/\psi$ and $\psi(2\mathrm{S})$ in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector”, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 283, arXiv:1512.03657 [hep-ex].
  * [99] P. M. Nadolsky, H.-L. Lai, Q.-H. Cao, J. Huston, J. Pumplin, D. Stump, W.-K. Tung, and C.-P. Yuan, “Implications of CTEQ global analysis for collider observables”, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 013004, arXiv:0802.0007 [hep-ph].
  * [100] 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 (2017) 1, arXiv:1610.05382 [hep-ph].
  * [101] A. Kusina, J.-P. Lansberg, I. Schienbein, and H.-S. Shao, “Gluon Shadowing in Heavy-Flavor Production at the LHC”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 052004, arXiv:1712.07024 [hep-ph].
  * [102] 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].
  * [103] H.-S. Shao, “HELAC-Onia 2.0: an upgraded matrix-element and event generator for heavy quarkonium physics”, Comput. Phys. Commun. 198 (2016) 238–259, arXiv:1507.03435 [hep-ph].
  * [104] K. Kovarik et al., “nCTEQ15 - Global analysis of nuclear parton distributions with uncertainties in the CTEQ framework”, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 085037, arXiv:1509.00792 [hep-ph].
  * [105] LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Study of prompt D0 meson production in $p$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5$ TeV”, JHEP 10 (2017) 090, arXiv:1707.02750 [hep-ex].
  * [106] E. G. Ferreiro, F. Fleuret, J. P. Lansberg, and A. Rakotozafindrabe, “Impact of the Nuclear Modification of the Gluon Densities on $J/\psi$ production in $p$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=$ 5 TeV”, Phys. Rev. C 88 (2013) 047901, arXiv:1305.4569 [hep-ph].
  * [107] B. Ducloué, T. Lappi, and H. Mäntysaari, “Forward $J/\psi$ production in proton-nucleus collisions at high energy”, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 114005, arXiv:1503.02789 [hep-ph].
  * [108] Y.-Q. Ma, R. Venugopalan, and H.-F. Zhang, “$J/\psi$ production and suppression in high energy proton-nucleus collisions”, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 071901, arXiv:1503.07772 [hep-ph].
  * [109] D. de Florian, R. Sassot, P. Zurita, and M. Stratmann, “Global Analysis of Nuclear Parton Distributions”, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 074028, arXiv:1112.6324 [hep-ph].
  * [110] ALEPH Collaboration, D. Buskulic et al., “Measurements of mean lifetime and branching fractions of b hadrons decaying to $\rm{J}/\psi$”, Phys. Lett. B 295 (1992) 396–408.
  * [111] L3 Collaboration, O. Adriani et al., “$\chi_{\rm C}$ production in hadronic Z decays”, Phys. Lett. B 317 (1993) 467–473.
  * [112] DELPHI Collaboration, P. Abreu et al., “$\rm{J}/\psi$ production in the hadronic decays of the Z”, Phys. Lett. B 341 (1994) 109–122.

##  Appendix A The ALICE Collaboration

S. Acharya143, D. Adamová98, A. Adler76, J. Adolfsson83, G. Aglieri Rinella35,
M. Agnello31, N. Agrawal55, Z. Ahammed143, S. Ahmad16, S.U. Ahn78, I. Ahuja39,
Z. Akbar52, A. Akindinov95, M. Al-Turany110, S.N. Alam41, D. Aleksandrov91, B.
Alessandro61, H.M. Alfanda7, R. Alfaro Molina73, B. Ali16, Y. Ali14, A.
Alici26, N. Alizadehvandchali127, A. Alkin35, J. Alme21, T. Alt70, L.
Altenkamper21, I. Altsybeev115, M.N. Anaam7, C. Andrei49, D. Andreou93, A.
Andronic146, M. Angeletti35, V. Anguelov107, F. Antinori58, P. Antonioli55, C.
Anuj16, N. Apadula82, L. Aphecetche117, H. Appelshäuser70, S. Arcelli26, R.
Arnaldi61, I.C. Arsene20, M. Arslandok148,107, A. Augustinus35, R.
Averbeck110, S. Aziz80, M.D. Azmi16, A. Badalà57, Y.W. Baek42, X. Bai131,110,
R. Bailhache70, Y. Bailung51, R. Bala104, A. Balbino31, A. Baldisseri140, B.
Balis2, M. Ball44, D. Banerjee4, R. Barbera27, L. Barioglio108,25, M.
Barlou87, G.G. Barnaföldi147, L.S. Barnby97, V. Barret137, C. Bartels130, K.
Barth35, E. Bartsch70, F. Baruffaldi28, N. Bastid137, S. Basu83, G.
Batigne117, B. Batyunya77, D. Bauri50, J.L. Bazo Alba114, I.G. Bearden92, C.
Beattie148, I. Belikov139, A.D.C. Bell Hechavarria146, F. Bellini26,35, R.
Bellwied127, S. Belokurova115, V. Belyaev96, G. Bencedi71, S. Beole25, A.
Bercuci49, Y. Berdnikov101, A. Berdnikova107, D. Berenyi147, L. Bergmann107,
M.G. Besoiu69, L. Betev35, P.P. Bhaduri143, A. Bhasin104, I.R. Bhat104, M.A.
Bhat4, B. Bhattacharjee43, P. Bhattacharya23, L. Bianchi25, N. Bianchi53, J.
Bielčík38, J. Bielčíková98, J. Biernat120, A. Bilandzic108, G. Biro147, S.
Biswas4, J.T. Blair121, D. Blau91, M.B. Blidaru110, C. Blume70, G. Boca29,59,
F. Bock99, A. Bogdanov96, S. Boi23, J. Bok63, L. Boldizsár147, A.
Bolozdynya96, M. Bombara39, P.M. Bond35, G. Bonomi142,59, H. Borel140, A.
Borissov84, H. Bossi148, E. Botta25, L. Bratrud70, P. Braun-Munzinger110, M.
Bregant123, M. Broz38, G.E. Bruno109,34, M.D. Buckland130, D. Budnikov111, H.
Buesching70, S. Bufalino31, O. Bugnon117, P. Buhler116, Z. Buthelezi74,134,
J.B. Butt14, S.A. Bysiak120, D. Caffarri93, M. Cai28,7, H. Caines148, A.
Caliva110, E. Calvo Villar114, J.M.M. Camacho122, R.S. Camacho46, P.
Camerini24, F.D.M. Canedo123, F. Carnesecchi35,26, R. Caron140, J. Castillo
Castellanos140, E.A.R. Casula23, F. Catalano31, C. Ceballos Sanchez77, P.
Chakraborty50, S. Chandra143, S. Chapeland35, M. Chartier130, S.
Chattopadhyay143, S. Chattopadhyay112, A. Chauvin23, T.G. Chavez46, C.
Cheshkov138, B. Cheynis138, V. Chibante Barroso35, D.D. Chinellato124, S.
Cho63, P. Chochula35, P. Christakoglou93, C.H. Christensen92, P.
Christiansen83, T. Chujo136, C. Cicalo56, L. Cifarelli26, F. Cindolo55, M.R.
Ciupek110, G. ClaiII,55, J. CleymansI,126, F. Colamaria54, J.S. Colburn113, D.
Colella109,54,34,147, A. Collu82, M. Colocci35,26, M. ConcasIII,61, G. Conesa
Balbastre81, Z. Conesa del Valle80, G. Contin24, J.G. Contreras38, M.L.
Coquet140, T.M. Cormier99, P. Cortese32, M.R. Cosentino125, F. Costa35, S.
Costanza29,59, P. Crochet137, E. Cuautle71, P. Cui7, L. Cunqueiro99, A.
Dainese58, F.P.A. Damas117,140, M.C. Danisch107, A. Danu69, I. Das112, P.
Das89, P. Das4, S. Das4, S. Dash50, S. De89, A. De Caro30, G. de Cataldo54, L.
De Cilladi25, J. de Cuveland40, A. De Falco23, D. De Gruttola30, N. De
Marco61, C. De Martin24, S. De Pasquale30, S. Deb51, H.F. Degenhardt123, K.R.
Deja144, L. Dello Stritto30, S. Delsanto25, W. Deng7, P. Dhankher19, D. Di
Bari34, A. Di Mauro35, R.A. Diaz8, T. Dietel126, Y. Ding138,7, R. Divià35,
D.U. Dixit19, Ø. Djuvsland21, U. Dmitrieva65, J. Do63, A. Dobrin69, B.
Dönigus70, O. Dordic20, A.K. Dubey143, A. Dubla110,93, S. Dudi103, M.
Dukhishyam89, P. Dupieux137, N. Dzalaiova13, T.M. Eder146, R.J. Ehlers99, V.N.
Eikeland21, D. Elia54, B. Erazmus117, F. Ercolessi26, F. Erhardt102, A.
Erokhin115, M.R. Ersdal21, B. Espagnon80, G. Eulisse35, D. Evans113, S.
Evdokimov94, L. Fabbietti108, M. Faggin28, J. Faivre81, F. Fan7, A. Fantoni53,
M. Fasel99, P. Fecchio31, A. Feliciello61, G. Feofilov115, A. Fernández
Téllez46, A. Ferrero140, A. Ferretti25, V.J.G. Feuillard107, J. Figiel120, S.
Filchagin111, D. Finogeev65, F.M. Fionda56,21, G. Fiorenza35,109, F. Flor127,
A.N. Flores121, S. Foertsch74, P. Foka110, S. Fokin91, E. Fragiacomo62, E.
Frajna147, U. Fuchs35, N. Funicello30, C. Furget81, A. Furs65, J.J.
Gaardhøje92, M. Gagliardi25, A.M. Gago114, A. Gal139, C.D. Galvan122, P.
Ganoti87, C. Garabatos110, J.R.A. Garcia46, E. Garcia-Solis10, K. Garg117, C.
Gargiulo35, A. Garibli90, K. Garner146, P. Gasik110, E.F. Gauger121, A.
Gautam129, M.B. Gay Ducati72, M. Germain117, J. Ghosh112, P. Ghosh143, S.K.
Ghosh4, M. Giacalone26, P. Gianotti53, P. Giubellino110,61, P. Giubilato28,
A.M.C. Glaenzer140, P. Glässel107, D.J.Q. Goh85, V. Gonzalez145, L.H.
González-Trueba73, S. Gorbunov40, M. Gorgon2, L. Görlich120, S. Gotovac36, V.
Grabski73, L.K. Graczykowski144, L. Greiner82, A. Grelli64, C. Grigoras35, V.
Grigoriev96, A. GrigoryanI,1, S. Grigoryan77,1, O.S. Groettvik21, F.
Grosa35,61, J.F. Grosse-Oetringhaus35, R. Grosso110, G.G. Guardiano124, R.
Guernane81, M. Guilbaud117, K. Gulbrandsen92, T. Gunji135, A. Gupta104, R.
Gupta104, I.B. Guzman46, S.P. Guzman46, L. Gyulai147, M.K. Habib110, C.
Hadjidakis80, G. Halimoglu70, H. Hamagaki85, G. Hamar147, M. Hamid7, R.
Hannigan121, M.R. Haque144,89, A. Harlenderova110, J.W. Harris148, A.
Harton10, J.A. Hasenbichler35, H. Hassan99, D. Hatzifotiadou55, P. Hauer44,
L.B. Havener148, S. Hayashi135, S.T. Heckel108, E. Hellbär70, H. Helstrup37,
T. Herman38, E.G. Hernandez46, G. Herrera Corral9, F. Herrmann146, K.F.
Hetland37, H. Hillemanns35, C. Hills130, B. Hippolyte139, B. Hofman64, B.
Hohlweger93,108, J. Honermann146, G.H. Hong149, D. Horak38, S. Hornung110, A.
Horzyk2, R. Hosokawa15, P. Hristov35, C. Huang80, C. Hughes133, P. Huhn70,
T.J. Humanic100, H. Hushnud112, L.A. Husova146, A. Hutson127, D. Hutter40,
J.P. Iddon35,130, R. Ilkaev111, H. Ilyas14, M. Inaba136, G.M. Innocenti35, M.
Ippolitov91, A. Isakov38,98, M.S. Islam112, M. Ivanov110, V. Ivanov101, V.
Izucheev94, M. Jablonski2, B. Jacak82, N. Jacazio35, P.M. Jacobs82, S.
Jadlovska119, J. Jadlovsky119, S. Jaelani64, C. Jahnke124,123, M.J.
Jakubowska144, M.A. Janik144, T. Janson76, M. Jercic102, O. Jevons113, F.
Jonas99,146, P.G. Jones113, J.M. Jowett 35,110, J. Jung70, M. Jung70, A.
Junique35, A. Jusko113, J. Kaewjai118, P. Kalinak66, A. Kalweit35, V.
Kaplin96, S. Kar7, A. Karasu Uysal79, D. Karatovic102, O. Karavichev65, T.
Karavicheva65, P. Karczmarczyk144, E. Karpechev65, A. Kazantsev91, U.
Kebschull76, R. Keidel48, D.L.D. Keijdener64, M. Keil35, B. Ketzer44, Z.
Khabanova93, A.M. Khan7, S. Khan16, A. Khanzadeev101, Y. Kharlov94, A.
Khatun16, A. Khuntia120, B. Kileng37, B. Kim17,63, D. Kim149, D.J. Kim128,
E.J. Kim75, J. Kim149, J.S. Kim42, J. Kim107, J. Kim149, J. Kim75, M. Kim107,
S. Kim18, T. Kim149, S. Kirsch70, I. Kisel40, S. Kiselev95, A. Kisiel144, J.P.
Kitowski2, J.L. Klay6, J. Klein35, S. Klein82, C. Klein-Bösing146, M.
Kleiner70, T. Klemenz108, A. Kluge35, A.G. Knospe127, C. Kobdaj118, M.K.
Köhler107, T. Kollegger110, A. Kondratyev77, N. Kondratyeva96, E.
Kondratyuk94, J. Konig70, S.A. Konigstorfer108, P.J. Konopka35,2, G.
Kornakov144, S.D. Koryciak2, L. Koska119, A. Kotliarov98, O. Kovalenko88, V.
Kovalenko115, M. Kowalski120, I. Králik66, A. Kravčáková39, L. Kreis110, M.
Krivda113,66, F. Krizek98, K. Krizkova Gajdosova38, M. Kroesen107, M.
Krüger70, E. Kryshen101, M. Krzewicki40, V. Kučera35, C. Kuhn139, P.G.
Kuijer93, T. Kumaoka136, D. Kumar143, L. Kumar103, N. Kumar103, S. Kundu35,89,
P. Kurashvili88, A. Kurepin65, A.B. Kurepin65, A. Kuryakin111, S. Kushpil98,
J. Kvapil113, M.J. Kweon63, J.Y. Kwon63, Y. Kwon149, S.L. La Pointe40, P. La
Rocca27, Y.S. Lai82, A. Lakrathok118, M. Lamanna35, R. Langoy132, K.
Lapidus35, P. Larionov53, E. Laudi35, L. Lautner35,108, R. Lavicka38, T.
Lazareva115, R. Lea142,24,59, J. Lee136, J. Lehrbach40, R.C. Lemmon97, I. León
Monzón122, E.D. Lesser19, M. Lettrich35,108, P. Lévai147, X. Li11, X.L. Li7,
J. Lien132, R. Lietava113, B. Lim17, S.H. Lim17, V. Lindenstruth40, A.
Lindner49, C. Lippmann110, A. Liu19, J. Liu130, I.M. Lofnes21, V. Loginov96,
C. Loizides99, P. Loncar36, J.A. Lopez107, X. Lopez137, E. López Torres8, J.R.
Luhder146, M. Lunardon28, G. Luparello62, Y.G. Ma41, A. Maevskaya65, M.
Mager35, T. Mahmoud44, A. Maire139, M. Malaev101, Q.W. Malik20, L.
MalininaIV,77, D. Mal’Kevich95, N. Mallick51, P. Malzacher110, G.
Mandaglio33,57, V. Manko91, F. Manso137, V. Manzari54, Y. Mao7, J. Mareš68,
G.V. Margagliotti24, A. Margotti55, A. Marín110, C. Markert121, M. Marquard70,
N.A. Martin107, P. Martinengo35, J.L. Martinez127, M.I. Martínez46, G.
Martínez García117, S. Masciocchi110, M. Masera25, A. Masoni56, L.
Massacrier80, A. Mastroserio141,54, A.M. Mathis108, O. Matonoha83, P.F.T.
Matuoka123, A. Matyja120, C. Mayer120, A.L. Mazuecos35, F. Mazzaschi25, M.
Mazzilli35, M.A. Mazzoni60, J.E. Mdhluli134, A.F. Mechler70, F. Meddi22, Y.
Melikyan65, A. Menchaca-Rocha73, E. Meninno116,30, A.S. Menon127, M. Meres13,
S. Mhlanga126,74, Y. Miake136, L. Micheletti61,25, L.C. Migliorin138, D.L.
Mihaylov108, K. Mikhaylov77,95, A.N. Mishra147, D. Miśkowiec110, A. Modak4,
A.P. Mohanty64, B. Mohanty89, M. Mohisin Khan16, Z. Moravcova92, C.
Mordasini108, D.A. Moreira De Godoy146, L.A.P. Moreno46, I. Morozov65, A.
Morsch35, T. Mrnjavac35, V. Muccifora53, E. Mudnic36, D. Mühlheim146, S.
Muhuri143, J.D. Mulligan82, A. Mulliri23, M.G. Munhoz123, R.H. Munzer70, H.
Murakami135, S. Murray126, L. Musa35, J. Musinsky66, C.J. Myers127, J.W.
Myrcha144, B. Naik134,50, R. Nair88, B.K. Nandi50, R. Nania55, E. Nappi54,
M.U. Naru14, A.F. Nassirpour83, A. Nath107, C. Nattrass133, A. Neagu20, L.
Nellen71, S.V. Nesbo37, G. Neskovic40, D. Nesterov115, B.S. Nielsen92, S.
Nikolaev91, S. Nikulin91, V. Nikulin101, F. Noferini55, S. Noh12, P.
Nomokonov77, J. Norman130, N. Novitzky136, P. Nowakowski144, A. Nyanin91, J.
Nystrand21, M. Ogino85, A. Ohlson83, V.A. Okorokov96, J. Oleniacz144, A.C.
Oliveira Da Silva133, M.H. Oliver148, A. Onnerstad128, C. Oppedisano61, A.
Ortiz Velasquez71, T. Osako47, A. Oskarsson83, J. Otwinowski120, K. Oyama85,
Y. Pachmayer107, S. Padhan50, D. Pagano142,59, G. Paić71, A. Palasciano54, J.
Pan145, S. Panebianco140, P. Pareek143, J. Park63, J.E. Parkkila128, S.P.
Pathak127, R.N. Patra104,35, B. Paul23, J. Pazzini142,59, H. Pei7, T.
Peitzmann64, X. Peng7, L.G. Pereira72, H. Pereira Da Costa140, D. Peresunko91,
G.M. Perez8, S. Perrin140, Y. Pestov5, V. Petráček38, M. Petrovici49, R.P.
Pezzi72, S. Piano62, M. Pikna13, P. Pillot117, O. Pinazza55,35, L. Pinsky127,
C. Pinto27, S. Pisano53, M. Płoskoń82, M. Planinic102, F. Pliquett70, M.G.
Poghosyan99, B. Polichtchouk94, S. Politano31, N. Poljak102, A. Pop49, S.
Porteboeuf-Houssais137, J. Porter82, V. Pozdniakov77, S.K. Prasad4, R.
Preghenella55, F. Prino61, C.A. Pruneau145, I. Pshenichnov65, M. Puccio35, S.
Qiu93, L. Quaglia25, R.E. Quishpe127, S. Ragoni113, A. Rakotozafindrabe140, L.
Ramello32, F. Rami139, S.A.R. Ramirez46, A.G.T. Ramos34, T.A. Rancien81, R.
Raniwala105, S. Raniwala105, S.S. Räsänen45, R. Rath51, I. Ravasenga93, K.F.
Read99,133, A.R. Redelbach40, K. RedlichV,88, A. Rehman21, P. Reichelt70, F.
Reidt35, H.A. Reme-ness37, R. Renfordt70, Z. Rescakova39, K. Reygers107, A.
Riabov101, V. Riabov101, T. Richert83,92, M. Richter20, W. Riegler35, F.
Riggi27, C. Ristea69, S.P. Rode51, M. Rodríguez Cahuantzi46, K. Røed20, R.
Rogalev94, E. Rogochaya77, T.S. Rogoschinski70, D. Rohr35, D. Röhrich21, P.F.
Rojas46, P.S. Rokita144, F. Ronchetti53, A. Rosano33,57, E.D. Rosas71, A.
Rossi58, A. Rotondi29,59, A. Roy51, P. Roy112, S. Roy50, N. Rubini26, O.V.
Rueda83, R. Rui24, B. Rumyantsev77, P.G. Russek2, A. Rustamov90, E.
Ryabinkin91, Y. Ryabov101, A. Rybicki120, H. Rytkonen128, W. Rzesa144, O.A.M.
Saarimaki45, R. Sadek117, S. Sadovsky94, J. Saetre21, K. Šafařík38, S.K.
Saha143, S. Saha89, B. Sahoo50, P. Sahoo50, R. Sahoo51, S. Sahoo67, D. Sahu51,
P.K. Sahu67, J. Saini143, S. Sakai136, S. Sambyal104, V. SamsonovI,101,96, D.
Sarkar145, N. Sarkar143, P. Sarma43, V.M. Sarti108, M.H.P. Sas148, J.
Schambach99,121, H.S. Scheid70, C. Schiaua49, R. Schicker107, A. Schmah107, C.
Schmidt110, H.R. Schmidt106, M.O. Schmidt107, M. Schmidt106, N.V.
Schmidt99,70, A.R. Schmier133, R. Schotter139, J. Schukraft35, Y. Schutz139,
K. Schwarz110, K. Schweda110, G. Scioli26, E. Scomparin61, J.E. Seger15, Y.
Sekiguchi135, D. Sekihata135, I. Selyuzhenkov110,96, S. Senyukov139, J.J.
Seo63, D. Serebryakov65, L. Šerkšnytė108, A. Sevcenco69, T.J. Shaba74, A.
Shabanov65, A. Shabetai117, R. Shahoyan35, W. Shaikh112, A. Shangaraev94, A.
Sharma103, H. Sharma120, M. Sharma104, N. Sharma103, S. Sharma104, O.
Sheibani127, K. Shigaki47, M. Shimomura86, S. Shirinkin95, Q. Shou41, Y.
Sibiriak91, S. Siddhanta56, T. Siemiarczuk88, T.F. Silva123, D. Silvermyr83,
G. Simonetti35, B. Singh108, R. Singh89, R. Singh104, R. Singh51, V.K.
Singh143, V. Singhal143, T. Sinha112, B. Sitar13, M. Sitta32, T.B. Skaali20,
G. Skorodumovs107, M. Slupecki45, N. Smirnov148, R.J.M. Snellings64, C.
Soncco114, J. Song127, A. Songmoolnak118, F. Soramel28, S. Sorensen133, I.
Sputowska120, J. Stachel107, I. Stan69, P.J. Steffanic133, S.F.
Stiefelmaier107, D. Stocco117, I. Storehaug20, M.M. Storetvedt37, C.P.
Stylianidis93, A.A.P. Suaide123, T. Sugitate47, C. Suire80, M. Suljic35, R.
Sultanov95, M. Šumbera98, V. Sumberia104, S. Sumowidagdo52, S. Swain67, A.
Szabo13, I. Szarka13, U. Tabassam14, S.F. Taghavi108, G. Taillepied137, J.
Takahashi124, G.J. Tambave21, S. Tang137,7, Z. Tang131, M. Tarhini117, M.G.
Tarzila49, A. Tauro35, G. Tejeda Muñoz46, A. Telesca35, L. Terlizzi25, C.
Terrevoli127, G. Tersimonov3, S. Thakur143, D. Thomas121, R. Tieulent138, A.
Tikhonov65, A.R. Timmins127, M. Tkacik119, A. Toia70, N. Topilskaya65, M.
Toppi53, F. Torales-Acosta19, T. Tork80, R.C. Torres82, S.R. Torres38, A.
Trifiró33,57, S. Tripathy55,71, T. Tripathy50, S. Trogolo35,28, G.
Trombetta34, V. Trubnikov3, W.H. Trzaska128, T.P. Trzcinski144, B.A.
Trzeciak38, A. Tumkin111, R. Turrisi58, T.S. Tveter20, K. Ullaland21, A.
Uras138, M. Urioni59,142, G.L. Usai23, M. Vala39, N. Valle59,29, S. Vallero61,
N. van der Kolk64, L.V.R. van Doremalen64, M. van Leeuwen93, R.J.G. van
Weelden93, P. Vande Vyvre35, D. Varga147, Z. Varga147, M. Varga-Kofarago147,
A. Vargas46, M. Vasileiou87, A. Vasiliev91, O. Vázquez Doce108, V.
Vechernin115, E. Vercellin25, S. Vergara Limón46, L. Vermunt64, R. Vértesi147,
M. Verweij64, L. Vickovic36, Z. Vilakazi134, O. Villalobos Baillie113, G.
Vino54, A. Vinogradov91, T. Virgili30, V. Vislavicius92, A. Vodopyanov77, B.
Volkel35, M.A. Völkl107, K. Voloshin95, S.A. Voloshin145, G. Volpe34, B. von
Haller35, I. Vorobyev108, D. Voscek119, J. Vrláková39, B. Wagner21, C. Wang41,
D. Wang41, M. Weber116, A. Wegrzynek35, S.C. Wenzel35, J.P. Wessels146, J.
Wiechula70, J. Wikne20, G. Wilk88, J. Wilkinson110, G.A. Willems146, E.
Willsher113, B. Windelband107, M. Winn140, W.E. Witt133, J.R. Wright121, W.
Wu41, Y. Wu131, R. Xu7, S. Yalcin79, Y. Yamaguchi47, K. Yamakawa47, S. Yang21,
S. Yano47,140, Z. Yin7, H. Yokoyama64, I.-K. Yoo17, J.H. Yoon63, S. Yuan21, A.
Yuncu107, V. Zaccolo24, A. Zaman14, C. Zampolli35, H.J.C. Zanoli64, N.
Zardoshti35, A. Zarochentsev115, P. Závada68, N. Zaviyalov111, H.
Zbroszczyk144, M. Zhalov101, S. Zhang41, X. Zhang7, Y. Zhang131, V.
Zherebchevskii115, Y. Zhi11, D. Zhou7, Y. Zhou92, J. Zhu7,110, Y. Zhu7, A.
Zichichi26, G. Zinovjev3, N. Zurlo142,59

## Affiliation notes

I Deceased
II Also at: Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and
Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA), Bologna, Italy
III Also at: Dipartimento DET del Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy
IV Also at: M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, D.V. Skobeltsyn Institute
of Nuclear, Physics, Moscow, Russia
V Also at: Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Wroclaw, Poland

## Collaboration Institutes

1 A.I. Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics Institute)
Foundation, Yerevan, Armenia
2 AGH University of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland
3 Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, National Academy of Sciences
of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine
4 Bose Institute, Department of Physics and Centre for Astroparticle Physics
and Space Science (CAPSS), Kolkata, India
5 Budker Institute for Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
6 California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California, United
States
7 Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China
8 Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Havana,
Cuba
9 Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados (CINVESTAV), Mexico City and
Mérida, Mexico
10 Chicago State University, Chicago, Illinois, United States
11 China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China
12 Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea
13 Comenius University Bratislava, Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and
Informatics, Bratislava, Slovakia
14 COMSATS University Islamabad, Islamabad, Pakistan
15 Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, United States
16 Department of Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India
17 Department of Physics, Pusan National University, Pusan, Republic of Korea
18 Department of Physics, Sejong University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
19 Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, California,
United States
20 Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
21 Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
22 Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università ’La Sapienza’ and Sezione INFN,
Rome, Italy
23 Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Cagliari, Italy
24 Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Trieste, Italy
25 Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy
26 Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN,
Bologna, Italy
27 Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN,
Catania, Italy
28 Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN,
Padova, Italy
29 Dipartimento di Fisica e Nucleare e Teorica, Università di Pavia, Pavia,
Italy
30 Dipartimento di Fisica ‘E.R. Caianiello’ dell’Università and Gruppo
Collegato INFN, Salerno, Italy
31 Dipartimento DISAT del Politecnico and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy
32 Dipartimento di Scienze e Innovazione Tecnologica dell’Università del
Piemonte Orientale and INFN Sezione di Torino, Alessandria, Italy
33 Dipartimento di Scienze MIFT, Università di Messina, Messina, Italy
34 Dipartimento Interateneo di Fisica ‘M. Merlin’ and Sezione INFN, Bari,
Italy
35 European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
36 Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval
Architecture, University of Split, Split, Croatia
37 Faculty of Engineering and Science, Western Norway University of Applied
Sciences, Bergen, Norway
38 Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering, Czech Technical
University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
39 Faculty of Science, P.J. Šafárik University, Košice, Slovakia
40 Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-
Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
41 Fudan University, Shanghai, China
42 Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, Republic of Korea
43 Gauhati University, Department of Physics, Guwahati, India
44 Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlen- und Kernphysik, Rheinische Friedrich-
Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany
45 Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Helsinki, Finland
46 High Energy Physics Group, Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
47 Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan
48 Hochschule Worms, Zentrum für Technologietransfer und Telekommunikation
(ZTT), Worms, Germany
49 Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering,
Bucharest, Romania
50 Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT), Mumbai, India
51 Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore, India
52 Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Jakarta, Indonesia
53 INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
54 INFN, Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy
55 INFN, Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
56 INFN, Sezione di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
57 INFN, Sezione di Catania, Catania, Italy
58 INFN, Sezione di Padova, Padova, Italy
59 INFN, Sezione di Pavia, Pavia, Italy
60 INFN, Sezione di Roma, Rome, Italy
61 INFN, Sezione di Torino, Turin, Italy
62 INFN, Sezione di Trieste, Trieste, Italy
63 Inha University, Incheon, Republic of Korea
64 Institute for Gravitational and Subatomic Physics (GRASP), Utrecht
University/Nikhef, Utrecht, Netherlands
65 Institute for Nuclear Research, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
66 Institute of Experimental Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Košice,
Slovakia
67 Institute of Physics, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Bhubaneswar, India
68 Institute of Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech
Republic
69 Institute of Space Science (ISS), Bucharest, Romania
70 Institut für Kernphysik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt,
Frankfurt, Germany
71 Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,
Mexico City, Mexico
72 Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS),
Porto Alegre, Brazil
73 Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City,
Mexico
74 iThemba LABS, National Research Foundation, Somerset West, South Africa
75 Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea
76 Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe Universität Frankfurt Institut für Informatik,
Fachbereich Informatik und Mathematik, Frankfurt, Germany
77 Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR), Dubna, Russia
78 Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon, Republic of
Korea
79 KTO Karatay University, Konya, Turkey
80 Laboratoire de Physique des 2 Infinis, Irène Joliot-Curie, Orsay, France
81 Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie, Université Grenoble-
Alpes, CNRS-IN2P3, Grenoble, France
82 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, United States
83 Lund University Department of Physics, Division of Particle Physics, Lund,
Sweden
84 Moscow Institute for Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
85 Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science, Nagasaki, Japan
86 Nara Women’s University (NWU), Nara, Japan
87 National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Science,
Department of Physics , Athens, Greece
88 National Centre for Nuclear Research, Warsaw, Poland
89 National Institute of Science Education and Research, Homi Bhabha National
Institute, Jatni, India
90 National Nuclear Research Center, Baku, Azerbaijan
91 National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia
92 Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
93 Nikhef, National institute for subatomic physics, Amsterdam, Netherlands
94 NRC Kurchatov Institute IHEP, Protvino, Russia
95 NRC «Kurchatov»Institute - ITEP, Moscow, Russia
96 NRNU Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, Moscow, Russia
97 Nuclear Physics Group, STFC Daresbury Laboratory, Daresbury, United Kingdom
98 Nuclear Physics Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Řež u Prahy,
Czech Republic
99 Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States
100 Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States
101 Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina, Russia
102 Physics department, Faculty of science, University of Zagreb, Zagreb,
Croatia
103 Physics Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
104 Physics Department, University of Jammu, Jammu, India
105 Physics Department, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, India
106 Physikalisches Institut, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Tübingen,
Germany
107 Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg,
Heidelberg, Germany
108 Physik Department, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany
109 Politecnico di Bari and Sezione INFN, Bari, Italy
110 Research Division and ExtreMe Matter Institute EMMI, GSI Helmholtzzentrum
für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany
111 Russian Federal Nuclear Center (VNIIEF), Sarov, Russia
112 Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Homi Bhabha National Institute,
Kolkata, India
113 School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham,
United Kingdom
114 Sección Física, Departamento de Ciencias, Pontificia Universidad Católica
del Perú, Lima, Peru
115 St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia
116 Stefan Meyer Institut für Subatomare Physik (SMI), Vienna, Austria
117 SUBATECH, IMT Atlantique, Université de Nantes, CNRS-IN2P3, Nantes, France
118 Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand
119 Technical University of Košice, Košice, Slovakia
120 The Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of
Sciences, Cracow, Poland
121 The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States
122 Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Culiacán, Mexico
123 Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil
124 Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil
125 Universidade Federal do ABC, Santo Andre, Brazil
126 University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
127 University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
128 University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland
129 University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, United States
130 University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
131 University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China
132 University of South-Eastern Norway, Tonsberg, Norway
133 University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States
134 University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
135 University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
136 University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
137 Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France
138 Université de Lyon, CNRS/IN2P3, Institut de Physique des 2 Infinis de Lyon
, Lyon, France
139 Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, F-67000 Strasbourg, France,
Strasbourg, France
140 Université Paris-Saclay Centre d’Etudes de Saclay (CEA), IRFU, Départment
de Physique Nucléaire (DPhN), Saclay, France
141 Università degli Studi di Foggia, Foggia, Italy
142 Università di Brescia, Brescia, Italy
143 Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kolkata,
India
144 Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland
145 Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, United States
146 Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Institut für Kernphysik,
Münster, Germany
147 Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
148 Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States
149 Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea