Prompt and nonprompt J/$\psi$ production and nuclear modification in $p$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\text{NN}}}= 8.16$ TeV

TL;DR

This paper measures prompt and nonprompt J/ψ production in pPb collisions at 8.16 TeV, analyzing nuclear effects and comparing results with various theoretical models to understand quarkonium production in nuclear environments.

Contribution

It provides the first detailed double differential cross-sections and nuclear modification factors for J/ψ in pPb collisions at this energy, testing multiple theoretical approaches.

Findings

Nuclear modification factors indicate suppression at certain kinematics.

Results favor models incorporating nuclear parton distribution functions.

Data show differences between prompt and nonprompt J/ψ production patterns.

Abstract

The production of J/$\psi$ mesons is studied in proton-lead collisions at the centre-of-mass energy per nucleon pair $\sqrt{s_{\text{NN}}}=8.16$ TeV with the LHCb detector at the LHC. The double differential cross-sections of prompt and nonprompt J/$\psi$ production are measured as functions of the J/$\psi$ transverse momentum and rapidity in the nucleon-nucleon centre-of-mass frame. Forward-to-backward ratios and nuclear modification factors are determined. The results are compared with theoretical calculations based on collinear factorisation using nuclear parton distribution functions, on the colour glass condensate or on coherent energy loss models.

Tables

Table 1. Table 1: Summary of relative systematic uncertainties in p 𝑝 p Pb and Pb p 𝑝 p on the cross-section of prompt J / ψ 𝐽 𝜓 {J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu} and J / ψ 𝐽 𝜓 {J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu} -from- b 𝑏 b -hadrons. Uncertainties that are computed bin-by-bin are expressed as ranges giving the minimum to maximum values. The last column indicates the correlation between bins within the same beam configuration.

Source	$p$Pb	Pb$p$	Comment
Signal model	1.3%	1.3%	correlated
Muon identification	2.0% $-$ 11.0%	2.1% $-$ 15.3%	correlated
Tracking	3.0% $-$ 8.0%	5.9% $-$ 26.5%	correlated
Hardware trigger	1.0% $-$ 10.9%	1.0% $-$ 7.4%	correlated
Software trigger	2.0%	2.0%	correlated
Simulation statistics	0.4% $-$ 7.0%	0.4% $-$ 26.2%	uncorrelated
$ℬ\left(J/\psi \to {\mu }^{+}{\mu }^{-}\right)$	0.05%	0.05%	correlated
Luminosity	2.6%	2.5%	correlated
Polarisation	–	–	not considered

Table 2. Table 2: Prompt J / ψ 𝐽 𝜓 {J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu} absolute production cross-section in p 𝑝 p Pb, as a function of p T subscript 𝑝 T p_{\mathrm{T}} and y ∗ superscript 𝑦 y^{*} . The quoted uncertainties are the total uncertainties, and the breakdown into statistical uncertainties, and correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties.

$p_T$ bin ($\mathrm{GeV}/c$)		$y^{\ast }$ bin		$\frac{d^2\sigma }{d{p}_{T}d{y}^{\ast }}$ [nb/($\mathrm{GeV}/c$)]				stat.	corr.	uncorr.
0	1	$1.5$	$2.0$		108 700$\pm$	16 000		2 700	15 700	1 700
0	1	$2.0$	$2.5$		94 300$\pm$	8 900		1 400	8 800	700
0	1	$2.5$	$3.0$		79 700$\pm$	5 400		1 100	5 200	500
0	1	$3.0$	$3.5$		69 800$\pm$	4 300		1 000	4 200	400
0	1	$3.5$	$4.0$		64 000$\pm$	4 100		1 100	3 900	500
1	2	$1.5$	$2.0$		212 200$\pm$	18 100		3 300	17 700	2 000
1	2	$2.0$	$2.5$		194 000$\pm$	12 000		2 000	12 000	1 000
1	2	$2.5$	$3.0$		166 400$\pm$	14 300		1 500	14 200	700
1	2	$3.0$	$3.5$		144 800$\pm$	7 900		1 400	7 700	600
1	2	$3.5$	$4.0$		126 100$\pm$	8 800		1 500	8 700	700
2	3	$1.5$	$2.0$		192 600$\pm$	14 800		2 800	14 400	1 900
2	3	$2.0$	$2.5$		180 000$\pm$	11 000		2 000	11 000	1 000
2	3	$2.5$	$3.0$		157 800$\pm$	8 900		1 400	8 800	800
2	3	$3.0$	$3.5$		131 400$\pm$	7 300		1 300	7 100	700
2	3	$3.5$	$4.0$		107 500$\pm$	7 600		1 400	7 400	800
3	4	$1.5$	$2.0$		133 100$\pm$	12 200		2 100	11 900	1 500
3	4	$2.0$	$2.5$		123 800$\pm$	8 700		1 200	8 600	800
3	4	$2.5$	$3.0$		108 500$\pm$	7 300		1 000	7 200	600
3	4	$3.0$	$3.5$		88 200$\pm$	5 700		900	5 600	500
3	4	$3.5$	$4.0$		67 900$\pm$	5 300		900	5 200	600
4	5	$1.5$	$2.0$		78 800$\pm$	6 700		1 400	6 500	1 000
4	5	$2.0$	$2.5$		74 600$\pm$	4 800		800	4 700	500
4	5	$2.5$	$3.0$		64 400$\pm$	3 900		700	3 800	400
4	5	$3.0$	$3.5$		52 500$\pm$	3 200		600	3 200	400
4	5	$3.5$	$4.0$		37 700$\pm$	2 800		700	2 700	400
5	6	$1.5$	$2.0$		45 600$\pm$	3 700		900	3 500	700
5	6	$2.0$	$2.5$		42 500$\pm$	2 700		500	2 600	400
5	6	$2.5$	$3.0$		34 750$\pm$	2 080		460	2 010	280
5	6	$3.0$	$3.5$		29 790$\pm$	1 940		440	1 870	260
5	6	$3.5$	$4.0$		21 100$\pm$	1 680		460	1 600	250
6	7	$1.5$	$2.0$		25 200$\pm$	2 100		600	2 000	400
6	7	$2.0$	$2.5$		23 940$\pm$	1 680		380	1 620	250
6	7	$2.5$	$3.0$		19 050$\pm$	1 350		320	1 300	190
6	7	$3.0$	$3.5$		15 500$\pm$	1 110		300	1 050	170
6	7	$3.5$	$4.0$		12 230$\pm$	1 090		340	1 020	190

Table 3. Table 3: Prompt J / ψ 𝐽 𝜓 {J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu} absolute production cross-section in p 𝑝 p Pb, as a function of p T subscript 𝑝 T p_{\mathrm{T}} and y ∗ superscript 𝑦 y^{*} . The quoted uncertainties are the total uncertainties, and the breakdown into statistical uncertainties, and correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties.

$p_T$ bin ($\mathrm{GeV}/c$)		$y^{\ast }$ bin		$\frac{d^2\sigma }{d{p}_{T}d{y}^{\ast }}$ [nb/($\mathrm{GeV}/c$)]				stat.	corr.	uncorr.
7	8	$1.5$	$2.0$		14 410$\pm$	1 170		440	1 030	330
7	8	$2.0$	$2.5$		12 660$\pm$	800		260	740	160
7	8	$2.5$	$3.0$		10 260$\pm$	680		230	630	130
7	8	$3.0$	$3.5$		8 870$\pm$	660		230	600	130
7	8	$3.5$	$4.0$		6 310$\pm$	660		240	600	120
8	9	$1.5$	$2.0$		7 700$\pm$	620		290	500	210
8	9	$2.0$	$2.5$		7 440$\pm$	490		190	430	120
8	9	$2.5$	$3.0$		6 060$\pm$	410		170	360	100
8	9	$3.0$	$3.5$		4 640$\pm$	360		160	310	90
8	9	$3.5$	$4.0$		3 700$\pm$	400		200	400	100
9	10	$1.5$	$2.0$		4 810$\pm$	420		220	320	160
9	10	$2.0$	$2.5$		4 270$\pm$	300		140	240	90
9	10	$2.5$	$3.0$		3 360$\pm$	260		130	210	70
9	10	$3.0$	$3.5$		2 680$\pm$	240		120	190	70
9	10	$3.5$	$4.0$		2 200$\pm$	280		130	230	70
10	11	$1.5$	$2.0$		2 630$\pm$	240		160	150	100
10	11	$2.0$	$2.5$		2 620$\pm$	200		110	150	60
10	11	$2.5$	$3.0$		2 230$\pm$	180		100	130	60
10	11	$3.0$	$3.5$		1 490$\pm$	150		80	110	40
10	11	$3.5$	$4.0$		1 130$\pm$	170		90	140	40
11	12	$1.5$	$2.0$		1 840$\pm$	190		120	110	90
11	12	$2.0$	$2.5$		1 600$\pm$	130		90	90	50
11	12	$2.5$	$3.0$		1 300$\pm$	120		80	80	50
11	12	$3.0$	$3.5$		1 000$\pm$	110		70	80	40
11	12	$3.5$	$4.0$		750$\pm$	110		80	70	40
12	13	$1.5$	$2.0$		1 190$\pm$	140		100	80	70
12	13	$2.0$	$2.5$		958$\pm$	94		64	59	33
12	13	$2.5$	$3.0$		779$\pm$	82		58	49	31
12	13	$3.0$	$3.5$		531$\pm$	71		51	41	26
12	13	$3.5$	$4.0$		436$\pm$	80		47	61	21
13	14	$1.5$	$2.0$		740$\pm$	100		70	40	50
13	14	$2.0$	$2.5$		596$\pm$	65		49	34	25
13	14	$2.5$	$3.0$		476$\pm$	59		45	27	24
13	14	$3.0$	$3.5$		349$\pm$	47		35	27	15
13	14	$3.5$	$4.0$		241$\pm$	47		38	21	16

Table 4. Table 4: J / ψ 𝐽 𝜓 {J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu} -from- b 𝑏 b -hadrons absolute production cross-section in p 𝑝 p Pb, as a function of p T subscript 𝑝 T p_{\mathrm{T}} and y ∗ superscript 𝑦 y^{*} . The quoted uncertainties are the total uncertainties, and the breakdown into statistical uncertainties, and correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties.

$p_T$ bin ($\mathrm{GeV}/c$)		$y^{\ast }$ bin		$\frac{d^2\sigma }{d{p}_{T}d{y}^{\ast }}$ [nb/($\mathrm{GeV}/c$)]				stat.	corr.	uncorr.
0	1	$1.5$	$2.0$		15 580$\pm$	2 480		1 020	2 250	240
0	1	$2.0$	$2.5$		13 400$\pm$	1 300		500	1 300	100
0	1	$2.5$	$3.0$		10 320$\pm$	780		370	680	60
0	1	$3.0$	$3.5$		8 940$\pm$	640		350	540	50
0	1	$3.5$	$4.0$		7 330$\pm$	600		400	440	60
1	2	$1.5$	$2.0$		32 950$\pm$	3 050		1 290	2 740	320
1	2	$2.0$	$2.5$		29 550$\pm$	1 980		670	1 850	150
1	2	$2.5$	$3.0$		24 530$\pm$	2 170		540	2 100	110
1	2	$3.0$	$3.5$		20 390$\pm$	1 200		510	1 090	90
1	2	$3.5$	$4.0$		17 180$\pm$	1 330		600	1 180	100
2	3	$1.5$	$2.0$		32 980$\pm$	2 740		1 160	2 460	320
2	3	$2.0$	$2.5$		30 480$\pm$	2 010		650	1 900	170
2	3	$2.5$	$3.0$		25 420$\pm$	1 520		530	1 420	120
2	3	$3.0$	$3.5$		21 100$\pm$	1 260		500	1 150	110
2	3	$3.5$	$4.0$		14 440$\pm$	1 140		550	1 000	100
3	4	$1.5$	$2.0$		24 320$\pm$	2 370		900	2 180	280
3	4	$2.0$	$2.5$		23 150$\pm$	1 690		510	1 600	140
3	4	$2.5$	$3.0$		18 590$\pm$	1 300		410	1 230	100
3	4	$3.0$	$3.5$		14 810$\pm$	1 030		390	940	90
3	4	$3.5$	$4.0$		10 030$\pm$	860		390	760	80
4	5	$1.5$	$2.0$		14 650$\pm$	1 370		620	1 210	190
4	5	$2.0$	$2.5$		15 480$\pm$	1 050		380	970	110
4	5	$2.5$	$3.0$		12 160$\pm$	790		300	720	80
4	5	$3.0$	$3.5$		9 410$\pm$	640		290	570	70
4	5	$3.5$	$4.0$		6 250$\pm$	540		310	440	60
5	6	$1.5$	$2.0$		10 090$\pm$	910		460	770	150
5	6	$2.0$	$2.5$		9 270$\pm$	630		270	560	80
5	6	$2.5$	$3.0$		7 560$\pm$	500		220	440	60
5	6	$3.0$	$3.5$		6 080$\pm$	440		210	380	50
5	6	$3.5$	$4.0$		3 710$\pm$	350		210	280	40
6	7	$1.5$	$2.0$		6 560$\pm$	630		330	520	120
6	7	$2.0$	$2.5$		5 600$\pm$	430		190	380	60
6	7	$2.5$	$3.0$		4 630$\pm$	360		160	320	50
6	7	$3.0$	$3.5$		3 620$\pm$	290		160	250	40
6	7	$3.5$	$4.0$		2 114$\pm$	240		161	176	32

Table 5. Table 5: J / ψ 𝐽 𝜓 {J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu} -from- b 𝑏 b -hadrons absolute production cross-section in p 𝑝 p Pb, as a function of p T subscript 𝑝 T p_{\mathrm{T}} and y ∗ superscript 𝑦 y^{*} . The quoted uncertainties are the total uncertainties, and the breakdown into statistical uncertainties, and correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties.

$p_T$ bin ($\mathrm{GeV}/c$)		$y^{\ast }$ bin		$\frac{d^2\sigma }{d{p}_{T}d{y}^{\ast }}$ [nb/($\mathrm{GeV}/c$)]				stat.	corr.	uncorr.
7	8	$1.5$	$2.0$		4 610$\pm$	430		250	330	100
7	8	$2.0$	$2.5$		3 650$\pm$	260		140	210	50
7	8	$2.5$	$3.0$		3 010$\pm$	230		130	180	40
7	8	$3.0$	$3.5$		2 327$\pm$	203		123	157	34
7	8	$3.5$	$4.0$		1 432$\pm$	183		120	135	28
8	9	$1.5$	$2.0$		2 590$\pm$	260		180	170	70
8	9	$2.0$	$2.5$		2 300$\pm$	180		110	130	40
8	9	$2.5$	$3.0$		1 859$\pm$	152		99	110	31
8	9	$3.0$	$3.5$		1 273$\pm$	126		89	85	24
8	9	$3.5$	$4.0$		1 002$\pm$	139		92	100	26
9	10	$1.5$	$2.0$		1 770$\pm$	190		140	120	60
9	10	$2.0$	$2.5$		1 529$\pm$	127		87	87	30
9	10	$2.5$	$3.0$		1 142$\pm$	107		75	72	23
9	10	$3.0$	$3.5$		864$\pm$	95		69	61	21
9	10	$3.5$	$4.0$		544$\pm$	90		67	57	17
10	11	$1.5$	$2.0$		1 070$\pm$	130		100	60	40
10	11	$2.0$	$2.5$		917$\pm$	88		66	52	22
10	11	$2.5$	$3.0$		804$\pm$	83		64	47	21
10	11	$3.0$	$3.5$		477$\pm$	63		51	35	14
10	11	$3.5$	$4.0$		397$\pm$	73		51	50	15
11	12	$1.5$	$2.0$		800$\pm$	100		80	50	40
11	12	$2.0$	$2.5$		678$\pm$	72		57	38	21
11	12	$2.5$	$3.0$		446$\pm$	60		50	27	15
11	12	$3.0$	$3.5$		386$\pm$	57		47	29	14
11	12	$3.5$	$4.0$		162$\pm$	41		37	15	8
12	13	$1.5$	$2.0$		526$\pm$	80		65	33	32
12	13	$2.0$	$2.5$		474$\pm$	57		45	29	16
12	13	$2.5$	$3.0$		370$\pm$	48		39	23	15
12	13	$3.0$	$3.5$		231$\pm$	40		34	18	11
12	13	$3.5$	$4.0$		153$\pm$	37		29	21	7
13	14	$1.5$	$2.0$		419$\pm$	67		56	24	28
13	14	$2.0$	$2.5$		387$\pm$	48		39	22	16
13	14	$2.5$	$3.0$		224$\pm$	35		31	13	11
13	14	$3.0$	$3.5$		151$\pm$	27		23	11	6
13	14	$3.5$	$4.0$		100$\pm$	27		24	9	7

Table 6. Table 6: Prompt J / ψ 𝐽 𝜓 {J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu} absolute production cross-section in Pb p 𝑝 p , as a function of p T subscript 𝑝 T p_{\mathrm{T}} and y ∗ superscript 𝑦 y^{*} . The quoted uncertainties are the total uncertainties, and the breakdown into statistical uncertainties, and correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties.

$p_T$ bin ($\mathrm{GeV}/c$)		$y^{\ast }$ bin		$\frac{d^2\sigma }{d{p}_{T}d{y}^{\ast }}$ [nb/($\mathrm{GeV}/c$)]				stat.	corr.	uncorr.
0	1	$-3.0$	$-2.5$		$\mathrm{132\hspace{0.17em}900}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{23\hspace{0.17em}100}$		2 300	22 800	2 500
0	1	$-3.5$	$-3.0$		$\mathrm{114\hspace{0.17em}000}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{13\hspace{0.17em}100}$		1 300	13 000	1 200
0	1	$-4.0$	$-3.5$		$\mathrm{96\hspace{0.17em}600}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}300}$		1 200	9 200	900
0	1	$-4.5$	$-4.0$		$\mathrm{83\hspace{0.17em}600}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}900}$		1 200	6 800	800
0	1	$-5.0$	$-4.5$		$\mathrm{70\hspace{0.17em}500}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}600}$		1 400	6 300	1 000
1	2	$-3.0$	$-2.5$		$\mathrm{263\hspace{0.17em}000}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{34\hspace{0.17em}800}$		2 900	34 600	2 800
1	2	$-3.5$	$-3.0$		$\mathrm{226\hspace{0.17em}900}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{21\hspace{0.17em}600}$		1 800	21 500	1 400
1	2	$-4.0$	$-3.5$		$\mathrm{188\hspace{0.17em}300}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{15\hspace{0.17em}900}$		1 500	15 800	1 100
1	2	$-4.5$	$-4.0$		$\mathrm{161\hspace{0.17em}400}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{12\hspace{0.17em}500}$		1 500	12 300	1 000
1	2	$-5.0$	$-4.5$		$\mathrm{135\hspace{0.17em}700}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{16\hspace{0.17em}300}$		1 800	16 100	1 200
2	3	$-3.0$	$-2.5$		$\mathrm{230\hspace{0.17em}900}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{27\hspace{0.17em}400}$		2 400	27 200	2 400
2	3	$-3.5$	$-3.0$		$\mathrm{198\hspace{0.17em}600}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{18\hspace{0.17em}400}$		1 600	18 300	1 300
2	3	$-4.0$	$-3.5$		$\mathrm{167\hspace{0.17em}000}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{13\hspace{0.17em}000}$		1 000	13 000	1 000
2	3	$-4.5$	$-4.0$		$\mathrm{128\hspace{0.17em}700}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}600}$		1 300	10 400	900
2	3	$-5.0$	$-4.5$		$\mathrm{98\hspace{0.17em}400}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{14\hspace{0.17em}700}$		1 500	14 600	1 000
3	4	$-3.0$	$-2.5$		$\mathrm{144\hspace{0.17em}600}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{18\hspace{0.17em}400}$		1 700	18 300	1 700
3	4	$-3.5$	$-3.0$		$\mathrm{128\hspace{0.17em}400}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{13\hspace{0.17em}000}$		1 100	12 900	900
3	4	$-4.0$	$-3.5$		$\mathrm{104\hspace{0.17em}600}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}300}$		900	9 200	700
3	4	$-4.5$	$-4.0$		$\mathrm{77\hspace{0.17em}600}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{8\hspace{0.17em}100}$		900	8 000	600
3	4	$-5.0$	$-4.5$		$\mathrm{55\hspace{0.17em}300}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}400}$		1 000	9 300	700
4	5	$-3.0$	$-2.5$		$\mathrm{83\hspace{0.17em}600}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}600}$		1 100	9 500	1 200
4	5	$-3.5$	$-3.0$		$\mathrm{71\hspace{0.17em}400}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}600}$		700	6 500	600
4	5	$-4.0$	$-3.5$		$\mathrm{55\hspace{0.17em}900}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}600}$		600	4 600	500
4	5	$-4.5$	$-4.0$		$\mathrm{40\hspace{0.17em}500}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}900}$		500	4 800	400
4	5	$-5.0$	$-4.5$		$\mathrm{25\hspace{0.17em}600}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}600}$		600	4 600	400
5	6	$-3.0$	$-2.5$		$\mathrm{46\hspace{0.17em}600}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{5\hspace{0.17em}000}$		700	4 900	800
5	6	$-3.5$	$-3.0$		$\mathrm{37\hspace{0.17em}100}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}300}$		400	3 300	400
5	6	$-4.0$	$-3.5$		$\mathrm{27\hspace{0.17em}810}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}400}$		350	2 350	330
5	6	$-4.5$	$-4.0$		$\mathrm{19\hspace{0.17em}990}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}770}$		320	2 730	290
5	6	$-5.0$	$-4.5$		$\mathrm{13\hspace{0.17em}540}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}660}$		380	2 620	320
6	7	$-3.0$	$-2.5$		$\mathrm{22\hspace{0.17em}500}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}500}$		400	2 400	500
6	7	$-3.5$	$-3.0$		$\mathrm{19\hspace{0.17em}950}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}830}$		290	1 780	320
6	7	$-4.0$	$-3.5$		$\mathrm{14\hspace{0.17em}620}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}440}$		240	1 400	260
6	7	$-4.5$	$-4.0$		$\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}330}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}630}$		220	1 600	230
6	7	$-5.0$	$-4.5$		$\mathrm{5\hspace{0.17em}670}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}260}$		240	1 220	200

Table 7. Table 7: Prompt J / ψ 𝐽 𝜓 {J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu} absolute production cross-section in Pb p 𝑝 p , as a function of p T subscript 𝑝 T p_{\mathrm{T}} and y ∗ superscript 𝑦 y^{*} . The quoted uncertainties are the total uncertainties, and the breakdown into statistical uncertainties, and correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties.

$p_T$ bin ($\mathrm{GeV}/c$)		$y^{\ast }$ bin		$\frac{d^2\sigma }{d{p}_{T}d{y}^{\ast }}$ [nb/($\mathrm{GeV}/c$)]				stat.	corr.	uncorr.
7	8	$-3.0$	$-2.5$		$\mathrm{12\hspace{0.17em}260}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}220}$		290	1 130	350
7	8	$-3.5$	$-3.0$		$\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}320}$$\pm$	$970$		190	920	220
7	8	$-4.0$	$-3.5$		$\mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}480}$$\pm$	$790$		170	760	180
7	8	$-4.5$	$-4.0$		$\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}760}$$\pm$	$820$		140	800	150
7	8	$-5.0$	$-4.5$		$\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}930}$$\pm$	$730$		160	700	140
8	9	$-3.0$	$-2.5$		$\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}690}$$\pm$	$700$		210	610	270
8	9	$-3.5$	$-3.0$		$\mathrm{5\hspace{0.17em}850}$$\pm$	$560$		150	500	180
8	9	$-4.0$	$-3.5$		$\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}970}$$\pm$	$510$		120	480	130
8	9	$-4.5$	$-4.0$		$\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}320}$$\pm$	$440$		90	420	100
8	9	$-5.0$	$-4.5$		$\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}110}$$\pm$	$310$		100	290	60
9	10	$-3.0$	$-2.5$		$\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}050}$$\pm$	$450$		150	370	210
9	10	$-3.5$	$-3.0$		$\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}000}$$\pm$	$300$		100	300	100
9	10	$-4.0$	$-3.5$		$\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}940}$$\pm$	$290$		80	260	80
9	10	$-4.5$	$-4.0$		$\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}290}$$\pm$	$270$		70	250	80
9	10	$-5.0$	$-4.5$		$670$$\pm$	$200$		70	170	70
10	11	$-3.0$	$-2.5$		$\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}230}$$\pm$	$240$		100	180	130
10	11	$-3.5$	$-3.0$		$\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}890}$$\pm$	$210$		80	160	100
10	11	$-4.0$	$-3.5$		$\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}180}$$\pm$	$190$		60	160	70
10	11	$-4.5$	$-4.0$		$590$$\pm$	$130$		40	120	40
10	11	$-5.0$	$-4.5$		$297$$\pm$	$99$		42	82	35
11	12	$-3.0$	$-2.5$		$\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}300}$$\pm$	$160$		80	100	100
11	12	$-3.5$	$-3.0$		$930$$\pm$	$110$		50	90	50
11	12	$-4.0$	$-3.5$		$600$$\pm$	$110$		50	80	50
11	12	$-4.5$	$-4.0$		$420$$\pm$	$110$		40	90	40
11	12	$-5.0$	$-4.5$		$210$$\pm$	$80$		40	50	40
12	13	$-3.0$	$-2.5$		$980$$\pm$	$140$		70	90	90
12	13	$-3.5$	$-3.0$		$660$$\pm$	$100$		50	60	60
12	13	$-4.0$	$-3.5$		$313$$\pm$	$64$		32	46	29
12	13	$-4.5$	$-4.0$		$229$$\pm$	$67$		27	50	34
12	13	$-5.0$	$-4.5$		$140$$\pm$	$70$		40	40	50
13	14	$-3.0$	$-2.5$		$550$$\pm$	$100$		60	40	60
13	14	$-3.5$	$-3.0$		$328$$\pm$	$60$		40	32	30
13	14	$-4.0$	$-3.5$		$248$$\pm$	$64$		27	37	43
13	14	$-4.5$	$-4.0$		$135$$\pm$	$54$		23	32	36
13	14	$-5.0$	$-4.5$		$29$$\pm$	$14$		10	7	6

Table 8. Table 8: J / ψ 𝐽 𝜓 {J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu} -from- b 𝑏 b -hadrons absolute production cross-section in Pb p 𝑝 p , as a function of p T subscript 𝑝 T p_{\mathrm{T}} and y ∗ superscript 𝑦 y^{*} . The quoted uncertainties are the total uncertainties, and the breakdown into statistical uncertainties, and correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties.

$p_T$ bin ($\mathrm{GeV}/c$)		$y^{\ast }$ bin		$\frac{d^2\sigma }{d{p}_{T}d{y}^{\ast }}$ [nb/($\mathrm{GeV}/c$)]				stat.	corr.	uncorr.
0	1	$-3.0$	$-2.5$		$\mathrm{16\hspace{0.17em}120}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}890}$		770	2 770	300
0	1	$-3.5$	$-3.0$		$\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}760}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}400}$		400	1 340	120
0	1	$-4.0$	$-3.5$		$\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}270}$$\pm$	$950$		330	880	80
0	1	$-4.5$	$-4.0$		$\mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}000}$$\pm$	$650$		320	570	70
0	1	$-5.0$	$-4.5$		$\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}750}$$\pm$	$580$		390	430	70
1	2	$-3.0$	$-2.5$		$\mathrm{35\hspace{0.17em}000}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}700}$		1 000	4 600	400
1	2	$-3.5$	$-3.0$		$\mathrm{26\hspace{0.17em}050}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}540}$		560	2 470	170
1	2	$-4.0$	$-3.5$		$\mathrm{20\hspace{0.17em}280}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}770}$		450	1 710	120
1	2	$-4.5$	$-4.0$		$\mathrm{14\hspace{0.17em}270}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}170}$		420	1 090	90
1	2	$-5.0$	$-4.5$		$\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}630}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}250}$		490	1 140	90
2	3	$-3.0$	$-2.5$		$\mathrm{31\hspace{0.17em}420}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}810}$		850	3 700	320
2	3	$-3.5$	$-3.0$		$\mathrm{25\hspace{0.17em}560}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}410}$		510	2 350	160
2	3	$-4.0$	$-3.5$		$\mathrm{19\hspace{0.17em}830}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}640}$		420	1 580	110
2	3	$-4.5$	$-4.0$		$\mathrm{12\hspace{0.17em}690}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}100}$		370	1 030	80
2	3	$-5.0$	$-4.5$		$\mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}760}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}230}$		400	1 150	80
3	4	$-3.0$	$-2.5$		$\mathrm{21\hspace{0.17em}880}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}840}$		630	2 760	250
3	4	$-3.5$	$-3.0$		$\mathrm{19\hspace{0.17em}200}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}980}$		390	1 940	140
3	4	$-4.0$	$-3.5$		$\mathrm{13\hspace{0.17em}490}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}230}$		310	1 190	90
3	4	$-4.5$	$-4.0$		$\mathrm{8\hspace{0.17em}720}$$\pm$	$940$		270	900	70
3	4	$-5.0$	$-4.5$		$\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}420}$$\pm$	$800$		280	750	60
4	5	$-3.0$	$-2.5$		$\mathrm{14\hspace{0.17em}340}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}700}$		440	1 630	200
4	5	$-3.5$	$-3.0$		$\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}200}$$\pm$	$\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}060}$		260	1 020	100
4	5	$-4.0$	$-3.5$		$\mathrm{8\hspace{0.17em}210}$$\pm$	$710$		220	670	70
4	5	$-4.5$	$-4.0$		$\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}920}$$\pm$	$620$		180	590	50
4	5	$-5.0$	$-4.5$		$\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}660}$$\pm$	$520$		190	480	50
5	6	$-3.0$	$-2.5$		$\mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}640}$$\pm$	$870$		290	800	140
5	6	$-3.5$	$-3.0$		$\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}730}$$\pm$	$630$		180	590	80
5	6	$-4.0$	$-3.5$		$\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}370}$$\pm$	$400$		140	370	50
5	6	$-4.5$	$-4.0$		$\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}740}$$\pm$	$400$		120	380	40
5	6	$-5.0$	$-4.5$		$\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}550}$$\pm$	$330$		130	300	40
6	7	$-3.0$	$-2.5$		$\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}400}$$\pm$	$500$		200	500	100
6	7	$-3.5$	$-3.0$		$\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}920}$$\pm$	$380$		130	350	60
6	7	$-4.0$	$-3.5$		$\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}650}$$\pm$	$280$		110	250	50
6	7	$-4.5$	$-4.0$		$\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}640}$$\pm$	$270$		90	250	40
6	7	$-5.0$	$-4.5$		$668$$\pm$	$170$		89	143	23

Table 9. Table 9: J / ψ 𝐽 𝜓 {J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu} -from- b 𝑏 b -hadrons absolute production cross-section in Pb p 𝑝 p , as a function of p T subscript 𝑝 T p_{\mathrm{T}} and y ∗ superscript 𝑦 y^{*} . The quoted uncertainties are the total uncertainties, and the breakdown into statistical uncertainties, and correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties.

$p_T$ bin ($\mathrm{GeV}/c$)		$y^{\ast }$ bin		$\frac{d^2\sigma }{d{p}_{T}d{y}^{\ast }}$ [nb/($\mathrm{GeV}/c$)]				stat.	corr.	uncorr.
7	8	$-3.0$	$-2.5$		$\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}860}$$\pm$	$310$		150	260	80
7	8	$-3.5$	$-3.0$		$\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}340}$$\pm$	$230$		90	210	50
7	8	$-4.0$	$-3.5$		$\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}414}$$\pm$	$165$		77	142	34
7	8	$-4.5$	$-4.0$		$748$$\pm$	$140$		58	125	22
7	8	$-5.0$	$-4.5$		$374$$\pm$	$105$		52	89	17
8	9	$-3.0$	$-2.5$		$\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}090}$$\pm$	$240$		120	190	80
8	9	$-3.5$	$-3.0$		$\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}450}$$\pm$	$150$		70	120	40
8	9	$-4.0$	$-3.5$		$812$$\pm$	$114$		54	97	25
8	9	$-4.5$	$-4.0$		$474$$\pm$	$99$		44	86	19
8	9	$-5.0$	$-4.5$		$207$$\pm$	$66$		36	53	12
9	10	$-3.0$	$-2.5$		$\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}370}$$\pm$	$170$		90	120	70
9	10	$-3.5$	$-3.0$		$794$$\pm$	$97$		53	76	29
9	10	$-4.0$	$-3.5$		$488$$\pm$	$80$		40	66	21
9	10	$-4.5$	$-4.0$		$266$$\pm$	$63$		33	51	16
9	10	$-5.0$	$-4.5$		$94$$\pm$	$37$		26	23	9
10	11	$-3.0$	$-2.5$		$700$$\pm$	$90$		60	60	40
10	11	$-3.5$	$-3.0$		$479$$\pm$	$65$		44	41	24
10	11	$-4.0$	$-3.5$		$372$$\pm$	$65$		35	50	22
10	11	$-4.5$	$-4.0$		$152$$\pm$	$39$		22	30	9
10	11	$-5.0$	$-4.5$		$42$$\pm$	$19$		14	11	5
11	12	$-3.0$	$-2.5$		$670$$\pm$	$90$		60	50	50
11	12	$-3.5$	$-3.0$		$373$$\pm$	$53$		35	34	21
11	12	$-4.0$	$-3.5$		$191$$\pm$	$40$		26	25	15
11	12	$-4.5$	$-4.0$		$57$$\pm$	$20$		14	12	5
11	12	$-5.0$	$-4.5$		$88$$\pm$	$36$		22	23	17
12	13	$-3.0$	$-2.5$		$440$$\pm$	$70$		40	40	40
12	13	$-3.5$	$-3.0$		$247$$\pm$	$43$		29	22	23
12	13	$-4.0$	$-3.5$		$107$$\pm$	$27$		20	15	10
12	13	$-4.5$	$-4.0$		$70$$\pm$	$24$		16	15	10
12	13	$-5.0$	$-4.5$		$19$$\pm$	$15$		12	5	7
13	14	$-3.0$	$-2.5$		$257$$\pm$	$53$		39	19	30
13	14	$-3.5$	$-3.0$		$146$$\pm$	$33$		27	14	13
13	14	$-4.0$	$-3.5$		$114$$\pm$	$32$		19	17	20
13	14	$-4.5$	$-4.0$		$40$$\pm$	$19$		12	9	10
13	14	$-5.0$	$-4.5$		$10$$\pm$	$7$		6	2	2

Table 10. Table 10: Fraction of J / ψ 𝐽 𝜓 {J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu} -from- b 𝑏 b -hadrons, f b subscript 𝑓 𝑏 f_{b} , in p 𝑝 p Pb in bins of p T subscript 𝑝 T p_{\mathrm{T}} and y ∗ superscript 𝑦 y^{*} . The uncertainty is the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

$p_T$ bin ($\mathrm{GeV}/c$)		$y^{\ast }$ bin		$f_b$
10	1	$1.5$	$2.0$	0.13$\pm$	0.01
10	1	$2.0$	$2.5$	0.12$\pm$	0.01
10	1	$2.5$	$3.0$	0.11$\pm$	0.01
10	1	$3.0$	$3.5$	0.11$\pm$	0.01
10	1	$3.5$	$4.0$	0.10$\pm$	0.01
11	2	$1.5$	$2.0$	0.13$\pm$	0.01
11	2	$2.0$	$2.5$	0.13$\pm$	0.01
11	2	$2.5$	$3.0$	0.13$\pm$	0.01
11	2	$3.0$	$3.5$	0.12$\pm$	0.01
11	2	$3.5$	$4.0$	0.12$\pm$	0.01
12	3	$1.5$	$2.0$	0.15$\pm$	0.01
12	3	$2.0$	$2.5$	0.15$\pm$	0.01
12	3	$2.5$	$3.0$	0.14$\pm$	0.01
12	3	$3.0$	$3.5$	0.14$\pm$	0.01
12	3	$3.5$	$4.0$	0.12$\pm$	0.01
13	4	$1.5$	$2.0$	0.15$\pm$	0.01
13	4	$2.0$	$2.5$	0.16$\pm$	0.01
13	4	$2.5$	$3.0$	0.15$\pm$	0.01
13	4	$3.0$	$3.5$	0.14$\pm$	0.01
13	4	$3.5$	$4.0$	0.13$\pm$	0.01
14	5	$1.5$	$2.0$	0.16$\pm$	0.01
14	5	$2.0$	$2.5$	0.17$\pm$	0.01
14	5	$2.5$	$3.0$	0.16$\pm$	0.01
14	5	$3.0$	$3.5$	0.15$\pm$	0.01
14	5	$3.5$	$4.0$	0.14$\pm$	0.01
15	6	$1.5$	$2.0$	0.18$\pm$	0.01
15	6	$2.0$	$2.5$	0.18$\pm$	0.01
15	6	$2.5$	$3.0$	0.18$\pm$	0.01
15	6	$3.0$	$3.5$	0.17$\pm$	0.01
15	6	$3.5$	$4.0$	0.15$\pm$	0.01
16	7	$1.5$	$2.0$	0.21$\pm$	0.01
16	7	$2.0$	$2.5$	0.19$\pm$	0.01
16	7	$2.5$	$3.0$	0.20$\pm$	0.01
16	7	$3.0$	$3.5$	0.19$\pm$	0.01
16	7	$3.5$	$4.0$	0.15$\pm$	0.01

Table 11. Table 11: Fraction of J / ψ 𝐽 𝜓 {J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu} -from- b 𝑏 b -hadrons, f b subscript 𝑓 𝑏 f_{b} , in p 𝑝 p Pb in bins of p T subscript 𝑝 T p_{\mathrm{T}} and y ∗ superscript 𝑦 y^{*} . The uncertainty is the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

$p_T$ bin ($\mathrm{GeV}/c$)		$y^{\ast }$ bin		$f_b$
17	8	$1.5$	$2.0$	0.24$\pm$	0.01
17	8	$2.0$	$2.5$	0.22$\pm$	0.01
17	8	$2.5$	$3.0$	0.23$\pm$	0.01
17	8	$3.0$	$3.5$	0.21$\pm$	0.01
17	8	$3.5$	$4.0$	0.19$\pm$	0.01
18	9	$1.5$	$2.0$	0.25$\pm$	0.02
18	9	$2.0$	$2.5$	0.24$\pm$	0.01
18	9	$2.5$	$3.0$	0.23$\pm$	0.01
18	9	$3.0$	$3.5$	0.22$\pm$	0.01
18	9	$3.5$	$4.0$	0.21$\pm$	0.02
19	10	$1.5$	$2.0$	0.27$\pm$	0.02
19	10	$2.0$	$2.5$	0.26$\pm$	0.01
19	10	$2.5$	$3.0$	0.25$\pm$	0.01
19	10	$3.0$	$3.5$	0.24$\pm$	0.02
19	10	$3.5$	$4.0$	0.20$\pm$	0.02
10	11	$1.5$	$2.0$	0.29$\pm$	0.02
10	11	$2.0$	$2.5$	0.26$\pm$	0.02
10	11	$2.5$	$3.0$	0.26$\pm$	0.02
10	11	$3.0$	$3.5$	0.24$\pm$	0.02
10	11	$3.5$	$4.0$	0.26$\pm$	0.03
11	12	$1.5$	$2.0$	0.30$\pm$	0.03
11	12	$2.0$	$2.5$	0.30$\pm$	0.02
11	12	$2.5$	$3.0$	0.25$\pm$	0.03
11	12	$3.0$	$3.5$	0.28$\pm$	0.03
11	12	$3.5$	$4.0$	0.18$\pm$	0.04
12	13	$1.5$	$2.0$	0.31$\pm$	0.03
12	13	$2.0$	$2.5$	0.33$\pm$	0.03
12	13	$2.5$	$3.0$	0.32$\pm$	0.03
12	13	$3.0$	$3.5$	0.30$\pm$	0.04
12	13	$3.5$	$4.0$	0.26$\pm$	0.04
13	14	$1.5$	$2.0$	0.36$\pm$	0.04
13	14	$2.0$	$2.5$	0.39$\pm$	0.03
13	14	$2.5$	$3.0$	0.32$\pm$	0.04
13	14	$3.0$	$3.5$	0.30$\pm$	0.04
13	14	$3.5$	$4.0$	0.29$\pm$	0.06

Table 12. Table 12: Fraction of J / ψ 𝐽 𝜓 {J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu} -from- b 𝑏 b -hadrons, f b subscript 𝑓 𝑏 f_{b} , in Pb p 𝑝 p in bins of p T subscript 𝑝 T p_{\mathrm{T}} and y ∗ superscript 𝑦 y^{*} . The uncertainty is the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

$p_T$ bin ($\mathrm{GeV}/c$)		$y^{\ast }$ bin		$f_b$
10	1	$-3.0$	$-2.5$	0.11$\pm$	0.01
10	1	$-3.5$	$-3.0$	0.09$\pm$	0.01
10	1	$-4.0$	$-3.5$	0.09$\pm$	0.01
10	1	$-4.5$	$-4.0$	0.08$\pm$	0.01
10	1	$-5.0$	$-4.5$	0.06$\pm$	0.01
11	2	$-3.0$	$-2.5$	0.12$\pm$	0.01
11	2	$-3.5$	$-3.0$	0.10$\pm$	0.01
11	2	$-4.0$	$-3.5$	0.10$\pm$	0.01
11	2	$-4.5$	$-4.0$	0.08$\pm$	0.01
11	2	$-5.0$	$-4.5$	0.07$\pm$	0.01
12	3	$-3.0$	$-2.5$	0.12$\pm$	0.01
12	3	$-3.5$	$-3.0$	0.11$\pm$	0.01
12	3	$-4.0$	$-3.5$	0.11$\pm$	0.01
12	3	$-4.5$	$-4.0$	0.09$\pm$	0.01
12	3	$-5.0$	$-4.5$	0.07$\pm$	0.01
13	4	$-3.0$	$-2.5$	0.13$\pm$	0.01
13	4	$-3.5$	$-3.0$	0.13$\pm$	0.01
13	4	$-4.0$	$-3.5$	0.11$\pm$	0.01
13	4	$-4.5$	$-4.0$	0.10$\pm$	0.01
13	4	$-5.0$	$-4.5$	0.07$\pm$	0.01
14	5	$-3.0$	$-2.5$	0.15$\pm$	0.01
14	5	$-3.5$	$-3.0$	0.14$\pm$	0.01
14	5	$-4.0$	$-3.5$	0.13$\pm$	0.01
14	5	$-4.5$	$-4.0$	0.11$\pm$	0.01
14	5	$-5.0$	$-4.5$	0.09$\pm$	0.01
15	6	$-3.0$	$-2.5$	0.14$\pm$	0.01
15	6	$-3.5$	$-3.0$	0.15$\pm$	0.01
15	6	$-4.0$	$-3.5$	0.14$\pm$	0.01
15	6	$-4.5$	$-4.0$	0.12$\pm$	0.01
15	6	$-5.0$	$-4.5$	0.10$\pm$	0.01
16	7	$-3.0$	$-2.5$	0.16$\pm$	0.01
16	7	$-3.5$	$-3.0$	0.16$\pm$	0.01
16	7	$-4.0$	$-3.5$	0.15$\pm$	0.01
16	7	$-4.5$	$-4.0$	0.14$\pm$	0.01
16	7	$-5.0$	$-4.5$	0.11$\pm$	0.01

Table 13. Table 13: Fraction of J / ψ 𝐽 𝜓 {J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu} -from- b 𝑏 b -hadrons, f b subscript 𝑓 𝑏 f_{b} , in Pb p 𝑝 p in bins of p T subscript 𝑝 T p_{\mathrm{T}} and y ∗ superscript 𝑦 y^{*} . The uncertainty is the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

$p_T$ bin ($\mathrm{GeV}/c$)		$y^{\ast }$ bin		$f_b$
17	8	$-3.0$	$-2.5$	0.19$\pm$	0.01
17	8	$-3.5$	$-3.0$	0.18$\pm$	0.01
17	8	$-4.0$	$-3.5$	0.16$\pm$	0.01
17	8	$-4.5$	$-4.0$	0.14$\pm$	0.01
17	8	$-5.0$	$-4.5$	0.11$\pm$	0.02
18	9	$-3.0$	$-2.5$	0.24$\pm$	0.01
18	9	$-3.5$	$-3.0$	0.20$\pm$	0.01
18	9	$-4.0$	$-3.5$	0.17$\pm$	0.01
18	9	$-4.5$	$-4.0$	0.17$\pm$	0.01
18	9	$-5.0$	$-4.5$	0.16$\pm$	0.03
19	10	$-3.0$	$-2.5$	0.25$\pm$	0.01
19	10	$-3.5$	$-3.0$	0.21$\pm$	0.01
19	10	$-4.0$	$-3.5$	0.20$\pm$	0.02
19	10	$-4.5$	$-4.0$	0.17$\pm$	0.02
19	10	$-5.0$	$-4.5$	0.12$\pm$	0.03
10	11	$-3.0$	$-2.5$	0.24$\pm$	0.02
10	11	$-3.5$	$-3.0$	0.20$\pm$	0.02
10	11	$-4.0$	$-3.5$	0.24$\pm$	0.02
10	11	$-4.5$	$-4.0$	0.21$\pm$	0.03
10	11	$-5.0$	$-4.5$	0.13$\pm$	0.04
11	12	$-3.0$	$-2.5$	0.34$\pm$	0.02
11	12	$-3.5$	$-3.0$	0.29$\pm$	0.02
11	12	$-4.0$	$-3.5$	0.24$\pm$	0.03
11	12	$-4.5$	$-4.0$	0.12$\pm$	0.03
11	12	$-5.0$	$-4.5$	0.30$\pm$	0.07
12	13	$-3.0$	$-2.5$	0.31$\pm$	0.03
12	13	$-3.5$	$-3.0$	0.27$\pm$	0.03
12	13	$-4.0$	$-3.5$	0.25$\pm$	0.04
12	13	$-4.5$	$-4.0$	0.24$\pm$	0.05
12	13	$-5.0$	$-4.5$	0.12$\pm$	0.07
13	14	$-3.0$	$-2.5$	0.32$\pm$	0.05
13	14	$-3.5$	$-3.0$	0.31$\pm$	0.06
13	14	$-4.0$	$-3.5$	0.32$\pm$	0.04
13	14	$-4.5$	$-4.0$	0.23$\pm$	0.06
13	14	$-5.0$	$-4.5$	0.27$\pm$	0.14

Table 14. Table 14: Prompt J / ψ 𝐽 𝜓 {J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu} nuclear modification factor, R p ​ Pb subscript 𝑅 𝑝 Pb R_{p{\rm Pb}} , in p 𝑝 p Pb and Pb p 𝑝 p as a function of p T subscript 𝑝 T p_{\mathrm{T}} integrated over y ∗ superscript 𝑦 y^{*} in the range 1.5 < y ∗ < 4.0 1.5 superscript 𝑦 4.0 1.5<y^{*}<4.0 for p 𝑝 p Pb and − 5.0 < y ∗ < − 2.5 5.0 superscript 𝑦 2.5 -5.0<y^{*}<-2.5 for Pb p 𝑝 p . The quoted uncertainties are the quadratic sums of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

$p_T$ bin ($\mathrm{GeV}/c$)		$R_{p\mathrm{Pb}}$ in $p$Pb		$R_{p\mathrm{Pb}}$ in Pb$p$
0	1	0.53$\pm$	0.06	0.75$\pm$	0.10
1	2	0.56$\pm$	0.06	0.81$\pm$	0.10
2	3	0.65$\pm$	0.06	0.93$\pm$	0.12
3	4	0.72$\pm$	0.07	0.99$\pm$	0.14
4	5	0.76$\pm$	0.08	1.02$\pm$	0.15
5	6	0.81$\pm$	0.08	1.06$\pm$	0.16
6	7	0.86$\pm$	0.09	1.08$\pm$	0.18
7	8	0.87$\pm$	0.10	1.06$\pm$	0.18
8	9	0.88$\pm$	0.10	1.06$\pm$	0.19
9	10	0.92$\pm$	0.11	1.07$\pm$	0.15
10	11	0.89$\pm$	0.11	1.02$\pm$	0.14
11	12	1.00$\pm$	0.12	0.97$\pm$	0.14
12	13	0.92$\pm$	0.13	1.07$\pm$	0.17
13	14	0.83$\pm$	0.13	0.89$\pm$	0.15

Table 15. Table 15: Prompt J / ψ 𝐽 𝜓 {J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu} nuclear modification factor, R p ​ Pb subscript 𝑅 𝑝 Pb R_{p{\rm Pb}} , in p 𝑝 p Pb and Pb p 𝑝 p as a function of y ∗ superscript 𝑦 y^{*} integrated over p T subscript 𝑝 T p_{\mathrm{T}} in the range 0 < p T < 14 ​ GeV / c 0 subscript 𝑝 T 14 GeV 𝑐 0<\mbox{$p_{\mathrm{T}}$}<14{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern-0.90005ptV\!/}c} . The quoted uncertainties are the quadratic sums of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

$y^{\ast }$ bin		$R_{p\mathrm{Pb}}$
$-4.5$	$-4.0$	0.86$\pm$	0.10
$-4.0$	$-3.5$	0.84$\pm$	0.09
$-3.5$	$-3.0$	0.87$\pm$	0.10
$-3.0$	$-2.5$	0.90$\pm$	0.13
$1.5$	$2.0$	0.68$\pm$	0.09
$2.0$	$2.5$	0.71$\pm$	0.07
$2.5$	$3.0$	0.62$\pm$	0.06
$3.0$	$3.5$	0.59$\pm$	0.05
$3.5$	$4.0$	0.57$\pm$	0.05

Table 16. Table 16: J / ψ 𝐽 𝜓 {J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu} -from- b 𝑏 b -hadrons nuclear modification factor, R p ​ Pb subscript 𝑅 𝑝 Pb R_{p{\rm Pb}} , in p 𝑝 p Pb and Pb p 𝑝 p as a function of p T subscript 𝑝 T p_{\mathrm{T}} integrated over y ∗ superscript 𝑦 y^{*} in the range 1.5 < y ∗ < 4.0 1.5 superscript 𝑦 4.0 1.5<y^{*}<4.0 for p 𝑝 p Pb and − 5.0 < y ∗ < − 2.5 5.0 superscript 𝑦 2.5 -5.0<y^{*}<-2.5 for Pb p 𝑝 p . The quoted uncertainties are the quadratic sums of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

$p_T$ bin ($\mathrm{GeV}/c$)		$R_{p\mathrm{Pb}}$ in $p$Pb		$R_{p\mathrm{Pb}}$ in Pb$p$
0	1	0.75$\pm$	0.12	1.05$\pm$	0.19
1	2	0.79$\pm$	0.09	1.05$\pm$	0.16
2	3	0.82$\pm$	0.09	1.07$\pm$	0.17
3	4	0.85$\pm$	0.10	1.09$\pm$	0.18
4	5	0.87$\pm$	0.10	1.12$\pm$	0.20
5	6	0.91$\pm$	0.11	1.05$\pm$	0.13
6	7	0.91$\pm$	0.12	1.02$\pm$	0.14
7	8	0.99$\pm$	0.13	0.99$\pm$	0.13
8	9	0.94$\pm$	0.14	1.04$\pm$	0.14
9	10	0.94$\pm$	0.14	0.99$\pm$	0.15
10	11	0.91$\pm$	0.15	0.91$\pm$	0.14
11	12	0.87$\pm$	0.13	1.11$\pm$	0.18
12	13	0.89$\pm$	0.16	0.97$\pm$	0.18
13	14	0.96$\pm$	0.21	0.94$\pm$	0.19

Table 17. Table 17: J / ψ 𝐽 𝜓 {J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu} -from- b 𝑏 b -hadrons nuclear modification factor, R p ​ Pb subscript 𝑅 𝑝 Pb R_{p{\rm Pb}} , in p 𝑝 p Pb as a function of y ∗ superscript 𝑦 y^{*} integrated over p T subscript 𝑝 T p_{\mathrm{T}} in the range 0 < p T < 14 ​ GeV / c 0 subscript 𝑝 T 14 GeV 𝑐 0<\mbox{$p_{\mathrm{T}}$}<14{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern-0.90005ptV\!/}c} . The quoted uncertainties are the quadratic sums of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

$y^{\ast }$ bin		$R_{p\mathrm{Pb}}$
$-4.5$	$-4.0$	1.10$\pm$	0.13
$-4.0$	$-3.5$	1.03$\pm$	0.11
$-3.5$	$-3.0$	0.97$\pm$	0.11
$-3.0$	$-2.5$	1.00$\pm$	0.14
$1.5$	$2.0$	0.84$\pm$	0.17
$2.0$	$2.5$	0.89$\pm$	0.09
$2.5$	$3.0$	0.80$\pm$	0.07
$3.0$	$3.5$	0.80$\pm$	0.07
$3.5$	$4.0$	0.82$\pm$	0.08

Table 18. Table 18: Prompt J / ψ 𝐽 𝜓 {J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu} forward-to-backward ratio, R FB subscript 𝑅 FB R_{{\rm FB}} , as a function of p T subscript 𝑝 T p_{\mathrm{T}} integrated over | y ∗ | superscript 𝑦 |y^{*}| in the range 2.5 < | y ∗ | < 4.0 2.5 superscript 𝑦 4.0 2.5<|y^{*}|<4.0 . The quoted uncertainties are the quadratic sums of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

$p_T$ bin ($\mathrm{GeV}/c$)		$R_{\mathrm{FB}}$
0	1	0.62$\pm$	0.07
1	2	0.64$\pm$	0.06
2	3	0.67$\pm$	0.06
3	4	0.70$\pm$	0.06
4	5	0.73$\pm$	0.07
5	6	0.77$\pm$	0.07
6	7	0.82$\pm$	0.07
7	8	0.85$\pm$	0.08
8	9	0.87$\pm$	0.09
9	10	0.92$\pm$	0.10
10	11	0.92$\pm$	0.10
11	12	1.08$\pm$	0.13
12	13	0.90$\pm$	0.12
13	14	0.95$\pm$	0.15

Table 19. Table 19: Prompt J / ψ 𝐽 𝜓 {J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu} forward-to-backward ratio, R FB subscript 𝑅 FB R_{{\rm FB}} , as a function of y ∗ superscript 𝑦 y^{*} integrated over p T subscript 𝑝 T p_{\mathrm{T}} in the range 0 < p T < 14 ​ GeV / c 0 subscript 𝑝 T 14 GeV 𝑐 0<\mbox{$p_{\mathrm{T}}$}<14{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern-0.90005ptV\!/}c} . The quoted uncertainties are the quadratic sums of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

$y^{\ast }$ bin		$R_{\mathrm{FB}}$
2.5	3.0	0.69$\pm$	0.08
3.0	3.5	0.67$\pm$	0.06
3.5	4.0	0.67$\pm$	0.05

Table 20. Table 20: J / ψ 𝐽 𝜓 {J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu} -from- b 𝑏 b -hadrons forward-to-backward ratio, R FB subscript 𝑅 FB R_{{\rm FB}} , as a function of p T subscript 𝑝 T p_{\mathrm{T}} integrated over | y ∗ | superscript 𝑦 |y^{*}| in the range 2.5 < | y ∗ | < 4.0 2.5 superscript 𝑦 4.0 2.5<|y^{*}|<4.0 . The quoted uncertainties are the quadratic sums of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

$p_T$ bin ($\mathrm{GeV}/c$)		$R_{\mathrm{FB}}$
0	1	0.72$\pm$	0.08
1	2	0.76$\pm$	0.08
2	3	0.79$\pm$	0.07
3	4	0.80$\pm$	0.08
4	5	0.82$\pm$	0.08
5	6	0.93$\pm$	0.09
6	7	0.94$\pm$	0.09
7	8	1.02$\pm$	0.10
8	9	0.95$\pm$	0.10
9	10	0.96$\pm$	0.11
10	11	1.09$\pm$	0.14
11	12	0.81$\pm$	0.12
12	13	0.94$\pm$	0.15
13	14	0.92$\pm$	0.17

Table 21. Table 21: J / ψ 𝐽 𝜓 {J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu} -from- b 𝑏 b -hadrons forward-to-backward ratio, R FB subscript 𝑅 FB R_{{\rm FB}} , as a function of y ∗ superscript 𝑦 y^{*} integrated over p T subscript 𝑝 T p_{\mathrm{T}} in the range 0 < p T < 14 ​ GeV / c 0 subscript 𝑝 T 14 GeV 𝑐 0<\mbox{$p_{\mathrm{T}}$}<14{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern-0.90005ptV\!/}c} . The quoted uncertainties are the quadratic sums of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

$y^{\ast }$ bin		$R_{\mathrm{FB}}$
2.5	3.0	0.80$\pm$	0.09
3.0	3.5	0.82$\pm$	0.07
3.5	4.0	0.79$\pm$	0.07

Equations

$$R_{p{\rm Pb}}(\mbox{$p_{\mathrm{T}}$},y^{*})\equiv\frac{1}{A}\frac{{\rm d}^{2}\sigma_{p{\rm Pb}}(\mbox{$p_{\mathrm{T}}$},y^{*})/{\rm d}\mbox{$p_{\mathrm{T}}$}{\rm d}y^{*}}{{\rm d}^{2}\sigma_{pp}(\mbox{$p_{\mathrm{T}}$},y^{*})/{\rm d}\mbox{$p_{\mathrm{T}}$}{\rm d}y^{*}},$$

$$R_{\rm FB}(\mbox{$p_{\mathrm{T}}$},y^{*})\equiv\frac{{\rm d}^{2}\sigma_{p{\rm Pb}}(\mbox{$p_{\mathrm{T}}$},+y^{*})/{\rm d}\mbox{$p_{\mathrm{T}}$}{\rm d}y^{*}}{{\rm d}^{2}\sigma_{p{\rm Pb}}(\mbox{$p_{\mathrm{T}}$},-y^{*})/{\rm d}\mbox{$p_{\mathrm{T}}$}{\rm d}y^{*}}.$$

$$\displaystyle\frac{{\rm d}^{2}\sigma}{{\rm d}\mbox{$p_{\mathrm{T}}$}{\rm d}y^{*}}$$

$$t_z\equiv \frac{(z_{J/\psi }-z_{\mathrm{PV}})\times M_{J/\psi }}{p_z},$$

$$\displaystyle\sigma_{\text{prompt}\ {{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}}}(1.5<y^{*}<4.0,\ \mbox{$p_{\mathrm{T}}$}<14{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern-1.00006ptV\!/}c})$$

$$\displaystyle\sigma_{{{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}}\text{-from-}b\text{-hadrons}}(1.5<y^{*}<4.0,\ \mbox{$p_{\mathrm{T}}$}<14{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern-1.00006ptV\!/}c})$$

$$\displaystyle\sigma_{\text{prompt}\ {{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}}}(-5.0<y^{*}<-2.5,\ \mbox{$p_{\mathrm{T}}$}<14{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern-1.00006ptV\!/}c})$$

$$\displaystyle\sigma_{{{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}}\text{-from-}b\text{-hadrons}}(-5.0<y^{*}<-2.5,\ \mbox{$p_{\mathrm{T}}$}<14{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern-1.00006ptV\!/}c})$$

$$f_{b}(\mbox{$p_{\mathrm{T}}$},y^{*})\equiv\frac{\mathrm{d}^{2}\sigma_{{{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}}\text{-from-}b\text{-hadrons}}/\mathrm{d}\mbox{$p_{\mathrm{T}}$}\mathrm{d}y^{*}}{\mathrm{d}^{2}\sigma_{\text{prompt}\ {{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}}}/\mathrm{d}\mbox{$p_{\mathrm{T}}$}\mathrm{d}y^{*}+\mathrm{d}^{2}\sigma_{{{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}}\text{-from-}b\text{-hadrons}}/\mathrm{d}\mbox{$p_{\mathrm{T}}$}\mathrm{d}y^{*}}.$$

Full text

EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH (CERN)

​​​

CERN-EP-2017-122

LHCb-PAPER-2017-014

**Prompt and nonprompt ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ production and nuclear modification in **$p$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=8.16\,{\rm TeV}$

The LHCb collaboration†††Authors are listed at the end of this paper.

The production of ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ mesons is studied in proton-lead collisions at the centre-of-mass energy per nucleon pair $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=8.16\,{\rm TeV}$ with the LHCb detector at the LHC. The double differential cross-sections of prompt and nonprompt ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ production are measured as a function of the ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ transverse momentum and rapidity in the nucleon-nucleon centre-of-mass frame. Forward-to-backward ratios and nuclear modification factors are determined. The results are compared with theoretical calculations based on collinear factorisation using nuclear parton distribution functions, on the colour glass condensate or on coherent energy loss models.

Published in Phys. Lett. B774 (2017) 159

© CERN on behalf of the LHCb collaboration, licence CC-BY-4.0.

1 Introduction

The production of ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ mesons, and more generally of quarkonium states, has been considered as a sensitive probe of colour screening in a hot and dense medium since the proposal by Matsui and Satz in 1986 [1] of the suppression of the ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ meson production in heavy-ion collisions as a sign of deconfinement. The theoretical understanding of the bound-state dynamics of quarkonium by means of lattice QCD and effective field theories has progressed substantially in the last 30 years. In heavy-ion collisions, the emerging picture indicates strong modifications of the quarkonium bound-state characteristics [2]. Experimentally, measurements at the SPS, RHIC and LHC revealed interesting patterns [3]. In particular, an additional low transverse momentum ($p_{\mathrm{T}}$) component of ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ production was observed in PbPb collisions at the LHC [4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. This observation had been predicted as a sign of charmonium originating from unbound charm quarks, generated either during the lifetime of the deconfined medium [9] or at the phase boundary [10].

The limited understanding of nuclear phenomena unrelated to deconfinement, commonly called cold nuclear matter (CNM) effects, restricts the ability of phenomenological models to describe the experimental data on ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ production in PbPb collisions. The size of CNM effects can be quantified by measurements in proton-nucleus or deuteron-nucleus collisions, which have been pursued at fixed target experiments as well as at RHIC and LHC [3]. The feature of CNM drawing the highest attention for proton-lead collisions at the LHC is the modification of the gluon flux coupling to the charm quark pair. This modification is often treated within a collinear parton distribution framework employing nuclear parton distribution functions (nPDFs) [11, 12, 13, 14, 15]. At low longitudinal momentum fractions $x$ carried by the parton, calculations within the colour glass condensate (CGC) effective field theory, describing the saturation regime of QCD [16, 17], are frequently employed. Several calculations have been pursued to quantify nuclear modifications of ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ production in the collinear framework [18, 19, 20, 21] or in the CGC framework [22, 23, 24]. It has to be noted that the low-$x$ gluon content of the nucleus is largely unconstrained by experimental data at perturbative scales. In addition, small-angle gluon radiation taking into account interference between initial and final state radiation, called coherent energy loss, was proposed as the dominant nuclear modification of quarkonium production in proton-lead collisions [25]. The discrimination between these phenomena is a strong motivation for the study of the production of quarkonium as a hard-scale probe of QCD at high density.

The experimental results on ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ production in proton-lead collisions based on the 2013 data samples at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5\,{\rm TeV}$ published by the LHC experiments ALICE, ATLAS, CMS and LHCb [26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31] can be qualitatively described by implementations of the approaches described above in the kinematic applicability range of the calculations [18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25]. No conclusion on the dominant mechanism for nuclear modification of ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ production could be drawn.

The measurement of an additional suppression of the excited state $\psi{(2S)}$ by ALICE [32, 33] and LHCb [34] in proton-lead collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5\,{\rm TeV}$ and by PHENIX at RHIC [35, 36] in various collision systems at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=0.2\,{\rm TeV}$ cannot be explained by the modification of the gluon flux or by coherent energy loss because it would affect the ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ and the $\psi{(2S)}$ states in a similar way. These measurements motivated calculations involving hadronic and partonic interactions influencing the evolution of the $c\bar{c}$ pair after the first interaction [37, 38] for proton(deuteron)-nucleus collisions. Although the impact on ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ production is generally small in these models, it can be significant in rapidity ranges with large particle densities.

The measurement of the nonprompt ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ production provides access to the production of beauty hadrons. The modification of their kinematic distributions in nucleus-nucleus collisions carries valuable information about the created matter [3]. Similarly to direct charmonium production, the production of beauty hadrons can be subject to CNM effects altering the interpretation of nucleus-nucleus collision data. Such effects can be precisely measured in proton-lead collisions.

The measurements of the production of prompt ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ and nonprompt ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ mesons, called ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$-from-$b$-hadrons in the following, presented in this letter are important ingredients for the understanding of the imprints of deconfinement in nucleus-nucleus collisions. They are based on larger integrated luminosities and on higher collision energies than the initial measurements with the 2013 proton-lead data sample by the LHCb experiment at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5\,{\rm TeV}$ [27].

2 Detector, data sample and observables

The LHCb detector [39, 40] is a single-arm forward spectrometer covering the pseudorapidity range $2<\eta<5$, designed for the study of particles containing $b$ or $c$ quarks. The detector includes a high-precision tracking system consisting of a silicon-strip vertex detector surrounding the interaction region [41], a large-area silicon-strip detector located upstream of a dipole magnet with a bending power of about $4{\mathrm{\,Tm}}$, and three stations of silicon-strip detectors and straw drift tubes [42] placed downstream of the magnet. The tracking system provides a measurement of momentum of charged particles with a relative uncertainty that varies from 0.5% at low momentum to 1.0% at 200${\mathrm{\,Ge\kern-1.00006ptV\!/}c}$. The minimum distance of a track to a primary vertex (PV), the impact parameter, is measured with a resolution of (15+29/\mbox{p_{\mathrm{T}}}){\,\upmu\mathrm{m}}, where $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ is the transverse momentum in the LHCb frame, in ${\mathrm{\,Ge\kern-1.00006ptV\!/}c}$. Different types of charged hadrons are distinguished using information from two ring-imaging Cherenkov detectors [43]. Photons, electrons and hadrons are identified by a calorimeter system consisting of scintillating-pad and preshower detectors, an electromagnetic calorimeter and a hadronic calorimeter. Muons are identified by a system composed of alternating layers of iron and multiwire proportional chambers [44].

This analysis is based on data acquired during the 2016 LHC heavy-ion run, where protons and 208Pb ions were colliding at a centre-of-mass energy per nucleon pair of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=8.16\,{\rm TeV}$. Since the energy per nucleon in the proton beam is larger than in the lead beam, the nucleon-nucleon centre-of-mass system has a rapidity in the laboratory frame of 0.465 ($-0.465$), when the proton (lead) beam travels from the vertex detector towards the muon chambers. Consequently, the LHCb detector covers two different acceptance regions:

$1.5<y^{*}<4.0$ when the proton beam travels from the vertex detector towards the muon chambers, 2. 2.

$-5.0<y^{*}<-2.5$ when the proton beam travels from the muon chambers towards the vertex detector,

where $y^{*}$ is the rapidity in the centre-of-mass frame of the colliding nucleons, with respect to the proton beam direction. In this letter, the first configuration is denoted $p$Pb and the second one Pb$p$. The data samples correspond to an integrated luminosity of $13.6\pm 0.3\,{\rm nb}^{-1}$ of $p$Pb collisions and $20.8\pm 0.5\,{\rm nb}^{-1}$ of Pb$p$ collisions. The instantaneous luminosity for the majority of the recorded events ranges between 0.5 and $1.0\times 10^{29}\,{\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}$. This luminosity corresponds on average to about 0.1 or fewer collisions per bunch crossing.

In this letter, we describe the measurement of the double-differential production cross-sections of ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ mesons as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and $y^{*}$ in the ranges 0<\mbox{p_{\mathrm{T}}}<14{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern-1.00006ptV\!/}c} and $1.5<y^{*}<4.0$ for $p$Pb and $-5.0<y^{*}<-2.5$ for Pb$p$. The measurement is performed separately for prompt ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ mesons, i.e. produced directly in the initial hard scattering or from the decay of an excited charmonium state produced directly, and for ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ mesons coming from the decay of a long-lived $b$-hadron, either directly or via an excited charmonium state.

Nuclear effects are quantified by the nuclear modification factor, $R_{p{\rm Pb}}$,

[TABLE]

where $A=208$ is the mass number of the Pb ion, {\rm d}^{2}\sigma_{p{\rm Pb}}(\mbox{p_{\mathrm{T}}},y^{*})/{\rm d}\mbox{p_{\mathrm{T}}}{\rm d}y^{*} the ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ production cross-section in $p$Pb or Pb$p$ collisions and {\rm d}^{2}\sigma_{pp}(\mbox{p_{\mathrm{T}}},y^{*})/{\rm d}\mbox{p_{\mathrm{T}}}{\rm d}y^{*} the ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ reference production cross-section in $pp$ collisions at the same nucleon-nucleon centre-of-mass energy. The determination of the reference cross-section is described in Sec. 5.1. In the absence of nuclear effects, the nuclear modification factor is equal to unity.

In addition to the nuclear modification factor, the observable $R_{\rm FB}$ quantifies the relative forward-to-backward production rates. The forward-to-backward ratio is measured as the ratio of cross-sections in the positive and negative $y^{*}$ acceptances evaluated in the same absolute $y^{*}$ value ranges,

[TABLE]

3 Event selection and cross-section determination

The ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ production cross-section measurement follows the approach described in Ref. [45]. The double differential ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ production cross-section in each kinematic bin of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and $y^{*}$ is computed as

[TABLE]

where $N({{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}}\rightarrow\mu^{+}\mu^{-})$ is the number of reconstructed prompt ${{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}}$ or ${{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}}$-from-$b$-hadrons signal mesons, $\epsilon_{\text{tot}}$ is the total detection efficiency in the given kinematic bin, ${\cal B}({{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}}\rightarrow\mu^{+}\mu^{-})=(5.961\pm 0.033)\%$ [46] is the branching fraction of the decay ${{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}}\rightarrow\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$, \Delta\mbox{p_{\mathrm{T}}}=1{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern-1.00006ptV\!/}c} and $\Delta y^{*}=0.5$ are the bin widths and ${\cal L}$ is the integrated luminosity. The luminosity is determined with a van der Meer scan, which was performed for both beam configurations. The luminosity determination follows closely the approach described in Ref. [47].

3.1 Selection

An online event selection is performed by a trigger system consisting of a hardware stage, which, for this analysis, selects events containing at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ larger than 500${\mathrm{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV\!/}c}$, followed by a software stage. In the first stage of the software trigger, two muon tracks with \mbox{p_{\mathrm{T}}}>500{\mathrm{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV\!/}c} are required to form a ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ candidate with invariant mass $M_{\mu^{+}\mu^{-}}>2.5{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern-1.00006ptV\!/}c^{2}}$. In the second stage, ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ candidates with an invariant mass within 120${\mathrm{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV\!/}c^{2}}$ of the known value of the ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ mass [46] are selected.

In between the two software stages, the alignment and calibration of the detector is performed in near real-time [48]. The same alignment and calibration is propagated to the offline reconstruction, ensuring consistent and high-quality particle identification (PID) information between the online and offline processings. The identical performance of the online and offline reconstructions offers the opportunity to perform physics analyses directly using candidates reconstructed in the trigger [49, 50] as well as storing all reconstructed particles in the event [51]. The present analysis exploits this feature for the first time in proton-lead collisions and is using the online reconstruction.

At the analysis stage, each event is required to have at least one PV reconstructed from at least four tracks measured in the vertex detector. For events with multiple PVs, the PV that has the smallest $\chi^{2}_{\text{IP}}$ with respect to the ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ candidate is chosen. Here, $\chi^{2}_{\text{IP}}$ is defined as the difference between the vertex-fit $\chi^{2}$ calculated with the ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ meson candidate included in or excluded from the PV fit. Each identified muon track is required to have \mbox{p_{\mathrm{T}}}>750{\mathrm{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV\!/}c}, $2<\eta<5$ and to have a good-quality track fit. The two muon tracks of the ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ candidate must form a good-quality vertex, representing a tighter selection compared to the software trigger requirement.

3.2 Determination of signal yields

The reconstructed vertex of the ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ mesons originating from $b$-hadron decays tends to be separated from the PVs. These ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ mesons can thus be distinguished from prompt ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ mesons by exploiting the pseudo proper time defined as

[TABLE]

where $z_{{{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}}}$ and $z_{\rm PV}$ are the coordinates along the beam axis of the ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ decay vertex position and of the PV position, $p_{z}$ is the $z$ component of the ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ momentum and $M_{{{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}}}$ the known ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ mass. The yields of ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ signal candidates, for the prompt and ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$-from-$b$-hadrons categories, are determined from a simultaneous two-dimensional unbinned maximum likelihood fit to their invariant mass and pseudo proper time distributions, performed independently for each (\mbox{p_{\mathrm{T}}},y^{*}) bin.

In the fit function, the invariant-mass distribution of the signal is described by a Crystal Ball function [52], and the combinatorial background by an exponential function. The $t_{z}$ distribution of prompt ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ is described by a Dirac $\delta$-function $\delta(t_{z})$, and that of ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$-from-$b$-hadrons by an exponential function for $t_{z}>0$. Both of them are convolved with a triple-Gaussian resolution function, modelled from simulation samples to take into account the vertex resolution. The background $t_{z}$ distribution is described by an empirical function derived from the shape observed in the ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ upper mass sideband, $3200<M_{\mu^{+}\mu^{-}}<3250{\mathrm{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV\!/}c^{2}}$. This background comes from muons of semileptonic $b$- and $c$-hadron decays and from pions and kaons decaying in the detector. The distribution is parameterised as a sum of a Dirac $\delta$-function and of five exponential functions, three for positive $t_{z}$ values and two for negative $t_{z}$ values, convolved with the sum of two Gaussian functions. An example of the invariant mass and the pseudo proper time distributions for one (\mbox{p_{\mathrm{T}}},y^{*}) bin is shown in Fig. 1 for the $p$Pb and Pb$p$ samples, where the one-dimensional projections of the fit result are drawn on the distributions. The width of the Gaussian part of the Crystal Ball function varies as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ between $10{\mathrm{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV\!/}c^{2}}$ ($15{\mathrm{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV\!/}c^{2}}$) and $15{\mathrm{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV\!/}c^{2}}$ ($33{\mathrm{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV\!/}c^{2}}$) in the lowest (highest) rapidity bins in the laboratory frame in both beam configurations. Due to the rapidity shifts between the laboratory frame and the nucleon-nucleon centre-of-mass frames, the two examples do not correspond to the same rapidity range in the laboratory while they are in the same $|y^{*}|$ range and, in this example, the mass resolution in the Pb$p$ configuration is different from the one in the $p$Pb configuration.

3.3 Efficiencies

The total detection efficiency, $\epsilon_{\rm tot}$, is the product of the geometrical acceptance, and the efficiencies for charged track reconstruction, particle identification, candidate and trigger selections. Samples of simulated events are used to evaluate these efficiencies except for the particle identification, which is determined in a data-driven approach. In the simulation, $p$Pb and Pb$p$ minimum-bias collisions are generated using the Epos event generator tuned with the LHC model [53]. The ${{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}}\rightarrow\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ signal candidates are generated separately, with the Pythia8 generator [54] in $pp$ collisions with beams having momenta equal to the momenta per nucleon of the $p$ and Pb beams. They are then merged with the Epos minimum bias collisions to build the samples out of which the efficiencies are computed. The decays of hadrons are generated by EvtGen [55], in which final-state electromagnetic radiation is generated with Photos [56]. The interaction of the particles with the detector, and the detector response, are implemented using the Geant4 toolkit [57, *Agostinelli:2002hh] as described in Ref. [59].

The charged-track reconstruction efficiency is first evaluated in simulation and is corrected using a data-driven tag-and-probe approach. For this purpose, ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ candidates are formed with one fully-reconstructed “tag” track and one “probe” track reconstructed partially with a subset of the tracking sub-detectors and both identified as muons [60] in data and in simulation. The ratio of the single track efficiencies from this tag-and-probe approach is used as a correction factor. These correction factors for each track are then applied to the signal candidates in the simulation to obtain the integrated efficiency in every kinematic bin. The tag-and-probe correction evaluation is relying on the $p$Pb and the Pb$p$ data samples, since the larger tracking calibration samples in $pp$ collisions are limited in detector occupancy by an additional selection criterion on trigger level.

The muon identification efficiency is determined for each track in data with a tag-and-probe method [61] taking into account the efficiency variations as function of track momentum, pseudorapidity and detector occupancy. Calibration samples of ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ mesons are selected applying a tight identification criterion on one of the muons and no identification requirements to the second muon. However, the sizes of the calibration samples collected in $p$Pb and Pb$p$ collisions are limited. The efficiency is thus evaluated using the calibration samples collected in $pp$ collisions, taking into account the different detector occupancies between $pp$, $p$Pb and Pb$p$ collisions, since this parameter affects the muon identification performance. The ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ simulation is weighted with the efficiencies determined per track in data in order to compute the muon identification efficiency in bins of ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and $y^{*}$.

The hardware and software trigger efficiencies obtained from the simulation are validated by comparing them with the efficiencies measured in control data samples recorded with minimum and unbiased trigger requirements, and containing ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ candidates.

The total efficiency in each (\mbox{p_{\mathrm{T}}},y^{*}) bin, $\epsilon_{\text{tot}}$, is found to be the same for prompt ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ and ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$-from-$b$-hadrons within uncertainties and is taken to be identical for the two components. It is shown in Fig. 2 for $p$Pb and Pb$p$ collision data, as a function of the ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the different rapidity bins. The uncertainties are the quadratic sums of the statistical uncertainties and the uncertainties associated to the data-driven corrections and validations, described in the following section.

4 Systematic uncertainties

The systematic uncertainties on the cross-section of prompt ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ and ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$-from-$b$-hadrons are summarised in Table 1 and described in the following. The total detection efficiency $\epsilon_{\text{tot}}$ for prompt ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ and ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$-from-$b$ is found to be equal within the statistical precision of the simulation and all systematic uncertainties apply both for prompt ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ and ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$-from-$b$. Acceptance and reconstruction efficiencies of the ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ vector meson depend on its polarisation at production. The ALICE and the LHCb measurements in $pp$ collisions [62, 63] indicate a polarisation consistent with zero in most of the kinematic region of the analysis presented in this letter. In this analysis, it is assumed that the ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ mesons are produced with no polarisation in $p$Pb and Pb$p$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=8.16\,{\rm TeV}$. No systematic uncertainty is assigned for the effects of polarisation.

The uncertainty on the ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$-meson yields, related to the modelling of the signal mass shape in the simultaneous mass and $t_{z}$ fit, is studied using an alternative fit model. In this model, the signal mass shape is described by the sum of a Crystal Ball function and of a Gaussian function. The relative difference of the signal yields between the nominal and alternative fits amounts to 1.3%, which is taken as a fully correlated systematic uncertainty between bins. The uncertainty associated to the shape of the $t_{z}$ distribution is negligible.

The uncertainty on the muon identification has multiple contributions. The statistical uncertainty of the efficiencies is derived from the calibration sample. The impact of the finite binning in muon momentum, pseudorapidity and detector occupancy on the efficiencies is estimated by varying the binning scheme. Finally, an uncertainty due to the method to determine the number of signal candidates in the calibration samples is also considered. The total systematic uncertainty due to these three sources varies between 2% and 15%. It is assumed to be fully correlated between bins. This assumption is valid for neighbouring bins in acceptance. The bias introduced by this assumption in the evaluation of the total systematic uncertainty on integrated quantities is negligible.

The data-driven corrections to the track reconstruction efficiency carry uncertainties related to the statistical uncertainties of the data, dominating in most bins. In addition, a systematic uncertainty is related to a potential bias of the selection criteria which are necessary to obtain a good signal over background ratio for the determination of the efficiency corrections. A systematic uncertainty related to the method is applied similarly to $pp$ collisions and amounts to 0.8% per track [60]. The total uncertainty related to charged track reconstruction varies from 3.0% to 8.0% for $p$Pb and 5.9% to 26.5% for Pb$p$, correlated between bins. The uncertainty in the Pb$p$ case is larger due to the smaller signal over background ratio for the partially reconstructed candidates used in the data-driven tag-and-probe method compared to the $p$Pb case. The assumption on the correlation is valid for neighbouring bins. The introduced bias in the evaluation of the total systematic uncertainty on integrated quantities is negligible. The largest uncertainties appear at low track momenta and hence low ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ $p_{\mathrm{T}}$.

The trigger efficiency is determined in data and in simulation by the data-driven method described in the previous section and in Ref. [49]. The uncertainties related to the trigger are estimated by comparing the results in simulation and in data. The uncertainty on the hardware trigger efficiency is found to vary between 1% and 11%, and the uncertainty on the software trigger efficiency is estimated to amount to 2%. The trigger uncertainties are assumed to be fully correlated between bins.

The finite size of the simulation event sample used for the efficiency determination introduces a systematic uncertainty, which varies between 0.4% and 26.2% between the kinematic bins of the $p$Pb and the Pb$p$ simulation. The largest relative values appear at high $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and large rapidities and do not dominate the overall uncertainties. They differ between the $p$Pb and Pb$p$ case due to the different rapidity coverage in the centre-of-mass system. The branching fraction contributes to the cross-section uncertainty with 0.05%. The luminosity measurement uncertainty amounts to 2.6% in $p$Pb and to 2.5% in Pb$p$ collisions. The uncertainty on all other applied selections is found to be negligible based on comparisons between data and simulation signal distributions of selection and kinematics variables.

5 Results

5.1 Cross-sections

The measured double-differential cross-sections of prompt ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ and ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$-from-$b$-hadrons in the $p$Pb and Pb$p$ data samples are shown in Fig. 3, as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for the considered $y^{*}$ bins. The numerical values are presented in Appendices A.1–A.4. The total cross-sections, integrated over the measurement ranges, amount to

[TABLE]

where the first uncertainties are statistical and the second systematic.

The fraction of ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$-from-$b$-hadrons, $f_{b}$, is derived from the cross-section measurements. The fraction $f_{b}$ is defined as

[TABLE]

Most of the systematic uncertainties cancel in the determination of $f_{b}$, which can thus be measured precisely. The values of $f_{b}$ as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the different $y^{*}$ bins are shown in Fig. 4 for $p$Pb and Pb$p$ and listed in Appendices A.5 and A.6. The values of $f_{b}$ measured in $pp$ collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of $8\,\rm{TeV}$ [64], are shown on the same figure for comparison. The differences that appear between the measurements performed in the two collision systems indicate, particularly at low $p_{\mathrm{T}}$, different nuclear modifications for prompt ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ and $b$-quark production.

The focus of this publication is the quantification of the nuclear effects, comparing in particular the ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ production in proton-lead collisions with that in $pp$ collisions at the same energy. Following the same approach as in the previous LHCb publication on ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ production in $p$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5\,{\rm TeV}$ [27], a $pp$ reference cross-section at $\sqrt{s}=8.16\,{\rm TeV}$ is determined from an interpolation of the LHCb cross-section measurements at $7\,{\rm TeV}$ [65], $8\,{\rm TeV}$ [64] and $13\,{\rm TeV}$ [45]. The extracted reference cross-section is in agreement with the measured cross-section at $\sqrt{s}=8\,{\rm TeV}$. For the edges of the rapidity range in $p$Pb collisions ($1.5<y^{*}<2.0$) and in Pb$p$ collisions ($4.5<y^{*}<5.0$), which are not covered by the measurements in $pp$ collisions, an extrapolation is used based on the experimental measurements. The interpolation and the extrapolation methods were validated with ALICE and LHCb data and are described in Ref. [66].

The cross-section as a function of $y^{*}$, integrated over $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the range 0<\mbox{p_{\mathrm{T}}}<14{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern-1.00006ptV\!/}c} in $p$Pb and Pb$p$ collisions, is shown in Fig. 5. The cross-section is compared with the reference cross-section for prompt ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ and ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$-from-$b$-hadrons production in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8.16\,{\rm TeV}$, multiplied by the Pb mass number $A=208$. The total relative uncertainties on the $pp$ cross-section range between $3$% and $11$% and are largest in the bins based on extrapolations. The cross-sections as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$, integrated over the range $1.5<y^{*}<4.0$ for $p$Pb and $-5.0<y^{*}<-2.5$ for Pb$p$, and the corresponding scaled $pp$ cross-sections are represented in Fig. 6. In this case, the total relative uncertainties on the $pp$ reference cross-section vary between $3$% and $18$%.

5.2 Nuclear modification factors

The nuclear modification factor $R_{p{\rm Pb}}$ defined in Eq. (1) is computed from the prompt ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ and ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$-from-$b$-hadrons production cross-sections in $pp$ and $p$Pb or Pb$p$ collisions. The systematic uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated between the measurements in proton-lead and in $pp$ collisions. The nuclear modification factors for prompt ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ and ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$-from-$b$-hadrons production as functions of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ or $y^{*}$, integrating over the other variable, are shown in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. The numerical values are available in Appendix B. The results at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5\,{\rm TeV}$ [27] are also depicted on Fig. 8 and are in good agreement with the new and more precise results at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=8.16\,{\rm TeV}$.

At forward rapidity, $1.5<y^{*}<4.0$, a strong suppression of up to 50% is observed in the case of prompt ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ production at low $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ (Fig. 7). This behaviour results in a strong suppression in the nuclear modification factor as a function of rapidity shown in Fig. 8. With increasing $p_{\mathrm{T}}$, $R_{p{\rm Pb}}$ approaches unity and the suppression is stronger at more forward rapidities. The production of ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$-from-$b$-hadrons is also suppressed compared to that in $pp$ collisions at forward rapidities, although to a lesser degree, as shown in Fig. 8. No dependence as a function of rapidity can be observed within the experimental uncertainties. The dependence as a function of the transverse momentum is weaker for ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$-from-$b$-hadrons compared to prompt ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$, but the nuclear modification factor is also approaching unity at high transverse momentum.

At backward rapidity, $-5.0<y^{*}<-2.5$, a weaker suppression of prompt ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ production at low $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ is observed, of up to 25%. Similarly to the forward-rapidity region, the suppression is weakening and the nuclear modification factor is approaching values consistent with unity at high transverse momentum. The nuclear modification factor as a function of rapidity shows a weak suppression with no visible rapidity dependence within experimental uncertainties. The nuclear modification factor of ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$-from-$b$-hadrons at backward rapidity is consistent with unity over the full kinematic region.

The measurements of prompt ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ nuclear modification factors are compared in Figs. 7 and 8 with three groups of calculations:

collinear factorisation using different nPDFs [67, 68] (labelled “HELAC-Onia with EPS09LO”, “HELAC-Onia with nCTEQ15” and “HELAC-Onia with EPS09NLO” on the figures), 2. 2.

CGC effective field theory in the dilute-dense approximation taking into account the dense nature of the Pb nucleus, but approximating the proton as a dilute parton source [24, 69] (labelled “CGC”), 3. 3.

coherent energy loss calculating the impact of low angle coherent gluon radiation during the crossing of the nucleus [25] (labelled “Energy Loss”).

The CGC calculations [24, 69] describe well the behaviour of the prompt ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ data at forward rapidity. At backward rapidity, this approach is not available due to the breakdown of the dilute approximation for the partons in the proton. The uncertainties take into account the variation of the charm-quark mass and the factorisation scale. These uncertainties largely cancel in this ratio of cross-sections. The collinear calculations are based on the HELAC-Onia event generator [67, 68], tuned to reproduce prompt ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ cross-section measurements in $pp$ collision [21] and combined with different sets of nPDFs: nCTEQ15 [14] and EPS09 at leading (LO) and at next-to-leading order (NLO) [12]. However, the large uncertainties reveal the missing experimental constraints on the gluon density in the nucleus at low $x$ probed by the measurements in the LHCb detector acceptance. At backward rapidities, the experimental points are found at the lower bound or slightly below the theoretical uncertainty bands and exhibit a different rapidity shape from the calculations. The coherent energy loss model [25] is able to provide the overall shape of the suppression, but overestimates the experimental data at forward rapidities. The uncertainty of this calculation reflects the allowed variation of the parameterisation of $pp$ data used in the model and the allowed variation of the only free model parameter from fits to other measurements.

The measurements of ${{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}}$-from-$b$-hadrons nuclear modification factors are compared in Figs. 7 and 8 with a perturbative QCD calculation at fixed-order next-to-leading-logarithms (FONLL) [70, 71] coupled with the EPS09 nPDF set at next-to-leading order [12] (labelled “FONLL with EPS09NLO” on the figures). The displayed uncertainties correspond to the uncertainties from the nPDF, which are of similar size to or smaller than the total experimental uncertainties. The $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ dependence of the experimental data is described within uncertainties by the model. However, the calculation tends to show larger nuclear modification factors than the data. This tendency is confirmed by the nuclear modification factor as a function of rapidity, where the most precise experimental data points are below the model uncertainty band. Furthermore, at backward rapidity, the slope of the theoretical curve is not seen in the experimental data.

Finally, recent measurements have shown that long-range collective effects, which have previously been observed in relatively large nucleus-nucleus collision systems, may also be present in smaller collision systems at large charged-particle multiplicites [72, 73, 74, 75]. If these effects have a hydrodynamic origin, momentum anisotropies at the quark level can arise and may modify the distribution of observed heavy-quark hadrons [76]. However, the expected magnitude of these effects on prompt ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ or ${{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}}$-from-$b$-hadrons production has not yet been calculated. Since the measurements in this letter are integrated over charged-particle multiplicity, potential modifications in high-multiplicity events are diluted.

5.3 Forward-to-backward ratios

Figures 9 and 10 show the forward-to-backward ratio, $R_{\rm FB}$, of the production of prompt ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ and ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$-from-$b$-hadrons, in the overlapping acceptance between the two beam configurations, as functions of transverse momentum and rapidity, respectively. The numerical results are listed in Appendix C. In the $R_{\rm FB}$ ratio, most of the systematic uncertainties cancel. The measurements of $R_{\rm FB}$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5\,{\rm TeV}$ [27] are compared with the measurements at $8.16\,{\rm TeV}$ and are found to be in agreement. They are compared with the theoretical computations based on collinear factorisation with different nPDFs described in the previous section.

The calculations with different nPDFs do not fully cover the experimental points within uncertainties in particular at low $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ with the exception of the EPS09LO combination, which has considerably larger uncertainties. However, a detailed analysis of theoretical correlations in the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$-dependent $R_{\rm FB}$ may be interesting for future studies in order to quantify more precisely the discrepancies. The coherent energy loss calculation is compared with the rapidity dependence of the experimental data points in Fig. 10. It shows within its small uncertainties a slightly different slope from the experimental data points and predicts larger values in the bin at smallest $|y^{*}|$.

The $R_{\rm FB}$ ratio of ${{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}}$-from-b-hadrons in Fig. 9 shows a rising trend as a function of transverse momentum starting from a value 0.7 at low $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ towards values consistent with unity at high $p_{\mathrm{T}}$. The rapidity dependence of $R_{\rm FB}$ in Fig. 10 is consistent with a flat behaviour with a central value of 0.8.

6 Conclusions

The differential production cross-sections of prompt ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ and ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$-from-$b$-hadrons in $p$Pb and Pb$p$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=8.16\,{\rm TeV}$ are measured in the range 0<\mbox{p_{\mathrm{T}}}<14{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern-1.00006ptV\!/}c}. The nuclear modification factors are similar to the findings at a collision energy of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5\,{\rm TeV}$, but with increased precision thanks to 10 and 40 times larger data sets in $p$Pb and Pb$p$ collisions, respectively. A suppression of prompt ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ production compared to $pp$ collisions of up to 50% (25%) in $p$Pb (Pb$p$) at the lowest transverse momentum is observed. In both configurations, the nuclear modification factor approaches unity asymptotically at the highest $p_{\mathrm{T}}$. Theoretical calculations for the nuclear modification factor based on collinear factorisation with different nuclear parton distribution functions, coherent energy loss as well as the colour glass condensate model can account for the majority of the observed dependences. For the first time, beauty-hadron production is measured precisely down to \mbox{p_{\mathrm{T}}}=0 at the LHC in $p$Pb and Pb$p$ collisions. In $p$Pb, a weak suppression at the lowest transverse momenta is observed, whereas in Pb$p$ no significant deviation from unity in the nuclear modification factor is found. This weak modification of beauty production in proton-ion collisions is an important ingredient for the investigation of the modifications of beauty production in heavy-ion collisions. Although the presented measurements have improved precision, it is not possible to single out the main nuclear modification mechanism between different phenomenological approaches for charmonium production in proton-lead collisions at the TeV scale. This measurement of ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ production is the first step towards measurements of other charmonium states as well as complementary observables like Drell-Yan production, to improve the understanding of quantum chromodynamics at low $x$ and in dense nuclear environments.

Acknowledgements

We thank G. Bruno, B. Ducloué, H. Shao, J.-Ph. Lansberg and F. Arléo for providing theoretical predictions of ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ production in $p$Pb and Pb$p$ collisions in the LHCb acceptance range. We express our gratitude to our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the excellent performance of the LHC. We thank the technical and administrative staff at the LHCb institutes. We acknowledge support from CERN and from the national agencies: CAPES, CNPq, FAPERJ and FINEP (Brazil); MOST and NSFC (China); CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG and MPG (Germany); INFN (Italy); NWO (The Netherlands); MNiSW and NCN (Poland); MEN/IFA (Romania); MinES and FASO (Russia); MinECo (Spain); SNSF and SER (Switzerland); NASU (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); NSF (USA). We acknowledge the computing resources that are provided by CERN, IN2P3 (France), KIT and DESY (Germany), INFN (Italy), SURF (The Netherlands), PIC (Spain), GridPP (United Kingdom), RRCKI and Yandex LLC (Russia), CSCS (Switzerland), IFIN-HH (Romania), CBPF (Brazil), PL-GRID (Poland) and OSC (USA). We are indebted to the communities behind the multiple open source software packages on which we depend. Individual groups or members have received support from AvH Foundation (Germany), EPLANET, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions and ERC (European Union), Conseil Général de Haute-Savoie, Labex ENIGMASS and OCEVU, Région Auvergne (France), RFBR and Yandex LLC (Russia), GVA, XuntaGal and GENCAT (Spain), Herchel Smith Fund, The Royal Society, Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851 and the Leverhulme Trust (United Kingdom).

Appendices

Appendix A Cross-section numerical results

A.1 $\bm{\frac{{\rm d}^{2}\sigma}{{\rm d}p_{\rm T}{\rm d}y^{*}}}$ for prompt $\bm{J}\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\bm{\psi}\mskip 2.0mu$ in $\bm{p}$Pb

A.2 $\bm{\frac{{\rm d}^{2}\sigma}{{\rm d}p_{\rm T}{\rm d}y^{*}}}$ for $\bm{J}\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\bm{\psi}\mskip 2.0mu$-from-$\bm{b}$-hadrons in $\bm{p}$Pb

A.3 $\bm{\frac{{\rm d}^{2}\sigma}{{\rm d}p_{\rm T}{\rm d}y^{*}}}$ for prompt $\bm{J}\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\bm{\psi}\mskip 2.0mu$ in Pb$\bm{p}$

A.4 $\bm{\frac{{\rm d}^{2}\sigma}{{\rm d}p_{\rm T}{\rm d}y^{*}}}$ for $\bm{J}\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\bm{\psi}\mskip 2.0mu$-from-$\bm{b}$-hadrons in Pb$\bm{p}$

A.5 Fraction of $\bm{J}\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\bm{\psi}\mskip 2.0mu$-from-$\bm{b}$-hadrons in $\bm{p}$Pb

A.6 Fraction of $\bm{J}\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\bm{\psi}\mskip 2.0mu$-from-$\bm{b}$-hadrons in Pb$\bm{p}$

Appendix B Nuclear modification factor numerical results

B.1 $\bm{R_{p{\rm Pb}}}$ for prompt $\bm{J}\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\bm{\psi}\mskip 2.0mu$

B.2 $\bm{R_{p{\rm Pb}}}$ for $\bm{J}\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\bm{\psi}\mskip 2.0mu$-from-$\bm{b}$-hadrons

Appendix C Forward-to-backward ratios numerical results

C.1 $\bm{R_{{\rm FB}}}$ for prompt $\bm{J}\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\bm{\psi}\mskip 2.0mu$

C.2 $\bm{R_{{\rm FB}}}$ for $\bm{J}\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\bm{\psi}\mskip 2.0mu$-from-$\bm{b}$-hadrons