Charged-particle nuclear modification factors in PbPb and pPb collisions at \( \sqrt{s_{\mathrm{N}\;\mathrm{N}}}=5.02 \) TeV

Journal of High Energy Physics, Apr 2017

The spectra of charged particles produced within the pseudorapidity window |η| < 1 at \( \sqrt{s_{\mathrm{N}\;\mathrm{N}}}=5.02 \) TeV are measured using 404 μb−1 of PbPb and 27.4 pb−1 of pp data collected by the CMS detector at the LHC in 2015. The spectra are presented over the transverse momentum ranges spanning 0.5 < p T < 400 GeV in pp and 0.7 < p T < 400 GeV in PbPb collisions. The corresponding nuclear modification factor, R AA, is measured in bins of collision centrality. The R AA in the 5% most central collisions shows a maximal suppression by a factor of 7-8 in the p T region of 6-9 GeV. This dip is followed by an increase, which continues up to the highest p T measured, and approaches unity in the vicinity of p T = 200 GeV. The R AA is compared to theoretical predictions and earlier experimental results at lower collision energies. The newly measured pp spectrum is combined with the pPb spectrum previously published by the CMS collaboration to construct the pPb nuclear modification factor, R pA, up to 120 GeV. For p T > 20 GeV, R pA exhibits weak momentum dependence and shows a moderate enhancement above unity.

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

Charged-particle nuclear modification factors in PbPb and pPb collisions at \( \sqrt{s_{\mathrm{N}\;\mathrm{N}}}=5.02 \) TeV

Received: November psNN Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet 0 1 2 Ecole Polytechnique 0 1 2 IN 0 1 2 P 0 1 2 -CNRS 0 1 2 Palaiseau 0 1 2 0 Joint Institute for Nuclear Research , Dubna , Russia 1 University , Tehran , Iran 2 University , Budapest , Hungary The spectra of charged particles produced within the pseudorapidity window j j < 1 at psNN = 5:02 TeV are measured using 404 b 1 of PbPb and 27.4 pb 1 of pp data collected by the CMS detector at the LHC in 2015. The spectra are presented over the transverse momentum ranges spanning 0:5 < pT < 400 GeV in pp and 0:7 < pT < 400 GeV in PbPb collisions. The corresponding nuclear modi cation factor, RAA, is measured in bins of collision centrality. The RAA in the 5% most central collisions shows a maximal suppression by a factor of 7{8 in the pT region of 6{9 GeV. This dip is followed by an increase, which continues up to the highest pT measured, and approaches unity in the vicinity of pT = 200 GeV. The RAA is compared to theoretical predictions and earlier experimental results at lower collision energies. The newly measured pp spectrum is combined with the pPb spectrum previously published by the CMS collaboration to construct the pPb nuclear modi cation factor, RpA, up to 120 GeV. For pT > 20 GeV, RpA exhibits weak momentum dependence and shows a moderate enhancement above unity. Heavy Ion Experiments; Quark Gluon Plasma; Relativistic heavy ion physics 1 Introduction 2 The CMS detector and data selection 3 Track reconstruction and corrections 4 Combination of data from di erent triggers 5 Systematic uncertainties 6 Results 7 Summary The CMS collaboration The charged-particle transverse momentum (pT) spectrum is an important tool for studying parton energy loss in the dense QCD medium, known as the quark gluon plasma (QGP), that is produced in high energy nucleus-nucleus (AA) collisions [1, 2]. In such collisions, high-pT particles, which originate from parton fragmentation, are sensitive to the amount of energy loss that the partons experience traversing the medium. By comparing highpT particle yields in AA collisions to predictions of theoretical models, insight into the fundamental properties of the QGP can be gained. Over the years, a number of results have been made available by experiments at SPS [3, 4], at RHIC [5{8], and at the CERN LHC [9{11]. The modi cation of high-pT particle production is typically quanti ed using the ratio of the charged-particle pT spectrum in AA collisions to that of pp collisions, scaled by the average number of binary nucleon-nucleon collisions, hNcolli. This quantity is known as the nuclear modi cation factor, RAA, and can also be formulated as function of pT as RAA(pT) = dN AA=dpT hNcollidN pp=dpT dN AA=dpT ; TAA d pp=dpT where N AA and N pp are the charged-particle yields in AA collisions and pp collisions, and pp is the charged-particle cross section in pp collisions. The ratio of hNcolli with the total function and can be calculated from a Glauber model of the nuclear collision geometry [12]. In this work we adopt natural units, such that c = 1. The factor of 5 suppression observed in the RAA of charged hadrons and neutral pions at RHIC [5{8] was an indication of strong medium e ects on particle production in the nal state. However, the RHIC measurements were limited to a pT range below 25 GeV and a collision energy per nucleon pair, p sNN, less than or equal to 200 GeV. The QGP is expected to have a size, lifetime, and temperature that are a ected by the collision energy. During the rst two PbPb runs, the LHC collaborations measured the charged-particle 150 GeV (ATLAS [10]). A suppression by a factor of about 7 was observed in the 5{10 GeV pT region [9{11]. At higher pT, the suppression was not as strong, approaching roughly a heavy ion data-taking period of the Run-2 at the LHC, PbPb collisions at p factor of 2 for particles with pT in the range of 40{100 GeV. At the end of 2015, in the rst sNN = 5:02 TeV took place, allowing the study of the suppression of charged particles at a new collision energy frontier. Proton-proton data at the same collision energy were also taken, making direct comparison between particle production in pp and PbPb collisions possible. To gain access to the properties of the QGP, it is necessary to separate the e ects directly related to the hot partonic QCD system from those referred to as cold nuclear matter e ects. Measurements in proton-nucleus collisions can be used for this purpose. RpA using measured charged-particle spectra in pPb collisions at p The CMS Collaboration has previously published results for the nuclear modi cation factor sNN = 5:02 TeV and a pp reference spectrum constructed by interpolation from previous measurements at higher and lower center-of-mass energies [13]. The asterisk in the notation refers to this usage of an interpolated reference spectrum. Similarly interpolation-based results are also available from the ATLAS [14] and the ALICE [15] experiments. With the pp data taken in 2015 at pp reference spectrum, becomes possible. In this paper, the spectra of charged particles in the pseudorapidity window j j < 1 in pp and PbPb collisions at p sNN = 5:02 TeV, as well as the nuclear modi cation factors, RAA and RpA, are presented. Throughout this paper, for each collision system, the pseudorapidity is computed in the center-of-mass frame of the colliding nucleons. The measured RAA is compared to model calculations, as well as to previous experimental results at lower The CMS detector and data selection The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6 m internal diameter, providing an axial magnetic eld of 3.8 T. Within the solenoid volume are a silicon pixel and strip tracker covering the range of j j < 2:5 [16], a lead tungstate crystal electromagnetic calorimeter, and a brass and scintillator hadron calorimeter, each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. Hadron forward calorimeters (HF), consisting of steel with embedded quartz bers, extend the calorimeter coverage up to j j < 5:2. Muons are measured in gas-ionization detectors embedded in the steel ux-return yoke outside the solenoid. A more detailed description of the CMS detector, together with a de nition of the coordinate system used and the relevant kinematic variables, can be found in ref. [16]. for the centrality ranges used in this paper. The measurement of RAA is performed using the 2015 pp and PbPb data taken at while the PbPb sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 404 b 1. For pp collisions the average pileup (the mean of the Poisson distribution of the number of collisions per bunch crossing) was approximately 0.9. For the measurement of RpA, 35 nb 1 of sNN = 5:02 TeV pPb data are used. The collision centrality in PbPb events, i.e. the degree of overlap of the two colliding nuclei, is determined from the total transverse energy, ET, deposition in both HF calorimeters. Collision-centrality bins are given in percentage ranges of the total hadronic cross section, 0{5% corresponding to the 5% of collisions with the largest overlap of the two nuclei. The collision centrality can be related to properties of the PbPb collisions, such as the total number of binary nucleon-nucleon collisions, Ncoll. The calculation of these properties is based on a Glauber model of the incoming nuclei and their constituent nucleons [12, 17], as well as studies of bin-to-bin smearing, which is evaluated by examining the e ects of nite resolution on fully simulated and reconstructed events [18]. The calculated average Ncoll and TAA values corresponding to the centrality ranges used, along with their systematic uncertainties, are listed in table 1. The inel utilized in the Glauber calculation is 70 The nuclear radius and skin depth are 6:62 0:06 fm and 0:546 0:010 fm, respectively, and a minimal distance between nucleons of 0:04 0:04 fm is imposed [20]. In this paper, only TAA is used in the calculation of RAA, as given by the last formula in eq. (1.1). The CMS online event selection employs a hardware-based level-1 trigger (L1) and a software-based high-level trigger (HLT). Minimum-bias pp and PbPb collisions were selected using an HF-based L1 trigger requiring signals above threshold in either one (pp) or both (PbPb) sides of HF calorimeters. These data were utilized to access the lowpT kinematic region of charged particles. In order to extend the pT reach of the results reported in this paper, events selected by jet triggers were used. High-pT track triggers were also employed, but only as a cross-check of the result obtained with jet triggers. L1 thresholds [GeV] HLT thresholds [GeV] MB, 28, 40, 48 12, 24, 34, 45, 53 40, 60, 80, 100 analysis for the two colliding systems. Please refer to the text about the exact meaning of the thresholds. Only the highest-threshold triggers collected data unprescaled. The MB symbol refers to seeding by a minimum-bias trigger. At the L1 stage, the jet-triggered events in pp and PbPb collisions were selected by requiring the presence of L1-reconstructed jets above various ET thresholds, listed in table 2. While the lower-threshold triggers had to be prescaled because of the high instantaneous luminosity of the LHC, the highest threshold trigger was always unprescaled. In PbPb collisions, the L1 jet trigger algorithms performed an online event-by-event underlying-event subtraction, estimating the energy of the underlying event by averaging the deposited calorimeter ET in rings of azimuthal angle ( , in radians) as a function of , for each event separately. Events triggered by high-pT tracks in pp collisions were selected by the same L1 jet triggers as described above. In PbPb collisions, a special algorithm based on the ET of the highest-ET underlying-event subtracted calorimeter trigger region ( in the central (j j < 1:044) detector area was employed. The presence of a high-pT track is better correlated with the presence of a high-ET trigger region than with the presence of a multiregion-wide L1 jet. Therefore, seeding the high-pT track triggers with the former algorithm leads to a lower overall L1 trigger rate. This was an important consideration in PbPb collisions, while it had much less importance in pp ones. Both the jet and the track triggers had variants selecting only PbPb collision events of speci c centralities. This was made possible by an L1 algorithm, which estimated the collision centrality based on the sum of the ET deposited in the HF calorimeter regions. The measurement of PbPb spectra reported in this paper makes use of such triggers to increase the number of events in peripheral centrality bins. At the HLT, online versions of the pp and PbPb o ine calorimeter jet and track reconstruction algorithms were run. In pp collisions, events selected by high-level jet triggers contain calorimeter clusters which are above various pT values (table 2) in the j j < 5:1 region. Such clusters were produced with the anti-kT algorithm [21, 22] of distance paramand a calibrated absolute response in pT. In this con guration, the 80 GeV threshold trigand corrected after the energy due to the heavy-ion underlying event was subtracted in an -dependent way [23]. Triggers with thresholds on the jet energy from 40 to 100 GeV were employed. The independent high-pT track triggers looked for a track in the j j < 2:4 (pp) and j j < 1:05 (PbPb) regions above di erent pT thresholds, listed in table 2. Events selected for o ine analysis are required to pass a set of selection criteria designed to reject events from background processes (beam-gas collisions and beam scraping events). Events are required to have at least one reconstructed primary interaction vertex with at least two associated tracks. In pp collisions, the events are also required to have at least 25% of the tracks passing a tight track-quality selection requirement [24]. In PbPb collisions, the shapes of the clusters in the pixel detector are required to be compatible with those expected from particles produced by a PbPb collision. The PbPb collision event is also required to have at least three towers in each of the HF detectors with energy deposits of more than 3 GeV per tower. Track reconstruction and corrections The distributions reported in this paper are for primary charged particles. Primary charged particles are required to have a mean proper lifetime greater than 1 cm. The daughters of secondary decays are considered primary only if the mother particle had a mean proper lifetime less than 1 cm. Additionally, charged particles resulting from interactions with detector material are not considered primary particles. The track reconstruction used in pp collisions for this study is described in ref. [24]. In PbPb collisions, minor modi cations are made to the pp algorithm in order to accommodate the much larger track multiplicities. Only tracks in the range j j < 1 are used. Tracks are required to have a relative pT uncertainty of less than 10% in PbPb collisions and 30% in pp collisions. In PbPb collisions, tracks must also have at least 11 hits and satisfy a stringent t quality requirement, speci cally that the 2, divided by both the number of degrees of freedom and the number of tracker layers hit, be less than 0.15. To decrease the likelihood of counting nonprimary charged particles originating from secondary decay products, a selection requirement of less than 3 standard deviations is applied on the signi cance of the distance of closest approach to at least one primary vertex in the event, for both collision systems. Finally, a selection based on the relationship of a track to calorimeter energy deposits along its trajectory is applied in order to curtail the contribution of misreconstructed tracks with very high pT. Tracks with pT > 20 GeV are required to have an associated energy deposit [25] of at least half their momentum in the CMS calorimeters. This requirement was determined by comparing the distributions of the associated deposits for genuine and misreconstructed tracks in simulated events to tracks reconstructed in real data. The e ciency of the calorimeter-matching requirement is 98% (95%) in PbPb (pp) data for tracks selected for analysis by the previously mentioned other track selection criteria. To correct for ine ciencies associated with the track reconstruction algorithms, simulated Monte Carlo (MC) samples are used. For pp collision data, these are generated with pythia 8.209 [26] tune CUETP8M1 [27] minimum-bias, as well as QCD dijet samples binned in the transverse momentum of the hard scattering, p^T. For PbPb collision data, hydjet 1.9 [28] minimum-bias events and hydjet-embedded pythia QCD dijet events are used. In the embedding procedure, a high-p^T pythia event is combined with a minimumbias hydjet event with the same vertex location. The combined event is then used as input to the full simulation of the CMS detector response. In general the tracking e ciency, de ned as the fraction of primary charged particles successfully reconstructed, is non-unitary due to algorithmic ine ciencies and detector acceptance e ects. Furthermore, misreconstruction, where a track not corresponding to any charged particle is errantly reconstructed, can inject extra tracks into the analysis. Finally, tracks corresponding to products of secondary interactions or decays, which still pass all track selection criteria and are therefore selected for analysis, must also be taken into account. Corrections for these e ects are applied on a track-by-track basis, and take into consideration the properties of each track: pT, , , and radial distance of the track from the closest jet axis. The functional dependence of the corrections is assumed to factorize into the product of four single-variable functions in separate classes of track kinematics properties. This factorization is only approximate because of correlations between the variables. These correlations are accounted for in a systematic uncertainty. The tracking e ciency in pp is between 80 and 90% for most of the pT range studied, except for pT > 150 GeV, where it decreases to 70%. The pp track misreconstruction rate and secondary rate are found to be less than 3% and 1%, respectively, in each pT bin examined. Owing to the dependence of the tracking e ciency on detector occupancy, the event centrality is also taken into account in the correction procedure for PbPb collisions. Additionally, to account for the slightly the simulation during this calculation. The e ciency of the PbPb track reconstruction algorithm and track selection criteria for minimum-bias events is approximately 40% at 0.7 GeV. It then increases rapidly to around 65% at 1 GeV, where it reaches a plateau. It starts to decrease from pT values of around 100 GeV until it reaches about 50% at 400 GeV. This e ciency is also centrality dependent; the pT-inclusive value is approximately 60% for central events and 75% for peripheral events. In general, the PbPb misreconstruction and secondary rates are very small because of the strict selection criteria applied to the tracks. The misreconstruction rate does increase at low track pT and also slightly at very high pT, to around 1.5%. Below 1 GeV it increases to 10% for the most central events. These numbers are in line with the expected tracking performance based on previous stud sNN = 2:76 TeV [29]. ies of similar tracking algorithms in pp collisions at p s = 7 TeV [24] and PbPb collisions Particles of di erent species have di erent track reconstruction and selection e ciencies at the same pT. As di erent MC event generators model the relative fractions of the particle species di erently, the computed tracking e ciencies for inclusive primary charged particles depend on which MC generator is used to evaluate the correction. Notably, the reconstruction e ciency for primary charged strange baryons is very low, as they decay before leaving a su cient number of tracker hits for direct reconstruction. In this measurement, the species-dependent track reconstruction e ciencies are rst calculated and then weighted with the corresponding particle fractions produced by pythia 8, tune CUETP8M1 and epos [30], tune LHC [31]. pythia is expected to underpredict the fraction of strange baryons present in PbPb collisions, while epos overpredicts strange baryon production in central collisions at lower collision center-of-mass energies [32]. Therefore we choose a working point between these two models by averaging the two sets of correction factors. The pT resolution of selected tracks in both pp and PbPb collisions remains below 2% up to 100 GeV. For higher pT it starts to increase, reaching about 6% at 400 GeV. The resulting change in the measured charged-particle yields introduced by the track resolution is found to be less than 1%. A correction is not made for this distortion, but rather the distortion is accounted for in the systematic uncertainty. The distortion of the shape of the pp pT distribution due to the event selection requirements is calculated by evaluating the e ciency of the selection in \zero bias" data. Zero bias data were selected solely based on whether there were lled bunches in both beams crossing each other in the CMS interaction region. Therefore, the zero bias data set provides an unbiased sample to study the e ciency of the minimum-bias trigger and of the o ine event selection. As a result of this study, a correction is applied for a small (less than 1%) distortion of the very low-pT spectrum due to valid events failing to pass the event selection. For the PbPb sample, the event selection is fully e cient from 0 to 90% event centrality classes. For quantities inclusive in centrality, the event selection e ciency 2% is corrected for. (Selection e ciencies higher than 100% are possible, re ecting the presence of ultra-peripheral collisions in the selected event sample.) Combination of data from di erent triggers To obtain the inclusive charged-particle spectra up to a few hundred GeV of transverse momenta, data recorded by the minimum-bias and jet triggers are combined. The procedure is outlined in refs. [11, 13]. The event-weighting factors corresponding to the various triggers are computed by counting the number of events that contain a leading jet (de ned as the jet with the highest pT in the event) in the range of j j < 2 with pT values in regions not a ected by trigger thresholds. In these regions, the trigger e ciency of the higher-threshold trigger is constant relative to that of the lower-threshold trigger. The ratio of the number of such events in the two triggered sets of data is used as a weighting factor. For example, the region above which the jet trigger with a pT threshold of 40 GeV has constant e ciency is determined by comparing the pT distribution of the leading jets to that of the minimumbias data. Similarly, the constant e ciency region of the 60 GeV jet trigger is determined by comparison to the 40 GeV jet trigger, etc. To determine the inclusive particle spectrum, events are rst uniquely classi ed into leading jet pT classes. The pp spectra are constructed by taking events from the minimumbias, 40 GeV jet, 60 GeV jet, 80 GeV jet, and 100 GeV jet triggers, for each respective class. The particle spectra are evaluated in each class separately, and then combined using the normalization factors described in the previous paragraph. The procedure outlined above is veri ed by constructing a charged-particle spectrum from an alternative combination of event samples triggered by high-pT track triggers. The nal spectra are found to be consistent with each other. In PbPb collisions, the overall normalization of the combined spectrum is performed using the number of minimum-bias events in the appropriate centrality range. In pp collisions, the normalization is set by the integrated luminosity. > 60 GeV / Jet p > 40 GeV eVG10?4 ( k dtr 3 dp10?6 t 1 N1ve0?8 10?10 10?12 10?14 range from various triggers, after the data have been normalized to one another. Lines have been added to guide the eye. Right: contributions from the various jet triggers (colored histograms) to the combined, but otherwise uncorrected, track spectrum (black markers) in the 0{5% centrality range in PbPb collisions. The statistical uncertainties are smaller than the size of the data markers. The ratio of the normalized distribution of the leading jet pT from minimum-bias and from various jet-triggered data in PbPb collisions in the 0{30% centrality range can be seen in the left panel of gure 1. The constant-e ciency regions are selected to be above pT of 60, 80, 100, and 120 GeV for the triggers having a threshold of 40, 60, 80, and 100 GeV, respectively. The contribution from each of the data sets selected by the di erent jet trigger thresholds to the combined, but otherwise uncorrected, track spectrum in the 0{5% centrality range can be seen in the right panel of gure 1. The combined spectrum includes contributions from each jet trigger threshold data set at each charged-particle pT bin, although the relative contributions of the di erent data sets naturally vary strongly as a function of pT. The scheme outlined above is slightly modi ed for the combination of the spectra using events from the 0{30% centrality range. In that range, due to the large minimum-bias data set and the absence of the peripheral-speci c jet triggers (see section 2), the minimum-bias data provide higher statistical power than the data triggered with the 40 GeV jet trigger. Thus, the data from this jet trigger path are not used, and the minimum-bias sample is combined with the higher-threshold jet-triggered sample. The 40 GeV jet trigger is shown in gure 1 for illustration. Systematic uncertainties The systematic uncertainties in uencing the measurement of the spectra of charged particles in pp and PbPb collisions as well as the RAA are presented in table 3. The ranges quoted cover both the pT and the centrality dependence of the uncertainties. In the following, each source of systematic uncertainty is discussed separately, including a discussion on the cancellation of the spectra uncertainties in RAA. Particle species composition. As described in section 3, the tracking corrections used in the analysis correspond to a particle species composition that lies halfway between that from pythia 8, tune CUETP8M1 and epos, tune LHC. We assign the di erence between these corrections and the corrections given by the pythia 8 or the epos particle compositions as a systematic uncertainty in the pp and PbPb spectra. The systematic uncertainty has a strong pT dependence, directly related to how much the two models di er at a given pT. Below a pT of around 1.5 GeV, the uncertainty is 1% both in pp and PbPb data. For higher pT, the uncertainty increases rapidly with pT, reaching a value of about 8% (pp) and 13.5% (PbPb in the 0{5% centrality range) at 3 GeV, followed by a steady decrease to 1% at and above 10 GeV. The uncertainties are evaluated in bins of centrality, resulting in higher uncertainties for more central events. For RAA, the conservative assumption of no cancellation of this uncertainty is made, resulting in uncertainty values between 1.5 and 15.5%. MC/data tracking e ciency di erence. The di erence in the track reconstruction e ciency in pp data and pp simulation was studied by comparing the relative fraction of reconstructed D mesons in the D channels in simulated and data events, following ref. [33]. Additional comparisons were made between track quality variables before track selections in both pp and PbPb data and simulation. Based on these two studies, pT-independent uncertainties of 4% (pp) and 5% (PbPb) are assigned. To study the potential cancellation of the pp and PbPb uncertainties in RAA, an examination of the relative di erence between pp and PbPb of MC/data tracking e ciency discrepancies is performed. First, the ratio of the uncorrected track spectra in data in the 30{100% centrality bin is computed using the pp and the PbPb reconstruction algorithms. The same ratio is also evaluated using MC events as inputs. Finally, the ratio of the previously-computed MC and data ratios is constructed. Assuming that the misreconstruction rate in data and MC is the same, this double ratio is proportional to the relative MC/data tracking e ciency di erence between pp and PbPb. Small di erences between data and MC, which break the assumption on the misreconstruction rate, are accounted for with the \fraction of misreconstructed tracks" systematic uncertainty discussed later in this section. Based on this study, an uncertainty ranging from 2% (70{90% centrality bin) to 6.5% (0{30% centrality bins) is assigned to the RAA measurement. Tracking correction procedure. The accuracy of the tracking correction procedure is tested in simulated events by comparing the fully corrected track spectrum to the spectrum of simulated particles. In such comparisons, di erences smaller than 1% (pp) and 3% (PbPb) are observed. The main source of the di erences is the fact that the tracking e ciency only approximately factorizes into single-variable functions of track pT, track and , event centrality, and radial distance of the tracks from jets in the bins of track pT and event centrality used for the calculation of the tracking correction factors. Such di erences in the tracking corrections are one of the two sources Particle species composition MC/data tracking e ciency di erence Tracking correction procedure PbPb track selection Fraction of misreconstructed tracks Event selection correction Glauber model uncertainty (TAA) pT and the centrality dependence of the uncertainties. The combined uncertainty in RAA does not include the integrated luminosity and the TAA uncertainties. of systematic uncertainty in the derivation of tracking correction factors considered in this analysis. The second source of systematic uncertainty is related to only having a limited number of simulated events to determine the correction factors. While this uncertainty for pp collisions is negligible, for PbPb collisions it can reach 3% and is accounted for in a pT and centrality-dependent way. No cancellation of the tracking correction uncertainties in pp and PbPb collisions is assumed in the computation of RAA. PbPb track selection. The track selection criteria are stricter in PbPb than in pp collisions. Selecting on more track quality variables naturally introduces a larger dependence on the underlying MC/data (dis)agreement for the track quality variables in question. To study the e ect of such disagreements, the reconstruction of charged-particle spectra was repeated using looser track selection criteria. Based on the di erences observed in the fully corrected spectra, an uncertainty of 4% is assigned for the PbPb spectra, as well as in RAA. Pileup. In this analysis, tracks compatible with any of the primary vertices are selected. To assess the possible e ect of pileup on the particle spectrum, the spectrum was recomputed using only single-vertex collision events. Based on the di erences observed in the shape of the spectra, a systematic uncertainty of 3% is evaluated. For PbPb collisions, the much smaller pileup is found to have a negligible e ect on the reported charged-particle spectra. Consequently, the 3% uncertainty in the pp spectrum is propagated to RAA. Fraction of misreconstructed tracks. The fraction of misreconstructed tracks is computed from simulated events. To account for possible di erences in the misreconstruction fraction between simulated and data events, the total amount of the corrections, less than 3% in pp and less than 1.5% in PbPb collisions, is assigned as a systematic uncertainty in the charged-particle spectra in a pT-dependent fashion. These uncertainties are conservatively assumed to not cancel for the calculation of the uncertainty in RAA. The method of combining the di erent triggers used in this analysis relies on the calculation of overlaps in the leading jet spectra between the di erent triggers. The calculated trigger weights are subject to statistical uctuations due to a statistically limited data sample. To assess the corresponding uncertainty in RAA, the uncertainties on the trigger weights associated to each trigger path are weighted according to the fraction of the particle spectrum that the trigger contributes in a given pT bin. The overall uncertainty is found to range from negligible to 1%. The uncertainty is highest for peripheral events and increases with pT. Momentum resolution. The variation of the yield of charged particles in any given pT bin due to the nite resolution of the track reconstruction is evaluated using simulated events. The yields are found to only change by around 1% both in pp and PbPb collisions. For RAA, the same 1% systematic uncertainty is conservatively assigned. Event selection correction. The bias resulting from the event selection conditions on the shape of the pp spectrum and RAA distributions is corrected by a procedure, which directly evaluates the event selection e ciency based on zero-bias data alone (see section 3). To estimate the corresponding systematic uncertainty, the event selection correction is also evaluated using simulated events. The charged-particle pT distribution in pp and the RAA distribution, reconstructed with the MC-based alternative event selection correction, are found to di er by less than 1% from the main result. For centrality-inclusive PbPb quantities, an uncertainty due to event selection is combined with the TAA uncertainty. Glauber model uncertainty. The systematic uncertainty in the Glauber model normalization factor (TAA) ranges from 1.8% (in the 0{5% centrality bin) to 16.1% (in the 70{90% centrality bin). The uncertainties in the TAA values are derived from propagating the uncertainties in the event selection e ciency, and in the nuclear radius, skin depth, and minimum distance between nucleons in the Pb nucleus [20] parameters of the Glauber model. Integrated luminosity. The uncertainty in the integrated luminosity for pp collisions is 2.3%. For the PbPb analysis, no luminosity information is used as per-event yields classes, as well as in pp data. A factor of 70 mb is used to scale the pp spectrum from a di erential cross section to a per-event yield for direct comparison. The statistical uncertainties are smaller than the size of the markers for most points. (Bottom panel) Systematic uncertainties as a function of pT for representative data sets. The pp uncertainty contains a 2.3% fully correlated uncertainty in the pp integrated luminosity. The measured charged-particle spectra are shown in gure 2 for both pp and PbPb collisions 50{70%, and 70{90% centrality ranges, and are given as per-event di erential yields. The two most central bins have been scaled by constant factors of three and ten for visual clarity. The pp spectrum, for the purposes of measuring the RAA, is measured as a di erential cross section. In order to convert this quantity to a per-event yield for comparison on the same gure, a scaling factor of 70 mb, corresponding approximately to the total inelastic pp cross section, is applied. No correction is applied for the nite size of the pT bins; the points represent the average yield across the bin. The spectrum in pp collisions resembles a power law beyond a pT of around 5 GeV. In comparison, the spectra in central PbPb collisions are visibly modi ed, leading to pT-dependent structures in RAA. Representative systematic un CMS CMS measured in six di erent centrality ranges at p sNN = 5:02 TeV = 2:76 TeV from CMS [11] (all centrality bins), ALICE [9] (in the 0{5% and 5{10% centrality ranges), and ATLAS [10] (in the 0{5% centrality range). The yellow boxes represents the systematic uncertainty of the 5.02 TeV CMS points. certainties are shown in the lower panel for central and peripheral PbPb data, as well as for the pp data. The pp uncertainty shown includes a 2.3% correlated uncertainty coming from the use of the pp integrated luminosity in the determination of the spectrum normalization. The measured nuclear modi cation factors for primary charged particles in PbPb collisions are shown in gure 3. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The blue and gray boxes around unity show the TAA and pp luminosity uncertainties, respectively, while the yellow band represents the other systematic uncertainties as discussed in section 5. The RAA distributions show a characteristic suppression pattern over most of the pT range measured, having local maxima at about a pT of 2 GeV and local minima at around 7 GeV. These features are much stronger for central collisions than for peripheral ones, and are presumably the result of the competition between nuclear parton distribution function effects [34], radial ow [35], parton energy loss, and the Cronin e ect [36, 37], which all depend upon centrality. The suppression seen for 0{5% collisions is about 7{8 for pT of around 6{9 GeV. Above these pT values, radial ow is insigni cant and the shape of RAA is expected to be dominated by parton energy loss. At larger pT, RAA appears to exhibit a continuous rise up to the highest pT values measured, with RAA values approaching unity. On the other hand, the RAA for the 70{90% centrality class displays relatively little pT dependence. It is approximately centered around 0.75, albeit with a large systematic uncertainty which is dominated by a 16.1% contribution from the TAA uncertainty. In all centrality classes, the uncertainties show a characteristic increase in the 2{10 GeV pT region driven by the uncertainty due to the particle composition, which is largest in that region (see section 5). measurements at p The measured RAA distributions at p sNN = 5:02 TeV are also compared to the CMS sNN = 2:76 TeV [11] in gure 3. Additionally, for the 0{5% and 5{10% bins, results from one or both of the ALICE [9] and ATLAS [10] collaborations are shown. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties, while the boxes indicate all systematic uncertainties, other than the luminosity and TAA uncertainties, for both CMS measurements. The 2.76 TeV CMS measurement has a 6% pp luminosity uncertainty and a TAA uncertainty, which is similar to that for 5.02 TeV [11]. The measured RAA distributions at 2.76 and 5.02 TeV are quantitatively similar to each other. At pT values below about 7 GeV, the 5.02 TeV data tend to be higher, however the di erence is mostly covered by the systematic uncertainties of the respective measurements. It is worth noting that because of the di erent particle composition corrections applied in pp and PbPb at 5.02 TeV, the RAA is shifted upward by 1 to 5% in the pT region of 1{14 GeV compared to an RAA, where no such correction is applied, such as the 2.76 TeV CMS result. Above about 10 GeV and for central collisions, the 5.02 TeV RAA tends to be slightly smaller than the 2.76 TeV one. For peripheral collisions, we see the opposite trend. Figure 4 shows a comparison of the measured RAA distributions in the 0{10% and 30{50% centrality ranges to the predictions from models described in refs. [38{43]. The scetG model [38] is based on the generalization of the dglap evolution equations to include nal-state medium-induced parton showers combined with initial-state e ects. This model gives a good description of the measured data over the full pT range of the prediction, for pT between 5 and 200 GeV. In the Hybrid model [39], the in-medium rate of energy loss is predicted using a strongly coupled theory. This parametrization is then used to retroactively modify the particle shower produced by pythia 8.183. Hadronization is accomplished using the pythia implementation of the Lund string model [44]. The model tends to predict less suppression than the other models considered here, but is consistent with the measured data. The model of Bianchi et al. [40] attempts to use the scale-dependence of the QGP parton distribution function to describe data at both RHIC and the LHC. The calculation allows the medium transport coe cient, q^, to vary with the energy scale of jets traversing the medium. Although the model agrees with the data well at high pT, some discrepancy can be seen at the lower pT range of the prediction. The cujet 3.0 model [41] is constructed by generalizing the perturbative-QCD-based cujet 2.0 model built upon the Gyulassy-Levai-Vitev opacity series formalism [45]. These generalizations include two complementary nonperturbative features of the QCD con nement cross-over phase transition: suppression of quark and gluon degrees of freedom, and the emergence of chromomagnetic monopoles. For central collisions, the model predicts a suppression for charged hadrons plus neutral pions that is larger than seen in the data for charged particles. In the 30{50% centrality bin, however, the model is compatible with most of the data points. The prediction by Andres et al. [42] comes from using the 'quenching weights' formalism and tting a K factor to the inclusive particle suppression at LHC energies to parametrize the departure of q^ from an ideal estimate. The K factor used to determine the predicted suppression at 5.02 TeV is assumed to be the same as the one extracted from the t to the 2.76 TeV data. The predicted RAA shows a stronger suppression than the one seen in data. As the authors note in ref. [42], a K value needed to reproduce the CMS data is about 10% smaller than the one used. This indicates that the medium created at the higher collision energy is closer usphydro+BBMG model [43] couples event-by-event hydrodynamic ow and energy density pro les calculated with v-usphydro [47] to the BBMG jet-energy-loss framework [48]. For the curve shown in gure 4, it is assumed that the jet energy loss is proportional to the distance travelled in the medium, that the shear viscosity to entropy density ratio of the medium is 0.05 (less than the Kovtun-Son-Starinets boundary of 1/4 [49]), and that the freeze-out temperature is 160 MeV. The predicted RAA describes the data well lying on the lower edge of the range covered by the systematic uncertainties of the measurement. The evolution of central RAA with the collision center-of-mass energy, from the SPS [3, 4] to RHIC [50, 51], and then to the LHC [9{11], is presented in gure 5. The data from WA98 and PHENIX are for neutral pions, while the data given by NA49 and STAR are for charged pions and hadrons, respectively. The results from the present analysis are shown by the black dots. The error bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the yellow band surrounding the new p of the models of refs. [38{43] at p including that of the integrated luminosity (in the previous gures the luminosity uncertainty is shown along with the TAA uncertainty as a separate error box around unity). The TAA uncertainties, which are less than 5%, are not included in the gure. The prediction sNN = 5:02 TeV are also shown. The measured nuclear modi cation factors at all energies show a rising trend at low pT up to 2 GeV, followed by local minima at RHIC and the LHC at around 7 GeV. At higher pT, both the RHIC and LHC data show an increase of RAA with increasing pT. 0 1 0 1 represents the systematic uncertainty of the 5.02 TeV CMS points. As the collision energy increases, high pT charged-particle spectra atten and extend to larger values. If the average energy loss of a particle at a given pT is xed, this attening would cause RAA to exhibit less suppression. The similar RAA values measured at 2.76 and 5.02 TeV indicate that the e ect of attening spectra could be balanced by a larger average energy loss in the higher-energy collisions at a xed pT [2]. A similar argument could explain the relatively close proximity of the 200 GeV PHENIX and 5.02 TeV CMS measurements for particle pT >10 GeV, despite the latter having 25 times the collision energy. In order to better understand the relationship between the strong suppression seen in RAA and potential cold nuclear matter e ects, a previous RpA measurement, using 35 nb 1 using the pp reference spectrum measured in this paper at p s =5.02 TeV. In order to do sNN =5.02 TeV and an interpolated pp reference [13], is recalculated this, the corrections for the nite size of the pT bins applied to the published pPb data are removed, as such a correction is not applied to the pp spectrum measured here. An additional correction for the particle species composition in pPb collisions is calculated and applied in a fashion similar the measured pp spectrum. The previously published data [13] took this e ect into account with a systematic uncertainty, but the correction is applied here in order to bene t from potential cancellations arising from the use of similar analysis procedures on both spectra. The systematic uncertainty due to the particle composition e ect was then updated in order to re ect the presence of this additional correction. Figure 6 shows the comparison between the nuclear modi cation factors in inclusive pPb and PbPb collisions at p sNN = 5:02 TeV. At pT < 2 GeV a rising trend is seen in both systems, which in PbPb collisions is followed by a pronounced suppression in the 2 < pT < 10 GeV region, and a rising trend from around 10 GeV to the highest pT. In the pPb system, there is no suppression in the intermediate pT region, suggesting that in PbPb collisions the suppression is a hot medium e ect. Above pT > 10 GeV in the pPb system, a weak momentum dependence is seen leading to a moderate excess above unity at high pT. This excess is less pronounced than the one seen in RpA when using an CMS SPS 17.3 GeV (PbPb) LHC 5.02 TeV (PbPb) RHIC LHC 100 four di erent center-of-mass energies, for neutral pions (SPS, RHIC), charged hadrons (h ) (SPS, RHIC), and charged particles (LHC), from refs. [3, 4, 9{11, 50{52], compared to predictions of six tistical uncertainties. The yellow band around the 5.02 TeV CMS data points show the systematic uncertainties of this measurement, including that of the integrated luminosity. The TAA uncertainties, of the order of 5%, are not shown. Percentage values in parentheses indicate centrality ranges. interpolated pp reference spectrum [13]. At the pT value of the largest deviation, 65 GeV, 0:02 (stat)+00::1131 (syst), while RpA is 1:41 0:01 (stat)+00::2109 (syst). The RpA values above unity in the intermediate pT region are qualitatively similar to other observed enhancements due to the Cronin e ect and radial ow in pA and dA systems [37, 53]. Furthermore, the moderate excess above 10 GeV is suggestive of anti-shadowing e ects in the nuclear parton distribution function [34]. The transverse momentum spectra of charged particles in pp and PbPb collisions at ranges of 0.5{400 (pp) and 0.7{400 GeV (PbPb). Using these spectra, the nuclear modi cation factor RAA has been constructed in several bins of collision centrality. In the 0{5% higher pT, it exhibits a rise, reaching a value of RAA = 0:86 0:28 in the pT bin from 250 TpA uncertainty TAA uncertainty both PbPb and pPb collisions. The RpA values are formed using the previously published CMS pPb data [13] and the pp reference spectrum described in this paper. Please refer to the main text about the exact procedure followed. The green and yellow boxes show the systematic uncertainties for RpA and RAA, respectively, while the TpA, TAA, and pp luminosity uncertainties are shown as boxes at low pT around unity. to 400 GeV. As collisions become more peripheral, a weakening of both the magnitude and pT dependence of this suppression is observed. Comparisons of the measured RAA values to the 2.76 TeV results reveal similar pT dependence and similar suppression. Predictions of the high-pT RAA coming from the scetG, Hybrid, and v-usphydro+BBMG models are found to approximately reproduce the present data. In central collisions, the cujet 3.0 model and a model parametrizing the departure of the medium transport coe cient, q^, from an ideal estimate, both predict RAA suppressions that are slightly larger than seen in data. A model allowing q^ to vary is able to predict the data at high pT, but expects a larger suppression around 10 GeV. The nuclear modi cation factor in pPb collisions has been recomputed switching from an interpolation-based reference to the newly measured pp data observed in the 2{10 GeV region. A weak momentum dependence is seen for pT > 10 GeV in the pPb system, leading to a moderate excess above unity at high pT. The pPb and PbPb nuclear modi cation factors presented in this paper, covering pT ranges up to 120 and 400 GeV, respectively, provide stringent constraints on cold and hot nuclear matter e ects. Acknowledgments We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative sta s at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the success of the CMS e ort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the computing centers and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for delivering so e ectively the computing infrastructure essential to our analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following funding agencies: BMWFW and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RPF (Cyprus); SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC IUT and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of Finland, MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); OTKA and NIH (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM (Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); LAS (Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT, LNS, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom, RAS and RFBR (Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI and CPAN (Spain); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); MST (Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR and NSTDA (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); NASU and SFFR (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (U.S.A.). Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie programme and the European Research Council and EPLANET (European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A. P. Sloan Foundation; the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science Policy O ce; the Fonds pour la Formation a la Recherche dans l'Industrie et dans l'Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; the HOMING PLUS programme of the Foundation for Polish Science, co nanced from European Union, Regional Development Fund, the Mobility Plus programme of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, the National Science Center (Poland), contracts Harmonia 2014/14/M/ST2/00428, Opus 2013/11/B/ST2/04202, 2014/13/B/ST2/02543 and 2014/15/B/ST2/03998, Sonata-bis 2012/07/E/ST2/01406; the Thalis and Aristeia programmes co nanced by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund; the Programa Clar n-COFUND del Principado de Asturias; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century Project Advancement Project (Thailand); and the Welch Foundation, contract C-1845. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. stretched horizons, JHEP 10 (2003) 064 [hep-th/0309213] [INSPIRE]. [50] PHENIX collaboration, A. Adare et al., Neutral pion production with respect to centrality [arXiv:1208.2254] [INSPIRE]. dependence of high pT hadron suppression in Au+Au collisions at ultrarelativistic energies, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 172302 [nucl-ex/0305015] [INSPIRE]. (2008) 034906 [arXiv:0711.0547] [INSPIRE]. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 012301 [arXiv:1502.05382] [INSPIRE]. Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia V. Khachatryan, A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan Institut fur Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria W. Adam, E. Asilar, T. Bergauer, J. Brandstetter, E. Brondolin, M. Dragicevic, J. Ero, M. Flechl, M. Friedl, R. Fruhwirth1, V.M. Ghete, C. Hartl, N. Hormann, J. Hrubec, M. Jeitler1, A. Konig, I. Kratschmer, D. Liko, T. Matsushita, I. Mikulec, D. Rabady, N. Rad, B. Rahbaran, H. Rohringer, J. Schieck1, J. Strauss, W. Waltenberger, C.-E. Wulz1 Institute for Nuclear Problems, Minsk, Belarus O. Dvornikov, V. Makarenko, V. Zykunov National Centre for Particle and High Energy Physics, Minsk, Belarus V. Mossolov, N. Shumeiko, J. Suarez Gonzalez Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerpen, Belgium S. Alderweireldt, E.A. De Wolf, X. Janssen, J. Lauwers, M. Van De Klundert, H. Van Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, N. Van Remortel, A. Van Spilbeeck Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium S. Abu Zeid, F. Blekman, J. D'Hondt, N. Daci, I. De Bruyn, K. Deroover, S. Lowette, S. Moortgat, L. Moreels, A. Olbrechts, Q. Python, S. Tavernier, W. Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders, I. Van Parijs Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium H. Brun, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, H. Delannoy, G. Fasanella, L. Favart, R. Goldouzian, A. Grebenyuk, G. Karapostoli, T. Lenzi, A. Leonard, J. Luetic, T. Maerschalk, A. Marinov, A. Randle-conde, T. Seva, C. Vander Velde, P. Vanlaer, D. Vannerom, R. Yonamine, F. Zenoni, F. Zhang2 Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium A. Cimmino, T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, A. Fagot, G. Garcia, M. Gul, I. Khvastunov, D. Poyraz, S. Salva, R. Schofbeck, M. Tytgat, W. Van Driessche, E. Yazgan, N. Zaganidis Universite Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium H. Bakhshiansohi, C. Belu 3, O. Bondu, S. Brochet, G. Bruno, A. Caudron, S. De Visscher, C. Delaere, M. Delcourt, B. Francois, A. Giammanco, A. Jafari, P. Jez, M. Komm, G. Krintiras, V. Lemaitre, A. Magitteri, A. Mertens, M. Musich, C. Nuttens, K. Piotrzkowski, L. Quertenmont, M. Selvaggi, M. Vidal Marono, S. Wertz Universite de Mons, Mons, Belgium Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil W.L. Alda Junior, F.L. Alves, G.A. Alves, L. Brito, C. Hensel, A. Moraes, M.E. Pol, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato4, A. Custodio, E.M. Da Costa, G.G. Da Silveira5, D. De Jesus Damiao, C. De Oliveira Martins, S. Fonseca De Souza, L.M. Huertas Guativa, H. Malbouisson, D. Matos Figueiredo, C. Mora Herrera, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, W.L. Prado Da Silva, A. Santoro, A. Sznajder, E.J. Tonelli Manganote4, Universidade Estadual Paulista a, Universidade Federal do ABC b, S~ao Paulo, S. Ahujaa, C.A. Bernardesb, S. Dograa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M. Gregoresb, P.G. Mercadanteb, C.S. Moona, S.F. Novaesa, Sandra S. Padulaa, D. Romero Abadb, Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, So a, Bulgaria A. Aleksandrov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, M. Rodozov, S. Stoykova, G. Sultanov, M. VuUniversity of So a, So a, Bulgaria A. Dimitrov, I. Glushkov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov Beihang University, Beijing, China Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China M. Ahmad, J.G. Bian, G.M. Chen, H.S. Chen, M. Chen, Y. Chen7, T. Cheng, C.H. Jiang, D. Leggat, Z. Liu, F. Romeo, S.M. Shaheen, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, C. Wang, Z. Wang, H. Zhang, J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University, Y. Ban, G. Chen, Q. Li, S. Liu, Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang, Z. Xu Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia C. Avila, A. Cabrera, L.F. Chaparro Sierra, C. Florez, J.P. Gomez, C.F. Gonzalez Hernandez, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, J.C. Sanabria University of Split, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split, Croatia N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak, P.M. Ribeiro Cipriano, T. Sculac University of Split, Faculty of Science, Split, Croatia Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, K. Kadija, B. Mesic, S. Micanovic, L. Sudic, T. Susa University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus A. Attikis, G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos, P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski, D. Tsiakkouri Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic M. Finger8, M. Finger Jr.8 Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador Academy of Scienti c Research and Technology of the Arab Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt A.A. Abdelalim9;10, Y. Mohammed11, E. Salama12;13 National Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia M. Kadastik, L. Perrini, M. Raidal, A. Tiko, C. Veelken Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland P. Eerola, J. Pekkanen, M. Voutilainen Helsinki Institute of Physics, Helsinki, Finland J. Harkonen, T. Jarvinen, V. Karimaki, R. Kinnunen, T. Lampen, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Lehti, T. Linden, P. Luukka, J. Tuominiemi, E. Tuovinen, L. Wendland Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland J. Talvitie, T. Tuuva IRFU, CEA, Universite Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, B. Fabbro, J.L. Faure, C. Favaro, F. Ferri, S. Ganjour, S. Ghosh, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry, I. Kucher, E. Locci, M. Machet, J. Malcles, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M. Titov, A. Zghiche A. Abdulsalam, I. Antropov, S. Ba oni, F. Beaudette, P. Busson, L. Cadamuro, E. Chapon, C. Charlot, O. Davignon, R. Granier de Cassagnac, M. Jo, S. Lisniak, P. Mine, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, G. Ortona, P. Paganini, P. Pigard, S. Regnard, R. Salerno, Y. Sirois, T. Strebler, Y. Yilmaz, A. Zabi Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien, Universite de Strasbourg, Universite de Haute Alsace Mulhouse, CNRS/IN2P3, Strasbourg, France J.-L. Agram14, J. Andrea, A. Aubin, D. Bloch, J.-M. Brom, M. Buttignol, E.C. Chabert, N. Chanon, C. Collard, E. Conte14, X. Coubez, J.-C. Fontaine14, D. Gele, U. Goerlach, A.-C. Le Bihan, K. Skovpen, P. Van Hove Centre de Calcul de l'Institut National de Physique Nucleaire et de Physique des Particules, CNRS/IN2P3, Villeurbanne, France Universite de Lyon, Universite Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3, Institut de Physique Nucleaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, C.A. Carrillo Montoya, R. Chierici, D. Contardo, B. Courbon, P. Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fan, J. Fay, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, G. Grenier, B. Ille, F. Lagarde, I.B. Laktineh, M. Lethuillier, L. Mirabito, A.L. Pequegnot, S. Perries, A. Popov15, D. Sabes, V. Sordini, M. Vander Donckt, P. Verdier, S. Viret Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia T. Toriashvili16 Z. Tsamalaidze8 Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen, Germany C. Autermann, S. Beranek, L. Feld, A. Heister, M.K. Kiesel, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, A. Ostapchuk, M. Preuten, F. Raupach, S. Schael, C. Schomakers, J. Schulz, T. Verlage, H. Weber, V. Zhukov15 RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany A. Albert, M. Brodski, E. Dietz-Laursonn, D. Duchardt, M. Endres, M. Erdmann, S. Erdweg, T. Esch, R. Fischer, A. Guth, M. Hamer, T. Hebbeker, C. Heidemann, K. Hoepfner, S. Knutzen, M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, P. Millet, S. Mukherjee, M. Olschewski, K. Padeken, T. Pook, M. Radziej, H. Reithler, M. Rieger, F. Scheuch, L. Sonnenschein, RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany V. Cherepanov, G. Flugge, B. Kargoll, T. Kress, A. Kunsken, J. Lingemann, T. Muller, A. Nehrkorn, A. Nowack, C. Pistone, O. Pooth, A. Stahl17 Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany M. Aldaya Martin, T. Arndt, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, K. Beernaert, O. Behnke, U. Behrens, A.A. Bin Anuar, K. Borras18, A. Campbell, P. Connor, C. Contreras-Campana, F. Costanza, C. Diez Pardos, G. Dolinska, G. Eckerlin, D. Eckstein, T. Eichhorn, E. Eren, E. Gallo19, J. Garay Garcia, A. Geiser, A. Gizhko, J.M. Grados Luyando, P. Gunnellini, A. Harb, J. Hauk, M. Hempel20, H. Jung, A. Kalogeropoulos, O. Karacheban20, M. Kase mann, J. Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, I. Korol, D. Krucker, W. Lange, A. Lelek, J. Leonard, K. Lipka, A. Lobanov, W. Lohmann20, R. Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, A.B. Meyer, G. Mittag, J. Mnich, A. Mussgiller, E. Ntomari, D. Pitzl, R. Placakyte, A. Raspereza, B. Roland, M.O . Sahin, P. Saxena, T. Schoerner-Sadenius, C. Seitz, S. Spannagel, N. Stefaniuk, G.P. Van Onsem, R. Walsh, C. Wissing University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany Institut fur Experimentelle Kernphysik, Karlsruhe, Germany M. Akbiyik, C. Barth, S. Baur, C. Baus, J. Berger, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, F. Colombo, W. De Boer, A. Dierlamm, S. Fink, B. Freund, R. Friese, M. Gi els, A. Gilbert, P. Goldenzweig, D. Haitz, F. Hartmann17, S.M. Heindl, U. Husemann, I. Katkov15, S. Kudella, H. Mildner, M.U. Mozer, Th. Muller, M. Plagge, G. Quast, K. Rabbertz, S. Rocker, F. Roscher, M. Schroder, I. Shvetsov, G. Sieber, H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, S. Wayand, M. Weber, T. Weiler, S. Williamson, C. Wohrmann, R. Wolf Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics (INPP), NCSR Demokritos, Aghia I. Topsis-Giotis G. Anagnostou, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, V.A. Giakoumopoulou, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece S. Kesisoglou, A. Panagiotou, N. Saoulidou, E. Tziaferi University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece I. Evangelou, G. Flouris, C. Foudas, P. Kokkas, N. Loukas, N. Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, E. Paradas { 28 { MTA-ELTE Lendulet CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, Hungary Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi23, A. Makovec, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary M. Bartok22, P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari National Institute of Science Education and Research, Bhubaneswar, India S. Bahinipati, S. Choudhury24, P. Mal, K. Mandal, A. Nayak25, D.K. Sahoo, N. Sahoo, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, R. Chawla, U.Bhawandeep, A.K. Kalsi, A. Kaur, M. Kaur, R. Kumar, P. Kumari, A. Mehta, M. Mittal, J.B. Singh, G. Walia University of Delhi, Delhi, India Ashok Kumar, A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, S. Keshri, S. Malhotra, M. Naimuddin, N. Nishu, K. Ranjan, R. Sharma, V. Sharma Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata, India R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, K. Chatterjee, S. Dey, S. Dutt, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh, N. Majumdar, A. Modak, K. Mondal, S. Mukhopadhyay, S. Nandan, A. Purohit, A. Roy, D. Roy, S. Roy Chowdhury, S. Sarkar, M. Sharan, S. Thakur Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras, India Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India R. Chudasama, D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, A.K. Mohanty17, P.K. Netrakanti, L.M. Pant, P. Shukla, A. Topkar Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A, Mumbai, India T. Aziz, S. Dugad, G. Kole, B. Mahakud, S. Mitra, G.B. Mohanty, B. Parida, N. Sur, B. Sutar { 29 { Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India S. Banerjee, S. Bhowmik26, R.K. Dewanjee, S. Ganguly, M. Guchait, Sa. Jain, S. Kumar, M. Maity26, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, T. Sarkar26, N. Wickramage27 Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, India S. Chauhan, S. Dube, V. Hegde, A. Kapoor, K. Kothekar, S. Pandey, A. Rane, S. Sharma Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran S. Chenarani28, E. Eskandari Tadavani, S.M. Etesami28, A. Fahim29, M. Khakzad, M. Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri, S. Paktinat Mehdiabadi30, F. Rezaei Hosseinabadi, B. Safarzadeh31, M. Zeinali University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland M. Felcini, M. Grunewald INFN Sezione di Bari a, Universita di Bari b, Politecnico di Bari c, Bari, Italy M. Abbresciaa;b, C. Calabriaa;b, C. Caputoa;b, A. Colaleoa, D. Creanzaa;c, L. Cristellaa;b, N. De Filippisa;c, M. De Palmaa;b, L. Fiorea, G. Iasellia;c, G. Maggia;c, M. Maggia, G. Minielloa;b, S. Mya;b, S. Nuzzoa;b, A. Pompilia;b, G. Pugliesea;c, R. Radognaa;b, A. Ranieria, G. Selvaggia;b, A. Sharmaa, L. Silvestrisa;17, R. Vendittia;b, P. Verwilligena INFN Sezione di Bologna a, Universita di Bologna b, Bologna, Italy G. Abbiendia, C. Battilana, D. Bonacorsia;b, S. Braibant-Giacomellia;b, L. Brigliadoria;b, R. Campaninia;b, P. Capiluppia;b, A. Castroa;b, F.R. Cavalloa, S.S. Chhibraa;b, G. Codispotia;b, M. Cu ania;b, G.M. Dallavallea, F. Fabbria, A. Fanfania;b, D. Fasanellaa;b, P. Giacomellia, C. Grandia, L. Guiduccia;b, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, A. Montanaria, F.L. Navarriaa;b, A. Perrottaa, A.M. Rossia;b, T. Rovellia;b, G.P. Sirolia;b, N. Tosia;b;17 INFN Sezione di Catania a, Universita di Catania b, Catania, Italy S. Albergoa;b, S. Costaa;b, A. Di Mattiaa, F. Giordanoa;b, R. Potenzaa;b, A. Tricomia;b, INFN Sezione di Firenze a, Universita di Firenze b, Firenze, Italy G. Barbaglia, V. Ciullia;b, C. Civininia, R. D'Alessandroa;b, E. Focardia;b, P. Lenzia;b, M. Meschinia, S. Paolettia, G. Sguazzonia, L. Viliania;b;17 INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy L. Benussi, S. Bianco, F. Fabbri, D. Piccolo, F. Primavera17 INFN Sezione di Genova a, Universita di Genova b, Genova, Italy V. Calvellia;b, F. Ferroa, M. Lo Veterea;b, M.R. Mongea;b, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia;b INFN Sezione di Milano-Bicocca a, Universita di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, INFN Sezione di Napoli a, Universita di Napoli 'Federico II' b, Napoli, Italy, Universita della Basilicata c, Potenza, Italy, Universita G. Marconi d, Roma, S. Buontempoa, N. Cavalloa;c, G. De Nardo, S. Di Guidaa;d;17, M. Espositoa;b, F. Fabozzia;c, F. Fiengaa;b, A.O.M. Iorioa;b, G. Lanzaa, L. Listaa, S. Meolaa;d;17, P. Paoluccia;17, C. Sciaccaa;b, F. Thyssena INFN Sezione di Padova a, Universita di Padova b, Padova, Italy, Universita di Trento c, Trento, Italy P. Azzia;17, N. Bacchettaa, L. Benatoa;b, D. Biselloa;b, A. Bolettia;b, R. Carlina;b, P. Checchiaa, M. Dall'Ossoa;b, P. De Castro Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa, U. Dossellia, F. Gasparinia;b, U. Gasparinia;b, A. Gozzelinoa, S. Lacapraraa, M. Margonia;b, A.T. Meneguzzoa;b, J. Pazzinia;b, N. Pozzobona;b, P. Ronchesea;b, F. Simonettoa;b, E. Torassaa, S. Venturaa, M. Zanetti, P. Zottoa;b, G. Zumerlea;b INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Universita di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy A. Braghieria, A. Magnania;b, P. Montagnaa;b, S.P. Rattia;b, V. Rea, C. Riccardia;b, P. Salvinia, I. Vaia;b, P. Vituloa;b INFN Sezione di Perugia a, Universita di Perugia b, Perugia, Italy L. Alunni Solestizia;b, G.M. Bileia, D. Ciangottinia;b, L. Fanoa;b, P. Laricciaa;b, R. Leonardia;b, G. Mantovania;b, M. Menichellia, A. Sahaa, A. Santocchiaa;b INFN Sezione di Pisa a, Universita di Pisa b, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa c, Pisa, Italy K. Androsova;32, P. Azzurria;17, G. Bagliesia, J. Bernardinia, T. Boccalia, R. Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia;32, R. Dell'Orsoa, S. Donatoa;c, G. Fedi, A. Giassia, M.T. Grippoa;32, F. Ligabuea;c, T. Lomtadzea, L. Martinia;b, A. Messineoa;b, F. Pallaa, A. Rizzia;b, A. SavoyNavarroa;33, P. Spagnoloa, R. Tenchinia, G. Tonellia;b, A. Venturia, P.G. Verdinia INFN Sezione di Roma a, Universita di Roma b, Roma, Italy L. Baronea;b, F. Cavallaria, M. Cipriania;b, D. Del Rea;b;17, M. Diemoza, S. Gellia;b, E. Longoa;b, F. Margarolia;b, P. G. Organtinia;b, R. Paramattia, F. Preiatoa;b, S. Rahatloua;b, C. Rovellia, F. Santanastasioa;b INFN Sezione di Torino a, Universita di Torino b, Torino, Italy, Universita del Piemonte Orientale c, Novara, Italy N. Amapanea;b, R. Arcidiaconoa;c;17, S. Argiroa;b, M. Arneodoa;c, N. Bartosika, R. Bellana;b, C. Biinoa, N. Cartigliaa, F. Cennaa;b, M. Costaa;b, R. Covarellia;b, A. Deganoa;b, N. Demariaa, L. Fincoa;b, B. Kiania;b, C. Mariottia, S. Masellia, E. Migliorea;b, V. Monacoa;b, E. Monteila;b, M. Montenoa, M.M. Obertinoa;b, L. Pachera;b, N. Pastronea, M. Pelliccionia, G.L. Pinna Angionia;b, F. Raveraa;b, A. Romeroa;b, M. Ruspaa;c, R. Sacchia;b, K. Shchelinaa;b, V. Solaa, A. Solanoa;b, A. Staianoa, INFN Sezione di Trieste a, Universita di Trieste b, Trieste, Italy S. Belfortea, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, G. Della Riccaa;b, A. Zanettia Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, M.S. Kim, S. Lee, S.W. Lee, Y.D. Oh, S. Sekmen, D.C. Son, A. Lee Chonbuk National University, Jeonju, Korea Chonnam National University, Institute for Universe and Elementary Particles, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, T.J. Kim Korea University, Seoul, Korea S. Lee, J. Lim, S.K. Park, Y. Roh Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, D. Gyun, S. Ha, B. Hong, Y. Jo, Y. Kim, B. Lee, K. Lee, K.S. Lee, J. Almond, J. Kim, H. Lee, S.B. Oh, B.C. Radburn-Smith, S.h. Seo, U.K. Yang, H.D. Yoo, M. Choi, H. Kim, J.H. Kim, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park, G. Ryu, M.S. Ryu Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea Y. Choi, J. Goh, C. Hwang, J. Lee, I. Yu Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania V. Dudenas, A. Juodagalvis, J. Vaitkus { 32 { National Centre for Particle Physics, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, I. Heredia-De La Cruz36, A. Hernandez-Almada, R. Lopez-Fernandez, R. Magan~a Villalba, J. Mejia Guisao, A. Sanchez-Hernandez Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City, Mexico S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, F. Vazquez Valencia Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico S. Carpinteyro, I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada Universidad Autonoma de San Luis Potos , San Luis Potos , Mexico A. Morelos Pineda University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan A. Ahmad, M. Ahmad, Q. Hassan, H.R. Hoorani, W.A. Khan, A. Saddique, M.A. Shah, M. Shoaib, M. Waqas National Centre for Nuclear Research, Swierk, Poland H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, T. Frueboes, M. Gorski, M. Kazana, K. Nawrocki, K. Romanowska-Rybinska, M. Szleper, P. Zalewski Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk37, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J. Krolikowski, M. Misiura, M. Olszewski, M. Walczak Laboratorio de Instrumentac~ao e F sica Experimental de Part culas, Lisboa, S. Afanasiev, P. Bunin, M. Gavrilenko, I. Golutvin, I. Gorbunov, A. Kamenev, V. Karjavin, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev38;39, V. Palichik, V. Perelygin, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, N. Skatchkov, V. Smirnov, N. Voytishin, A. Zarubin Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg), Russia L. Chtchipounov, V. Golovtsov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim40, E. Kuznetsova41, V. Murzin, V. Oreshkin, V. Sulimov, A. Vorobyev Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, M. Kirsanov, N. Krasnikov, A. Pashenkov, D. Tlisov, A. Toropin Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, V. Popov, I. Pozdnyakov, G. Safronov, A. Spiridonov, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A. Zhokin Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology A. Bylinkin39 National Research Nuclear University 'Moscow Engineering Physics Institute' (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia R. Chistov42, O. Markin, S. Polikarpov P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia V. Andreev, M. Azarkin39, I. Dremin39, M. Kirakosyan, A. Leonidov39, A. Terkulov Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, A. Baskakov, A. Belyaev, E. Boos, A. Ershov, A. Gribushin, A. Kaminskiy43, O. Kodolova, V. Korotkikh, I. Lokhtin, I. Miagkov, S. Obraztsov, S. Petrushanko, V. Savrin, A. Snigirev, Novosibirsk State University (NSU), Novosibirsk, Russia V. Blinov44, Y.Skovpen44, D. Shtol44 State Research Center of Russian Federation, Institute for High Energy Physics, Protvino, Russia I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, S. Bitioukov, D. Elumakhov, V. Kachanov, A. Kalinin, D. Konstantinov, V. Krychkine, V. Petrov, R. Ryutin, A. Sobol, S. Troshin, N. Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov { 34 { University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia P. Adzic45, P. Cirkovic, D. Devetak, M. Dordevic, J. Milosevic, V. Rekovic nologicas (CIEMAT), Madrid, Spain J. Alcaraz Maestre, M. Barrio Luna, E. Calvo, M. Cerrada, M. Chamizo Llatas, N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris, A. Escalante Del Valle, C. Fernandez Bedoya, J.P. Fernandez Ramos, J. Flix, M.C. Fouz, P. Garcia-Abia, O. Gonzalez Lopez, S. Goy Lopez, J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa, E. Navarro De Martino, A. Perez-Calero Yzquierdo, J. Puerta Pelayo, A. Quintario Olmeda, I. Redondo, L. Romero, M.S. Soares Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain J.F. de Troconiz, M. Missiroli, D. Moran Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain J. Cuevas, J. Fernandez Menendez, I. Gonzalez Caballero, J.R. Gonzalez Fernandez, E. Palencia Cortezon, S. Sanchez Cruz, I. Suarez Andres, J.M. Vizan Garcia Instituto de F sica de Cantabria (IFCA), CSIC-Universidad de Cantabria, I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, J.R. Castin~eiras De Saa, E. Curras, M. Fernandez, J. GarciaFerrero, G. Gomez, A. Lopez Virto, J. Marco, C. Martinez Rivero, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno, L. Scodellaro, N. Trevisani, I. Vila, R. Vilar CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland D. Abbaneo, E. Au ray, G. Auzinger, M. Bachtis, P. Baillon, A.H. Ball, D. Barney, P. Bloch, A. Bocci, A. Bonato, C. Botta, T. Camporesi, R. Castello, M. Cepeda, G. Cerminara, M. D'Alfonso, D. d'Enterria, A. Dabrowski, V. Daponte, A. David, M. De Gruttola, A. De Roeck, E. Di Marco46, M. Dobson, B. Dorney, T. du Pree, D. Duggan, M. Dunser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, S. Fartoukh, G. Franzoni, J. Fulcher, W. Funk, D. Gigi, K. Gill, M. Girone, F. Glege, D. Gulhan, S. Gundacker, M. Gutho , J. Hammer, P. Harris, J. Hegeman, V. Innocente, P. Janot, J. Kieseler, H. Kirschenmann, V. Knunz, A. Kornmayer17, M.J. Kortelainen, K. Kousouris, M. Krammer1, C. Lange, P. Lecoq, C. Lourenco, M.T. Lucchini, L. Malgeri, M. Mannelli, A. Martelli, F. Meijers, J.A. Merlin, S. Mersi, E. Meschi, P. Milenovic47, F. Moortgat, S. Morovic, M. Mulders, H. Neugebauer, M. Pierini, A. Racz, T. Reis, G. Rolandi48, M. Rovere, M. Ruan, H. Sakulin, J.B. Sauvan, C. Schafer, C. Schwick, M. Seidel, A. Sharma, P. Silva, P. Sphicas49, J. Steggemann, M. Stoye, Y. Takahashi, M. Tosi, D. Treille, A. Triossi, A. Tsirou, V. Veckalns50, G.I. Veres22, M. Verweij, N. Wardle, H.K. Wohri, A. Zagozdzinska37, W.D. Zeuner Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland W. Bertl, K. Deiters, W. Erdmann, R. Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C. Kaestli, D. Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, T. Rohe Institute for Particle Physics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland F. Bachmair, L. Bani, L. Bianchini, B. Casal, G. Dissertori, M. Dittmar, M. Donega, C. Grab, C. Heidegger, D. Hits, J. Hoss, G. Kasieczka, P. Lecomtey, W. Lustermann, B. Mangano, M. Marionneau, P. Martinez Ruiz del Arbol, M. Masciovecchio, M.T. Meinhard, D. Meister, F. Micheli, P. Musella, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, F. Pandol , J. Pata, F. Pauss, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, M. Quittnat, M. Rossini, M. Schonenberger, A. Starodumov51, V.R. Tavolaro, K. Theo latos, R. Wallny Universitat Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland T.K. Aarrestad, C. Amsler52, L. Caminada, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, C. Galloni, A. Hinzmann, T. Hreus, B. Kilminster, J. Ngadiuba, D. Pinna, G. Rauco, P. Robmann, D. Salerno, Y. Yang, A. Zucchetta National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan V. Candelise, T.H. Doan, Sh. Jain, R. Khurana, M. Konyushikhin, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, Y.J. Lu, A. Pozdnyakov, S.S. Yu National Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan Arun Kumar, P. Chang, Y.H. Chang, Y.W. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, C. Dietz, F. Fiori, W.-S. Hou, Y. Hsiung, Y.F. Liu, R.-S. Lu, M. Min~ano Moya, E. Paganis, A. Psallidas, J.f. Tsai, Y.M. Tzeng Chulalongkorn University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok, B. Asavapibhop, G. Singh, N. Srimanobhas, N. Suwonjandee Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey A. Adiguzel, S. Cerci53, S. Damarseckin, Z.S. Demiroglu, C. Dozen, I. Dumanoglu, S. Girgis, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, I. Hos54, E.E. Kangal55, O. Kara, U. Kiminsu, M. Oglakci, G. Onengut56, K. Ozdemir57, D. Sunar Cerci53, B. Tali53, H. Topakli58, S. Turkcapar, I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East Technical University, Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey B. Bilin, S. Bilmis, B. Isildak59, G. Karapinar60, M. Yalvac, M. Zeyrek Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey E. Gulmez, M. Kaya61, O. Kaya62, E.A. Yetkin63, T. Yetkin64 Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey A. Cakir, K. Cankocak, S. Sen65 Institute for Scintillation Materials of National Academy of Science of Ukraine, L. Levchuk, P. Sorokin National Scienti c Center, Kharkov Institute of Physics and Technology, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom A. Belyaev67, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, L. Calligaris, D. Cieri, D.J.A. Cockerill, J.A. Cough lan, K. Harder, S. Harper, E. Olaiya, D. Petyt, C.H. Shepherd-Themistocleous, A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin, T. Williams Imperial College, London, United Kingdom M. Baber, R. Bainbridge, O. Buchmuller, A. Bundock, D. Burton, S. Casasso, M. Citron, D. Colling, L. Corpe, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, A. De Wit, M. Della Negra, R. Di Maria, P. Dunne, A. Elwood, D. Futyan, Y. Haddad, G. Hall, G. Iles, T. James, R. Lane, C. Laner, R. Lucas66, L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, L. Mastrolorenzo, J. Nash, A. Nikitenko51, J. Pela, B. Penning, M. Pesaresi, D.M. Raymond, A. Richards, A. Rose, C. Seez, S. Summers, A. Tapper, K. Uchida, M. Vazquez Acosta68, T. Virdee17, J. Wright, Brunel University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, D. Leslie, I.D. Reid, P. Symonds, L. TeodorBaylor University, Waco, U.S.A. A. Borzou, K. Call, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, H. Liu, N. Pastika The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, U.S.A. S.I. Cooper, C. Henderson, P. Rumerio, C. West D. Arcaro, A. Avetisyan, T. Bose, D. Gastler, D. Rankin, C. Richardson, J. Rohlf, L. Sulak, Brown University, Providence, U.S.A. G. Benelli, E. Berry, D. Cutts, A. Garabedian, J. Hakala, U. Heintz, J.M. Hogan, O. Jesus, K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, Z. Mao, M. Narain, S. Piperov, S. Sagir, E. Spencer, University of California, Davis, Davis, U.S.A. R. Breedon, G. Breto, D. Burns, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez, S. Chauhan, M. Chertok, J. Conway, R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, G. Funk, M. Gardner, W. Ko, R. Lander, C. Mclean, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, J. Pilot, S. Shalhout, J. Smith, M. Squires, D. Stolp, M. Tripathi University of California, Los Angeles, U.S.A. C. Bravo, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, P. Everaerts, A. Florent, J. Hauser, M. Ignatenko, N. Mccoll, D. Saltzberg, C. Schnaible, E. Takasugi, V. Valuev, M. Weber University of California, Riverside, Riverside, U.S.A. E. Bouvier, K. Burt, R. Clare, J. Ellison, J.W. Gary, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi, G. Hanson, J. Heilman, P. Jandir, E. Kennedy, F. Lacroix, O.R. Long, M. Olmedo Negrete, M.I. Paneva, A. Shrinivas, W. Si, H. Wei, S. Wimpenny, B. R. Yates University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, U.S.A. J.G. Branson, G.B. Cerati, S. Cittolin, M. Derdzinski, R. Gerosa, A. Holzner, D. Klein, V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, I. Macneill, D. Olivito, S. Padhi, M. Pieri, M. Sani, V. Sharma, S. Simon, M. Tadel, A. Vartak, S. Wasserbaech69, C. Welke, J. Wood, F. Wurthwein, A. Yagil, G. Zevi Della Porta University of California, Santa Barbara - Department of Physics, Santa Bar N. Amin, R. Bhandari, J. Bradmiller-Feld, C. Campagnari, A. Dishaw, V. Dutta, M. Franco Sevilla, C. George, F. Golf, L. Gouskos, J. Gran, R. Heller, J. Incandela, S.D. Mullin, A. Ovcharova, H. Qu, J. Richman, D. Stuart, I. Suarez, J. Yoo California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, U.S.A. D. Anderson, J. Bendavid, A. Bornheim, J. Bunn, Y. Chen, J. Duarte, J.M. Lawhorn, A. Mott, H.B. Newman, C. Pena, M. Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, S. Xie, R.Y. Zhu Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, U.S.A. M.B. Andrews, T. Ferguson, M. Paulini, J. Russ, M. Sun, H. Vogel, I. Vorobiev, M. Wein J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, F. Jensen, A. Johnson, M. Krohn, T. Mulholland, K. Stenson, Cornell University, Ithaca, U.S.A. J. Thom, J. Tucker, P. Wittich, M. Zientek Fair eld University, Fair eld, U.S.A. J. Alexander, J. Chaves, J. Chu, S. Dittmer, K. Mcdermott, N. Mirman, G. Nicolas Kaufman, J.R. Patterson, A. Rinkevicius, A. Ryd, L. Skinnari, L. So , S.M. Tan, Z. Tao, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, U.S.A. S. Abdullin, M. Albrow, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, S. Banerjee, L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, G. Bolla, K. Burkett, J.N. Butler, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, S. Cihangiry, M. Cremonesi, V.D. Elvira, I. Fisk, J. Freeman, E. Gottschalk, L. Gray, D. Green, S. Grunendahl, O. Gutsche, D. Hare, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, J. Hirschauer, Z. Hu, B. Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, B. Klima, B. Kreis, S. Lammel, J. Linacre, D. Lincoln, R. Lipton, M. Liu, T. Liu, R. Lopes De Sa, J. Lykken, K. Maeshima, N. Magini, J.M. Marra no, S. Maruyama, D. Mason, P. McBride, P. Merkel, S. Mrenna, S. Nahn, V. O'Dell, K. Pedro, O. Prokofyev, G. Rakness, L. Ristori, E. SextonKennedy, A. Soha, W.J. Spalding, L. Spiegel, S. Stoynev, J. Strait, N. Strobbe, L. Taylor, S. Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran, L. Uplegger, E.W. Vaandering, C. Vernieri, M. Verzocchi, R. Vidal, M. Wang, H.A. Weber, A. Whitbeck, Y. Wu University of Florida, Gainesville, U.S.A. D. Acosta, P. Avery, P. Bortignon, D. Bourilkov, A. Brinkerho , A. Carnes, M. Carver, D. Curry, S. Das, R.D. Field, I.K. Furic, J. Konigsberg, A. Korytov, J.F. Low, P. Ma, K. Matchev, H. Mei, G. Mitselmakher, D. Rank, L. Shchutska, D. Sperka, L. Thomas, J. Wang, S. Wang, J. Yelton Florida International University, Miami, U.S.A. S. Linn, P. Markowitz, G. Martinez, J.L. Rodriguez Florida State University, Tallahassee, U.S.A. A. Ackert, J.R. Adams, T. Adams, A. Askew, S. Bein, B. Diamond, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F. Johnson, H. Prosper, A. Santra, R. Yohay Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, U.S.A. M.M. Baarmand, V. Bhopatkar, S. Colafranceschi, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, T. Roy, F. Yumiceva { 39 { M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, D. Berry, R.R. Betts, I. Bucinskaite, R. Cavanaugh, O. Evdokimov, L. Gauthier, C.E. Gerber, D.J. Hofman, K. Jung, P. Kurt, C. O'Brien, I.D. Sandoval Gonzalez, P. Turner, N. Varelas, H. Wang, Z. Wu, M. Zakaria, J. Zhang The University of Iowa, Iowa City, U.S.A. B. Bilki70, W. Clarida, K. Dilsiz, S. Durgut, R.P. Gandrajula, M. Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko, J.-P. Merlo, H. Mermerkaya71, A. Mestvirishvili, A. Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul, Y. Onel, F. Ozok72, A. Penzo, C. Snyder, E. Tiras, J. Wetzel, K. Yi Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, U.S.A. I. Anderson, B. Blumenfeld, A. Cocoros, N. Eminizer, D. Fehling, L. Feng, A.V. Gritsan, P. Maksimovic, C. Martin, M. Osherson, J. Roskes, U. Sarica, M. Swartz, M. Xiao, Y. Xin, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, U.S.A. A. Al-bataineh, P. Baringer, A. Bean, S. Boren, J. Bowen, C. Bruner, J. Castle, L. Forthomme, R.P. Kenny III, S. Khalil, A. Kropivnitskaya, D. Majumder, W. Mcbrayer, M. Murray, S. Sanders, R. Stringer, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang Kansas State University, Manhattan, U.S.A. A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, Y. Maravin, A. Mohammadi, L.K. Saini, N. Skhirtladze, S. Toda Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, U.S.A. F. Rebassoo, D. Wright University of Maryland, College Park, U.S.A. C. Anelli, A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, B. Calvert, S.C. Eno, C. Ferraioli, J.A. Gomez, N.J. Hadley, S. Jabeen, R.G. Kellogg, T. Kolberg, J. Kunkle, Y. Lu, A.C. Mignerey, F. Ricci-Tam, Y.H. Shin, A. Skuja, M.B. Tonjes, S.C. Tonwar Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, U.S.A. D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, A. Apyan, V. Azzolini, R. Barbieri, A. Baty, R. Bi, K. Bierwagen, S. Brandt, W. Busza, I.A. Cali, Z. Demiragli, L. Di Matteo, G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov, D. Hsu, Y. Iiyama, G.M. Innocenti, M. Klute, D. Kovalskyi, K. Krajczar, Y.S. Lai, Y.-J. Lee, A. Levin, P.D. Luckey, B. Maier, A.C. Marini, C. Mcginn, C. Mironov, S. Narayanan, X. Niu, C. Paus, C. Roland, G. Roland, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Sumorok, K. Tatar, M. Varma, D. Velicanu, J. Veverka, J. Wang, T.W. Wang, B. Wyslouch, M. Yang, V. Zhukova University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, U.S.A. A.C. Benvenuti, R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, A. Finkel, A. Gude, P. Hansen, S. Kalafut, S.C. Kao, Y. Kubota, Z. Lesko, J. Mans, S. Nourbakhsh, N. Ruckstuhl, R. Rusack, N. Tambe, J. Turkewitz J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, U.S.A. E. Avdeeva, R. Bartek73, K. Bloom, D.R. Claes, A. Dominguez73, C. Fangmeier, R. Gon zalez Suarez, R. Kamalieddin, I. Kravchenko, A. Malta Rodrigues, F. Meier, J. Monroy, J.E. Siado, G.R. Snow, B. Stieger State University of New York at Bu alo, Bu alo, U.S.A. M. Alyari, J. Dolen, J. George, A. Godshalk, C. Harrington, I. Iashvili, J. Kaisen, A. Kharchilava, A. Kumar, A. Parker, S. Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani Northeastern University, Boston, U.S.A. G. Alverson, E. Barberis, A. Hortiangtham, A. Massironi, D.M. Morse, D. Nash, T. Orimoto, R. Teixeira De Lima, D. Trocino, R.-J. Wang, D. Wood Northwestern University, Evanston, U.S.A. S. Bhattacharya, O. Charaf, K.A. Hahn, A. Kubik, A. Kumar, N. Mucia, N. Odell, B. Pollack, M.H. Schmitt, K. Sung, M. Trovato, M. Velasco University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, U.S.A. N. Dev, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop, D.J. Karmgard, N. Kellams, K. Lannon, N. Marinelli, F. Meng, C. Mueller, Y. Musienko38, M. Planer, A. Reinsvold, R. Ruchti, G. Smith, S. Taroni, M. Wayne, M. Wolf, A. Woodard The Ohio State University, Columbus, U.S.A. J. Alimena, L. Antonelli, B. Bylsma, L.S. Durkin, S. Flowers, B. Francis, A. Hart, C. Hill, R. Hughes, W. Ji, B. Liu, W. Luo, D. Puigh, B.L. Winer, H.W. Wulsin Princeton University, Princeton, U.S.A. S. Cooperstein, O. Driga, P. Elmer, J. Hardenbrook, P. Hebda, D. Lange, J. Luo, D. Marlow, T. Medvedeva, K. Mei, M. Mooney, J. Olsen, C. Palmer, P. Piroue, D. Stickland, A. Svyatkovskiy, C. Tully, A. Zuranski University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, U.S.A. Purdue University, West Lafayette, U.S.A. A. Barker, V.E. Barnes, S. Folgueras, L. Gutay, M.K. Jha, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, A. Khatiwada, D.H. Miller, N. Neumeister, J.F. Schulte, X. Shi, J. Sun, F. Wang, W. Xie Purdue University Calumet, Hammond, U.S.A. N. Parashar, J. Stupak A. Adair, B. Akgun, Z. Chen, K.M. Ecklund, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Guilbaud, W. Li, B. Michlin, M. Northup, B.P. Padley, R. Redjimi, J. Roberts, J. Rorie, Z. Tu, J. Zabel University of Rochester, Rochester, U.S.A. B. Betchart, A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, Y.t. Duh, T. Ferbel, M. Galanti, A. Garcia-Bellido, J. Han, O. Hindrichs, A. Khukhunaishvili, K.H. Lo, P. Tan, M. Verzetti Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, U.S.A. A. Agapitos, J.P. Chou, E. Contreras-Campana, Y. Gershtein, T.A. Gomez Espinosa, E. Halkiadakis, M. Heindl, D. Hidas, E. Hughes, S. Kaplan, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, S. Kyriacou, A. Lath, K. Nash, H. Saka, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, D. She eld, S. Somalwar, R. Stone, S. Thomas, P. Thomassen, M. Walker University of Tennessee, Knoxville, U.S.A. A.G. Delannoy, M. Foerster, J. Heideman, G. Riley, K. Rose, S. Spanier, K. Thapa Texas A&M University, College Station, U.S.A. O. Bouhali74, A. Celik, M. Dalchenko, M. De Mattia, A. Delgado, S. Dildick, R. Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, E. Juska, T. Kamon75, R. Mueller, Y. Pakhotin, R. Patel, A. Perlo , L. Pernie, D. Rathjens, A. Rose, A. Safonov, A. Tatarinov, K.A. Ulmer Texas Tech University, Lubbock, U.S.A. N. Akchurin, C. Cowden, J. Damgov, F. De Guio, C. Dragoiu, P.R. Dudero, J. Faulkner, E. Gurpinar, S. Kunori, K. Lamichhane, S.W. Lee, T. Libeiro, T. Peltola, S. Undleeb, I. Volobouev, Z. Wang Vanderbilt University, Nashville, U.S.A. S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H. Ni, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska, Q. Xu University of Virginia, Charlottesville, U.S.A. M.W. Arenton, P. Barria, B. Cox, J. Goodell, R. Hirosky, A. Ledovskoy, H. Li, C. Neu, T. Sinthuprasith, X. Sun, Y. Wang, E. Wolfe, F. Xia Wayne State University, Detroit, U.S.A. C. Clarke, R. Harr, P.E. Karchin, J. Sturdy { 42 { D.A. Belknap, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, S. Dasu, L. Dodd, S. Duric, B. Gomber, M. Grothe, M. Herndon, A. Herve, P. Klabbers, A. Lanaro, A. Levine, K. Long, R. Loveless, I. Ojalvo, T. Perry, G.A. Pierro, G. Polese, T. Ruggles, A. Savin, N. Smith, W.H. Smith, D. Taylor, 1: Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria 2: Also at State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, 3: Also at Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien, Universite de Strasbourg, Universite de Haute Alsace Mulhouse, CNRS/IN2P3, Strasbourg, France 4: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil 5: Also at Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil 6: Also at Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium 7: Also at Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany 8: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia 9: Also at Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt 10: Now at Zewail City of Science and Technology, Zewail, Egypt 11: Now at Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt 12: Also at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt 13: Now at Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt 14: Also at Universite de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France 15: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, 16: Also at Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia 17: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland 18: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany 19: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany 20: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany 21: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary 22: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendulet CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eotvos Lorand 23: Also at University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary 24: Also at Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Bhopal, India 25: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India 26: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India 27: Also at University of Ruhuna, Matara, Sri Lanka 28: Also at Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran 29: Also at University of Tehran, Department of Engineering Science, Tehran, Iran 30: Also at Yazd University, Yazd, Iran 31: Also at Plasma Physics Research Center, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad 32: Also at Universita degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy 33: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, U.S.A. 34: Also at International Islamic University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 35: Also at Malaysian Nuclear Agency, MOSTI, Kajang, Malaysia 37: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems, Warsaw, Poland 38: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia at National Research Nuclear University 'Moscow Engineering Physics Institute' (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia 40: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg, Russia 41: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, U.S.A. 42: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia 44: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia 45: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia 46: Also at INFN Sezione di Roma; Universita di Roma, Roma, Italy 47: Also at University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, 48: Also at Scuola Normale e Sezione dell'INFN, Pisa, Italy 49: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece 50: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia 51: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia 52: Also at Albert Einstein Center for Fundamental Physics, Bern, Switzerland 53: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey 54: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey 55: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey 56: Also at Cag University, Mersin, Turkey 57: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey 58: Also at Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey 59: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey 60: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey 61: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey 62: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey 63: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey 64: Also at Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey 65: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey 66: Also at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom 67: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton, Southampton, United 68: Also at Instituto de Astrof sica de Canarias, La Laguna, Spain 69: Also at Utah Valley University, Orem, U.S.A. 70: Also at Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, U.S.A. 71: Also at Erzincan University, Erzincan, Turkey 72: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey 73: Now at The Catholic University of America, Washington, U.S.A. 74: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar 75: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea 27.4 pb-1(5.02 TeV pp) + 404 ?b-1(5.02 TeV PbPb) 27.4 pb-1(5.02 TeV pp) + 404 ?b-1(5.02 TeV PbPb) Summary 27.4 pb-1 (pp) + 35 nb-1 (pPb) + 404 ?b-1 (PbPb) 5.02 TeV [51] STAR collaboration, J. Adams et al., Transverse momentum and collision energy [52] NA49 collaboration, C. Alt et al., High transverse momentum hadron spectra at Brazil France V. Blobel, M. Centis Vignali, A.R. Draeger, T. Dreyer, E. Garutti, D. Gonzalez, J. Haller, M. Ho mann, A. Junkes, R. Klanner, R. Kogler, N. Kovalchuk, T. Lapsien, T. Lenz, I. Marchesini, D. Marconi, M. Meyer, M. Niedziela, D. Nowatschin, F. Pantaleo17, T. Pei er, A. Perieanu, J. Poehlsen, C. Sander, C. Scharf, P. Schleper, A. Schmidt, S. Schumann, J. Schwandt, H. Stadie, G. Steinbruck, F.M. Stober, M. Stover, H. Tholen, D. Troendle, E. Usai, L. Vanelderen, A. Vanhoefer, B. Vormwald G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath21, F. Sikler, V. Veszpremi, G. Vesztergombi22, A.J. ZsigItaly Italy L. Brianzaa;b;17, F. Brivioa;b, M.E. Dinardoa;b, S. Fiorendia;b;17, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia;b, P. Govonia;b, M. Malbertia;b, S. Malvezzia, R.A. Manzonia;b, D. Menascea, L. Moronia, M. Paganonia;b, D. Pedrinia, S. Pigazzinia;b, S. Ragazzia;b, T. Tabarelli de Fatisa;b Malaysia I. Ahmed, Z.A. Ibrahim, J.R. Komaragiri, M.A.B. Md Ali34, F. Mohamad Idris35, W.A.T. Wan Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli Portugal P. Bargassa, C. Beir~ao Da Cruz E Silva, B. Calpas, A. Di Francesco, P. Faccioli, P.G. Ferreira Parracho, M. Gallinaro, J. Hollar, N. Leonardo, L. Lloret Iglesias, M.V. Nemallapudi, J. Rodrigues Antunes, J. Seixas, O. Toldaiev, D. Vadruccio, J. Varela, P. Vischia Cortabitarte S. Orfanelli, L. Orsini, L. Pape, E. Perez, M. Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A. Pfei er, Thailand R. Aggleton, F. Ball, L. Beck, J.J. Brooke, D. Burns, E. Clement, D. Cussans, H. Flacher, J. Goldstein, M. Grimes, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, J. Jacob, L. Kreczko, C. Lucas, D.M. Newbold66, S. Paramesvaran, A. Poll, T. Sakuma, S. Seif El Nasr-storey, D. Smith, China 36: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnolog a, Mexico city, Mexico 43: Also at INFN Sezione di Padova; Universita di Padova; Universita di Trento (Trento), Padova, Kingdom

This is a preview of a remote PDF:

Charged-particle nuclear modification factors in PbPb and pPb collisions at \( \sqrt{s_{\mathrm{N}\;\mathrm{N}}}=5.02 \) TeV, Journal of High Energy Physics, 2017, DOI: 10.1007/JHEP04(2017)039