Measurement of beauty and charm production in pp collisions at √s = 5.02 TeV via non-prompt and prompt D mesons

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Measurement of beauty and charm production in pp collisions at √s = 5.02 TeV via nonprompt and prompt D mesons © 2021, The Author(s) Published version ALICE collaboration ALICE collaboration. (2021). Measurement of beauty and charm production in pp collisions at √s = 5.02 TeV via non-prompt and prompt D mesons. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2021(5), Article 220. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2021)220 2021 JHEP05(2021)220 Published for SISSA by Springer Received:March 8, 2021 Accepted:May 7, 2021 Published:May 24, 2021 Measurement of beauty and charm production in pp collisions at √s= 5.02 TeV via non-prompt and prompt D mesons The ALICE collaboration E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: The pT-differential production cross sections of prompt and non-prompt (produced in beauty-hadron decays) D mesons were measured by the ALICE experiment at midrapidity (|y|<0.5) in proton-proton collisions at √s= 5.02 TeV. The data sample used in the analysis corresponds to an integrated luminosity of (19.3±0.4) nb−1. D mesons were reconstructed from their decays D0→K−π+,D+→K−π+π+, and D+ s→φπ+→K−K+π+and their charge conjugates. Compared to previous measurements in the same rapidity region, the cross sections of prompt D+and D+ smesons have an extended pTcoverage and total uncertainties reduced by a factor ranging from 1.05 to 1.6, depending on pT, allowing for a more precise determination of their pT-integrated cross sections. The results are well described by perturbative QCD calculations. The fragmentation fraction of heavy quarks to strange mesons divided by the one to non-strange mesons, fs/(fu+fd), is compatible for charm and beauty quarks and with previous measurements at different centre-of-mass energies and collision systems. The bb production cross section per rapidity unit at midrapidity, estimated from non-prompt D-meson measurements, is dσbb/dy||y|<0.5= 34.5±2.4(stat)+4.7 −2.9(tot.syst) µb. It is compatible with previous measurements at the same centre-of-mass energy and with the cross section predicted by perturbative QCD calculations. Keywords: Heavy Ion Experiments ArXiv ePrint: 2102.13601 Open Access, Copyright CERN, for the benefit of the ALICE Collaboration. Article funded by SCOAP3. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2021)220 JHEP05(2021)220 Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Experimental apparatus and data sample 2 3 Analysis technique 4 3.1 Measurement of non-prompt D0,D+, and D+ smesons 5 3.2 Data-driven estimation of non-prompt fraction 7 3.3 Measurement of prompt D+and D+ smesons 10 4 Systematic uncertainties 11 5 Results 13 5.1 Production cross sections 13 5.2 Cross section ratios 18 5.3 Extrapolation to the bb production cross section 23 6 Summary 24 The ALICE collaboration 34 1 Introduction Measurements of the production of hadrons containing charm or beauty quarks in protonproton (pp) collisions provide an important test of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) calculations. They also set the reference for the respective measurements in heavy-ion collisions, where the study of charmand beauty-quark interaction with the quark-gluon plasma (QGP) constituents is a rich source of information about the medium properties and its inner dynamics [1]. Several measurements of charm and beauty production were carried out in pp collisions at √s= 2.76,5.02,7,8, and 13 TeV by the ALICE [2–16], ATLAS [17–21], CMS [22–31], and LHCb [32–46] experiments at the LHC. At lower collision energies, measurements were performed at √s= 200 GeV at RHIC [47–50] and in pp collisions at √s= 630 GeV at the SppS [51] and at √s= 1.96 TeV at the Tevatron [52– 55]. The Dand B-meson data are generally described within uncertainties by perturbative QCD calculations at Next-to-Leading-Order with Next-to-Leading Log resummation, like FONLL [56,57] and GM-VFNS [58–63]. These calculations rely on the factorisation of soft (non-perturbative) and hard (perturbative) processes and calculate the transversemomentum (pT)differential cross sections of charmor beauty-hadron production as a convolution of a hard-scattering cross section at the partonic level, parton distribution functions (PDFs) of the colliding protons, and fragmentation functions (FF) modelling the – 1 – JHEP05(2021)220 transition from heavy quarks to heavy-flavour hadrons [64]. Recently, also calculations with next-to-next-to-leading-order (NNLO) QCD radiative corrections became available for the beauty-quark production [65]. In this paper we report an update of the measurement of prompt (i.e. produced in the charm quark fragmentation, either directly or through decays of excited open charm and charmonium states) D+- and D+ s-meson production performed with ALICE in the rapidity interval |y|<0.5in pp collisions at √s= 5.02 TeV [3], obtained using an improved analysis technique. We also present a new measurement of the production of non-prompt D0,D+, and D+ smesons from beauty-hadron decays. The analysis of prompt D+and D+ s mesons is extended down to pT= 0 and 1 GeV/c, respectively. Non-prompt D mesons are measured down to pT= 1 GeV/c (D0meson) and 2 GeV/c (D+and D+ smesons). These new results provide an improvement in terms of low-pTreach and particle species accessed with respect to the previous measurement of non-prompt D0production by CMS [30]. Such an extension is important to test perturbative QCD (pQCD) calculations over a wider pTinterval and to better determine the heavy-quark production cross section. These measurements also provide a reference for Pb-Pb collisions in the low-pTregion, a relevant one to address nuclear effects like shadowing, heavy-quark diffusion in the QGP, and the expected enhancement of the production of hadrons with strange quarks [66]. The paper is organised as follows. In section 2the ALICE apparatus and the analysed data sample are described. In section 3the analysis procedure is explained. Machinelearning algorithms are used to classify and separate the prompt and non-prompt D-meson signals and the combinatorial background. A data-driven procedure is used to calculate the fraction of prompt and non-prompt D mesons. The systematic uncertainties are discussed in section 4. In section 5the results are presented. First, in section 5.1, the pT-differential cross sections of prompt and non-prompt D mesons are reported and compared to theoretical predictions. Then, in section 5.2, the ratios of the measured cross sections of the D-meson species are computed. In theoretical calculations, these ratios are sensitive mainly to the FF or the adopted hadronisation model. In particular, the comparison of the production rate of strange mesons with that of non-strange ones allows the determination of the ratio fs/(fu+fd), i.e. the fragmentation fraction of charm and beauty quarks to strange mesons divided by the one to non-strange mesons. In section 5.3, by extrapolating down to pT= 0 the measured non-prompt D-meson cross sections, an estimate of the production cross section of beauty quarks at midrapidity is obtained, which represents the most-precise result to date in pp collisions at √s= 5.02 TeV. A summary concludes the paper. 2 Experimental apparatus and data sample The ALICE apparatus is composed of a central barrel, consisting of a set of detectors for particle reconstruction and identification at midrapidity, a forward muon spectrometer, and various forward and backward detectors for triggering and event characterisation. A complete description and an overview of their typical performance are presented in refs. [67,68]. – 2 – JHEP05(2021)220 The D-meson decay products were reconstructed at midrapidity exploiting the tracking and particle identification capabilities of the central barrel detectors, which cover the full azimuth in the pseudorapidity interval |η|<0.9. These detectors are embedded in a large solenoidal magnet that provides a magnetic field B= 0.5 T parallel to the beam direction. Charged-particle tracks are reconstructed from their hits in the Inner Tracking System (ITS) and the Time Projection Chamber (TPC). The ITS is the innermost ALICE detector; it consists of six cylindrical layers of silicon detectors, allowing a precise determination of the track parameters in the vicinity of the interaction point. The TPC provides up to 159 three-dimensional space points to reconstruct the charged-particle trajectory, as well as particle identification via the measurement of the specific ionisation energy loss dE/dx. The particle identification capabilities of the TPC are extended by the Time-Of-Flight (TOF) detector, which is used to measure the flight time of the charged particles from the interaction point. The event collision time is obtained using either the information from the T0 detector, the TOF detector, or a combination of the two. The T0 detector consists of two arrays of Čerenkov counters, located on both sides of the nominal interaction point, covering the pseudorapidity intervals −3.28 < η < −2.97 and 4.61 < η < 4.92. The V0 detector was used for triggering and event selection. It is composed of two scintillator arrays, located on both sides of the nominal interaction point and covering the pseudorapidity intervals −3.7< η < −1.7and 2.8< η < 5.1. The results presented in this paper were obtained from the analysis of the data sample of pp collisions at √s= 5.02 TeV collected in 2017. The events used in the analysis were recorded with a minimum bias (MB) trigger which required coincident signals in the two scintillator arrays of the V0 detector. Events were further selected offline in order to remove background due to the interaction between one of the beams and the residual gas present in the beam vacuum tube and other machine-induced backgrounds [68]. This selection was based on the timing information of the two V0 arrays and the correlation between the number of hits and track segments in the two innermost layers of the ITS, consisting of Silicon Pixel Detectors (SPD). In order to maintain a uniform acceptance in pseudorapidity, events were required to have a reconstructed collision vertex located within ±10 cm from the centre of the detector along the beam-line direction. Events with multiple primary vertices reconstructed from TPC and ITS tracks, due to pileup of several collisions, were rejected. The rejected pileup events amount to about 1% of the triggered events and the remaining undetected pileup is negligible in the present analysis. After the aforementioned selections, the data sample used for the analysis consists of about 990 million MB events, corresponding to an integrated luminosity Lint = (19.3±0.4) nb−1[69]. The Monte Carlo samples utilised in the analysis were obtained simulating pp collisions with the PYTHIA 8.243 event generator [70,71] (Monash-13 tune [72]), and propagating the generated particles through the detector using the GEANT3 package [73]. A ccor bb-quark pair was required in each simulated PYTHIA pp event and D mesons were forced to decay into the hadronic channels of interest for the analysis. The luminous region distribution and the conditions of all the ALICE detectors in terms of active channels, gain, noise level, and alignment, and their evolution with time during the data taking, were taken into account in the simulations. – 3 – JHEP05(2021)220 3 Analysis technique D0,D+, and D+ smesons and their charge conjugates were reconstructed through the decay channels D0→K−π+(with branching ratio BR = (3.950 ±0.031)%), D+→K−π+π+ (BR = (9.38 ±0.16)%), and D+ s→φπ+→K−K+π+(BR = (2.24 ±0.08)%) [74]. The analysis was based on the reconstruction of decay-vertex topologies displaced from the interaction vertex. The separation induced by the weak decays of prompt D0,D+, and D+ s is typically a few hundred of µm(cτ ≃123,312, and 151 µm, respectively [74]). Decay vertices of non-prompt D mesons, originating from beauty-hadron decays, on average are more displaced from the interaction vertex due to the larger mean proper decay lengths of beauty hadrons (cτ ≃500 µm[74])]) as compared to charm hadrons. Therefore, exploiting the selection of displaced decay-vertex topologies, it is possible not only to separate D mesons from the combinatorial background, but also non-prompt from prompt D mesons. D-meson candidates were built combining pairs or triplets of tracks with the proper charge signs, each with |η|<0.8,pT>0.3 GeV/c, at least 70 (out of 159) associated space points in the TPC, a fit quality χ2/ndf <2in the TPC (where ndf is the number of degrees of freedom involved in the track fit procedure), and a minimum of two (out of six) hits in the ITS, with at least one in either of the two innermost SPD layers, which provide the best pointing resolution. These track-selection criteria reduce the D-meson acceptance in rapidity, which drops steeply to zero for |y|>0.5at low pTand for |y|>0.8 at pT>5 GeV/c. Thus, only D-meson candidates within a fiducial acceptance region, |y|< yfid(pT), were selected. The yfid(pT)value was defined as a second-order polynomial function, increasing from 0.5 to 0.8 in the transverse-momentum range 0< pT<5 GeV/c, and as a constant term, yfid = 0.8, for pT>5 GeV/c. To reduce the large combinatorial background and to separate the contribution of prompt and non-prompt D mesons, a machine-learning approach based on Boosted Decision Trees (BDT) was adopted. Two different implementations of the BDT algorithm, provided by the TMVA [75] and XGBoost [76] libraries, were considered. Signal samples of prompt and non-prompt D mesons for the BDT training were obtained from simulations based on the PYTHIA 8 event generator as described in section 2. The background samples were obtained from the sidebands of the candidate invariant-mass distributions in the data. Before the training, loose kinematic and topological selections were applied to the Dmeson candidates together with the particle identification (PID) of decay-product tracks. Pions and kaons were selected by requiring compatibility with the respective particle hypothesis within three standard deviations (3σ) between the measured and the expected signals for both the TPC dE/dxand the time of flight. Tracks without TOF hits were identified using only the TPC information. For D+ s-meson candidates, an absolute difference of the reconstructed K+K−invariant mass with respect to the PDG world average of the φmeson [74] (∆MKK) under 15 MeV/c2was additionally required. The D-meson candidate information provided to the BDTs, as an input for the models to distinguish among prompt and non-prompt D mesons and background candidates, was mainly based on the displacement of the tracks from the primary vertex (d0), the distance between the D-meson decay vertex and the primary vertex (decay length, L), the D-meson impact – 4 – JHEP05(2021)220 parameter, and the cosine of the pointing angle between the D-meson candidate line of flight (the vector connecting the primary and secondary vertices) and its reconstructed momentum vector. Additional variables related to the PID of decay tracks were used for D+and D+ scandidates. The value of ∆MKK was also considered for D+ scandidates. Independent BDTs were trained for the different D-meson species and in different pTintervals. Subsequently, they were applied to the real data sample in which the type of candidate is unknown. The BDT outputs are related to the candidate probability to be a non-prompt D meson or combinatorial background. Selections on the BDT outputs were optimised to obtain a high non-prompt D-meson fraction while maintaining a reliable signal extraction in the case of the non-prompt analysis. For the prompt D+and D+ sanalysis, selections were tuned to provide a large statistical significance for the signal and a small contribution of non-prompt candidates. 3.1 Measurement of non-prompt D0,D+, and D+ smesons Samples enhanced with non-prompt candidates were selected by requiring a low candidate probability to be combinatorial background and a high probability to be non-prompt. The raw yields of D0,D+, and D+ smesons, including both particles and antiparticles, were extracted from binned maximum-likelihood fits to the invariant-mass (M) distributions. The raw yields could be extracted in transverse-momentum intervals in the range 1< pT<24 GeV/c for D0mesons, 2< pT<16 GeV/c for D+mesons, and 2< pT<12 GeV/c for D+ smesons. The fit function was composed of a Gaussian for the description of the signal and of an exponential term for the background. To improve the stability of the fits, the widths of the D-meson signal peaks were fixed to the values extracted from data samples dominated by prompt candidates, given the naturally larger abundance of prompt compared to non-prompt D mesons. For the M(KKπ)distribution, an additional Gaussian was used to describe the peak due to the decay D+→K−K+π+, with a branching ratio of (9.68 ±0.18) ×10−3[74], present at a lower invariant-mass value than the D+ s-meson signal peak. For the D0meson, the contribution of signal candidates to the invariant-mass distribution with the wrong mass assigned to the D0-decay tracks (reflections) was included in the fit. It was estimated based on the invariant-mass distributions of the reflected signal in the simulation, which were described as the sum of two Gaussian functions. The contribution of reflections to the raw yield is about 0.5%−4%, depending on pT. Examples of invariant-mass distributions together with the result of the fits and the estimated nonprompt fractions are reported in figure 1, for the 1< pT<2 GeV/c,8< pT<10 GeV/c, and 2< pT<4 GeV/c intervals of the D0,D+, and D+ scandidates, respectively. The procedure used to calculate the fraction of non-prompt candidates present in the extracted raw yields is described in section 3.2. The measured raw yields, although dominated by nonprompt candidates, still contain a residual contribution of prompt D mesons which satisfy the BDT-based selections. The statistical significance of the observed signals, S/√S+B, varies from 4 to 10, depending on the D-meson species and on the pTinterval. – 5 – JHEP05(2021)220 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 2 ) 2 c) (GeV/π(KM 20 40 60 80 100 2 cCounts per 8 MeV/ ALICE = 5.02 TeVs pp, and charge conj. + π − K→ 0 D c < 2 GeV/ T p1 < 15± = 103 S 0.03 (syst.)± 0.01 (stat.) ± = 0.95 non-prompt f 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 ) 2 c) (GeV/ππ(KM 20 40 60 80 100 120 2 c Counts per 8 MeV/ ALICE = 5.02 TeVs pp, and charge conj. + π + π − K→ + D c < 10 GeV/ T p8 < 33± = 178 S 0.02 (syst.)± 0.06 (stat.) ± = 0.66 non-prompt f 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 2 2.05 2.1 ) 2 c) (GeV/π(KKM 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 2 c Counts per 6 MeV/ ALICE = 5.02 TeVs pp, and charge conj. + π − K + K→ + πφ → + s D c < 4 GeV/ T p2 < 16± = 137 S 0.01 (syst.)± 0.06 (stat.) ± = 0.62 non-prompt f Figure 1. Invariant-mass distributions of D0,D+, and D+ scandidates and charge conjugates in 1< pT<2 GeV/c,8< pT<10 GeV/c, and 2< pT<4 GeV/c intervals, respectively. The blue solid lines show the total fit functions as described in the text and the red dashed lines are the combinatorial background. In case of the D0candidates, the grey dashed line represents the combinatorial background with the contribution of the reflections. The raw-yield (S) values are reported together with their statistical uncertainties resulting from the fit. The fraction of non-prompt candidates in the measured raw yield is reported with its statistical and systematic uncertainties. The pT-differential cross section of non-prompt D mesons was computed for each pT interval as d2σD dpTdy=1 c∆y(pT)∆pT×1 BR × 1 2fnon-prompt(pT)×ND+D,raw(pT)|y|<yfid(pT) (Acc ×)non-prompt(pT) 1 Lint .(3.1) The raw-yield values (sum of particles and antiparticles, ND+D,raw) were divided by a factor of two and multiplied by the non-prompt fraction fnon-prompt to obtain the charged-averaged yields of non-prompt D mesons. Furthermore, they were divided by the acceptance times efficiency of non-prompt D mesons (Acc ×)non-prompt, the BR of the decay channel, the width of the pTinterval (∆pT), the correction factor for the rapidity coverage c∆y(see below), and the integrated luminosity Lint =Nev/σMB, where Nev is the number of analysed events and σMB = (50.9±0.9) mb is the cross section for the MB trigger condition [69]. The (Acc ×)correction was obtained from simulations, described in section 2, using samples not employed in the BDT training. The (Acc ×)factors, computed for the selections used in the final result, as a function of pTfor prompt and non-prompt D0,D+, and D+ smesons within the fiducial acceptance region are shown in figure 2, along with the ratios of the non-prompt over prompt factors. The selection applied to obtain the nonprompt enhanced samples strongly suppresses the prompt D-meson efficiency, while the acceptance is the same between prompt and non-prompt D mesons. The prompt D-meson acceptance times efficiency is smaller than the one of non-prompt D mesons by a factor varying from 5 to 700, depending on the D-meson species and the pTinterval. The difference between the (Acc ×)factors of prompt and non-prompt mesons is less pronounced for D+ than for D0, due to the more similar lifetimes of D+and beauty hadrons. For D+ smesons, looser selections than those used for the other D-meson species were applied due to the lower yield of D+ smesons, leading to a smaller difference between the (Acc ×)factors of the prompt and non-prompt components. – 6 – JHEP05(2021)220 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 5− 10 4− 10 3− 10 2− 10 1− 10 1 efficiency× Acceptance and charge conj. + π − K→ 0 D Prompt Non-prompt ALICE = 5.02 TeVs pp, 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 )c (GeV/ T p 1 10 2 10 3 10 prompt non-prompt 4 6 8 10 12 14 5 4 3 2 1 1 and charge conj. + π + π − K→ + D Prompt Non-prompt 4 6 8 10 12 14 )c (GeV/ T p 1 10 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 5 4 3 2 1 1 and charge conj. + π − K + K→ + πφ → + s D Prompt Non-prompt 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 )c (GeV/ T p 1 10 Figure 2. Acceptance-times-efficiency factor for D0,D+, and D+ smesons as a function of pT. The (Acc ×)factors for non-prompt (blue) and prompt (red) D mesons are shown together with their ratio (bottom panels). The correction factor for the rapidity acceptance c∆ywas computed with FONLL perturbative QCD calculations, which have shown a good description of the rapidity dependence of the D-meson cross section [3,33]. The correction factor was defined as the ratio between the generated D-meson yield in ∆y= 2 yfid and that in |y|<0.5. Calculations of c∆ybased on the PYTHIA 8 event generator were in agreement within 1%. The fnon-prompt fraction was calculated with a novel data-driven approach, which is described in section 3.2. 3.2 Data-driven estimation of non-prompt fraction The fraction fnon-prompt of non-prompt D mesons in the raw yield was estimated by sampling the raw yield at different values of the BDT output related to the candidate probability of being a non-prompt D meson. In this way, a set of raw yields Yiwith different contributions of prompt and non-prompt D mesons was obtained. These raw yields can be related to the corrected yields of prompt (Nprompt) and non-prompt (Nnon-prompt) D mesons via the acceptance-times-efficiency factors as follows (Acc ×)prompt i×Nprompt + (Acc ×)non-prompt i×Nnon-prompt −Yi=δi.(3.2) In the above equation, δirepresents a residuum that accounts for the equation not holding exactly due to the uncertainty on Yi,(Acc×)non-prompt i, and (Acc×)prompt i. The definition of nselections leads to the following algebraic system       (Acc ×)prompt 1(Acc ×)non-prompt 1 . . .. . . (Acc ×)prompt n(Acc ×)non-prompt n      ×  Nprompt Nnon-prompt  −       Y1 . . . Yn       =       δ1 . . . δn       ,(3.3) – 7 – JHEP05(2021)220 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 )c (GeV/ T p 3− 10 2− 10 1− 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 )c 1− b GeVµ) (yd T p/(dσ 2 d ALICE = 5.02 TeVs pp, | < 0.5y| 2.1% lumi. unc. not shown± BR syst. unc. not shown Non-prompt 0 D + D + s D Prompt 0 D + D + s D 0 5 10 15 20 25 )c (GeV/ T p 0.1 0.2 0.3 (prompt)yd T p/dσ 2 (non-prompt) / dyd T p/dσ 2 d ALICE = 5.02 TeVs pp, | < 0.5y| 0 D + D + s D Figure 6. Left: pT-differential production cross sections of prompt and non-prompt D0,D+, and D+ smesons in pp collisions at √s= 5.02 TeV. The measurement of prompt D0mesons is the one reported in ref. [3], with updated decay BR as discussed in the text. Right: ratios of pT-differential production cross sections of non-prompt and prompt D0,D+, and D+ smesons. Statistical (vertical bars) and systematic uncertainties (boxes) are shown. The symbols are positioned horizontally at the centre of each pTinterval, with the horizontal bars representing the width of the pTinterval. one reported previously in ref. [3], scaled for the updated BR = (3.950 ±0.031)% of the D0→K−π+decay reported in ref. [74]. The right panel of figure 6shows the ratios of the pT-differential cross sections of non-prompt and prompt D mesons. The statistical uncertainties assigned to each ratio were computed considering that those of the prompt and non-prompt measurements are uncorrelated. This assumption is valid since the fraction of D-meson candidates shared by the two samples is small. The systematic uncertainty related to the determination of the tracking efficiency and to the luminosity were propagated as correlated in the ratios, while all the other sources of systematic uncertainties were considered as uncorrelated between the measurements of prompt and non-prompt D mesons. The ratio increases with increasing pTfor all the three D-meson species up to pT= 12 GeV/c, as expected due to the harder pTdistribution of beauty hadrons (Hb) compared to D mesons. The ratios for D+and D0mesons are compatible within uncertainties, while for the D+ smeson the central points are systematically higher compared to the other two D-meson species, suggesting a larger contribution of beauty-hadron decays to D+ scompared to non-strange D mesons, although no firm conclusion can be drawn given the current uncertainties. The pT-differential cross sections of prompt and non-prompt D mesons are compared to predictions obtained with FONLL [56,57,79] and GM-VFNS [60,61,63] pQCD calculations in figure 7and figure 8, respectively. The FONLL uncertainty band includes the – 14 – JHEP05(2021)220 uncertainties due to the choice of the renormalisation (µR) and factorisation (µF) scales and of the c and b quark masses, as well as the uncertainties on the CTEQ6.6 PDFs [81]. In GM-VFNS, the uncertainty related to the choice of the scales is estimated by varying only µRand the CTEQ14 PDFs [82] are employed. Within the FONLL framework, the fragmentation fractions f(c →D) from ref. [83] were used to normalise the prompt D0and D+-meson cross sections, while a calculation of the prompt D+ s-meson production cross section is not available. For non-prompt D mesons, FONLL calculations were used to compute the beauty-hadron cross section, while PYTHIA 8 [70,71] was used for the description of Hb→D+Xdecay kinematics and branching ratios. The contributions from the different beauty-hadron species were weighted according to fragmentation fractions of b quarks into b-hadron species f(b →Hb)measured in the Z→bb decays [74] reported in table 2, which provide a good normalisation for B-meson measurements performed by the ATLAS, CMS, and LHCb Collaborations [19,36,84]. Two different approaches are instead considered in the GM-VFNS framework. In the first one, the transition from the beauty quark to the charm hadron is described in a single step, exploiting a set of FFs for b→D+Xobtained from measurements in e+e−collisions as described in refs. [85,86]. In the second approach [63], the b→D+Xtransition is treated in two separate steps, consisting in the b→Hbfragmentation and the Hb→D+Xdecay, similarly to what was performed in the FONLL+PYTHIA8 calculation. For this latter approach, only predictions for D0and D+ mesons are available. The measured pT-differential cross sections of prompt D0,D+, and D+ smesons are described within uncertainties by the FONLL and GM-VFNS predictions. In the case of FONLL, the data lie on the upper edge of the theory uncertainty band, while for the GM-VFNS calculation, the central values of the predictions tend to underestimate the data at low and intermediate pTand to overestimate them at high pT. The measured non-prompt D-meson cross sections are instead in better agreement with the central values of the FONLL+PYTHIA 8 predictions, while they are underestimated by the GM-VFNS calculations. In the case of the one-step approach, the predictions are lower than the data by a factor ranging between 2 and 10 depending on the pTand the particle species. The twostep approach describes better the non-prompt D0and D+measurements, nevertheless it still underestimates the measured cross sections. This confirms that all the different terms of the factorisation approach play a crucial role in the description of the heavy-flavour hadron cross sections, indicating the importance of setting stronger constraints on the fragmentation and decay kinematics. The visible cross sections of prompt and non-prompt D mesons were computed by integrating the measured pT-differential cross sections in the measured pTrange. The results are reported in table 3, where the prompt D0-meson cross section is the same as in ref. [3], scaled for the updated BR of the D0→K−π+decay channel reported in ref. [74]. In the integration of the pT-differential cross sections, the systematic uncertainties were propagated as fully correlated among the measured pTintervals, except for the raw-yield extraction uncertainty, which was treated as uncorrelated considering the variations of the signal-to-background ratio and the shape of the combinatorial-background distribution as a function of pT. The pT-integrated production cross sections in |y|<0.5were evaluated – 15 – JHEP05(2021)220 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 3− 10 2− 10 1− 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 )c 1− b GeVµ)(yd T p/(dσ 2 d 0 Prompt D Data FONLL 0 Non-prompt D Data FONLL + PYTHIA8 Decayer ALICE = 5.02 TeVs pp, | < 0.5y| 2.1% lumi. unc. not shown± 0.8% BR unc. not shown± 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 )c (GeV/ T p 1 2 3 model data 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 )c (GeV/ T p 1 2 model data 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 3− 10 2− 10 1− 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 )c 1− b GeVµ)(yd T p/(dσ 2 d + Prompt D Data FONLL + Non-prompt D Data FONLL + PYTHIA8 Decayer ALICE = 5.02 TeVs pp, | < 0.5y| 2.1% lumi. unc. not shown± 1.7% BR unc. not shown± 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 )c (GeV/ T p 1 2 3 model data 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 )c (GeV/ T p 1 2 model data 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 3− 10 2− 10 1− 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 )c 1− b GeVµ)(yd T p/(dσ 2 d + s Prompt D Data + s Non-prompt D Data FONLL + PYTHIA8 Decayer ALICE = 5.02 TeVs pp, | < 0.5y| 2.1% lumi. unc. not shown± 3.6% BR unc. not shown± 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 )c (GeV/ T p 1 2 model data Figure 7.pT-differential production cross sections of prompt and non-prompt D0(top left panel), D+(top right panel), and D+ s(bottom panel) mesons compared to predictions obtained with FONLL calculations [56,57] combined with PYTHIA 8 [70,71] for the Hb→D+Xdecay kinematics. The measurement of prompt D0mesons is the one reported in ref. [3], with updated decay BR as discussed in the text. – 16 – JHEP05(2021)220 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 3− 10 2− 10 1− 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 )c -1 b GeVµ) (yd T p/(dσ 2 d 0 Prompt D Data GM-VFNS 0 Non-prompt D Data D→b GM-VFNS D→ b H→b GM-VFNS ALICE = 5.02 TeVs pp, | < 0.5y| 2.1% lumi. unc. not shown± 0.8% BR unc. not shown± 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 )c (GeV/ T p 1 2 3 model data 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 )c (GeV/ T p 5 10 model data 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 )c (GeV/ T p 1 2 3 model data 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 3− 10 2− 10 1− 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 )c -1 b GeVµ) (yd T p/(dσ 2 d + Prompt D Data GM-VFNS + Non-prompt D Data D→b GM-VFNS D→ b H→b GM-VFNS ALICE = 5.02 TeVs pp, | < 0.5y| 2.1% lumi. unc. not shown± 1.7% BR unc. not shown± 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 )c (GeV/ T p 1 2 3 model data 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 )c (GeV/ T p 5 10 model data 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 )c (GeV/ T p 1 2 3 model data 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 3− 10 2− 10 1− 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 )c -1 b GeVµ) (yd T p/(dσ 2 d + s Prompt D Data GM-VFNS + s Non-prompt D Data D→b GM-VFNS ALICE = 5.02 TeVs pp, | < 0.5y| 2.1% lumi. unc. not shown± 3.6% BR unc. not shown± 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 )c (GeV/ T p 1 2 3 model data 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 )c (GeV/ T p 5 10 model data Figure 8.pT-differential production cross sections of prompt and non-prompt D0(top left panel), D+(top right panel), and D+ s(bottom panel) mesons compared to predictions obtained with GMVFNS calculations [60,61,63]. For the non-prompt D0and D+mesons the one-step (green) and two-step (purple) approaches, describing the transition from the beauty quark to the charm meson, are reported. The measurement of prompt D0mesons is the one reported in ref. [3], with updated decay BR as discussed in the text. – 17 – JHEP05(2021)220 b-hadron Fraction at Z (%) Fraction at pp (%) B0,B+40.8±0.7 34.4±2.1 B0 s10.0±0.8 11.5±1.3 Λ0 b8.4±1.1 19.8±4.6 Table 2. Fragmentation fractions of b-quarks into beauty-hadron species in Z→bb decays, and in pp collisions at √s= 1.96 TeV [74]. by multiplying the visible cross sections by an extrapolation factor calculated as follows. For prompt D mesons, the extrapolation factor for each D-meson species was computed using the FONLL central predictions to evaluate the ratio between the production cross section in |y|<0.5and that in the measured pTinterval. The systematic uncertainties on the extrapolation factor were estimated by considering (i) the variation of the factorisation and renormalisation scales in the FONLL calculation, (ii) the uncertainty on the mass of the charm quark, and (iii) the CTEQ6.6 PDFs uncertainties, as proposed in ref. [79]. Since FONLL predictions are not available for prompt D+ smesons, the central value of the extrapolation factor was computed as described in ref. [3], using the prediction based on the pT-differential cross section of charm quarks from FONLL, the fragmentation fractions f(c →D+ s)and f(c →D∗+ s)from ALEPH measurements [87], and the charm fragmentation functions from ref. [88]. The measurements of D0and D+mesons extend from pT= 0 up to pT= 36 GeV/c, leading to an extrapolation factor close to unity and a negligible associated uncertainty. In the case of non-prompt D mesons, the extrapolation factor was evaluated using the FONLL predictions for the beauty-hadron production and PYTHIA 8 to describe the Hb→D+X decay kinematics. Besides the uncertainties of FONLL, for the non-prompt D-meson extrapolation factors two additional sources of systematic uncertainties were considered, i.e. the uncertainty on (i) the beauty fragmentation fractions f(b →Hb)and (ii) the branching ratios of the Hb→D+X decays. The former was estimated considering an alternative set of beauty fragmentation fractions measured in pp collisions [74] reported in table 2, while for the latter the branching ratios implemented in PYTHIA 8 were reweighted in order to reproduce the measured values reported in ref. [74]. In addition, it was verified that the extrapolation factors computed with the PYTHIA 8 decayer were compatible with those resulting from the usage of the EvtGen package [89] for the description of the beauty-hadron decays. The production cross sections for prompt and non-prompt D mesons in |y|<0.5are reported in table 4. The cross sections of prompt D+ s and D+mesons are compatible with those reported in ref. [3], but their total uncertainties are reduced, owing to the improved precision of the pT-differential measurements and the extended pTrange, which implies a smaller fraction of extrapolated cross section. 5.2 Cross section ratios The pT-integrated cross sections were used to compute the ratios of production yields among the different D-meson species reported in table 5. In the computation of these – 18 – JHEP05(2021)220 Meson Kinematic range (GeV/c)Visible cross section (µb) Prompt D00< pT<36 440 ±19(stat) ±29(syst) ±9(lumi) ±3(BR) D+0< pT<36 194 ±23(stat) ±16(syst) ±4(lumi) ±3(BR) D+ s1< pT<24 64 ±9(stat)+6 −7(syst) ±1(lumi) ±2(BR) Non-prompt D01< pT<24 14.5±1.2(stat) ±1.3(syst) ±0.3(lumi) ± 0.1(BR) D+2< pT<16 4.1±0.7(stat) ±0.4(syst) ±0.1(lumi) ± 0.1(BR) D+ s2< pT<12 3.4±0.6(stat) ±0.3(syst) ±0.1(lumi) ± 0.1(BR) Table 3.pT-integrated production cross sections in the measured pTrange for prompt and nonprompt D mesons in the range |y|<0.5in pp collisions at √s= 5.02 TeV. Meson Extr. factor to pT>0 dσ/dy||y|<0.5(µb) Prompt D01.0000+0.0003 −0.0000 440 ±19(stat) ±29(syst) ±9(lumi) ±3(BR) D+1.0000+0.0003 −0.0000 195 ±23(stat) ±16(syst) ±4(lumi) ±3(BR) D+ s1.28+0.35 −0.12 82 ±12(stat) ±8(syst) ±2(lumi) ±3(BR)+23 −8(extr) Non-prompt D01.28+0.01 −0.04 18.4±1.5(stat) ±1.6(syst) ±0.4(lumi) ± 0.1(BR)+0.1 −0.6(extr) D+2.22+0.05 −0.19 9.0±1.5(stat) ±0.9(syst) ±0.2(lumi) ± 0.2(BR)+0.2 −0.8(extr) D+ s2.03+0.04 −0.15 6.9±1.2(stat) ±0.7(syst) ±0.1(lumi) ± 0.2(BR)+0.1 −0.5(extr) Table 4. Production cross sections of prompt and non-prompt D mesons in the range |y|<0.5in pp collisions at √s= 5.02 TeV. ratios, the systematic uncertainties related to the tracking efficiency, luminosity, and, for the prompt D mesons, the contribution due to the subtraction of the component from beauty-hadron decays, were considered as correlated among the different D-meson species. The extrapolation uncertainties were also treated as correlated, except for the source of uncertainty due to the branching ratios of the beauty-hadron decays used in the extrapolation of the pT-integrated cross section of non-prompt D mesons. All the other sources of systematic uncertainties were propagated as uncorrelated. The D+/D0ratio is compatible – 19 – JHEP05(2021)220 Prompt D+/D00.442 ±0.055(stat) ±0.033(syst) ±0.008(BR) D+ s/D00.186 ±0.028(stat) ±0.015(syst) ±0.007(BR)+0.051 −0.018(extr) D+ s/D+0.419 ±0.078(stat) ±0.041(syst) ±0.017(BR)+0.116 −0.040(extr) D+ s/(D0+ D+) 0.128 ±0.020(stat) ±0.010(syst)±0.005(BR)+0.035 −0.012(extr) Non-prompt D+/D00.487 ±0.090(stat) ±0.055(syst) ±0.009(BR)+0.007 −0.027(extr) D+ s/D00.375 ±0.071(stat) ±0.041(syst) ±0.014(BR)+0.004 −0.016(extr) D+ s/D+0.769 ±0.183(stat) ±0.086(syst) ±0.030(BR)+0.003 −0.010(extr) D+ s/(D0+ D+) 0.252 ±0.047(stat) ±0.023(syst) ±0.009(BR)+0.001 −0.006(extr) Table 5. Ratios of the measured production cross sections of prompt and non-prompt D mesons in the range |y|<0.5in pp collisions at √s= 5.02 TeV. between prompt and non-prompt D-meson production, while for the D+ sover non-strange D meson ratios, the measured values are higher for non-prompt D mesons than for prompt D mesons with a significance of about 2.5σ. This finding is qualitatively expected from the b→ccs and b→ccs weak decays, which enhance D+ sfinal states. Moreover, it is consistent with previous measurements at LEP [83]. A possible pTdependence was investigated computing the pT-differential ratios. The ratios between the pT-differential production cross sections of D+and D0mesons and the ratios between the one of D+ smesons and the sum of the D0and D+mesons are reported in the left and right panels of figure 9, respectively. The measured ratios are independent of pTin the measured pTrange within the current experimental precision. They are also compatible with the FONLL predictions in the case of prompt D0and D+mesons and FONLL+PYTHIA 8 in the case of non-prompt D mesons. In the right panel of figure 9, the contributions of D+ sfrom B0 sand non-strange B meson decays in the FONLL+PYTHIA 8 calculation are depicted separately to highlight the substantial contribution of non-prompt D+ smesons from the decay of non-strange B mesons. The prompt D+ s/(D0+D+)ratio represents the fragmentation fraction of charm quarks to charm-strange mesons fsdivided by the one to non-strange charm mesons fu+fd, given that all D∗+and D∗0mesons decay to D0and D+mesons, and all D∗+ smesons decay to D+ smesons. Considering that the uncertainties in the production ratios reported in table 5 are dominated by the limited precision of the measurements in the low pTregion and that the pT-differential ratios are constant within uncertainties, the ratio of charm-quark fragmentation fractions was computed by fitting the data with a constant function, leading to fs fu+fdcharm = 0.136 ±0.005(stat) ±0.006(syst) ±0.005(BR).(5.1) – 20 – JHEP05(2021)220 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 )c (GeV/ T p 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0 / D + D Prompt Data FONLL Non-prompt Data FONLL + PYTHIA8 Dec. ALICE = 5.02 TeVspp, | < 0.5y| 1.9% BR uncertainty not shown± 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 )c (GeV/ T p 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 ) + +D 0 / (D + s D Prompt Data Non-prompt Data FONLL + PYTHIA8 Dec. 0 b Λ+ 0 s +B + +B 0 B← + s D + +B 0 B← + s D 0 s B← + s D ALICE = 5.02 TeVspp, | < 0.5y| Figure 9. Ratios between the pT-differential production cross sections of D+and D0mesons (left panel) and between the one of D+ smesons and the sum of the D0and D+-meson cross sections (right panel) compared with predictions obtained with FONLL calculations [56,57] and PYTHIA 8 [70,71] for the Hb→D+X decay kinematics. For the non-prompt D+ s/(D0+ D+)ratio, the predictions for the D+ sfrom B0 sand from non-strange B meson decays are also displayed separately. In addition to the degree of correlation among the D-meson species considered for the computation of the pT-differential ratios, all the sources of systematic uncertainties except for the one related to the raw-yield extraction were propagated as fully correlated among the different pTintervals. A similar strategy was adopted by the LHCb Collaboration for the beauty sector in ref. [37]. In figure 10, the charm-quark fragmentation-fraction ratio fs/(fu+fd)is compared with previous measurements of strangeness suppression factor γsfrom the ALICE [5], H1 [90], ZEUS [91], and ATLAS [18] Collaborations. They were divided by a factor two to account for the difference between γsand the ratio of fragmentation fractions fs/(fu+fd). The theoretical uncertainties in case of the H1 result include the branching ratio uncertainty and the model dependencies of the acceptance determination, while for the ATLAS result the extrapolation uncertainties to the full phase space are included. All the values are compatible within uncertainties and with the average of measurements at LEP [83]. The experimental points are also compared to the value obtained from PYTHIA 8 simulations with Monash-13 tune [72] and found to be compatible with it within the uncertainties, even if a tension of about 2.7 standard deviations (including both statistical and systematic uncertainties) is observed for the result presented in this paper. A similar procedure was followed to obtain the fragmentation fraction of beauty quarks to beauty-strange mesons divided by the one to non-strange beauty mesons, starting from the measured non-prompt D+ s/(D0+ D+)ratio. In the case of non-prompt D mesons, an additional correction factor was necessary to account for the fraction of non-prompt D+ smesons not originating from B0 sdecays and that of non-prompt D0and D+mesons not originating from non-strange B-meson decays. This correction factor was computed – 21 – JHEP05(2021)220 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 ) d f+ u f/( s fcharm = 5.02 TeVsALICE, pp = 7 TeVs ALICE, pp = 7 TeVs , pp s/d γ×ATLAS 0.5 s γ×p 0.5γZEUS s γ×H1 ep 0.5 Z m = s , − e + LEP e PYTHIA8 > 0 T p c(D) > 2.5 GeV/ T p (D) > 0 T p c(D) > 3.8 GeV/ T p (D) > 0 T p constant fit T p, c(D) > 1 GeV/ T p average theory sys Figure 10. Charm-quark fragmentation-fraction ratio fs/(fu+fd)compared with previous measurements performed by the ALICE [5], H1 [90], ZEUS [91], and ATLAS [18] Collaborations and to the average of LEP measurements [83]. The total experimental uncertainties (bars) and the theoretical uncertainties (shaded boxes) are shown. The experimental measurements are compared to the value obtained from PYTHIA 8 simulations with Monash-13 tune [72]. from FONLL+PYTHIA 8 and a systematic uncertainty was assigned by varying the set of beauty fragmentation fractions and the beauty-hadron branching ratios, as described in section 5.1. In the case of D+ smesons, B0 sand non-strange B mesons are expected to contribute almost equally to the non-prompt D+ scross section as shown in the right panel of figure 9, while most of the non-prompt D0and D+mesons come from non-strange Bmeson decays. The pT-differential ratio of beauty-quark fragmentation fractions was then computed as fs fu+fdbeauty =N(D+ s←B0 s) N(D+ s←Hb)×N(D0,D+←Hb) N(D0,D+←B0,+)FONLL+PYTHIA 8 ×D+ s D0+ D+non−prompt ,(5.2) and fitted with a constant function, as done for the prompt D mesons. The result is fs fu+fdbeauty = 0.127 ±0.036(stat) ±0.012(syst) ±0.005(BR) ±0.005(th),(5.3) where the theoretical uncertainty arises from the correction factor in eq. (5.2) for the fractions of D+ s(D0and D+) mesons originating from B0 s(B0,+)-meson decays. The beauty-quark fragmentation-fraction ratio fs/(fu+fd)is compared with previous measurements from CDF [92], LHCb [37,44], and ATLAS [20] Collaborations in figure 11. – 22 – JHEP05(2021)220 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 ) d f+ u f/( s fbeauty = 5.02 TeVsALICE, pp = 13 TeVs LHCb, pp = 7 TeVsLHCb, pp = 7 TeVs , pp d f/ s f×ATLAS 0.5 = 1.96 TeVs pCDF, p Z m = s , d f/ s f× 0.5 − e + LEP e c(B) > 7 GeV/ T p c(B) > 8 GeV/ T p constant fit T p(B) > 0, T p c(B) > 4 GeV/ T p constant fit T p, c(D) > 2 GeV/ T p HFLAV average PYTHIA8 > 0 T p theory sys Figure 11. Beauty-quark fragmentation-fraction ratio fs/(fu+fd)from non-prompt D-meson measurements compared with previous measurements performed by the CDF [92], LHCb [37,44], and ATLAS [20] Collaborations and to the average of LEP measurements [93]. The total experimental uncertainties (bars) and the theoretical uncertainties (shaded boxes) are shown. The experimental measurements are compared to the value obtained from PYTHIA 8 simulations with Monash-13 tune [72]. The ATLAS measurement was divided by a factor two assuming isospin symmetry for the u and d quarks, which implies fu=fd. All the fs/(fu+fd)values measured in pp and pp collisions are found to be compatible with the LEP average, computed by the HFLAV Collaboration [93] and the value obtained from PYTHIA 8 simulations with Monash-13 tune [72]. It is also interesting to note that the fragmentation-fraction ratios fs/(fu+fd) are similar for the charm and beauty sectors and are consistent with the ratio of light strange to non-strange particle production in pp and e+e−collisions [94]. 5.3 Extrapolation to the bb production cross section The bb production cross section per unit of rapidity at midrapidity (|y|<0.5) was computed following a similar procedure as the one adopted to derive the pT-integrated production cross sections of non-prompt D mesons. In this case, the extrapolation factor αbb extr was computed as αbb extr =dσbb/dy|FONLL |y|<0.5 σFONLL+PYTHIA 8 b→D(pmin T< pT< pmax T,|y|<0.5),(5.4) where dσbb/dy|FONLL |y|<0.5is the bb production cross section obtained with FONLL calculations with a correction for the different shapes of the rapidity distributions of beauty hadrons and bb pairs, and σFONLL+PYTHIA 8 b→D(pmin T< pT< pmax T,|y|<0.5) is the non-prompt D meson – 23 – JHEP05(2021)220 [27] CMS collaboration, Measurement of the B0production cross section in pp Collisions at √s= 7 TeV,Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 252001 [arXiv:1104.2892] [INSPIRE]. [28] CMS collaboration, Measurement of the B0 sProduction Cross Section with B0 s→J/ψφ Decays in pp Collisions at √s=7 TeV,Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 052008 [arXiv:1106.4048] [INSPIRE]. [29] CMS collaboration, Measurement of the total and differential inclusive B+hadron cross sections in pp collisions at √s= 13 TeV,Phys. Lett. B 771 (2017) 435 [arXiv:1609.00873] [INSPIRE]. [30] CMS collaboration, Studies of Beauty Suppression via Nonprompt D0Mesons in Pb-Pb Collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV,Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 022001 [arXiv:1810.11102] [INSPIRE]. [31] CMS collaboration, Measurement of the ratio of the production cross sections times branching fractions of B± c→J/ψπ±and B±→J/ψK±and B(B± c→J/ψπ±π±π∓)/B(B± c→J/ψπ±)in pp collisions at √s= 7 TeV,JHEP 01 (2015) 063 [arXiv:1410.5729] [INSPIRE]. [32] LHCb collaboration, Measurement of σ(pp →b¯ bX)at √s= 7 TeV in the forward region, Phys. Lett. B 694 (2010) 209 [arXiv:1009.2731] [INSPIRE]. [33] LHCb collaboration, Measurements of prompt charm production cross-sections in pp collisions at √s= 5 TeV,JHEP 06 (2017) 147 [arXiv:1610.02230] [INSPIRE]. [34] LHCb collaboration, Prompt charm production in pp collisions at sqrt(s)=7 TeV,Nucl. Phys. B871 (2013) 1 [arXiv:1302.2864] [INSPIRE]. [35] LHCb collaboration, Measurements of prompt charm production cross-sections in pp collisions at √s= 13 TeV,JHEP 03 (2016) 159 [Erratum ibid. 09 (2016) 013] [Erratum ibid. 05 (2017) 074] [arXiv:1510.01707] [INSPIRE]. [36] LHCb collaboration, Measurement of the B±production cross-section in pp collisions at √s= 7 TeV,JHEP 04 (2012) 093 [arXiv:1202.4812] [INSPIRE]. [37] LHCb collaboration, Measurement of b-hadron production fractions in 7 TeV pp collisions, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 032008 [arXiv:1111.2357] [INSPIRE]. [38] LHCb collaboration, Measurements of B+ cproduction and mass with the B+ c→J/ψπ+ decay,Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 232001 [arXiv:1209.5634] [INSPIRE]. [39] LHCb collaboration, Measurement of B meson production cross-sections in proton-proton collisions at √s= 7 TeV,JHEP 08 (2013) 117 [arXiv:1306.3663] [INSPIRE]. [40] LHCb collaboration, Measurement of B+ cproduction in proton-proton collisions at √s= 8 TeV,Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 132001 [arXiv:1411.2943] [INSPIRE]. [41] LHCb collaboration, Study of the production of Λ0 band B0hadrons in pp collisions and first measurement of the Λ0 b→J/ψpK−branching fraction,Chin. Phys. C 40 (2016) 011001 [arXiv:1509.00292] [INSPIRE]. [42] LHCb collaboration, Measurement of the b-quark production cross-section in 7 and 13 TeV pp collisions,Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 052002 [Erratum ibid. 119 (2017) 169901] [arXiv:1612.05140] [INSPIRE]. [43] LHCb collaboration, Measurement of the mass and production rate of Ξ− bbaryons,Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 052006 [arXiv:1901.07075] [INSPIRE]. [44] LHCb collaboration, Measurement of bhadron fractions in 13 TeV pp collisions,Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) 031102 [arXiv:1902.06794] [INSPIRE]. – 30 – JHEP05(2021)220 [45] LHCb collaboration, Measurement of Ξ++ cc production in pp collisions at √s= 13 TeV,Chin. Phys. C 44 (2020) 022001 [arXiv:1910.11316] [INSPIRE]. [46] LHCb collaboration, Measurement of the B− cmeson production fraction and asymmetry in 7 and 13 TeV pp collisions,Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 112006 [arXiv:1910.13404] [INSPIRE]. [47] PHENIX collaboration, Measurement of high-pTsingle electrons from heavy-flavor decays in p+pcollisions at √s= 200 GeV,Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 252002 [hep-ex/0609010] [INSPIRE]. [48] PHENIX collaboration, Measurement of Bottom versus Charm as a Function of Transverse Momentum with Electron-Hadron Correlations in p+pCollisions at √s= 200 GeV,Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 082002 [arXiv:0903.4851] [INSPIRE]. [49] STAR collaboration, Measurements of D0and D∗Production in p+pCollisions at √s= 200 GeV,Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 072013 [arXiv:1204.4244] [INSPIRE]. [50] PHENIX collaboration, Measurements of e+e−pairs from open heavy flavor in p+pand d+Acollisions at √sNN = 200 GeV,Phys. Rev. C 96 (2017) 024907 [arXiv:1702.01084] [INSPIRE]. [51] UA1 collaboration, Beauty production at the CERN p¯pcollider,Phys. Lett. B 256 (1991) 121 [Erratum ibid. 262 (1991) 497] [INSPIRE]. [52] CDF collaboration, Measurement of prompt charm meson production cross sections in p¯p collisions at √s= 1.96 TeV,Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 241804 [hep-ex/0307080] [INSPIRE]. [53] CDF collaboration, Measurement of the J/ψ meson and b-hadron production cross sections in p¯pcollisions at √s= 1960 GeV,Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 032001 [hep-ex/0412071] [INSPIRE]. [54] CDF collaboration, Measurement of the B+ production cross-section in p¯pcollisions at √s= 1960 GeV,Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 012010 [hep-ex/0612015] [INSPIRE]. [55] CDF collaboration, Measurement of the b-hadron production cross section using decays to µ−D0Xfinal states in pp collisions at √s= 1.96 TeV,Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 092003 [arXiv:0903.2403] [INSPIRE]. [56] M. Cacciari, M. Greco and P. Nason, The pTspectrum in heavy flavor hadroproduction, JHEP 05 (1998) 007 [hep-ph/9803400] [INSPIRE]. [57] M. Cacciari, S. Frixione and P. Nason, The pTspectrum in heavy flavor photoproduction, JHEP 03 (2001) 006 [hep-ph/0102134] [INSPIRE]. [58] B.A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, I. Schienbein and H. Spiesberger, Inclusive D*+- production in p¯p collisions with massive charm quarks,Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 014018 [hep-ph/0410289] [INSPIRE]. [59] B.A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, I. Schienbein and H. Spiesberger, Inclusive Charmed-Meson Production at the CERN LHC,Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 2082 [arXiv:1202.0439] [INSPIRE]. [60] M. Benzke, M.V. Garzelli, B. Kniehl, G. Kramer, S. Moch and G. Sigl, Prompt neutrinos from atmospheric charm in the general-mass variable-flavor-number scheme,JHEP 12 (2017) 021 [arXiv:1705.10386] [INSPIRE]. [61] G. Kramer and H. Spiesberger, Study of heavy meson production in p-Pb collisions at √S= 5.02 TeV in the general-mass variable-flavour-number scheme,Nucl. Phys. B 925 (2017) 415 [arXiv:1703.04754] [INSPIRE]. – 31 – JHEP05(2021)220 [62] I. Helenius and H. Paukkunen, Revisiting the D-meson hadroproduction in general-mass variable flavour number scheme,JHEP 05 (2018) 196 [arXiv:1804.03557] [INSPIRE]. [63] P. Bolzoni and G. Kramer, Inclusive charmed-meson production from bottom hadron decays at the LHC,J. Phys. G 41 (2014) 075006 [arXiv:1310.2924] [INSPIRE]. [64] J.C. Collins, D.E. Soper and G.F. Sterman, Factorization of Hard Processes in QCD,Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 5(1989) 1 [hep-ph/0409313] [INSPIRE]. [65] S. Catani, S. Devoto, M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit and J. Mazzitelli, Bottom-quark production at hadron colliders: fully differential predictions in NNLO QCD,JHEP 03 (2021) 029 [arXiv:2010.11906] [INSPIRE]. [66] A. Beraudo et al., Extraction of Heavy-Flavor Transport Coefficients in QCD Matter,Nucl. Phys. A 979 (2018) 21 [arXiv:1803.03824] [INSPIRE]. [67] ALICE collaboration, The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC,2008 JINST 3S08002 [INSPIRE]. [68] ALICE collaboration, Performance of the ALICE Experiment at the CERN LHC,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29 (2014) 1430044 [arXiv:1402.4476] [INSPIRE]. [69] ALICE collaboration, ALICE 2017 luminosity determination for pp collisions at √s= 5 TeV,ALICE-PUBLIC-2018-014 (2018). [70] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna and P.Z. Skands, PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual,JHEP 05 (2006) 026 [hep-ph/0603175] [INSPIRE]. [71] T. Sjöstrand et al., An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2,Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159 [arXiv:1410.3012] [INSPIRE]. [72] P. Skands, S. Carrazza and J. Rojo, Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 Tune,Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3024 [arXiv:1404.5630] [INSPIRE]. [73] R. Brun et al., GEANT: Detector Description and Simulation Tool; Oct 1994 ,DOI W5013 CERN, Geneva, (1993). [74] Particle Data Group collaboration, Review of Particle Physics,PTEP 2020 (2020) 083C01 [INSPIRE]. [75] H. Voss, A. Hocker, J. Stelzer and F. Tegenfeldt, TMVA, the Toolkit for Multivariate Data Analysis with ROOT,PoS ACAT (2007) 040 [INSPIRE]. [76] T. Chen and C. Guestrin, XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System,arXiv:1603.02754 [INSPIRE]. [77] ALICE collaboration, Measurement of D0, D+, D∗+and D+ sproduction in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV,JHEP 10 (2018) 174 [arXiv:1804.09083] [INSPIRE]. [78] ALICE collaboration, Measurement of prompt D0, D+, D∗+, and D+ Sproduction in p-Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV,JHEP 12 (2019) 092 [arXiv:1906.03425] [INSPIRE]. [79] M. Cacciari, S. Frixione, N. Houdeau, M.L. Mangano, P. Nason and G. Ridolfi, Theoretical predictions for charm and bottom production at the LHC,JHEP 10 (2012) 137 [arXiv:1205.6344] [INSPIRE]. [80] ALICE collaboration, The ALICE definition of primary particles,ALICE-PUBLIC-2017-005 (2017). [81] J. Pumplin, D.R. Stump, J. Huston, H.L. Lai, P.M. Nadolsky and W.K. Tung, New generation of parton distributions with uncertainties from global QCD analysis,JHEP 07 (2002) 012 [hep-ph/0201195] [INSPIRE]. – 32 – JHEP05(2021)220 [82] S. Dulat et al., New parton distribution functions from a global analysis of quantum chromodynamics,Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 033006 [arXiv:1506.07443] [INSPIRE]. [83] L. Gladilin, Fragmentation fractions of cand bquarks into charmed hadrons at LEP,Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 19 [arXiv:1404.3888] [INSPIRE]. [84] CMS collaboration, Measurement of the B±Meson Nuclear Modification Factor in Pb-Pb Collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV,Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 152301 [arXiv:1705.04727] [INSPIRE]. [85] T. Kneesch, B.A. Kniehl, G. Kramer and I. Schienbein, Charmed-meson fragmentation functions with finite-mass corrections,Nucl. Phys. B 799 (2008) 34 [arXiv:0712.0481] [INSPIRE]. [86] B.A. Kniehl and G. Kramer, Charmed-hadron fragmentation functions from CERN LEP1 revisited,Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 037502 [hep-ph/0607306] [INSPIRE]. [87] ALEPH collaboration, Study of charm production in Z decays,Eur. Phys. J. C 16 (2000) 597 [hep-ex/9909032] [INSPIRE]. [88] E. Braaten, K.-m. Cheung, S. Fleming and T.C. Yuan, Perturbative QCD fragmentation functions as a model for heavy quark fragmentation,Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995) 4819 [hep-ph/9409316] [INSPIRE]. [89] D.J. Lange, The EvtGen particle decay simulation package,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 462 (2001) 152 [INSPIRE]. [90] H1 collaboration, Inclusive production of D+, D0, D+(s) and D*+ mesons in deep inelastic scattering at HERA,Eur. Phys. J. C 38 (2005) 447 [hep-ex/0408149] [INSPIRE]. [91] ZEUS collaboration, Measurement of charm fragmentation fractions in photoproduction at HERA,JHEP 09 (2013) 058 [arXiv:1306.4862] [INSPIRE]. [92] CDF collaboration, Measurement of Ratios of Fragmentation Fractions for Bottom Hadrons in p¯pCollisions at √s= 1.96−TeV,Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 072003 [arXiv:0801.4375] [INSPIRE]. [93] HFLAV collaboration, Averages of b-hadron, c-hadron, and τ-lepton properties as of 2018, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 226 [arXiv:1909.12524] [INSPIRE]. [94] P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Cleymans, H. Oeschler and K. Redlich, Maximum relative strangeness content in heavy ion collisions around 30-GeV/A,Nucl. Phys. A 697 (2002) 902 [hep-ph/0106066] [INSPIRE]. [95] S. Frixione, P. Nason and G. Ridolfi, A Positive-weight next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction,JHEP 09 (2007) 126 [arXiv:0707.3088] [INSPIRE]. [96] H.-L. Lai et al., New parton distributions for collider physics,Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 074024 [arXiv:1007.2241] [INSPIRE]. [97] ALICE collaboration, Dielectron production in proton-proton and proton-lead collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV,Phys. Rev. C 102 (2020) 055204 [arXiv:2005.11995] [INSPIRE]. – 33 – JHEP05(2021)220 The ALICE collaboration S. Acharya142, D. Adamová97, A. Adler75, J. Adolfsson82, G. Aglieri Rinella35, M. Agnello31, N. Agrawal55, Z. Ahammed142, S. Ahmad16, S.U. Ahn77, Z. Akbar52, A. Akindinov94, M. Al-Turany109, D. Aleksandrov90, B. Alessandro60, H.M. Alfanda7, R. Alfaro Molina72, B. Ali16, Y. Ali14, A. Alici26, N. Alizadehvandchali126, A. Alkin35, J. Alme21, T. Alt69, L. Altenkamper21, I. Altsybeev114, M.N. Anaam7, C. Andrei49, D. Andreou92, A. Andronic145, V. Anguelov106, F. Antinori58, P. Antonioli55, C. Anuj16, N. Apadula81, L. Aphecetche116, H. Appelshäuser69, S. Arcelli26, R. Arnaldi60, I.C. Arsene20, M. Arslandok147,106, A. Augustinus35, R. Averbeck109, S. Aziz79, M.D. Azmi16, A. Badalà57, Y.W. Baek42, X. Bai109, R. Bailhache69, Y. Bailung51, R. Bala103, A. Balbino31, A. Baldisseri139, M. Ball44, D. Banerjee4, R. Barbera27, L. Barioglio107,25, M. Barlou86, G.G. Barnaföldi146, L.S. Barnby96, V. Barret136, C. Bartels129, K. Barth35, E. Bartsch69, F. Baruffaldi28, N. Bastid136, S. Basu82,144, G. Batigne116, B. Batyunya76, D. Bauri50, J.L. Bazo Alba113, I.G. Bearden91, C. Beattie147, I. Belikov138, A.D.C. Bell Hechavarria145, F. Bellini35, R. Bellwied126, S. Belokurova114, V. Belyaev95, G. Bencedi70,146, S. Beole25, A. Bercuci49, Y. Berdnikov100, A. Berdnikova106, D. Berenyi146, L. Bergmann106, M.G. Besoiu68, L. Betev35, P.P. Bhaduri142, A. Bhasin103, I.R. Bhat103, M.A. Bhat4, B. Bhattacharjee43, P. Bhattacharya23, L. Bianchi25, N. Bianchi53, J. Bielčík38, J. Bielčíková97, J. Biernat119, A. Bilandzic107, G. Biro146, S. Biswas4, J.T. Blair120, D. Blau90, M.B. Blidaru109, C. Blume69, G. Boca29, F. Bock98, A. Bogdanov95, S. Boi23, J. Bok62, L. Boldizsár146, A. Bolozdynya95, M. Bombara39, P.M. Bond35, G. Bonomi141, H. Borel139, A. Borissov83,95, H. Bossi147, E. Botta25, L. Bratrud69, P. Braun-Munzinger109, M. Bregant122, M. Broz38, G.E. Bruno108,34, M.D. Buckland129, D. Budnikov110, H. Buesching69, S. Bufalino31, O. Bugnon116, P. Buhler115, Z. Buthelezi73,133, J.B. Butt14, S.A. Bysiak119, D. Caffarri92, M. Cai28,7, A. Caliva109, E. Calvo Villar113, J.M.M. Camacho121, R.S. Camacho46, P. Camerini24, F.D.M. Canedo122, A.A. Capon115, F. Carnesecchi26, R. Caron139, J. Castillo Castellanos139, E.A.R. Casula23, F. Catalano31, C. Ceballos Sanchez76, P. Chakraborty50, S. Chandra142, W. Chang7, S. Chapeland35, M. Chartier129, S. Chattopadhyay142, S. Chattopadhyay111, A. Chauvin23, T.G. Chavez46, C. Cheshkov137, B. Cheynis137, V. Chibante Barroso35, D.D. Chinellato123, S. Cho62, P. Chochula35, P. Christakoglou92, C.H. Christensen91, P. Christiansen82, T. Chujo135, C. Cicalo56, L. Cifarelli26, F. Cindolo55, M.R. Ciupek109, G. ClaiII,55, J. Cleymans125, F. Colamaria54, J.S. Colburn112, D. Colella54,146, A. Collu81, M. Colocci35,26, M. ConcasIII,60, G. Conesa Balbastre80, Z. Conesa del Valle79, G. Contin24, J.G. Contreras38, T.M. Cormier98, P. Cortese32, M.R. Cosentino124, F. Costa35, S. Costanza29, P. Crochet136, E. Cuautle70, P. Cui7, L. Cunqueiro98, A. Dainese58, F.P.A. Damas116,139, M.C. Danisch106, A. Danu68, I. Das111, P. Das88, P. Das4, S. Das4, S. Dash50, S. De88, A. De Caro30, G. de Cataldo54, L. De Cilladi25, J. de Cuveland40, A. De Falco23, D. De Gruttola30, N. De Marco60, C. De Martin24, S. De Pasquale30, S. Deb51, H.F. Degenhardt122, K.R. Deja143, L. Dello Stritto30, S. Delsanto25, W. Deng7, P. Dhankher19, D. Di Bari34, A. Di Mauro35, R.A. Diaz8, T. Dietel125, Y. Ding7, R. Divià35, D.U. Dixit19, Ø. Djuvsland21, U. Dmitrieva64, J. Do62, A. Dobrin68, B. Dönigus69, O. Dordic20, A.K. Dubey142, A. Dubla109,92, S. Dudi102, M. Dukhishyam88, P. Dupieux136, T.M. Eder145, R.J. Ehlers98, V.N. Eikeland21, D. Elia54, B. Erazmus116, F. Ercolessi26, A. Erokhin114, M.R. Ersdal21, B. Espagnon79, G. Eulisse35, D. Evans112, S. Evdokimov93, L. Fabbietti107, M. Faggin28, J. Faivre80, F. Fan7, A. Fantoni53, M. Fasel98, P. Fecchio31, A. Feliciello60, G. Feofilov114, A. Fernández Téllez46, A. Ferrero139, A. Ferretti25, V.J.G. Feuillard106, J. Figiel119, S. Filchagin110, D. Finogeev64, F.M. Fionda21, G. Fiorenza54, F. Flor126, A.N. Flores120, S. Foertsch73, P. Foka109, S. Fokin90, E. Fragiacomo61, U. Fuchs35, N. Funicello30, C. Furget80, A. Furs64, J.J. Gaardhøje91, M. Gagliardi25, – 34 – JHEP05(2021)220 A.M. Gago113, A. Gal138, C.D. Galvan121, P. Ganoti86, C. Garabatos109, J.R.A. Garcia46, E. Garcia-Solis10, K. Garg116, C. Gargiulo35, A. Garibli89, K. Garner145, P. Gasik109, E.F. Gauger120, A. Gautam128, M.B. Gay Ducati71, M. Germain116, J. Ghosh111, P. Ghosh142, S.K. Ghosh4, M. Giacalone26, P. Gianotti53, P. Giubellino109,60, P. Giubilato28, A.M.C. Glaenzer139, P. Glässel106, V. Gonzalez144, L.H. González-Trueba72, S. Gorbunov40, L. Görlich119, S. Gotovac36, V. Grabski72, L.K. Graczykowski143, K.L. Graham112, L. Greiner81, A. Grelli63, C. Grigoras35, V. Grigoriev95, A. GrigoryanI,1, S. Grigoryan76,1, O.S. Groettvik21, F. Grosa60, J.F. Grosse-Oetringhaus35, R. Grosso109, G.G. Guardiano123, R. Guernane80, M. Guilbaud116, M. Guittiere116, K. Gulbrandsen91, T. Gunji134, A. Gupta103, R. Gupta103, I.B. Guzman46, M.K. Habib109, C. Hadjidakis79, H. Hamagaki84, G. Hamar146, M. Hamid7, R. Hannigan120, M.R. Haque143,88, A. Harlenderova109, J.W. Harris147, A. Harton10, J.A. Hasenbichler35, H. Hassan98, D. Hatzifotiadou55, P. Hauer44, L.B. Havener147, S. Hayashi134, S.T. Heckel107, E. Hellbär69, H. Helstrup37, T. Herman38, E.G. Hernandez46, G. Herrera Corral9, F. Herrmann145, K.F. Hetland37, H. Hillemanns35, C. Hills129, B. Hippolyte138, B. Hohlweger92,107, J. Honermann145, G.H. Hong148, D. Horak38, S. Hornung109, R. Hosokawa15, P. Hristov35, C. Huang79, C. Hughes132, P. Huhn69, T.J. Humanic99, H. Hushnud111, L.A. Husova145, N. Hussain43, D. Hutter40, J.P. Iddon35,129, R. Ilkaev110, H. Ilyas14, M. Inaba135, G.M. Innocenti35, M. Ippolitov90, A. Isakov38,97, M.S. Islam111, M. Ivanov109, V. Ivanov100, V. Izucheev93, B. Jacak81, N. Jacazio35, P.M. Jacobs81, S. Jadlovska118, J. Jadlovsky118, S. Jaelani63, C. Jahnke123,122, M.J. Jakubowska143, M.A. Janik143, T. Janson75, M. Jercic101, O. Jevons112, F. Jonas98,145, P.G. Jones112, J. Jowett35,109, J. Jung69, M. Jung69, A. Junique35, A. Jusko112, P. Kalinak65, A. Kalweit35, V. Kaplin95, S. Kar7, A. Karasu Uysal78, D. Karatovic101, O. Karavichev64, T. Karavicheva64, P. Karczmarczyk143, E. Karpechev64, A. Kazantsev90, U. Kebschull75, R. Keidel48, M. Keil35, B. Ketzer44, Z. Khabanova92, A.M. Khan7, S. Khan16, A. Khanzadeev100, Y. Kharlov93, A. Khatun16, A. Khuntia119, B. Kileng37, B. Kim17,62, D. Kim148, D.J. Kim127, E.J. Kim74, J. Kim148, J.S. Kim42, J. Kim106, J. Kim148, J. Kim74, M. Kim106, S. Kim18, T. Kim148, S. Kirsch69, I. Kisel40, S. Kiselev94, A. Kisiel143, J.L. Klay6, J. Klein35, S. Klein81, C. Klein-Bösing145, M. Kleiner69, T. Klemenz107, A. Kluge35, A.G. Knospe126, C. Kobdaj117, M.K. Köhler106, T. Kollegger109, A. Kondratyev76, N. Kondratyeva95, E. Kondratyuk93, J. Konig69, S.A. Konigstorfer107, P.J. Konopka35,2, G. Kornakov143, S.D. Koryciak2, L. Koska118, O. Kovalenko87, V. Kovalenko114, M. Kowalski119, I. Králik65, A. Kravčáková39, L. Kreis109, M. Krivda112,65, F. Krizek97, K. Krizkova Gajdosova38, M. Kroesen106, M. Krüger69, E. Kryshen100, M. Krzewicki40, V. Kučera35, C. Kuhn138, P.G. Kuijer92, T. Kumaoka135, L. Kumar102, S. Kundu88, P. Kurashvili87, A. Kurepin64, A.B. Kurepin64, A. Kuryakin110, S. Kushpil97, J. Kvapil112, M.J. Kweon62, J.Y. Kwon62, Y. Kwon148, S.L. La Pointe40, P. La Rocca27, Y.S. Lai81, A. Lakrathok117, M. Lamanna35, R. Langoy131, K. Lapidus35, P. Larionov53, E. Laudi35, L. Lautner35,107, R. Lavicka38, T. Lazareva114, R. Lea141,24, J. Lee135, J. Lehrbach40, R.C. Lemmon96, I. León Monzón121, E.D. Lesser19, M. Lettrich35,107, P. Lévai146, X. Li11, X.L. Li7, J. Lien131, R. Lietava112, B. Lim17, S.H. Lim17, V. Lindenstruth40, A. Lindner49, C. Lippmann109, A. Liu19, J. Liu129, I.M. Lofnes21, V. Loginov95, C. Loizides98, P. Loncar36, J.A. Lopez106, X. Lopez136, E. López Torres8, J.R. Luhder145, M. Lunardon28, G. Luparello61, Y.G. Ma41, A. Maevskaya64, M. Mager35, T. Mahmoud44, A. Maire138, R.D. MajkaI,147, M. Malaev100, Q.W. Malik20, L. MalininaIV,76, D. Mal’Kevich94, N. Mallick51, P. Malzacher109, G. Mandaglio33,57, V. Manko90, F. Manso136, V. Manzari54, Y. Mao7, J. Mareš67, G.V. Margagliotti24, A. Margotti55, A. Marín109, C. Markert120, M. Marquard69, N.A. Martin106, P. Martinengo35, J.L. Martinez126, M.I. Martínez46, G. Martínez García116, S. Masciocchi109, M. Masera25, A. Masoni56, L. Massacrier79, A. Mastroserio140,54, A.M. Mathis107, O. Matonoha82, P.F.T. Matuoka122, – 35 – JHEP05(2021)220 A. Matyja119, C. Mayer119, A.L. Mazuecos35, F. Mazzaschi25, M. Mazzilli35,54, M.A. Mazzoni59, A.F. Mechler69, F. Meddi22, Y. Melikyan64, A. Menchaca-Rocha72, E. Meninno115,30, A.S. Menon126, M. Meres13, S. Mhlanga125,73, Y. Miake135, L. Micheletti25, L.C. Migliorin137, D.L. Mihaylov107, K. Mikhaylov76,94, A.N. Mishra146,70, D. Miśkowiec109, A. Modak4, A.P. Mohanty63, B. Mohanty88, M. Mohisin Khan16, Z. Moravcova91, C. Mordasini107, D.A. Moreira De Godoy145, L.A.P. Moreno46, I. Morozov64, A. Morsch35, T. Mrnjavac35, V. Muccifora53, E. Mudnic36, D. Mühlheim145, S. Muhuri142, J.D. Mulligan81, A. Mulliri23, M.G. Munhoz122, R.H. Munzer69, H. Murakami134, S. Murray125, L. Musa35, J. Musinsky65, C.J. Myers126, J.W. Myrcha143, R. Nair87, B.K. Nandi50, R. Nania55, E. Nappi54, M.U. Naru14, A.F. Nassirpour82, C. Nattrass132, A. Neagu20, L. Nellen70, S.V. Nesbo37, G. Neskovic40, D. Nesterov114, B.S. Nielsen91, S. Nikolaev90, S. Nikulin90, V. Nikulin100, F. Noferini55, S. Noh12, P. Nomokonov76, J. Norman129, N. Novitzky135, P. Nowakowski143, A. Nyanin90, J. Nystrand21, M. Ogino84, A. Ohlson82, J. Oleniacz143, A.C. Oliveira Da Silva132, M.H. Oliver147, A. Onnerstad127, C. Oppedisano60, A. Ortiz Velasquez70, T. Osako47, A. Oskarsson82, J. Otwinowski119, K. Oyama84, Y. Pachmayer106, S. Padhan50, D. Pagano141, G. Paić70, A. Palasciano54, J. Pan144, S. Panebianco139, P. Pareek142, J. Park62, J.E. Parkkila127, S.P. Pathak126, B. Paul23, J. Pazzini141, H. Pei7, T. Peitzmann63, X. Peng7, L.G. Pereira71, H. Pereira Da Costa139, D. Peresunko90, G.M. Perez8, S. Perrin139, Y. Pestov5, V. Petráček38, M. Petrovici49, R.P. Pezzi71, S. Piano61, M. Pikna13, P. Pillot116, O. Pinazza55,35, L. Pinsky126, C. Pinto27, S. Pisano53, M. Płoskoń81, M. Planinic101, F. Pliquett69, M.G. Poghosyan98, B. Polichtchouk93, S. Politano31, N. Poljak101, A. Pop49, S. Porteboeuf-Houssais136, J. Porter81, V. Pozdniakov76, S.K. Prasad4, R. Preghenella55, F. Prino60, C.A. Pruneau144, I. Pshenichnov64, M. Puccio35, S. Qiu92, L. Quaglia25, R.E. Quishpe126, S. Ragoni112, A. Rakotozafindrabe139, L. Ramello32, F. Rami138, S.A.R. Ramirez46, A.G.T. Ramos34, R. Raniwala104, S. Raniwala104, S.S. Räsänen45, R. Rath51, I. Ravasenga92, K.F. Read98,132, A.R. Redelbach40, K. RedlichV,87, A. Rehman21, P. Reichelt69, F. Reidt35, R. Renfordt69, Z. Rescakova39, K. Reygers106, A. Riabov100, V. Riabov100, T. Richert82,91, M. Richter20, W. Riegler35, F. Riggi27, C. Ristea68, S.P. Rode51, M. Rodríguez Cahuantzi46, K. Røed20, R. Rogalev93, E. Rogochaya76, T.S. Rogoschinski69, D. Rohr35, D. Röhrich21, P.F. Rojas46, P.S. Rokita143, F. Ronchetti53, A. Rosano33,57, E.D. Rosas70, A. Rossi58, A. Rotondi29, A. Roy51, P. Roy111, N. Rubini26, O.V. Rueda82, R. Rui24, B. Rumyantsev76, A. Rustamov89, E. Ryabinkin90, Y. Ryabov100, A. Rybicki119, H. Rytkonen127, W. Rzesa143, O.A.M. Saarimaki45, R. Sadek116, S. Sadovsky93, J. Saetre21, K. Šafařík38, S.K. Saha142, S. Saha88, B. Sahoo50, P. Sahoo50, R. Sahoo51, S. Sahoo66, D. Sahu51, P.K. Sahu66, J. Saini142, S. Sakai135, S. Sambyal103, V. SamsonovI,100,95, D. Sarkar144, N. Sarkar142, P. Sarma43, V.M. Sarti107, M.H.P. Sas147, J. Schambach98,120, H.S. Scheid69, C. Schiaua49, R. Schicker106, A. Schmah106, C. Schmidt109, H.R. Schmidt105, M.O. Schmidt106, M. Schmidt105, N.V. Schmidt98,69, A.R. Schmier132, R. Schotter138, J. Schukraft35, Y. Schutz138, K. Schwarz109, K. Schweda109, G. Scioli26, E. Scomparin60, J.E. Seger15, Y. Sekiguchi134, D. Sekihata134, I. Selyuzhenkov109,95, S. Senyukov138, J.J. Seo62, D. Serebryakov64, L. Šerkšnyt˙e107, A. Sevcenco68, T.J. Shaba73, A. Shabanov64, A. Shabetai116, R. Shahoyan35, W. Shaikh111, A. Shangaraev93, A. Sharma102, H. Sharma119, M. Sharma103, N. Sharma102, S. Sharma103, O. Sheibani126, K. Shigaki47, M. Shimomura85, S. Shirinkin94, Q. Shou41, Y. Sibiriak90, S. Siddhanta56, T. Siemiarczuk87, T.F. Silva122, D. Silvermyr82, G. Simonetti35, B. Singh107, R. Singh88, R. Singh103, R. Singh51, V.K. Singh142, V. Singhal142, T. Sinha111, B. Sitar13, M. Sitta32, T.B. Skaali20, G. Skorodumovs106, M. Slupecki45, N. Smirnov147, R.J.M. Snellings63, C. Soncco113, J. Song126, A. Songmoolnak117, F. Soramel28, S. Sorensen132, I. Sputowska119, J. Stachel106, I. Stan68, P.J. Steffanic132, S.F. Stiefelmaier106, D. Stocco116, M.M. Storetvedt37, C.P. Stylianidis92, A.A.P. Suaide122, T. Sugitate47, C. Suire79, M. Suljic35, – 36 – JHEP05(2021)220 R. Sultanov94, M. Šumbera97, V. Sumberia103, S. Sumowidagdo52, S. Swain66, A. Szabo13, I. Szarka13, U. Tabassam14, S.F. Taghavi107, G. Taillepied136, J. Takahashi123, G.J. Tambave21, S. Tang136,7, Z. Tang130, M. Tarhini116, M.G. Tarzila49, A. Tauro35, G. Tejeda Muñoz46, A. Telesca35, L. Terlizzi25, C. Terrevoli126, G. Tersimonov3, S. Thakur142, D. Thomas120, R. Tieulent137, A. Tikhonov64, A.R. Timmins126, M. Tkacik118, A. Toia69, N. Topilskaya64, M. Toppi53, F. Torales-Acosta19, S.R. Torres38, A. Trifiró33,57, S. Tripathy55,70, T. Tripathy50, S. Trogolo35,28, G. Trombetta34, V. Trubnikov3, W.H. Trzaska127, T.P. Trzcinski143, B.A. Trzeciak38, A. Tumkin110, R. Turrisi58, T.S. Tveter20, K. Ullaland21, A. Uras137, M. Urioni141, G.L. Usai23, M. Vala39, N. Valle29, S. Vallero60, N. van der Kolk63, L.V.R. van Doremalen63, M. van Leeuwen92, P. Vande Vyvre35, D. Varga146, Z. Varga146, M. Varga-Kofarago146, A. Vargas46, M. Vasileiou86, A. Vasiliev90, O. Vázquez Doce107, V. Vechernin114, E. Vercellin25, S. Vergara Limón46, L. Vermunt63, R. Vértesi146, M. Verweij63, L. Vickovic36, Z. Vilakazi133, O. Villalobos Baillie112, G. Vino54, A. Vinogradov90, T. Virgili30, V. Vislavicius91, A. Vodopyanov76, B. Volkel35, M.A. Völkl105, K. Voloshin94, S.A. Voloshin144, G. Volpe34, B. von Haller35, I. Vorobyev107, D. Voscek118, J. Vrláková39, B. Wagner21, M. Weber115, A. Wegrzynek35, S.C. Wenzel35, J.P. Wessels145, J. Wiechula69, J. Wikne20, G. Wilk87, J. Wilkinson109, G.A. Willems145, E. Willsher112, B. Windelband106, M. Winn139, W.E. Witt132, J.R. Wright120, Y. Wu130, R. Xu7, S. Yalcin78, Y. Yamaguchi47, K. Yamakawa47, S. Yang21, S. Yano47,139, Z. Yin7, H. Yokoyama63, I.-K. Yoo17, J.H. Yoon62, S. Yuan21, A. Yuncu106, V. Zaccolo24, A. Zaman14, C. Zampolli35, H.J.C. Zanoli63, N. Zardoshti35, A. Zarochentsev114, P. Závada67, N. Zaviyalov110, H. Zbroszczyk143, M. Zhalov100, S. Zhang41, X. Zhang7, Y. Zhang130, V. Zherebchevskii114, Y. Zhi11, D. Zhou7, Y. Zhou91, J. Zhu7,109, Y. Zhu7, A. Zichichi26, G. Zinovjev3, N. Zurlo141 Affiliation notes IDeceased II Also at: Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA), Bologna, Italy III Also at: Dipartimento DET del Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy IV Also at: M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, D.V. Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear, Physics, Moscow, Russia VAlso at: Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Wroclaw, Poland Collaboration Institutes 1A.I. Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics Institute) Foundation, Yerevan, Armenia 2AGH University of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland 3Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine 4Bose Institute, Department of Physics and Centre for Astroparticle Physics and Space Science (CAPSS), Kolkata, India 5Budker Institute for Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia 6California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California, United States 7Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China 8Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Havana, Cuba 9Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados (CINVESTAV), Mexico City and Mérida, Mexico – 37 – JHEP05(2021)220 10 Chicago State University, Chicago, Illinois, United States 11 China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China 12 Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea 13 Comenius University Bratislava, Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, Bratislava, Slovakia 14 COMSATS University Islamabad, Islamabad, Pakistan 15 Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, United States 16 Department of Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India 17 Department of Physics, Pusan National University, Pusan, Republic of Korea 18 Department of Physics, Sejong University, Seoul, Republic of Korea 19 Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, California, United States 20 Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway 21 Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway 22 Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università ’La Sapienza’ and Sezione INFN, Rome, Italy 23 Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Cagliari, Italy 24 Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Trieste, Italy 25 Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy 26 Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Bologna, Italy 27 Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Catania, Italy 28 Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell’Università and Sezione INFN, Padova, Italy 29 Dipartimento di Fisica e Nucleare e Teorica, Università di Pavia and Sezione INFN, Pavia, Italy 30 Dipartimento di Fisica ‘E.R. Caianiello’ dell’Università and Gruppo Collegato INFN, Salerno, Italy 31 Dipartimento DISAT del Politecnico and Sezione INFN, Turin, Italy 32 Dipartimento di Scienze e Innovazione Tecnologica dell’Università del Piemonte Orientale and INFN Sezione di Torino, Alessandria, Italy 33 Dipartimento di Scienze MIFT, Università di Messina, Messina, Italy 34 Dipartimento Interateneo di Fisica ‘M. Merlin’ and Sezione INFN, Bari, Italy 35 European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland 36 Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Split, Split, Croatia 37 Faculty of Engineering and Science, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway 38 Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic 39 Faculty of Science, P.J. Šafárik University, Košice, Slovakia 40 Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany 41 Fudan University, Shanghai, China 42 Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, Republic of Korea 43 Gauhati University, Department of Physics, Guwahati, India 44 Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlenund Kernphysik, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany 45 Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Helsinki, Finland 46 High Energy Physics Group, Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico 47 Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan 48 Hochschule Worms, Zentrum für Technologietransfer und Telekommunikation (ZTT), Worms, Germany – 38 – JHEP05(2021)220 49 Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest, Romania 50 Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT), Mumbai, India 51 Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore, India 52 Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Jakarta, Indonesia 53 INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy 54 INFN, Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy 55 INFN, Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, Italy 56 INFN, Sezione di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy 57 INFN, Sezione di Catania, Catania, Italy 58 INFN, Sezione di Padova, Padova, Italy 59 INFN, Sezione di Roma, Rome, Italy 60 INFN, Sezione di Torino, Turin, Italy 61 INFN, Sezione di Trieste, Trieste, Italy 62 Inha University, Incheon, Republic of Korea 63 Institute for Gravitational and Subatomic Physics (GRASP), Utrecht University/Nikhef, Utrecht, Netherlands 64 Institute for Nuclear Research, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia 65 Institute of Experimental Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Košice, Slovakia 66 Institute of Physics, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Bhubaneswar, India 67 Institute of Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic 68 Institute of Space Science (ISS), Bucharest, Romania 69 Institut für Kernphysik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany 70 Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico 71 Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Brazil 72 Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico 73 iThemba LABS, National Research Foundation, Somerset West, South Africa 74 Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea 75 Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe Universität Frankfurt Institut für Informatik, Fachbereich Informatik und Mathematik, Frankfurt, Germany 76 Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR), Dubna, Russia 77 Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon, Republic of Korea 78 KTO Karatay University, Konya, Turkey 79 Laboratoire de Physique des 2 Infinis, Irène Joliot-Curie, Orsay, France 80 Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie, Université Grenoble-Alpes, CNRS-IN2P3, Grenoble, France 81 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, United States 82 Lund University Department of Physics, Division of Particle Physics, Lund, Sweden 83 Moscow Institute for Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia 84 Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science, Nagasaki, Japan 85 Nara Women’s University (NWU), Nara, Japan 86 National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Science, Department of Physics , Athens, Greece 87 National Centre for Nuclear Research, Warsaw, Poland 88 National Institute of Science Education and Research, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Jatni, India 89 National Nuclear Research Center, Baku, Azerbaijan 90 National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia – 39 –