PLB29808S0370-2693(13)00923-410.1016/j.physletb.2013.11.020The AuthorsExperiments

Fig. 1

(Color online.) Invariant pT-differential yields of π±, K±, KS0, p(p¯) and Λ(Λ¯) in different V0A multiplicity classes (sum of particle and antiparticle states where relevant) measured in the rapidity interval 0<yCMS<0.5. Top to bottom: central to peripheral; data scaled by 2n factors for better visibility. Statistical (bars) and full systematic (boxes) uncertainties are plotted. Dashed curves: blast-wave fits to each individual distribution.

Fig. 2

(Color online.) Ratios K/π=(K++K−)/(π++π−), p/π=(p+p¯)/(π++π−) and Λ/KS0 as a function of pT in two multiplicity bins measured in the rapidity interval 0<yCMS<0.5 (left panels). The ratios are compared to results in Pb–Pb collisions measured at mid-rapidity, shown in the right panels. The empty boxes show the total systematic uncertainty; the shaded boxes indicate the contribution uncorrelated across multiplicity bins (not estimated in Pb–Pb).

Fig. 3

(Color online.) p/π ratio as a function of the charged-particle density dNch/dη in three pT intervals in p–Pb (measured in the rapidity interval 0<yCMS<0.5) and Pb–Pb collisions (measured at mid-rapidity). The dashed lines show the corresponding power-law fit (top). Exponent of the p/π (middle) and Λ/KS0 (bottom) power-law fit as a function of pT in p–Pb and Pb–Pb collisions. The empty boxes show the total systematic uncertainty; the shaded boxes indicate the contribution uncorrelated across multiplicity bins (not estimated in Pb–Pb).

Fig. 4

(Color online.) Mean transverse momentum as a function of dNch/dη in each V0A multiplicity class (see text for details) for different particle species. The dNch/dη values of KS0 are shifted for visibility. The empty boxes show the total systematic uncertainty; the shaded boxes indicate the contribution uncorrelated across multiplicity bins.

Fig. 5

(Color online.) Particle yields dN/dy of kaons, protons, and lambdas normalized to pions as a function of dNch/dη in each V0A multiplicity class (see text for details) measured in the rapidity interval 0<yCMS<0.5. The values are compared to results obtained from Pb–Pb collisions at the LHC and Au–Au and d–Au collisions at RHIC measured at mid-rapidity. The empty boxes show the total systematic uncertainty; the shaded boxes indicate the contribution uncorrelated across multiplicity bins (not estimated in Pb–Pb).

Fig. 6

(Color online.) Results of blast-wave fits, compared to Pb–Pb data and MC simulations from PYTHIA8 with and without color reconnection. Charged-particle multiplicity increases from left to right. Uncertainties from the global fit are shown as correlation ellipses.

Fig. 7

(Color online.) Pion, kaon, and proton transverse momentum distributions in the 5–10% V0A multiplicity class measured in the rapidity interval 0<yCMS<0.5 compared to the several models (see text for details).

Table 1

Definition of the event classes as fractions of the analyzed event sample and their corresponding 〈dNch/dη〉 within |ηlab|<0.5 (systematic uncertainties only, statistical uncertainties are negligible).

Event classV0A range (arb. unit)〈dNch/dη〉 |ηlab|<0.50–5%>22745±15–10%187–22736.2±0.810–20%142–18730.5±0.720–40%89–14223.2±0.540–60%52–8916.1±0.460–80%22–529.8±0.280–100%<224.4±0.1Table 2

V0 topological selection cuts (DCA: distance-of-closest approach).

Selection variableCut value2D decay radius>0.50 cmDaughter track DCA to prim. vertex>0.06 cmDCA between daughter tracks<1.0σCosine of pointing angle (KS0)pT dependent (<1% signal loss)Cosine of pointing angle (Λ and Λ¯)pT dependent (<1% signal loss)Proper lifetime (KS0)<20 cmProper lifetime (Λ and Λ¯)<30 cmKS0 mass rejection window (Λ and Λ¯)±10 MeV/cΛ and Λ¯ mass rejection window (KS0)±5 MeV/cTable 3

Main sources of systematic uncertainty for π±, K±, p(p¯).

π±K±p(p¯)pT (GeV/c)0.130.22.50.34Correction for secondaries1%1%negl.4%1%Material budget5%negl.2.5%negl.4%negl.Hadronic interactions2%1%3%1%6%1% (p¯)4%negl. (p)Global tracking efficiency4%4%4%Multiplicity dependence2%negl.4%negl.2%negl.pT (GeV/c)0.10.60.20.50.30.6ITS standalone tracking efficiency5%4%6%4.5%6%4.5%ITS PID1%2%1.5%pT (GeV/c)0.30.650.30.60.50.9TPC PID1.5%3.5%2.5%pT (GeV/c)0.530.52.50.54TOF matching efficiency4%3%5%4%5%3%TOF PID1%10%2%17%2%20%pT (GeV/c)0.130.22.50.34Total7.5%12%8.5%20%9.5%20%Table 4

Main sources of systematic uncertainty for the KS0 and Λ(Λ¯).

KS0Λ(Λ¯)Proper lifetime2%2%Material budget4%4%Track selection4%4%TPC PID1%1%Multiplicity dependence2%2%pT (GeV/c)<3.7>3.7Feed-down correction5%7%pT (GeV/c)<3.7>3.7Total6.5%8%9.5%Table 5

Blast-wave parameters for simultaneous p–Pb fit of π±, K±, KS0, p(p¯) and Λ(Λ¯) in the fit ranges 0.5–1 GeV/c, 0.2–1.5 GeV/c, 0–1.5 GeV/c, 0.3–3 GeV/c and 0.6–3 GeV/c, respectively. Positive and negative variations of the parameters using the different fit ranges as done in [9,10] are also reported.

Event class〈βT〉Tkin (GeV/c)nχ2/ndf0–5%0.547±0.006−0.02+0.010.143±0.005−0.01+0.011.07±0.03−0.09+0.080.275–10%0.531±0.006−0.03+0.010.147±0.005−0.01+0.011.14±0.03−0.2+0.10.3310–20%0.511±0.007−0.03+0.010.151±0.005−0.01+0.021.24±0.04−0.2+0.20.3620–40%0.478±0.007−0.03+0.020.157±0.005−0.01+0.021.41±0.05−0.2+0.20.3540–60%0.428±0.009−0.03+0.030.164±0.004−0.02+0.021.73±0.07−0.4+0.20.4360–80%0.36±0.01−0.02+0.040.169±0.004−0.02+0.022.4±0.1−0.6+0.20.5480–100%0.26±0.01−0.01+0.030.166±0.003−0.01+0.023.9±0.3−0.7+0.10.84Multiplicity dependence of pion, kaon, proton and lambda production in p–Pb collisions at sNN=5.02 TeV

ALICE Collaboration

⋆

Abelev

Adam

Adamová

A.M.

Adare

M.M.

Aggarwal

Aglieri Rinella

Agnello

A.G.

Agocs

Agostinelli

Ahammed

Ahmad

Ahmad Masoodi

Ahmed

S.U.

Ahn

S.A.

Ahn

Aimo

Aiola

Ajaz

Akindinov

Aleksandrov

Alessandro

Alexandre

Alici

Alkin

Alme

Alt

Altini

Altinpinar

Altsybeev

Alves Garcia Prado

Andrei

Andronic

Anguelov

Anielski

Antičić

Antinori

Antonioli

Aphecetche

Appelshäuser

Arbor

Arcelli

Armesto

Arnaldi

Aronsson

I.C.

Arsene

Arslandok

Augustinus

Averbeck

T.C.

Awes

M.D.

Azmi

Bach

Badalà

Y.W.

Baek

Bailhache

Bairathi

Bala

Baldisseri

Baltasar Dos Santos Pedrosa

Bán

R.C.

Baral

Barbera

Barile

G.G.

Barnaföldi

L.S.

Barnby

Barret

Bartke

Basile

Bastid

Basu

Bathen

Batigne

Batyunya

P.C.

Batzing

Baumann

I.G.

Bearden

Beck

N.K.

Behera

Belikov

Bellini

Bellwied

Belmont-Moreno

Bencedi

Beole

Berceanu

Bercuci

Berdnikov

Berenyi

A.A.E.

Bergognon

R.A.

Bertens

Berzano

Betev

Bhasin

A.K.

Bhati

Bhom

Bianchi

Bielčík

Bielčíková

Bilandzic

Bjelogrlic

Blanco

Blau

Blume

Bock

Bogdanov

Bøggild

Bogolyubsky

Boldizsár

Bombara

Book

Borel

Borissov

Bornschein

Botje

Botta

Böttger

Braun-Munzinger

Bregant

Breitner

T.A.

Broker

T.A.

Browning

Broz

Brun

Bruna

G.E.

Bruno

Budnikov

Buesching

Bufalino

Buncic

Busch

Buthelezi

Caffarri

Cai

Caines

Caliva

Calvo Villar

Camerini

Canoa Roman

Cara Romeo

Carena

Carminati

Casanova Díaz

Castillo Castellanos

E.A.R.

Casula

Catanescu

Cavicchioli

Ceballos Sanchez

Cepila

Cerello

Chang

Chapeland

J.L.

Charvet

Chattopadhyay

Cherney

Cheshkov

Cheynis

Chibante Barroso

D.D.

Chinellato

Chochula

Chojnacki

Choudhury

Christakoglou

C.H.

Christensen

Christiansen

Chujo

S.U.

Chung

Cicalo

Cifarelli

Cindolo

Cleymans

Colamaria

Colella

Collu

Colocci

Conesa Balbastre

Conesa del Valle

M.E.

Connors

Contin

J.G.

Contreras

T.M.

Cormier

Corrales Morales

Cortese

Cortés Maldonado

M.R.

Cosentino

Costa

Crochet

Cruz Albino

Cuautle

Cunqueiro

Dainese

Dang

Danu

Das

Dash

Delagrange

Deloff

Dénes

Deppman

G.O.V.

de Barros

De Caro

de Cataldo

de Cuveland

De Falco

De Gruttola

De Marco

De Pasquale

de Rooij

M.A.

Diaz Corchero

Dietel

Divià

Di Bari

Di Giglio

Di Liberto

Di Mauro

Di Nezza

Ø.

Djuvsland

Dobrin

Dobrowolski

Dönigus

Dordic

A.K.

Dubey

Dubla

Ducroux

Dupieux

A.K.

Dutta Majumdar

D Erasmo

Elia

Emschermann

Engel

Erazmus

H.A.

Erdal

Eschweiler

Espagnon

Estienne

Esumi

Evans

Evdokimov

Eyyubova

Fabris

Faivre

Falchieri

Fantoni

Fasel

Fehlker

Feldkamp

Felea

Feliciello

Feofilov

Ferencei

Fernández Téllez

E.G.

Ferreiro

Ferretti

Festanti

Figiel

M.A.S.

Figueredo

Filchagin

Finogeev

F.M.

Fionda

E.M.

Fiore

Floratos

Floris

Foertsch

Foka

Fokin

Fragiacomo

Francescon

Frankenfeld

Fuchs

Furget

Fusco Girard

J.J.

Gaardhøje

Gagliardi

Gago

Gallio

D.R.

Gangadharan

Ganoti

Garabatos

Garcia-Solis

Gargiulo

Garishvili

Gerhard

Germain

Gheata

Ghidini

Ghosh

Gianotti

Giubellino

Gladysz-Dziadus

Glässel

Goerlich

Gomez

González-Zamora

Gorbunov

Gotovac

L.K.

Graczykowski

Grajcarek

Grelli

Grigoras

Grigoriev

Grigoryan

Grinyov

Grion

J.F.

Grosse-Oetringhaus

J.-Y.

Grossiord

Grosso

Guber

Guernane

Guerzoni

Guilbaud

Gulbrandsen

Gulkanyan

Gunji

Gupta

K.H.

Khan

Haake

Ø.

Haaland

Hadjidakis

Haiduc

Hamagaki

Hamar

L.D.

Hanratty

Hansen

J.W.

Harris

Hartmann

Harton

Hatzifotiadou

Hayashi

Hayrapetyan

S.T.

Heckel

Heide

Helstrup

Herghelegiu

Herrera Corral

Herrmann

B.A.

Hess

K.F.

Hetland

Hicks

Hippolyte

Hori

Hristov

Hřivnáčová

Huang

T.J.

Humanic

Hutter

D.S.

Hwang

Ilkaev

Ilkiv

Inaba

Incani

G.M.

Innocenti

Ionita

Ippolitov

Irfan

Ivanov

Ivanytskyi

Jachołkowski

P.M.

Jacobs

Jahnke

H.J.

Jang

M.A.

Janik

P.H.S.Y.

Jayarathna

Jena

R.T.

Jimenez Bustamante

P.G.

Jones

Jung

Jusko

Kalcher

Kaliňák

Kalweit

J.H.

Kang

Kaplin

Kar

Karasu Uysal

Karavichev

Karavicheva

Karpechev

Kazantsev

Kebschull

Keidel

Ketzer

M.M.

Khan

S.A.

Khan

Khanzadeev

Kharlov

Kileng

Kim

D.J.

Kim

D.W.

Kim

J.S.

Kim

Kirsch

Kisel

Kiselev

Kisiel

Kiss

J.L.

Klay

Klein

Klein-Bösing

Kluge

M.L.

Knichel

A.G.

Knospe

Kobdaj

M.K.

Köhler

Kollegger

Kolojvari

Kondratiev

Kondratyeva

Konevskikh

Kovalenko

Kowalski

Kox

Koyithatta Meethaleveedu

Kral

Králik

Kramer

Kravčáková

Krelina

Kretz

Krivda

Krizek

Krus

Kryshen

Krzewicki

Kucera

Kucheriaev

Kugathasan

Kuhn

P.G.

Kuijer

Kulakov

Kumar

Kurashvili

A.B.

Kurepin

Kuryakin

Kushpil

M.J.

Kweon

Kwon

Ladrón de Guevara

Lagana Fernandes

Lakomov

Langoy

Lara

Lardeux

Lattuca

S.L.

La Pointe

La Rocca

Lea

Lechman

S.C.

Lee

G.R.

Lee

Legrand

Lehnert

R.C.

Lemmon

Lenhardt

Lenti

Leoncino

León Monzón

Lévai

Lien

Lietava

Lindal

Lindenstruth

Lippmann

M.A.

Lisa

H.M.

Ljunggren

D.F.

Lodato

P.I.

Loenne

V.R.

Loggins

Loginov

Lohner

Loizides

Lopez

López Torres

Løvhøiden

X.-G.

Luettig

Lunardon

Luo

Luparello

Luzzi

Maevskaya

Mager

D.P.

Mahapatra

Maire

Malaev

Maldonado Cervantes

Malinina

MalʼKevich

Malzacher

Mamonov

Manceau

Manko

Manso

Manzari

Marchisone

Mareš

G.V.

Margagliotti

Margotti

Marín

Markert

Marquard

Martashvili

N.A.

Martin

Martinengo

M.I.

Martínez

Martínez García

Martin Blanco

Martynov

Mas

Masciocchi

Masera

Masoni

Massacrier

Mastroserio

Matyja

Mazer

Mazumder

M.A.

Mazzoni

Meddi

Menchaca-Rocha

Mercado Pérez

Meres

Miake

Mikhaylov

Milano

Milosevic

Mischke

A.N.

Mishra

Miśkowiec

Mitu

Mlynarz

Mohanty

Molnar

Montaño Zetina

Monteno

Montes

Morando

D.A.

Moreira De Godoy

Moretto

Morreale

Morsch

Muccifora

Mudnic

Muhuri

Mukherjee

Müller

M.G.

Munhoz

Murray

Musa

B.K.

Nandi

Nania

Nappi

Nattrass

T.K.

Nayak

Nazarenko

Nedosekin

Nicassio

Niculescu

B.S.

Nielsen

Nikolaev

Nikulin

B.S.

Nilsen

M.S.

Nilsson

Noferini

Nomokonov

Nooren

Nyanin

Nyatha

Nystrand

Oeschler

S.K.

Olah

Oleniacz

A.C.

Oliveira Da Silva

Onderwaater

Oppedisano

Ortiz Velasquez

Oskarsson

Otwinowski

Oyama

Pachmayer

Pachr

Pagano

Paić

Painke

Pajares

S.K.

Pal

Palaha

Palmeri

Papikyan

G.S.

Pappalardo

W.J.

Park

Passfeld

D.I.

Patalakha

Paticchio

Paul

Pawlak

Peitzmann

Pereira Da Costa

Pereira De Oliveira Filho

Peresunko

C.E.

Pérez Lara

Perrino

Peryt

Pesci

Pestov

Petráček

Petran

Petris

Petrov

Petrovici

Petta

Piano

Pikna

Pillot

Pinazza

Pinsky

Pitz

D.B.

Piyarathna

Planinic

Płoskoń

Pluta

Pochybova

P.L.M.

Podesta-Lerma

M.G.

Poghosyan

Polichtchouk

Pop

Porteboeuf-Houssais

Pospíšil

Potukuchi

S.K.

Prasad

Preghenella

Prino

C.A.

Pruneau

Pshenichnov

Puddu

Punin

Putschke

Qvigstad

Rachevski

Rademakers

Rak

Rakotozafindrabe

Ramello

Raniwala

S.S.

Räsänen

B.T.

Rascanu

Rathee

Rauch

A.W.

Rauf

Razazi

K.F.

Read

J.S.

Real

Redlich

R.J.

Reed

Rehman

Reichelt

Reicher

Reidt

Renfordt

A.R.

Reolon

Reshetin

Rettig

J.-P.

Revol

Reygers

Riccati

R.A.

Ricci

Richert

Richter

Riedler

Riegler

Riggi

Rivetti

Rodríguez Cahuantzi

Rodriguez Manso

Røed

Rogochaya

Rohni

Rohr

Röhrich

Romita

Ronchetti

Rosnet

Rossegger

Rossi

Roy

A.J.

Rubio Montero

Rui

Russo

Ryabinkin

Rybicki

Sadovsky

Šafařík

Sahoo

P.K.

Sahu

Saini

Sakaguchi

Sakai

Sakata

C.A.

Salgado

Salzwedel

Sambyal

Samsonov

Sanchez Castro

Šándor

Sandoval

Sano

Santagati

Santoro

Sarkar

Scapparone

Scarlassara

R.P.

Scharenberg

Schiaua

Schicker

Schmidt

H.R.

Schmidt

Schuchmann

Schukraft

Schulc

Schuster

Schutz

Schwarz

Schweda

Scioli

Scomparin

Scott

P.A.

Scott

Segato

Selyuzhenkov

Seo

Serci

Serradilla

Sevcenco

Shabetai

Shabratova

Shahoyan

Sharma

Shigaki

Shtejer

Sibiriak

Siddhanta

Siemiarczuk

Silvermyr

Silvestre

Simatovic

Singaraju

Singh

Singha

Singhal

B.C.

Sinha

Sitar

Sitta

T.B.

Skaali

Skjerdal

Smakal

Smirnov

R.J.M.

Snellings

Soltz

Song

Soos

Soramel

Spacek

Sputowska

Spyropoulou-Stassinaki

B.K.

Srivastava

Stachel

Stan

Stefanek

Steinpreis

Stenlund

Steyn

J.H.

Stiller

Stocco

Stolpovskiy

Strmen

A.A.P.

Suaide

M.A.

Subieta Vásquez

Sugitate

Suire

Suleymanov

Sultanov

Šumbera

Susa

T.J.M.

Symons

Szanto de Toledo

Szarka

Szczepankiewicz

Szymański

Takahashi

M.A.

Tangaro

J.D.

Tapia Takaki

Tarantola Peloni

Tarazona Martinez

Tauro

Tejeda Muñoz

Telesca

Terrevoli

Ter Minasyan

Thäder

Thomas

Tieulent

A.R.

Timmins

Toia

Torii

Trubnikov

W.H.

Trzaska

Tsuji

Tumkin

Turrisi

T.S.

Tveter

Ulery

Ullaland

Ulrich

Uras

G.M.

Urciuoli

G.L.

Usai

Vajzer

Vala

Valencia Palomo

Vande Vyvre

Vannucci

J.W.

Van Hoorne

van Leeuwen

Vargas

Varma

Vasileiou

Vasiliev

Vechernin

Veldhoen

Venaruzzo

Vercellin

Vergara

Vernet

Verweij

Vickovic

Viesti

Viinikainen

Vilakazi

Villalobos Baillie

Vinogradov

Virgili

Y.P.

Viyogi

Vodopyanov

M.A.

Völkl

Voloshin

Volpe

von Haller

Vorobyev

Vranic

Vrláková

Vulpescu

Vyushin

Wagner

Wang

Watanabe

Weber

J.P.

Wessels

Westerhoff

Wiechula

Wikne

Wilde

Wilk

Wilkinson

M.C.S.

Williams

Windelband

Winn

Xiang

C.G.

Yaldo

Yamaguchi

Yang

Yano

Yasnopolskiy

Yin

I.-K.

Yoo

Yushmanov

Zaccolo

Zach

Zampolli

Zaporozhets

Zarochentsev

Závada

Zaviyalov

Zbroszczyk

Zelnicek

I.S.

Zgura

Zhalov

Zhang

Zhou

Zhu

Zichichi

M.B.

Zimmermann

Zinovjev

Zoccarato

Zynovyev

Zyzak

aA.I. Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics Institute) Foundation, Yerevan, ArmeniaA.I. Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory (Yerevan Physics Institute) FoundationYerevanArmeniabBenemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Puebla, MexicoBenemérita Universidad Autónoma de PueblaPueblaMexicocBogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kiev, UkraineBogolyubov Institute for Theoretical PhysicsKievUkrainedBudker Institute for Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, RussiaBudker Institute for Nuclear PhysicsNovosibirskRussiaeCalifornia Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, United StatesCalifornia Polytechnic State UniversitySan Luis ObispoCAUnited StatesfCentral China Normal University, Wuhan, ChinaCentral China Normal UniversityWuhanChinagCentre de Calcul de lʼIN2P3, Villeurbanne, FranceCentre de Calcul de lʼIN2P3VilleurbanneFrancehCentro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN), Havana, CubaCentro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear (CEADEN)HavanaCubaiCentro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid, SpainCentro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT)MadridSpainjCentro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados (CINVESTAV), Mexico City and Mérida, MexicoCentro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados (CINVESTAV)Mexico City and MéridaMexicokCentro Fermi – Museo Storico della Fisica e Centro Studi e Ricerche “Enrico Fermi”, Rome, ItalyCentro Fermi – Museo Storico della Fisica e Centro Studi e Ricerche “Enrico Fermi”RomeItalylChicago State University, Chicago, United StatesChicago State UniversityChicagoUnited StatesmCommissariat à lʼEnergie Atomique, IRFU, Saclay, FranceCommissariat à lʼEnergie AtomiqueIRFUSaclayFrancenCOMSATS Institute of Information Technology (CIIT), Islamabad, PakistanCOMSATS Institute of Information Technology (CIIT)IslamabadPakistanoDepartamento de Física de Partículas and IGFAE, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, SpainDepartamento de Física de PartículasIGFAEUniversidad de Santiago de CompostelaSantiago de CompostelaSpainpDepartment of Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, IndiaDepartment of PhysicsAligarh Muslim UniversityAligarhIndiaqDepartment of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, NorwayDepartment of Physics and TechnologyUniversity of BergenBergenNorwayrDepartment of Physics, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United StatesDepartment of PhysicsOhio State UniversityColumbusOHUnited StatessDepartment of Physics, Sejong University, Seoul, South KoreaDepartment of PhysicsSejong UniversitySeoulSouth KoreatDepartment of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, NorwayDepartment of PhysicsUniversity of OsloOsloNorwayuDipartimento di Fisica dellʼUniversità and Sezione INFN, Cagliari, ItalyDipartimento di Fisica dellʼUniversitàSezione INFNCagliariItalyvDipartimento di Fisica dellʼUniversità and Sezione INFN, Trieste, ItalyDipartimento di Fisica dellʼUniversitàSezione INFNTriesteItalywDipartimento di Fisica dellʼUniversità and Sezione INFN, Turin, ItalyDipartimento di Fisica dellʼUniversitàSezione INFNTurinItalyxDipartimento di Fisica dellʼUniversità ‘La Sapienza’ and Sezione INFN, Rome, ItalyDipartimento di Fisica dellʼUniversità‘La Sapienza’Sezione INFNRomeItalyyDipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dellʼUniversità and Sezione INFN, Bologna, ItalyDipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dellʼUniversitàSezione INFNBolognaItalyzDipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dellʼUniversità and Sezione INFN, Catania, ItalyDipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dellʼUniversitàSezione INFNCataniaItalyaaDipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dellʼUniversità and Sezione INFN, Padova, ItalyDipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dellʼUniversitàSezione INFNPadovaItalyabDipartimento di Fisica ‘E.R. Caianiello’ dellʼUniversità and Gruppo Collegato INFN, Salerno, ItalyDipartimento di Fisica ‘E.R. Caianiello’ dellʼUniversitàGruppo Collegato INFNSalernoItalyacDipartimento di Scienze e Innovazione Tecnologica dellʼUniversità del Piemonte Orientale and Gruppo Collegato INFN, Alessandria, ItalyDipartimento di Scienze e Innovazione Tecnologica dellʼUniversità del Piemonte OrientaleGruppo Collegato INFNAlessandriaItalyadDipartimento Interateneo di Fisica ‘M. Merlin’ and Sezione INFN, Bari, ItalyDipartimento Interateneo di Fisica ‘M. Merlin’Sezione INFNBariItalyaeDivision of Experimental High Energy Physics, University of Lund, Lund, SwedenDivision of Experimental High Energy PhysicsUniversity of LundLundSwedenafEberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, GermanyEberhard Karls Universität TübingenTübingenGermanyagEuropean Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, SwitzerlandEuropean Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN)GenevaSwitzerlandahFaculty of Engineering, Bergen University College, Bergen, NorwayFaculty of EngineeringBergen University CollegeBergenNorwayaiFaculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, Comenius University, Bratislava, SlovakiaFaculty of Mathematics, Physics and InformaticsComenius UniversityBratislavaSlovakiaajFaculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech RepublicFaculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical EngineeringCzech Technical University in PraguePragueCzech RepublicakFaculty of Science, P.J. Šafárik University, Košice, SlovakiaFaculty of ScienceP.J. Šafárik UniversityKošiceSlovakiaalFrankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, GermanyFrankfurt Institute for Advanced StudiesJohann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität FrankfurtFrankfurtGermanyamGangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, South KoreaGangneung-Wonju National UniversityGangneungSouth KoreaanHelsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Helsinki, FinlandHelsinki Institute of Physics (HIP)HelsinkiFinlandaoHiroshima University, Hiroshima, JapanHiroshima UniversityHiroshimaJapanapIndian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT), Mumbai, IndiaIndian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT)MumbaiIndiaaqIndian Institute of Technology Indore (IITI), IndiaIndian Institute of Technology Indore (IITI), IndiaIndiaarInstitut de Physique Nucléaire dʼOrsay (IPNO), Université Paris-Sud, CNRS–IN2P3, Orsay, FranceInstitut de Physique Nucléaire dʼOrsay (IPNO)Université Paris-SudCNRS–IN2P3OrsayFranceasInstitut für Informatik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, GermanyInstitut für InformatikJohann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität FrankfurtFrankfurtGermanyatInstitut für Kernphysik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, GermanyInstitut für KernphysikJohann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität FrankfurtFrankfurtGermanyauInstitut für Kernphysik, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt, GermanyInstitut für KernphysikTechnische Universität DarmstadtDarmstadtGermanyavInstitut für Kernphysik, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Münster, GermanyInstitut für KernphysikWestfälische Wilhelms-Universität MünsterMünsterGermanyawInstitut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien (IPHC), Université de Strasbourg, CNRS–IN2P3, Strasbourg, FranceInstitut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien (IPHC)Université de StrasbourgCNRS–IN2P3StrasbourgFranceaxInstitute for High Energy Physics, Protvino, RussiaInstitute for High Energy PhysicsProtvinoRussiaayInstitute for Nuclear Research, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, RussiaInstitute for Nuclear ResearchAcademy of SciencesMoscowRussiaazInstitute for Subatomic Physics of Utrecht University, Utrecht, NetherlandsInstitute for Subatomic Physics of Utrecht UniversityUtrechtNetherlandsbaInstitute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, RussiaInstitute for Theoretical and Experimental PhysicsMoscowRussiabbInstitute of Experimental Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Košice, SlovakiaInstitute of Experimental PhysicsSlovak Academy of SciencesKošiceSlovakiabcInstitute of Physics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech RepublicInstitute of PhysicsAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicPragueCzech RepublicbdInstitute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, IndiaInstitute of PhysicsBhubaneswarIndiabeInstitute of Space Science (ISS), Bucharest, RomaniaInstitute of Space Science (ISS)BucharestRomaniabfInstituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, MexicoInstituto de Ciencias NuclearesUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoMexico CityMexicobgInstituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, MexicoInstituto de FísicaUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoMexico CityMexicobhiThemba LABS, National Research Foundation, Somerset West, South AfricaiThemba LABSNational Research FoundationSomerset WestSouth AfricabiJoint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR), Dubna, RussiaJoint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR)DubnaRussiabjKorea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon, South KoreaKorea Institute of Science and Technology InformationDaejeonSouth KoreabkKTO Karatay University, Konya, TurkeyKTO Karatay UniversityKonyaTurkeyblLaboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire (LPC), Clermont Université, Université Blaise Pascal, CNRS–IN2P3, Clermont-Ferrand, FranceLaboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire (LPC)Clermont UniversitéUniversité Blaise PascalCNRS–IN2P3Clermont-FerrandFrancebmLaboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie (LPSC), Université Joseph Fourier, CNRS–IN2P3, Institut Polytechnique de Grenoble, Grenoble, FranceLaboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie (LPSC)Université Joseph FourierCNRS–IN2P3Institut Polytechnique de GrenobleGrenobleFrancebnLaboratori Nazionali di Frascati, INFN, Frascati, ItalyLaboratori Nazionali di FrascatiINFNFrascatiItalyboLaboratori Nazionali di Legnaro, INFN, Legnaro, ItalyLaboratori Nazionali di LegnaroINFNLegnaroItalybpLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, United StatesLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryBerkeleyCAUnited StatesbqLawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, United StatesLawrence Livermore National LaboratoryLivermoreCAUnited StatesbrMoscow Engineering Physics Institute, Moscow, RussiaMoscow Engineering Physics InstituteMoscowRussiabsNational Centre for Nuclear Studies, Warsaw, PolandNational Centre for Nuclear StudiesWarsawPolandbtNational Institute for Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest, RomaniaNational Institute for Physics and Nuclear EngineeringBucharestRomaniabuNational Institute of Science Education and Research, Bhubaneswar, IndiaNational Institute of Science Education and ResearchBhubaneswarIndiabvNiels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DenmarkNiels Bohr InstituteUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmarkbwNikhef, National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, NetherlandsNikhefNational Institute for Subatomic PhysicsAmsterdamNetherlandsbxNuclear Physics Group, STFC Daresbury Laboratory, Daresbury, United KingdomNuclear Physics GroupSTFC Daresbury LaboratoryDaresburyUnited KingdombyNuclear Physics Institute, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Řež u Prahy, Czech RepublicNuclear Physics InstituteAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicŘež u PrahyCzech RepublicbzOak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, United StatesOak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeTNUnited StatescaPetersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina, RussiaPetersburg Nuclear Physics InstituteGatchinaRussiacbPhysics Department, Creighton University, Omaha, NE, United StatesPhysics DepartmentCreighton UniversityOmahaNEUnited StatesccPhysics Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh, IndiaPhysics DepartmentPanjab UniversityChandigarhIndiacdPhysics Department, University of Athens, Athens, GreecePhysics DepartmentUniversity of AthensAthensGreececePhysics Department, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South AfricaPhysics DepartmentUniversity of Cape TownCape TownSouth AfricacfPhysics Department, University of Jammu, Jammu, IndiaPhysics DepartmentUniversity of JammuJammuIndiacgPhysics Department, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, IndiaPhysics DepartmentUniversity of RajasthanJaipurIndiachPhysikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, GermanyPhysikalisches InstitutRuprecht-Karls-Universität HeidelbergHeidelbergGermanyciPolitecnico di Torino, Turin, ItalyPolitecnico di TorinoTurinItalycjPurdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United StatesPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteINUnited StatesckPusan National University, Pusan, South KoreaPusan National UniversityPusanSouth KoreaclResearch Division and ExtreMe Matter Institute EMMI, GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, GermanyResearch DivisionExtreMe Matter Institute EMMIGSI Helmholtzzentrum für SchwerionenforschungDarmstadtGermanycmRudjer Bošković Institute, Zagreb, CroatiaRudjer Bošković InstituteZagrebCroatiacnRussian Federal Nuclear Center (VNIIEF), Sarov, RussiaRussian Federal Nuclear Center (VNIIEF)SarovRussiacoRussian Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, RussiaRussian Research Centre Kurchatov InstituteMoscowRussiacpSaha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata, IndiaSaha Institute of Nuclear PhysicsKolkataIndiacqSchool of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United KingdomSchool of Physics and AstronomyUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUnited KingdomcrSección Física, Departamento de Ciencias, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima, PeruSección FísicaDepartamento de CienciasPontificia Universidad Católica del PerúLimaPerucsSezione INFN, Bari, ItalySezione INFNBariItalyctSezione INFN, Bologna, ItalySezione INFNBolognaItalycuSezione INFN, Cagliari, ItalySezione INFNCagliariItalycvSezione INFN, Catania, ItalySezione INFNCataniaItalycwSezione INFN, Padova, ItalySezione INFNPadovaItalycxSezione INFN, Rome, ItalySezione INFNRomeItalycySezione INFN, Trieste, ItalySezione INFNTriesteItalyczSezione INFN, Turin, ItalySezione INFNTurinItalydaSUBATECH, Ecole des Mines de Nantes, Université de Nantes, CNRS–IN2P3, Nantes, FranceSUBATECHEcole des Mines de NantesUniversité de NantesCNRS–IN2P3NantesFrancedbSuranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, ThailandSuranaree University of TechnologyNakhon RatchasimaThailanddcTechnical University of Split FESB, Split, CroatiaTechnical University of Split FESBSplitCroatiaddThe Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Cracow, PolandThe Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear PhysicsPolish Academy of SciencesCracowPolanddeThe University of Texas at Austin, Physics Department, Austin, TX, United StatesThe University of Texas at AustinPhysics DepartmentAustinTXUnited StatesdfUniversidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Culiacán, MexicoUniversidad Autónoma de SinaloaCuliacánMexicodgUniversidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, BrazilUniversidade de São Paulo (USP)São PauloBrazildhUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, BrazilUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)CampinasBrazildiUniversity of Houston, Houston, TX, United StatesUniversity of HoustonHoustonTXUnited StatesdjUniversity of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, FinlandUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinlanddkUniversity of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, United StatesUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleTNUnited StatesdlUniversity of Tokyo, Tokyo, JapanUniversity of TokyoTokyoJapandmUniversity of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, JapanUniversity of TsukubaTsukubaJapandnUniversity of Zagreb, Zagreb, CroatiaUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatiadoUniversité de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, CNRS/IN2P3, IPN-Lyon, Villeurbanne, FranceUniversité de LyonUniversité Lyon 1CNRS/IN2P3IPN-LyonVilleurbanneFrancedpV. Fock Institute for Physics, St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, RussiaV. Fock Institute for PhysicsSt. Petersburg State UniversitySt. PetersburgRussiadqVariable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Kolkata, IndiaVariable Energy Cyclotron CentreKolkataIndiadrVestfold University College, Tonsberg, NorwayVestfold University CollegeTonsbergNorwaydsWarsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, PolandWarsaw University of TechnologyWarsawPolanddtWayne State University, Detroit, MI, United StatesWayne State UniversityDetroitMIUnited StatesduWigner Research Centre for Physics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, HungaryWigner Research Centre for PhysicsHungarian Academy of SciencesBudapestHungarydvYale University, New Haven, CT, United StatesYale UniversityNew HavenCTUnited StatesdwYonsei University, Seoul, South KoreaYonsei UniversitySeoulSouth KoreadxZentrum für Technologietransfer und Telekommunikation (ZTT), Fachhochschule Worms, Worms, GermanyZentrum für Technologietransfer und Telekommunikation (ZTT)Fachhochschule WormsWormsGermany1

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

University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and “Vinča” Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia.

Konkuk University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Deceased.

Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Wroclaw, Wroclaw, Poland.

⋆

E-mail address: alice-publications@cern.ch.

Editor: L. Rolandi

Abstract

In this Letter, comprehensive results on π±, K±, KS0, p(p¯) and Λ(Λ¯) production at mid-rapidity (0<yCMS<0.5) in p–Pb collisions at sNN=5.02 TeV, measured by the ALICE detector at the LHC, are reported. The transverse momentum distributions exhibit a hardening as a function of event multiplicity, which is stronger for heavier particles. This behavior is similar to what has been observed in pp and Pb–Pb collisions at the LHC. The measured pT distributions are compared to d–Au, Au–Au and Pb–Pb results at lower energy and with predictions based on QCD-inspired and hydrodynamic models.

Introduction

High-energy heavy-ion (AA) collisions offer a unique possibility to study nuclear matter under extreme conditions, in particular the deconfined quark–gluon plasma which has been predicted by quantum chromodynamics (QCD) [1–4]. The interpretation of heavy-ion results depends crucially on the comparison with results from smaller collision systems such as proton–proton (pp) or proton–nucleus (pA).The bulk matter created in high-energy nuclear reactions can be quantitatively described in terms of hydrodynamic and statistical models. The initial hot and dense partonic matter rapidly expands and cools down, ultimately undergoing a transition to a hadron gas phase [5]. The observed ratios of particle abundances can be described in terms of statistical models [6,7], which are governed mainly by two parameters, the chemical freeze-out temperature Tch and the baryochemical potential μB which describes the net baryon content of the system. These models provide an accurate description of the data over a large range of center-of-mass energies (see e.g. [8]), but a surprisingly large deviation (about 50%) was found for the proton production yield at the LHC [9,10]. During the expansion phase, collective hydrodynamic flow develops from the initially generated pressure gradients in the strongly interacting system. This results in a characteristic dependence of the shape of the transverse momentum (pT) distribution on the particle mass, which can be described with a common kinetic freeze-out temperature parameter Tkin and a collective average expansion velocity 〈βT〉 [11].Proton–nucleus (pA) collisions are intermediate between proton–proton (pp) and nucleus–nucleus (AA) collisions in terms of system size and number of produced particles. Comparing particle production in pp, pA, and AA reactions has frequently been used to separate initial state effects, linked to the use of nuclear beams or targets, from final state effects, linked to the presence of hot and dense matter. At the LHC, however, the pseudo-rapidity density of final state particles in pA collisions reaches values which can become comparable to semi-peripheral Au–Au (∼60% most central) and Cu–Cu (∼30% most central) collisions at top RHIC energy [12]. Therefore the assumption that final state dense matter effects can be neglected in pA may no longer be valid. In addition, pA collisions allow for the investigation of fundamental properties of QCD: the relevant part of the initial state nuclear wave function extends to very low fractional parton momentum x and very high gluon densities, where parton shadowing and novel phenomena like saturation, e.g. as implemented in the Color Glass Condensate model (CGC), may become apparent [13,14].Recently, measurements at the LHC in high multiplicity pp and p–Pb collisions have revealed a near-side long-range “ridge” structure in the two-particle correlations [15,16]. The observation of an unexpected “double-ridge” structure in the two-particle correlations in high multiplicity p–Pb collisions has also been reported [17–20]. This is flat and long-range in pseudo-rapidity Δη and modulated in azimuth approximately like cos(2Δϕ), where Δη and Δϕ are the differences in pseudo-rapidity η and azimuthal angle ϕ between the two particles. Various mechanisms have been proposed to explain the origin of this double-ridge like structure. Both a CGC description [21], based on initial state nonlinear gluon interactions, as well as a model based on hydrodynamic flow [22,23], assuming strong interactions between final state partons or hadrons, can give a satisfactory description of the p–Pb correlation data. However, the modeling of small systems such as p–Pb is complicated because uncertainties related to initial state geometrical fluctuations play a large role and because viscous corrections may be too large for hydrodynamics to be a reliable framework [24]. Additional experimental information is therefore required to reveal the origin of these correlations. The pT distributions and yields of particles of different mass at low and intermediate momenta of less than a few GeV/c (where the vast majority of particles is produced) can provide important information about the system created in high-energy hadron reactions.Previous results on identified particle production in pp [25–29] and Pb–Pb [9,10] collisions at the LHC have been reported. In this Letter we report on the measurement of π±, K±, KS0, p(p¯) and Λ(Λ¯) production as a function of the event multiplicity in p–Pb collisions at a nucleon–nucleon center-of-mass energy sNN=5.02 TeV. The results are presented over the following pT ranges: 0.1–3, 0.2–2.5, 0–8, 0.3–4 and 0.6–8 GeV/c for π±, K±, KS0, p(p¯) and Λ(Λ¯), respectively. Results on π, K, p production in p–Pb collisions have been recently reported by the CMS Collaboration [30].2

Sample and data analysis

The results presented in this Letter are obtained from a sample of the data collected during the LHC p–Pb run at sNN=5.02 TeV in the beginning of 2013. Because of the 2-in-1 magnet design of the LHC [31], the energy of the two beams cannot be adjusted independently and is 4 ZTeV, leading to different energies due to the different Z/A. The nucleon–nucleon center-of-mass system, therefore, was moving in the laboratory frame with a rapidity of yNN=−0.465 in the direction of the proton beam. The number of colliding bunches was varied from 8 to 288. The total number of protons and Pb ions in the beams ranged from 0.2×1012 to 6.5×1012 and from 0.1×1012 to 4.4×1012, respectively. The maximum luminosity at the ALICE interaction point was for the data used in this Letter 5×1027 cm−2s−1 resulting in a hadronic interaction rate of 10 kHz. The interaction region had an r.m.s. of 6.3 cm along the beam direction and of about 60 μm in the direction transverse to the beam. For the results presented in this Letter, a low-luminosity data sample has been analyzed where the event pile-up rate has been estimated to have negligible effects on the results. The integrated luminosity corresponding to the used data sample was about 14 μb−1 (7 μb−1) for the neutral (charged) hadron analysis. The LHC configuration was such that the lead beam circulated in the “counter-clockwise” direction, corresponding to the ALICE A direction or positive rapidity as per the convention used in this Letter.A detailed description of the ALICE apparatus can be found in [32]. The minimum-bias trigger signal was provided by the VZERO counters, two arrays of 32 scintillator tiles each covering the full azimuth within 2.8<ηlab<5.1 (VZERO-A, Pb beam direction) and −3.7<ηlab<−1.7 (VZERO-C, p beam direction). The signal amplitude and arrival time collected in each tile were recorded. A coincidence of signals in both VZERO-A and VZERO-C detectors was required to remove contamination from single diffractive and electromagnetic events [33]. The time resolution is better than 1 ns, allowing discrimination of beam–beam collisions from background events produced outside of the interaction region. In the offline analysis, background was further suppressed by the time information recorded in two neutron Zero Degree Calorimeters (ZDCs), which are located at +112.5 m (ZNA) and −112.5 m (ZNC) from the interaction point. A dedicated quartz radiator Cherenkov detector (T0) provided a measurement of the event time of the collision.The ALICE central-barrel tracking detectors cover the full azimuth within |ηlab|<0.9. They are located inside a solenoidal magnet providing a magnetic field of 0.5 T. The innermost barrel detector is the Inner Tracking System (ITS). It consists of six layers of silicon devices grouped in three individual detector systems which employ different technologies (from the innermost outwards): the Silicon Pixel Detector (SPD), the Silicon Drift Detector (SDD) and the Silicon Strip Detector (SSD). The Time Projection Chamber (TPC), the main central-barrel tracking device, follows outwards. Finally the Transition Radiation Detector (TRD) extends the tracking farther away from the beam axis. The primary vertex position was determined separately in the SPD [33] and from tracks reconstructed in the whole central barrel (global tracks). The events were further selected by requiring that the longitudinal position of the primary vertex was within 10 cm of the nominal interaction point and that the vertices reconstructed from SPD tracklets and from global tracks are compatible. In total from a sample of 29.8 (15.3) million triggered events about 24.7 (12.5) million events passing the selection criteria were used in the neutral (charged) hadron analysis.In order to study the multiplicity dependence, the selected event sample was divided into seven event classes, based on cuts on the total charge deposited in the VZERO-A detector (V0A). The corresponding fractions of the data sample in each class are summarized in Table 1

. The mean charged-particle multiplicity densities (〈dNch/dη〉) within |ηlab|<0.5 corresponding to the different event classes are also listed in the table. These are obtained using the method presented in [33] and are corrected for acceptance and tracking efficiency as well as for contamination by secondary particles. The relative standard deviation of the track multiplicity distribution for the event classes defined in Table 1 ranges from 78% to 29% for the 80–100% and 0–5% classes, respectively. It should be noted that the average multiplicity in the 80–100% bin is well below the corresponding multiplicity in pp minimum-bias collisions [34] and therefore likely to be subject to a strong selection bias. Contrary to our earlier measurement of 〈dNch/dη〉 [33], the values in Table 1 are not corrected for trigger and vertex-reconstruction efficiency, which is of the order of 2% for NSD events [33]. The same holds true for the pT distributions, which are presented in the next section.

Charged-hadron identification in the central barrel was performed with the ITS, TPC [35] and Time-Of-Flight (TOF) [36] detectors. The drift and strip layers of the ITS provide a measurement of the specific energy loss with a resolution of about 10%. In a standalone tracking mode, the identification of pions, kaons, and protons is thus extended down to respectively 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 GeV/c in pT. The TPC provides particle identification at low momenta via specific energy loss dE/dx in the fill gas by measuring up to 159 samples per track with a resolution of about 6%. The separation power achieved in p–Pb collisions is identical to that in pp collisions [37]. Further outwards at about 3.7 m from the beam line, the TOF array allows identification at higher pT measuring the particle speed with the time-of-flight technique. The total time resolution is about 85 ps for events in the multiplicity classes from 0% to ∼80%. In more peripheral collisions, where multiplicities are similar to pp, it decreases to about 120 ps due to a worse start-time (collision-time) resolution [37]. The start-time of the event was determined by combining the time estimated using the particle arrival times at the TOF and the time measured by the T0 detector [36].Since the p–Pb center-of-mass system moved in the laboratory frame with a rapidity of yNN=−0.465, the nominal acceptance of the central barrel of the ALICE detector was asymmetric with respect to yCMS=0. In order to ensure good detector acceptance and optimal particle identification performance, tracks were selected in the rapidity interval 0<yCMS<0.5 in the nucleon–nucleon center-of-mass system. Event generator studies and repeating the analysis in |yCMS|<0.2 indicate differences between the two rapidity selections smaller than 2% in the normalization and 3% in the shape of the transverse momentum distributions.In this Letter we present results for primary particles, defined as all particles produced in the collision, including decay products, but excluding weak decays of strange particles. The analysis technique is described in detail in [9,10,38]. Here we briefly review the most relevant points.Three approaches were used for the identification of π±, K±, and p(p¯), called “ITS standalone”, “TPC/TOF” and “TOF fits” [9,10] in the following. In the “ITS standalone” method, a probability for each particle species is calculated in each layer based on the measured energy loss signal and the known response function. The information from all layers is combined in a bayesian approach with iteratively determined priors. Finally, the type with the highest probability is assigned to the track. This method is used in the pT ranges 0.1<pT<0.7 GeV/c, 0.2<pT<0.6 GeV/c and 0.3<pT<0.65 GeV/c for π±, K±, and p(p¯), respectively. In contrast to the analysis in the high multiplicity environment of central heavy-ion collisions, the contribution of tracks with wrongly associated clusters is negligible in p–Pb collisions. In the “TPC/TOF” method, the particle is identified by requiring that its measured dE/dx and time-of-flight are within ±3σ from the expected values in the TPC and/or TOF. This method is used in the pT ranges 0.2<pT<1.5 GeV/c, 0.3<pT<1.3 GeV/c and 0.5<pT<2.0 GeV/c for π±, K±, and p(p¯), respectively. In the third method the TOF time distribution is fitted to extract the yields, with the expected shapes based on the knowledge of the TOF response function for different particle species. This method is used in the pT range starting from 0.5 GeV/c up to 3, 2.5 and 4 GeV/c for π±, K±, and p(p¯), respectively. Contamination from secondary particles was subtracted with a data-driven approach, based on the fit of the transverse distance-of-closest approach to the primary vertex (DCAxy) distribution with the expected shapes for primary and secondary particles [9,10]. The results of the three analyses were combined using the (largely independent) systematic uncertainties as weights in the overlapping ranges, after checking for their compatibility.The KS0 and Λ(Λ¯) particles were identified exploiting their “V0” weak decay topology in the channels KS0→π+π− and Λ(Λ¯)→pπ−(p¯π+), which have branching ratios of 69.2% and 63.9%, respectively [39]. The selection criteria used to define two tracks as V0 decay candidates are listed in Table 2

(see [26] for details). Since the cosine of pointing angle (the angle between the particle momentum associated with the V0 candidate and a vector connecting the primary vertex and the V0 position [26]) resolution changes significantly with momentum, the value used in the selection is pT dependent and such that no more than 1% of the primary particle signal is removed.

The typical reconstruction efficiencies (excluding branching ratios) are about 15% at low pT (∼0.5 GeV/c), increasing to about 70% for KS0 and 55% for Λ(Λ¯) at higher momenta (pT>3 GeV/c). The signal is extracted from the reconstructed invariant mass distribution subtracting the background from the peak region with a bin counting method. The background and signal regions are defined on the basis of the mass resolution as the windows in [−12σ,−6σ], [6σ,12σ] and [−6σ,6σ], respectively. The value of σ changes with pT to account for the actual mass resolution and ranges from about 3 MeV/c2 to 7 MeV/c2 for KS0 and from about 1.4 MeV/c2 to 2.5 MeV/c2 for Λ(Λ¯). More details on V0 reconstruction can be found in [26,38]. The contribution from weak decays of the charged and neutral Ξ to the Λ(Λ¯) yield has been corrected following a data-driven approach. The measured Ξ−(Ξ¯+) spectrum is used as input in a simulation of the decay kinematics to evaluate the fraction of reconstructed Λ(Λ¯) coming from Ξ−(Ξ¯+) decays. The contribution from the decays of Ξ0 is taken into account in the same way by assuming the ratio Ξ−(Ξ¯+)/Ξ0=1, as supported by statistical models and Pythia or DMPJET Monte Carlo simulations [40,41]. The raw transverse momentum distributions have been corrected for acceptance and reconstruction efficiency using a Monte Carlo simulation, based on the DPMJET 3.05 event generator [40] and a GEANT3.21 [42] model of the detector. As compared to the version used in [9,10], GEANT3.21 was improved by implementing a more realistic parameterization of the anti-proton inelastic cross-section [43]. A correction factor based on FLUKA [44] estimates was applied to negative kaons as in [9,10].The study of systematic uncertainties follows the analysis described in [9,10] for π±, K± and p(p¯). The main sources are the correction for secondary particles (4% for protons, 1% for pions, negligible for kaons), knowledge of the material budget (3% related to energy loss), hadronic interactions with the detector material (from 1% to 6%, more important at low pT and for protons), tracking efficiency (4%), TOF matching efficiency (from 3 to 6%, depending on the particle) and PID (from 2% to 25%, depending on the particle and the pT range). For the neutral Λ and KS0 particles, the main sources are the level of knowledge of detector materials (resulting in a 4% uncertainty), track selections (up to 5%) and the feed-down correction for the Λ and Λ¯ (5%), while topological selections contribute 2–4% depending on transverse momentum. The main sources of systematic uncertainties for the analysis of charged and neutral particles are summarized in Tables 3 and 4

, respectively. The study of systematic uncertainties was repeated for the different multiplicity bins in order to separate the sources of uncertainty which are dependent on multiplicity and uncorrelated across different bins (depicted as shaded boxes in the figures).

Results

The pT distributions of π±, K±, KS0, p(p¯) and Λ(Λ¯) in 0<yCMS<0.5 are shown in Fig. 1

for different multiplicity intervals, as defined in Table 1. Particle/antiparticle as well as charged/neutral kaon transverse momentum distributions are identical within systematic uncertainties.

The pT distributions show a clear evolution, becoming harder as the multiplicity increases. The change is most pronounced for protons and lambdas. They show an increase of the slope at low pT, similar to the one observed in heavy-ion collisions [9,10]. The stronger multiplicity dependence of the spectral shapes of heavier particles is evident when looking at the ratios K/π=(K++K−)/(π++π−), p/π=(p+p¯)/(π++π−) and Λ/KS0 as functions of pT, shown in Fig. 2

for the 0–5% and 60–80% event classes. The ratios p/π and Λ/KS0 show a significant enhancement at intermediate pT∼3 GeV/c, qualitatively reminiscent of that measured in Pb–Pb collisions [9,10,38]. The latter are generally discussed in terms of collective flow or quark recombination [45–47]. However, the magnitude of the observed effects differs significantly between p–Pb and in Pb–Pb. The maximum of the p/π (Λ/KS0) ratio reaches ∼0.8 (1.5) in central Pb–Pb collisions, but only 0.4 (0.8) in the highest multiplicity p–Pb events. The highest multiplicity bin in p–Pb collisions exhibits ratios of p/π and Λ/KS0 which have maxima close to the corresponding ratios in the 60–70% bin in Pb–Pb collisions but differ somewhat in shape at lower pT. The value of dNch/dη in central p–Pb collisions (45±1) is a factor ∼1.7 lower than the one in the 60–70% Pb–Pb bin. A similar enhancement of the p/π ratio in high multiplicity d–Au collisions has also been reported for RHIC energies [48].

It is worth noticing that the ratio p/π as a function of dNch/dη in a given pT-bin follows a power-law behavior: pπ(pT)=A(pT)×[dNch/dη]B(pT). As shown in Fig. 3

(top), the same trend is also observed in Pb–Pb collisions. The exponent of the power-law function exhibits the same value in both collision systems (Fig. 3, middle). The same feature is also observed in the Λ/KS0 ratio (Fig. 3, bottom).

The pT-integrated yields and 〈pT〉 are computed using the data in the measured range and extrapolating them down to zero and to high pT (up to 10 GeV/c). The fraction of extrapolated yield for high (low) multiplicity events is about 8% (9%), 10% (12%), 7% (13%), 17% (30%) for π±, K±, p and p¯, Λ and Λ¯ respectively and is negligible for KS0. Several parameterizations have been tested, among which the blast-wave function [11] (see below) gives the best description of the data over the full pT range (Fig. 1). Other fit functions [49] (Boltzmann, mT-exponential, pT-exponential, Tsallis–Levy, Fermi–Dirac, Bose–Einstein) have been used to estimate the systematic uncertainty on the extrapolation, restricting the range to low pT for those functions not giving a satisfactory description of the data over the full range. The uncertainty on the extrapolation amounts to about 2% for π±, K±, p(p¯), 3% (8% in low multiplicity events) for Λ(Λ¯), and it is negligible for KS0 (since the pT coverage ranges down to 0).The 〈pT〉 increases with multiplicity, at a rate which is stronger for heavier particles, as shown in Fig. 4

. A similar mass ordering is also observed in pp [28] and Pb–Pb [10] collisions as a function of multiplicity.

In Fig. 5

, the ratios to the pion yields are compared to Pb–Pb results at the LHC and Au–Au and d–Au results at RHIC [48–53]. While the p/π ratio shows no evolution from peripheral to central events, a small increase is observed in the K/π and Λ/π ratios, accounting for the bin-to-bin correlations of the uncertainties. A similar rise is observed in Pb–Pb, Au–Au and d–Au collisions. This is typically attributed to a reduced canonical suppression of strangeness production in larger freeze-out volumes [54] or to an enhanced strangeness production in a quark–gluon plasma [55].

The observations reported here are not strongly dependent on the actual variable used to select multiplicity classes. Alternative approaches, such as using the total charge in both VZERO-A and VZERO-C detectors, the energy deposited in the ZNA (which originates from neutrons of the Pb nucleus) and the number of clusters in the first ITS layers reveal very similar trends. In the cases where the largest deviation is observed, the p/π ratio is essentially the same in 0–5% events and it is ∼15% higher at pT∼3 GeV/c in the 60–80% class. Part of this difference is due to the mild correlation of events at forward and central rapidity: the lowest multiplicity class selected with ZNA leads to a larger multiplicity at mid-rapidity than the corresponding class selected with the VZERO-A.4

Discussion

In heavy-ion collisions, the flattening of transverse momentum distribution and its mass ordering find their natural explanation in the collective radial expansion of the system [56]. This picture can be tested in a blast-wave framework with a simultaneous fit to all particles for each multiplicity bin. This parameterization assumes a locally thermalized medium, expanding collectively with a common velocity field and undergoing an instantaneous common freeze-out. The blast-wave functional form is given by [11](1)1pTdNdpT∝∫0RrdrmTI0(pTsinhρTkin)K1(mTcoshρTkin), where the velocity profile ρ is described by(2)ρ=tanh−1βT=tanh−1((rR)nβs).Here, mT=pT2+m2 is the transverse mass, I0 and K1 are the modified Bessel functions, r is the radial distance from the center of the fireball in the transverse plane, R is the radius of the fireball, βT(r) is the transverse expansion velocity, βs is the transverse expansion velocity at the surface, n is the exponent of the velocity profile and Tkin is the kinetic freeze-out temperature. The free parameters in the fit are Tkin, βs, n and a normalization parameter.In contrast with the individual fits discussed above, the simultaneous fit to all particle species under consideration can provide insight on the (common) kinetic freeze-out properties of the system. It has to be kept in mind, however, that the actual values of the fit parameters depend substantially on the fit range [10]. In spite of this limitations, the blast-wave model still provides a handy way to compare the transverse momentum distributions and their evolution in different collision systems.The fit presented in this Letter is performed in the same range as in [9,10], also including KS0 and Λ(Λ¯). The ranges 0.5–1 GeV/c, 0.2–1.5 GeV/c, 0–1.5 GeV/c, 0.3–3 GeV/c and 0.6–3 GeV/c have been used for π±, K±, KS0, p(p¯) and Λ(Λ¯) respectively. They have been defined according to the available data at low pT and based on the agreement with the data at high pT, justified considering that the assumptions underlying the blast-wave model are not expected to be valid at high pT. Excluding the KS0 and Λ(Λ¯) from the fit causes a negligible difference in the fit parameters.The results are reported in Table 5

and Fig. 6

. Variations of the fit range lead to large shifts (∼10%) of the fit results (correlated across centralities), as discussed for Pb–Pb data in [9,10].

As can be seen in Fig. 6, the parameters show a similar trend as the ones obtained in Pb–Pb. Within the limitations of the blast-wave model, this observation is consistent with the presence of radial flow in p–Pb collisions. A detailed comparison of the resulting fit parameters between Pb–Pb [9,10] and p–Pb (Table 5) collisions shows that at similar dNch/dη the values of parameters for Tkin are similar for the two systems, whereas the 〈βT〉 values are significantly higher in p–Pb collisions. While in Pb–Pb collisions high multiplicity events are obtained through multiple soft interactions, in p–Pb collisions the high multiplicity selection biases the sample towards harder collisions [57]. This could lead to the larger 〈βT〉 parameter obtained from the blast-wave fits. Under the assumptions of a collective hydrodynamic expansion, a larger radial velocity in p–Pb collisions has been suggested as a consequence of stronger radial gradients in [58].In a hydrodynamically expanding system, the flow coefficients vn are also expected to exhibit a characteristic mass-dependent ordering depending on the transverse expansion velocity. To probe this picture, the pT distributions are fitted simultaneously with the elliptic flow coefficient extracted from two particle correlations v2 of π±, K±, p(p¯) measured in [59], with the extension of the blast-wave model of [60]. This global fit is found to describe the v2 of pions, kaons and protons relatively well, even if the quality of the fit is slightly worse than that of similar fits in Pb–Pb collisions, in particular for the proton v2. Compared to the case where only the particle pT-differential yields are used, the fit results of Tkin and 〈βT〉 differ by about 2% only.Other processes not related to hydrodynamic collectivity could also be responsible for the observed results. This is illustrated in Fig. 6, which shows the results obtained by applying the same fitting procedure to transverse momentum distributions from the simulation of pp collisions at s=7 TeV with the PYTHIA8 event generator (tune 4C) [61], a model not including any collective system expansion. PYTHIA8 events are divided into several classes according to the charged-particle multiplicity at mid-rapidity |ηlab|<0.3, namely Nch<5, 5⩽Nch<10, 10⩽Nch<15, 15⩽Nch<20 and Nch⩾20. The fit results are shown for PYTHIA8 simulations performed both with and without the color reconnection mechanism [62,63]. This mechanism is necessary in PYTHIA tunes to describe the evolution of 〈pT〉 with multiplicity in pp collisions [57]. With color reconnection the evolution of PYTHIA8 transverse momentum distributions follows a similar trend as the one observed for p–Pb and Pb–Pb collisions at the LHC, while without color reconnection it is not as strong. This generator study shows that other final state mechanisms, such as color reconnection, can mimic the effects of radial flow [64].The pT distributions in the 5–10% bin are compared in Fig. 7

with calculations from the DPMJET, Kraków [65] and EPOS LHC 1.99 v3400 [66] models. The QCD-inspired DPMJET [40] generator, which is based on the Gribov–Glauber approach, treats soft and hard scattering processes in an unified way. It has been found to successfully reproduce the pseudo-rapidity distribution of charged particles in NSD p–Pb collisions at the LHC as reported in [33]. On the other hand, it cannot reproduce the pT distribution [67] and the 〈pT〉 of charged particles [57]. In the Kraków hydrodynamic model, fluctuating initial conditions are implemented based on a Glauber model using a Monte Carlo simulation. The expansion of the system is calculated event-by-event in a 3+1 dimensional viscous hydrodynamic approach and the freeze-out follows statistical hadronization in a Cooper–Frye formalism. In the EPOS model, founded on “parton-based Gribov Regge theory”, the initial hard and soft scattering creates “flux tubes” which either escape the medium and hadronize as jets or contribute to the bulk matter, described in terms of hydrodynamics. The version of the model used here implements a simplified treatment of the collective expansion [66]. EPOS predictions including the full hydrodynamic calculation [68] are not available at the time of writing.

The transverse momentum distributions in the 5–10% multiplicity class are compared to the predictions by Kraków for 11⩽Npart⩽17, since the dNch/dη from the model matches best with the measured value in this class. DPMJET and EPOS events have been selected according to the charged-particle multiplicity in the VZERO-A acceptance in order to match the experimental selection. DPMJET distributions are softer than the measured ones and the model overpredicts the production of all particles for pT lower than about 0.5–0.7 GeV/c and underpredicts it at higher momenta. At high pT, the pT spectra shapes of pions and kaons are rather well reproduced for momenta above 1 and 1.5 GeV/c respectively. Final state effects may be needed in order to reproduce the data. In fact, the Kraków model reproduces reasonably well the spectral shapes of pions and kaons below transverse momenta of 1 GeV/c where hydrodynamic effects are expected to dominate. For higher momenta, the observed deviations for pions and kaons could be explained in a hydrodynamic framework as due to the onset of a non-thermal component. EPOS can reproduce the pion and proton distributions within 20% over the full measured range, while larger deviations are seen for kaons and lambdas. The yield and the shape of the pT distributions of protons are rather well described by both models. In contrast to a similar comparison for Pb–Pb collisions [9,10], in the Kraków calculation the yield of pions and kaons seems to be overestimated. It is interesting to notice that when final state interactions are disabled in EPOS, the description of many pp and p–Pb observables worsens significantly [66].5

Conclusions

In summary, we presented a comprehensive measurement of π±, K±, KS0, p(p¯) and Λ(Λ¯) in p–Pb collisions at sNN=5.02 TeV at the LHC. These data represent a crucial set of constraints for the modeling of proton–lead collisions at the LHC. The transverse momentum distributions show a clear evolution with multiplicity, similar to the pattern observed in high-energy pp and heavy-ion collisions, where in the latter case the effect is usually attributed to collective radial expansion. Models incorporating final state effects give a better description of the data.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to P. Bozek, T. Pierog, and K. Werner for the useful discussion and for providing the results of their calculations.The ALICE Collaboration would like to thank all its engineers and technicians for their invaluable contributions to the construction of the experiment and the CERN accelerator teams for the outstanding performance of the LHC complex.The ALICE Collaboration acknowledges the following funding agencies for their support in building and running the ALICE detector: State Committee of Science, World Federation of Scientists (WFS) and Swiss Fonds Kidagan, Armenia; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (FINEP), Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP); National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), the Chinese Ministry of Education (CMOE) and the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (MSTC); Ministry of Education and Youth of the Czech Republic; Danish Natural Science Research Council, the Carlsberg Foundation and the Danish National Research Foundation; The European Research Council under the European Communityʼs Seventh Framework Programme; Helsinki Institute of Physics and the Academy of Finland; French CNRS–IN2P3, the ‘Region Pays de Loire’, ‘Region Alsace’, ‘Region Auvergne’ and CEA, France; German BMBF and the Helmholtz Association; General Secretariat for Research and Technology, Ministry of Development, Greece; Hungarian OTKA and National Office for Research and Technology (NKTH); Department of Atomic Energy and Department of Science and Technology of the Government of India; Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN) and Centro Fermi – Museo Storico della Fisica e Centro Studi e Ricerche “Enrico Fermi”, Italy; MEXT Grant-in-Aid for Specially Promoted Research, Japan; Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna; National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF); CONACYT, DGAPA, Mexico, ALFA-EC and the EPLANET Program (European Particle Physics Latin American Network); Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM) and the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), Netherlands; Research Council of Norway (NFR); Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education; National Authority for Scientific Research – NASR (Autoritatea Naţională pentru Cercetare Ştiinţifică – ANCS); Ministry of Education and Science of Russian Federation, Russian Academy of Sciences, Russian Federal Agency of Atomic Energy, Russian Federal Agency for Science and Innovations and The Russian Foundation for Basic Research; Ministry of Education of Slovakia; Department of Science and Technology, South Africa; CIEMAT, EELA, Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (MINECO) of Spain, Xunta de Galicia (Consellería de Educación), CEADEN, Cubaenergía, Cuba, and IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency); Swedish Research Council (VR) and Knut & Alice Wallenberg Foundation (KAW); Ukraine Ministry of Education and Science; United Kingdom Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC); The United States Department of Energy, the United States National Science Foundation, the State of Texas, and the State of Ohio.

References

[1]

Cabibbo

ParisiExponential hadronic spectrum and quark liberationPhys. Lett. B

1975

[2]

E.V.

ShuryakQuark–gluon plasma and hadronic production of leptons, photons and psionsPhys. Lett. B

1978

150

[3]

L.D.

McLerran

SvetitskyA Monte Carlo study of SU(2) Yang–Mills theory at finite temperaturePhys. Lett. B

1981

195

[4]

Laermann

PhilipsenThe status of lattice QCD at finite temperatureAnnu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.

2003

163

198

[5]

Muller

J.L.

NagleResults from the relativistic heavy ion colliderAnnu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.

2006

135

[6]

Andronic

Braun-Munzinger

StachelThermal hadron production in relativistic nuclear collisions: the hadron mass spectrum, the horn, and the QCD phase transitionPhys. Lett. B

673

2009

142

145

[7]

Cleymans

Kraus

Oeschler

Redlich

WheatonStatistical model predictions for particle ratios at sNN=5.5 TeVPhys. Rev. C

2006

034903

[8]

Braun-Munzinger

Stachel

WetterichChemical freeze-out and the QCD phase transition temperaturePhys. Lett. B

596

2004

[9]ALICE Collaboration

Abelev

Pion, kaon, and proton production in central Pb–Pb collisions at sNN=2.76 TeVPhys. Rev. Lett.

109

2012

252301

[10]ALICE Collaboration

Abelev

Centrality dependence of π, K, p production in Pb–Pb collisions at sNN=2.76 TeV

arXiv:1303.0737 [hep-ex]

[11]

Schnedermann

Sollfrank

U.W.

HeinzThermal phenomenology of hadrons from 200 A/GeV S + S collisionsPhys. Rev. C

1993

2462

2475

[12]PHOBOS Collaboration

Alver

Phobos results on charged particle multiplicity and pseudorapidity distributions in Au + Au, Cu + Cu, d + Au, and p + p collisions at ultra-relativistic energiesPhys. Rev. C

2011

024913

arXiv:1011.1940 [nucl-ex]

[13]

L.D.

McLerran

VenugopalanComputing quark and gluon distribution functions for very large nucleiPhys. Rev. D

1994

2233

2241

[14]

Gelis

Iancu

Jalilian-Marian

VenugopalanThe color glass condensateAnnu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.

2010

463

489

[15]CMS Collaboration

Khachatryan

Observation of long-range near-side angular correlations in proton–proton collisions at the LHCJ. High Energy Phys.

1009

2010

091

[16]CMS Collaboration

Chatrchyan

Observation of long-range near-side angular correlations in proton–lead collisions at the LHCPhys. Lett. B

718

2013

795

814

[17]ALICE Collaboration

Abelev

Long-range angular correlations on the near and away side in p–Pb collisions at sNN=5.02 TeVPhys. Lett. B

719

2012

[18]ATLAS Collaboration

Aad

Observation of associated near-side and away-side long-range correlations in sNN=5.02 TeV proton–lead collisions with the ATLAS detector

arXiv:1212.5198 [hep-ex]

[19]ATLAS Collaboration

Aad

Measurement with the ATLAS detector of multi-particle azimuthal correlations in p + Pb collisions at sNN=5.02 TeVPhys. Lett. B

725

2013

arXiv:1303.2084 [hep-ex]

[20]CMS Collaboration

Chatrchyan

Multiplicity and transverse momentum dependence of two- and four-particle correlations in p–Pb and Pb–Pb collisionsPhys. Lett. B

724

2013

213

240

arXiv:1305.0609 [nucl-ex]

[21]

Dusling

VenugopalanComparison of the color glass condensate to di-hadron correlations in proton–proton and proton–nucleus collisionsPhys. Rev. D

2013094034

[22]

Bozek

BroniowskiCorrelations from hydrodynamic flow in p–Pb collisionsPhys. Lett. B

718

2013

1557

1561

[23]

G.-Y.

Qin

MüllerElliptic and triangular flow anisotropy in deuteron–gold collisions at RHIC and proton–lead collisions at the LHC

arXiv:1306.3439 [nucl-th]

[24]

Bzdak

Schenke

Tribedy

VenugopalanInitial state geometry and the role of hydrodynamics in proton–proton, proton–nucleus and deuteron–nucleus collisions

arXiv:1304.3403 [nucl-th]

[25]ALICE Collaboration

Aamodt

Production of pions, kaons and protons in pp collisions at s=900 GeV with ALICE at the LHCEur. Phys. J. C

2011

1655

[26]ALICE Collaboration

Aamodt

Strange particle production in proton–proton collisions at s=0.9 TeV with ALICE at the LHCEur. Phys. J. C

2011

1594

[27]ALICE Collaboration

Abelev

Multi-strange baryon production in pp collisions at s=7 TeV with ALICEPhys. Lett. B

712

2012

309

318

[28]CMS Collaboration

Chatrchyan

Study of the inclusive production of charged pions, kaons, and protons in pp collisions at s=0.9, 2.76, and 7 TeVEur. Phys. J. C

2012

2164

[29]CMS Collaboration

Khachatryan

Strange particle production in pp collisions at sNN=0.9 and 7 TeVJ. High Energy Phys.

1105

2011

064

[30]CMS Collaboration

Chatrchyan

Study of the production of charged pions, kaons, and protons in p–Pb collisions at sNN=5.02 TeV

arXiv:1307.3442 [hep-ex]

[31]

Evans

BryantLHC machineJ. Instrum.

2008S08001

[32]ALICE Collaboration

Aamodt

The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHCJ. Instrum.

2008S08002

[33]ALICE Collaboration

Abelev

Pseudorapidity density of charged particles p–Pb collisions at sNN=5.02 TeVPhys. Rev. Lett.

110

2013

032301

[34]ALICE Collaboration

Aamodt

Charged-particle multiplicity measurement in proton–proton collisions at s=7 TeV with ALICE at LHCEur. Phys. J. C

2010

345

354

[35]

Alme

Andres

Appelshauser

Bablok

Bialas

The ALICE TPC, a large 3-dimensional tracking device with fast readout for ultra-high multiplicity eventsNucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, Accel. Spectrom. Detect. Assoc. Equip.

622

2010

316

367

[36]

Akindinov

Alici

Agostinelli

Antonioli

Arcelli

Performance of the ALICE time-of-flight detector at the LHCEur. Phys. J. Plus

128

2013

[37]

ALICE Collaboration, Performance of the ALICE Experiment at CERN LHC, in preparation.

[38]ALICE CollaborationKS0 and Λ production in Pb–Pb collisions at sNN=2.76 TeV

arXiv:1307.5530 [nucl-ex]

[39]Particle Data Group

Beringer

Review of Particle Physics (RPP)Phys. Rev. D

2012010001

[40]

Roesler

Engel

RanftThe Monte Carlo event generator DPMJET-III

arXiv:hep-ph/0012252

[41]

P.Z.

SkandsTuning Monte Carlo generators: the Perugia tunesPhys. Rev. D

2010074018

[42]

R. Brun, F. Carminati, S. Giani, GEANT detector description and simulation tool, CERN-W5013, CERN-W-5013.

[43]

A.A.

Moiseev

J.F.

OrmesInelastic cross section for antihelium on nuclei: an empirical formula for use in the experiments to search for cosmic antimatterAstropart. Phys.

1997

379

386

[44]

Battistoni

Muraro

P.R.

Sala

Cerutti

Ferrari

The FLUKA code: description and benchmarkingAIP Conf. Proc.

896

2007

[45]

Fries

Muller

Nonaka

BassHadronization in heavy ion collisions: recombination and fragmentation of partonsPhys. Rev. Lett.

2003

202303

[46]

BozekHydrodynamic flow from RHIC to LHC

arXiv:1111.4398 [nucl-th]

[47]

Muller

Schukraft

WyslouchFirst results from Pb + Pb collisions at the LHCAnnu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.

2012

361

386

[48]PHENIX Collaboration

Adare

Spectra and ratios of identified particles in Au + Au and d + Au collisions at sNN=200 GeVPhys. Rev. C

2013024906

[49]STAR Collaboration

Abelev

Systematic measurements of identified particle spectra in pp, d + Au and Au + Au collisions from STARPhys. Rev. C

2009

034909

[50]STAR Collaboration

Agakishiev

Strangeness enhancement in Cu + Cu and Au + Au collisions at sNN=200 GeVPhys. Rev. Lett.

108

2012

072301

[51]STAR Collaboration

Aggarwal

Strange and multi-strange particle production in Au + Au collisions at sNN=62.4 GeVPhys. Rev. C

2011

024901

[52]PHENIX Collaboration

S.S.

Adler

Identified charged particle spectra and yields in Au + Au collisions at sNN=200 GeVPhys. Rev. C

2004

034909

[53]BRAHMS Collaboration

Arsene

Centrality dependent particle production at y=0 and y∼1 in Au + Au collisions at sNN=200 GeVPhys. Rev. C

2005

014908

[54]

Sollfrank

Becattini

Redlich

SatzCanonical strangeness enhancementNucl. Phys. A

638

1998

399C

402C

[55]

Letessier

RafelskiStrangeness chemical equilibration in QGP at RHIC and CERN LHCPhys. Rev. C

2007

014905

[56]

U.W.

HeinzConcepts of heavy ion physicsCERN-2004-001-D2004

[57]ALICE Collaboration

Abelev

Multiplicity dependence of the average transverse momentum in pp, p–Pb, and Pb–Pb collisions at the LHC

arXiv:1307.1094 [nucl-ex]

[58]

Shuryak

ZahedHigh multiplicity pp and pA collisions: hydrodynamics at its edge and stringy black hole

arXiv:1301.4470 [hep-ph]

[59]ALICE Collaboration

Abelev

Long-range angular correlations of π, K and p in p–Pb collisions at sNN=5.02 TeV

arXiv:1307.3237 [nucl-ex]

[60]

Huovinen

Kolb

U.W.

Heinz

Ruuskanen

VoloshinRadial and elliptic flow at RHIC: further predictionsPhys. Lett. B

503

2001

[61]

Corke

SjostrandInterleaved parton showers and tuning prospectsJ. High Energy Phys.

1103

2011

032

[62]

P.Z.

Skands

WickeNon-perturbative QCD effects and the top mass at the TevatronEur. Phys. J. C

2007

133

140

[63]

Schulz

SkandsEnergy scaling of minimum-bias tunesEur. Phys. J. C

2011

1644

[64]

Ortiz

Christiansen

Cuautle

Maldonado

PaicColor reconnection and flow-like patterns in pp collisionsPhys. Rev. Lett.

111

2013

042001

[65]

BozekCollective flow in p–Pb and d–Pd collisions at TeV energiesPhys. Rev. C

2012

014911

[66]

Pierog

Karpenko

Katzy

Yatsenko

WernerEPOS LHC: test of collective hadronization with LHC data

arXiv:1306.0121 [hep-ph]

[67]ALICE Collaboration

Abelev

Transverse momentum distribution and nuclear modification factor of charged particles in p–Pb collisions at sNN=5.02 TeVPhys. Rev. Lett.

110

2012

082302

[68]

Werner

Karpenko

Bleicher

Pierog

Porteboeuf-HoussaisJets, bulk matter, and their interaction in heavy ion collisions at several TeVPhys. Rev. C

2012

064907