HIG-19-012

HIG-19-012

[inst1]Adinda De Wit

# Search for decays of the 125Higgs boson into a boson and a or meson

###### Abstract

Decays of the 125Higgs boson into a boson and a 770 or meson are searched for
using proton-proton collision data collected by the CMS experiment at the LHC
at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$. The analysed data set corresponds to an integrated
luminosity of 137. Events are selected in which the boson decays into a pair
of electrons or a pair of muons, and the and mesons decay into pairs of pions
and kaons, respectively. No significant excess above the background model is
observed. As different polarization states are possible for the decay products
of the boson and or mesons, affecting the signal acceptance, scenarios in
which the decays are longitudinally or transversely polarized are considered.
Upper limits at the 95% confidence level on the Higgs boson branching
fractions into $\PZ\PGr$ and $\PZ\PGf$ are determined to be 1.04–1.31% and
0.31–0.40%, respectively, where the ranges reflect the considered polarization
scenarios; these values are 740–940 and 730–950 times larger than the
respective standard model expectations. These results constitute the first
experimental limits on the two decay channels.

##  0.1 Introduction

In 2012 a boson with a mass near 125was discovered by the ATLAS and CMS
Collaborations at the CERN LHC [1, 2, 3]. Soon after it was established that
the properties of this particle are, within uncertainties, in agreement with
those of the Higgs boson () in the standard model (SM) [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9].
Decays of the Higgs boson into $\Pgg\Pgg$, $\PZ\PZ^{*}$, $\PWpm\PWmp^{*}$,
$\PGtp\PGtm$, and , as well as Higgs boson production via gluon-gluon fusion
($\Pg\Pg\PH$), via vector boson fusion (VBF), in association with a vector
boson, and in association with a top quark-antiquark pair, have all been
observed [10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23]. While many
of the couplings between the Higgs boson and other particles have already been
measured, the required sensitivity for measuring Yukawa couplings to second-
and first-generation fermions has not yet been reached. Yukawa couplings to
second-generation fermions are accessible via searches for the decay of the
Higgs boson into $\Pgmp\Pgmm$ or , both of which have been performed at the
LHC [24, 25, 26, 27]. The upper limit at the 95% confidence level () for the
decay into $\Pgmp\Pgmm$ () is approximately 2 (70) times the SM expectation.
In addition, Yukawa couplings to lighter fermions are also accessible via rare
exclusive decays of the Higgs boson. One class of such processes is the decay
of the Higgs boson into a photon and a vector meson [28, 29, 30]. Thus far,
the $\PGg\PJGy$, $\PGg\PGy$(2S), $\PGg\PGU$(nS), $\PGg\PGr$, and $\PGg\PGf$
decays have been searched for [31, 32, 33]. The 95% upper limits on the
branching fractions of the Higgs boson into $\PGg\PJGy$, $\PGg\PGr$, and
$\PGg\PGf$ are 2 orders of magnitude larger than their expected values in the
SM. For the $\PGg\PGy$(2S) and $\PGg\PGU$(nS) decays, the corresponding upper
limits are, respectively, 3 and 5 orders of magnitude larger than the SM
expectation.

A related class of rare decays is that of the Higgs boson into a heavy vector
boson and a vector meson (V) [34, 35]. Up to now only the decays of the Higgs
boson into $\PZ\PJGy$ and $\PZ\PGhc$ have been studied experimentally [36]. As
indicated in Fig. 1, several processes contribute to the decay of the Higgs
boson into a vector boson and a meson. The formation of a vector boson and a
meson via $\PH\to\PZ\PZ^{*}$ or $\PH\to\PZ\PGg^{*}$ decays (Fig. 1, left and
middle) are indirect contributions to this process. We refer to the decay of
the Higgs boson into light quarks that radiate a vector boson and form a bound
meson state (Fig. 1, right) as the direct process. In the SM the indirect
processes contribute the most to the decay of the Higgs boson into a heavy
vector boson and a vector meson.

Figure 1: Feynman diagrams of processes that contribute to the decay of a
Higgs boson into a heavy vector boson and a vector meson. The grey oval shape
represents the meson. The two indirect processes (left and middle), where the
meson originates from an off-shell boson or $\PGg^{*}$, contribute the most to
the total branching fraction in the SM.

The direct process is negligible in the SM as it is suppressed by a factor of
up to $m_{\PQq}^{2}/m_{\PH}^{2}$ relative to the indirect contributions [30].
In that expression $m_{\PQq}$ and $m_{\PH}$ denote the masses of the quark and
of the Higgs boson, respectively. However, in scenarios beyond the SM where
the Yukawa couplings to light fermions are enhanced, this direct process could
contribute significantly to the Higgs boson branching fraction into a vector
boson and a meson [34]. An example of a model beyond the SM with enhanced
Yukawa couplings to light fermions is a version of the Giudice–Lebedev model
of quark masses [37] that is modified to have two Higgs doublets. In this
scenario Yukawa couplings to light quarks could be enhanced by up to a factor
of 7 [38]. Enhancements of the Yukawa couplings by factors up to 30, 500, and
2000 for, respectively, strange, down, and up quarks are possible in a two
Higgs doublet model with spontaneous flavour violation [39]. Other scenarios
in which light-quark Yukawa couplings can be larger than predicted in the SM
include a single Higgs doublet model with Froggatt–Nielsen mechanism [40] and
Randall–Sundrum models of warped extra dimensions [41, 42]. In addition,
studies of the indirect processes are also of interest as these probe a
different phase space from conventional $\PH\to\PW\PW^{*}$ and
$\PH\to\PZ\PZ^{*}$ measurements, and therefore provide complementary
information.

This paper describes a search for decays of the 125Higgs boson into a boson
and a $\Pgr^{0}$ meson ($\PH\to\PZ\PGr$) or into a boson and a meson
($\PH\to\PZ\PGf$). The branching fractions of these processes in the SM are
small: $\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\PZ\PGr)=(1.4\pm 0.1)\times 10^{-5}$ and
$\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\PZ\PGf)=(4.2\pm 0.3)\times 10^{-6}$ [34]. The search uses
a sample of proton-proton ($\Pp\Pp$) collisions collected by the CMS
experiment at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ from 2016 to 2018. The data set corresponds to
an integrated luminosity of 137, or 35.9, 41.5, and 59.7collected in 2016,
2017, and 2018, respectively. In this search we select the dimuon and
dielectron final states of the boson. For the and mesons, we select decays
containing exactly two charged hadrons, corresponding to the $\Pgpp\Pgpm$
final state for the meson and the $\PKp\PKm$ final state for the meson. In the
event reconstruction and are not explicitly distinguished. The main source of
background events in this analysis is from Drell–Yan production of a boson in
association with a genuine or misidentified meson candidate. For brevity we do
not distinguish between particles and antiparticles in our notations of decay
processes in the remainder of this paper.

##  0.2 The CMS detector

The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6m
internal diameter, providing a magnetic field of 3.8T. Within the solenoid
volume are a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal
electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), and a brass and scintillator hadron
calorimeter, each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. Forward
calorimeters extend the pseudorapidity ($\eta$) coverage provided by the
barrel and endcap detectors. Muons are detected in gas-ionization chambers
embedded in the steel flux-return yoke outside the solenoid.

The silicon tracker measures charged particles within the pseudorapidity range
$\abs{\eta}<2.5$. It consists of 1856 silicon pixel and 15 148 silicon strip
detector modules. The silicon pixel detector modules are arranged in four
layers. In 2016, data were taken with a different detector configuration; at
that time there were 1440 silicon pixel detector modules arranged in three
layers. For nonisolated particles with transverse momentum in the range
$1<\pt<10\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<1.4$, the track resolution is typically 1.5% in
[43].

Muons are measured in the pseudorapidity range $\abs{\eta}<2.4$, with
detection planes made using three technologies: drift tubes, cathode strip
chambers, and resistive plate chambers. The single-muon trigger efficiency
exceeds 90% over the full $\eta$ range, and the efficiency to reconstruct and
identify muons is greater than 96%. Matching muons to tracks measured in the
silicon tracker results in a relative resolution, for muons with up to 100, of
1% in the barrel and 3% in the endcaps [44].

The electron momentum is estimated by combining the energy measurement in the
ECAL with the momentum measurement in the tracker. The momentum resolution for
electrons with $\pt\approx 45\GeV$ from $\PZ\to\Pe\Pe$ decays ranges from 1.7
to 4.5%. It is generally better in the barrel region than in the endcaps, and
also depends on the bremsstrahlung energy emitted by the electron as it
traverses the material in front of the ECAL [45].

Events of interest are selected using a two-tiered trigger system [46]. The
first level, composed of custom hardware processors, uses information from the
calorimeters and muon detectors to select events at a rate of around 100kHz
within a time interval of less than 4. The second level, known as the high-
level trigger, consists of a farm of processors running a version of the full
event reconstruction software optimized for fast processing, and reduces the
event rate to around 1kHz before data storage.

A more detailed description of the CMS detector, together with a definition of
the coordinate system used and the relevant kinematic variables, can be found
in Ref. [47].

##  0.3 Event reconstruction

The products of $\Pp\Pp$ collisions are reconstructed based on a particle-flow
algorithm [48], which combines information from all subdetectors to
reconstruct individual particle candidates. These particle candidates are
classified as muons, electrons, photons, and charged and neutral hadrons.

The candidate vertex with the largest value of summed physics-object $\pt^{2}$
is taken to be the primary $\Pp\Pp$ interaction vertex (PV). The physics
objects are the jets, clustered using the jet finding algorithm [49, 50] with
the tracks assigned to candidate vertices as inputs, and the associated
missing transverse momentum, taken as the negative vector sum of the of those
jets. Other collision vertices in the event are considered to have originated
from additional inelastic $\Pp\Pp$ collisions in each bunch crossing, referred
to as pileup (PU). The average number of PU interactions during the 2016 data-
taking period was 23, rising to 32 during the 2017 and 2018 data-taking
periods. The muons, electrons, and charged hadron tracks used in the search
presented in this paper are all required to originate from the PV.

Muons are reconstructed through a simultaneous track fit to hits in the
tracker and in the muon chambers [44]. To suppress particles misidentified as
muons, additional requirements are applied on the track fit quality and
compatibility of individual track segments with the fitted track.
Contamination from muons produced within jets is reduced further by requiring
the muon to be isolated from hadronic activity in the detector. A relative
isolation variable is defined as

$I_{\text{rel}}^{\Pgm}=\frac{\sum_{\text{charged}}\pt+\max\Bigl{(}0,\sum_{\text{neutral}}\pt-0.5\sum_{\text{charged}}\pt^{\text{PU}}\Bigr{)}}{\pt^{\Pgm}},$
(1)

where $\sum_{\text{charged}}\pt$ refers to the scalar sum of the transverse
momenta of all charged particles and $\sum_{\text{neutral}}\pt$ is the sum of
the of neutral hadrons and photons. These two sums are calculated within a
cone of radius $\Delta R=0.4$ around the direction of the muon, where $\Delta
R=\sqrt{\smash[b]{\left(\Delta\eta\right)^{2}+\left(\Delta\phi\right)^{2}}}$
and $\Delta\eta$ and $\Delta\phi$ are differences in pseudorapidity and
azimuthal angle, respectively. The of the muon is excluded from these sums. To
reduce the effects from PU, charged particles are only considered in the
isolation sum if they are associated with the PV. The term
$0.5\sum_{\text{charged}}\pt^{\text{PU}}$ estimates the contributions from
neutral particles in PU by summing the of charged particles that are within
the isolation cone but are not associated with the PV. The factor 0.5 accounts
for the ratio of neutral to charged particle production. Muons selected in the
analysis must satisfy $I_{\text{rel}}^{\Pgm}<0.15$. After these identification
and isolation requirements are imposed, prompt muons are identified with an
efficiency of over 90%. A looser selection, where the isolation requirement is
removed, is also used in the analysis to reject events with additional muons.

Electrons are reconstructed by combining clusters of energy deposits in the
ECAL with hits in the tracker [45]. To reduce contamination from particles
incorrectly identified as electrons, reconstructed electrons are required to
pass a multivariate electron identification discriminant. This discriminant,
based on the one described in Ref. [45], combines information about the
quality of the tracks, the shower shape, kinematic quantities, and hadronic
activity in the vicinity of the reconstructed electron. Isolation sums similar
to those in Eq. (1) are also included among the discriminant inputs. Therefore
no additional isolation requirements are applied. Using the requirements
placed on the discriminant in this analysis, the electron identification
efficiency is 80%. The rate at which other particles are misidentified as
electrons is $\approx$1%. Looser requirements are used to reject events with
additional electrons. Using this looser selection on the multivariate
identification discriminant, the electron identification efficiency is 90% and
other particles are misidentified as electrons at a rate of 2–5%.

The and meson decay products are reconstructed using charged particle tracks
measured in the tracker. The tracks are required to originate from the PV and
to pass “high purity” reconstruction requirements. These requirements are
based on the number of tracker layers with hits, the track fit quality, and
the values of the impact parameters relative to their uncertainties. The
algorithm is described in more detail in Ref. [43]. In the event selection,
described in Section 0.5, we exploit the known masses of pions and kaons to
calculate and restrict the invariant mass of the and candidates.

##  0.4 Simulated samples

Samples of simulated Higgs boson events, produced via the $\Pg\Pg\PH$, VBF,
-associated ($\PW\PH$), and -associated ($\PZ\PH$) modes, are generated at
next-to-leading order (NLO) in quantum chromodynamics (QCD) using 2.0 [51, 52,
53, 54, 55, 56]. In some of the figures in this paper, and for the evaluation
of corrections that account for differences between data and simulation,
samples of simulated Drell–Yan $\PZ\to\ell\ell$ events are used. Here, $\ell$
refers to $\Pe\text{ or }\Pgm$. These samples are generated at leading order
using 2.2.2 (2.4.2) [57] for the 2016 (2017 and 2018) data-taking periods. All
generated samples are interfaced with 8.212 [58] to model parton showering and
hadronization. In the signal samples the decays $\PH\to\PZ\PGr$ or
$\PH\to\PZ\PGf$ are also modelled using . These samples are used to build the
signal model, which consists of binned templates. The NNPDF3.0 parton
distribution functions (PDFs) [59] are used for the 2016 data-taking period.
For the samples of signal events NLO PDFs are used, while for the Drell–Yan
events leading order PDFs are used. For the 2017 and 2018 data-taking periods
the NNPDF3.1 PDFs [60] at next-to-next-to-leading order are used for all
samples. The description of the underlying event is provided by the CUETP8M1
tune [61] for the 2016 data-taking period and by the CP5 tune [62] for the
2017 and 2018 data-taking periods. Additional PU interactions, generated with
, are added to all simulated events in accordance with the expected PU
distribution. All generated events are passed through a -based [63] simulation
of the CMS detector before being reconstructed with the same version of the
CMS event reconstruction software as used for data.

##  0.5 Event selection

The final states considered in the selection are the $\Pgm\Pgm\Pgp\Pgp$ and
$\Pe\Pe\Pgp\Pgp$ decays of the $\PZ\PGr$ system, and the $\Pgm\Pgm\PK\PK$ and
$\Pe\Pe\PK\PK$ decays of the $\PZ\PGf$ system. The selection of the $\Pgm\Pgm$
and $\Pe\Pe$ pairs, referred to as the dilepton system in what follows, is
independent of the meson candidate under consideration. The trigger selection
for the $\Pgm\Pgm$ final states is based on the presence of at least one
isolated muon with $\pt>24\GeV$ in the 2016 and 2018 data-taking periods, and
at least one isolated muon with $\pt>27\GeV$ in the 2017 data-taking period.
For the $\Pe\Pe$ final states the trigger selection requires the presence of
at least one isolated electron with $\pt>27\GeV$ in the 2016 data-taking
period. In the 2017 (2018) data-taking period this threshold is $\pt>35\text{
}(32)\GeV$.

After imposing the trigger requirements, events in the $\Pgm\Pgm$ channel are
selected by requiring the presence of two oppositely charged muons passing the
identification and isolation criteria described in Section 0.3. At least one
of these muons must pass the trigger selection. Both muons must have
$\pt>20\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.4$, while the of the muon that satisfies the
trigger requirements must be at least 3above the threshold at the trigger
level. The $\Pe\Pe$ channel selects events containing two oppositely charged
electrons passing the identification criteria described in Section 0.3. At
least one of the electrons must pass the trigger selection. Both electrons
must have $\pt>20\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.1$. The of the electron satisfying
the trigger requirement must be at least 3above the trigger-level threshold.
The requirement that the of the lepton passing the trigger selection is at
least 3above the threshold in the trigger ensures we avoid the part of the
phase space where the trigger efficiency increases rapidly. In both the
$\Pgm\Pgm$ and $\Pe\Pe$ channels, events that contain additional leptons with
$\pt>5\GeV$ that pass the loose identification criteria described in Section
0.3 are rejected. The invariant mass of the dilepton system is required to be
in the range $60<m_{\ell\ell}<120\GeV$.

The () candidate is reconstructed from its decay into $\Pgpp\Pgpm$
($\PKp\PKm$). As the and mesons are both light compared to the energy released
in the decay, the two charged particles produced in the decay are emitted with
small angular separation $\Delta R$, as illustrated in Fig. 2. The events
shown in this figure are required to pass the selection criteria described so
far. The small separation between the two tracks is exploited in the selection
of the and candidates. The meson candidate is selected as a pair of oppositely
charged particle tracks, both with $\pt>1\GeV$ and separated by $\Delta
R<0.1$. In what follows a pair of oppositely charged particle tracks is also
referred to as a ditrack system. The charged particle tracks are required to
be separated from each of the boson decay products by $\Delta R>0.3$. In
addition, at least one of the tracks must have $\pt>10\GeV$. Figure 3 shows
the distribution for the track that has the larger transverse momentum out of
the two tracks selected as the meson candidate. This distribution is shown in
the $\PH\to\PZ\PGr$ and $\PH\to\PZ\PGf$ signal events and in the background
from Drell–Yan events, illustrating how this requirement helps to reduce the
background. If multiple track pairs pass these requirements, we calculate the
four-momentum of each ditrack system and select the pair of tracks with the
highest . This choice maximizes the proportion of signal events in which the
correct meson candidate is selected. In all channels, the meson candidate is
correctly identified in 98–99% of the signal events.

Figure 2: The angular distance $\Delta R$ between the two tracks from the
meson decay in $\PH\to\PZ\PGr$ events (dashed red) and in $\PH\to\PZ\PGf$
events (dotted blue). The separation is calculated between reconstructed
tracks that are matched to the generator-level pions (kaons) to ensure that
the tracks originate from the () decay. Both contributions are normalized to
the same area.  Figure 3: The transverse momentum distribution for the track
that has the larger out of the two tracks selected as the or candidate. The
distribution is shown for events that pass the meson candidate selection
described in the text, but not the requirement that one of the tracks must
have $\pt>10\GeV$. This distribution is shown for the $\PH\to\PZ\PGr$ decay
(dashed red), for the $\PH\to\PZ\PGf$ decay (dotted blue), and for the
background from Drell–Yan events (solid black). All contributions are
normalized to the same area.

Furthermore, we require the ditrack system to be isolated. An isolation sum
$I^{\text{trk}}$ is calculated as

$I^{\text{trk}}=\sum\pt^{\text{trk}},$ (2)

in a cone of radius $\Delta R=0.3$ around the direction of the ditrack system.
Only tracks with $\pt>0.5\GeV$ that are associated with the PV are considered,
and the tracks forming the or candidate are excluded from the sum. Events are
selected if $I^{\text{trk}}<0.5\GeV$, thus with no track around the direction
of the ditrack system. Figure 4 shows the distributions of the isolation sum
for the data and for the simulated signal, after applying all selection
criteria except for the ditrack isolation requirement. The ditrack invariant
mass requirement discussed below is also applied. This figure illustrates the
reduction in background events due to the isolation requirements. Only events
in which the dilepton and ditrack four-body mass is in the range 120–130are
shown. This range is expected to contain 95% of the simulated signal.

Figure 4: The ditrack isolation sum in the $\ell\ell\Pgp\Pgp$ (left) and
$\ell\ell\PK\PK$ (right) channels, combining the $\Pgm\Pgm$ and $\Pe\Pe$
channels for all the data-taking years. The distribution in data, as well as
in the simulated $\PH\to\PZ\PGr$ and $\PH\to\PZ\PGf$ signals is shown. A
branching fraction of 10 (5)% for the $\PH\to\PZ\PGr$ ($\PH\to\PZ\PGf$) signal
is assumed. The isolation sum is shown after applying all selection criteria
apart from the ditrack isolation requirement. The ditrack invariant mass
requirement is also applied. Only events in which the dilepton plus ditrack
invariant mass is in the range 120–130are considered. The dashed line
indicates the boundary of the region used in the analysis, for which the
isolation sum is required to be smaller than 0.5.

The invariant mass of the ditrack system is also used to reduce the
contamination from background events. Events with a candidate are selected if
the invariant mass of the ditrack system is within $0.6<m_{\Pgp\Pgp}<1\GeV$,
calculated assuming the mass of each particle equals $m_{\Pgppm}=139.6\MeV$
[64]. The full width at half the maximum of the $m_{\Pgp\Pgp}$ distribution is
approximately 120in the simulated signal. Figure 5 (left) shows this invariant
mass distribution in simulated $\PH\to\PZ\PGr$ events. The meson has a smaller
natural width than the meson, therefore it is possible to use a narrower mass
window. The full width at half the maximum of the $m_{\PK\PK}$ distribution in
simulated signal samples is approximately 5. To select events with a
candidate, the mass of each particle is taken as $m_{\PKpm}=493.7\MeV$ [64]
and we require $1.005<m_{\PK\PK}<1.035\GeV$. Figure 5 (right) shows this
invariant mass distribution in simulated $\PH\to\PZ\PGf$ events.

After these requirements, including those on the ditrack invariant mass, the
contribution from $\PH\to\PZ\PGf$ events in the $\ell\ell\Pgp\Pgp$ channel is
smaller than 1% of the number of expected signal events in this channel when
the SM branching fractions for $\PH\to\PZ\PGr$ and $\PH\to\PZ\PGf$ are
considered. The same is true for contributions from $\PH\to\PZ\PGr$ events in
the $\ell\ell\PK\PK$ channel. After all selection criteria are applied, there
is no overlap in the events selected by the $\ell\ell\Pgp\Pgp$ and
$\ell\ell\PK\PK$ channels.

The product of signal selection efficiency and acceptance
($\epsilon\mathcal{A}$) corresponds to the fraction of simulated signal events
that pass the selection. To calculate these values we use the nominal
simulated sample, in which the decays of the and bosons are modelled
isotropically. On average over the three data-taking years,
$\epsilon\mathcal{A}$ in the $\Pgm\Pgm\Pgp\Pgp$ ($\Pgm\Pgm\PK\PK$) channel is
15 (18)%. For the $\Pe\Pe\Pgp\Pgp$ ($\Pe\Pe\PK\PK$) channel the average
$\epsilon\mathcal{A}$ is 8 (10)%.

Figure 5: Distribution of the ditrack invariant mass in simulated
$\PH\to\PZ\PGr$ events passing the $\ell\ell\Pgp\Pgp$ selection criteria
(left) and in simulated $\PH\to\PZ\PGf$ events passing the $\ell\ell\PK\PK$
selection criteria (right). These masses are calculated assuming the charged
particle mass equals the pion mass in the $\ell\ell\Pgp\Pgp$ selection and
assuming the charged particle mass equals the kaon mass in the
$\ell\ell\PK\PK$ selection. The events pass all selection criteria described
in the text, apart from the requirements on the ditrack invariant mass window.
The dashed lines indicate the region selected in the analysis.

##  0.6 Corrections applied to simulated samples

A correction is applied to the simulated events such that the PU distribution
in simulation reproduces this distribution in data [65]. Corrections are also
applied to the simulation to account for differences in the efficiencies of
the trigger selection; of the ditrack isolation requirement; and of the lepton
reconstruction, identification, and isolation between simulated events and
data. These corrections, deviating from unity by a few percent, are measured
using the “tag-and-probe” method [66]. The ditrack isolation efficiency
correction is determined in $\PZ\to\Pgm\Pgm$ events using the tag-and-probe
method. Here, the efficiency of the requirement on $I^{\text{trk}}$ is
measured for the probe muon. A systematic uncertainty, described in Section
0.8, is applied to account for the difference between the phase space where
the correction is measured and where it is applied. Energy scale corrections,
which are smaller than 1%, are applied to the muons and electrons [45, 44].

The event simulations model the decays of the and bosons isotropically, and so
do not take into account the impact of particle helicities. However, as there
are only a few possibilities for polarizations in the final decay products, we
calculate the angular distributions for extreme polarizations and reweight the
signal events accordingly following the method described in Ref. [67]. The
boson and the or meson can either both be transversely polarized or both be
longitudinally polarized. The two leptons always have opposite helicity in the
rest frame of the boson. For each possibility the distribution of the polar
angle between one of the pions or kaons and the meson, and between one of the
leptons and the boson, is evaluated analytically. The signal templates are
weighted to both of these distributions simultaneously. We ensure that the
total normalization of the signal, before event selection, is preserved by the
reweighting. However, the reweighting modifies the distribution of the
kinematic variables, in particular by changing the lepton . Therefore the
reweighting reduces (increases) the fraction of signal events that pass the
selection criteria in the transversely (longitudinally) polarized case, and so
this affects the final results. The change of the signal yield in the two
extreme polarizations, relative to the scenario with isotropic decays, is
given in Table 0.6.

The effect on the signal yields of reweighting to the extreme polarization
scenarios, described in more detail in the text, relative to the scenario with
isotropic decays. The change in the fraction of signal events that pass the
selection criteria affects the final results of the analysis.

Polarization state | Effect on yield
---|---
| $\Pgm\Pgm\Pgp\Pgp$ | $\Pgm\Pgm\PK\PK$ | $\Pe\Pe\Pgp\Pgp$ | $\Pe\Pe\PK\PK$
Longitudinally polarized |  $+$16% |  $+$17% |  $+$23% |  $+$21%
Transversely polarized |  $-$8% |  $-$9% |  $-$11% |  $-$11%

##  0.7 Signal and background modelling

The dilepton and ditrack four-body mass distribution, corresponding to the
reconstructed Higgs boson mass and denoted $m_{\ell\ell\mathrm{h}\mathrm{h}}$,
where $\mathrm{h}$ refers to or , is used in the statistical inference. The
signal and background are therefore modelled as a function of this observable
in the range $118<m_{\ell\ell\mathrm{h}\mathrm{h}}<168\GeV$. More than 95% of
the expected signal is contained in the range
$120<m_{\ell\ell\mathrm{h}\mathrm{h}}<130\GeV$; the large tail used at higher
masses helps to improve the stability of the background parameterization. As a
result of the kinematic selection on the leptons and the meson candidates, the
four-body mass distribution for the background changes from rising to falling
between $115<m_{\ell\ell\mathrm{h}\mathrm{h}}<118\GeV$. For this reason the
lower bound of the range is taken as
$m_{\ell\ell\mathrm{h}\mathrm{h}}=118\GeV$. The full width at half the maximum
of the $m_{\ell\ell\mathrm{h}\mathrm{h}}$ distribution in samples of simulated
signal events amounts to 2–3, depending on the channel considered. The signal
is described through a binned template, built from simulated events. Each bin
has a width of 1in the four-body mass, which matches the binning used for the
data.

The background to this search, consisting mainly of Drell–Yan events, is
modelled using analytic functions. The values of the parameters of these
analytic functions are obtained directly in the final signal extraction fit.
Prior to the signal extraction fit we need to determine a set of functional
forms that can parameterize the background in the different channels and data-
taking years. Two sidebands, $118<m_{\ell\ell\mathrm{h}\mathrm{h}}<120\GeV$
and $130<m_{\ell\ell\mathrm{h}\mathrm{h}}<168\GeV$, are used for this. Because
the sideband with $m_{\ell\ell\mathrm{h}\mathrm{h}}<120\GeV$ is short, we
verify that the chosen functional forms also describe the background in a
control region where we require $1<I^{\text{trk}}<2\GeV$. The fitted values of
the function parameters in the control region are not required to be the same
as those in the analysis phase space. In the control region the full four-body
mass range $118<m_{\ell\ell\mathrm{h}\mathrm{h}}<168\GeV$ is considered.

Chebyshev polynomials are used to describe the backgrounds. The order used
depends on the channel and data-taking period, and ranges from 2 to 5. These
orders are determined in the sidebands and the control regions described above
using an F-test [68]. With this method we test whether a polynomial of order
$n+1$ fits the data significantly better than a polynomial of order $n$. If
this is not the case, the polynomial of order $n$ is selected. The results of
the fit are shown in Section 0.9.

Alternative functions can be used to estimate the bias from the choice of a
particular background parameterization. As alternatives we choose exponential
functions, as well as a function of the form

$f(x)=(1-x)^{p_{1}}x^{-p_{2}-p_{3}\ln{x}},$ (3)

where $x=m/\sqrt{s}$, and $p_{i}$ are parameters of the fit. Here, $m$
represents the four-body mass and $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$. Such a function has also
been used in searches for dijet resonances [69]. These alternative functional
forms have a different shape from the nominal background model, but still fit
the data in the sidebands well.

The possible bias from the choice of background parameterization is estimated
by fitting the alternative function to the four-body mass sidebands. Pseudo-
experiments are then drawn from this parameterization, and a signal
expectation is added to each pseudo-data set. A maximum likelihood fit of the
signal and background models to each pseudo-data set is performed using the
nominal background model. This test is performed three times with branching
fractions of 0, 2.5, and 5% for $\PH\to\PZ\PGr$ or $\PH\to\PZ\PGf$. The test
is also performed with both alternative functions described in the previous
paragraph. The difference between the extracted and injected branching
fraction is, within uncertainties, compatible between the tests with different
injected branching fractions. This difference, for the alternative function
for which it is largest, is taken as the uncertainty due to a possible bias in
the choice of background parameterization. The bias is found to be small and
is included in the analysis as a systematic uncertainty.

##  0.8 Signal extraction and systematic uncertainties

The results of this analysis are presented as upper limits on
$\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\PZ\PGr)$ and on $\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\PZ\PGf)$. All limits
quoted in what follows are set at the 95% . Limits are set using the modified
frequentist $\CLs$ criterion [70, 71], in which the profile likelihood ratio
modified for upper limits [72] is used as the test statistic. In the limit
setting procedure we make use of the asymptotic approximation [73].

Several systematic uncertainties are incorporated in the likelihood as
nuisance parameters. They are described in this section and summarized in
Table 0.8.

Most of the systematic uncertainties affect only the normalization of the
simulated signal templates:

  1. i.

The uncertainties in the integrated luminosity measurements are, respectively,
2.5, 2.3, and 2.5% for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking periods [74, 75,
76].

  2. ii.

Uncertainties in the muon identification, isolation, and trigger efficiency
measurements arise from the method used to measure the efficiency, from the
difference between the kinematic phase space in which the measurement is
performed and where it is applied, and from the limited size of the simulated
samples used for the measurement in simulation [44]. These uncertainties
affect the normalisation of the simulated processes by $\approx$1% for all the
data-taking periods.

  3. iii.

Uncertainties in the electron reconstruction, identification, and trigger
efficiency measurements range from 2 to 3%, depending on the data-taking
period. These uncertainties mainly arise from the method used for the
efficiency measurement [45].

  4. iv.

The uncertainty in the tracking efficiency amounts to 4.6–4.8% (corresponding
to 2.3–2.4% per track), depending on the data-taking period. This uncertainty
is determined by comparing ratios of meson decay chains in data and
simulation. The dominant components of the uncertainty come from limited
sample sizes and the uncertainties in the SM predictions of these ratios.

  5. v.

The uncertainty in the ditrack isolation efficiency measurement is 2% for all
three data-taking periods. This uncertainty mainly arises from the method used
to measure the efficiency.

  6. vi.

Theoretical uncertainties in the $\Pg\Pg\PH$ production cross section amount
to 3.9%, with uncertainties in the VBF, $\PW\PH$, and $\PZ\PH$ production
cross sections being, respectively, 0.4, 0.7, and 3.8% [34].

  7. vii.

Uncertainties from the choice of PDF and the value of the strong force
coupling constant () depend on the Higgs boson production mode and range from
1.6 to 3.2% [34].

Four systematic uncertainties affect both the shape and normalization of the
simulated signal templates:

  1. i.

Uncertainties in the lepton energy scales are typically less than 0.3% for
both muons and electrons [44, 45].

  2. ii.

An additional uncertainty in the ditrack isolation efficiency measurement is
applied. This uncertainty is taken as the difference between the ditrack
isolation efficiency in the phase space where the correction is measured, and
the efficiency as evaluated in the simulated signal. This uncertainty is in
the range 1–6%, depending on the data-taking period.

  3. iii.

The uncertainty in the total inelastic cross section, used for correcting the
PU profile in simulation to the profile in data, is 4.6% [65]. The overall
effect on the normalisation of the simulated signal templates ranges from 0.5
to 1.5%, depending on the data-taking period and the channel considered.

  4. iv.

Uncertainties due to the limited number of simulated events are taken into
account by allowing each bin of the signal template to vary within its
statistical uncertainty, independently from the other bins.

Effect of systematic uncertainties on the simulated signal. The ranges reflect
differences between channels and data-taking periods.  Uncertainty source Type
Effect on simulated signal yield Integrated luminosity Normalization 2.3–2.5%
Muon efficiency Normalization 1% Muon energy scale Shape $<$0.3% Electron
efficiency Normalization 2–3% Electron energy scale Shape $<$0.3% Tracking
efficiency Normalization 4.6–4.8% Ditrack isolation efficiency Normalization
2% Ditrack isolation efficiency extrapolation Shape 1–6% Production cross
sections Normalization 0.4–3.9% Choice of PDF and  Normalization 1.6–3.2%
Inelastic cross section Shape 0.5–1.5% Limited size of simulated samples Shape
Bin-dependent

The largest possible bias from the choice of the function modelling the
background is included in the likelihood as a modification of the number of
expected events. The number of expected events in a given bin $i$ is obtained
as $(\mathcal{B}+\Delta_{\text{bias}})s_{i}+b_{i}$, where $s_{i}$ is the
number of signal events and $b_{i}$ is the number of background events. The
parameter $\mathcal{B}$ is the branching fraction of the Higgs boson and the
parameter on which we set limits. The parameter for the bias from the choice
of background function is $\Delta_{\text{bias}}$. It is subject to a Gaussian
constraint with a mean of 0 and a width equal to the largest possible bias due
to the choice of background function, which ranges from 0.01 to 0.20%. These
values are obtained using the method described in Section 0.7.

Theoretical uncertainties in the production cross sections, and the
uncertainties due to the choice of PDF and the value of are treated as
correlated between the different data-taking periods. The uncertainty in the
integrated luminosity measurement is treated as partially correlated between
the different data-taking periods. The other experimental uncertainties are
treated as uncorrelated between the different data-taking periods.

##  0.9 Results

To present results in terms of $\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\PZ\PGr)$ and
$\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\PZ\PGf)$, the signal templates are normalized by taking
into account the $\Pg\Pg\PH$, VBF, $\PW\PH$, and $\PZ\PH$ production cross
sections. The $\Pg\Pg\PH$ cross section is calculated at next-to-next-to-next-
to-leading order in QCD and NLO in electroweak accuracy as 48.58pb [34]. The
cross sections for the other production modes are calculated at next-to-next-
to-leading order in QCD and NLO in electroweak accuracy, and amount,
respectively, to 3.78, 1.37, and 0.88pb [34]. In addition, SM branching
fractions of 3.37% are assumed for each of the $\PZ\to\ell\ell$ decays [64].

In the limit setting procedure we do not take into account potential
contributions of Higgs boson decays into a boson and other vector mesons.

The four-body mass distributions in data and the background model are shown in
Fig. 6. The expected $\PH\to\PZ\PGr$ ($\PH\to\PZ\PGf$) signal, in the
isotropic-decay scenario, at a branching fraction of 3.0 (0.7)% is also shown.
In this figure the $\Pgm\Pgm$ and $\Pe\Pe$ channels, as well as all three
data-taking periods, are combined for illustration. In the statistical
inference these channels are considered separately in a simultaneous fit. No
significant excess above the background expectation is observed in either of
the two searches.

Figure 6: Distributions of $m_{\ell\ell\Pgp\Pgp}$ (left) and
$m_{\ell\ell\PK\PK}$ (right). For illustration the $\Pgm\Pgm$ and $\Pe\Pe$
channels, as well as all three data-taking periods, are combined. Also shown
are the $\PH\to\PZ\PGr$ and $\PH\to\PZ\PGf$ signals, in the isotropic-decay
scenario and assuming branching fractions of 3.0 and 0.7%, respectively. The
ratio between the data and the background model is shown in the lower panels.

The observed upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\PZ\PGr)$ and
$\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\PZ\PGf)$ are 1.04–1.31% and 0.31–0.40%, respectively,
depending on the polarization scenario considered. These values correspond to
740–940 times the SM expectation for the $\PH\to\PZ\PGr$ decay and 730–950
times the SM expectation for the $\PH\to\PZ\PGf$ decay. These limits can be
compared with the expected upper limits, which are 0.63–0.80% or 450–570 times
the SM expectation for $\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\PZ\PGr)$ and 0.27–0.36% or 650–850
times the SM expectation for $\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\PZ\PGf)$. These ranges
reflect the considered polarization scenarios. The observed and expected upper
limits are shown in Table 0.9 for $\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\PZ\PGr)$ and in Table
0.9 for $\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\PZ\PGf)$. While these limits are set on the total
$\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\PZ\PGr)$ and $\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\PZ\PGf)$, the results
mainly probe the indirect process via the $\PH\to\PZ\PZ^{*}$ decay as the
direct decay process (Fig. 1, right) is greatly suppressed in the SM.

Observed and expected 95% upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\PZ\PGr)$, for
different polarizations.  Observed Median expected $\pm 68\%$ expected $\pm
95\%$ expected Isotropic decay 1.21% 0.73% 0.52–1.04% 0.38–1.41% and
longitudinally polarized 1.04% 0.63% 0.44–0.89% 0.32–1.20% and transversely
polarized 1.31% 0.80% 0.57–1.14% 0.41–1.54%

Observed and expected 95% upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\PZ\PGf)$, for
different polarizations.  Observed Median expected $\pm 68\%$ expected $\pm
95\%$ expected Isotropic decay 0.36% 0.33% 0.23–0.46% 0.18–0.61% and
longitudinally polarized 0.31% 0.27% 0.20–0.39% 0.15–0.52% and transversely
polarized 0.40% 0.36% 0.26–0.50% 0.19–0.68%

##  0.10 Summary

A search has been presented for the rare decay of the Higgs boson () into a
boson and a or a meson in the dilepton-$\Pgpp\Pgpm$ final states of the
$\PH\to\PZ\PGr$ decay, and in the dilepton-$\PKp\PKm$ final states of the
$\PH\to\PZ\PGf$ decay. The search used a sample of proton-proton collisions,
collected by the CMS experiment at a centre-of-mass energy of 13from 2016 to
2018 and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 137. Upper limits on the
branching fractions $\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\PZ\PGr)$ and
$\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\PZ\PGf)$ have been set at the 95% confidence level for
various polarization scenarios. The upper limits on
$\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\PZ\PGr)$ are in the range 1.04–1.31%, or 740–940 times the
standard model expectation. The upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\PZ\PGf)$
range from 0.31 to 0.40%, or 730–950 times the standard model expectation.
These results constitute the first experimental limits on the two decay
channels.

###### Acknowledgements.

We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the
excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative
staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the
success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the
computing centres and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for
delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our
analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction
and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following
funding agencies: BMBWF and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq,
CAPES, FAPERJ, FAPERGS, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST,
and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RIF
(Cyprus); SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC IUT, PUT and ERDF (Estonia); Academy
of Finland, MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG,
and HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); NKFIA (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM
(Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); MES
(Latvia); LAS (Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT,
LNS, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MOS (Montenegro); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC
(Pakistan); MSHE and NSC (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom,
RAS, RFBR, and NRC KI (Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI, and FEDER
(Spain); MOSTR (Sri Lanka); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); MST
(Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR, and NSTDA (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK
(Turkey); NASU (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA).
Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie programme and the
European Research Council and Horizon 2020 Grant, contract Nos. 675440,
752730, and 765710 (European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A.P. Sloan
Foundation; the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science
Policy Office; the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et
dans l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door
Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the F.R.S.-FNRS and FWO (Belgium)
under the “Excellence of Science – EOS” – be.h project n. 30820817; the
Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission, No. Z191100007219010; the
Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy –
EXC 2121 “Quantum Universe” – 390833306; the Lendület (“Momentum”) Programme
and the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of
Sciences, the New National Excellence Program ÚNKP, the NKFIA research grants
123842, 123959, 124845, 124850, 125105, 128713, 128786, and 129058 (Hungary);
the Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; the HOMING PLUS
programme of the Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from European
Union, Regional Development Fund, the Mobility Plus programme of the Ministry
of Science and Higher Education, the National Science Center (Poland),
contracts Harmonia 2014/14/M/ST2/00428, Opus 2014/13/B/ST2/02543,
2014/15/B/ST2/03998, and 2015/19/B/ST2/02861, Sonata-bis 2012/07/E/ST2/01406;
the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund; the
Ministry of Science and Higher Education, project no. 02.a03.21.0005 (Russia);
the Programa Estatal de Fomento de la Investigación Científica y Técnica de
Excelencia María de Maeztu, grant MDM-2015-0509 and the Programa Severo Ochoa
del Principado de Asturias; the Thalis and Aristeia programmes cofinanced by
EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral
Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its
2nd Century Project Advancement Project (Thailand); the Kavli Foundation; the
Nvidia Corporation; the SuperMicro Corporation; the Welch Foundation, contract
C-1845; and the Weston Havens Foundation (USA).

## References

  * [1] ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a new particle in the search for the standard model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020, arXiv:1207.7214.
  * [2] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021, arXiv:1207.7235.
  * [3] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 and 8 TeV”,  JHEP 06 (2013) 081, 10.1007/JHEP06(2013)081, arXiv:1303.4571.
  * [4] F. Englert and R. Brout, “Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 321, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.321.
  * [5] P. W. Higgs, “Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields”,  Phys. Lett. 12 (1964) 132, 10.1016/0031-9163(64)91136-9.
  * [6] P. W. Higgs, “Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 508, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.508.
  * [7] G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble, “Global conservation laws and massless particles”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 585, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.585.
  * [8] P. W. Higgs, “Spontaneous symmetry breakdown without massless bosons”,  Phys. Rev. 145 (1966) 1156, 10.1103/PhysRev.145.1156.
  * [9] T. W. B. Kibble, “Symmetry breaking in non-abelian gauge theories”,  Phys. Rev. 155 (1967) 1554, 10.1103/PhysRev.155.1554.
  * [10] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of Higgs boson production in the diphoton decay channel in pp collisions at center-of-mass energies of 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 112015, 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.112015, arXiv:1408.7084.
  * [11] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of the diphoton decay of the Higgs boson and measurement of its properties”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3076, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3076-z, arXiv:1407.0558.
  * [12] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurements of Higgs boson production and couplings in the four-lepton channel in pp collisions at center-of-mass energies of 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 012006, 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.012006, arXiv:1408.5191.
  * [13] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the properties of a Higgs boson in the four-lepton final state”,  Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 092007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.092007, arXiv:1312.5353.
  * [14] ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation and measurement of Higgs boson decays to WW∗ with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 012006, 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.012006, arXiv:1412.2641.
  * [15] ATLAS Collaboration, “Study of (W/Z)H production and Higgs boson couplings using $H\rightarrow WW^{\ast}$ decays with the ATLAS detector”,  JHEP 08 (2015) 137, 10.1007/JHEP08(2015)137, arXiv:1506.06641.
  * [16] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of Higgs boson production and properties in the WW decay channel with leptonic final states”,  JHEP 01 (2014) 096, 10.1007/JHEP01(2014)096, arXiv:1312.1129.
  * [17] ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, “Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined ATLAS and CMS analysis of the LHC pp collision data at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8 TeV”,  JHEP 08 (2016) 045, 10.1007/JHEP08(2016)045, arXiv:1606.02266.
  * [18] ATLAS Collaboration, “Cross-section measurements of the Higgs boson decaying into a pair of $\tau$-leptons in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 072001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.072001, arXiv:1811.08856.
  * [19] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of the Higgs boson decay to a pair of $\tau$ leptons with the CMS detector”,  Phys. Lett. B 779 (2018) 283, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.02.004, arXiv:1708.00373.
  * [20] ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of Higgs boson production in association with a top quark pair at the LHC with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Lett. B 784 (2018) 173, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.07.035, arXiv:1806.00425.
  * [21] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of $\mathrm{t\overline{t}}$H production”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 231801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.231801, arXiv:1804.02610.
  * [22] ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of $H\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ decays and $VH$ production with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Lett. B 786 (2018) 59, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.09.013, arXiv:1808.08238.
  * [23] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of Higgs boson decay to bottom quarks”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 121801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.121801, arXiv:1808.08242.
  * [24] ATLAS Collaboration, “A search for the dimuon decay of the standard model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector”, (2020). arXiv:2007.07830. Submitted to Phys. Lett. B.
  * [25] CMS Collaboration, “Search for the Higgs boson decaying to two muons in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) 021801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.021801, arXiv:1807.06325.
  * [26] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for the decay of the Higgs boson to charm quarks with the ATLAS experiment”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 211802, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.211802, arXiv:1802.04329.
  * [27] CMS Collaboration, “A search for the standard model Higgs boson decaying to charm quarks”,  JHEP 03 (2020) 131, 10.1007/JHEP03(2020)131, arXiv:1912.01662.
  * [28] G. T. Bodwin, F. Petriello, S. Stoynev, and M. Velasco, “Higgs boson decays to quarkonia and the $H\bar{c}c$ coupling”,  Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 053003, 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.053003, arXiv:1306.5770.
  * [29] A. L. Kagan et al., “Exclusive window onto Higgs Yukawa couplings”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 101802, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.101802, arXiv:1406.1722.
  * [30] S. Alte, M. König, and M. Neubert, “Exclusive weak radiative Higgs decays in the standard model and beyond”,  JHEP 12 (2016) 037, 10.1007/JHEP12(2016)037, arXiv:1609.06310.
  * [31] CMS Collaboration, “Search for rare decays of Z and Higgs bosons to J$/\psi$ and a photon in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 94, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6562-5, arXiv:1810.10056.
  * [32] ATLAS Collaboration, “Searches for exclusive Higgs and $Z$ boson decays into $J/\psi\gamma$, $\psi(2S)\gamma$, and $\Upsilon(nS)\gamma$ at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Lett. B 786 (2018) 134, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.09.024, arXiv:1807.00802.
  * [33] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for exclusive Higgs and $Z$ boson decays to $\phi\gamma$ and $\rho\gamma$ with the ATLAS detector”,  JHEP 07 (2018) 127, 10.1007/JHEP07(2018)127, arXiv:1712.02758.
  * [34] LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group, “Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. Deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector”, CERN Report CERN-2017-002-M, 2016.  10.23731/CYRM-2017-002, arXiv:1610.07922.
  * [35] G. Isidori, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott, “Probing the nature of the Higgs-like boson via $h\to v\mathcal{F}$ decays”,  Phys. Lett. B 728 (2014) 131, 10.1016/j.physletb.2013.11.054, arXiv:1305.0663.
  * [36] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for Higgs boson decays into a $Z$ boson and a light hadronically decaying resonance using 13 TeV $pp$ collision data from the ATLAS detector”, (2020). arXiv:2004.01678. Submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett.
  * [37] G. F. Giudice and O. Lebedev, “Higgs-dependent Yukawa couplings”,  Phys. Lett. B 665 (2008) 79, 10.1016/j.physletb.2008.05.062, arXiv:0804.1753.
  * [38] F. Bishara, J. Brod, P. Uttayarat, and J. Zupan, “Nonstandard Yukawa couplings and Higgs portal dark matter”,  JHEP 01 (2016) 010, 10.1007/JHEP01(2016)010, arXiv:1504.04022.
  * [39] D. Egana-Ugrinovic, S. Homiller, and P. R. Meade, “Higgs bosons with large couplings to light quarks”,  Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 115041, 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.115041, arXiv:1908.11376.
  * [40] C. D. Froggatt and H. B. Nielsen, “Hierarchy of quark masses, Cabibbo angles and CP violation”,  Nucl. Phys. B 147 (1979) 277, 10.1016/0550-3213(79)90316-X.
  * [41] L. Randall and R. Sundrum, “A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 3370, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.3370, arXiv:hep-ph/9905221.
  * [42] S. J. Huber and Q. Shafi, “Fermion masses, mixings and proton decay in a Randall-Sundrum model”,  Phys. Lett. B 498 (2001) 256, 10.1016/S0370-2693(00)01399-X, arXiv:hep-ph/0010195.
  * [43] CMS Collaboration, “Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker”,  JINST 9 (2014) P10009, 10.1088/1748-0221/9/10/P10009, arXiv:1405.6569.
  * [44] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  JINST 13 (2018) P06015, 10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/P06015, arXiv:1804.04528.
  * [45] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV”,  JINST 10 (2015) P06005, 10.1088/1748-0221/10/06/P06005, arXiv:1502.02701.
  * [46] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [47] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [48] CMS Collaboration, “Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector”,  JINST 12 (2017) P10003, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/10/P10003, arXiv:1706.04965.
  * [49] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-jet clustering algorithm”,  JHEP 04 (2008) 063, 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063, arXiv:0802.1189.
  * [50] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “FastJet user manual”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1896, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2, arXiv:1111.6097.
  * [51] P. Nason, “A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms”,  JHEP 11 (2004) 040, 10.1088/1126-6708/2004/11/040, arXiv:hep-ph/0409146.
  * [52] S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari, “Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method”,  JHEP 11 (2007) 070, 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070, arXiv:0709.2092.
  * [53] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “NLO Higgs boson production via gluon fusion matched with shower in POWHEG”,  JHEP 04 (2009) 002, 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/04/002, arXiv:0812.0578.
  * [54] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX”,  JHEP 06 (2010) 043, 10.1007/JHEP06(2010)043, arXiv:1002.2581.
  * [55] P. Nason and C. Oleari, “NLO Higgs boson production via vector-boson fusion matched with shower in POWHEG”,  JHEP 02 (2010) 037, 10.1007/JHEP02(2010)037, arXiv:0911.5299.
  * [56] G. Luisoni, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and F. Tramontano, “HW±/HZ + 0 and 1 jet at NLO with the POWHEG BOX interfaced to GoSam and their merging within MiNLO”,  JHEP 10 (2013) 083, 10.1007/JHEP10(2013)083, arXiv:1306.2542.
  * [57] J. Alwall et al., “The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations”,  JHEP 07 (2014) 079, 10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079, arXiv:1405.0301.
  * [58] T. Sjöstrand et al., “An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159, 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024, arXiv:1410.3012.
  * [59] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC run II”,  JHEP 04 (2015) 040, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040, arXiv:1410.8849.
  * [60] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions from high-precision collider data”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 663, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5199-5, arXiv:1706.00428.
  * [61] CMS Collaboration, “Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 155, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3988-x, arXiv:1512.00815.
  * [62] CMS Collaboration, “Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 4, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7499-4, arXiv:1903.12179.
  * [63] Collaboration, “—a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [64] Particle Data Group, M. Tanabashi et al., “Review of particle physics”,  Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 030001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.030001.
  * [65] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  JHEP 07 (2018) 161, 10.1007/JHEP07(2018)161, arXiv:1802.02613.
  * [66] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of inclusive $\PW$ and $\PZ$ cross sections in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”,  JHEP 01 (2011) 080, 10.1007/JHEP01(2011)080, arXiv:1012.2466.
  * [67] J. H. Broughton, “Searches for Rare Exclusive Higgs Boson Decays to a Meson and an Associated Photon with the ATLAS Detector”.  PhD thesis, Birmingham U., 2018.
  * [68] R. D. Fisher, “On the interpretation of $\chi^{2}$ from contingency tables, and the calculation of P”,  J. Royal Stat. Soc. 85 (1922) 87, 10.2307/2340521.
  * [69] CMS Collaboration, “Search for narrow and broad dijet resonances in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV and constraints on dark matter mediators and other new particles”,  JHEP 08 (2018) 130, 10.1007/JHEP08(2018)130, arXiv:1806.00843.
  * [70] T. Junk, “Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 434 (1999) 435, 10.1016/S0168-9002(99)00498-2, arXiv:hep-ex/9902006.
  * [71] A. L. Read, “Presentation of search results: The CL${}_{\text{s}}$ technique”,  J. Phys. G 28 (2002) 2693, 10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/313.
  * [72] The ATLAS Collaboration, The CMS Collaboration, The LHC Higgs Combination Group, “Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011”, Technical Report CMS-NOTE-2011-005, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-11, 2011.
  * [73] G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, “Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1554, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0, arXiv:1007.1727. [Erratum: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2501-z].
  * [74] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data taking period”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001, 2017.
  * [75] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004, 2018.
  * [76] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002, 2019.

##  .11 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, A. Tumasyan Institut für
Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, T. Bergauer, M. Dragicevic, J. Erö, A. Escalante Del
Valle, R. Frühwirth1, M. Jeitler1, N. Krammer, L. Lechner, D. Liko, T.
Madlener, I. Mikulec, F.M. Pitters, N. Rad, J. Schieck1, R. Schöfbeck, M.
Spanring, S. Templ, W. Waltenberger, C.-E. Wulz1, M. Zarucki Institute for
Nuclear Problems, Minsk, Belarus
V. Chekhovsky, A. Litomin, V. Makarenko, J. Suarez Gonzalez Universiteit
Antwerpen, Antwerpen, Belgium
M.R. Darwish2, E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, T. Kello3, A. Lelek, M.
Pieters, H. Rejeb Sfar, H. Van Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, S. Van Putte, N.
Van Remortel Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
F. Blekman, E.S. Bols, S.S. Chhibra, J. D’Hondt, J. De Clercq, D. Lontkovskyi,
S. Lowette, I. Marchesini, S. Moortgat, A. Morton, Q. Python, S. Tavernier, W.
Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
D. Beghin, B. Bilin, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, H. Delannoy, B. Dorney, L.
Favart, A. Grebenyuk, A.K. Kalsi, I. Makarenko, L. Moureaux, L. Pétré, A.
Popov, N. Postiau, E. Starling, L. Thomas, C. Vander Velde, P. Vanlaer, D.
Vannerom, L. Wezenbeek Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, I. Khvastunov4, M. Niedziela, C. Roskas, K. Skovpen, M.
Tytgat, W. Verbeke, B. Vermassen, M. Vit Université Catholique de Louvain,
Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
G. Bruno, F. Bury, C. Caputo, P. David, C. Delaere, M. Delcourt, I.S.
Donertas, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaitre, K. Mondal, J. Prisciandaro, A. Taliercio,
M. Teklishyn, P. Vischia, S. Wuyckens, J. Zobec Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas
Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
G.A. Alves, G. Correia Silva, C. Hensel, A. Moraes Universidade do Estado do
Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
W.L. Aldá Júnior, E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato5,
E. Coelho, E.M. Da Costa, G.G. Da Silveira6, D. De Jesus Damiao, S. Fonseca De
Souza, H. Malbouisson, J. Martins7, D. Matos Figueiredo, M. Medina Jaime8, M.
Melo De Almeida, C. Mora Herrera, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, P. Rebello Teles, L.J.
Sanchez Rosas, A. Santoro, S.M. Silva Do Amaral, A. Sznajder, M. Thiel, E.J.
Tonelli Manganote5, F. Torres Da Silva De Araujo, A. Vilela Pereira
Universidade Estadual Paulista a, Universidade Federal do ABC b, São Paulo,
Brazil
C.A. Bernardesa, L. Calligarisa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M. Gregoresb,
D.S. Lemosa, P.G. Mercadanteb, S.F. Novaesa, Sandra S. Padulaa Institute for
Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia,
Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, G. Antchev, I. Atanasov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, M.
Misheva, M. Rodozov, M. Shopova, G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia,
Bulgaria
M. Bonchev, A. Dimitrov, T. Ivanov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov, A. Petrov
Beihang University, Beijing, China
W. Fang3, Q. Guo, H. Wang, L. Yuan Department of Physics, Tsinghua University,
Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, Z. Hu, Y. Wang Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
E. Chapon, G.M. Chen9, H.S. Chen9, M. Chen, C.H. Jiang, D. Leggat, H. Liao, Z.
Liu, R. Sharma, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, J. Thomas-wilsker, J. Wang, H. Zhang, S.
Zhang9, J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking
University, Beijing, China
A. Agapitos, Y. Ban, C. Chen, G. Chen, A. Levin, L. Li, Q. Li, M. Lu, X. Lyu,
Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang, Q. Wang, J. Xiao, D. Yang Sun Yat-Sen University,
Guangzhou, China
Z. You Institute of Modern Physics and Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and
Ion-beam Application (MOE) - Fudan University, Shanghai, China
X. Gao3 Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
M. Xiao Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, C. Florez, J. Fraga, A. Sarkar, M.A. Segura Delgado
Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia
J. Mejia Guisao, F. Ramirez, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, C.A. Salazar González, N.
Vanegas Arbelaez University of Split, Faculty of Electrical Engineering,
Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split, Croatia
D. Giljanovic, N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak, T. Sculac University of
Split, Faculty of Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, D. Majumder, B. Mesic, M. Roguljic, A.
Starodumov10, T. Susa University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, E. Erodotou, A. Ioannou, G. Kole, M. Kolosova, S.
Konstantinou, G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos, P.A.
Razis, H. Rykaczewski, H. Saka, D. Tsiakkouri Charles University, Prague,
Czech Republic
M. Finger11, M. Finger Jr.11, A. Kveton, J. Tomsa Escuela Politecnica
Nacional, Quito, Ecuador
E. Ayala Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
E. Carrera Jarrin Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab
Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt
Y. Assran12,13, S. Khalil14, E. Salama13,15 Center for High Energy Physics
(CHEP-FU), Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt
A. Lotfy16, M.A. Mahmoud National Institute of Chemical Physics and
Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
S. Bhowmik, A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveira, R.K. Dewanjee, K. Ehataht, M.
Kadastik, M. Raidal, C. Veelken Department of Physics, University of Helsinki,
Helsinki, Finland
P. Eerola, L. Forthomme, H. Kirschenmann, K. Osterberg, M. Voutilainen
Helsinki Institute of Physics, Helsinki, Finland
E. Brücken, F. Garcia, J. Havukainen, V. Karimäki, M.S. Kim, R. Kinnunen, T.
Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Laurila, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, H. Siikonen, E.
Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta,
Finland
P. Luukka, T. Tuuva IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, J.L. Faure, F. Ferri, S.
Ganjour, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry, B. Lenzi,
E. Locci, J. Malcles, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M.Ö. Sahin, A. Savoy-Navarro17,
M. Titov, G.B. Yu Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, CNRS/IN2P3, Ecole
Polytechnique, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Paris, France
S. Ahuja, C. Amendola, F. Beaudette, M. Bonanomi, P. Busson, C. Charlot, O.
Davignon, B. Diab, G. Falmagne, R. Granier de Cassagnac, I. Kucher, A.
Lobanov, C. Martin Perez, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, P. Paganini, J. Rembser, R.
Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A. Zabi, A. Zghiche Université de Strasbourg,
CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram18, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, G. Bourgatte, J.-M. Brom, E.C. Chabert, C.
Collard, J.-C. Fontaine18, D. Gelé, U. Goerlach, C. Grimault, A.-C. Le Bihan,
P. Van Hove Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3,
Institut de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
E. Asilar, S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, C. Camen, A. Carle, N. Chanon,
D. Contardo, P. Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, B.
Ille, Sa. Jain, I.B. Laktineh, H. Lattaud, A. Lesauvage, M. Lethuillier, L.
Mirabito, L. Torterotot, G. Touquet, M. Vander Donckt, S. Viret Georgian
Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
A. Khvedelidze11 Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
Z. Tsamalaidze11 RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen,
Germany
L. Feld, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, D. Meuser, A. Pauls, M. Preuten, M.P. Rauch,
J. Schulz, M. Teroerde RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A,
Aachen, Germany
D. Eliseev, M. Erdmann, P. Fackeldey, B. Fischer, S. Ghosh, T. Hebbeker, K.
Hoepfner, H. Keller, L. Mastrolorenzo, M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, P. Millet, G.
Mocellin, S. Mondal, S. Mukherjee, D. Noll, A. Novak, T. Pook, A. Pozdnyakov,
T. Quast, M. Radziej, Y. Rath, H. Reithler, J. Roemer, A. Schmidt, S.C.
Schuler, A. Sharma, S. Wiedenbeck, S. Zaleski RWTH Aachen University, III.
Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany
C. Dziwok, G. Flügge, W. Haj Ahmad19, O. Hlushchenko, T. Kress, A. Nowack, C.
Pistone, O. Pooth, D. Roy, H. Sert, A. Stahl20, T. Ziemons Deutsches
Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
H. Aarup Petersen, M. Aldaya Martin, P. Asmuss, I. Babounikau, S. Baxter, O.
Behnke, A. Bermúdez Martínez, A.A. Bin Anuar, K. Borras21, V. Botta, D.
Brunner, A. Campbell, A. Cardini, P. Connor, S. Consuegra Rodríguez, V.
Danilov, A. De Wit, M.M. Defranchis, L. Didukh, D. Domínguez Damiani, G.
Eckerlin, D. Eckstein, T. Eichhorn, A. Elwood, L.I. Estevez Banos, E. Gallo22,
A. Geiser, A. Giraldi, A. Grohsjean, M. Guthoff, M. Haranko, A. Harb, A.
Jafari23, N.Z. Jomhari, H. Jung, A. Kasem21, M. Kasemann, H. Kaveh, J.
Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, J. Knolle, D. Krücker, W. Lange, T. Lenz, J. Lidrych,
K. Lipka, W. Lohmann24, R. Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, J. Metwally, A.B.
Meyer, M. Meyer, M. Missiroli, J. Mnich, A. Mussgiller, V. Myronenko, Y.
Otarid, D. Pérez Adán, S.K. Pflitsch, D. Pitzl, A. Raspereza, A. Saggio, A.
Saibel, M. Savitskyi, V. Scheurer, P. Schütze, C. Schwanenberger, R.
Shevchenko, A. Singh, R.E. Sosa Ricardo, H. Tholen, N. Tonon, O. Turkot, A.
Vagnerini, M. Van De Klundert, R. Walsh, D. Walter, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C.
Wissing, S. Wuchterl, O. Zenaiev, R. Zlebcik University of Hamburg, Hamburg,
Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, L. Benato, A. Benecke, K. De Leo, T. Dreyer, A.
Ebrahimi, F. Feindt, A. Fröhlich, C. Garbers, E. Garutti, D. Gonzalez, P.
Gunnellini, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, A. Karavdina, G. Kasieczka, R. Klanner, R.
Kogler, S. Kurz, V. Kutzner, J. Lange, T. Lange, A. Malara, J. Multhaup,
C.E.N. Niemeyer, A. Nigamova, K.J. Pena Rodriguez, O. Rieger, P. Schleper, S.
Schumann, J. Schwandt, D. Schwarz, J. Sonneveld, H. Stadie, G. Steinbrück, B.
Vormwald, I. Zoi Karlsruher Institut fuer Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany
M. Baselga, S. Baur, J. Bechtel, T. Berger, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek,
W. De Boer, A. Dierlamm, A. Droll, K. El Morabit, N. Faltermann, K. Flöh, M.
Giffels, A. Gottmann, F. Hartmann20, C. Heidecker, U. Husemann, M.A. Iqbal, I.
Katkov25, P. Keicher, R. Koppenhöfer, S. Kudella, S. Maier, M. Metzler, S.
Mitra, M.U. Mozer, D. Müller, Th. Müller, M. Musich, G. Quast, K. Rabbertz, J.
Rauser, D. Savoiu, D. Schäfer, M. Schnepf, M. Schröder, D. Seith, I. Shvetsov,
H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, M. Wassmer, M. Weber, C. Wöhrmann, R. Wolf, S.
Wozniewski Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics (INPP), NCSR Demokritos,
Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
G. Anagnostou, P. Asenov, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas,
G. Paspalaki, A. Stakia National and Kapodistrian University of Athens,
Athens, Greece
M. Diamantopoulou, D. Karasavvas, G. Karathanasis, P. Kontaxakis, C.K. Koraka,
A. Manousakis-katsikakis, A. Panagiotou, I. Papavergou, N. Saoulidou, K.
Theofilatos, K. Vellidis, E. Vourliotis National Technical University of
Athens, Athens, Greece
G. Bakas, K. Kousouris, I. Papakrivopoulos, G. Tsipolitis, A. Zacharopoulou
University of Ioánnina, Ioánnina, Greece
I. Evangelou, C. Foudas, P. Gianneios, P. Katsoulis, P. Kokkas, S. Mallios, K.
Manitara, N. Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, J. Strologas MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS
Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest,
Hungary
M. Bartók26, R. Chudasama, M. Csanad, M.M.A. Gadallah27, P. Major, K. Mandal,
A. Mehta, G. Pasztor, O. Surányi, G.I. Veres Wigner Research Centre for
Physics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath28, F. Sikler, V. Veszpremi, G.
Vesztergombi${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$ Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI,
Debrecen, Hungary
N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi26, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi, D. Teyssier
Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari Eszterhazy Karoly University, Karoly
Robert Campus, Gyongyos, Hungary
T. Csorgo, S. Lökös29, F. Nemes, T. Novak Indian Institute of Science (IISc),
Bangalore, India
S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri, D. Kumar, L. Panwar, P.C. Tiwari National
Institute of Science Education and Research, HBNI, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati30, D. Dash, C. Kar, P. Mal, T. Mishra, V.K. Muraleedharan Nair
Bindhu, A. Nayak31, D.K. Sahoo30, N. Sur, S.K. Swain Panjab University,
Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, S. Chauhan, N. Dhingra32, R. Gupta, A.
Kaur, A. Kaur, S. Kaur, P. Kumari, M. Lohan, M. Meena, K. Sandeep, S. Sharma,
J.B. Singh, A.K. Virdi University of Delhi, Delhi, India
A. Ahmed, A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, M. Gola, S. Keshri, A.
Kumar, M. Naimuddin, P. Priyanka, K. Ranjan, A. Shah Saha Institute of Nuclear
Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India
M. Bharti33, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, D. Bhowmik, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh,
B. Gomber34, M. Maity35, S. Nandan, P. Palit, A. Purohit, P.K. Rout, G. Saha,
S. Sarkar, M. Sharan, B. Singh33, S. Thakur33 Indian Institute of Technology
Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera, S.C. Behera, P. Kalbhor, A. Muhammad, R. Pradhan, P.R. Pujahari,
A. Sharma, A.K. Sikdar Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, D.K. Mishra, K. Naskar36, P.K. Netrakanti, L.M.
Pant, P. Shukla Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A, Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, M.A. Bhat, S. Dugad, R. Kumar Verma, U. Sarkar Tata Institute of
Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, P. Das, M. Guchait, S. Karmakar,
S. Kumar, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, S. Mukherjee, D. Roy, N. Sahoo Indian
Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, India
S. Dube, B. Kansal, A. Kapoor, K. Kothekar, S. Pandey, A. Rane, A. Rastogi, S.
Sharma Department of Physics, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
H. Bakhshiansohi37 Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM),
Tehran, Iran
S. Chenarani38, S.M. Etesami, M. Khakzad, M. Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri
University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
M. Felcini, M. Grunewald INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b,
Politecnico di Bari c, Bari, Italy
M. Abbresciaa,b, R. Alya,b,39, C. Arutaa,b, A. Colaleoa, D. Creanzaa,c, N. De
Filippisa,c, M. De Palmaa,b, A. Di Florioa,b, A. Di Pilatoa,b, W.
Elmetenaweea,b, L. Fiorea, A. Gelmia,b, M. Gula, G. Iasellia,c, M. Incea,b, S.
Lezkia,b, G. Maggia,c, M. Maggia, I. Margjekaa,b, J.A. Merlina, S. Mya,b, S.
Nuzzoa,b, A. Pompilia,b, G. Pugliesea,c, A. Ranieria, G. Selvaggia,b, L.
Silvestrisa, F.M. Simonea,b, R. Vendittia, P. Verwilligena INFN Sezione di
Bologna a, Università di Bologna b, Bologna, Italy
G. Abbiendia, C. Battilanaa,b, D. Bonacorsia,b, L. Borgonovia,b, S. Braibant-
Giacomellia,b, R. Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A. Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa,
C. Cioccaa, M. Cuffiania,b, G.M. Dallavallea, T. Diotalevia,b, F. Fabbria, A.
Fanfania,b, E. Fontanesia,b, P. Giacomellia, C. Grandia, L. Guiduccia,b, F.
Iemmia,b, S. Lo Meoa,40, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, F.L. Navarriaa,b, A.
Perrottaa, F. Primaveraa,b, A.M. Rossia,b, T. Rovellia,b, G.P. Sirolia,b, N.
Tosia INFN Sezione di Catania a, Università di Catania b, Catania, Italy
S. Albergoa,b,41, S. Costaa,b, A. Di Mattiaa, R. Potenzaa,b, A. Tricomia,b,41,
C. Tuvea,b INFN Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b, Firenze, Italy
G. Barbaglia, A. Cassesea, R. Ceccarellia,b, V. Ciullia,b, C. Civininia, R.
D’Alessandroa,b, F. Fioria, E. Focardia,b, G. Latinoa,b, P. Lenzia,b, M.
Lizzoa,b, M. Meschinia, S. Paolettia, R. Seiditaa,b, G. Sguazzonia, L.
Viliania INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, D. Piccolo INFN Sezione di Genova a, Università di
Genova b, Genova, Italy
M. Bozzoa,b, F. Ferroa, R. Mulargiaa,b, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia,b INFN Sezione
di Milano-Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, Italy
A. Benagliaa, A. Beschia,b, F. Brivioa,b, F. Cetorellia,b, V. Cirioloa,b,20,
F. De Guioa,b, M.E. Dinardoa,b, P. Dinia, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P.
Govonia,b, L. Guzzia,b, M. Malbertia, S. Malvezzia, D. Menascea, F. Montia,b,
L. Moronia, M. Paganonia,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Ragazzia,b, T. Tabarelli de
Fatisa,b, D. Valsecchia,b,20, D. Zuoloa,b INFN Sezione di Napoli a, Università
di Napoli ’Federico II’ b, Napoli, Italy, Università della Basilicata c,
Potenza, Italy, Università G. Marconi d, Roma, Italy
S. Buontempoa, N. Cavalloa,c, A. De Iorioa,b, F. Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa,
A.O.M. Iorioa,b, L. Layera,b, L. Listaa,b, S. Meolaa,d,20, P. Paoluccia,20, B.
Rossia, C. Sciaccaa,b, E. Voevodinaa,b INFN Sezione di Padova a, Università di
Padova b, Padova, Italy, Università di Trento c, Trento, Italy
P. Azzia, N. Bacchettaa, A. Bolettia,b, A. Bragagnoloa,b, R. Carlina,b, P.
Checchiaa, P. De Castro Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa, U. Dossellia, F. Gasparinia,b,
U. Gasparinia,b, S.Y. Hoha,b, M. Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,b, M. Presillab,
P. Ronchesea,b, R. Rossina,b, F. Simonettoa,b, G. Strong, A. Tikoa, M.
Tosia,b, H. YARARa,b, M. Zanettia,b, P. Zottoa,b, A. Zucchettaa,b, G.
Zumerlea,b INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
A. Braghieria, S. Calzaferria,b, D. Fiorinaa,b, P. Montagnaa,b, S.P. Rattia,b,
V. Rea, M. Ressegottia,b, C. Riccardia,b, P. Salvinia, I. Vaia, P. Vituloa,b
INFN Sezione di Perugia a, Università di Perugia b, Perugia, Italy
M. Biasinia,b, G.M. Bileia, D. Ciangottinia,b, L. Fanòa,b, P. Laricciaa,b, G.
Mantovania,b, V. Mariania,b, M. Menichellia, F. Moscatellia, A. Rossia,b, A.
Santocchiaa,b, D. Spigaa, T. Tedeschia,b INFN Sezione di Pisa a, Università di
Pisa b, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa c, Pisa, Italy
K. Androsova, P. Azzurria, G. Bagliesia, V. Bertacchia,c, L. Bianchinia, T.
Boccalia, R. Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, M.R. Di Domenicoa,b, S.
Donatoa, L. Gianninia,c, A. Giassia, M.T. Grippoa, F. Ligabuea,c, E. Mancaa,c,
G. Mandorlia,c, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, G. Ramirez-Sancheza,c, A. Rizzia,b,
G. Rolandia,c, S. Roy Chowdhurya,c, A. Scribanoa, N. Shafieia,b, P. Spagnoloa,
R. Tenchinia, G. Tonellia,b, N. Turinia, A. Venturia, P.G. Verdinia INFN
Sezione di Roma a, Sapienza Università di Roma b, Rome, Italy
F. Cavallaria, M. Cipriania,b, D. Del Rea,b, E. Di Marcoa, M. Diemoza, E.
Longoa,b, P. Meridiania, G. Organtinia,b, F. Pandolfia, R. Paramattia,b, C.
Quarantaa,b, S. Rahatloua,b, C. Rovellia, F. Santanastasioa,b, L. Soffia,b, R.
Tramontanoa,b INFN Sezione di Torino a, Università di Torino b, Torino, Italy,
Università del Piemonte Orientale c, Novara, Italy
N. Amapanea,b, R. Arcidiaconoa,c, S. Argiroa,b, M. Arneodoa,c, N. Bartosika,
R. Bellana,b, A. Belloraa,b, C. Biinoa, A. Cappatia,b, N. Cartigliaa, S.
Comettia, M. Costaa,b, R. Covarellia,b, N. Demariaa, B. Kiania,b, F. Leggera,
C. Mariottia, S. Masellia, E. Migliorea,b, V. Monacoa,b, E. Monteila,b, M.
Montenoa, M.M. Obertinoa,b, G. Ortonaa, L. Pachera,b, N. Pastronea, M.
Pelliccionia, G.L. Pinna Angionia,b, M. Ruspaa,c, R. Salvaticoa,b, F.
Sivieroa,b, V. Solaa, A. Solanoa,b, D. Soldia,b, A. Staianoa, D. Trocinoa,b
INFN Sezione di Trieste a, Università di Trieste b, Trieste, Italy
S. Belfortea, V. Candelisea,b, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, A. Da Rolda,b, G.
Della Riccaa,b, F. Vazzolera,b Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea
S. Dogra, C. Huh, B. Kim, D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, J. Lee, S.W. Lee, C.S. Moon,
Y.D. Oh, S.I. Pak, S. Sekmen, Y.C. Yang Chonnam National University, Institute
for Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju, Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
B. Francois, T.J. Kim, J. Park Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, S. Ha, B. Hong, K. Lee, K.S. Lee, J. Lim, J. Park,
S.K. Park, J. Yoo Kyung Hee University, Department of Physics, Seoul, Republic
of Korea
J. Goh, A. Gurtu Sejong University, Seoul, Korea
H.S. Kim, Y. Kim Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J.H. Bhyun, J. Choi, S. Jeon, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, S. Ko, H. Kwon, H.
Lee, K. Lee, S. Lee, K. Nam, B.H. Oh, M. Oh, S.B. Oh, B.C. Radburn-Smith, H.
Seo, U.K. Yang, I. Yoon University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea
D. Jeon, J.H. Kim, B. Ko, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park, Y. Roh, I.J. Watson Yonsei
University, Department of Physics, Seoul, Korea
H.D. Yoo Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, C. Hwang, Y. Jeong, H. Lee, J. Lee, Y. Lee, I. Yu Riga Technical
University, Riga, Latvia
V. Veckalns42 Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
A. Juodagalvis, A. Rinkevicius, G. Tamulaitis National Centre for Particle
Physics, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
W.A.T. Wan Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli Universidad de Sonora (UNISON),
Hermosillo, Mexico
J.F. Benitez, A. Castaneda Hernandez, J.A. Murillo Quijada, L. Valencia Palomo
Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, I. Heredia-De La Cruz43, R. Lopez-
Fernandez, A. Sanchez-Hernandez Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City,
Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, M. Ramirez-Garcia, F. Vazquez Valencia
Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
J. Eysermans, I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada Universidad
Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, Mexico
A. Morelos Pineda University of Montenegro, Podgorica, Montenegro
J. Mijuskovic4, N. Raicevic University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
S. Bheesette, P.H. Butler National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam
University, Islamabad, Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M.I. Asghar, M.I.M. Awan, Q. Hassan, H.R. Hoorani, W.A. Khan, M.A.
Shah, M. Shoaib, M. Waqas AGH University of Science and Technology Faculty of
Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunications, Krakow, Poland
V. Avati, L. Grzanka, M. Malawski National Centre for Nuclear Research,
Swierk, Poland
H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, T. Frueboes, M. Górski, M. Kazana, M.
Szleper, P. Traczyk, P. Zalewski Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of
Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk44, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J.
Krolikowski, M. Olszewski, M. Walczak Laboratório de Instrumentação e Física
Experimental de Partículas, Lisboa, Portugal
M. Araujo, P. Bargassa, D. Bastos, A. Di Francesco, P. Faccioli, B. Galinhas,
M. Gallinaro, J. Hollar, N. Leonardo, T. Niknejad, J. Seixas, K. Shchelina, O.
Toldaiev, J. Varela Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
S. Afanasiev, P. Bunin, M. Gavrilenko, I. Golutvin, I. Gorbunov, A. Kamenev,
V. Karjavine, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev45,46, P. Moisenz, V. Palichik,
V. Perelygin, M. Savina, D. Seitova, V. Shalaev, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, V.
Smirnov, O. Teryaev, N. Voytishin, A. Zarubin, I. Zhizhin Petersburg Nuclear
Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg), Russia
G. Gavrilov, V. Golovtcov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim47, E. Kuznetsova48, V. Murzin, V.
Oreshkin, I. Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Volkov, A. Vorobyev
Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, M. Kirsanov,
N. Krasnikov, A. Pashenkov, G. Pivovarov, D. Tlisov, A. Toropin Institute for
Theoretical and Experimental Physics named by A.I. Alikhanov of NRC ‘Kurchatov
Institute’, Moscow, Russia
V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, A. Nikitenko49, V. Popov, I.
Pozdnyakov, G. Safronov, A. Spiridonov, A. Stepennov, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A.
Zhokin Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
R. Chistov50, M. Danilov50, A. Oskin, P. Parygin, S. Polikarpov50 P.N. Lebedev
Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin, I. Dremin, M. Kirakosyan, A. Terkulov Skobeltsyn
Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow,
Russia
A. Belyaev, E. Boos, V. Bunichev, M. Dubinin51, L. Dudko, V. Klyukhin, O.
Kodolova, I. Lokhtin, S. Obraztsov, M. Perfilov, S. Petrushanko, V. Savrin, A.
Snigirev Novosibirsk State University (NSU), Novosibirsk, Russia
V. Blinov52, T. Dimova52, L. Kardapoltsev52, I. Ovtin52, Y. Skovpen52
Institute for High Energy Physics of National Research Centre ‘Kurchatov
Institute’, Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, V. Kachanov, A. Kalinin, D. Konstantinov, V. Petrov,
R. Ryutin, A. Sobol, S. Troshin, N. Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov National
Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia
A. Babaev, A. Iuzhakov, V. Okhotnikov, L. Sukhikh Tomsk State University,
Tomsk, Russia
V. Borchsh, V. Ivanchenko, E. Tcherniaev University of Belgrade: Faculty of
Physics and VINCA Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic53, P. Cirkovic, M. Dordevic, P. Milenovic, J. Milosevic, M.
Stojanovic Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y
Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid, Spain
M. Aguilar-Benitez, J. Alcaraz Maestre, A. Álvarez Fernández, I. Bachiller, M.
Barrio Luna, Cristina F. Bedoya, J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, C.A. Carrillo
Montoya, M. Cepeda, M. Cerrada, N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris,
J.P. Fernández Ramos, J. Flix, M.C. Fouz, O. Gonzalez Lopez, S. Goy Lopez,
J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa, D. Moran, Á. Navarro Tobar, A. Pérez-Calero
Yzquierdo, J. Puerta Pelayo, I. Redondo, L. Romero, S. Sánchez Navas, M.S.
Soares, A. Triossi, C. Willmott Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
C. Albajar, J.F. de Trocóniz, R. Reyes-Almanza Universidad de Oviedo,
Instituto Universitario de Ciencias y Tecnologías Espaciales de Asturias
(ICTEA), Oviedo, Spain
B. Alvarez Gonzalez, J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, S. Folgueras,
I. Gonzalez Caballero, E. Palencia Cortezon, C. Ramón Álvarez, V. Rodríguez
Bouza, S. Sanchez Cruz Instituto de Física de Cantabria (IFCA), CSIC-
Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain
I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, B. Chazin Quero, J. Duarte Campderros, M.
Fernandez, P.J. Fernández Manteca, A. García Alonso, G. Gomez, C. Martinez
Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del Arbol, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, C. Prieels,
F. Ricci-Tam, T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno, L. Russo54, L. Scodellaro, I. Vila,
J.M. Vizan Garcia University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka
MK Jayananda, B. Kailasapathy55, D.U.J. Sonnadara, DDC Wickramarathna
University of Ruhuna, Department of Physics, Matara, Sri Lanka
W.G.D. Dharmaratna, K. Liyanage, N. Perera, N. Wickramage CERN, European
Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, D. Abbaneo, B. Akgun, E. Auffray, G. Auzinger, J. Baechler, P.
Baillon, A.H. Ball, D. Barney, J. Bendavid, M. Bianco, A. Bocci, P. Bortignon,
E. Bossini, E. Brondolin, T. Camporesi, G. Cerminara, L. Cristella, D.
d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, N. Daci, V. Daponte, A. David, A. De Roeck, M.
Deile, R. Di Maria, M. Dobson, M. Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, N.
Emriskova, F. Fallavollita56, D. Fasanella, S. Fiorendi, G. Franzoni, J.
Fulcher, W. Funk, S. Giani, D. Gigi, K. Gill, F. Glege, L. Gouskos, M.
Gruchala, M. Guilbaud, D. Gulhan, J. Hegeman, Y. Iiyama, V. Innocente, T.
James, P. Janot, J. Kaspar, J. Kieseler, M. Komm, N. Kratochwil, C. Lange, P.
Lecoq, K. Long, C. Lourenço, L. Malgeri, M. Mannelli, A. Massironi, F.
Meijers, S. Mersi, E. Meschi, F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, J. Ngadiuba, J.
Niedziela, S. Orfanelli, L. Orsini, F. Pantaleo20, L. Pape, E. Perez, M.
Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, D. Rabady, A.
Racz, M. Rieger, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, S. Scarfi, C.
Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva, W. Snoeys, P.
Sphicas57, J. Steggemann, S. Summers, V.R. Tavolaro, D. Treille, A. Tsirou,
G.P. Van Onsem, A. Vartak, M. Verzetti, K.A. Wozniak, W.D. Zeuner Paul
Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland
L. Caminada58, W. Erdmann, R. Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C. Kaestli, D.
Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, T. Rohe ETH Zurich - Institute for Particle Physics
and Astrophysics (IPA), Zurich, Switzerland
M. Backhaus, P. Berger, A. Calandri, N. Chernyavskaya, G. Dissertori, M.
Dittmar, M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, T. Gadek, T.A. Gómez Espinosa, C. Grab, D.
Hits, W. Lustermann, A.-M. Lyon, R.A. Manzoni, M.T. Meinhard, F. Micheli, P.
Musella, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, F. Pauss, V. Perovic, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, S.
Pigazzini, M.G. Ratti, M. Reichmann, C. Reissel, T. Reitenspiess, B. Ristic,
D. Ruini, D.A. Sanz Becerra, M. Schönenberger, L. Shchutska, V. Stampf, M.L.
Vesterbacka Olsson, R. Wallny, D.H. Zhu Universität Zürich, Zurich,
Switzerland
C. Amsler59, C. Botta, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, R. Del Burgo,
J.K. Heikkilä, M. Huwiler, A. Jofrehei, B. Kilminster, S. Leontsinis, A.
Macchiolo, P. Meiring, V.M. Mikuni, U. Molinatti, I. Neutelings, G. Rauco, A.
Reimers, P. Robmann, K. Schweiger, Y. Takahashi, S. Wertz National Central
University, Chung-Li, Taiwan
C. Adloff60, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A. Roy, T. Sarkar35, S.S. Yu National Taiwan
University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
L. Ceard, P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, W.-S. Hou, Y.y. Li, R.-S.
Lu, E. Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen, E. Yazgan Chulalongkorn University,
Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok, Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, N. Srimanobhas Çukurova University,
Physics Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
F. Boran, S. Damarseckin61, Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, C. Dozen62, I.
Dumanoglu63, E. Eskut, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, E. Gurpinar Guler64, I. Hos65,
C. Isik, E.E. Kangal66, O. Kara, A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, G. Onengut, K.
Ozdemir67, A. Polatoz, A.E. Simsek, B. Tali68, U.G. Tok, S. Turkcapar, I.S.
Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East Technical University, Physics Department,
Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak69, G. Karapinar70, K. Ocalan71, M. Yalvac72 Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya73, O. Kaya74, Ö. Özçelik, S. Tekten75, E.A.
Yetkin76 Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
A. Cakir, K. Cankocak63, Y. Komurcu, S. Sen77 Istanbul University, Istanbul,
Turkey
F. Aydogmus Sen, S. Cerci68, B. Kaynak, S. Ozkorucuklu, D. Sunar Cerci68
Institute for Scintillation Materials of National Academy of Science of
Ukraine, Kharkov, Ukraine
B. Grynyov National Scientific Center, Kharkov Institute of Physics and
Technology, Kharkov, Ukraine
L. Levchuk University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
E. Bhal, S. Bologna, J.J. Brooke, D. Burns78, E. Clement, D. Cussans, H.
Flacher, J. Goldstein, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, B. Krikler, S.
Paramesvaran, T. Sakuma, S. Seif El Nasr-Storey, V.J. Smith, J. Taylor, A.
Titterton Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev79, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, D.J.A. Cockerill, K.V. Ellis, K.
Harder, S. Harper, J. Linacre, K. Manolopoulos, D.M. Newbold, E. Olaiya, D.
Petyt, T. Reis, T. Schuh, C.H. Shepherd-Themistocleous, A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin,
T. Williams Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, S. Bonomally, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A.
Bundock, V. Cepaitis, G.S. Chahal80, D. Colling, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M.
Della Negra, P. Everaerts, G. Fedi, G. Hall, G. Iles, J. Langford, L. Lyons,
A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, A. Martelli, V. Milosevic, J. Nash81, V. Palladino, M.
Pesaresi, D.M. Raymond, A. Richards, A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A.
Shtipliyski, M. Stoye, A. Tapper, K. Uchida, T. Virdee20, N. Wardle, S.N.
Webb, D. Winterbottom, A.G. Zecchinelli, S.C. Zenz Brunel University,
Uxbridge, United Kingdom
J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, C.K. Mackay, I.D. Reid, L.
Teodorescu, S. Zahid Baylor University, Waco, USA
A. Brinkerhoff, K. Call, B. Caraway, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, A.R.
Kanuganti, C. Madrid, B. McMaster, N. Pastika, C. Smith Catholic University of
America, Washington, DC, USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez, R. Uniyal, A.M. Vargas Hernandez The University of
Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
A. Buccilli, O. Charaf, S.I. Cooper, S.V. Gleyzer, C. Henderson, P. Rumerio,
C. West Boston University, Boston, USA
A. Akpinar, A. Albert, D. Arcaro, C. Cosby, Z. Demiragli, D. Gastler, C.
Richardson, J. Rohlf, K. Salyer, D. Sperka, D. Spitzbart, I. Suarez, S. Yuan,
D. Zou Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, B. Burkle, X. Coubez21, D. Cutts, Y.t. Duh, M. Hadley, U. Heintz,
J.M. Hogan82, K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, K.T. Lau, J. Lee, M.
Narain, S. Sagir83, R. Syarif, E. Usai, W.Y. Wong, D. Yu, W. Zhang University
of California, Davis, Davis, USA
R. Band, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez, M. Chertok,
J. Conway, R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, G. Funk, F. Jensen, W.
Ko${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, O. Kukral, R. Lander, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett,
J. Pilot, M. Shi, D. Taylor, K. Tos, M. Tripathi, Y. Yao, F. Zhang University
of California, Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, C. Bravo, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, A. Florent, D. Hamilton, J.
Hauser, M. Ignatenko, T. Lam, N. Mccoll, W.A. Nash, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg,
C. Schnaible, B. Stone, V. Valuev University of California, Riverside,
Riverside, USA
K. Burt, Y. Chen, R. Clare, J.W. Gary, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi, G. Hanson, G.
Karapostoli, O.R. Long, N. Manganelli, M. Olmedo Negrete, M.I. Paneva, W. Si,
S. Wimpenny, Y. Zhang University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, P. Chang, S. Cittolin, S. Cooperstein, N. Deelen, M. Derdzinski,
J. Duarte, R. Gerosa, D. Gilbert, B. Hashemi, D. Klein, V. Krutelyov, J.
Letts, M. Masciovecchio, S. May, S. Padhi, M. Pieri, V. Sharma, M. Tadel, F.
Würthwein, A. Yagil University of California, Santa Barbara - Department of
Physics, Santa Barbara, USA
N. Amin, R. Bhandari, C. Campagnari, M. Citron, A. Dorsett, V. Dutta, J.
Incandela, B. Marsh, H. Mei, A. Ovcharova, H. Qu, M. Quinnan, J. Richman, U.
Sarica, D. Stuart, S. Wang California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
D. Anderson, A. Bornheim, O. Cerri, I. Dutta, J.M. Lawhorn, N. Lu, J. Mao,
H.B. Newman, T.Q. Nguyen, J. Pata, M. Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, S. Xie, Z.
Zhang, R.Y. Zhu Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
J. Alison, M.B. Andrews, T. Ferguson, T. Mudholkar, M. Paulini, M. Sun, I.
Vorobiev, M. Weinberg University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, E. MacDonald, T. Mulholland, R. Patel, A. Perloff, K.
Stenson, K.A. Ulmer, S.R. Wagner Cornell University, Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, Y. Cheng, J. Chu, D.J. Cranshaw, A. Datta, A. Frankenthal, K.
Mcdermott, J. Monroy, J.R. Patterson, D. Quach, A. Ryd, W. Sun, S.M. Tan, Z.
Tao, J. Thom, P. Wittich, M. Zientek Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
Batavia, USA
S. Abdullin, M. Albrow, M. Alyari, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S.
Banerjee, L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas, D. Berry, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, K.
Burkett, J.N. Butler, A. Canepa, G.B. Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M.
Cremonesi, V.D. Elvira, J. Freeman, Z. Gecse, E. Gottschalk, L. Gray, D.
Green, S. Grünendahl, O. Gutsche, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, R. Heller, T.C.
Herwig, J. Hirschauer, B. Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, T.
Klijnsma, B. Klima, M.J. Kortelainen, S. Lammel, J. Lewis, D. Lincoln, R.
Lipton, M. Liu, T. Liu, J. Lykken, K. Maeshima, D. Mason, P. McBride, P.
Merkel, S. Mrenna, S. Nahn, V. O’Dell, V. Papadimitriou, K. Pedro, C. Pena51,
O. Prokofyev, F. Ravera, A. Reinsvold Hall, L. Ristori, B. Schneider, E.
Sexton-Kennedy, N. Smith, A. Soha, W.J. Spalding, L. Spiegel, S. Stoynev, J.
Strait, L. Taylor, S. Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran, L. Uplegger, E.W. Vaandering, M.
Wang, H.A. Weber, A. Woodard University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, D. Bourilkov, L. Cadamuro, V. Cherepanov, F. Errico, R.D.
Field, D. Guerrero, B.M. Joshi, M. Kim, J. Konigsberg, A. Korytov, K.H. Lo, K.
Matchev, N. Menendez, G. Mitselmakher, D. Rosenzweig, K. Shi, J. Wang, S.
Wang, X. Zuo Florida International University, Miami, USA
Y.R. Joshi Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
T. Adams, A. Askew, D. Diaz, R. Habibullah, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F.
Johnson, R. Khurana, T. Kolberg, G. Martinez, H. Prosper, C. Schiber, R.
Yohay, J. Zhang Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, S. Butalla, T. Elkafrawy15, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, M. Rahmani,
M. Saunders, F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago, USA
M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, H. Becerril Gonzalez, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, S.
Dittmer, O. Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, C. Mills, G. Oh,
T. Roy, M.B. Tonjes, N. Varelas, J. Viinikainen, H. Wang, X. Wang, Z. Wu The
University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, B. Bilki64, K. Dilsiz84, S. Durgut, R.P. Gandrajula, M.
Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko, O.K. Köseyan, J.-P. Merlo, A. Mestvirishvili85, A.
Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul86, Y. Onel, F. Ozok87, A. Penzo, C. Snyder, E.
Tiras, J. Wetzel, K. Yi88 Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
O. Amram, B. Blumenfeld, L. Corcodilos, M. Eminizer, A.V. Gritsan, S.
Kyriacou, P. Maksimovic, C. Mantilla, J. Roskes, M. Swartz, T.Á. Vámi The
University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA
C. Baldenegro Barrera, P. Baringer, A. Bean, A. Bylinkin, T. Isidori, S.
Khalil, J. King, G. Krintiras, A. Kropivnitskaya, C. Lindsey, N. Minafra, M.
Murray, C. Rogan, C. Royon, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q.
Wang, J. Williams, G. Wilson Kansas State University, Manhattan, USA
S. Duric, A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, D. Kim, Y. Maravin, D.R. Mendis, T. Mitchell,
A. Modak, A. Mohammadi Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright University of Maryland, College Park, USA
E. Adams, A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, S.C. Eno, Y. Feng, N.J. Hadley, S.
Jabeen, G.Y. Jeng, R.G. Kellogg, T. Koeth, A.C. Mignerey, S. Nabili, M.
Seidel, A. Skuja, S.C. Tonwar, L. Wang, K. Wong Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, R. Bi, S. Brandt, W. Busza, I.A. Cali, Y. Chen, M.
D’Alfonso, G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov, P. Harris, D. Hsu, M. Hu, M.
Klute, D. Kovalskyi, J. Krupa, Y.-J. Lee, P.D. Luckey, B. Maier, A.C. Marini,
C. Mcginn, C. Mironov, S. Narayanan, X. Niu, C. Paus, D. Rankin, C. Roland, G.
Roland, Z. Shi, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Sumorok, K. Tatar, D. Velicanu, J. Wang,
T.W. Wang, Z. Wang, B. Wyslouch University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, S. Guts${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, P. Hansen, J.
Hiltbrand, Sh. Jain, M. Krohn, Y. Kubota, Z. Lesko, J. Mans, M. Revering, R.
Rusack, R. Saradhy, N. Schroeder, N. Strobbe, M.A. Wadud University of
Mississippi, Oxford, USA
J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
K. Bloom, S. Chauhan, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, L. Finco, F. Golf, J.R.
González Fernández, I. Kravchenko, J.E. Siado, G.R.
Snow${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, B. Stieger, W. Tabb State University of New
York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
G. Agarwal, C. Harrington, L. Hay, I. Iashvili, A. Kharchilava, C. McLean, D.
Nguyen, A. Parker, J. Pekkanen, S. Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani Northeastern
University, Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, Y. Haddad, A. Hortiangtham, G. Madigan, B.
Marzocchi, D.M. Morse, V. Nguyen, T. Orimoto, L. Skinnari, A. Tishelman-
Charny, T. Wamorkar, B. Wang, A. Wisecarver, D. Wood Northwestern University,
Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, J. Bueghly, Z. Chen, A. Gilbert, T. Gunter, K.A. Hahn, N.
Odell, M.H. Schmitt, K. Sung, M. Velasco University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame,
USA
R. Bucci, N. Dev, R. Goldouzian, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop,
D.J. Karmgard, K. Lannon, W. Li, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, I. Mcalister, F.
Meng, K. Mohrman, Y. Musienko45, R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, S. Taroni, M.
Wayne, A. Wightman, M. Wolf, L. Zygala The Ohio State University, Columbus,
USA
J. Alimena, B. Bylsma, B. Cardwell, L.S. Durkin, B. Francis, C. Hill, W. Ji,
A. Lefeld, B.L. Winer, B.R. Yates Princeton University, Princeton, USA
G. Dezoort, P. Elmer, B. Greenberg, N. Haubrich, S. Higginbotham, A.
Kalogeropoulos, G. Kopp, S. Kwan, D. Lange, M.T. Lucchini, J. Luo, D. Marlow,
K. Mei, I. Ojalvo, J. Olsen, C. Palmer, P. Piroué, D. Stickland, C. Tully
University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
V.E. Barnes, R. Chawla, S. Das, L. Gutay, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, B. Mahakud, G.
Negro, N. Neumeister, C.C. Peng, S. Piperov, H. Qiu, J.F. Schulte, N.
Trevisani, F. Wang, R. Xiao, W. Xie Purdue University Northwest, Hammond, USA
T. Cheng, J. Dolen, N. Parashar Rice University, Houston, USA
A. Baty, S. Dildick, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Kilpatrick, A.
Kumar, W. Li, B.P. Padley, R. Redjimi, J. Roberts${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$,
J. Rorie, W. Shi, A.G. Stahl Leiton, Z. Tu, A. Zhang University of Rochester,
Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, J.L. Dulemba, C. Fallon, T. Ferbel, M.
Galanti, A. Garcia-Bellido, O. Hindrichs, A. Khukhunaishvili, E. Ranken, R.
Taus Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, USA
B. Chiarito, J.P. Chou, A. Gandrakota, Y. Gershtein, E. Halkiadakis, A. Hart,
M. Heindl, E. Hughes, S. Kaplan, O. Karacheban24, I. Laflotte, A. Lath, R.
Montalvo, K. Nash, M. Osherson, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, S. Somalwar, R. Stone,
S.A. Thayil, S. Thomas University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
H. Acharya, A.G. Delannoy, S. Spanier Texas A&M University, College Station,
USA
O. Bouhali89, M. Dalchenko, A. Delgado, R. Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T.
Kamon90, H. Kim, S. Luo, S. Malhotra, R. Mueller, D. Overton, L. Perniè, D.
Rathjens, A. Safonov Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, V. Hegde, S. Kunori, K. Lamichhane, S.W. Lee, T.
Mengke, S. Muthumuni, T. Peltola, S. Undleeb, I. Volobouev, Z. Wang, A.
Whitbeck Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
E. Appelt, S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H.
Ni, K. Padeken, F. Romeo, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska, M. Verweij
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
L. Ang, M.W. Arenton, B. Cox, G. Cummings, J. Hakala, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A.
Ledovskoy, C. Neu, B. Tannenwald, Y. Wang, E. Wolfe, F. Xia Wayne State
University, Detroit, USA
P.E. Karchin, N. Poudyal, J. Sturdy, P. Thapa University of Wisconsin -
Madison, Madison, WI, USA
K. Black, T. Bose, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, S. Dasu, I. De Bruyn, L. Dodd, C.
Galloni, H. He, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, A. Lanaro, A. Loeliger, R.
Loveless, J. Madhusudanan Sreekala, A. Mallampalli, D. Pinna, T. Ruggles, A.
Savin, V. Shang, V. Sharma, W.H. Smith, D. Teague, S. Trembath-reichert, W.
Vetens †: Deceased
1: Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria
2: Also at Department of Basic and Applied Sciences, Faculty of Engineering,
Arab Academy for Science, Technology and Maritime Transport, Alexandria, Egypt
3: Also at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
4: Also at IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
5: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
6: Also at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
7: Also at UFMS, Nova Andradina, Brazil
8: Also at Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil
9: Also at University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
10: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics named by A.I.
Alikhanov of NRC ‘Kurchatov Institute’, Moscow, Russia
11: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
12: Also at Suez University, Suez, Egypt
13: Now at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt
14: Also at Zewail City of Science and Technology, Zewail, Egypt
15: Now at Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
16: Now at Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt
17: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
18: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
19: Also at Erzincan Binali Yildirim University, Erzincan, Turkey
20: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
21: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
22: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
23: Also at Department of Physics, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan,
Iran, Isfahan, Iran
24: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
25: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
26: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary,
Debrecen, Hungary
27: Also at Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Assiut University, Assiut,
Egypt
28: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
29: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary, Budapest, Hungary
30: Also at IIT Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India, Bhubaneswar, India
31: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
32: Also at G.H.G. Khalsa College, Punjab, India
33: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India
34: Also at University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India
35: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
36: Also at Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Mumbai, India
37: Also at Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
38: Also at Department of Physics, University of Science and Technology of
Mazandaran, Behshahr, Iran
39: Now at INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b, Politecnico di Bari
c, Bari, Italy
40: Also at Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and
Sustainable Economic Development, Bologna, Italy
41: Also at Centro Siciliano di Fisica Nucleare e di Struttura Della Materia,
Catania, Italy
42: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia, Riga, Latvia
43: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico City, Mexico
44: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems,
Warsaw, Poland
45: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
46: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
47: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
48: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
49: Also at Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
50: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
51: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
52: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
53: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
54: Also at Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy
55: Also at Trincomalee Campus, Eastern University, Sri Lanka, Nilaveli, Sri
Lanka
56: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy,
Pavia, Italy
57: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
58: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
59: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics, Vienna, Austria,
Vienna, Austria
60: Also at Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules,
IN2P3-CNRS, Annecy-le-Vieux, France
61: Also at Şırnak University, Sirnak, Turkey
62: Also at Department of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China,
Beijing, China
63: Also at Near East University, Research Center of Experimental Health
Science, Nicosia, Turkey
64: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey, Istanbul, Turkey
65: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Application and Research Center for
Advanced Studies (App. & Res. Cent. for Advanced Studies), Istanbul, Turkey
66: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
67: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
68: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
69: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
70: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
71: Also at Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
72: Also at Bozok Universitetesi Rektörlügü, Yozgat, Turkey
73: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
74: Also at Milli Savunma University, Istanbul, Turkey
75: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
76: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
77: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
78: Also at Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
79: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
80: Also at IPPP Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom
81: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia
82: Also at Bethel University, St. Paul, Minneapolis, USA, St. Paul, USA
83: Also at Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey
84: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
85: Also at Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
86: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
87: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
88: Also at Nanjing Normal University Department of Physics, Nanjing, China
89: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
90: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea, Daegu, Korea