SUS-16-045

$Revision:446715$
$HeadURL:svn+ssh://svn.cern.ch/reps/tdr2/papers/SUS-16-045/trunk/SUS-16-045.tex$
$Id:SUS-16-045.tex4467152018-02-1906:02:53Zcpena$

SUS-16-045

# Search for supersymmetry with Higgs boson to diphoton decays using the razor
variables at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$

###### Abstract

An inclusive search for anomalous Higgs boson production in the diphoton decay
channel and in association with at least one jet is presented, using LHC
proton-proton collision data collected by the CMS experiment at a center-of-
mass energy of 13and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9. The
razor variables $M_{\mathrm{R}}$ and ${\mathrm{R}}^{2}$, as well as the
momentum and mass resolution of the diphoton system, are used to categorize
events into different search regions. The search result is interpreted in the
context of strong and electroweak production of supersymmetric particles. We
exclude bottom squark pair-production with masses below 450for bottom squarks
decaying to a bottom quark, a Higgs boson, and the lightest supersymmetric
particle (LSP) for LSP masses below 250. For wino-like chargino-neutralino
production, we exclude charginos with mass below 170for LSP masses below 25.
In the GMSB scenario, we exclude charginos with mass below 205for neutralinos
decaying to a Higgs boson and a goldstino LSP with 100% branching fraction.

##  0.1 Introduction

The discovery of the Higgs boson [1, 2, 3], the first fundamental scalar
particle ever observed, has opened a new window for exploring physics not
described by the standard model (SM) of particle physics. Many models of
physics beyond the standard model (BSM) postulate the existence of cascade
decays of heavy states involving Higgs bosons [4, 5]. In the minimal
supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) [6], Higgs bosons may be produced in a
variety of ways. The bottom squark, the supersymmetric partner of the bottom
quark, produced via the strong interaction, may decay to a Higgs boson,
quarks, and the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP). Similarly charginos or
neutralinos produced through the electroweak interaction may decay to a Higgs
boson and the LSP. Of particular interest are scenarios with gauge-mediated
supersymmetry breaking (GMSB), where the lightest neutralino may decay to a
Higgs boson and the goldstino LSP ($\PXXSG$) [7, 8]. The decay signature
depends on whether the chargino and neutralino mixed states are dominated by
the wino or higgsino components, the respective supersymmetric partners of the
W and Higgs bosons. Diagrams of simplified models [9] for the scenarios
considered are shown in Fig. 1. In this paper, we denote the Higgs boson as H
to indicate that it is the particle observed by the ATLAS and CMS experiments.
In the MSSM, this particle is typically assumed to correspond to the lighter
of the two CP-even Higgs particles and is often denoted as h. For the GMSB
scenario, we consider simplified models where Higgsino-like charginos and
neutralinos are nearly mass-degenerate and both chargino-neutralino and
neutralino-pair production result in very similar final state signatures, and
are hereafter collectively referred to as chargino-neutralino production in
this paper. These examples of BSM production of Higgs bosons motivate an
inclusive search for anomalous Higgs boson production that is broadly
sensitive to a wide range of supersymmetric (SUSY) scenarios. Similar searches
for supersymmetric particles decaying to Higgs bosons have been performed by
the ATLAS and CMS collaborations in the past using 8collision data and can be
found in references [10, 11, 12].

Figure 1: Diagrams displaying the simplified models that are being considered.
Upper left: bottom squark pair production; upper right: wino-like chargino-
neutralino production; bottom: the two relevant decay modes for higgsino-like
neutralino pair production in the GMSB scenario.

In this Letter, we present an updated search for supersymmetry events with at
least one Higgs boson candidate decaying to two photons produced in
association with at least one jet produced in 13proton-proton collisions. The
data were collected by the CMS experiment and correspond to an integrated
luminosity of 35.9 [13]. The diphoton decay mode of the Higgs boson provides a
good compromise between branching fraction and background rejection. The
transverse momentum of the Higgs boson candidate, the expected mass
resolution, and the razor variables $M_{\mathrm{R}}$ and $\mathrm{R}^{2}$ [14,
15], explained in detail in Section 0.4, are used to define event categories
which generically enhance BSM signals relative to SM backgrounds. The
potential signal is extracted from the dominant nonresonant multijet
background through a fit to the diphoton mass distribution. The results of the
search are interpreted in terms of simplified models of bottom squark pair
production and chargino-neutralino production.

##  0.2 The CMS detector, trigger, and event reconstruction

The central feature of the CMS detector 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 (HCAL), each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections.
Extensive forward calorimetry complements the coverage provided by the barrel
and endcap detectors. Muons are measured in gas-ionization detectors embedded
in the magnet steel flux-return yoke outside the solenoid. 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. [16].

Signal event candidates are recorded using a diphoton trigger, requiring the
transverse energy of the leading and subleading photons to be larger than
30and 18, respectively and their invariant mass to be larger than 90.
Additional requirements on the photon shower shape and isolation are imposed
to reduce the background rate and improve the signal purity [17]. The
efficiency of the trigger with respect to events passing the offline selection
is measured to be above 98%.

Physics object candidates are reconstructed using a global event description
based on the CMS particle-flow (PF) algorithm [18], which identifies particles
through an optimized combination of information from the various detector
subsystems. Photon candidates are selected by imposing “loose” requirements on
the shower shape in the electromagnetic calorimeter, the ratio of energy
measured in the HCAL to the energy measured in the ECAL, and the isolation in
a cone around the direction of the photon momentum [19]. The isolation
requirement is corrected for the effect of multiple proton collisions in the
same or adjacent bunch crossing (pileup) by subtracting the average energy
from pileup deposited in the isolation cone, estimated by averaging the energy
density over the event. Furthermore, photon candidates are rejected if they
match an electron candidate that is not consistent with one leg of a
conversion. The photon selection efficiency was measured to be about 90% [20]
using tag and probe methods. The measured energy of photons is corrected for
clustering and local geometric effects using an energy regression trained on
Monte Carlo (MC) simulation [19]. This regression gives a significant
improvement in the energy resolution of the photons (about 30%) and provides
an estimate of the uncertainty of the energy measurement that is used to
separate events into high- and low-resolution categories.

The reconstructed 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 used in this context are the objects returned by a jet finding
algorithm [21, 22] applied to all charged tracks associated with the vertex
under consideration, plus the corresponding associated missing transverse
momentum.

The charged PF candidates associated with the PV and the neutral PF candidates
are clustered into jets using the anti-algorithm [21] with a distance
parameter $R=0.4$, as implemented in the package [22]. The jet momentum is
determined as the vectorial sum of all particle momenta in the jet. Jet energy
corrections are derived based on a combination of simulation studies,
accounting for the nonlinear detector response and the presence of pileup,
together with in-situ measurements of the energy balance in dijet and
$\gamma$+jet events using the methods described in Ref. [23]. For this
analysis, jets with $\abs{\eta}<3.0$ that do not overlap with any identified
photon are selected by requiring $\Delta
R=\sqrt{\smash[b]{(\Delta\eta)^{2}+(\Delta\phi)^{2}}}>0.5$ between photon and
jet candidates. The combined secondary vertex (CSVv2) tagging algorithm [24]
is used to identify jets originating from the hadronization of b quarks. A
loose working point is chosen that yields an efficiency above 80% and a mistag
rate for light-flavor jets that is approximately 10%. The negative vector sum
of the reconstructed $\pt$ of all PF candidates in an event defines the
missing transverse momentum $\ptvecmiss$ in the event, and its magnitude is
referred to as $\pt^{\text{miss}}$. Events with detector- and beam-related
noise that can mimic event topologies with high energy and large
$\pt^{\text{miss}}$ are filtered out by use of dedicated noise reduction
algorithms [25, 26, 27].

##  0.3 Event simulation

Simulated event samples are used to model the SM Higgs backgrounds in the
search regions, and to calculate the selection efficiencies for SUSY signal
models. Samples of SM Higgs production via gluon fusion, vector boson fusion,
associated production with a $\PW$ or a $\cPZ$ boson, $\bbbar\PH$, and
$\ttbar\PH$ are generated using the next-to-leading order (NLO) v2.2.2 [28]
event generator. The Higgs mass is assumed to be 125.0for the simulated event
samples and is within the uncertainty of the currently best measured value
[29]. For the gluon fusion production mode, the sample is generated with up to
two extra partons to model initial-state radiation (ISR) calculated at the
matrix element level with NLO accuracy with the matching scheme described in
reference [30]. The SUSY signal MC samples are generated using at leading
order accuracy with up to two extra partons in the matrix element calculations
with the matching scheme described in reference [31]. In both cases, v8.2 [32]
is used to model the fragmentation and parton showering with the CUETP8M1 tune
[33]. The NNPDF3.0LO and NNPDF3.0NLO [34] parton distribution functions (PDFs)
are used for the LO and NLO accuracy generators respectively. The SM Higgs
background and bottom squark pair-production signal samples are simulated
using a -based model [35] of the CMS detector, while the chargino-neutralino
and neutralino-pair production signal samples are simulated with the CMS fast
simulation package [36]. While generally providing an accurate description,
the fast simulation does sometimes yield inaccurate predictions of the missing
transverse momentum tail. These inaccuracies are accounted for by larger
systematic uncertainties for the signal yield prediction in the relevant phase
space estimated as the difference between signal yields predicted using the
generator level missing transverse momentum and the missing transverse
momentum reconstructed based on the fast simulation. All simulated events
include the effects of pileup and are processed with the same chain of
reconstruction programs used for collision data.

To improve the modeling of ISR in the SUSY signal MC samples, we apply a
correction as a function of the multiplicity of ISR jets for sbottom pair
production, and as a function of the transverse momentum
($\pt^{\mathrm{ISR}}$) of the chargino-neutralino system for chargino-
neutralino production, derived from studies of and Z+jets events,
respectively. The correction factors vary between 0.92 and 0.51 for ISR jet
multiplicity between one and six, and between 1.18 and 0.78 for
$\pt^{\mathrm{ISR}}$ between 125 and 600. The correction has a small effect on
the signal yields at the level of about $1\%$. The full size of this
correction is taken as a systematic uncertainty.

The Higgs production cross sections are obtained from the recommendations of
the LHC Yellow Report 4 of the LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group [37]. The
SUSY signal production cross sections are calculated to NLO plus next-to-
leading logarithmic (NLL) accuracy [38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43], assuming all SUSY
particles other than those in the relevant diagram to be too heavy to
participate in the interaction. These NLO+NLL cross sections and their
associated uncertainties [43] are used to derive the exclusion limits on the
masses of SUSY particles.

##  0.4 Event selection and search categories

We select events with two photons that satisfy the selection criteria
described above. Both photons must be in the barrel region of the
electromagnetic calorimeter, with $\abs{\eta}<1.44$, and have $\pt>20$. At
least one of the two photons must have $\pt>40$. If multiple photon pairs are
identified, the pair with the largest scalar sum of the transverse momenta is
chosen as the Higgs boson candidate in the event. The Higgs boson candidate
mass is required to be between 103and 160in order to cover a sufficiently
large background dominated sideband region.

The Higgs boson candidate and any additional identified jets with $\pt>30$and
$\abs{\eta}<3.0$ are clustered into two hemispheres (megajets) according to
the Razor megajet algorithm [15], which minimizes the sum of the squared-
invariant-mass values of the two megajets. To converge, the algorithm requires
at least one such identified jet in the event. Next, the razor variables [14]
$M_{\mathrm{R}}$ and $\mathrm{R}^{2}$ are computed as follows:

$\displaystyle M_{\mathrm{R}}$
$\displaystyle\equiv\sqrt{(\abs{\vec{p}^{j_{1}}}+\abs{\vec{p}^{j_{2}}})^{2}-({p}^{j_{1}}_{z}+{p}^{j_{2}}_{z})^{2}},$
(1) $\displaystyle\mathrm{R}^{2}$
$\displaystyle\equiv\left(\frac{M_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{R}}}{M_{\mathrm{R}}}\right)^{2},$
(2)

where $\vec{p}$ is the momentum of a megajet, $p_{z}$ is its longitudinal
component, and $j_{1}$ and $j_{2}$ are used to label the two megajets. In the
definition of $\mathrm{R}^{2}$, the variable $M_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{R}}$ is
defined as:

$M_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{R}}\equiv\sqrt{\frac{\pt^{\text{miss}}(\pt^{j_{1}}+\pt^{j_{2}})-\ptvecmiss\cdot(\ptvec^{\,j_{1}}+\ptvec^{\,j_{2}})}{2}}.$
(3)

The razor variables $M_{\mathrm{R}}$ and $\mathrm{R}^{2}$ provide
discrimination between SUSY signal models and SM background processes with
SUSY signals typically having large values of $M_{\mathrm{R}}$ and
$\mathrm{R}^{2}$, while the SM background exhibits an exponentially falling
spectrum in both variables.

The selected events are separated into four mutually exclusive categories. An
event is categorized as “HighPt” if the transverse momentum of the selected
Higgs boson candidate is larger than 110. Otherwise, if the event contains two
b-tagged jets whose invariant mass is between 76 and 106, or between 110 and
140, it is categorized as “$\PH(\gamma\gamma)$-$\PH\Z(\PQb\PQb)$”. The
remaining events are categorized as “HighRes” and “LowRes” if the diphoton
mass resolution estimate $\sigma_{M}/M$ is smaller or larger than 0.85%,
respectively, where $\sigma_{M}$ is computed as:

$\sigma_{M}=\frac{1}{2}\,\sqrt{(\sigma_{E\gamma 1}/E_{\gamma
1})^{2}+(\sigma_{{E}\gamma 2}/E_{\gamma 2})^{2}},$ (4)

where $E_{\gamma 1,2}$ is the energy of each photon and $\sigma_{{E}\gamma
1,2}$ is the estimated energy resolution for each photon. A graphical
representation of the categorization procedure is shown in Fig. 2. The
“HighPt” category isolates SUSY events producing high-Higgs bosons; the
“$\PH(\gamma\gamma)$-$\PH\Z(\PQb\PQb)$” category isolates SUSY signals that
produce two Higgs bosons or a Higgs boson and a Z boson in the final state;
and the HighRes and LowRes categories further improve the discrimination
between signal and background in the remaining event sample. The
“$\PH(\gamma\gamma)$-$\PH\Z(\PQb\PQb)$” category combines events with two
Higgs bosons or a Higgs boson and a Z boson in order to achieve a sufficiently
large number of events in the sideband for the background estimation method
described in Section 0.5 to remain unbiased.

Figure 2: A flowchart showing the event categorization procedure.

Each event category is further divided into bins in the $M_{\mathrm{R}}$ and
$\mathrm{R}^{2}$ variables, which define the exclusive search regions. A
significant excess of events above the SM expectation in one or several bins
would provide evidence of BSM physics. The search regions are chosen based on
an optimization procedure that maximizes the expected sensitivity to the
simplified bottom squark pair production model discussed further in Section
0.7, and are summarized in Table 0.4. The bins in the $M_{\mathrm{R}}$ and
$\mathrm{R}^{2}$ variables are kept identical for the HighRes and LowRes
categories to allow for simultaneous signal extraction, since the ratio of the
event yields in these two categories does not depend on the details of the
signal model.

A summary of the search region bins in each category is presented. The
functional form used to model the nonresonant background is also listed. An
exponential function of the form $\re^{-am_{\gamma\gamma}}$ is denoted as
“single-exp”; a linear combination of two independent exponential functions of
the form $\re^{-am_{\gamma\gamma}}$ and $\re^{-bm_{\gamma\gamma}}$ is denoted
as “two-exp”; a modified exponential function of the form
$\re^{-am_{\gamma\gamma}^{b}}$ is denoted as “mod-exp”; and a Bernstein
polynomial of degree $n$ [44] is denoted by “poly-n”. The bin labels 9–13 are
used for both the HighRes and LowRes categories because the data in these
categories are always fitted simultaneously with potentially different
nonresonant background models used. Further details on the simultaneous fit
are discussed in Section 0.5.  Bin number Category $M_{\mathrm{R}}$ ()
$\mathrm{R}^{2}$ Nonresonant bkg. model 0 HighPt $\geq$600 $\geq$0.025 single-
exp 1 HighPt 150–600 $\geq$0.130 single-exp 2 HighPt $\geq$1250 0.000–0.025
single-exp 3 HighPt 150–450 0.000–0.130 poly-3 4 HighPt 450–600 0.000–0.035
poly-3 5 HighPt 450–600 0.035–0.130 single-exp 6 HighPt 600–1250 0.000–0.015
two-exp 7 HighPt 600–1250 0.015–0.025 single-exp 8
$\PH(\gamma\gamma)$-$\PH\Z(\PQb\PQb)$ $\geq$150 $\geq$0.0 single-exp 9 HighRes
150–250 0.000–0.175 mod-exp LowRes 150–250 0.000–0.175 poly-3 10 HighRes
150–250 $\geq$0.175 single-exp LowRes 150–250 $\geq$0.175 single-exp 11
HighRes $\geq$250 $\geq$0.05 single-exp LowRes $\geq$250 $\geq$0.05 poly-2 12
HighRes 250–600 0.000–0.05 poly-2 LowRes 250–600 0.000–0.05 mod-exp 13 HighRes
$\geq$600 0.000–0.05 single-exp LowRes $\geq$600 0.000–0.05 single-exp

##  0.5 Background prediction

There are two main classes of background events that pass the search selection
criteria: SM Higgs production and nonresonant photon production, with either
two promptly produced photons or one prompt photon and one jet that is wrongly
identified as a photon. The SM Higgs background is estimated from the MC
simulation, while the nonresonant background prediction is estimated using a
fit to the diphoton mass distribution observed in data.

Within each search bin, we extract a potential signal by performing an
unbinned extended maximum likelihood fit to the diphoton mass spectrum. An
example of such a fit is shown in Fig. 3. The nonresonant background is
modeled with a decaying functional form given in Table 0.4 for each individual
search region bin. All parameters of the function are unconstrained in the
fit. The functional form of the model used for each search region bin is
selected on the basis of its Akaike information criterion (AIC) score [45],
which quantifies the trade-off between goodness-of-fit and model complexity.
Each functional form is tested for fit biases with respect to a set of
alternative models, all of which adequately describe the data in the diphoton
mass sideband region (103–121and 129–160). The shape of the Higgs boson
resonance from SM Higgs production and from decays of SUSY signals is modeled
with a double Crystal Ball function [46, 47] with two independent tail
parameters that is fitted to the diphoton mass distribution obtained from the
MC simulation. The parameters of each double Crystal Ball function are held
constant in the signal extraction fit procedure, with the exception of the
parameter controlling the location of the peak, which is discussed further in
Section 0.6 below. The normalization of the SM Higgs boson background in each
bin is predicted from the MC simulation and is constrained to that value in
the fit within uncertainties. For the HighRes and LowRes categories, bins in
the $M_{\mathrm{R}}$ and $\mathrm{R}^{2}$ variables are fitted simultaneously.
For a given search bin, the relative yields in the HighRes and LowRes
categories are observed in the simulation to be largely process independent
and are therefore constrained according to the simulation prediction. Based on
these independent fits in each search bin, we obtain a model-independent
search result, which can be used to evaluate whether the yield in any bin
exhibits a statistically significant deviation from the background prediction.

We also perform a combined simultaneous fit using all of the search bins, to
test specific SUSY simplified model signal hypotheses. In the combined fit,
the yield in each bin for the SM Higgs background and the signal model under
test are constrained to the MC simulation predictions within uncertainties.
These uncertainties are modeled by use of nuisance parameters that account for
various theoretical and instrumental uncertainties that can affect the SM
Higgs boson background and SUSY signal normalization, and are profiled in the
fit. A more detailed discussion of systematic uncertainties can be found below
in Section 0.6. The MC simulation predictions for the SM Higgs boson
background normalization are shown in Table 0.5 for each bin in the search
region.

The predicted yields for an example SUSY signal and the SM Higgs boson
background processes for each search region are shown for an integrated
luminosity corresponding to 35.9. The signal yields given assume a bottom
squark mass of 500and an LSP mass of 1. The contributions from each SM Higgs
boson process are shown separately, and the total is shown in the rightmost
column, along with its full uncertainty. The bin labels 9–13 are used for both
the HighRes and LowRes categories as they are always fitted simultaneously.
Signal Yield Expected SM Higgs yield Bin Category
$\PSQb\PASQb$,$\PSQb\to\cPqb\PH\PSGczDo$ ggH $\ttbar\PH$ VBF H VH $\bbbar\PH$
Total 0 HighPt 10.2 3.4 1.4 0.49 0.78 0.02 $6.1\,\pm\,1.2$ 1 HighPt 0.2 1.7
0.58 0.18 1.8 0.01 $4.3\,\pm\,0.8$ 2 HighPt 5.7 5.1 0.64 2.5 0.17 0.04
$8.5\,\pm\,1.7$ 3 HighPt 0.2 55 0.96 11 6.3 0.41 $74\,\pm\,21$ 4 HighPt 0.6 17
0.50 4.7 1.1 0.18 $23\,\pm\,7$ 5 HighPt 0.6 3.5 0.61 0.55 0.59 0.04
$5.3\,\pm\,1.2$ 6 HighPt 5.7 19 0.80 7.6 0.82 0.15 $29\,\pm\,8$ 7 HighPt 4.0
5.4 0.46 1.1 0.45 0.02 $7.4\,\pm\,2.1$ 8 $\PH(\gamma\gamma)$-$\PH\Z(\PQb\PQb)$
0.9 0.76 1.3 0.12 0.25 0.19 $2.6\,\pm\,0.4$ 9 HighRes 0.0 60 0.24 7.6 4.4 0.89
$75\,\pm\,22$ LowRes 0.0 30 0.11 3.8 2.3 0.50 $36\,\pm\,11$ 10 HighRes 0.0 1.1
0.12 0.12 0.46 0.02 $1.8\,\pm\,0.6$ LowRes 0.0 0.44 0.07 0.08 0.27 0.01
$0.9\,\pm\,0.2$ 11 HighRes 0.3 3.0 0.73 0.54 0.55 0.13 $5.0\,\pm\,1.4$ LowRes
0.1 1.8 0.38 0.29 0.22 0.06 $2.7\,\pm\,0.8$ 12 HighRes 0.1 37 0.66 8.9 1.4
0.83 $50\,\pm\,14$ LowRes 0.1 21 0.33 4.7 0.79 0.42 $26\,\pm\,6$ 13 HighRes
1.0 5.0 0.50 3.1 0.21 0.21 $9.1\,\pm\,2.7$ LowRes 0.5 3.3 0.29 1.5 0.13 0.10
$5.2\,\pm\,1.5$

##  0.6 Systematic uncertainties

There are broadly two types of systematic uncertainties. The first and
dominant systematic uncertainty is in the shape and normalization of the
nonresonant background. This is propagated by profiling the normalization and
shape parameters of the nonresonant background functional form in an
unconstrained way. The second and subdominant type of systematic uncertainty
is in the predictions of the SM Higgs background in the various search bins.
These shape uncertainties are propagated through the use of several
independent nuisance parameters, where both theoretical and instrumental
effects are taken into account. The nuisance parameters are constrained in the
fit using log-normal prior functions, whose width reflects the size of the
systematic uncertainty. The independent systematic effects considered include
missing higher-order corrections, PDFs, trigger and selection efficiencies,
jet energy scale uncertainties, b tagging efficiencies, and the uncertainty in
the integrated luminosity. The uncertainty due to jet energy resolution
uncertainties were also estimated and were found to be negligible. The typical
size of these effects on the expected limit is summarized in Table 0.6. Due to
effects of pileup and transparency loss in the ECAL crystals, we observe some
simulation mismodeling of the estimated mass resolution, which results in a
systematic uncertainty of 10–24% in the prediction of the SM Higgs background
and SUSY signal yields in the HighRes and LowRes event categories. The
systematic uncertainty in the photon energy scale is implemented as a
Gaussian-distributed nuisance parameter that shifts the Higgs boson mass peak
position, constrained in the fit to lie within approximately 1% of the nominal
Higgs boson mass observed in simulation. The systematic uncertainty for the
modeling of the ISR for the signal process is also propagated and is below
$1\%$. For chargino-neutralino and neutralino-pair production signal
processes, the fast simulation was used to predict signal yields and an
additional systematic uncertainty is propagated for inaccuracies in the
modeling of the missing transverse momentum tail. This systematic uncertainty
ranges between $1\%$ and $34\%$ depending on the search region bin.

Summary of systematic uncertainties on the SM Higgs background and signal
yield predictions, and the size of their effect on the signal yield.
Uncertainty source Size (%) Integrated Luminosity 2.5
PDFs/renormalization/factorization scales 15–30 Trigger and selection
efficiency 3 Jet energy scale 1–5 Photon energy scale 1 $\sigma_{M}/M$
categorization 10–24 b tagging efficiency 4 ISR modeling (signal only) 1
Fastsim $\pt^{\text{miss}}$ modeling (signal only) 1–34

##  0.7 Results and interpretations

The fit results for all search region bins are summarized in Table 0.7, along
with the data yields, fitted background, and signal yields. An example fit
result for the search bin with $M_{\mathrm{R}}>600$and $\mathrm{R}^{2}>0.025$
in the HighPt category is shown in Fig. 3. The observed signal significance in
each bin is summarized in Fig. 4 for all the search region bins, which are
statistically independent. None of the 14 bins exhibits a deviation from the
background expectation larger than two standard deviations.

Figure 3: The diphoton mass distribution in the search region bin with
$M_{\mathrm{R}}>600$and $\mathrm{R}^{2}>0.025$ in the HighPt category, along
with the background-only fit (left) and the signal-plus-background fit
(right). The red dot-dashed curve represents the fitted background prediction;
the green dashed curve represents the best-fit signal; and the blue solid
curve represents the sum of the best-fit signal and the background.

The nonresonant background yields, SM Higgs boson background yields, best fit
signal yields, and observed local significance in units of standard deviations
($\sigma$) are shown for the signal plus background fit in each search region
bin. The SM Higgs boson background yields are slightly altered with respect to
the pre-fit predictions from Table 0.5. The uncertainties include both
statistical and systematic components. The nonresonant background yields
correspond to the yield within the mass window between 122 and 129and are
intended to estimate the background under the signal peak. The observed
significance for the bins in HighRes and LowRes categories are identical
because they are the result of a simultaneous fit. The significance is
computed using the profile likelihood, where the sign reflects whether an
excess (positive sign) or deficit (negative sign) is observed.  Yields Obs.
local Bin Category Nonresonant bkg SM Higgs Best fit signal significance
($\sigma$) 0 HighPt $36\,\pm\,2$ $6.1\,\pm\,1.0$ $4.8\,\pm\,6.7$ 0.7 1 HighPt
$37\,\pm\,2$ $4.3\,\pm\,0.7$ $-11\,\pm\,6$ -1.4 2 HighPt $24\,\pm\,2$
$8.4\,\pm\,1.6$ $-5.1\,\pm\,5.3$ -0.9 3 HighPt $790\,\pm\,27$ $74\,\pm\,21$
$14\,\pm\,41$ 0.4 4 HighPt $160\,\pm\,15$ $24\,\pm\,6$ $10\,\pm\,15$ 0.6 5
HighPt $34\,\pm\,2$ $5.2\,\pm\,1.2$ $12\,\pm\,8$ 1.6 6 HighPt $127\,\pm\,3$
$29\,\pm\,5$ $1.1\,\pm\,7.9$ 0.1 7 HighPt $40\,\pm\,3$ $7.4\,\pm\,2.0$
$-0.3\,\pm\,7.4$ -0.0 8 $\PH(\gamma\gamma)$-$\PH\Z(\PQb\PQb)$ $65\,\pm\,3$
$2.6\,\pm\,0.4$ $8\,\pm\,8$ 1.0 9 HighRes $1792\,\pm\,17$ $77\,\pm\,24$
$-9\,\pm\,44$ -0.2 LowRes $2108\,\pm\,28$ $43\,\pm\,17$ $-4\,\pm\,19$ 10
HighRes $44\,\pm\,3$ $1.9\,\pm\,0.6$ $1\,\pm\,8$ 0.1 LowRes $68\,\pm\,3$
$1.0\,\pm\,0.3$ $0\,\pm\,3$ 11 HighRes $127\,\pm\,4$ $5.2\,\pm\,1.4$
$-8\,\pm\,12$ -0.6 LowRes $158\,\pm\,10$ $3.0\,\pm\,1.2$ $-4\,\pm\,7$ 12
HighRes $1066\,\pm\,19$ $51\,\pm\,16$ $10\,\pm\,34$ 0.2 LowRes $1310\,\pm\,14$
$29\,\pm\,9$ $5\,\pm\,18$ 13 HighRes $151\,\pm\,5$ $9.5\,\pm\,3.1$
$2\,\pm\,11$ 0.2 LowRes $193\,\pm\,5$ $5.8\,\pm\,2.1$ $1\,\pm\,6$

Figure 4:  The observed significance in units of standard deviations is
plotted for each search bin. The significance is computed using the profile
likelihood, where the sign reflects whether an excess (positive sign) or
deficit (negative sign) is observed. The categories that the bins belong to
are labeled at the bottom. The bins in the HighRes and LowRes categories are
fitted simultaneously and yield a single combined significance. The yellow and
green bands represent the $\pm$1 and $\pm$2 standard deviation regions,
respectively.

We interpret the search results in terms of limits on the production cross
section times branching ratio for simplified models of bottom squark pair-
production and chargino-neutralino production. Diagrams of these simplified
models are shown in Fig. 1. In the case of bottom squark pair production, we
consider the scenario where the bottom squark decays to a bottom quark and the
next-to-lightest neutralino ($\PSGczDt$), and the $\PSGczDt$ decays to a Higgs
boson and the LSP ($\PSGczDo$), and the production cross sections are computed
at NLO plus next-to-leading-log (NLL) precision with all the other sparticles
assumed to be heavy and decoupled [38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43]. We restrict
ourselves to the scenario where the mass splitting between the $\PSGczDt$ and
the $\PSGczDo$ is 130, slightly above threshold to produce an on-shell Higgs
boson. In the case of chargino-neutralino production, we consider two
different scenarios. In the first one, pure wino-like charginos ($\PSGcpmDo$)
and the next-to-lightest neutralino $\PSGczDt$ are mass-degenerate and are
produced together, with the chargino decaying to a W boson and the LSP
($\PSGczDo$) and the $\PSGczDt$ decaying to a Higgs boson and the LSP
($\PSGczDo$). The production cross sections are computed at NLO plus next-to-
leading-log (NLL) precision in a limit of mass-degenerate wino $\chiz_{2}$ and
$\chipm_{1}$, light bino $\chiz_{1}$, and with all the other sparticles
assumed to be heavy and decoupled [48, 49, 50]. In the second scenario, we
consider a GMSB [7, 8] simplified model where Higgsino-like charginos and
neutralinos are nearly mass-degenerate and are produced in pairs through the
following combinations: $\PSGczDo\PSGczDt$, $\PSGczDo\PSGcpmDo$,
$\PSGczDt\PSGcpmDo$, and $\PSGcpmDo\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$. Because of the
mass degeneracy, both the $\PSGczDt$ and the $\PSGcpmDo$ will decay to
$\PSGczDo$ and other low-$\pt$ (soft) particles, leading to a signature with a
$\PSGczDo$ pair. Each $\PSGczDo$ will subsequently decay to a Higgs boson and
the goldstino ($\PXXSG$), which is the LSP, or to a Z boson and the goldstino.
We consider the case where the branching fraction of the
$\PSGczDo\to\PH\PXXSG$ decay is 100%, and the case where the branching
fraction of the $\PSGczDo\to\PH\PXXSG$ and $\PSGczDo\to\Z\PXXSG$ decays are
each 50%. The cross sections for higgsino pair production are computed at NLO
plus NLL precision in a limit of mass-degenerate higgsino $\PSGczDt$,
$\PSGcpmDo$, and $\PSGczDo$ with all the other sparticles assumed to be heavy
and decoupled [48, 49, 50]. Following the convention of real mixing matrices
and signed neutralino or chargino masses [51], we set the mass of $\PSGczDo$
($\PSGczDt$) to positive (negative) values. The product of the third and
fourth elements of the corresponding rows of the neutralino mixing matrix $N$
is $+0.5$ ($-0.5$). The elements $U_{12}$ and $V_{12}$ of the chargino mixing
matrices are set to 1.

Following the $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ procedure [52, 53, 54], we use the
profile likelihood ratio test statistic and the asymptotic formula [55] to
evaluate the 95% confidence level (CL) observed and expected limits on the
signal production cross sections. For the bottom squark pair production model,
the limits are shown on the left of Fig. 5 as a function of the bottom squark
mass and the LSP mass. We exclude bottom squarks with masses below about
450for all LSP masses below 250. For the wino-like chargino-neutralino
production simplified model, the limits are shown on the right of Fig. 5 as a
function of the chargino mass and the LSP mass. We exclude chargino masses
below about 170for all LSP masses below 25. For the higgsino-like chargino-
neutralino production simplified models, the limits are shown in Fig. 6 as a
function of the chargino mass for the case where the branching fraction of the
$\PSGczDo\to\PH\PXXSG$ decay is 100% on the left, and for the case where the
branching fraction of the $\PSGczDo\to\PH\PXXSG$ and $\PSGczDo\to\Z\PXXSG$
decays are both 50%, on the right. We exclude charginos below 205and 130in the
former and latter cases, respectively.

Figure 5:  The observed 95% CL upper limits on the bottom squark pair
production cross section (left) and wino-like chargino-neutralino production
cross section (right) are shown. The solid and dotted black contours represent
the observed exclusion region and its $\pm$1 standard deviations ($1\sigma$)
of their experimental and theoretical uncertainties, while the analogous red
contours represent the expected exclusion region and its $1\sigma$ band.

Figure 6:  The observed 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section
for higgsino-like chargino-neutralino production are shown. The charginos and
neutralinos undergo several cascade decays producing either Higgs or Z bosons.
We present limits in the scenario where the branching fraction of the
$\PSGczDo\to\PH\PXXSG$ decay is 100% (left) and the scenario where the
branching fraction of the $\PSGczDo\to\PH\PXXSG$ and $\PSGczDo\to\Z\PXXSG$
decays are each 50% (right). The dotted and solid black curves represent the
expected and observed exclusion region, and the green and yellow bands
represent the $\pm$1 and $\pm$2 standard deviation regions, respectively. The
red solid and dotted lines show the theoretical production cross section and
its uncertainty band.

##  0.8 Summary

A search for anomalous Higgs boson production through decays of supersymmetric
particles is performed with the proton-proton collision data collected in 2016
by the CMS experiment at the LHC. The sample corresponds to an integrated
luminosity of 35.9at the center-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s}=13$. Higgs boson
candidates are reconstructed from pairs of photons in the central part of the
detector. The razor variables $M_{\mathrm{R}}$ and $\mathrm{R}^{2}$ are used
to suppress Standard Model (SM) Higgs boson production and other SM
backgrounds. The non-resonant background is estimated through a fit to the
diphoton mass distribution in data, while the SM Higgs background is predicted
using simulation. We interpret the results in terms of production cross
section limits on simplified models of bottom squark pair production and
chargino-neutralino production. We exclude bottom squark masses below 450for
bottom squarks decaying to a bottom quark, a Higgs boson, and the lightest
supersymmetric particle (LSP) for LSP masses below 250and assuming a mass
splitting between the $\PSGczDt$ and $\PSGczDo$ of $130$ GeV. For wino-like
chargino-neutralino production, we improved the search sensitivity by a factor
of two with respect to previous results [11] and we exclude charginos with
mass below 170for LSP masses below 25. In the GMSB scenario, we exclude
charginos with mass below 205for neutralinos decaying to a Higgs boson and a
goldstino LSP ($\PXXSG$) with 100% branching fraction. Finally, we exclude
charginos with mass below 130for the case where the branching fractions of the
$\PSGczDo\to\PH\PXXSG$ and $\PSGczDo\to\Z\PXXSG$ decays are 50% each.

###### 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 centers 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: BMWFW and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq,
CAPES, FAPERJ, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC
(China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RPF (Cyprus);
SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC IUT, and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of Finland,
MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF
(Germany); GSRT (Greece); OTKA and NIH (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM
(Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); LAS
(Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT, LNS, SEP, and
UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC
(Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom, RAS, RFBR and RAEP
(Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI and FEDER (Spain); Swiss Funding
Agencies (Switzerland); MST (Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR, and NSTDA
(Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); NASU and SFFR (Ukraine); STFC (United
Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA). Individuals have received support from the Marie-
Curie program and the European Research Council and Horizon 2020 Grant,
contract No. 675440 (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 Ministry of Education, Youth and
Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Council of Science and Industrial
Research, India; the HOMING PLUS program of the Foundation for Polish Science,
cofinanced from European Union, Regional Development Fund, the Mobility Plus
program 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 Programa Clarín-COFUND del Principado de Asturias;
the Thalis and Aristeia programs 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 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] M. Monaco, M. Pierini, A. Romanino, and M. Spinrath, “Phenomenology of minimal unified tree level gauge mediation at the LHC”,  JHEP 07 (2013) 078, 10.1007/JHEP07(2013)078, arXiv:1302.1305.
  * [5] J. Duarte et al., “Squark-mediated Higgs+jets production at the LHC”, (2017). arXiv:1703.06544.
  * [6] S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi, “Softly broken supersymmetry and SU(5)”,  Nucl. Phys. B 193 (1981) 150, 10.1016/0550-3213(81)90522-8.
  * [7] S. Dimopoulos, M. Dine, S. Raby, and S. D. Thomas, “Experimental signatures of low-energy gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 (1996) 3494, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.3494, arXiv:hep-ph/9601367.
  * [8] K. T. Matchev and S. D. Thomas, “Higgs and $Z$ boson signatures of supersymmetry”,  Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 077702, 10.1103/PhysRevD.62.077702, arXiv:hep-ph/9908482.
  * [9] LHC New Physics Working Group, D. Alves et al., “Simplified models for LHC new physics searches”,  J. Phys. G 39 (2012) 105005, 10.1088/0954-3899/39/10/105005, arXiv:1105.2838.
  * [10] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for direct pair production of a chargino and a neutralino decaying to the 125 GeV Higgs boson in $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV ${pp}$ collisions with the ATLAS detector”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015), no. 5, 208, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3408-7, arXiv:1501.07110.
  * [11] CMS Collaboration, “Searches for electroweak neutralino and chargino production in channels with Higgs, Z, and W bosons in pp collisions at 8 TeV”,  Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014), no. 9, 092007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.092007, arXiv:1409.3168.
  * [12] CMS Collaboration, “Search for SUSY with Higgs in the diphoton final state using the razor variables”, Technical Report CMS-PAS-SUS-14-017, CERN, Geneva, 2015.
  * [13] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2016 data taking period”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001, CERN, 2017.
  * [14] CMS Collaboration, “Inclusive search for supersymmetry using the razor variables in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7\TeV$”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 081802, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.081802, arXiv:1212.6961.
  * [15] CMS Collaboration, “Search for supersymmetry with razor variables in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7\TeV$”,  Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 112001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.112001, arXiv:1405.3961.
  * [16] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [17] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of properties of the Higgs boson in the diphoton decay channel with the full 2016 data set”, Technical Report CMS-PAS-HIG-16-040, CERN, Geneva, 2017.
  * [18] 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.
  * [19] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8\TeV$”,  JINST 10 (2015) P08010, 10.1088/1748-0221/10/08/P08010, arXiv:1502.02702.
  * [20] CMS Collaboration, “Electron and photon performance in CMS with the full 2016 data sample”, CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2017-004, CERN, 2017.
  * [21] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-$k_{t}$ jet clustering algorithm”,  JHEP 04 (2008) 063, 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063, arXiv:0802.1189.
  * [22] 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.
  * [23] CMS Collaboration, “Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV”,  JINST 12 (2017) P02014, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/P02014, arXiv:1607.03663.
  * [24] CMS Collaboration, “Identification of b quark jets at the CMS experiment in the LHC Run 2”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-BTV-15-001, CERN, 2016.
  * [25] CMS Collaboration, “Missing transverse energy performance of the CMS detector”,  JINST 6 (2011) P09001, 10.1088/1748-0221/6/09/P09001, arXiv:1106.5048.
  * [26] CMS Collaboration, “Search for new physics in the multijet and missing transverse momentum final state in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 171803, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.171803, arXiv:1207.1898.
  * [27] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS missing transverse momentum reconstruction in $\Pp\Pp$ data at $\sqrt{s}=8\TeV$”,  JINST 10 (2015) P02006, 10.1088/1748-0221/10/02/P02006, arXiv:1411.0511.
  * [28] 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.
  * [29] ATLAS, CMS Collaboration, “Combined measurement of the Higgs boson mass in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8 TeV with the ATLAS and CMS experiments”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 191803, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191803, arXiv:1503.07589.
  * [30] R. Frederix and S. Frixione, “Merging meets matching in MC@NLO”,  JHEP 12 (2012) 061, 10.1007/JHEP12(2012)061, arXiv:1209.6215.
  * [31] J. Alwall et al., “Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 53 (2008) 473, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0490-5, arXiv:0706.2569.
  * [32] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, “A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1”,  Comp. Phys. Commun. 178 (2008) 852, 10.1016/j.cpc.2008.01.036.
  * [33] P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo, “Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 tune”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3024, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3024-y.
  * [34] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC Run II”,  JHEP 04 (2015) 040, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040, arXiv:1410.8849.
  * [35] GEANT4 Collaboration, “GEANT4—a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [36] S. Abdullin et al., “The fast simulation of the CMS detector at LHC”,  J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 331 (2011) 032049, 10.1088/1742-6596/331/3/032049.
  * [37] D. de Florian et al., “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.
  * [38] W. Beenakker, R. Höpker, M. Spira, and P. M. Zerwas, “Squark and gluino production at hadron colliders”,  Nucl. Phys. B 492 (1997) 51, 10.1016/S0550-3213(97)80027-2, arXiv:hep-ph/9610490.
  * [39] A. Kulesza and L. Motyka, “Threshold resummation for squark-antisquark and gluino-pair production at the LHC”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (2009) 111802, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.111802, arXiv:0807.2405.
  * [40] A. Kulesza and L. Motyka, “Soft gluon resummation for the production of gluino-gluino and squark-antisquark pairs at the LHC”,  Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 095004, 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.095004, arXiv:0905.4749.
  * [41] W. Beenakker et al., “Soft-gluon resummation for squark and gluino hadroproduction”,  JHEP 12 (2009) 041, 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/12/041, arXiv:0909.4418.
  * [42] W. Beenakker et al., “Squark and gluino hadroproduction”,  Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 26 (2011) 2637, 10.1142/S0217751X11053560, arXiv:1105.1110.
  * [43] C. Borschensky et al., “Squark and gluino production cross sections in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13, 14, 33 and 100”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3174, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3174-y, arXiv:1407.5066.
  * [44] 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.
  * [45] H. Akaike, “A new look at the statistical model identification”,  IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19-6 (1974) 716, 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705.
  * [46] M. J. Oreglia, “A study of the reactions $\psi^{\prime}\to\gamma\gamma\psi$”.  PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1980.  SLAC Report SLAC-R-236, see Appendix D.
  * [47] J. Gaiser, “Charmonium Spectroscopy From Radiative Decays of the $J/\psi$ and $\psi^{\prime}$”.  PhD thesis, SLAC, 1982\.
  * [48] W. Beenakker et al., “Production of charginos, neutralinos, and sleptons at hadron colliders”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 3780, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.3780, arXiv:hep-ph/9906298. [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 029901, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.029901].
  * [49] B. Fuks, M. Klasen, D. R. Lamprea, and M. Rothering, “Gaugino production in proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 8 TeV”,  JHEP 10 (2012) 081, 10.1007/JHEP10(2012)081, arXiv:1207.2159.
  * [50] B. Fuks, M. Klasen, D. R. Lamprea, and M. Rothering, “Precision predictions for electroweak superpartner production at hadron colliders with Resummino”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2480, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2480-0, arXiv:1304.0790.
  * [51] P. Z. Skands and Others, “SUSY Les Houches accord: interfacing SUSY spectrum calculators, decay packages, and event generators”,  JHEP 07 (2004) 036, 10.1088/1126-6708/2004/07/036, arXiv:Hep-Ph/0311123.
  * [52] A. L. Read, “Presentation of search results: the $CL_{s}$ technique”, in  Durham IPPP Workshop: Advanced Statistical Techniques in Particle Physics, p. 2693.  Durham, UK, March, 2002.  [J. Phys. G 28 (2002) 2693]. 10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/313.
  * [53] 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.
  * [54] ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, “Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in summer 2011”, Technical Report ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-011, CMS-NOTE-2011-005, CERN, 2011\.
  * [55] 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.

##  .9 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan Institut für Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, E. Asilar, T. Bergauer, J. Brandstetter, E. Brondolin, M.
Dragicevic, J. Erö, M. Flechl, M. Friedl, R. Frühwirth1, V.M. Ghete, J.
Grossmann, J. Hrubec, M. Jeitler1, A. König, N. Krammer, I. Krätschmer, D.
Liko, T. Madlener, I. Mikulec, E. Pree, D. Rabady, N. Rad, H. Rohringer, J.
Schieck1, R. Schöfbeck, M. Spanring, D. Spitzbart, J. Strauss, W.
Waltenberger, J. Wittmann, C.-E. Wulz1, M. Zarucki Institute for Nuclear
Problems, Minsk, Belarus
V. Chekhovsky, V. Mossolov, J. Suarez Gonzalez Universiteit Antwerpen,
Antwerpen, Belgium
E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, J. Lauwers, M. Van De Klundert, H. Van
Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, N. Van Remortel Vrije Universiteit Brussel,
Brussel, Belgium
S. Abu Zeid, F. Blekman, J. D’Hondt, I. De Bruyn, J. De Clercq, K. Deroover,
G. Flouris, D. Lontkovskyi, S. Lowette, S. Moortgat, L. Moreels, A. Olbrechts,
Q. Python, K. Skovpen, S. Tavernier, W. Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders, I. Van
Parijs Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
H. Brun, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, H. Delannoy, G. Fasanella, L. Favart,
R. Goldouzian, A. Grebenyuk, G. Karapostoli, T. Lenzi, J. Luetic, T.
Maerschalk, A. Marinov, A. Randle-conde, T. Seva, C. Vander Velde, P. Vanlaer,
D. Vannerom, R. Yonamine, F. Zenoni, F. Zhang2 Ghent University, Ghent,
Belgium
A. Cimmino, T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, A. Fagot, M. Gul, I. Khvastunov, D. Poyraz,
C. Roskas, S. Salva, M. Tytgat, W. Verbeke, N. Zaganidis Université Catholique
de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
H. Bakhshiansohi, O. Bondu, S. Brochet, G. Bruno, A. Caudron, S. De Visscher,
C. Delaere, M. Delcourt, B. Francois, A. Giammanco, A. Jafari, M. Komm, G.
Krintiras, V. Lemaitre, A. Magitteri, A. Mertens, M. Musich, K. Piotrzkowski,
L. Quertenmont, M. Vidal Marono, S. Wertz Université de Mons, Mons, Belgium
N. Beliy Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
W.L. Aldá Júnior, F.L. Alves, G.A. Alves, L. Brito, M. Correa Martins Junior,
C. Hensel, A. Moraes, M.E. Pol, P. Rebello Teles Universidade do Estado do Rio
de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato3, A. Custódio, E.M.
Da Costa, G.G. Da Silveira4, D. De Jesus Damiao, S. Fonseca De Souza, L.M.
Huertas Guativa, H. Malbouisson, M. Melo De Almeida, C. Mora Herrera, L.
Mundim, H. Nogima, A. Santoro, A. Sznajder, E.J. Tonelli Manganote3, F. Torres
Da Silva De Araujo, A. Vilela Pereira Universidade Estadual Paulista a,
Universidade Federal do ABC b, São Paulo, Brazil
S. Ahujaa, C.A. Bernardesa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M. Gregoresb, P.G.
Mercadanteb, S.F. Novaesa, Sandra S. Padulaa, D. Romero Abadb, J.C. Ruiz
Vargasa Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy of Bulgaria Academy
of Sciences
A. Aleksandrov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, M. Misheva, M. Rodozov, M. Shopova,
S. Stoykova, G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Dimitrov, I. Glushkov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov Beihang University,
Beijing, China
W. Fang5, X. Gao5 Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, J.G. Bian, G.M. Chen, H.S. Chen, M. Chen, Y. Chen, C.H. Jiang, D.
Leggat, H. Liao, Z. Liu, F. Romeo, S.M. Shaheen, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, C. Wang,
Z. Wang, E. Yazgan, H. Zhang, J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics
and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
Y. Ban, G. Chen, Q. Li, S. Liu, Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang, Z. Xu Universidad
de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, L.F. Chaparro Sierra, C. Florez, C.F. González
Hernández, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez University of Split, Faculty of Electrical
Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split, Croatia
B. Courbon, N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak, P.M. Ribeiro Cipriano, T.
Sculac University of Split, Faculty of Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, K. Kadija, B. Mesic, A. Starodumov6, T. Susa
University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos,
P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
M. Finger7, M. Finger Jr.7 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
A.A. Abdelalim8,9, Y. Mohammed10, E. Salama11,12 National Institute of
Chemical Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
R.K. Dewanjee, M. Kadastik, L. Perrini, M. Raidal, A. Tiko, C. Veelken
Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
P. Eerola, J. Pekkanen, M. Voutilainen Helsinki Institute of Physics,
Helsinki, Finland
J. Härkönen, T. Järvinen, V. Karimäki, R. Kinnunen, T. Lampén, K. Lassila-
Perini, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, P. Luukka, E. Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi, E.
Tuovinen Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
J. Talvitie, 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, S. Ghosh, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry,
I. Kucher, E. Locci, M. Machet, J. Malcles, G. Negro, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky,
M.Ö. Sahin, M. Titov Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole polytechnique,
CNRS/IN2P3, Université Paris-Saclay, Palaiseau, France
A. Abdulsalam, I. Antropov, S. Baffioni, F. Beaudette, P. Busson, L. Cadamuro,
C. Charlot, R. Granier de Cassagnac, M. Jo, S. Lisniak, A. Lobanov, J. Martin
Blanco, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, G. Ortona, P. Paganini, P. Pigard, S. Regnard,
R. Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A.G. Stahl Leiton, T. Strebler, Y. Yilmaz,
A. Zabi, A. Zghiche Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, F-67000
Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram13, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, J.-M. Brom, M. Buttignol, E.C. Chabert, N.
Chanon, C. Collard, E. Conte13, X. Coubez, J.-C. Fontaine13, D. Gelé, U.
Goerlach, M. Jansová, A.-C. Le Bihan, N. Tonon, P. Van Hove Centre de Calcul
de l’Institut National de Physique Nucleaire et de Physique des Particules,
CNRS/IN2P3, Villeurbanne, France
S. Gadrat Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3,
Institut de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, R. Chierici, D. Contardo, P. Depasse, H.
El Mamouni, J. Fay, L. Finco, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, G. Grenier, B. Ille,
F. Lagarde, I.B. Laktineh, M. Lethuillier, L. Mirabito, A.L. Pequegnot, S.
Perries, A. Popov14, V. Sordini, M. Vander Donckt, S. Viret Georgian Technical
University, Tbilisi, Georgia
A. Khvedelidze7 Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
Z. Tsamalaidze7 RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen,
Germany
C. Autermann, S. Beranek, L. Feld, M.K. Kiesel, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, M.
Preuten, C. Schomakers, J. Schulz, T. Verlage RWTH Aachen University, III.
Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany
A. Albert, E. Dietz-Laursonn, D. Duchardt, M. Endres, M. Erdmann, S. Erdweg,
T. Esch, R. Fischer, A. Güth, M. Hamer, T. Hebbeker, C. Heidemann, K.
Hoepfner, S. Knutzen, M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, P. Millet, S. Mukherjee, M.
Olschewski, K. Padeken, T. Pook, M. Radziej, H. Reithler, M. Rieger, F.
Scheuch, D. Teyssier, S. Thüer RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches
Institut B, Aachen, Germany
G. Flügge, B. Kargoll, T. Kress, A. Künsken, J. Lingemann, T. Müller, A.
Nehrkorn, A. Nowack, C. Pistone, O. Pooth, A. Stahl15 Deutsches Elektronen-
Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
M. Aldaya Martin, T. Arndt, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, K. Beernaert, O. Behnke, U.
Behrens, A. Bermúdez Martínez, A.A. Bin Anuar, K. Borras16, V. Botta, A.
Campbell, P. Connor, C. Contreras-Campana, F. Costanza, C. Diez Pardos, G.
Eckerlin, D. Eckstein, T. Eichhorn, E. Eren, E. Gallo17, J. Garay Garcia, A.
Geiser, A. Gizhko, J.M. Grados Luyando, A. Grohsjean, P. Gunnellini, A. Harb,
J. Hauk, M. Hempel18, H. Jung, A. Kalogeropoulos, M. Kasemann, J. Keaveney, C.
Kleinwort, I. Korol, D. Krücker, W. Lange, A. Lelek, T. Lenz, J. Leonard, K.
Lipka, W. Lohmann18, R. Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, A.B. Meyer, G. Mittag,
J. Mnich, A. Mussgiller, E. Ntomari, D. Pitzl, R. Placakyte, A. Raspereza, B.
Roland, M. Savitskyi, P. Saxena, R. Shevchenko, S. Spannagel, N. Stefaniuk,
G.P. Van Onsem, R. Walsh, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C. Wissing, O. Zenaiev
University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
S. Bein, V. Blobel, M. Centis Vignali, T. Dreyer, E. Garutti, D. Gonzalez, J.
Haller, A. Hinzmann, M. Hoffmann, A. Karavdina, R. Klanner, R. Kogler, N.
Kovalchuk, S. Kurz, T. Lapsien, I. Marchesini, D. Marconi, M. Meyer, M.
Niedziela, D. Nowatschin, F. Pantaleo15, T. Peiffer, A. Perieanu, C. Scharf,
P. Schleper, A. Schmidt, S. Schumann, J. Schwandt, J. Sonneveld, H. Stadie, G.
Steinbrück, F.M. Stober, M. Stöver, H. Tholen, D. Troendle, E. Usai, L.
Vanelderen, A. Vanhoefer, B. Vormwald Institut für Experimentelle Kernphysik,
Karlsruhe, Germany
M. Akbiyik, C. Barth, S. Baur, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, F. Colombo, W.
De Boer, A. Dierlamm, B. Freund, R. Friese, M. Giffels, A. Gilbert, D. Haitz,
F. Hartmann15, S.M. Heindl, U. Husemann, F. Kassel15, S. Kudella, H. Mildner,
M.U. Mozer, Th. Müller, M. Plagge, G. Quast, K. Rabbertz, M. Schröder, I.
Shvetsov, G. Sieber, H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, S. Wayand, M. Weber, T. Weiler,
S. Williamson, C. Wöhrmann, R. Wolf Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics
(INPP), NCSR Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
G. Anagnostou, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, V.A. Giakoumopoulou, A. Kyriakis, D.
Loukas, I. Topsis-Giotis National and Kapodistrian University of Athens,
Athens, Greece
S. Kesisoglou, A. Panagiotou, N. Saoulidou University of Ioánnina, Ioánnina,
Greece
I. Evangelou, C. Foudas, P. Kokkas, S. Mallios, N. Manthos, I. Papadopoulos,
E. Paradas, J. Strologas, F.A. Triantis MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and
Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
M. Csanad, N. Filipovic, G. Pasztor Wigner Research Centre for Physics,
Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath19, Á. Hunyadi, F. Sikler, V. Veszpremi, G.
Vesztergombi20, A.J. Zsigmond Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen,
Hungary
N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi21, A. Makovec, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi
Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
M. Bartók20, P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari Indian Institute of Science
(IISc), Bangalore, India
S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri National Institute of Science Education and
Research, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati22, S. Bhowmik, P. Mal, K. Mandal, A. Nayak23, D.K. Sahoo22, N.
Sahoo, S.K. Swain Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, U. Bhawandeep, R. Chawla, N. Dhingra, A.K.
Kalsi, A. Kaur, M. Kaur, R. Kumar, P. Kumari, A. Mehta, J.B. Singh, G. Walia
University of Delhi, Delhi, India
Ashok Kumar, Aashaq Shah, A. Bhardwaj, S. Chauhan, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg,
S. Keshri, A. Kumar, S. Malhotra, M. Naimuddin, K. Ranjan, R. Sharma, V.
Sharma Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India
R. Bhardwaj, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, S. Dey, S. Dutt, S. Dutta, S.
Ghosh, N. Majumdar, A. Modak, K. Mondal, S. Mukhopadhyay, S. Nandan, A.
Purohit, A. Roy, D. Roy, S. Roy Chowdhury, S. Sarkar, M. Sharan, S. Thakur
Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
R. Chudasama, D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, A.K. Mohanty15, P.K. Netrakanti,
L.M. Pant, P. Shukla, A. Topkar Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A,
Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, S. Dugad, B. Mahakud, S. Mitra, G.B. Mohanty, N. Sur, B. Sutar Tata
Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, P. Das, M. Guchait, Sa. Jain, S.
Kumar, M. Maity24, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, T. Sarkar24, N. Wickramage25
Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, India
S. Chauhan, S. Dube, V. Hegde, A. Kapoor, K. Kothekar, S. Pandey, A. Rane, S.
Sharma Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran
S. Chenarani26, E. Eskandari Tadavani, S.M. Etesami26, M. Khakzad, M.
Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri, S. Paktinat Mehdiabadi27, F. Rezaei
Hosseinabadi, B. Safarzadeh28, M. Zeinali 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, C. Calabriaa,b, C. Caputoa,b, A. Colaleoa, D. Creanzaa,c, L.
Cristellaa,b, N. De Filippisa,c, M. De Palmaa,b, F. Erricoa,b, L. Fiorea, G.
Iasellia,c, S. Lezkia,b, G. Maggia,c, M. Maggia, G. Minielloa,b, S. Mya,b, S.
Nuzzoa,b, A. Pompilia,b, G. Pugliesea,c, R. Radognaa,b, A. Ranieria, G.
Selvaggia,b, A. Sharmaa, L. Silvestrisa,15, R. Vendittia, P. Verwilligena INFN
Sezione di Bologna a, Università di Bologna b, Bologna, Italy
G. Abbiendia, C. Battilanaa,b, D. Bonacorsia,b, S. Braibant-Giacomellia,b, R.
Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A. Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa, S.S. Chhibraa, G.
Codispotia,b, M. Cuffiania,b, G.M. Dallavallea, F. Fabbria, A. Fanfania,b, D.
Fasanellaa,b, P. Giacomellia, C. Grandia, L. Guiduccia,b, S. Marcellinia, G.
Masettia, A. Montanaria, F.L. Navarriaa,b, A. Perrottaa, A.M. Rossia,b, T.
Rovellia,b, G.P. Sirolia,b, N. Tosia INFN Sezione di Catania a, Università di
Catania b, Catania, Italy
S. Albergoa,b, S. Costaa,b, A. Di Mattiaa, F. Giordanoa,b, R. Potenzaa,b, A.
Tricomia,b, C. Tuvea,b INFN Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b,
Firenze, Italy
G. Barbaglia, K. Chatterjeea,b, V. Ciullia,b, C. Civininia, R.
D’Alessandroa,b, E. Focardia,b, P. Lenzia,b, M. Meschinia, S. Paolettia, L.
Russoa,29, G. Sguazzonia, D. Stroma, L. Viliania,b,15 INFN Laboratori
Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, F. Fabbri, D. Piccolo, F. Primavera15 INFN Sezione di
Genova a, Università di Genova b, Genova, Italy
V. Calvellia,b, F. Ferroa, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia,b INFN Sezione di Milano-
Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, Italy
L. Brianzaa,b, F. Brivioa,b, V. Cirioloa,b, M.E. Dinardoa,b, S. Fiorendia,b,
S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P. Govonia,b, M. Malbertia,b, S. Malvezzia, R.A.
Manzonia,b, D. Menascea, L. Moronia, M. Paganonia,b, K. Pauwelsa,b, D.
Pedrinia, S. Pigazzinia,b,30, S. Ragazzia,b, T. Tabarelli de Fatisa,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, S. Di Guidaa,d,15, F. Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa,b,
A.O.M. Iorioa,b, W.A. Khana, L. Listaa, S. Meolaa,d,15, P. Paoluccia,15, C.
Sciaccaa,b, F. Thyssena INFN Sezione di Padova a, Università di Padova b,
Padova, Italy, Università di Trento c, Trento, Italy
P. Azzia,15, N. Bacchettaa, L. Benatoa,b, A. Bolettia,b, A. Carvalho Antunes
De Oliveiraa,b, P. Checchiaa, M. Dall’Ossoa,b, P. De Castro Manzanoa, T.
Dorigoa, U. Dossellia, F. Gasparinia,b, U. Gasparinia,b, A. Gozzelinoa, S.
Lacapraraa, P. Lujan, M. Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,b, N. Pozzobona,b, P.
Ronchesea,b, R. Rossina,b, F. Simonettoa,b, E. Torassaa, S. Venturaa, M.
Zanettia,b, P. Zottoa,b, G. Zumerlea,b INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di
Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
A. Braghieria, F. Fallavollitaa,b, A. Magnania,b, P. Montagnaa,b, S.P.
Rattia,b, V. Rea, M. Ressegotti, C. Riccardia,b, P. Salvinia, I. Vaia,b, P.
Vituloa,b INFN Sezione di Perugia a, Università di Perugia b, Perugia, Italy
L. Alunni Solestizia,b, M. Biasinia,b, G.M. Bileia, C. Cecchia,b, D.
Ciangottinia,b, L. Fanòa,b, P. Laricciaa,b, R. Leonardia,b, E. Manonia, G.
Mantovania,b, V. Mariania,b, M. Menichellia, A. Rossia,b, A. Santocchiaa,b, D.
Spigaa INFN Sezione di Pisa a, Università di Pisa b, Scuola Normale Superiore
di Pisa c, Pisa, Italy
K. Androsova, P. Azzurria,15, G. Bagliesia, J. Bernardinia, T. Boccalia, L.
Borrello, R. Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, G. Fedia, L.
Gianninia,c, A. Giassia, M.T. Grippoa,29, F. Ligabuea,c, T. Lomtadzea, E.
Mancaa,c, G. Mandorlia,c, L. Martinia,b, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, A.
Rizzia,b, A. Savoy-Navarroa,31, P. Spagnoloa, R. Tenchinia, G. Tonellia,b, A.
Venturia, P.G. Verdinia INFN Sezione di Roma a, Sapienza Università di Roma b,
Rome, Italy
L. Baronea,b, F. Cavallaria, M. Cipriania,b, N. Dacia, D. Del Rea,b,15, M.
Diemoza, S. Gellia,b, E. Longoa,b, F. Margarolia,b, B. Marzocchia,b, P.
Meridiania, G. Organtinia,b, R. Paramattia,b, F. Preiatoa,b, S. Rahatloua,b,
C. Rovellia, F. Santanastasioa,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, C. Biinoa, N. Cartigliaa, F. Cennaa,b, M. Costaa,b, R.
Covarellia,b, A. Deganoa,b, N. Demariaa, B. Kiania,b, C. Mariottia, S.
Masellia, E. Migliorea,b, V. Monacoa,b, E. Monteila,b, M. Montenoa, M.M.
Obertinoa,b, L. Pachera,b, N. Pastronea, M. Pelliccionia, G.L. Pinna
Angionia,b, F. Raveraa,b, A. Romeroa,b, M. Ruspaa,c, R. Sacchia,b, K.
Shchelinaa,b, V. Solaa, A. Solanoa,b, A. Staianoa, P. Traczyka,b INFN Sezione
di Trieste a, Università di Trieste b, Trieste, Italy
S. Belfortea, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, G. Della Riccaa,b, A. Zanettia
Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea
D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, M.S. Kim, J. Lee, S. Lee, S.W. Lee, C.S. Moon, Y.D. Oh, S.
Sekmen, D.C. Son, Y.C. Yang Chonbuk National University, Jeonju, Korea
A. Lee Chonnam National University, Institute for Universe and Elementary
Particles, Kwangju, Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon, G. Oh Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, J. Goh, T.J. Kim Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, D. Gyun, S. Ha, B. Hong, Y. Jo, Y. Kim, K. Lee, K.S.
Lee, S. Lee, J. Lim, S.K. Park, Y. Roh Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, H. Lee, K. Lee, K. Nam, S.B. Oh, B.C. Radburn-
Smith, S.h. Seo, U.K. Yang, H.D. Yoo, G.B. Yu University of Seoul, Seoul,
Korea
M. Choi, H. Kim, J.H. Kim, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park, G. Ryu Sungkyunkwan
University, Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, C. Hwang, J. Lee, I. Yu Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
V. Dudenas, A. Juodagalvis, J. Vaitkus National Centre for Particle Physics,
Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
I. Ahmed, Z.A. Ibrahim, M.A.B. Md Ali32, F. Mohamad Idris33, W.A.T. Wan
Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios
Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, C. Duran, I. Heredia-De La Cruz34,
R. Lopez-Fernandez, J. Mejia Guisao, R.I. Rabadán Trejo, G. Ramirez Sanchez,
R. Reyes-Almanza, A. Sanchez-Hernandez Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico
City, Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, F. Vazquez Valencia Benemerita
Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada Universidad Autónoma de
San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, Mexico
A. Morelos Pineda University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
P.H. Butler National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam University, Islamabad,
Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M. Ahmad, Q. Hassan, H.R. Hoorani, A. Saddique, M.A. Shah, M.
Shoaib, M. Waqas National Centre for Nuclear Research, Swierk, Poland
H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, T. Frueboes, M. Górski, M. Kazana, K.
Nawrocki, K. Romanowska-Rybinska, M. Szleper, P. Zalewski Institute of
Experimental Physics, Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk35, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J.
Krolikowski, M. Misiura, M. Olszewski, A. Pyskir, M. Walczak Laboratório de
Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas, Lisboa, Portugal
P. Bargassa, C. Beirão Da Cruz E Silva, B. Calpas, A. Di Francesco, P.
Faccioli, M. Gallinaro, J. Hollar, N. Leonardo, L. Lloret Iglesias, M.V.
Nemallapudi, J. Seixas, O. Toldaiev, D. Vadruccio, J. Varela Joint Institute
for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
S. Afanasiev, P. Bunin, M. Gavrilenko, I. Golutvin, I. Gorbunov, A. Kamenev,
V. Karjavin, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev36,37, V. Palichik, V.
Perelygin, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, N. Skatchkov, V. Smirnov, N. Voytishin, A.
Zarubin Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg),
Russia
Y. Ivanov, V. Kim38, E. Kuznetsova39, P. Levchenko, V. Murzin, V. Oreshkin, I.
Smirnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Vavilov, A. Vorobyev Institute for Nuclear
Research, Moscow, Russia
Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, M. Kirsanov,
N. Krasnikov, A. Pashenkov, D. Tlisov, A. Toropin Institute for Theoretical
and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, V. Popov, I. Pozdnyakov, G.
Safronov, A. Spiridonov, A. Stepennov, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A. Zhokin Moscow
Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev, A. Bylinkin37 National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow
Engineering Physics Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
M. Chadeeva40, P. Parygin, D. Philippov, S. Polikarpov, E. Popova, V. Rusinov
P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin37, I. Dremin37, M. Kirakosyan37, A. Terkulov Skobeltsyn
Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow,
Russia
A. Baskakov, A. Belyaev, E. Boos, V. Bunichev, M. Dubinin41, L. Dudko, A.
Gribushin, V. Klyukhin, O. Kodolova, I. Lokhtin, I. Miagkov, S. Obraztsov, S.
Petrushanko, V. Savrin, A. Snigirev Novosibirsk State University (NSU),
Novosibirsk, Russia
V. Blinov42, Y.Skovpen42, D. Shtol42 State Research Center of Russian
Federation, Institute for High Energy Physics, Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, S. Bitioukov, D. Elumakhov, V. Kachanov, A. Kalinin,
D. Konstantinov, V. Krychkine, V. Petrov, R. Ryutin, A. Sobol, S. Troshin, N.
Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and
Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic43, P. Cirkovic, D. Devetak, M. Dordevic, J. Milosevic, V. Rekovic
Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas
(CIEMAT), Madrid, Spain
J. Alcaraz Maestre, M. Barrio Luna, M. Cerrada, N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A.
Delgado Peris, A. Escalante Del Valle, C. Fernandez Bedoya, J.P. Fernández
Ramos, J. Flix, M.C. Fouz, P. Garcia-Abia, O. Gonzalez Lopez, S. Goy Lopez,
J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa, A. Pérez-Calero Yzquierdo, J. Puerta Pelayo, A.
Quintario Olmeda, I. Redondo, L. Romero, M.S. Soares, A. Álvarez Fernández
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
J.F. de Trocóniz, M. Missiroli, D. Moran Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain
J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, I. Gonzalez Caballero, J.R.
González Fernández, E. Palencia Cortezon, S. Sanchez Cruz, I. Suárez Andrés,
P. Vischia, J.M. Vizan Garcia Instituto de Física de Cantabria (IFCA), CSIC-
Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain
I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, B. Chazin Quero, E. Curras, M. Fernandez, J.
Garcia-Ferrero, G. Gomez, A. Lopez Virto, J. Marco, C. Martinez Rivero, P.
Martinez Ruiz del Arbol, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-
Jimeno, L. Scodellaro, N. Trevisani, I. Vila, R. Vilar Cortabitarte CERN,
European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland
D. Abbaneo, E. Auffray, P. Baillon, A.H. Ball, D. Barney, M. Bianco, P. Bloch,
A. Bocci, C. Botta, T. Camporesi, R. Castello, M. Cepeda, G. Cerminara, E.
Chapon, Y. Chen, D. d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, V. Daponte, A. David, M. De
Gruttola, A. De Roeck, E. Di Marco44, M. Dobson, B. Dorney, T. du Pree, M.
Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, P. Everaerts, G. Franzoni, J. Fulcher,
W. Funk, D. Gigi, K. Gill, F. Glege, D. Gulhan, S. Gundacker, M. Guthoff, P.
Harris, J. Hegeman, V. Innocente, P. Janot, O. Karacheban18, J. Kieseler, H.
Kirschenmann, V. Knünz, A. Kornmayer15, M.J. Kortelainen, M. Krammer1, C.
Lange, P. Lecoq, C. Lourenço, M.T. Lucchini, L. Malgeri, M. Mannelli, A.
Martelli, F. Meijers, J.A. Merlin, S. Mersi, E. Meschi, P. Milenovic45, F.
Moortgat, M. Mulders, H. Neugebauer, S. Orfanelli, L. Orsini, L. Pape, E.
Perez, M. Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, A.
Racz, T. Reis, G. Rolandi46, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M.
Seidel, M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva, P. Sphicas47, J. Steggemann, M.
Stoye, M. Tosi, D. Treille, A. Triossi, A. Tsirou, V. Veckalns48, G.I.
Veres20, M. Verweij, N. Wardle, W.D. Zeuner Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen,
Switzerland
W. Bertl${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, L. Caminada49, K. Deiters, W. Erdmann, R.
Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C. Kaestli, D. Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, T. Rohe,
S.A. Wiederkehr Institute for Particle Physics, ETH Zurich, Zurich,
Switzerland
F. Bachmair, L. Bäni, P. Berger, L. Bianchini, B. Casal, G. Dissertori, M.
Dittmar, M. Donegà, C. Grab, C. Heidegger, D. Hits, J. Hoss, G. Kasieczka, T.
Klijnsma, W. Lustermann, B. Mangano, M. Marionneau, M.T. Meinhard, D. Meister,
F. Micheli, P. Musella, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, F. Pandolfi, J. Pata, F. Pauss, G.
Perrin, L. Perrozzi, M. Quittnat, M. Schönenberger, L. Shchutska, V.R.
Tavolaro, K. Theofilatos, M.L. Vesterbacka Olsson, R. Wallny, A.
Zagozdzinska35, D.H. Zhu Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, C. Amsler50, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, S. Donato, C. Galloni,
T. Hreus, B. Kilminster, J. Ngadiuba, D. Pinna, G. Rauco, P. Robmann, D.
Salerno, C. Seitz, Y. Takahashi, A. Zucchetta National Central University,
Chung-Li, Taiwan
V. Candelise, T.H. Doan, Sh. Jain, R. Khurana, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A.
Pozdnyakov, S.S. Yu National Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
Arun Kumar, P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, F. Fiori, W.-S. Hou, Y.
Hsiung, Y.F. Liu, R.-S. Lu, M. Miñano Moya, E. Paganis, A. Psallidas, J.f.
Tsai Chulalongkorn University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physics,
Bangkok, Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, K. Kovitanggoon, G. Singh, N. Srimanobhas Çukurova University,
Physics Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
A. Adiguzel51, F. Boran, S. Cerci52, S. Damarseckin, Z.S. Demiroglu, C. Dozen,
I. Dumanoglu, S. Girgis, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, I. Hos53, E.E. Kangal54, O.
Kara, A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, M. Oglakci, G. Onengut55, K. Ozdemir56, D.
Sunar Cerci52, B. Tali52, S. Turkcapar, I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle
East Technical University, Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey
B. Bilin, G. Karapinar57, K. Ocalan58, M. Yalvac, M. Zeyrek Bogazici
University, Istanbul, Turkey
E. Gülmez, M. Kaya59, O. Kaya60, S. Tekten, E.A. Yetkin61 Istanbul Technical
University, Istanbul, Turkey
M.N. Agaras, S. Atay, A. Cakir, K. Cankocak 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, P. Sorokin University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
R. Aggleton, F. Ball, L. Beck, J.J. Brooke, D. Burns, E. Clement, D. Cussans,
O. Davignon, H. Flacher, J. Goldstein, M. Grimes, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, J.
Jacob, L. Kreczko, C. Lucas, D.M. Newbold62, S. Paramesvaran, A. Poll, T.
Sakuma, S. Seif El Nasr-storey, D. Smith, V.J. Smith Rutherford Appleton
Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev63, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, L. Calligaris, D. Cieri, D.J.A.
Cockerill, J.A. Coughlan, K. Harder, S. Harper, E. Olaiya, D. Petyt, C.H.
Shepherd-Themistocleous, A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin, T. Williams Imperial College,
London, United Kingdom
R. Bainbridge, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A. Bundock, S. Casasso, M. Citron, D.
Colling, L. Corpe, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, A. De Wit, M. Della Negra, R. Di
Maria, A. Elwood, Y. Haddad, G. Hall, G. Iles, T. James, R. Lane, C. Laner, L.
Lyons, A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, L. Mastrolorenzo, T. Matsushita, J. Nash, A.
Nikitenko6, V. Palladino, M. Pesaresi, D.M. Raymond, A. Richards, A. Rose, E.
Scott, C. Seez, A. Shtipliyski, S. Summers, A. Tapper, K. Uchida, M. Vazquez
Acosta64, T. Virdee15, D. Winterbottom, J. Wright, S.C. Zenz Brunel
University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, I.D. Reid, P. Symonds, L.
Teodorescu, M. Turner Baylor University, Waco, USA
A. Borzou, K. Call, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, H. Liu, N. Pastika, C. Smith
Catholic University of America, Washington DC, USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
A. Buccilli, S.I. Cooper, C. Henderson, P. Rumerio, C. West Boston University,
Boston, USA
D. Arcaro, A. Avetisyan, T. Bose, D. Gastler, D. Rankin, C. Richardson, J.
Rohlf, L. Sulak, D. Zou Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, D. Cutts, A. Garabedian, J. Hakala, U. Heintz, J.M. Hogan, K.H.M.
Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, Z. Mao, M. Narain, J. Pazzini, S. Piperov, S.
Sagir, R. Syarif, D. Yu University of California, Davis, Davis, USA
R. Band, C. Brainerd, D. Burns, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez, M. Chertok,
J. Conway, R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, G. Funk, M. Gardner,
W. Ko, R. Lander, C. Mclean, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, J. Pilot, S. Shalhout,
M. Shi, J. Smith, M. Squires, D. Stolp, K. Tos, M. Tripathi, Z. Wang
University of California, Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, C. Bravo, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, A. Florent, J. Hauser, M.
Ignatenko, N. Mccoll, D. Saltzberg, C. Schnaible, V. Valuev University of
California, Riverside, Riverside, USA
E. Bouvier, K. Burt, R. Clare, J. Ellison, J.W. Gary, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi,
G. Hanson, J. Heilman, P. Jandir, E. Kennedy, F. Lacroix, O.R. Long, M. Olmedo
Negrete, M.I. Paneva, A. Shrinivas, W. Si, L. Wang, H. Wei, S. Wimpenny, B. R.
Yates University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, S. Cittolin, M. Derdzinski, R. Gerosa, B. Hashemi, A. Holzner,
D. Klein, G. Kole, V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, I. Macneill, M. Masciovecchio, D.
Olivito, S. Padhi, M. Pieri, M. Sani, V. Sharma, S. Simon, M. Tadel, A.
Vartak, S. Wasserbaech65, J. Wood, F. Würthwein, A. Yagil, G. Zevi Della Porta
University of California, Santa Barbara - Department of Physics, Santa
Barbara, USA
N. Amin, R. Bhandari, J. Bradmiller-Feld, C. Campagnari, A. Dishaw, V. Dutta,
M. Franco Sevilla, C. George, F. Golf, L. Gouskos, J. Gran, R. Heller, J.
Incandela, S.D. Mullin, A. Ovcharova, H. Qu, J. Richman, D. Stuart, I. Suarez,
J. Yoo California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
D. Anderson, J. Bendavid, A. Bornheim, J.M. Lawhorn, H.B. Newman, T. Nguyen,
C. Pena, M. Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, S. Xie, Z. Zhang, R.Y. Zhu Carnegie
Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
M.B. Andrews, T. Ferguson, T. Mudholkar, M. Paulini, J. Russ, M. Sun, H.
Vogel, I. Vorobiev, M. Weinberg University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, F. Jensen, A. Johnson, M. Krohn, S. Leontsinis, T.
Mulholland, K. Stenson, S.R. Wagner Cornell University, Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, J. Chaves, J. Chu, S. Dittmer, K. Mcdermott, N. Mirman, J.R.
Patterson, A. Rinkevicius, A. Ryd, L. Skinnari, L. Soffi, S.M. Tan, Z. Tao, J.
Thom, J. Tucker, P. Wittich, M. Zientek Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
Batavia, USA
S. Abdullin, M. Albrow, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S. Banerjee,
L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, G. Bolla, K. Burkett,
J.N. Butler, A. Canepa, G.B. Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M. Cremonesi,
J. Duarte, V.D. Elvira, J. Freeman, Z. Gecse, E. Gottschalk, L. Gray, D.
Green, S. Grünendahl, O. Gutsche, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, J. Hirschauer, Z.
Hu, B. Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, B. Klima, B. Kreis, S.
Lammel, D. Lincoln, R. Lipton, M. Liu, T. Liu, R. Lopes De Sá, J. Lykken, K.
Maeshima, N. Magini, J.M. Marraffino, S. Maruyama, D. Mason, P. McBride, P.
Merkel, S. Mrenna, S. Nahn, V. O’Dell, K. Pedro, O. Prokofyev, G. Rakness, L.
Ristori, B. Schneider, E. Sexton-Kennedy, A. Soha, W.J. Spalding, L. Spiegel,
S. Stoynev, J. Strait, N. Strobbe, L. Taylor, S. Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran, L.
Uplegger, E.W. Vaandering, C. Vernieri, M. Verzocchi, R. Vidal, M. Wang, H.A.
Weber, A. Whitbeck University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, P. Bortignon, D. Bourilkov, A. Brinkerhoff, A. Carnes, M.
Carver, D. Curry, S. Das, R.D. Field, I.K. Furic, J. Konigsberg, A. Korytov,
K. Kotov, P. Ma, K. Matchev, H. Mei, G. Mitselmakher, D. Rank, D. Sperka, N.
Terentyev, L. Thomas, J. Wang, S. Wang, J. Yelton Florida International
University, Miami, USA
Y.R. Joshi, S. Linn, P. Markowitz, J.L. Rodriguez Florida State University,
Tallahassee, USA
A. Ackert, T. Adams, A. Askew, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F. Johnson, T.
Kolberg, G. Martinez, T. Perry, H. Prosper, A. Saha, A. Santra, R. Yohay
Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, V. Bhopatkar, S. Colafranceschi, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, T.
Roy, F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago, USA
M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, D. Berry, R.R. Betts, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, O.
Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, K. Jung, J. Kamin, I.D.
Sandoval Gonzalez, M.B. Tonjes, H. Trauger, N. Varelas, H. Wang, Z. Wu, J.
Zhang The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
B. Bilki66, W. Clarida, K. Dilsiz67, S. Durgut, R.P. Gandrajula, M.
Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko, J.-P. Merlo, H. Mermerkaya68, A. Mestvirishvili,
A. Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul69, Y. Onel, F. Ozok70, A. Penzo, C. Snyder,
E. Tiras, J. Wetzel, K. Yi Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
B. Blumenfeld, A. Cocoros, N. Eminizer, D. Fehling, L. Feng, A.V. Gritsan, P.
Maksimovic, J. Roskes, U. Sarica, M. Swartz, M. Xiao, C. You The University of
Kansas, Lawrence, USA
A. Al-bataineh, P. Baringer, A. Bean, S. Boren, J. Bowen, J. Castle, S.
Khalil, A. Kropivnitskaya, D. Majumder, W. Mcbrayer, M. Murray, C. Royon, S.
Sanders, E. Schmitz, R. Stringer, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang Kansas State
University, Manhattan, USA
A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, Y. Maravin, A. Mohammadi, L.K. Saini, N. Skhirtladze, S.
Toda Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright University of Maryland, College Park, USA
C. Anelli, A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, B. Calvert, S.C. Eno, C. Ferraioli,
N.J. Hadley, S. Jabeen, G.Y. Jeng, R.G. Kellogg, J. Kunkle, A.C. Mignerey, F.
Ricci-Tam, Y.H. Shin, A. Skuja, S.C. Tonwar Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, V. Azzolini, R. Barbieri, A. Baty, R. Bi, S. Brandt,
W. Busza, I.A. Cali, M. D’Alfonso, Z. Demiragli, G. Gomez Ceballos, M.
Goncharov, D. Hsu, Y. Iiyama, G.M. Innocenti, M. Klute, D. Kovalskyi, Y.S.
Lai, Y.-J. Lee, A. Levin, P.D. Luckey, B. Maier, A.C. Marini, C. Mcginn, C.
Mironov, S. Narayanan, X. Niu, C. Paus, C. Roland, G. Roland, J. Salfeld-
Nebgen, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Tatar, D. Velicanu, J. Wang, T.W. Wang, B.
Wyslouch University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
A.C. Benvenuti, R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, P. Hansen, S. Kalafut, Y. Kubota,
Z. Lesko, J. Mans, S. Nourbakhsh, N. Ruckstuhl, R. Rusack, J. Turkewitz
University of Mississippi, Oxford, USA
J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
E. Avdeeva, K. Bloom, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, R. Gonzalez Suarez, R.
Kamalieddin, I. Kravchenko, J. Monroy, J.E. Siado, G.R. Snow, B. Stieger State
University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
M. Alyari, J. Dolen, A. Godshalk, C. Harrington, I. Iashvili, D. Nguyen, A.
Parker, S. Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani Northeastern University, Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, A. Hortiangtham, A. Massironi, D.M. Morse, D. Nash,
T. Orimoto, R. Teixeira De Lima, D. Trocino, D. Wood Northwestern University,
Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, O. Charaf, K.A. Hahn, N. Mucia, N. Odell, B. Pollack, M.H.
Schmitt, K. Sung, M. Trovato, M. Velasco University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame,
USA
N. Dev, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop, D.J. Karmgard, N. Kellams,
K. Lannon, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, F. Meng, C. Mueller, Y. Musienko36, M.
Planer, A. Reinsvold, R. Ruchti, G. Smith, S. Taroni, M. Wayne, M. Wolf, A.
Woodard The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA
J. Alimena, L. Antonelli, B. Bylsma, L.S. Durkin, S. Flowers, B. Francis, A.
Hart, C. Hill, W. Ji, B. Liu, W. Luo, D. Puigh, B.L. Winer, H.W. Wulsin
Princeton University, Princeton, USA
A. Benaglia, S. Cooperstein, O. Driga, P. Elmer, J. Hardenbrook, P. Hebda, S.
Higginbotham, D. Lange, 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
A. Barker, V.E. Barnes, S. Folgueras, L. Gutay, M.K. Jha, M. Jones, A.W. Jung,
A. Khatiwada, D.H. Miller, N. Neumeister, C.C. Peng, J.F. Schulte, J. Sun, F.
Wang, W. Xie Purdue University Northwest, Hammond, USA
T. Cheng, N. Parashar, J. Stupak Rice University, Houston, USA
A. Adair, B. Akgun, Z. Chen, K.M. Ecklund, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Guilbaud, W. Li,
B. Michlin, M. Northup, B.P. Padley, J. Roberts, J. Rorie, Z. Tu, J. Zabel
University of Rochester, Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, Y.t. Duh, T. Ferbel, M. Galanti, A.
Garcia-Bellido, J. Han, O. Hindrichs, A. Khukhunaishvili, K.H. Lo, P. Tan, M.
Verzetti The Rockefeller University, New York, USA
R. Ciesielski, K. Goulianos, C. Mesropian Rutgers, The State University of New
Jersey, Piscataway, USA
A. Agapitos, J.P. Chou, Y. Gershtein, T.A. Gómez Espinosa, E. Halkiadakis, M.
Heindl, E. Hughes, S. Kaplan, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, S. Kyriacou, A. Lath,
R. Montalvo, K. Nash, M. Osherson, H. Saka, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, D.
Sheffield, S. Somalwar, R. Stone, S. Thomas, P. Thomassen, M. Walker
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
A.G. Delannoy, M. Foerster, J. Heideman, G. Riley, K. Rose, S. Spanier, K.
Thapa Texas A&M University, College Station, USA
O. Bouhali71, A. Castaneda Hernandez71, A. Celik, M. Dalchenko, M. De Mattia,
A. Delgado, S. Dildick, R. Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T. Kamon72, R.
Mueller, Y. Pakhotin, R. Patel, A. Perloff, L. Perniè, D. Rathjens, A.
Safonov, A. Tatarinov, K.A. Ulmer Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, F. De Guio, P.R. Dudero, J. Faulkner, E. Gurpinar, S.
Kunori, K. Lamichhane, S.W. Lee, T. Libeiro, T. Peltola, S. Undleeb, I.
Volobouev, Z. Wang Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H. Ni, P.
Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska, Q. Xu University of Virginia, Charlottesville,
USA
M.W. Arenton, P. Barria, B. Cox, R. Hirosky, A. Ledovskoy, H. Li, C. Neu, T.
Sinthuprasith, X. Sun, Y. Wang, E. Wolfe, F. Xia Wayne State University,
Detroit, USA
R. Harr, P.E. Karchin, J. Sturdy, S. Zaleski University of Wisconsin -
Madison, Madison, WI, USA
M. Brodski, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, S. Dasu, L. Dodd, S. Duric, B. Gomber, M.
Grothe, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, P. Klabbers, A. Lanaro, A. Levine,
K. Long, R. Loveless, G.A. Pierro, G. Polese, T. Ruggles, A. Savin, N. Smith,
W.H. Smith, D. Taylor, N. Woods †: Deceased
1: Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria
2: Also at State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking
University, Beijing, China
3: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
4: Also at Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil
5: Also at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
6: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
7: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
8: Also at Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
9: Now at Zewail City of Science and Technology, Zewail, Egypt
10: Now at Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt
11: Also at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt
12: Now at Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
13: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
14: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
15: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
16: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
17: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
18: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
19: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
20: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
21: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
22: Also at Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India
23: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
24: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
25: Also at University of Ruhuna, Matara, Sri Lanka
26: Also at Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
27: Also at Yazd University, Yazd, Iran
28: Also at Plasma Physics Research Center, Science and Research Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
29: Also at Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy
30: Also at INFN Sezione di Milano-Bicocca; Università di Milano-Bicocca,
Milano, Italy
31: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
32: Also at International Islamic University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
33: Also at Malaysian Nuclear Agency, MOSTI, Kajang, Malaysia
34: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico city, Mexico
35: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems,
Warsaw, Poland
36: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
37: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
38: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
39: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
40: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
41: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
42: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
43: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
44: Also at INFN Sezione di Roma; Sapienza Università di Roma, Rome, Italy
45: Also at University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of
Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
46: Also at Scuola Normale e Sezione dell’INFN, Pisa, Italy
47: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
48: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
49: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
50: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics (SMI), Vienna,
Austria
51: Also at Istanbul University, Faculty of Science, Istanbul, Turkey
52: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
53: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey
54: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
55: Also at Cag University, Mersin, Turkey
56: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
57: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
58: Also at Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
59: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
60: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
61: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
62: Also at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
63: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
64: Also at Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, La Laguna, Spain
65: Also at Utah Valley University, Orem, USA
66: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey
67: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
68: Also at Erzincan University, Erzincan, Turkey
69: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
70: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
71: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
72: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea