SMP-19-013

SMP-19-013

# Measurements of the $\Pp\Pp\to\PWpm\PGg\PGg$ and $\Pp\Pp\to\PZ\PGg\PGg$
cross sections at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ and limits on anomalous quartic gauge
couplings

###### Abstract

The cross section for $\PW$ or $\PZ$ boson production in association with two
photons is measured in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of
13. The data set corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 137collected by
the CMS experiment at the LHC. The $\PW\to\ell\PGn$ and $\PZ\to\ell\ell$ decay
modes (where $\ell=\Pe,\PGm$) are used to extract the $\PW\PGg\PGg$ and
$\PZ\PGg\PGg$ cross sections in a phase space defined by electron (muon) with
transverse momentum larger than 30and photon transverse momentum larger than
20. All leptons and photons are required to have absolute pseudorapidity
smaller than 2.5. The measured cross sections in this phase space are
$\sigma(\PW\PGg\PGg)=13.6^{+1.9}_{-1.9}\stat^{+4.0}_{-4.0}\syst\pm
0.08{\,\text{(PDF + scale)}}\,\text{fb}$ and
$\sigma(\PZ\PGg\PGg)=5.41^{+0.58}_{-0.55}\stat^{+0.64}_{-0.70}\syst\pm
0.06{\,\text{(PDF + scale)}}\,\text{fb}$. Limits on anomalous quartic gauge
couplings are set in the framework of an effective field theory with
dimension-8 operators.

##  0.1 Introduction

The measurement of the associated production of a vector boson $\PV$
$(=\PW,\PZ)$ and two photons in proton-proton ($\Pp\Pp$) collisions is a
powerful test of the standard model (SM). The nonabelian nature of the
electroweak interaction predicts the presence of self-interacting vector boson
vertices. The strength of the interaction is set by the values of triple and
quartic gauge couplings predicted by the SM. The measurement of possible
deviations from the theoretical predictions could provide indirect evidence of
new particles or new interactions. Discrepancies at high photon momentum,
where new physics might give a measurable deviation from the SM cross section,
would produce evidence for the possible existence of anomalous quartic gauge
couplings (aQGCs). A parametrisation of predictions involving anomalous
couplings, independent of any specific new physics model, can be calculated in
an effective field theory (EFT) framework [1]. Triboson production is also an
important background for several SM and beyond the SM processes, such as the
Higgs boson production in association with vector bosons (with
$\PH\to\PGg\PGg$). Thus, studies of the self-couplings of the electroweak
gauge bosons provide an excellent opportunity for a deeper understanding of
electroweak interactions.

Some of the elementary processes resulting in the production of a massive
vector boson in association with two photons at the CERN LHC are presented in
the leading-order (LO) Feynman diagrams of Fig. 1. Topologies with final
states that originate from events where the $\PV$ boson is produced in the
hard interaction between the two partons, and the photons come from either
initial or final state radiation processes or from quartic gauge vertices
together with the $\PV$ boson, are studied, and are referred to as
$\PV\PGg\PGg$ in the text.

Figure 1: Representative Feynman diagrams for the $\PV\PGg\PGg$ production in
the SM (top left, top right and bottom left) and beyond the SM (bottom right).

Previous measurements of the $\PV\PGg\PGg$ production cross sections have been
performed by the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations at the CERN LHC in $\Pp\Pp$
collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=8\TeV$ [2, 3, 4]. Limits on
the presence of aQGCs were also reported in these papers.

In this paper, the first measurements of the $\Pp\Pp\to\PW\PGg\PGg$ and
$\Pp\Pp\to\PZ\PGg\PGg$ cross sections at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ are presented using
data collected between 2016 and 2018 by the CMS experiment, corresponding to
an integrated luminosity of 137. For these measurements, only direct decays
into electrons or muons are considered. Measurements are compared with the
latest available calculations at next-to-LO (NLO) in perturbative quantum
chromodynamics (QCD) [5, 6, 7]. Limits on the aQGCs are presented in the
framework of an electroweak EFT with dimension-8 operators.

##  0.2 The CMS detector

The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6 m
internal diameter, providing a magnetic field of 3.8 T. 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. Forward
calorimeters extend the pseudorapidity $\eta$ coverage provided by the barrel
and endcap detectors. Muons are detected in gas-ionisation chambers embedded
in the steel flux-return yoke outside the solenoid.

Events of interest are selected using a two-tiered trigger system [8]. The
first level, composed of custom hardware processors, uses information from the
calorimeters and muon detectors to select events at a rate of around 100 kHz
with a latency of about 4. The second level, known as the high-level trigger,
consists of a farm of processors running a version of the full event
reconstruction software optimised for fast processing that reduces the event
rate to around 1 kHz before data storage.

A more detailed description of the CMS detector, together with a definition of
the coordinate system used and the relevant kinematic variables, is reported
in Ref. [9].

##  0.3 Event simulation

The associated production of a $\PW$ $(\PZ)$ boson and at least two photons is
searched for in events with one lepton (two opposite-sign, same-flavour
leptons) and two photons. Only electron and muon decay channels are used,
while the $\PGt$ decays are treated as a background. The $\PV\PGg\PGg$ signal
samples are generated at NLO with [10] (2.2.2 for 2016 samples, 2.2.6 for 2017
and 2018 samples) with no additional jets in the matrix element calculation.
The NLO NNPDF 3.0 set [11] (for 2016 samples) and the next-to-NLO NNPDF 3.1
set [12] (for 2017 and 2018 samples) are used as parton distribution function
(PDF) sets.

The main background contribution comes from the misidentification of jets as
photons, which is estimated in single-photon control regions. Thus, various
background samples involving a single photon are needed, including
$\PV(\PV)\PGg$ samples. Other single-photon and diphoton processes (such as
$\PQt\PAQt$ produced in association with one or two photons or a photon and a
jet) contribute as backgrounds and are estimated using Monte Carlo (MC)
simulations. The background contribution from the associated production of a
$\PW(\PZ)$ boson and a Higgs boson decaying to two photons is negligible, and
is not considered.

The $\PV\PGg$, the $\PQt\PGg$ and the $\PQt\PAQt\PGg$ samples are generated at
NLO with with up to one additional jet in the matrix element calculation. The
$\PV\PV\PGg$ and the $\PQt\PAQt\PGg\PGg$ samples are generated at NLO with
with no additional jets in the matrix element calculation. The $\PGg$ plus
jets samples are generated at LO with . The same PDF sets as for the signal
samples are used. Alternative $\PV\PGg$ samples, which are generated with
v2.2.6 [13, 14] at NLO precision with up to two additional jets and at LO
precision for the three-jet computation using the NNPDF 3.1 set, are used for
consistency checks and systematic uncertainties evaluations.

The v.8.226 (v.8.230) package version is used for hadronisation with the
CUETP8M1 tune [15] (CP5 tune [16]) for the 2016 (2017 and 2018) samples.

Photons can be present also in other processes because of the hadronisation
phase of the generation performed with (v.8.2) even if not explicitly produced
at matrix element level. To avoid possible double counting effects in the
event selection, a procedure for the removal of the overlapping phase space
region between inclusive and exclusive samples is implemented. Photons are
selected at the generator level following a selection as close as possible to
the one performed at reconstruction level. The total number of selected
photons at the generator level is then used to remove the overlapping phase
space between different samples. For single-photon processes (such as
$\PW\PGg$ or $\PZ\PGg$), the event is discarded if the total number of
selected photons at the generator level is different from one. The event is
discarded from the diphoton processes if it has less than two photons selected
at the generator level.

Predictions for aQGC signals are obtained by including a set of weights,
corresponding to the presence of the anomalous couplings, to the $\PV\PGg\PGg$
reference samples simulated with . For this purpose, an aQGC model [17] is
used.

Additional $\Pp\Pp$ interactions in the same or adjacent bunch crossings
(known as pileup) is included by adding simulated minimum bias events to the
hard scattering. The events in the MC simulations are weighted so the
distribution of the number of pileup interactions matches the one measured in
data. The interaction of the particles with the CMS detector is simulated with
[18].

##  0.4 Event selection

Events for the $\PV\PGg\PGg$ analysis are selected using isolated single-
lepton trigger requirements [8]. Single-electron trigger algorithms have a
transverse-momentum threshold of 27(for the 2016 data-taking period) and
32(for the 2017 and 2018 data-taking periods); single-muon trigger algorithms
require above 24for all three years.

All measured particles are reconstructed using the particle-flow (PF)
algorithm [19]; this algorithm reconstructs and identifies each individual
particle in an event with an optimised combination of information from the
various elements of the CMS detector. The reconstructed vertex with the
largest value of the sum of the $\pt^{2}$ of the physics objects is the
primary $\Pp\Pp$ interaction vertex. The photon energies are obtained from the
ECAL measurement. The electron energies are determined from a combination of
the electron momentum at the primary interaction vertex as determined by the
tracker, the energy of the corresponding ECAL cluster, and the energy sum of
all bremsstrahlung photons spatially compatible with the ones originating from
the electron track. The muon energies are obtained from the curvature of the
muon tracks.

Electrons candidates are required to have $\pt>15\GeV$ in the pseudorapidity
ranges that exclude the barrel-endcap transition region, $\abs{\eta}<1.44$ and
$1.57<\abs{\eta}<2.50$. A variety of criteria is used to separate genuine
electrons from misidentified ones. A tight identification is used to select
prompt electrons (produced at the primary vertex) and isolated electrons in
the final state [20]. Background contributions from misidentified jets or
electrons inside a jet are rejected applying electron isolation criteria,
which exploit the PF-based event reconstruction. The electron isolation
variables are obtained by summing the of charged hadrons compatible with the
primary vertex $I_{\text{chg}}$, of neutral hadrons $I_{\text{neu}}$, and of
photons $I_{\text{pho}}$ inside a cone of radius $\Delta
R=\sqrt{\smash[b]{(\Delta\eta)^{2}+(\Delta\phi)^{2}}}=0.3$ around the electron
direction, where $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle in radians. Additional photons
and neutral hadronic contributions to the isolation variable, coming from
pileup, are subtracted using the jet area approach [21].

Muons candidates are required to have $\pt>15\GeV$ in the pseudorapidity range
$\abs{\eta}<2.4$. Muon identification criteria are based on the fit quality
for tracks measured in the tracker and muon detectors. A tight muon
identification is used to reconstruct muons in the final state [22]. To
distinguish between prompt muons and those from hadron decays within jets,
muons are required to be isolated with respect to all nearby PF reconstructed
particles. For the computation of the PF isolation, the $I_{\text{chg}}$,
$I_{\text{neu}}$ and $I_{\text{pho}}$ components are summed in a cone of
$\Delta R=0.4$ around the muon direction. The corrected energy sum is obtained
by subtracting the pileup contribution to $I_{\text{neu}}$ and
$I_{\text{pho}}$, which is estimated as half of the corresponding charged
hadronic component.

Photons are selected with $\pt>20\GeV$ in the pseudorapidity range
$\abs{\eta}<1.44$ and $1.57<\abs{\eta}<2.5$. Photon identification is based on
the sequential application of several selections. A medium photon
identification is used to reconstruct prompt photons (not from hadron decays)
in the final state [20]. The average efficiency for this selection is 80%.
Photons selected in this analysis are required to have a narrow transverse
shape of the electromagnetic shower, a minimal energy deposit in the HCAL, and
to be isolated with respect to other particles. The same isolation variable
previously described for the electron selection is used.

The reconstruction, identification, and isolation efficiencies of leptons and
photons and the trigger efficiencies of leptons are measured with the “tag-
and-probe” technique [23], as a function of particle $\eta$ and in both data
and simulation. A sample of events containing a $\PZ$ boson decaying into
$\Pep\Pem$ or $\PGmp\PGmm$ is used for these measurements. The photon
efficiencies are derived using a sample of electrons from $\PZ$ decays with no
requirement on the track and charge of the candidate. These efficiencies are
used to correct for the differences between data and simulation.

An event is categorised as a $\PW$ decaying to leptons if exactly one electron
(muon) with $\pt>35\,(30)\GeV$ is selected. The selected lepton must match the
one that triggered the event and must be associated with the primary vertex of
the collision. If the event contains any additional different-flavour leptons
or opposite-sign same-flavour leptons, it is excluded from the $\PW$ boson
candidate sample, but is further checked for the presence of a $\PZ$ boson
candidate.

An event is categorised as a $\PZ$ boson candidate decaying to leptons if two
opposite-sign leptons of the same flavour are selected. The leading electron
(muon) is required to have $\pt>35\,(30)\GeV$, and the subleading electron or
muon is required to have $\pt>15\GeV$. Only the leading lepton is required to
match the one that triggered the event, although both are required to be
associated with the primary vertex of the collision. The invariant mass of the
dilepton system is required to be $m_{\ell\ell}>55\GeV$.

Events are selected if they have a single $\PW$ or $\PZ$ boson candidate and
at least two photons. All reconstructed photons must be separated from each
other and from each reconstructed lepton by $\Delta R>0.4$. Photons are
discarded if $\abs{m_{\Pe,\PGg}-m_{\PZ}}<5\GeV$ (where $m_{\Pe,\PGg}$ is the
invariant mass of an electron and the leading or subleading photon and
$m_{\PZ}$ is the $\PZ$ boson invariant mass) or if
$\abs{m_{\Pe\PGg\PGg}-m_{\PZ}}<5\GeV$ (where $m_{\Pe\PGg\PGg}$ is the
invariant mass of an electron and the two photons). In this way, photons
likely coming from final-state bremsstrahlung radiation are removed and,
therefore, the contribution from electrons misidentified as photons is reduced
as well.

##  0.5 Background estimation

The backgrounds in both the $\PW\PGg\PGg$ and $\PZ\PGg\PGg$ signal regions are
categorised as events with a genuine photon or with another object
misidentified as a photon. The largest contribution in both channels comes
from the misidentification of jets as photons. Another important source of
background originates from electrons that are reconstructed as photons because
the deposit in the calorimeter is not associated with a track in the tracker.
This contribution is particularly relevant in the $\PW\PGg\PGg$ electron
channel, and is dominated by the $\PZ\PGg$ electron channel. Both of these
background processes are estimated by exploiting a control sample in data. The
remaining minor contributions from processes that have at least one genuine
photon ($\PQt\PGg$, $\PQt\PAQt\PGg$, $\PQt\PAQt\PGg\PGg$, $\PV\PGg$ and
$\PV\PV\PGg$) are estimated using MC simulations and referred to as “others”.

The background from events containing nonprompt photons is estimated following
a method similar to the ones described in Refs. [4, 3]. A $\PW$ or a $\PZ$
boson is selected together with one photon that passes the standard selection
except for the isolation requirement both in data and simulation. Events are
categorised as “tight” or “loose” if the photon candidate passes or fails the
isolation requirement. The probabilities for photon $\epsilon$ and for a jet
$f$ to be isolated are computed as

$\epsilon=\frac{N_{\PGg,\,\mathrm{MC}}^{\mathrm{T}}}{N_{\PGg,\,\mathrm{MC}}^{\mathrm{T}}+N_{\PGg,\,\mathrm{MC}}^{\mathrm{L}}}\text{
and
}f=\frac{N_{\PGg,\,\text{data}}^{\mathrm{T}}}{\mathrm{N}_{\PGg,\,\text{data}}^{\mathrm{T}}+N_{\PGg,\,\text{data}}^{\mathrm{L}}},$

where $N_{\PGg,\,\mathrm{MC}}^{\mathrm{T}}$
($N_{\PGg,\,\mathrm{MC}}^{\mathrm{L}}$) is the number of simulated events with
a tight (loose) photon while $N_{\PGg,\,\text{data}}^{\mathrm{T}}$
($N_{\PGg,\,\text{data}}^{\mathrm{L}}$) is the number of events with a tight
(loose) photon candidate in data after the subtraction of the prompt photon
contribution from simulation. These probabilities are calculated separately
for photons in the ECAL barrel and endcap regions as a function of the photon
. The jet-photon misidentification background in the diphoton phase space is
then estimated by solving the system

$\begin{pmatrix}N_{\mathrm{TT}}\\\ N_{\mathrm{TL}}\\\ N_{\mathrm{LT}}\\\
N_{\mathrm{LL}}\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}\epsilon_{1}\epsilon_{2}&\epsilon_{1}f_{2}&f_{1}\epsilon_{2}&f_{1}f_{2}\\\
\epsilon_{1}(1-\epsilon_{2})&\epsilon_{1}(1-f_{2})&f_{1}(1-\epsilon_{2})&f_{1}(1-f_{2})\\\
(1-\epsilon_{1})\epsilon_{2}&(1-\epsilon_{1})f_{2}&(1-f_{1})\epsilon_{2}&(1-f_{1})f_{2}\\\
(1-\epsilon_{1})(1-\epsilon_{2})&(1-\epsilon_{1})(1-f_{2})&(1-f_{1})(1-\epsilon_{2})&(1-f_{1})(1-f_{2})\\\
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}\alpha_{\PGg\PGg}\\\ \alpha_{\PGg\mathrm{j}}\\\
\alpha_{\mathrm{j}\PGg}\\\ \alpha_{\mathrm{jj}}\end{pmatrix},$

where the indices of the $\epsilon$ and $f$ coefficients refer to the leading
and the subleading photon. The $N_{\mathrm{XY}}$ vector contains the number of
events where two ($\mathrm{TT}$), one ($\mathrm{TL}$ and $\mathrm{LT}$) or
zero ($\mathrm{LL}$) photon candidates pass the isolation requirement. The
$\alpha_{\mathrm{AB}}$ vector contains the number of signal ($\PGg\PGg$) and
background ($\PGg\mathrm{j}$, $\mathrm{j}\PGg$ and $\mathrm{jj}$) events. This
method is validated in a control region enriched in the jet-photon
misidentification background where both photons fail the isolation selection.
By solving the matrix for each combination of the single photons and $\eta$
and by applying it to the number of events in the double-photon phase space in
each diphoton bin one determines the number of background events in the signal
region as

$N_{\mathrm{TT}}^{\mathrm{j}\to\PGg}=\sideset{}{{}_{(\pt,\eta)_{\PGg
1}\,(\pt,\eta)_{\PGg
2}}}{\sum}(\epsilon_{1}f_{2}\alpha_{\PGg\mathrm{j}}+f_{1}\epsilon_{2}\alpha_{\mathrm{j}\PGg}+f_{1}f_{2}\alpha_{\mathrm{jj}}).$

Because of the large contamination from $\PZ\PGg\to\Pe\Pe\PGg$ events where an
electron from the $\PZ$ boson decay is misclassified as a photon, the jet
misidentified as a photon contribution for the $\PW\PGg\PGg$ electron channel
is estimated from the $\epsilon$ and $f$ coefficients that are evaluated from
the single-photon $\PW\PGg$ muon sample. For the same reason, the
$\PZ\PGg\to\Pe\Pe\PGg$ background contribution has been subtracted from data
in the $\PW\PGg\PGg$ electron channel before computing the number of
background events in the signal region.

To estimate the contribution where an electron is misclassified as a photon, a
correction factor is computed from $\PZ\PGg$ events and is then applied to the
simulation. The invariant mass of an electron and a photon is reconstructed in
data and MC simulation while removing the requirement
$\abs{m_{\Pe,\,\text{lead}\,\PGg}-m_{\PZ}}<5\GeV$. This mass distribution is
fitted with the sum of a signal template, derived from MC simulation, and a
background function, which has an exponential decay distribution at high mass
(above the $\PZ$ peak) and a turn-on (linked to the electron and photon
thresholds) described by an error function at low mass. A correction factor,
obtained in intervals of the photon and $\eta$, is then computed as

$\mathcal{F}(\pt,\eta)=\frac{N_{\text{inv}}^{\text{data}}/N_{\PZ}^{\text{data}}}{N_{\text{inv}}^{\mathrm{MC}}/N_{\PZ}^{\mathrm{MC}}},$
(1)

where $N_{\text{inv}}^{\text{data}}$ is the number of events in the electron-
photon invariant mass peak obtained by integration of the fitted signal shape
and $N_{\PZ}^{\text{data}}$ is the number of events for the $\PZ\to\Pe\Pe$
invariant mass distribution obtained by integration of a fitted double-sided
Crystal-Ball function [24] in the data. The same procedure is used to
calculate the number of events in MC simulation. By fitting all the
distributions in the different $(\pt,\eta)$ bins, a set of correction factors
is computed. All the MC simulations are then corrected for these factors on an
event-by-event basis whenever a reconstructed photon matches a generator-level
electron. The event-by-event correction factors are on average about 20%.

The pre–fit (before the fitting procedure described in Section 0.7) diphoton
distributions for the $\PW\PGg\PGg$ and $\PZ\PGg\PGg$ analyses, separated in
the electron and muon channels, are shown in Fig. 2. The same distributions
obtained in the control region enriched in jets misidentified as photons are
shown in Fig. 3 for the $\PW\PGg\PGg$ and $\PZ\PGg\PGg$ electron channels. The
data and prediction agree thus validating the jet–photon misidentification
background estimation procedure. A similar level of agreement is observed in
the muon channel.

Figure 2: Distribution of the transverse momentum of the diphoton system for
the $\PW\PGg\PGg$ electron (upper left) and muon (upper right) channels and
for the $\PZ\PGg\PGg$ electron (lower left) and muon (lower right) channels.
The predicted yields are shown with their pre–fit normalisations. The black
points represent the data with error bars showing the statistical
uncertainties. The hatched histogram shows the expected signal contribution.
The background estimate for electron (jet) misidentified as photons, obtained
from control samples in data, is shown in yellow (purple). The remaining
background, derived from MC simulation, is shown in green. In the ratio plots,
the grey hashed area is the statistical uncertainty on the sum of signal and
backgrounds, while the uncertainty in the black dots is the statistical
uncertainty of the data. In blue, the expected distribution for an example
value of the anomalous coupling parameters $f_{\mathrm{M}3}/\Lambda^{4}$ and
$f_{\mathrm{T}0}/\Lambda^{4}$ is also shown (see Section 0.8 for the details).

Figure 3: Distribution of the transverse momentum of the diphoton system,
obtained in the control region enriched in jets misidentified as photons, for
the $\PW\PGg\PGg$ and for the $\PZ\PGg\PGg$ electron channels. The black
points represent the data with error bars showing the statistical
uncertainties. The hatched histogram shows the expected negligible signal
contribution. The background estimate for electron (jet) misidentified as
photons, obtained from control samples in data, is shown in yellow (purple).
The remaining backgrounds, derived from MC simulation, are shown in green. In
the ratio plots, the grey hashed area is the statistical uncertainty on the
sum of signal and backgrounds, while the uncertainty in the black dots is the
statistical uncertainty of the data.

##  0.6 Systematic uncertainties

Systematic effects can affect the rates and distributions of both data and
simulation. To estimate these uncertainties, the full analysis procedure is
repeated by varying each quantity by plus or minus its standard deviation
uncertainty. In this procedure, correlations between the systematic
uncertainties are included where appropriate.

The dominant systematic uncertainties come from the estimation of the
backgrounds. To determine the systematic uncertainty coming from the jet-
photon misidentification background, the same strategy is applied to a QCD
control sample that is obtained using the $\PW\PGg$ selection but inverting
the isolation requirement on the leptons while keeping the photon selection
identical to the one for the signal region. This sample is used to obtain an
alternative estimate of the jet-photon misidentification background
contribution in the $\PW$ channel. For the $\PZ$ channel, the QCD control
sample resulting from the $\PZ\PGg$ selection with the inversion of the lepton
isolation has insufficient events. Hence, a transfer factor from the $\PW\PGg$
selection is computed and applied for the determination of the alternative
estimate of the jet-photon misidentification background contribution in the
$\PZ$ channel. The systematic uncertainty is computed as half the difference
in the distributions between the standard method or the one just described.

Another source of uncertainty in the jet-photon background is related to the
modelling of the initial- and final-state radiation and of the energy spectra
of the final state particles. An alternative $\PV\PGg$ MC simulation, obtained
with , is used to evaluate this uncertainty.

The uncertainty in the correction factor related to the background of
electrons misidentified as photons is determined by propagating the estimated
uncertainty in the correction factor $\mathcal{F}$ of Eq. 1. This has two
components: a statistical one, that comes from the uncertainty in the fitting
procedure; and a systematic one that is computed by taking half the difference
between the $\mathcal{F}$ factors obtained by performing the fit of the signal
component with a double-sided Crystal-Ball function and with the nominal
method using an MC template.

The uncertainties in the lepton and photon reconstruction and selection
efficiencies are included by computing the cross section with these
efficiencies varied up and down by one standard deviation. The uncertainty
related to these data-to-simulation corrections is estimated by including the
uncertainty in the tag-and-probe method. Uncertainties in the trigger
efficiencies are negligible.

The uncertainty in the value of the theoretically computed cross section is
accounted for during the subtraction from data of the background processes
estimated from MC. Furthermore, the value of the expected cross section has an
impact on the estimation of the jet-photon background because the contribution
from prompt photons is subtracted from the distribution in data using the
$\PW\PGg$ and $\PZ\PGg$ simulations. To estimate these contributions, the
cross sections of the $\PW\PGg$, $\PZ\PGg$, and of the other minor backgrounds
are varied independently. The uncertainty in the $\PZ\PGg$ cross section is
estimated as half the difference between the next-to-NLO and the NLO values
computed with MATRIX [25], and amounts to 2.5%. The same uncertainty is
assumed for the $\PW\PGg$ cross section, and a value of 7.5% is used for the
other simulated backgrounds.

The total inelastic cross section is varied by 4.6% [26] to estimate the
impact on the final result of the pileup reweighting procedure. The
uncertainty because of the integrated luminosity measurement is equal to 2.5,
2.3, and 2.5% for the 2016, 2017 and 2018 data taking periods, respectively
[27, 28, 29, 30]. Because of the uncorrelated time evolution of some
systematic uncertainties, the total integrated luminosity has an uncertainty
of 1.8% and is applied to all the processes estimated with an MC simulation.
The effect of the uncertainty in the integrated luminosity affects the
estimation of the jet-photon misidentification background as well as the MC
contributions in the diphoton distributions.

For the extraction of the results, each systematic uncertainty is represented
by a nuisance parameter, which affects the shape and the normalisation of the
distribution of the various background contributions. The variation of the
nuisance parameter results in a continuous perturbation of the spectrum,
following a Gaussian probability density function. The impact of each
systematic uncertainty is obtained by freezing the set of associated nuisance
parameters to their best-fit values and comparing the total uncertainty in the
measured cross section with the result from the nominal fit [31]. The
contributions of the different systematic uncertainties for both the
$\PW\PGg\PGg$ and $\PZ\PGg\PGg$ processes are presented in Table 0.6.

Summary of the systematic uncertainties (in percent) for the $\PW\PGg\PGg$ and
$\PZ\PGg\PGg$ cross section measurements. The numbers indicate the impact of
each systematic uncertainty in the value of the measured cross section in the
corresponding channel. The systematic uncertainties in the jets misidentified
as photons are added in quadrature in the table.  Systematic source
$\Pe\PGne\PGg\PGg\,[\%]$ $\PGm\PGnGm\PGg\PGg\,[\%]$ $\ell\PGn\PGg\PGg\,[\%]$
$\Pe\Pe\PGg\PGg\,[\%]$ $\PGm\PGm\PGg\PGg\,[\%]$ $\ell\ell\PGg\PGg\,[\%]$
Integrated luminosity $<$1 2 2 3 1 3 Pile-up 2 $<$1 $<$1 2 $<$1 1 Electron
efficiencies 4 $<$1 3 1 Muon efficiencies 1 $<$1 $<$1 2 $<$1 1 Photon
efficiencies 18 13 12 6 5 5 Jet-photon misid. 25 22 21 6 5 6 Electron-photon
misid. 4 $<$1 $<$1 $\PW\PGg$ theoretical cross section 3 3 3 $<$1 $<$1 $<$1
$\PZ\PGg$ theoretical cross section 4 $<$1 $<$1 7 5 6 Other bkgs theoretical
cross section 5 2 2 $<$1 $<$1 $<$1 Simulated sample event count 18 7 8 7 3 4

##  0.7 Cross section measurements

The cross sections for the $\PW\PGg\PGg$ and $\PZ\PGg\PGg$ processes are
measured separately in the electron and muon channels using a sample of events
corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 137(LHC Run 2 data). The observed
and predicted numbers of events are presented in Table 0.7.

Summary of the pre–fit predicted and observed numbers of events for 137for the
$\PW\PGg\PGg$ (upper Table) and $\PZ\PGg\PGg$ (lower Table) selections in the
electron and muon channels. The systematic uncertainties of the individual
backgrounds and the total background are obtained by summing the contributions
of different systematic uncertainties in quadrature. The statistical
uncertainties are those related to the MC event samples and control region
statistical uncertainties.  Process $\Pe\PGne\PGg\PGg$ $\PGm\PGnGm\PGg\PGg$
Misid. jets $918\pm 23\stat\pm 180\syst$ $1441\pm 27\stat\pm 280\syst$ Misid.
electrons $669\pm 28\stat\pm 34\syst$ $107\pm 9\stat\pm 7\syst$ Others $217\pm
11\stat\pm 20\syst$ $286\pm 11\stat\pm 25\syst$ Total backgrounds $1804\pm
38\stat\pm 180\syst$ $1834\pm 30\stat\pm 280\syst$ Expected signal $248\pm
6\stat\pm 17\syst$ $500\pm 8\stat\pm 33\syst$ Total prediction $2052\pm
38\stat\pm 180\syst$ $2334\pm 31\stat\pm 280\syst$ Data 1987 2384 Process
$\Pe\Pe\PGg\PGg$ $\PGm\PGm\PGg\PGg$ Misid. jets $42\pm 4\stat\pm 9\syst$
$98\pm 5\stat\pm 27\syst$ Others $6\pm 1\stat\pm 1\syst$ $11\pm 2\stat\pm
1\syst$ Total backgrounds $48\pm 4\stat\pm 9\syst$ $109\pm 6\stat\pm 27\syst$
Expected signal $68\pm 2\stat\pm 5\syst$ $157\pm 3\stat\pm 11\syst$ Total
prediction $116\pm 4\stat\pm 8\syst$ $266\pm 6\stat\pm 23\syst$ Data 110 272

The measured yields in the electron and muon channels are extrapolated to a
common fiducial phase space determined from simulated signal events at the
generated particle level. Generated particles are considered stable if their
mean decay length is larger than 1. Generated leptons are required to have a
$\pt>15\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.5$. The momenta of photons in a cone of $\Delta
R=0.1$, the same cone size as the one applied to reconstructed data, are added
to the charged lepton momentum to correct for final-state radiation. Generated
photons are required to have $\pt>15\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.5$. Additionally,
the candidate photons are required to have no selected leptons or photons in a
cone of radius $\Delta R=0.4$ and no other stable particles, apart from
photons and neutrinos, in a cone of radius $\Delta R=0.1$. Events are then
selected in the $\PW\PGg\PGg$ channel by requiring exactly one electron (muon)
with $\pt>30\GeV$ and at least two photons with $\pt>20\GeV$. Events are
selected in the $\PZ\PGg\PGg$ channel by requiring two electrons (muons), at
least one of them with $\pt>30\GeV$, and not less than two photons, each of
them with $\pt>20\GeV$. Additionally, the invariant mass of the dilepton
system is required to be $m_{\ell\ell}>55\GeV$.

The expected theoretical cross sections are predicted at NLO and their
uncertainties come from the finite MC sample event count used to compute them,
the PDF set, the factorisation and renormalisation scales. Statistical
uncertainties are estimated to be of the order of 0.2% in both the
$\PW\PGg\PGg$ and $\PZ\PGg\PGg$ channels. Uncertainties related to the PDF set
are estimated using a set of 100 replicas of the NNPDF 3.1 PDF set, following
the Ref. [12] prescription, and are estimated to be of the order of 0.3% in
the $\Pe\PGn\PGg\PGg$ and $\PGm\PGn\PGg\PGg$ and of 0.8% in the
$\Pe\Pe\PGg\PGg$ and $\PGm\PGm\PGg\PGg$ channels. Uncertainties related to the
renormalisation and factorisation scale choice are estimated by independently
varying $\mu_{\mathrm{R}}$ and $\mu_{\mathrm{F}}$ by a factor of 0.5 and 2,
with the condition that $1/2<\mu_{\mathrm{R}}/\mu_{\mathrm{F}}<2$. The
uncertainties are defined as the maximal differences from the nominal values
and are estimated to be of the order of 0.6 (0.5)% in the $\Pe\PGn\PGg\PGg$
($\PGm\PGn\PGg\PGg$) and of 0.6 (0.7)% in the $\Pe\Pe\PGg\PGg$
($\PGm\PGm\PGg\PGg$) channels. Uncertainties related to the value of the
strong coupling are estimated to be of the order of 0.03 (0.02)% in the
$\Pe\PGn\PGg\PGg$ ($\PGm\PGn\PGg\PGg$) and of 0.4% in the $\Pe\Pe\PGg\PGg$ and
$\PGm\PGm\PGg\PGg$ channels.

Binned maximum likelihood fits to the diphoton distributions in Fig. 2 are
performed to extract the signal strength $\mu$ and the significance of the
results [32, 33]. The results are obtained separately in the electron, muon
and lepton channels. The systematic uncertainties and the statistical
uncertainty in the MC predictions are treated as nuisance parameters in the
fits and profiled. The high bins in the distributions are the more relevant
ones for the determination of the limits.

The measured cross sections are obtained by multiplying the observed signal
strength $\mu$ by the expected theoretical cross section of the signal MC
simulated sample. The theoretical cross section for the $\PW\PGg\PGg$ and
$\PZ\PGg\PGg$ signals obtained from at NLO accuracy are $18.70\pm
0.03{\,\text{(MC stat)}}\pm 0.12{\,\text{(PDF + scale)}}\,\text{fb}$ and
$5.96\pm 0.01{\,\text{(MC stat)}}\pm 0.06{\,\text{(PDF + scale)}}\,\text{fb}$,
respectively.

In the electron channel, the best fit value for the $\PW\PGg\PGg$ signal
strength is $0.23^{+0.22}_{-0.22}\stat^{+0.32}_{-0.30}\,\text{(syst)}$ and for
the $\PZ\PGg\PGg$ signal strength is
$0.73^{+0.18}_{-0.17}\stat^{+0.12}_{-0.13}\,\text{(syst)}$. The measured cross
sections are:

$\displaystyle\sigma(\PW\PGg\PGg)^{\text{meas}}_{\Pe\PGn}$
$\displaystyle=4.4^{+4.1}_{-4.1}\stat^{+6.0}_{-5.5}\syst\pm 0.03{\,\text{(PDF
+ scale)}}\,\text{fb},$
$\displaystyle\sigma(\PZ\PGg\PGg)^{\text{meas}}_{\Pe\Pe}$
$\displaystyle=4.35^{+1.05}_{-0.99}\stat^{+0.71}_{-0.77}\syst\pm
0.05{\,\text{(PDF + scale)}}\,\text{fb}.$

In the muon channel, the best fit value for the $\PW\PGg\PGg$ signal strength
is $0.74^{+0.11}_{-0.11}\stat^{+0.23}_{-0.22}\syst$ and for the $\PZ\PGg\PGg$
signal strength is $1.06^{+0.11}_{-0.11}\stat^{+0.10}_{-0.10}\syst$. The
measured cross sections are:

$\displaystyle\sigma(\PW\PGg\PGg)^{\text{meas}}_{\PGm\PGn}$
$\displaystyle=13.8^{+2.1}_{-2.1}\stat^{+4.3}_{-4.2}\syst\pm 0.08{\,\text{(PDF
+ scale)}}\,\text{fb},$
$\displaystyle\sigma(\PZ\PGg\PGg)^{\text{meas}}_{\PGm\PGm}$
$\displaystyle=6.29^{+0.67}_{-0.64}\stat^{+0.57}_{-0.58}\syst\pm
0.07{\,\text{(PDF + scale)}}\,\text{fb}.$

The results of the fit for the electron and muon channels separately are
compatible within two sigmas. In the combined electron and muon channel, the
best fit value for the $\PW\PGg\PGg$ signal strength is
$0.73^{+0.10}_{-0.10}\stat^{+0.22}_{-0.22}\syst$ and for the $\PZ\PGg\PGg$
signal strength is $0.91^{+0.10}_{-0.09}\stat^{+0.11}_{-0.12}\syst$. The
measured cross sections are:

$\displaystyle\sigma(\PW\PGg\PGg)^{\text{meas}}$
$\displaystyle=13.6^{+1.9}_{-1.9}\stat^{+4.0}_{-4.0}\syst\pm 0.08{\,\text{(PDF
+ scale)}}\,\text{fb},$ $\displaystyle\sigma(\PZ\PGg\PGg)^{\text{meas}}$
$\displaystyle=5.41^{+0.58}_{-0.55}\stat^{+0.64}_{-0.70}\syst\pm
0.06{\,\text{(PDF + scale)}}\,\text{fb}.$

The sensitivity for the $\PW\PGg\PGg$ cross section measurement is dominated
by the muon channel. The measured signal strengths are summarised in Fig. 4.

Figure 4: Best fit values of the signal strengths for the $\PW\PGg\PGg$ (left)
and $\PZ\PGg\PGg$ (right) channels. The error bars represent the total
uncertainty while the magenta bands represent the theoretical uncertainty in
the cross section.

The significance of the cross section measurement for both the $\PW\PGg\PGg$
and $\PZ\PGg\PGg$ channels is quantified using the background-only hypothesis
under the asymptotic approximation [34]. The observed (expected) significance
for the $\PW\PGg\PGg$ signal is $0.6\,(2.7)\,\sigma$ in the electron channel
and $3.0\,(4.3)\,\sigma$ in the muon channel; for the $\PZ\PGg\PGg$ is
$3.4\,(5.0)\,\sigma$ in the electron channel and $5.4\,(5.1)\,\sigma$ in the
muon channel; the combined significance for the $\PW\PGg\PGg$ is
$3.1\,(4.5)\,\sigma$ and for the $\PZ\PGg\PGg$ is $4.8\,(5.8)\,\sigma$.

##  0.8 Limits on anomalous quartic gauge couplings

Studies of the anomalous gauge couplings can be performed in the EFT framework
[1] by expanding the SM Lagrangian to include terms with dimension higher than
four. In particular, both the $\PW\PGg\PGg$ and $\PZ\PGg\PGg$ processes are
sensitive to the presence of dimension-6 and dimension-8 operators [35].
Because of the available statistics in the $\PV\PGg\PGg$ channel, the
sensitivity to dimension-6 operators is expected to be lower than the one in
the diboson production. The contribution of each operator is proportional to a
coupling constant $f$ and to the inverse of the energy scale $\Lambda$ at
which the new phenomena appear.

In the generation of the anomalous couplings samples, a calculation using 10
(8) different dimension-8 operators was performed for the $\PW\PGg\PGg$
($\PZ\PGg\PGg$) process. The operators can be divided into two subsets: the
$\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{M}0}\mdash\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{M}7}$ ones, that contain
both the $\mathrm{SU(2)}_{L}$ and $\mathrm{U(1)}_{Y}$ field strengths and the
covariant derivative of the Higgs doublet, and the
$\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{T}0}\mdash\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{T}9}$ ones, that contain
only the two field strengths. In particular, the $\PW\PGg\PGg$ channel is
especially sensitive to the M2, M3, T0, T1, T2, T5, T6, and T7 operators,
whereas the $\PZ\PGg\PGg$ channel is especially sensitive to the T0, T1, T2,
T5, T6, T7, T8, and T9 operators.

The distribution of the of the diphoton system (shown in Fig. 2) is used to
constrain the aQGC parameters under the hypothesis of absence of anomalies in
triple gauge couplings. The contribution of aQGCs is enhanced at high values
of the of the diphoton system. The distribution of the aQGCs as a function of
the couplings themselves has a quadratic behaviour, and hence a parabolic fit
is implemented to interpolate between the different values obtained via the
parameter scan. The fitting procedure is performed bin-by-bin to exploit the
shape of the distribution to set the limits and include the different
systematic uncertainties. To further increase the sensitivity, electron and
muon channels are combined. Each operator coefficient is scanned independently
with all other operators set to zero. The extraction of the 95% confidence
level upper and lower limits on the aQGCs is performed by exploiting the
procedure described in Ref. [33]. The expected and measured limits for both
the $\PW\PGg\PGg$ and $\PZ\PGg\PGg$ processes are presented in Table 0.8.

In particular, the intervals computed for the $f_{\mathrm{T}5}$ and
$f_{\mathrm{T}6}$ parameters are the most constraining ones in the
$\PW\PGg\PGg$ channel and are comparable to the most stringent results
obtained by the $\PW\PGg\mathrm{jj}$ [36] analysis of the CMS Collaboration at
13. The intervals computed for the $f_{\mathrm{T}0}$ and $f_{\mathrm{T}5}$
parameters in the $\PW\PGg\PGg$ channel are more stringent than the ones
obtained by the $\PZ\PGg\PGg$ [3] and $\PZ\PGg\mathrm{jj}$ [37] analyses of
ATLAS at 8. For the $\PZ\PGg\PGg$ channel, the most stringent interval is the
one computed for the $f_{\mathrm{T}9}$ parameter, which is competitive with
the results obtained by the $\PZ\PGg\mathrm{jj}$ [38] and $\PZ\PZ\mathrm{jj}$
[39] analyses of CMS at 13. The intervals computed for the $f_{\mathrm{T}8}$
and $f_{\mathrm{T}9}$ parameters in the $\PZ\PGg\PGg$ channel are more
stringent than the ones obtained by the $\PZ\PGg\PGg$ and $\PZ\PGg\mathrm{jj}$
analyses of ATLAS at 8.

Expected and observed 95% confidence level intervals for the different
anomalous couplings in both the $\PW\PGg\PGg$ and $\PZ\PGg\PGg$ channels.
$\PW\PGg\PGg\,(\text{TeV}^{-4})$ $\PZ\PGg\PGg\,(\text{TeV}^{-4})$ Parameter
Expected Observed Expected Observed $f_{\mathrm{M}2}/\Lambda^{4}$
$[-57.3,\,57.1]$ $[-39.9,\,39.5]$ $f_{\mathrm{M}3}/\Lambda^{4}$
$[-91.8,\,92.6]$ $[-63.8,\,65.0]$ $f_{\mathrm{T}0}/\Lambda^{4}$
$[-1.86,\,1.86]$ $[-1.30,\,1.30]$ $[-4.86,\,4.66]$ $[-5.70,\,5.46]$
$f_{\mathrm{T}1}/\Lambda^{4}$ $[-2.38,\,2.38]$ $[-1.70,\,1.66]$
$[-4.86,\,4.66]$ $[-5.70,\,5.46]$ $f_{\mathrm{T}2}/\Lambda^{4}$
$[-5.16,\,5.16]$ $[-3.64,\,3.64]$ $[-9.72,\,9.32]$ $[-11.4,\,10.9]$
$f_{\mathrm{T}5}/\Lambda^{4}$ $[-0.76,\,0.84]$ $[-0.52,\,0.60]$
$[-2.44,\,2.52]$ $[-2.92,\,2.92]$ $f_{\mathrm{T}6}/\Lambda^{4}$
$[-0.92,\,1.00]$ $[-0.60,\,0.68]$ $[-3.24,\,3.24]$ $[-3.80,\,3.88]$
$f_{\mathrm{T}7}/\Lambda^{4}$ $[-1.64,\,1.72]$ $[-1.16,\,1.16]$
$[-6.68,\,6.60]$ $[-7.88,\,7.72]$ $f_{\mathrm{T}8}/\Lambda^{4}$
$[-0.90,\,0.94]$ $[-1.06,\,1.10]$ $f_{\mathrm{T}9}/\Lambda^{4}$
$[-1.54,\,1.54]$ $[-1.82,\,1.82]$

##  0.9 Summary

The cross sections for both the $\PW\PGg\PGg$ and $\PZ\PGg\PGg$ processes are
measured in proton-proton collisions by the CMS experiment at a centre-of-mass
energy of 13corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 137.

The cross sections are measured in a fiducial region where simulated signal
events are selected at generator level in the $\PW\PGg\PGg$ channel by
requiring exactly one electron or muon with transverse momentum $\pt>30\GeV$
and at least two photons, each with $\pt>20\GeV$. Events are selected in the
$\PZ\PGg\PGg$ channel by requiring two oppositely charged electrons or muons,
at least one of them with $\pt>30\GeV$, and at least two photons, each with
$\pt>20\GeV$. All leptons and photons are required to have pseudorapidity
$\abs{\eta}<2.5$. Additionally, the invariant mass of the dilepton system is
required to exceed $m_{\ell\ell}>55\GeV$.

The measured cross sections are $13.6^{+1.9}_{-1.9}\stat^{+4.0}_{-4.0}\syst\pm
0.08{\,\text{(PDF + scale)}}\,\text{fb}$ for the $\PW\PGg\PGg$ channel and
$5.41^{+0.58}_{-0.55}\stat^{+0.64}_{-0.70}\syst\pm 0.06{\,\text{(PDF +
scale)}}\,\text{fb}$ for the $\PZ\PGg\PGg$ channel. These results are in
agreement with the theoretical cross sections computed at next-to-leading
order. The corresponding signal significances are 3.1 and 4.8 standard
deviations. Limits on anomalous quartic gauge couplings are set using both
channels.

###### Acknowledgements.

We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the
excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative
staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the
success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the
computing centres and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid and other
centres 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, the CMS detector, and the supporting
computing infrastructure provided by the following funding agencies: BMBWF and
FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, FAPERGS, and
FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC (China);
MINCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RIF (Cyprus); SENESCYT
(Ecuador); MoER, ERC PUT and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of Finland, MEC, and HIP
(Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF (Germany); GSRT
(Greece); NKFIA (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM (Iran); SFI (Ireland);
INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); MES (Latvia); LAS (Lithuania);
MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT, LNS, SEP, and UASLP-FAI
(Mexico); MOS (Montenegro); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC
(Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom, RAS, RFBR, and NRC KI
(Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI, and FEDER (Spain); MOSTR (Sri
Lanka); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); MST (Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST,
STAR, and NSTDA (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); NASU (Ukraine); STFC
(United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA). Individuals have received support from
the Marie-Curie programme and the European Research Council and Horizon 2020
Grant, contract Nos. 675440, 724704, 752730, 765710 and 824093 (European
Union); the Leventis Foundation; the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation; the Alexander
von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office; the Fonds
pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans l’Agriculture (FRIA-
Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-
Belgium); the F.R.S.-FNRS and FWO (Belgium) under the “Excellence of Science –
EOS” – be.h project n. 30820817; the Beijing Municipal Science & Technology
Commission, No. Z191100007219010; the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports
(MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), under
Germany’s Excellence Strategy – EXC 2121 “Quantum Universe” – 390833306, and
under project number 400140256 - GRK2497; the Lendület (“Momentum”) Programme
and the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of
Sciences, the New National Excellence Program ÚNKP, the NKFIA research grants
123842, 123959, 124845, 124850, 125105, 128713, 128786, and 129058 (Hungary);
the Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; the Latvian Council of
Science; the Ministry of Science and Higher Education and the National Science
Center, contracts Opus 2014/15/B/ST2/03998 and 2015/19/B/ST2/02861 (Poland);
the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund; the
Ministry of Science and Higher Education, project no. 0723-2020-0041 (Russia);
the Programa Estatal de Fomento de la Investigación Científica y Técnica de
Excelencia María de Maeztu, grant MDM-2015-0509 and the Programa Severo Ochoa
del Principado de Asturias; the Thalis and Aristeia programmes cofinanced by
EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral
Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its
2nd Century Project Advancement Project (Thailand); the Kavli Foundation; the
Nvidia Corporation; the SuperMicro Corporation; the Welch Foundation, contract
C-1845; and the Weston Havens Foundation (USA).

## References

  * [1] C. Degrande et al., “Effective field theory: A modern approach to anomalous couplings”,  Annals Phys. 335 (2013) 21, 10.1016/j.aop.2013.04.016, arXiv:1205.4231.
  * [2] ATLAS Collaboration, “Evidence of $\PW\PGg\PGg$ production in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV and limits on anomalous quartic gauge couplings with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 031802, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.031802, arXiv:1503.03243.
  * [3] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurements of $\PZ\PGg$ and $\PZ\PGg\PGg$ production in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 112002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.112002, arXiv:1604.05232.
  * [4] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of the $\Pp\Pp\to\PW\PGg\PGg$ and $\Pp\Pp\to\PZ\PGg\PGg$ cross sections and limits on anomalous quartic gauge couplings at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV”,  JHEP 10 (2017) 072, 10.1007/JHEP10(2017)072, arXiv:1704.00366.
  * [5] G. Bozzi, F. Campanario, M. Rauch, and D. Zeppenfeld, “$\PWpm\PGg\PGg$ production with leptonic decays at NLO QCD”,  Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 114035, 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.114035, arXiv:1103.4613.
  * [6] U. Baur, D. Wackeroth, and M. M. Weber, “Radiative corrections to $\PW\PGg\PGg$ production at the LHC”,  PoS RADCOR2009 (2010) 067, 10.22323/1.092.0067, arXiv:1001.2688.
  * [7] G. Bozzi, F. Campanario, M. Rauch, and D. Zeppenfeld, “$\PZ\PGg\PGg$ production with leptonic decays and triple photon production at next-to-leading order QCD”,  Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 074028, 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.074028, arXiv:1107.3149.
  * [8] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [9] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [10] 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.
  * [11] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC Run II”,  JHEP 04 (2015) 040, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040, arXiv:1410.8849.
  * [12] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions from high-precision collider data”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 663, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5199-5, arXiv:1706.00428.
  * [13] T. Gleisberg et al., “SHERPA 1.$\alpha$: A proof-of-concept version”,  JHEP 02 (2004) 056, 10.1088/1126-6708/2004/02/056, arXiv:hep-ph/0311263.
  * [14] E. Bothmann et al., “Event generation with Sherpa 2.2”,  SciPost Phys. 7 (2019) 034, 10.21468/SciPostPhys.7.3.034, arXiv:1905.09127.
  * [15] CMS Collaboration, “Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 155, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3988-x, arXiv:1512.00815.
  * [16] CMS Collaboration, “Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 4, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7499-4, arXiv:1903.12179.
  * [17] C. Degrande et al., “UFO—the universal FeynRules output”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 183 (2012) 1201, 10.1016/j.cpc.2012.01.022, arXiv:1108.2040.
  * [18] Collaboration, “—a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [19] 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.
  * [20] CMS Collaboration, “Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 16 (2021) P05014, 10.1088/1748-0221/16/05/p05014, arXiv:2012.06888.
  * [21] M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam, “Pileup subtraction using jet areas”,  Phys. Lett. B 659 (2008) 119, 10.1016/j.physletb.2007.09.077, arXiv:0707.1378.
  * [22] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  JINST 13 (2018) P06015, 10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/P06015, arXiv:1804.04528.
  * [23] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inclusive $\PW$ and $\PZ$ production cross sections in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV with the CMS experiment”,  JHEP 10 (2011) 132, 10.1007/JHEP10(2011)132, arXiv:1107.4789.
  * [24] M. J. Oreglia, “A study of the reactions $\psi^{\prime}\to\gamma\gamma\psi$”.  PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1980.  SLAC Report SLAC-R-236.
  * [25] M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, and M. Wiesemann, “Fully differential NNLO computations with MATRIX”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 537, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5771-7, arXiv:1711.06631.
  * [26] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  JHEP 07 (2018) 161, 10.1007/JHEP07(2018)161, arXiv:1802.02613.
  * [27] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data-taking period”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001, CERN Geneva 2017.
  * [28] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004, CERN Geneva 2018.
  * [29] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002, CERN Geneva 2019.
  * [30] CMS Collaboration, “Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 800, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09538-2, arXiv:2104.01927.
  * [31] H. B. Prosper and L. Lyons, eds., “Proceedings, PHYSTAT 2011 Workshop on Statistical Issues Related to Discovery Claims in Search Experiments and Unfolding”, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland, 17–20 January 2011, CERN Yellow Reports: Conference Proceedings.  CERN, Geneva Switzerland, (2011).  10.5170/CERN-2011-006.
  * [32] ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, and LHC Higgs Combination Group, “Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011”, Technical Report CMS-NOTE-2011-005, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-11, 2011.
  * [33] CMS Collaboration, “Precise determination of the mass of the Higgs boson and tests of compatibility of its couplings with the standard model predictions using proton collisions at 7 and 8 TeV”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 212, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3351-7, arXiv:1412.8662.
  * [34] G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, “Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1554, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0, arXiv:1007.1727. [Erratum: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2501-z].
  * [35] O. J. P. Éboli, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, and J. K. Mizukoshi, “$\Pp\Pp\to\mathrm{jj}\,\Pepm\PGmpm\PGn\PGn$ and $\mathrm{jj}\,\Pepm\PGm^{\mp}\PGn\PGn$ at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{\mathrm{em}}^{6})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{\mathrm{em}}^{4}\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}^{2})$ for the study of the quartic electroweak gauge boson vertex at CERN LHC”,  Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 073005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.073005, arXiv:hep-ph/0606118.
  * [36] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of electroweak production of $\PW\PGg$ with two jets in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 811 (2020) 135988, 10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135988, arXiv:2008.10521.
  * [37] ATLAS Collaboration, “Studies of $\PZ\PGg$ production in association with a high-mass dijet system in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  JHEP 07 (2017) 107, 10.1007/JHEP07(2017)107, arXiv:1705.01966.
  * [38] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the cross section for electroweak production of a $\PZ$ boson, a photon and two jets in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV and constraints on anomalous quartic couplings”,  JHEP 06 (2020) 076, 10.1007/JHEP06(2020)076, arXiv:2002.09902.
  * [39] CMS Collaboration, “Evidence for electroweak production of four charged leptons and two jets in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 812 (2021) 135992, 10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135992, arXiv:2008.07013.

##  .10 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A. Tumasyan Institut für Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, J.W. Andrejkovic, T. Bergauer, S. Chatterjee, M. Dragicevic, A.
Escalante Del Valle, R. Frühwirth1, M. Jeitler1, N. Krammer, L. Lechner, D.
Liko, I. Mikulec, P. Paulitsch, F.M. Pitters, J. Schieck1, R. Schöfbeck, M.
Spanring, S. Templ, W. Waltenberger, C.-E. Wulz1 Institute for Nuclear
Problems, Minsk, Belarus
V. Chekhovsky, A. Litomin, V. Makarenko Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerpen,
Belgium
M.R. Darwish2, E.A. De Wolf, X. Janssen, T. Kello3, A. Lelek, H. Rejeb Sfar,
P. Van Mechelen, S. Van Putte, N. Van Remortel Vrije Universiteit Brussel,
Brussel, Belgium
F. Blekman, E.S. Bols, J. D’Hondt, J. De Clercq, M. Delcourt, H. El Faham, S.
Lowette, S. Moortgat, A. Morton, D. Müller, A.R. Sahasransu, S. Tavernier, W.
Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
D. Beghin, B. Bilin, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, L. Favart, A. Grebenyuk,
A.K. Kalsi, K. Lee, M. Mahdavikhorrami, I. Makarenko, L. Moureaux, L. Pétré,
A. Popov, N. Postiau, E. Starling, L. Thomas, M. Vanden Bemden, C. Vander
Velde, P. Vanlaer, D. Vannerom, L. Wezenbeek Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, J. Knolle, L. Lambrecht, G. Mestdach, M. Niedziela, C.
Roskas, A. Samalan, K. Skovpen, T.T. Tran, M. Tytgat, W. Verbeke, B.
Vermassen, M. Vit Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
A. Bethani, G. Bruno, F. Bury, C. Caputo, P. David, C. Delaere, I.S. Donertas,
A. Giammanco, K. Jaffel, V. Lemaitre, K. Mondal, J. Prisciandaro, A.
Taliercio, M. Teklishyn, P. Vischia, S. Wertz, S. Wuyckens Centro Brasileiro
de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
G.A. Alves, C. Hensel, A. Moraes Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil
W.L. Aldá Júnior, M. Alves Gallo Pereira, M. Barroso Ferreira Filho, H.
BRANDAO MALBOUISSON, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato4, E.M. Da Costa, G.G. Da
Silveira5, D. De Jesus Damiao, S. Fonseca De Souza, D. Matos Figueiredo, C.
Mora Herrera, K. Mota Amarilo, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, P. Rebello Teles, A.
Santoro, S.M. Silva Do Amaral, A. Sznajder, M. Thiel, F. Torres Da Silva De
Araujo, A. Vilela Pereira Universidade Estadual Paulista a, Universidade
Federal do ABC b, São Paulo, Brazil
C.A. Bernardesa,a, L. Calligarisa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M.
Gregoresa,b, D.S. Lemosa, P.G. Mercadantea,b, S.F. Novaesa, Sandra S. Padulaa
Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of
Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, G. Antchev, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, M. Misheva, M. Rodozov,
M. Shopova, G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Dimitrov, T. Ivanov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov, A. Petrov Beihang
University, Beijing, China
T. Cheng, W. Fang3, Q. Guo, T. Javaid6, M. Mittal, H. Wang, L. Yuan Department
of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, G. Bauer, C. Dozen7, Z. Hu, J. Martins8, Y. Wang, K. Yi9,10
Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
E. Chapon, G.M. Chen6, H.S. Chen6, M. Chen, F. Iemmi, A. Kapoor, D. Leggat, H.
Liao, Z.-A. LIU6, V. Milosevic, F. Monti, R. Sharma, J. Tao, J. Thomas-
wilsker, J. Wang, H. Zhang, S. Zhang6, J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of Nuclear
Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
A. Agapitos, Y. Ban, C. Chen, Q. Huang, A. Levin, Q. Li, X. Lyu, Y. Mao, S.J.
Qian, D. Wang, Q. Wang, J. Xiao Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
M. Lu, Z. You Institute of Modern Physics and Key Laboratory of Nuclear
Physics and Ion-beam Application (MOE) - Fudan University, Shanghai, China
X. Gao3, H. Okawa Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
Z. Lin, M. Xiao Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, C. Florez, J. Fraga, A. Sarkar, M.A. Segura Delgado
Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia
J. Mejia Guisao, F. Ramirez, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, C.A. Salazar González
University of Split, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering
and Naval Architecture, Split, Croatia
D. Giljanovic, N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak University of Split, Faculty
of Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac, T. Sculac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, D. Majumder, M. Roguljic, A. Starodumov11, T. Susa
University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
A. Attikis, E. Erodotou, A. Ioannou, G. Kole, M. Kolosova, S. Konstantinou, J.
Mousa, C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos, P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski, H. Saka Charles
University, Prague, Czech Republic
M. Finger12, M. Finger Jr.12, A. Kveton Escuela Politecnica Nacional, Quito,
Ecuador
E. Ayala Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
E. Carrera Jarrin Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab
Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt
A.A. Abdelalim13,14, S. Abu Zeid15 Center for High Energy Physics (CHEP-FU),
Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt
M.A. Mahmoud, Y. Mohammed National Institute of Chemical Physics and
Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
S. Bhowmik, A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveira, R.K. Dewanjee, K. Ehataht, M.
Kadastik, C. Nielsen, J. Pata, M. Raidal, L. Tani, C. Veelken Department of
Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
P. Eerola, L. Forthomme, H. Kirschenmann, K. Osterberg, M. Voutilainen
Helsinki Institute of Physics, Helsinki, Finland
S. Bharthuar, E. Brücken, F. Garcia, J. Havukainen, M.S. Kim, R. Kinnunen, T.
Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, M. Lotti, L. Martikainen, J.
Ott, H. Siikonen, E. Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi Lappeenranta University of
Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
P. Luukka, H. Petrow, T. Tuuva IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-
Yvette, France
C. Amendola, M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, J.L. Faure, F.
Ferri, S. Ganjour, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry,
B. Lenzi, E. Locci, J. Malcles, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M.Ö. Sahin, A. Savoy-
Navarro16, M. Titov, G.B. Yu Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, CNRS/IN2P3, Ecole
Polytechnique, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Palaiseau, France
S. Ahuja, F. Beaudette, M. Bonanomi, A. Buchot Perraguin, P. Busson, A.
Cappati, C. Charlot, O. Davignon, B. Diab, G. Falmagne, S. Ghosh, R. Granier
de Cassagnac, A. Hakimi, I. Kucher, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, P. Paganini, J.
Rembser, R. Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A. Zabi, A. Zghiche Université de
Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram17, J. Andrea, D. Apparu, D. Bloch, G. Bourgatte, J.-M. Brom, E.C.
Chabert, C. Collard, D. Darej, J.-C. Fontaine17, U. Goerlach, C. Grimault,
A.-C. Le Bihan, E. Nibigira, P. Van Hove Institut de Physique des 2 Infinis de
Lyon (IP2I ), Villeurbanne, France
E. Asilar, S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, C. Camen, A. Carle, N. Chanon,
D. Contardo, P. Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, B.
Ille, Sa. Jain, I.B. Laktineh, H. Lattaud, A. Lesauvage, M. Lethuillier, L.
Mirabito, S. Perries, K. Shchablo, V. Sordini, L. Torterotot, G. Touquet, M.
Vander Donckt, S. Viret Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
I. Lomidze, T. Toriashvili18, Z. Tsamalaidze12 RWTH Aachen University, I.
Physikalisches Institut, Aachen, Germany
L. Feld, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, D. Meuser, A. Pauls, M.P. Rauch, N. Röwert, J.
Schulz, M. Teroerde RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A,
Aachen, Germany
D. Eliseev, M. Erdmann, P. Fackeldey, B. Fischer, S. Ghosh, T. Hebbeker, K.
Hoepfner, F. Ivone, H. Keller, L. Mastrolorenzo, M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, G.
Mocellin, S. Mondal, S. Mukherjee, D. Noll, A. Novak, T. Pook, A. Pozdnyakov,
Y. Rath, H. Reithler, J. Roemer, A. Schmidt, S.C. Schuler, A. Sharma, S.
Wiedenbeck, S. Zaleski RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut B,
Aachen, Germany
C. Dziwok, G. Flügge, W. Haj Ahmad19, O. Hlushchenko, T. Kress, A. Nowack, C.
Pistone, O. Pooth, D. Roy, H. Sert, A. Stahl20, T. Ziemons Deutsches
Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
H. Aarup Petersen, M. Aldaya Martin, P. Asmuss, I. Babounikau, S. Baxter, O.
Behnke, A. Bermúdez Martínez, S. Bhattacharya, A.A. Bin Anuar, K. Borras21, V.
Botta, D. Brunner, A. Campbell, A. Cardini, C. Cheng, S. Consuegra Rodríguez,
G. Correia Silva, V. Danilov, L. Didukh, G. Eckerlin, D. Eckstein, L.I.
Estevez Banos, O. Filatov, E. Gallo22, A. Geiser, A. Giraldi, A. Grohsjean, M.
Guthoff, A. Jafari23, N.Z. Jomhari, H. Jung, A. Kasem21, M. Kasemann, H.
Kaveh, C. Kleinwort, D. Krücker, W. Lange, J. Lidrych, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann24,
R. Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, J. Metwally, A.B. Meyer, M. Meyer, J. Mnich,
A. Mussgiller, Y. Otarid, D. Pérez Adán, D. Pitzl, A. Raspereza, B. Ribeiro
Lopes, J. Rübenach, A. Saggio, A. Saibel, M. Savitskyi, M. Scham, V. Scheurer,
C. Schwanenberger22, A. Singh, R.E. Sosa Ricardo, D. Stafford, N. Tonon, O.
Turkot, M. Van De Klundert, R. Walsh, D. Walter, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, L.
Wiens, C. Wissing, S. Wuchterl University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, L. Benato, A. Benecke, P. Connor, K. De Leo, M. Eich, F.
Feindt, A. Fröhlich, C. Garbers, E. Garutti, P. Gunnellini, J. Haller, A.
Hinzmann, G. Kasieczka, R. Klanner, R. Kogler, T. Kramer, V. Kutzner, J.
Lange, T. Lange, A. Lobanov, A. Malara, A. Nigamova, K.J. Pena Rodriguez, O.
Rieger, P. Schleper, M. Schröder, J. Schwandt, D. Schwarz, J. Sonneveld, H.
Stadie, G. Steinbrück, A. Tews, B. Vormwald, I. Zoi Karlsruher Institut fuer
Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany
J. Bechtel, T. Berger, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, W. De
Boer${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, A. Dierlamm, A. Droll, K. El Morabit, N.
Faltermann, M. Giffels, J.o. Gosewisch, A. Gottmann, F. Hartmann20, C.
Heidecker, U. Husemann, I. Katkov25, P. Keicher, R. Koppenhöfer, S. Maier, M.
Metzler, S. Mitra, Th. Müller, M. Neukum, A. Nürnberg, G. Quast, K. Rabbertz,
J. Rauser, D. Savoiu, M. Schnepf, D. Seith, I. Shvetsov, H.J. Simonis, R.
Ulrich, J. Van Der Linden, R.F. Von Cube, M. Wassmer, M. Weber, S. Wieland, R.
Wolf, S. Wozniewski, S. Wunsch Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics
(INPP), NCSR Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
G. Anagnostou, P. Asenov, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas,
A. Stakia National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
M. Diamantopoulou, D. Karasavvas, G. Karathanasis, P. Kontaxakis, C.K. Koraka,
A. Manousakis-katsikakis, A. Panagiotou, I. Papavergou, N. Saoulidou, K.
Theofilatos, E. Tziaferi, K. Vellidis, E. Vourliotis National Technical
University of Athens, Athens, Greece
G. Bakas, K. Kousouris, I. Papakrivopoulos, G. Tsipolitis, A. Zacharopoulou
University of Ioánnina, Ioánnina, Greece
I. Evangelou, C. Foudas, P. Gianneios, P. Katsoulis, P. Kokkas, N. Manthos, I.
Papadopoulos, J. Strologas MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics
Group, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
M. Csanad, K. Farkas, M.M.A. Gadallah26, S. Lökös27, P. Major, K. Mandal, A.
Mehta, G. Pasztor, A.J. Rádl, O. Surányi, G.I. Veres Wigner Research Centre
for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
M. Bartók28, G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath29, F. Sikler, V. Veszpremi, G.
Vesztergombi${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$ Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI,
Debrecen, Hungary
S. Czellar, J. Karancsi28, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi, D. Teyssier Institute of
Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi30, B. Ujvari Karoly Robert Campus, MATE Institute of
Technology
T. Csorgo31, F. Nemes31, T. Novak Indian Institute of Science (IISc),
Bangalore, India
J.R. Komaragiri, D. Kumar, L. Panwar, P.C. Tiwari National Institute of
Science Education and Research, HBNI, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati32, D. Dash, C. Kar, P. Mal, T. Mishra, V.K. Muraleedharan Nair
Bindhu33, A. Nayak33, P. Saha, N. Sur, S.K. Swain, D. Vats33 Panjab
University, Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, G. Chaudhary, S. Chauhan, N. Dhingra34, R.
Gupta, A. Kaur, M. Kaur, S. Kaur, P. Kumari, M. Meena, K. Sandeep, J.B. Singh,
A.K. Virdi University of Delhi, Delhi, India
A. Ahmed, A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, M. Gola, S. Keshri, A. Kumar, M.
Naimuddin, P. Priyanka, K. Ranjan, A. Shah Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics,
HBNI, Kolkata, India
M. Bharti35, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, D. Bhowmik, S. Dutta, S. Dutta,
B. Gomber36, M. Maity37, S. Nandan, P. Palit, P.K. Rout, G. Saha, B. Sahu, S.
Sarkar, M. Sharan, B. Singh35, S. Thakur35 Indian Institute of Technology
Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera, S.C. Behera, P. Kalbhor, A. Muhammad, R. Pradhan, P.R. Pujahari,
A. Sharma, A.K. Sikdar Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, D.K. Mishra, K. Naskar38, P.K. Netrakanti, L.M.
Pant, P. Shukla Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A, Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, S. Dugad, M. Kumar, U. Sarkar Tata Institute of Fundamental
Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, R. Chudasama, M. Guchait, S. Karmakar, S. Kumar, G. Majumder, K.
Mazumdar, S. Mukherjee Indian Institute of Science Education and Research
(IISER), Pune, India
K. Alpana, S. Dube, B. Kansal, S. Pandey, A. Rane, A. Rastogi, S. Sharma
Department of Physics, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
H. Bakhshiansohi39, M. Zeinali40 Institute for Research in Fundamental
Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran
S. Chenarani41, S.M. Etesami, M. Khakzad, M. Mohammadi Najafabadi University
College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
M. Grunewald INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b, Politecnico di Bari
c, Bari, Italy
M. Abbresciaa,b, R. Alya,b,42, C. Arutaa,b, A. Colaleoa, D. Creanzaa,c, N. De
Filippisa,c, M. De Palmaa,b, A. Di Florioa,b, A. Di Pilatoa,b, W.
Elmetenaweea,b, L. Fiorea, A. Gelmia,b, M. Gula, G. Iasellia,c, M. Incea,b, S.
Lezkia,b, G. Maggia,c, M. Maggia, I. Margjekaa,b, V. Mastrapasquaa,b, J.A.
Merlina, S. Mya,b, S. Nuzzoa,b, A. Pellecchiaa,b, A. Pompilia,b, G.
Pugliesea,c, A. Ranieria, G. Selvaggia,b, L. Silvestrisa, F.M. Simonea,b, R.
Vendittia, P. Verwilligena INFN Sezione di Bologna a, Università di Bologna b,
Bologna, Italy
G. Abbiendia, C. Battilanaa,b, D. Bonacorsia,b, L. Borgonovia, L.
Brigliadoria, R. Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A. Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa,
M. Cuffiania,b, G.M. Dallavallea, T. Diotalevia,b, F. Fabbria, A. Fanfania,b,
P. Giacomellia, L. Giommia,b, C. Grandia, L. Guiduccia,b, S. Lo Meoa,43, L.
Lunertia,b, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, F.L. Navarriaa,b, A. Perrottaa, F.
Primaveraa,b, A.M. Rossia,b, T. Rovellia,b, G.P. Sirolia,b INFN Sezione di
Catania a, Università di Catania b, Catania, Italy
S. Albergoa,b,44, S. Costaa,b,44, A. Di Mattiaa, R. Potenzaa,b, A.
Tricomia,b,44, C. Tuvea,b INFN Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b,
Firenze, Italy
G. Barbaglia, A. Cassesea, R. Ceccarellia,b, V. Ciullia,b, C. Civininia, R.
D’Alessandroa,b, E. Focardia,b, G. Latinoa,b, P. Lenzia,b, M. Lizzoa,b, M.
Meschinia, S. Paolettia, R. Seiditaa,b, G. Sguazzonia, L. Viliania INFN
Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, D. Piccolo INFN Sezione di Genova a, Università di
Genova b, Genova, Italy
M. Bozzoa,b, F. Ferroa, R. Mulargiaa,b, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia,b INFN Sezione
di Milano-Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, Italy
A. Benagliaa, F. Brivioa,b, F. Cetorellia,b, V. Cirioloa,b,20, F. De Guioa,b,
M.E. Dinardoa,b, P. Dinia, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P. Govonia,b, L.
Guzzia,b, M. Malbertia, S. Malvezzia, A. Massironia, D. Menascea, L. Moronia,
M. Paganonia,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Ragazzia,b, N. Redaellia, T. Tabarelli de
Fatisa,b, D. Valsecchia,b,20, D. Zuoloa,b INFN Sezione di Napoli a, Università
di Napoli ’Federico II’ b, Napoli, Italy, Università della Basilicata c,
Potenza, Italy, Università G. Marconi d, Roma, Italy
S. Buontempoa, F. Carnevalia,b, N. Cavalloa,c, A. De Iorioa,b, F. Fabozzia,c,
A.O.M. Iorioa,b, L. Listaa,b, S. Meolaa,d,20, P. Paoluccia,20, B. Rossia, C.
Sciaccaa,b INFN Sezione di Padova a, Università di Padova b, Padova, Italy,
Università di Trento c, Trento, Italy
P. Azzia, N. Bacchettaa, D. Biselloa,b, P. Bortignona, A. Bragagnoloa,b, R.
Carlina,b, P. Checchiaa, T. Dorigoa, U. Dossellia, F. Gasparinia,b, U.
Gasparinia,b, S.Y. Hoha,b, L. Layera,45, M. Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,b, J.
Pazzinia,b, M. Presillaa,b, P. Ronchesea,b, R. Rossina,b, F. Simonettoa,b, G.
Stronga, M. Tosia,b, H. YARARa,b, M. Zanettia,b, P. Zottoa,b, A. Zucchettaa,b,
G. Zumerlea,b INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
C. Aime‘a,b, A. Braghieria, S. Calzaferria,b, D. Fiorinaa,b, P. Montagnaa,b,
S.P. Rattia,b, V. Rea, C. Riccardia,b, P. Salvinia, I. Vaia, P. Vituloa,b INFN
Sezione di Perugia a, Università di Perugia b, Perugia, Italy
G.M. Bileia, D. Ciangottinia,b, L. Fanòa,b, P. Laricciaa,b, M. Magherinib, G.
Mantovania,b, V. Mariania,b, M. Menichellia, F. Moscatellia, A. Piccinellia,b,
A. Rossia,b, A. Santocchiaa,b, D. Spigaa, T. Tedeschia,b INFN Sezione di Pisa
a, Università di Pisa b, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa c, Pisa Italy,
Università di Siena d, Siena, Italy
P. Azzurria, G. Bagliesia, V. Bertacchia,c, L. Bianchinia, T. Boccalia, E.
Bossinia,b, R. Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, M.R. Di Domenicoa,d,
S. Donatoa, A. Giassia, M.T. Grippoa, F. Ligabuea,c, E. Mancaa,c, G.
Mandorlia,c, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, S. Paroliaa,b, G. Ramirez-Sancheza,c,
A. Rizzia,b, G. Rolandia,c, S. Roy Chowdhurya,c, A. Scribanoa, N. Shafieia,b,
P. Spagnoloa, R. Tenchinia, G. Tonellia,b, N. Turinia,d, A. Venturia, P.G.
Verdinia INFN Sezione di Roma a, Sapienza Università di Roma b, Rome, Italy
M. Campanaa,b, F. Cavallaria, M. Cipriania,b, D. Del Rea,b, E. Di Marcoa, M.
Diemoza, E. Longoa,b, P. Meridiania, G. Organtinia,b, F. Pandolfia, R.
Paramattia,b, C. Quarantaa,b, S. Rahatloua,b, C. Rovellia, F.
Santanastasioa,b, L. Soffia, R. Tramontanoa,b INFN Sezione di Torino a,
Università di Torino b, Torino, Italy, Università del Piemonte Orientale c,
Novara, Italy
N. Amapanea,b, R. Arcidiaconoa,c, S. Argiroa,b, M. Arneodoa,c, N. Bartosika,
R. Bellana,b, A. Belloraa,b, J. Berenguer Antequeraa,b, C. Biinoa, N.
Cartigliaa, S. Comettia, M. Costaa,b, R. Covarellia,b, N. Demariaa, B.
Kiania,b, F. Leggera, C. Mariottia, S. Masellia, E. Migliorea,b, E.
Monteila,b, M. Montenoa, M.M. Obertinoa,b, G. Ortonaa, L. Pachera,b, N.
Pastronea, M. Pelliccionia, G.L. Pinna Angionia,b, M. Ruspaa,c, R.
Salvaticoa,b, K. Shchelinaa,b, F. Sivieroa,b, V. Solaa, A. Solanoa,b, D.
Soldia,b, A. Staianoa, M. Tornagoa,b, D. Trocinoa,b, A. Vagnerini INFN Sezione
di Trieste a, Università di Trieste b, Trieste, Italy
S. Belfortea, V. Candelisea,b, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, A. Da Rolda,b, G.
Della Riccaa,b, G. Sorrentinoa,b, F. Vazzolera,b Kyungpook National
University, Daegu, Korea
S. Dogra, C. Huh, B. Kim, D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, J. Kim, J. Lee, S.W. Lee, C.S.
Moon, Y.D. Oh, S.I. Pak, B.C. Radburn-Smith, S. Sekmen, Y.C. Yang Chonnam
National University, Institute for Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju,
Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
B. Francois, T.J. Kim, J. Park Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, B. Hong, K. Lee, K.S. Lee, J. Lim, J. Park, S.K. Park,
J. Yoo Kyung Hee University, Department of Physics, Seoul, Republic of Korea
J. Goh, A. Gurtu Sejong University, Seoul, Korea
H.S. Kim, Y. Kim Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J.H. Bhyun, J. Choi, S. Jeon, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, S. Ko, H. Kwon, H.
Lee, S. Lee, B.H. Oh, M. Oh, S.B. Oh, H. Seo, U.K. Yang, I. Yoon University of
Seoul, Seoul, Korea
W. Jang, D. Jeon, D.Y. Kang, Y. Kang, J.H. Kim, S. Kim, B. Ko, J.S.H. Lee, Y.
Lee, I.C. Park, Y. Roh, M.S. Ryu, D. Song, I.J. Watson, S. Yang Yonsei
University, Department of Physics, Seoul, Korea
S. Ha, H.D. Yoo Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea
Y. Jeong, H. Lee, Y. Lee, I. Yu College of Engineering and Technology,
American University of the Middle East (AUM), Egaila, Kuwait
T. Beyrouthy, Y. Maghrbi Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
V. Veckalns46 Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
M. Ambrozas, A. Juodagalvis, A. Rinkevicius, G. Tamulaitis, A. Vaitkevicius
National Centre for Particle Physics, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
N. Bin Norjoharuddeen, W.A.T. Wan Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli
Universidad de Sonora (UNISON), Hermosillo, Mexico
J.F. Benitez, A. Castaneda Hernandez, M. León Coello, J.A. Murillo Quijada, A.
Sehrawat, L. Valencia Palomo Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados
del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
G. Ayala, H. Castilla-Valdez, I. Heredia-De La Cruz47, R. Lopez-Fernandez,
C.A. Mondragon Herrera, D.A. Perez Navarro, A. Sanchez-Hernandez Universidad
Iberoamericana, Mexico City, Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, M. Ramirez-Garcia, F. Vazquez Valencia
Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada University of Montenegro,
Podgorica, Montenegro
J. Mijuskovic48, N. Raicevic University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
S. Bheesette, P.H. Butler National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam
University, Islamabad, Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M.I. Asghar, A. Awais, M.I.M. Awan, H.R. Hoorani, W.A. Khan, M.A.
Shah, M. Shoaib, M. Waqas AGH University of Science and Technology Faculty of
Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunications, Krakow, Poland
V. Avati, L. Grzanka, M. Malawski National Centre for Nuclear Research,
Swierk, Poland
H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, M. Górski, M. Kazana, M. Szleper, P.
Zalewski Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of Physics, University of
Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J. Krolikowski, M. Walczak
Laboratório de Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas, Lisboa,
Portugal
M. Araujo, P. Bargassa, D. Bastos, A. Boletti, P. Faccioli, M. Gallinaro, J.
Hollar, N. Leonardo, T. Niknejad, M. Pisano, J. Seixas, O. Toldaiev, J. Varela
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
S. Afanasiev, D. Budkouski, I. Golutvin, I. Gorbunov, V. Karjavine, V.
Korenkov, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev49,50, V. Palichik, V. Perelygin,
M. Savina, D. Seitova, V. Shalaev, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, V. Smirnov, O.
Teryaev, N. Voytishin, B.S. Yuldashev51, A. Zarubin, I. Zhizhin Petersburg
Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg), Russia
G. Gavrilov, V. Golovtcov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim52, E. Kuznetsova53, V. Murzin, V.
Oreshkin, I. Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Volkov, A. Vorobyev
Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, D.
Kirpichnikov, M. Kirsanov, N. Krasnikov, A. Pashenkov, G. Pivovarov, D.
Tlisov${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, A. Toropin Institute for Theoretical and
Experimental Physics named by A.I. Alikhanov of NRC ‘Kurchatov Institute’,
Moscow, Russia
V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, A. Nikitenko54, V. Popov, A.
Spiridonov, A. Stepennov, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A. Zhokin Moscow Institute of
Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
M. Chadeeva55, A. Oskin, P. Parygin, E. Popova, V. Rusinov P.N. Lebedev
Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin, I. Dremin, M. Kirakosyan, A. Terkulov Skobeltsyn
Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow,
Russia
A. Belyaev, E. Boos, M. Dubinin56, L. Dudko, A. Ershov, A. Gribushin, V.
Klyukhin, O. Kodolova, I. Lokhtin, S. Obraztsov, S. Petrushanko, V. Savrin, A.
Snigirev Novosibirsk State University (NSU), Novosibirsk, Russia
V. Blinov57, T. Dimova57, L. Kardapoltsev57, A. Kozyrev57, I. Ovtin57, Y.
Skovpen57 Institute for High Energy Physics of National Research Centre
‘Kurchatov Institute’, Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, D. Elumakhov, V. Kachanov, D. Konstantinov, P.
Mandrik, V. Petrov, R. Ryutin, S. Slabospitskii, A. Sobol, S. Troshin, N.
Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University,
Tomsk, Russia
A. Babaev, V. Okhotnikov Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russia
V. Borchsh, V. Ivanchenko, E. Tcherniaev University of Belgrade: Faculty of
Physics and VINCA Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic58, M. Dordevic, P. Milenovic, J. Milosevic Centro de Investigaciones
Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid, Spain
M. Aguilar-Benitez, J. Alcaraz Maestre, A. Álvarez Fernández, I. Bachiller, M.
Barrio Luna, Cristina F. Bedoya, C.A. Carrillo Montoya, M. Cepeda, M. Cerrada,
N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris, J.P. Fernández Ramos, J. Flix,
M.C. Fouz, O. Gonzalez Lopez, S. Goy Lopez, J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa, J. León
Holgado, D. Moran, Á. Navarro Tobar, A. Pérez-Calero Yzquierdo, J. Puerta
Pelayo, I. Redondo, L. Romero, S. Sánchez Navas, L. Urda Gómez, C. Willmott
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
J.F. de Trocóniz, R. Reyes-Almanza Universidad de Oviedo, Instituto
Universitario de Ciencias y Tecnologías Espaciales de Asturias (ICTEA),
Oviedo, Spain
B. Alvarez Gonzalez, J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, S. Folgueras,
I. Gonzalez Caballero, E. Palencia Cortezon, C. Ramón Álvarez, J. Ripoll Sau,
V. Rodríguez Bouza, A. Trapote, N. Trevisani Instituto de Física de Cantabria
(IFCA), CSIC-Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain
J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, J. Duarte Campderros, M.
Fernandez, C. Fernandez Madrazo, P.J. Fernández Manteca, A. García Alonso, G.
Gomez, C. Martinez Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del Arbol, F. Matorras, P.
Matorras Cuevas, J. Piedra Gomez, C. Prieels, T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno, L.
Scodellaro, I. Vila, J.M. Vizan Garcia University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri
Lanka
MK Jayananda, B. Kailasapathy59, D.U.J. Sonnadara, DDC Wickramarathna
University of Ruhuna, Department of Physics, Matara, Sri Lanka
W.G.D. Dharmaratna, K. Liyanage, N. Perera, N. Wickramage CERN, European
Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, D. Abbaneo, J. Alimena, E. Auffray, G. Auzinger, J. Baechler,
P. Baillon${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, D. Barney, J. Bendavid, M. Bianco, A.
Bocci, T. Camporesi, M. Capeans Garrido, G. Cerminara, S.S. Chhibra, L.
Cristella, D. d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, N. Daci, A. David, A. De Roeck, M.M.
Defranchis, M. Deile, M. Dobson, M. Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, N.
Emriskova, F. Fallavollita60, D. Fasanella, S. Fiorendi, A. Florent, G.
Franzoni, W. Funk, S. Giani, D. Gigi, K. Gill, F. Glege, L. Gouskos, M.
Haranko, J. Hegeman, Y. Iiyama, V. Innocente, T. James, P. Janot, J. Kaspar,
J. Kieseler, M. Komm, N. Kratochwil, C. Lange, S. Laurila, P. Lecoq, K. Long,
C. Lourenço, L. Malgeri, S. Mallios, M. Mannelli, A.C. Marini, F. Meijers, S.
Mersi, E. Meschi, F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, S. Orfanelli, L. Orsini, F.
Pantaleo, L. Pape, E. Perez, M. Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A.
Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, D. Piparo, M. Pitt, H. Qu, T. Quast, D. Rabady, A. Racz,
G. Reales Gutiérrez, M. Rieger, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, S.
Scarfi, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva, W. Snoeys,
P. Sphicas61, S. Summers, V.R. Tavolaro, D. Treille, A. Tsirou, G.P. Van
Onsem, M. Verzetti, J. Wanczyk62, K.A. Wozniak, W.D. Zeuner Paul Scherrer
Institut, Villigen, Switzerland
L. Caminada63, A. Ebrahimi, W. Erdmann, R. Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C.
Kaestli, D. Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, M. Missiroli, T. Rohe ETH Zurich -
Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics (IPA), Zurich, Switzerland
K. Androsov62, M. Backhaus, P. Berger, A. Calandri, N. Chernyavskaya, A. De
Cosa, G. Dissertori, M. Dittmar, M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, F. Eble, T.A. Gómez
Espinosa, C. Grab, D. Hits, W. Lustermann, A.-M. Lyon, R.A. Manzoni, C. Martin
Perez, M.T. Meinhard, F. Micheli, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, J. Niedziela, F. Pauss, V.
Perovic, G. Perrin, S. Pigazzini, M.G. Ratti, M. Reichmann, C. Reissel, T.
Reitenspiess, B. Ristic, D. Ruini, D.A. Sanz Becerra, M. Schönenberger, V.
Stampf, J. Steggemann62, R. Wallny, D.H. Zhu Universität Zürich, Zurich,
Switzerland
C. Amsler64, P. Bärtschi, C. Botta, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, K. Cormier, A.
De Wit, R. Del Burgo, J.K. Heikkilä, M. Huwiler, A. Jofrehei, B. Kilminster,
S. Leontsinis, A. Macchiolo, P. Meiring, V.M. Mikuni, U. Molinatti, I.
Neutelings, A. Reimers, P. Robmann, S. Sanchez Cruz, K. Schweiger, Y.
Takahashi National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan
C. Adloff65, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A. Roy, T. Sarkar37, S.S. Yu National Taiwan
University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
L. Ceard, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, W.-S. Hou, Y.y. Li, R.-S. Lu, E.
Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen, H.y. Wu, E. Yazgan, P.r. Yu Chulalongkorn
University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok, Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, N. Srimanobhas Çukurova University,
Physics Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
F. Boran, S. Damarseckin66, Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, I. Dumanoglu67, E.
Eskut, Y. Guler, E. Gurpinar Guler68, I. Hos69, C. Isik, O. Kara, A. Kayis
Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, G. Onengut, K. Ozdemir70, A. Polatoz, A.E. Simsek, B.
Tali71, U.G. Tok, S. Turkcapar, I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East
Technical University, Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak72, G. Karapinar73, K. Ocalan74, M. Yalvac75 Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
B. Akgun, I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya76, O. Kaya77, Ö. Özçelik, S.
Tekten78, E.A. Yetkin79 Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
A. Cakir, K. Cankocak67, Y. Komurcu, S. Sen80 Istanbul University, Istanbul,
Turkey
S. Cerci71, B. Kaynak, S. Ozkorucuklu, D. Sunar Cerci71 Institute for
Scintillation Materials of National Academy of Science of Ukraine, Kharkov,
Ukraine
B. Grynyov National Scientific Center, Kharkov Institute of Physics and
Technology, Kharkov, Ukraine
L. Levchuk University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
D. Anthony, E. Bhal, S. Bologna, J.J. Brooke, A. Bundock, E. Clement, D.
Cussans, H. Flacher, J. Goldstein, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, B.
Krikler, S. Paramesvaran, S. Seif El Nasr-Storey, V.J. Smith, N. Stylianou81,
R. White Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev82, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, D.J.A. Cockerill, K.V. Ellis, K.
Harder, S. Harper, J. Linacre, K. Manolopoulos, D.M. Newbold, E. Olaiya, D.
Petyt, T. Reis, T. Schuh, C.H. Shepherd-Themistocleous, I.R. Tomalin, T.
Williams Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, S. Bonomally, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, V.
Cepaitis, G.S. Chahal83, D. Colling, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M. Della Negra, S.
Fayer, G. Fedi, G. Hall, M.H. Hassanshahi, G. Iles, J. Langford, L. Lyons,
A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, A. Martelli, J. Nash84, M. Pesaresi, D.M. Raymond, A.
Richards, A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A. Shtipliyski, A. Tapper, K. Uchida, T.
Virdee20, N. Wardle, S.N. Webb, D. Winterbottom, A.G. Zecchinelli Brunel
University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
K. Coldham, J.E. Cole, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, I.D. Reid, L. Teodorescu, S. Zahid
Baylor University, Waco, USA
S. Abdullin, A. Brinkerhoff, B. Caraway, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, A.R.
Kanuganti, B. McMaster, N. Pastika, S. Sawant, C. Sutantawibul, J. Wilson
Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez, R. Uniyal, A.M. Vargas Hernandez The University of
Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
A. Buccilli, S.I. Cooper, D. Di Croce, S.V. Gleyzer, C. Henderson, C.U. Perez,
P. Rumerio85, C. West Boston University, Boston, USA
A. Akpinar, A. Albert, D. Arcaro, C. Cosby, Z. Demiragli, E. Fontanesi, D.
Gastler, J. Rohlf, K. Salyer, D. Sperka, D. Spitzbart, I. Suarez, A. Tsatsos,
S. Yuan, D. Zou Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, B. Burkle, X. Coubez21, D. Cutts, M. Hadley, U. Heintz, J.M.
Hogan86, G. Landsberg, K.T. Lau, M. Lukasik, J. Luo, M. Narain, S. Sagir87, E.
Usai, W.Y. Wong, X. Yan, D. Yu, W. Zhang University of California, Davis,
Davis, USA
J. Bonilla, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez, M.
Chertok, J. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, G. Haza, F. Jensen, O. Kukral, R.
Lander, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, B. Regnery, D. Taylor, Y. Yao, F. Zhang
University of California, Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, R. Cousins, A. Datta, D. Hamilton, J. Hauser, M. Ignatenko, M.A.
Iqbal, T. Lam, N. Mccoll, W.A. Nash, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg, B. Stone, V.
Valuev University of California, Riverside, Riverside, USA
K. Burt, Y. Chen, R. Clare, J.W. Gary, M. Gordon, G. Hanson, G. Karapostoli,
O.R. Long, N. Manganelli, M. Olmedo Negrete, W. Si, S. Wimpenny, Y. Zhang
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, P. Chang, S. Cittolin, S. Cooperstein, N. Deelen, J. Duarte, R.
Gerosa, L. Giannini, D. Gilbert, J. Guiang, R. Kansal, V. Krutelyov, R. Lee,
J. Letts, M. Masciovecchio, S. May, M. Pieri, B.V. Sathia Narayanan, V.
Sharma, M. Tadel, A. Vartak, F. Würthwein, Y. Xiang, A. Yagil University of
California, Santa Barbara - Department of Physics, Santa Barbara, USA
N. Amin, C. Campagnari, M. Citron, A. Dorsett, V. Dutta, J. Incandela, M.
Kilpatrick, J. Kim, B. Marsh, H. Mei, M. Oshiro, M. Quinnan, J. Richman, U.
Sarica, D. Stuart, S. Wang California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
A. Bornheim, O. Cerri, I. Dutta, J.M. Lawhorn, N. Lu, J. Mao, H.B. Newman, J.
Ngadiuba, T.Q. Nguyen, M. Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, C. Wang, S. Xie, Z. Zhang,
R.Y. Zhu Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
J. Alison, S. An, M.B. Andrews, P. Bryant, T. Ferguson, A. Harilal, C. Liu, T.
Mudholkar, M. Paulini, A. Sanchez University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, A. Hassani, E. MacDonald, R. Patel, A. Perloff, C.
Savard, K. Stenson, K.A. Ulmer, S.R. Wagner Cornell University, Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, Y. Cheng, D.J. Cranshaw, S. Hogan, J. Monroy, J.R. Patterson, D.
Quach, J. Reichert, A. Ryd, W. Sun, J. Thom, P. Wittich, R. Zou Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, USA
M. Albrow, M. Alyari, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S. Banerjee,
L.A.T. Bauerdick, D. Berry, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, K. Burkett, J.N. Butler,
A. Canepa, G.B. Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M. Cremonesi, K.F. Di
Petrillo, V.D. Elvira, Y. Feng, J. Freeman, Z. Gecse, L. Gray, D. Green, S.
Grünendahl, O. Gutsche, R.M. Harris, R. Heller, T.C. Herwig, J. Hirschauer, B.
Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, T. Klijnsma, B. Klima, K.H.M.
Kwok, S. Lammel, D. Lincoln, R. Lipton, T. Liu, C. Madrid, K. Maeshima, C.
Mantilla, D. Mason, P. McBride, P. Merkel, S. Mrenna, S. Nahn, V. O’Dell, V.
Papadimitriou, K. Pedro, C. Pena56, O. Prokofyev, F. Ravera, A. Reinsvold
Hall, L. Ristori, B. Schneider, E. Sexton-Kennedy, N. Smith, A. Soha, W.J.
Spalding, L. Spiegel, S. Stoynev, J. Strait, L. Taylor, S. Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran,
L. Uplegger, E.W. Vaandering, H.A. Weber University of Florida, Gainesville,
USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, D. Bourilkov, L. Cadamuro, V. Cherepanov, F. Errico, R.D.
Field, D. Guerrero, B.M. Joshi, M. Kim, E. Koenig, J. Konigsberg, A. Korytov,
K.H. Lo, K. Matchev, N. Menendez, G. Mitselmakher, A. Muthirakalayil Madhu, N.
Rawal, D. Rosenzweig, S. Rosenzweig, K. Shi, J. Sturdy, J. Wang, E. Yigitbasi,
X. Zuo Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
T. Adams, A. Askew, D. Diaz, R. Habibullah, V. Hagopian, K.F. Johnson, R.
Khurana, T. Kolberg, G. Martinez, H. Prosper, C. Schiber, R. Yohay, J. Zhang
Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, S. Butalla, T. Elkafrawy15, M. Hohlmann, R. Kumar Verma, D.
Noonan, M. Rahmani, M. Saunders, F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago
(UIC), Chicago, USA
M.R. Adams, H. Becerril Gonzalez, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, S. Dittmer, O.
Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, A.H. Merrit, C. Mills, G.
Oh, T. Roy, S. Rudrabhatla, M.B. Tonjes, N. Varelas, J. Viinikainen, X. Wang,
Z. Wu, Z. Ye The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, K. Dilsiz88, R.P. Gandrajula, O.K. Köseyan, J.-P. Merlo, A.
Mestvirishvili89, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul90, Y. Onel, A. Penzo, C. Snyder, E.
Tiras91 Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
O. Amram, B. Blumenfeld, L. Corcodilos, J. Davis, M. Eminizer, A.V. Gritsan,
S. Kyriacou, P. Maksimovic, J. Roskes, M. Swartz, T.Á. Vámi The University of
Kansas, Lawrence, USA
J. Anguiano, C. Baldenegro Barrera, P. Baringer, A. Bean, A. Bylinkin, T.
Isidori, S. Khalil, J. King, G. Krintiras, A. Kropivnitskaya, C. Lindsey, N.
Minafra, M. Murray, C. Rogan, C. Royon, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz, C. Smith, J.D.
Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang, J. Williams, G. Wilson Kansas State University,
Manhattan, USA
S. Duric, A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, D. Kim, Y. Maravin, T. Mitchell, A. Modak, K.
Nam Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright University of Maryland, College Park, USA
E. Adams, A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, S.C. Eno, N.J. Hadley, S. Jabeen,
R.G. Kellogg, T. Koeth, A.C. Mignerey, S. Nabili, M. Seidel, A. Skuja, L.
Wang, K. Wong Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, G. Andreassi, R. Bi, S. Brandt, W. Busza, I.A. Cali, Y. Chen,
M. D’Alfonso, J. Eysermans, G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov, P. Harris, M. Hu,
M. Klute, D. Kovalskyi, J. Krupa, Y.-J. Lee, B. Maier, C. Mironov, C. Paus, D.
Rankin, C. Roland, G. Roland, Z. Shi, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Tatar, J. Wang, Z.
Wang, B. Wyslouch University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, P. Hansen, J. Hiltbrand, Sh. Jain, M. Krohn, Y.
Kubota, J. Mans, M. Revering, R. Rusack, R. Saradhy, N. Schroeder, N. Strobbe,
M.A. Wadud University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
K. Bloom, M. Bryson, S. Chauhan, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, L. Finco, F. Golf,
J.R. González Fernández, C. Joo, I. Kravchenko, M. Musich, I. Reed, J.E.
Siado, G.R. Snow${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, W. Tabb, F. Yan State University
of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
G. Agarwal, H. Bandyopadhyay, L. Hay, I. Iashvili, A. Kharchilava, C. McLean,
D. Nguyen, J. Pekkanen, S. Rappoccio, A. Williams Northeastern University,
Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, Y. Haddad, A. Hortiangtham, J. Li, G.
Madigan, B. Marzocchi, D.M. Morse, V. Nguyen, T. Orimoto, A. Parker, L.
Skinnari, A. Tishelman-Charny, T. Wamorkar, B. Wang, A. Wisecarver, D. Wood
Northwestern University, Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, J. Bueghly, Z. Chen, A. Gilbert, T. Gunter, K.A. Hahn, N.
Odell, M.H. Schmitt, M. Velasco University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, USA
R. Band, R. Bucci, A. Das, N. Dev, R. Goldouzian, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado
Anampa, C. Jessop, K. Lannon, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, I. Mcalister, T.
McCauley, F. Meng, K. Mohrman, Y. Musienko49, R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, M.
Wayne, A. Wightman, M. Wolf, M. Zarucki, L. Zygala The Ohio State University,
Columbus, USA
B. Bylsma, B. Cardwell, L.S. Durkin, B. Francis, C. Hill, M. Nunez Ornelas, K.
Wei, B.L. Winer, B.R. Yates Princeton University, Princeton, USA
F.M. Addesa, B. Bonham, P. Das, G. Dezoort, P. Elmer, A. Frankenthal, B.
Greenberg, N. Haubrich, S. Higginbotham, A. Kalogeropoulos, G. Kopp, S. Kwan,
D. Lange, M.T. Lucchini, D. Marlow, K. Mei, I. Ojalvo, J. Olsen, C. Palmer, D.
Stickland, C. Tully University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
A.S. Bakshi, V.E. Barnes, R. Chawla, S. Das, L. Gutay, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, S.
Karmarkar, M. Liu, G. Negro, N. Neumeister, G. Paspalaki, C.C. Peng, S.
Piperov, A. Purohit, J.F. Schulte, M. Stojanovic16, J. Thieman, F. Wang, R.
Xiao, W. Xie Purdue University Northwest, Hammond, USA
J. Dolen, N. Parashar Rice University, Houston, USA
A. Baty, M. Decaro, S. Dildick, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, P. Gardner, F.J.M.
Geurts, A. Kumar, W. Li, B.P. Padley, R. Redjimi, W. Shi, A.G. Stahl Leiton,
S. Yang, L. Zhang, Y. Zhang University of Rochester, Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, J.L. Dulemba, C. Fallon, T. Ferbel, M.
Galanti, A. Garcia-Bellido, O. Hindrichs, A. Khukhunaishvili, E. Ranken, R.
Taus Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, USA
B. Chiarito, J.P. Chou, A. Gandrakota, Y. Gershtein, E. Halkiadakis, A. Hart,
M. Heindl, E. Hughes, S. Kaplan, O. Karacheban24, I. Laflotte, A. Lath, R.
Montalvo, K. Nash, M. Osherson, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, S. Somalwar, R. Stone,
S.A. Thayil, S. Thomas, H. Wang University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
H. Acharya, A.G. Delannoy, S. Spanier Texas A&M University, College Station,
USA
O. Bouhali92, M. Dalchenko, A. Delgado, R. Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T.
Kamon93, H. Kim, S. Luo, S. Malhotra, R. Mueller, D. Overton, D. Rathjens, A.
Safonov Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, V. Hegde, S. Kunori, K. Lamichhane, S.W. Lee, T.
Mengke, S. Muthumuni, T. Peltola, I. Volobouev, Z. Wang, A. Whitbeck
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
E. Appelt, S. Greene, A. Gurrola, W. Johns, A. Melo, H. Ni, K. Padeken, F.
Romeo, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska University of Virginia,
Charlottesville, USA
M.W. Arenton, B. Cox, G. Cummings, J. Hakala, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A.
Ledovskoy, A. Li, C. Neu, B. Tannenwald, S. White, E. Wolfe Wayne State
University, Detroit, USA
N. Poudyal University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI, USA
K. Black, T. Bose, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, S. Dasu, I. De Bruyn, P.
Everaerts, F. Fienga, C. Galloni, H. He, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, A.
Lanaro, A. Loeliger, R. Loveless, J. Madhusudanan Sreekala, A. Mallampalli, A.
Mohammadi, D. Pinna, A. Savin, V. Shang, V. Sharma, W.H. Smith, D. Teague, S.
Trembath-reichert, W. Vetens †: Deceased
1: Also at TU Wien, Wien, Austria
2: Also at Institute of Basic and Applied Sciences, Faculty of Engineering,
Arab Academy for Science, Technology and Maritime Transport, Alexandria,
Egypt, Alexandria, Egypt
3: Also at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
4: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
5: Also at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
6: Also at University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
7: Also at Department of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China,
Beijing, China
8: Also at UFMS, Nova Andradina, Brazil
9: Also at Nanjing Normal University Department of Physics, Nanjing, China
10: Now at The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
11: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics named by A.I.
Alikhanov of NRC ‘Kurchatov Institute’, Moscow, Russia
12: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
13: Also at Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
14: Now at Zewail City of Science and Technology, Zewail, Egypt
15: Also at Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
16: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
17: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
18: Also at Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
19: Also at Erzincan Binali Yildirim University, Erzincan, Turkey
20: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
21: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
22: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
23: Also at Department of Physics, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan,
Iran, Isfahan, Iran
24: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
25: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
26: Also at Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Assiut University, Assiut,
Egypt
27: Also at Karoly Robert Campus, MATE Institute of Technology, Gyongyos,
Hungary
28: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary,
Debrecen, Hungary
29: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
30: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary, Budapest, Hungary
31: Also at Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
32: Also at IIT Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India, Bhubaneswar, India
33: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
34: Also at G.H.G. Khalsa College, Punjab, India
35: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India
36: Also at University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India
37: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
38: Also at Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Mumbai, India
39: Also at Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
40: Also at Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
41: Also at Department of Physics, University of Science and Technology of
Mazandaran, Behshahr, Iran
42: Now at INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b, Politecnico di Bari
c, Bari, Italy
43: Also at Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and
Sustainable Economic Development, Bologna, Italy
44: Also at Centro Siciliano di Fisica Nucleare e di Struttura Della Materia,
Catania, Italy
45: Also at Università di Napoli ’Federico II’, NAPOLI, Italy
46: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia, Riga, Latvia
47: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico City, Mexico
48: Also at IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
49: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
50: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
51: Also at Institute of Nuclear Physics of the Uzbekistan Academy of
Sciences, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
52: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
53: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
54: Also at Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
55: Also at Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia,
Moscow, Russia
56: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
57: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
58: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
59: Also at Trincomalee Campus, Eastern University, Sri Lanka, Nilaveli, Sri
Lanka
60: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy,
Pavia, Italy
61: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
62: Also at Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
63: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
64: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics, Vienna, Austria,
Vienna, Austria
65: Also at Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules,
IN2P3-CNRS, Annecy-le-Vieux, France
66: Also at Şırnak University, Sirnak, Turkey
67: Also at Near East University, Research Center of Experimental Health
Science, Nicosia, Turkey
68: Also at Konya Technical University, Konya, Turkey
69: Also at Istanbul University - Cerrahpasa, Faculty of Engineering,
Istanbul, Turkey
70: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
71: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
72: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
73: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
74: Also at Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
75: Also at Bozok Universitetesi Rektörlügü, Yozgat, Turkey, Yozgat, Turkey
76: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
77: Also at Milli Savunma University, Istanbul, Turkey
78: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
79: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
80: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
81: Also at Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
82: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
83: Also at IPPP Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom
84: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia
85: Also at Università di Torino, TORINO, Italy
86: Also at Bethel University, St. Paul, Minneapolis, USA, St. Paul, USA
87: Also at Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey
88: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
89: Also at Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
90: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
91: Also at Erciyes University, KAYSERI, Turkey
92: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
93: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea, Daegu, Korea