SMP-20-006

SMP-20-006

[inst1]CMS experiment

# Measurements of production cross sections of polarized same-sign $\PW$ boson
pairs in association with two jets in proton-proton collisions at
$\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$

###### Abstract

The first measurements of production cross sections of polarized same-sign
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ boson pairs in proton-proton collisions are reported. The
measurements are based on a data sample collected with the CMS detector at the
LHC at a center-of-mass energy of $13\TeV$, corresponding to an integrated
luminosity of $137\fbinv$. Events are selected by requiring exactly two same-
sign leptons, electrons or muons, moderate missing transverse momentum, and
two jets with a large rapidity separation and a large dijet mass to enhance
the contribution of same-sign $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ scattering events. An
observed (expected) 95% confidence level upper limit of 1.17 (0.88)fb is set
on the production cross section for longitudinally polarized same-sign
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ boson pairs. The electroweak production of same-sign
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ boson pairs with at least one of the $\PW$ bosons
longitudinally polarized is measured with an observed (expected) significance
of 2.3 (3.1) standard deviations.

##  0.1 Introduction

Vector boson scattering (VBS) processes probe the electroweak (EW) symmetry
breaking mechanism at high energy scales. The unitarity of the tree-level
amplitude of the scattering of longitudinally polarized gauge bosons at high
energies is restored in the standard model (SM) by a Higgs boson with a mass
lower than about 1$\TeV$ [1, 2]. The observation of a Higgs boson with a mass
of about $125\GeV$ [3, 4, 5] provides an explanation that $\PW$ and $\PZ$
gauge bosons acquire mass via the Brout–Englert–Higgs mechanism, but
additional Higgs bosons may still play a role in the EW symmetry breaking.
Modifications of the VBS cross section for the longitudinally polarized $\PW$
and $\PZ$ bosons are predicted in models of physics beyond the SM through
modifications of the Higgs boson couplings to gauge bosons or through the
presence of new resonances [6, 7]. The measurements of the longitudinally
polarized scattering of the $\PW$ and $\PZ$ bosons provide complementary
information to direct measurements of the Higgs boson couplings to gauge
bosons [8, 9]. Models of beyond SM physics that modify the cross sections of
VBS processes with transversely polarized $\PW$ and $\PZ$ bosons are discussed
in Ref. [10].

At the CERN LHC, VBS interactions are characterized by the presence of two
gauge bosons in association with two forward jets that have a large rapidity
separation. They are part of a class of processes contributing to the same-
sign $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ production in association with two jets that
proceeds via the EW interaction at tree level, $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{4})$,
where $\alpha$ is the EW coupling, referred to as EW $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$
production. The leptonic decay mode
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}\to\ell^{\pm}\PGn\ell^{\prime\pm}\PGn$, where both $\PW$
bosons decay into electrons or muons, $\ell,\ell^{\prime}=\Pe$, $\Pgm$, is a
promising final state to study the polarized scattering from gauge bosons. The
background contribution of the quantum chromodynamics (QCD) induced production
of $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ boson pairs in association with two jets with tree-
level contributions at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{2}\alpS^{2})$, where $\alpS$ is
the strong coupling, is small. Figure 1 shows representative Feynman diagrams
of VBS processes involving self-interactions between gauge bosons through
triple and quartic gauge couplings and the $t$-channel Higgs boson exchange.

Figure 1:  Illustrative Feynman diagrams of VBS processes, where $\PW$ bosons
are radiated from incoming quarks (q), contributing to the EW-induced
production of events containing two forward jets and $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$
boson pairs decaying to leptons. Diagrams with the triple gauge coupling
vertex (left), the quartic gauge coupling vertex (center), and the $t$-channel
Higgs boson exchange (right) are shown.

The unpolarized EW $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ production has been previously
measured at the LHC in the leptonic decay modes at $\sqrt{s}=8$ and $13\TeV$
[11, 12, 13, 14, 15]. The first differential cross section measurements were
reported in Ref. [15]. This Letter presents the first measurement of the EW
production cross sections for polarized same-sign $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ boson
pairs. The data sample of proton-proton ($\Pp\Pp$) collisions at
$\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ corresponds to an integrated luminosity of $137\fbinv$ [16,
17, 18], collected with the CMS detector [19] in three LHC operating periods
during the years 2016, 2017, and 2018. The three data sets are analyzed
independently, with appropriate calibrations and corrections, because of the
various LHC operating conditions and the upgrades in the performance of the
CMS detector. Candidate events contain exactly two identified same-sign
leptons, moderate missing transverse momentum, and two jets with a large
rapidity separation and a high dijet mass.

In the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ channel, each of the bosons can be polarized
either longitudinally ($\PW_{\mathrm{L}}$) or transversely
($\PW_{\mathrm{T}}$), leading to three distinct contributions
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$,
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$, and
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$. Ideally, we would measure all
three contributions separately, but the current data sample size is too
limited. Therefore, two maximum-likelihood fits are performed: one for
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and
$\PW^{\pm}_{X}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$; and another for
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{X}$ and
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$. The index $X$ indicates either
of the two polarization states. The event kinematical properties are used to
extract the various contributions. Two sets of results are reported with the
helicity eigenstates defined either in the $\PW\PW$ center-of-mass reference
frame or in the initial-state parton-parton one.

##  0.2 The CMS detector

The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6m
internal diameter, providing a magnetic field of 3.8T. Within the solenoid
volume are a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal
electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), and a brass and scintillator hadron
calorimeter, each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. Forward
calorimeters extend the pseudorapidity ($\eta$) coverage provided by the
barrel and endcap detectors. Muons are detected in gas-ionization detectors
embedded in the steel flux-return yoke outside the solenoid. A more detailed
description of the CMS detector, together with a definition of the coordinate
system used and the relevant kinematic variables, is given in Ref. [19].

The first level of the CMS trigger system, composed of custom hardware
processors, uses information from the calorimeters and muon detectors to
select events of interest with a latency of less than 4. The second level,
known as the high-level trigger, consists of a farm of processors running a
version of the full event reconstruction software optimized for fast
processing, and reduces the event rate to about 1kHz before data storage [20].

##  0.3 Signal and background simulation

Several Monte Carlo (MC) event generators are used to simulate the signal and
background contributions. Three independent sets of simulated events for each
process are needed to match the data-taking conditions in the various years.
All generated events are processed through a simulation of the CMS detector
based on [21] and are reconstructed with the same algorithms used for data.
Additional $\Pp\Pp$ interactions in the same and nearby bunch crossings,
referred to as pileup, are also simulated. The distribution of the number of
pileup interactions in the simulation is adjusted to match the one observed in
the data. The average number of pileup interactions was 23 (32) in 2016 (2017
and 2018).

The SM EW $\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$,
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$, and
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ signal processes, where both
bosons decay leptonically, are separately simulated using $\MGvATNLO$ 2.7.2,
with the implementation of polarized parton scattering [22, 23, 24], at
leading order (LO) with six EW ($\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{6})$) and zero QCD
vertices. The NNPDF 3.1 next-to-next-to-leading-order (NNLO) [25] parton
distribution functions (PDFs) are used. Signal processes are simulated with
the helicity eigenstates defined either in the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ center-of-
mass reference frame or in the initial parton-parton reference frame. The
Phantom 1.5.1 generator [26, 27] uses the on-shell projection technique for
the predictions of the signal processes as discussed in Ref. [28]. The
$\MGvATNLO$ predictions show satisfactory agreement within the statistical
uncertainties with the Phantom predictions in the relevant fiducial region,
defined in Section 0.8, for this analysis. Comparisons of the $\MGvATNLO$
predictions with predictions based on the on-shell projection technique are
reported in Ref. [24]. The small contributions of off-shell and nonresonant
production [28] are not included in the simulated signal samples and amount to
1–2% in the fiducial region.

The full next-to-leading-order (NLO) QCD and EW corrections for the leptonic
unpolarized $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ scattering process have been computed [29,
30], and they reduce the LO cross section for the EW $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$
process by approximately 10–15%, with the correction increasing in magnitude
to up to 25% with increasing dilepton and dijet masses. The NLO corrections
for the $\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$,
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$, and
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ processes are not known. The
corrections for the unpolarized EW $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ process at orders of
$\mathcal{O}(\alpS\alpha^{6})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{7})$ are applied to
the $\MGvATNLO$ LO cross sections for the
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ process. Only the corrections
at order of $\mathcal{O}(\alpS\alpha^{6})$ are applied to the $\MGvATNLO$ LO
cross sections for the $\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ processes because the
corrections at order $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{7})$ are expected to be smaller for
the $\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ processes compared to the size
of the corresponding corrections for the unpolarized EW $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$
process [31]. There is a negligible effect in the measured cross sections from
differences in the event kinematical properties caused by the treatment of the
NLO corrections.

The EW $\PW\PZ$ background process is simulated with $\MGvATNLO$ 2.4.2 at
order $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{6})$. The QCD-induced $\PW\PZ$ process is simulated
at LO with up to three additional partons in the matrix element calculations
using the $\MGvATNLO$ generator with at least one QCD vertex at tree level.
The different jet multiplicities are merged using the MLM scheme [32] to match
matrix element and parton shower jets. The $\MGvATNLO$ generator is also used
to simulate the QCD-induced $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ process.

The interference between the EW and QCD diagrams for the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$
and $\PW\PZ$ processes is generated with $\MGvATNLO$ including the
contributions of order $\alpS\alpha^{5}$. The relative contributions in the
fiducial region of the interference term between the EW and the QCD diagrams
for the $\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$,
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$, and
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ processes are comparable to the
relative contributions of the $\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$,
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$, and
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ processes to the EW
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ cross section. The interferences between the signal
processes are expected to be small [24], and good agreement is observed
between the incoherent sum of the polarized cross sections and the unpolarized
cross sections for the distributions of the observables.

The $\POWHEG$ v2 [33, 34, 35, 36, 37] generator is used to simulate the
$\ttbar$, $\PQt\PW$, and other diboson processes at NLO accuracy in QCD.
Production of $\ttbar\PW$, $\ttbar\PZ$, $\ttbar\gamma$, and triple vector
boson ($\PV\PV\PV$) events is simulated at NLO accuracy in QCD using the
$\MGvATNLO$ 2.2.2 (2.4.2) generator for 2016 (2017 and 2018) [22, 23] samples.
The $\PQt\PZ\Pq$ process is simulated at NLO in the four-flavor scheme using
$\MGvATNLO$ 2.3.3. The $\PQt\PZ\Pq$ MC simulation is normalized using a cross
section computed at NLO with $\MGvATNLO$ in the five-flavor scheme, following
the procedure described in Ref. [38]. The double parton scattering
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ production is generated at LO using $\PYTHIA$ 8.226
(8.230) [39] for 2016 (2017 and 2018) samples.

The NNPDF 3.0 NLO [40] (NNPDF 3.1 NNLO [25]) PDFs are used for generating all
2016 (2017 and 2018) background samples. For all processes, the parton
showering and hadronization are simulated using $\PYTHIA$ 8.226 (8.230) for
2016 (2017 and 2018). The modeling of the underlying event is done using the
CUETP8M1 [41, 42] (CP5 [43]) tune for simulated samples corresponding to the
2016 (2017 and 2018) data.

##  0.4 Event reconstruction and selection

Events are reconstructed using the CMS particle-flow (PF) algorithm [44] that
reconstructs and identifies each individual particle with an optimized
combination of all subdetector information. The missing transverse momentum
vector $\ptvecmiss$ is defined as the projection onto the plane perpendicular
to the beam axis of the negative vector sum of the momenta of all
reconstructed PF objects in an event. Its magnitude is referred to as
$\ptmiss$.

Jets are reconstructed by clustering PF candidates using the anti-algorithm
[45, 46] with a distance parameter of 0.4. Jets are calibrated in the
simulation, and separately in data, accounting for energy deposits of neutral
particles from pileup and any nonlinear detector response [47]. The effect of
pileup is mitigated through a charged-hadron subtraction technique, which
removes the energy of charged hadrons not originating from the primary vertex
(PV) [48] of the event. Corrections to jet energies to account for the
detector response are propagated to $\ptmiss$ [49]. The PV is defined as the
vertex with the largest value of summed physics-object $\pt^{2}$. The physics
objects are derived from only the tracks assigned to the vertex as inputs by
clustering them into jets, including leptons. The $\ptmiss$ is also
recalculated only from those jets by summing their negative $\pt$ vectors.

Electrons and muons are reconstructed by associating a track reconstructed in
the tracking detectors with either a cluster of energy in the ECAL [50, 51] or
a track in the muon system [52]. Electron and muon candidates must pass
certain identification criteria to be further selected in the analysis. For
the “loose” identification, they must satisfy $\pt>10\GeV$ and
$\abs{\eta}<2.5$ (2.4) for electrons (muons). At the final stage of the lepton
selection the “tight” working points criteria following the definitions
provided in Refs. [50, 52] are chosen, including requirements on the impact
parameter of the candidates with respect to the PV and their isolation with
respect to other particles in the event [9].

For electrons, the background contribution coming from a mismeasurement of the
track charge is not negligible. The sign of this charge is evaluated using
three observables that measure the electron curvature applying different
methods; requiring all three charge evaluations to agree reduces this
background contribution by a factor of five with an efficiency of about 97%
[50]. The charge mismeasurement is negligible for muons [53, 54].

Collision events are collected using single-electron (single-muon) triggers
that require the presence of an isolated lepton with $\pt>27$ (24)$\GeV$. In
addition, a set of dilepton triggers with lower $\pt$ thresholds, with a
threshold of $23\GeV$ or lower for the leading lepton and with a threshold of
$8\GeV$ for the subleading lepton, is used. This ensures a trigger efficiency
above 99% for events that satisfy the subsequent offline selection.

Several selection requirements are used to isolate the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$
topology defining the signal region (SR) while reducing the contributions of
background processes. Candidate events contain exactly two isolated same-sign
charged leptons and at least two jets with $\pt^{\mathrm{j}}>50\GeV$ and
$\abs{\eta}<4.7$. Jets that are within $\Delta
R=\sqrt{\smash[b]{(\Delta\phi)^{2}+(\Delta\eta)^{2}}}<0.4$ of one of the
identified leptons are not used in the analysis. Here $\Delta\phi$ and
$\Delta\eta$ refer to the differences in the azimuthal angle $\phi$ and $\eta$
of the jet and the charged-lepton candidate, respectively. Because of the
presence of undetected neutrinos in the signal events, $\ptmiss$ is required
to exceed $30\GeV$.

The $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ SR selection requires one of the same-sign leptons to
satisfy $\pt>25\GeV$ and the other $\pt>20\GeV$. The mass of the dilepton pair
$m_{\ell\ell}$ must be greater than $20\GeV$. Candidate events in the
dielectron final state within $15\GeV$ of the nominal $\PZ$ boson mass
$m_{\PZ}$ [55] are rejected to reduce the number of $\PZ$ boson background
events where the charge of one of the electron candidates is misidentified.

The VBS topology is targeted by requiring the two highest-$\pt$ jets to have a
dijet mass $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}>500\GeV$ and a pseudorapidity separation
$\abs{\Delta\eta_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}}>2.5$. The $\PW$ bosons in the VBS
topologies are mostly produced in the central rapidity region with respect to
the two selected jets. The candidate $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ events are required
to satisfy $\max(\mathrm{z}_{\ell}^{*})<0.75$, where
$\mathrm{z}_{\ell}^{*}=\abs{\eta^{\ell}-(\eta^{\mathrm{j}_{1}}+\eta^{\mathrm{j}_{2}})/2}/\abs{\Delta\eta_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}}$
is the Zeppenfeld variable [56], $\eta^{\ell}$ is the pseudorapidity of one of
the selected leptons, and $\eta^{\mathrm{j}_{1}}$ and $\eta^{\mathrm{j}_{2}}$
are the pseudorapidities of the two candidate VBS jets.

Candidate events with one or more jets with $\pt>20\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.4$
that are consistent with the fragmentation of a bottom quark are rejected to
reduce the number of top quark background events. The DeepCSV tagging
algorithm [57] is used for this selection. For the chosen working point, the
efficiency to select quark jets is about 70% and the rate for incorrectly
tagging jets originating from the hadronization of gluons or $\cPqu$, $\cPqd$,
$\cPqs$ quarks is about 1%. The rate for incorrectly tagging jets originating
from the hadronization of $\cPqc$ quarks is about 10%. The selection
requirements to define the same-sign $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ SR are summarized in
Table 0.4.

Summary of the requirements defining the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ SR. The
$\abs{m_{\ell\ell}-m_{\PZ}}$ requirement is applied to the dielectron final
state only.  Variable Requirement Leptons Exactly 2 same-sign leptons,
$\pt>25/20\GeV$ $\pt^{\mathrm{j}}$ $>$50 $\abs{m_{\ell\ell}-m_{\PZ}}$
$>$15($\Pe\Pe$) $m_{\ell\ell}$ $>$20 $\ptmiss$ $>$30 quark veto Required
$\mathrm{Max}(\mathrm{z}_{\ell}^{*})$ $<$0.75 $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$
$>$500 $\abs{\Delta\eta_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}}$ $>$2.5

##  0.5 Extracting polarization information

In the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ channel, the $\PW$ bosons can each be either
longitudinally or transversely polarized leading to different kinematic
distributions, reflected in the kinematical properties of the two leptons, the
two jets, and $\ptvecmiss$. The $\PW_{\mathrm{L}}$ bosons tend to be radiated
at a smaller angle with respect to the incoming quark direction, resulting in
a smaller $\PW_{\mathrm{L}}$ boson $\pt$ compared to the radiated
$\PW_{\mathrm{T}}$ boson $\pt$. In addition, there are differences in the
behavior of the scattering amplitudes as a function of the
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ center-of-mass energy and the scattering angle [58].

Multivariate techniques are used to enhance the separation between the
different processes. We implement boosted decision trees (BDTs) with gradient
boosting using the tmva package [59]. Two different BDTs, referred to as the
signal BDTs, are trained on simulated events to separate either the
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and
$\PW^{\pm}_{X}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ processes or the
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{X}$ and
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ processes. Several
discriminating observables are used as the inputs to the BDTs, including the
jet and lepton kinematical properties and $\ptmiss$, as summarized in Table
0.5. The distributions of these observables are taken from the SM predictions.
Hypothetical modifications due to beyond the SM physics are assumed to impact
only the production rates, but not the kinematic distributions of sensitive
variables. Angular variables are included, such as the difference in the
azimuthal angles between the leading and subleading jets
($\Delta\phi_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$) and leptons ($\Delta\phi_{\ell\ell}$),
and the $\Delta R$ between the leading (subleading) jet and the dilepton
system $\Delta R_{\mathrm{j}1,\ell\ell}$ ($\Delta R_{\mathrm{j}2,\ell\ell}$ ).
The dilepton $\pt^{\ell\ell}$, $m_{\ell\ell}$, and the transverse diboson mass
$\mT^{\PW\PW}$ as defined in Ref. [15] are also considered. The kinematic
variable $(\pt^{\ell_{1}}\pt^{\ell_{2}})/(\pt^{\mathrm{j}1}\pt^{\mathrm{j}2})$
proposed in Ref. [58] is also included in the BDT inputs. A larger set of
discriminating observables was studied, but only variables that improve the
sensitivity and show some separation are retained. The distributions of
$\Delta\phi_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ (upper), $\Delta\phi_{\ell\ell}$ (middle),
and $m_{\ell\ell}$ (lower) at the generator level for the
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$,
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$, and
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ processes with the helicity
eigenstates defined in the parton-parton (left) and $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$
(right) center-of-mass reference frames are shown in Fig. 2. The signal
extraction was also compared with a deep neural network using the Keras [60]
deep learning library, interfaced with the TensorFlow [61] library, which led
to a consistently good performance.

List and description of all the input variables for the signal BDT trainings.
Variables Definitions $\Delta\phi_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ Difference in
azimuthal angle between the leading and subleading jets $\pt^{\mathrm{j}1}$
$\pt$ of the leading jet $\pt^{\mathrm{j}2}$ $\pt$ of the subleading jet
$\pt^{\ell_{1}}$ Leading lepton $\pt$ $\pt^{\ell_{2}}$ Subleading lepton $\pt$
$\Delta\phi_{\ell\ell}$ Difference in azimuthal angle between the two leptons
$m_{\ell\ell}$ Dilepton mass $\pt^{\ell\ell}$ Dilepton $\pt$ $\mT^{\PW\PW}$
Transverse $\PW\PW$ diboson mass $z_{\ell_{1}}^{*}$ Zeppenfeld variable of the
leading lepton $z_{\ell_{2}}^{*}$ Zeppenfeld variable of the subleading lepton
$\Delta R_{\mathrm{j}1,\ell\ell}$ $\Delta R$ between the leading jet and the
dilepton system $\Delta R_{\mathrm{j}2,\ell\ell}$ $\Delta R$ between the
subleading jet and the dilepton system
$(\pt^{\ell_{1}}\pt^{\ell_{2}})/(\pt^{\mathrm{j}1}\pt^{\mathrm{j}2})$ Ratio of
$\pt$ products between leptons and jets $\ptmiss$ Missing transverse momentum

Figure 2: Generator level distributions of $\Delta\phi_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$
(upper), $\Delta\phi_{\ell\ell}$ (center), and $m_{\ell\ell}$ (lower) in the
fiducial region for the $\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$,
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$, and
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ processes with the helicity
eigenstates defined in the parton-parton (left) and $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$
(right) center-of-mass reference frames. The distributions are normalized to
unit area. The error bars represent the uncertainties associated with the
limited numbers of simulated events.

##  0.6 Background estimation

A combination of methods based on control samples in data and simulation is
used to estimate background contributions. Uncertainties related to the
theoretical and experimental predictions are described in Section 0.7. The
electron charge misidentification in simulation is corrected to reproduce the
rate measured in data. Using $\PZ\to\Pe\Pe$ events, the misidentification rate
is about 0.01% (0.3%) in the barrel (endcap) region [50]. Oppositely charged
dilepton final states from $\ttbar$, $\PQt\PW$, $\PW^{+}\PW^{-}$, and
Drell–Yan processes contribute to the background from charge
misidentification.

The nonprompt lepton backgrounds originating from leptonic decays of heavy
quarks, hadrons misidentified as leptons, and electrons from photon conversion
are suppressed by the identification and isolation requirements imposed on
electrons and muons. The remaining contribution from the nonprompt lepton
background is estimated directly from data following the technique described
in Ref. [12], where the yield in a sample of data events dominated by jet
production is extrapolated to the signal region using efficiencies for loosely
identified leptons to pass the standard lepton selection criteria. A
normalization uncertainty of 20% is assigned for the nonprompt lepton
background to include possible differences in the composition of jets between
the data sample used to derive these efficiencies and the data sample in the
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ SR [9].

Several background-enriched control regions (CRs), disjoint from one another
and from the SR, are used to select event samples enriched with $\PW\PZ$,
nonprompt lepton, $\PQt\PZ\Pq$, and $\PZ\PZ$ background events. The $\PW\PZ$
CR is defined by requiring three leptons where the opposite-sign same-flavor
leptons from the $\PZ$ boson candidate have $\pt>25$ and $10\GeV$ with the
dilepton mass within $15\GeV$ of the nominal $\PZ$ boson mass. In events with
three same-flavor leptons, the opposite-sign lepton pair with the dilepton
mass closest to $m_{\PZ}$ is associated with the $\PZ$ boson. The remaining
lepton with $\pt>20\GeV$ is associated with the $\PW$ boson. In addition, the
trilepton mass $m_{\ell\ell\ell}$ is required to be greater than $100\GeV$ and
$\mathrm{max}(\mathrm{z}_{\ell}^{*})$ must be less than 1.0. Distributions of
several kinematic variables in the $\PW\PZ$ CR are reported in Ref. [15].

The nonprompt lepton CR is defined by requiring the same selection as for the
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ SR, but with the jet veto requirement inverted. The
selected sample is enriched with events from the nonprompt lepton background
and dominated by semileptonic $\ttbar$ events. Similarly, the $\PQt\PZ\Pq$ CR
is defined by requiring the same selection as the $\PW\PZ$ CR, but with the
quark veto requirement inverted. The selected sample is dominated by the
$\PQt\PZ\Pq$ background process. Finally, the $\PZ\PZ$ CR requirements select
events with four leptons with the same VBS requirements as the
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ SR. The four CRs are used to estimate the normalization
of the main background processes from data. All other background processes are
estimated from simulation after applying corrections to account for small
differences between data and simulation as detailed in Section 0.7.

To distinguish EW $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ production from the SM background
processes before extracting the individual polarizations, a BDT is trained
using the TMVA package [59]. Several discriminating observables listed in
Table 0.6 are used as inputs to this BDT, which we will refer to as the
inclusive BDT. The values of $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ and
$\abs{\Delta\eta_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}}$ are powerful because VBS topologies
typically have large values for the dijet mass and pseudorapidity separation
[15]. The SM background processes are dominated by the nonprompt lepton
background contribution, which comes mainly from top quark production. A large
training background sample of simulated events is obtained by using oppositely
charged dilepton events from top quark production.

List and description of the input variables for the inclusive BDT training.
Variables Definitions $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ Dijet mass
$\abs{\Delta\eta_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}}$ Difference in pseudorapidity between
the leading and subleading jets $\Delta\phi_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ Difference
in azimuth angles between the leading and subleading jets $\pt^{\mathrm{j}1}$
$\pt$ of the leading jet $\pt^{\mathrm{j}2}$ $\pt$ of the subleading jet
$\pt^{\ell_{1}}$ Leading lepton $\pt$ $\pt^{\ell\ell}$ Dilepton $\pt$
$z_{\ell_{1}}^{*}$ Zeppenfeld variable of the leading lepton
$z_{\ell_{2}}^{*}$ Zeppenfeld variable of the subleading lepton $\ptmiss$
Missing transverse momentum

##  0.7 Systematic uncertainties

Several sources of systematic uncertainty in the cross section measurements
can affect the rates and shapes of the distributions for the signal and
background processes. For each source of uncertainty, the impact in different
bins of the final distribution is considered as being fully correlated,
whereas different sources of uncertainty are treated as uncorrelated.

The uncertainties in the integrated luminosity measurements for the data used
in this analysis are 2.5, 2.3, and 2.5% for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data
samples [16, 17, 18], respectively. The total integrated luminosity has an
uncertainty of 1.8% because of the uncorrelated time evolution of some
systematic effects.

The simulation of pileup events assumes a total inelastic $\Pp\Pp$ cross
section of 69.2mb, with an associated uncertainty of 5% [62, 63]. The impact
of the pileup on the expected signal and background yields is less than 1%.

Discrepancies in the lepton reconstruction and identification efficiencies
between data and simulation are adjusted by applying corrections to all MC
simulation samples. The efficiency corrections, which depend on the $\pt$ and
$\eta$ of the lepton, are determined using $\PZ\to\ell\ell$ events in the
$\PZ$ boson peak region [52, 50]. The determination of the trigger efficiency
leads to an uncertainty smaller than 1% in the expected signal yield. The
lepton momentum scale uncertainty is computed by varying the momenta of the
leptons in the simulation by their uncertainties, and by repeating the
analysis selection. The resulting uncertainties in the event yields are about
1% for both electrons and muons. These uncertainties are treated as correlated
across the three data sets.

The uncertainty in the calibration of the jet energy scale and resolution
directly affects the selection efficiency of the jet multiplicity requirement
and the $\ptmiss$ measurement. These effects are estimated by changing the jet
energy in the simulation up- and downwards by one standard deviation. The
uncertainty in the jet energy scale and resolution is 2–5%, depending on the
$\pt$ and $\eta$ [47], and the impact on the expected signal and background
yields is 1–4%.

Discrepancies in the tagging efficiency between data and simulation are
adjusted by applying corrections to the simulated samples [57], which are
estimated separately for correctly and incorrectly identified jets. Each set
of values results in uncertainties in the tagging efficiency of about 1–4%,
and the impact on the expected signal and background yields is about 1%. The
uncertainties in the jet energy scale and tagging are treated as uncorrelated
across the three data sets.

The dominant theoretical uncertainties corresponding to the choice of the QCD
renormalization and factorization scales are estimated by varying these scales
independently up and down by a factor of two from their nominal values. The
largest cross section variation, while excluding the two extreme variations
where one scale is varied up and the other one down, is taken as the
uncertainty . The PDF uncertainties are evaluated according to the procedure
described in Ref. [64]. The scale and PDF uncertainties for the processes
estimated from simulation are treated as fully correlated across bins for the
distributions used to extract the results. The effect of
$\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{7})$ correction for the unpolarized EW
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ process on the shapes of the distributions for the
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ processes is considered as a
systematic uncertainty. The correction values are used as a symmetric shape
uncertainty. The uncertainties associated with the limited numbers of
simulated events and of data events used to estimate the nonprompt lepton
background are also included as systematic uncertainties with the latter being
the dominant contribution. A summary of the systematic uncertainties in the
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and
$\PW^{\pm}_{X}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$, and in the
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{X}$ and
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ cross section measurements is
shown in Table 0.7.

Systematic uncertainties of the $\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$
and $\PW^{\pm}_{X}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$, and
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{X}$ and
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ cross section measurements in
units of percent.  Source of uncertainty
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$ (%)
$\PW^{\pm}_{X}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ (%)
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{X}$ (%)
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ (%) Integrated luminosity 3.2
1.8 1.9 1.8 Lepton measurement 3.6 1.9 2.5 1.8 Jet energy scale and resolution
11 2.9 2.5 1.1 Pileup 0.9 0.1 1.0 0.3 tagging 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.1 Nonprompt lepton
rate 17 2.7 9.3 1.6 Trigger 1.9 1.1 1.6 0.9 Limited sample size 38 3.9 14 5.7
Theory 6.8 2.3 4.0 2.3 Total systematic uncertainty 44 6.6 18 7.0 Statistical
uncertainty 123 15 42 22 Total uncertainty 130 16 46 23

##  0.8 Results

Binned maximum-likelihood fits are performed to discriminate between the
signals and the remaining backgrounds using the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ SR and
the $\PW\PZ$, nonprompt lepton, $\PQt\PZ\Pq$, and $\PZ\PZ$ CRs. Two separate
fits are performed, one for the simultaneous measurements of the
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and
$\PW^{\pm}_{X}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ cross sections and a second for the
simultaneous measurements of the $\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{X}$ and
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ cross sections. The systematic
uncertainties are treated as nuisance parameters and are profiled [65, 66]
with the shape and normalization of each distribution varying within the
respective uncertainties in the fit. The normalization uncertainties are
treated as log-normal nuisance parameters. The nuisance parameters are not
significantly constrained. The small QCD $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ contribution is
normalized to the SM prediction and allowed to vary within the uncertainties.
The normalizations of the $\PQt\PZ\Pq$, $\PZ\PZ$, and $\PW\PZ$ background
processes are free parameters of the maximum-likelihood fits, together with
the signal cross sections. A two-dimensional distribution is used in the
simultaneous fits for the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ SR with five bins in the
inclusive BDT and five bins in the corresponding signal BDT. The
$m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ distribution is used for the CRs in the fit with
four bins. The bin boundaries are chosen to have similar
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{X}$ contributions across the bins.

The interference contributions between the EW and QCD diagrams for the
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and $\PW\PZ$ processes are normalized to the SM
predictions within the uncertainties. The impact of treatment of the
interference contributions on the results is evaluated by performing a set of
alternative fits where the interference contributions between the EW diagrams
for the $\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and
$\PW^{\pm}_{X}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ or $\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{X}$
and $\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ processes and QCD diagrams
are scaled with the square root of the measured to the predicted cross section
ratios. The two approaches yield consistent results.

The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ (upper left),
$\Delta\phi_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ (upper right), $\Delta\phi_{\ell\ell}$
(lower left), and the output score of the inclusive BDT (lower right) in the
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ SR are shown in Fig. 3. The distributions of the two
signal BDT output scores are shown in Fig. 4. The predicted yields are shown
with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit for the
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and
$\PW^{\pm}_{X}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ cross sections. The data yields,
together with the SM expectations with the best fit normalizations, are given
in Table 0.8. The background yields with the best fit normalizations from the
simultaneous fit for the $\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{X}$ and
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ cross sections are consistent
with the yields shown in Table 0.8 within a few percent.

Figure 3:  Distributions of the $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ (upper left),
$\Delta\phi_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ (upper right), $\Delta\phi_{\ell\ell}$
(lower left), and of the output score of the inclusive BDT (lower right) in
the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ SR. The predicted yields are shown with their best
fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. The histograms for the
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ process include the contributions from the
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$,
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$, and
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ processes (shown separately as
solid lines), QCD $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$, and interference. The histograms for
other backgrounds include the contributions from double parton scattering,
$\PV\PV\PV$, and from oppositely charged dilepton final states from $\ttbar$,
$\PQt\PW$, $\PW^{+}\PW^{-}$, and Drell–Yan processes. The overflow is included
in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number
of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction. The gray bands
represent the uncertainties in the predicted yields. The vertical bars
represent the statistical uncertainties in the data.

Figure 4:  Distributions of the output score of the signal BDT used for the
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and
$\PW^{\pm}_{X}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ cross section measurements (left) and of
the output score of the signal BDT used for the
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{X}$ and
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ cross section measurements
(right). The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations
from the simultaneous fit. The histograms for the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ process
include the contributions from the
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$,
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$, and
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ processes (shown separately as
solid lines), QCD $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$, and interference. The histograms for
other backgrounds include the contributions from double parton scattering,
$\PV\PV\PV$, and from oppositely charged dilepton final states from $\ttbar$,
$\PQt\PW$, $\PW^{+}\PW^{-}$, and Drell–Yan processes. The bottom panel in each
figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the
total SM prediction. The gray bands represent the uncertainties in the
predicted yields. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties in
the data.

Expected yields from various SM processes and observed data events in
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ SR. The combination of the statistical and systematic
uncertainties is shown. The expected yields are shown with their best fit
normalizations from the simultaneous fit for the
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and
$\PW^{\pm}_{X}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ cross sections. The
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ and
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ yields are obtained from the
$\PW^{\pm}_{X}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ yield assuming the SM prediction for the
ratio of the yields. The $\PQt\PV\mathrm{x}$ background yield includes the
contributions from $\ttbar\PV$ and $\PQt\PZ\Pq$ processes.  Process Yields in
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ SR $\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$
$16.0\,\pm\,18.3$ $\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$
$63.1\,\pm\,10.7$ $\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$
$110.1\,\pm\,18.1$ QCD $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ $13.8\,\pm\,1.6$ Interference
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ $8.4\,\pm\,0.6$ $\PW\PZ$ $63.3\,\pm\,7.8$ $\PZ\PZ$
$0.7\,\pm\,0.2$ Nonprompt $213.7\,\pm\,52.3$ $\PQt\PV\mathrm{x}$
$7.1\,\pm\,2.2$ Other background $26.9\,\pm\,9.9$ Total SM $522.9\,\pm\,60.7$
Data 524

The fiducial region for the cross section measurements is defined by requiring
two same-sign leptons (electrons or muons) with $\pt>20\GeV$,
$\abs{\eta}<2.5$, and $m_{\ell\ell}>20\GeV$, and two jets with
$m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}>500\GeV$ and
$\abs{\Delta\eta_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}}>2.5$. The leptons at the generator
level are selected at the so-called dressed level by combining the four-
momentum of each lepton after final-state photon radiation with that of
photons found within a cone of $\Delta R=0.1$ around the lepton. The jets at
generator level are clustered from stable particles, excluding neutrinos,
using the anti-$\kt$ clustering algorithm with a distance parameter of 0.4,
and are required to satisfy $\pt>50\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<4.7$. Jets within
$\Delta R<0.4$ of the selected charged leptons are not included. The overall
signal selection efficiency within the fiducial region is about 40%. Electrons
and muons produced in the decay of a $\tau$ lepton are not included in the
definition of the fiducial region. Nonfiducial signal events, $\ie$, events
selected at the reconstructed level that do not satisfy the fiducial
requirements, are scaled together with the fiducial signal events in the
simultaneous fit. The relative contribution of the nonfiducial events is
approximately 20%. The nonfiducial events are treated as background processes.

The fit results for the $\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and
$\PW^{\pm}_{X}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ cross sections are shown in Fig. 5 as
scans of the negative profile log-likelihood, $-2\Delta\text{ln}\mathcal{L}$,
as a function of the $\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$ cross
section. The expected distributions include the contribution from the
$\PW^{\pm}_{X}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ process. The corresponding observed
(expected) upper limit at 95% confidence level () is 1.17 (0.88)fb. The
fiducial cross section measurements for the
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and
$\PW^{\pm}_{X}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ processes and the theoretical
predictions are shown in Table 0.8. The measured cross section values agree
with the theoretical predictions within uncertainties.

The fiducial cross section measurements for the
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{X}$ and
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ processes are extracted from a
separate fit including the corresponding signal BDT. The measurements and the
theoretical predictions are summarized in Table 0.8. The significance of the
measured $\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{X}$ yield is quantified using
background-only hypothesis, , assuming no contribution from the
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{X}$ process, under the asymptotic
approximation [67] and corresponds to 2.3 standard deviations. The expected
significance is evaluated with an Asimov data set [67] and corresponds to 3.1
standard deviations.

Figure 5:  Profile likelihood scan as a function of the
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$ cross section. The red (blue)
line represents the expected values in the background-only hypothesis, ,
assuming no contribution from the
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$ process, considering all
systematic uncertainties (only statistical ones). The green line shows the
expected values for the signal-plus-background hypothesis. The observed values
are represented by the black line.

Measured fiducial cross sections for the
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and
$\PW^{\pm}_{X}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ processes, and for the
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{X}$ and
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ processes for the helicity
eigenstates defined in the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ center-of-mass frame. The
combination of the statistical and systematic uncertainties is shown. The
theoretical predictions including the $\mathcal{O}(\alpS\alpha^{6})$ and
$\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{7})$ corrections to the LO cross sections, as described
in the text, are also shown. The theoretical uncertainties include
statistical, PDF, and LO scale uncertainties; $\mathcal{B}$ is the branching
fraction for $\PW\PW\to\ell\PGn\ell^{\prime}\PGn$ [55].  Process
$\sigma\,\mathcal{B}$ (fb) Theoretical prediction (fb)
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$ $0.32^{+0.42}_{-0.40}$ 0.44
$\pm$ 0.05 $\PW^{\pm}_{X}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ $3.06^{+0.51}_{-0.48}$ 3.13
$\pm$ 0.35 $\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{X}$ $1.20^{+0.56}_{-0.53}$ 1.63
$\pm$ 0.18 $\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$
$2.11^{+0.49}_{-0.47}$ 1.94 $\pm$ 0.21

The measurements are also performed for the polarized observables defined
using the helicity eigenstates in the initial state parton-parton center-of-
mass reference frame. Defining the polarization vectors in the parton-parton
center-of-mass reference frame changes the respective contributions of
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$,
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{X}$ and
$\PW^{\pm}_{X}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$, and the distributions of the input
observables sensitive to the polarization [68]. The fiducial cross section
measurements and the theoretical predictions are summarized in Table 0.8. The
observed (expected) 95% upper limit of the production cross section is 1.06
(0.85)fb for the $\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$ process. The
observed (expected) significance of the $\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{X}$
process is 2.6 (2.9) standard deviations.

Measured fiducial cross sections for the
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and
$\PW^{\pm}_{X}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ processes, and for the
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{X}$ and
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ processes for the helicity
eigenstates defined in the parton-parton center-of-mass frame. The combination
of the statistical and systematic uncertainties is shown. The theoretical
predictions including the $\mathcal{O}(\alpS\alpha^{6})$ and
$\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{7})$ corrections to the LO cross sections, as described
in the text, are also shown. The theoretical uncertainties include
statistical, PDF, and LO scale uncertainties; $\mathcal{B}$ is the branching
fraction for $\PW\PW\to\ell\PGn\ell^{\prime}\PGn$ [55].  Process
$\sigma\,\mathcal{B}$ (fb) Theoretical prediction (fb)
$\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}$ $0.24^{+0.40}_{-0.37}$ 0.28
$\pm$ 0.03 $\PW^{\pm}_{X}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$ $3.25^{+0.50}_{-0.48}$ 3.32
$\pm$ 0.37 $\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{L}}\PW^{\pm}_{X}$ $1.40^{+0.60}_{-0.57}$ 1.71
$\pm$ 0.19 $\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}\PW^{\pm}_{\mathrm{T}}$
$2.03^{+0.51}_{-0.50}$ 1.89 $\pm$ 0.21

##  0.9 Summary

The first measurements of production cross sections for polarized same-sign
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ boson pairs are reported. The measurements are based on a
sample of proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $13\TeV$
collected by the CMS detector at the LHC, corresponding to an integrated
luminosity of $137\fbinv$. Events are selected by requiring exactly two same-
sign leptons (electrons or muons), moderate missing transverse momentum, and
two jets with a large rapidity separation and a high dijet mass. Boosted
decision trees are used to separate between the polarized scattering processes
by exploiting the kinematic differences. An observed (expected) 95% confidence
level upper limit on the production cross section for longitudinally polarized
same-sign $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ boson pairs of 1.17 (0.88)fb is reported with
the helicity eigenstates defined in the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ center-of-mass
reference frame. The electroweak production of the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ boson
pairs where at least one of the $\PW$ bosons is longitudinally polarized is
measured with an observed (expected) significance of 2.3 (3.1) standard
deviations. Results are also reported with the polarizations defined in the
parton-parton center-of-mass reference frame. The measured cross section
values agree with the standard model predictions.

###### Acknowledgements.

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

## References

  * [1] B. W. Lee, C. Quigg, and H. B. Thacker, “The strength of weak interactions at very high-energies and the Higgs boson mass”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 883, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.38.883.
  * [2] B. W. Lee, C. Quigg, and H. B. Thacker, “Weak interactions at very high-energies: the role of the Higgs boson mass”,  Phys. Rev. D 16 (1977) 1519, 10.1103/PhysRevD.16.1519.
  * [3] ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a new particle in the search for the standard model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020, arXiv:1207.7214.
  * [4] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021, arXiv:1207.7235.
  * [5] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 and 8 TeV”,  JHEP 06 (2013) 081, 10.1007/JHEP06(2013)081, arXiv:1303.4571.
  * [6] D. Espriu and B. Yencho, “Longitudinal WW scattering in light of the Higgs boson discovery”,  Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 055017, 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.055017, arXiv:1212.4158.
  * [7] J. Chang, K. Cheung, C.-T. Lu, and T.-C. Yuan, “WW scattering in the era of post-Higgs-boson discovery”,  Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 093005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.093005, arXiv:1303.6335.
  * [8] ATLAS, CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined ATLAS and CMS analysis of the LHC pp collision data at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8 TeV”,  JHEP 08 (2016) 045, 10.1007/JHEP08(2016)045, arXiv:1606.02266.
  * [9] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of properties of the Higgs boson decaying to a W boson pair in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 791 (2019) 96, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.12.073, arXiv:1806.05246.
  * [10] S. Brass et al., “Transversal modes and Higgs bosons in electroweak vector-boson scattering at the LHC”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 931, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6398-4, arXiv:1807.02512.
  * [11] ATLAS Collaboration, “Evidence for electroweak production of $W^{\pm}W^{\pm}$jj in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 141803, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.141803, arXiv:1405.6241.
  * [12] CMS Collaboration, “Study of vector boson scattering and search for new physics in events with two same-sign leptons and two jets”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 051801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.051801, arXiv:1410.6315.
  * [13] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of electroweak production of same-sign W boson pairs in the two jet and two same-sign lepton final state in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 081801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.081801, arXiv:1709.05822.
  * [14] ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of electroweak production of a same-sign $W$ boson pair in association with two jets in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 161801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.161801, arXiv:1906.03203.
  * [15] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of production cross sections of WZ and same-sign WW boson pairs in association with two jets in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 809 (2020) 135710, 10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135710, arXiv:2005.01173.
  * [16] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2016 data-taking period”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001, 2017.
  * [17] 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, 2017.
  * [18] 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, 2018.
  * [19] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [20] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [21] Collaboration, “$\GEANTfour$ — a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [22] R. Frederix and S. Frixione, “Merging meets matching in MC@NLO”,  JHEP 12 (2012) 061, 10.1007/JHEP12(2012)061, arXiv:1209.6215.
  * [23] 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.
  * [24] D. Buarque Franzosi, O. Mattelaer, R. Ruiz, and S. Shil, “Automated predictions from polarized matrix elements”,  JHEP 04 (2020) 082, 10.1007/JHEP04(2020)082, arXiv:1912.01725.
  * [25] 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.
  * [26] A. Ballestrero et al., “PHANTOM: a Monte Carlo event generator for six parton final states at high energy colliders”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 180 (2009) 401, 10.1016/j.cpc.2008.10.005, arXiv:0801.3359.
  * [27] A. Ballestrero, D. Buarque Franzosi, L. Oggero, and E. Maina, “Vector boson scattering at the LHC: counting experiments for unitarized models in a full six fermion approach”,  JHEP 03 (2012) 031, 10.1007/JHEP03(2012)031, arXiv:1112.1171.
  * [28] A. Ballestrero, E. Maina, and G. Pelliccioli, “$\PW$ boson polarization in vector boson scattering at the LHC”,  JHEP 03 (2018) 170, 10.1007/JHEP03(2018)170, arXiv:1710.09339.
  * [29] B. Biedermann, A. Denner, and M. Pellen, “Large electroweak corrections to vector boson scattering at the Large Hadron Collider”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 261801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.261801, arXiv:1611.02951.
  * [30] B. Biedermann, A. Denner, and M. Pellen, “Complete NLO corrections to W+W+ scattering and its irreducible background at the LHC”,  JHEP 10 (2017) 124, 10.1007/JHEP10(2017)124, arXiv:1708.00268.
  * [31] A. Denner and S. Pozzorini, “One loop leading logarithms in electroweak radiative corrections. 1. Results”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 18 (2001) 461, 10.1007/s100520100551, arXiv:hep-ph/0010201.
  * [32] J. Alwall et al., “Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 53 (2008) 473, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0490-5, arXiv:0706.2569.
  * [33] S. Frixione and B. R. Webber, “Matching NLO QCD computations and parton shower simulations”,  JHEP 06 (2002) 029, 10.1088/1126-6708/2002/06/029, arXiv:hep-ph/0204244.
  * [34] P. Nason, “A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms”,  JHEP 11 (2004) 040, 10.1088/1126-6708/2004/11/040, arXiv:hep-ph/0409146.
  * [35] S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari, “Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method”,  JHEP 11 (2007) 070, 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070, arXiv:0709.2092.
  * [36] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “NLO vector-boson production matched with shower in POWHEG”,  JHEP 07 (2008) 060, 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/07/060, arXiv:0805.4802.
  * [37] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX”,  JHEP 06 (2010) 043, 10.1007/JHEP06(2010)043, arXiv:1002.2581.
  * [38] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the associated production of a single top quark and a Z boson in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 779 (2018) 358, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.02.025, arXiv:1712.02825.
  * [39] T. Sjöstrand et al., “An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159, 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024, arXiv:1410.3012.
  * [40] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC Run II”,  JHEP 04 (2015) 040, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040, arXiv:1410.8849.
  * [41] P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo, “Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 tune”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3024, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3024-y, arXiv:1404.5630.
  * [42] 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.
  * [43] 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.
  * [44] 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.
  * [45] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-jet clustering algorithm”,  JHEP 04 (2008) 063, 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063, arXiv:0802.1189.
  * [46] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “FastJet user manual”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1896, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2, arXiv:1111.6097.
  * [47] CMS Collaboration, “Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV”,  JINST 12 (2017) P02014, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/P02014, arXiv:1607.03663.
  * [48] CMS Collaboration, “Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data”,  JINST 15 (2020) P09018, 10.1088/1748-0221/15/09/P09018, arXiv:2003.00503.
  * [49] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ using the CMS detector”,  JINST 14 (2019) P07004, 10.1088/1748-0221/14/07/P07004, arXiv:1903.06078.
  * [50] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8\TeV$”,  JINST 10 (2015) P06005, 10.1088/1748-0221/10/06/P06005, arXiv:1502.02701.
  * [51] CMS Collaboration, “Electron and photon performance in cms with the full 2017 data sample and additional 2016 highlights for the calor 2018 conference”, CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2018-017, 2018.
  * [52] 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.
  * [53] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in cosmic-ray events”,  JINST 5 (2010) T03022, 10.1088/1748-0221/5/03/T03022, arXiv:0911.4994.
  * [54] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the reconstruction and identification of high-momentum muons in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  JINST 15 (2020) P02027, 10.1088/1748-0221/15/02/P02027, arXiv:1912.03516.
  * [55] Particle Data Group, P. A. Zyla et al., “Review of particle physics”,  Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2020 (2020) 083C01, 10.1093/ptep/ptaa104.
  * [56] D. L. Rainwater, R. Szalapski, and D. Zeppenfeld, “Probing color singlet exchange in $\PZ$ \+ 2-jet events at the CERN LHC”,  Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 6680, 10.1103/PhysRevD.54.6680, arXiv:hep-ph/9605444.
  * [57] CMS Collaboration, “Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV”,  JINST 13 (2018) P05011, 10.1088/1748-0221/13/05/P05011, arXiv:1712.07158.
  * [58] K. Doroba et al., “The $\PW_{\mathrm{L}}\PW_{\mathrm{L}}$ scattering at the LHC: improving the selection criteria”,  Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 036011, 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.036011, arXiv:1201.2768.
  * [59] H. Voss, A. Höcker, J. Stelzer, and F. Tegenfeldt, “TMVA, the toolkit for multivariate data analysis with ROOT”, in  XIth International Workshop on Advanced Computing and Analysis Techniques in Physics Research (ACAT), p. 40.  2007\.  arXiv:physics/0703039.  [PoS(ACAT)040]. 10.22323/1.050.0040.
  * [60] F. Chollet et al., “Keras”. https://keras.io, 2015\.
  * [61] M. Abadi et al., “Tensorflow: large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous distributed systems”, 2016\.  Software available from tensorflow.org. http://tensorflow.org/.
  * [62] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 182002, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.182002, arXiv:1606.02625.
  * [63] 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.
  * [64] J. Butterworth et al., “PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II”,  J. Phys. G 43 (2016) 023001, 10.1088/0954-3899/43/2/023001, arXiv:1510.03865.
  * [65] T. Junk, “Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 434 (1999) 435, 10.1016/S0168-9002(99)00498-2, arXiv:hep-ex/9902006.
  * [66] A. L. Read, “Presentation of search results: the $CL_{s}$ technique”,  J. Phys. G 28 (2002) 2693, 10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/313.
  * [67] 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].
  * [68] A. Ballestrero, E. Maina, and G. Pelliccioli, “Different polarization definitions in same-sign $\PW\PW$ scattering at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 811 (2020) 135856, 10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135856, arXiv:2007.07133.

##  .10 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, A. Tumasyan Institut für
Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, T. Bergauer, M. Dragicevic, J. Erö, A. Escalante Del Valle, R.
Frühwirth1, M. Jeitler1, N. Krammer, L. Lechner, D. Liko, I. Mikulec, F.M.
Pitters, N. Rad, J. Schieck1, R. Schöfbeck, M. Spanring, S. Templ, W.
Waltenberger, C.-E. Wulz1, M. Zarucki Institute for Nuclear Problems, Minsk,
Belarus
V. Chekhovsky, A. Litomin, V. Makarenko, J. Suarez Gonzalez Universiteit
Antwerpen, Antwerpen, Belgium
M.R. Darwish2, E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, T. Kello3, A. Lelek, M.
Pieters, H. Rejeb Sfar, H. Van Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, S. Van Putte, N.
Van Remortel Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
F. Blekman, E.S. Bols, S.S. Chhibra, J. D’Hondt, J. De Clercq, D. Lontkovskyi,
S. Lowette, I. Marchesini, S. Moortgat, A. Morton, Q. Python, S. Tavernier, W.
Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
D. Beghin, B. Bilin, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, B. Dorney, L. Favart, A.
Grebenyuk, A.K. Kalsi, I. Makarenko, L. Moureaux, L. Pétré, A. Popov, N.
Postiau, E. Starling, L. Thomas, C. Vander Velde, P. Vanlaer, D. Vannerom, L.
Wezenbeek Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, M. Gruchala, I. Khvastunov4, M. Niedziela, C. Roskas,
K. Skovpen, M. Tytgat, W. Verbeke, B. Vermassen, M. Vit Université Catholique
de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
G. Bruno, F. Bury, C. Caputo, P. David, C. Delaere, M. Delcourt, I.S.
Donertas, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaitre, K. Mondal, J. Prisciandaro, A. Taliercio,
M. Teklishyn, P. Vischia, S. 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, E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, H. BRANDAO MALBOUISSON, W.
Carvalho, J. Chinellato5, E. Coelho, E.M. Da Costa, G.G. Da Silveira6, D. De
Jesus Damiao, S. Fonseca De Souza, J. Martins7, D. Matos Figueiredo, M. Medina
Jaime8, C. Mora Herrera, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, P. Rebello Teles, L.J. Sanchez
Rosas, A. Santoro, S.M. Silva Do Amaral, A. Sznajder, M. Thiel, 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, I. Atanasov, 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, H. Wang, L. Yuan Department of Physics, Tsinghua
University, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, G. Bauer, Z. Hu, Y. Wang, K. Yi9,10 Institute of High Energy
Physics, Beijing, China
E. Chapon, G.M. Chen11, H.S. Chen11, M. Chen, T. Javaid11, A. Kapoor, D.
Leggat, H. Liao, Z.-A. LIU11, R. Sharma, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, J. Thomas-
wilsker, J. Wang, H. Zhang, S. Zhang11, 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, M. Lu, X. Lyu, Y.
Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang, Q. Wang, J. Xiao Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou,
China
Z. You Institute of Modern Physics and Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and
Ion-beam Application (MOE) - Fudan University, Shanghai, China
X. Gao3 Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
M. Xiao Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, C. Florez, J. Fraga, A. Sarkar, M.A. Segura Delgado
Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia
J. Jaramillo, J. Mejia Guisao, F. Ramirez, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, C.A. Salazar
González, N. Vanegas Arbelaez University of Split, Faculty of Electrical
Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split, Croatia
D. Giljanovic, N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak 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. Starodumov12, T. Susa
University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, 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, D. Tsiakkouri Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
M. Finger13, M. Finger Jr.13, A. Kveton, J. Tomsa Escuela Politecnica
Nacional, Quito, Ecuador
E. Ayala Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
E. Carrera Jarrin Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab
Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt
S. Abu Zeid14, S. Khalil15, E. Salama16,14 Center for High Energy Physics
(CHEP-FU), Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt
M.A. Mahmoud, Y. Mohammed17 National Institute of Chemical Physics and
Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
S. Bhowmik, A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveira, R.K. Dewanjee, K. Ehataht, M.
Kadastik, M. Raidal, C. Veelken Department of Physics, University of Helsinki,
Helsinki, Finland
P. Eerola, L. Forthomme, H. Kirschenmann, K. Osterberg, M. Voutilainen
Helsinki Institute of Physics, Helsinki, Finland
E. Brücken, F. Garcia, J. Havukainen, V. Karimäki, M.S. Kim, R. Kinnunen, T.
Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, H. Siikonen, E. Tuominen, J.
Tuominiemi Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
P. Luukka, T. Tuuva IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
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-
Navarro18, 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, C.
Charlot, O. Davignon, B. Diab, G. Falmagne, R. Granier de Cassagnac, A.
Hakimi, I. Kucher, A. Lobanov, C. Martin Perez, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, P.
Paganini, J. Rembser, R. Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A. Zabi, A. Zghiche
Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram19, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, G. Bourgatte, J.-M. Brom, E.C. Chabert, C.
Collard, J.-C. Fontaine19, D. Gelé, U. Goerlach, C. Grimault, A.-C. Le Bihan,
P. Van Hove Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3,
Institut de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
E. Asilar, S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, C. Camen, A. Carle, N. Chanon,
D. Contardo, P. Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, B.
Ille, Sa. Jain, I.B. Laktineh, H. Lattaud, A. Lesauvage, M. Lethuillier, L.
Mirabito, L. Torterotot, G. Touquet, M. Vander Donckt, S. Viret Georgian
Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
I. Bagaturia20, Z. Tsamalaidze13 RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches
Institut, Aachen, Germany
L. Feld, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, D. Meuser, A. Pauls, M. Preuten, M.P. Rauch,
J. Schulz, M. Teroerde RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A,
Aachen, Germany
D. Eliseev, M. Erdmann, P. Fackeldey, B. Fischer, S. Ghosh, T. Hebbeker, K.
Hoepfner, H. Keller, L. Mastrolorenzo, M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, 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 Ahmad21, O. Hlushchenko, T. Kress, A. Nowack, C.
Pistone, O. Pooth, D. Roy, H. Sert, A. Stahl22, T. Ziemons Deutsches
Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
H. Aarup Petersen, M. Aldaya Martin, P. Asmuss, I. Babounikau, S. Baxter, O.
Behnke, A. Bermúdez Martínez, A.A. Bin Anuar, K. Borras23, V. Botta, D.
Brunner, A. Campbell, A. Cardini, P. Connor, S. Consuegra Rodríguez, V.
Danilov, A. De Wit, M.M. Defranchis, L. Didukh, D. Domínguez Damiani, G.
Eckerlin, D. Eckstein, T. Eichhorn, L.I. Estevez Banos, E. Gallo24, A. Geiser,
A. Giraldi, A. Grohsjean, M. Guthoff, A. Harb, A. Jafari25, N.Z. Jomhari, H.
Jung, A. Kasem23, M. Kasemann, H. Kaveh, C. Kleinwort, J. Knolle, D. Krücker,
W. Lange, T. Lenz, J. Lidrych, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann26, T. Madlener, R. Mankel,
I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, J. Metwally, A.B. Meyer, M. Meyer, M. Missiroli, J.
Mnich, A. Mussgiller, V. Myronenko, Y. Otarid, D. Pérez Adán, S.K. Pflitsch,
D. Pitzl, A. Raspereza, A. Saggio, A. Saibel, M. Savitskyi, V. Scheurer, C.
Schwanenberger, A. Singh, R.E. Sosa Ricardo, N. Tonon, O. Turkot, A.
Vagnerini, M. Van De Klundert, R. Walsh, D. Walter, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C.
Wissing, S. Wuchterl, O. Zenaiev, R. Zlebcik University of Hamburg, Hamburg,
Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, L. Benato, A. Benecke, K. De Leo, T. Dreyer, A.
Ebrahimi, M. Eich, F. Feindt, A. Fröhlich, C. Garbers, E. Garutti, P.
Gunnellini, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, A. Karavdina, G. Kasieczka, R. Klanner, R.
Kogler, V. Kutzner, J. Lange, T. Lange, A. Malara, C.E.N. Niemeyer, A.
Nigamova, K.J. Pena Rodriguez, O. Rieger, P. Schleper, S. Schumann, J.
Schwandt, D. Schwarz, J. Sonneveld, H. Stadie, G. Steinbrück, B. Vormwald, I.
Zoi Karlsruher Institut fuer Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany
J. Bechtel, T. Berger, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, W. De Boer, A.
Dierlamm, A. Droll, K. El Morabit, N. Faltermann, K. Flöh, M. Giffels, A.
Gottmann, F. Hartmann22, C. Heidecker, U. Husemann, I. Katkov27, P. Keicher,
R. Koppenhöfer, S. Maier, M. Metzler, S. Mitra, D. Müller, Th. Müller, M.
Musich, G. Quast, K. Rabbertz, J. Rauser, D. Savoiu, D. Schäfer, M. Schnepf,
M. Schröder, D. Seith, I. Shvetsov, H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, M. Wassmer, M.
Weber, R. Wolf, S. Wozniewski Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics
(INPP), NCSR Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
G. Anagnostou, P. Asenov, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas,
G. Paspalaki, A. Stakia National and Kapodistrian University of Athens,
Athens, Greece
M. Diamantopoulou, D. Karasavvas, G. Karathanasis, P. Kontaxakis, C.K. Koraka,
A. Manousakis-katsikakis, A. Panagiotou, I. Papavergou, N. Saoulidou, K.
Theofilatos, K. Vellidis, E. Vourliotis National Technical University of
Athens, Athens, Greece
G. Bakas, K. Kousouris, I. Papakrivopoulos, G. Tsipolitis, A. Zacharopoulou
University of Ioánnina, Ioánnina, Greece
I. Evangelou, C. Foudas, P. Gianneios, P. Katsoulis, P. Kokkas, K. Manitara,
N. Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, J. Strologas MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and
Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
M. Bartók28, M. Csanad, M.M.A. Gadallah29, S. Lökös30, P. Major, K. Mandal, A.
Mehta, G. Pasztor, O. Surányi, G.I. Veres Wigner Research Centre for Physics,
Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath31, 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. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari Eszterhazy Karoly University, Karoly
Robert Campus, Gyongyos, Hungary
T. Csorgo32, F. Nemes32, T. Novak Indian Institute of Science (IISc),
Bangalore, India
S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri, D. Kumar, L. Panwar, P.C. Tiwari National
Institute of Science Education and Research, HBNI, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati33, D. Dash, C. Kar, P. Mal, T. Mishra, V.K. Muraleedharan Nair
Bindhu, A. Nayak34, D.K. Sahoo33, N. Sur, S.K. Swain Panjab University,
Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, G. Chaudhary, S. Chauhan, N. Dhingra35, R.
Gupta, A. Kaur, S. Kaur, P. Kumari, M. Meena, K. Sandeep, S. Sharma, J.B.
Singh, A.K. Virdi University of Delhi, Delhi, India
A. Ahmed, A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, M. Gola, S. Keshri, A.
Kumar, M. Naimuddin, P. Priyanka, K. Ranjan, A. Shah Saha Institute of Nuclear
Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India
M. Bharti36, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, D. Bhowmik, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh,
B. Gomber37, M. Maity38, S. Nandan, P. Palit, P.K. Rout, G. Saha, B. Sahu, S.
Sarkar, M. Sharan, B. Singh36, S. Thakur36 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. Kumar, K. Naskar39, P.K. Netrakanti, L.M. Pant, P. Shukla Tata
Institute of Fundamental Research-A, Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, M.A. Bhat, S. Dugad, R. Kumar Verma, G.B. Mohanty, U. Sarkar Tata
Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, R. Chudasama, M. Guchait, S.
Karmakar, S. Kumar, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, S. Mukherjee, D. Roy Indian
Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, India
S. Dube, B. Kansal, S. Pandey, A. Rane, A. Rastogi, S. Sharma Department of
Physics, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
H. Bakhshiansohi40, M. Zeinali41 Institute for Research in Fundamental
Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran
S. Chenarani42, S.M. Etesami, M. Khakzad, M. Mohammadi Najafabadi University
College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
M. Felcini, M. Grunewald INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b,
Politecnico di Bari c, Bari, Italy
M. Abbresciaa,b, R. Alya,b,43, 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. 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, S. Braibant-
Giacomellia,b, R. Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A. Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa,
C. Cioccaa, M. Cuffiania,b, G.M. Dallavallea, T. Diotalevia,b, F. Fabbria, A.
Fanfania,b, E. Fontanesia,b, P. Giacomellia, L. Giommia,b, C. Grandia, L.
Guiduccia,b, F. Iemmia,b, S. Lo Meoa,44, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, F.L.
Navarriaa,b, A. Perrottaa, F. Primaveraa,b, A.M. Rossia,b, T. Rovellia,b, G.P.
Sirolia,b, N. Tosia INFN Sezione di Catania a, Università di Catania b,
Catania, Italy
S. Albergoa,b,45, S. Costaa,b, A. Di Mattiaa, R. Potenzaa,b, A. Tricomia,b,45,
C. Tuvea,b INFN Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b, Firenze, Italy
G. Barbaglia, A. Cassesea, R. Ceccarellia,b, V. Ciullia,b, C. Civininia, R.
D’Alessandroa,b, F. Fioria, E. Focardia,b, G. Latinoa,b, P. Lenzia,b, M.
Lizzoa,b, M. Meschinia, S. Paolettia, R. Seiditaa,b, G. Sguazzonia, L.
Viliania INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, D. Piccolo INFN Sezione di Genova a, Università di
Genova b, Genova, Italy
M. Bozzoa,b, F. Ferroa, R. Mulargiaa,b, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia,b INFN Sezione
di Milano-Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, Italy
A. Benagliaa, A. Beschia,b, F. Brivioa,b, F. Cetorellia,b, V. Cirioloa,b,22,
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, F. Montia,b, L. Moronia, M. Paganonia,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Ragazzia,b,
T. Tabarelli de Fatisa,b, D. Valsecchia,b,22, D. Zuoloa,b INFN Sezione di
Napoli a, Università di Napoli ’Federico II’ b, Napoli, Italy, Università
della Basilicata c, Potenza, Italy, Università G. Marconi d, Roma, Italy
S. Buontempoa, N. Cavalloa,c, A. De Iorioa,b, F. Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa,
A.O.M. Iorioa,b, L. Listaa,b, S. Meolaa,d,22, P. Paoluccia,22, B. Rossia, C.
Sciaccaa,b, E. Voevodinaa,b INFN Sezione di Padova a, Università di Padova b,
Padova, Italy, Università di Trento c, Trento, Italy
P. Azzia, N. Bacchettaa, D. Biselloa,b, P. Bortignona, A. Bragagnoloa,b, R.
Carlina,b, P. Checchiaa, P. De Castro Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa, F. Gasparinia,b,
U. Gasparinia,b, S.Y. Hoha,b, L. Layera,46, M. Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,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, M. Ressegottia,b, C. Riccardia,b, P. Salvinia, I. Vaia,
P. Vituloa,b INFN Sezione di Perugia a, Università di Perugia b, Perugia,
Italy
M. Biasinia,b, G.M. Bileia, D. Ciangottinia,b, L. Fanòa,b, P. Laricciaa,b, G.
Mantovania,b, V. Mariania,b, M. Menichellia, F. Moscatellia, A. 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
K. Androsova, P. Azzurria, G. Bagliesia, V. Bertacchia,c, L. Bianchinia, T.
Boccalia, R. Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, M.R. Di Domenicoa,b, S.
Donatoa, L. Gianninia,c, A. Giassia, M.T. Grippoa, F. Ligabuea,c, E. Mancaa,c,
G. Mandorlia,c, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, G. Ramirez-Sancheza,c, A. Rizzia,b,
G. Rolandia,c, S. Roy Chowdhurya,c, A. Scribanoa, N. Shafieia,b, P. Spagnoloa,
R. Tenchinia, G. Tonellia,b, N. Turinia, A. Venturia, P.G. Verdinia INFN
Sezione di Roma a, Sapienza Università di Roma b, Rome, Italy
F. Cavallaria, M. Cipriania,b, D. Del Rea,b, E. Di Marcoa, M. Diemoza, E.
Longoa,b, P. Meridiania, G. Organtinia,b, F. Pandolfia, R. Paramattia,b, C.
Quarantaa,b, S. Rahatloua,b, C. Rovellia, F. Santanastasioa,b, L. Soffia,b, R.
Tramontanoa,b INFN Sezione di Torino a, Università di Torino b, Torino, Italy,
Università del Piemonte Orientale c, Novara, Italy
N. Amapanea,b, R. Arcidiaconoa,c, S. Argiroa,b, M. Arneodoa,c, N. Bartosika,
R. Bellana,b, A. Belloraa,b, J. Berenguer Antequeraa,b, C. Biinoa, A.
Cappatia,b, N. Cartigliaa, S. Comettia, M. Costaa,b, R. Covarellia,b, N.
Demariaa, B. Kiania,b, F. Leggera, C. Mariottia, S. Masellia, E. Migliorea,b,
V. Monacoa,b, E. Monteila,b, M. Montenoa, M.M. Obertinoa,b, G. Ortonaa, L.
Pachera,b, N. Pastronea, M. Pelliccionia, G.L. Pinna Angionia,b, M. Ruspaa,c,
R. Salvaticoa,b, F. Sivieroa,b, V. Solaa, A. Solanoa,b, D. Soldia,b, A.
Staianoa, M. Tornagoa,b, D. Trocinoa,b INFN Sezione di Trieste a, Università
di Trieste b, Trieste, Italy
S. Belfortea, V. Candelisea,b, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, A. Da Rolda,b, G.
Della Riccaa,b, F. Vazzolera,b Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea
S. Dogra, C. Huh, B. Kim, D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, J. Lee, S.W. Lee, C.S. Moon,
Y.D. Oh, S.I. Pak, 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, S. Ha, B. Hong, K. Lee, K.S. Lee, J. Lim, J. Park,
S.K. Park, J. Yoo Kyung Hee University, Department of Physics, Seoul, Republic
of Korea
J. Goh, A. Gurtu Sejong University, Seoul, Korea
H.S. Kim, Y. Kim Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J.H. Bhyun, J. Choi, S. Jeon, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, S. Ko, H. Kwon, H.
Lee, K. Lee, S. Lee, K. Nam, B.H. Oh, M. Oh, S.B. Oh, H. Seo, U.K. Yang, I.
Yoon University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea
D. Jeon, J.H. Kim, B. Ko, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park, Y. Roh, D. Song, I.J. Watson
Yonsei University, Department of Physics, Seoul, Korea
H.D. Yoo Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, C. Hwang, Y. Jeong, H. Lee, Y. Lee, I. Yu College of Engineering and
Technology, American University of the Middle East (AUM), Kuwait
Y. Maghrbi Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
V. Veckalns47 Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
A. Juodagalvis, A. Rinkevicius, G. Tamulaitis, A. Vaitkevicius National Centre
for Particle Physics, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
W.A.T. Wan Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli Universidad de Sonora (UNISON),
Hermosillo, Mexico
J.F. Benitez, A. Castaneda Hernandez, J.A. Murillo Quijada, L. Valencia Palomo
Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
G. Ayala, H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, I. Heredia-De La Cruz48,
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
J. Eysermans, I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada Universidad
Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, Mexico
A. Morelos Pineda University of Montenegro, Podgorica, Montenegro
J. Mijuskovic4, N. Raicevic University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
S. Bheesette, P.H. Butler National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam
University, Islamabad, Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M.I. Asghar, 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, T. Frueboes, M. Górski, M. Kazana, M.
Szleper, P. Traczyk, P. Zalewski Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of
Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, 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, J. Seixas, K. Shchelina, O. Toldaiev, J.
Varela Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
S. Afanasiev, A. Baginyan, P. Bunin, Y. Ershov, M. Gavrilenko, A. Golunov, I.
Golutvin, I. Gorbunov, A. Kamenev, V. Karjavine, I. Kashunin, A. Lanev, A.
Malakhov, V. Matveev49,50, V. Palichik, V. Perelygin, M. Savina, S. Shmatov,
V. Smirnov, O. Teryaev, B.S. Yuldashev51, A. Zarubin 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, 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, G.
Safronov, A. Spiridonov, A. Stepennov, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A. Zhokin Moscow
Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
R. Chistov55, M. Danilov56, A. Oskin, P. Parygin, S. Polikarpov55 P.N. Lebedev
Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin, I. Dremin, M. Kirakosyan, A. Terkulov Skobeltsyn
Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow,
Russia
A. Belyaev, E. Boos, V. Bunichev, M. Dubinin57, L. Dudko, A. Ershov, A.
Gribushin, V. Klyukhin, O. Kodolova, I. Lokhtin, S. Obraztsov, V. Savrin, A.
Snigirev Novosibirsk State University (NSU), Novosibirsk, Russia
V. Blinov58, T. Dimova58, L. Kardapoltsev58, I. Ovtin58, Y. Skovpen58
Institute for High Energy Physics of National Research Centre ‘Kurchatov
Institute’, Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, V. Kachanov, A. Kalinin, D. Konstantinov, V. Petrov,
R. Ryutin, A. Sobol, S. Troshin, N. Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov National
Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia
A. Babaev, A. Iuzhakov, V. Okhotnikov, L. Sukhikh Tomsk State University,
Tomsk, Russia
V. Borchsh, V. Ivanchenko, E. Tcherniaev University of Belgrade: Faculty of
Physics and VINCA Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic59, P. Cirkovic, 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, A. García Alonso, 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, M.S.
Soares, A. Triossi, L. Urda Gómez, C. Willmott Universidad Autónoma de Madrid,
Madrid, Spain
C. Albajar, J.F. de Trocóniz, R. Reyes-Almanza Universidad de Oviedo,
Instituto Universitario de Ciencias y Tecnologías Espaciales de Asturias
(ICTEA), Oviedo, Spain
B. Alvarez Gonzalez, J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, S. Folgueras,
I. Gonzalez Caballero, E. Palencia Cortezon, C. Ramón Álvarez, J. Ripoll Sau,
V. Rodríguez Bouza, S. Sanchez Cruz, A. Trapote Instituto de Física de
Cantabria (IFCA), CSIC-Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain
J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, B. Chazin Quero, J.
Duarte Campderros, M. Fernandez, P.J. Fernández Manteca, G. Gomez, C. Martinez
Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del Arbol, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, C. Prieels,
F. Ricci-Tam, T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno, L. Scodellaro, I. Vila, J.M. Vizan
Garcia University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka
MK Jayananda, B. Kailasapathy60, D.U.J. Sonnadara, DDC Wickramarathna
University of Ruhuna, Department of Physics, Matara, Sri Lanka
W.G.D. Dharmaratna, K. Liyanage, N. Perera, N. Wickramage CERN, European
Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, D. Abbaneo, B. Akgun, E. Auffray, G. Auzinger, J. Baechler, P.
Baillon, A.H. Ball, D. Barney, J. Bendavid, N. Beni, M. Bianco, A. Bocci, E.
Bossini, E. Brondolin, T. Camporesi, G. Cerminara, L. Cristella, D.
d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, N. Daci, V. Daponte, A. David, A. De Roeck, M.
Deile, R. Di Maria, M. Dobson, M. Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, N.
Emriskova, F. Fallavollita61, D. Fasanella, S. Fiorendi, A. Florent, G.
Franzoni, J. Fulcher, W. Funk, S. Giani, D. Gigi, K. Gill, F. Glege, L.
Gouskos, M. Guilbaud, D. Gulhan, 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, F. Meijers, S. Mersi, E. Meschi, F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, J.
Niedziela, S. Orfanelli, L. Orsini, F. Pantaleo22, L. Pape, E. Perez, M.
Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, T. Quast, D.
Rabady, A. Racz, M. Rieger, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, S.
Scarfi, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva, W. Snoeys,
P. Sphicas62, S. Summers, V.R. Tavolaro, D. Treille, A. Tsirou, G.P. Van
Onsem, A. Vartak, M. Verzetti, K.A. Wozniak, W.D. Zeuner Paul Scherrer
Institut, Villigen, Switzerland
L. Caminada63, W. Erdmann, R. Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C. Kaestli, D.
Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, T. Rohe ETH Zurich - Institute for Particle Physics
and Astrophysics (IPA), Zurich, Switzerland
M. Backhaus, P. Berger, A. Calandri, N. Chernyavskaya, A. De Cosa, G.
Dissertori, M. Dittmar, M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, T. Gadek, T.A. Gómez Espinosa,
C. Grab, D. Hits, W. Lustermann, A.-M. Lyon, R.A. Manzoni, M.T. Meinhard, F.
Micheli, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, 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. Steggemann64, M.L. Vesterbacka
Olsson, R. Wallny, D.H. Zhu Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
C. Amsler65, C. Botta, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, R. Del Burgo, J.K.
Heikkilä, M. Huwiler, A. Jofrehei, B. Kilminster, S. Leontsinis, A. Macchiolo,
P. Meiring, V.M. Mikuni, U. Molinatti, I. Neutelings, G. Rauco, A. Reimers, P.
Robmann, K. Schweiger, Y. Takahashi National Central University, Chung-Li,
Taiwan
C. Adloff66, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A. Roy, T. Sarkar38, S.S. Yu National Taiwan
University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
L. Ceard, P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, W.-S. Hou, Y.y. Li, R.-S.
Lu, E. Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen, E. Yazgan Chulalongkorn University,
Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok, Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, N. Srimanobhas Çukurova University,
Physics Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
F. Boran, S. Damarseckin67, Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, C. Dozen68, I.
Dumanoglu69, E. Eskut, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, E. Gurpinar Guler70, I. Hos71,
C. Isik, E.E. Kangal72, O. Kara, A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, G. Onengut, K.
Ozdemir73, A. Polatoz, A.E. Simsek, B. Tali74, U.G. Tok, S. Turkcapar, I.S.
Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East Technical University, Physics Department,
Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak75, G. Karapinar76, K. Ocalan77, M. Yalvac78 Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya79, O. Kaya80, Ö. Özçelik, S. Tekten81, E.A.
Yetkin82 Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
A. Cakir, K. Cankocak69, Y. Komurcu, S. Sen83 Istanbul University, Istanbul,
Turkey
F. Aydogmus Sen, S. Cerci74, B. Kaynak, S. Ozkorucuklu, D. Sunar Cerci74
Institute for Scintillation Materials of National Academy of Science of
Ukraine, Kharkov, Ukraine
B. Grynyov National Scientific Center, Kharkov Institute of Physics and
Technology, Kharkov, Ukraine
L. Levchuk University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
E. Bhal, S. Bologna, J.J. Brooke, E. Clement, D. Cussans, H. Flacher, J.
Goldstein, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, B. Krikler, S. Paramesvaran, T.
Sakuma, S. Seif El Nasr-Storey, V.J. Smith, N. Stylianou84, J. Taylor, A.
Titterton Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev85, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, D.J.A. Cockerill, K.V. Ellis, K.
Harder, S. Harper, J. Linacre, K. Manolopoulos, D.M. Newbold, E. Olaiya, D.
Petyt, T. Reis, T. Schuh, C.H. Shepherd-Themistocleous, A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin,
T. Williams Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, S. Bonomally, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A.
Bundock, V. Cepaitis, G.S. Chahal86, D. Colling, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M.
Della Negra, G. Fedi, G. Hall, G. Iles, J. Langford, L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan,
S. Malik, A. Martelli, V. Milosevic, J. Nash87, V. Palladino, M. Pesaresi,
D.M. Raymond, A. Richards, A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A. Shtipliyski, M.
Stoye, A. Tapper, K. Uchida, T. Virdee22, N. Wardle, S.N. Webb, D.
Winterbottom, A.G. Zecchinelli Brunel University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, C.K. Mackay, I.D. Reid, L.
Teodorescu, S. Zahid Baylor University, Waco, USA
S. Abdullin, A. Brinkerhoff, K. Call, B. Caraway, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama,
A.R. Kanuganti, C. Madrid, B. McMaster, N. Pastika, S. Sawant, C. Smith, 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, O. Charaf, S.I. Cooper, S.V. Gleyzer, C. Henderson, C.U. Perez,
P. Rumerio, C. West Boston University, Boston, USA
A. Akpinar, A. Albert, D. Arcaro, C. Cosby, Z. Demiragli, D. Gastler, J.
Rohlf, K. Salyer, D. Sperka, D. Spitzbart, I. Suarez, S. Yuan, D. Zou Brown
University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, B. Burkle, X. Coubez23, D. Cutts, Y.t. Duh, M. Hadley, U. Heintz,
J.M. Hogan88, K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, K.T. Lau, J. Lee, M.
Narain, S. Sagir89, R. Syarif, E. Usai, W.Y. Wong, D. Yu, W. Zhang University
of California, Davis, Davis, USA
R. Band, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez, M. Chertok,
J. Conway, R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, G. Funk, F. Jensen, W.
Ko${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, O. Kukral, R. Lander, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett,
J. Pilot, M. Shi, D. Taylor, K. Tos, M. Tripathi, Y. Yao, F. Zhang University
of California, Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, D. Hamilton, J. Hauser, M. Ignatenko,
M.A. Iqbal, T. Lam, N. Mccoll, W.A. Nash, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg, C.
Schnaible, B. Stone, V. Valuev University of California, Riverside, Riverside,
USA
K. Burt, Y. Chen, R. Clare, J.W. Gary, G. Hanson, G. Karapostoli, O.R. Long,
N. Manganelli, M. Olmedo Negrete, M.I. Paneva, W. Si, S. Wimpenny, Y. Zhang
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, P. Chang, S. Cittolin, S. Cooperstein, N. Deelen, J. Duarte, R.
Gerosa, D. Gilbert, V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, M. Masciovecchio, S. May, S.
Padhi, M. Pieri, V. Sharma, M. Tadel, F. Würthwein, A. Yagil University of
California, Santa Barbara - Department of Physics, Santa Barbara, USA
N. Amin, C. Campagnari, M. Citron, A. Dorsett, V. Dutta, J. Incandela, B.
Marsh, H. Mei, A. Ovcharova, H. Qu, M. Quinnan, J. Richman, U. Sarica, D.
Stuart, S. Wang California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
A. Bornheim, O. Cerri, I. Dutta, J.M. Lawhorn, N. Lu, J. Mao, H.B. Newman, J.
Ngadiuba, T.Q. Nguyen, J. Pata, M. Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, C. Wang, S. Xie,
Z. Zhang, R.Y. Zhu Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
J. Alison, M.B. Andrews, T. Ferguson, T. Mudholkar, M. Paulini, M. Sun, I.
Vorobiev University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, E. MacDonald, T. Mulholland, R. Patel, A. Perloff, K.
Stenson, K.A. Ulmer, S.R. Wagner Cornell University, Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, Y. Cheng, J. Chu, D.J. Cranshaw, A. Datta, A. Frankenthal, K.
Mcdermott, J. Monroy, J.R. Patterson, D. Quach, A. Ryd, W. Sun, S.M. Tan, Z.
Tao, J. Thom, P. Wittich, M. Zientek Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
Batavia, USA
M. Albrow, M. Alyari, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S. Banerjee,
L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas, D. Berry, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, K. Burkett,
J.N. Butler, A. Canepa, G.B. Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M. Cremonesi,
V.D. Elvira, J. Freeman, Z. Gecse, E. Gottschalk, L. Gray, D. Green, S.
Grünendahl, O. Gutsche, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, R. Heller, T.C. Herwig, J.
Hirschauer, B. Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, P. Klabbers,
T. Klijnsma, B. Klima, M.J. Kortelainen, S. Lammel, D. Lincoln, R. Lipton, M.
Liu, T. Liu, J. Lykken, K. Maeshima, D. Mason, P. McBride, P. Merkel, S.
Mrenna, S. Nahn, V. O’Dell, V. Papadimitriou, K. Pedro, C. Pena57, 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, A.
Woodard University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, D. Bourilkov, L. Cadamuro, V. Cherepanov, F. Errico, R.D.
Field, D. Guerrero, B.M. Joshi, M. Kim, J. Konigsberg, A. Korytov, K.H. Lo, K.
Matchev, N. Menendez, G. Mitselmakher, D. Rosenzweig, K. Shi, J. Sturdy, J.
Wang, S. Wang, X. Zuo Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
T. Adams, A. Askew, D. Diaz, R. Habibullah, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F.
Johnson, R. Khurana, T. Kolberg, G. Martinez, H. Prosper, C. Schiber, R.
Yohay, J. Zhang Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, S. Butalla, T. Elkafrawy14, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, M. Rahmani,
M. Saunders, F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago, USA
M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, H. Becerril Gonzalez, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, S.
Dittmer, O. Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, C. Mills, G. Oh,
T. Roy, M.B. Tonjes, N. Varelas, J. Viinikainen, X. Wang, Z. Wu, Z. Ye The
University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, K. Dilsiz90, S. Durgut, R.P. Gandrajula, M. Haytmyradov, V.
Khristenko, O.K. Köseyan, J.-P. Merlo, A. Mestvirishvili91, A. Moeller, J.
Nachtman, H. Ogul92, Y. Onel, F. Ozok93, A. Penzo, C. Snyder, E. Tiras, J.
Wetzel Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
O. Amram, B. Blumenfeld, L. Corcodilos, M. Eminizer, A.V. Gritsan, S.
Kyriacou, P. Maksimovic, C. Mantilla, J. Roskes, M. Swartz, T.Á. Vámi The
University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA
C. Baldenegro Barrera, P. Baringer, A. Bean, A. Bylinkin, T. Isidori, S.
Khalil, J. King, G. Krintiras, A. Kropivnitskaya, C. Lindsey, N. Minafra, M.
Murray, C. Rogan, C. Royon, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q.
Wang, J. Williams, G. Wilson Kansas State University, Manhattan, USA
S. Duric, A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, D. Kim, Y. Maravin, T. Mitchell, A. Modak, A.
Mohammadi Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright University of Maryland, College Park, USA
E. Adams, A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, S.C. Eno, Y. Feng, N.J. Hadley, S.
Jabeen, G.Y. Jeng, R.G. Kellogg, T. Koeth, A.C. Mignerey, S. Nabili, M.
Seidel, A. Skuja, S.C. Tonwar, L. Wang, K. Wong Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, R. Bi, S. Brandt, W. Busza, I.A. Cali, Y. Chen, M.
D’Alfonso, G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov, P. Harris, D. Hsu, M. Hu, M.
Klute, D. Kovalskyi, J. Krupa, Y.-J. Lee, P.D. Luckey, B. Maier, A.C. Marini,
C. Mcginn, C. Mironov, S. Narayanan, X. Niu, C. Paus, D. Rankin, C. Roland, G.
Roland, Z. Shi, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Sumorok, K. Tatar, D. Velicanu, J. Wang,
T.W. Wang, Z. Wang, B. Wyslouch University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, P. Hansen, J. Hiltbrand, Sh. Jain, M. Krohn, Y.
Kubota, Z. Lesko, J. Mans, M. Revering, R. Rusack, R. Saradhy, N. Schroeder,
N. Strobbe, M.A. Wadud University of Mississippi, Oxford, USA
J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
K. Bloom, S. Chauhan, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, L. Finco, F. Golf, J.R.
González Fernández, C. Joo, I. Kravchenko, 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, C. Harrington, L. Hay, I. Iashvili, A.
Kharchilava, C. McLean, D. Nguyen, J. Pekkanen, S. Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani
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, K. Sung, M. Velasco University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame,
USA
R. Bucci, N. Dev, R. Goldouzian, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop,
D.J. Karmgard, K. Lannon, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, I. Mcalister, F. Meng, K.
Mohrman, Y. Musienko49, R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, S. Taroni, M. Wayne, A.
Wightman, M. Wolf, L. Zygala The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA
J. Alimena, B. Bylsma, B. Cardwell, L.S. Durkin, B. Francis, C. Hill, A.
Lefeld, B.L. Winer, B.R. Yates Princeton University, Princeton, USA
B. Bonham, P. Das, G. Dezoort, A. Dropulic, P. Elmer, B. Greenberg, N.
Haubrich, S. Higginbotham, A. Kalogeropoulos, G. Kopp, S. Kwan, D. Lange, M.T.
Lucchini, J. Luo, D. Marlow, K. Mei, I. Ojalvo, J. Olsen, C. Palmer, P.
Piroué, D. Stickland, C. Tully University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
V.E. Barnes, R. Chawla, S. Das, L. Gutay, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, G. Negro, N.
Neumeister, C.C. Peng, S. Piperov, A. Purohit, H. Qiu, J.F. Schulte, M.
Stojanovic18, N. Trevisani, F. Wang, A. Wildridge, R. Xiao, W. Xie Purdue
University Northwest, Hammond, USA
J. Dolen, N. Parashar Rice University, Houston, USA
A. Baty, S. Dildick, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Kilpatrick, A.
Kumar, W. Li, B.P. Padley, R. Redjimi, J. Roberts${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$,
J. Rorie, W. Shi, A.G. Stahl Leiton 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. Karacheban26, 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. Bouhali94, M. Dalchenko, A. Delgado, R. Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T.
Kamon95, H. Kim, S. Luo, S. Malhotra, R. Mueller, D. Overton, L. Perniè, D.
Rathjens, A. Safonov Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, V. Hegde, S. Kunori, K. Lamichhane, S.W. Lee, T.
Mengke, S. Muthumuni, T. Peltola, S. Undleeb, I. Volobouev, Z. Wang, A.
Whitbeck Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
E. Appelt, S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H.
Ni, K. Padeken, F. Romeo, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska 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, Y. Wang, E. Wolfe, F. Xia Wayne State
University, Detroit, USA
P.E. Karchin, N. Poudyal, P. Thapa University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison,
WI, USA
K. Black, T. Bose, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, S. Dasu, I. De Bruyn, P.
Everaerts, C. Galloni, H. He, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, A. Lanaro, A.
Loeliger, R. Loveless, J. Madhusudanan Sreekala, A. Mallampalli, D. Pinna, A.
Savin, V. Shang, V. Sharma, W.H. Smith, D. Teague, S. Trembath-reichert, W.
Vetens †: Deceased
1: Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria
2: Also at Institute of Basic and Applied Sciences, Faculty of Engineering,
Arab Academy for Science, Technology and Maritime Transport, Alexandria, Egypt
3: Also at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
4: Also at IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
5: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
6: Also at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
7: Also at UFMS, Nova Andradina, Brazil
8: Also at Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil
9: Also at Nanjing Normal University Department of Physics, Nanjing, China
10: Now at The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
11: Also at University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
12: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics named by A.I.
Alikhanov of NRC ‘Kurchatov Institute’, Moscow, Russia
13: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
14: Also at Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
15: Also at Zewail City of Science and Technology, Zewail, Egypt
16: Also at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt
17: Now at Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt
18: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
19: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
20: Also at Ilia State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
21: Also at Erzincan Binali Yildirim University, Erzincan, Turkey
22: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
23: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
24: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
25: Also at Department of Physics, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan,
Iran, Isfahan, Iran
26: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
27: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
28: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary,
Debrecen, Hungary
29: Also at Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Assiut University, Assiut,
Egypt
30: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary, Budapest, Hungary
31: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
32: Also at Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
33: Also at IIT Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India, Bhubaneswar, India
34: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
35: Also at G.H.G. Khalsa College, Punjab, India
36: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India
37: Also at University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India
38: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
39: Also at Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Mumbai, India
40: Also at Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
41: Also at Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
42: Also at Department of Physics, University of Science and Technology of
Mazandaran, Behshahr, Iran
43: Now at INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b, Politecnico di Bari
c, Bari, Italy
44: Also at Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and
Sustainable Economic Development, Bologna, Italy
45: Also at Centro Siciliano di Fisica Nucleare e di Struttura Della Materia,
Catania, Italy
46: Also at Università di Napoli ’Federico II’, NAPOLI, Italy
47: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia, Riga, Latvia
48: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico City, Mexico
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 P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
56: Also at Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia,
Moscow, Russia
57: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
58: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
59: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
60: Also at Trincomalee Campus, Eastern University, Sri Lanka, Nilaveli, Sri
Lanka
61: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy,
Pavia, Italy
62: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
63: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
64: Also at Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
65: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics, Vienna, Austria,
Vienna, Austria
66: Also at Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules,
IN2P3-CNRS, Annecy-le-Vieux, France
67: Also at Şırnak University, Sirnak, Turkey
68: Also at Department of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China,
Beijing, China
69: Also at Near East University, Research Center of Experimental Health
Science, Nicosia, Turkey
70: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey, Istanbul, Turkey
71: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Application and Research Center for
Advanced Studies (App. & Res. Cent. for Advanced Studies), Istanbul, Turkey
72: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
73: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
74: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
75: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
76: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
77: Also at Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
78: Also at Bozok Universitetesi Rektörlügü, Yozgat, Turkey
79: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
80: Also at Milli Savunma University, Istanbul, Turkey
81: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
82: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
83: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
84: Also at Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
85: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
86: Also at IPPP Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom
87: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia
88: Also at Bethel University, St. Paul, Minneapolis, USA, St. Paul, USA
89: Also at Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey
90: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
91: Also at Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
92: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
93: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
94: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
95: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea, Daegu, Korea