B2G-17-018

$HeadURL:svn+ssh://svn.cern.ch/reps/tdr2/papers/B2G-17-018/trunk/B2G-17-018.tex$
$Id:B2G-17-018.tex4824722018-11-2710:30:49Zrkogler$

B2G-17-018

# Search for single production of vector-like quarks decaying to a top quark
and a boson in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$

###### Abstract

A search is presented for the single production of vector-like quarks in
proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$. The data, corresponding to an
integrated luminosity of 35.9, were recorded with the CMS experiment at the
LHC. The analysis focuses on the vector-like quark decay into a top quark and
a $\PW$ boson, with one muon or electron in the final state. The mass of the
vector-like quark candidate is reconstructed from hadronic jets, the lepton,
and the missing transverse momentum. Methods for the identification of $\cPqb$
quarks and of highly Lorentz boosted hadronically decaying top quarks and
$\PW$ bosons are exploited in this search. No significant deviation from the
standard model background expectation is observed. Exclusion limits at 95%
confidence level are set on the product of the production cross section and
branching fraction as a function of the vector-like quark mass, which range
from 0.3 to 0.03pbfor vector-like quark masses of 700 to 2000. Mass exclusion
limits up to 1660are obtained, depending on the vector-like quark type,
coupling, and decay width. These represent the most stringent exclusion limits
for the single production of vector-like quarks in this channel.

##  0.1 Introduction

The discovery of the Higgs boson () [1, 2] with a mass of 125completes the
particle content of the standard model (SM). Even though the SM yields
numerous accurate predictions, there are several open questions, among them
the origin of the $\PH$ mass stability at the electroweak scale. Various
models beyond the SM have been proposed that stabilise the $\PH$ mass at the
measured value; some examples are Little Higgs [3, 4, 5] or Composite Higgs
models [6], in which additional top quark partners with masses at the TeV
scale are predicted. Since the left- (LH) and right-handed (RH) chiral
components of these particles transform in the same way under the SM
electroweak symmetry group, they are often referred to as “vector-like quarks”
(VLQs). In contrast to a fourth chiral quark generation, their impact on the
$\PH$ properties is small, such that VLQs have not been excluded by the
measurements of $\PH$ mediated cross sections [7, 8, 9].

Several searches for VLQs have been performed at the CERN LHC, setting lower
exclusion limits on the VLQ mass $m_{\mathrm{{VLQ}}}$ [10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31]. Many of these
analyses study the pair production of VLQs via the strong interaction. In
contrast, the analysis presented here searches for the single VLQ production
via the weak interaction, where a hadronic jet is emitted at a low angle with
respect to the beam direction. Furthermore, VLQs with enhanced couplings to
the third generation quarks (VLQ and $X_{5/3}$ quarks with an electric charge
of $1/3$ and $5/3$ respectively) are produced in association with a bottom
($\cPqb$) or top ($\cPqt$) quark, leading to the +, +, and $X_{5/3}$\+
production modes.

While a VLQ quark could decay into the $\PH\cPqb$, $\PZ\cPqb$, or $\cPqt\PW$
final state, a VLQ $X_{5/3}$ quark could only decay into the final state. This
search focuses on the final state. In Fig. 1, two leading-order (LO) Feynman
diagrams are shown for the single production of and $X_{5/3}$ quarks and their
decay into . This paper presents the first search of this signature in proton-
proton ($\Pp\Pp$) collision data recorded at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 .
Results at $\sqrt{s}=8\TeV$ have been obtained by the ATLAS collaboration
[32].

Figure 1: Leading order Feynman diagrams for the production of a single
vector-like or $X_{5/3}$ quark in association with a $\cPqb$ (left) or $\cPqt$
(right) and a light-flavour quark, and the subsequent decay of the VLQ to
$\cPqt\PW$.

In this analysis, final states with a single muon or electron, several
hadronic jets, and missing transverse momenta $\ptmiss$ are studied. Because
of the high mass of the VLQ, the $\cPqt$ and $\PW$ can have high Lorentz
boosts, leading to highly collimated decays of the $\PW$ boson, the top quark
and non-isolated leptons. For signal events, the mass of the and $X_{5/3}$
quarks can be reconstructed using hadronic jets, the lepton, and the
$\ptmiss$. The associated and , as well as the leptons originating from their
decay, have much lower transverse momenta $\pt$ and are not considered for the
reconstruction or selection.

The dominant SM background processes are top quark pair () production,
$\PW$+jets and $\PZ$+jets production, single $\cPqt$ production, and multijet
production via the strong force. All SM backgrounds contributing to this
search are predicted from dedicated control regions in data, defined through
the absence of a forward jet.

This paper is organised as follows: Section 0.2 provides a description of the
CMS detector. Section 0.3 introduces the data set and the simulated events.
This is followed by the event selection in Section 0.4, as well as by the
description of the reconstruction of the VLQ mass in Section 0.5. In Section
0.6, a method to estimate the background is discussed. Systematic
uncertainties are detailed in Section 0.7. The final results of the analysis,
as well as the statistical interpretation in terms of exclusion limits, are
discussed in Section 0.8.

##  0.2 The CMS detector and physics objects

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 (HCAL), each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. Forward
calorimeters extend the pseudorapidity coverage provided by the barrel and
endcap detectors. Muons are detected in gas-ionisation chambers embedded in
the steel flux-return yoke outside the solenoid.

The particle-flow event algorithm [33] aims to reconstruct and identify each
individual particle with an optimised combination of information from the
various elements of the CMS detector. The energy of photons is directly
obtained from the ECAL measurement, corrected for zero-suppression effects.
The energy of electrons is determined from a combination of the electron
momentum at the primary interaction vertex, the energy of the corresponding
ECAL cluster, and the energy sum of all bremsstrahlung photons spatially
compatible with originating from the electron track [34]. The energy of muons
is obtained from the curvature of the corresponding track [35]. The energy of
charged hadrons is determined from a combination of their momentum measured in
the tracker and the matching ECAL and HCAL energy deposits, corrected for
zero-suppression effects and for the response function of the calorimeters to
hadronic showers. Finally, the energy of neutral hadrons is obtained from the
corresponding corrected ECAL and HCAL energy.

The reconstructed vertex with the largest value of summed physics-object
$\pt^{2}$ is taken to be the primary $\Pp\Pp$ interaction vertex. The physics
objects used are the jets, clustered with the jet finding algorithm [36, 37]
with the tracks assigned to the vertex as inputs, and the associated missing
transverse momentum, taken as the negative vector sum of the of those jets.

A more detailed description of the CMS detector, together with a definition of
the coordinate system used and the relevant kinematic variables, can be found
in Ref. [38].

##  0.3 Data and simulated samples

In this analysis, $\Pp\Pp$ collision data at a centre-of-mass energy of
$13\TeV$ taken in 2016 by the CMS experiment are analyzed. The data have been
collected with muon and electron triggers [39]. For the muon trigger, a muon
candidate with $\pt>50\GeV$ is required. Data events in the electron channel
are collected using a logical combination of two triggers: the first requires
an electron candidate with $\pt>45\GeV$ and a hadronic jet candidate with
$\pt>165\GeV$, the second requires an electron candidate with $\pt>115\GeV$.
In the trigger selection, reconstructed leptons and jets must be in the
central part of the detector, with a pseudorapidity of $\abs{\eta}<2.4$. No
lepton isolation criteria are applied at the trigger level. The collected data
correspond to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 [40].

For the study of dominant SM background processes and for the validation of
the background estimation, simulated samples using Monte Carlo (MC) techniques
are used. The top quark pair production via the strong interaction and single
top quark production in the $t$-channel, and the $\cPqt\PW$ process are
generated with the next-to-leading-order (NLO) generator [41, 42, 43] (version
v2 is used for the first two and version v1 for the third). The event
generator (v2.2.2) [44] at NLO is used for single top quark production in the
$s$-channel. The $\PW$+jets and $\PZ$+jets processes are also simulated using
(v2.2.2). The $\PW$+jets events are generated at NLO, and the FXFX scheme [45]
is used to match the parton shower emission. The $\PZ$+jets events are
produced at LO with the MLM parton matching scheme [46]. The production of
quantum chromodynamics (QCD) multijet events has been simulated at LO using
[47]. All generated events are interfaced with for the description of the
parton shower and hadronisation. The parton distribution functions (PDFs) are
taken from the NNPDF 3.0 [48] sets, with the precision matching that of the
matrix element calculations. The underlying event tune is CUETP8M1 [49, 50],
except for the simulation of top quark pairs and single top quark production
in the $t$-channel, which use CUETP8M2T4 [51].

Signal events are generated at LO using for and $X_{5/3}$ with VLQ decay
widths relative to the VLQ mass of $(\Gamma/m)_{\mathrm{VLQ}}=1$, 10, 20, and
30%. The samples with 1% relative VLQ width are simulated in steps of 100for
masses between 700 and 2000. Samples with 10, 20, and 30% relative VLQ widths
are generated in steps of 200for masses ranging from 800 to 2000, using a
modified version of the model proposed in Refs. [52, 53, 54]. Separate signal
samples are generated for the two main production modes, in which VLQs are
produced in association either with a quark or with a quark, viz.
$\Pp\Pp\to\PQB\cPqb\cPq$ and $\Pp\Pp\to\PQB\cPqt\cPq$. The theoretical cross
sections for VLQ production are calculated using Refs. [55, 56, 57], where a
simplified approach is used to provide a model-independent interpretation of
experimental results for narrow and large mass width scenarios, as already
used for the interpretation of singly produced vector-like and quarks [18,
19]. The MADSPIN package [58, 59] is used to retain the correct spin
correlations of the top quark and $\PW$ boson decay products. Interference
effects between signal and SM processes have been found to be negligible in
this analysis.

All generated events are passed through a [60] based detector simulation of
the CMS detector. Additional $\Pp\Pp$ interactions originating from the same
bunch crossing (in-time pileup), as well as from the following or previous
bunch crossings (out-of-time pileup) are taken into account in the simulation.

##  0.4 Event selection

The physics objects used in this analysis are muons, electrons, hadronic jets,
$\ptvecmiss$, and $S_{\mathrm{T},\text{lep}}$ (defined as the scalar sum of
the lepton $\pt$ and $\ptmiss$).

For each event, jets are clustered from reconstructed particles using the
infrared and collinear safe anti-algorithm [36] with a distance parameter
$R=0.4$ (AK4 jet). Additionally, jets with $R=0.8$ (AK8 jet) are also
clustered in every event with the anti-algorithm, which are used for $\cPqt$
and $\PW$ tagging. The jet clustering is performed with the [37] package. Jet
momentum is determined as the vectorial sum of all particle momenta in the
jet, and is found from simulation to be within 5–10% of the true momentum over
the whole spectrum and detector acceptance. Additional $\Pp\Pp$ interactions
within the same or nearby bunch crossings can contribute additional tracks and
calorimetric energy depositions to the jet momentum. To mitigate this effect,
tracks identified to be originating from pileup vertices are discarded, and an
offset correction is applied to correct for remaining contributions. Jet
energy corrections are derived from simulation studies so that the average
measured response of jets becomes identical to that of particle level jets. In
situ measurements of the momentum balance in dijet, photon+jet, $\PZ$+jet, and
multijet events are used to account for any residual differences in the jet
energy scale in data and simulation. Additional selection criteria are applied
to each jet to remove jets potentially dominated by anomalous contributions
from various subdetector components or reconstruction failures [61].

From the corrected and reconstructed AK4 jet$\mathrm{s}$, those are considered
that have $\pt>30\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<4$, while AK8 jet$\mathrm{s}$ must have
$\pt>170\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.4$.

Events selected in the analysis are required to have one reconstructed muon or
electron with $\pt>55\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.4$. Electrons and muons are
selected using tight quality criteria with small misidentification
probabilities of about 0.1% for muons and 1% for electrons [34, 62]. In the
electron channel, a AK4 jet must have $\pt>185\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.4$ if
the electron has $\pt<120\GeV$, reflecting the trigger selection. Events with
more than one muon or electron passing the same tight identification criteria
and having $\pt>40\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.4$ are discarded. Selected events
contain two AK4 jet$\mathrm{s}$ with $\pt>50\GeV$, which are in the central
part of the detector with $\abs{\eta}<2.4$. Additionally at least one AK8 jet
is required. For the reconstruction AK4 jet$\mathrm{s}$ are used with
$\pt>30\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.4$, while the AK4 jet$\mathrm{s}$ emitted close
to the beam pipe and employed in the background estimation must fulfill
$\pt>30\GeV$ and $2.4<\abs{\eta}<4$.

Because of the high Lorentz boosts of the top quarks and $\PW$ bosons from the
heavy VLQ decay, signal events can have leptons in close vicinity to the jets.
For this reason, standard lepton isolation would reduce the selection
efficiency considerably. Therefore, for the suppression of events originating
from QCD mulitjet processes, either the perpendicular component of the lepton
momentum relative to the geometrically closest AK4 jet $p_{\mathrm{T,rel}}$,
is required to exceed $40\GeV$ or the angular distance of the lepton to the
jet, $\Delta
R(\ell,\mathrm{jet})=\sqrt{\smash[b]{(\Delta\eta)^{2}+(\Delta\phi)^{2}}}$,
must be larger than 0.4, where $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle in radians.
Furthermore, for selecting an event, the magnitude of $\ptvecmiss$ has to be
greater than 50in the muon channel and greater than 60in the electron channel.
This requirement reduces the amount of background from multijet production.
The final selection is based on the variable $S_{\mathrm{T},\text{lep}}$,
which is required to be larger than 250in the muon channel and 290in the
electron channel.

Events are separated into categories exploiting the tagging techniques for
boosted top quarks and $\PW$ bosons decaying hadronically, as well as for
hadronic jets originating from $\cPqb$ quarks. Jets with $R=0.8$ are used to
identify the hadronic decays of highly boosted top quarks and $\PW$ bosons
[63, 64]. For top quark jets $\pt>400\GeV$ is required, and for $\PW$ boson
jets the requirement is $\pt>200\GeV$. The “soft drop” (SD) declustering and
grooming algorithm [65, 66] with $z=0.1$ and $\beta=0$ is employed to identify
subjets and to remove soft and wide-angle radiation. The groomed jet mass,
$m_{\mathrm{SD}}$, is used to identify top quark and $\PW$ boson candidates.
Tagged top quark candidates ($\cPqt$ tagged) are required to have
$105<m_{\mathrm{SD}}<220\GeV$ and one of the subjets must fulfill the loose
$\cPqb$ tagging criterion, based on the combined secondary vertex (CSVv2) [67]
algorithm. The loose criterion is defined to give a 80% efficiency of
correctly identifying jets, with a 10% probability of incorrectly tagging a
light quark jet. Additionally, the jet must have a N-subjettiness [68, 69]
ratio $\tau_{3}/\tau_{2}<0.5$ and its angular distance to the lepton $\Delta
R{(\ell,\cPqt\ \mathrm{tag})}$ must be larger than 2. Identified $\PW$ boson
candidates ($\PW$ tag) must have $65<m_{\mathrm{SD}}<95\GeV$. The medium
$\cPqb$ tag criterion is used on AK4 jet$\mathrm{s}$, defined to give a $60\%$
efficiency of correctly identifying jets, with a $1\%$ probability of
incorrectly tagging a light quark jet.

Selected events are attributed to different mutually exclusive event
categories. Events containing at least one $\cPqt$ tag constitute the first
category (“ tag”). If no $\cPqt$ tag is found, all events with at least one
$\PW$ tag are grouped into a second category (“ tag”). The remaining events
are attributed to three further categories based on the multiplicity of
$\cPqb$ tags found in the event. We distinguish events with at least two
(“${\geq}2$ tag”), exactly one (“1 tag”), and no $\cPqb$ tag (“0 tag”). These
five categories are built separately in the muon and in the electron channel
leading to a total of ten categories.

##  0.5 Mass reconstruction

Hadronic jets, leptons, and $\ptvecmiss$ are used to reconstruct the mass of
the VLQ, denoted $m_{\mathrm{reco}}$. In signal events, the lepton in the
final state always originates from the decay of a $\PW$ boson, either the
$\PW$ boson from the VLQ decay or the $\PW$ boson from the top quark decay.
The neutrino four-momentum can thus be reconstructed from the components of
$\ptvecmiss$, the $\PW$ mass constraint, and the assumption of massless
neutrinos.

In the case when a hadronic jet with a $\cPqt$ tag is found,
$m_{\mathrm{reco}}$ is calculated from the four-momentum of the $\cPqt$-tagged
jet and the four-momentum of the leptonically decaying $\PW$ boson. If several
hadronic jets with $\cPqt$ tags are present, the one with the largest angular
distance to the reconstructed leptonic $\PW$ boson decay is used. Once the
$\cPqt$-tagged jet has been selected, all overlapping AK4 jet jets in the
event are removed in order to avoid double counting of energy. For the shown
$m_{\mathrm{reco}}$ distributions these events form the $\cPqt$ tag category.
For events in the other categories the hadronic part of the VLQ decay is
reconstructed from combinations of AK4 jet$\mathrm{s}$ with $\abs{\eta}<2.4$.
Each possible jet assignment for the decays of the boson and quark is tested
exploiting the following $\chi^{2}$ quantity

$\displaystyle\chi^{2}=\frac{\left(m_{\cPqt}-\overline{m}_{\cPqt}\right)^{2}}{\sigma^{2}_{\cPqt}}+\frac{\left(m_{\PW}-\overline{m}_{\PW}\right)^{2}}{\sigma^{2}_{\PW}}+\frac{\left(\Delta
R(\cPqt,\PW)-\pi\right)^{2}}{\sigma^{2}_{\Delta
R}}+\frac{\left(p_{\mathrm{T},\PW}/p_{\mathrm{T},\cPqt}-1\right)^{2}}{\sigma^{2}_{\pt}}.$
(1)

For each event, the jet assignment with the maximum $\chi^{2}$ probability is
selected. For the $\chi^{2}$ quantity the $\pt$ balance,
$p_{\mathrm{T},\PW}/p_{\mathrm{T},\cPqt}$, the angular distance, $\Delta
R(\cPqt,\PW)$, and the reconstructed masses of the top quark candidate
$m_{\cPqt}$ and the $\PW$ boson candidate $m_{\PW}$ are used. The expected
values $\overline{m}_{\cPqt}$ and $\overline{m}_{\PW}$, and their standard
deviations $\sigma_{\cPqt}$ and $\sigma_{\PW}$ are obtained from simulation
for correctly reconstructed events and it is verified that the values are
independent of the VLQ mass. Here, correctly reconstructed events are defined
by the assignment of jets to generated $\cPqt$ quarks and $\PW$ bosons, where
the generated particles from the VLQ decay are unambiguously matched within a
distance of $\Delta R<0.4$ to the reconstructed particles. It was also
verified in simulation that the expected values of $\Delta R(\cPqt,\PW)$ and
the $\pt$ balance are $\pi$ and $1$, with their standard deviations
$\sigma_{\Delta R}$ and $\sigma_{\pt}$. In order to account for cases where
the $\PW$ boson from the VLQ decay decays into a lepton and neutrino, the
$\chi^{2}$ is calculated for each permutation with the second term omitted.
Cases where the hadronic decay products of the $\PW$ bosons or the top quark
are reconstructed in a single AK4 jet are included by omitting the first or
second term in the calculation of the $\chi^{2}$.

Figure 2: Distributions of $m_{\mathrm{reco}}$ for the + production mode,
obtained for simulated events with a muon in the final state, reconstructed
with a $\cPqt$ tag (left) and with the $\chi^{2}$ method (right) for right-
handed VLQ couplings and various VLQ masses $m_{\PQB}$. Signal events are
shown assuming a production cross section of 1pband a relative VLQ decay width
of 1%.

The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{reco}}$ in simulation for the + production
mode with right-handed couplings are shown in Fig. 2 for events with a muon in
the final state. The reconstruction of events with a $\cPqt$ tag (left) is
best suited for high VLQ masses where the decay products of the top quark are
highly boosted, while the $\chi^{2}$ method (right) yields a stable
performance for all VLQ masses, where the decay products of the $\PW$ boson
and top quark are reconstructed from several jets. Additionally, the latter
method enables the reconstruction of events with a lepton from the top quark
decay chain. Mass resolutions between 10–15% are achieved for both
reconstruction methods, with peak values of the $m_{\mathrm{reco}}$
distributions at the expected values. The VLQs with left-handed couplings (not
shown) have a lower selection efficiency by 20–25% because of a smaller lepton
$\pt$, on average, but otherwise features a behaviour similar to VLQs with
right-handed couplings. Distributions obtained for the final states with an
electron are similar to those with a muon.

##  0.6 Background estimation

The data sample obtained after the selection is then divided into a signal
region with a jet in the forward region of the detector with
$2.4<\abs{\eta}<4.0$ and a control region without such a jet. The distribution
of background processes in the signal region is estimated using the shape of
the $m_{\mathrm{reco}}$ distribution in the control region. Residual
differences in the shapes of the $m_{\mathrm{reco}}$ distributions between
signal and control regions are investigated in each of the signal categories
by using simulated SM events. Differences can arise from different background
compositions in signal and control regions due to the presence of a forward
jet. The observed differences are small, with average values of 10%, and are
corrected for by multiplicative factors applied to the background predictions
in the validation and signal regions. The largest differences are observed for
$m_{\mathrm{reco}}$ values below 800, with values no larger than about 20%.

In order to validate the VLQ mass reconstruction, data are compared to
simulation in the control region. In Fig. 3 the distributions of
$m_{\mathrm{reco}}$ are shown in the muon (upper) and electron (lower)
channels for events with a $\cPqt$ tag (left) and events reconstructed with
the $\chi^{2}$ method (right). The and $\cPqt\PW$ standard model processes
provide irreducible backgrounds in the reconstructed VLQ mass distributions,
showing good agreement between the data and simulation. The contribution of
signal events in the control region is small and is taken into account by a
simultaneous fit to signal and control regions in the statistical extraction
of the results.

Figure 3: Distributions of $m_{\mathrm{reco}}$ in data and simulation in the
control region for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels for events
reconstructed with a $\cPqt$ tag (left) and with the $\chi^{2}$ method
(right). The VLQ signal is shown for the + production mode and right-handed
VLQ couplings. The vertical bars illustrate the statistical uncertainties on
the data, while the shaded area shows the total uncertainties for the
background simulation. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the
background prediction. The dark and light gray bands correspond to the
statistical and total uncertainties, respectively.

In order to validate the background estimation, a validation region is
constructed from requiring events with reconstruction $p$-values smaller than
0.08. The $p$-values are calculated as the probability of obtaining the
$\chi^{2}$ as given by Eq. (1), where the number of degrees of freedom of the
selected hypothesis are taken into account. For events with a $\cPqt$ tag, the
same $\chi^{2}$ quantity is evaluated for the selected hypothesis. The
validation region has an order of magnitude fewer events than the signal
region and a negligible amount of signal contamination. The
$m_{\mathrm{reco}}$ distributions for the two most sensitive categories are
shown in Fig. 4 for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels. The
observed number of events is found to be in good agreement with the predicted
number of events from the background estimation in the validation region, with
no statistically significant deviations. Similar observations are made for the
other signal categories.

Figure 4: Distributions of $m_{\mathrm{reco}}$ in the validation region of the
two most sensitive categories in the muon channel (upper) and electron channel
(lower). The lower panels show the difference of data and background
expectations in units of the total (stat. and sys.) uncertainty on the
background estimate.

##  0.7 Systematic uncertainties

Systematic uncertainties can affect both the overall normalisation of
background components and the shapes of the $m_{\mathrm{reco}}$ distributions
for signal and background processes. The main uncertainty in the shape of the
$m_{\mathrm{reco}}$ distribution from the background estimation based on a
control region in data is related to the kinematic difference between the
signal and control regions. Correction factors are applied to account for this
difference, obtained from SM simulations. These uncertainties have a size of
10% on average, with maximum values of 20% at small values of
$m_{\mathrm{reco}}$. Compared to these uncertainties, the effects from
uncertainties in the SM simulations are negligible on the background
estimation, as these cancel to a large degree when building the ratios between
signal and control regions. The uncertainties in the overall normalisation of
the background predictions are obtained from a fit to the data in the signal
region.

Uncertainties in the MC simulation are applied to all simulated signal events.
In the following, the systematic uncertainties are summarized.

  * •

The uncertainty in the integrated luminosity measurement recorded with the CMS
detector in the 2016 run at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ is 2.5% [40].

  * •

The estimation of pileup effects is based on the total inelastic cross
section. This cross section is determined to be 69.2mb. The uncertainty is
taken into account by varying the total inelastic cross section by 4.6% [70].

  * •

Simulated events are corrected for lepton identification, trigger, and
isolation efficiencies. The corresponding corrections are applied as functions
of $\abs{\eta}$ and $\pt$. The systematic uncertainties due to these
corrections are taken into account by varying each correction factor within
its uncertainty.

  * •

The scale factors for the jet energy scale and resolution are determined as
functions of $\abs{\eta}$ and $\pt$ [61]. The effect of the uncertainties in
these scale factors are considered by varying the scale factors within their
uncertainties. Jets with distance parameters of 0.4 and 0.8 are modified
simultaneously. The results of variations for AK4 jet$\mathrm{s}$ are
propagated to the measurement of .

  * •

The uncertainties due to the PDFs are evaluated by considering 100 replicas of
the NNPDF 3.0 set according to the procedure described in Ref. [71]. The
associated PDF uncertainties in the signal acceptance are estimated following
the prescription for the LHC [71].

  * •

Uncertainties associated with variations of the factorisation
$\mu_{\mathrm{f}}$ and renormalisation scales $\mu_{\mathrm{r}}$ are evaluated
by varying the respective scales independently, by factors of 0.5 and 2.

  * •

Corrections for the tagging efficiencies and misidentification rates for AK4
jet$\mathrm{s}$, and subjets of AK8 jet$\mathrm{s}$ are applied. These are
measured as a function of the jet $\pt$ [67]. The corresponding uncertainties
are taken into account by varying the corrections within their uncertainties
for heavy- and light-flavour jets separately.

  * •

An uncertainty on the tagging efficiency of $+7$ and $-4\%$ is applied to
signal events with a tag [64]. The uncertainty on the $\PW$ tagging efficiency
is determined from jet mass resolution (JMR) and scale (JMS) uncertainties,
which are added in quadrature. An additional JMR uncertainty is derived from
the differences in the hadronisation and shower models of and [72]. The
uncertainty depends on the of the boson; for VLQs with a mass of 700it is
around 2% and for a mass of 1800it is around 6%. An uncertainty of 1% is
assigned to the JMS, as obtained from studies of the jet mass in fully merged
hadronic boson decays.

In Table 0.7, a summary of the uncertainties considered for signal events is
shown, where the largest uncertainties come from the jet energy scale and the
jet tagging. For the uncertainties connected to the PDF, $\mu_{\mathrm{f}}$
and $\mu_{\mathrm{r}}$ only the signal acceptance and shape differences are
propagated. The uncertainties with the largest impact on the analysis are the
uncertainties associated with the data-driven background estimation, being
more than two times larger than the jet energy scale uncertainties in the
signal.

Uncertainties considered for simulated signal events in the + production mode
($m_{\PQB{}}=900\GeV$) for right-handed VLQ couplings for the tag and tag
categories. The uncertainties in the tag categories are of comparable size to
those in the tag category.  Uncertainty $\cPqt$ tag [$\%$] tag [$\%$] tagging
Rate — 3.3 tagging Rate ${}^{+7}_{-4}$ — Luminosity Rate 2.5 2.5 Pileup Shape
1–3 0.2 Lepton reconstruction Shape 2–3 2–3 tagging Shape 2.5 2.5 Jet energy
scale Shape 2–6 1–5 Jet energy resolution Shape 1–2 1–2 PDF Shape 2–3 0.5
$\mu_{f}$ and $\mu_{r}$ Shape 0.3 0.2

##  0.8 Results

The $m_{\mathrm{reco}}$ distributions in the ten categories are measured in
the signal and control region, which are defined by the presence or absence of
a forward jet with $\abs{\eta}>2.4$. For the background estimate in the signal
regions, a simultaneous binned maximum likelihood fit of both regions is
performed using the Theta [73] package. In these fits, the signal cross
section and the background normalisations in the different signal categories
are free parameters. The shapes of the $m_{\mathrm{reco}}$ distributions for
the SM background in the signal regions are taken from the corresponding
control regions. Systematic uncertainties are taken into account as additional
nuisance parameters. A common nuisance parameter is used for uncertainties in
the muon and electron channels if a similar effect is expected on the shape or
normalisation of the $m_{\mathrm{reco}}$ distribution in both channels
similarly. The nuisance parameters for the shape uncertainties are taken to be
Gaussian distributed. For the uncertainties on the normalisation log-normal
prior distributions are assumed.

The measured distributions of $m_{\mathrm{reco}}$ for the signal categories
are shown in Figs. 5 and 6 for the muon and electron channels, together with
the background predictions obtained from the control regions. The signal
$m_{\mathrm{reco}}$ distributions for a vector-like quark with right-handed
couplings produced in association with a quark are shown for illustration, for
two different VLQ masses with an assumed production cross section of 1pband a
relative VLQ width of 1%. No significant deviation from the background
expectation is observed in any of the categories.

Figure 5: Distributions of $m_{\mathrm{reco}}$ measured in the signal region
for events with a jet in the forward direction with $\abs{\eta}>2.4$ in the
muon channel. Shown are the sensitive categories: tag (upper left), tag (upper
right), ${\geq}2$ tag (middle left), 1 tag (middle right) and 0 tag (lower).
The background prediction is obtained from control regions as detailed in the
main text. The distributions from two example signal samples for the +
production mode with right-handed VLQ couplings with a cross section of 1pband
a relative width of 1% are shown for illustration.

Figure 6: Distributions of $m_{\mathrm{reco}}$ measured in the signal region
for events with a jet in the forward direction with $\abs{\eta}>2.4$ in the
electron channel. Shown are the sensitive categories: tag(upper left),
tag(upper right), ${\geq}2$ tag (middle left), 1 tag (middle right) and 0 tag
(lower). The background prediction is obtained from control regions as
detailed in the main text. The distributions from two example signal samples
for the + production mode with right-handed VLQ couplings with a cross section
of 1pband a relative VLQ width of 1% are shown for illustration.

Exclusion limits on the product of the VLQ production cross section and
branching fraction are calculated at 95% confidence level (CL) for VLQ masses
between 700 and 2000by using a Bayesian statistical method [73, 74]. Pseudo-
experiments are performed to extract expected upper limits under the
background-only hypothesis. For the signal cross section parameter an uniform
prior distribution, and for the nuisance parameters log-normal prior
distributions are used. The nuisance parameters are randomly varied within
their ranges of validity to estimate the 68 and 95% CL expected limits.
Correlations between the systematic uncertainties across all channels are
taken into account through a common nuisance parameter. The statistical
uncertainties of the background predictions are treated as an additional
Poisson nuisance parameter in each bin of the $m_{\mathrm{reco}}$
distribution.

Figure 7 shows the 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and
branching fraction for the + production mode for left- and right-handed VLQ
couplings and a relative VLQ width of 1% (upper left and upper right), for the
left-handed VLQ couplings and a relative VLQ width of 10% (lower left), as
well as a comparison of the observed exclusion limits for relative VLQ widths
between 10 and 30% (lower right). In Fig. 8, the 95% CL upper limits on the
product of the cross section and branching fraction for the production modes +
(upper left) and $X_{5/3}$\+ (upper right) and right-handed VLQ couplings are
shown. The figure also shows the $X_{5/3}$\+ exclusion limits for left-handed
VLQ couplings with a 10% relative VLQ width (lower left) and a comparison of
the observed exclusion limits for VLQ widths between 10 and 30% for left-
handed couplings (lower right). The predicted cross sections for variations of
the relative VLQ mass width (dashed lines) are taken from Refs. [57, 56, 55].
For a set of VLQ masses the expected and observed 95% CL upper limits for the
+ and the $X_{5/3}$\+ production modes are also given in Table 0.8 for VLQs
with widths of 1% and 10% and left-handed couplings, as well as for widths of
1% and right-handed couplings. The exclusion limits for the + production mode
are similar to those for the $X_{5/3}$\+ production mode.

The obtained exclusion limits range from 0.3 to 0.03pbfor VLQ masses between
700 and 2000. For VLQs with a relative width of 1% and purely left-handed
couplings an increase of about 25% of the 95% CL upper limits is observed
because of the reduced signal acceptance, in comparison to the right-handed
couplings. The expected limits for VLQ with relative widths of 10–30% and
left-handed couplings only show small differences. Although the predicted
cross sections for the SM backgrounds are considerably larger at 13, similar
exclusion limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction are
achieved compared to the results obtained at 8in the more restricted mass
range considered in Ref. [32]. However, because of the increase of the VLQ
signal cross section at 13, with this analysis, the existence of VLQ
($X_{5/3}$) quarks with left-handed couplings and a relative width of 10, 20,
and 30% can be excluded for masses below 1490, 1590, and 1660(920, 1300, and
1450) respectively. The results represent the most stringent exclusion limits
for singly produced VLQ in this channel.

Figure 7: Upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the VLQ production cross
section and branching fraction for the + production mode for a relative VLQ
width of 1% and left- and right-handed VLQ couplings (upper left and right),
for 10% relative VLQ width and left-handed VLQ couplings (lower left), and a
comparison of the observed exclusion limits for relative VLQ widths of 10, 20,
and 30% for left-handed couplings (lower right). The dashed lines show the
theoretical predictions.

Figure 8: Upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the VLQ production cross
section and branching fraction for the + and $X_{5/3}$\+ production modes for
right-handed VLQ couplings assuming a relative VLQ width of 1% (upper left and
right), for the $X_{5/3}$\+ production mode with left-handed VLQ couplings and
a 10% relative width (lower left) and a comparison of the observed exclusion
limits for left-handed couplings for relative widths of 10, 20, and 30% (lower
right). The dashed lines show the theoretical predictions.

Observed (expected) upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the cross section
and branching fraction for the + and $X_{5/3}$\+ production modes, for a set
of VLQ masses, for VLQs widths of 1% and 10%, and for left-handed and right-
handed couplings. The exclusion limits for the + production mode (not shown)
are very similar to those for the $X_{5/3}$\+ mode.  + $X_{5/3}$+
$m_{\mathrm{{VLQ}}}$ [TeV] 1% LH 10% LH 1% RH 1% LH 10% LH 1% RH 0.8 0.29
(0.36) 0.27 (0.36) 0.25 (0.29) 0.31 (0.27) 0.32 (0.25) 0.21 (0.18) 1 0.29
(0.17) 0.29 (0.19) 0.21 (0.12) 0.25 (0.15) 0.25 (0.16) 0.15 (0.10) 1.2 0.10
(0.10) 0.11 (0.11) 0.07 (0.07) 0.10 (0.09) 0.10 (0.10) 0.06 (0.06) 1.4 0.07
(0.07) 0.06 (0.08) 0.03 (0.05) 0.05 (0.06) 0.05 (0.07) 0.03 (0.05) 1.6 0.05
(0.05) 0.05 (0.06) 0.03 (0.04) 0.04 (0.04) 0.05 (0.05) 0.03 (0.03) 1.8 0.04
(0.04) 0.05 (0.04) 0.03 (0.03) — 0.05 (0.04) —

##  0.9 Summary

A search for singly produced vector-like quarks decaying into a top quark and
a $\PW$ boson has been performed using the 2016 data set recorded by the CMS
experiment at the CERN LHC. The selection is optimised for high vector-like
quark masses, with a single muon or electron, significant missing transverse
momentum, and two jets with high $\pt$ in the final state. Vector-like quarks
in the single production mode can be produced in association with a $\cPqt$ or
a $\cPqb$ quark and a forward jet. The latter feature is used to obtain the
background prediction in the signal regions from data. The mass of the vector-
like quark is reconstructed from the hadronic jets, the missing transverse
momentum, and the lepton in the event. Different decay possibilities of the
$\cPqt$ and $\PW$ are considered. The reach of the search is enhanced by
$\cPqt$, $\PW$, and $\cPqb$ tagging methods. No significant deviation from the
standard model prediction is observed. Upper exclusion limits at 95%
confidence level on the product of the production cross section and branching
fraction range from around 0.3–0.03pbfor vector-like quark masses between 700
and 2000. Depending on the vector-like quark type, coupling, and decay width
to , mass exclusion limits up to 1660are obtained. These represent the most
stringent exclusion limits for the single production of vector-like quarks in
this channel.

###### Acknowledgements.

We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the
excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative
staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the
success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the
computing centres and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for
delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our
analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction
and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following
funding agencies: BMWFW 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); RPF
(Cyprus); SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC IUT, and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of
Finland, MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and
HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); NKFIA (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM
(Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); LAS
(Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT, LNS, SEP, and
UASLP-FAI (Mexico); 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
and SFFR (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA). Individuals have
received support from the Marie-Curie programme and the European Research
Council and Horizon 2020 Grant, contract No. 675440 (European Union); the
Leventis Foundation; the A. P. Sloan Foundation; the Alexander von Humboldt
Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office; the Fonds pour la
Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans l’Agriculture (FRIA-
Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-
Belgium); the F.R.S.-FNRS and FWO (Belgium) under the “Excellence of Science -
EOS” - be.h project n. 30820817; the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports
(MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Lendület (“Momentum”) Programme and the
János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the
New National Excellence Program ÚNKP, the NKFIA research grants 123842,
123959, 124845, 124850 and 125105 (Hungary); the Council of Science and
Industrial Research, India; the HOMING PLUS programme of the Foundation for
Polish Science, cofinanced from European Union, Regional Development Fund, the
Mobility Plus programme of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, the
National Science Center (Poland), contracts Harmonia 2014/14/M/ST2/00428, Opus
2014/13/B/ST2/02543, 2014/15/B/ST2/03998, and 2015/19/B/ST2/02861, Sonata-bis
2012/07/E/ST2/01406; the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar
National Research Fund; the Programa Estatal de Fomento de la Investigación
Científica y Técnica de Excelencia María de Maeztu, grant MDM-2015-0509 and
the Programa Severo Ochoa del Principado de Asturias; the Thalis and Aristeia
programmes cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot
Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University and the
Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century Project Advancement Project
(Thailand); the Welch Foundation, contract C-1845; and the Weston Havens
Foundation (USA).

## References

  * [1] ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a new particle in the search for the standard model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020, arXiv:1207.7214.
  * [2] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021, arXiv:1207.7235.
  * [3] N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G. Cohen, E. Katz, and A. E. Nelson, “The littlest Higgs”,  JHEP 07 (2002) 034, 10.1088/1126-6708/2002/07/034, arXiv:hep-ph/0206021.
  * [4] M. Schmaltz, “Physics beyond the standard model (theory): Introducing the little Higgs”,  Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 117 (2003) 40, 10.1016/S0920-5632(03)01409-9, arXiv:hep-ph/0210415.
  * [5] M. Schmaltz and D. Tucker-Smith, “Little Higgs review”,  Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 55 (2005) 229, 10.1146/annurev.nucl.55.090704.151502, arXiv:hep-ph/0502182.
  * [6] D. Marzocca, M. Serone, and J. Shu, “General composite Higgs models”,  JHEP 08 (2012) 013, 10.1007/JHEP08(2012)013, arXiv:1205.0770.
  * [7] A. Djouadi and A. Lenz, “Sealing the fate of a fourth generation of fermions”,  Phys. Lett. B 715 (2012) 310, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.07.060, arXiv:1204.1252.
  * [8] J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, R. Benbrik, S. Heinemeyer, and M. Pérez-Victoria, “Handbook of vectorlike quarks: Mixing and single production”,  Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 094010, 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.094010, arXiv:1306.0572.
  * [9] ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, “Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined ATLAS and CMS analysis of the LHC $\Pp\Pp$ collision data at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8 TeV”,  JHEP 08 (2016) 045, 10.1007/JHEP08(2016)045, arXiv:1606.02266.
  * [10] CMS Collaboration, “Inclusive search for a vector-like T quark with charge $\frac{2}{3}$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 8 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 729 (2014) 149, 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.01.006, arXiv:1311.7667.
  * [11] CMS Collaboration, “Search for vector-like T quarks decaying to top quarks and Higgs bosons in the all-hadronic channel using jet substructure”,  JHEP 06 (2015) 080, 10.1007/JHEP06(2015)080, arXiv:1503.01952.
  * [12] CMS Collaboration, “Search for vector-like charge $2/3$ T quarks in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8\TeV$”,  Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 012003, 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.012003, arXiv:1509.04177.
  * [13] CMS Collaboration, “Search for single production of a heavy vector-like T quark decaying to a Higgs boson and a top quark with a lepton and jets in the final state”,  Phys. Lett. B 771 (2017) 80, 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.05.019, arXiv:1612.00999.
  * [14] CMS Collaboration, “Search for single production of vector-like quarks decaying into a b quark and a W boson in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 772 (2017) 634, 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.07.022, arXiv:1701.08328.
  * [15] CMS Collaboration, “Search for top quark partners with charge 5/3 in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  JHEP 08 (2017) 073, 10.1007/JHEP08(2017)073, arXiv:1705.10967.
  * [16] CMS Collaboration, “Search for pair production of vector-like T and B quarks in single-lepton final states using boosted jet substructure in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  JHEP 11 (2017) 085, 10.1007/JHEP11(2017)085, arXiv:1706.03408.
  * [17] CMS Collaboration, “Search for pair production of vector-like quarks in the bW$\overline{\mathrm{b}}$W channel from proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 779 (2018) 82, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.01.077, arXiv:1710.01539.
  * [18] CMS Collaboration, “Search for single production of a vector-like T quark decaying to a Z boson and a top quark in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$”,  Phys. Lett. B 781 (2018) 574, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.04.036, arXiv:1708.01062.
  * [19] CMS Collaboration, “Search for single production of vector-like quarks decaying to a b quark and a Higgs boson”,  JHEP 06 (2018) 031, 10.1007/JHEP06(2018)031, arXiv:1802.01486.
  * [20] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for heavy vector-like quarks coupling to light quarks in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Lett. B 712 (2012) 22, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.03.082, arXiv:1112.5755.
  * [21] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for pair production of a new quark that decays to a Z boson and a bottom quark with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 071801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.071801, arXiv:1204.1265.
  * [22] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for pair and single production of new heavy quarks that decay to a $Z$ boson and a third-generation quark in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  JHEP 11 (2014) 104, 10.1007/JHEP11(2014)104, arXiv:1409.5500.
  * [23] ATLAS Collaboration, “Analysis of events with $b$-jets and a pair of leptons of the same charge in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  JHEP 10 (2015) 150, 10.1007/JHEP10(2015)150, arXiv:1504.04605.
  * [24] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for production of vector-like quark pairs and of four top quarks in the lepton-plus-jets final state in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  JHEP 08 (2015) 105, 10.1007/JHEP08(2015)105, arXiv:1505.04306.
  * [25] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for vector-like $B$ quarks in events with one isolated lepton, missing transverse momentum and jets at $\sqrt{s}=$ 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 112011, 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.112011, arXiv:1503.05425.
  * [26] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for top squarks in final states with one isolated lepton, jets, and missing transverse momentum in $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV $\Pp\Pp$ collisions with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 052009, 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.052009, arXiv:1606.03903.
  * [27] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for single production of vector-like quarks decaying into Wb in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV with the atlas detector”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 442, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4281-8, arXiv:1602.05606.
  * [28] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for single production of a vector-like quark via a heavy gluon in the $4b$ final state with the ATLAS detector in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 758 (2016) 249, 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.04.061, arXiv:1602.06034.
  * [29] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for pair production of vector-like top quarks in events with one lepton, jets, and missing transverse momentum in $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV $\Pp\Pp$ collisions with the ATLAS detector”,  JHEP 08 (2017) 052, 10.1007/JHEP08(2017)052, arXiv:1705.10751.
  * [30] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for pair production of heavy vector-like quarks decaying to high-$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ W bosons and b quarks in the lepton-plus-jets final state in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  JHEP 10 (2017) 141, 10.1007/JHEP10(2017)141, arXiv:1707.03347.
  * [31] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for pair production of up-type vector-like quarks and for four-top-quark events in final states with multiple $b$-jets with the ATLAS detector”,  JHEP 07 (2018) 089, 10.1007/JHEP07(2018)089, arXiv:1803.09678.
  * [32] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for the production of single vector-like and excited quarks in the $\PW\cPqt$ final state in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  JHEP 02 (2016) 110, 10.1007/JHEP02(2016)110, arXiv:1510.02664.
  * [33] 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.
  * [34] 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.
  * [35] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in $\Pp\Pp$ collision events at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”,  JINST 7 (2012) P10002, 10.1088/1748-0221/7/10/P10002, arXiv:1206.4071.
  * [36] 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.
  * [37] 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.
  * [38] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [39] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [40] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data taking period”, Technical Report CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001, 2017.
  * [41] 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.
  * [42] 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.
  * [43] 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.
  * [44] 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.
  * [45] R. Frederix and S. Frixione, “Merging meets matching in MC@NLO”,  JHEP 12 (2012) 061, 10.1007/JHEP12(2012)061, arXiv:1209.6215.
  * [46] 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.
  * [47] 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.
  * [48] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC run II”,  JHEP 04 (2015) 040, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040, arXiv:1410.8849.
  * [49] 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.
  * [50] 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.
  * [51] CMS Collaboration, “Investigations of the impact of the parton shower tuning in Pythia 8 in the modelling of $\mathrm{t\overline{t}}$ at $\sqrt{s}=8$ and 13 TeV”, Technical Report CMS-PAS-TOP-16-021, CERN, Geneva, 2016.
  * [52] M. Buchkremer, G. Cacciapaglia, A. Deandrea, and L. Panizzi, “Model independent framework for searches of top partners”,  Nucl. Phys. B 876 (2013) 376, 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2013.08.010, arXiv:1305.4172.
  * [53] B. Fuks and H.-S. Shao, “QCD next-to-leading-order predictions matched to parton showers for vector-like quark models”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 135, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4686-z, arXiv:1610.04622.
  * [54] A. Carvalho, “Gravity particles from warped extra dimensions, predictions for LHC”, (2014). arXiv:1404.0102.
  * [55] J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and F. Tramontano, “Single top production and decay at next-to-leading order”,  Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 094012, 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.094012, arXiv:hep-ph/0408158.
  * [56] O. Matsedonskyi, G. Panico, and A. Wulzer, “On the interpretation of top partners searches”,  JHEP 12 (2014) 097, 10.1007/JHEP12(2014)097, arXiv:1409.0100.
  * [57] A. Carvalho et al., “Single production of vector-like quarks with large width at the Large Hadron Collider”,  Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 015029, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.015029, arXiv:1805.06402.
  * [58] S. Frixione, E. Laenen, P. Motylinski, and B. R. Webber, “Angular correlations of lepton pairs from vector boson and top quark decays in Monte Carlo simulations”,  JHEP 04 (2007) 081, 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/04/081, arXiv:hep-ph/0702198.
  * [59] P. Artoisenet, R. Frederix, O. Mattelaer, and R. Rietkerk, “Automatic spin-entangled decays of heavy resonances in Monte Carlo simulations”,  JHEP 03 (2013) 015, 10.1007/JHEP03(2013)015, arXiv:1212.3460.
  * [60] Collaboration, “–a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [61] CMS Collaboration, “Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at 8 TeV”,  JINST 12 (2017) P02014, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/P02014, arXiv:1607.03663.
  * [62] 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.
  * [63] CMS Collaboration, “Top tagging with new approaches”, Technical Report CMS-PAS-JME-15-002, CERN, Geneva, 2016\.
  * [64] CMS Collaboration, “Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data”, Technical Report CMS-PAS-JME-16-003, 2017.
  * [65] M. Dasgupta, A. Fregoso, S. Marzani, and G. P. Salam, “Towards an understanding of jet substructure”,  JHEP 09 (2013) 029, 10.1007/JHEP09(2013)029, arXiv:1307.0007.
  * [66] A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and J. Thaler, “Soft Drop”,  JHEP 05 (2014) 146, 10.1007/JHEP05(2014)146, arXiv:1402.2657.
  * [67] 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.
  * [68] J. Thaler and K. Van Tilburg, “Identifying boosted objects with N-subjettiness”,  JHEP 03 (2011) 015, 10.1007/JHEP03(2011)015, arXiv:1011.2268.
  * [69] J. Thaler and K. Van Tilburg, “Maximizing boosted top identification by minimizing N-subjettiness”,  JHEP 02 (2012) 093, 10.1007/JHEP02(2012)093, arXiv:1108.2701.
  * [70] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 722 (2013) 5, 10.1016/j.physletb.2013.03.024, arXiv:1210.6718.
  * [71] 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.
  * [72] M. Bähr et al., “Herwig++ physics and manual”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 58 (2008) 639, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-008-0798-9, arXiv:0803.0883.
  * [73] J. Ott, “Theta — A framework for template-based modeling and inference” (2010), http://www-ekp.physik.uni-karlsruhe.de/õtt/theta/theta-auto.
  * [74] A. O’Hagan and J. J. Forster, “Kendall’s advanced theory of statistics. Vol. 2B: Bayesian Inference”.  Arnold, London, 2004.  ISBN 978-0470685693.

##  .10 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan Institut für Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, E. Asilar, T. Bergauer, J. Brandstetter, M. Dragicevic,
J. Erö, A. Escalante Del Valle, M. Flechl, R. Frühwirth1, V.M. Ghete, J.
Hrubec, M. Jeitler1, N. Krammer, I. Krätschmer, D. Liko, T. Madlener, I.
Mikulec, N. Rad, H. Rohringer, J. Schieck1, R. Schöfbeck, M. Spanring, D.
Spitzbart, A. Taurok, W. Waltenberger, J. Wittmann, C.-E. Wulz1, M. Zarucki
Institute for Nuclear Problems, Minsk, Belarus
V. Chekhovsky, V. Mossolov, J. Suarez Gonzalez Universiteit Antwerpen,
Antwerpen, Belgium
E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, J. Lauwers, M. Pieters, H. Van
Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, N. Van Remortel Vrije Universiteit Brussel,
Brussel, Belgium
S. Abu Zeid, F. Blekman, J. D’Hondt, J. De Clercq, K. Deroover, G. Flouris, D.
Lontkovskyi, S. Lowette, I. Marchesini, S. Moortgat, L. Moreels, Q. Python, K.
Skovpen, S. Tavernier, W. Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders, I. Van Parijs
Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
D. Beghin, B. Bilin, H. Brun, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, H. Delannoy, B.
Dorney, G. Fasanella, L. Favart, R. Goldouzian, A. Grebenyuk, A.K. Kalsi, T.
Lenzi, J. Luetic, N. Postiau, E. Starling, L. Thomas, C. Vander Velde, P.
Vanlaer, D. Vannerom, Q. Wang Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, A. Fagot, M. Gul, I. Khvastunov2, D. Poyraz, C. Roskas,
D. Trocino, M. Tytgat, W. Verbeke, B. Vermassen, M. Vit, N. Zaganidis
Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
H. Bakhshiansohi, O. Bondu, S. Brochet, G. Bruno, C. Caputo, P. David, C.
Delaere, M. Delcourt, A. Giammanco, G. Krintiras, V. Lemaitre, A. Magitteri,
A. Mertens, K. Piotrzkowski, A. Saggio, M. Vidal Marono, S. Wertz, J. Zobec
Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
F.L. Alves, G.A. Alves, M. Correa Martins Junior, G. Correia Silva, C. Hensel,
A. Moraes, M.E. Pol, P. Rebello Teles Universidade do Estado do Rio de
Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato3, E. Coelho, E.M.
Da Costa, G.G. Da Silveira4, D. De Jesus Damiao, C. De Oliveira Martins, S.
Fonseca De Souza, H. Malbouisson, D. Matos Figueiredo, M. Melo De Almeida, C.
Mora Herrera, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, W.L. Prado Da Silva, L.J. Sanchez Rosas,
A. Santoro, A. Sznajder, M. Thiel, E.J. Tonelli Manganote3, F. Torres Da Silva
De Araujo, A. Vilela Pereira Universidade Estadual Paulista a, Universidade
Federal do ABC b, São Paulo, Brazil
S. Ahujaa, C.A. Bernardesa, L. Calligarisa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M.
Gregoresb, P.G. Mercadanteb, S.F. Novaesa, SandraS. Padulaa Institute for
Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia,
Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, A. Marinov, M. Misheva, M. Rodozov,
M. Shopova, G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Dimitrov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov Beihang University, Beijing, China
W. Fang5, X. Gao5, L. Yuan Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, J.G. Bian, G.M. Chen, H.S. Chen, M. Chen, Y. Chen, C.H. Jiang, D.
Leggat, H. Liao, Z. Liu, F. Romeo, S.M. Shaheen6, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, Z. Wang,
E. Yazgan, H. Zhang, S. Zhang6, J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of Nuclear
Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
Y. Ban, G. Chen, A. Levin, J. Li, L. Li, Q. Li, Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang
Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Y. Wang Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, C.A. Carrillo Montoya, L.F. Chaparro Sierra, C. Florez,
C.F. González Hernández, M.A. Segura Delgado University of Split, Faculty of
Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split,
Croatia
B. Courbon, N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak, T. Sculac University of Split,
Faculty of Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, K. Kadija, B. Mesic, A. Starodumov7, T. Susa
University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, M. Kolosova, G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou,
F. Ptochos, P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski Charles University, Prague, Czech
Republic
M. Finger8, M. Finger Jr.8 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
M.A. Mahmoud9,10, A. Mahrous11, Y. Mohammed9 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, H. Kirschenmann, J. Pekkanen, M. Voutilainen Helsinki Institute of
Physics, Helsinki, Finland
J. Havukainen, J.K. Heikkilä, T. Järvinen, V. Karimäki, R. Kinnunen, T.
Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Laurila, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, P. Luukka, T.
Mäenpää, H. Siikonen, E. Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi Lappeenranta University of
Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
T. Tuuva IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, J.L. Faure, F. Ferri, S.
Ganjour, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry, C. Leloup,
E. Locci, J. Malcles, G. Negro, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M.Ö. Sahin, M. Titov
Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole polytechnique, CNRS/IN2P3, Université
Paris-Saclay, Palaiseau, France
A. Abdulsalam12, C. Amendola, I. Antropov, F. Beaudette, P. Busson, C.
Charlot, R. Granier de Cassagnac, I. Kucher, A. Lobanov, J. Martin Blanco, C.
Martin Perez, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, G. Ortona, P. Paganini, P. Pigard, J.
Rembser, R. Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A.G. Stahl Leiton, A. Zabi, A.
Zghiche Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram13, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, J.-M. Brom, E.C. Chabert, V. Cherepanov,
C. Collard, E. Conte13, J.-C. Fontaine13, D. Gelé, U. Goerlach, M. Jansová,
A.-C. Le Bihan, N. Tonon, P. Van Hove Centre de Calcul de l’Institut National
de Physique Nucleaire et de Physique des Particules, CNRS/IN2P3, Villeurbanne,
France
S. Gadrat Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3,
Institut de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, N. Chanon, R. Chierici, D. Contardo, P.
Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, L. Finco, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, G.
Grenier, B. Ille, F. Lagarde, I.B. Laktineh, H. Lattaud, M. Lethuillier, L.
Mirabito, S. Perries, A. Popov14, V. Sordini, G. Touquet, M. Vander Donckt, S.
Viret Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
A. Khvedelidze8 Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
Z. Tsamalaidze8 RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen,
Germany
C. Autermann, L. Feld, M.K. Kiesel, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, M. Preuten, M.P.
Rauch, C. Schomakers, J. Schulz, M. Teroerde, B. Wittmer RWTH Aachen
University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany
A. Albert, D. Duchardt, M. Erdmann, S. Erdweg, T. Esch, R. Fischer, S. Ghosh,
A. Güth, T. Hebbeker, C. Heidemann, K. Hoepfner, H. Keller, L. Mastrolorenzo,
M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, P. Millet, S. Mukherjee, T. Pook, M. Radziej, H.
Reithler, M. Rieger, A. Schmidt, D. Teyssier, S. Thüer RWTH Aachen University,
III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany
G. Flügge, O. Hlushchenko, T. Kress, A. Künsken, T. Müller, A. Nehrkorn, A.
Nowack, C. Pistone, O. Pooth, D. Roy, H. Sert, A. Stahl15 Deutsches
Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
M. Aldaya Martin, T. Arndt, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, I. Babounikau, K.
Beernaert, O. Behnke, U. Behrens, A. Bermúdez Martínez, D. Bertsche, A.A. Bin
Anuar, K. Borras16, V. Botta, A. Campbell, P. Connor, C. Contreras-Campana, V.
Danilov, A. De Wit, M.M. Defranchis, C. Diez Pardos, D. Domínguez Damiani, G.
Eckerlin, T. Eichhorn, A. Elwood, E. Eren, E. Gallo17, A. Geiser, J.M. Grados
Luyando, A. Grohsjean, M. Guthoff, M. Haranko, A. Harb, J. Hauk, H. Jung, M.
Kasemann, J. Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, J. Knolle, D. Krücker, W. Lange, A.
Lelek, T. Lenz, J. Leonard, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann18, R. Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-
Pellmann, A.B. Meyer, M. Meyer, M. Missiroli, G. Mittag, J. Mnich, V.
Myronenko, S.K. Pflitsch, D. Pitzl, A. Raspereza, M. Savitskyi, P. Saxena, P.
Schütze, C. Schwanenberger, R. Shevchenko, A. Singh, H. Tholen, O. Turkot, A.
Vagnerini, G.P. Van Onsem, R. Walsh, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C. Wissing, O.
Zenaiev University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, L. Benato, A. Benecke, V. Blobel, T. Dreyer, A.
Ebrahimi, E. Garutti, D. Gonzalez, P. Gunnellini, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, A.
Karavdina, G. Kasieczka, R. Klanner, R. Kogler, N. Kovalchuk, S. Kurz, V.
Kutzner, J. Lange, D. Marconi, J. Multhaup, M. Niedziela, C.E.N. Niemeyer, D.
Nowatschin, A. Perieanu, A. Reimers, O. Rieger, C. Scharf, P. Schleper, S.
Schumann, J. Schwandt, J. Sonneveld, H. Stadie, G. Steinbrück, F.M. Stober, M.
Stöver, A. Vanhoefer, B. Vormwald, I. Zoi Karlsruher Institut fuer
Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany
M. Akbiyik, C. Barth, M. Baselga, S. Baur, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, F.
Colombo, W. De Boer, A. Dierlamm, K. El Morabit, N. Faltermann, B. Freund, M.
Giffels, M.A. Harrendorf, F. Hartmann15, S.M. Heindl, U. Husemann, I.
Katkov14, S. Kudella, S. Mitra, M.U. Mozer, Th. Müller, M. Musich, M. Plagge,
G. Quast, K. Rabbertz, M. Schröder, I. Shvetsov, H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, S.
Wayand, M. Weber, T. Weiler, C. Wöhrmann, R. Wolf Institute of Nuclear and
Particle Physics (INPP), NCSR Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
G. Anagnostou, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas, G.
Paspalaki, I. Topsis-Giotis National and Kapodistrian University of Athens,
Athens, Greece
G. Karathanasis, S. Kesisoglou, P. Kontaxakis, A. Panagiotou, I. Papavergou,
N. Saoulidou, E. Tziaferi, K. Vellidis National Technical University of
Athens, Athens, Greece
K. Kousouris, I. Papakrivopoulos, G. Tsipolitis University of Ioánnina,
Ioánnina, Greece
I. Evangelou, C. Foudas, P. Gianneios, P. Katsoulis, P. Kokkas, S. Mallios, N.
Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, E. Paradas, J. Strologas, F.A. Triantis, D.
Tsitsonis MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
M. Bartók19, M. Csanad, N. Filipovic, P. Major, M.I. Nagy, G. Pasztor, O.
Surányi, G.I. Veres Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath20, Á. Hunyadi, F. Sikler, T.Á. Vámi, V.
Veszpremi, G. Vesztergombi${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$ Institute of Nuclear
Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi21, A. Makovec, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi
Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari Indian Institute of Science (IISc),
Bangalore, India
S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri, P.C. Tiwari National Institute of Science
Education and Research, HBNI, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati22, C. Kar, P. Mal, K. Mandal, A. Nayak23, D.K. Sahoo22, S.K.
Swain Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, S. Chauhan, R. Chawla, N. Dhingra, R.
Gupta, A. Kaur, M. Kaur, S. Kaur, P. Kumari, M. Lohan, A. Mehta, K. Sandeep,
S. Sharma, J.B. Singh, A.K. Virdi, G. Walia University of Delhi, Delhi, India
A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, M. Gola, S. Keshri, Ashok Kumar, S.
Malhotra, M. Naimuddin, P. Priyanka, K. Ranjan, Aashaq Shah, R. Sharma Saha
Institute of Nuclear Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India
R. Bhardwaj24, M. Bharti24, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, U. Bhawandeep24,
D. Bhowmik, S. Dey, S. Dutt24, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh, K. Mondal, S. Nandan, A.
Purohit, P.K. Rout, A. Roy, S. Roy Chowdhury, G. Saha, S. Sarkar, M. Sharan,
B. Singh24, S. Thakur24 Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
R. Chudasama, D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, P.K. Netrakanti, L.M. Pant, P.
Shukla Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A, Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, M.A. Bhat, S. Dugad, G.B. Mohanty, N. Sur, B. Sutar, RavindraKumar
Verma Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, P. Das, M. Guchait, Sa. Jain, S.
Karmakar, S. Kumar, M. Maity25, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, N. Sahoo, T.
Sarkar25 Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune,
India
S. Chauhan, S. Dube, V. Hegde, A. Kapoor, K. Kothekar, S. Pandey, A. Rane, S.
Sharma Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran
S. Chenarani26, E. Eskandari Tadavani, S.M. Etesami26, M. Khakzad, M.
Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri, F. Rezaei Hosseinabadi, B. Safarzadeh27, M.
Zeinali University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
M. Felcini, M. Grunewald INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b,
Politecnico di Bari c, Bari, Italy
M. Abbresciaa,b, C. Calabriaa,b, A. Colaleoa, D. Creanzaa,c, L. Cristellaa,b,
N. De Filippisa,c, M. De Palmaa,b, A. Di Florioa,b, F. Erricoa,b, L. Fiorea,
A. Gelmia,b, G. Iasellia,c, M. Incea,b, S. Lezkia,b, G. Maggia,c, M. Maggia,
G. Minielloa,b, S. Mya,b, S. Nuzzoa,b, A. Pompilia,b, G. Pugliesea,c, R.
Radognaa, A. Ranieria, G. Selvaggia,b, A. Sharmaa, L. Silvestrisa, R.
Vendittia, P. Verwilligena, G. Zitoa INFN Sezione di Bologna a, Università di
Bologna b, Bologna, Italy
G. Abbiendia, C. Battilanaa,b, D. Bonacorsia,b, L. Borgonovia,b, S. Braibant-
Giacomellia,b, R. Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A. Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa,
S.S. Chhibraa,b, C. Cioccaa, G. Codispotia,b, M. Cuffiania,b, G.M.
Dallavallea, F. Fabbria, A. Fanfania,b, E. Fontanesi, P. Giacomellia, C.
Grandia, L. Guiduccia,b, S. Lo Meoa, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, A.
Montanaria, F.L. Navarriaa,b, A. Perrottaa, F. Primaveraa,b,15, 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, A. Di Mattiaa, R. Potenzaa,b, A. Tricomia,b, C. Tuvea,b INFN
Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b, Firenze, Italy
G. Barbaglia, K. Chatterjeea,b, V. Ciullia,b, C. Civininia, R.
D’Alessandroa,b, E. Focardia,b, G. Latino, P. Lenzia,b, M. Meschinia, S.
Paolettia, L. Russoa,28, G. Sguazzonia, D. Stroma, L. Viliania INFN Laboratori
Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, F. Fabbri, D. Piccolo INFN Sezione di Genova a,
Università di Genova b, Genova, Italy
F. Ferroa, R. Mulargiaa,b, F. Raveraa,b, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia,b INFN Sezione
di Milano-Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, Italy
A. Benagliaa, A. Beschib, F. Brivioa,b, V. Cirioloa,b,15, S. Di Guidaa,d,15,
M.E. Dinardoa,b, S. Fiorendia,b, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P. Govonia,b, M.
Malbertia,b, S. Malvezzia, A. Massironia,b, D. Menascea, F. Monti, L. Moronia,
M. Paganonia,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Ragazzia,b, T. Tabarelli de Fatisa,b, 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, A. Di Crescenzoa,b, F.
Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa, G. Galatia, A.O.M. Iorioa,b, W.A. Khana, L. Listaa, S.
Meolaa,d,15, P. Paoluccia,15, C. Sciaccaa,b, E. Voevodinaa,b INFN Sezione di
Padova a, Università di Padova b, Padova, Italy, Università di Trento c,
Trento, Italy
P. Azzia, N. Bacchettaa, A. Bolettia,b, A. Bragagnolo, R. Carlina,b, P.
Checchiaa, M. Dall’Ossoa,b, P. De Castro Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa, U. Dossellia,
F. Gasparinia,b, U. Gasparinia,b, A. Gozzelinoa, S.Y. Hoh, S. Lacapraraa, P.
Lujan, M. Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,b, J. Pazzinia,b, N. Pozzobona,b, P.
Ronchesea,b, R. Rossina,b, F. Simonettoa,b, A. Tiko, E. Torassaa, M. Tosia,b,
S. Venturaa, M. Zanettia,b, P. Zottoa,b INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di
Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
A. Braghieria, A. Magnania, P. Montagnaa,b, S.P. Rattia,b, V. Rea, M.
Ressegottia,b, C. Riccardia,b, P. Salvinia, I. Vaia,b, P. Vituloa,b INFN
Sezione di Perugia a, Università di Perugia b, Perugia, Italy
M. Biasinia,b, G.M. Bileia, C. Cecchia,b, D. Ciangottinia,b, L. Fanòa,b, P.
Laricciaa,b, R. Leonardia,b, E. Manonia, G. Mantovania,b, V. Mariania,b, M.
Menichellia, A. Rossia,b, A. Santocchiaa,b, D. Spigaa INFN Sezione di Pisa a,
Università di Pisa b, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa c, Pisa, Italy
K. Androsova, P. Azzurria, G. Bagliesia, L. Bianchinia, T. Boccalia, L.
Borrello, R. Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, G. Fedia, F. Fioria,c,
L. Gianninia,c, A. Giassia, M.T. Grippoa, F. Ligabuea,c, E. Mancaa,c, G.
Mandorlia,c, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, A. Rizzia,b, G. Rolandi29, P.
Spagnoloa, R. Tenchinia, G. Tonellia,b, A. Venturia, P.G. Verdinia INFN
Sezione di Roma a, Sapienza Università di Roma b, Rome, Italy
L. Baronea,b, F. Cavallaria, M. Cipriania,b, D. Del Rea,b, E. Di Marcoa,b, M.
Diemoza, S. Gellia,b, E. Longoa,b, B. Marzocchia,b, P. Meridiania, G.
Organtinia,b, F. Pandolfia, R. Paramattia,b, F. Preiatoa,b, S. Rahatloua,b, C.
Rovellia, F. Santanastasioa,b INFN Sezione di Torino a, Università di Torino
b, Torino, Italy, Università del Piemonte Orientale c, Novara, Italy
N. Amapanea,b, R. Arcidiaconoa,c, S. Argiroa,b, M. Arneodoa,c, N. Bartosika,
R. Bellana,b, C. Biinoa, N. Cartigliaa, F. Cennaa,b, S. Comettia, M. Costaa,b,
R. Covarellia,b, N. Demariaa, B. Kiania,b, C. Mariottia, S. Masellia, E.
Migliorea,b, V. Monacoa,b, E. Monteila,b, M. Montenoa, M.M. Obertinoa,b, L.
Pachera,b, N. Pastronea, M. Pelliccionia, G.L. Pinna Angionia,b, A. Romeroa,b,
M. Ruspaa,c, R. Sacchia,b, K. Shchelinaa,b, V. Solaa, A. Solanoa,b, D.
Soldia,b, A. Staianoa 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, A. Zanettia Kyungpook National University,
Daegu, Korea
D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, M.S. Kim, J. Lee, S. Lee, S.W. Lee, C.S. Moon, Y.D. Oh,
S.I. Pak, S. Sekmen, D.C. Son, Y.C. Yang Chonnam National University,
Institute for Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju, Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon, G. Oh Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
B. Francois, J. Goh30, T.J. Kim Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, D. Gyun, S. Ha, B. Hong, Y. Jo, K. Lee, K.S. Lee, S.
Lee, J. Lim, S.K. Park, Y. Roh Sejong University, Seoul, Korea
H.S. Kim Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, H. Lee, K. Lee, K. Nam, S.B. Oh, B.C. Radburn-
Smith, S.h. Seo, U.K. Yang, H.D. Yoo, G.B. Yu University of Seoul, Seoul,
Korea
D. Jeon, H. Kim, J.H. Kim, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park Sungkyunkwan University,
Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, C. Hwang, J. Lee, I. Yu Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
V. Dudenas, A. Juodagalvis, J. Vaitkus National Centre for Particle Physics,
Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
I. Ahmed, Z.A. Ibrahim, M.A.B. Md Ali31, F. Mohamad Idris32, 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 Centro de
Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, M.C. Duran-Osuna, I. Heredia-De La
Cruz33, R. Lopez-Fernandez, J. Mejia Guisao, R.I. Rabadan-Trejo, M. Ramirez-
Garcia, G. Ramirez-Sanchez, R. Reyes-Almanza, A. Sanchez-Hernandez Universidad
Iberoamericana, Mexico City, Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, F. Vazquez Valencia Benemerita
Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
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 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. Ahmad, M.I. Asghar, Q. Hassan, H.R. Hoorani, A. Saddique, M.A.
Shah, M. Shoaib, M. Waqas National Centre for Nuclear Research, Swierk, Poland
H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, T. Frueboes, M. Górski, M. Kazana, M.
Szleper, P. Traczyk, P. Zalewski Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of
Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk34, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J.
Krolikowski, M. Misiura, M. Olszewski, A. Pyskir, M. Walczak Laboratório de
Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas, Lisboa, Portugal
M. Araujo, P. Bargassa, C. Beirão Da Cruz E Silva, A. Di Francesco, P.
Faccioli, B. Galinhas, M. Gallinaro, J. Hollar, N. Leonardo, J. Seixas, G.
Strong, O. Toldaiev, J. Varela Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna,
Russia
S. Afanasiev, P. Bunin, M. Gavrilenko, I. Golutvin, I. Gorbunov, A. Kamenev,
V. Karjavine, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev35,36, P. Moisenz, V. Palichik,
V. Perelygin, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, N. Skatchkov, V. Smirnov, N. Voytishin,
A. Zarubin Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg),
Russia
V. Golovtsov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim37, E. Kuznetsova38, P. Levchenko, V. Murzin,
V. Oreshkin, I. Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Vavilov, A.
Vorobyev Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, M. Kirsanov,
N. Krasnikov, A. Pashenkov, D. Tlisov, A. Toropin Institute for Theoretical
and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, V. Popov, I. Pozdnyakov, G.
Safronov, A. Spiridonov, A. Stepennov, V. Stolin, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A.
Zhokin Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
M. Chadeeva39, P. Parygin, D. Philippov, S. Polikarpov39, E. Popova, V.
Rusinov P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin, I. Dremin36, M. Kirakosyan, A. Terkulov Skobeltsyn
Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow,
Russia
A. Baskakov, A. Belyaev, E. Boos, V. Bunichev, M. Dubinin40, L. Dudko, A.
Ershov, V. Klyukhin, N. Korneeva, I. Lokhtin, I. Miagkov, S. Obraztsov, M.
Perfilov, V. Savrin, P. Volkov Novosibirsk State University (NSU),
Novosibirsk, Russia
A. Barnyakov41, V. Blinov41, T. Dimova41, L. Kardapoltsev41, Y. Skovpen41
Institute for High Energy Physics of National Research Centre ’Kurchatov
Institute’, Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, S. Bitioukov, D. Elumakhov, A. Godizov, V. Kachanov,
A. Kalinin, D. Konstantinov, P. Mandrik, V. Petrov, R. Ryutin, S.
Slabospitskii, A. Sobol, S. Troshin, N. Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov National
Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia
A. Babaev, S. Baidali, V. Okhotnikov University of Belgrade, Faculty of
Physics and Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic42, P. Cirkovic, D. Devetak, M. Dordevic, J. Milosevic Centro de
Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid,
Spain
J. Alcaraz Maestre, A. Álvarez Fernández, I. Bachiller, M. Barrio Luna, J.A.
Brochero Cifuentes, M. Cerrada, N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris, C.
Fernandez Bedoya, J.P. Fernández Ramos, J. Flix, M.C. Fouz, O. Gonzalez Lopez,
S. Goy Lopez, J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa, D. Moran, A. Pérez-Calero Yzquierdo,
J. Puerta Pelayo, I. Redondo, L. Romero, M.S. Soares, A. Triossi Universidad
Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
C. Albajar, J.F. de Trocóniz Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain
J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, S. Folgueras, I. Gonzalez
Caballero, J.R. González Fernández, E. Palencia Cortezon, V. Rodríguez Bouza,
S. Sanchez Cruz, P. Vischia, J.M. Vizan Garcia Instituto de Física de
Cantabria (IFCA), CSIC-Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain
I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, B. Chazin Quero, J. Duarte Campderros, M.
Fernandez, P.J. Fernández Manteca, A. García Alonso, J. Garcia-Ferrero, G.
Gomez, A. Lopez Virto, J. Marco, C. Martinez Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del
Arbol, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, C. Prieels, T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno,
L. Scodellaro, N. Trevisani, I. Vila, R. Vilar Cortabitarte University of
Ruhuna, Department of Physics, Matara, Sri Lanka
N. Wickramage CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
D. Abbaneo, B. Akgun, E. Auffray, G. Auzinger, P. Baillon, A.H. Ball, D.
Barney, J. Bendavid, M. Bianco, A. Bocci, C. Botta, E. Brondolin, T.
Camporesi, M. Cepeda, G. Cerminara, E. Chapon, Y. Chen, G. Cucciati, D.
d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, N. Daci, V. Daponte, A. David, A. De Roeck, N.
Deelen, M. Dobson, M. Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, P. Everaerts, F.
Fallavollita43, D. Fasanella, G. Franzoni, J. Fulcher, W. Funk, D. Gigi, A.
Gilbert, K. Gill, F. Glege, M. Gruchala, M. Guilbaud, D. Gulhan, J. Hegeman,
C. Heidegger, V. Innocente, A. Jafari, P. Janot, O. Karacheban18, J. Kieseler,
A. Kornmayer, M. Krammer1, C. Lange, P. Lecoq, C. Lourenço, L. Malgeri, M.
Mannelli, F. Meijers, J.A. Merlin, S. Mersi, E. Meschi, P. Milenovic44, F.
Moortgat, M. Mulders, J. Ngadiuba, S. Nourbakhsh, S. Orfanelli, L. Orsini, F.
Pantaleo15, L. Pape, E. Perez, M. Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A.
Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, F.M. Pitters, D. Rabady, A. Racz, T. Reis, M. Rovere, H.
Sakulin, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Seidel, M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva,
P. Sphicas45, A. Stakia, J. Steggemann, D. Treille, A. Tsirou, V. Veckalns46,
M. Verzetti, W.D. Zeuner Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland
L. Caminada47, K. Deiters, W. Erdmann, R. Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C.
Kaestli, D. Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, T. Rohe, S.A. Wiederkehr ETH Zurich -
Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics (IPA), Zurich, Switzerland
M. Backhaus, L. Bäni, P. Berger, N. Chernyavskaya, G. Dissertori, M. Dittmar,
M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, T.A. Gómez Espinosa, C. Grab, D. Hits, T. Klijnsma, W.
Lustermann, R.A. Manzoni, M. Marionneau, M.T. Meinhard, F. Micheli, P.
Musella, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, J. Pata, F. Pauss, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, S.
Pigazzini, M. Quittnat, C. Reissel, D. Ruini, D.A. Sanz Becerra, M.
Schönenberger, L. Shchutska, V.R. Tavolaro, K. Theofilatos, M.L. Vesterbacka
Olsson, R. Wallny, D.H. Zhu Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, C. Amsler48, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, R. Del
Burgo, S. Donato, C. Galloni, T. Hreus, B. Kilminster, S. Leontsinis, I.
Neutelings, G. Rauco, P. Robmann, D. Salerno, K. Schweiger, C. Seitz, Y.
Takahashi, A. Zucchetta National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan
Y.H. Chang, K.y. Cheng, T.H. Doan, R. Khurana, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A.
Pozdnyakov, S.S. Yu National Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, W.-S. Hou, Arun Kumar, Y.F. Liu,
R.-S. Lu, E. Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen Chulalongkorn University, Faculty
of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok, Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, N. Srimanobhas, N. Suwonjandee Çukurova University, Physics
Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
M.N. Bakirci49, A. Bat, F. Boran, S. Damarseckin, Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, C.
Dozen, S. Girgis, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, E. Gurpinar, I. Hos50, C. Isik, E.E.
Kangal51, O. Kara, A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, M. Oglakci, G. Onengut, K.
Ozdemir52, S. Ozturk49, D. Sunar Cerci53, B. Tali53, U.G. Tok, H. Topakli49,
S. Turkcapar, I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East Technical University,
Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak54, G. Karapinar55, M. Yalvac, M. Zeyrek Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya56, O. Kaya57, S. Ozkorucuklu58, S. Tekten,
E.A. Yetkin59 Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
M.N. Agaras, A. Cakir, K. Cankocak, Y. Komurcu, S. Sen60 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
F. Ball, L. Beck, J.J. Brooke, D. Burns, E. Clement, D. Cussans, O. Davignon,
H. Flacher, J. Goldstein, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, D.M. Newbold61,
S. Paramesvaran, B. Penning, T. Sakuma, D. Smith, V.J. Smith, J. Taylor, A.
Titterton Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev62, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, D. Cieri, D.J.A. Cockerill, J.A.
Coughlan, K. Harder, S. Harper, J. Linacre, E. Olaiya, D. Petyt, C.H.
Shepherd-Themistocleous, A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin, T. Williams, W.J. Womersley
Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A. Bundock, D.
Colling, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M. Della Negra, R. Di Maria, G. Hall, G. Iles,
T. James, M. Komm, C. Laner, L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, A. Martelli, J.
Nash63, A. Nikitenko7, V. Palladino, M. Pesaresi, D.M. Raymond, A. Richards,
A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A. Shtipliyski, G. Singh, M. Stoye, T. Strebler,
S. Summers, A. Tapper, K. Uchida, T. Virdee15, N. Wardle, D. Winterbottom, J.
Wright, S.C. Zenz Brunel University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, C.K. Mackay, A. Morton, I.D. Reid,
L. Teodorescu, S. Zahid Baylor University, Waco, USA
K. Call, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, H. Liu, C. Madrid, B. McMaster, N.
Pastika, C. Smith Catholic University of America, Washington DC, USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
A. Buccilli, S.I. Cooper, C. Henderson, P. Rumerio, C. West Boston University,
Boston, USA
D. Arcaro, T. Bose, D. Gastler, D. Pinna, D. Rankin, C. Richardson, J. Rohlf,
L. Sulak, D. Zou Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, X. Coubez, D. Cutts, M. Hadley, J. Hakala, U. Heintz, J.M.
Hogan64, K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, J. Lee, Z. Mao, M. Narain, S.
Sagir65, R. Syarif, E. Usai, D. Yu University of California, Davis, Davis, USA
R. Band, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, D. Burns, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez,
M. Chertok, J. Conway, R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, G. Funk,
W. Ko, O. Kukral, R. Lander, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, J. Pilot, S. Shalhout,
M. Shi, D. Stolp, D. Taylor, K. Tos, M. Tripathi, Z. Wang, F. Zhang University
of California, Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, C. Bravo, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, A. Florent, J. Hauser, M.
Ignatenko, N. Mccoll, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg, C. Schnaible, V. Valuev
University of California, Riverside, Riverside, USA
E. Bouvier, K. Burt, R. Clare, J.W. Gary, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi, G. Hanson, G.
Karapostoli, E. Kennedy, F. Lacroix, O.R. Long, M. Olmedo Negrete, M.I.
Paneva, W. Si, L. Wang, H. Wei, S. Wimpenny, B.R. Yates University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, P. Chang, S. Cittolin, M. Derdzinski, R. Gerosa, D. Gilbert, B.
Hashemi, A. Holzner, D. Klein, G. Kole, V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, M.
Masciovecchio, D. Olivito, S. Padhi, M. Pieri, M. Sani, V. Sharma, S. Simon,
M. Tadel, A. Vartak, S. Wasserbaech66, J. Wood, F. Würthwein, A. Yagil, G.
Zevi Della Porta University of California, Santa Barbara - Department of
Physics, Santa Barbara, USA
N. Amin, R. Bhandari, J. Bradmiller-Feld, C. Campagnari, M. Citron, A. Dishaw,
V. Dutta, M. Franco Sevilla, L. Gouskos, R. Heller, J. Incandela, A.
Ovcharova, H. Qu, J. Richman, D. Stuart, I. Suarez, S. Wang, J. Yoo California
Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
D. Anderson, A. Bornheim, J.M. Lawhorn, N. Lu, H.B. Newman, T.Q. Nguyen, M.
Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, R. Wilkinson, S. Xie, Z. Zhang, R.Y. Zhu Carnegie
Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
M.B. Andrews, T. Ferguson, T. Mudholkar, M. Paulini, M. Sun, I. Vorobiev, M.
Weinberg University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, F. Jensen, A. Johnson, M. Krohn, E. MacDonald, T.
Mulholland, R. Patel, A. Perloff, K. Stenson, K.A. Ulmer, S.R. Wagner Cornell
University, Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, J. Chaves, Y. Cheng, J. Chu, A. Datta, K. Mcdermott, N. Mirman,
J.R. Patterson, D. Quach, A. Rinkevicius, A. Ryd, L. Skinnari, L. Soffi, S.M.
Tan, Z. Tao, J. Thom, J. Tucker, P. Wittich, M. Zientek Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, USA
S. Abdullin, M. Albrow, M. Alyari, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S.
Banerjee, L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, K. Burkett,
J.N. Butler, A. Canepa, G.B. Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M. Cremonesi,
J. Duarte, V.D. Elvira, J. Freeman, Z. Gecse, E. Gottschalk, L. Gray, D.
Green, S. Grünendahl, O. Gutsche, J. Hanlon, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, J.
Hirschauer, Z. Hu, B. Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, B.
Klima, M.J. Kortelainen, B. Kreis, S. Lammel, D. Lincoln, R. Lipton, M. Liu,
T. Liu, J. Lykken, K. Maeshima, J.M. Marraffino, D. Mason, P. McBride, P.
Merkel, S. Mrenna, S. Nahn, V. O’Dell, K. Pedro, C. Pena, O. Prokofyev, G.
Rakness, L. Ristori, A. Savoy-Navarro67, B. Schneider, E. Sexton-Kennedy, A.
Soha, W.J. Spalding, L. Spiegel, S. Stoynev, J. Strait, N. Strobbe, L. Taylor,
S. Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran, L. Uplegger, E.W. Vaandering, C. Vernieri, M.
Verzocchi, R. Vidal, M. Wang, H.A. Weber, A. Whitbeck University of Florida,
Gainesville, USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, P. Bortignon, D. Bourilkov, A. Brinkerhoff, L. Cadamuro,
A. Carnes, D. Curry, R.D. Field, S.V. Gleyzer, B.M. Joshi, J. Konigsberg, A.
Korytov, K.H. Lo, P. Ma, K. Matchev, H. Mei, G. Mitselmakher, D. Rosenzweig,
K. Shi, D. Sperka, J. Wang, S. Wang, X. Zuo Florida International University,
Miami, USA
Y.R. Joshi, S. Linn Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
A. Ackert, T. Adams, A. Askew, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F. Johnson, T.
Kolberg, G. Martinez, T. Perry, H. Prosper, A. Saha, C. Schiber, R. Yohay
Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, V. Bhopatkar, S. Colafranceschi, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, M.
Rahmani, T. Roy, F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago,
USA
M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, D. Berry, R.R. Betts, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, S.
Dittmer, O. Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, K. Jung, J.
Kamin, C. Mills, I.D. Sandoval Gonzalez, M.B. Tonjes, H. Trauger, N. Varelas,
H. Wang, X. Wang, Z. Wu, J. Zhang The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, B. Bilki68, W. Clarida, K. Dilsiz69, S. Durgut, R.P.
Gandrajula, M. Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko, J.-P. Merlo, A. Mestvirishvili, A.
Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul70, Y. Onel, F. Ozok71, A. Penzo, C. Snyder, E.
Tiras, J. Wetzel Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
B. Blumenfeld, A. Cocoros, N. Eminizer, D. Fehling, L. Feng, A.V. Gritsan,
W.T. Hung, P. Maksimovic, J. Roskes, U. Sarica, M. Swartz, M. Xiao, C. You The
University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA
A. Al-bataineh, P. Baringer, A. Bean, S. Boren, J. Bowen, A. Bylinkin, J.
Castle, S. Khalil, A. Kropivnitskaya, D. Majumder, W. Mcbrayer, M. Murray, C.
Rogan, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang Kansas State
University, Manhattan, USA
S. Duric, A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, D. Kim, Y. Maravin, D.R. Mendis, T. Mitchell,
A. Modak, A. Mohammadi, L.K. Saini, N. Skhirtladze Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright University of Maryland, College Park, USA
A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, S.C. Eno, Y. Feng, C. Ferraioli, N.J. Hadley,
S. Jabeen, G.Y. Jeng, R.G. Kellogg, J. Kunkle, A.C. Mignerey, S. Nabili, F.
Ricci-Tam, Y.H. Shin, A. Skuja, S.C. Tonwar, K. Wong Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, V. Azzolini, A. Baty, G. Bauer, R. Bi, S. Brandt, W.
Busza, I.A. Cali, M. D’Alfonso, Z. Demiragli, G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov,
P. Harris, D. Hsu, M. Hu, Y. Iiyama, G.M. Innocenti, M. Klute, D. Kovalskyi,
Y.-J. Lee, P.D. Luckey, B. Maier, A.C. Marini, C. Mcginn, C. Mironov, S.
Narayanan, X. Niu, C. Paus, C. Roland, G. Roland, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Sumorok,
K. Tatar, D. Velicanu, J. Wang, T.W. Wang, B. Wyslouch, S. Zhaozhong
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
A.C. Benvenuti${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, P.
Hansen, J. Hiltbrand, Sh. Jain, S. Kalafut, Y. Kubota, Z. Lesko, J. Mans, N.
Ruckstuhl, R. Rusack, M.A. Wadud University of Mississippi, Oxford, USA
J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
E. Avdeeva, K. Bloom, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, F. Golf, R. Gonzalez Suarez,
R. Kamalieddin, I. Kravchenko, J. Monroy, J.E. Siado, G.R. Snow, B. Stieger
State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
A. Godshalk, C. Harrington, I. Iashvili, A. Kharchilava, C. Mclean, D. Nguyen,
A. Parker, S. Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani Northeastern University, Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, Y. Haddad, A. Hortiangtham, D.M. Morse, T.
Orimoto, R. Teixeira De Lima, T. Wamorkar, B. Wang, A. Wisecarver, D. Wood
Northwestern University, Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, J. Bueghly, O. Charaf, K.A. Hahn, N. Mucia, N. Odell, M.H.
Schmitt, K. Sung, M. Trovato, M. Velasco University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame,
USA
R. Bucci, N. Dev, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop, D.J. Karmgard, N.
Kellams, K. Lannon, W. Li, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, F. Meng, C. Mueller, Y.
Musienko35, M. Planer, A. Reinsvold, R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, G. Smith, S.
Taroni, M. Wayne, A. Wightman, M. Wolf, A. Woodard The Ohio State University,
Columbus, USA
J. Alimena, L. Antonelli, B. Bylsma, L.S. Durkin, S. Flowers, B. Francis, C.
Hill, W. Ji, T.Y. Ling, W. Luo, B.L. Winer Princeton University, Princeton,
USA
S. Cooperstein, P. Elmer, J. Hardenbrook, S. Higginbotham, A. Kalogeropoulos,
D. Lange, M.T. Lucchini, J. Luo, D. Marlow, K. Mei, I. Ojalvo, J. Olsen, C.
Palmer, P. Piroué, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, D. Stickland, C. Tully University of
Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
A. Barker, V.E. Barnes, S. Das, L. Gutay, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, A. Khatiwada,
B. Mahakud, D.H. Miller, N. Neumeister, C.C. Peng, S. Piperov, H. Qiu, J.F.
Schulte, J. Sun, F. Wang, R. Xiao, W. Xie Purdue University Northwest,
Hammond, USA
T. Cheng, J. Dolen, N. Parashar Rice University, Houston, USA
Z. Chen, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Kilpatrick, W. Li, B.P.
Padley, J. Roberts, J. Rorie, W. Shi, Z. Tu, A. Zhang University of Rochester,
Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, Y.t. Duh, J.L. Dulemba, C. Fallon, T.
Ferbel, M. Galanti, A. Garcia-Bellido, J. Han, O. Hindrichs, A.
Khukhunaishvili, E. Ranken, P. Tan, R. Taus Rutgers, The State University of
New Jersey, Piscataway, USA
A. Agapitos, J.P. Chou, Y. Gershtein, E. Halkiadakis, A. Hart, M. Heindl, E.
Hughes, S. Kaplan, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, S. Kyriacou, A. Lath, R.
Montalvo, K. Nash, M. Osherson, H. Saka, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, D. Sheffield,
S. Somalwar, R. Stone, S. Thomas, P. Thomassen, M. Walker University of
Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
A.G. Delannoy, J. Heideman, G. Riley, S. Spanier Texas A&M University, College
Station, USA
O. Bouhali72, A. Celik, M. Dalchenko, M. De Mattia, A. Delgado, S. Dildick, R.
Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T. Kamon73, S. Luo, R. Mueller, D. Overton, L.
Perniè, D. Rathjens, A. Safonov Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, F. De Guio, P.R. Dudero, S. Kunori, K. Lamichhane,
S.W. Lee, T. Mengke, S. Muthumuni, T. Peltola, S. Undleeb, I. Volobouev, Z.
Wang Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H. Ni, K.
Padeken, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska, M. Verweij, Q.
Xu University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
M.W. Arenton, P. Barria, B. Cox, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A. Ledovskoy, H. Li, C.
Neu, T. Sinthuprasith, Y. Wang, E. Wolfe, F. Xia Wayne State University,
Detroit, USA
R. Harr, P.E. Karchin, N. Poudyal, J. Sturdy, P. Thapa, S. Zaleski University
of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI, USA
M. Brodski, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, D. Carlsmith, S. Dasu, I. De Bruyn, L.
Dodd, B. Gomber, M. Grothe, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, P. Klabbers, A.
Lanaro, K. Long, R. Loveless, T. Ruggles, A. Savin, V. Sharma, N. Smith, W.H.
Smith, N. Woods †: Deceased
1: Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria
2: Also at IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
3: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
4: Also at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
5: Also at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
6: Also at University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
7: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
8: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
9: Also at Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt
10: Now at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt
11: Now at Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
12: Also at Department of Physics, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia
13: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
14: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
15: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
16: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
17: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
18: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
19: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
20: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
21: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
22: Also at Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India
23: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
24: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India
25: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
26: Also at Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
27: Also at Plasma Physics Research Center, Science and Research Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
28: Also at Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy
29: Also at Scuola Normale e Sezione dell’INFN, Pisa, Italy
30: Also at Kyunghee University, Seoul, Korea
31: Also at International Islamic University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
32: Also at Malaysian Nuclear Agency, MOSTI, Kajang, Malaysia
33: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico city, Mexico
34: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems,
Warsaw, Poland
35: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
36: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
37: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
38: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
39: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
40: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
41: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
42: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
43: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
44: Also at University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of
Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
45: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
46: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
47: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
48: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics (SMI), Vienna,
Austria
49: Also at Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey
50: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey
51: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
52: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
53: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
54: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
55: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
56: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
57: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
58: Also at Istanbul University, Faculty of Science, Istanbul, Turkey
59: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
60: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
61: Also at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
62: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
63: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia
64: Also at Bethel University, St. Paul, USA
65: Also at Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey
66: Also at Utah Valley University, Orem, USA
67: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
68: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey
69: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
70: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
71: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
72: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
73: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea