EXO-17-011

$Revision:462236$
$HeadURL:svn+ssh://svn.cern.ch/reps/tdr2/papers/EXO-17-011/trunk/EXO-17-011.tex$
$Id:EXO-17-011.tex4622362018-05-2918:22:22Zgnegro$

EXO-17-011

# Search for a heavy right-handed boson and a heavy neutrino in events with
two same-flavor leptons and two jets at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$

###### Abstract

A search for a heavy right-handed boson () decaying to a heavy right-handed
neutrino and a charged lepton in events with two same-flavor leptons ( or )
and two jets, is presented. The analysis is based on proton-proton collision
data, collected by the CMS Collaboration at the LHC in 2016 and corresponding
to an integrated luminosity of 35.9. No significant excess above the standard
model expectation is seen in the invariant mass distribution of the dilepton
plus dijet system. Assuming that couplings are identical to those of the
standard model, and that only one heavy neutrino flavor $\mathrm{N_{R}}$
contributes significantly to the decay width, the region in the two-
dimensional ($m_{\PWR}$, $m_{\mathrm{N_{R}}}$) mass plane excluded at 95%
confidence level extends to approximately $m_{\PWR}=4.4\TeV$ and covers a
large range of right-handed neutrino masses below the boson mass. This
analysis provides the most stringent limits on the mass to date.

##  0.1 Introduction

Heavy partners of the standard model (SM) gauge bosons, that are coupled to
right-handed fermions, are predicted in left-right (LR) symmetric models [1,
2, 3, 4]. These models explain the parity violation observed in weak
interactions as the consequence of spontaneous symmetry breaking at a multi-
TeV mass scale. This paper describes a search for such a heavy partner, a
heavy right-handed gauge boson , in events with two same-flavor leptons ( or )
and two jets. The study was conducted by the CMS Collaboration at the CERN
LHC, using proton-proton collision data corresponding to an integrated
luminosity of 35.9recorded during the 2016 data taking period.

The right-handed bosons are assumed to interact with the SM particles with a
coupling strength $g_{\mathrm{R}}$. This is a free parameter in most LR
models, but we assume a strict LR symmetry in our search so that the coupling
constant $g_{\mathrm{R}}$ is the same as the SM coupling constant
$g_{\mathrm{L}}$. We also assume that the right-handed quark mixing matrix is
the same as the Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa matrix. In addition to the gauge
bosons, LR models usually include heavy right-handed neutrinos
($\mathrm{N_{R}}$) [5, 6]. The existence of these heavy neutrinos can explain
the very small masses of the SM neutrinos as a consequence of the see-saw
mechanism [7, 8, 9].

In this search, we consider the case in which the boson decays to a first- or
second-generation charged lepton and a heavy neutrino of the same lepton
flavor. The heavy neutrino further decays to another charged lepton of the
same flavor and a virtual $\PW_{\mathrm{R}}^{*}$. The virtual
$\PW_{\mathrm{R}}^{*}$ decays to two light quarks, producing the decay chain

$\PWR\to\ell\mathrm{N_{R}}\to\ell\ell\PW_{\mathrm{R}}^{*}\to\ell\ell\Pq\Paq^{\prime},\,\ell=\Pe\,\text{or}\,\PGm.$

The quarks hadronize into jets that can be observed by the CMS detector. The
lepton flavor is conserved, and there is no charge requirement on the leptons,
which can be opposite-sign or same-sign. The SM processes that have the same
final state of two same-flavor leptons and two jets include Drell–Yan
production of lepton pairs with additional jets (DY+jets), production, from
$t$-channel single top quark production, and diboson production (, $\PZ\PZ$, )
with jets. Contributions due to events with jets misidentified as leptons are
considered, but are found to be negligible. The discriminating variable in
this search is the invariant mass $m_{\ell\ell\text{jj}}$ constructed from the
two leptons and two jets with the largest transverse momenta. We search for an
excess of events above the SM prediction for different mass hypotheses in
windows of $m_{\ell\ell\text{jj}}$.

A search for bosons that was performed by the CMS Collaboration at a center-
of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=8\TeV$ excluded masses up to approximately 3at 95%
confidence level () [10]. An excess with a local significance of 2.8$\sigma$
was observed in that search in the electron channel at
$m_{\Pe\Pe\text{jj}}\approx 2.1\TeV$. The excess did not appear to be
consistent with signal events from the LR symmetric theory. The search
presented in this paper extends this previous search using data collected at
$\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ during 2016. It does not overlap with other heavy neutrino
searches previously carried out by the CMS Collaboration [11, 12, 13]. The
ATLAS Collaboration has also carried out similar searches [14, 15, 16].

##  0.2 The CMS detector

The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6m
internal diameter, providing a magnetic field of 3.8T. Within the solenoid
volume are a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal
electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), and a brass and scintillator hadron
calorimeter (HCAL), each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. Forward
calorimeters extend the pseudorapidity ($\eta$) coverage provided by the
barrel and endcap detectors. Electrons are measured in the ECAL, while drift
tubes, cathode strip chambers, and resistive-plate chambers embedded in the
steel flux-return yoke outside the solenoid are used in the identification of
muons. 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. [17].

##  0.3 Trigger, particle reconstruction, and event selection

Events of interest are selected online using a two-tiered trigger system [18].
The first level is composed of custom hardware processors and uses information
from the calorimeters and muon detectors to select events at a rate of around
100kHz. The second level consists of a farm of processors running a version of
the full event reconstruction software optimized for fast processing, and
reduces the event rate to less than 1kHz before data storage.

The leptons in the final state carry a large fraction of the rest energy of
the . Thus, a trigger with a high momentum requirement on the lepton is highly
efficient for our signal. For events with electrons, we use an unprescaled
double-electron trigger. This trigger requires a minimum transverse momentum
() of 33and an ECAL energy deposit with a pixel hit on an associated track.
For the muon channel, and for an auxiliary measurement that is used to
estimate the background, we use unprescaled single-muon triggers that have no
isolation requirement and a $\PT>50\GeV$ requirement applied to the muon.

Global event reconstruction is performed using the particle-flow algorithm
[19], which reconstructs and identifies each individual particle with an
optimized combination of all subdetector information. At least one
reconstructed vertex is required. For events with multiple collision vertices
from additional collisions in the same or adjacent bunch crossings (pileup
interactions), the reconstructed vertex with the largest value of summed
$\PT^{2}$ in the event, where the sum extends over all charged tracks
associated with the vertex, is taken to be the primary $\Pp\Pp$ interaction
vertex (PV).

Electron candidates are identified by the association of a charged-particle
track from the PV, with energy deposits clusters (superclusters) in the ECAL.
The association takes into account energy deposits both from the electron and
from bremsstrahlung photons produced during its passage through the inner
detector. The electron momentum is estimated by combining the energy
measurement in the ECAL with the momentum measurement in the tracker. The
experimental mass resolution for barrel-barrel (barrel-endcap) dielectron
pairs with a mass of 1is 1.0 (1.5)% [20]. To correct for observed
discrepancies in energy scale and resolution between data and simulation, the
measured electron energy is adjusted by a multiplicative factor that depends
on $\eta$ and , where is the ratio of the energy in a 3$\times$3 matrix of
ECAL crystals, centered on the crystal with the largest energy, to the full
energy collected by a supercluster. In addition, the electron energy in
simulated events is smeared by 1–3% using a Gaussian expression that varies as
a function of $\eta$ and [20]. Differences in electron identification (ID)
efficiency between data and simulation were taken into account by applying a
scale factor (SF) of $0.972\pm 0.006$ (stat+syst) in the barrel and $0.983\pm
0.007$ (stat+syst) in the endcaps.

Muons are reconstructed from tracker and muon chamber information. Each muon
is required to have at least one hit in the pixel detector, at least six
tracker layer hits, and segments in two or more muon detector stations. Muons
are measured in the range $\abs{\eta}<2.4$. The resolution in the barrel is
better than 10% for muons with up to 1 [21]. The muon momentum resolution in
data is well described in simulated events, with its uncertainty provided by a
smearing of 1% in the barrel and 2% in the endcaps. The muon curvature
distributions in data and simulation are compared for different ranges of
$\eta$ and azimuthal angle ($\phi$, in radians), resulting in the assignment
of a momentum scale uncertainty of 3% in the barrel and up to 9% in the
endcaps. To account for differences in the reconstruction and identification
efficiencies between data and simulation, $\eta$-dependent SFs in the range
0.95–0.99 are applied to simulated events [21]. Systematic uncertainties
related to the dependence of the SFs on momentum are neglected, since they
have an impact on the results of less than 1%.

Charged hadrons are identified by matching tracks to one or more calorimeter
clusters, and by the absence of signal in the muon detectors. The energies of
charged hadrons are determined from combinations of the track momenta and the
corresponding ECAL and HCAL energies, corrected for zero-suppression effects
and for the response function of the calorimeters to hadronic showers.

Neutral hadrons are identified as ECAL and HCAL energy clusters that are not
matched to charged particle trajectories. The energies of neutral hadrons are
obtained from the corresponding corrected ECAL and HCAL energies.

For each event, hadronic jets are clustered from reconstructed particles with
the anti-algorithm, operated with a size parameter $R$ of 0.4, where
$R\equiv\sqrt{\smash[b]{(\Delta\eta)^{2}+(\Delta\phi)^{2}}}$ [22, 23]. Charged
hadrons that originate from pileup interactions are removed from the list of
reconstructed particles using the charged-hadron pileup subtraction algorithm
[19]. The contributions of neutral particles that originate from pileup
interactions to the calorimeter energies are removed by applying a residual
average area-based correction [24]. The jet momentum is defined as the vector
sum of all particle momenta associated with the jet, and is found to be within
5 to 10% of the true momentum in simulated events over the whole spectrum and
detector acceptance. Jet energy corrections are derived from the simulation,
and are confirmed with in-situ measurements of the energy balance in dijet,
multijet, photon+jet, and leptonically decaying +jet events [25]. Jet
identification algorithms [25] also remove contributions to jets from
calorimeter noise and beam halo.

To reconstruct candidates, we select the two leptons with the largest and the
two jets with the largest . The leading (subleading) leptons are required to
have $\PT>60\,(53)\GeV$ and to be within the detector acceptance
($\abs{\eta}<2.4$). Electrons are rejected if the supercluster lies in the
range $1.444<\abs{\eta}<1.566$, which corresponds to the transition region
between the barrel and endcap sections of the ECAL, where the performance is
degraded. To suppress muons originating from hadron decays or pion punch-
through in jets, we remove muons for which the sum of the of additional tracks
that originate from the PV and that are inside a cone of $R<0.3$ around the
muon is more than 10% of the muon . We also require electrons to be isolated,
, the sum of the of all tracks inside a cone of $R<0.3$ centered on the
electron candidate, not associated with the electron and originating from the
PV must be below 5. We use dedicated identification algorithms, optimized for
the selection of high-momentum leptons [21, 20]. The two jet candidates must
each have $\pt>40\GeV$ and be within $\abs{\eta}<2.4$. To avoid having
reconstructed leptons overlap jets, we impose a $\Delta R>0.4$ requirement
between all jets and leptons.

##  0.4 Signal model

We use several auxiliary data samples to estimate signal and background
contributions to our search as well as to validate our event selection. We use
Monte Carlo (MC) simulation in the calculation of the signal efficiency and in
the estimation of some of the SM backgrounds. In these simulations, the
response of the CMS detector is modeled using the package [26]. Pileup
contributions are modeled by superimposing simulated inelastic proton-proton
interactions onto the primary hard scattering. The simulated distribution of
the number of pileup events is matched to that observed in the data.

For estimating the acceptance and efficiency for detecting bosons, simulated
signal samples of $\Pe\Pe\text{jj}$ and $\PGm\PGm\text{jj}$ final states are
generated assuming $m_{\mathrm{N_{R}}}=1/2m_{\PWR}$, using the 8.212 program
[27] with the NNPDF2.3 [28] parton distribution functions (PDFs). Simulated
signal samples with $m_{\mathrm{N_{R}}}\neq 1/2m_{\PWR}$, needed to estimate
the 2D limits described in Section 0.6, are also generated using 8.212.

We focus our search on a region of phase-space where the signal is expected to
appear. This signal region applies to events with two leptons with the same
flavor and two jets. The invariant mass of the dilepton system must be above
200, to avoid contamination from resonant boson production. The
$m_{\ell\ell\text{jj}}$ must be greater than 600to ensure that all the
kinematic requirements on the candidates are fully efficient. There is no
charge requirement on the leptons, to ensure sensitivity to a wider class of
models.

Using the selection requirements described above, the product of the
acceptance and efficiency for decays to the $\ell\ell\text{jj}$ final state,
increases from 30% at $m_{\PWR}=1000\GeV$ to 57% for $m_{\PWR}>3000\GeV$ in
the electron channel, and similarly from 40 to 75% in the muon channel. For
both channels, the signal efficiency reaches a plateau at $m_{\PWR}=3000\GeV$.
The efficiency for electron events is lower than the muon event efficiency
because of differences between the selection requirements, and because of the
omission of the transition regions between the ECAL barrel and endcaps in the
case of electrons.

##  0.5 Background estimation

Standard model processes that produce events with the same final-state
particles as the signal model include DY production of lepton pairs with
additional jets in the final state, and and diboson production. The DY+jets
and production are irreducible background processes that comprise most of the
background events in the signal region. The contribution from diboson
backgrounds is suppressed by the dilepton mass requirement
($m_{\ell\ell}>200\GeV$). We also consider backgrounds for which candidate
misidentification leads to events with two leptons and two jets in the final
state. These backgrounds include boson production with additional jets,
$t$-channel single top quark events with additional jets, and QCD multijet
events. These reducible backgrounds do not significantly contaminate our
signal region. The diboson backgrounds constitute $\sim$1.5% of the total
background in the signal region, the +jets $\sim$0.5%, the single top quark
events $\sim$5%, and the QCD events $\sim$0.1%.

The MC samples used to estimate the background processes are simulated with
several MC event generators. The DY+jets and the samples are generated with
2.3.3 [29] at next-to-leading order (NLO) using the NLO NNPDF3.0 [30] PDF set.
Diboson (, , and $\PZ\PZ$) samples are generated at leading order (LO) using
8.212 along with the LO NNPDF2.3 [28] PDFs, while +jets events are generated
with 2.3.3 [29] at leading order (LO) and single top quark events are produced
in the channel with v1.0 [31, 32, 33, 34]. The more precise NLO calculations
are used to normalize the SM simulated samples of diboson, +jets and single
top quark events to NLO accuracy. The NNPDF3.0 PDFs are used for samples
generated at NLO. For all samples, 8.212 is used for parton showering,
fragmentation and hadronization with the underlying event tune cuetp8m1 [35].
The DY+jets samples have one parton at the matrix element level, and
additional parton showering is modeled in . The potential double counting of
partons generated using with those using is minimized using the MLM [36] (FXFX
[37]) matching scheme in the LO (NLO) samples.

We define different regions of phase-space (control regions) to estimate the
contributions of the different SM backgrounds. To study the background
contribution from DY+jets events we use a sample defined by the presence of
two same-flavor, opposite-charge electrons or muons and two jets. The
invariant mass of the dilepton system must satisfy $m_{\ell\ell}<200\GeV$. We
call this the “low dilepton mass control region”. The “flavor control region”,
used to study the background contribution, corresponds to an event sample
composed of one electron, one muon, and two jets. For this region the
invariant mass of the dilepton system must satisfy $m_{\ell\ell}>200\GeV$,
while the $m_{\ell\ell\text{jj}}$ is required to be above 600.

###  0.5.1 Drell–Yan background

Monte Carlo simulation is used to estimate the background from high mass DY
lepton pair production in association with additional jets, since no high
purity control region has been identified having the same kinematic
characteristics as the signal region. The normalization of DY+jets background
in simulation is adjusted to match the event counts in data using a SF
calculated as the ratio of data and simulation events under the resonance in
the range $80<m_{\ell\ell}<100\GeV$. This SF corrects for residual mismodeling
between data and simulation, and includes the signal region requirements on
the jets. The measured SF is $1.07\pm 0.01\stat$ in both electron and muon
channels.

We compare between data and MC all the kinematic distributions of the low
dilepton mass control region for the and $\PGm\PGm$ channels, respectively.
The agreement in this control region is especially important since we derive
the estimate for the shape of the DY+jets background directly from simulation.
The distributions of some kinematic quantities in the low dilepton mass
control region with the SF already applied are shown in Fig. 1 for both
electron and muon channels. In these plots, all expected SM backgrounds,
except for DY+jets and , are labelled as Other backgrounds. Good agreement is
observed in the shapes of the kinematic distributions in both cases.

To verify that the SF measured for DY+jets below the boson peak is valid also
at higher dilepton masses, we use a dedicated control region, referred to as
the “low $m_{\ell\ell\text{jj}}$ control region”, which is defined by the
signal region selections, except for an inverted
$m_{\ell\ell\text{jj}}<600\GeV$ requirement. In this control region, we check
for agreement between data and simulation in events with high dilepton mass.
The $m_{\ell\ell\text{jj}}$ distributions with the DY SF applied are shown in
Fig. 2.

Figure 1: Kinematic distributions for events in the low dilepton mass control
region with the DY SF applied. The dilepton mass (upper left) and the scalar
sum of all jet transverse momenta (lower left) are shown for the $\Pe\Pe$ DY
plus two jets selection. The $m_{\ell\ell\text{jj}}$ (upper right) and the
dilepton transverse momentum (lower right) are shown for the $\PGm\PGm$ DY
plus two jets selection. The uncertainty bands on the simulated background
histograms include only statistical uncertainties. The uncertainty bars in the
ratio plots represent combined statistical uncertainties of data and
simulation.

Figure 2: The $m_{\ell\ell\text{jj}}$ distribution in the low
$m_{\ell\ell\text{jj}}$ control region with the DY SF applied for the electron
(left) and muon (right) channel. The uncertainty bands on the simulated
background histograms include only statistical uncertainties. The uncertainty
bars in the ratio plots represent combined statistical uncertainties of data
and simulation.

###  0.5.2  background

The background contribution is estimated directly from data in the flavor
control region defined above, which has the same kinematic characteristics as
the events in the signal region. For this estimate, we use the events in the
flavor control region, assuming that there is no contamination from signal
events. This assumption, which corresponds to an imposition of the
conservation of individual lepton flavor on our signal models, is valid since,
at leading order, the decay of a boson cannot yield events with an
$\Pe\PGm\text{jj}$ final state.

To calculate the number of events from production in the $\Pe\Pe\text{jj}$ and
the $\PGm\PGm\text{jj}$ signal regions, we use simulated events to determine
transfer factors $R_{\ell\ell/\Pe\PGm}$ ($\ell\ell=\Pe\Pe$ or $\PGm\PGm$)
between the $\Pe\PGm\text{jj}$ control region and the signal region. These
factors are evaluated from the ratio of the number of simulated events in the
distributions of $m_{\Pe\Pe\text{jj}}$ or $m_{\PGm\PGm\text{jj}}$ in the
signal region to the number of events in the distribution of
$m_{\Pe\PGm\text{jj}}$ in the flavor control region. The number of events in
the signal region is then given by:

$N_{\ttbar}(\text{signal region})=N_{\ttbar}(\text{flavor control
region})\,R_{\ell\ell/\Pe\PGm}.$ (1)

Using the transfer factor, we can account for the difference in the efficiency
and acceptance between electrons and muons in these final states.

Transfer factors applied to the number of events in the flavor control region
to estimate the number of events in the $\Pe\Pe\text{jj}$ and
$\PGm\PGm\text{jj}$ signal regions.  Channel Transfer factor Stat. uncertainty
Syst. uncertainty $\Pe\PGm\text{jj}\to\Pe\Pe\text{jj}$ 0.42 0.01 0.07
$\Pe\PGm\text{jj}\to\PGm\PGm\text{jj}$ 0.72 0.02 0.14

The values of the transfer factors obtained are given in Table 0.5.2. The
$R_{\ell\ell/\Pe\PGm}$ as a function of the $m_{\ell\ell\text{jj}}$
distribution is fit to a constant. A systematic uncertainty is assigned by
fitting the transfer factor to a linear function and taking the difference
between the values of this function at the high and low
$m_{\ell\ell\text{jj}}$.

Figure 3:  Kinematic distributions for events in the flavor control region
with the DY SF applied. The dilepton mass (upper left), the
$m_{\ell\ell\text{jj}}$ (upper right), the scalar sum of all jet transverse
momenta (lower left), and the number of jets (lower right) are shown. The
uncertainty bands on the simulated background histograms include only
statistical uncertainties. The uncertainty bars in the ratio plots represent
combined statistical uncertainties of data and simulation.

Figure 3 shows a comparison between simulated events and data for several
kinematic variables in the flavor control region.

The background contribution in the signal region is estimated without the
direct use of simulated events. However, the agreement between simulation and
data in the flavor control region suggests that other modeling using
simulation, such as the signal acceptance, is reliable.

##  0.6 Results

The strategy followed in this analysis is to search for deviations from the
shape of the $m_{\ell\ell\text{jj}}$ distribution expected in the standard
model. This distribution extends over a range of several TeV. While the LR
symmetric models motivate the choice of the $\ell\ell\text{jj}$ final state,
we do not impose requirements on the signal shape specific to these models, in
order to maintain sensitivity to other models. The strategy to search for an
excess of events in a wide mass range is effective in analyzing the data
without exploiting other characteristics of the benchmark signal model and
reduces the effect of the uncertainties in the shapes of the backgrounds,
especially in the high-$m_{\ell\ell\text{jj}}$ region. The expected number of
signal and background events is estimated by counting the events falling in a
particular $m_{\ell\ell\text{jj}}$ window. The upper and lower limits of the
mass window are chosen as a function of $m_{\PWR}$ to obtain the most
stringent expected cross section upper limits. Optimizing with respect to
signal significance instead results in comparable mass windows. The width of
the mass window for the electron final state varies from 130at low masses
($m_{\PWR}\simeq 800\GeV$) to 3100at high masses ($m_{\PWR}\simeq 6000\GeV$).
For muons, the mass window varies more, and becomes as large as 3800. The
upper and lower bounds are fitted as functions of $m_{\PWR}$ to third degree
polynomials to reduce the effect of statistical fluctuations in the
optimization procedure.

The probability of the observed number of events being produced by a
combination of background and signal with a cross section $\sigma$ is
calculated using a Bayesian approach with flat signal prior and a fit model
with nuisance parameters introduced to address the uncertainties, with log-
normal priors. The exclusion limit on the cross section $\sigma$ is defined as
the upper bound of the one-sided 95% credibility interval determined from the
posterior likelihood distribution for the signal cross section. This procedure
is repeated for each mass hypothesis.

In order to take into account the statistical and systematic uncertainties,
pseudo-experiments are performed, varying the expected number of events from
signal and background according to the uncertainties as described below. The
median of the distribution of the excluded cross section produced by pseudo-
experiments and the intervals containing 68 and 95% of the pseudo-experiments
are then quoted in the expected limits and their uncertainties.

The sources of systematic uncertainty considered in this analysis are the
uncertainty in the integrated luminosity determination [38], the normalization
uncertainty in the background, the uncertainties due to proton PDFs, and
factorization and renormalization scales for the DY+jets background and the
signal, and the systematic effects related to candidate reconstruction. This
last set of uncertainties, affecting the shape of the $m_{\ell\ell\text{jj}}$
distribution, include uncertainties in the jet and lepton energy scales and
resolutions, and in the lepton reconstruction, trigger, isolation, and
identification SFs.

In order to propagate the uncertainties in candidate reconstruction, a large
number of pseudo-experiments are performed, varying all the uncertainty
sources at the same time in an uncorrelated fashion, each according to a
Gaussian distribution with mean equal to the nominal value and width equal to
the uncertainty of the single source. The variations are performed before the
event selection, so each pseudo-experiment is processed using the full
analysis chain. The expected number of events for signal and background in a
mass window is evaluated for each pseudo-experiment. The values used to
extract the limit are given by the mean of the pseudo-experiment distribution,
and their standard deviation is the propagated uncertainty. The uncertainties
in the candidate reconstruction are then implemented as nuisance parameters
with log-normal priors in the limit evaluation. The effects of these
uncertainties on the signal and background yields are listed in Table 0.6.

Effect of systematic uncertainties in candidate reconstruction efficiencies,
energy scale and resolutions on the signal and background yields. The Signal
column shows the range of uncertainties computed at each of the mass points.
The Background column indicates the range of the uncertainties for the
backgrounds.  Uncertainty Signal (%) Background (%) Jet energy resolution 3.2–
26 0.90– 25 Jet energy scale 0.20– 29 4.8– 27 Electron energy resolution 3.7–
4.8 2.7– 4.5 Electron energy scale 3.7– 6.4 4.9– 5.9 Electron reco/trigger/ID
8.7– 11 6.1– 10 Muon energy resolution 4.7– 10 6.9– 12 Muon energy scale 4.7–
10 6.2– 12 Muon trigger/ID/iso 2.3– 4.7 1.9– 5.2

The uncertainty in the integrated luminosity affects only the normalization of
the $m_{\ell\ell\text{jj}}$ distributions, as does the uncertainty in the
extrapolation SF given by the sum in quadrature of its statistical and
systematic uncertainties, evaluated as described in Section 0.5.

The uncertainties in the estimation of the DY+jets background are implemented
as a function of $m_{\ell\ell\text{jj}}$ following the PDF4LHC prescription
[39], and affect both shape and normalization of the $m_{\ell\ell\text{jj}}$
distributions. Table 0.6 lists the range of values of these uncertainties,
which are included in the evaluation of the limits as nuisance parameters with
log-normal priors.

Uncertainties affecting the $m_{\ell\ell\text{jj}}$ distribution shape and
normalization. The uncertainties in the SFs affect the background, the
uncertainties in the DY PDF and the DY factorization and renormalization
scales affect the DY+jets background, and the uncertainty in the integrated
luminosity affects both signal and backgrounds.  Uncertainty Magnitude (%)
extrapolation $\Pe\Pe$/$\Pe\PGm$ SF 17 (stat+syst) extrapolation
$\PGm\PGm$/$\Pe\PGm$ SF 20 (stat+syst) DY $\Pe\Pe$ PDF 15–70 (syst) DY
$\Pe\Pe$ renormalization/factorization 5.0–40 (syst) DY $\PGm\PGm$ PDF 10–70
(syst) DY $\PGm\PGm$ renormalization/factorization 10–50 (syst) Integrated
luminosity 2.5 (stat+syst)

Concerning uncertainties in the signal arising from the PDF and scale
uncertainties, only the effect on the signal acceptance is considered in the
expected limit calculation. The effect is implemented as a function of
$m_{\ell\ell\text{jj}}$ as for the DY+jets background.

All of the uncertainties that affect the shape of the $m_{\ell\ell\text{jj}}$
distribution also affect the number of events in specific mass ranges and
effectively become normalization uncertainties.

To include the statistical uncertainties for each process in the evaluation of
the limits, Gamma distributions are used [40]. In the limit estimation,
pseudo-experiments are generated based on the expected number of events,
sampled according to a Gamma distribution and multiplied by the log-normal
distributions of the systematics uncertainties.

In Table 0.6, the expected number of events, including the statistical and
systematic uncertainties, for the signal, the DY+jets and background events,
and the total of additional smaller background sources are reported, together
with the observed number of events, for several representative mass points.
The signal normalization is obtained for the assumptions
$m_{\mathrm{N_{R}}}=1/2m_{\PWR}$ and $g_{\mathrm{R}}=g_{\mathrm{L}}$. In Fig.
4, we present the observed $m_{\ell\ell\text{jj}}$ distribution in the signal
region and compare it to the expected backgrounds and the signal shape for
$m_{\PWR}=4\TeV$. No significant deviations are seen in the data with respect
to expectation.

Number of expected events for signal, DY+jets, , Other, and All backgrounds,
as well as the observed number of events in different mass windows. All
uncertainties are included in the expected number of events. In each table
cell, the entry is of the form (mean $\pm$ stat $\pm$ syst).

$m_{\PWR}$ [mass window] () | Signal | DY+jets |  | Other | All backgrounds | Data
---|---|---|---|---|---|---
Electron channel
2200 [1960–2810] | 474.0 $\pm$ | 3.7 $\pm$ | 44.7 | 15.7 |  ${}^{+5.1}_{-3.9}$ $\pm$ | 3.0 | 23.6 |  ${}^{+5.9}_{-4.8}$ $\pm$ | 2.8 | 9.1 |  ${}^{+4.1}_{-2.9}$ $\pm$ | 2.3 | 48.3 |  ${}^{+8.8}_{-6.9}$ $\pm$ | 4.8 | 56
2800 [2530–3840] | 114.1 $\pm$ | 0.9 $\pm$ | 10.6 | 4.1 |  ${}^{+3.2}_{-1.9}$ $\pm$ | 0.8 | 5.8 |  ${}^{+3.6}_{-2.3}$ $\pm$ | 0.8 | 4.0 |  ${}^{+3.2}_{-1.9}$ $\pm$ | 0.8 | 14.0 |  ${}^{+5.7}_{-3.6}$ $\pm$ | 1.4 | 15
3600 [3250–5170] | 19.2 $\pm$ | 0.2 $\pm$ | 1.8 | 1.0 |  ${}^{+2.3}_{-0.8}$ $\pm$ | 0.2 | 0.4 |  ${}^{+2.1}_{-0.4}$ $\pm$ | 0.1 | 0.2 |  ${}^{+1.9}_{-0.2}$ $\pm$ | 0.1 | 1.6 |  ${}^{+3.7}_{-0.9}$ $\pm$ | 0.2 | 3.0
Muon channel
2200 [1860–2800] | 744.0 $\pm$ | 4.7 $\pm$ | 47.5 | 35.0 |  ${}^{+7.0}_{-5.9}$ $\pm$ | 4.8 | 40.1 |  ${}^{+7.4}_{-6.3}$ $\pm$ | 7.0 | 12.0 |  ${}^{+4.6}_{-3.4}$ $\pm$ | 1.3 | 87.1 |  ${}^{+11.1}_{-9.3}$ $\pm$ | 8.6 | 74
2800 [2430–3930] | 177.0 $\pm$ | 1.1 $\pm$ | 13.1 | 8.4 |  ${}^{+4.0}_{-2.8}$ $\pm$ | 1.3 | 9.9 |  ${}^{+4.3}_{-3.1}$ $\pm$ | 1.8 | 2.7 |  ${}^{+2.8}_{-1.5}$ $\pm$ | 0.3 | 20.9 |  ${}^{+6.5}_{-4.5}$ $\pm$ | 2.2 | 18
3600 [3190–5500] | 29.2 $\pm$ | 0.2 $\pm$ | 2.6 | 1.6 |  ${}^{+2.5}_{-1.1}$ $\pm$ | 0.5 | 0.7 |  ${}^{+2.2}_{-0.7}$ $\pm$ | 0.1 | 0.2 |  ${}^{+1.9}_{-0.2}$ $\pm$ | 0.1 | 2.6 |  ${}^{+3.9}_{-1.3}$ $\pm$ | 0.5 | 4.0

Figure 4: The $m_{\ell\ell\text{jj}}$ distribution in the signal region for
the electron (left) and muon (right) channel. The uncertainty bands on the
simulated background histograms include only statistical uncertainties. The
uncertainty bars in the ratio plots represent combined statistical
uncertainties of data and simulation. The gray error band around unity
represents the systematic uncertainty on the simulation.

Figure 5: Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the product of
$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\PWR)$ and branching fraction $B(\PWR\to\ell\ell\text{jj})$
for the electron channel on the left and for the muon channel on the right.
The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the expected 68%
and 95% exclusion regions.

Expected and observed exclusion limits on the signal cross section at 95% are
shown in Fig. 5, taking into account all the systematic and statistical
uncertainties described in this section. For the model, with
$m_{\mathrm{N_{R}}}=1/2m_{\PWR}$, the observed lower limit at 95% on the mass
of the right-handed boson is 4.4for both channels, while the expected
exclusion limit is 4.4for the electron channel and 4.5for the muon channel,
giving an improvement of $\sim$1.4from the previous analysis at 8. The most
significant excess, of $\sim$1.5$\sigma$, is observed at
$m_{\ell\ell\text{jj}}\simeq 3.4\TeV$ in the electron channel. A 2.8$\sigma$
excess seen at $m_{\Pe\Pe\text{jj}}\approx 2.1\TeV$ with the 8analysis is thus
not confirmed by the present data. The lower edge of the 95% band disappears
at high masses because of the small number of events in that region. Assuming
that only one heavy neutrino flavor $\mathrm{N_{R}}$ contributes significantly
to the decay width, the region in the two-dimensional ($m_{\PWR}$,
$m_{\mathrm{N_{R}}}$) mass plane is analyzed, covering a large range of
neutrino masses below the boson mass. The cross section limits obtained for
$m_{\mathrm{N_{R}}}=1/2m_{\PWR}$ are scaled to this 2D plane by applying an
$m_{\PWR}$\- and $m_{\mathrm{N_{R}}}$-dependent SF to the cross section limit.
This SF is calculated using signal events at the generator level that pass the
signal selection, and accounts for the change in the acceptance and efficiency
as $m_{\mathrm{N_{R}}}$ changes for fixed $m_{\PWR}$.

Figure 6: Upper limit on the cross section for different and $\mathrm{N_{R}}$
mass hypotheses, for the electron channel on the left and for the muon channel
on the right. The expected and observed exclusions are shown as the dotted
(blue) curve and the solid (red) curve, respectively. The thin-dotted (blue)
curves indicate the region in ($m_{\PWR}$, $m_{\mathrm{N_{R}}}$) parameter
space that is expected to be excluded at 68% in the case that no signal is
present in the data.

The expected and observed upper limits on the cross section for different and
$\mathrm{N_{R}}$ mass hypotheses are shown in Fig. 6. The 2D exclusion limits
are less stringent in the region $m_{\mathrm{N_{R}}}\lesssim 1/8m_{\PWR}$,
where the selection efficiency in generator level events is lower than in
fully reconstructed events.

##  0.7 Summary

A search for a right-handed analogue of the standard model boson in the decay
channel of two leptons and two jets has been presented. The analysis is based
on proton-proton collision data collected at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ by the CMS
experiment at the LHC in 2016, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of
35.9. No significant excess over the standard model background expectations is
observed in the invariant mass distribution of the dilepton plus dijet system.
Thus the 2.8$\sigma$ excess previously observed in data recorded by CMS at 8is
not confirmed. Assuming that couplings are identical to those of the standard
model, a region in the two-dimensional plane ($m_{\PWR}$,
$m_{\mathrm{N_{R}}}$) covering a large range of right-handed neutrino masses
is excluded at 95% confidence level. A boson decaying into a right-handed
heavy neutrino with a mass $m_{\mathrm{N_{R}}}=1/2m_{\PWR}$ is excluded at 95%
confidence level up to a mass of 4.4, providing the most stringent limit to
date.

###### Acknowledgements.

We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the
excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative
staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the
success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the
computing centers and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for
delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our
analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction
and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following
funding agencies: BMWFW and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq,
CAPES, FAPERJ, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC
(China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RPF (Cyprus);
SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC IUT, and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of Finland,
MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF
(Germany); GSRT (Greece); 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); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC
(Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom, RAS and RFBR (Russia);
MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI and FEDER (Spain); Swiss Funding Agencies
(Switzerland); MST (Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR, and NSTDA (Thailand);
TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); NASU and SFFR (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE
and NSF (USA). Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie
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] J. C. Pati and A. Salam, “Lepton number as the fourth color”,  Phys. Rev. D 10 (1974) 275, 10.1103/PhysRevD.10.275. [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 11 (1975) 703, 10.1103/PhysRevD.11.703.2].
  * [2] R. N. Mohapatra and J. C. Pati, “A natural left-right symmetry”,  Phys. Rev. D 11 (1975) 2558, 10.1103/PhysRevD.11.2558.
  * [3] G. Senjanovic and R. N. Mohapatra, “Exact left-right symmetry and spontaneous violation of parity”,  Phys. Rev. D 12 (1975) 1502, 10.1103/PhysRevD.12.1502.
  * [4] W.-Y. Keung and G. Senjanovic, “Majorana neutrinos and the production of the right-handed charged gauge boson”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 50 (1983) 1427, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.50.1427.
  * [5] P. Adhya, D. R. Chaudhuri, and A. Raychaudhuri, “Decay and decoupling of heavy right-handed Majorana neutrinos in the L-R model”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 19 (2001) 183, 10.1007/s100520100575, arXiv:hep-ph/0006260.
  * [6] P. S. B. Dev, R. N. Mohapatra, and Y. Zhang, “Heavy right-handed neutrino dark matter in left-right models”,  Mod. Phys. Lett. A 32 (2017) 1740007, 10.1142/S0217732317400077, arXiv:1610.05738.
  * [7] R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, “Neutrino mass and spontaneous parity violation”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (1980) 912, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.44.912.
  * [8] A. Das, P. S. B. Dev, and R. N. Mohapatra, “Same sign versus opposite sign dileptons as a probe of low scale seesaw mechanisms”,  Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 015018, 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.015018, arXiv:1709.06553.
  * [9] M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, “Complex spinors and unified theories”, in  Supergravity, P. V. Nieuwenhuizen and D. Z. Freedman, eds., p. 315.  Elsevier, 1979.  arXiv:1306.4669.  Conference number C79-09-27.
  * [10] CMS Collaboration, “Search for heavy neutrinos and $\mathrm{W}$ bosons with right-handed couplings in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3149, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3149-z, arXiv:1407.3683.
  * [11] CMS Collaboration, “Search for heavy neutrinos or third-generation leptoquarks in final states with two hadronically decaying $\tau$ leptons and two jets in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  JHEP 03 (2017) 077, 10.1007/JHEP03(2017)077, arXiv:1612.01190.
  * [12] CMS Collaboration, “Search for the third-generation scalar leptoquarks and heavy right-handed neutrinos in final states with two tau leptons and two jets in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV”,  JHEP 07 (2017) 121, 10.1007/JHEP07(2017)121, arXiv:1703.03995.
  * [13] CMS Collaboration, “Search for a heavy composite Majorana neutrino in the final state with two leptons and two quarks at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV”, (2017). arXiv:1706.08578.
  * [14] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for heavy neutrinos and right-handed $\mathrm{W}$ bosons in events with two leptons and jets in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 2056, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-2056-4, arXiv:1203.5420.
  * [15] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for third generation scalar leptoquarks in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  JHEP 06 (2013) 033, 10.1007/JHEP06(2013)033, arXiv:1303.0526.
  * [16] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for heavy Majorana neutrinos with the ATLAS detector in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV”,  JHEP 07 (2015) 162, 10.1007/JHEP07(2015)162, arXiv:1506.06020.
  * [17] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [18] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [19] CMS Collaboration, “Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector”,  JINST 12 (2017) P10003, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/10/P10003, arXiv:1706.04965.
  * [20] CMS Collaboration, “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.
  * [21] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in pp collision events at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”,  JINST 7 (2012) P10002, 10.1088/1748-0221/7/10/P10002, arXiv:1206.4071.
  * [22] 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.
  * [23] 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.
  * [24] M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam, “Pileup subtraction using jet areas”,  Phys. Lett. B 659 (2008) 119, 10.1016/j.physletb.2007.09.077, arXiv:0707.1378.
  * [25] CMS Collaboration, “Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV”,  JINST 12 (2017) P02014, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/P02014, arXiv:1607.03663.
  * [26] S. Agostinelli et al., “—a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [27] 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.
  * [28] R. D. Ball et al., “Parton distributions with LHC data”,  Nucl. Phys. B 867 (2013) 244, 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2012.10.003, arXiv:1207.1303.
  * [29] 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.
  * [30] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC run II”,  JHEP 04 (2015) 040, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040, arXiv:1410.8849.
  * [31] 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.
  * [32] 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.
  * [33] 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.
  * [34] E. Re, “Single-top Wt-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1547, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1547-z, arXiv:1009.2450.
  * [35] 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.
  * [36] 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.
  * [37] R. Frederix and S. Frixione, “Merging meets matching in MC@NLO”,  JHEP 12 (2012) 061, 10.1007/JHEP12(2012)061, arXiv:1209.6215.
  * [38] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data taking period”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001, 2017.
  * [39] 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.
  * [40] ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, “Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in summer 2011”, Technical Report CMS-NOTE-2011-005, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-11, 2011.

##  .8 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan Institut für Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, E. Asilar, T. Bergauer, J. Brandstetter, E. Brondolin, M.
Dragicevic, J. Erö, A. Escalante Del Valle, M. Flechl, M. Friedl, R.
Frühwirth1, V.M. Ghete, J. Grossmann, J. Hrubec, M. Jeitler1, A. König, N.
Krammer, I. Krätschmer, D. Liko, T. Madlener, I. Mikulec, E. Pree, 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, M. Van De
Klundert, H. Van Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, N. Van Remortel Vrije
Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
S. Abu Zeid, F. Blekman, J. D’Hondt, I. De Bruyn, J. De Clercq, K. Deroover,
G. Flouris, D. Lontkovskyi, S. Lowette, 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, T. Seva, E. Starling, C. Vander Velde, P. Vanlaer, D.
Vannerom, R. Yonamine 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, A. Caudron, P.
David, S. De Visscher, C. Delaere, M. Delcourt, B. Francois, A. Giammanco, G.
Krintiras, V. Lemaitre, A. Magitteri, A. Mertens, M. Musich, K. Piotrzkowski,
L. Quertenmont, A. Saggio, M. Vidal Marono, S. Wertz, J. Zobec Centro
Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
W.L. Aldá Júnior, F.L. Alves, G.A. Alves, L. Brito, 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, S. Fonseca De Souza, H.
Malbouisson, M. Medina Jaime5, M. Melo De Almeida, C. Mora Herrera, L. Mundim,
H. Nogima, 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, Sandra S. Padulaa, D. Romero Abadb,
J.C. Ruiz Vargasa 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. Fang6, X. Gao6, 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. Shaheen, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, C. Wang,
Z. Wang, E. Yazgan, H. Zhang, J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics
and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
Y. Ban, G. Chen, J. Li, Q. Li, S. Liu, Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang, Z. Xu
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, P.M. Ribeiro Cipriano, T.
Sculac University of Split, Faculty of Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, K. Kadija, B. Mesic, A. Starodumov7, T. Susa
University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos,
P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
M. Finger8, M. Finger Jr.8 Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
E. Carrera Jarrin Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab
Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt
Y. Assran9,10, S. Elgammal10, S. Khalil11 National Institute of Chemical
Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
S. Bhowmik, R.K. Dewanjee, M. Kadastik, L. Perrini, 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, S. Ghosh, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry,
C. Leloup, E. Locci, M. Machet, J. Malcles, G. Negro, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky,
M.Ö. Sahin, M. Titov Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole polytechnique,
CNRS/IN2P3, Université Paris-Saclay, Palaiseau, France
A. Abdulsalam12, C. Amendola, I. Antropov, S. Baffioni, F. Beaudette, P.
Busson, L. Cadamuro, C. Charlot, R. Granier de Cassagnac, M. Jo, I. Kucher, S.
Lisniak, A. Lobanov, J. Martin Blanco, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, G. Ortona, P.
Paganini, P. Pigard, R. Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A.G. Stahl Leiton, Y.
Yilmaz, A. Zabi, A. Zghiche Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178,
F-67000 Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram13, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, J.-M. Brom, E.C. Chabert, C. Collard, E.
Conte13, X. Coubez, F. Drouhin13, J.-C. Fontaine13, D. Gelé, U. Goerlach, M.
Jansová, P. Juillot, 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, A.L. Pequegnot, S. Perries, A. Popov14, V. Sordini, M. Vander
Donckt, S. Viret, S. Zhang Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
T. Toriashvili15 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, V. Zhukov14 RWTH
Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany
A. Albert, D. Duchardt, M. Endres, M. Erdmann, S. Erdweg, T. Esch, R. Fischer,
A. Güth, T. Hebbeker, C. Heidemann, K. Hoepfner, S. Knutzen, M. Merschmeyer,
A. Meyer, P. Millet, S. Mukherjee, T. Pook, M. Radziej, H. Reithler, M.
Rieger, F. Scheuch, D. Teyssier, S. Thüer RWTH Aachen University, III.
Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany
G. Flügge, B. Kargoll, T. Kress, A. Künsken, T. Müller, A. Nehrkorn, A.
Nowack, C. Pistone, O. Pooth, A. Stahl16 Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron,
Hamburg, Germany
M. Aldaya Martin, T. Arndt, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, K. Beernaert, O. Behnke, U.
Behrens, A. Bermúdez Martínez, A.A. Bin Anuar, K. Borras17, V. Botta, A.
Campbell, P. Connor, C. Contreras-Campana, F. Costanza, V. Danilov, A. De Wit,
C. Diez Pardos, D. Domínguez Damiani, G. Eckerlin, D. Eckstein, T. Eichhorn,
A. Elwood, E. Eren, E. Gallo18, J. Garay Garcia, A. Geiser, J.M. Grados
Luyando, A. Grohsjean, P. Gunnellini, M. Guthoff, A. Harb, J. Hauk, M.
Hempel19, H. Jung, M. Kasemann, J. Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, J. Knolle, I.
Korol, D. Krücker, W. Lange, A. Lelek, T. Lenz, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann19, R.
Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, A.B. Meyer, M. Meyer, M. Missiroli, G. Mittag,
J. Mnich, A. Mussgiller, D. Pitzl, A. Raspereza, M. Savitskyi, P. Saxena, R.
Shevchenko, N. Stefaniuk, H. Tholen, G.P. Van Onsem, R. Walsh, Y. Wen, K.
Wichmann, C. Wissing, O. Zenaiev University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, V. Blobel, M. Centis Vignali, T. Dreyer, E. Garutti, D.
Gonzalez, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, M. Hoffmann, A. Karavdina, G. Kasieczka, R.
Klanner, R. Kogler, N. Kovalchuk, S. Kurz, V. Kutzner, J. Lange, D. Marconi,
J. Multhaup, M. Niedziela, D. Nowatschin, T. Peiffer, A. Perieanu, A. Reimers,
C. Scharf, P. Schleper, A. Schmidt, S. Schumann, J. Schwandt, J. Sonneveld, H.
Stadie, G. Steinbrück, F.M. Stober, M. Stöver, D. Troendle, E. Usai, A.
Vanhoefer, B. Vormwald Institut für Experimentelle Teilchenphysik, Karlsruhe,
Germany
M. Akbiyik, C. Barth, M. Baselga, S. Baur, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, F.
Colombo, W. De Boer, A. Dierlamm, N. Faltermann, B. Freund, R. Friese, M.
Giffels, M.A. Harrendorf, F. Hartmann16, S.M. Heindl, U. Husemann, F.
Kassel16, S. Kudella, H. Mildner, M.U. Mozer, Th. Müller, M. Plagge, G. Quast,
K. Rabbertz, M. Schröder, I. Shvetsov, G. Sieber, H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, S.
Wayand, M. Weber, T. Weiler, S. Williamson, C. Wöhrmann, R. Wolf Institute of
Nuclear and Particle Physics (INPP), NCSR Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
G. Anagnostou, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas, I. Topsis-
Giotis National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
G. Karathanasis, S. Kesisoglou, A. Panagiotou, N. Saoulidou, E. Tziaferi
National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece
K. Kousouris, I. Papakrivopoulos 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. Csanad, N. Filipovic, G. Pasztor, O. Surányi, G.I. Veres Wigner Research
Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath20, Á. Hunyadi, F. Sikler, V. Veszpremi, G.
Vesztergombi${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, T.Á. Vámi Institute of Nuclear
Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi21, A. Makovec, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi
Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
M. Bartók22, P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari Indian Institute of Science
(IISc), Bangalore, India
S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri National Institute of Science Education and
Research, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati23, P. Mal, K. Mandal, A. Nayak24, D.K. Sahoo23, 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, R. Kumar, P. Kumari, M. Lohan, A. Mehta, S.
Sharma, J.B. Singh, G. Walia University of Delhi, Delhi, India
Ashok Kumar, Aashaq Shah, A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, S. Keshri,
A. Kumar, S. Malhotra, M. Naimuddin, K. Ranjan, R. Sharma Saha Institute of
Nuclear Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India
R. Bhardwaj25, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, U. Bhawandeep25, D. Bhowmik,
S. Dey, S. Dutt25, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh, N. Majumdar, K. Mondal, S.
Mukhopadhyay, S. Nandan, A. Purohit, P.K. Rout, A. Roy, S. Roy Chowdhury, S.
Sarkar, M. Sharan, B. Singh, S. Thakur25 Indian Institute of Technology
Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
R. Chudasama, D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, A.K. Mohanty16, P.K. Netrakanti,
L.M. Pant, P. Shukla, A. Topkar Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A,
Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, S. Dugad, B. Mahakud, S. Mitra, G.B. Mohanty, N. Sur, B. Sutar Tata
Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, P. Das, M. Guchait, Sa. Jain, S.
Kumar, M. Maity26, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, N. Sahoo, T. Sarkar26, N.
Wickramage27 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. Chenarani28, E. Eskandari Tadavani, S.M. Etesami28, M. Khakzad, M.
Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri, S. Paktinat Mehdiabadi29, F. Rezaei
Hosseinabadi, B. Safarzadeh30, 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, S. Lezkia,b, G. Maggia,c, M. Maggia, B.
Marangellia,b, 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,16, 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, L. Brigliadoria,b, R. Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A.
Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa, S.S. Chhibraa,b, G. Codispotia,b, M. Cuffiania,b,
G.M. Dallavallea, F. Fabbria, A. Fanfania,b, D. Fasanellaa,b, P. Giacomellia,
C. Grandia, L. Guiduccia,b, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, A. Montanaria, F.L.
Navarriaa,b, A. Perrottaa, A.M. Rossia,b, T. Rovellia,b, G.P. Sirolia,b, N.
Tosia INFN Sezione di Catania a, Università di Catania b, Catania, Italy
S. Albergoa,b, S. Costaa,b, A. Di Mattiaa, F. Giordanoa,b, R. Potenzaa,b, A.
Tricomia,b, C. Tuvea,b INFN Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b,
Firenze, Italy
G. Barbaglia, K. Chatterjeea,b, V. Ciullia,b, C. Civininia, R.
D’Alessandroa,b, E. Focardia,b, G. Latino, P. Lenzia,b, M. Meschinia, S.
Paolettia, L. Russoa,31, G. Sguazzonia, D. Stroma, L. Viliania INFN Laboratori
Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, F. Fabbri, D. Piccolo, F. Primavera16 INFN Sezione di
Genova a, Università di Genova b, Genova, Italy
V. Calvellia,b, F. Ferroa, 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, L. Brianzaa,b, F. Brivioa,b, V. Cirioloa,b,16, M.E.
Dinardoa,b, S. Fiorendia,b, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P. Govonia,b, M.
Malbertia,b, S. Malvezzia, R.A. Manzonia,b, D. Menascea, L. Moronia, M.
Paganonia,b, K. Pauwelsa,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Pigazzinia,b,32, S. Ragazzia,b, T.
Tabarelli de Fatisa,b INFN Sezione di Napoli a, Università di Napoli ’Federico
II’ b, Napoli, Italy, Università della Basilicata c, Potenza, Italy,
Università G. Marconi d, Roma, Italy
S. Buontempoa, N. Cavalloa,c, S. Di Guidaa,d,16, F. Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa,b,
G. Galatia,b, A.O.M. Iorioa,b, W.A. Khana, L. Listaa, S. Meolaa,d,16, P.
Paoluccia,16, C. Sciaccaa,b, F. Thyssena, E. Voevodinaa,b INFN Sezione di
Padova a, Università di Padova b, Padova, Italy, Università di Trento c,
Trento, Italy
P. Azzia, N. Bacchettaa, L. Benatoa,b, D. Biselloa,b, A. Bolettia,b, R.
Carlina,b, A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveiraa,b, P. Checchiaa, P. De Castro
Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa, U. Dossellia, F. Gasparinia,b, U. Gasparinia,b, A.
Gozzelinoa, S. Lacapraraa, M. Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,b, N. Pozzobona,b,
P. Ronchesea,b, R. Rossina,b, F. Simonettoa,b, A. Tiko, E. Torassaa, M.
Zanettia,b, P. Zottoa,b, G. Zumerlea,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
L. Alunni Solestizia,b, M. Biasinia,b, G.M. Bileia, C. Cecchia,b, D.
Ciangottinia,b, L. Fanòa,b, P. Laricciaa,b, R. Leonardia,b, E. Manonia, G.
Mantovania,b, V. Mariania,b, M. Menichellia, A. Rossia,b, A. Santocchiaa,b, D.
Spigaa INFN Sezione di Pisa a, Università di Pisa b, Scuola Normale Superiore
di Pisa c, Pisa, Italy
K. Androsova, P. Azzurria,16, G. Bagliesia, L. Bianchinia, T. Boccalia, L.
Borrello, R. Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, G. Fedia, L.
Gianninia,c, A. Giassia, M.T. Grippoa,31, F. Ligabuea,c, T. Lomtadzea, E.
Mancaa,c, G. Mandorlia,c, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, A. Rizzia,b, P.
Spagnoloa, R. Tenchinia, G. Tonellia,b, A. Venturia, P.G. Verdinia INFN
Sezione di Roma a, Sapienza Università di Roma b, Rome, Italy
L. Baronea,b, F. Cavallaria, M. Cipriania,b, N. Dacia, D. Del Rea,b, 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, R. Castelloa,b, F. Cennaa,b, M.
Costaa,b, R. Covarellia,b, A. Deganoa,b, N. Demariaa, B. Kiania,b, C.
Mariottia, S. Masellia, E. Migliorea,b, V. Monacoa,b, E. Monteila,b, M.
Montenoa, M.M. Obertinoa,b, L. Pachera,b, N. Pastronea, M. Pelliccionia, G.L.
Pinna Angionia,b, A. Romeroa,b, M. Ruspaa,c, R. Sacchia,b, K. Shchelinaa,b, V.
Solaa, A. Solanoa,b, A. Staianoa INFN Sezione di Trieste a, Università di
Trieste b, Trieste, Italy
S. Belfortea, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, G. Della Riccaa,b, A. Zanettia
Kyungpook National University
D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, M.S. Kim, J. Lee, S. Lee, S.W. Lee, C.S. Moon, Y.D. Oh, S.
Sekmen, D.C. Son, Y.C. Yang Chonnam National University, Institute for
Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju, Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon, G. Oh Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, J. Goh, T.J. Kim Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, D. Gyun, S. Ha, B. Hong, Y. Jo, Y. Kim, K. Lee, K.S.
Lee, S. Lee, J. Lim, S.K. Park, Y. Roh Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, H. Lee, K. Lee, K. Nam, S.B. Oh, B.C. Radburn-
Smith, S.h. Seo, U.K. Yang, H.D. Yoo, G.B. Yu University of Seoul, Seoul,
Korea
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 Ali33, F. Mohamad Idris34, W.A.T. Wan
Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios
Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
Reyes-Almanza, R, Ramirez-Sanchez, G., Duran-Osuna, M. C., H. Castilla-Valdez,
E. De La Cruz-Burelo, I. Heredia-De La Cruz35, Rabadan-Trejo, R. I., R. Lopez-
Fernandez, J. Mejia Guisao, 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, Q. Hassan, H.R. Hoorani, A. Saddique, M.A. Shah, M.
Shoaib, M. Waqas National Centre for Nuclear Research, Swierk, Poland
H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, T. Frueboes, M. Górski, M. Kazana, K.
Nawrocki, M. Szleper, P. Traczyk, P. Zalewski Institute of Experimental
Physics, Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk36, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J.
Krolikowski, M. Misiura, M. Olszewski, A. Pyskir, M. Walczak Laboratório de
Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas, Lisboa, Portugal
P. Bargassa, C. Beirão Da Cruz E Silva, A. Di Francesco, P. Faccioli, B.
Galinhas, M. Gallinaro, J. Hollar, N. Leonardo, L. Lloret Iglesias, M.V.
Nemallapudi, J. Seixas, G. Strong, O. Toldaiev, D. Vadruccio, J. Varela Joint
Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
S. Afanasiev, P. Bunin, M. Gavrilenko, I. Golutvin, I. Gorbunov, A. Kamenev,
V. Karjavin, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev37,38, 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
Y. Ivanov, V. Kim39, E. Kuznetsova40, 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, A. Bylinkin38 National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow
Engineering Physics Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
M. Chadeeva41, P. Parygin, D. Philippov, S. Polikarpov, E. Popova, V. Rusinov
P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin38, I. Dremin38, M. Kirakosyan38, S.V. Rusakov, A.
Terkulov Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
A. Baskakov, A. Belyaev, E. Boos, V. Bunichev, M. Dubinin42, L. Dudko, A.
Ershov, A. Gribushin, V. Klyukhin, O. Kodolova, I. Lokhtin, I. Miagkov, S.
Obraztsov, M. Perfilov, V. Savrin Novosibirsk State University (NSU),
Novosibirsk, Russia
V. Blinov43, D. Shtol43, Y. Skovpen43 State Research Center of Russian
Federation, Institute for High Energy Physics of NRC "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, A. Sobol, S.
Troshin, N. Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov National Research Tomsk Polytechnic
University, Tomsk, Russia
A. Babaev University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of
Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic44, P. Cirkovic, D. Devetak, M. Dordevic, J. Milosevic Centro de
Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid,
Spain
J. Alcaraz Maestre, I. Bachiller, M. Barrio Luna, 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, A. Álvarez Fernández 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, 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, J. Garcia-Ferrero, A. García Alonso, 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 CERN, European
Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland
D. Abbaneo, B. Akgun, E. Auffray, P. Baillon, A.H. Ball, D. Barney, J.
Bendavid, M. Bianco, A. Bocci, C. Botta, T. Camporesi, M. Cepeda, G.
Cerminara, E. Chapon, Y. Chen, D. d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, V. Daponte, A.
David, M. De Gruttola, A. De Roeck, N. Deelen, M. Dobson, T. du Pree, M.
Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, P. Everaerts, F. Fallavollita45, G.
Franzoni, J. Fulcher, W. Funk, D. Gigi, A. Gilbert, K. Gill, F. Glege, D.
Gulhan, J. Hegeman, V. Innocente, A. Jafari, P. Janot, O. Karacheban19, J.
Kieseler, V. Knünz, A. Kornmayer, M. Krammer1, C. Lange, P. Lecoq, C.
Lourenço, M.T. Lucchini, L. Malgeri, M. Mannelli, A. Martelli, F. Meijers,
J.A. Merlin, S. Mersi, E. Meschi, P. Milenovic46, F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, H.
Neugebauer, J. Ngadiuba, S. Orfanelli, L. Orsini, F. Pantaleo16, L. Pape, E.
Perez, M. Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, F.M.
Pitters, D. Rabady, A. Racz, T. Reis, G. Rolandi47, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, C.
Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Seidel, M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva, P.
Sphicas48, A. Stakia, J. Steggemann, M. Stoye, M. Tosi, D. Treille, A. Tsirou,
V. Veckalns49, M. Verweij, W.D. Zeuner Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen,
Switzerland
W. Bertl${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, L. Caminada50, 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, B. Casal, N. Chernyavskaya, G. Dissertori, M.
Dittmar, M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, C. Grab, C. Heidegger, D. Hits, J. Hoss, T.
Klijnsma, W. Lustermann, M. Marionneau, M.T. Meinhard, D. Meister, F. Micheli,
P. Musella, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, J. Pata, F. Pauss, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, M.
Quittnat, M. Reichmann, 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. Amsler51, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, R. Del
Burgo, S. Donato, C. Galloni, T. Hreus, B. Kilminster, I. Neutelings, D.
Pinna, G. Rauco, P. Robmann, D. Salerno, K. Schweiger, C. Seitz, Y. Takahashi,
A. Zucchetta National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan
V. Candelise, Y.H. Chang, K.y. Cheng, T.H. Doan, Sh. Jain, R. Khurana, C.M.
Kuo, W. Lin, A. Pozdnyakov, S.S. Yu National Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei,
Taiwan
Arun Kumar, P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, F. Fiori, W.-S. Hou, Y.
Hsiung, Y.F. Liu, R.-S. Lu, E. Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen, J.f. Tsai
Chulalongkorn University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok,
Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, K. Kovitanggoon, G. Singh, N. Srimanobhas Çukurova University,
Physics Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
M.N. Bakirci52, A. Bat, F. Boran, S. Damarseckin, Z.S. Demiroglu, C. Dozen, E.
Eskut, S. Girgis, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, I. Hos53, E.E. Kangal54, O. Kara, U.
Kiminsu, M. Oglakci, G. Onengut, K. Ozdemir55, S. Ozturk52, A. Polatoz, D.
Sunar Cerci56, U.G. Tok, S. Turkcapar, I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East
Technical University, Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey
G. Karapinar57, K. Ocalan58, M. Yalvac, M. Zeyrek Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya59, O. Kaya60, S. Tekten, E.A. Yetkin61
Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
M.N. Agaras, S. Atay, A. Cakir, K. Cankocak, Y. Komurcu 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. Newbold62,
S. Paramesvaran, T. Sakuma, S. Seif El Nasr-storey, D. Smith, V.J. Smith
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev63, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, 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
G. Auzinger, R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A.
Bundock, S. Casasso, D. Colling, L. Corpe, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M. Della
Negra, R. Di Maria, Y. Haddad, G. Hall, G. Iles, T. James, M. Komm, R. Lane,
C. Laner, L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, L. Mastrolorenzo, T. Matsushita,
J. Nash64, A. Nikitenko7, V. Palladino, M. Pesaresi, A. Richards, A. Rose, E.
Scott, C. Seez, A. Shtipliyski, T. Strebler, S. Summers, A. Tapper, K. Uchida,
M. Vazquez Acosta65, T. Virdee16, N. Wardle, D. Winterbottom, J. Wright, S.C.
Zenz Brunel University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, A. Morton, I.D. Reid, L.
Teodorescu, S. Zahid Baylor University, Waco, USA
A. Borzou, K. Call, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, H. Liu, N. Pastika, C. Smith
Catholic University of America, Washington DC, USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
A. Buccilli, S.I. Cooper, C. Henderson, P. Rumerio, C. West Boston University,
Boston, USA
D. Arcaro, A. Avetisyan, T. Bose, D. Gastler, D. Rankin, C. Richardson, J.
Rohlf, L. Sulak, D. Zou Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, D. Cutts, M. Hadley, J. Hakala, U. Heintz, J.M. Hogan66, K.H.M.
Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, J. Lee, Z. Mao, M. Narain, J. Pazzini, S.
Piperov, S. Sagir, R. Syarif, 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, R. Lander, C. Mclean, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, J. Pilot, S. Shalhout,
M. Shi, J. Smith, 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. Ellison, 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, 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. Wasserbaech67, 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, J. Yoo California
Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
D. Anderson, A. Bornheim, J. Bunn, J.M. Lawhorn, H.B. Newman, T. Q. Nguyen, C.
Pena, 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, J. Russ, M. Sun, H.
Vogel, I. Vorobiev, M. Weinberg University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, F. Jensen, A. Johnson, M. Krohn, S. Leontsinis, E.
MacDonald, T. Mulholland, 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, G.
Bolla${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, 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, R. Lopes De Sá, J.
Lykken, K. Maeshima, N. Magini, J.M. Marraffino, D. Mason, P. McBride, P.
Merkel, S. Mrenna, S. Nahn, V. O’Dell, K. Pedro, O. Prokofyev, G. Rakness, L.
Ristori, A. Savoy-Navarro68, 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, W. Wu University of Florida,
Gainesville, USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, P. Bortignon, D. Bourilkov, A. Brinkerhoff, A. Carnes, M.
Carver, D. Curry, R.D. Field, I.K. Furic, S.V. Gleyzer, B.M. Joshi, J.
Konigsberg, A. Korytov, K. Kotov, P. Ma, K. Matchev, H. Mei, G. Mitselmakher,
K. Shi, D. Sperka, N. Terentyev, L. Thomas, J. Wang, S. Wang, J. Yelton
Florida International University, Miami, USA
Y.R. Joshi, S. Linn, P. Markowitz, J.L. Rodriguez Florida State University,
Tallahassee, USA
A. Ackert, T. Adams, A. Askew, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F. Johnson, T.
Kolberg, G. Martinez, T. Perry, H. Prosper, A. Saha, A. Santra, V. Sharma, R.
Yohay Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, V. Bhopatkar, S. Colafranceschi, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, T.
Roy, F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago, USA
M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, D. Berry, R.R. Betts, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, S.
Dittmer, O. Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, K. Jung, J.
Kamin, I.D. Sandoval Gonzalez, M.B. Tonjes, N. Varelas, H. Wang, Z. Wu, J.
Zhang The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
B. Bilki69, W. Clarida, K. Dilsiz70, S. Durgut, R.P. Gandrajula, M.
Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko, J.-P. Merlo, H. Mermerkaya71, A. Mestvirishvili,
A. Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul72, Y. Onel, F. Ozok73, A. Penzo, C. Snyder,
E. Tiras, J. Wetzel, K. Yi Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
B. Blumenfeld, A. Cocoros, N. Eminizer, D. Fehling, L. Feng, A.V. Gritsan,
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, J. Castle, S.
Khalil, A. Kropivnitskaya, D. Majumder, W. Mcbrayer, M. Murray, C. Rogan, C.
Royon, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang Kansas State
University, Manhattan, USA
A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, Y. Maravin, 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, F. Ricci-Tam,
Y.H. Shin, A. Skuja, S.C. Tonwar Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, V. Azzolini, R. Barbieri, A. Baty, 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, A. Levin, 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, R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, P. Hansen, S. Kalafut, Y. Kubota,
Z. Lesko, J. Mans, S. Nourbakhsh, N. Ruckstuhl, R. Rusack, J. Turkewitz, 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, D. Nguyen, A. Parker, S. Rappoccio,
B. Roozbahani Northeastern University, Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, A. Hortiangtham, A. Massironi, D.M. Morse,
T. Orimoto, R. Teixeira De Lima, T. Wamorkar, B. Wang, A. Wisecarver, D. Wood
Northwestern University, Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, 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.
Musienko37, 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, A.
Hart, C. Hill, W. Ji, T.Y. Ling, W. Luo, B.L. Winer, H.W. Wulsin Princeton
University, Princeton, USA
S. Cooperstein, O. Driga, P. Elmer, J. Hardenbrook, P. Hebda, S. Higginbotham,
A. Kalogeropoulos, D. Lange, 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,
D.H. Miller, N. Neumeister, C.C. Peng, 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. Guilbaud, M. Kilpatrick, W.
Li, B. Michlin, B.P. Padley, J. Roberts, J. Rorie, W. Shi, Z. Tu, J. Zabel, A.
Zhang University of Rochester, Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, Y.t. Duh, T. Ferbel, M. Galanti, A.
Garcia-Bellido, J. Han, O. Hindrichs, A. Khukhunaishvili, K.H. Lo, P. Tan, M.
Verzetti The Rockefeller University, New York, USA
R. Ciesielski, K. Goulianos, C. Mesropian Rutgers, The State University of New
Jersey, Piscataway, USA
A. Agapitos, J.P. Chou, Y. Gershtein, T.A. Gómez Espinosa, E. Halkiadakis, M.
Heindl, E. Hughes, S. Kaplan, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, S. Kyriacou, A. Lath,
R. Montalvo, K. Nash, M. Osherson, H. Saka, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, D.
Sheffield, S. Somalwar, R. Stone, S. Thomas, P. Thomassen, M. Walker
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
A.G. Delannoy, J. Heideman, G. Riley, K. Rose, S. Spanier, K. Thapa Texas A&M
University, College Station, USA
O. Bouhali74, A. Castaneda Hernandez74, A. Celik, M. Dalchenko, M. De Mattia,
A. Delgado, S. Dildick, R. Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T. Kamon75, R.
Mueller, Y. Pakhotin, R. Patel, A. Perloff, L. Perniè, D. Rathjens, A.
Safonov, A. Tatarinov Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, F. De Guio, P.R. Dudero, J. Faulkner, E. Gurpinar, S.
Kunori, K. Lamichhane, S.W. Lee, T. 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, 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, L. Dodd, S. Duric,
B. Gomber, M. Grothe, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, P. Klabbers, A.
Lanaro, A. Levine, K. Long, R. Loveless, V. Rekovic, T. Ruggles, A. Savin, 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 Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil
6: Also at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
7: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
8: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
9: Also at Suez University, Suez, Egypt
10: Now at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt
11: Also at Zewail City of Science and Technology, Zewail, 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 Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
16: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
17: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
18: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
19: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
20: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
21: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
22: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
23: Also at Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India
24: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
25: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India
26: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
27: Also at University of Ruhuna, Matara, Sri Lanka
28: Also at Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
29: Also at Yazd University, Yazd, Iran
30: Also at Plasma Physics Research Center, Science and Research Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
31: Also at Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy
32: Also at INFN Sezione di Milano-Bicocca; Università di Milano-Bicocca,
Milano, Italy
33: Also at International Islamic University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
34: Also at Malaysian Nuclear Agency, MOSTI, Kajang, Malaysia
35: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico city, Mexico
36: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems,
Warsaw, Poland
37: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
38: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
39: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
40: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
41: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
42: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
43: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
44: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
45: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia; Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy
46: Also at University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of
Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
47: Also at Scuola Normale e Sezione dell’INFN, Pisa, Italy
48: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
49: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
50: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
51: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics (SMI), Vienna,
Austria
52: Also at Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey
53: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey
54: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
55: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
56: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
57: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
58: Also at Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
59: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
60: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
61: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
62: Also at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
63: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
64: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia
65: Also at Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, La Laguna, Spain
66: Also at Bethel University, ST. PAUL, USA
67: Also at Utah Valley University, Orem, USA
68: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
69: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey
70: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
71: Also at Erzincan University, Erzincan, Turkey
72: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
73: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
74: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
75: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea