EXO-20-005

EXO-20-005

# Search for dark photons in Higgs boson production via vector boson fusion in
proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$

###### Abstract

A search is presented for a Higgs boson that is produced via vector boson
fusion and that decays to an undetected particle and an isolated photon. The
search is performed by the CMS collaboration at the LHC, using a data set
corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 130, recorded at a center-of-mass
energy of 13in 2016–2018. No significant excess of events above the
expectation from the standard model background is found. The results are
interpreted in the context of a theoretical model in which the undetected
particle is a massless dark photon. An upper limit is set on the product of
the cross section for production via vector boson fusion and the branching
fraction for such a Higgs boson decay, as a function of the Higgs boson mass.
For a Higgs boson mass of 125, assuming the standard model production rates,
the observed (expected) 95% confidence level upper limit on the branching
fraction is 3.5 (2.8)%. This is the first search for such decays in the vector
boson fusion channel. Combination with a previous search for Higgs bosons
produced in association with a Z boson results in an observed (expected) upper
limit on the branching fraction of 2.9 (2.1)% at 95% confidence level.

##  0.1 Introduction

Following the observation of a Higgs boson by the ATLAS and CMS collaborations
[1, 2, 3], an important focus of the CERN LHC physics program has been the
study of the properties of this particle. The observation of a sizable
branching fraction of the Higgs boson to invisible or almost invisible final
states [4, 5, 6, 7] would be a strong sign of physics beyond the standard
model (BSM). Studies of the new boson at a mass of about 125 [8, 9] show no
significant deviation from the standard model (SM) Higgs boson hypothesis, and
measurements of its couplings constrain its partial decay width to undetected
decay modes [10, 11]. Assuming that the couplings of the Higgs boson to $\PW$
and $\PZ$ bosons are not larger than the SM values, an upper limit of 38% has
been obtained at 95% confidence level ($\CL$) on the branching fraction of the
125Higgs boson to BSM particles by the CMS collaboration using data collected
in 2016 [11, 12].

This paper presents a search for a scalar Higgs boson $\PH$ produced via
vector boson fusion (VBF) and decaying to an undetected particle and a photon
$\PGg$. Such Higgs boson decays are predicted by several BSM models [7, 13,
14]. In this search, the target channel is
$\Pq\Pq\PH(\to\gamma\gamma_{\mathrm{D}})$, where the final-state quarks
($\Pq$) arise from the VBF process and $\gamma_{\mathrm{D}}$ is a massless
dark photon that couples to the Higgs boson through a dark sector [15, 16, 17,
18]. The dark photon escapes undetected. A Feynman diagram for this process is
shown in Fig. 1. The branching fraction for a Higgs boson decaying to such an
invisible particle and a photon, $\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\text{inv.}+\gamma)$,
could be as large as 5% and still be consistent with current experimental
constraints [16]. While the main focus of this search is on production via
VBF, the additional contribution from gluon fusion production ($\Pg\Pg\PH$) is
sizable if initial-state gluon radiation mimics the experimental signature of
VBF. Thus, the $\Pg\Pg\PH$ process is also considered for the SM Higgs boson.
Additionally, a model-independent search for VBF production is performed for
heavy neutral Higgs bosons with masses between 125 and 1000 [19], since
similar decays are also possible for potential non-SM scalar bosons.

Figure 1: A Feynman diagram for the VBF production of the
$\Pq\Pq\PH(\gamma\gamma_{\mathrm{D}})$ final state.

In the VBF production mode, a Higgs boson is accompanied by two jets that
exhibit a large separation in pseudorapidity
($\abs{\Delta\eta_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}}$) and a large dijet mass
($m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$). This characteristic signature allows for the
suppression of SM backgrounds, making the VBF channel a very sensitive mode in
the search for exotic Higgs boson decays. The invisible particle together with
the photon produced in the Higgs boson decay can recoil with high transverse
momentum () against the VBF dijet system, resulting in an event with a large
missing transverse momentum () which can be used to select signal-enriched
samples.

The analysis summarized in this paper uses proton-proton ($\Pp\Pp$) collision
data collected at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ with the CMS detector in 2016–2018, with a
total integrated luminosity of 130. Similar searches have previously been
performed by the CMS Collaboration using the data collected at
$\sqrt{s}=8\TeV$ [20] and $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ [21], where the Higgs bosons were
produced by $\Pg\Pg\PH$ or in association with a $\PZ$ boson, respectively.
This analysis presents the first search for Higgs bosons decaying to an
undetected particle and a photon using the VBF signature for Higgs boson
production.

##  0.2 The CMS detector

The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6m
internal diameter, providing a magnetic field of 3.8T. Within the solenoid
volume are a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal
electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), and a brass and scintillator hadron
calorimeter, each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. The tracker
system measures the momentum of charged particles in the region up to
$\abs{\eta}<2.5$, where $\eta$ is the pseudorapidity, while the ECAL and HCAL
provide coverage up to $\abs{\eta}<3.0$. Forward calorimeters extend the
$\eta$ coverage provided by the barrel and endcap detectors to
$\abs{\eta}<5.0$. Muons are detected in gas-ionization chambers embedded in
the steel magnetic flux-return yoke outside the solenoid, which cover the
region up to $\abs{\eta}<2.4$.

Events of interest are selected using a two-tiered trigger system [22]. The
first level (L1), composed of custom hardware processors, uses information
from the calorimeters and muon detectors to select events at a rate of around
100kHz within a fixed time interval of less than 4. The second level, known as
the high-level trigger (HLT), 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 around 1kHz before data storage.

A more detailed description of the CMS detector, together with a definition of
the coordinate system used and the relevant kinematic variables, can be found
in Ref. [23].

##  0.3 Data samples and event reconstruction

The data used in this search were collected in separate LHC operating periods
in 2016–2018. The three data sets are analyzed independently, with calibration
constants and correction factors appropriate for the LHC running conditions
and CMS detector properties in each year.

Monte Carlo (MC) simulated events are used to model the expected signal and
background yields. The dominant background processes are from
$\PW+\text{jets}$ and $\PGg+\text{jets}$ production, in addition to smaller
contributions from $\PW(\ell\PGn)+\PGg$, $\PZ+\PGg$, and $\PZ+\text{jets}$
processes. For each process, three sets of simulated events are needed to
match the different data-taking conditions in each of the three years. The
next-to-leading order (NLO) $\POWHEG$ v2 [24, 25, 26, 27, 28] generator is
used to simulate the VBF and $\Pg\Pg\PH$ Higgs boson production processes at
NLO in quantum chromodynamics (QCD), as well as the $\ttbar$, $\PQt\PW$,
$\ttbar\gamma$, triple vector boson ($\PV\PV\PV$), and $\PW\PW$, $\PW\PZ$, and
$\PZ\PZ$ ($\PV\PV$) processes. For the VBF signal process, the Higgs boson
production cross section as a function of $m_{\PH}$, incorporating the
inclusive next-to-NLO QCD and NLO electroweak corrections, is taken from Refs.
[29, 19], where an SM-like Higgs boson is assumed. Monte Carlo events with SM-
like Higgs boson masses of $m_{\PH}=125$, 150, 200, 300, 500, 800, and 1000are
simulated. The semi-visible decay of the Higgs boson
$\PH\to\gamma\gamma_{\mathrm{D}}$ is simulated with $\PYTHIA$ 8.226 (8.230)
for the 2016 (2017–18) sample [30]. The same versions of $\PYTHIA$ are used to
simulate the parton showering and hadronization for all processes. The
$\PW+\text{jets}$, $\PZ+\text{jets}$, and $\PGg+\text{jets}$ background
processes are generated using $\MGvATNLO$ 2.2.2 (2.4.2) at leading order (LO)
accuracy in QCD with up to four partons for 2016 (2017–18) [31]. The different
jet multiplicities of these samples are merged using the MLM scheme [32] to
match matrix element and parton shower jets. The LO simulations for these
processes are corrected using boson $\pt$-dependent NLO QCD K-factors derived
using $\MGvATNLO$. They are also corrected using $\pt$-dependent higher-order
electroweak corrections extracted from theoretical calculations [33].
Production of $\PW(\ell\PGn)+\PGg$ and $\PZ+\PGg$ events with up to one
additional parton is simulated at NLO accuracy in QCD using the $\MGvATNLO$
2.2.2 (2.4.2) generator with the FxFx scheme [34] for 2016 (2017 and 2018)
samples. The same generator without the FxFx scheme is used to model the
electroweak production of $\PW(\ell\PGn)+\PGg$, $\PW+\text{jets}$, $\PZ+\PGg$,
and $\PZ+\text{jets}$ events with two partons at LO precision in QCD. The
NNPDF 3.0 NLO [35] (NNPDF 3.1 next-to-next-to-leading order [36]) parton
distribution functions (PDFs) are used for simulating all 2016 (2017–18)
samples. The modeling of the underlying event is generated using the CUETP8M1
[37, 38] and CP5 tunes [39] for simulated samples corresponding to the 2016
and 2017–18 data sets, respectively.

All MC generated events are processed through a simulation of the CMS detector
based on [40] and are reconstructed with the same algorithms used for data.
Additional $\Pp\Pp$ interactions in the same and nearby bunch crossings,
referred to as pileup, are also simulated. The distribution of the number of
pileup interactions in the simulation is adjusted to match the one observed in
the data. The average number of pileup interactions was 23 (32) in 2016
(2017–18).

The CMS particle-flow (PF) algorithm [41] is used to combine the information
from all subdetectors for particle reconstruction and identification. Jets are
reconstructed by clustering PF candidates using the anti-algorithm [42] with a
distance parameter of 0.4. Jets are calibrated in the simulation, and
separately in data, accounting for energy deposits of neutral particles from
pileup and any nonlinear detector response [43, 44]. Jets with $\pt>30\GeV$
and $\abs{\eta}<4.7$ are considered in the analysis. The effect of pileup is
mitigated through a charged-hadron subtraction technique, which removes the
energy of charged hadrons not originating from the primary interaction vertex
(PV) [45]. The PV is defined as the vertex with the largest value of summed
physics-object $\pt^{2}$. Here, the physics objects are the jets clustered
using the jet finding algorithm [42, 46] with the tracks assigned to the
candidate vertex as inputs, and the associated is calculated as the negative
vector sum of those jets.

For further analysis the vector is defined as the negative vector sum of all
PF particle candidates and its magnitude is defined as . Corrections to jet
energies due to detector response are propagated to [47]. Events with possible
contributions from beam halo processes or anomalous signals in the
calorimeters are rejected using dedicated filters [47].

Electrons and muons are reconstructed by associating a track reconstructed in
the tracking detectors with either a cluster of energy in the ECAL [48, 49] or
a track in the muon system [50]. Events are rejected from the signal region
(SR) if any electron (muon) with $\pt>10\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.5$ (2.4)
passing the “loose” identification criteria is found [48, 50]. Several
leptonic control regions are defined, where muons must pass the “medium”
identification and “tight” isolation working points [48], while electrons must
pass the “tight” identification and isolation working points [50]. Section 0.5
provides more details about the control regions used in the analysis.

Finally, photon candidates are reconstructed from energy deposits in the ECAL
[51] with $\abs{\eta}<1.47$ (barrel region) and $\pt>80\GeV$. The
identification of the candidates is based on shower shape and isolation
variables, and the medium working point, as described in Ref. [51], is chosen
to select those candidates. For a photon candidate to be considered as
isolated, scalar sums of the transverse momenta of PF charged hadrons, neutral
hadrons, and photons within a cone of $\Delta
R=\sqrt{\smash[b]{(\Delta\eta)^{2}+(\Delta\phi)^{2}}}<0.3$ around the
candidate photon must fall below certain bounds [51]. Only the PF candidates
that do not overlap with the candidate photon are included in the isolation
sums. In addition, a standard “pixel-seed electron veto” [51] is applied to
reject electrons misidentified as photons. The electron to photon
misidentification rate is measured in $\PZ\to\Pe\Pe$ events by comparing the
ratio of $\Pe\gamma$ to $\Pe\Pe$ pairs consistent with the $\PZ$ boson mass.
The average misidentification rate is 2–3%. If a jet overlaps with a
reconstructed photon fulfilling loose identification criteria [51], the jet is
removed.

##  0.4 Event selection

Collision events were collected using a dedicated VBF+$\gamma$ trigger in
2016, while in 2017–18, a combination of single-photon and triggers was used.
The HLT algorithm in 2016 is seeded by an $\Pe/\gamma$ L1 object with a
threshold of 40and comprises two parts. In the first part, a photon is
reconstructed in the barrel region around the L1 object, imposing initial
requirements on shower shapes and isolation. The photon must be greater than
75. In the second part, calorimeter towers in the event are clustered into
anti-jets [42] with a distance parameter of 0.4. The event is recorded if it
contains a pair of jets with $\pt>50\GeV$, with
$m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}>500\GeV$ and
$\abs{\Delta\eta_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}}>3$. This trigger was available for
most of the data recorded throughout 2016, and provided an effective
integrated luminosity of 28.5$\fbinv$. This dedicated trigger made possible
the offline selection of events with much lower photon $\pt$ and than could be
achieved with the single-photon and triggers used in 2017 and 2018 [52, 53].
These triggers required a photon at the HLT with $\pt>200\GeV$ and
$\abs{\eta}<1.47$, or $\ptmiss>120\GeV$, respectively. The single-photon
trigger path is used if an event satisfies both triggers and a photon with
$\pt>230\GeV$ is identified in the offline analysis. If no such photon is
identified, the event may be selected by the trigger path.

The signal topology consists of two forward high-jets consistent with VBF
production, large , and an isolated high-photon. The signal cross section is
several orders of magnitude lower than that of the major reducible background
processes, and therefore a stringent selection is required to obtain a sample
of sufficient purity to define the SR. To be consistent with the expected
topology, the selection requires leading and subleading jets with
$\pt>50\GeV$, and at least one photon in the barrel region with
$\pt^{\gamma}>80\,(230)\GeV$ for the VBF+$\gamma$ and (single-photon) trigger
paths. In addition, events are required to have between two and five jets in
total, where each jet has $\pt>30\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<4.7$. For the purpose
of rejecting the bulk of the $\gamma$+jets background, as well as the signal
process with small Lorentz boost of the Higgs boson, a greater than 100
(140)in 2016 (2017–18) is required, and the azimuthal angle between all jets
with $\pt>30\GeV$ and $\ptvecmiss$ ($\Delta\phi_{\text{jet},\ptvecmiss}$) must
be $>$1.0. To reduce the background from leptonic events, a veto is applied
rejecting events with any loosely identified electron or muon, as described in
Section 0.3.

To select the VBF topology, the two leading jets must be in opposite
hemispheres, with $\abs{\Delta\eta_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}}>3$ and
$m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}>500\GeV$, and the so-called Zeppenfeld
($z_{\gamma}^{*}$) variable [54] must be $<$0.6, where

$z_{\gamma}^{*}\equiv\Bigl{|}\left(\eta_{\gamma}-(\eta_{\mathrm{j}_{1}}+\eta_{\mathrm{j}_{2}})/2\right)/\abs{\Delta\eta_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}}\Bigr{|},$
(1)

where $\eta_{\gamma}$ is the pseudorapidity of the photon, and
$\eta_{\mathrm{j}_{1}}$ and $\eta_{\mathrm{j}_{2}}$ are the pseudorapidities
of the two candidate VBF jets. Since the total in the event should be
consistent with zero, the modulus of the vector sum ($\pt^{\text{tot}}$) of
the of the two leading jets, the of the photon, and is required to be $<$150to
reject events with jet mismeasurement or with additional hard jets. A summary
of the SR selection for the analysis is shown in Table 0.4. The different
requirements on the three data sets are due to different data-taking
conditions.

Summary of the selection criteria in the SR, depending on the trigger path and
data-taking year. Rows with a single entry indicate that the same requirement
is applied for all data-taking years and trigger paths.  Data-taking year 2016
2017/2018 Trigger VBF+$\gamma$ Single-photon Number of photons $\geq$1 photon
$\pt^{\gamma}$ $>$80 $>$230 $>$80 Number of leptons 0 $\pt^{\mathrm{j}_{1}}$,
$\pt^{\mathrm{j}_{2}}$ $>$50 $>$100 $>$140 $>$140 Jet counting 2–5
$m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ $>$500 $\abs{\Delta\eta_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}}$
$>$3.0 $\eta_{\mathrm{j}_{1}}\eta_{\mathrm{j}_{2}}$ $<$0
$\Delta\phi_{\text{jet},\ptvecmiss}$ $>$1.0 radians $z_{\gamma}^{*}$ $<$0.6
$\pt^{\text{tot}}$ $<$150

##  0.5 Background estimation

There are multiple sources of SM background to the analysis. The most
significant background arises from $\PW(\Pe\PGn)+\text{jets}$ production,
where the photon candidate is a misidentified electron. For larger values of ,
the most important processes are the production of a photon with a $\PZ$
boson, where the $\PZ$ boson decays into a neutrino-antineutrino pair
($\PZ(\Pgn\Pagn)+\PGg$), and the production of a photon with a $\PW$ boson,
where the $\PW$ boson decays to a lepton-neutrino pair ($\PW(\ell\PGn)+\PGg$).
For these processes, a VBF-like two-jet signature can be produced by initial-
state QCD radiation. The $\PW(\ell\PGn)+\PGg$ process becomes an irreducible
background if the charged lepton falls outside of the detector acceptance.
Another significant background process is $\PGg+\text{jets}$ production with a
mismeasured . Less significant background processes are
$\PZ(\Pgn\Pagn)+\text{jets}$ and QCD multijet production, which can contribute
to the SR when a jet is misidentified as a photon. For the
$\PW(\Pe\PGn)+\text{jets}$, $\PW(\ell\PGn)+\PGg$, $\PZ(\Pgn\Pagn)+\PGg$, and
$\PZ(\Pgn\Pagn)+\text{jets}$ backgrounds, production via purely electroweak
interactions, which is also considered, becomes more relevant at higher
$m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$.

The main background processes described above are normalized by comparing the
predicted yields to data in several control regions (CRs) defined to be as
close as possible to the SR [53]. These regions are considered in the final
discriminant maximum-likelihood fit, as described in Section 0.6. In
particular, four CRs are defined:

  * •

$\PW(\Pe\PGn)+\text{jets}$ region: the full SR selection is applied, except
that an electron must be selected and no photons found, and the electron is
then used in place of the signal photon to build all kinematic variables.

  * •

$\PZ(\PGm^{+}\PGm^{-})+\PGg$ region: the full SR selection is applied, except
that two muons must be selected together with a photon, and the
$\Delta\phi_{\text{jet},\ptvecmiss}$ requirement is not considered. The muons
are added to $\ptvecmiss$ to emulate the signal topology.

  * •

$\PW(\PGm\PGn)+\PGg$ region: the full SR selection is applied, but a muon must
be selected together with a photon, and the muon is added to $\ptvecmiss$ to
emulate the signal topology.

  * •

$\PGg+\text{jets}$ region: the full SR selection is applied, but
$\Delta\phi_{\text{jet},\ptvecmiss}$ must be $<$0.5.

There are other rare SM processes involving a photon and neutrinos or out-of-
acceptance leptons, $\eg$ $\PV\PV$, $\PV\PV\PV$, $\ttbar\PGg$, $\PQt\PGg$. The
contributions from these minor background processes are very small after the
final selection, so they are estimated directly from MC simulation.

We also consider the possibility that a pathological event reconstruction
could lead to a significant underestimation of the photon energy (mismeasured
$\gamma$), leaving an event with large $\ptvecmiss$ aligned in azimuthal angle
with a photon. These events can be selected as part of the SR and a yield
estimation is needed. It is possible to model the distribution of such events
using the $\PGg+\text{jets}$ simulation. Distributions obtained this way can
be used in the signal extraction fit, as described below. Since the shapes of
the kinematic distributions are sufficiently distinct between this background
and the signal, their rates can be determined simultaneously through the fit.

The distribution of this background is obtained by selecting events from
$\PGg+\text{jets}$ simulation with the signal candidate selection criteria of
Section 0.4, excluding -related requirements. The content of these events is
modified by setting the photon transverse momentum to a fraction of its
original value and adding the difference in $\pt^{\gamma}$ to the $\ptvecmiss$
variable. The nominal value for the new $\pt^{\gamma}$ used to obtain this
background template is 50%, and alternative scenarios using 25 and 75% are
considered to account for potential variations in the template shape. The
overall normalization is assumed to have an uncertainty corresponding to a
factor of two.

The rate of hadrons being misidentified as photons (nonprompt) is estimated
using two low-$\PGg+\text{jets}$ samples [52]. In the first sample, a binned
template fit is performed on the distribution of the lateral extension of the
ECAL shower of the photon candidate along the $\eta$ direction [48],
$\sigma_{\eta\eta}$, applying the full photon selection, except for the
$\sigma_{\eta\eta}$ requirement. Two sets of templates are created: for real
photons and misidentified hadrons. The photon template is obtained using
$\PGg+\text{jets}$ simulated events. The $\sigma_{\eta\eta}$ distribution for
the hadron template is derived from data using a sideband in the charged-
hadron isolation distribution. The number of misidentified hadrons surviving
the $\sigma_{\eta\eta}$ requirement applied to the full photon selection is
determined from the template fit. Their relative contribution to the total
event yield in this low-sample is referred to as the hadron fake rate in the
following. The second low-sample, obtained by inverting the charged-hadron
isolation requirement altogether and loosening the $\sigma_{\eta\eta}$
requirement, almost exclusively consists of events with misidentified hadrons.
A hadron misidentification transfer factor is calculated as the ratio of the
hadron fake rate in the first subsample and the total yield in the second
subsample. It is derived as a function of $\pt^{\gamma}$. The resulting
misidentification transfer factors are then used to extrapolate to the SR from
a high-control sample with the same photon candidate selection as applied for
the second low-sample. An absolute prediction for the nonprompt background is
then obtained by multiplying the event yields in the control sample with the
transfer factors. An uncertainty of 5 to 15%, depending on the photon , is
assigned on the nonprompt rates to account for the limited statistical
precision of the measurements. An alternative estimate of this background was
made by considering events with $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}>500\GeV$. An
additional systematic uncertainty was assigned based on the observed
difference between the two estimates.

##  0.6 Signal extraction

After applying the selection, a binned maximum-likelihood fit to the
transverse mass of the $\ptvecmiss$ and photon system, $\mT$, is performed to
discriminate between the signal and the remaining background processes, where
$\mT$ is defined as

$\mT\equiv\sqrt{\smash[b]{2\ptmiss\pt^{\gamma}[1-\cos(\Delta\phi_{\ptvecmiss,\ptvec^{\gamma}})]}},$
(2)

and $\Delta\phi_{\ptvecmiss,\ptvec^{\gamma}}$ is the azimuthal angle between
the $\ptvecmiss$ and $\ptvec^{\gamma}$ vectors. A profile likelihood technique
is used where systematic uncertainties are represented by nuisance parameters
[55]. For each individual bin, a Poisson likelihood term is used to describe
the fluctuation of the yields around the expected central value, which is
given by the sum of the contributions from signal and background processes.
The uncertainties affect the overall normalizations of the signal and
background yields, as well as the shapes of the predictions across the
distributions of the observables. Uncertainties that affect only the
normalization within a category are incorporated as nuisance parameters with
log-normal probability density functions. Uncertainties affecting the template
shapes are treated as nuisance parameters with Gaussian constraints. The
normalization of each bin is interpolated smoothly with a sixth-order
polynomial between the $\pm$1 standard deviation variations and extrapolated
linearly beyond this. The total likelihood is defined as the product of the
likelihoods of the individual bins and the probability density functions for
the nuisance parameters, including the product of the likelihood for the
individual years.

In addition, events in the SR and in all the CRs are split in two
$m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ regions, below and above 1500. This value is chosen
to ensure roughly half of the VBF signal events are in each region. The
division also makes it possible to account for different relative
contributions to the $\PW(\Pe\PGn)+\text{jets}$, $\PW(\ell\PGn)+\PGg$,
$\PZ(\Pgn\Pagn)+\PGg$, and $\PZ(\Pgn\Pagn)+\text{jets}$ templates from strong
or purely electroweak production mechanisms as a function of
$m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$. In the $\PZ(\PGm^{+}\PGm^{-})+\PGg$ and
$\PW(\PGm\PGn)+\PGg$ CRs the $\mT$ variable emulates the one in the SR by
adding the leptons to the . The exact $\mT$ binning choice in the SRs and CRs
is summarized in Table 0.6. Correlations between systematic uncertainties in
different regions of $\mT$ and $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ used in the template
fit are taken into account. For all major background sources, normalization
factors are used that are allowed to float freely in the fit. A single
normalization factor for each process is used for the $\PW(\ell\PGn)+\PGg$ and
$\PZ+\PGg$ backgrounds, while for the $\PW+\text{jets}$ and $\PGg+\text{jets}$
background processes, separate parameters are applied for each kinematic
region defined by one bin of the respective CRs, resulting in six (two)
separate normalization parameters for the $\PW+\text{jets}$
($\PGg+\text{jets}$) process. The events with mismeasured photons are included
in the SRs as described in Section 0.5.

Summary of the $\mT$ binning choice in the SRs and CRs.  Region Bins $\mT$
range () SR, $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}<1500\GeV$ 6 [0, 30, 60, 90, 170, 250,
$\infty$] SR, $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}\geq 1500\GeV$ 6 [0, 30, 60, 90, 170,
250, $\infty$] $\PW(\Pe\PGn)+\text{jets}$ CR,
$m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}<1500\GeV$ 3 [0, 90, 250, $\infty$]
$\PW(\Pe\PGn)+\text{jets}$ CR, $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}\geq 1500\GeV$ 3 [0,
90, 250, $\infty$] $\PZ(\PGm^{+}\PGm^{-})+\PGg$ CR,
$m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}<1500\GeV$ 1 [0, $\infty$]
$\PZ(\PGm^{+}\PGm^{-})+\PGg$ CR, $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}\geq 1500\GeV$ 1 [0,
$\infty$] $\PW(\PGm\PGn)+\PGg$ CR, $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}<1500\GeV$ 1 [0,
$\infty$] $\PW(\PGm\PGn)+\PGg$ CR, $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}\geq 1500\GeV$ 1
[0, $\infty$] $\PGg+\text{jets}$ CR, $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}<1500\GeV$ 1 [0,
$\infty$] $\PGg+\text{jets}$ CR, $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}\geq 1500\GeV$ 1 [0,
$\infty$]

##  0.7 Efficiencies and systematic uncertainties

Several sources of systematic uncertainty are taken into account in the
maximum-likelihood fit. For each source of uncertainty, the effects on the
signal and background distributions are considered correlated.

The integrated luminosities of the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking periods
are individually known with uncertainties in the 2.3–2.5% range [56, 57, 58],
while the total Run 2 (2016–2018) integrated luminosity has an uncertainty of
1.8%. The better precision of the overall luminosity measurement results from
an improved understanding of relevant systematic effects.

The simulation of pileup events assumes a total inelastic $\Pp\Pp$ cross
section of 69.2mb, with an associated uncertainty of 4.6% [59, 60], which has
an impact on the expected signal and background yields of about 1%.

Discrepancies in the lepton and photon reconstruction and identification
efficiencies between data and simulation are corrected by applying scale
factors to all simulated samples. These scale factors are determined using
$\PZ\to\ell\bar{\ell}$ events in the $\PZ$ boson peak region that were
recorded with unbiased triggers [50, 48]. The scale factors depend on the and
$\eta$ of the lepton and have an uncertainty of ${\approx}2$% for both
electrons and muons. The above procedure is applied also to determine the
scale factors for photons using $\PZ\to\Pe^{+}\Pe^{-}$ events as a proxy, and
the yield uncertainty for photon candidates is ${\approx}4$%. The photon
momentum scale uncertainty is about 0.5%. These uncertainties are treated as
correlated across the three years.

The determination of the trigger efficiency leads to an uncertainty of
${\approx}1$% in the VBF+$\gamma$ and single-photon triggers, while the
uncertainty is ${\approx}7$% for the triggers. These uncertainties are treated
as uncorrelated across the three data sets and trigger selections, as data-
taking conditions have varied across the three years.

The uncertainty in the calibration of the jet energy scale directly affects
the acceptance of the jet multiplicity requirement and the measurement. These
effects are estimated by shifting the jet energy in the simulation up and down
by one standard deviation. The uncertainty in the jet energy scale is 2–5%,
depending on and $\eta$ [43], and the impact on the expected signal and
background yields is about 3%. The uncertainties in the jet energy scale are
treated as uncorrelated across the three data sets.

The theoretical uncertainties due to the choice of QCD renormalization and
factorization scales used in the simulation of the background processes are
estimated by varying these scales independently up and down by a factor of two
(excluding the two extreme variations) and taking the envelope of the
resulting distributions as the uncertainty [61, 62]. The variations of the PDF
set and the strong coupling constant are used to estimate the corresponding
uncertainties in the yields of the signal and background processes, following
Refs. [35, 63]. The uncertainties in the signal predictions due to the choice
of the PDF set and the renormalization and factorization scale variations are
taken from Ref. [19]. For the $\Pg\Pg\PH$ contribution, an additional
uncertainty of 40% is assigned to take into account the limited knowledge of
the $\Pg\Pg\PH$ cross section in association with two or more jets, as well as
the uncertainty in the prediction of the $\Pg\Pg\PH$ differential cross
section for large Higgs boson $\pt$, following the recipe described in Refs.
[61, 64]. Theoretical uncertainties in modeling the parton shower and
underlying event primarily affect the jet multiplicity and are evaluated
following the recipes from Refs. [29, 19].

The statistical uncertainty associated with the limited number of simulated
events is also considered a part of the systematic uncertainty. A summary of
the impacts of the systematic uncertainties on the signal cross section for
$m_{\PH}=125\GeV$ is presented in Table 0.7. The impacts are evaluated by
fitting to Asimov data sets [55] and are defined as the change in the fitted
signal cross section when varying a nuisance parameter by its post-fit
uncertainty. By performing the fit to the data simultaneously in the different
CRs and SRs, the resultant final background uncertainties are reduced compared
to the input uncertainties [53, 64]. The impacts are shown for the case of a
signal ($\sigma=0.05\sigma_{\text{SM}}$, where $\sigma_{\text{SM}}$ is the SM
Higgs boson cross section for $m_{\PH}=125\GeV$) and for the case of no signal
($\sigma=0$). The systematic uncertainties are dominated by the limited number
of simulated events, the background normalization factors, and the jet energy
scale.

Summary of the uncertainties in the fitted signal cross section in fb for
$m_{\PH}=125\GeV$ assuming the presence of a signal
($\sigma=0.05\sigma_{\text{SM}}$) and the absence of a signal ($\sigma=0$).
Source of uncertainty Impact for scenario Impact for scenario with signal (fb)
without signal (fb) Integrated luminosity 3.3 0.6 Lepton and trigger
measurements 17 7.7 Jet energy scale and resolution 24 19 Pileup 9.7 8.5
Background normalization 25 18 Theory 6.0 3.0 Simulation sample size 36 36
Total systematic uncertainty 54 46 Statistical uncertainty 58 48 Total
uncertainty 79 66

##  0.8 Results

The numbers of observed and expected events after applying the full selection
requirements are shown in Table 0.8. Owing to the anticorrelation between the
yields of several background processes, the uncertainty in the background sum
in the different regions is smaller than the uncertainties in some of the
individual contributions. For illustration purposes, the signal shown has
$\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\text{inv.}+\gamma)$ set to $0.05$ and assumes the SM
production cross section, as this corresponds roughly to the expected
sensitivity level of the analysis.

The VBF signal reconstruction efficiency increases with $m_{\PH}$, with values
of 0.2, 2.6, and 8.2% for masses of 125, 300, and 1000, respectively. The
inefficiency is driven by the $\ptmiss$ and photon $\pt$ requirements. The
$m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ distributions in the $\PGg+\text{jets}$,
$\PZ(\PGm^{+}\PGm^{-})+\PGg$, and $\PW(\PGm\PGn)+\PGg$ CRs are shown in Fig.
2, while the $\mT$ distributions in the $\PW(\Pe\PGn)+\text{jets}$ CRs and in
the SRs are shown in Fig. 3. The signal spectrum shows a Jacobian peak with an
end-point at $\mT\sim m_{\PH}$, while the background processes have either a
flat distribution or display an increase towards lower values of $\mT$.

Data, expected backgrounds, and estimated signal in the different regions. The
expected background yields are shown with their best-fit normalizations from
the simultaneous fit assuming background-only in the different regions. The
combination of the statistical and systematic uncertainties is shown. The
illustrative signal yield assumes a production cross section of
$0.05\sigma_{\text{SM}}$. All data-taking periods and trigger paths are
combined together for each region.  SR $\PW(\Pe\PGn)+\text{jets}$ CR
$\PZ(\PGm^{+}\PGm^{-})+\PGg$ CR $\PW(\PGm\PGn)+\PGg$ CR $\PGg+\text{jets}$ CR
$\PW+\text{jets}$ 250 $\pm$ 17 10500 $\pm$ 100 180 $\pm$ 37
$\PW(\ell\PGn)+\PGg$ 98 $\pm$ 11 240 $\pm$ 36 190 $\pm$ 18 76 $\pm$ 8
$\PZ+\PGg$ 98 $\pm$ 18 6.8 $\pm$ 1.5 25 $\pm$ 4 1.7 $\pm$ 0.4 46 $\pm$ 8
$\PGg+\text{jets}$ 230 $\pm$ 22 12 $\pm$ 4 9.5 $\pm$ 2.3 1400 $\pm$ 58 Mism.
$\gamma$ 34 $\pm$ 15 $\PZ+\text{jets}$ 41 $\pm$ 6 100 $\pm$ 10 6.3 $\pm$ 0.6
26 $\pm$ 3 Nonprompt 20 $\pm$ 4 1.1 $\pm$ 0.2 1.2 $\pm$ 0.2 4.4 $\pm$ 0.9 62
$\pm$ 13 Top quark 18 $\pm$ 5 16 $\pm$ 4 0.3 $\pm$ 0.1 30 $\pm$ 7 22 $\pm$ 5
$\PV\PV$ 6.9 $\pm$ 1.0 200 $\pm$ 9 0.3 $\pm$ 0.3 4.4 $\pm$ 0.9 5.7 $\pm$ 0.5
$\PV\PV\PV$ 3.1 $\pm$ 0.5 7.6 $\pm$ 1.0 8.1 $\pm$ 1.1 3.6 $\pm$ 0.5 Total
background 800 $\pm$ 25 11100 $\pm$ 100 27 $\pm$ 4 250 $\pm$ 16 1800 $\pm$ 43
Data 801 11091 27 253 1830 $\Pq\Pq\PH_{125}(\gamma\gamma_{\mathrm{D}})$ 50.5
$\pm$ 7.4 1.7 $\pm$ 0.3 4.5 $\pm$ 0.4
$\Pg\Pg\PH_{125}(\gamma\gamma_{\mathrm{D}})$ 30.6 $\pm$ 14.3 1.2 $\pm$ 0.6 6.9
$\pm$ 2.9

Figure 2:  The $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ distributions from the simultaneous
fit in the $\PGg+\text{jets}$ (upper left), $\PZ(\PGm^{+}\PGm^{-})+\PGg$
(upper right), and $\PW(\PGm\PGn)+\PGg$ (lower) CRs. The category other
background includes contributions from $\PZ+\text{jets}$, nonprompt, top
quark, $\PV\PV$, and $\PV\PV\PV$ processes. Overflow events are included in
the last bin. The shaded bands represent the combination of the statistical
and systematic uncertainties in the predicted yields. The light green line,
illustrating the possible contribution expected from inclusive SM Higgs boson
production, assumes a branching fraction of 5% for $\PH\to\text{inv.}+\gamma$
decays. The lower panel in the figures shows a per-bin ratio of the data yield
and the background expectation. The shaded band corresponds to the combined
systematic and statistical uncertainty in the background expectation.

Figure 3:  The $\mT$ distributions from the simultaneous fit for events with
$m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}<1500\GeV$ in the $\PW(\Pe\PGn)+\text{jets}$ CRs
(upper left), for events with $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}\geq 1500\GeV$ in the
$\PW(\Pe\PGn)+\text{jets}$ CRs (upper right), for events with
$m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}<1500\GeV$ in the SRs (lower left), and for events
with $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}\geq 1500\GeV$ in the SRs (lower right). The
category other background includes contributions from $\PZ+\text{jets}$,
nonprompt, top quark, $\PV\PV$, and $\PV\PV\PV$ processes. Overflow events are
included in the last bin. The shaded bands represent the combination of the
statistical and systematic uncertainties in the predicted yields. The light
green line, illustrating the possible contribution expected from inclusive SM
Higgs boson production, assumes a branching fraction of 5% for
$\PH\to\text{inv.}+\gamma$ decays. The lower panel in the figures shows a per-
bin ratio of the data yield and the background expectation. The shaded band
corresponds to the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in the
background expectation.

No significant excess of events above the expectation from the SM background
is found. The upper limits at 95% $\CL$ are calculated using a modified
frequentist approach with the $\CLs$ criterion [65, 66] and an asymptotic
method for the test statistic [67, 55]. The statistical compatibility of the
observed results, using the test based on a saturated $\chi^{2}$ model [68],
with the expectation under the background-only hypothesis corresponds to a
p-value of 0.25. The expected and observed cross section upper limits at 95%
$\CL$ on the product of the signal cross section $\sigma_{\text{VBF}}$ for VBF
production and $\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\text{inv.}+\gamma)$ as a function of
$m_{\PH}$ are shown in Fig. 4, and range from $\approx$160 to $\approx$2fb as
$m_{\PH}$ increases from 125 to 1000. For the years 2017 and 2018, the trigger
path is the most sensitive one for signal models with $m_{\PH}\lesssim
400\GeV$; above this value, the single-photon trigger path dominates. These
limits also apply to other models where a scalar particle decays to a photon
and light invisible particles. For $m_{\PH}=125\GeV$, the result is
interpreted as an upper limit on $\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\text{inv.}+\gamma)$
assuming the production rate for an SM Higgs boson [19]. In this case, the
additional contribution from the $\Pg\Pg\PH$ production in the VBF category is
considered, accounting for an increase in the signal yields of about 60%, and
mainly contributing to the region with $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}<1500\GeV$.
The observed (expected) 95% $\CL$ upper limit at $m_{\PH}=125\GeV$ on
$\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\text{inv.}+\gamma)$ is 3.5 ($2.8^{+1.3}_{-0.8}$)%.

Figure 4:  Expected and observed upper limits at 95% $\CL$ on the product of
$\sigma_{\text{VBF}}$ and $\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\text{inv.}+\gamma)$ as a
function of $m_{\PH}$. The dot-dashed line shows the predicted signal
corresponding to $0.05\sigma_{\text{VBF}}$, assuming SM couplings. A linear
interpolation is performed between the values obtained for the probed
$m_{\PH}$ values.

The results of this analysis are combined with a complementary search for the
same Higgs boson decay where the Higgs boson is produced in association with a
$\PZ$ boson ($\PZ\PH$) [21]. The combination is performed assuming the
production rates for an SM-like 125Higgs boson [19]. For the combination, all
the experimental uncertainties are treated as correlated between the two
analyses, while all others are treated as uncorrelated. The observed and
expected 95% limits at $m_{\PH}=125\GeV$ on
$\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\text{inv.}+\gamma)$ for the VBF category, $\PZ\PH$
category, and their combination are shown in Table 0.8. The combined observed
(expected) upper limit at 95% at $m_{\PH}=125\GeV$ on
$\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\text{inv.}+\gamma)$ is 2.9 (2.1)%.

Observed and expected 95% limits at $m_{\PH}=125\GeV$ on
$\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\text{inv.}+\gamma)$ for the VBF category, $\PZ\PH$
category, and their combination.  VBF $\PZ\PH$ VBF+$\PZ\PH$ Obs. (%) Exp. (%)
Obs. (%) Exp. (%) Obs. (%) Exp. (%) 3.5 $2.8^{+1.3}_{-0.8}$ 4.6
$3.6^{+2.0}_{-1.2}$ 2.9 $2.1^{+1.0}_{-0.7}$

##  0.9 Summary

A search has been presented for a Higgs boson that is produced via vector
boson fusion (VBF) and that decays to an undetected particle and a photon.
This is the first analysis for such decays in the VBF channel. The search has
been performed by the CMS Collaboration using a data set corresponding to an
integrated luminosity of 130recorded at a center-of-mass energy of 13in
2016-2018. No significant excess of events above the expectation from the
standard model background is found. The results are used to place limits on
the product of the signal cross section $\sigma_{\text{VBF}}$ for VBF
production and the branching fraction for such decays of the Higgs boson, in
the context of a theoretical model where the undetected particle is a massless
dark photon. Allowing for deviations from standard model VBF production, the
upper limit on the product of $\sigma_{\text{VBF}}$ and
$\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\text{inv.}+\gamma)$ ranges from $\approx$160 to
$\approx$2fb, for $m_{\PH}$ from 125to 1000. The observed (expected) upper
limit at 95% confidence level at $m_{\PH}=125\GeV$ assuming standard model
production rates on $\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\text{inv.}+\gamma)$ is 3.5 (2.8)% for
this channel. Combining with an existing analysis targeting associated $\PZ$
boson production, and assuming the standard model rates, the observed
(expected) upper limit at 95% confidence level at $m_{\PH}=125\GeV$ on
$\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\text{inv.}+\gamma)$ is 2.9 (2.1)%.

###### Acknowledgements.

We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the
excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative
staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the
success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the
computing centers and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for
delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our
analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction
and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following
funding agencies: BMBWF and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq,
CAPES, FAPERJ, FAPERGS, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST,
and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RIF
(Cyprus); SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC IUT, PUT and ERDF (Estonia); Academy
of Finland, MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG,
and HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); NKFIA (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM
(Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); MES
(Latvia); LAS (Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT,
LNS, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MOS (Montenegro); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC
(Pakistan); MSHE and NSC (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom,
RAS, RFBR, and NRC KI (Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI, and FEDER
(Spain); MOSTR (Sri Lanka); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); MST
(Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR, and NSTDA (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK
(Turkey); NASU (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA).
Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie program and the
European Research Council and Horizon 2020 Grant, contract Nos. 675440,
752730, and 765710 (European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A.P. Sloan
Foundation; the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science
Policy Office; the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et
dans l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door
Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the F.R.S.-FNRS and FWO (Belgium)
under the “Excellence of Science – EOS” – be.h project n. 30820817; the
Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission, No. Z191100007219010; the
Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy –
EXC 2121 “Quantum Universe” – 390833306; the Lendület (“Momentum”) Program and
the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences,
the New National Excellence Program ÚNKP, the NKFIA research grants 123842,
123959, 124845, 124850, 125105, 128713, 128786, and 129058 (Hungary); the
Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; the HOMING PLUS program of
the Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from European Union, Regional
Development Fund, the Mobility Plus program of the Ministry of Science and
Higher Education, the National Science Center (Poland), contracts Harmonia
2014/14/M/ST2/00428, Opus 2014/13/B/ST2/02543, 2014/15/B/ST2/03998, and
2015/19/B/ST2/02861, Sonata-bis 2012/07/E/ST2/01406; the National Priorities
Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund; the Ministry of Science and
Higher Education, project no. 02.a03.21.0005 (Russia); the Tomsk Polytechnic
University Competitiveness Enhancement Program; the Programa Estatal de
Fomento de la Investigación Científica y Técnica de Excelencia María de
Maeztu, grant MDM-2015-0509 and the Programa Severo Ochoa del Principado de
Asturias; the Thalis and Aristeia programs cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek
NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn
University and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century Project
Advancement Project (Thailand); the Kavli Foundation; the Nvidia Corporation;
the SuperMicro Corporation; the Welch Foundation, contract C-1845; and the
Weston Havens Foundation (USA).

## References

  * [1] ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a new particle in the search for the standard model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020, arXiv:1207.7214.
  * [2] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021, arXiv:1207.7235.
  * [3] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 and 8 TeV”,  JHEP 06 (2013) 081, 10.1007/JHEP06(2013)081, arXiv:1303.4571.
  * [4] D. Ghosh et al., “Looking for an invisible Higgs signal at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 725 (2013) 344, 10.1016/j.physletb.2013.07.042, arXiv:1211.7015.
  * [5] S. P. Martin and J. D. Wells, “Motivation and detectability of an invisibly decaying Higgs boson at the Fermilab Tevatron”,  Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 035006, 10.1103/PhysRevD.60.035006, arXiv:hep-ph/9903259.
  * [6] Y. Bai, P. Draper, and J. Shelton, “Measuring the invisible Higgs width at the 7 and 8 TeV LHC”,  JHEP 07 (2012) 192, 10.1007/JHEP07(2012)192, arXiv:1112.4496.
  * [7] D. Curtin et al., “Exotic decays of the 125 GeV Higgs boson”,  Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 075004, 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.075004, arXiv:1312.4992.
  * [8] ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, “Combined measurement of the Higgs boson mass in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8 TeV with the ATLAS and CMS experiments”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 191803, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191803, arXiv:1503.07589.
  * [9] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of properties of the Higgs boson decaying into the four-lepton final state in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  JHEP 11 (2017) 047, 10.1007/JHEP11(2017)047, arXiv:1706.09936.
  * [10] ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, “Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined ATLAS and CMS analysis of the LHC pp collision data at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8 TeV”,  JHEP 08 (2016) 045, 10.1007/JHEP08(2016)045, arXiv:1606.02266.
  * [11] CMS Collaboration, “Combined measurements of Higgs boson couplings in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 421, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6909-y, arXiv:1809.10733.
  * [12] ATLAS Collaboration, “Combined measurements of Higgs boson production and decay using up to $80$ fb-1 of proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV collected with the ATLAS experiment”,  Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020), no. 1, 012002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.012002, arXiv:1909.02845.
  * [13] A. Djouadi and M. Drees, “Higgs boson decays into light gravitinos”,  Phys. Lett. B 407 (1997) 243, 10.1016/S0370-2693(97)00670-9, arXiv:hep-ph/9703452.
  * [14] C. Petersson, A. Romagnoni, and R. Torre, “Higgs decay with monophoton + $\not\\!\\!E_{T}$ signature from low scale supersymmetry breaking”,  JHEP 10 (2012) 016, 10.1007/JHEP10(2012)016, arXiv:1203.4563.
  * [15] E. Gabrielli and M. Raidal, “Exponentially spread dynamical Yukawa couplings from nonperturbative chiral symmetry breaking in the dark sector”,  Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 015008, 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.015008, arXiv:1310.1090.
  * [16] E. Gabrielli, M. Heikinheimo, B. Mele, and M. Raidal, “Dark photons and resonant monophoton signatures in Higgs boson decays at the LHC”,  Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 055032, 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.055032, arXiv:1405.5196.
  * [17] S. Biswas, E. Gabrielli, M. Heikinheimo, and B. Mele, “Dark-photon searches via Higgs-boson production at the LHC”,  Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 093011, 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.093011, arXiv:1603.01377.
  * [18] S. Biswas, E. Gabrielli, M. Heikinheimo, and B. Mele, “Searching for massless dark-photons at the LHC via Higgs boson production”, in  Proceedings, 2017 European Physical Society Conference on High Energy Physics (EPS-HEP 2017): Venice, Italy, July 5-12, 2017, volume EPS-HEP2017, p. 315.  2017\.  10.22323/1.314.0315.
  * [19] D. de Florian et al., “Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. Deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector”, CERN Report CERN-2017-002-M, 2016.  10.23731/CYRM-2017-002, arXiv:1610.07922.
  * [20] CMS Collaboration, “Search for exotic decays of a Higgs boson into undetectable particles and one or more photons”,  Phys. Lett. B 753 (2016) 363, 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.12.017, arXiv:1507.00359.
  * [21] CMS Collaboration, “Search for dark photons in decays of Higgs bosons produced in association with Z bosons in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV”,  JHEP 10 (2019) 139, 10.1007/JHEP10(2019)139, arXiv:1908.02699.
  * [22] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [23] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS Experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [24] S. Frixione and B. R. Webber, “Matching NLO QCD computations and parton shower simulations”,  JHEP 06 (2002) 029, 10.1088/1126-6708/2002/06/029, arXiv:hep-ph/0204244.
  * [25] 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.
  * [26] 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.
  * [27] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “NLO vector-boson production matched with shower in POWHEG”,  JHEP 07 (2008) 060, 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/07/060, arXiv:0805.4802.
  * [28] 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.
  * [29] S. Heinemeyer et al., “Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 3. Higgs properties”, CERN Report CERN-2013-004, 2013.  10.5170/CERN-2013-004, arXiv:1307.1347.
  * [30] 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.
  * [31] 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.
  * [32] J. Alwall et al., “Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 53 (2008) 473, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0490-5, arXiv:0706.2569.
  * [33] J. M. Lindert et al., “Precise predictions for V+jets dark matter backgrounds”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 829, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5389-1, arXiv:1705.04664.
  * [34] R. Frederix and S. Frixione, “Merging meets matching in MC@NLO”,  JHEP 12 (2012) 061, 10.1007/JHEP12(2012)061, arXiv:1209.6215.
  * [35] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC Run II”,  JHEP 04 (2015) 040, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040, arXiv:1410.8849.
  * [36] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions from high-precision collider data”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 663, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5199-5, arXiv:1706.00428.
  * [37] P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo, “Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 tune”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3024, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3024-y, arXiv:1404.5630.
  * [38] 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.
  * [39] CMS Collaboration, “Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 4, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7499-4, arXiv:1903.12179.
  * [40] Collaboration, “$\GEANTfour$ — a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [41] 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.
  * [42] 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.
  * [43] 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.
  * [44] CMS Collaboration, “Jet energy scale and resolution performance with 13 $\TeV$ data collected by CMS in 2016-2018”, CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2020-019, 2020.
  * [45] CMS Collaboration, “Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data”, (2020). arXiv:2003.00503. Submitted to JINST.
  * [46] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “FastJet user manual”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1896, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2, arXiv:1111.6097.
  * [47] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS missing transverse momentum reconstruction in $\Pp\Pp$ data at $\sqrt{s}=8\TeV$”,  JINST 10 (2015) P02006, 10.1088/1748-0221/10/02/P02006, arXiv:1411.0511.
  * [48] 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.
  * [49] CMS Collaboration, “Electron and photon performance in CMS with the full 2017 data sample and additional 2016 highlights for the CALOR 2018 Conference”, CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2018-017, 2018.
  * [50] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$”,  JINST 13 (2018) P06015, 10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/P06015, arXiv:1804.04528.
  * [51] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS Detector in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 8 TeV”,  JINST 10 (2015) P08010, 10.1088/1748-0221/10/08/P08010, arXiv:1502.02702.
  * [52] CMS Collaboration, “Search for new physics in final states with a single photon and missing transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  JHEP 02 (2019) 074, 10.1007/JHEP02(2019)074, arXiv:1810.00196.
  * [53] CMS Collaboration, “Search for new physics in final states with an energetic jet or a hadronically decaying W or Z boson and transverse momentum imbalance at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 092005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.092005, arXiv:1712.02345.
  * [54] D. L. Rainwater, R. Szalapski, and D. Zeppenfeld, “Probing color singlet exchange in $Z$ \+ two jet events at the CERN LHC”,  Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 6680, 10.1103/PhysRevD.54.6680, arXiv:hep-ph/9605444.
  * [55] G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, “Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1554, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0, arXiv:1007.1727. [Erratum: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2501-z].
  * [56] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2016 data-taking period”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001, 2017.
  * [57] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004, 2017.
  * [58] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002, 2018.
  * [59] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 182002, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.182002, arXiv:1606.02625.
  * [60] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  JHEP 07 (2018) 161, 10.1007/JHEP07(2018)161, arXiv:1802.02613.
  * [61] S. Catani, D. de Florian, M. Grazzini, and P. Nason, “Soft gluon resummation for Higgs boson production at hadron colliders”,  JHEP 07 (2003) 028, 10.1088/1126-6708/2003/07/028, arXiv:hep-ph/0306211.
  * [62] M. Cacciari et al., “The cross section at $1.8\TeV$ and $1.96\TeV$: a study of the systematics due to parton densities and scale dependence”,  JHEP 04 (2004) 068, 10.1088/1126-6708/2004/04/068, arXiv:hep-ph/0303085.
  * [63] 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.
  * [64] CMS Collaboration, “Search for invisible decays of a Higgs boson produced through vector boson fusion in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 793 (2019) 520, 10.1016/j.physletb.2019.04.025, arXiv:1809.05937.
  * [65] A. L. Read, “Presentation of search results: the $\CLs$ technique”,  J. Phys. G 28 (2002) 2693, 10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/313.
  * [66] T. Junk, “Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 434 (1999) 435, 10.1016/S0168-9002(99)00498-2, arXiv:hep-ex/9902006.
  * [67] ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, LHC Higgs Combination Group, “Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011”, Technical Report ATL-PHYS-PUB 2011-11, CMS NOTE 2011/005, CERN, 2011.
  * [68] S. Baker and R. D. Cousins, “Clarification of the Use of Chi Square and Likelihood Functions in Fits to Histograms”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. 221 (1984) 437, 10.1016/0167-5087(84)90016-4.

##  .10 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, A. Tumasyan Institut für
Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, T. Bergauer, M. Dragicevic, J. Erö, A. Escalante Del Valle, R.
Frühwirth1, M. Jeitler1, N. Krammer, L. Lechner, D. Liko, I. Mikulec, F.M.
Pitters, N. Rad, J. Schieck1, R. Schöfbeck, M. Spanring, S. Templ, W.
Waltenberger, C.-E. Wulz1, M. Zarucki Institute for Nuclear Problems, Minsk,
Belarus
V. Chekhovsky, A. Litomin, V. Makarenko, J. Suarez Gonzalez Universiteit
Antwerpen, Antwerpen, Belgium
M.R. Darwish2, E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, T. Kello3, A. Lelek, M.
Pieters, H. Rejeb Sfar, H. Van Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, S. Van Putte, N.
Van Remortel Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
F. Blekman, E.S. Bols, S.S. Chhibra, J. D’Hondt, J. De Clercq, D. Lontkovskyi,
S. Lowette, I. Marchesini, S. Moortgat, A. Morton, Q. Python, S. Tavernier, W.
Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
D. Beghin, B. Bilin, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, B. Dorney, L. Favart, A.
Grebenyuk, A.K. Kalsi, I. Makarenko, L. Moureaux, L. Pétré, A. Popov, N.
Postiau, E. Starling, L. Thomas, C. Vander Velde, P. Vanlaer, D. Vannerom, L.
Wezenbeek Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, M. Gruchala, I. Khvastunov4, M. Niedziela, C. Roskas,
K. Skovpen, M. Tytgat, W. Verbeke, B. Vermassen, M. Vit Université Catholique
de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
G. Bruno, F. Bury, C. Caputo, P. David, C. Delaere, M. Delcourt, I.S.
Donertas, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaitre, K. Mondal, J. Prisciandaro, A. Taliercio,
M. Teklishyn, P. Vischia, S. Wertz, S. Wuyckens Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas
Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
G.A. Alves, C. Hensel, A. Moraes Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil
W.L. Aldá Júnior, E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, H. BRANDAO MALBOUISSON, W.
Carvalho, J. Chinellato5, E. Coelho, E.M. Da Costa, G.G. Da Silveira6, D. De
Jesus Damiao, S. Fonseca De Souza, J. Martins7, D. Matos Figueiredo, M. Medina
Jaime8, C. Mora Herrera, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, P. Rebello Teles, L.J. Sanchez
Rosas, A. Santoro, S.M. Silva Do Amaral, A. Sznajder, M. Thiel, F. Torres Da
Silva De Araujo, A. Vilela Pereira Universidade Estadual Paulista a,
Universidade Federal do ABC b, São Paulo, Brazil
C.A. Bernardesa,a, L. Calligarisa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M.
Gregoresa,b, D.S. Lemosa, P.G. Mercadantea,b, S.F. Novaesa, Sandra S. Padulaa
Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of
Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, G. Antchev, I. Atanasov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, M.
Misheva, M. Rodozov, M. Shopova, G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia,
Bulgaria
A. Dimitrov, T. Ivanov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov, A. Petrov Beihang
University, Beijing, China
T. Cheng, W. Fang3, Q. Guo, H. Wang, L. Yuan Department of Physics, Tsinghua
University, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, G. Bauer, Z. Hu, Y. Wang, K. Yi9,10 Institute of High Energy
Physics, Beijing, China
E. Chapon, G.M. Chen11, H.S. Chen11, M. Chen, T. Javaid11, A. Kapoor, D.
Leggat, H. Liao, Z.-A. LIU11, R. Sharma, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, J. Thomas-
wilsker, J. Wang, H. Zhang, S. Zhang11, J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of
Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
A. Agapitos, Y. Ban, C. Chen, Q. Huang, A. Levin, Q. Li, M. Lu, X. Lyu, Y.
Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang, Q. Wang, J. Xiao Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou,
China
Z. You Institute of Modern Physics and Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and
Ion-beam Application (MOE) - Fudan University, Shanghai, China
X. Gao3 Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
M. Xiao Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, C. Florez, J. Fraga, A. Sarkar, M.A. Segura Delgado
Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia
J. Jaramillo, J. Mejia Guisao, F. Ramirez, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, C.A. Salazar
González, N. Vanegas Arbelaez University of Split, Faculty of Electrical
Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split, Croatia
D. Giljanovic, N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak University of Split, Faculty
of Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac, T. Sculac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, D. Majumder, M. Roguljic, A. Starodumov12, T. Susa
University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, E. Erodotou, A. Ioannou, G. Kole, M. Kolosova, S.
Konstantinou, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos, P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski,
H. Saka, D. Tsiakkouri Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
M. Finger13, M. Finger Jr.13, A. Kveton, J. Tomsa Escuela Politecnica
Nacional, Quito, Ecuador
E. Ayala Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
E. Carrera Jarrin Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab
Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt
S. Abu Zeid14, S. Khalil15, E. Salama16,14 Center for High Energy Physics
(CHEP-FU), Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt
A. Lotfy, M.A. Mahmoud National Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics,
Tallinn, Estonia
S. Bhowmik, A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveira, R.K. Dewanjee, K. Ehataht, M.
Kadastik, M. Raidal, C. Veelken Department of Physics, University of Helsinki,
Helsinki, Finland
P. Eerola, L. Forthomme, H. Kirschenmann, K. Osterberg, M. Voutilainen
Helsinki Institute of Physics, Helsinki, Finland
E. Brücken, F. Garcia, J. Havukainen, V. Karimäki, M.S. Kim, R. Kinnunen, T.
Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, H. Siikonen, E. Tuominen, J.
Tuominiemi Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
P. Luukka, T. Tuuva IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
C. Amendola, M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, J.L. Faure, F.
Ferri, S. Ganjour, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry,
B. Lenzi, E. Locci, J. Malcles, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M.Ö. Sahin, A. Savoy-
Navarro17, M. Titov, G.B. Yu Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, CNRS/IN2P3, Ecole
Polytechnique, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Palaiseau, France
S. Ahuja, F. Beaudette, M. Bonanomi, A. Buchot Perraguin, P. Busson, C.
Charlot, O. Davignon, B. Diab, G. Falmagne, R. Granier de Cassagnac, A.
Hakimi, I. Kucher, A. Lobanov, C. Martin Perez, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, P.
Paganini, J. Rembser, R. Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A. Zabi, A. Zghiche
Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram18, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, G. Bourgatte, J.-M. Brom, E.C. Chabert, C.
Collard, J.-C. Fontaine18, D. Gelé, U. Goerlach, C. Grimault, A.-C. Le Bihan,
P. Van Hove Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3,
Institut de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
E. Asilar, S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, C. Camen, A. Carle, N. Chanon,
D. Contardo, P. Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, B.
Ille, Sa. Jain, I.B. Laktineh, H. Lattaud, A. Lesauvage, M. Lethuillier, L.
Mirabito, L. Torterotot, G. Touquet, M. Vander Donckt, S. Viret Georgian
Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
A. Khvedelidze13, Z. Tsamalaidze13 RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches
Institut, Aachen, Germany
L. Feld, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, D. Meuser, A. Pauls, M. Preuten, M.P. Rauch,
J. Schulz, M. Teroerde RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A,
Aachen, Germany
D. Eliseev, M. Erdmann, P. Fackeldey, B. Fischer, S. Ghosh, T. Hebbeker, K.
Hoepfner, H. Keller, L. Mastrolorenzo, M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, G. Mocellin,
S. Mondal, S. Mukherjee, D. Noll, A. Novak, T. Pook, A. Pozdnyakov, Y. Rath,
H. Reithler, J. Roemer, A. Schmidt, S.C. Schuler, A. Sharma, S. Wiedenbeck, S.
Zaleski RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen,
Germany
C. Dziwok, G. Flügge, W. Haj Ahmad19, O. Hlushchenko, T. Kress, A. Nowack, C.
Pistone, O. Pooth, D. Roy, H. Sert, A. Stahl20, T. Ziemons Deutsches
Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
H. Aarup Petersen, M. Aldaya Martin, P. Asmuss, I. Babounikau, S. Baxter, O.
Behnke, A. Bermúdez Martínez, A.A. Bin Anuar, K. Borras21, V. Botta, D.
Brunner, A. Campbell, A. Cardini, P. Connor, S. Consuegra Rodríguez, V.
Danilov, A. De Wit, M.M. Defranchis, L. Didukh, D. Domínguez Damiani, G.
Eckerlin, D. Eckstein, T. Eichhorn, L.I. Estevez Banos, E. Gallo22, A. Geiser,
A. Giraldi, A. Grohsjean, M. Guthoff, A. Harb, A. Jafari23, N.Z. Jomhari, H.
Jung, A. Kasem21, M. Kasemann, H. Kaveh, C. Kleinwort, J. Knolle, D. Krücker,
W. Lange, T. Lenz, J. Lidrych, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann24, T. Madlener, R. Mankel,
I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, J. Metwally, A.B. Meyer, M. Meyer, M. Missiroli, J.
Mnich, A. Mussgiller, V. Myronenko, Y. Otarid, D. Pérez Adán, S.K. Pflitsch,
D. Pitzl, A. Raspereza, A. Saggio, A. Saibel, M. Savitskyi, V. Scheurer, C.
Schwanenberger, A. Singh, R.E. Sosa Ricardo, N. Tonon, O. Turkot, A.
Vagnerini, M. Van De Klundert, R. Walsh, D. Walter, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C.
Wissing, S. Wuchterl, O. Zenaiev, R. Zlebcik University of Hamburg, Hamburg,
Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, L. Benato, A. Benecke, K. De Leo, T. Dreyer, A.
Ebrahimi, M. Eich, F. Feindt, A. Fröhlich, C. Garbers, E. Garutti, P.
Gunnellini, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, A. Karavdina, G. Kasieczka, R. Klanner, R.
Kogler, V. Kutzner, J. Lange, T. Lange, A. Malara, C.E.N. Niemeyer, A.
Nigamova, K.J. Pena Rodriguez, O. Rieger, P. Schleper, S. Schumann, J.
Schwandt, D. Schwarz, J. Sonneveld, H. Stadie, G. Steinbrück, B. Vormwald, I.
Zoi Karlsruher Institut fuer Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany
J. Bechtel, T. Berger, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, W. De Boer, A.
Dierlamm, A. Droll, K. El Morabit, N. Faltermann, K. Flöh, M. Giffels, A.
Gottmann, F. Hartmann20, C. Heidecker, U. Husemann, I. Katkov25, P. Keicher,
R. Koppenhöfer, S. Maier, M. Metzler, S. Mitra, D. Müller, Th. Müller, M.
Musich, G. Quast, K. Rabbertz, J. Rauser, D. Savoiu, D. Schäfer, M. Schnepf,
M. Schröder, D. Seith, I. Shvetsov, H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, M. Wassmer, M.
Weber, R. Wolf, S. Wozniewski Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics
(INPP), NCSR Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
G. Anagnostou, P. Asenov, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas,
G. Paspalaki, A. Stakia National and Kapodistrian University of Athens,
Athens, Greece
M. Diamantopoulou, D. Karasavvas, G. Karathanasis, P. Kontaxakis, C.K. Koraka,
A. Manousakis-katsikakis, A. Panagiotou, I. Papavergou, N. Saoulidou, K.
Theofilatos, K. Vellidis, E. Vourliotis National Technical University of
Athens, Athens, Greece
G. Bakas, K. Kousouris, I. Papakrivopoulos, G. Tsipolitis, A. Zacharopoulou
University of Ioánnina, Ioánnina, Greece
I. Evangelou, C. Foudas, P. Gianneios, P. Katsoulis, P. Kokkas, K. Manitara,
N. Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, J. Strologas MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and
Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
M. Bartók26, M. Csanad, M.M.A. Gadallah27, S. Lökös28, P. Major, K. Mandal, A.
Mehta, G. Pasztor, O. Surányi, G.I. Veres Wigner Research Centre for Physics,
Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath29, F. Sikler, V. Veszpremi, G.
Vesztergombi${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$ Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI,
Debrecen, Hungary
S. Czellar, J. Karancsi26, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi, D. Teyssier Institute of
Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari Eszterhazy Karoly University, Karoly
Robert Campus, Gyongyos, Hungary
T. Csorgo31, F. Nemes31, T. Novak Indian Institute of Science (IISc),
Bangalore, India
S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri, D. Kumar, L. Panwar, P.C. Tiwari National
Institute of Science Education and Research, HBNI, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati32, D. Dash, C. Kar, P. Mal, T. Mishra, V.K. Muraleedharan Nair
Bindhu, A. Nayak33, D.K. Sahoo32, N. Sur, S.K. Swain Panjab University,
Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, G. Chaudhary, S. Chauhan, N. Dhingra34, R.
Gupta, A. Kaur, S. Kaur, P. Kumari, M. Meena, K. Sandeep, S. Sharma, J.B.
Singh, A.K. Virdi University of Delhi, Delhi, India
A. Ahmed, A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, M. Gola, S. Keshri, A.
Kumar, M. Naimuddin, P. Priyanka, K. Ranjan, A. Shah Saha Institute of Nuclear
Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India
M. Bharti35, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, D. Bhowmik, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh,
B. Gomber36, M. Maity37, S. Nandan, P. Palit, P.K. Rout, G. Saha, B. Sahu, S.
Sarkar, M. Sharan, B. Singh35, S. Thakur35 Indian Institute of Technology
Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera, S.C. Behera, P. Kalbhor, A. Muhammad, R. Pradhan, P.R. Pujahari,
A. Sharma, A.K. Sikdar Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
D. Dutta, V. Kumar, K. Naskar38, P.K. Netrakanti, L.M. Pant, P. Shukla Tata
Institute of Fundamental Research-A, Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, M.A. Bhat, S. Dugad, R. Kumar Verma, G.B. Mohanty, U. Sarkar Tata
Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, R. Chudasama, M. Guchait, S.
Karmakar, S. Kumar, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, S. Mukherjee, D. Roy Indian
Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, India
S. Dube, B. Kansal, S. Pandey, A. Rane, A. Rastogi, S. Sharma Department of
Physics, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
H. Bakhshiansohi39, M. Zeinali40 Institute for Research in Fundamental
Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran
S. Chenarani41, S.M. Etesami, M. Khakzad, M. Mohammadi Najafabadi University
College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
M. Felcini, M. Grunewald INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b,
Politecnico di Bari c, Bari, Italy
M. Abbresciaa,b, R. Alya,b,42, C. Arutaa,b, A. Colaleoa, D. Creanzaa,c, N. De
Filippisa,c, M. De Palmaa,b, A. Di Florioa,b, A. Di Pilatoa,b, W.
Elmetenaweea,b, L. Fiorea, A. Gelmia,b, M. Gula, G. Iasellia,c, M. Incea,b, S.
Lezkia,b, G. Maggia,c, M. Maggia, I. Margjekaa,b, V. Mastrapasquaa,b, J.A.
Merlina, S. Mya,b, S. Nuzzoa,b, A. Pompilia,b, G. Pugliesea,c, A. Ranieria, G.
Selvaggia,b, L. Silvestrisa, F.M. Simonea,b, R. Vendittia, P. Verwilligena
INFN Sezione di Bologna a, Università di Bologna b, Bologna, Italy
G. Abbiendia, C. Battilanaa,b, D. Bonacorsia,b, L. Borgonovia, S. Braibant-
Giacomellia,b, R. Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A. Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa,
C. Cioccaa, M. Cuffiania,b, G.M. Dallavallea, T. Diotalevia,b, F. Fabbria, A.
Fanfania,b, E. Fontanesia,b, P. Giacomellia, L. Giommia,b, C. Grandia, L.
Guiduccia,b, F. Iemmia,b, S. Lo Meoa,43, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, F.L.
Navarriaa,b, A. Perrottaa, F. Primaveraa,b, A.M. Rossia,b, T. Rovellia,b, G.P.
Sirolia,b, N. Tosia INFN Sezione di Catania a, Università di Catania b,
Catania, Italy
S. Albergoa,b,44, S. Costaa,b, A. Di Mattiaa, R. Potenzaa,b, A. Tricomia,b,44,
C. Tuvea,b INFN Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b, Firenze, Italy
G. Barbaglia, A. Cassesea, R. Ceccarellia,b, V. Ciullia,b, C. Civininia, R.
D’Alessandroa,b, F. Fioria, E. Focardia,b, G. Latinoa,b, P. Lenzia,b, M.
Lizzoa,b, M. Meschinia, S. Paolettia, R. Seiditaa,b, G. Sguazzonia, L.
Viliania INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, D. Piccolo INFN Sezione di Genova a, Università di
Genova b, Genova, Italy
M. Bozzoa,b, F. Ferroa, R. Mulargiaa,b, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia,b INFN Sezione
di Milano-Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, Italy
A. Benagliaa, A. Beschia,b, F. Brivioa,b, F. Cetorellia,b, V. Cirioloa,b,20,
F. De Guioa,b, M.E. Dinardoa,b, P. Dinia, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P.
Govonia,b, L. Guzzia,b, M. Malbertia, S. Malvezzia, A. Massironia, D.
Menascea, F. Montia,b, L. Moronia, M. Paganonia,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Ragazzia,b,
T. Tabarelli de Fatisa,b, D. Valsecchia,b,20, D. Zuoloa,b INFN Sezione di
Napoli a, Università di Napoli ’Federico II’ b, Napoli, Italy, Università
della Basilicata c, Potenza, Italy, Università G. Marconi d, Roma, Italy
S. Buontempoa, N. Cavalloa,c, A. De Iorioa,b, F. Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa,
A.O.M. Iorioa,b, L. Listaa,b, S. Meolaa,d,20, P. Paoluccia,20, B. Rossia, C.
Sciaccaa,b, E. Voevodinaa,b INFN Sezione di Padova a, Università di Padova b,
Padova, Italy, Università di Trento c, Trento, Italy
P. Azzia, N. Bacchettaa, D. Biselloa,b, P. Bortignona, A. Bragagnoloa,b, R.
Carlina,b, P. Checchiaa, P. De Castro Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa, F. Gasparinia,b,
U. Gasparinia,b, S.Y. Hoha,b, L. Layera,45, M. Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,b,
M. Presillaa,b, P. Ronchesea,b, R. Rossina,b, F. Simonettoa,b, G. Stronga, M.
Tosia,b, H. YARARa,b, M. Zanettia,b, P. Zottoa,b, A. Zucchettaa,b, G.
Zumerlea,b INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
C. Aime‘a,b, A. Braghieria, S. Calzaferria,b, D. Fiorinaa,b, P. Montagnaa,b,
S.P. Rattia,b, V. Rea, M. Ressegottia,b, C. Riccardia,b, P. Salvinia, I. Vaia,
P. Vituloa,b INFN Sezione di Perugia a, Università di Perugia b, Perugia,
Italy
M. Biasinia,b, G.M. Bileia, D. Ciangottinia,b, L. Fanòa,b, P. Laricciaa,b, G.
Mantovania,b, V. Mariania,b, M. Menichellia, F. Moscatellia, A. Piccinellia,b,
A. Rossia,b, A. Santocchiaa,b, D. Spigaa, T. Tedeschia,b INFN Sezione di Pisa
a, Università di Pisa b, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa c, Pisa, Italy
K. Androsova, P. Azzurria, G. Bagliesia, V. Bertacchia,c, L. Bianchinia, T.
Boccalia, R. Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, M.R. Di Domenicoa,b, S.
Donatoa, L. Gianninia,c, A. Giassia, M.T. Grippoa, F. Ligabuea,c, E. Mancaa,c,
G. Mandorlia,c, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, G. Ramirez-Sancheza,c, A. Rizzia,b,
G. Rolandia,c, S. Roy Chowdhurya,c, A. Scribanoa, N. Shafieia,b, P. Spagnoloa,
R. Tenchinia, G. Tonellia,b, N. Turinia, A. Venturia, P.G. Verdinia INFN
Sezione di Roma a, Sapienza Università di Roma b, Rome, Italy
F. Cavallaria, M. Cipriania,b, D. Del Rea,b, E. Di Marcoa, M. Diemoza, E.
Longoa,b, P. Meridiania, G. Organtinia,b, F. Pandolfia, R. Paramattia,b, C.
Quarantaa,b, S. Rahatloua,b, C. Rovellia, F. Santanastasioa,b, L. Soffia,b, R.
Tramontanoa,b INFN Sezione di Torino a, Università di Torino b, Torino, Italy,
Università del Piemonte Orientale c, Novara, Italy
N. Amapanea,b, R. Arcidiaconoa,c, S. Argiroa,b, M. Arneodoa,c, N. Bartosika,
R. Bellana,b, A. Belloraa,b, J. Berenguer Antequeraa,b, C. Biinoa, A.
Cappatia,b, N. Cartigliaa, S. Comettia, M. Costaa,b, R. Covarellia,b, N.
Demariaa, B. Kiania,b, F. Leggera, C. Mariottia, S. Masellia, E. Migliorea,b,
V. Monacoa,b, E. Monteila,b, M. Montenoa, M.M. Obertinoa,b, G. Ortonaa, L.
Pachera,b, N. Pastronea, M. Pelliccionia, G.L. Pinna Angionia,b, M. Ruspaa,c,
R. Salvaticoa,b, F. Sivieroa,b, V. Solaa, A. Solanoa,b, D. Soldia,b, A.
Staianoa, M. Tornagoa,b, D. Trocinoa,b INFN Sezione di Trieste a, Università
di Trieste b, Trieste, Italy
S. Belfortea, V. Candelisea,b, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, A. Da Rolda,b, G.
Della Riccaa,b, F. Vazzolera,b Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea
S. Dogra, C. Huh, B. Kim, D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, J. Lee, S.W. Lee, C.S. Moon,
Y.D. Oh, S.I. Pak, B.C. Radburn-Smith, S. Sekmen, Y.C. Yang Chonnam National
University, Institute for Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju, Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
B. Francois, T.J. Kim, J. Park Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, S. Ha, B. Hong, K. Lee, K.S. Lee, J. Lim, J. Park,
S.K. Park, J. Yoo Kyung Hee University, Department of Physics, Seoul, Republic
of Korea
J. Goh, A. Gurtu Sejong University, Seoul, Korea
H.S. Kim, Y. Kim Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J.H. Bhyun, J. Choi, S. Jeon, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, S. Ko, H. Kwon, H.
Lee, K. Lee, S. Lee, K. Nam, B.H. Oh, M. Oh, S.B. Oh, H. Seo, U.K. Yang, I.
Yoon University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea
D. Jeon, J.H. Kim, B. Ko, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park, Y. Roh, D. Song, I.J. Watson
Yonsei University, Department of Physics, Seoul, Korea
H.D. Yoo Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, C. Hwang, Y. Jeong, H. Lee, Y. Lee, I. Yu College of Engineering and
Technology, American University of the Middle East (AUM), Kuwait
Y. Maghrbi Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
V. Veckalns46 Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
A. Juodagalvis, A. Rinkevicius, G. Tamulaitis, A. Vaitkevicius National Centre
for Particle Physics, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
W.A.T. Wan Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli Universidad de Sonora (UNISON),
Hermosillo, Mexico
J.F. Benitez, A. Castaneda Hernandez, J.A. Murillo Quijada, L. Valencia Palomo
Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
G. Ayala, H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, I. Heredia-De La Cruz47,
R. Lopez-Fernandez, C.A. Mondragon Herrera, D.A. Perez Navarro, A. Sanchez-
Hernandez Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City, Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, M. Ramirez-Garcia, F. Vazquez Valencia
Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
J. Eysermans, I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada Universidad
Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, Mexico
A. Morelos Pineda University of Montenegro, Podgorica, Montenegro
J. Mijuskovic4, N. Raicevic University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
S. Bheesette, P.H. Butler National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam
University, Islamabad, Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M.I. Asghar, A. Awais, M.I.M. Awan, H.R. Hoorani, W.A. Khan, M.A.
Shah, M. Shoaib, M. Waqas AGH University of Science and Technology Faculty of
Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunications, Krakow, Poland
V. Avati, L. Grzanka, M. Malawski National Centre for Nuclear Research,
Swierk, Poland
H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, T. Frueboes, M. Górski, M. Kazana, M.
Szleper, P. Traczyk, P. Zalewski Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of
Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J. Krolikowski, M. Walczak
Laboratório de Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas, Lisboa,
Portugal
M. Araujo, P. Bargassa, D. Bastos, A. Boletti, P. Faccioli, M. Gallinaro, J.
Hollar, N. Leonardo, T. Niknejad, J. Seixas, K. Shchelina, O. Toldaiev, J.
Varela Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
S. Afanasiev, A. Baginyan, P. Bunin, A. Golunov, I. Golutvin, I. Gorbunov, A.
Kamenev, V. Karjavine, I. Kashunin, V. Korenkov, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V.
Matveev48,49, V. Palichik, V. Perelygin, M. Savina, V. Shalaev, S. Shmatov, O.
Teryaev, B.S. Yuldashev50, A. Zarubin, I. Zhizhin Petersburg Nuclear Physics
Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg), Russia
G. Gavrilov, V. Golovtcov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim51, E. Kuznetsova52, V. Murzin, V.
Oreshkin, I. Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Volkov, A. Vorobyev
Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, M. Kirsanov,
N. Krasnikov, A. Pashenkov, G. Pivovarov, D.
Tlisov${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, A. Toropin Institute for Theoretical and
Experimental Physics named by A.I. Alikhanov of NRC ‘Kurchatov Institute’,
Moscow, Russia
V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, A. Nikitenko53, V. Popov, G.
Safronov, A. Spiridonov, A. Stepennov, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A. Zhokin Moscow
Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
R. Chistov54, M. Danilov55, A. Oskin, P. Parygin, S. Polikarpov55 P.N. Lebedev
Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin, I. Dremin, M. Kirakosyan, A. Terkulov Skobeltsyn
Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow,
Russia
A. Belyaev, E. Boos, V. Bunichev, M. Dubinin56, L. Dudko, A. Ershov, A.
Gribushin, V. Klyukhin, O. Kodolova, I. Lokhtin, S. Obraztsov, S. Petrushanko,
V. Savrin Novosibirsk State University (NSU), Novosibirsk, Russia
V. Blinov57, T. Dimova57, L. Kardapoltsev57, I. Ovtin57, Y. Skovpen57
Institute for High Energy Physics of National Research Centre ‘Kurchatov
Institute’, Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, V. Kachanov, A. Kalinin, D. Konstantinov, V. Petrov,
R. Ryutin, A. Sobol, S. Troshin, N. Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov National
Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia
A. Babaev, A. Iuzhakov, V. Okhotnikov, L. Sukhikh Tomsk State University,
Tomsk, Russia
V. Borchsh, V. Ivanchenko, E. Tcherniaev University of Belgrade: Faculty of
Physics and VINCA Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic58, P. Cirkovic, M. Dordevic, P. Milenovic, J. Milosevic Centro de
Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid,
Spain
M. Aguilar-Benitez, J. Alcaraz Maestre, A. Álvarez Fernández, I. Bachiller, M.
Barrio Luna, Cristina F. Bedoya, C.A. Carrillo Montoya, M. Cepeda, M. Cerrada,
N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris, J.P. Fernández Ramos, J. Flix,
M.C. Fouz, A. García Alonso, O. Gonzalez Lopez, S. Goy Lopez, J.M. Hernandez,
M.I. Josa, J. León Holgado, D. Moran, Á. Navarro Tobar, A. Pérez-Calero
Yzquierdo, J. Puerta Pelayo, I. Redondo, L. Romero, S. Sánchez Navas, M.S.
Soares, A. Triossi, L. Urda Gómez, C. Willmott Universidad Autónoma de Madrid,
Madrid, Spain
C. Albajar, J.F. de Trocóniz, R. Reyes-Almanza Universidad de Oviedo,
Instituto Universitario de Ciencias y Tecnologías Espaciales de Asturias
(ICTEA), Oviedo, Spain
B. Alvarez Gonzalez, J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, S. Folgueras,
I. Gonzalez Caballero, E. Palencia Cortezon, C. Ramón Álvarez, J. Ripoll Sau,
V. Rodríguez Bouza, S. Sanchez Cruz, A. Trapote Instituto de Física de
Cantabria (IFCA), CSIC-Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain
J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, B. Chazin Quero, J.
Duarte Campderros, M. Fernandez, P.J. Fernández Manteca, G. Gomez, C. Martinez
Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del Arbol, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, C. Prieels,
F. Ricci-Tam, T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno, L. Scodellaro, I. Vila, J.M. Vizan
Garcia University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka
MK Jayananda, B. Kailasapathy59, D.U.J. Sonnadara, DDC Wickramarathna
University of Ruhuna, Department of Physics, Matara, Sri Lanka
W.G.D. Dharmaratna, K. Liyanage, N. Perera, N. Wickramage CERN, European
Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, D. Abbaneo, B. Akgun, E. Auffray, G. Auzinger, J. Baechler, P.
Baillon, A.H. Ball, D. Barney, J. Bendavid, N. Beni, M. Bianco, A. Bocci, E.
Bossini, E. Brondolin, T. Camporesi, M. Capeans Garrido, G. Cerminara, L.
Cristella, D. d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, N. Daci, V. Daponte, A. David, A. De
Roeck, M. Deile, R. Di Maria, M. Dobson, M. Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-
Peisert, N. Emriskova, F. Fallavollita60, D. Fasanella, S. Fiorendi, A.
Florent, G. Franzoni, J. Fulcher, W. Funk, S. Giani, D. Gigi, K. Gill, F.
Glege, L. Gouskos, M. Guilbaud, D. Gulhan, M. Haranko, J. Hegeman, Y. Iiyama,
V. Innocente, T. James, P. Janot, J. Kaspar, J. Kieseler, M. Komm, N.
Kratochwil, C. Lange, S. Laurila, P. Lecoq, K. Long, C. Lourenço, L. Malgeri,
S. Mallios, M. Mannelli, F. Meijers, S. Mersi, E. Meschi, F. Moortgat, M.
Mulders, J. Niedziela, S. Orfanelli, L. Orsini, F. Pantaleo20, L. Pape, E.
Perez, M. Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, T.
Quast, D. Rabady, A. Racz, M. Rieger, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, J. Salfeld-
Nebgen, S. Scarfi, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva,
W. Snoeys, P. Sphicas61, S. Summers, V.R. Tavolaro, D. Treille, A. Tsirou,
G.P. Van Onsem, A. Vartak, M. Verzetti, K.A. Wozniak, W.D. Zeuner Paul
Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland
L. Caminada62, W. Erdmann, R. Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C. Kaestli, D.
Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, T. Rohe ETH Zurich - Institute for Particle Physics
and Astrophysics (IPA), Zurich, Switzerland
M. Backhaus, P. Berger, A. Calandri, N. Chernyavskaya, A. De Cosa, G.
Dissertori, M. Dittmar, M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, T. Gadek, T.A. Gómez Espinosa,
C. Grab, D. Hits, W. Lustermann, A.-M. Lyon, R.A. Manzoni, M.T. Meinhard, F.
Micheli, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, F. Pauss, V. Perovic, G. Perrin, S. Pigazzini, M.G.
Ratti, M. Reichmann, C. Reissel, T. Reitenspiess, B. Ristic, D. Ruini, D.A.
Sanz Becerra, M. Schönenberger, V. Stampf, J. Steggemann63, M.L. Vesterbacka
Olsson, R. Wallny, D.H. Zhu Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
C. Amsler64, C. Botta, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, R. Del Burgo, J.K.
Heikkilä, M. Huwiler, A. Jofrehei, B. Kilminster, S. Leontsinis, A. Macchiolo,
P. Meiring, V.M. Mikuni, U. Molinatti, I. Neutelings, G. Rauco, A. Reimers, P.
Robmann, K. Schweiger, Y. Takahashi National Central University, Chung-Li,
Taiwan
C. Adloff65, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A. Roy, T. Sarkar37, S.S. Yu National Taiwan
University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
L. Ceard, P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, W.-S. Hou, Y.y. Li, R.-S.
Lu, E. Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen, E. Yazgan Chulalongkorn University,
Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok, Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, N. Srimanobhas Çukurova University,
Physics Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
F. Boran, S. Damarseckin66, Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, C. Dozen67, I.
Dumanoglu68, E. Eskut, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, E. Gurpinar Guler69, I. Hos70,
C. Isik, E.E. Kangal71, O. Kara, A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, G. Onengut, K.
Ozdemir72, A. Polatoz, A.E. Simsek, B. Tali73, U.G. Tok, S. Turkcapar, I.S.
Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East Technical University, Physics Department,
Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak74, G. Karapinar75, K. Ocalan76, M. Yalvac77 Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya78, O. Kaya79, Ö. Özçelik, S. Tekten80, E.A.
Yetkin81 Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
A. Cakir, K. Cankocak68, Y. Komurcu, S. Sen82 Istanbul University, Istanbul,
Turkey
F. Aydogmus Sen, S. Cerci73, B. Kaynak, S. Ozkorucuklu, D. Sunar Cerci73
Institute for Scintillation Materials of National Academy of Science of
Ukraine, Kharkov, Ukraine
B. Grynyov National Scientific Center, Kharkov Institute of Physics and
Technology, Kharkov, Ukraine
L. Levchuk University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
E. Bhal, S. Bologna, J.J. Brooke, E. Clement, D. Cussans, H. Flacher, J.
Goldstein, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, B. Krikler, S. Paramesvaran, T.
Sakuma, S. Seif El Nasr-Storey, V.J. Smith, N. Stylianou83, J. Taylor, A.
Titterton Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev84, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, D.J.A. Cockerill, K.V. Ellis, K.
Harder, S. Harper, J. Linacre, K. Manolopoulos, D.M. Newbold, E. Olaiya, D.
Petyt, T. Reis, T. Schuh, C.H. Shepherd-Themistocleous, A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin,
T. Williams Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, S. Bonomally, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A.
Bundock, V. Cepaitis, G.S. Chahal85, D. Colling, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M.
Della Negra, G. Fedi, G. Hall, G. Iles, J. Langford, L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan,
S. Malik, A. Martelli, V. Milosevic, J. Nash86, V. Palladino, M. Pesaresi,
D.M. Raymond, A. Richards, A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A. Shtipliyski, M.
Stoye, A. Tapper, K. Uchida, T. Virdee20, N. Wardle, S.N. Webb, D.
Winterbottom, A.G. Zecchinelli Brunel University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, C.K. Mackay, I.D. Reid, L.
Teodorescu, S. Zahid Baylor University, Waco, USA
S. Abdullin, A. Brinkerhoff, K. Call, B. Caraway, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama,
A.R. Kanuganti, C. Madrid, B. McMaster, N. Pastika, S. Sawant, C. Smith, J.
Wilson Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez, R. Uniyal, A.M. Vargas Hernandez The University of
Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
A. Buccilli, O. Charaf, S.I. Cooper, S.V. Gleyzer, C. Henderson, C.U. Perez,
P. Rumerio, C. West Boston University, Boston, USA
A. Akpinar, A. Albert, D. Arcaro, C. Cosby, Z. Demiragli, D. Gastler, J.
Rohlf, K. Salyer, D. Sperka, D. Spitzbart, I. Suarez, S. Yuan, D. Zou Brown
University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, B. Burkle, X. Coubez21, D. Cutts, Y.t. Duh, M. Hadley, U. Heintz,
J.M. Hogan87, K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, K.T. Lau, J. Lee, M.
Narain, S. Sagir88, R. Syarif, E. Usai, W.Y. Wong, D. Yu, W. Zhang University
of California, Davis, Davis, USA
R. Band, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez, M. Chertok,
J. Conway, R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, G. Funk, F. Jensen, W.
Ko${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, O. Kukral, R. Lander, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett,
J. Pilot, M. Shi, D. Taylor, K. Tos, M. Tripathi, Y. Yao, F. Zhang University
of California, Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, D. Hamilton, J. Hauser, M. Ignatenko,
M.A. Iqbal, T. Lam, N. Mccoll, W.A. Nash, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg, C.
Schnaible, B. Stone, V. Valuev University of California, Riverside, Riverside,
USA
K. Burt, Y. Chen, R. Clare, J.W. Gary, G. Hanson, G. Karapostoli, O.R. Long,
N. Manganelli, M. Olmedo Negrete, M.I. Paneva, W. Si, S. Wimpenny, Y. Zhang
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, P. Chang, S. Cittolin, S. Cooperstein, N. Deelen, J. Duarte, R.
Gerosa, D. Gilbert, V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, M. Masciovecchio, S. May, S.
Padhi, M. Pieri, V. Sharma, M. Tadel, F. Würthwein, A. Yagil University of
California, Santa Barbara - Department of Physics, Santa Barbara, USA
N. Amin, C. Campagnari, M. Citron, A. Dorsett, V. Dutta, J. Incandela, B.
Marsh, H. Mei, A. Ovcharova, H. Qu, M. Quinnan, J. Richman, U. Sarica, D.
Stuart, S. Wang California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
A. Bornheim, O. Cerri, I. Dutta, J.M. Lawhorn, N. Lu, J. Mao, H.B. Newman, J.
Ngadiuba, T.Q. Nguyen, J. Pata, M. Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, C. Wang, S. Xie,
Z. Zhang, R.Y. Zhu Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
J. Alison, M.B. Andrews, T. Ferguson, T. Mudholkar, M. Paulini, M. Sun, I.
Vorobiev University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, E. MacDonald, T. Mulholland, R. Patel, A. Perloff, K.
Stenson, K.A. Ulmer, S.R. Wagner Cornell University, Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, Y. Cheng, J. Chu, D.J. Cranshaw, A. Datta, A. Frankenthal, K.
Mcdermott, J. Monroy, J.R. Patterson, D. Quach, A. Ryd, W. Sun, S.M. Tan, Z.
Tao, J. Thom, P. Wittich, M. Zientek Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
Batavia, USA
M. Albrow, M. Alyari, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S. Banerjee,
L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas, D. Berry, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, K. Burkett,
J.N. Butler, A. Canepa, G.B. Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M. Cremonesi,
V.D. Elvira, J. Freeman, Z. Gecse, E. Gottschalk, L. Gray, D. Green, S.
Grünendahl, O. Gutsche, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, R. Heller, T.C. Herwig, J.
Hirschauer, B. Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, P. Klabbers,
T. Klijnsma, B. Klima, M.J. Kortelainen, S. Lammel, D. Lincoln, R. Lipton, M.
Liu, T. Liu, J. Lykken, K. Maeshima, D. Mason, P. McBride, P. Merkel, S.
Mrenna, S. Nahn, V. O’Dell, V. Papadimitriou, K. Pedro, C. Pena56, O.
Prokofyev, F. Ravera, A. Reinsvold Hall, L. Ristori, B. Schneider, E. Sexton-
Kennedy, N. Smith, A. Soha, W.J. Spalding, L. Spiegel, S. Stoynev, J. Strait,
L. Taylor, S. Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran, L. Uplegger, E.W. Vaandering, H.A. Weber, A.
Woodard University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, D. Bourilkov, L. Cadamuro, V. Cherepanov, F. Errico, R.D.
Field, D. Guerrero, B.M. Joshi, M. Kim, J. Konigsberg, A. Korytov, K.H. Lo, K.
Matchev, N. Menendez, G. Mitselmakher, D. Rosenzweig, K. Shi, J. Sturdy, J.
Wang, S. Wang, X. Zuo Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
T. Adams, A. Askew, D. Diaz, R. Habibullah, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F.
Johnson, R. Khurana, T. Kolberg, G. Martinez, H. Prosper, C. Schiber, R.
Yohay, J. Zhang Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, S. Butalla, T. Elkafrawy14, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, M. Rahmani,
M. Saunders, F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago, USA
M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, H. Becerril Gonzalez, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, S.
Dittmer, O. Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, C. Mills, G. Oh,
T. Roy, M.B. Tonjes, N. Varelas, J. Viinikainen, X. Wang, Z. Wu, Z. Ye The
University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, K. Dilsiz89, S. Durgut, R.P. Gandrajula, M. Haytmyradov, V.
Khristenko, O.K. Köseyan, J.-P. Merlo, A. Mestvirishvili90, A. Moeller, J.
Nachtman, H. Ogul91, Y. Onel, F. Ozok92, A. Penzo, C. Snyder, E. Tiras, J.
Wetzel Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
O. Amram, B. Blumenfeld, L. Corcodilos, M. Eminizer, A.V. Gritsan, S.
Kyriacou, P. Maksimovic, C. Mantilla, J. Roskes, M. Swartz, T.Á. Vámi The
University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA
C. Baldenegro Barrera, P. Baringer, A. Bean, A. Bylinkin, T. Isidori, S.
Khalil, J. King, G. Krintiras, A. Kropivnitskaya, C. Lindsey, N. Minafra, M.
Murray, C. Rogan, C. Royon, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q.
Wang, J. Williams, G. Wilson Kansas State University, Manhattan, USA
S. Duric, A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, D. Kim, Y. Maravin, T. Mitchell, A. Modak, A.
Mohammadi Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright University of Maryland, College Park, USA
E. Adams, A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, S.C. Eno, Y. Feng, N.J. Hadley, S.
Jabeen, G.Y. Jeng, R.G. Kellogg, T. Koeth, A.C. Mignerey, S. Nabili, M.
Seidel, A. Skuja, S.C. Tonwar, L. Wang, K. Wong Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, R. Bi, S. Brandt, W. Busza, I.A. Cali, Y. Chen, M.
D’Alfonso, G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov, P. Harris, D. Hsu, M. Hu, M.
Klute, D. Kovalskyi, J. Krupa, Y.-J. Lee, P.D. Luckey, B. Maier, A.C. Marini,
C. Mcginn, C. Mironov, S. Narayanan, X. Niu, C. Paus, D. Rankin, C. Roland, G.
Roland, Z. Shi, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Sumorok, K. Tatar, D. Velicanu, J. Wang,
T.W. Wang, Z. Wang, B. Wyslouch University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, P. Hansen, J. Hiltbrand, Sh. Jain, M. Krohn, Y.
Kubota, Z. Lesko, J. Mans, M. Revering, R. Rusack, R. Saradhy, N. Schroeder,
N. Strobbe, M.A. Wadud University of Mississippi, Oxford, USA
J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
K. Bloom, S. Chauhan, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, L. Finco, F. Golf, J.R.
González Fernández, C. Joo, I. Kravchenko, J.E. Siado, G.R.
Snow${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, W. Tabb, F. Yan State University of New York
at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
G. Agarwal, H. Bandyopadhyay, C. Harrington, L. Hay, I. Iashvili, A.
Kharchilava, C. McLean, D. Nguyen, J. Pekkanen, S. Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani
Northeastern University, Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, Y. Haddad, A. Hortiangtham, J. Li, G.
Madigan, B. Marzocchi, D.M. Morse, V. Nguyen, T. Orimoto, A. Parker, L.
Skinnari, A. Tishelman-Charny, T. Wamorkar, B. Wang, A. Wisecarver, D. Wood
Northwestern University, Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, J. Bueghly, Z. Chen, A. Gilbert, T. Gunter, K.A. Hahn, N.
Odell, M.H. Schmitt, K. Sung, M. Velasco University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame,
USA
R. Bucci, N. Dev, R. Goldouzian, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop,
D.J. Karmgard, K. Lannon, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, I. Mcalister, F. Meng, K.
Mohrman, Y. Musienko48, R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, S. Taroni, M. Wayne, A.
Wightman, M. Wolf, L. Zygala The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA
J. Alimena, B. Bylsma, B. Cardwell, L.S. Durkin, B. Francis, C. Hill, A.
Lefeld, B.L. Winer, B.R. Yates Princeton University, Princeton, USA
B. Bonham, P. Das, G. Dezoort, A. Dropulic, P. Elmer, B. Greenberg, N.
Haubrich, S. Higginbotham, A. Kalogeropoulos, G. Kopp, S. Kwan, D. Lange, M.T.
Lucchini, J. Luo, D. Marlow, K. Mei, I. Ojalvo, J. Olsen, C. Palmer, P.
Piroué, D. Stickland, C. Tully University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
V.E. Barnes, R. Chawla, S. Das, L. Gutay, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, G. Negro, N.
Neumeister, C.C. Peng, S. Piperov, A. Purohit, H. Qiu, J.F. Schulte, M.
Stojanovic17, N. Trevisani, F. Wang, A. Wildridge, R. Xiao, W. Xie Purdue
University Northwest, Hammond, USA
J. Dolen, N. Parashar Rice University, Houston, USA
A. Baty, S. Dildick, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Kilpatrick, A.
Kumar, W. Li, B.P. Padley, R. Redjimi, J. Roberts${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$,
J. Rorie, W. Shi, A.G. Stahl Leiton University of Rochester, Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, J.L. Dulemba, C. Fallon, T. Ferbel, M.
Galanti, A. Garcia-Bellido, O. Hindrichs, A. Khukhunaishvili, E. Ranken, R.
Taus Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, USA
B. Chiarito, J.P. Chou, A. Gandrakota, Y. Gershtein, E. Halkiadakis, A. Hart,
M. Heindl, E. Hughes, S. Kaplan, O. Karacheban24, I. Laflotte, A. Lath, R.
Montalvo, K. Nash, M. Osherson, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, S. Somalwar, R. Stone,
S.A. Thayil, S. Thomas, H. Wang University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
H. Acharya, A.G. Delannoy, S. Spanier Texas A&M University, College Station,
USA
O. Bouhali93, M. Dalchenko, A. Delgado, R. Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T.
Kamon94, H. Kim, S. Luo, S. Malhotra, R. Mueller, D. Overton, L. Perniè, D.
Rathjens, A. Safonov Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, V. Hegde, S. Kunori, K. Lamichhane, S.W. Lee, T.
Mengke, S. Muthumuni, T. Peltola, S. Undleeb, I. Volobouev, Z. Wang, A.
Whitbeck Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
E. Appelt, S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H.
Ni, K. Padeken, F. Romeo, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska University of
Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
M.W. Arenton, B. Cox, G. Cummings, J. Hakala, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A.
Ledovskoy, A. Li, C. Neu, B. Tannenwald, Y. Wang, E. Wolfe, F. Xia Wayne State
University, Detroit, USA
P.E. Karchin, N. Poudyal, P. Thapa University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison,
WI, USA
K. Black, T. Bose, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, S. Dasu, I. De Bruyn, P.
Everaerts, C. Galloni, H. He, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, A. Lanaro, A.
Loeliger, R. Loveless, J. Madhusudanan Sreekala, A. Mallampalli, D. Pinna, A.
Savin, V. Shang, V. Sharma, W.H. Smith, D. Teague, S. Trembath-reichert, W.
Vetens †: Deceased
1: Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria
2: Also at Institute of Basic and Applied Sciences, Faculty of Engineering,
Arab Academy for Science, Technology and Maritime Transport, Alexandria, Egypt
3: Also at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
4: Also at IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
5: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
6: Also at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
7: Also at UFMS, Nova Andradina, Brazil
8: Also at Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil
9: Also at Nanjing Normal University Department of Physics, Nanjing, China
10: Now at The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
11: Also at University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
12: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics named by A.I.
Alikhanov of NRC ‘Kurchatov Institute’, Moscow, Russia
13: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
14: Also at Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
15: Also at Zewail City of Science and Technology, Zewail, Egypt
16: Also at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt
17: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
18: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
19: Also at Erzincan Binali Yildirim University, Erzincan, Turkey
20: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
21: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
22: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
23: Also at Department of Physics, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan,
Iran
24: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
25: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
26: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary,
Debrecen, Hungary
27: Also at Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Assiut University, Assiut,
Egypt
28: Also at Eszterhazy Karoly University, Karoly Robert Campus, Gyongyos,
Hungary
29: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
30: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary, Budapest, Hungary
31: Also at Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
32: Also at IIT Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India, Bhubaneswar, India
33: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
34: Also at G.H.G. Khalsa College, Punjab, India
35: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India
36: Also at University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India
37: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
38: Also at Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Mumbai, India
39: Also at Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
40: Also at Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
41: Also at Department of Physics, University of Science and Technology of
Mazandaran, Behshahr, Iran
42: Now at INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b, Politecnico di Bari
c, Bari, Italy
43: Also at Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and
Sustainable Economic Development, Bologna, Italy
44: Also at Centro Siciliano di Fisica Nucleare e di Struttura Della Materia,
Catania, Italy
45: Also at Università di Napoli ’Federico II’, NAPOLI, Italy
46: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia, Riga, Latvia
47: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico City, Mexico
48: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
49: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
50: Also at Institute of Nuclear Physics of the Uzbekistan Academy of
Sciences, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
51: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
52: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
53: Also at Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
54: Also at Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia,
Moscow, Russia
55: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
56: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
57: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
58: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
59: Also at Trincomalee Campus, Eastern University, Sri Lanka, Nilaveli, Sri
Lanka
60: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy,
Pavia, Italy
61: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
62: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
63: Also at Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
64: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics, Vienna, Austria,
Vienna, Austria
65: Also at Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules,
IN2P3-CNRS, Annecy-le-Vieux, France
66: Also at Şırnak University, Sirnak, Turkey
67: Also at Department of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China,
Beijing, China
68: Also at Near East University, Research Center of Experimental Health
Science, Nicosia, Turkey
69: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey, Istanbul, Turkey
70: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Application and Research Center for
Advanced Studies (App. & Res. Cent. for Advanced Studies), Istanbul, Turkey
71: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
72: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
73: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
74: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
75: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
76: Also at Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
77: Also at Bozok Universitetesi Rektörlügü, Yozgat, Turkey
78: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
79: Also at Milli Savunma University, Istanbul, Turkey
80: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
81: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
82: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
83: Also at Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
84: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
85: Also at IPPP Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom
86: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia
87: Also at Bethel University, St. Paul, Minneapolis, USA, St. Paul, USA
88: Also at Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey
89: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
90: Also at Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
91: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
92: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
93: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
94: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea, Daegu, Korea