FSQ-15-006

$HeadURL:svn+ssh://svn.cern.ch/reps/tdr2/papers/FSQ-15-006/trunk/FSQ-15-006.tex$
$Id:FSQ-15-006.tex4944132019-05-0909:25:33Zsalim$

FSQ-15-006

# Measurement of the energy density as a function of pseudorapidity in proton-
proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$

###### Abstract

A measurement of the energy density in proton-proton collisions at a centre-
of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=13$is presented. The data have been recorded with
the CMS experiment at the LHC during low luminosity operations in 2015. The
energy density is studied as a function of pseudorapidity in the ranges
$-6.6<\eta<-5.2$ and $3.15<\abs{\eta}<5.20$. The results are compared with the
predictions of several models. All the models considered suggest a different
shape of the pseudorapidity dependence compared to that observed in the data.
A comparison with LHC proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s}=0.9$ and
$7\TeV$ confirms the compatibility of the data with the hypothesis of limiting
fragmentation.

##  0.1 Introduction

In the framework of quantum chromodynamics (QCD), inelastic proton-proton
collisions are described by a combination of hard and soft exchanges between
the constituents of the protons. Hard collisions between one or multiple pairs
of partons are complemented by soft parton scattering from Multiple Parton
Interactions (MPI) [1, 2, 3, 4], parton shower effects including initial- and
final-state radiation, which, along with projectile fragmentation, constitute
the _underlying event_ (cf. Ref. [5]). At the CERN LHC these effects can be
studied at the highest possible centre-of-mass energies covering a very large
angular phase space. The measurement of the average energy per proton-proton
collision in different pseudorapidity ($\eta$) regions probes our general
understanding of QCD multiparticle production. Moreover, because of the
extended calorimetric instrumentation of the CMS experiment beyond
$\abs{\eta}>3$, covering the full range from $-6.6$ to $+5.2$ in
pseudorapidity, smaller scattering angles may be accessed compared to other
measurements.

In this paper, a measurement of the energy density in proton-proton collisions
at the centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ within the pseudorapidity
ranges $-6.6<\eta<-5.2$ and $3.15<\abs{\eta}<5.20$ is presented. This
measurement extends the $\sqrt{s}$ and pseudorapidity range covered by
previous results from the CMS [6], ATLAS [7], and LHCb [8] Collaborations. The
average energy density per collision is defined as

$\frac{\rd
E}{\rd\eta}=\frac{1}{N_{\text{coll}}}\sum_{i}{E_{i}}\frac{c(\eta)}{\Delta\eta},$
(1)

where $\sum_{i}E_{i}$ is the summed energy measurements of all calorimeter
towers $i$ within a bin of pseudorapidity having a width $\Delta\eta$,
$c(\eta)$ is the $\eta$-dependent conversion factor from the calorimeter
measurements to a stable-particle level energy, and $N_{\text{coll}}$ is the
number of selected proton-proton collisions corrected for the contributions
from noise and simultaneous collisions occurring in the same event (pileup).
By _event_ we refer to the data of one single LHC bunch crossing. To
investigate various aspects of MPIs in high-energy proton-proton collisions
the measurement is performed for several different categories of collision,
each category defined by a specific event selection.

Moreover, the data collected at $\sqrt{s}=13$are analysed together with data
collected at 0.9 and 7 [6]. This is interesting since projectile fragmentation
can then be studied in the regions close to the beam rapidity,
$y_{\mathrm{beam}}=\text{acosh}(\sqrt{s}/2m_{\text{p}})$, where $m_{\text{p}}$
is the mass of the projectile particle, a proton in the present case. At
$\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$, $y_{\mathrm{beam}}\approx 9.5$, while at $\sqrt{s}=0.9\TeV$
it is just $\approx$6.8. Thus, the detectors of CMS, although located at fixed
$\eta$, cover a very wide range in $\eta^{\prime}=\eta-y_{\mathrm{beam}}$ when
data recorded at different centre-of-mass energies are combined. The
hypothesis of limiting fragmentation [9] suggests that particle production
reveals longitudinal scaling, the dependence of very forward particle
production on the centre-of-mass energy vanishes in the region
$\eta^{\prime}\approx 0$ [10]. In this paper, the hypothesis of limiting
fragmentation is tested in collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ from 0.9 to 13 .

Measurements of the energy density at collider energies are an important
reference necessary for extrapolating to even higher centre-of-mass energies.
The results reported here provide valuable input for the tuning of Monte Carlo
models used to describe the highest energy hadronic interactions needed for
the interpretation of cosmic ray measurements [11, 12].

##  0.2 The CMS detector

At the heart of the CMS detector is a superconducting solenoid of 6m internal
diameter, providing a strong magnetic field of 3.8T. The data used for this
paper were taken in June 2015 during a period without magnetic field. Within
the CMS magnet volume are an inner silicon pixel and strip tracker that
measure charged particles in the range $\abs{\eta}<2.5$, a homogeneous lead
tungstate crystal electromagnetic calorimeter, and a brass and scintillator
hadron calorimeter. The corresponding endcap detectors instrument the
pseudorapidity range up to $\abs{\eta}\lesssim 3$ with tracking and
calorimetry. Forward Cherenkov calorimeters extend the coverage beyond
$\abs{\eta}\gtrsim 3$. Muons are measured in gas-ionization detectors embedded
in the steel return yoke.

The hadron forward (HF) calorimeters cover the region $2.9<\abs{\eta}<5.2$ and
consist of 2$\times$432 readout towers, each containing a long and a short
quartz fiber embedded within a steel absorber running parallel to the beam.
The long fibers run the entire depth of the HF calorimeter (165cm, or
approximately 10 interaction length), while the short fibers start at a depth
of 22cm from the front of the detector. The response of each tower is
determined from the sum of signal in the corresponding long and short fiber.
There are 13 rings of towers in $\abs{\eta}$, each with a size of
$\Delta\eta\simeq 0.175$, except for the lowest and highest $\abs{\eta}$
rings, which have a size $\Delta\eta\simeq 0.11$ and $\Delta\eta\simeq 0.30$,
respectively. The azimuthal segmentation of all towers is $10^{\circ}$, except
for the one at highest $\abs{\eta}$, which has $\Delta\varphi=20^{\circ}$.

The very forward angles on one side of CMS ($-6.6<\eta<-5.2$) are covered by
the CASTOR calorimeter. It has 16 azimuthal towers, each built from 14
longitudinal modules. The 2 front modules form the electromagnetic section,
and the 12 rear modules form the hadronic section. The calorimeter is made of
stacks of tungsten and quartz plates, read out by PMTs, in two half-
cylindrical mechanical structures, and is placed around the beam pipe at a
distance of $-14.4$ m away from the nominal interaction point. The overall
longitudinal depth of both CASTOR and HF corresponds to 10 hadronic
interaction lengths. The CASTOR calorimeter is only operated during periods of
low LHC luminosity
($\mathcal{L_{\text{inst}}}<10^{30}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$) since
it cannot distinguish the secondaries from simultaneous pileup collisions.

The present analysis is restricted to the range of pseudorapidity covered by
the HF and CASTOR calorimeters, excluding the two lowest $\abs{\eta}$ segments
of the HF calorimeters because they are partially located in the shadow of the
endcap calorimeters. This corresponds to a combined pseudorapidity range of
$3.15<\abs{\eta}<5.2$ and $-6.6<\eta<-5.2$. The analysis is performed using a
data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 0.06recorded with an
average number of proton-proton interactions per bunch crossing of about 0.05.

A more detailed description of the CMS detector can be found in Ref. [13].

##  0.3 Monte Carlo models

In this paper, various Monte Carlo event generators are used to correct the
data from detector- to stable-particle level and to compare with the
experimental results.

The 8 [14] generator is a general purpose Monte Carlo package that builds most
of its predictive power upon hard-scattering matrix elements calculated in
perturbative QCD and parton showering according to the
Dokshitzer–Gribov–Lipatov–Altarelli–Parisi (DGLAP) [15, 16, 17, 18, 19]
equations. The string fragmentation model [20] is used for hadronization. The
free parameters of the simulations can be adjusted to describe measurements at
different centre-of-mass energies, resulting in the production of different
so-called _tunes_ of the model [21].

In this analysis, 8 (version 8.212) is used together with the cuetp8m1 [21],
cuetp8s1 [21], and Monash 2013 [22] tunes, as well as with the mbr model [23]
combined with the 4c [24] and cuetp8m1 tunes. In the cuetp8m1 and cuetp8s1
tunes, which are based on the Monash 2013 and 4c tunes, the parameters are
adjusted to describe underlying event measurements from the Fermilab Tevatron
and the LHC. The tunes are constructed using different parton distribution
function sets (NNPDF2.3LO [25]) and CTEQ6L1 [26], respectively).

The epos-lhc [27] and qgsjetII.04 [28] generators are commonly used to
describe extensive air showers in the atmosphere initiated by cosmic ray
particles, where soft physics is of primary importance. A combination of
Gribov–Regge multiple scattering [29], perturbative QCD, and string
fragmentation are the cornerstones of both models. While qgsjetII.04 includes
a small number of fundamental parameters, the phenomenology implemented in
epos-lhc offers more opportunities for tuning. In epos-lhc a hydrodynamic, or
collective, component is included in a parametrised form [27].

The collisions simulated with the monash and mbr tunes of 8, and the epos-lhc
and qgsjetII.04 event generators, have been processed with a detailed
simulation of the full CMS detector based on [30] and reconstructed using the
same software sequence that is used for recorded collision events. These four
models are used to correct for detector effects.

Figure 1: Distribution of the absolute number of events as a function of the
highest energy tower, $E_{\mathrm{HF+}}$ and $E_{\mathrm{HF-}}$, in the HF$+$
and HF$-$ calorimeters. The left panel shows the smaller of the two HF
calorimeter energies, min($E_{\mathrm{HF-}},E_{\mathrm{HF+}}$), whereas the
right panel shows the higher of the two energies,
max($E_{\mathrm{HF-}},E_{\mathrm{HF+}}$). The lines represent the simulations,
while the markers represent the data. The measured detector noise
distributions are shown as shaded areas.

##  0.4 Event selection

Events are selected online in an unbiased way by triggering the data
acquisition system with the Beam Pick-up-Timing for the eXperiments (BPTX)
devices [31]. Three different categories of inelastic collisions are defined
offline: an inclusive inelastic (INEL) selection to be as inclusive as
possible, a non-single-diffractive-enhanced (NSD-enhanced) selection, where
single diffractive dissociation contributions are suppressed, and a single-
diffractive-enhanced (SD-enhanced) selection enriched in single diffractive
dissociation collisions. These selections are achieved by requiring an energy
deposit in the HF calorimeters above noise level either on at least one side
(for the INEL category) or on both sides (for the NSD-enhanced category), with
respect to the nominal interaction point of CMS. The SD-enhanced selection is
defined by requiring activity in one of the calorimeters on exactly one side,
with a veto condition being applied to the other side.

Energy deposition in the HF calorimeters is characterised by the calorimeter
tower with the highest energy in the negative (positive) pseudorapidity
region, $E_{\mathrm{HF-}}$ ($E_{\mathrm{HF+}}$), considering all towers,
except those belonging to the two rings closest to the endcap (at smallest
$\abs{\eta}$). The energy thresholds for event selection are determined from a
study of events without beam and are optimised to effectively reduce the
contribution from detector noise, while still allowing a high selection
efficiency. In Fig. 1, the measured distributions for $E_{\mathrm{HF-}}$ and
$E_{\mathrm{HF+}}$ from collision data are shown together with the noise
distributions obtained from data without the presence of LHC beams. This is
achieved at the trigger level by requiring prescaled triggers where the two
BPTX detectors are silent. In Fig. 1 simulated events are also shown. Events
are selected for the INEL class if max($E_{\mathrm{HF-}}$,
$E_{\mathrm{HF+}})>E_{\text{threshold}}$, and for the NSD-enhanced class if
min($E_{\mathrm{HF-}}$, $E_{\mathrm{HF+}})>E_{\text{threshold}}$. An energy
threshold of $E_{\text{threshold}}=5\GeV$ is found to be optimal to suppress
the noise contribution in both event classes for simulated and measured
events. For the NSD-enhanced category, the threshold could in principle be
lowered down to about $3\GeV$ without increasing the noise contribution, but
for consistency a unified threshold of 5is used for all event classes. The
data were recorded at low luminosity with an interaction probability of about
5%. Most non-empty events contain a single proton-proton collision. A small
fraction also has two or more interactions. In contrast, the simulation was
done without pileup, , each simulated event contains exactly one proton-proton
collision. The detector noise distribution as measured from empty-beam data
are also overlaid as shaded areas.

Summary of the event selections used for the different event categories in
data at the detector level and in simulations at the stable-particle level.
Class Detector level Stable-particle level INEL $E_{\mathrm{HF+}}>5\GeV$ or
$E_{\mathrm{HF-}}>5\GeV$ $\xi>10^{-6}$ NSD-enhanced $E_{\mathrm{HF+}}>5\GeV$
and $E_{\mathrm{HF-}}>5\GeV$ at least one stable particle with $E>5\GeV$ in
$-5.20<\eta<-3.15$ and $3.15<\eta<5.20$ SD-enhanced $E_{\mathrm{HF+}}>5\GeV$
and $E_{\mathrm{HF-}}<5\GeV$
or
$E_{\mathrm{HF+}}<5\GeV$ and $E_{\mathrm{HF-}}>5\GeV$ at least one stable
particle with $E>5\GeV$ in $3.15<\abs{\eta}<5.20$ on one side, vetoing
particles with $E>5\GeV$ on the other side Limiting fragmentation study
$E_{\mathrm{HF+}}>4\GeV$ and $E_{\mathrm{HF-}}>4\GeV$ one stable particle in
$-4.4<\eta<-3.9$ and $3.9<\eta<4.4$

Selection factors and purities for various event selection categories. Only
the first two parameters $f_{\mathrm{EB}}$ and $f_{\mathrm{ZB}}$ present
actual measurements, from which the other quantities are derived as explained
in the text. The probability $\epsilon$ to select a single collision is
determined from simulations, and the value quoted here is the average value
from all event generators, with a maximal model dependence of 2%. The
rightmost column quantifies the combined correction due to noise and pileup.
All statistical uncertainties are negligible.  $f_{\text{ZB}}$ $f_{\text{EB}}$
$p$ $\epsilon$ (MC) $f_{\text{PU}}$ $p\,f_{\text{PU}}$ INEL 0.0490 0.0005
0.9902 0.9051 1.0250 1.0149 HF+ 0.0442 0.0003 0.9935 0.8224 1.0227 1.0161
HF$-$ 0.0439 0.0002 0.9956 0.8232 1.0228 1.0183 NSD-enhanced 1.0044 SD-
enhanced 0.9804

In simulated collisions particle four-momenta are used to build sums of
energies. At the stable-particle level (for particles with proper decay length
c$\tau>1\cm$), simulated collisions are selected to be in the inclusive
inelastic category if $\xi=\text{max}(\xi_{\text{X}},\xi_{\text{Y}})>10^{-6}$,
where

$\xi_{\mathrm{X}}=\frac{M^{2}_{\text{X}}}{s},\qquad\qquad\xi_{\mathrm{Y}}=\frac{M^{2}_{\text{Y}}}{s},$
(2)

and $M_{\mathrm{X}}$ and $M_{\mathrm{Y}}$ are the invariant masses of the
particle systems on the negative and positive side of the largest rapidity gap
in the collision, respectively. This particular criterion for stable-particle
level is identical within a few percent with the INEL detector level selection
[32].

The NSD-enhanced collisions are selected at the stable-particle level with a
requirement of at least one stable particle (either charged or neutral) within
the pseudorapidity acceptance of the HF calorimeters $3.15<\abs{\eta}<5.2$ on
both sides of the interaction point.

The SD-enhanced collision at the stable-particle level are defined by the
presence of at least one stable particle with energy $E>5\GeV$ within the
pseudorapidity range $3.15<\abs{\eta}<5.2$ on one side, whereas the other side
must be devoid of particles with energy $E>5\GeV$.

The phase space definitions for the NSD-enhanced, INEL and SD-enhanced
categories at the detector and stable-particle level are summarised in Table
0.4. The last row of the table indicates the event selection needed for the
limiting fragmentation study. This is chosen to be identical to that used in
previously published data [6] to allow a direct comparison of the results.

The energy density is measured with the HF and CASTOR calorimeters by summing
up all the energy deposits in the calorimeter towers above noise threshold.
The value of the threshold was determined by measuring the detector noise and
beam backgrounds using empty-beam triggers (see Fig. 1 for HF results) and is
chosen to be $5\GeV$ in HF and $2.5\GeV$ in CASTOR. The energy density
measurement is performed as a function of $\abs{\eta}$. In the range
$3.15<\abs{\eta}<5.2$ the corresponding measurements at positive and negative
pseudorapidities in HF are averaged, while for $-6.6<\eta<-5.2$ the energy in
CASTOR is used. For the SD-enhanced measurement only the side on which the HF
calorimeter is above noise level (thus, opposite to the forward rapidity gap)
is used for the measurement.

##  0.5 Data analysis

The measurement of the energy density according to Eq. (1) requires the
determination of the number of selected collisions $N_{\text{coll}}$ and the
energy sum, $\sum_{i}E_{i}$.

The uncertainties in the energy density measurement for the three event
selection categories. The results depend slightly on the pseudorapidity.
Source of uncertainty INEL NSD-enhanced SD-enhanced HF energy scale 10% 10%
10% CASTOR energy scale 17% 17% 17% Noise and pileup $\approx$$10^{-3}$
$\approx$$10^{-3}$ $\approx$$10^{-3}$ Event selection 0.7% 0.01% 5% Energy
threshold in calorimeter towers 1% 1% 1% Model dependence $<$3.5% $<$3.5%
$16-37\%$ Statistical $<$1% $<$1% $<$1%

###  0.5.1 Collision counting, noise, and pileup

The number of selected events in the analysis, $N_{\mathrm{sel}}$, is
corrected to eliminate the residual contribution from detector noise to yield
the corrected number of events, $N_{\text{corr}}$, containing only signal and
no noise events. In the following a fundamental and comprehensive discussion
of event counting is provided despite the fact that the final corrections are
just on the percent level. With $N_{\text{ZB}}$ and $N_{\text{EB}}$ being the
number of events collected with the unbiased and empty-beam triggers,
respectively, and $f_{\text{ZB}}$ and $f_{\text{EB}}$ the corresponding
fractions of offline-selected events, we can define the number of selected
collision events $N_{\text{sel}}=N_{\text{ZB}}f_{\text{ZB}}$, and the number
of noise events in the same data sample
$N_{\text{noise}}=N_{\text{ZB}}f_{\text{EB}}$. The latter contains
$N_{\text{sig+noise}}=N_{\mathrm{corr}}f_{\mathrm{EB}}$ events that are
selected because towers in the same event are above threshold due to signal
and noise fluctuations. Thus, the corrected number of events containing
collisions is

$\begin{split}N_{\text{corr}}&=N_{\text{sel}}-N_{\text{noise}}+N_{\text{sig+noise}}\\\
&=\frac{N_{\text{ZB}}(f_{\text{ZB}}-f_{\text{EB}})}{1-f_{\text{EB}}}\\\
&=N_{\text{ZB}}f_{\text{ZB}}p,\end{split}$ (3)

where we define the purity as
$p=(1-f_{\text{EB}}/f_{\text{ZB}})/(1-f_{\text{EB}})$. The purity of the data
used in this analysis is found to be above 99%. The noise contribution depends
weakly on the event selection criteria.

The reconstructed number of collisions is also corrected for the effect of
pileup. The number of proton-proton interactions per bunch crossing $n$
follows a Poisson distribution with a mean value $\lambda\epsilon$, where
$\epsilon$ is the probability for each collision to be observed. The
probability to have no interaction is given by
$\text{e}^{-\lambda\epsilon}=1-N_{\mathrm{corr}}/N_{\mathrm{ZB}}$, which
allows $\lambda$ to be determined from inelastic events in data. Here we find
$\lambda=-\ln(1-f_{\text{ZB}}p)/\epsilon=0.055\pm 0.001$, using the value of
$f_{\text{ZB}}$ determined from the INEL event selection, and $\epsilon$ from
simulations (see also Table 0.4). The uncertainty is driven by the model
dependence of $\epsilon$ of about 2%.

The number of visible collisions in $N_{\text{tot}}$ bunch crossings is
$N_{\text{vis}}=N_{\text{tot}}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}n\operatorname{Pois}\left({n};{\lambda\epsilon}\right)=N_{\text{tot}}\lambda\epsilon$.
In the presence of pileup another important quantity is the probability for
the observation of events with exactly $n$ simultaneous collisions,
$\epsilon_{n}=1-(1-\epsilon)^{n}$. The number of actually observed events is
then
$N_{\text{obs}}=N_{\text{tot}}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\epsilon_{n}\operatorname{Pois}\left({n};{\lambda}\right)$.
Using this result we can correct for pileup using the factor

$f_{\text{PU}}=\frac{N_{\text{vis}}}{N_{\text{obs}}}=\epsilon\lambda\left(\sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}\epsilon_{n}\operatorname{Pois}\left({n};{\lambda}\right)\right)^{-1}=\frac{\epsilon\lambda}{1-\re^{-\epsilon\lambda}}.$
(4)

For the data analysis we use the corrected number of collisions

$N_{\text{coll}}=N_{\mathrm{ZB}}f_{ZB}pf_{\mathrm{PU}}=-N_{\mathrm{ZB}}\ln\frac{1-f_{\mathrm{ZB}}}{1-f_{\mathrm{EB}}}$
(5)

for Eq. (1). The same expression can also be obtained by arguing that during
no-beam data taking the average number of collisions per event is
$\lambda_{\mathrm{EB}}=-\ln(1-f_{\mathrm{EB}})$ whereas during normal data
taking it is
$\lambda_{\text{coll}}+\lambda_{\mathrm{EB}}=-\ln(1-f_{\mathrm{ZB}})$. After
inserting into $N_{\text{coll}}=N_{\mathrm{ZB}}\lambda_{\text{coll}}$ this is
identical to Eq. (5). In the final expression only $f_{\mathrm{EB}}$ and
$f_{\mathrm{ZB}}$ are relevant, thus, the parameters $p$ and $f_{\mathrm{PU}}$
are intermediate quantities highlighting the individual importance of noise
and pileup corrections. It must also be highlighted that the efficiency
$\epsilon$ does not enter the final result.

In general, the impact of pileup depends on the event selection procedure. In
particular, an exclusivity criterion as used in the SD-enhanced category leads
to fewer selected events in the presence of a larger number of simultaneous
collisions. Using the corrected number of inelastic collisions,
$N_{\text{INEL}}$, and the corrected number of collisions inclusively selected
by the HF$+$, $N_{\text{HF}+}$, or by the HF$-$, $N_{\text{HF}-}$, the number
of SD-enhanced collisions is calculated from
$N_{\text{SD}}=2N_{\text{INEL}}-N_{\text{HF}-}-N_{\text{HF}+}$. For NSD-
enhanced collisions this relation is
$N_{\text{NSD}}=N_{\text{HF}-}+N_{\text{HF}+}-N_{\text{INEL}}$. The results
from this collision counting procedure are summarised in Table 0.4. The
combined corrections for each category are at the level of 1%. The value
quoted for $\epsilon$ is the average obtained from the different event
generators with a maximum discrepancy between the model predictions of about
2%. The maximum uncertainty of deriving $p\,f_{\mathrm{PU}}$ is less than
$<10^{-3}$.

###  0.5.2 Energy measurement

The measured response from the calorimeters is corrected to the stable-
particle level to provide a well-defined event classification and energy
quantification for comparisons to the model predictions. The corrections are
applied explicitly for each range in pseudorapidity. There is no relevant
migration or detector smearing in pseudorapidity; it is basically the
characteristic response of the calorimeters as well as the event selection
acceptance and inefficiency that are corrected. These corrections are
determined with the 8 tune Monash 2013, 8 tune 4c with mbr model, epos-lhc,
and qgsjetII.04 simulated event samples. The corrections are evaluated from
the ratio of the predictions at the stable-particle level to the predictions
at the detector level for every $\abs{\eta}$ bin. The final correction is the
average of the four different simulated samples. The magnitude of the
correction varies from $1.5$ to around $2.5$ depending on the value of
$\abs{\eta}$ and the selection criteria applied at the stable-particle level.
The main contribution to the correction is related to the extrapolation of
observed detector-level energy above the calorimeter noise threshold to the
energy with no threshold applied at the stable-particle level.

##  0.6 Uncertainties

The energy scales for the HF and CASTOR calorimeters are known to within an
accuracy of $10\%$ [6] and $17\%$ [33], respectively. These are the dominant
sources of experimental uncertainty in this analysis.

The impact of the energy scale uncertainty on the measurement of the energy
density is estimated by scaling the tower energies up and down by the energy
scale uncertainties in the data while keeping the simulated correction factors
constant. The resulting impact is $10\%$ for HF and $17\%$ for CASTOR as
expected.

To assess the residual impact of detector noise on the event selection, the
thresholds in the event selection at detector level are increased from 5 to
5.5for all INEL, NSD-enhanced, and SD-enhanced categories. This corresponds to
an improved noise rejection at the expense of larger correction factors. The
resulting uncertainties are about 0.7, 0.01, and 5% for the INEL, NSD-
enhanced, and SD-enhanced categories, respectively.

Furthermore, to study the impact of the energy threshold on the energy
measurement, the threshold for the tower energy sum is increased by the energy
scale uncertainty, which leads to uncertainties of 1% for all three
categories.

The systematic uncertainty due to model dependence is estimated from the
maximum variation of the correction factor values obtained using the event
generators 8 with monash and 4c+mbr tunes, epos-lhc, and qgsjetII.04. The
resulting uncertainty is below 3.5% for the INEL and NSD-enhanced categories,
while for the SD-enhanced category it varies from 16 to 37%, depending on
$\eta$.

The statistical uncertainty is $<1$%, which is significantly smaller than the
systematic uncertainties.

The individual contributions for each $\abs{\eta}$ bin are assumed to
contribute quadratically to the total systematic uncertainty since the
contributions are not correlated within a bin; the systematic uncertainties
are, however, highly correlated between different $\abs{\eta}$ bins. All
uncertainties are summarised in Table 0.5.

##  0.7 Results

Figure 2: Energy density at the stable-particle level for the INEL (upper
row), NSD-enhanced (middle row), and SD-enhanced (lower row) categories
compared to predictions from 8 monash, epos-lhc, and qgsjetII.04. The gray
band shows the total systematic uncertainty. The right panels show the ratio
of model predictions to measured data.

Figure 3: Energy density at the stable-particle level for the INEL (upper
row), NSD-enhanced (middle row), and SD-enhanced (lower row) categories
compared to predictions from 8 with the tunes cuetp8m1, cuetp8m1+mbr, and
cuetp8s1. The gray band shows the total systematic uncertainty. The band
around 8 cuetp8s1 corresponds to the uncertainties of the tune parameters. The
right panels show the ratio of model predictions to measured data. Figure 4:
A comparison of the measurements of the transverse energy density, $\rd
E_{\mathrm{T}}/\rd\eta^{\prime}$, at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$, as a function of
shifted pseudorapidity, $\eta^{\prime}=\eta-y_{\mathrm{beam}}$, to the
predictions and to earlier proton-proton data [6] for an NSD-enhanced selected
sample at several different centre-of-mass energies. The error bars indicate
the total systematic uncertainties. The beam rapidities $y_{\mathrm{beam}}$
are about 9.5, 8.9, and 6.8 at $\sqrt{s}$ of 13, 7 and 0.9, respectively.

The measured energy density, $\rd E/\rd\eta$, in the range $-6.6<\eta<-5.2$
and $3.15<\abs{\eta}<5.20$, corrected to the stable-particle level, is
presented in Figs. 2 and 3.

A comparison of the measured average energy density to model predictions for
the INEL selection is shown in Figs. 2 (upper) and 3 (upper). The gray band
represents the total systematic uncertainty correlated across $\abs{\eta}$
bins. The statistical uncertainties are $<$1% and are not shown. In the left
panel the comparison of the distribution in data and simulation is shown,
while in the right panel the ratio quantifies the agreement between them.
While the cosmic ray models (epos-lhc and qgsjetII.04) and the 8 monash tune
describe the data well at $\abs{\eta}<4$ and in the CASTOR region, they
overshoot the data around $\abs{\eta}\approx 4.5$. This is most pronounced in
qgsjetII.04. The 8 cuet tunes describe the data slightly better, but have a
tendency to undershoot the data towards $\abs{\eta}<3.5$. The band around 8
cuetp8s1 in Fig. 3 indicates the typical uncertainties due to the tune
parameters. The best description of the data is provided by the 8 tune
cuetp8s1. When MPIs are switched off in 8 more than half of the measured
energy is missing, with a slight dependence on $\eta$.

In Figs. 2 (middle) and 3 (middle) the energy density measurements are
compared with predictions for the NSD-enhanced category. The differences
between the model predictions are smaller compared with the INEL category. The
epos-lhc and qgsjetII.04 hadronic event generators overshoot the measurement
only at $\abs{\eta}\approx 4.5$ and otherwise show a good description of the
data. The 8 tune cuetp8s1 at the upper limit of its uncertainties provides the
best overall description of the data.

Figure 2 (lower) shows a comparison of the energy density measurements as a
function of $\eta$ for the SD-enhanced category to predictions from 8 monash,
epos-lhc, and qgsjetII.04. The comparison of the same data to the different 8
tunes is shown in Fig. 3 (lower). For the SD-enhanced category the model
spread becomes significantly larger. It is interesting that the epos-lhc and
qgsjetII.04 models are both compatible with the data only at the very lower
limit of the systematic uncertainties, while all 8 tunes are consistent with
the data within the uncertainties. Furthermore, the shape of all the model
predictions is very similar and, in contrast to the INEL and NSD-enhanced
data, consistent with the data. Finally, we observe that for the SD-enhanced
category switching off MPIs in simulations has almost no impact on the model
predictions. This is an indication that the influence of MPIs within the
diffractive system is small, whereas MPIs between the colliding protons will
quickly destroy the single-diffractive-enhanced signature. Thus, the SD-
enhanced event selection is an effective way to minimise MPI effects.

For a detailed comparison to previously published energy density results at
lower centre-of-mass energies [6], the event selection is adapted to match the
one previously used at detector and stable-particle levels. The whole
measurement is repeated for the NSD-enhanced category with the requirement of
at least one charged particle on both sides of the interaction point in the
pseudorapidity range $3.9<\abs{\eta}<4.4$. This is combined with a reduced
energy threshold of $4\GeV$ to ensure consistency. Finally, for all
calculations the transverse energy $E_{\mathrm{T}}=E\cosh(\eta)$ per tower is
used instead of just the tower energy $E$. In Fig. 4 the resulting corrected
transverse energy density, $\rd E_{\mathrm{T}}/\rd\eta^{\prime}$, is compared
to earlier published CMS data at lower $\sqrt{s}$ and to model predictions, as
a function of the shifted pseudorapidity variable $\eta^{\prime}=\eta-
y_{\mathrm{beam}}$. The analysis presented here uses the latest CMS detector
description in the simulations, which includes an improved knowledge of the HF
nonuniformity due to nonsensitive areas [34], that was not present in the
original publication [6]. In order to facilitate the direct comparison of the
current analysis with earlier results [6], corrections are applied to the
published data that cause the results in the HF to be shifted in an
$\eta$-dependent way; from about $-2\%$ at $\abs{\eta}=3$ to about $-15\%$ at
$\abs{\eta}=5$, which is within the experimental uncertainties of these data.

A comparison of the model predictions and data at different $\sqrt{s}$ is
shown in Fig. 4. Both the data and the model predictions are shifted by the
beam rapidity to $\eta^{\prime}=\eta-y_{\mathrm{beam}}$. The data are
consistent with longitudinal scaling within the experimental uncertainties.
The observed behaviour is in agreement with the measurements of earlier
experiments in proton-proton and heavy ion collisions ( [34]). At
$\eta^{\prime}\approx 0$ the transverse energy density does not depend on
$\sqrt{s}$, which is in agreement with the hypothesis of limiting
fragmentation.

##  0.8 Summary

The energy density, $\rd E/\rd\eta$, is measured in the pseudorapidity range
$-6.6<\eta<-5.2$ and $3.15<\abs{\eta}<5.20$. Special low-luminosity data
recorded by the CMS experiment during proton-proton collisions at the centre-
of-mass energy $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ are analysed for this purpose. The data are
presented at the stable-particle level to allow a straightforward comparison
to any theory prediction or model simulation. The measurements are compared to
models tuned to describe high-energy hadronic interactions (8) and to the
predictions of models used in cosmic ray physics (epos-lhc, qgsjetII.04) for
inclusive inelastic (INEL), non-single-diffractive-enhanced (NSD-enhanced),
and single-diffractive-enhanced (SD-enhanced) event selection categories.

It is shown that the INEL and NSD-enhanced categories are extremely sensitive
to multi-parton interactions, while the SD-enhanced category is essentially
unaffected. The shape of the measured $\eta$ dependencies suggest a difference
in the models compared to the data. However, the predictions of 8 tune
cuetp8s1 are in satisfactory agreement with all measurements when the
experimental and tune uncertainties are combined. The epos-lhc and qgsjetII.04
models exhibit the largest differences when compared to the single-
diffractive-enhanced results.

At high energies, the hypothesis of limiting fragmentation [9, 10] assumes a
longitudinal scaling behaviour in terms of shifted pseudorapidity
$\eta^{\prime}=\eta-y_{\mathrm{beam}}$ (where $y_{\mathrm{beam}}$ is the beam
rapidity) and thus soft-particle production in the projectile fragmentation
region, $\eta^{\prime}\approx 0$, is predicted to be independent of the
centre-of-mass energy. This is studied by measuring the transverse energy
density $\rd E_{\mathrm{T}}/\rd\eta$, with $E_{\mathrm{T}}=E\cosh(\eta)$, and
comparing it to measurements performed in proton-proton collisions at
different centre-of-mass energies. The predictions of the epos-lhc and
qgsjetII.04 models nicely describe the combined data in the forward
pseudorapidity range close to the projectile fragmentation region. The result
supports the mechanism of limiting fragmentation. Since this predicts the
independence of very forward particle production on the energy of the
projectile particle, these data are very important for the modelling of ultra-
high energy interactions that typically occur in cosmic ray collisions.

###### Acknowledgements.

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

## References

  * [1] T. Sjöstrand and M. van Zijl, “Multiple parton-parton interactions in an impact parameter picture”,  Phys. Lett. B 188 (1987) 149, 10.1016/0370-2693(87)90722-2.
  * [2] T. Sjöstrand and M. van Zijl, “A multiple-interaction model for the event structure in hadron collisions”,  Phys. Rev. D 36 (1987) 2019, 10.1103/PhysRevD.36.2019.
  * [3] I. Borozan and M. H. Seymour, “An eikonal model for multiparticle production in hadron-hadron interactions”,  JHEP 09 (2002) 015, 10.1088/1126-6708/2002/09/015, arXiv:hep-ph/0207283.
  * [4] T. Sjöstrand and P. Z. Skands, “Multiple interactions and the structure of beam remnants”,  JHEP 03 (2004) 053, 10.1088/1126-6708/2004/03/053, arXiv:hep-ph/0402078.
  * [5] CMS Collaboration, “First measurement of the underlying event activity at the LHC with $\sqrt{s}=0.9$ TeV”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 70 (2010) 555, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1453-9, arXiv:1006.2083.
  * [6] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of energy flow at large pseudorapidities in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=0.9$ and 7 TeV”,  JHEP 11 (2011) 148, 10.1007/JHEP11(2011)148, arXiv:1110.0211. [Erratum: 10.1007/JHEP02(2012)055].
  * [7] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurements of the pseudorapidity dependence of the total transverse energy in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV with ATLAS”,  JHEP 11 (2012) 033, 10.1007/JHEP11(2012)033, arXiv:1208.6256.
  * [8] LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of the forward energy flow in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2421, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2421-y, arXiv:1212.4755.
  * [9] J. Benecke, T. T. Chou, C.-N. Yang, and E. Yen, “Hypothesis of limiting fragmentation in high-energy collisions”,  Phys. Rev. 188 (1969) 2159, 10.1103/PhysRev.188.2159.
  * [10] J. Ruan and W. Zhu, “Particle multiplicities at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and deviations from limiting fragmentation”,  Phys. Rev. C 81 (2010) 055210, 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.055210, arXiv:1005.2790.
  * [11] R. Ulrich, R. Engel, and M. Unger, “Hadronic multiparticle production at ultra-high energies and extensive air showers”,  Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 054026, 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.054026, arXiv:1010.4310.
  * [12] D. d’Enterria et al., “Constraints from the first LHC data on hadronic event generators for ultra-high energy cosmic-ray physics”,  Astropart. Phys. 35 (2011) 98, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2011.05.002, arXiv:1101.5596.
  * [13] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [14] 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.
  * [15] V. N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov, “Deep inelastic ep scattering in perturbation theory”,  Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 15 (1972) 438\. [Yad. Fiz. 15 (1972) 781].
  * [16] V. N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov, “e+e- pair annihilation and deep inelastic ep scattering in perturbation theory”,  Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 15 (1972) 675. [Yad. Fiz. 15 (1972) 1218].
  * [17] L. N. Lipatov, “The parton model and perturbation theory”,  Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 20 (1975) 94, 10.1016/0550-3213(79)90105-6. [Yad. Fiz. 20 (1974) 181].
  * [18] G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, “Asymptotic freedom in parton language”,  Nucl. Phys. B 126 (1977) 298, 10.1016/0550-3213(77)90384-4.
  * [19] Y. L. Dokshitzer, “Calculation of the structure functions for deep inelastic scattering and e+e- annihilation by perturbation theory in quantum chromodynamics.”,  Sov. Phys. JETP 46 (1977) 641\. [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 73 (1977) 1216].
  * [20] B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, G. Ingelman, and T. Sjöstrand, “Parton fragmentation and string dynamics”,  Phys. Rept. 97 (1983) 31, 10.1016/0370-1573(83)90080-7.
  * [21] 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.
  * [22] 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.
  * [23] R. Ciesielski and K. Goulianos, “MBR Monte Carlo Simulation in PYTHIA8”,  PoS ICHEP2012 (2013) 301, 10.22323/1.174.0301, arXiv:1205.1446.
  * [24] R. Corke and T. Sjöstrand, “Interleaved parton showers and tuning prospects”,  JHEP 03 (2011) 032, 10.1007/JHEP03(2011)032, arXiv:1011.1759.
  * [25] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions with LHC data”,  Nucl. Phys. B 867 (2013) 244, 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2012.10.003, arXiv:1207.1303.
  * [26] J. Pumplin et al., “New generation of parton distributions with uncertainties from global QCD analysis”,  JHEP 07 (2002) 012, 10.1088/1126-6708/2002/07/012, arXiv:hep-ph/0201195.
  * [27] T. Pierog et al., “EPOS LHC: Test of collective hadronization with data measured at the CERN Large Hadron Collider”,  Phys. Rev. C 92 (2015) 034906, 10.1103/PhysRevC.92.034906, arXiv:1306.0121.
  * [28] S. Ostapchenko, “Monte Carlo treatment of hadronic interactions in enhanced Pomeron scheme: I. QGSJET-II model”,  Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 014018, 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.014018, arXiv:1010.1869.
  * [29] H. J. Drescher et al., “Parton-Based Gribov-Regge Theory”,  Phys. Rept. 350 (2001) 93, 10.1016/S0370-1573(00)00122-8, arXiv:hep-ph/0007198.
  * [30] GEANT4 Collaboration, “—a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [31] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [32] 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.
  * [33] V. Andreev et al., “Performance studies of a full-length prototype for the CASTOR forward calorimeter at the CMS experiment”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 67 (2010) 601, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1316-4.
  * [34] CMS Collaboration, “Studies of the nuclear stopping power in PbPb collisions at 2.76 TeV with CMS”,  Nucl. Phys. A 904-905 (2013) 787c, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2013.02.134.

##  .9 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan Institut für Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, E. Asilar, T. Bergauer, J. Brandstetter, M. Dragicevic,
J. Erö, A. Escalante Del Valle, M. Flechl, R. Frühwirth1, V.M. Ghete, J.
Hrubec, M. Jeitler1, N. Krammer, I. Krätschmer, D. Liko, T. Madlener, I.
Mikulec, N. Rad, H. Rohringer, J. Schieck1, R. Schöfbeck, M. Spanring, D.
Spitzbart, W. Waltenberger, J. Wittmann, C.-E. Wulz1, M. Zarucki Institute for
Nuclear Problems, Minsk, Belarus
V. Chekhovsky, V. Mossolov, J. Suarez Gonzalez Universiteit Antwerpen,
Antwerpen, Belgium
E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, J. Lauwers, A. Lelek, M. Pieters, H.
Van Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, N. Van Remortel Vrije Universiteit Brussel,
Brussel, Belgium
S. Abu Zeid, F. Blekman, J. D’Hondt, J. De Clercq, K. Deroover, G. Flouris, D.
Lontkovskyi, S. Lowette, I. Marchesini, S. Moortgat, L. Moreels, Q. Python, K.
Skovpen, S. Tavernier, W. Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders, I. Van Parijs
Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
D. Beghin, B. Bilin, H. Brun, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, H. Delannoy, B.
Dorney, G. Fasanella, L. Favart, A. Grebenyuk, A.K. Kalsi, T. Lenzi, J.
Luetic, N. Postiau, E. Starling, L. Thomas, C. Vander Velde, P. Vanlaer, D.
Vannerom, Q. Wang Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, A. Fagot, M. Gul, I. Khvastunov2, D. Poyraz, C. Roskas,
D. Trocino, M. Tytgat, W. Verbeke, B. Vermassen, M. Vit, N. Zaganidis
Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
H. Bakhshiansohi, O. Bondu, G. Bruno, C. Caputo, P. David, C. Delaere, M.
Delcourt, A. Giammanco, G. Krintiras, V. Lemaitre, A. Magitteri, K.
Piotrzkowski, A. Saggio, M. Vidal Marono, P. Vischia, J. Zobec Centro
Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
F.L. Alves, G.A. Alves, G. Correia Silva, C. Hensel, A. Moraes, M.E. Pol, P.
Rebello Teles Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato3, E. Coelho, E.M.
Da Costa, G.G. Da Silveira4, D. De Jesus Damiao, C. De Oliveira Martins, S.
Fonseca De Souza, H. Malbouisson, D. Matos Figueiredo, M. Melo De Almeida, C.
Mora Herrera, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, W.L. Prado Da Silva, L.J. Sanchez Rosas,
A. Santoro, A. Sznajder, M. Thiel, E.J. Tonelli Manganote3, F. Torres Da Silva
De Araujo, A. Vilela Pereira Universidade Estadual Paulista a, Universidade
Federal do ABC b, São Paulo, Brazil
S. Ahujaa, C.A. Bernardesa, L. Calligarisa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M.
Gregoresb, P.G. Mercadanteb, S.F. Novaesa, SandraS. Padulaa Institute for
Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia,
Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, A. Marinov, M. Misheva, M. Rodozov,
M. Shopova, G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Dimitrov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov Beihang University, Beijing, China
W. Fang5, X. Gao5, L. Yuan Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, J.G. Bian, G.M. Chen, H.S. Chen, M. Chen, Y. Chen, C.H. Jiang, D.
Leggat, H. Liao, Z. Liu, S.M. Shaheen6, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, E. Yazgan, H.
Zhang, S. Zhang6, J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and
Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
Y. Ban, G. Chen, A. Levin, J. Li, L. Li, Q. Li, Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang
Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Y. Wang Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, C.A. Carrillo Montoya, L.F. Chaparro Sierra, C. Florez,
C.F. González Hernández, M.A. Segura Delgado University of Split, Faculty of
Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split,
Croatia
B. Courbon, N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak, T. Sculac University of Split,
Faculty of Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, K. Kadija, B. Mesic, M. Roguljic, A. Starodumov7,
T. Susa University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, M. Kolosova, G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou,
F. Ptochos, P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski Charles University, Prague, Czech
Republic
M. Finger8, M. Finger Jr.8 Escuela Politecnica Nacional, Quito, Ecuador
E. Ayala Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
E. Carrera Jarrin Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab
Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt
H. Abdalla9, A.A. Abdelalim10,11, M.A. Mahmoud12,13 National Institute of
Chemical Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
S. Bhowmik, A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveira, R.K. Dewanjee, K. Ehataht, M.
Kadastik, M. Raidal, C. Veelken Department of Physics, University of Helsinki,
Helsinki, Finland
P. Eerola, H. Kirschenmann, J. Pekkanen, M. Voutilainen Helsinki Institute of
Physics, Helsinki, Finland
J. Havukainen, J.K. Heikkilä, T. Järvinen, V. Karimäki, R. Kinnunen, T.
Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Laurila, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, P. Luukka, T.
Mäenpää, H. Siikonen, E. Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi Lappeenranta University of
Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
T. Tuuva IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, J.L. Faure, F. Ferri, S.
Ganjour, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry, C. Leloup,
E. Locci, J. Malcles, G. Negro, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M.Ö. Sahin, M. Titov
Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole polytechnique, CNRS/IN2P3, Université
Paris-Saclay, Palaiseau, France
A. Abdulsalam14, C. Amendola, I. Antropov, F. Beaudette, P. Busson, C.
Charlot, R. Granier de Cassagnac, I. Kucher, A. Lobanov, J. Martin Blanco, C.
Martin Perez, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, G. Ortona, P. Paganini, J. Rembser, R.
Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A.G. Stahl Leiton, A. Zabi, A. Zghiche
Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram15, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, G. Bourgatte, J.-M. Brom, E.C. Chabert, V.
Cherepanov, C. Collard, E. Conte15, J.-C. Fontaine15, D. Gelé, U. Goerlach, M.
Jansová, A.-C. Le Bihan, N. Tonon, P. Van Hove Centre de Calcul de l’Institut
National de Physique Nucleaire et de Physique des Particules, CNRS/IN2P3,
Villeurbanne, France
S. Gadrat Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3,
Institut de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, N. Chanon, R. Chierici, D. Contardo, P.
Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, L. Finco, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, G.
Grenier, B. Ille, F. Lagarde, I.B. Laktineh, H. Lattaud, M. Lethuillier, L.
Mirabito, S. Perries, A. Popov16, V. Sordini, G. Touquet, M. Vander Donckt, S.
Viret Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
T. Toriashvili17 Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
Z. Tsamalaidze8 RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen,
Germany
C. Autermann, L. Feld, M.K. Kiesel, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, M. Preuten, M.P.
Rauch, C. Schomakers, J. Schulz, M. Teroerde, B. Wittmer RWTH Aachen
University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany
A. Albert, M. Erdmann, S. Erdweg, T. Esch, R. Fischer, S. Ghosh, A. Güth, T.
Hebbeker, C. Heidemann, K. Hoepfner, H. Keller, L. Mastrolorenzo, M.
Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, P. Millet, S. Mukherjee, T. Pook, M. Radziej, H.
Reithler, M. Rieger, A. Schmidt, D. Teyssier, S. Thüer RWTH Aachen University,
III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany
G. Flügge, O. Hlushchenko, T. Kress, T. Müller, A. Nehrkorn, A. Nowack, C.
Pistone, O. Pooth, D. Roy, H. Sert, A. Stahl18 Deutsches Elektronen-
Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
M. Aldaya Martin, T. Arndt, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, I. Babounikau, K.
Beernaert, O. Behnke, U. Behrens, A. Bermúdez Martínez, D. Bertsche, A.A. Bin
Anuar, K. Borras19, V. Botta, A. Campbell, P. Connor, C. Contreras-Campana, V.
Danilov, A. De Wit, M.M. Defranchis, C. Diez Pardos, D. Domínguez Damiani, G.
Eckerlin, T. Eichhorn, A. Elwood, E. Eren, E. Gallo20, A. Geiser, J.M. Grados
Luyando, A. Grohsjean, M. Guthoff, M. Haranko, A. Harb, H. Jung, M. Kasemann,
J. Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, J. Knolle, D. Krücker, W. Lange, T. Lenz, J.
Leonard, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann21, R. Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, A.B. Meyer,
M. Meyer, M. Missiroli, G. Mittag, J. Mnich, V. Myronenko, S.K. Pflitsch, D.
Pitzl, A. Raspereza, A. Saibel, M. Savitskyi, P. Saxena, P. Schütze, C.
Schwanenberger, R. Shevchenko, A. Singh, H. Tholen, O. Turkot, A. Vagnerini,
M. Van De Klundert, G.P. Van Onsem, R. Walsh, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C. Wissing,
O. Zenaiev University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, L. Benato, A. Benecke, T. Dreyer, A. Ebrahimi, E.
Garutti, D. Gonzalez, P. Gunnellini, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, A. Karavdina, G.
Kasieczka, R. Klanner, R. Kogler, N. Kovalchuk, S. Kurz, V. Kutzner, J. Lange,
D. Marconi, J. Multhaup, M. Niedziela, C.E.N. Niemeyer, D. Nowatschin, A.
Perieanu, A. Reimers, O. Rieger, C. Scharf, P. Schleper, S. Schumann, J.
Schwandt, J. Sonneveld, H. Stadie, G. Steinbrück, F.M. Stober, M. Stöver, B.
Vormwald, I. Zoi Karlsruher Institut fuer Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany
M. Akbiyik, C. Barth, M. Baselga, S. Baur, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, F.
Colombo, W. De Boer, A. Dierlamm, K. El Morabit, N. Faltermann, B. Freund, M.
Giffels, M.A. Harrendorf, F. Hartmann18, S.M. Heindl, U. Husemann, I.
Katkov16, S. Kudella, S. Mitra, M.U. Mozer, Th. Müller, M. Musich, M. Plagge,
G. Quast, K. Rabbertz, M. Schröder, I. Shvetsov, H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, S.
Wayand, M. Weber, T. Weiler, C. Wöhrmann, R. Wolf Institute of Nuclear and
Particle Physics (INPP), NCSR Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
G. Anagnostou, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas, G. Paspalaki
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
A. Agapitos, G. Karathanasis, P. Kontaxakis, A. Panagiotou, I. Papavergou, N.
Saoulidou, K. Vellidis National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece
K. Kousouris, I. Papakrivopoulos, G. Tsipolitis University of Ioánnina,
Ioánnina, Greece
I. Evangelou, C. Foudas, P. Gianneios, P. Katsoulis, P. Kokkas, S. Mallios, N.
Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, E. Paradas, J. Strologas, F.A. Triantis, D.
Tsitsonis MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
M. Bartók22, M. Csanad, N. Filipovic, P. Major, M.I. Nagy, G. Pasztor, O.
Surányi, G.I. Veres Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath23, Á. Hunyadi, F. Sikler, T.Á. Vámi, V.
Veszpremi, G. Vesztergombi${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$ Institute of Nuclear
Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi22, A. Makovec, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi
Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari Indian Institute of Science (IISc),
Bangalore, India
S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri, P.C. Tiwari National Institute of Science
Education and Research, HBNI, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati25, C. Kar, P. Mal, K. Mandal, A. Nayak26, S. Roy Chowdhury, D.K.
Sahoo25, S.K. Swain Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, S. Chauhan, R. Chawla, N. Dhingra, R.
Gupta, A. Kaur, M. Kaur, S. Kaur, P. Kumari, M. Lohan, M. Meena, A. Mehta, K.
Sandeep, S. Sharma, J.B. Singh, A.K. Virdi, G. Walia University of Delhi,
Delhi, India
A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, M. Gola, S. Keshri, Ashok Kumar, S.
Malhotra, M. Naimuddin, P. Priyanka, K. Ranjan, Aashaq Shah, R. Sharma Saha
Institute of Nuclear Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India
R. Bhardwaj27, M. Bharti27, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, U. Bhawandeep27,
D. Bhowmik, S. Dey, S. Dutt27, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh, M. Maity28, K. Mondal, S.
Nandan, A. Purohit, P.K. Rout, A. Roy, G. Saha, S. Sarkar, T. Sarkar28, M.
Sharan, B. Singh27, S. Thakur27 Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras,
India
P.K. Behera, A. Muhammad Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
R. Chudasama, D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, D.K. Mishra, P.K. Netrakanti, L.M.
Pant, P. Shukla, P. Suggisetti Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A,
Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, M.A. Bhat, S. Dugad, G.B. Mohanty, N. Sur, RavindraKumar Verma Tata
Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, P. Das, M. Guchait, Sa. Jain, S.
Karmakar, S. Kumar, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, N. Sahoo Indian Institute of
Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, India
S. Chauhan, S. Dube, V. Hegde, A. Kapoor, K. Kothekar, S. Pandey, A. Rane, A.
Rastogi, S. Sharma Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM),
Tehran, Iran
S. Chenarani29, E. Eskandari Tadavani, S.M. Etesami29, M. Khakzad, M.
Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri, F. Rezaei Hosseinabadi, B. Safarzadeh30, M.
Zeinali University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
M. Felcini, M. Grunewald INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b,
Politecnico di Bari c, Bari, Italy
M. Abbresciaa,b, C. Calabriaa,b, A. Colaleoa, D. Creanzaa,c, L. Cristellaa,b,
N. De Filippisa,c, M. De Palmaa,b, A. Di Florioa,b, F. Erricoa,b, L. Fiorea,
A. Gelmia,b, G. Iasellia,c, M. Incea,b, S. Lezkia,b, G. Maggia,c, M. Maggia,
G. Minielloa,b, S. Mya,b, S. Nuzzoa,b, A. Pompilia,b, G. Pugliesea,c, R.
Radognaa, A. Ranieria, G. Selvaggia,b, A. Sharmaa, L. Silvestrisa, R.
Vendittia, P. Verwilligena INFN Sezione di Bologna a, Università di Bologna b,
Bologna, Italy
G. Abbiendia, C. Battilanaa,b, D. Bonacorsia,b, L. Borgonovia,b, S. Braibant-
Giacomellia,b, R. Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A. Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa,
S.S. Chhibraa,b, G. Codispotia,b, M. Cuffiania,b, G.M. Dallavallea, F.
Fabbria, A. Fanfania,b, E. Fontanesi, P. Giacomellia, C. Grandia, L.
Guiduccia,b, F. Iemmia,b, S. Lo Meoa,31, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, A.
Montanaria, 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, A. Di Mattiaa, R. Potenzaa,b, A. Tricomia,b, C. Tuvea,b INFN
Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b, Firenze, Italy
G. Barbaglia, K. Chatterjeea,b, V. Ciullia,b, C. Civininia, R.
D’Alessandroa,b, E. Focardia,b, G. Latino, P. Lenzia,b, M. Meschinia, S.
Paolettia, L. Russoa,32, G. Sguazzonia, D. Stroma, L. Viliania INFN Laboratori
Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, F. Fabbri, D. Piccolo INFN Sezione di Genova a,
Università di Genova b, Genova, Italy
F. Ferroa, R. Mulargiaa,b, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia,b INFN Sezione di Milano-
Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, Italy
A. Benagliaa, A. Beschib, F. Brivioa,b, V. Cirioloa,b,18, S. Di Guidaa,b,18,
M.E. Dinardoa,b, S. Fiorendia,b, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P. Govonia,b, M.
Malbertia,b, S. Malvezzia, D. Menascea, F. Monti, L. Moronia, M. Paganonia,b,
D. Pedrinia, S. Ragazzia,b, T. Tabarelli de Fatisa,b, D. Zuoloa,b INFN Sezione
di Napoli a, Università di Napoli ’Federico II’ b, Napoli, Italy, Università
della Basilicata c, Potenza, Italy, Università G. Marconi d, Roma, Italy
S. Buontempoa, N. Cavalloa,c, A. De Iorioa,b, A. Di Crescenzoa,b, F.
Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa, G. Galatia, A.O.M. Iorioa,b, L. Listaa, S.
Meolaa,d,18, P. Paoluccia,18, 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, A. Bolettia,b, A. Bragagnolo, R.
Carlina,b, P. Checchiaa, M. Dall’Ossoa,b, P. De Castro Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa,
U. Dossellia, F. Gasparinia,b, U. Gasparinia,b, A. Gozzelinoa, S.Y. Hoh, S.
Lacapraraa, P. Lujan, M. Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,b, J. Pazzinia,b, M.
Presillab, P. Ronchesea,b, R. Rossina,b, F. Simonettoa,b, A. Tiko, E.
Torassaa, M. Tosia,b, M. Zanettia,b, P. Zottoa,b, G. Zumerlea,b INFN Sezione
di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
A. Braghieria, A. Magnania, P. Montagnaa,b, S.P. Rattia,b, V. Rea, M.
Ressegottia,b, C. Riccardia,b, P. Salvinia, I. Vaia,b, P. Vituloa,b INFN
Sezione di Perugia a, Università di Perugia b, Perugia, Italy
M. Biasinia,b, G.M. Bileia, C. Cecchia,b, D. Ciangottinia,b, L. Fanòa,b, P.
Laricciaa,b, R. Leonardia,b, E. Manonia, G. Mantovania,b, V. Mariania,b, M.
Menichellia, A. Rossia,b, A. Santocchiaa,b, D. Spigaa INFN Sezione di Pisa a,
Università di Pisa b, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa c, Pisa, Italy
K. Androsova, P. Azzurria, G. Bagliesia, L. Bianchinia, T. Boccalia, L.
Borrello, R. Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, G. Fedia, F. Fioria,c,
L. Gianninia,c, A. Giassia, M.T. Grippoa, F. Ligabuea,c, E. Mancaa,c, G.
Mandorlia,c, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, A. Rizzia,b, G. Rolandi33, P.
Spagnoloa, R. Tenchinia, G. Tonellia,b, A. Venturia, P.G. Verdinia INFN
Sezione di Roma a, Sapienza Università di Roma b, Rome, Italy
L. Baronea,b, F. Cavallaria, M. Cipriania,b, D. Del Rea,b, E. Di Marcoa,b, M.
Diemoza, S. Gellia,b, E. Longoa,b, B. Marzocchia,b, P. Meridiania, G.
Organtinia,b, F. Pandolfia, R. Paramattia,b, F. Preiatoa,b, S. Rahatloua,b, C.
Rovellia, F. Santanastasioa,b INFN Sezione di Torino a, Università di Torino
b, Torino, Italy, Università del Piemonte Orientale c, Novara, Italy
N. Amapanea,b, R. Arcidiaconoa,c, S. Argiroa,b, M. Arneodoa,c, N. Bartosika,
R. Bellana,b, C. Biinoa, A. Cappatia,b, N. Cartigliaa, F. Cennaa,b, S.
Comettia, M. Costaa,b, R. Covarellia,b, N. Demariaa, B. Kiania,b, C.
Mariottia, S. Masellia, E. Migliorea,b, V. Monacoa,b, E. Monteila,b, M.
Montenoa, M.M. Obertinoa,b, L. Pachera,b, N. Pastronea, M. Pelliccionia, G.L.
Pinna Angionia,b, A. Romeroa,b, M. Ruspaa,c, R. Sacchia,b, R. Salvaticoa,b, K.
Shchelinaa,b, V. Solaa, A. Solanoa,b, D. Soldia,b, A. Staianoa INFN Sezione di
Trieste a, Università di Trieste b, Trieste, Italy
S. Belfortea, V. Candelisea,b, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, A. Da Rolda,b, G.
Della Riccaa,b, F. Vazzolera,b, A. Zanettia Kyungpook National University,
Daegu, Korea
D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, M.S. Kim, J. Lee, S. Lee, S.W. Lee, C.S. Moon, Y.D. Oh,
S.I. Pak, S. Sekmen, D.C. Son, Y.C. Yang Chonnam National University,
Institute for Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju, Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon, G. Oh Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
B. Francois, J. Goh34, T.J. Kim Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, D. Gyun, S. Ha, B. Hong, Y. Jo, K. Lee, K.S. Lee, S.
Lee, J. Lim, S.K. Park, Y. Roh Sejong University, Seoul, Korea
H.S. Kim Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, H. Lee, K. Lee, K. Nam, S.B. Oh, B.C. Radburn-
Smith, S.h. Seo, U.K. Yang, H.D. Yoo, G.B. Yu University of Seoul, Seoul,
Korea
D. Jeon, H. Kim, J.H. Kim, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park Sungkyunkwan University,
Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, C. Hwang, J. Lee, I. Yu Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
V. Veckalns35 Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
V. Dudenas, A. Juodagalvis, J. Vaitkus National Centre for Particle Physics,
Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Z.A. Ibrahim, M.A.B. Md Ali36, F. Mohamad Idris37, W.A.T. Wan Abdullah, M.N.
Yusli, Z. Zolkapli Universidad de Sonora (UNISON), Hermosillo, Mexico
J.F. Benitez, A. Castaneda Hernandez, J.A. Murillo Quijada Centro de
Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, M.C. Duran-Osuna, I. Heredia-De La
Cruz38, R. Lopez-Fernandez, J. Mejia Guisao, R.I. Rabadan-Trejo, M. Ramirez-
Garcia, G. Ramirez-Sanchez, R. Reyes-Almanza, A. Sanchez-Hernandez Universidad
Iberoamericana, Mexico City, Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, F. Vazquez Valencia Benemerita
Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
J. Eysermans, I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada Universidad
Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, Mexico
A. Morelos Pineda University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
S. Bheesette, P.H. Butler National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam
University, Islamabad, Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M. Ahmad, M.I. Asghar, Q. Hassan, H.R. Hoorani, W.A. Khan, M.A.
Shah, M. Shoaib, M. Waqas National Centre for Nuclear Research, Swierk, Poland
H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, T. Frueboes, M. Górski, M. Kazana, M.
Szleper, P. Traczyk, P. Zalewski Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of
Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk39, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J.
Krolikowski, M. Misiura, M. Olszewski, A. Pyskir, M. Walczak Laboratório de
Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas, Lisboa, Portugal
M. Araujo, P. Bargassa, C. Beirão Da Cruz E Silva, A. Di Francesco, P.
Faccioli, B. Galinhas, M. Gallinaro, J. Hollar, N. Leonardo, J. Seixas, G.
Strong, O. Toldaiev, J. Varela Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna,
Russia
S. Afanasiev, P. Bunin, M. Gavrilenko, I. Golutvin, I. Gorbunov, A. Kamenev,
V. Karjavine, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev40,41, P. Moisenz, V. Palichik,
V. Perelygin, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, N. Skatchkov, V. Smirnov, N. Voytishin,
A. Zarubin Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg),
Russia
V. Golovtsov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim42, E. Kuznetsova43, P. Levchenko, V. Murzin,
V. Oreshkin, I. Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Vavilov, A.
Vorobyev Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, M. Kirsanov,
N. Krasnikov, A. Pashenkov, A. Shabanov, D. Tlisov, A. Toropin Institute for
Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, V. Popov, I. Pozdnyakov, G.
Safronov, A. Spiridonov, A. Stepennov, V. Stolin, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A.
Zhokin Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
M. Chadeeva44, D. Philippov, E. Popova, V. Rusinov P.N. Lebedev Physical
Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin, I. Dremin41, M. Kirakosyan, A. Terkulov Skobeltsyn
Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow,
Russia
A. Belyaev, E. Boos, A. Ershov, A. Gribushin, L. Khein, V. Klyukhin, O.
Kodolova, I. Lokhtin, O. Lukina, S. Obraztsov, S. Petrushanko, V. Savrin, A.
Snigirev Novosibirsk State University (NSU), Novosibirsk, Russia
A. Barnyakov45, V. Blinov45, T. Dimova45, L. Kardapoltsev45, Y. Skovpen45
Institute for High Energy Physics of National Research Centre ’Kurchatov
Institute’, Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, S. Bitioukov, V. Kachanov, A. Kalinin, D.
Konstantinov, P. Mandrik, V. Petrov, R. Ryutin, S. Slabospitskii, A. Sobol, S.
Troshin, N. Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov National Research Tomsk Polytechnic
University, Tomsk, Russia
A. Babaev, S. Baidali, V. Okhotnikov University of Belgrade, Faculty of
Physics and Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic46, P. Cirkovic, D. Devetak, M. Dordevic, P. Milenovic47, J. Milosevic
Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas
(CIEMAT), Madrid, Spain
J. Alcaraz Maestre, A. Álvarez Fernández, I. Bachiller, M. Barrio Luna, J.A.
Brochero Cifuentes, M. Cerrada, N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris, C.
Fernandez Bedoya, J.P. Fernández Ramos, J. Flix, M.C. Fouz, O. Gonzalez Lopez,
S. Goy Lopez, J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa, D. Moran, A. Pérez-Calero Yzquierdo,
J. Puerta Pelayo, I. Redondo, L. Romero, S. Sánchez Navas, M.S. Soares, A.
Triossi Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
C. Albajar, J.F. de Trocóniz Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain
J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, S. Folgueras, I. Gonzalez
Caballero, J.R. González Fernández, E. Palencia Cortezon, V. Rodríguez Bouza,
S. Sanchez Cruz, J.M. Vizan Garcia Instituto de Física de Cantabria (IFCA),
CSIC-Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain
I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, B. Chazin Quero, J. Duarte Campderros, M.
Fernandez, P.J. Fernández Manteca, A. García Alonso, J. Garcia-Ferrero, G.
Gomez, A. Lopez Virto, J. Marco, C. Martinez Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del
Arbol, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, C. Prieels, T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno,
L. Scodellaro, N. Trevisani, I. Vila, R. Vilar Cortabitarte University of
Ruhuna, Department of Physics, Matara, Sri Lanka
N. Wickramage CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
D. Abbaneo, B. Akgun, E. Auffray, G. Auzinger, P. Baillon, A.H. Ball, D.
Barney, J. Bendavid, M. Bianco, A. Bocci, C. Botta, E. Brondolin, T.
Camporesi, M. Cepeda, G. Cerminara, E. Chapon, Y. Chen, G. Cucciati, D.
d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, N. Daci, V. Daponte, A. David, A. De Roeck, N.
Deelen, M. Dobson, M. Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, F.
Fallavollita48, D. Fasanella, G. Franzoni, J. Fulcher, W. Funk, D. Gigi, A.
Gilbert, K. Gill, F. Glege, M. Gruchala, M. Guilbaud, D. Gulhan, J. Hegeman,
C. Heidegger, V. Innocente, G.M. Innocenti, A. Jafari, P. Janot, O.
Karacheban21, J. Kieseler, A. Kornmayer, M. Krammer1, C. Lange, P. Lecoq, C.
Lourenço, L. Malgeri, M. Mannelli, A. Massironi, F. Meijers, J.A. Merlin, S.
Mersi, E. Meschi, F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, J. Ngadiuba, S. Nourbakhsh, S.
Orfanelli, L. Orsini, F. Pantaleo18, L. Pape, E. Perez, M. Peruzzi, A.
Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, F.M. Pitters, D. Rabady, A.
Racz, T. Reis, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Selvaggi, A.
Sharma, P. Silva, P. Sphicas49, A. Stakia, J. Steggemann, D. Treille, A.
Tsirou, A. Vartak, M. Verzetti, W.D. Zeuner Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen,
Switzerland
L. Caminada50, K. Deiters, W. Erdmann, R. Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C.
Kaestli, D. Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, T. Rohe, S.A. Wiederkehr ETH Zurich -
Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics (IPA), Zurich, Switzerland
M. Backhaus, L. Bäni, P. Berger, N. Chernyavskaya, G. Dissertori, M. Dittmar,
M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, T.A. Gómez Espinosa, C. Grab, D. Hits, T. Klijnsma, W.
Lustermann, R.A. Manzoni, M. Marionneau, M.T. Meinhard, F. Micheli, P.
Musella, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, F. Pauss, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, S. Pigazzini, M.
Reichmann, C. Reissel, D. Ruini, D.A. Sanz Becerra, M. Schönenberger, L.
Shchutska, V.R. Tavolaro, K. Theofilatos, M.L. Vesterbacka Olsson, R. Wallny,
D.H. Zhu Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, C. Amsler51, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, R. Del
Burgo, S. Donato, C. Galloni, T. Hreus, B. Kilminster, S. Leontsinis, I.
Neutelings, G. Rauco, P. Robmann, D. Salerno, K. Schweiger, C. Seitz, Y.
Takahashi, S. Wertz, A. Zucchetta National Central University, Chung-Li,
Taiwan
T.H. Doan, R. Khurana, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A. Pozdnyakov, S.S. Yu National
Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, W.-S. Hou, Y.F. Liu, R.-S. Lu, E.
Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen Chulalongkorn University, Faculty of Science,
Department of Physics, Bangkok, Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, N. Srimanobhas, N. Suwonjandee Çukurova University, Physics
Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
A. Bat, F. Boran, S. Cerci52, S. Damarseckin, Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, C.
Dozen, I. Dumanoglu, E. Eskut, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, E. Gurpinar, I. Hos53,
C. Isik, E.E. Kangal54, O. Kara, A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, M. Oglakci, G.
Onengut, K. Ozdemir55, D. Sunar Cerci52, B. Tali52, U.G. Tok, S. Turkcapar,
I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East Technical University, Physics
Department, Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak56, G. Karapinar57, M. Yalvac, M. Zeyrek Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya58, O. Kaya59, S. Ozkorucuklu60, S. Tekten,
E.A. Yetkin61 Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
M.N. Agaras, A. Cakir, K. Cankocak, Y. Komurcu, S. Sen62 Institute for
Scintillation Materials of National Academy of Science of Ukraine, Kharkov,
Ukraine
B. Grynyov National Scientific Center, Kharkov Institute of Physics and
Technology, Kharkov, Ukraine
L. Levchuk University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
F. Ball, J.J. Brooke, D. Burns, E. Clement, D. Cussans, O. Davignon, H.
Flacher, J. Goldstein, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, D.M. Newbold63, S.
Paramesvaran, B. Penning, T. Sakuma, D. Smith, V.J. Smith, J. Taylor, A.
Titterton Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev64, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, D. Cieri, D.J.A. Cockerill, J.A.
Coughlan, K. Harder, S. Harper, J. Linacre, K. Manolopoulos, E. Olaiya, D.
Petyt, T. Schuh, C.H. Shepherd-Themistocleous, A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin, T.
Williams, W.J. Womersley Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A. Bundock, D.
Colling, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M. Della Negra, R. Di Maria, P. Everaerts, G.
Hall, G. Iles, T. James, M. Komm, C. Laner, L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik,
A. Martelli, J. Nash65, A. Nikitenko7, V. Palladino, M. Pesaresi, D.M.
Raymond, A. Richards, A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A. Shtipliyski, G. Singh, M.
Stoye, T. Strebler, S. Summers, A. Tapper, K. Uchida, T. Virdee18, N. Wardle,
D. Winterbottom, J. Wright, S.C. Zenz Brunel University, Uxbridge, United
Kingdom
J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, C.K. Mackay, A. Morton, I.D. Reid,
L. Teodorescu, S. Zahid Baylor University, Waco, USA
K. Call, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, H. Liu, C. Madrid, B. McMaster, N.
Pastika, C. Smith Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
A. Buccilli, S.I. Cooper, C. Henderson, P. Rumerio, C. West Boston University,
Boston, USA
D. Arcaro, T. Bose, D. Gastler, S. Girgis, D. Pinna, C. Richardson, J. Rohlf,
L. Sulak, D. Zou Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, B. Burkle, X. Coubez, D. Cutts, M. Hadley, J. Hakala, U. Heintz,
J.M. Hogan66, K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, J. Lee, Z. Mao, M. Narain,
S. Sagir67, R. Syarif, E. Usai, D. Yu University of California, Davis, Davis,
USA
R. Band, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, D. Burns, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez,
M. Chertok, J. Conway, R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, G. Funk,
W. Ko, O. Kukral, R. Lander, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, J. Pilot, S. Shalhout,
M. Shi, D. Stolp, D. Taylor, K. Tos, M. Tripathi, Z. Wang, F. Zhang University
of California, Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, C. Bravo, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, S. Erhan, A. Florent, J.
Hauser, M. Ignatenko, N. Mccoll, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg, C. Schnaible, V.
Valuev University of California, Riverside, Riverside, USA
E. Bouvier, K. Burt, R. Clare, J.W. Gary, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi, G. Hanson, G.
Karapostoli, E. Kennedy, F. Lacroix, O.R. Long, M. Olmedo Negrete, M.I.
Paneva, W. Si, L. Wang, H. Wei, S. Wimpenny, B.R. Yates University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, P. Chang, S. Cittolin, M. Derdzinski, R. Gerosa, D. Gilbert, B.
Hashemi, A. Holzner, D. Klein, G. Kole, V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, M.
Masciovecchio, S. May, D. Olivito, S. Padhi, M. Pieri, V. Sharma, M. Tadel, J.
Wood, F. Würthwein, A. Yagil, G. Zevi Della Porta University of California,
Santa Barbara - Department of Physics, Santa Barbara, USA
N. Amin, R. Bhandari, C. Campagnari, M. Citron, V. Dutta, M. Franco Sevilla,
L. Gouskos, R. Heller, J. Incandela, H. Mei, A. Ovcharova, H. Qu, J. Richman,
D. Stuart, I. Suarez, S. Wang, J. Yoo California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, USA
D. Anderson, A. Bornheim, J.M. Lawhorn, N. Lu, H.B. Newman, T.Q. Nguyen, J.
Pata, M. Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, R. Wilkinson, S. Xie, Z. Zhang, R.Y. Zhu
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
M.B. Andrews, T. Ferguson, T. Mudholkar, M. Paulini, M. Sun, I. Vorobiev, M.
Weinberg University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, F. Jensen, A. Johnson, E. MacDonald, T. Mulholland,
R. Patel, A. Perloff, K. Stenson, K.A. Ulmer, S.R. Wagner Cornell University,
Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, J. Chaves, Y. Cheng, J. Chu, A. Datta, K. Mcdermott, N. Mirman,
J.R. Patterson, D. Quach, A. Rinkevicius, A. Ryd, L. Skinnari, L. Soffi, S.M.
Tan, Z. Tao, J. Thom, J. Tucker, P. Wittich, M. Zientek Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, USA
S. Abdullin, M. Albrow, M. Alyari, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S.
Banerjee, L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, K. Burkett,
J.N. Butler, A. Canepa, G.B. Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M. Cremonesi,
J. Duarte, V.D. Elvira, J. Freeman, Z. Gecse, E. Gottschalk, L. Gray, D.
Green, S. Grünendahl, O. Gutsche, J. Hanlon, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, J.
Hirschauer, Z. Hu, B. Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, B.
Klima, M.J. Kortelainen, B. Kreis, S. Lammel, D. Lincoln, R. Lipton, M. Liu,
T. Liu, J. Lykken, K. Maeshima, J.M. Marraffino, D. Mason, P. McBride, P.
Merkel, S. Mrenna, S. Nahn, V. O’Dell, K. Pedro, C. Pena, O. Prokofyev, G.
Rakness, F. Ravera, A. Reinsvold, L. Ristori, A. Savoy-Navarro68, B.
Schneider, E. Sexton-Kennedy, A. Soha, W.J. Spalding, L. Spiegel, S. Stoynev,
J. Strait, N. Strobbe, L. Taylor, S. Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran, L. Uplegger, E.W.
Vaandering, C. Vernieri, M. Verzocchi, R. Vidal, M. Wang, H.A. Weber
University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, P. Bortignon, D. Bourilkov, A. Brinkerhoff, L. Cadamuro,
A. Carnes, D. Curry, R.D. Field, S.V. Gleyzer, B.M. Joshi, J. Konigsberg, A.
Korytov, K.H. Lo, P. Ma, K. Matchev, N. Menendez, G. Mitselmakher, D.
Rosenzweig, K. Shi, D. Sperka, J. Wang, S. Wang, X. Zuo Florida International
University, Miami, USA
Y.R. Joshi, S. Linn Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
A. Ackert, T. Adams, A. Askew, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F. Johnson, T.
Kolberg, G. Martinez, T. Perry, H. Prosper, A. Saha, C. Schiber, R. Yohay
Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, V. Bhopatkar, S. Colafranceschi, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, M.
Rahmani, T. Roy, M. Saunders, F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago
(UIC), Chicago, USA
M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, D. Berry, R.R. Betts, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, S.
Dittmer, O. Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, K. Jung, J.
Kamin, C. Mills, M.B. Tonjes, N. Varelas, H. Wang, X. Wang, Z. Wu, J. Zhang
The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, B. Bilki69, W. Clarida, K. Dilsiz70, S. Durgut, R.P.
Gandrajula, M. Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko, J.-P. Merlo, A. Mestvirishvili, A.
Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul71, Y. Onel, F. Ozok72, A. Penzo, C. Snyder, E.
Tiras, J. Wetzel Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
B. Blumenfeld, A. Cocoros, N. Eminizer, D. Fehling, L. Feng, A.V. Gritsan,
W.T. Hung, P. Maksimovic, J. Roskes, U. Sarica, M. Swartz, M. Xiao The
University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA
A. Al-bataineh, P. Baringer, A. Bean, S. Boren, J. Bowen, A. Bylinkin, J.
Castle, S. Khalil, A. Kropivnitskaya, D. Majumder, W. Mcbrayer, M. Murray, C.
Rogan, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang Kansas State
University, Manhattan, USA
S. Duric, A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, D. Kim, Y. Maravin, D.R. Mendis, T. Mitchell,
A. Modak, A. Mohammadi Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright University of Maryland, College Park, USA
A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, S.C. Eno, Y. Feng, C. Ferraioli, N.J. Hadley,
S. Jabeen, G.Y. Jeng, R.G. Kellogg, J. Kunkle, A.C. Mignerey, S. Nabili, F.
Ricci-Tam, M. Seidel, Y.H. Shin, A. Skuja, S.C. Tonwar, K. Wong Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, V. Azzolini, A. Baty, R. Bi, S. Brandt, W. Busza,
I.A. Cali, M. D’Alfonso, Z. Demiragli, G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov, P.
Harris, D. Hsu, M. Hu, Y. Iiyama, M. Klute, D. Kovalskyi, Y.-J. Lee, P.D.
Luckey, B. Maier, A.C. Marini, C. Mcginn, C. Mironov, S. Narayanan, X. Niu, C.
Paus, D. Rankin, C. Roland, G. Roland, Z. Shi, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Sumorok, K.
Tatar, D. Velicanu, J. Wang, T.W. Wang, B. Wyslouch University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, USA
A.C. Benvenuti${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, P.
Hansen, J. Hiltbrand, Sh. Jain, S. Kalafut, M. Krohn, Y. Kubota, Z. Lesko, J.
Mans, R. Rusack, M.A. Wadud University of Mississippi, Oxford, USA
J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
E. Avdeeva, K. Bloom, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, F. Golf, R. Gonzalez Suarez,
R. Kamalieddin, I. Kravchenko, J. Monroy, J.E. Siado, G.R. Snow, B. Stieger
State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
A. Godshalk, C. Harrington, I. Iashvili, A. Kharchilava, C. Mclean, D. Nguyen,
A. Parker, S. Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani Northeastern University, Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, Y. Haddad, A. Hortiangtham, G. Madigan,
D.M. Morse, T. Orimoto, A. Tishelman-charny, T. Wamorkar, B. Wang, A.
Wisecarver, D. Wood Northwestern University, Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, J. Bueghly, O. Charaf, T. Gunter, K.A. Hahn, N. Odell, M.H.
Schmitt, K. Sung, M. Trovato, 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, W. Li, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, F. Meng, C. Mueller,
Y. Musienko40, M. Planer, R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, G. Smith, S. Taroni, M.
Wayne, A. Wightman, M. Wolf, A. Woodard The Ohio State University, Columbus,
USA
J. Alimena, L. Antonelli, B. Bylsma, L.S. Durkin, S. Flowers, B. Francis, C.
Hill, W. Ji, T.Y. Ling, W. Luo, B.L. Winer Princeton University, Princeton,
USA
S. Cooperstein, P. Elmer, J. Hardenbrook, N. Haubrich, S. Higginbotham, A.
Kalogeropoulos, S. Kwan, D. Lange, M.T. Lucchini, J. Luo, D. Marlow, K. Mei,
I. Ojalvo, J. Olsen, C. Palmer, P. Piroué, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, D. Stickland, C.
Tully University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
A. Barker, V.E. Barnes, S. Das, L. Gutay, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, A. Khatiwada,
B. Mahakud, D.H. Miller, N. Neumeister, C.C. Peng, S. Piperov, H. Qiu, J.F.
Schulte, J. Sun, F. Wang, R. Xiao, W. Xie Purdue University Northwest,
Hammond, USA
T. Cheng, J. Dolen, N. Parashar Rice University, Houston, USA
Z. Chen, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Kilpatrick, Arun Kumar, W.
Li, B.P. Padley, R. Redjimi, J. Roberts, J. Rorie, W. Shi, Z. Tu, A. Zhang
University of Rochester, Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, Y.t. Duh, J.L. Dulemba, C. Fallon, T.
Ferbel, M. Galanti, A. Garcia-Bellido, J. Han, O. Hindrichs, A.
Khukhunaishvili, E. Ranken, P. Tan, R. Taus Rutgers, The State University of
New Jersey, Piscataway, USA
B. Chiarito, J.P. Chou, Y. Gershtein, E. Halkiadakis, A. Hart, M. Heindl, E.
Hughes, S. Kaplan, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, S. Kyriacou, I. Laflotte, A.
Lath, R. Montalvo, K. Nash, M. Osherson, H. Saka, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, D.
Sheffield, S. Somalwar, R. Stone, S. Thomas, P. Thomassen University of
Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
H. Acharya, A.G. Delannoy, J. Heideman, G. Riley, S. Spanier Texas A&M
University, College Station, USA
O. Bouhali73, A. Celik, M. Dalchenko, M. De Mattia, A. Delgado, S. Dildick, R.
Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T. Kamon74, S. Luo, D. Marley, R. Mueller, D.
Overton, L. Perniè, D. Rathjens, A. Safonov Texas Tech University, Lubbock,
USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, F. De Guio, P.R. Dudero, S. Kunori, K. Lamichhane,
S.W. Lee, T. Mengke, S. Muthumuni, T. Peltola, S. Undleeb, I. Volobouev, Z.
Wang, A. Whitbeck Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H. Ni, K.
Padeken, F. Romeo, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska, M. Verweij, Q. Xu
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
M.W. Arenton, P. Barria, B. Cox, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A. Ledovskoy, H. Li, C.
Neu, T. Sinthuprasith, Y. Wang, E. Wolfe, F. Xia Wayne State University,
Detroit, USA
R. Harr, P.E. Karchin, N. Poudyal, J. Sturdy, P. Thapa, S. Zaleski University
of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI, USA
J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, D. Carlsmith, S. Dasu, I. De Bruyn, L. Dodd, B.
Gomber75, M. Grothe, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, P. Klabbers, A. Lanaro,
K. Long, R. Loveless, T. Ruggles, A. Savin, V. Sharma, N. Smith, W.H. Smith,
N. Woods †: Deceased
1: Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria
2: Also at IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
3: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
4: Also at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
5: Also at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
6: Also at University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
7: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
8: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
9: Also at Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
10: Also at Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
11: Now at Zewail City of Science and Technology, Zewail, Egypt
12: Also at Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt
13: Now at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt
14: Also at Department of Physics, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia
15: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
16: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
17: Also at Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
18: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
19: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
20: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
21: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
22: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
23: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
24: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
25: Also at Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India
26: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
27: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India
28: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
29: Also at Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
30: Also at Plasma Physics Research Center, Science and Research Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
31: Also at ITALIAN NATIONAL AGENCY FOR NEW TECHNOLOGIES, ENERGY AND
SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Bologna, Italy
32: Also at Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy
33: Also at Scuola Normale e Sezione dell’INFN, Pisa, Italy
34: Also at Kyunghee University, Seoul, Korea
35: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
36: Also at International Islamic University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
37: Also at Malaysian Nuclear Agency, MOSTI, Kajang, Malaysia
38: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico City, Mexico
39: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems,
Warsaw, Poland
40: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
41: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
42: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
43: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
44: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
45: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
46: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
47: Also at University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of
Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
48: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
49: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
50: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
51: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics (SMI), Vienna,
Austria
52: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
53: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey
54: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
55: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
56: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
57: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
58: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
59: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
60: Also at Istanbul University, Faculty of Science, Istanbul, Turkey
61: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
62: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
63: Also at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
64: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
65: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia
66: Also at Bethel University, St. Paul, USA
67: Also at Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey
68: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
69: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey
70: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
71: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
72: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
73: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
74: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea
75: Also at University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India