BPH-17-004

BPH-17-004

# Search for the lepton flavor violating decay $\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm$ in proton-
proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$

The CMS Collaboration

###### Abstract

Results are reported from a search for the lepton flavor violating decay
$\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm$ in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$. The
data sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 33.2recorded by the CMS
experiment at the LHC in 2016. The search exploits leptons produced in both
boson and heavy-flavor hadron decays. No significant excess above the expected
background is observed. An upper limit on the branching fraction
$\mathcal{B}(\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm)$ of $8.0\times 10^{-8}$ at 90% confidence
level is obtained, with an expected upper limit of $6.9\times 10^{-8}$.

##  0.1 Introduction

In the standard model (SM) with massless neutrinos, the three lepton flavor
numbers are exactly conserved. The observation of neutrino oscillations not
only proves that lepton flavor is not conserved in the neutral sector, but
also provides a mechanism, through neutrino loops, for lepton flavor violating
(LFV) decays of charged leptons such as $\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm$, albeit with
extraordinarily small branching fractions [1, 2, 3]. However, a number of SM
extensions predict a much larger $\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm$ branching fraction,
including values as high as $10^{-10}$–$10^{-8}$ [4, 5, 6], accessible to
current and near-future experiments. The BaBar Collaboration set a limit of
$\mathcal{B}(\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm)<5.3\times 10^{-8}$ at 90% confidence level ()
[7]. The present best limit of ${<}2.1\times 10^{-8}$ at 90% CL was obtained
by the Belle experiment [8]. Searches at the CERN LHC are approaching this
sensitivity with 90% upper limits of $4.6\times 10^{-8}$ from LHCb [9] and
$38\times 10^{-8}$ from ATLAS [10].

The LHCb and ATLAS results targeted production from heavy-flavor hadron decays
and boson decays, respectively. While many more leptons are produced from
heavy-flavor hadron decays, the leptons from decays tend to have larger
transverse momentum () and are typically isolated from hadronic activity,
providing an experimental signature with much less background. In this paper,
we present results from the CMS experiment of the first search for the LFV
decay $\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm$ from a combination of the two independent channels
(production in boson and heavy-flavor hadron decays). Using both channels, for
which CMS has comparable sensitivity, provides the best opportunity for a
discovery or the lowest upper limit on the branching fraction. The data were
collected at the LHC in 2016 from proton-proton ($\Pp\Pp$) collisions at a
center-of-mass energy of 13, and correspond to an integrated luminosity of
33.2. Inclusion of charge-conjugate states is implied throughout this paper.

##  0.2 The CMS experiment

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, and a brass and scintillator hadron calorimeter,
each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. Muons are measured in gas-
ionization detectors embedded in the steel flux-return yoke outside the
solenoid. Additional forward calorimetry complements the coverage provided by
the barrel and endcap detectors. 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. [11].

Events of interest are selected using a two-tiered trigger system [12]. 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, 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.

The particle-flow algorithm [13] aims to reconstruct and identify each
individual particle in an event, with an optimized combination of information
from the various elements of the CMS detector. In particular, muons are
identified by matching tracks in the silicon tracker with tracks in the muon
detector and verifying the energy deposited in the calorimeters is consistent
with that expected for muons. The muon momentum is obtained from the curvature
observed in the silicon tracker and the relative resolution for muons with
$\pt<100\GeV$ is 1% in the barrel and 3% in the endcaps [14].

Simulated event samples are used to validate the analysis, measure acceptance
and efficiency, and estimate systematic uncertainties. For the analysis of
leptons from boson decays, events were simulated using 2.5.2 [15, 16] at
leading order, assuming a two-Higgs-doublet model that allows for flavor
changing neutral currents and LFV processes, interfaced with for parton shower
and hadronization descriptions. The production and decay, as well as the
decay, are handled by . The distribution of the boson is reweighted to match
that obtained from a SM next-to-leading-order $\PW\\!\to\\!\ell\PGn$ sample
produced with and interfaced to for parton showers and hadronization. For the
analysis of leptons from heavy-flavor hadron decays, events were simulated
using 8.226 [17] with the CUETP8M1 tune [18] interfaced with 1.6.0 [19] for
particle decays, with the decay kinematics determined by phase space, rather
than a particular model. All events are passed through the CMS detector
simulation based on [20]. The multiple $\Pp\Pp$ collisions that occur within
the same or nearby bunch crossings (pileup) are modeled by including
additional minimum bias events generated with with a distribution that matches
the one observed in data. Simulated events are reconstructed with the same
algorithms as used for data, including emulation of the triggers.

##  0.3 Data selection

The triggers used by this analysis evolved during the data collection period,
primarily to cope with increases in the instantaneous luminosity. Most of the
data were collected with an L1 trigger requirement of either three muons, two
muons with at least one muon having $\pt>10\GeV$, or two muons with both muons
having an absolute pseudorapidity of $\abs{\eta}<1.6$. The dimuon L1 triggers
also required the two muons to have an absolute pseudorapidity difference
$\abs{\Delta\eta}<1.8$. The high-level trigger required three reconstructed
charged particles (tracks), of which two must be identified as muons with
$\pt>3\GeV$ and the other must have $\pt>1.2\GeV$. The three tracks are fitted
to a common vertex and kept if the normalized $\chi^{2}$ of the fit is less
than 8; the vertex location is at least 2 times its uncertainty from the
beamline; the of the combination ($\pt^{\kern 0.7pt{3\PGm}}$) is greater than
8; the invariant mass (assuming a muon mass for all tracks) is in the range
1.60–2.02; and the cosine of the angle in the transverse plane between the
three-track momentum vector and the vector from the beamline to the vertex is
greater than 0.9. During the first half of 2016, errors in the L1 triggers
used by this analysis resulted in a significant loss of efficiency for muons
with $\abs{\eta}>1.24$. While this trigger misconfiguration is not modeled by
the simulation, it is accounted for by the analysis.

Offline, all combinations of three muons in the event with a combined charge
of ${\pm}1$ are considered and a fit to a common vertex is attempted to make a
candidate. The muons are required to match the ones used in the trigger, and
the trigger-level selection criteria are reapplied. If either of the
oppositely charged dimuon combinations from the candidate has an invariant
mass within 20of the mass of the or resonances, the candidate is rejected.
Events with at least one candidate with an invariant mass between 1.6 and
2.0are kept for analysis by two different algorithms, one optimized for
production of leptons in boson decays and the other optimized for production
of leptons in heavy-flavor hadron decays.

##  0.4 Search for $\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm$ in boson decays

###  0.4.1 Selecting $\PGt$ candidates

For the boson analysis, candidates must pass the selection criteria described
in Section 0.3, as well as an additional veto that suppresses background
arising from dimuon decays of hadronic resonances. The veto considers all
pairs of oppositely charged muons with one muon from the candidate and one
muon not associated with the candidate. If any of the muon pairs form a good
vertex (vertex fit $\chi^{2}$ probability above 5%) and have an invariant mass
within twice the larger of the detector resolution or natural width of a known
resonance with a dimuon decay, the candidate is vetoed. The checked resonances
are , , , , , , , , , and .

The reconstructed $\Pp\Pp$ interaction vertex with the largest value of summed
physics-object $\pt^{2}$ is taken to be the primary interaction vertex. The
physics objects are the jets, clustered using the anti-algorithm [21, 22] with
the tracks assigned to candidate vertices as inputs, and the associated
missing transverse momentum, taken as the negative vector sum of the of those
jets.

To better separate signal from background, a boosted decision tree (BDT) is
trained [23] using simulated signal events and background from data events in
the mass sideband region (trimuon invariant mass in the range of 1.60–1.74 or
1.82–2.00). The signal sample used for training the BDT is a combination of
several samples, each with a different lepton mass (covering the mass range
1.6–2), to avoid training on the true mass. Data in the mass sidebands contain
combinatorial background, as well as decays, primarily of heavy-flavor
hadrons, where one or more hadrons are misreconstructed as muons. Simulated
data were used to verify that background from charm hadron decays does not
produce a peak in the trimuon mass.

The BDT uses 18 variables. The variables include a measure of the muon quality
for each muon, the difference in longitudinal impact parameters with respect
to the primary vertex for each pair of muons, the and $\eta$ of the candidate,
the $\chi^{2}$ of the trimuon vertex fit, the distance in the transverse plane
between the trimuon vertex and the beamline divided by the uncertainty in that
distance, and the angle in the transverse plane between the trimuon momentum
vector and the vector between the beamline and the trimuon vertex. The
remaining variables include additional information about the event. The
absolute isolation of the candidate [24] is the sum of the transverse momenta
of the charged particles (charged isolation) and photons (neutral isolation)
reconstructed using the particle-flow algorithm, with $\Delta
R=\sqrt{\smash[b]{(\Delta\eta)^{2}+(\Delta\phi)^{2}}}<0.5$, where $\Delta\eta$
and $\Delta\phi$ are the differences in pseudorapidity and azimuthal angle,
respectively, between the directions of the particle and the candidate. The
charged isolation only includes tracks that pass within 0.2of the primary
vertex in the longitudinal direction and are not one of the candidate
constituents. The neutral isolation is corrected for pileup following the
prescription in Ref. [24]. The variable used in the BDT is the relative
isolation, defined as the absolute isolation divided by the of the candidate.

Assuming that the only missing particle in the event is the neutrino from the
$\PW\\!\to\\!\PGt\PGn$ decay, the neutrino can be determined from the negative
vector sum of the transverse momenta of all other particles in the event, a
quantity referred to as . A multivariate regression that uses additional
information from the event [25] is applied to to reduce effects from pileup,
improving the resolution by 30%. The boson is defined as the sum of and
$\ptvec^{\kern 0.7pt{3\PGm}}$. Furthermore, using the known mass of the boson,
the longitudinal momentum of the neutrino can be determined, up to a two-fold
ambiguity. The remaining BDT variables use this information and are: both
neutrino longitudinal momentum solutions, boson , , the angle $\Delta\phi$ in
the transverse plane between and $\ptvec^{\kern 0.7pt{3\PGm}}$, and the
transverse mass $\sqrt{\smash[b]{2\pt^{\kern
0.7pt{3\PGm}}\ptmiss(1-\cos{\Delta\phi})}}$.

The BDT is trained and tested on independent samples with no evidence of
overtraining or bias. The most important variables are found to be the
candidate relative isolation, transverse mass, and $\pt^{\kern 0.7pt{3\PGm}}$.

###  0.4.2 Analysis strategy

The relationship between the $\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm$ branching fraction and the
number of signal events can be written as:

$\mathcal{B}(\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm)=\frac{N_{\text{sig}(\PW)}}{\mathcal{L}\,\sigma(\Pp\Pp\\!\to\\!\PW+X)\,\mathcal{B}(\PW\\!\to\\!\PGt\PGn)\,\mathcal{A}_{3\Pgm(\PW)}\,\epsilon_{3\PGm(\PW)}},$
(1)

where $N_{\text{sig}(\PW)}$ is the number of signal events, $\mathcal{L}$ is
the integrated luminosity, $\sigma(\Pp\Pp\\!\to\\!\PW+X)$ is the boson
production cross section, $\mathcal{B}(\PW\\!\to\\!\PGt\PGn)$ is the branching
fraction of decay to $\PGt\PGn$, $\mathcal{A}_{3\Pgm(\PW)}$ is the acceptance,
and $\epsilon_{3\PGm(\PW)}$ is the combined reconstruction, selection, and
trigger efficiency for the three muons. The product of
$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\\!\to\\!\PW+X)$ and $\mathcal{B}(\PW\\!\to\\!\PGt\PGn)$ is
obtained from the ATLAS measurement of
$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\\!\to\\!\PW+X)\mathcal{B}(\PW\\!\to\\!\PGm\PGn)$ at 13 TeV [26]
and the world-average value of the ratio
$\mathcal{B}(\PW\\!\to\\!\PGt\PGn)/\mathcal{B}(\PW\\!\to\\!\PGm\PGn)$ [27].
Other sources of leptons, such as from boson or meson decays, are neglected as
either the low production cross section or BDT selection efficiency reduces
their contribution to no more than a few percent of that from boson
production.

Simulated samples are used to estimate the relative production of leptons from
different sources and to determine the acceptance and efficiency of the
signal. To account for differences between data and simulation, several
multiplicative corrections are applied on an event-by-event basis to the
simulated events. Each of the three muons has a weight associated with it,
which is the product of three corrections related to the efficiency of
reconstructing the track in the tracker, the efficiency of identifying the
reconstructed track as a muon, and the efficiency for the trigger system to
find the muon given that it was reconstructed and identified by the offline
algorithm. An additional correction is applied to account for the L1 trigger
misconfiguration described in Section 0.3. The average weight from the
combination of these corrections is 0.88. The difference from unity comes
primarily from the trigger efficiency. The weighted events are used to
determine the signal efficiency, and the uncertainties from the corrections
are included as systematic uncertainties.

Since the $\PGt$ invariant mass resolution is a strong function of the $\PGt$
pseudorapidity, the data sample is divided into two mutually exclusive
categories, barrel and endcap, corresponding to trimuon $\abs{\eta}<1.6$ (with
an average mass resolution of 16) and $\abs{\eta}\geq 1.6$ (with an average
mass resolution of 27), respectively. Events with a BDT score larger than a
given threshold are selected and used for the final analysis. Simulated signal
and sideband data events are used to set the BDT score thresholds for the
barrel and endcap regions that give the most stringent expected exclusion
limits. Figure 1 shows the trimuon invariant mass distributions for events
passing each category, along with a background-only fit (described in Section
0.6) and the contribution expected for a signal with
$\mathcal{B}(\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm)=10^{-7}$.

Figure 1: Trimuon invariant mass distributions for barrel (left) and endcap
(right) categories of the boson analysis. The data are shown with filled
circles and vertical bars representing the statistical uncertainty. The
background-only fit and the expected signal for
$\mathcal{B}(\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm)=10^{-7}$ are shown with solid and dashed
lines, respectively.

###  0.4.3 Systematic uncertainties

The largest systematic uncertainty is from the corrections that are used in
extracting the signal efficiency. This is dominated by the L1 trigger
inefficiency correction, which predominantly affects the endcap region, and is
correlated between the barrel and endcap categories. The other simulation
correction uncertainties are uncorrelated between the two categories. The
second largest systematic uncertainty arises from the limited size of the
simulated samples and is uncorrelated between the two categories. The
remaining uncertainties come from the integrated luminosity [28], the boson
production cross section, and the boson branching fractions, all of which are
correlated between the barrel and endcap categories. The systematic
uncertainties are summarized in Table 0.4.3.

Sources of systematic uncertainties in the boson analysis and their effect on
the signal efficiency and normalization for the barrel and endcap categories.
Uncertainty (%) Source Barrel Endcap Signal efficiency 7.9 32 Limited size of
simulated samples 4.3 6.2 Integrated luminosity 2.5 2.5 $\Pp\Pp\\!\to\\!\PW$
cross section 2.9 2.9 $\mathcal{B}(\PW\\!\to\\!\PGm\PGn)$ 0.2 0.2
$\mathcal{B}(\PW\\!\to\\!\PGt\PGn)$ 0.2 0.2 Total 9.8 33

##  0.5 Search for $\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm$ in heavy-flavor hadron decays

The measurement of the $\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm$ branching fraction for leptons
produced in charm and bottom decays is complicated by uncertainties in the
production of heavy-flavor hadrons. These uncertainties are reduced by
utilizing the decay $\PsDp\\!\to\\!\PGf\PGpp\\!\to\\!\PGmp\PGmm\PGpp$ to
normalize the signal yield.

Simulated samples are used to estimate the relative production of leptons from
different sources and to determine the acceptance and efficiency of the signal
and normalization modes. Four samples are used to extract the acceptance and
efficiency. The first is a sample of $\PsDp\\!\to\\!\PGtp\PGn$ decays. The
second and third samples contain the inclusive $\PBp\\!\to\\!\PGt+X$ and
$\PBz\\!\to\\!\PGt+X$ decays, respectively. The fourth sample contains
$\PsDp\\!\to\\!\PGf\PGpp\\!\to\\!\PGmp\PGmm\PGpp$ events. For all samples, the
heavy-flavor decays are simulated with 1.6.0, with the $\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm$
decay occurring via phase space. In the first and fourth samples, the mesons
can be produced by hadronization or from hadron decays. The acceptance
$\mathcal{A}$ is the fraction of events in which all tracks of the or decay
have $\abs{\eta}<2.4$, the muons have $p>2.5\GeV$, and the pion (if present)
has $\pt>1\GeV$. The efficiency is the product of the reconstruction and
selection efficiency $\epsilon^{\text{reco}}$ and the trigger efficiency
$\epsilon^{\text{trig}}$.

###  0.5.1 Selecting $\tau$ candidates

For the heavy-flavor analysis, candidates must pass the selection criteria
described in Section 0.3 and the lowest-track must have $\pt>2\GeV$. The
trimuon sample is divided into a signal region (invariant mass of 1.75–1.80)
and a sideband (background) region (invariant mass of 1.60–1.75 or 1.80–2.00).
The normalization channel $\PsDp\\!\to\\!\PGf\PGpp\\!\to\\!\PGmp\PGmm\PGpp$
uses the same selection criteria with a few exceptions. Only two muons are
required and they must be oppositely charged with an invariant mass between 1
and 1.04. The track associated with the pion must have $\pt>2\GeV$ and form a
vertex with the two muons with a normalized $\chi^{2}$ less than 5\. The
three-track invariant mass must be in the range 1.68–2.02, with the signal
region defined as 1.93–2.01and the sideband region as 1.70–1.80. If there is
more than one or $\PsDp$ candidate in an event, the one with the smallest
vertex fit $\chi^{2}$ is selected. Once a candidate is found, its trajectory
is extrapolated to the beamline and the primary vertex is selected as the
reconstructed $\Pp\Pp$ collision vertex that is closest to the extrapolated
point.

To improve the signal-to-background ratio for the $\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm$ sample,
a BDT is trained using simulated signal events (including $\PGt$ leptons
produced from both charm and bottom decays) and background events from the
data sideband region. The training utilizes 10 variables: the smallest muon
momentum, three distinct muon quality criteria (each using the “worst” value
of the three muon candidates), the $\chi^{2}$ of the trimuon vertex fit, the
angle between the trimuon momentum vector and the vector connecting the
primary and trimuon vertices, the distance between the trimuon vertex and the
primary vertex divided by the uncertainty in that distance, the smallest
transverse impact parameter of the muons with respect to the primary vertex,
and two isolation variables. The first isolation variable is the smallest
distance of closest approach to the trimuon vertex of all other tracks in the
event with $\pt>1\GeV$. The second isolation variable sums the of all tracks
with $\pt>1\GeV$, $\Delta R<0.3$ with respect to the muon candidate, and with
a distance of closest approach with respect to the muon candidate below 1, and
divides this sum by the muon candidate . The largest value of the isolation
parameter among the three muons is used by the BDT.

The BDT is trained and tested on independent samples with no evidence of
overtraining. The BDT output was also verified to be independent of the
trimuon invariant mass. A BDT for the normalization mode is similarly trained
using the same 10 variables (modified to account for one less muon). The
efficiency as a function of the BDT requirement is measured with both actual
and simulated data for the normalization mode. The largest discrepancy, 5%, is
taken as a systematic uncertainty associated with modeling the BDT efficiency.

To improve the sensitivity of the analysis, the candidates are separated into
six categories depending on the BDT score and the trimuon invariant mass
resolution (the ratio of the mass uncertainty $\sigma_{m}$, calculated from
propagating the track parameter uncertainties, to the invariant mass $m$).
There are three mass resolution bins: $\sigma_{m}/m\leq 0.7\%$,
$0.7\%<\sigma_{m}/m<1.0\%$, and $\sigma_{m}/m\geq 1.0\%$, with average mass
resolutions of 12, 19, and 25, and labeled A, B, and C, respectively. The
first and last bins roughly correspond to barrel and endcap events,
respectively. Each mass resolution bin is then divided into three bins based
on the BDT score. The highest two BDT bins in each mass resolution bin are
used in the search, with the highest signal-to-background bin given the label
“1” and the other “2”. Thus, the six categories are labeled A1, A2, B1, B2,
C1, and C2. The values of the two BDT bin boundaries in each mass resolution
bin are determined independently by simultaneously scanning both values to
find the result that gives the best expected upper limit on
$\mathcal{B}(\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm)$. The trimuon invariant mass distribution for
each category is shown in Fig. 2, along with a background-only fit (described
in Section 0.6) and the contribution expected for a signal with
$\mathcal{B}(\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm)=10^{-7}$.

Figure 2: Trimuon invariant mass distributions in the six independent event
categories used in the heavy-flavor analysis and defined in the text: A1, A2,
B1, B2, C1, C2. The data are shown with filled circles and vertical bars
representing the statistical uncertainty. The background-only fit and the
expected signal for $\mathcal{B}(\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm)=10^{-7}$ are shown with
solid and dashed lines, respectively.

###  0.5.2 Signal yield normalization

Results from simulation indicate that the leptons in the data sample
overwhelmingly come from three disjoint sources: prompt meson decays (the
meson is not from a hadron decay), hadron decays (directly from hadron
decays), and nonprompt meson decays (the is from a hadron decay), with
contributions of 65, 25, and 10%, respectively. More than 95% of the leptons
produced from charm meson decays are from meson decays, with the remainder
from meson decays. Approximately 75% of the signal is expected to come from
the L1 dimuon trigger, and can be directly calibrated using
$\PsDp\\!\to\\!\PGf\PGpp\\!\to\\!\PGmp\PGmm\PGpp$ events since they pass the
same trigger. The remaining 25% of the expected signal is obtained exclusively
from the L1 trimuon trigger. As detailed in Section 0.6, the final results are
obtained from a fit that uses both the expected number of background events
and the relationship between $\mathcal{B}(\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm)$ and the
expected number of signal events. While this relationship can be obtained from
an equation similar to Eq. (1), the heavy-flavor production cross sections
have large uncertainties. To mitigate this, and correct for effects like the
L1 trigger misconfiguration during the first half of 2016, we extract the
expected signal yields using methods based on control samples in data to
calibrate the production of leptons.

#### Yield of events from dimuon L1 triggers

The expected number of $\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm$ signal events from meson decays
that pass the dimuon L1 triggers, denoted $N_{\text{sig}(\PD)}$, is related to
$\mathcal{B}(\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm)$ by:

$N_{\text{sig}(\PD)}=N_{\text{norm}}\frac{\mathcal{B}(\PsDp\\!\to\\!\PGtp\PGn)}{\mathcal{B}(\PsDp\\!\to\\!\PGf\PGpp\\!\to\\!\PGmp\PGmm\PGpp)}\frac{\mathcal{A}_{3\Pgm(\PD)}}{\mathcal{A}_{\Pgm\Pgm\Pgp}}\frac{\epsilon_{3\PGm(\PD)}^{\text{reco}}}{\epsilon_{\Pgm\Pgm\Pgp}^{\text{reco}}}\frac{\epsilon_{3\PGm(\PD)}^{2\PGm\text{trig}}}{\epsilon_{\Pgm\Pgm\Pgp}^{2\Pgm\text{trig}}}\,\mathcal{B}(\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm),$
(2)

where $N_{\text{norm}}$ is the measured
$\PsDp\\!\to\\!\PGf\PGpp\\!\to\\!\PGmp\PGmm\PGpp$ yield, $\mathcal{A}$,
$\epsilon^{\text{reco}}$, and $\epsilon^{\text{trig}}$ are the detector
acceptance, selection efficiency, and trigger efficiency for the two channels,
respectively, and the branching fractions are
$\mathcal{B}(\PsDp\\!\to\\!\PGtp\PGn)=(5.48\pm 0.23)\%$ and
$\mathcal{B}(\PsDp\\!\to\\!\PGf\PGpp\\!\to\\!\PGmp\PGmm\PGpp)=(1.3\pm
0.1)\times 10^{-5}$ [27]. Figure 3 (left) shows the $\PGm\PGm\Pgp$ invariant
mass distribution with fits to the and peaks using Crystal Ball functions [29]
for the signal and an exponential function for the background, from which
$N_{\text{norm}}$ can be extracted from the peak on the right. Note that
$N_{\text{sig}(\PD)}$ includes contributions from directly produced mesons and
mesons from hadron decays. To evaluate the degree to which the normalization
mode mimics the signal mode, the ratio of the
$\PsDp\\!\to\\!\PGf\PGpp\\!\to\\!\PGmp\PGmm\PGpp$ yield to the number of
signal sideband events is measured for seven different run periods. Assuming
these seven values are measuring the same quantity, we use the scale-factor
method [27] to derive a systematic uncertainty of 10%.

Figure 3: Left: the $\PGm\PGm\Pgp$ invariant mass distribution with fits to
the and peaks and the background. Right: background-subtracted proper decay
length distribution for $\PsDp\\!\to\\!\PGf\PGpp\\!\to\\!\PGmp\PGmm\PGpp$
events (points) and the fitted contributions from mesons produced directly
(open histogram) and from hadron decays (filled histogram). The highest bin
also contains the overflow events. The vertical bars in both plots represent
the statistical uncertainties in the data.

The expected number of $\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm$ signal events from decays of the
form $\PB\\!\to\\!\PGt+X$ coming from the dimuon L1 triggers, denoted
$N_{\text{sig}(\PB)}$, is related to $\mathcal{B}(\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm)$ by:

$N_{\text{sig}(\PB)}=N_{\text{norm}}\,f\,\frac{\mathcal{B}(\PB\\!\to\\!\PGt+X)}{\mathcal{B}(\PsDp\\!\to\\!\PGf\PGpp\\!\to\\!\PGmp\PGmm\PGpp)\mathcal{B}(\PB\\!\to\\!\PsDp+X)}\frac{\mathcal{A}_{3\PGm(\PB)}}{\mathcal{A}_{\Pgm\Pgm\Pgp}}\frac{\epsilon_{3\PGm(\PB)}^{\text{reco}}}{\epsilon_{\Pgm\Pgm\Pgp}^{\text{reco}}}\frac{\epsilon_{3\PGm(\PB)}^{2\PGm\text{trig}}}{\epsilon_{\Pgm\Pgm\Pgp}^{2\Pgm\text{trig}}}\,\mathcal{B}(\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm),$
(3)

where $N_{\text{norm}}$ is the measured
$\PsDp\\!\to\\!\PGf\PGpp\\!\to\\!\PGmp\PGmm\PGpp$ yield, $f$ is the fraction
of observed $\PsDp$ mesons from hadron decays, and $\mathcal{A}$,
$\epsilon^{\text{reco}}$, and $\epsilon^{\text{trig}}$ are the detector
acceptance, selection efficiency, and trigger efficiency for the two channels,
respectively. The newly introduced branching fractions are
$\mathcal{B}(\PB\\!\to\\!\PGt+X)=(3.4\pm 0.4)\%$ (including the measured 2.7%
from $\PB\\!\to\\!\PGt\PGn\PD^{(*)}$ decays [27] and an estimated 0.7% from
other decays based on ) and $\mathcal{B}(\PB\\!\to\\!\PsDp+X)=(10.0\pm 1.6)\%$
(averaging the measured and branching fractions [27]).

The fraction $f$ can be calculated as
$f=\sigma(\Pp\Pp\\!\to\\!\PB)\mathcal{B}(\PB\\!\to\\!\PsDp+X)/\sigma(\Pp\Pp\\!\to\\!\PsDp)$.
Since the mesons produced from hadron decays will tend to decay farther from
the $\Pp\Pp$ collision vertex than directly produced mesons, we use the proper
decay length distribution to measure $f$. The proper decay length is $LM/p$
where $L$ is the distance between the primary vertex and the $\Pgm\Pgm\Pgp$
vertex, $M$ is the $\Pgm\Pgm\Pgp$ invariant mass, and $p$ is the
$\Pgm\Pgm\Pgp$ momentum. Figure 3 (right) shows the proper decay length
distribution for mesons in which the background has been subtracted using the
invariant mass sidebands. The proper decay length distribution shapes for
mesons directly produced (open histogram) and from decays (shaded histogram)
are obtained from simulation. The data distribution is fit to a linear sum of
these two simulation shapes, yielding a measured value of $f=0.267\pm 0.015$.
The value from simulation of $0.240\pm 0.001$ is used in the analysis and the
difference between the two values is included as a systematic uncertainty.

The small contributions from $\PDp\\!\to\\!\PGt+X$ and
$\HepParticle{\PB}{s}{0}\\!\to\\!\PGt+X$ decays are added by scaling the
$\PsDp\\!\to\\!\PGtp\PGn$ and $\PB\\!\to\\!\PGt+X$ predictions by 0.04 and
0.12, respectively, as determined from simulation. A systematic uncertainty
equal to the total contribution in each case is assessed. The much smaller
contribution $({\sim}0.1\%)$ from direct baryon decays is not included.

Uncertainties in the ratios of event selection acceptances
$(\mathcal{A}_{3\Pgm(\PD)}/\mathcal{A}_{\Pgm\Pgm\Pgp}$ and
$\mathcal{A}_{3\PGm(\PB)}/\mathcal{A}_{\Pgm\Pgm\Pgp})$ are estimated by
changing the parton distribution function sets in the corresponding simulated
events. Although the acceptances change by up to 7%, the ratios remain
constant within $\mathcal{O}(1\%)$, consistent with the statistical
uncertainty associated with the size of the simulated samples. In the ratio
$\epsilon_{3\PGm}^{\text{reco}}/\epsilon_{\PGm\PGm\pi}^{\text{reco}}$, the
muon reconstruction efficiency does not cancel exactly since the numerator
refers to events with three muons and the denominator to events with only two.
We derive data-to-simulation corrections for the muon reconstruction
efficiency in bins of muon and $\eta$ using the tag-and-probe method [30]
applied to $\cPJgy\\!\to\\!\PGm\PGm$ data events. These additional corrections
are then applied to signal events. The systematic uncertainty in the
correction is estimated to be 1.5%.

#### Yield of events exclusively from trimuon L1 triggers

As described in Section 0.3, the data are collected using both dimuon and
trimuon triggers. The data collected using trimuon triggers cannot be directly
normalized to $\PsDp\\!\to\\!\PGf\PGpp\\!\to\\!\PGmp\PGmm\PGpp$, as this decay
only contains two muons. The simulation predicts that the fraction of signal
events triggered exclusively through the L1 trimuon trigger is 33% of the
events passing the L1 dimuon triggers. When measured from events in the
sideband region, this ratio is found to be 35% using data collected after the
initial trigger problems were fixed, a 6% difference. The data-to-simulation
correction for the dimuon trigger, measured in
$\PsDp\\!\to\\!\PGf\PGpp\\!\to\\!\PGmp\PGmm\PGpp$ events, is 0.90 for the same
data-taking period. We scale up the dimuon-triggered predicted yields for this
data-taking period by the simulation value of 33% and assign a systematic
uncertainty of 12% to account for the observed 6 and 10% differences. For the
initial data-taking periods, the expected yield is scaled by the ratio of the
trimuon trigger rates in the early and late periods, with the same 12%
uncertainty.

###  0.5.3 Systematic uncertainties

The systematic uncertainties associated with the expected signal event yield,
as described previously, are summarized in Table 0.5.3. In addition,
systematic uncertainties related to the signal and background shapes are
evaluated. The signal invariant mass shape uncertainties are estimated by
comparing data and simulation results for the fitted value of the mean and
resolution in $\PsDp\\!\to\\!\PGf\PGpp\\!\to\\!\PGmp\PGmm\PGpp$ decays. The
mean value is found to be 0.07% higher in simulation and therefore the mass in
the signal simulation is shifted by ${-}0.07\%$ with a systematic uncertainty
of 0.07%. The resolution is found to be 2% smaller in simulation and thus the
signal simulation resolution is increased by 2%, with a systematic uncertainty
of 2.5%, consistent with the statistical precision of the measurement. The
uncertainty in the background shape is obtained by varying the functional form
from the default exponential to a third-order polynomial and a power-law
function. This is found to contribute an uncertainty of less than 1%.

The sources of systematic uncertainties in the heavy-flavor analysis affecting
signal modeling and their impact on the expected signal event yield. The
columns labeled Uncertainty and Yield give the relative uncertainty associated
with the source, and the resulting effect on the yield, respectively.  Source
of uncertainty Uncertainty (%) Yield (%) normalization 10 10
$\mathcal{B}(\PsDp\\!\to\\!\PGtp\PGn)$ 4 3
$\mathcal{B}(\PsDp\\!\to\\!\PGf\PGpp\\!\to\\!\PGmp\PGmm\PGpp)$ 8 8
$\mathcal{B}(\PB\\!\to\\!\PsDp+X)$ 16 5 $\mathcal{B}(\PB\\!\to\\!\PGt+X)$ 11 3
$\PB/\PD$ ratio $f$ 11 3 Number of events from L1 trimuon trigger 12 3
Acceptance ratio $\mathcal{A}_{3\PGm}/\mathcal{A}_{\Pgm\Pgm\Pgp}$ 1 1 Muon
reconstruction efficiency 1 1 BDT requirement efficiency 5 5 Total 16

##  0.6 Results

The branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm)$ is extracted from a
simultaneous unbinned maximum likelihood fit to the trimuon invariant mass
distribution (1.6–2) in the two categories of the boson analysis and the six
categories of the heavy-flavor analysis.

For the boson analysis, the signal model is a Gaussian function with fixed
mean and width, as determined from fitting the simulated events in the
appropriate category. For the heavy-flavor selection, the signal model is a
Gaussian plus Crystal Ball function [29] with fixed mean and width, as
determined from fitting the simulated events in the appropriate category and
modified as described in Section 0.5.3. In all cases, the background model is
an exponential function with parameters and normalization determined by the
fit.

As can be seen in the trimuon invariant mass plots of Figs. 1 and 2, no
evidence for a $\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm$ signal is found. Upper limits on
$\mathcal{B}(\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm)$ are determined from a fully frequentist
method [31] based on modified profile likelihood test statistics and the
criterion [32, 33]. Systematic uncertainties are incorporated in the analysis
via nuisance parameters. Uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated between
the two channels. A log-normal probability density function is assumed for the
nuisance parameters affecting the corrected signal yields. Events from data
and simulation that pass the selection criteria of both analyses are removed
from the heavy-flavor analysis in the combined fit.

The observed (expected) upper limit at 90% on
$\mathcal{B}(\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm)$ using all events is $8.0\times 10^{-8}$
$(6.9\times 10^{-8})$. Fitting the boson and heavy-flavor events separately
returns observed (expected) 90% upper limits of $20\times 10^{-8}$ $(13\times
10^{-8})$ and $9.2\times 10^{-8}$ $(10.0\times 10^{-8})$, respectively.

##  0.7 Summary

The results of a search for the lepton flavor violating decay
$\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm$, using proton-proton collisions with a center-of-mass
energy of 13at the LHC, are presented. The search uses data collected by CMS
in 2016, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 33.2, and, for the first
time, combines the result of two analyses: one targeting leptons produced in
boson decays and the other using leptons from heavy-flavor hadron decays. No
signal is observed, and the branching fraction
$\mathcal{B}(\PGt\\!\to\\!3\PGm)$ is determined to be less than $8.0\times
10^{-8}$ at 90% confidence level, with an expected upper limit of $6.9\times
10^{-8}$. While the limit obtained in this measurement is still a factor of
four away from the current most restrictive one from the Belle experiment [8],
we have achieved similar sensitivity to that by BaBar [7] and LHCb [9].

###### 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 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] X.-Y. Pham, “Lepton flavor changing in neutrinoless $\tau$ decays”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 8 (1999) 513, 10.1007/s100529901088, arXiv:hep-ph/9810484.
  * [2] G. Hernández-Tomé, G. López Castro, and P. Roig, “Flavor violating leptonic decays of $\tau$ and $\mu$ leptons in the Standard Model with massive neutrinos”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 84, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6563-4, arXiv:1807.06050.
  * [3] P. Blackstone, M. Fael, and E. Passemar, “$\tau\to\mu\mu\mu$ at a rate of one out of $10^{14}$ tau decays?”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 506, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8059-7, arXiv:1912.09862.
  * [4] W. J. Marciano, T. Mori, and J. M. Roney, “Charged lepton flavor violation experiments”,  Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 58 (2008) 315, 10.1146/annurev.nucl.58.110707.171126.
  * [5] M. Raidal et al., “Flavour physics of leptons and dipole moments”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 57 (2008) 13, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-008-0715-2, arXiv:0801.1826.
  * [6] E. Arganda and M. J. Herrero, “Testing supersymmetry with lepton flavor violating $\tau$ and $\mu$ decays”,  Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 055003, 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.055003, arXiv:hep-ph/0510405.
  * [7] BaBar Collaboration, “Improved limits on the lepton-flavor violating decays $\tau^{-}\to\ell^{-}\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007) 251803, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.251803, arXiv:0708.3650.
  * [8] Belle Collaboration, “Search for lepton flavor violating $\tau$ decays into three leptons with 719 million produced $\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ pairs”,  Phys. Lett. B 687 (2010) 139, 10.1016/j.physletb.2010.03.037, arXiv:1001.3221.
  * [9] LHCb Collaboration, “Search for the lepton flavour violating decay $\tau^{-}\to\mu^{-}\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$”,  JHEP 02 (2015) 121, 10.1007/JHEP02(2015)121, arXiv:1409.8548.
  * [10] ATLAS Collaboration, “Probing lepton flavour violation via neutrinoless $\tau\to 3\mu$ decays with the ATLAS detector”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 232, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4041-9, arXiv:1601.03567.
  * [11] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [12] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [13] 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.
  * [14] 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.
  * [15] 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.
  * [16] 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.
  * [17] 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.
  * [18] 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.
  * [19] D. J. Lange, “The EvtGen particle decay simulation package”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 462 (2001) 152, 10.1016/S0168-9002(01)00089-4.
  * [20] GEANT4 Collaboration, “—a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [21] 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.
  * [22] 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.
  * [23] T. Chen and C. Guestrin, “XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system”, in  Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD ’16, p. 785.  ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2016.  10.1145/2939672.2939785.
  * [24] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of reconstruction and identification of $\tau$ leptons decaying to hadrons and $\nu_{\tau}$ in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  JINST 13 (2018) P10005, 10.1088/1748-0221/13/10/P10005, arXiv:1809.02816.
  * [25] CMS Collaboration, “Multivariate determination of the missing energy in the transverse plane $(E^{\text{miss}}_{\text{T}})$ at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$”, CMS Detector Performance Note CMS-DP-2015-042, 2015.
  * [26] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of $\PW^{\pm}$ and $\PZ$-boson production cross sections in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Lett. B 759 (2016) 601, 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.06.023, arXiv:1603.09222.
  * [27] Particle Data Group, M. Tanabashi et al., “Review of particle physics”,  Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 030001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.030001.
  * [28] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data taking period”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001, 2017.
  * [29] M. J. Oreglia, “A study of the reactions $\psi^{\prime}\to\gamma\gamma\psi$”.  PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1980.  SLAC Report SLAC-R-236.
  * [30] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inclusive $\PW$ and $\PZ$ production cross sections in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”,  JHEP 10 (2011) 132, 10.1007/JHEP10(2011)132, arXiv:1107.4789.
  * [31] The ATLAS Collaboration, The CMS Collaboration, The LHC Higgs Combination Group, “Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011”, Technical Report CMS-NOTE-2011-005, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-11, 2011.
  * [32] 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.
  * [33] A. L. Read, “Presentation of search results: The CL${}_{\text{s}}$ technique”,  J. Phys. G 28 (2002) 2693, 10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/313.

##  .8 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, A. Tumasyan Institut für
Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, T. Bergauer, M. Dragicevic, J. Erö, A. Escalante Del
Valle, R. Frühwirth1, M. Jeitler1, N. Krammer, L. Lechner, D. Liko, T.
Madlener, 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, H. Delannoy, 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. Wuyckens, J. Zobec Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas
Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
G.A. Alves, G. Correia Silva, 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, M. Melo De Almeida, 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, E.J. Tonelli Manganote5, F. Torres Da Silva De Araujo, A. Vilela
Pereira Universidade Estadual Paulista a, Universidade Federal do ABC b, São
Paulo, Brazil
C.A. Bernardesa, L. Calligarisa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M. Gregoresb,
D.S. Lemosa, P.G. Mercadanteb, 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
M. Bonchev, A. Dimitrov, T. Ivanov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov, A. Petrov
Beihang University, Beijing, China
W. Fang3, Q. Guo, H. Wang, L. Yuan Department of Physics, Tsinghua University,
Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, Z. Hu, Y. Wang Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
E. Chapon, G.M. Chen9, H.S. Chen9, M. Chen, C.H. Jiang, D. Leggat, H. Liao, Z.
Liu, R. Sharma, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, J. Thomas-wilsker, J. Wang, H. Zhang, S.
Zhang9, J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking
University, Beijing, China
A. Agapitos, Y. Ban, C. Chen, A. Levin, J. Li, 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, T. Sculac University of
Split, Faculty of Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, D. Majumder, B. Mesic, M. Roguljic, A.
Starodumov10, T. Susa University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, E. Erodotou, A. Ioannou, G. Kole, M. Kolosova, S.
Konstantinou, G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos, P.A.
Razis, H. Rykaczewski, H. Saka, D. Tsiakkouri Charles University, Prague,
Czech Republic
M. Finger11, M. Finger Jr.11, 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
A.A. Abdelalim12,13, S. Abu Zeid14, S. Khalil13 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. Laurila, 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
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-Navarro15,
M. Titov, G.B. Yu Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, CNRS/IN2P3, Ecole
Polytechnique, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Paris, France
S. Ahuja, C. Amendola, F. Beaudette, M. Bonanomi, P. Busson, C. Charlot, O.
Davignon, B. Diab, G. Falmagne, R. Granier de Cassagnac, 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. Agram16, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, G. Bourgatte, J.-M. Brom, E.C. Chabert, C.
Collard, J.-C. Fontaine16, 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
G. Adamov Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
Z. Tsamalaidze11 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, P. Millet, G.
Mocellin, S. Mondal, S. Mukherjee, D. Noll, A. Novak, T. Pook, A. Pozdnyakov,
T. Quast, M. Radziej, 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 Ahmad17, O. Hlushchenko, T. Kress, A. Nowack, C.
Pistone, O. Pooth, D. Roy, H. Sert, A. Stahl18, 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. Borras19, 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, A. Elwood, L.I. Estevez Banos, E. Gallo20,
A. Geiser, A. Giraldi, A. Grohsjean, M. Guthoff, M. Haranko, A. Harb, A.
Jafari21, N.Z. Jomhari, H. Jung, A. Kasem19, M. Kasemann, H. Kaveh, J.
Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, J. Knolle, D. Krücker, W. Lange, T. Lenz, J. Lidrych,
K. Lipka, W. Lohmann22, 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, P. Schütze, C. Schwanenberger, R.
Shevchenko, A. Singh, R.E. Sosa Ricardo, H. Tholen, 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, F. Feindt, A. Fröhlich, C. Garbers, E. Garutti, D. Gonzalez, P.
Gunnellini, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, A. Karavdina, G. Kasieczka, R. Klanner, R.
Kogler, S. Kurz, V. Kutzner, J. Lange, T. Lange, A. Malara, J. Multhaup,
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
M. Baselga, S. Baur, 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. Hartmann18, C. Heidecker, U. Husemann, M.A. Iqbal, I.
Katkov23, P. Keicher, R. Koppenhöfer, S. Kudella, S. Maier, M. Metzler, S.
Mitra, M.U. Mozer, 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, C. Wöhrmann, 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, S. Mallios, K.
Manitara, N. Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, J. Strologas MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS
Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest,
Hungary
M. Bartók24, R. Chudasama, M. Csanad, M.M.A. Gadallah25, 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. Horvath26, F. Sikler, V. Veszpremi, G.
Vesztergombi${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$ Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI,
Debrecen, Hungary
N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi24, 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. Csorgo, S. Lökös27, F. Nemes, 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. Bahinipati28, D. Dash, C. Kar, P. Mal, T. Mishra, V.K. Muraleedharan Nair
Bindhu, A. Nayak29, D.K. Sahoo28, N. Sur, S.K. Swain Panjab University,
Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, S. Chauhan, N. Dhingra30, R. Gupta, A.
Kaur, A. Kaur, S. Kaur, P. Kumari, M. Lohan, 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. Bharti31, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, D. Bhowmik, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh,
B. Gomber32, M. Maity33, S. Nandan, P. Palit, A. Purohit, P.K. Rout, G. Saha,
S. Sarkar, M. Sharan, B. Singh31, S. Thakur31 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. Jha, V. Kumar, D.K. Mishra, K. Naskar34, 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, U. Sarkar Tata Institute of
Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, P. Das, M. Guchait, S. Karmakar,
S. Kumar, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, S. Mukherjee, D. Roy, N. Sahoo Indian
Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, India
S. Dube, B. Kansal, A. Kapoor, K. Kothekar, S. Pandey, A. Rane, A. Rastogi, S.
Sharma Department of Physics, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
H. Bakhshiansohi35 Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM),
Tehran, Iran
S. Chenarani36, S.M. Etesami, M. Khakzad, M. Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri
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,37, 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, 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,b, 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, C. Grandia, L. Guiduccia,b, F.
Iemmia,b, S. Lo Meoa,38, 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,39, S. Costaa,b, A. Di Mattiaa, R. Potenzaa,b, A. Tricomia,b,39,
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,18,
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, D. Menascea, F. Montia,b,
L. Moronia, M. Paganonia,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Ragazzia,b, T. Tabarelli de
Fatisa,b, D. Valsecchia,b,18, 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. Layera,b, L. Listaa,b, S. Meolaa,d,18, P. Paoluccia,18, 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, A. Bolettia,b, A. Bragagnoloa,b, R. Carlina,b, P.
Checchiaa, P. De Castro Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa, F. Gasparinia,b, U.
Gasparinia,b, S.Y. Hoha,b, M. Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,b, M. Presillab, P.
Ronchesea,b, R. Rossina,b, F. Simonettoa,b, G. Strong, A. Tikoa, 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
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. 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, 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, 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, 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, B.C. Radburn-Smith, 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, J. Lee, Y. Lee, I. Yu Riga Technical
University, Riga, Latvia
V. Veckalns40 Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
A. Juodagalvis, A. Rinkevicius, G. Tamulaitis 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
H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, I. Heredia-De La Cruz41, R. Lopez-
Fernandez, 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, M.I.M. Awan, Q. Hassan, 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, A. Byszuk42, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J.
Krolikowski, M. Olszewski, M. Walczak Laboratório de Instrumentação e Física
Experimental de Partículas, Lisboa, Portugal
M. Araujo, P. Bargassa, D. Bastos, A. Di Francesco, P. Faccioli, B. Galinhas,
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, P. Bunin, M. Gavrilenko, I. Golutvin, I. Gorbunov, A. Kamenev,
V. Karjavine, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev43,44, P. Moisenz, V. Palichik,
V. Perelygin, M. Savina, D. Seitova, V. Shalaev, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, V.
Smirnov, O. Teryaev, N. Voytishin, A. Zarubin, I. Zhizhin Petersburg Nuclear
Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg), Russia
G. Gavrilov, V. Golovtcov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim45, E. Kuznetsova46, 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, 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. Nikitenko47, V. Popov, I.
Pozdnyakov, 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
O. Bychkova, D. Philippov, E. Popova, V. Rusinov, E. Zhemchugov 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. Baskakov, A. Belyaev, E. Boos, V. Bunichev, M. Dubinin48, L. Dudko, A.
Ershov, A. Gribushin, V. Klyukhin, O. Kodolova, I. Lokhtin, S. Obraztsov, V.
Savrin Novosibirsk State University (NSU), Novosibirsk, Russia
V. Blinov49, T. Dimova49, L. Kardapoltsev49, I. Ovtin49, Y. Skovpen49
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. Adzic50, 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, J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, 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, O. Gonzalez Lopez, S. Goy Lopez,
J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa, D. Moran, Á. Navarro Tobar, A. Pérez-Calero
Yzquierdo, J. Puerta Pelayo, I. Redondo, L. Romero, S. Sánchez Navas, M.S.
Soares, A. Triossi, 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, V. Rodríguez
Bouza, S. Sanchez Cruz 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, 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. Russo51, L. Scodellaro, I. Vila,
J.M. Vizan Garcia University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka
MK Jayananda, B. Kailasapathy52, 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, M. Bianco, A. Bocci, P. Bortignon,
E. Bossini, E. Brondolin, T. Camporesi, G. Cerminara, L. Cristella, D.
d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, N. Daci, V. Daponte, A. David, A. De Roeck, M.
Deile, R. Di Maria, M. Dobson, M. Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, N.
Emriskova, F. Fallavollita53, D. Fasanella, S. Fiorendi, G. Franzoni, J.
Fulcher, W. Funk, S. Giani, D. Gigi, K. Gill, F. Glege, L. Gouskos, M.
Guilbaud, D. Gulhan, J. Hegeman, Y. Iiyama, V. Innocente, T. James, P. Janot,
J. Kaspar, J. Kieseler, M. Komm, N. Kratochwil, C. Lange, P. Lecoq, K. Long,
C. Lourenço, L. Malgeri, M. Mannelli, A. Massironi, F. Meijers, S. Mersi, E.
Meschi, F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, J. Ngadiuba, J. Niedziela, S. Orfanelli, L.
Orsini, F. Pantaleo18, L. Pape, E. Perez, M. Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G.
Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, 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. Sphicas54, J. Steggemann, 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. Caminada55, 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, 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, P.
Musella, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, F. Pauss, V. Perovic, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, S.
Pigazzini, M.G. Ratti, M. Reichmann, C. Reissel, T. Reitenspiess, B. Ristic,
D. Ruini, D.A. Sanz Becerra, M. Schönenberger, L. Shchutska, V. Stampf, M.L.
Vesterbacka Olsson, R. Wallny, D.H. Zhu Universität Zürich, Zurich,
Switzerland
C. Amsler56, C. Botta, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, 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, S. Wertz National Central
University, Chung-Li, Taiwan
C. Adloff57, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A. Roy, T. Sarkar33, 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. Damarseckin58, Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, C. Dozen59, I.
Dumanoglu60, E. Eskut, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, E. Gurpinar Guler61, I. Hos62,
C. Isik, E.E. Kangal63, O. Kara, A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, G. Onengut, K.
Ozdemir64, A. Polatoz, A.E. Simsek, B. Tali65, U.G. Tok, S. Turkcapar, I.S.
Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East Technical University, Physics Department,
Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak66, G. Karapinar67, K. Ocalan68, M. Yalvac69 Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya70, O. Kaya71, Ö. Özçelik, S. Tekten72, E.A.
Yetkin73 Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
A. Cakir, K. Cankocak60, Y. Komurcu, S. Sen74 Istanbul University, Istanbul,
Turkey
F. Aydogmus Sen, S. Cerci65, B. Kaynak, S. Ozkorucuklu, D. Sunar Cerci65
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, D. Burns75, 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, J. Taylor, A.
Titterton Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev76, 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. Chahal77, D. Colling, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M.
Della Negra, P. Everaerts, G. Fedi, G. Hall, G. Iles, J. Langford, L. Lyons,
A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, A. Martelli, V. Milosevic, J. Nash78, V. Palladino, M.
Pesaresi, D.M. Raymond, A. Richards, A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A.
Shtipliyski, M. Stoye, A. Tapper, K. Uchida, T. Virdee18, N. Wardle, S.N.
Webb, D. Winterbottom, A.G. Zecchinelli, S.C. Zenz 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
A. Brinkerhoff, K. Call, B. Caraway, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, A.R.
Kanuganti, C. Madrid, B. McMaster, N. Pastika, S. Sawant, C. Smith 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, P. Rumerio,
C. West Boston University, Boston, USA
A. Akpinar, A. Albert, D. Arcaro, C. Cosby, Z. Demiragli, D. Gastler, C.
Richardson, J. Rohlf, K. Salyer, D. Sperka, D. Spitzbart, I. Suarez, S. Yuan,
D. Zou Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, B. Burkle, X. Coubez19, D. Cutts, Y.t. Duh, M. Hadley, U. Heintz,
J.M. Hogan79, K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, K.T. Lau, J. Lee, M.
Narain, S. Sagir80, 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, C. Bravo, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, A. Florent, D. Hamilton, J.
Hauser, M. Ignatenko, 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, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi, 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, M. Derdzinski,
J. Duarte, R. Gerosa, D. Gilbert, B. Hashemi, D. Klein, 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, R. Bhandari, 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
D. Anderson, A. Bornheim, O. Cerri, I. Dutta, J.M. Lawhorn, N. Lu, J. Mao,
H.B. Newman, T.Q. Nguyen, J. Pata, M. Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, 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, M. Weinberg 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
S. Abdullin, 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, T.
Klijnsma, B. Klima, M.J. Kortelainen, S. Lammel, J. Lewis, 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. Pena48,
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, M.
Wang, 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. Wang, S.
Wang, X. Zuo Florida International University, Miami, USA
Y.R. Joshi 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, H. Wang, X. Wang, Z. Wu The
University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, B. Bilki61, K. Dilsiz81, S. Durgut, R.P. Gandrajula, M.
Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko, O.K. Köseyan, J.-P. Merlo, A. Mestvirishvili82, A.
Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul83, Y. Onel, F. Ozok84, A. Penzo, C. Snyder, E.
Tiras, J. Wetzel, K. Yi85 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, 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
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, S. Guts${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, 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, I. Kravchenko, J.E. Siado, G.R.
Snow${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, B. Stieger, W. Tabb State University of New
York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
G. Agarwal, C. Harrington, L. Hay, I. Iashvili, A. Kharchilava, C. McLean, D.
Nguyen, A. Parker, J. Pekkanen, S. Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani Northeastern
University, Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, Y. Haddad, A. Hortiangtham, G. Madigan, B.
Marzocchi, D.M. Morse, V. Nguyen, T. Orimoto, 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, W. Li, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, I. Mcalister, F.
Meng, K. Mohrman, Y. Musienko43, 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, W. Ji,
A. Lefeld, B.L. Winer, B.R. Yates Princeton University, Princeton, USA
G. Dezoort, 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, B. Mahakud, G.
Negro, N. Neumeister, C.C. Peng, S. Piperov, H. Qiu, J.F. Schulte, N.
Trevisani, F. Wang, R. Xiao, W. Xie Purdue University Northwest, Hammond, USA
T. Cheng, J. Dolen, N. Parashar, M. Stojanovic 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, Z. Tu, A. Zhang 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. Karacheban22, I. Laflotte, A. Lath, R.
Montalvo, K. Nash, M. Osherson, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, S. Somalwar, R. Stone,
S.A. Thayil, S. Thomas University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
H. Acharya, A.G. Delannoy, S. Spanier Texas A&M University, College Station,
USA
O. Bouhali86, M. Dalchenko, A. Delgado, R. Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T.
Kamon87, 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, M. Verweij
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
L. Ang, M.W. Arenton, B. Cox, G. Cummings, J. Hakala, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A.
Ledovskoy, C. Neu, B. Tannenwald, Y. Wang, E. Wolfe, F. Xia Wayne State
University, Detroit, USA
P.E. Karchin, N. Poudyal, J. Sturdy, P. Thapa University of Wisconsin -
Madison, Madison, WI, USA
K. Black, T. Bose, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, S. Dasu, I. De Bruyn, L. Dodd, C.
Galloni, H. He, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, A. Lanaro, A. Loeliger, R.
Loveless, J. Madhusudanan Sreekala, A. Mallampalli, D. Pinna, T. Ruggles, 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 Department 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 University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
10: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics named by A.I.
Alikhanov of NRC ‘Kurchatov Institute’, Moscow, Russia
11: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
12: Also at Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
13: Now at Zewail City of Science and Technology, Zewail, Egypt
14: Also at Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
15: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
16: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
17: Also at Erzincan Binali Yildirim University, Erzincan, Turkey
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 Department of Physics, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan,
Iran, Isfahan, Iran
22: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
23: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
24: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary,
Debrecen, Hungary
25: Also at Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Assiut University, Assiut,
Egypt
26: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
27: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary, Budapest, Hungary
28: Also at IIT Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India, Bhubaneswar, India
29: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
30: Also at G.H.G. Khalsa College, Punjab, India
31: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India
32: Also at University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India
33: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
34: Also at Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Mumbai, India
35: Also at Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
36: Also at Department of Physics, University of Science and Technology of
Mazandaran, Behshahr, Iran
37: Now at INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b, Politecnico di Bari
c, Bari, Italy
38: Also at Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and
Sustainable Economic Development, Bologna, Italy
39: Also at Centro Siciliano di Fisica Nucleare e di Struttura Della Materia,
Catania, Italy
40: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia, Riga, Latvia
41: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico City, Mexico
42: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems,
Warsaw, Poland
43: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
44: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
45: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
46: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
47: Also at Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
48: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
49: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
50: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
51: Also at Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy
52: Also at Trincomalee Campus, Eastern University, Sri Lanka, Nilaveli, Sri
Lanka
53: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy,
Pavia, Italy
54: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
55: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
56: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics, Vienna, Austria,
Vienna, Austria
57: Also at Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules,
IN2P3-CNRS, Annecy-le-Vieux, France
58: Also at Şırnak University, Sirnak, Turkey
59: Also at Department of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China,
Beijing, China
60: Also at Near East University, Research Center of Experimental Health
Science, Nicosia, Turkey
61: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey, Istanbul, Turkey
62: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Application and Research Center for
Advanced Studies (App. & Res. Cent. for Advanced Studies), Istanbul, Turkey
63: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
64: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
65: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
66: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
67: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
68: Also at Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
69: Also at Bozok Universitetesi Rektörlügü, Yozgat, Turkey
70: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
71: Also at Milli Savunma University, Istanbul, Turkey
72: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
73: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
74: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
75: Also at Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
76: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
77: Also at IPPP Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom
78: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia
79: Also at Bethel University, St. Paul, Minneapolis, USA, St. Paul, USA
80: Also at Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey
81: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
82: Also at Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
83: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
84: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
85: Also at Nanjing Normal University Department of Physics, Nanjing, China
86: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
87: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea, Daegu, Korea