uncertainties in the measurement of the inclusive Higgs boson signal strength
modifier is found to be about 2%.

  * •

Photon energy scale and resolution: the uncertainties associated with the
corrections applied to the photon energy scale in data and the resolution in
simulation are evaluated using $\PZ\to\Pe\Pe$ events. The estimate is computed
by varying the regression training scheme, the distribution of , and the
electron selection criteria. For the majority of photons the resulting
uncertainty in the energy scale is 0.05–0.15%, although for those with very
high the effect can be 0.5–3.0%.

  * •

Nonlinearity of the photon energy scale: a further source of uncertainty
covers possible remaining differences in the linearity of the photon energy
scale between data and simulation. The uncertainty is estimated using Lorentz-
boosted $\PZ\to\Pe\Pe$ events. In this analysis, an uncertainty of 0.2% on the
photon energy scale is assigned, which accounts for the nonlinearity across
the full range of photon values.

  * •

Shower shape corrections: an uncertainty in the shower shape corrections
accounts for the imperfect modelling of shower shapes in simulation. The
impact is estimated by comparing the energy scale before and after the
corrections to shower shape variables, as described in Section 0.5, are
applied. The magnitude of the uncertainty in the energy scale ranges from
0.01–0.15%, depending on the photon $\abs{\eta}$ and values.

  * •

Longitudinal nonuniformity of light collection: an uncertainty is associated
with the modelling of the light collection as a function of emission depth
within a given ECAL crystal. The calculation of this uncertainty is described
in detail in Ref. [58]. The uncertainty is 0.16–0.25% for photons with
$\RNINE>0.96$, whilst the magnitude for low photons is below 0.07%.

  * •

Modelling of material in front of the ECAL: the amount of material through
which objects pass before reaching the ECAL affects the behaviour of the
electromagnetic showers, and may not be perfectly modelled in simulation.
Dedicated samples with variations in the amount of upstream material are used
to estimate the impact on the photon energy scale. The magnitude of the
resulting uncertainty ranges from 0.02–0.05% for the most central photons,
increasing to as much as 0.24% for those in the endcap.

  * •

Vertex assignment: the largest contribution to the uncertainty in the fraction
of events where the chosen vertex is smaller than $1\unit{cm}$ from the true
vertex comes from the modelling of the underlying-event. In addition, the
uncertainty in the ratio of data and simulation obtained using
$\PZ\to\PGmp\PGmm$ events is incorporated. A nuisance parameter is included in
the signal model that allows the fraction of events in each vertex scenario to
vary by $\pm 2\%$.

The uncertainties that only modify the event yield have an effect of around 4%
on the inclusive Higgs boson signal strength modifier measurement. They
include the set of sources described below.

  * •

Integrated luminosity: uncertainties of 2.5, 2.3, and 2.5% are determined by
the CMS luminosity monitoring for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data sets [38, 39,
40], respectively, whilst the uncertainty on the total integrated luminosity
of the three years together is 1.8%. The uncertainties for each data set are
partially correlated to account for common sources in the luminosity
measurement schemes.

  * •

Photon identification BDT score: the uncertainty arising from the photon
identification BDT score is estimated by varying the set of events used to
train the quantile regression corrections. It is seen to cover the residual
discrepancies between data and simulation. The uncertainty in the signal
yields is estimated by propagating this uncertainty through the full category
selection procedure. The impact in the most sensitive analysis categories is
around 3%.

  * •

Jet energy scale and smearing corrections: The energy scale of jets is
measured using the balance of jets with $\PZ$ bosons and photons in
$\PZ\to\Pe\Pe$, $\PZ\to\PGmp\PGmm$, and $\PGg\\!+\\!\text{jets}$ events, as
well as the balance between jets in dijet and multijet events [77]. The
uncertainty in the jet energy scale is a few percent and depends on and
$\eta$. The impact of jet energy scale uncertainties in event yields is
evaluated by varying the jet energy corrections within their uncertainties and
propagating the effect to the final result. Correlations between years are
introduced for the different jet energy scale uncertainty sources, ranging
between 0 and 100%. The impact on the category yields is largest for those
targeting VBF, hadronic $\PV\PH$ and top quark associated production and can
be as high as 22% for the scale uncertainties, but is less than around 8% for
the resolution.

  * •

Per-photon energy resolution estimate: the uncertainty in the per-photon
resolution is parametrised as a rescaling of the resolution by $\pm 5\%$ about
its nominal value. This is designed to cover all differences between data and
simulation in the distribution, which is an output of the energy regression.
The maximum yield variation in an analysis category is around 5%, however for
most categories the impact is below the percent level.

  * •

Trigger efficiency: the efficiency of the trigger selection is measured with
$\PZ\to\Pe\Pe$ events using the tag-and-probe technique. The size of its
uncertainty is less than 1%. An additional uncertainty is introduced to
account for a gradual shift in the timing of the inputs of the ECAL first
level trigger in the region at $\abs{\eta}>2.0$, which caused a specific
trigger inefficiency during 2016 and 2017 data taking [78]. Both photons and
to a greater extent jets can be affected by this inefficiency. The resulting
uncertainty is largest for the categories targeting VBF production, with a
maximum impact on the yield of 1.4%.

  * •

Photon preselection: the uncertainty in the preselection efficiency is
computed as the ratio between the efficiency measured in data and in
simulation. Its magnitude is less than 1%.

  * •

Missing transverse momentum: this uncertainty is computed by shifting the
reconstructed $\pt$ of the particle candidates entering the computation,
within the momentum scale and resolution uncertainties appropriate to each
type of reconstructed object, as described in Ref. [77]. In this analysis, the
impact on the category yields is never larger than 5%, even for analysis
categories that explicitly use the in their definition.

  * •

Pileup jet identification: the uncertainty in the pileup jet classification
output score is estimated by comparing the score of jets in events with a
$\PZ$ boson and one balanced jet in data and simulation. The magnitude is of
the order 1%.

  * •

Lepton isolation and identification: this uncertainty affecting electrons and
muons is computed by varying the ratio of the efficiency in simulation to the
efficiency in data and using the tag-and-probe technique in $\PZ\to\Pe\Pe$
events. The resulting impact on the categories selecting leptons is up to
around 1%.

  * •

jet tagging: uncertainties in the tagging efficiency are evaluated by
comparing data and simulated distributions for the tagging discriminator. The
uncertainties include the statistical component in the estimate of the
fraction of heavy- and light-flavour jets in data and simulation. Its
magnitude is around 3% for the analysis categories targeting top quark
associated production, which make use of the tagging discriminant.

Most of the experimental uncertainties are left uncorrelated among the
different years. The exceptions are the partial correlations introduced for
the integrated luminosity and jet energy correction uncertainties.

##  0.9 Results

The expected signal composition of the analysis categories in terms of a set
of merged STXS bins is shown in Fig. 13. In the plot, the analysis categories
targeting a common STXS region are summed, such that the signal compositions
of the individual analysis categories are weighted according to the ratio of
the numbers of signal to signal-plus-background events (S/S+B). The fractional
contribution of the total signal yield in a given analysis category group
arising from each process is shown.

The best fit signal-plus-background model is shown with data for the sum of
all analysis categories in Fig. 14. Again each analysis category is weighted
by (S/S+B), such that the absolute signal yield is kept constant.

Figure 13: The composition of the analysis categories in terms of a merged set
of STXS bins is shown. The granularity of the STXS bin merging corresponds to
the finest granularity used for the cross section measurements in this
analysis. Analysis categories targeting a common STXS region are summed, where
the signal compositions of the individual categories are weighted in the sum
by the expected ratio of signal to signal-plus-background events. The colour
scale corresponds to the fractional yield in each analysis category group
(rows) accounted for by each STXS process (columns). Each row therefore sums
to 100%. Entries with values less than 0.5% are not shown. Simulated events
for each year in the period 2016–2018 are combined with appropriate weights
corresponding to their relative integrated luminosity in data. The column
labelled as “qqH rest” includes contributions from the $\cPq\cPq\PH$ 0J,
$\cPq\cPq\PH$ 1J, $\cPq\cPq\PH$ $m_{\text{jj}}<60\GeV$ and $\cPq\cPq\PH$
$120<m_{\text{jj}}<350\GeV$ STXS bins.  Figure 14:  Data points (black) and
signal-plus-background model fit for the sum of all analysis categories is
shown. Each analysis category is weighted by S/(S+B), where S and B are the
numbers of expected signal and background events, respectively, in a $\pm
1\sigma_{\text{eff}}$ $m_{\PGg\PGg}$ window centred on $m_{\PH}$. The one
(green) standard deviation and two (yellow) standard deviation bands show the
uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The solid red line shows
the total signal-plus-background contribution, whereas the dashed red line
shows the background component only. The lower panel shows the residuals after
subtraction of this background component.

###  0.9.1 Signal strength modifiers

A common signal strength modifier, $\mu$, is defined as the ratio of the
observed product of the Higgs boson cross section and diphoton branching
fraction to the SM expectation. It is measured to be

$\mu=1.12^{+0.09}_{-0.09}=1.12^{+0.06}_{-0.06}\thy^{+0.03}_{-0.03}\syst^{+0.07}_{-0.06}\stat.$

The uncertainty is decomposed into theoretical systematic, experimental
systematic, and statistical components. The statistical component includes the
uncertainty in the background modelling. The compatibility of this fit with
respect to the SM prediction, expressed as a $p$-value, is approximately 17%.

In this fit, and in all subsequent fits, $m_{\PH}$ is fixed to its most
precisely measured value of $125.38\GeV$ [58]. The precise determination of
$m_{\PH}$ and the systematic uncertainties that enter its measurement are
beyond the scope of this analysis. Nonetheless, the dependence of the measured
signal strengths on $m_{\PH}$ is checked. Profiling $m_{\PH}$ without
constraint, rather than fixing it to 125.38, has a small impact on the
measured results; the best fit signal strength values change by 0.7–1.8%. In
each case, the change is less than 10% of the measured uncertainty.

Signal strength modifiers for each Higgs boson production mode are also
measured. Unlike the subsequent STXS fits described in Section 0.9.2, the
$\PV\PH$ hadronic and $\PV\PH$ leptonic processes are grouped to scale
according to $\mu_{\PV\PH}$, whereas the VBF production mode scales with
$\mu_{\text{VBF}}$. The parameter $\mu_{\text{top}}$ scales the $\ttbar\PH$,
$\PQt\PH\PQq$ and $\PQt\PH\PW$ production modes equally and $\mu_{\Pg\Pg\PH}$
scales both $\Pg\Pg\PH$ and $\bbbar\PH$ production.

The resulting signal and background $m_{\PGg\PGg}$ distributions after the fit
using this parameter scheme are shown in Fig. 15. Analysis categories are
divided into four groups, corresponding to those targeting the $\Pg\Pg\PH$,
VBF, $\PV\PH$, and top quark production modes. In each group, the individual
analysis categories are summed after weighting by S/(S+B).

The values of the production mode signal strength modifiers and their
uncertainties are displayed in Fig. 16. The precision of these measurements is
significantly improved from previous analyses performed by the CMS
Collaboration in the $\PH\\!\to\\!\PGg\PGg$ decay channel. In particular, the
measurement of the $\mu_{\PV\PH}$ signal strength modifier has improved
substantially from that shown in Ref. [12], beyond what would be expected from
the increase in the size of the data set alone. The $p$-value of the
production mode signal strength modifier fit with respect to the SM prediction
is approximately 50%.

The main sources of systematic uncertainty affecting the signal strength
modifier in each production mode are summarised in Fig. 17. The dominant
contributions to the measurement uncertainty in the $\mu_{\Pg\Pg\PH}$,
$\mu_{\PV\PH}$ and $\mu_{\text{top}}$ signal strength modifiers originate from
the corresponding renormalisation and factorisation scale uncertainties,
whereas the underlying event and parton shower uncertainties are the dominant
sources of uncertainty in the $\mu_{\text{VBF}}$ measurement. The largest
experimental uncertainties originate from the integrated luminosity, the
photon identification, and the photon energy measurement for the
$\mu_{\Pg\Pg\PH}$ and $\mu_{\PV\PH}$ signal strength modifiers. The
uncertainties in the jet energy scale and resolution have a larger impact on
$\mu_{\text{VBF}}$ and $\mu_{\text{top}}$, where $\mu_{\text{top}}$ has an
additional large contribution from the uncertainty in the tagging.

Figure 15:  The best fit signal-plus-background model with data points (black)
in the fit to signal strength modifiers of the four principal production
modes. The model is shown separately for groups of analysis categories
targeting the $\Pg\Pg\PH$ (upper left), VBF (upper right), $\PV\PH$ (lower
left) and top quark associated (lower right) production modes. Here, the
analysis categories in each group are summed after weighting by S/(S+B), where
S and B are the numbers of expected signal and background events in a $\pm
1\sigma_{\text{eff}}$ $m_{\PGg\PGg}$ window centred on $m_{\PH}$. The one
standard deviation (green) and two standard deviation (yellow) bands show the
uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The solid red line shows
the total signal-plus-background contribution, whereas the dashed red line
represents the background component only. The lower panel in each plot shows
the residuals after subtraction of this background component. Figure 16:
Observed results of the fit to signal strength modifiers of the four principal
production modes. The contributions to the total uncertainty in each parameter
from the theoretical systematic, experimental systematic, and statistical
components are shown. The colour scheme is chosen to match the diagram
presented in Fig. 1. The compatibility of this fit with respect to the SM
prediction, expressed as a $p$-value, is approximately 50%. Also shown in
black is the result of the fit to the inclusive signal strength modifier,
which has a $p$-value of 17%.  Figure 17:  A summary of the impact of the main
sources of systematic uncertainty in the fit to signal strength modifiers of
the four principal production modes. The observed (expected) impacts are shown
by the solid (empty) bars. The colour scheme is chosen to match the diagram
presented in Fig. 1.

###  0.9.2 Simplified template cross sections

This section details the fits performed to extract cross sections within the
STXS framework and their respective 68% confidence level () intervals. The
theoretical uncertainties in the normalisation of the signal parameters are
not included in the cross section measurements. In each fit, $\Pg\Pg\PZ\PH$
events in which the $\PZ$ boson decays hadronically are grouped with the
corresponding $\Pg\Pg\PH$ STXS bin. All $\bbbar\PH$ events are treated as part
of the $\Pg\Pg\PH$ 0J high $\pt^{\PH}$ bin. The hadronic $\PV\PH$ processes
are grouped with VBF production to form the $\cPq\cPq\PH$ parameters.
Parameters which are not measured are constrained to their SM prediction,
within theoretical uncertainties. These are the zero jet, one jet,
$m_{\text{jj}}<60\GeV$, and $120<m_{\text{jj}}<350\GeV$ bins in the
$\cPq\cPq\PH$ binning scheme.

Two different parameterisations are considered, with varying levels of
granularity defined by the merging of certain STXS bins. It is necessary to
merge bins to avoid either very large uncertainties in some parameters or very
high correlations between parameters. Merging fewer bins keeps the model-
dependence of the results as low as possible, as no additional assumptions are
made about the relative contributions of different STXS bins. The results with
reduced model-dependence however have larger uncertainties in the measured
cross section parameters.

In this paper, the results of two different fits to the cross sections of
partially merged STXS bins are reported. The first is referred to as the
“maximal” merging scenario, where in general STXS bins are merged until their
expected uncertainty is less than 150% of the SM prediction. The second
“minimal” merging fit instead merges as few bins as possible whilst ensuring
that parameters do not become too anti-correlated, meaning values of less than
around 90%.

The maximal merging scheme defines 17 parameters of interest. The VBF-like
regions ($\geq$2-jets, $m_{\text{jj}}>350\GeV$) in the $\Pg\Pg\PH$ and
$\cPq\cPq\PH$ schemes are merged to define the $\Pg\Pg\PH$ VBF-like and
$\cPq\cPq\PH$ VBF-like parameters, respectively. The four bins with
$\pt^{\PH}>200\GeV$ in the $\Pg\Pg\PH$ scheme are merged into a single bin,
labelled as $\Pg\Pg\PH$ BSM. Additionally, the $\PW\PH$ leptonic, $\PZ\PH$
leptonic and $\ttbar\PH$ bins are all fully merged into single parameters. The
$\PZ\PH$ leptonic parameter groups both $\PZ\PH$ and $\Pg\Pg\PZ\PH$
production.

The minimal merging scheme defines a more granular fit with 27 parameters of
interest. The $\cPq\cPq\PH$ VBF-like region is fully split into the four STXS
bins defined by the boundaries at $m_{\text{jj}}=700\GeV$ and
$\pt^{\PH\text{jj}}=25\GeV$. To avoid large correlations between the fitted
parameters, the four $\Pg\Pg\PH$ VBF-like bins are merged with the
corresponding bins in the $\cPq\cPq\PH$ scheme. Additional splittings are
included in the $\Pg\Pg\PH$ scheme at $\pt^{\PH}=300$ and $450\GeV$, and the
$\PW\PH$ leptonic scheme at $\pt^{\PV}=75$ and $150\GeV$. Furthermore, the
$\ttbar\PH$ region is split into five parameters according to the boundaries
at $\pt^{\PH}=60$, 120, 200, and 300.

Table 1 summarises the maximal and minimal merging schemes by listing the STXS
bins that contribute to each parameter of interest. The STXS bins that are
constrained to their respective SM predictions in both fits are also listed.

Table 1:  A summary of the maximal and minimal parameter merging scenarios.
The STXS bins that contribute to each parameter are listed. Furthermore, the
bins that are constrained to their respective SM predictions in the fits are
listed in the final row.

Scheme | Parameters | STXS stage 1.2 bins (total number of bins)
---|---|---
Maximal (17 parameters) |  $\Pg\Pg\PH$ 0J low $\pt^{\PH}$ |  $\Pg\Pg\PH$ 0J low $\pt^{\PH}$ (1)
$\Pg\Pg\PH$ 0J high $\pt^{\PH}$ |  $\Pg\Pg\PH$ 0J high $\pt^{\PH}$, $\bbbar\PH$ (2)
$\Pg\Pg\PH$ 1J low $\pt^{\PH}$ |  $\Pg\Pg\PH$ 1J low $\pt^{\PH}$ (1)
$\Pg\Pg\PH$ 1J med $\pt^{\PH}$ |  $\Pg\Pg\PH$ 1J med $\pt^{\PH}$ (1)
$\Pg\Pg\PH$ 1J high $\pt^{\PH}$ |  $\Pg\Pg\PH$ 1J high $\pt^{\PH}$ (1)
$\Pg\Pg\PH$ $\geq 2$J low $\pt^{\PH}$ |  $\Pg\Pg\PH$ $\geq$2J low $\pt^{\PH}$ (1)
$\Pg\Pg\PH$ $\geq 2$J med $\pt^{\PH}$ |  $\Pg\Pg\PH$ $\geq$2J med $\pt^{\PH}$ (1)
$\Pg\Pg\PH$ $\geq 2$J high $\pt^{\PH}$ |  $\Pg\Pg\PH$ $\geq$2J high $\pt^{\PH}$ (1)
$\Pg\Pg\PH$ BSM |  {  |  $\Pg\Pg\PH$ BSM $200<\pt^{\PH}<300$, $\Pg\Pg\PH$ BSM $300<\pt^{\PH}<450$
---
$\Pg\Pg\PH$ BSM $450<\pt^{\PH}<650$, $\Pg\Pg\PH$ BSM $\pt^{\PH}>650$
} (4)
$\Pg\Pg\PH$ VBF-like |  $\Bigg{\\{}\\!$ |  $\Pg\Pg\PH$ VBF-like low $m_{\text{jj}}$ low $\pt^{\PH\text{jj}}$, $\Pg\Pg\PH$ VBF-like low $m_{\text{jj}}$ high $\pt^{\PH\text{jj}}$
---
$\Pg\Pg\PH$ VBF-like high $m_{\text{jj}}$ low $\pt^{\PH\text{jj}}$,
$\Pg\Pg\PH$ VBF-like high $m_{\text{jj}}$ high $\pt^{\PH\text{jj}}$
$\\!\\!\Bigg{\\}}$ (4)
$\cPq\cPq\PH$ VBF-like |  $\Bigg{\\{}\\!$ |  $\cPq\cPq\PH$ VBF-like low $m_{\text{jj}}$ low $\pt^{\PH\text{jj}}$, $\cPq\cPq\PH$ VBF-like low $m_{\text{jj}}$ high $\pt^{\PH\text{jj}}$
---
qqH VBF-like high $m_{\text{jj}}$ low $\pt^{\PH\text{jj}}$, $\cPq\cPq\PH$ VBF-
like high $m_{\text{jj}}$ high $\pt^{\PH\text{jj}}$
$\\!\\!\Bigg{\\}}$ (4)
$\cPq\cPq\PH$ $\PV\PH$-like |  $\cPq\cPq\PH$ $\PV\PH$-like (1)
$\cPq\cPq\PH$ BSM |  $\cPq\cPq\PH$ BSM (1)
$\PW\PH$ lep | All $\PW\PH$ lep (5)
$\PZ\PH$ lep | All $\PZ\PH$ lep and $\Pg\Pg\PZ\PH$ lep (10)
$\ttbar\PH$ | All $\ttbar\PH$ (5)
$\PQt\PH$ |  $\PQt\PH=\PQt\PH\PQq+\PQt\PH\PW$ (1)
Minimal (27 parameters) |  $\Pg\Pg\PH$ 0J low $\pt^{\PH}$ |  $\Pg\Pg\PH$ 0J low $\pt^{\PH}$ (1)
$\Pg\Pg\PH$ 0J high $\pt^{\PH}$ |  $\Pg\Pg\PH$ 0J high $\pt^{\PH}$, $\bbbar\PH$ (2)
$\Pg\Pg\PH$ 1J low $\pt^{\PH}$ |  $\Pg\Pg\PH$ 1J low $\pt^{\PH}$ (1)
$\Pg\Pg\PH$ 1J med $\pt^{\PH}$ |  $\Pg\Pg\PH$ 1J med $\pt^{\PH}$ (1)
$\Pg\Pg\PH$ 1J high $\pt^{\PH}$ |  $\Pg\Pg\PH$ 1J high $\pt^{\PH}$ (1)
$\Pg\Pg\PH$ $\geq 2$J low $\pt^{\PH}$ |  $\Pg\Pg\PH$ $\geq$2J low $\pt^{\PH}$ (1)
$\Pg\Pg\PH$ $\geq 2$J med $\pt^{\PH}$ |  $\Pg\Pg\PH$ $\geq$2J med $\pt^{\PH}$ (1)
$\Pg\Pg\PH$ $\geq 2$J high $\pt^{\PH}$ |  $\Pg\Pg\PH$ $\geq$2J high $\pt^{\PH}$ (1)
$\Pg\Pg\PH$ BSM $200<\pt^{\PH}<300$ |  $\Pg\Pg\PH$ BSM $200<\pt^{\PH}<~{}300$ (1)
$\Pg\Pg\PH$ BSM $300<\pt^{\PH}<450$ |  $\Pg\Pg\PH$ BSM $300<\pt^{\PH}<~{}450$ (1)
$\Pg\Pg\PH$ BSM $\pt^{\PH}>450$ |  $\Pg\Pg\PH$ BSM $450<\pt^{\PH}<650$, $\Pg\Pg\PH$ BSM $\pt^{\PH}>650$ (2)
VBF-like low $m_{\text{jj}}$ low $\pt^{\PH\text{jj}}$ |  $\Pg\Pg\PH$ \+ $\cPq\cPq\PH$ VBF-like low $m_{\text{jj}}$ low $\pt^{\PH\text{jj}}$ (2)
VBF-like low $m_{\text{jj}}$ high $\pt^{\PH\text{jj}}$ |  $\Pg\Pg\PH$ \+ $\cPq\cPq\PH$ VBF-like low $m_{\text{jj}}$ high $\pt^{\PH\text{jj}}$ (2)
VBF-like high $m_{\text{jj}}$ low $\pt^{\PH\text{jj}}$ |  $\Pg\Pg\PH$ \+ $\cPq\cPq\PH$ VBF-like high $m_{\text{jj}}$ low $\pt^{\PH\text{jj}}$ (2)
VBF-like high $m_{\text{jj}}$ high $\pt^{\PH\text{jj}}$ |  $\Pg\Pg\PH$ \+ $\cPq\cPq\PH$ VBF-like high $m_{\text{jj}}$ high $\pt^{\PH\text{jj}}$ (2)
$\cPq\cPq\PH$ $\PV\PH$-like |  $\cPq\cPq\PH$ $\PV\PH$-like (1)
$\cPq\cPq\PH$ BSM |  $\cPq\cPq\PH$ BSM (1)
$\PW\PH$ lep $\pt^{\PV}<75$ |  $\PW\PH$ lep $\pt^{\PV}<75$ (1)
$\PW\PH$ lep $75<\pt^{\PV}<150$ |  $\PW\PH$ lep $75<\pt^{\PV}<150$ (1)
$\PW\PH$ lep $\pt^{\PV}>150$ |  {  |  $\PW\PH$ lep 0J $150<\pt^{\PV}<250$, $\PW\PH$ lep $\geq$1J $150<\pt^{\PV}<250$
---
$\PW\PH$ lep $\pt^{\PV}>250$
} (3)
$\PZ\PH$ lep | All $\PZ\PH$ lep and $\Pg\Pg\PZ\PH$ lep (10)
$\ttbar\PH$ $\pt^{\PH}<60$ |  $\ttbar\PH$ $\pt^{\PH}<60$ (1)
$\ttbar\PH$ $60<\pt^{\PH}<120$ |  $\ttbar\PH$ $60<\pt^{\PH}<120$ (1)
$\ttbar\PH$ $120<\pt^{\PH}<200$ |  $\ttbar\PH$ $120<\pt^{\PH}<200$ (1)
$\ttbar\PH$ $200<\pt^{\PH}<300$ |  $\ttbar\PH$ $200<\pt^{\PH}<300$ (1)
$\ttbar\PH$ $\pt^{\PH}>300$ |  $\ttbar\PH$ $\pt^{\PH}>300$ (1)
$\PQt\PH$ |  $\PQt\PH=\PQt\PH\PQq+\PQt\PH\PW$ (1)
Constrained to SM prediction |  $\cPq\cPq\PH$ 0J, $\cPq\cPq\PH$ 1J, $\cPq\cPq\PH$ $m_{\text{jj}}<60$, $\cPq\cPq\PH$ $120<m_{\text{jj}}<350$ (4)

The best fit cross sections and 68% intervals are shown for the two merging
schemes in Figs. 18 and 20. The corresponding numerical values are given in
Tables 0.9.2 and 0.9.2. For both the maximal and minimal fits, the statistical
component of the uncertainty dominates for all measured cross sections.
Overall, the results from both merging scenario fits are in agreement with SM
predictions; the $p$-values with respect to the SM predictions are 31 and 70%
for the maximal and minimal merging scenarios, respectively.

In the maximal merging scenario, $\Pg\Pg\PH$ production with $\pt^{\PH}>200$,
which is particularly sensitive to BSM physics entering the $\Pg\Pg\PH$ loop,
is measured to a precision of less than 50%, relative to the SM prediction.
The cross section is found to be consistent with the SM, with a measured value
of $0.9_{-0.3}^{+0.4}$ relative to the SM prediction. In addition, the product
of the $\PQt\PH$ production cross section times $\PH\\!\to\\!\PGg\PGg$
branching fraction is measured to be $1.3_{-0.7}^{+0.8}\unit{fb}$,
corresponding to an excess of $6.3_{-3.7}^{+3.4}$ times the SM expectation.
Using the procedure [79], a rate of $\PQt\PH$ production of $14$ ($8$) times
the SM expectation is observed (expected) to be excluded at the 95% .

The minimal merging scenario fit represents the current most granular cross
section measurement performed in a single Higgs boson decay channel, showing
reasonable sensitivity to many different regions of Higgs boson production
phase space. In particular, the results contain the first measurements of
$\ttbar\PH$ production in bins of $\pt^{\PH}$. The size of the uncertainty in
each of the four $\ttbar\PH$ bins with $\pt^{\PH}<300$is less than 100% of the
SM prediction. Additionally, $\Pg\Pg\PH$ production with $\pt^{\PH}>200$is
measured in three separate regions. The three corresponding cross sections are
all measured to be within one standard deviation of the respective SM
expectations.

Correlations between the fitted parameters are presented in Figs. 19 and 21.
The correlations for the $\Pg\Pg\PH$ parameters are observed to be small
between adjacent $\pt^{\PH}$ bins and larger between adjacent number of jet
bins. This results from the fact that $\pt^{\PGg\PGg}$ is a well-measured
quantity, whereas reconstructing the number of jets in an event is more
difficult. Nevertheless, the application of the $\Pg\Pg\PH$ BDT in the event
categorisation helps to minimise these correlations. The largest correlations
in the maximal merging scheme exist between the $\Pg\Pg\PH$ VBF-like and
$\cPq\cPq\PH$ VBF-like cross sections and the $\ttbar\PH$ and $\PQt\PH$ cross
sections, with values of $-0.76$ and $-0.59$, respectively. These result from
the sizeable contamination of $\Pg\Pg\PH$ VBF-like events in the $\cPq\cPq\PH$
analysis categories, and the contamination of $\ttbar\PH$ events in the
$\PQt\PH\PQq$ leptonic category. The act of splitting $\ttbar\PH$ production
into five separate parameters in the minimal merging scenario introduces
larger correlations into the measurement.

Figure 18:  Observed results of the maximal merging scheme STXS fit. The best
fit cross sections are plotted together with the respective 68% intervals. The
systematic components of the uncertainty in each parameter are shown by the
coloured boxes. The hatched grey boxes demonstrate the theoretical
uncertainties in the SM predictions. The lower panel shows the ratio of the
fitted values to the SM predictions. Here the $\PQt\PH$ cross section ratio
has a different scale, due to its high best fit value and uncertainty. The
cross sections are constrained to be non-negative, as indicated by the hashed
pattern below zero. The parameters whose best fit values are at zero are known
to have 68% intervals which slightly under-cover; this is checked to be a
small effect using pseudo-experiments. The colour scheme is chosen to match
the diagram presented in Fig. 1. The compatibility of this fit with respect to
the SM prediction, expressed as a $p$-value, is approximately 31%.  Figure 19:
Observed correlations between the 17 parameters considered in the maximal
merging STXS fit. The size of the correlations is indicated by the colour
scale.  Figure 20:  Observed results of the minimal merging scheme STXS fit.
The best fit cross sections are plotted together with the respective 68%
intervals. The systematic components of the uncertainty in each parameter are
shown by the coloured boxes. The hatched grey boxes demonstrate the
theoretical uncertainties in the SM predictions. The lower panel shows the
ratio of the fitted values to the SM predictions. Here the $\PQt\PH$ cross
section ratio has a different scale, due to its high best fit value and
uncertainty. The cross sections are constrained to be non-negative, as
indicated by the hashed pattern below zero. The parameters whose best fit
values are at zero are known to have 68% intervals which slightly under-cover;
this is checked to be a small effect using pseudo-experiments. The colour
scheme is chosen to match the diagram presented in Fig. 1. The orange lines
dashed with blue for the VBF-like parameters represent contributions from both
the $\Pg\Pg\PH$ and the $\cPq\cPq\PH$ STXS bins. The compatibility of this fit
with respect to the SM prediction, expressed as a $p$-value, is approximately
70%.  Figure 21:  Observed correlations between the 27 parameters considered
in the minimal merging STXS fit. The size of the correlations is indicated by
the colour scale.

Results of the maximal merging scheme STXS fit. The best fit cross sections
are shown together with the respective 68% intervals. The uncertainty is
decomposed into the systematic and statistical components. The expected
uncertainties on the fitted parameters, computed assuming the SM predicted
cross section values, are given in brackets. Also listed are the SM
predictions for the cross sections and the theoretical uncertainty in those
predictions.  Parameters $\sigma\mathcal{B}$ (fb)
$\sigma\mathcal{B}$/$(\sigma\mathcal{B})_{\text{SM}}$ SM prediction Observed
(Expected) Observed (Expected) ($m_{\PH}=125.38\GeV$) Best fit Stat. unc.
Syst. unc. Best fit $\Pg\Pg\PH$ 0J low $\pt^{\PH}$ $15.21$
${}^{+4.14}_{-4.18}$ $9.41$ ${}^{+3.92}_{-3.99}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+4.20}_{-4.06}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+3.90}_{-3.98}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+4.16}_{-4.05}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.44}_{-0.25}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.51}_{-0.33}$$\Big{)}$ $0.62$ ${}^{+0.26}_{-0.26}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.28}_{-0.27}$$\Big{)}$ $\Pg\Pg\PH$ 0J high $\pt^{\PH}$ $44.25$
${}^{+4.84}_{-4.61}$ $58.50$ ${}^{+8.10}_{-7.17}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+7.87}_{-7.77}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+7.70}_{-6.91}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+7.67}_{-7.63}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+2.50}_{-1.92}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+1.78}_{-1.42}$$\Big{)}$ $1.32$ ${}^{+0.18}_{-0.16}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.18}_{-0.18}$$\Big{)}$ $\Pg\Pg\PH$ 1J low $\pt^{\PH}$ $16.20$
${}^{+2.25}_{-2.27}$ $13.39$ ${}^{+5.58}_{-5.49}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+5.67}_{-5.59}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+5.52}_{-5.45}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+5.61}_{-5.56}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.80}_{-0.63}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.77}_{-0.48}$$\Big{)}$ $0.83$ ${}^{+0.34}_{-0.34}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.35}_{-0.34}$$\Big{)}$ $\Pg\Pg\PH$ 1J med $\pt^{\PH}$ $11.23$
${}^{+1.56}_{-1.55}$ $13.66$ ${}^{+2.91}_{-2.96}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+3.15}_{-3.39}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+2.83}_{-2.92}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+3.09}_{-3.36}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.70}_{-0.50}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.59}_{-0.45}$$\Big{)}$ $1.22$ ${}^{+0.26}_{-0.26}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.28}_{-0.30}$$\Big{)}$ $\Pg\Pg\PH$ 1J high $\pt^{\PH}$ $2.00$
${}^{+0.36}_{-0.36}$ $2.56$ ${}^{+0.90}_{-0.87}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.91}_{-0.92}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.90}_{-0.87}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.90}_{-0.90}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.11}_{-0.11}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.15}_{-0.19}$$\Big{)}$ $1.28$ ${}^{+0.45}_{-0.44}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.46}_{-0.46}$$\Big{)}$ $\Pg\Pg\PH$ $\geq$2J low $\pt^{\PH}$
$2.82$ ${}^{+0.68}_{-0.68}$ $3.62$ ${}^{+3.65}_{-3.55}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+3.73}_{-2.82}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+3.62}_{-3.53}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+3.69}_{-2.82}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.41}_{-0.31}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.55}_{-0.55}$$\Big{)}$ $1.29$ ${}^{+1.29}_{-1.26}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+1.32}_{-1.00}$$\Big{)}$ $\Pg\Pg\PH$ $\geq$2J med $\pt^{\PH}$
$4.53$ ${}^{+1.07}_{-1.07}$ $0.08$ ${}^{+2.77}_{-0.08}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+2.87}_{-2.82}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+2.76}_{-0.08}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+2.84}_{-2.82}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.28}_{-0.08}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.38}_{-0.14}$$\Big{)}$ $0.02$ ${}^{+0.61}_{-0.02}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.63}_{-0.62}$$\Big{)}$ $\Pg\Pg\PH$ $\geq$2J high $\pt^{\PH}$
$2.12$ ${}^{+0.49}_{-0.50}$ $0.82$ ${}^{+0.92}_{-0.82}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+1.15}_{-1.10}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.88}_{-0.82}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+1.11}_{-1.09}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.26}_{-0.26}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.31}_{-0.14}$$\Big{)}$ $0.39$ ${}^{+0.43}_{-0.39}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.54}_{-0.52}$$\Big{)}$ $\Pg\Pg\PH$ VBF-like $2.22$
${}^{+0.52}_{-0.52}$ $5.86$ ${}^{+2.45}_{-2.59}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+2.90}_{-2.22}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+2.27}_{-2.55}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+2.81}_{-2.22}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.92}_{-0.48}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.71}_{-0.71}$$\Big{)}$ $2.64$ ${}^{+1.10}_{-1.17}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+1.31}_{-1.00}$$\Big{)}$ $\Pg\Pg\PH$ BSM $1.43$
${}^{+0.36}_{-0.35}$ $1.34$ ${}^{+0.50}_{-0.47}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.59}_{-0.49}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.49}_{-0.46}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.58}_{-0.49}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.05}_{-0.09}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.09}_{-0.05}$$\Big{)}$ $0.94$ ${}^{+0.35}_{-0.33}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.41}_{-0.35}$$\Big{)}$ $\cPq\cPq\PH$ VBF-like $2.96$
${}^{+0.59}_{-0.59}$ $0.49$ ${}^{+1.44}_{-0.49}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+1.49}_{-1.53}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+1.40}_{-0.49}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+1.47}_{-1.47}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.34}_{-0.34}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.25}_{-0.43}$$\Big{)}$ $0.17$ ${}^{+0.49}_{-0.17}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.50}_{-0.52}$$\Big{)}$ $\cPq\cPq\PH$ $\PV\PH$-like $1.22$
${}^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ $1.57$ ${}^{+1.20}_{-1.24}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+1.15}_{-1.23}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+1.19}_{-1.21}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+1.15}_{-1.23}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.13}_{-0.26}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.07}_{-0.04}$$\Big{)}$ $1.29$ ${}^{+0.98}_{-1.01}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.94}_{-1.01}$$\Big{)}$ $\cPq\cPq\PH$ BSM $0.37$
${}^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ $0.52$ ${}^{+0.24}_{-0.22}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.26}_{-0.23}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.24}_{-0.22}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.25}_{-0.23}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.03}_{-0.01}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.03}_{-0.01}$$\Big{)}$ $1.42$ ${}^{+0.65}_{-0.59}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.69}_{-0.62}$$\Big{)}$ $\PW\PH$ lep $0.88$
${}^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ $1.19$ ${}^{+0.49}_{-0.44}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.51}_{-0.42}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.48}_{-0.43}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.50}_{-0.41}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.07}_{-0.04}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$$\Big{)}$ $1.35$ ${}^{+0.55}_{-0.49}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.57}_{-0.47}$$\Big{)}$ $\PZ\PH$ lep $0.54$
${}^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ $0.71$ ${}^{+0.41}_{-0.35}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.42}_{-0.35}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.40}_{-0.35}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.41}_{-0.35}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.07}_{-0.03}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.06}_{-0.03}$$\Big{)}$ $1.32$ ${}^{+0.76}_{-0.65}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.78}_{-0.65}$$\Big{)}$ $\ttbar\PH$ $1.13$ ${}^{+0.08}_{-0.11}$
$1.13$ ${}^{+0.42}_{-0.39}$ $\Big{(}$${}^{+0.42}_{-0.41}$$\Big{)}$
${}^{+0.42}_{-0.38}$ $\Big{(}$${}^{+0.41}_{-0.40}$$\Big{)}$
${}^{+0.07}_{-0.07}$ $\Big{(}$${}^{+0.09}_{-0.05}$$\Big{)}$ $1.00$
${}^{+0.37}_{-0.35}$ $\Big{(}$${}^{+0.37}_{-0.36}$$\Big{)}$ $\PQt\PH$ $0.20$
${}^{+0.01}_{-0.03}$ $1.27$ ${}^{+0.76}_{-0.69}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.76}_{-0.20}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.75}_{-0.68}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.76}_{-0.20}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.10}_{-0.13}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.08}_{-0.08}$$\Big{)}$ $6.24$ ${}^{+3.72}_{-3.37}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+3.73}_{-1.00}$$\Big{)}$

Results of the minimal merging scheme STXS fit. The best fit cross sections
are shown together with the respective 68% intervals. The uncertainty is
decomposed into the systematic and statistical components. The expected
uncertainties on the fitted parameters, computed assuming the SM predicted
cross section values, are given in brackets. Also listed are the SM
predictions for the cross sections and the theoretical uncertainty in those
predictions.  Parameters $\sigma\mathcal{B}$ (fb)
$\sigma\mathcal{B}$/$(\sigma\mathcal{B})_{\text{SM}}$ SM prediction Observed
(Expected) Observed (Expected) ($m_{\PH}=125.38\GeV$) Best fit Stat. unc.
Syst. unc. Best fit $\Pg\Pg\PH$ 0J low $\pt^{\PH}$ $15.21$
${}^{+4.14}_{-4.18}$ $9.41$ ${}^{+3.91}_{-4.00}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+4.19}_{-4.06}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+3.90}_{-3.99}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+4.16}_{-4.05}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.37}_{-0.30}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.50}_{-0.36}$$\Big{)}$ $0.62$ ${}^{+0.26}_{-0.26}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.28}_{-0.27}$$\Big{)}$ $\Pg\Pg\PH$ 0J high $\pt^{\PH}$ $44.25$
${}^{+4.84}_{-4.61}$ $58.46$ ${}^{+8.12}_{-7.17}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+7.87}_{-7.78}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+7.69}_{-6.91}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+7.66}_{-7.63}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+2.60}_{-1.94}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+1.78}_{-1.50}$$\Big{)}$ $1.32$ ${}^{+0.18}_{-0.16}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.18}_{-0.18}$$\Big{)}$ $\Pg\Pg\PH$ 1J low $\pt^{\PH}$ $16.20$
${}^{+2.25}_{-2.27}$ $13.40$ ${}^{+5.59}_{-5.50}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+5.70}_{-5.58}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+5.53}_{-5.46}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+5.64}_{-5.55}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.79}_{-0.67}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.77}_{-0.56}$$\Big{)}$ $0.83$ ${}^{+0.34}_{-0.34}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.35}_{-0.34}$$\Big{)}$ $\Pg\Pg\PH$ 1J med $\pt^{\PH}$ $11.23$
${}^{+1.56}_{-1.55}$ $13.80$ ${}^{+2.90}_{-2.94}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+3.14}_{-3.41}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+2.82}_{-2.90}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+3.08}_{-3.37}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.68}_{-0.51}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.59}_{-0.50}$$\Big{)}$ $1.23$ ${}^{+0.26}_{-0.26}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.28}_{-0.30}$$\Big{)}$ $\Pg\Pg\PH$ 1J high $\pt^{\PH}$ $2.00$
${}^{+0.36}_{-0.36}$ $2.57$ ${}^{+0.94}_{-0.88}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.92}_{-0.90}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.94}_{-0.87}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.91}_{-0.88}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.08}_{-0.12}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.13}_{-0.16}$$\Big{)}$ $1.28$ ${}^{+0.47}_{-0.44}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.46}_{-0.45}$$\Big{)}$ $\Pg\Pg\PH$ $\geq 2$J low $\pt^{\PH}$
$2.82$ ${}^{+0.68}_{-0.68}$ $3.67$ ${}^{+3.63}_{-3.57}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+3.74}_{-2.82}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+3.62}_{-3.56}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+3.71}_{-2.82}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.34}_{-0.30}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.49}_{-0.49}$$\Big{)}$ $1.30$ ${}^{+1.29}_{-1.27}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+1.33}_{-1.00}$$\Big{)}$ $\Pg\Pg\PH$ $\geq 2$J med $\pt^{\PH}$
$4.53$ ${}^{+1.07}_{-1.07}$ $0.00$ ${}^{+2.72}_{-0.00}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+2.90}_{-2.80}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+2.71}_{-0.00}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+2.86}_{-2.78}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.26}_{-0.00}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.45}_{-0.27}$$\Big{)}$ $0.00$ ${}^{+0.60}_{-0.00}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.64}_{-0.62}$$\Big{)}$ $\Pg\Pg\PH$ $\geq 2$J high $\pt^{\PH}$
$2.12$ ${}^{+0.49}_{-0.50}$ $0.62$ ${}^{+1.06}_{-0.62}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+1.15}_{-1.10}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+1.04}_{-0.62}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+1.11}_{-1.10}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.17}_{-0.17}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.30}_{-0.13}$$\Big{)}$ $0.29$ ${}^{+0.50}_{-0.29}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.54}_{-0.52}$$\Big{)}$ $\Pg\Pg\PH$ BSM $200<\pt^{\PH}<300$
$1.10$ ${}^{+0.28}_{-0.27}$ $1.11$ ${}^{+0.47}_{-0.44}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.56}_{-0.45}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.46}_{-0.43}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.56}_{-0.45}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.08}_{-0.07}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.05}_{-0.03}$$\Big{)}$ $1.00$ ${}^{+0.42}_{-0.40}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.51}_{-0.41}$$\Big{)}$ $\Pg\Pg\PH$ BSM $300<\pt^{\PH}<450$
$0.28$ ${}^{+0.07}_{-0.07}$ $0.16$ ${}^{+0.19}_{-0.16}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.20}_{-0.18}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.18}_{-0.16}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.19}_{-0.18}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.03}_{-0.01}$$\Big{)}$ $0.55$ ${}^{+0.66}_{-0.55}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.69}_{-0.65}$$\Big{)}$ $\Pg\Pg\PH$ BSM $\pt^{\PH}>450$ $0.05$
${}^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ $0.10$ ${}^{+0.10}_{-0.08}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.10}_{-0.05}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.09}_{-0.08}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.09}_{-0.05}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.06}_{-0.02}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$$\Big{)}$ $2.16$ ${}^{+2.25}_{-1.69}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+2.19}_{-1.00}$$\Big{)}$ VBF-like low $m_{\text{jj}}$ low
$\pt^{\PH\text{jj}}$ $1.59$ ${}^{+0.49}_{-0.48}$ $1.31$ ${}^{+1.19}_{-1.13}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+1.22}_{-1.16}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+1.18}_{-1.13}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+1.21}_{-1.16}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.14}_{-0.09}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.13}_{-0.05}$$\Big{)}$ $0.82$ ${}^{+0.75}_{-0.71}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.77}_{-0.73}$$\Big{)}$ VBF-like low $m_{\text{jj}}$ high
$\pt^{\PH\text{jj}}$ $1.25$ ${}^{+0.35}_{-0.32}$ $3.46$ ${}^{+1.76}_{-1.64}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+1.79}_{-1.25}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+1.65}_{-1.62}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+1.76}_{-1.25}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.61}_{-0.25}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.32}_{-0.32}$$\Big{)}$ $2.76$ ${}^{+1.40}_{-1.31}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+1.43}_{-1.00}$$\Big{)}$ VBF-like high $m_{\text{jj}}$ low
$\pt^{\PH\text{jj}}$ $1.60$ ${}^{+0.45}_{-0.51}$ $0.97$ ${}^{+0.64}_{-0.63}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.72}_{-0.63}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.63}_{-0.62}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.71}_{-0.63}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.07}_{-0.07}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.11}_{-0.06}$$\Big{)}$ $0.61$ ${}^{+0.40}_{-0.39}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.45}_{-0.39}$$\Big{)}$ VBF-like high $m_{\text{jj}}$ high
$\pt^{\PH\text{jj}}$ $0.73$ ${}^{+0.16}_{-0.16}$ $0.15$ ${}^{+1.08}_{-0.15}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.93}_{-0.73}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+1.04}_{-0.15}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.92}_{-0.73}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.28}_{-0.15}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.14}_{-0.14}$$\Big{)}$ $0.20$ ${}^{+1.47}_{-0.20}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+1.26}_{-1.00}$$\Big{)}$ $\cPq\cPq\PH$ $\PV\PH$-like $1.22$
${}^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ $1.53$ ${}^{+1.20}_{-1.21}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+1.13}_{-1.27}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+1.20}_{-1.20}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+1.12}_{-1.27}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.11}_{-0.19}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.05}_{-0.08}$$\Big{)}$ $1.25$ ${}^{+0.98}_{-0.99}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.92}_{-1.04}$$\Big{)}$ $\cPq\cPq\PH$ BSM $0.37$
${}^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ $0.51$ ${}^{+0.24}_{-0.22}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.24}_{-0.24}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.24}_{-0.22}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.24}_{-0.24}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.03}_{-0.01}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$$\Big{)}$ $1.40$ ${}^{+0.66}_{-0.60}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.66}_{-0.65}$$\Big{)}$ $\PW\PH$ lep $\pt^{\PV}<75$ $0.47$
${}^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ $0.71$ ${}^{+0.68}_{-0.54}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.75}_{-0.47}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.68}_{-0.54}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.75}_{-0.47}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$$\Big{)}$ $1.51$ ${}^{+1.45}_{-1.15}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+1.60}_{-1.00}$$\Big{)}$ $\PW\PH$ lep $75<\pt^{\PV}<150$ $0.29$
${}^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ $0.44$ ${}^{+0.37}_{-0.32}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.37}_{-0.29}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.37}_{-0.32}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.37}_{-0.29}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$$\Big{)}$ $1.49$ ${}^{+1.26}_{-1.08}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+1.25}_{-1.00}$$\Big{)}$ $\PW\PH$ lep $\pt^{\PV}>150$ $0.12$
${}^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ $0.12$ ${}^{+0.12}_{-0.09}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.13}_{-0.10}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.12}_{-0.09}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.13}_{-0.10}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.01}_{-0.00}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$$\Big{)}$ $0.98$ ${}^{+0.98}_{-0.76}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+1.05}_{-0.79}$$\Big{)}$ $\PZ\PH$ lep $0.54$
${}^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ $0.71$ ${}^{+0.41}_{-0.35}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.42}_{-0.35}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.40}_{-0.35}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.41}_{-0.35}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.07}_{-0.03}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$$\Big{)}$ $1.32$ ${}^{+0.76}_{-0.65}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.77}_{-0.65}$$\Big{)}$ $\ttbar\PH$ $\pt^{\PH}<60$ $0.26$
${}^{+0.03}_{-0.04}$ $0.19$ ${}^{+0.24}_{-0.19}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.23}_{-0.19}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.24}_{-0.19}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.23}_{-0.19}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$$\Big{)}$ $0.73$ ${}^{+0.92}_{-0.73}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.89}_{-0.75}$$\Big{)}$ $\ttbar\PH$ $60<\pt^{\PH}<120$ $0.40$
${}^{+0.04}_{-0.05}$ $0.50$ ${}^{+0.26}_{-0.22}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.28}_{-0.22}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.25}_{-0.22}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.28}_{-0.22}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.04}_{-0.02}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.03}_{-0.01}$$\Big{)}$ $1.25$ ${}^{+0.65}_{-0.55}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.72}_{-0.55}$$\Big{)}$ $\ttbar\PH$ $120<\pt^{\PH}<200$ $0.29$
${}^{+0.03}_{-0.04}$ $0.24$ ${}^{+0.17}_{-0.14}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.17}_{-0.16}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.17}_{-0.14}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.17}_{-0.16}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.02}_{-0.01}$$\Big{)}$ $0.80$ ${}^{+0.58}_{-0.49}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.58}_{-0.53}$$\Big{)}$ $\ttbar\PH$ $200<\pt^{\PH}<300$ $0.12$
${}^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ $0.11$ ${}^{+0.11}_{-0.09}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.10}_{-0.09}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.11}_{-0.09}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.10}_{-0.09}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$$\Big{)}$ $0.92$ ${}^{+0.89}_{-0.73}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.81}_{-0.75}$$\Big{)}$ $\ttbar\PH$ $\pt^{\PH}>300$ $0.06$
${}^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ $0.00$ ${}^{+0.08}_{-0.00}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.07}_{-0.06}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.08}_{-0.00}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.07}_{-0.06}$$\Big{)}$ ${}^{+0.01}_{-0.00}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$$\Big{)}$ $0.00$ ${}^{+1.34}_{-0.00}$
$\Big{(}$${}^{+1.21}_{-1.00}$$\Big{)}$ $\PQt\PH$ $0.20$ ${}^{+0.01}_{-0.03}$
$1.71$ ${}^{+0.71}_{-0.93}$ $\Big{(}$${}^{+1.01}_{-0.20}$$\Big{)}$
${}^{+0.70}_{-0.92}$ $\Big{(}$${}^{+1.00}_{-0.20}$$\Big{)}$
${}^{+0.13}_{-0.13}$ $\Big{(}$${}^{+0.11}_{-0.11}$$\Big{)}$ $8.38$
${}^{+3.48}_{-4.55}$ $\Big{(}$${}^{+4.93}_{-1.00}$$\Big{)}$

###  0.9.3 Coupling modifiers

The $\kappa$-framework defines coupling modifiers to directly parametrise
deviations from the SM expectation in the couplings of the Higgs boson to
other particles [14]. Two different likelihood scans, each with two
dimensions, are performed. Full details of each parameterisation are given in
Ref. [8].

In the first fit, the resolved $\kappa$ model is used. Here the scaling
factors of loops present in Higgs boson production and decay are resolved into
their SM components, in terms of the other $\kappa$ parameters. The most
important of these are in $\Pg\Pg\PH$ production and $\PH\\!\to\\!\PGg\PGg$
decay, but others, such as the loop in $\Pg\Pg\PZ\PH$ production, are also
resolved. The results of a two-dimensional scan in $\kappa_{\PV}$ and
$\kappa_{\text{F}}$, scaling the Higgs boson coupling to vector bosons and to
fermions, respectively, are shown in the upper plot of Fig. 22. The
$\PH\\!\to\\!\PGg\PGg$ decay rate contains an interference term proportional
to $\kappa_{\PV}\kappa_{\text{F}}$. This means that the rate of $\Pg\Pg\PH$
and $\ttbar\PH$ production ($\propto\kappa_{\text{F}}^{2}$), relative to the
rate of VBF and $\PV\PH$ production ($\propto\kappa_{\PV}^{2}$), can be used
to gain sensitivity to the relative sign of the tt-H and VV-H couplings. In
addition, the $\PQt\PH\PQq$ and $\PQt\PH\PW$ production modes also include a
term proportional to $\kappa_{\PV}\kappa_{\text{F}}$. This analysis explicitly
targets $\PQt\PH\PQq$ production via the $\PQt\PH\PQq$ leptonic analysis
category, the inclusion of which helps to further reduce the degeneracy
between positive and negative $\kappa_{\text{F}}$ values. The region with
negative values of $\kappa_{\text{F}}$ is observed (expected) to be excluded
with a significance of $0.5$ ($2.4$) standard deviations. The reduction in the
observed significance with respect to the expected is due to the observed
excess in the $\PQt\PH$ production mode cross section.

A second fit is performed using the unresolved $\kappa$ model, where the
$\Pg\Pg\PH$ and $\PH\\!\to\\!\PGg\PGg$ loops are given their own effective
scaling factors denoted $\kappa_{\Pg}$ and $\kappa_{\PGg}$, respectively. The
$\kappa_{\Pg}$ and $\kappa_{\PGg}$ parameters are particularly sensitive to
additional BSM states, that contribute towards the rate of Higgs boson
production and decay via loop processes. The observed result of a two-
dimensional scan in these two parameters is shown in the lower plot of Fig.
22. In the scan, the other $\kappa$ parameters in the unresolved model are
fixed to unity. The best fit point is consistent with the SM expectation at
approximately the 68% .

Figure 22:  Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans performed in the
$\kappa$-framework: $\kappa_{\PV}$-vs-$\kappa_{\text{F}}$ in the resolved
$\kappa$ model (upper) and $\kappa_{\PGg}$-vs-$\kappa_{\Pg}$ in the unresolved
$\kappa$ model (lower) . The 68 and 95% regions are given by the solid and
dashed contours, respectively. The best fit and SM points are shown by the
black cross and red diamond, respectively. The colour scale indicates the
value of the test statistic.

##  0.10 Summary

Measurements of Higgs boson properties with the Higgs boson decaying into a
pair of photons are reported. Events with two photons are selected from a
sample of proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy
$\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ collected with the CMS detector at the LHC from 2016 to
2018, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 137. Analysis categories
enriched in events produced via gluon fusion, vector boson fusion, vector
boson associated production, production associated with two top quarks, and
production associated with one top quark are constructed.

A range of production and coupling properties of the Higgs boson are measured.
The total Higgs boson signal strength, relative to the standard model (SM)
prediction, is measured to be $1.12\pm 0.09$. A simultaneous measurement of
the signal strengths of the four principal Higgs boson production mechanisms
is performed and found to be compatible with the SM prediction with a
$p$-value of 50%. Two different measurements are performed within the
simplified template cross section framework, in which 17 and 27 independent
kinematic regions are measured simultaneously, with corresponding $p$-values
with respect to the SM of 31 and 70%, respectively. Many of these kinematic
regions are measured for the first time, including a simultaneous measurement
of Higgs boson production in association with two top quarks in five different
regions of the Higgs boson transverse momentum $\pt^{\PH}$. Furthermore,
several additional measurements are the most precise made in a single channel
to date. These include cross sections of vector boson fusion in different
kinematic regions, gluon fusion in association with jets, and the region of
gluon fusion production with $\pt^{\PH}>200\GeV$, which is particularly
sensitive to physics beyond the SM. The gluon fusion cross section with
$\pt^{\PH}>200\GeV$ is found to be consistent with the SM, with a measured
value of $0.9_{-0.3}^{+0.4}$ relative to the SM prediction. An upper limit on
the rate of Higgs boson production in association with a single top quark is
also presented. The observed (expected) limit at 95% confidence level is found
to be $14$ ($8$) times the SM prediction. All other results, such as
measurements of the Higgs boson’s couplings to vector bosons and to fermions,
are also in agreement with the SM expectations.

###### Acknowledgements.

We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the
excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative
staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the
success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the
computing centres and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid and other
centres for delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential
to our analyses. We also gratefully acknowledge the LHC Higgs Working Group
for its role in developing stage 1.2 of the simplified template cross section
framework. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction
and operation of the LHC, the CMS detector, and the supporting computing
infrastructure 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 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 programme and the European Research Council and Horizon 2020 Grant,
contract Nos. 675440, 724704, 752730, and 765710 (European Union); the
Leventis Foundation; the Alfred 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, and
under project number 400140256 - GRK2497; the Lendület (“Momentum”) Programme
and the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of
Sciences, the New National Excellence Program ÚNKP, the NKFIA research grants
123842, 123959, 124845, 124850, 125105, 128713, 128786, and 129058 (Hungary);
the Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; the Ministry of Science
and Higher Education and the National Science Center, contracts Opus
2014/15/B/ST2/03998 and 2015/19/B/ST2/02861 (Poland); the National Priorities
Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund; the Ministry of Science and
Higher Education, project no. 0723-2020-0041 (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 programmes cofinanced by EU-ESF and the
Greek NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship,
Chulalongkorn University and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century
Project Advancement Project (Thailand); the Kavli Foundation; the Nvidia
Corporation; the SuperMicro Corporation; the Welch Foundation, contract
C-1845; and the Weston Havens Foundation (USA).

## References

  * [1] ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a new particle in the search for the standard model Higgs boson with the atlas detector at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020, arXiv:1207.7214.
  * [2] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021, arXiv:1207.7235.
  * [3] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 and 8 TeV”,  JHEP 06 (2013) 081, 10.1007/JHEP06(2013)081, arXiv:1303.4571.
  * [4] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of $\ttbar\PH$ production”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 231801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.231801, arXiv:1804.02610.
  * [5] ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of Higgs boson production in association with a top quark pair at the LHC with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Lett. B 784 (2018) 173, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.07.035, arXiv:1806.00425.
  * [6] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of Higgs boson decay to bottom quarks”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 121801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.121801, arXiv:1808.08242.
  * [7] ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of $\PH\rightarrow\bbbar$ decays and V$\PH$ production with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Lett. B 786 (2018) 59, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.09.013, arXiv:1808.08238.
  * [8] CMS Collaboration, “Combined measurements of Higgs boson couplings in proton–proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\,\text{Te}\text{V}$”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 421, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6909-y, arXiv:1809.10733.
  * [9] ATLAS Collaboration, “Combined measurements of Higgs boson production and decay using up to $80$ fb-1 of proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV collected with the ATLAS experiment”,  Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 012002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.012002, arXiv:1909.02845.
  * [10] LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group, “Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector”,  CERN (2016) 10.23731/CYRM-2017-002, arXiv:1610.07922.
  * [11] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of the diphoton decay of the Higgs boson and measurement of its properties”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3076, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3076-z, arXiv:1407.0558.
  * [12] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of Higgs boson properties in the diphoton decay channel in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  JHEP 11 (2018) 185, 10.1007/JHEP11(2018)185, arXiv:1804.02716.
  * [13] M. Cepeda et al., “Report from Working Group 2: Higgs Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC”, in  Proceedings of the HL/HE-LHC Workshop, A. Dainese et al., eds., volume 7, p. 221.  2019\.  arXiv:1902.00134.  CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr. 10.23731/CYRM-2019-007.221.
  * [14] LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group, “Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 3. Higgs properties”,  CERN (2013) 10.5170/CERN-2013-004, arXiv:1307.1347.
  * [15] “HEPDATA record for this analysis”. 10.17182/hepdata.102459.
  * [16] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [17] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS high level trigger”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 46 (2006) 605, 10.1140/epjc/s2006-02495-8, arXiv:hep-ex/0512077.
  * [18] 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.
  * [19] 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.
  * [20] 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.
  * [21] CMS Collaboration, “Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV”,  JINST 12 (2017) P02014, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/P02014, arXiv:1607.03663.
  * [22] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV using the CMS detector”,  JINST 14 (2019) P07004, 10.1088/1748-0221/14/07/P07004, arXiv:1903.06078.
  * [23] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [24] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of $\ttbar\PH$ production and the CP structure of the Yukawa interaction between the Higgs boson and top quark in the diphoton decay channel”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) 061801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.061801, arXiv:2003.10866.
  * [25] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurements of Higgs boson properties in the diphoton decay channel with 36 fb-1 of pp collision data at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 052005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.052005, arXiv:1802.04146.
  * [26] ATLAS Collaboration, “Higgs boson production cross-section measurements and their EFT interpretation in the $4\ell$ decay channel at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 957, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8227-9, arXiv:2004.03447. [Erratum: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08644-x].
  * [27] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurements of gluon-gluon fusion and vector-boson fusion Higgs boson production cross-sections in the $\PH\to\PW\PW^{\ast}\to\Pe\PGn\PGm\PGn$ decay channel in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Lett. B 789 (2019) 508, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.11.064, arXiv:1808.09054.
  * [28] ATLAS Collaboration, “Cross-section measurements of the Higgs boson decaying into a pair of $\tau$-leptons in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 072001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.072001, arXiv:1811.08856.
  * [29] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of properties of the Higgs boson decaying into the four-lepton final state in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  JHEP 11 (2017) 047, 10.1007/JHEP11(2017)047, arXiv:1706.09936.
  * [30] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of properties of the Higgs boson decaying to a W boson pair in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 791 (2019) 96, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.12.073, arXiv:1806.05246.
  * [31] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of the Higgs boson decay to a pair of $\tau$ leptons with the CMS detector”,  Phys. Lett. B 779 (2018) 283, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.02.004, arXiv:1708.00373.
  * [32] N. Berger et al., “Simplified template cross sections – stage 1.1”, LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group Report LHCHXSWG-2019-003, DESY-19-070, 2019.  arXiv:1906.02754.
  * [33] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurements of $\PW\PH$ and $\PZ\PH$ production in the $\PH\rightarrow\bbbar$ decay channel in $pp$ collisions at 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 178, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08677-2, arXiv:2007.02873.
  * [34] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of production cross sections of the Higgs boson in the four-lepton final state in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$”, 2021. arXiv:2103.04956. Accepted by Eur. Phys. J. C.
  * [35] 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, p. 785.  2016\.  10.1145/2939672.2939785.
  * [36] H. Voss, A. Höcker, J. Stelzer, and F. Tegenfeldt, “TMVA, the toolkit for multivariate data analysis with ROOT”, in  XIth International Workshop on Advanced Computing and Analysis Techniques in Physics Research (ACAT), p. 40.  2007\.  arXiv:physics/0703039.  10.22323/1.050.0040.
  * [37] M. Abadi et al., “Tensorflow: A system for large-scale machine learning”, in  Proceedings of the 12th USENIX Conference on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, p. 265.  USENIX Association, USA, 2016.
  * [38] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data taking period”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001, 2017.
  * [39] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at $\sqrt{s}=13~{}\mathrm{TeV}$”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004, 2018.
  * [40] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at $\sqrt{s}=13~{}\mathrm{TeV}$”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002, 2019.
  * [41] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inclusive $\PW$ and $\PZ$ production cross sections in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”,  JHEP 10 (2011) 132, 10.1007/JHEP10(2011)132, arXiv:1107.4789.
  * [42] 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.
  * [43] K. Hamilton, P. Nason, E. Re, and G. Zanderighi, “NNLOPS simulation of Higgs boson production”,  JHEP 10 (2013) 222, 10.1007/JHEP10(2013)222, arXiv:1309.0017.
  * [44] 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.
  * [45] 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.
  * [46] CMS Collaboration, “Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 4, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7499-4, arXiv:1903.12179.
  * [47] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC Run II”,  JHEP 04 (2015) 040, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040, arXiv:1410.8849.
  * [48] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions from high-precision collider data”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 663, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5199-5, arXiv:1706.00428.
  * [49] P. Nason, “A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms”,  JHEP 11 (2004) 040, 10.1088/1126-6708/2004/11/040, arXiv:hep-ph/0409146.
  * [50] S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari, “Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method”,  JHEP 11 (2007) 070, 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070, arXiv:0709.2092.
  * [51] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “NLO Higgs boson production via gluon fusion matched with shower in POWHEG”,  JHEP 04 (2009) 002, 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/04/002, arXiv:0812.0578.
  * [52] P. Nason and C. Oleari, “NLO Higgs boson production via vector-boson fusion matched with shower in POWHEG”,  JHEP 02 (2010) 037, 10.1007/JHEP02(2010)037, arXiv:0911.5299.
  * [53] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX”,  JHEP 06 (2010) 043, 10.1007/JHEP06(2010)043, arXiv:1002.2581.
  * [54] H. B. Hartanto, B. Jager, L. Reina, and D. Wackeroth, “Higgs boson production in association with top quarks in the POWHEG BOX”,  Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 094003, 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.094003, arXiv:1501.04498.
  * [55] T. Gleisberg et al., “Event generation with SHERPA 1.1”,  JHEP 02 (2009) 007, 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/02/007, arXiv:0811.4622.
  * [56] GEANT4 Collaboration, “—a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [57] CMS Collaboration, “Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 16 (2021), no. 05, P05014, 10.1088/1748-0221/16/05/P05014, arXiv:2012.06888.
  * [58] CMS Collaboration, “A measurement of the Higgs boson mass in the diphoton decay channel”,  Phys. Lett. B 805 (2020) 135425, 10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135425, arXiv:2002.06398.
  * [59] E. Spyromitros-Xioufis, G. Tsoumakas, W. Groves, and I. Vlahavas, “Multi-target regression via input space expansion: treating targets as inputs”,  Machine Learning 104 (2016) 55, 10.1007/s10994-016-5546-z, arXiv:1211.6581.
  * [60] CMS Collaboration, “Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data”,  JINST 15 (2020) P09018, 10.1088/1748-0221/15/09/P09018, arXiv:2003.00503.
  * [61] CMS Collaboration, “Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV”,  JINST 13 (2018) P05011, 10.1088/1748-0221/13/05/P05011, arXiv:1712.07158.
  * [62] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 8 TeV”,  JINST 10 (2015) P06005, 10.1088/1748-0221/10/06/P06005, arXiv:1502.02701.
  * [63] 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.
  * [64] ATLAS Collaboration, “$CP$ properties of Higgs boson interactions with top quarks in the $\ttbar\PH$ and $\mathrm{t}\PH$ processes using $\PH\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) 061802, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.061802, arXiv:2004.04545.
  * [65] CMS Collaboration, “Search for direct production of supersymmetric partners of the top quark in the all-jets final state in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  JHEP 10 (2017) 005, 10.1007/JHEP10(2017)005, arXiv:1707.03316.
  * [66] CMS Collaboration, “Precise determination of the mass of the Higgs boson and tests of compatibility of its couplings with the standard model predictions using proton collisions at 7 and 8 TeV”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 212, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3351-7, arXiv:1412.8662.
  * [67] G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, “Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1554, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0, arXiv:1007.1727. [Erratum: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2501-z].
  * [68] R. A. Fisher, “On the interpretation of $\chi^{2}$ from contingency tables, and the calculation of p”,  J. Royal Stat. Soc. 85 (1922) 87, 10.2307/2340521.
  * [69] P. D. Dauncey, M. Kenzie, N. Wardle, and G. J. Davies, “Handling uncertainties in background shapes: the discrete profiling method”,  JINST 10 (2015) P04015, 10.1088/1748-0221/10/04/P04015, arXiv:1408.6865.
  * [70] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of $\mathrm{t\overline{t}}$ differential cross sections in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV using events containing two leptons”,  JHEP 02 (2019) 149, 10.1007/JHEP02(2019)149, arXiv:1811.06625.
  * [71] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of $\ttbar$ cross sections in association with $\PQb$ jets and inclusive jets and their ratio using dilepton final states in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 776 (2018) 355, 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.11.043, arXiv:1705.10141.
  * [72] J. Butterworth et al., “PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II”,  J. Phys. G 43 (2016) 023001, 10.1088/0954-3899/43/2/023001, arXiv:1510.03865.
  * [73] S. Dulat et al., “New parton distribution functions from a global analysis of quantum chromodynamics”,  Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 033006, 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.033006, arXiv:1506.07443.
  * [74] L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin, P. Motylinski, and R. S. Thorne, “Parton distributions in the LHC era: MMHT 2014 PDFs”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 204, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3397-6, arXiv:1412.3989.
  * [75] S. Carrazza et al., “An unbiased Hessian representation for Monte Carlo PDFs”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 369, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3590-7, arXiv:1505.06736.
  * [76] J. Gao and P. Nadolsky, “A meta-analysis of parton distribution functions”,  JHEP 07 (2014) 035, 10.1007/JHEP07(2014)035, arXiv:1401.0013.
  * [77] CMS Collaboration, “Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-16-003, 2017.
  * [78] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  JINST 15 (2020) P10017, 10.1088/1748-0221/15/10/P10017, arXiv:2006.10165.
  * [79] 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.

##  .11 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, A. Tumasyan Institut für
Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, J.W. Andrejkovic, T. Bergauer, S. Chatterjee, M. Dragicevic, A.
Escalante Del Valle, R. Frühwirth1, M. Jeitler1, N. Krammer, L. Lechner, D.
Liko, I. Mikulec, P. Paulitsch, F.M. Pitters, J. Schieck1, R. Schöfbeck, M.
Spanring, S. Templ, W. Waltenberger, C.-E. Wulz1 Institute for Nuclear
Problems, Minsk, Belarus
V. Chekhovsky, A. Litomin, V. Makarenko Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerpen,
Belgium
M.R. Darwish2, E.A. De Wolf, X. Janssen, T. Kello3, A. Lelek, H. Rejeb Sfar,
P. Van Mechelen, S. Van Putte, N. Van Remortel Vrije Universiteit Brussel,
Brussel, Belgium
F. Blekman, E.S. Bols, J. D’Hondt, J. De Clercq, M. Delcourt, H. El Faham, S.
Lowette, S. Moortgat, A. Morton, D. Müller, A.R. Sahasransu, S. Tavernier, W.
Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
D. Beghin, B. Bilin, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, L. Favart, A. Grebenyuk,
A.K. Kalsi, K. Lee, M. Mahdavikhorrami, I. Makarenko, L. Moureaux, L. Pétré,
A. Popov, N. Postiau, E. Starling, L. Thomas, M. Vanden Bemden, C. Vander
Velde, P. Vanlaer, D. Vannerom, L. Wezenbeek Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, J. Knolle, L. Lambrecht, G. Mestdach, M. Niedziela, C.
Roskas, A. Samalan, K. Skovpen, T.T. Tran, M. Tytgat, W. Verbeke, B.
Vermassen, M. Vit Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
A. Bethani, G. Bruno, F. Bury, C. Caputo, P. David, C. Delaere, I.S. Donertas,
A. Giammanco, K. Jaffel, V. Lemaitre, K. Mondal, J. Prisciandaro, A.
Taliercio, M. Teklishyn, P. Vischia, S. Wertz, S. Wuyckens Centro Brasileiro
de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
G.A. Alves, C. Hensel, A. Moraes Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil
W.L. Aldá Júnior, M. Alves Gallo Pereira, M. Barroso Ferreira Filho, H.
BRANDAO MALBOUISSON, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato4, E.M. Da Costa, G.G. Da
Silveira5, D. De Jesus Damiao, S. Fonseca De Souza, D. Matos Figueiredo, C.
Mora Herrera, K. Mota Amarilo, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, P. Rebello Teles, A.
Santoro, S.M. Silva Do Amaral, A. Sznajder, M. Thiel, F. Torres Da Silva De
Araujo, A. Vilela Pereira Universidade Estadual Paulista a, Universidade
Federal do ABC b, São Paulo, Brazil
C.A. Bernardesa,a, L. Calligarisa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M.
Gregoresa,b, D.S. Lemosa, P.G. Mercadantea,b, S.F. Novaesa, Sandra S. Padulaa
Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of
Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, G. Antchev, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, M. Misheva, M. Rodozov,
M. Shopova, G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Dimitrov, T. Ivanov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov, A. Petrov Beihang
University, Beijing, China
T. Cheng, W. Fang3, Q. Guo, T. Javaid6, M. Mittal, H. Wang, L. Yuan Department
of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, G. Bauer, C. Dozen7, Z. Hu, J. Martins8, Y. Wang, K. Yi9,10
Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
E. Chapon, G.M. Chen6, H.S. Chen6, M. Chen, F. Iemmi, A. Kapoor, D. Leggat, H.
Liao, Z.-A. LIU6, V. Milosevic, F. Monti, M.A. Shahzad6, R. Sharma, J. Tao, J.
Thomas-wilsker, J. Wang, H. Zhang, J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of Nuclear
Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
A. Agapitos, Y. Ban, C. Chen, Q. Huang, A. Levin, Q. Li, M. Lu, X. Lyu, Y.
Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang, Q. Wang, J. Xiao Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou,
China
Z. You Institute of Modern Physics and Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and
Ion-beam Application (MOE) - Fudan University, Shanghai, China
X. Gao3, H. Okawa 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. Mejia Guisao, F. Ramirez, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, C.A. Salazar González
University of Split, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering
and Naval Architecture, Split, Croatia
D. Giljanovic, N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak University of Split, Faculty
of Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac, T. Sculac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, D. Majumder, M. Roguljic, A. Starodumov11, T. Susa
University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
A. Attikis, E. Erodotou, A. Ioannou, G. Kole, M. Kolosova, S. Konstantinou, J.
Mousa, C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos, P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski, H. Saka Charles
University, Prague, Czech Republic
M. Finger12, M. Finger Jr.12, A. Kveton Escuela Politecnica Nacional, Quito,
Ecuador
E. Ayala Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
E. Carrera Jarrin Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab
Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt
H. Abdalla13, A.A. Abdelalim14,15 Center for High Energy Physics (CHEP-FU),
Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt
M.A. Mahmoud, Y. Mohammed National Institute of Chemical Physics and
Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
S. Bhowmik, A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveira, R.K. Dewanjee, K. Ehataht, M.
Kadastik, J. Pata, 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
S. Bharthuar, E. Brücken, F. Garcia, J. Havukainen, M.S. Kim, R. Kinnunen, T.
Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, M. Lotti, L. Martikainen, J.
Ott, H. Siikonen, E. Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi Lappeenranta University of
Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
P. Luukka, H. Petrow, T. Tuuva IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-
Yvette, France
C. Amendola, M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, J.L. Faure, F.
Ferri, S. Ganjour, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry,
B. Lenzi, E. Locci, J. Malcles, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M.Ö. Sahin, A. Savoy-
Navarro16, M. Titov, G.B. Yu Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, CNRS/IN2P3, Ecole
Polytechnique, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Palaiseau, France
S. Ahuja, F. Beaudette, M. Bonanomi, A. Buchot Perraguin, P. Busson, A.
Cappati, C. Charlot, O. Davignon, B. Diab, G. Falmagne, S. Ghosh, R. Granier
de Cassagnac, A. Hakimi, I. Kucher, 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. Agram17, J. Andrea, D. Apparu, D. Bloch, G. Bourgatte, J.-M. Brom, E.C.
Chabert, C. Collard, D. Darej, J.-C. Fontaine17, U. Goerlach, C. Grimault,
A.-C. Le Bihan, E. Nibigira, P. Van Hove Institut de Physique des 2 Infinis de
Lyon (IP2I ), 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, K. Shchablo, L. Torterotot, G. Touquet, M. Vander Donckt, S. Viret
Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
A. Khvedelidze12, I. Lomidze, Z. Tsamalaidze12 RWTH Aachen University, I.
Physikalisches Institut, Aachen, Germany
L. Feld, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, D. Meuser, A. Pauls, M.P. Rauch, N. Röwert, 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, F. Ivone, H. Keller, L. Mastrolorenzo, M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, G.
Mocellin, S. Mondal, S. Mukherjee, D. Noll, A. Novak, T. Pook, A. Pozdnyakov,
Y. Rath, H. Reithler, J. Roemer, A. Schmidt, S.C. Schuler, A. Sharma, S.
Wiedenbeck, S. Zaleski RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut B,
Aachen, Germany
C. Dziwok, G. Flügge, W. Haj Ahmad18, O. Hlushchenko, T. Kress, A. Nowack, C.
Pistone, O. Pooth, D. Roy, H. Sert, A. Stahl19, 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. Borras20, V. Botta, D.
Brunner, A. Campbell, A. Cardini, C. Cheng, S. Consuegra Rodríguez, G. Correia
Silva, V. Danilov, L. Didukh, G. Eckerlin, D. Eckstein, L.I. Estevez Banos, O.
Filatov, E. Gallo21, A. Geiser, A. Giraldi, A. Grohsjean, M. Guthoff, A.
Jafari22, N.Z. Jomhari, H. Jung, A. Kasem20, M. Kasemann, H. Kaveh, C.
Kleinwort, D. Krücker, W. Lange, J. Lidrych, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann23, R.
Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, J. Metwally, A.B. Meyer, M. Meyer, J. Mnich, A.
Mussgiller, Y. Otarid, D. Pérez Adán, D. Pitzl, A. Raspereza, B. Ribeiro
Lopes, J. Rübenach, A. Saggio, A. Saibel, M. Savitskyi, V. Scheurer, C.
Schwanenberger21, A. Singh, R.E. Sosa Ricardo, D. Stafford, N. Tonon, O.
Turkot, M. Van De Klundert, R. Walsh, D. Walter, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C.
Wissing, S. Wuchterl University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, L. Benato, A. Benecke, P. Connor, K. De Leo, M. Eich, F.
Feindt, A. Fröhlich, C. Garbers, E. Garutti, P. Gunnellini, J. Haller, A.
Hinzmann, G. Kasieczka, R. Klanner, R. Kogler, T. Kramer, V. Kutzner, J.
Lange, T. Lange, A. Lobanov, A. Malara, A. Nigamova, K.J. Pena Rodriguez, O.
Rieger, P. Schleper, M. Schröder, J. Schwandt, D. Schwarz, J. Sonneveld, H.
Stadie, G. Steinbrück, A. Tews, B. Vormwald, I. Zoi Karlsruher Institut fuer
Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany
J. Bechtel, T. Berger, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, W. De
Boer${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, A. Dierlamm, A. Droll, K. El Morabit, N.
Faltermann, M. Giffels, J.o. Gosewisch, A. Gottmann, F. Hartmann19, C.
Heidecker, U. Husemann, I. Katkov24, P. Keicher, R. Koppenhöfer, S. Maier, M.
Metzler, S. Mitra, Th. Müller, M. Neukum, A. Nürnberg, G. Quast, K. Rabbertz,
J. Rauser, D. Savoiu, M. Schnepf, D. Seith, I. Shvetsov, H.J. Simonis, R.
Ulrich, J. Van Der Linden, R.F. Von Cube, M. Wassmer, M. Weber, S. Wieland, R.
Wolf, S. Wozniewski, S. Wunsch Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics
(INPP), NCSR Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
G. Anagnostou, P. Asenov, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas,
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, E. Tziaferi, 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, N. Manthos, I.
Papadopoulos, J. Strologas MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics
Group, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
M. Csanad, K. Farkas, M.M.A. Gadallah25, S. Lökös26, P. Major, K. Mandal, A.
Mehta, G. Pasztor, A.J. Rádl, O. Surányi, G.I. Veres Wigner Research Centre
for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
M. Bartók27, G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath28, F. Sikler, V. Veszpremi, G.
Vesztergombi${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$ Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI,
Debrecen, Hungary
S. Czellar, J. Karancsi27, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi, D. Teyssier Institute of
Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi29, B. Ujvari Eszterhazy Karoly University, Karoly
Robert Campus, Gyongyos, Hungary
T. Csorgo30, F. Nemes30, T. Novak Indian Institute of Science (IISc),
Bangalore, India
J.R. Komaragiri, D. Kumar, L. Panwar, P.C. Tiwari National Institute of
Science Education and Research, HBNI, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati31, D. Dash, C. Kar, P. Mal, T. Mishra, V.K. Muraleedharan Nair
Bindhu32, A. Nayak32, P. Saha, N. Sur, S.K. Swain, D. Vats32 Panjab
University, Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, G. Chaudhary, S. Chauhan, N. Dhingra33, R.
Gupta, A. Kaur, M. Kaur, S. Kaur, P. Kumari, M. Meena, K. Sandeep, 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. Bharti34, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, D. Bhowmik, S. Dutta, S. Dutta,
B. Gomber35, M. Maity36, S. Nandan, P. Palit, P.K. Rout, G. Saha, B. Sahu, S.
Sarkar, M. Sharan, B. Singh34, S. Thakur34 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. Naskar37, P.K. Netrakanti, L.M.
Pant, P. Shukla Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A, Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, S. Dugad, M. Kumar, U. Sarkar Tata Institute of Fundamental
Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, R. Chudasama, M. Guchait, S. Karmakar, S. Kumar,
G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, S. Mukherjee Indian Institute of Science Education
and Research (IISER), Pune, India
K. Alpana, S. Dube, B. Kansal, S. Pandey, A. Rane, A. Rastogi, S. Sharma
Department of Physics, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
H. Bakhshiansohi38, M. Zeinali39 Institute for Research in Fundamental
Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran
S. Chenarani40, S.M. Etesami, M. Khakzad, M. Mohammadi Najafabadi University
College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
M. Grunewald INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b, Politecnico di Bari
c, Bari, Italy
M. Abbresciaa,b, R. Alya,b,41, C. Arutaa,b, A. Colaleoa, D. Creanzaa,c, N. De
Filippisa,c, M. De Palmaa,b, A. Di Florioa,b, A. Di Pilatoa,b, W.
Elmetenaweea,b, L. Fiorea, A. Gelmia,b, M. Gula, G. Iasellia,c, M. Incea,b, S.
Lezkia,b, G. Maggia,c, M. Maggia, I. Margjekaa,b, V. Mastrapasquaa,b, J.A.
Merlina, S. Mya,b, S. Nuzzoa,b, A. Pellecchiaa,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, L.
Brigliadoria, R. Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A. Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa,
M. Cuffiania,b, G.M. Dallavallea, T. Diotalevia,b, F. Fabbria, A. Fanfania,b,
P. Giacomellia, L. Giommia,b, C. Grandia, L. Guiduccia,b, S. Lo Meoa,42, L.
Lunertia,b, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, F.L. Navarriaa,b, A. Perrottaa, F.
Primaveraa,b, A.M. Rossia,b, T. Rovellia,b, G.P. Sirolia,b INFN Sezione di
Catania a, Università di Catania b, Catania, Italy
S. Albergoa,b,43, S. Costaa,b,43, A. Di Mattiaa, R. Potenzaa,b, A.
Tricomia,b,43, 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, 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, F. Brivioa,b, F. Cetorellia,b, V. Cirioloa,b,19, F. De Guioa,b,
M.E. Dinardoa,b, P. Dinia, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P. Govonia,b, L.
Guzzia,b, M. Malbertia, S. Malvezzia, A. Massironia, D. Menascea, L. Moronia,
M. Paganonia,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Ragazzia,b, N. Redaellia, T. Tabarelli de
Fatisa,b, D. Valsecchia,b,19, 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, F. Carnevalia,b, N. Cavalloa,c, A. De Iorioa,b, F. Fabozzia,c,
A.O.M. Iorioa,b, L. Listaa,b, S. Meolaa,d,19, P. Paoluccia,19, B. Rossia, C.
Sciaccaa,b INFN Sezione di Padova a, Università di Padova b, Padova, Italy,
Università di Trento c, Trento, Italy
P. Azzia, N. Bacchettaa, D. Biselloa,b, P. Bortignona, A. Bragagnoloa,b, R.
Carlina,b, P. Checchiaa, P. De Castro Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa, U. Dossellia, F.
Gasparinia,b, U. Gasparinia,b, S.Y. Hoha,b, L. Layera,44, M. Margonia,b, A.T.
Meneguzzoa,b, J. Pazzinia,b, M. Presillaa,b, P. Ronchesea,b, R. Rossina,b, F.
Simonettoa,b, G. Stronga, M. Tosia,b, H. YARARa,b, M. Zanettia,b, P. Zottoa,b,
A. Zucchettaa,b, G. Zumerlea,b INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b,
Pavia, Italy
C. Aime‘a,b, A. Braghieria, S. Calzaferria,b, D. Fiorinaa,b, P. Montagnaa,b,
S.P. Rattia,b, V. Rea, M. Ressegottia,b, C. Riccardia,b, P. Salvinia, I. Vaia,
P. Vituloa,b INFN Sezione di Perugia a, Università di Perugia b, Perugia,
Italy
G.M. Bileia, D. Ciangottinia,b, L. Fanòa,b, P. Laricciaa,b, M. Magherinib, G.
Mantovania,b, V. Mariania,b, M. Menichellia, F. Moscatellia, A. Piccinellia,b,
A. Rossia,b, A. Santocchiaa,b, D. Spigaa, T. Tedeschia,b INFN Sezione di Pisa
a, Università di Pisa b, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa c, Pisa Italy,
Università di Siena d, Siena, Italy
P. Azzurria, G. Bagliesia, V. Bertacchia,c, L. Bianchinia, T. Boccalia, E.
Bossinia,b, R. Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, M.R. Di Domenicoa,d,
S. Donatoa, A. Giassia, M.T. Grippoa, F. Ligabuea,c, E. Mancaa,c, G.
Mandorlia,c, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, S. Paroliaa,b, 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,d, A. Venturia, P.G.
Verdinia INFN Sezione di Roma a, Sapienza Università di Roma b, Rome, Italy
M. Campanaa,b, 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, R. Tramontanoa,b INFN Sezione di Torino a,
Università di Torino b, Torino, Italy, Università del Piemonte Orientale c,
Novara, Italy
N. Amapanea,b, R. Arcidiaconoa,c, S. Argiroa,b, M. Arneodoa,c, N. Bartosika,
R. Bellana,b, A. Belloraa,b, J. Berenguer Antequeraa,b, C. Biinoa, N.
Cartigliaa, S. Comettia, M. Costaa,b, R. Covarellia,b, N. Demariaa, B.
Kiania,b, F. Leggera, C. Mariottia, S. Masellia, E. Migliorea,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, K. Shchelinaa,b, F. Sivieroa,b, V. Solaa, A. Solanoa,b, D.
Soldia,b, A. Staianoa, M. Tornagoa,b, D. Trocinoa,b, A. Vagnerini 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, G. Sorrentinoa,b, F. Vazzolera,b Kyungpook National
University, Daegu, Korea
S. Dogra, C. Huh, B. Kim, D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, J. Kim, J. Lee, S.W. Lee, C.S.
Moon, Y.D. Oh, S.I. Pak, B.C. Radburn-Smith, S. Sekmen, Y.C. Yang Chonnam
National University, Institute for Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju,
Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
B. Francois, T.J. Kim, J. Park Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, 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, S. Lee, B.H. Oh, M. Oh, S.B. Oh, H. Seo, U.K. Yang, I. Yoon University of
Seoul, Seoul, Korea
W. Jang, D. Jeon, D.Y. Kang, Y. Kang, J.H. Kim, S. Kim, B. Ko, J.S.H. Lee, Y.
Lee, I.C. Park, Y. Roh, D. Song, I.J. Watson, S. Yang Yonsei University,
Department of Physics, Seoul, Korea
S. Ha, H.D. Yoo Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea
Y. Jeong, H. Lee, Y. Lee, I. Yu College of Engineering and Technology,
American University of the Middle East (AUM), Egaila, Kuwait
T. Beyrouthy, Y. Maghrbi Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
V. Veckalns45 Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
M. Ambrozas, A. Juodagalvis, A. Rinkevicius, G. Tamulaitis, A. Vaitkevicius
National Centre for Particle Physics, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
N. Bin Norjoharuddeen, W.A.T. Wan Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli
Universidad de Sonora (UNISON), Hermosillo, Mexico
J.F. Benitez, A. Castaneda Hernandez, M. León Coello, J.A. Murillo Quijada, A.
Sehrawat, L. Valencia Palomo Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados
del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
G. Ayala, H. Castilla-Valdez, I. Heredia-De La Cruz46, R. Lopez-Fernandez,
C.A. Mondragon Herrera, D.A. Perez Navarro, A. Sanchez-Hernandez Universidad
Iberoamericana, Mexico City, Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, M. Ramirez-Garcia, F. Vazquez Valencia
Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada University of Montenegro,
Podgorica, Montenegro
J. Mijuskovic47, N. Raicevic University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
S. Bheesette, P.H. Butler National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam
University, Islamabad, Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M.I. Asghar, A. Awais, M.I.M. Awan, H.R. Hoorani, W.A. Khan, M.A.
Shah, M. Shoaib, M. Waqas AGH University of Science and Technology Faculty of
Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunications, Krakow, Poland
V. Avati, L. Grzanka, M. Malawski National Centre for Nuclear Research,
Swierk, Poland
H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, M. Górski, M. Kazana, M. Szleper, P.
Zalewski Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of Physics, University of
Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J. Krolikowski, M. Walczak
Laboratório de Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas, Lisboa,
Portugal
M. Araujo, P. Bargassa, D. Bastos, A. Boletti, P. Faccioli, M. Gallinaro, J.
Hollar, N. Leonardo, T. Niknejad, M. Pisano, J. Seixas, O. Toldaiev, J. Varela
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
S. Afanasiev, D. Budkouski, I. Golutvin, I. Gorbunov, V. Karjavine, V.
Korenkov, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev48,49, V. Palichik, V. Perelygin,
M. Savina, D. Seitova, V. Shalaev, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, V. Smirnov, O.
Teryaev, N. Voytishin, B.S. Yuldashev50, A. Zarubin, I. Zhizhin Petersburg
Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg), Russia
G. Gavrilov, V. Golovtcov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim51, E. Kuznetsova52, V. Murzin, V.
Oreshkin, I. Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Volkov, A. Vorobyev
Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, D.
Kirpichnikov, M. Kirsanov, N. Krasnikov, A. Pashenkov, G. Pivovarov, D.
Tlisov${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, A. Toropin Institute for Theoretical and
Experimental Physics named by A.I. Alikhanov of NRC ‘Kurchatov Institute’,
Moscow, Russia
V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, A. Nikitenko53, V. Popov, 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, R. Chistov54, M. Danilov55, P. Parygin, S. Polikarpov54 P.N.
Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin, I. Dremin, M. Kirakosyan, A. Terkulov Skobeltsyn
Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow,
Russia
A. Belyaev, E. Boos, V. Bunichev, M. Dubinin56, L. Dudko, A. Ershov, A.
Gribushin, V. Klyukhin, O. Kodolova, I. Lokhtin, S. Obraztsov, S. Petrushanko,
V. Savrin Novosibirsk State University (NSU), Novosibirsk, Russia
V. Blinov57, T. Dimova57, L. Kardapoltsev57, A. Kozyrev57, I. Ovtin57, Y.
Skovpen57 Institute for High Energy Physics of National Research Centre
‘Kurchatov Institute’, Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, D. Elumakhov, V. Kachanov, D. Konstantinov, P.
Mandrik, V. Petrov, R. Ryutin, S. Slabospitskii, A. Sobol, S. Troshin, N.
Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University,
Tomsk, Russia
A. Babaev, V. Okhotnikov Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russia
V. Borchsh, V. Ivanchenko, E. Tcherniaev University of Belgrade: Faculty of
Physics and VINCA Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic58, M. Dordevic, P. Milenovic, J. Milosevic Centro de Investigaciones
Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid, Spain
M. Aguilar-Benitez, J. Alcaraz Maestre, A. Álvarez Fernández, I. Bachiller, M.
Barrio Luna, Cristina F. Bedoya, C.A. Carrillo Montoya, M. Cepeda, M. Cerrada,
N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris, J.P. Fernández Ramos, J. Flix,
M.C. Fouz, O. Gonzalez Lopez, S. Goy Lopez, J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa, J. León
Holgado, D. Moran, Á. Navarro Tobar, A. Pérez-Calero Yzquierdo, J. Puerta
Pelayo, I. Redondo, L. Romero, S. Sánchez Navas, L. Urda Gómez, C. Willmott
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
J.F. de Trocóniz, R. Reyes-Almanza Universidad de Oviedo, Instituto
Universitario de Ciencias y Tecnologías Espaciales de Asturias (ICTEA),
Oviedo, Spain
B. Alvarez Gonzalez, J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, S. Folgueras,
I. Gonzalez Caballero, E. Palencia Cortezon, C. Ramón Álvarez, J. Ripoll Sau,
V. Rodríguez Bouza, A. Trapote, N. Trevisani Instituto de Física de Cantabria
(IFCA), CSIC-Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain
J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, B. Chazin Quero, J.
Duarte Campderros, M. Fernandez, C. Fernandez Madrazo, P.J. Fernández Manteca,
A. García Alonso, G. Gomez, C. Martinez Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del Arbol, F.
Matorras, P. Matorras Cuevas, J. Piedra Gomez, C. Prieels, T. Rodrigo, A.
Ruiz-Jimeno, L. Scodellaro, I. Vila, J.M. Vizan Garcia University of Colombo,
Colombo, Sri Lanka
MK Jayananda, B. Kailasapathy59, D.U.J. Sonnadara, DDC Wickramarathna
University of Ruhuna, Department of Physics, Matara, Sri Lanka
W.G.D. Dharmaratna, K. Liyanage, N. Perera, N. Wickramage CERN, European
Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, D. Abbaneo, J. Alimena, E. Auffray, G. Auzinger, J. Baechler,
P. Baillon${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, D. Barney, J. Bendavid, M. Bianco, A.
Bocci, T. Camporesi, M. Capeans Garrido, G. Cerminara, S.S. Chhibra, L.
Cristella, D. d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, N. Daci, A. David, A. De Roeck, M.M.
Defranchis, M. Deile, M. Dobson, M. Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, N.
Emriskova, F. Fallavollita60, D. Fasanella, S. Fiorendi, A. Florent, G.
Franzoni, W. Funk, S. Giani, D. Gigi, K. Gill, F. Glege, L. Gouskos, M.
Haranko, J. Hegeman, Y. Iiyama, V. Innocente, T. James, P. Janot, J. Kaspar,
J. Kieseler, M. Komm, N. Kratochwil, C. Lange, S. Laurila, P. Lecoq, K. Long,
C. Lourenço, L. Malgeri, S. Mallios, M. Mannelli, A.C. Marini, F. Meijers, S.
Mersi, E. Meschi, F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, S. Orfanelli, L. Orsini, F.
Pantaleo, L. Pape, E. Perez, M. Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A.
Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, D. Piparo, M. Pitt, H. Qu, T. Quast, D. Rabady, A. Racz,
M. Rieger, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, S. Scarfi, C. Schäfer, C.
Schwick, M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva, W. Snoeys, P. Sphicas61, S.
Summers, V.R. Tavolaro, D. Treille, A. Tsirou, G.P. Van Onsem, M. Verzetti, J.
Wanczyk62, K.A. Wozniak, W.D. Zeuner Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen,
Switzerland
L. Caminada63, A. Ebrahimi, W. Erdmann, R. Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C.
Kaestli, D. Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, M. Missiroli, T. Rohe ETH Zurich -
Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics (IPA), Zurich, Switzerland
K. Androsov62, M. Backhaus, P. Berger, A. Calandri, N. Chernyavskaya, A. De
Cosa, G. Dissertori, M. Dittmar, M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, F. Eble, T.A. Gómez
Espinosa, C. Grab, D. Hits, W. Lustermann, A.-M. Lyon, R.A. Manzoni, C. Martin
Perez, M.T. Meinhard, F. Micheli, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, J. Niedziela, F. Pauss, V.
Perovic, G. Perrin, S. Pigazzini, M.G. Ratti, M. Reichmann, C. Reissel, T.
Reitenspiess, B. Ristic, D. Ruini, D.A. Sanz Becerra, M. Schönenberger, V.
Stampf, J. Steggemann62, R. Wallny, D.H. Zhu Universität Zürich, Zurich,
Switzerland
C. Amsler64, P. Bärtschi, C. Botta, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, K. Cormier, A.
De Wit, 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, S. Sanchez Cruz, K. Schweiger,
Y. Takahashi National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan
C. Adloff65, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A. Roy, T. Sarkar36, S.S. Yu National Taiwan
University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
L. Ceard, 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, P.r. Yu Chulalongkorn University,
Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok, Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, N. Srimanobhas Çukurova University,
Physics Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
F. Boran, S. Damarseckin66, Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, I. Dumanoglu67, E.
Eskut, Y. Guler, E. Gurpinar Guler68, I. Hos69, C. Isik, O. Kara, A. Kayis
Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, G. Onengut, K. Ozdemir70, A. Polatoz, A.E. Simsek, B.
Tali71, U.G. Tok, S. Turkcapar, I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East
Technical University, Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak72, G. Karapinar73, K. Ocalan74, M. Yalvac75 Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
B. Akgun, I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya76, O. Kaya77, Ö. Özçelik, S.
Tekten78, E.A. Yetkin79 Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
A. Cakir, K. Cankocak67, Y. Komurcu, S. Sen80 Istanbul University, Istanbul,
Turkey
S. Cerci71, B. Kaynak, S. Ozkorucuklu, D. Sunar Cerci71 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
D. Anthony, E. Bhal, S. Bologna, J.J. Brooke, A. Bundock, E. Clement, D.
Cussans, H. Flacher, J. Goldstein, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, B.
Krikler, S. Paramesvaran, S. Seif El Nasr-Storey, V.J. Smith, N. Stylianou81,
R. White Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev82, 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, I.R. Tomalin, T.
Williams Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, S. Bonomally, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, V.
Cepaitis, G.S. Chahal83, D. Colling, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, J. Davies, M.
Della Negra, S. Fayer, G. Fedi, G. Hall, M.H. Hassanshahi, G. Iles, J.
Langford, L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, A. Martelli, J. Nash84, M.
Pesaresi, D.M. Raymond, A. Richards, A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A.
Shtipliyski, A. Tapper, K. Uchida, T. Virdee19, N. Wardle, S.N. Webb, D.
Winterbottom, A.G. Zecchinelli, S.C. Zenz Brunel University, Uxbridge, United
Kingdom
K. Coldham, J.E. Cole, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, I.D. Reid, L. Teodorescu, S. Zahid
Baylor University, Waco, USA
S. Abdullin, A. Brinkerhoff, B. Caraway, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, A.R.
Kanuganti, B. McMaster, N. Pastika, S. Sawant, C. Smith, C. Sutantawibul, J.
Wilson Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez, R. Uniyal, A.M. Vargas Hernandez The University of
Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
A. Buccilli, S.I. Cooper, D. Di Croce, S.V. Gleyzer, C. Henderson, C.U. Perez,
P. Rumerio85, C. West Boston University, Boston, USA
A. Akpinar, A. Albert, D. Arcaro, C. Cosby, Z. Demiragli, E. Fontanesi, D.
Gastler, J. Rohlf, K. Salyer, D. Sperka, D. Spitzbart, I. Suarez, A. Tsatsos,
S. Yuan, D. Zou Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, B. Burkle, X. Coubez20, D. Cutts, Y.t. Duh, M. Hadley, U. Heintz,
J.M. Hogan86, G. Landsberg, K.T. Lau, J. Lee, M. Lukasik, J. Luo, M. Narain,
S. Sagir87, E. Usai, W.Y. Wong, X. Yan, D. Yu, W. Zhang University of
California, Davis, Davis, USA
J. Bonilla, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez, M.
Chertok, J. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, G. Haza, F. Jensen, O. Kukral, R.
Lander, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, B. Regnery, D. Taylor, Y. Yao, F. Zhang
University of California, Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, R. Cousins, A. Datta, D. Hamilton, J. Hauser, M. Ignatenko, M.A.
Iqbal, T. Lam, N. Mccoll, W.A. Nash, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg, B. Stone, V.
Valuev University of California, Riverside, Riverside, USA
K. Burt, Y. Chen, R. Clare, J.W. Gary, M. Gordon, G. Hanson, G. Karapostoli,
O.R. Long, N. Manganelli, M. Olmedo Negrete, W. Si, S. Wimpenny, Y. Zhang
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, P. Chang, S. Cittolin, S. Cooperstein, N. Deelen, J. Duarte, R.
Gerosa, L. Giannini, D. Gilbert, J. Guiang, R. Kansal, V. Krutelyov, R. Lee,
J. Letts, M. Masciovecchio, S. May, M. Pieri, B.V. Sathia Narayanan, V.
Sharma, M. Tadel, A. Vartak, F. Würthwein, Y. Xiang, A. Yagil University of
California, Santa Barbara - Department of Physics, Santa Barbara, USA
N. Amin, C. Campagnari, M. Citron, A. Dorsett, V. Dutta, J. Incandela, M.
Kilpatrick, J. Kim, B. Marsh, H. Mei, M. Oshiro, M. Quinnan, J. Richman, U.
Sarica, D. Stuart, S. Wang California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
A. Bornheim, O. Cerri, I. Dutta, J.M. Lawhorn, N. Lu, J. Mao, H.B. Newman, J.
Ngadiuba, T.Q. Nguyen, M. Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, C. Wang, S. Xie, Z. Zhang,
R.Y. Zhu Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
J. Alison, S. An, M.B. Andrews, P. Bryant, T. Ferguson, A. Harilal, T.
Mudholkar, M. Paulini, A. Sanchez University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, E. MacDonald, 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, K. Mcdermott, J. Monroy, J.R.
Patterson, D. Quach, J. Reichert, A. Ryd, W. Sun, S.M. Tan, Z. Tao, J. Thom,
P. Wittich, M. Zientek Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, USA
M. Albrow, M. Alyari, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S. Banerjee,
L.A.T. Bauerdick, 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, K.F. Di
Petrillo, V.D. Elvira, Y. Feng, J. Freeman, Z. Gecse, L. Gray, D. Green, S.
Grünendahl, O. Gutsche, R.M. Harris, R. Heller, T.C. Herwig, J. Hirschauer, B.
Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, T. Klijnsma, B. Klima, K.H.M.
Kwok, S. Lammel, D. Lincoln, R. Lipton, T. Liu, C. Madrid, K. Maeshima, C.
Mantilla, D. Mason, P. McBride, P. Merkel, S. Mrenna, S. Nahn, V. O’Dell, V.
Papadimitriou, K. Pedro, C. Pena56, O. Prokofyev, F. Ravera, A. Reinsvold
Hall, L. Ristori, B. Schneider, E. Sexton-Kennedy, N. Smith, A. Soha, W.J.
Spalding, L. Spiegel, S. Stoynev, J. Strait, L. Taylor, S. Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran,
L. Uplegger, E.W. Vaandering, H.A. Weber 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, E. Koenig, J. Konigsberg, A. Korytov,
K.H. Lo, K. Matchev, N. Menendez, G. Mitselmakher, A. Muthirakalayil Madhu, N.
Rawal, D. Rosenzweig, S. Rosenzweig, K. Shi, J. Sturdy, J. Wang, E. Yigitbasi,
X. Zuo Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
T. Adams, A. Askew, D. Diaz, R. Habibullah, 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. Elkafrawy88, M. Hohlmann, R. Kumar Verma, D.
Noonan, M. Rahmani, M. Saunders, F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago
(UIC), Chicago, USA
M.R. Adams, H. Becerril Gonzalez, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, S. Dittmer, O.
Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, C. Mills, G. Oh, T. Roy,
M.B. Tonjes, N. Varelas, J. Viinikainen, X. Wang, Z. Wu, Z. Ye The University
of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, K. Dilsiz89, R.P. Gandrajula, O.K. Köseyan, J.-P. Merlo, A.
Mestvirishvili90, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul91, Y. Onel, A. Penzo, C. Snyder, E.
Tiras92 Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
O. Amram, B. Blumenfeld, L. Corcodilos, J. Davis, M. Eminizer, A.V. Gritsan,
S. Kyriacou, P. Maksimovic, J. Roskes, M. Swartz, T.Á. Vámi The University of
Kansas, Lawrence, USA
J. Anguiano, C. Baldenegro Barrera, P. Baringer, A. Bean, A. Bylinkin, T.
Isidori, S. Khalil, J. King, G. Krintiras, A. Kropivnitskaya, C. Lindsey, N.
Minafra, M. Murray, C. Rogan, C. Royon, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz, J.D. Tapia
Takaki, Q. Wang, J. Williams, G. Wilson Kansas State University, Manhattan,
USA
S. Duric, A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, D. Kim, Y. Maravin, T. Mitchell, A. Modak, K.
Nam 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, N.J. Hadley, S. Jabeen,
R.G. Kellogg, T. Koeth, A.C. Mignerey, S. Nabili, M. Seidel, A. Skuja, L.
Wang, K. Wong Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, G. Andreassi, R. Bi, S. Brandt, W. Busza, I.A. Cali, Y. Chen,
M. D’Alfonso, J. Eysermans, G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov, P. Harris, M. Hu,
M. Klute, D. Kovalskyi, J. Krupa, Y.-J. Lee, B. Maier, C. Mironov, C. Paus, D.
Rankin, C. Roland, G. Roland, Z. Shi, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Tatar, J. Wang, Z.
Wang, B. Wyslouch University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, P. Hansen, J. Hiltbrand, Sh. Jain, M. Krohn, Y.
Kubota, J. Mans, M. Revering, R. Rusack, R. Saradhy, N. Schroeder, N. Strobbe,
M.A. Wadud University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
K. Bloom, M. Bryson, S. Chauhan, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, L. Finco, F. Golf,
J.R. González Fernández, C. Joo, I. Kravchenko, M. Musich, I. Reed, J.E.
Siado, G.R. Snow${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, W. Tabb, F. Yan State University
of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
G. Agarwal, H. Bandyopadhyay, L. Hay, I. Iashvili, A. Kharchilava, C. McLean,
D. Nguyen, J. Pekkanen, S. Rappoccio, A. Williams Northeastern University,
Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, Y. Haddad, A. Hortiangtham, J. Li, G.
Madigan, B. Marzocchi, D.M. Morse, V. Nguyen, T. Orimoto, A. Parker, L.
Skinnari, A. Tishelman-Charny, T. Wamorkar, B. Wang, A. Wisecarver, D. Wood
Northwestern University, Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, J. Bueghly, Z. Chen, A. Gilbert, T. Gunter, K.A. Hahn, N.
Odell, M.H. Schmitt, M. Velasco University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, USA
R. Band, R. Bucci, N. Dev, R. Goldouzian, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C.
Jessop, K. Lannon, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, I. Mcalister, T. McCauley, F.
Meng, K. Mohrman, Y. Musienko48, R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, M. Wayne, A.
Wightman, M. Wolf, M. Zarucki, L. Zygala The Ohio State University, Columbus,
USA
B. Bylsma, B. Cardwell, L.S. Durkin, B. Francis, C. Hill, M. Nunez Ornelas, K.
Wei, B.L. Winer, B.R. Yates Princeton University, Princeton, USA
F.M. Addesa, B. Bonham, P. Das, G. Dezoort, P. Elmer, A. Frankenthal, B.
Greenberg, N. Haubrich, S. Higginbotham, A. Kalogeropoulos, G. Kopp, S. Kwan,
D. Lange, M.T. Lucchini, D. Marlow, K. Mei, I. Ojalvo, J. Olsen, C. Palmer, D.
Stickland, C. Tully University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
A.S. Bakshi, V.E. Barnes, R. Chawla, S. Das, L. Gutay, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, S.
Karmarkar, M. Liu, G. Negro, N. Neumeister, G. Paspalaki, C.C. Peng, S.
Piperov, A. Purohit, J.F. Schulte, M. Stojanovic16, J. Thieman, F. Wang, R.
Xiao, W. Xie Purdue University Northwest, Hammond, USA
J. Dolen, N. Parashar Rice University, Houston, USA
A. Baty, M. Decaro, S. Dildick, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, P. Gardner, F.J.M.
Geurts, A. Kumar, W. Li, B.P. Padley, R. Redjimi, W. Shi, A.G. Stahl Leiton,
S. Yang, L. Zhang, Y. 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. Karacheban23, I. Laflotte, A. Lath, R.
Montalvo, K. Nash, M. Osherson, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, S. Somalwar, R. Stone,
S.A. Thayil, S. Thomas, H. Wang University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
H. Acharya, A.G. Delannoy, S. Spanier Texas A&M University, College Station,
USA
O. Bouhali93, M. Dalchenko, A. Delgado, R. Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T.
Kamon94, H. Kim, S. Luo, S. Malhotra, R. Mueller, D. Overton, 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, I. Volobouev, Z. Wang, A. Whitbeck
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
E. Appelt, S. Greene, A. Gurrola, W. Johns, A. Melo, H. Ni, K. Padeken, F.
Romeo, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska University of Virginia,
Charlottesville, USA
M.W. Arenton, B. Cox, G. Cummings, J. Hakala, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A.
Ledovskoy, A. Li, C. Neu, B. Tannenwald, E. Wolfe Wayne State University,
Detroit, USA
N. Poudyal, P. Thapa University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI, USA
K. Black, T. Bose, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, S. Dasu, I. De Bruyn, P.
Everaerts, F. Fienga, C. Galloni, H. He, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, A.
Lanaro, A. Loeliger, R. Loveless, J. Madhusudanan Sreekala, A. Mallampalli, A.
Mohammadi, D. Pinna, A. Savin, V. Shang, V. Sharma, W.H. Smith, D. Teague, S.
Trembath-reichert, W. Vetens †: Deceased
1: Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria
2: Also at Institute of Basic and Applied Sciences, Faculty of Engineering,
Arab Academy for Science, Technology and Maritime Transport, Alexandria,
Egypt, Alexandria, Egypt
3: Also at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
4: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
5: Also at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
6: Also at University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
7: Also at Department of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China,
Beijing, China
8: Also at UFMS, Nova Andradina, Brazil
9: Also at Nanjing Normal University Department of Physics, Nanjing, China
10: Now at The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
11: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics named by A.I.
Alikhanov of NRC ‘Kurchatov Institute’, Moscow, Russia
12: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
13: Also at Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
14: Also at Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
15: Now at Zewail City of Science and Technology, Zewail, Egypt
16: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
17: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
18: Also at Erzincan Binali Yildirim University, Erzincan, Turkey
19: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
20: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
21: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
22: Also at Department of Physics, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan,
Iran, Isfahan, Iran
23: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
24: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
25: Also at Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Assiut University, Assiut,
Egypt
26: Also at Eszterhazy Karoly University, Karoly Robert Campus, Gyongyos,
Hungary
27: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary,
Debrecen, Hungary
28: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
29: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary, Budapest, Hungary
30: Also at Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
31: Also at IIT Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India, Bhubaneswar, India
32: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
33: Also at G.H.G. Khalsa College, Punjab, India
34: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India
35: Also at University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India
36: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
37: Also at Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Mumbai, India
38: Also at Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
39: Also at Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
40: Also at Department of Physics, University of Science and Technology of
Mazandaran, Behshahr, Iran
41: Now at INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b, Politecnico di Bari
c, Bari, Italy
42: Also at Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and
Sustainable Economic Development, Bologna, Italy
43: Also at Centro Siciliano di Fisica Nucleare e di Struttura Della Materia,
Catania, Italy
44: Also at Università di Napoli ’Federico II’, NAPOLI, Italy
45: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia, Riga, Latvia
46: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico City, Mexico
47: Also at IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
48: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
49: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
50: Also at Institute of Nuclear Physics of the Uzbekistan Academy of
Sciences, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
51: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
52: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
53: Also at Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
54: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
55: Also at Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia,
Moscow, Russia
56: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
57: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
58: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
59: Also at Trincomalee Campus, Eastern University, Sri Lanka, Nilaveli, Sri
Lanka
60: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy,
Pavia, Italy
61: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
62: Also at Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
63: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
64: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics, Vienna, Austria,
Vienna, Austria
65: Also at Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules,
IN2P3-CNRS, Annecy-le-Vieux, France
66: Also at Şırnak University, Sirnak, Turkey
67: Also at Near East University, Research Center of Experimental Health
Science, Nicosia, Turkey
68: Also at Konya Technical University, Konya, Turkey
69: Also at Istanbul University - Cerraphasa, Faculty of Engineering,
Istanbul, Turkey
70: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
71: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
72: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
73: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
74: Also at Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
75: Also at Bozok Universitetesi Rektörlügü, Yozgat, Turkey, Yozgat, Turkey
76: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
77: Also at Milli Savunma University, Istanbul, Turkey
78: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
79: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
80: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
81: Also at Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
82: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
83: Also at IPPP Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom
84: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia
85: Also at Università di Torino, TORINO, Italy
86: Also at Bethel University, St. Paul, Minneapolis, USA, St. Paul, USA
87: Also at Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey
88: Also at Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
89: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
90: Also at Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
91: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
92: Also at Erciyes University, KAYSERI, Turkey
93: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
94: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea, Daegu, Korea