SMP-18-003

SMP-18-003

# Measurement of the $\PZ$ boson differential production cross section using
its invisible decay mode ($\PZ\to\PGn\bar{\PGn}$) in proton-proton collisions
at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$

###### Abstract

Measurements of the total and differential fiducial cross sections for the
boson decaying into two neutrinos are presented at the LHC in proton-proton
collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $13\TeV$. The data were collected by
the CMS detector in 2016 and correspond to an integrated luminosity of 35.9.
In these measurements, events are selected containing an imbalance in
transverse momentum and one or more energetic jets. The fiducial differential
cross section is measured as a function of the boson transverse momentum. The
results are combined with a previous measurement of charged-lepton decays of
the boson.

##  0.1 Introduction

The precision measurements of the production of neutrino pairs via the boson
is an important aspect of the LHC program for testing the standard model (SM)
of particle physics. They provide a reference for various other measurements
in the high energy regime, especially when searching for contributions beyond
the SM, where the boson production constitutes an important background
process. Expectations for the boson cross section have been calculated up to
next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) in perturbative quantum chromodynamics
(QCD) and up to next-to-leading order (NLO) in electroweak (EW) production,
which correspond to a full NLO EW theory [1, 2, 3, 4] supplemented by two-loop
Sudakov EW logarithms [5, 6, 7, 8]. The calculations are limited by the
uncertainties in parton distribution functions (PDFs), and higher-order QCD
and EW corrections [9].

Measurements of the differential boson production cross sections have been
reported by both ATLAS [10, 11, 12, 13] and CMS [14, 15, 16, 17] at the CERN
LHC using charged leptons (electrons or muons) in the final states. However,
no differential measurement of the bosons identified via their decays to a
pair of neutrinos have yet been reported at a hadron collider. The boson
branching fraction to neutrinos is about a factor of six times that to
electrons or muons, which leads to a smaller statistical uncertainty. This can
only be fully exploited at large transverse momenta of the boson
($\pt^{\PZ}$), above $\approx$500, where the measurement of the missing
transverse momentum () is sufficiently accurate. This measurement therefore
complements those using the charged lepton final states and improves their
precision at a higher energy scale. A significant deviation, in particular at
large $\pt^{\PZ}$, could reveal signs of physics beyond the SM [18, 19, 20].

This paper presents the first inclusive, differential, and normalized fiducial
cross section measurements as functions of $\pt^{\PZ}$, where the boson is
identified via its decay to a pair of neutrinos. The neutrinos are not
detected by the CMS detector, but are reconstructed indirectly through the
transverse momentum imbalance in the event. We use events with energetic jets
and large $\ptmiss$, where the jets mainly arise from the fragmentation and
hadronization of quarks or gluons that are produced in the hard scattering
process as initial-state radiation. The analysis is based on a data sample of
proton-proton ($\Pp\Pp$) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $13\TeV$,
corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $35.9\pm 0.9$collected with the
CMS detector at the LHC in 2016.

This paper is organized as follows. A brief overview of the CMS detector is
given in Section 0.2. Information about the definition of objects used in the
analysis and the event selection is summarized in Section 0.3. Event
simulations with various Monte Carlo (MC) generators are discussed in Section
0.4. Section 0.5 explains the signal-extraction strategy and Section 0.6
discusses the total, differential, and normalized fiducial cross section
measurements. A combined analysis of the current measurements with those from
charged leptons is presented in Section 0.7. Finally, we summarize our results
in Section 0.8.

##  0.2 The CMS detector and event reconstruction

The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6m
internal diameter, providing a magnetic field of 3.8T. A silicon pixel and
strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL),
and a brass and scintillator hadron calorimeter (HCAL), each composed of a
barrel and two end sections reside within the solenoid volume. Forward
calorimeters extend the pseudorapidity ($\eta$) coverage provided by the
barrel and end-section detectors. Muons are detected in gas-ionization
chambers embedded in the steel flux-return yoke outside the solenoid. A more
detailed description of the CMS detector, together with a definition of the
coordinate system and kinematic variables, can be found in Ref. [21]. Events
of interest are selected using a two-tiered trigger system [22]. The first
level, composed of custom hardware processors, uses information from the
calorimeters and muon detectors at an output rate of $\approx$100kHz within a
fixed latency of about 4. The second level, known as the high-level trigger,
consists of a farm of processors running a version of the full event
reconstruction software optimized for fast processing, that reduces the event
rate to $\approx$1kHz before data storage. Additional $\Pp\Pp$ interactions to
the studied collision that take place in the same or nearby bunch crossings
are referred to as pileup.

Events are reconstructed using a particle-flow (PF) algorithm [23], which
combines information from the tracker, calorimeters, and muon systems to
reconstruct and identify charged and neutral hadrons, photons, muons, and
electrons. Jets are reconstructed by clustering PF candidates using the anti-
algorithm [24, 25] with a distance parameter $R=0.4$. The jet energies are
calibrated in the simulation, and separately in data, accounting for energy
deposits of neutral particles from pileup and any nonlinear detector response
[26, 27]. A charged-hadron subtraction technique, which removes the energy of
charged hadrons not originating from the event primary vertex (PV) [28], is
applied to mitigate the effect of pileup. The PV is defined as the vertex with
the largest value of summed physics-object $\pt^{2}$. Here, the physics
objects are the jets clustered using the jet finding algorithm [24, 25] with
the tracks assigned to the vertex as inputs, and the associated $\ptmiss$,
which is the negative vector $\pt$ sum of those jets. The estimation of
$\ptmiss$ is improved by propagating the energy correction to the jet four
vectors into the sum, as described in Ref. [29].

##  0.3 Event selection

We define a signal region (SR) and two control regions (CR) using single-
lepton events. While the number of signal events is extracted from the SR, the
CRs are used to constrain the dominant $\PW(\ell\PGn)+\text{jets}$ background.
The data from the SR are based on a set of dedicated triggers designed to
select events with large $p_{\text{T, trig}}^{\text{miss}}$ and $H_{\text{T,
trig}}^{\text{miss}}$ as calculated with PF algorithm in the trigger. The
observable $p_{\text{T, trig}}^{\text{miss}}$ corresponds to the magnitude of
the vector $\ptvec$ sum of all PF candidates reconstructed at the trigger
level, while the $H_{\text{T, trig}}^{\text{miss}}$ is the scalar sum of jet
$\pt$s with $\pt>20\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<5.0$ reconstructed at the trigger
level. The energy fraction attributed to neutral hadrons in these jets is
required to be smaller than 0.9 to suppress events with jets originating from
detector noise. In this dedicated trigger algorithm, which provides events for
the single-muon CR, the identified PF muons are not considered in the
computations of $p_{\text{T, trig}}^{\text{miss}}$ and $H_{\text{T,
trig}}^{\text{miss}}$. The trigger efficiency is measured to be 97% for events
passing the analysis selection with $\ptmiss>250\GeV$, and becomes 100% for
events with $\ptmiss>350\GeV$ [18]. The single-electron CR is selected from a
different data set based on isolated and non isolated single-electron
triggers. The trigger efficiency for the single-electron CR is measured to be
$\approx$90% for events passing the selection for electrons with $\pt>40\GeV$,
and becomes fully efficient for events with electron at $\pt>100\GeV$. The
definitions in the following analysis are based on the reconstructed PF
candidates, and incorporate additional algorithms and requirements to optimize
the selected objects.

Jets originating from quarks are identified (-tagged) using a multivariate
algorithm, referred to as the combined secondary vertex algorithm (CSVv2)
[30]. The tagging working point used in this analysis has a tagging efficiency
of $\approx$65% as measured for jets originating from the hadronization of
quarks in top quark pair () events, with a corresponding mistag rate for jets
that originate from the hadronization of light flavor quarks of $\approx$1%
[30].

Electron candidates are reconstructed by matching clusters of energy in the
ECAL to tracks in the silicon tracker [31]. Clusters compatible with
electromagnetic deposition become seeds for electron tracks by back-
propagating their trajectories from the calorimeter to the tracker. Tracker
seeds are also created from existing tracks by extrapolating their
trajectories to the ECAL surface and associating them to PF clusters. After
seeds are created, track reconstruction is performed using a dedicated fitting
algorithm that includes bremsstrahlung photons that are compatible with
originating from an electron track. Additional requirements are applied to
reject electrons created in photon conversions in tracker material or jets
misreconstructed as electrons. Electron identification criteria rely on
observables sensitive to bremsstrahlung along the electron trajectory, the
geometrical and momentum-energy matching between the electron trajectory and
the associated energy deposit in ECAL, as well as the distribution of energy
in the shower and its association with the PV.

Muon candidates are reconstructed in the central tracking system alone or by
combining charged tracks in the muon detector with trajectories in the central
tracker [32]. Identification criteria based on the number of measurements in
the tracker and in the muon system, the fit quality of the muon track, and its
consistency with its origin from the PV are imposed on the muon candidates to
reduce the misidentification rate.

Prompt charged leptons are usually isolated, whereas misidentified leptons and
leptons from QCD production, such as jets, are often accompanied by charged
hadrons or neutral particles. Leptons also arise from a secondary vertex if
they are decay products of bottom or charm hadrons. To identify prompt charged
leptons we require electrons and muons to satisfy an isolation criterion. An
isolation variable is defined by the sum over charged PF candidates associated
to the PV and neutral PF particles within a cone around the lepton of radius
$\Delta R=\sqrt{\smash[b]{(\Delta\eta)^{2}+(\Delta\phi)^{2}}}=0.4$, excluding
the lepton. Here $\Delta\phi$ and $\Delta\eta$ refer to the differences in the
$\phi$ (azimuth) and $\eta$ variables of the PF candidate to the charged-
lepton candidate. Isolation cannot be larger than a given maximum value [18].
To mitigate the effect of pileup on this variable, a correction is implemented
based on the total event occupancy [33].

The $\tau$ leptons that decay to hadrons () are identified using the “hadron-
plus-strips” algorithm [34]. This algorithm constructs candidates seeded by PF
jets that are consistent with lepton decay with one or three charged pions. In
the single charged pion decay mode, the presence of neutral pions is detected
by reconstructing their photonic decays. Mistagged jets originating from non-
decays are rejected by a discriminator that takes into account the pileup
contribution to the neutral component of the decay [35]. In addition, decay
candidates are, in similarity to electron and muon candidates, required to
satisfy an isolation criterion as described in Ref. [34].

Photon candidates are reconstructed [36] from clusters in the ECAL that are
required to be isolated. The energy deposition in the HCAL tower closest to
the seed of the ECAL supercluster [31] assigned to the photon is required to
contain $<$5% of the energy deposited in the ECAL. The photon isolation is
defined by the sum over scalar $\pt$ in a cone centered around the photon
momentum vector with a radius of $\Delta R=0.3$, that excludes the
contribution of the photon candidate itself. Corrections for pileup effects
are applied to the isolation criteria and depend on the $\eta$ of the photon.

###  0.3.1 Signal region

Events in the SR are selected using triggers with thresholds of 110 or 120on
$p_{\text{T, trig}}^{\text{miss}}$ and $H_{\text{T, trig}}^{\text{miss}}$ that
depend on the data-taking period. Events are required to have
$\ptmiss>250\GeV$, and the leading jet in the event is required to have
$\pt>100\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.5$. The leading jet is also required to have
at least 10% of its energy associated with charged particles and less than 80%
to neutral hadrons. This selection helps to reduce beam-induced background
events. In addition, the analysis employs various event filters to reduce
large misreconstructed $\ptmiss$ backgrounds not originating from beam-beam
collisions [29]. The background from $\PW(\ell\PGn)+\text{jets}$ is suppressed
by imposing a veto on events containing one or more loosely identified
electron or muon with $\pt>10\GeV$, or $\tau$ leptons with $\pt>18\GeV$.
Events that contain an isolated photon with $\pt>15\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.5$
are also vetoed to reduce the $\gamma+\text{jets}$ background. To reduce the
contamination from top quark backgrounds, events are rejected if they contain
an identified quark jet candidate with $\pt>20\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.4$.
Finally, production of multijet background events from QCD processes with
$\ptmiss$ arising from mismeasurements of the jet momenta is suppressed by
requiring the minimum azimuthal angle between the $\ptvecmiss$ direction and
each of the first four jets with greater than $30$($\Delta\phi(\ptvec^{\kern
1.0pt\text{jet}},\ptvecmiss)$) to be larger than 0.5 radians. The selection
requirements in the SR are summarized in Table 0.3.1.

Summary of the signal region definition.  Variable Selection Against
background from Electron veto $\pt>10\GeV,\abs{\eta}<2.5$
$\PZ\to\ell\ell+\text{jets}$, $\PW(\ell\PGn)+\text{jets}$ Muon veto
$\pt>10\GeV,\abs{\eta}<2.4$ $\PZ\to\ell\ell+\text{jets}$,
$\PW(\ell\PGn)+\text{jets}$ $\tau$ veto $\pt>18\GeV,\abs{\eta}<2.3$
$\PZ\to\ell\ell+\text{jets}$, $\PW(\ell\PGn)+\text{jets}$ Photon veto
$\pt>15\GeV,\abs{\eta}<2.5$ $\gamma+\text{jets}$ jet veto CSVv2 $<$0.8484,
$\pt>20\GeV,~{}\abs{\eta}<2.4$ Top quark $\ptmiss$ $>$250 QCD multijet, top
quark, $\PZ\to\ell\ell+\text{jets}$ $\Delta\phi(\ptvec^{\kern
1.0pt\text{jet}},\ptvecmiss)$ $>$0.5 radians QCD multijet Leading jet
$\pt>100\GeV$, $\abs{\eta}<2.4$ All

###  0.3.2 Single-muon control region

The single-muon CR is enriched in $\PW(\PGm\PGn)+\text{jets}$ events and is
defined using the SR criteria with two modifications. First, the muon veto is
not applied, and exactly one tightly identified and isolated muon with
$\pt>20\GeV$ is required [32]. No additional loosely identified electrons or
muons with $\pt>10\GeV$ are accepted. Second, the transverse mass of the
muon-$\ptvecmiss$ system, given by
$\mT=\sqrt{\smash[b]{2\ptmiss~{}\pt^{\PGm}(1-\mathrm{cos}\Delta\phi)}}$, where
$\pt^{\PGm}$ is the of the muon, and $\Delta\phi$ is the azimuthal angle
between $\ptvec^{\PGm}$ and $\ptvecmiss$, is required to be less than 160.
This suppresses background from QCD multijet events.

###  0.3.3 Single-electron control region

The single-electron CR is enriched in $\PW(\Pe\PGn)+\text{jets}$ events and is
defined using the trigger selection described above. Events in the single-
electron CR are required to contain exactly one tightly identified and
isolated electron with $\pt>40\GeV$ [31], and no additional loosely identified
electrons or muons with $\pt>10\GeV$. Finally, the contamination from QCD
multijet events is suppressed by requiring $\ptmiss>50\GeV$ and having the
$\mT$ of the electron-$\ptvecmiss$ system satisfy $\mT<160\GeV$.

##  0.4 Signal and background simulation

Multiple MC event generators are used to simulate the signal and background
processes in this analysis. The simulated events are used to optimize
selections, evaluate selection efficiencies and systematic uncertainties, and
compute expected yields.

Simulated MC samples are produced for the $\PZ+\text{jets}$ and
$\PW+\text{jets}$ processes at next-to-leading order (NLO) in QCD using the
2.2.2 [37] generator with up to two additional partons in the matrix element
calculations. These events are corrected by vector boson $\pt$-dependent
higher-order EW terms using the multiplicative prescription given in Refs. [1,
2, 3, 6, 38, 4].

The QCD multijet processes are generated using at leading order (LO) in QCD
with up to four additional partons in the matrix element calculations. The and
single top quark backgrounds are generated at NLO using 2.0 and 1.0,
respectively [39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44], and the diboson ($\PW\PW$, $\PW\PZ$,
and $\PZ\PZ$) processes are generated at LO in QCD using 8.205 [45].

The MC samples generated using and are interfaced to 8.212 [45] using the
CUETP8M1 tune [46] for the fragmentation, hadronization, and underlying event.
The generator provides jets from matrix-element calculations matched to the
parton-shower description following the MLM [47] (FxFx [48]) method for LO
(and NLO). We use the NNPDF 3.0 [49] PDFs in all generated samples or NNPDF
3.1 [50] for the theoretical calculations. All MC events are processed through
a simulation of the CMS detector based on [51] and are reconstructed with the
same algorithms used for data. Additional pileup interactions are also
simulated. The distribution of the number of pileup interactions in the
simulation is adjusted to match the one observed in the data. The average
number of pileup interactions in 2016 was 23.

##  0.5 Signal extraction

The largest background contribution in this analysis, about 85%, arises from
the $\PW(\ell\PGn)+\text{jets}$ process in events where the charged lepton is
either not reconstructed or falls outside the detector acceptance, and is
estimated using data from the mutually exclusive CRs selected from single-muon
and single-electron final states. The hadronic recoil from the jets is used as
an estimator for $\ptmiss$ in these control samples, and is defined by
excluding any identified electrons or muons from its calculation.

A binned maximum-likelihood fit to the data is performed simultaneously in the
SR and the two CRs to estimate the signal and the $\PW(\ell\PGn)+\text{jets}$
background rates in each $\ptmiss$ bin. The $\PW(\ell\PGn)+\text{jets}$
background normalization in each $\ptmiss$ bin is therefore a free parameter
of the fit along with the signal yield:

$\displaystyle\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mu}^{\PW\to\ell\PGn},\boldsymbol{\mu},\boldsymbol{\theta})$
$\displaystyle=\prod_{i}\mathrm{Poisson}\left(d^{W}_{i}|B^{W}_{i}(\boldsymbol{\theta})+\frac{\mu^{\PW\to\ell\PGn}_{i}}{R^{W}_{i}(\boldsymbol{\theta})}\right)$
$\displaystyle~{}\times\prod_{i}\mathrm{Poisson}\left(d_{i}|B_{i}(\boldsymbol{\theta})+\mu^{\PW\to\ell\PGn}_{i}+\boldsymbol{\mu}S_{i}(\boldsymbol{\theta})\right).$

In the above fit, $d_{i}$ and $d^{W}_{i}$ are the observed number of events in
each bin of the SRs and single-lepton CRs, respectively. The expected
contributions from background processes in these SRs and CRs are denoted as
$B_{i}$ and $B_{i}^{W}$, respectively. The systematic uncertainties
($\boldsymbol{\theta}$) enter the likelihood as additive perturbations to the
transfer factors $R^{W}_{i}$, and are modeled with Gaussian priors. The
parameter $\boldsymbol{\mu}_{i}^{\PW\to\ell\PGn}$ represents the yield of the
$\PW(\ell\PGn)+\text{jets}$ background in the $i^{th}$ $\ptmiss$ bin, and is
left freely floating in the fit. The yields of our signal process
$\PZ\to\PGn\PGn$ is represented as $S_{i}$. The transfer factors $R^{W}_{i}$
are constructed from the $\PW\to\PGm\PGn$ and $\PW\to\Pe\PGn$ simulated event
yields in the respective single-lepton CRs and used to constrain the
$\PW(\ell\PGn)+\text{jets}$ backgrounds estimated in the SR [18]. These
transfer factors are defined as the ratio of expected yields of the target
process in the signal region and the process being measured in the control
sample. They include the impacts from lepton acceptance and efficiency,
lepton-veto efficiency, and the differences in trigger efficiencies in the CRs
relative to the SR. The systematic uncertainties in these transfer factors are
modeled in the maximum-likelihood fit as constrained-nuisance parameters that
include both experimental and theoretical components. Finally, the signal
strength, $\mu$, is left freely floating in the fit, and is the observed cross
section relative to the predicted value.

Theoretical uncertainties of the $\PW(\ell\PGn)+\text{jets}$ contributions
include the effects from the modeling of uncertainties in the PDFs [52]
because of higher-order corrections. Experimental uncertainties, including the
lepton reconstruction, selection, and veto efficiencies are incorporated into
the transfer factors. Lepton veto efficiencies are estimated by propagating
them through the uncertainty in the tagging-scale factor to the vetoed
selections, whereas the lepton flavor composition of the
$\PW(\ell\PGn)+\text{jets}$ process is constrained by the CRs. These
experimental uncertainties are only applicable to the leptons in the SR that
are not identified, and therefore passed the veto requirement but fall into
the detector acceptance. The overall magnitude of the lepton veto uncertainty
is determined to be $\approx$2% and is dominated by the $\tau$ lepton veto
uncertainty. The uncertainties in the efficiency of the electron and $\ptmiss$
triggers are also included in the transfer factors. All uncertainties
discussed are within 1–2% range and are fully correlated across all the bins
of hadronic recoil . The full list of uncertainties in the transfer factors
are summarized in Table 0.5.

Experimental uncertainties affecting transfer factors in the analysis that is
used to estimate the $\PW\to\ell\PGn$ background in the SR. The number of
$\PW$ boson events are denoted as $\PW_{\mathrm{SR}}$ for the SR and in
analogy as $\PW_{\PGm\PGn}$ ($\PW_{\Pe\PGn}$) for the single-muon (single-
electron) CR.  Source Process Uncertainty (%) Electron trigger
$\PW_{\mathrm{SR}}/\PW_{\Pe\PGn}$ 1 $\ptmiss$ trigger
$\PW_{\mathrm{SR}}/\PW_{\Pe\PGn/\PGm\PGn}$ 0–2 (shape) Muon reconstruction
efficiency $\PW_{\mathrm{SR}}/\PW_{\PGm\PGn}$ 1 Muon identification efficiency
$\PW_{\mathrm{SR}}/\PW_{\PGm\PGn}$ 1 Electron reconstruction efficiency
$\PW_{\mathrm{SR}}/\PW_{\Pe\PGn}$ 1 Electron identification efficiency
$\PW_{\mathrm{SR}}/\PW_{\Pe\PGn}$ 1.5 Muon veto
$\PW_{\mathrm{SR}}/\PW_{\Pe\PGn/\PGm\PGn}$ $<$1 (shape) Electron veto
$\PW_{\mathrm{SR}}/\PW_{\Pe\PGn/\PGm\PGn}$ $<$1 (shape) $\tau$ veto
$\PW_{\mathrm{SR}}/\PW_{\Pe\PGn/\PGm\PGn}$ 1–2 (shape) PDF
$\PW_{\mathrm{SR}}/\PW_{\Pe\PGn/\PGm\PGn}$ 1–2 (shape)

The remaining backgrounds that contribute to the total event yield in the SR
are much smaller than those from $\PW(\ell\PGn)+\text{jets}$. These
backgrounds include QCD multijet events, that are measured by extrapolating
data from CR defined by $\Delta\phi(\ptvec^{\kern
1.0pt\text{jet}},\ptvecmiss)<0.5$. Top quark, diboson, and
$\PZ\to\ell\ell+\text{jets}$ (when both leptons are out of acceptance)
production are obtained directly from simulation.

Uncertainties assigned to processes estimated from simulation include the
uncertainties in the efficiency of the jet veto, which are estimated to be 3.0
(1.0)% for the top quark (diboson) background. A systematic uncertainty of 10%
is included in the top quark background normalization from the modeling of the
top quark $\pt$ distribution [53, 54]. Systematic uncertainties of 10 and 20%
are included in the normalizations of the top quark [55] and diboson
backgrounds [56, 57], respectively, to account for the uncertainties in their
cross sections in the relevant kinematic phase space. A systematic uncertainty
of 20% is also used to account for the rate of the
$\PZ\to\ell\ell+\text{jets}$ process. Finally, an uncertainty in the QCD
multijet background of 50–150% is assigned to cover differences in the jet
response and the statistical uncertainty in the extrapolation from the CR to
the SR. These uncertainties are summarized in Table 0.5.

Uncertainties assigned to simulation-based processes in SR and CRs.  Source
Process Uncertainty (%) Luminosity [58] All 2.3 Electron trigger All in
single-electron CR 1.0 $\ptmiss$ trigger All in SR and single-muon CR 0–2.0
(shape) Jet/$\ptmiss$ momentum scale All 4.0 Pileup All 1.0–2.0 (shape) Muon
reconstruction efficiency All in single-muon CR 1.0 Muon identification
efficiency All in single-electron CR 1.0 Electron reconstruction efficiency
All in single-electron CR 1.0 Electron identification efficiency All in
single-electron CR 1.5 jet veto Top quark in SR and all CRs 3.0 All remaining
in SR and all CRs 1.0 $\pt$ reweighting of top quark Top quark 10 Top quark
normalization Top quark 10 Normalization of diboson Diboson 20
$\PZ\to\ell\ell+\text{jets}$ normalization $\PZ\to\ell\ell+\text{jets}$ in SR
20 Normalization of QCD multijets QCD multijets in SR 50–150 (shape)

##  0.6 Fiducial cross section measurements

This analysis provides the boson production cross section in a restricted
fiducial region and compares with the theoretical predictions. The data
selection defined at the reconstruction level is summarized in Table 0.3.1.
The fiducial phase space, for which theoretical predictions are computed, is
defined at the generator level without considering the detector response. The
detector resolution leads to a difference between the observables at the
reconstruction and the analogous generator level quantities. To minimize
discrepancies, the selection criteria imposed at the generator level are
defined to mimic the definition at the reconstructed level as much as
possible. For this analysis, the fiducial phase space is defined by requiring
$\ptmiss>200\GeV$ without any other requirements placed on the boson
kinematics or the transverse momentum of the leading jet. The $\ptmiss$ is the
reconstructed $\pt$ of the neutrino pair emitted in boson decays.

The differences between fiducial and analysis requirements at the
reconstructed level, specifically the requirements on $\ptmiss>250\GeV$ and
$\pt^{\text{jet}}>100\GeV$, introduces a small, $\approx$0.9%, theoretical
uncertainty from PDFs and missing higher orders in renormalization and
factorization scales (QCD scales). These uncertainties are computed by
comparing the ratio of theoretical uncertainties in the tighter to the looser
analysis phase space requirements. Finally, the contribution arising from
events reconstructed within the fiducial phase space, but not originating from
there, is treated as background.

To measure the total and differential production cross sections, events in the
SR are divided into ten bins of $\ptmiss$, where each bin width is chosen to
be at least equal to the $\ptmiss$ resolution at the given $\ptmiss$ range. A
detailed description of the performance of the $\ptmiss$ observable is
presented in Ref. [29] using $\PZ+\text{jets}$ and $\gamma$+jets events. Based
on these $\ptmiss$ measurements, the minimum bin width is chosen to be 25at
the lower end of the spectrum and is gradually increased to 350at the highest
$\ptmiss$. The width of the highest $\ptmiss$ bin is also chosen to reflect
the statistical precision of the sample.

As explained above, to extract the signal and the background, a maximum-
likelihood fit is performed using the SR and the CRs. Figure 1 shows the
comparison between data and expectations in the SR and CRs before (pre-fit)
and after (post-fit) the fit to the data. Pre-fit distributions for the
$\PZ+\text{jets}$ and $\PW+\text{jets}$ processes are based on simulated MC
samples produced at NLO in QCD and are corrected using vector boson
$\pt$-dependent higher-order EW corrections extracted from theoretical
calculations. We verified that the measured cross sections are not sensitive
to these corrections.

Figure 1:  Comparison of data and simulation in the single-muon (upper left),
single-electron (upper right) CRs and in the SR (lower), before and after
performing the simultaneous fit across all the signal and control regions. The
hadronic recoil $\pt$ in single lepton events is used as an estimator for
$\ptmiss$ in the SR. For the distributions in the CRs, the other backgrounds
include top quark, diboson, and QCD multijet events. Ratios of data with the
pre-fit expectation (red points) and post-fit prediction (blue points) are
shown. The gray band in the ratio panel indicates the post-fit uncertainty
after combining all systematic uncertainties. The distribution of the pulls,
defined as the difference between data and the post-fit expectation relative
to the quadratic sum of the post-fit uncertainties in the expectation, and
statistical uncertainty in data, are shown in the lower panel.

The measured total fiducial cross section is $3000^{+180}_{-170}$fb. The
corresponding likelihood scan is shown in Fig. 2, together with the predicted
value $\sigma_{\PZ\to\PGn\PGn}=2700\pm 440$fb from using the NNPDF 3.0 [49]
NLO PDFs. The theoretical uncertainties for include statistical, PDF, and QCD-
scale uncertainties. The PDF uncertainties are estimated by taking the one
standard deviation band of the predictions from the replicas available for
samples [50]. The QCD-scale uncertainties are estimated by changing the
renormalization ($\mu_{\mathrm{R}}$) and factorization ($\mu_{\mathrm{F}}$)
scales independently up and down by a factor of two from their nominal values
(excluding the two extreme values) and taking the largest changes in the cross
section as the uncertainty. The dominant sources of uncertainty are associated
with the jet and $\ptmiss$ momentum scales and the integrated luminosity.

Figure 2:  The likelihood scan for the fiducial boson production cross section
in the $\PZ\to\PGn\PGn$ channel $\PZ\to\PGn\PGn$.

The extracted differential cross sections are obtained by combining two
neighboring bins in the reconstructed $\ptmiss$ spectra into a single bin.
This stabilizes the fit and ensures that at least 65% of the events in the
reconstructed $\ptmiss$ bin are also in the same bin in terms of the true
$\pt$ of the decaying boson. Each fiducial bin is then measured separately and
all contributions are allowed to float in the binned fit. The differential
cross section measurements as functions of $\pt^{\PZ}$ are shown in Fig. 3
(left) with predictions from at NLO in QCD and with or without the higher-
order EW corrections. These corrections are important at high $\pt^{\PZ}$ with
expected correction factors of $\approx$0.9 at $\pt^{\PZ}=500\GeV$ and
$\approx$0.8 at $\pt^{\PZ}=1000\GeV$ [59, 9].

The $\pt^{\PZ}$ distribution is also compared to the fixed-order expectation
from $\FEWZ$ 3.1 [60, 61, 62, 63] at NNLO accuracy in QCD
($\mathcal{O}(\alpS^{2})$, where $\alpS$ is the strong coupling) using the
NNPDF 3.1 [50] NNLO PDFs. The EW corrections are included at NLO [63]. The
central values of the $\mu_{\mathrm{F}}$ and $\mu_{\mathrm{R}}$ are chosen to
be $\sqrt{\smash[b]{q_{\mathrm{T}}^{2}+m_{\PZ}^{2}}}$, where $m_{\PZ}$ is the
nominal boson mass [64] and $q_{\mathrm{T}}$ is the value of the lower edge of
the corresponding bin in $\pt^{\PZ}$. The uncertainties in $\FEWZ$ include
statistical, PDF, and QCD-scale uncertainties, calculated the same way as for
.

Finally, the data are compared with the NNLO predictions of vector boson
production in association with a jet [65] at $\mathcal{O}(\alpS^{3})$ accuracy
using the NNPDF 3.1 [50] NNLO PDFs (referred as NNLOJET in the figures). The
central values of the $\mu_{\mathrm{F}}$ and $\mu_{\mathrm{R}}$ are chosen to
be $\sqrt{\smash[b]{(\pt^{\PZ})^{2}+m_{\ell\ell}^{2}}}$. The uncertainties for
$\PZ$+1 jet at NNLO include PDF and QCD-scales, calculated the same way as for
, and they are largely reduced with respect to other calculations.

Similar to the inclusive measurement, the dominant source of uncertainties are
associated with the jet and $\ptmiss$ scales and the integrated luminosity.
Whereas the systematic uncertainties dominate in the first four fiducial
regions, statistical uncertainty dominates in the last signal bin.

The ratio of the differential cross section relative to the total fiducial
cross section (normalized cross section) is also measured using the same
binning. In this measurement, the total and individual cross sections are
evaluated simultaneously, and therefore, the systematic uncertainties in the
individual cross sections are largely reduced. While each fiducial bin is
measured separately, only four of these contributions are used to float in the
binned maximum-likelihood fit, along with their sum. In this way, the
normalized cross section has the same number of degrees of freedom as the
differential measurement. The differential cross section measurements
normalized to the total cross section are presented in Fig. 3 (right), as well
as cross section ratios with respect to the predicted $\pt^{\PZ}$
measurements.

Figure 3:  The measured absolute (left) and normalized (right) fiducial cross
sections as a function of $\pt^{\PZ}$ compared with and fixed-order
calculations. The shaded bands around the data points correspond to the total
experimental uncertainty. The vertical bars around the predictions correspond
to the combined statistical, PDF, and QCD-scale uncertainties.

##  0.7 Combination of cross section measurements using charged leptons and
neutrinos

Measurements of differential boson production cross section have also been
performed with bosons decaying to dielectrons or dimuons [17], and these are
combined with our new measurements to improve the precision at large
$\pt^{\PZ}$. In both analyses, the signal samples are generated with
implemented with the NLO EW corrections applied.

While the analysis selection is identical, the fiducial region of the charged-
lepton case is modified compared to Ref. [17], to match the definition in
Section 0.6. Specifically, the requirement on the dilepton mass to lie within
15of the boson mass is kept to reduce the photon propagator contribution, but
no requirements on the generator-level $\pt^{\ell}$ and $\eta^{\ell}$ are
applied. The removal of the fiducial requirements on lepton kinematics
introduces a small, $\approx$2%, theoretical extrapolation uncertainty from
PDF and QCD-scale changes in the $\PZ\to\ell\ell$ channel because the
reconstruction-level selection requires $\pt^{\ell}>25\GeV$ and
$\abs{\eta^{\ell}}<2.4$.

The leading systematic uncertainties between the two analyses are rather
different. For the final state with neutrinos, the jet and $\ptmiss$ momentum
scales uncertainties are dominant, whereas for the charged-lepton final states
they originate from lepton identification. These sources are kept uncorrelated
between the two analyses. The only correlated uncertainty is the integrated
luminosity.

The signal cross section is extracted through a simultaneous binned maximum-
likelihood fit to the signal and background $\ptmiss$ spectra in the SR and
CRs of the neutrino channel, as described in Section 0.6, and to the
$\pt^{\ell\ell}$ spectra in the SRs of the charged lepton channel. The
individual analyses and the combined differential cross sections are
summarized in Table 0.7.

Cross sections (fb) at large $\pt^{\PZ}$ values in the $\PZ\to\ell\ell$ and
$\PZ\to\PGn\PGn$ channels, and their combination. The theoretical predictions
from $\MGvATNLO$ at NLO in QCD and corrected to NLO in EW [9] using the NNPDF
3.0 are also reported. With the exception of the largest $\pt^{\PZ}$ bin, the
statistical uncertainties in the measurements are much smaller than the
systematic uncertainties. Both measurements and predictions correspond to
$\sigma\mathcal{B}(\PZ\to\ell\ell)$, where $\sigma$ is the total fiducial
cross section, $\mathcal{B}$ is the branching fraction, and $\ell$ is a
charged lepton. The $\PZ\to\nu\nu$ measurement corresponds to
$\sigma\mathcal{B}(\PZ\to\ell\ell)/\mathcal{B}(\PZ\to\nu\nu)$.  $\pt^{\PZ}$ ()
$\PZ\to\Pep\Pem$ $\PZ\to\PGmp\PGmm$ $\PZ\to\ell\ell$ $\PZ\to\PGn\PGn$
$\PZ\to\ell\ell+\PGn\PGn$ Theory 200–300 $2500^{+140}_{-110}$
$2400^{+120}_{-120}$ $2500^{+100}_{-100}$ $2500^{+150}_{-150}$
$2500^{+82}_{-100}$ $2200\pm 350$ 300–400 $390^{+22}_{-18}$ $400^{+22}_{-21}$
$400^{+17}_{-16}$ $420^{+24}_{-23}$ $410^{+14}_{-17}$ $390\pm 69$ 400–500
$99^{+5.7}_{-4.9}$ $97^{+6.4}_{-6.1}$ $100^{+4.4}_{-4.2}$ $97^{+5.6}_{-5.4}$
$97^{+3.3}_{-4.0}$ $90\pm 18$ 500–800 $47^{+3.0}_{-2.5}$ $41^{+4.0}_{-3.7}$
$45^{+2.3}_{-2.2}$ $44^{+2.7}_{-2.6}$ $44^{+1.6}_{-1.9}$ $41\pm 9.0$ 800–1500
$3.9^{+0.6}_{-0.5}$ $3.2^{+0.7}_{-0.6}$ $3.7^{+0.4}_{-0.4}$
$3.2^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$ $3.3^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ $3.3\pm 0.9$ 200–1500
$3000^{+160}_{-130}$ $3000^{+150}_{-140}$ $3000^{+120}_{-110}$
$3000^{+180}_{-170}$ $3000^{+100}_{-120}$ $2700\pm 440$

The combined result leads to a reduction in uncertainties compared with either
of the two channels. In the lower-$\pt^{\PZ}$ regime, the combination is
systematically limited and dominated by the charged-lepton channels. At the
same time, at higher $\pt^{\PZ}$, the statistical limitation of the charged-
lepton channel is mitigated by the $\PZ\to\PGn\PGn$ channel, yielding improved
sensitivity.

The measured experimental distributions are compared with the theoretical
predictions from the generator with and without NLO EW corrections. These
distributions are shown in Fig. 4. The uncertainty in the theoretical
predictions includes uncertainties both from PDF and from renormalization and
factorization scales, together with the statistical precision of the available
samples.

The combined cross sections normalized to the total cross section are
presented in Fig. 5 and Table 0.7. The uncertainties because of the jet and
$\ptmiss$ momentum scales have a smaller $\pt^{\PZ}$ distribution dependence
than the lepton efficiency uncertainties. Therefore, by evaluating the ratio
of cross sections, the uncertainties in the $\PZ\to\PGn\PGn$ channel are more
reduced than the ones from the $\PZ\to\ell\ell$ channels. While predictions
are consistent with data within the experimental and theoretical uncertainties
across the $\pt^{\PZ}$ spectra, a deviation up to 15% at the
highest-$\pt^{\PZ}$ regime is observed.

Figure 4:  Measured $\pt^{\PZ}$ absolute cross section for
$\PZ\to\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ (left), and the combination (right) being compared
with and fixed-order calculations. The shaded bands around the data points
correspond to the total experimental uncertainty. The vertical bars around the
predictions correspond to the combined statistical, PDF, and QCD-scale
uncertainties.

Figure 5:  Measured $\pt^{\PZ}$ normalized cross section for
$\PZ\to\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ (left), and the combination (right) compared with and
fixed-order calculations. The shaded bands correspond to the total systematic
uncertainty. The vertical bars around the predictions correspond to the
combined statistical, PDF, and QCD-scale uncertainties.

Cross sections normalized to the total cross section measurements at high
$\pt^{\PZ}$ values in the $\PZ\to\ell\ell$ and $\PZ\to\PGn\PGn$ channels, and
in their combination.  $\pt^{\PZ}$ () $\PZ\to\ell\ell$ $\PZ\to\PGn\PGn$
$\PZ\to\ell\ell+\PGn\PGn$ 200–300 $1.012^{+0.006}_{-0.007}$
$1.019^{+0.009}_{-0.009}$ $1.011^{+0.004}_{-0.004}$ 300–400
$0.943^{+0.025}_{-0.025}$ $0.979^{+0.015}_{-0.015}$ $0.963^{+0.015}_{-0.014}$
400–500 $1.006^{+0.031}_{-0.030}$ $0.963^{+0.019}_{-0.019}$
$0.971^{+0.017}_{-0.016}$ 500–800 $0.993^{+0.036}_{-0.036}$
$0.942^{+0.024}_{-0.024}$ $0.949^{+0.021}_{-0.020}$ 800–1500
$1.036^{+0.099}_{-0.095}$ $0.869^{+0.059}_{-0.057}$ $0.914^{+0.052}_{-0.051}$

##  0.8 Summary

Total, differential, and normalized fiducial cross section measurements for a
boson produced in association with one or more jets in proton-proton
collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $13\TeV$ at high boson $\pt$ in the
invisible decay channel ($\PZ\to\PGn\bar{\PGn}$) have been presented. The data
collected with the CMS detector at the LHC correspond to an integrated
luminosity of 35.9. The precision of this result is improved by combining the
cross section measured with those extracted from charged-lepton final states.
The results agree within uncertainties with the theoretical predictions from ,
$\FEWZ$ and $\PZ$+1 jet at next-to-next-to-leading order in perturbative
quantum chromodynamics. These are the most precise measurements of the
$\pt^{\PZ}$ spectrum to date in proton-proton collisions at 13.

###### Acknowledgements.

We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the
excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative
staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the
success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the
computing centers and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for
delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our
analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction
and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following
funding agencies: BMBWF and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq,
CAPES, FAPERJ, FAPERGS, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST,
and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RIF
(Cyprus); SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC PUT and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of
Finland, MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and
HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); NKFIA (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM
(Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); MES
(Latvia); LAS (Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT,
LNS, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MOS (Montenegro); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC
(Pakistan); MSHE and NSC (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom,
RAS, RFBR, and NRC KI (Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI, and FEDER
(Spain); MOSTR (Sri Lanka); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); MST
(Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR, and NSTDA (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK
(Turkey); NASU (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA).
Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie program and the
European Research Council and Horizon 2020 Grant, contract Nos. 675440,
724704, 752730, and 765710 (European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A.P.
Sloan Foundation; the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal
Science Policy Office; the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans
l’Industrie et dans l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor
Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the F.R.S.-FNRS and
FWO (Belgium) under the “Excellence of Science – EOS” – be.h project n.
30820817; the Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission, No.
Z191100007219010; the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the
Czech Republic; the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under Germany’s
Excellence Strategy – EXC 2121 “Quantum Universe” – 390833306; the Lendület
(“Momentum”) Program and the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the
Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the New National Excellence Program ÚNKP, the
NKFIA research grants 123842, 123959, 124845, 124850, 125105, 128713, 128786,
and 129058 (Hungary); the Council of Science and Industrial Research, India;
the HOMING PLUS program of the Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from
European Union, Regional Development Fund, the Mobility Plus program of the
Ministry of Science and Higher Education, the National Science Center
(Poland), contracts Harmonia 2014/14/M/ST2/00428, Opus 2014/13/B/ST2/02543,
2014/15/B/ST2/03998, and 2015/19/B/ST2/02861, Sonata-bis 2012/07/E/ST2/01406;
the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund; the
Ministry of Science and Higher Education, project no. 0723-2020-0041 (Russia);
the Tomsk Polytechnic University Competitiveness Enhancement Program; the
Programa Estatal de Fomento de la Investigación Científica y Técnica de
Excelencia María de Maeztu, grant MDM-2015-0509 and the Programa Severo Ochoa
del Principado de Asturias; the Thalis and Aristeia programs cofinanced by EU-
ESF and the Greek NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral
Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its
2nd Century Project Advancement Project (Thailand); the Kavli Foundation; the
Nvidia Corporation; the SuperMicro Corporation; the Welch Foundation, contract
C-1845; and the Weston Havens Foundation (USA).

## References

  * [1] A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, T. Kasprzik, and A. Muck, “Electroweak corrections to W + jet hadroproduction including leptonic W-boson decays”,  JHEP 08 (2009) 075, 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/08/075, arXiv:0906.1656.
  * [2] A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, T. Kasprzik, and A. Muck, “Electroweak corrections to dilepton + jet production at hadron colliders”,  JHEP 06 (2011) 069, 10.1007/JHEP06(2011)069, arXiv:1103.0914.
  * [3] A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, T. Kasprzik, and A. Mack, “Electroweak corrections to monojet production at the LHC”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2297, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2297-x, arXiv:1211.5078.
  * [4] S. Kallweit et al., “NLO QCD+EW predictions for V + jets including off-shell vector-boson decays and multijet merging”,  JHEP 04 (2016) 021, 10.1007/JHEP04(2016)021, arXiv:1511.08692.
  * [5] J. H. Kuhn, A. Kulesza, S. Pozzorini, and M. Schulze, “Logarithmic electroweak corrections to hadronic Z+1 jet production at large transverse momentum”,  Phys. Lett. B 609 (2005) 277, 10.1016/j.physletb.2005.01.059, arXiv:hep-ph/0408308.
  * [6] J. H. Kuhn, A. Kulesza, S. Pozzorini, and M. Schulze, “Electroweak corrections to hadronic photon production at large transverse momenta”,  JHEP 03 (2006) 059, 10.1088/1126-6708/2006/03/059, arXiv:hep-ph/0508253.
  * [7] J. H. Kuhn, A. Kulesza, S. Pozzorini, and M. Schulze, “One-loop weak corrections to hadronic production of Z bosons at large transverse momenta”,  Nucl. Phys. B 727 (2005) 368, 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.08.019, arXiv:hep-ph/0507178.
  * [8] J. H. Kuhn, A. Kulesza, S. Pozzorini, and M. Schulze, “Electroweak corrections to hadronic production of W bosons at large transverse momenta”,  Nucl. Phys. B 797 (2008) 27, 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2007.12.029, arXiv:0708.0476.
  * [9] J. M. Lindert et al., “Precise predictions for V+jets dark matter backgrounds”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 829, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5389-1, arXiv:1705.04664.
  * [10] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the transverse momentum distribution of Z$/\PGg^{*}$ bosons in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7~{}\TeV$ with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Lett. B 705 (2011) 415, 10.1016/j.physletb.2011.10.018, arXiv:1107.2381.
  * [11] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the Z$/\PGg^{*}$ boson transverse momentum distribution in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7~{}\TeV$ with the ATLAS detector”,  JHEP 09 (2014) 145, 10.1007/JHEP09(2014)145, arXiv:1406.3660.
  * [12] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the transverse momentum and $\phi^{*}_{\eta}$ distributions of Drell-Yan lepton pairs in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8~{}\TeV$ with the ATLAS detector”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 291, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4070-4, arXiv:1512.02192.
  * [13] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the transverse momentum distribution of Drell–Yan lepton pairs in proton–proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 616, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8001-z, arXiv:1912.02844.
  * [14] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the rapidity and transverse momentum distributions of Z bosons in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7~{}\TeV$”,  Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 032002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.032002, arXiv:1110.4973.
  * [15] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the Z boson differential cross section in transverse momentum and rapidity in proton-proton collisions at 8”,  Phys. Lett. B 749 (2015) 187, 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.07.065, arXiv:1504.03511.
  * [16] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of differential and double-differential Drell-Yan cross sections in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8~{}\TeV$”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 147, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3364-2, arXiv:1412.1115.
  * [17] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of differential Z boson production cross sections in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13~{}\TeV$”,  JHEP 12 (2019) 061, 10.1007/JHEP12(2019)061, arXiv:1909.04133.
  * [18] CMS Collaboration, “Search for new physics in final states with an energetic jet or a hadronically decaying $W$ or $Z$ boson and transverse momentum imbalance at $\sqrt{s}=13\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{TeV}$”,  Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 092005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.092005, arXiv:1712.02345.
  * [19] CMS Collaboration, “Search for invisible decays of a Higgs boson produced through vector boson fusion in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 793 (2019) 520, 10.1016/j.physletb.2019.04.025, arXiv:1809.05937.
  * [20] CMS Collaboration, “Search for supersymmetry in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV in final states with jets and missing transverse momentum”,  JHEP 10 (2019) 244, 10.1007/JHEP10(2019)244, arXiv:1908.04722.
  * [21] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [22] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [23] 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.
  * [24] M. Cacciari and 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.
  * [25] 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.
  * [26] 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.
  * [27] CMS Collaboration, “Jet energy scale and resolution performance with 13 $\TeV$ data collected by CMS in 2016-2018”, CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2020-019, 2020.
  * [28] CMS Collaboration, “Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data”,  JINST 15 (2020) P09018, 10.1088/1748-0221/15/09/P09018, arXiv:2003.00503.
  * [29] 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.
  * [30] 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.
  * [31] 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.
  * [32] 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.
  * [33] M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam, “Pileup subtraction using jet areas”,  Phys. Lett. B 659 (2008) 119, 10.1016/j.physletb.2007.09.077, arXiv:0707.1378.
  * [34] CMS Collaboration, “Reconstruction and identification of $\tau$ lepton decays to hadrons and $\nu_{\tau}$ at CMS”,  JINST 11 (2016) P01019, 10.1088/1748-0221/11/01/P01019, arXiv:1510.07488.
  * [35] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of reconstruction and identification of $\tau$ leptons decaying to hadrons and $\nu_{\tau}$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  JINST 13 (2018) P10005, 10.1088/1748-0221/13/10/P10005, arXiv:1809.02816.
  * [36] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8~{}\TeV$”,  JINST 10 (2015) P08010, 10.1088/1748-0221/10/08/P08010, arXiv:1502.02702.
  * [37] 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.
  * [38] S. Kallweit et al., “NLO electroweak automation and precise predictions for W+multijet production at the LHC”,  JHEP 04 (2015) 012, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)012, arXiv:1412.5157.
  * [39] 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.
  * [40] 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.
  * [41] 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.
  * [42] P. Nason and G. Zanderighi, “$\PW^{+}\PW^{-}$ , $\PW\cPZ$ and $\cPZ\cPZ$ production in the POWHEG-BOX-V2”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 2702, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2702-5, arXiv:1311.1365.
  * [43] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “NLO vector-boson production matched with shower in POWHEG”,  JHEP 07 (2008) 060, 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/07/060, arXiv:0805.4802.
  * [44] 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.
  * [45] 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.
  * [46] 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.
  * [47] M. L. Mangano, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini, and M. Treccani, “Matching matrix elements and shower evolution for top-quark production in hadronic collisions”,  JHEP 01 (2007) 013, 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/01/013, arXiv:hep-ph/0611129.
  * [48] R. Frederix and S. Frixione, “Merging meets matching in MC@NLO”,  JHEP 12 (2012) 061, 10.1007/JHEP12(2012)061, arXiv:1209.6215.
  * [49] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC Run II”,  JHEP 04 (2015) 040, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040, arXiv:1410.8849.
  * [50] 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.
  * [51] Collaboration, “$\GEANTfour$ — a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [52] 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.
  * [53] M. Czakon et al., “Top-pair production at the LHC through NNLO QCD and NLO EW”,  JHEP 10 (2017) 186, 10.1007/JHEP10(2017)186, arXiv:1705.04105.
  * [54] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of differential cross sections for top quark pair production using the lepton+jets final state in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV”,  Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 092001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.092001, arXiv:1610.04191.
  * [55] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the top quark pair production cross section in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13~{}\TeV$”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 052002, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.052002, arXiv:1510.05302.
  * [56] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the ZZ production cross section and Z $\to\ell^{+}\ell^{-}\ell^{\prime+}\ell^{\prime-}$ branching fraction in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13~{}\TeV$”,  Phys. Lett. B 763 (2016) 280, 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.10.054, arXiv:1607.08834.
  * [57] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the WZ production cross section in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13~{}\TeV$”,  Phys. Lett. B 766 (2017) 268, 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.01.011, arXiv:1607.06943.
  * [58] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2016 data-taking period”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001, 2017.
  * [59] S. Dittmaier, A. Huss, and C. Schwinn, “Mixed QCD-electroweak $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}\alpha)$ corrections to Drell-Yan processes in the resonance region: pole approximation and non-factorizable corrections”,  Nucl. Phys. B 885 (2014) 318, 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2014.05.027, arXiv:1403.3216.
  * [60] K. Melnikov and F. Petriello, “The $W$ boson production cross section at the LHC through $O(\alpha^{2}_{s})$”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 231803, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.231803, arXiv:hep-ph/0603182.
  * [61] R. Gavin, Y. Li, F. Petriello, and S. Quackenbush, “FEWZ 2.0: A code for hadronic Z production at next-to-next-to-leading order”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 182 (2011) 2388, 10.1016/j.cpc.2011.06.008, arXiv:1011.3540.
  * [62] R. Gavin, Y. Li, F. Petriello, and S. Quackenbush, “W physics at the LHC with FEWZ 2.1”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 184 (2013) 208, 10.1016/j.cpc.2012.09.005, arXiv:1201.5896.
  * [63] Y. Li and F. Petriello, “Combining QCD and electroweak corrections to dilepton production in FEWZ”,  Phys. Rev. B 86 (2012) 094034, 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.094034, arXiv:1208.5967.
  * [64] Particle Data Group, P. A. Zyla et al., “Review of particle physics”,  Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2020 (2020) 083C01, 10.1093/ptep/ptaa104.
  * [65] A. Gehrmann-De Ridder et al., “Precise QCD predictions for the production of a Z boson in association with a hadronic jet”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 022001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.022001, arXiv:1507.02850.

##  .9 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, A. Tumasyan Institut für
Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, T. Bergauer, M. Dragicevic, A. Escalante Del Valle, R. Frühwirth1, M.
Jeitler1, N. Krammer, L. Lechner, D. Liko, I. Mikulec, F.M. Pitters, J.
Schieck1, R. Schöfbeck, M. Spanring, S. Templ, W. Waltenberger, C.-E. Wulz1,
M. Zarucki Institute for Nuclear Problems, Minsk, Belarus
V. Chekhovsky, A. Litomin, V. Makarenko Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerpen,
Belgium
M.R. Darwish2, E.A. De Wolf, X. Janssen, T. Kello3, A. Lelek, M. Pieters, 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, D. Lontkovskyi, S. Lowette,
I. Marchesini, 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, B. Dorney, L. Favart, A.
Grebenyuk, A.K. Kalsi, K. Lee, I. Makarenko, L. Moureaux, L. Pétré, A. Popov,
N. Postiau, E. Starling, L. Thomas, C. Vander Velde, P. Vanlaer, D. Vannerom,
L. Wezenbeek Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, M. Gruchala, I. Khvastunov4, G. Mestdach, M. Niedziela,
C. Roskas, K. Skovpen, 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, M. Delcourt,
I.S. Donertas, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaitre, K. Mondal, J. Prisciandaro, A.
Taliercio, M. Teklishyn, P. Vischia, S. Wertz, S. Wuyckens Centro Brasileiro
de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
G.A. Alves, C. Hensel, A. Moraes Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil
W.L. Aldá Júnior, E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, H. BRANDAO MALBOUISSON, W.
Carvalho, J. Chinellato5, E. Coelho, E.M. Da Costa, G.G. Da Silveira6, D. De
Jesus Damiao, S. Fonseca De Souza, J. Martins7, D. Matos Figueiredo, C. Mora
Herrera, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, P. Rebello Teles, L.J. Sanchez Rosas, A.
Santoro, S.M. Silva Do Amaral, A. Sznajder, M. Thiel, F. Torres Da Silva De
Araujo, A. Vilela Pereira Universidade Estadual Paulista a, Universidade
Federal do ABC b, São Paulo, Brazil
C.A. Bernardesa,a, L. Calligarisa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M.
Gregoresa,b, D.S. Lemosa, P.G. Mercadantea,b, S.F. Novaesa, Sandra S. Padulaa
Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of
Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, G. Antchev, I. Atanasov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, M.
Misheva, M. Rodozov, M. Shopova, G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia,
Bulgaria
A. Dimitrov, T. Ivanov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov, A. Petrov Beihang
University, Beijing, China
T. Cheng, W. Fang3, Q. Guo, M. Mittal, H. Wang, L. Yuan Department of Physics,
Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, G. Bauer, Z. Hu, Y. Wang, K. Yi8,9 Institute of High Energy Physics,
Beijing, China
E. Chapon, G.M. Chen10, H.S. Chen10, M. Chen, T. Javaid10, A. Kapoor, D.
Leggat, H. Liao, Z.-A. LIU10, R. Sharma, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, J. Thomas-
wilsker, J. Wang, H. Zhang, S. Zhang10, 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. Jaramillo, J. Mejia Guisao, F. Ramirez, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, C.A. Salazar
González, N. Vanegas Arbelaez University of Split, Faculty of Electrical
Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split, Croatia
D. Giljanovic, N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak University of Split, Faculty
of Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac, T. Sculac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, D. Majumder, M. Roguljic, A. Starodumov11, T. Susa
University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, E. Erodotou, A. Ioannou, G. Kole, M. Kolosova, S.
Konstantinou, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos, P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski,
H. Saka, D. Tsiakkouri Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
M. Finger12, M. Finger Jr.12, A. Kveton, J. Tomsa Escuela Politecnica
Nacional, Quito, Ecuador
E. Ayala Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
E. Carrera Jarrin Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab
Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt
S. Abu Zeid13, S. Elgammal14, E. Salama14,13 Center for High Energy Physics
(CHEP-FU), Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt
A. Lotfy, M.A. Mahmoud National Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics,
Tallinn, Estonia
S. Bhowmik, A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveira, R.K. Dewanjee, K. Ehataht, M.
Kadastik, 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
E. Brücken, F. Garcia, J. Havukainen, V. Karimäki, M.S. Kim, R. Kinnunen, T.
Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, H. Siikonen, E. Tuominen, J.
Tuominiemi Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
P. Luukka, T. Tuuva IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
C. Amendola, M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, J.L. Faure, F.
Ferri, S. Ganjour, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry,
B. Lenzi, E. Locci, J. Malcles, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M.Ö. Sahin, A. Savoy-
Navarro15, M. Titov, G.B. Yu Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, CNRS/IN2P3, Ecole
Polytechnique, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Palaiseau, France
S. Ahuja, F. Beaudette, M. Bonanomi, A. Buchot Perraguin, P. Busson, C.
Charlot, O. Davignon, B. Diab, G. Falmagne, R. Granier de Cassagnac, A.
Hakimi, I. Kucher, A. Lobanov, C. Martin Perez, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, P.
Paganini, J. Rembser, R. Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A. Zabi, A. Zghiche
Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram16, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, G. Bourgatte, J.-M. Brom, E.C. Chabert, C.
Collard, J.-C. Fontaine16, U. Goerlach, C. Grimault, A.-C. Le Bihan, P. Van
Hove Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3,
Institut de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
E. Asilar, S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, C. Camen, A. Carle, N. Chanon,
D. Contardo, P. Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, B.
Ille, Sa. Jain, I.B. Laktineh, H. Lattaud, A. Lesauvage, M. Lethuillier, L.
Mirabito, K. Shchablo, L. Torterotot, G. Touquet, M. Vander Donckt, S. Viret
Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
I. Bagaturia17, Z. Tsamalaidze12 RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches
Institut, Aachen, Germany
L. Feld, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, D. Meuser, A. Pauls, M.P. Rauch, J. Schulz, M.
Teroerde RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
D. Eliseev, M. Erdmann, P. Fackeldey, B. Fischer, S. Ghosh, T. Hebbeker, K.
Hoepfner, H. Keller, L. Mastrolorenzo, M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, G. Mocellin,
S. Mondal, S. Mukherjee, D. Noll, A. Novak, T. Pook, A. Pozdnyakov, Y. Rath,
H. Reithler, J. Roemer, A. Schmidt, S.C. Schuler, A. Sharma, S. Wiedenbeck, S.
Zaleski RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen,
Germany
C. Dziwok, G. Flügge, W. Haj 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, P. Connor, S. Consuegra Rodríguez, V.
Danilov, A. De Wit, M.M. Defranchis, L. Didukh, D. Domínguez Damiani, G.
Eckerlin, D. Eckstein, L.I. Estevez Banos, E. Gallo21, A. Geiser, A. Giraldi,
A. Grohsjean, M. Guthoff, A. Harb, A. Jafari22, N.Z. Jomhari, H. Jung, A.
Kasem20, M. Kasemann, H. Kaveh, C. Kleinwort, J. Knolle, D. Krücker, W. Lange,
T. Lenz, J. Lidrych, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann23, T. Madlener, R. Mankel, I.-A.
Melzer-Pellmann, J. Metwally, A.B. Meyer, M. Meyer, J. Mnich, A. Mussgiller,
V. Myronenko, Y. Otarid, D. Pérez Adán, S.K. Pflitsch, D. Pitzl, A. Raspereza,
A. Saggio, A. Saibel, M. Savitskyi, V. Scheurer, C. Schwanenberger, A. Singh,
R.E. Sosa Ricardo, N. Tonon, O. Turkot, A. Vagnerini, M. Van De Klundert, R.
Walsh, D. Walter, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C. Wissing, S. Wuchterl, O. Zenaiev, R.
Zlebcik University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, L. Benato, A. Benecke, K. De Leo, T. Dreyer, M. Eich, F.
Feindt, A. Fröhlich, C. Garbers, E. Garutti, P. Gunnellini, J. Haller, A.
Hinzmann, A. Karavdina, G. Kasieczka, R. Klanner, R. Kogler, V. Kutzner, J.
Lange, T. Lange, A. Malara, C.E.N. Niemeyer, A. Nigamova, K.J. Pena Rodriguez,
O. Rieger, P. Schleper, M. Schröder, S. Schumann, 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, A.
Dierlamm, A. Droll, K. El Morabit, N. Faltermann, K. Flöh, 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.
Musich, M. Neukum, G. Quast, K. Rabbertz, J. Rauser, D. Savoiu, D. Schäfer, 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,
G. Paspalaki, A. Stakia National and Kapodistrian University of Athens,
Athens, Greece
M. Diamantopoulou, D. Karasavvas, G. Karathanasis, P. Kontaxakis, C.K. Koraka,
A. Manousakis-katsikakis, A. Panagiotou, I. Papavergou, N. Saoulidou, K.
Theofilatos, 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, K. Manitara,
N. Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, J. Strologas MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and
Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
M. Csanad, M.M.A. Gadallah25, S. Lökös26, P. Major, K. Mandal, A. Mehta, G.
Pasztor, 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
S. Choudhury, 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, N. Sur, S.K. Swain Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, G. Chaudhary, S. Chauhan, N. Dhingra33, R.
Gupta, A. 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. Ghosh,
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, G.B. Mohanty, U. Sarkar Tata Institute of Fundamental
Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, R. Chudasama, M. Guchait, S.
Karmakar, S. Kumar, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, S. Mukherjee, D. Roy Indian
Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, India
S. Dube, B. Kansal, S. Pandey, A. Rane, A. Rastogi, S. Sharma Department of
Physics, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
H. 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. Felcini, 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. Pompilia,b, G. Pugliesea,c, A. Ranieria, G.
Selvaggia,b, L. Silvestrisa, F.M. Simonea,b, R. Vendittia, P. Verwilligena
INFN Sezione di Bologna a, Università di Bologna b, Bologna, Italy
G. Abbiendia, C. Battilanaa,b, D. Bonacorsia,b, L. Borgonovia, S. Braibant-
Giacomellia,b, R. Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A. Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa,
C. Cioccaa, M. Cuffiania,b, G.M. Dallavallea, T. Diotalevia,b, F. Fabbria, A.
Fanfania,b, E. Fontanesia,b, P. Giacomellia, L. Giommia,b, C. Grandia, L.
Guiduccia,b, F. Iemmia,b, S. Lo Meoa,42, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, F.L.
Navarriaa,b, A. Perrottaa, F. Primaveraa,b, A.M. Rossia,b, T. Rovellia,b, G.P.
Sirolia,b, N. Tosia INFN Sezione di Catania a, Università di Catania b,
Catania, Italy
S. Albergoa,b,43, S. Costaa,b, 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, F. Fioria, E. Focardia,b, G. Latinoa,b, P. Lenzia,b, M.
Lizzoa,b, M. Meschinia, S. Paolettia, R. Seiditaa,b, G. Sguazzonia, L.
Viliania INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, D. Piccolo INFN Sezione di Genova a, Università di
Genova b, Genova, Italy
M. Bozzoa,b, F. Ferroa, R. Mulargiaa,b, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia,b INFN Sezione
di Milano-Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, Italy
A. Benagliaa, A. Beschia,b, F. Brivioa,b, F. Cetorellia,b, V. Cirioloa,b,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, F. Montia,b, L. Moronia, M. Paganonia,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Ragazzia,b,
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, N. Cavalloa,c, A. De Iorioa,b, F. Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa,
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, F. Gasparinia,b,
U. Gasparinia,b, S.Y. Hoha,b, L. Layera,44, M. Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,b,
M. Presillaa,b, P. Ronchesea,b, R. Rossina,b, F. Simonettoa,b, G. Stronga, M.
Tosia,b, H. YARARa,b, M. Zanettia,b, P. Zottoa,b, A. Zucchettaa,b, G.
Zumerlea,b INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
C. Aime‘a,b, A. Braghieria, S. Calzaferria,b, D. Fiorinaa,b, P. Montagnaa,b,
S.P. Rattia,b, V. Rea, M. Ressegottia,b, C. Riccardia,b, P. Salvinia, I. Vaia,
P. Vituloa,b INFN Sezione di Perugia a, Università di Perugia b, Perugia,
Italy
G.M. Bileia, D. Ciangottinia,b, L. Fanòa,b, P. Laricciaa,b, G. Mantovania,b,
V. Mariania,b, M. Menichellia, F. Moscatellia, A. Piccinellia,b, A. Rossia,b,
A. Santocchiaa,b, D. Spigaa, T. Tedeschia,b INFN Sezione di Pisa a, Università
di Pisa b, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa c, Pisa Italy, Università di Siena
d, Siena, Italy
K. Androsova, P. Azzurria, G. Bagliesia, V. Bertacchia,c, L. Bianchinia, T.
Boccalia, E. Bossini, 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, 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
F. Cavallaria, M. Cipriania,b, D. Del Rea,b, E. Di Marcoa, M. Diemoza, E.
Longoa,b, P. Meridiania, G. Organtinia,b, F. Pandolfia, R. Paramattia,b, C.
Quarantaa,b, S. Rahatloua,b, C. Rovellia, F. Santanastasioa,b, L. Soffia,b, R.
Tramontanoa,b INFN Sezione di Torino a, Università di Torino b, Torino, Italy,
Università del Piemonte Orientale c, Novara, Italy
N. Amapanea,b, R. Arcidiaconoa,c, S. Argiroa,b, M. Arneodoa,c, N. Bartosika,
R. Bellana,b, A. Belloraa,b, J. Berenguer Antequeraa,b, C. Biinoa, A.
Cappatia,b, N. Cartigliaa, S. Comettia, M. Costaa,b, R. Covarellia,b, N.
Demariaa, B. Kiania,b, F. Leggera, C. Mariottia, S. Masellia, E. Migliorea,b,
V. Monacoa,b, E. Monteila,b, M. Montenoa, M.M. Obertinoa,b, G. Ortonaa, L.
Pachera,b, N. Pastronea, M. Pelliccionia, G.L. Pinna Angionia,b, M. Ruspaa,c,
R. Salvaticoa,b, F. Sivieroa,b, V. Solaa, A. Solanoa,b, D. Soldia,b, A.
Staianoa, M. Tornagoa,b, D. Trocinoa,b INFN Sezione di Trieste a, Università
di Trieste b, Trieste, Italy
S. Belfortea, V. Candelisea,b, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, A. Da Rolda,b, G.
Della Riccaa,b, F. Vazzolera,b Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea
S. Dogra, C. Huh, B. Kim, D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, J. Lee, S.W. Lee, C.S. Moon,
Y.D. Oh, S.I. Pak, B.C. Radburn-Smith, S. Sekmen, Y.C. Yang Chonnam National
University, Institute for Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju, Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
B. Francois, T.J. Kim, J. Park Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, 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, K. Nam, B.H. Oh, M. Oh, S.B. Oh, H. Seo, U.K. Yang, I. Yoon
University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea
D. Jeon, J.H. Kim, B. Ko, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park, Y. Roh, D. Song, I.J. Watson
Yonsei University, Department of Physics, Seoul, Korea
S. Ha, H.D. Yoo Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, C. Hwang, Y. Jeong, H. Lee, Y. Lee, I. Yu College of Engineering and
Technology, American University of the Middle East (AUM), Dasman, Kuwait
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
W.A.T. Wan Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli Universidad de Sonora (UNISON),
Hermosillo, Mexico
J.F. Benitez, A. Castaneda Hernandez, J.A. Murillo Quijada, L. Valencia Palomo
Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
G. Ayala, H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, I. Heredia-De La 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. Mijuskovic4, N. Raicevic University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
S. Bheesette, P.H. Butler National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam
University, Islamabad, Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M.I. Asghar, A. Awais, M.I.M. Awan, H.R. Hoorani, W.A. Khan, M.A.
Shah, M. Shoaib, M. Waqas AGH University of Science and Technology Faculty of
Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunications, Krakow, Poland
V. Avati, L. Grzanka, M. Malawski National Centre for Nuclear Research,
Swierk, Poland
H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, T. Frueboes, M. Górski, M. Kazana, M.
Szleper, P. Traczyk, P. Zalewski Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of
Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J. Krolikowski, M. Walczak
Laboratório de Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas, Lisboa,
Portugal
M. Araujo, P. Bargassa, D. Bastos, A. Boletti, P. Faccioli, M. Gallinaro, J.
Hollar, N. Leonardo, T. Niknejad, J. Seixas, K. Shchelina, O. Toldaiev, J.
Varela Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
S. Afanasiev, D. Budkouski, P. Bunin, M. Gavrilenko, I. Golutvin, I. Gorbunov,
A. Kamenev, V. Karjavine, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev47,48, V. Palichik,
V. Perelygin, M. Savina, D. Seitova, V. Shalaev, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, V.
Smirnov, O. Teryaev, N. Voytishin, A. Zarubin, I. Zhizhin Petersburg Nuclear
Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg), Russia
G. Gavrilov, V. Golovtcov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim49, E. Kuznetsova50, V. Murzin, V.
Oreshkin, I. Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Volkov, A. Vorobyev
Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, M. Kirsanov,
N. Krasnikov, A. Pashenkov, G. Pivovarov, D.
Tlisov${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, A. Toropin Institute for Theoretical and
Experimental Physics named by A.I. Alikhanov of NRC ‘Kurchatov Institute’,
Moscow, Russia
V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, A. Nikitenko51, V. Popov, G.
Safronov, A. Spiridonov, A. Stepennov, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A. Zhokin Moscow
Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
O. Bychkova, M. Chadeeva52, D. Philippov, E. Popova, V. Rusinov 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, M. Dubinin53, L. Dudko, A. Ershov, A. Gribushin, V.
Klyukhin, O. Kodolova, I. Lokhtin, S. Obraztsov, S. Petrushanko, V. Savrin, A.
Snigirev Novosibirsk State University (NSU), Novosibirsk, Russia
V. Blinov54, T. Dimova54, L. Kardapoltsev54, I. Ovtin54, Y. Skovpen54
Institute for High Energy Physics of National Research Centre ‘Kurchatov
Institute’, Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, V. Kachanov, A. Kalinin, D. Konstantinov, V. Petrov,
R. Ryutin, A. Sobol, S. Troshin, N. Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov National
Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia
A. Babaev, A. Iuzhakov, V. Okhotnikov, L. Sukhikh Tomsk State University,
Tomsk, Russia
V. Borchsh, V. Ivanchenko, E. Tcherniaev University of Belgrade: Faculty of
Physics and VINCA Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic55, 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, M.S. Soares, L. Urda Gómez,
C. Willmott Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
C. Albajar, J.F. de Trocóniz, R. Reyes-Almanza Universidad de Oviedo,
Instituto Universitario de Ciencias y Tecnologías Espaciales de Asturias
(ICTEA), Oviedo, Spain
B. Alvarez Gonzalez, J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, S. Folgueras,
I. Gonzalez Caballero, E. Palencia Cortezon, C. Ramón Álvarez, J. Ripoll Sau,
V. Rodríguez Bouza, S. Sanchez Cruz, A. Trapote Instituto de Física de
Cantabria (IFCA), CSIC-Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain
J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, B. Chazin Quero, J.
Duarte Campderros, M. Fernandez, C. Fernandez Madrazo, P.J. Fernández Manteca,
A. García Alonso, G. Gomez, C. Martinez Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del Arbol, F.
Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, C. Prieels, F. Ricci-Tam, T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-
Jimeno, L. Scodellaro, N. Trevisani, I. Vila, J.M. Vizan Garcia University of
Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka
MK Jayananda, B. Kailasapathy56, 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, E. Auffray, G. Auzinger, J. Baechler, P. Baillon,
A.H. Ball, D. Barney, J. Bendavid, N. Beni, M. Bianco, A. Bocci, E. Brondolin,
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. Deile, R. Di
Maria, M. Dobson, M. Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, N. Emriskova, F.
Fallavollita57, D. Fasanella, S. Fiorendi, A. Florent, G. Franzoni, J.
Fulcher, W. Funk, S. Giani, D. Gigi, K. Gill, F. Glege, L. Gouskos, M.
Guilbaud, M. Haranko, J. Hegeman, Y. Iiyama, V. Innocente, T. James, P. Janot,
J. Kaspar, J. Kieseler, M. Komm, N. Kratochwil, C. Lange, S. Laurila, P.
Lecoq, K. Long, C. Lourenço, L. Malgeri, S. Mallios, M. Mannelli, F. Meijers,
S. Mersi, E. Meschi, F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, S. Orfanelli, L. Orsini, F.
Pantaleo19, L. Pape, E. Perez, M. Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A.
Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, T. Quast, D. Rabady, A. Racz, M. Rieger, M. Rovere, H.
Sakulin, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, S. Scarfi, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Selvaggi, A.
Sharma, P. Silva, W. Snoeys, P. Sphicas58, S. Summers, V.R. Tavolaro, D.
Treille, A. Tsirou, G.P. Van Onsem, M. Verzetti, K.A. Wozniak, W.D. Zeuner
Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland
L. Caminada59, 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
M. Backhaus, P. Berger, A. Calandri, N. Chernyavskaya, A. De Cosa, G.
Dissertori, M. Dittmar, M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, T. Gadek, T.A. Gómez Espinosa,
C. Grab, D. Hits, W. Lustermann, A.-M. Lyon, R.A. Manzoni, M.T. Meinhard, F.
Micheli, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, 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. Steggemann60, R.
Wallny, D.H. Zhu Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
C. Amsler61, C. Botta, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, R. Del Burgo, J.K.
Heikkilä, M. Huwiler, A. Jofrehei, B. Kilminster, S. Leontsinis, A. Macchiolo,
P. Meiring, V.M. Mikuni, U. Molinatti, I. Neutelings, G. Rauco, A. Reimers, P.
Robmann, K. Schweiger, Y. Takahashi National Central University, Chung-Li,
Taiwan
C. Adloff62, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A. Roy, T. Sarkar36, S.S. Yu National Taiwan
University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
L. Ceard, P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, W.-S. Hou, Y.y. Li, R.-S.
Lu, E. Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen, E. Yazgan Chulalongkorn University,
Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok, Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, N. Srimanobhas Çukurova University,
Physics Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
F. Boran, S. Damarseckin63, Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, C. Dozen64, I.
Dumanoglu65, E. Eskut, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, E. Gurpinar Guler66, I. Hos67,
C. Isik, E.E. Kangal68, O. Kara, A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, G. Onengut, K.
Ozdemir69, A. Polatoz, A.E. Simsek, B. Tali70, U.G. Tok, S. Turkcapar, I.S.
Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East Technical University, Physics Department,
Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak71, G. Karapinar72, K. Ocalan73, M. Yalvac74 Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
B. Akgun, I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya75, O. Kaya76, Ö. Özçelik, S.
Tekten77, E.A. Yetkin78 Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
A. Cakir, K. Cankocak65, Y. Komurcu, S. Sen79 Istanbul University, Istanbul,
Turkey
F. Aydogmus Sen, S. Cerci70, B. Kaynak, S. Ozkorucuklu, D. Sunar Cerci70
Institute for Scintillation Materials of National Academy of Science of
Ukraine, Kharkov, Ukraine
B. Grynyov National Scientific Center, Kharkov Institute of Physics and
Technology, Kharkov, Ukraine
L. Levchuk University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
E. Bhal, S. Bologna, J.J. Brooke, A. Bundock, E. Clement, D. Cussans, H.
Flacher, J. Goldstein, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, B. Krikler, S.
Paramesvaran, T. Sakuma, S. Seif El Nasr-Storey, V.J. Smith, N. Stylianou80,
J. Taylor, A. Titterton Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev81, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, D.J.A. Cockerill, K.V. Ellis, K.
Harder, S. Harper, J. Linacre, K. Manolopoulos, D.M. Newbold, E. Olaiya, D.
Petyt, T. Reis, T. Schuh, C.H. Shepherd-Themistocleous, A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin,
T. Williams Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, S. Bonomally, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, V.
Cepaitis, G.S. Chahal82, D. Colling, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M. Della Negra, G.
Fedi, G. Hall, G. Iles, J. Langford, L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, A.
Martelli, V. Milosevic, J. Nash83, V. Palladino, 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 Brunel
University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
J.E. Cole, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, C.K. Mackay, I.D. Reid, L. Teodorescu, S. Zahid
Baylor University, Waco, USA
S. Abdullin, A. Brinkerhoff, K. Call, B. Caraway, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama,
A.R. Kanuganti, 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, O. Charaf, S.I. Cooper, D. Di Croce, S.V. Gleyzer, C. Henderson,
C.U. Perez, P. Rumerio, C. West Boston University, Boston, USA
A. Akpinar, A. Albert, D. Arcaro, C. Cosby, Z. Demiragli, D. Gastler, J.
Rohlf, K. Salyer, D. Sperka, D. Spitzbart, I. Suarez, S. Yuan, D. Zou Brown
University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, B. Burkle, X. Coubez20, D. Cutts, Y.t. Duh, M. Hadley, U. Heintz,
J.M. Hogan84, K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, K.T. Lau, J. Lee, J. Luo,
M. Narain, S. Sagir85, E. Usai, W.Y. Wong, X. Yan, D. Yu, W. Zhang University
of California, Davis, Davis, USA
R. Band, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez, M. Chertok,
J. Conway, R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, F. Jensen, O. Kukral,
R. Lander, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, M. Shi, D. Taylor, M. Tripathi, Y. Yao, F.
Zhang University of California, Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, A. Datta, D. Hamilton, J. Hauser, M.
Ignatenko, M.A. Iqbal, T. Lam, N. Mccoll, W.A. Nash, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg,
C. Schnaible, B. Stone, V. Valuev University of California, Riverside,
Riverside, USA
K. Burt, Y. Chen, R. Clare, J.W. Gary, G. Hanson, G. Karapostoli, O.R. Long,
N. Manganelli, M. Olmedo Negrete, 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, V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, M. Masciovecchio, S.
May, S. Padhi, M. Pieri, V. Sharma, M. Tadel, A. Vartak, F. Würthwein, A.
Yagil University of California, Santa Barbara - Department of Physics, Santa
Barbara, USA
N. Amin, C. Campagnari, M. Citron, A. Dorsett, V. Dutta, J. Incandela, M.
Kilpatrick, B. Marsh, H. Mei, A. Ovcharova, H. Qu, M. Quinnan, J. Richman, U.
Sarica, D. Stuart, S. Wang California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
A. Bornheim, O. Cerri, I. Dutta, J.M. Lawhorn, N. Lu, J. Mao, H.B. Newman, J.
Ngadiuba, T.Q. Nguyen, M. Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, C. Wang, S. Xie, Z. Zhang,
R.Y. Zhu Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
J. Alison, M.B. Andrews, T. Ferguson, T. Mudholkar, M. Paulini, I. Vorobiev
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, A. Ryd, W. Sun, S.M. Tan, Z. Tao, J. Thom, P. Wittich, M.
Zientek Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, USA
M. Albrow, M. Alyari, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S. Banerjee,
L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas, D. Berry, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, K. Burkett,
J.N. Butler, A. Canepa, G.B. Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M. Cremonesi,
K.F. Di Petrillo, V.D. Elvira, 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, P. Klabbers, T. Klijnsma, B.
Klima, M.J. Kortelainen, S. Lammel, D. Lincoln, R. Lipton, T. Liu, J. Lykken,
C. Madrid, K. Maeshima, C. Mantilla, D. Mason, P. McBride, P. Merkel, S.
Mrenna, S. Nahn, V. O’Dell, V. Papadimitriou, K. Pedro, C. Pena53, O.
Prokofyev, F. Ravera, A. Reinsvold Hall, L. Ristori, B. Schneider, E. Sexton-
Kennedy, N. Smith, A. Soha, 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, J. Konigsberg, A. Korytov, K.H. Lo, K.
Matchev, N. Menendez, G. Mitselmakher, D. Rosenzweig, K. Shi, J. Sturdy, J.
Wang, E. Yigitbasi, X. Zuo Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
T. Adams, A. Askew, D. Diaz, R. Habibullah, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F.
Johnson, R. Khurana, T. Kolberg, G. Martinez, H. Prosper, C. Schiber, R.
Yohay, J. Zhang Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, S. Butalla, T. Elkafrawy13, M. Hohlmann, R. Kumar Verma, D.
Noonan, M. Rahmani, M. Saunders, F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago
(UIC), Chicago, USA
M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, H. Becerril Gonzalez, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, S.
Dittmer, O. Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, C. Mills, G. Oh,
T. Roy, M.B. Tonjes, N. Varelas, J. Viinikainen, X. Wang, Z. Wu, Z. Ye The
University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, K. Dilsiz86, S. Durgut, R.P. Gandrajula, M. Haytmyradov, V.
Khristenko, O.K. Köseyan, J.-P. Merlo, A. Mestvirishvili87, A. Moeller, J.
Nachtman, H. Ogul88, Y. Onel, F. Ozok89, A. Penzo, C. Snyder, E. Tiras90, J.
Wetzel Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
O. Amram, B. Blumenfeld, L. Corcodilos, M. Eminizer, A.V. Gritsan, S.
Kyriacou, P. Maksimovic, J. Roskes, M. Swartz, T.Á. Vámi The University of
Kansas, Lawrence, USA
C. Baldenegro Barrera, P. Baringer, A. Bean, A. Bylinkin, T. Isidori, S.
Khalil, J. King, G. Krintiras, A. Kropivnitskaya, C. Lindsey, N. Minafra, M.
Murray, C. Rogan, C. Royon, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q.
Wang, J. Williams, G. Wilson Kansas State University, Manhattan, USA
S. Duric, A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, D. Kim, Y. Maravin, T. Mitchell, A. Modak
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright University of Maryland, College Park, USA
E. Adams, A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, S.C. Eno, Y. Feng, N.J. Hadley, S.
Jabeen, R.G. Kellogg, T. Koeth, A.C. Mignerey, S. Nabili, M. Seidel, A. Skuja,
S.C. Tonwar, L. Wang, K. Wong Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, R. Bi, S. Brandt, W. Busza, I.A. Cali, Y. Chen, M. D’Alfonso,
G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov, P. Harris, M. Hu, M. Klute, D. Kovalskyi, J.
Krupa, Y.-J. Lee, P.D. Luckey, B. Maier, A.C. Marini, C. Mironov, X. Niu, C.
Paus, D. Rankin, C. Roland, G. Roland, Z. Shi, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Tatar, D.
Velicanu, J. Wang, T.W. Wang, Z. Wang, B. Wyslouch University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, USA
R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, P. Hansen, J. Hiltbrand, Sh. Jain, M. Krohn, Y.
Kubota, Z. Lesko, J. Mans, M. Revering, R. Rusack, R. Saradhy, N. Schroeder,
N. Strobbe, M.A. Wadud University of Mississippi, Oxford, USA
J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
K. Bloom, M. Bryson, S. Chauhan, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, L. Finco, F. Golf,
J.R. González Fernández, C. Joo, I. Kravchenko, J.E. Siado, G.R.
Snow${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, W. Tabb, F. Yan State University of New York
at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
G. Agarwal, H. Bandyopadhyay, L. Hay, I. Iashvili, A. Kharchilava, C. McLean,
D. Nguyen, J. Pekkanen, S. Rappoccio Northeastern University, Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, Y. Haddad, A. Hortiangtham, J. Li, G.
Madigan, B. Marzocchi, D.M. Morse, V. Nguyen, T. Orimoto, A. Parker, L.
Skinnari, A. Tishelman-Charny, T. Wamorkar, B. Wang, A. Wisecarver, D. Wood
Northwestern University, Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, J. Bueghly, Z. Chen, A. Gilbert, T. Gunter, K.A. Hahn, N.
Odell, M.H. Schmitt, K. Sung, M. Velasco University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame,
USA
R. Bucci, N. Dev, R. Goldouzian, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop, K.
Lannon, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, I. Mcalister, F. Meng, K. Mohrman, Y.
Musienko47, R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, M. Wayne, A. Wightman, M. Wolf, L.
Zygala The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA
J. Alimena, B. Bylsma, B. Cardwell, L.S. Durkin, B. Francis, C. Hill, A.
Lefeld, B.L. Winer, B.R. Yates Princeton University, Princeton, USA
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, C.C. Peng, S. Piperov, A. Purohit,
J.F. Schulte, M. Stojanovic15, J. Thieman, F. Wang, R. Xiao, W. Xie Purdue
University Northwest, Hammond, USA
J. Dolen, N. Parashar Rice University, Houston, USA
A. Baty, S. Dildick, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, F.J.M. Geurts, A. Kumar, W. Li,
B.P. Padley, R. Redjimi, J. Roberts${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, W. Shi, A.G.
Stahl Leiton University of Rochester, Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, J.L. Dulemba, C. Fallon, T. Ferbel, M.
Galanti, A. Garcia-Bellido, O. Hindrichs, A. Khukhunaishvili, E. Ranken, R.
Taus Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, USA
B. Chiarito, J.P. Chou, A. Gandrakota, Y. Gershtein, E. Halkiadakis, A. Hart,
M. Heindl, E. Hughes, S. Kaplan, O. 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. Bouhali91, M. Dalchenko, A. Delgado, R. Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T.
Kamon92, 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, S. Undleeb, I. Volobouev, Z. Wang, A.
Whitbeck Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
E. Appelt, S. Greene, A. Gurrola, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H. Ni, K.
Padeken, F. Romeo, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska University of Virginia,
Charlottesville, USA
M.W. Arenton, B. Cox, G. Cummings, J. Hakala, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A.
Ledovskoy, A. Li, C. Neu, B. Tannenwald, E. Wolfe Wayne State University,
Detroit, USA
P.E. Karchin, N. Poudyal, P. Thapa University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison,
WI, USA
K. Black, T. Bose, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, S. Dasu, I. De Bruyn, P.
Everaerts, C. Galloni, H. He, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, A. Lanaro, A.
Loeliger, R. Loveless, J. Madhusudanan Sreekala, A. Mallampalli, 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 IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
5: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
6: Also at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
7: Also at UFMS, Nova Andradina, Brazil
8: Also at Nanjing Normal University Department of Physics, Nanjing, China
9: Now at The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
10: Also at University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
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 Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
14: Now at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt
15: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
16: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
17: Also at Ilia State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
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 Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
48: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
49: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
50: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
51: Also at Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
52: Also at Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia,
Moscow, Russia
53: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
54: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
55: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
56: Also at Trincomalee Campus, Eastern University, Sri Lanka, Nilaveli, Sri
Lanka
57: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy,
Pavia, Italy
58: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
59: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
60: Also at Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
61: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics, Vienna, Austria,
Vienna, Austria
62: Also at Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules,
IN2P3-CNRS, Annecy-le-Vieux, France
63: Also at Şırnak University, Sirnak, Turkey
64: Also at Department of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China,
Beijing, China
65: Also at Near East University, Research Center of Experimental Health
Science, Nicosia, Turkey
66: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey, Istanbul, Turkey
67: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Application and Research Center for
Advanced Studies (App. & Res. Cent. for Advanced Studies), Istanbul, Turkey
68: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
69: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
70: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
71: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
72: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
73: Also at Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
74: Also at Bozok Universitetesi Rektörlügü, Yozgat, Turkey, Yozgat, Turkey
75: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
76: Also at Milli Savunma University, Istanbul, Turkey
77: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
78: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
79: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
80: Also at Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
81: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
82: Also at IPPP Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom
83: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia
84: Also at Bethel University, St. Paul, Minneapolis, USA, St. Paul, USA
85: Also at Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey
86: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
87: Also at Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
88: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
89: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
90: Also at Erciyes University, KAYSERI, Turkey
91: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
92: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea, Daegu, Korea