FSQ-17-001

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>$Id:FSQ-17-001.tex4656362018-06-2209:09:16Zmvandekl$

FSQ-17-001

# Measurement of inclusive very forward jet cross sections in proton-lead
collisions at $\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$

###### Abstract

Measurements of differential cross sections for inclusive very forward jet
production in proton-lead collisions as a function of jet energy are
presented. The data were collected with the CMS experiment at the LHC in the
laboratory pseudorapidity range $-6.6<\eta<-5.2$. Asymmetric beam energies of
4for protons and 1.58per nucleon for Pb nuclei were used, corresponding to a
center-of-mass energy per nucleon pair of $\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$. Collisions with
either the proton (+Pb) or the ion (Pb+) traveling towards the negative $\eta$
hemisphere are studied. The jet cross sections are unfolded to stable-particle
level cross sections with $\pt\gtrsim 3\GeV$, and compared to predictions from
various Monte Carlo event generators. In addition, the cross section ratio of
+Pb and Pb+ data is presented. The results are discussed in terms of the
saturation of gluon densities at low fractional parton momenta. None of the
models under consideration describes all the data over the full jet-energy
range and for all beam configurations. Discrepancies between the differential
cross sections in data and model predictions of more than two orders of
magnitude are observed.

##  0.1 Introduction

In hadron-hadron collisions at high energies, scatterings with large momentum
transfer among the constituent partons lead to the production of jets. Such
processes are frequently described by perturbative quantum chromodynamics
(QCD) calculations in the framework of collinear factorization, in which hard
partonic cross sections are convolved with parton distribution functions
(PDFs).

Jet production in hadron-hadron interactions is thereby a useful tool to study
the parton structure of hadrons. The so-called
Dokshitzer–Gribov–Lipatov–Altarelli–Parisi (DGLAP) equations [1, 2, 3]
describe the evolution of the parton densities as a function of the virtuality
$Q^{2}$ (, the squared four-momentum exchange) of the hard scattering process.
This approach has been shown to be overall successful for the description of
the production of high-jets in proton-proton collisions at the LHC [4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15].

At leading order (LO) in the QCD coupling , the pseudorapidity, $\eta$, and
the of a jet are related to the fraction $x$ of the momentum of the parent
nucleon that is carried by the incoming parton via

$x\approx\frac{\pt}{\sqrt{s}}{\re}^{\pm\eta},$ (1)

where $\sqrt{s}$ is the center-of-mass energy of the hadron-hadron collision.
Forward jets with low therefore probe the parton densities and their evolution
at small (and large) $x$. The measurements presented in this paper, for jets
with $\pt\geq 3\GeV$ at very forward pseudorapidities $-6.6<\eta<-5.2$, are
thereby sensitive to fractional momenta down to $x\simeq 10^{-6}$. Collinear
factorization and DGLAP have been shown to be successful for the description
of processes involving large momentum exchanges and moderate fractional
momenta carried by the interacting partons. However, in the low-$x$ kinematic
regime considered in this paper, this approach is expected to fail, whereas
the Balitsky–Fadin–Kuraev–Lipatov (BFKL) equations [16, 17, 18], which evolve
the parton densities as a function of $1/x$, should be better suited to
describe forward jet production.

Both the DGLAP and BFKL equations are linear equations, , they account for
parton splitting and radiation, but not for parton recombination, processes.
The BFKL and DGLAP equations predict a rapid rise of the gluon density towards
small $x$, a result that has been experimentally confirmed by measurements at
HERA [19]. This rise is mitigated when next-to-leading-order (NLO) corrections
are taken into consideration. Despite this, the growth of the gluon density
with decreasing $x$ ultimately will result in a violation of unitarity (, the
cross section for parton scatterings will exceed the total inelastic hadronic
cross section), and the linear evolution equations alone will not be
sufficient to describe forward jet data. To solve this, it has been
hypothesized [3] that at sufficiently small values of $x$, nonlinear gluon
recombination processes will slow-down the uncontrolled growth of the PDFs.
Such a parton “saturation” regime, characterized by a virtuality scale known
as the saturation scale $Q_{\mathrm{s}}(x)$, is described by the
Balitsky–Kovchegov (BK) evolution equations [20, 21]. Saturation effects are
expected to become important in the kinematic region where the gluon density,
$xg(x,Q^{2})$, times the transverse extent of the gluons,
$\alpS(Q^{2})/Q^{2}$, becomes equal to the transverse area of the hadron $\pi
R_{\text{had}}^{2}$ [22]:

$\frac{\alpS(Q_{\mathrm{s}}^{2})}{Q_{\mathrm{s}}^{2}}xg(x,Q_{\mathrm{s}}^{2})\approx\pi
R_{\text{had}}^{2}.$ (2)

In a heavy ion with number of nucleons $A$, the squared saturation scale
$Q_{s}^{2}$ is expected to increase by a factor of $A^{1/3}$ with respect to
that of a single nucleon, namely by approximately a factor of six for a lead
nucleus. For $x\approx 10^{-6}$, the anticipated saturation scale in a lead
nucleus is approximately $10\GeV^{2}$ and, thereby, enhanced signals of gluon
saturation are expected when colliding lead ions compared to protons at the
LHC. Besides being a major research topic in its own right, parton saturation
is also an important theoretical ingredient for describing the initial state
of heavy ion collisions [23], and for understanding cosmic ray data [24].

Various measurements of jet production in proton-lead collisions at
$\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$ at the CERN LHC have already been performed [25, 26, 27].
In addition, the ATLAS and CMS experiments have reported forward jet
measurements in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7\TeV$ for values above
20and within $\abs{\eta}<5.2$ [6, 15]. Dijet measurements in proton-proton
collisions have also been performed by ATLAS [14] and CMS [28], in which the
sensitivity to BFKL effects is enhanced by studying events that contain jet
pairs with large rapidity separations. In all these studies, some results
favored BFKL-based approaches, while others were better described by models
based on DGLAP evolution.

The measurement presented here exploits the CASTOR calorimeter [29] on one
side of the CMS experiment, which extends the range in which jets can be
measured down to $\eta=-6.6$, with a lower limit on the accessible jet of
approximately 3\. Because of its unrivaled acceptance, a study of jets using
CASTOR in proton-lead collisions has a unique sensitivity to the low-$x$
regime and to perturbative nonlinear parton evolution effects.

In this paper, differential cross sections for inclusive forward jet
production as a function of jet energy in hadronic, nondiffractive proton-lead
collisions at $\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$ are presented. Collisions in which either
the proton (+Pb) or the ${}^{208}\text{Pb}$ ion (Pb+) travels towards the
negative $\eta$ hemisphere (where CASTOR is located) are studied. Asymmetric
beam energies of 4for the protons and 1.58per nucleon for the lead nuclei were
used, yielding a proton-nucleon center-of-mass energy of $\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$.
This implies that the center-of-mass system of the +Pb collisions is shifted
with respect to the laboratory frame, and the Pb+ center-of-mass system is
boosted in the opposite direction. Therefore, the effective acceptance of
CASTOR in the center-of-mass frame is different for the +Pb and Pb+ beam
setups. Jet cross sections, unfolded to the stable-particle level, and ratios
of +Pb to Pb+ cross sections are studied, and compared to the predictions from
Monte Carlo (MC) event generators including, or not, parton saturation
effects.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 0.2 the CMS detector is
presented. Section 0.3 discusses the various models that are used in this
study. Section 0.4 presents the experimental analysis, followed by an overview
of systematic uncertainties in Section 0.5. A comparison of the results to MC
predictions is given in Section 0.6, followed by the summary in Section 0.7.

##  0.2 The CMS detector

The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6m
internal diameter, providing a magnetic field of 3.8T. Within the solenoid
volume are a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal
electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), and a brass and scintillator hadron
calorimeter (HCAL), each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. Forward
calorimeters extend the $\eta$ coverage provided by the barrel and endcap
detectors. Muons are detected in gas-ionization chambers embedded in the steel
flux-return yoke outside the solenoid.

The forward hadron (HF) calorimeter uses steel as an absorber and quartz
fibers as the sensitive material. The two HF detectors are located at 11.2m
from the interaction point, one on each side of CMS, and together they provide
coverage in the range $3.0<\abs{\eta}<5.2$.

The very forward angles, , $-6.6<\eta<-5.2$, are covered at one end of CMS by
the CASTOR calorimeter, located at 14m from the interaction point. A diagram
of CASTOR is shown in Fig. 1. It consists of tungsten absorbers and quartz
detection plates. The CASTOR calorimeter is segmented into 16 azimuthal
sectors and each sector is longitudinally segmented into 14 modules. The first
two modules comprise the electromagnetic section, which is approximately 20
radiation lengths deep. The remaining twelve modules constitute the hadronic
section and are approximately nine nuclear interaction lengths deep. Thus, the
overall depth of CASTOR is approximately ten nuclear interaction lengths.
CASTOR is a non-compensating calorimeter with a relative response to incident
pions with respect to electrons of approximately 50% at an energy of 100. The
intrinsic relative jet-energy resolution of CASTOR is approximately 25 (10)%
for fully contained jets (, jets that do not suffer from transverse leakage)
of 550 (2500). It should be noted though that CASTOR has no $\eta$
segmentation; this leads to substantial transverse leakage effects.
Consequently, the effective relative jet-energy resolution deteriorates to
approximately 60 (25)% at 550 (2500).

Figure 1: A schematic drawing of one half of the CASTOR calorimeter and its
mechanical support structure. The diameter of CASTOR is roughly 0.6m and it is
approximately 1.6m in length. The transversal and longitudinal segmentation in
eight sectors and fourteen modules, respectively, can be clearly
distinguished. The 112 small cylinders represent the photomultiplier tubes of
CASTOR. These are mounted on light guides, which transport the Cherenkov
radiation out of the detector. It may be observed that CASTOR has only
transverse and no $\eta$ segmentation.

A more detailed description of the CMS detector, together with a definition of
the coordinate system used and the relevant kinematic variables, can be found
in Ref. [30].

##  0.3 Event generators

Monte Carlo event generators are used to correct the data for acceptance and
instrumental effects, as well as to compare to the experimental results.
Events, for which the detector response is fully simulated, are generated with
the epos-lhc [31], v1.383 [32], and qgsjetii-04 [33] programs. The response of
the CMS detector is simulated using [34], including the CASTOR calorimeter and
its energy response, which was validated using test-beam measurements [29].
Two further Monte Carlo models, katie (version katie-2017-05-09) [35] and
aamqs [24], are used to compare model predictions to the unfolded
measurements. None of these generators include photon-induced events. In
addition, the , katie, and aamqs generators do not include diffractive events.

The event generator models hard QCD interactions using the v5.7 [36] event
generator, based on leading order collinear factorization and parton showering
with DGLAP evolution. The Eichten-Hinchliffe-Lane-Quigg parameterization of
the nucleon pdf is used [37]. The soft interactions are modeled with the Lund
fritiof [38] and dual-parton [39] models. In addition, incorporates saturation
effects via nuclear shadowing [22, 40, 41]. These shadowing corrections are
obtained from a fit of the ratio of nucleus to proton sea quark structure
functions at moderate $x$ values ($x>10^{-3}$), which are then extrapolated to
lower $x$.

The epos-lhc program is an update of epos version 1.99 that has been
specifically tuned to reproduce the first LHC +, +Pb, and Pb+Pb measurements.
This model uses a combination of soft pomeron exchange (as in Regge–Gribov
theory [42, 43]) and a semihard contribution based on the convolution of a
nonperturbative pre-evolution, a DGLAP-based hard evolution, and standard
leading order QCD $2\to 2$ cross sections [44]. The semihard contribution has
been tuned to HERA structure function data and is recast as a hard pomeron
amplitude. Saturation is modeled through pomeron-pomeron interactions and is
implemented by modifying the $x$ dependence of the pomeron amplitudes. In Ref.
[45], however, it is shown that this leads to too strong a suppression of the
hard component, a shortcoming that will be remedied in an upcoming version of
the model.

Similar to epos-lhc, the qgsjetii-04 model is based on the Regge–Gribov theory
for the soft interactions and hard matrix elements convolved with DGLAP
evolution for the hard scatterings. In this case, pomeron self-interactions
result in saturation effects. The Cosmic Ray Monte Carlo CRMC package v1.5.6
[46] is used to generate the cross sections for the epos-lhc, , and
qgsjetii-04 models.

The katie program allows calculations of tree-level matrix elements with
offshell initial-state partons. It is therefore ideally suited to be used in
combination with transversal-momentum dependent PDFs, known as “TMDs”.

In this paper, katie is used in a hybrid high-energy factorization approach
where high-$x$ partons in one incoming hadron are treated in the collinear
framework, while low-$x$ partons in the other incoming hadron are modeled
using a TMD [47, 48, 49, 50]. Such an approach is considered to be valid in
configurations with very asymmetric fractional momenta, resulting, for
example, in forward jet production. The TMDs are obtained from the
Kutak–Sapeta (KS) framework [51], combined with linear (BFKL) or nonlinear
(BK) evolution with running coupling, respectively. The strength of the
nonlinear term can be varied; here, a default strength of 75% is used, with a
variation of $\pm 25\%$ to reflect the sensitivity to nonlinear evolution. The
parton density used in the collinear framework is the CTEQ10 NLO set [52]. The
katie program is used to calculate leading order hard scattering matrix
elements for the $2\to 1$ process ($\Pg^{\ast}\Pq\to\Pq$ or
$\Pg^{\ast}\Pg\to\Pg$) with incoming offshell gluons. The subsequent
hadronization is modeled using cascade v2.4.13 [53]. A more in-depth
description of the predictions that are included in the present paper can be
found in Ref. [54].

The aamqs predictions [24] for the forward jet spectra are also obtained using
hybrid factorization. At the parton level, the aamqs model generates quarks
and gluons from $\Pg\Pq\to\Pq$ and $\Pg\Pg\to\Pg$ hard processes, along with
initial- and final-state radiation based on DGLAP evolution. The TMD is
related to a dipole scattering amplitude in coordinate space via a Fourier
transform and, in this paper, an implementation based on the
McLerran–Venugopalan (MV) model [55, 56, 57] is used to derive the dipole
scattering amplitude within the color glass condensate framework [20, 58, 59,
21, 60, 61, 62, 63]. In this framework the hard partons act as color sources
for a classical non-Abelian background field, which is formed by numerous soft
gluons. The aamqs calculations are performed at leading order in . The
evolution of the TMD is performed using the BK equation with running coupling
strength. For the collinear PDFs the CTEQ6 LO set was used [64]. Multiple
parton interactions are included in the framework, and hadronization is
performed using the Lund string fragmentation model [65], as implemented in .
To account for missing higher-order effects in the katie and aamqs models, the
overall jet cross section normalization may be modified using a constant
$K$-factor. This factor is fixed to unity for the predictions presented in
this paper. Full next-to-leading order calculations [66] may lower the jet
cross sections by approximately 40%.

The katie and aamqs models do not provide any modeling of the ion remnants
that did not directly participate in the hard interaction, but are nonetheless
incident on CASTOR. These models are therefore not expected to be successful
in describing interactions in which the incoming ion travels towards CASTOR
(the so-called Pb+ configuration).

##  0.4 Data analysis

The +Pb and Pb+ collisions that are analyzed in this study were delivered to
CMS in 2013. Only data collected when the whole CMS detector was optimally
functioning are used, corresponding to a total integrated luminosity of the
+Pb and Pb+ data sets of 3.13 and 6.71, respectively. The peak pileup (, the
maximum average number of simultaneous interactions per bunch crossing) in
these runs was 0.0763.

Events were collected using a minimum bias trigger [67] requiring the presence
of a track in the pixel detector (with acceptance $\abs{\eta}\leq 2.5$) with a
above 0.4. In addition, an energy deposit above 4in the HF calorimeters (with
acceptance $3\leq\abs{\eta}\leq 5$) on both sides is required offline. It has
been shown in Ref. [68] that this selection effectively suppresses the
contribution of photon-induced and diffractive events to a negligible level.
To mitigate the effect of pileup in data, only events with at most one
reconstructed primary vertex [69] are selected. After the event selection has
been applied, the CASTOR jet spectrum is found to be independent of the
instantaneous luminosity of the collisions, confirming that pileup does not
impact the results of this analysis. Dedicated event-selection filters are
applied to remove beam-gas scattering events and interactions of the beam with
the beam pipe. By studying the occurrence of events satisfying the online and
offline criteria in a zero bias event sample, in which only the presence of
beams within the CMS detector is required, the trigger is found to be fully
efficient for events that fulfill the offline selection criteria.

The reconstruction of jets in CASTOR is detailed in Ref. [70]. The CASTOR
calorimeter can be subdivided into towers, where a tower consists of all
modules within a given longitudinal CASTOR sector. These towers are clustered
into jets using the anti-algorithm [71, 72, 73] with a distance parameter of
0.5. The distance parameter was optimized by studying the correlation between
detector-level and particle-level jets, and between particle-level and parton-
level jets. Because of the lack of $\eta$ segmentation in CASTOR, both towers
and detector-level jets have their $\eta$ coordinate fixed to the geometrical
center of the sector (, $\eta=-5.9$).

The reconstructed jets in CASTOR require an energy-dependent correction factor
because of the noncompensating nature of CASTOR. The jets are therefore first
identified to be of hadronic origin, using topological shower properties such
as depth, width and electromagnetic energy fractions, before the required
calibration functions are applied. These energy-dependent calibration
functions are obtained from simulation as follows. First, a particle-level jet
is matched to a detector-level jet. Subsequently, it is required that the
particle-level jet is isolated (, that there is no other particle-level jet
contributing to the detector-level jet) and contained (, the jet is incident
in the region $-6.1<\eta<-5.7$). For these jet pairs the response is
calculated. The inverse of the response function is applied to the
reconstructed jets in order to correct for the noncompensating nature of the
calorimeter. Details of the jet calibration and reconstruction are presented
in Ref. [74].

Detector-level differential cross sections as a function of calibrated jet
energy $(E)$ are shown in Fig. 2 for $E>150\GeV$. The systematic uncertainty
band on the data includes the energy scale, jet identification, and luminosity
uncertainties, while the alignment uncertainty has been displayed for each
model individually. These systematic uncertainties are described in Section
0.5. For the Pb+ data and simulations, the energy spectrum extends well beyond
the incoming energy per nucleon of 1.58 , because the jet algorithm picks up
energy deposits originating from the ion remnants, for which the spectra are
not corrected. The detector-level distributions indicate that yields the best
overall description of the data, although the description of the beam remnants
can certainly be further improved. The epos-lhc and qgsjetii-04 models
underestimate the measurements, in particular in the high-energy part of the
+Pb spectrum. The ratio of energy spectra of +Pb to Pb+ data is shown in Fig.
3.

Figure 2: Detector-level differential cross sections for inclusive forward jet
production as a function of calibrated jet energy in +Pb (left) and Pb+
(right) collisions. Model predictions are shown for epos-lhc, , and
qgsjetii-04. Figure 3: Detector-level ratio of differential cross sections for
inclusive forward jet production in +Pb to Pb+ data vs. calibrated jet energy.
Model predictions are shown for epos-lhc, , and qgsjetii-04.

The data are corrected for detector efficiency and acceptance, bin migrations,
and detector-level jets nonexistent at stable-particle level (fake jets)
through an unfolding procedure. In simulation, stable particles are defined to
be those with a proper lifetime $c\tau>1\unit{cm}$; events at stable-particle
level are required to have at least one particle in each $\eta$ hemisphere in
the range $3<\abs{\eta}<5$ with a minimum energy of 4, and a charged particle
with $\abs{\eta}<2.5$ and $\pt>0.4\GeV$, thus closely following the detector-
level event selection. Jets are formed from the stable particles, with the
exception of neutrinos, including their full four-momentum in the laboratory
system, by using the anti-jet algorithm with distance parameter 0.5, and are
required to have their axis within the CASTOR acceptance range of
$-6.6<\eta<-5.2$.

The unfolding of the data is performed using the D’Agostini iterative
procedure [75] as implemented in roounfold [76]. To perform the unfolding,
jets at the detector and stable-particle levels are matched in $\phi$ to
create a response matrix. Because of the lack of $\eta$ resolution of CASTOR,
it is not possible to match jet pairs in the distance $R$ between the
detector- and particle-level jets. The procedure also corrects for stable-
particle level jets not found at detector-level (missed jets) and for fake
jets. It is found that 100 (+Pb) and 720 (Pb+) Bayesian iterations are needed
to obtain a stable result. The relatively large number of iterations can be
explained by the broadness of the response matrices. Two main effects are
responsible for this broadness. One is the intrinsic energy resolution of
CASTOR. The other is the lack of $\eta$ segmentation, which causes large
transversal leakage. This leads to a further broadening of the response
matrix. This is outlined in more detail in Ref. [74]. In the unfolding
procedure all jets with energy above 150are taken into account. However, in
order to avoid large model-dependent correction factors arising from
migrations of jets over the 150cutoff, the unfolded jet energy spectra are
presented in Section 0.6 starting from an energy threshold of 550,
corresponding to a transverse momentum of $\pt=E/\cosh(\eta)\approx 3\GeV$.
From this cutoff onwards the fraction of missed and fake jets is smaller than
10 and 5%, respectively. The unfolding procedure and its validation are
discussed in Ref. [74]. Finally, the cross section ratio of +Pb to Pb+ is
obtained from the individually unfolded spectra.

##  0.5 Systematic uncertainties

The following sources of systematic uncertainty are investigated, given in
order of the size of their contribution:

  * •

Energy scale uncertainty. The CASTOR energy scale uncertainty is $\pm 15\%$
[77]. Therefore, the CASTOR jet-energy spectra are obtained with the energy
scale varied in the reconstructed data by $\pm 15\%$ to estimate the
associated uncertainty. The propagated energy scale uncertainty is largest in
the +Pb spectrum, since this is the steepest descending spectrum.

  * •

Model dependence. Different MC event generators (epos-lhc, , and qgsjetii-04)
are each used to unfold the data. As shown in Fig. 2, is found to describe the
data best and therefore this generator is used for the default unfolding
procedure, while epos-lhc and qgsjetii-04 are used to estimate the systematic
uncertainty. The unfolding procedure attempts to reconstruct the spectrum of
particle-level jets that are matched to detector-level jets using a migration
matrix in a model-independent way. The missed and fake jet distributions, used
to correct the matched jet spectra, are however obtained directly from the
models. This introduces a model dependence in the correction procedure.
Because of the lack of $\eta$ segmentation, the contributions from missed and
fake jets to the unfolded spectra are relatively large in CASTOR, and the
model dependence therefore yields a relatively large uncertainty on the +Pb
and Pb+ measurements, and the largest uncertainty on the ratio.

  * •

Alignment. The position of CASTOR is known with limited precision. Events
generated by are therefore simulated with the CASTOR halves shifted
simultaneously inwards and outwards with respect to the beam pipe, according
to the alignment uncertainty (about 2mm per coordinate in the $x$-$y$ plane).
These simulated events are subsequently used to unfold the data. For the
detector-level spectra the alignment uncertainty was obtained by
reconstructing the spectra with CASTOR simulated at its maximally displaced
positions.

  * •

Jet identification uncertainty. Jets are identified to be of hadronic origin
before calibration functions are applied. This results in a small fraction of
“true” rejected jets (1 and 0.4% in +Pb and Pb+, respectively). Since some
discrepancy between data and simulation was observed in the distribution of
the jet identification variables, the energy spectra are also reconstructed in
data without any jet identification, thus treating all reconstructed jets at
detector level as being of hadronic origin and letting the unfolding procedure
correct for any mismatch between detector and stable-particle level. The
impact of this variation is taken as the size of this systematic effect.

  * •

Integrated luminosity uncertainty. The integrated luminosity is known with a
precision of 3.4 and 3.6% [78] for +Pb and Pb+, respectively. These
uncertainties are treated as independent for the ratio +Pb/Pb+.

The total systematic uncertainty is obtained by adding the individual sources
of uncertainty in quadrature. If a variation in a particular systematic effect
results only in a variation of the spectrum in one direction, instead of both,
the contribution to the uncertainty is symmetrized. For the leading
uncertainty, no symmetrization was needed for the +Pb and Pb+ spectrum. For
the subleading sources of uncertainty, for a minor number of bins error
symmetrization was needed. For the jet identification uncertainty, which is
the least significant source of uncertainty, only one shift was performed and
thus the errors are symmetrized for all bins. The individual contributions and
total systematic uncertainty are given in Table 0.5 for the +Pb, Pb+, and for
the ratio of the +Pb to Pb+ cross sections, for their highest and lowest
common energy bin. It can be seen that the energy scale uncertainty is
dominant for the +Pb and Pb+ spectra at high jet energies, while the model
dependence dominates for the ratio of +Pb to Pb+ cross sections.

The contribution in percentage (%) of various sources of systematic
uncertainty in the highest and lowest common energy bins for the +Pb, Pb+, and
+Pb/Pb+ spectra.  +Pb Pb+ +Pb/Pb+ Energy bin [] 0.6 2.5 0.6 2.5 0.6 2.5 Energy
scale ${}^{+2}_{-2}$ ${}^{+150}_{-71}$ ${}^{+1}_{-2}$ ${}^{+120}_{-78}$
${}^{+1}_{-2}$ ${}^{+35}_{-35}$ Model dependence ${}^{+18}_{-18}$
${}^{+41}_{-41}$ ${}^{+4}_{-4}$ ${}^{+60}_{-60}$ ${}^{+1}_{-17}$
${}^{+47}_{-47}$ Alignment ${}^{+4}_{-4}$ ${}^{+34}_{-34}$ ${}^{+10}_{-10}$
${}^{+33}_{-33}$ ${}^{+14}_{-3}$ ${}^{+34}_{-6}$ Jet identification
${}^{+2}_{-2}$ ${}^{+24}_{-24}$ ${}^{+2}_{-2}$ ${}^{<1}_{<1}$ ${}^{<1}_{<1}$
${}^{+25}_{-25}$ Total ${}^{+19}_{-19}$ ${}^{+160}_{-92}$ ${}^{+11}_{-11}$
${}^{+140}_{-100}$ ${}^{+27}_{-26}$ ${}^{+77}_{-54}$

##  0.6 Results

The unfolded differential cross sections for inclusive forward jet production
as a function of jet energy are shown in Fig. 4 for +Pb and Fig. 5 (left) for
Pb+ data. The ratio of the cross sections in +Pb to Pb+ data is shown in Fig.
5 (right). The latter distribution would be in principle expected to be
directly sensitive to parton saturation effects, independently of any
particular data-model comparison. Indeed, whereas jets in the +Pb data probe
the ion parton density at low values of $x$ and are therefore sensitive to
possible enhanced saturation effects in nuclei, the Pb+ cross section would be
sensitive to the low-$x$ content of the proton, which is expected to be less
affected by saturation. In principle, strong parton saturation effects would
lead to depletion of the cross section ratio towards low jet energy. However,
because the $\eta$ selection is made in the laboratory frame
($-6.6<\eta<-5.2$), and not in the center-of-mass frame, different center-of-
mass $\eta$ ranges are being compared (the Lorentz-boost between the +Pb and
Pb+ center-of-mass frames results in an $\eta$ shift of $\Delta\eta=0.87$).
The ratio of spectra in Fig. 5 (right) is thus sensitive to proton and lead
parton distributions evaluated at different $x$, thereby complicating the
interpretation of the data. Applying a correction for the effect of this boost
turns out to be highly model dependent. The ion debris that contributes to the
Pb+ cross section further obscures the analysis of this ratio measurement.

In Fig. 4 (left) the +Pb data are compared to the predictions of the epos-lhc,
, and qgsjetii-04 models. The predictions of the epos-lhc and qgsjetii-04
model differ by more than two orders of magnitude at $E=2.5\TeV$. The model
describes the measured distributions best, but this does not automatically
imply that its underlying dynamics, DGLAP-based nuclear PDFs with shadowing,
is favored by the data, given the many other model ingredients incorporated in
this MC generator that affect the results. The epos-lhc and qgsjetii-04 models
both yield an energy spectrum that is too soft and underestimate the data at
high energy. As mentioned in Section 0.3, epos-lhc suffers from a mismodeling
of the absolute normalization of hard scatterings in proton-nucleus collisions
that has been improved in more recent versions of the event generator [45].

Predictions of the katie model are compared to data in Fig. 4 (right). The two
predictions, labeled “KS nonlinear” and “KS linear”, demonstrate the effect of
saturation on the jet cross section, with the KS nonlinear curve being
comparatively depleted by an order of magnitude at low jet energy. The band
displayed for the nonlinear curve (with gluon saturation) reflects the effect
of varying the strength of the saturation term between 50 and 100%. Even
though the linear approach (without gluon saturation) is closer to the data in
terms of normalization, the slope of the nonlinear distribution appears to be
a bit harder and more consistent with the shape of the spectrum observed in
data.

The +Pb data are also compared to the predictions from the aamqs approach in
Fig. 4 (right). Even though the approaches used by katie and aamqs are both
based on hybrid factorization, the predictions are quite different. This may
be traced back to the use of offshell matrix elements in the case of katie,
whereas aamqs uses onshell scattering amplitudes derived from the color glass
condensate framework. From the comparison to data, it appears that the aamqs
cross section at low energy is too low, which could be explained by too strong
a depletion caused by saturation, while the model describes the data well for
high jet energies.

Overall, none of these saturation models can explain all the features observed
in the data, and the disagreement between the data and the katie and aamqs
saturation models is the largest in the region where nonlinear effects are
expected to be the strongest.

Data obtained with the reversed beam configuration are compared to epos-lhc, ,
and qgsjetii-04 in Fig. 5 (left). This is the region with significant
contributions from ion remnants. The epos-lhc and models describe the data
reasonably well, but are too low in normalization. The qgsjetii-04 model again
yields a spectrum that is too soft.

Finally, epos-lhc, , and qgsjetii-04 predictions are also compared to the
ratio of cross sections in +Pb and Pb+ data in Fig. 5 (right), where
substantial uncertainty cancelation occurs. None of the models are able to
describe the data over the whole range. The model describes the shape of the
data best, but fails to describe its magnitude because it underestimates the
normalization of the Pb+ spectrum. The epos-lhc model describes the lower
energy part of the ratio spectrum well, but fails to describe the shape at
high energies because of problems describing the hard component of the jet
cross section. Finally, qgsjetii-04 underestimates both the shape and
normalization of the ratio, which can also be attributed to the poor
description of the +Pb spectrum.

The data-model discrepancies described above appear more pronounced in the
detector-level distributions plotted in Fig. 3, as these latter distributions
do not have an associated modeling uncertainty.

Figure 4:  Stable-particle-level differential jet cross section as a function
of jet energy measured in +Pb collisions at 5.02, compared to the epos-lhc, ,
and qgsjetii-04 (left), and katie and aamqs (right) predictions. The band
associated with the nonlinear katie curve accounts for the 50–100% variation
of the strength of the parton saturation effects in this model.

Figure 5: Stable-particle-level differential jet cross section as a function
of jet energy in proton-lead collisions at 5.02. The Pb+ measurement is
depicted left, and the ratio of the +Pb to Pb+ cross sections is displayed
right. The data are compared to model predictions from epos-lhc, , and
qgsjetii-04.

##  0.7 Summary

Measurements of the differential inclusive forward jet cross sections in
proton-lead collisions at $\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$ have been presented. The
measurements are performed in the laboratory pseudorapidity range
$-6.6<\eta<-5.2$, and as a function of jet energy. Collisions with either the
incoming proton (+Pb) or the incoming ion (Pb+) directed towards the negative
$\eta$ hemisphere are studied. The jet cross sections are unfolded to stable-
particle level cross sections with $\pt\gtrsim 3\GeV$ and compared to
predictions from various Monte Carlo event generators. The cross section ratio
for +Pb to Pb+ data as a function of jet energy has also been measured, and
exhibits a much smaller systematic uncertainty than the individual spectra.

The so-far unexplored kinematic phase space covered by this measurement is
sensitive to the parton densities and their evolution at low fractional
momenta. Models incorporating various implementations of gluon saturation have
been confronted with data. No model is, however, currently able to describe
all aspects of the data.

###### 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: BMWFW and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq,
CAPES, FAPERJ, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC
(China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RPF (Cyprus);
SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC IUT, and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of Finland,
MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF
(Germany); GSRT (Greece); NKFIA (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM (Iran);
SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); LAS
(Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT, LNS, SEP, and
UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC
(Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom, RAS and RFBR (Russia);
MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI and FEDER (Spain); Swiss Funding Agencies
(Switzerland); MST (Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR, and NSTDA (Thailand);
TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); NASU and SFFR (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE
and NSF (USA). Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie program
and the European Research Council and Horizon 2020 Grant, contract No. 675440
(European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A. P. Sloan Foundation; the
Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office;
the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans
l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en
Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the F.R.S.-FNRS and FWO (Belgium) under the
“Excellence of Science - EOS” - be.h project n. 30820817; the Ministry of
Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Lendület
(“Momentum”) 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 and 125105 (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 Programa Estatal de
Fomento de la Investigación Científica y Técnica de Excelencia María de
Maeztu, grant MDM-2015-0509 and the Programa Severo Ochoa del Principado de
Asturias; the Thalis and Aristeia programmes cofinanced by EU-ESF and the
Greek NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship,
Chulalongkorn University and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century
Project Advancement Project (Thailand); the Welch Foundation, contract C-1845;
and the Weston Havens Foundation (USA).

## References

  * [1] G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, “Asymptotic freedom in parton language”,  Nucl. Phys. B 126 (1977) 298, 10.1016/0550-3213(77)90384-4.
  * [2] Y. L. Dokshitzer, “Calculation of the structure functions for deep inelastic scattering and $e^{+}e{{}^{-}}$ annihilation by perturbation theory in quantum chromodynamics”,  Sov. Phys. JETP 46 (1977) 641. [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 73, (1977) 1216].
  * [3] V. N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov, “Deep inelastic $e$ p scattering in perturbation theory”,  Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 15 (1972) 438. [Yad. Fiz. 15, (1972) 781].
  * [4] CMS Collaboration, “Dijet azimuthal decorrelations in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 122003, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.122003, arXiv:1101.5029.
  * [5] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the differential dijet production cross section in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 700 (2011) 187, 10.1016/j.physletb.2011.05.027, arXiv:1104.1693.
  * [6] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inclusive production cross sections for forward jets and for dijet events with one forward and one central jet in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”,  JHEP 06 (2012) 036, 10.1007/JHEP06(2012)036, arXiv:1202.0704.
  * [7] CMS Collaboration, “Ratios of dijet production cross sections as a function of the absolute difference in rapidity between jets in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 2216, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-2216-6, arXiv:1204.0696.
  * [8] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of dijet azimuthal decorrelation in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 536, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4346-8, arXiv:1602.04384.
  * [9] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the triple-differential dijet cross section in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8\,\text{TeV}$ and constraints on parton distribution functions”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 746, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5286-7, arXiv:1705.02628.
  * [10] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of inclusive jet and dijet cross sections in proton-proton collisions at 7 TeV center-of-mass energy with the ATLAS detector”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1512, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1512-2, arXiv:1009.5908.
  * [11] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of dijet production with a veto on additional central jet activity in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV using the ATLAS detector”,  JHEP 09 (2011) 053, 10.1007/JHEP09(2011)053, arXiv:1107.1641.
  * [12] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of inclusive jet and dijet production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV using the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 014022, 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.014022, arXiv:1112.6297.
  * [13] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of dijet cross sections in pp collisions at 7 TeV center-of-mass energy using the ATLAS detector”,  JHEP 05 (2014) 059, 10.1007/JHEP05(2014)059, arXiv:1312.3524.
  * [14] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurements of jet vetoes and azimuthal decorrelations in dijet events produced in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7\,\mathrm{TeV}$ using the ATLAS detector”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3117, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3117-7, arXiv:1407.5756.
  * [15] ATLAS Collaboration, “Dijet production in $\sqrt{s}=$ 7 TeV pp collisions with large rapidity gaps at the ATLAS experiment”,  Phys. Lett. B 754 (2016) 214, 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.01.028, arXiv:1511.00502.
  * [16] E. A. Kuraev, L. N. Lipatov, and V. S. Fadin, “The Pomeranchuk singularity in nonabelian gauge theories”, Sov. Phys. JETP 45 (1977) 199.
  * [17] I. I. Balitsky and L. N. Lipatov, “The Pomeranchuk singularity in quantum chromodynamics”,  Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 28 (1978) 822.
  * [18] E. A. Kuraev, L. N. Lipatov, and V. S. Fadin, “Multi-Reggeon processes in the Yang-Mills theory”, Sov. Phys. JETP 44 (1976) 443.
  * [19] H1 and ZEUS Collaborations, “Combined measurement and QCD analysis of the inclusive e±p scattering cross sections at HERA”,  JHEP 01 (2010) 109, 10.1007/JHEP01(2010)109, arXiv:0911.0884.
  * [20] I. Balitsky, “Operator expansion for high-energy scattering”,  Nucl. Phys. B 463 (1996) 99, 10.1016/0550-3213(95)00638-9, arXiv:hep-ph/9509348.
  * [21] Y. V. Kovchegov, “Small-$x$ ${F}_{2}$ structure function of a nucleus including multiple pomeron exchanges”,  Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 034008, 10.1103/PhysRevD.60.034008, arXiv:hep-ph/9901281.
  * [22] A. H. Mueller and J. Qiu, “Gluon recombination and shadowing at small values of $x$”,  Nucl. Phys. B 268 (1986) 427, 10.1016/0550-3213(86)90164-1.
  * [23] J. L. Albacete, A. Dumitru, H. Fujii, and Y. Nara, “CGC predictions for p+Pb collisions at the LHC”,  Nucl. Phys. A 897 (2013) 1, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2012.09.012, arXiv:1209.2001.
  * [24] J. L. Albacete, P. Guerrero Rodríguez, and Y. Nara, “Ultraforward particle production from color glass condensate and Lund fragmentation”,  Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 054004, 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.054004, arXiv:1605.08334.
  * [25] ALICE Collaboration, “Measurement of charged jet production cross sections and nuclear modification in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\text{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 749 (2015) 68, 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.07.054, arXiv:1503.00681.
  * [26] ATLAS Collaboration, “Centrality and rapidity dependence of inclusive jet production in $\sqrt{s_{\text{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV proton-lead collisions with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Lett. B 748 (2015) 392, 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.07.023, arXiv:1412.4092.
  * [27] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of inclusive jet production and nuclear modifications in pPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{{}_{\mathrm{NN}}}}=$ 5.02 TeV”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 372, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4205-7, arXiv:1601.02001.
  * [28] CMS Collaboration, “Azimuthal decorrelation of jets widely separated in rapidity in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”,  JHEP 08 (2016) 139, 10.1007/JHEP08(2016)139, arXiv:1601.06713.
  * [29] V. Andreev et al., “Performance studies of a full-length prototype for the CASTOR forward calorimeter at the CMS experiment”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 67 (2010) 601, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1316-4.
  * [30] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [31] T. Pierog et al., “EPOS LHC: Test of collective hadronization with data measured at the CERN Large Hadron Collider”,  Phys. Rev. C 92 (2015) 034906, 10.1103/PhysRevC.92.034906, arXiv:1306.0121.
  * [32] X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, “HIJING: A Monte Carlo model for multiple jet production in pp, pA, and AA collisions”,  Phys. Rev. D 44 (1991) 3501, 10.1103/PhysRevD.44.3501, arXiv:nucl-th/9502021.
  * [33] S. Ostapchenko, “QGSJET-II: Physics, recent improvements, and results for air showers”,  EPJ Web Conf. 52 (2013) 02001, 10.1051/epjconf/20125202001.
  * [34] GEANT Collaboration, “—a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [35] A. van Hameren, “KaTie : For parton-level event generation with $k_{\mathrm{T}}$-dependent initial states”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 224 (2018) 371, 10.1016/j.cpc.2017.11.005, arXiv:1611.00680.
  * [36] T. Sjöstrand et al., “An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2”,  Comput. Phys. Comm. 191 (2015) 159, 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024, arXiv:1410.3012.
  * [37] E. Eichten, I. Hinchliffe, K. Lane, and C. Quigg, “Supercollider physics”,  Rev. Mod. Phys. 56 (1984) 579, 10.1103/RevModPhys.56.579.
  * [38] B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, and B. Nilsson-Almqvist, “A model for low-$\pt$ hadronic reactions with generalizations to hadron-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus collisions”,  Nucl. Phys. B 281 (1987) 289, 10.1016/0550-3213(87)90257-4.
  * [39] A. Capella, U. Sukhatme, and J. Tran Thanh Van, “Soft multi-hadron production from partonic structure and fragmentation functions”,  Z. Phys. C 3 (1979) 329, 10.1007/BF01414185.
  * [40] F. E. Close, J. Qiu, and R. G. Roberts, “QCD parton recombination and applications to nuclear structure functions”,  Phys. Rev. D 40 (1989) 2820, 10.1103/PhysRevD.40.2820.
  * [41] L. Frankfurt and M. Strikman, “Hard nuclear processes and microscopic nuclear structure”,  Phys. Rep. 160 (1988) 235, 10.1016/0370-1573(88)90179-2.
  * [42] V. N. Gribov, “A reggeon diagram technique”, Sov. Phys. JETP 26 (1968) 414\.
  * [43] V. N. Gribov and A. A. Migdal, “Properties of the Pomeranchuk pole and the branch cuts related to it at low momentum transfer”,  Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 8 (1969) 583.
  * [44] H. J. Drescher et al., “Parton based Gribov-Regge theory”,  Phys. Rep. 350 (2001) 93, 10.1016/S0370-1573(00)00122-8, arXiv:hep-ph/0007198.
  * [45] T. Pierog and K. Werner, “Parton saturation and hydrodynamics in EPOS 3”,  Acta Phys. Polon. Supp. 8 (2015) 1031, 10.5506/APhysPolBSupp.8.1031.
  * [46] T. Pierog, C. Baus, and R. Ulrich. https://web.ikp.kit.edu/rulrich/crmc.html.
  * [47] A. Dumitru, A. Hayashigaki, and J. Jalilian-Marian, “The color glass condensate and hadron production in the forward region”,  Nucl. Phys. A 765 (2006) 464, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.11.014, arXiv:hep-ph/0506308.
  * [48] A. M. Stasto and D. Zaslavsky, “Saturation in inclusive production beyond leading logarithm accuracy”,  Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 31 (2016) 1630039, 10.1142/S0217751X16300398, arXiv:1608.02285.
  * [49] S. Catani, M. Ciafaloni, and F. Hautmann, “High energy factorization and small-$x$ heavy flavour production”,  Nucl. Phys. B 366 (1991) 135, 10.1016/0550-3213(91)90055-3.
  * [50] M. Deak, F. Hautmann, H. Jung, and K. Kutak, “Forward jet production at the Large Hadron Collider”,  JHEP 09 (2009) 121, 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/09/121, arXiv:0908.0538.
  * [51] K. Kutak and S. Sapeta, “Gluon saturation in dijet production in p-Pb collisions at Large Hadron Collider”,  Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 094043, 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.094043, arXiv:1205.5035.
  * [52] H. L. Lai et al., “New parton distributions for collider physics”,  Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 074024, 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.074024, arXiv:1007.2241.
  * [53] H. Jung et al., “The CCFM Monte Carlo generator CASCADE version 2.2.03”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 70 (2010) 1237, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1507-z, arXiv:1008.0152.
  * [54] M. Bury et al., “Single inclusive jet production and the nuclear modification ratio at very forward rapidity in proton-lead collisions with $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 780 (2018) 185, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.03.007, arXiv:1712.08105.
  * [55] L. D. McLerran and R. Venugopalan, “Computing quark and gluon distribution functions for very large nuclei”,  Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 2233, 10.1103/PhysRevD.49.2233, arXiv:hep-ph/9309289.
  * [56] L. D. McLerran and R. Venugopalan, “Gluon distribution functions for very large nuclei at small transverse momentum”,  Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 3352, 10.1103/PhysRevD.49.3352, arXiv:hep-ph/9311205.
  * [57] L. D. McLerran and R. Venugopalan, “Green’s functions in the color field of a large nucleus”,  Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 2225, 10.1103/PhysRevD.50.2225, arXiv:hep-ph/9402335.
  * [58] J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner, A. Leonidov, and H. Weigert, “The BFKL equation from the Wilson renormalization group”,  Nucl. Phys. B 504 (1997) 415, 10.1016/S0550-3213(97)00440-9, arXiv:hep-ph/9701284.
  * [59] J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner, and H. Weigert, “The Wilson renormalization group for low $x$ physics: gluon evolution at finite parton density”,  Phys. Rev. D 59 (1998) 014015, 10.1103/PhysRevD.59.014015, arXiv:hep-ph/9709432.
  * [60] H. Weigert, “Unitarity at small Bjorken $x$”,  Nucl. Phys. A 703 (2002) 823, 10.1016/S0375-9474(01)01668-2, arXiv:hep-ph/0004044.
  * [61] E. Iancu, A. Leonidov, and L. D. McLerran, “Nonlinear gluon evolution in the color glass condensate. 1.”,  Nucl. Phys. A 692 (2001) 583, 10.1016/S0375-9474(01)00642-X, arXiv:hep-ph/0011241.
  * [62] E. Ferreiro, E. Iancu, A. Leonidov, and L. McLerran, “Nonlinear gluon evolution in the color glass condensate. 2.”,  Nucl. Phys. A 703 (2002) 489, 10.1016/S0375-9474(01)01329-X, arXiv:hep-ph/0109115.
  * [63] F. Gelis, E. Iancu, J. Jalilian-Marian, and R. Venugopalan, “The color glass condensate”,  Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60 (2010) 463, 10.1146/annurev.nucl.010909.083629, arXiv:1002.0333.
  * [64] J. Pumplin et al., “New generation of parton distributions with uncertainties from global QCD analysis”,  JHEP 07 (2002) 012, 10.1088/1126-6708/2002/07/012, arXiv:hep-ph/0201195.
  * [65] B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, G. Ingelman, and T. Sjöstrand, “Parton fragmentation and string dynamics”,  Physics Reports 97 (1983) 31, 10.1016/0370-1573(83)90080-7.
  * [66] B. Ducloué et al., “Use of a running coupling in the NLO calculation of forward hadron production”,  Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 054020, arXiv:1712.07480.
  * [67] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [68] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inelastic cross section in proton-lead collisions at $\sqrt{s_{{}_{\mathrm{NN}}}}=$ 5.02 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 759 (2016) 641, 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.06.027, arXiv:1509.03893.
  * [69] CMS Collaboration, “Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker”,  JINST 9 (2014) P10009, 10.1088/1748-0221/9/10/P10009, arXiv:1405.6569.
  * [70] CMS Collaboration, “Jet measurement with the CASTOR calorimeter”, Technical Report CMS-DP-2014-022, 2014.
  * [71] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-$k_{\text{T}}$ jet clustering algorithm”,  JHEP 04 (2008) 063, 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063, arXiv:0802.1189.
  * [72] 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.
  * [73] M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam, “Dispelling the $N^{3}$ myth for the $k_{\mathrm{T}}$ jet-finder”,  Phys. Lett. B 641 (2006) 57, 10.1016/j.physletb.2006.08.037, arXiv:hep-ph/0512210.
  * [74] M. van de Klundert, “Search for gluon saturation in proton-lead collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV with the very forward CASTOR calorimeter at the CMS experiment”.  PhD thesis, University of Antwerp, 2018.  CERN-THESIS-2018-087.
  * [75] G. D’Agostini, “A multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes’ theorem”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 362 (1995) 487, 10.1016/0168-9002(95)00274-X.
  * [76] T. Adye, “Unfolding algorithms and tests using RooUnfold”, (2011). arXiv:1105.1160.
  * [77] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inclusive energy spectrum in the very forward direction in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  JHEP 08 (2017) 046, 10.1007/JHEP08(2017)046, arXiv:1701.08695.
  * [78] CMS Collaboration, “Luminosity calibration for the 2013 proton-lead and proton-proton data taking”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-13-002, 2014\.

##  .8 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan Institut für Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, E. Asilar, T. Bergauer, J. Brandstetter, E. Brondolin, M.
Dragicevic, J. Erö, A. Escalante Del Valle, M. Flechl, V.M. Ghete, J. Hrubec,
M. Jeitler1, N. Krammer, I. Krätschmer, D. Liko, T. Madlener, I. Mikulec, N.
Rad, H. Rohringer, J. Schieck1, R. Schöfbeck, M. Spanring, D. Spitzbart, A.
Taurok, W. Waltenberger, J. Wittmann, C.-E. Wulz1, M. Zarucki Institute for
Nuclear Problems, Minsk, Belarus
V. Chekhovsky, V. Mossolov, J. Suarez Gonzalez Universiteit Antwerpen,
Antwerpen, Belgium
E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, J. Lauwers, M. Pieters, M. Van De
Klundert, H. Van Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, N. Van Remortel Vrije
Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
S. Abu Zeid, F. Blekman, J. D’Hondt, I. De Bruyn, J. De Clercq, K. Deroover,
G. Flouris, D. Lontkovskyi, S. Lowette, I. Marchesini, S. Moortgat, L.
Moreels, Q. Python, K. Skovpen, S. Tavernier, W. Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders,
I. Van Parijs Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
D. Beghin, B. Bilin, H. Brun, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, H. Delannoy, B.
Dorney, G. Fasanella, L. Favart, R. Goldouzian, A. Grebenyuk, A.K. Kalsi, T.
Lenzi, J. Luetic, E. Starling, C. Vander Velde, P. Vanlaer, D. Vannerom Ghent
University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, A. Fagot, M. Gul, I. Khvastunov2, D. Poyraz, C. Roskas,
D. Trocino, M. Tytgat, W. Verbeke, B. Vermassen, M. Vit, N. Zaganidis
Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
H. Bakhshiansohi, O. Bondu, S. Brochet, G. Bruno, C. Caputo, P. David, C.
Delaere, M. Delcourt, B. Francois, A. Giammanco, G. Krintiras, V. Lemaitre, A.
Magitteri, A. Mertens, M. Musich, K. Piotrzkowski, A. Saggio, M. Vidal Marono,
S. Wertz, J. Zobec Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil
F.L. Alves, G.A. Alves, L. Brito, G. Correia Silva, C. Hensel, A. Moraes, M.E.
Pol, P. Rebello Teles Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil
E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato3, E. Coelho, E.M.
Da Costa, G.G. Da Silveira4, D. De Jesus Damiao, C. De Oliveira Martins, S.
Fonseca De Souza, H. Malbouisson, D. Matos Figueiredo, M. Melo De Almeida, C.
Mora Herrera, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, W.L. Prado Da Silva, L.J. Sanchez Rosas,
A. Santoro, A. Sznajder, M. Thiel, E.J. Tonelli Manganote3, F. Torres Da Silva
De Araujo, A. Vilela Pereira Universidade Estadual Paulista a, Universidade
Federal do ABC b, São Paulo, Brazil
S. Ahujaa, C.A. Bernardesa, L. Calligarisa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M.
Gregoresb, P.G. Mercadanteb, S.F. Novaesa, SandraS. Padulaa, D. Romero Abadb
Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of
Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, A. Marinov, M. Misheva, M. Rodozov,
M. Shopova, G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Dimitrov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov Beihang University, Beijing, China
W. Fang5, X. Gao5, L. Yuan Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, J.G. Bian, G.M. Chen, H.S. Chen, M. Chen, Y. Chen, C.H. Jiang, D.
Leggat, H. Liao, Z. Liu, F. Romeo, S.M. Shaheen, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, C. Wang,
Z. Wang, E. Yazgan, H. Zhang, J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics
and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
Y. Ban, G. Chen, J. Li, Q. Li, S. Liu, Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang, Z. Xu
Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Y. Wang Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, C.A. Carrillo Montoya, L.F. Chaparro Sierra, C. Florez,
C.F. González Hernández, M.A. Segura Delgado University of Split, Faculty of
Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split,
Croatia
B. Courbon, N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak, T. Sculac University of Split,
Faculty of Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, K. Kadija, B. Mesic, A. Starodumov6, T. Susa
University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos,
P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
M. Finger7, M. Finger Jr.7 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
Y. Assran8,9, M.A. Mahmoud10,9, Y. Mohammed10 National Institute of Chemical
Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
S. Bhowmik, A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveira, R.K. Dewanjee, K. Ehataht, M.
Kadastik, L. Perrini, M. Raidal, C. Veelken Department of Physics, University
of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
P. Eerola, H. Kirschenmann, J. Pekkanen, M. Voutilainen Helsinki Institute of
Physics, Helsinki, Finland
J. Havukainen, J.K. Heikkilä, T. Järvinen, V. Karimäki, R. Kinnunen, T.
Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Laurila, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, P. Luukka, T.
Mäenpää, H. Siikonen, E. Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi Lappeenranta University of
Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
T. Tuuva IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, J.L. Faure, F. Ferri, S.
Ganjour, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry, C. Leloup,
E. Locci, J. Malcles, G. Negro, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M.Ö. Sahin, M. Titov
Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole polytechnique, CNRS/IN2P3, Université
Paris-Saclay, Palaiseau, France
A. Abdulsalam11, C. Amendola, I. Antropov, F. Beaudette, P. Busson, L.
Cadamuro, C. Charlot, R. Granier de Cassagnac, I. Kucher, S. Lisniak, A.
Lobanov, J. Martin Blanco, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, G. Ortona, P. Paganini, P.
Pigard, R. Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A.G. Stahl Leiton, Y. Yilmaz, A.
Zabi, A. Zghiche Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, Strasbourg,
France
J.-L. Agram12, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, J.-M. Brom, E.C. Chabert, V. Cherepanov,
C. Collard, E. Conte12, F. Drouhin12, J.-C. Fontaine12, D. Gelé, U. Goerlach,
M. Jansová, P. Juillot, A.-C. Le Bihan, N. Tonon, P. Van Hove Centre de Calcul
de l’Institut National de Physique Nucleaire et de Physique des Particules,
CNRS/IN2P3, Villeurbanne, France
S. Gadrat Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3,
Institut de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, N. Chanon, R. Chierici, D. Contardo, P.
Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, L. Finco, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, G.
Grenier, B. Ille, F. Lagarde, I.B. Laktineh, H. Lattaud, M. Lethuillier, L.
Mirabito, A.L. Pequegnot, S. Perries, A. Popov13, V. Sordini, M. Vander
Donckt, S. Viret, S. Zhang Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
T. Toriashvili14 Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
I. Bagaturia15 RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen,
Germany
C. Autermann, L. Feld, M.K. Kiesel, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, M. Preuten, M.P.
Rauch, C. Schomakers, J. Schulz, M. Teroerde, B. Wittmer, V. Zhukov13 RWTH
Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany
A. Albert, D. Duchardt, M. Endres, M. Erdmann, S. Erdweg, T. Esch, R. Fischer,
S. Ghosh, A. Güth, T. Hebbeker, C. Heidemann, K. Hoepfner, S. Knutzen, L.
Mastrolorenzo, M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, P. Millet, S. Mukherjee, T. Pook, M.
Radziej, H. Reithler, M. Rieger, F. Scheuch, A. Schmidt, D. Teyssier, S. Thüer
RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany
G. Flügge, O. Hlushchenko, B. Kargoll, T. Kress, A. Künsken, T. Müller, A.
Nehrkorn, A. Nowack, C. Pistone, O. Pooth, H. Sert, A. Stahl16 Deutsches
Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
M. Aldaya Martin, T. Arndt, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, I. Babounikau, K.
Beernaert, O. Behnke, U. Behrens, A. Bermúdez Martínez, D. Bertsche, A.A. Bin
Anuar, K. Borras17, V. Botta, A. Campbell, P. Connor, C. Contreras-Campana, F.
Costanza, V. Danilov, A. De Wit, M.M. Defranchis, C. Diez Pardos, D. Domínguez
Damiani, G. Eckerlin, T. Eichhorn, A. Elwood, E. Eren, E. Gallo18, A. Geiser,
J.M. Grados Luyando, A. Grohsjean, P. Gunnellini, M. Guthoff, A. Harb, J.
Hauk, H. Jung, M. Kasemann, J. Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, J. Knolle, D. Krücker,
W. Lange, A. Lelek, T. Lenz, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann19, R. Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-
Pellmann, A.B. Meyer, M. Meyer, M. Missiroli, G. Mittag, J. Mnich, S.K.
Pflitsch, D. Pitzl, A. Raspereza, M. Savitskyi, P. Saxena, P. Schütze, C.
Schwanenberger, R. Shevchenko, A. Singh, N. Stefaniuk, H. Tholen, A.
Vagnerini, G.P. Van Onsem, R. Walsh, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C. Wissing, O.
Zenaiev University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, A. Benecke, V. Blobel, M. Centis Vignali, T. Dreyer, E.
Garutti, D. Gonzalez, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, M. Hoffmann, A. Karavdina, R.
Klanner, R. Kogler, N. Kovalchuk, S. Kurz, V. Kutzner, J. Lange, D. Marconi,
J. Multhaup, M. Niedziela, D. Nowatschin, A. Perieanu, A. Reimers, O. Rieger,
C. Scharf, P. Schleper, S. Schumann, J. Schwandt, J. Sonneveld, H. Stadie, G.
Steinbrück, F.M. Stober, M. Stöver, D. Troendle, E. Usai, A. Vanhoefer, B.
Vormwald Karlsruher Institut fuer Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany
M. Akbiyik, C. Barth, M. Baselga, S. Baur, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, F.
Colombo, W. De Boer, A. Dierlamm, N. Faltermann, B. Freund, M. Giffels, M.A.
Harrendorf, F. Hartmann16, S.M. Heindl, U. Husemann, F. Kassel16, I. Katkov13,
S. Kudella, H. Mildner, M.U. Mozer, Th. Müller, M. Plagge, G. Quast, K.
Rabbertz, M. Schröder, I. Shvetsov, G. Sieber, H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, S.
Wayand, M. Weber, T. Weiler, S. Williamson, C. Wöhrmann, R. Wolf Institute of
Nuclear and Particle Physics (INPP), NCSR Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
G. Anagnostou, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas, G.
Paspalaki, I. Topsis-Giotis National and Kapodistrian University of Athens,
Athens, Greece
G. Karathanasis, S. Kesisoglou, A. Panagiotou, N. Saoulidou, E. Tziaferi, K.
Vellidis National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece
K. Kousouris, I. Papakrivopoulos, Y. Tsipolitis University of Ioánnina,
Ioánnina, Greece
I. Evangelou, C. Foudas, P. Gianneios, P. Katsoulis, P. Kokkas, S. Mallios, N.
Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, E. Paradas, J. Strologas, F.A. Triantis, D.
Tsitsonis MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
M. Csanad, N. Filipovic, G. Pasztor, O. Surányi, G.I. Veres Wigner Research
Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath20, Á. Hunyadi, F. Sikler, T.Á. Vámi, V.
Veszpremi, G. Vesztergombi${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$ Institute of Nuclear
Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi22, A. Makovec, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi
Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
M. Bartók21, P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari Indian Institute of Science
(IISc), Bangalore, India
S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri National Institute of Science Education and
Research, HBNI, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati23, P. Mal, K. Mandal, A. Nayak24, D.K. Sahoo23, S.K. Swain
Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, S. Chauhan, R. Chawla, N. Dhingra, R.
Gupta, A. Kaur, A. Kaur, M. Kaur, S. Kaur, R. Kumar, P. Kumari, M. Lohan, A.
Mehta, S. Sharma, J.B. Singh, G. Walia University of Delhi, Delhi, India
A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, M. Gola, S. Keshri, Ashok Kumar, S.
Malhotra, M. Naimuddin, P. Priyanka, K. Ranjan, Aashaq Shah, R. Sharma Saha
Institute of Nuclear Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India
R. Bhardwaj25, M. Bharti, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, U. Bhawandeep25,
D. Bhowmik, S. Dey, S. Dutt25, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh, K. Mondal, S. Nandan, A.
Purohit, P.K. Rout, A. Roy, S. Roy Chowdhury, S. Sarkar, M. Sharan, B. Singh,
S. Thakur25 Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
R. Chudasama, D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, P.K. Netrakanti, L.M. Pant, P.
Shukla Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A, Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, M.A. Bhat, S. Dugad, B. Mahakud, S. Mitra, G.B. Mohanty, N. Sur, B.
Sutar, RavindraKumar Verma Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai,
India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, P. Das, M. Guchait, Sa. Jain, S.
Kumar, M. Maity26, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, N. Sahoo, T. Sarkar26 Indian
Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, India
S. Chauhan, S. Dube, V. Hegde, A. Kapoor, K. Kothekar, S. Pandey, A. Rane, S.
Sharma Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran
S. Chenarani27, E. Eskandari Tadavani, S.M. Etesami27, M. Khakzad, M.
Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri, F. Rezaei Hosseinabadi, B. Safarzadeh28, M.
Zeinali University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
M. Felcini, M. Grunewald INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b,
Politecnico di Bari c, Bari, Italy
M. Abbresciaa,b, C. Calabriaa,b, A. Colaleoa, D. Creanzaa,c, L. Cristellaa,b,
N. De Filippisa,c, M. De Palmaa,b, A. Di Florioa,b, F. Erricoa,b, L. Fiorea,
A. Gelmia,b, G. Iasellia,c, S. Lezkia,b, G. Maggia,c, M. Maggia, G.
Minielloa,b, S. Mya,b, S. Nuzzoa,b, A. Pompilia,b, G. Pugliesea,c, R.
Radognaa, A. Ranieria, G. Selvaggia,b, A. Sharmaa, L. Silvestrisa,16, R.
Vendittia, P. Verwilligena, G. Zitoa INFN Sezione di Bologna a, Università di
Bologna b, Bologna, Italy
G. Abbiendia, C. Battilanaa,b, D. Bonacorsia,b, L. Borgonovia,b, S. Braibant-
Giacomellia,b, R. Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A. Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa,
S.S. Chhibraa,b, G. Codispotia,b, M. Cuffiania,b, G.M. Dallavallea, F.
Fabbria, A. Fanfania,b, P. Giacomellia, L. Guiduccia,b, S. Marcellinia, G.
Masettia, F.L. Navarriaa,b, A. Perrottaa, A.M. Rossia,b, T. Rovellia,b, G.P.
Sirolia,b, N. Tosia INFN Sezione di Catania a, Università di Catania b,
Catania, Italy
S. Albergoa,b, A. Di Mattiaa, R. Potenzaa,b, A. Tricomia,b, C. Tuvea,b INFN
Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b, Firenze, Italy
G. Barbaglia, K. Chatterjeea,b, V. Ciullia,b, C. Civininia, R.
D’Alessandroa,b, E. Focardia,b, G. Latino, P. Lenzia,b, M. Meschinia, S.
Paolettia, L. Russoa,29, G. Sguazzonia, D. Stroma, L. Viliania INFN Laboratori
Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, F. Fabbri, D. Piccolo, F. Primavera16 INFN Sezione di
Genova a, Università di Genova b, Genova, Italy
F. Ferroa, F. Raveraa,b, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia,b INFN Sezione di Milano-
Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, Italy
A. Benagliaa, A. Beschib, L. Brianzaa,b, F. Brivioa,b, V. Cirioloa,b,16, M.E.
Dinardoa,b, S. Fiorendia,b, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P. Govonia,b, M.
Malbertia,b, S. Malvezzia, R.A. Manzonia,b, D. Menascea, L. Moronia, M.
Paganonia,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Pigazzinia,b, S. Ragazzia,b, T. Tabarelli de
Fatisa,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. Di Crescenzoa,b, S. Di Guidaa,d,16, F.
Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa,b, G. Galatia,b, A.O.M. Iorioa,b, W.A. Khana, L.
Listaa, S. Meolaa,d,16, P. Paoluccia,16, C. Sciaccaa,b, E. Voevodinaa,b INFN
Sezione di Padova a, Università di Padova b, Padova, Italy, Università di
Trento c, Trento, Italy
P. Azzia, N. Bacchettaa, L. Benatoa,b, D. Biselloa,b, A. Bolettia,b, A.
Bragagnolo, R. Carlina,b, P. Checchiaa, M. Dall’Ossoa,b, P. De Castro
Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa, U. Dossellia, F. Gasparinia,b, U. Gasparinia,b, A.
Gozzelinoa, S. Lacapraraa, P. Lujan, M. Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,b, P.
Ronchesea,b, R. Rossina,b, F. Simonettoa,b, A. Tiko, E. Torassaa, M.
Zanettia,b, P. Zottoa,b, G. Zumerlea,b INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di
Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
A. Braghieria, A. Magnania, P. Montagnaa,b, S.P. Rattia,b, V. Rea, M.
Ressegottia,b, C. Riccardia,b, P. Salvinia, I. Vaia,b, P. Vituloa,b INFN
Sezione di Perugia a, Università di Perugia b, Perugia, Italy
L. Alunni Solestizia,b, M. Biasinia,b, G.M. Bileia, C. Cecchia,b, D.
Ciangottinia,b, L. Fanòa,b, P. Laricciaa,b, E. Manonia, G. Mantovania,b, V.
Mariania,b, M. Menichellia, A. Rossia,b, A. Santocchiaa,b, D. Spigaa INFN
Sezione di Pisa a, Università di Pisa b, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa c,
Pisa, Italy
K. Androsova, P. Azzurria, G. Bagliesia, L. Bianchinia, T. Boccalia, L.
Borrello, R. Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, G. Fedia, L.
Gianninia,c, A. Giassia, M.T. Grippoa, F. Ligabuea,c, T. Lomtadzea, E.
Mancaa,c, G. Mandorlia,c, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, A. Rizzia,b, P.
Spagnoloa, R. Tenchinia, G. Tonellia,b, A. Venturia, P.G. Verdinia INFN
Sezione di Roma a, Sapienza Università di Roma b, Rome, Italy
L. Baronea,b, F. Cavallaria, M. Cipriania,b, N. Dacia, D. Del Rea,b, E. Di
Marcoa,b, M. Diemoza, S. Gellia,b, E. Longoa,b, B. Marzocchia,b, P.
Meridiania, G. Organtinia,b, F. Pandolfia, R. Paramattia,b, F. Preiatoa,b, S.
Rahatloua,b, C. Rovellia, F. Santanastasioa,b INFN Sezione di Torino a,
Università di Torino b, Torino, Italy, Università del Piemonte Orientale c,
Novara, Italy
N. Amapanea,b, R. Arcidiaconoa,c, S. Argiroa,b, M. Arneodoa,c, N. Bartosika,
R. Bellana,b, C. Biinoa, N. Cartigliaa, F. Cennaa,b, M. Costaa,b, R.
Covarellia,b, A. Deganoa,b, N. Demariaa, B. Kiania,b, C. Mariottia, S.
Masellia, E. Migliorea,b, V. Monacoa,b, E. Monteila,b, M. Montenoa, M.M.
Obertinoa,b, L. Pachera,b, N. Pastronea, M. Pelliccionia, G.L. Pinna
Angionia,b, A. Romeroa,b, M. Ruspaa,c, R. Sacchia,b, K. Shchelinaa,b, V.
Solaa, A. Solanoa,b, A. Staianoa INFN Sezione di Trieste a, Università di
Trieste b, Trieste, Italy
S. Belfortea, V. Candelisea,b, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, G. Della Riccaa,b,
F. Vazzolera,b, A. Zanettia Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea
D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, M.S. Kim, J. Lee, S. Lee, S.W. Lee, C.S. Moon, Y.D. Oh, S.
Sekmen, D.C. Son, Y.C. Yang Chonnam National University, Institute for
Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju, Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon, G. Oh Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
J. Goh, T.J. Kim Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, D. Gyun, S. Ha, B. Hong, Y. Jo, K. Lee, K.S. Lee, S.
Lee, J. Lim, S.K. Park, Y. Roh Sejong University, Seoul, Korea
H. Kim Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, H. Lee, K. Lee, K. Nam, S.B. Oh, B.C. Radburn-
Smith, S.h. Seo, U.K. Yang, H.D. Yoo, G.B. Yu University of Seoul, Seoul,
Korea
H. Kim, J.H. Kim, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, C. Hwang, J. Lee, I. Yu Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
V. Dudenas, A. Juodagalvis, J. Vaitkus National Centre for Particle Physics,
Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
I. Ahmed, Z.A. Ibrahim, M.A.B. Md Ali30, F. Mohamad Idris31, W.A.T. Wan
Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios
Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, M.C. Duran-Osuna, I. Heredia-De La
Cruz32, R. Lopez-Fernandez, J. Mejia Guisao, R.I. Rabadan-Trejo, G. Ramirez-
Sanchez, R Reyes-Almanza, A. Sanchez-Hernandez Universidad Iberoamericana,
Mexico City, Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, F. Vazquez Valencia Benemerita
Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
J. Eysermans, I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada Universidad
Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, Mexico
A. Morelos Pineda University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
S. Bheesette, P.H. Butler National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam
University, Islamabad, Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M. Ahmad, M.I. Asghar, Q. Hassan, H.R. Hoorani, A. Saddique, M.A.
Shah, M. Shoaib, M. Waqas National Centre for Nuclear Research, Swierk, Poland
H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, T. Frueboes, M. Górski, M. Kazana, K.
Nawrocki, M. Szleper, P. Traczyk, P. Zalewski Institute of Experimental
Physics, Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk33, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J.
Krolikowski, M. Misiura, M. Olszewski, A. Pyskir, M. Walczak Laboratório de
Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas, Lisboa, Portugal
P. Bargassa, C. Beirão Da Cruz E Silva, A. Di Francesco, P. Faccioli, B.
Galinhas, M. Gallinaro, J. Hollar, N. Leonardo, L. Lloret Iglesias, M.V.
Nemallapudi, J. Seixas, G. Strong, O. Toldaiev, D. Vadruccio, J. Varela Joint
Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
P. Bunin, A. Golunov, I. Golutvin, V. Karjavin, V. Korenkov, G. Kozlov, A.
Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev34,35, V.V. Mitsyn, P. Moisenz, V. Palichik, V.
Perelygin, S. Shmatov, V. Smirnov, V. Trofimov, B.S. Yuldashev36, A. Zarubin,
V. Zhiltsov Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg),
Russia
V. Golovtsov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim37, E. Kuznetsova38, P. Levchenko, V. Murzin,
V. Oreshkin, I. Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Vavilov, A.
Vorobyev Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, M. Kirsanov,
N. Krasnikov, A. Pashenkov, D. Tlisov, A. Toropin Institute for Theoretical
and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, V. Popov, I. Pozdnyakov, G.
Safronov, A. Spiridonov, A. Stepennov, V. Stolin, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A.
Zhokin Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev, A. Bylinkin35 National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow
Engineering Physics Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
M. Chadeeva39, P. Parygin, D. Philippov, S. Polikarpov, E. Popova, V. Rusinov
P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin35, I. Dremin35, M. Kirakosyan35, S.V. Rusakov, A.
Terkulov Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
A. Baskakov, A. Belyaev, G. Bogdanova, E. Boos, L. Khein, V. Klyukhin, O.
Kodolova, I. Lokhtin, O. Lukina, I. Miagkov, S. Obraztsov, S. Petrushanko, V.
Savrin, P. Volkov, V. Volkov Novosibirsk State University (NSU), Novosibirsk,
Russia
V. Blinov40, T. Dimova40, L. Kardapoltsev40, D. Shtol40, Y. Skovpen40
Institute for High Energy Physics of National Research Centre ’Kurchatov
Institute’, Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, S. Bitioukov, D. Elumakhov, A. Godizov, V. Kachanov,
A. Kalinin, D. Konstantinov, P. Mandrik, V. Petrov, R. Ryutin, S.
Slabospitskii, A. Sobol, S. Troshin, N. Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov National
Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia
A. Babaev University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of
Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic41, P. Cirkovic, D. Devetak, M. Dordevic, J. Milosevic Centro de
Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid,
Spain
J. Alcaraz Maestre, A. Álvarez Fernández, I. Bachiller, M. Barrio Luna, J.A.
Brochero Cifuentes, M. Cerrada, N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris, C.
Fernandez Bedoya, J.P. Fernández Ramos, J. Flix, M.C. Fouz, O. Gonzalez Lopez,
S. Goy Lopez, J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa, D. Moran, A. Pérez-Calero Yzquierdo,
J. Puerta Pelayo, I. Redondo, L. Romero, M.S. Soares, A. Triossi Universidad
Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
C. Albajar, J.F. de Trocóniz Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain
J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, S. Folgueras, I. Gonzalez
Caballero, J.R. González Fernández, E. Palencia Cortezon, S. Sanchez Cruz, P.
Vischia, J.M. Vizan Garcia Instituto de Física de Cantabria (IFCA), CSIC-
Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain
I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, B. Chazin Quero, J. Duarte Campderros, M.
Fernandez, P.J. Fernández Manteca, A. García Alonso, J. Garcia-Ferrero, G.
Gomez, A. Lopez Virto, J. Marco, C. Martinez Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del
Arbol, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, C. Prieels, T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno,
L. Scodellaro, N. Trevisani, I. Vila, R. Vilar Cortabitarte CERN, European
Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland
D. Abbaneo, B. Akgun, E. Auffray, P. Baillon, A.H. Ball, D. Barney, J.
Bendavid, M. Bianco, A. Bocci, C. Botta, T. Camporesi, M. Cepeda, G.
Cerminara, E. Chapon, Y. Chen, G. Cucciati, D. d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, V.
Daponte, A. David, A. De Roeck, N. Deelen, M. Dobson, T. du Pree, M. Dünser,
N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, P. Everaerts, F. Fallavollita42, G. Franzoni,
J. Fulcher, W. Funk, D. Gigi, A. Gilbert, K. Gill, F. Glege, D. Gulhan, J.
Hegeman, V. Innocente, A. Jafari, P. Janot, O. Karacheban19, J. Kieseler, V.
Knünz, A. Kornmayer, M. Krammer1, C. Lange, P. Lecoq, C. Lourenço, M.T.
Lucchini, L. Malgeri, M. Mannelli, F. Meijers, J.A. Merlin, S. Mersi, E.
Meschi, P. Milenovic43, F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, H. Neugebauer, J. Ngadiuba,
S. Orfanelli, L. Orsini, F. Pantaleo16, L. Pape, E. Perez, M. Peruzzi, A.
Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, F.M. Pitters, D. Rabady, A.
Racz, T. Reis, G. Rolandi44, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M.
Seidel, M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva, P. Sphicas45, A. Stakia, J.
Steggemann, M. Tosi, D. Treille, A. Tsirou, V. Veckalns46, M. Verweij, W.D.
Zeuner Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland
W. Bertl${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, L. Caminada47, K. Deiters, W. Erdmann, R.
Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C. Kaestli, D. Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, T. Rohe,
S.A. Wiederkehr ETH Zurich - Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics
(IPA), Zurich, Switzerland
M. Backhaus, L. Bäni, P. Berger, B. Casal, N. Chernyavskaya, G. Dissertori, M.
Dittmar, M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, C. Grab, C. Heidegger, D. Hits, J. Hoss, T.
Klijnsma, W. Lustermann, M. Marionneau, M.T. Meinhard, D. Meister, F. Micheli,
P. Musella, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, J. Pata, F. Pauss, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, M.
Quittnat, M. Reichmann, D. Ruini, D.A. Sanz Becerra, M. Schönenberger, L.
Shchutska, V.R. Tavolaro, K. Theofilatos, M.L. Vesterbacka Olsson, R. Wallny,
D.H. Zhu Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, C. Amsler48, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, R. Del
Burgo, S. Donato, C. Galloni, T. Hreus, B. Kilminster, I. Neutelings, D.
Pinna, G. Rauco, P. Robmann, D. Salerno, K. Schweiger, C. Seitz, Y. Takahashi,
A. Zucchetta National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan
Y.H. Chang, K.y. Cheng, T.H. Doan, Sh. Jain, R. Khurana, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A.
Pozdnyakov, S.S. Yu National Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, W.-S. Hou, Arun Kumar, R.-S. Lu, E.
Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen, J.f. Tsai Chulalongkorn University, Faculty
of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok, Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, N. Srimanobhas, N. Suwonjandee Çukurova University, Physics
Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
A. Bat, F. Boran, S. Cerci49, S. Damarseckin, Z.S. Demiroglu, C. Dozen, S.
Girgis, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, E. Gurpinar, I. Hos50, E.E. Kangal51, O. Kara,
A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, M. Oglakci, G. Onengut, K. Ozdemir52, S.
Ozturk53, D. Sunar Cerci49, B. Tali49, U.G. Tok, H. Topakli53, S. Turkcapar,
I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East Technical University, Physics
Department, Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak54, G. Karapinar55, M. Yalvac, M. Zeyrek Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya56, O. Kaya57, S. Ozkorucuklu58, S. Tekten,
E.A. Yetkin59 Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
M.N. Agaras, S. Atay, A. Cakir, K. Cankocak, Y. Komurcu, S. Sen60 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
T. Alexander, F. Ball, L. Beck, J.J. Brooke, D. Burns, E. Clement, D. Cussans,
O. Davignon, H. Flacher, J. Goldstein, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko,
D.M. Newbold61, S. Paramesvaran, B. Penning, T. Sakuma, D. Smith, V.J. Smith,
J. Taylor Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev62, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, D. Cieri, D.J.A. Cockerill, J.A.
Coughlan, K. Harder, S. Harper, J. Linacre, E. Olaiya, D. Petyt, C.H.
Shepherd-Themistocleous, A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin, T. Williams, W.J. Womersley
Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
G. Auzinger, R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A.
Bundock, S. Casasso, D. Colling, L. Corpe, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M. Della
Negra, R. Di Maria, Y. Haddad, G. Hall, G. Iles, T. James, M. Komm, C. Laner,
L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, A. Martelli, J. Nash63, A. Nikitenko6, V.
Palladino, M. Pesaresi, A. Richards, A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A.
Shtipliyski, G. Singh, M. Stoye, T. Strebler, S. Summers, A. Tapper, K.
Uchida, T. Virdee16, N. Wardle, D. Winterbottom, J. Wright, S.C. Zenz Brunel
University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, C.K. Mackay, A. Morton, I.D. Reid,
L. Teodorescu, S. Zahid Baylor University, Waco, USA
A. Borzou, K. Call, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, H. Liu, N. Pastika, C. Smith
Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
A. Buccilli, S.I. Cooper, C. Henderson, P. Rumerio, C. West Boston University,
Boston, USA
D. Arcaro, T. Bose, D. Gastler, D. Rankin, C. Richardson, J. Rohlf, L. Sulak,
D. Zou Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, X. Coubez, D. Cutts, M. Hadley, J. Hakala, U. Heintz, J.M.
Hogan64, K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, J. Lee, Z. Mao, M. Narain, J.
Pazzini, S. Piperov, S. Sagir, R. Syarif, D. Yu University of California,
Davis, Davis, USA
R. Band, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, D. Burns, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez,
M. Chertok, J. Conway, R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, G. Funk,
W. Ko, R. Lander, C. Mclean, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, J. Pilot, S. Shalhout,
M. Shi, D. Stolp, D. Taylor, K. Tos, M. Tripathi, Z. Wang, F. Zhang University
of California, Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, C. Bravo, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, A. Florent, J. Hauser, M.
Ignatenko, N. Mccoll, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg, C. Schnaible, V. Valuev
University of California, Riverside, Riverside, USA
E. Bouvier, K. Burt, R. Clare, J.W. Gary, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi, G. Hanson, G.
Karapostoli, E. Kennedy, F. Lacroix, O.R. Long, M. Olmedo Negrete, M.I.
Paneva, W. Si, L. Wang, H. Wei, S. Wimpenny, B.R. Yates University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, S. Cittolin, M. Derdzinski, R. Gerosa, D. Gilbert, B. Hashemi,
A. Holzner, D. Klein, G. Kole, V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, M. Masciovecchio, D.
Olivito, S. Padhi, M. Pieri, M. Sani, V. Sharma, S. Simon, M. Tadel, A.
Vartak, S. Wasserbaech65, J. Wood, F. Würthwein, A. Yagil, G. Zevi Della Porta
University of California, Santa Barbara - Department of Physics, Santa
Barbara, USA
N. Amin, R. Bhandari, J. Bradmiller-Feld, C. Campagnari, M. Citron, A. Dishaw,
V. Dutta, M. Franco Sevilla, L. Gouskos, R. Heller, J. Incandela, A.
Ovcharova, H. Qu, J. Richman, D. Stuart, I. Suarez, S. Wang, J. Yoo California
Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
D. Anderson, A. Bornheim, J. Bunn, J.M. Lawhorn, H.B. Newman, T.Q. Nguyen, M.
Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, R. Wilkinson, S. Xie, Z. Zhang, R.Y. Zhu Carnegie
Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
M.B. Andrews, T. Ferguson, T. Mudholkar, M. Paulini, M. Sun, I. Vorobiev, M.
Weinberg University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, F. Jensen, A. Johnson, M. Krohn, S. Leontsinis, E.
MacDonald, T. Mulholland, K. Stenson, K.A. Ulmer, S.R. Wagner Cornell
University, Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, J. Chaves, Y. Cheng, J. Chu, A. Datta, K. Mcdermott, N. Mirman,
J.R. Patterson, D. Quach, A. Rinkevicius, A. Ryd, L. Skinnari, L. Soffi, S.M.
Tan, Z. Tao, J. Thom, J. Tucker, P. Wittich, M. Zientek Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, USA
S. Abdullin, M. Albrow, M. Alyari, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S.
Banerjee, L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, G.
Bolla${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, K. Burkett, J.N. Butler, A. Canepa, G.B.
Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M. Cremonesi, J. Duarte, V.D. Elvira, J.
Freeman, Z. Gecse, E. Gottschalk, L. Gray, D. Green, S. Grünendahl, O.
Gutsche, J. Hanlon, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, J. Hirschauer, Z. Hu, B.
Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, B. Klima, M.J. Kortelainen,
B. Kreis, S. Lammel, D. Lincoln, R. Lipton, M. Liu, T. Liu, J. Lykken, K.
Maeshima, N. Magini, J.M. Marraffino, D. Mason, P. McBride, P. Merkel, S.
Mrenna, S. Nahn, V. O’Dell, K. Pedro, C. Pena, O. Prokofyev, G. Rakness, L.
Ristori, A. Savoy-Navarro66, B. Schneider, E. Sexton-Kennedy, A. Soha, W.J.
Spalding, L. Spiegel, S. Stoynev, J. Strait, N. Strobbe, L. Taylor, S.
Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran, L. Uplegger, E.W. Vaandering, C. Vernieri, M. Verzocchi,
R. Vidal, M. Wang, H.A. Weber, A. Whitbeck University of Florida, Gainesville,
USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, P. Bortignon, D. Bourilkov, A. Brinkerhoff, A. Carnes, M.
Carver, D. Curry, R.D. Field, S.V. Gleyzer, B.M. Joshi, J. Konigsberg, A.
Korytov, P. Ma, K. Matchev, H. Mei, G. Mitselmakher, K. Shi, D. Sperka, L.
Thomas, J. Wang, S. Wang Florida International University, Miami, USA
Y.R. Joshi, S. Linn Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
A. Ackert, T. Adams, A. Askew, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F. Johnson, T.
Kolberg, G. Martinez, T. Perry, H. Prosper, A. Saha, A. Santra, V. Sharma, R.
Yohay Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, V. Bhopatkar, S. Colafranceschi, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, T.
Roy, F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago, USA
M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, D. Berry, R.R. Betts, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, S.
Dittmer, O. Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, K. Jung, J.
Kamin, C. Mills, I.D. Sandoval Gonzalez, M.B. Tonjes, N. Varelas, H. Wang, Z.
Wu, J. Zhang The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, B. Bilki67, W. Clarida, K. Dilsiz68, S. Durgut, R.P.
Gandrajula, M. Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko, J.-P. Merlo, A. Mestvirishvili, A.
Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul69, Y. Onel, F. Ozok70, A. Penzo, C. Snyder, E.
Tiras, J. Wetzel Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
B. Blumenfeld, A. Cocoros, N. Eminizer, D. Fehling, L. Feng, A.V. Gritsan,
W.T. Hung, P. Maksimovic, J. Roskes, U. Sarica, M. Swartz, M. Xiao, C. You The
University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA
P. Baringer, A. Bean, S. Boren, J. Bowen, S. Khalil, A. Kropivnitskaya, D.
Majumder, W. Mcbrayer, M. Murray, C. Rogan, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz, J.D. Tapia
Takaki, Q. Wang Kansas State University, Manhattan, USA
A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, Y. Maravin, A. Modak, A. Mohammadi, L.K. Saini, N.
Skhirtladze Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright University of Maryland, College Park, USA
A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, S.C. Eno, Y. Feng, C. Ferraioli, N.J. Hadley,
S. Jabeen, G.Y. Jeng, R.G. Kellogg, J. Kunkle, A.C. Mignerey, F. Ricci-Tam,
Y.H. Shin, A. Skuja, S.C. Tonwar, K. Wong Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, V. Azzolini, R. Barbieri, A. Baty, G. Bauer, R. Bi,
S. Brandt, W. Busza, I.A. Cali, M. D’Alfonso, Z. Demiragli, G. Gomez Ceballos,
M. Goncharov, P. Harris, D. Hsu, M. Hu, Y. Iiyama, G.M. Innocenti, M. Klute,
D. Kovalskyi, Y.-J. Lee, A. Levin, P.D. Luckey, B. Maier, A.C. Marini, C.
Mcginn, C. Mironov, S. Narayanan, X. Niu, C. Paus, C. Roland, G. Roland,
G.S.F. Stephans, K. Sumorok, K. Tatar, D. Velicanu, J. Wang, T.W. Wang, B.
Wyslouch, S. Zhaozhong University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
A.C. Benvenuti, R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, P. Hansen, S. Kalafut, Y. Kubota,
Z. Lesko, J. Mans, S. Nourbakhsh, N. Ruckstuhl, R. Rusack, J. Turkewitz, M.A.
Wadud University of Mississippi, Oxford, USA
J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
E. Avdeeva, K. Bloom, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, F. Golf, R. Gonzalez Suarez,
R. Kamalieddin, I. Kravchenko, J. Monroy, J.E. Siado, G.R. Snow, B. Stieger
State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
A. Godshalk, C. Harrington, I. Iashvili, A. Kharchilava, D. Nguyen, A. Parker,
S. Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani Northeastern University, Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, A. Hortiangtham, A. Massironi, D.M. Morse,
T. Orimoto, R. Teixeira De Lima, T. Wamorkar, B. Wang, A. Wisecarver, D. Wood
Northwestern University, Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, O. Charaf, K.A. Hahn, N. Mucia, N. Odell, M.H. Schmitt, K.
Sung, M. Trovato, M. Velasco University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, USA
R. Bucci, N. Dev, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop, D.J. Karmgard, N.
Kellams, K. Lannon, W. Li, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, F. Meng, C. Mueller, Y.
Musienko34, M. Planer, A. Reinsvold, R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, G. Smith, S.
Taroni, M. Wayne, A. Wightman, M. Wolf, A. Woodard The Ohio State University,
Columbus, USA
J. Alimena, L. Antonelli, B. Bylsma, L.S. Durkin, S. Flowers, B. Francis, A.
Hart, C. Hill, W. Ji, T.Y. Ling, W. Luo, B.L. Winer, H.W. Wulsin Princeton
University, Princeton, USA
S. Cooperstein, P. Elmer, J. Hardenbrook, P. Hebda, S. Higginbotham, A.
Kalogeropoulos, D. Lange, J. Luo, D. Marlow, K. Mei, I. Ojalvo, J. Olsen, C.
Palmer, P. Piroué, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, D. Stickland, C. Tully University of
Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
A. Barker, V.E. Barnes, S. Das, L. Gutay, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, A. Khatiwada,
D.H. Miller, N. Neumeister, C.C. Peng, H. Qiu, J.F. Schulte, J. Sun, F. Wang,
R. Xiao, W. Xie Purdue University Northwest, Hammond, USA
T. Cheng, J. Dolen, N. Parashar Rice University, Houston, USA
Z. Chen, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Guilbaud, M. Kilpatrick, W.
Li, B. Michlin, B.P. Padley, J. Roberts, J. Rorie, W. Shi, Z. Tu, J. Zabel, A.
Zhang University of Rochester, Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, Y.t. Duh, J.L. Dulemba, C. Fallon, T.
Ferbel, M. Galanti, A. Garcia-Bellido, J. Han, O. Hindrichs, A.
Khukhunaishvili, K.H. Lo, P. Tan, R. Taus, M. Verzetti Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey, Piscataway, USA
A. Agapitos, J.P. Chou, Y. Gershtein, T.A. Gómez Espinosa, E. Halkiadakis, M.
Heindl, E. Hughes, S. Kaplan, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, S. Kyriacou, A. Lath,
R. Montalvo, K. Nash, M. Osherson, H. Saka, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, D.
Sheffield, S. Somalwar, R. Stone, S. Thomas, P. Thomassen, M. Walker
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
A.G. Delannoy, J. Heideman, G. Riley, K. Rose, S. Spanier, K. Thapa Texas A&M
University, College Station, USA
O. Bouhali71, A. Castaneda Hernandez71, A. Celik, M. Dalchenko, M. De Mattia,
A. Delgado, S. Dildick, R. Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T. Kamon72, R.
Mueller, Y. Pakhotin, R. Patel, A. Perloff, L. Perniè, D. Rathjens, A.
Safonov, A. Tatarinov Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, F. De Guio, P.R. Dudero, J. Faulkner, S. Kunori, K.
Lamichhane, S.W. Lee, T. Mengke, S. Muthumuni, T. Peltola, S. Undleeb, I.
Volobouev, Z. Wang Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H. Ni, K.
Padeken, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska, Q. Xu University
of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
M.W. Arenton, P. Barria, B. Cox, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A. Ledovskoy, H. Li, C.
Neu, T. Sinthuprasith, Y. Wang, E. Wolfe, F. Xia Wayne State University,
Detroit, USA
R. Harr, P.E. Karchin, N. Poudyal, J. Sturdy, P. Thapa, S. Zaleski University
of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI, USA
M. Brodski, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, D. Carlsmith, S. Dasu, L. Dodd, S. Duric,
B. Gomber, M. Grothe, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, P. Klabbers, A.
Lanaro, A. Levine, K. Long, R. Loveless, T. Ruggles, A. Savin, N. Smith, W.H.
Smith, N. Woods †: Deceased
1: Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria
2: Also at IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
3: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
4: Also at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
5: Also at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
6: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
7: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
8: Also at Suez University, Suez, Egypt
9: Now at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt
10: Also at Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt
11: Also at Department of Physics, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia
12: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
13: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
14: Also at Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
15: Also at Ilia State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
16: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
17: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
18: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
19: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
20: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
21: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
22: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
23: Also at Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India
24: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
25: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India
26: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
27: Also at Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
28: Also at Plasma Physics Research Center, Science and Research Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
29: Also at Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy
30: Also at International Islamic University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
31: Also at Malaysian Nuclear Agency, MOSTI, Kajang, Malaysia
32: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico City, Mexico
33: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems,
Warsaw, Poland
34: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
35: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
36: Also at Institute of Nuclear Physics of the Uzbekistan Academy of
Sciences, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
37: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
38: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
39: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
40: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
41: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
42: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
43: Also at University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of
Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
44: Also at Scuola Normale e Sezione dell’INFN, Pisa, Italy
45: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
46: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
47: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
48: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics (SMI), Vienna,
Austria
49: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
50: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey
51: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
52: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
53: Also at Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey
54: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
55: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
56: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
57: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
58: Also at Istanbul University, Faculty of Science, Istanbul, Turkey
59: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
60: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
61: Also at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
62: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
63: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia
64: Also at Bethel University, St. Paul, USA
65: Also at Utah Valley University, Orem, USA
66: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
67: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey
68: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
69: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
70: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
71: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
72: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea