BPH-15-005

$Revision:438686$
$HeadURL:svn+ssh://svn.cern.ch/reps/tdr2/papers/BPH-15-005/trunk/BPH-15-005.tex$
$Id:BPH-15-005.tex4386862017-12-1221:25:15Zasanchez$

BPH-15-005

# Measurement of quarkonium production cross sections in pp collisions at
$\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$

###### Abstract

Differential production cross sections of prompt $\JPsi$ and
$\psi\mathrm{(2S)}$ charmonium and $\Upsilon\mathrm{(nS)}$
($\mathrm{n}=1,2,3$) bottomonium states are measured in proton-proton
collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$, with data collected by the CMS detector at
the LHC, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 2.3for the $\JPsi$ and
2.7for the other mesons. The five quarkonium states are reconstructed in the
dimuon decay channel, for dimuon rapidity $\abs{y}<1.2$. The double-
differential cross sections for each state are measured as a function of $y$
and transverse momentum, and compared to theoretical expectations. In
addition, ratios are presented of cross sections for prompt
$\psi\mathrm{(2S)}$ to $\JPsi$, $\Upsilon\mathrm{(2S)}$ to
$\Upsilon\mathrm{(1S)}$, and $\Upsilon\mathrm{(3S)}$ to
$\Upsilon\mathrm{(1S)}$ production.

##  0.1 Introduction

Since the discovery of heavy-quark bound states, quarkonium production in
hadronic collisions has been the subject of many theoretical and experimental
studies. A well established theoretical framework to describe quarkonium
production is nonrelativistic quantum chromodynamics (NRQCD) [1, 2, 3], an
effective theory that assumes that the mechanism can be factorized in two
steps. In the first step, a heavy quark-antiquark pair is produced in a given
spin and orbital angular momentum state, either in a color-singlet or color-
octet configuration. The corresponding parton-level cross sections, usually
called short-distance coefficients (SDCs), are functions of the kinematics of
the state and can be calculated perturbatively, presently up to next-to-
leading order (NLO) [4, 5, 6, 7]. In the second step, the quark-antiquark
pairs bind into the final quarkonium states through a nonperturbative
hadronization process, with transition probabilities determined by process-
independent long-distance matrix elements (LDMEs). Unlike the SDCs, the LDMEs
are presently not calculable and must be obtained through fits to experimental
data [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. Until recently, for directly produced S-wave
quarkonia, the color-octet ${}^{3}\mathrm{S}_{1}$ term was thought to
dominate, which would result in a strong transverse polarization of the mesons
relative to their direction of motion (helicity frame) at large transverse
momentum, .

Experiments at the CERN LHC have provided measurements of the production of
the S-wave quarkonium states , , , and (nS) ($\mathrm{n}=1,2,3$), and of the
P-wave states, ${{\chi}_{\mathrm{c1,2}}}$ and ${{\chi}_{\mathrm{b1,2}}}$(1P)
[10, 11, 12, 13, 14], at center-of-mass energies of 2.76, 7 and 8. These
measurements of the S-wave states include both the differential cross sections
[15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29] and polarizations
[30, 31, 32, 33, 34], and offer strong indication that, contrary to previous
expectations, these mesons are produced unpolarized. Further theoretical and
experimental work can provide deeper insights on how to interpret these
observations. In particular, additional data can help in improving the fits
and determine more precisely the relative weights of the LDMEs.

We report the measurement of double-differential cross sections of five S-wave
quarkonium states , , and (nS) in collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$by the CMS
detector at the LHC. The increased center-of-mass energy and production cross
sections provide an extended reach in and improved statistical precision
relative to similar measurements at 7 [35, 24, 25, 26, 27]. The measurements
performed at 13also provide the opportunity to test the $\sqrt{s}$ dependence
of the cross sections and to check the validity of the factorization
hypothesis and LDME universality implied in NRQCD.

The product of the branching fraction of quarkonia to muon pairs,
$\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{Q}\to\MM)$, and the double-differential production cross
section, $\rd^{2}\sigma/(\rd\pt\,\rd{}y)$, in bins of and rapidity, $y$, is
given by

$\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{Q}\to\MM)\,\frac{\rd^{2}\sigma}{\rd\pt\,\rd{}y}=\frac{N(\pt,y)}{\lumi\Delta
y\Delta\pt}\,\left\langle\frac{1}{\epsilon(\pt,y)\mathcal{A}(\pt,y)}\right\rangle,$
(1)

where $N(\pt,y)$ is the number of prompt signal events in the bin, is the
integrated luminosity, $\Delta y$ and $\Delta\pt$ are the bin widths, and
$\left\langle 1/(\epsilon(\pt,y)\mathcal{A}(\pt,y))\right\rangle$ represents
the average of the product of the inverse acceptance and efficiency for all
the events in the bin. Only prompt signal events are considered. The nonprompt
components of the and mesons, originating from decays of b hadrons, are
separated using the decay length defined as $\ell=L_{xy}\cdot m/\pt$, where
$L_{xy}$ is the distance measured in the transverse plane between the average
location of the luminous region and the fitted position of the dimuon vertex,
$m$ is the mass of the () from Ref. [36], and the transverse momentum of the
dimuon candidate. For the prompt signal events, we do not distinguish between
feed-down decays of heavier quarkonium states and directly produced quarkonia.

##  0.2 The CMS detector, data set, and event selection

The analysis uses dimuon events collected in collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$
with 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, and a brass and
scintillator hadron calorimeter, each composed of a barrel and two endcap
sections. Forward calorimeters extend the pseudorapidity ($\eta$) 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 [37]. 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. [38].

The data were collected using a multilevel trigger system [39]. The first
level (L1), made of custom hardware processors providing coarse momentum
information, requires two muons within the range $\abs{\eta}<1.6$ without
requesting an explicit threshold on the individual muons. Second (L2) and
third (L3) levels, collectively known as the HLT (High-Level Trigger), are
implemented in software. At these levels, the muon selection is refined, then
opposite-charge muon candidates are paired and required to have an invariant
mass in the regions 2.9–3.3, 3.35–4.05, or 8.5–11for the , , and (nS),
respectively. The dimuon is required to be above 9.9for the and above 7.9for
the remaining states. For all five states, the dimuon rapidity is restricted
to $\abs{y}<1.25$. A fit of the positions and momenta of the two muon
candidates to a common vertex is performed, and the fit $\chi^{2}$ probability
is required to be above 0.5%. The sample collected with these triggers has a
total integrated luminosity of $2.3$ for the and $2.7$ for the other mesons.
The lower value for the is the consequence of the trigger prescaling that was
applied to limit the rate during part of the data taking, when the
instantaneous luminosity increased.

When reconstructing the five states offline, further requirements are applied:
only muons with $\pt^{\mu}>$ 4.5 in the range $|\eta^{\mu}|<$ 0.3, or
$\pt^{\mu}>$ 4.0 in the range 0.3 $<|\eta^{\mu}|<$ 1.4 are selected. The muons
have to match the triggered pair and be identified as reconstructed tracks
with at least five measurements in the silicon tracker and at least one in the
pixel detector. The track is required to match at least one muon segment
identified by a muon detector plane. Loose criteria are applied on the
longitudinal and transverse impact parameters to reject cosmic rays and in-
flight hadron decays. The dimuon vertex $\chi^{2}$ probability is required to
be greater than 1%. In the CMS magnetic field, the two muons can bend towards
or away from each other; only the second type of event is considered in this
analysis since the first type exhibits high trigger inefficiencies. It was
verified that this requirement does not introduce any bias in the
determination of the prompt component for the and mesons. The dimuon rapidity
is restricted to $\abs{y}<1.2$. Trigger bandwidth limitations prevented the
extension of the measurement to the full CMS acceptance.

The double-differential cross sections are presented in four (two) rapidity
bins for the prompt and ((nS)), and in several bins of , covering a range
between 20 and 120 (100)for (, (nS)), extending up to 150 (130) for
measurements integrated in rapidity.

##  0.3 Acceptance and efficiencies

The acceptance is calculated using simulated events produced with a single-
particle event generator. The quarkonium states are generated with a flat $y$
distribution and a realistic distribution derived from data [25, 26], covering
the analysis phase space. The 8.205 [40] Monte Carlo event generator is used
to produce an unpolarized dimuon decay (corresponding to a flat dimuon angular
distribution), also accounting for final-state photon radiation. The simulated
events include multiple proton-proton interactions in the same or nearby beam
crossings (pileup), with the distribution matching that observed in data, with
an average of about 11 collisions per bunch crossing. The acceptance for
events in a given (,$\abs{y}$) range is defined as the ratio of the number of
generated events that pass the kinematic selection criteria described above to
the total number of simulated events in that and $\abs{y}$ range. The
acceptance depends on the quarkonium polarization. It is derived for the
unpolarized scenario, which is compatible with experimental measurements
within uncertainties. We also calculate multiplicative correction factors that
allow, from the unpolarized case, to infer the acceptance that corresponds to
three different values of the polar anisotropy parameter,
$\lambda_{\theta}^{\mathrm{HX}}$, in the helicity frame: $-1$ (fully
longitudinal), $+1$ (fully transverse), and $k$, with $k$ reflecting the CMS
measured value of $\lambda_{\theta}^{\mathrm{HX}}$ for each quarkonium state
[31, 32], also used in Refs. [26, 27]. The multiplicative factors to convert
the cross sections calculated using the unpolarized scenario to the ones
calculated employing one of the polarization scenarios described above are
provided. It was verified that the use of only events with two muons bending
away from each other does not introduce any bias in the determination of the
acceptance.

The single-muon trigger, reconstruction, and identification efficiencies are
measured individually from data as a function of muon and $\abs{\eta}$,
applying a tag-and-probe [24, 35] technique on and candidates acquired with
triggers that are independent from those used for the measurements of the
yields. The individual efficiencies are multiplied and then parameterized
using a sigmoid function. The dimuon efficiency is obtained as the product of
the efficiencies of the two muons, multiplied by a correction factor, $\rho$,
that takes into account the correlation between the two muons. The $\rho$
factor is derived from data, using a trigger, independent from the ones used
for the measurement of the yield, requiring a single muon at L1. $\rho$
becomes increasingly important with higher dimuon , when the two muons are
close to each other in space, causing the efficiency to decrease. Dimuon
efficiencies are around 85% for the and up to a dimuon of 50and decrease
slowly for higher due to the $\rho$ factor. In the case of the (nS) states,
the dimuon efficiencies are nearly constant around 90%. The acceptance and
efficiency term in Eq. (1) is obtained by averaging the values of the inverse
of the acceptance times efficiency for all the individual dimuon candidates in
each and $\abs{y}$ range.

##  0.4 Determination of the yields

The signal and background yields are obtained through an extended unbinned
maximum-likelihood fit to the dimuon invariant mass distribution in the case
of the (nS) states, and to the dimuon invariant mass and decay length
distributions for the and mesons. In both cases, the number of signal and
background candidates are free parameters in the fit.

The three (nS) signal peaks are modeled with Crystal Ball (CB) functions [41],
composed of a Gaussian core, characterized by a mean $m$, a width
$\sigma_{m}$, and a tail characterized by two parameters, $n$ and $\alpha$.
The CB function is used to account for the energy loss due to the final-state
radiation of the muons. The mean mass values are fixed to those of the
Particle Data Group [36], multiplied by a common factor that calibrates the
mass scale, left as a free parameter in the fit. The width of the CB function
is a free parameter only in the case of the , while the width of the CB
functions describing the and peaks are fixed to the width of the , scaled by
the ratio of their masses to the mass of the . The (nS) dimuon mass resolution
$\sigma_{m}$ is a function of rapidity and spans the range 60 to 90 for
$\abs{y}<1.2$ in the case of the . The tail parameters $n$ and $\alpha$ are
the same for all three CB functions; $n$ is fixed and $\alpha$ is constrained
to a Gaussian probability distribution. Both constraints are derived from a
fit of the dimuon invariant mass shape, using the -integrated distribution to
reduce the statistical fluctuations. The background is modeled using an
exponential function.

For the and mesons, an additional nonprompt component originating from the
decay of b hadrons must be taken into account. The prompt and nonprompt yields
are measured by fitting the dimuon invariant mass and decay length
distributions. The dimuon invariant mass distribution is modeled by the sum of
a CB and a Gaussian function with common mean, while the corresponding
distribution is described using only a CB function. The widths of the CB and
Gaussian functions, as well as the $\alpha$ of the CB functions, are free
parameters. The $\sigma_{m}$ varies as a function of rapidity between 20 and
50 (40) for the () state. The $m$ and $n$ parameters are fixed to values
derived from fits to the invariant mass distribution of the -integrated data.
An exponential is used to describe the dimuon mass background. The decay
length distribution is modeled by a prompt signal component represented by a
resolution function, a nonprompt term given by an exponential function
convolved with the resolution function, and a background term represented by
the sum of a resolution function plus an exponential decay function to take
into account prompt and nonprompt background components. The resolution
function is modeled by the sum of two Gaussian functions whose widths are
taken as the event-by-event decay length uncertainty, multiplied by global
scale factors. The two scale factors are free parameters in the fit and are
constrained with Gaussian probability distributions that are derived from fits
to the -integrated data, less affected by statistical fluctuations. The
effective width of the two Gaussian functions is approximately 25.

To verify that the fits to the quarkonium states are unbiased and the
uncertainties are correctly modeled, 1000 pseudo-experiments were produced
from simulation. Similarly, simulated events were used to test the hypotheses
made on the constraints of the parameters. Differences in the event-by-event
uncertainty information between signal and background candidates could
introduce biases in the fitting of the decay length using the simplified model
described above, but we verified that these effects are negligible. Examples
of fits to the invariant mass and decay length distributions are provided in
Figs. .8.1–.8.2 of Appendix .8.

##  0.5 Systematic uncertainties

Systematic uncertainties are due to the measurement of the integrated
luminosity (2.3%) [42], the determination of the signal yields, and the dimuon
efficiencies and acceptances. Uncertainties in the estimation of the yields
are evaluated by changing the signal and background models used in the
maximum-likelihood fits. To assess the systematic uncertainty in the modeling
of the signal invariant mass distribution of each state, the $n$ and $\alpha$
parameters of the CB function are varied by up to $\pm 5$ standard deviations,
one at a time, while the mean, which is constrained in the nominal fit, is
allowed to float. The half-differences between the largest resulting
deviations of the signal yields measured in the fit from the nominal yields
are added in quadrature to obtain an uncertainty in the modeling of the
signal. The systematic uncertainty originating from a possibly imperfect
description of the background is evaluated by changing the background model
from an exponential to a linear function. The observed differences from the
nominal signal yields are taken as a systematic uncertainty. The total
uncertainty in the determination of the yields is obtained as the sum in
quadrature of the uncertainties in signal and background, and is about 2.0%
for all quarkonium states.

Uncertainties in the discrimination between charmonia that are promptly
produced rather than originating from b hadron decays arise from the
determination of the primary vertex position (the production point of the
mesons, which enters in the calculation of the decay length) and from the
modeling of the signal and background in the decay length distributions. We
assess the uncertainty originating from the choice of the primary vertex by
using an alternative to the average position of the luminous region, the
position of the collision vertex closest to the dimuon vertex extrapolated
towards the beam line. The systematic uncertainty related to the description
of the background is evaluated by measuring the difference between the prompt
fractions using the nominal fit and a fit modeling the background by the sum
of four exponential functions and a simplified resolution function composed of
only one single Gaussian function. To study the impact of imperfect modeling
of the resolution function, the scale parameters of the Gaussian functions
that had Gaussian constraints in the nominal fit are varied by $\pm 1$
standard deviation. Similarly, we assess the impact of modeling the nonprompt
signal by fixing the parameterization of the exponential decay function. The
systematic uncertainty stemming from the choice of the primary vertex is added
in quadrature with the uncertainty derived from the fit strategy. The latter
is calculated as half of the difference between the maximum deviations
observed from the nominal fit when the above variations are applied one by
one. The total systematic uncertainty in the determination of the nonprompt
yield is less than 3% in almost all the (, $y$) bins for the meson, without a
dominant contribution from any one of the sources described above. The largest
systematic uncertainty in the measurements can reach a maximum of 16%, mostly
owing to the uncertainty in the modeling of the background decay length
distribution. The effect of pileup on the analysis results has been studied
using both data and simulation, and found to be negligible.

Uncertainties in the single-muon efficiencies, reflecting their statistical
precision as well as possible imperfections of the parametrization, are
evaluated by varying the three parameters of the sigmoid function used to
parameterize the single-muon efficiencies within their uncertainties. The
resulting systematic uncertainties are nearly constant as a function of and
are around 2.5% for the and , and 1.8% for the (nS) in the central regions
$\abs{y}<0.6$ and around 1% in the remaining rapidity regions. The L3 single-
muon efficiencies are calculated from simulations because of the low number of
collected events useful for their measurements. The corresponding uncertainty
is estimated to be 3%.

Systematic uncertainties related to the $\rho$ factor are of three kinds. The
first originates from the number of events available in the control sample
collected with the independent trigger used to evaluate the $\rho$ factor. The
relative uncertainty is about 1% from 20 to 50and increases to about 5% near
100, with no dependence on rapidity. The measurement of the $\rho$ factor also
requires the evaluation of an additional single-muon efficiency using the tag-
and-probe method, which introduces an uncertainty of about 1% at low (below
50) and up to 4% at high . Moreover, we assign the fractional difference in
the $\rho$ factor obtained from data and simulation as a systematic
uncertainty. The difference is in the range 2–5% up to 60and increases slowly
for higher , reaching a value of up to 15%, in the worst case. This is the
dominant uncertainty for all the quarkonium states except the .

The finite number of events generated for the acceptance calculation imposes a
systematic uncertainty of 0.5% at low and up to 6% at high . Other sources of
systematic uncertainties, like the kinematic modeling of simulated events, are
found to have a negligible influence on the acceptance calculation. The effect
of the quarkonium polarization on the acceptance is not treated as a
systematic uncertainty; instead correction factors are provided in Appendix
.8to recalculate the cross sections according to different polarization
scenarios.

For the cross sections measured in the rapidity-integrated range
$\abs{y}<1.2$, we conservatively assign the total systematic uncertainties of
the most-forward rapidity range, which are larger than the uncertainties for
central rapidities. Taking advantage of the larger yields in the integrated-
rapidity range, an additional bin was added for each state. The systematic
uncertainty in the yields for this bin was evaluated as described above for
the other bins, while for other uncertainties the same value as in the
neighboring lower-bin was used. It was verified that systematic uncertainties
extrapolated to the additional bin have either negligible dependence in that
region or are negligibly small compared to other systematic or statistical
uncertainties.

For the measurement of the ratios of the cross sections of the prompt , , and
states relative to their ground states, the systematic uncertainties in the
yields, the $\rho$ factor, the single-muon efficiencies, and the acceptance
are the only ones considered. Uncertainties in the yields for the ratio of and
cross sections are treated as uncorrelated, because their corresponding yields
are determined from independent fits. In contrast, yield uncertainties are
treated as correlated for the ratio of the (nS) to cross sections, as they are
extracted from a combined fit to the three states, as shown in Fig. .8.2 of
Appendix .8. The correlation factors are found to be approximately 5%, causing
no significant effect on the final systematic uncertainty. The same single-
muon efficiencies are used for all the measured cross sections, therefore
their uncertainties are treated as correlated in all the ratios. The
systematic uncertainties in the ratios are determined by consistently varying
the efficiencies in the numerator and the denominator by their uncertainties
and recalculating the ratios. The resulting effect is less than 0.4%. The
uncertainty in the integrated luminosity is fully correlated, and is not
included in the ratios. Uncertainties in the $\rho$ correction factor are
treated as uncorrelated.

The statistical uncertainty in the to cross section ratio is more important
than any systematic uncertainty except for the high-region, where the $\rho$
factor uncertainty is the dominant one, reaching 28%. For the to and to cross
section ratios, the uncertainty in the $\rho$ factor dominates across the
entire region, ranging from 3% to 12%.

##  0.6 Results

The measured double-differential cross sections times the dimuon branching
fractions are presented in Fig. 1 as a function of , for four rapidity ranges
in the case of the prompt and states, and two rapidity ranges for the (nS).
The top panels of Fig. 2 show the measured cross sections times branching
fractions for the rapidity-integrated range $\abs{y}<1.2$. The presented
results are obtained under the assumption of unpolarized production, which is
very close to the polarization that was measured by CMS [32, 31]. If the
quarkonium states are fully polarized, the cross sections can change by up to
25%. The numerical values of the cross sections for all five quarkonium states
in the chosen bins of and $\abs{y}$ in the unpolarized scenario are reported
in Tables .8–.8 of Appendix .8. Tables .8–.8 list the multiplicative scale
factors needed to recalculate the cross sections in the three different
polarization scenarios described in Section 0.3. The conversion to a new
polarization scenario is achieved by multiplying the unpolarized cross section
result in each (, $\abs{y}$) bin by the corresponding scale factor.

Figure 1:  The product of the measured double-differential cross sections and
the dimuon branching fractions for prompt and (left) and the (nS) (right)
mesons as a function of , in four and two rapidity regions, respectively,
assuming unpolarized dimuon decays. For presentation purposes, the individual
points in the measurements are scaled by the factors given in the legends. The
inner vertical bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty,
while the outer bars show the statistical and systematic uncertainties, not
including the 2.3% uncertainty in the integrated luminosity, added in
quadrature. For most of the data points, the uncertainties are comparable to
the size of the symbols. The data points are shown at the average in each bin.

Figure 2:  The measured double-differential cross sections times branching
fractions of the prompt and (left) and the (nS) (right) mesons (markers),
assuming unpolarized dimuon decays, as a function of , for $\abs{y}<1.2$,
compared to NLO NRQCD predictions [43, 44] (shaded bands). The inner vertical
bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty, while the outer
bars show the statistical and systematic uncertainties, including the
integrated luminosity uncertainty of 2.3%, added in quadrature. The middle
panels show the ratios of measurement to theory, where the vertical bars
depict the total uncertainties in the measurement. The widths of the bands
represent the theoretical uncertainty, added in quadrature with the
uncertainties in the dimuon branching fractions [36]. The lower panels show
the ratios of cross sections measured at $\sqrt{s}=13$to those measured at 7
[26, 27]. All uncertainties in the 7 and 13results are treated as
uncorrelated. The data points are shown at the average in each bin.

The NLO NRQCD predictions [43, 44] are in agreement with the measured cross
sections times branching fractions within uncertainties, as shown in the top
panels of Fig. 2. The ratios of the measured to predicted values are plotted
in the middle panels of Fig. 2, where the vertical bars represent the
experimental uncertainties. The shaded bands show the theoretical
uncertainties stemming from the extraction of the LDMEs, renormalization
scales, and the choice of c and b quark masses, added in quadrature with the
uncertainties in the dimuon branching fractions [36]. The theory tends to
underestimate (overestimate) the cross section for the (), while staying
within the one-standard-deviation uncertainty band. The bottom panels of Fig.
2 show the ratios of the differential cross sections times branching fractions
measured at $\sqrt{s}=13$and 7 [26, 27] for $\abs{y}<1.2$. The 13cross
sections of all five quarkonium states are factors of 1.5 to 3 larger than the
corresponding 7cross sections, changing slowly as a function of dimuon . An
increase of this order is expected from the evolution of the parton
distribution functions.

Figure 3 shows the production cross sections times dimuon branching fractions
of the radial excitations relative to the ground state in the charmonium and
bottomonium systems for $\abs{y}<1.2$. The prompt to meson cross section ratio
is constant as a function of , while the cross sections of the excited states
relative to the show a slight increase with . The numerical values of these
ratios are reported in Table .8 of Appendix .8.

Figure 3:  Ratios of the differential cross sections times dimuon branching
fractions of the prompt to , to , and to mesons for $\abs{y}<1.2$. The inner
vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainty, while the outer bars show
the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The ratio of
the to meson cross sections is multiplied by a factor 5 for better visibility.

##  0.7 Summary

The double-differential production cross sections of the , , and (nS)
($\mathrm{n}=1,2,3$) quarkonium states have been measured, using their dimuon
decay mode, in collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$with the CMS detector at the LHC.
The production cross sections of all five S-wave states are presented in a
single analysis. The measurement has been performed as a function of
transverse momentum () in several bins of rapidity ($y$), covering a range
20–120for the meson and 20–100for the remaining states. The cross sections
integrated over $\abs{y}<1.2$ are also presented, and extend the reach to 150
and 130, respectively. Also presented are the ratios of cross sections
measured at $\sqrt{s}=13$ (this analysis) and 7(from Refs. [26, 27]), as well
as the cross sections of the prompt , , and mesons relative to their ground
states. These results will help in testing the underlying hypotheses of
nonrelativistic quantum chromodynamics and in providing further input to
constrain the theoretical parameters.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to thank Yan-Qing Ma for providing theoretical
calculations of the cross sections shown in Fig. 2. 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); OTKA and NIH (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, RFBR and RAEP
(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 Ministry of Education, Youth and
Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; 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 Severo Ochoa del Principado de Asturias;
the Thalis and Aristeia programs cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; the
Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University
and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century Project Advancement
Project (Thailand); the Welch Foundation, contract C-1845; and the Weston
Havens Foundation (USA).

## References

  * [1] G. T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, and G. P. Lepage, “Rigorous QCD analysis of inclusive annihilation and production of heavy quarkonium”,  Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995) 1125, 10.1103/PhysRevD.51.1125. [Erratum: 10.1103/PhysRevD.55.5853].
  * [2] P. Cho and A. K. Leibovich, “Color-octet quarkonia production”,  Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 150, 10.1103/PhysRevD.53.150.
  * [3] P. Cho and A. K. Leibovich, “Color-octet quarkonia production. II”,  Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 6203, 10.1103/PhysRevD.53.6203.
  * [4] B. Gong, L.-P. Wan, J.-X. Wang, and H.-F. Zhang, “Complete next-to-leading-order study on the yield and polarization of (1S, 2S, 3S) at the Tevatron and LHC”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 032001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.032001, arXiv:1305.0748.
  * [5] Z.-B. Kang, Y.-Q. Ma, J.-W. Qiu, and G. Sterman, “Heavy quarkonium production at collider energies: partonic cross section and polarization”,  Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 014030, 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.014030, arXiv:1411.2456.
  * [6] M. Butenschön and B. A. Kniehl, “polarization at Tevatron and LHC: nonrelativistic-QCD factorization at the crossroads”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 172002, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.172002, arXiv:1201.1872.
  * [7] K.-T. Chao et al., “polarization at hadron colliders in nonrelativistic QCD”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 242004, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.242004, arXiv:1201.2675.
  * [8] P. Faccioli et al., “Quarkonium production in the LHC era: a polarized perspective”,  Phys. Lett. B 736 (2014) 98, 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.07.006, arXiv:1403.3970.
  * [9] G. T. Bodwin, H. S. Chung, U.-R. Kim, and J. Lee, “Fragmentation contributions to production at the Tevatron and the LHC”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 022001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.022001, arXiv:1403.3612.
  * [10] LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of the cross-section ratio $\sigma(\chi_{\mathrm{c2}})/\sigma(\chi_{\mathrm{c1}})$ for prompt $\chi_{\mathrm{c}}$ production at $\sqrt{s}=7$ ”,  Phys. Lett. B 714 (2012) 215, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.06.077, arXiv:1202.1080.
  * [11] LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of the $\chi_{\mathrm{b}}$(3P) mass and of the relative rate of and production”,  JHEP 10 (2014) 88, 10.1007/JHEP10(2014)088, arXiv:1409.1408.
  * [12] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of $\chi_{\mathrm{c1}}$ and $\chi_{\mathrm{c2}}$ production with $\sqrt{s}=7$ collisions at ATLAS”,  JHEP 07 (2014) 154, 10.1007/JHEP07(2014)154, arXiv:1404.7035.
  * [13] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the production cross section ratio $\sigma(\Pbgcii)/\sigma(\Pbgci)$ in collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ ”,  Phys. Lett. B 743 (2015) 383, 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.02.048, arXiv:1409.5761.
  * [14] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the relative prompt production rate of $\chi_{\mathrm{c2}}$ and $\chi_{\mathrm{c1}}$ in collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ ”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 2251, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-2251-3, arXiv:1210.0875.
  * [15] LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of the production cross-section in proton-proton collisions via the decay $\Pcgh\rightarrow\Pp\Pap$”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 311, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3502-x, arXiv:1409.3612.
  * [16] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the differential cross-sections of inclusive, prompt and non-prompt production in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ ”,  Nucl. Phys. B 850 (2011) 387, 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2011.05.015, arXiv:1104.3038.
  * [17] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the production cross-section of $\Pgy\to\JPsi(\to\Pgmp\Pgmm)\Pgpp\Pgpm$ in collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ at ATLAS”,  JHEP 09 (2014) 079, 10.1007/JHEP09(2014)079, arXiv:1407.5532.
  * [18] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of Upsilon production in $7$ collisions at ATLAS”,  Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 052004, 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.052004, arXiv:1211.7255.
  * [19] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the differential cross-sections of prompt and non-prompt production of and in collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8 with the ATLAS detector”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 283, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4050-8, arXiv:1512.03657.
  * [20] LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of production in collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ ”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1645, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1645-y, arXiv:1103.0423.
  * [21] LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of meson production in collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ ”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 2100, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-2100-4, arXiv:1204.1258.
  * [22] LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of Upsilon production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ ”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 2025, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-2025-y, arXiv:1202.6579.
  * [23] ALICE Collaboration, “Measurement of prompt and beauty hadron production cross sections at mid-rapidity in collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ ”,  JHEP 11 (2012) 065, 10.1007/JHEP11(2012)065, arXiv:1205.5880.
  * [24] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inclusive production cross section in collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ ”,  Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 112004, 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.112004, arXiv:1012.5545.
  * [25] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the , , and cross sections in collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ ”,  Phys. Lett. B 727 (2013) 101, 10.1016/j.physletb.2013.10.033, arXiv:1303.5900.
  * [26] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of and prompt double-differential cross sections in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 191802, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191802, arXiv:1502.04155.
  * [27] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of the , , and differential cross sections in collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ ”,  Phys. Lett. B 749 (2015) 14, 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.07.037, arXiv:1501.07750.
  * [28] CMS Collaboration, “Suppression of non-prompt , prompt , and in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76$”,  Journal of High Energy Physics 5 (2012) 63, 10.1007/JHEP05(2012)063.
  * [29] CMS Collaboration, “Suppression of , and production in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76$”,  Phys. Lett. B 770 (2017) 357, 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.04.031, arXiv:1611.01510.
  * [30] ALICE Collaboration, “ polarization in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 082001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.082001, arXiv:1111.1630.
  * [31] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the prompt and polarizations in collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ ”,  Phys. Lett. B 727 (2013) 381, 10.1016/j.physletb.2013.10.055, arXiv:1307.6070.
  * [32] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the , , and polarizations in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 081802, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.081802, arXiv:1209.2922.
  * [33] LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of polarization in collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ ”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2631, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2631-3, arXiv:1307.6379.
  * [34] LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of polarisation in collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ ”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 2872, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2872-9, arXiv:1403.1339.
  * [35] CMS Collaboration, “Prompt and non-prompt production in collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ ”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1575, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1575-8, arXiv:1011.4193.
  * [36] Particle Data Group, C. Patrignani et al., “Review of Particle Physics”,  Chin. Phys. C 40 (2016) 100001, 10.1088/1674-1137/40/10/100001.
  * [37] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in collision events at $\sqrt{s}=7$ ”,  JINST 7 (2012) P10002, 10.1088/1748-0221/7/10/P10002, arXiv:1206.4071.
  * [38] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [39] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [40] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, “A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1”,  Comp. Phys. Comm. 178 (2008) 852, 10.1016/j.cpc.2008.01.036, arXiv:0710.3820.
  * [41] M. J. Oreglia, “A study of the reactions $\psi^{\prime}\to\gamma\gamma\psi$”.  PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1980.  SLAC Report SLAC-R-236, see Appendix D.
  * [42] CMS Collaboration, “Preliminary CMS luminosity measurement for the 2015 data taking period”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-15-001, 2017.
  * [43] Y.-Q. Ma, K. Wang, and K.-T. Chao, “$(\psi^{\prime})$ production at the Tevatron and LHC at ${\cal O}(\alpha_{s}^{4}v^{4})$ in nonrelativistic QCD”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 042002, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.042002, arXiv:1009.3655.
  * [44] H. Han et al., “(nS) and $\chi_{\mathrm{b}}$(nP) production at hadron colliders in nonrelativistic QCD”,  Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 014028, 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.014028, arXiv:1410.8537.

##  .8 Dimuon invariant mass and lifetime distributions, numerical values of
differential cross section, and correction factors for alternative
polarization scenarios

8.1.Figure: Examples of fits of the dimuon invariant mass (left) and decay
length (right) distributions for (upper row) and (lower row) candidate events
in the and $\abs{y}$ ranges given in the plots. The results from the total fit
and from the various components included in the fit are shown.  8.2.Figure:
Examples of a fit of the dimuon invariant mass distribution for the (nS)
candidate events in the and $\abs{y}$ ranges given in the plot. The results
from the total fit and for the background component are shown.

Double-differential cross section times the dimuon branching fraction of the
meson for different ranges of , in bins of $\abs{y}$ and for the full
$\abs{y}$ range, for the unpolarized decay hypothesis, with their statistical
and systematic uncertainties in percent. The average value in each bin is also
given. The global uncertainty in the integrated luminosity of 2.3% is not
included in the systematic uncertainties.  ${\cal
B}\,\rd\sigma^{2}/\rd{}\pt\rd{}y$ $\langle{\pt}\rangle$ $\abs{y}<0.3$
$0.3<\abs{y}<0.6$ $0.6<\abs{y}<0.9$ $0.9<\abs{y}<1.2$ $\abs{y}<1.2$ [] []
[$\mathrm{pb}/\GeVns$] stat % syst % [$\mathrm{pb}/\GeVns$] stat % syst %
[$\mathrm{pb}/\GeVns$] stat % syst % [$\mathrm{pb}/\GeVns$] stat % syst %
[$\mathrm{pb}/\GeVns$] stat % syst % 20–21 20.5 4.68E+01 1.7 5.3 4.63E+01 1.3
4.6 4.47E+01 1.2 4.5 4.51E+01 1.3 4.6 4.58E+01 0.7 4.6 21–22 21.5 3.52E+01 1.3
5.4 3.65E+01 1.2 4.8 3.52E+01 1.2 4.6 3.42E+01 1.3 4.8 3.53E+01 0.6 4.8 22–23
22.5 2.72E+01 1.4 5.2 2.80E+01 1.3 4.5 2.75E+01 1.3 4.4 2.69E+01 1.3 4.6
2.74E+01 0.7 4.6 23–24 23.5 2.14E+01 1.5 5.0 2.25E+01 1.4 4.5 2.18E+01 1.4 4.3
2.12E+01 1.5 4.4 2.18E+01 0.7 4.5 24–25 24.5 1.80E+01 1.6 5.0 1.81E+01 1.5 4.5
1.76E+01 1.5 4.3 1.66E+01 1.6 4.5 1.76E+01 0.8 4.5 25–26 25.5 1.46E+01 1.8 5.0
1.50E+01 1.7 4.5 1.38E+01 1.7 4.3 1.39E+01 1.8 4.5 1.43E+01 0.9 4.5 26–27 26.5
1.21E+01 1.9 5.1 1.22E+01 1.8 4.4 1.13E+01 1.9 4.3 1.11E+01 1.9 4.5 1.17E+01
0.9 4.5 27–28 27.5 1.00E+01 2.1 5.0 1.00E+01 2.0 4.4 9.76E+00 2.0 4.3 9.17E+00
2.1 4.5 9.75E+00 1.0 4.5 28–29 28.5 8.14E+00 2.3 5.1 8.31E+00 2.2 4.5 7.88E+00
2.2 4.3 7.67E+00 2.3 4.5 7.99E+00 1.1 4.5 29–30 29.5 6.68E+00 2.5 5.2 6.92E+00
2.4 4.5 6.78E+00 2.4 4.4 6.39E+00 2.5 4.6 6.70E+00 1.2 4.5 30–32 31.0 5.47E+00
1.9 5.2 5.44E+00 1.9 4.5 5.03E+00 1.9 4.3 4.91E+00 2.0 4.6 5.20E+00 1.0 4.6
32–34 33.0 3.84E+00 2.3 5.4 3.84E+00 2.2 4.6 3.72E+00 2.2 4.4 3.50E+00 2.3 4.8
3.72E+00 1.1 4.7 34–36 35.0 2.78E+00 2.7 5.7 2.84E+00 2.5 4.9 2.76E+00 2.5 4.9
2.62E+00 2.7 5.1 2.75E+00 1.3 5.0 36–38 37.0 2.12E+00 3.1 6.2 2.03E+00 2.9 5.4
2.02E+00 3.0 5.3 1.85E+00 3.1 5.6 2.00E+00 1.5 5.5 38–42 39.8 1.45E+00 2.6 6.4
1.40E+00 2.5 5.7 1.39E+00 2.5 5.6 1.33E+00 2.6 5.9 1.39E+00 1.3 5.8 42–46 43.8
8.33E-01 3.3 6.9 8.33E-01 3.2 6.1 7.74E-01 3.3 5.9 7.47E-01 3.4 6.5 7.96E-01
1.7 6.2 46–50 47.8 5.34E-01 4.2 7.0 5.48E-01 4.0 6.1 4.96E-01 4.2 6.1 4.54E-01
4.5 6.7 5.08E-01 2.1 6.3 50–60 54.2 2.79E-01 3.7 7.8 2.74E-01 3.5 7.1 2.49E-01
3.7 7.1 2.14E-01 4.1 7.7 2.54E-01 1.9 7.2 60–75 66.0 8.96E-02 5.4 8.0 9.05E-02
5.0 6.9 8.23E-02 5.6 6.9 6.64E-02 6.2 8.2 8.28E-02 2.7 7.3 75–95 82.7 2.54E-02
9.0 7.7 2.62E-02 8.5 6.4 2.37E-02 8.7 6.4 2.03E-02 9.6 7.6 2.39E-02 4.4 6.3
95–120 104.7 8.37E-03 15 8.3 8.56E-03 15 8.2 7.16E-03 15 7.3 5.61E-03 19 9.1
7.42E-03 7.7 7.9 120–150 131.1 1.53E-03 17 7.9

Double-differential cross section times the dimuon branching fraction of the
meson for different ranges of , in bins of $\abs{y}$ and for the full
$\abs{y}$ range, for the unpolarized decay hypothesis, with their statistical
and systematic uncertainties in percent. The average value in each bin is also
given. The global uncertainty in the integrated luminosity of 2.3% is not
included in the systematic uncertainties.  ${\cal
B}\,\rd\sigma^{2}/\rd{}\pt\rd{}y$ $\langle{\pt}\rangle$ $\abs{y}<0.3$
$0.3<\abs{y}<0.6$ $0.6<\abs{y}<0.9$ $0.9<\abs{y}<1.2$ $\abs{y}<1.2$ [] []
[$\mathrm{pb}/\GeVns$] stat % syst % [$\mathrm{pb}/\GeVns$] stat % syst %
[$\mathrm{pb}/\GeVns$] stat % syst % [$\mathrm{pb}/\GeVns$] stat % syst %
[$\mathrm{pb}/\GeVns$] stat % syst % 20–22 21.1 1.62E+00 3.3 5.4 1.65E+00 3.3
5.5 1.67E+00 3.2 5.0 1.58E+00 3.6 5.8 1.63E+00 1.6 5.8 22–25 23.7 9.46E-01 4.2
5.0 8.90E-01 4.4 5.0 1.03E+00 3.9 4.6 8.30E-01 4.8 5.3 9.19E-01 2.1 5.4 25–28
26.2 5.23E-01 5.6 5.0 5.12E-01 5.7 5.2 5.23E-01 5.3 4.4 4.89E-01 6.1 6.7
5.10E-01 2.8 6.8 28–30 28.7 3.45E-01 6.9 5.4 3.77E-01 6.3 5.6 3.08E-01 7.3 5.0
3.55E-01 6.8 6.7 3.45E-01 3.3 6.8 30–35 32.2 1.94E-01 6.4 6.1 2.04E-01 6.2 7.0
1.82E-01 6.6 6.2 1.46E-01 8.2 11 1.80E-01 3.3 11 35–40 37.2 9.68E-02 9.2 7.3
8.87E-02 9.1 8.1 8.42E-02 9.2 9.0 7.22E-02 11 12 8.46E-02 4.7 12 40–55 45.7
2.93E-02 9.3 7.5 2.87E-02 9.4 8.2 2.90E-02 9.6 9.1 2.63E-02 11 12 2.81E-02 4.8
12 55–75 62.5 4.75E-03 66 12 5.07E-03 21 15 4.82E-03 10 15 6.59E-03 18 17
4.97E-03 11 16 75–100 84.2 1.01E-03 48 18 1.20E-03 17 17 1.24E-03 23 18
8.81E-04 23 20 1.08E-03 6.6 20 100–130 111.0 2.85E-04 24 20

Double-differential cross section times the dimuon branching fraction of the
meson for different ranges of , in bins of $\abs{y}$ and for the full
$\abs{y}$ range, for the unpolarized decay hypothesis, with their statistical
and systematic uncertainties in percent. The average value in each bin is also
given. The global uncertainty in the integrated luminosity of 2.3% is not
included in the systematic uncertainties.  ${\cal
B}\,\rd\sigma^{2}/\rd{}\pt\rd{}y$ $\langle{\pt}\rangle$ $\abs{y}<0.6$
$0.6<\abs{y}<1.2$ $\abs{y}<1.2$ [] [] [$\mathrm{pb}/\GeVns$] stat % syst %
[$\mathrm{pb}/\GeVns$] stat % syst % [$\mathrm{pb}/\GeVns$] stat % syst %
20–22 20.9 5.76E+00 1.7 7.1 5.46E+00 1.7 7.8 5.62E+00 0.9 7.3 22–24 22.9
3.60E+00 1.6 6.0 3.77E+00 2.1 6.7 3.68E+00 1.1 6.3 24–26 25.0 2.50E+00 1.9 5.3
2.44E+00 2.1 6.1 2.47E+00 1.3 5.6 26–28 26.9 1.72E+00 2.2 4.8 1.75E+00 2.5 5.3
1.73E+00 1.5 4.9 28–30 29.0 1.19E+00 2.6 4.9 1.21E+00 3.1 5.2 1.20E+00 1.8 4.9
30–32 31.0 8.50E-01 3.5 4.9 8.62E-01 3.5 5.3 8.55E-01 2.1 5.1 32–34 33.0
6.43E-01 4.0 4.9 6.26E-01 4.1 5.0 6.36E-01 2.4 4.8 34–36 35.0 4.88E-01 4.2 4.7
4.55E-01 5.1 5.4 4.72E-01 2.8 5.3 36–38 37.0 3.52E-01 5.2 4.8 3.12E-01 6.0 6.1
3.32E-01 3.4 5.8 38–40 39.0 2.37E-01 6.1 5.0 2.65E-01 6.5 6.2 2.51E-01 3.9 6.0
40–43 41.4 2.17E-01 5.4 5.4 1.91E-01 5.7 5.1 2.04E-01 3.5 4.8 43–46 44.4
1.39E-01 6.0 5.5 1.17E-01 7.3 5.0 1.28E-01 4.3 4.9 46–50 47.9 7.87E-02 7.0 5.2
8.25E-02 7.0 5.1 8.07E-02 4.6 4.6 50–55 52.3 5.36E-02 7.4 5.0 4.96E-02 8.2 5.2
5.16E-02 5.2 4.7 55–60 57.3 3.72E-02 8.8 5.4 2.96E-02 11 5.6 3.33E-02 6.5 4.8
60–70 64.3 1.51E-02 10 5.2 1.72E-02 11 5.6 1.62E-02 6.8 5.1 70–100 80.5
3.83E-03 12 5.4 4.85E-03 12 5.6 4.32E-03 7.7 4.7 100–130 111.5 6.48E-04 20 4.7

Double-differential cross section times the dimuon branching fraction of the
meson for different ranges of , in bins of $\abs{y}$ and for the full
$\abs{y}$ range, for the unpolarized decay hypothesis, with their statistical
and systematic uncertainties in percent. The average value in each bin is also
given. The global uncertainty in the integrated luminosity of 2.3% is not
included in the systematic uncertainties.  ${\cal
B}\,\rd\sigma^{2}/\rd{}\pt\rd{}y$ $\langle{\pt}\rangle$ $\abs{y}<0.6$
$0.6<\abs{y}<1.2$ $\abs{y}<1.2$ [] [] [$\mathrm{pb}/\GeVns$] stat % syst %
[$\mathrm{pb}/\GeVns$] stat % syst % [$\mathrm{pb}/\GeVns$] stat % syst %
20–22 20.9 2.45E+00 2.6 6.1 2.30E+00 2.7 6.9 2.38E+00 1.4 6.4 22–24 22.9
1.55E+00 2.3 5.7 1.60E+00 3.3 7.1 1.57E+00 1.7 6.8 24–26 25.0 1.15E+00 2.7 5.2
1.16E+00 3.1 6.1 1.16E+00 1.9 5.8 26–28 26.9 7.54E-01 3.3 4.9 8.27E-01 3.7 5.9
7.89E-01 2.3 5.6 28–30 29.0 5.51E-01 3.7 5.0 5.39E-01 4.6 5.8 5.45E-01 2.7 5.5
30–32 31.0 4.02E-01 4.8 5.4 4.28E-01 5.2 6.5 4.14E-01 3.1 6.3 32–34 33.0
3.04E-01 5.8 6.0 3.31E-01 5.8 5.7 3.18E-01 3.6 5.5 34–36 35.0 2.36E-01 5.9 4.8
2.47E-01 7.6 6.2 2.41E-01 4.1 6.0 36–38 37.0 1.54E-01 7.2 4.7 1.61E-01 8.3 6.0
1.57E-01 5.0 5.6 38–40 39.0 1.28E-01 7.8 4.9 1.23E-01 9.4 5.8 1.26E-01 5.7 5.6
40–43 41.4 9.52E-02 7.6 5.2 1.03E-01 8.0 5.4 9.89E-02 5.0 5.1 43–46 44.4
6.83E-02 8.3 4.9 5.68E-02 11 5.0 6.19E-02 6.4 4.7 46–50 47.9 4.53E-02 9.1 4.8
3.32E-02 12 5.4 3.93E-02 6.9 5.0 50–55 52.3 2.81E-02 9.9 5.1 2.57E-02 12 5.4
2.68E-02 7.3 4.9 55–60 57.3 2.00E-02 11 5.5 1.77E-02 14 5.8 1.88E-02 8.6 5.1
60–70 64.3 8.99E-03 13 5.5 1.10E-02 13 6.3 9.96E-03 8.8 5.5 70–100 80.5
1.91E-03 19 6.3 2.24E-03 17 7.1 2.08E-03 12 5.9 100–130 111.5 5.79E-04 35 6.0

Double-differential cross section times the dimuon branching fraction of the
meson for different ranges of , in bins of $\abs{y}$ and for the full
$\abs{y}$ range, for the unpolarized decay hypothesis, with their statistical
and systematic uncertainties in percent. The average value in each bin is also
given. The global uncertainty in the integrated luminosity of 2.3% is not
included in the systematic uncertainties.  ${\cal
B}\,\rd\sigma^{2}/\rd{}\pt\rd{}y$ $\langle{\pt}\rangle$ $\abs{y}<0.6$
$0.6<\abs{y}<1.2$ $\abs{y}<1.2$ [] [] [$\mathrm{pb}/\GeVns$] stat % syst %
[$\mathrm{pb}/\GeVns$] stat % syst % [$\mathrm{pb}/\GeVns$] stat % syst %
20–22 20.9 1.64E+00 3.3 7.3 1.55E+00 3.5 7.1 1.60E+00 1.8 6.7 22–24 22.9
1.08E+00 2.9 6.0 1.21E+00 4.0 6.5 1.13E+00 2.0 6.2 24–26 25.0 7.94E-01 3.4 6.2
7.81E-01 4.1 6.4 7.88E-01 2.4 6.1 26–28 26.9 5.72E-01 3.9 6.2 5.84E-01 4.8 6.6
5.79E-01 2.8 6.3 28–30 29.0 4.11E-01 4.5 5.8 3.79E-01 6.0 7.0 3.96E-01 3.3 6.8
30–32 31.0 2.93E-01 6.0 6.4 3.10E-01 6.6 7.3 3.01E-01 3.8 7.0 32–34 33.0
2.54E-01 6.9 6.1 2.13E-01 7.9 6.9 2.34E-01 4.3 6.8 34–36 35.0 1.82E-01 7.0 5.9
1.84E-01 9.7 8.1 1.82E-01 4.7 7.9 36–38 37.0 1.41E-01 7.9 5.8 1.27E-01 10 8.2
1.34E-01 5.4 8.0 38–40 39.0 1.16E-01 8.7 6.0 1.23E-01 11 8.0 1.19E-01 5.7 7.9
40–43 41.4 7.36E-02 9.4 6.4 7.23E-02 10 6.5 7.33E-02 6.1 6.1 43–46 44.4
4.46E-02 11 6.3 4.81E-02 13 6.0 4.59E-02 7.7 5.8 46–50 47.9 3.64E-02 11 6.8
2.84E-02 13 6.4 3.24E-02 7.7 6.0 50–55 52.3 2.22E-02 12 6.9 2.28E-02 13 7.2
2.24E-02 8.4 6.9 55–60 57.3 1.48E-02 14 8.1 1.35E-02 18 8.8 1.43E-02 11 8.3
60–70 64.3 6.34E-03 16 10 8.50E-03 17 11 7.36E-03 10 10 70–100 80.5 1.88E-03
17 13 2.10E-03 19 13 1.98E-03 12 13 100–130 111.5 2.30E-04 48 13

Multiplicative scaling factors to obtain the differential cross sections for
different polarization scenarios ($\lambda_{\theta}^{\mathrm{HX}}=+1,k,-1$)
from the unpolarized cross section measurements given in Table .8. The value
of $k$ is taken equal to $+0.10$, and corresponds to an average over of the
CMS measurement [31].  $\abs{y}<0.3$ $0.3<\abs{y}<0.6$ $0.6<\abs{y}<0.9$
$0.9<\abs{y}<1.2$ $\abs{y}<1.2$ [] $\lambda_{\theta}$=+1
$\lambda_{\theta}$=$k$ $\lambda_{\theta}$=$-$1 $\lambda_{\theta}$=+1
$\lambda_{\theta}$=$k$ $\lambda_{\theta}$=$-$1 $\lambda_{\theta}$=+1
$\lambda_{\theta}$=$k$ $\lambda_{\theta}$=$-$1 $\lambda_{\theta}$=+1
$\lambda_{\theta}$=$k$ $\lambda_{\theta}$=$-$1 $\lambda_{\theta}$=+1
$\lambda_{\theta}$=$k$ $\lambda_{\theta}$=$-$1 20–21 1.20 1.02 0.75 1.17 1.01
0.75 1.18 1.02 0.76 1.18 1.02 0.76 1.19 1.02 0.76 21–22 1.19 1.02 0.76 1.17
1.01 0.76 1.18 1.02 0.77 1.17 1.02 0.77 1.18 1.02 0.76 22–23 1.19 1.02 0.76
1.16 1.01 0.77 1.17 1.02 0.78 1.17 1.02 0.78 1.17 1.02 0.77 23–24 1.18 1.02
0.77 1.16 1.01 0.77 1.16 1.02 0.78 1.16 1.02 0.78 1.16 1.02 0.78 24–25 1.17
1.02 0.77 1.15 1.01 0.78 1.16 1.02 0.79 1.15 1.02 0.79 1.16 1.02 0.78 25–26
1.17 1.02 0.78 1.15 1.01 0.78 1.15 1.02 0.79 1.15 1.02 0.79 1.15 1.02 0.79
26–27 1.16 1.02 0.78 1.14 1.01 0.79 1.15 1.02 0.79 1.14 1.02 0.80 1.15 1.02
0.79 27–28 1.16 1.02 0.79 1.14 1.01 0.79 1.14 1.02 0.80 1.14 1.02 0.81 1.14
1.02 0.80 28–29 1.15 1.02 0.79 1.13 1.01 0.80 1.13 1.02 0.81 1.14 1.02 0.81
1.14 1.01 0.80 29–30 1.14 1.02 0.80 1.13 1.01 0.80 1.13 1.02 0.81 1.13 1.02
0.81 1.13 1.01 0.81 30–32 1.14 1.02 0.81 1.12 1.01 0.81 1.12 1.01 0.82 1.13
1.01 0.82 1.13 1.01 0.81 32–34 1.13 1.02 0.82 1.11 1.01 0.82 1.12 1.01 0.82
1.12 1.01 0.82 1.12 1.01 0.82 34–36 1.13 1.02 0.82 1.11 1.01 0.82 1.11 1.01
0.83 1.11 1.01 0.83 1.12 1.01 0.83 36–38 1.11 1.01 0.83 1.11 1.01 0.83 1.11
1.01 0.84 1.10 1.01 0.85 1.11 1.01 0.84 38–42 1.11 1.01 0.84 1.10 1.01 0.84
1.10 1.01 0.85 1.10 1.01 0.85 1.10 1.01 0.84 42–46 1.10 1.01 0.85 1.09 1.01
0.85 1.09 1.01 0.86 1.09 1.01 0.85 1.09 1.01 0.85 46–50 1.09 1.01 0.86 1.08
1.01 0.86 1.08 1.01 0.87 1.09 1.01 0.86 1.09 1.01 0.86 50–60 1.08 1.01 0.88
1.06 1.01 0.89 1.07 1.01 0.88 1.08 1.01 0.88 1.07 1.01 0.88 60–75 1.06 1.01
0.89 1.05 1.00 0.90 1.06 1.01 0.90 1.06 1.01 0.90 1.06 1.01 0.90 75–95 1.05
1.01 0.91 1.04 1.00 0.93 1.04 1.01 0.92 1.05 1.01 0.91 1.04 1.01 0.92 95–120
1.03 1.01 0.93 1.02 1.00 0.94 1.03 1.00 0.94 1.04 1.01 0.92 1.03 1.00 0.93
120–150 1.03 1.00 0.93

Multiplicative scaling factors to obtain the differential cross sections for
different polarization scenarios ($\lambda_{\theta}^{\mathrm{HX}}=+1,k,-1$)
from the unpolarized cross section measurements given in Table .8. The value
of $k$ is taken equal to $+0.03$, and corresponds to an average over of the
CMS measurement [31].  $\abs{y}<0.3$ $0.3<\abs{y}<0.6$ $0.6<\abs{y}<0.9$
$0.9<\abs{y}<1.2$ $\abs{y}<1.2$ [] $\lambda_{\theta}$=+1
$\lambda_{\theta}$=$k$ $\lambda_{\theta}$=$-$1 $\lambda_{\theta}$=+1
$\lambda_{\theta}$=$k$ $\lambda_{\theta}$=$-$1 $\lambda_{\theta}$=+1
$\lambda_{\theta}$=$k$ $\lambda_{\theta}$=$-$1 $\lambda_{\theta}$=+1
$\lambda_{\theta}$=$k$ $\lambda_{\theta}$=$-$1 $\lambda_{\theta}$=+1
$\lambda_{\theta}$=$k$ $\lambda_{\theta}$=$-$1 20–22 1.19 1.01 0.76 1.17 0.99
0.75 1.18 1.01 0.77 1.17 1.01 0.77 1.18 1.00 0.76 22–25 1.18 1.01 0.77 1.15
1.00 0.77 1.16 1.01 0.78 1.16 1.01 0.78 1.16 1.00 0.78 25–28 1.16 1.01 0.79
1.14 1.00 0.79 1.14 1.00 0.80 1.15 1.01 0.79 1.15 1.00 0.79 28–30 1.15 1.01
0.80 1.12 1.00 0.80 1.13 1.00 0.81 1.13 1.00 0.81 1.13 1.00 0.81 30–35 1.14
1.01 0.81 1.12 1.00 0.81 1.12 1.00 0.82 1.12 1.00 0.82 1.12 1.00 0.82 35–40
1.12 1.01 0.83 1.10 1.00 0.83 1.11 1.00 0.84 1.11 1.00 0.84 1.11 1.00 0.83
40–55 1.10 1.00 0.85 1.08 1.00 0.86 1.08 1.00 0.86 1.08 1.00 0.87 1.09 1.00
0.86 55–75 1.07 1.00 0.88 1.07 1.00 0.88 1.06 1.00 0.89 1.06 1.00 0.89 1.07
1.00 0.88 75–100 1.04 1.00 0.92 1.03 1.00 0.93 1.03 1.00 0.94 1.04 1.00 0.92
1.03 1.00 0.93 100–130 1.03 1.00 0.93

Multiplicative scaling factors to obtain the differential cross sections for
different polarization scenarios ($\lambda_{\theta}^{\mathrm{HX}}=+1,k,-1$)
from the unpolarized cross section measurements given in Table .8. The
parameter $k$ corresponds to a linear interpolation of the CMS measured value
of $\lambda_{\theta}^{\mathrm{HX}}$ [32] as a function of for $\pt<50$. For
$\pt>50$, where no measurements of $\lambda_{\theta}^{\mathrm{HX}}$ exist, $k$
is taken as the average of all the measured values of
$\lambda_{\theta}^{\mathrm{HX}}$ for $\pt<50$.  $\abs{y}<0.6$
$0.6<\abs{y}<1.2$ $\abs{y}<1.2$ [] $\lambda_{\theta}=+1$ $\lambda_{\theta}=k$
$\lambda_{\theta}=-1$ $\lambda_{\theta}=+1$ $\lambda_{\theta}=k$
$\lambda_{\theta}=-1$ $\lambda_{\theta}=+1$ $\lambda_{\theta}=k$
$\lambda_{\theta}=-1$ 20–22 1.14 0.98 0.78 1.14 0.98 0.78 1.14 0.98 0.78 22–24
1.13 0.99 0.78 1.13 0.99 0.78 1.13 0.99 0.78 24–26 1.12 0.99 0.79 1.12 0.99
0.79 1.12 0.99 0.79 26–28 1.11 0.99 0.80 1.11 0.99 0.80 1.11 0.99 0.80 28–30
1.11 0.99 0.81 1.11 0.99 0.81 1.11 0.99 0.81 30–32 1.10 1.01 0.81 1.10 1.01
0.81 1.10 1.01 0.81 32–34 1.10 1.01 0.82 1.10 1.01 0.82 1.10 1.01 0.82 34–36
1.09 1.01 0.82 1.09 1.01 0.82 1.09 1.01 0.82 36–38 1.09 1.01 0.83 1.09 1.01
0.83 1.09 1.01 0.83 38–40 1.10 1.01 0.83 1.10 1.01 0.83 1.10 1.01 0.83 40–43
1.08 1.01 0.84 1.08 1.01 0.84 1.08 1.01 0.84 43–46 1.07 1.01 0.85 1.07 1.01
0.85 1.07 1.01 0.85 46–50 1.07 1.01 0.85 1.07 1.01 0.85 1.07 1.01 0.85 50–55
1.06 0.99 0.86 1.06 0.99 0.86 1.06 0.99 0.86 55–60 1.05 0.99 0.88 1.05 0.99
0.88 1.05 0.99 0.88 60–70 1.05 0.99 0.88 1.05 0.99 0.88 1.05 0.99 0.88 70–100
1.03 1.00 0.92 1.03 1.00 0.92 1.03 1.00 0.92 100–130 1.03 1.00 0.92

Multiplicative scaling factors to obtain the differential cross sections for
different polarization scenarios ($\lambda_{\theta}^{\mathrm{HX}}=+1,k,-1$)
from the unpolarized cross section measurements given in Table .8. The
parameter $k$ corresponds to a linear interpolation of the CMS measured value
of $\lambda_{\theta}^{\mathrm{HX}}$ [32] as a function of for $\pt<50$. For
$\pt>50$, where no measurements of $\lambda_{\theta}^{\mathrm{HX}}$ exist, $k$
is taken as the average of all the measured values of
$\lambda_{\theta}^{\mathrm{HX}}$ for $\pt<50$.  $\abs{y}<0.6$
$0.6<\abs{y}<1.2$ $\abs{y}<1.2$ [] $\lambda_{\theta}=+1$ $\lambda_{\theta}=k$
$\lambda_{\theta}=-1$ $\lambda_{\theta}=+1$ $\lambda_{\theta}=k$
$\lambda_{\theta}=-1$ $\lambda_{\theta}=+1$ $\lambda_{\theta}=k$
$\lambda_{\theta}=-1$ 20–22 1.14 1.03 0.78 1.14 1.03 0.78 1.14 1.03 0.78 22–24
1.13 1.03 0.79 1.13 1.03 0.79 1.13 1.03 0.79 24–26 1.12 1.03 0.79 1.12 1.03
0.79 1.12 1.03 0.79 26–28 1.11 1.03 0.80 1.11 1.03 0.80 1.11 1.03 0.80 28–30
1.11 1.03 0.81 1.11 1.03 0.81 1.11 1.03 0.81 30–32 1.10 1.03 0.82 1.10 1.03
0.82 1.10 1.03 0.82 32–34 1.10 1.03 0.82 1.10 1.03 0.82 1.10 1.03 0.82 34–36
1.09 1.03 0.82 1.09 1.03 0.82 1.09 1.03 0.82 36–38 1.09 1.03 0.83 1.09 1.03
0.83 1.09 1.03 0.83 38–40 1.09 1.03 0.83 1.09 1.03 0.83 1.09 1.03 0.83 40–43
1.08 1.03 0.84 1.08 1.03 0.84 1.08 1.03 0.84 43–46 1.07 1.02 0.85 1.07 1.02
0.85 1.07 1.02 0.85 46–50 1.07 1.02 0.86 1.07 1.02 0.86 1.07 1.02 0.86 50–55
1.06 0.99 0.87 1.06 0.99 0.87 1.06 0.99 0.87 55–60 1.06 0.99 0.86 1.06 0.99
0.86 1.06 0.99 0.86 60–70 1.05 0.99 0.90 1.05 0.99 0.90 1.05 0.99 0.90 70–100
1.03 0.99 0.92 1.03 0.99 0.92 1.03 0.99 0.92 100–130 1.03 0.99 0.92

Multiplicative scaling factors to obtain the differential cross sections for
different polarization scenarios ($\lambda_{\theta}^{\mathrm{HX}}=+1,k,-1$)
from the unpolarized cross section measurements given in Table .8. The
parameter $k$ corresponds to a linear interpolation of the CMS measured value
of $\lambda_{\theta}^{\mathrm{HX}}$ [32] as a function of for $\pt<50$. For
$\pt>50$, where no measurements of $\lambda_{\theta}^{\mathrm{HX}}$ exist, $k$
is taken as the average of all the measured values of
$\lambda_{\theta}^{\mathrm{HX}}$ for $\pt<50$, which are all consistent with a
single value.  $\abs{y}<0.6$ $0.6<\abs{y}<1.2$ $\abs{y}<1.2$ []
$\lambda_{\theta}=+1$ $\lambda_{\theta}=k$ $\lambda_{\theta}=-1$
$\lambda_{\theta}=+1$ $\lambda_{\theta}=k$ $\lambda_{\theta}=-1$
$\lambda_{\theta}=+1$ $\lambda_{\theta}=k$ $\lambda_{\theta}=-1$ 20–22 1.13
1.03 0.78 1.13 1.03 0.78 1.13 1.03 0.78 22–24 1.13 1.02 0.79 1.13 1.02 0.79
1.13 1.02 0.79 24–26 1.12 1.02 0.79 1.12 1.02 0.79 1.12 1.02 0.79 26–28 1.11
1.02 0.80 1.11 1.02 0.80 1.11 1.02 0.80 28–30 1.11 1.02 0.81 1.11 1.02 0.81
1.11 1.02 0.81 30–32 1.10 1.03 0.82 1.10 1.03 0.82 1.10 1.03 0.82 32–34 1.10
1.03 0.82 1.10 1.03 0.82 1.10 1.03 0.82 34–36 1.09 1.03 0.83 1.09 1.03 0.83
1.09 1.03 0.83 36–38 1.09 1.03 0.83 1.09 1.03 0.83 1.09 1.03 0.83 38–40 1.09
1.03 0.84 1.09 1.03 0.84 1.09 1.03 0.84 40–43 1.08 1.03 0.84 1.08 1.03 0.84
1.08 1.03 0.84 43–46 1.07 1.02 0.85 1.07 1.02 0.85 1.07 1.02 0.85 46–50 1.06
1.02 0.86 1.06 1.02 0.86 1.06 1.02 0.86 50–55 1.06 0.99 0.87 1.06 0.99 0.87
1.06 0.99 0.87 55–60 1.06 0.99 0.87 1.06 0.99 0.87 1.06 0.99 0.87 60–70 1.05
0.99 0.89 1.05 0.99 0.89 1.05 0.99 0.89 70–100 1.03 0.99 0.92 1.03 0.99 0.92
1.03 0.99 0.92 100–130 1.03 0.99 0.92

Ratios of the differential cross sections times dimuon branching fractions of
the prompt to , to , and to mesons for $\abs{y}<1.2$, with their statistical
and systematic uncertainties in percent.  /  /  /  [] stat % syst % [] stat %
syst % stat % syst % 20–21 0.04 3 11 20–22 0.42 1.7 8.5 0.28 2.0 9.1 21–22
0.04 3 11 22–24 0.43 2.0 8.4 0.31 2.3 7.5 22–23 0.04 3 11 24–26 0.47 2.3 6.9
0.32 2.7 7.1 23–24 0.05 3 11 26–28 0.46 2.8 6.2 0.33 3.1 6.8 24–25 0.04 4 13
28–30 0.45 3.2 6.4 0.33 3.8 8.1 25–26 0.04 4 14 30–32 0.48 3.8 7.8 0.35 4.3
8.9 26–27 0.04 5 15 32–34 0.50 4.3 6.3 0.37 4.9 8.3 27–28 0.04 5 16 34–36 0.51
5.0 7.9 0.38 5.5 11 28–29 0.05 5 17 36–38 0.47 6.1 8.3 0.40 6.4 11 29–30 0.05
6 17 38–40 0.50 6.8 8.3 0.47 6.9 11 30–32 0.04 5 18 40–43 0.48 6.1 5.7 0.36
7.0 7.1 32–34 0.04 6 18 43–46 0.48 7.7 5.4 0.36 8.8 6.6 34–36 0.04 6 20 46–50
0.49 8.3 5.3 0.40 9.0 6.6 36–38 0.04 7 20 50–55 0.52 8.9 5.4 0.43 9.8 7.5
38–42 0.05 6 21 55–60 0.56 11 6.2 0.43 12 9.2 42–46 0.04 9 22 60–70 0.62 11
6.6 0.46 12 11 46–50 0.05 10 25 70–100 0.48 14 6.6 0.46 14 14 50–60 0.05 10 25
100–130 0.89 40 6.6 0.35 52 14 60–75 0.04 42 26 75–95 0.05 10 29 95–120 0.06
21 38 120–150 0.07 71 38

##  .9 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan Institut für Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, E. Asilar, T. Bergauer, J. Brandstetter, E. Brondolin, M.
Dragicevic, J. Erö, M. Flechl, M. Friedl, R. Frühwirth1, V.M. Ghete, J.
Grossmann, J. Hrubec, M. Jeitler1, A. König, N. Krammer, I. Krätschmer, D.
Liko, T. Madlener, I. Mikulec, E. Pree, D. Rabady, N. Rad, H. Rohringer, J.
Schieck1, R. Schöfbeck, M. Spanring, D. Spitzbart, W. Waltenberger, J.
Wittmann, C.-E. Wulz1, M. Zarucki Institute for Nuclear Problems, Minsk,
Belarus
V. Chekhovsky, V. Mossolov, J. Suarez Gonzalez Universiteit Antwerpen,
Antwerpen, Belgium
E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, J. Lauwers, 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, 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
H. Brun, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, H. Delannoy, G. Fasanella, L. Favart,
R. Goldouzian, A. Grebenyuk, G. Karapostoli, T. Lenzi, J. Luetic, T.
Maerschalk, A. Marinov, A. Randle-conde, T. Seva, C. Vander Velde, P. Vanlaer,
D. Vannerom, R. Yonamine, F. Zenoni, F. Zhang2 Ghent University, Ghent,
Belgium
A. Cimmino, T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, A. Fagot, M. Gul, I. Khvastunov, D. Poyraz,
C. Roskas, S. Salva, M. Tytgat, W. Verbeke, N. Zaganidis Université Catholique
de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
H. Bakhshiansohi, O. Bondu, S. Brochet, G. Bruno, C. Caputo, A. Caudron, S. De
Visscher, C. Delaere, M. Delcourt, B. Francois, A. Giammanco, A. Jafari, M.
Komm, G. Krintiras, V. Lemaitre, A. Magitteri, A. Mertens, M. Musich, K.
Piotrzkowski, L. Quertenmont, M. Vidal Marono, S. Wertz Université de Mons,
Mons, Belgium
N. Beliy Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
W.L. Aldá Júnior, F.L. Alves, G.A. Alves, L. Brito, M. Correa Martins Junior,
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, A. Custódio, E.M.
Da Costa, G.G. Da Silveira4, D. De Jesus Damiao, S. Fonseca De Souza, L.M.
Huertas Guativa, H. Malbouisson, M. Melo De Almeida, C. Mora Herrera, L.
Mundim, H. Nogima, A. Santoro, A. Sznajder, 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, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M. Gregoresb, P.G.
Mercadanteb, S.F. Novaesa, Sandra S. Padulaa, D. Romero Abadb, J.C. Ruiz
Vargasa Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy
of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, M. Misheva, M. Rodozov, M. Shopova,
S. Stoykova, G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Dimitrov, I. Glushkov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov Beihang University,
Beijing, China
W. Fang5, X. Gao5 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, S. Zhang, J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of
Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
Y. Ban, G. Chen, Q. Li, S. Liu, Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang, Z. Xu Universidad
de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, L.F. Chaparro Sierra, C. Florez, C.F. González
Hernández, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez University of Split, Faculty of Electrical
Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split, Croatia
B. Courbon, N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak, P.M. Ribeiro Cipriano, 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 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, S. Elgammal9, A. Mahrous10 National Institute of Chemical
Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
R.K. Dewanjee, M. Kadastik, L. Perrini, M. Raidal, A. Tiko, C. Veelken
Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
P. Eerola, J. Pekkanen, M. Voutilainen Helsinki Institute of Physics,
Helsinki, Finland
J. Härkönen, T. Järvinen, V. Karimäki, R. Kinnunen, T. Lampén, K. Lassila-
Perini, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, P. Luukka, E. Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi, E.
Tuovinen Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
J. Talvitie, 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, S. Ghosh, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry,
I. Kucher, E. Locci, M. Machet, 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. Abdulsalam, I. Antropov, S. Baffioni, F. Beaudette, P. Busson, L. Cadamuro,
C. Charlot, R. Granier de Cassagnac, M. Jo, S. Lisniak, A. Lobanov, J. Martin
Blanco, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, G. Ortona, P. Paganini, P. Pigard, S. Regnard,
R. Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A.G. Stahl Leiton, T. Strebler, Y. Yilmaz,
A. Zabi, A. Zghiche Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, F-67000
Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram11, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, J.-M. Brom, M. Buttignol, E.C. Chabert, N.
Chanon, C. Collard, E. Conte11, X. Coubez, J.-C. Fontaine11, D. Gelé, U.
Goerlach, M. Jansová, A.-C. Le Bihan, N. Tonon, P. Van Hove Centre de Calcul
de l’Institut National de Physique Nucleaire et de Physique des Particules,
CNRS/IN2P3, Villeurbanne, France
S. Gadrat Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3,
Institut de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, 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, M. Lethuillier, L. Mirabito, A.L. Pequegnot, S.
Perries, A. Popov12, V. Sordini, M. Vander Donckt, S. Viret Georgian Technical
University, Tbilisi, Georgia
A. Khvedelidze7 Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
I. Bagaturia13 RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen,
Germany
C. Autermann, S. Beranek, L. Feld, M.K. Kiesel, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, M.
Preuten, C. Schomakers, J. Schulz, T. Verlage, V. Zhukov12 RWTH Aachen
University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany
A. Albert, E. Dietz-Laursonn, D. Duchardt, M. Endres, M. Erdmann, S. Erdweg,
T. Esch, R. Fischer, A. Güth, M. Hamer, T. Hebbeker, C. Heidemann, K.
Hoepfner, S. Knutzen, M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, P. Millet, S. Mukherjee, M.
Olschewski, K. Padeken, T. Pook, M. Radziej, H. Reithler, M. Rieger, F.
Scheuch, D. Teyssier, S. Thüer RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches
Institut B, Aachen, Germany
G. Flügge, B. Kargoll, T. Kress, A. Künsken, J. Lingemann, T. Müller, A.
Nehrkorn, A. Nowack, C. Pistone, O. Pooth, A. Stahl14 Deutsches Elektronen-
Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
M. Aldaya Martin, T. Arndt, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, K. Beernaert, O. Behnke, U.
Behrens, A. Bermúdez Martínez, A.A. Bin Anuar, K. Borras15, V. Botta, A.
Campbell, P. Connor, C. Contreras-Campana, F. Costanza, C. Diez Pardos, G.
Eckerlin, D. Eckstein, T. Eichhorn, E. Eren, E. Gallo16, J. Garay Garcia, A.
Geiser, A. Gizhko, J.M. Grados Luyando, A. Grohsjean, P. Gunnellini, M.
Guthoff, A. Harb, J. Hauk, M. Hempel17, H. Jung, A. Kalogeropoulos, M.
Kasemann, J. Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, I. Korol, D. Krücker, W. Lange, A. Lelek,
T. Lenz, J. Leonard, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann17, R. Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann,
A.B. Meyer, G. Mittag, J. Mnich, A. Mussgiller, E. Ntomari, D. Pitzl, A.
Raspereza, B. Roland, M. Savitskyi, P. Saxena, R. Shevchenko, S. Spannagel, N.
Stefaniuk, G.P. Van Onsem, R. Walsh, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C. Wissing, O.
Zenaiev University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
S. Bein, 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, T. Lapsien, I. Marchesini, D. Marconi, M. Meyer, M.
Niedziela, D. Nowatschin, F. Pantaleo14, T. Peiffer, A. Perieanu, C. Scharf,
P. Schleper, A. Schmidt, S. Schumann, J. Schwandt, J. Sonneveld, H. Stadie, G.
Steinbrück, F.M. Stober, M. Stöver, H. Tholen, D. Troendle, E. Usai, L.
Vanelderen, A. Vanhoefer, B. Vormwald Institut für Experimentelle Kernphysik,
Karlsruhe, Germany
M. Akbiyik, C. Barth, S. Baur, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, F. Colombo, W.
De Boer, A. Dierlamm, B. Freund, R. Friese, M. Giffels, A. Gilbert, D. Haitz,
F. Hartmann14, S.M. Heindl, U. Husemann, F. Kassel14, 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, V.A. Giakoumopoulou, A. Kyriakis, D.
Loukas, I. Topsis-Giotis National and Kapodistrian University of Athens,
Athens, Greece
G. Karathanasis, S. Kesisoglou, A. Panagiotou, N. Saoulidou National Technical
University of Athens, Athens, Greece
K. Kousouris University of Ioánnina, Ioánnina, Greece
I. Evangelou, C. Foudas, P. Kokkas, S. Mallios, N. Manthos, I. Papadopoulos,
E. Paradas, J. Strologas, F.A. Triantis MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and
Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
M. Csanad, N. Filipovic, G. Pasztor, G.I. Veres18 Wigner Research Centre for
Physics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath19, Á. Hunyadi, F. Sikler, V. Veszpremi, A.J.
Zsigmond Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi20, A. Makovec, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi
Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
M. Bartók18, 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, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati21, S. Bhowmik, P. Mal, K. Mandal, A. Nayak22, D.K. Sahoo21, N.
Sahoo, S.K. Swain Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, R. Chawla, N. Dhingra, A.K. Kalsi, A.
Kaur, M. Kaur, R. Kumar, P. Kumari, A. Mehta, J.B. Singh, G. Walia University
of Delhi, Delhi, India
Ashok Kumar, Aashaq Shah, A. Bhardwaj, S. Chauhan, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg,
S. Keshri, A. Kumar, S. Malhotra, M. Naimuddin, K. Ranjan, R. Sharma Saha
Institute of Nuclear Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India
R. Bhardwaj, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, U. Bhawandeep, S. Dey, S. Dutt,
S. Dutta, S. Ghosh, N. Majumdar, A. Modak, K. Mondal, S. Mukhopadhyay, S.
Nandan, A. Purohit, A. Roy, D. Roy, S. Roy Chowdhury, S. Sarkar, M. Sharan, S.
Thakur Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
R. Chudasama, D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, A.K. Mohanty14, P.K. Netrakanti,
L.M. Pant, P. Shukla, A. Topkar Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A,
Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, S. Dugad, B. Mahakud, S. Mitra, G.B. Mohanty, N. Sur, B. Sutar Tata
Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, P. Das, M. Guchait, Sa. Jain, S.
Kumar, M. Maity23, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, T. Sarkar23, N. Wickramage24
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. Chenarani25, E. Eskandari Tadavani, S.M. Etesami25, M. Khakzad, M.
Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri, S. Paktinat Mehdiabadi26, F. Rezaei
Hosseinabadi, B. Safarzadeh27, 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, F. Erricoa,b, L. Fiorea, 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,14, R. Vendittia, P. Verwilligena INFN Sezione di
Bologna a, Università di Bologna b, Bologna, Italy
G. Abbiendia, C. Battilanaa,b, D. Bonacorsia,b, S. Braibant-Giacomellia,b, R.
Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A. Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa, S.S. Chhibraa, G.
Codispotia,b, M. Cuffiania,b, G.M. Dallavallea, F. Fabbria, A. Fanfania,b, D.
Fasanellaa,b, P. Giacomellia, C. Grandia, L. Guiduccia,b, S. Marcellinia, G.
Masettia, A. Montanaria, 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, S. Costaa,b, A. Di Mattiaa, F. Giordanoa,b, 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, P. Lenzia,b, M. Meschinia, S. Paolettia, L.
Russoa,28, G. Sguazzonia, D. Stroma, L. Viliania,b,14 INFN Laboratori
Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, F. Fabbri, D. Piccolo, F. Primavera14 INFN Sezione di
Genova a, Università di Genova b, Genova, Italy
V. Calvellia,b, F. Ferroa, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia,b INFN Sezione di Milano-
Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, Italy
A. Benagliaa, L. Brianzaa,b, F. Brivioa,b, V. Cirioloa,b, 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, K.
Pauwelsa,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Pigazzinia,b,29, 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, S. Di Guidaa,d,14, F. Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa,b,
A.O.M. Iorioa,b, W.A. Khana, L. Listaa, S. Meolaa,d,14, P. Paoluccia,14, C.
Sciaccaa,b, F. Thyssena INFN Sezione di Padova a, Università di Padova b,
Padova, Italy, Università di Trento c, Trento, Italy
P. Azzia,14, N. Bacchettaa, L. Benatoa,b, D. Biselloa,b, A. Bolettia,b, R.
Carlina,b, A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveiraa,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, N. Pozzobona,b, P. Ronchesea,b, R. Rossina,b, F. Simonettoa,b,
E. Torassaa, S. Venturaa, P. Zottoa,b INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di
Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
A. Braghieria, A. Magnania,b, P. Montagnaa,b, S.P. Rattia,b, V. Rea, M.
Ressegotti, 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, R. Leonardia,b, E. Manonia, G.
Mantovania,b, V. Mariania,b, M. Menichellia, A. Rossia,b, A. Santocchiaa,b, D.
Spigaa INFN Sezione di Pisa a, Università di Pisa b, Scuola Normale Superiore
di Pisa c, Pisa, Italy
K. Androsova, P. Azzurria,14, G. Bagliesia, T. Boccalia, L. Borrello, R.
Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, G. Fedia, L. Gianninia,c, A.
Giassia, M.T. Grippoa,28, F. Ligabuea,c, T. Lomtadzea, E. Mancaa,c, G.
Mandorlia,c, L. Martinia,b, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, A. Rizzia,b, A. Savoy-
Navarroa,30, 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,14, E. Di
Marcoa,b, M. Diemoza, S. Gellia,b, E. Longoa,b, F. Margarolia,b, B.
Marzocchia,b, P. Meridiania, G. Organtinia,b, 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, M. Costaa,b, R. Covarellia,b, P. De
Remigisa, 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, F. Raveraa,b,
A. Romeroa,b, M. Ruspaa,c, R. Sacchia,b, K. Shchelinaa,b, V. Solaa, A.
Solanoa,b, A. Staianoa, P. Traczyka,b INFN Sezione di Trieste a, Università di
Trieste b, Trieste, Italy
S. Belfortea, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, G. Della Riccaa,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 Chonbuk National University, Jeonju, Korea
A. Lee Chonnam National University, Institute for Universe and Elementary
Particles, Kwangju, Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon, G. Oh Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, J. Goh, T.J. Kim Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, D. Gyun, S. Ha, B. Hong, Y. Jo, Y. Kim, K. Lee, K.S.
Lee, S. Lee, J. Lim, S.K. Park, Y. Roh 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
M. Choi, 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 Ali31, F. Mohamad Idris32, W.A.T. Wan
Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios
Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
Reyes-Almanza, R, Ramirez-Sanchez, G., Duran-Osuna, M. C., H. Castilla-Valdez,
E. De La Cruz-Burelo, I. Heredia-De La Cruz33, Rabadan-Trejo, R. I., R. Lopez-
Fernandez, J. Mejia Guisao, A. Sanchez-Hernandez, C.H. Zepeda Fernandez
Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City, Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, F. Vazquez Valencia Benemerita
Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
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
P.H. Butler National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam University, Islamabad,
Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M. Ahmad, 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. Zalewski Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty
of Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk34, 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
A. Baginyan, A. Golunov, I. Golutvin, A. Kamenev, V. Karjavin, I. Kashunin, V.
Korenkov, G. Kozlov, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev35,36, V. Palichik, V.
Perelygin, S. Shmatov, V. Smirnov, V. Trofimov, B.S. Yuldashev37, A. Zarubin
Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg), Russia
Y. Ivanov, V. Kim38, E. Kuznetsova39, P. Levchenko, V. Murzin, V. Oreshkin, I.
Smirnov, 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, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A. Zhokin Moscow
Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev, A. Bylinkin36 National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow
Engineering Physics Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
R. Chistov40, M. Danilov40, P. Parygin, D. Philippov, S. Polikarpov, E.
Tarkovskii P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin36, I. Dremin36, M. Kirakosyan36, A. Terkulov Skobeltsyn
Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow,
Russia
A. Baskakov, A. Belyaev, E. Boos, M. Dubinin41, L. Dudko, A. Ershov, A.
Gribushin, V. Klyukhin, O. Kodolova, I. Lokhtin, I. Miagkov, S. Obraztsov, S.
Petrushanko, V. Savrin, A. Snigirev Novosibirsk State University (NSU),
Novosibirsk, Russia
V. Blinov42, Y.Skovpen42, D. Shtol42 State Research Center of Russian
Federation, Institute for High Energy Physics, Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, S. Bitioukov, D. Elumakhov, V. Kachanov, A. Kalinin,
D. Konstantinov, V. Krychkine, V. Petrov, R. Ryutin, A. Sobol, S. Troshin, N.
Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and
Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic43, P. Cirkovic, D. Devetak, M. Dordevic, J. Milosevic, V. Rekovic
Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas
(CIEMAT), Madrid, Spain
J. Alcaraz Maestre, M. Barrio Luna, M. Cerrada, N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A.
Delgado Peris, A. Escalante Del Valle, C. Fernandez Bedoya, J.P. Fernández
Ramos, J. Flix, M.C. Fouz, P. Garcia-Abia, O. Gonzalez Lopez, S. Goy Lopez,
J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa, A. Pérez-Calero Yzquierdo, J. Puerta Pelayo, A.
Quintario Olmeda, I. Redondo, L. Romero, M.S. Soares, A. Álvarez Fernández
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
C. Albajar, J.F. de Trocóniz, M. Missiroli, D. Moran Universidad de Oviedo,
Oviedo, Spain
J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, 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, E. Curras, J. Duarte Campderros,
M. Fernandez, J. Garcia-Ferrero, G. Gomez, A. Lopez Virto, J. Marco, C.
Martinez Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del Arbol, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, T.
Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno, L. Scodellaro, N. Trevisani, I. Vila, R. Vilar
Cortabitarte CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
D. Abbaneo, E. Auffray, P. Baillon, A.H. Ball, D. Barney, M. Bianco, P. Bloch,
A. Bocci, C. Botta, T. Camporesi, R. Castello, M. Cepeda, G. Cerminara, E.
Chapon, Y. Chen, D. d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, V. Daponte, A. David, M. De
Gruttola, A. De Roeck, M. Dobson, B. Dorney, T. du Pree, M. Dünser, N. Dupont,
A. Elliott-Peisert, P. Everaerts, F. Fallavollita, G. Franzoni, J. Fulcher, W.
Funk, D. Gigi, K. Gill, F. Glege, D. Gulhan, P. Harris, J. Hegeman, V.
Innocente, P. Janot, O. Karacheban17, J. Kieseler, H. Kirschenmann, V. Knünz,
A. Kornmayer14, M.J. Kortelainen, M. Krammer1, C. Lange, P. Lecoq, C.
Lourenço, M.T. Lucchini, L. Malgeri, M. Mannelli, A. Martelli, F. Meijers,
J.A. Merlin, S. Mersi, E. Meschi, P. Milenovic44, F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, H.
Neugebauer, S. Orfanelli, L. Orsini, L. Pape, E. Perez, M. Peruzzi, A.
Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, A. Racz, T. Reis, G.
Rolandi45, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Seidel, M.
Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva, P. Sphicas46, A. Stakia, J. Steggemann, M.
Stoye, M. Tosi, D. Treille, A. Triossi, A. Tsirou, V. Veckalns47, M. Verweij,
W.D. Zeuner Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland
W. Bertl${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, L. Caminada48, 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
F. Bachmair, L. Bäni, P. Berger, L. Bianchini, B. Casal, G. Dissertori, M.
Dittmar, M. Donegà, C. Grab, C. Heidegger, D. Hits, J. Hoss, G. Kasieczka, T.
Klijnsma, W. Lustermann, B. Mangano, M. Marionneau, M.T. Meinhard, D. Meister,
F. Micheli, P. Musella, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, F. Pandolfi, J. Pata, F. Pauss, G.
Perrin, L. Perrozzi, M. Quittnat, M. Reichmann, 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. Amsler49, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, R. Del Burgo, S.
Donato, C. Galloni, T. Hreus, B. Kilminster, J. Ngadiuba, D. Pinna, G. Rauco,
P. Robmann, D. Salerno, C. Seitz, Y. Takahashi, A. Zucchetta National Central
University, Chung-Li, Taiwan
V. Candelise, T.H. Doan, Sh. Jain, R. Khurana, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A.
Pozdnyakov, S.S. Yu National Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
Arun Kumar, P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, F. Fiori, W.-S. Hou, Y.
Hsiung, Y.F. Liu, R.-S. Lu, E. Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen, J.f. Tsai
Chulalongkorn University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok,
Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, K. Kovitanggoon, G. Singh, N. Srimanobhas Çukurova University,
Physics Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
M.N. Bakirci50, F. Boran, S. Damarseckin, Z.S. Demiroglu, C. Dozen, I.
Dumanoglu, E. Eskut, S. Girgis, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, I. Hos51, E.E.
Kangal52, O. Kara, U. Kiminsu, M. Oglakci, G. Onengut53, K. Ozdemir54, S.
Ozturk50, H. Topakli50, S. Turkcapar, I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East
Technical University, Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey
B. Bilin, G. Karapinar55, K. Ocalan56, M. Yalvac, M. Zeyrek Bogazici
University, Istanbul, Turkey
E. Gülmez, M. Kaya57, O. Kaya58, S. Tekten, E.A. Yetkin59 Istanbul Technical
University, Istanbul, Turkey
M.N. Agaras, S. Atay, A. Cakir, K. Cankocak 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, P. Sorokin University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
R. Aggleton, F. Ball, L. Beck, J.J. Brooke, D. Burns, E. Clement, D. Cussans,
O. Davignon, H. Flacher, J. Goldstein, M. Grimes, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, J.
Jacob, L. Kreczko, C. Lucas, D.M. Newbold60, S. Paramesvaran, A. Poll, T.
Sakuma, S. Seif El Nasr-storey, D. Smith, V.J. Smith Rutherford Appleton
Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev61, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, L. Calligaris, D. Cieri, D.J.A.
Cockerill, J.A. Coughlan, K. Harder, S. Harper, E. Olaiya, D. Petyt, C.H.
Shepherd-Themistocleous, A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin, T. Williams Imperial College,
London, United Kingdom
G. Auzinger, R. Bainbridge, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A. Bundock, S. Casasso,
M. Citron, D. Colling, L. Corpe, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, A. De Wit, M. Della
Negra, R. Di Maria, A. Elwood, Y. Haddad, G. Hall, G. Iles, T. James, R. Lane,
C. Laner, L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, L. Mastrolorenzo, T. Matsushita,
J. Nash, A. Nikitenko6, V. Palladino, M. Pesaresi, D.M. Raymond, A. Richards,
A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A. Shtipliyski, S. Summers, A. Tapper, K. Uchida,
M. Vazquez Acosta62, T. Virdee14, N. Wardle, D. Winterbottom, J. Wright, S.C.
Zenz Brunel University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, I.D. Reid, P. Symonds, L.
Teodorescu, M. Turner 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, A. Avetisyan, T. Bose, D. Gastler, D. Rankin, C. Richardson, J.
Rohlf, L. Sulak, D. Zou Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, D. Cutts, A. Garabedian, J. Hakala, U. Heintz, J.M. Hogan, K.H.M.
Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, 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,
M. Gardner, W. Ko, R. Lander, C. Mclean, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, J. Pilot, S.
Shalhout, M. Shi, J. Smith, M. Squires, D. Stolp, K. Tos, M. Tripathi, Z. Wang
University of California, Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, C. Bravo, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, A. Florent, J. Hauser, M.
Ignatenko, N. Mccoll, D. Saltzberg, C. Schnaible, V. Valuev University of
California, Riverside, Riverside, USA
E. Bouvier, K. Burt, R. Clare, J. Ellison, J.W. Gary, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi,
G. Hanson, J. Heilman, P. Jandir, E. Kennedy, F. Lacroix, O.R. Long, M. Olmedo
Negrete, M.I. Paneva, A. Shrinivas, 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, B. Hashemi, A. Holzner,
D. Klein, G. Kole, V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, I. Macneill, M. Masciovecchio, D.
Olivito, S. Padhi, M. Pieri, M. Sani, V. Sharma, S. Simon, M. Tadel, A.
Vartak, S. Wasserbaech63, 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, A. Dishaw, V. Dutta,
M. Franco Sevilla, C. George, F. Golf, L. Gouskos, J. Gran, R. Heller, J.
Incandela, S.D. Mullin, A. Ovcharova, H. Qu, J. Richman, D. Stuart, I. Suarez,
J. Yoo California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
D. Anderson, J. Bendavid, A. Bornheim, J.M. Lawhorn, H.B. Newman, T. Nguyen,
C. Pena, M. Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, S. Xie, Z. Zhang, R.Y. Zhu Carnegie
Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
M.B. Andrews, T. Ferguson, T. Mudholkar, M. Paulini, J. Russ, M. Sun, H.
Vogel, I. Vorobiev, M. Weinberg University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, F. Jensen, A. Johnson, M. Krohn, S. Leontsinis, T.
Mulholland, K. Stenson, S.R. Wagner Cornell University, Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, J. Chaves, J. Chu, S. Dittmer, K. Mcdermott, N. Mirman, J.R.
Patterson, 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, 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, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, J. Hirschauer, Z. Hu, B. Jayatilaka, S.
Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, B. Klima, B. Kreis, S. Lammel, D. Lincoln,
R. Lipton, M. Liu, T. Liu, R. Lopes De Sá, J. Lykken, K. Maeshima, N. Magini,
J.M. Marraffino, S. Maruyama, D. Mason, P. McBride, P. Merkel, S. Mrenna, S.
Nahn, V. O’Dell, K. Pedro, O. Prokofyev, G. Rakness, L. Ristori, 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, I.K. Furic, J. Konigsberg, A. Korytov, K. Kotov,
P. Ma, K. Matchev, H. Mei, G. Mitselmakher, D. Rank, D. Sperka, N. Terentyev,
L. Thomas, J. Wang, S. Wang, J. Yelton Florida International University,
Miami, USA
Y.R. Joshi, S. Linn, P. Markowitz, J.L. Rodriguez 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, O.
Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, K. Jung, J. Kamin, I.D.
Sandoval Gonzalez, M.B. Tonjes, H. Trauger, N. Varelas, H. Wang, Z. Wu, J.
Zhang The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
B. Bilki64, W. Clarida, K. Dilsiz65, S. Durgut, R.P. Gandrajula, M.
Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko, J.-P. Merlo, H. Mermerkaya66, A. Mestvirishvili,
A. Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul67, Y. Onel, F. Ozok68, A. Penzo, C. Snyder,
E. Tiras, J. Wetzel, K. Yi Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
B. Blumenfeld, A. Cocoros, N. Eminizer, D. Fehling, L. Feng, A.V. Gritsan, P.
Maksimovic, J. Roskes, U. Sarica, M. Swartz, M. Xiao, C. You The University of
Kansas, Lawrence, USA
A. Al-bataineh, P. Baringer, A. Bean, S. Boren, J. Bowen, J. Castle, S.
Khalil, A. Kropivnitskaya, D. Majumder, W. Mcbrayer, M. Murray, C. Royon, S.
Sanders, E. Schmitz, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang Kansas State University,
Manhattan, USA
A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, Y. Maravin, A. Mohammadi, L.K. Saini, N. Skhirtladze, S.
Toda Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright University of Maryland, College Park, USA
C. Anelli, A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, B. Calvert, S.C. Eno, 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 Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, V. Azzolini, R. Barbieri, A. Baty, R. Bi, S. Brandt,
W. Busza, I.A. Cali, M. D’Alfonso, Z. Demiragli, G. Gomez Ceballos, M.
Goncharov, D. Hsu, Y. Iiyama, G.M. Innocenti, M. Klute, D. Kovalskyi, Y.S.
Lai, 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, J. Salfeld-
Nebgen, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Tatar, D. Velicanu, J. Wang, T.W. Wang, B.
Wyslouch 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
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, 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
M. Alyari, J. Dolen, A. Godshalk, C. Harrington, I. Iashvili, D. Nguyen, A.
Parker, S. Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani Northeastern University, Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, A. Hortiangtham, A. Massironi, D.M. Morse, D. Nash,
T. Orimoto, R. Teixeira De Lima, D. Trocino, D. Wood Northwestern University,
Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, O. Charaf, K.A. Hahn, N. Mucia, N. Odell, B. Pollack, M.H.
Schmitt, K. Sung, M. Trovato, M. Velasco University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame,
USA
N. Dev, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop, D.J. Karmgard, N. Kellams,
K. Lannon, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, F. Meng, C. Mueller, Y. Musienko35, M.
Planer, A. Reinsvold, R. Ruchti, G. Smith, S. Taroni, M. Wayne, 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, B. Liu, W. Luo, D. Puigh, B.L. Winer, H.W. Wulsin
Princeton University, Princeton, USA
S. Cooperstein, O. Driga, P. Elmer, J. Hardenbrook, P. Hebda, S. Higginbotham,
D. Lange, J. Luo, D. Marlow, K. Mei, I. Ojalvo, J. Olsen, C. Palmer, P.
Piroué, D. Stickland, C. Tully University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
A. Barker, V.E. Barnes, S. Das, S. Folgueras, L. Gutay, M.K. Jha, M. Jones,
A.W. Jung, A. Khatiwada, D.H. Miller, N. Neumeister, C.C. Peng, J.F. Schulte,
J. Sun, F. Wang, W. Xie Purdue University Northwest, Hammond, USA
T. Cheng, N. Parashar, J. Stupak Rice University, Houston, USA
A. Adair, B. Akgun, Z. Chen, K.M. Ecklund, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Guilbaud, W. Li,
B. Michlin, M. Northup, B.P. Padley, J. Roberts, J. Rorie, Z. Tu, J. Zabel
University of Rochester, Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, Y.t. Duh, T. Ferbel, M. Galanti, A.
Garcia-Bellido, J. Han, O. Hindrichs, A. Khukhunaishvili, K.H. Lo, P. Tan, M.
Verzetti The Rockefeller University, New York, USA
R. Ciesielski, K. Goulianos, C. Mesropian 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, M. Foerster, J. Heideman, G. Riley, K. Rose, S. Spanier, K.
Thapa Texas A&M University, College Station, USA
O. Bouhali69, A. Castaneda Hernandez69, A. Celik, M. Dalchenko, M. De Mattia,
A. Delgado, S. Dildick, R. Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T. Kamon70, R.
Mueller, Y. Pakhotin, R. Patel, A. Perloff, L. Perniè, D. Rathjens, A.
Safonov, A. Tatarinov, K.A. Ulmer Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, F. De Guio, P.R. Dudero, J. Faulkner, E. Gurpinar, S.
Kunori, K. Lamichhane, S.W. Lee, T. Libeiro, 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, 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, J. Sturdy, S. Zaleski University of Wisconsin -
Madison, Madison, WI, USA
M. Brodski, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, 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, G.A. Pierro, G. Polese, T. Ruggles, A. Savin, N. Smith,
W.H. Smith, D. Taylor, N. Woods †: Deceased
1: Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria
2: Also at State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking
University, Beijing, China
3: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
4: Also at Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, 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: Now at Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
11: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
12: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
13: Also at Ilia State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
14: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
15: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
16: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
17: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
18: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
19: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
20: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
21: Also at Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India
22: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
23: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
24: Also at University of Ruhuna, Matara, Sri Lanka
25: Also at Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
26: Also at Yazd University, Yazd, Iran
27: Also at Plasma Physics Research Center, Science and Research Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
28: Also at Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy
29: Also at INFN Sezione di Milano-Bicocca; Università di Milano-Bicocca,
Milano, Italy
30: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
31: Also at International Islamic University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
32: Also at Malaysian Nuclear Agency, MOSTI, Kajang, Malaysia
33: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico city, Mexico
34: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems,
Warsaw, Poland
35: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
36: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
37: Also at Institute of Nuclear Physics of the Uzbekistan Academy of
Sciences, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
38: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
39: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
40: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
41: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
42: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
43: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
44: Also at University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of
Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
45: Also at Scuola Normale e Sezione dell’INFN, Pisa, Italy
46: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
47: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
48: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
49: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics (SMI), Vienna,
Austria
50: Also at Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey
51: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey
52: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
53: Also at Cag University, Mersin, Turkey
54: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
55: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
56: Also at Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
57: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
58: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
59: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
60: Also at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
61: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
62: Also at Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, La Laguna, Spain
63: Also at Utah Valley University, Orem, USA
64: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey
65: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
66: Also at Erzincan University, Erzincan, Turkey
67: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
68: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
69: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
70: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea