SMP-16-017

$Revision:450777$
$HeadURL:svn+ssh://svn.cern.ch/reps/tdr2/papers/SMP-16-017/trunk/SMP-16-017.tex$
$Id:SMP-16-017.tex4507772018-03-1309:25:23Zasavin$

SMP-16-017

# Measurements of the $\Pp\Pp\to\Z\Z$ production cross section and the $\Z\to
4\ell$ branching fraction, and constraints on anomalous triple gauge couplings
at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$

CMS Collaboration

###### Abstract

Four-lepton production in proton-proton collisions,
$\Pp\Pp\to(\Z/\gamma^{*})(\Z/\gamma^{*})\to 4\ell$, where $\ell=\Pe$ or $\mu$,
is studied at a center-of-mass energy of 13with the CMS detector at the LHC.
The data sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 35.9. The ZZ
production cross section, $\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\Z\Z)=17.2\pm 0.5\stat\pm
0.7\syst\pm 0.4\thy\pm 0.4\lum\unit{pb}$, measured using events with two
opposite-sign, same-flavor lepton pairs produced in the mass region
$60<m_{\ell^{+}\ell^{-}}<120\GeV$, is consistent with standard model
predictions. Differential cross sections are measured and are well described
by the theoretical predictions. The Z boson branching fraction to four leptons
is measured to be $\mathcal{B}(\Z\to
4\ell)=4.83_{-0.22}^{+0.23}\stat_{-0.29}^{+0.32}\syst\pm 0.08\thy\pm
0.12\lum\times 10^{-6}$ for events with a four-lepton invariant mass in the
range $80<m_{4\ell}<100\GeV$ and a dilepton mass $m_{\ell\ell}>4\GeV$ for all
opposite-sign, same-flavor lepton pairs. The results agree with standard model
predictions. The invariant mass distribution of the four-lepton system is used
to set limits on anomalous ZZZ and ZZ$\gamma$ couplings at 95% confidence
level: $-0.0012<f_{4}^{\Z}<0.0010$, $-0.0010<f_{5}^{\Z}<0.0013$,
$-0.0012<f_{4}^{\gamma}<0.0013$, $-0.0012<f_{5}^{\gamma}<0.0013$.

##  0.1 Introduction

Measurements of diboson production at the CERN LHC allow precision tests of
the standard model (SM). In the SM, $\cPZ\cPZ$ production proceeds mainly
through quark-antiquark $t$\- and $u$-channel scattering diagrams. In
calculations at higher orders in quantum chromodynamics (QCD), gluon-gluon
fusion also contributes via box diagrams with quark loops. There are no tree-
level contributions to $\cPZ\cPZ$ production from triple gauge boson vertices
in the SM. Anomalous triple gauge couplings (aTGC) could be induced by new
physics models such as supersymmetry [1]. Nonzero aTGCs may be parametrized
using an effective Lagrangian as in Ref. [2]. In this formalism, two
$\PZ\PZ\PZ$ and two $\PZ\PZ\gamma$ couplings are allowed by electromagnetic
gauge invariance and Lorentz invariance for on-shell $\PZ$ bosons. These are
described by two CP-violating ($f_{4}^{\mathrm{V}}$) and two CP-conserving
($f_{5}^{\mathrm{V}}$) parameters, where ${\mathrm{V}}=\PZ$ or $\gamma$.

Previous measurements of the ZZ production cross section by the CMS
Collaboration were performed for pairs of on-shell $\PZ$ bosons, produced in
the dilepton mass range 60–120 [3, 4, 5, 6]. These measurements were made with
data sets corresponding to integrated luminosities of 5.1at $\sqrt{s}=7\TeV$
and 19.6at $\sqrt{s}=8\TeV$ in the $\cPZ\cPZ\to 2\ell 2\ell^{\prime\prime}$
and $\cPZ\cPZ\to 2\ell 2\nu$ decay channels, where $\ell=\Pe$ or $\Pgm$ and
$\ell^{\prime\prime}=\Pe,\Pgm$, or $\Pgt$, and with an integrated luminosity
of 2.6at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ in the $\cPZ\cPZ\to 2\ell 2\ell^{\prime}$ decay
channel, where $\ell^{\prime}=\Pe$ or $\Pgm$. All of them agree with SM
predictions. The ATLAS Collaboration produced similar results at $\sqrt{s}=7$,
8, and 13 [7, 8, 9, 10], which also agree with the SM. These measurements are
important for testing predictions that were recently made available at next-
to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) in QCD [11]. Comparing these predictions with
data at a range of center-of-mass energies provides information about the
electroweak gauge sector of the SM. Because the uncertainty of the CMS
measurement at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ [6] was dominated by the statistical
uncertainty of the observed data, repeating and extending the measurement with
a larger sample of proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ improves
the precision of the results.

The most stringent previous limits on $\cPZ\cPZ\PZ$ and $\cPZ\cPZ\gamma$ aTGCs
from CMS were set using the 7 and $8\TeV$ data samples:
$-0.0022<f_{4}^{\cPZ}<0.0026$, $-0.0023<f_{5}^{\cPZ}<0.0023$,
$-0.0029<f_{4}^{\gamma}<0.0026$, and $-0.0026<f_{5}^{\gamma}<0.0027$ at 95%
confidence level (CL) [5, 4]. Similar limits were obtained by the ATLAS
Collaboration [12], who also recently produced limits using $13\TeV$ data
[10].

Extending the dilepton mass range to lower values allows measurements of
$\left(\cPZ/\gamma^{\ast}\right)\left(\cPZ/\gamma^{\ast}\right)$ production,
where $\cPZ$ indicates an on-shell $\cPZ$ boson or an off-shell $\cPZ^{\ast}$
boson. The resulting sample includes Higgs boson events in the
$\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ^{\ast}\to 2\ell 2\ell^{\prime}$ channel, and rare decays of a
single $\cPZ$ boson to four leptons. The
$\cPZ\to\ell^{+}\ell^{-}\gamma^{\ast}\to 2\ell 2\ell^{\prime}$ decay was
studied in detail at LEP [13] and was observed in pp collisions by CMS [14, 6]
and ATLAS [15]. Although the branching fraction for this decay is orders of
magnitude smaller than that for the $\cPZ\to\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ decay, the
precisely known mass of the $\cPZ$ boson makes the four-lepton mode useful for
calibrating mass measurements of the nearby Higgs boson resonance.

This paper reports a study of four-lepton production ($\Pp\Pp\to 2\ell
2\ell^{\prime}$, where $2\ell$ and $2\ell^{\prime}$ indicate opposite-sign
pairs of electrons or muons) at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ with a data set
corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $35.9\pm 0.9$recorded in 2016.
Cross sections are measured for nonresonant production of pairs of $\cPZ$
bosons, $\Pp\Pp\to\cPZ\cPZ$, where both $\cPZ$ bosons are produced on-shell,
defined as the mass range 60–120, and resonant $\Pp\Pp\to\cPZ\to 4\ell$
production. Detailed discussion of resonant Higgs boson production decaying to
$\cPZ\cPZ^{\ast}$, is beyond the scope of this paper and may be found in Ref.
[16].

##  0.2 The CMS detector

A 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. [17].

The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6m
internal diameter, providing a magnetic field of 3.8T. Within the solenoid
volume are a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal
electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), and a brass and scintillator hadron
calorimeter, which provide coverage in pseudorapidity $\abs{\eta}<1.479$ in a
cylindrical barrel and $1.479<\abs{\eta}<3.0$ in two endcap regions. Forward
calorimeters extend the coverage provided by the barrel and endcap detectors
to $\abs{\eta}<5.0$. Muons are measured in gas-ionization detectors embedded
in the steel flux-return yoke outside the solenoid in the range
$\abs{\eta}<2.4$, with detection planes made using three technologies: drift
tubes, cathode strip chambers, and resistive plate chambers.

Electron momenta are estimated by combining energy measurements in the ECAL
with momentum measurements in the tracker. The momentum resolution for
electrons with transverse momentum $\pt\approx 45\GeV$ from $\Z\to\Pep\Pem$
decays ranges from 1.7% for nonshowering electrons in the barrel region to
4.5% for showering electrons in the endcaps [18]. Matching muons to tracks
identified in the silicon tracker results in a $\pt$ resolution for muons with
$20<\pt<100\GeV$ of 1.3–2.0% in the barrel and better than 6% in the endcaps.
The resolution in the barrel is better than 10% for muons with up to 1 [19].

##  0.3 Signal and background simulation

Signal events are generated with 2.0 [20, 21, 22, 23, 24] at next-to-leading
order (NLO) in QCD for quark-antiquark processes and leading order (LO) for
quark-gluon processes. This includes $\cPZ\cPZ$, $\cPZ\gamma^{\ast}$, $\cPZ$,
and $\gamma^{\ast}\gamma^{\ast}$ production with a constraint of
$m_{\ell\ell^{\prime}}>4\GeV$ applied to all pairs of oppositely charged
leptons at the generator level to avoid infrared divergences. The
$\Pg\Pg\to\cPZ\cPZ$ process is simulated at LO with v7.0 [25]. These samples
are scaled to correspond to cross sections calculated at NNLO in QCD for
$\cPq\cPaq\to\cPZ\cPZ$ [11] (a scaling $K$ factor of 1.1) and at NLO in QCD
for $\Pg\Pg\to\cPZ\cPZ$ [26] ($K$ factor of 1.7). The $\Pg\Pg\to\cPZ\cPZ$
process is calculated to $\mathcal{O}\left(\alpha_{s}^{3}\right)$, where
$\alpha_{s}$ is the strong coupling constant, while the other contributing
processes are calculated to $\mathcal{O}\left(\alpha_{s}^{2}\right)$; this
higher-order correction is included because the effect is known to be large
[26]. Electroweak $\cPZ\cPZ$ production in association with two jets is
generated with Phantom v1.2.8 [27].

A sample of Higgs boson events is produced in the gluon-gluon fusion process
at NLO with . The Higgs boson decay is modeled with jhugen 3.1.8 [28, 29, 30].
Its cross section is scaled to the NNLO prediction with a $K$ factor of 1.7
[26].

Samples for background processes containing four prompt leptons in the final
state, $\ttbar\cPZ$ and $\PW\PW\cPZ$ production, are produced with v2.3.3
[31]. The $\cPq\cPaq\to\PW\cPZ$ process is generated with .

Samples with aTGC contributions included are generated at LO with sherpa
v2.1.1 [32]. Distributions from the sherpa samples are normalized such that
the total yield of the SM sample is the same as that of the sample.

The v8.175 [33, 34, 23] package is used for parton showering, hadronization,
and the underlying event simulation, with parameters set by the CUETP8M1 tune
[35], for all samples except the samples generated with sherpa, which performs
these functions itself. The NNPDF 3.0 [36] set is used as the default set of
parton distribution functions (PDFs). For all simulated event samples, the
PDFs are calculated to the same order in QCD as the process in the sample.

The detector response is simulated using a detailed description of the CMS
detector implemented with the package [37]. The event reconstruction is
performed with the same algorithms used for data. The simulated samples
include additional interactions per bunch crossing, referred to as pileup. The
simulated events are weighted so that the pileup distribution matches the
data, with an average of about 27 interactions per bunch crossing.

##  0.4 Event reconstruction

All long-lived particles—electrons, muons, photons, and charged and neutral
hadrons—in each collision event are identified and reconstructed with the CMS
particle-flow (PF) algorithm [38] from a combination of the signals from all
subdetectors. Reconstructed electrons [18] and muons [19] are considered
candidates for inclusion in four-lepton final states if they have
$\pt^{\Pe}>7\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta^{\Pe}}<2.5$ or $\pt^{\Pgm}>5\GeV$ and
$\abs{\eta^{\Pgm}}<2.4$.

Lepton candidates are also required to originate from the event vertex,
defined as the reconstructed proton-proton interaction vertex with the largest
value of summed physics object $\pt^{2}$. The physics objects used in the
event vertex definition are the objects returned by a jet finding algorithm
[39, 40] applied to all charged tracks associated with the vertex, plus the
corresponding associated missing transverse momentum [41]. The distance of
closest approach between each lepton track and the event vertex is required to
be less than 0.5cm in the plane transverse to the beam axis, and less than 1cm
in the direction along the beam axis. Furthermore, the significance of the
three-dimensional impact parameter relative to the event vertex,
$\mathrm{SIP_{3D}}$, is required to satisfy
$\mathrm{SIP_{3D}}\equiv\abs{\mathrm{IP}/\sigma_{\mathrm{IP}}}<10$ for each
lepton, where $\mathrm{IP}$ is the distance of closest approach of each lepton
track to the event vertex and $\sigma_{\mathrm{IP}}$ is its associated
uncertainty.

Lepton candidates are required to be isolated from other particles in the
event. The relative isolation is defined as

$R_{\text{iso}}=\bigg{[}\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}\text{charged}\\\
\text{hadrons}\end{subarray}}\\!\\!\pt\,+\,\max\big{(}0,\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}\text{neutral}\\\
\text{hadrons}\end{subarray}}\\!\\!\pt\,+\,\sum_{\text{photons}}\\!\\!\pt\,-\,\pt^{\mathrm{PU}}\big{)}\bigg{]}\bigg{/}\pt^{\ell},$
(1)

where the sums run over the charged and neutral hadrons and photons identified
by the PF algorithm, in a cone defined by $\Delta
R\equiv\sqrt{\smash[b]{\left(\Delta\eta\right)^{2}+\left(\Delta\phi\right)^{2}}}<0.3$
around the lepton trajectory. Here $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle in radians.
To minimize the contribution of charged particles from pileup to the isolation
calculation, charged hadrons are included only if they originate from the
event vertex. The contribution of neutral particles from pileup is
$\pt^{\mathrm{PU}}$. For electrons, $\pt^{\mathrm{PU}}$ is evaluated with the
“jet area” method described in Ref. [42]; for muons, it is taken to be half
the sum of the $\pt$ of all charged particles in the cone originating from
pileup vertices. The factor one-half accounts for the expected ratio of
charged to neutral particle energy in hadronic interactions. A lepton is
considered isolated if $R_{\text{iso}}<0.35$.

The lepton reconstruction, identification, and isolation efficiencies are
measured with a “tag-and-probe” technique [43] applied to a sample of
$\cPZ\to\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ data events. The measurements are performed in
several bins of $\pt^{\ell}$ and $|\eta^{\ell}|$. The electron reconstruction
and selection efficiency in the ECAL barrel (endcaps) varies from about 85%
(77%) at $\PT^{\Pe}\approx 10\GeV$ to about 95% (89%) for $\PT^{\Pe}\geq
20\GeV$, while in the barrel-endcap transition region this efficiency is about
85% averaged over all electrons with $\pt^{\Pe}>7\GeV$. The muons are
reconstructed and identified with efficiencies above ${\sim}98\%$ within
$\abs{\eta^{\Pgm}}<2.4$.

##  0.5 Event selection

The primary triggers for this analysis require the presence of a pair of
loosely isolated leptons of the same or different flavors [44]. The highest
lepton must have $\pt^{\ell}>17\GeV$, and the subleading lepton must have
$\pt^{\Pe}>12\GeV$ if it is an electron or $\pt^{\Pgm}>8\GeV$ if it is a muon.
The tracks of the triggering leptons are required to originate within 2 mm of
each other in the plane transverse to the beam axis. Triggers requiring a
triplet of lower-leptons with no isolation criterion, or a single high-
electron or muon, are also used. An event is used if it passes any trigger
regardless of the decay channel. The total trigger efficiency for events
within the acceptance of this analysis is greater than 98%.

The four-lepton candidate selections are based on those used in Ref. [45]. A
signal event must contain at least two $\cPZ/\gamma^{\ast}$ candidates, each
formed from an oppositely charged pair of isolated electron candidates or muon
candidates. Among the four leptons, the highest lepton must have $\pt>20\GeV$,
and the second-highest lepton must have $\pt^{\Pe}>12\GeV$ if it is an
electron or $\pt^{\Pgm}>10\GeV$ if it is a muon. All leptons are required to
be separated from each other by $\Delta R\left(\ell_{1},\ell_{2}\right)>0.02$,
and electrons are required to be separated from muons by $\Delta
R\left(\Pe,\mu\right)>0.05$.

Within each event, all permutations of leptons giving a valid pair of
$\cPZ/\gamma^{\ast}$ candidates are considered separately. Within each $4\ell$
candidate, the dilepton candidate with an invariant mass closest to 91.2,
taken as the nominal $\cPZ$ boson mass [46], is denoted $\cPZ_{1}$ and is
required to have a mass greater than 40. The other dilepton candidate is
denoted $\cPZ_{2}$. Both $m_{Z_{1}}$ and $m_{Z_{2}}$ are required to be less
than 120. All pairs of oppositely charged leptons in the $4\ell$ candidate are
required to have $m_{\ell\ell^{\prime}}>4\GeV$ regardless of their flavor.

If multiple $4\ell$ candidates within an event pass all selections, the one
with $m_{\cPZ_{1}}$ closest to the nominal $\cPZ$ boson mass is chosen. In the
rare case of further ambiguity, which may arise in less than 0.5% of events
when five or more passing lepton candidates are found, the $\cPZ_{2}$
candidate that maximizes the scalar $\pt$ sum of the four leptons is chosen.

Additional requirements are applied to select events for measurements of
specific processes. The $\Pp\Pp\to\cPZ\cPZ$ cross section is measured using
events where both $m_{\cPZ_{1}}$ and $m_{\cPZ_{2}}$ are greater than 60. The
$\cPZ\to 4\ell$ branching fraction is measured using events with
$80<m_{4\ell}<100\GeV$, a range chosen to retain most of the decays in the
resonance while removing most other processes with four-lepton final states.
Decays of the $\cPZ$ bosons to $\PGt$ leptons with subsequent decays to
electrons and muons are heavily suppressed by requirements on lepton $\pt$,
and the contribution of such events is less than 0.5% of the total $\cPZ\cPZ$
yield. If these events pass the selection requirements of the analysis, they
are considered signal, while they are not considered at generator level in the
cross section unfolding procedure. Thus, the correction for possible $\tau$
decays is included in the efficiency calculation.

##  0.6 Background estimate

The major background contributions arise from $\cPZ$ boson and $\PW\cPZ$
diboson production in association with jets and from production. In all these
cases, particles from jet fragmentation satisfy both lepton identification and
isolation criteria, and are thus misidentified as signal leptons.

The probability for such objects to be selected is measured from a sample of
$\cPZ+\ell_{\text{candidate}}$ events, where $\cPZ$ denotes a pair of
oppositely charged, same-flavor leptons that pass all analysis requirements
and satisfy $\abs{m_{\ell^{+}\ell^{-}}-m_{\cPZ}}<10\GeV$, where $m_{\cPZ}$ is
the nominal $\cPZ$ boson mass. Each event in this sample must have exactly one
additional object $\ell_{\text{candidate}}$ that passes relaxed identification
requirements with no isolation requirements applied. The misidentification
probability for each lepton flavor, measured in bins of lepton candidate $\pt$
and $\eta$, is defined as the ratio of the number of candidates that pass the
final isolation and identification requirements to the total number in the
sample. The number of $\cPZ+\ell_{\text{candidate}}$ events is corrected for
the contamination from $\PW\cPZ$ production and $\cPZ\cPZ$ production in which
one lepton is not reconstructed. These events have a third genuine, isolated
lepton that must be excluded from the misidentification probability
calculation. The WZ contamination is suppressed by requiring the missing
transverse momentum $\ptmiss$ to be below 25. The $\ptmiss$ is defined as the
magnitude of the missing transverse momentum vector $\ptvecmiss$, the
projection onto the plane transverse to the beams of the negative vector sum
of the momenta of all reconstructed PF candidates in the event, corrected for
the jet energy scale. Additionally, the transverse mass calculated with
$\ptvecmiss$ and the $\ptvec$ of $\ell_{\text{candidate}}$,
$m_{\mathrm{T}}\equiv\sqrt{\smash[b]{(\pt^{\ell}+\ptmiss)^{2}-(\ptvec^{\kern
1.39998pt\ell}+\ptvecmiss)^{2}}}$, is required to be less than 30. The
residual contribution of $\PW\cPZ$ and $\cPZ\cPZ$ events, which may be up to a
few percent of the events with $\ell_{\text{candidate}}$ passing all selection
criteria, is estimated from simulation and subtracted.

To account for all sources of background events, two control samples are used
to estimate the number of background events in the signal regions. Both are
defined to contain events with a dilepton candidate satisfying all
requirements ($\cPZ_{1}$) and two additional lepton candidates
$\ell^{\prime+}\ell^{\prime-}$. In one control sample, enriched in $\PW\cPZ$
events, one $\ell^{\prime}$ candidate is required to satisfy the full
identification and isolation criteria and the other must fail the full
criteria and instead satisfy only the relaxed ones; in the other, enriched in
$\cPZ$+jets events, both $\ell^{\prime}$ candidates must satisfy the relaxed
criteria, but fail the full criteria. The additional leptons must have
opposite charge and the same flavor
($\Pe^{\pm}\Pe^{\mp},\Pgm^{\pm}\Pgm^{\mp}$). From this set of events, the
expected number of background events in the signal region, denoted
“$\cPZ+\text{X}$” in the figures, is obtained by scaling the number of
observed $\cPZ_{1}+\ell^{\prime+}\ell^{\prime-}$ events by the
misidentification probability for each lepton failing the selection. It is
found to be approximately 4% of the total expected yield. The procedure is
described in more detail in Ref. [45].

In addition to these nonprompt backgrounds, $\ttbar\cPZ$ and $\PW\PW\cPZ$
processes contribute a smaller number of events with four prompt leptons,
which is estimated from simulated samples to be around 1% of the expected
$\cPZ\cPZ\to 4\ell$ yield. In the $\cPZ\to 4\ell$ selection, the contribution
from these backgrounds is negligible. The total background contributions to
the $\cPZ\to 4\ell$ and $\cPZ\cPZ\to 4\ell$ signal regions are summarized in
Section 0.8.

##  0.7 Systematic uncertainties

The major sources of systematic uncertainty and their effect on the measured
cross sections are summarized in Table 0.7. In both data and simulated event
samples, trigger efficiencies are evaluated with a tag-and-probe technique.
The ratio of data to simulation is applied to simulated events, and the size
of the resulting change in expected yield is taken as the uncertainty in the
determination of the trigger efficiency. This uncertainty is around 2% of the
final estimated yield. For $\cPZ\to 4\Pe$ events, the uncertainty increases to
4%.

The contributions of each source of systematic uncertainty in the cross
section measurements. The integrated luminosity uncertainty, and the PDF and
scale uncertainties, are considered separately. All other uncertainties are
added in quadrature into a single systematic uncertainty. Uncertainties that
vary by decay channel are listed as a range.  Uncertainty $\cPZ\to 4\ell$
$\cPZ\cPZ\to 4\ell$ Lepton efficiency 6–10% 2–6% Trigger efficiency 2–4% 2%
Statistical (simulation) 1–2% 0.5% Background 0.6–1.3% 0.5–1% Pileup 1–2% 1%
PDF 1% 1% $\mu_{\mathrm{R}}$, $\mu_{\mathrm{F}}$ 1% 1% Integrated luminosity
2.5% 2.5%

The lepton identification, isolation, and track reconstruction efficiencies in
simulation are corrected with scaling factors derived with a tag-and-probe
method and applied as a function of lepton $\pt$ and $\eta$. To estimate the
uncertainties associated with the tag-and-probe technique, the total yield is
recomputed with the scaling factors varied up and down by the tag-and-probe
fit uncertainties. The uncertainties associated with lepton efficiency in the
$\cPZ\cPZ\to 4\ell$ ($\cPZ\to 4\ell$) signal regions are found to be 6(10)% in
the $4\Pe$, 3(6)% in the $2\Pe 2\mu$, and 2(7)% in the $4\mu$ final states.
These uncertainties are higher for $\cPZ\to 4\ell$ events because the leptons
generally have lower , and the samples used in the tag-and-probe method have
fewer events and more contamination from nonprompt leptons in this low-region.

Uncertainties due to the effect of factorization ($\mu_{\mathrm{F}}$) and
renormalization ($\mu_{\mathrm{R}}$) scale choices on the $\cPZ\cPZ\to 4\ell$
acceptance are evaluated with and by varying the scales up and down by a
factor of two with respect to the default values
$\mu_{\mathrm{F}}=\mu_{\mathrm{R}}=m_{\cPZ\cPZ}$. All combinations are
considered except those in which $\mu_{\mathrm{F}}$ and $\mu_{\mathrm{R}}$
differ by a factor of four. Parametric uncertainties (PDF$+\alpha_{s}$) are
evaluated according to the pdf4lhc prescription [47] in the acceptance
calculation, and with NNPDF3.0 in the cross section calculations. An
additional theoretical uncertainty arises from scaling the
$\cPq\cPaq\to\cPZ\cPZ$ simulated sample from its NLO cross section to the NNLO
prediction, and the $\Pg\Pg\to\cPZ\cPZ$ samples from their LO cross sections
to the NLO predictions. The change in the acceptance corresponding to this
scaling procedure is found to be 1.1%. All these theoretical uncertainties are
added in quadrature.

The largest uncertainty in the estimated background yield arises from
differences in sample composition between the $\cPZ+\ell_{\text{candidate}}$
control sample used to calculate the lepton misidentification probability and
the $\cPZ+\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ control sample. A further uncertainty arises from
the limited number of events in the $\cPZ+\ell_{\text{candidate}}$ sample. A
systematic uncertainty of 40% is applied to the lepton misidentification
probability to cover both effects. The size of this uncertainty varies by
channel, but is less than 1% of the total expected yield.

The uncertainty in the integrated luminosity of the data sample is 2.5% [48].

##  0.8 Cross section measurements

The distributions of the four-lepton mass and the masses of the $\cPZ_{1}$ and
$\cPZ_{2}$ candidates are shown in Fig. 1. The expected distributions describe
the data well within uncertainties. The SM predictions include nonresonant
$\cPZ\cPZ$ predictions, production of the SM Higgs boson with mass 125 [49],
and resonant $\cPZ\to 4\ell$ production. The backgrounds estimated from data
and simulation are also shown. The reconstructed invariant mass of the
$\cPZ_{1}$ candidates, and a scatter plot showing the correlation between
$m_{\cPZ_{2}}$ and $m_{\cPZ_{1}}$ in data events, are shown in Fig. 2. In the
scatter plot, clusters of events corresponding to $\cPZ\cPZ\to 4\ell$,
$\cPZ\gamma^{\ast}\to 4\ell$, and $\cPZ\to 4\ell$ production can be seen.

Figure 1:  Distributions of (left) the four-lepton invariant mass $m_{4\ell}$
and (right) the dilepton invariant mass of all $\cPZ/\gamma^{\ast}$ bosons in
selected four-lepton events. Both selected dilepton candidates are included in
each event. In the $m_{4\ell}$ distribution, bin contents are normalized to a
bin width of 25; horizontal bars on the data points show the range of the
corresponding bin. Points represent the data, while filled histograms
represent the SM prediction and background estimate. Vertical bars on the data
points show their statistical uncertainty. Shaded grey regions around the
predicted yield represent combined statistical, systematic, theoretical, and
integrated luminosity uncertainties.

Figure 2:  (Left): the distribution of the reconstructed mass of $\cPZ_{1}$,
the dilepton candidate closer to the nominal boson mass. Points represent the
data, while filled histograms represent the SM prediction and background
estimate. Vertical bars on the data points show their statistical uncertainty.
Shaded grey regions around the predicted yield represent combined statistical,
systematic, theoretical, and integrated luminosity uncertainties. (Right): the
reconstructed $m_{\cPZ_{2}}$ plotted against the reconstructed $m_{\cPZ_{1}}$
in data events, with distinctive markers for each final state. For
readability, only every fourth event is plotted.

The four-lepton invariant mass distribution below 100is shown in Fig. 3
(left). Figure 3 (right) shows $m_{\cPZ_{2}}$ plotted against $m_{\cPZ_{1}}$
for events with $m_{4\ell}$ between 80 and 100, and the observed and expected
event yields in this mass region are given in Table 0.8. The yield of events
in the $4\Pe$ final state is significantly lower than in the $4\Pgm$ final
state because minimum $\pt$ thresholds are higher for electrons than for
muons, and inefficiencies in the detection of low-$\pt$ leptons affect
electrons more strongly than they affect muons.

Figure 3:  (Left): the distribution of the reconstructed four-lepton mass
$m_{4\ell}$ for events selected with $80<m_{4\ell}<100\GeV$. Points represent
the data, while filled histograms represent the SM prediction and background
estimate. Vertical bars on the data points show their statistical uncertainty.
Shaded grey regions around the predicted yield represent combined statistical,
systematic, theoretical, and integrated luminosity uncertainties. (Right): the
reconstructed $m_{\cPZ_{2}}$ plotted against the reconstructed $m_{\cPZ_{1}}$
for all data events selected with $m_{4\ell}$ between 80 and 100, with
distinctive markers for each final state.

The observed and expected yields of four-lepton events in the mass region
$80<m_{4\ell}<100\GeV$ and estimated yields of background events, shown for
each final state and summed in the total expected yield. The first uncertainty
is statistical, the second one is systematic. The systematic uncertainties do
not include the uncertainty in the integrated luminosity.  Final Expected
Background Total Observed state $N_{4\ell}$ expected $4\Pgm$ $224\pm 1\pm 16$
$7\pm 1\pm 2$ $231\pm 2\pm 17$ $225$ $2\Pe 2\Pgm$ $207\pm 1\pm 14$ $9\pm 1\pm
2$ $216\pm 2\pm 14$ $206$ $4\Pe$ $68\pm 1\pm 8$ $4\pm 1\pm 2$ $72\pm 1\pm 8$
$78$ Total $499\pm 2\pm 32$ $19\pm 2\pm 5$ $518\pm 3\pm 33$ $509$

The reconstructed four-lepton invariant mass is shown in Fig. 4 (left) for
events with two on-shell $\cPZ$ bosons. Figure 4 (right) shows the invariant
mass distribution for all $\cPZ$ boson candidates in these events. The
corresponding observed and expected yields are given in Table 0.8.

Figure 4:  Distributions of (left) the four-lepton invariant mass
$m_{\cPZ\cPZ}$ and (right) dilepton candidate mass for four-lepton events
selected with both $\cPZ$ bosons on-shell. Points represent the data, while
filled histograms represent the SM prediction and background estimate.
Vertical bars on the data points show their statistical uncertainty. Shaded
grey regions around the predicted yield represent combined statistical,
systematic, theoretical, and integrated luminosity uncertainties. In the
$m_{\cPZ\cPZ}$ distribution, bin contents are normalized to the bin widths,
using a unit bin size of 50; horizontal bars on the data points show the range
of the corresponding bin.

The observed and expected yields of $\cPZ\cPZ$ events, and estimated yields of
background events, shown for each final state and summed in the total expected
yield. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second one is systematic. The
systematic uncertainties do not include the uncertainty in the integrated
luminosity.  Decay Expected Background Total Observed channel $N_{4\ell}$
expected $4\Pgm$ $301\pm 2\pm 9$ $10\pm 1\pm 2$ $311\pm 2\pm 9$ $335$ $2\Pe
2\Pgm$ $503\pm 2\pm 19$ $31\pm 2\pm 4$ $534\pm 3\pm 20$ $543$ $4\Pe$ $205\pm
1\pm 12$ $20\pm 2\pm 2$ $225\pm 2\pm 13$ $220$ Total $1009\pm 3\pm 36$ $60\pm
3\pm 8$ $1070\pm 4\pm 37$ $1098$

The observed yields are used to evaluate the $\Pp\Pp\to\cPZ\to 4\ell$ and
$\Pp\Pp\to\cPZ\cPZ\to 4\ell$ production cross sections from a combined fit to
the number of observed events in all the final states. The likelihood is a
combination of individual channel likelihoods for the signal and background
hypotheses with the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the form of
scaling nuisance parameters. The fiducial cross section is measured by scaling
the cross section in the simulation by the ratio of the measured and predicted
event yields given by the fit.

The definitions for the fiducial phase spaces for the $\cPZ\to 4\ell$ and
$\cPZ\cPZ\to 4\ell$ cross section measurements are given in Table 0.8. In the
$\cPZ\cPZ\to 4\ell$ case, the $\cPZ$ bosons used in the fiducial definition
are built by pairing final-state leptons using the same algorithm as is used
to build $\cPZ$ boson candidates from reconstructed leptons. The generator-
level leptons used for the fiducial cross section calculation are “dressed” by
adding the momenta of generator-level photons within $\Delta
R\left(\ell,\gamma\right)<0.1$ to their momenta.

Fiducial definitions for the reported cross sections. The common requirements
are applied for both measurements.  Cross section measurement Fiducial
requirements Common requirements $\pt^{\ell_{1}}>20\GeV$,
$\pt^{\ell_{2}}>10\GeV$, $\pt^{\ell_{3,4}}>5\GeV$, $\abs{\eta^{\ell}}<2.5$,
$m_{\ell\ell}>4\GeV$ (any opposite-sign same-flavor pair) $\cPZ\to 4\ell$
$m_{\cPZ_{1}}>40\GeV$ $80<m_{4\ell}<100\GeV$ $\cPZ\cPZ\to 4\ell$
$60<\left(m_{\cPZ_{1}},m_{\cPZ_{2}}\right)<120\GeV$

The measured cross sections are

$\displaystyle\sigma_{\text{fid}}(\Pp\Pp\to\cPZ\to 4\ell)$
$\displaystyle=31.2_{-1.4}^{+1.5}\stat_{-1.9}^{+2.1}\syst\pm
0.8\lum\unit{fb},$ (2) $\displaystyle\sigma_{\text{fid}}(\Pp\Pp\to\cPZ\cPZ\to
4\ell)$ $\displaystyle=40.9\pm 1.3\stat\pm 1.4\syst\pm 1.0\lum\unit{fb}.$

The $\Pp\Pp\to\cPZ\to 4\ell$ fiducial cross section can be compared to
$27.9^{+1.0}_{-1.5}\pm 0.6\unit{fb}$ calculated at NLO in QCD with using the
same settings as used for the simulated sample described in Section 0.3, with
dynamic scales $\mu_{\mathrm{F}}=\mu_{\mathrm{R}}=m_{4\ell}$. The
uncertainties correspond to scale and PDF variations, respectively. The
$\cPZ\cPZ$ fiducial cross section can be compared to $34.4^{+0.7}_{-0.6}\pm
0.5\unit{fb}$ calculated with and using the same settings as the simulated
samples, or to $36.0_{-0.8}^{+0.9}$ computed with matrix at NNLO. The and
matrix calculations used dynamic scales
$\mu_{\mathrm{F}}=\mu_{\mathrm{R}}=m_{4\ell}$, while the contribution from was
computed with dynamic scales $\mu_{\mathrm{F}}=\mu_{\mathrm{R}}=0.5m_{4\ell}$.

The $\Pp\Pp\to\cPZ\to 4\ell$ fiducial cross section is scaled to
$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\cPZ)\mathcal{B}(\cPZ\to 4\ell)$ using the acceptance
correction factor $\mathcal{A}=0.125\pm 0.002$, estimated with . This factor
corrects the fiducial $\cPZ\to 4\ell$ cross section to the phase space with
only the 80–100mass window and $m_{\ell^{+}\ell^{-}}>4\GeV$ requirements, and
also includes a correction, $0.96\pm 0.01$, for the contribution of
nonresonant four-lepton production to the signal region. The uncertainty takes
into account the interference between doubly- and singly-resonant diagrams.
The measured cross section is

$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\cPZ)\mathcal{B}(\cPZ\to 4\ell)=249\pm
11\stat_{-15}^{+16}\syst\pm 4\thy\pm 6\lum\unit{fb}.$ (3)

The branching fraction for the $\cPZ\to 4\ell$ decay, $\mathcal{B}(\cPZ\to
4\ell)$, is measured by comparing the cross section given by Eq. (3) with the
$\cPZ\to\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ cross section, and is computed as

$\mathcal{B}(\cPZ\to 4\ell)=\frac{\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\cPZ\to
4\ell)}{\mathcal{C}^{\text{60--120}}_{\text{80--
100}}\,\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\cPZ\to\ell^{+}\ell^{-})/\mathcal{B}(\cPZ\to\ell^{+}\ell^{-})},$
(4)

where $\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\cPZ\to\ell^{+}\ell^{-})=1870_{-40}^{+50}\unit{pb}$ is
the $\cPZ\to\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ cross section times branching fraction
calculated at NNLO with fewz v2.0 [50] in the mass range 60–120. Its
uncertainty includes PDF uncertainties and uncertainties in $\alpha_{s}$, the
charm and bottom quark masses, and the effect of neglected higher-order
corrections to the calculation. The factor $\mathcal{C}^{\text{60--
120}}_{\text{80--100}}=0.926\pm 0.001$ corrects for the difference in $\cPZ$
boson mass windows and is estimated using . Its uncertainty includes scale and
PDF variations. The nominal $\cPZ$ to dilepton branching fraction
$\mathcal{B}(\cPZ\to\ell^{+}\ell^{-})$ is 0.03366 [46]. The measured value is

$\mathcal{B}(\cPZ\to 4\ell)=4.83_{-0.22}^{+0.23}\stat_{-0.29}^{+0.32}\syst\pm
0.08\thy\pm 0.12\lum\times 10^{-6},$ (5)

where the theoretical uncertainty includes the uncertainties in
$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\cPZ)\mathcal{B}(\cPZ\to\ell^{+}\ell^{-})$,
$\mathcal{C}^{\text{60--120}}_{\text{80--100}}$, and $\mathcal{A}$. This can
be compared with $4.6\times 10^{-6}$, computed with , and is consistent with
the CMS and ATLAS measurements at $\sqrt{s}=7,8,$ and 13 [14, 15, 6].

The total $\cPZ\cPZ$ production cross section for both dileptons produced in
the mass range 60–120and $m_{\ell^{+}\ell^{\prime-}}>4\GeV$ is found to be

$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\cPZ\cPZ)=17.5_{-0.5}^{+0.6}\stat\pm 0.6\syst\pm 0.4\thy\pm
0.4\lum\unit{pb}.$ (6)

The measured total cross section can be compared to the theoretical value of
$14.5^{+0.5}_{-0.4}\pm 0.2\unit{pb}$ calculated with a combination of and with
the same settings as described for $\sigma_{\text{fid}}(\Pp\Pp\to\cPZ\cPZ\to
4\ell)$. It can also be compared to $16.2^{+0.6}_{-0.4}$pb, calculated at NNLO
in QCD via matrix v1.0.0_beta4 [11, 51], or $15.0^{+0.7}_{-0.6}\pm 0.2$pb,
calculated with at NLO in QCD with additional contributions from LO
$\Pg\Pg\to\cPZ\cPZ$ diagrams. Both values are calculated with the NNPDF3.0 PDF
sets, at NNLO and NLO, respectively, and fixed scales set to
$\mu_{\mathrm{F}}=\mu_{\mathrm{R}}=m_{\cPZ}$.

This measurement agrees with the previously published cross section measured
by CMS at 13 [6] based on a 2.6data sample collected in 2015:

$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\cPZ\cPZ)=14.6^{+1.9}_{-1.8}\stat_{-0.5}^{+0.3}\syst\pm
0.2\thy\pm 0.4\lum\unit{pb}.$ (7)

The two measurements can be combined to yield the “2015+2016 cross section”

$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\cPZ\cPZ)=17.2\pm 0.5\stat\pm 0.7\syst\pm 0.4\thy\pm
0.4\lum\unit{pb}.$ (8)

The combination was performed once considering the experimental uncertainties
to be fully correlated between the 2015 and 2016 data sets, and once
considering them to be fully uncorrelated. The results were averaged, and the
difference was added linearly to the systematic uncertainty in the combined
cross section.

The total $\cPZ\cPZ$ cross section is shown in Fig. 5 as a function of the
proton-proton center-of-mass energy. Results from CMS [3, 4] and ATLAS [7, 8,
10] are compared to predictions from matrix and with the NNPDF3.0 PDF sets and
fixed scales $\mu_{\mathrm{F}}=\mu_{\mathrm{R}}=m_{\cPZ}$. The matrix
prediction uses PDFs calculated at NNLO, while the prediction uses NLO PDFs.
The uncertainties are statistical (inner bars) and statistical and systematic
added in quadrature (outer bars). The band around the matrix predictions
reflects scale uncertainties, while the band around the predictions reflects
both scale and PDF uncertainties.

Figure 5:  The total ZZ cross section as a function of the proton-proton
center-of-mass energy. Results from the CMS and ATLAS experiments are compared
to predictions from matrix at NNLO in QCD, and at NLO in QCD. The prediction
also includes gluon-gluon initiated production at LO in QCD. Both predictions
use NNPDF3.0 PDF sets and fixed scales
$\mu_{\mathrm{F}}=\mu_{\mathrm{R}}=m_{\cPZ}$. Details of the calculations and
uncertainties are given in the text. The ATLAS measurements were performed
with a $\cPZ$ boson mass window of 66–116, and are corrected for the resulting
1.6% difference. Measurements at the same center-of-mass energy are shifted
slightly along the horizontal axis for clarity.

The measurement of the differential cross sections provides detailed
information about $\cPZ\cPZ$ kinematics. The observed yields are unfolded
using the iterative technique described in Ref. [52]. Unfolding is performed
with the RooUnfold package [53] and regularized by stopping after four
iterations. Statistical uncertainties in the data distributions are propagated
through the unfolding process to give the statistical uncertainties on the
normalized differential cross sections.

The three decay channels, $4\Pe$, $4\Pgm$, and $2\Pe 2\Pgm$, are combined
after unfolding because no differences are expected in their kinematic
distributions. The generator-level leptons used for the unfolding are dressed
as in the fiducial cross section calculation.

The differential distributions normalized to the fiducial cross sections are
presented in Figs. 6–8 for the combination of the 4$\Pe$, 4$\Pgm$, and
2$\Pe$2$\Pgm$ decay channels. The fiducial cross section definition includes
$\pt^{\ell}$ and $\abs{\eta^{\ell}}$ selections on each lepton, and the
60–120mass requirement, as described in Table 0.8 and Section 0.4. Figure 6
shows the normalized differential cross sections as functions of the mass and
$\pt$ of the $\cPZ\cPZ$ system, Fig. 7 shows them as functions of the of all
bosons and the of the leading lepton in each event, and Fig. 8 shows the
angular correlations between the two $\cPZ$ bosons. The data are corrected for
background contributions and compared with the theoretical predictions from
and , and , and matrix. The bottom part of each plot shows the ratio of the
measured to the predicted values. The bin sizes are chosen according to the
resolution of the relevant variables, while also keeping the statistical
uncertainties at a similar level in all bins. The data are well reproduced by
the simulation except in the low $\pt$ regions, where data tend to have a
steeper slope than the prediction.

Figure 6:  Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross
section for the combined 4$\Pe$, 4$\Pgm$, and 2$\Pe$2$\Pgm$ decay channels as
a function of mass (left) and $\pt$ (right) of the $\cPZ\cPZ$ system. Points
represent the unfolded data; the solid, dashed, and dotted histograms
represent the +, +, and matrix predictions for $\PZ\PZ$ signal, respectively,
and the bands around the predictions reflect their combined statistical,
scale, and PDF uncertainties. v8 was used for parton showering, hadronization,
and underlying event simulation in the , , and samples. The lower part of each
plot represents the ratio of the measured cross section to the theoretical
distributions. The shaded grey areas around the points represent the sum in
quadrature of the statistical and systematic uncertainties, while the crosses
represent the statistical uncertainties only.

Figure 7:  Normalized $\cPZ\cPZ$ differential cross sections as a function of
the $\pt$ of (left) all $\cPZ$ bosons and (right) the leading lepton in
$\cPZ\cPZ$ events. Other details are as described in the caption of Fig. 6.

Figure 8:  Normalized $\cPZ\cPZ$ differential cross sections as a function of
(left) the azimuthal separation of the two $\cPZ$ bosons and (right) $\Delta
R$ between the $\cPZ$-bosons. Other details are as described in the caption of
Fig. 6.

Figure 9 shows the normalized differential four-lepton cross section as a
function of $m_{4\ell}$, subject only to the common requirements of Table 0.8.
This includes contributions from the and Higgs boson resonances and continuum
production.

Figure 9:  The normalized differential four-lepton cross section as a function
of the four-lepton mass, subject only to the common requirements of Table 0.8.
SM $\Pg\Pg\to\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ^{\ast}$ production is included, simulated with .
Other details are as described in the caption of Fig. 6.

##  0.9 Limits on anomalous triple gauge couplings

The presence of aTGCs would increase the yield of events at high four-lepton
masses. Figure 10 presents the distribution of the four-lepton reconstructed
mass of events with both bosons in the mass range 60–120for the combined
$4\Pe$, 4$\Pgm$, and $2\Pe 2\Pgm$ channels. This distribution is used to set
the limits on possible contributions from aTGCs. Two simulated samples with
nonzero aTGCs are shown as examples, along with the SM distribution simulated
by both and .

Figure 10:  Distribution of the four-lepton reconstructed mass for the
combined $4\Pe$, 4$\Pgm$, and $2\Pe 2\Pgm$ channels. Points represent the
data, the filled histograms represent the SM expected yield including signal
and irreducible background predictions from simulation and the data-driven
background estimate. Unfilled histograms represent examples of aTGC signal
predictions (dashed), and the SM prediction (solid), included to illustrate
the expected shape differences between the and predictions. Vertical bars on
the data points show their statistical uncertainty. The distributions are
normalized such that the SM sample has the same total yield as the sample
predicts. Bin contents are normalized to the bin widths, using a unit bin size
of 50; horizontal bars on the data points show the range of the corresponding
bin. The last bin includes the “overflow” contribution from events at masses
above 1.2.

The invariant mass distributions are interpolated from the simulations for
different values of the anomalous couplings in the range between 0 and 0.015.
For each distribution, only one or two couplings are varied while all others
are set to zero. The measured signal is obtained from a comparison of the data
to a grid of aTGC models in the $(f_{4}^{\cPZ},f_{4}^{\gamma})$ and
$(f_{5}^{\cPZ},f_{5}^{\gamma})$ parameter planes. Expected signal values are
interpolated between the 2D grid points using a second-degree polynomial,
since the cross section for the signal depends quadratically on the coupling
parameters. A binned profile likelihood method, Wald Gaussian approximation,
and Wilk’s theorem are used to derive one-dimensional limits at a 95%
confidence level (CL) on each of the four aTGC parameters, and two-dimensional
limits at a 95% CL on the pairs ($f_{4}^{\cPZ}$, $f_{4}^{\gamma}$) and
($f_{5}^{\cPZ}$, $f_{5}^{\gamma}$) [46, 54, 55]. When the limits are
calculated for each parameter or pair, all other parameters are set to their
SM values. The systematic uncertainties described in Section 0.7 are treated
as nuisance parameters with log-normal distributions. No form factor is used
when deriving the limits so that the results do not depend on any assumed
energy scale characterizing new physics. The constraints on anomalous
couplings are displayed in Fig. 11. The curves indicate 68 and 95% confidence
levels, and the solid dot shows the coordinates where the likelihood reaches
its maximum. Coupling values outside the contours are excluded at the
corresponding confidence levels. The limits are dominated by statistical
uncertainties.

Figure 11: Two-dimensional observed 95% CL limits (solid contour) and expected
68 and 95% CL limits (dashed contour) on the $\cPZ\cPZ\cPZ$ and
$\cPZ\cPZ\gamma$ aTGCs. The left (right) plot shows the exclusion contour in
the $f_{4(5)}^{\cPZ},f_{4(5)}^{\gamma}$ parameter planes. The values of
couplings outside of contours are excluded at the corresponding confidence
level. The solid dot is the point at which the likelihood is at its maximum.
The solid lines at the center show the observed one-dimensional 95% CL limits
for $f_{4,5}^{\gamma}$ (horizontal) and $f_{4,5}^{\cPZ}$ (vertical). No form
factor is used.

The observed one-dimensional 95% CL limits for the $f_{4}^{\cPZ,\gamma}$ and
$f_{5}^{\cPZ,\gamma}$ anomalous coupling parameters are:

$\displaystyle-0.0012<f_{4}^{\cPZ}<0.0010,\quad-0.0010<f_{5}^{\cPZ}<0.0013,$
(9)
$\displaystyle\quad-0.0012<f_{4}^{\gamma}<0.0013,\quad-0.0012<f_{5}^{\gamma}<0.0013.$

These are the most stringent limits to date on anomalous $\cPZ\cPZ\cPZ$ and
$\cPZ\cPZ\gamma$ trilinear gauge boson couplings, improving on the previous
strictest results from CMS [5] by factors of two or more and constraining the
coupling parameters more than the corresponding ATLAS results [10].

One way to impose unitarity on the aTGC models is to restrict the range of
four-lepton invariant mass used in the limit calculation. The limits will then
depend on the “cutoff” value used. The computation of the one-dimensional
limits is repeated for different maximum allowed values of $m_{4\ell}$, and
the results are presented in Fig. 12 as a function of this cutoff.

Figure 12:  Expected and observed one-dimensional limits on the four aTGC
parameters, as a function of an upper cutoff on the invariant mass of the
four-lepton system. No form factor is used.

##  0.10 Summary

A series of measurements of four-lepton final states in proton-proton
collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ have been performed with the CMS detector at
the CERN LHC. The measured $\Pp\Pp\to\cPZ\cPZ$ cross section is
$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\cPZ\cPZ)=17.2\pm 0.5\stat\pm 0.7\syst\pm 0.4\thy\pm
0.4\lum\unit{pb}$ for $\cPZ$ boson masses in the range $60<m_{\cPZ}<120\GeV$.
The measured branching fraction for $\cPZ$ boson decays to four leptons is
$\mathcal{B}(\cPZ\to 4\ell)=4.83_{-0.22}^{+0.23}\stat_{-0.29}^{+0.32}\syst\pm
0.08\thy\pm 0.12\lum\times 10^{-6}$ for four-lepton mass in the range
$80<m_{4\ell}<100\GeV$ and dilepton mass $m_{\ell\ell}>4\GeV$ for all
oppositely charged same-flavor lepton pairs. Normalized differential cross
sections were also measured. All results agree well with the SM predictions.
Improved limits on anomalous $\PZ\PZ\PZ$ and $\PZ\PZ\gamma$ triple gauge
couplings were established, the most stringent to date.

###### Acknowledgements.

We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the
excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative
staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the
success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the
computing centers and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for
delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our
analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction
and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following
funding agencies: BMWFW and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq,
CAPES, FAPERJ, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC
(China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RPF (Cyprus);
SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC IUT, and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of Finland,
MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF
(Germany); GSRT (Greece); 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. J. Gounaris, J. Layssac, and F. M. Renard, “New and standard physics contributions to anomalous and $\gamma$ self-couplings”,  Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 073013, 10.1103/PhysRevD.62.073013, arXiv:hep-ph/0003143.
  * [2] K. Hagiwara, R. D. Peccei, and D. Zeppenfeld, “Probing the weak boson sector in $\Pep\Pem\to\PWp\PWm$”,  Nucl. Phys. B 282 (1987) 253, 10.1016/0550-3213(87)90685-7.
  * [3] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the $\cPZ\cPZ$ production cross section and search for anomalous couplings in $2\ell 2\ell^{\prime}$ final states in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7\TeV$”,  JHEP 01 (2013) 063, 10.1007/JHEP01(2013)063, arXiv:1211.4890.
  * [4] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the $\Pp\Pp\to\cPZ\cPZ$ production cross section and constraints on anomalous triple gauge couplings in four-lepton final states at $\sqrt{s}=8\TeV$”,  Phys. Lett. B 740 (2015) 250, 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.11.059, arXiv:1406.0113. [Corrigenum: 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.04.010].
  * [5] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of the $\cPZ\cPZ$ production cross sections in the $2\ell 2\nu$ channel in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and $8\TeV$ and combined constraints on triple gauge couplings”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 511, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3706-0, arXiv:1503.05467.
  * [6] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the ZZ production cross section and $\cPZ\to\ell^{+}\ell^{-}\ell^{\prime+}\ell^{\prime-}$ branching fraction in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$”,  Phys. Lett. B 763 (2016) 280, 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.10.054, arXiv:1607.08834.
  * [7] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of $\cPZ\cPZ$ production in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7\TeV$ and limits on anomalous $\cPZ\cPZ\cPZ$ and $\cPZ\cPZ\gamma$ couplings with the ATLAS detector”,  JHEP 03 (2013) 128, 10.1007/JHEP03(2013)128, arXiv:1211.6096.
  * [8] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurements of four-lepton production in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8\TeV$ with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Lett. B 753 (2016) 552, 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.12.048, arXiv:1509.07844.
  * [9] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the $\cPZ\cPZ$ production cross section in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 101801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.101801, arXiv:1512.05314.
  * [10] ATLAS Collaboration, “$ZZ\to\ell^{+}\ell^{-}\ell^{\prime+}\ell^{\prime-}$ cross-section measurements and search for anomalous triple gauge couplings in 13 TeV $pp$ collisions with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 032005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.032005, arXiv:1709.07703.
  * [11] F. Cascioli et al., “$\cPZ\cPZ$ production at hadron colliders in NNLO QCD”,  Phys. Lett. B 735 (2014) 311, 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.06.056, arXiv:1405.2219.
  * [12] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the $\cPZ\cPZ$ production cross section in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8\TeV$ using the $\cPZ\cPZ\to\ell^{-}\ell^{+}\ell^{\prime-}\ell^{\prime+}$ and $\cPZ\cPZ\to\ell^{-}\ell^{+}\nu\bar{\nu}$ channels with the ATLAS detector”,  JHEP 01 (2017) 099, 10.1007/JHEP01(2017)099, arXiv:1610.07585.
  * [13] ALEPH Collaboration, “Study of the four fermion final state at the resonance”,  Z. Phys. C 66 (1995) 3, 10.1007/BF01496576.
  * [14] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of Z decays to four leptons with the CMS detector at the LHC”,  JHEP 12 (2012) 034, 10.1007/JHEP12(2012)034, arXiv:1210.3844.
  * [15] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurements of four-lepton production at the resonance in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8 with ATLAS”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 231806, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.231806, arXiv:1403.5657.
  * [16] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of properties of the Higgs boson decaying into the four-lepton final state in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  JHEP 11 (2017) 047, 10.1007/JHEP11(2017)047, arXiv:1706.09936.
  * [17] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [18] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8\TeV$”,  JINST 10 (2015) P06005, 10.1088/1748-0221/10/06/P06005, arXiv:1502.02701.
  * [19] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in $\Pp\Pp$ collision events at $\sqrt{s}=7\TeV$”,  JINST 7 (2012) P10002, 10.1088/1748-0221/7/10/P10002, arXiv:1206.4071.
  * [20] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “NLO vector-boson production matched with shower in POWHEG”,  JHEP 07 (2008) 060, 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/07/060, arXiv:0805.4802.
  * [21] P. Nason, “A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms”,  JHEP 11 (2004) 040, 10.1088/1126-6708/2004/11/040, arXiv:hep-ph/0409146.
  * [22] S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari, “Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method”,  JHEP 11 (2007) 070, 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070, arXiv:0709.2092.
  * [23] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX”,  JHEP 06 (2010) 043, 10.1007/JHEP06(2010)043, arXiv:1002.2581.
  * [24] T. Melia, P. Nason, R. Rontsch, and G. Zanderighi, “$\PW^{+}\PW^{-}$, $\PW\cPZ$ and $\cPZ\cPZ$ production in the POWHEG BOX”,  JHEP 11 (2011) 078, 10.1007/JHEP11(2011)078, arXiv:1107.5051.
  * [25] J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, “MCFM for the Tevatron and the LHC”,  Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 10 (2010) 205, 10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2010.08.011, arXiv:1007.3492.
  * [26] F. Caola, K. Melnikov, R. Röntsch, and L. Tancredi, “QCD corrections to $\cPZ\cPZ$ production in gluon fusion at the LHC”,  Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 094028, 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.094028, arXiv:1509.06734.
  * [27] A. Ballestrero et al., “PHANTOM: A Monte Carlo event generator for six parton final states at high energy colliders”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 180 (2009) 401, 10.1016/j.cpc.2008.10.005, arXiv:0801.3359.
  * [28] Y. Gao et al., “Spin determination of single-produced resonances at hadron colliders”,  Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 075022, 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.075022, arXiv:1001.3396.
  * [29] S. Bolognesi et al., “Spin and parity of a single-produced resonance at the LHC”,  Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 095031, 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.095031, arXiv:1208.4018.
  * [30] I. Anderson et al., “Constraining anomalous HVV interactions at proton and lepton colliders”,  Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 035007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.035007, arXiv:1309.4819.
  * [31] J. Alwall et al., “The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations”,  JHEP 07 (2014) 079, 10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079, arXiv:1405.0301.
  * [32] T. Gleisberg et al., “Event generation with SHERPA 1.1”,  JHEP 02 (2009) 007, 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/02/007, arXiv:0811.4622.
  * [33] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, “PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual”,  JHEP 05 (2006) 026, 10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/026, arXiv:hep-ph/0603175.
  * [34] T. Sjöstrand et al., “An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159, 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024, arXiv:1410.3012.
  * [35] CMS Collaboration, “Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 155, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3988-x, arXiv:1512.00815.
  * [36] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC run II”,  JHEP 04 (2015) 040, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040, arXiv:1410.8849.
  * [37] GEANT4 Collaboration, “GEANT4—a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [38] CMS Collaboration, “Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector”,  JINST 12 (2017) P10003, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/10/P10003, arXiv:1706.04965.
  * [39] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The Anti-$k_{t}$ jet clustering algorithm”,  JHEP 04 (2008) 063, 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063, arXiv:0802.1189.
  * [40] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “FastJet user manual”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1896, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2, arXiv:1111.6097.
  * [41] CMS Collaboration, “Technical proposal for the phase-II upgrade of the Compact Muon Solenoid”, CMS Technical proposal CERN-LHCC-2015-010, CMS-TDR-15-02, CERN, 2015.
  * [42] M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam, “Pileup subtraction using jet areas”,  Phys. Lett. B 659 (2008) 119, 10.1016/j.physletb.2007.09.077, arXiv:0707.1378.
  * [43] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inclusive and production cross sections in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7\TeV$”,  JHEP 10 (2011) 132, 10.1007/JHEP10(2011)132, arXiv:1107.4789.
  * [44] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [45] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the properties of a Higgs boson in the four-lepton final state”,  Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 092007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.092007, arXiv:1312.5353.
  * [46] Particle Data Group, C. Patrignani et al., “Review of particle physics”,  Chin. Phys C 40 (2016) 100001, 10.1088/1674-1137/40/10/100001.
  * [47] J. Butterworth et al., “PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II”,  J. Phys. G 43 (2016) 023001, 10.1088/0954-3899/43/2/023001, arXiv:1510.03865.
  * [48] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data taking period”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001, CERN, 2017.
  * [49] ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, “Combined measurement of the Higgs boson mass in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8 with the ATLAS and CMS experiments”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 191803, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191803, arXiv:1503.07589.
  * [50] R. Gavin, Y. Li, F. Petriello, and S. Quackenbush, “FEWZ 2.0: A code for hadronic production at next-to-next-to-leading order”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 182 (2011) 2388, 10.1016/j.cpc.2011.06.008, arXiv:1011.3540.
  * [51] M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, and D. Rathlev, “$\cPZ\cPZ$ production at the LHC: fiducial cross sections and distributions in NNLO QCD”,  Phys. Lett. B 750 (2015) 407, 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.09.055, arXiv:1507.06257.
  * [52] G. D’Agostini, “A multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes’ theorem”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 362 (1995) 487, 10.1016/0168-9002(95)00274-X.
  * [53] T. Adye, “Unfolding algorithms and tests using RooUnfold”, in  Proceedings, PHYSTAT 2011 Workshop on Statistical Issues Related to Discovery Claims in Search Experiments and Unfolding, H. Prosper and L. Lyons, eds., p. 313, CERN.  Geneva, Switzerland, 17–20 January, 2011.  arXiv:1105.1160.  10.5170/CERN-2011-006.313.
  * [54] S. S. Wilks, “The large-sample distribution of the likelihood ratio for testing composite hypotheses”,  Annals Math. Statist. 9 (1938) 60, 10.1214/aoms/1177732360.
  * [55] G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, “Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1554, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0, arXiv:1007.1727. [Erratum: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2501-z].

##  .11 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 of Bulgaria Academy
of Sciences
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, 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, M.A. Mahmoud10,9, A. Mahrous11 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. Agram12, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, J.-M. Brom, M. Buttignol, E.C. Chabert, N.
Chanon, C. Collard, E. Conte12, X. Coubez, J.-C. Fontaine12, 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. Popov13, V. Sordini, M. Vander Donckt, S. Viret Georgian Technical
University, Tbilisi, Georgia
A. Khvedelidze7 Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
Z. Tsamalaidze7 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 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, G.
Vesztergombi18, 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,b, 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, 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, M. Zanettia,b, 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, J. Bernardinia, 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, F. Cennaa,b, M. Costaa,b, R.
Covarellia,b, A. Deganoa,b, N. Demariaa, B. Kiania,b, C. Mariottia, S.
Masellia, E. Migliorea,b, V. Monacoa,b, E. Monteila,b, M. Montenoa, M.M.
Obertinoa,b, L. Pachera,b, N. Pastronea, M. Pelliccionia, G.L. Pinna
Angionia,b, 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 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
S. Afanasiev, P. Bunin, M. Gavrilenko, I. Golutvin, I. Gorbunov, A. Kamenev,
V. Karjavin, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev35,36, V. Palichik, V.
Perelygin, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, N. Skatchkov, V. Smirnov, N. Voytishin, A.
Zarubin Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg),
Russia
Y. Ivanov, V. Kim37, E. Kuznetsova38, 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
M. Chadeeva39, P. Parygin, D. Philippov, S. Polikarpov, E. Popova, V. Rusinov
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. Dubinin40, 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. Blinov41, Y.Skovpen41, D. Shtol41 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. Adzic42, 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, I. Suárez Andrés,
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. Milenovic43, 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, F. Riva,
G. Rolandi44, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Seidel, M.
Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva, P. Sphicas45, A. Stakia, J. Steggemann, M.
Stoye, M. Tosi, D. Treille, A. Triossi, A. Tsirou, V. Veckalns46, M. Verweij,
W.D. Zeuner Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland
W. Bertl${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, L. Caminada47, K. Deiters, W. Erdmann, R.
Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C. Kaestli, D. Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, T. Rohe,
S.A. Wiederkehr ETH Zurich - Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics
(IPA), Zurich, Switzerland
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. Amsler48, 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
F. Boran, S. Cerci49, S. Damarseckin, Z.S. Demiroglu, C. Dozen, I. Dumanoglu,
S. Girgis, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, I. Hos50, E.E. Kangal51, O. Kara, A. Kayis
Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, M. Oglakci, G. Onengut52, K. Ozdemir53, D. Sunar Cerci49,
B. Tali49, S. Turkcapar, I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East Technical
University, Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey
B. Bilin, G. Karapinar54, K. Ocalan55, M. Yalvac, M. Zeyrek Bogazici
University, Istanbul, Turkey
E. Gülmez, M. Kaya56, O. Kaya57, S. Tekten, E.A. Yetkin58 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. Newbold59, 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. Belyaev60, 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 Acosta61, 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, 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. Wasserbaech62, 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. Bilki63, W. Clarida, K. Dilsiz64, S. Durgut, R.P. Gandrajula, M.
Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko, J.-P. Merlo, H. Mermerkaya65, A. Mestvirishvili,
A. Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul66, Y. Onel, F. Ozok67, 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, R. Stringer, 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. Bouhali68, A. Castaneda Hernandez68, A. Celik, M. Dalchenko, M. De Mattia,
A. Delgado, S. Dildick, R. Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T. Kamon69, 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, 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: Also at Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt
11: Now at Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
12: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
13: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
14: Also at 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 St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
38: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
39: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
40: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
41: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
42: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
43: Also at University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of
Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
44: Also at Scuola Normale e Sezione dell’INFN, Pisa, Italy
45: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
46: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
47: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
48: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics (SMI), Vienna,
Austria
49: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
50: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey
51: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
52: Also at Cag University, Mersin, Turkey
53: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
54: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
55: Also at Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
56: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
57: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
58: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
59: Also at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
60: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
61: Also at Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, La Laguna, Spain
62: Also at Utah Valley University, Orem, USA
63: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey
64: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
65: Also at Erzincan University, Erzincan, Turkey
66: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
67: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
68: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
69: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea