HIN-19-008

HIN-19-008

# Measurement of prompt and meson azimuthal anisotropy and search for strong
electric fields in PbPb collisions at $\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$

###### Abstract

The strong Coulomb field created in ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions is
expected to produce a rapidity-dependent difference ($\Delta v_{2}$) in the
second Fourier coefficient of the azimuthal distribution (elliptic flow,
$v_{2}$) between ($\PAQu\PQc$) and ($\PQu\PAQc$) mesons. Motivated by the
search for evidence of this field, the CMS detector at the LHC is used to
perform the first measurement of $\Delta v_{2}$. The rapidity-averaged value
is found to be $\langle\Delta v_{2}\rangle=0.001\pm 0.001\stat\pm 0.003\syst$
in PbPb collisions at $\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$. In addition, the influence of the
collision geometry is explored by measuring the and mesons $v_{2}$ and
triangular flow coefficient ($v_{3}$) as functions of rapidity, transverse
momentum (), and event centrality (a measure of the overlap of the two Pb
nuclei). A clear centrality dependence of prompt meson $v_{2}$ values is
observed, while the $v_{3}$ is largely independent of centrality. These trends
are consistent with expectations of flow driven by the initial-state geometry.

##  0.1 Introduction

The observation of a strongly-coupled quark-gluon plasma (QGP), a state of
matter composed of deconfined quarks and gluons, was established by
experiments investigating ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions at the BNL
RHIC [1, 2, 3, 4] and CERN LHC [5, 6]. The azimuthal particle correlations
constitute an effective tool to probe the properties of the QGP [1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. These correlations are parameterized by a Fourier expansion
[10, 11, 12], with the magnitude of the Fourier coefficients,
$v_{\mathrm{n}}$, providing information about the initial collision geometry
and its fluctuations [12]. The second- ($v_{2}$) and third- ($v_{3}$) order
Fourier coefficients are referred to as “elliptic” and “triangular” flow
harmonics, respectively. Measuring these coefficients for particle species
with different quark composition provides additional information about this
hot and dense medium [13]. Because of their large mass, charm and bottom
quarks are produced earlier in the collisions than the light quarks (up and
down) [14, 15]. In addition, the charm and bottom quarks have masses many
times larger than the typical temperatures in the QGP [16]. These heavy quarks
experience the full evolution of the medium until the hadronization phase. As
a consequence, the $v_{\mathrm{n}}$ of charmed ($\PAQu\PQc$) and ($\PQu\PAQc$)
mesons (henceforth referred to as mesons, except where explicitly stated
otherwise) are expected to receive important contributions from medium energy
loss and coalescence effects [17, 18].

In ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions, very strong and transient
(${\sim}10^{-1}\unit{fm}/c$) magnetic and electric fields are expected to be
induced by the collision spectators and participants [19]. Such
electromagnetic (EM) fields are predicted to produce a difference in the
$v_{\mathrm{n}}$ harmonics for positively and negatively charged particles
[19]. In such a picture, the magnetic field is mainly responsible for
splitting the rapidity ($y$)-odd directed flow ($v_{1}$) [19, 20]. The
electric field is predicted to induce a charge-dependent splitting in the
$v_{2}$ coefficient and in the average transverse momentum
($\langle\pt\rangle$) values of the emitted particles [19]. As charm quarks
are expected to be created very early in the collision, they have a higher
probability of interacting with this strong EM field than the light flavor
quarks [20, 21].

In this letter, measurements of the $v_{2}$ and $v_{3}$ coefficients as
functions of meson rapidity, , and lead-lead (PbPb) collision centrality are
presented. The collision centrality bins are given in percentage ranges of the
total inelastic hadronic cross section, with the 0–10% centrality bin
corresponding to the 10% of collisions having the largest overlap of the two
nuclei. The flow harmonics are measured using the scalar product method [22,
23]. In this analysis, the selection of mesons uses multivariate methods [24]
for selecting candidates and their antiparticles. The contamination from
nonprompt candidates, arising from meson decay, is considered as a systematic
uncertainty. Using the data recorded in PbPb collisions during the 2018 LHC
run period, corresponding to $0.58\nbinv$ of integrated luminosity, the flow
coefficients are measured within the rapidity range $\abs{y}<2$, which is
twice as large as achieved in previous CMS measurements [25]. The extension of
the measurements to this larger rapidity range, together with smaller
statistical uncertainties provided by a larger data set, furnish important
inputs for a better understanding of the three-dimensional evolution of the
QGP formed in heavy ion collisions. Measurements of the $v_{2}$ difference
between and mesons, $\Delta v_{2}$, as a function of rapidity are presented as
a method to probe possible effects originating from the Coulomb fields.

##  0.2 Experimental apparatus and data sample

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, there are four primary subdetectors including a silicon pixel and
strip tracker detector, a lead tungstate crystal electromagnetic calorimeter,
and a brass and scintillator hadron calorimeter, each composed of a barrel and
two endcap sections. Iron and quartz-fiber Cherenkov hadron forward (HF)
calorimeters cover the pseudorapidity range $2.9<\abs{\eta}<5.2$. The HF
calorimeters are segmented to form $0.175{\times}0.175$
($\Delta\eta{\times}\Delta\phi$) towers. Muons are measured in gas-ionization
detectors embedded in the steel flux-return yoke outside the solenoid. The
silicon tracker measures charged particles within the range $\abs{\eta}<2.5$.
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. [26].

The analysis presented in this letter uses approximately $4.27\ten{9}$ minimum
bias (MB) PbPb collision events collected by the CMS experiment during the
2018 LHC run. The MB events are triggered by requiring signals in both forward
and backward sides of the HF calorimeters [27]. Further selections are applied
offline to reject events from background processes (beam-gas interactions and
nonhadronic collisions), see Ref. [28] for details. Events are required to
have at least one interaction vertex, reconstructed based on two tracks or
more, and with a distance of less than 15from the center of the nominal
interaction point along the beam axis. The primary interaction vertex is
defined as the one with the highest track multiplicity in the event. The
shapes of the clusters in the pixel detector have to be compatible with those
expected from particles produced at the primary vertex location. The PbPb
collision events are also required to have at least two calorimeter towers in
each HF detector with energy deposits of more than 4per tower. These criteria
select $(99\pm 2)\%$ of inelastic hadronic PbPb collisions. The possibility to
have values higher than 100% reflects the possible presence of ultra-
peripheral (nonhadronic) collisions in the selected event sample.

Events from Monte Carlo (MC) simulations are used to study both prompt and
nonprompt meson processes. The events are generated using an embedding
procedure, in which mesons generated by 8.212 [29] (tune CP5 [30]) are
embedded into MB events from 1.9 [31]. A full simulation of the CMS detector
is performed using [32]. The prompt meson MC simulation is employed to define
signal selections and measure efficiency corrections, while the nonprompt
meson MC sample is used to estimate systematic uncertainties coming from
nonprompt contamination.

##  0.3 Reconstruction and selection of mesons

Prompt mesons are reconstructed from the decay $\PDz\to\PGpp+\PKm$ and
$\PADz\to\PGpm+\PKp$ with a branching fraction of $(3.94\pm 0.04)\%$, using
selected tracks with $\pt>1.0\GeVc$ and within the acceptance of
$\abs{\eta}<2.4$. Candidates are formed by combining pairs of tracks from
oppositely charged particles and requiring an invariant mass
($m_{\text{inv}}$) within a ${\pm}200\MeVcc$ window of the world-average meson
mass of $(1864.83\pm 0.05)\MeVcc$ [33]. For each pair of selected tracks, two
possible candidates for and mesons are considered by assuming one of the
tracks has the pion mass, while the other track has the kaon mass, and vice
versa. Kinematic vertex fits are performed to reconstruct the secondary
vertices of candidate decays.

After the candidate reconstruction, a selection using a boosted decision tree
(BDT) algorithm from the tmva package [24] is employed. For the BDT training,
misidentified candidates in data events, where pion and kaon have the same
charge, are used to mimic the combinatorial background. The signal candidates
are taken from MC simulations of prompt mesons and are required to match
particles at the generator level. The variables related to mesons used to
discriminate the signal from the background are: $\chi^{2}$ probability for
the vertex fit, 3D distance between the secondary and primary vertices and its
significance, the decay length significance projected in the $xy$-plane, and
the angle in two and three dimensions between the momentum of the meson
candidate and the line connecting the primary and the secondary vertices
(pointing angle). Related to the decay products of the meson candidate, the
variables used are: the uncertainty in returned by the track fitting
procedure, the significance of the $z$ and the $xy$ distances of closest
approach to the primary vertex, and the number of hits in the tracker
detector. These variables are chosen by analyzing their BDT ranking (variables
more frequently used in the decision tree) and correlation matrix among all
variables. Different BDT boost algorithms are tested, choosing the adaptive
boost algorithm [24] as default. Overtraining checks are done for all analysis
bins by comparing the BDT distributions from training and testing meson
samples. In addition, a BDT cut optimization is performed in bins of
centrality, , and rapidity, doing a scan in different BDT scores and finding
the one resulting in maximal mesons signal significance for each analysis bin.
Compared to a cutoff-based procedure, this BDT selection almost doubles the
signal significance for mesons in $1<\abs{y}<2$, and increases the signal
significance by 30% for mesons in $\abs{y}<1$, for events with collision
centrality in the range 0–30%. For the remaining analysis bins a similar
performance of BDT and cutoff-based methods is observed.

##  0.4 Analysis technique

The elliptic and triangular flow coefficients of mesons are extracted using
the scalar product (SP) method, similarly to what was done in a previous CMS
publication [25]. In this method, the $v_{\mathrm{n}}$ coefficients of
candidates (including backgrounds) are measured using

$\centering v_{\mathrm{n}}\\{\mathrm{SP}\\}\equiv\frac{\langle
Q_{\mathrm{n}}^{\PDz}Q_{\mathrm{nA}}^{*}\rangle}{\sqrt{\smash[b]{\frac{\langle
Q_{\mathrm{nA}}Q_{\mathrm{nB}}^{*}\rangle\langle
Q_{\mathrm{nA}}Q_{\mathrm{nC}}^{*}\rangle}{\langle
Q_{\mathrm{nB}}Q_{\mathrm{nC}}^{*}\rangle}}}},\@add@centering$ (1)

with the $Q$-vectors expressed as
$Q_{\mathrm{n}}\equiv\sum_{\mathrm{j}=1}^{\mathrm{M}}w_{\mathrm{j}}e^{in\phi_{\mathrm{j}}}$,
where the sum is over the total number ($\mathrm{M}$) of HF towers above a
certain energy threshold (with the weights $w_{\mathrm{j}}$ taken as the
energy deposited in the HF tower at azimuthal angle $\phi_{\mathrm{j}}$), of
tracks with above a certain threshold (with $w_{\mathrm{j}}$ taken as track in
$\phi_{\mathrm{j}}$ angle), or of selected meson candidates (with
$w_{\mathrm{j}}$ taken equal to 1).

The $Q$-vectors related to HF and the tracker are measured and corrected for
detector irregularities by applying a flattening and a recentering procedure
[12, 34]. The $Q_{\mathrm{nA}}$ and $Q_{\mathrm{nB}}$ are defined using the
event-plane measurements from the negative ($-5<\eta<-3$, $\mathrm{HF-}$) and
the positive ($3<\eta<5$, $\mathrm{HF+}$) sides of HF, and $Q_{\mathrm{nC}}$
is measured using the tracker information in the region of $\abs{\eta}<0.75$,
allowing to minimize the correlations among the three regions, with a gap of
more than two units of rapidity. The $Q_{\mathrm{n}}^{\PDz}$ vector is defined
for each meson candidate. The averages $\langle
Q_{\mathrm{nA}}Q_{\mathrm{nB}}^{*}\rangle$, $\langle
Q_{\mathrm{nA}}Q_{\mathrm{nC}}^{*}\rangle$, and $\langle
Q_{\mathrm{nB}}Q_{\mathrm{nC}}^{*}\rangle$ are made considering all selected
events, while the average $\langle
Q_{\mathrm{n}}^{\PDz}Q_{\mathrm{nA}}^{*}\rangle$ is made considering all meson
candidates in all selected events. To avoid autocorrelations, the terms
$\langle Q_{\mathrm{n}}^{\PDz}Q_{\mathrm{nA}}^{*}\rangle$ and $\langle
Q_{\mathrm{nA}}Q_{\mathrm{nB}}^{*}\rangle$ use $\mathrm{A}=\mathrm{HF-}$
($\mathrm{HF+}$) when the meson candidate is at positive (negative)
pseudorapidity.

One goal of this analysis is to measure the difference ($\Delta
v_{\mathrm{n}}$) between and meson flow coefficients, $v_{\mathrm{n}}$, as a
function of rapidity, to probe effects from EM fields. The difference $\Delta
v_{\mathrm{n}}$ is measured as:

$\centering\Delta v_{\mathrm{n}}\\{\mathrm{SP}\\}\equiv\frac{\langle
Q_{\mathrm{n}}^{\PDz}Q_{\mathrm{nA}}^{*}\rangle-\langle
Q_{\mathrm{n}}^{\PADz}Q_{\mathrm{nA}}^{*}\rangle}{\sqrt{\smash[b]{\frac{\langle
Q_{\mathrm{nA}}Q_{\mathrm{nB}}^{*}\rangle\langle
Q_{\mathrm{nA}}Q_{\mathrm{nC}}^{*}\rangle}{\langle
Q_{\mathrm{nB}}Q_{\mathrm{nC}}^{*}\rangle}}}}.\@add@centering$ (2)

The $v_{\mathrm{n}}$ and $\Delta v_{\mathrm{n}}$ of meson candidates are first
measured as a function of their $m_{\text{inv}}$. The extraction of the mesons
signal $v_{\mathrm{n}}$ ($\Delta v_{\mathrm{n}}$),
$v_{\mathrm{n}}^{\text{sig}}$ ($\Delta v_{\mathrm{n}}^{\text{sig}}$), is
performed via a simultaneous binned $\chi^{2}$ fit of the $m_{\text{inv}}$
distribution and of $v_{\mathrm{n}}$ ($\Delta v_{\mathrm{n}}$). The
$m_{\text{inv}}$ distribution is fit with three components: a third-order
polynomial to model the combinatorial background, $B(m_{\text{inv}})$; two
Gaussians with the same mean but different widths to describe the
$m_{\text{inv}}$ in different kinematic regions for the mesons signal,
$S(m_{\text{inv}})$; and one additional Gaussian distribution for the swap
component corresponding to the incorrect mass assignment for the assumed pion
and kaon particles, $SW(m_{\text{inv}})$. The width of $SW(m_{\text{inv}})$
and the ratio between the yields of $SW(m_{\text{inv}})$ and
$S(m_{\text{inv}})$ are fixed by the values extracted from MC simulations. In
this case, the following expression can be used for extracting
$v_{\mathrm{n}}^{\text{sig}}$:

$v_{\mathrm{n}}^{\text{sig}+\text{bkg}}(m_{\text{inv}})=\alpha(m_{\text{inv}})v_{\mathrm{n}}^{\text{sig}}+[1-\alpha(m_{\text{inv}})]v_{\mathrm{n}}^{\text{bkg}}(m_{\text{inv}}).$
(3)

The $\alpha(m_{\text{inv}})$ parameter, which characterizes the signal
fraction as a function of mass, is defined as follows:

$\begin{split}\alpha(m_{\text{inv}})&=[S(m_{\text{inv}})+SW(m_{\text{inv}})]/[S(m_{\text{inv}})+SW(m_{\text{inv}})+B(m_{\text{inv}})]\\\
&=\alpha^{\text{signal}}(m_{\text{inv}})+\alpha^{\text{swap}}(m_{\text{inv}}).\end{split}$
(4)

For extracting the difference $\Delta v_{\mathrm{n}}^{\text{sig}}$, the
following expression is employed:

$\Delta v_{\mathrm{n}}^{\text{sig}+\text{bkg}}(m_{\text{inv}})=\Delta
v_{\mathrm{n}}^{\text{sig}}(\alpha^{\text{signal}}(m_{\text{inv}})-\alpha^{\text{swap}}(m_{\text{inv}}))+const.$
(5)

The term $v_{\mathrm{n}}^{\text{bkg}}(m_{\text{inv}})$ from Eq. (3) is modeled
with a linear function, while the constant parameter $const$ in Eq. (5) is
added to account for possible fluctuations in the background $v_{\mathrm{n}}$
component. The relevance of this $const$ parameter was investigated by redoing
$\Delta v_{\mathrm{n}}$ measurements in MC simulation (without azimuthal
correlations or effects from EM fields), indicating that this parameter
improves the fit quality and does not introduce artificial signals. A cross-
check is performed by redoing the measurements using a linear function instead
of a constant. No significant changes in the central values of $\Delta v_{2}$
and on their uncertainties are observed. Figure 1 shows an example of a
simultaneous fit for $v_{2}$ and $\Delta v_{2}$.

Figure 1: Simultaneous fit of the $\PGp\PK$ invariant mass (left) and $v_{2}$
($\Delta v_{2}$) as function of invariant mass (right) for $3.0<\pt<3.5\GeVc$,
centrality 20–70%, and $-0.6<y<0.0$.

After performing the fits for extracting the signal $v_{\mathrm{n}}$, there is
still a sizable fraction of nonprompt mesons embedded in
$v_{\mathrm{n}}^{\text{sig}}$. The extracted $v_{\mathrm{n}}$ can be written
as

$v_{\mathrm{n}}^{\text{sig}}=f_{\text{prompt}}v_{\mathrm{n}}^{\text{prompt}}+(1-f_{\text{prompt}})v_{\mathrm{n}}^{\text{nonprompt}}.$
(6)

The nonprompt meson contamination is taken into account as a systematic
uncertainty, by checking that the nonprompt meson fraction is always smaller
than 12% (i.e., comparable to the uncertainties in the reconstructed meson
yield). This implies that the central values of $v_{\mathrm{n}}$ will not be
considerably affected by this component, being compatible within statistical
uncertainties. Such a low fraction arises from the use of prompt meson signals
in the BDT training, together with variables that are highly correlated with
the distance of closest approach (DCA) to the primary vertex, which is defined
as the flight distance of the particle times the sine of the pointing angle in
three dimensions. Additional DCA selection and dedicated training, involving
prompt and nonprompt meson signals, do not bring considerable improvements in
performance. The prompt and nonprompt meson fractions are obtained using the
DCA variable. For prompt mesons, the nonzero DCA corresponds to the detector
resolution, and is expected to be concentrated around zero. For nonprompt
mesons, larger values of DCA result from the meson decay. To extract the
prompt and nonprompt meson fractions, a fit to the DCA distributions is
performed in data considering DCA shapes from MC simulations for prompt and
nonprompt meson components. The nonprompt meson $v_{\mathrm{n}}$ is estimated
by considering two regions in the DCA: one with very low fraction (2.7–8.0%)
of nonprompt particles ($\text{DCA}<0.012\cm$), and one with a high fraction
(62.0–88.0%) of nonprompt particles ($\text{DCA}>0.012\cm$). Using this
information together with Eq. (6), it is possible to estimate
$v_{\mathrm{n}}^{\text{nonprompt}}$ by solving a system of two equations from
the two DCA regions. In the current analysis this procedure can only be done
in wide , centrality, and rapidity bins, because of the limited amount of data
available in the region with $\text{DCA}>0.012\cm$.

##  0.5 Systematic uncertainties

The sources of systematic uncertainties include the identification
requirements (BDT selection); the probability distribution function (PDF) for
modeling the background in the invariant mass fit; the impact of acceptance
and efficiency of the meson yield; the variation of the PDF for modeling the
background $v_{\mathrm{n}}$; and the remaining nonprompt contamination. With
the exception of the last component, the uncertainties are quoted as absolute
values of $v_{\mathrm{n}}$ and $\Delta v_{\mathrm{n}}$ after comparing the
default analysis configuration with the variations. To diminish the influence
of statistical fluctuations, after observing no special trends in the
deviations from the default measurements, the systematic uncertainties are
evaluated by averaging the deviations with a constant fit as a function of the
analysis bins.

In order to take into account the systematic uncertainty associated with the
BDT selection, the BDT cut is varied up and down by the maximal deviation
between the BDT optimized selection based on MC simulations and data. The BDT
cuts (and variations for systematic uncertainties) are defined in bins of
collision centrality, , and rapidity, ranging from 0.28 to 0.47
(${\pm}$0.02–0.03). Regarding the effect of the background mass modeling,
either an exponential function together with a second order polynomial, or
just a second order polynomial, are considered instead of the default fit
function using a third-order polynomial. To fit $v_{\mathrm{n}}$ as a function
of mass, the default configuration using a linear function is replaced by
either a constant or a second order polynomial. Although the meson selection
efficiency essentially cancels in $v_{\mathrm{n}}$ measurements, a systematic
uncertainty is assigned by comparing the results with and without applying
corrections based on MC simulations in bins of and rapidity. The meson
selection efficiency times acceptance varies from 0.5 to 12.5% in the range of
1.0–8.0$\GeVc$, reaching a plateau of approximately 17.0% for $\pt>15.0\GeVc$.

The systematic uncertainties regarding contamination from nonprompt mesons are
estimated by measuring nonprompt meson $v_{\mathrm{n}}$ in wide bins of ,
rapidity, and centrality. A relative systematic uncertainty is obtained by
comparing $v_{\mathrm{n}}$ from mixed prompt and nonprompt mesons to the
$v_{\mathrm{n}}$ derived from nonprompt mesons.

Table 0.5 summarizes the estimates of systematic uncertainties in absolute
values for $v_{2}$, $v_{3}$, and $\Delta v_{2}$. The ranges of variation of
the uncertainties are presented for each binning.

Summary of systematic uncertainties in absolute values for $v_{2}$, $v_{3}$,
and $\Delta v_{2}$. Ranges of the variation of uncertainties for all the bins
are presented. The cells filled with “—” refer to the cases where the
uncertainty cancels out.  Systematic sources bins $y$ bins Centrality bins
$v_{2}$ BDT selection 0.002–0.014 0.0065 0.005 Bkg. mass PDF 0.0002–0.0017
0.0007–0.0015 0.0007–0.0011 Bkg. $v_{\mathrm{n}}$ PDF 0.01–0.05 0.004–0.007
0.003–0.005 efficiency correction — 0.004–0.007 0.0040–0.0045 Nonprompt meson
contamination 0.0002–0.0077 0.004 0.002–0.005 $v_{3}$ BDT selection
0.002–0.023 0.001–0.009 0.002–0.006 Bkg. mass PDF 0.0001–0.0040 0.0005–0.0008
0.0012–0.0040 Bkg. $v_{\mathrm{n}}$ PDF 0.01–0.05 0.003–0.004 0.0011
efficiency correction — 0.002–0.004 0.003–0.005 Nonprompt meson contamination
0.0001–0.0090 0.0010–0.0015 0.0001–0.0008 $\Delta v_{2}$ BDT selection
0.001–0.009 Bkg. mass PDF 0.00015–0.00030 efficiency correction 0.001–0.004
Nonprompt meson contamination 0.00002–0.00010

##  0.6 Results

Results for prompt meson $v_{2}$ and $v_{3}$ anisotropic flow coefficients,
obtained with 2018 PbPb data, as functions of and for $\abs{y}<1$, are shown
in Fig. 2 for three centrality ranges: 0–10%, 10–30%, and 30–50%. The results
extend previously published data from CMS [25], by extending the high-coverage
to ${\sim}60.0\GeVc$ and by providing finer bins. These high-precision data
are compatible with previous measurements from Ref. [25], and a clear trend of
rise and fall from low to high is observed for both $v_{2}$ and $v_{3}$ across
the full centrality range. This behavior is similar to that observed for
inclusive charged particles [35] for $\abs{\eta}<1.0$, also shown in Fig. 2.
For noncentral collisions (i.e., centrality 10–50%), values of prompt meson
$v_{2}$ are positive up to $\pt\sim 30.0\text{--}40.0\GeVc$, whereas the
$v_{3}$ values become consistent with zero at $\pt\sim 10.0\GeVc$.

Figure 2:  Prompt meson and charged particle flow coefficients $v_{2}$ (upper)
and $v_{3}$ (lower) at midrapidity ($\abs{y}<1.0$ for prompt mesons and
$\abs{\eta}<1.0$ for charged particles) for the centrality classes 0–10%
(left), 10–30% (middle), and 30–50% (right). The vertical bars and open boxes
represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The
horizontal bars represent the width of each bin. Theoretical calculations for
$v_{\mathrm{n}}$ coefficients of prompt mesons are also plotted for
comparison: LBT [36], CUJET 3.0 [37], SUBATECH [38], TAMU [39], PHSD [15]. The
TAMU SMCs model [40] is available only in the 10–50% centrality bins.

Calculations from theoretical models at midrapidity ($\abs{y}<1$) are also
presented. These models use different assumptions of the QGP properties, for
example in the thermal evolution of the collision system and in the initial-
state conditions before the formation of the QGP. In addition, different
mechanisms are considered regarding the interaction of heavy quarks with the
medium and for the hadronization process. Results from the models LBT [36],
CUJET 3.0 [37], and SUBATECH [38] include collisional and radiative energy
losses, while those from the models TAMU [39], PHSD [15], and TAMU SMCs [40]
include only collisional energy loss. Initial-state fluctuations are included
in the calculations by LBT, SUBATECH, and PHSD, and calculations for the
$v_{3}$ coefficient are only available from these three models. Coalescence
mechanisms are also included in LBT, SUBATECH, TAMU, PHSD, and TAMU SMCs.
While most models seem to capture the qualitative trend of the data (except
for the $v_{2}$ description provided by TAMU in the 10–50% centrality range),
most of the models do not provide a quantitative description over the full
range, except for TAMU SMCs. The TAMU SMCs version improves the TAMU model by
implementing event-by-event space-momentum correlations (SMCs) between charm
quarks and the high-flow partons in the QGP medium [40]. Since it does not
include initial-state fluctuations, TAMU SMCs does not provide $v_{2}$
calculations for centrality values between 0–10%. This puts more stringent
constraints on the development of the collective flow for charm quarks in the
QGP medium, giving further inputs for understanding heavy-quark interactions
with the medium (for example, energy loss and coalescence mechanisms).

Figure 3: Prompt meson flow coefficients $v_{2}$ (upper) and $v_{3}$ (lower)
at midrapidity ($\abs{y}<1$, red open circles) and forward rapidity
($1<\abs{y}<2$, blue open diamonds) for the centrality classes 0–10% (left),
10–30% (middle), and 30–50% (right). The vertical bars and open boxes
represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The
horizontal bars represent the width of each bin.

Results for the rapidity dependence of heavy-flavor collective flow are
presented for the first time for prompt meson $v_{2}$ and $v_{3}$ as functions
of , both at midrapidity ($\abs{y}<1$) and in the forward ($1<\abs{y}<2$)
region, as shown in Fig. 3. No clear rapidity dependence is observed for both
$v_{2}$ and $v_{3}$ as functions of . This observation is similar to that for
inclusive charged-hadron measurements [41].

p

Figure 4: Prompt meson $v_{2}$ and $v_{3}$ as functions of centrality, for
$2.0<\pt<8.0\GeVc$ and for rapidity ranges $\abs{y}<1$ and $1<\abs{y}<2$. The
results are compared with charged particle $v_{2}$ and $v_{3}$ in the same
range and with $\abs{\eta}<1$ (left). Prompt $v_{2}$ and $v_{3}$ as functions
of rapidity, for $2.0<\pt<8.0\GeVc$ and for centrality 20–70% (right). The
vertical bars represent statistical uncertainties and open boxes represent
systematic uncertainties. The horizontal bars represent the width of each bin.

In Fig. 4 (left), results for prompt mesons $v_{2}$ and $v_{3}$, averaged over
$2.0<\pt<8.0\GeVc$, for $\abs{y}<1$ and $1<\abs{y}<2$, are presented as a
function of collision centrality. This range is chosen in order to cover the
widest possible range, while maximizing the meson signal yield significance.
These - and rapidity-integrated results include an additional centrality bin
(50–70%), which has an insufficient number of events for the full differential
analysis. For both mid- and forward-rapidity regions, the $v_{2}$ results show
a clear increase from the most central to mid-central events, and then a
declining trend toward the most peripheral events. This trend is similar to
that observed for inclusive charged particles (also shown in Fig. 4), and can
be understood in terms of collision geometry and viscosity effects. In
particular, a faster increase of $v_{2}$ is observed from central to
peripheral collisions for charged particles compared to prompt mesons. This
feature was also observed when comparing $v_{2}$ of low- with charged pions
[42], where it is claimed that this could be understood in terms of two
phenomena: one, associated with transport models predicting an increasing
fraction of regenerated at low-, when going from peripheral to central
collisions; the other, not related to regeneration, is associated with a
possible partial or later thermalization of charm quarks compared to light
quarks [42]. The $v_{3}$ shows no centrality dependence, which is also
consistent with expectations from collision geometry fluctuations [43].

Figure 5: Prompt meson $\Delta v_{2}$ as a function of rapidity, for
$2.0<\pt<8.0\GeVc$ and centrality 20–70%. The vertical bars represent
statistical uncertainties and open boxes represent systematic uncertainties.
The horizontal bars represent the width of each bin.

Figure 4 (right) presents results for the rapidity dependence of prompt meson
$v_{2}$ and $v_{3}$, for centrality 20–70%, averaged over $2.0<\pt<8.0\GeVc$.
A weak rapidity dependence of $v_{2}$ and $v_{3}$ is observed in the data.

Finally, to search for effects of strong EM fields, the difference $\Delta
v_{2}$ between the $v_{2}$ values of and mesons is measured. These results are
presented in Fig. 5, as a function of rapidity, averaged over
$2.0<\pt<8.0\GeVc$ and for centrality 20–70%. For all rapidity bins, the
$\Delta v_{2}$ values are compatible with zero. The average over the full
rapidity region is $\left\langle\Delta v_{2}\right\rangle=0.001\pm
0.001\stat\pm 0.003\syst$. In Ref. [19], the predicted $v_{2}$ splitting for
inclusive charged particles due to electric fields is ${\sim}0.001$ at the LHC
energies. While quantitative predictions for $v_{2}$ splitting of mesons are
not yet available, they are expected to be much larger than those for
inclusive charged particles. In the case of $\Delta v_{1}$, the ALICE
collaboration reported results about three orders of magnitude larger than
measurements for charged hadrons [44], although the uncertainties prevent a
clear conclusion. The main reason is that heavy-flavor quarks are usually
produced much earlier than light-flavor quarks, the former being predominantly
produced soon after the collision takes place, when the EM field strength is
several orders of magnitude stronger [20]. The results presented here pose
constraints on possible EM effects on charm quarks.

##  0.7 Summary

Measurements of the elliptic ($v_{2}$) and triangular ($v_{3}$) flow
coefficients of prompt mesons are presented as functions of transverse
momentum (), rapidity, and collision centrality, in PbPb collisions at
$\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$. The results improve previously published CMS data by
extending the and rapidity coverage and by providing more differential
information in , rapidity, and centrality. A clear centrality dependence of
prompt meson $v_{2}$ is observed, while $v_{3}$ is largely centrality
independent. These trends are consistent with the expectation that $v_{2}$ and
$v_{3}$ are driven by initial-state geometry. A weak rapidity dependence of
prompt meson $v_{2}$ and $v_{3}$ is observed. When comparing various
theoretical calculations to the data at midrapidity, no model is able to
describe the data over the full centrality and ranges.

Motivated by the search for evidence of the strong electric field expected in
PbPb collisions, a first measurement of the $v_{2}$ flow coefficient
difference ($\Delta v_{2}$) between and mesons as a function of rapidity is
presented. The rapidity-averaged $v_{2}$ difference is measured to be
$\langle\Delta v_{2}\rangle=0.001\pm 0.001\stat\pm 0.003\syst$. This indicates
that there is no evidence that charm hadron collective flow is affected by the
strong Coulomb field created in ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions. Future
comparisons of theoretical models with these results may provide constraints
on the electric conductivity of the quark-gluon plasma.

###### Acknowledgements.

We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the
excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative
staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the
success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the
computing centers and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for
delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our
analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction
and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following
funding agencies: BMBWF and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq,
CAPES, FAPERJ, FAPERGS, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST,
and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RIF
(Cyprus); SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC IUT, PUT and ERDF (Estonia); Academy
of Finland, MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG,
and HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); NKFIA (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM
(Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); MES
(Latvia); LAS (Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT,
LNS, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MOS (Montenegro); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC
(Pakistan); MSHE and NSC (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom,
RAS, RFBR, and NRC KI (Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI, and FEDER
(Spain); MOSTR (Sri Lanka); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); MST
(Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR, and NSTDA (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK
(Turkey); NASU (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA).
Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie program and the
European Research Council and Horizon 2020 Grant, contract Nos. 675440,
752730, and 765710 (European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A.P. Sloan
Foundation; the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science
Policy Office; the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et
dans l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door
Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the F.R.S.-FNRS and FWO (Belgium)
under the “Excellence of Science – EOS” – be.h project n. 30820817; the
Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission, No. Z191100007219010; the
Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy –
EXC 2121 “Quantum Universe” – 390833306; the Lendület (“Momentum”) Program and
the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences,
the New National Excellence Program ÚNKP, the NKFIA research grants 123842,
123959, 124845, 124850, 125105, 128713, 128786, and 129058 (Hungary); the
Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; the HOMING PLUS program of
the Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from European Union, Regional
Development Fund, the Mobility Plus program of the Ministry of Science and
Higher Education, the National Science Center (Poland), contracts Harmonia
2014/14/M/ST2/00428, Opus 2014/13/B/ST2/02543, 2014/15/B/ST2/03998, and
2015/19/B/ST2/02861, Sonata-bis 2012/07/E/ST2/01406; the National Priorities
Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund; the Ministry of Science and
Higher Education, project no. 02.a03.21.0005 (Russia); the Tomsk Polytechnic
University Competitiveness Enhancement Program; the Programa Estatal de
Fomento de la Investigación Científica y Técnica de Excelencia María de
Maeztu, grant MDM-2015-0509 and the Programa Severo Ochoa del Principado de
Asturias; the Thalis and Aristeia programs cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek
NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn
University and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century Project
Advancement Project (Thailand); the Kavli Foundation; the Nvidia Corporation;
the SuperMicro Corporation; the Welch Foundation, contract C-1845; and the
Weston Havens Foundation (USA).

## References

  * [1] BRAHMS Collaboration, “Quark-gluon plasma and color glass condensate at RHIC? The perspective from the BRAHMS experiment”,  Nucl. Phys. A 757 (2005) 1, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.02.130, arXiv:nucl-ex/0410020.
  * [2] PHOBOS Collaboration, “The PHOBOS perspective on discoveries at RHIC”,  Nucl. Phys. A 757 (2005) 28, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03.084, arXiv:nucl-ex/0410022.
  * [3] STAR Collaboration, “Experimental and theoretical challenges in the search for the quark gluon plasma: The STAR Collaboration’s critical assessment of the evidence from RHIC collisions”,  Nucl. Phys. A 757 (2005) 102, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03.085, arXiv:nucl-ex/0501009.
  * [4] PHENIX Collaboration, “Formation of dense partonic matter in relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC: Experimental evaluation by the PHENIX collaboration”,  Nucl. Phys. A 757 (2005) 184, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03.086, arXiv:nucl-ex/0410003.
  * [5] B. Muller, J. Schukraft, and B. Wyslouch, “First results from PbPb collisions at the LHC”,  Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 62 (2012) 361, 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102711-094910, arXiv:1202.3233.
  * [6] N. Armesto and E. Scomparin, “Heavy-ion collisions at the Large Hadron Collider: a review of the results from Run 1”,  Eur. Phys. J. Plus 131 (2016) 52, 10.1140/epjp/i2016-16052-4, arXiv:1511.02151.
  * [7] ALICE Collaboration, “Elliptic flow of charged particles in PbPb collisions at $2.76\TeV$”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 252302, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.252302, arXiv:1011.3914.
  * [8] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the pseudorapidity and transverse momentum dependence of the elliptic flow of charged particles in lead-lead collisions at $\sqrtsNN=2.76\TeV$ with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Lett. B 707 (2012) 330, 10.1016/j.physletb.2011.12.056, arXiv:1108.6018.
  * [9] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the elliptic anisotropy of charged particles produced in PbPb collisions at $\sqrtsNN=2.76\TeV$”,  Phys. Rev. C 87 (2013) 014902, 10.1103/PhysRevC.87.014902, arXiv:1204.1409.
  * [10] J.-Y. Ollitrault, “Determination of the reaction plane in ultrarelativistic nuclear collisions”,  Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) 1132, 10.1103/PhysRevD.48.1132, arXiv:nucl-ex/9303247.
  * [11] S. Voloshin and Y. Zhang, “Flow study in relativistic nuclear collisions by Fourier expansion of azimuthal particle distributions”,  Z. Phys. C 70 (1994) 665, 10.1007/s002880050141, arXiv:nucl-ex/9407282.
  * [12] A. M. Poskanzer and S. A. Voloshin, “Methods for analyzing anisotropic flow in relativistic nuclear collisions”,  Phys. Rev. C 58 (1998) 1671, 10.1103/PhysRevC.58.1671, arXiv:nucl-ex/9805001.
  * [13] D. Molnar and S. A. Voloshin, “Elliptic flow at large transverse momenta from quark coalescence”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 092301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.092301, arXiv:nucl-th/0302014.
  * [14] P. Braun-Munzinger, “Quarkonium production in ultra-relativistic nuclear collisions: Suppression versus enhancement”,  J. Phys. G 34 (2007) 471, 10.1088/0954-3899/34/8/S36, arXiv:nucl-th/0701093.
  * [15] F.-M. Liu and S.-X. Liu, “Quark-gluon plasma formation time and direct photons from heavy ion collisions”,  Phys. Rev. C 89 (2014) 034906, 10.1103/PhysRevC.89.034906, arXiv:1212.6587.
  * [16] S. Borsányi et al., “Is there still any $T_{c}$ mystery in lattice QCD? results with physical masses in the continuum limit III”,  JHEP 09 (2010) 073, 10.1007/JHEP09(2010)073, arXiv:1005.3508.
  * [17] G. D. Moore and D. Teaney, “How much do heavy quarks thermalize in a heavy ion collision?”,  Phys. Rev. C 71 (2005) 064904, 10.1103/PhysRevC.71.064904, arXiv:hep-ph/0412346.
  * [18] A. Andronic et al., “Heavy-flavour and quarkonium production in the LHC era: from proton-proton to heavy-ion collisions”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 107, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3819-5, arXiv:1506.03981.
  * [19] U. Gursoy et al., “Charge-dependent flow induced by magnetic and electric fields in heavy ion collisions”,  Phys. Rev. C 98 (2018) 055201, 10.1103/PhysRevC.98.055201, arXiv:1806.05288.
  * [20] S. K. Das et al., “Directed flow of charm quarks as a witness of the initial strong magnetic field in ultra-relativistic heavy ion collisions”,  Phys. Lett. B 768 (2017) 260, 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.02.046, arXiv:1608.02231.
  * [21] S. Chatterjee and P. Bozek, “Large directed flow of open charm mesons probes the three dimensional distribution of matter in heavy ion collisions”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 192301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.192301, arXiv:1712.01189.
  * [22] STAR Collaboration, “Elliptic flow from two and four particle correlations in AuAu collisions at $\sqrtsNN=130\GeV$”,  Phys. Rev. C 66 (2002) 034904, 10.1103/PhysRevC.66.034904, arXiv:nucl-ex/0206001.
  * [23] M. Luzum and J.-Y. Ollitrault, “Eliminating experimental bias in anisotropic-flow measurements of high-energy nuclear collisions”,  Phys. Rev. C 87 (2013) 044907, 10.1103/PhysRevC.87.044907, arXiv:1209.2323.
  * [24] H. Voss, A. Höcker, J. Stelzer, and F. Tegenfeldt, “TMVA, the toolkit for multivariate data analysis with ROOT”, in  XIth International Workshop on Advanced Computing and Analysis Techniques in Physics Research (ACAT), p. 40.  2007\.  arXiv:physics/0703039.  [PoS(ACAT)040]. 10.22323/1.050.0040.
  * [25] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of prompt $\PDz$ meson azimuthal anisotropy in PbPb collisions at $\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 202301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.202301, arXiv:1708.03497.
  * [26] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [27] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [28] CMS Collaboration, “Charged-particle nuclear modification factors in PbPb and pPb collisions at $\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$”,  JHEP 04 (2017) 039, 10.1007/JHEP04(2017)039, arXiv:1611.01664.
  * [29] T. Sjöstrand et al., “An introduction to 8.2”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159, 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024, arXiv:1410.3012.
  * [30] CMS Collaboration, “Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS 8 tunes from underlying-event measurements”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 4, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7499-4, arXiv:1903.12179.
  * [31] I. P. Lokhtin and A. M. Snigirev, “A model of jet quenching in ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions and high-$\pt$ hadron spectra at RHIC”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 45 (2006) 211, 10.1140/epjc/s2005-02426-3, arXiv:hep-ph/0506189.
  * [32] GEANT4 Collaboration, “GEANT4–a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [33] Particle Data Group, M. Tanabashi et al., “Review of particle physics”,  Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 030001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.030001.
  * [34] NA49 Collaboration, “Directed and elliptic flow of charged pions and protons in PbPb collisions at 40-A-GeV and 158-A-GeV”,  Phys. Rev. C 68 (2003) 034903, 10.1103/PhysRevC.68.034903, arXiv:nucl-ex/0303001.
  * [35] CMS Collaboration, “Azimuthal anisotropy of charged particles with transverse momentum up to $100\GeVc$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$”,  Phys. Lett. B 776 (2018) 195, 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.11.041, arXiv:1702.00630.
  * [36] S. Cao, T. Luo, G.-Y. Qin, and X.-N. Wang, “Linearized Boltzmann transport model for jet propagation in the quark-gluon plasma: Heavy quark evolution”,  Phys. Rev. C 94 (2016) 014909, 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.014909, arXiv:1605.06447.
  * [37] J. Xu, J. Liao, and M. Gyulassy, “Bridging soft-hard transport properties of quark-gluon plasmas with CUJET3.0”,  JHEP 02 (2016) 169, 10.1007/JHEP02(2016)169, arXiv:1508.00552.
  * [38] M. Nahrgang et al., “Elliptic and triangular flow of heavy flavor in heavy-ion collisions”,  Phys. Rev. C 91 (2015) 014904, 10.1103/PhysRevC.91.014904, arXiv:1410.5396.
  * [39] M. He, R. J. Fries, and R. Rapp, “Heavy flavor at the Large Hadron Collider in a strong coupling approach”,  Phys. Lett. B 735 (2014) 445, 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.05.050, arXiv:1401.3817.
  * [40] M. He and R. Rapp, “Hadronization and charm-hadron ratios in heavy-ion collisions”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (2020) 042301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.042301, arXiv:1905.09216.
  * [41] CMS Collaboration, “Pseudorapidity and transverse momentum dependence of flow harmonics in pPb and PbPb collisions”,  Phys. Rev. C 98 (2018) 044902, 10.1103/PhysRevC.98.044902, arXiv:1710.07864.
  * [42] ALICE Collaboration, “J/$\psi$ elliptic and triangular flow in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV”,  JHEP 10 (2020) 141, 10.1007/JHEP10(2020)141, arXiv:2005.14518.
  * [43] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of higher-order harmonic azimuthal anisotropy in PbPb collisions at $\sqrtsNN=2.76\TeV$”,  Phys. Rev. C 89 (2014) 044906, 10.1103/PhysRevC.89.044906, arXiv:1310.8651.
  * [44] ALICE Collaboration, “Probing the effects of strong electromagnetic fields with charge-dependent directed flow in Pb-Pb collisions at the LHC”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) 022301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.022301, arXiv:1910.14406.

##  .8 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, A. Tumasyan Institut für
Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, T. Bergauer, M. Dragicevic, J. Erö, A. Escalante Del
Valle, R. Frühwirth1, M. Jeitler1, N. Krammer, L. Lechner, D. Liko, T.
Madlener, I. Mikulec, N. Rad, J. Schieck1, R. Schöfbeck, M. Spanring, S.
Templ, W. Waltenberger, C.-E. Wulz1, M. Zarucki Institute for Nuclear
Problems, Minsk, Belarus
V. Chekhovsky, A. Litomin, V. Makarenko, J. Suarez Gonzalez Universiteit
Antwerpen, Antwerpen, Belgium
M.R. Darwish, E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, T. Kello2, A. Lelek, M.
Pieters, H. Rejeb Sfar, H. Van Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, S. Van Putte, N.
Van Remortel Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
F. Blekman, E.S. Bols, S.S. Chhibra, J. D’Hondt, J. De Clercq, D. Lontkovskyi,
S. Lowette, I. Marchesini, S. Moortgat, Q. Python, S. Tavernier, W. Van
Doninck, P. Van Mulders Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
D. Beghin, B. Bilin, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, H. Delannoy, B. Dorney, L.
Favart, A. Grebenyuk, A.K. Kalsi, I. Makarenko, L. Moureaux, L. Pétré, A.
Popov, N. Postiau, E. Starling, L. Thomas, C. Vander Velde, P. Vanlaer, D.
Vannerom, L. Wezenbeek Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, I. Khvastunov3, M. Niedziela, C. Roskas, K. Skovpen, M.
Tytgat, W. Verbeke, B. Vermassen, M. Vit Université Catholique de Louvain,
Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
G. Bruno, F.J.J. Bury, C. Caputo, P. David, C. Delaere, M. Delcourt, I.S.
Donertas, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaitre, J. Prisciandaro, A. Saggio, A. Taliercio,
M. Teklishyn, P. Vischia, S. Wuyckens, J. Zobec Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas
Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
G.A. Alves, G. Correia Silva, C. Hensel, A. Moraes Universidade do Estado do
Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
W.L. Aldá Júnior, E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato4,
E. Coelho, E.M. Da Costa, G.G. Da Silveira5, D. De Jesus Damiao, S. Fonseca De
Souza, H. Malbouisson, J. Martins6, D. Matos Figueiredo, M. Medina Jaime7, M.
Melo De Almeida, C. Mora Herrera, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, P. Rebello Teles, L.J.
Sanchez Rosas, A. Santoro, S.M. Silva Do Amaral, A. Sznajder, M. Thiel, E.J.
Tonelli Manganote4, F. Torres Da Silva De Araujo, A. Vilela Pereira
Universidade Estadual Paulista a, Universidade Federal do ABC b, São Paulo,
Brazil
C.A. Bernardesa, L. Calligarisa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M. Gregoresb,
D.S. Lemosa, P.G. Mercadanteb, S.F. Novaesa, Sandra S. Padulaa Institute for
Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia,
Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, G. Antchev, I. Atanasov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, M.
Misheva, M. Rodozov, M. Shopova, G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia,
Bulgaria
M. Bonchev, A. Dimitrov, T. Ivanov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov, A. Petrov
Beihang University, Beijing, China
W. Fang2, X. Gao2, Q. Guo, H. Wang, L. Yuan Department of Physics, Tsinghua
University, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, Z. Hu, Y. Wang Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
E. Chapon, G.M. Chen8, H.S. Chen8, M. Chen, C.H. Jiang, D. Leggat, H. Liao, Z.
Liu, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, J. Wang, E. Yazgan, H. Zhang, S. Zhang8, J. Zhao
State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University,
Beijing, China
A. Agapitos, Y. Ban, C. Chen, G. Chen, A. Levin, J. Li, L. Li, Q. Li, X. Lyu,
Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang, Q. Wang, J. Xiao Sun Yat-Sen University,
Guangzhou, China
Z. You Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
M. Xiao Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, C. Florez, C.F. González Hernández, A. Sarkar, M.A.
Segura Delgado Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia
J. Mejia Guisao, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, C.A. Salazar González, N. Vanegas Arbelaez
University of Split, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering
and Naval Architecture, Split, Croatia
D. Giljanovic, N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak, T. Sculac University of
Split, Faculty of Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, D. Majumder, B. Mesic, M. Roguljic, A.
Starodumov9, T. Susa University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, E. Erodotou, A. Ioannou, G. Kole, M. Kolosova, S.
Konstantinou, G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos, P.A.
Razis, H. Rykaczewski, H. Saka, D. Tsiakkouri Charles University, Prague,
Czech Republic
M. Finger10, M. Finger Jr.10, A. Kveton, J. Tomsa Escuela Politecnica
Nacional, Quito, Ecuador
E. Ayala Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
E. Carrera Jarrin Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab
Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt
A.A. Abdelalim11,12, S. Abu Zeid13, S. Khalil12 National Institute of Chemical
Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
S. Bhowmik, A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveira, R.K. Dewanjee, K. Ehataht, M.
Kadastik, M. Raidal, C. Veelken Department of Physics, University of Helsinki,
Helsinki, Finland
P. Eerola, L. Forthomme, H. Kirschenmann, K. Osterberg, M. Voutilainen
Helsinki Institute of Physics, Helsinki, Finland
E. Brücken, F. Garcia, J. Havukainen, V. Karimäki, M.S. Kim, R. Kinnunen, T.
Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Laurila, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, H. Siikonen, E.
Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta,
Finland
P. Luukka, T. Tuuva IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, J.L. Faure, F. Ferri, S.
Ganjour, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry, C. Leloup,
B. Lenzi, E. Locci, J. Malcles, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M.Ö. Sahin, A. Savoy-
Navarro14, M. Titov, G.B. Yu Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, CNRS/IN2P3, Ecole
Polytechnique, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Palaiseau, France
S. Ahuja, C. Amendola, F. Beaudette, M. Bonanomi, P. Busson, C. Charlot, O.
Davignon, B. Diab, G. Falmagne, R. Granier de Cassagnac, I. Kucher, A.
Lobanov, C. Martin Perez, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, P. Paganini, J. Rembser, R.
Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A. Zabi, A. Zghiche Université de Strasbourg,
CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram15, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, G. Bourgatte, J.-M. Brom, E.C. Chabert, C.
Collard, J.-C. Fontaine15, D. Gelé, U. Goerlach, C. Grimault, A.-C. Le Bihan,
P. Van Hove Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3,
Institut de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
E. Asilar, S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, C. Camen, A. Carle, N. Chanon,
R. Chierici, D. Contardo, P. Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, S. Gascon, M.
Gouzevitch, B. Ille, Sa. Jain, I.B. Laktineh, H. Lattaud, A. Lesauvage, M.
Lethuillier, L. Mirabito, L. Torterotot, G. Touquet, M. Vander Donckt, S.
Viret Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
A. Khvedelidze10 Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
Z. Tsamalaidze10 RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen,
Germany
L. Feld, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, D. Meuser, A. Pauls, M. Preuten, M.P. Rauch,
J. Schulz, M. Teroerde RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A,
Aachen, Germany
D. Eliseev, M. Erdmann, P. Fackeldey, B. Fischer, S. Ghosh, T. Hebbeker, K.
Hoepfner, H. Keller, L. Mastrolorenzo, M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, P. Millet, G.
Mocellin, S. Mondal, S. Mukherjee, D. Noll, A. Novak, T. Pook, A. Pozdnyakov,
T. Quast, M. Radziej, Y. Rath, H. Reithler, J. Roemer, A. Schmidt, S.C.
Schuler, A. Sharma, S. Wiedenbeck, S. Zaleski RWTH Aachen University, III.
Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany
C. Dziwok, G. Flügge, W. Haj Ahmad16, O. Hlushchenko, T. Kress, A. Nowack, C.
Pistone, O. Pooth, D. Roy, H. Sert, A. Stahl17, T. Ziemons Deutsches
Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
H. Aarup Petersen, M. Aldaya Martin, P. Asmuss, I. Babounikau, S. Baxter, K.
Beernaert, O. Behnke, A. Bermúdez Martínez, A.A. Bin Anuar, K. Borras18, V.
Botta, D. Brunner, A. Campbell, A. Cardini, P. Connor, S. Consuegra Rodríguez,
C. Contreras-Campana, V. Danilov, A. De Wit, M.M. Defranchis, L. Didukh, C.
Diez Pardos, D. Domínguez Damiani, G. Eckerlin, D. Eckstein, T. Eichhorn, A.
Elwood, E. Eren, L.I. Estevez Banos, E. Gallo19, A. Geiser, A. Giraldi, A.
Grohsjean, M. Guthoff, M. Haranko, A. Harb, A. Jafari20, N.Z. Jomhari, H.
Jung, A. Kasem18, M. Kasemann, H. Kaveh, J. Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, J. Knolle,
D. Krücker, W. Lange, T. Lenz, J. Lidrych, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann21, R. Mankel,
I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, J. Metwally, A.B. Meyer, M. Meyer, M. Missiroli, J.
Mnich, A. Mussgiller, V. Myronenko, Y. Otarid, D. Pérez Adán, S.K. Pflitsch,
D. Pitzl, A. Raspereza, A. Saibel, M. Savitskyi, V. Scheurer, P. Schütze, C.
Schwanenberger, R. Shevchenko, A. Singh, R.E. Sosa Ricardo, H. Tholen, N.
Tonon, O. Turkot, A. Vagnerini, M. Van De Klundert, R. Walsh, D. Walter, Y.
Wen, K. Wichmann, C. Wissing, S. Wuchterl, O. Zenaiev, R. Zlebcik University
of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, L. Benato, A. Benecke, K. De Leo, T. Dreyer, A.
Ebrahimi, F. Feindt, A. Fröhlich, C. Garbers, E. Garutti, D. Gonzalez, P.
Gunnellini, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, A. Karavdina, G. Kasieczka, R. Klanner, R.
Kogler, S. Kurz, V. Kutzner, J. Lange, T. Lange, A. Malara, J. Multhaup,
C.E.N. Niemeyer, A. Nigamova, K.J. Pena Rodriguez, A. Reimers, O. Rieger, P.
Schleper, S. Schumann, J. Schwandt, D. Schwarz, J. Sonneveld, H. Stadie, G.
Steinbrück, B. Vormwald, I. Zoi Karlsruher Institut fuer Technologie,
Karlsruhe, Germany
M. Akbiyik, M. Baselga, S. Baur, J. Bechtel, T. Berger, E. Butz, R. Caspart,
T. Chwalek, W. De Boer, A. Dierlamm, K. El Morabit, N. Faltermann, K. Flöh, M.
Giffels, A. Gottmann, F. Hartmann17, C. Heidecker, U. Husemann, M.A. Iqbal, I.
Katkov22, S. Kudella, S. Maier, M. Metzler, S. Mitra, M.U. Mozer, D. Müller,
Th. Müller, M. Musich, G. Quast, K. Rabbertz, J. Rauser, D. Savoiu, D.
Schäfer, M. Schnepf, M. Schröder, I. Shvetsov, H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, M.
Wassmer, M. Weber, C. Wöhrmann, R. Wolf, S. Wozniewski Institute of Nuclear
and Particle Physics (INPP), NCSR Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
G. Anagnostou, P. Asenov, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas,
G. Paspalaki, A. Stakia National and Kapodistrian University of Athens,
Athens, Greece
M. Diamantopoulou, D. Karasavvas, G. Karathanasis, P. Kontaxakis, C.K. Koraka,
A. Manousakis-katsikakis, A. Panagiotou, I. Papavergou, N. Saoulidou, K.
Theofilatos, K. Vellidis, E. Vourliotis National Technical University of
Athens, Athens, Greece
G. Bakas, K. Kousouris, I. Papakrivopoulos, G. Tsipolitis, A. Zacharopoulou
University of Ioánnina, Ioánnina, Greece
I. Evangelou, C. Foudas, P. Gianneios, P. Katsoulis, P. Kokkas, S. Mallios, K.
Manitara, N. Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, J. Strologas, F.A. Triantis, D.
Tsitsonis MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
M. Bartók23, R. Chudasama, M. Csanad, M.M.A. Gadallah24, P. Major, K. Mandal,
A. Mehta, G. Pasztor, O. Surányi, G.I. Veres Wigner Research Centre for
Physics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath25, F. Sikler, V. Veszpremi, G.
Vesztergombi${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$ Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI,
Debrecen, Hungary
N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi23, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi, D. Teyssier
Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari Eszterhazy Karoly University, Karoly
Robert Campus, Gyongyos, Hungary
T. Csorgo, S. Lökös26, F. Nemes, T. Novak Indian Institute of Science (IISc),
Bangalore, India
S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri, D. Kumar, L. Panwar, P.C. Tiwari National
Institute of Science Education and Research, HBNI, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati27, C. Kar, P. Mal, T. Mishra, V.K. Muraleedharan Nair Bindhu, A.
Nayak28, D.K. Sahoo27, N. Sur, S.K. Swain Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, S. Chauhan, N. Dhingra29, R. Gupta, A.
Kaur, A. Kaur, S. Kaur, P. Kumari, M. Lohan, M. Meena, K. Sandeep, S. Sharma,
J.B. Singh, A.K. Virdi University of Delhi, Delhi, India
A. Ahmed, A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, M. Gola, S. Keshri, A.
Kumar, M. Naimuddin, P. Priyanka, K. Ranjan, A. Shah, R. Sharma Saha Institute
of Nuclear Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India
M. Bharti30, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, D. Bhowmik, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh,
B. Gomber31, M. Maity32, K. Mondal, S. Nandan, P. Palit, A. Purohit, P.K.
Rout, G. Saha, S. Sarkar, M. Sharan, B. Singh30, S. Thakur30 Indian Institute
of Technology Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera, S.C. Behera, P. Kalbhor, A. Muhammad, R. Pradhan, P.R. Pujahari,
A. Sharma, A.K. Sikdar Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
D. Dutta, V. Jha, D.K. Mishra, K. Naskar33, P.K. Netrakanti, L.M. Pant, P.
Shukla Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A, Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, M.A. Bhat, S. Dugad, R. Kumar Verma, U. Sarkar Tata Institute of
Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, P. Das, M. Guchait, S. Karmakar,
S. Kumar, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, S. Mukherjee, D. Roy, N. Sahoo Indian
Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, India
S. Dube, B. Kansal, A. Kapoor, K. Kothekar, S. Pandey, A. Rane, A. Rastogi, S.
Sharma Department of Physics, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
H. Bakhshiansohi34 Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM),
Tehran, Iran
S. Chenarani35, S.M. Etesami, M. Khakzad, M. Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri
University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
M. Felcini, M. Grunewald INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b,
Politecnico di Bari c, Bari, Italy
M. Abbresciaa,b, R. Alya,b,36, C. Calabriaa,b, A. Colaleoa, D. Creanzaa,c, N.
De Filippisa,c, M. De Palmaa,b, A. Di Florioa,b, A. Di Pilatoa,b, W.
Elmetenaweea,b, L. Fiorea, A. Gelmia,b, G. Iasellia,c, M. Incea,b, S.
Lezkia,b, G. Maggia,c, M. Maggia, I. Margjekaa,b, J.A. Merlina, G.
Minielloa,b, S. Mya,b, S. Nuzzoa,b, A. Pompilia,b, G. Pugliesea,c, A.
Ranieria, G. Selvaggia,b, L. Silvestrisa, F.M. Simonea,b, R. Vendittia, P.
Verwilligena INFN Sezione di Bologna a, Università di Bologna b, Bologna,
Italy
G. Abbiendia, C. Battilanaa,b, D. Bonacorsia,b, L. Borgonovia,b, R.
Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A. Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa, C. Cioccaa, M.
Cuffiania,b, G.M. Dallavallea, T. Diotalevia,b, F. Fabbria, A. Fanfania,b, E.
Fontanesia,b, P. Giacomellia, L. Giommia,b, C. Grandia, L. Guiduccia,b, F.
Iemmia,b, S. Lo Meoa,37, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, F.L. Navarriaa,b, A.
Perrottaa, F. Primaveraa,b, T. Rovellia,b, G.P. Sirolia,b, N. Tosia INFN
Sezione di Catania a, Università di Catania b, Catania, Italy
S. Albergoa,b,38, S. Costaa,b, A. Di Mattiaa, R. Potenzaa,b, A. Tricomia,b,38,
C. Tuvea,b INFN Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b, Firenze, Italy
G. Barbaglia, A. Cassesea, R. Ceccarellia,b, V. Ciullia,b, C. Civininia, R.
D’Alessandroa,b, F. Fioria, E. Focardia,b, G. Latinoa,b, P. Lenzia,b, M.
Lizzoa,b, M. Meschinia, S. Paolettia, R. Seiditaa,b, G. Sguazzonia, L.
Viliania INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, D. Piccolo INFN Sezione di Genova a, Università di
Genova b, Genova, Italy
M. Bozzoa,b, F. Ferroa, R. Mulargiaa,b, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia,b INFN Sezione
di Milano-Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, Italy
A. Benagliaa, A. Beschia,b, F. Brivioa,b, F. Cetorellia,b, V. Cirioloa,b,17,
F. De Guioa,b, M.E. Dinardoa,b, P. Dinia, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P.
Govonia,b, L. Guzzia,b, M. Malbertia, S. Malvezzia, D. Menascea, F. Montia,b,
L. Moronia, M. Paganonia,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Ragazzia,b, T. Tabarelli de
Fatisa,b, D. Valsecchia,b,17, D. Zuoloa,b INFN Sezione di Napoli a, Università
di Napoli ’Federico II’ b, Napoli, Italy, Università della Basilicata c,
Potenza, Italy, Università G. Marconi d, Roma, Italy
S. Buontempoa, N. Cavalloa,c, A. De Iorioa,b, F. Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa, G.
Galatia, A.O.M. Iorioa,b, L. Layera,b, L. Listaa,b, S. Meolaa,d,17, P.
Paoluccia,17, B. Rossia, C. Sciaccaa,b, E. Voevodinaa,b INFN Sezione di Padova
a, Università di Padova b, Padova, Italy, Università di Trento c, Trento,
Italy
P. Azzia, N. Bacchettaa, D. Biselloa,b, A. Bolettia,b, A. Bragagnoloa,b, R.
Carlina,b, P. Checchiaa, P. De Castro Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa, U. Dossellia, F.
Gasparinia,b, U. Gasparinia,b, S.Y. Hoha,b, M. Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,b,
M. Presillab, P. Ronchesea,b, R. Rossina,b, F. Simonettoa,b, G. Strong, A.
Tikoa, M. Tosia,b, M. Zanettia,b, P. Zottoa,b, A. Zucchettaa,b, G. Zumerlea,b
INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
A. Braghieria, S. Calzaferria,b, D. Fiorinaa,b, P. Montagnaa,b, S.P. Rattia,b,
V. Rea, M. Ressegottia,b, C. Riccardia,b, P. Salvinia, I. Vaia, P. Vituloa,b
INFN Sezione di Perugia a, Università di Perugia b, Perugia, Italy
M. Biasinia,b, G.M. Bileia, D. Ciangottinia,b, L. Fanòa,b, P. Laricciaa,b, G.
Mantovania,b, V. Mariania,b, M. Menichellia, A. Rossia,b, A. Santocchiaa,b, D.
Spigaa, T. Tedeschia,b INFN Sezione di Pisa a, Università di Pisa b, Scuola
Normale Superiore di Pisa c, Pisa, Italy
K. Androsova, P. Azzurria, G. Bagliesia, V. Bertacchia,c, L. Bianchinia, T.
Boccalia, R. Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, M.R. Di Domenicoa,b, S.
Donatoa, L. Gianninia,c, A. Giassia, M.T. Grippoa, F. Ligabuea,c, E. Mancaa,c,
G. Mandorlia,c, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, A. Rizzia,b, G. Rolandia,c, S. Roy
Chowdhurya,c, A. Scribanoa, N. Shafieia,b, P. Spagnoloa, R. Tenchinia, G.
Tonellia,b, N. Turinia, A. Venturia, P.G. Verdinia INFN Sezione di Roma a,
Sapienza Università di Roma b, Rome, Italy
F. Cavallaria, M. Cipriania,b, D. Del Rea,b, E. Di Marcoa, M. Diemoza, E.
Longoa,b, P. Meridiania, G. Organtinia,b, F. Pandolfia, R. Paramattia,b, C.
Quarantaa,b, S. Rahatloua,b, C. Rovellia, F. Santanastasioa,b, L. Soffia,b, R.
Tramontanoa,b INFN Sezione di Torino a, Università di Torino b, Torino, Italy,
Università del Piemonte Orientale c, Novara, Italy
N. Amapanea,b, R. Arcidiaconoa,c, S. Argiroa,b, M. Arneodoa,c, N. Bartosika,
R. Bellana,b, A. Belloraa,b, C. Biinoa, A. Cappatia,b, N. Cartigliaa, S.
Comettia, M. Costaa,b, R. Covarellia,b, N. Demariaa, B. Kiania,b, F. Leggera,
C. Mariottia, S. Masellia, E. Migliorea,b, V. Monacoa,b, E. Monteila,b, M.
Montenoa, M.M. Obertinoa,b, G. Ortonaa, L. Pachera,b, N. Pastronea, M.
Pelliccionia, G.L. Pinna Angionia,b, M. Ruspaa,c, R. Salvaticoa,b, F.
Sivieroa,b, V. Solaa, A. Solanoa,b, D. Soldia,b, A. Staianoa, D. Trocinoa,b
INFN Sezione di Trieste a, Università di Trieste b, Trieste, Italy
S. Belfortea, V. Candelisea,b, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, A. Da Rolda,b, G.
Della Riccaa,b, F. Vazzolera,b Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea
S. Dogra, C. Huh, B. Kim, D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, J. Lee, S.W. Lee, C.S. Moon,
Y.D. Oh, S.I. Pak, S. Sekmen, D.C. Son, Y.C. Yang Chonnam National University,
Institute for Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju, Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
B. Francois, T.J. Kim, J. Park Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, S. Ha, B. Hong, K. Lee, K.S. Lee, J. Lim, J. Park,
S.K. Park, Y. Roh, J. Yoo Kyung Hee University, Department of Physics, Seoul,
Republic of Korea
J. Goh, A. Gurtu Sejong University, Seoul, Korea
H.S. Kim, Y. Kim Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J.H. Bhyun, J. Choi, S. Jeon, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, S. Ko, H. Kwon, H.
Lee, K. Lee, S. Lee, K. Nam, B.H. Oh, M. Oh, S.B. Oh, B.C. Radburn-Smith, H.
Seo, U.K. Yang, I. Yoon University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea
D. Jeon, J.H. Kim, B. Ko, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park, I.J. Watson Yonsei
University, Department of Physics, Seoul, Korea
H.D. Yoo Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, C. Hwang, Y. Jeong, H. Lee, J. Lee, Y. Lee, I. Yu College of
Engineering and Technology, American University of the Middle East (AUM),
Kuwait
Y. Maghrbi Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
V. Veckalns39 Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
A. Juodagalvis, A. Rinkevicius, G. Tamulaitis National Centre for Particle
Physics, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
W.A.T. Wan Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli Universidad de Sonora (UNISON),
Hermosillo, Mexico
J.F. Benitez, A. Castaneda Hernandez, J.A. Murillo Quijada, L. Valencia Palomo
Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, I. Heredia-De La Cruz40, R. Lopez-
Fernandez, A. Sanchez-Hernandez Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City,
Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, M. Ramirez-Garcia, F. Vazquez Valencia
Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
J. Eysermans, I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada Universidad
Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, Mexico
A. Morelos Pineda University of Montenegro, Podgorica, Montenegro
J. Mijuskovic3, N. Raicevic University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
S. Bheesette, P.H. Butler National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam
University, Islamabad, Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M. Ahmad, M.I. Asghar, M.I.M. Awan, Q. Hassan, H.R. Hoorani, W.A.
Khan, M.A. Shah, M. Shoaib, M. Waqas AGH University of Science and Technology
Faculty of Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunications, Krakow,
Poland
V. Avati, L. Grzanka, M. Malawski National Centre for Nuclear Research,
Swierk, Poland
H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, T. Frueboes, M. Górski, M. Kazana, M.
Szleper, P. Traczyk, P. Zalewski Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of
Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk41, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J.
Krolikowski, M. Olszewski, M. Walczak Laboratório de Instrumentação e Física
Experimental de Partículas, Lisboa, Portugal
M. Araujo, P. Bargassa, D. Bastos, A. Di Francesco, P. Faccioli, B. Galinhas,
M. Gallinaro, J. Hollar, N. Leonardo, T. Niknejad, J. Seixas, K. Shchelina, O.
Toldaiev, J. Varela Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
A. Baginyan, A. Golunov, I. Golutvin, I. Gorbunov, V. Karjavine, I. Kashunin,
A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev42,43, V.V. Mitsyn, P. Moisenz, V. Palichik,
V. Perelygin, S. Shmatov, O. Teryaev, V. Trofimov, N. Voytishin, B.S.
Yuldashev44, A. Zarubin, V. Zhiltsov Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute,
Gatchina (St. Petersburg), Russia
G. Gavrilov, V. Golovtcov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim45, E. Kuznetsova46, V. Murzin, V.
Oreshkin, I. Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Volkov, A. Vorobyev
Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, M. Kirsanov,
N. Krasnikov, A. Pashenkov, G. Pivovarov, D. Tlisov, A. Toropin Institute for
Theoretical and Experimental Physics named by A.I. Alikhanov of NRC ‘Kurchatov
Institute’, Moscow, Russia
V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, A. Nikitenko47, 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 National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
O. Bychkova, R. Chistov48, M. Danilov48, A. Oskin, P. Parygin, S. Polikarpov48
P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin, I. Dremin, M. Kirakosyan, A. Terkulov Skobeltsyn
Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow,
Russia
A. Belyaev, E. Boos, A. Demiyanov, A. Ershov, A. Gribushin, O. Kodolova, V.
Korotkikh, I. Lokhtin, S. Obraztsov, S. Petrushanko, V. Savrin, A. Snigirev,
I. Vardanyan Novosibirsk State University (NSU), Novosibirsk, Russia
V. Blinov49, T. Dimova49, L. Kardapoltsev49, I. Ovtin49, Y. Skovpen49
Institute for High Energy Physics of National Research Centre ‘Kurchatov
Institute’, Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, S. Bitioukov, V. Kachanov, A. Kalinin, D.
Konstantinov, V. Petrov, R. Ryutin, A. Sobol, S. Troshin, N. Tyurin, A.
Uzunian, A. Volkov National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk,
Russia
A. Babaev, A. Iuzhakov, V. Okhotnikov Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russia
V. Borchsh, V. Ivanchenko, E. Tcherniaev University of Belgrade: Faculty of
Physics and VINCA Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic50, P. Cirkovic, M. Dordevic, P. Milenovic, J. Milosevic, M.
Stojanovic Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y
Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid, Spain
M. Aguilar-Benitez, J. Alcaraz Maestre, A. Álvarez Fernández, I. Bachiller, M.
Barrio Luna, Cristina F. Bedoya, J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, C.A. Carrillo
Montoya, M. Cepeda, M. Cerrada, N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris,
J.P. Fernández Ramos, J. Flix, M.C. Fouz, O. Gonzalez Lopez, S. Goy Lopez,
J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa, D. Moran, Á. Navarro Tobar, A. Pérez-Calero
Yzquierdo, J. Puerta Pelayo, I. Redondo, L. Romero, S. Sánchez Navas, M.S.
Soares, A. Triossi, C. Willmott Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
C. Albajar, J.F. de Trocóniz, R. Reyes-Almanza Universidad de Oviedo,
Instituto Universitario de Ciencias y Tecnologías Espaciales de Asturias
(ICTEA), Oviedo, Spain
B. Alvarez Gonzalez, J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, S. Folgueras,
I. Gonzalez Caballero, E. Palencia Cortezon, C. Ramón Álvarez, V. Rodríguez
Bouza, S. Sanchez Cruz Instituto de Física de Cantabria (IFCA), CSIC-
Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain
I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, B. Chazin Quero, J. Duarte Campderros, M.
Fernandez, P.J. Fernández Manteca, A. García Alonso, G. Gomez, C. Martinez
Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del Arbol, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, C. Prieels,
F. Ricci-Tam, T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno, L. Russo51, L. Scodellaro, I. Vila,
J.M. Vizan Garcia University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka
MK Jayananda, B. Kailasapathy52, D.U.J. Sonnadara, DDC Wickramarathna
University of Ruhuna, Department of Physics, Matara, Sri Lanka
W.G.D. Dharmaratna, K. Liyanage, N. Perera, N. Wickramage CERN, European
Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, D. Abbaneo, B. Akgun, E. Auffray, G. Auzinger, J. Baechler, P.
Baillon, A.H. Ball, D. Barney, J. Bendavid, M. Bianco, A. Bocci, P. Bortignon,
E. Bossini, E. Brondolin, T. Camporesi, G. Cerminara, L. Cristella, D.
d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, N. Daci, V. Daponte, A. David, A. De Roeck, M.
Deile, R. Di Maria, M. Dobson, M. Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, N.
Emriskova, F. Fallavollita53, D. Fasanella, S. Fiorendi, G. Franzoni, J.
Fulcher, W. Funk, S. Giani, D. Gigi, K. Gill, F. Glege, L. Gouskos, M.
Gruchala, M. Guilbaud, D. Gulhan, J. Hegeman, C. Heidegger, Y. Iiyama, V.
Innocente, T. James, P. Janot, J. Kaspar, J. Kieseler, M. Komm, N. Kratochwil,
C. Lange, P. Lecoq, K. Long, C. Lourenço, L. Malgeri, M. Mannelli, A.
Massironi, F. Meijers, S. Mersi, E. Meschi, F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, J.
Ngadiuba, J. Niedziela, S. Orfanelli, L. Orsini, F. Pantaleo17, L. Pape, E.
Perez, M. Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, F.M.
Pitters, D. Rabady, A. Racz, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, S.
Scarfi, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva, W. Snoeys,
P. Sphicas54, J. Steggemann, S. Summers, V.R. Tavolaro, D. Treille, A. Tsirou,
G.P. Van Onsem, A. Vartak, M. Verzetti, K.A. Wozniak, W.D. Zeuner Paul
Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland
L. Caminada55, K. Deiters, W. Erdmann, R. Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C.
Kaestli, D. Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, T. Rohe ETH Zurich - Institute for
Particle Physics and Astrophysics (IPA), Zurich, Switzerland
M. Backhaus, P. Berger, A. Calandri, N. Chernyavskaya, G. Dissertori, M.
Dittmar, M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, T. Gadek, T.A. Gómez Espinosa, C. Grab, D.
Hits, W. Lustermann, A.-M. Lyon, R.A. Manzoni, M.T. Meinhard, F. Micheli, P.
Musella, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, F. Pauss, V. Perovic, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, S.
Pigazzini, M.G. Ratti, M. Reichmann, C. Reissel, T. Reitenspiess, B. Ristic,
D. Ruini, D.A. Sanz Becerra, M. Schönenberger, L. Shchutska, V. Stampf, M.L.
Vesterbacka Olsson, R. Wallny, D.H. Zhu Universität Zürich, Zurich,
Switzerland
C. Amsler56, C. Botta, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, R. Del Burgo,
J.K. Heikkilä, M. Huwiler, B. Kilminster, S. Leontsinis, A. Macchiolo, V.M.
Mikuni, I. Neutelings, G. Rauco, P. Robmann, K. Schweiger, Y. Takahashi, S.
Wertz National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan
C. Adloff57, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A. Roy, T. Sarkar32, S.S. Yu National Taiwan
University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
L. Ceard, P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, W.-S. Hou, Y.y. Li, R.-S.
Lu, E. Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen Chulalongkorn University, Faculty of
Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok, Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, N. Srimanobhas Çukurova University,
Physics Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
A. Bat, F. Boran, S. Damarseckin58, Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, C. Dozen59, I.
Dumanoglu60, E. Eskut, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, E. Gurpinar Guler61, I. Hos62,
C. Isik, E.E. Kangal63, O. Kara, A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, G. Onengut, K.
Ozdemir64, A. Polatoz, A.E. Simsek, B. Tali65, U.G. Tok, S. Turkcapar, I.S.
Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East Technical University, Physics Department,
Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak66, G. Karapinar67, K. Ocalan68, M. Yalvac69 Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya70, O. Kaya71, Ö. Özçelik, S. Tekten72, E.A.
Yetkin73 Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
A. Cakir, K. Cankocak60, Y. Komurcu, S. Sen74 Istanbul University, Istanbul,
Turkey
F. Aydogmus Sen, S. Cerci65, B. Kaynak, S. Ozkorucuklu, D. Sunar Cerci65
Institute for Scintillation Materials of National Academy of Science of
Ukraine, Kharkov, Ukraine
B. Grynyov National Scientific Center, Kharkov Institute of Physics and
Technology, Kharkov, Ukraine
L. Levchuk University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
E. Bhal, S. Bologna, J.J. Brooke, D. Burns75, E. Clement, D. Cussans, H.
Flacher, J. Goldstein, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, B. Krikler, S.
Paramesvaran, T. Sakuma, S. Seif El Nasr-Storey, V.J. Smith, J. Taylor, A.
Titterton Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev76, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, D.J.A. Cockerill, K.V. Ellis, K.
Harder, S. Harper, J. Linacre, K. Manolopoulos, D.M. Newbold, E. Olaiya, D.
Petyt, T. Reis, T. Schuh, C.H. Shepherd-Themistocleous, A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin,
T. Williams Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, S. Bonomally, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A.
Bundock, V. Cepaitis, G.S. Chahal77, D. Colling, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M.
Della Negra, P. Everaerts, G. Fedi, G. Hall, G. Iles, J. Langford, L. Lyons,
A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, A. Martelli, V. Milosevic, A. Morton, J. Nash78, V.
Palladino, M. Pesaresi, D.M. Raymond, A. Richards, A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez,
A. Shtipliyski, M. Stoye, A. Tapper, K. Uchida, T. Virdee17, N. Wardle, S.N.
Webb, D. Winterbottom, A.G. Zecchinelli, S.C. Zenz Brunel University,
Uxbridge, United Kingdom
J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, C.K. Mackay, I.D. Reid, L.
Teodorescu, S. Zahid Baylor University, Waco, USA
A. Brinkerhoff, K. Call, B. Caraway, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, C. Madrid, B.
McMaster, N. Pastika, C. Smith Catholic University of America, Washington, DC,
USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez, R. Uniyal, A.M. Vargas Hernandez The University of
Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
A. Buccilli, O. Charaf, S.I. Cooper, S.V. Gleyzer, C. Henderson, P. Rumerio,
C. West Boston University, Boston, USA
A. Albert, D. Arcaro, Z. Demiragli, D. Gastler, C. Richardson, J. Rohlf, D.
Sperka, D. Spitzbart, I. Suarez, D. Zou Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, B. Burkle, X. Coubez18, D. Cutts, Y.t. Duh, M. Hadley, U. Heintz,
J.M. Hogan79, K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, K.T. Lau, J. Lee, M.
Narain, S. Sagir80, R. Syarif, E. Usai, W.Y. Wong, D. Yu, W. Zhang University
of California, Davis, Davis, USA
R. Band, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez, M. Chertok,
J. Conway, R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, G. Funk, F. Jensen, W.
Ko${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, O. Kukral, R. Lander, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett,
J. Pilot, M. Shi, D. Taylor, K. Tos, M. Tripathi, Z. Wang, Y. Yao, F. Zhang
University of California, Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, C. Bravo, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, A. Florent, D. Hamilton, J.
Hauser, M. Ignatenko, T. Lam, N. Mccoll, W.A. Nash, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg,
C. Schnaible, B. Stone, V. Valuev University of California, Riverside,
Riverside, USA
K. Burt, Y. Chen, R. Clare, J.W. Gary, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi, G. Hanson, G.
Karapostoli, O.R. Long, N. Manganelli, M. Olmedo Negrete, M.I. Paneva, W. Si,
S. Wimpenny, Y. Zhang University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, P. Chang, S. Cittolin, S. Cooperstein, N. Deelen, M. Derdzinski,
J. Duarte, R. Gerosa, D. Gilbert, B. Hashemi, D. Klein, V. Krutelyov, J.
Letts, M. Masciovecchio, S. May, S. Padhi, M. Pieri, V. Sharma, M. Tadel, F.
Würthwein, A. Yagil University of California, Santa Barbara - Department of
Physics, Santa Barbara, USA
N. Amin, R. Bhandari, C. Campagnari, M. Citron, A. Dorsett, V. Dutta, J.
Incandela, B. Marsh, H. Mei, A. Ovcharova, H. Qu, J. Richman, U. Sarica, D.
Stuart, S. Wang California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
D. Anderson, A. Bornheim, O. Cerri, I. Dutta, J.M. Lawhorn, N. Lu, J. Mao,
H.B. Newman, T.Q. Nguyen, J. Pata, M. Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, S. Xie, Z.
Zhang, R.Y. Zhu Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
J. Alison, M.B. Andrews, T. Ferguson, T. Mudholkar, M. Paulini, M. Sun, I.
Vorobiev, M. Weinberg University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, E. MacDonald, T. Mulholland, R. Patel, A. Perloff, K.
Stenson, K.A. Ulmer, S.R. Wagner Cornell University, Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, Y. Cheng, J. Chu, A. Datta, A. Frankenthal, K. Mcdermott, J.
Monroy, J.R. Patterson, D. Quach, A. Ryd, W. Sun, S.M. Tan, Z. Tao, J. Thom,
P. Wittich, M. Zientek Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, USA
S. Abdullin, M. Albrow, M. Alyari, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S.
Banerjee, L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas, D. Berry, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, K.
Burkett, J.N. Butler, A. Canepa, G.B. Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M.
Cremonesi, V.D. Elvira, J. Freeman, Z. Gecse, E. Gottschalk, L. Gray, D.
Green, S. Grünendahl, O. Gutsche, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, R. Heller, T.C.
Herwig, J. Hirschauer, B. Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, T.
Klijnsma, B. Klima, M.J. Kortelainen, S. Lammel, J. Lewis, D. Lincoln, R.
Lipton, M. Liu, T. Liu, J. Lykken, K. Maeshima, J.M. Marraffino, D. Mason, P.
McBride, P. Merkel, S. Mrenna, S. Nahn, V. O’Dell, V. Papadimitriou, K. Pedro,
C. Pena81, O. Prokofyev, F. Ravera, A. Reinsvold Hall, L. Ristori, B.
Schneider, E. Sexton-Kennedy, N. Smith, A. Soha, W.J. Spalding, L. Spiegel, S.
Stoynev, J. Strait, L. Taylor, S. Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran, L. Uplegger, E.W.
Vaandering, M. Wang, H.A. Weber, A. Woodard University of Florida,
Gainesville, USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, D. Bourilkov, L. Cadamuro, V. Cherepanov, F. Errico, R.D.
Field, D. Guerrero, B.M. Joshi, M. Kim, J. Konigsberg, A. Korytov, K.H. Lo, K.
Matchev, N. Menendez, G. Mitselmakher, D. Rosenzweig, K. Shi, J. Wang, S.
Wang, X. Zuo Florida International University, Miami, USA
Y.R. Joshi Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
T. Adams, A. Askew, D. Diaz, R. Habibullah, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F.
Johnson, R. Khurana, T. Kolberg, G. Martinez, H. Prosper, C. Schiber, R.
Yohay, J. Zhang Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, S. Butalla, T. Elkafrawy13, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, M. Rahmani,
M. Saunders, F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago, USA
M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, H. Becerril Gonzalez, R.R. Betts, R. Cavanaugh, X.
Chen, S. Dittmer, O. Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, V.
Kumar, C. Mills, G. Oh, T. Roy, M.B. Tonjes, N. Varelas, J. Viinikainen, H.
Wang, X. Wang, Z. Wu The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, B. Bilki61, K. Dilsiz82, S. Durgut, R.P. Gandrajula, M.
Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko, O.K. Köseyan, J.-P. Merlo, A. Mestvirishvili83, A.
Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul84, Y. Onel, F. Ozok85, A. Penzo, C. Snyder, E.
Tiras, J. Wetzel, K. Yi86 Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
O. Amram, B. Blumenfeld, L. Corcodilos, M. Eminizer, A.V. Gritsan, S.
Kyriacou, P. Maksimovic, C. Mantilla, J. Roskes, M. Swartz, T.Á. Vámi The
University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA
C. Baldenegro Barrera, P. Baringer, A. Bean, S. Boren, A. Bylinkin, T.
Isidori, S. Khalil, J. King, G. Krintiras, A. Kropivnitskaya, C. Lindsey, W.
Mcbrayer, N. Minafra, M. Murray, C. Rogan, C. Royon, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz,
J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang, J. Williams, G. Wilson Kansas State University,
Manhattan, USA
S. Duric, A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, D. Kim, Y. Maravin, D.R. Mendis, T. Mitchell,
A. Modak, A. Mohammadi Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright University of Maryland, College Park, USA
E. Adams, A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, S.C. Eno, Y. Feng, N.J. Hadley, S.
Jabeen, G.Y. Jeng, R.G. Kellogg, T. Koeth, A.C. Mignerey, S. Nabili, M.
Seidel, A. Skuja, S.C. Tonwar, L. Wang, K. Wong Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, R. Bi, S. Brandt, W. Busza, I.A. Cali, Y. Chen, M.
D’Alfonso, G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov, P. Harris, D. Hsu, M. Hu, M.
Klute, D. Kovalskyi, J. Krupa, Y.-J. Lee, P.D. Luckey, B. Maier, A.C. Marini,
C. Mcginn, C. Mironov, S. Narayanan, X. Niu, C. Paus, D. Rankin, C. Roland, G.
Roland, Z. Shi, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Sumorok, K. Tatar, D. Velicanu, J. Wang,
T.W. Wang, B. Wyslouch University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, S. Guts${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, P. Hansen, J.
Hiltbrand, Sh. Jain, M. Krohn, Y. Kubota, Z. Lesko, J. Mans, M. Revering, R.
Rusack, R. Saradhy, N. Schroeder, N. Strobbe, M.A. Wadud University of
Mississippi, Oxford, USA
J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
K. Bloom, S. Chauhan, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, L. Finco, F. Golf, J.R.
González Fernández, I. Kravchenko, J.E. Siado, G.R.
Snow${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, B. Stieger, W. Tabb State University of New
York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
G. Agarwal, C. Harrington, I. Iashvili, A. Kharchilava, C. McLean, D. Nguyen,
A. Parker, J. Pekkanen, S. Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani Northeastern University,
Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, Y. Haddad, A. Hortiangtham, G. Madigan, B.
Marzocchi, D.M. Morse, V. Nguyen, T. Orimoto, L. Skinnari, A. Tishelman-
Charny, T. Wamorkar, B. Wang, A. Wisecarver, D. Wood Northwestern University,
Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, J. Bueghly, Z. Chen, A. Gilbert, T. Gunter, K.A. Hahn, N.
Odell, M.H. Schmitt, K. Sung, M. Velasco University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame,
USA
R. Bucci, N. Dev, R. Goldouzian, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop,
D.J. Karmgard, K. Lannon, W. Li, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, I. Mcalister, F.
Meng, K. Mohrman, Y. Musienko42, R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, S. Taroni, M.
Wayne, A. Wightman, M. Wolf, L. Zygala The Ohio State University, Columbus,
USA
J. Alimena, B. Bylsma, B. Cardwell, L.S. Durkin, B. Francis, C. Hill, W. Ji,
A. Lefeld, B.L. Winer, B.R. Yates Princeton University, Princeton, USA
G. Dezoort, P. Elmer, N. Haubrich, S. Higginbotham, A. Kalogeropoulos, G.
Kopp, S. Kwan, D. Lange, M.T. Lucchini, 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
V.E. Barnes, R. Chawla, S. Das, L. Gutay, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, B. Mahakud, G.
Negro, N. Neumeister, C.C. Peng, S. Piperov, H. Qiu, J.F. Schulte, N.
Trevisani, F. Wang, R. Xiao, W. Xie Purdue University Northwest, Hammond, USA
T. Cheng, J. Dolen, N. Parashar Rice University, Houston, USA
A. Baty, S. Dildick, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Kilpatrick, A.
Kumar, W. Li, B.P. Padley, R. Redjimi, J. Roberts${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$,
J. Rorie, W. Shi, A.G. Stahl Leiton, Z. Tu, A. Zhang University of Rochester,
Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, J.L. Dulemba, C. Fallon, T. Ferbel, M.
Galanti, A. Garcia-Bellido, O. Hindrichs, A. Khukhunaishvili, E. Ranken, R.
Taus Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, USA
B. Chiarito, J.P. Chou, A. Gandrakota, Y. Gershtein, E. Halkiadakis, A. Hart,
M. Heindl, E. Hughes, S. Kaplan, O. Karacheban21, I. Laflotte, A. Lath, R.
Montalvo, K. Nash, M. Osherson, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, S. Somalwar, R. Stone,
S. Thomas University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
H. Acharya, A.G. Delannoy, S. Spanier Texas A&M University, College Station,
USA
O. Bouhali87, M. Dalchenko, A. Delgado, R. Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T.
Kamon88, H. Kim, S. Luo, S. Malhotra, D. Marley, R. Mueller, D. Overton, L.
Perniè, D. Rathjens, A. Safonov Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, V. Hegde, S. Kunori, K. Lamichhane, S.W. Lee, T.
Mengke, S. Muthumuni, T. Peltola, S. Undleeb, I. Volobouev, Z. Wang, A.
Whitbeck Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
E. Appelt, S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H.
Ni, K. Padeken, F. Romeo, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska, M. Verweij
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
L. Ang, M.W. Arenton, B. Cox, G. Cummings, J. Hakala, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A.
Ledovskoy, C. Neu, B. Tannenwald, Y. Wang, E. Wolfe, F. Xia Wayne State
University, Detroit, USA
P.E. Karchin, N. Poudyal, J. Sturdy, P. Thapa University of Wisconsin -
Madison, Madison, WI, USA
K. Black, T. Bose, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, S. Dasu, I. De Bruyn, L. Dodd, C.
Galloni, H. He, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, A. Lanaro, A. Loeliger, R.
Loveless, J. Madhusudanan Sreekala, A. Mallampalli, D. Pinna, T. Ruggles, A.
Savin, V. Shang, V. Sharma, W.H. Smith, D. Teague, S. Trembath-reichert, W.
Vetens †: Deceased
1: Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria
2: Also at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
3: Also at IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
4: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
5: Also at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
6: Also at UFMS, Nova Andradina, Brazil
7: Also at Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil
8: Also at University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
9: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics named by A.I.
Alikhanov of NRC ‘Kurchatov Institute’, Moscow, Russia
10: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
11: Also at Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
12: Now at Zewail City of Science and Technology, Zewail, Egypt
13: Also at Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
14: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
15: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
16: Also at Erzincan Binali Yildirim University, Erzincan, Turkey
17: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
18: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
19: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
20: Also at Department of Physics, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan,
Iran, Isfahan, Iran
21: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
22: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
23: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary,
Debrecen, Hungary
24: Also at Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Assiut University, Assiut,
Egypt
25: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
26: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary, Budapest, Hungary
27: Also at IIT Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India, Bhubaneswar, India
28: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
29: Also at G.H.G. Khalsa College, Punjab, India
30: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India
31: Also at University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India
32: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
33: Also at Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Mumbai, India
34: Also at Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
35: Also at Department of Physics, University of Science and Technology of
Mazandaran, Behshahr, Iran
36: Now at INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b, Politecnico di Bari
c, Bari, Italy
37: Also at Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and
Sustainable Economic Development, Bologna, Italy
38: Also at Centro Siciliano di Fisica Nucleare e di Struttura Della Materia,
Catania, Italy
39: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia, Riga, Latvia
40: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico City, Mexico
41: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems,
Warsaw, Poland
42: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
43: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
44: Also at Institute of Nuclear Physics of the Uzbekistan Academy of
Sciences, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
45: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
46: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
47: Also at Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
48: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
49: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
50: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
51: Also at Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy
52: Also at Trincomalee Campus, Eastern University, Sri Lanka, Nilaveli, Sri
Lanka
53: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy,
Pavia, Italy
54: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
55: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
56: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics, Vienna, Austria,
Vienna, Austria
57: Also at Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules,
IN2P3-CNRS, Annecy-le-Vieux, France
58: Also at Şırnak University, Sirnak, Turkey
59: Also at Department of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China,
Beijing, China
60: Also at Near East University, Research Center of Experimental Health
Science, Nicosia, Turkey
61: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey, Istanbul, Turkey
62: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Application and Research Center for
Advanced Studies (App. & Res. Cent. for Advanced Studies), Istanbul, Turkey
63: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
64: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
65: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
66: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
67: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
68: Also at Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
69: Also at Bozok Universitetesi Rektörlügü, Yozgat, Turkey
70: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
71: Also at Milli Savunma University, Istanbul, Turkey
72: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
73: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
74: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
75: Also at Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
76: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
77: Also at IPPP Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom
78: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia
79: Also at Bethel University, St. Paul, Minneapolis, USA, St. Paul, USA
80: Also at Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey
81: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
82: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
83: Also at Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
84: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
85: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
86: Also at Nanjing Normal University Department of Physics, Nanjing, China
87: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
88: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea, Daegu, Korea