BPH-13-008

$Revision:464497$
$HeadURL:svn+ssh://svn.cern.ch/reps/tdr2/papers/BPH-13-008/trunk/BPH-13-008.tex$
$Id:BPH-13-008.tex4644972018-06-1407:43:40Zjmejiagu$

BPH-13-008

# Measurement of b hadron lifetimes in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$

###### Abstract

Measurements are presented of the lifetimes of the , , $\PgL_{\PQb}^{0}$, and
$\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ hadrons using the decay channels
$\PBz\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKst{}^{0}$, $\PBz\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKzS$,
$\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp\Pgpm$, $\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgf$,
$\Lambda_{\mathrm{b}}^{0}\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PgL^{0}$, and
$\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp$. The data sample,
corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 19.7, was collected by the CMS
detector at the LHC in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8\TeV$. The
lifetime is measured to be $453.0\pm 1.6\stat\pm 1.8\syst\micron$ in
$\cPJgy\PKst{}^{0}$and $457.8\pm 2.7\stat\pm 2.8\syst\micron$ in
$\cPJgy\PKzS$, which results in a combined measurement of
$c\tau_{\PBz}=454.1\pm 1.4\stat\pm 1.7\syst\micron$. The effective lifetime of
the meson is measured in two decay modes, with contributions from different
amounts of the heavy and light eigenstates. This results in two different
measured lifetimes: $c\tau_{\PBzs\to\cPJgy\Pgpp\Pgpm}=502.7\pm 10.2\stat\pm
3.4\syst\micron$ and $c\tau_{\PBzs\to\cPJgy\Pgf}=443.9\pm 2.0\stat\pm
1.5\syst\micron$. The $\PgL_{\PQb}^{0}$ lifetime is found to be $442.9\pm
8.2\stat\pm 2.8\syst\micron$. The precision from each of these channels is as
good as or better than previous measurements. The
$\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ lifetime, measured with respect to the to reduce
the systematic uncertainty, is $162.3\pm 7.8\stat\pm 4.2\syst\pm
0.1\,(\tau_{\PBp})\micron$. All results are in agreement with current world-
average values.

##  0.1 Introduction

Precise lifetime measurements involving the weak interaction play an important
role in the study of nonperturbative aspects of quantum chromodynamics (QCD).
The phenomenology is commonly described by the QCD-inspired heavy-quark
expansion model, which provides estimates of the ratio of lifetimes for
hadrons containing a common heavy quark [1]. In this paper, we report
measurements of the lifetimes of the $\PBz$, $\PBzs$,
$\Lambda_{\mathrm{b}}^{0}$, and $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ hadrons.

The measurements are based on the reconstruction of the transverse decay
length $L_{xy}$, where $\vec{L}_{xy}$ is defined as the flight distance vector
from the primary vertex to the decay vertex of the hadron, projected onto the
transverse component $\vec{p}_{\text{T}}$ (perpendicular to the beam axis) of
the hadron momentum. The proper decay time of the hadron times the speed of
light is measured using

$ct=cL_{xy}\frac{M}{\pt},$ (1)

where $M$ is the world-average value of the mass of the hadron [2].

In this analysis, the hadrons are reconstructed from decays containing a
$\cPJgy$ meson. The data were recorded by the CMS detector [3] at the CERN LHC
using dedicated triggers that require two oppositely charged muons consistent
with originating from a common vertex and with an invariant mass compatible
with that of the $\cPJgy$ meson. Specifically, we reconstruct the decay modes
$\PBz\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKst{}^{0}$, $\PBz\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKzS$,
$\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp\Pgpm$, $\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgf$,
$\Lambda_{\mathrm{b}}^{0}\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PgL^{0}$, and
$\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp$, where
$\cPJgy\\!\to\\!\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$, $\PKst{}^{0}\\!\to\\!\PKp\Pgpm$,
$\PKzS\\!\to\\!\Pgpp\Pgpm$, $\Pgf\\!\to\\!\PKp\PKm$, and
$\PgL^{0}\\!\to\\!\Pp\Pgpm$. The $\PBp\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKp$ decay is used as a
reference mode and in evaluating some of the systematic uncertainties. Charge
conjugation is implied throughout, unless otherwise indicated.

The decay rate of neutral $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{q}}$ (q = s or d) mesons is
characterized by two parameters: the average decay width
$\Gamma_{\mathrm{q}}=(\Gamma_{\mathrm{L}}^{\mathrm{q}}+\Gamma_{\mathrm{H}}^{\mathrm{q}})/2$
and the decay width difference
$\Delta\Gamma_{\mathrm{q}}=\Gamma_{\mathrm{L}}^{\mathrm{q}}-\Gamma_{\mathrm{H}}^{\mathrm{q}}$,
where $\Gamma_{\mathrm{L,H}}^{\mathrm{q}}$ are the decay widths of the light
(L) and heavy (H) mass eigenstates. Assuming equal amounts of
$\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{q}}$ and its antiparticle are produced in the proton-
proton collisions, the time-dependent decay rate into a final state $f$ that
is accessible by both particle and antiparticle can be written as [4]:

$R_{\mathrm{L}}^{f}\re^{-\Gamma_{\mathrm{L}}^{\mathrm{q}}t}+R_{\mathrm{H}}^{f}\re^{-\Gamma_{\mathrm{H}}^{\mathrm{q}}t},$
(2)

where $R_{\mathrm{L}}^{f}$ and $R_{\mathrm{H}}^{f}$ are the amplitudes of the
light and heavy mass states, respectively. Since the neutral B mesons have two
eigenstates with different lifetimes, the $ct$ distribution consists of the
sum of two exponential contributions. The effective lifetime of the neutral
$\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{q}}$ meson, produced as an equal admixture of particle
and antiparticle flavour eigenstates and decaying into a final state $f$, can
be written as [4]:

$\tau_{\text{eff}}=\frac{\frac{R_{\mathrm{L}}^{f}}{\left(\Gamma_{\mathrm{L}}^{\mathrm{q}}\right)^{2}}+\frac{R_{\mathrm{H}}^{f}}{\left(\Gamma_{\mathrm{H}}^{\mathrm{q}}\right)^{2}}}{\frac{R_{\mathrm{L}}^{f}}{\Gamma_{\mathrm{L}}^{\mathrm{q}}}+\frac{R_{\mathrm{H}}^{f}}{\Gamma_{\mathrm{H}}^{\mathrm{q}}}}.$
(3)

Since the amplitudes $R_{\mathrm{H}}^{f}$ and $R_{\mathrm{L}}^{f}$ are
specific to the decay channel, the effective lifetime depends on the final
state $f$ and is measured by fitting an exponential function to a distribution
consisting of the sum of two exponential contributions. Because the $\PBz$
system has a small lifetime difference with respect to the average lifetime,
$\Delta\Gamma_{\mathrm{d}}/\Gamma_{\mathrm{d}}=(-0.2\pm 1.0)\%$ [5], the $ct$
distribution is close to an exponential, and it is treated as such for the
lifetime measurement. Following Ref. [6], the $\PBz$ lifetimes measured in the
flavour-specific channel $\PBz\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKst{}^{0}$ and the $CP$
eigenstate channel $\PBz\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKzS$ are used to determine values for
$\Delta\Gamma_{\mathrm{d}}$, $\Gamma_{\mathrm{d}}$, and
$\Delta\Gamma_{\mathrm{d}}/\Gamma_{\mathrm{d}}$.

In the $\PBzs$ system, $\Delta\Gamma_{\mathrm{s}}/\Gamma_{\mathrm{s}}=(13.0\pm
0.9)\%$ [5] and the deviation from an exponential $ct$ distribution is
sizeable. In this analysis, the two lifetimes associated with the $\PBzs$
meson are measured in the $\cPJgy\Pgpp\Pgpm$ and $\cPJgy\Pgf$ decay channels.
The $\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp\Pgpm$ decays are reconstructed in the invariant
mass range $0.9240<M(\pi^{+}\pi^{-})<1.0204$, which is dominated by the
$f_{0}(980)$ resonance [7, 8], making it a CP-odd final state. Therefore, the
lifetime measured in this channel is related to the inverse of the decay width
of the heavy $\PBzs$ mass eigenstate, $\tau_{\PBzs}^{\text{CP-odd}}\approx
1/\Gamma_{\mathrm{H}}$, as CP violation in mixing is measured to be negligible
[2]. The $\cPJgy\Pgf$ decay channel is an admixture of CP-even and CP-odd
states, corresponding to the light and heavy mass eigenstates, respectively,
neglecting CP violation in mixing. Rewriting Eq. (3), the effective lifetime
of the $\PBzs$ meson decaying to $\cPJgy\Pgf$ can be expressed as

$\tau_{\text{eff}}=f_{\mathrm{H}}\tau_{\mathrm{H}}+(1-f_{\mathrm{H}})\tau_{\mathrm{L}},$
(4)

where $\tau_{\mathrm{L}}$ and $\tau_{\mathrm{H}}$ are the lifetimes of the
light and heavy mass states, respectively, and $f_{\mathrm{H}}$ is the heavy-
component fraction, defined as:

$f_{\mathrm{H}}=\frac{|A_{\perp}|^{2}\tau_{\mathrm{H}}}{|A|^{2}\tau_{\mathrm{L}}+|A_{\perp}|^{2}\tau_{\mathrm{H}}}.$
(5)

Here, $|A|^{2}=|A_{0}(0)|^{2}+|A_{\parallel}(0)|^{2}$ is the sum of the
squares of the amplitudes of the two CP-even states, and
$|A_{\perp}|^{2}=|A_{\perp}(0)|^{2}$ is the square of the amplitude of the CP-
odd state. The amplitudes are determined at the production time $t=0$.
Normalization constraints require $|A|^{2}=1-|A_{\perp}|^{2}$ and therefore

$f_{\mathrm{H}}=\frac{|A_{\perp}|^{2}\tau_{\mathrm{H}}}{(1-|A_{\perp}|^{2})\tau_{\mathrm{L}}+|A_{\perp}|^{2}\tau_{\mathrm{H}}}.$
(6)

By combining the $\PBzs$ lifetimes obtained from the final states $\cPJgy\Pgf$
and $\cPJgy\Pgpp\Pgpm$, it is possible to determine the lifetime of the light
$\PBzs$ mass eigenstate. The results in this paper are complementary to the
CMS weak mixing phase analysis in the $\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgf$ channel [9],
which provided measurements of the average decay width $\Gamma_{\mathrm{s}}$
and the decay width difference $\Delta\Gamma_{\mathrm{s}}$.

The weak decay of the $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ meson can occur through
either the b or c quark decaying, with the other quark as a spectator, or
through an annihilation process. The latter is predicted to contribute 10% of
the decay width [10], and lifetime measurements can be used to test the
$\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ decay model. As fewer and less precise
measurements of the $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ lifetime exist [11, 12, 13,
14, 15, 16] compared to other b hadrons, the $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$
lifetime measurement presented in this paper is particularly valuable.

##  0.2 The CMS detector

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

The main subdetectors used for this analysis are the silicon tracker and the
muon detection system. The silicon tracker measures charged particles in the
pseudorapidity range $\abs{\eta}<2.5$. It consists of 1440 silicon pixel and
15 148 silicon strip detector modules. For charged particles of $1<\pt<10\GeV$
and $\abs{\eta}<1.4$, the track resolutions are typically 1.5% in and 25–90
(45–150)in the transverse (longitudinal) impact parameter [17]. Muons are
measured in the pseudorapidity range $\abs{\eta}<2.4$, with detection planes
made using three technologies: drift tubes, cathode strip chambers, and
resistive-plate chambers.

Events of interest are selected using a two-tiered trigger system [18]. The
first level, composed of custom hardware processors, uses information from the
calorimeters and muon detectors to select events at a rate of around 100kHz
within a time interval of less than 4. The second level, known as the high-
level trigger (HLT), consists of a farm of processors running a version of the
full event reconstruction software optimized for fast processing, and reduces
the event rate to around 1kHz before data storage. At the HLT stage, there is
full access to the event information, and therefore selection criteria similar
to those applied offline can be used.

A more detailed description of the CMS detector, together with a definition of
the coordinate system used and the relevant kinematic variables, can be found
in Ref. [3].

##  0.3 Data and Monte Carlo simulated samples

The data used in this analysis were collected in 2012 from proton-proton
collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 8, and correspond to an integrated
luminosity of 19.7.

Fully simulated Monte Carlo (MC) samples of $\PBp\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKp$,
$\PBz\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKst{}^{0}$, $\PBz\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKzS$,
$\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp\Pgpm$, $\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgf$, and
$\Lambda_{\mathrm{b}}^{0}\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PgL^{0}$ were produced with 6.424
[19] to simulate the proton-proton collisions, and subsequent parton shower
and hadronization processes. The $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ MC sample was
produced with the dedicated generator bcvegpy 2.0 [20, 21] interfaced to .
Decays of particles containing b or c quarks are simulated with the package
[22], and final-state radiation is included via [23]. Events are passed
through the CMS detector simulation based on [24], including additional
proton-proton collisions in the same or nearby beam crossings (pileup) to
match the number of multiple vertices per event in the data. Simulated events
are processed with the same reconstruction and trigger algorithms as the data.

##  0.4 Reconstruction of hadrons

The data are collected with a trigger that is designed to identify events in
which a $\cPJgy$ meson decays to two oppositely charged muons. The transverse
momentum of the $\cPJgy$ candidate is required to be greater than 7.9and both
muons must be in the pseudorapidity region $|\eta|<2.2$. The distance of
closest approach of each muon to the event vertex in the transverse plane must
be less than 0.5and a fit of the two muons to a common vertex must have a
$\chi^{2}$ probability greater than 0.5%. The invariant mass of the dimuon
system must lie within $\pm$5 times the experimental mass resolution
(typically about 35) of the world-average $\cPJgy$ mass [2].

The offline selection starts from $\cPJgy$ candidates that are reconstructed
from pairs of oppositely charged muons. The standard CMS muon reconstruction
procedure [25] is used to identify the muons, which requires multiple hits in
the pixel, strip, and muon detectors with a consistent trajectory throughout.
The offline selection requirements on the dimuon system replicate the trigger
selection. From the sample of collected $\cPJgy$ events, candidate b hadrons
are reconstructed by combining a $\cPJgy$ candidate with track(s) or
reconstructed neutral particles, depending on the decay mode. Only tracks that
pass the standard CMS high-purity requirements [17] are used. The b hadron
candidate is fitted to a common vertex with the appropriate masses assigned to
the charged tracks and the dimuon invariant mass constrained to the world-
average $\cPJgy$ mass [2]. In fits that include a or $\PgL^{0}$ hadron, the
world-average mass is used for those particles. Primary vertices (PV) are
fitted from the reconstructed tracks using an estimate of the proton-proton
interaction region (beamspot) as a constraint. The PV having the smallest
pointing angle, defined as the angle between the reconstructed hadron momentum
and the vector joining the PV with the decay vertex, is used. As the proper
decay times are measured in the transverse plane, where the PV position is
dominated by the beamspot, the choice of PV has little effect on the analysis
and is accounted for as a systematic uncertainty.

###  0.4.1 Reconstruction of $\PBp$, $\PBz$, $\PBzs$, and
$\Lambda_{\mathrm{b}}^{0}$ hadrons

The $\PBp$, $\PBz$, $\PBzs$, and $\Lambda_{\mathrm{b}}^{0}$ hadrons are
reconstructed in the decays $\PBp\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKp$,
$\PBz\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKzS$, $\PBz\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKst{}^{0}$,
$\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp\Pgpm$, $\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgf$, and
$\Lambda_{\mathrm{b}}^{0}\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PgL^{0}$. The $\PKst{}^{0}$, , , and
$\PgL^{0}$ candidates are reconstructed from pairs of oppositely charged
tracks that are consistent with originating from a common vertex. Because of
the lack of charged particle identification, the labelling of tracks as pions,
kaons, and protons simply means the mass that is assigned to the track. The
mass assignments for the and decay products are unambiguous (either both pions
or both kaons). For the kinematic region considered in this analysis,
simulations show that the proton always corresponds to the track with the
larger momentum (leading track) from the $\PgL^{0}$ decay. The $\PKst{}^{0}$
candidates are constructed from a pair of tracks with kaon and pion mass
assignments.

Since two $\PKst{}^{0}$ candidates can be formed with a single pair of tracks,
we select the combination for which the mass of the $\PKst{}^{0}$ candidate is
closest to the world-average value [2]. This selects the correct combination
88% of the time.

All tracks must have a transverse momentum greater than 0.5. The decay
vertices of the and $\PgL^{0}$ particles are required to have a transverse
decay length larger than 15$\sigma$ and their two decay products must each
have a transverse impact parameter of at least 2$\sigma$, where the distances
are with respect to the beamspot and $\sigma$ is the calculated uncertainty in
the relevant quantity. The intermediate candidate states $\PKst{}^{0}$, , ,
and $\PgL^{0}$ are selected if they lie within the following mass regions that
correspond to 1–2 times the experimental resolution or natural width around
the nominal mass: $0.7960<M(\PKp\Pgpm)<0.9880$, $0.4876<M(\Pgpp\Pgpm)<0.5076$,
$1.0095<M(\PKp\PKm)<1.0295$, and $1.1096<M(\Pp\Pgpm)<1.1216$. The accepted
mass region of the $\Pgpp\Pgpm$ system in $\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp\Pgpm$
decay is $0.9240<M(\Pgpp\Pgpm)<1.0204$. The contamination in the $\PgL^{0}$
sample is removed by discarding candidates in which the leading particle in
the $\PgL^{0}$ decay is assigned the pion mass and the resulting $\Pgpp\Pgpm$
invariant mass is in the range $0.4876<M(\Pgpp\Pgpm)<0.5076$. Conversely, the
$\PgL^{0}$ contamination is removed from the sample by discarding candidates
in the $\Pp\Pgpm$ mass region $1.1096<M(\Pp\Pgpm)<1.1216$, when the proton
mass is assigned to the leading pion from the decay. The of the candidate
track from the $\PBp$ decay must be larger than 1. The of the $\Pgpp\Pgpm$
system in $\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp\Pgpm$ decays and the $\PKst{}^{0}$
candidates in $\PBz\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKst{}^{0}$ decays must be greater than
3.5, with the leading (trailing) charged hadrons in these decays required to
have a greater than 2.5 (1.5). The of the hadrons must be at least 13, except
for the $\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgf$ decay where no requirement is imposed. The
of the leading track from the and $\PgL^{0}$ decays must be larger than 1.8.
The minimum for the kaons forming a candidate is 0.7.

The hadron vertex $\chi^{2}$ probability is required to be greater than 0.1%
in the $\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgf$ channel only. The lifetime measurement is
limited to events in which the hadron $ct$ is greater than 0.02to avoid
resolution and reconstruction effects present in the low-$ct$ region. No
attempt is made to select a single b hadron candidate in the relatively rare
$(<1\%)$ events in which more than one b hadron candidate is found.

###  0.4.2 Reconstruction of $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp$

The $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ lifetime is measured using the method
developed by the LHCb Collaboration [12] in which the measured difference in
total widths between the $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ and mesons is used in
combination with the precisely known lifetime to obtain the
$\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ lifetime. This method does not require modelling
the background $ct$ distribution, avoiding a source of systematic uncertainty.
The same reconstruction algorithm and selection criteria are used for both
decays, $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp$ and
$\PBp\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKp$. As a result, the dependence of the efficiencies on
the proper decay time is similar.

The charged hadron tracks are required to have at least 2 pixel hits, at least
6 tracker hits (strips and pixels together), a track fit $\chi^{2}$ less than
3 times the number of degrees of freedom, and $|\eta|<2.4$. The dimuon
invariant mass is required to lie in the range $\pm$3$\sigma$ from the nominal
meson mass, where $\sigma$ is the average resolution for the signal, which
depends on the pseudorapidity and ranges from 35 to 50. The of the charged
hadron tracks and the b hadrons are required to be greater than 3.3 and 10,
respectively. The b hadrons must have a rapidity of $|y|<2.2$, a vertex
$\chi^{2}$ probability greater than 5%, a dimuon vertex $\chi^{2}$ probability
greater than 1%, and $\cos\theta>0.98$, where
${\cos\theta=\vec{L}_{xy}\cdot\vec{p}_{\mathrm{T},\PB}/(|L_{xy}|\cdot|p_{\mathrm{T},\PB}|)}$
and $\vec{L}_{xy}$ and $\vec{p}_{\mathrm{T},\PB}$ refer to the transverse
decay length and momentum of the or $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ mesons. The
lifetime measurement is limited to events in which the b hadron has
$ct>0.01\cm$, which ensures that the ratio of the
$\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ to meson efficiencies is constant versus $ct$.
The analysis of the $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ lifetime is described in
Section 0.6.

##  0.5 Measurement of the $\PBz$, $\PBzs$, and $\Lambda_{\mathrm{b}}^{0}$
lifetimes

For each decay channel, we perform a simultaneous fit to three input
variables, the b hadron mass, $ct$, and $ct$ uncertainty ($\sigma_{ct}$). For
the $\PBp$, $\PBz$, and $\Lambda_{\mathrm{b}}^{0}$ hadrons, an unbinned
maximum-likelihood fit is performed with a probability density function (PDF)
given by:

$\mathrm{PDF}=f_{s}\;M_{s}(M)\;T_{s}(ct)\;E_{s}(\sigma_{ct})\;\varepsilon(ct)+(1-f_{s})\;M_{b}(M)\;T_{b}(ct)\;E_{b}(\sigma_{ct}),$
(7)

where $f_{s}$ is the fraction of signal events, and $M_{s}$ ($M_{b}$), $T_{s}$
($T_{b}$), and $E_{s}$ ($E_{b}$) are the functions describing the signal
(background) distributions of the b hadron mass, $ct$, and $\sigma_{ct}$,
respectively, while $\varepsilon$ is the efficiency function. These functions
are derived below. For the $\PBzs$ modes, we use an extended maximum-
likelihood fit in order to correctly incorporate background sources whose
yields are obtained from the fit.

###  0.5.1 Reconstruction and selection efficiency

The reconstruction and selection efficiency $\varepsilon$ for each decay mode
is determined as a function of $ct$ by using fully simulated MC samples. This
efficiency is defined as the generated $ct$ distribution of the selected
events after reconstruction and selection divided by the $ct$ distribution
obtained from an exponential decay with the lifetime set to the value used to
generate the events. The efficiency for the $\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgf$ channel
is defined as the generated $ct$ distribution of the selected events after
reconstruction divided by the sum of the two exponentials generated with the
theoretical $\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgf$ decay rate model [26]. In the
theoretical model, the values of the physics parameters are set to those used
in the simulated sample.

Figure 1 shows the efficiency as a function of $ct$ for the various decay
modes, with an arbitrary normalization since only the relative efficiency is
relevant. The efficiencies display a sharp rise as $ct$ increases from 0 to
0.01cm, followed by a slow decrease as $ct$ increases further. The $ct$
efficiency is modelled with an inverse power function.

Figure 1:  The combined reconstruction and selection efficiency from
simulation versus $ct$ with a superimposed fit to an inverse power function
for $\PBp\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKp$ (upper left),
$\Lambda_{\mathrm{b}}^{0}\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PgL^{0}$ (upper right),
$\PBz\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKzS$ (centre left), $\PBz\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKst{}^{0}$
(centre right), $\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp\Pgpm$ (lower left), and
$\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgf$ (lower right). The efficiency scale is arbitrary.

###  0.5.2 Data modelling

Depending on the decay channel, the invariant mass distribution for the signal
$M_{s}$ is modelled with one or two Gaussian functions, and a linear
polynomial or an exponential function is used to model the combinatorial
background $M_{b}$. For the $\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp\Pgpm$ decay, three
additional terms are added to $M_{b}$ to include specific sources of
background. The $\PBz\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp\Pgpm$ decays are modelled by a
Gaussian function, the $\PBp\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKp$ decays by a shape taken from
simulation, and the
$\PBz_{\mathrm{(d,s)}}\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\mathrm{h}^{+}_{1}\mathrm{h}^{-}_{2}$
decays, where $\mathrm{h}^{+}_{1}$ and $\mathrm{h}^{-}_{2}$ are charged hadron
tracks that are not both pions, by a Gaussian function.

The signal $ct$ distribution $T_{s}$ is modelled by an exponential function
convolved with the detector resolution and then multiplied by the function
describing the reconstruction and selection efficiency. The resolution is
described by a Gaussian function with the per-event width taken from the $ct$
uncertainty distribution. The backgrounds $T_{b}$ are described by a
superposition of exponential functions convolved with the resolution. The
number of exponentials needed to describe the background is determined from
data events in the mass sideband regions for each decay mode.

The signal $E_{s}$ and background $E_{b}$ $\sigma_{ct}$ distributions are
modelled with a sum of two gamma functions for the $\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgf$
channel and two exponential functions convolved with a Gaussian function for
the other channels. The background parameters are obtained from a fit to the
mass sideband distributions. The signal parameters are obtained from a fit to
the signal region after subtracting the background contribution using the mass
sideband region to estimate the background. The parameters of the efficiency
function and the functions modelling the $\sigma_{ct}$ distributions are kept
constant in the fit. The remaining fit parameters are allowed to vary freely.

For the $\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp\Pgpm$ mode, the parameters of the mass
model for the $\PBp\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKp$ contamination are taken from the
simulation, and the yield and lifetime are determined by the fit. The mass of
the $\PBz\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp\Pgpm$ contamination is fixed to the weighted
average of the masses measured from our two $\PBz$ decay modes, and the width
of the Gaussian function is the same as the width used for the
$\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp\Pgpm$ signal, corrected by a factor of
$M_{\PBz}/M_{\PBzs}$. The lifetime of this contamination is fixed to the
world-average value, corrected by the same factor as the width, and the yield
is a free parameter of the fit.

###  0.5.3 Fit results

The invariant mass and $ct$ distributions obtained from data are shown with
the fit results superimposed in Figs. 2–4. The $ct$ distributions are fitted
in the range 0.02–0.50for all modes except the $\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgf$
channel, where the upper limit is increased to 0.60. The average lifetimes
times the speed of light obtained from the fits are: $c\tau_{\PBp}=490.9\pm
0.8\micron$, $c\tau_{\PBz\to\cPJgy\PKst{}^{0}}=453.0\pm 1.6\micron$,
$c\tau_{\PBz\to\cPJgy\PKzS}=457.8\pm 2.7\micron$,
$c\tau_{\PBzs\to\cPJgy\Pgpp\Pgpm}=502.7\pm 10.2\micron$,
$c\tau_{\PBzs\to\cPJgy\Pgf}=445.2\pm 2.0\micron$, and
$c\tau_{\Lambda_{\mathrm{b}}^{0}}=442.9\pm 8.2\micron$, where all
uncertainties are statistical only. The $\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgf$ value given
here is uncorrected for two offsets described in Section 0.7. There is good
agreement between the fitted functions and the data. The probabilities
calculated from the $\chi^{2}$ of the $ct$ distributions in Figs. 2–4 all
exceed 25%.

Figure 2:  Invariant mass (left) and $ct$ (right) distributions for $\PBp$
(upper) and for $\Lambda_{\mathrm{b}}^{0}$ (lower) candidates. The curves are
projections of the fit to the data, with the contributions from signal
(dashed), background (dotted), and the sum of signal and background (solid)
shown. the lower panels of the figures on the right show the difference
between the observed data and the fit divided by the data uncertainty. The
vertical bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainties.

Figure 3:  Invariant mass (left) and $ct$ (right) distributions for $\PBz$
candidates reconstructed from $\cPJgy\PKst{}^{0}$ (upper) and $\cPJgy\PKzS$
(lower) decays. The curves are projections of the fit to the data, with the
contributions from signal (dashed), background (dotted), and the sum of signal
and background (solid) shown. the lower panels of the figures on the right
show the difference between the observed data and the fit divided by the data
uncertainty. The vertical bars on the data points represent the statistical
uncertainties.

Figure 4:  Invariant mass (left) and $ct$ (right) distributions for $\PBzs$
candidates reconstructed from $\cPJgy\Pgf$ (upper) and $\cPJgy\Pgpp\Pgpm$
(lower) decays. The curves are projections of the fit to the data, with the
full fit function (solid) and signal (dashed) shown for both decays, the total
background (dotted) shown for the upper plots, and the combinatorial
background (dotted), misidentified $\PBp\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKp$ background
(dashed-dotted), $\PBz\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp\Pgpm$ contribution (dashed-dotted-
dotted-dotted), and partially reconstructed and other misidentified
backgrounds (dashed-dotted-dotted) shown for the lower plots. the lower panels
of the figures on the right show the difference between the observed data and
the fit divided by the data uncertainty. The vertical bars on the data points
represent the statistical uncertainties.

##  0.6 Measurement of the $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ lifetime

The decay time distribution for the signal $N_{\mathrm{B}}(ct)$ can be
expressed as the product of an efficiency function
$\varepsilon_{\mathrm{B}}(ct)$ and an exponential decay function
$E_{\mathrm{B}}(ct)=\exp(-ct/c\tau_{\mathrm{B}})$, convolved with the time
resolution function of the detector $r(ct)$. The ratio of
$\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ to events at a given proper time can be
expressed as

$\frac{N_{\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}}(ct)}{N_{\PBp}(ct)}\equiv
R(ct)=\frac{\varepsilon_{\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}}(ct)[r(ct)\otimes
E_{\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}}(ct)]}{\varepsilon_{\PBp}(ct)[r(ct)\otimes
E_{\PBp}(ct)]}.$ (8)

We have verified through studies of simulated pseudo-events that Eq. (8) is
not significantly affected by the time resolution, and therefore this equation
can be simplified to

$R(ct)\approx R_{\varepsilon}(ct)\exp(-\Delta\Gamma t),$ (9)

where the small effect from the time resolution is evaluated from MC
simulations and is included in $R_{\varepsilon}(ct)$, which denotes the ratio
of the $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ and efficiency functions. The quantity
$\Delta\Gamma$ is defined as

$\Delta\Gamma\equiv\Gamma_{\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}}-\Gamma_{\PBp}=\frac{1}{\tau_{\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}}}-\frac{1}{\tau_{\PBp}}.$
(10)

The $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp$ and
$\PBp\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKp$ invariant mass distributions, shown in Fig. 5, are
each fit with an unbinned maximum-likelihood estimator. The $\cPJgy\Pgpp$
invariant mass distribution is fitted with a Gaussian function for the
$\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ signal and an exponential function for the
background. An additional background contribution from
$\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKp$ decays is modelled from a
simulated sample of $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKp$ events,
and its contribution is constrained using the value of the branching fraction
relative to $\cPJgy\Pgpp$ [27]. The
$\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp$ signal yield is $1128\pm 60$
events, where the uncertainty is statistical only. The meson invariant mass
distribution is fit with a sum of two Gaussian functions with a common mean
for the signal and a second-order Chebyshev polynomial for the background.
Additional contributions from partially reconstructed $\PBz$ and meson decays
are parametrized with functions determined from $\PBp\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\pi^{+}$
and inclusive $\PBz\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\mathrm{X}$ MC samples.

Figure 5:  The $\cPJgy\Pgpp$ invariant mass distribution (left) with the solid
line representing the total fit, the dashed line the signal component, the
dotted line the combinatorial background, and the dashed-dotted line the
contribution from $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKp$ decays. The
$\cPJgy\PKp$ invariant mass distribution (right) with the solid line
representing the total fit, the dashed line the signal component, the dotted-
dashed curves the $\PBp\\!\to\\!\JPsi\Pgpp$ and contributions, and the dotted
curve the combinatorial background. The vertical bars on the data points
represent the statistical uncertainties.

###  0.6.1 The fit model and results

The $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ lifetime is extracted through a binned
$\chi^{2}$ fit to the ratio of the efficiency-corrected $ct$ distributions of
the $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp$ and
$\PBp\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKp$ channels. The $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ and $ct$
signal distributions from data are obtained by dividing the data sample into
$ct$ bins and performing an unbinned maximum-likelihood fit to the
$\cPJgy\Pgpp$ and $\cPJgy\PKp$ invariant mass distribution in each bin, in the
same manner as the fit to the full samples, except that the peak position and
resolution are fixed to the values obtained by the fits to the full samples.
Varied $ct$ bin widths are used to ensure a similar statistical uncertainty in
the $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ signal yield among the bins. The bin edges
are defined by requiring a relative statistical uncertainty of 12% or better
in each bin. The same binning is used for the $ct$ distribution. The
$\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ and meson yields are shown versus $ct$ in the
left plot of Fig. 6, where the number of signal events is normalized by the
bin width. Efficiencies are obtained from the MC samples and are defined as
the $ct$ distribution of the selected events after reconstruction divided by
the $ct$ distribution obtained from an exponential decay with the lifetime set
to the same value used to generate each MC sample. The ratio of the two
efficiency distributions, using the same binning scheme as for the data, is
shown in the right plot of Fig. 6.

Figure 6: Yields of $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp$ and
$\PBp\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKp$ events (left) as a function of $ct$, normalized to
the bin width, as determined from fits to the invariant mass distributions.
Ratio of the $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ and efficiency distributions
(right) as a function of $ct$, as determined from simulated events. The
vertical bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainties, and
the horizontal bars show the bin widths.

The ratio of the $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ to efficiency-corrected $ct$
distributions, $R/R_{\varepsilon}$, is shown in Fig. 7, along with the result
of a fit to an exponential function. The fit returns $\Delta\Gamma=1.24\pm
0.09$ ps-1. Using the known lifetime of the meson, $c\tau_{\PBp}$ = 491.1
$\pm$ 1.2 [5], a measurement of the $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ meson
lifetime, $c\tau_{\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}}$ = 162.3 $\pm$ 7.8 , is
extracted, where the uncertainty is statistical only.

Figure 7: Ratio of the $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ to efficiency-corrected
$ct$ distributions, $R/R_{\varepsilon}$, with a line showing the result of the
fit to an exponential function. The vertical bars give the statistical
uncertainty in the data, and the horizontal bars show the bin widths.

##  0.7 Systematic uncertainties

The systematic uncertainties can be divided into uncertainties common to all
the measurements, and uncertainties specific to a decay channel. Table 0.7.2
summarizes the systematic uncertainties for the sources considered below and
the total systematic uncertainty in the $\PBzs$, $\PBz$, and
$\Lambda_{\mathrm{b}}^{0}$ lifetime measurements. The systematic uncertainties
in $\Delta\Gamma$ and the $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ meson lifetime are
collected in Table 1. Using the known lifetime of the meson, the uncertainties
in $\Delta\Gamma$ are converted into uncertainties in the
$\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ meson lifetime measurement. The uncertainty in
the $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ meson lifetime due to the uncertainty in the
meson lifetime [5] is quoted separately.

We have verified that the results are stable against changes in the selection
requirements on the quality of the tracks and vertices, the kinematic
variables, and $ct$, as well as in detector regions and data-taking periods.
The effect of replacing the mass of the b hadron in the $ct$ definition of Eq.
(1) from the world-average to the reconstructed candidate mass is found to be
negligible. The lifetimes for all decay channels were measured by treating MC
samples as data. No bias was found and all results were consistent with the
input lifetimes of the generated samples.

###  0.7.1 Common systematic uncertainties

  1. 1.

Statistical uncertainty in the MC samples
The number of events in the simulation directly affects the accuracy of the
efficiency determination. In the case of the $\PBzs$, $\PBz$, and
$\Lambda_{\mathrm{b}}^{0}$ lifetime measurements, 1000 efficiency curves are
generated with variations of the parameter values. The parameter values are
sampled using a multivariate Gaussian PDF that is constructed from the
covariance matrix of the efficiency fit. The analysis is performed 1000 times,
varying the parameters of the efficiency function. The distribution of the
measured lifetimes is fitted with a Gaussian function, whose width is taken as
the systematic uncertainty associated with the finite size of the simulated
samples. In the measurement of the $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ lifetime, the
bin-by-bin statistical uncertainty in the efficiency determination is
propagated to the $R(ct)$ distribution, the fit is performed, and the
difference in quadrature of the uncertainty in $\Delta\Gamma$ with respect to
the nominal value is taken as the systematic uncertainty.

  2. 2.

Modelling of the mass distribution shape
Biases related to the modelling of the shapes of the b hadron mass signal and
background PDFs are quantified by changing the signal and background PDFs
individually and using the new models to fit the data. For the , , and
$\PgL_{\mathrm{b}}^{0}$ lifetime measurements, the background model is changed
to a higher-degree polynomial, a Chebyshev polynomial, or an exponential
function, and the signal model is changed from two Gaussian functions to a
single Gaussian function or a sum of three Gaussian functions. Differences in
the measured lifetime between the results of the nominal and alternative
models are used to estimate the systematic uncertainty, with the variations
due to the modelling of signal and background components evaluated separately
and added in quadrature. For the $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ lifetime
measurement, the signal peak is alternatively modelled with a Crystal Ball
distribution [28]. The alternative description for the background is a first-
order Chebyshev distribution. The removal of the Cabibbo-suppressed
$\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKp$ contribution is also
considered. The maximum deviation of the signal yield in each $ct$ bin from
the nominal value is propagated to the statistical uncertainty in the per-bin
yield. The fit to $R(ct)$ is performed and the difference in quadrature
between the uncertainty from this fit and the nominal measurement is taken as
the systematic uncertainty.

###  0.7.2 Channel-specific systematic uncertainties

  1. 1.

Modelling of the background $ct$ shape in the $\PBzs$, $\PBz$, and
$\Lambda_{\mathrm{b}}^{0}$ channels
To estimate a systematic uncertainty due to the $ct$ background model, we add
an additional background contribution modelled with its own lifetime, and
compare the result to that obtained with the nominal fit model. The difference
between the results of the nominal and alternative fit models is used as the
systematic uncertainty from the $ct$ shape modelling.

  2. 2.

The $\PBp$ contamination in the $\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp\Pgpm$ sample
In the nominal fit, the yield and lifetime of the $\PBp\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKp$
contamination are determined from the fit with the mass shape obtained from
simulation. An alternative estimate of the $\cPJgy\PKp$ contamination is
obtained from data by taking the leading pion of the
$\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp\Pgpm$ decay to be the kaon. The lifetime and yield
of the $\PBp\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKp$ decays contaminating the
$\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp\Pgpm$ sample are determined from a fit of the
$\PBp$ signal candidates in the $\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp\Pgpm$ sample, with
the mass shape also obtained from the data. The difference between the $\PBzs$
lifetime found with this model and the nominal model is considered as the
systematic uncertainty due to $\PBp$ contamination.

  3. 3.

Invariant mass window of the $\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ in the
$\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp\Pgpm$ channel
Although the events selected by the $\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ mass window are dominated
by the $f_{0}(980)$, its width is not well known and possible backgrounds
under the $f_{0}(980)$ peak could be increased or decreased, depending on the
mass window. The effect on the lifetime is studied by using mass windows of
$\pm$30 and $\pm$80around the signal peak, compared to the nominal fit result
with a $\pm$50window. The maximum variation of the lifetime is taken as the
systematic uncertainty.

  4. 4.

The $\PKp\Pgpm$ mass assignments for $\PKst{}^{0}$ candidates in the
$\PBz\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKst{}^{0}$ channel
The $\PKst{}^{0}$ candidates are constructed from a pair of tracks with kaon
and pion mass assignments. The combination with invariant mass closest to the
world-average $\PKst{}^{0}$ mass is chosen to reconstruct the $\PBz$
candidate. To estimate the effect on the lifetime due to a possible
misassignment of kaon and pion, both combinations are discarded if both are
within the natural width of the $\PKst{}^{0}$ mass, and the difference between
the lifetime obtained with this sample and the nominal sample is taken as the
systematic uncertainty.

  5. 5.

The $ct$ range in the $\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgf$ channel
Since the $ct>0.02$ cm requirement distorts the fractions of heavy and light
mass eigenstates, the measured $\PBzs$ effective lifetime must be corrected.
The correction and systematic uncertainty are quantified analytically. The
correction to the effective lifetime is

$\begin{split}\delta_{ct}=c\tau_{\text{eff}}^{\mathrm{cut}}-c\tau_{\text{eff}}=\frac{(1-|A_{\perp}|^{2})(c\tau_{\mathrm{L}})^{2}\re^{-a/c\tau_{\mathrm{L}}}+|A_{\perp}|^{2}(c\tau_{\mathrm{H}})^{2}\re^{-a/c\tau_{\mathrm{H}}}}{(1-|A_{\perp}|^{2})c\tau_{\mathrm{L}}\re^{-a/c\tau_{\mathrm{L}}}+|A_{\perp}|^{2}c\tau_{\mathrm{H}}\re^{-a/c\tau_{\mathrm{H}}}}\\\
-\frac{(1-|A_{\perp}|^{2})(c\tau_{\mathrm{L}})^{2}+|A_{\perp}|^{2}(c\tau_{\mathrm{H}})^{2}}{(1-|A_{\perp}|^{2})c\tau_{\mathrm{L}}+|A_{\perp}|^{2}c\tau_{\mathrm{H}}},\end{split}$
(11)

where the first term represents the effective lifetime in the presence of a
$ct>a$ requirement and the latter term is the unbiased effective lifetime. In
this analysis, $a$ is equal to 0.02. The world-average values [2] for
$c\tau_{\mathrm{H}}=482.7\pm 3.6\micron$, $c\tau_{\mathrm{L}}=426.3\pm
2.4\micron$, and ${|A_{\perp}|^{2}=0.250\pm 0.006}$ are used to obtain the
correction ${\delta_{ct}=0.62\pm 0.10\micron}$.

  6. 6.

The S-wave contamination in the $\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgf$ channel
The $\PBzs$ candidates reconstructed in the $\cPJgy\Pgf$ final state contain a
small fraction of nonresonant and CP-odd $\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKp\PKm$
decays, where the invariant mass of the two kaons happens to be near the
$\phi$ meson mass. The fraction of $\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKp\PKm$ decays among
the selected events is measured in the weak mixing phase analysis [9] to be
$f_{\mathrm{S}}=(1.2^{+0.9}_{-0.7})$%. Because of the different trigger and
signal selection criteria of the present analysis, the S-wave fraction is
corrected according to the simulation to be $(1.5^{+1.1}_{-0.9})$%. The bias
caused by the contamination of nonresonant $\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKp\PKm$
decays is estimated by generating two sets of pseudo-experiments, one with
just $\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgf$ events and one with a fraction of S-wave
events based on the measured S-wave fraction and its uncertainty. The
difference in the average of the measured lifetimes of these two samples is
0.74, which is used to correct the measured lifetime. The systematic
uncertainty associated with this correction is obtained by taking the
difference in quadrature between the standard deviation of the distribution of
lifetime results from the pseudo-experiments with and without the S-wave
contribution.

  7. 7.

PV selection in the $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp$ channel
From the multiple reconstructed PVs in an event, one is selected to compute
the $ct$ value of the candidate. Two alternative methods to select the PV
position are studied: using the centre of the beamspot and selecting the PV
with the largest sum of track . While all three methods are found to be
effective and unbiased, there were small differences, and the maximum
deviation with respect to the nominal choice is taken as the systematic
uncertainty. The $\PBp$ and $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ primary vertex
choices were changed coherently.

  8. 8.

Detector alignment in the $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp$
channel
Possible effects on the lifetime due to uncertainties in the detector
alignment [29] are investigated for each decay topology using 20 different
simulated samples with distorted geometries. These distortions include
expansions in the radial and longitudinal dimensions, rotations, twists,
offsets, etc. The amount of misalignment is chosen such that it is large
enough to be detected and corrected by the alignment procedure. The standard
deviation of the lifetimes for the tested scenarios is taken as the systematic
uncertainty from this source. The $\PBp$ and $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$
geometries were changed coherently.

  9. 9.

Absolute $ct$ accuracy in the $\PBzs$, $\PBz$, and $\Lambda_{\mathrm{b}}^{0}$
lifetime measurements
The lifetime of the most statistically precise mode
($\PBp\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKp$) is used to validate the accuracy of the simulation
and various detector calibrations. The difference between our measurement of
$490.9\pm 0.8\micron$ (statistical uncertainty only) and the world-average
value of $491.1\pm 1.2\micron$ [5] is $0.2\pm 1.4\micron$. This implies a
limit to the validation of $1.4/491=0.3\%$. Four systematic effects that we
expect to be included were checked independently. The systematic uncertainties
from PV selection and detector alignment were found to be 0.7and 0.3–0.7,
respectively. Varying the efficiency functional form changed the lifetimes by
0.3–0.6, while varying $\sigma_{ct}$ by factors of 0.5 and 2.0 resulted in
lifetime differences of no more than $0.2\micron$. As the sum in quadrature of
these uncertainties is less than that obtained from the $\PBp$ lifetime
comparison, we assign a value of 0.3% as the systematic uncertainty for the
absolute $ct$ accuracy.

Summary of the sources and values of systematic uncertainties in the lifetime
measurements (in ). The total systematic uncertainty is the sum in quadrature
of the individual uncertainties.  Source
$\PBz\\!\\!\to\\!\cmsSymbolFace{J}/\psi\mathrm{K^{\ast}(892)}{}^{0}$
$\PBz\\!\\!\to\\!\cmsSymbolFace{J}/\psi\PKzS$
$\PBzs\\!\\!\to\\!\cmsSymbolFace{J}/\psi\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$
$\PBzs\\!\\!\to\\!\cmsSymbolFace{J}/\psi\phi$
$\Lambda_{\mathrm{b}}^{0}\\!\\!\to\\!\cmsSymbolFace{J}/\psi{}\Lambda^{\\!0}$
MC statistical uncertainty 1.1 2.4 2.0 0.6 2.3 Mass modelling 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.4
0.9 $ct$ modelling 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.1 $\PBp$ contamination — — 1.4 — — Mass
window of $\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ — — 1.8 — — $\PK^{\pm}\pi^{\mp}$ mass assignment
$0.3$ — — — — $ct$ range — — — 0.1 — S-wave contamination — — — 0.4 — Absolute
$ct$ accuracy 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.3 Total ($\mu$m) 1.8 2.8 3.4 1.5 2.8

Table 1: Summary of the systematic uncertainties in the $\Delta\Gamma$ and $c\tau_{\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}}$ measurements. Source |  $\Delta\Gamma$ [ps-1] |  $c\tau_{\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}}$ [$\mu\text{m}$]
---|---|---
MC statistical uncertainty | 0.01 | 1.2
Mass modelling | 0.04 | 3.4
PV selection | 0.02 | 2.0
Detector alignment | 0.01 | 0.6
Total uncertainty | 0.05 | 4.2

##  0.8 Lifetime measurement results

Our final results for the $\PBz$, $\PBzs$, and $\Lambda_{\mathrm{b}}^{0}$
hadron lifetimes are:

$\displaystyle c\tau_{\PBz\to\cPJgy\PKst{}^{0}}$ $\displaystyle=453.0\pm
1.6\stat\pm 1.8\syst\mum,$ (12) $\displaystyle c\tau_{\PBz\to\cPJgy\PKzS}$
$\displaystyle=457.8\pm 2.7\stat\pm 2.8\syst\mum,$ (13) $\displaystyle
c\tau_{\PBzs\to\cPJgy\Pgpp\Pgpm}$ $\displaystyle=502.7\pm 10.2\stat\pm
3.4\syst\mum,$ (14) $\displaystyle c\tau_{\PBzs\to\cPJgy\Pgf}$
$\displaystyle=443.9\pm 2.0\stat\pm 1.5\syst\mum,$ (15) $\displaystyle
c\tau_{\Lambda_{\mathrm{b}}^{0}{}}$ $\displaystyle=442.9\pm 8.2\stat\pm
2.8\syst\mum.$ (16)

The value of the $\PBzs$ lifetime using the $\cPJgy\Pgf$ decay has been
corrected for the $ct$ range and S-wave contamination effects described in
Section 0.7. The lifetime ratios $\tau_{\PBzs}/\tau_{\PBz}$ and
$\tau_{\Lambda_{\mathrm{b}}^{0}}/\tau_{\PBz}$ have been determined using the
decay channels $\PBz\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PKst{}^{0}$, $\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgf$,
and $\Lambda_{\mathrm{b}}^{0}\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\PgL^{0}$. Including the
statistical and correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties, the
results are:

$\displaystyle\tau_{\Lambda_{\mathrm{b}}^{0}}/\tau_{\PBz\to\cPJgy\PKst{}^{0}}$
$\displaystyle=0.978\pm 0.018\stat\pm 0.006\syst,$ (17)
$\displaystyle\tau_{\PBzs\to\cPJgy\Pgf}/\tau_{\PBz\to\cPJgy\PKst{}^{0}}$
$\displaystyle=0.980\pm 0.006\stat\pm 0.003\syst.$ (18)

These ratios are compatible with the current world-average values.

The measured lifetimes for the meson in the two different channels are in
agreement. Combining the two results, including the statistical and the
correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties, gives
$c\tau_{\PBz}=454.1\pm 1.4\stat\pm 1.7\syst\micron$. The lifetime measurements
can also be used to estimate $\Gamma_{\mathrm{d}}$ and
$\Delta\Gamma_{\mathrm{d}}$ [6]. In the standard model, the effective
lifetimes of the two decay modes can be written as:

$\displaystyle\tau_{\PBz\to\cPJgy\PKzS}$
$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{\Gamma_{\mathrm{d}}}\left(\frac{1}{1-y_{\mathrm{d}}^{2}}\right)\left(\frac{1+2\cos{(2\beta)}y_{\mathrm{d}}+y_{\mathrm{d}}^{2}}{1+\cos{(2\beta)}y_{\mathrm{d}}}\right),$
(19) $\displaystyle\tau_{\PBz\to\cPJgy\PKst{}^{0}}$
$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{\Gamma_{\mathrm{d}}}\left(\frac{1+y_{\mathrm{d}}^{2}}{1-y_{\mathrm{d}}^{2}}\right),$
(20)

where $y_{\mathrm{d}}=\Delta\Gamma_{\mathrm{d}}/2\Gamma_{\mathrm{d}}$, and
$\beta=(21.9\pm 0.7)^{\circ}$ [5] is one of the CKM unitarity triangle angles.
Using our measured values for the two lifetimes, we fit for
$\Gamma_{\mathrm{d}}$ and $\Delta\Gamma_{\mathrm{d}}$ and use the values to
determine $\Delta\Gamma_{\mathrm{d}}/\Gamma_{\mathrm{d}}$. The results are:

$\displaystyle\Gamma_{\mathrm{d}}$ $\displaystyle=0.662\pm 0.003\stat\pm
0.003\syst\,\mathrm{ps}^{-1},$ (21) $\displaystyle\Delta\Gamma_{\mathrm{d}}$
$\displaystyle=0.023\pm 0.015\stat\pm 0.016\syst\,\mathrm{ps}^{-1},$ (22)
$\displaystyle\Delta\Gamma_{\mathrm{d}}/\Gamma_{\mathrm{d}}$
$\displaystyle=0.034\pm 0.023\stat\pm 0.024\syst.$ (23)

Neglecting CP violation in mixing, the measured
$\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp\Pgpm$ lifetime can be translated into the width of
the heavy $\PBzs$ mass eigenstate:

$\Gamma_{\mathrm{H}}=1/\tau_{\PBzs}=0.596\pm 0.012\stat\pm
0.004\syst\,\mathrm{ps}^{-1}.$ (24)

Solving for $c\tau_{\mathrm{L}}$ from Eq. (4) gives

$c\tau_{\mathrm{L}}=\frac{1}{2}c\tau_{\text{eff}}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}(c\tau_{\text{eff}})^{2}-\frac{|A_{\perp}|^{2}}{1-|A_{\perp}|^{2}}c\tau_{\mathrm{H}}(c\tau_{\mathrm{H}}-c\tau_{\text{eff}})}.$
(25)

Using the $\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp\Pgpm$ result in Eq. (14), the measured
$\PBzs$ effective lifetime in Eq. (15), and the world-average value of the
magnitude squared of the CP-odd amplitude $|A_{\perp}|^{2}=0.250\pm 0.006$
[2], the lifetime of the light component is found to be
$c\tau_{\mathrm{L}}=420.4\pm 6.2\micron$. The uncertainty includes all
statistical and systematic uncertainties, taking into account the correlated
uncertainties. The result is consistent with the world-average value of
$423.6\pm 1.8\micron$ [5].

Our measured lifetimes for , $\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgf$, and
$\Lambda_{\mathrm{b}}^{0}$ are compatible with the current world-average
values [5] of $455.7\pm 1.2$, $443.4\pm 3.6$, and $440.7\pm 3.0$,
respectively. In addition, our measurement of the $\PBzs$ lifetime in the
$\PBzs\\!\to\\!\cPJgy\Pgpp\Pgpm$ channel is in agreement with the results from
CDF, LHCb, and D0: $510\,^{+36}_{-33}\stat\pm 9\syst$ [30], $495.3\pm
7.2\stat\pm 7.2\syst$ [31], and $508\pm 42\stat\pm 16\syst$ [32],
respectively.

Our final result for the $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ lifetime using the
$\cPJgy\Pgpp$ mode is:

$c\tau_{\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}}=162.3\pm 7.8\stat\pm 4.2\syst\pm
0.1(\tau_{\PBp})\mum,$ (26)

where the systematic uncertainty from the lifetime uncertainty [5] is quoted
separately in the result. This measurement is in agreement with the world-
average value $(152.0\pm 2.7\micron)$ [5]. Precise measurements of the
$\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ lifetime allow tests of various theoretical
models, which predict values ranging from 90 to 210 [33, 34, 35, 36].
Furthermore, they provide new constraints on possible physics beyond the
standard model from the observed anomalies in $\PB\to\PD^{(*)}\tau\nu$ decays
[37].

##  0.9 Summary

The lifetimes of the , , $\Lambda_{\mathrm{b}}^{0}$, and
$\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ hadrons have been measured using fully
reconstructed decays with a $\cPJgy$ meson. The data were collected by the CMS
detector in proton-proton collision events at a centre-of-mass energy of 8,
and correspond to an integrated luminosity of 19.7. The and meson lifetimes
have each been measured in two channels: $\cPJgy\PKst{}^{0}$, $\cPJgy\PKzS$
for and$\cPJgy\Pgpp\Pgpm$, $\cPJgy\Pgf$ for . The precision from each channel
is as good as or better than previous measurements in the respective channel.
The lifetime results are used to obtain an average lifetime and to measure the
decay width difference between the two mass eigenstates. The lifetime results
are used to obtain the lifetimes of the heavy and light $\PBzs$ mass
eigenstates. The precision of the $\Lambda_{\mathrm{b}}^{0}$ lifetime
measurement is also as good as any previous measurement in the
$\cPJgy\PgL^{0}$ channel. The measured $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ meson
lifetime is in agreement with the results from LHCb and significantly more
precise than the CDF and D0 measurements. All measured lifetimes are
compatible with the current world-average values.

###### 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 centres and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for
delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our
analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction
and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following
funding agencies: BMWFW and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq,
CAPES, FAPERJ, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC
(China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RPF (Cyprus);
SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC IUT, and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of Finland,
MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF
(Germany); GSRT (Greece); OTKA and NIH (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM
(Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); LAS
(Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT, LNS, SEP, and
UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC
(Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom, RAS, RFBR and RAEP
(Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI and FEDER (Spain); Swiss Funding
Agencies (Switzerland); MST (Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR, and NSTDA
(Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); NASU and SFFR (Ukraine); STFC (United
Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA). Individuals have received support from the Marie-
Curie programme and the European Research Council and Horizon 2020 Grant,
contract No. 675440 (European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A. P. Sloan
Foundation; the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science
Policy Office; the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et
dans l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door
Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the Ministry of Education, Youth and
Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Council of Science and Industrial
Research, India; the HOMING PLUS program of the Foundation for Polish Science,
cofinanced from European Union, Regional Development Fund, the Mobility Plus
program of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, the National Science
Center (Poland), contracts Harmonia 2014/14/M/ST2/00428, Opus
2014/13/B/ST2/02543, 2014/15/B/ST2/03998, and 2015/19/B/ST2/02861, Sonata-bis
2012/07/E/ST2/01406; the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar
National Research Fund; the Programa Severo Ochoa del Principado de Asturias;
the Thalis and Aristeia programs cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; the
Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University
and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century Project Advancement
Project (Thailand); the Welch Foundation, contract C-1845; and the Weston
Havens Foundation (USA).

## References

  * [1] A. Lenz, “Lifetimes and heavy quark expansion”,  Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 30 (2015) 1543005, 10.1142/S0217751X15430058.
  * [2] Particle Data Group, C. Patrignani et al., “Review of particle physics”,  Chin. Phys. C 40 (2016) 100001, 10.1088/1674-1137/40/10/100001.
  * [3] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [4] R. Fleischer and R. Knegjens, “Effective lifetimes of $\text{B}_{\text{s}}$ decays and their constraints on the $\PBzs$–$\overline{\cmsSymbolFace{B}}{}^{0}_{\cmsSymbolFace}{s}$ mixing parameters”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1789, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1789-9, arXiv:1109.5115.
  * [5] Heavy Flavor Averaging Group, Y. Amhis et al., “Averages of $b$-hadron, $c$-hadron, and $\tau$-lepton properties as of summer 2016”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 895, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5058-4, arXiv:1612.07233.
  * [6] T. Gershon, “$\Delta\Gamma_{\mathrm{d}}$: a forgotten null test of the standard model”,  J. Phys. G 38 (2011) 10.1088/0954-3899/38/1/015007, arXiv:1007.5135.
  * [7] LHCb Collaboration, “Analysis of the resonant components in $\overline{\cmsSymbolFace{B}}{}^{0}_{\cmsSymbolFace}{s}\to J/\psi\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$”,  Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 052006, 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.052006, arXiv:1301.5347.
  * [8] LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of resonant and CP components in $\overline{\cmsSymbolFace{B}}{}^{0}_{\cmsSymbolFace}{s}\to J/\psi\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$”,  Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 092006, 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.092006, arXiv:1402.6248.
  * [9] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the CP-violating weak phase $\phi_{s}$ and the decay width difference $\Delta\Gamma_{s}$ using the $\PBzs\to J/\psi\phi$(1020) decay channel in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 8”,  Phys. Lett. B 757 (2016) 97, 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.03.046, arXiv:1507.07527.
  * [10] V. V. Kiselev, “Exclusive decays and lifetime of $\mathrm{B_{c}}$ meson in QCD sum rules”, (2002). arXiv:hep-ph/0211021.
  * [11] LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of the $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ meson lifetime using $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}\to J\\!/\\!\psi\mu^{+}\nu_{\mu}X$ decays”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 2839, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2839-x, arXiv:1401.6932.
  * [12] LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of the lifetime of the $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ meson using the $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}\to J/\psi\pi^{+}$ decay mode”,  Phys. Lett. B 742 (2015) 29, 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.01.010, arXiv:1411.6899.
  * [13] CDF Collaboration, “Observation of the $\text{B}_{\text{c}}$ meson in $\text{p}\overline{\text{p}}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=1.8$”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 2432, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.2432, arXiv:hep-ex/9805034.
  * [14] CDF Collaboration, “Measurement of the $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ meson lifetime using the decay mode $\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}\to J/\psi\Pep\Pgne$”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 012002, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.012002, arXiv:hep-ex/0603027.
  * [15] D0 Collaboration, “Measurement of the lifetime of the $\text{B}^{\pm}_{\text{c}}$ meson in the semileptonic decay channel”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (2009) 092001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.092001, arXiv:0805.2614.
  * [16] CDF Collaboration, “Measurement of the $\text{B}^{-}_{\text{c}}$ meson lifetime in the decay $\text{B}^{-}_{\text{c}}\to J/\psi\pi^{-}$”,  Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 011101, 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.011101, arXiv:1210.2366.
  * [17] CMS Collaboration, “Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker”,  JINST 9 (2014) P10009, 10.1088/1748-0221/9/10/P10009, arXiv:1405.6569.
  * [18] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [19] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, “PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual”,  JHEP 05 (2006) 026, 10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/026, arXiv:hep-ph/0603175.
  * [20] C. Chang, C. Driouchi, P. Eerola, and X. Wu, “BCVEGPY: an event generator for hadronic production of the $\mathrm{B_{c}}$ meson”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 159 (2004) 192, 10.1016/j.cpc.2004.02.005, arXiv:hep-ph/0309120.
  * [21] C. Chang, J. Wang, and X. Wu, “BCVEGPY2.0: An upgraded version of the generator BCVEGPY with the addition of hadroproduction of the P-wave $\mathrm{B_{c}}$ states”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 174 (2006) 241, 10.1016/j.cpc.2005.09.008, arXiv:hep-ph/0504017.
  * [22] D. J. Lange, “The EvtGen particle decay simulation package”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 462 (2001) 152, 10.1016/S0168-9002(01)00089-4.
  * [23] P. Golonka and Z. Wa̧s, “PHOTOS Monte Carlo: a precision tool for QED corrections in Z and W decays”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 45 (2006) 97, 10.1140/epjc/s2005-02396-4, arXiv:hep-ph/0506026.
  * [24] GEANT4 Collaboration, “GEANT4—a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [25] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in pp collision events at $\sqrt{s}=7$”,  JINST 7 (2012) P10002, 10.1088/1748-0221/7/10/P10002, arXiv:1206.4071.
  * [26] A. S. Dighe, I. Dunietz, and R. Fleischer, “Extracting CKM phases and $\text{B}_{\text{s}}-\overline{\text{B}}_{\text{s}}$ mixing parameters from angular distributions of non-leptonic B decays”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 6 (1999) 647, 10.1007/s100529800954, arXiv:hep-ph/9804253.
  * [27] LHCb Collaboration, “First observation of the decay $\mathrm{B^{+}_{c}}\to$ ”,  JHEP 09 (2013) 075, 10.1007/JHEP09(2013)075, arXiv:1306.6723.
  * [28] M. J. Oreglia, “A study of the reactions $\psi^{\prime}\to\gamma\gamma\psi$”.  PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1980.  SLAC Report SLAC-R-236, see Appendix D.
  * [29] CMS Collaboration, “Alignment of the CMS tracker with LHC and cosmic ray data”,  JINST 9 (2014) P06009, 10.1088/1748-0221/9/06/P06009, arXiv:1403.2286.
  * [30] CDF Collaboration, “Measurement of branching ratio and $\PBzs$ lifetime in the decay $\PBzs\to J/\psi\text{f}_{0}(980)$ at CDF”,  Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 052012, 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.052012, arXiv:1106.3682.
  * [31] LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of CP violation and the $\PBzs$ meson decay width difference with $\PBzs\to J/\psi\PKp\PKm$ and $\PBzs\to J/\psi\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ decays”,  Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 112010, 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.112010, arXiv:1304.2600.
  * [32] D0 Collaboration, “$\PBzs$ lifetime measurement in the CP-odd decay channel $\PBzs\to J/\psi\text{f}_{0}(980)$”,  Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 012001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.012001, arXiv:1603.01302.
  * [33] C.-H. Chang, S.-L. Chen, T.-F. Feng, and X.-Q. Li, “Lifetime of the $\PB_{\text{c}}$ meson and some relevant problems”,  Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 014003, 10.1103/PhysRevD.64.014003, arXiv:hep-ph/0007162.
  * [34] M. Beneke and G. Buchalla, “$\PB_{\text{c}}$ meson lifetime”,  Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 4991, 10.1103/PhysRevD.53.4991, arXiv:hep-ph/9601249.
  * [35] A. Yu. Anisimov, I. M. Narodetskii, C. Semay, and B. Silvestre-Brac, “The $\PB_{\text{c}}$ meson lifetime in the light-front constituent quark model”,  Phys. Lett. B 452 (1999) 129, 10.1016/S0370-2693(99)00273-7, arXiv:hep-ph/9812514.
  * [36] V. V. Kiselev, A. E. Kovalsky, and A. K. Likhoded, “Decays and lifetime of $\PB_{\text{c}}$ in QCD sum rules”, in  5th International Workshop on Heavy Quark Physics, Dubna, Russia, April 6-8, 2000.  arXiv:hep-ph/0006104.
  * [37] R. Alonso, B. Grinstein, and J. Martin Camalich, “Lifetime of $\PB_{\text{c}}^{-}$ constrains explanations for anomalies in $\PB\to\PD^{(*)}\tau\nu$”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 081802, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.081802, arXiv:1611.06676.

##  .10 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan Institut für Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, E. Asilar, T. Bergauer, J. Brandstetter, E. Brondolin, M.
Dragicevic, J. Erö, M. Flechl, M. Friedl, R. Frühwirth1, V.M. Ghete, J.
Grossmann, J. Hrubec, M. Jeitler1, A. König, N. Krammer, I. Krätschmer, D.
Liko, T. Madlener, I. Mikulec, E. Pree, N. Rad, H. Rohringer, J. Schieck1, R.
Schöfbeck, M. Spanring, D. Spitzbart, W. Waltenberger, J. Wittmann, C.-E.
Wulz1, M. Zarucki Institute for Nuclear Problems, Minsk, Belarus
Y. Dydyshka, V. Mossolov, J. Suarez Gonzalez Universiteit Antwerpen,
Antwerpen, Belgium
E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, J. Lauwers, H. Van Haevermaet, P. Van
Mechelen, N. Van Remortel Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
S. Abu Zeid, F. Blekman, J. D’Hondt, I. De Bruyn, J. De Clercq, K. Deroover,
G. Flouris, D. Lontkovskyi, S. Lowette, S. Moortgat, L. Moreels, Q. Python, K.
Skovpen, S. Tavernier, W. Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders, I. Van Parijs
Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
D. Beghin, H. Brun, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, H. Delannoy, B. Dorney, G.
Fasanella, L. Favart, R. Goldouzian, A. Grebenyuk, G. Karapostoli, T. Lenzi,
J. Luetic, T. Maerschalk, A. Marinov, A. Randle-conde, T. Seva, C. Vander
Velde, P. Vanlaer, D. Vannerom, R. Yonamine, F. Zenoni, F. Zhang2 Ghent
University, Ghent, Belgium
A. Cimmino, T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, A. Fagot, M. Gul, I. Khvastunov, D. Poyraz,
C. Roskas, S. Salva, M. Tytgat, W. Verbeke, N. Zaganidis Université Catholique
de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
H. Bakhshiansohi, O. Bondu, S. Brochet, G. Bruno, C. Caputo, A. Caudron, P.
David, S. De Visscher, C. Delaere, M. Delcourt, B. Francois, A. Giammanco, M.
Komm, G. Krintiras, V. Lemaitre, A. Magitteri, A. Mertens, M. Musich, K.
Piotrzkowski, L. Quertenmont, A. Saggio, M. Vidal Marono, S. Wertz, J. Zobec
Université de Mons, Mons, Belgium
N. Beliy Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
W.L. Aldá Júnior, F.L. Alves, G.A. Alves, L. Brito, M. Correa Martins Junior,
C. Hensel, A. Moraes, M.E. Pol, P. Rebello Teles Universidade do Estado do Rio
de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato3, E. Coelho, E.M.
Da Costa, G.G. Da Silveira4, D. De Jesus Damiao, S. Fonseca De Souza, L.M.
Huertas Guativa, H. Malbouisson, M. Melo De Almeida, C. Mora Herrera, L.
Mundim, H. Nogima, L.J. Sanchez Rosas, A. Santoro, A. Sznajder, M. Thiel, E.J.
Tonelli Manganote3, F. Torres Da Silva De Araujo, A. Vilela Pereira
Universidade Estadual Paulista a, Universidade Federal do ABC b, São Paulo,
Brazil
S. Ahujaa, C.A. Bernardesa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M. Gregoresb, P.G.
Mercadanteb, S.F. Novaesa, SandraS. Padulaa, D. Romero Abadb, J.C. Ruiz
Vargasa Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy
of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, M. Misheva, M. Rodozov, M. Shopova,
G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Dimitrov, I. Glushkov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov Beihang University,
Beijing, China
W. Fang5, X. Gao5, L. Yuan Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, J.G. Bian, G.M. Chen, H.S. Chen, M. Chen, Y. Chen, C.H. Jiang, D.
Leggat, H. Liao, Z. Liu, F. Romeo, S.M. Shaheen, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, C. Wang,
Z. Wang, E. Yazgan, H. Zhang, S. Zhang, J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of
Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
Y. Ban, G. Chen, Q. Li, S. Liu, Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang, Z. Xu Universidad
de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, L.F. Chaparro Sierra, C. Florez, C.F. González
Hernández, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez University of Split, Faculty of Electrical
Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split, Croatia
B. Courbon, N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak, P.M. Ribeiro Cipriano, T.
Sculac University of Split, Faculty of Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, K. Kadija, B. Mesic, A. Starodumov6, T. Susa
University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos,
P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
M. Finger7, M. Finger Jr.7 Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
E. Carrera Jarrin Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab
Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt
Y. Assran8,9, S. Elgammal9, A. Mahrous10 National Institute of Chemical
Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
R.K. Dewanjee, M. Kadastik, L. Perrini, M. Raidal, A. Tiko, C. Veelken
Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
P. Eerola, H. Kirschenmann, J. Pekkanen, M. Voutilainen Helsinki Institute of
Physics, Helsinki, Finland
T. Järvinen, V. Karimäki, R. Kinnunen, T. Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Lehti,
T. Lindén, P. Luukka, E. Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi Lappeenranta University of
Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
J. Talvitie, T. Tuuva IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette,
France
M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, J.L. Faure, F. Ferri, S.
Ganjour, S. Ghosh, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry,
I. Kucher, C. Leloup, E. Locci, M. Machet, J. Malcles, G. Negro, J. Rander, A.
Rosowsky, M.Ö. Sahin, M. Titov Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole
polytechnique, CNRS/IN2P3, Université Paris-Saclay, Palaiseau, France
A. Abdulsalam, C. Amendola, I. Antropov, S. Baffioni, F. Beaudette, P. Busson,
L. Cadamuro, C. Charlot, R. Granier de Cassagnac, M. Jo, S. Lisniak, A.
Lobanov, J. Martin Blanco, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, G. Ortona, P. Paganini, P.
Pigard, R. Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A.G. Stahl Leiton, T. Strebler, Y.
Yilmaz, A. Zabi, A. Zghiche Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178,
Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram11, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, J.-M. Brom, M. Buttignol, E.C. Chabert, N.
Chanon, C. Collard, E. Conte11, X. Coubez, J.-C. Fontaine11, D. Gelé, U.
Goerlach, M. Jansová, A.-C. Le Bihan, N. Tonon, P. Van Hove Centre de Calcul
de l’Institut National de Physique Nucleaire et de Physique des Particules,
CNRS/IN2P3, Villeurbanne, France
S. Gadrat Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3,
Institut de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, R. Chierici, D. Contardo, P. Depasse, H.
El Mamouni, J. Fay, L. Finco, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, G. Grenier, B. Ille,
F. Lagarde, I.B. Laktineh, M. Lethuillier, L. Mirabito, A.L. Pequegnot, S.
Perries, A. Popov12, V. Sordini, M. Vander Donckt, S. Viret Georgian Technical
University, Tbilisi, Georgia
T. Toriashvili13 Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
I. Bagaturia14 RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen,
Germany
C. Autermann, L. Feld, M.K. Kiesel, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, M. Preuten, C.
Schomakers, J. Schulz, T. Verlage, V. Zhukov12 RWTH Aachen University, III.
Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany
A. Albert, E. Dietz-Laursonn, D. Duchardt, M. Endres, M. Erdmann, S. Erdweg,
T. Esch, R. Fischer, A. Güth, M. Hamer, T. Hebbeker, C. Heidemann, K.
Hoepfner, S. Knutzen, M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, P. Millet, S. Mukherjee, T.
Pook, M. Radziej, H. Reithler, M. Rieger, F. Scheuch, D. Teyssier, S. Thüer
RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany
G. Flügge, B. Kargoll, T. Kress, A. Künsken, J. Lingemann, T. Müller, A.
Nehrkorn, A. Nowack, C. Pistone, O. Pooth, A. Stahl15 Deutsches Elektronen-
Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
M. Aldaya Martin, T. Arndt, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, K. Beernaert, O. Behnke, U.
Behrens, A. Bermúdez Martínez, A.A. Bin Anuar, K. Borras16, V. Botta, A.
Campbell, P. Connor, C. Contreras-Campana, F. Costanza, C. Diez Pardos, G.
Eckerlin, D. Eckstein, T. Eichhorn, E. Eren, E. Gallo17, J. Garay Garcia, A.
Geiser, A. Gizhko, J.M. Grados Luyando, A. Grohsjean, P. Gunnellini, M.
Guthoff, A. Harb, J. Hauk, M. Hempel18, H. Jung, A. Kalogeropoulos, M.
Kasemann, J. Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, I. Korol, D. Krücker, W. Lange, A. Lelek,
T. Lenz, J. Leonard, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann18, R. Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann,
A.B. Meyer, G. Mittag, J. Mnich, A. Mussgiller, E. Ntomari, D. Pitzl, A.
Raspereza, B. Roland, M. Savitskyi, P. Saxena, R. Shevchenko, S. Spannagel, N.
Stefaniuk, G.P. Van Onsem, R. Walsh, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C. Wissing, O.
Zenaiev University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, V. Blobel, M. Centis Vignali, T. Dreyer, E. Garutti, D.
Gonzalez, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, M. Hoffmann, A. Karavdina, R. Klanner, R.
Kogler, N. Kovalchuk, S. Kurz, T. Lapsien, I. Marchesini, D. Marconi, M.
Meyer, M. Niedziela, D. Nowatschin, F. Pantaleo15, T. Peiffer, A. Perieanu, C.
Scharf, P. Schleper, A. Schmidt, S. Schumann, J. Schwandt, J. Sonneveld, H.
Stadie, G. Steinbrück, F.M. Stober, M. Stöver, H. Tholen, D. Troendle, E.
Usai, L. Vanelderen, A. Vanhoefer, B. Vormwald Karlsruher Institut fuer
Technology
M. Akbiyik, C. Barth, S. Baur, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, F. Colombo, W.
De Boer, A. Dierlamm, B. Freund, R. Friese, M. Giffels, D. Haitz, F.
Hartmann15, S.M. Heindl, U. Husemann, F. Kassel15, S. Kudella, H. Mildner,
M.U. Mozer, Th. Müller, M. Plagge, G. Quast, K. Rabbertz, M. Schröder, I.
Shvetsov, G. Sieber, H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, S. Wayand, M. Weber, T. Weiler,
S. Williamson, C. Wöhrmann, R. Wolf Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics
(INPP), NCSR Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
G. Anagnostou, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, V.A. Giakoumopoulou, A. Kyriakis, D.
Loukas, I. Topsis-Giotis National and Kapodistrian University of Athens,
Athens, Greece
G. Karathanasis, S. Kesisoglou, A. Panagiotou, N. Saoulidou National Technical
University of Athens, Athens, Greece
K. Kousouris University of Ioánnina, Ioánnina, Greece
I. Evangelou, C. Foudas, P. Kokkas, S. Mallios, N. Manthos, I. Papadopoulos,
E. Paradas, J. Strologas, F.A. Triantis MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and
Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
M. Csanad, N. Filipovic, G. Pasztor, O. Surányi, G.I. Veres19 Wigner Research
Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath20, Á. Hunyadi, F. Sikler, V. Veszpremi, A.J.
Zsigmond Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi21, A. Makovec, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi
Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
M. Bartók19, P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari Indian Institute of Science
(IISc), Bangalore, India
S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri National Institute of Science Education and
Research, HBNI, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati22, S. Bhowmik, P. Mal, K. Mandal, A. Nayak23, D.K. Sahoo22, N.
Sahoo, S.K. Swain Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, R. Chawla, N. Dhingra, A.K. Kalsi, A.
Kaur, M. Kaur, S. Kaur, R. Kumar, P. Kumari, A. Mehta, J.B. Singh, G. Walia
University of Delhi, Delhi, India
A. Bhardwaj, S. Chauhan, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, S. Keshri, A. Kumar, Ashok
Kumar, S. Malhotra, M. Naimuddin, K. Ranjan, Aashaq Shah, R. Sharma Saha
Institute of Nuclear Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India
R. Bhardwaj, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, U. Bhawandeep, S. Dey, S. Dutt,
S. Dutta, S. Ghosh, N. Majumdar, A. Modak, K. Mondal, S. Mukhopadhyay, S.
Nandan, A. Purohit, A. Roy, D. Roy, S. Roy Chowdhury, S. Sarkar, M. Sharan, S.
Thakur Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
R. Chudasama, D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, A.K. Mohanty15, P.K. Netrakanti,
L.M. Pant, P. Shukla, A. Topkar Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A,
Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, S. Dugad, B. Mahakud, S. Mitra, G.B. Mohanty, N. Sur, B. Sutar Tata
Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, P. Das, M. Guchait, Sa. Jain, S.
Kumar, M. Maity24, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, T. Sarkar24, N. Wickramage25
Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, India
S. Chauhan, S. Dube, V. Hegde, A. Kapoor, K. Kothekar, S. Pandey, A. Rane, S.
Sharma Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran
S. Chenarani26, E. Eskandari Tadavani, S.M. Etesami26, M. Khakzad, M.
Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri, S. Paktinat Mehdiabadi27, F. Rezaei
Hosseinabadi, B. Safarzadeh28, M. Zeinali University College Dublin, Dublin,
Ireland
M. Felcini, M. Grunewald INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b,
Politecnico di Bari c, Bari, Italy
M. Abbresciaa,b, C. Calabriaa,b, A. Colaleoa, D. Creanzaa,c, L. Cristellaa,b,
N. De Filippisa,c, M. De Palmaa,b, F. Erricoa,b, L. Fiorea, G. Iasellia,c, S.
Lezkia,b, G. Maggia,c, M. Maggia, G. Minielloa,b, S. Mya,b, S. Nuzzoa,b, A.
Pompilia,b, G. Pugliesea,c, R. Radognaa, A. Ranieria, G. Selvaggia,b, A.
Sharmaa, L. Silvestrisa,15, 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, S. Braibant-
Giacomellia,b, R. Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A. Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa,
S.S. Chhibraa, G. Codispotia,b, M. Cuffiania,b, G.M. Dallavallea, F. Fabbria,
A. Fanfania,b, D. Fasanellaa,b, P. Giacomellia, C. Grandia, L. Guiduccia,b, S.
Marcellinia, G. Masettia, A. Montanaria, F.L. Navarriaa,b, A. Perrottaa, A.M.
Rossia,b, T. Rovellia,b, G.P. Sirolia,b, N. Tosia INFN Sezione di Catania a,
Università di Catania b, Catania, Italy
S. Albergoa,b, S. Costaa,b, A. Di Mattiaa, F. Giordanoa,b, R. Potenzaa,b, A.
Tricomia,b, C. Tuvea,b INFN Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b,
Firenze, Italy
G. Barbaglia, K. Chatterjeea,b, V. Ciullia,b, C. Civininia, R.
D’Alessandroa,b, E. Focardia,b, P. Lenzia,b, M. Meschinia, S. Paolettia, L.
Russoa,29, G. Sguazzonia, D. Stroma, L. Viliania,b,15 INFN Laboratori
Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, F. Fabbri, D. Piccolo, F. Primavera15 INFN Sezione di
Genova a, Università di Genova b, Genova, Italy
V. Calvellia,b, F. Ferroa, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia,b INFN Sezione di Milano-
Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, Italy
A. Benagliaa, L. Brianzaa,b, F. Brivioa,b, V. Cirioloa,b, M.E. Dinardoa,b, P.
Dinia, S. Fiorendia,b, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P. Govonia,b, M. Malbertia,b,
S. Malvezzia, R.A. Manzonia,b, D. Menascea, L. Moronia, M. Paganonia,b, K.
Pauwelsa,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Pigazzinia,b,30, S. Ragazzia,b, N. Redaellia, T.
Tabarelli de Fatisa,b INFN Sezione di Napoli a, Università di Napoli ’Federico
II’ b, Napoli, Italy, Università della Basilicata c, Potenza, Italy,
Università G. Marconi d, Roma, Italy
S. Buontempoa, N. Cavalloa,c, S. Di Guidaa,d,15, F. Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa,b,
A.O.M. Iorioa,b, W.A. Khana, L. Listaa, S. Meolaa,d,15, P. Paoluccia,15, C.
Sciaccaa,b, F. Thyssena INFN Sezione di Padova a, Università di Padova b,
Padova, Italy, Università di Trento c, Trento, Italy
P. Azzia, L. Benatoa,b, D. Biselloa,b, A. Bolettia,b, R. Carlina,b, A.
Carvalho Antunes De Oliveiraa,b, P. Checchiaa, M. Dall’Ossoa,b, P. De Castro
Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa, U. Dossellia, F. Gasparinia,b, U. Gasparinia,b, A.
Gozzelinoa, S. Lacapraraa, P. Lujan, M. Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,b, M.
Passaseoa, M. Pegoraroa, N. Pozzobona,b, P. Ronchesea,b, R. Rossina,b, F.
Simonettoa,b, M. Zanettia,b, G. Zumerlea,b INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università
di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
A. Braghieria, A. Magnania, P. Montagnaa,b, S.P. Rattia,b, V. Rea, M.
Ressegottia,b, C. Riccardia,b, P. Salvinia, I. Vaia,b, P. Vituloa,b INFN
Sezione di Perugia a, Università di Perugia b, Perugia, Italy
L. Alunni Solestizia,b, M. Biasinia,b, G.M. Bileia, C. Cecchia,b, D.
Ciangottinia,b, L. Fanòa,b, P. Laricciaa,b, R. Leonardia,b, E. Manonia, G.
Mantovania,b, V. Mariania,b, M. Menichellia, A. Rossia,b, A. Santocchiaa,b, D.
Spigaa INFN Sezione di Pisa a, Università di Pisa b, Scuola Normale Superiore
di Pisa c, Pisa, Italy
K. Androsova, P. Azzurria,15, G. Bagliesia, T. Boccalia, L. Borrello, R.
Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, G. Fedia, L. Gianninia,c, A.
Giassia, M.T. Grippoa,29, F. Ligabuea,c, T. Lomtadzea, E. Mancaa,c, G.
Mandorlia,c, L. Martinia,b, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, A. Rizzia,b, A. Savoy-
Navarroa,31, P. Spagnoloa, R. Tenchinia, G. Tonellia,b, A. Venturia, P.G.
Verdinia INFN Sezione di Roma a, Sapienza Università di Roma b, Rome, Italy
L. Baronea,b, F. Cavallaria, M. Cipriania,b, D. Del Rea,b,15, E. Di Marcoa,b,
M. Diemoza, S. Gellia,b, E. Longoa,b, F. Margarolia,b, B. Marzocchia,b, P.
Meridiania, G. Organtinia,b, R. Paramattia,b, F. Preiatoa,b, S. Rahatloua,b,
C. Rovellia, F. Santanastasioa,b INFN Sezione di Torino a, Università di
Torino b, Torino, Italy, Università del Piemonte Orientale c, Novara, Italy
N. Amapanea,b, R. Arcidiaconoa,c, S. Argiroa,b, M. Arneodoa,c, N. Bartosika,
R. Bellana,b, C. Biinoa, N. Cartigliaa, M. Costaa,b, R. Covarellia,b, A.
Deganoa,b, N. Demariaa, B. Kiania,b, C. Mariottia, S. Masellia, G. Mazzaa, E.
Migliorea,b, V. Monacoa,b, E. Monteila,b, M. Montenoa, M.M. Obertinoa,b, L.
Pachera,b, N. Pastronea, M. Pelliccionia, G.L. Pinna Angionia,b, F. Raveraa,b,
A. Romeroa,b, M. Ruspaa,c, R. Sacchia,b, K. Shchelinaa,b, V. Solaa, A.
Solanoa,b, A. Staianoa, P. Traczyka,b INFN Sezione di Trieste a, Università di
Trieste b, Trieste, Italy
S. Belfortea, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, G. Della Riccaa,b, A. Zanettia
Kyungpook National University
D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, M.S. Kim, J. Lee, S. Lee, S.W. Lee, C.S. Moon, Y.D. Oh, S.
Sekmen, D.C. Son, Y.C. Yang Chonbuk National University, Jeonju, Korea
A. Lee Chonnam National University, Institute for Universe and Elementary
Particles, Kwangju, Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon, G. Oh Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, J. Goh, T.J. Kim Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, D. Gyun, S. Ha, B. Hong, Y. Jo, Y. Kim, K. Lee, K.S.
Lee, S. Lee, J. Lim, S.K. Park, Y. Roh Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, H. Lee, K. Lee, K. Nam, S.B. Oh, B.C. Radburn-
Smith, S.h. Seo, U.K. Yang, H.D. Yoo, G.B. Yu University of Seoul, Seoul,
Korea
M. Choi, H. Kim, J.H. Kim, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park Sungkyunkwan University,
Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, C. Hwang, J. Lee, I. Yu Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
V. Dudenas, A. Juodagalvis, J. Vaitkus National Centre for Particle Physics,
Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
I. Ahmed, Z.A. Ibrahim, M.A.B. Md Ali32, F. Mohamad Idris33, W.A.T. Wan
Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios
Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, M.C. Duran-Osuna, I. Heredia-De La
Cruz34, R. Lopez-Fernandez, J. Mejia Guisao, R.I. Rabadan-Trejo, G. Ramirez-
Sanchez, R Reyes-Almanza, A. Sanchez-Hernandez Universidad Iberoamericana,
Mexico City, Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, F. Vazquez Valencia Benemerita
Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada Universidad Autónoma de
San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, Mexico
A. Morelos Pineda University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
P.H. Butler National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam University, Islamabad,
Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M. Ahmad, Q. Hassan, H.R. Hoorani, A. Saddique, M.A. Shah, M.
Shoaib, M. Waqas National Centre for Nuclear Research, Swierk, Poland
H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, T. Frueboes, M. Górski, M. Kazana, K.
Nawrocki, M. Szleper, P. Zalewski Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty
of Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk35, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J.
Krolikowski, M. Misiura, M. Olszewski, A. Pyskir, M. Walczak Laboratório de
Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas, Lisboa, Portugal
P. Bargassa, C. Beirão Da Cruz E Silva, A. Di Francesco, P. Faccioli, B.
Galinhas, M. Gallinaro, J. Hollar, N. Leonardo, L. Lloret Iglesias, M.V.
Nemallapudi, J. Seixas, G. Strong, O. Toldaiev, D. Vadruccio, J. Varela Joint
Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
S. Afanasiev, P. Bunin, M. Gavrilenko, I. Golutvin, I. Gorbunov, A. Kamenev,
V. Karjavin, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev36,37, V. Palichik, V.
Perelygin, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, N. Skatchkov, V. Smirnov, N. Voytishin, A.
Zarubin Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg),
Russia
Y. Ivanov, V. Kim38, E. Kuznetsova39, P. Levchenko, V. Murzin, V. Oreshkin, I.
Smirnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Vavilov, A. Vorobyev Institute for Nuclear
Research, Moscow, Russia
Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, M. Kirsanov,
N. Krasnikov, A. Pashenkov, D. Tlisov, A. Toropin Institute for Theoretical
and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, V. Popov, I. Pozdnyakov, G.
Safronov, A. Spiridonov, A. Stepennov, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A. Zhokin Moscow
Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev, A. Bylinkin37 National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow
Engineering Physics Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
R. Chistov40, M. Danilov40, P. Parygin, D. Philippov, S. Polikarpov, E.
Tarkovskii P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin37, I. Dremin37, M. Kirakosyan37, A. Terkulov Skobeltsyn
Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow,
Russia
A. Baskakov, A. Belyaev, E. Boos, M. Dubinin41, L. Dudko, A. Ershov, A.
Gribushin, V. Klyukhin, O. Kodolova, I. Lokhtin, I. Miagkov, S. Obraztsov, S.
Petrushanko, V. Savrin, A. Snigirev Novosibirsk State University (NSU),
Novosibirsk, Russia
V. Blinov42, D. Shtol42, Y. Skovpen42 State Research Center of Russian
Federation, Institute for High Energy Physics of NRC “Kurchatov Institute”,
Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, S. Bitioukov, D. Elumakhov, V. Kachanov, A. Kalinin,
D. Konstantinov, P. Mandrik, V. Petrov, R. Ryutin, A. Sobol, S. Troshin, N.
Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and
Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic43, P. Cirkovic, D. Devetak, M. Dordevic, J. Milosevic, V. Rekovic
Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas
(CIEMAT), Madrid, Spain
J. Alcaraz Maestre, A. Álvarez Fernández, M. Barrio Luna, M. Cerrada, N.
Colino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris, A. Escalante Del Valle, C. Fernandez
Bedoya, J.P. Fernández Ramos, J. Flix, M.C. Fouz, P. Garcia-Abia, O. Gonzalez
Lopez, S. Goy Lopez, J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa, D. Moran, A. Pérez-Calero
Yzquierdo, J. Puerta Pelayo, A. Quintario Olmeda, I. Redondo, L. Romero, M.S.
Soares Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
C. Albajar, J.F. de Trocóniz, M. Missiroli Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo,
Spain
J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, I. Gonzalez Caballero, J.R.
González Fernández, E. Palencia Cortezon, S. Sanchez Cruz, P. Vischia, J.M.
Vizan Garcia Instituto de Física de Cantabria (IFCA), CSIC-Universidad de
Cantabria, Santander, Spain
I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, B. Chazin Quero, E. Curras, J. Duarte Campderros,
M. Fernandez, J. Garcia-Ferrero, G. Gomez, A. Lopez Virto, J. Marco, C.
Martinez Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del Arbol, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, T.
Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno, L. Scodellaro, N. Trevisani, I. Vila, R. Vilar
Cortabitarte CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
D. Abbaneo, B. Akgun, E. Auffray, P. Baillon, A.H. Ball, D. Barney, M. Bianco,
P. Bloch, A. Bocci, C. Botta, T. Camporesi, R. Castello, M. Cepeda, G.
Cerminara, E. Chapon, Y. Chen, D. d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, V. Daponte, A.
David, M. De Gruttola, A. De Roeck, N. Deelen, M. Dobson, T. du Pree, M.
Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, P. Everaerts, F. Fallavollita, G.
Franzoni, J. Fulcher, W. Funk, D. Gigi, A. Gilbert, K. Gill, F. Glege, D.
Gulhan, P. Harris, J. Hegeman, V. Innocente, A. Jafari, P. Janot, O.
Karacheban18, J. Kieseler, V. Knünz, A. Kornmayer, M.J. Kortelainen, C. Lange,
P. Lecoq, C. Lourenço, M.T. Lucchini, L. Malgeri, M. Mannelli, A. Martelli, F.
Meijers, J.A. Merlin, S. Mersi, E. Meschi, P. Milenovic44, F. Moortgat, M.
Mulders, H. Neugebauer, J. Ngadiuba, S. Orfanelli, L. Orsini, L. Pape, E.
Perez, M. Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, D.
Rabady, A. Racz, T. Reis, G. Rolandi45, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, C. Schäfer, C.
Schwick, M. Seidel, M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva, P. Sphicas46, A. Stakia,
J. Steggemann, M. Stoye, M. Tosi, D. Treille, A. Triossi, A. Tsirou, V.
Veckalns47, M. Verweij, W.D. Zeuner Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen,
Switzerland
W. Bertl${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, L. Caminada48, K. Deiters, W. Erdmann, R.
Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C. Kaestli, D. Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, T. Rohe,
S.A. Wiederkehr ETH Zurich - Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics
(IPA), Zurich, Switzerland
M. Backhaus, L. Bäni, P. Berger, L. Bianchini, B. Casal, G. Dissertori, M.
Dittmar, M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, C. Grab, C. Heidegger, D. Hits, J. Hoss, G.
Kasieczka, T. Klijnsma, W. Lustermann, B. Mangano, M. Marionneau, M.T.
Meinhard, D. Meister, F. Micheli, P. Musella, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, F. Pandolfi,
J. Pata, F. Pauss, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, M. Quittnat, M. Reichmann, D.A.
Sanz Becerra, M. Schönenberger, L. Shchutska, V.R. Tavolaro, K. Theofilatos,
M.L. Vesterbacka Olsson, R. Wallny, D.H. Zhu Universität Zürich, Zurich,
Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, C. Amsler49, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, R. Del Burgo, S.
Donato, C. Galloni, T. Hreus, B. Kilminster, D. Pinna, G. Rauco, P. Robmann,
D. Salerno, K. Schweiger, C. Seitz, Y. Takahashi, A. Zucchetta National
Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan
V. Candelise, T.H. Doan, Sh. Jain, R. Khurana, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A.
Pozdnyakov, S.S. Yu National Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, F. Fiori, W.-S. Hou, Y. Hsiung, Arun
Kumar, Y.F. Liu, R.-S. Lu, E. Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen, J.f. Tsai
Chulalongkorn University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok,
Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, K. Kovitanggoon, G. Singh, N. Srimanobhas Çukurova University,
Physics Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
F. Boran, S. Cerci50, S. Damarseckin, Z.S. Demiroglu, C. Dozen, I. Dumanoglu,
S. Girgis, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, I. Hos51, E.E. Kangal52, O. Kara, A. Kayis
Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, M. Oglakci, G. Onengut53, K. Ozdemir54, D. Sunar Cerci50,
B. Tali50, S. Turkcapar, I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East Technical
University, Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey
B. Bilin, G. Karapinar55, K. Ocalan56, M. Yalvac, M. Zeyrek Bogazici
University, Istanbul, Turkey
E. Gülmez, M. Kaya57, O. Kaya58, S. Tekten, E.A. Yetkin59 Istanbul Technical
University, Istanbul, Turkey
M.N. Agaras, S. Atay, A. Cakir, K. Cankocak Institute for Scintillation
Materials of National Academy of Science of Ukraine, Kharkov, Ukraine
B. Grynyov National Scientific Center, Kharkov Institute of Physics and
Technology, Kharkov, Ukraine
L. Levchuk University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
F. Ball, L. Beck, J.J. Brooke, D. Burns, E. Clement, D. Cussans, O. Davignon,
H. Flacher, J. Goldstein, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, J. Jacob, L. Kreczko, D.M.
Newbold60, S. Paramesvaran, T. Sakuma, S. Seif El Nasr-storey, D. Smith, V.J.
Smith Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev61, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, L. Calligaris, D. Cieri, D.J.A.
Cockerill, J.A. Coughlan, K. Harder, S. Harper, E. Olaiya, D. Petyt, C.H.
Shepherd-Themistocleous, A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin, T. Williams Imperial College,
London, United Kingdom
G. Auzinger, R. Bainbridge, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A. Bundock, S.
Casasso, M. Citron, D. Colling, L. Corpe, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, A. De Wit, M.
Della Negra, R. Di Maria, A. Elwood, Y. Haddad, G. Hall, G. Iles, T. James, R.
Lane, C. Laner, L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, L. Mastrolorenzo, T.
Matsushita, J. Nash, A. Nikitenko6, V. Palladino, M. Pesaresi, D.M. Raymond,
A. Richards, A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A. Shtipliyski, S. Summers, A.
Tapper, K. Uchida, M. Vazquez Acosta62, T. Virdee15, N. Wardle, D.
Winterbottom, J. Wright, S.C. Zenz Brunel University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, I.D. Reid, P. Symonds, L.
Teodorescu, M. Turner, S. Zahid Baylor University, Waco, USA
A. Borzou, K. Call, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, H. Liu, N. Pastika, C. Smith
Catholic University of America, Washington DC, USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
A. Buccilli, S.I. Cooper, C. Henderson, P. Rumerio, C. West Boston University,
Boston, USA
D. Arcaro, A. Avetisyan, T. Bose, D. Gastler, D. Rankin, C. Richardson, J.
Rohlf, L. Sulak, D. Zou Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, D. Cutts, A. Garabedian, M. Hadley, J. Hakala, U. Heintz, J.M.
Hogan, K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, J. Lee, Z. Mao, M. Narain, J.
Pazzini, S. Piperov, S. Sagir, R. Syarif, D. Yu University of California,
Davis, Davis, USA
R. Band, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, D. Burns, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez,
M. Chertok, J. Conway, R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, G. Funk,
M. Gardner, W. Ko, R. Lander, C. Mclean, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, J. Pilot, S.
Shalhout, M. Shi, J. Smith, D. Stolp, K. Tos, M. Tripathi, Z. Wang University
of California, Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, C. Bravo, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, A. Florent, J. Hauser, M.
Ignatenko, N. Mccoll, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg, C. Schnaible, V. Valuev
University of California, Riverside, Riverside, USA
E. Bouvier, K. Burt, R. Clare, J. Ellison, J.W. Gary, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi,
G. Hanson, J. Heilman, E. Kennedy, F. Lacroix, O.R. Long, M. Olmedo Negrete,
M.I. Paneva, W. Si, L. Wang, H. Wei, S. Wimpenny, B.R. Yates University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, S. Cittolin, M. Derdzinski, D. Gilbert, B. Hashemi, A. Holzner,
D. Klein, G. Kole, V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, I. Macneill, M. Masciovecchio, D.
Olivito, S. Padhi, M. Pieri, M. Sani, V. Sharma, S. Simon, M. Tadel, A.
Vartak, S. Wasserbaech63, J. Wood, F. Würthwein, A. Yagil, G. Zevi Della Porta
University of California, Santa Barbara - Department of Physics, Santa
Barbara, USA
N. Amin, R. Bhandari, J. Bradmiller-Feld, C. Campagnari, A. Dishaw, V. Dutta,
M. Franco Sevilla, C. George, F. Golf, L. Gouskos, J. Gran, R. Heller, J.
Incandela, S.D. Mullin, A. Ovcharova, H. Qu, J. Richman, D. Stuart, I. Suarez,
J. Yoo California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
D. Anderson, J. Bendavid, A. Bornheim, J.M. Lawhorn, H.B. Newman, T. Nguyen,
C. Pena, M. Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, S. Xie, Z. Zhang, R.Y. Zhu Carnegie
Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
M.B. Andrews, T. Ferguson, T. Mudholkar, M. Paulini, J. Russ, M. Sun, H.
Vogel, I. Vorobiev, M. Weinberg University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, F. Jensen, A. Johnson, M. Krohn, S. Leontsinis, T.
Mulholland, K. Stenson, S.R. Wagner Cornell University, Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, J. Chaves, J. Chu, S. Dittmer, K. Mcdermott, N. Mirman, J.R.
Patterson, D. Quach, A. Rinkevicius, A. Ryd, L. Skinnari, L. Soffi, S.M. Tan,
Z. Tao, J. Thom, J. Tucker, P. Wittich, M. Zientek Fermi National Accelerator
Laboratory, Batavia, USA
S. Abdullin, M. Albrow, M. Alyari, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S.
Banerjee, L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, G.
Bolla${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, K. Burkett, J.N. Butler, A. Canepa, G.B.
Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M. Cremonesi, J. Duarte, V.D. Elvira, J.
Freeman, Z. Gecse, E. Gottschalk, L. Gray, D. Green, S. Grünendahl, O.
Gutsche, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, J. Hirschauer, Z. Hu, B. Jayatilaka, S.
Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, B. Klima, B. Kreis, S. Lammel, D. Lincoln,
R. Lipton, M. Liu, T. Liu, R. Lopes De Sá, J. Lykken, K. Maeshima, N. Magini,
J.M. Marraffino, D. Mason, P. McBride, P. Merkel, S. Mrenna, S. Nahn, V.
O’Dell, K. Pedro, O. Prokofyev, G. Rakness, L. Ristori, B. Schneider, E.
Sexton-Kennedy, A. Soha, W.J. Spalding, L. Spiegel, S. Stoynev, J. Strait, N.
Strobbe, L. Taylor, S. Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran, L. Uplegger, E.W. Vaandering, C.
Vernieri, M. Verzocchi, R. Vidal, M. Wang, H.A. Weber, A. Whitbeck University
of Florida, Gainesville, USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, P. Bortignon, D. Bourilkov, A. Brinkerhoff, A. Carnes, M.
Carver, D. Curry, R.D. Field, I.K. Furic, J. Konigsberg, A. Korytov, K. Kotov,
P. Ma, K. Matchev, H. Mei, G. Mitselmakher, D. Rank, D. Sperka, N. Terentyev,
L. Thomas, J. Wang, S. Wang, J. Yelton Florida International University,
Miami, USA
Y.R. Joshi, S. Linn, P. Markowitz, J.L. Rodriguez Florida State University,
Tallahassee, USA
A. Ackert, T. Adams, A. Askew, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F. Johnson, T.
Kolberg, G. Martinez, T. Perry, H. Prosper, A. Saha, A. Santra, V. Sharma, R.
Yohay Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, V. Bhopatkar, S. Colafranceschi, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, T.
Roy, F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago, USA
M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, D. Berry, R.R. Betts, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, O.
Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, K. Jung, J. Kamin, I.D.
Sandoval Gonzalez, M.B. Tonjes, H. Trauger, N. Varelas, H. Wang, Z. Wu, J.
Zhang The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
B. Bilki64, W. Clarida, K. Dilsiz65, S. Durgut, R.P. Gandrajula, M.
Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko, J.-P. Merlo, H. Mermerkaya66, A. Mestvirishvili,
A. Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul67, Y. Onel, F. Ozok68, A. Penzo, C. Snyder,
E. Tiras, J. Wetzel, K. Yi Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
B. Blumenfeld, A. Cocoros, N. Eminizer, D. Fehling, L. Feng, A.V. Gritsan, P.
Maksimovic, J. Roskes, U. Sarica, M. Swartz, M. Xiao, C. You The University of
Kansas, Lawrence, USA
A. Al-bataineh, P. Baringer, A. Bean, S. Boren, J. Bowen, J. Castle, S.
Khalil, A. Kropivnitskaya, D. Majumder, W. Mcbrayer, M. Murray, C. Royon, S.
Sanders, E. Schmitz, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang Kansas State University,
Manhattan, USA
A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, Y. Maravin, A. Mohammadi, L.K. Saini, N. Skhirtladze, S.
Toda Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright University of Maryland, College Park, USA
C. Anelli, A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, B. Calvert, S.C. Eno, Y. Feng, C.
Ferraioli, N.J. Hadley, S. Jabeen, G.Y. Jeng, R.G. Kellogg, J. Kunkle, A.C.
Mignerey, F. Ricci-Tam, Y.H. Shin, A. Skuja, S.C. Tonwar Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, V. Azzolini, R. Barbieri, A. Baty, R. Bi, S. Brandt,
W. Busza, I.A. Cali, M. D’Alfonso, Z. Demiragli, G. Gomez Ceballos, M.
Goncharov, D. Hsu, M. Hu, Y. Iiyama, G.M. Innocenti, M. Klute, D. Kovalskyi,
Y.S. Lai, Y.-J. Lee, A. Levin, P.D. Luckey, B. Maier, A.C. Marini, C. Mcginn,
C. Mironov, S. Narayanan, X. Niu, C. Paus, C. Roland, G. Roland, J. Salfeld-
Nebgen, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Tatar, D. Velicanu, J. Wang, T.W. Wang, B.
Wyslouch University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
A.C. Benvenuti, R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, P. Hansen, J. Hiltbrand, S.
Kalafut, Y. Kubota, Z. Lesko, J. Mans, S. Nourbakhsh, N. Ruckstuhl, R. Rusack,
J. Turkewitz, M.A. Wadud University of Mississippi, Oxford, USA
J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
E. Avdeeva, K. Bloom, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, R. Gonzalez Suarez, R.
Kamalieddin, I. Kravchenko, J. Monroy, J.E. Siado, G.R. Snow, B. Stieger State
University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
J. Dolen, A. Godshalk, C. Harrington, I. Iashvili, D. Nguyen, A. Parker, S.
Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani Northeastern University, Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, A. Hortiangtham, A. Massironi, D.M. Morse, T.
Orimoto, R. Teixeira De Lima, D. Trocino, D. Wood Northwestern University,
Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, O. Charaf, K.A. Hahn, N. Mucia, N. Odell, B. Pollack, M.H.
Schmitt, K. Sung, M. Trovato, M. Velasco University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame,
USA
N. Dev, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop, D.J. Karmgard, N. Kellams,
K. Lannon, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, F. Meng, C. Mueller, Y. Musienko36, M.
Planer, A. Reinsvold, R. Ruchti, G. Smith, S. Taroni, M. Wayne, M. Wolf, A.
Woodard The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA
J. Alimena, L. Antonelli, B. Bylsma, L.S. Durkin, S. Flowers, B. Francis, A.
Hart, C. Hill, W. Ji, B. Liu, W. Luo, D. Puigh, B.L. Winer, H.W. Wulsin
Princeton University, Princeton, USA
S. Cooperstein, O. Driga, P. Elmer, J. Hardenbrook, P. Hebda, S. Higginbotham,
D. Lange, J. Luo, D. Marlow, K. Mei, I. Ojalvo, J. Olsen, C. Palmer, P.
Piroué, D. Stickland, C. Tully University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
A. Barker, V.E. Barnes, S. Das, S. Folgueras, L. Gutay, M.K. Jha, M. Jones,
A.W. Jung, A. Khatiwada, D.H. Miller, N. Neumeister, C.C. Peng, H. Qiu, J.F.
Schulte, J. Sun, F. Wang, W. Xie Purdue University Northwest, Hammond, USA
T. Cheng, N. Parashar, J. Stupak Rice University, Houston, USA
A. Adair, Z. Chen, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Guilbaud, M.
Kilpatrick, W. Li, B. Michlin, M. Northup, B.P. Padley, J. Roberts, J. Rorie,
W. Shi, Z. Tu, J. Zabel, A. Zhang University of Rochester, Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, Y.t. Duh, T. Ferbel, M. Galanti, A.
Garcia-Bellido, J. Han, O. Hindrichs, A. Khukhunaishvili, K.H. Lo, P. Tan, M.
Verzetti The Rockefeller University, New York, USA
R. Ciesielski, K. Goulianos, C. Mesropian Rutgers, The State University of New
Jersey, Piscataway, USA
A. Agapitos, J.P. Chou, Y. Gershtein, T.A. Gómez Espinosa, E. Halkiadakis, M.
Heindl, E. Hughes, S. Kaplan, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, S. Kyriacou, A. Lath,
R. Montalvo, K. Nash, M. Osherson, H. Saka, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, D.
Sheffield, S. Somalwar, R. Stone, S. Thomas, P. Thomassen, M. Walker
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
A.G. Delannoy, M. Foerster, J. Heideman, G. Riley, K. Rose, S. Spanier, K.
Thapa Texas A&M University, College Station, USA
O. Bouhali69, A. Castaneda Hernandez69, A. Celik, M. Dalchenko, M. De Mattia,
A. Delgado, S. Dildick, R. Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T. Kamon70, R.
Mueller, Y. Pakhotin, R. Patel, A. Perloff, L. Perniè, D. Rathjens, A.
Safonov, A. Tatarinov, K.A. Ulmer Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, F. De Guio, P.R. Dudero, J. Faulkner, E. Gurpinar, S.
Kunori, K. Lamichhane, S.W. Lee, T. Libeiro, T. Peltola, S. Undleeb, I.
Volobouev, Z. Wang Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H. Ni, K.
Padeken, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska, Q. Xu University of Virginia,
Charlottesville, USA
M.W. Arenton, P. Barria, B. Cox, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A. Ledovskoy, H. Li, C.
Neu, T. Sinthuprasith, Y. Wang, E. Wolfe, F. Xia Wayne State University,
Detroit, USA
R. Harr, P.E. Karchin, N. Poudyal, J. Sturdy, P. Thapa, S. Zaleski University
of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI, USA
M. Brodski, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, S. Dasu, L. Dodd, S. Duric, B. Gomber, M.
Grothe, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, P. Klabbers, A. Lanaro, A. Levine,
K. Long, R. Loveless, G. Polese, T. Ruggles, A. Savin, N. Smith, W.H. Smith,
D. Taylor, N. Woods †: Deceased
1: Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria
2: Also at State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking
University, Beijing, China
3: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
4: Also at Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil
5: Also at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
6: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
7: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
8: Also at Suez University, Suez, Egypt
9: Now at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt
10: Now at Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
11: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
12: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
13: Also at Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
14: Also at Ilia State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
15: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
16: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
17: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
18: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
19: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
20: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
21: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
22: Also at Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India
23: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
24: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
25: Also at University of Ruhuna, Matara, Sri Lanka
26: Also at Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
27: Also at Yazd University, Yazd, Iran
28: Also at Plasma Physics Research Center, Science and Research Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
29: Also at Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy
30: Also at INFN Sezione di Milano-Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b,
Milano, Italy
31: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
32: Also at International Islamic University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
33: Also at Malaysian Nuclear Agency, MOSTI, Kajang, Malaysia
34: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico city, Mexico
35: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems,
Warsaw, Poland
36: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
37: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
38: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
39: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
40: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
41: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
42: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
43: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
44: Also at University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of
Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
45: Also at Scuola Normale e Sezione dell’INFN, Pisa, Italy
46: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
47: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
48: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
49: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics (SMI), Vienna,
Austria
50: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
51: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey
52: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
53: Also at Cag University, Mersin, Turkey
54: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
55: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
56: Also at Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
57: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
58: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
59: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
60: Also at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
61: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
62: Also at Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, La Laguna, Spain
63: Also at Utah Valley University, Orem, USA
64: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey
65: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
66: Also at Erzincan University, Erzincan, Turkey
67: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
68: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
69: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
70: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea