HIG-17-014

$Revision:491727$
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>$Id:HIG-17-014.tex4917272019-03-1317:40:53Zineuteli$ HIG-17-014

# Search for a low-mass $\TT$ resonance in association with a bottom quark in
proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$

###### Abstract

A general search is presented for a low-mass $\TT$ resonance produced in
association with a bottom quark. The search is based on proton-proton
collision data at a center-of-mass energy of 13collected by the CMS experiment
at the LHC, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $35.9\fbinv$. The
data are consistent with the standard model expectation. Upper limits at 95%
confidence level on the cross section times branching fraction are determined
for two signal models: a light pseudoscalar Higgs boson decaying to a pair of
$\tau$ leptons produced in association with bottom quarks, and a low-mass
boson $\mathrm{X}$ decaying to a -lepton pair that is produced in the decay of
a bottom-like quark $\mathrm{B}$ such that ${\mathrm{B}}\to\cPqb{\mathrm{X}}$.
Masses between 25 and 70are probed for the light pseudoscalar boson with upper
limits ranging from 250 to 44pb. Upper limits from 20 to 0.3pb are set on B
masses between 170 and 450for $\mathrm{X}$ boson masses between 20 and 70.

##  0.1 Introduction

The observation of a Higgs boson by the ATLAS and the CMS Collaborations [1,
2, 3] represents a major step towards the understanding of the mechanism for
electroweak symmetry breaking [4, 5, 6]. All measurements within the Higgs
boson sector have so far been in general agreement with the predictions of the
standard model (SM) [7, 8]. However, the SM cannot address several crucial
issues, such as the hierarchy problem, the origin of the matter-antimatter
asymmetry in the universe, and the nature of dark matter [9, 10, 11, 12].
Theories beyond the SM have been proposed to address these open questions.
Many of these predict the existence of more than one Higgs boson, or new
resonances that preferentially decay to a pair of third-generation fermions,
including leptons.

In this analysis, a search for several scenarios of low-mass resonances that
decay to a pair of leptons of opposite charge is performed. In particular, we
define multiple signal regions that are optimized based on two benchmark
models that have final states with different kinematic properties. We consider
a mass range between 20 and 70, as we are bounded below by our kinematic
requirements, and above 70by the background of the boson mass peak.

The first model describes a low-mass pseudoscalar Higgs boson A, produced in
association with two bottom quarks ($\bbbar\PXXA$), and decaying to a -lepton
pair. This is one of the preferred scenarios in the Two-Higgs-Doublet Models
(2HDMs) [13, 14, 15, 16, 17]. Searches for signatures of $\bbbar\PXXA$ or A
pair production containing leptons in the final state have been performed
using pp collision data at a center-of-mass energy of 8collected by CMS [18,
19] and ATLAS [20], as well as with data at 13by CMS [21, 22]. Other searches
by CMS and ATLAS for low-mass bosons exploit final states containing muons and
b quarks [23, 24, 25], but also electrons [26, 27] or photons [28]. For this
model, we choose events with a -lepton pair and a central jet that is
consistent with the decay of a hadron (“-tagged jet”). A Feynman diagram of
this signal process at leading order (LO) is shown in Fig. 1 (left panel).

Figure 1: Feynman diagrams of (left) a low-mass pseudoscalar Higgs boson (A)
produced in association with bottom quarks, and (right) a bottom-like quark
produced in $t$ channel, which decays into X and a bottom quark. The particle
$\mathrm{X}$ decays into a -lepton pair.

The second model describes a low-mass boson X decaying to a -lepton pair in a
process where the $\mathrm{X}$ boson is created through the decay of a vector-
like quark (VLQ) [29, 30, 31, 32]. In the scenario considered here, a heavy
bottom-like quark $\mathrm{B}$ is produced in a $t$-channel process in
association with a light quark, where an $\mathrm{X}$ boson acts as the
propagator. It then decays via ${\mathrm{B}}\to\cPqb{\mathrm{X}}$, so that the
final state topology is $\cPq\cPqb{\mathrm{X}}$. The $\mathrm{B}$ is typically
scattered in the forward direction, and two categories of event selection are
optimized to target this signature. Both categories require a jet consistent
with the decay of a hadron, with one category requiring an additional central
jet with pseudorapidity $\abs{\eta}<2.4$, and one category requiring an
additional forward jet with $\abs{\eta}>2.4$. With this selection, the
analysis provides new sensitivity to vector-like quarks by targeting
previously unexplored decays of heavy bottom-like quarks. The Feynman diagram
of this signal process that is dominant at LO is also shown in Fig. 1 (right
panel).

A number of other scenarios beyond the SM produce signatures similar to the
two models considered. For example, Hidden Valley models [33, 34] predict a
spin-one resonance decaying to lepton pairs; dark-force models [35] include
the decay of a top quark to a bottom quark and two GeV-scale bosons, $\PWpr$
and $\PZpr$, that decay to leptons [36, 37]; and new flavor changing neutral
current interactions of the top quark, in which a new light $\mathrm{X}$ boson
is produced in association with a single top quark and decays to lepton pairs
[38]. Although these new physics scenarios are not considered in this
analysis, the results can be applied to most of these cases in the kinematic
regions explored in this work.

A previous analysis of proton-proton ($\Pp\Pp$) collision data taken at a
center-of-mass energy of 8, exploring a similar final state focusing on dimuon
resonances, has observed excesses at an invariant mass of 28that correspond to
local significances of 4.2 and 2.9 standard deviations in the two event
categories defined by the analysis [39]. Reference [39] also reports an
analysis of data with a center-of-mass energy of 13, and finds both a $2.0$
standard deviation excess and a 1.4 standard deviation deficit in the same two
event categories, respectively. If there were a new heavy particle that had
Yukawa-like couplings proportional to mass, the rate would be enhanced in the
${\Pgt\Pgt}$ final state considered in this work, and would provide additional
information on the couplings of such a new particle. Therefore, the results of
this analysis are compared to those of Ref. [39].

This analysis is based on $\Pp\Pp$ collision data delivered by the LHC at CERN
at a center-of-mass energy of 13. The data set corresponds to an integrated
luminosity of $35.9\fbinv$, collected by the CMS detector during 2016. Only
the semileptonic final states ${\Pe\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ and
${\Pgm\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ are considered, where one of the leptons decays into
light leptons (electron or muon), and the other decays hadronically, denoted
as $\tauh$.

##  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, there are a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal
electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), 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 from $\abs{\eta}<3.0$ to $\abs{\eta}<5.2$. Muons are measured
in gas-ionization detectors embedded in the steel flux-return yoke outside the
solenoid.

Events of interest are selected using a two-tiered trigger system [40]. 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, 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 about 1kHz before data storage.

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. [41].

##  0.3 Simulated samples

Samples of simulated events are used to devise selection criteria, and
estimate and validate background predictions. The main sources of background
are the pair production of top quarks ($\ttbar$), single top quark production,
$\PW$ and $\cPZ$ boson production in association with jets, denoted as
“${\PW+\text{jets}}$” and “${\cPZ+\text{jets}}$”, diboson ($\PW\PW$,
$\PW\cPZ$, $\cPZ\cPZ$) production, and quantum chromodynamics (QCD) production
of multijet events. The ${\PW+\text{jets}}$ and ${\cPZ+\text{jets}}$ processes
are simulated using the [42] generator (2.2.2 and 2.3.3) at LO precision with
the MLM jet matching and merging scheme [43]. The same generator is also used
for diboson production simulated at next-to-leading order (NLO) precision with
the FxFx jet matching and merging scheme [44], whereas [45, 46, 47] 2.0 and
1.0 are used for $\ttbar$ and single top quark production at NLO precision,
respectively [48, 49, 50, 51]. The ${\cPZ+\text{jets}}$, $\ttbar$, and single
top processes are normalized using cross sections computed at next-to-next-to-
leading order (NNLO) in perturbative QCD [52, 53, 54].

The ${\bbbar\PXXA}$ samples are produced with the 8.212 [55] generator with
the pseudoscalar mass (${m_{\PXXA}}$) ranging from 25 to 70.

The $\cPq\cPqb{\mathrm{X}}$ signals are generated with , using the same
production mechanism as for producing single top quarks in the $t$-channel.
The quark that initiates the $\cPq\cPqb{\mathrm{X}}$ process is predominantly
produced in gluon splittings, and is modeled by the four-flavor scheme (4FS),
such that the quark is not contained in the proton parton distribution
functions. A previous comparison with data has shown that the absolute value
of the transverse momentum ($\pt=\abs{\ptvec}$) and $\eta$ distributions of
the top quark in simulated $t$-channel events is better modeled in the 4FS
than in the five-flavor scheme [56]. Several samples with different values of
${m_{{\mathrm{X}}}}$, ranging from 20 to 70, are generated. Mass values of
170, 300, and 450are considered for the ${\mathrm{B}}$ particle.

The event generators are interfaced with to model the parton showering and
fragmentation, as well as the decay of the leptons. The parameters affecting
the description of the underlying event are set to the CUETP8M1 tune [57]. The
NNPDF3.0 parton distribution functions [58] with the order matching that of
the matrix element calculations are used with all generators. Generated events
are processed through a simulation of the CMS detector based on [59], and are
reconstructed with the same algorithms used for data. The simulated samples
include additional $\Pp\Pp$ interactions per bunch crossing, referred to as
“pileup”. The effect of pileup is taken into account by generating concurrent
total inelastic collision events with . The simulated events are weighted such
that the distribution of the number of pileup interactions matches that in
data, with an average of approximately 23 interactions per bunch crossing
[60].

##  0.4 Event and object reconstruction

The reconstruction of observed and simulated events relies on the particle-
flow (PF) algorithm [61], which combines information from the CMS subdetectors
to reconstruct and identify the particles emerging from the $\Pp\Pp$
collisions: charged and neutral hadrons, photons, muons, and electrons. This
section describes how these PF objects are combined to reconstruct other
physics objects such as jets, $\tauh$ candidates, or missing transverse
momentum ($\ptvecmiss$). The primary $\Pp\Pp$ interaction vertex of an event
is taken to be the reconstructed vertex with the largest value of summed
physics-object $\PT^{2}$.

After being reconstructed by the PF algorithm, electrons are identified with a
multivariate analysis (MVA) [62] discriminant that combines several quantities
describing the track quality, the shape of the energy deposits in the ECAL,
and the compatibility of the measurements from the tracker and the ECAL [63].
Selected electrons must pass a discriminant requirement that rejects electrons
coming from photon conversions. Muons are identified with requirements on the
quality of the track reconstruction and on the number of measurements in the
tracker and the muon system [64]. To reject nonprompt or misidentified
leptons, a relative lepton isolation $I_{\ell}$ ($\ell=\Pe,\Pgm$) is defined
as follows:

$I_{\ell}\equiv\frac{\sum_{\text{charged}}\PT+\max\left(0,\sum_{\text{neutral}}\PT-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\text{charged,
PU}}\PT\right)}{\PT^{\ell}}.$

In this expression, $\sum_{\text{charged}}\PT$ is the scalar sum of the
charged hadrons originating from the primary vertex, and located in a cone of
size $\Delta R=0.3$ (0.4) centered on the electron (muon) direction, where
$\DR=\sqrt{\smash[b]{(\Delta\eta)^{2}+(\Delta\phi)^{2}}}$, $\Delta\eta$ is the
difference in pseudorapidity, and $\Delta\phi$ is the difference in azimuthal
angle in radians. The sum $\sum_{\text{neutral}}\PT$ represents the same
quantity for neutral hadrons and photons. The contribution of pileup photons
and neutral hadrons is estimated from the scalar sum of charged hadrons
originating from pileup vertices, $\sum_{\text{charged, PU}}\PT$. This sum is
multiplied by a factor of $1/2$, which corresponds approximately to the ratio
of neutral- to charged-hadron production in the hadronization process of
inelastic pp collisions, as estimated from simulation. In this analysis,
$I_{\Pe}<0.10$ ($I_{\Pgm}<0.15$) is used as the isolation requirement for the
electron (muon).

Jets are reconstructed from PF candidates using the anti-clustering algorithm
with a distance parameter of 0.4, implemented in the library [65, 66, 67].
Charged PF candidates not associated with the primary vertex of the
interaction are not considered when reconstructing jets. An offset correction
is applied to jet energies to take into account the contribution from
additional $\Pp\Pp$ interactions within the same or nearby bunch crossings
[68]. The energy of a jet is calibrated based on simulation and data through
correction factors [68]. Further identification requirements are applied to
distinguish genuine jets from those arising from pileup [69], and additional
selection criteria on the energy fractions and multiplicity of charged and
neutral particles are applied to each event to remove spurious jet-like
features originating from isolated noise patterns in certain HCAL regions
[70]. In this analysis, jets are required to have $\pt>30\GeV$ and
$\abs{\eta}<4.7$, and must be separated from the selected leptons by $\Delta
R>0.5$. Jets originating from the hadronization of bottom quarks are
identified using the combined secondary vertex algorithm [71], which exploits
observables related to the long lifetime and large mass of hadrons. The chosen
-tagging working point corresponds to an identification efficiency of
approximately 60% with a misidentification rate of approximately 1% for jets
originating from light quarks or gluons, and about 13% for jets originating
from charm quarks.

The $\tauh$ candidates are reconstructed with the hadron-plus-strips algorithm
[72], which is seeded with anti-jets. This algorithm reconstructs $\tauh$
candidates based on the number of charged hadrons and on the number of strips
of ECAL crystals with energy deposits in the one-prong, one-prong + $\Pgpz$,
and three-prong decay modes. An MVA-based discriminant, including the
isolation and lifetime information, is used to reduce the incidence of jets
being misidentified as $\tauh$ candidates. The typical working point of this
MVA-based isolation discriminant, as used in this analysis, has an efficiency
of about 60% for a genuine $\tauh$, with about a 0.1% misidentification rate
for quark and gluon jets. Electrons and muons misidentified as $\tauh$
candidates are suppressed using dedicated criteria based on the consistency
between the measurements in the tracker, calorimeters, and muon system.

The vector $\ptvecmiss$ is defined as the negative vectorial sum of the
$\ptvec$ of all PF candidates [73, 74] originating from the primary vertex.
The $\ptvecmiss$ is adjusted for the effect of jet energy corrections. Recoil
corrections are applied to account for the mismodeling of $\ptvecmiss$ in
simulated events of the ${\cPZ+\text{jets}}$ and ${\PW+\text{jets}}$
processes. The corrections are performed on the variable that is defined as
the vectorial difference between the measured $\ptvecmiss$ and the total
$\ptvec$ of neutrinos originating from the decay of the $\PW$ or $\cPZ$ boson.
On average, this reduces the $\ptvecmiss$ obtained from simulation by a few
GeV.

##  0.5 Event selection

The search is performed in events containing $\Pe\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}$ or
$\Pgm\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}$ (collectively $\ell\Pgt_{\text{h}}$) candidates,
produced in association with a -tagged jet.

In order to select the $\Pe\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}$ ($\Pgm\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}$) final
states of the -lepton pair, the trigger requirements are at least one isolated
electron (muon) with $\pt>25$ (22), or the combination of at least one
isolated electron (muon) with $\pt>24$ (19)and one $\tauh$ candidate with
$\pt>20\GeV$. In addition to the trigger requirements, a common “baseline
selection” is applied, requiring the events to be consistent with the
$\ell\Pgt_{\text{h}}$ signature. Additional event selections to target the
$\bbbar\PXXA$ and $\cPq\cPqb{\mathrm{X}}$ signatures are described in the
following sections.

###  0.5.1 Baseline selection

The ${\Pe\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ channel requires one electron candidate with
$\PT>25\GeV$, $\abs{\eta}<2.1$, and relative isolation (defined in Section
0.4) less than 0.10. The electron should be within a longitudinal distance
$d_{z}$ of $0.2\cm$ and a radial distance $d_{xy}$ of $0.045\cm$ with respect
to the primary vertex. One candidate is required to have $\PT>20\GeV$,
$\abs{\eta}<2.3$, and to pass the working point of the MVA-based isolation, as
detailed in Section 0.4. The selected electron and $\tauh$ should have an
opening angle of $\Delta R>0.5$ and have opposite-sign (OS) electric charges.
If multiple $\tauh$ candidates are found, the one with the best MVA-based
isolation is selected.

Similarly, ${\Pgm\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ events are selected by requiring one muon
candidate with $\PT>20\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.1$. The relative isolation is
taken to be less than $0.15$. The same $d_{z}$ and $d_{xy}$ requirements as
those imposed on electron candidates are applied to muons. The
$\tauh$-candidate selection is the same as for $\Pe\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}$ events.

For both the $\Pe\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}$ and $\Pgm\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}$ channels,
events with additional isolated electrons (or muons) with $\pt>10\GeV$ and
$\abs{\eta}<2.5$ (2.1) that pass the same $d_{z}$ and $d_{xy}$ requirements,
but a looser identification requirement, are discarded to reduce
${\cPZ+\text{jets}}$, production, and diboson backgrounds, as well as to keep
orthogonality between the ${\Pe\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ and
${\Pgm\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ channels.

###  0.5.2 Additional selection for the ${\bbbar\PXXA}$ search

Signal events of the $\bbbar\PXXA$ process are characterized by a -lepton pair
and two bottom quarks. In order to increase the signal purity, candidate
events are required to have at least one -tagged jet with $\pt>30\GeV$ and
$\abs{\eta}<2.4$. To further remove $\ttbar$ background, events are required
to have a transverse mass ($\mT$) less than 40, where $\mT$ is defined as

$\mT=\sqrt{{2\pt^{\ell}\abs{\ptvecmiss}(1-\cos\Delta\phi)}},$

in which $\pt^{\ell}$ is the of the lepton and $\Delta\phi$ is the azimuthal
angle between the lepton direction and the vector, which here is assumed to be
due to the momenta of undetected neutrinos.

In addition, events are required to satisfy
${p_{\zeta}^{\text{miss}}}-0.85{p_{\zeta}^{\text{vis}}}>-40\GeV$, where
${p_{\zeta}^{\text{miss}}}$ is the component of the $\ptvecmiss$ along the
bisector of the of the lepton and $\tauh$, while ${p_{\zeta}^{\text{vis}}}$ is
the sum of the parallel components of the lepton and $\tauh$-candidate [75].
This variable quantifies the compatibility of events with the topology wherein
the direction of neutrinos from the -lepton decays are aligned with the
direction of the visible -lepton decay products. This requirement is optimized
to remove a substantial amount of as well as $\PW+\text{jets}$ events.

###  0.5.3 Additional selection for the ${\cPq\cPqb{\mathrm{X}}}$ search

The final-state bottom quark from
$\cPq\cPqb\to\cPq^{\prime}{\mathrm{B}}\to\cPq^{\prime}\cPqb{\mathrm{X}}$ tends
to be more centrally produced with a hard $\PT$ spectrum, whereas the final-
state light quark tends to be more forwardly scattered. This motivates two
mutually exclusive categories of events. The first category requires one
forward jet and one -tagged jet, and is labeled as “1b1f”. Namely,

  * •

one -tagged jet with $\PT>30\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.4$;

  * •

at least one forward jet with $\PT>30\GeV$ and $2.4<\abs{\eta}<4.7$;

  * •

no other jets with $\PT>30\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.4$.

The second category, labeled as “1b1c”, has only two central jets:

  * •

one -tagged jet with $\PT>30\GeV$, $\abs{\eta}<2.4$;

  * •

exactly one other central jet with $\PT>30\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.4$;

  * •

no forward jets with $\PT>30\GeV$ and $2.4<\abs{\eta}<4.7$.

In order to further reduce the dominant $\ttbar$ background, an additional
requirement of $\mT<60\GeV$ is applied to events in both categories. This
selection helps to reduce the $\ttbar$ background by a factor of five in 1b1f,
and by a factor of two in the 1b1c category, while maintaining a signal
acceptance of 91 and 98%, respectively. Of all selected data events, 18% fall
into 1b1f, and 82% into 1b1c.

After applying the event selection, an excess of events over the SM
backgrounds is searched for using the distribution of the invariant mass of
the -lepton pair, constructed using the SVfit mass algorithm [76, 77]. This
algorithm approximates the invariant mass of the ${\Pgt\Pgt}$ system by
exploiting information on the four-vectors of the lepton and $\tauh$, combined
with the $xy$-components of and its covariance matrix. For better energy
resolution, the $\tauh$ decay modes (one-prong, one-prong + $\Pgpz$, and
three-prong) are treated separately. Although the visible mass of the lepton
and $\tauh$ system, defined as the invariant mass of the sum of four-vector
from the visible particles, can be also used as a discriminant, the SVfit mass
${m_{{\Pgt\Pgt}}}$ is preferred since its peak position locates the resonance
mass, while performing equally well in terms of the expected sensitivity.
Considering that the typical resolution of the ${m_{{\Pgt\Pgt}}}$ distribution
is 10–15% [76, 77], a bin width of 5is chosen. The maximum likelihood fit
method [78] is performed for the signal extraction, as detailed in Section
0.8.

##  0.6 Background estimation

The dominant background in all search channels and categories comes from
$\ttbar$ production because of the presence of genuine electrons, muons,
$\tau$ leptons, and bottom quark jets from $\ttbar$ decays. At lower masses,
the QCD multijet background also becomes relevant, while around 90, there is a
considerable ${\cPZ+\text{jets}}$ contribution. Additional small backgrounds
are ${\PW+\text{jets}}$, diboson, and single top quark events.

For the ${\bbbar\PXXA}$ search, simulated events are used to model $\ttbar$
backgrounds, both for the normalization and the shape of the SVfit mass
distribution. The normalization of the $\ttbar$ background is checked by
defining a control region with a high $\ttbar$ purity and little signal
contamination by requiring $\abs{\ptvecmiss}>60\GeV$ and $\mT>60\GeV$. All
other selection requirements stay the same. The data and simulation show close
agreement within statistical uncertainty. Therefore, simulated events are used
to predict the yield of $\ttbar$ background processes in the signal region
without scaling, as well as the associated uncertainties in the cross section.

For the $\cPq\cPqb{\mathrm{X}}$ search, on the other hand, additional
requirements on the jet multiplicity can cause mismodeling of the $\ttbar$
background. A control region is defined with the same jet category selections
as described in Section 0.5.3, as well as $\abs{\ptvecmiss}>60\GeV$ and
$\mT>60\GeV$ requirements. The data-to-simulation scale factors for the
$\ttbar$ events are then calculated such that the simulated number of events
agrees with data in these sidebands. In the ${\Pe\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$
(${\Pgm\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$) channel, the scale factor is found to be 0.82
(0.85) for the 1b1f category, and 1.02 (0.97) for the 1b1c category. The
statistical uncertainties in these scale factors are up to 6% and considered
as nuisance parameters in the combined fit.

The QCD multijet background, in which one jet is misidentified as a $\tauh$
candidate and another as a lepton, is small and is estimated using a control
region where the lepton and the $\tauh$ candidate have same-sign (SS) electric
charges. In this control region, the QCD multijet yield is obtained by
subtracting from the data the contribution from the ${\cPZ+\text{jets}}$,
$\ttbar$, ${\PW+\text{jets}}$, and other SM background processes, as
determined from simulation. The expected contribution of the QCD multijet
background in the OS signal region is then derived by rescaling the yield
obtained in the SS control region by a factor of 1.1, which is measured using
a high-purity QCD multijet sample obtained by inverting the lepton isolation
requirement. The QCD multijet background estimation results in up to 20% rate
uncertainties, accounting for the statistical precision in the region where
the extrapolation factor from the SS to OS region is measured. This
uncertainty also covers potential dependencies of the OS/SS extrapolation
factors on the invariant ${\Pgt\Pgt}$ mass.

For the ${\PW+\text{jets}}$ background, the shape is modeled on the basis of
simulated events, while its normalization is determined from data using a
sideband with $\mT>80\GeV$. The ${\PW+\text{jets}}$ simulation is normalized
such that the overall yield of the simulated events, including the QCD
contribution estimated above, matches the data yield in the sideband with
$\mT>80\GeV$ after the baseline selection but before any jet selection. The
scale factor necessary for the ${\PW+\text{jets}}$ simulated events is found
to be 0.95. The uncertainties in the ${\PW+\text{jets}}$ event yields
estimated from data are as large as 5%. This uncertainty accounts for the
statistical limitation of data in the high-$\mT$ sideband, the statistical
limitation of the simulated ${\PW+\text{jets}}$ sample, the systematic
uncertainties of other processes in the same region, and the extrapolation
from high- to low-$\mT$ regions.

Minor backgrounds, such as diboson and single top quark processes, are
estimated from simulation.

##  0.7 Systematic uncertainties

A binned maximum likelihood fit of the observed $m_{{\Pgt\Pgt}}$ distribution
is used to search for a possible signal over the expected background. The
$m_{{\Pgt\Pgt}}$ range from 0 to 350is used, such that the backgrounds can be
constrained by data in the high mass sideband, where the signal is not
expected.

Systematic uncertainties may affect the normalization or the shape of the
$m_{{\Pgt\Pgt}}$ distribution of the signal and background processes. These
uncertainties are represented by nuisance parameters in the fit, as described
below, and summarized in Table 0.7.2. We note that systematic uncertainties
play a small role in this analysis, as the measurement is ultimately limited
by the size of the data sample.

###  0.7.1 Normalization uncertainties

The uncertainty in the integrated luminosity amounts to 2.5% [60] and affects
the normalization of the signal and background processes that are based on
simulation. Uncertainties in the electron or muon identification and trigger
efficiency amount to 2% each [79]. The $\tauh$ identification and trigger
efficiency have been measured using the “tag-and-probe” technique [72] and an
overall rate uncertainty of 10% is assigned. For events where electrons or
muons are misidentified as $\tauh$ candidates, predominantly $\cPZ\to{\Pe\Pe}$
events in the ${\Pe\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ channel and $\cPZ\to{\Pgm\Pgm}$ events
in the ${\Pgm\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ channel, a rate uncertainties of 12 and 25%
[80], respectively, are applied, as determined by a tag-and-probe method. The
acceptance uncertainty because of the tagging efficiency (mistag rate) has
been determined to be 3 (5)%. The momentum scale uncertainty in
$\abs{\ptvecmiss}$ [73, 74] affects the event yields due to selection
requirements on the $\mT$ variable and is estimated to be up to $4\%$. The
uncertainties in the ${\PW+\text{jets}}$ event yields estimated from data can
be as large as $5\%$, as detailed in Section 0.6. The QCD multijet background
estimation is found to have rate uncertainties up to $20\%$. The normalization
uncertainty on the ${\cPZ+\text{jets}}$ yield is estimated using a dedicated
control region in events with two $\tauh$ candidates and at least one -tagged
jet. A 20% uncertainty is assigned to the ${\cPZ+\text{jets}}$ normalization
on the basis of the expected fluctuations in the total number of data events
in this control region. For the $\ttbar$ background, an uncertainty of 6% in
the cross section is computed for the 1 tag category [53], while in the 1b1f
and 1b1c categories, a 6% uncertainty is determined from a control region, as
previously described. The uncertainties in the cross section for the diboson
and single top quark processes are $6$ and $5.5\%$, respectively.

Finally, theoretical uncertainties in the $\bbbar\PXXA$ cross section
calculation due to NNLO corrections for A masses below 50increase
significantly, as is shown in Fig. 263 of Ref. [81]. Therefore, a
conservatively estimated uncertainty of 50% is assigned to the $\bbbar\PXXA$
signal yield.

###  0.7.2 Shape uncertainties

The stability of the shape and the normalization of the $m_{{\Pgt\Pgt}}$
distribution are tested with respect to the uncertainties in the $\tauh$ and
jet energy scales for the signal and background processes. The uncertainty is
estimated by varying the $\tauh$ and jet energies within their respective
uncertainties and recomputing $m_{{\Pgt\Pgt}}$ after the final selection. The
uncertainty in the $\tauh$ energy scale amounts to 3% [72], and the
uncertainties in the jet energy scale are up to 4%, depending on the jet $\pt$
and $\eta$ [68]. However, the variation of the ${m_{{\Pgt\Pgt}}}$ distribution
due to the jet energy scale is found to be negligible, and therefore, only
normalization uncertainties of 4% are considered. Similarly, for events where
a jet, muon, or electron is misidentified as a $\tauh$ candidate, a shape
uncertainty is derived by varying the reconstructed $\pt$ of the $\tauh$
candidate by 3%, and recomputing $m_{{\Pgt\Pgt}}$ after the final selection.
The variations due to the electron and muon momentum scales are found to be
negligible.

Finally, uncertainties related to the limited number of simulated events are
taken into account. They are considered for all bins of the distributions that
are used to extract the results. They are uncorrelated across the different
samples and across the bins of a single distribution.

Sources of systematic uncertainties and their effects on the acceptance or
shape resulting from a variation of the nuisance parameter equivalent to one
standard deviation.  Systematic source Involved processes Change in acceptance
or shape ${\Pe\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ ${\Pgm\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ Integrated
luminosity Simulated processes 2.5% Electron ident. & trigger Simulated
processes 2% Muon ident. & trigger Simulated processes 2% ident. & trigger
Simulated processes 10% e misidentified as $\tauh$ $\cPZ\to{\Pe\Pe}$ 12%
$\Pgm$ misidentified as $\tauh$ $\cPZ\to{\Pgm\Pgm}$ 25% tagging efficiency,
mistag rate Simulated processes 3–5% $|\ptvecmiss|$ scale Simulated processes
Up to 4% ${\PW+\text{jets}}$ normalization ${\PW+\text{jets}}$ 5% QCD multijet
normalization QCD multijet 20% ${\cPZ+\text{jets}}$ normalization
$\cPZ\to{\Pgt\Pgt}$ 20% $\ttbar$ normalization $\ttbar$ (1b1f, 1b1c only) 6%
$\ttbar$ cross section $\ttbar$ ($\bbbar\PXXA$ only) 6% Diboson cross section
Diboson 6% Single top quark cross section Single top quark 5.5%
${\bbbar\PXXA}$ cross section Signal ($\bbbar\PXXA$ only) 50% $\tauh$ energy
scale Simulated processes Shape $\Pe/\Pgm\to\tauh$ energy scale Simulated
processes Shape Jet energy scale Simulated processes 4% Jet misidentified as
$\tauh$ ${\cPZ+\text{jets}}$ Shape Limited event count All processes Shape

Figure 2: Measured ${m_{{\Pgt\Pgt}}}$ distribution in the
${\Pe\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ (left), and ${\Pgm\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ (right)
channel, compared to the expected SM background contributions. The signal
distributions for ${\bbbar\PXXA}$ with a pseudoscalar mass of 40 and 60are
overlaid to illustrate the sensitivity. They are normalized to the cross
section times branching fraction of 800pb. The uncertainty bands represent the
sum in quadrature of statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained from
the fit. The lower panels show the ratio between the observed and expected
events in each bin.

##  0.8 Results

Figure 2 (3) shows the SVfit mass distributions in the
${\Pe\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ and ${\Pgm\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ channel for the
${\bbbar\PXXA}$ ($\cPq\cPqb{\mathrm{X}}$) search. Two signal contributions
from a pseudoscalar (an $\mathrm{X}$ boson) are overlaid assuming a mass of 40
or 60, normalized to an arbitrary cross section times branching fraction. The
uncertainty bands on the histograms of simulated events represent the sum in
quadrature of statistical and systematic uncertainties, taking the full
covariance matrix of all nuisance parameters into account. However,
uncertainties related to simulated events play a small role as the measurement
is ultimately limited by the size of the data sample.

Figure 3: Measured ${m_{{\Pgt\Pgt}}}$ distribution in the
${\Pe\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ (left), and ${\Pgm\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ (right) final
states, for the 1b1f (upper) and 1b1c (lower) categories, compared to the
expected SM background contributions. The signal distributions for the VLQ
model with ${\mathrm{X}}$ boson masses of 40 and 60are overlaid to illustrate
the sensitivity. They are normalized to the cross section times branching
fraction of 20pb. The uncertainty bands represent the sum in quadrature of
statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained from the fit. The lower
panels show the ratio between the observed and expected events in each bin.
Figure 4: Observed (solid) and expected (dashed) limits at 95% confidence
level on the product of cross section for the production of the $\bbbar\PXXA$
signal and branching fraction ${\PXXA}\to{\Pgt\Pgt}$, obtained from the
combination of the ${\Pe\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ and ${\Pgm\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$
channels. The green and yellow bands represent the one and two standard
deviation uncertainties in the expected limits. Representative 2HDMs with
varied sets of the $\tan\beta$ and ${m_{\PXXA}}$ parameters are overlaid for
two types of Yukawa couplings to the down-type fermions: one which is SM-like,
and one in which the Yukawa coupling is negative (“wrong-sign”).

Figure 5: Observed (solid) and expected (dotted) limits at 95% confidence
level on the product of cross section for the production of the
$\cPq\cPqb{\mathrm{X}}$ signal and branching fraction
${\mathrm{X}}\to{\Pgt\Pgt}$, obtained from the combination of the
${\Pe\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ and ${\Pgm\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ channels. The
${m_{\PB}}$ values of 170 (upper left), 300 (upper right), and 450are
considered. The green and yellow bands represent the one and two standard
deviation uncertainties in the expected limits.

The data are consistent with the background-only hypothesis of the SM,
therefore, we set an upper limit on the cross section by using the asymptotic
$\CLs$ modified-frequentist criterion [82, 83, 84, 78]. Figure 4 shows the
observed and expected upper limits, at 95% confidence level, on the cross
section of $\bbbar\PXXA$ production times branching fraction of
${\PXXA}\to{\Pgt\Pgt}$ as a function of the pseudoscalar mass, ${m_{\PXXA}}$.
Representative 2HDMs with varied sets of the $\tan\beta$ and ${m_{\PXXA}}$
parameters are also shown for two types of Yukawa couplings to the down-type
fermions: one which is SM-like, and one in which the Yukawa coupling is
negative and referred to as “wrong-sign” [85]. We consider a $\tan\beta$ range
of 0.6 to 2.0 (1.6 to 37) for the SM-like (wrong-sign) Yukawa coupling
scenario with ${m_{\PXXA}}<65\GeV$. The cross sections for the wrong-sign
Yukawa couplings are up to several orders of magnitude larger and have larger
$\tan\beta$. Most of the cross sections for these models with $\tan\beta>3$
are excluded by the current data. For signal events with an ${m_{\PXXA}}$
ranging from 30 to 70and $\PXXA$ decaying to a pair of leptons, the efficiency
to pass the final selection criteria of the 1 tag category of the
$\Pgm\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}$ final state, including detector acceptance, selection
efficiency, and branching fraction of ${\PXXA}\to{\Pgt\Pgt}$, ranges from
0.002 to 0.022%. Figure 5 shows the same for the $\cPq\cPqb{\mathrm{X}}$
process in the VLQ model, but as a function of the $\mathrm{X}$ boson mass
${m_{{\mathrm{X}}}}$, for $\mathrm{B}$ masses of 170, 300, and 450. For both
searches, the sensitivity is lower in the low-mass region because of the soft
$\pt$ spectrum of the $\tauh$ candidate yielding a lower signal detection
efficiency. In addition, as the boson mass decreases, the trajectories of the
two leptons are in close vicinity and start to spoil each other’s isolation
requirement. For the $\cPq\cPqb{\mathrm{X}}$ search, the 1b1f category drives
the sensitivity, as can be inferred from Fig. 3. For signal events in which
${m_{\PB}}=170\GeV$, with an $\mathrm{X}$ mass ranging from 30 to 70and
decaying to a pair of leptons, the efficiency to pass the final selection
criteria of the 1b1f category of the $\Pgm\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}$ final state
ranges from 0.03 to 0.06%. These values range from 0.02 to 0.10% for the same
final state of the 1b1c category.

We proceed to make a comparison with Ref. [39], that is based on the same data
set as this paper, and defines two similar signal event categories, but with a
dimuon pair in the final state instead of a -lepton pair. Upper limits are set
at 95% confidence level on the fiducial cross section for the production of a
28particle decaying to two muons. Because the analysis does not consider a
signal model that specifies the kinematic acceptance, it defines the fiducial
cross section as

$\sigma_{\text{fid}}=\frac{{N_{\mathrm{S}}}}{L{\epsilon^{{\Pgm\Pgm}}_{\text{reco}}}},$

where ${N_{\mathrm{S}}}$ is the number of signal events extracted from the fit
to the dimuon mass spectrum, $L$ is the integrated luminosity, and
${\epsilon^{{\Pgm\Pgm}}_{\text{reco}}}=0.28$ is the reconstruction efficiency,
which takes into account the muon trigger, identification and isolation, as
well as the -tagging efficiency. To compare these results to the present
analysis with a -lepton pair in the final state, we consider only the most
sensitive final state, ${\Pgm\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$. The reconstruction
efficiency ${\epsilon^{{\Pgm\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}}_{\text{reco}}}$ for this final
state is estimated to be $0.10$. This includes the muon trigger,
identification and isolation, as well as the $\tauh$ identification and
tagging efficiency. Taking into account
${\epsilon^{{\Pgm\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}}_{\text{reco}}}$, the upper limit on the
fiducial cross section is 0.029 (0.057)pb for 1b1f (1b1c), while for the
dimuon search, the upper limit is 0.0037 (0.0032)pb for similar event
categories. As expected, this analysis is less sensitive than the dimuon
search to a hypothetical signal that decays equally to all flavors of leptons.
However, if there were a Yukawa-type enhancement between the signal and the
leptons, then the constraints on the signal production cross section by this
analysis would improve by a factor of $m_{\Pgt}^{2}/m_{\Pgm}^{2}$.

##  0.9 Summary

This paper presents a general search for a low-mass $\TT$ resonance produced
in association with a bottom quark. After defining the signal region by the
presence of an electron or muon consistent with the decay of a lepton, a
hadronically decaying lepton, and a jet originating from a bottom quark, an
excess over standard model background is searched for in the reconstructed
invariant mass distribution of the inferred $\Pgt\Pgt$ system. The data are
consistent with the standard model background. We set upper limits at 95%
confidence level on the cross section times branching fraction for two signal
models: a light pseudoscalar Higgs boson decaying to a pair of leptons
produced in association with a bottom quark, and a low-mass boson $\mathrm{X}$
decaying to a -lepton pair that is produced in the decay of a bottom-like
quark ${\mathrm{B}}$ as ${\mathrm{B}}\to\cPqb{\mathrm{X}}$. For both
scenarios, $\mathrm{X}$ boson masses between 20 and 70are probed. Upper limits
at 95% confidence level ranging from 250 to 44pb are set on the light
pseudoscalar, and from 20 to 0.3pb on ${\mathrm{B}}$ masses between 170 and
450. This is the first search for an $\mathrm{X}$ resonance in this final
state using the center-of-mass energy of 13. Since many extensions of the
standard model have similar event kinematics as this analysis, these results
could also be applied to put constraints on other low-mass $\Pgt\Pgt$
resonances. If there were a Yukawa-type enhancement between the signal and the
leptons, then the constraints on the signal production cross section by this
analysis would improve by a factor of $m_{\Pgt}^{2}/m_{\Pgm}^{2}$.

The optimized selection of this analysis targets previously unexplored decays
of heavy bottom-like quarks, providing new sensitivity to vector-like quarks.

###### 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: BMBWF and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq,
CAPES, FAPERJ, FAPERGS, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST,
and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RPF
(Cyprus); SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC IUT, PUT and ERDF (Estonia); Academy
of Finland, MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG,
and HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); NKFIA (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM
(Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); MES
(Latvia); LAS (Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT,
LNS, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MOS (Montenegro); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC
(Pakistan); MSHE and NSC (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom,
RAS, RFBR, and NRC KI (Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI, and FEDER
(Spain); MOSTR (Sri Lanka); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); MST
(Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR, and NSTDA (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK
(Turkey); NASU and SFFR (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA).
Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie program and the
European Research Council and Horizon 2020 Grant, contract Nos. 675440 and
765710 (European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A.P. Sloan Foundation;
the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science Policy
Office; the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans
l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en
Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the F.R.S.-FNRS and FWO (Belgium) under the
“Excellence of Science – EOS” – be.h project n. 30820817; the Beijing
Municipal Science & Technology Commission, No. Z181100004218003; the Ministry
of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Lendület
(“Momentum”) Program and the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the
Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the New National Excellence Program ÚNKP, the
NKFIA research grants 123842, 123959, 124845, 124850, 125105, 128713, 128786,
and 129058 (Hungary); the Council of Science and Industrial Research, India;
the HOMING PLUS program of the Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from
European Union, Regional Development Fund, the Mobility Plus program of the
Ministry of Science and Higher Education, the National Science Center
(Poland), contracts Harmonia 2014/14/M/ST2/00428, Opus 2014/13/B/ST2/02543,
2014/15/B/ST2/03998, and 2015/19/B/ST2/02861, Sonata-bis 2012/07/E/ST2/01406;
the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund; the
Programa Estatal de Fomento de la Investigación Científica y Técnica de
Excelencia María de Maeztu, grant MDM-2015-0509 and the Programa Severo Ochoa
del Principado de Asturias; the Thalis and Aristeia programs cofinanced by EU-
ESF and the Greek NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral
Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its
2nd Century Project Advancement Project (Thailand); the Welch Foundation,
contract C-1845; and the Weston Havens Foundation (USA).

## References

  * [1] ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020, arXiv:1207.7214.
  * [2] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021, arXiv:1207.7235.
  * [3] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 and 8 TeV”,  JHEP 06 (2013) 081, 10.1007/JHEP06(2013)081, arXiv:1303.4571.
  * [4] S. Weinberg, “A model of leptons”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 19 (1967) 1264, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.19.1264.
  * [5] F. Englert and R. Brout, “Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 321, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.321.
  * [6] P. W. Higgs, “Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 508, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.508.
  * [7] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the Higgs boson mass from the $\mathrm{H}\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ and $\mathrm{H}\rightarrow\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z}^{*}\rightarrow 4\ell$ channels in pp collisions at center-of-mass energies 7 and 8with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 052004, 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.052004, arXiv:1406.3827.
  * [8] CMS Collaboration, “Precise determination of the mass of the Higgs boson and tests of compatibility of its couplings with the standard model predictions using proton collisions at 7 and 8”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 212, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3351-7, arXiv:1412.8662.
  * [9] J. Wess and B. Zumino, “Supergauge transformations in four dimensions”,  Nucl. Phys. B 70 (1974) 39, 10.1016/0550-3213(74)90355-1.
  * [10] H.-C. Cheng and I. Low, “TeV symmetry and the little hierarchy problem”,  JHEP 09 (2003) 051, 10.1088/1126-6708/2003/09/051, arXiv:hep-ph/0308199.
  * [11] T. Appelquist, H.-C. Cheng, and B. A. Dobrescu, “Bounds on universal extra dimensions”,  Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 035002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.64.035002, arXiv:hep-ph/0012100.
  * [12] G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, “Particle dark matter: evidence, candidates and constraints”,  Phys. Rept. 405 (2005) 279, 10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.031, arXiv:hep-ph/0404175.
  * [13] T. D. Lee, “A theory of spontaneous $T$ violation”,  Phys. Rev. D 8 (1973) 1226, 10.1103/PhysRevD.8.1226.
  * [14] N. G. Deshpande and E. Ma, “Pattern of symmetry breaking with two Higgs doublets”,  Phys. Rev. D 18 (1978) 2574, 10.1103/PhysRevD.18.2574.
  * [15] H. E. Haber, G. L. Kane, and T. Sterling, “The fermion mass scale and possible effects of Higgs bosons on experimental observables”,  Nucl. Phys. B 161 (1979) 493, 10.1016/0550-3213(79)90225-6.
  * [16] G. C. Branco et al., “Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models”,  Phys. Rept. 516 (2012) 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2012.02.002, arXiv:1106.0034.
  * [17] J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, G. L. Kane, and S. Dawson, “The Higgs hunter’s guide”, volume 80 of  Frontiers in Physics.  Perseus Books, 2000.
  * [18] CMS Collaboration, “Search for a low-mass pseudoscalar Higgs boson produced in association with a $b\bar{b}$ pair in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 8 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 758 (2016) 296, 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.05.003, arXiv:1511.03610.
  * [19] CMS Collaboration, “Search for light bosons in decays of the 125 GeV Higgs boson in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV”,  JHEP 10 (2017) 076, 10.1007/JHEP10(2017)076, arXiv:1701.02032.
  * [20] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for Higgs bosons decaying to $aa$ in the $\mu\mu\tau\tau$ final state in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 8 TeV with the ATLAS experiment”,  Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 052002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.052002, arXiv:1505.01609.
  * [21] CMS Collaboration, “Search for an exotic decay of the Higgs boson to a pair of light pseudoscalars in the final state of two muons and two $\tau$ leptons in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  JHEP 11 (2018) 018, 10.1007/JHEP11(2018)018, arXiv:1805.04865.
  * [22] CMS Collaboration, “Search for an exotic decay of the Higgs boson to a pair of light pseudoscalars in the final state with two b quarks and two $\tau$ leptons in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 785 (2018) 462, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.08.057, arXiv:1805.10191.
  * [23] CMS Collaboration, “Search for a light pseudoscalar Higgs boson produced in association with bottom quarks in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV”,  JHEP 11 (2017) 10.1007/JHEP11(2017)010, arXiv:1707.07283.
  * [24] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for Higgs boson decays into a pair of light bosons in the $bb\mu\mu$ final state in $pp$ collision at $\sqrt{s}=$13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Lett. B 790 (2019) 1, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.10.073, arXiv:1807.00539.
  * [25] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for the Higgs boson produced in association with a vector boson and decaying into two spin-zero particles in the $H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow 4b$ channel in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  JHEP 10 (2018) 031, 10.1007/JHEP10(2018)031, arXiv:1806.07355.
  * [26] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for new light gauge bosons in Higgs boson decays to four-lepton final states in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”,  Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 092001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.092001, arXiv:1505.07645.
  * [27] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for Higgs boson decays to beyond-the-Standard-Model light bosons in four-lepton events with the ATLAS detector at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  JHEP 06 (2018) 166, 10.1007/JHEP06(2018)166, arXiv:1802.03388.
  * [28] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for new phenomena in events with at least three photons collected in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 210, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4034-8, arXiv:1509.05051.
  * [29] J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, R. Benbrik, S. Heinemeyer, and M. Pérez-Victoria, “Handbook of vectorlike quarks: Mixing and single production”,  Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 094010, 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.094010, arXiv:1306.0572.
  * [30] P. W. Graham, A. Ismail, S. Rajendran, and P. Saraswat, “Little solution to the little hierarchy problem: A vectorlike generation”,  Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 055016, 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.055016, arXiv:0910.3020.
  * [31] A. Angelescu, A. Djouadi, and G. Moreau, “Vector-like top/bottom quark partners and Higgs physics at the LHC”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 99, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3950-y, arXiv:1510.07527.
  * [32] Y. Okada and L. Panizzi, “LHC signatures of vector-like quarks”,  Adv. High Energy Phys. 2013 (2013) 364936, 10.1155/2013/364936, arXiv:1207.5607.
  * [33] J. S. Matthew and K. M. Zurek, “Echoes of a hidden valley at hadron colliders”,  Phys. Lett. B 651 (2007) 374, 10.1016/j.physletb.2007.06.055, arXiv:hep-ph/0604261.
  * [34] T. Han, Z. Si, K. M. Zurek, and M. J. Strassler, “Phenomenology of hidden valleys at hadron colliders”,  JHEP 07 (2008) 008, 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/07/008, arXiv:0712.2041.
  * [35] K. Kong, H. S. Lee, and M. Park, “Dark decay of the top quark”,  Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 074007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.074007, arXiv:1401.5020.
  * [36] W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori, S. Profumo, and F. S. Queiroz, “Explaining dark matter and b decay anomalies with an $l_{\mu}-l_{\tau}$ model”,  JHEP 12 (2016) 106, 10.1007/JHEP12(2016)106, arXiv:1609.04026.
  * [37] M. Abdullah et al., “Bottom-quark fusion processes at the LHC for probing Z${}^{{}^{\prime}}$ models and $B$-meson decay anomalies”,  Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 075035, 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.075035, arXiv:1707.07016.
  * [38] S. Jung, H. Murayama, A. Pierce, and J. D. Wells, “Top quark forward-backward asymmetry from new $t$-channel physics”,  Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 015004, 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.015004, arXiv:0907.4112.
  * [39] CMS Collaboration, “Search for resonances in the mass spectrum of muon pairs produced in association with b quark jets in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 8 and 13 TeV”,  JHEP 11 (2018) 161, 10.1007/JHEP11(2018)161, arXiv:1808.01890.
  * [40] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [41] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004, arXiv:1510.07488.
  * [42] J. Alwall et al., “The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations”,  JHEP 07 (2014) 079, 10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079, arXiv:1405.0301.
  * [43] J. Alwall et al., “Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 53 (2008) 473, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0490-5, arXiv:0706.2569.
  * [44] R. Frederix and S. Frixione, “Merging meets matching in MC@NLO”,  JHEP 12 (2012) 061, 10.1007/JHEP12(2012)061, arXiv:1209.6215.
  * [45] P. Nason, “A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms”,  JHEP 11 (2004) 040, 10.1088/1126-6708/2004/11/040, arXiv:hep-ph/0409146.
  * [46] S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari, “Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method”,  JHEP 11 (2007) 070, 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070, arXiv:0709.2092.
  * [47] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX”,  JHEP 06 (2010) 043, 10.1007/JHEP06(2010)043, arXiv:1002.2581.
  * [48] S. Frixione, P. Nason, and G. Ridolfi, “A positive-weight next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction”,  JHEP 09 (2007) 126, 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/09/126, arXiv:0707.3088.
  * [49] J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, P. Nason, and E. Re, “Top-pair production and decay at NLO matched with parton showers”,  JHEP 04 (2015) 114, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)114, arXiv:1412.1828.
  * [50] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “NLO single-top production matched with shower in POWHEG: $s$\- and $t$-channel contributions”,  JHEP 09 (2009) 111, 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/09/111, arXiv:0907.4076. [Erratum: 10.1007/JHEP02(2010)011].
  * [51] E. Re, “Single-top Wt-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1547, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1547-z, arXiv:1009.2450.
  * [52] Y. Li and F. Petriello, “Combining QCD and electroweak corrections to production in FEWZ”,  Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 094034, 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.094034, arXiv:1208.5967.
  * [53] M. Czakon and A. Mitov, “Top++: A program for the calculation of the top-pair cross-section at hadron colliders”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 185 (2014) 2930, 10.1016/j.cpc.2014.06.021, arXiv:1112.5675.
  * [54] P. Kant et al., “HatHor for single top-quark production: Updated predictions and uncertainty estimates for single top-quark production in hadronic collisions”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 74, 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.02.001, arXiv:1406.4403.
  * [55] T. Sjöstrand et al., “An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159, 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024, arXiv:1410.3012.
  * [56] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the single top quark and antiquark production cross sections in the $t$ channel and their ratio in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”, (2018). arXiv:1812.10514. Submitted to Phys. Lett. B.
  * [57] CMS Collaboration, “Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 155, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3988-x, arXiv:1512.00815.
  * [58] R. D. Ball et al., “Parton distributions for the LHC Run II”,  JHEP 15 (2015) 40, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040, arXiv:1410.8849.
  * [59] GEANT4 Collaboration, “GEANT4 — a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [60] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data taking period”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001, CERN, 2017.
  * [61] CMS Collaboration, “Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector”,  JINST 12 (2017) P10003, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/10/P10003, arXiv:1706.04965.
  * [62] H. Voss, A. Höcker, J. Stelzer, and F. Tegenfeldt, “TMVA, the toolkit for multivariate data analysis with ROOT”, in  XI Int. Workshop on Advanced Computing and Analysis Techniques in Physics Research.  2007\.  arXiv:physics/0703039.  PoS ACAT:040.
  * [63] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8\,\text{TeV}$”,  JINST 10 (2015) P06005, 10.1088/1748-0221/10/06/P06005, arXiv:1502.02701.
  * [64] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  JINST 13 (2018) P06015, 10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/P06015, arXiv:1804.04528.
  * [65] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-jet clustering algorithm”,  JHEP 04 (2008) 063, 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063, arXiv:0802.1189.
  * [66] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “FastJet user manual”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1896, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2, arXiv:1111.6097.
  * [67] M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam, “Dispelling the $N^{3}$ myth for the $\kt$ jet-finder”,  Phys. Lett. B 641 (2006) 57, 10.1016/j.physletb.2006.08.037, arXiv:hep-ph/0512210.
  * [68] CMS Collaboration, “Determination of jet energy calibration and transverse momentum resolution in CMS”,  JINST 6 (2011) P11002, 10.1088/1748-0221/6/11/P11002, arXiv:1107.4277.
  * [69] CMS Collaboration, “Pileup jet identification”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-13-005, CERN, 2013\.
  * [70] CMS Collaboration, “Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-16-003, CERN, 2017.
  * [71] CMS Collaboration, “Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV”,  JINST 13 (2018) P05011, 10.1088/1748-0221/13/05/P05011, arXiv:1712.07158.
  * [72] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of reconstruction and identification of $\tau$ leptons decaying to hadrons and $\nu_{\tau}$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  JINST 13 (2018) P10005, 10.1088/1748-0221/13/10/P10005, arXiv:1809.02816.
  * [73] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of missing energy reconstruction in 13 TeV pp collision data using the CMS detector”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-16-004, CERN, 2016.
  * [74] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of missing transverse momentum in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV using the CMS detector”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-17-001, CERN, 2018.
  * [75] CDF Collaboration, “Search for neutral MSSM Higgs bosons decaying to tau pairs in $p\bar{p}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=1.96$ TeV”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 011802, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.011802, arXiv:hep-ex/0508051.
  * [76] L. Bianchini, J. Conway, E. K. Friis, and C. Veelken, “Reconstruction of the Higgs mass in $H\to\tau\tau$ events by dynamical likelihood techniques”,  J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 513 (2014) 022035, 10.1088/1742-6596/513/2/022035.
  * [77] L. Bianchini et al., “Reconstruction of the Higgs mass in events with Higgs bosons decaying into a pair of $\tau$ leptons using matrix element techniques”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 862 (2017) 54, 10.1016/j.nima.2017.05.001, arXiv:1603.05910.
  * [78] ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, “Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in summer 2011”, Technical Report CMS-NOTE-2011-005, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-011, CERN, 2011.
  * [79] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of the Higgs boson decay to a pair of $\tau$ leptons with the CMS detector”,  Phys. Lett. B 779 (2018) 283, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.02.004, arXiv:1708.00373.
  * [80] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of reconstruction and identification of tau leptons in their decays to hadrons and tau neutrino in LHC Run-2”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-TAU-16-002, CERN, 2016.
  * [81] D. de Florian et al., “Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector”, CERN Report CERN-2017-002-M, 2016.  10.23731/CYRM-2017-002, arXiv:1610.07922.
  * [82] G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, “Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0, arXiv:1007.1727. [Erratum: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2501-z].
  * [83] T. Junk, “Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 434 (1999) 435, 10.1016/S0168-9002(99)00498-2, arXiv:hep-ex/9902006.
  * [84] A. L. Read, “Presentation of search results: The CL${}_{\text{s}}$ technique”,  J. Phys. G 28 (2002) 2693, 10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/313.
  * [85] J. Bernon, J. F. Gunion, Y. Jiang, and S. Kraml, “Light Higgs bosons in Two-Higgs-Doublet Models”,  Phys. Rev. D 19 (2015) 075019, 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.075019, arXiv:1412.3385.

##  .10 Supplementary material

10.1.Figure: Observed (solid) and expected (dashed) limits at 95% confidence
level on the product of cross section for the production of the $\bbbar\PXXA$
signal and branching fraction ${\PXXA}\to{\Pgt\Pgt}$, obtained for the
${\Pe\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ (left) and ${\Pgm\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ (right)
channels. The green and yellow bands represent the one and two standard
deviation uncertainties in the expected limits.

The product of acceptance, efficiency, and branching fraction of the
${\bbbar\PXXA}$ signal with ${\PXXA}\to{\Pgt\Pgt}$ in the
${\Pgm\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ and ${\Pe\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ channels of the 1 b tag
category, for different $\PXXA$ boson mass values. The selections are as
described in Section 0.5. The uncertainty refers to the statistical
uncertainty only.  ${m_{\PXXA}}$ [] ${\Pe\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ [%]
${\Pgm\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ [%] 25 $0.00025\pm 0.00002$ $0.00097\pm 0.00005$ 30
$0.00066\pm 0.00004$ $0.00226\pm 0.00008$ 40 $0.00160\pm 0.00006$ $0.0043\pm
0.0001$ 50 $0.00229\pm 0.00008$ $0.0078\pm 0.0001$ 60 $0.0046\pm 0.0001$
$0.0144\pm 0.0002$ 70 $0.0087\pm 0.0001$ $0.0222\pm 0.0002$

10.2.Figure: Observed (solid) and expected (dotted) limits at 95% confidence
level on the product of cross section for the production of the
$\cPq\cPqb{\mathrm{X}}$ signal and branching fraction
${\mathrm{X}}\to{\Pgt\Pgt}$, obtained for the ${\Pe\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ (left)
and ${\Pgm\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ (right) channels in the 1b1f (top) and 1b1c
(bottom) categories. The scenario with ${m_{\PB}}=170\GeV$ is considered. The
green and yellow bands represent the one and two standard deviation
uncertainties in the expected limits.

The product of acceptance, efficiency, and branching fraction of the
${\cPq\cPqb{\mathrm{X}}}$ signal with ${\mathrm{X}}\to{\Pgt\Pgt}$ in the
${\Pgm\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ and ${\Pe\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ channels of the 1b1f
and 1b1f categories, for different $\mathrm{X}$ boson mass values. The
selections are as described in Section 0.5. The uncertainty refers to the
statistical uncertainty only.  ${m_{{\mathrm{X}}}}$ [] 1b1f 1b1c
${\Pe\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ [%] ${\Pgm\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ [%]
${\Pe\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ [%] ${\Pgm\Pgt_{\mathrm{h}}}$ [%] 20 $0.0037\pm
0.0001$ $0.0146\pm 0.0001$ $0.0044\pm 0.0001$ $0.0181\pm 0.0001$ 30 $0.0098\pm
0.0001$ $0.0293\pm 0.0001$ $0.0165\pm 0.0001$ $0.0496\pm 0.0002$ 40 $0.0162\pm
0.0002$ $0.0466\pm 0.0003$ $0.0307\pm 0.0002$ $0.0765\pm 0.0004$ 50 $0.0183\pm
0.0002$ $0.0494\pm 0.0003$ $0.0321\pm 0.0002$ $0.0844\pm 0.0004$ 60 $0.0212\pm
0.0002$ $0.0531\pm 0.0003$ $0.0331\pm 0.0003$ $0.0957\pm 0.0004$ 70 $0.0225\pm
0.0003$ $0.0562\pm 0.0004$ $0.0375\pm 0.0003$ $0.0991\pm 0.0005$

##  .11 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan Institut für Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, E. Asilar, T. Bergauer, J. Brandstetter, M. Dragicevic,
J. Erö, A. Escalante Del Valle, M. Flechl, R. Frühwirth1, V.M. Ghete, J.
Hrubec, M. Jeitler1, N. Krammer, I. Krätschmer, D. Liko, T. Madlener, I.
Mikulec, N. Rad, H. Rohringer, J. Schieck1, R. Schöfbeck, M. Spanring, D.
Spitzbart, W. Waltenberger, J. Wittmann, C.-E. Wulz1, M. Zarucki Institute for
Nuclear Problems, Minsk, Belarus
V. Chekhovsky, V. Mossolov, J. Suarez Gonzalez Universiteit Antwerpen,
Antwerpen, Belgium
E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, J. Lauwers, A. Lelek, M. Pieters, H.
Van Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, N. Van Remortel Vrije Universiteit Brussel,
Brussel, Belgium
S. Abu Zeid, F. Blekman, J. D’Hondt, J. De Clercq, K. Deroover, G. Flouris, D.
Lontkovskyi, S. Lowette, I. Marchesini, S. Moortgat, L. Moreels, Q. Python, K.
Skovpen, S. Tavernier, W. Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders, I. Van Parijs
Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
D. Beghin, B. Bilin, H. Brun, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, H. Delannoy, B.
Dorney, G. Fasanella, L. Favart, A. Grebenyuk, A.K. Kalsi, J. Luetic, N.
Postiau, E. Starling, L. Thomas, C. Vander Velde, P. Vanlaer, D. Vannerom, Q.
Wang Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, A. Fagot, M. Gul, I. Khvastunov2, C. Roskas, D.
Trocino, M. Tytgat, W. Verbeke, B. Vermassen, M. Vit, N. Zaganidis Université
Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
H. Bakhshiansohi, O. Bondu, G. Bruno, C. Caputo, P. David, C. Delaere, M.
Delcourt, A. Giammanco, G. Krintiras, V. Lemaitre, A. Magitteri, K.
Piotrzkowski, A. Saggio, M. Vidal Marono, P. Vischia, J. Zobec Centro
Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
F.L. Alves, G.A. Alves, G. Correia Silva, C. Hensel, A. Moraes, M.E. Pol, P.
Rebello Teles Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato3, E. Coelho, E.M.
Da Costa, G.G. Da Silveira4, D. De Jesus Damiao, C. De Oliveira Martins, S.
Fonseca De Souza, H. Malbouisson, D. Matos Figueiredo, M. Melo De Almeida, C.
Mora Herrera, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, W.L. Prado Da Silva, L.J. Sanchez Rosas,
A. Santoro, A. Sznajder, M. Thiel, E.J. Tonelli Manganote3, F. Torres Da Silva
De Araujo, A. Vilela Pereira Universidade Estadual Paulista a, Universidade
Federal do ABC b, São Paulo, Brazil
S. Ahujaa, C.A. Bernardesa, L. Calligarisa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M.
Gregoresb, P.G. Mercadanteb, S.F. Novaesa, SandraS. Padulaa Institute for
Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia,
Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, A. Marinov, M. Misheva, M. Rodozov,
M. Shopova, G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Dimitrov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov Beihang University, Beijing, China
W. Fang5, X. Gao5, L. Yuan Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, J.G. Bian, G.M. Chen, H.S. Chen, M. Chen, Y. Chen, C.H. Jiang, D.
Leggat, H. Liao, Z. Liu, S.M. Shaheen6, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, E. Yazgan, H.
Zhang, S. Zhang6, J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and
Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
Y. Ban, G. Chen, A. Levin, J. Li, L. Li, Q. Li, Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang
Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Y. Wang Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, C.A. Carrillo Montoya, L.F. Chaparro Sierra, C. Florez,
C.F. González Hernández, M.A. Segura Delgado University of Split, Faculty of
Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split,
Croatia
N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak, T. Sculac University of Split, Faculty of
Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, K. Kadija, B. Mesic, M. Roguljic, A. Starodumov7,
T. Susa University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, M. Kolosova, G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou,
F. Ptochos, P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski Charles University, Prague, Czech
Republic
M. Finger8, M. Finger Jr.8 Escuela Politecnica Nacional, Quito, Ecuador
E. Ayala Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
E. Carrera Jarrin Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab
Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt
A.A. Abdelalim9,10, S. Elgammal11, S. Khalil10 National Institute of Chemical
Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
S. Bhowmik, A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveira, R.K. Dewanjee, K. Ehataht, M.
Kadastik, M. Raidal, C. Veelken Department of Physics, University of Helsinki,
Helsinki, Finland
P. Eerola, H. Kirschenmann, J. Pekkanen, M. Voutilainen Helsinki Institute of
Physics, Helsinki, Finland
J. Havukainen, J.K. Heikkilä, T. Järvinen, V. Karimäki, R. Kinnunen, T.
Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Laurila, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, P. Luukka, T.
Mäenpää, H. Siikonen, E. Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi Lappeenranta University of
Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
T. Tuuva IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, J.L. Faure, F. Ferri, S.
Ganjour, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry, C. Leloup,
E. Locci, J. Malcles, G. Negro, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M.Ö. Sahin, M. Titov
Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole polytechnique, CNRS/IN2P3, Université
Paris-Saclay, Palaiseau, France
A. Abdulsalam12, C. Amendola, I. Antropov, F. Beaudette, P. Busson, C.
Charlot, R. Granier de Cassagnac, I. Kucher, A. Lobanov, J. Martin Blanco, C.
Martin Perez, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, G. Ortona, P. Paganini, J. Rembser, R.
Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A.G. Stahl Leiton, A. Zabi, A. Zghiche
Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram13, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, G. Bourgatte, J.-M. Brom, E.C. Chabert, V.
Cherepanov, C. Collard, E. Conte13, J.-C. Fontaine13, 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, N. Chanon, R. Chierici, D. Contardo, P.
Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, L. Finco, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, G.
Grenier, B. Ille, F. Lagarde, I.B. Laktineh, H. Lattaud, M. Lethuillier, L.
Mirabito, S. Perries, A. Popov14, V. Sordini, G. Touquet, M. Vander Donckt, S.
Viret Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
T. Toriashvili15 Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
Z. Tsamalaidze8 RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen,
Germany
C. Autermann, L. Feld, M.K. Kiesel, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, M. Preuten, M.P.
Rauch, C. Schomakers, J. Schulz, M. Teroerde, B. Wittmer RWTH Aachen
University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany
A. Albert, M. Erdmann, S. Erdweg, T. Esch, R. Fischer, S. Ghosh, T. Hebbeker,
C. Heidemann, K. Hoepfner, H. Keller, L. Mastrolorenzo, M. Merschmeyer, A.
Meyer, P. Millet, S. Mukherjee, T. Pook, A. Pozdnyakov, M. Radziej, H.
Reithler, M. Rieger, A. Schmidt, D. Teyssier, S. Thüer RWTH Aachen University,
III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany
G. Flügge, O. Hlushchenko, T. Kress, T. Müller, A. Nehrkorn, A. Nowack, C.
Pistone, O. Pooth, D. Roy, H. Sert, A. Stahl16 Deutsches Elektronen-
Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
M. Aldaya Martin, T. Arndt, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, I. Babounikau, K.
Beernaert, O. Behnke, U. Behrens, A. Bermúdez Martínez, D. Bertsche, A.A. Bin
Anuar, K. Borras17, V. Botta, A. Campbell, P. Connor, C. Contreras-Campana, V.
Danilov, A. De Wit, M.M. Defranchis, C. Diez Pardos, D. Domínguez Damiani, G.
Eckerlin, T. Eichhorn, A. Elwood, E. Eren, E. Gallo18, A. Geiser, J.M. Grados
Luyando, A. Grohsjean, M. Guthoff, M. Haranko, A. Harb, H. Jung, M. Kasemann,
J. Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, J. Knolle, D. Krücker, W. Lange, T. Lenz, J.
Leonard, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann19, R. Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, A.B. Meyer,
M. Meyer, M. Missiroli, G. Mittag, J. Mnich, V. Myronenko, S.K. Pflitsch, D.
Pitzl, A. Raspereza, A. Saibel, M. Savitskyi, P. Saxena, P. Schütze, C.
Schwanenberger, R. Shevchenko, A. Singh, H. Tholen, O. Turkot, A. Vagnerini,
M. Van De Klundert, G.P. Van Onsem, R. Walsh, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C. Wissing,
O. Zenaiev University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, L. Benato, A. Benecke, T. Dreyer, A. Ebrahimi, E.
Garutti, D. Gonzalez, P. Gunnellini, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, A. Karavdina, G.
Kasieczka, R. Klanner, R. Kogler, N. Kovalchuk, S. Kurz, V. Kutzner, J. Lange,
D. Marconi, J. Multhaup, M. Niedziela, C.E.N. Niemeyer, D. Nowatschin, A.
Perieanu, A. Reimers, O. Rieger, C. Scharf, P. Schleper, S. Schumann, J.
Schwandt, J. Sonneveld, H. Stadie, G. Steinbrück, F.M. Stober, M. Stöver, B.
Vormwald, I. Zoi Karlsruher Institut fuer Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany
M. Akbiyik, C. Barth, M. Baselga, S. Baur, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, F.
Colombo, W. De Boer, A. Dierlamm, K. El Morabit, N. Faltermann, B. Freund, M.
Giffels, M.A. Harrendorf, F. Hartmann16, S.M. Heindl, U. Husemann, I.
Katkov14, S. Kudella, S. Mitra, M.U. Mozer, Th. Müller, M. Musich, M. Plagge,
G. Quast, K. Rabbertz, M. Schröder, I. Shvetsov, H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, S.
Wayand, M. Weber, T. Weiler, C. Wöhrmann, R. Wolf Institute of Nuclear and
Particle Physics (INPP), NCSR Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
G. Anagnostou, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas, G. Paspalaki
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
A. Agapitos, G. Karathanasis, P. Kontaxakis, A. Panagiotou, I. Papavergou, N.
Saoulidou, K. Vellidis National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece
K. Kousouris, I. Papakrivopoulos, G. Tsipolitis University of Ioánnina,
Ioánnina, Greece
I. Evangelou, C. Foudas, P. Gianneios, P. Katsoulis, P. Kokkas, S. Mallios, N.
Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, E. Paradas, J. Strologas, F.A. Triantis, D.
Tsitsonis MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
M. Bartók20, M. Csanad, N. Filipovic, P. Major, M.I. Nagy, G. Pasztor, O.
Surányi, G.I. Veres Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath21, Á. Hunyadi, F. Sikler, T.Á. Vámi, V.
Veszpremi, G. Vesztergombi${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$ Institute of Nuclear
Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi20, A. Makovec, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi
Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari Indian Institute of Science (IISc),
Bangalore, India
S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri, P.C. Tiwari National Institute of Science
Education and Research, HBNI, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati23, C. Kar, P. Mal, K. Mandal, A. Nayak24, S. Roy Chowdhury, D.K.
Sahoo23, S.K. Swain Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, S. Chauhan, R. Chawla, N. Dhingra, R.
Gupta, A. Kaur, M. Kaur, S. Kaur, P. Kumari, M. Lohan, M. Meena, A. Mehta, K.
Sandeep, S. Sharma, J.B. Singh, A.K. Virdi, G. Walia University of Delhi,
Delhi, India
A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, M. Gola, S. Keshri, Ashok Kumar, S.
Malhotra, M. Naimuddin, P. Priyanka, K. Ranjan, Aashaq Shah, R. Sharma Saha
Institute of Nuclear Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India
R. Bhardwaj25, M. Bharti25, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, U. Bhawandeep25,
D. Bhowmik, S. Dey, S. Dutt25, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh, M. Maity26, K. Mondal, S.
Nandan, A. Purohit, P.K. Rout, A. Roy, G. Saha, S. Sarkar, T. Sarkar26, M.
Sharan, B. Singh25, S. Thakur25 Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras,
India
P.K. Behera, A. Muhammad Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
R. Chudasama, D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, D.K. Mishra, P.K. Netrakanti, L.M.
Pant, P. Shukla, P. Suggisetti Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A,
Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, M.A. Bhat, S. Dugad, G.B. Mohanty, N. Sur, RavindraKumar Verma Tata
Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, P. Das, M. Guchait, Sa. Jain, S.
Karmakar, S. Kumar, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, N. Sahoo Indian Institute of
Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, India
S. Chauhan, S. Dube, V. Hegde, A. Kapoor, K. Kothekar, S. Pandey, A. Rane, A.
Rastogi, S. Sharma Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM),
Tehran, Iran
S. Chenarani27, E. Eskandari Tadavani, S.M. Etesami27, M. Khakzad, M.
Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri, F. Rezaei Hosseinabadi, B. Safarzadeh28, M.
Zeinali University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
M. Felcini, M. Grunewald INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b,
Politecnico di Bari c, Bari, Italy
M. Abbresciaa,b, C. Calabriaa,b, A. Colaleoa, D. Creanzaa,c, L. Cristellaa,b,
N. De Filippisa,c, M. De Palmaa,b, A. Di Florioa,b, F. Erricoa,b, L. Fiorea,
A. Gelmia,b, G. Iasellia,c, M. Incea,b, 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, 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,b, G. Codispotia,b, M. Cuffiania,b, G.M. Dallavallea, F.
Fabbria, A. Fanfania,b, E. Fontanesi, P. Giacomellia, C. Grandia, L.
Guiduccia,b, F. Iemmia,b, S. Lo Meoa,29, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, A.
Montanaria, F.L. Navarriaa,b, A. Perrottaa, F. Primaveraa,b, A.M. Rossia,b, T.
Rovellia,b, G.P. Sirolia,b, N. Tosia INFN Sezione di Catania a, Università di
Catania b, Catania, Italy
S. Albergoa,b, A. Di Mattiaa, R. Potenzaa,b, A. Tricomia,b, C. Tuvea,b INFN
Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b, Firenze, Italy
G. Barbaglia, K. Chatterjeea,b, V. Ciullia,b, C. Civininia, R.
D’Alessandroa,b, E. Focardia,b, G. Latino, P. Lenzia,b, M. Meschinia, S.
Paolettia, L. Russoa,30, G. Sguazzonia, D. Stroma, L. Viliania INFN Laboratori
Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, F. Fabbri, D. Piccolo INFN Sezione di Genova a,
Università di Genova b, Genova, Italy
F. Ferroa, L. Panizzia,b, R. Mulargiaa,b, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia,b INFN Sezione
di Milano-Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, Italy
A. Benagliaa, A. Beschib, F. Brivioa,b, V. Cirioloa,b,16, S. Di Guidaa,b,16,
M.E. Dinardoa,b, S. Fiorendia,b, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P. Govonia,b, M.
Malbertia,b, S. Malvezzia, D. Menascea, F. Monti, L. Moronia, M. Paganonia,b,
D. Pedrinia, S. Ragazzia,b, T. Tabarelli de Fatisa,b, D. Zuoloa,b INFN Sezione
di Napoli a, Università di Napoli ’Federico II’ b, Napoli, Italy, Università
della Basilicata c, Potenza, Italy, Università G. Marconi d, Roma, Italy
S. Buontempoa, N. Cavalloa,c, A. De Iorioa,b, A. Di Crescenzoa,b, F.
Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa, G. Galatia, A.O.M. Iorioa,b, L. Listaa, S.
Meolaa,d,16, P. Paoluccia,16, C. Sciaccaa,b, E. Voevodinaa,b INFN Sezione di
Padova a, Università di Padova b, Padova, Italy, Università di Trento c,
Trento, Italy
P. Azzia, N. Bacchettaa, D. Biselloa,b, A. Bolettia,b, A. Bragagnolo, R.
Carlina,b, P. Checchiaa, M. Dall’Ossoa,b, P. De Castro Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa,
U. Dossellia, F. Gasparinia,b, U. Gasparinia,b, A. Gozzelinoa, S.Y. Hoh, S.
Lacapraraa, P. Lujan, M. Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,b, J. Pazzinia,b, M.
Presillab, P. Ronchesea,b, R. Rossina,b, F. Simonettoa,b, A. Tiko, E.
Torassaa, M. Tosia,b, M. Zanettia,b, P. Zottoa,b, G. Zumerlea,b INFN Sezione
di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
A. Braghieria, A. Magnania, P. Montagnaa,b, S.P. Rattia,b, V. Rea, M.
Ressegottia,b, C. Riccardia,b, P. Salvinia, I. Vaia,b, P. Vituloa,b INFN
Sezione di Perugia a, Università di Perugia b, Perugia, Italy
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, G. Bagliesia, L. Bianchinia, T. Boccalia, L.
Borrello, R. Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, G. Fedia, F. Fioria,c,
L. Gianninia,c, A. Giassia, M.T. Grippoa, F. Ligabuea,c, E. Mancaa,c, G.
Mandorlia,c, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, A. Rizzia,b, G. Rolandi31, 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, E. Di Marcoa,b, M.
Diemoza, S. Gellia,b, E. Longoa,b, B. Marzocchia,b, P. Meridiania, G.
Organtinia,b, F. Pandolfia, R. Paramattia,b, F. Preiatoa,b, S. Rahatloua,b, C.
Rovellia, F. Santanastasioa,b INFN Sezione di Torino a, Università di Torino
b, Torino, Italy, Università del Piemonte Orientale c, Novara, Italy
N. Amapanea,b, R. Arcidiaconoa,c, S. Argiroa,b, M. Arneodoa,c, N. Bartosika,
R. Bellana,b, C. Biinoa, A. Cappatia,b, N. Cartigliaa, F. Cennaa,b, S.
Comettia, M. Costaa,b, R. Covarellia,b, N. Demariaa, B. Kiania,b, C.
Mariottia, S. Masellia, E. Migliorea,b, V. Monacoa,b, E. Monteila,b, M.
Montenoa, M.M. Obertinoa,b, L. Pachera,b, N. Pastronea, M. Pelliccionia, G.L.
Pinna Angionia,b, A. Romeroa,b, M. Ruspaa,c, R. Sacchia,b, R. Salvaticoa,b, K.
Shchelinaa,b, V. Solaa, A. Solanoa,b, D. Soldia,b, A. Staianoa INFN Sezione di
Trieste a, Università di Trieste b, Trieste, Italy
S. Belfortea, V. Candelisea,b, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, A. Da Rolda,b, G.
Della Riccaa,b, F. Vazzolera,b, A. Zanettia Kyungpook National University,
Daegu, Korea
D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, M.S. Kim, J. Lee, S.W. Lee, C.S. Moon, Y.D. Oh, S.I. Pak,
S. Sekmen, D.C. Son, Y.C. Yang Chonnam National University, Institute for
Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju, Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon, G. Oh Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
B. Francois, J. Goh32, T.J. Kim Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, D. Gyun, S. Ha, B. Hong, Y. Jo, K. Lee, K.S. Lee, S.
Lee, J. Lim, S.K. Park, Y. Roh Sejong University, Seoul, Korea
H.S. Kim Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, H. Lee, K. Lee, S. 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
D. Jeon, H. Kim, J.H. Kim, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park Sungkyunkwan University,
Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, C. Hwang, J. Lee, I. Yu Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
V. Veckalns33 Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
V. Dudenas, A. Juodagalvis, J. Vaitkus National Centre for Particle Physics,
Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Z.A. Ibrahim, M.A.B. Md Ali34, F. Mohamad Idris35, W.A.T. Wan Abdullah, M.N.
Yusli, Z. Zolkapli Universidad de Sonora (UNISON), Hermosillo, Mexico
J.F. Benitez, A. Castaneda Hernandez, J.A. Murillo Quijada 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
Cruz36, R. Lopez-Fernandez, J. Mejia Guisao, R.I. Rabadan-Trejo, M. Ramirez-
Garcia, G. Ramirez-Sanchez, R. Reyes-Almanza, A. Sanchez-Hernandez Universidad
Iberoamericana, Mexico City, Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, F. Vazquez Valencia Benemerita
Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
J. Eysermans, I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada Universidad
Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, Mexico
A. Morelos Pineda University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
S. Bheesette, P.H. Butler National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam
University, Islamabad, Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M. Ahmad, M.I. Asghar, Q. Hassan, H.R. Hoorani, W.A. Khan, 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, M.
Szleper, P. Traczyk, P. Zalewski Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of
Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk37, 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
M. Araujo, P. Bargassa, C. Beirão Da Cruz E Silva, A. Di Francesco, P.
Faccioli, B. Galinhas, M. Gallinaro, J. Hollar, N. Leonardo, J. Seixas, G.
Strong, O. Toldaiev, J. Varela Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna,
Russia
S. Afanasiev, P. Bunin, M. Gavrilenko, I. Golutvin, I. Gorbunov, A. Kamenev,
V. Karjavine, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev38,39, P. Moisenz, V. Palichik,
V. Perelygin, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, N. Skatchkov, V. Smirnov, N. Voytishin,
A. Zarubin Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg),
Russia
V. Golovtsov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim40, E. Kuznetsova41, P. Levchenko, V. Murzin,
V. Oreshkin, I. Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Vavilov, A.
Vorobyev Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, M. Kirsanov,
N. Krasnikov, A. Pashenkov, A. Shabanov, D. Tlisov, A. Toropin Institute for
Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, V. Popov, I. Pozdnyakov, G.
Safronov, A. Spiridonov, A. Stepennov, V. Stolin, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A.
Zhokin Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
M. Chadeeva42, D. Philippov, E. Popova, V. Rusinov P.N. Lebedev Physical
Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin, I. Dremin39, M. Kirakosyan, A. Terkulov Skobeltsyn
Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow,
Russia
A. Baskakov, A. Belyaev, E. Boos, V. Bunichev, M. Dubinin43, L. Dudko, A.
Ershov, V. Klyukhin, O. Kodolova, I. Lokhtin, S. Obraztsov, S. Petrushanko, V.
Savrin Novosibirsk State University (NSU), Novosibirsk, Russia
A. Barnyakov44, V. Blinov44, T. Dimova44, L. Kardapoltsev44, Y. Skovpen44
Institute for High Energy Physics of National Research Centre ’Kurchatov
Institute’, Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, S. Bitioukov, V. Kachanov, A. Kalinin, D.
Konstantinov, P. Mandrik, V. Petrov, R. Ryutin, S. Slabospitskii, A. Sobol, S.
Troshin, N. Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov National Research Tomsk Polytechnic
University, Tomsk, Russia
A. Babaev, S. Baidali, V. Okhotnikov University of Belgrade: Faculty of
Physics and VINCA Institute of Nuclear Sciences
P. Adzic45, P. Cirkovic, D. Devetak, M. Dordevic, P. Milenovic46, J. Milosevic
Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas
(CIEMAT), Madrid, Spain
J. Alcaraz Maestre, A. Álvarez Fernández, I. Bachiller, M. Barrio Luna, J.A.
Brochero Cifuentes, M. Cerrada, N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris, C.
Fernandez Bedoya, J.P. Fernández Ramos, J. Flix, M.C. Fouz, O. Gonzalez Lopez,
S. Goy Lopez, J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa, D. Moran, A. Pérez-Calero Yzquierdo,
J. Puerta Pelayo, I. Redondo, L. Romero, S. Sánchez Navas, M.S. Soares, A.
Triossi Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
C. Albajar, J.F. de Trocóniz, Y. Jiang Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain
J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, S. Folgueras, I. Gonzalez
Caballero, J.R. González Fernández, E. Palencia Cortezon, V. Rodríguez Bouza,
S. Sanchez Cruz, J.M. Vizan Garcia Instituto de Física de Cantabria (IFCA),
CSIC-Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain
I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, B. Chazin Quero, J. Duarte Campderros, M.
Fernandez, P.J. Fernández Manteca, A. García Alonso, J. Garcia-Ferrero, G.
Gomez, A. Lopez Virto, J. Marco, C. Martinez Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del
Arbol, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, C. Prieels, T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno,
L. Scodellaro, N. Trevisani, I. Vila, R. Vilar Cortabitarte University of
Ruhuna, Department of Physics, Matara, Sri Lanka
N. Wickramage CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
D. Abbaneo, B. Akgun, E. Auffray, G. Auzinger, P. Baillon, A.H. Ball, D.
Barney, J. Bendavid, M. Bianco, A. Bocci, C. Botta, E. Brondolin, T.
Camporesi, M. Cepeda, G. Cerminara, E. Chapon, Y. Chen, G. Cucciati, D.
d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, N. Daci, V. Daponte, A. David, A. De Roeck, N.
Deelen, M. Dobson, M. Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, F.
Fallavollita47, D. Fasanella, G. Franzoni, J. Fulcher, W. Funk, D. Gigi, A.
Gilbert, K. Gill, F. Glege, M. Gruchala, M. Guilbaud, D. Gulhan, J. Hegeman,
C. Heidegger, Y. Iiyama, V. Innocente, G.M. Innocenti, A. Jafari, P. Janot, O.
Karacheban19, J. Kieseler, A. Kornmayer, M. Krammer1, C. Lange, P. Lecoq, C.
Lourenço, L. Malgeri, M. Mannelli, A. Massironi, F. Meijers, J.A. Merlin, S.
Mersi, E. Meschi, F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, J. Ngadiuba, S. Nourbakhsh, S.
Orfanelli, L. Orsini, F. Pantaleo16, L. Pape, E. Perez, M. Peruzzi, A.
Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, F.M. Pitters, D. Rabady, A.
Racz, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma,
P. Silva, P. Sphicas48, A. Stakia, J. Steggemann, D. Treille, A. Tsirou, A.
Vartak, M. Verzetti, W.D. Zeuner Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland
L. Caminada49, 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, N. Chernyavskaya, G. Dissertori, M. Dittmar,
M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, T.A. Gómez Espinosa, C. Grab, D. Hits, T. Klijnsma, W.
Lustermann, R.A. Manzoni, M. Marionneau, M.T. Meinhard, F. Micheli, P.
Musella, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, F. Pauss, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, S. Pigazzini, M.
Reichmann, C. Reissel, D. Ruini, D.A. Sanz Becerra, M. Schönenberger, L.
Shchutska, V.R. Tavolaro, K. Theofilatos, M.L. Vesterbacka Olsson, R. Wallny,
D.H. Zhu Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, C. Amsler50, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, R. Del
Burgo, S. Donato, C. Galloni, T. Hreus, B. Kilminster, S. Leontsinis, V.M.
Mikuni, I. Neutelings, G. Rauco, P. Robmann, D. Salerno, K. Schweiger, C.
Seitz, Y. Takahashi, S. Wertz, A. Zucchetta National Central University,
Chung-Li, Taiwan
T.H. Doan, R. Khurana, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, S.S. Yu National Taiwan University
(NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, W.-S. Hou, Y.F. Liu, R.-S. Lu, E.
Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen Chulalongkorn University, Faculty of Science,
Department of Physics, Bangkok, Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, N. Srimanobhas, N. Suwonjandee Çukurova University, Physics
Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
A. Bat, F. Boran, S. Cerci51, S. Damarseckin, Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, C.
Dozen, I. Dumanoglu, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, E. Gurpinar, I. Hos52, C. Isik,
E.E. Kangal53, O. Kara, A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, M. Oglakci, G. Onengut,
K. Ozdemir54, S. Ozturk55, D. Sunar Cerci51, B. Tali51, U.G. Tok, S.
Turkcapar, I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East Technical University,
Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak56, G. Karapinar57, M. Yalvac, M. Zeyrek Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya58, O. Kaya59, Ö. Özçelik, S. Ozkorucuklu60,
S. Tekten, E.A. Yetkin61 Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
M.N. Agaras, A. Cakir, K. Cankocak, Y. Komurcu, S. Sen62 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, J.J. Brooke, D. Burns, E. Clement, D. Cussans, O. Davignon, H.
Flacher, J. Goldstein, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, D.M. Newbold63, S.
Paramesvaran, B. Penning, T. Sakuma, D. Smith, V.J. Smith, J. Taylor, A.
Titterton Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev64, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, D. Cieri, D.J.A. Cockerill, J.A.
Coughlan, K. Harder, S. Harper, J. Linacre, K. Manolopoulos, E. Olaiya, D.
Petyt, T. Reis, T. Schuh, C.H. Shepherd-Themistocleous, A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin,
T. Williams, W.J. Womersley Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A. Bundock, D.
Colling, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M. Della Negra, R. Di Maria, P. Everaerts, G.
Hall, G. Iles, T. James, M. Komm, C. Laner, L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik,
A. Martelli, J. Nash65, A. Nikitenko7, V. Palladino, M. Pesaresi, D.M.
Raymond, A. Richards, A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A. Shtipliyski, G. Singh, M.
Stoye, T. Strebler, S. Summers, A. Tapper, K. Uchida, T. Virdee16, N. Wardle,
D. Winterbottom, J. Wright, S.C. Zenz Brunel University, Uxbridge, United
Kingdom
J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, C.K. Mackay, A. Morton, I.D. Reid,
L. Teodorescu, S. Zahid Baylor University, Waco, USA
K. Call, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, H. Liu, C. Madrid, B. McMaster, N.
Pastika, C. Smith Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
A. Buccilli, O. Charaf, S.I. Cooper, C. Henderson, P. Rumerio, C. West Boston
University, Boston, USA
D. Arcaro, T. Bose, Z. Demiragli, D. Gastler, S. Girgis, D. Pinna, C.
Richardson, J. Rohlf, D. Sperka, I. Suarez, L. Sulak, D. Zou Brown University,
Providence, USA
G. Benelli, B. Burkle, X. Coubez, D. Cutts, M. Hadley, J. Hakala, U. Heintz,
J.M. Hogan66, K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, J. Lee, Z. Mao, M. Narain,
S. Sagir67, R. Syarif, E. Usai, 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,
J. Gunion, W. Ko, O. Kukral, R. Lander, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, J. Pilot, S.
Shalhout, M. Shi, D. Stolp, D. Taylor, K. Tos, M. Tripathi, Z. Wang, F. Zhang
University of California, Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, C. Bravo, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, S. Erhan, A. Florent, J.
Hauser, M. Ignatenko, N. Mccoll, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg, C. Schnaible, V.
Valuev University of California, Riverside, Riverside, USA
E. Bouvier, K. Burt, R. Clare, J.W. Gary, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi, G. Hanson, G.
Karapostoli, E. Kennedy, F. Lacroix, O.R. Long, M. Olmedo Negrete, M.I.
Paneva, W. Si, L. Wang, H. Wei, S. Wimpenny, B.R. Yates University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, P. Chang, S. Cittolin, M. Derdzinski, R. Gerosa, D. Gilbert, B.
Hashemi, A. Holzner, D. Klein, G. Kole, V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, M.
Masciovecchio, S. May, D. Olivito, S. Padhi, M. Pieri, V. Sharma, M. Tadel, 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, C. Campagnari, M. Citron, V. Dutta, M. Franco Sevilla,
L. Gouskos, R. Heller, J. Incandela, H. Mei, A. Ovcharova, H. Qu, J. Richman,
D. Stuart, S. Wang, J. Yoo California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
D. Anderson, A. Bornheim, J.M. Lawhorn, N. Lu, H.B. Newman, T.Q. Nguyen, J.
Pata, M. Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, R. Wilkinson, S. Xie, Z. Zhang, R.Y. Zhu
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
M.B. Andrews, T. Ferguson, T. Mudholkar, M. Paulini, M. Sun, I. Vorobiev, M.
Weinberg University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, F. Jensen, A. Johnson, E. MacDonald, T. Mulholland,
R. Patel, A. Perloff, K. Stenson, K.A. Ulmer, S.R. Wagner Cornell University,
Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, J. Chaves, Y. Cheng, J. Chu, A. Datta, K. Mcdermott, N. Mirman,
J.R. Patterson, D. Quach, A. Rinkevicius, A. Ryd, L. Skinnari, L. Soffi, S.M.
Tan, Z. Tao, J. Thom, J. Tucker, P. Wittich, M. Zientek Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, USA
S. Abdullin, M. Albrow, M. Alyari, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S.
Banerjee, L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, K. Burkett,
J.N. Butler, A. Canepa, G.B. Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M. Cremonesi,
J. Duarte, V.D. Elvira, J. Freeman, Z. Gecse, E. Gottschalk, L. Gray, D.
Green, S. Grünendahl, O. Gutsche, J. Hanlon, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, J.
Hirschauer, Z. Hu, B. Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, B.
Klima, M.J. Kortelainen, B. Kreis, S. Lammel, D. Lincoln, R. Lipton, M. Liu,
T. Liu, J. Lykken, K. Maeshima, J.M. Marraffino, D. Mason, P. McBride, P.
Merkel, S. Mrenna, S. Nahn, V. O’Dell, K. Pedro, C. Pena, O. Prokofyev, G.
Rakness, F. Ravera, A. Reinsvold, L. Ristori, A. Savoy-Navarro68, 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
University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, P. Bortignon, D. Bourilkov, A. Brinkerhoff, L. Cadamuro,
A. Carnes, D. Curry, R.D. Field, S.V. Gleyzer, B.M. Joshi, J. Konigsberg, A.
Korytov, K.H. Lo, P. Ma, K. Matchev, N. Menendez, G. Mitselmakher, D.
Rosenzweig, K. Shi, J. Wang, S. Wang, X. Zuo Florida International University,
Miami, USA
Y.R. Joshi, S. Linn Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
A. Ackert, T. Adams, A. Askew, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F. Johnson, T.
Kolberg, G. Martinez, T. Perry, H. Prosper, A. Saha, C. Schiber, R. Yohay
Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, V. Bhopatkar, S. Colafranceschi, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, M.
Rahmani, T. Roy, M. Saunders, F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago
(UIC), Chicago, USA
M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, D. Berry, R.R. Betts, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, S.
Dittmer, O. Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, K. Jung, J.
Kamin, C. Mills, M.B. Tonjes, N. Varelas, H. Wang, X. Wang, Z. Wu, J. Zhang
The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, B. Bilki69, W. Clarida, K. Dilsiz70, S. Durgut, R.P.
Gandrajula, M. Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko, J.-P. Merlo, A. Mestvirishvili, A.
Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul71, Y. Onel, F. Ozok72, A. Penzo, C. Snyder, E.
Tiras, J. Wetzel Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
B. Blumenfeld, A. Cocoros, N. Eminizer, D. Fehling, L. Feng, A.V. Gritsan,
W.T. Hung, P. Maksimovic, J. Roskes, U. Sarica, M. Swartz, M. Xiao The
University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA
A. Al-bataineh, P. Baringer, A. Bean, S. Boren, J. Bowen, A. Bylinkin, J.
Castle, S. Khalil, A. Kropivnitskaya, D. Majumder, W. Mcbrayer, M. Murray, C.
Rogan, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang Kansas State
University, Manhattan, USA
S. Duric, A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, D. Kim, Y. Maravin, D.R. Mendis, T. Mitchell,
A. Modak, A. Mohammadi Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright University of Maryland, College Park, USA
A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, S.C. Eno, Y. Feng, C. Ferraioli, N.J. Hadley,
S. Jabeen, G.Y. Jeng, R.G. Kellogg, J. Kunkle, A.C. Mignerey, S. Nabili, F.
Ricci-Tam, M. Seidel, Y.H. Shin, A. Skuja, S.C. Tonwar, K. Wong Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, V. Azzolini, A. Baty, R. Bi, S. Brandt, W. Busza,
I.A. Cali, M. D’Alfonso, G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov, P. Harris, D. Hsu,
M. Hu, M. Klute, D. Kovalskyi, Y.-J. Lee, P.D. Luckey, B. Maier, A.C. Marini,
C. Mcginn, C. Mironov, S. Narayanan, X. Niu, C. Paus, D. Rankin, C. Roland, G.
Roland, Z. Shi, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Sumorok, K. Tatar, D. Velicanu, J. Wang,
T.W. Wang, B. Wyslouch University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
A.C. Benvenuti${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, P.
Hansen, J. Hiltbrand, Sh. Jain, S. Kalafut, M. Krohn, Y. Kubota, Z. Lesko, J.
Mans, R. Rusack, M.A. Wadud University of Mississippi, Oxford, USA
J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
E. Avdeeva, K. Bloom, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, F. Golf, R. Gonzalez Suarez,
R. Kamalieddin, I. Kravchenko, J. Monroy, J.E. Siado, G.R. Snow, B. Stieger
State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
A. Godshalk, C. Harrington, I. Iashvili, A. Kharchilava, C. Mclean, D. Nguyen,
A. Parker, S. Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani Northeastern University, Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, Y. Haddad, A. Hortiangtham, G. Madigan,
D.M. Morse, T. Orimoto, A. Tishelman-charny, T. Wamorkar, B. Wang, A.
Wisecarver, D. Wood Northwestern University, Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, J. Bueghly, T. Gunter, K.A. Hahn, N. Odell, M.H. Schmitt, K.
Sung, M. Trovato, M. Velasco University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, USA
R. Bucci, N. Dev, R. Goldouzian, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop,
D.J. Karmgard, K. Lannon, W. Li, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, F. Meng, C. Mueller,
Y. Musienko38, M. Planer, R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, G. Smith, S. Taroni, M.
Wayne, A. Wightman, M. Wolf, A. Woodard The Ohio State University, Columbus,
USA
J. Alimena, L. Antonelli, B. Bylsma, L.S. Durkin, S. Flowers, B. Francis, C.
Hill, W. Ji, A. Lefeld, T.Y. Ling, W. Luo, B.L. Winer Princeton University,
Princeton, USA
S. Cooperstein, G. Dezoort, P. Elmer, J. Hardenbrook, N. Haubrich, S.
Higginbotham, A. Kalogeropoulos, S. Kwan, D. Lange, M.T. Lucchini, J. Luo, D.
Marlow, K. Mei, I. Ojalvo, J. Olsen, C. Palmer, P. Piroué, J. Salfeld-Nebgen,
D. Stickland, C. Tully University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
A. Barker, V.E. Barnes, S. Das, L. Gutay, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, A. Khatiwada,
B. Mahakud, D.H. Miller, N. Neumeister, C.C. Peng, S. Piperov, H. Qiu, J.F.
Schulte, J. Sun, F. Wang, R. Xiao, W. Xie Purdue University Northwest,
Hammond, USA
T. Cheng, J. Dolen, N. Parashar Rice University, Houston, USA
Z. Chen, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Kilpatrick, Arun Kumar, W.
Li, B.P. Padley, R. Redjimi, J. Roberts, J. Rorie, W. Shi, Z. Tu, A. Zhang
University of Rochester, Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, Y.t. Duh, J.L. Dulemba, C. Fallon, T.
Ferbel, M. Galanti, A. Garcia-Bellido, J. Han, O. Hindrichs, A.
Khukhunaishvili, E. Ranken, P. Tan, R. Taus Rutgers, The State University of
New Jersey, Piscataway, USA
B. Chiarito, J.P. Chou, Y. Gershtein, E. Halkiadakis, A. Hart, M. Heindl, E.
Hughes, S. Kaplan, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, S. Kyriacou, I. Laflotte, A.
Lath, R. Montalvo, K. Nash, M. Osherson, H. Saka, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, D.
Sheffield, S. Somalwar, R. Stone, S. Thomas, P. Thomassen University of
Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
H. Acharya, A.G. Delannoy, J. Heideman, G. Riley, S. Spanier Texas A&M
University, College Station, USA
O. Bouhali73, A. Celik, M. Dalchenko, M. De Mattia, A. Delgado, S. Dildick, R.
Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T. Kamon74, S. Luo, D. Marley, R. Mueller, D.
Overton, L. Perniè, D. Rathjens, A. Safonov Texas Tech University, Lubbock,
USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, F. De Guio, P.R. Dudero, S. Kunori, K. Lamichhane,
S.W. Lee, T. Mengke, S. Muthumuni, T. Peltola, S. Undleeb, I. Volobouev, Z.
Wang, A. Whitbeck Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H. Ni, K.
Padeken, F. Romeo, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska, M. Verweij, Q. Xu
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
M.W. Arenton, P. Barria, B. Cox, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A. Ledovskoy, H. Li, C.
Neu, 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
J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, D. Carlsmith, S. Dasu, I. De Bruyn, L. Dodd, B.
Gomber75, M. Grothe, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, P. Klabbers, A. Lanaro,
K. Long, R. Loveless, T. Ruggles, A. Savin, V. Sharma, N. Smith, W.H. Smith,
N. Woods †: Deceased
1: Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria
2: Also at IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
3: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
4: Also at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
5: Also at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
6: Also at University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
7: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
8: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
9: Also at Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
10: Now at Zewail City of Science and Technology, Zewail, Egypt
11: Now at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt
12: Also at Department of Physics, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia
13: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
14: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
15: Also at Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
16: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
17: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
18: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
19: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
20: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
21: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
22: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
23: Also at Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India
24: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
25: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India
26: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
27: Also at Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
28: Also at Plasma Physics Research Center, Science and Research Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
29: Also at ITALIAN NATIONAL AGENCY FOR NEW TECHNOLOGIES, ENERGY AND
SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Bologna, Italy
30: Also at Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy
31: Also at Scuola Normale e Sezione dell’INFN, Pisa, Italy
32: Also at Kyung Hee University, Department of Physics, Seoul, Korea
33: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
34: Also at International Islamic University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
35: Also at Malaysian Nuclear Agency, MOSTI, Kajang, Malaysia
36: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico City, Mexico
37: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems,
Warsaw, Poland
38: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
39: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
40: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
41: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
42: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
43: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
44: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
45: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
46: Also at University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
47: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
48: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
49: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
50: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics (SMI), Vienna,
Austria
51: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
52: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey
53: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
54: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
55: Also at Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey
56: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
57: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
58: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
59: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
60: Also at Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
61: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
62: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
63: Also at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
64: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
65: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia
66: Also at Bethel University, St. Paul, USA
67: Also at Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey
68: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
69: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey
70: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
71: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
72: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
73: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
74: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea
75: Also at University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India