HIN-19-007

HIN-19-007

# Fragmentation of jets containing a prompt meson in PbPb and $\Pp\Pp$
collisions at $\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$

###### Abstract

Jets containing a prompt meson are studied in lead-lead collisions at a
nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy of 5.02, using the CMS detector at the
LHC. Jets are selected to be in the transverse momentum range of
$30<\pt<40\GeV$. The yield in these jets is evaluated as a function of the jet
fragmentation variable $z$, the ratio of the to the jet . The nuclear
modification factor, $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$, is then derived by comparing the yield
in lead-lead collisions to the corresponding expectation based on proton-
proton data, at the same nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy. The
suppression of the yield shows a dependence on $z$, indicating that the
interaction of the with the quark-gluon plasma formed in heavy ion collisions
depends on the fragmentation that gives rise to the meson.

##  0.1 Introduction

Dissociation of quarkonium states in nucleus-nucleus collisions is one of the
best studied signatures of the formation of the quark-gluon plasma (QGP), a
deconfined state of quarks and gluons. Although other nuclear effects have
been identified, it is widely accepted that at least part of the suppression
of the various quarkonium states in central lead-lead (PbPb) collisions, at
the collision energies probed at the CERN LHC, is indeed coming from Debye-
like screening of heavy-quark pairs in the QGP, as anticipated in the seminal
paper by Matsui and Satz [1]. This picture may be probed with quarkonia
produced at rest. With the emergence of competing mechanisms, however, it
becomes interesting to study the momentum dependence of the nuclear
suppression. In particular, this is true for regeneration [2], wherein
quarkonia may be created from heavy quarks produced independently. This effect
is expected to become more relevant with increased collision energy, as more
heavy-quark pairs are produced. This explains the relatively low nuclear
suppression at low transverse momentum () that is observed at the LHC [3], as
compared to data at lower collision energies [4, 5]. Independent of these
nuclear modifications, the interpretation of quarkonium results, and heavy-
flavor results in general, is typically based on the assumption that quarkonia
are formed at early times compared to the formation time of the QGP (on the
order of 1fm/$c$).

However, the formation time estimate of quarkonia is based on general
arguments rather than on a detailed calculation. Despite decades of
theoretical developments, models generally are not able to describe the
entirety of the quarkonium data. In particular, they are not able to
simultaneously describe the polarization [6] and the -differential cross
section [7]. A recent measurement by the LHCb Collaboration that looked at
hadrons produced at small angles with respect to prompt mesons (those not
produced in -hadron decays) in proton-proton ($\Pp\Pp$) collisions [8] gives
some new insight into this puzzle. The observable is the -jet fragmentation
function, which corresponds to the distribution of $z$, the ratio of the to
the of the jet into which it is clustered. For jets in pseudorapidity
$2.5<\eta<4.0$ and $\pt>20\GeV$, LHCb observes that prompt mesons are produced
with far more in-jet associated hadroproduction than predicted by models, ,
mesons tend towards lower values of $z$. Models of production typically couple
fixed-order perturbative quantum chromodynamics calculations with
nonperturbative matrix elements that describe hadronization of the charm quark
pair into a color-neutral state. A solution to this discrepancy was proposed
in Ref. [9], where the evolution of the parton shower prior to the formation
of the is accounted for. By including this parton shower contribution, which
is not adequately described in hadronization generators, such as [10], the
authors were able to successfully describe the data. Although the LHCb
measurement only concerns the subset of mesons found inside a relatively high-
jet, a recent measurement by CMS indicates that, for mesons with energy larger
than $15\GeV$, nearly all of them are produced in association with a
significant degree of jet activity [11].

Assuming this explanation of the LHCb data is correct, this paradigm shift in
our understanding of production has important implications for the
interpretation of data in nucleus-nucleus collisions. It implies that are not
exclusively produced at short times, but may also be produced in the course of
the interaction of a hard-scattered parton with the QGP. Hence, the
suppression of the yield, as quantified by the nuclear modification factor
($R_{\mathrm{AA}}$), may be sensitive to parton energy loss, the same
phenomenon that gives rise to jet quenching. There are already some hints in
this direction. First, as observed in Ref. [12], the $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ in PbPb
collisions [13, 14] appears to exhibit the same rise with as light hadrons
show [15], which for the case of light hadrons is well described by parton
energy loss models [16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21]. Second, in mid-central collisions
the show a significant magnitude of elliptic anisotropy in their azimuthal
angle ($v_{2}$) [22, 23] at large , a region where the hydrodynamical effects
that produce such an anisotropy are expected to die out. We know of no
explanation for this high-$v_{2}$ feature other than path-length-dependent
parton energy loss.

The goal of the current measurement is to investigate the $z$ dependence of
the nuclear modification factor of jets containing a meson, ,

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}(z)=\frac{\rd N^{\mathrm{AA}}/\rd
z}{T_{\mathrm{AA}}\rd\sigma^{\Pp\Pp}/\rd z}.$ (1)

This ratio compares the per-event yield in PbPb collisions ($N^{\mathrm{AA}}$)
to the expectation based on $\Pp\Pp$ collisions, by scaling the cross section
of the latter ($\sigma^{\Pp\Pp}$) by $T_{\mathrm{AA}}$. The factor
$T_{\mathrm{AA}}$ is the average effective nucleon-nucleon luminosity
delivered by a single heavy ion collision for a given centrality selection (a
quantity related to the collision impact parameter) [24]. In the absence of
nuclear effects, $R_{\mathrm{AA}}=1$.

This Letter constitutes the first direct study of the nuclear modification of
mesons inside jets. Jets with a constituent meson are studied in the jet range
of $30<\pt<40\GeV$ for 0–90%, as well as 0–20% and 20–90% collision
centralities. The jets are required to be in the pseudorapidity range
$\abs{\eta}<2$, such that they are completely contained in the tracker
acceptance, with no explicit selection on the rapidity of the . The of the is
measured down to a threshold of 6.5. This gives a range of $z$ from 0.22 to 1.
We investigate to what extent the $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ varies with $z$, and
indirectly, the formation time of the . These data potentially constrain the
roles of the different QGP interaction mechanisms that may be at play, in
particular parton energy loss and Debye screening.

##  0.2 The CMS detector

The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6m
internal diameter, providing a magnetic field of 3.8T. Within the solenoid
volume are a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal
electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), and a brass and scintillator hadron
calorimeter (HCAL), each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. Forward
calorimeters extend the $\eta$ coverage provided by the barrel and endcap
detectors. Muons are detected in gas-ionization chambers embedded in the steel
flux-return yoke outside the solenoid. Muons are measured in the range
$\abs{\eta}<2.4$, with detection planes made using three technologies: drift
tubes, cathode strip chambers, and resistive plate chambers. The efficiency to
reconstruct and identify muons is greater than 96% over the full range of
$\eta$. Matching muons to tracks measured in the silicon tracker results in a
relative transverse momentum resolution, for muons with up to 100, of 1% in
the barrel and 3% in the endcaps [25]. The forward hadron (HF) calorimeter
uses steel as an absorber and quartz fibers as the sensitive material. The two
halves of the HF are located 11.2m from the interaction region, one on each
end, and together they provide coverage in the range $3.0<\abs{\eta}<5.2$.

Events of interest are selected using a two-tiered trigger system [26]. The
first level (L1), composed of custom hardware processors, uses information
from the calorimeters and muon detectors to select events at a rate of around
100kHz for high luminosity $\Pp\Pp$ collisions and 30kHz for PbPb collisions.
The second level, known as the high-level trigger (HLT), consists of a farm of
processors running a version of the full event reconstruction software
optimized for fast processing, and reduces the event rate to around 1kHz
before data storage, for both $\Pp\Pp$ and PbPb collisions.

The particle-flow algorithm [27] aims to reconstruct and identify each
individual particle in an event, with an optimized combination of information
from the various elements of the CMS detector. The energy of photons is
obtained from the ECAL measurement. The energy of electrons is determined from
a combination of the electron momentum at the primary interaction vertex as
determined by the tracker, the energy of the corresponding ECAL cluster, and
the energy sum of all bremsstrahlung photons spatially compatible with
originating from the electron track. The energy of muons is obtained from the
curvature of the corresponding track. The energy of charged hadrons is
determined from a combination of their momentum measured in the tracker and
the matching ECAL and HCAL energy deposits, corrected for the response
function of the calorimeters to hadronic showers. Finally, the energy of
neutral hadrons is obtained from the corresponding corrected ECAL and HCAL
energies.

Collision centrality is determined from the total transverse energy deposited
in both of the HF calorimeters. The centrality is expressed as a percentage of
the total inelastic hadronic cross section, with 0% representing the most
head-on (central) collisions and 100% the most peripheral collisions. Hadronic
events are selected by requiring at least three towers in each half of the HF
calorimeter with an energy larger than 4. In this analysis, we restrict to the
90% most central events, where the hadronic event selection is fully
efficient.

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. [28].

##  0.3 Data analysis

###  0.3.1 Simulation

Monte Carlo simulations are used as a baseline for the efficiency and
acceptance, as well as the detector response to jets. Correction factors to
account for data-to-simulation discrepancies are discussed in the following
section. Events are generated with 8 (version 8.230) [10], using the CP5
underlying event tune [29]. Prompt are produced using all color-singlet and
color-octet modes with the default matrix elements [30]. Simulation of PbPb
collisions is done by embedding 8 events into PbPb collision events produced
with the generator (version 1.9) [31]. The event activity at mid-rapidity is
matched to that of minimum bias collision data via an analysis of the energy
deposited in randomly distributed cones. The response of the CMS detector is
simulated using the package [32].

###  0.3.2 Prompt meson signal extraction

mesons are measured via their decays into oppositely charged muon pairs.
Events are selected with a trigger that requires that at least two muon
candidates are reconstructed in the muon subsystem, first at L1, and then
using refined information at HLT. In PbPb collisions, the rate is reduced at
HLT by requiring one of the two muons to match a track from the silicon
tracking subsystem. The invariant mass of the pair ($m_{\PGm\PGm}$) is
required to be within the range of 1 to 5.

A set of offline muon selection criteria that is optimized for low muons is
applied [13]. The yield is obtained from a fit to the $m_{\PGm\PGm}$
distribution in bins of jet and $z$. An example of a $m_{\PGm\PGm}$ fit is
shown in the left panel of Fig. 1. The signal is modeled as the sum of two
Crystal Ball functions [33] with different widths, but common mean and tail
parameters. The tail parameters are obtained from simulation. The dimuon
background is modeled by a Chebyshev polynomial.

Figure 1: Projections of a two-dimensional fit used to extract the prompt
yield in PbPb collisions. Left: The dimuon invariant mass distribution. Right:
The pseudo-proper decay length ($l_{\JPsi}$) distribution. The fit functions
are described in the text. The lower panels display the pull distributions,
defined as the difference between the fit and the data, divided by the
combined statistical uncertainty in the fit and in the data.

Nonprompt mesons, , those that are produced in hadron decays, are separated
from the prompt component by exploiting the long lifetime of these decays. A
fit is performed to the distribution of the pseudo-proper decay length,
$l_{\JPsi}=Lm/\abs{p}$, where $L$ is the distance along the beam axis between
the vertex and the nearest primary collision vertex, and $m$ and $p$ are the
world-average mass (3.097) [34] and the candidate momentum, respectively. An
example of a $l_{\JPsi}$ fit is shown in the right panel of Fig. 1. In order
to parameterize the $l_{\JPsi}$ distribution, the sPlot technique [35] is used
to decompose it into the signal and non-background components, using
$m_{\PGm\PGm}$ as the discriminating variable. Prompt mesons can have nonzero
values of $l_{\JPsi}$, both positive and negative, because of the finite
detector resolution. The resolution is modeled as a sum of two Gaussian
functions, which are constrained by fitting the negative part of the
$l_{\JPsi}$ distribution. The nonprompt component is modeled as an exponential
function, with the lifetime treated as a free parameter, convolved with the
same double-Gaussian resolution function. The combinatorial background is
itself well described by prompt- and nonprompt-like components, again using
the same resolution function. The nonprompt component of the background is
described by an empirical sum of exponential functions. To extract the yield
of prompt mesons a two-dimensional fit to the joint $m_{\PGm\PGm}$ and
$l_{\JPsi}$ distribution is performed. All parameters are fixed by the one-
dimensional fits, aside from the prompt and nonprompt signal normalizations,
and the background normalizations, as well as the nonprompt signal lifetime
parameter. A more detailed description of the fitting procedure can be found
in Ref. [13].

The meson acceptance, and the efficiency of reconstruction and identification,
are determined in simulation in finely binned histograms of the and $\eta$ of
the . For PbPb collisions, the efficiency is also determined in bins of
collision centrality. The correction for acceptance and efficiency is applied
as a weight factor to each candidate prior to the signal extraction.
Differences between data and simulation are evaluated in-situ, from events
collected with a single-muon trigger, using the tag-and-probe technique [36].
These additional corrections are applied to the simulation in relatively
coarse bins. Tag-and-probe corrections are derived separately for trigger,
identification, and reconstruction efficiency.

###  0.3.3 Jet determination

Jets are clustered using the anti-algorithm [37, 38] with a distance parameter
of $R=0.3$. The constituents of the jets are the output of the particle-flow
algorithm, described in Section 0.2, with the exception of the candidate. Muon
pairs with an invariant mass consistent with a decay are replaced by the
reconstructed candidate. Jet energy corrections are derived from simulation as
a function of and $\eta$ using the framework described in Ref. [39], in which
data-to-simulation scale factors are obtained from +jet, +jet and dijet
balancing studies. In the case of PbPb collisions, these corrections are
derived from peripheral events to avoid additional imbalance from jet
quenching. The jet energy correction procedure is only applied to the non-
component of the jet, as the momentum of the is determined with high precision
from its dimuon decay. In PbPb collisions, the constituent subtraction method
[40] is employed to subtract the contribution to the jet momentum from the
underlying event. As the signal particle of interest, the meson is excluded
from the subtraction, as it would be incorrect to attribute any fraction of
its energy to the underlying event.

In addition to the energy scale, the energy resolution of jets is somewhat
degraded in data compared to simulation. The corresponding scale factors are
derived from dijet balancing studies performed in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at
$\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ in 2017 and 2018 [39]. The resolution is found to be between
10 and 20% worse than the simulation, depending on $\eta$. In order to
incorporate this effect, a Gaussian smearing is applied to the measured jet
values in simulation to match the resolution in data. This smeared mapping is
then applied in the unfolding procedure, as described below.

The finite resolution of jets causes migration of jets across $z$ bins. It
also causes migration of jets into and out of the nominal selection of 30–40.
In order to capture the full jet response, we also perform the measurement in
underflow and overflow bins of 10–30and 40–50, respectively. With the current
data, a reliable yield cannot be extracted for intervals larger than the
selected overflow bin, which motivates the choice of the nominal interval. To
correct for these bin migration effects, we unfold the data simultaneously in
these two dimensions (jet and $z$) using the iterative D’Agostini method [41],
as implemented in the RooUnfold package [42]. The detector response matrix,
which defines the relationship between the true and measured values, is taken
from the 8 simulation, embedded into for the case of PbPb collisions, aside
from the aforementioned data-to-simulation scale factors for the jet energy
scale and resolution. The response matrices for $\Pp\Pp$ and PbPb collisions
are shown in Fig. 2. The coarse bins show the jet dependence, whereas the
finer inset bins show the dependence on $z$. Each column of measured bins is
normalized to unity, such that each bin represents the fractional contribution
of the given true and $z$ values to the measured values for that column. The
PbPb data exhibit substantially larger off-diagonal contributions than for
$\Pp\Pp$, as expected from the larger underlying event, which drives the bin
migration in PbPb.

Figure 2:  Detector response matrices for jets containing a prompt meson,
showing the bin migration probability as a function of jet and $z$. The
response for $\Pp\Pp$ collisions (left) is evaluated using 8. The response for
PbPb collisions (right) is evaluated using 8 embedded into .

In this method, the unfolding is initialized with a “prior” distribution in
the two variables, which is taken from simulation. To avoid bias from the
presumed shape of the $z$ distribution in simulation, which is known to be
inaccurate [8], the prior distribution is flattened in $z$. After a tunable
number of iterations, which corresponds to the degree of regularization, the
procedure is truncated. To improve the performance of the unfolding, we run
the full set of iterations multiple times. The prior of each such “super-
iteration” is obtained using the $z$ distribution that is output from the
previous super-iteration. The numbers of iterations and super-iterations are
optimized using simulated prompt events, by applying a random Gaussian
smearing to the measured $z$ distributions according to the relative
statistical uncertainties in data, in order to emulate the effect of
statistical fluctuations. The optimization criterion is the minimum $\chi^{2}$
between the unfolded and true $z$ distributions. The use of three iterations
is found to give the best performance in both $\Pp\Pp$ and PbPb simulated
samples. However, while only one super-iteration is sufficient for $\Pp\Pp$,
25 super-iterations are required for PbPb collisions. Since the optimal
settings depend not only on the statistical uncertainties of the measured $z$
distribution, but also on its shape, we additionally evaluated them in
nonprompt meson simulation, where the measured distribution is more similar to
the data than in the prompt meson simulation, by unfolding the nonprompt $z$
distributions with the nonprompt response matrices and using the settings with
the best performance as a systematic variation in the regularization
procedure.

##  0.4 Systematic uncertainties

The systematic uncertainties may be divided into three categories: signal
extraction, jet energy scale and resolution, and normalization uncertainties.

signal extraction: Uncertainties in the extraction of the yields arise from
the signal and background shape modeling, as well as from the acceptance and
efficiency of muon reconstruction and identification. The signal shape of the
$m_{\PGm\PGm}$ distribution is varied from the two Crystal Ball
parameterization to a single Crystal Ball function convoluted with a Gaussian
function. The radiative tail of the signal model is also varied by treating
the tail parameters of the Crystal Ball function as free parameters, rather
than taking their values from simulation. The relative uncertainty in the
yield coming from the signal modeling is less than 1% in $\Pp\Pp$ and less
than 2% in PbPb collisions. The dependence of the signal shape on $l_{\JPsi}$
is evaluated by switching from a parameterization of the lifetime distribution
of nonprompt signal to a template built from simulation. The relative
uncertainty from this variation is less than 1.5% in both $\Pp\Pp$ and PbPb
collisions, except at low ($<$10) in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions, where it reaches
4.5%, and where it dominates the uncertainties in the signal extraction. The
Gaussian function describing the lifetime resolution is varied to use the
value obtained from simulation, rather than obtaining it from the data. This
variation affects both the signal and background modeling, and results in a
relative uncertainty of less than 2% in $\Pp\Pp$ and PbPb collisions.

The uncertainty in the description of the background is obtained as follows.
Instead of a Chebyshev polynomial, an exponential of a Chebyshev polynomial is
used to describe the $m_{\PGm\PGm}$ distribution. The range of $m_{\PGm\PGm}$
used in the fit is varied as well, to reduce the contamination from the
$\psi$(2S) state. This results in an uncertainty of less than 1% in $\Pp\Pp$
and PbPb collisions, except at low ($<10$) in PbPb collisions, where it
reaches 6% and dominates the uncertainties in the signal extraction. As was
done for the signal, a template is used to describe the $l_{\JPsi}$
distribution, rather than a parameterization. In this case, the template is
obtained from a background-like event sample using sPlot. The source results
in a relative uncertainty of $<2$% in the yields in both $\Pp\Pp$ and PbPb
collisions.

The acceptance and efficiency corrections lead to an associated relative
uncertainty in the yields in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions of 1.5–2.5%, and 3–4% in PbPb
collisions, depending on the value of , and comprise the dominant source of
uncertainty in the signal extraction for ${\pt>10\GeV}$. The largest component
of the uncertainty is statistical in nature, coming from the finite size of
the single-muon trigger samples used in the tag-and-probe method. The
statistical uncertainty of the simulation samples is also taken into account,
but is generally subdominant. A systematic component is evaluated by
variations of the signal and background modeling in the extraction of the
yield from fits to the $m_{\PGm\PGm}$ distribution, similar to the procedure
for the yield extraction in the main analysis, described above. The relative
uncertainty from this source is around 1% in both $\Pp\Pp$ and PbPb
collisions, with no strong dependence on . Further details on the procedure
used to evaluate systematic uncertainties for muons from the tag-and-probe
method are reported in Refs. [36, 25].

Jet energy scale and resolution: The uncertainty in the jet energy scale is
evaluated from dijet and +jet balancing methods, as described in Ref. [39].
The uncertainty in the jet energy scale in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions is around 3–4%,
increasing as a function of $\abs{\eta}$. In PbPb collisions, the uncertainty
is around 4%, except for the barrel-endcap transition region
($1.3<\abs{\eta}<1.6$), where it can become as large as 10%. An additional
source of uncertainty in the jet energy scale is considered in PbPb collisions
to take into account the differences in the particle mixture in simulation and
data due to jet quenching, as described in Ref. [43]. This uncertainty is
around 5% for the 30% most central events and 2.5% for all other centralities.
The uncertainty in the jet energy resolution is evaluated from a dijet
balancing method, as also described in Ref. [39]. In $\Pp\Pp$ collisions, the
uncertainty in the resolution is in the range of 2–4% in the barrel region,
but is larger in the endcap and transition regions, where it varies in the
range of 10–20%, depending on $\eta$. For PbPb collisions, the uncertainty is
evaluated from peripheral data, as well as from $\Pp\Pp$ data recorded in the
same yearly running period, and varies from 3% in the barrel to 7% in the
endcap and transition regions. In PbPb, there is an additional contribution to
the uncertainty because of the modeling of the underlying event in simulation
with . This uncertainty is evaluated by comparing the energy in randomly
distributed cones in data and simulation. The difference between the random
cone distributions in data and simulation is used to estimate the effect on
the jet resolution.

Unfolding: The uncertainty in the regularization applied is estimated by
varying the number of iterations used in the unfolding, from the settings
found to be optimal for prompt to those found to be optimal for the nonprompt
signal, which has a very different signal shape as a function of $z$. For
nonprompt simulations in $\Pp\Pp$ and PbPb collisions, the use of ten
iterations is found to give the best performance, in contrast to three
iterations for the prompt simulation. In both cases, the statistical precision
of the data is emulated in simulation. The assumption of a prior that is flat
in $z$ is also relaxed, by instead initializing the prior to match the shape
of the truth $z$ distributions in simulated nonprompt signal samples, which
are more similar in shape to the measured $z$ distributions. Finally, the
statistical uncertainty of the simulated samples used in the unfolding is
taken into account, and is generally subdominant. Systematic uncertainties
related to the jet energy scale and resolution are propagated by producing
variations of the detector response matrix and repeating the unfolding
procedure for each variation.

Normalization uncertainties: Cross section measurements in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions
have an overall uncertainty from the integrated luminosity of 1.9% [44] that
is obtained from an analysis of data from a van der Meer scan [45]. The PbPb
data are normalized by the equivalent number of hadronic nucleon-nucleon
interactions in the data sample, which has an uncertainty of 1.3% coming from
the selection of such events, taking into account possible contamination from
electromagnetic interactions and beam backgrounds. To compare to data from
$\Pp\Pp$ collisions, the PbPb data are normalized by $T_{\mathrm{AA}}$, which
is determined from the Monte Carlo implementation of the Glauber model
described in Ref. [46]. For the centrality intervals used in this analysis,
the corresponding values of $T_{\mathrm{AA}}$ are $6.27\pm 0.14$, $18.79\pm
0.36$, and $2.717\pm 0.098\mbinv$, for the 0–90, 0–20 and 20–90% centrality
intervals, respectively.

The various sources of systematic uncertainty are shown in Fig. 3. Sources
related to the yield extraction are combined into a single component, for
visibility. The total uncertainty is the quadrature sum of all the sources.
Some sources of systematic uncertainty are largely correlated bin-to-bin,
notably the uncertainty in the jet energy scale, jet energy resolution, and
prior. No cancellation of systematic uncertainties is assumed, however, when
comparing $\Pp\Pp$ to PbPb collisions.

Figure 3: The main sources of systematic uncertainty, as a function of $z$,
for the cross section in $\Pp\Pp$ (left) and the $T_{\mathrm{AA}}$-scaled
yield in PbPb (right) collisions. The normalization uncertainties of 1.9% for
$\Pp\Pp$ and 2.6% for PbPb are not shown.

##  0.5 Results

Figure 4 shows the distribution in $\Pp\Pp$ data of the fragmentation variable
$z$ for prompt mesons. Its shape is compared to generator-level predictions
from 8 for prompt and nonprompt signals. In contrast to the 8 simulation,
where prompt are produced directly in the matrix element partonic scattering,
the data show a relatively large degree of surrounding jet activity,
indicative of production inside of parton showers. The $z$ distribution in
data more closely resembles that of the nonprompt 8 simulation, which contains
a larger jet-like component from fragmentation, as well as other products of
the -hadron decay. The data confirm the trends observed in Ref. [8], but in a
different rapidity range and nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy.

Figure 4: Normalized $z$ distribution in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions, compared to
prompt and nonprompt in 8, at the generator level. Bars indicate statistical
uncertainties, while systematic uncertainties are depicted as boxes.

Figure 5 (left) shows the same $z$ distribution in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions, this
time normalized as a differential cross section. The per-event yield of prompt
mesons in PbPb collisions is also shown. In order to compare the two collision
systems, the PbPb yields are scaled by the nuclear overlap factor
$T_{\mathrm{AA}}$. The PbPb data are also peaked at an intermediate value of
$z$, indicating a sizable amount of jet activity.

The PbPb data show a suppression level that is generally comparable to that
observed for “inclusive” prompt production, , without an explicit jet
requirement [13]. This is quantified by the ratio of these two distributions,
$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$, shown in Fig. 5 (right). The data show a slight rising
trend as a function of $z$, with a significance of around two standard
deviations. Fig. 6 shows the $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ for two centrality selections,
0–20 and 20–90%. A larger degree of suppression is suggested for the more
central selection, as expected for final-state effects related to the QGP. The
rising trend with increasing $z$ is somewhat more pronounced in central
events.

Figure 5: Left: The differential cross section in $\Pp\Pp$ and the
$T_{\mathrm{AA}}$-scaled yield in PbPb collisions, as a function of $z$. The
normalization uncertainties of 1.9% for $\Pp\Pp$ and 2.6% for PbPb are not
included in the point-by-point uncertainty boxes and not shown in the plot.
Right: The nuclear modification factor $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$, as a function of
$z$. Bars indicate statistical uncertainties, while systematic uncertainties
are depicted as boxes. The box around unity shows the normalization
uncertainty.

In the largest $z$ bin, where the is produced with fewer associated particles,
the suppression is significantly reduced as compared to lower values of $z$,
most importantly in the centrality-integrated results. Such a reduction of
suppression at large $z$ has a natural interpretation in terms of the jet
quenching phenomenon. Lower values of $z$ should be populated with jets with a
produced late in the parton shower. Such a parton cascade is expected to have
a large degree of interaction with the QGP in the form of subsequent medium-
induced emissions, as compared to a jet with a small partonic multiplicity
[47]. In this picture, the rising trend observed for inclusive prompt
production would be explained by the same mechanism, as $z$ tends to increase
with increasing .

Figure 6: The nuclear modification factor $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ for two centrality
selections of PbPb collisions, as a function of $z$. Due to limited
statistical precision, the lowest $z$ bin is excluded. Bars indicate
statistical uncertainties, while systematic uncertainties are depicted as
boxes. The boxes around unity show the normalization uncertainties.

##  0.6 Summary

Jets containing a prompt meson were studied in proton-proton ($\Pp\Pp$) and
lead-lead (PbPb) collisions at $\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$, for jets with transverse
momentum $30<\pt<40\GeV$ and pseudorapidity $\abs{\eta}<2$. The distribution
of the fragmentation variable $z$, the ratio of the to that of the jet, was
measured in both systems. In $\Pp\Pp$ collisions, prompt mesons were found to
have more surrounding jet activity, , to populate lower values of $z$ than
predicted by 8 simulations, suggesting that production late in the parton
shower is underestimated. The $\Pp\Pp$ and PbPb distributions were compared by
calculating the nuclear modification factor, $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$, the ratio of
PbPb data to the expectation based on $\Pp\Pp$ data. The value of
$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ as a function of $z$ shows a rising trend. The suppression
at low $z$ is found to be larger in the 20% most central events (“head-on”
collisions), as compared to the less central selection. The results show
explicitly that the produced with a large degree of surrounding jet activity
are more highly suppressed than those produced in association with fewer
particles. This finding emphasizes the importance of incorporating the jet
quenching mechanism in models of suppression.

###### Acknowledgements.

We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the
excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative
staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the
success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the
computing centers and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid and other
centers 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, the CMS detector, and the supporting
computing infrastructure 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);
MINCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RIF (Cyprus); SENESCYT
(Ecuador); MoER, ERC PUT and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of Finland, MEC, and HIP
(Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF (Germany); GSRT
(Greece); NKFIA (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM (Iran); SFI (Ireland);
INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); MES (Latvia); LAS (Lithuania);
MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT, LNS, SEP, and UASLP-FAI
(Mexico); MOS (Montenegro); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC
(Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom, RAS, RFBR, and NRC KI
(Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI, and FEDER (Spain); MOSTR (Sri
Lanka); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); MST (Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST,
STAR, and NSTDA (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); NASU (Ukraine); STFC
(United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA). Individuals have received support from
the Marie-Curie program and the European Research Council and Horizon 2020
Grant, contract Nos. 675440, 724704, 752730, 765710 and 824093 (European
Union); the Leventis Foundation; the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation; the Alexander
von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office; the Fonds
pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans l’Agriculture (FRIA-
Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-
Belgium); the F.R.S.-FNRS and FWO (Belgium) under the “Excellence of Science –
EOS” – be.h project n. 30820817; the Beijing Municipal Science & Technology
Commission, No. Z191100007219010; the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports
(MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), under
Germany’s Excellence Strategy – EXC 2121 “Quantum Universe” – 390833306, and
under project number 400140256 - GRK2497; 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 Latvian Council of
Science; the Ministry of Science and Higher Education and the National Science
Center, contracts Opus 2014/15/B/ST2/03998 and 2015/19/B/ST2/02861 (Poland);
the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund; the
Ministry of Science and Higher Education, project no. 0723-2020-0041 (Russia);
the Programa Estatal de Fomento de la Investigación Científica y Técnica de
Excelencia María de Maeztu, grant MDM-2015-0509 and the Programa Severo Ochoa
del Principado de Asturias; the Thalis and Aristeia programs cofinanced by EU-
ESF and the Greek NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral
Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its
2nd Century Project Advancement Project (Thailand); the Kavli Foundation; the
Nvidia Corporation; the SuperMicro Corporation; the Welch Foundation, contract
C-1845; and the Weston Havens Foundation (USA).

## References

  * [1] T. Matsui and H. Satz, “suppression by quark-gluon plasma formation”,  Phys. Lett. B 178 (1986) 416, 10.1016/0370-2693(86)91404-8.
  * [2] P. Braun-Munzinger and J. Stachel, “(Non)thermal aspects of charmonium production and a new look at suppression”,  Phys. Lett. B 490 (2000) 196, 10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00991-6, arXiv:nucl-th/0007059.
  * [3] ALICE Collaboration, “suppression at forward rapidity in PbPb collisions at = 2.76”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 072301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.072301, arXiv:1202.1383.
  * [4] NA50 Collaboration, “Evidence for deconfinement of quarks and gluons from the suppression pattern measured in Pb+Pb collisions at the CERN SPS”,  Phys. Lett. B 477 (2000) 28, 10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00237-9.
  * [5] PHENIX Collaboration, “suppression at forward rapidity in AuAu collisions at = 200”,  Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 054912, 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.054912, arXiv:1103.6269.
  * [6] LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of polarization in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2631, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2631-3, arXiv:1307.6379.
  * [7] LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of production in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7~{}\rm{TeV}$”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1645, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1645-y, arXiv:1103.0423.
  * [8] LHCb Collaboration, “Study of production in jets”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 192001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.192001, arXiv:1701.05116.
  * [9] R. Bain et al., “NRQCD confronts LHCb data on quarkonium production within jets”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 032002, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.032002, arXiv:1702.05525.
  * [10] 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.
  * [11] CMS Collaboration, “Study of meson production inside jets in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 8 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 804 (2020) 135409, 10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135409, arXiv:1910.01686.
  * [12] F. Arleo, “Quenching of hadron spectra in heavy ion collisions at the LHC”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 062302, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.062302, arXiv:1703.10852.
  * [13] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of prompt and nonprompt charmonium suppression in PbPb collisions at 5.02 ”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 509, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5950-6, arXiv:1712.08959.
  * [14] ATLAS Collaboration, “Prompt and non-prompt and $\psi(2\mathrm{S})$ suppression at high transverse momentum in $5.02~{}\mathrm{TeV}$ Pb+Pb collisions with the ATLAS experiment”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 762, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6219-9, arXiv:1805.04077.
  * [15] CMS Collaboration, “Charged-particle nuclear modification factors in PbPb and pPb collisions at $\sqrtsNN=5\TeV$”,  JHEP 04 (2017) 039, 10.1007/JHEP04(2017)039, arXiv:1611.01664.
  * [16] Y.-T. Chien et al., “Jet Quenching from QCD Evolution”,  Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 074030, 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.074030, arXiv:1509.02936.
  * [17] J. Casalderrey-Solana et al., “A hybrid strong/weak coupling approach to jet quenching”,  JHEP 10 (2014) 019, 10.1007/JHEP09(2015)175, arXiv:1405.3864. [Erratum: 10.1007/JHEP09(2015)175].
  * [18] E. Bianchi et al., “The $x$ and $Q^{2}$ dependence of $\hat{q}$, quasi-particles and the JET puzzle”, 2017. arXiv:1702.00481.
  * [19] J. Xu, J. Liao, and M. Gyulassy, “Bridging soft-hard transport properties of quark-gluon plasmas with CUJET3.0”,  JHEP 02 (2016) 169, 10.1007/JHEP02(2016)169, arXiv:1508.00552.
  * [20] C. Andrés et al., “Energy versus centrality dependence of the jet quenching parameter $\hat{q}$ at RHIC and LHC: a new puzzle?”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 475, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4320-5, arXiv:1606.04837.
  * [21] J. Noronha-Hostler, B. Betz, J. Noronha, and M. Gyulassy, “Event-by-event hydrodynamics $+$ jet energy loss: A solution to the $R_{\mathrm{AA}}\otimes v_{2}$ puzzle”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 252301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.252301, arXiv:1602.03788.
  * [22] CMS Collaboration, “Suppression and azimuthal anisotropy of prompt and nonprompt production in PbPb collisions at $\sqrtsNN=2.76$ $\,\mathrm{TeV}$”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 252, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4781-1, arXiv:1610.00613.
  * [23] ATLAS Collaboration, “Prompt and non-prompt elliptic flow in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{{}_{\text{NN}}}}=5.02$ Tev with the ATLAS detector”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 784, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6243-9, arXiv:1807.05198.
  * [24] M. L. Miller, K. Reygers, S. J. Sanders, and P. Steinberg, “Glauber modeling in high-energy nuclear collisions”,  Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57 (2007) 205, 10.1146/annurev.nucl.57.090506.123020, arXiv:nucl-ex/0701025.
  * [25] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$”,  JINST 13 (2018) P06015, 10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/P06015, arXiv:1804.04528.
  * [26] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [27] 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.
  * [28] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [29] CMS Collaboration, “Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 4, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7499-4, arXiv:1903.12179.
  * [30] P. Nason et al., “Bottom production”, in  Workshop on Standard Model Physics (and more) at the LHC (First Plenary Meeting), p. 231.  1999\.  arXiv:hep-ph/0003142.
  * [31] I. P. Lokhtin and A. M. Snigirev, “A model of jet quenching in ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions and high-hadron spectra at RHIC”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 45 (2006) 211, 10.1140/epjc/s2005-02426-3, arXiv:hep-ph/0506189.
  * [32] GEANT Collaboration, “GEANT4 — A simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [33] M. Oreglia, “A Study of the Reactions $\psi^{\prime}\to\gamma\gamma\psi$”.  Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University, 1980.  Report SLAC-R-236.
  * [34] Particle Data Group Collaboration, “Review of Particle Physics”,  Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 030001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.030001.
  * [35] M. Pivk and F. R. Le Diberder, “sPlot: A statistical tool to unfold data distributions”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 555 (2005) 356, 10.1016/j.nima.2005.08.106, arXiv:physics/0402083.
  * [36] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in pp collision events at $\sqrt{s}=7$”,  JINST 7 (2012) P10002, 10.1088/1748-0221/7/10/P10002, arXiv:1206.4071.
  * [37] 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.
  * [38] 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.
  * [39] CMS Collaboration, “Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV”,  JINST 12 (2017) P02014, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/P02014, arXiv:1607.03663.
  * [40] P. Berta, M. Spousta, D. W. Miller, and R. Leitner, “Particle-level pileup subtraction for jets and jet shapes”,  JHEP 06 (2014) 092, 10.1007/JHEP06(2014)092, arXiv:1403.3108.
  * [41] G. D’Agostini, “A multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes’ theorem”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 362 (1995) 487, 10.1016/0168-9002(95)00274-X.
  * [42] T. Adye, “Unfolding algorithms and tests using RooUnfold”, in  PHYSTAT 2011 Workshop on Statistical Issues Related to Discovery Claims in Search Experiments and Unfolding, CERN Yellow Reports: Conference Proceedings, p. 313.  2011\.  arXiv:1105.1160.  10.5170/CERN-2011-006.313.
  * [43] CMS Collaboration, “Study of jet quenching with isolated-photon+jet correlations in PbPb and pp collisions at $\sqrt{s_{{}_{\mathrm{NN}}}}=$ 5.02 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 785 (2018) 14, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.07.061, arXiv:1711.09738.
  * [44] CMS Collaboration, “Luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at 5.02 TeV in 2017 at CMS”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-19-001, 2021.
  * [45] S. van der Meer, “Calibration of the effective beam height in the ISR”, Technical Report CERN-ISR-PO/68-31, 1968.
  * [46] C. Loizides, J. Kamin, and D. d’Enterria, “Improved Monte Carlo Glauber predictions at present and future nuclear colliders”,  Phys. Rev. C 97 (2018) 054910, 10.1103/PhysRevC.97.054910, arXiv:1710.07098. [Erratum: 10.1103/PhysRevC.99.019901].
  * [47] P. Caucal, E. Iancu, A. H. Mueller, and G. Soyez, “Vacuum-like jet fragmentation in a dense QCD medium”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 232001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.232001, arXiv:1801.09703.

##  .7 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A. Tumasyan Institut für Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, T. Bergauer, M. Dragicevic, J. Erö, A. Escalante Del Valle, R.
Frühwirth1, M. Jeitler1, N. Krammer, L. Lechner, D. Liko, T. Madlener, I.
Mikulec, F.M. Pitters, N. Rad, J. Schieck1, R. Schöfbeck, M. Spanring, S.
Templ, W. Waltenberger, C.-E. Wulz1, M. Zarucki Institute for Nuclear
Problems, Minsk, Belarus
V. Chekhovsky, A. Litomin, V. Makarenko, J. Suarez Gonzalez Universiteit
Antwerpen, Antwerpen, Belgium
M.R. Darwish2, E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, T. Kello3, A. Lelek, M.
Pieters, H. Rejeb Sfar, H. Van Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, S. Van Putte, N.
Van Remortel Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
F. Blekman, E.S. Bols, S.S. Chhibra, J. D’Hondt, J. De Clercq, D. Lontkovskyi,
S. Lowette, I. Marchesini, S. Moortgat, A. Morton, Q. Python, S. Tavernier, W.
Van Doninck Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
D. Beghin, B. Bilin, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, B. Dorney, L. Favart, A.
Grebenyuk, A.K. Kalsi, I. Makarenko, L. Moureaux, L. Pétré, A. Popov, N.
Postiau, E. Starling, L. Thomas, C. Vander Velde, P. Vanlaer, D. Vannerom, L.
Wezenbeek Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, M. Gruchala, I. Khvastunov4, M. Niedziela, C. Roskas,
K. Skovpen, M. Tytgat, W. Verbeke, B. Vermassen, M. Vit Université Catholique
de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
G. Bruno, F. Bury, C. Caputo, P. David, C. Delaere, M. Delcourt, I.S.
Donertas, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaitre, K. Mondal, J. Prisciandaro, A. Taliercio,
M. Teklishyn, P. Vischia, S. Wertz, S. Wuyckens, J. Zobec Centro Brasileiro de
Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
G.A. Alves, C. Hensel, A. Moraes Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil
W.L. Aldá Júnior, E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, H. BRANDAO MALBOUISSON, W.
Carvalho, J. Chinellato5, E. Coelho, E.M. Da Costa, G.G. Da Silveira6, D. De
Jesus Damiao, S. Fonseca De Souza, J. Martins7, D. Matos Figueiredo, M. Medina
Jaime8, C. Mora Herrera, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, P. Rebello Teles, L.J. Sanchez
Rosas, A. Santoro, S.M. Silva Do Amaral, A. Sznajder, M. Thiel, F. Torres Da
Silva De Araujo, A. Vilela Pereira Universidade Estadual Paulista a,
Universidade Federal do ABC b, São Paulo, Brazil
C.A. Bernardesa,a, L. Calligarisa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M.
Gregoresa,b, D.S. Lemosa, P.G. Mercadantea,b, S.F. Novaesa, Sandra S. Padulaa
Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of
Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, G. Antchev, I. Atanasov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, M.
Misheva, M. Rodozov, M. Shopova, G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia,
Bulgaria
M. Bonchev, A. Dimitrov, T. Ivanov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov, A. Petrov
Beihang University, Beijing, China
W. Fang3, Q. Guo, H. Wang, L. Yuan Department of Physics, Tsinghua University,
Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, Z. Hu, Y. Wang Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
E. Chapon, G.M. Chen9, H.S. Chen9, M. Chen, T. Javaid9, A. Kapoor, D. Leggat,
H. Liao, Z. Liu, R. Sharma, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, J. Thomas-wilsker, J. Wang, H.
Zhang, S. Zhang9, J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and
Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
A. Agapitos, Y. Ban, C. Chen, Q. Huang, A. Levin, Q. Li, M. Lu, X. Lyu, Y.
Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang, Q. Wang, J. Xiao Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou,
China
Z. You Institute of Modern Physics and Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and
Ion-beam Application (MOE) - Fudan University, Shanghai, China
X. Gao3 Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
M. Xiao Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, C. Florez, J. Fraga, A. Sarkar, M.A. Segura Delgado
Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia
J. Jaramillo, J. Mejia Guisao, F. Ramirez, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, C.A. Salazar
González, N. Vanegas Arbelaez University of Split, Faculty of Electrical
Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split, Croatia
D. Giljanovic, N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak, T. Sculac University of
Split, Faculty of Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, D. Majumder, M. Roguljic, A. Starodumov10, T. Susa
University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, E. Erodotou, A. Ioannou, G. Kole, M. Kolosova, S.
Konstantinou, G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos, P.A.
Razis, H. Rykaczewski, H. Saka, D. Tsiakkouri Charles University, Prague,
Czech Republic
M. Finger11, M. Finger Jr.11, A. Kveton, J. Tomsa Escuela Politecnica
Nacional, Quito, Ecuador
E. Ayala Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
E. Carrera Jarrin Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab
Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt
H. Abdalla12, Y. Assran13,14, A. Mohamed15 Center for High Energy Physics
(CHEP-FU), Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt
A. Lotfy, M.A. Mahmoud National Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics,
Tallinn, Estonia
S. Bhowmik, A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveira, R.K. Dewanjee, K. Ehataht, M.
Kadastik, M. Raidal, C. Veelken Department of Physics, University of Helsinki,
Helsinki, Finland
P. Eerola, L. Forthomme, H. Kirschenmann, K. Osterberg, M. Voutilainen
Helsinki Institute of Physics, Helsinki, Finland
E. Brücken, F. Garcia, J. Havukainen, V. Karimäki, M.S. Kim, R. Kinnunen, T.
Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Laurila, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, H. Siikonen, E.
Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta,
Finland
P. Luukka, T. Tuuva IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
C. Amendola, 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,
B. Lenzi, E. Locci, J. Malcles, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M.Ö. Sahin, A. Savoy-
Navarro16, M. Titov, G.B. Yu Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, CNRS/IN2P3, Ecole
Polytechnique, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Palaiseau, France
S. Ahuja, F. Beaudette, M. Bonanomi, A. Buchot Perraguin, P. Busson, C.
Charlot, O. Davignon, B. Diab, G. Falmagne, R. Granier de Cassagnac, A.
Hakimi, I. Kucher, A. Lobanov, C. Martin Perez, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, P.
Paganini, J. Rembser, R. Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A. Zabi, A. Zghiche
Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram17, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, G. Bourgatte, J.-M. Brom, E.C. Chabert, C.
Collard, J.-C. Fontaine17, D. Gelé, U. Goerlach, C. Grimault, A.-C. Le Bihan,
P. Van Hove Institut de Physique des 2 Infinis de Lyon (IP2I ), Villeurbanne,
France
E. Asilar, S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, C. Camen, A. Carle, N. Chanon,
D. Contardo, P. Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, B.
Ille, Sa. Jain, I.B. Laktineh, H. Lattaud, A. Lesauvage, M. Lethuillier, L.
Mirabito, L. Torterotot, G. Touquet, M. Vander Donckt, S. Viret Georgian
Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
T. Toriashvili18, Z. Tsamalaidze11 RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches
Institut, Aachen, Germany
L. Feld, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, D. Meuser, A. Pauls, M. Preuten, M.P. Rauch,
J. Schulz, M. Teroerde RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A,
Aachen, Germany
D. Eliseev, M. Erdmann, P. Fackeldey, B. Fischer, S. Ghosh, T. Hebbeker, K.
Hoepfner, H. Keller, L. Mastrolorenzo, M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, G. Mocellin,
S. Mondal, S. Mukherjee, D. Noll, A. Novak, T. Pook, A. Pozdnyakov, T. Quast,
Y. Rath, H. Reithler, J. Roemer, A. Schmidt, S.C. Schuler, A. Sharma, S.
Wiedenbeck, S. Zaleski RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut B,
Aachen, Germany
C. Dziwok, G. Flügge, W. Haj Ahmad19, O. Hlushchenko, T. Kress, A. Nowack, C.
Pistone, O. Pooth, D. Roy, H. Sert, A. Stahl20, T. Ziemons Deutsches
Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
H. Aarup Petersen, M. Aldaya Martin, P. Asmuss, I. Babounikau, S. Baxter, O.
Behnke, A. Bermúdez Martínez, A.A. Bin Anuar, K. Borras21, V. Botta, D.
Brunner, A. Campbell, A. Cardini, P. Connor, S. Consuegra Rodríguez, V.
Danilov, A. De Wit, M.M. Defranchis, L. Didukh, D. Domínguez Damiani, G.
Eckerlin, D. Eckstein, T. Eichhorn, L.I. Estevez Banos, E. Gallo22, A. Geiser,
A. Giraldi, A. Grohsjean, M. Guthoff, A. Harb, A. Jafari23, N.Z. Jomhari, H.
Jung, A. Kasem21, M. Kasemann, H. Kaveh, C. Kleinwort, J. Knolle, D. Krücker,
W. Lange, T. Lenz, J. Lidrych, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann24, R. Mankel, I.-A.
Melzer-Pellmann, J. Metwally, A.B. Meyer, M. Meyer, M. Missiroli, J. Mnich, A.
Mussgiller, V. Myronenko, Y. Otarid, D. Pérez Adán, S.K. Pflitsch, D. Pitzl,
A. Raspereza, A. Saggio, A. Saibel, M. Savitskyi, V. Scheurer, C.
Schwanenberger, A. Singh, R.E. Sosa Ricardo, N. Tonon, O. Turkot, A.
Vagnerini, M. Van De Klundert, R. Walsh, D. Walter, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C.
Wissing, S. Wuchterl, O. Zenaiev, R. Zlebcik University of Hamburg, Hamburg,
Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, L. Benato, A. Benecke, K. De Leo, T. Dreyer, A.
Ebrahimi, M. Eich, F. Feindt, A. Fröhlich, C. Garbers, E. Garutti, P.
Gunnellini, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, A. Karavdina, G. Kasieczka, R. Klanner, R.
Kogler, V. Kutzner, J. Lange, T. Lange, A. Malara, C.E.N. Niemeyer, A.
Nigamova, K.J. Pena Rodriguez, O. Rieger, P. Schleper, S. Schumann, J.
Schwandt, D. Schwarz, J. Sonneveld, H. Stadie, G. Steinbrück, B. Vormwald, I.
Zoi Karlsruher Institut fuer Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany
S. Baur, J. Bechtel, T. Berger, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, W. De Boer,
A. Dierlamm, A. Droll, K. El Morabit, N. Faltermann, K. Flöh, M. Giffels, A.
Gottmann, F. Hartmann20, C. Heidecker, U. Husemann, M.A. Iqbal, I. Katkov25,
P. Keicher, R. Koppenhöfer, S. Maier, M. Metzler, S. Mitra, D. Müller, Th.
Müller, M. Musich, G. Quast, K. Rabbertz, J. Rauser, D. Savoiu, D. Schäfer, M.
Schnepf, M. Schröder, D. Seith, I. Shvetsov, H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, M.
Wassmer, M. Weber, R. Wolf, S. Wozniewski Institute of Nuclear and Particle
Physics (INPP), NCSR Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
G. Anagnostou, P. Asenov, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas,
G. Paspalaki, A. Stakia National and Kapodistrian University of Athens,
Athens, Greece
M. Diamantopoulou, D. Karasavvas, G. Karathanasis, P. Kontaxakis, C.K. Koraka,
A. Manousakis-katsikakis, A. Panagiotou, I. Papavergou, N. Saoulidou, K.
Theofilatos, K. Vellidis, E. Vourliotis National Technical University of
Athens, Athens, Greece
G. Bakas, K. Kousouris, I. Papakrivopoulos, G. Tsipolitis, A. Zacharopoulou
University of Ioánnina, Ioánnina, Greece
I. Evangelou, C. Foudas, P. Gianneios, P. Katsoulis, P. Kokkas, S. Mallios, K.
Manitara, N. Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, J. Strologas MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS
Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest,
Hungary
M. Bartók26, R. Chudasama, M. Csanad, M.M.A. Gadallah27, S. Lökös28, P. Major,
K. Mandal, A. Mehta, G. Pasztor, O. Surányi, G.I. Veres Wigner Research Centre
for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath29, F. Sikler, V. Veszpremi, G.
Vesztergombi${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$ Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI,
Debrecen, Hungary
S. Czellar, J. Karancsi26, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi, D. Teyssier Institute of
Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari Karoly Robert Campus, MATE Institute of
Technology
T. Csorgo, F. Nemes, T. Novak Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore,
India
S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri, D. Kumar, L. Panwar, P.C. Tiwari National
Institute of Science Education and Research, HBNI, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati30, D. Dash, C. Kar, P. Mal, T. Mishra, V.K. Muraleedharan Nair
Bindhu, A. Nayak31, D.K. Sahoo30, N. Sur, S.K. Swain Panjab University,
Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, S. Chauhan, N. Dhingra32, R. Gupta, A.
Kaur, S. Kaur, P. Kumari, M. Meena, K. Sandeep, S. Sharma, J.B. Singh, A.K.
Virdi University of Delhi, Delhi, India
A. Ahmed, A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, M. Gola, S. Keshri, A.
Kumar, M. Naimuddin, P. Priyanka, K. Ranjan, A. Shah Saha Institute of Nuclear
Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India
M. Bharti33, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, D. Bhowmik, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh,
B. Gomber34, M. Maity35, S. Nandan, P. Palit, P.K. Rout, G. Saha, S. Sarkar,
M. Sharan, B. Singh33, S. Thakur33 Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Madras, India
P.K. Behera, S.C. Behera, P. Kalbhor, A. Muhammad, R. Pradhan, P.R. Pujahari,
A. Sharma, A.K. Sikdar Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
D. Dutta, V. Kumar, K. Naskar36, P.K. Netrakanti, L.M. Pant, P. Shukla Tata
Institute of Fundamental Research-A, Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, M.A. Bhat, S. Dugad, R. Kumar Verma, G.B. Mohanty, U. Sarkar Tata
Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, M. Guchait, S. Karmakar, S.
Kumar, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, S. Mukherjee, D. Roy Indian Institute of
Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, India
S. Dube, B. Kansal, S. Pandey, A. Rane, A. Rastogi, S. Sharma Department of
Physics, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
H. Bakhshiansohi37, M. Zeinali38 Institute for Research in Fundamental
Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran
S. Chenarani39, S.M. Etesami, M. Khakzad, M. Mohammadi Najafabadi University
College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
M. Felcini, M. Grunewald INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b,
Politecnico di Bari c, Bari, Italy
M. Abbresciaa,b, R. Alya,b,40, C. Arutaa,b, A. Colaleoa, D. Creanzaa,c, N. De
Filippisa,c, M. De Palmaa,b, A. Di Florioa,b, A. Di Pilatoa,b, W.
Elmetenaweea,b, L. Fiorea, A. Gelmia,b, M. Gula, G. Iasellia,c, M. Incea,b, S.
Lezkia,b, G. Maggia,c, M. Maggia, I. Margjekaa,b, V. Mastrapasquaa,b, J.A.
Merlina, S. Mya,b, S. Nuzzoa,b, A. Pompilia,b, G. Pugliesea,c, A. Ranieria, G.
Selvaggia,b, L. Silvestrisa, F.M. Simonea,b, R. Vendittia, P. Verwilligena
INFN Sezione di Bologna a, Università di Bologna b, Bologna, Italy
G. Abbiendia, C. Battilanaa,b, D. Bonacorsia,b, L. Borgonovia, S. Braibant-
Giacomellia,b, R. Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A. Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa,
M. Cuffiania,b, G.M. Dallavallea, T. Diotalevia,b, F. Fabbria, A. Fanfania,b,
E. Fontanesia,b, P. Giacomellia, L. Giommia,b, C. Grandia, L. Guiduccia,b, F.
Iemmia,b, S. Lo Meoa,41, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, 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,42, S. Costaa,b,42, A. Di Mattiaa, R. Potenzaa,b, A.
Tricomia,b,42, C. Tuvea,b INFN Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b,
Firenze, Italy
G. Barbaglia, A. Cassesea, R. Ceccarellia,b, V. Ciullia,b, C. Civininia, R.
D’Alessandroa,b, F. Fioria, E. Focardia,b, G. Latinoa,b, P. Lenzia,b, M.
Lizzoa,b, M. Meschinia, S. Paolettia, R. Seiditaa,b, G. Sguazzonia, L.
Viliania INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, D. Piccolo INFN Sezione di Genova a, Università di
Genova b, Genova, Italy
M. Bozzoa,b, F. Ferroa, R. Mulargiaa,b, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia,b INFN Sezione
di Milano-Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, Italy
A. Benagliaa, A. Beschia,b, F. Brivioa,b, F. Cetorellia,b, V. Cirioloa,b,20,
F. De Guioa,b, M.E. Dinardoa,b, P. Dinia, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P.
Govonia,b, L. Guzzia,b, M. Malbertia, S. Malvezzia, D. Menascea, F. Montia,b,
L. Moronia, M. Paganonia,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Ragazzia,b, T. Tabarelli de
Fatisa,b, D. Valsecchia,b,20, D. Zuoloa,b INFN Sezione di Napoli a, Università
di Napoli ’Federico II’ b, Napoli, Italy, Università della Basilicata c,
Potenza, Italy, Università G. Marconi d, Roma, Italy
S. Buontempoa, N. Cavalloa,c, A. De Iorioa,b, F. Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa,
A.O.M. Iorioa,b, L. Listaa,b, S. Meolaa,d,20, P. Paoluccia,20, B. Rossia, C.
Sciaccaa,b, E. Voevodinaa,b INFN Sezione di Padova a, Università di Padova b,
Padova, Italy, Università di Trento c, Trento, Italy
P. Azzia, N. Bacchettaa, D. Biselloa,b, A. Bolettia,b, P. Bortignona, A.
Bragagnoloa,b, R. Carlina,b, P. Checchiaa, P. De Castro Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa,
F. Gasparinia,b, U. Gasparinia,b, S.Y. Hoha,b, L. Layera,43, M. Margonia,b,
A.T. Meneguzzoa,b, M. Presillaa,b, P. Ronchesea,b, R. Rossina,b, F.
Simonettoa,b, G. Stronga, A. Tikoa, M. Tosia,b, H. YARARa,b, M. Zanettia,b, P.
Zottoa,b, A. Zucchettaa,b, G. Zumerlea,b INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università
di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
C. Aime‘a,b, A. Braghieria, S. Calzaferria,b, D. Fiorinaa,b, P. Montagnaa,b,
S.P. Rattia,b, V. Rea, M. Ressegottia,b, C. Riccardia,b, P. Salvinia, I. Vaia,
P. Vituloa,b INFN Sezione di Perugia a, Università di Perugia b, Perugia,
Italy
M. Biasinia,b, G.M. Bileia, D. Ciangottinia,b, L. Fanòa,b, P. Laricciaa,b, G.
Mantovania,b, V. Mariania,b, M. Menichellia, F. Moscatellia, A. Piccinellia,b,
A. Rossia,b, A. Santocchiaa,b, D. Spigaa, T. Tedeschia,b INFN Sezione di Pisa
a, Università di Pisa b, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa c, Pisa Italy,
Università di Siena d, Siena, Italy
K. Androsova, P. Azzurria, G. Bagliesia, V. Bertacchia,c, L. Bianchinia, T.
Boccalia, R. Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, M.R. Di Domenicoa,d, S.
Donatoa, L. Gianninia,c, A. Giassia, M.T. Grippoa, F. Ligabuea,c, E. Mancaa,c,
G. Mandorlia,c, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, G. Ramirez-Sancheza,c, A. Rizzia,b,
G. Rolandia,c, S. Roy Chowdhurya,c, A. Scribanoa, N. Shafieia,b, P. Spagnoloa,
R. Tenchinia, G. Tonellia,b, N. Turinia,d, A. Venturia, P.G. Verdinia INFN
Sezione di Roma a, Sapienza Università di Roma b, Rome, Italy
F. Cavallaria, M. Cipriania,b, D. Del Rea,b, E. Di Marcoa, M. Diemoza, E.
Longoa,b, P. Meridiania, G. Organtinia,b, F. Pandolfia, R. Paramattia,b, C.
Quarantaa,b, S. Rahatloua,b, C. Rovellia, F. Santanastasioa,b, L. Soffia,b, R.
Tramontanoa,b INFN Sezione di Torino a, Università di Torino b, Torino, Italy,
Università del Piemonte Orientale c, Novara, Italy
N. Amapanea,b, R. Arcidiaconoa,c, S. Argiroa,b, M. Arneodoa,c, N. Bartosika,
R. Bellana,b, A. Belloraa,b, C. Biinoa, A. Cappatia,b, N. Cartigliaa, S.
Comettia, M. Costaa,b, R. Covarellia,b, N. Demariaa, B. Kiania,b, F. Leggera,
C. Mariottia, S. Masellia, E. Migliorea,b, V. Monacoa,b, E. Monteila,b, M.
Montenoa, M.M. Obertinoa,b, G. Ortonaa, L. Pachera,b, N. Pastronea, M.
Pelliccionia, G.L. Pinna Angionia,b, M. Ruspaa,c, R. Salvaticoa,b, F.
Sivieroa,b, V. Solaa, A. Solanoa,b, D. Soldia,b, A. Staianoa, D. Trocinoa,b
INFN Sezione di Trieste a, Università di Trieste b, Trieste, Italy
S. Belfortea, V. Candelisea,b, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, A. Da Rolda,b, G.
Della Riccaa,b, F. Vazzolera,b Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea
S. Dogra, C. Huh, B. Kim, D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, J. Lee, S.W. Lee, C.S. Moon,
Y.D. Oh, S.I. Pak, B.C. Radburn-Smith, S. Sekmen, Y.C. Yang Chonnam National
University, Institute for Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju, Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
B. Francois, T.J. Kim, J. Park Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, S. Ha, B. Hong, K. Lee, K.S. Lee, J. Lim, J. Park,
S.K. Park, J. Yoo Kyung Hee University, Department of Physics, Seoul, Republic
of Korea
J. Goh, A. Gurtu Sejong University, Seoul, Korea
H.S. Kim, Y. Kim Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J.H. Bhyun, J. Choi, S. Jeon, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, S. Ko, H. Kwon, H.
Lee, K. Lee, S. Lee, K. Nam, B.H. Oh, M. Oh, S.B. Oh, H. Seo, U.K. Yang, I.
Yoon University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea
D. Jeon, J.H. Kim, B. Ko, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park, Y. Roh, D. Song, I.J. Watson
Yonsei University, Department of Physics, Seoul, Korea
H.D. Yoo Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, C. Hwang, Y. Jeong, H. Lee, Y. Lee, I. Yu College of Engineering and
Technology, American University of the Middle East (AUM), Egaila, Kuwait
Y. Maghrbi Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
V. Veckalns44 Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
A. Juodagalvis, A. Rinkevicius, G. Tamulaitis National Centre for Particle
Physics, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
W.A.T. Wan Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli Universidad de Sonora (UNISON),
Hermosillo, Mexico
J.F. Benitez, A. Castaneda Hernandez, J.A. Murillo Quijada, L. Valencia Palomo
Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
G. Ayala, H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, I. Heredia-De La Cruz45,
R. Lopez-Fernandez, C.A. Mondragon Herrera, D.A. Perez Navarro, A. Sanchez-
Hernandez Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City, Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, M. Ramirez-Garcia, F. Vazquez Valencia
Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
J. Eysermans, I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada Universidad
Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, Mexico
A. Morelos Pineda University of Montenegro, Podgorica, Montenegro
J. Mijuskovic4, N. Raicevic University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
S. Bheesette, P.H. Butler National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam
University, Islamabad, Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M.I. Asghar, M.I.M. Awan, H.R. Hoorani, W.A. Khan, M.A. Shah, M.
Shoaib, M. Waqas AGH University of Science and Technology Faculty of Computer
Science, Electronics and Telecommunications, Krakow, Poland
V. Avati, L. Grzanka, M. Malawski National Centre for Nuclear Research,
Swierk, Poland
H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, T. Frueboes, M. Górski, M. Kazana, M.
Szleper, P. Traczyk, P. Zalewski Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of
Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk46, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J.
Krolikowski, M. Olszewski, M. Walczak Laboratório de Instrumentação e Física
Experimental de Partículas, Lisboa, Portugal
M. Araujo, P. Bargassa, D. Bastos, P. Faccioli, M. Gallinaro, J. Hollar, N.
Leonardo, T. Niknejad, J. Seixas, K. Shchelina, 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. Matveev47,48, P. Moisenz, V. Palichik,
V. Perelygin, M. Savina, V. Shalaev, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, V. Smirnov, O.
Teryaev, N. Voytishin, B.S. Yuldashev49, A. Zarubin, I. Zhizhin Petersburg
Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg), Russia
G. Gavrilov, V. Golovtcov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim50, E. Kuznetsova51, V. Murzin, V.
Oreshkin, I. Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Volkov, A. Vorobyev
Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, M. Kirsanov,
N. Krasnikov, A. Pashenkov, G. Pivovarov, D.
Tlisov${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, A. Toropin Institute for Theoretical and
Experimental Physics named by A.I. Alikhanov of NRC ‘Kurchatov Institute’,
Moscow, Russia
V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, A. Nikitenko52, V. Popov, G.
Safronov, A. Spiridonov, A. Stepennov, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A. Zhokin Moscow
Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
O. Bychkova, M. Chadeeva53, D. Philippov, E. Popova, V. Rusinov P.N. Lebedev
Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin, I. Dremin, M. Kirakosyan, A. Terkulov Skobeltsyn
Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow,
Russia
A. Belyaev, E. Boos, A. Demiyanov, A. Ershov, A. Gribushin, O. Kodolova, V.
Korotkikh, I. Lokhtin, S. Obraztsov, S. Petrushanko, V. Savrin, A. Snigirev,
I. Vardanyan Novosibirsk State University (NSU), Novosibirsk, Russia
V. Blinov54, T. Dimova54, L. Kardapoltsev54, I. Ovtin54, Y. Skovpen54
Institute for High Energy Physics of National Research Centre ‘Kurchatov
Institute’, Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, V. Kachanov, A. Kalinin, D. Konstantinov, V. Petrov,
R. Ryutin, A. Sobol, S. Troshin, N. Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov National
Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia
A. Babaev, A. Iuzhakov, V. Okhotnikov, L. Sukhikh Tomsk State University,
Tomsk, Russia
V. Borchsh, V. Ivanchenko, E. Tcherniaev University of Belgrade: Faculty of
Physics and VINCA Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic55, P. Cirkovic, M. Dordevic, P. Milenovic, J. Milosevic Centro de
Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid,
Spain
M. Aguilar-Benitez, J. Alcaraz Maestre, A. Álvarez Fernández, I. Bachiller, M.
Barrio Luna, Cristina F. Bedoya, J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, C.A. Carrillo
Montoya, M. Cepeda, M. Cerrada, N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris,
J.P. Fernández Ramos, J. Flix, M.C. Fouz, A. García Alonso, O. Gonzalez Lopez,
S. Goy Lopez, J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa, J. León Holgado, D. Moran, Á. Navarro
Tobar, A. Pérez-Calero Yzquierdo, J. Puerta Pelayo, I. Redondo, L. Romero, S.
Sánchez Navas, M.S. Soares, A. Triossi, L. Urda Gómez, C. Willmott Universidad
Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
C. Albajar, J.F. de Trocóniz, R. Reyes-Almanza Universidad de Oviedo,
Instituto Universitario de Ciencias y Tecnologías Espaciales de Asturias
(ICTEA), Oviedo, Spain
B. Alvarez Gonzalez, J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, S. Folgueras,
I. Gonzalez Caballero, E. Palencia Cortezon, C. Ramón Álvarez, J. Ripoll Sau,
V. Rodríguez Bouza, S. Sanchez Cruz, A. Trapote 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, G. Gomez, C. Martinez Rivero, P. Martinez
Ruiz del Arbol, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, C. Prieels, F. Ricci-Tam, T.
Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno, L. Scodellaro, I. Vila, J.M. Vizan Garcia University
of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka
MK Jayananda, B. Kailasapathy56, D.U.J. Sonnadara, DDC Wickramarathna
University of Ruhuna, Department of Physics, Matara, Sri Lanka
W.G.D. Dharmaratna, K. Liyanage, N. Perera, N. Wickramage CERN, European
Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, D. Abbaneo, B. Akgun, E. Auffray, G. Auzinger, J. Baechler, P.
Baillon, A.H. Ball, D. Barney, J. Bendavid, N. Beni, M. Bianco, A. Bocci, E.
Bossini, E. Brondolin, T. Camporesi, G. Cerminara, L. Cristella, D.
d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, N. Daci, V. Daponte, A. David, A. De Roeck, M.
Deile, R. Di Maria, M. Dobson, M. Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, N.
Emriskova, F. Fallavollita57, D. Fasanella, S. Fiorendi, A. Florent, G.
Franzoni, J. Fulcher, W. Funk, S. Giani, D. Gigi, K. Gill, F. Glege, L.
Gouskos, M. Guilbaud, D. Gulhan, M. Haranko, J. Hegeman, Y. Iiyama, V.
Innocente, T. James, P. Janot, J. Kaspar, J. Kieseler, M. Komm, N. Kratochwil,
C. Lange, P. Lecoq, K. Long, C. Lourenço, L. Malgeri, M. Mannelli, A.
Massironi, F. Meijers, S. Mersi, E. Meschi, F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, J.
Ngadiuba, J. Niedziela, S. Orfanelli, L. Orsini, F. Pantaleo20, L. Pape, E.
Perez, M. Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, D.
Rabady, A. Racz, M. Rieger, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, S.
Scarfi, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva, W. Snoeys,
P. Sphicas58, J. Steggemann, S. Summers, V.R. Tavolaro, D. Treille, A. Tsirou,
G.P. Van Onsem, A. Vartak, M. Verzetti, K.A. Wozniak, W.D. Zeuner Paul
Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland
L. Caminada59, W. Erdmann, R. Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C. Kaestli, D.
Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, T. Rohe ETH Zurich - Institute for Particle Physics
and Astrophysics (IPA), Zurich, Switzerland
M. Backhaus, P. Berger, A. Calandri, N. Chernyavskaya, A. De Cosa, G.
Dissertori, M. Dittmar, M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, T. Gadek, T.A. Gómez Espinosa,
C. Grab, D. Hits, W. Lustermann, A.-M. Lyon, R.A. Manzoni, M.T. Meinhard, F.
Micheli, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, F. Pauss, V. Perovic, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, S.
Pigazzini, M.G. Ratti, M. Reichmann, C. Reissel, T. Reitenspiess, B. Ristic,
D. Ruini, D.A. Sanz Becerra, M. Schönenberger, V. Stampf, M.L. Vesterbacka
Olsson, R. Wallny, D.H. Zhu Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
C. Amsler60, C. Botta, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, R. Del Burgo, J.K.
Heikkilä, M. Huwiler, A. Jofrehei, B. Kilminster, S. Leontsinis, A. Macchiolo,
P. Meiring, V.M. Mikuni, U. Molinatti, I. Neutelings, G. Rauco, A. Reimers, P.
Robmann, K. Schweiger, Y. Takahashi National Central University, Chung-Li,
Taiwan
C. Adloff61, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A. Roy, T. Sarkar35, S.S. Yu National Taiwan
University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
L. Ceard, P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, W.-S. Hou, Y.y. Li, R.-S.
Lu, E. Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen, E. Yazgan Chulalongkorn University,
Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok, Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, N. Srimanobhas Çukurova University,
Physics Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
F. Boran, S. Damarseckin62, Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, C. Dozen63, I.
Dumanoglu64, E. Eskut, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, E. Gurpinar Guler65, I. Hos66,
C. Isik, E.E. Kangal67, O. Kara, A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, G. Onengut, K.
Ozdemir68, A. Polatoz, A.E. Simsek, B. Tali69, U.G. Tok, S. Turkcapar, I.S.
Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East Technical University, Physics Department,
Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak70, G. Karapinar71, K. Ocalan72, M. Yalvac73 Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya74, O. Kaya75, Ö. Özçelik, S. Tekten76, E.A.
Yetkin77 Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
A. Cakir, K. Cankocak64, Y. Komurcu, S. Sen78 Istanbul University, Istanbul,
Turkey
F. Aydogmus Sen, S. Cerci69, B. Kaynak, S. Ozkorucuklu, D. Sunar Cerci69
Institute for Scintillation Materials of National Academy of Science of
Ukraine, Kharkov, Ukraine
B. Grynyov National Scientific Center, Kharkov Institute of Physics and
Technology, Kharkov, Ukraine
L. Levchuk University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
E. Bhal, S. Bologna, J.J. Brooke, E. Clement, D. Cussans, H. Flacher, J.
Goldstein, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, B. Krikler, S. Paramesvaran, T.
Sakuma, S. Seif El Nasr-Storey, V.J. Smith, J. Taylor, A. Titterton Rutherford
Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev79, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, D.J.A. Cockerill, K.V. Ellis, K.
Harder, S. Harper, J. Linacre, K. Manolopoulos, D.M. Newbold, E. Olaiya, D.
Petyt, T. Reis, T. Schuh, C.H. Shepherd-Themistocleous, A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin,
T. Williams Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, S. Bonomally, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A.
Bundock, V. Cepaitis, G.S. Chahal80, D. Colling, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M.
Della Negra, G. Fedi, G. Hall, G. Iles, J. Langford, L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan,
S. Malik, A. Martelli, V. Milosevic, J. Nash81, V. Palladino, M. Pesaresi,
D.M. Raymond, A. Richards, A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A. Shtipliyski, M.
Stoye, A. Tapper, K. Uchida, T. Virdee20, N. Wardle, S.N. Webb, D.
Winterbottom, A.G. Zecchinelli Brunel University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, C.K. Mackay, I.D. Reid, L.
Teodorescu, S. Zahid Baylor University, Waco, USA
A. Brinkerhoff, K. Call, B. Caraway, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, A.R.
Kanuganti, C. Madrid, B. McMaster, N. Pastika, S. Sawant, C. Smith, J. Wilson
Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez, R. Uniyal, A.M. Vargas Hernandez The University of
Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
A. Buccilli, O. Charaf, S.I. Cooper, S.V. Gleyzer, C. Henderson, P. Rumerio,
C. West Boston University, Boston, USA
A. Akpinar, A. Albert, D. Arcaro, C. Cosby, Z. Demiragli, D. Gastler, J.
Rohlf, K. Salyer, D. Sperka, D. Spitzbart, I. Suarez, S. Yuan, D. Zou Brown
University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, B. Burkle, X. Coubez21, D. Cutts, Y.t. Duh, M. Hadley, U. Heintz,
J.M. Hogan82, K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, K.T. Lau, J. Lee, M.
Narain, S. Sagir83, R. Syarif, E. Usai, W.Y. Wong, D. Yu, W. Zhang University
of California, Davis, Davis, USA
R. Band, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez, M. Chertok,
J. Conway, R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, G. Funk, F. Jensen, W.
Ko${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, O. Kukral, R. Lander, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett,
J. Pilot, M. Shi, D. Taylor, K. Tos, M. Tripathi, Y. Yao, F. Zhang University
of California, Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, D. Hamilton, J. Hauser, M. Ignatenko, T.
Lam, N. Mccoll, W.A. Nash, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg, C. Schnaible, B. Stone,
V. Valuev University of California, Riverside, Riverside, USA
K. Burt, Y. Chen, R. Clare, J.W. Gary, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi, G. Hanson, G.
Karapostoli, O.R. Long, N. Manganelli, M. Olmedo Negrete, M.I. Paneva, W. Si,
S. Wimpenny, Y. Zhang University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, P. Chang, S. Cittolin, S. Cooperstein, N. Deelen, J. Duarte, R.
Gerosa, D. Gilbert, V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, M. Masciovecchio, S. May, S.
Padhi, M. Pieri, V. Sharma, M. Tadel, F. Würthwein, A. Yagil University of
California, Santa Barbara - Department of Physics, Santa Barbara, USA
N. Amin, C. Campagnari, M. Citron, A. Dorsett, V. Dutta, J. Incandela, B.
Marsh, H. Mei, A. Ovcharova, H. Qu, M. Quinnan, J. Richman, U. Sarica, D.
Stuart, S. Wang California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
D. Anderson, A. Bornheim, O. Cerri, I. Dutta, J.M. Lawhorn, N. Lu, J. Mao,
H.B. Newman, T.Q. Nguyen, J. Pata, M. Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, S. Xie, Z.
Zhang, R.Y. Zhu Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
J. Alison, M.B. Andrews, T. Ferguson, T. Mudholkar, M. Paulini, M. Sun, I.
Vorobiev University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, E. MacDonald, T. Mulholland, R. Patel, A. Perloff, K.
Stenson, K.A. Ulmer, S.R. Wagner Cornell University, Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, Y. Cheng, J. Chu, D.J. Cranshaw, A. Datta, A. Frankenthal, K.
Mcdermott, J. Monroy, J.R. Patterson, D. Quach, A. Ryd, W. Sun, S.M. Tan, Z.
Tao, J. Thom, P. Wittich, M. Zientek Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
Batavia, USA
S. Abdullin, M. Albrow, M. Alyari, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S.
Banerjee, L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas, D. Berry, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, K.
Burkett, J.N. Butler, A. Canepa, G.B. Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M.
Cremonesi, V.D. Elvira, J. Freeman, Z. Gecse, E. Gottschalk, L. Gray, D.
Green, S. Grünendahl, O. Gutsche, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, R. Heller, T.C.
Herwig, J. Hirschauer, B. Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, P.
Klabbers, T. Klijnsma, B. Klima, M.J. Kortelainen, S. Lammel, D. Lincoln, R.
Lipton, M. Liu, T. Liu, J. Lykken, K. Maeshima, D. Mason, P. McBride, P.
Merkel, S. Mrenna, S. Nahn, V. O’Dell, V. Papadimitriou, K. Pedro, C. Pena84,
O. Prokofyev, F. Ravera, A. Reinsvold Hall, L. Ristori, B. Schneider, E.
Sexton-Kennedy, N. Smith, A. Soha, W.J. Spalding, L. Spiegel, S. Stoynev, J.
Strait, L. Taylor, S. Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran, L. Uplegger, E.W. Vaandering, H.A.
Weber, A. Woodard University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, D. Bourilkov, L. Cadamuro, V. Cherepanov, F. Errico, R.D.
Field, D. Guerrero, B.M. Joshi, M. Kim, J. Konigsberg, A. Korytov, K.H. Lo, K.
Matchev, N. Menendez, G. Mitselmakher, D. Rosenzweig, K. Shi, J. Sturdy, J.
Wang, S. Wang, X. Zuo Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
T. Adams, A. Askew, D. Diaz, R. Habibullah, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F.
Johnson, R. Khurana, T. Kolberg, G. Martinez, H. Prosper, C. Schiber, R.
Yohay, J. Zhang Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, S. Butalla, T. Elkafrawy85, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, M. Rahmani,
M. Saunders, F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago, USA
M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, H. Becerril Gonzalez, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, S.
Dittmer, O. Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, C. Mills, G. Oh,
T. Roy, M.B. Tonjes, N. Varelas, J. Viinikainen, X. Wang, Z. Wu The University
of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, K. Dilsiz86, S. Durgut, R.P. Gandrajula, M. Haytmyradov, V.
Khristenko, O.K. Köseyan, J.-P. Merlo, A. Mestvirishvili87, A. Moeller, J.
Nachtman, H. Ogul88, Y. Onel, F. Ozok89, A. Penzo, C. Snyder, E. Tiras, J.
Wetzel, K. Yi90 Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
O. Amram, B. Blumenfeld, L. Corcodilos, M. Eminizer, A.V. Gritsan, S.
Kyriacou, P. Maksimovic, C. Mantilla, J. Roskes, M. Swartz, T.Á. Vámi The
University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA
C. Baldenegro Barrera, P. Baringer, A. Bean, A. Bylinkin, T. Isidori, S.
Khalil, J. King, G. Krintiras, A. Kropivnitskaya, C. Lindsey, N. Minafra, M.
Murray, C. Rogan, C. Royon, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q.
Wang, J. Williams, G. Wilson Kansas State University, Manhattan, USA
S. Duric, A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, D. Kim, Y. Maravin, T. Mitchell, A. Modak, A.
Mohammadi Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright University of Maryland, College Park, USA
E. Adams, A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, S.C. Eno, Y. Feng, N.J. Hadley, S.
Jabeen, G.Y. Jeng, R.G. Kellogg, T. Koeth, A.C. Mignerey, S. Nabili, M.
Seidel, A. Skuja, S.C. Tonwar, L. Wang, K. Wong Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, R. Bi, S. Brandt, W. Busza, I.A. Cali, Y. Chen, M.
D’Alfonso, G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov, P. Harris, D. Hsu, M. Hu, M.
Klute, D. Kovalskyi, J. Krupa, Y.-J. Lee, P.D. Luckey, B. Maier, A.C. Marini,
C. Mcginn, C. Mironov, S. Narayanan, X. Niu, C. Paus, D. Rankin, C. Roland, G.
Roland, Z. Shi, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Sumorok, K. Tatar, D. Velicanu, J. Wang,
T.W. Wang, Z. Wang, B. Wyslouch University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, S. Guts${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, P. Hansen, J.
Hiltbrand, Sh. Jain, M. Krohn, Y. Kubota, Z. Lesko, J. Mans, M. Revering, R.
Rusack, R. Saradhy, N. Schroeder, N. Strobbe, M.A. Wadud University of
Mississippi, Oxford, USA
J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
K. Bloom, S. Chauhan, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, L. Finco, F. Golf, J.R.
González Fernández, I. Kravchenko, J.E. Siado, G.R.
Snow${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, B. Stieger, W. Tabb, F. Yan State University
of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
G. Agarwal, H. Bandyopadhyay, C. Harrington, L. Hay, I. Iashvili, A.
Kharchilava, C. McLean, D. Nguyen, J. Pekkanen, S. Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani
Northeastern University, Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, Y. Haddad, A. Hortiangtham, J. Li, G.
Madigan, B. Marzocchi, D.M. Morse, V. Nguyen, T. Orimoto, A. Parker, L.
Skinnari, A. Tishelman-Charny, T. Wamorkar, B. Wang, A. Wisecarver, D. Wood
Northwestern University, Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, J. Bueghly, Z. Chen, A. Gilbert, T. Gunter, K.A. Hahn, N.
Odell, M.H. Schmitt, K. Sung, M. Velasco University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame,
USA
R. Bucci, N. Dev, R. Goldouzian, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop,
D.J. Karmgard, K. Lannon, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, I. Mcalister, F. Meng, K.
Mohrman, Y. Musienko47, R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, S. Taroni, M. Wayne, A.
Wightman, M. Wolf, L. Zygala The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA
J. Alimena, B. Bylsma, B. Cardwell, L.S. Durkin, B. Francis, C. Hill, A.
Lefeld, B.L. Winer, B.R. Yates Princeton University, Princeton, USA
P. Das, G. Dezoort, P. Elmer, B. Greenberg, N. Haubrich, S. Higginbotham, A.
Kalogeropoulos, G. Kopp, S. Kwan, D. Lange, M.T. Lucchini, J. Luo, D. Marlow,
K. Mei, I. Ojalvo, J. Olsen, C. Palmer, P. Piroué, D. Stickland, C. Tully
University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
V.E. Barnes, R. Chawla, S. Das, L. Gutay, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, B. Mahakud, G.
Negro, N. Neumeister, C.C. Peng, S. Piperov, A. Purohit, H. Qiu, J.F. Schulte,
M. Stojanovic16, N. Trevisani, F. Wang, R. Xiao, W. Xie Purdue University
Northwest, Hammond, USA
T. Cheng, J. Dolen, N. Parashar Rice University, Houston, USA
A. Baty, S. Dildick, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Kilpatrick, A.
Kumar, W. Li, B.P. Padley, R. Redjimi, J. Roberts${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$,
J. Rorie, W. Shi, A.G. Stahl Leiton University of Rochester, Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, J.L. Dulemba, C. Fallon, T. Ferbel, M.
Galanti, A. Garcia-Bellido, O. Hindrichs, A. Khukhunaishvili, E. Ranken, R.
Taus Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, USA
B. Chiarito, J.P. Chou, A. Gandrakota, Y. Gershtein, E. Halkiadakis, A. Hart,
M. Heindl, E. Hughes, S. Kaplan, O. Karacheban24, I. Laflotte, A. Lath, R.
Montalvo, K. Nash, M. Osherson, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, S. Somalwar, R. Stone,
S.A. Thayil, S. Thomas, H. Wang University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
H. Acharya, A.G. Delannoy, S. Spanier Texas A&M University, College Station,
USA
O. Bouhali91, M. Dalchenko, A. Delgado, R. Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T.
Kamon92, H. Kim, S. Luo, S. Malhotra, R. Mueller, D. Overton, L. Perniè, D.
Rathjens, A. Safonov Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, V. Hegde, S. Kunori, K. Lamichhane, S.W. Lee, T.
Mengke, S. Muthumuni, T. Peltola, S. Undleeb, I. Volobouev, Z. Wang, A.
Whitbeck Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
E. Appelt, S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H.
Ni, K. Padeken, F. Romeo, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska, M. Verweij
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
M.W. Arenton, B. Cox, G. Cummings, J. Hakala, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A.
Ledovskoy, A. Li, C. Neu, B. Tannenwald, Y. Wang, E. Wolfe, F. Xia Wayne State
University, Detroit, USA
P.E. Karchin, N. Poudyal, P. Thapa University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison,
WI, USA
K. Black, T. Bose, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, S. Dasu, I. De Bruyn, P.
Everaerts, C. Galloni, H. He, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, A. Lanaro, A.
Loeliger, R. Loveless, J. Madhusudanan Sreekala, A. Mallampalli, D. Pinna, T.
Ruggles, A. Savin, V. Shang, V. Sharma, W.H. Smith, D. Teague, S. Trembath-
reichert, W. Vetens †: Deceased
1: Also at TU Wien, Wien, Austria
2: Also at Institute of Basic and Applied Sciences, Faculty of Engineering,
Arab Academy for Science, Technology and Maritime Transport, Alexandria,
Egypt, Alexandria, Egypt
3: Also at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
4: Also at IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
5: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
6: Also at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
7: Also at UFMS, Nova Andradina, Brazil
8: Also at Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil
9: Also at University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
10: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics named by A.I.
Alikhanov of NRC ‘Kurchatov Institute’, Moscow, Russia
11: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
12: Also at Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
13: Also at Suez University, Suez, Egypt
14: Now at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt
15: Also at Zewail City of Science and Technology, Zewail, Egypt
16: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
17: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
18: Also at Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
19: Also at Erzincan Binali Yildirim University, Erzincan, Turkey
20: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
21: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
22: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
23: Also at Department of Physics, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan,
Iran, Isfahan, Iran
24: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
25: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
26: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary,
Debrecen, Hungary
27: Also at Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Assiut University, Assiut,
Egypt
28: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary, Budapest, Hungary
29: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
30: Also at IIT Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India, Bhubaneswar, India
31: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
32: Also at G.H.G. Khalsa College, Punjab, India
33: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India
34: Also at University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India
35: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
36: Also at Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Mumbai, India
37: Also at Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
38: Also at Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
39: Also at Department of Physics, University of Science and Technology of
Mazandaran, Behshahr, Iran
40: Now at INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b, Politecnico di Bari
c, Bari, Italy
41: Also at Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and
Sustainable Economic Development, Bologna, Italy
42: Also at Centro Siciliano di Fisica Nucleare e di Struttura Della Materia,
Catania, Italy
43: Also at Università di Napoli ’Federico II’, NAPOLI, Italy
44: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia, Riga, Latvia
45: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico City, Mexico
46: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems,
Warsaw, Poland
47: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
48: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
49: Also at Institute of Nuclear Physics of the Uzbekistan Academy of
Sciences, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
50: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
51: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
52: Also at Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
53: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
54: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
55: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
56: Also at Trincomalee Campus, Eastern University, Sri Lanka, Nilaveli, Sri
Lanka
57: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy,
Pavia, Italy
58: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
59: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
60: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics, Vienna, Austria,
Vienna, Austria
61: Also at Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules,
IN2P3-CNRS, Annecy-le-Vieux, France
62: Also at Şırnak University, Sirnak, Turkey
63: Also at Department of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China,
Beijing, China
64: Also at Near East University, Research Center of Experimental Health
Science, Nicosia, Turkey
65: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey, Istanbul, Turkey
66: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Application and Research Center for
Advanced Studies (App. & Res. Cent. for Advanced Studies), Istanbul, Turkey
67: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
68: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
69: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
70: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
71: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
72: Also at Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
73: Also at Bozok Universitetesi Rektörlügü, Yozgat, Turkey, Yozgat, Turkey
74: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
75: Also at Milli Savunma University, Istanbul, Turkey
76: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
77: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
78: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
79: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
80: Also at IPPP Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom
81: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia
82: Also at Bethel University, St. Paul, Minneapolis, USA, St. Paul, USA
83: Also at Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey
84: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
85: Also at Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
86: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
87: Also at Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
88: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
89: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
90: Also at Nanjing Normal University Department of Physics, Nanjing, China
91: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
92: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea, Daegu, Korea