HIG-20-017

HIG-20-017

[inst1]CMS experiment

# Search for charged Higgs bosons produced in vector boson fusion processes
and decaying into vector boson pairs in proton-proton collisions at
$\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$

###### Abstract

A search for charged Higgs bosons produced in vector boson fusion processes
and decaying into vector bosons, using proton-proton collisions at
$\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ at the LHC, is reported. The data sample corresponds to an
integrated luminosity of 137collected with the CMS detector. Events are
selected by requiring two or three electrons or muons, moderate missing
transverse momentum, and two jets with a large rapidity separation and a large
dijet mass. No excess of events with respect to the standard model background
predictions is observed. Model independent upper limits at 95% confidence
level are reported on the product of the cross section and branching fraction
for vector boson fusion production of charged Higgs bosons as a function of
mass, from 200 to 3000. The results are interpreted in the context of the
Georgi–Machacek model.

##  0.1 Introduction

The discovery [1, 2, 3] of a Higgs boson [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] at the CERN LHC
marks an important milestone in the exploration of the electroweak (EW) sector
of the standard model (SM) of particle physics. Measurements of vector boson
scattering (VBS) processes at the LHC may reveal hints for extensions of the
SM. In particular, extended Higgs sectors with additional SU(2) doublets [10,
11, 12, 13] or triplets [14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19] introduce couplings of gauge
bosons to heavy neutral or charged Higgs bosons with specific signatures like
singly or doubly charged Higgs boson decays to $\PW\PZ$ boson pairs or same-
sign $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ boson pairs, respectively.

At the LHC, interactions from VBS are characterized by the presence of two
gauge bosons in association with two forward jets with a large pseudorapidity
separation ($\abs{\Delta\eta_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}}$) and a large dijet
invariant mass ($m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$). An excess of events with respect
to the SM predictions could indicate the presence of new resonances, such as
singly or doubly charged Higgs bosons. Extended Higgs sectors with additional
SU(2) isotriplet scalars give rise to charged Higgs bosons with couplings to
$\PW$ and $\PZ$ bosons at the tree-level [19]. Specifically, the
Georgi–Machacek (GM) model [20, 18], with both real and complex triplets,
preserves a global symmetry SU(2)${}_{\mathrm{L}}\times$SU(2)R, which is
broken by the Higgs vacuum expectation value to the diagonal subgroup
SU(2)L+R. Thus, the tree-level ratio of the $\PW$ and $\PZ$ boson masses is
protected against large radiative corrections. In this model, singly (doubly)
charged Higgs bosons that decay to $\PW$ and $\PZ$ bosons (same-sign $\PW$
boson pairs) are produced via vector boson fusion (VBF).

The charged Higgs bosons $\PHpm$ and $\PH^{\pm\pm}$ in the GM model are
degenerate in mass (denoted as $m_{\PH_{5}}$) at tree level and transform as a
quintuplet under the SU(2)L+R symmetry. The $\PHpm$ and $\PH^{\pm\pm}$ bosons
are also collectively referred to as $\PH_{5}$ in the context of the GM model.
Production and decays of the $\PH_{5}$ states depend on the two parameters
$m_{\PH_{5}}$ and $s_{\PH}$, where $s_{\PH}^{2}$ characterizes the fraction of
the $\PW$ boson mass squared generated by the vacuum expectation value of the
triplet fields. The $\PH_{5}$ states are fermiophobic and are assumed to decay
to vector boson pairs with branching fraction of 100% [21]. Figure 1 shows
representative Feynman diagrams for the production and decay of the charged
Higgs bosons. There are additional charged Higgs bosons $\PHpm$ predicted in
the GM model that transform as a triplet under the SU(2)L+R symmetry. These
$\PHpm$ bosons have only fermionic couplings and are not considered here.

Figure 1: Examples of Feynman diagrams showing the production of singly (left)
and doubly (right) charged Higgs bosons via VBF.

This paper presents a search for $\PHpm$ and $\PH^{\pm\pm}$ that are produced
via VBF and decay to $\PW\PZ$ and $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ boson pairs,
respectively, using proton-proton ($\Pp\Pp$) collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$.
The data sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity of $137\pm 2\fbinv$
[22, 23, 24], collected with the CMS detector [25] in three separate LHC
operating periods during 2016, 2017, and 2018. The three data sets are
analyzed independently, with appropriate calibrations and corrections, to
account for the various LHC running conditions and the performance of the CMS
detector.

The $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and $\PW\PZ$ channels are simultaneously studied by
performing a binned maximum-likelihood fit of distributions sensitive to these
processes, following the methods described in Ref. [26]. The searches for
$\PHpm$ and $\PH^{\pm\pm}$ are performed in the leptonic decay modes
$\PW^{\pm}\PZ\to\ell^{\pm}\PGn\ell^{\prime\pm}\ell^{\prime\mp}$ and
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}\to\ell^{\pm}\PGn\ell^{\prime\pm}\PGn$, where
$\ell,\ell^{\prime}=\Pe$, $\PGm$. Candidate events contain either two
identified leptons of the same charge or three identified charged leptons with
the total charge of $\pm$1, moderate missing transverse momentum ($\ptmiss$),
and two jets with large values of $\abs{\Delta\eta_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}}$
and $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$.

Model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level ($\CL$) are reported on
the product of the cross section and branching fraction for vector boson
fusion production of the $\PHpm$ and $\PH^{\pm\pm}$ bosons individually. The
results are also interpreted in the context of the GM model including the
simultaneous contributions of the $\PHpm$ and $\PH^{\pm\pm}$ bosons. Searches
for charged Higgs bosons in these topologies have been performed by the CMS
Collaboration at $13\TeV$ using the data sample collected during 2016 [27, 28,
29]. The ATLAS and CMS Collaborations have also set constraints on the GM
model by performing searches for charged Higgs bosons in semileptonic final
states at $8\TeV$ [30] and $13\TeV$ [31], respectively.

##  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, each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. Forward
calorimeters extend the $\eta$ coverage provided by the barrel and endcap
detectors up to $\abs{\eta}<5$. Muons are detected in gas-ionization chambers
embedded in the steel magnetic flux-return yoke outside the solenoid. A more
detailed description of the CMS detector, together with a definition of the
coordinate system and the relevant kinematic variables, is reported in Ref.
[25]. Events of interest are selected using a two-tiered trigger system [32].
The first level, composed of custom hardware processors, uses information from
the calorimeters and muon detectors to select events at a rate of around
100kHz within a fixed latency of 4. The second level, known as the high-level
trigger, consists of a farm of processors running a version of the full event
reconstruction software optimized for fast processing, and reduces the event
rate to around 1kHz before data storage.

##  0.3 Signal and background simulation

Processes characterized by the presence of two gauge bosons in association
with two forward jets are an important background contribution. The processes
contributing to diboson plus two jets production that proceeds via the EW
interaction are referred to as EW-induced diboson production, leading to tree-
level contributions at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{4})$, where $\alpha$ is the EW
coupling. Figure 2 shows representative Feynman diagrams of EW-induced diboson
production involving quartic vertices. An additional contribution to the
diboson plus two jets production arises via quantum chromodynamics (QCD)
radiation, leading to tree-level contributions at
$\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{2}\alpS^{2})$, where $\alpS$ is the strong coupling. This
class of processes is referred to as QCD-induced diboson production. Figure 3
shows representative Feynman diagrams of the QCD-induced production. The
associated production of a $\PZ$ boson and a single top quark, referred to as
$\PQt\PZ\Pq$ production, is also an important background contribution.
Additional background contributions arise from the $\ttbar$, $\PQt\PW$,
$\ttbar\PW$, $\ttbar\PZ$, $\ttbar\gamma$, triple vector boson ($\PV\PV\PV$,
$\PV=\PW$, $\PZ$), and double parton scattering processes.

Figure 2: Representative Feynman diagrams of a VBS process contributing to the
EW-induced production of events containing $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ (left) and
$\PW\PZ$ (right) boson pairs decaying to leptons, and two forward jets.

Figure 3: Representative Feynman diagrams of the QCD-induced production of
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ (left) and $\PW\PZ$ (right) boson pairs decaying to
leptons, and two jets.

Multiple Monte Carlo (MC) event generators are used to simulate the signal and
background contributions. The signal and background processes are produced
with on-shell particles. Three sets of simulated events for each process are
needed to match the data taking conditions in the three years. The charged
Higgs boson signal samples are simulated using 2.4.2 [33, 34] at leading order
(LO) accuracy. The predicted signal cross sections are taken at next-to-next-
to-LO (NNLO) accuracy from the GM model [21].

The SM EW $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and $\PW\PZ$ processes, where both bosons decay
leptonically, are simulated using at LO accuracy with six EW
($\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{6})$) and zero QCD vertices. The same generator is also
used to simulate the QCD-induced $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ process with four EW and
two QCD vertices. Contributions with an initial-state quark are excluded from
the EW $\PW\PZ$ simulation because they are considered part of the
$\PQt\PZ\Pq$ background process. Triboson processes, where the $\PW\PZ$ boson
pair is accompanied by a third vector boson that decays into jets, are
included in the EW $\PW\PZ$ simulation. The QCD-induced $\PW\PZ$ process is
simulated at LO with up to three additional partons in the matrix element
calculations using the generator with at least one QCD vertex at tree level.
The different jet multiplicities are merged using the MLM scheme [35] to match
matrix element and parton shower jets, and the inclusive contribution is
normalized to NNLO predictions [36]. The interference between the EW and QCD
diagrams is also accounted for with .

A complete set of NLO QCD and EW corrections for the leptonic
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ scattering process has been computed [37, 38] and they
reduce the LO cross section of the EW $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ process by 10–15%,
with the correction increasing in magnitude with increasing dilepton and dijet
invariant masses. Similarly, the NLO QCD and EW corrections for the leptonic
$\PW\PZ$ scattering process have been computed at the orders of
$\mathcal{O}(\alpS\alpha^{6})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{7})$ [39], reducing
the cross sections for the EW $\PW\PZ$ process by 10%. The SM EW
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and $\PW\PZ$ processes are normalized by applying these
$\mathcal{O}(\alpS\alpha^{6})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{7})$ corrections to LO
cross sections.

The $\POWHEG$ v2 [40, 41, 42, 43, 44] generator is used to simulate the
$\ttbar$, $\PQt\PW$, $\PZ\PZ$, and $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\mp}$ processes at NLO
accuracy in QCD. Production of $\ttbar\PW$, $\ttbar\PZ$, $\ttbar\gamma$, and
$\PV\PV\PV$ events is simulated at NLO accuracy in QCD using the $\MGvATNLO$
2.2.2 (2.4.2) generator for the 2016 (2017 and 2018) samples. The $\PQt\PZ\Pq$
process is simulated in the four-flavor scheme using $\MGvATNLO$ 2.3.3 at
next-to-LO (NLO). Events in which two hard parton-parton interactions occur
within a single $\Pp\Pp$ collision, referred to as double parton scattering
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ production, are generated at LO using $\PYTHIA$ 8.226
(8.230) [45] for the 2016 (2017 and 2018) samples.

The NNPDF 2.3 LO [46] (NNPDF 3.1 NNLO [47]) PDFs are used for generating 2016
(2017 and 2018) signal samples. The NNPDF 3.0- NLO [48] (NNPDF 3.1 NNLO) PDFs
are used for generating all 2016 (2017 and 2018) background samples. For all
processes, the parton showering and hadronization are simulated using
$\PYTHIA$ 8.226 (8.230) for 2016 (2017 and 2018). The modeling of the
underlying event is done using the CUETP8M1 [49, 50] (CP5 [51]) tune for
simulated samples corresponding to the 2016 (2017 and 2018) data.

All MC generated events are processed through a simulation of the CMS detector
based on [52] and are reconstructed with the same algorithms used for data.
The simulated samples include additional interactions in the same and
neighboring bunch crossings, referred to as pileup. The additional inelastic
events are generated using $\PYTHIA$ with the same underlying event tune as
the main interaction and superimposed on the hard-scattering events. The
distribution of the number of pileup interactions in the simulation is
adjusted to match the one observed in the data. The average number of
interactions per bunch crossing was 23 (32) in 2016 (2017 and 2018)
corresponding to an inelastic $\Pp\Pp$ cross-section of 69.2mb.

##  0.4 Event reconstruction

The primary vertex (PV) is defined as the vertex with the largest value of
summed physics-object $\pt^{2}$. The physics objects are the jets, clustered
using the jet finding algorithm [53, 54] with the tracks assigned to candidate
vertices as inputs, and the associated missing transverse momentum, taken as
the negative vector sum of the $\pt$ of those jets.

The CMS particle-flow (PF) algorithm [55] is used to combine the information
from the tracker, calorimeters, and muon systems to reconstruct and identify
charged and neutral hadrons, photons, muons, and electrons (PF candidates).
The missing transverse momentum vector $\ptvecmiss$ is defined as the
projection onto the plane perpendicular to the beam axis of the negative
vector momentum sum of all reconstructed PF candidates in an event. Its
magnitude is referred to as $\ptmiss$.

Jets are reconstructed by clustering PF candidates using the anti-algorithm
[53] with a distance parameter of 0.4. Additional proton-proton interactions
within the same or nearby bunch crossings can contribute additional tracks and
calorimetric energy depositions, increasing the apparent jet momentum. To
mitigate this effect, tracks identified to be originating from pileup vertices
are discarded and an offset correction is applied to correct for remaining
contributions [56]. Jet energy corrections are derived from simulation studies
so that the average measured energy of jets becomes identical to that of
particle level jets. In situ measurements of the momentum balance in dijet,
photon+jet, Z+jet, and multijet events are used to determine any residual
differences between the jet energy scale in data and in simulation, and
appropriate corrections are made [57]. Corrections to jet energies to account
for the detector response are propagated to $\ptmiss$ [58]. Jets with
transverse momentum $\pt>30\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<4.7$ are included in the
analysis.

Events with at least one jet with $\pt>20\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.4$ that is
consistent with the fragmentation of a bottom quark are rejected to reduce the
number of top quark background events. The DeepCSV tagging algorithm [59] is
used for this selection. For the chosen working point, the efficiency of the
algorithm to select quark jets is about 72% and the rate for incorrectly
tagging jets originating from the hadronization of gluons or $\cPqu$, $\cPqd$,
$\cPqs$ quarks is about 1%. The rate for incorrectly tagging jets originating
from the hadronization of $\cPqc$ quarks is about 10%.

Events with at least one reconstructed hadronic decay of a $\tau$ lepton,
denoted as $\tauh$, with $\pt>18\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.3$, are rejected to
reduce the contribution of diboson processes with $\tauh$ decays. The $\tauh$
decays are reconstructed using the hadrons-plus-strips algorithm [60].

Electrons and muons are reconstructed by associating a track reconstructed in
the tracking detectors with either a cluster of energy deposits in the ECAL
[61, 62] or a track in the muon system [63]. Electrons (muons) must pass loose
identification criteria with $\pt>10\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.5$ (2.4) to be
selected for the analysis. At the final stage of the lepton selection, tight
working points, following the definitions provided in Refs. [61, 62, 63], are
chosen for the identification criteria, including requirements on the impact
parameter of the candidates with respect to the PV and their isolation with
respect to other particles in the event [64]. For electrons, the background
contribution arising from charge misidentification is not negligible. The sign
mismeasurement is evaluated using three observables that measure the electron
curvature applying different methods as discussed in Ref. [61]. Requiring all
three charge evaluations to agree reduces this background contribution by a
factor of four (six) with an efficiency of about 97 (90)% in the barrel
(endcap) region. The sign mismeasurement is negligible for muons [65, 66].

##  0.5 Event selection

Collision events are collected using single-electron and single-muon triggers
that require the presence of an isolated lepton with $\pt>27$ and 24,
respectively [67]. In addition, a set of dilepton triggers with lower $\pt$
thresholds is used, ensuring a trigger efficiency above 99% for events that
satisfy the subsequent offline selection [67].

Several selection requirements are used to isolate the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$
and $\PW\PZ$ topologies defining the signal regions (SRs), while reducing the
contributions from background processes [26]. Candidate events must contain
exactly two isolated same-sign charged leptons or exactly three isolated
charged leptons with $\pt>10\GeV$, and at least two jets with $\abs{\eta}<4.7$
and the leading jet $\pt^{\mathrm{j}}>50\GeV$. To exclude the selected
electrons and muons from the jet sample, the jets are required to be separated
from the identified leptons by $\Delta
R=\sqrt{\smash[b]{(\Delta\eta)^{2}+(\Delta\phi)^{2}}}>0.4$, where $\phi$ is
the azimuthal angle in radians.

For the $\PW\PZ$ candidate events, one of the oppositely charged same-flavor
leptons from the $\PZ$ boson candidate is required to have $\pt>25\GeV$ and
the other $\pt>10\GeV$ with the invariant mass of the dilepton pair
$\mathrm{m}_{\ell\ell}$ satisfying
$\abs{\mathrm{m}_{\ell\ell}-m_{\PZ}}<15\GeV$. For candidate events with three
same-flavor leptons, the oppositely charged lepton pair with the invariant
mass closest to the world-average $\PZ$ boson mass $m_{\PZ}$ [68] is selected
as the $\PZ$ boson candidate. The third lepton associated with the $\PW$ boson
is required to have $\pt>20\GeV$. In addition, the trilepton invariant mass
$m_{\ell\ell\ell}$ is required to exceed 100to exclude a region where
production of $\PZ$ bosons with final-state photon radiation is expected to
contribute.

One of the leptons in the same-sign $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ candidate events is
required to have $\pt>25\GeV$ and the other $\pt>20\GeV$. The value of
$\mathrm{m}_{\ell\ell}$ must be greater than 20. Candidate events in the
dielectron final state with $\abs{\mathrm{m}_{\ell\ell}-m_{\PZ}}<15\GeV$ are
rejected to reduce the number of $\PZ$ boson background events where the sign
of one of the electron candidates is misidentified.

The VBF topology is targeted by requiring the two highest $\pt$ jets to have a
mass $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}>500\GeV$ and a pseudorapidity separation
$\abs{\Delta\eta_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}}>2.5$. The $\PW$ and $\PZ$ bosons in
the VBF topologies are mostly produced in the central rapidity region with
respect to the two selected jets. The candidate $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$
($\PW\PZ$) events are required to satisfy
$\mathrm{max}(\mathrm{z}_{\ell}^{*})<0.75(1.0)$, where
$\mathrm{z}_{\ell}^{*}=\abs{\eta^{\ell}-(\eta^{\mathrm{j}_{1}}+\eta^{\mathrm{j}_{2}})/2}/\abs{\Delta\eta_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}}$
is the Zeppenfeld variable [69] for one of the selected leptons. Here
$\eta^{\ell}$ is the pseudorapidity of the lepton, and $\eta^{\mathrm{j}_{1}}$
and $\eta^{\mathrm{j}_{2}}$ are the pseudorapidities of the two candidates VBF
jets.

The $\ptmiss$ is required to exceed 30for both SRs. The selection requirements
used to define the same-sign $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and $\PW\PZ$ SRs are
summarized in Table 0.5.

Summary of the selection requirements defining the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and
$\PW\PZ$ SRs. The looser lepton $\pt$ requirement in the $\PW\PZ$ selection
refers to the trailing lepton from the $\PZ$ boson decays. The
$\abs{\mathrm{m}_{\ell\ell}-m_{\PZ}}$ requirement is applied only to the
dielectron final state in the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ SR.  Variable
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ $\PW\PZ$ Leptons 2 leptons, $\pt>25/20\GeV$ 3 leptons,
$\pt>25/10/20\GeV$ $\pt^{\mathrm{j}}$ $>$50/30 $>$50/30
$\abs{\mathrm{m}_{\ell\ell}-m_{\PZ}}$ $>$15($\Pe\Pe$) $<$15
$\mathrm{m}_{\ell\ell}$ $>$20 $m_{\ell\ell\ell}$ $>$100 $\ptmiss$ $>$30 $>$30
jet veto Required Required $\tauh$ veto Required Required $\max(z_{\ell}^{*})$
$<$0.75 $<$1.0 $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ $>$500 $>$500
$\abs{\Delta\eta_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}}$ $>$2.5 $>$2.5

##  0.6 Background estimation

A combination of methods based on simulation and on control regions (CRs) in
data is used to estimate background contributions. By inverting some of the
requirements in Table 0.5 we select background-enriched CRs. Uncertainties
related to the theoretical and experimental predictions are estimated as
described in Section 0.8.

The nonprompt lepton backgrounds originating from leptonic decays of heavy
quarks, hadrons misidentified as leptons, and electrons from photon
conversions are suppressed by the identification and isolation requirements
imposed on leptons. The remaining contribution from the nonprompt lepton
background is dominant in the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ SR and is estimated
directly from data following the technique described in Ref. [70], using
events selected by the final selection criteria, except for one of the
leptons, which is requested to pass a looser criterion having failed the
nominal selection. The yield in this sample is extrapolated to the signal
region using the efficiencies for such loosely identified leptons to pass the
standard lepton selection criteria. This efficiency is calculated in a sample
of events dominated by dijet production. An uncertainty of 20% is assigned for
the nonprompt lepton background normalization to include possible differences
in the composition of jets between the data sample used to derive these
efficiencies and the data samples in the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and $\PW\PZ$ SRs
[64].

The background contribution from the electron sign mismeasurement is estimated
from the simulation by applying a data-to-simulation efficiency correction due
to electrons with sign mismeasurement. These corrections are determined using
$\PZ\to\Pe\Pe$ events in the $\PZ$ boson peak region that were recorded with
independent triggers. These corrections amount to 40% for data collected in
2017 and 2018, while they are negligible for 2016 data. The electron sign
mismeasurement rate is about 0.01 (0.3)% in the barrel (endcap) region [61,
62].

Three CRs are used to select nonprompt lepton, $\PQt\PZ\Pq$, and $\PZ\PZ$
background-enriched events to further estimate the normalization of these
background processes from data. The nonprompt lepton CR is defined by
requiring the same selection as for the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ SR, but with the
jet veto requirement inverted. The selected events are enriched in the
nonprompt lepton background coming mostly from semileptonic $\ttbar$ events.
Similarly, the $\PQt\PZ\Pq$ CR is defined by requiring the same selection as
for the $\PW\PZ$ SR, but with the jet veto requirement inverted. The selected
events are dominated by the $\PQt\PZ\Pq$ background process. Finally, the
$\PZ\PZ$ CR selects events with two opposite-sign same-flavor lepton pairs
with the same VBS-like requirements. The three CRs are used together with the
SRs to constrain the normalization of the nonprompt lepton, $\PQt\PZ\Pq$, and
$\PZ\PZ$ background processes from data. All other background processes are
estimated from simulation after applying corrections to account for the small
differences between data and simulation. The shapes of the $\PQt\PZ\Pq$ and
$\PZ\PZ$ background processes are estimated from simulation as well.

The prediction for the QCD $\PW\PZ$ background process is validated in a CR
defined by requiring the same selection as for the $\PW\PZ$ SR, but with a
requirement of $200<m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}<500\GeV$. The predicted yields
are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit
(described in Section 0.7) for the background-only hypothesis , assuming no
contributions from the $\PHpm$ and $\PH^{\pm\pm}$ processes. Good agreement
between the data and post-fit predicted yields is observed in this CR as can
be seen in Fig. 4.

Figure 4: The $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ distributions after requiring the
same selection as for the $\PW\PW$ (left) and $\PW\PZ$ (right) SRs, but with a
requirement of $200<m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}<500\GeV$. The predicted yields
are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit
(described in Section 0.7) for the background-only hypothesis , assuming no
contributions from the $\PHpm$ and $\PH^{\pm\pm}$ processes. Vertical bars on
data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The histograms
for $\PQt\PV\mathrm{x}$ backgrounds include the contributions from $\ttbar\PV$
and $\PQt\PZ\Pq$ processes. The histograms for other backgrounds include the
contributions from double parton scattering, $\PV\PV\PV$, and from oppositely
charged dilepton final states from $\ttbar$, $\PQt\PW$, $\PW^{+}\PW^{-}$, and
Drell–Yan processes. The overflow is included in the last bin. The lower
panels show the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the
total SM prediction. The hatched gray bands represent the uncertainties in the
predicted yields. The solid lines show the signal predictions for values of
$s_{\PH}=1.0$ and $m_{\PH_{5}}=500\GeV$ in the GM model.

##  0.7 Signal extraction

A binned maximum-likelihood fit is performed using the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$
and $\PW\PZ$ SRs, and the nonprompt lepton, $\PQt\PZ\Pq$, and $\PZ\PZ$ CRs to
discriminate between the signal and the remaining backgrounds. Signal
contributions with electrons and muons produced in the decay of a $\tau$
lepton are included. The normalization factors for the $\PQt\PZ\Pq$ and
$\PZ\PZ$ background processes, affecting both the SRs and CRs, are included as
free parameters in the maximum-likelihood fit together with the signal
strength. The SM $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ ($\PW\PZ$) contribution is obtained from
the sum of the EW $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ ($\PW\PZ$), QCD $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$
($\PW\PZ$), and the interference contributions according to the SM predictions
[26] and allowed to vary within the uncertainties.

The diboson transverse mass ($\mT^{\PV\PV}$) is constructed from the four-
momentum of the selected charged leptons and the $\ptvecmiss$. The four-
momentum of the neutrino system is defined using the $\ptvecmiss$, assuming
that the values of the longitudinal component of the momentum and the mass are
zero. The value of $\mT^{\PV\PV}$, defined as

$\mT^{\PV\PV}=\sqrt{{{\biggl{(}\sum\nolimits_{i}E_{i}\biggr{)}^{2}-\biggl{(}\sum\nolimits_{i}p_{z,i}\biggr{)}^{2}}}},$
(1)

where $E_{i}$ and $p_{z,i}$ are the energies and longitudinal components of
the momenta of the leptons and neutrino system from the decay of the gauge
bosons in the event, is effective in discriminating between the resonant
signal and nonresonant background processes. The value of
$m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ is effective in discriminating between all non-VBS
processes and the signal (plus EW $\PV\PV$) processes because VBF and VBS
topologies typically exhibit large values for the dijet mass. A two-
dimensional distribution is used in the fit for the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ SR
with 8 bins in $\mT^{\PV\PV}$ ([0, 250, 350, 450, 550, 650, 850, 1050,
$\infty$]) and 4 bins in $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ ([500, 800, 1200, 1800,
$\infty$]). Similarly, a two-dimensional distribution is used in the fit for
the $\PW\PZ$ SR with 7 bins in $\mT^{\PV\PV}$ ([0, 325, 450, 550, 650, 850,
1350, $\infty$]) and 2 bins in $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ ([500, 1500,
$\infty$]). The $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ distribution is used for the CRs in
the fit with 4 bins ([500, 800, 1200, 1800, $\infty$]).

A profile likelihood technique is used where systematic uncertainties are
represented by nuisance parameters [71]. For each individual bin, a Poisson
likelihood term describes the fluctuation of the data around the expected
central value, which is given by the sum of the contributions from signal and
background processes. The systematic uncertainties are treated as nuisance
parameters and are profiled with the shape and normalization of each
distribution varying within the respective uncertainties in the fit. The
normalization uncertainties are treated as log-normal nuisance parameters.
Correlation across bins is taken into account. The uncertainties affecting the
shapes of the distributions are modeled in the fit as nuisance parameters with
external Gaussian constraints. The dominant nuisance parameters are not
significantly constrained by the data, , the normalized nuisance parameter
uncertainties are close to unity.

##  0.8 Systematic uncertainties

Several sources of systematic uncertainty are taken into account in the signal
extraction procedure. For each source of uncertainty, the effects on the
signal and background distributions are considered to be correlated.

The total Run 2 (2016–2018) integrated luminosity has an uncertainty of 1.8%,
the improvement in precision relative to Refs. [22, 23, 24] reflecting the
(uncorrelated) time evolution of some systematic effects.

The simulation of pileup events assumes an inelastic $\Pp\Pp$ cross section of
69.2mb, with an associated uncertainty of 5% [72], which has an impact on the
expected signal and background yields of about 1%.

Discrepancies in the lepton reconstruction and identification efficiencies
between data and simulation are corrected by applying scale factors to all
simulation samples. These scale factors, which depend on the $\pt$ and $\eta$
for both electrons and muons, are determined using $\PZ\to\ell\ell$ events in
the $\PZ$ boson peak region that were recorded with independent triggers [63,
61, 73]. The uncertainty in the determination of the trigger efficiency leads
to an uncertainty smaller than 1% in the expected signal yield. The trigger
efficiency in the simulation is corrected to account for the effect of a
gradual time shifts in the forward region in the ECAL endcaps for the 2016 and
2017 data [74]. The uncertainty in this correction is included in the trigger
efficiency uncertainty. The lepton momentum scale uncertainty is computed by
varying the lepton momenta in simulation with their uncertainties, and
repeating the analysis selection. The resulting uncertainties in the yields
are $\approx$1% for both electrons and muons. These uncertainties are assumed
to be correlated across the three data sets.

The uncertainty in the calibration of the jet energy scale (JES) directly
affects the acceptance of the jet multiplicity requirement and the $\ptmiss$
measurement. These effects are estimated by shifting the JES in the simulated
samples up and down by one standard deviation. The uncertainty in the jet
energy resolution (JER) smearing applied to simulated samples to match the
$\pt$ resolution measured in data causes both a change in the normalization
and in the shape of the distributions. The overall uncertainty in the JES and
JER is 2–5%, depending on $\pt$ and $\eta$ [57, 75], and its impact on the
expected signal and background yields is about 3%.

The tagging efficiency in the simulation is corrected using scale factors
determined from data [59]. These values are estimated separately for correctly
and incorrectly tagged jets. Each set of values results in uncertainties in
the tagging efficiency of about 1–4% depending on $\pt$ and $\eta$, and the
impact on the expected signal and background yields is about 1%. The
uncertainties in the JER, JES and tagging are treated as uncorrelated across
the three data taking years, since the detector conditions have changed among
the three years.

The theoretical uncertainties associated with the choice of the
renormalization and factorization scales are estimated by varying these scales
independently up and down by a factor of two from their nominal values. The
envelope of the resulting distributions, excluding the two extreme variations
where one scale is varied up and the other one down, is taken as the
uncertainty [76, 77]. The variations of the PDF set and $\alpS$ are used to
estimate the corresponding uncertainties in the yields of the signal and
background processes, following Refs. [48, 78]. The uncertainty in the yields
due to missing higher-order EW corrections in the GM model is estimated to be
7% [21]. These theoretical uncertainties may affect both the estimated signal
and background rates. The statistical uncertainties that are associated with
the limited number of simulated events and data events used to estimate the
nonprompt lepton background are also considered as systematic uncertainties.

A summary of the impact of the systematic uncertainties on the signal
strength, $\mu$, defined as the ratio of the observed charged Higgs signal
yield to the expected yield, is shown in Table 1 for the case of a background-
only simulated data set, , assuming no contributions from the $\PHpm$ and
$\PH^{\pm\pm}$ processes. Table 1 also shows systematic uncertainties
including a charged Higgs boson signal for values of $s_{\PH}=1.0$ and
$m_{\PH_{5}}=500\GeV$ in the GM model. The impacts shown in Table 1 result
from a fit to two simulated samples: background-only (first column, expected
$\mu=0$) and signal-plus-background (second column, expected $\mu=1$). They
differ from the impacts in percent on the expected signal and background
yields given above, which are estimated before the fit. The total systematic
uncertainty is smaller for the background-only simulated data set because the
uncertainties partially cancel out between the SRs and the CRs for the
background processes.

Table 1:  Summary of the impact of the systematic uncertainties on the extracted signal strength; for the case of a background-only simulated data set, , assuming no contributions from the $\PHpm$ and $\PH^{\pm\pm}$ processes, and including a charged Higgs boson signal for values of $s_{\PH}=1.0$ and $m_{\PH_{5}}=500\GeV$ in the GM model. The impacts shown result from a fit to two simulated samples: background-only (first column, expected $\mu=0$) and signal-plus-background (second column, expected $\mu=1$).  Source of uncertainty | $\Delta\mu$ | $\Delta\mu$
---|---|---
background-only |  $s_{\PH}=1.0$ and $m_{\PH_{5}}=500\GeV$
Integrated luminosity | 0.002 | 0.019
Pileup | 0.001 | 0.001
Lepton measurement | 0.003 | 0.033
Trigger | 0.001 | 0.007
JES and JER | 0.003 | 0.006
tagging | 0.001 | 0.006
Nonprompt rate | 0.002 | 0.002
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}/\PW\PZ$ rate | 0.014 | 0.015
Other prompt background rate | 0.002 | 0.015
Signal rate |  | 0.064
Limited sample size | 0.005 | 0.005
Total systematic uncertainty | 0.016 | 0.078
Statistical uncertainty | 0.021 | 0.044
Total uncertainty | 0.027 | 0.090

##  0.9 Results

The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ and $\mT^{\PV\PV}$ in the
$\PW\PW$ and $\PW\PZ$ SRs are shown in Fig. 5. The $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$
distributions in the $\PW\PW$ and $\PW\PZ$ SRs are shown with finer binning
compared to the binning used in the two-dimensional distribution in the fit.
Distributions for signal, backgrounds, and data for the bins used in the
simultaneous fit are shown in Fig. 6. The data yields, together with the
background expectations with the best fit normalizations for the background-
only hypothesis, , assuming no contributions from the $\PHpm$ and
$\PH^{\pm\pm}$ processes, are shown in Table 2. The product of kinematic
acceptance and selection efficiency within the fiducial region for the
$\PH^{\pm\pm}\to\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}\to 2\ell 2\nu$ and $\PHpm\to\PW\PZ\to
3\ell\nu$ processes, as a function of $m_{\PH_{5}}$, is shown in Fig. 7. The
drop of selection efficiency for the $\PHpm\to\PW\PZ\to 3\ell\nu$ process for
masses above $1000\GeV$ is coming from the lepton isolation requirement as the
leptons from high-momentum $\PZ$ boson decay are produced with a small angular
separation.

Figure 5:  The $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ (upper left) and $\mT^{\PW\PW}$ (upper right) distributions in the $\PW\PW$ SR, and the $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ (lower left) and $\mT^{\PW\PZ}$ (lower right) distributions in the $\PW\PZ$ SR for signal, backgrounds, and data. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit for the background-only hypothesis, , assuming no contributions from the $\PHpm$ and $\PH^{\pm\pm}$ processes. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The histograms for $\PQt\PV\mathrm{x}$ backgrounds include the contributions from $\ttbar\PV$ and $\PQt\PZ\Pq$ processes. The histograms for other backgrounds include the contributions from double parton scattering, $\PV\PV\PV$, and from oppositely charged dilepton final states from $\ttbar$, $\PQt\PW$, $\PW^{+}\PW^{-}$, and Drell–Yan processes. The overflow is included in the last bin. The lower panels show the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction. The hatched gray bands represent the uncertainties in the predicted yields. The solid lines show the signal predictions for values of $s_{\PH}=1.0$ and $m_{\PH_{5}}=500\GeV$ in the GM model.  Figure 6: Distributions for signal, backgrounds, and data for the bins used in the simultaneous fit. The bins 1–32 (4$\times$8) show the events in the $\PW\PW$ SR ($m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}\times\mT$), the bins 33–46 (2$\times$7) show the events in the $\PW\PZ$ SR ($m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}\times\mT$), the 4 bins 47–50 show the events in the nonprompt lepton CR ($m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$), the 4 bins 51–54 show the events in the $\PQt\PZ\Pq$ CR ($m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$), and the 4 bins 55–58 show the events in the $\PZ\PZ$ CR ($m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$). The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit for the background-only hypothesis, , assuming no contributions from the $\PHpm$ and $\PH^{\pm\pm}$ processes. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The histograms for $\PQt\PV\mathrm{x}$ backgrounds include the contributions from $\ttbar\PV$ and $\PQt\PZ\Pq$ processes. The histograms for other backgrounds include the contributions from double parton scattering, $\PV\PV\PV$, and from oppositely charged dilepton final states from $\ttbar$, $\PQt\PW$, $\PW^{+}\PW^{-}$, and Drell–Yan processes. The overflow is included in the last bin in each corresponding region. The lower panels show the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction. The hatched gray bands represent the uncertainties in the predicted yields. The solid lines show the signal predictions for values of $s_{\PH}=1.0$ and $m_{\PH_{5}}=500\GeV$ in the GM model.  Table 2: Expected signal and background yields from various SM processes and observed data events in all regions used in the analysis. The expected background yields are shown with their normalizations from the simultaneous fit for the background-only hypothesis, , assuming no contributions from the $\PHpm$ and $\PH^{\pm\pm}$ processes. The expected signal yields are shown for $s_{\PH}=1.0$ in the GM model. The combination of the statistical and systematic uncertainties is shown.  Process |  $\PW\PW$ SR |  $\PW\PZ$ SR | Nonprompt CR |  $\PQt\PZ\Pq$ CR |  $\PZ\PZ$ CR
---|---|---|---|---|---
$\PH^{\pm\pm}(500)\to\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ | $666\,\pm\,68$ | $\NA$ | $48.9\,\pm\,5.1$ | $\NA$ | $\NA$
$\PHpm(500)\to\PW\PZ$ | $19.2\,\pm\,2.4$ | $107\,\pm\,11$ | $1.7\,\pm\,0.2$ | $8.0\,\pm\,0.9$ | $\NA$
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ | $230\,\pm\,16$ | $\NA$ | $28.2\,\pm\,1.8$ | $\NA$ | $\NA$
$\PW\PZ$ | $67.8\,\pm\,5.8$ | $196\,\pm\,15$ | $10.3\,\pm\,1.0$ | $27.2\,\pm\,2.4$ | $\NA$
$\PZ\PZ$ | $0.7\,\pm\,0.2$ | $6.4\,\pm\,2.0$ | $0.1\,\pm\,0.1$ | $1.1\,\pm\,0.3$ | $13.3\,\pm\,4.0$
Nonprompt | $262\,\pm\,36$ | $22.3\,\pm\,7.7$ | $263\,\pm\,21$ | $8.4\,\pm\,3.1$ | $0.2\,\pm\,0.2$
$\PQt\PV\mathrm{x}$ | $8.4\,\pm\,1.9$ | $17.7\,\pm\,3.3$ | $28.8\,\pm\,5.6$ | $62\,\pm\,11$ | $0.2\,\pm\,0.1$
Other background | $31.1\,\pm\,7.3$ | $6.8\,\pm\,1.4$ | $21.1\,\pm\,4.2$ | $2.2\,\pm\,0.4$ | $0.3\,\pm\,0.1$
Total background | $600\,\pm\,40$ | $249\,\pm\,18$ | $352\,\pm\,22$ | $101\,\pm\,12$ | $14.0\,\pm\,4.0$
Data | $602$ | $249$ | $352$ | $101$ | $14$
Figure 7: The product of acceptance and selection efficiency within the
fiducial region for the VBF $\PH^{\pm\pm}\to\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}\to 2\ell 2\nu$
and $\PHpm\to\PW\PZ\to 3\ell\nu$ processes, as a function of $m_{\PH_{5}}$.
The combination of the statistical and systematic uncertainties is shown. The
theoretical uncertainties in the acceptance are also included.

No significant excess of events above the expectation from the SM background
predictions is found. The 95% $\CL$ upper limits on the charged Higgs
production cross sections are calculated using the modified frequentist
approach with the $\CLs$ criterion [79, 80] and asymptotic method for the test
statistic [81, 71].

Constraints on resonant charged Higgs boson production are derived. The
exclusion limits on the product of the doubly charged Higgs boson cross
section and branching fraction
$\sigma_{\mathrm{VBF}}(\PH^{\pm\pm})\,\mathcal{B}(\PH^{\pm\pm}\to\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm})$
at 95% as a function of $m_{\PH^{\pm\pm}}$ are shown in Fig. 8 (upper left).
The exclusion limits on the product of the charged Higgs boson cross section
and branching fraction
$\sigma_{\mathrm{VBF}}(\PHpm)\,\mathcal{B}(\PHpm\to\PW\PZ)$ at 95% as a
function of $m_{\PHpm}$ are shown in Fig. 8 (upper right). The contributions
of the $\PHpm$ and $\PH^{\pm\pm}$ boson signals are set to zero for the
derivation of the individual exclusion limits on
$\sigma_{\mathrm{VBF}}(\PH^{\pm\pm})\,\mathcal{B}(\PH^{\pm\pm}\to\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm})$
and $\sigma_{\mathrm{VBF}}(\PHpm)\,\mathcal{B}(\PHpm\to\PW\PZ)$, respectively.
The results assume that the intrinsic width of the $\PHpm$ ($\PH^{\pm\pm}$)
boson is $\lesssim 0.05m_{\PHpm}$ (0.05$m_{\PH^{\pm\pm}}$), which is below the
experimental resolution in the phase space considered. The results are also
interpreted in the context of the GM model including the simultaneous
contributions of the $\PHpm$ and $\PH^{\pm\pm}$ bosons. The predicted cross
sections of the $\PHpm$ and $\PH^{\pm\pm}$ bosons at NNLO accuracy in the GM
model [21] are used for given GM parameter values of $s_{\PH}$ and
$m_{\PH_{5}}$. The excluded $s_{\PH}$ values as a function of $m_{\PH_{5}}$
are shown in Fig. 8 (lower). The blue shaded region shows the parameter space
for which the $\PH_{5}$ total width exceeds 10% of $m(\PH_{5})$, where the
model is not applicable because of perturbativity and vacuum stability
requirements [21]. For the probed parameter space and $\mT^{\PV\PV}$
distribution used for signal extraction, the varying width as a function of
$s_{\PH}$ is assumed to have negligible effect on the result. The observed
limit excludes $s_{\PH}$ values greater than 0.20–0.35 for the $m_{\PH_{5}}$
range from $200$ to $1500\GeV$. The limit improves the sensitivity of the
previous CMS results at $13\TeV$, where $s_{\PH}$ values greater than about
0.4 and 0.5 are excluded using the leptonic decay mode of the
$\sigma_{\mathrm{VBF}}(\PH^{\pm\pm})\,\mathcal{B}(\PH^{\pm\pm}\to\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm})$
[28] and $\sigma_{\mathrm{VBF}}(\PHpm)\,\mathcal{B}(\PHpm\to\PW\PZ)$ [29]
processes, respectively, for the $m_{\PH_{5}}$ range from $200$ to $1000\GeV$.
Tabulated results are available in the HepData database [82].

Figure 8:  Expected and observed exclusion limits at 95% for
$\sigma_{\mathrm{VBF}}(\PH^{\pm\pm})\,\mathcal{B}(\PH^{\pm\pm}\to\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm})$
as functions of $m_{\PH^{\pm\pm}}$ (upper left), for
$\sigma_{\mathrm{VBF}}(\PHpm)\,\mathcal{B}(\PHpm\to\PW\PZ)$ as functions of
$m_{\PHpm}$ (upper right), and for $s_{\PH}$ as functions of $m_{\PH_{5}}$ in
the GM model (lower). The contribution of the $\PHpm$ ($\PH^{\pm\pm}$) boson
signal is set to zero for the derivation of the exclusion limits on the
$\sigma_{\mathrm{VBF}}(\PH^{\pm\pm})\,\mathcal{B}(\PH^{\pm\pm}\to\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm})$
($\sigma_{\mathrm{VBF}}(\PHpm)\,\mathcal{B}(\PHpm\to\PW\PZ)$). The exclusion
limits for $s_{\PH}$ are shown up to $m_{\PH_{5}}=2000\GeV$, given the low
sensitivity in the GM model for values above that mass. Values above the
curves are excluded.

##  0.10 Summary

A search for charged Higgs bosons produced in vector boson fusion processes
and decaying into vector bosons, using proton-proton collisions at
$\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ at the LHC, is reported. The data sample corresponds to an
integrated luminosity of 137, collected with the CMS detector between 2016 and
2018. The search is performed in the leptonic decay modes
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}\to\ell^{\pm}\PGn\ell^{\prime\pm}\PGn$ and
$\PW^{\pm}\PZ\to\ell^{\pm}\PGn\ell^{\prime\pm}\ell^{\prime\mp}$, where
$\ell,\ell^{\prime}=\Pe$, $\PGm$. The $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and $\PW\PZ$
channels are simultaneously studied by performing a binned maximum-likelihood
fit using the transverse mass $\mT$ and dijet invariant mass
$m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ distributions. No excess of events with respect to
the standard model background predictions is observed. Model independent upper
limits at 95% confidence level are reported on the product of the cross
section and branching fraction for vector boson fusion production of charged
Higgs bosons decaying into vector bosons as a function of mass from 200 to
$3000\GeV$. The results are interpreted in the Georgi–Machacek (GM) model for
which the most stringent limits to date are derived. The observed 95%
confidence level limits exclude GM $s_{\PH}$ parameter values greater than
0.20–0.35 for the mass range from $200$ to $1500\GeV$.

###### 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
centres 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 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] ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a new particle in the search for the standard model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020, arXiv:1207.7214.
  * [2] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021, arXiv:1207.7235.
  * [3] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 and 8 TeV”,  JHEP 06 (2013) 081, 10.1007/JHEP06(2013)081, arXiv:1303.4571.
  * [4] F. Englert and R. Brout, “Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 321, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.321.
  * [5] P. W. Higgs, “Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields”,  Phys. Lett. 12 (1964) 132, 10.1016/0031-9163(64)91136-9.
  * [6] P. W. Higgs, “Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 508, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.508.
  * [7] G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble, “Global conservation laws and massless particles”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 585, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.585.
  * [8] P. W. Higgs, “Spontaneous symmetry breakdown without massless bosons”,  Phys. Rev. 145 (1966) 1156, 10.1103/PhysRev.145.1156.
  * [9] T. W. B. Kibble, “Symmetry breaking in non-Abelian gauge theories”,  Phys. Rev. 155 (1967) 1554, 10.1103/PhysRev.155.1554.
  * [10] T. D. Lee, “A theory of spontaneous $\mathrm{T}$ violation”,  Phys. Rev. D 8 (1973) 1226, 10.1103/PhysRevD.8.1226.
  * [11] P. Fayet, “A gauge theory of weak and electromagnetic interactions with spontaneous parity breaking”,  Nucl. Phys. B 78 (1974) 14, 10.1016/0550-3213(74)90113-8.
  * [12] N. Craig and S. Thomas, “Exclusive Signals of an Extended Higgs Sector”,  JHEP 11 (2012) 083, 10.1007/JHEP11(2012)083, arXiv:1207.4835.
  * [13] G. C. Branco et al., “Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models”,  Phys. Rept. 516 (2012) 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2012.02.002, arXiv:1106.0034.
  * [14] W. Konetschny and W. Kummer, “Nonconservation of total lepton number with scalar bosons”,  Phys. Lett. B 70 (1977) 433, 10.1016/0370-2693(77)90407-5.
  * [15] M. Magg and C. Wetterich, “Neutrino mass problem and gauge hierarchy”,  Phys. Lett. B 94 (1980) 61, 10.1016/0370-2693(80)90825-4.
  * [16] T. P. Cheng and L.-F. Li, “Neutrino masses, mixings, and oscillations in SU(2)$\times$U(1) models of electroweak interactions”,  Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 2860, 10.1103/PhysRevD.22.2860.
  * [17] J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, “Neutrino masses in SU(2)$\bigotimes$U(1) theories”,  Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 2227, 10.1103/PhysRevD.22.2227.
  * [18] C. Englert, E. Re, and M. Spannowsky, “Triplet Higgs boson collider phenomenology after the LHC”,  Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 095014, 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.095014, arXiv:1302.6505.
  * [19] C. Englert, E. Re, and M. Spannowsky, “Pinning down Higgs triplets at the LHC”,  Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 035024, 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.035024, arXiv:1306.6228.
  * [20] H. Georgi and M. Machacek, “Doubly charged Higgs bosons”,  Nucl. Phys. B 262 (1985) 463, 10.1016/0550-3213(85)90325-6.
  * [21] M. Zaro and H. Logan, “Recommendations for the interpretation of LHC searches for $\PH_{5}^{0}$, $\PH_{5}^{\pm}$, and $\PH_{5}^{\pm\pm}$ in vector boson fusion with decays to vector boson pairs”, CERN Report LHCHXSWG-2015-001, 2015.
  * [22] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2016 data-taking period”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001, 2017.
  * [23] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004, 2017.
  * [24] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002, 2018.
  * [25] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS Experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [26] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of production cross sections of WZ and same-sign WW boson pairs in association with two jets in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 809 (2020) 135710, 10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135710, arXiv:2005.01173.
  * [27] CMS Collaboration, “Search for charged Higgs bosons produced via vector boson fusion and decaying into a pair of $\PW$ and $\PZ$ bosons using $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{TeV}$”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 141802, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.141802, arXiv:1705.02942.
  * [28] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of electroweak production of same-sign W boson pairs in the two jet and two same-sign lepton final state in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 081801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.081801, arXiv:1709.05822.
  * [29] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of electroweak WZ boson production and search for new physics in WZ + two jets events in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 795 (2019) 281, 10.1016/j.physletb.2019.05.042, arXiv:1901.04060.
  * [30] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for a charged Higgs boson produced in the vector-boson fusion mode with decay ${\PH}^{\pm}\to{\PW}^{\pm}{\PZ}$ using pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8\text{ }\mathrm{TeV}$ with the ATLAS experiment”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 231801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.231801, arXiv:1503.04233.
  * [31] CMS Collaboration, “Search for anomalous electroweak production of vector boson pairs in association with two jets in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 798 (2019) 134985, 10.1016/j.physletb.2019.134985, arXiv:1905.07445.
  * [32] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [33] J. Alwall et al., “The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations”,  JHEP 07 (2014) 079, 10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079, arXiv:1405.0301.
  * [34] R. Frederix and S. Frixione, “Merging meets matching in MC@NLO”,  JHEP 12 (2012) 061, 10.1007/JHEP12(2012)061, arXiv:1209.6215.
  * [35] J. Alwall et al., “Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 53 (2008) 473, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0490-5, arXiv:0706.2569.
  * [36] M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, D. Rathlev, and M. Wiesemann, “$\PW^{\pm}\PZ$ production at hadron colliders in NNLO QCD”,  Phys. Lett. B 761 (2016) 179, 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.08.017, arXiv:1604.08576.
  * [37] B. Biedermann, A. Denner, and M. Pellen, “Large electroweak corrections to vector boson scattering at the Large Hadron Collider”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 261801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.261801, arXiv:1611.02951.
  * [38] B. Biedermann, A. Denner, and M. Pellen, “Complete NLO corrections to W+W+ scattering and its irreducible background at the LHC”,  JHEP 10 (2017) 124, 10.1007/JHEP10(2017)124, arXiv:1708.00268.
  * [39] A. Denner et al., “QCD and electroweak corrections to WZ scattering at the LHC”,  JHEP 06 (2019) 067, 10.1007/JHEP06(2019)067, arXiv:1904.00882.
  * [40] S. Frixione and B. R. Webber, “Matching NLO QCD computations and parton shower simulations”,  JHEP 06 (2002) 029, 10.1088/1126-6708/2002/06/029, arXiv:hep-ph/0204244.
  * [41] P. Nason, “A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms”,  JHEP 11 (2004) 040, 10.1088/1126-6708/2004/11/040, arXiv:hep-ph/0409146.
  * [42] S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari, “Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method”,  JHEP 11 (2007) 070, 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070, arXiv:0709.2092.
  * [43] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “NLO vector-boson production matched with shower in POWHEG”,  JHEP 07 (2008) 060, 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/07/060, arXiv:0805.4802.
  * [44] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX”,  JHEP 06 (2010) 043, 10.1007/JHEP06(2010)043, arXiv:1002.2581.
  * [45] 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.
  * [46] R. D. Ball et al., “Parton distributions with LHC data”,  Nucl. Phys. B 867 (2013) 244, 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2012.10.003, arXiv:1207.1303.
  * [47] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions from high-precision collider data”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 663, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5199-5, arXiv:1706.00428.
  * [48] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC Run II”,  JHEP 04 (2015) 040, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040, arXiv:1410.8849.
  * [49] P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo, “Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 tune”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3024, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3024-y, arXiv:1404.5630.
  * [50] CMS Collaboration, “Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 155, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3988-x, arXiv:1512.00815.
  * [51] 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.
  * [52] Collaboration, “$\GEANTfour$ — a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [53] 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.
  * [54] 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.
  * [55] 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.
  * [56] CMS Collaboration, “Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data”,  JINST 15 (2020) P09018, 10.1088/1748-0221/15/09/P09018, arXiv:2003.00503.
  * [57] 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.
  * [58] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ using the CMS detector”,  JINST 14 (2019) P07004, 10.1088/1748-0221/14/07/P07004, arXiv:1903.06078.
  * [59] CMS Collaboration, “Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV”,  JINST 13 (2018) P05011, 10.1088/1748-0221/13/05/P05011, arXiv:1712.07158.
  * [60] CMS Collaboration, “Reconstruction and identification of $\tau$ lepton decays to hadrons and $\nu_{\tau}$ at CMS”,  JINST 11 (2016) P01019, 10.1088/1748-0221/11/01/P01019, arXiv:1510.07488.
  * [61] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8\TeV$”,  JINST 10 (2015) P06005, 10.1088/1748-0221/10/06/P06005, arXiv:1502.02701.
  * [62] CMS Collaboration, “Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 16 (2021) P05014, 10.1088/1748-0221/16/05/P05014, arXiv:2012.06888.
  * [63] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$”,  JINST 13 (2018) P06015, 10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/P06015, arXiv:1804.04528.
  * [64] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of properties of the Higgs boson decaying to a W boson pair in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 791 (2019) 96, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.12.073, arXiv:1806.05246.
  * [65] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in cosmic-ray events”,  JINST 5 (2010) T03022, 10.1088/1748-0221/5/03/T03022, arXiv:0911.4994.
  * [66] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the reconstruction and identification of high-momentum muons in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  JINST 15 (2020) P02027, 10.1088/1748-0221/15/02/P02027, arXiv:1912.03516.
  * [67] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS muon trigger system in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  JINST 16 (2021) P07001, 10.1088/1748-0221/16/07/P07001, arXiv:2102.04790.
  * [68] Particle Data Group, P. A. Zyla et al., “Review of particle physics”,  Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2020 (2020) 083C01, 10.1093/ptep/ptaa104.
  * [69] D. L. Rainwater, R. Szalapski, and D. Zeppenfeld, “Probing color singlet exchange in $Z$ \+ two jet events at the CERN LHC”,  Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 6680, 10.1103/PhysRevD.54.6680, arXiv:hep-ph/9605444.
  * [70] CMS Collaboration, “Study of vector boson scattering and search for new physics in events with two same-sign leptons and two jets”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 051801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.051801, arXiv:1410.6315.
  * [71] G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, “Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1554, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0, arXiv:1007.1727. [Erratum: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2501-z].
  * [72] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  JHEP 07 (2018) 161, 10.1007/JHEP07(2018)161, arXiv:1802.02613.
  * [73] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of differential Z boson production cross sections in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV”,  JHEP 12 (2019) 061, 10.1007/JHEP12(2019)061, arXiv:1909.04133.
  * [74] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  JINST 15 (2020) P10017, 10.1088/1748-0221/15/10/P10017, arXiv:2006.10165.
  * [75] CMS Collaboration, “Jet energy scale and resolution performance with 13 $\TeV$ data collected by CMS in 2016-2018”, CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2020-019, 2020.
  * [76] S. Catani, D. de Florian, M. Grazzini, and P. Nason, “Soft gluon resummation for Higgs boson production at hadron colliders”,  JHEP 07 (2003) 028, 10.1088/1126-6708/2003/07/028, arXiv:hep-ph/0306211.
  * [77] M. Cacciari et al., “The cross section at $1.8\TeV$ and $1.96\TeV$: a study of the systematics due to parton densities and scale dependence”,  JHEP 04 (2004) 068, 10.1088/1126-6708/2004/04/068, arXiv:hep-ph/0303085.
  * [78] J. Butterworth et al., “PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II”,  J. Phys. G 43 (2016) 023001, 10.1088/0954-3899/43/2/023001, arXiv:1510.03865.
  * [79] T. Junk, “Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 434 (1999) 435, 10.1016/S0168-9002(99)00498-2, arXiv:hep-ex/9902006.
  * [80] A. L. Read, “Presentation of search results: the CLs technique”,  J. Phys. G 28 (2002) 2693, 10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/313.
  * [81] ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, LHC Higgs Combination Group, “Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011”, Technical Report ATL-PHYS-PUB 2011-11, CMS NOTE 2011/005, 2011.
  * [82] “HEPData record for this analysis”, 2021.  10.17182/hepdata.102461.

##  .11 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, A. Tumasyan Institut für
Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, J.W. Andrejkovic, T. Bergauer, S. Chatterjee, M. Dragicevic, A.
Escalante Del Valle, R. Frühwirth1, M. Jeitler1, N. Krammer, L. Lechner, D.
Liko, I. Mikulec, P. Paulitsch, F.M. Pitters, J. Schieck1, R. Schöfbeck, M.
Spanring, S. Templ, W. Waltenberger, C.-E. Wulz1 Institute for Nuclear
Problems, Minsk, Belarus
V. Chekhovsky, A. Litomin, V. Makarenko Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerpen,
Belgium
M.R. Darwish2, E.A. De Wolf, X. Janssen, T. Kello3, A. Lelek, H. Rejeb Sfar,
P. Van Mechelen, S. Van Putte, N. Van Remortel Vrije Universiteit Brussel,
Brussel, Belgium
F. Blekman, E.S. Bols, J. D’Hondt, J. De Clercq, M. Delcourt, H. El Faham, S.
Lowette, S. Moortgat, A. Morton, D. Müller, A.R. Sahasransu, S. Tavernier, W.
Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
D. Beghin, B. Bilin, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, L. Favart, A. Grebenyuk,
A.K. Kalsi, K. Lee, M. Mahdavikhorrami, I. Makarenko, L. Moureaux, L. Pétré,
A. Popov, N. Postiau, E. Starling, L. Thomas, M. Vanden Bemden, C. Vander
Velde, P. Vanlaer, D. Vannerom, L. Wezenbeek Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, J. Knolle, L. Lambrecht, G. Mestdach, M. Niedziela, C.
Roskas, A. Samalan, K. Skovpen, M. Tytgat, W. Verbeke, B. Vermassen, M. Vit
Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
A. Bethani, G. Bruno, F. Bury, C. Caputo, P. David, C. Delaere, I.S. Donertas,
A. Giammanco, K. Jaffel, Sa. Jain, V. Lemaitre, K. Mondal, J. Prisciandaro, A.
Taliercio, M. Teklishyn, T.T. Tran, P. Vischia, S. Wertz, S. Wuyckens 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, M. Alves Gallo Pereira, M. Barroso Ferreira Filho, H.
BRANDAO MALBOUISSON, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato4, E.M. Da Costa, G.G. Da
Silveira5, D. De Jesus Damiao, S. Fonseca De Souza, D. Matos Figueiredo, C.
Mora Herrera, K. Mota Amarilo, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, P. Rebello Teles, 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,5, 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, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, M. Misheva, M. Rodozov,
M. Shopova, G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Dimitrov, T. Ivanov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov, A. Petrov Beihang
University, Beijing, China
T. Cheng, W. Fang3, Q. Guo, T. Javaid6, M. Mittal, H. Wang, L. Yuan Department
of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, G. Bauer, C. Dozen7, Z. Hu, J. Martins8, Y. Wang, K. Yi9,10
Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
E. Chapon, G.M. Chen6, H.S. Chen6, M. Chen, F. Iemmi, A. Kapoor, D. Leggat, H.
Liao, Z.-A. LIU6, V. Milosevic, F. Monti, R. Sharma, J. Tao, J. Thomas-
wilsker, J. Wang, H. Zhang, S. Zhang6, 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, X. Lyu, Y. Mao, S.J.
Qian, D. Wang, Q. Wang, J. Xiao Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
M. Lu, Z. You Institute of Modern Physics and Key Laboratory of Nuclear
Physics and Ion-beam Application (MOE) - Fudan University, Shanghai, China
X. Gao3, H. Okawa Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
Z. Lin, 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. Mejia Guisao, F. Ramirez, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, C.A. Salazar González
University of Split, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering
and Naval Architecture, Split, Croatia
D. Giljanovic, N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak University of Split, Faculty
of Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac, T. Sculac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, D. Majumder, M. Roguljic, A. Starodumov11, T. Susa
University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
A. Attikis, K. Christoforou, E. Erodotou, A. Ioannou, G. Kole, M. Kolosova, S.
Konstantinou, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos, P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski,
H. Saka Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
M. Finger12, M. Finger Jr.12, A. Kveton 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. Abdalla13, A.A. Abdelalim14,15 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, S. Nandan, C. Nielsen, J. Pata, M. Raidal, L. Tani, 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
S. Bharthuar, E. Brücken, F. Garcia, J. Havukainen, M.S. Kim, R. Kinnunen, T.
Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, M. Lotti, L. Martikainen, M.
Myllymäki, J. Ott, H. Siikonen, E. Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi Lappeenranta
University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
P. Luukka, H. Petrow, 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, A.
Cappati, C. Charlot, O. Davignon, B. Diab, G. Falmagne, S. Ghosh, R. Granier
de Cassagnac, A. Hakimi, I. Kucher, 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. Apparu, D. Bloch, G. Bourgatte, J.-M. Brom, E.C.
Chabert, C. Collard, D. Darej, J.-C. Fontaine17, U. Goerlach, C. Grimault,
A.-C. Le Bihan, E. Nibigira, 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, I.B. Laktineh, H. Lattaud, A. Lesauvage, M. Lethuillier, L. Mirabito, S.
Perries, K. Shchablo, V. Sordini, L. Torterotot, G. Touquet, M. Vander Donckt,
S. Viret Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
A. Khvedelidze12, I. Lomidze, Z. Tsamalaidze12 RWTH Aachen University, I.
Physikalisches Institut, Aachen, Germany
L. Feld, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, D. Meuser, A. Pauls, M.P. Rauch, N. Röwert, J.
Schulz, M. Teroerde RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A,
Aachen, Germany
A. Dodonova, D. Eliseev, M. Erdmann, P. Fackeldey, B. Fischer, S. Ghosh, T.
Hebbeker, K. Hoepfner, F. Ivone, H. Keller, L. Mastrolorenzo, M. Merschmeyer,
A. Meyer, G. Mocellin, S. Mondal, S. Mukherjee, D. Noll, A. Novak, T. Pook, A.
Pozdnyakov, Y. Rath, H. Reithler, J. Roemer, A. Schmidt, S.C. Schuler, A.
Sharma, L. Vigilante, S. Wiedenbeck, S. Zaleski RWTH Aachen University, III.
Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany
C. Dziwok, G. Flügge, W. Haj Ahmad18, O. Hlushchenko, T. Kress, A. Nowack, C.
Pistone, O. Pooth, D. Roy, H. Sert, A. Stahl19, T. Ziemons Deutsches
Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
H. Aarup Petersen, M. Aldaya Martin, P. Asmuss, I. Babounikau, S. Baxter, O.
Behnke, A. Bermúdez Martínez, S. Bhattacharya, A.A. Bin Anuar, K. Borras20, V.
Botta, D. Brunner, A. Campbell, A. Cardini, C. Cheng, F. Colombina, S.
Consuegra Rodríguez, G. Correia Silva, V. Danilov, L. Didukh, G. Eckerlin, D.
Eckstein, L.I. Estevez Banos, O. Filatov, E. Gallo21, A. Geiser, A. Giraldi,
A. Grohsjean, M. Guthoff, A. Jafari22, N.Z. Jomhari, H. Jung, A. Kasem20, M.
Kasemann, H. Kaveh, C. Kleinwort, D. Krücker, W. Lange, J. Lidrych, K. Lipka,
W. Lohmann23, R. Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, J. Metwally, A.B. Meyer, M.
Meyer, J. Mnich, A. Mussgiller, Y. Otarid, D. Pérez Adán, D. Pitzl, A.
Raspereza, B. Ribeiro Lopes, J. Rübenach, A. Saggio, A. Saibel, M. Savitskyi,
M. Scham, V. Scheurer, C. Schwanenberger21, A. Singh, R.E. Sosa Ricardo, D.
Stafford, N. Tonon, O. Turkot, M. Van De Klundert, R. Walsh, D. Walter, Y.
Wen, K. Wichmann, L. Wiens, C. Wissing, S. Wuchterl University of Hamburg,
Hamburg, Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Albrecht, S. Bein, L. Benato, A. Benecke, P. Connor, K. De
Leo, M. Eich, F. Feindt, A. Fröhlich, C. Garbers, E. Garutti, P. Gunnellini,
J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, G. Kasieczka, R. Klanner, R. Kogler, T. Kramer, V.
Kutzner, J. Lange, T. Lange, A. Lobanov, A. Malara, A. Nigamova, K.J. Pena
Rodriguez, O. Rieger, P. Schleper, M. Schröder, J. Schwandt, D. Schwarz, J.
Sonneveld, H. Stadie, G. Steinbrück, A. Tews, B. Vormwald, I. Zoi Karlsruher
Institut fuer Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany
J. Bechtel, T. Berger, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, W. De
Boer${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, A. Dierlamm, A. Droll, K. El Morabit, N.
Faltermann, M. Giffels, J.o. Gosewisch, A. Gottmann, F. Hartmann19, C.
Heidecker, U. Husemann, I. Katkov24, P. Keicher, R. Koppenhöfer, S. Maier, M.
Metzler, S. Mitra, Th. Müller, M. Neukum, A. Nürnberg, G. Quast, K. Rabbertz,
J. Rauser, D. Savoiu, M. Schnepf, D. Seith, I. Shvetsov, H.J. Simonis, R.
Ulrich, J. Van Der Linden, R.F. Von Cube, M. Wassmer, M. Weber, S. Wieland, R.
Wolf, S. Wozniewski, S. Wunsch Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics
(INPP), NCSR Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
G. Anagnostou, P. Asenov, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas,
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, E. Tziaferi, 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, N. Manthos, I.
Papadopoulos, J. Strologas MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics
Group, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
M. Csanad, K. Farkas, M.M.A. Gadallah25, S. Lökös26, P. Major, K. Mandal, A.
Mehta, G. Pasztor, A.J. Rádl, O. Surányi, G.I. Veres Wigner Research Centre
for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
M. Bartók27, G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath28, F. Sikler, V. Veszpremi, G.
Vesztergombi${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$ Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI,
Debrecen, Hungary
S. Czellar, J. Karancsi27, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi, D. Teyssier Institute of
Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi29, B. Ujvari Eszterhazy Karoly University, Karoly
Robert Campus, Gyongyos, Hungary
T. Csorgo30, F. Nemes30, T. Novak Indian Institute of Science (IISc),
Bangalore, India
J.R. Komaragiri, D. Kumar, L. Panwar, P.C. Tiwari National Institute of
Science Education and Research, HBNI, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati31, D. Dash, C. Kar, P. Mal, T. Mishra, V.K. Muraleedharan Nair
Bindhu32, A. Nayak32, P. Saha, N. Sur, S.K. Swain, D. Vats32 Panjab
University, Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, G. Chaudhary, S. Chauhan, N. Dhingra33, R.
Gupta, A. Kaur, M. Kaur, S. Kaur, P. Kumari, M. Meena, K. Sandeep, J.B. Singh,
A.K. Virdi University of Delhi, Delhi, India
A. Ahmed, A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, M. Gola, S. Keshri, A. Kumar, M.
Naimuddin, P. Priyanka, K. Ranjan, A. Shah Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics,
HBNI, Kolkata, India
M. Bharti34, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, D. Bhowmik, S. Dutta, S. Dutta,
B. Gomber35, M. Maity36, P. Palit, P.K. Rout, G. Saha, B. Sahu, S. Sarkar, M.
Sharan, B. Singh34, S. Thakur34 Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras,
India
P.K. Behera, S.C. Behera, P. Kalbhor, A. Muhammad, R. Pradhan, P.R. Pujahari,
A. Sharma, A.K. Sikdar Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, D.K. Mishra, K. Naskar37, P.K. Netrakanti, L.M.
Pant, P. Shukla Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A, Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, S. Dugad, M. Kumar, U. Sarkar Tata Institute of Fundamental
Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, R. Chudasama, M. Guchait, S. Karmakar, S. Kumar, G. Majumder, K.
Mazumdar, S. Mukherjee Indian Institute of Science Education and Research
(IISER), Pune, India
K. Alpana, S. Dube, B. Kansal, A. Laha, S. Pandey, A. Rane, A. Rastogi, S.
Sharma Department of Physics, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
H. Bakhshiansohi38, M. Zeinali39 Institute for Research in Fundamental
Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran
S. Chenarani40, S.M. Etesami, M. Khakzad, M. Mohammadi Najafabadi University
College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
M. Grunewald INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b, Politecnico di Bari
c, Bari, Italy
M. Abbresciaa,b, R. Alya,b,41, 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. Pellecchiaa,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, L.
Brigliadoria, 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,
P. Giacomellia, L. Giommia,b, C. Grandia, L. Guiduccia,b, S. Lo Meoa,42, L.
Lunertia,b, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, F.L. Navarriaa,b, A. Perrottaa, F.
Primaveraa,b, A.M. Rossia,b, T. Rovellia,b, G.P. Sirolia,b INFN Sezione di
Catania a, Università di Catania b, Catania, Italy
S. Albergoa,b,43, S. Costaa,b,43, A. Di Mattiaa, R. Potenzaa,b, A.
Tricomia,b,43, 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, 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, F. Brivioa,b, F. Cetorellia,b, V. Cirioloa,b,19, 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, A. Massironia, D. Menascea, L. Moronia,
M. Paganonia,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Ragazzia,b, N. Redaellia, T. Tabarelli de
Fatisa,b, D. Valsecchia,b,19, 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, F. Carnevalia,b, N. Cavalloa,c, A. De Iorioa,b, F. Fabozzia,c,
A.O.M. Iorioa,b, L. Listaa,b, S. Meolaa,d,19, P. Paoluccia,19, B. Rossia, C.
Sciaccaa,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, P. Bortignona, A. Bragagnoloa,b, R.
Carlina,b, P. Checchiaa, T. Dorigoa, U. Dossellia, F. Gasparinia,b, U.
Gasparinia,b, S.Y. Hoha,b, L. Layera,44, M. Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,b, J.
Pazzinia,b, M. Presillaa,b, P. Ronchesea,b, R. Rossina,b, F. Simonettoa,b, G.
Stronga, 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, C. Riccardia,b, P. Salvinia, I. Vaia, P. Vituloa,b INFN
Sezione di Perugia a, Università di Perugia b, Perugia, Italy
G.M. Bileia, D. Ciangottinia,b, L. Fanòa,b, P. Laricciaa,b, M. Magherinib, 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
P. Azzurria, G. Bagliesia, V. Bertacchia,c, L. Bianchinia, T. Boccalia, E.
Bossinia,b, R. Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, V. D’Amantea,d, R. Dell’Orsoa, M.R.
Di Domenicoa,d, S. Donatoa, A. Giassia, M.T. Grippoa, F. Ligabuea,c, E.
Mancaa,c, G. Mandorlia,c, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, S. Paroliaa,b, 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
M. Campanaa,b, 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, 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, J. Berenguer Antequeraa,b, C. Biinoa, N.
Cartigliaa, S. Comettia, M. Costaa,b, R. Covarellia,b, N. Demariaa, B.
Kiania,b, F. Leggera, C. Mariottia, S. Masellia, E. Migliorea,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, K.
Shchelinaa,b, F. Sivieroa,b, V. Solaa, A. Solanoa,b, D. Soldia,b, A. Staianoa,
M. Tornagoa,b, D. Trocinoa,b, A. Vagnerini 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, G. Sorrentinoa,b, F. Vazzolera,b Kyungpook National
University, Daegu, Korea
S. Dogra, C. Huh, B. Kim, D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, J. 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, 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, S. Lee, B.H. Oh, M. Oh, S.B. Oh, H. Seo, U.K. Yang, I. Yoon University of
Seoul, Seoul, Korea
W. Jang, D. Jeon, D.Y. Kang, Y. Kang, J.H. Kim, S. Kim, B. Ko, J.S.H. Lee, Y.
Lee, I.C. Park, Y. Roh, M.S. Ryu, D. Song, I.J. Watson, S. Yang Yonsei
University, Department of Physics, Seoul, Korea
S. Ha, H.D. Yoo Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea
M. Choi, Y. Jeong, H. Lee, Y. Lee, I. Yu College of Engineering and
Technology, American University of the Middle East (AUM), Egaila, Kuwait
T. Beyrouthy, Y. Maghrbi Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
V. Veckalns45 Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
M. Ambrozas, A. Juodagalvis, A. Rinkevicius, G. Tamulaitis National Centre for
Particle Physics, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
N. Bin Norjoharuddeen, W.A.T. Wan Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli
Universidad de Sonora (UNISON), Hermosillo, Mexico
J.F. Benitez, A. Castaneda Hernandez, M. León Coello, J.A. Murillo Quijada, A.
Sehrawat, 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 Cruz46,
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
I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada University of Montenegro,
Podgorica, Montenegro
J. Mijuskovic47, 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, A. Awais, 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, M. Górski, M. Kazana, M. Szleper, P.
Zalewski Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of Physics, University of
Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J. Krolikowski, M. Walczak
Laboratório de Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas, Lisboa,
Portugal
M. Araujo, P. Bargassa, D. Bastos, A. Boletti, P. Faccioli, M. Gallinaro, J.
Hollar, N. Leonardo, T. Niknejad, M. Pisano, J. Seixas, O. Toldaiev, J. Varela
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
S. Afanasiev, D. Budkouski, I. Golutvin, I. Gorbunov, V. Karjavine, V.
Korenkov, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev48,49, V. Palichik, V. Perelygin,
M. Savina, D. Seitova, V. Shalaev, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, V. Smirnov, O.
Teryaev, N. Voytishin, B.S. Yuldashev50, A. Zarubin, I. Zhizhin Petersburg
Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg), Russia
G. Gavrilov, V. Golovtcov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim51, E. Kuznetsova52, 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, D.
Kirpichnikov, 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. Nikitenko53, V. Popov, 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
M. Chadeeva54, A. Oskin, P. Parygin, E. Popova, E. Zhemchugov55 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, V. Bunichev, M. Dubinin56, L. Dudko, A. Ershov, V.
Klyukhin, O. Kodolova, I. Lokhtin, S. Obraztsov, M. Perfilov, S. Petrushanko,
V. Savrin Novosibirsk State University (NSU), Novosibirsk, Russia
V. Blinov57, T. Dimova57, L. Kardapoltsev57, A. Kozyrev57, I. Ovtin57, Y.
Skovpen57 Institute for High Energy Physics of National Research Centre
‘Kurchatov Institute’, Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, D. Elumakhov, V. Kachanov, D. Konstantinov, P.
Mandrik, V. Petrov, R. Ryutin, S. Slabospitskii, A. Sobol, S. Troshin, N.
Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University,
Tomsk, Russia
A. Babaev, V. Okhotnikov Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russia
V. Borshch, V. Ivanchenko, E. Tcherniaev University of Belgrade: Faculty of
Physics and VINCA Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic58, 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, C.A. Carrillo Montoya, M. Cepeda, M. Cerrada,
N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris, J.P. Fernández Ramos, J. Flix,
M.C. Fouz, O. Gonzalez Lopez, S. Goy Lopez, J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa, J. León
Holgado, D. Moran, Á. Navarro Tobar, A. Pérez-Calero Yzquierdo, J. Puerta
Pelayo, I. Redondo, L. Romero, S. Sánchez Navas, L. Urda Gómez, C. Willmott
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
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, A. Trapote, N. Trevisani Instituto de Física de Cantabria
(IFCA), CSIC-Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain
J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, J. Duarte Campderros, M.
Fernandez, C. Fernandez Madrazo, P.J. Fernández Manteca, A. García Alonso, G.
Gomez, C. Martinez Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del Arbol, F. Matorras, P.
Matorras Cuevas, J. Piedra Gomez, C. Prieels, T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno, L.
Scodellaro, I. Vila, J.M. Vizan Garcia University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri
Lanka
MK Jayananda, B. Kailasapathy59, 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, J. Alimena, E. Auffray, G. Auzinger, J. Baechler,
P. Baillon${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, D. Barney, J. Bendavid, M. Bianco, A.
Bocci, T. Camporesi, M. Capeans Garrido, G. Cerminara, S.S. Chhibra, L.
Cristella, D. d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, N. Daci, A. David, A. De Roeck, M.M.
Defranchis, M. Deile, M. Dobson, M. Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, N.
Emriskova, F. Fallavollita60, D. Fasanella, S. Fiorendi, A. Florent, G.
Franzoni, W. Funk, S. Giani, D. Gigi, K. Gill, F. Glege, L. Gouskos, M.
Haranko, J. Hegeman, Y. Iiyama, V. Innocente, T. James, P. Janot, J. Kaspar,
J. Kieseler, M. Komm, N. Kratochwil, C. Lange, S. Laurila, P. Lecoq, K. Long,
C. Lourenço, L. Malgeri, S. Mallios, M. Mannelli, A.C. Marini, F. Meijers, S.
Mersi, E. Meschi, F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, S. Orfanelli, L. Orsini, F.
Pantaleo, L. Pape, E. Perez, M. Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A.
Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, D. Piparo, M. Pitt, H. Qu, T. Quast, D. Rabady, A. Racz,
G. Reales Gutiérrez, M. Rieger, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, S.
Scarfi, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva, W. Snoeys,
P. Sphicas61, S. Summers, V.R. Tavolaro, D. Treille, A. Tsirou, G.P. Van
Onsem, M. Verzetti, J. Wanczyk62, K.A. Wozniak, W.D. Zeuner Paul Scherrer
Institut, Villigen, Switzerland
L. Caminada63, A. Ebrahimi, W. Erdmann, R. Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C.
Kaestli, D. Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, M. Missiroli, T. Rohe ETH Zurich -
Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics (IPA), Zurich, Switzerland
K. Androsov62, M. Backhaus, P. Berger, A. Calandri, N. Chernyavskaya, A. De
Cosa, G. Dissertori, M. Dittmar, M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, F. Eble, F. Glessgen,
T.A. Gómez Espinosa, C. Grab, D. Hits, W. Lustermann, A.-M. Lyon, R.A.
Manzoni, C. Martin Perez, M.T. Meinhard, F. Micheli, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, J.
Niedziela, F. Pauss, V. Perovic, G. Perrin, S. Pigazzini, M.G. Ratti, M.
Reichmann, C. Reissel, T. Reitenspiess, B. Ristic, D. Ruini, D.A. Sanz
Becerra, M. Schönenberger, V. Stampf, J. Steggemann62, R. Wallny, D.H. Zhu
Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
C. Amsler64, P. Bärtschi, C. Botta, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, K. Cormier, A.
De Wit, 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, A. Reimers, P. Robmann, S. Sanchez Cruz, K. Schweiger, Y.
Takahashi National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan
C. Adloff65, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A. Roy, T. Sarkar36, S.S. Yu National Taiwan
University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
L. Ceard, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, W.-S. Hou, Y.y. Li, R.-S. Lu, E.
Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen, H.y. Wu, E. Yazgan, P.r. Yu 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. Damarseckin66, Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, I. Dumanoglu67, E.
Eskut, Y. Guler, E. Gurpinar Guler68, I. Hos69, C. Isik, O. Kara, A. Kayis
Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, G. Onengut, K. Ozdemir70, A. Polatoz, A.E. Simsek, B.
Tali71, U.G. Tok, S. Turkcapar, I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East
Technical University, Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak72, G. Karapinar73, K. Ocalan74, M. Yalvac75 Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
B. Akgun, I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya76, O. Kaya77, Ö. Özçelik, S.
Tekten78, E.A. Yetkin79 Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
A. Cakir, K. Cankocak67, Y. Komurcu, S. Sen80 Istanbul University, Istanbul,
Turkey
S. Cerci71, B. Kaynak, S. Ozkorucuklu, D. Sunar Cerci71 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
D. Anthony, E. Bhal, S. Bologna, J.J. Brooke, A. Bundock, E. Clement, D.
Cussans, H. Flacher, J. Goldstein, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, B.
Krikler, S. Paramesvaran, S. Seif El Nasr-Storey, V.J. Smith, N. Stylianou81,
R. White Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev82, 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, I.R. Tomalin, T.
Williams Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, S. Bonomally, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, V.
Cepaitis, G.S. Chahal83, D. Colling, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M. Della Negra, S.
Fayer, G. Fedi, G. Hall, M.H. Hassanshahi, G. Iles, J. Langford, L. Lyons,
A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, A. Martelli, D.G. Monk, J. Nash84, M. Pesaresi, D.M.
Raymond, A. Richards, A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A. Shtipliyski, A. Tapper,
K. Uchida, T. Virdee19, M. Vojinovic, N. Wardle, S.N. Webb, D. Winterbottom,
A.G. Zecchinelli Brunel University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
K. Coldham, J.E. Cole, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, I.D. Reid, L. Teodorescu, S. Zahid
Baylor University, Waco, USA
S. Abdullin, A. Brinkerhoff, B. Caraway, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, A.R.
Kanuganti, B. McMaster, N. Pastika, S. Sawant, C. Sutantawibul, 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, S.I. Cooper, D. Di Croce, S.V. Gleyzer, C. Henderson, C.U. Perez,
P. Rumerio85, C. West Boston University, Boston, USA
A. Akpinar, A. Albert, D. Arcaro, C. Cosby, Z. Demiragli, E. Fontanesi, D.
Gastler, J. Rohlf, K. Salyer, D. Sperka, D. Spitzbart, I. Suarez, A. Tsatsos,
S. Yuan, D. Zou Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, B. Burkle, X. Coubez20, D. Cutts, M. Hadley, U. Heintz, J.M.
Hogan86, G. Landsberg, K.T. Lau, M. Lukasik, J. Luo, M. Narain, S. Sagir87, E.
Usai, W.Y. Wong, X. Yan, D. Yu, W. Zhang University of California, Davis,
Davis, USA
J. Bonilla, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez, M.
Chertok, J. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, G. Haza, F. Jensen, O. Kukral, R.
Lander, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, B. Regnery, D. Taylor, Y. Yao, F. Zhang
University of California, Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, R. Cousins, A. Datta, D. Hamilton, J. Hauser, M. Ignatenko, M.A.
Iqbal, T. Lam, N. Mccoll, W.A. Nash, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg, B. Stone, V.
Valuev University of California, Riverside, Riverside, USA
K. Burt, Y. Chen, R. Clare, J.W. Gary, M. Gordon, G. Hanson, G. Karapostoli,
O.R. Long, N. Manganelli, M. Olmedo Negrete, 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, D. Diaz, J.
Duarte, R. Gerosa, L. Giannini, D. Gilbert, J. Guiang, R. Kansal, V.
Krutelyov, R. Lee, J. Letts, M. Masciovecchio, S. May, M. Pieri, B.V. Sathia
Narayanan, V. Sharma, M. Tadel, A. Vartak, F. Würthwein, Y. Xiang, 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, M.
Kilpatrick, J. Kim, B. Marsh, H. Mei, M. Oshiro, M. Quinnan, J. Richman, U.
Sarica, D. Stuart, S. Wang California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
A. Bornheim, O. Cerri, I. Dutta, J.M. Lawhorn, N. Lu, J. Mao, H.B. Newman, J.
Ngadiuba, T.Q. Nguyen, M. Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, C. Wang, S. Xie, Z. Zhang,
R.Y. Zhu Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
J. Alison, S. An, M.B. Andrews, P. Bryant, T. Ferguson, A. Harilal, C. Liu, T.
Mudholkar, M. Paulini, A. Sanchez University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, A. Hassani, E. MacDonald, R. Patel, A. Perloff, C.
Savard, K. Stenson, K.A. Ulmer, S.R. Wagner Cornell University, Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, S. Bright-thonney, Y. Cheng, D.J. Cranshaw, S. Hogan, J. Monroy,
J.R. Patterson, D. Quach, J. Reichert, M. Reid, A. Ryd, W. Sun, J. Thom, P.
Wittich, R. Zou Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, USA
M. Albrow, M. Alyari, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S. Banerjee,
L.A.T. Bauerdick, 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, K.F. Di
Petrillo, V.D. Elvira, Y. Feng, J. Freeman, Z. Gecse, L. Gray, D. Green, S.
Grünendahl, O. Gutsche, R.M. Harris, R. Heller, T.C. Herwig, J. Hirschauer, B.
Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, T. Klijnsma, B. Klima, K.H.M.
Kwok, S. Lammel, D. Lincoln, R. Lipton, T. Liu, C. Madrid, K. Maeshima, C.
Mantilla, D. Mason, P. McBride, P. Merkel, S. Mrenna, S. Nahn, V. O’Dell, V.
Papadimitriou, K. Pedro, C. Pena56, 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 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, E. Koenig, J. Konigsberg, A. Korytov,
K.H. Lo, K. Matchev, N. Menendez, G. Mitselmakher, A. Muthirakalayil Madhu, N.
Rawal, D. Rosenzweig, S. Rosenzweig, K. Shi, J. Sturdy, J. Wang, E. Yigitbasi,
X. Zuo Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
T. Adams, A. Askew, R. Habibullah, 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. Elkafrawy88, M. Hohlmann, R. Kumar Verma, D.
Noonan, M. Rahmani, M. Saunders, F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago
(UIC), Chicago, USA
M.R. Adams, H. Becerril Gonzalez, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, S. Dittmer, O.
Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, A.H. Merrit, C. Mills, G.
Oh, T. Roy, S. Rudrabhatla, M.B. Tonjes, N. Varelas, J. Viinikainen, X. Wang,
Z. Wu, Z. Ye The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, K. Dilsiz89, R.P. Gandrajula, O.K. Köseyan, J.-P. Merlo, A.
Mestvirishvili90, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul91, Y. Onel, A. Penzo, C. Snyder, E.
Tiras92 Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
O. Amram, B. Blumenfeld, L. Corcodilos, J. Davis, M. Eminizer, A.V. Gritsan,
S. Kyriacou, P. Maksimovic, J. Roskes, M. Swartz, T.Á. Vámi The University of
Kansas, Lawrence, USA
A. Abreu, J. Anguiano, C. Baldenegro Barrera, P. Baringer, A. Bean, A.
Bylinkin, Z. Flowers, T. Isidori, S. Khalil, J. King, G. Krintiras, A.
Kropivnitskaya, M. Lazarovits, C. Lindsey, J. Marquez, N. Minafra, M. Murray,
M. Nickel, C. Rogan, C. Royon, R. Salvatico, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz, C. Smith,
J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang, Z. Warner, J. Williams, G. Wilson Kansas State
University, Manhattan, USA
S. Duric, A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, D. Kim, Y. Maravin, T. Mitchell, A. Modak, K.
Nam 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, N.J. Hadley, S. Jabeen,
R.G. Kellogg, T. Koeth, A.C. Mignerey, S. Nabili, M. Seidel, A. Skuja, L.
Wang, K. Wong Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, G. Andreassi, R. Bi, S. Brandt, W. Busza, I.A. Cali, Y. Chen,
M. D’Alfonso, J. Eysermans, G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov, P. Harris, M. Hu,
M. Klute, D. Kovalskyi, J. Krupa, Y.-J. Lee, B. Maier, C. Mironov, C. Paus, D.
Rankin, C. Roland, G. Roland, Z. Shi, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Tatar, J. Wang, Z.
Wang, B. Wyslouch University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, P. Hansen, J. Hiltbrand, Sh. Jain, M. Krohn, Y.
Kubota, J. Mans, M. Revering, R. Rusack, R. Saradhy, N. Schroeder, N. Strobbe,
M.A. Wadud University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
K. Bloom, M. Bryson, S. Chauhan, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, L. Finco, F. Golf,
J.R. González Fernández, C. Joo, I. Kravchenko, M. Musich, I. Reed, J.E.
Siado, G.R. Snow${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, W. Tabb, F. Yan State University
of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
G. Agarwal, H. Bandyopadhyay, L. Hay, I. Iashvili, A. Kharchilava, C. McLean,
D. Nguyen, J. Pekkanen, S. Rappoccio, A. Williams 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, M. Velasco University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, USA
R. Band, R. Bucci, A. Das, N. Dev, R. Goldouzian, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado
Anampa, C. Jessop, K. Lannon, J. Lawrence, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, I.
Mcalister, T. McCauley, F. Meng, K. Mohrman, Y. Musienko48, R. Ruchti, P.
Siddireddy, M. Wayne, A. Wightman, M. Wolf, M. Zarucki, L. Zygala The Ohio
State University, Columbus, USA
B. Bylsma, B. Cardwell, L.S. Durkin, B. Francis, C. Hill, M. Nunez Ornelas, K.
Wei, B.L. Winer, B.R. Yates Princeton University, Princeton, USA
F.M. Addesa, B. Bonham, P. Das, G. Dezoort, P. Elmer, A. Frankenthal, B.
Greenberg, N. Haubrich, S. Higginbotham, A. Kalogeropoulos, G. Kopp, S. Kwan,
D. Lange, M.T. Lucchini, D. Marlow, K. Mei, I. Ojalvo, J. Olsen, C. Palmer, D.
Stickland, C. Tully University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
A.S. Bakshi, V.E. Barnes, R. Chawla, S. Das, L. Gutay, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, S.
Karmarkar, M. Liu, G. Negro, N. Neumeister, G. Paspalaki, C.C. Peng, S.
Piperov, A. Purohit, J.F. Schulte, M. Stojanovic16, J. Thieman, F. Wang, R.
Xiao, W. Xie Purdue University Northwest, Hammond, USA
J. Dolen, N. Parashar Rice University, Houston, USA
A. Baty, M. Decaro, S. Dildick, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, P. Gardner, F.J.M.
Geurts, A. Kumar, W. Li, B.P. Padley, R. Redjimi, W. Shi, A.G. Stahl Leiton,
S. Yang, L. Zhang, Y. Zhang University of Rochester, Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, J.L. Dulemba, C. Fallon, T. Ferbel, M.
Galanti, A. Garcia-Bellido, O. Hindrichs, A. Khukhunaishvili, E. Ranken, R.
Taus Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, USA
B. Chiarito, J.P. Chou, A. Gandrakota, Y. Gershtein, E. Halkiadakis, A. Hart,
M. Heindl, E. Hughes, S. Kaplan, O. Karacheban23, 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. Bouhali93, M. Dalchenko, A. Delgado, R. Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T.
Kamon94, H. Kim, S. Luo, S. Malhotra, R. Mueller, D. Overton, 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, I. Volobouev, Z. Wang, A. Whitbeck
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
E. Appelt, S. Greene, A. Gurrola, W. Johns, A. Melo, H. Ni, K. Padeken, F.
Romeo, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska 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, S. White, E. Wolfe Wayne State
University, Detroit, USA
N. Poudyal University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI, USA
K. Black, T. Bose, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, S. Dasu, I. De Bruyn, P.
Everaerts, F. Fienga, C. Galloni, H. He, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, A.
Lanaro, A. Loeliger, R. Loveless, J. Madhusudanan Sreekala, A. Mallampalli, A.
Mohammadi, D. Pinna, A. Savin, V. Shang, V. Sharma, W.H. Smith, D. Teague, S.
Trembath-reichert, W. Vetens †: Deceased
1: Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria
2: Also at 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 Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
5: Also at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
6: Also at University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
7: Also at Department of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China,
Beijing, China
8: Also at UFMS, Nova Andradina, Brazil
9: Also at Nanjing Normal University Department of Physics, Nanjing, China
10: Now at The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
11: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics named by A.I.
Alikhanov of NRC ‘Kurchatov Institute’, Moscow, Russia
12: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
13: Also at Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
14: Also at Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
15: Now 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 Erzincan Binali Yildirim University, Erzincan, Turkey
19: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
20: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
21: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
22: Also at Department of Physics, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan,
Iran, Isfahan, Iran
23: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
24: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
25: Also at Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Assiut University, Assiut,
Egypt
26: Also at Eszterhazy Karoly University, Karoly Robert Campus, Gyongyos,
Hungary
27: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary,
Debrecen, Hungary
28: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
29: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary, Budapest, Hungary
30: Also at Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
31: Also at IIT Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India, Bhubaneswar, India
32: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
33: Also at G.H.G. Khalsa College, Punjab, India
34: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India
35: Also at University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India
36: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
37: Also at Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Mumbai, India
38: Also at Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
39: Also at Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
40: Also at Department of Physics, University of Science and Technology of
Mazandaran, Behshahr, Iran
41: Now at INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b, Politecnico di Bari
c, Bari, Italy
42: Also at Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and
Sustainable Economic Development, Bologna, Italy
43: Also at Centro Siciliano di Fisica Nucleare e di Struttura Della Materia,
Catania, Italy
44: Also at Università di Napoli ’Federico II’, NAPOLI, Italy
45: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia, Riga, Latvia
46: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico City, Mexico
47: Also at IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
48: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
49: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
50: Also at Institute of Nuclear Physics of the Uzbekistan Academy of
Sciences, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
51: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
52: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
53: Also at Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
54: Also at Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia,
Moscow, Russia
55: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
56: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
57: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
58: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
59: Also at Trincomalee Campus, Eastern University, Sri Lanka, Nilaveli, Sri
Lanka
60: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy,
Pavia, Italy
61: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
62: Also at Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
63: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
64: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics, Vienna, Austria,
Vienna, Austria
65: Also at Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules,
IN2P3-CNRS, Annecy-le-Vieux, France
66: Also at Şırnak University, Sirnak, Turkey
67: Also at Near East University, Research Center of Experimental Health
Science, Nicosia, Turkey
68: Also at Konya Technical University, Konya, Turkey
69: Also at Istanbul University - Cerrahpasa, Faculty of Engineering,
Istanbul, Turkey
70: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
71: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
72: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
73: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
74: Also at Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
75: Also at Bozok Universitetesi Rektörlügü, Yozgat, Turkey, Yozgat, Turkey
76: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
77: Also at Milli Savunma University, Istanbul, Turkey
78: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
79: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
80: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
81: Also at Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
82: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
83: Also at IPPP Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom
84: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia
85: Also at Università di Torino, TORINO, Italy
86: Also at Bethel University, St. Paul, Minneapolis, USA, St. Paul, USA
87: Also at Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey
88: Also at Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
89: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
90: Also at Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
91: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
92: Also at Erciyes University, KAYSERI, Turkey
93: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
94: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea, Daegu, Korea