EXO-19-015

EXO-19-015

# Search for singly and pair-produced leptoquarks coupling to third-generation
fermions in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$

###### Abstract

A search for leptoquarks produced singly and in pairs in proton-proton
collisions is presented. We consider the leptoquark (LQ) to be a scalar
particle of charge -1/3$e$ coupling to a top quark plus a tau lepton
($\PQt\PGt$) or a bottom quark plus a neutrino ($\PQb\PGn$), or a vector
particle of charge +2/3$e$, coupling to $\PQt\PGn$ or $\PQb\PGt$. These
choices are motivated by models that can explain a series of anomalies
observed in the measurement of meson decays. In this analysis the signatures
$\PQt\PGt\PGn\PQb$ and $\PQt\PGt\PGn$ are probed, using data recorded by the
CMS experiment at the CERN LHC at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ and that correspond to an
integrated luminosity of $137\fbinv$. These signatures have not been
previously explored in a dedicated search. The data are found to be in
agreement with the standard model prediction. Lower limits at 95% confidence
level are set on the LQ mass in the range 0.98–1.73, depending on the LQ spin
and its coupling $\lambda$ to a lepton and a quark, and assuming equal
couplings for the two LQ decay modes considered. These are the most stringent
constraints to date on the existence of leptoquarks in this scenario.

##  0.1 Introduction

Experimental evidence has promoted the standard model (SM) to the role of a
reference theory of the physics of elementary particles. Despite the theory’s
successes, there are several fundamental aspects of observed particle physics
that lack a complete explanation. One of these is the symmetry between the
quark and lepton families. Possible explanations have been offered by several
models that extend the SM, such as grand unified theories [1, 2, 3, 4],
technicolor models [5, 6, 7, 8], compositeness scenarios [9, 10], and
$R$-parity violating supersymmetry [11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20].
These theories foresee a new particle that carries both lepton number $L$ and
baryon number $B$, and is generically referred to as a “leptoquark” (LQ).

A leptoquark has a fractional electric charge, and can be either a scalar
particle ($\text{LQ}_{\text{S}}$, with a spin of 0), or a vector particle
($\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}$, with a spin of 1), with 3$B+L$ equal to either 2 or
0. At hadron colliders, leptoquarks can be produced in pairs, or singly in
association with a lepton [21, 22], as illustrated by the Feynman diagrams in
Fig. 1. For $\text{LQ}_{\text{S}}$ pair production, the cross section depends
only on the $\text{LQ}_{\text{S}}$ mass for the range of LQ mass and $\lambda$
values investigated in this search, while for $\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}$ it may
depend on additional parameters [23], to comply with constraints imposed by
unitarity at high energy scales. For singly produced leptoquarks, the cross
section further depends on the couplings of the LQ to the quark and the
lepton, and on the quark flavor.

Leptoquarks have recently gained enhanced interest, as they may provide an
explanation for a series of anomalies observed in the measurement of meson
decays in charged-current $\PQb\to\PQc\ell\PGn$ [24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, 33] and neutral-current $\PQb\to\PQs\ell\ell$ [34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,
40, 41] processes. The solutions proposed to explain these anomalies favor
effective couplings to third-generation SM fermions at thescale, leading to
processes that may be accessible at the CERN LHC. In particular, the model of
Ref. [42] predicts a charge -1/3$e$ $\text{LQ}_{\text{S}}$, with 3$B+L=2$,
decaying to a top quark and a $\tau$ lepton ($\PQt\PGt$), or a bottom quark
and a neutrino ($\PQb\PGnGt$), while the model presented in Ref. [43] contains
a charge +2/3$e$ $\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}$, with 3$B+L=0$, decaying to a top
quark and an antineutrino ($\PQt\PAGnGt$) or a bottom quark and an anti-$\tau$
lepton ($\PQb\PGtp$). Each model includes a charge-conjugate leptoquark and
prefers a region of parameter space that gives equal branching fractions for
the two allowed decays, rendering the $\PQt\PGt\PGn\PQb$ signature as the most
frequent for pair-produced leptoquarks.

The analysis described in this Letter investigates the existence of
leptoquarks produced in pairs with decays leading to the $\PQt\PQb\PGt\PGn$
signature, or singly with the decay leading to $\PQt\PGt\PGn$. The models of
Refs. [42, 43] are considered in this analysis, relying on the implementations
described in Refs. [44, 45]. In these models, the parameters of interest for
determining the cross section are: the LQ mass; for $\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}$, a
dimensionless coupling $k$, set to 1 (Yang–Mills case) or 0 (minimal coupling
case) [23]; and the LQ coupling ($\lambda$) to the lepton and quark, which
affects the cross section for single LQ production. We note that the analysis
is designed to be agnostic to the charge of the LQ, and is thus sensitive also
to models with up-type scalar LQ and down-type vector LQ, which are not
directly considered below.

The most recent searches for leptoquarks have been performed at
$\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ by the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations for couplings to
($\PQt\PGt$, $\PQb\PGn$) and ($\PQt\PGn$, $\PQb\PGt$) [46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51,
52, 53] and for couplings to other quark-lepton pairs [54, 55, 56, 57, 51].

Differently from previous searches that have separately considered single or
pair LQ production, the present analysis strategy is devised to search for
both production mechanisms simultaneously. The $\PQt\PGt\PGn$($\PQb$)
signatures are analyzed for the first time considering the inclusive hadronic
decay channels of the top quark and $\PGt$ lepton. We include a dedicated
selection for the case of a large LQ-t mass splitting giving rise to a
Lorentz-boosted top quark, whose decay products may not be resolved as
individual jets.

The search is based on a data sample of proton-proton ($\Pp\Pp$) collisions at
a center-of-mass energy of 13recorded by the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC in
the years 2016–18, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $137\fbinv$.

Figure 1:  Feynman diagrams for dominant leptoquark production modes at
leading order: pairwise (left), and in combination with a lepton (right). In
the scenarios considered the $\text{LQ}_{\text{S}}$ may couple to $\PQt\PGt$
or $\PQb\PGn$, while the $\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}$ may couple to $\PQt\PGn$ or
$\PQb\PGt$.

##  0.2 The CMS detector

The central feature of the CMS detector is a 3.8T superconducting solenoid
magnet with an inner diameter of 6m. Within the magnet volume are the
following subdetectors: a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate
crystal electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), and a brass and scintillator
hadron calorimeter. Muons are detected in gas-ionization chambers embedded in
the steel flux-return yoke outside the solenoid. In addition, two steel and
quartz-fiber hadron forward calorimeters extend the detection coverage to
regions close to the beam pipe. A more detailed description of the CMS
detector, together with a definition of the coordinate system used and the
relevant kinematic variables, can be found in Ref. [58]. Events of interest
are selected using a two-tiered trigger system [59]. 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 time
interval of about 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 Simulated data samples

Monte Carlo (MC) event generators are used to simulate the SM background
processes and the signal. These simulations are used to guide the design of
the analysis, to estimate minor backgrounds, and to interpret the results.

Background events are generated at leading order (LO) for the
$\PW+\text{jets}$ and $\PZ/\PGg^{*}+\text{jets}$ processes using the generator
2.2.2 (2.4.2) [60] for simulated events matched with 2016 (2017–18) data,
while the next-to-LO (NLO) generator 2.0 [61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66] is used for
, $\PQt\PW$, and diboson processes, and at NLO for $\ttbar+\PW$,
$\ttbar+\PZ/\PGg^{*}$, $\ttbar\ttbar$, $\PQt\PZ\PQq$, and triboson production.
Both and are interfaced with 8.226 (8.230) [67] for parton showering and
hadronization using the tune CUETP8M1 [68] or CUETP8M2T4 [69] (CP5 [70]) and
the NNPDF 3.0 [71] (3.1 [72]) parton distribution functions (PDFs) for
simulating all 2016 (2017–18) samples. In the following, we group these
backgrounds where a genuine $\tau$ lepton is present as either “t production”
or “Others”, depending on whether a top quark is produced in the SM process or
not.

Signal samples are generated at LO using interfaced with for the
$\text{LQ}_{\text{S}}$ and $\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}$ models of Refs. [42] and
[43], according to the implementations of Refs. [44] and [45]. The NNPDF 3.0
[71] (3.1 [72]) parton distribution function (PDF) set is utilized with the
tune CUETP8M1 [68] (CP2 [70]) for the signal events used with the 2016
(2017–18) data. The LQ mass range studied is between 0.5 and 2.3, with samples
produced in steps of 0.3. We consider $\text{LQ}_{\text{S}}$
($\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}$) decaying as $\text{LQ}\to\PQt\tau$ ($\PQt\nu$) or
$\text{LQ}\to\PQb\nu$ ($\PQb\tau$). Samples of pair-produced leptoquarks are
generated considering both gluon-initiated and quark-initiated mechanisms. We
consider equal values of $\lambda$ for leptoquarks coupled to ($\PQt\PGt$,
$\PQb\PGn$) and ($\PQt\PGn$, $\PQb\PGt$). Samples of singly produced LQ are
generated with $\lambda$ values 0.1, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, and 2.5. In the MC
simulation, the kinematic distributions of singly produced leptoquarks are
independent of $\lambda$ below $\lambda=0.5$ (1) in the case of
$\text{LQ}_{\text{S}}$ ($\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}$), and in both cases are
independent of k. The dependence on $\lambda$ above these values is ascribed
to the contributions of virtual LQ states in the quark-gluon fusion amplitude
(Fig. 1 right) that become more and more relevant compared to the resonant LQ
production for increasing values of LQ mass and $\lambda$, and are manifest as
off-shell events that tend to populate the low-mass tail.

Additional $\Pp\Pp$ interactions within the same or nearby bunch crossings
(pileup) are taken into account by superimposing simulated minimum bias
interactions onto the hard scattering process, with a number distribution
matching that observed in data. Simulated events are propagated through the
full GEANT4 based simulation [73] of the CMS detector.

##  0.4 Particle reconstruction and identification

A particle-flow (PF) algorithm [74] is used to identify and reconstruct
individual particles in the event (electrons, muons, photons, neutral and
charged hadrons) through a combination of the information from the entire
detector. These PF objects are used to reconstruct higher-level objects such
as hadronically decaying $\tau$ leptons (), jets, and missing transverse
momentum ($\ptvecmiss$), taken as the negative vector sum of the transverse
momenta () of all reconstructed particles in an event. The magnitudes of and
are referred to as and , respectively.

Jet candidates are reconstructed from PF candidates using the anti-clustering
algorithm [75] with a distance parameter of 0.8 (“AK8 jet”) or 0.4 (“AK4
jet”), and are selected requiring $\pt>30\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.4$. The jet
energy scale (JES) is calibrated through correction factors dependent on the ,
pseudorapidity ($\eta$), energy density, and the area of the jet. The jet
energy resolution (JER) for the simulated jets is corrected to reproduce the
resolution observed in data [76].

The AK8 jet candidates are required to have $\pt>180\GeV$, $\abs{\eta}<2.4$,
and to be separated by $\Delta R>0.8$ from an identified , where $\Delta
R\equiv\sqrt{\smash[b]{(\Delta\eta)^{2}+(\Delta\phi)^{2}}}$ and $\phi$ is the
azimuthal angle. They are selected if they are identified as originating from
a boson decaying to $\PQq\PAQq^{\prime}$ (denoted as “jets”) by using a
pruning algorithm [77] or from a top quark decaying fully hadronically
(“jets”). The mass of the pruned AK8 jet is required to be within the range
65–105to select candidates consistent with bosons and to reject quark and
gluon jets. The discrimination between jets and quark and gluon jets is
further improved by requiring the ratio $\tau_{21}$ to be less than 0.35 or
0.45, depending on the year of data taking, where
$\tau_{21}\equiv\tau_{2}/\tau_{1}$ and the $N$-subjettiness $\tau_{n}$ has the
property that it attains a smaller value the more nearly the jet resembles a
collection of $n$ subjets [78]. In a similar way, an AK8 jet may be identified
as arising from the fully hadronic decay of a top quark. These jets are
required to have $\pt>400\GeV$, mass of the jet reconstructed through the
modified mass drop tagger algorithm [79, 80] between 105 and 220, and
$\tau_{32}\equiv\tau_{3}/\tau_{2}$ less than 0.81.

The candidates are reconstructed with the hadron-plus-strips algorithm [81],
which is seeded with AK4 jets. This algorithm reconstructs candidates in the
one-prong, one-prong plus (s), and three-prong decay modes. A discriminator
based on a multivariate analysis, including isolation [81] as well as lifetime
information, is used to reduce the frequency of jets being misidentified as
candidates. The typical working point used in this analysis has an efficiency
of ${\approx}60$% for a genuine , with a misidentification rate for quark and
gluon jets of ${\approx}0.1$% [81]. Electrons and muons misidentified as
candidates are suppressed using criteria based on the consistency among the
measurements in the tracker, the calorimeters, and the muon detectors. The
candidates are required to have a minimum of 20 GeV and $\abs{\eta}<2.3$.

Jets arising from a bottom quark (“jets”) are identified among AK4 jets using
the combined secondary vertex algorithm [82]. We choose a “loose” working
point that has an efficiency of 85% for genuine jets and a rejection of 90% of
light-flavor jets. The jets are considered regardless of whether they are
contained in top quark candidates.

Further requirements are imposed on the AK4 jets used in the construction of
top and bottom quark candidates. These are required to have $\pt>30\GeV$ and
$\abs{\eta}<2.4$, and to be separated by $\Delta R>0.4$ (0.8) from an
identified (jet).

A hadronically decaying top quark candidate is reconstructed considering three
cases: an AK8 jet identified as a jet, a pair comprising an AK4 jet and a jet
and having combined mass closest to the top quark mass among such pairs, and
the triplet of AK4 jets having a mass closest to the top quark mass. The
tagging information is not used in any of these three reconstruction
processes. These cases correspond to the three possible topologies of hadronic
top quark decay and are referred to as “fully merged”, “partially merged”, and
“resolved”, respectively. The reconstruction considers these cases in the
order just described, removing the objects contained in a candidate from
further consideration to ensure that the categories are exclusive. The
efficiency for identifying , , and jets in simulation is corrected to match
the results found in data [83, 82].

To select events from processes with fully hadronic states, a veto on
electrons and muons is applied. Electron candidates are reconstructed by
combining the information from the ECAL and the silicon tracker, and are
identified if they satisfy quality requirements and isolation as specified in
[84]; they are selected if they have $\pt>20\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.5$. Muon
candidates are reconstructed by combining the information from the muon system
and the silicon tracker, and are identified if they pass additional
identification criteria and isolation as specified in [85]; they are selected
if they have $\pt>20\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.4$.

##  0.5 Event selection

Selected events must satisfy a trigger that requires both and greater than
120, being the magnitude of the negative summed of all the AK4 jets
reconstructed with the PF algorithm.

Offline, we consider events in which both $\ptmiss$ and $\mht\geq 200\GeV$,
and $\HT\geq 300\GeV$, where is the scalar sum of the of all AK4 jets. Events
entering this region are further required to contain exactly one top quark
candidate, one candidate, no electrons or muons, and at least one jet.
Finally, the transverse mass
$\mT(\tauh,\ptmiss)\equiv\sqrt{\smash[b]{2\pt(\tauh)\ptmiss[1-\cos\Delta\phi(\ptvec(\tauh),\ptvecmiss)]}}$
has to exceed 300 , where $\ptvec(\tauh)$ is the transverse momentum vector of
the $\tauh$ candidate.

From simulation we find that the total selection efficiency, accounting for
both the LQ decay branching fraction and the event selection, varies between
about 2 and 9% for an LQ mass in the range 0.5–2.3for pair-produced
leptoquarks. For singly produced leptoquarks, taking $\lambda=1.5$, the signal
efficiency is about 0.7% for an $\text{LQ}_{\text{S}}$ with a mass of 1.1; the
corresponding number for an $\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}$ is 2.4 (3.1)% for $k=0$ (1)
for a mass of 1.4. The efficiency decreases for higher $\lambda$ and LQ mass
values. This is because of the increased impact of the virtual leptoquarks
leading to the nonresonant process in which the events tend to populate the
low-mass tail, as described in Section 0.3. The efficiency values for all the
different leptoquark hypotheses and parameters investigated in this search can
be found in the HEPData database [86]. The search is less sensitive to single
LQ production than to pair production because of the smaller signal efficiency
for higher $\lambda$ and LQ mass values and the similarity of the kinematic
properties to those of the expected SM background. These effects outweigh the
higher relative $\text{LQ}_{\text{S}}$ ($\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}$ $k=0$,
$\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}$ $k=1$) cross section for mass values of 0.5 and 0.7
(0.6 and 1.2 , 1.2 and 2 ) at values of $\lambda$ of 2 and 1.5.

The events that pass the above selection are categorized according to the
number of jets ($N_{{\PQb}\text{-jet}}=1$ or $\geq 2$) and to whether the top
quark candidate is selected through the fully or partially merged topology
(“boosted”), or the resolved topology (“resolved”). For each of these four
categories of events a distribution-based analysis is performed, searching for
evidence of a signal by considering the distribution of $S_{\mathrm{T}}$,
which is the scalar sum of the of the top quark candidate, the selected , and
the $\ptmiss$. Figure 2 shows the $S_{\mathrm{T}}$ distributions for the
events passing the signal selection in the four categories of the analysis,
while Table 0.5 gives the yields from the background estimation and the
expected signal.

Figure 2: Distribution of the variable $S_{\mathrm{T}}$ for events passing the
signal selection for the SM background estimation (stacked filled histograms),
data (black points), and different hypotheses of LQ signals (lines). Upper
left: boosted top quark candidate (hadronically decaying top quark
reconstructed in the fully or partially merged topology) and exactly one jet;
lower left: boosted top quark candidate and at least two jets; upper right:
resolved top quark candidate (hadronically decaying top quark reconstructed in
the resolved topology) and exactly one jet; lower-right: resolved top quark
candidate and at least two jets. The cross-hatched band in the upper panels
represents the total uncertainty (statistical+systematic). The lower panel of
each distribution shows the ratio, and its uncertainty, between the
observation and the SM expectation.

Yields from the SM background estimation, data, and expected signal, for the
selected events, with total (statistical+systematic) uncertainties.  Category
Boosted Resolved $N_{{\PQb}\text{-jet}}$ $=$ $1$ $N_{{\PQb}\text{-jet}}$
$\geq$ $2$ $N_{{\PQb}\text{-jet}}$ $=$ $1$ $N_{{\PQb}\text{-jet}}$ $\geq$ $2$
Misidentified  20.5 $\pm$ 2.1 14.4 $\pm$ 1.8 199 $\pm$ 13 170 $\pm$ 12
production 7.8 $\pm$ 2.1 8.2 $\pm$ 1.9 59 $\pm$ 5 127 $\pm$ 10 Others 5.3
$\pm$ 2.0 1.6 $\pm$ 0.8 56 $\pm$ 25 23 $\pm$ 11 Total background 33.5 $\pm$
3.6 24.2 $\pm$ 2.7 314 $\pm$ 29 320 $\pm$ 19 Data 39 25 332 316
$\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}$ $\overline{\text{LQ}}_{\text{V}}$ ($k=1$,
$m_{\mathrm{LQ}}=1.7\TeV$) 4.6 $\pm$ 0.7 8.0 $\pm$ 1.2 3.1 $\pm$ 0.3 7.7 $\pm$
0.7 $\tau$$\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}$ ($k=1$, $\lambda=1.5$,
$m_{\mathrm{LQ}}=1.4\TeV$) 5.5 $\pm$ 0.4 4.8 $\pm$ 0.4 5.0 $\pm$ 0.2 6.6 $\pm$
0.3 $\tau$$\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}$ ($k=0$, $\lambda=1.5$,
$m_{\mathrm{LQ}}=1.1\TeV$) 10.1 $\pm$ 0.7 8.6 $\pm$ 0.7 13.4 $\pm$ 0.6 16.4
$\pm$ 0.8 $\nu$$\text{LQ}_{\text{S}}$ ($\lambda=1.5$,
$m_{\mathrm{LQ}}=0.5\TeV$) 13.5 $\pm$ 0.8 12.0 $\pm$ 0.8 52.7 $\pm$ 2.7 57.5
$\pm$ 2.9

##  0.6 Background estimation

Several SM processes contribute as backgrounds in the signal region. We treat
separately the two cases in which a genuine $\tau$ lepton is present or not in
the event.

The irreducible background with a real $\tau$ lepton that decays hadronically
is estimated from simulated samples, and normalized to data in a control
region where we expect negligible contribution from the signal to account for
residual differences between data and simulation. Processes with at least one
top quark (e.g. or $\ttbar+\PW$) account for most of this irreducible
background, and a control region is defined by applying the requirements used
for the signal region, except with $\mT(\tauh,\ptmiss)<80\GeV$ and
$N_{{\PQb}\text{-jet}}\geq 2$.

The dominant source of contamination is the reducible background, which
comprises all of the processes (mainly events composed uniquely of jets
produced through the strong interaction, $\PW+\text{jets}$, and ) that pass
the signal region selection and in which a jet is misidentified as a
candidate. We estimate this background entirely from data by applying
misidentification weights $w$ to the yields of events selected with the same
requirements as the signal region, except that the must pass a looser
identification requirement and fail the nominal one. We refer to this sample
as the application region. An estimate from simulation of the number of events
entering the application region while having a genuine is subtracted from the
application region yields. The weight $w$ of each event depends on the
probability $f$ that a misidentified candidate passing the relaxed criteria
also passes the nominal criteria, and is given by $f/(1-f)$. The probability
$f$ is parameterized as a function of the and $\abs{\eta}$ of the jet
associated with the selected candidate, within
$\Delta$R$(\text{jet},\tauh)<0.4$. It is measured in a large data sample with
a high fraction of jets misidentified as . To select this sample the signal
region requirements are modified by removing the thresholds on and and
requiring instead the presence of a muon with greater than 60. The requirement
$N_{{\PQb}\text{-jet}}\geq 1$ is replaced by $N_{{\PQb}\text{-jet}}=0$, to
suppress events with genuine , and the requirement on $\mT(\tauh,\ptmiss)$ is
replaced by $\mT(\tauh,\PGm)>120\GeV$, to suppress Drell–Yan events. In the
resultant sample, more than 90% of the events have jets misidentified as ,
with W+jets contributing 60% and the rest consisting of a mixture of top,
diboson, and multijet events. This estimation method has been validated in a
region that passes the signal region selection, except for the modified
requirement $120<\mT(\tauh,\ptmiss)<300\GeV$. This region is verified to have
a composition of background processes similar to that of the signal region but
is dominated by events with a misidentified candidate, as determined from MC
simulation. We find good agreement between the data and the estimated
background in this region, as well as in a larger one with the
$N_{{\PQb}\text{-jet}}$ requirement released. The observed difference does not
exceed 12%, and this value is therefore assigned as the systematic uncertainty
in the background estimated using this method.

##  0.7 Systematic uncertainties

Systematic uncertainties from various sources are propagated to both the shape
and normalization of the distributions in the discriminating variable
$S_{\mathrm{T}}$. The systematic uncertainties affect both the signal and the
background, particularly the minor backgrounds (t production or “Others”) that
are derived relying on the MC simulation, while the main background ($\PGt$
misidentification) is estimated from data.

The shape uncertainties vary according to the background process,
$S_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin, and year of data taking. Thus in the following, we quote
a range of values, reflecting the minimum and maximum uncertainties observed
under the various conditions. The effect of the uncertainty on the simulation
of pileup is estimated by varying the inelastic cross section [87] used in the
simulation by 5%. This results in an uncertainty associated with the
background of between 1 and 6%, and of 1% associated with the signal. The
uncertainty in the acceptance associated with the PDFs is evaluated in
accordance with the PDF4LHC recommendations [88], using the PDF4LHC15 Hessian
PDF set with 100 eigenvectors, and is found to be less than 5% for the signal.
The uncertainty related to the trigger is between 1 and 2%, for both the
background and the signal. The jet four-momenta are varied within the JES and
the JER uncertainties [76], resulting in an effect that ranges between 1 and
35% for the background and up to 2.5% for the signal. The above uncertainties
are correlated across the years, while those discussed below are treated as
uncorrelated, as they are dominated by statistical uncertainties. Corrections
related to the tagging are varied by the uncertainties that are measured with
control samples in data and simulation [82], giving a systematic uncertainty
in the yields in the range 3–10% for the background and 8–10% (13–23%) for
single (pair) LQ production. Analogously, we take into account the uncertainty
in the energy scale and identification [81], which amounts to 1–5% (less than
1%) and 5–13 (13–20)% for the background (signal). The and jet tagging
uncertainty amounts to 2–11 (1–4)% and 3–15 (7–14)% for the background
(signal). For all of the background processes, the statistical uncertainty in
the samples used is included in the systematic uncertainty.

The sources of systematic uncertainty that affect only the normalization are
the uncertainties in the cross sections of the backgrounds estimated from
simulation (5% for top quark production and 30% for the remaining
backgrounds), the uncertainty in the misidentified contribution, whose value
of 12% is assigned from the consistency test discussed in Section 0.6, and the
uncertainty in the integrated luminosity. The integrated luminosities of the
2016–18 data-taking periods are individually known with uncertainties in the
2.3–2.5% range [89, 90, 91], while the total Run 2 (2016–18) integrated
luminosity has an uncertainty of 1.8%, the improvement in precision reflecting
the (uncorrelated) time evolution of some systematic effects.

##  0.8 Results

Figure 2 and Table 0.5 show that the data are in agreement with the background
expectations from the SM in all of the event categories investigated. We
proceed with setting upper limits at 95% confidence level () on the cross
sections for the production of leptoquarks in pairs,
$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\text{LQ}\overline{\text{LQ}})$, and singly,
$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\ell\text{LQ})$, for $\text{LQ}_{\text{S}}$ ($\ell=\nu)$, and
$\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}$ ($\ell=\tau$). We use the criterion [92, 93] with
binned templates of both background and signal as given by the distributions
of Fig. 2. For each category and each bin of $S_{\mathrm{T}}$, the observed
number of events is fitted by a Poisson distribution, whose mean is the sum of
the total SM expectation, determined as described in Section 0.6, and a
potential signal contribution determined from simulation. The systematic
uncertainties described in Section 0.7 are considered as nuisance parameters,
with a lognormal distribution for the normalization parameters and a Gaussian
distribution for systematic uncertainties affecting the shape.

The observed and expected upper limits on
$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\text{LQ}\overline{\text{LQ}})$,
$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\ell\text{LQ}$), and the case where both pair and single
production mechanisms are considered simultaneously,
$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\text{LQ}\overline{\text{LQ}})+\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\ell\text{LQ}$),
as a function of the mass of the leptoquarks are shown in Figs. 3–5, where the
leptoquarks are $\text{LQ}_{\text{S}}$, $\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}$ $k=0$, and
$\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}$ $k=1$, respectively. The uncertainty in the production
cross section shown in these figures is given by the sum in quadrature of
contributions arising from the PDFs and the renormalization and factorization
scales. To estimate the latter, we consider the effects of multiplying these
scales by factors of 0.5 and 2 [94, 95, 96]. For single LQ production, the
limits are shown for fixed values of $\lambda=1.5$ and 2.5. Only values of
$\lambda$ less than 2.5 are considered, since higher values are excluded by
constraints from electroweak precision measurements [97]. The bands represent
the one- and two-standard deviation variations of the expected limit. The
solid blue curve indicates the theoretical prediction of
$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\text{LQ}\overline{\text{LQ}})$ and
$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\ell\text{LQ})$, calculated at LO except for the pair
production of $\text{LQ}_{\text{S}}$, computed using NLO quantum
chromodynamics corrections [98] and the model implementation in Ref. [45]. The
intersection of the blue and the solid (dotted) black lines determines the
observed (expected) lower limit on the LQ mass. Table 0.8 summarizes the
observed and expected lower limits on the LQ mass inferred from Figs. 3–5 for
the three cases, $\text{LQ}_{\text{S}}$, $\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}$ $k=0$, and
$\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}$ $k=1$. The observed limits are, respectively,
0.98–1.02, 1.34–1.41, and 1.69–1.73for values of $\lambda$ between 1.5 and
2.5, based on the simultaneous search for single and pair production. The
table also reports exclusion limits for the separate searches for single and
pair production.

Lower limits on the mass inof the leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{\text{S}}$,
$\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}$ $k=0$, and $\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}$ $k=1$, based on the
pair- and single-production mechanisms taken either separately or together.
These lower limits are derived from the intersection of the observed 95% CL
upper limits on the signal cross section and the signal cross section in Figs.
3–5. The results of the searches that depend on the $\lambda$ parameter are
given for values of 1.5 and 2.5. The expected limits are given in parentheses.
$\text{LQ}_{\text{S}}$ (TeV) $\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}$ $k=0$ (TeV)
$\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}$ $k=1$ (TeV) Pair 0.95 (1.03) 1.29 (1.39) 1.65 (1.77)
$\lambda=1.5$ 2.5 1.5 2.5 1.5 2.5 Single 0.55 (0.56) 0.75 (0.81) 1.03 (1.12)
1.25 (1.35) 1.20 (1.29) 1.41 (1.53) Pair+Single 0.98 (1.06) 1.02 (1.10) 1.34
(1.46) 1.41 (1.54) 1.69 (1.81) 1.73 (1.87)

The combination of the two production mechanisms extends the exclusion on the
LQ mass by 30–120depending on the type of LQ. These exclusions represent the
most stringent limits to date on the existence of $\text{LQ}_{\text{S}}$
($\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}$) coupled to $\PQt\tau$, $\PQb\nu$ ($\PQt\nu$,
$\PQb\tau$) under the assumption of equal couplings to the lepton-quark pairs.
Comparing the cases of $\lambda=1.5$ and 2.5 in Figs. 3–5, one can see how the
upper limits on the cross section increase at higher LQ masses and $\lambda$
values, as a result of an increasing relative contribution of virtual LQ
states in single LQ production, as discussed in Section 0.3, which degrades
the sensitivity of the search.

Figure 6 gives the observed and expected exclusion on the existence of
leptoquarks in the $\lambda-m_{\text{LQ}}$ plane, for the single and pair
production mechanisms and their combination. For $\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}$, the
gray area shows the 95% band preferred by the physics anomalies [43], which is
given by $\lambda=Cm_{\mathrm{LQ}}$, where $C=\sqrt{0.7\pm 0.2}\TeV^{-1}$ and
$m_{\mathrm{LQ}}$ is expressed in . A relevant portion of this parameter space
is excluded.

Figure 3: The observed and expected (solid and dotted black lines) 95% upper
limits on
$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\text{LQ}_{\text{S}}\overline{\text{LQ}}_{\text{S}})$
(upper), $\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\nu\text{LQ}_{\text{S}})$ with $\lambda=1.5$ and
$2.5$ (middle left and right), and
$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\text{LQ}_{\text{S}}\overline{\text{LQ}}_{\text{S}})+\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\nu\text{LQ}_{\text{S}})$
with $\lambda=1.5$ and $2.5$ (lower left and right), as a function of the mass
of the $\text{LQ}_{\text{S}}$. The limits apply under the assumption of equal
couplings for the LQ decay to each of the two allowed lepton flavor pairings.
The bands represent the one- and two-standard deviation variations of the
expected limit. The solid blue curve indicates the theoretical predictions at
LO, except for pair-produced $\text{LQ}_{\text{S}}$, for which NLO values are
used based on NLO quantum chromodynamics corrections [98] and the model
implementation in Ref. [45].

Figure 4: The observed and expected (solid and dotted black lines) 95% upper
limits on
$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}\overline{\text{LQ}}_{\text{V}})$
(upper), $\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\tau\text{LQ}_{\text{V}})$ with $\lambda=1.5$ and
$2.5$ (middle left and right), and
$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}\overline{\text{LQ}}_{\text{V}})+\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\tau\text{LQ}_{\text{V}})$
with $\lambda=1.5$ and $2.5$ (lower left and right), as a function of the mass
of the $\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}$, with $k=0$. The limits apply under the
assumption of equal couplings for the LQ decay to each of the two allowed
lepton flavor pairings. The bands represent the one- and two-standard
deviation variations of the expected limit. The solid blue curve indicates the
theoretical predictions at LO.

Figure 5: The observed and expected (solid and dotted black lines) 95% upper
limits on
$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}\overline{\text{LQ}}_{\text{V}})$
(upper), $\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\tau\text{LQ}_{\text{V}})$ with $\lambda=1.5$ and
$2.5$ (middle left and right), and
$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}\overline{\text{LQ}}_{\text{V}})+\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\tau\text{LQ}_{\text{V}})$
with $\lambda=1.5$ and $2.5$ (lower left and right), as a function of the mass
of the $\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}$, with $k=1$. The limits apply under the
assumption of equal couplings for the LQ decay to each of the two allowed
lepton flavor pairings. The bands represent the one- and two-standard
deviation variations of the expected limit. The solid blue curve indicates the
theoretical predictions at LO.

Figure 6: The observed and expected 95% LQ exclusion limits in the plane of
the LQ-lepton-quark coupling and the mass of the LQ for single (brown lines)
and pair (blue lines) production, and considering their sum (black lines).
Regions to the left of the lines are excluded. The upper plot pertains to an
$\text{LQ}_{\text{S}}$ with equal couplings to $\PQt\tau$ and $\PQb\nu$, while
the lower plots are for an $\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}$ assuming $k=0$ (left) and 1
(right) and equal couplings to $\PQt\nu$ and $\PQb\tau$. For
$\text{LQ}_{\text{V}}$, the gray area shows the band preferred (95% ) by the
physics anomalies: $\lambda=Cm_{\mathrm{LQ}}$, where $C=\sqrt{0.7\pm
0.2}\TeV^{-1}$ and $m_{\mathrm{LQ}}$ is expressed in [43].

##  0.9 Summary

A search for leptoquarks coupled to third-generation fermions, and produced in
pairs and singly in association with a lepton, has been presented. The
leptoquark (LQ) may couple to a top quark and a $\tau$ lepton ($\PQt\PGt$) or
a bottom quark and a neutrino ($\PQb\PGn$, scalar LQ) or else to $\PQt\PGn$
and $\PQb\PGt$ (vector LQ), resulting in the $\PQt\PGt\PGn\PQb$ and
$\PQt\PGt\PGn$ signatures. The channel in which both the top quark and the
$\tau$ lepton decay hadronically is investigated, including the case of a
large LQ-$\PQt$ mass splitting giving rise to a Lorentz-boosted top quark,
whose decay daughters may not be resolved as individual jets. This particular
signature has not been previously examined in searches for physics beyond the
standard model. The data used corresponds to an integrated luminosity of
$137\fbinv$ collected with the CMS detector at the CERN LHC in proton-proton
collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$. The observations are found to be in agreement
with the standard model predictions. Exclusion limits are given in the plane
of the LQ-lepton-quark vertex coupling $\lambda$ and the LQ mass for scalar
and vector leptoquarks. The range of lower limits on the LQ mass, at 95%
confidence level, is 0.98–1.73, depending on $\lambda$ and the leptoquark
spin. These results represent the most stringent limits to date on the
existence of such leptoquarks for the case of equal couplings to the lepton-
quark pairs. They allow a relevant portion of the parameter space preferred by
the B-physics anomalies in several models [42, 43] to be excluded.

###### Acknowledgements.

We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the
excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative
staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the
success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the
computing centers and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for
delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our
analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction
and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following
funding agencies: BMBWF and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq,
CAPES, FAPERJ, FAPERGS, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST,
and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RIF
(Cyprus); SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC 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 prog ram and the
European Research Council and Horizon 2020 Grant, contract Nos. 675440,
724704, 752730, and 765710 (European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A.P.
Sloan Foundation; the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal
Science Policy Office; the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans
l’Industrie et dans l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor
Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the F.R.S.-FNRS and
FWO (Belgium) under the “Excellence of Science – EOS” – be.h project n.
30820817; the Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission, No.
Z191100007219010; the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the
Czech Republic; the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under Germany’s
Excellence Strategy – EXC 2121 “Quantum Universe” – 390833306; the Lendület
(“Momentum”) Prog ram and the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the
Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the New National Excellence Program ÚNKP, the
NKFIA research grants 123842, 123959, 124845, 124850, 125105, 128713, 128786,
and 129058 (Hungary); the Council of Science and Industrial Research, India;
the HOMING PLUS prog ram of the Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from
European Union, Regional Development Fund, the Mobility Plus prog ram of the
Ministry of Science and Higher Education, the National Science Center
(Poland), contracts Harmonia 2014/14/M/ST2/00428, Opus 2014/13/B/ST2/02543,
2014/15/B/ST2/03998, and 2015/19/B/ST2/02861, Sonata-bis 2012/07/E/ST2/01406;
the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund; the
Ministry of Science and Higher Education, project no. 0723-2020-0041 (Russia);
the Tomsk Polytechnic University Competitiveness Enhancement Program; the
Programa Estatal de Fomento de la Investigación Científica y Técnica de
Excelencia María de Maeztu, grant MDM-2015-0509 and the Programa Severo Ochoa
del Principado de Asturias; the Thalis and Aristeia prog rams 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] J. C. Pati and A. Salam, “Unified lepton-hadron symmetry and a gauge theory of the basic interactions”,  Phys. Rev. D 8 (1973) 1240, 10.1103/PhysRevD.8.1240.
  * [2] J. C. Pati and A. Salam, “Lepton number as the fourth color”,  Phys. Rev. D 10 (1974) 275, 10.1103/PhysRevD.10.275. [Erratum: 10.1103/PhysRevD.11.703.2].
  * [3] H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow, “Unity of all elementary particle forces”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 32 (1974) 438, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.32.438.
  * [4] H. Fritzsch and P. Minkowski, “Unified interactions of leptons and hadrons”,  Ann. Phys. 93 (1975) 193, 10.1016/0003-4916(75)90211-0.
  * [5] S. Dimopoulos and L. Susskind, “Mass without scalars”,  Nucl. Phys. B 155 (1979) 237, 10.1016/0550-3213(79)90364-X.
  * [6] S. Dimopoulos, “Technicolored signatures”,  Nucl. Phys. B 168 (1980) 69, 10.1016/0550-3213(80)90277-1.
  * [7] E. Farhi and L. Susskind, “Technicolor”,  Phys. Rept. 74 (1981) 277, 10.1016/0370-1573(81)90173-3.
  * [8] K. D. Lane and M. V. Ramana, “Walking technicolor signatures at hadron colliders”,  Phys. Rev. D 44 (1991) 2678, 10.1103/PhysRevD.44.2678.
  * [9] B. Schrempp and F. Schrempp, “Light leptoquarks”,  Phys. Lett. B 153 (1985) 101, 10.1016/0370-2693(85)91450-9.
  * [10] B. Gripaios, “Composite leptoquarks at the LHC”,  JHEP 02 (2010) 045, 10.1007/JHEP02(2010)045, arXiv:0910.1789.
  * [11] G. R. Farrar and P. Fayet, “Phenomenology of the production, decay, and detection of new hadronic states associated with supersymmetry”,  Phys. Lett. B 76 (1978) 575, 10.1016/0370-2693(78)90858-4.
  * [12] P. Ramond, “Dual theory for free fermions”,  Phys. Rev. D 3 (1971) 2415, 10.1103/PhysRevD.3.2415.
  * [13] Y. A. Golfand and E. P. Likhtman, “Extension of the algebra of Poincaré group generators and violation of p invariance”, JETP Lett. 13 (1971) 323\.
  * [14] A. Neveu and J. H. Schwarz, “Factorizable dual model of pions”,  Nucl. Phys. B 31 (1971) 86, 10.1016/0550-3213(71)90448-2.
  * [15] D. V. Volkov and V. P. Akulov, “Possible universal neutrino interaction”, JETP Lett. 16 (1972) 438\.
  * [16] J. Wess and B. Zumino, “A Lagrangian model invariant under supergauge transformations”,  Phys. Lett. B 49 (1974) 52, 10.1016/0370-2693(74)90578-4.
  * [17] J. Wess and B. Zumino, “Supergauge transformations in four dimensions”,  Nucl. Phys. B 70 (1974) 39, 10.1016/0550-3213(74)90355-1.
  * [18] P. Fayet, “Supergauge invariant extension of the Higgs mechanism and a model for the electron and its neutrino”,  Nucl. Phys. B 90 (1975) 104, 10.1016/0550-3213(75)90636-7.
  * [19] H. P. Nilles, “Supersymmetry, supergravity and particle physics”,  Phys. Rept. 110 (1984) 1, 10.1016/0370-1573(84)90008-5.
  * [20] R. Barbier et al., “R-parity violating supersymmetry”,  Phys. Rept. 420 (2005) 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2005.08.006, arXiv:hep-ph/0406039.
  * [21] B. Diaz, M. Schmaltz, and Y.-M. Zhong, “The leptoquark hunter’s guide: pair production”,  JHEP 10 (2017) 097, 10.1007/JHEP10(2017)097, arXiv:1706.05033.
  * [22] M. Schmaltz and Y.-M. Zhong, “The leptoquark hunter’s guide: large coupling”,  JHEP 01 (2019) 132, 10.1007/JHEP01(2019)132, arXiv:1810.10017.
  * [23] J. Blumlein, E. Boos, and A. Kryukov, “Leptoquark pair production in hadronic interactions”,  Z. Phys. C 76 (1997) 137, 10.1007/s002880050538, arXiv:hep-ph/9610408.
  * [24] BaBar Collaboration, “Evidence for an excess of $\bar{B}\to D^{(*)}\tau^{-}\bar{\nu}_{\tau}$ decays”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 101802, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.101802, arXiv:1205.5442.
  * [25] BaBar Collaboration, “Measurement of an excess of $\bar{B}\to D^{(*)}\tau^{-}\bar{\nu}_{\tau}$ decays and implications for charged Higgs bosons”,  Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 072012, 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.072012, arXiv:1303.0571.
  * [26] Belle Collaboration, “Measurement of the branching ratio of $\bar{B}\to D^{(\ast)}\tau^{-}\bar{\nu}_{\tau}$ relative to $\bar{B}\to D^{(\ast)}\ell^{-}\bar{\nu}_{\ell}$ decays with hadronic tagging at Belle”,  Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 072014, 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.072014, arXiv:1507.03233.
  * [27] Belle Collaboration, “Measurement of the branching ratio of $\bar{B}^{0}\rightarrow D^{*+}\tau^{-}\bar{\nu}_{\tau}$ relative to $\bar{B}^{0}\rightarrow D^{*+}\ell^{-}\bar{\nu}_{\ell}$ decays with a semileptonic tagging method”,  Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 072007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.072007, arXiv:1607.07923.
  * [28] Belle Collaboration, “Measurement of the $\tau$ lepton polarization and $R(D^{*})$ in the decay $\bar{B}\to D^{*}\tau^{-}\bar{\nu}_{\tau}$”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 211801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.211801, arXiv:1612.00529.
  * [29] Belle Collaboration, “Measurement of the $\tau$ lepton polarization and $R(D^{*})$ in the decay $\bar{B}\rightarrow D^{*}\tau^{-}\bar{\nu}_{\tau}$ with one-prong hadronic $\tau$ decays at Belle”,  Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 012004, 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.012004, arXiv:1709.00129.
  * [30] Belle Collaboration, “Measurement of $\mathcal{R}(D)$ and $\mathcal{R}(D^{*})$ with a semileptonic tagging method”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (2020) 161803, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.161803, arXiv:1910.05864.
  * [31] LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of the ratio of branching fractions $\mathcal{B}(\bar{B}^{0}\to D^{*+}\tau^{-}\bar{\nu}_{\tau})/\mathcal{B}(\bar{B}^{0}\to D^{*+}\mu^{-}\bar{\nu}_{\mu})$”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 111803, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.111803, arXiv:1506.08614. [Erratum: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.159901].
  * [32] LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of the ratio of the $B^{0}\to D^{*-}\tau^{+}\nu_{\tau}$ and $B^{0}\to D^{*-}\mu^{+}\nu_{\mu}$ branching fractions using three-prong $\tau$-lepton decays”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 171802, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.171802, arXiv:1708.08856.
  * [33] LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of the ratio of branching fractions $\mathcal{B}(B_{c}^{+}\,\to\,J/\psi\tau^{+}\nu_{\tau})$/$\mathcal{B}(B_{c}^{+}\,\to\,J/\psi\mu^{+}\nu_{\mu})$”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 121801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.121801, arXiv:1711.05623.
  * [34] Belle Collaboration, “Lepton-flavor-dependent angular analysis of $B\to K^{\ast}\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 111801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.111801, arXiv:1612.05014.
  * [35] LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of form-factor-independent observables in the decay $B^{0}\to K^{*0}\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 191801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.191801, arXiv:1308.1707.
  * [36] LHCb Collaboration, “Differential branching fractions and isospin asymmetries of $B\to K^{(*)}\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ decays”,  JHEP 06 (2014) 133, 10.1007/JHEP06(2014)133, arXiv:1403.8044.
  * [37] LHCb Collaboration, “Test of lepton universality using $B^{+}\rightarrow K^{+}\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ decays”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 151601, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.151601, arXiv:1406.6482.
  * [38] LHCb Collaboration, “Angular analysis of the $B^{0}\to K^{*0}\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ decay using 3 fb-1 of integrated luminosity”,  JHEP 02 (2016) 104, 10.1007/JHEP02(2016)104, arXiv:1512.04442.
  * [39] LHCb Collaboration, “Angular analysis and differential branching fraction of the decay $B^{0}_{s}\to\phi\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$”,  JHEP 09 (2015) 179, 10.1007/JHEP09(2015)179, arXiv:1506.08777.
  * [40] LHCb Collaboration, “Test of lepton universality with $B^{0}\rightarrow K^{*0}\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ decays”,  JHEP 08 (2017) 055, 10.1007/JHEP08(2017)055, arXiv:1705.05802.
  * [41] LHCb Collaboration, “Search for lepton-universality violation in $B^{+}\to K^{+}\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ decays”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) 191801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.191801, arXiv:1903.09252.
  * [42] E. Alvarez et al., “A composite pNGB leptoquark at the LHC”,  JHEP 12 (2018) 027, 10.1007/JHEP12(2018)027, arXiv:1808.02063.
  * [43] D. Buttazzo, A. Greljo, G. Isidori, and D. Marzocca, “B-physics anomalies: a guide to combined explanations”,  JHEP 11 (2017) 044, 10.1007/JHEP11(2017)044, arXiv:1706.07808.
  * [44] W. Buchmüller, R. Rückl, and D. Wyler, “Leptoquarks in lepton-quark collisions”,  Phys. Lett. B 191 (1987) 442, 10.1016/0370-2693(87)90637-X. [Erratum: 10.1016/S0370-2693(99)00014-3].
  * [45] I. Dorsner and A. Greljo, “Leptoquark toolbox for precision collider studies”,  JHEP 05 (2018) 126, 10.1007/JHEP05(2018)126, arXiv:1801.07641.
  * [46] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for third generation scalar leptoquarks in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  JHEP 06 (2013) 033, 10.1007/JHEP06(2013)033, arXiv:1303.0526.
  * [47] ATLAS Collaboration, “Searches for scalar leptoquarks in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3823-9, arXiv:1508.04735.
  * [48] ATLAS Collaboration, “Searches for third-generation scalar leptoquarks in $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector”,  JHEP 06 (2019) 144, 10.1007/JHEP06(2019)144, arXiv:1902.08103.
  * [49] CMS Collaboration, “Constraints on models of scalar and vector leptoquarks decaying to a quark and a neutrino at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 032005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.032005, arXiv:1805.10228.
  * [50] CMS Collaboration, “Search for third-generation scalar leptoquarks decaying to a top quark and a $\tau$ lepton at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 707, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6143-z, arXiv:1803.02864.
  * [51] CMS Collaboration, “Search for leptoquarks coupled to third-generation quarks in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 241802, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.241802, arXiv:1809.05558.
  * [52] CMS Collaboration, “Search for heavy neutrinos and third-generation leptoquarks in hadronic states of two $\tau$ leptons and two jets in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  JHEP 03 (2019) 170, 10.1007/JHEP03(2019)170, arXiv:1811.00806.
  * [53] CMS Collaboration, “Search for a singly produced third-generation scalar leptoquark decaying to a $\tau$ lepton and a bottom quark in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  JHEP 07 (2018) 115, 10.1007/JHEP07(2018)115, arXiv:1806.03472.
  * [54] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for pairs of scalar leptoquarks decaying into quarks and electrons or muons in $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV $pp$ collisions with the ATLAS detector”,  JHEP 10 (2020) 10.1007/JHEP10(2020)112, arXiv:2006.05872.
  * [55] ATLAS Collaboration, “Searches for scalar leptoquarks and differential cross-section measurements in dilepton-dijet events in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV with the ATLAS experiment”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7181-x, arXiv:1902.00377.
  * [56] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for scalar leptoquarks in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV with the ATLAS experiment”,  New J. Phys. 18 (2016) 10.1088/1367-2630/18/9/093016, arXiv:1605.06035.
  * [57] CMS Collaboration, “Search for pair production of second-generation leptoquarks at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.032014, arXiv:1808.05082.
  * [58] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [59] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [60] 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.
  * [61] 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.
  * [62] 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.
  * [63] 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.
  * [64] S. Alioli, S.-O. Moch, and P. Uwer, “Hadronic top-quark pair-production with one jet and parton showering”,  JHEP 01 (2012) 137, 10.1007/JHEP01(2012)137, arXiv:1110.5251.
  * [65] E. Re, “Single-top $Wt$-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1547, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1547-z, arXiv:1009.2450.
  * [66] M. Chiesa, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “NLO QCD+NLO EW corrections to diboson production matched to parton shower”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8419-3, arXiv:2005.12146.
  * [67] 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.
  * [68] 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.
  * [69] CMS Collaboration, “Investigations of the impact of the parton shower tuning in PYTHIA 8 in the modelling of $\mathrm{t\overline{t}}$ at $\sqrt{s}=8$ and 13 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-TOP-16-021, 2016.
  * [70] 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.
  * [71] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC run II”,  JHEP 04 (2015) 040, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040, arXiv:1410.8849.
  * [72] 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.
  * [73] Collaboration, “ — a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [74] 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.
  * [75] 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.
  * [76] CMS Collaboration, “Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV”,  JINST 12 (2017) 10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/P02014, arXiv:1607.03663.
  * [77] S. D. Ellis, C. K. Vermilion, and J. R. Walsh, “Techniques for improved heavy particle searches with jet substructure”,  Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 051501, 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.051501, arXiv:0903.5081.
  * [78] CMS Collaboration, “Identification techniques for highly boosted W bosons that decay into hadrons”,  JHEP 12 (2014) 017, 10.1007/JHEP12(2014)017, arXiv:1410.4227.
  * [79] M. Dasgupta, A. Fregoso, S. Marzani, and G. P. Salam, “Towards an understanding of jet substructure”,  JHEP 09 (2013) 029, 10.1007/JHEP09(2013)029, arXiv:1307.0007.
  * [80] A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and J. Thaler, “Soft drop”,  JHEP 05 (2014) 146, 10.1007/JHEP05(2014)146, arXiv:1402.2657.
  * [81] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of reconstruction and identification of $\tau$ leptons decaying to hadrons and $\nu_{\tau}$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  JINST 13 (2018) P10005, 10.1088/1748-0221/13/10/P10005, arXiv:1809.02816.
  * [82] 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.
  * [83] CMS Collaboration, “Identification of heavy, energetic, hadronically decaying particles using machine-learning techniques”,  JINST 15 (2020), no. 06, P06005, 10.1088/1748-0221/15/06/P06005, arXiv:2004.08262.
  * [84] 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.
  * [85] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  JINST 13 (2018) 10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/P06015, arXiv:1804.04528.
  * [86] “HEPData record for this analysis”, 2021.  10.17182/hepdata.104980.
  * [87] 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.
  * [88] 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.
  * [89] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2016 data-taking period”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001, 2017.
  * [90] 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.
  * [91] 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.
  * [92] 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.
  * [93] A. L. Read, “Presentation of search results: the CL${}_{\text{s}}$ technique”, in  Durham IPPP Workshop: Advanced Statistical Techniques in Particle Physics, p. 2693.  Durham, UK, March, 2002.  [J. Phys. G 28 (2002) 2693]. 10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/313.
  * [94] A. Kalogeropoulos and J. Alwall, “The SysCalc code: A tool to derive theoretical systematic uncertainties”, 2018. arXiv:1801.08401.
  * [95] 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.
  * [96] 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.
  * [97] I. Doršner et al., “Physics of leptoquarks in precision experiments and at particle colliders”,  Phys. Rept. 641 (2016) 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2016.06.001, arXiv:1603.04993.
  * [98] M. Kramer, T. Plehn, M. Spira, and P. M. Zerwas, “Pair production of scalar leptoquarks at the CERN LHC”,  Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 057503, 10.1103/PhysRevD.71.057503, arXiv:hep-ph/0411038.

##  .10 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, A. Tumasyan Institut für
Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, T. Bergauer, M. Dragicevic, J. Erö, A. Escalante Del Valle, R.
Frühwirth1, M. Jeitler1, N. Krammer, L. Lechner, D. Liko, I. Mikulec, F.M.
Pitters, N. Rad, J. Schieck1, R. Schöfbeck, M. Spanring, S. Templ, W.
Waltenberger, C.-E. Wulz1, M. Zarucki Institute for Nuclear Problems, Minsk,
Belarus
V. Chekhovsky, A. Litomin, V. Makarenko, J. Suarez Gonzalez Universiteit
Antwerpen, Antwerpen, Belgium
M.R. Darwish2, E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, T. Kello3, A. Lelek, M.
Pieters, H. Rejeb Sfar, H. Van Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, S. Van Putte, N.
Van Remortel Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
F. Blekman, E.S. Bols, S.S. Chhibra, J. D’Hondt, J. De Clercq, D. Lontkovskyi,
S. Lowette, I. Marchesini, S. Moortgat, A. Morton, D. Müller, Q. Python, S.
Tavernier, W. Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders Université Libre de Bruxelles,
Bruxelles, Belgium
D. Beghin, B. Bilin, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, B. Dorney, L. Favart, A.
Grebenyuk, A.K. Kalsi, I. Makarenko, L. Moureaux, L. Pétré, A. Popov, N.
Postiau, E. Starling, L. Thomas, C. Vander Velde, P. Vanlaer, D. Vannerom, L.
Wezenbeek Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, M. Gruchala, I. Khvastunov4, M. Niedziela, C. Roskas,
K. Skovpen, M. Tytgat, W. Verbeke, B. Vermassen, M. Vit Université Catholique
de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
G. Bruno, F. Bury, C. Caputo, P. David, C. Delaere, M. Delcourt, I.S.
Donertas, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaitre, K. Mondal, J. Prisciandaro, A. Taliercio,
M. Teklishyn, P. Vischia, S. Wertz, S. Wuyckens Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas
Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
G.A. Alves, C. Hensel, A. Moraes Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil
W.L. Aldá Júnior, E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, H. BRANDAO MALBOUISSON, W.
Carvalho, J. Chinellato5, E. Coelho, E.M. Da Costa, G.G. Da Silveira6, D. De
Jesus Damiao, S. Fonseca De Souza, J. Martins7, D. Matos Figueiredo, M. Medina
Jaime8, C. Mora Herrera, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, P. Rebello Teles, L.J. Sanchez
Rosas, A. Santoro, S.M. Silva Do Amaral, A. Sznajder, M. Thiel, F. Torres Da
Silva De Araujo, A. Vilela Pereira Universidade Estadual Paulista a,
Universidade Federal do ABC b, São Paulo, Brazil
C.A. Bernardesa,a, L. Calligarisa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M.
Gregoresa,b, D.S. Lemosa, P.G. Mercadantea,b, S.F. Novaesa, Sandra S. Padulaa
Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of
Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, G. Antchev, I. Atanasov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, M.
Misheva, M. Rodozov, M. Shopova, G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia,
Bulgaria
A. Dimitrov, T. Ivanov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov, A. Petrov Beihang
University, Beijing, China
T. Cheng, W. Fang3, Q. Guo, H. Wang, L. Yuan Department of Physics, Tsinghua
University, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, G. Bauer, Z. Hu, Y. Wang, K. Yi9,10 Institute of High Energy
Physics, Beijing, China
E. Chapon, G.M. Chen11, H.S. Chen11, M. Chen, T. Javaid11, A. Kapoor, D.
Leggat, H. Liao, Z.-A. LIU11, R. Sharma, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, J. Thomas-
wilsker, J. Wang, H. Zhang, S. Zhang11, J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of
Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
A. Agapitos, Y. Ban, C. Chen, Q. Huang, A. Levin, Q. Li, M. Lu, X. Lyu, Y.
Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang, Q. Wang, J. Xiao Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou,
China
Z. You Institute of Modern Physics and Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and
Ion-beam Application (MOE) - Fudan University, Shanghai, China
X. Gao3 Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
M. Xiao Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, C. Florez, J. Fraga, A. Sarkar, M.A. Segura Delgado
Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia
J. Jaramillo, J. Mejia Guisao, F. Ramirez, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, C.A. Salazar
González, N. Vanegas Arbelaez University of Split, Faculty of Electrical
Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split, Croatia
D. Giljanovic, N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak 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. Starodumov12, T. Susa
University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, E. Erodotou, A. Ioannou, G. Kole, M. Kolosova, S.
Konstantinou, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos, P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski,
H. Saka, D. Tsiakkouri Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
M. Finger13, M. Finger Jr.13, A. Kveton, J. Tomsa Escuela Politecnica
Nacional, Quito, Ecuador
E. Ayala Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
E. Carrera Jarrin Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab
Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt
S. Elgammal14, A. Ellithi Kamel15, S. Khalil16 Center for High Energy Physics
(CHEP-FU), Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt
M.A. Mahmoud, Y. Mohammed17 National Institute of Chemical Physics and
Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
S. Bhowmik, A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveira, R.K. Dewanjee, K. Ehataht, M.
Kadastik, M. Raidal, C. Veelken Department of Physics, University of Helsinki,
Helsinki, Finland
P. Eerola, L. Forthomme, H. Kirschenmann, K. Osterberg, M. Voutilainen
Helsinki Institute of Physics, Helsinki, Finland
E. Brücken, F. Garcia, J. Havukainen, V. Karimäki, M.S. Kim, R. Kinnunen, T.
Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, H. Siikonen, E. Tuominen, J.
Tuominiemi Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
P. Luukka, T. Tuuva IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
C. Amendola, M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, J.L. Faure, F.
Ferri, S. Ganjour, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry,
B. Lenzi, E. Locci, J. Malcles, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M.Ö. Sahin, A. Savoy-
Navarro18, M. Titov, G.B. Yu Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, CNRS/IN2P3, Ecole
Polytechnique, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Palaiseau, France
S. Ahuja, F. Beaudette, M. Bonanomi, A. Buchot Perraguin, P. Busson, C.
Charlot, O. Davignon, B. Diab, G. Falmagne, R. Granier de Cassagnac, A.
Hakimi, I. Kucher, A. Lobanov, C. Martin Perez, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, P.
Paganini, J. Rembser, R. Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A. Zabi, A. Zghiche
Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram19, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, G. Bourgatte, J.-M. Brom, E.C. Chabert, C.
Collard, J.-C. Fontaine19, D. Gelé, U. Goerlach, C. Grimault, A.-C. Le Bihan,
P. Van Hove Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3,
Institut de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
E. Asilar, S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, C. Camen, A. Carle, N. Chanon,
D. Contardo, P. Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, B.
Ille, Sa. Jain, I.B. Laktineh, H. Lattaud, A. Lesauvage, M. Lethuillier, L.
Mirabito, L. Torterotot, G. Touquet, M. Vander Donckt, S. Viret Georgian
Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
I. Bagaturia20, Z. Tsamalaidze13 RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches
Institut, Aachen, Germany
L. Feld, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, D. Meuser, A. Pauls, M. Preuten, M.P. Rauch,
J. Schulz, M. Teroerde RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A,
Aachen, Germany
D. Eliseev, M. Erdmann, P. Fackeldey, B. Fischer, S. Ghosh, T. Hebbeker, K.
Hoepfner, H. Keller, L. Mastrolorenzo, M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, G. Mocellin,
S. Mondal, S. Mukherjee, D. Noll, A. Novak, T. Pook, A. Pozdnyakov, Y. Rath,
H. Reithler, J. Roemer, A. Schmidt, S.C. Schuler, A. Sharma, S. Wiedenbeck, S.
Zaleski RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen,
Germany
C. Dziwok, G. Flügge, W. Haj Ahmad21, O. Hlushchenko, T. Kress, A. Nowack, C.
Pistone, O. Pooth, D. Roy, H. Sert, A. Stahl22, T. Ziemons Deutsches
Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
H. Aarup Petersen, M. Aldaya Martin, P. Asmuss, I. Babounikau, S. Baxter, O.
Behnke, A. Bermúdez Martínez, A.A. Bin Anuar, K. Borras23, V. Botta, D.
Brunner, A. Campbell, A. Cardini, P. Connor, S. Consuegra Rodríguez, V.
Danilov, A. De Wit, M.M. Defranchis, L. Didukh, D. Domínguez Damiani, G.
Eckerlin, D. Eckstein, T. Eichhorn, L.I. Estevez Banos, E. Gallo24, A. Geiser,
A. Giraldi, A. Grohsjean, M. Guthoff, A. Harb, A. Jafari25, N.Z. Jomhari, H.
Jung, A. Kasem23, M. Kasemann, H. Kaveh, C. Kleinwort, J. Knolle, D. Krücker,
W. Lange, T. Lenz, J. Lidrych, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann26, T. Madlener, R. Mankel,
I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, J. Metwally, A.B. Meyer, M. Meyer, M. Missiroli, J.
Mnich, A. Mussgiller, V. Myronenko, Y. Otarid, D. Pérez Adán, S.K. Pflitsch,
D. Pitzl, A. Raspereza, A. Saggio, A. Saibel, M. Savitskyi, V. Scheurer, C.
Schwanenberger, A. Singh, R.E. Sosa Ricardo, N. Tonon, O. Turkot, A.
Vagnerini, M. Van De Klundert, R. Walsh, D. Walter, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C.
Wissing, S. Wuchterl, O. Zenaiev, R. Zlebcik University of Hamburg, Hamburg,
Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, L. Benato, A. Benecke, K. De Leo, T. Dreyer, A.
Ebrahimi, M. Eich, F. Feindt, A. Fröhlich, C. Garbers, E. Garutti, P.
Gunnellini, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, A. Karavdina, G. Kasieczka, R. Klanner, R.
Kogler, V. Kutzner, J. Lange, T. Lange, A. Malara, C.E.N. Niemeyer, A.
Nigamova, K.J. Pena Rodriguez, O. Rieger, P. Schleper, S. Schumann, J.
Schwandt, D. Schwarz, J. Sonneveld, H. Stadie, G. Steinbrück, B. Vormwald, I.
Zoi Karlsruher Institut fuer Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany
J. Bechtel, T. Berger, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, W. De Boer, A.
Dierlamm, A. Droll, K. El Morabit, N. Faltermann, K. Flöh, M. Giffels, A.
Gottmann, F. Hartmann22, C. Heidecker, U. Husemann, I. Katkov27, P. Keicher,
R. Koppenhöfer, S. Maier, M. Metzler, S. Mitra, Th. Müller, M. Musich, G.
Quast, K. Rabbertz, J. Rauser, D. Savoiu, D. Schäfer, M. Schnepf, M. Schröder,
D. Seith, I. Shvetsov, H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, M. Wassmer, M. Weber, R. Wolf,
S. Wozniewski Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics (INPP), NCSR
Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
G. Anagnostou, P. Asenov, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas,
G. Paspalaki, A. Stakia National and Kapodistrian University of Athens,
Athens, Greece
M. Diamantopoulou, D. Karasavvas, G. Karathanasis, P. Kontaxakis, C.K. Koraka,
A. Manousakis-katsikakis, A. Panagiotou, I. Papavergou, N. Saoulidou, K.
Theofilatos, 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, K. Manitara,
N. Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, J. Strologas MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and
Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
M. Bartók28, M. Csanad, M.M.A. Gadallah29, S. Lökös30, P. Major, K. Mandal, A.
Mehta, G. Pasztor, O. Surányi, G.I. Veres Wigner Research Centre for Physics,
Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath31, F. Sikler, V. Veszpremi, G.
Vesztergombi${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$ Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI,
Debrecen, Hungary
S. Czellar, J. Karancsi28, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi, D. Teyssier Institute of
Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari Eszterhazy Karoly University, Karoly
Robert Campus, Gyongyos, Hungary
T. Csorgo33, F. Nemes33, T. Novak Indian Institute of Science (IISc),
Bangalore, India
S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri, D. Kumar, L. Panwar, P.C. Tiwari National
Institute of Science Education and Research, HBNI, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati34, D. Dash, C. Kar, P. Mal, T. Mishra, V.K. Muraleedharan Nair
Bindhu, A. Nayak35, D.K. Sahoo34, N. Sur, S.K. Swain Panjab University,
Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, G. Chaudhary, S. Chauhan, N. Dhingra36, R.
Gupta, A. Kaur, S. Kaur, P. Kumari, M. Meena, K. Sandeep, S. Sharma, J.B.
Singh, A.K. Virdi University of Delhi, Delhi, India
A. Ahmed, A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, M. Gola, S. Keshri, A.
Kumar, M. Naimuddin, P. Priyanka, K. Ranjan, A. Shah Saha Institute of Nuclear
Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India
M. Bharti37, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, D. Bhowmik, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh,
B. Gomber38, M. Maity39, S. Nandan, P. Palit, P.K. Rout, G. Saha, B. Sahu, S.
Sarkar, M. Sharan, B. Singh37, S. Thakur37 Indian Institute of Technology
Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera, S.C. Behera, P. Kalbhor, A. Muhammad, R. Pradhan, P.R. Pujahari,
A. Sharma, A.K. Sikdar Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
D. Dutta, V. Kumar, K. Naskar40, P.K. Netrakanti, L.M. Pant, P. Shukla Tata
Institute of Fundamental Research-A, Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, M.A. Bhat, S. Dugad, R. Kumar Verma, G.B. Mohanty, U. Sarkar Tata
Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, R. Chudasama, M. Guchait, S.
Karmakar, S. Kumar, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, S. Mukherjee, D. Roy Indian
Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, India
S. Dube, B. Kansal, S. Pandey, A. Rane, A. Rastogi, S. Sharma Department of
Physics, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
H. Bakhshiansohi41, M. Zeinali42 Institute for Research in Fundamental
Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran
S. Chenarani43, S.M. Etesami, M. Khakzad, M. Mohammadi Najafabadi University
College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
M. Felcini, M. Grunewald INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b,
Politecnico di Bari c, Bari, Italy
M. Abbresciaa,b, R. Alya,b,44, C. Arutaa,b, A. Colaleoa, D. Creanzaa,c, N. De
Filippisa,c, M. De Palmaa,b, A. Di Florioa,b, A. Di Pilatoa,b, W.
Elmetenaweea,b, L. Fiorea, A. Gelmia,b, M. Gula, G. Iasellia,c, M. Incea,b, S.
Lezkia,b, G. Maggia,c, M. Maggia, I. Margjekaa,b, V. Mastrapasquaa,b, J.A.
Merlina, S. Mya,b, S. Nuzzoa,b, A. Pompilia,b, G. Pugliesea,c, A. Ranieria, G.
Selvaggia,b, L. Silvestrisa, F.M. Simonea,b, R. Vendittia, P. Verwilligena
INFN Sezione di Bologna a, Università di Bologna b, Bologna, Italy
G. Abbiendia, C. Battilanaa,b, D. Bonacorsia,b, L. Borgonovia, S. Braibant-
Giacomellia,b, R. Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A. Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa,
C. Cioccaa, M. Cuffiania,b, G.M. Dallavallea, T. Diotalevia,b, F. Fabbria, A.
Fanfania,b, E. Fontanesia,b, P. Giacomellia, L. Giommia,b, C. Grandia, L.
Guiduccia,b, F. Iemmia,b, S. Lo Meoa,45, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, F.L.
Navarriaa,b, A. Perrottaa, F. Primaveraa,b, A.M. Rossia,b, T. Rovellia,b, G.P.
Sirolia,b, N. Tosia INFN Sezione di Catania a, Università di Catania b,
Catania, Italy
S. Albergoa,b,46, S. Costaa,b, A. Di Mattiaa, R. Potenzaa,b, A. Tricomia,b,46,
C. Tuvea,b INFN Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b, Firenze, Italy
G. Barbaglia, A. Cassesea, R. Ceccarellia,b, V. Ciullia,b, C. Civininia, R.
D’Alessandroa,b, F. Fioria, E. Focardia,b, G. Latinoa,b, P. Lenzia,b, M.
Lizzoa,b, M. Meschinia, S. Paolettia, R. Seiditaa,b, G. Sguazzonia, L.
Viliania INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, D. Piccolo INFN Sezione di Genova a, Università di
Genova b, Genova, Italy
M. Bozzoa,b, F. Ferroa, R. Mulargiaa,b, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia,b INFN Sezione
di Milano-Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, Italy
A. Benagliaa, A. Beschia,b, F. Brivioa,b, F. Cetorellia,b, V. Cirioloa,b,22,
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, F. Montia,b, L. Moronia, M. Paganonia,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Ragazzia,b,
T. Tabarelli de Fatisa,b, D. Valsecchia,b,22, D. Zuoloa,b INFN Sezione di
Napoli a, Università di Napoli ’Federico II’ b, Napoli, Italy, Università
della Basilicata c, Potenza, Italy, Università G. Marconi d, Roma, Italy
S. Buontempoa, N. Cavalloa,c, A. De Iorioa,b, F. Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa,
A.O.M. Iorioa,b, L. Listaa,b, S. Meolaa,d,22, P. Paoluccia,22, B. Rossia, C.
Sciaccaa,b, E. Voevodinaa,b INFN Sezione di Padova a, Università di Padova b,
Padova, Italy, Università di Trento c, Trento, Italy
P. Azzia, N. Bacchettaa, D. Biselloa,b, P. Bortignona, A. Bragagnoloa,b, R.
Carlina,b, P. Checchiaa, P. De Castro Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa, F. Gasparinia,b,
U. Gasparinia,b, S.Y. Hoha,b, L. Layera,47, M. Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,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, M. Ressegottia,b, C. Riccardia,b, P. Salvinia, I. Vaia,
P. Vituloa,b INFN Sezione di Perugia a, Università di Perugia b, Perugia,
Italy
M. Biasinia,b, G.M. Bileia, D. Ciangottinia,b, L. Fanòa,b, P. Laricciaa,b, G.
Mantovania,b, V. Mariania,b, M. Menichellia, F. Moscatellia, A. Piccinellia,b,
A. Rossia,b, A. Santocchiaa,b, D. Spigaa, T. Tedeschia,b INFN Sezione di Pisa
a, Università di Pisa b, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa c, Pisa Italy,
Università di Siena d, Siena, Italy
K. Androsova, P. Azzurria, G. Bagliesia, V. Bertacchia,c, L. Bianchinia, T.
Boccalia, R. Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, M.R. Di Domenicoa,d, S.
Donatoa, L. Gianninia,c, A. Giassia, M.T. Grippoa, F. Ligabuea,c, E. Mancaa,c,
G. Mandorlia,c, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, G. Ramirez-Sancheza,c, A. Rizzia,b,
G. Rolandia,c, S. Roy Chowdhurya,c, A. Scribanoa, N. Shafieia,b, P. Spagnoloa,
R. Tenchinia, G. Tonellia,b, N. Turinia,d, A. Venturia, P.G. Verdinia INFN
Sezione di Roma a, Sapienza Università di Roma b, Rome, Italy
F. Cavallaria, M. Cipriania,b, D. Del Rea,b, E. Di Marcoa, M. Diemoza, E.
Longoa,b, P. Meridiania, G. Organtinia,b, F. Pandolfia, R. Paramattia,b, C.
Quarantaa,b, S. Rahatloua,b, C. Rovellia, F. Santanastasioa,b, L. Soffia,b, R.
Tramontanoa,b INFN Sezione di Torino a, Università di Torino b, Torino, Italy,
Università del Piemonte Orientale c, Novara, Italy
N. Amapanea,b, R. Arcidiaconoa,c, S. Argiroa,b, M. Arneodoa,c, N. Bartosika,
R. Bellana,b, A. Belloraa,b, J. Berenguer Antequeraa,b, C. Biinoa, A.
Cappatia,b, N. Cartigliaa, S. Comettia, M. Costaa,b, R. Covarellia,b, N.
Demariaa, B. Kiania,b, F. Leggera, C. Mariottia, S. Masellia, E. Migliorea,b,
V. Monacoa,b, E. Monteila,b, M. Montenoa, M.M. Obertinoa,b, G. Ortonaa, L.
Pachera,b, N. Pastronea, M. Pelliccionia, G.L. Pinna Angionia,b, M. Ruspaa,c,
R. Salvaticoa,b, F. Sivieroa,b, V. Solaa, A. Solanoa,b, D. Soldia,b, A.
Staianoa, M. Tornagoa,b, D. Trocinoa,b INFN Sezione di Trieste a, Università
di Trieste b, Trieste, Italy
S. Belfortea, V. Candelisea,b, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, A. Da Rolda,b, G.
Della Riccaa,b, F. Vazzolera,b Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea
S. Dogra, C. Huh, B. Kim, D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, J. Lee, S.W. Lee, C.S. Moon,
Y.D. Oh, S.I. Pak, B.C. Radburn-Smith, S. Sekmen, Y.C. Yang Chonnam National
University, Institute for Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju, Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
B. Francois, T.J. Kim, J. Park Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, S. Ha, B. Hong, K. Lee, K.S. Lee, J. Lim, J. Park,
S.K. Park, J. Yoo Kyung Hee University, Department of Physics, Seoul, Republic
of Korea
J. Goh, A. Gurtu Sejong University, Seoul, Korea
H.S. Kim, Y. Kim Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J.H. Bhyun, J. Choi, S. Jeon, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, S. Ko, H. Kwon, H.
Lee, K. Lee, S. Lee, K. Nam, B.H. Oh, M. Oh, S.B. Oh, H. Seo, U.K. Yang, I.
Yoon University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea
D. Jeon, J.H. Kim, B. Ko, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park, Y. Roh, D. Song, I.J. Watson
Yonsei University, Department of Physics, Seoul, Korea
H.D. Yoo Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, C. Hwang, Y. Jeong, H. Lee, Y. Lee, I. Yu College of Engineering and
Technology, American University of the Middle East (AUM), Kuwait
Y. Maghrbi Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
V. Veckalns48 Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
A. Juodagalvis, A. Rinkevicius, G. Tamulaitis, A. Vaitkevicius National Centre
for Particle Physics, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
W.A.T. Wan Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli Universidad de Sonora (UNISON),
Hermosillo, Mexico
J.F. Benitez, A. Castaneda Hernandez, J.A. Murillo Quijada, L. Valencia Palomo
Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
G. Ayala, H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, I. Heredia-De La Cruz49,
R. Lopez-Fernandez, C.A. Mondragon Herrera, D.A. Perez Navarro, A. Sanchez-
Hernandez Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City, Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, M. Ramirez-Garcia, F. Vazquez Valencia
Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
J. Eysermans, I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada Universidad
Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, Mexico
A. Morelos Pineda University of Montenegro, Podgorica, Montenegro
J. Mijuskovic4, N. Raicevic University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
S. Bheesette, P.H. Butler National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam
University, Islamabad, Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M.I. Asghar, 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, T. Frueboes, M. Górski, M. Kazana, M.
Szleper, P. Traczyk, P. Zalewski Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of
Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, 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, J. Seixas, K. Shchelina, O. Toldaiev, J.
Varela Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
S. Afanasiev, V. Alexakhin, P. Bunin, M. Gavrilenko, I. Golutvin, I. Gorbunov,
A. Kamenev, V. Karjavine, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev50,51, V. Palichik,
V. Perelygin, M. Savina, D. Seitova, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, V. Smirnov, O.
Teryaev, N. Voytishin, B.S. Yuldashev52, A. Zarubin Petersburg Nuclear Physics
Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg), Russia
G. Gavrilov, V. Golovtcov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim53, E. Kuznetsova54, V. Murzin, V.
Oreshkin, I. Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Volkov, A. Vorobyev
Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, M. Kirsanov,
N. Krasnikov, A. Pashenkov, G. Pivovarov, D.
Tlisov${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, A. Toropin Institute for Theoretical and
Experimental Physics named by A.I. Alikhanov of NRC ‘Kurchatov Institute’,
Moscow, Russia
V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, A. Nikitenko55, V. Popov, G.
Safronov, A. Spiridonov, A. Stepennov, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A. Zhokin Moscow
Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
R. Chistov56, M. Danilov57, A. Oskin, P. Parygin, S. Polikarpov56 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. Dubinin58, L. Dudko, A. Ershov, A.
Gribushin, V. Klyukhin, I. Lokhtin, S. Obraztsov, M. Perfilov, V. Savrin, P.
Volkov Novosibirsk State University (NSU), Novosibirsk, Russia
V. Blinov59, T. Dimova59, L. Kardapoltsev59, I. Ovtin59, Y. Skovpen59
Institute for High Energy Physics of National Research Centre ‘Kurchatov
Institute’, Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, V. Kachanov, A. Kalinin, D. Konstantinov, V. Petrov,
R. Ryutin, A. Sobol, S. Troshin, N. Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov National
Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia
A. Babaev, A. Iuzhakov, V. Okhotnikov, L. Sukhikh Tomsk State University,
Tomsk, Russia
V. Borchsh, V. Ivanchenko, E. Tcherniaev University of Belgrade: Faculty of
Physics and VINCA Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic60, P. Cirkovic, M. Dordevic, P. Milenovic, J. Milosevic Centro de
Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid,
Spain
M. Aguilar-Benitez, J. Alcaraz Maestre, A. Álvarez Fernández, I. Bachiller, M.
Barrio Luna, Cristina F. Bedoya, C.A. Carrillo Montoya, M. Cepeda, M. Cerrada,
N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris, J.P. Fernández Ramos, J. Flix,
M.C. Fouz, A. García Alonso, O. Gonzalez Lopez, S. Goy Lopez, J.M. Hernandez,
M.I. Josa, J. León Holgado, D. Moran, Á. Navarro Tobar, A. Pérez-Calero
Yzquierdo, J. Puerta Pelayo, I. Redondo, L. Romero, S. Sánchez Navas, M.S.
Soares, A. Triossi, L. Urda Gómez, C. Willmott Universidad Autónoma de Madrid,
Madrid, Spain
C. Albajar, J.F. de Trocóniz, R. Reyes-Almanza Universidad de Oviedo,
Instituto Universitario de Ciencias y Tecnologías Espaciales de Asturias
(ICTEA), Oviedo, Spain
B. Alvarez Gonzalez, J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, S. Folgueras,
I. Gonzalez Caballero, E. Palencia Cortezon, C. Ramón Álvarez, J. Ripoll Sau,
V. Rodríguez Bouza, S. Sanchez Cruz, A. Trapote Instituto de Física de
Cantabria (IFCA), CSIC-Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain
J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, B. Chazin Quero, J.
Duarte Campderros, M. Fernandez, P.J. Fernández Manteca, G. Gomez, C. Martinez
Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del Arbol, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, C. Prieels,
F. Ricci-Tam, T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno, L. Scodellaro, I. Vila, J.M. Vizan
Garcia University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka
MK Jayananda, B. Kailasapathy61, 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, E. Auffray, G. Auzinger, J. Baechler, P. Baillon,
A.H. Ball, D. Barney, J. Bendavid, N. Beni, M. Bianco, A. Bocci, E. Bossini,
E. Brondolin, T. Camporesi, M. Capeans Garrido, G. Cerminara, L. Cristella, D.
d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, N. Daci, V. Daponte, A. David, A. De Roeck, M.
Deile, R. Di Maria, M. Dobson, M. Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, N.
Emriskova, F. Fallavollita62, D. Fasanella, S. Fiorendi, A. Florent, G.
Franzoni, J. Fulcher, W. Funk, S. Giani, D. Gigi, K. Gill, F. Glege, L.
Gouskos, M. Guilbaud, D. Gulhan, M. Haranko, J. Hegeman, Y. Iiyama, V.
Innocente, T. James, P. Janot, J. Kaspar, J. Kieseler, M. Komm, N. Kratochwil,
C. Lange, S. Laurila, P. Lecoq, K. Long, C. Lourenço, L. Malgeri, S. Mallios,
M. Mannelli, F. Meijers, S. Mersi, E. Meschi, F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, S.
Orfanelli, L. Orsini, F. Pantaleo22, L. Pape, E. Perez, M. Peruzzi, A.
Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, T. Quast, D. Rabady, A.
Racz, M. Rieger, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, S. Scarfi, C.
Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva, W. Snoeys, P.
Sphicas63, S. Summers, V.R. Tavolaro, D. Treille, A. Tsirou, G.P. Van Onsem,
A. Vartak, M. Verzetti, K.A. Wozniak, W.D. Zeuner Paul Scherrer Institut,
Villigen, Switzerland
L. Caminada64, W. Erdmann, R. Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C. Kaestli, D.
Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, T. Rohe ETH Zurich - Institute for Particle Physics
and Astrophysics (IPA), Zurich, Switzerland
M. Backhaus, P. Berger, A. Calandri, N. Chernyavskaya, A. De Cosa, G.
Dissertori, M. Dittmar, M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, T. Gadek, T.A. Gómez Espinosa,
C. Grab, D. Hits, W. Lustermann, A.-M. Lyon, R.A. Manzoni, M.T. Meinhard, F.
Micheli, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, 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. Steggemann65,
M.L. Vesterbacka Olsson, R. Wallny, D.H. Zhu Universität Zürich, Zurich,
Switzerland
C. Amsler66, C. Botta, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, R. Del Burgo, J.K.
Heikkilä, M. Huwiler, A. Jofrehei, B. Kilminster, S. Leontsinis, A. Macchiolo,
P. Meiring, V.M. Mikuni, U. Molinatti, I. Neutelings, G. Rauco, A. Reimers, P.
Robmann, K. Schweiger, Y. Takahashi National Central University, Chung-Li,
Taiwan
C. Adloff67, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A. Roy, T. Sarkar39, S.S. Yu National Taiwan
University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
L. Ceard, P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, W.-S. Hou, Y.y. Li, R.-S.
Lu, E. Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen, E. Yazgan Chulalongkorn University,
Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok, Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, N. Srimanobhas Çukurova University,
Physics Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
F. Boran, S. Damarseckin68, Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, C. Dozen69, I.
Dumanoglu70, E. Eskut, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, E. Gurpinar Guler71, I. Hos72,
C. Isik, E.E. Kangal73, O. Kara, A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, G. Onengut, K.
Ozdemir74, A. Polatoz, A.E. Simsek, B. Tali75, U.G. Tok, S. Turkcapar, I.S.
Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East Technical University, Physics Department,
Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak76, G. Karapinar77, K. Ocalan78, M. Yalvac79 Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
B. Akgun, I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya80, O. Kaya81, Ö. Özçelik, S.
Tekten82, E.A. Yetkin83 Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
A. Cakir, K. Cankocak70, Y. Komurcu, S. Sen84 Istanbul University, Istanbul,
Turkey
F. Aydogmus Sen, S. Cerci75, B. Kaynak, S. Ozkorucuklu, D. Sunar Cerci75
Institute for Scintillation Materials of National Academy of Science of
Ukraine, Kharkov, Ukraine
B. Grynyov National Scientific Center, Kharkov Institute of Physics and
Technology, Kharkov, Ukraine
L. Levchuk University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
E. Bhal, S. Bologna, J.J. Brooke, E. Clement, D. Cussans, H. Flacher, J.
Goldstein, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, B. Krikler, S. Paramesvaran, T.
Sakuma, S. Seif El Nasr-Storey, V.J. Smith, N. Stylianou85, J. Taylor, A.
Titterton Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev86, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, D.J.A. Cockerill, K.V. Ellis, K.
Harder, S. Harper, J. Linacre, K. Manolopoulos, D.M. Newbold, E. Olaiya, D.
Petyt, T. Reis, T. Schuh, C.H. Shepherd-Themistocleous, A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin,
T. Williams Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, S. Bonomally, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A.
Bundock, V. Cepaitis, G.S. Chahal87, D. Colling, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M.
Della Negra, G. Fedi, G. Hall, G. Iles, J. Langford, L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan,
S. Malik, A. Martelli, V. Milosevic, J. Nash88, V. Palladino, M. Pesaresi,
D.M. Raymond, A. Richards, A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A. Shtipliyski, M.
Stoye, A. Tapper, K. Uchida, T. Virdee22, N. Wardle, S.N. Webb, D.
Winterbottom, A.G. Zecchinelli Brunel University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, C.K. Mackay, I.D. Reid, L.
Teodorescu, S. Zahid Baylor University, Waco, USA
S. Abdullin, A. Brinkerhoff, K. Call, B. Caraway, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama,
A.R. Kanuganti, C. Madrid, B. McMaster, N. Pastika, S. Sawant, C. Smith, J.
Wilson Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez, R. Uniyal, A.M. Vargas Hernandez The University of
Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
A. Buccilli, O. Charaf, S.I. Cooper, S.V. Gleyzer, C. Henderson, C.U. Perez,
P. Rumerio, C. West Boston University, Boston, USA
A. Akpinar, A. Albert, D. Arcaro, C. Cosby, Z. Demiragli, D. Gastler, J.
Rohlf, K. Salyer, D. Sperka, D. Spitzbart, I. Suarez, S. Yuan, D. Zou Brown
University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, B. Burkle, X. Coubez23, D. Cutts, Y.t. Duh, M. Hadley, U. Heintz,
J.M. Hogan89, K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, K.T. Lau, J. Lee, M.
Narain, S. Sagir90, R. Syarif, E. Usai, W.Y. Wong, D. Yu, W. Zhang University
of California, Davis, Davis, USA
R. Band, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez, M. Chertok,
J. Conway, R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, G. Funk, F. Jensen, W.
Ko${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, O. Kukral, R. Lander, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett,
J. Pilot, M. Shi, D. Taylor, K. Tos, M. Tripathi, Y. Yao, F. Zhang University
of California, Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, D. Hamilton, J. Hauser, M. Ignatenko,
M.A. Iqbal, T. Lam, N. Mccoll, W.A. Nash, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg, C.
Schnaible, B. Stone, V. Valuev University of California, Riverside, Riverside,
USA
K. Burt, Y. Chen, R. Clare, J.W. Gary, G. Hanson, G. Karapostoli, O.R. Long,
N. Manganelli, M. Olmedo Negrete, M.I. Paneva, W. Si, S. Wimpenny, Y. Zhang
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, P. Chang, S. Cittolin, S. Cooperstein, N. Deelen, J. Duarte, R.
Gerosa, D. Gilbert, V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, M. Masciovecchio, S. May, S.
Padhi, M. Pieri, V. Sharma, M. Tadel, F. Würthwein, A. Yagil University of
California, Santa Barbara - Department of Physics, Santa Barbara, USA
N. Amin, C. Campagnari, M. Citron, A. Dorsett, V. Dutta, J. Incandela, B.
Marsh, H. Mei, A. Ovcharova, H. Qu, M. Quinnan, J. Richman, U. Sarica, D.
Stuart, S. Wang California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
A. Bornheim, O. Cerri, I. Dutta, J.M. Lawhorn, N. Lu, J. Mao, H.B. Newman, J.
Ngadiuba, T.Q. Nguyen, J. Pata, M. Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, C. Wang, S. Xie,
Z. Zhang, R.Y. Zhu Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
J. Alison, M.B. Andrews, T. Ferguson, T. Mudholkar, M. Paulini, M. Sun, I.
Vorobiev University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, E. MacDonald, T. Mulholland, R. Patel, A. Perloff, K.
Stenson, K.A. Ulmer, S.R. Wagner Cornell University, Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, Y. Cheng, J. Chu, D.J. Cranshaw, A. Datta, A. Frankenthal, K.
Mcdermott, J. Monroy, J.R. Patterson, D. Quach, A. Ryd, W. Sun, S.M. Tan, Z.
Tao, J. Thom, P. Wittich, M. Zientek Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
Batavia, USA
M. Albrow, M. Alyari, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S. Banerjee,
L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas, D. Berry, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, K. Burkett,
J.N. Butler, A. Canepa, G.B. Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M. Cremonesi,
V.D. Elvira, J. Freeman, Z. Gecse, E. Gottschalk, L. Gray, D. Green, S.
Grünendahl, O. Gutsche, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, R. Heller, T.C. Herwig, J.
Hirschauer, B. Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, P. Klabbers,
T. Klijnsma, B. Klima, M.J. Kortelainen, S. Lammel, D. Lincoln, R. Lipton, M.
Liu, T. Liu, J. Lykken, K. Maeshima, D. Mason, P. McBride, P. Merkel, S.
Mrenna, S. Nahn, V. O’Dell, V. Papadimitriou, K. Pedro, C. Pena58, O.
Prokofyev, F. Ravera, A. Reinsvold Hall, L. Ristori, B. Schneider, E. Sexton-
Kennedy, N. Smith, A. Soha, W.J. Spalding, L. Spiegel, S. Stoynev, J. Strait,
L. Taylor, S. Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran, L. Uplegger, E.W. Vaandering, H.A. Weber, A.
Woodard University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, D. Bourilkov, L. Cadamuro, V. Cherepanov, F. Errico, R.D.
Field, D. Guerrero, B.M. Joshi, M. Kim, J. Konigsberg, A. Korytov, K.H. Lo, K.
Matchev, N. Menendez, G. Mitselmakher, D. Rosenzweig, K. Shi, J. Sturdy, J.
Wang, S. Wang, X. Zuo Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
T. Adams, A. Askew, D. Diaz, R. Habibullah, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F.
Johnson, R. Khurana, T. Kolberg, G. Martinez, H. Prosper, C. Schiber, R.
Yohay, J. Zhang Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, S. Butalla, T. Elkafrawy91, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, M. Rahmani,
M. Saunders, F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago, USA
M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, H. Becerril Gonzalez, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, S.
Dittmer, O. Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, C. Mills, G. Oh,
T. Roy, M.B. Tonjes, N. Varelas, J. Viinikainen, X. Wang, Z. Wu, Z. Ye The
University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, K. Dilsiz92, S. Durgut, R.P. Gandrajula, M. Haytmyradov, V.
Khristenko, O.K. Köseyan, J.-P. Merlo, A. Mestvirishvili93, A. Moeller, J.
Nachtman, H. Ogul94, Y. Onel, F. Ozok95, A. Penzo, C. Snyder, E. Tiras, J.
Wetzel Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
O. Amram, B. Blumenfeld, L. Corcodilos, M. Eminizer, A.V. Gritsan, S.
Kyriacou, P. Maksimovic, C. Mantilla, J. Roskes, M. Swartz, T.Á. Vámi The
University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA
C. Baldenegro Barrera, P. Baringer, A. Bean, A. Bylinkin, T. Isidori, S.
Khalil, J. King, G. Krintiras, A. Kropivnitskaya, C. Lindsey, N. Minafra, M.
Murray, C. Rogan, C. Royon, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q.
Wang, J. Williams, G. Wilson Kansas State University, Manhattan, USA
S. Duric, A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, D. Kim, Y. Maravin, T. Mitchell, A. Modak, A.
Mohammadi Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright University of Maryland, College Park, USA
E. Adams, A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, S.C. Eno, Y. Feng, N.J. Hadley, S.
Jabeen, G.Y. Jeng, R.G. Kellogg, T. Koeth, A.C. Mignerey, S. Nabili, M.
Seidel, A. Skuja, S.C. Tonwar, L. Wang, K. Wong Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, R. Bi, S. Brandt, W. Busza, I.A. Cali, Y. Chen, M.
D’Alfonso, G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov, P. Harris, D. Hsu, M. Hu, M.
Klute, D. Kovalskyi, J. Krupa, Y.-J. Lee, P.D. Luckey, B. Maier, A.C. Marini,
C. Mcginn, C. Mironov, S. Narayanan, X. Niu, C. Paus, D. Rankin, C. Roland, G.
Roland, Z. Shi, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Sumorok, K. Tatar, D. Velicanu, J. Wang,
T.W. Wang, Z. Wang, B. Wyslouch University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, P. Hansen, J. Hiltbrand, Sh. Jain, M. Krohn, Y.
Kubota, Z. Lesko, J. Mans, M. Revering, R. Rusack, R. Saradhy, N. Schroeder,
N. Strobbe, M.A. Wadud University of Mississippi, Oxford, USA
J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
K. Bloom, S. Chauhan, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, L. Finco, F. Golf, J.R.
González Fernández, C. Joo, I. Kravchenko, 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, C. Harrington, L. Hay, I. Iashvili, A.
Kharchilava, C. McLean, D. Nguyen, J. Pekkanen, S. Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani
Northeastern University, Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, Y. Haddad, A. Hortiangtham, J. Li, G.
Madigan, B. Marzocchi, D.M. Morse, V. Nguyen, T. Orimoto, A. Parker, L.
Skinnari, A. Tishelman-Charny, T. Wamorkar, B. Wang, A. Wisecarver, D. Wood
Northwestern University, Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, J. Bueghly, Z. Chen, A. Gilbert, T. Gunter, K.A. Hahn, N.
Odell, M.H. Schmitt, K. Sung, M. Velasco University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame,
USA
R. Bucci, N. Dev, R. Goldouzian, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop,
D.J. Karmgard, K. Lannon, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, I. Mcalister, F. Meng, K.
Mohrman, Y. Musienko50, R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, S. Taroni, M. Wayne, A.
Wightman, M. Wolf, L. Zygala The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA
J. Alimena, B. Bylsma, B. Cardwell, L.S. Durkin, B. Francis, C. Hill, A.
Lefeld, B.L. Winer, B.R. Yates Princeton University, Princeton, USA
B. Bonham, P. Das, G. Dezoort, P. Elmer, B. Greenberg, N. Haubrich, S.
Higginbotham, A. Kalogeropoulos, G. Kopp, S. Kwan, D. Lange, M.T. Lucchini, J.
Luo, D. Marlow, K. Mei, I. Ojalvo, J. Olsen, C. Palmer, P. Piroué, D.
Stickland, C. Tully University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
V.E. Barnes, R. Chawla, S. Das, L. Gutay, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, G. Negro, N.
Neumeister, C.C. Peng, S. Piperov, A. Purohit, H. Qiu, J.F. Schulte, M.
Stojanovic18, N. Trevisani, F. Wang, A. Wildridge, R. Xiao, W. Xie Purdue
University Northwest, Hammond, USA
J. Dolen, N. Parashar Rice University, Houston, USA
A. Baty, S. Dildick, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Kilpatrick, A.
Kumar, W. Li, B.P. Padley, R. Redjimi, J. Roberts${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$,
J. Rorie, W. Shi, A.G. Stahl Leiton University of Rochester, Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, J.L. Dulemba, C. Fallon, T. Ferbel, M.
Galanti, A. Garcia-Bellido, O. Hindrichs, A. Khukhunaishvili, E. Ranken, R.
Taus Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, USA
B. Chiarito, J.P. Chou, A. Gandrakota, Y. Gershtein, E. Halkiadakis, A. Hart,
M. Heindl, E. Hughes, S. Kaplan, O. Karacheban26, 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. Bouhali96, M. Dalchenko, A. Delgado, R. Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T.
Kamon97, H. Kim, S. Luo, S. Malhotra, R. Mueller, D. Overton, L. Perniè, D.
Rathjens, A. Safonov Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, V. Hegde, S. Kunori, K. Lamichhane, S.W. Lee, T.
Mengke, S. Muthumuni, T. Peltola, S. Undleeb, I. Volobouev, Z. Wang, A.
Whitbeck Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
E. Appelt, S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H.
Ni, K. Padeken, F. Romeo, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska University of
Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
M.W. Arenton, B. Cox, G. Cummings, J. Hakala, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A.
Ledovskoy, A. Li, C. Neu, B. Tannenwald, Y. Wang, E. Wolfe, F. Xia Wayne State
University, Detroit, USA
P.E. Karchin, N. Poudyal, P. Thapa University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison,
WI, USA
K. Black, T. Bose, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, S. Dasu, I. De Bruyn, P.
Everaerts, C. Galloni, H. He, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, A. Lanaro, A.
Loeliger, R. Loveless, J. Madhusudanan Sreekala, A. Mallampalli, D. Pinna, 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 IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
5: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
6: Also at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
7: Also at UFMS, Nova Andradina, Brazil
8: Also at Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil
9: Also at Nanjing Normal University Department of Physics, Nanjing, China
10: Now at The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
11: Also at University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
12: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics named by A.I.
Alikhanov of NRC ‘Kurchatov Institute’, Moscow, Russia
13: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
14: Now at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt
15: Now at Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
16: Also at Zewail City of Science and Technology, Zewail, Egypt
17: Now at Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt
18: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
19: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
20: Also at Ilia State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
21: Also at Erzincan Binali Yildirim University, Erzincan, Turkey
22: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
23: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
24: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
25: Also at Department of Physics, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan,
Iran, Isfahan, Iran
26: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
27: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
28: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary,
Debrecen, Hungary
29: Also at Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Assiut University, Assiut,
Egypt
30: Also at Eszterhazy Karoly University, Karoly Robert Campus, Gyongyos,
Hungary
31: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
32: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary, Budapest, Hungary
33: Also at Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
34: Also at IIT Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India, Bhubaneswar, India
35: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
36: Also at G.H.G. Khalsa College, Punjab, India
37: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India
38: Also at University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India
39: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
40: Also at Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Mumbai, India
41: Also at Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
42: Also at Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
43: Also at Department of Physics, University of Science and Technology of
Mazandaran, Behshahr, Iran
44: Now at INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b, Politecnico di Bari
c, Bari, Italy
45: Also at Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and
Sustainable Economic Development, Bologna, Italy
46: Also at Centro Siciliano di Fisica Nucleare e di Struttura Della Materia,
Catania, Italy
47: Also at Università di Napoli ’Federico II’, NAPOLI, Italy
48: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia, Riga, Latvia
49: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico City, Mexico
50: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
51: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
52: Also at Institute of Nuclear Physics of the Uzbekistan Academy of
Sciences, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
53: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
54: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
55: Also at Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
56: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
57: Also at Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia,
Moscow, Russia
58: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
59: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
60: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
61: Also at Trincomalee Campus, Eastern University, Sri Lanka, Nilaveli, Sri
Lanka
62: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy,
Pavia, Italy
63: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
64: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
65: Also at Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
66: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics, Vienna, Austria,
Vienna, Austria
67: Also at Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules,
IN2P3-CNRS, Annecy-le-Vieux, France
68: Also at Şırnak University, Sirnak, Turkey
69: Also at Department of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China,
Beijing, China
70: Also at Near East University, Research Center of Experimental Health
Science, Nicosia, Turkey
71: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey, Istanbul, Turkey
72: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Application and Research Center for
Advanced Studies (App. & Res. Cent. for Advanced Studies), Istanbul, Turkey
73: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
74: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
75: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
76: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
77: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
78: Also at Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
79: Also at Bozok Universitetesi Rektörlügü, Yozgat, Turkey, Yozgat, Turkey
80: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
81: Also at Milli Savunma University, Istanbul, Turkey
82: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
83: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
84: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
85: Also at Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
86: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
87: Also at IPPP Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom
88: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia
89: Also at Bethel University, St. Paul, Minneapolis, USA, St. Paul, USA
90: Also at Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey
91: Also at Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
92: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
93: Also at Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
94: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
95: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
96: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
97: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea, Daegu, Korea