HIN-16-005

$HeadURL:svn+ssh://svn.cern.ch/reps/tdr2/papers/HIN-16-005/trunk/HIN-16-005.tex$
$Id:HIN-16-005.tex4517012018-03-1915:50:43Zmnguyen$

HIN-16-005

# Comparing transverse momentum balance of jet pairs in $\Pp\Pp$ and
$\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions at $\sqrtsNN=5.02$

###### Abstract

The transverse momentum balance of pairs of back-to-back quark jets in
$\mathrm{PbPb}$ and $\Pp\Pp$ collisions recorded with the CMS detector at the
LHC is reported. The center-of-mass energy in both collision systems is
5.02per nucleon pair. Compared to the $\Pp\Pp$ collision baseline, quark jets
have a larger imbalance in the most central $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions, as
expected from the jet quenching effect. The data are also compared to the
corresponding measurement with inclusive dijets. In the most central
collisions, the imbalance of quark dijets is comparable to that of inclusive
dijets.

##  0.1 Introduction

Jets are sensitive probes of final-state effects in heavy ion collisions. The
jet quenching phenomenon is understood to arise from the interaction of hard-
scattered partons with the quark-gluon plasma produced in such collisions [1].
The first observable used to probe this phenomenon at the LHC was the
transverse momentum () balance of back-to-back jets [2, 3, 4, 5]. Quenching
imparts a net imbalance to dijets that exceeds the imbalance from QCD
radiation in vacuum, as measured in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions. This additional
imbalance is expected based on the difference of the in-medium path-length
traversed by the two jets. However, jet-by-jet fluctuation of the quenching
may also play a role, and could even be dominant [6].

The dependence of quenching on the type of parton that initiates the jet may
provide insight into the underlying dynamics. Such a dependence could arise
directly from the interaction of the initiating parton with the medium. For
example, radiative loss via gluon bremsstrahlung is expected to be larger for
jets initiated by gluons than for those from quarks. Furthermore, for heavy
quarks, radiation is expected to be suppressed in the direction of propagation
[7]. A dependence could also arise less directly, via the medium interactions
of subleading partons in the shower. For models in which quenching depends on
the shower multiplicity, , jewel [8, 6], the relatively larger average parton
multiplicity of gluon-initiated jets would lead to a larger quenching effect.

In general, the type of parton that initiates the jet is difficult to
determine experimentally. A notable exception are jets produced by the
fragmentation of bottom quarks. The corresponding b hadron may be identified,
for example, by the presence of a soft lepton or a displaced vertex inside the
jet. The latter strategy was pursued in the CMS measurement of the quark jet
(“ jet”) spectra and the corresponding nuclear modification factor in
$\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions at a nucleon-nucleon center of mass energy of
$\sqrtsNN=2.76$ [9]. However, there is a potential ambiguity in that
measurement. Bottom quarks may be produced not only directly in the hard
scattering, but also in the subsequent splitting of gluons into quark pairs.
Jets associated with b hadrons may contain a significant contribution from
gluon splitting, both from gluons that participate directly in the hard
scattering, as well as those that arise from final-state radiation in the
parton shower process.

One way to suppress the contribution of gluon splitting, which tends to
produce pairs of quarks with a relatively small opening angle, is to look at
pairs of jets that are back-to-back in azimuth. As shown in the Appendix, this
configuration enhances the contribution from primary quarks, typically
produced via the reaction $\Pg\Pg\to\bbbar$. The balance of such jets may then
be compared with those of inclusive (i.e., nontagged) dijets. This paper
presents the first measurement of the balance of jet pairs (“ dijets”) in
$\mathrm{PbPb}$, using collisions recorded at $\sqrtsNN=5.02$. The dijet data
are compared with that of inclusive dijets to search for a possible dependence
of the balance on the species of the initiating partons.

##  0.2 The CMS detector

The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6m
internal diameter, providing a magnetic field of 3.8T. Within the solenoid
volume are a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal
electromagnetic calorimeter, and a brass and scintillator hadron calorimeter,
each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. Forward calorimeters extend
the pseudorapidity coverage provided by the barrel and endcap detectors over
the range of about $3<\eta<5$. Muons are detected in gas-ionization chambers
embedded in the steel flux-return yoke outside the solenoid. 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. [10].

Events of interest are selected using a two-tiered trigger system [11]. The
first level, composed of custom hardware processors, uses information from the
calorimeters and muon detectors. 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.

##  0.3 Event and object selection

This analysis is performed using $\mathrm{PbPb}$ and $\Pp\Pp$ data recorded in
2015 at a center-of-mass energy per nucleon pair of $\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$. The
$\mathrm{PbPb}$ and $\Pp\Pp$ samples correspond to integrated luminosities of
404and 25.8, respectively. Events were selected using single-jet triggers in
both $\Pp\Pp$ and $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions. The jet triggers used in this
analysis are fully efficient with respect to the offline leading jet selection
of $\pt>100\GeV$. For $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions, b tagging algorithms are
applied at the high-level trigger to reduce the data volume. This is achieved
by performing a simplified version of the charged-particle tracking and vertex
reconstruction in regions of the detector delineated by high-jets. The
efficiency of the online b tagging with respect to the corresponding offline
algorithm is evaluated using single-jet triggers, and lies in the range of
70–90%, depending on collision centrality.

To reject noncollision processes such as beam-gas interactions, events are
required to have at least one reconstructed primary vertex and to deposit an
energy of at least 3in at least 3 towers in each of the two forward
calorimeters. The forward calorimeters are also used to estimate the collision
centrality, evaluated as a percentile of the total inelastic hadronic cross
section, with the most central event corresponding to a centrality of 0%.

The anti-algorithm [12] is used to cluster jets from objects produced by the
CMS particle-flow algorithm [13], which combines information from the various
subdetector systems. A radius parameter of $R=0.4$ is used. In $\mathrm{PbPb}$
collisions, the heavy ion background is subtracted event-by-event with an
algorithm that is a variant of an iterative “noise/pedestal subtraction”
technique [14]. The jet energy is calibrated as a function of the $\eta$ and
following the procedure described in Ref. [15].

The identification of jets is achieved using the “combined secondary vertex”
(CSV) discriminator. This algorithm takes as input a number of properties of
the reconstructed secondary vertex (SV), such as its displacement, the number
of associated tracks, and their invariant mass (with the assumption that the
tracks are originated by charged pions). For events in which no SV is properly
reconstructed, the displacement of selected tracks is used. Details of the b
tagging algorithms, and tracking and vertexing in general, can be found in
Refs. [16] and [17], respectively. Simulated data samples produced with [18]
are used to evaluate the b tagging performance and derive various corrections.
These samples are generated with version 6.423 [19], tune Z2 [20]. To compare
with $\mathrm{PbPb}$ data, events are embedded in an underlying event produced
with the hydjet generator, version 1.9 [21].

The performance of the CSV algorithm to identify jet pairs offline is shown in
Fig. 1. The efficiency and purity are evaluated in simulation as a function of
the -tagging selection variable for $\Pp\Pp$ and $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions
for different centrality intervals. A tight selection on the CSV discriminator
is applied in this analysis, as indicated in Fig 1, leading to a purity in the
range of 85–95% for dijets, with an efficiency in the range of about 10–35%,
depending on collision system and centrality. The degradation of the
performance with increasing centrality corresponds to a larger mistagging rate
for fixed b tagging efficiency, as also observed in Ref. [9]. These jets are
mistagged primarily due to vertices from false track combinations.

Figure 1: The dijet purity vs. efficiency as a function of the value of the
selection on the CSV discriminator in simulation. The same CSV selection is
applied to both jets. Several different centrality intervals of
$\mathrm{PbPb}$, as well as $\Pp\Pp$ collisions, are shown, as indicated in
the legend. The closed symbols indicate the working point used in this
analysis.

##  0.4 Data analysis

The balance of dijets is measured using the leading and subleading jets. This
balance is quantified by the ratio of the subleading to leading jet , denoted
$x_{\mathrm{J}}$. Dijets are selected from the two highest jets within a
window of $\abs{\eta}<1.5$. The of the leading and the subleading jets are
required to be above 100 and 40, respectively. This asymmetric selection is
chosen to ensure sensitivity to quenching effects. The subleading jet
threshold of 40is chosen to keep the subleading jet-finding efficiency
reasonably high, as will be described below. The leading jet threshold of
100is a compromise between statistical precision, on one hand, and maintaining
a large lever-arm with the subleading jet, on the other. For the case of
dijets, the leading and subleading jets are chosen prior to -tagging
selection. By restricting the analysis to the two highest jets in the event,
the contribution from gluon splitting processes is significantly suppressed.

Pairs of jets from a single hard scattering are referred to as “signal” pairs.
To enhance the contribution of such pairs, the jets are required to be back-
to-back in azimuthal opening angle with the selection of
$\abs{\Delta\phi}>2\pi/3$. The $\Delta\phi$ distributions in $\Pp\Pp$
collisions for inclusive dijets and dijets for which both the leading and
subleading jets are b tagged are shown in the left panel of Fig. 2. The
b-tagged dijets show a more pronounced tail at small $\Delta\phi$, which comes
from a larger contribution of 3-jet topologies, as further discussed in the
Appendix. The $\Delta\phi$ distributions in central (0–10%) $\mathrm{PbPb}$
collisions are shown in the right panel of Fig. 2. For inclusive dijets, an
increased contribution (compared to $\Pp\Pp$ collisions) at small $\Delta\phi$
arises from pairs of jets that are not from the same nucleon-nucleon
interaction. These combinatorial jet pairs tend to bias the $x_{\mathrm{J}}$
distribution towards low values, i.e., towards large imbalance. To subtract
this contribution from the selected dijet pairs, we exploit the fact that such
combinatorial pairs are uniform in $\Delta\phi$, and subtract the contribution
of pairs from a control region where combinatorial background dominates over
the signal pairs. The region is chosen to be $\abs{\Delta\phi}<\pi/3$, which
is symmetric to the back-to-back region with respect to the reaction plane,
and thus receives the same contribution from elliptic flow. Higher order
anisotropies are assumed to be negligible for this range in . Since
combinatorial jets are unlikely to pass the b tagging selection, the near-
angle contribution is smaller for dijets than inclusive dijets.

Figure 2:  Distributions of the azimuthal opening angle ($\Delta\phi$) between
the leading and subleading jets for $\Pp\Pp$ (left) and central (0–10%)
$\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions (right) for inclusive dijets and dijets. The small-
angle region ($\abs{\Delta\phi}<\pi/3$), the boundary of which is indicated by
a dashed line, is used to evaluate the combinatorial contribution in
$\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions. The vertical bars represent statistical
uncertainties, while the horizontal bars represent the bin widths.

In addition to subtracting the combinatorial component, one also needs to
correct for the contribution of signal pairs that are lost when there is a
combinatorial jet of higher than the signal partner jet. To achieve this, an
efficiency correction is derived, which is the inverse of the probability that
a partner jet of a given was found, i.e., not obscured by a combinatorial jet
of larger . This efficiency is again estimated from data using the small-angle
control region, $\abs{\Delta\phi}<\pi/3$. For a given centrality class, we
obtain the spectrum of the highest transverse momentum ($\pt^{\text{max}}$)
partner jet in this region in each event. Assuming that all partner jets in
this region are combinatorial, one can derive the probability that a signal
partner jet is obscured, as a function of . This efficiency for detecting the
signal partner jet is the cumulative distribution function of this
$\pt^{\text{max}}$ spectrum:

$\epsilon(\pt)\equiv 1-\frac{1}{N}\int_{\pt}^{\infty}\frac{\rd
N}{\rd\pt^{\text{max}}}\rd\pt^{\text{max}}.$ (1)

The efficiency is obtained from a fit to the data in fine bins of centrality,
using the Gompertz function, $f(\pt)=\exp[b\exp(c\pt)]$, where $b$ and $c$ are
free parameters. The fits obtained are shown in Fig 3. For each event, the
values of $b$ and $c$ for the given centrality are obtained by linear
interpolation. The function with these interpolated parameters is then
evaluated at the of the subleading jet.

Figure 3: The efficiency of finding a signal partner jet as function of its in
$\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions, as evaluated from the small-angle jet pair control
region. The corrections are shown in the fine centrality bins used in the
analysis.

Although the self-normalized quantities presented in this analysis do not
depend on the absolute b tagging efficiency, the relative efficiency as a
function of the and $\eta$ must be taken into account. Corrections are derived
from simulation for both the leading and subleading jet. We also correct for
the variation of the b tagging efficiency within the centrality selections
presented in this analysis.

In order to probe for quenching or other nuclear effects on the balance
distributions, a baseline is constructed using $\Pp\Pp$ data as a reference.
Since the deterioration of the jet resolution with increasing collision
centrality introduces an additional imbalance in the $x_{\mathrm{J}}$
distributions, a direct comparison of $\mathrm{PbPb}$ and $\Pp\Pp$
measurements does not solely reflect the nuclear modifications. This issue is
addressed by smearing the transverse momentum of the jets in $\Pp\Pp$ data by
the amount that corresponds to the additional underlying event fluctuations
estimated from hydjet simulations that have been tuned to match the underlying
event density in $\mathrm{PbPb}$ data.

As in Ref. [22], the jet resolution is parametrized according the following
form, typical for calorimeter energy resolutions.

$\sigma(\pt)/\pt=\sqrt{C^{2}+S^{2}/\pt+N^{2}/\pt^{2}}$ (2)

In $\Pp\Pp$ collisions, the constant ($C$) and stochastic ($S$) terms are 0.06
and 0.8$\sqrt{\GeVns}$, respectively. In $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions the $S$
term has a slightly larger value of 1.0$\sqrt{\GeVns}$, due to the underlying
event subtraction. The noise parameter ($N$) depends on collision centrality,
according to $N=14.82-\text{centrality (\%)}/5.40(\GeVns)$. This term is
neglected in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions.

##  0.5 Systematic uncertainties

The sources of systematic uncertainties in $\langle x_{\mathrm{J}}\rangle$ for
the inclusive dijet and dijet measurements are summarized in Table 0.5 and
discussed directly below.

Absolute systematic uncertainties on $\langle x_{\mathrm{J}}\rangle$ for
inclusive (upper sub-table) and b (lower sub-table) dijets.  Source $\Pp\Pp$
30–100% 10–30% 0–10% Combinatorial subtraction — 0.001 0.006 0.014 Subleading
jet finding — 0.002 0.004 0.004 Energy scale 0.001 0.006 0.010 0.013 Jet
resolution 0.007 0.008 0.010 0.012 Total 0.007 0.010 0.016 0.023 Combinatorial
subtraction — 0.008 0.008 0.008 Subleading jet finding — 0.002 0.004 0.004
Tagging efficiency 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.009 Signal mistagging 0.002 0.004 0.006
0.006 Jet energy scale 0.001 0.006 0.010 0.013 Jet resolution 0.007 0.008
0.010 0.012 Total 0.008 0.014 0.018 0.023

### Combinatorial jet pair subtraction

The systematic uncertainty in the combinatorial background subtraction in
$\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions is evaluated by varying the contribution of the
near-angle control region. For inclusive dijets, where the near-angle region
is dominated by combinatorial jets, the size of the contribution is varied by
30%, which is sufficient to cover the nonclosure of the subtraction procedure
in simulation (the difference between the output of the analysis procedure and
the generated input for the simulation). For dijets, the number of jet pairs
in the near-angle control region is reduced by the b tagging requirement, and
is much less centrality-dependent than for inclusive dijets. Simulations based
on hydjet embedding show that the dominant contribution in this region
corresponds to signal jets from gluon splitting. We therefore use the entire
yield in the near-angle region in $\Pp\Pp$ data to estimate the systematic
uncertainty in the subtraction procedure in $\mathrm{PbPb}$ data.

### Subleading jet finding efficiency

The uncertainty on the efficiency correction for finding the subleading jet is
attributed to several effects: a contribution of signal jets in the near-angle
control region ($\abs{\Delta\phi}<\pi/3$), the finite centrality binning used
and the imperfect description of the Gompertz fit function employed. The
systematic uncertainty associated with these corrections is evaluated from the
nonclosure in hydjet-embedded simulated samples.

### Jet energy scale

The uncertainty on the (inclusive) jet energy scale in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions is
evaluated from in-situ studies to be 1% for the $\eta$ range used in this
analysis [15, 22]. The same jet energy scale and uncertainty are found to
apply to jets, based on studies of $\cPZ\to\bbbar$. In-situ studies were also
carried out in peripheral $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions in Ref. [4], albeit with
limited statistics. A 4% uncertainty is assigned to cover the observed
difference between data and simulation. The modification of jet fragmentation
pattern due to quenching is also a source of systematic uncertainty on the jet
energy scale that can be as large as 5% for the most central collisions [23,
24]. Finally, underlying event subtraction leads to an uncertainty in the jet
energy scale of up to 2% for central collisions [4, 25].

To propagate the uncertainties to the $x_{\mathrm{J}}$ distributions, the
correlation between the leading and subleading jet energy scales must be taken
into account. For a given jet pair, the ratio $x_{\mathrm{J}}$ is insensitive
to an overall shift of the jet energy scale by a multiplicative factor. Such a
shift does, however, effectively change the leading and subleading jet
thresholds. The total correlated shift from the above mentioned sources was
estimated to be as large as 6.5% in central events. For dijets, there is an
additional systematic uncertainty due to the bias of the b tagging on the jet
energy scale, which was evaluated in simulation and found to be 1% in $\Pp\Pp$
collisions and 2% in $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions.

There is also a component of the systematic uncertainty that is uncorrelated
between the leading and subleading jet. The subleading jet is also more
sensitive to the underlying event subtraction systematics than the leading jet
is. To be conservative, we applied the entire uncertainty of 2% to the
subleading jet, independently of the leading jet. In addition, to cover the
dependence of the modification of the fragmentation pattern due to quenching,
the jet energy scale is shifted by a fixed amount, up to 2in central events.

### Jet energy resolution

The uncertainly from the jet resolution is propagated by varying the
resolution parametrization in Eq. 2. The effect on the $x_{\mathrm{J}}$
distribution is evaluated by applying these alternate smearing
parametrizations to particle-level jets. In $\Pp\Pp$ collisions, the $C$ and
$S$ parameters are varied by 0.02 and 0.2$\sqrt{\GeVns}$, respectively. For
$\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions, in addition, the $N$ term is varied by 2, which
covers the difference in underlying event between data and simulation, and the
variation of the resolution within the wide centrality bins. Although the
results are not unfolded for the resolution effects, the uncertainty is fully
included in the data points in order to correctly evaluate any theoretical
models that fold in the resolution effects for comparison.

### Tagging efficiency (b jets only)

The tagging efficiency has a fairly flat dependence, such that it has only a
mild effect on the observed mean $x_{\mathrm{J}}$ values ($\langle
x_{\mathrm{J}}\rangle$). The values of the corrections are varied by 50% as a
conservative estimate of the systematic uncertainty in these corrections. This
is sufficient to cover possible differences in data and simulation observed
with studies of the jet tagging efficiency in control samples in data [16, 9].

### Mistagging (b jets only)

The effect of mistagging signal (i.e., not combinatorial) dijets where one or
both jets is not associated with a quark is evaluated by inverting the b
tagging selection for both the leading and subleading jets, both independently
and simultaneously. The systematic uncertainty associated with mistagging is
based on the imbalance of the inverted selections, taking into account the
purity of the dijet selection in simulation, which is around 85–90%, depending
slightly on centrality.

##  0.6 Results

The balance, as quantified by the distribution of $x_{\mathrm{J}}$, is
presented for both inclusive and dijets. Both sets of dijets use leading and
subleading jet thresholds of 100 and 40, respectively, selected from jets in
$\abs{\eta}<1.5$. Figure 4 shows the distribution in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions. The
data are compared with simulations performed with 6, which was found to give
an adequate description of the dijet balance for inclusive jets. The agreement
of 6 with data is notably worse for dijets, where the simulated distribution
is broadened towards imbalanced jet pairs. This broad feature is not observed
in the dijet data, which instead shows an $x_{\mathrm{J}}$ distribution that
resembles that of inclusive dijets. It was found that improved agreement could
be obtained by reweighting the contributions of heavy-flavor production
processes in 6, a procedure which is discussed in the Appendix. The reweighted
distribution is also shown in Fig 4. Finally, the data are also compared to
simulations based on next-to-leading order matrix elements, as encoded in the
hvq package [26] of the box [27] (v2) generator. Hadronization in the method
[28, 29] is performed by matching the matrix elements to parton showers, which
in this case are generated with 8.212 [30], tune CUETP8M1 [31]. The + 8
simulations are found to give a good description of the dijet data.

Figure 4: Distributions of $x_{\mathrm{J}}$ in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions for
inclusive dijets (left) and dijets (right). Systematic uncertainties are shown
as shaded boxes, while statistical uncertainties are shown as vertical lines.
The data are compared to simulations performed using and , as described in the
text.

Figure 5 shows the $x_{\mathrm{J}}$ distributions for inclusive dijets and
dijets for three different centrality selections of $\mathrm{PbPb}$
collisions. Here the data are compared to the reference obtained from $\Pp\Pp$
data by smearing the of each jet according to a parametrization of the
resolution for the given centrality class. Figure 6 shows the $\langle
x_{\mathrm{J}}\rangle$ values from these distributions, as well as the
difference between the $\langle x_{\mathrm{J}}\rangle$ in $\mathrm{PbPb}$ and
the smeared $\Pp\Pp$ reference. The data are plotted as a function of the
number of participants estimated from a Monte Carlo Glauber model [32, 33].
The number of participants is weighted by the number of collisions to account
for the hard scattering bias within each bin. Both the inclusive dijet and
dijet data show a tendency towards increasing imbalance with increasing
centrality. While the reference data also become more imbalanced because of
resolution effects, the magnitude of the effect is clearly smaller. The effect
is understood to result from jet quenching, as observed in previous inclusive
dijet results [3, 34]. For inclusive dijets, a clear quenching signal is
observed already for the 30–100% centrality bin. For dijets, on the other
hand, the imbalance is compatible with the $\Pp\Pp$ reference in the 30–100%
bin. In the 10–30% bin, the dijet data point lies between the inclusive dijet
one and the $\Pp\Pp$ reference, within two standard deviations of both. Only
in the most central bin (0–10%) is the dijet quenching significant at the
level of about three standard deviations, with a value close to that observed
for inclusive dijets.

Figure 5: Distributions of $x_{\mathrm{J}}$ in $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions for
inclusive dijets (left) and dijets (right). Systematic uncertainties are shown
as shaded boxes, while statistical uncertainties are shown as vertical lines.
The top, middle and bottom rows show the 0–10, 10–30 and 30–100% centrality
selections, respectively. The data are compared to a reference obtained by
smearing $\Pp\Pp$ according to the jet resolution for the given centrality
class, as described in the text.  Figure 6: $\langle x_{\mathrm{J}}\rangle$
for inclusive (left) dijets and dijets (center) in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions and for
different centrality selections of $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions. The right panel
shows the difference in the $\langle x_{\mathrm{J}}\rangle$ values between
$\mathrm{PbPb}$ and the smeared $\Pp\Pp$ reference. Systematic uncertainties
are shown as shaded boxes, while statistical uncertainties are shown as
vertical lines.

##  0.7 Conclusions

In this paper, transverse momentum () correlations of quark jet pairs (
dijets) have been measured in $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions for the first time,
and compared to results from $\Pp\Pp$ collisions. In $\Pp\Pp$ collisions, a
similar balance distribution was observed for inclusive dijets and dijets. For
the latter case, was found to give a better description than 6 alone (without
reweighting), suggesting that next-to-leading order effects are important for
the modeling of this observable. This should be taken into consideration for
models of parton energy loss in nucleus-nucleus collisions, which often use
leading order calculations or generators as input. In $\mathrm{PbPb}$
collisions the net imbalance was observed to be larger in the most central
collisions for dijets, as had already been observed for inclusive dijets. This
effect can be understood to originate from the energy loss of partons in the
quark-gluon plasma. In the most central bin, the observed quenching effect is
of comparable magnitude for dijets and for inclusive dijets, the latter of
which contains a mixture of quark and gluon jets. Insofar as parton energy
loss is thought to depend on the type of parton that initiates the parton
shower, this measurement can place constraints on the underlying dynamics of
the interaction of the parton with the quark-gluon plasma.

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

## References

  * [1] G.-Y. Qin and X.-N. Wang, “Jet quenching in high-energy heavy-ion collisions”,  Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 24 (2015) 1530014, 10.1142/9789814663717_0007, arXiv:1511.00790.
  * [2] ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a centrality-dependent dijet asymmetry in lead-lead collisions at $\sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{{}_{\mathrm{nn}}}}}=2.76$ TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 252303, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.252303, arXiv:1011.6182.
  * [3] CMS Collaboration, “Observation and studies of jet quenching in PbPb collisions at nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy = 2.76 TeV”,  Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 024906, 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.024906, arXiv:1102.1957.
  * [4] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of transverse momentum relative to dijet systems in PbPb and pp collisions at $\sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{{}_{\mathrm{nn}}}}}=2.76$ TeV”,  JHEP 01 (2016) 006, 10.1007/JHEP01(2016)006, arXiv:1509.09029.
  * [5] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of jet $p_{\mathrm{t}}$ correlations in Pb+Pb and pp collisions at $\sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{{}_{\mathrm{nn}}}}}=2.76$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Lett. B 774 (2017) 379, 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.09.078, arXiv:1706.09363.
  * [6] J. G. Milhano and K. C. Zapp, “Origins of the di-jet asymmetry in heavy ion collisions”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 288, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4130-9, arXiv:1512.08107.
  * [7] Y. L. Dokshitzer and D. E. Kharzeev, “Heavy quark colorimetry of QCD matter”,  Phys. Lett. B 519 (2001) 199, 10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01130-3, arXiv:hep-ph/0106202.
  * [8] K. Zapp et al., “A Monte Carlo model for ’jet quenching”’,  Eur. Phys. J. C 60 (2009) 617, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-009-0941-2, arXiv:0804.3568.
  * [9] CMS Collaboration, “Evidence of b-jet quenching in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{{}_{\mathrm{nn}}}}}=2.76$ TeV”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 132301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.132301, arXiv:1312.4198. [Erratum: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.029903].
  * [10] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [11] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [12] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-$k_{t}$ jet clustering algorithm”,  JHEP 04 (2008) 063, 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063, arXiv:0802.1189.
  * [13] 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.
  * [14] O. Kodolova, I. Vardanian, A. Nikitenko, and A. Oulianov, “The performance of the jet identification and reconstruction in heavy ions collisions with CMS detector”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 50 (2007) 117, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0223-9.
  * [15] CMS Collaboration, “Determination of jet energy calibration and transverse momentum resolution in CMS”,  JINST 6 (2011) P11002, 10.1088/1748-0221/6/11/P11002, arXiv:1107.4277.
  * [16] CMS Collaboration, “Identification of b-quark jets with the CMS experiment”,  JINST 8 (2013) P04013, 10.1088/1748-0221/8/04/P04013, arXiv:1211.4462.
  * [17] CMS Collaboration, “Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker”,  JINST (2014), no. 10, P10009, 10.1088/1748-0221/9/10/P10009, arXiv:1405.6569.
  * [18] GEANT4 Collaboration, “GEANT4—a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [19] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, “PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual”,  JHEP 05 (2006) 026, 10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/026, arXiv:hep-ph/0603175.
  * [20] R. Field, “Min-bias and the underlying event at the LHC”,  Acta Phys. Polon. B 42 (2011) 2631, 10.5506/APhysPolB.42.2631, arXiv:1110.5530.
  * [21] I. P. Lokhtin and A. M. Snigirev, “A model of jet quenching in ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions and high-$p_{\rm t}$ hadron spectra at RHIC”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 45 (2006) 211, 10.1140/epjc/s2005-02426-3, arXiv:hep-ph/0506189.
  * [22] CMS Collaboration, “Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV”,  JINST 12 (2017) P02014, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/P02014, arXiv:1607.03663.
  * [23] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of jet fragmentation into charged particles in pp and PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{{}_{\mathrm{nn}}}}}=2.76$ TeV”,  JHEP 10 (2012) 087, 10.1007/JHEP10(2012)087, arXiv:1205.5872.
  * [24] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of jet fragmentation in PbPb and pp collisions at $\sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{{}_{\mathrm{nn}}}}}=2.76$ TeV”,  Phys. Rev. C 90 (2014) 024908, 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.024908, arXiv:1406.0932.
  * [25] CMS Collaboration, “Correlations between jets and charged particles in PbPb and pp collisions at $\sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{{}_{\mathrm{nn}}}}}=2.76$ TeV”,  JHEP 02 (2016) 156, 10.1007/JHEP02(2016)156, arXiv:1601.00079.
  * [26] S. Frixione, P. Nason, and G. Ridolfi, “A positive-weight next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction”,  JHEP 09 (2007) 126, 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/09/126, arXiv:0707.3088.
  * [27] 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.
  * [28] 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.
  * [29] 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.
  * [30] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, “A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 178 (2008) 852, 10.1016/j.cpc.2008.01.036, arXiv:0710.3820.
  * [31] 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.
  * [32] M. L. Miller, K. Reygers, S. J. Sanders, and P. Steinberg, “Glauber modeling in high energy nuclear collisions”,  Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57 (2007) 205, 10.1146/annurev.nucl.57.090506.123020, arXiv:nucl-ex/0701025.
  * [33] B. Alver et al., “Importance of correlations and fluctuations on the initial source eccentricity in high-energy nucleus-nucleus collisions”,  Phys. Rev. C 77 (2008) 014906, 10.1103/PhysRevC.77.014906, arXiv:0711.3724.
  * [34] CMS Collaboration, “Jet momentum dependence of jet quenching in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{{}_{\mathrm{nn}}}}}=2.76$ TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 712 (2012) 176, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.04.058, arXiv:1202.5022.
  * [35] CDF Collaboration, “Measurements of ${\rm b\bar{b}}$ azimuthal production correlations in ${\rm p\bar{p}}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=1.8$ TeV”,  Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 092001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.71.092001, arXiv:hep-ex/0412006.

##  .8 Appendix

Whereas tunes of 6 used to compare to LHC data give a reasonable description
of the dijet balance for inclusive jets (e.g., in Ref. [34]), they fail to
adequately describe the angular and correlations between jet pairs for the
kinematic range probed by this measurement, as shown in the $x_{\mathrm{J}}$
and $\Delta\phi$ distributions in Fig. 7. To understand the nature of this
discrepancy simulated events are separated into three categories, depending on
the number of outgoing b (or ) quarks in the $2\to 2$ hard scattering. In the
flavor creation process (denoted FCR), both of the outgoing particles are
quarks. The gluon fusion reaction ($\cPg\cPg\to\bbbar$) dominates, with a
small contribution from quark-antiquark annihilation ($\cPq\cPaq\to\bbbar$).
In the flavor excitation process (FEX) only one of the outgoing particles is
quark. In this case, a virtual gluon in one of the protons has split into a
$\bbbar$ pair and one of the quarks enters the hard scattering. In the process
referred to here as gluon splitting (GSP), neither of the outgoing particles
is a quark. The parent may be a gluon that participates in the hard scattering
or a gluon that appears elsewhere in the event, for example in a parton
shower.

Figure 7:  The distributions of $x_{\mathrm{J}}$ (left) and $\Delta\phi$
(right) in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions before flavor process reweighting. Data are
shown in solid points, while the stacked histograms show the contributions of
different processes in 6 (see text for details). The bottom set of panels show
the difference between data and simulation (MC).

The discrepancy of 6 with the data is driven by the poor modeling of the FEX
contribution, which tends to give dijet pairs that are too asymmetric in .
This discrepancy was already noted by the CDF Collaboration [35], and may be
understood as follows. The partner quark in the FEX process is treated as
initial-state radiation. The 6 tunes require large initial-state radiation to
describe scale collider data. However, such tunes over-predict the probability
that the partner quark at mid-rapidity and enters the kinematic selections
used in this analysis. While an improved modeling of this process can be
achieved by softening the initial-state radiation, this would have an impact
on other observables, in particular the overall dijet balance. Instead, the
contribution of the three heavy-flavor production modes are reweighted
according to the following procedure. Three exclusive categories of events are
defined, using jets within $\abs{\eta}<1.5$:

  * •

The two highest jets are -tagged and back-to-back
($\abs{\Delta\phi_{1,2}}>2\pi/3$);

  * •

The first and third highest jet are -tagged and back-to-back
($\abs{\Delta\phi_{1,3}}>2\pi/3$);

  * •

The first and third highest jet are -tagged and nearby
($\abs{\Delta\phi_{1,3}}<\pi/3$).

In simulation, these categories are found to be dominated by FCR, FEX, and GSP
events, respectively. The contribution of each process in simulation is
reweighted such that the relative abundance of these three categories of
events are the same as in data. The relative contributions of the three heavy-
flavor production sub-processes to these categories are shown in Table. .8.
Also shown in Table. .8 are the relative occurrences of the three categories
in data and simulation. Finally, Table .8 shows the relative contribution of
the three production processes to selected dijets before and after the
reweighting. The contribution of the FCR process to the selected dijet events
is found to be at the level of 70% in 6 after the reweighting procedure is
applied. Figure 8 shows the improved agreement of the $x_{\mathrm{J}}$ and
$\Delta\phi$ distributions between data and simulation after reweighting.

Relative contributions of the three heavy-flavor production sub-processes in 6
to the jet pair categories, as well as the relative abundance of the three
categories in data and simulation.  Category FCR GSP FEX Data Simulation
$\abs{\Delta\phi_{1,2}}>2\pi/3$ 57% 17% 26% 56% 46%
$\abs{\Delta\phi_{1,3}}>2\pi/3$ 11% 27% 62% 37% 49%
$\abs{\Delta\phi_{1,3}}<\pi/3$ 0% 83% 17% 7% 5%

Contributions of the three production processes to selected dijets in 6 before
and after reweighting.  Process Default Reweighted FCR 53% 70% FEX 33% 9% GSP
14% 21%

Figure 8:  The distributions of $x_{\mathrm{J}}$ (left) and $\Delta\phi$
(right) in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions after flavor process reweighting. Data are
shown in solid points, while the stacked histograms show the contributions of
different processes in 6 (see text for details). The bottom set of panels show
the difference between data and simulation (MC).

##  .9 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan Institut für Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, E. Asilar, T. Bergauer, J. Brandstetter, E. Brondolin, M.
Dragicevic, J. Erö, A. Escalante Del Valle, M. Flechl, M. Friedl, R.
Frühwirth1, V.M. Ghete, J. Grossmann, J. Hrubec, M. Jeitler1, A. König, N.
Krammer, I. Krätschmer, D. Liko, T. Madlener, I. Mikulec, E. Pree, N. Rad, H.
Rohringer, J. Schieck1, R. Schöfbeck, M. Spanring, D. Spitzbart, A. Taurok, W.
Waltenberger, J. Wittmann, C.-E. Wulz1, M. Zarucki Institute for Nuclear
Problems, Minsk, Belarus
V. Chekhovsky, V. Mossolov, J. Suarez Gonzalez Universiteit Antwerpen,
Antwerpen, Belgium
E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, J. Lauwers, M. Pieters, M. Van De
Klundert, H. Van Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, N. Van Remortel Vrije
Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
S. Abu Zeid, F. Blekman, J. D’Hondt, I. De Bruyn, J. De Clercq, K. Deroover,
G. Flouris, D. Lontkovskyi, S. Lowette, I. Marchesini, S. Moortgat, L.
Moreels, Q. Python, K. Skovpen, S. Tavernier, W. Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders,
I. Van Parijs Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
D. Beghin, B. Bilin, H. Brun, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, H. Delannoy, B.
Dorney, G. Fasanella, L. Favart, R. Goldouzian, A. Grebenyuk, A.K. Kalsi, T.
Lenzi, J. Luetic, T. Seva, E. Starling, C. Vander Velde, P. Vanlaer, D.
Vannerom, R. Yonamine Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, A. Fagot, M. Gul, I. Khvastunov2, D. Poyraz, C. Roskas,
D. Trocino, M. Tytgat, W. Verbeke, B. Vermassen, M. Vit, N. Zaganidis
Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
H. Bakhshiansohi, O. Bondu, S. Brochet, G. Bruno, C. Caputo, A. Caudron, P.
David, S. De Visscher, C. Delaere, M. Delcourt, B. Francois, A. Giammanco, G.
Krintiras, V. Lemaitre, A. Magitteri, A. Mertens, M. Musich, K. Piotrzkowski,
L. Quertenmont, A. Saggio, M. Vidal Marono, S. Wertz, J. Zobec Centro
Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
W.L. Aldá Júnior, F.L. Alves, G.A. Alves, L. Brito, G. Correia Silva, C.
Hensel, A. Moraes, M.E. Pol, P. Rebello Teles Universidade do Estado do Rio de
Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato3, E. Coelho, E.M.
Da Costa, G.G. Da Silveira4, D. De Jesus Damiao, S. Fonseca De Souza, H.
Malbouisson, M. Medina Jaime5, M. Melo De Almeida, C. Mora Herrera, L. Mundim,
H. Nogima, L.J. Sanchez Rosas, A. Santoro, A. Sznajder, M. Thiel, E.J. Tonelli
Manganote3, F. Torres Da Silva De Araujo, A. Vilela Pereira Universidade
Estadual Paulista a, Universidade Federal do ABC b, São Paulo, Brazil
S. Ahujaa, C.A. Bernardesa, L. Calligarisa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M.
Gregoresb, P.G. Mercadanteb, S.F. Novaesa, Sandra S. Padulaa, D. Romero Abadb,
J.C. Ruiz Vargasa Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian
Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, A. Marinov, M. Misheva, M. Rodozov,
M. Shopova, G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Dimitrov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov Beihang University, Beijing, China
W. Fang6, X. Gao6, L. Yuan Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, J.G. Bian, G.M. Chen, H.S. Chen, M. Chen, Y. Chen, C.H. Jiang, D.
Leggat, H. Liao, Z. Liu, F. Romeo, S.M. Shaheen, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, C. Wang,
Z. Wang, E. Yazgan, H. Zhang, J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics
and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
Y. Ban, G. Chen, J. Li, Q. Li, S. Liu, Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang, Z. Xu
Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Y. Wang Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, C.A. Carrillo Montoya, L.F. Chaparro Sierra, C. Florez,
C.F. González Hernández, M.A. Segura Delgado University of Split, Faculty of
Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split,
Croatia
B. Courbon, N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak, P.M. Ribeiro Cipriano, T.
Sculac University of Split, Faculty of Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, K. Kadija, B. Mesic, A. Starodumov7, T. Susa
University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos,
P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
M. Finger8, M. Finger Jr.8 Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
E. Carrera Jarrin Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab
Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt
H. Abdalla9, M.A. Mahmoud10,11, Y. Mohammed10 National Institute of Chemical
Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
S. Bhowmik, R.K. Dewanjee, M. Kadastik, L. Perrini, M. Raidal, C. Veelken
Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
P. Eerola, H. Kirschenmann, J. Pekkanen, M. Voutilainen Helsinki Institute of
Physics, Helsinki, Finland
J. Havukainen, J.K. Heikkilä, T. Järvinen, V. Karimäki, R. Kinnunen, T.
Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Laurila, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, P. Luukka, T.
Mäenpää, H. Siikonen, E. Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi Lappeenranta University of
Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
T. Tuuva IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, J.L. Faure, F. Ferri, S.
Ganjour, S. Ghosh, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry,
C. Leloup, E. Locci, M. Machet, J. Malcles, G. Negro, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky,
M.Ö. Sahin, M. Titov Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole polytechnique,
CNRS/IN2P3, Université Paris-Saclay, Palaiseau, France
A. Abdulsalam12, C. Amendola, I. Antropov, S. Baffioni, F. Beaudette, P.
Busson, L. Cadamuro, C. Charlot, R. Granier de Cassagnac, M. Jo, I. Kucher, S.
Lisniak, A. Lobanov, J. Martin Blanco, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, G. Ortona, P.
Paganini, P. Pigard, R. Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A.G. Stahl Leiton, Y.
Yilmaz, A. Zabi, A. Zghiche Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178,
F-67000 Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram13, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, J.-M. Brom, E.C. Chabert, C. Collard, E.
Conte13, X. Coubez, F. Drouhin13, J.-C. Fontaine13, D. Gelé, U. Goerlach, M.
Jansová, P. Juillot, A.-C. Le Bihan, N. Tonon, P. Van Hove Centre de Calcul de
l’Institut National de Physique Nucleaire et de Physique des Particules,
CNRS/IN2P3, Villeurbanne, France
S. Gadrat Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3,
Institut de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, N. Chanon, R. Chierici, D. Contardo, P.
Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, L. Finco, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, G.
Grenier, B. Ille, F. Lagarde, I.B. Laktineh, H. Lattaud, M. Lethuillier, L.
Mirabito, A.L. Pequegnot, S. Perries, A. Popov14, V. Sordini, M. Vander
Donckt, S. Viret, S. Zhang Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
T. Toriashvili15 Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
Z. Tsamalaidze8 RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen,
Germany
C. Autermann, L. Feld, M.K. Kiesel, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, M. Preuten, M.P.
Rauch, C. Schomakers, J. Schulz, M. Teroerde, B. Wittmer, V. Zhukov14 RWTH
Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany
A. Albert, D. Duchardt, M. Endres, M. Erdmann, S. Erdweg, T. Esch, R. Fischer,
A. Güth, T. Hebbeker, C. Heidemann, K. Hoepfner, S. Knutzen, M. Merschmeyer,
A. Meyer, P. Millet, S. Mukherjee, T. Pook, M. Radziej, H. Reithler, M.
Rieger, F. Scheuch, D. Teyssier, S. Thüer RWTH Aachen University, III.
Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany
G. Flügge, B. Kargoll, T. Kress, A. Künsken, T. Müller, A. Nehrkorn, A.
Nowack, C. Pistone, O. Pooth, A. Stahl16 Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron,
Hamburg, Germany
M. Aldaya Martin, T. Arndt, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, K. Beernaert, O. Behnke, U.
Behrens, A. Bermúdez Martínez, A.A. Bin Anuar, K. Borras17, V. Botta, A.
Campbell, P. Connor, C. Contreras-Campana, F. Costanza, V. Danilov, A. De Wit,
C. Diez Pardos, D. Domínguez Damiani, G. Eckerlin, D. Eckstein, T. Eichhorn,
E. Eren, E. Gallo18, J. Garay Garcia, A. Geiser, J.M. Grados Luyando, A.
Grohsjean, P. Gunnellini, M. Guthoff, A. Harb, J. Hauk, M. Hempel19, H. Jung,
M. Kasemann, J. Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, J. Knolle, I. Korol, D. Krücker, W.
Lange, A. Lelek, T. Lenz, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann19, R. Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-
Pellmann, A.B. Meyer, M. Meyer, M. Missiroli, G. Mittag, J. Mnich, A.
Mussgiller, D. Pitzl, A. Raspereza, M. Savitskyi, P. Saxena, R. Shevchenko, N.
Stefaniuk, H. Tholen, G.P. Van Onsem, R. Walsh, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C.
Wissing, O. Zenaiev University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, V. Blobel, M. Centis Vignali, T. Dreyer, E. Garutti, D.
Gonzalez, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, M. Hoffmann, A. Karavdina, G. Kasieczka, R.
Klanner, R. Kogler, N. Kovalchuk, S. Kurz, D. Marconi, J. Multhaup, M.
Niedziela, D. Nowatschin, T. Peiffer, A. Perieanu, A. Reimers, C. Scharf, P.
Schleper, A. Schmidt, S. Schumann, J. Schwandt, J. Sonneveld, H. Stadie, G.
Steinbrück, F.M. Stober, M. Stöver, D. Troendle, E. Usai, A. Vanhoefer, B.
Vormwald Institut für Experimentelle Teilchenphysik, Karlsruhe, Germany
M. Akbiyik, C. Barth, M. Baselga, S. Baur, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, F.
Colombo, W. De Boer, A. Dierlamm, N. Faltermann, B. Freund, R. Friese, M.
Giffels, M.A. Harrendorf, F. Hartmann16, S.M. Heindl, U. Husemann, F.
Kassel16, S. Kudella, H. Mildner, M.U. Mozer, Th. Müller, M. Plagge, G. Quast,
K. Rabbertz, M. Schröder, I. Shvetsov, G. Sieber, H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, S.
Wayand, M. Weber, T. Weiler, S. Williamson, C. Wöhrmann, R. Wolf Institute of
Nuclear and Particle Physics (INPP), NCSR Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
G. Anagnostou, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas, I. Topsis-
Giotis National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
G. Karathanasis, S. Kesisoglou, A. Panagiotou, N. Saoulidou, E. Tziaferi
National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece
K. Kousouris, I. Papakrivopoulos University of Ioánnina, Ioánnina, Greece
I. Evangelou, C. Foudas, P. Gianneios, P. Katsoulis, P. Kokkas, S. Mallios, N.
Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, E. Paradas, J. Strologas, F.A. Triantis, D.
Tsitsonis MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
M. Csanad, N. Filipovic, G. Pasztor, O. Surányi, G.I. Veres20 Wigner Research
Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath21, Á. Hunyadi, F. Sikler, V. Veszpremi, G.
Vesztergombi20, T.Á. Vámi Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen,
Hungary
N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi22, A. Makovec, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi
Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
M. Bartók20, P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari Indian Institute of Science
(IISc), Bangalore, India
S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri National Institute of Science Education and
Research, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati23, P. Mal, K. Mandal, A. Nayak24, D.K. Sahoo23, S.K. Swain
Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, S. Chauhan, R. Chawla, N. Dhingra, R.
Gupta, A. Kaur, M. Kaur, S. Kaur, R. Kumar, P. Kumari, M. Lohan, A. Mehta, S.
Sharma, J.B. Singh, G. Walia University of Delhi, Delhi, India
Ashok Kumar, Aashaq Shah, A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, S. Keshri,
A. Kumar, S. Malhotra, M. Naimuddin, K. Ranjan, R. Sharma Saha Institute of
Nuclear Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India
R. Bhardwaj25, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, U. Bhawandeep25, D. Bhowmik,
S. Dey, S. Dutt25, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh, N. Majumdar, K. Mondal, S.
Mukhopadhyay, S. Nandan, A. Purohit, P.K. Rout, A. Roy, S. Roy Chowdhury, S.
Sarkar, M. Sharan, B. Singh, S. Thakur25 Indian Institute of Technology
Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
R. Chudasama, D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, A.K. Mohanty16, P.K. Netrakanti,
L.M. Pant, P. Shukla, A. Topkar Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A,
Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, S. Dugad, B. Mahakud, S. Mitra, G.B. Mohanty, N. Sur, B. Sutar Tata
Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, P. Das, M. Guchait, Sa. Jain, S.
Kumar, M. Maity26, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, N. Sahoo, T. Sarkar26, N.
Wickramage27 Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune,
India
S. Chauhan, S. Dube, V. Hegde, A. Kapoor, K. Kothekar, S. Pandey, A. Rane, S.
Sharma Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran
S. Chenarani28, E. Eskandari Tadavani, S.M. Etesami28, M. Khakzad, M.
Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri, S. Paktinat Mehdiabadi29, F. Rezaei
Hosseinabadi, B. Safarzadeh30, M. Zeinali University College Dublin, Dublin,
Ireland
M. Felcini, M. Grunewald INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b,
Politecnico di Bari c, Bari, Italy
M. Abbresciaa,b, C. Calabriaa,b, A. Colaleoa, D. Creanzaa,c, L. Cristellaa,b,
N. De Filippisa,c, M. De Palmaa,b, A. Di Florioa,b, F. Erricoa,b, L. Fiorea,
A. Gelmia,b, G. Iasellia,c, S. Lezkia,b, G. Maggia,c, M. Maggia, B.
Marangellia,b, G. Minielloa,b, S. Mya,b, S. Nuzzoa,b, A. Pompilia,b, G.
Pugliesea,c, R. Radognaa, A. Ranieria, G. Selvaggia,b, A. Sharmaa, L.
Silvestrisa,16, R. Vendittia, P. Verwilligena, G. Zitoa INFN Sezione di
Bologna a, Università di Bologna b, Bologna, Italy
G. Abbiendia, C. Battilanaa,b, D. Bonacorsia,b, L. Borgonovia,b, S. Braibant-
Giacomellia,b, R. Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A. Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa,
S.S. Chhibraa,b, G. Codispotia,b, M. Cuffiania,b, G.M. Dallavallea, F.
Fabbria, A. Fanfania,b, D. Fasanellaa,b, P. Giacomellia, C. Grandia, L.
Guiduccia,b, F. Iemmi, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, A. Montanaria, F.L.
Navarriaa,b, A. Perrottaa, A.M. Rossia,b, T. Rovellia,b, G.P. Sirolia,b, N.
Tosia INFN Sezione di Catania a, Università di Catania b, Catania, Italy
S. Albergoa,b, S. Costaa,b, A. Di Mattiaa, F. Giordanoa,b, R. Potenzaa,b, A.
Tricomia,b, C. Tuvea,b INFN Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b,
Firenze, Italy
G. Barbaglia, K. Chatterjeea,b, V. Ciullia,b, C. Civininia, R.
D’Alessandroa,b, E. Focardia,b, G. Latino, P. Lenzia,b, M. Meschinia, S.
Paolettia, L. Russoa,31, G. Sguazzonia, D. Stroma, L. Viliania INFN Laboratori
Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, F. Fabbri, D. Piccolo, F. Primavera16 INFN Sezione di
Genova a, Università di Genova b, Genova, Italy
V. Calvellia,b, F. Ferroa, F. Raveraa,b, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia,b INFN Sezione
di Milano-Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, Italy
A. Benagliaa, A. Beschib, L. Brianzaa,b, F. Brivioa,b, V. Cirioloa,b,16, M.E.
Dinardoa,b, S. Fiorendia,b, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P. Govonia,b, M.
Malbertia,b, S. Malvezzia, R.A. Manzonia,b, D. Menascea, L. Moronia, M.
Paganonia,b, K. Pauwelsa,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Pigazzinia,b,32, S. Ragazzia,b, T.
Tabarelli de Fatisa,b INFN Sezione di Napoli a, Università di Napoli ’Federico
II’ b, Napoli, Italy, Università della Basilicata c, Potenza, Italy,
Università G. Marconi d, Roma, Italy
S. Buontempoa, N. Cavalloa,c, S. Di Guidaa,d,16, F. Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa,b,
G. Galatia,b, A.O.M. Iorioa,b, W.A. Khana, L. Listaa, S. Meolaa,d,16, P.
Paoluccia,16, C. Sciaccaa,b, F. Thyssena, E. Voevodinaa,b INFN Sezione di
Padova a, Università di Padova b, Padova, Italy, Università di Trento c,
Trento, Italy
P. Azzia, N. Bacchettaa, L. Benatoa,b, D. Biselloa,b, A. Bolettia,b, R.
Carlina,b, A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveiraa,b, P. Checchiaa, M. Dall’Ossoa,b,
P. De Castro Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa, U. Dossellia, F. Gasparinia,b, U.
Gasparinia,b, A. Gozzelinoa, S. Lacapraraa, P. Lujan, M. Margonia,b, N.
Pozzobona,b, P. Ronchesea,b, R. Rossina,b, F. Simonettoa,b, A. Tiko, E.
Torassaa, M. Zanettia,b, P. Zottoa,b, G. Zumerlea,b INFN Sezione di Pavia a,
Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
A. Braghieria, A. Magnania, P. Montagnaa,b, S.P. Rattia,b, V. Rea, M.
Ressegottia,b, C. Riccardia,b, P. Salvinia, I. Vaia,b, P. Vituloa,b INFN
Sezione di Perugia a, Università di Perugia b, Perugia, Italy
L. Alunni Solestizia,b, M. Biasinia,b, G.M. Bileia, C. Cecchia,b, D.
Ciangottinia,b, L. Fanòa,b, P. Laricciaa,b, R. Leonardia,b, E. Manonia, G.
Mantovania,b, V. Mariania,b, M. Menichellia, A. Rossia,b, A. Santocchiaa,b, D.
Spigaa INFN Sezione di Pisa a, Università di Pisa b, Scuola Normale Superiore
di Pisa c, Pisa, Italy
K. Androsova, P. Azzurria,16, G. Bagliesia, L. Bianchinia, T. Boccalia, L.
Borrello, R. Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, G. Fedia, L.
Gianninia,c, A. Giassia, M.T. Grippoa,31, F. Ligabuea,c, T. Lomtadzea, E.
Mancaa,c, G. Mandorlia,c, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, A. Rizzia,b, P.
Spagnoloa, R. Tenchinia, G. Tonellia,b, A. Venturia, P.G. Verdinia INFN
Sezione di Roma a, Sapienza Università di Roma b, Rome, Italy
L. Baronea,b, F. Cavallaria, M. Cipriania,b, N. Dacia, D. Del Rea,b, E. Di
Marcoa,b, M. Diemoza, S. Gellia,b, E. Longoa,b, B. Marzocchia,b, P.
Meridiania, G. Organtinia,b, F. Pandolfia, R. Paramattia,b, F. Preiatoa,b, S.
Rahatloua,b, C. Rovellia, F. Santanastasioa,b INFN Sezione di Torino a,
Università di Torino b, Torino, Italy, Università del Piemonte Orientale c,
Novara, Italy
N. Amapanea,b, R. Arcidiaconoa,c, S. Argiroa,b, M. Arneodoa,c, N. Bartosika,
R. Bellana,b, C. Biinoa, N. Cartigliaa, R. Castelloa,b, F. Cennaa,b, M.
Costaa,b, R. Covarellia,b, A. Deganoa,b, N. Demariaa, B. Kiania,b, C.
Mariottia, S. Masellia, E. Migliorea,b, V. Monacoa,b, E. Monteila,b, M.
Montenoa, M.M. Obertinoa,b, L. Pachera,b, N. Pastronea, M. Pelliccionia, G.L.
Pinna Angionia,b, A. Romeroa,b, M. Ruspaa,c, R. Sacchia,b, K. Shchelinaa,b, V.
Solaa, A. Solanoa,b, A. Staianoa INFN Sezione di Trieste a, Università di
Trieste b, Trieste, Italy
S. Belfortea, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, G. Della Riccaa,b, A. Zanettia
Kyungpook National University
D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, M.S. Kim, J. Lee, S. Lee, S.W. Lee, C.S. Moon, Y.D. Oh, S.
Sekmen, D.C. Son, Y.C. Yang Chonnam National University, Institute for
Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju, Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon, G. Oh Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, J. Goh, T.J. Kim Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, D. Gyun, S. Ha, B. Hong, Y. Jo, Y. Kim, K. Lee, K.S.
Lee, S. Lee, J. Lim, S.K. Park, Y. Roh Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, H. Lee, K. Lee, K. Nam, S.B. Oh, B.C. Radburn-
Smith, S.h. Seo, U.K. Yang, H.D. Yoo, G.B. Yu University of Seoul, Seoul,
Korea
H. Kim, J.H. Kim, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, C. Hwang, J. Lee, I. Yu Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
V. Dudenas, A. Juodagalvis, J. Vaitkus National Centre for Particle Physics,
Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
I. Ahmed, Z.A. Ibrahim, M.A.B. Md Ali33, F. Mohamad Idris34, W.A.T. Wan
Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios
Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
Reyes-Almanza, R, Ramirez-Sanchez, G., Duran-Osuna, M. C., H. Castilla-Valdez,
E. De La Cruz-Burelo, I. Heredia-De La Cruz35, Rabadan-Trejo, R. I., R. Lopez-
Fernandez, J. Mejia Guisao, A. Sanchez-Hernandez Universidad Iberoamericana,
Mexico City, Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, F. Vazquez Valencia Benemerita
Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
J. Eysermans, I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada Universidad
Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, Mexico
A. Morelos Pineda University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
P.H. Butler National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam University, Islamabad,
Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M. Ahmad, Q. Hassan, H.R. Hoorani, A. Saddique, M.A. Shah, M.
Shoaib, M. Waqas National Centre for Nuclear Research, Swierk, Poland
H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, T. Frueboes, M. Górski, M. Kazana, K.
Nawrocki, M. Szleper, P. Traczyk, P. Zalewski Institute of Experimental
Physics, Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk36, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J.
Krolikowski, M. Misiura, M. Olszewski, A. Pyskir, M. Walczak Laboratório de
Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas, Lisboa, Portugal
P. Bargassa, C. Beirão Da Cruz E Silva, A. Di Francesco, P. Faccioli, B.
Galinhas, M. Gallinaro, J. Hollar, N. Leonardo, L. Lloret Iglesias, M.V.
Nemallapudi, J. Seixas, G. Strong, O. Toldaiev, D. Vadruccio, J. Varela Joint
Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
S. Afanasiev, P. Bunin, M. Gavrilenko, I. Golutvin, I. Gorbunov, A. Kamenev,
V. Karjavin, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev37,38, P. Moisenz, V. Palichik,
V. Perelygin, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, N. Skatchkov, V. Smirnov, N. Voytishin,
A. Zarubin Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg),
Russia
Y. Ivanov, V. Kim39, E. Kuznetsova40, P. Levchenko, V. Murzin, V. Oreshkin, I.
Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Vavilov, A. Vorobyev Institute
for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, M. Kirsanov,
N. Krasnikov, A. Pashenkov, D. Tlisov, A. Toropin Institute for Theoretical
and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, V. Popov, I. Pozdnyakov, G.
Safronov, A. Spiridonov, A. Stepennov, V. Stolin, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A.
Zhokin Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev, A. Bylinkin38 National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow
Engineering Physics Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
R. Chistov41, M. Danilov41, P. Parygin, D. Philippov, S. Polikarpov, E.
Tarkovskii P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin38, I. Dremin38, M. Kirakosyan38, S.V. Rusakov, A.
Terkulov Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
A. Baskakov, A. Belyaev, E. Boos, A. Demiyanov, A. Ershov, A. Gribushin, O.
Kodolova, V. Korotkikh, I. Lokhtin, I. Miagkov, S. Obraztsov, S. Petrushanko,
V. Savrin, A. Snigirev, I. Vardanyan Novosibirsk State University (NSU),
Novosibirsk, Russia
V. Blinov42, D. Shtol42, Y. Skovpen42 State Research Center of Russian
Federation, Institute for High Energy Physics of NRC "Kurchatov
Institute", Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, S. Bitioukov, D. Elumakhov, A. Godizov, V. Kachanov,
A. Kalinin, D. Konstantinov, P. Mandrik, V. Petrov, R. Ryutin, A. Sobol, S.
Troshin, N. Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov National Research Tomsk Polytechnic
University, Tomsk, Russia
A. Babaev University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of
Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic43, P. Cirkovic, D. Devetak, M. Dordevic, J. Milosevic Centro de
Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid,
Spain
J. Alcaraz Maestre, I. Bachiller, M. Barrio Luna, M. Cerrada, N. Colino, B. De
La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris, C. Fernandez Bedoya, J.P. Fernández Ramos, J. Flix,
M.C. Fouz, O. Gonzalez Lopez, S. Goy Lopez, J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa, D.
Moran, A. Pérez-Calero Yzquierdo, J. Puerta Pelayo, I. Redondo, L. Romero,
M.S. Soares, A. Triossi, A. Álvarez Fernández Universidad Autónoma de Madrid,
Madrid, Spain
C. Albajar, J.F. de Trocóniz Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain
J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, S. Folgueras, I. Gonzalez
Caballero, J.R. González Fernández, E. Palencia Cortezon, S. Sanchez Cruz, P.
Vischia, J.M. Vizan Garcia Instituto de Física de Cantabria (IFCA), CSIC-
Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain
I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, B. Chazin Quero, J. Duarte Campderros, M.
Fernandez, P.J. Fernández Manteca, J. Garcia-Ferrero, A. García Alonso, G.
Gomez, A. Lopez Virto, J. Marco, C. Martinez Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del
Arbol, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, C. Prieels, T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno,
L. Scodellaro, N. Trevisani, I. Vila, R. Vilar Cortabitarte CERN, European
Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland
D. Abbaneo, B. Akgun, E. Auffray, P. Baillon, A.H. Ball, D. Barney, J.
Bendavid, M. Bianco, A. Bocci, C. Botta, T. Camporesi, M. Cepeda, G.
Cerminara, E. Chapon, Y. Chen, D. d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, V. Daponte, A.
David, M. De Gruttola, A. De Roeck, N. Deelen, M. Dobson, T. du Pree, M.
Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, P. Everaerts, F. Fallavollita44, G.
Franzoni, J. Fulcher, W. Funk, D. Gigi, A. Gilbert, K. Gill, F. Glege, D.
Gulhan, J. Hegeman, V. Innocente, A. Jafari, P. Janot, O. Karacheban19, J.
Kieseler, V. Knünz, A. Kornmayer, M. Krammer1, C. Lange, P. Lecoq, C.
Lourenço, M.T. Lucchini, L. Malgeri, M. Mannelli, A. Martelli, F. Meijers,
J.A. Merlin, S. Mersi, E. Meschi, P. Milenovic45, F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, H.
Neugebauer, J. Ngadiuba, S. Orfanelli, L. Orsini, F. Pantaleo16, L. Pape, E.
Perez, M. Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, F.M.
Pitters, D. Rabady, A. Racz, T. Reis, G. Rolandi46, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, C.
Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Seidel, M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva, P.
Sphicas47, A. Stakia, J. Steggemann, M. Stoye, M. Tosi, D. Treille, A. Tsirou,
V. Veckalns48, M. Verweij, W.D. Zeuner Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen,
Switzerland
W. Bertl${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, L. Caminada49, K. Deiters, W. Erdmann, R.
Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C. Kaestli, D. Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, T. Rohe,
S.A. Wiederkehr ETH Zurich - Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics
(IPA), Zurich, Switzerland
M. Backhaus, L. Bäni, P. Berger, B. Casal, N. Chernyavskaya, G. Dissertori, M.
Dittmar, M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, C. Grab, C. Heidegger, D. Hits, J. Hoss, T.
Klijnsma, W. Lustermann, M. Marionneau, M.T. Meinhard, D. Meister, F. Micheli,
P. Musella, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, J. Pata, F. Pauss, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, M.
Quittnat, M. Reichmann, D. Ruini, D.A. Sanz Becerra, M. Schönenberger, L.
Shchutska, V.R. Tavolaro, K. Theofilatos, M.L. Vesterbacka Olsson, R. Wallny,
D.H. Zhu Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, C. Amsler50, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, R. Del
Burgo, S. Donato, C. Galloni, T. Hreus, B. Kilminster, I. Neutelings, D.
Pinna, G. Rauco, P. Robmann, D. Salerno, K. Schweiger, C. Seitz, Y. Takahashi,
A. Zucchetta National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan
V. Candelise, Y.H. Chang, K.y. Cheng, T.H. Doan, Sh. Jain, R. Khurana, C.M.
Kuo, W. Lin, A. Pozdnyakov, S.S. Yu National Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei,
Taiwan
Arun Kumar, P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, F. Fiori, W.-S. Hou, Y.
Hsiung, Y.F. Liu, R.-S. Lu, E. Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen, J.f. Tsai
Chulalongkorn University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok,
Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, K. Kovitanggoon, G. Singh, N. Srimanobhas Çukurova University,
Physics Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
A. Bat, F. Boran, S. Cerci51, S. Damarseckin, Z.S. Demiroglu, C. Dozen, I.
Dumanoglu, S. Girgis, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, I. Hos52, E.E. Kangal53, O. Kara,
A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, M. Oglakci, G. Onengut, K. Ozdemir54, D. Sunar
Cerci51, U.G. Tok, H. Topakli55, S. Turkcapar, I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez
Middle East Technical University, Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey
G. Karapinar56, K. Ocalan57, M. Yalvac, M. Zeyrek Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
E. Gülmez, M. Kaya58, O. Kaya59, S. Tekten, E.A. Yetkin60 Istanbul Technical
University, Istanbul, Turkey
M.N. Agaras, S. Atay, A. Cakir, K. Cankocak, Y. Komurcu Institute for
Scintillation Materials of National Academy of Science of Ukraine, Kharkov,
Ukraine
B. Grynyov National Scientific Center, Kharkov Institute of Physics and
Technology, Kharkov, Ukraine
L. Levchuk University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
F. Ball, L. Beck, J.J. Brooke, D. Burns, E. Clement, D. Cussans, O. Davignon,
H. Flacher, J. Goldstein, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, D.M. Newbold61,
S. Paramesvaran, T. Sakuma, S. Seif El Nasr-storey, D. Smith, V.J. Smith
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
A. Belyaev62, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, D. Cieri, D.J.A. Cockerill, J.A. Coughlan,
K. Harder, S. Harper, J. Linacre, E. Olaiya, D. Petyt, C.H. Shepherd-
Themistocleous, A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin, T. Williams, W.J. Womersley Imperial
College, London, United Kingdom
G. Auzinger, R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A.
Bundock, S. Casasso, D. Colling, L. Corpe, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M. Della
Negra, R. Di Maria, A. Elwood, Y. Haddad, G. Hall, G. Iles, T. James, M. Komm,
R. Lane, C. Laner, L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, L. Mastrolorenzo, T.
Matsushita, J. Nash63, A. Nikitenko7, V. Palladino, M. Pesaresi, A. Richards,
A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A. Shtipliyski, T. Strebler, S. Summers, A.
Tapper, K. Uchida, M. Vazquez Acosta64, T. Virdee16, N. Wardle, D.
Winterbottom, J. Wright, S.C. Zenz Brunel University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, A. Morton, I.D. Reid, L.
Teodorescu, S. Zahid Baylor University, Waco, USA
A. Borzou, K. Call, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, H. Liu, N. Pastika, C. Smith
Catholic University of America, Washington DC, USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
A. Buccilli, S.I. Cooper, C. Henderson, P. Rumerio, C. West Boston University,
Boston, USA
D. Arcaro, A. Avetisyan, T. Bose, D. Gastler, D. Rankin, C. Richardson, J.
Rohlf, L. Sulak, D. Zou Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, D. Cutts, M. Hadley, J. Hakala, U. Heintz, J.M. Hogan65, K.H.M.
Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, J. Lee, Z. Mao, M. Narain, J. Pazzini, S.
Piperov, S. Sagir, R. Syarif, D. Yu University of California, Davis, Davis,
USA
R. Band, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, D. Burns, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez,
M. Chertok, J. Conway, R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, G. Funk,
W. Ko, R. Lander, C. Mclean, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, J. Pilot, S. Shalhout,
M. Shi, J. Smith, D. Stolp, D. Taylor, K. Tos, M. Tripathi, Z. Wang, F. Zhang
University of California, Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, C. Bravo, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, A. Florent, J. Hauser, M.
Ignatenko, N. Mccoll, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg, C. Schnaible, V. Valuev
University of California, Riverside, Riverside, USA
E. Bouvier, K. Burt, R. Clare, J. Ellison, J.W. Gary, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi,
G. Hanson, G. Karapostoli, E. Kennedy, F. Lacroix, O.R. Long, M. Olmedo
Negrete, M.I. Paneva, W. Si, L. Wang, H. Wei, S. Wimpenny, B. R. Yates
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, S. Cittolin, M. Derdzinski, R. Gerosa, D. Gilbert, B. Hashemi,
A. Holzner, D. Klein, G. Kole, V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, M. Masciovecchio, D.
Olivito, S. Padhi, M. Pieri, M. Sani, V. Sharma, S. Simon, M. Tadel, A.
Vartak, S. Wasserbaech66, J. Wood, F. Würthwein, A. Yagil, G. Zevi Della Porta
University of California, Santa Barbara - Department of Physics, Santa
Barbara, USA
N. Amin, R. Bhandari, J. Bradmiller-Feld, C. Campagnari, M. Citron, A. Dishaw,
V. Dutta, M. Franco Sevilla, L. Gouskos, R. Heller, J. Incandela, A.
Ovcharova, H. Qu, J. Richman, D. Stuart, I. Suarez, J. Yoo California
Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
D. Anderson, A. Bornheim, J. Bunn, J.M. Lawhorn, H.B. Newman, T. Q. Nguyen, C.
Pena, M. Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, R. Wilkinson, S. Xie, Z. Zhang, R.Y. Zhu
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
M.B. Andrews, T. Ferguson, T. Mudholkar, M. Paulini, J. Russ, M. Sun, H.
Vogel, I. Vorobiev, M. Weinberg University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, F. Jensen, A. Johnson, M. Krohn, S. Leontsinis, E.
MacDonald, T. Mulholland, K. Stenson, K.A. Ulmer, S.R. Wagner Cornell
University, Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, J. Chaves, Y. Cheng, J. Chu, A. Datta, K. Mcdermott, N. Mirman,
J.R. Patterson, D. Quach, A. Rinkevicius, A. Ryd, L. Skinnari, L. Soffi, S.M.
Tan, Z. Tao, J. Thom, J. Tucker, P. Wittich, M. Zientek Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, USA
S. Abdullin, M. Albrow, M. Alyari, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S.
Banerjee, L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, G.
Bolla${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, K. Burkett, J.N. Butler, A. Canepa, G.B.
Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M. Cremonesi, J. Duarte, V.D. Elvira, J.
Freeman, Z. Gecse, E. Gottschalk, L. Gray, D. Green, S. Grünendahl, O.
Gutsche, J. Hanlon, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, J. Hirschauer, Z. Hu, B.
Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, B. Klima, M.J. Kortelainen,
B. Kreis, S. Lammel, D. Lincoln, R. Lipton, M. Liu, T. Liu, R. Lopes De Sá, J.
Lykken, K. Maeshima, N. Magini, J.M. Marraffino, D. Mason, P. McBride, P.
Merkel, S. Mrenna, S. Nahn, V. O’Dell, K. Pedro, O. Prokofyev, G. Rakness, L.
Ristori, A. Savoy-Navarro67, B. Schneider, E. Sexton-Kennedy, A. Soha, W.J.
Spalding, L. Spiegel, S. Stoynev, J. Strait, N. Strobbe, L. Taylor, S.
Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran, L. Uplegger, E.W. Vaandering, C. Vernieri, M. Verzocchi,
R. Vidal, M. Wang, H.A. Weber, A. Whitbeck, W. Wu University of Florida,
Gainesville, USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, P. Bortignon, D. Bourilkov, A. Brinkerhoff, A. Carnes, M.
Carver, D. Curry, R.D. Field, I.K. Furic, S.V. Gleyzer, B.M. Joshi, J.
Konigsberg, A. Korytov, K. Kotov, P. Ma, K. Matchev, H. Mei, G. Mitselmakher,
K. Shi, D. Sperka, N. Terentyev, L. Thomas, J. Wang, S. Wang, J. Yelton
Florida International University, Miami, USA
Y.R. Joshi, S. Linn, P. Markowitz, J.L. Rodriguez Florida State University,
Tallahassee, USA
A. Ackert, T. Adams, A. Askew, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F. Johnson, T.
Kolberg, G. Martinez, T. Perry, H. Prosper, A. Saha, A. Santra, V. Sharma, R.
Yohay Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, V. Bhopatkar, S. Colafranceschi, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, T.
Roy, F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago, USA
M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, D. Berry, R.R. Betts, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, S.
Dittmer, O. Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, K. Jung, J.
Kamin, I.D. Sandoval Gonzalez, M.B. Tonjes, N. Varelas, H. Wang, Z. Wu, J.
Zhang The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
B. Bilki68, W. Clarida, K. Dilsiz69, S. Durgut, R.P. Gandrajula, M.
Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko, J.-P. Merlo, H. Mermerkaya70, A. Mestvirishvili,
A. Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul71, Y. Onel, F. Ozok72, A. Penzo, C. Snyder,
E. Tiras, J. Wetzel, K. Yi Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
B. Blumenfeld, A. Cocoros, N. Eminizer, D. Fehling, L. Feng, A.V. Gritsan, P.
Maksimovic, J. Roskes, U. Sarica, M. Swartz, M. Xiao, C. You The University of
Kansas, Lawrence, USA
A. Al-bataineh, P. Baringer, A. Bean, S. Boren, J. Bowen, J. Castle, S.
Khalil, A. Kropivnitskaya, D. Majumder, W. Mcbrayer, M. Murray, C. Rogan, C.
Royon, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang Kansas State
University, Manhattan, USA
A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, Y. Maravin, A. Modak, A. Mohammadi, L.K. Saini, N.
Skhirtladze Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright University of Maryland, College Park, USA
A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, S.C. Eno, Y. Feng, C. Ferraioli, N.J. Hadley,
S. Jabeen, G.Y. Jeng, R.G. Kellogg, J. Kunkle, A.C. Mignerey, F. Ricci-Tam,
Y.H. Shin, A. Skuja, S.C. Tonwar Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, V. Azzolini, R. Barbieri, A. Baty, G. Bauer, R. Bi,
S. Brandt, W. Busza, I.A. Cali, M. D’Alfonso, Z. Demiragli, G. Gomez Ceballos,
M. Goncharov, P. Harris, D. Hsu, M. Hu, Y. Iiyama, G.M. Innocenti, M. Klute,
D. Kovalskyi, Y.-J. Lee, A. Levin, P.D. Luckey, B. Maier, A.C. Marini, C.
Mcginn, C. Mironov, S. Narayanan, X. Niu, C. Paus, C. Roland, G. Roland,
G.S.F. Stephans, K. Sumorok, K. Tatar, D. Velicanu, J. Wang, T.W. Wang, B.
Wyslouch, S. Zhaozhong University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
A.C. Benvenuti, R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, P. Hansen, S. Kalafut, Y. Kubota,
Z. Lesko, J. Mans, S. Nourbakhsh, N. Ruckstuhl, R. Rusack, J. Turkewitz, M.A.
Wadud University of Mississippi, Oxford, USA
J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
E. Avdeeva, K. Bloom, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, F. Golf, R. Gonzalez Suarez,
R. Kamalieddin, I. Kravchenko, J. Monroy, J.E. Siado, G.R. Snow, B. Stieger
State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
A. Godshalk, C. Harrington, I. Iashvili, D. Nguyen, A. Parker, S. Rappoccio,
B. Roozbahani Northeastern University, Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, A. Hortiangtham, A. Massironi, D.M. Morse,
T. Orimoto, R. Teixeira De Lima, T. Wamorkar, B. Wang, A. Wisecarver, D. Wood
Northwestern University, Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, O. Charaf, K.A. Hahn, N. Mucia, N. Odell, M.H. Schmitt, K.
Sung, M. Trovato, M. Velasco University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, USA
R. Bucci, N. Dev, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop, D.J. Karmgard, N.
Kellams, K. Lannon, W. Li, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, F. Meng, C. Mueller, Y.
Musienko37, M. Planer, A. Reinsvold, R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, G. Smith, S.
Taroni, M. Wayne, A. Wightman, M. Wolf, A. Woodard The Ohio State University,
Columbus, USA
J. Alimena, L. Antonelli, B. Bylsma, L.S. Durkin, S. Flowers, B. Francis, A.
Hart, C. Hill, W. Ji, T.Y. Ling, W. Luo, B.L. Winer, H.W. Wulsin Princeton
University, Princeton, USA
S. Cooperstein, O. Driga, P. Elmer, J. Hardenbrook, P. Hebda, S. Higginbotham,
A. Kalogeropoulos, D. Lange, J. Luo, D. Marlow, K. Mei, I. Ojalvo, J. Olsen,
C. Palmer, P. Piroué, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, D. Stickland, C. Tully University of
Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
A. Barker, V.E. Barnes, S. Das, L. Gutay, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, A. Khatiwada,
D.H. Miller, N. Neumeister, C.C. Peng, H. Qiu, J.F. Schulte, J. Sun, F. Wang,
R. Xiao, W. Xie Purdue University Northwest, Hammond, USA
T. Cheng, J. Dolen, N. Parashar Rice University, Houston, USA
Z. Chen, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Guilbaud, M. Kilpatrick, W.
Li, B. Michlin, B.P. Padley, J. Roberts, J. Rorie, W. Shi, Z. Tu, J. Zabel, A.
Zhang University of Rochester, Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, Y.t. Duh, T. Ferbel, M. Galanti, A.
Garcia-Bellido, J. Han, O. Hindrichs, A. Khukhunaishvili, K.H. Lo, P. Tan, M.
Verzetti The Rockefeller University, New York, USA
R. Ciesielski, K. Goulianos, C. Mesropian Rutgers, The State University of New
Jersey, Piscataway, USA
A. Agapitos, J.P. Chou, Y. Gershtein, T.A. Gómez Espinosa, E. Halkiadakis, M.
Heindl, E. Hughes, S. Kaplan, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, S. Kyriacou, A. Lath,
R. Montalvo, K. Nash, M. Osherson, H. Saka, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, D.
Sheffield, S. Somalwar, R. Stone, S. Thomas, P. Thomassen, M. Walker
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
A.G. Delannoy, J. Heideman, G. Riley, K. Rose, S. Spanier, K. Thapa Texas A&M
University, College Station, USA
O. Bouhali73, A. Castaneda Hernandez73, A. Celik, M. Dalchenko, M. De Mattia,
A. Delgado, S. Dildick, R. Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T. Kamon74, R.
Mueller, Y. Pakhotin, R. Patel, A. Perloff, L. Perniè, D. Rathjens, A.
Safonov, A. Tatarinov Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, F. De Guio, P.R. Dudero, J. Faulkner, E. Gurpinar, S.
Kunori, K. Lamichhane, S.W. Lee, T. Mengke, S. Muthumuni, T. Peltola, S.
Undleeb, I. Volobouev, Z. Wang Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H. Ni, K.
Padeken, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska, Q. Xu University
of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
M.W. Arenton, P. Barria, B. Cox, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A. Ledovskoy, H. Li, C.
Neu, T. Sinthuprasith, Y. Wang, E. Wolfe, F. Xia Wayne State University,
Detroit, USA
R. Harr, P.E. Karchin, N. Poudyal, J. Sturdy, P. Thapa, S. Zaleski University
of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI, USA
M. Brodski, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, D. Carlsmith, S. Dasu, L. Dodd, S. Duric,
B. Gomber, M. Grothe, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, P. Klabbers, A.
Lanaro, A. Levine, K. Long, R. Loveless, V. Rekovic, T. Ruggles, A. Savin, N.
Smith, W.H. Smith, N. Woods †: Deceased
1: Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria
2: Also at IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
3: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
4: Also at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
5: Also at Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil
6: Also at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
7: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
8: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
9: Also at Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
10: Also at Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt
11: Now at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt
12: Also at Department of Physics, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia
13: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
14: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
15: Also at Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
16: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
17: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
18: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
19: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
20: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
21: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
22: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
23: Also at Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India
24: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
25: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India
26: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
27: Also at University of Ruhuna, Matara, Sri Lanka
28: Also at Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
29: Also at Yazd University, Yazd, Iran
30: Also at Plasma Physics Research Center, Science and Research Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
31: Also at Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy
32: Also at INFN Sezione di Milano-Bicocca; Università di Milano-Bicocca,
Milano, Italy
33: Also at International Islamic University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
34: Also at Malaysian Nuclear Agency, MOSTI, Kajang, Malaysia
35: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico city, Mexico
36: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems,
Warsaw, Poland
37: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
38: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
39: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
40: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
41: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
42: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
43: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
44: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia; Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy
45: Also at University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of
Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
46: Also at Scuola Normale e Sezione dell’INFN, Pisa, Italy
47: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
48: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
49: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
50: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics (SMI), Vienna,
Austria
51: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
52: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey
53: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
54: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
55: Also at Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey
56: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
57: Also at Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
58: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
59: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
60: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
61: Also at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
62: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
63: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia
64: Also at Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, La Laguna, Spain
65: Also at Bethel University, ST. PAUL, USA
66: Also at Utah Valley University, Orem, USA
67: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
68: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey
69: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
70: Also at Erzincan University, Erzincan, Turkey
71: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
72: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
73: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
74: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea