HIG-17-029

$HeadURL:svn+ssh://svn.cern.ch/reps/tdr2/papers/HIG-17-029/trunk/HIG-17-029.tex$
$Id:HIG-17-029.tex4721102018-08-1712:06:19Zccaillol$

HIG-17-029

# Search for an exotic decay of the Higgs boson to a pair of light
pseudoscalars in the final state of two muons and two $\Pgt$ leptons in
proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$

###### Abstract

A search for exotic Higgs boson decays to light pseudoscalars in the final
state of two muons and two $\Pgt$ leptons is performed using proton-proton
collision data recorded by the CMS experiment at the LHC at a center-of-mass
energy of 13in 2016, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9. Masses
of the pseudoscalar boson between 15.0 and 62.5are probed, and no significant
excess of data is observed above the prediction of the standard model. Upper
limits are set on the branching fraction of the Higgs boson to two light
pseudoscalar bosons in different types of two-Higgs-doublet models extended
with a complex scalar singlet.

##  0.1 Introduction

In 2012 the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations discovered a particle with a mass of
125 [1, 2, 3] compatible with the Higgs boson predicted in the standard model
(SM) of particle physics [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. Although all the measurements of
the couplings and properties of this particle indicate compatibility with the
SM within the experimental uncertainties, the existence of exotic decays of
the Higgs boson is still allowed. The combination of data collected at center-
of-mass energies of 7 and 8by ATLAS and CMS constrains branching fractions of
the Higgs boson to particles beyond the SM to less than 34% at 95% confidence
level (CL) [10].

Many well-motivated exotic decays of the Higgs boson are proposed in theories
beyond the SM [11]. A possible scenario consists of exotic Higgs boson decays
to pairs of light pseudoscalars, which subsequently decay to pairs of SM
particles. Such a process would be allowed in two-Higgs-doublet models (2HDM)
extended with a scalar singlet (2HDM+S) [11]. In 2HDM+S, 5 scalar and 2
pseudoscalar particles are predicted: one of the scalars, $\Ph$, can be
compatible with the discovered Higgs boson, while one of the pseudoscalars,
$\Pa$, can be light enough so that $\Ph\to\Pa\Pa$ decays are allowed. The
next-to-minimal supersymmetric SM (NMSSM) is a particular case of 2HDM+S [12,
13].

The ATLAS and CMS Collaborations have set limits on exotic decays of the Higgs
boson to a pair of light pseudoscalar bosons, in different final states and in
various ranges of the pseudoscalar mass, $m_{\Pa}$ [14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,
20]. In particular, CMS published a null result in the search in the $2\Pgm
2\Pgt$ final state for $15.0<m_{\Pa}<62.5\GeV$ using data collected at a
center-of-mass energy of 8 [14], and ATLAS reported a null result in the same
final state at the same energy for $3.7<m_{\Pa}<50.0\GeV$ using special
reconstruction techniques for Lorentz-boosted $\Pgt$ lepton pairs [20].

This paper presents a search for an exotic decay of the Higgs boson to a pair
of light pseudoscalar bosons in the final state of two muons and two $\Pgt$
leptons. The analysis is based on data collected in 2016 by the CMS experiment
in proton-proton (pp) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13,
corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9. Masses of the pseudoscalar
boson between 15.0 and 62.5are probed. Below 15, the pseudoscalar bosons are
Lorentz-boosted, causing their decay products to be collimated and to fail the
isolation selection criteria used in this analysis. The analysis scans the
reconstructed dimuon mass spectrum for a characteristic resonance structure.
Four different final states are studied to cover the different possible $\Pgt$
lepton decay modes: $\Pgm\Pgm+\Pe\Pgm$, $\Pgm\Pgm+\Pe\tauh$,
$\Pgm\Pgm+\Pgm\tauh$, and $\Pgm\Pgm+\tauh\tauh$, where $\tauh$ denotes a
$\Pgt$ lepton decaying hadronically. The $\Pgm\Pgm+\Pe\Pe$ and
$\Pgm\Pgm+\Pgm\Pgm$ final states are not considered because of their smaller
branching fractions and the large background contribution from $\PZ$ boson
pair production. The event selection and signal extraction used in this
analysis have been optimized for the ${\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 2\PGm 2{\Pgt}$ decay
channel, where $\Ph$ has a mass of 125. Events from the ${\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to
4{\Pgt}$ process can also enter the signal region when at least two of the
$\Pgt$ leptons decay leptonically to muons and neutrinos. These events are
treated as a part of the signal even if they do not exhibit a narrow dimuon
mass peak. Assuming 2HDM-like scenarios, the ratio of the branching fractions
of $\Pa\to 2\Pgm$ and $\Pa\to 2\Pgt$ is proportional to the ratio of the
squared masses of the muon and the $\Pgt$ lepton:

$\frac{\mathcal{B}(\Pa\to 2\Pgm)}{\mathcal{B}(\Pa\to
2\Pgt)}=\frac{m_{\Pgm}^{2}\sqrt{1-(2m_{\Pgm}/m_{\Pa})^{2}}}{m_{\PGt}^{2}\sqrt{1-(2m_{\PGt}/m_{\Pa})^{2}}}\simeq\frac{m_{\Pgm}^{2}}{m_{\PGt}^{2}}.$
(1)

Events are selected only if the invariant mass of the four objects in the
final state is below 100–130(depending on the final state) to enforce the
compatibility with a Higgs boson decay. This criterion strongly suppresses
both the background from events with genuine leptons, which arise mostly from
the $\PZ$ boson pair production, and the backgrounds with jets misidentified
as $\Pgt$ leptons, leaving only a few expected background events in the signal
region. The background from $\PZ$ boson pair production is estimated from
simulation, whereas the background with jets misidentified as $\Pgt$ leptons
is estimated from data, as detailed in Section 0.5. The presence of a signal
is probed using the reconstructed dimuon mass as an observable. Given the
narrow width of the signal and the small number of expected background events,
signal and background distributions are parameterized to perform an unbinned
maximum-likelihood fit.

##  0.2 The CMS detector

The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6m
internal diameter, providing a magnetic field of 3.8T. Within the solenoid
volume, there are a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal
electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), and a brass and scintillator hadron
calorimeter, each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. Forward
calorimeters extend the pseudorapidity coverage provided by the barrel and
endcap detectors. Muons are detected in gas-ionization chambers embedded in
the steel flux-return yoke outside the solenoid. Events of interest are
selected using a two-tiered trigger system [21]. 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. [22].

##  0.3 Simulated samples and event reconstruction

Signal processes, for both ${\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 2\PGm 2{\Pgt}$ and
${\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 4{\Pgt}$, are generated using the 2.2.2 generator [23]
with its implementation of the 2HDM and the NMSSM, in gluon fusion and vector
boson fusion production. They are simulated at leading order (LO) in
perturbative quantum chromodynamics (QCD) with the MLM jet matching and
merging scheme [24]. The generator is interfaced with 8.212 [25] to model the
parton showering and fragmentation as well as the decay of the $\Pgt$ leptons.
The CUETP8M1 tune [26] is chosen for the parameters controlling the
description of the underlying event. The $\PZ\PZ$ background from quark-
antiquark annihilation is generated at next-to-LO (NLO) in perturbative QCD
with v2.0 [27, 28, 29], while the $\Pg\Pg\to\cPZ\cPZ$ process is generated at
LO with 7.0 [30]. The set of parton distribution functions is NLO NNPDF3.0 for
NLO samples, and LO NNPDF3.0 for LO samples [31]. The fully differential cross
section for the $\qqbar\to\cPZ\cPZ$ process has been computed at next-to-NLO
(NNLO) [32], and the NNLO/NLO $K$-factor is applied to the sample as a
function of the invariant mass of the $\PZ$ boson pair. Rare processes, such
as triboson, $\ttbar\PZ$, or SM Higgs boson production, have a negligible
contribution to the signal region because they typically have a larger
invariant mass of the four leptons in the final state.

Simulated samples include additional $\Pp\Pp$ interactions per bunch crossing
(pileup), and are reweighted so as to match the pileup distribution observed
in data. Generated events are processed through a simulation of the CMS
detector based on [33].

The reconstruction of events relies on the particle-flow (PF) algorithm [34],
which combines the information from the CMS subdetectors to identify and
reconstruct the particles emerging from $\Pp\Pp$ collisions: charged and
neutral hadrons, photons, muons, and electrons. Combinations of these PF
objects are used to reconstruct higher-level objects such as jets or $\tauh$
candidates. The reconstructed vertex with the largest value of summed physics-
object $\pt^{2}$ is taken to be the primary $\Pp\Pp$ interaction vertex, where
$\pt$ denotes the transverse momentum. The physics objects are the jets,
clustered using a jet-finding algorithm [35, 36] with the tracks assigned to
the vertex as inputs, and the associated missing transverse momentum, taken as
the negative vector sum of the of those jets.

Electrons are reconstructed by matching ECAL clusters to tracks in the
tracker. They are then identified with a multivariate discriminant that makes
use of variables related to energy deposits in the ECAL, to the quality of the
track, and to the compatibility between the ECAL clusters and the track that
have been matched together [37]. Muons are reconstructed by building tracks
from hits in the tracker and in the muon system, and are identified using
variables related to the number of measurements in the tracker and the muon
systems and to the quality of the track reconstruction [38]. They are required
to have a relative isolation less than 0.2, with the relative isolation
variable defined as follows:

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

In this equation, $\sum_{\text{charged}}\PT$ is the scalar sum of the charged
particles associated with the primary vertex in a cone of size $\Delta
R=\sqrt{\smash[b]{(\Delta\eta)^{2}+(\Delta\phi)^{2}}}=0.4$ around the muon
direction. The sum $\sum_{\text{neutral}}\PT$ is a similar quantity for
neutral particles. The of neutral particles originating from pileup vertices
is considered on the basis of simulation to be half of that of charged
particles associated with pileup vertices, denoted by $\sum_{\text{charged,
PU}}\PT$. The term $\PT^{\Pgm}$ denotes the muon . The azimuthal angle,
$\phi$, is expressed in radians.

Jets are reconstructed from PF objects with the anti-clustering algorithm
implemented in the library [36, 39], using a distance parameter of 0.4. Jets
that originate from quarks, called jets, are identified with the combined
secondary vertex (CSVv2) algorithm [40]. The algorithm builds a discriminant
from variables related to potential secondary vertices associated to the jet,
and from track-based lifetime information. The working point chosen in this
search provides an efficiency for quark jets of approximately 70%, and a
misidentification rate for light-flavor jets of approximately 1%. Events with
reconstructed jets with $\pt>20\GeV$ are vetoed in this analysis to reject
$\ttbar$ events and other backgrounds with quark jets.

Hadronically decaying $\Pgt$ leptons are reconstructed with the hadrons-plus-
strips algorithm [41, 42]. This algorithm starts from anti-jets and
reconstructs $\tauh$ candidates from tracks and energy deposits in strips of
the ECAL, in the 1-prong, 1-prong + $\pi^{0}$, 2-prong, and 3-prong decay
modes. The 2-prong decay mode allows $\tauh$ candidates to be reconstructed
even if one track has not been reconstructed. Given the large rate for jets to
be misidentified in this decay mode and the limited increase in efficiency for
genuine $\tauh$ candidates, the 2-prong decay mode is not used to reconstruct
$\tauh$ candidates in the signal region of this analysis, but is used in some
control regions to study events with jets misidentified as $\tauh$ candidates.
Hadronically decaying $\Pgt$ leptons are further required to be identified
using a multivariate discriminator that combines isolation and lifetime
variables. The working point of the discriminator has a $\tauh$ identification
efficiency of approximately 57% for a misidentification rate of light-flavor
jets of approximately 0.35%. Discriminators to reject muons and electrons
misidentified as $\tauh$ candidates are further applied.

##  0.4 Event selection

Online, events are required to pass a double-muon trigger with thresholds of
17 and 8for the leading and subleading muons, respectively, or a single-muon
trigger with a threshold of 24. In the $\Pgm\Pgm+\Pe\Pgm$ and
$\Pgm\Pgm+\Pgm\tauh$ final states, events are also selected if they pass a
triple-muon trigger with thresholds of 12, 10, and 5. Offline, the leading
muon must have $\pt>18\GeV$ (or 25if only the single-muon trigger is
satisfied), and the subleading one $\pt>9\GeV$ (or 11if only the triple-muon
trigger is satisfied). Selecting muons offline with thresholds 1above the
online thresholds ensures fully efficient triggers in this analysis. If there
are additional muons, each is required to have $\pt>5\GeV$ (or 6if only the
triple-muon trigger conditions have been met). All muons must satisfy
$\abs{\eta}<2.4$. Electrons from $\Pgt$ lepton decays are required to have
$\pt>7\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.5$, and $\tauh$ candidates are required to
satisfy $\pt>18.5\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.3$. Each event is required to have an
opposite-sign (OS) pair of isolated muons and an OS pair of isolated $\Pgt$
candidates ($\Pe$, $\Pgm$, or $\tauh$).

In final states with three muons, the highest muon is considered as
originating promptly from the decay of the pseudoscalar bosons. It is paired
with the next-highest OS muon. The third muon is considered as a decay product
of a $\Pgt$ lepton. The probability for success of this algorithm for the
expected signal varies between 72 and 94%, and increases with the pseudoscalar
boson mass.

The overlap between the events selected in the four different final states is
removed: events that have more isolated muons or electrons than those needed
to build the four-lepton final state under study are discarded from the
analysis in that final state. Selected leptons are required to be separated
from each other by $\Delta R>0.3$, or $>0.4$ if there is a $\tauh$ candidate,
since it is built from a jet with a distance parameter of $\Delta R=0.4$.

More than 80% of the background is rejected by keeping only events for which
the visible invariant mass of the four leptons is below 110in the
$\Pgm\Pgm+\Pe\Pgm$ final state, 120in the $\Pgm\Pgm+\Pe\tauh$ and
$\Pgm\Pgm+\Pgm\tauh$ final states, and 130in the $\Pgm\Pgm+\tauh\tauh$ final
state. The threshold depends on the final state because of the different
number of neutrinos from $\Pgt$ lepton decays. Because of the neutrinos, the
visible invariant mass is expected to peak below 125for the signal, and this
selection criterion has a signal efficiency close to 100%. Additionally, the
visible mass of the $\Pgt\Pgt$ pair is required to be smaller than the dimuon
mass. Events that have a reconstructed dimuon mass lower than 14or higher than
64are rejected from the signal region.

The selection described above is optimized for the ${\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 2\PGm
2{\Pgt}$ signal process, which benefits from an excellent dimuon mass
resolution of the CMS detector. Assuming a 2HDM+S model, the yield of the
${\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 4{\Pgt}$ signal after the selection is between 13 and 52%
of all $\Ph\to\Pa\Pa$ signal events, depending on the final state. The largest
fraction is obtained in the $\Pgm\Pgm+\Pe\Pgm$ final state, where the lepton
thresholds are the lowest, while the lowest fraction appears in the
$\Pgm\Pgm+\tauh\tauh$ final state, which has the highest lepton thresholds.

##  0.5 Estimation of the background with misidentified $\Pgt$ leptons

The background composed of events where at least one jet is misidentified as
one of the final-state leptons is estimated from data. Such events include
mostly $\PZ+\text{jets}$ and $\PW\PZ+\text{jets}$ events, but there are also
minor contributions from $\PZ\PZ\to 2\ell 2$q events, $\ttbar$ production, or
from the background from SM events comprised uniquely of jets produced through
the strong interaction, referred to as QCD multijet events. The yield and the
distributions of these backgrounds are estimated from data via a two-step
procedure:

  1. 1.

The shape is obtained from data in a signal and $\PZ\PZ$ background free
control region with the $\Pgt$ candidates of same sign (SS). To increase the
statistical precision of the templates and enrich the region in events with
jets misidentified as leptons, the isolation criteria on the $\Pgt$ candidates
are relaxed and $\tauh$ candidates are allowed to be also reconstructed as
2-prong decays. Including the 2-prong decays increases the data yield in the
control region by about 50%.

  2. 2.

The yield is estimated from data events that have one or two nonisolated
$\Pgt$ candidates. These events are reweighted with factors that describe the
probability for jets to pass the isolation criteria used to select the $\Pgt$
candidates. The misidentification probabilities for jets are measured in
$\PZ\to\Pgm\Pgm+\text{jets}$ events, selected with the same selection criteria
as in the signal region except that neither isolation, nor identification
criteria are applied to the $\Pgt$ candidates, which are further required to
have SS. Additionally the dimuon pair is required to have an invariant mass
between 70 and 110. The probabilities are measured separately in the barrel
and in the endcaps as a function of the of the jet that is closest to the
lepton, and are parameterized with Landau functions.

The estimation method for the background with jets misidentified as leptons is
validated in three control regions: one containing events that pass the full
signal selection except that the four-lepton mass criterion is inverted;
another where $\tauh$ candidates are reconstructed as 2-prong decays only; and
a third one with two SS $\Pgt$ candidates. The background predictions and data
are statistically compatible, with deviations not exceeding 20–40% depending
on the final state. The background estimation method has also been validated
in simulation for $\PW\PZ+\text{jets}$ and $\PZ+\text{jets}$ events.

##  0.6 Signal and background modeling

The results are extracted by fitting the reconstructed dimuon mass
distributions. The dimuon mass distributions of the simulated
${\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 2\PGm 2{\Pgt}$ signal events passing all selection
criteria are parameterized with Voigt functions, which are convolutions of the
Gaussian and Lorentzian profiles with a common mean. The parameterizations for
different $m_{\Pa}$ values in the $\Pgm\Pgm+\Pgm\tauh$ final state are shown
in Fig. 1 (left). The dimuon mass resolution is better than 2% for all masses
and final states considered in the analysis. The parameters of the Voigt
functions are fit for each simulated mass and for each final state. The
parameters are interpolated for signal masses not covered by simulation.

For the ${\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 4{\Pgt}$ signal, the two reconstructed muons that
have been chosen to form the dimuon mass distribution can come from either
pseudoscalar boson. When the two muons come from the same boson, their visible
mass distribution is a wide peak below $m_{\Pa}$ because they originate from
$\Pgt$ lepton decays. When the two muons come from different bosons, they do
not form a resonance and their mass distribution is rather flat, with a shape
sculpted by kinematic selections. The dimuon mass distribution of the
${\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 4{\Pgt}$ signal is parameterized with the sum of a
Gaussian function for the resonant contribution and of a polynomial for the
nonresonant contribution. The parameterizations for different $m_{\Pa}$ values
in the $\Pgm\Pgm+\Pgm\tauh$ final state are shown in Fig. 1 (right).

Figure 1: Parameterized dimuon invariant mass distributions of the
${\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 2\PGm 2{\Pgt}$ (left) and ${\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 4{\Pgt}$
(right) signal processes simulated at different $m_{\Pa}$ values in the
$\Pgm\Pgm+\Pgm\tauh$ final state. The normalization corresponds to the number
of expected signal events after the selection for an integrated luminosity of
35.9, assuming the production cross section of the Higgs boson predicted in
the SM, and $\mathcal{B}({\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 2\PGm
2{\Pgt})=2\mathcal{B}(\Ph\to\Pa\Pa)\mathcal{B}(\Pa\to\Pgm\Pgm)\mathcal{B}(\Pa\to\Pgt\Pgt)=0.1\%$.
The yield of the ${\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 4{\Pgt}$ contribution is further
rescaled according to the relation in Eq. (1).

The dimuon mass distributions of the $\PZ$ pair background and the background
with misidentified $\Pgt$ leptons are parameterized with Bernstein
polynomials. The number of degrees of the polynomial required to describe the
background in each channel is determined with a Fisher $F$-test [43], which
selects the minimal number that allows for a good fit quality. The
parameterizations of the backgrounds in the $\Pgm\Pgm+\Pgm\tauh$ final state
are shown in Fig. 2. The choice of the fit function and of its degree has only
a limited impact on the final results because of the low expected background
yields.

Figure 2: Parameterization of the shape of the background with misidentified
$\Pgt$ leptons (left) and $\PZ$ pair production background (right) in the
$\Pgm\Pgm+\Pgm\tauh$ final state. The points for the $\PZ\PZ$ background
represent events selected in simulation, whereas they correspond to observed
data events in the SS region with relaxed isolation for the background with
misidentified $\Pgt$ leptons.

##  0.7 Systematic uncertainties

Yield uncertainties for the processes estimated from simulation include the
uncertainty in the integrated luminosity (2.5%) [44], in the trigger
efficiency (2%), and in the vetoing of -tagged jets (0.5%). Additionally, the
identification, isolation, and reconstruction uncertainties amount to 2% per
muon, 2% per electron, and 5% per $\tauh$ candidate. The uncertainty in the
$\tauh$ energy scale leads to yield uncertainties between 1 and 2%. The
uncertainty in the yield of the $\PZ\PZ$ background is 12%: it accounts for
the uncertainties in the renormalization and factorization scales, as well as
for the uncertainty related to the absence of higher-order electroweak
corrections in simulation. The statistical uncertainty related to the limited
size of the $\PZ\PZ$ simulated sample reaches up to 13% in the
$\Pgm\Pgm+\tauh\tauh$ final state, but is well below 3% in the other final
states. The uncertainty in the normalization of the signal shapes arising from
the parameterization of the normalization as a function of the mass is 5% per
final state. The shape uncertainties related to the parameterization of the
signal consist of a 0.1% uncertainty in the mean of the Voigt profile and an
anticorrelated 30% uncertainty in the two width parameters.

The yield uncertainty in the background with jets misidentified as $\Pgt$
leptons accounts for two different components: the level of agreement between
data and background prediction in the control regions, and the statistical
uncertainty in the yield predicted in the signal region. As discussed in
Section 0.5, the first component varies between 20 and 40%, depending on the
final state, whereas the second one ranges between 11 and 23%. The
uncertainties in the parameters of the polynomials used to parameterize the
distributions of the background with jets misidentified as $\Pgt$ leptons are
included as nuisance parameters in the fit. These parameter uncertainties are
obtained from the fits to the data control regions with same sign $\Pgt$
candidates passing relaxed isolation and reconstruction conditions. The
uncertainty related to the choice of the fit function for the backgrounds is
negligible with respect to the size of the statistical uncertainty. This has
been verified by comparing the expected upper limits on the signal when other
functional forms are chosen to parameterize the backgrounds.

##  0.8 Results

To test for the existence of a resonance, an unbinned maximum-likelihood fit
to the dimuon invariant mass distribution is performed. In the fit, the
systematic uncertainties are nuisance parameters varied according to a log-
normal probability density function for the yield uncertainties and a Gaussian
probability density function for the shape uncertainties. The dimuon mass
distributions for the four final states are shown in Fig. 3. The expected
background and signal yields in the signal region are given in Table 0.8 for
the four final states.

Figure 3: Dimuon mass distributions in the $\Pgm\Pgm+\Pe\Pgm$ (upper left),
$\Pgm\Pgm+\Pe\tauh$ (upper right), $\Pgm\Pgm+\Pgm\tauh$ (lower left), and
$\Pgm\Pgm+\tauh\tauh$ (lower right) final states. The total background
estimate and its uncertainty are given by the black lines. The histograms for
the two background components are shown for illustrative purposes only as the
background models are extracted from unbinned fits. The signal model is drawn
in blue above the background model: it includes both ${\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to
2\PGm 2{\Pgt}$ and ${\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 4{\Pgt}$, and is normalized using
$\mathcal{B}({\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 2\PGm 2{\Pgt})=0.01\%$, assuming the relation
in Eq. (1) to determine the relative proportion of these processes. The
production cross section of the Higgs boson predicted in the SM is assumed.

Yields of the signal and background processes in the four final states, as
well as the number of observed events in each final state, in the dimuon mass
range between 14 and 64. The signal yields are given for
$\mathcal{B}({\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 2\PGm 2{\Pgt})=0.01\%$. The
${\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 4{\Pgt}$ signal is scaled assuming the couplings of the
pseudoscalar boson proportional to the squared lepton mass, as in Eq. (1). The
production cross section of the Higgs boson predicted in the SM is assumed.
The uncertainties combine the statistical and systematic sources.

| $\Pgm\Pgm+\Pe\Pgm$ | $\Pgm\Pgm+\Pe\tauh$ | $\Pgm\Pgm+\Pgm\tauh$ | $\Pgm\Pgm+\tauh\tauh$
---|---|---|---|---
$\PZ\PZ\to 4\ell$ | $1.5\pm 0.2$ | $0.5\pm 0.1$ | $1.2\pm 0.2$ | $0.03\pm 0.01$
Misidentified $\Pgt$ | $13.2\pm 5.5$ | $9.7\pm 2.5$ | $4.0\pm 1.2$ | $1.2\pm 0.5$
${\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 2\PGm 2{\Pgt}$, $m_{\Pa}=20\GeV$ | $0.39$ | $0.25$ | $0.47$ | $0.10$
${\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 4{\Pgt}$, $m_{\Pa}=20\GeV$ | $0.37$ | $0.04$ | $0.24$ | $0.01$
${\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 2\PGm 2{\Pgt}$, $m_{\Pa}=40\GeV$ | $0.57$ | $0.28$ | $0.68$ | $0.14$
${\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 4{\Pgt}$, $m_{\Pa}=40\GeV$ | $0.68$ | $0.09$ | $0.48$ | $0.02$
${\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 2\PGm 2{\Pgt}$, $m_{\Pa}=60\GeV$ | $0.94$ | $0.85$ | $1.18$ | $0.52$
${\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 4{\Pgt}$, $m_{\Pa}=60\GeV$ | $1.27$ | $0.20$ | $0.93$ | $0.05$
Observed | 17 | 10 | 6 | 1

No significant excess of data is observed above the expected SM background.
Upper limits at 95% CL are set on
$(\sigma_{\Ph}/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}})\mathcal{B}({\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 2\PGm
2{\Pgt})=2(\sigma_{\Ph}/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}})\mathcal{B}(\Ph\to\Pa\Pa)\mathcal{B}(\Pa\to\Pgm\Pgm)\mathcal{B}(\Pa\to\Pgt\Pgt)$
using the modified frequentist construction [45, 46, 47, 48] for pseudoscalar
masses between 15.0 and 62.5. In this expression,
$\sigma_{\Ph}/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}$ is the Higgs boson cross section for the
gluon fusion and vector boson fusion production modes, divided by its SM
prediction. The limits are shown in Fig. 4 for the individual final states and
for their combination. The combined upper limits on the branching fraction
$\mathcal{B}(\Ph\to\Pa\Pa\to 2\Pgm 2\Pgt)$ are as low as $1.2\times 10^{-4}$
for a mass of 60assuming the SM production cross section for the Higgs boson.
The expected limits are the tightest for the $\Pgm\Pgm+\Pgm\tauh$ final state
because the lepton thresholds are lower than in the $\Pgm\Pgm+\Pe\tauh$ and
$\Pgm\Pgm+\tauh\tauh$ final states, and because the branching fraction is
larger than in the $\Pgm\Pgm+\Pe\Pgm$ final state. The ${\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to
4{\Pgt}$ signal is assumed to scale according to Eq. (1) with respect to the
${\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 2\PGm 2{\Pgt}$ signal. Alternatively, considering a null
contribution from ${\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 4{\Pgt}$, there is still no significant
excess of data over the expected SM background and the expected limits become
less stringent by approximately $10\%$.

Figure 4: Upper limits at 95% CL on
$(\sigma_{\Ph}/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}})\mathcal{B}({\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 2\PGm
2{\Pgt})$, in the $\Pgm\Pgm+\Pe\Pgm$ (upper left), $\Pgm\Pgm+\Pe\tauh$ (upper
right), $\Pgm\Pgm+\Pgm\tauh$ (middle left), $\Pgm\Pgm+\tauh\tauh$ (middle
right) final states, and for the combination of these final states (lower).
The ${\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 4{\Pgt}$ process is considered as a part of the
signal, and is scaled with respect to the ${\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 2\PGm 2{\Pgt}$
signal using Eq. (1).

The results can be interpreted as upper limits on
$(\sigma_{\Ph}/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}})\mathcal{B}(\Ph\to\Pa\Pa)$ in the
different 2HDM+S models. Types I–IV 2HDM+S forbid flavor changing neutral
currents at tree level. In type I 2HDM+S, all SM particles couple to the first
doublet and the branching fractions of the light pseudoscalar to SM particles
are independent of $\tan\beta$, defined as the ratio of the vacuum expectation
value of the second doublet to that of the first doublet. In type II 2HDM+S,
including the NMSSM, up-type quarks couple to the first doublet, and leptons
and down-type quarks couple to the second doublet. This leads to pseudoscalar
decays to leptons and down-type fermions enhanced for $\tan\beta>1$. In these
two types, the analysis is sensitive to a cross section larger than
approximately three times the SM production cross section of the Higgs boson
for $\mathcal{B}({\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 2\PGm 2{\Pgt})=100\%$. In type III
2HDM+S, quarks couple to the first doublet and leptons to the second one,
making it the most favorable type of 2HDM+S for ${\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 2\PGm
2{\Pgt}$ decays at large $\tan\beta$. In type IV 2HDM+S, leptons and up-type
quarks couple to the first doublet while down-type quarks couple to the second
doublet. With $m_{\Pa}$, $\tan\beta$, and the type of 2HDM+S specified, the
branching fractions of the pseudoscalars to SM particles can be predicted
following the prescriptions in Refs. [11, 49]. The results expressed as limits
on $(\sigma_{\Ph}/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}})\mathcal{B}(\Ph\to\Pa\Pa)$ are shown in
Fig. 5 for the last two types of 2HDM+S. The most stringent limits are
obtained in 2HDM+S type III at large $\tan\beta$, where the couplings to
leptons are enhanced, and where limits of approximately 3% are set for
$\tan\beta\gtrsim 3$. This analysis improves previous results [14] in the
$2\Pgm 2\Pgt$ final state by a factor two or more for $15.0<m_{\Pa}<62.5\GeV$
in all four types of 2HDM+S.

Figure 5: Observed limits on
$(\sigma_{\Ph}/\sigma_{\mathrm{SM}})\mathcal{B}(\Ph\to\Pa\Pa)$ in 2HDM+S type
III (left) and type IV (right). The contour lines shown for
$\mathcal{B}(\Ph\to\Pa\Pa)=1.0$ and 0.34 correspond to the colour scale
indicated on the right vertical scale. The number 0.34 corresponds to the
limit on the branching fraction of the Higgs boson to beyond-the-SM particles
at 95% CL obtained with data collected at center-of-mass energies of 7 and 8by
the CMS and ATLAS experiments [10].

##  0.9 Summary

A search for an exotic decay of the Higgs boson to a pair of light
pseudoscalars in the final state of two muons and two $\Pgt$ leptons has been
performed using data collected by the CMS experiment in 2016 at a center-of-
mass energy of 13, and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9. The
results are extracted from an unbinned fit of the dimuon mass spectrum. Limits
are set at 95% confidence level on the branching fraction
$\mathcal{B}(\Ph\to\Pa\Pa\to 2\Pgm 2\Pgt)$ for the masses of the light
pseudoscalar between 15.0 and 62.5, and are as low as $1.2\times 10^{-4}$ for
a mass of 60assuming the SM production cross section for the Higgs boson.
These are the most stringent limits obtained in the final state of two muons
and two $\Pgt$ leptons for the masses above 15, improving previous limits [14,
20] by more than a factor two. They provide the tightest constraints in this
mass range on exotic Higgs boson decays in scenarios where the decays of
pseudoscalar bosons to leptons are enhanced.

###### 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); NKFIA (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 and RFBR (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 Lendület
(“Momentum”) Programme 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 and 125105 (Hungary); the
Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; the HOMING PLUS program of
the Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from European Union, Regional
Development Fund, the Mobility Plus program of the Ministry of Science and
Higher Education, the National Science Center (Poland), contracts Harmonia
2014/14/M/ST2/00428, Opus 2014/13/B/ST2/02543, 2014/15/B/ST2/03998, and
2015/19/B/ST2/02861, Sonata-bis 2012/07/E/ST2/01406; the National Priorities
Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund; the Programa Estatal de
Fomento de la Investigación Científica y Técnica de Excelencia María de
Maeztu, grant MDM-2015-0509 and the Programa Severo Ochoa del Principado de
Asturias; the Thalis and Aristeia programs cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek
NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn
University and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century Project
Advancement Project (Thailand); the Welch Foundation, contract C-1845; and the
Weston Havens Foundation (USA).

## References

  * [1] ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a new particle in the search for the standard model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020, arXiv:1207.7214.
  * [2] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021, arXiv:1207.7235.
  * [3] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8 TeV”,  JHEP 06 (2013) 081, 10.1007/JHEP06(2013)081, arXiv:1303.4571.
  * [4] F. Englert and R. Brout, “Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 321, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.321.
  * [5] P. W. Higgs, “Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields”,  Phys. Lett. 12 (1964) 132, 10.1016/0031-9163(64)91136-9.
  * [6] P. W. Higgs, “Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 508, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.508.
  * [7] G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble, “Global conservation laws and massless particles”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 585, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.585.
  * [8] P. W. Higgs, “Spontaneous symmetry breakdown without massless bosons”,  Phys. Rev. 145 (1966) 1156, 10.1103/PhysRev.145.1156.
  * [9] T. W. B. Kibble, “Symmetry breaking in non-Abelian gauge theories”,  Phys. Rev. 155 (1967) 1554, 10.1103/PhysRev.155.1554.
  * [10] ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, “Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined ATLAS and CMS analysis of the LHC pp collision data at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8 TeV”,  JHEP 08 (2016) 045, 10.1007/JHEP08(2016)045, arXiv:1606.02266.
  * [11] D. Curtin et al., “Exotic decays of the 125Higgs boson”,  Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 075004, 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.075004, arXiv:1312.4992.
  * [12] U. Ellwanger, C. Hugonie, and A. M. Teixeira, “The next-to-minimal supersymmetric standard model”,  Phys. Rept. 496 (2010) 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2010.07.001, arXiv:0910.1785.
  * [13] M. Maniatis, “The next-to-minimal supersymmetric extension of the standard model reviewed”,  Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 25 (2010) 3505, 10.1142/S0217751X10049827, arXiv:0906.0777.
  * [14] CMS Collaboration, “Search for light bosons in decays of the 125 GeV Higgs boson in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV”,  JHEP 10 (2017) 076, 10.1007/JHEP10(2017)076, arXiv:1701.02032.
  * [15] CMS Collaboration, “Search for a very light NMSSM Higgs boson produced in decays of the 125 GeV scalar boson and decaying into $\tau$ leptons in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV”,  JHEP 01 (2016) 079, 10.1007/JHEP01(2016)079, arXiv:1510.06534.
  * [16] CMS Collaboration, “A search for pair production of new light bosons decaying into muons”,  Phys. Lett. B 752 (2016) 146, 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.10.067, arXiv:1506.00424.
  * [17] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for the Higgs boson produced in association with a W boson and decaying to four $b$-quarks via two spin-zero particles in pp collisions at 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 605, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4418-9, arXiv:1606.08391.
  * [18] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for new light gauge bosons in Higgs boson decays to four-lepton final states in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”,  Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 092001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.092001, arXiv:1505.07645.
  * [19] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for new phenomena in events with at least three photons collected in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 210, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4034-8, arXiv:1509.05051.
  * [20] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for Higgs bosons decaying to $aa$ in the $\mu\mu\tau\tau$ final state in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV with the ATLAS experiment”,  Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 052002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.052002, arXiv:1505.01609.
  * [21] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [22] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [23] 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.
  * [24] J. Alwall et al., “Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 53 (2008) 473, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0490-5, arXiv:0706.2569.
  * [25] 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.
  * [26] 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.
  * [27] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “NLO vector-boson production matched with shower in POWHEG”,  JHEP 07 (2008) 060, 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/07/060, arXiv:0805.4802.
  * [28] 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.
  * [29] 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.
  * [30] J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, “MCFM for the Tevatron and the LHC”,  Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 205 (2010) 10, 10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2010.08.011, arXiv:1007.3492.
  * [31] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC Run II”,  JHEP 04 (2015) 040, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040, arXiv:1410.8849.
  * [32] M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, and D. Rathlev, “ZZ production at the LHC: Fiducial cross sections and distributions in NNLO QCD”,  Phys. Lett. B 750 (2015) 407, 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.09.055, arXiv:1507.06257.
  * [33] GEANT4 Collaboration, “—a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [34] 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.
  * [35] 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.
  * [36] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “FastJet user manual”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1896, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2, arXiv:1111.6097.
  * [37] 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.
  * [38] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in pp collision events at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”,  JINST 7 (2012) P10002, 10.1088/1748-0221/7/10/P10002, arXiv:1206.4071.
  * [39] M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam, “Dispelling the $N^{3}$ myth for the $k_{t}$ jet-finder”,  Phys. Lett. B 641 (2006) 57, 10.1016/j.physletb.2006.08.037, arXiv:hep-ph/0512210.
  * [40] CMS Collaboration, “Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV”,  JINST (2017) 10.1088/1748-0221/13/05/P05011, arXiv:1712.07158.
  * [41] CMS Collaboration, “Reconstruction and identification of $\tau$ lepton decays to hadrons and $\nu_{\tau}$ at CMS”,  JINST 11 (2016) P01019, 10.1088/1748-0221/11/01/P01019, arXiv:1510.07488.
  * [42] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of reconstruction and identification of tau leptons in their decays to hadrons and tau neutrino in LHC Run-2”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-TAU-16-002, 2016.
  * [43] R. A. Fisher, “On the interpretation of $\chi^{2}$ from contingency tables, and the calculation of p”, J. Roy. Stat. Soc. 85 (1922) 87.
  * [44] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data taking period”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001, 2017.
  * [45] The ATLAS Collaboration, The CMS Collaboration, The LHC Higgs Combination Group, “Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011”, Technical Report CMS-NOTE-2011-005. ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-11, 2011.
  * [46] CMS Collaboration, “Combined results of searches for the standard model Higgs boson in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 710 (2012) 26, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.02.064, arXiv:1202.1488.
  * [47] 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.
  * [48] A. L. Read, “Presentation of search results: the $CL_{s}$ 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.
  * [49] A. Djouadi, “The anatomy of electro-weak symmetry breaking. I: the Higgs boson in the standard model”,  Phys. Rep. 457 (2008) 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.10.004, arXiv:hep-ph/0503172.

##  .10 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan Institut für Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, E. Asilar, T. Bergauer, J. Brandstetter, M. Dragicevic,
J. Erö, A. Escalante Del Valle, M. Flechl, R. Frühwirth1, V.M. Ghete, J.
Hrubec, M. Jeitler1, N. Krammer, I. Krätschmer, D. Liko, T. Madlener, I.
Mikulec, N. Rad, H. Rohringer, J. Schieck1, R. Schöfbeck, M. Spanring, D.
Spitzbart, 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, N. Postiau, E. Starling, L. Thomas, C. Vander Velde, P.
Vanlaer, D. Vannerom, Q. Wang Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, A. Fagot, M. Gul, I. Khvastunov2, 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, P. David, C.
Delaere, M. Delcourt, B. Francois, A. Giammanco, G. Krintiras, V. Lemaitre, A.
Magitteri, A. Mertens, M. Musich, K. Piotrzkowski, A. Saggio, M. Vidal Marono,
S. Wertz, J. Zobec Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil
F.L. Alves, G.A. Alves, L. Brito, M. Correa Martins Junior, G. Correia Silva,
C. Hensel, A. Moraes, M.E. Pol, P. Rebello Teles Universidade do Estado do Rio
de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato3, E. Coelho, E.M.
Da Costa, G.G. Da Silveira4, D. De Jesus Damiao, C. De Oliveira Martins, S.
Fonseca De Souza, H. Malbouisson, D. Matos Figueiredo, M. Melo De Almeida, C.
Mora Herrera, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, W.L. Prado Da Silva, L.J. Sanchez Rosas,
A. Santoro, A. Sznajder, M. Thiel, E.J. Tonelli Manganote3, F. Torres Da Silva
De Araujo, A. Vilela Pereira Universidade Estadual Paulista a, Universidade
Federal do ABC b, São Paulo, Brazil
S. Ahujaa, C.A. Bernardesa, L. Calligarisa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M.
Gregoresb, P.G. Mercadanteb, S.F. Novaesa, SandraS. Padulaa, D. Romero Abadb
Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of
Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, A. Marinov, M. Misheva, M. Rodozov,
M. Shopova, G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Dimitrov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov Beihang University, Beijing, China
W. Fang5, X. Gao5, L. Yuan Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, J.G. Bian, G.M. Chen, H.S. Chen, M. Chen, Y. Chen, C.H. Jiang, D.
Leggat, H. Liao, Z. Liu, F. Romeo, S.M. Shaheen6, 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, A. Levin, J. Li, L. Li, Q. Li, 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, 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, E. Erodotou, M. Kolosova, G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa,
C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos, P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski Charles University,
Prague, Czech Republic
M. Finger8, M. Finger Jr.8 Escuela Politecnica Nacional, Quito, Ecuador
E. Ayala Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
E. Carrera Jarrin Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab
Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt
H. Abdalla9, A.A. Abdelalim10,11, A. Mohamed11 National Institute of Chemical
Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
S. Bhowmik, A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveira, R.K. Dewanjee, K. Ehataht, M.
Kadastik, M. Raidal, C. Veelken Department of Physics, University of Helsinki,
Helsinki, Finland
P. Eerola, H. Kirschenmann, J. Pekkanen, M. Voutilainen Helsinki Institute of
Physics, Helsinki, Finland
J. Havukainen, J.K. Heikkilä, T. Järvinen, V. Karimäki, R. Kinnunen, T.
Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Laurila, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, P. Luukka, T.
Mäenpää, H. Siikonen, E. Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi Lappeenranta University of
Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
T. Tuuva IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, J.L. Faure, F. Ferri, S.
Ganjour, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry, C. Leloup,
E. Locci, J. Malcles, G. Negro, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M.Ö. Sahin, M. Titov
Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole polytechnique, CNRS/IN2P3, Université
Paris-Saclay, Palaiseau, France
A. Abdulsalam12, C. Amendola, I. Antropov, F. Beaudette, P. Busson, C.
Charlot, R. Granier de Cassagnac, I. Kucher, S. Lisniak, A. Lobanov, J. Martin
Blanco, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, G. Ortona, P. Pigard, R. Salerno, J.B. Sauvan,
Y. Sirois, A.G. Stahl Leiton, 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, V. Cherepanov,
C. Collard, E. Conte13, J.-C. Fontaine13, D. Gelé, U. Goerlach, M. Jansová,
A.-C. Le Bihan, N. Tonon, P. Van Hove Centre de Calcul de l’Institut National
de Physique Nucleaire et de Physique des Particules, CNRS/IN2P3, Villeurbanne,
France
S. Gadrat Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3,
Institut de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, N. Chanon, R. Chierici, D. Contardo, P.
Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, L. Finco, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, G.
Grenier, B. Ille, F. Lagarde, I.B. Laktineh, H. Lattaud, M. Lethuillier, L.
Mirabito, A.L. Pequegnot, S. Perries, A. Popov14, V. Sordini, M. Vander
Donckt, S. Viret, S. Zhang Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
A. Khvedelidze8 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, T. Esch, R. Fischer, S. Ghosh,
A. Güth, T. Hebbeker, C. Heidemann, K. Hoepfner, H. Keller, S. Knutzen, L.
Mastrolorenzo, M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, P. Millet, S. Mukherjee, T. Pook, M.
Radziej, H. Reithler, M. Rieger, F. Scheuch, A. Schmidt, D. Teyssier RWTH
Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany
G. Flügge, O. Hlushchenko, B. Kargoll, T. Kress, A. Künsken, T. Müller, A.
Nehrkorn, A. Nowack, C. Pistone, O. Pooth, H. Sert, A. Stahl15 Deutsches
Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
M. Aldaya Martin, T. Arndt, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, I. Babounikau, K.
Beernaert, O. Behnke, U. Behrens, A. Bermúdez Martínez, D. Bertsche, A.A. Bin
Anuar, K. Borras16, V. Botta, A. Campbell, P. Connor, C. Contreras-Campana, F.
Costanza, V. Danilov, A. De Wit, M.M. Defranchis, C. Diez Pardos, D. Domínguez
Damiani, G. Eckerlin, T. Eichhorn, A. Elwood, E. Eren, E. Gallo17, A. Geiser,
J.M. Grados Luyando, A. Grohsjean, P. Gunnellini, M. Guthoff, M. Haranko, A.
Harb, J. Hauk, H. Jung, M. Kasemann, J. Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, J. Knolle, D.
Krücker, W. Lange, A. Lelek, T. Lenz, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann18, R. Mankel, I.-A.
Melzer-Pellmann, A.B. Meyer, M. Meyer, M. Missiroli, G. Mittag, J. Mnich, V.
Myronenko, S.K. Pflitsch, D. Pitzl, A. Raspereza, M. Savitskyi, P. Saxena, P.
Schütze, C. Schwanenberger, R. Shevchenko, A. Singh, N. Stefaniuk, H. Tholen,
O. Turkot, A. Vagnerini, G.P. Van Onsem, R. Walsh, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C.
Wissing, O. Zenaiev University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, L. Benato, A. Benecke, V. Blobel, M. Centis Vignali, T.
Dreyer, E. Garutti, D. Gonzalez, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, A. Karavdina, G.
Kasieczka, R. Klanner, R. Kogler, N. Kovalchuk, S. Kurz, V. Kutzner, J. Lange,
D. Marconi, J. Multhaup, M. Niedziela, D. Nowatschin, A. Perieanu, A. Reimers,
O. Rieger, C. Scharf, P. Schleper, S. Schumann, J. Schwandt, J. Sonneveld, H.
Stadie, G. Steinbrück, F.M. Stober, M. Stöver, D. Troendle, 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, M. Giffels, M.A.
Harrendorf, F. Hartmann15, S.M. Heindl, U. Husemann, F. Kassel15, I. Katkov14,
S. Kudella, H. Mildner, S. Mitra, 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, G.
Paspalaki, I. Topsis-Giotis National and Kapodistrian University of Athens,
Athens, Greece
G. Karathanasis, S. Kesisoglou, P. Kontaxakis, A. Panagiotou, N. Saoulidou, E.
Tziaferi, K. Vellidis National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece
K. Kousouris, I. Papakrivopoulos, G. Tsipolitis University of Ioánnina,
Ioánnina, Greece
I. Evangelou, C. Foudas, P. Gianneios, P. Katsoulis, P. Kokkas, S. Mallios, N.
Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, E. Paradas, J. Strologas, F.A. Triantis, D.
Tsitsonis MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
M. Bartók19, M. Csanad, N. Filipovic, P. Major, M.I. Nagy, G. Pasztor, O.
Surányi, G.I. Veres Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath20, Á. Hunyadi, F. Sikler, T.Á. Vámi, V.
Veszpremi, G. Vesztergombi${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$ Institute of Nuclear
Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi21, A. Makovec, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi
Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari Indian Institute of Science (IISc),
Bangalore, India
S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri, P.C. Tiwari National Institute of Science
Education and Research, HBNI, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati22, C. Kar, P. Mal, K. Mandal, A. Nayak23, D.K. Sahoo22, S.K.
Swain Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, S. Chauhan, R. Chawla, N. Dhingra, R.
Gupta, A. Kaur, A. Kaur, M. Kaur, S. Kaur, R. Kumar, P. Kumari, M. Lohan, A.
Mehta, K. Sandeep, S. Sharma, J.B. Singh, G. Walia University of Delhi, Delhi,
India
A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, M. Gola, S. Keshri, Ashok Kumar, S.
Malhotra, M. Naimuddin, P. Priyanka, K. Ranjan, Aashaq Shah, R. Sharma Saha
Institute of Nuclear Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India
R. Bhardwaj24, M. Bharti, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, U. Bhawandeep24,
D. Bhowmik, S. Dey, S. Dutt24, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh, K. Mondal, S. Nandan, A.
Purohit, P.K. Rout, A. Roy, S. Roy Chowdhury, S. Sarkar, M. Sharan, B. Singh,
S. Thakur24 Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
R. Chudasama, D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, P.K. Netrakanti, L.M. Pant, P.
Shukla Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A, Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, M.A. Bhat, S. Dugad, G.B. Mohanty, N. Sur, B. Sutar, RavindraKumar
Verma Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, P. Das, M. Guchait, Sa. Jain, S.
Karmakar, S. Kumar, M. Maity25, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, N. Sahoo, T.
Sarkar25 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. Chenarani26, E. Eskandari Tadavani, S.M. Etesami26, M. Khakzad, M.
Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri, F. Rezaei Hosseinabadi, B. Safarzadeh27, M.
Zeinali University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
M. Felcini, M. Grunewald INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b,
Politecnico di Bari c, Bari, Italy
M. Abbresciaa,b, C. Calabriaa,b, A. Colaleoa, D. Creanzaa,c, L. Cristellaa,b,
N. De Filippisa,c, M. De Palmaa,b, A. Di Florioa,b, F. Erricoa,b, L. Fiorea,
A. Gelmia,b, G. Iasellia,c, M. Incea,b, S. Lezkia,b, G. Maggia,c, M. Maggia,
G. Minielloa,b, S. Mya,b, S. Nuzzoa,b, A. Pompilia,b, G. Pugliesea,c, R.
Radognaa, A. Ranieria, G. Selvaggia,b, A. Sharmaa, L. Silvestrisa, R.
Vendittia, P. Verwilligena, 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, C. Cioccaa, G. Codispotia,b, M. Cuffiania,b, G.M.
Dallavallea, F. Fabbria, A. Fanfania,b, P. Giacomellia, C. Grandia, L.
Guiduccia,b, F. Iemmia,b, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, A. Montanaria, F.L.
Navarriaa,b, A. Perrottaa, F. Primaveraa,b,15, A.M. Rossia,b, T. Rovellia,b,
G.P. Sirolia,b, N. Tosia INFN Sezione di Catania a, Università di Catania b,
Catania, Italy
S. Albergoa,b, A. Di Mattiaa, R. Potenzaa,b, A. Tricomia,b, C. Tuvea,b INFN
Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b, Firenze, Italy
G. Barbaglia, K. Chatterjeea,b, V. Ciullia,b, C. Civininia, R.
D’Alessandroa,b, E. Focardia,b, G. Latino, P. Lenzia,b, M. Meschinia, S.
Paolettia, L. Russoa,28, G. Sguazzonia, D. Stroma, L. Viliania INFN Laboratori
Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, F. Fabbri, D. Piccolo INFN Sezione di Genova a,
Università di Genova b, Genova, Italy
F. Ferroa, 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,15, S. Di
Guidaa,d,15, M.E. Dinardoa,b, S. Fiorendia,b, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P.
Govonia,b, M. Malbertia,b, S. Malvezzia, A. Massironia,b, D. Menascea, L.
Moronia, M. Paganonia,b, D. Pedrinia, 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, A. Di Crescenzoa,b, F. Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa,
G. Galatia, A.O.M. Iorioa,b, W.A. Khana, L. Listaa, S. Meolaa,d,15, P.
Paoluccia,15, C. Sciaccaa,b, E. Voevodinaa,b INFN Sezione di Padova a,
Università di Padova b, Padova, Italy, Università di Trento c, Trento, Italy
P. Azzia, N. Bacchettaa, D. Biselloa,b, A. Bolettia,b, A. Bragagnolo, R.
Carlina,b, P. Checchiaa, M. Dall’Ossoa,b, P. De Castro Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa,
U. Dossellia, F. Gasparinia,b, U. Gasparinia,b, S. Lacapraraa, P. Lujan, M.
Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,b, J. Pazzinia,b, N. Pozzobona,b, P. Ronchesea,b,
R. Rossina,b, F. Simonettoa,b, A. Tiko, E. Torassaa, S. Venturaa, M.
Zanettia,b, P. Zottoa,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, G. Bagliesia, L. Bianchinia, T. Boccalia, L.
Borrello, R. Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, G. Fedia, F. Fioria,c,
L. Gianninia,c, A. Giassia, M.T. Grippoa, F. Ligabuea,c, E. Mancaa,c, G.
Mandorlia,c, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, A. Rizzia,b, 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, F. Cennaa,b, S. Cometti, M. Costaa,b,
R. Covarellia,b, N. Demariaa, B. Kiania,b, C. Mariottia, S. Masellia, E.
Migliorea,b, V. Monacoa,b, E. Monteila,b, M. Montenoa, M.M. Obertinoa,b, L.
Pachera,b, N. Pastronea, M. Pelliccionia, G.L. Pinna Angionia,b, A. Romeroa,b,
M. Ruspaa,c, R. Sacchia,b, K. Shchelinaa,b, V. Solaa, A. Solanoa,b, D. Soldi,
A. Staianoa INFN Sezione di Trieste a, Università di Trieste b, Trieste, Italy
S. Belfortea, V. Candelisea,b, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, G. Della Riccaa,b,
F. Vazzolera,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. Goh29, T.J. Kim Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, D. Gyun, S. Ha, B. Hong, Y. Jo, K. Lee, K.S. Lee, S.
Lee, J. Lim, S.K. Park, Y. Roh Sejong University, Seoul, Korea
H.S. Kim Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, H. Lee, K. Lee, K. Nam, S.B. Oh, B.C. Radburn-
Smith, S.h. Seo, U.K. Yang, H.D. Yoo, G.B. Yu University of Seoul, Seoul,
Korea
D. Jeon, H. Kim, J.H. Kim, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park Sungkyunkwan University,
Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, C. Hwang, J. Lee, I. Yu 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 Ali30, F. Mohamad Idris31, W.A.T. Wan
Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli Universidad de Sonora (UNISON), Hermosillo,
Mexico
A. Castaneda Hernandez, J.A. Murillo Quijada Centro de Investigacion y de
Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
M.C. Duran-Osuna, H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, G. Ramirez-
Sanchez, I. Heredia-De La Cruz32, R.I. Rabadan-Trejo, R. Lopez-Fernandez, J.
Mejia Guisao, R Reyes-Almanza, M. Ramirez-Garcia, A. Sanchez-Hernandez
Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City, Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, F. Vazquez Valencia Benemerita
Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
J. Eysermans, I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada Universidad
Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, Mexico
A. Morelos Pineda University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
S. Bheesette, P.H. Butler National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam
University, Islamabad, Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M. Ahmad, M.I. Asghar, Q. Hassan, H.R. Hoorani, 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. Byszuk33, 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
V. Alexakhin, A. Golunov, I. Golutvin, N. Gorbounov, I. Gorbunov, A. Kamenev,
V. Karjavin, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev34,35, P. Moisenz, V. Palichik,
V. Perelygin, M. Savina, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, N. Skatchkov, V. Smirnov, A.
Zarubin Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg),
Russia
V. Golovtsov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim36, E. Kuznetsova37, 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 National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
M. Chadeeva38, P. Parygin, D. Philippov, S. Polikarpov38, E. Popova, V.
Rusinov P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin35, I. Dremin35, M. Kirakosyan35, S.V. Rusakov, A.
Terkulov Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
A. Baskakov, A. Belyaev, E. Boos, M. Dubinin39, L. Dudko, A. Ershov, A.
Gribushin, V. Klyukhin, O. Kodolova, I. Lokhtin, I. Miagkov, S. Obraztsov, S.
Petrushanko, V. Savrin, A. Snigirev Novosibirsk State University (NSU),
Novosibirsk, Russia
V. Blinov40, T. Dimova40, L. Kardapoltsev40, D. Shtol40, Y. Skovpen40 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, S.
Slabospitskii, A. Sobol, S. Troshin, N. Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov National
Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia
A. Babaev, S. Baidali University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca
Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic41, P. Cirkovic, D. Devetak, M. Dordevic, J. Milosevic Centro de
Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid,
Spain
J. Alcaraz Maestre, A. Álvarez Fernández, I. Bachiller, M. Barrio Luna, J.A.
Brochero Cifuentes, M. Cerrada, N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris, C.
Fernandez Bedoya, J.P. Fernández Ramos, J. Flix, M.C. Fouz, O. Gonzalez Lopez,
S. Goy Lopez, J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa, D. Moran, A. Pérez-Calero Yzquierdo,
J. Puerta Pelayo, I. Redondo, L. Romero, M.S. Soares, A. Triossi 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, V. Rodríguez Bouza,
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, A. García Alonso, J. Garcia-Ferrero, G.
Gomez, A. Lopez Virto, J. Marco, C. Martinez Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del
Arbol, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, C. Prieels, T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno,
L. Scodellaro, N. Trevisani, I. Vila, R. Vilar Cortabitarte 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, E. Brondolin, T. Camporesi, M.
Cepeda, G. Cerminara, E. Chapon, Y. Chen, G. Cucciati, D. d’Enterria, A.
Dabrowski, V. Daponte, A. David, A. De Roeck, N. Deelen, M. Dobson, M. Dünser,
N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, P. Everaerts, F. Fallavollita42, D. Fasanella,
G. Franzoni, J. Fulcher, W. Funk, D. Gigi, A. Gilbert, K. Gill, F. Glege, M.
Guilbaud, D. Gulhan, J. Hegeman, V. Innocente, A. Jafari, P. Janot, O.
Karacheban18, J. Kieseler, A. Kornmayer, M. Krammer1, C. Lange, P. Lecoq, C.
Lourenço, L. Malgeri, M. Mannelli, F. Meijers, J.A. Merlin, S. Mersi, E.
Meschi, P. Milenovic43, F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, J. Ngadiuba, S. Orfanelli, L.
Orsini, F. Pantaleo15, L. Pape, E. Perez, M. Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G.
Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, F.M. Pitters, D. Rabady, A. Racz, T.
Reis, G. Rolandi44, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Seidel,
M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva, P. Sphicas45, A. Stakia, J. Steggemann, M.
Tosi, D. Treille, A. Tsirou, V. Veckalns46, W.D. Zeuner Paul Scherrer
Institut, Villigen, Switzerland
L. Caminada47, K. Deiters, W. Erdmann, R. Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C.
Kaestli, D. Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, T. Rohe, S.A. Wiederkehr ETH Zurich -
Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics (IPA), Zurich, Switzerland
M. Backhaus, L. Bäni, P. Berger, N. Chernyavskaya, G. Dissertori, M. Dittmar,
M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, C. Grab, C. Heidegger, D. Hits, J. Hoss, T. Klijnsma, W.
Lustermann, R.A. Manzoni, M. Marionneau, M.T. Meinhard, F. Micheli, P.
Musella, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, J. Pata, F. Pauss, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, S.
Pigazzini, M. Quittnat, 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. Amsler48, 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
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
P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, W.-S. Hou, Arun Kumar, Y.y. Li, 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, N. Srimanobhas, N. Suwonjandee Çukurova University, Physics
Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
A. Bat, F. Boran, S. Cerci49, S. Damarseckin, Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, C.
Dozen, I. Dumanoglu, S. Girgis, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, E. Gurpinar, I. Hos50,
C. Isik, E.E. Kangal51, O. Kara, A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, M. Oglakci, G.
Onengut, K. Ozdemir52, S. Ozturk53, D. Sunar Cerci49, B. Tali49, U.G. Tok, S.
Turkcapar, I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East Technical University,
Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak54, G. Karapinar55, M. Yalvac, M. Zeyrek Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya56, O. Kaya57, S. Tekten, E.A. Yetkin58
Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
M.N. Agaras, S. Atay, A. Cakir, K. Cankocak, Y. Komurcu, S. Sen59 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. Newbold60,
S. Paramesvaran, B. Penning, T. Sakuma, D. Smith, V.J. Smith, J. Taylor, A.
Titterton Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev61, 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, Y. Haddad, G. Hall, G. Iles, T. James, M. Komm, C. Laner,
L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, A. Martelli, J. Nash62, A. Nikitenko7, V.
Palladino, M. Pesaresi, A. Richards, A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A.
Shtipliyski, G. Singh, M. Stoye, T. Strebler, S. Summers, A. Tapper, K.
Uchida, T. Virdee15, N. Wardle, D. Winterbottom, J. Wright, S.C. Zenz Brunel
University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, C.K. Mackay, A. Morton, I.D. Reid,
L. Teodorescu, S. Zahid Baylor University, Waco, USA
K. Call, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, H. Liu, C. Madrid, B. Mcmaster, N.
Pastika, C. Smith Catholic University of America, Washington DC, USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
A. Buccilli, S.I. Cooper, C. Henderson, P. Rumerio, C. West Boston University,
Boston, USA
D. Arcaro, T. Bose, D. Gastler, D. Rankin, C. Richardson, J. Rohlf, L. Sulak,
D. Zou Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, X. Coubez, D. Cutts, M. Hadley, J. Hakala, U. Heintz, J.M.
Hogan63, K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, J. Lee, Z. Mao, M. Narain, S.
Piperov, S. Sagir64, R. Syarif, E. Usai, D. Yu University of California,
Davis, Davis, USA
R. Band, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, D. Burns, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez,
M. Chertok, J. Conway, R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, G. Funk,
W. Ko, O. Kukral, R. Lander, C. Mclean, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, J. Pilot, S.
Shalhout, M. Shi, D. Stolp, D. Taylor, K. Tos, M. Tripathi, Z. Wang, F. Zhang
University of California, Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, C. Bravo, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, A. Florent, J. Hauser, M.
Ignatenko, N. Mccoll, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg, C. Schnaible, V. Valuev
University of California, Riverside, Riverside, USA
E. Bouvier, K. Burt, R. Clare, J.W. Gary, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi, G. Hanson, G.
Karapostoli, E. Kennedy, F. Lacroix, O.R. Long, M. Olmedo Negrete, M.I.
Paneva, W. Si, L. Wang, H. Wei, S. Wimpenny, B.R. Yates University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, 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. Wasserbaech65, 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, S. Wang, J. Yoo California
Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
D. Anderson, A. Bornheim, J.M. Lawhorn, H.B. Newman, T.Q. Nguyen, M.
Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, R. Wilkinson, S. Xie, Z. Zhang, R.Y. Zhu Carnegie
Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
M.B. Andrews, T. Ferguson, T. Mudholkar, M. Paulini, M. Sun, I. Vorobiev, M.
Weinberg University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, F. Jensen, A. Johnson, 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, J. Lykken, K.
Maeshima, 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-
Navarro66, 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 University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, P. Bortignon, D. Bourilkov, A. Brinkerhoff, L. Cadamuro,
A. Carnes, M. Carver, D. Curry, R.D. Field, S.V. Gleyzer, B.M. Joshi, J.
Konigsberg, A. Korytov, P. Ma, K. Matchev, H. Mei, G. Mitselmakher, K. Shi, D.
Sperka, J. Wang, S. Wang Florida International University, Miami, USA
Y.R. Joshi, S. Linn Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
A. Ackert, T. Adams, A. Askew, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F. Johnson, T.
Kolberg, G. Martinez, T. Perry, H. Prosper, A. Saha, V. Sharma, R. Yohay
Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, V. Bhopatkar, S. Colafranceschi, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, M.
Rahmani, 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, C. Mills, I.D. Sandoval Gonzalez, M.B. Tonjes, N. Varelas, H. Wang, X.
Wang, Z. Wu, J. Zhang The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, B. Bilki67, W. Clarida, K. Dilsiz68, S. Durgut, R.P.
Gandrajula, M. Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko, J.-P. Merlo, A. Mestvirishvili, A.
Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul69, Y. Onel, F. Ozok70, A. Penzo, C. Snyder, E.
Tiras, J. Wetzel Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
B. Blumenfeld, A. Cocoros, N. Eminizer, D. Fehling, L. Feng, A.V. Gritsan,
W.T. Hung, P. Maksimovic, J. Roskes, U. Sarica, M. Swartz, M. Xiao, C. You The
University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA
A. Al-bataineh, P. Baringer, A. Bean, S. Boren, J. Bowen, A. Bylinkin, J.
Castle, S. Khalil, A. Kropivnitskaya, D. Majumder, W. Mcbrayer, M. Murray, C.
Rogan, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang Kansas State
University, Manhattan, USA
S. Duric, A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, D. Kim, Y. Maravin, D.R. Mendis, T. Mitchell,
A. Modak, A. Mohammadi, 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, K. Wong Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, V. Azzolini, 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, 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, A. Kharchilava, D. Nguyen, A. Parker,
S. Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani Northeastern University, Boston, USA
E. Barberis, C. Freer, A. Hortiangtham, 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.
Musienko34, 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, P. Elmer, J. Hardenbrook, P. Hebda, S. Higginbotham, A.
Kalogeropoulos, D. Lange, M.T. Lucchini, J. Luo, D. Marlow, K. Mei, I. Ojalvo,
J. Olsen, C. Palmer, P. Piroué, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, D. Stickland, C. Tully
University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
A. Barker, V.E. Barnes, S. Das, L. Gutay, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, A. Khatiwada,
B. Mahakud, D.H. Miller, N. Neumeister, C.C. Peng, H. Qiu, J.F. Schulte, J.
Sun, F. Wang, R. Xiao, W. Xie Purdue University Northwest, Hammond, USA
T. Cheng, J. Dolen, N. Parashar Rice University, Houston, USA
Z. Chen, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Kilpatrick, 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, J.L. Dulemba, C. Fallon, T.
Ferbel, M. Galanti, A. Garcia-Bellido, J. Han, O. Hindrichs, A.
Khukhunaishvili, K.H. Lo, P. Tan, R. Taus, M. Verzetti 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. Bouhali71, A. Celik, M. Dalchenko, M. De Mattia, A. Delgado, S. Dildick, R.
Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T. Kamon72, S. Luo, 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, 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, M. Verweij, Q.
Xu University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
M.W. Arenton, P. Barria, B. Cox, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A. Ledovskoy, H. Li, C.
Neu, 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, B.
Gomber, M. Grothe, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, P. Klabbers, A. Lanaro,
A. Levine, K. Long, R. Loveless, 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 Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
6: Also at University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
7: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
8: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
9: Also at Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
10: Also at Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
11: Now at Zewail City of Science and Technology, Zewail, 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 CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
16: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
17: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
18: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
19: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
20: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
21: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
22: Also at Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India
23: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
24: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India
25: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
26: Also at Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
27: Also at Plasma Physics Research Center, Science and Research Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
28: Also at Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy
29: Also at Kyunghee University, Seoul, Korea
30: Also at International Islamic University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
31: Also at Malaysian Nuclear Agency, MOSTI, Kajang, Malaysia
32: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico city, Mexico
33: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems,
Warsaw, Poland
34: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
35: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
36: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
37: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
38: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
39: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
40: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
41: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
42: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
43: Also at University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of
Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
44: Also at Scuola Normale e Sezione dell’INFN, Pisa, Italy
45: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
46: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
47: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
48: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics (SMI), Vienna,
Austria
49: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
50: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey
51: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
52: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
53: Also at Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey
54: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
55: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
56: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
57: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
58: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
59: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
60: Also at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
61: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
62: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia
63: Also at Bethel University, St. Paul, USA
64: Also at Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey
65: Also at Utah Valley University, Orem, USA
66: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
67: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey
68: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
69: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
70: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
71: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
72: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea