SMP-19-012

SMP-19-012

[inst1]CMS experiment

# Measurements of production cross sections of $\PW\cPZ$ and same-sign
$\PW\PW$ boson pairs in association with two jets in proton-proton collisions
at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$

###### Abstract

Measurements of production cross sections of $\PW\cPZ$ and same-sign $\PW\PW$
boson pairs in association with two jets in proton-proton collisions at
$\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ at the LHC are reported. The data sample corresponds to an
integrated luminosity of 137, collected with the CMS detector during
2016–2018. The measurements are performed in the leptonic decay modes
$\PW^{\pm}\cPZ\to\ell^{\pm}\PGn\ell^{\prime\pm}\ell^{\prime\mp}$ and
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}\to\ell^{\pm}\PGn\ell^{\prime\pm}\PGn$, where
$\ell,\ell^{\prime}=\Pe$, $\PGm$. Differential fiducial cross sections as
functions of the invariant masses of the jet and charged lepton pairs, as well
as of the leading-lepton transverse momentum, are measured for
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ production and are consistent with the standard model
predictions. The dependence of differential cross sections on the invariant
mass of the jet pair is also measured for $\PW\cPZ$ production. An observation
of electroweak production of $\PW\cPZ$ boson pairs is reported with an
observed (expected) significance of 6.8 (5.3) standard deviations. Constraints
are obtained on the structure of quartic vector boson interactions in the
framework of effective field theory.

##  0.1 Introduction

The observation of a Higgs boson with a mass of about 125 [1, 2, 3]
established that the $\PW$ and $\cPZ$ gauge bosons acquire mass via the
Brout–Englert–Higgs mechanism [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. Further insight into the
electroweak (EW) symmetry breaking mechanism can be achieved through
measurements of vector boson scattering (VBS) processes [10, 11]. At the CERN
LHC interactions from VBS are characterized by the presence of two gauge
bosons, in association with two forward jets with large dijet invariant mass
and large rapidity separation, as shown in Fig. 1. They are part of a class of
processes contributing to diboson plus two jets production that proceeds via
the EW interaction, referred to as EW-induced diboson production, at tree
level, $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{4})$, where $\alpha$ is the EW coupling. An
additional contribution to the diboson states arises via quantum
chromodynamics (QCD) radiation of partons from an incoming quark or gluon,
leading to tree-level contributions at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{2}\alpS^{2})$,
where $\alpS$ is the strong coupling. This class of processes is referred to
as QCD-induced diboson production.

Modifications of the VBS production cross sections are predicted in models of
physics beyond the standard model (SM), for example through changes to the
Higgs boson couplings to gauge bosons [10, 11]. In addition, the non-Abelian
gauge structure of the EW sector of the SM predicts self-interactions between
gauge bosons through triple and quartic gauge couplings, which can be probed
via measurements of VBS processes [12, 13]. The possible presence of anomalous
quartic gauge couplings (aQGC) could result in an excess of events with
respect to the SM predictions [14].

This letter presents a study of VBS in $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and $\PW\cPZ$
channels using proton-proton ($\Pp\Pp$) collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$. For
the $\PW\PW$ measurement, the same-sign $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ channel is chosen
because of the smaller background yield from SM processes compared to
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\mp}$. The data sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity
of $137\pm 2\fbinv$ [15, 16, 17] collected with the CMS detector [18] in three
separate LHC operating periods during 2016, 2017, and 2018. The three data
sets are analyzed independently, with appropriate calibrations and
corrections, to account for the various LHC running conditions and the
performance of the CMS detector.

The measurements are performed in the leptonic decay modes
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}\to\ell^{\pm}\PGn\ell^{\prime\pm}\PGn$ and
$\PW^{\pm}\cPZ\to\ell^{\pm}\PGn\ell^{\prime\pm}\ell^{\prime\mp}$, where
$\ell,\ell^{\prime}=\Pe$, $\PGm$. Figure 1 shows representative Feynman
diagrams involving quartic vertices. Candidate events contain either two
identified leptons of the same charge or three identified charged leptons with
the total charge of $\pm$1, moderate missing transverse momentum ($\ptmiss$),
and two jets with a large rapidity separation and a large dijet mass. The
requirements on the dijet mass and rapidity separation reduce the contribution
from the QCD-induced production of boson pairs in association with two jets,
making the experimental signature an ideal topology for VBS studies. Figure 2
shows representative Feynman diagrams of the QCD-induced production. The EW
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and $\PW\cPZ$ production cross sections are
simultaneously measured by performing a binned maximum-likelihood fit of
several distributions sensitive to these processes.

Figure 1: Representative Feynman diagrams of a VBS process contributing to the
EW-induced production of events containing $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ (left) and
$\PW\cPZ$ (right) boson pairs decaying to leptons, and two forward jets. New
physics (represented by a dashed circle) in the EW sector can modify the
quartic gauge couplings.

Figure 2: Representative Feynman diagrams of the QCD-induced production of
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ (left) and $\PW\cPZ$ (right) boson pairs decaying to
leptons, and two jets.

The EW production of $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ at the LHC in the leptonic decay
modes has been previously measured at $\sqrt{s}=8$ and 13 [19, 20, 21, 22].
The ATLAS and CMS Collaborations reported observations of the EW
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ production at 13with a significance greater than 5
standard deviations using the data collected in 2016, corresponding to
integrated luminosities of approximately 36. The EW $\PW\cPZ$ production in
the fully leptonic decay modes has been studied at 8 and 13 [23, 24, 25]; the
ATLAS Collaboration reported an observation at 13with a significance greater
than 5 standard deviations. The EW production of $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and
$\PW\cPZ$ boson pairs has also been studied in semileptonic final states [26].
Limits on aQGCs were also reported in Refs. [27, 28].

##  0.2 The CMS detector

The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6m
internal diameter, providing a magnetic field of 3.8T. Within the solenoid
volume are a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead-tungstate crystal
electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), and a brass and scintillator hadron
calorimeter, each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. Forward
calorimeters extend the pseudorapidity ($\eta$) coverage provided by the
barrel and endcap detectors up to $\abs{\eta}<5$. Muons are detected in gas-
ionization chambers embedded in the steel magnetic flux-return yoke outside
the solenoid. A more detailed description of the CMS detector, together with a
definition of the coordinate system and the relevant kinematic variables, is
reported in Ref. [18]. Events of interest are selected using a two-tiered
trigger system [29]. The first level, composed of custom hardware processors,
uses information from the calorimeters and muon detectors to select events at
a rate of around 100kHz with a latency of 4. The second level, known as the
high-level trigger, consists of a farm of processors running a version of the
full event reconstruction software optimized for fast processing, and reduces
the event rate to around 1kHz before data storage.

##  0.3 Signal and background simulation

Multiple Monte Carlo (MC) event generators are used to simulate the signal and
background contributions. Three sets of simulated events for each process are
needed to match the data-taking conditions in the various years.

The SM EW $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and $\PW\cPZ$ processes, where both bosons
decay leptonically, are simulated using 2.4.2 [30, Madgraph, 31] at leading
order (LO) accuracy with six EW ($\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{6})$) and zero QCD
vertices. 2.4.2 is also used to simulate the QCD-induced $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$
process. Contributions with an initial-state quark are excluded from the EW
$\PW\cPZ$ simulation because they are considered part of the $\PQt\cPZ\Pq$
background process. Triboson processes, where the $\PW\cPZ$ boson pair is
accompanied by a third vector boson that decays into jets, are included in the
simulation. The simulation of the aQGC processes uses the generator and
employs matrix element reweighting to obtain a finely spaced grid of
parameters for each of the probed anomalous couplings [32]. The QCD-induced
$\PW\cPZ$ process is simulated at LO with up to three additional partons in
the matrix element calculations using the generator with at least one QCD
vertex at tree level. The different jet multiplicities are merged using the
MLM scheme [33] to match matrix element and parton shower jets, and the
inclusive contribution is normalized to next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO)
predictions [34]. The interference between the EW and QCD diagrams is also
produced with . The contribution of the interference is considered to be part
of the EW production, leading to an increase of about 4 and 1% of the expected
yields of the EW $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and $\PW\cPZ$ processes in the fiducial
region, respectively.

A complete set of next-to-leading order (NLO) QCD and EW corrections for the
leptonic $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ scattering process have been computed [35, 36]
and they reduce the LO cross section of the EW $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ process at
the level of 10-15%, with the correction increasing in magnitude with
increasing dilepton and dijet invariant masses. Similarly, the NLO QCD and EW
corrections for the leptonic $\PW\cPZ$ scattering process have been computed
at the orders of $\mathcal{O}(\alpS\alpha^{6})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{7})$
[37], reducing the cross sections for the EW $\PW\cPZ$ process at the level of
10%. The predictions for the cross sections of the EW $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and
$\PW\cPZ$ processes are also made after applying these
$\mathcal{O}(\alpS\alpha^{6})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{7})$ corrections to LO
cross sections. These corrections have approximately 1% effect on the
measurements and are not included at the data analysis level. Satisfactory
agreement between predictions from and various event generators and fixed-
order calculations in the fiducial region is reported in Ref. [38].

The $\POWHEG$ v2 [39, 40, 41, 42, 43] generator is used to simulate the
$\ttbar$, $\PQt\PW$, and other diboson processes at NLO accuracy in QCD.
Production of $\ttbar\PW$, $\ttbar\cPZ$, $\ttbar\gamma$, and triple vector
boson ($\PV\PV\PV$) background events is simulated at NLO accuracy in QCD
using the 2.2.2 (2.4.2) generator [30, Madgraph, 31] for 2016 (2017 and 2018)
samples. The $\PQt\cPZ\Pq$ process is simulated at NLO in the four-flavor
scheme using 2.3.3. The MC simulation is normalized using a cross section
computed at NLO with in the five-flavor scheme, following the procedure of
Ref. [44]. The double parton scattering $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ production is
generated at LO using $\PYTHIA$ 8.226 (8.230) [45] in 2016 (2017 and 2018).

The NNPDF 3.0 NLO [46] (NNPDF 3.1 NNLO [47]) parton distribution functions
(PDFs) are used for simulating all 2016 (2017 and 2018) samples. For all
processes, the parton showering and hadronization are simulated using
$\PYTHIA$ 8.226 (8.230) in 2016 (2017 and 2018). The modeling of the
underlying event is generated using the CUETP8M1 [48, 49] (CP5 [50]) tune for
simulated samples corresponding to the 2016 (2017 and 2018) data.

All MC generated events are processed through a simulation of the CMS detector
based on [51] and are reconstructed with the same algorithms used for data.
Additional $\Pp\Pp$ interactions in the same and nearby bunch crossings,
referred to as pileup, are also simulated. The distribution of the number of
pileup interactions in the simulation is adjusted to match the one observed in
the data. The average number of pileup interactions was 23 (32) in 2016 (2017
and 2018).

##  0.4 Event reconstruction

The CMS particle-flow (PF) algorithm [52] is used to combine the information
from all subdetectors for particle reconstruction and identification. The
vector $\ptvecmiss$ is defined as the projection onto the plane perpendicular
to the beam axis of the negative vector momentum sum of all reconstructed PF
objects in an event. Its magnitude is referred to as $\ptmiss$.

Jets are reconstructed by clustering PF candidates using the anti-algorithm
[53] with a distance parameter R = 0.4. Jets are calibrated in the simulation,
and separately in data, accounting for energy deposits of neutral particles
from pileup and any nonlinear detector response [54, 55]. Jets with transverse
momentum $\pt>50\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<4.7$ are included in the analysis. The
effect of pileup is mitigated through a charged-hadron subtraction technique,
which removes the energy of charged hadrons not originating from the event
primary vertex (PV) [56]. Jet energy corrections to the detector measurements
are propagated to $\ptmiss$ [57]. The PV is defined as the vertex with the
largest value of summed physics-object $\pt^{2}$. Here, the physics objects
are the jets clustered using the jet finding algorithm [53, 58] with the
tracks assigned to the vertex as inputs, and the associated $\ptmiss$, taken
as the negative vector $\pt$ sum of those jets.

The DeepCSV tagging algorithm [59] is used to identify events containing a jet
that is consistent with the fragmentation of a bottom quark. This tagging
algorithm, an improved version of previous taggers, was developed using a deep
neural network with a more sophisticated architecture and it provides a
simultaneous training in both secondary vertex categories and jet flavors. For
the chosen working point, the efficiency to select quark jets is about 72% and
the rate for incorrectly tagging jets originating from the hadronization of
gluons or $\cPqu$, $\cPqd$, $\cPqs$ quarks is about 1%.

Electrons and muons are reconstructed by associating a track reconstructed in
the tracking detectors with either a cluster of energy in the ECAL [60] or a
track in the muon system [61]. Electrons (muons) must pass “loose”
identification criteria with $\pt>10\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.5$ (2.4) to be
selected for the analysis. At the final stage of the lepton selection, tight
working points, following the definitions provided in Refs. [60, 61], are
chosen for the identification criteria, including requirements on the impact
parameter of the candidates with respect to the PV and their isolation with
respect to other particles in the event [62]. For electrons, the background
contribution coming from a mismeasurement of the track charge is not
negligible. The sign of this charge is evaluated with three different
observables that measure the electron curvature using different methods;
requiring all three charge evaluations to agree reduces this background
contribution by a factor of five with an efficiency of about 97% [60]. For
muons, the charge mismeasurement is negligible [63, 64].

##  0.5 Event selection

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

Several selection requirements are used to isolate the VBS topology by
reducing the contributions from background processes. By inverting some of
these selection requirements we can select background-enriched control regions
(CRs). In the offline analysis, events with two or three isolated charged
leptons with $\pt>10\GeV$ and at least two jets with $\pt^{\mathrm{j}}>50\GeV$
and $\abs{\eta}<4.7$ are accepted as candidate events. Jets that are within
$\Delta R=\sqrt{\smash[b]{(\Delta\eta)^{2}+(\Delta\phi)^{2}}}<0.4$ of one of
the identified charged leptons are excluded. Candidate events with four or
more charged leptons satisfying the loose identification criteria are
rejected.

In the $\PW\cPZ$ candidate events, one of the oppositely charged same-flavor
leptons from the $\cPZ$ boson candidate is required to have $\pt>25\GeV$ and
the other $\pt>10\GeV$ with the invariant mass of the dilepton pair
$m_{\ell\ell}$ satisfying $\abs{m_{\ell\ell}-m_{\cPZ}}<15\GeV$. In candidate
events with three same-flavor leptons, the oppositely charged lepton pair with
the invariant mass closest to the nominal $\cPZ$ boson mass $m_{\cPZ}$ [65] is
selected as the $\cPZ$ boson candidate. The third lepton with $\pt>20\GeV$ is
associated with the $\PW$ boson. In addition, the trilepton invariant mass
$m_{\ell\ell\ell}$ is required to exceed 100.

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

The VBS topology is targeted by requiring a large dijet invariant mass
$m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}>500\GeV$ and a large pseudorapidity separation
$\abs{\Delta\eta_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}}>2.5$. The candidate
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ ($\PW\cPZ$) events are also required to have
$\max(z_{\ell}^{*})<$0.75 (1.0), where

$z_{\ell}^{*}=\Bigl{|}\eta^{\ell}-\frac{\eta^{\mathrm{j}_{1}}+\eta^{\mathrm{j}_{2}}}{2}\Bigr{|}/\abs{\Delta\eta_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}}$
(1)

is the Zeppenfeld variable [66], $\eta^{\ell}$ is the pseudorapidity of a
lepton, and $\eta^{\mathrm{j}_{1}}$ and $\eta^{\mathrm{j}_{2}}$ are the
pseudorapidities of the two candidate VBS jets. In the case of more than two
jet candidates, the two jets with the largest $\pt$ are selected.

The $\ptmiss$ associated with the undetected neutrinos is required to be
greater than 30\. The list of selection requirements used to define the same-
sign $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and $\PW\cPZ$ signal regions (SRs) is summarized in
Table 0.5. The $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ SR is dominated by the EW signal process,
whereas the $\PW\cPZ$ SR has a very large component of the QCD $\PW\cPZ$
process, as seen in Table 0.8.

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

##  0.6 Background estimation

A combination of methods based on CRs in data and simulation is used to
estimate background contributions. Uncertainties related to the theoretical
and experimental predictions are estimated as described in Section 0.7. The
normalization of the $\PW\cPZ$ contribution in the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ SR is
constrained by the data in the $\PW\cPZ$ SR, which is evaluated simultaneously
for the extraction of results. The background contribution from charge
misidentification (wrong-sign) is estimated by applying a data-to-simulation
efficiency correction due to charge-misidentified electrons. The electron
charge misidentification rate, estimated using Drell–Yan events, is about 0.01
(0.3)% in the barrel (endcap) region [60, 67].

The nonprompt lepton backgrounds originating from leptonic decays of heavy
quarks, hadrons misidentified as leptons, and electrons from photon
conversions are suppressed by the identification and isolation requirements
imposed on electrons and muons. The remaining contribution from the nonprompt
lepton background is estimated directly from a data sample following the
technique described in Ref. [19]. This sample is selected by choosing events
using the final selection criteria, except for one of the leptons for which
the selection is relaxed to a looser criteria and that has failed the nominal
selection. The yield in this sample is extrapolated to the signal region using
the efficiencies for such loosely identified leptons to pass the standard
lepton selection criteria. This efficiency is calculated in a sample of events
dominated by dijet production. A normalization uncertainty of 20% is assigned
for the nonprompt lepton background to include possible differences in the
composition of jets between the data sample used to derive these efficiencies
and the data samples in the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and $\PW\cPZ$ SRs [62].

Three CRs are used to select nonprompt lepton, $\PQt\cPZ\Pq$, and $\cPZ\cPZ$
background-enriched events to further estimate these processes from data. The
$\cPZ\cPZ$ process is treated as background since the analysis selection is
not sensitive to the EW $\cPZ\cPZ$ production. The nonprompt lepton CR is
defined by requiring the same selection as for the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ SR,
but with the quark veto requirement inverted. The selected events are enriched
with the nonprompt lepton background, coming mostly from semileptonic $\ttbar$
events, and further estimates the contribution of this background process in
the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ SR. Similarly, the $\PQt\cPZ\Pq$ CR is defined by
requiring the same selection as for the $\PW\cPZ$ SR, but with the quark veto
requirement inverted. The selected events are dominated by the $\PQt\cPZ\Pq$
background process. Finally, the $\cPZ\cPZ$ CR selects events with four
leptons with the same VBS-like requirements. The three CRs are used to
estimate the normalization of the main background processes from data. All
other background processes are estimated from simulation after applying
corrections to account for small differences between data and simulation.

Two sets of additional CRs are defined for the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and
$\PW\cPZ$ measurements to validate the predictions of the background
processes. The first CR is defined by requiring the same selection as for the
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ SR, but with a requirement of
$200<m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}<500\GeV$. The second CR is defined by selecting
events satisfying the requirements on the leptons, $\pt^{\mathrm{j}}$, and
$m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$, but with at least one of the other requirements in
Table 0.5 not satisfied. Good agreement between the data and predicted yields
is observed in all these regions.

##  0.7 Systematic uncertainties

Multiple sources of systematic uncertainty are estimated for these
measurements. Independent sources of uncertainty are treated as uncorrelated.
The impact in different bins of a differential distribution is considered
fully correlated for each source of uncertainty.

The uncertainties in the integrated luminosity measurements for the data used
in this analysis are 2.5, 2.3, and 2.5% for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data
samples [15, 16, 17], respectively. They are treated as uncorrelated across
the three data sets.

The simulation of pileup events assumes a total inelastic $\Pp\Pp$ cross
section of 69.2mb, with an associated uncertainty of 5% [68, 69], which has an
impact on the expected signal and background yields of about 1%.

Discrepancies in the lepton reconstruction and identification efficiencies
between data and simulation are corrected by applying scale factors to all
simulation samples. These scale factors, which depend on the $\pt$ and $\eta$
for both electrons and muons, are determined using $\cPZ\to\ell\ell$ events in
the $\cPZ$ boson peak region that were recorded with independent triggers [61,
60, 70]. The uncertainty in the determination of the trigger efficiency leads
to an uncertainty smaller than 1% in the expected signal yield. The lepton
momentum scale uncertainty is computed by varying the momenta of the leptons
in simulation by their uncertainties, and repeating the analysis selection.
The resulting uncertainties in the yields are $\approx$1% for both electrons
and muons. These uncertainties are treated as correlated across the three data
sets.

The uncertainty in the calibration of the jet energy scale (JES) directly
affects the acceptance of the jet multiplicity requirement and the $\ptmiss$
measurement. These effects are estimated by shifting the JES in the simulation
up and down by one standard deviation. The uncertainty in the JES is 2–5%,
depending on $\pt$ and $\eta$ [54, 55], and the impact on the expected signal
and background yields is about 3%. There is a larger JES uncertainty in the EW
$\PW\cPZ$ cross section measurement since a multivariate analysis is used for
the measurement, which helps discriminate against the background processes,
but also increases the corresponding uncertainty, as seen in Table 0.7.

The tagging efficiency in the simulation is corrected using scale factors
determined from data [59]. These values are estimated separately for correctly
and incorrectly identified jets. Each set of values results in uncertainties
in the tagging efficiency of about 1–4%, and the impact on the expected signal
and background yields is about 1%. The uncertainties in the JES and tagging
are treated as uncorrelated across the three data sets.

Because of the choice of the QCD renormalization and factorization scales, the
theoretical uncertainties are estimated by varying these scales independently
up and down by a factor of two from their nominal values (excluding the two
extreme variations) and taking the largest cross section variations as the
uncertainty [38]. The PDF uncertainties are evaluated according to the
procedure described in Ref. [71]. The statistical uncertainties that are
associated with the limited number of simulated events and data events used to
estimate the nonprompt lepton background are also considered as systematic
uncertainties; the data events are the dominant contribution.

A summary of the relative systematic uncertainties in the EW
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and $\PW\cPZ$ cross sections is shown in Table 0.7. The
slightly larger theoretical uncertainty in the EW $\PW\cPZ$ cross section
measurement arises from the difficulty of disentangling the EW and QCD
components in the discriminant fit.

Relative systematic uncertainties in the EW $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and $\PW\cPZ$
cross section measurements in units of percent.  Source of uncertainty
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ (%) $\PW\cPZ$ (%) Integrated luminosity 1.5 1.6 Lepton
measurement 1.8 2.9 Jet energy scale and resolution 1.5 4.3 Pileup 0.1 0.4
tagging 1.0 1.0 Nonprompt rate 3.5 1.4 Trigger 1.1 1.1 Limited sample size 2.6
3.7 Theory 1.9 3.8 Total systematic uncertainty 5.7 7.9 Statistical
uncertainty 8.9 22 Total uncertainty 11 23

##  0.8 Results

To discriminate between the signals and the remaining backgrounds, a binned
maximum-likelihood fit is performed using the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and
$\PW\cPZ$ SRs, and the nonprompt lepton, $\PQt\cPZ\Pq$, and $\cPZ\cPZ$ CRs.
The normalization factors for the $\PQt\cPZ\Pq$ and $\cPZ\cPZ$ background
processes are included in the maximum-likelihood fit together with the EW
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$, EW $\PW\cPZ$, and QCD $\PW\cPZ$ signal cross sections.
The QCD $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ contribution is small and is taken from the SM
prediction. The systematic uncertainties are treated as nuisance parameters in
the fit [72, 73].

The value of $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ is effective in discriminating between
the signal and background processes because VBS topologies typically exhibit
large values for the dijet mass. The value of $m_{\ell\ell}$ is also effective
in discriminating between signal and background processes because the
nonprompt lepton processes tend to have rather small $m_{\ell\ell}$ values. A
two-dimensional distribution is used in the fit for the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$
SR with 8 bins in $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ ([500, 650, 800, 1000, 1200,
1500, 1800, 2300, $\infty$]) and 4 bins in $m_{\ell\ell}$ ([20, 80, 140, 240,
$\infty$]).

A boosted decision tree (BDT) is trained using the tmva package [74] with
gradient boosting and optimized on simulated events to better separate the EW
$\PW\cPZ$ and QCD $\PW\cPZ$ processes in the $\PW\cPZ$ SR by exploring the
kinematic differences. Several discriminating observables are used as the BDT
inputs, including the jet and lepton kinematics and $\ptmiss$, as listed in
Table 0.8. A larger set of discriminating observables was studied, but only
variables improving the sensitivity and showing some signal-to-background
separation are retained. The BDT score distribution is used for the $\PW\cPZ$
SR in the fit with 8 bins ([-1, -0.28, 0.0, 0.23, 0.43, 0.60, 0.74, 0.86, 1]).
The $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ distribution is used for the CRs in the fit
with 4 bins ([500, 800, 1200, 1800, $\infty$]). The bin boundaries are chosen
to have the same EW $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and $\PW\cPZ$ contributions across
the bins as expected from simulation.

List and description of all the input variables used in the BDT analysis for
the $\PW\cPZ$ SR.  Variable Definition $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ Mass of the
leading and trailing jets system $\abs{\Delta\eta_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}}$
Absolute difference in rapidity of the leading and trailing jets
$\Delta\phi_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ Absolute difference in azimuthal angles of
the leading and trailing jets $\pt^{\mathrm{j}1}$ $\pt$ of the leading jet
$\pt^{\mathrm{j}2}$ $\pt$ of the trailing jet $\eta^{\mathrm{j}1}$
Pseudorapidity of the leading jet $\abs{\eta^{\PW}-\eta^{\cPZ}}$ Absolute
difference between the rapidities of the $\cPZ$ boson and the charged lepton
from the decay of the $\PW$ boson $z_{\ell_{i}}^{*}(i=1-3)$ Zeppenfeld
variable of the three selected leptons $z_{3\ell}^{*}$ Zeppenfeld variable of
the vector sum of the three leptons $\Delta R_{\mathrm{j}1,\cPZ}$ $\Delta R$
between the leading jet and the $\cPZ$ boson
$\abs{\vec{\pt}^{\mathrm{tot}}}/\sum_{i}\pt^{i}$ Transverse component of the
vector sum of the bosons and tagging jets momenta, normalized to their scalar
$\pt$ sum

The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ and $m_{\ell\ell}$ in the
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ SR, and the distributions of $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$
and BDT score in the $\PW\cPZ$ SR are shown in Fig. 3. The data yields,
together with the numbers of fitted signal and background events, are given in
Table 0.8. The table also shows the result of a fit to the Asimov data set
[75]. The significance of the EW $\PW\cPZ$ signal is quantified from the
p-value using a profile ratio test statistic [72, 73] and asymptotic results
for the test statistic [75]. The observed (expected) statistical significance
of the EW $\PW\cPZ$ signal is 6.8 (5.3) standard deviations, while the
statistical significance of the EW $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ signal is far above 5
standard deviations.

Figure 3: Distributions of $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ (upper left) and
$m_{\ell\ell}$ (upper right) in the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ SR, and the
distributions of $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ (lower left) and BDT score (lower
right) in the $\PW\cPZ$ SR. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit
normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points
represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The contribution of the QCD
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ process is included together with the EW
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ process. The histograms for $\PQt\PV\mathrm{x}$
backgrounds include the contributions from $\ttbar\PV$ and $\PQt\cPZ\Pq$
processes. The histograms for other backgrounds include the contributions from
double parton scattering and $\PV\PV\PV$ processes. The histograms for wrong-
sign background include the contributions from oppositely charged dilepton
final states from $\ttbar$, $\PQt\PW$, $\PW^{+}\PW^{-}$, and Drell–Yan
processes. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each
figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the
total SM prediction. The gray bands represent the uncertainties in the
predicted yields.

Expected yields from SM processes and observed data events in
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and $\PW\cPZ$ SRs. The combination of the statistical and
systematic uncertainties is shown. The expected yields are shown with their
best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit to the Asimov data set and
to the data. The signal yields do not include the QCD and EW NLO corrections.
Process $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ SR $\PW\cPZ$ SR Asimov data set Data Asimov data
set Data EW $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ 209 $\pm$ 26 210 $\pm$ 26 QCD
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ 13.8 $\pm$ 1.6 13.7 $\pm$ 2.2 Interference
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ 8.4 $\pm$ 2.3 8.7 $\pm$ 2.3 EW $\PW\cPZ$ 14.1 $\pm$ 4.0
17.8 $\pm$ 3.9 54 $\pm$ 15 69 $\pm$ 15 QCD $\PW\cPZ$ 43 $\pm$ 6.7 42.7 $\pm$
7.4 118 $\pm$ 17 117 $\pm$ 17 Interference $\PW\cPZ$ 0.3 $\pm$ 0.1 0.3 $\pm$
0.2 2.2 $\pm$ 0.9 2.7 $\pm$ 1.0 $\cPZ\cPZ$ 0.7 $\pm$ 0.2 0.7 $\pm$ 0.2 6.1
$\pm$ 1.7 6.0 $\pm$ 1.8 Nonprompt 211 $\pm$ 43 193 $\pm$ 40 14.6 $\pm$ 7.4
14.4 $\pm$ 6.7 $\PQt\PV\mathrm{x}$ 7.8 $\pm$ 1.9 7.4 $\pm$ 2.2 15.1 $\pm$ 2.7
14.3 $\pm$ 2.8 $\PW\gamma$ 9.0 $\pm$ 1.8 9.1 $\pm$ 2.9 1.1 $\pm$ 0.3 1.1 $\pm$
0.4 Wrong-sign 13.5 $\pm$ 6.5 13.9 $\pm$ 6.5 1.6 $\pm$ 0.5 1.7 $\pm$ 0.7 Other
background 5.0 $\pm$ 1.3 5.2 $\pm$ 2.1 3.3 $\pm$ 0.6 3.3 $\pm$ 0.7 Total SM
535 $\pm$ 52 522 $\pm$ 49 216 $\pm$ 21 229 $\pm$ 23 Data 524 229

###  0.8.1 Inclusive and differential fiducial cross section measurements

The fiducial region is defined by a common set of kinematic requirements in
the muon and electron final states at the generator level, emulating the
selection performed at the reconstruction level. The measured distributions,
after subtracting the contributions from the background processes, are
corrected for detector resolution effects and inefficiencies. The leptons at
generator level are selected at the so-called dressed level by combining the
four-momentum of each lepton after the final-state photon radiation with that
of photons found within a cone of $\Delta R=0.1$ around the lepton. The
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ fiducial region is defined by requiring two same-sign
leptons with $\pt>20\GeV$, $\abs{\eta}<2.5$, and $m_{\ell\ell}>20\GeV$, and
two jets with $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}>500\GeV$ and
$\abs{\Delta\eta_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}}>2.5$. The jets at generator level are
clustered from stable particles, excluding neutrinos, using the anti-$\kt$
clustering algorithm with R = 0.4, and are required to have $\pt>50\GeV$ and
$\abs{\eta}<4.7$. The jets within $\Delta R<0.4$ of the selected charged
leptons are not included. The $\PW\cPZ$ fiducial region is defined by
requiring three leptons with $\pt>20\GeV$, $\abs{\eta}<2.5$, a pair of
opposite charge same-flavor lepton pair with
$\abs{m_{\ell\ell}-m_{\cPZ}}<15\GeV$, and two jets with
$m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}>500\GeV$ and
$\abs{\Delta\eta_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}}>2.5$. is used to extrapolate from the
reconstruction level to the fiducial phase space. Electrons and muons produced
in the decay of a $\tau$ lepton are not included in the definition of the
fiducial region. Nonfiducial events, $\ie$, events selected at the
reconstructed level that do not satisfy the fiducial requirements, are
included as background processes in the simultaneous fit.

Inclusive cross section measurements for the EW $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$, EW+QCD
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$, EW $\PW\cPZ$, QCD $\PW\cPZ$, and EW+QCD $\PW\cPZ$
processes, and the theoretical predictions are summarized in Table 0.8.1. To
perform absolute and normalized differential production cross section
measurements, signal templates from different bins of differential-basis
observable values predicted by the event generator are built. Each signal
template is considered as a separate process in the simultaneous binned
maximum-likelihood fit. In the normalized cross section measurements, the
individual cross sections in every fiducial region and the total production
cross section are simultaneously evaluated, reducing the systematic
uncertainties. The signal extraction at reconstruction level and the unfolding
into the generator level bins are performed in a single step in the
simultaneous fit. The bin migration effects due to the detector resolution are
negligible. The measurement is compared with the predictions at LO. The
predictions including the $\mathcal{O}(\alpS\alpha^{6})$ and
$\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{7})$ corrections in the EW $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and
$\PW\cPZ$ processes are also included in Table 0.8.1. The measured absolute
and normalized $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ differential cross sections in bins of
$m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$, $m_{\ell\ell}$, and leading lepton $\pt$
($\pt^{\text{max}}$) are shown in Fig. 4. The absolute cross sections are
shown in fb per , while the normalized cross sections are shown in units of
1/bin. The $\pt^{\text{max}}$ differential cross section measurements are
performed by replacing the $m_{\ell\ell}$ variable by the $\pt^{\text{max}}$
variable in the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ SR in the simultaneous fit. The measured
absolute and normalized $\PW\cPZ$ differential cross sections in bins of
$m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ are shown in Fig. 5. The $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$
differential cross section measurements are estimated by replacing the BDT
variable by the $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ variable with 8 bins ([500, 650,
800, 1000, 1200, 1500, 1800, 2300, $\infty$]) in the $\PW\cPZ$ SR in the
simultaneous fit. The measured cross section values agree with the theoretical
predictions within the uncertainties.

The measured inclusive cross sections for the EW $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$, EW+QCD
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$, EW $\PW\cPZ$, EW+QCD $\PW\cPZ$, and QCD $\PW\cPZ$
processes and the theoretical predictions with at LO. The EW processes include
the corresponding interference contributions. The theoretical uncertainties
include statistical, PDF, and scale uncertainties. Predictions with applying
the $\mathcal{O}(\alpS\alpha^{6})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{7})$ corrections
to the LO cross sections, as described in the text, are also shown. The
predictions of the QCD $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and $\PW\cPZ$ processes do not
include additional corrections. All reported values are in fb.  Process
$\sigma\,\mathcal{B}$ (fb) Theoretical prediction Theoretical prediction
without NLO corrections (fb) with NLO corrections (fb) EW $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$
$3.98\pm 0.45$ $3.93\pm 0.57$ $3.31\pm 0.47$ $0.37\stat\pm 0.25\syst$ EW+QCD
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ $4.42\pm 0.47$ $4.34\pm 0.69$ $3.72\pm 0.59$
$0.39\stat\pm 0.25\syst$ EW $\PW\cPZ$ $1.81\pm 0.41$ $1.41\pm 0.21$ $1.24\pm
0.18$ $0.39\stat\pm 0.14\syst$ EW+QCD $\PW\cPZ$ $4.97\pm 0.46$ $4.54\pm 0.90$
$4.36\pm 0.88$ $0.40\stat\pm 0.23\syst$ QCD $\PW\cPZ$ $3.15\pm 0.49$ $3.12\pm
0.70$ $3.12\pm 0.70$ $0.45\stat\pm 0.18\syst$

Figure 4: The measured absolute (left) and normalized (right)
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ cross section measurements in bins of
$m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ (upper), $m_{\ell\ell}$ (middle), and
$\pt^{\text{max}}$ (lower). The ratios of the predictions to the data are also
shown. The measurements are compared with the predictions from at LO. The
shaded bands around the data points correspond to the measurement uncertainty.
The error bars around the predictions correspond to the combined statistical,
PDF, and scale uncertainties. Predictions with applying the
$\mathcal{O}(\alpS\alpha^{6})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{7})$ corrections to
the LO cross sections, as described in the text, are also shown (dashed blue).

Figure 5: The measured absolute (left) and normalized (right) $\PW\cPZ$ cross
section measurements in bins of $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$. The ratios of the
predictions to the data are also shown. The measurements are compared with the
predictions from at LO. The shaded bands around the data points correspond to
the measurement uncertainty. The error bars around the predictions correspond
to the combined statistical, PDF, and scale uncertainties. Predictions with
applying the $\mathcal{O}(\alpS\alpha^{6})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{7})$
corrections to the LO cross sections, as described in the text, are shown
(dashed blue). The predictions in the EW total cross sections are also shown
(dark cyan).

###  0.8.2 Limits on anomalous quartic gauge couplings

The events in the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and $\PW\cPZ$ SRs are used to constrain
aQGCs in the effective field theory (EFT) framework [76]. Nine independent
charge-conjugate and parity conserving dimension-8 effective operators are
considered [14]. The S0 and S1 operators are constructed from the covariant
derivative of the Higgs doublet. The T0, T1, and T2 operators are constructed
from the SUL(2) gauge fields. The mixed operators M0, M1, M6, and M7 involve
the SUL(2) gauge fields and the Higgs doublet.

A nonzero aQGC enhances the production cross section at large masses of the
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and $\PW\cPZ$ systems with respect to the SM prediction.
The diboson transverse mass, defined as

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

where $E_{i}$ and $p_{z,i}$ are the energies and longitudinal components of
the momenta of the leptons and neutrinos from the decay of the gauge bosons in
the event, is used in the fit for both $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and $\PW\cPZ$
processes. The four-momentum of the neutrino system is defined using the
$\ptvecmiss$, assuming that the values of the longitudinal component of the
momentum and the invariant mass are zero.

A two-dimensional distribution is used in the fit for the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$
process with 5 bins in $\mT(\PW\PW)$ ([0, 350, 650, 850, 1050, $\infty$]) and
4 bins in $m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ ([500, 800, 1200, 1800, $\infty$]). The
SM $\PW\cPZ$ contribution is considered to be background. Similarly, a two-
dimensional distribution is used in the fit for the $\PW\cPZ$ process with 5
bins in $\mT(\PW\cPZ)$ ([0, 400, 750, 1050, 1350, $\infty$]) and 2 bins in
$m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ ([500, 1200, $\infty$]). The
$m_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{j}}$ distribution is used for the nonprompt lepton,
$\PQt\cPZ\Pq$, and $\cPZ\cPZ$ CRs in both fits with 4 bins ([500, 800, 1200,
1800, $\infty$]). The distributions of $\mT(\PV\PV)$ in the
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and $\PW\cPZ$ SRs are shown in Fig. 6.

Figure 6: Distributions of $\mT(\PW\PW)$ (left) in the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ SR
and $\mT(\PW\cPZ)$ (right) in the $\PW\cPZ$ SR. The gray bands include
uncertainties from the predicted yields. The SM predicted yields are shown
with their best fit normalizations from the corresponding fits. The
contribution of the QCD $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ process is included together with
the EW $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ process. The overflow is included in the last bin.
The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events
observed in data to the total SM prediction. The solid lines show the signal
predictions for two illustrative aQGC parameters.

No excess of events with respect to the SM background predictions is observed.
The observed and expected $95\%$ confidence level () lower and upper limits on
the aQGC parameters $f/\Lambda^{4}$, where $f$ is the dimensionless
coefficient of the given operator and $\Lambda$ is the energy scale of new
physics, are derived from a modified frequentist approach with the criterion
[72, 73] and asymptotic results for the test statistic [75]. The expected
cross section depends quadratically on aQGC, therefore the expected yields are
calculated from a parabolic interpolation from the discrete coupling
parameters of the simulated signals. Table 0.8.2 shows the individual lower
and upper limits for the coefficients of the T0, T1, T2, M0, M1, M6, M7, S0,
and S1 operators obtained by setting all other aQGCs parameters to zero for
the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and $\PW\cPZ$ channels, and their combination. The
results are sensitive to the number of data events with large $\mT(\PV\PV)$
values. These results are about a factor of two more restrictive than the
previous analyses of the leptonic decay modes of the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and
$\PW\cPZ$ processes [21, 24]. However, the results are less restrictive than
the analysis using the semileptonic final states [28]. No unitarization
procedure is applied to obtain these results.

Observed and expected lower and upper 95% limits on the parameters of the
quartic operators T0, T1, T2, M0, M1, M6, M7, S0, and S1 in
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and $\PW\cPZ$ channels, obtained without using any
unitarization procedure. The last two columns show the observed and expected
limits for the combination of the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and $\PW\cPZ$ channels.
Results are obtained by setting all other aQGCs parameters to zero.  Observed
($\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$) Expected ($\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$) Observed ($\PW\cPZ$)
Expected ($\PW\cPZ$) Observed Expected ($\TeVns^{-4}$) ($\TeVns^{-4}$)
($\TeVns^{-4}$) ($\TeVns^{-4}$) ($\TeVns^{-4}$) ($\TeVns^{-4}$)
$f_{\mathrm{T0}}/\Lambda^{4}$ [-0.28, 0.31] [-0.36, 0.39] [-0.62, 0.65]
[-0.82, 0.85] [-0.25, 0.28] [-0.35, 0.37] $f_{\mathrm{T1}}/\Lambda^{4}$
[-0.12, 0.15] [-0.16, 0.19] [-0.37, 0.41] [-0.49, 0.55] [-0.12, 0.14] [-0.16,
0.19] $f_{\mathrm{T2}}/\Lambda^{4}$ [-0.38, 0.50] [-0.50, 0.63] [-1.0 , 1.3]
[-1.4, 1.7] [-0.35, 0.48] [-0.49, 0.63] $f_{\mathrm{M0}}/\Lambda^{4}$ [-3.0,
3.2] [-3.7, 3.8] [-5.8, 5.8] [-7.6, 7.6] [-2.7, 2.9] [-3.6, 3.7]
$f_{\mathrm{M1}}/\Lambda^{4}$ [-4.7, 4.7] [-5.4, 5.8] [-8.2, 8.3] [-11, 11]
[-4.1, 4.2] [-5.2, 5.5] $f_{\mathrm{M6}}/\Lambda^{4}$ [-6.0, 6.5] [-7.5, 7.6]
[-12, 12] [-15, 15] [-5.4, 5.8] [-7.2, 7.3] $f_{\mathrm{M7}}/\Lambda^{4}$
[-6.7, 7.0] [-8.3, 8.1] [-10, 10] [-14, 14] [-5.7, 6.0] [-7.8, 7.6]
$f_{\mathrm{S0}}/\Lambda^{4}$ [-6.0, 6.4] [-6.0, 6.2] [-19, 19] [-24, 24]
[-5.7, 6.1] [-5.9, 6.2] $f_{\mathrm{S1}}/\Lambda^{4}$ [-18, 19] [-18, 19]
[-30, 30] [-38, 39] [-16, 17] [-18, 18]

The EFT is not a complete model and the presence of nonzero aQGCs will violate
tree-level unitarity at sufficiently high energy. More physical limits can be
obtained by cutting the EFT integration at the unitarity limit and adding the
expected SM contribution for generated events with $\PV\PV$ invariant masses
above the unitarity limit [77]. The unitarity limits for each aQGC parameter,
typically about 1.5, are calculated using vbfnlo 1.4.0 [78, 79, 80] after
applying the appropriate Wilson coefficient conversion factors. Table 0.8.2
shows the individual lower and upper limits for the coefficients of the T0,
T1, T2, M0, M1, M6, M7, S0, and S1 operators by cutting off the EFT expansion
at the unitarity limit. These limits are significantly less stringent compared
with the limits in Table 0.8.2, where the unitarity violation is not
considered.

Observed and expected lower and upper 95% limits on the parameters of the
quartic operators T0, T1, T2, M0, M1, M6, M7, S0, and S1 in
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and $\PW\cPZ$ channels by cutting the EFT expansion at
the unitarity limit. The last two columns show the observed and expected
limits for the combination of the $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ and $\PW\cPZ$ channels.
Results are obtained by setting all other aQGCs parameters to zero.  Observed
($\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$) Expected ($\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$) Observed ($\PW\cPZ$)
Expected ($\PW\cPZ$) Observed Expected ($\TeVns^{-4}$) ($\TeVns^{-4}$)
($\TeVns^{-4}$) ($\TeVns^{-4}$) ($\TeVns^{-4}$) ($\TeVns^{-4}$)
$f_{\mathrm{T0}}/\Lambda^{4}$ [-1.5, 2.3] [-2.1, 2.7] [-1.6, 1.9] [-2.0, 2.2]
[-1.1, 1.6] [-1.6, 2.0] $f_{\mathrm{T1}}/\Lambda^{4}$ [-0.81, 1.2] [-0.98,
1.4] [-1.3, 1.5] [-1.6, 1.8] [-0.69, 0.97] [-0.94, 1.3]
$f_{\mathrm{T2}}/\Lambda^{4}$ [-2.1, 4.4] [-2.7, 5.3] [-2.7, 3.4] [-4.4, 5.5]
[-1.6, 3.1] [-2.3, 3.8] $f_{\mathrm{M0}}/\Lambda^{4}$ [-13, 16] [-19, 18]
[-16, 16] [-19, 19] [-11, 12] [-15, 15] $f_{\mathrm{M1}}/\Lambda^{4}$ [-20,
19] [-22, 25] [-19, 20] [-23, 24] [-15, 14] [-18, 20]
$f_{\mathrm{M6}}/\Lambda^{4}$ [-27, 32] [-37, 37] [-34, 33] [-39, 39] [-22,
25] [-31, 30] $f_{\mathrm{M7}}/\Lambda^{4}$ [-22, 24] [-27, 25] [-22, 22]
[-28, 28] [-16, 18] [-22, 21] $f_{\mathrm{S0}}/\Lambda^{4}$ [-35, 36] [-31,
31] [-83, 85] [-88, 91] [-34, 35] [-31, 31] $f_{\mathrm{S1}}/\Lambda^{4}$
[-100, 120] [-100, 110] [-110, 110] [-120, 130] [-86, 99] [-91, 97]

##  0.9 Summary

The production cross sections of $\PW\cPZ$ and same-sign $\PW\PW$ boson pairs
in association with two jets are measured in proton-proton collisions at a
center-of-mass energy of 13. The data sample corresponds to an integrated
luminosity of 137, collected with the CMS detector during 2016–18. The
measurements are performed in the leptonic decay modes
$\PW^{\pm}\cPZ\to\ell^{\pm}\PGn\ell^{\prime\pm}\ell^{\prime\mp}$ and
$\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}\to\ell^{\pm}\PGn\ell^{\prime\pm}\PGn$, where
$\ell,\ell^{\prime}=\Pe$, $\PGm$. An observation of electroweak production of
$\PW\cPZ$ boson pairs is reported with an observed (expected) significance of
6.8 (5.3) standard deviations. Differential cross sections as functions of the
invariant masses of the jet and charged lepton pairs, as well as the leading-
lepton transverse momentum, are measured for $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$ production
and are compared to the standard model predictions. Differential cross
sections as a function of the invariant mass of the jet pair are also measured
for $\PW\cPZ$ production. Stringent limits are set in the framework of
effective field theory, with and without consideration of tree-level unitarity
violation, on the dimension-8 operators T0, T1, T2, M0, M1, M6, M7, S0, and
S1.

###### Acknowledgements.

We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the
excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative
staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the
success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the
computing centers and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for
delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our
analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction
and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following
funding agencies: BMBWF and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq,
CAPES, FAPERJ, FAPERGS, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST,
and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RPF
(Cyprus); SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC IUT, PUT and ERDF (Estonia); Academy
of Finland, MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG,
and HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); NKFIA (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM
(Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); MES
(Latvia); LAS (Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT,
LNS, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MOS (Montenegro); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC
(Pakistan); MSHE and NSC (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom,
RAS, RFBR, and NRC KI (Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI, and FEDER
(Spain); MOSTR (Sri Lanka); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); MST
(Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR, and NSTDA (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK
(Turkey); NASU (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA).
Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie program and the
European Research Council and Horizon 2020 Grant, contract Nos. 675440,
752730, and 765710 (European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A.P. Sloan
Foundation; the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science
Policy Office; the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et
dans l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door
Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the F.R.S.-FNRS and FWO (Belgium)
under the “Excellence of Science – EOS” – be.h project n. 30820817; the
Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission, No. Z191100007219010; the
Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy –
EXC 2121 “Quantum Universe” – 390833306; the Lendület (“Momentum”) Program and
the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences,
the New National Excellence Program ÚNKP, the NKFIA research grants 123842,
123959, 124845, 124850, 125105, 128713, 128786, and 129058 (Hungary); the
Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; the 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 Ministry of Science and
Education, grant no. 14.W03.31.0026 (Russia); the Tomsk Polytechnic University
Competitiveness Enhancement Program and “Nauka” Project FSWW-2020-0008
(Russia); the Programa Estatal de Fomento de la Investigación Científica y
Técnica de Excelencia María de Maeztu, grant MDM-2015-0509 and the Programa
Severo Ochoa del Principado de Asturias; the Thalis and Aristeia programs
cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for
Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University and the Chulalongkorn
Academic into Its 2nd Century Project Advancement Project (Thailand); the
Kavli Foundation; the Nvidia Corporation; the SuperMicro Corporation; the
Welch Foundation, contract C-1845; and the Weston Havens Foundation (USA).

## References

  * [1] ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a new particle in the search for the standard model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020, arXiv:1207.7214.
  * [2] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021, arXiv:1207.7235.
  * [3] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 and 8 TeV”,  JHEP 06 (2013) 081, 10.1007/JHEP06(2013)081, arXiv:1303.4571.
  * [4] F. Englert and R. Brout, “Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 321, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.321.
  * [5] P. W. Higgs, “Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields”,  Phys. Lett. 12 (1964) 132, 10.1016/0031-9163(64)91136-9.
  * [6] P. W. Higgs, “Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 508, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.508.
  * [7] G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble, “Global conservation laws and massless particles”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 585, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.585.
  * [8] P. W. Higgs, “Spontaneous symmetry breakdown without massless bosons”,  Phys. Rev. 145 (1966) 1156, 10.1103/PhysRev.145.1156.
  * [9] T. W. B. Kibble, “Symmetry breaking in non-Abelian gauge theories”,  Phys. Rev. 155 (1967) 1554, 10.1103/PhysRev.155.1554.
  * [10] D. Espriu and B. Yencho, “Longitudinal WW scattering in light of the Higgs boson discovery”,  Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 055017, 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.055017, arXiv:1212.4158.
  * [11] J. Chang, K. Cheung, C.-T. Lu, and T.-C. Yuan, “WW scattering in the era of post-Higgs-boson discovery”,  Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 093005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.093005, arXiv:1303.6335.
  * [12] B. W. Lee, C. Quigg, and H. B. Thacker, “The strength of weak interactions at very high-energies and the Higgs boson mass”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 883, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.38.883.
  * [13] B. W. Lee, C. Quigg, and H. B. Thacker, “Weak interactions at very high-energies: the role of the Higgs boson mass”,  Phys. Rev. D 16 (1977) 1519, 10.1103/PhysRevD.16.1519.
  * [14] O. J. P. Éboli, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, and J. K. Mizukoshi, “pp $\to$ jj$\,e^{\pm}\mu^{\pm}\nu\nu$ and jj$\,e^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}\nu\nu$ at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{\textrm{em}}^{6})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{\textrm{em}}^{4}\alpha_{\textrm{s}}^{2})$ for the study of the quartic electroweak gauge boson vertex at CERN LHC”,  Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 073005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.073005, arXiv:hep-ph/0606118.
  * [15] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2016 data-taking period”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001, 2017.
  * [16] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004, 2017.
  * [17] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002, 2018.
  * [18] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS Experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [19] CMS Collaboration, “Study of vector boson scattering and search for new physics in events with two same-sign leptons and two jets”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 051801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.051801, arXiv:1410.6315.
  * [20] ATLAS Collaboration, “Evidence for electroweak production of $W^{\pm}W^{\pm}$jj in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 141803, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.141803, arXiv:1405.6241.
  * [21] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of electroweak production of same-sign W boson pairs in the two jet and two same-sign lepton final state in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 081801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.081801, arXiv:1709.05822.
  * [22] ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of electroweak production of a same-sign $W$ boson pair in association with two jets in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 161801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.161801, arXiv:1906.03203.
  * [23] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurements of $\PW^{\pm}\PZ$ production cross sections in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8\TeV$ with the ATLAS detector and limits on anomalous gauge boson self-couplings”,  Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 092004, 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.092004, arXiv:1603.02151.
  * [24] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of electroweak WZ boson production and search for new physics in WZ + two jets events in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 795 (2019) 281, 10.1016/j.physletb.2019.05.042, arXiv:1901.04060.
  * [25] ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of electroweak $W^{\pm}Z$ boson pair production in association with two jets in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Lett. B 793 (2019) 469, 10.1016/j.physletb.2019.05.012, arXiv:1812.09740.
  * [26] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for the electroweak diboson production in association with a high-mass dijet system in semileptonic final states in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 032007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.032007, arXiv:1905.07714.
  * [27] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for anomalous electroweak production of $\PW\PW/\PW\PZ$ in association with a high-mass dijet system in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8\TeV$ with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 032001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.032001, arXiv:1609.05122.
  * [28] CMS Collaboration, “Search for anomalous electroweak production of vector boson pairs in association with two jets in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 798 (2019) 134985, 10.1016/j.physletb.2019.134985, arXiv:1905.07445.
  * [29] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [30] 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.
  * [31] R. Frederix and S. Frixione, “Merging meets matching in MC@NLO”,  JHEP 12 (2012) 061, 10.1007/JHEP12(2012)061, arXiv:1209.6215.
  * [32] P. Artoisenet, V. Lemaitre, F. Maltoni, and O. Mattelaer, “Automation of the matrix element reweighting method”,  JHEP 12 (2010) 068, 10.1007/JHEP12(2010)068, arXiv:1007.3300.
  * [33] 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.
  * [34] M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, D. Rathlev, and M. Wiesemann, “$\PW^{\pm}\PZ$ production at hadron colliders in NNLO QCD”,  Phys. Lett. B 761 (2016) 179, 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.08.017, arXiv:1604.08576.
  * [35] B. Biedermann, A. Denner, and M. Pellen, “Large electroweak corrections to vector boson scattering at the Large Hadron Collider”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 261801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.261801, arXiv:1611.02951.
  * [36] B. Biedermann, A. Denner, and M. Pellen, “Complete NLO corrections to W+W+ scattering and its irreducible background at the LHC”,  JHEP 10 (2017) 124, 10.1007/JHEP10(2017)124, arXiv:1708.00268.
  * [37] A. Denner et al., “QCD and electroweak corrections to WZ scattering at the LHC”,  JHEP 06 (2019) 067, 10.1007/JHEP06(2019)067, arXiv:1904.00882.
  * [38] A. Ballestrero et al., “Precise predictions for same-sign W-boson scattering at the LHC”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 671, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6136-y, arXiv:1803.07943.
  * [39] S. Frixione and B. R. Webber, “Matching NLO QCD computations and parton shower simulations”,  JHEP 06 (2002) 029, 10.1088/1126-6708/2002/06/029, arXiv:hep-ph/0204244.
  * [40] 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.
  * [41] 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.
  * [42] 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.
  * [43] 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.
  * [44] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the associated production of a single top quark and a Z boson in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 779 (2018) 358, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.02.025, arXiv:1712.02825.
  * [45] T. Sjöstrand et al., “An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159, 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024, arXiv:1410.3012.
  * [46] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC Run II”,  JHEP 04 (2015) 040, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040, arXiv:1410.8849.
  * [47] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions from high-precision collider data”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 663, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5199-5, arXiv:1706.00428.
  * [48] P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo, “Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 tune”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3024, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3024-y, arXiv:1404.5630.
  * [49] 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.
  * [50] CMS Collaboration, “Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 4, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7499-4, arXiv:1903.12179.
  * [51] Collaboration, “$\GEANTfour$ — a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [52] 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.
  * [53] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-jet clustering algorithm”,  JHEP 04 (2008) 063, 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063, arXiv:0802.1189.
  * [54] 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.
  * [55] CMS Collaboration, “Jet energy scale and resolution performance with 13 $\TeV$ data collected by CMS in 2016-2018”, CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2020-019, 2020.
  * [56] CMS Collaboration, “Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data”, (2020). arXiv:2003.00503. Submitted to JINST. In proof.
  * [57] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ using the CMS detector”,  JINST 14 (2019) P07004, 10.1088/1748-0221/14/07/P07004, arXiv:1903.06078.
  * [58] 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.
  * [59] CMS Collaboration, “Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV”,  JINST 13 (2018) P05011, 10.1088/1748-0221/13/05/P05011, arXiv:1712.07158.
  * [60] CMS Collaboration, “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.
  * [61] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$”,  JINST 13 (2018) P06015, 10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/P06015, arXiv:1804.04528.
  * [62] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of properties of the Higgs boson decaying to a W boson pair in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 791 (2019) 96, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.12.073, arXiv:1806.05246.
  * [63] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in cosmic-ray events”,  JINST 5 (2010) T03022, 10.1088/1748-0221/5/03/T03022, arXiv:0911.4994.
  * [64] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the reconstruction and identification of high-momentum muons in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  JINST 15 (2020) P02027, 10.1088/1748-0221/15/02/P02027, arXiv:1912.03516.
  * [65] Particle Data Group, M. Tanabashi et al., “Review of particle physics”,  Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 030001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.030001.
  * [66] D. L. Rainwater, R. Szalapski, and D. Zeppenfeld, “Probing color singlet exchange in $Z$ \+ two jet events at the CERN LHC”,  Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 6680, 10.1103/PhysRevD.54.6680, arXiv:hep-ph/9605444.
  * [67] CMS Collaboration, “Electron and photon performance in cms with the full 2017 data sample and additional 2016 highlights for the calor 2018 conference”, CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2018-017, 2018.
  * [68] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 182002, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.182002, arXiv:1606.02625.
  * [69] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  JHEP 07 (2018) 161, 10.1007/JHEP07(2018)161, arXiv:1802.02613.
  * [70] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of differential Z boson production cross sections in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV”,  JHEP 12 (2019) 061, 10.1007/JHEP12(2019)061, arXiv:1909.04133.
  * [71] J. Butterworth et al., “PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II”,  J. Phys. G 43 (2016) 023001, 10.1088/0954-3899/43/2/023001, arXiv:1510.03865.
  * [72] 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.
  * [73] A. L. Read, “Presentation of search results: the CLs technique”,  J. Phys. G 28 (2002) 2693, 10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/313.
  * [74] H. Voss, A. Höcker, J. Stelzer, and F. Tegenfeldt, “TMVA, the toolkit for multivariate data analysis with ROOT”, in  XIth International Workshop on Advanced Computing and Analysis Techniques in Physics Research (ACAT), p. 40.  2007\.  arXiv:physics/0703039.  [PoS(ACAT)040]. 10.22323/1.050.0040.
  * [75] G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, “Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1554, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0, arXiv:1007.1727. [Erratum: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2501-z].
  * [76] C. Degrande et al., “Effective field theory: A modern approach to anomalous couplings”,  Ann. Phys. 335 (2013) 21, 10.1016/j.aop.2013.04.016, arXiv:1205.4231.
  * [77] J. Kalinowski et al., “Same-sign WW scattering at the LHC: can we discover BSM effects before discovering new states?”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 403, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5885-y, arXiv:1802.02366.
  * [78] K. Arnold et al., “VBFNLO: A parton level Monte Carlo for processes with electroweak bosons”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 180 (2009) 1661, 10.1016/j.cpc.2009.03.006, arXiv:0811.4559.
  * [79] J. Baglio et al., “VBFNLO: A parton level Monte Carlo for processes with electroweak bosons – manual for version 2.7.0”, (2011). arXiv:1107.4038.
  * [80] J. Baglio et al., “Release note – VBFNLO 2.7.0”, (2014). arXiv:1404.3940.

##  .10 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, A. Tumasyan Institut für
Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, T. Bergauer, M. Dragicevic, J. Erö, A. Escalante Del
Valle, R. Frühwirth1, M. Jeitler1, N. Krammer, L. Lechner, D. Liko, T.
Madlener, I. Mikulec, F.M. Pitters, N. Rad, J. Schieck1, R. Schöfbeck, M.
Spanring, S. Templ, W. Waltenberger, C.-E. Wulz1, M. Zarucki Institute for
Nuclear Problems, Minsk, Belarus
V. Chekhovsky, A. Litomin, V. Makarenko, J. Suarez Gonzalez Universiteit
Antwerpen, Antwerpen, Belgium
M.R. Darwish2, E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, T. Kello3, A. Lelek, M.
Pieters, H. Rejeb Sfar, H. Van Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, S. Van Putte, N.
Van Remortel Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
F. Blekman, E.S. Bols, S.S. Chhibra, J. D’Hondt, J. De Clercq, D. Lontkovskyi,
S. Lowette, I. Marchesini, S. Moortgat, A. Morton, Q. Python, S. Tavernier, W.
Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
D. Beghin, B. Bilin, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, H. Delannoy, B. Dorney, L.
Favart, A. Grebenyuk, A.K. Kalsi, I. Makarenko, L. Moureaux, L. Pétré, A.
Popov, N. Postiau, E. Starling, L. Thomas, C. Vander Velde, P. Vanlaer, D.
Vannerom, L. Wezenbeek Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, I. Khvastunov4, M. Niedziela, C. Roskas, K. Skovpen, M.
Tytgat, W. Verbeke, B. Vermassen, M. Vit Université Catholique de Louvain,
Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
G. Bruno, F. Bury, C. Caputo, P. David, C. Delaere, M. Delcourt, I.S.
Donertas, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaitre, K. Mondal, J. Prisciandaro, A. Taliercio,
M. Teklishyn, P. Vischia, S. Wuyckens, J. Zobec Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas
Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
G.A. Alves, G. Correia Silva, C. Hensel, A. Moraes Universidade do Estado do
Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
W.L. Aldá Júnior, E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato5,
E. Coelho, E.M. Da Costa, G.G. Da Silveira6, D. De Jesus Damiao, S. Fonseca De
Souza, H. Malbouisson, J. Martins7, D. Matos Figueiredo, M. Medina Jaime8, M.
Melo De Almeida, C. Mora Herrera, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, P. Rebello Teles, L.J.
Sanchez Rosas, A. Santoro, S.M. Silva Do Amaral, A. Sznajder, M. Thiel, E.J.
Tonelli Manganote5, F. Torres Da Silva De Araujo, A. Vilela Pereira
Universidade Estadual Paulista a, Universidade Federal do ABC b, São Paulo,
Brazil
C.A. Bernardesa, L. Calligarisa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M. Gregoresb,
D.S. Lemosa, P.G. Mercadanteb, S.F. Novaesa, SandraS. Padulaa Institute for
Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia,
Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, G. Antchev, I. Atanasov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, M.
Misheva, M. Rodozov, M. Shopova, G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia,
Bulgaria
M. Bonchev, A. Dimitrov, T. Ivanov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov, A. Petrov
Beihang University, Beijing, China
W. Fang3, Q. Guo, H. Wang, L. Yuan Department of Physics, Tsinghua University,
Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, Z. Hu, Y. Wang Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
E. Chapon, G.M. Chen9, H.S. Chen9, M. Chen, C.H. Jiang, D. Leggat, H. Liao, Z.
Liu, R. Sharma, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, J. Thomas-wilsker, J. Wang, H. Zhang, S.
Zhang9, J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking
University, Beijing, China
A. Agapitos, Y. Ban, C. Chen, A. Levin, J. Li, Q. Li, M. Lu, X. Lyu, Y. Mao,
S.J. Qian, D. Wang, Q. Wang, J. Xiao Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
Z. You Institute of Modern Physics and Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and
Ion-beam Application (MOE) - Fudan University, Shanghai, China
X. Gao3 Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
M. Xiao Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, C. Florez, J. Fraga, A. Sarkar, M.A. Segura Delgado
Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia
J. Jaramillo, J. Mejia Guisao, F. Ramirez, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, C.A. Salazar
González, N. Vanegas Arbelaez University of Split, Faculty of Electrical
Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split, Croatia
D. Giljanovic, N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak, T. Sculac University of
Split, Faculty of Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, D. Majumder, B. Mesic, M. Roguljic, A.
Starodumov10, T. Susa University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, E. Erodotou, A. Ioannou, G. Kole, M. Kolosova, S.
Konstantinou, G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos, P.A.
Razis, H. Rykaczewski, H. Saka, D. Tsiakkouri Charles University, Prague,
Czech Republic
M. Finger11, M. Finger Jr.11, A. Kveton, J. Tomsa Escuela Politecnica
Nacional, Quito, Ecuador
E. Ayala Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
E. Carrera Jarrin Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab
Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt
E. Salama12,13 Center for High Energy Physics (CHEP-FU), Fayoum University,
El-Fayoum, Egypt
M.A. Mahmoud, Y. Mohammed14 National Institute of Chemical Physics and
Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
S. Bhowmik, A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveira, R.K. Dewanjee, K. Ehataht, M.
Kadastik, M. Raidal, C. Veelken Department of Physics, University of Helsinki,
Helsinki, Finland
P. Eerola, L. Forthomme, H. Kirschenmann, K. Osterberg, M. Voutilainen
Helsinki Institute of Physics, Helsinki, Finland
E. Brücken, F. Garcia, J. Havukainen, V. Karimäki, M.S. Kim, R. Kinnunen, T.
Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Laurila, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, H. Siikonen, E.
Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta,
Finland
P. Luukka, T. Tuuva IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, J.L. Faure, F. Ferri, S.
Ganjour, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry, B. Lenzi,
E. Locci, J. Malcles, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M.Ö. Sahin, A. Savoy-Navarro15,
M. Titov, G.B. Yu Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, CNRS/IN2P3, Ecole
Polytechnique, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, France
S. Ahuja, C. Amendola, F. Beaudette, M. Bonanomi, P. Busson, C. Charlot, O.
Davignon, B. Diab, G. Falmagne, R. Granier de Cassagnac, I. Kucher, A.
Lobanov, C. Martin Perez, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, P. Paganini, J. Rembser, R.
Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A. Zabi, A. Zghiche Université de Strasbourg,
CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram16, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, G. Bourgatte, J.-M. Brom, E.C. Chabert, C.
Collard, J.-C. Fontaine16, D. Gelé, U. Goerlach, C. Grimault, A.-C. Le Bihan,
P. Van Hove Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3,
Institut de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
E. Asilar, S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, C. Camen, A. Carle, N. Chanon,
D. Contardo, P. Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, B.
Ille, Sa. Jain, I.B. Laktineh, H. Lattaud, A. Lesauvage, M. Lethuillier, L.
Mirabito, L. Torterotot, G. Touquet, M. Vander Donckt, S. Viret Georgian
Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
T. Toriashvili17 Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
Z. Tsamalaidze11 RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen,
Germany
L. Feld, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, D. Meuser, A. Pauls, M. Preuten, M.P. Rauch,
J. Schulz, M. Teroerde RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A,
Aachen, Germany
D. Eliseev, M. Erdmann, P. Fackeldey, B. Fischer, S. Ghosh, T. Hebbeker, K.
Hoepfner, H. Keller, L. Mastrolorenzo, M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, P. Millet, G.
Mocellin, S. Mondal, S. Mukherjee, D. Noll, A. Novak, T. Pook, A. Pozdnyakov,
T. Quast, M. Radziej, Y. Rath, H. Reithler, J. Roemer, A. Schmidt, S.C.
Schuler, A. Sharma, S. Wiedenbeck, S. Zaleski RWTH Aachen University, III.
Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany
C. Dziwok, G. Flügge, W. Haj Ahmad18, O. Hlushchenko, T. Kress, A. Nowack, C.
Pistone, O. Pooth, D. Roy, H. Sert, A. Stahl19, T. Ziemons Deutsches
Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
H. Aarup Petersen, M. Aldaya Martin, P. Asmuss, I. Babounikau, S. Baxter, O.
Behnke, A. Bermúdez Martínez, A.A. Bin Anuar, K. Borras20, V. Botta, D.
Brunner, A. Campbell, A. Cardini, P. Connor, S. Consuegra Rodríguez, V.
Danilov, A. De Wit, M.M. Defranchis, L. Didukh, D. Domínguez Damiani, G.
Eckerlin, D. Eckstein, T. Eichhorn, A. Elwood, L.I. Estevez Banos, E. Gallo21,
A. Geiser, A. Giraldi, A. Grohsjean, M. Guthoff, M. Haranko, A. Harb, A.
Jafari22, N.Z. Jomhari, H. Jung, A. Kasem20, M. Kasemann, H. Kaveh, J.
Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, J. Knolle, D. Krücker, W. Lange, T. Lenz, J. Lidrych,
K. Lipka, W. Lohmann23, R. Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, J. Metwally, A.B.
Meyer, M. Meyer, M. Missiroli, J. Mnich, A. Mussgiller, V. Myronenko, Y.
Otarid, D. Pérez Adán, S.K. Pflitsch, D. Pitzl, A. Raspereza, A. Saggio, A.
Saibel, M. Savitskyi, V. Scheurer, P. Schütze, C. Schwanenberger, R.
Shevchenko, A. Singh, R.E. Sosa Ricardo, H. Tholen, N. Tonon, O. Turkot, A.
Vagnerini, M. Van De Klundert, R. Walsh, D. Walter, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C.
Wissing, S. Wuchterl, O. Zenaiev, R. Zlebcik University of Hamburg, Hamburg,
Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, L. Benato, A. Benecke, K. De Leo, T. Dreyer, A.
Ebrahimi, F. Feindt, A. Fröhlich, C. Garbers, E. Garutti, D. Gonzalez, P.
Gunnellini, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, A. Karavdina, G. Kasieczka, R. Klanner, R.
Kogler, S. Kurz, V. Kutzner, J. Lange, T. Lange, A. Malara, J. Multhaup,
C.E.N. Niemeyer, A. Nigamova, K.J. Pena Rodriguez, O. Rieger, P. Schleper, S.
Schumann, J. Schwandt, D. Schwarz, J. Sonneveld, H. Stadie, G. Steinbrück, B.
Vormwald, I. Zoi Karlsruher Institut fuer Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany
M. Baselga, S. Baur, J. Bechtel, T. Berger, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek,
W. De Boer, A. Dierlamm, A. Droll, K. El Morabit, N. Faltermann, K. Flöh, M.
Giffels, A. Gottmann, F. Hartmann19, C. Heidecker, U. Husemann, M.A. Iqbal, I.
Katkov24, P. Keicher, R. Koppenhöfer, S. Kudella, S. Maier, M. Metzler, S.
Mitra, M.U. Mozer, D. Müller, Th. Müller, M. Musich, G. Quast, K. Rabbertz, J.
Rauser, D. Savoiu, D. Schäfer, M. Schnepf, M. Schröder, D. Seith, I. Shvetsov,
H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, M. Wassmer, M. Weber, C. Wöhrmann, R. Wolf, S.
Wozniewski Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics (INPP), NCSR Demokritos,
Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
G. Anagnostou, P. Asenov, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas,
G. Paspalaki, A. Stakia National and Kapodistrian University of Athens,
Athens, Greece
M. Diamantopoulou, D. Karasavvas, G. Karathanasis, P. Kontaxakis, C.K. Koraka,
A. Manousakis-katsikakis, A. Panagiotou, I. Papavergou, N. Saoulidou, K.
Theofilatos, K. Vellidis, E. Vourliotis National Technical University of
Athens, Athens, Greece
G. Bakas, K. Kousouris, I. Papakrivopoulos, G. Tsipolitis, A. Zacharopoulou
University of Ioánnina, Ioánnina, Greece
I. Evangelou, C. Foudas, P. Gianneios, P. Katsoulis, P. Kokkas, S. Mallios, K.
Manitara, N. Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, J. Strologas MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS
Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest,
Hungary
M. Bartók25, R. Chudasama, M. Csanad, M.M.A. Gadallah26, P. Major, K. Mandal,
A. Mehta, G. Pasztor, O. Surányi, G.I. Veres Wigner Research Centre for
Physics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath27, F. Sikler, V. Veszpremi, G.
Vesztergombi${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$ Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI,
Debrecen, Hungary
N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi25, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi, D. Teyssier
Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari Eszterhazy Karoly University, Karoly
Robert Campus, Gyongyos, Hungary
T. Csorgo, S. Lökös28, F. Nemes, T. Novak Indian Institute of Science (IISc),
Bangalore, India
S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri, D. Kumar, L. Panwar, P.C. Tiwari National
Institute of Science Education and Research, HBNI, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati29, D. Dash, C. Kar, P. Mal, T. Mishra, V.K. Muraleedharan Nair
Bindhu, A. Nayak30, D.K. Sahoo29, N. Sur, S.K. Swain Panjab University,
Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, S. Chauhan, N. Dhingra31, R. Gupta, A.
Kaur, A. Kaur, M. Kaur, S. Kaur, P. Kumari, M. Lohan, M. Meena, K. Sandeep, S.
Sharma, J.B. Singh, A.K. Virdi University of Delhi, Delhi, India
A. Ahmed, A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, M. Gola, S. Keshri, A.
Kumar, M. Naimuddin, P. Priyanka, K. Ranjan, A. Shah Saha Institute of Nuclear
Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India
M. Bharti32, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, D. Bhowmik, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh,
B. Gomber33, M. Maity34, S. Nandan, P. Palit, A. Purohit, P.K. Rout, G. Saha,
S. Sarkar, M. Sharan, B. Singh32, S. Thakur32 Indian Institute of Technology
Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera, S.C. Behera, P. Kalbhor, A. Muhammad, R. Pradhan, P.R. Pujahari,
A. Sharma, A.K. Sikdar Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, D.K. Mishra, K. Naskar35, P.K. Netrakanti, L.M.
Pant, P. Shukla Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A, Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, M.A. Bhat, S. Dugad, R. Kumar Verma, U. Sarkar Tata Institute of
Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, P. Das, M. Guchait, S. Karmakar,
S. Kumar, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, S. Mukherjee, D. Roy, N. Sahoo Indian
Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, India
S. Dube, B. Kansal, A. Kapoor, K. Kothekar, S. Pandey, A. Rane, A. Rastogi, S.
Sharma Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
H. Bakhshiansohi36 Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM),
Tehran, Iran
S. Chenarani37, S.M. Etesami, M. Khakzad, M. Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri
University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
M. Felcini, M. Grunewald INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b,
Politecnico di Bari c, Bari, Italy
M. Abbresciaa,b, R. Alya,b,38, C. Arutaa,b, A. Colaleoa, D. Creanzaa,c, N. De
Filippisa,c, M. De Palmaa,b, A. Di Florioa,b, A. Di Pilatoa,b, W.
Elmetenaweea,b, L. Fiorea, A. Gelmia,b, M. Gula, G. Iasellia,c, M. Incea,b, S.
Lezkia,b, G. Maggia,c, M. Maggia, I. Margjekaa,b, J.A. Merlina, S. Mya,b, S.
Nuzzoa,b, A. Pompilia,b, G. Pugliesea,c, A. Ranieria, G. Selvaggia,b, L.
Silvestrisa, F.M. Simonea,b, R. Vendittia, P. Verwilligena INFN Sezione di
Bologna a, Università di Bologna b, Bologna, Italy
G. Abbiendia, C. Battilanaa,b, D. Bonacorsia,b, L. Borgonovia,b, S. Braibant-
Giacomellia,b, R. Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A. Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa,
C. Cioccaa, M. Cuffiania,b, G.M. Dallavallea, T. Diotalevia,b, F. Fabbria, A.
Fanfania,b, E. Fontanesia,b, P. Giacomellia, C. Grandia, L. Guiduccia,b, F.
Iemmia,b, S. Lo Meoa,39, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, F.L. Navarriaa,b, A.
Perrottaa, F. Primaveraa,b, A.M. Rossia,b, T. Rovellia,b, G.P. Sirolia,b, N.
Tosia INFN Sezione di Catania a, Università di Catania b, Catania, Italy
S. Albergoa,b,40, S. Costaa,b, A. Di Mattiaa, R. Potenzaa,b, A. Tricomia,b,40,
C. Tuvea,b INFN Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b, Firenze, Italy
G. Barbaglia, A. Cassesea, R. Ceccarellia,b, V. Ciullia,b, C. Civininia, R.
D’Alessandroa,b, F. Fioria, E. Focardia,b, G. Latinoa,b, P. Lenzia,b, M.
Lizzoa,b, M. Meschinia, S. Paolettia, R. Seiditaa,b, G. Sguazzonia, L.
Viliania INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, D. Piccolo INFN Sezione di Genova a, Università di
Genova b, Genova, Italy
M. Bozzoa,b, F. Ferroa, R. Mulargiaa,b, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia,b INFN Sezione
di Milano-Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, Italy
A. Benagliaa, A. Beschia,b, F. Brivioa,b, F. Cetorellia,b, V. Cirioloa,b,19,
F. De Guioa,b, M.E. Dinardoa,b, P. Dinia, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P.
Govonia,b, L. Guzzia,b, M. Malbertia, S. Malvezzia, D. Menascea, F. Montia,b,
L. Moronia, M. Paganonia,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Ragazzia,b, T. Tabarelli de
Fatisa,b, D. Valsecchia,b,19, D. Zuoloa,b INFN Sezione di Napoli a, Università
di Napoli ’Federico II’ b, Napoli, Italy, Università della Basilicata c,
Potenza, Italy, Università G. Marconi d, Roma, Italy
S. Buontempoa, N. Cavalloa,c, A. De Iorioa,b, F. Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa,
A.O.M. Iorioa,b, L. Layera,b, L. Listaa,b, S. Meolaa,d,19, P. Paoluccia,19, B.
Rossia, C. Sciaccaa,b, E. Voevodinaa,b INFN Sezione di Padova a, Università di
Padova b, Padova, Italy, Università di Trento c, Trento, Italy
P. Azzia, N. Bacchettaa, D. Biselloa,b, A. Bolettia,b, A. Bragagnoloa,b, R.
Carlina,b, P. Checchiaa, P. De Castro Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa, U. Dossellia, F.
Gasparinia,b, U. Gasparinia,b, S.Y. Hoha,b, M. Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,b,
M. Presillab, P. Ronchesea,b, R. Rossina,b, F. Simonettoa,b, G. Strong, A.
Tikoa, M. Tosia,b, M. Zanettia,b, P. Zottoa,b, A. Zucchettaa,b, G. Zumerlea,b
INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
A. Braghieria, S. Calzaferria,b, D. Fiorinaa,b, P. Montagnaa,b, S.P. Rattia,b,
V. Rea, M. Ressegottia,b, C. Riccardia,b, P. Salvinia, I. Vaia, P. Vituloa,b
INFN Sezione di Perugia a, Università di Perugia b, Perugia, Italy
M. Biasinia,b, G.M. Bileia, D. Ciangottinia,b, L. Fanòa,b, P. Laricciaa,b, G.
Mantovania,b, V. Mariania,b, M. Menichellia, F. Moscatellia, A. Rossia,b, A.
Santocchiaa,b, D. Spigaa, T. Tedeschia,b INFN Sezione di Pisa a, Università di
Pisa b, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa c, Pisa, Italy
K. Androsova, P. Azzurria, G. Bagliesia, V. Bertacchia,c, L. Bianchinia, T.
Boccalia, R. Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, M.R. Di Domenicoa,b, S.
Donatoa, L. Gianninia,c, A. Giassia, M.T. Grippoa, F. Ligabuea,c, E. Mancaa,c,
G. Mandorlia,c, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, G. Ramirez-Sancheza,c, A. Rizzia,b,
G. Rolandia,c, S. Roy Chowdhurya,c, A. Scribanoa, N. Shafieia,b, P. Spagnoloa,
R. Tenchinia, G. Tonellia,b, N. Turinia, A. Venturia, P.G. Verdinia INFN
Sezione di Roma a, Sapienza Università di Roma b, Rome, Italy
F. Cavallaria, M. Cipriania,b, D. Del Rea,b, E. Di Marcoa, M. Diemoza, E.
Longoa,b, P. Meridiania, G. Organtinia,b, F. Pandolfia, R. Paramattia,b, C.
Quarantaa,b, S. Rahatloua,b, C. Rovellia, F. Santanastasioa,b, L. Soffia,b, R.
Tramontanoa,b INFN Sezione di Torino a, Università di Torino b, Torino, Italy,
Università del Piemonte Orientale c, Novara, Italy
N. Amapanea,b, R. Arcidiaconoa,c, S. Argiroa,b, M. Arneodoa,c, N. Bartosika,
R. Bellana,b, A. Belloraa,b, C. Biinoa, A. Cappatia,b, N. Cartigliaa, S.
Comettia, M. Costaa,b, R. Covarellia,b, N. Demariaa, B. Kiania,b, F. Leggera,
C. Mariottia, S. Masellia, E. Migliorea,b, V. Monacoa,b, E. Monteila,b, M.
Montenoa, M.M. Obertinoa,b, G. Ortonaa, L. Pachera,b, N. Pastronea, M.
Pelliccionia, G.L. Pinna Angionia,b, M. Ruspaa,c, R. Salvaticoa,b, F.
Sivieroa,b, V. Solaa, A. Solanoa,b, D. Soldia,b, A. Staianoa, D. Trocinoa,b
INFN Sezione di Trieste a, Università di Trieste b, Trieste, Italy
S. Belfortea, V. Candelisea,b, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, A. Da Rolda,b, G.
Della Riccaa,b, F. Vazzolera,b Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea
S. Dogra, C. Huh, B. Kim, D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, J. Lee, S.W. Lee, C.S. Moon,
Y.D. Oh, S.I. Pak, S. Sekmen, Y.C. Yang Chonnam National University, Institute
for Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju, Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
B. Francois, T.J. Kim, J. Park Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, S. Ha, B. Hong, K. Lee, K.S. Lee, J. Lim, J. Park,
S.K. Park, J. Yoo Kyung Hee University, Department of Physics, Seoul, Republic
of Korea
J. Goh, A. Gurtu Sejong University, Seoul, Korea
H.S. Kim, Y. Kim Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J.H. Bhyun, J. Choi, S. Jeon, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, S. Ko, H. Kwon, H.
Lee, K. Lee, S. Lee, K. Nam, B.H. Oh, M. Oh, S.B. Oh, B.C. Radburn-Smith, H.
Seo, U.K. Yang, I. Yoon University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea
D. Jeon, J.H. Kim, B. Ko, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park, Y. Roh, D. Song, I.J. Watson
Yonsei University, Department of Physics, Seoul, Korea
H.D. Yoo Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, C. Hwang, Y. Jeong, H. Lee, J. Lee, Y. Lee, I. Yu Riga Technical
University, Riga, Latvia
V. Veckalns41 Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
A. Juodagalvis, A. Rinkevicius, G. Tamulaitis National Centre for Particle
Physics, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
W.A.T. Wan Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli Universidad de Sonora (UNISON),
Hermosillo, Mexico
J.F. Benitez, A. Castaneda Hernandez, J.A. Murillo Quijada, L. Valencia Palomo
Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, I. Heredia-De La Cruz42, R. Lopez-
Fernandez, A. Sanchez-Hernandez Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City,
Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, M. Ramirez-Garcia, F. Vazquez Valencia
Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
J. Eysermans, I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada Universidad
Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, Mexico
A. Morelos Pineda University of Montenegro, Podgorica, Montenegro
J. Mijuskovic4, N. Raicevic University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
S. Bheesette, P.H. Butler National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam
University, Islamabad, Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M.I. Asghar, M.I.M. Awan, Q. Hassan, H.R. Hoorani, W.A. Khan, M.A.
Shah, M. Shoaib, M. Waqas AGH University of Science and Technology Faculty of
Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunications, Krakow, Poland
V. Avati, L. Grzanka, M. Malawski National Centre for Nuclear Research,
Swierk, Poland
H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, T. Frueboes, M. Górski, M. Kazana, M.
Szleper, P. Traczyk, P. Zalewski Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of
Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk43, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J.
Krolikowski, M. Olszewski, M. Walczak Laboratório de Instrumentação e Física
Experimental de Partículas, Lisboa, Portugal
M. Araujo, P. Bargassa, D. Bastos, A. Di Francesco, P. Faccioli, B. Galinhas,
M. Gallinaro, J. Hollar, N. Leonardo, T. Niknejad, J. Seixas, K. Shchelina, O.
Toldaiev, J. Varela Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
S. Afanasiev, P. Bunin, M. Gavrilenko, I. Golutvin, I. Gorbunov, A. Kamenev,
V. Karjavine, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev44,45, P. Moisenz, V. Palichik,
V. Perelygin, M. Savina, D. Seitova, V. Shalaev, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, V.
Smirnov, O. Teryaev, N. Voytishin, A. Zarubin, I. Zhizhin Petersburg Nuclear
Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg), Russia
G. Gavrilov, V. Golovtcov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim46, E. Kuznetsova47, V. Murzin, V.
Oreshkin, I. Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Volkov, A. Vorobyev
Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, M. Kirsanov,
N. Krasnikov, A. Pashenkov, G. Pivovarov, D. Tlisov, A. Toropin Institute for
Theoretical and Experimental Physics named by A.I. Alikhanov of NRC ‘Kurchatov
Institute’, Moscow, Russia
V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, A. Nikitenko48, V. Popov, I.
Pozdnyakov, G. Safronov, A. Spiridonov, A. Stepennov, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A.
Zhokin Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
R. Chistov49, M. Danilov49, A. Oskin, P. Parygin, V. Rusinov P.N. Lebedev
Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin, I. Dremin, M. Kirakosyan, A. Terkulov Skobeltsyn
Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow,
Russia
A. Belyaev, E. Boos, M. Dubinin50, L. Dudko, A. Ershov, A. Gribushin, V.
Klyukhin, O. Kodolova, I. Lokhtin, S. Obraztsov, S. Petrushanko, V. Savrin, A.
Snigirev Novosibirsk State University (NSU), Novosibirsk, Russia
V. Blinov51, T. Dimova51, L. Kardapoltsev51, I. Ovtin51, Y. Skovpen51
Institute for High Energy Physics of National Research Centre ‘Kurchatov
Institute’, Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, V. Kachanov, A. Kalinin, D. Konstantinov, V. Petrov,
R. Ryutin, A. Sobol, S. Troshin, N. Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov National
Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia
A. Babaev, A. Iuzhakov, V. Okhotnikov, L. Sukhikh Tomsk State University,
Tomsk, Russia
V. Borchsh, V. Ivanchenko, E. Tcherniaev University of Belgrade: Faculty of
Physics and VINCA Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Serbia
P. Adzic52, P. Cirkovic, M. Dordevic, P. Milenovic, J. Milosevic Centro de
Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid,
Spain
M. Aguilar-Benitez, J. Alcaraz Maestre, A. Álvarez Fernández, I. Bachiller, M.
Barrio Luna, CristinaF. Bedoya, J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, C.A. Carrillo
Montoya, M. Cepeda, M. Cerrada, N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris,
J.P. Fernández Ramos, J. Flix, M.C. Fouz, O. Gonzalez Lopez, S. Goy Lopez,
J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa, D. Moran, Á. Navarro Tobar, A. Pérez-Calero
Yzquierdo, J. Puerta Pelayo, I. Redondo, L. Romero, S. Sánchez Navas, M.S.
Soares, A. Triossi, C. Willmott Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
C. Albajar, J.F. de Trocóniz, R. Reyes-Almanza Universidad de Oviedo,
Instituto Universitario de Ciencias y Tecnologías Espaciales de Asturias
(ICTEA), Oviedo, Spain
B. Alvarez Gonzalez, J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, S. Folgueras,
I. Gonzalez Caballero, E. Palencia Cortezon, C. Ramón Álvarez, V. Rodríguez
Bouza, S. Sanchez Cruz 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, G. Gomez, C. Martinez
Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del Arbol, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, C. Prieels,
F. Ricci-Tam, T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno, L. Russo53, L. Scodellaro, I. Vila,
J.M. Vizan Garcia University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka
MK Jayananda, B. Kailasapathy54, D.U.J. Sonnadara, DDC Wickramarathna
University of Ruhuna, Department of Physics, Matara, Sri Lanka
W.G.D. Dharmaratna, K. Liyanage, N. Perera, N. Wickramage CERN, European
Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, D. Abbaneo, B. Akgun, E. Auffray, G. Auzinger, J. Baechler, P.
Baillon, A.H. Ball, D. Barney, J. Bendavid, M. Bianco, A. Bocci, P. Bortignon,
E. Bossini, E. Brondolin, T. Camporesi, G. Cerminara, L. Cristella, D.
d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, N. Daci, V. Daponte, A. David, A. De Roeck, M.
Deile, R. Di Maria, M. Dobson, M. Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, N.
Emriskova, F. Fallavollita55, D. Fasanella, S. Fiorendi, G. Franzoni, J.
Fulcher, W. Funk, S. Giani, D. Gigi, K. Gill, F. Glege, L. Gouskos, M.
Gruchala, M. Guilbaud, D. Gulhan, J. Hegeman, Y. Iiyama, V. Innocente, T.
James, P. Janot, J. Kaspar, J. Kieseler, M. Komm, N. Kratochwil, C. Lange, P.
Lecoq, K. Long, C. Lourenço, L. Malgeri, M. Mannelli, A. Massironi, F.
Meijers, S. Mersi, E. Meschi, F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, J. Ngadiuba, J.
Niedziela, S. Orfanelli, L. Orsini, F. Pantaleo19, L. Pape, E. Perez, M.
Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, D. Rabady, A.
Racz, M. Rieger, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, S. Scarfi, C.
Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva, W. Snoeys, P.
Sphicas56, J. Steggemann, S. Summers, V.R. Tavolaro, D. Treille, A. Tsirou,
G.P. Van Onsem, A. Vartak, M. Verzetti, K.A. Wozniak, W.D. Zeuner Paul
Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland
L. Caminada57, W. Erdmann, R. Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C. Kaestli, D.
Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, T. Rohe ETH Zurich - Institute for Particle Physics
and Astrophysics (IPA), Zurich, Switzerland
M. Backhaus, P. Berger, A. Calandri, N. Chernyavskaya, G. Dissertori, M.
Dittmar, M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, T. Gadek, T.A. Gómez Espinosa, C. Grab, D.
Hits, W. Lustermann, A.-M. Lyon, R.A. Manzoni, M.T. Meinhard, F. Micheli, P.
Musella, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, F. Pauss, V. Perovic, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, S.
Pigazzini, M.G. Ratti, M. Reichmann, C. Reissel, T. Reitenspiess, B. Ristic,
D. Ruini, D.A. Sanz Becerra, M. Schönenberger, L. Shchutska, V. Stampf, M.L.
Vesterbacka Olsson, R. Wallny, D.H. Zhu Universität Zürich, Zurich,
Switzerland
C. Amsler58, C. Botta, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, R. Del Burgo,
J.K. Heikkilä, M. Huwiler, A. Jofrehei, B. Kilminster, S. Leontsinis, A.
Macchiolo, P. Meiring, V.M. Mikuni, U. Molinatti, I. Neutelings, G. Rauco, A.
Reimers, P. Robmann, K. Schweiger, Y. Takahashi, S. Wertz National Central
University, Chung-Li, Taiwan
C. Adloff59, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A. Roy, T. Sarkar34, S.S. Yu National Taiwan
University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
L. Ceard, P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, W.-S. Hou, Y.y. Li, R.-S.
Lu, E. Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen, E. Yazgan Chulalongkorn University,
Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok, Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, N. Srimanobhas Çukurova University,
Physics Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
F. Boran, S. Damarseckin60, Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, C. Dozen61, I.
Dumanoglu62, E. Eskut, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, E. Gurpinar Guler63, I. Hos64,
C. Isik, E.E. Kangal65, O. Kara, A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, G. Onengut, K.
Ozdemir66, A. Polatoz, A.E. Simsek, B. Tali67, U.G. Tok, S. Turkcapar, I.S.
Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East Technical University, Physics Department,
Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak68, G. Karapinar69, K. Ocalan70, M. Yalvac71 Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya72, O. Kaya73, Ö. Özçelik, S. Tekten74, E.A.
Yetkin75 Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
A. Cakir, K. Cankocak62, Y. Komurcu, S. Sen76 Istanbul University, Istanbul,
Turkey
F. Aydogmus Sen, S. Cerci67, B. Kaynak, S. Ozkorucuklu, D. Sunar Cerci67
Institute for Scintillation Materials of National Academy of Science of
Ukraine, Kharkov, Ukraine
B. Grynyov National Scientific Center, Kharkov Institute of Physics and
Technology, Kharkov, Ukraine
L. Levchuk University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
E. Bhal, S. Bologna, J.J. Brooke, D. Burns77, E. Clement, D. Cussans, H.
Flacher, J. Goldstein, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, B. Krikler, S.
Paramesvaran, T. Sakuma, S. Seif El Nasr-Storey, V.J. Smith, J. Taylor, A.
Titterton Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev78, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, D.J.A. Cockerill, K.V. Ellis, K.
Harder, S. Harper, J. Linacre, K. Manolopoulos, D.M. Newbold, E. Olaiya, D.
Petyt, T. Reis, T. Schuh, C.H. Shepherd-Themistocleous, A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin,
T. Williams Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, S. Bonomally, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A.
Bundock, V. Cepaitis, G.S. Chahal79, D. Colling, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M.
Della Negra, P. Everaerts, G. Fedi, G. Hall, G. Iles, J. Langford, L. Lyons,
A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, A. Martelli, V. Milosevic, J. Nash80, V. Palladino, M.
Pesaresi, D.M. Raymond, A. Richards, A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A.
Shtipliyski, M. Stoye, A. Tapper, K. Uchida, T. Virdee19, N. Wardle, S.N.
Webb, D. Winterbottom, A.G. Zecchinelli, S.C. Zenz Brunel University,
Uxbridge, United Kingdom
J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, C.K. Mackay, I.D. Reid, L.
Teodorescu, S. Zahid Baylor University, Waco, USA
A. Brinkerhoff, K. Call, B. Caraway, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, A.R.
Kanuganti, C. Madrid, B. McMaster, N. Pastika, S. Sawant, C. Smith Catholic
University of America, Washington, DC, USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez, R. Uniyal, A.M. Vargas Hernandez The University of
Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
A. Buccilli, O. Charaf, S.I. Cooper, S.V. Gleyzer, C. Henderson, P. Rumerio,
C. West Boston University, Boston, USA
A. Akpinar, A. Albert, D. Arcaro, C. Cosby, Z. Demiragli, D. Gastler, C.
Richardson, J. Rohlf, K. Salyer, D. Sperka, D. Spitzbart, I. Suarez, S. Yuan,
D. Zou Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, B. Burkle, X. Coubez20, D. Cutts, Y.t. Duh, M. Hadley, U. Heintz,
J.M. Hogan81, K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, K.T. Lau, J. Lee, M.
Narain, S. Sagir82, R. Syarif, E. Usai, W.Y. Wong, D. Yu, W. Zhang University
of California, Davis, Davis, USA
R. Band, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez, M. Chertok,
J. Conway, R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, G. Funk, F. Jensen, W.
Ko${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, O. Kukral, R. Lander, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett,
J. Pilot, M. Shi, D. Taylor, K. Tos, M. Tripathi, Y. Yao, F. Zhang University
of California, Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, C. Bravo, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, A. Florent, D. Hamilton, J.
Hauser, M. Ignatenko, T. Lam, N. Mccoll, W.A. Nash, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg,
C. Schnaible, B. Stone, V. Valuev University of California, Riverside,
Riverside, USA
K. Burt, Y. Chen, R. Clare, J.W. Gary, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi, G. Hanson, G.
Karapostoli, O.R. Long, N. Manganelli, M. Olmedo Negrete, M.I. Paneva, W. Si,
S. Wimpenny, Y. Zhang University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, P. Chang, S. Cittolin, S. Cooperstein, N. Deelen, M. Derdzinski,
J. Duarte, R. Gerosa, D. Gilbert, B. Hashemi, D. Klein, V. Krutelyov, J.
Letts, M. Masciovecchio, S. May, S. Padhi, M. Pieri, V. Sharma, M. Tadel, F.
Würthwein, A. Yagil University of California, Santa Barbara - Department of
Physics, Santa Barbara, USA
N. Amin, R. Bhandari, C. Campagnari, M. Citron, A. Dorsett, V. Dutta, J.
Incandela, B. Marsh, H. Mei, A. Ovcharova, H. Qu, M. Quinnan, J. Richman, U.
Sarica, D. Stuart, S. Wang California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
D. Anderson, A. Bornheim, O. Cerri, I. Dutta, J.M. Lawhorn, N. Lu, J. Mao,
H.B. Newman, T.Q. Nguyen, J. Pata, M. Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, S. Xie, Z.
Zhang, R.Y. Zhu Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
J. Alison, M.B. Andrews, T. Ferguson, T. Mudholkar, M. Paulini, M. Sun, I.
Vorobiev, M. Weinberg University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, E. MacDonald, T. Mulholland, R. Patel, A. Perloff, K.
Stenson, K.A. Ulmer, S.R. Wagner Cornell University, Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, Y. Cheng, J. Chu, D.J. Cranshaw, A. Datta, A. Frankenthal, K.
Mcdermott, J. Monroy, J.R. Patterson, D. Quach, A. Ryd, W. Sun, S.M. Tan, Z.
Tao, J. Thom, P. Wittich, M. Zientek Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
Batavia, USA
S. Abdullin, M. Albrow, M. Alyari, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S.
Banerjee, L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas, D. Berry, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, K.
Burkett, J.N. Butler, A. Canepa, G.B. Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M.
Cremonesi, V.D. Elvira, J. Freeman, Z. Gecse, E. Gottschalk, L. Gray, D.
Green, S. Grünendahl, O. Gutsche, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, R. Heller, T.C.
Herwig, J. Hirschauer, B. Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, T.
Klijnsma, B. Klima, M.J. Kortelainen, S. Lammel, J. Lewis, D. Lincoln, R.
Lipton, M. Liu, T. Liu, J. Lykken, K. Maeshima, D. Mason, P. McBride, P.
Merkel, S. Mrenna, S. Nahn, V. O’Dell, V. Papadimitriou, K. Pedro, C. Pena50,
O. Prokofyev, F. Ravera, A. Reinsvold Hall, L. Ristori, B. Schneider, E.
Sexton-Kennedy, N. Smith, A. Soha, W.J. Spalding, L. Spiegel, S. Stoynev, J.
Strait, L. Taylor, S. Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran, L. Uplegger, E.W. Vaandering, M.
Wang, H.A. Weber, A. Woodard University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, D. Bourilkov, L. Cadamuro, V. Cherepanov, F. Errico, R.D.
Field, D. Guerrero, B.M. Joshi, M. Kim, J. Konigsberg, A. Korytov, K.H. Lo, K.
Matchev, N. Menendez, G. Mitselmakher, D. Rosenzweig, K. Shi, J. Wang, S.
Wang, X. Zuo Florida International University, Miami, USA
Y.R. Joshi Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
T. Adams, A. Askew, D. Diaz, R. Habibullah, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F.
Johnson, R. Khurana, T. Kolberg, G. Martinez, H. Prosper, C. Schiber, R.
Yohay, J. Zhang Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, S. Butalla, T. Elkafrawy13, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, M. Rahmani,
M. Saunders, F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago, USA
M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, H. Becerril Gonzalez, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, S.
Dittmer, O. Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, C. Mills, G. Oh,
T. Roy, M.B. Tonjes, N. Varelas, J. Viinikainen, H. Wang, X. Wang, Z. Wu The
University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, B. Bilki63, K. Dilsiz83, S. Durgut, R.P. Gandrajula, M.
Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko, O.K. Köseyan, J.-P. Merlo, A. Mestvirishvili84, A.
Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul85, Y. Onel, F. Ozok86, A. Penzo, C. Snyder, E.
Tiras, J. Wetzel, K. Yi87 Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
O. Amram, B. Blumenfeld, L. Corcodilos, M. Eminizer, A.V. Gritsan, S.
Kyriacou, P. Maksimovic, C. Mantilla, J. Roskes, M. Swartz, T.Á. Vámi The
University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA
C. Baldenegro Barrera, P. Baringer, A. Bean, A. Bylinkin, T. Isidori, S.
Khalil, J. King, G. Krintiras, A. Kropivnitskaya, C. Lindsey, N. Minafra, M.
Murray, C. Rogan, C. Royon, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q.
Wang, J. Williams, G. Wilson Kansas State University, Manhattan, USA
S. Duric, A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, D. Kim, Y. Maravin, D.R. Mendis, T. Mitchell,
A. Modak, A. Mohammadi Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright University of Maryland, College Park, USA
E. Adams, A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, S.C. Eno, Y. Feng, N.J. Hadley, S.
Jabeen, G.Y. Jeng, R.G. Kellogg, T. Koeth, A.C. Mignerey, S. Nabili, M.
Seidel, A. Skuja, S.C. Tonwar, L. Wang, K. Wong Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, R. Bi, S. Brandt, W. Busza, I.A. Cali, Y. Chen, M.
D’Alfonso, G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov, P. Harris, D. Hsu, M. Hu, M.
Klute, D. Kovalskyi, J. Krupa, Y.-J. Lee, P.D. Luckey, B. Maier, A.C. Marini,
C. Mcginn, C. Mironov, S. Narayanan, X. Niu, C. Paus, D. Rankin, C. Roland, G.
Roland, Z. Shi, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Sumorok, K. Tatar, D. Velicanu, J. Wang,
T.W. Wang, Z. Wang, B. Wyslouch University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, S. Guts${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, P. Hansen, J.
Hiltbrand, Sh. Jain, M. Krohn, Y. Kubota, Z. Lesko, J. Mans, M. Revering, R.
Rusack, R. Saradhy, N. Schroeder, N. Strobbe, M.A. Wadud University of
Mississippi, Oxford, USA
J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
K. Bloom, S. Chauhan, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, L. Finco, F. Golf, J.R.
González Fernández, I. Kravchenko, J.E. Siado, G.R.
Snow${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, B. Stieger, W. Tabb State University of New
York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
G. Agarwal, C. Harrington, L. Hay, I. Iashvili, A. Kharchilava, C. McLean, D.
Nguyen, A. Parker, J. Pekkanen, S. Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani Northeastern
University, Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, Y. Haddad, A. Hortiangtham, G. Madigan, B.
Marzocchi, D.M. Morse, V. Nguyen, T. Orimoto, L. Skinnari, A. Tishelman-
Charny, T. Wamorkar, B. Wang, A. Wisecarver, D. Wood Northwestern University,
Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, J. Bueghly, Z. Chen, A. Gilbert, T. Gunter, K.A. Hahn, N.
Odell, M.H. Schmitt, K. Sung, M. Velasco University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame,
USA
R. Bucci, N. Dev, R. Goldouzian, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop,
D.J. Karmgard, K. Lannon, W. Li, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, I. Mcalister, F.
Meng, K. Mohrman, Y. Musienko44, R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, S. Taroni, M.
Wayne, A. Wightman, M. Wolf, L. Zygala The Ohio State University, Columbus,
USA
J. Alimena, B. Bylsma, B. Cardwell, L.S. Durkin, B. Francis, C. Hill, W. Ji,
A. Lefeld, B.L. Winer, B.R. Yates Princeton University, Princeton, USA
G. Dezoort, P. Elmer, B. Greenberg, N. Haubrich, S. Higginbotham, A.
Kalogeropoulos, G. Kopp, S. Kwan, D. Lange, M.T. Lucchini, J. Luo, D. Marlow,
K. Mei, I. Ojalvo, J. Olsen, C. Palmer, P. Piroué, D. Stickland, C. Tully
University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
V.E. Barnes, R. Chawla, S. Das, L. Gutay, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, B. Mahakud, G.
Negro, N. Neumeister, C.C. Peng, S. Piperov, H. Qiu, J.F. Schulte, N.
Trevisani, F. Wang, R. Xiao, W. Xie Purdue University Northwest, Hammond, USA
T. Cheng, J. Dolen, N. Parashar, M. Stojanovic Rice University, Houston, USA
A. Baty, S. Dildick, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Kilpatrick, A.
Kumar, W. Li, B.P. Padley, R. Redjimi, J. Roberts${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$,
J. Rorie, W. Shi, A.G. Stahl Leiton, Z. Tu, A. Zhang University of Rochester,
Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, J.L. Dulemba, C. Fallon, T. Ferbel, M.
Galanti, A. Garcia-Bellido, O. Hindrichs, A. Khukhunaishvili, E. Ranken, R.
Taus Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, USA
B. Chiarito, J.P. Chou, A. Gandrakota, Y. Gershtein, E. Halkiadakis, A. Hart,
M. Heindl, E. Hughes, S. Kaplan, O. Karacheban23, I. Laflotte, A. Lath, R.
Montalvo, K. Nash, M. Osherson, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, S. Somalwar, R. Stone,
S.A. Thayil, S. Thomas University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
H. Acharya, A.G. Delannoy, S. Spanier Texas A&M University, College Station,
USA
O. Bouhali88, M. Dalchenko, A. Delgado, R. Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T.
Kamon89, H. Kim, S. Luo, S. Malhotra, R. Mueller, D. Overton, L. Perniè, D.
Rathjens, A. Safonov Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, V. Hegde, S. Kunori, K. Lamichhane, S.W. Lee, T.
Mengke, S. Muthumuni, T. Peltola, S. Undleeb, I. Volobouev, Z. Wang, A.
Whitbeck Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
E. Appelt, S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H.
Ni, K. Padeken, F. Romeo, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska, M. Verweij
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
L. Ang, M.W. Arenton, B. Cox, G. Cummings, J. Hakala, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A.
Ledovskoy, C. Neu, B. Tannenwald, Y. Wang, E. Wolfe, F. Xia Wayne State
University, Detroit, USA
P.E. Karchin, N. Poudyal, J. Sturdy, P. Thapa University of Wisconsin -
Madison, Madison, WI, USA
K. Black, T. Bose, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, S. Dasu, I. De Bruyn, L. Dodd, C.
Galloni, H. He, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, A. Lanaro, A. Loeliger, R.
Loveless, J. Madhusudanan Sreekala, A. Mallampalli, D. Pinna, T. Ruggles, A.
Savin, V. Shang, V. Sharma, W.H. Smith, D. Teague, S. Trembath-reichert, W.
Vetens †: Deceased
1: Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria
2: Also at Department of Basic and Applied Sciences, Faculty of Engineering,
Arab Academy for Science, Technology and Maritime Transport, Alexandria, Egypt
3: Also at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
4: Also at IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
5: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
6: Also at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
7: Also at UFMS, Nova Andradina, Brazil
8: Also at Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil
9: Also at University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
10: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics named by A.I.
Alikhanov of NRC ‘Kurchatov Institute’, Moscow, Russia
11: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
12: Also at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt
13: Now at Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
14: Now at Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt
15: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
16: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
17: Also at Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
18: Also at Erzincan Binali Yildirim University, Erzincan, Turkey
19: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
20: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
21: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
22: Also at Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran, Isfahan, Iran
23: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
24: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
25: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary,
Debrecen, Hungary
26: Also at Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Assiut University, Assiut,
Egypt
27: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
28: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary, Budapest, Hungary
29: Also at IIT Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India, Bhubaneswar, India
30: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
31: Also at G.H.G. Khalsa College, Punjab, India
32: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India
33: Also at University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India
34: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
35: Also at Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Mumbai, India
36: Also at Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
37: Also at Department of Physics, University of Science and Technology of
Mazandaran, Behshahr, Iran
38: Now at INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b, Politecnico di Bari
c, Bari, Italy
39: Also at Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and
Sustainable Economic Development, Bologna, Italy
40: Also at Centro Siciliano di Fisica Nucleare e di Struttura Della Materia,
Catania, Italy
41: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia, Riga, Latvia
42: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico City, Mexico
43: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems,
Warsaw, Poland
44: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
45: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
46: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
47: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
48: Also at Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
49: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
50: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
51: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
52: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
53: Also at Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy
54: Also at Trincomalee Campus, Eastern University, Sri Lanka, Nilaveli, Sri
Lanka
55: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy,
Pavia, Italy
56: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
57: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
58: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics, Vienna, Austria,
Vienna, Austria
59: Also at Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules,
IN2P3-CNRS, Annecy-le-Vieux, France
60: Also at Şırnak University, Sirnak, Turkey
61: Also at Department of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China,
Beijing, China
62: Also at Near East University, Research Center of Experimental Health
Science, Nicosia, Turkey
63: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey, Istanbul, Turkey
64: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Application and Research Center for
Advanced Studies (App. & Res. Cent. for Advanced Studies), Istanbul, Turkey
65: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
66: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
67: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
68: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
69: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
70: Also at Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
71: Also at Bozok Universitetesi Rektörlügü, Yozgat, Turkey
72: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
73: Also at Milli Savunma University, Istanbul, Turkey
74: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
75: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
76: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
77: Also at Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
78: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
79: Also at IPPP Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom
80: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia
81: Also at Bethel University, St. Paul, Minneapolis, USA, St. Paul, USA
82: Also at Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey
83: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
84: Also at Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
85: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
86: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
87: Also at Nanjing Normal University Department of Physics, Nanjing, China
88: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
89: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea, Daegu, Korea