TOP-17-007

$HeadURL:svn+ssh://svn.cern.ch/reps/tdr2/papers/TOP-17-007/trunk/TOP-17-007.tex$
$Id:TOP-17-007.tex4731572018-08-2811:36:41Zstadie$

TOP-17-007

# Measurement of the top quark mass with lepton+jets final states using
collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13~{}\text{TeV}$

###### Abstract

The mass of the top quark is measured using a sample of events collected by
the CMS detector using proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$at the CERN
LHC. Events are selected with one isolated muon or electron and at least four
jets from data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9. For each
event the mass is reconstructed from a kinematic fit of the decay products to
a hypothesis. Using the ideogram method, the top quark mass is determined
simultaneously with an overall jet energy scale factor (JSF), constrained by
the mass of the W boson in $\PQq\PAQq^{\prime}$ decays. The measurement is
calibrated on samples simulated at next-to-leading order matched to a leading-
order parton shower. The top quark mass is found to be $172.25\pm
0.08\,\text{(stat+JSF)}\pm 0.62\syst\GeV$. The dependence of this result on
the kinematic properties of the event is studied and compared to predictions
of different models of production, and no indications of a bias in the
measurements are observed.

##  0.1 Introduction

The top quark plays a key role in precision measurements of the standard model
(SM) because of its large Yukawa coupling to the Higgs boson. Top quark loops
provide the dominant contribution to radiative corrections to the Higgs boson
mass, and accurate measurements of both the top quark mass ($m_{\PQt}$) and
the Higgs boson mass allow consistency tests of the SM [1]. In addition, the
decision whether the SM vacuum is stable or meta-stable needs a precise
measurement of $m_{\PQt}$ as the Higgs boson quartic coupling at the Planck
scale depends heavily on $m_{\PQt}$ [2].

The mass of the top quark has been measured with increasing precision using
the invariant mass of different combinations of its decay products [3]. The
measurements by the Tevatron collaborations lead to a combined value of
$m_{\PQt}=174.30\pm 0.65\GeV$ [4], while the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations
measured $m_{\PQt}=172.84\pm 0.70\GeV$ [5] and $m_{\PQt}=172.44\pm 0.49\GeV$
[6], respectively, from the combination of their most precise results. In
parallel, the theoretical interpretation of the measurements and the
uncertainties in the measured top quark mass derived from the modeling of the
selected variables has significantly improved [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13].

Since the publication of the CMS measurements [6] for proton-proton ()
collisions at center-of-mass energies of 7 and 8(Run 1), new theoretical
models have become available and a data set has been collected at
$\sqrt{s}=13$that is larger than the Run 1 data set. At this higher center-of-
mass energy, new data and simulated samples are available for this analysis.
The method closely follows the strategy of the most precise CMS Run 1
measurement [6]. While the selected final state, the kinematic reconstruction,
and mass extraction technique have not changed, the new simulations describe
the data better and allow a more refined estimation of the modeling
uncertainties. In contrast to the Run 1 analysis, the renormalization and
factorization scales in the matrix-element (ME) calculation and the scales in
the initial- and final-state parton showers (PS) are now varied separately for
the evaluation of systematic effects. In addition, we evaluate the impact of
different models of color reconnection that were not available for the Run 1
measurements.

The pair-produced top quarks () are assumed to decay weakly into bosons and
bottom () quarks via $\cPqt\to\cPqb\PW$, with one boson decaying into a muon
or electron and its neutrino, and the other into a quark-antiquark
($\PQq\PAQq^{\prime}$) pair. Hence, the minimal final state consists of a muon
or electron, at least four jets, and one undetected neutrino. This includes
events where a muon or electron from a $\tau$ lepton decay passes the
selection criteria. The analysis employs a kinematic fit of the decay products
to a hypothesis and two-dimensional likelihood functions for each event to
estimate simultaneously the top quark mass and a scale factor (JSF) to be
applied to the momenta of all jets. The invariant mass of the two jets
associated with the $\PW\to\PQq\PAQq^{\prime}$ decay serves as an observable
in the likelihood functions to estimate the JSF directly, exploiting the
precise knowledge of the boson mass from previous measurements [3]. The
analysis is performed on the data sample collected in 2016 and includes
studies of the dependence of the measured mass value on the kinematic
properties of the events.

##  0.2 The CMS detector and event reconstruction

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 (HCAL), each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. Forward
calorimeters extend the pseudorapidity ($\eta$) coverage provided by the
barrel and endcap detectors. Muons are detected in gas-ionization chambers
embedded in the steel flux-return yoke outside the solenoid. A more detailed
description of the CMS detector, together with a definition of the coordinate
system used and the relevant kinematic variables, can be found in Ref. [14].

The particle-flow event algorithm [15] reconstructs and identifies each
individual particle with an optimized combination of information from the
various elements of the CMS detector. The energy of photons is directly
obtained from the ECAL measurement, corrected for zero-suppression effects.
The energy of electrons is determined from a combination of the electron
momentum at the primary interaction vertex as determined by the tracker, the
energy of the corresponding ECAL cluster, and the energy sum of all
bremsstrahlung photons spatially compatible with originating from the electron
track. The energy of muons is obtained from the curvature of the corresponding
track. The energy of charged hadrons is determined from a combination of their
momentum measured in the tracker and the matching ECAL and HCAL energy
deposits, corrected for zero-suppression effects and for the response function
of the calorimeters to hadronic showers. Finally, the energy of neutral
hadrons is obtained from the corresponding corrected ECAL and HCAL energy.

The missing transverse momentum is calculated as the negative of the vectorial
sum of transverse momenta () of all particle-flow objects in the event. Jets
are clustered from particle-flow objects using the anti-algorithm with a
distance parameter of 0.4 [16, 17, 18]. The jet momentum is determined as the
vectorial sum of all particle momenta in the jet, and is found from simulation
to be within 5 to 10% of the true momentum over the whole spectrum and
detector acceptance. An offset correction is applied to jet energies to take
into account the contribution from additional interactions within the same or
nearby bunch crossings (pileup) [19]. All jets are corrected by jet energy
corrections (JECs) based on simulations. Residual JECs which are derived from
the energy balance in $\gamma$/ boson + jet, dijet, and multijet events [20]
are applied to the jets in data. The JECs are also propagated to improve the
measurement of . The reconstructed vertex with the largest value of summed
physics-object $\pt^{2}$ is taken to be the primary $\Pp\Pp$ interaction
vertex. The physics objects chosen are those that have been defined using
information from the tracking detector, including jets, , and charged leptons.
Additional selection criteria are applied to each event to remove spurious
jet-like features originating from isolated noise patterns in certain HCAL
regions [21].

##  0.3 Data samples, event generation, and selection

The data sample collected with the CMS detector during 2016 at a center-of-
mass energy $\sqrt{s}=13$has been analyzed. This corresponds to an integrated
luminosity of $35.9\pm 0.9$ [22]. Events are required to pass a single-muon
trigger with a minimum threshold on the of an isolated muon of 24or a single-
electron trigger with a threshold for isolated electrons of 32.

Simulated signal events are generated at next-to-leading order (NLO) with v2
[23, 24, 25, 26] and the 8.219 PS generator [27] using the CUETP8M2T4 tune
[28, 29] for seven different top quark mass values of 166.5, 169.5, 171.5,
172.5, 173.5, 175.5, and 178.5. The single top quark background is also
simulated using v2 [30, 31] interfaced with 8. The background stemming from
single vector boson production is generated at leading order (LO) or NLO with
v2.2.2 [32] matched to the 8 PS using the MLM prescription [33] for +jets and
the FxFx prescription [34] for +jets, respectively. Finally, diboson (, , and
) and multijet events from quantum chromodynamics (QCD) processes are
generated with 8 for ME generation, PS simulation, and hadronization. These
background samples use the 8 tune CUETP8M1. The parton distribution function
(PDF) set NNPDF3.0 NLO derived with the strong coupling strength $\alpS=0.118$
[35] and its corresponding LO version are used as the default parametrization
of the PDFs in all simulations, respectively. The samples are normalized to
the theoretical predictions described in Refs. [36, 37, 38, 39, 27]. All
events are further processed by a full simulation of the CMS detector based on
[40]. The simulation includes effects of pileup with the same multiplicity
distribution as in data. The response and the resolution of simulated jets is
corrected to match the data [20].

We select events that have exactly one isolated muon with $\pt>26\GeV$ and
$\abs{\eta}<2.4$ or exactly one isolated electron with $\pt>34\GeV$ and
$\abs{\eta}<2.1$ [41, 42]. The isolation of a lepton candidate from nearby jet
activity is evaluated from the sum of the pileup-corrected of neutral hadrons,
charged hadrons, and photon PF candidates within a cone of $\Delta
R=\sqrt{\smash[b]{(\Delta\eta)^{2}+(\Delta\phi)^{2}}}=0.4$ for muons and
$\Delta R=0.3$ for electrons. Here $\Delta\eta$ and $\Delta\phi$ are the
differences in the pseudorapidity and azimuthal angles (in radians) between
the particles and the lepton candidate. The sum of the of the particles is
required to be less than 15% of the muon and 10% of the electron ,
respectively.

Figure 1:  Invariant mass $m_{\PW}^{\text{reco}}$ of the two untagged jets
(left) and invariant mass $m_{\PQt}^{\text{reco}}$ of the two untagged jets
and one of the -tagged jets (right) after the tagging requirement. For the
simulated events, the jet-parton assignments are classified as correct, wrong,
and unmatched permutations as described in the text. The vertical bars show
the statistical uncertainty on the data and the hatched bands show the
systematic uncertainties considered in Section 0.5. The lower portion of each
panel shows the ratio of the yields between data and the simulation. The
simulations are normalized to the integrated luminosity.

In addition, at least four jets with $\pt>30\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.4$ are
required. Only the four leading among the jets passing these $\pt$\- and
$\eta$-criteria are used in the reconstruction of the system. Jets originating
from quarks are identified (tagged) using an algorithm that combines
reconstructed secondary vertices and track-based lifetime information. This
has an efficiency of approximately 70% and a mistagging probability for light-
quark and gluon jets of 1% [43]. We require exactly two -tagged jets among the
four leading ones and select 669 109 candidate events in data. Figure 1 shows
the distributions of the reconstructed mass $m_{\PW}^{\text{reco}}$ of the
boson decaying to a $\PQq\PAQq^{\prime}$ pair and the masses
$m_{\PQt}^{\text{reco}}$ computed from the two untagged jets and each of the
two -tagged jets at this selection step. For simulated events, the parton-jet
assignments can be classified as correct permutations (_cp_), wrong
permutations (_wp_), and unmatched permutations (_un_), where, in the latter,
at least one quark from the decay is not unambiguously matched within a
distance of $\Delta R<0.4$ to any of the four selected jets.

To check the compatibility of an event with the hypothesis, and to improve the
resolution of the reconstructed quantities, a kinematic fit [44] is performed.
For each event, the inputs to the algorithm are the four-momenta of the lepton
and of the four leading jets, , and the resolutions of these variables. The
fit constrains these quantities to the hypothesis that two heavy particles of
equal mass are produced, each one decaying to a bottom quark and a boson, with
the invariant mass of the latter constrained to 80.4. The kinematic fit then
minimizes
$\chi^{2}\equiv\left(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}^{m}\right)^{\mathrm{T}}G\left(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}^{m}\right)$
where $\mathbf{x}^{m}$ and $\mathbf{x}$ are the vectors of the measured and
fitted momenta, respectively, and $G$ is the inverse covariance matrix which
is constructed from the uncertainties in the measured momenta. The two -tagged
jets are candidates for the quarks in the hypothesis, while the two untagged
jets serve as candidates for the light quarks from the hadronically decaying
boson. This leads to two possible parton-jet assignments with two solutions
for the longitudinal component of the neutrino momentum each, resulting in
four different permutations per event.

To increase the fraction of correct permutations, we require the goodness-of-
fit (gof) probability for the kinematic fit with two degrees of freedom
$P_{\text{gof}}=\exp\left(-\chi^{2}/2\right)$ to be at least $0.2$. This
requirement selects 161 496 events in data, while the non-background in the
simulated data is reduced from 7.6% to 4.3%. The remaining background consists
mostly of single top quark events (2.5%). Any of the four permutations in an
event that passes the selection criteria is weighted by its $P_{\text{gof}}$
value and is used in the measurement. These steps improve the fraction of
correct permutations from 14.9% to 48.0%. Figure 2 shows the final
distributions after the $P_{\text{gof}}$ selection of the reconstructed mass
$m_{\PW}^{\text{reco}}$ of the boson decaying to a $\PQq\PAQq^{\prime}$ pair
and the invariant mass of the top quark candidates from the kinematic fit
$m_{\PQt}^{\text{fit}}$ for all selected permutations. These two observables
are used in the mass extraction.

Figure 2:  Reconstructed boson masses $m_{\PW}^{\text{reco}}$ (left) and
fitted top quark masses $m_{\PQt}^{\text{fit}}$ (right) after the goodness-of-
fit selection and the weighting by $P_{\text{gof}}$. Symbols and patterns are
the same as in Fig. 1. The simulations are normalized to the integrated
luminosity.

##  0.4 Ideogram method

An ideogram method [45] is employed as described in Ref. [46]. The details of
the procedure outlined below are identical with the approach taken in the Run
1 CMS measurement [6]. The observable used to measure $m_{\PQt}$ is the mass
$m_{\PQt}^{\text{fit}}$ evaluated after applying the kinematic fit. We take
the reconstructed boson mass $m_{\PW}^{\text{reco}}$, before it is constrained
by the kinematic fit, as an estimator for measuring the JSF to be applied in
addition to the standard CMS JECs. The top quark mass and the JSF are
determined simultaneously in a likelihood fit to the selected permutations, in
order to reduce the uncertainty from the JECs.

The distributions of $m_{\PQt}^{\text{fit}}$ and $m_{\PW}^{\text{reco}}$ are
obtained from simulation for seven different $m_{\PQt}$ and five different JSF
values. From these distributions, probability density functions $P_{j}$ are
derived separately for the different permutation cases $j$: _cp_ , _wp_ , or
_un_. These functions depend on $m_{\PQt}$ and the JSF and are labeled
$P_{j}(m_{\cPqt,i}^{\text{fit}}|m_{\PQt},\text{JSF})$ and
$P_{j}(m_{\PW,i}^{\text{reco}}|m_{\PQt},\text{JSF})$, respectively, for the
$i$th permutation of an event in the final likelihood. The observables
$m_{\PQt}^{\text{fit}}$ and $m_{\PW}^{\text{reco}}$ have a correlation
coefficient with a size below 5% for each permutation case and are treated as
uncorrelated. The most likely $m_{\PQt}$ and JSF values are obtained by
minimizing
$-2\ln\left[\mathcal{L}\left(\text{sample}|m_{\PQt},\text{JSF}\right)\right]$.
With an additional prior $P(\text{JSF})$, the likelihood
$\mathcal{L}\left(\text{sample}|m_{\PQt},\text{JSF}\right)$ is defined as:

$\mathcal{L}\left(\text{sample}|m_{\PQt},\text{JSF}\right)=P(\text{JSF})\,\prod_{\text{events}}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}P_{\text{gof}}\left(i\right)\Big{[}\sum_{j}f_{j}\,P_{j}(m_{\cPqt,i}^{\text{fit}}|m_{\PQt},\text{JSF})\,P_{j}(m_{\PW,i}^{\text{reco}}|m_{\PQt},\text{JSF})\Big{]}\right)^{w_{\text{evt}}},$

where $n$ denotes the number of the at-most four permutations in each event,
$j$ labels the permutation cases, and $f_{j}$ represents their relative
fractions. The event weight
$w_{\text{evt}}=c\,\sum_{i=1}^{n}P_{\text{gof}}\left(i\right)$ is introduced
to reduce the impact of events without correct permutations, where $c$
normalizes the average $w_{\text{evt}}$ to 1.

Different choices are made for the prior $P(\text{JSF})$ in the likelihood
fit. When the JSF is fixed to unity, the
$P_{j}(m_{\PW,i}^{\text{reco}}|m_{\PQt},\text{JSF})$ can be approximated by a
constant as they hardly depend on $m_{\PQt}$. Hence, only the
$m_{\PQt}^{\text{fit}}$ observable is fit, and this approach is called the 1D
analysis. The approach with an unconstrained JSF is called the 2D analysis.
Finally, in the hybrid analysis, the prior $P(\text{JSF})$ is a Gaussian
centered at 1.0. Its width depends on the relative weight $w_{\text{hyb}}$
that is assigned to the prior knowledge on the JSF,
$\sigma_{\text{prior}}=\delta\text{JSF}^{\text{2D}}_{\text{stat}}\sqrt{\smash[b]{1/w_{\text{hyb}}-1}}$,
where $\delta\text{JSF}^{\text{2D}}_{\text{stat}}$ is the statistical
uncertainty in the 2D result of the JSF. The optimal value of $w_{\text{hyb}}$
is determined from the uncertainties in the 2D analysis and discussed in
Section 0.5.

The 2D method is separately calibrated for the muon and electron channel by
conducting 10 000 pseudo-experiments for each combination of the seven top
quark masses and the five JSF values, using simulated and background events.
We correct for deviations between the extracted mass and JSF and their input
values. This bias correction amounts for the mass to an offset of 0.5for an
expected value of 172.5, with a slope of 3%. Corrections for the statistical
uncertainty of the method are derived from the widths of the corresponding
pull distributions and have a size of 5% for both the mass and the JSF.

##  0.5 Systematic uncertainties

The systematic uncertainties in the final measurement are determined from
pseudo-experiments. Taking into account new simulations, more variations of
the modeling of the events are investigated than in the Run 1 analysis [6].
The scales used for the simulation of initial-state radiation (ISR) and final-
state radiation (FSR) are varied independently from the renormalization and
factorization scales. Furthermore, the effects of early resonance decays and
alternative color-reconnection models [47, 48] are evaluated, while in Run 1
only the effect of an underlying event tune without color reconnection was
studied. The relevant systematic uncertainties and the methods used to
evaluate them are described below.

Method calibration:

We consider the quadratic sum of statistical uncertainty and residual biases
after the calibration of the ideogram method as a systematic uncertainty.

JECs:

As we measure a global JSF, we have to take into account the influence of the
- and $\eta$-dependent JEC uncertainties. This is done by scaling the energies
of all jets up and down according to their individual uncertainties [20],
split into correlation groups (called InterCalibration, MPFInSitu and
Uncorrelated) similarly to the procedure adopted at 8 [49].

Jet energy resolution:

The jet energy resolution (JER) in simulation is slightly degraded to match
the resolutions measured in data [20]. To account for the resolution
uncertainty, the JER in the simulation is modified by ${\pm}1$ standard
deviation with respect to the degraded resolution.

$\boldsymbol{\PQb{}}$ tagging:

The events are weighted to account for the -dependent uncertainty of the
tagging efficiencies and misidentification rates of the tagging algorithm
[43].

Pileup:

To estimate the uncertainties associated with the determination of the number
of pileup events and with the weighting procedure, the inelastic cross section
is varied by ${\pm}4.6$% for all simulations.

Non-$\boldsymbol{\ttbar}$ background:

The main uncertainty in the non-background stems from the uncertainty in the
measurements of the cross sections used in the normalization. The
normalization of the background samples is varied by $\pm$10% for the single
top quark samples [50, 51], $\pm$30% for the +jets samples [52], $\pm$10% for
the +jets [53] and for the diboson samples [54, 55], and $\pm$100% for the QCD
multijet samples. The uncertainty in the luminosity of 2.5% [22] is negligible
compared to these variations.

JEC Flavor:

The Lund string fragmentation implemented in 6.422 [56] is compared to the
cluster fragmentation of 2.4 [57]. Each model relies on a large set of tuning
parameters that allow to modify the individual fragmentation of jets initiated
from gluons, light quarks, and quarks. Therefore, the difference in jet energy
response between 6 and is determined for each jet flavor [20]. In order to
evaluate possible differences between the measured JSF (from light quarks with
gluon contamination) and the jet energy scale, the flavor uncertainties for
jets from light quarks, gluons, and bottom quarks are evaluated separately and
added linearly.

$\boldsymbol{\PQb{}}$ jet modeling:

This term has three components: The fragmentation into hadrons is varied in
simulation within the uncertainties of the Bowler–Lund fragmentation function
tuned to ALEPH [58] and DELPHI [59] data. In addition, the difference between
the Bowler–Lund [60] and the Peterson [61] fragmentation functions is included
in the uncertainty. Lastly, the uncertainty from the semileptonic hadron
branching fraction is obtained by varying it by $-0.45$% and $+0.77$%, which
is the range of the measurements from / decays and their uncertainties [3].

PDFs:

The NNPDF3.0 NLO ($\alpS=0.118$) PDF is used in the generation of simulated
events. We calculate the results with the different PDF replicas and use the
variance of these predictions for the PDF uncertainty [35]. In addition,
NNPDF3.0 sets with $\alpS=0.117$ and 0.119 are evaluated and the observed
difference is added in quadrature [62, 63, 64].

Renormalization and factorization scales:

The simulated events are weighted to match the event shape distributions
generated with different renormalization and factorization scales. These
scales are varied independently from each other by a factor of 0.5 and 2.

ME/PS matching:

The model parameter $h_{\text{damp}}=1.58^{+0.66}_{-0.59}$ [29] used in to
control the matching of the MEs to the 8 PS is varied within its
uncertainties.

ME generator:

The influence of the NLO ME generator and its matching to the PS generator is
estimated by using a sample from the NLO generator with FxFx matching [34],
instead of the v2 generator used as default.

ISR PS scale:

The PS scale value used for the simulation of ISR in 8 is scaled up by 2 and
down by 0.5 in dedicated samples.

FSR PS scale:

The PS scale value used for the simulation of FSR in 8 is scaled up by
$\sqrt{2}$ and down by $1/\sqrt{2}$ [28] in dedicated samples. This affects
the fragmentation and hadronization of the jets initiated by the ME
calculation, as well as the emission of extra jets. In the FSR samples, the
jet energy response of the light quarks is observed to differ by $\pm 1.2$%
compared to the response of the default sample. This response difference would
be absorbed in the residual JECs if the corrections were derived based on
$\gamma$/+jet simulations with the same PS scale. Hence, the momenta of all
jets in the varied samples are scaled so that the energy response for jets
induced by light quarks agrees with the default sample.

Top quark $\boldsymbol{\pt}$:

Recent calculations [65] suggest that next-to-next-to-leading-order effects
have an important impact on the top quark spectrum, that NLO ME generators are
unable to reproduce. Therefore, the top quark in simulation is varied to match
the distribution measured by CMS [66, 67]. The observed difference with
respect to the default sample is quoted as a systematic uncertainty.

Underlying event:

The modeling of multiple-parton interactions in 8 is tuned to measurements of
the underlying event [28, 29]. The parameters of the tune are varied within
their uncertainties in the simulation of the signal.

Early resonance decays:

By enabling early resonance decays (ERDs) in 8, color reconnections can happen
between particles from the top quark decay and particles from the underlying
event. In the default sample the ERDs are turned off and the top quark decay
products do not interact with the underlying event. The influence of the ERD
setting is estimated from a sample with ERDs enabled in 8.

Color reconnection:

The uncertainties that arise from ambiguities in modeling color-reconnection
effects are estimated by comparing the default model in 8 with ERDs to two
alternative models of color reconnection, a model with string formation beyond
leading color (“QCD inspired”) [48] and a model that allows gluons to be moved
to another string (“gluon move”) [47]. All models are tuned to measurements of
the underlying event [28, 68]. The observed shifts are listed in Table Color
reconnection:.

Observed shifts with respect to the default simulation for different models of
color reconnection. The “QCD inspired” and “gluon move” models are compared to
the default model with ERDs. The statistical uncertainty in the JSF shifts is
0.1%.  2D approach 1D approach Hybrid $\delta m_{\PQt}^{\text{2D}}$
$\delta\text{JSF}^{\text{2D}}$ $\delta m_{\PQt}^{\text{1D}}$ $\delta
m_{\PQt}^{\text{hyb}}$ $\delta\text{JSF}^{\text{hyb}}$ [] [%] [] [] [%] p8 ERD
on $-0.22\pm 0.09$ $+0.8$ $+0.42\pm 0.05$ $-0.03\pm 0.07$ $+0.5$ p8 QCD
inspired $-0.11\pm 0.09$ $-0.1$ $-0.19\pm 0.06$ $-0.13\pm 0.08$ $-0.1$ p8
gluon move $+0.34\pm 0.09$ $-0.1$ $+0.23\pm 0.06$ $+0.31\pm 0.08$ $-0.1$

Among the two approaches, the “gluon move” model leads to larger shifts and
these are quoted as the systematic uncertainty.

The modeling uncertainties are mainly evaluated by varying the parameters
within one model: v2 + 8 with the CUETP8M2T4 tune (labeled as p8 M2T4). This
approach benefits from the calibration of the reconstructed physics objects
which is derived from data with 8 as a reference. Three alternative models of
the signal are studied. The NLO generator with the FxFx matching [34] (labeled
as MG5 p8 [FxFx] M2T4) and the LO with the MLM matching [33] (labeled as MG5
p8 [MLM] M1) are both interfaced with 8 with the CUETP8M2T4 and the CUETP8M1
tune, respectively. In addition, v2 interfaced with [57] (v2.7.1) with the
tune EE5C [69] (labeled as h++ EE5C) is evaluated. ME corrections to the top
quark decay are not applied in the sample. A dedicated analysis has found that
MG5 p8 [MLM] M1 and h++ EE5C do not describe the data well [29, 70] and only
the NLO MG5 p8 [FxFx] M2T4 model is used in the evaluation of the systematic
uncertainties.

Nevertheless, the analysis is also performed on pseudo-experiments where the
signal stems from these different generator setups. This yields rather large
shifts for the two discarded models. The results are summarized in Table 0.5.
The shift for h++ EE5C would translate into a 4higher measurement of
$m_{\PQt}$ if this setup were used as the default simulation and not as signal
in the pseudo-data. The agreement of these generator setups and the color-
reconnection models with data are studied in Section 0.7 for this top quark
mass measurement.

Observed shifts with respect to the default simulation for different generator
setups. The statistical uncertainty in the JSF shifts is 0.1%.  2D approach 1D
approach Hybrid $\delta m_{t}^{\text{2D}}$ $\delta\text{JSF}^{\text{2D}}$
$\delta m_{t}^{\text{1D}}$ $\delta m_{t}^{\text{hyb}}$
$\delta\text{JSF}^{\text{hyb}}$ [] [%] [] [] [%] MG5 p8 [FxFx] M2T4 $+0.15\pm
0.23$ $+0.2$ $+0.32\pm 0.14$ $+0.20\pm 0.19$ $+0.1$ MG5 p8 [MLM] M1 $+0.82\pm
0.16$ $<$0.1 $+0.80\pm 0.10$ $+0.82\pm 0.14$ $<$0.1 h++ EE5C $-4.39\pm 0.09$
$+1.4$ $-3.26\pm 0.06$ $-4.06\pm 0.08$ $+1.0$

The contributions from the different sources of systematic uncertainties are
shown in Table 0.5. In general, the absolute value of the largest observed
shifts in $m_{\PQt}$ and JSF, determined by changing the parameters by $\pm$1
standard deviation ($\sigma$), are assigned as systematic uncertainties. The
only exception to this is if the statistical uncertainty in the observed shift
is larger than the value of the calculated shift. In this case the statistical
uncertainty is taken as the best estimate of the uncertainty in the parameter.
The signs in the table are taken from the $+1\sigma$ shift in the value of the
uncertainty source where applicable.

List of systematic uncertainties for the fits to the combined data set using
the procedures described in Section 0.5. With the exception of the flavor-
dependent JEC terms, the total systematic uncertainty is obtained from the sum
in quadrature of the individual systematic uncertainties. The values in
parentheses with indented labels are already included in the preceding
uncertainty source. A positive sign indicates an increase in the value of
$m_{\PQt}$ or the JSF in response to a $+1\sigma$ shift and a negative sign
indicates a decrease. The statistical uncertainty in the shift in $m_{\PQt}$
is given when different samples are compared. The statistical uncertainty in
the JSF shifts is 0.1% for these sources.  2D approach 1D approach Hybrid
$\delta m_{t}^{\text{2D}}$ $\delta\text{JSF}^{\text{2D}}$ $\delta
m_{t}^{\text{1D}}$ $\delta m_{t}^{\text{hyb}}$ $\delta\text{JSF}^{\text{hyb}}$
[] [%] [] [] [%] Experimental uncertainties Method calibration 0.05 $<$0.1
0.05 0.05 $<$0.1 JEC (quad. sum) 0.13 0.2 0.83 0.18 0.3 – InterCalibration
($-0.02$) ($<$0.1) ($+0.16$) ($+0.04$) ($<$0.1) – MPFInSitu ($-0.01$) ($<$0.1)
($+0.23$) ($+0.07$) ($<$0.1) – Uncorrelated ($-0.13$) ($+0.2$) ($+0.78$)
($+0.16$) ($+0.3$) Jet energy resolution $-0.20$ $+0.3$ $+0.09$ $-0.12$ $+0.2$
tagging $+0.03$ $<$0.1 $+0.01$ $+0.03$ $<$0.1 Pileup $-0.08$ $+0.1$ $+0.02$
$-0.05$ $+0.1$ Non-background $+0.04$ $-0.1$ $-0.02$ $+0.02$ $-0.1$ Modeling
uncertainties JEC Flavor (linear sum) $-0.42$ $+0.1$ $-0.31$ $-0.39$ $<$0.1 –
light quarks (uds) ($+0.10$) ($-0.1$) ($-0.01$) ($+0.06$) ($-0.1$) – charm
($+0.02$) ($<$0.1) ($-0.01$) ($+0.01$) ($<$0.1) – bottom ($-0.32$) ($<$0.1)
($-0.31$) ($-0.32$) ($<$0.1) – gluon ($-0.22$) ($+0.3$) ($+0.02$) ($-0.15$)
($+0.2$) jet modeling (quad. sum) 0.13 0.1 0.09 0.12 $<$0.1 – frag.
Bowler–Lund ($-0.07$) ($+0.1$) ($-0.01$) ($-0.05$) ($<$0.1) – frag. Peterson
($+0.04$) ($<$0.1) ($+0.05$) ($+0.04$) ($<$0.1) – semileptonic decays
($+0.11$) ($<$0.1) ($+0.08$) ($+0.10$) ($<$0.1) PDF 0.02 $<$0.1 0.02 0.02
$<$0.1 Ren. and fact. scales 0.02 0.1 0.02 0.01 $<$0.1 ME/PS matching
$-0.08\pm 0.09$ $+0.1$ $+0.03\pm 0.05$ $-0.05\pm 0.07$ $+0.1$ ME generator
$+0.15\pm 0.23$ $+0.2$ $+0.32\pm 0.14$ $+0.20\pm 0.19$ $+0.1$ ISR PS scale
$+0.07\pm 0.09$ $+0.1$ $+0.10\pm 0.05$ $+0.06\pm 0.07$ $<$0.1 FSR PS scale
$+0.24\pm 0.06$ $-0.4$ $-0.22\pm 0.04$ $+0.13\pm 0.05$ $-0.3$ Top quark
$+0.02$ $-0.1$ $-0.06$ $-0.01$ $-0.1$ Underlying event $-0.10\pm 0.08$ $+0.1$
$+0.01\pm 0.05$ $-0.07\pm 0.07$ $+0.1$ Early resonance decays $-0.22\pm 0.09$
$+0.8$ $+0.42\pm 0.05$ $-0.03\pm 0.07$ $+0.5$ Color reconnection $+0.34\pm
0.09$ $-0.1$ $+0.23\pm 0.06$ $+0.31\pm 0.08$ $-0.1$ Total systematic 0.75 1.1
1.10 0.62 0.8 Statistical (expected) 0.09 0.1 0.06 0.08 0.1 Total (expected)
0.76 1.1 1.10 0.63 0.8

The details of the fitting procedure have several consequences on the
uncertainties. The inclusion of the JSF as a nuisance parameter in the fit and
its constraint by the $m_{\PW}^{\text{reco}}$ observable reduces not only the
uncertainties stemming from the JECs, but also the modeling uncertainties. As
the JSF is an overall energy scale factor derived mainly on light-quark jets
and applied to all jets, this approach cannot reduce the uncertainties on the
flavor-dependent JECs. The other remaining systematic uncertainties are also
dominated by effects that cannot be fully compensated through the simultaneous
determination of $m_{\PQt}$ and JSF, , the $m_{\PQt}^{\text{fit}}$ observable
is affected differently from $m_{\PW}^{\text{reco}}$. For the hybrid analysis,
a hybrid weight of $w_{\text{hyb}}=0.3$ is found optimal based on the total
uncertainty in the 2D result of the JSF and the jet energy scale uncertainty
in the JECs. Due to the larger jet energy uncertainties at the beginning of
the 13data taking, $w_{\text{hyb}}$ is lower than in the Run 1 analysis [6]
where the prior JSF knowledge contributes 50% of the information. With an
expected statistical uncertainty
$\delta\text{JSF}^{\text{2D}}_{\text{stat}}=0.08\%$ on the JSF for the 2D
analysis, the width of the prior is $\sigma_{\text{prior}}=0.12\%$. The hybrid
analysis leads to further reduced uncertainties in the FSR PS scale and in
ERDs compared to the 2D analysis. This stems from the opposite signs of the
observed shifts in $m_{\PQt}$ for the 1D and 2D analyses, , the JSF from the
2D analysis overcompensates the effects on $m_{\PQt}^{\text{fit}}$.

##  0.6 Results

The 2D fit to the selected lepton+jets events yields:

$\displaystyle m_{\PQt}^{\text{2D}}$ $\displaystyle=172.40\pm
0.09\,\text{(stat+JSF)}\pm 0.75\syst\GeV,$
$\displaystyle\mathrm{JSF}^{\text{2D}}$ $\displaystyle=0.994\pm 0.001\stat\pm
0.011\syst.$

As the top quark mass and the JSF are measured simultaneously, the statistical
uncertainty in $m_{\PQt}$ originates from both quantities of interest. The
measured unconstrained JSF is compatible with the one obtained from jets
recoiling against photons and bosons within its uncertainties.

Separate fits to the 101 992 muon+jets events and the 59 504 electron+jets
events give statistically compatible results:

$\displaystyle\mu\text{+jets: }$ $\displaystyle m_{\PQt}^{\text{2D}}$
$\displaystyle=172.44\pm 0.11\,\text{(stat+JSF)}\GeV,$
$\displaystyle\mathrm{JSF}^{\text{2D}}=0.995\pm 0.001\stat,$
$\displaystyle\Pe\text{+jets: }$ $\displaystyle m_{\PQt}^{\text{2D}}$
$\displaystyle=172.32\pm 0.16\,\text{(stat+JSF)}\GeV,$
$\displaystyle\mathrm{JSF}^{\text{2D}}=0.993\pm 0.001\stat.$

The 1D fit and the hybrid fit with $w_{\text{hyb}}=0.3$, as obtained in
Section 0.5, yield for the lepton+jets channel:

$\displaystyle m_{\PQt}^{\text{1D}}$ $\displaystyle=171.93\pm 0.06\stat\pm
1.10\syst\GeV,$ $\displaystyle m_{\PQt}^{\text{hyb}}$ $\displaystyle=172.25\pm
0.08\,\text{(stat+JSF)}\pm 0.62\syst\GeV,$
$\displaystyle\mathrm{JSF}^{\text{hyb}}$ $\displaystyle=0.996\pm 0.001\stat\pm
0.008\syst.$

The hybrid fit measurement of $m_{\PQt}=172.25\pm 0.08\,\text{(stat+JSF)}\pm
0.62\syst\GeV$ offers the lowest overall uncertainty and, therefore, is chosen
as the main result of this study. This is the first published result of the
top quark mass measured with Run 2 data and the new NLO generator setups.
Because of the larger integrated luminosity and the higher cross section at
$\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$, the statistical uncertainty is halved compared to the Run 1
result of $m_{\PQt}=172.35\pm 0.16\,\text{(stat+JSF)}\pm 0.48\syst$ [6]. This
measurement is consistent with the Run 1 result within the uncertainties. The
previous measurement was calibrated with events generated at LO with 5.1.5.11
[71] matched to 6.426 PS [56] with the Z2∗ tune [72] using the MLM
prescription. No shift in the measured top quark mass from the new simulation
at NLO with v2 and 8 and the new experimental setup is observed. The
systematic uncertainties are larger than for the Run 1 result due to a more
advanced treatment of the modeling uncertainties. This is mainly caused by the
evaluation of a broader set of color-reconnection models that were not
available in Run 1, yielding a more extensive treatment of the associated
uncertainty. Without the uncertainty due to these models of $0.31\GeV$, the
systematic uncertainties in $m_{\PQt}$ would be reduced from 0.62 to 0.54and
would be much closer to the Run 1 result. Tighter constraints on the existing
color-reconnection models and the settings in the NLO simulations can occur in
the near future and reduce the systematic uncertainties due to these specific
models. The new treatment of the modeling uncertainties will require special
care when combining this measurement with the Run 1 result.

##  0.7 Measured top quark mass as a function of kinematic observables

The modeling of soft and perturbative QCD effects is the main source of
systematic uncertainties on the analysis presented here. Differential
measurements of $m_{\PQt}$ as a function of the kinematic properties of the
system can be used to validate the different models and to identify possible
biases in the measurement. Variables are selected that probe potential effects
from color reconnection, ISR and FSR, and the kinematic observables of the
jets coming from the top quark decays. They are the transverse momentum of the
hadronically decaying top quark ($\pt^{\rm{t,had}}$), the invariant mass of
the system ($m_{\ttbar}$), the transverse momentum of the system
($\pt^{\ttbar}$), the number of jets with $\pt>30\GeV$ ($N_{\text{jets}}$),
the and the pseudorapidity of the jet assigned to the hadronic decay branch
($\pt^{\PQb,\text{had}}$ and $\abs{\eta^{\PQb,\text{had}}}$), the $\Delta R$
between the jets ($\Delta R_{\bbbar}$), and the $\Delta R$ between the light-
quark jets ($\Delta R_{\PQq\PAQq^{\prime}}$). These are the same variables as
in the Run 1 analysis [6].

For each variable, the event sample is divided into three to five bins as a
function of the value of this variable, and we populate each bin using all
permutations which lie within the bin boundaries. As some variables depend on
the parton-jet assignment that cannot be resolved unambiguously, such as the
of a reconstructed top quark, a single event is allowed to contribute to
multiple bins. For each bin, $m_{\PQt}$ is measured using the hybrid
likelihood fit with the same probability density functions as for the
inclusive measurement. The JSF prior is chosen such that it constrains the
measured JSF with the same relative strength. This procedure was also used in
the Run 1 analysis [6].

For the modeling of the perturbative QCD effects, the data are compared to the
MG5 p8 [FxFx] M2T4, MG5 p8 [MLM] M1, and h++ EE5C setups. For the modeling of
color reconnection, the default tune of 8, the “QCD inspired” model [48], and
the “gluon move” model [47] are considered. The three latter models are
simulated with ERDs in 8.

In these comparisons, the mean value of the measured top quark mass is
subtracted from the measurement in each bin of the sample and the results are
expressed in the form of offsets $m_{\PQt}-\left<m_{\PQt}\right>$, where the
mean comes from the inclusive measurement on the specific sample. The
subtracted offsets with respect to p8 M2T4 can be found in the Tables Color
reconnection: and 0.5. To aid in the interpretation of a difference between
the value of $m_{\PQt}-\left<m_{\PQt}\right>$ and the prediction from a
simulation in the same bin, a bin-by-bin calibration of the results is
applied. This is derived using the p8 M2T4 simulation with the same technique
as for the inclusive measurement except that it is performed for each bin
separately. The bin-by-bin bias correction for the mass can be much larger
than for the inclusive analysis and reaches up to 10for some bins. For each
bin the statistical uncertainty and the dominant systematic uncertainties are
combined in quadrature, where the latter include JEC (-, $\eta$-, and flavor-
dependent), JER, pileup, fragmentation, renormalization and factorization
scales, ME/PS matching, ISR/FSR PS scales, and the underlying event.

For each variable and model, the cumulative $\chi^{2}$ between the model and
the data is computed taking into account the statistical uncertainty in the
model prediction and the total uncertainty in the data value. The number of
degrees of freedom for each variable is the number of bins minus one as the
mean measured top quark mass is subtracted. The resulting $\chi^{2}$
probabilities ($p$-values) are listed in Table 0.7.

Compatibility of different models with the differential measurement of the top
quark mass. For each variable and model, the probability of the cumulative
$\chi^{2}$ is computed. The setup with v2 + does not use ME corrections to the
top quark decay and shows large deviations from the data.  Model $\chi^{2}$
probability $\pt^{\PQt,\text{had}}$ $m_{\ttbar}$ $\pt^{\ttbar}$
$N_{\text{jets}}$ $\pt^{\PQb,\text{had}}$ $\abs{\eta^{\PQb,\text{had}}}$
$\Delta R_{\bbbar}$ $\Delta R_{\PQq\PAQq^{\prime}}$ p8 M2T4 0.68 0.94 0.91
0.71 0.98 0.60 0.61 0.70 MG5 p8 [FxFx] M2T4 0.98 0.78 0.93 0.94 0.80 0.35 0.94
0.91 MG5 p8 [MLM] M1 0.48 0.84 0.99 0.41 0.98 0.17 0.71 0.61 h++ EE5C 0.07
$2{\times}10^{-13}$ 0.52 0.72 $2{\times}10^{-4}$ 0.55 0.36 $2{\times}10^{-5}$
p8 ERD on 0.75 0.99 0.83 0.53 0.95 0.64 0.38 0.96 p8 QCD inspired 0.80 0.94
0.94 0.66 0.99 0.71 0.49 0.90 p8 gluon move 0.87 0.94 0.93 0.72 0.93 0.51 0.59
0.93

No significant deviation of the measured $m_{\PQt}$ is observed for the
default generator setup of p8 M2T4 and there is no evidence for a bias in the
measurement. Only h++ EE5C differs from data and all other setups for the
dependence of the mass measurement on the invariant mass of the system, the of
the jet assigned to the hadronic decay branch, and the $\Delta R$ between the
light-quark jets. Figure 3 shows the results for $m_{\ttbar}$,
$N_{\text{jets}}$, $\abs{\eta^{\PQb,\text{had}}}$ and $\Delta
R_{\PQq\PAQq^{\prime}}$ for the different generator setups for the modeling of
perturbative QCD. The large deviations confirm that the v2 + setup without ME
corrections to the top quark decay needs improvements to describe the data. A
bias in the measurement of the top quark mass can be spotted by a failure of
the model to reproduce differential measurements. For the color-reconnection
models, the $\Delta R_{\bbbar}$ and $\Delta R_{\PQq\PAQq^{\prime}}$ variables
should offer the best sensitivity to the modeling of the color flow. The
comparison is shown in Fig. 4, but the uncertainties in the measurements are
too large to rule out any of the different models.

Figure 3:  Measurements of $m_{\PQt}$ as a function of the invariant mass of
the system $m_{\ttbar}$ (upper left), the number of jets $N_{\text{jets}}$
(upper right), the pseudorapidity of the jet assigned to the hadronic decay
branch $\abs{\eta^{\PQb,\text{had}}}$ (lower left) and the $\Delta R$ between
the light-quark jets $\Delta R_{\PQq\PAQq^{\prime}}$ (lower right) compared to
different generator models. The filled circles represent the data, and the
other symbols are for the simulations. For reasons of clarity, the horizontal
bars indicating the bin widths are shown only for the data points and each of
the simulations is shown as a single offset point with a vertical error bar
representing its statistical uncertainty. The statistical uncertainty of the
data is displayed by the inner error bars. For the outer error bars, the
systematic uncertainties are added in quadrature.

Figure 4:  Measurements of $m_{\PQt}$ as a function of the $\Delta R$ between
the jets $\Delta R_{\bbbar}$ (left) and the light-quark jets $\Delta
R_{\PQq\PAQq^{\prime}}$ (right) compared to alternative models of color
reconnection. The symbols and conventions are the same as in Fig. 3.

##  0.8 Summary

This study measured the mass of the top quark using the 2016 data at
$\sqrt{s}=13$corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9, and v2
interfaced with 8 with the CUETP8M2T4 tune for the simulation. The top quark
mass is measured to be $172.25\pm 0.08\,\text{(stat+JSF)}\pm 0.62\syst\GeV$
from the selected lepton+jets events. The result is consistent with the CMS
measurements of Run 1 of the LHC at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8, with no shift observed
from the new experimental setup and the use of the next-to-leading-order
matrix-element generator and the new parton-shower simulation and tune. Along
with the new generator setup, a more advanced treatment of the modeling
uncertainties with respect to the Run 1 analysis is employed. In particular, a
broader set of color-reconnection models is considered. The top quark mass has
also been studied as a function of the event-level kinematic properties, and
no indications of a bias in the measurements are observed.

###### Acknowledgements.

We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the
excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative
staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the
success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the
computing centers and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for
delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our
analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction
and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following
funding agencies: BMWFW and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq,
CAPES, FAPERJ, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC
(China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RPF (Cyprus);
SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC IUT, and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of Finland,
MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF
(Germany); GSRT (Greece); NKFIA (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM (Iran);
SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); LAS
(Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT, LNS, SEP, and
UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC
(Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom, RAS and RFBR (Russia);
MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI and FEDER (Spain); Swiss Funding Agencies
(Switzerland); MST (Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR, and NSTDA (Thailand);
TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); NASU and SFFR (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE
and NSF (USA). Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie program
and the European Research Council and Horizon 2020 Grant, contract No. 675440
(European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A. P. Sloan Foundation; the
Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office;
the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans
l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en
Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the F.R.S.-FNRS and FWO (Belgium) under the
“Excellence of Science - EOS” - be.h project n. 30820817; the Ministry of
Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Lendület
(“Momentum”) Programme and the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the
Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the New National Excellence Program ÚNKP, the
NKFIA research grants 123842, 123959, 124845, 124850 and 125105 (Hungary); the
Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; the HOMING PLUS program of
the Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from European Union, Regional
Development Fund, the Mobility Plus program of the Ministry of Science and
Higher Education, the National Science Center (Poland), contracts Harmonia
2014/14/M/ST2/00428, Opus 2014/13/B/ST2/02543, 2014/15/B/ST2/03998, and
2015/19/B/ST2/02861, Sonata-bis 2012/07/E/ST2/01406; the National Priorities
Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund; the Programa Estatal de
Fomento de la Investigación Científica y Técnica de Excelencia María de
Maeztu, grant MDM-2015-0509 and the Programa Severo Ochoa del Principado de
Asturias; the Thalis and Aristeia programs cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek
NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn
University and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century Project
Advancement Project (Thailand); the Welch Foundation, contract C-1845; and the
Weston Havens Foundation (USA).

## References

  * [1] M. Baak et al., “The global electroweak fit at NNLO and prospects for the LHC and ILC”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3046, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3046-5, arXiv:1407.3792.
  * [2] G. Degrassi et al., “Higgs mass and vacuum stability in the Standard Model at NNLO”,  JHEP 08 (2012) 098, 10.1007/JHEP08(2012)098, arXiv:1205.6497.
  * [3] Particle Data Group, C. Patrignani et al., “Review of particle physics”,  Chin. Phys. C 40 (2016) 100001, 10.1088/1674-1137/40/10/100001.
  * [4] CDF and Collaborations, “Combination of CDF and D0 results on the mass of the top quark using up to $9.7\>{\rm fb}^{-1}$ at the Tevatron”, (2016). arXiv:1608.01881.
  * [5] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the top quark mass in the $\ttbar\to$ dilepton channel from $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV ATLAS data”,  Phys. Lett. B 761 (2016) 350, 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.08.042, arXiv:1606.02179.
  * [6] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the top quark mass using proton-proton data at ${\sqrt{s}}=7$ and 8 TeV”,  Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 072004, 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.072004, arXiv:1509.04044.
  * [7] A. H. Hoang and I. W. Stewart, “Top mass measurements from jets and the Tevatron top-quark mass”,  Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 185 (2008) 220, 10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2008.10.028, arXiv:0808.0222.
  * [8] S. Moch et al., “High precision fundamental constants at the TeV scale”, (2014). arXiv:1405.4781.
  * [9] P. Marquard, A. V. Smirnov, V. A. Smirnov, and M. Steinhauser, “Quark mass relations to four-loop order in perturbative QCD”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 142002, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.142002, arXiv:1502.01030.
  * [10] M. Beneke, P. Marquard, P. Nason, and M. Steinhauser, “On the ultimate uncertainty of the top quark pole mass”,  Phys. Lett. B 775 (2017) 63, 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.10.054, arXiv:1605.03609.
  * [11] M. Butenschoen et al., “Top quark mass calibration for Monte Carlo event generators”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 232001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.232001, arXiv:1608.01318.
  * [12] A. H. Hoang, C. Lepenik, and M. Preisser, “On the light massive flavor dependence of the large order asymptotic behavior and the ambiguity of the pole mass”,  JHEP 09 (2017) 099, 10.1007/JHEP09(2017)099, arXiv:1706.08526.
  * [13] P. Nason, “The top quark mass at the LHC”, in  10th International Workshop on Top Quark Physics (TOP2017) Braga, Portugal, September 17-22, 2017.  2018\.  arXiv:1801.04826.
  * [14] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [15] 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.
  * [16] M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam, “Dispelling the $N^{3}$ myth for the $k_{\rm t}$ jet-finder”,  Phys. Lett. B 641 (2006) 57, 10.1016/j.physletb.2006.08.037, arXiv:hep-ph/0512210.
  * [17] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-$k_{\rm t}$ jet clustering algorithm”,  JHEP 04 (2008) 063, 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063, arXiv:0802.1189.
  * [18] 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.
  * [19] M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam, “Pileup subtraction using jet areas”,  Phys. Lett. B 659 (2008) 119, 10.1016/j.physletb.2007.09.077, arXiv:0707.1378.
  * [20] 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.
  * [21] CMS Collaboration, “Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-16-003, 2017.
  * [22] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data taking period”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001, 2017.
  * [23] 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.
  * [24] S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari, “Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the method”,  JHEP 11 (2007) 070, 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070, arXiv:0709.2092.
  * [25] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the BOX”,  JHEP 06 (2010) 043, 10.1007/JHEP06(2010)043, arXiv:1002.2581.
  * [26] J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, P. Nason, and E. Re, “Top-pair production and decay at NLO matched with parton showers”,  JHEP 04 (2015) 114, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)114, arXiv:1412.1828.
  * [27] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, “A brief introduction to 8.1”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 178 (2008) 852, 10.1016/j.cpc.2008.01.036, arXiv:0710.3820.
  * [28] P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo, “Tuning 8.1: the Monash 2013 tune”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3024, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3024-y, arXiv:1404.5630.
  * [29] CMS Collaboration, “Investigations of the impact of the parton shower tuning in 8 in the modelling of $\mathrm{t\overline{t}}$ at $\sqrt{s}=8$ and 13 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-TOP-16-021, 2016.
  * [30] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “NLO single-top production matched with shower in : $s$\- and $t$-channel contributions”,  JHEP 09 (2009) 111, 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/09/111, arXiv:0907.4076. [Erratum: 10.1007/JHEP02(2010)011].
  * [31] E. Re, “Single-top Wt-channel production matched with parton showers using the method”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1547, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1547-z, arXiv:1009.2450.
  * [32] 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.
  * [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] R. Frederix and S. Frixione, “Merging meets matching in MC@NLO”,  JHEP 12 (2012) 061, 10.1007/JHEP12(2012)061, arXiv:1209.6215.
  * [35] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC Run II”,  JHEP 04 (2015) 040, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040, arXiv:1410.8849.
  * [36] M. Czakon and A. Mitov, “Top++: A program for the calculation of the top-pair cross-section at hadron colliders”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 185 (2014) 2930, 10.1016/j.cpc.2014.06.021, arXiv:1112.5675.
  * [37] Y. Li and F. Petriello, “Combining QCD and electroweak corrections to dilepton production in FEWZ”,  Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 094034, 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.094034, arXiv:1208.5967.
  * [38] P. Kant et al., “HatHor for single top-quark production: Updated predictions and uncertainty estimates for single top-quark production in hadronic collisions”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 74, 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.02.001, arXiv:1406.4403.
  * [39] N. Kidonakis, “NNLL threshold resummation for top-pair and single-top production”,  Phys. Part. Nucl. 45 (2014) 714, 10.1134/S1063779614040091, arXiv:1210.7813.
  * [40] GEANT4 Collaboration, “GEANT4—a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [41] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in pp collision events at $\sqrt{s}=7$”,  JINST 7 (2012) P10002, 10.1088/1748-0221/7/10/P10002, arXiv:1206.4071.
  * [42] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8~{}\mathrm{TeV}$”,  JINST 10 (2015) P06005, 10.1088/1748-0221/10/06/P06005, arXiv:1502.02701.
  * [43] 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.
  * [44] Collaboration, “Direct measurement of the top quark mass at ”,  Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 052001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.58.052001, arXiv:hep-ex/9801025.
  * [45] DELPHI Collaboration, “Measurement of the mass and width of the W boson in ${\rm e}^{+}{\rm e}^{-}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 161 – 209 GeV”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 55 (2008) 1, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-008-0585-7, arXiv:0803.2534.
  * [46] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the top-quark mass in $\ttbar$ events with lepton+jets final states in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”,  JHEP 12 (2012) 105, 10.1007/JHEP12(2012)105, arXiv:1209.2319.
  * [47] S. Argyropoulos and T. Sjöstrand, “Effects of color reconnection on $\ttbar$ final states at the LHC”,  JHEP 11 (2014) 043, 10.1007/JHEP11(2014)043, arXiv:1407.6653.
  * [48] J. R. Christiansen and P. Skands, “String formation beyond leading colour”,  JHEP 08 (2015) 003, 10.1007/JHEP08(2015)003, arXiv:1505.01681.
  * [49] ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, “Jet energy scale uncertainty correlations between ATLAS and CMS at 8 TeV”, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2015-049, CMS-PAS-JME-15-001, 2015.
  * [50] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the $t$-channel single-top-quark production cross section and of the $\mid V_{tb}\mid$ CKM matrix element in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$= 8 TeV”,  JHEP 06 (2014) 090, 10.1007/JHEP06(2014)090, arXiv:1403.7366.
  * [51] CMS Collaboration, “Cross section measurement of $t$-channel single top quark production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 772 (2017) 752, 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.07.047, arXiv:1610.00678.
  * [52] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the production cross section of a W boson in association with two b jets in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8{\,\mathrm{{TeV}}}$”,  Eur. Phys. J C. 77 (2017) 92, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4573-z, arXiv:1608.07561.
  * [53] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of the associated production of a Z boson and b jets in pp collisions at ${\sqrt{s}}=8\,\text{TeV}$”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 751, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5140-y, arXiv:1611.06507.
  * [54] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the WZ production cross section in pp collisions at $\sqrt{(}s)=$ 13 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 766 (2017) 268, 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.01.011, arXiv:1607.06943.
  * [55] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of the $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\rightarrow\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z}$ production cross section and the $\mathrm{Z}\rightarrow 4\ell$ branching fraction, and constraints on anomalous triple gauge couplings at $\sqrt{s}=13\,\text{TeV}$”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 165, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5567-9, arXiv:1709.08601.
  * [56] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, “6.4 physics and manual”,  JHEP 05 (2006) 026, 10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/026, arXiv:hep-ph/0603175.
  * [57] M. Bähr et al., “Herwig++ physics and manual”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 58 (2008) 639, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-008-0798-9, arXiv:0803.0883.
  * [58] ALEPH Collaboration, “Study of the fragmentation of b quarks into B mesons at the Z peak”,  Phys. Lett. B 512 (2001) 30, 10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00690-6, arXiv:hep-ex/0106051.
  * [59] DELPHI Collaboration, “A study of the b-quark fragmentation function with the DELPHI detector at LEP I and an averaged distribution obtained at the Z pole”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1557, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1557-x, arXiv:1102.4748.
  * [60] M. G. Bowler, “${\rm e}^{+}{\rm e}^{-}$ Production of heavy quarks in the string model”,  Z. Phys. 11 (1981) 169, 10.1007/BF01574001.
  * [61] C. Peterson, D. Schlatter, I. Schmitt, and P. M. Zerwas, “Scaling violations in inclusive ${\rm e}^{+}{\rm e}^{-}$ annihilation spectra”,  Phys. Rev. D 27 (1983) 105, 10.1103/PhysRevD.27.105.
  * [62] J. Rojo et al., “The PDF4LHC report on PDFs and LHC data: Results from Run I and preparation for Run II”,  J. Phys. G 42 (2015) 103103, 10.1088/0954-3899/42/10/103103, arXiv:1507.00556.
  * [63] 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.
  * [64] A. Accardi et al., “A critical appraisal and evaluation of modern PDFs”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 471, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4285-4, arXiv:1603.08906.
  * [65] M. Czakon, D. Heymes, and A. Mitov, “High-precision differential predictions for top-quark pairs at the LHC”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 082003, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.082003, arXiv:1511.00549.
  * [66] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of differential cross sections for top quark pair production using the lepton+jets final state in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV”,  Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 092001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.092001, arXiv:1610.04191.
  * [67] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of normalized differential cross sections in the dilepton channel from pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”, (2017). arXiv:1708.07638. Submitted to JHEP.
  * [68] CMS Collaboration, “Study of the underlying event in top quark pair production in pp collisions at 13 TeV”, (2018). arXiv:1807.02810. Submitted to Eur. Phys. J. C.
  * [69] M. H. Seymour and A. Siodmok, “Constraining MPI models using $\sigma_{eff}$ and recent Tevatron and LHC underlying event data”,  JHEP 10 (2013) 113, 10.1007/JHEP10(2013)113, arXiv:1307.5015.
  * [70] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of differential cross sections for the production of top quark pairs and of additional jets in lepton+jets events from pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 112003, 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.112003, arXiv:1803.08856.
  * [71] J. Alwall et al., “MadGraph 5: going beyond”,  JHEP 06 (2011) 128, 10.1007/JHEP06(2011)128, arXiv:1106.0522.
  * [72] R. Field, “Early LHC underlying event data—findings and surprises”, (2010). arXiv:1010.3558.

##  .9 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan Institut für Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, E. Asilar, T. Bergauer, J. Brandstetter, E. Brondolin, M.
Dragicevic, J. Erö, A. Escalante Del Valle, M. Flechl, M. Friedl, R.
Frühwirth1, V.M. Ghete, J. Hrubec, M. Jeitler1, N. Krammer, I. Krätschmer, D.
Liko, T. Madlener, I. Mikulec, N. Rad, H. Rohringer, J. Schieck1, R.
Schöfbeck, M. Spanring, D. Spitzbart, A. Taurok, W. Waltenberger, J. Wittmann,
C.-E. Wulz1, M. Zarucki Institute for Nuclear Problems, Minsk, Belarus
V. Chekhovsky, V. Mossolov, J. Suarez Gonzalez Universiteit Antwerpen,
Antwerpen, Belgium
E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, J. Lauwers, M. Pieters, M. Van De
Klundert, H. Van Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, N. Van Remortel Vrije
Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
S. Abu Zeid, F. Blekman, J. D’Hondt, I. De Bruyn, J. De Clercq, K. Deroover,
G. Flouris, D. Lontkovskyi, S. Lowette, I. Marchesini, S. Moortgat, L.
Moreels, Q. Python, K. Skovpen, S. Tavernier, W. Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders,
I. Van Parijs Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
D. Beghin, B. Bilin, H. Brun, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, H. Delannoy, B.
Dorney, G. Fasanella, L. Favart, R. Goldouzian, A. Grebenyuk, A.K. Kalsi, T.
Lenzi, J. Luetic, T. Seva, E. Starling, C. Vander Velde, P. Vanlaer, D.
Vannerom, R. Yonamine Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, A. Fagot, M. Gul, I. Khvastunov2, D. Poyraz, C. Roskas,
D. Trocino, M. Tytgat, W. Verbeke, B. Vermassen, M. Vit, N. Zaganidis
Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
H. Bakhshiansohi, O. Bondu, S. Brochet, G. Bruno, C. Caputo, A. Caudron, P.
David, S. De Visscher, C. Delaere, M. Delcourt, B. Francois, A. Giammanco, G.
Krintiras, V. Lemaitre, A. Magitteri, A. Mertens, M. Musich, K. Piotrzkowski,
L. Quertenmont, A. Saggio, M. Vidal Marono, S. Wertz, J. Zobec Centro
Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
W.L. Aldá Júnior, F.L. Alves, G.A. Alves, L. Brito, G. Correia Silva, C.
Hensel, A. Moraes, M.E. Pol, P. Rebello Teles Universidade do Estado do Rio de
Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato3, E. Coelho, E.M.
Da Costa, G.G. Da Silveira4, D. De Jesus Damiao, S. Fonseca De Souza, H.
Malbouisson, M. Medina Jaime5, M. Melo De Almeida, C. Mora Herrera, L. Mundim,
H. Nogima, L.J. Sanchez Rosas, A. Santoro, A. Sznajder, M. Thiel, E.J. Tonelli
Manganote3, F. Torres Da Silva De Araujo, A. Vilela Pereira Universidade
Estadual Paulista a, Universidade Federal do ABC b, São Paulo, Brazil
S. Ahujaa, C.A. Bernardesa, L. Calligarisa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M.
Gregoresb, P.G. Mercadanteb, S.F. Novaesa, SandraS. Padulaa, D. Romero Abadb,
J.C. Ruiz Vargasa Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian
Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, A. Marinov, M. Misheva, M. Rodozov,
M. Shopova, G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Dimitrov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov Beihang University, Beijing, China
W. Fang6, X. Gao6, L. Yuan Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, J.G. Bian, G.M. Chen, H.S. Chen, M. Chen, Y. Chen, C.H. Jiang, D.
Leggat, H. Liao, Z. Liu, F. Romeo, S.M. Shaheen, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, C. Wang,
Z. Wang, E. Yazgan, H. Zhang, J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics
and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
Y. Ban, G. Chen, J. Li, Q. Li, S. Liu, Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang, Z. Xu
Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Y. Wang Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, C.A. Carrillo Montoya, L.F. Chaparro Sierra, C. Florez,
C.F. González Hernández, M.A. Segura Delgado University of Split, Faculty of
Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split,
Croatia
B. Courbon, N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak, T. Sculac University of Split,
Faculty of Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, K. Kadija, B. Mesic, A. Starodumov7, T. Susa
University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos,
P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
M. Finger8, M. Finger Jr.8 Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
E. Carrera Jarrin Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab
Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt
M.A. Mahmoud9,10, A. Mohamed11, E. Salama10,12 National Institute of Chemical
Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
S. Bhowmik, R.K. Dewanjee, M. Kadastik, L. Perrini, M. Raidal, C. Veelken
Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
P. Eerola, H. Kirschenmann, J. Pekkanen, M. Voutilainen Helsinki Institute of
Physics, Helsinki, Finland
J. Havukainen, J.K. Heikkilä, T. Järvinen, V. Karimäki, R. Kinnunen, T.
Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Laurila, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, P. Luukka, T.
Mäenpää, H. Siikonen, E. Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi Lappeenranta University of
Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
T. Tuuva IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, J.L. Faure, F. Ferri, S.
Ganjour, S. Ghosh13, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry,
C. Leloup, E. Locci, M. Machet, J. Malcles, G. Negro, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky,
M.Ö. Sahin, M. Titov Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole polytechnique,
CNRS/IN2P3, Université Paris-Saclay, Palaiseau, France
A. Abdulsalam14, C. Amendola, I. Antropov, S. Baffioni, F. Beaudette, P.
Busson, L. Cadamuro, C. Charlot, R. Granier de Cassagnac, M. Jo, I. Kucher, S.
Lisniak, A. Lobanov, J. Martin Blanco, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, G. Ortona, P.
Paganini, P. Pigard, R. Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A.G. Stahl Leiton, Y.
Yilmaz, A. Zabi, A. Zghiche Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178,
F-67000 Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram15, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, J.-M. Brom, E.C. Chabert, C. Collard, E.
Conte15, X. Coubez, F. Drouhin15, J.-C. Fontaine15, D. Gelé, U. Goerlach, M.
Jansová, P. Juillot, A.-C. Le Bihan, N. Tonon, P. Van Hove Centre de Calcul de
l’Institut National de Physique Nucleaire et de Physique des Particules,
CNRS/IN2P3, Villeurbanne, France
S. Gadrat Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3,
Institut de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, N. Chanon, R. Chierici, D. Contardo, P.
Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, L. Finco, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, G.
Grenier, B. Ille, F. Lagarde, I.B. Laktineh, H. Lattaud, M. Lethuillier, L.
Mirabito, A.L. Pequegnot, S. Perries, A. Popov16, V. Sordini, M. Vander
Donckt, S. Viret, S. Zhang Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
T. Toriashvili17 Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
Z. Tsamalaidze8 RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen,
Germany
C. Autermann, L. Feld, M.K. Kiesel, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, M. Preuten, M.P.
Rauch, C. Schomakers, J. Schulz, M. Teroerde, B. Wittmer, V. Zhukov16 RWTH
Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany
A. Albert, D. Duchardt, M. Endres, M. Erdmann, S. Erdweg, T. Esch, R. Fischer,
A. Güth, T. Hebbeker, C. Heidemann, K. Hoepfner, S. Knutzen, M. Merschmeyer,
A. Meyer, P. Millet, S. Mukherjee, T. Pook, M. Radziej, H. Reithler, M.
Rieger, F. Scheuch, D. Teyssier, S. Thüer RWTH Aachen University, III.
Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany
G. Flügge, B. Kargoll, T. Kress, A. Künsken, T. Müller, A. Nehrkorn, A.
Nowack, C. Pistone, O. Pooth, A. Stahl18 Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron,
Hamburg, Germany
M. Aldaya Martin, T. Arndt, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, I. Babounikau, K.
Beernaert, O. Behnke, U. Behrens, A. Bermúdez Martínez, D. Bertsche, A.A. Bin
Anuar, K. Borras13, V. Botta, A. Campbell, P. Connor, C. Contreras-Campana, F.
Costanza, V. Danilov, A. De Wit, C. Diez Pardos, D. Domínguez Damiani, G.
Eckerlin, D. Eckstein, T. Eichhorn, A. Elwood, E. Eren, E. Gallo19, J. Garay
Garcia, A. Geiser, J.M. Grados Luyando, A. Grohsjean, P. Gunnellini, M.
Guthoff, A. Harb, J. Hauk, H. Jung, M. Kasemann, J. Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, J.
Knolle, I. Korol, D. Krücker, W. Lange, A. Lelek, T. Lenz, K. Lipka, W.
Lohmann20, R. Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, A.B. Meyer, M. Meyer, M.
Missiroli, G. Mittag, J. Mnich, A. Mussgiller, S.K. Pflitsch, D. Pitzl, A.
Raspereza, M. Savitskyi, P. Saxena, C. Schwanenberger, R. Shevchenko, A.
Singh, N. Stefaniuk, H. Tholen, G.P. Van Onsem, R. Walsh, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann,
C. Wissing, O. Zenaiev University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, V. Blobel, M. Centis Vignali, T. Dreyer, C. Garbers, E.
Garutti, D. Gonzalez, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, M. Hoffmann, A. Karavdina, G.
Kasieczka, R. Klanner, R. Kogler, N. Kovalchuk, S. Kurz, V. Kutzner, J. Lange,
D. Marconi, J. Multhaup, M. Niedziela, D. Nowatschin, T. Peiffer, A. Perieanu,
A. Reimers, C. Scharf, P. Schleper, A. Schmidt, S. Schumann, J. Schwandt, J.
Sonneveld, H. Stadie, G. Steinbrück, F.M. Stober, M. Stöver, D. Troendle, E.
Usai, A. Vanhoefer, B. Vormwald Institut für Experimentelle Teilchenphysik,
Karlsruhe, Germany
M. Akbiyik, C. Barth, M. Baselga, S. Baur, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, F.
Colombo, W. De Boer, A. Dierlamm, N. Faltermann, B. Freund, R. Friese, M.
Giffels, M.A. Harrendorf, F. Hartmann18, S.M. Heindl, U. Husemann, F.
Kassel18, S. Kudella, H. Mildner, M.U. Mozer, Th. Müller, M. Plagge, G. Quast,
K. Rabbertz, M. Schröder, I. Shvetsov, G. Sieber, H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, S.
Wayand, M. Weber, T. Weiler, S. Williamson, C. Wöhrmann, R. Wolf Institute of
Nuclear and Particle Physics (INPP), NCSR Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
G. Anagnostou, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas, I. Topsis-
Giotis National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
G. Karathanasis, S. Kesisoglou, A. Panagiotou, N. Saoulidou, E. Tziaferi
National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece
K. Kousouris, I. Papakrivopoulos University of Ioánnina, Ioánnina, Greece
I. Evangelou, C. Foudas, P. Gianneios, P. Katsoulis, P. Kokkas, S. Mallios, N.
Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, E. Paradas, J. Strologas, F.A. Triantis, D.
Tsitsonis MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
M. Csanad, N. Filipovic, G. Pasztor, O. Surányi, G.I. Veres Wigner Research
Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath21, Á. Hunyadi, F. Sikler, T.Á. Vámi, V.
Veszpremi, G. Vesztergombi${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$ Institute of Nuclear
Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi23, A. Makovec, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi
Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
M. Bartók22, P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari Indian Institute of Science
(IISc), Bangalore, India
S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri National Institute of Science Education and
Research, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati24, P. Mal, K. Mandal, A. Nayak25, D.K. Sahoo24, S.K. Swain
Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, S. Chauhan, R. Chawla, N. Dhingra, R.
Gupta, A. Kaur, M. Kaur, S. Kaur, R. Kumar, P. Kumari, M. Lohan, A. Mehta, S.
Sharma, J.B. Singh, G. Walia University of Delhi, Delhi, India
A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, S. Keshri, A. Kumar, Ashok Kumar, S.
Malhotra, M. Naimuddin, K. Ranjan, Aashaq Shah, R. Sharma Saha Institute of
Nuclear Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India
R. Bhardwaj26, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, U. Bhawandeep26, D. Bhowmik,
S. Dey, S. Dutt26, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh, N. Majumdar, K. Mondal, S.
Mukhopadhyay, S. Nandan, A. Purohit, P.K. Rout, A. Roy, S. Roy Chowdhury, S.
Sarkar, M. Sharan, B. Singh, S. Thakur26 Indian Institute of Technology
Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
R. Chudasama, D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, A.K. Mohanty18, P.K. Netrakanti,
L.M. Pant, P. Shukla, A. Topkar Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A,
Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, S. Dugad, B. Mahakud, S. Mitra, G.B. Mohanty, N. Sur, B. Sutar Tata
Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, P. Das, M. Guchait, Sa. Jain, S.
Kumar, M. Maity27, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, N. Sahoo, T. Sarkar27, N.
Wickramage28 Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune,
India
S. Chauhan, S. Dube, V. Hegde, A. Kapoor, K. Kothekar, S. Pandey, A. Rane, S.
Sharma Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran
S. Chenarani29, E. Eskandari Tadavani, S.M. Etesami29, M. Khakzad, M.
Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri, S. Paktinat Mehdiabadi30, F. Rezaei
Hosseinabadi, B. Safarzadeh31, M. Zeinali University College Dublin, Dublin,
Ireland
M. Felcini, M. Grunewald INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b,
Politecnico di Bari c, Bari, Italy
M. Abbresciaa,b, C. Calabriaa,b, A. Colaleoa, D. Creanzaa,c, L. Cristellaa,b,
N. De Filippisa,c, M. De Palmaa,b, A. Di Florioa,b, F. Erricoa,b, L. Fiorea,
A. Gelmia,b, G. Iasellia,c, S. Lezkia,b, G. Maggia,c, M. Maggia, B.
Marangellia,b, G. Minielloa,b, S. Mya,b, S. Nuzzoa,b, A. Pompilia,b, G.
Pugliesea,c, R. Radognaa, A. Ranieria, G. Selvaggia,b, A. Sharmaa, L.
Silvestrisa,18, R. Vendittia, P. Verwilligena, G. Zitoa INFN Sezione di
Bologna a, Università di Bologna b, Bologna, Italy
G. Abbiendia, C. Battilanaa,b, D. Bonacorsia,b, L. Borgonovia,b, S. Braibant-
Giacomellia,b, L. Brigliadoria,b, R. Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A.
Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa, S.S. Chhibraa,b, G. Codispotia,b, M. Cuffiania,b,
G.M. Dallavallea, F. Fabbria, A. Fanfania,b, D. Fasanellaa,b, P. Giacomellia,
C. Grandia, L. Guiduccia,b, F. Iemmi, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, A.
Montanaria, F.L. Navarriaa,b, A. Perrottaa, T. Rovellia,b, G.P. Sirolia,b, N.
Tosia INFN Sezione di Catania a, Università di Catania b, Catania, Italy
S. Albergoa,b, S. Costaa,b, A. Di Mattiaa, F. Giordanoa,b, R. Potenzaa,b, A.
Tricomia,b, C. Tuvea,b INFN Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b,
Firenze, Italy
G. Barbaglia, K. Chatterjeea,b, V. Ciullia,b, C. Civininia, R.
D’Alessandroa,b, E. Focardia,b, G. Latino, P. Lenzia,b, M. Meschinia, S.
Paolettia, L. Russoa,32, G. Sguazzonia, D. Stroma, L. Viliania INFN Laboratori
Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, F. Fabbri, D. Piccolo, F. Primavera18 INFN Sezione di
Genova a, Università di Genova b, Genova, Italy
V. Calvellia,b, F. Ferroa, F. Raveraa,b, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia,b INFN Sezione
di Milano-Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, Italy
A. Benagliaa, A. Beschib, L. Brianzaa,b, F. Brivioa,b, V. Cirioloa,b,18, M.E.
Dinardoa,b, S. Fiorendia,b, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P. Govonia,b, M.
Malbertia,b, S. Malvezzia, R.A. Manzonia,b, D. Menascea, L. Moronia, M.
Paganonia,b, K. Pauwelsa,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Pigazzinia,b,33, S. Ragazzia,b, T.
Tabarelli de Fatisa,b INFN Sezione di Napoli a, Università di Napoli ’Federico
II’ b, Napoli, Italy, Università della Basilicata c, Potenza, Italy,
Università G. Marconi d, Roma, Italy
S. Buontempoa, N. Cavalloa,c, S. Di Guidaa,d,18, F. Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa,b,
G. Galatia,b, A.O.M. Iorioa,b, W.A. Khana, L. Listaa, S. Meolaa,d,18, P.
Paoluccia,18, C. Sciaccaa,b, F. Thyssena, E. Voevodinaa,b INFN Sezione di
Padova a, Università di Padova b, Padova, Italy, Università di Trento c,
Trento, Italy
P. Azzia, N. Bacchettaa, L. Benatoa,b, D. Biselloa,b, A. Bolettia,b, R.
Carlina,b, P. Checchiaa, M. Dall’Ossoa,b, P. De Castro Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa,
U. Dossellia, F. Gasparinia,b, U. Gasparinia,b, A. Gozzelinoa, S. Lacapraraa,
P. Lujan, M. Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,b, N. Pozzobona,b, P. Ronchesea,b, R.
Rossina,b, F. Simonettoa,b, A. Tiko, E. Torassaa, S. Venturaa, M. Zanettia,b,
P. Zottoa,b INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
A. Braghieria, A. Magnania, P. Montagnaa,b, S.P. Rattia,b, V. Rea, M.
Ressegottia,b, C. Riccardia,b, P. Salvinia, I. Vaia,b, P. Vituloa,b INFN
Sezione di Perugia a, Università di Perugia b, Perugia, Italy
L. Alunni Solestizia,b, M. Biasinia,b, G.M. Bileia, C. Cecchia,b, D.
Ciangottinia,b, L. Fanòa,b, P. Laricciaa,b, R. Leonardia,b, E. Manonia, G.
Mantovania,b, V. Mariania,b, M. Menichellia, A. Rossia,b, A. Santocchiaa,b, D.
Spigaa INFN Sezione di Pisa a, Università di Pisa b, Scuola Normale Superiore
di Pisa c, Pisa, Italy
K. Androsova, P. Azzurria, G. Bagliesia, L. Bianchinia, T. Boccalia, L.
Borrello, R. Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, G. Fedia, L.
Gianninia,c, A. Giassia, M.T. Grippoa, F. Ligabuea,c, T. Lomtadzea, E.
Mancaa,c, G. Mandorlia,c, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, A. Rizzia,b, P.
Spagnoloa, R. Tenchinia, G. Tonellia,b, A. Venturia, P.G. Verdinia INFN
Sezione di Roma a, Sapienza Università di Roma b, Rome, Italy
L. Baronea,b, F. Cavallaria, M. Cipriania,b, N. Dacia, D. Del Rea,b, E. Di
Marcoa,b, M. Diemoza, S. Gellia,b, E. Longoa,b, B. Marzocchia,b, P.
Meridiania, G. Organtinia,b, F. Pandolfia, R. Paramattia,b, F. Preiatoa,b, S.
Rahatloua,b, C. Rovellia, F. Santanastasioa,b INFN Sezione di Torino a,
Università di Torino b, Torino, Italy, Università del Piemonte Orientale c,
Novara, Italy
N. Amapanea,b, R. Arcidiaconoa,c, S. Argiroa,b, M. Arneodoa,c, N. Bartosika,
R. Bellana,b, C. Biinoa, N. Cartigliaa, R. Castelloa,b, F. Cennaa,b, M.
Costaa,b, R. Covarellia,b, A. Deganoa,b, N. Demariaa, B. Kiania,b, C.
Mariottia, S. Masellia, E. Migliorea,b, V. Monacoa,b, E. Monteila,b, M.
Montenoa, M.M. Obertinoa,b, L. Pachera,b, N. Pastronea, M. Pelliccionia, G.L.
Pinna Angionia,b, A. Romeroa,b, M. Ruspaa,c, R. Sacchia,b, K. Shchelinaa,b, V.
Solaa, A. Solanoa,b, A. Staianoa INFN Sezione di Trieste a, Università di
Trieste b, Trieste, Italy
S. Belfortea, V. Candelisea,b, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, G. Della Riccaa,b,
F. Vazzolera,b, A. Zanettia Kyungpook National University
D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, M.S. Kim, J. Lee, S. Lee, S.W. Lee, C.S. Moon, Y.D. Oh, S.
Sekmen, D.C. Son, Y.C. Yang Chonnam National University, Institute for
Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju, Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon, G. Oh Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, J. Goh, T.J. Kim Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, D. Gyun, S. Ha, B. Hong, Y. Jo, Y. Kim, K. Lee, K.S.
Lee, S. Lee, J. Lim, S.K. Park, Y. Roh Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, H. Lee, K. Lee, K. Nam, S.B. Oh, B.C. Radburn-
Smith, S.h. Seo, U.K. Yang, H.D. Yoo, G.B. Yu University of Seoul, Seoul,
Korea
H. Kim, J.H. Kim, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, C. Hwang, J. Lee, I. Yu Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
V. Dudenas, A. Juodagalvis, J. Vaitkus National Centre for Particle Physics,
Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
I. Ahmed, Z.A. Ibrahim, M.A.B. Md Ali34, F. Mohamad Idris35, W.A.T. Wan
Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios
Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
Duran-Osuna,M. C., H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, Ramirez-Sanchez,
G., I. Heredia-De La Cruz36, Rabadan-Trejo,R. I., R. Lopez-Fernandez, J. Mejia
Guisao, Reyes-Almanza, R, A. Sanchez-Hernandez Universidad Iberoamericana,
Mexico City, Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, F. Vazquez Valencia Benemerita
Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
J. Eysermans, I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada Universidad
Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, Mexico
A. Morelos Pineda University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
S. Bheesette, P.H. Butler National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam
University, Islamabad, Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M. Ahmad, Q. Hassan, H.R. Hoorani, A. Saddique, M.A. Shah, M.
Shoaib, M. Waqas National Centre for Nuclear Research, Swierk, Poland
H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, T. Frueboes, M. Górski, M. Kazana, K.
Nawrocki, M. Szleper, P. Traczyk, P. Zalewski Institute of Experimental
Physics, Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk37, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J.
Krolikowski, M. Misiura, M. Olszewski, A. Pyskir, M. Walczak Laboratório de
Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas, Lisboa, Portugal
P. Bargassa, C. Beirão Da Cruz E Silva, A. Di Francesco, P. Faccioli, B.
Galinhas, M. Gallinaro, J. Hollar, N. Leonardo, L. Lloret Iglesias, M.V.
Nemallapudi, J. Seixas, G. Strong, O. Toldaiev, D. Vadruccio, J. Varela Joint
Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
A. Baginyan, I. Golutvin, A. Kamenev, V. Karjavin, V. Korenkov, G. Kozlov, A.
Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev38,39, V.V. Mitsyn, P. Moisenz, V. Palichik, V.
Perelygin, S. Shmatov, V. Smirnov, V. Trofimov, B.S. Yuldashev40, A. Zarubin,
V. Zhiltsov Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg),
Russia
Y. Ivanov, V. Kim41, E. Kuznetsova42, P. Levchenko, V. Murzin, V. Oreshkin, I.
Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Vavilov, A. Vorobyev Institute
for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, M. Kirsanov,
N. Krasnikov, A. Pashenkov, D. Tlisov, A. Toropin Institute for Theoretical
and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, V. Popov, I. Pozdnyakov, G.
Safronov, A. Spiridonov, A. Stepennov, V. Stolin, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A.
Zhokin Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev, A. Bylinkin39 National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow
Engineering Physics Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
M. Chadeeva43, P. Parygin, D. Philippov, S. Polikarpov, E. Popova, V. Rusinov
P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin39, I. Dremin39, M. Kirakosyan39, S.V. Rusakov, A.
Terkulov Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
A. Baskakov, A. Belyaev, E. Boos, V. Bunichev, M. Dubinin44, L. Dudko, V.
Klyukhin, N. Korneeva, I. Lokhtin, I. Miagkov, S. Obraztsov, M. Perfilov, S.
Petrushanko, V. Savrin, A. Snigirev Novosibirsk State University (NSU),
Novosibirsk, Russia
V. Blinov45, D. Shtol45, Y. Skovpen45 State Research Center of Russian
Federation, Institute for High Energy Physics of NRC ’Kurchatov Institute’,
Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, S. Bitioukov, D. Elumakhov, A. Godizov, V. Kachanov,
A. Kalinin, D. Konstantinov, P. Mandrik, V. Petrov, R. Ryutin, A. Sobol, S.
Troshin, N. Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov National Research Tomsk Polytechnic
University, Tomsk, Russia
A. Babaev University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of
Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic46, P. Cirkovic, D. Devetak, M. Dordevic, J. Milosevic Centro de
Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid,
Spain
J. Alcaraz Maestre, A. Álvarez Fernández, I. Bachiller, M. Barrio Luna, M.
Cerrada, N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris, C. Fernandez Bedoya, J.P.
Fernández Ramos, J. Flix, M.C. Fouz, O. Gonzalez Lopez, S. Goy Lopez, J.M.
Hernandez, M.I. Josa, D. Moran, A. Pérez-Calero Yzquierdo, J. Puerta Pelayo,
I. Redondo, L. Romero, M.S. Soares, A. Triossi Universidad Autónoma de Madrid,
Madrid, Spain
C. Albajar, J.F. de Trocóniz Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain
J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, S. Folgueras, I. Gonzalez
Caballero, J.R. González Fernández, E. Palencia Cortezon, S. Sanchez Cruz, P.
Vischia, J.M. Vizan Garcia Instituto de Física de Cantabria (IFCA), CSIC-
Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain
I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, B. Chazin Quero, J. Duarte Campderros, M.
Fernandez, P.J. Fernández Manteca, A. García Alonso, J. Garcia-Ferrero, G.
Gomez, A. Lopez Virto, J. Marco, C. Martinez Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del
Arbol, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, C. Prieels, T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno,
L. Scodellaro, N. Trevisani, I. Vila, R. Vilar Cortabitarte CERN, European
Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland
D. Abbaneo, B. Akgun, E. Auffray, P. Baillon, A.H. Ball, D. Barney, J.
Bendavid, M. Bianco, A. Bocci, C. Botta, T. Camporesi, M. Cepeda, G.
Cerminara, E. Chapon, Y. Chen, D. d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, V. Daponte, A.
David, M. De Gruttola, A. De Roeck, N. Deelen, M. Dobson, T. du Pree, M.
Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, P. Everaerts, F. Fallavollita47, G.
Franzoni, J. Fulcher, W. Funk, D. Gigi, A. Gilbert, K. Gill, F. Glege, D.
Gulhan, J. Hegeman, V. Innocente, A. Jafari, P. Janot, O. Karacheban20, J.
Kieseler, V. Knünz, A. Kornmayer, M. Krammer1, C. Lange, P. Lecoq, C.
Lourenço, M.T. Lucchini, L. Malgeri, M. Mannelli, A. Martelli, F. Meijers,
J.A. Merlin, S. Mersi, E. Meschi, P. Milenovic48, F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, H.
Neugebauer, J. Ngadiuba, S. Orfanelli, L. Orsini, F. Pantaleo18, L. Pape, E.
Perez, M. Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, F.M.
Pitters, D. Rabady, A. Racz, T. Reis, G. Rolandi49, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, C.
Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Seidel, M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva, P.
Sphicas50, A. Stakia, J. Steggemann, M. Stoye, M. Tosi, D. Treille, A. Tsirou,
V. Veckalns51, M. Verweij, W.D. Zeuner Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen,
Switzerland
W. Bertl${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, L. Caminada52, K. Deiters, W. Erdmann, R.
Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C. Kaestli, D. Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, T. Rohe,
S.A. Wiederkehr ETH Zurich - Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics
(IPA), Zurich, Switzerland
M. Backhaus, L. Bäni, P. Berger, B. Casal, N. Chernyavskaya, G. Dissertori, M.
Dittmar, M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, C. Grab, C. Heidegger, D. Hits, J. Hoss, T.
Klijnsma, W. Lustermann, M. Marionneau, M.T. Meinhard, D. Meister, F. Micheli,
P. Musella, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, J. Pata, F. Pauss, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, M.
Quittnat, M. Reichmann, D. Ruini, D.A. Sanz Becerra, M. Schönenberger, L.
Shchutska, V.R. Tavolaro, K. Theofilatos, M.L. Vesterbacka Olsson, R. Wallny,
D.H. Zhu Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, C. Amsler53, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, R. Del
Burgo, S. Donato, C. Galloni, T. Hreus, B. Kilminster, I. Neutelings, D.
Pinna, G. Rauco, P. Robmann, D. Salerno, K. Schweiger, C. Seitz, Y. Takahashi,
A. Zucchetta National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan
Y.H. Chang, K.y. Cheng, T.H. Doan, Sh. Jain, R. Khurana, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A.
Pozdnyakov, S.S. Yu National Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, F. Fiori, W.-S. Hou, Y. Hsiung, Arun
Kumar, Y.F. Liu, R.-S. Lu, E. Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen, J.f. Tsai
Chulalongkorn University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok,
Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, K. Kovitanggoon, G. Singh, N. Srimanobhas Çukurova University,
Physics Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
A. Bat, F. Boran, S. Cerci54, S. Damarseckin, Z.S. Demiroglu, C. Dozen, I.
Dumanoglu, S. Girgis, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, I. Hos55, E.E. Kangal56, O. Kara,
A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, M. Oglakci, G. Onengut, K. Ozdemir57, D. Sunar
Cerci54, B. Tali54, U.G. Tok, S. Turkcapar, I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle
East Technical University, Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey
G. Karapinar58, K. Ocalan59, M. Yalvac, M. Zeyrek Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya60, O. Kaya61, S. Tekten, E.A. Yetkin62
Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
M.N. Agaras, S. Atay, A. Cakir, K. Cankocak, Y. Komurcu Institute for
Scintillation Materials of National Academy of Science of Ukraine, Kharkov,
Ukraine
B. Grynyov National Scientific Center, Kharkov Institute of Physics and
Technology, Kharkov, Ukraine
L. Levchuk University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
F. Ball, L. Beck, J.J. Brooke, D. Burns, E. Clement, D. Cussans, O. Davignon,
H. Flacher, J. Goldstein, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, D.M. Newbold63,
S. Paramesvaran, T. Sakuma, S. Seif El Nasr-storey, D. Smith, V.J. Smith
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev64, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, D. Cieri, D.J.A. Cockerill, J.A.
Coughlan, K. Harder, S. Harper, J. Linacre, E. Olaiya, D. Petyt, C.H.
Shepherd-Themistocleous, A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin, T. Williams, W.J. Womersley
Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
G. Auzinger, R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A.
Bundock, S. Casasso, D. Colling, L. Corpe, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M. Della
Negra, R. Di Maria, Y. Haddad, G. Hall, G. Iles, T. James, M. Komm, R. Lane,
C. Laner, L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, L. Mastrolorenzo, T. Matsushita,
J. Nash65, A. Nikitenko7, V. Palladino, M. Pesaresi, A. Richards, A. Rose, E.
Scott, C. Seez, A. Shtipliyski, T. Strebler, S. Summers, A. Tapper, K. Uchida,
M. Vazquez Acosta66, T. Virdee18, N. Wardle, D. Winterbottom, J. Wright, S.C.
Zenz Brunel University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, A. Morton, I.D. Reid, L.
Teodorescu, S. Zahid Baylor University, Waco, USA
A. Borzou, K. Call, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, H. Liu, N. Pastika, C. Smith
Catholic University of America, Washington DC, USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
A. Buccilli, S.I. Cooper, C. Henderson, P. Rumerio, C. West Boston University,
Boston, USA
D. Arcaro, A. Avetisyan, T. Bose, D. Gastler, D. Rankin, C. Richardson, J.
Rohlf, L. Sulak, D. Zou Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, D. Cutts, M. Hadley, J. Hakala, U. Heintz, J.M. Hogan67, K.H.M.
Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, J. Lee, Z. Mao, M. Narain, J. Pazzini, S.
Piperov, S. Sagir, R. Syarif, D. Yu University of California, Davis, Davis,
USA
R. Band, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, D. Burns, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez,
M. Chertok, J. Conway, R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, G. Funk,
W. Ko, R. Lander, C. Mclean, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, J. Pilot, S. Shalhout,
M. Shi, J. Smith, D. Stolp, D. Taylor, K. Tos, M. Tripathi, Z. Wang, F. Zhang
University of California, Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, C. Bravo, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, A. Florent, J. Hauser, M.
Ignatenko, N. Mccoll, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg, C. Schnaible, V. Valuev
University of California, Riverside, Riverside, USA
E. Bouvier, K. Burt, R. Clare, J. Ellison, J.W. Gary, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi,
G. Hanson, G. Karapostoli, E. Kennedy, F. Lacroix, O.R. Long, M. Olmedo
Negrete, M.I. Paneva, W. Si, L. Wang, H. Wei, S. Wimpenny, B.R. Yates
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, S. Cittolin, M. Derdzinski, R. Gerosa, D. Gilbert, B. Hashemi,
A. Holzner, D. Klein, G. Kole, V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, M. Masciovecchio, D.
Olivito, S. Padhi, M. Pieri, M. Sani, V. Sharma, S. Simon, M. Tadel, A.
Vartak, S. Wasserbaech68, J. Wood, F. Würthwein, A. Yagil, G. Zevi Della Porta
University of California, Santa Barbara - Department of Physics, Santa
Barbara, USA
N. Amin, R. Bhandari, J. Bradmiller-Feld, C. Campagnari, M. Citron, A. Dishaw,
V. Dutta, M. Franco Sevilla, L. Gouskos, R. Heller, J. Incandela, A.
Ovcharova, H. Qu, J. Richman, D. Stuart, I. Suarez, J. Yoo California
Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
D. Anderson, A. Bornheim, J. Bunn, J.M. Lawhorn, H.B. Newman, T.Q. Nguyen, C.
Pena, M. Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, R. Wilkinson, S. Xie, Z. Zhang, R.Y. Zhu
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
M.B. Andrews, T. Ferguson, T. Mudholkar, M. Paulini, J. Russ, M. Sun, H.
Vogel, I. Vorobiev, M. Weinberg University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, F. Jensen, A. Johnson, M. Krohn, S. Leontsinis, E.
MacDonald, T. Mulholland, K. Stenson, K.A. Ulmer, S.R. Wagner Cornell
University, Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, J. Chaves, Y. Cheng, J. Chu, A. Datta, K. Mcdermott, N. Mirman,
J.R. Patterson, D. Quach, A. Rinkevicius, A. Ryd, L. Skinnari, L. Soffi, S.M.
Tan, Z. Tao, J. Thom, J. Tucker, P. Wittich, M. Zientek Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, USA
S. Abdullin, M. Albrow, M. Alyari, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S.
Banerjee, L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, G.
Bolla${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, K. Burkett, J.N. Butler, A. Canepa, G.B.
Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M. Cremonesi, J. Duarte, V.D. Elvira, J.
Freeman, Z. Gecse, E. Gottschalk, L. Gray, D. Green, S. Grünendahl, O.
Gutsche, J. Hanlon, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, J. Hirschauer, Z. Hu, B.
Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, B. Klima, M.J. Kortelainen,
B. Kreis, S. Lammel, D. Lincoln, R. Lipton, M. Liu, T. Liu, R. Lopes De Sá, J.
Lykken, K. Maeshima, N. Magini, J.M. Marraffino, D. Mason, P. McBride, P.
Merkel, S. Mrenna, S. Nahn, V. O’Dell, K. Pedro, O. Prokofyev, G. Rakness, L.
Ristori, A. Savoy-Navarro69, B. Schneider, E. Sexton-Kennedy, A. Soha, W.J.
Spalding, L. Spiegel, S. Stoynev, J. Strait, N. Strobbe, L. Taylor, S.
Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran, L. Uplegger, E.W. Vaandering, C. Vernieri, M. Verzocchi,
R. Vidal, M. Wang, H.A. Weber, A. Whitbeck, W. Wu University of Florida,
Gainesville, USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, P. Bortignon, D. Bourilkov, A. Brinkerhoff, A. Carnes, M.
Carver, D. Curry, R.D. Field, I.K. Furic, S.V. Gleyzer, B.M. Joshi, J.
Konigsberg, A. Korytov, K. Kotov, P. Ma, K. Matchev, H. Mei, G. Mitselmakher,
K. Shi, D. Sperka, N. Terentyev, L. Thomas, J. Wang, S. Wang, J. Yelton
Florida International University, Miami, USA
Y.R. Joshi, S. Linn, P. Markowitz, J.L. Rodriguez Florida State University,
Tallahassee, USA
A. Ackert, T. Adams, A. Askew, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F. Johnson, T.
Kolberg, G. Martinez, T. Perry, H. Prosper, A. Saha, A. Santra, V. Sharma, R.
Yohay Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, V. Bhopatkar, S. Colafranceschi, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, T.
Roy, F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago, USA
M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, D. Berry, R.R. Betts, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, S.
Dittmer, O. Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, K. Jung, J.
Kamin, I.D. Sandoval Gonzalez, M.B. Tonjes, N. Varelas, H. Wang, Z. Wu, J.
Zhang The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
B. Bilki70, W. Clarida, K. Dilsiz71, S. Durgut, R.P. Gandrajula, M.
Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko, J.-P. Merlo, H. Mermerkaya72, A. Mestvirishvili,
A. Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul73, Y. Onel, F. Ozok74, A. Penzo, C. Snyder,
E. Tiras, J. Wetzel, K. Yi Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
B. Blumenfeld, A. Cocoros, N. Eminizer, D. Fehling, L. Feng, A.V. Gritsan,
W.T. Hung, P. Maksimovic, J. Roskes, U. Sarica, M. Swartz, M. Xiao, C. You The
University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA
A. Al-bataineh, P. Baringer, A. Bean, J.F. Benitez, S. Boren, J. Bowen, J.
Castle, S. Khalil, A. Kropivnitskaya, D. Majumder, W. Mcbrayer, M. Murray, C.
Rogan, C. Royon, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang Kansas
State University, Manhattan, USA
A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, Y. Maravin, A. Modak, A. Mohammadi, L.K. Saini, N.
Skhirtladze Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright University of Maryland, College Park, USA
A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, S.C. Eno, Y. Feng, C. Ferraioli, N.J. Hadley,
S. Jabeen, G.Y. Jeng, R.G. Kellogg, J. Kunkle, A.C. Mignerey, F. Ricci-Tam,
Y.H. Shin, A. Skuja, S.C. Tonwar Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, V. Azzolini, R. Barbieri, A. Baty, G. Bauer, R. Bi,
S. Brandt, W. Busza, I.A. Cali, M. D’Alfonso, Z. Demiragli, G. Gomez Ceballos,
M. Goncharov, P. Harris, D. Hsu, M. Hu, Y. Iiyama, G.M. Innocenti, M. Klute,
D. Kovalskyi, Y.-J. Lee, A. Levin, P.D. Luckey, B. Maier, A.C. Marini, C.
Mcginn, C. Mironov, S. Narayanan, X. Niu, C. Paus, C. Roland, G. Roland,
G.S.F. Stephans, K. Sumorok, K. Tatar, D. Velicanu, J. Wang, T.W. Wang, B.
Wyslouch, S. Zhaozhong University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
A.C. Benvenuti, R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, P. Hansen, S. Kalafut, Y. Kubota,
Z. Lesko, J. Mans, S. Nourbakhsh, N. Ruckstuhl, R. Rusack, J. Turkewitz, M.A.
Wadud University of Mississippi, Oxford, USA
J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
E. Avdeeva, K. Bloom, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, F. Golf, R. Gonzalez Suarez,
R. Kamalieddin, I. Kravchenko, J. Monroy, J.E. Siado, G.R. Snow, B. Stieger
State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
A. Godshalk, C. Harrington, I. Iashvili, D. Nguyen, A. Parker, S. Rappoccio,
B. Roozbahani Northeastern University, Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, A. Hortiangtham, A. Massironi, D.M. Morse,
T. Orimoto, R. Teixeira De Lima, T. Wamorkar, B. Wang, A. Wisecarver, D. Wood
Northwestern University, Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, O. Charaf, K.A. Hahn, N. Mucia, N. Odell, M.H. Schmitt, K.
Sung, M. Trovato, M. Velasco University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, USA
R. Bucci, N. Dev, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop, D.J. Karmgard, N.
Kellams, K. Lannon, W. Li, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, F. Meng, C. Mueller, Y.
Musienko38, M. Planer, A. Reinsvold, R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, G. Smith, S.
Taroni, M. Wayne, A. Wightman, M. Wolf, A. Woodard The Ohio State University,
Columbus, USA
J. Alimena, L. Antonelli, B. Bylsma, L.S. Durkin, S. Flowers, B. Francis, A.
Hart, C. Hill, W. Ji, T.Y. Ling, W. Luo, B.L. Winer, H.W. Wulsin Princeton
University, Princeton, USA
S. Cooperstein, O. Driga, P. Elmer, J. Hardenbrook, P. Hebda, S. Higginbotham,
A. Kalogeropoulos, D. Lange, J. Luo, D. Marlow, K. Mei, I. Ojalvo, J. Olsen,
C. Palmer, P. Piroué, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, D. Stickland, C. Tully University of
Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
A. Barker, V.E. Barnes, S. Das, L. Gutay, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, A. Khatiwada,
D.H. Miller, N. Neumeister, C.C. Peng, H. Qiu, J.F. Schulte, J. Sun, F. Wang,
R. Xiao, W. Xie Purdue University Northwest, Hammond, USA
T. Cheng, J. Dolen, N. Parashar Rice University, Houston, USA
Z. Chen, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Guilbaud, M. Kilpatrick, W.
Li, B. Michlin, B.P. Padley, J. Roberts, J. Rorie, W. Shi, Z. Tu, J. Zabel, A.
Zhang University of Rochester, Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, Y.t. Duh, T. Ferbel, M. Galanti, A.
Garcia-Bellido, J. Han, O. Hindrichs, A. Khukhunaishvili, K.H. Lo, P. Tan, M.
Verzetti The Rockefeller University, New York, USA
R. Ciesielski, K. Goulianos, C. Mesropian Rutgers, The State University of New
Jersey, Piscataway, USA
A. Agapitos, J.P. Chou, Y. Gershtein, T.A. Gómez Espinosa, E. Halkiadakis, M.
Heindl, E. Hughes, S. Kaplan, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, S. Kyriacou, A. Lath,
R. Montalvo, K. Nash, M. Osherson, H. Saka, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, D.
Sheffield, S. Somalwar, R. Stone, S. Thomas, P. Thomassen, M. Walker
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
A.G. Delannoy, J. Heideman, G. Riley, K. Rose, S. Spanier, K. Thapa Texas A&M
University, College Station, USA
O. Bouhali75, A. Castaneda Hernandez75, A. Celik, M. Dalchenko, M. De Mattia,
A. Delgado, S. Dildick, R. Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T. Kamon76, R.
Mueller, Y. Pakhotin, R. Patel, A. Perloff, L. Perniè, D. Rathjens, A.
Safonov, A. Tatarinov Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, F. De Guio, P.R. Dudero, J. Faulkner, E. Gurpinar, S.
Kunori, K. Lamichhane, S.W. Lee, T. Mengke, S. Muthumuni, T. Peltola, S.
Undleeb, I. Volobouev, Z. Wang Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H. Ni, K.
Padeken, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska, Q. Xu University
of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
M.W. Arenton, P. Barria, B. Cox, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A. Ledovskoy, H. Li, C.
Neu, T. Sinthuprasith, Y. Wang, E. Wolfe, F. Xia Wayne State University,
Detroit, USA
R. Harr, P.E. Karchin, N. Poudyal, J. Sturdy, P. Thapa, S. Zaleski University
of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI, USA
M. Brodski, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, D. Carlsmith, S. Dasu, L. Dodd, S. Duric,
B. Gomber, M. Grothe, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, P. Klabbers, A.
Lanaro, A. Levine, K. Long, R. Loveless, V. Rekovic, T. Ruggles, A. Savin, N.
Smith, W.H. Smith, N. Woods †: Deceased
1: Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria
2: Also at IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
3: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
4: Also at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
5: Also at Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil
6: Also at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
7: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
8: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
9: Also at Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt
10: Now at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt
11: Also at Zewail City of Science and Technology, Zewail, Egypt
12: Now at Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
13: Now at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
14: Also at Department of Physics, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia
15: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
16: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
17: Also at Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
18: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
19: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
20: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
21: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
22: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
23: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
24: Also at Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India
25: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
26: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India
27: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
28: Also at University of Ruhuna, Matara, Sri Lanka
29: Also at Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
30: Also at Yazd University, Yazd, Iran
31: Also at Plasma Physics Research Center, Science and Research Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
32: Also at Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy
33: Also at INFN Sezione di Milano-Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b,
Milano, Italy
34: Also at International Islamic University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
35: Also at Malaysian Nuclear Agency, MOSTI, Kajang, Malaysia
36: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico city, Mexico
37: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems,
Warsaw, Poland
38: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
39: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
40: Also at Institute of Nuclear Physics of the Uzbekistan Academy of
Sciences, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
41: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
42: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
43: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
44: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
45: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
46: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
47: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
48: Also at University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of
Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
49: Also at Scuola Normale e Sezione dell’INFN, Pisa, Italy
50: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
51: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
52: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
53: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics (SMI), Vienna,
Austria
54: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
55: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey
56: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
57: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
58: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
59: Also at Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
60: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
61: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
62: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
63: Also at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
64: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
65: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia
66: Also at Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, La Laguna, Spain
67: Also at Bethel University, St. Paul, USA
68: Also at Utah Valley University, Orem, USA
69: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
70: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey
71: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
72: Also at Erzincan University, Erzincan, Turkey
73: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
74: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
75: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
76: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea