HIN-18-004

$HeadURL:svn+ssh://svn.cern.ch/reps/tdr2/papers/HIN-18-004/trunk/HIN-18-004.tex$
$Id:HIN-18-004.tex4778952018-10-1212:26:06Zabaty$

HIN-18-004

# Charged-particle nuclear modification factors in XeXe collisions at
$\sqrtsNN=5.44\TeV$

###### Abstract

The differential yields of charged particles having pseudorapidity within
$\abs{\eta}<1$ are measured using xenon-xenon (XeXe) collisions at
$\sqrtsNN=5.44\TeV$. The data, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of
3.42, were collected in 2017 by the CMS experiment at the LHC. The yields are
reported as functions of collision centrality and transverse momentum, , from
0.5 to 100. A previously reported spectrum from proton-proton collisions at
$\sqrt{s}=5.02\TeV$ is used for comparison after correcting for the difference
in center-of-mass energy. The nuclear modification factors using this
reference, $R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$, are constructed and compared to previous
measurements and theoretical predictions. In head-on collisions, the
$R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$ has a value of 0.17 in the range of 6–8, but increases to
approximately 0.7 at 100. Above ${\approx}6\GeV$, the XeXe data show a notably
smaller suppression than previous results for lead-lead (PbPb) collisions at
$\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$ when compared at the same centrality (, the same fraction
of total cross section). However, the XeXe suppression is slightly greater
than that for PbPb in events having a similar number of participating
nucleons.

##  0.1 Introduction

The transverse momentum () spectrum of charged particles is a well-studied
observable for examining the hot, dense quark-gluon plasma (QGP) created in
high-energy heavy ion collisions. As scattered partons traverse this medium,
they experience a loss of energy due to quantum chromodynamics processes such
as gluon emission and parton splitting [1]. Because high-charged particles are
produced through parton fragmentation and subsequent hadronization, their
yields are sensitive to the strength of QGP-induced energy loss [2, 3]. In
contrast, production of charged particles having less than a few is
particularly sensitive to initial parton densities and hydrodynamic expansion
of the medium [4, 5, 6, 7].

Modification of charged-particle yields can be quantified by forming a ratio
of the spectra in nucleus-nucleus (AA) and $\Pp\Pp$ collisions, where the
latter are multiplied by the average number of binary nucleon-nucleon
collisions per AA event, $\langle N_{\text{coll}}\rangle$. This observable is
known as the nuclear modification factor, $R_{\text{AA}}$, and is given by

$R_{\text{AA}}(\pt)=\frac{1}{\langle N_{\text{coll}}\rangle}\frac{\rd
N^{\text{AA}}/\rd\pt}{\rd{N^{\Pp\Pp}/\rd\pt}}.$ (1)

Here $\rd N^{\text{AA}}/\rd\pt$ ($\rd{N^{\Pp\Pp}}/\rd\pt$) is the charged-
particle yield in AA ($\Pp\Pp$) collisions. An equivalent definition replaces
$\rd{N^{\Pp\Pp}}/\rd\pt$ with the differential charged-particle cross section
in inelastic $\Pp\Pp$ collisions, $\rd{\sigma^{\Pp\Pp}}/\rd\pt$, and $\langle
N_{\text{coll}}\rangle$ with the nuclear overlap function,
$T_{\text{AA}}=\langle N_{\text{coll}}\rangle/\sigma^{\Pp\Pp}$:

$R_{\text{AA}}(\pt)=\frac{1}{T_{\text{AA}}}\frac{\rd
N^{\text{AA}}/\rd\pt}{\rd\sigma^{\Pp\Pp}/\rd\pt}.$ (2)

Both $\langle N_{\text{coll}}\rangle$ and $T_{\text{AA}}$ can be obtained
using a Glauber model of nuclear collisions [8].

Charged-particle spectra and their associated nuclear modification have been
explored at the BNL RHIC [9, 10, 11, 12] in gold-gold collisions at a center-
of-mass energy per nucleon pair ($\sqrtsNN$) of up to 200 . These analyses
found $R_{\text{AA}}$ to be strongly suppressed in head-on collisions, with
minima around $\pt=5\GeV$. Measurements made at the CERN LHC by the ALICE [13,
14], ATLAS [15], and CMS [16, 17] Collaborations have explored the same
observables in lead-lead (PbPb) collisions at $\sqrtsNN=2.76$ and 5.02. These
studies found minima of $R_{\text{AA}}$ around 0.15 at $\pt=8\GeV$. They also
indicate that $R_{\text{AA}}$ increases to values around 0.7 at $\pt=100\GeV$.
Complementary measurements of the nuclear modification factor in proton-lead
($\Pp$Pb) collisions at $\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$ indicate that high-charged-
particle yields are not strongly modified in this smaller colliding system,
ruling out effects related to the initial-state conditions of the lead nucleus
as a cause of the high-suppression seen in PbPb collisions [14, 18, 17].
Together, these observations indicate strong -dependent energy loss due to the
presence of the QGP in heavy ion collisions.

In 2017, the LHC collided 129Xe nuclei at $\sqrtsNN=5.44\TeV$. The LHC had
previously only provided proton-proton ($\Pp\Pp$), $\Pp$Pb, and PbPb
collisions. Therefore, the xenon-xenon (XeXe) data provide a unique
opportunity to explore the properties of the QGP using an intermediate size
collision system at LHC energies. Xenon collisions also provide an opportunity
to test the system size dependence of parton energy loss. The radii of xenon
and lead nuclei are ${\approx}5.4$ and ${\approx}6.6\unit{fm}$, respectively
[19]. Assuming the energy loss of a parton is linearly (quadratically) related
to only its path length through the QGP would imply an average reduction in
energy loss of 17 (31)% in head-on XeXe collisions as compared to PbPb
collisions. This difference could manifest itself in comparisons of the
charged-particle spectra between the two systems. Recent results from the
ALICE Collaboration indicate this is the case, with the $R_{\text{AA}}$ of
head-on XeXe collisions being less suppressed than that of PbPb collisions
[20]. Comparisons of copper-copper and gold-gold collisions at RHIC have also
motivated similar conclusions [21, 22, 23, 24].

To facilitate comparison of these two collision systems, a scaled ratio
between the XeXe and PbPb charged-particle spectra is defined as

$R^{\text{Xe}}_{\text{Pb}}(\pt)=\frac{\rd N^{\text{XeXe}}/\rd\pt}{\rd
N^{\text{PbPb}}/\rd\pt}\frac{T_{\text{PbPb}}}{T_{\text{XeXe}}}.$ (3)

Here the AA notation is replaced with the names of the appropriate ion
species. Unlike $R_{\text{AA}}$, this ratio does not depend on $\Pp\Pp$
reference data. Because the PbPb data were gathered at $\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$,
the two collision systems compared in this paper have different center-of-mass
energies. A deviation of $R_{\text{Pb}}^{\text{Xe}}$ from expected values,
after taking this energy difference into account, would indicate a different
spectral modification between XeXe and PbPb collisions.

In this paper, spectra are reported for charged particles with pseudorapidity
$\abs{\eta}<1$ in XeXe collisions at $\sqrtsNN=5.44\TeV$. A $\Pp\Pp$ reference
spectrum at a center-of-mass energy ($\sqrt{s}$) of 5.44is constructed by
extrapolating from an existing measurement at $\sqrt{s}=5.02\TeV$ [17]. This
reference is used to estimate the nuclear modification factor
$R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$, where the asterisk denotes the use of an extrapolated
reference. The results for $R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$ are compared to theoretical
calculations, and potential implications are discussed.

##  0.2 The CMS detector

The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6m
internal diameter, providing a magnetic field of 3.8T. Within the solenoid
volume are a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal
electromagnetic calorimeter, and a brass and scintillator hadron calorimeter,
each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. Forward calorimeters extend
the $\eta$ 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.

The silicon tracker measures charged particles within the range
$\abs{\eta}<2.5$. It consists of 1856 silicon pixel and 15 148 silicon strip
detector modules. For nonisolated particles of $1<\pt<10\GeV$ and
$\abs{\eta}<1.4$, the track resolutions are typically 25–90 (45–150)in the
transverse (longitudinal) impact parameter [25].

The hadron forward (HF) calorimeter uses steel as an absorber and quartz
fibers as the sensitive material. The two halves of the HF are located 11.2m
from the interaction region, one on each end, and together they provide
coverage in the range $3.0<\abs{\eta}<5.2$.

Events of interest are selected using a two-tiered trigger system [26]. During
XeXe operation the first level trigger (L1), composed of custom hardware
processors, uses information from the calorimeters to select events at a rate
of around 4kHz within a time interval of less than 4. The second level, known
as the high-level trigger (HLT), consists of a farm of processors running a
version of the full event reconstruction software optimized for fast
processing, and reduces the event rate to around 2kHz before data storage.

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. [27].

##  0.3 Event samples and selections

This measurement uses XeXe data collected at $\sqrtsNN=5.44\TeV$ in 2017.
During the six-hour data-taking period approximately 19 million minimum-bias
(MB) events were gathered, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 3.42.
Events containing multiple XeXe collisions have a negligible effect on the
measurement, as the average number of interactions per bunch crossing was less
than 0.018. Events selected by the L1 trigger system were required to have a
signal above the noise threshold in at least one of the two HF calorimeters.
The HLT chose events having an energy deposit above approximately 1 in the HF,
as well as having at least one group of three pixel hits that is compatible
with the trajectory of a charged particle originating from the luminous
region. Every event passing these MB trigger conditions was recorded.

Samples of simulated XeXe Monte Carlo (MC) events are used to evaluate the
detector performance and reconstruction efficiencies. Both MB epos [28] tune
LHC [29] and hydjet tuned with $\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$ PbPb MB events [30] are
employed. An additional set of hydjet-embedded 8.230 [31] events (MB hydjet
events containing an additional hard scattering generated by tune CUETP8M1
[32]) is used to examine the reconstruction performance and resolution for
high-charged particles.

A heavy ion collision centrality quantifies the amount of overlap between the
two colliding ions. For both data and MC events, the centrality is estimated
from the sum of the transverse energy deposited in both HF detectors. In this
work, centrality selections are expressed as percentage ranges of the total
hadronic inelastic cross section. Lower percentiles indicate a larger degree
of overlap between the two nuclei. Thus, the 0–5% centrality range selects the
most head-on XeXe collisions in the sample.

The values of $\langle N_{\text{part}}\rangle$, $\langle
N_{\text{coll}}\rangle$, $T_{\text{AA}}$, and their uncertainties, for
$\sqrtsNN=5.44$XeXe collisions and 5.02PbPb collisions in the centrality
ranges used here.  $\langle N_{\text{part}}\rangle$ $\langle
N_{\text{coll}}\rangle$ $T_{\text{AA}}$ [mb-1] Centrality XeXe PbPb XeXe PbPb
XeXe PbPb $0\text{--}5\%$ $236.1{\pm 1.3}$ $384.3{{}^{+1.8}_{-2.0}}$ $930{\pm
51}$ $1820{{}^{+130}_{-140}}$ $13.60{\pm 0.74}$ $26.0{{}^{+0.5}_{-0.8}}$
$5\text{--}10\%$ $206.3{\pm 1.7}$ $333.3{{}^{+3.0}_{-3.2}}$ $732{\pm 44}$
$1430{{}^{+100}_{-110}}$ $10.70{\pm 0.65}$ $20.5{{}^{+0.4}_{-0.6}}$
$10\text{--}30\%$ $141.2{\pm 1.8}$ $226.7{{}^{+5.2}_{-5.3}}$ $407{\pm 30}$
$805{{}^{+55}_{-58}}$ $5.94{\pm 0.44}$ $11.5{{}^{+0.3}_{-0.4}}$
$30\text{--}50\%$ $68.5{\pm 2.2}$ $109.2{{}^{+4.3}_{-4.2}}$ $135{\pm 15}$
$267{{}^{+20}_{-20}}$ $1.97{\pm 0.22}$ $3.82{{}^{+0.21}_{-0.21}}$
$50\text{--}70\%$ $27.2{\pm 1.6}$ $42.2{{}^{+3.0}_{-2.9}}$ $35.3{\pm 4.8}$
$65.4{{}^{+7.0}_{-6.6}}$ $0.517{\pm 0.071}$ $0.934{{}^{+0.096}_{-0.089}}$
$70\text{--}80\%$ $10.55{\pm 0.78}$ — $9.8{\pm 1.4}$ — $0.143{\pm 0.020}$ —
$70\text{--}90\%$ — $11.1{{}^{+1.3}_{-1.2}}$ — $10.7{{}^{+1.7}_{-1.5}}$ —
$0.152{{}^{+0.024}_{-0.021}}$ $0\text{--}10\%$ $221.2{\pm 1.5}$
$358.8{{}^{+2.4}_{-2.6}}$ $831{\pm 47}$ $1630{{}^{+120}_{-120}}$ $12.10{\pm
0.69}$ $23.2{{}^{+0.4}_{-0.7}}$

An event centrality is closely related to the number of participating
nucleons, $N_{\text{part}}$, and the number of binary nucleon-nucleon
collisions, $N_{\text{coll}}$, in the event. The $\langle
N_{\text{part}}\rangle$, $\langle N_{\text{coll}}\rangle$, and corresponding
$T_{\text{AA}}$ for a given centrality range are calculated with a Glauber
model of the nucleons contained in each ion [8]. For the purposes of this
model, the nucleon-nucleon inelastic cross section
$\sigma^{\text{inel}}_{\text{NN}}$ is taken as $68.4\pm 0.5\unit{mb}$ [33].
The nuclear radius and skin depth are set as $5.36\pm 0.1\unit{fm}$ and
$0.59\pm 0.07\unit{fm}$, respectively [19]. Additionally, the nuclear
deformation parameter of the xenon nucleus is taken to be $\beta_{2}=0.18\pm
0.02$ [34]. Simulated epos events are used to account for bin-to-bin smearing
in centrality caused by fluctuations and the energy resolution of the HF
calorimeters [8]. The resulting values and uncertainties are given in Table
0.3 for XeXe collisions at $\sqrtsNN=5.44\TeV$. For the purpose of calculating
$R_{\text{Pb}}^{\text{Xe}}$, the same quantities in PbPb collisions at 5.02are
also given. The procedure for calculating the PbPb values is described in Ref.
[17]. The uncertainties in the PbPb values include a component related to the
uncertainty in the PbPb event selection efficiency. However, the effect of the
XeXe event selection efficiency uncertainty is much larger than in PbPb
collisions. Therefore, this component is not propagated to the uncertainty in
the XeXe values and is accounted for with a separate systematic uncertainty.
In this paper, the definition of $R_{\text{AA}}$ containing $T_{\text{AA}}$,
given in Eq. (2), is used.

In the offline analysis, events are required to have a reconstructed primary
vertex that is formed from at least two tracks and is within $15\unit{cm}$ of
the detector center. This rejects background processes such as beam-gas
collisions. The events must also have at least three detector elements
containing energy deposits of at least 3in each of the two HF subdetectors.
Finally, at least 25% of the tracks in an event must pass a track-quality
selection [25]. These conditions, along with the MB trigger requirements, are
estimated to select $(95\pm 3)\%$ of the total inelastic cross section. This
efficiency also includes potential contributions from ultraperipheral
electromagnetic interactions contaminating the selected sample and was
calculated using samples of epos, hydjet, and starlight v2.2 [35]. In the
0–80% centrality range used for this analysis, the event selection is fully
efficient and any remaining electromagnetic contamination is negligible.

##  0.4 Track reconstruction and corrections

The spectra measured here are for primary charged particles, defined as having
an average proper lifetime greater than $1\unit{cm}$. Daughters originating
from secondary decays are not considered primary unless the mother particle
has an average proper lifetime under $1\unit{cm}$. The rate at which these
nonprimary tracks contaminate the sample is estimated to be less than $0.3\%$.
Particles coming from interactions with detector components are not included
in the primary-particle definition.

Tracks and primary vertices are reconstructed using the procedures described
in Ref. [25]. Small modifications to these algorithms are made to facilitate
the reconstruction of XeXe events having large track multiplicities. Tracks
are required to be in the range $\abs{\eta}<1$. Poor-quality tracks are
removed from the sample by applying strict track selections identical to the
ones described for PbPb collisions in Ref. [17]. Notably, these selections
require each track with $\pt>20\GeV$ to be associated with a calorimeter
energy deposit [36] of at least half the track’s momentum. They also reject
tracks having a significance of the distance of closest approach (DCA) to the
primary vertex in the $x$-$y$ plane that is greater than 3 standard
deviations.

Figure 1: The XeXe tracking efficiency for six centrality selections. The
tracking efficiency at low-values decreases because of the strict track
quality requirements used. Above $\pt=3\GeV$ the efficiency for central events
is rather flat around 70%. The shaded bands show the statistical
uncertainties.

The tracking performance is evaluated using simulated hydjet-embedded events
and is found to be similar to the performance in PbPb collisions having
similar detector occupancy. The track resolution is ${<}1.5\%$ for the full
range of this study. The tracking efficiency, defined as the fraction of
primary charged particles successfully reconstructed after track quality
selections, is shown in Fig. 1. The shaded bands around each line show
statistical uncertainties. The efficiency has a fairly constant value around
70% (76%) in the range $3<\pt<100\GeV$ for central (peripheral) events.
Because of the stringent track selection criteria, the efficiency decreases to
a value of $13\%$ at $\pt=0.5\GeV$ in the 0–5% centrality range, and to $30\%$
in the 70–80% centrality range. The rate at which erroneous tracks not
associated with a charged particle are generated, or the misreconstruction
rate, is less than $1\%$ for most of the range studied. However, it does
increase quickly for tracks having $\pt<0.7\GeV$ in the 0–5% centrality range,
reaching a maximum value of 34% at $\pt=0.5\GeV$. The effects of tracking
inefficiency, misreconstruction, and nonprimary contamination are all
corrected for by applying a weight to each track. This correction is
parameterized as a function of the track and event centrality.

The tracking efficiency for a charged particle at a given depends on its
species. Additionally, some charged particles, notably the strange baryons,
are more likely to decay into secondary particles which then contaminate the
sample. These effects lead to a model dependence of the total tracking
correction, because different MC event generators predict dissimilar relative
fractions of each type of charged particle. Notably, tends to underpredict
strange hadron production in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions [14], while epos is found to
overestimate the production of many strange hadrons in central PbPb collisions
[37]. Thus, the fraction of strange baryons in data is expected to be bounded
by that of epos and of the embedded particles in a hydjet-embedded sample.
Following the procedure detailed in Ref. [17], a working point is chosen that
lies halfway between the tracking corrections produced by these two
generators. The deviation between the estimated tracking corrections from the
two generators reaches a maximum of 8% around $\pt=4\GeV$ but is less than 3%
for $\pt>10\GeV$.

##  0.5 Reference spectrum

A reference spectrum from $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at an appropriate center-of-mass
energy is required to construct $R_{\text{AA}}$. Although no measurements
exist at $\sqrt{s}=5.44\TeV$, the CMS Collaboration has measured spectra for
collisions at $\sqrt{s}=5.02\TeV$ [17] and 7 [38]. An MC-based extrapolation
procedure is applied to the 5.02spectrum because of its close proximity in
energy to 5.44. The $\Pp\Pp$ reference cross section used for the
$R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$ calculation is

$\Bigg{(}\dd{\sigma_{\text{5.44}}^{\Pp\Pp}}{\pt}\Bigg{)}_{\text{Extrap.}}=\Bigg{(}\dd{\sigma_{\text{5.44}}^{\Pp\Pp}}{\pt}\Bigg{/}\dd{\sigma_{\text{5.02}}^{\Pp\Pp}}{\pt}\Bigg{)}_{\text{MC}}\Bigg{(}\dd{\sigma_{\text{5.02}}^{\Pp\Pp}}{\pt}\Bigg{)}_{\text{Data}}.$
(4)

For most of the range studied here, the charged-particle spectra for $\Pp\Pp$
collisions produced by 8.223 tune CUETP8M1 were found to match data at
$\sqrt{s}=5.02$ and 7within the experimental uncertainties. Differences
between the data and simulation for $\pt<1\GeV$ and around $\pt=10\GeV$ are
similar at both center-of-mass energies and are expected to largely cancel in
a ratio. Therefore, this generator is used for the reference reported here.
The extrapolation factor is extracted by fitting a polynomial of the form
$a_{0}+a_{1}x+a_{2}x^{2}+a_{3}x^{3}+a_{4}x^{4}$, with $x=\ln(\pt/1\GeV)$, to
the ratio of spectra at the two different center-of-mass energies. The fit
parameters are $a_{0}=1.04$, $a_{1}=2.56\times 10^{-2}$, $a_{2}=1.27\times
10^{-2}$, $a_{3}=-4.72\times 10^{-3}$, and $a_{4}=4.80\times 10^{-4}$. This
functional form is chosen to give a good empirical description of the
simulated data, as seen in Fig. 2, and is not guaranteed to be valid outside
the range $0.5<\pt<100\GeV$. The extrapolation factor spans the range from
1.03 at $\pt=0.5\GeV$ to 1.18 at $\pt=100\GeV$. For most of this range, the
fit’s statistical uncertainty is smaller than the thickness of the red line in
Fig. 2. The extrapolation procedure is checked at low-using epos tune LHC,
which is found to be within 1% of until around $\pt=10\GeV$. At higher , a fit
to herwig++[39] tune EE5C [32] deviates from the result by no more than 2%.
Other functional forms including sigmoid functions and ratios of Tsallis
distributions [40] are found to agree with the nominal fit to within 1%.

Figure 2: The ratio of charged-particle spectra in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at
$\sqrt{s}=5.44$ and 5.02for three different MC generators. A fit to the ratio
is shown by the red line.

Alternative methods of calculating a reference spectrum were attempted. A
similar extrapolation starting from data at $\sqrt{s}=7\TeV$ is found to yield
a reference spectrum within 5% of the one constructed using 5.02data. This
difference is well within the experimental uncertainties of the 5.02 and
7data. The spectra produced by “relative placement” and $x_{T}$ interpolation
procedures [41] are tightly constrained by the existing 5.02measurement and
are within 2% of the extrapolated reference cross section used here.

The systematic uncertainties related to the measurements reported here. The
values quoted cover the centrality and dependence of each uncertainty. They
are separated into normalization uncertainties and all other systematic
uncertainties.  Sources Uncertainty [%] XeXe Spectra $R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$
$R_{\text{Pb}}^{\text{Xe}}$ Fraction of misreconstructed tracks 0.1–16 0.1–16
0.1–5 Particle species composition 0.5–8 0.5–8 1–8 Track selection 3–6 3–6 5–7
MC/data tracking efficiency difference 5 2.0–6.4 — Tracking corrections 0.5–2
0.5–2 1–5 resolution 0.5 0.5 — Extrapolated $\Pp\Pp$ reference — 4–9 — Trigger
combination — — 1 Combined uncertainty 7–18 6–18 6–11 XeXe event selection
efficiency 0.3–26 0.3–26 0.3–26 Glauber model uncertainty ($T_{\text{AA}}$) —
5–14 6–21 $\Pp\Pp$ reference luminosity — 2.3 — Combined normalization
uncertainty 0.3–26 6–30 6–33

##  0.6 Systematic uncertainties

A breakdown of the systematic uncertainties related to measurements of the
XeXe charged-particle spectra, $R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$ and
$R_{\text{Pb}}^{\text{Xe}}$ is given in Table 0.5. Systematic uncertainties
that are fully correlated between points in a given centrality range are
grouped together as normalization uncertainties and are not combined with
other uncertainties. The ranges reported cover the span of each uncertainty
across the and centrality range of the measurement. A detailed discussion of
each component of the systematic uncertainty is given below. References to the
uncertainties in PbPb and $\Pp\Pp$ collisions concern the measurements
described in Ref. [17].

• Fraction of misreconstructed tracks. The misreconstruction rate is evaluated
in simulated events. To account for potential deviations from this value in
data, the distribution of the significance of the tracks’ DCA to the primary
vertex in the $x$-$y$ plane is examined. The relative contribution of
misreconstructed tracks to this distribution is scaled in simulated events to
match data in a sideband region having a DCA significance between 25 and 30
standard deviations. Tracks in this region are almost entirely
misreconstructed tracks, and therefore give an estimate of the difference in
the misreconstruction effect between data and simulation. After this scaling
procedure, the relative change of the misreconstruction rate in the signal
region (less than 3 standard deviations) is taken as the systematic
uncertainty. This is ${<}~{}2\%$ for most of the data in this analysis. For
tracks having $\pt<0.7\GeV$ in central events, however, it quickly grows to a
value of 16%.

• Particle species composition. The correction applied to account for the
model-dependence of the tracking correction assumes the particle composition
of data lies somewhere between and epos. To cover the range spanned by both of
these models, the difference between the two tracking corrections produced by
these models is taken as an approximate estimate of the uncertainty. This
uncertainty strongly peaks around 4, where the difference in particle
composition is the largest for the two generators. At $\pt>10\GeV$, where the
two generators converge, a systematic uncertainty of 3% is assigned. No
cancellation of this uncertainty is assumed for $R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$. The
uncertainties are correlated in PbPb and XeXe collisions and are partially
canceled for $R_{\text{Pb}}^{\text{Xe}}$.

• Track selection. Differences between data and MC track distributions cause
the same track selections to remove slightly different numbers of particles.
The sensitivity of the analysis to this effect is checked by varying the
strictness of the track selection criteria. An uncertainty of 6% is assigned
for this effect under $\pt=20\GeV$. For higher values the uncertainty is only
3%. This uncertainty is conservatively assumed to not cancel in the ratios
measured, and a similar uncertainty for PbPb collisions is included for
$R_{\text{Pb}}^{\text{Xe}}$.

• MC/data tracking efficiency difference. An uncertainty of 5% is assigned for
additional differences in the tracking efficiency not related to the particle
fractions modeled in MC events. These differences could be related to small
variations in the detector conditions or slight inaccuracies in the simulation
of the detector. This uncertainty is estimated using measurements of the
relative tracking efficiency in decays of $\PD^{*}$ mesons in pp collisions,
along with studies of the relative tracking efficiency’s occupancy-dependence
in PbPb collisions. For $R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$ this systematic uncertainty is
conservatively assumed to cancel as much as it did for previous analyses in
PbPb collisions [17], giving an uncertainty of 2.0 (6.4)% for peripheral
(central) events. This uncertainty largely cancels in
$R_{\text{Pb}}^{\text{Xe}}$, where the occupancies of the two systems in the
ratio are more similar than in $R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$.

• Tracking corrections. The statistical uncertainty in the tracking
corrections, caused by the finite size of the XeXe MC samples used, is
accounted for as a systematic uncertainty in the final results. This
uncertainty is between 0.5% and 2.0%. A similar uncertainty covering MC sample
size and tracking correction procedures in PbPb collisions is added in
quadrature to this uncertainty for $R_{\text{Pb}}^{\text{Xe}}$.

• Transverse momentum resolution. The distortion of the spectra caused by
detector resolution was evaluated with simulated events. A systematic
uncertainty of 0.5% accounts for potential changes in the yield of any given
bin. Because of the similarity in shape of the XeXe and PbPb spectra, this
uncertainty cancels for $R_{\text{Pb}}^{\text{Xe}}$.

• Extrapolated $\Pp\Pp$ reference. The total uncertainty in the extrapolated
$\Pp\Pp$ reference cross section at 5.44is dominated by the 7–10% uncertainty
in the original measurement at 5.02. This uncertainty includes a fully
correlated 2.3% uncertainty in the total integrated luminosity [42] that is
included as a normalization uncertainty in figures displaying
$R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$. For the purposes of calculating $R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$, the
MC/data track efficiency difference and resolution components of this
uncertainty, which partially cancel with XeXe uncertainties, are removed from
the $\Pp\Pp$ reference data uncertainty and included elsewhere to avoid double
counting. An additional 1% uncertainty is included to account for variations
in the functional form used to fit the simulation-based extrapolation factor.

• Trigger combination. The XeXe data used in this analysis were collected with
only one MB trigger, so there is no uncertainty related to using multiple
triggers to select XeXe events. However, the trigger scheme used to measure
the PbPb spectra used in the $R_{\text{Pb}}^{\text{Xe}}$ calculation has a 1%
uncertainty associated with it.

• XeXe event selection efficiency. The 3% uncertainty on the total XeXe event
selection efficiency is propagated to the results by repeating the analysis
after appropriately varying the centrality calibration. These variations each
cause a shift in the centrality values of the entire data sample, with
peripheral centralities being altered significantly more than central ones.
Therefore, this uncertainty is small for central events but grows with the
collision centrality. In the 70–80% centrality range it reaches values of 26%.
The uncertainty is fully correlated across all values in a given centrality
selection.

• Glauber model uncertainty. The uncertainty in $T_{\text{AA}}$ for XeXe
collisions ranges from 5% to 14%. This uncertainty is calculated by
propagating uncertainties in the Glauber model’s input parameters, which are
detailed in Section 0.3. The uncertainty in the XeXe collision event selection
efficiency is not included because it is accounted for with a separate
systematic uncertainty. The uncertainty in the quantity
$T_{\text{PbPb}}/T_{\text{XeXe}}$, used in $R_{\text{Pb}}^{\text{Xe}}$, is
determined by adding in quadrature the relative uncertainties in
$T_{\text{AA}}$ for each collision system.

##  0.7 Results

Figure 3: (Upper panel) The charged-particle spectra in six classes of XeXe
centrality and the $\Pp\Pp$ reference spectrum after being extrapolated to
$\sqrt{s}=5.44\TeV$. The statistical uncertainties are smaller than the
markers for many of the points. To facilitate direct comparison, the $\Pp\Pp$
points are converted to per-event yields using a constant factor of
$70\unit{mb}$. (Lower panel) The systematic uncertainties for central and
peripheral XeXe collisions, as well as for the $\Pp\Pp$ reference data.

Charged-particle spectra in XeXe collisions at $\sqrtsNN=5.44\TeV$ are shown
in Fig. 3 for six centrality ranges. The data are reported as per-event
invariant differential yields. To improve visual clarity, the spectra for the
0–5% and 5–10% centrality ranges have been scaled by ten and three,
respectively. The extrapolated $\Pp\Pp$ reference data for the same center-of-
mass energy is also reported. The reference used for $R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$ is a
differential cross section, but has been converted to a per-event yield using
a constant factor of $70\unit{mb}$ to allow for direct comparison in Fig 3.
The data points represent the average charged-particle yield in each bin, not
the charged-particle yield at the bin center where the point is placed. The
statistical uncertainties of the measurement are smaller than the markers for
most of the data points. The $\Pp\Pp$ reference spectrum has a shape similar
to that of a Tsallis distribution, including a power law behavior at large
values. This is consistent with earlier observations that this functional form
is able to describe charged-particle spectra at LHC energies [40]. The lower
panel of Fig. 3 shows the systematic uncertainties for the most central and
peripheral XeXe collisions, and for the extrapolated $\Pp\Pp$ reference data.
A few values of the systematic uncertainties in the normalization of the
spectra are also listed.

Figure 4: The charged-particle $R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$ for XeXe collisions at
$\sqrtsNN=5.44\TeV$ in six centrality ranges. A previous measurement of
$R_{\text{AA}}$ in PbPb collisions at 5.02is also shown [17]. The solid pink
and open blue boxes represent the systematic uncertainties of the XeXe and
PbPb data, respectively.

Figure 5: The measurement of $R_{\text{Pb}}^{\text{Xe}}$ in five centrality
classes using the results of this analysis and data from Ref. [17]. The blue
line represents the expected deviation from unity caused by the different
center-of-mass energies of the two collision systems. The solid pink boxes
represent the systematic uncertainties.

The resulting $R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$ values for primary charged particles in XeXe
collisions are shown in Fig. 4. The pink boxes represent all systematic
uncertainties other than the uncertainty in the overall normalization, which
is shown by the dark red box around unity. The error bars give the statistical
uncertainty of the measurement. For comparison, the $R_{\text{AA}}$ in PbPb
collisions at $\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$ [17] is shown by the hollow blue points. The
blue boxes represent the systematic uncertainties of the PbPb data. The most
central events show a strong modification that is most pronounced in the range
$5<\pt<30\GeV$. A similar oscillatory shape is observed in both XeXe and PbPb
collisions, indicating that hot medium effects seen in PbPb collisions are
also present in XeXe collisions. At low , these effects include contributions
from the nuclear parton distribution function [43], radial flow [44], and the
Cronin effect [45]. At higher , parton energy loss also becomes a significant
effect. Generally, $R_{\text{AA}}$ and $R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$ agree with each
other in the range $\pt<4\GeV$. However, the data may indicate a slight
difference in suppression levels at higher . As the centrality range examined
becomes more peripheral, the oscillating shape of $R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$ becomes
less pronounced. In the most peripheral collisions examined, the XeXe data are
relatively flat, indicating that the spectral shape for peripheral centrality
ranges is similar to that of $\Pp\Pp$ collisions. Although there is a large
normalization uncertainty, the $R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$ is significantly below
unity in this centrality range. Such a suppression in peripheral events is not
expected to be caused by strong energy loss effects, but might be related to
correlations between the charged-particle yields in the mid-rapidity region
with event activity in the range $3<\abs{\eta}<5.2$ that is used to determine
the event centrality [46]. Recent measurements of $R_{\text{AA}}$ in
peripheral PbPb collisions by the ALICE Collaboration show a similar effect
that has been interpreted as a bias caused by event selection and collision
geometry [47]. Studies in MB hydjet indicate this bias could be as large as
50% at high in the 70–80% centrality range, but is expected to be less than
10% for more central events. This peripheral suppression could also be caused
by a bias in $T_{\text{AA}}$ values if the spatial distribution of hard
partons inside each nucleus is narrower than expected [48].

The difference in the suppression between $R_{\text{AA}}$ for PbPb collisions
and $R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$ in XeXe collisions can be directly compared with the
ratio $R_{\text{Pb}}^{\text{Xe}}$. Using the PbPb charged-particle spectra
from Ref. [17], this quantity is determined for five centrality ranges and
shown in Fig. 5. The dark red box around unity shows the relative
normalization uncertainty in the results. The MC-based $\Pp\Pp$ extrapolation
factor used in the construction of $R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$ is represented by the
blue line, and shows the expected deviation of $R_{\text{Pb}}^{\text{Xe}}$
from unity resulting from the different center-of-mass energies of the two
collision systems. In central events, the data for charged particles having
$\pt<4\GeV$ are consistent with this expectation. However, there is a sudden
rise in $R_{\text{Pb}}^{\text{Xe}}$ in the range of $5<\pt<10\GeV$, up to a
value of 1.45. This excess does not appear to be caused by the center-of-mass
energy dependence and is located in the region where $R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$ is
the most suppressed. This suggests a difference in the strength of energy loss
in the two collision systems, which could be caused by the difference in the
system size. As the increases towards $100\GeV$, the data slowly converge
towards the values expected from the difference in the center-of-mass energy.
As the centrality range examined becomes more peripheral, the excess seen
around 5 to 10decreases in strength. In the most peripheral bins,
$R_{\text{Pb}}^{\text{Xe}}$ is consistent with the difference expected because
of the center-of-mass energies throughout the entire range.

Because xenon ions are smaller than lead ions, collisions at the same
centrality will contain a different numbers of participating nucleons. To
compare XeXe and PbPb collisions having a similar number of colliding
nucleons, the values of $R_{\text{AA}}$ and $R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$ for
$6.4\leq\pt<7.2\GeV$ are shown as a function of $\langle
N_{\text{part}}\rangle$ in Fig. 6. The chosen range corresponds to the minima
of $R_{\text{AA}}$ and $R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$. The boxes surrounding the data
points show the total systematic uncertainties in the measurements. The
$R_{\text{AA}}$ and $R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$ values seem to follow a similar trend
versus $\langle N_{\text{part}}\rangle$. In particular, the values of
$R_{\text{AA}}$ and $R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$ around $\langle
N_{\text{part}}\rangle=220$ are compatible within the uncertainties.

Figure 6: The charged-particle $R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$ for XeXe collisions at
$\sqrtsNN=5.44\TeV$ and $R_{\text{AA}}$ for PbPb collisions at $5.02\TeV$, as
a function of $\langle N_{\text{part}}\rangle$. The solid pink and open blue
boxes represent the total systematic uncertainties in the XeXe and PbPb data,
respectively.

Measurements of $R_{\text{Pb}}^{\text{Xe}}$ that compare data having similar
$\langle N_{\text{part}}\rangle$, rather than centrality, are shown in Fig. 7.
The left panel compares 0–5% XeXe collisions with 10–30% PbPb collisions,
which have $\langle N_{\text{part}}\rangle$ values of $236.1\pm 1.3$ and
$226.7^{+5.2}_{-5.3}$, respectively. In this case, the
$R_{\text{Pb}}^{\text{Xe}}$ values are slightly below the expectation from the
different center-of-mass energies for $\pt<20\GeV$, but are compatible with
the expectation at higher . In the range of 3–8, this ratio exhibits a
slightly decreasing trend instead of the sharp rise seen when comparing
similar centrality bins, reinforcing the conclusion that such a rise is due to
a difference in the system size. The right plot compares 70–80% XeXe events
with 70–90% PbPb events. In these centrality ranges, the $\langle
N_{\text{part}}\rangle$ value is $10.55\pm 0.78$ for XeXe collisions and
$11.1^{+1.3}_{-1.2}$ for PbPb events. The measurement has a large
normalization uncertainty, but the shape of the distribution is very similar
to the trend given by the center-of-mass energy difference of the two systems.

Figure 7: Measurements of $R_{\text{Pb}}^{\text{Xe}}$ comparing centrality
ranges having similar values of $\langle N_{\text{part}}\rangle$. The blue
line represents the expected deviation from unity caused by the different
center-of-mass energies of the two collision systems. The solid pink boxes
represent the systematic uncertainties.

The $R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$ values in the 0–10% and 30–50% ranges are compared to
various theoretical models in Fig. 8. A ratio of each model to the data is
provided in the bottom panels of the figure. The green lines show the
predictions of a linear Boltzmann transport (LBT) model of jet quenching,
which uses the CLV${}_{\textsc{isc}}$ hydrodynamics model for medium evolution
[49, 50]. This model predicts a quadratic path-length dependence of energy
loss in a static medium. It lies on the upper edge of the systematic
uncertainty of the 0–10% measurement in the range $20<\pt<60\GeV$, but
otherwise agrees with the data well. The orange band is a model by Djordjevic
that uses a dynamical energy loss formalism [51, 52]. For this model, the
medium undergoes Bjorken expansion, and the path-length dependence of energy
loss is expected to be between linear and quadratic. The prediction is
compatible with the data in both centrality ranges except around $\pt=5\GeV$,
where it is slightly below the data. The magenta region represents the
prediction from cujet3.1/cibjet model, which incorporates two components [53,
54]. The first is a jet quenching model (cujet3.1) that includes the
suppression of quark and gluon degrees of freedom and the emergence of chromo-
magnetic monopole degrees of freedom. The second component, the cibjet
framework, calculates the dependence of correlations between soft and hard
azimuthal flow harmonics on an event-by-event basis. This model describes the
0–10% data well, but lies on the lower edge of the data’s uncertainty in the
30–50% centrality range. The red line shows a prediction of Andrés et al.that
uses a ‘quenching weights’ formalism to estimate the behavior of the medium
transport coefficient, $\hat{q}$ [55]. The evolution of the medium in this
model is done with EKRT event-by-event hydrodynamics. The prediction tends to
agree with the top edge of the data’s uncertainty range in the 0–10%
centrality range. The light blue band shows a prediction from soft-collinear
effective theory with Glauber gluons (SCET${}_{\textsc{G}}$) [56, 57]. The
evolution of the background medium is modeled with the iebe hydrodynamics
package. In this model, $R_{\text{AA}}$ is found to scale roughly as
$N_{\text{part}}^{2/3}$. For central events, it slightly underestimates the
$R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$ around 5, but generally agrees with the data.

Figure 8: A comparison of the charged-particle $R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$ for XeXe
collisions at $\sqrtsNN=5.44\TeV$ with theoretical predictions from Refs. [49,
50, 56, 57, 54, 53, 55, 51, 52] for 0–10% (left) and 30–50% (right) centrality
classes. The hollow black boxes represent the systematic uncertainties of the
XeXe data. Ratios are shown in the bottom panels, where the gray band
represents the total uncertainty in the measurement.

##  0.8 Summary

The transverse momentum, , spectra of charged particles in the pseudorapidity
range $\abs{\eta}<1$ are measured in several ranges of collision centrality
for xenon-xenon (XeXe) collisions at a center-of-mass energy per nucleon pair
of 5.44. A proton-proton ($\Pp\Pp$) reference spectrum for the same energy is
extrapolated from an existing measurement at $\sqrt{s}=5.02\TeV$ using a
scaling function calculated from simulated events. The nuclear modification
factor with extrapolated reference, $R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$, is constructed from
these spectra. In central events, $R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$ has a value of 0.17 in
the range of 6–8, before increasing to a value of around 0.7 at 100. This
suppression is less than what has been observed in a matching centrality range
of lead-lead (PbPb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy per nucleon pair of
5.02, even when accounting for the difference in collision energy. In
contrast, charged-particle production in XeXe collisions is found to be
slightly more suppressed than in PbPb collisions that have a similar number of
participating nucleons rather than a similar centrality. Taken together, these
observations illustrate the importance that collision system size and geometry
have on the strength of parton energy loss. Predictions from the Djordjevic,
SCET${}_{\textsc{G}}$ and cujet3.1/cibjet models are found to agree with the
measured $R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$. The model of Andrés et al.lies on the upper edge
of the systematic uncertainties of $R^{*}_{\text{AA}}$ for central events.
Finally, calculations using a linear Boltzmann transport model also agree with
the data, except for the kinematic range $15<\pt<40\GeV$ in central events,
where they follow the upper edge of the data’s uncertainty. These measurements
help elucidate the nature of parton energy loss in XeXe collisions and
constrain the system size dependence of hot nuclear medium effects.

###### 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 centres and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for
delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our
analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction
and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following
funding agencies: BMBWF and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq,
CAPES, FAPERJ, FAPERGS, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST,
and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RPF
(Cyprus); SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC IUT, and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of
Finland, MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and
HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); NKFIA (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM
(Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); MES
(Latvia); LAS (Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT,
LNS, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MOS (Montenegro); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC
(Pakistan); MSHE and NSC (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom,
RAS, RFBR, and NRC KI (Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI, and FEDER
(Spain); MOSTR (Sri Lanka); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); MST
(Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR, and NSTDA (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK
(Turkey); NASU 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 programme
of the Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from European Union, Regional
Development Fund, the Mobility Plus programme 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 programmes cofinanced by EU-ESF and the
Greek NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship,
Chulalongkorn University and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century
Project Advancement Project (Thailand); the Welch Foundation, contract C-1845;
and the Weston Havens Foundation (USA).

## References

  * [1] G.-Y. Qin and X.-N. Wang, “Jet quenching in high-energy heavy-ion collisions”,  Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 24 (2015) 1530014, 10.1142/S0218301315300143, arXiv:1511.00790.
  * [2] J. D. Bjorken, “Energy loss of energetic partons in quark-gluon plasma: Possible extinction of high jets in hadron-hadron collisions”, Technical Report FERMILAB-PUB-82-059-T, Fermilab, 1982.
  * [3] D. d’Enterria, “Jet quenching”, in  Relativistic Heavy Ion Physics, R. Stock, ed.  Landolt-Börnstein, 2010.  arXiv:0902.2011.  10.1007/978-3-642-01539-7_16.
  * [4] M. Gyulassy, I. Vitev, and X. N. Wang, “High $p_{\text{T}}$ azimuthal asymmetry in noncentral A+A at RHIC”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 2537, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.2537, arXiv:nucl-th/0012092.
  * [5] A. M. Poskanzer and S. A. Voloshin, “Methods for analyzing anisotropic flow in relativistic nuclear collisions”,  Phys. Rev. C 58 (1998) 1671, 10.1103/PhysRevC.58.1671, arXiv:nucl-ex/9805001.
  * [6] J.-Y. Ollitrault, “Anisotropy as a signature of transverse collective flow”,  Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 229, 10.1103/PhysRevD.46.229.
  * [7] P. F. Kolb, J. Sollfrank, and U. W. Heinz, “Anisotropic transverse flow and the quark hadron phase transition”,  Phys. Rev. C 62 (2000) 054909, 10.1103/PhysRevC.62.054909, arXiv:hep-ph/0006129.
  * [8] M. L. Miller, K. Reygers, S. J. Sanders, and P. Steinberg, “Glauber modeling in high energy nuclear collisions”,  Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57 (2007) 205, 10.1146/annurev.nucl.57.090506.123020, arXiv:nucl-ex/0701025.
  * [9] BRAHMS Collaboration, “Quark gluon plasma and color glass condensate at RHIC? The perspective from the BRAHMS experiment”,  Nucl. Phys. A 757 (2005) 1, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.02.130, arXiv:nucl-ex/0410020.
  * [10] B. B. Back et al., “The PHOBOS perspective on discoveries at RHIC”,  Nucl. Phys. A 757 (2005) 28, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03.084, arXiv:nucl-ex/0410022.
  * [11] STAR Collaboration, “Experimental and theoretical challenges in the search for the quark gluon plasma: The STAR Collaboration’s critical assessment of the evidence from RHIC collisions”,  Nucl. Phys. A 757 (2005) 102, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03.085, arXiv:nucl-ex/0501009.
  * [12] PHENIX Collaboration, “Formation of dense partonic matter in relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC: Experimental evaluation by the PHENIX collaboration”,  Nucl. Phys. A 757 (2005) 184, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03.086, arXiv:nucl-ex/0410003.
  * [13] ALICE Collaboration, “Centrality dependence of charged particle production at large transverse momentum in Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{{}_{NN}}}}=2.76$ TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 720 (2013) 52, 10.1016/j.physletb.2013.01.051, arXiv:1208.2711.
  * [14] ALICE Collaboration, “Transverse momentum spectra and nuclear modification factors of charged particles in pp, p-Pb and Pb-Pb collisions at the LHC”, (2018). arXiv:1802.09145. Submitted to JHEP.
  * [15] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of charged-particle spectra in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{{}_{NN}}}}=2.76$ TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”,  JHEP 09 (2015) 050, 10.1007/JHEP09(2015)050, arXiv:1504.04337.
  * [16] CMS Collaboration, “Study of high-$p_{\text{T}}$ charged particle suppression in PbPb compared to pp collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{{}_{NN}}}}=2.76$ TeV”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1945, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1945-x, arXiv:1202.2554.
  * [17] CMS Collaboration, “Charged-particle nuclear modification factors in PbPb and pPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{{}_{NN}}}}=5.02$ TeV”,  JHEP 04 (2017) 039, 10.1007/JHEP04(2017)039, arXiv:1611.01664.
  * [18] ATLAS Collaboration, “Transverse momentum, rapidity, and centrality dependence of inclusive charged-particle production in $\sqrt{s_{\rm{{}_{NN}}}}=5.02$ TeV p+Pb collisions measured by the ATLAS experiment”,  Phys. Lett. B 763 (2016) 313, 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.10.053, arXiv:1605.06436.
  * [19] C. Loizides, J. Nagle, and P. Steinberg, “Improved version of the PHOBOS Glauber Monte Carlo”,  SoftwareX 1-2 (2015) 13, 10.1016/j.softx.2015.05.001, arXiv:1408.2549.
  * [20] ALICE Collaboration, “Transverse momentum spectra and nuclear modification factors of charged particles in Xe-Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{{}_{NN}}}}$ = 5.44 TeV”, (2018). arXiv:1805.04399. Submitted to Phys. Lett. B.
  * [21] BRAHMS Collaboration, “Rapidity and centrality dependence of particle production for identified hadrons in Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{{}_{NN}}}}=$ 200 GeV”,  Phys. Rev. C 94 (2016) 014907, 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.014907, arXiv:1602.01183.
  * [22] PHOBOS Collaboration, “System size and centrality dependence of charged hadron transverse momentum spectra in Au + Au and Cu + Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{{}_{NN}}}}=$ 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 212301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.212301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0512016.
  * [23] PHENIX Collaboration, “Onset of $\pi^{0}$ suppression studied in Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{{}_{NN}}}}=$ 22.4, 62.4, and 200 GeV”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 162301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.162301, arXiv:0801.4555.
  * [24] STAR Collaboration, “Spectra of identified high-$\pt$ $\pi^{\pm}$ and $\text{p}(\overline{\text{p}})$ in Cu$+$Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{{}_{NN}}}}=200$ GeV”,  Phys. Rev. C 81 (2010) 054907, 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.054907, arXiv:0911.3130.
  * [25] CMS Collaboration, “Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker”,  JINST 9 (2014) P10009, 10.1088/1748-0221/9/10/P10009, arXiv:1405.6569.
  * [26] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [27] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [28] K. Werner, F.-M. Liu, and T. Pierog, “Parton ladder splitting and the rapidity dependence of transverse momentum spectra in deuteron-gold collisions at RHIC”,  Phys. Rev. C 74 (2006) 044902, 10.1103/PhysRevC.74.044902, arXiv:hep-ph/0506232.
  * [29] T. Pierog et al., “EPOS LHC: Test of collective hadronization with data measured at the CERN Large Hadron Collider”,  Phys. Rev. C 92 (2015) 034906, 10.1103/PhysRevC.92.034906, arXiv:1306.0121.
  * [30] I. P. Lokhtin and A. M. Snigirev, “A model of jet quenching in ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions and high-hadron spectra at RHIC”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 45 (2006) 211, 10.1140/epjc/s2005-02426-3, arXiv:hep-ph/0506189.
  * [31] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, “A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 178 (2008) 852, 10.1016/j.cpc.2008.01.036, arXiv:0710.3820.
  * [32] CMS Collaboration, “Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 155, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3988-x, arXiv:1512.00815.
  * [33] C. Loizides, J. Kamin, and D. d’Enterria, “Improved Monte Carlo Glauber predictions at present and future nuclear colliders”,  Phys. Rev. C 97 (2018) 054910, 10.1103/PhysRevC.97.054910, arXiv:1710.07098.
  * [34] ALICE Collaboration, “Centrality and pseudorapidity dependence of the charged-particle multiplicity density in Xe-Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{{}_{NN}}}}$ = 5.44 TeV”, (2018). arXiv:1805.04432. Submitted to Phys. Lett. B.
  * [35] S. R. Klein et al., “STARlight: A monte carlo simulation program for ultra-peripheral collisions of relativistic ions”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 212 (2017) 258, 10.1016/j.cpc.2016.10.016, arXiv:1607.03838.
  * [36] 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.
  * [37] ALICE Collaboration, “Multi-strange baryon production at mid-rapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{{}_{NN}}}}$ = 2.76 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 728 (2014) 216, 10.1016/j.physletb.2013.11.048, arXiv:1307.5543. [Erratum: Phys. Lett. B 734 (2014) 409].
  * [38] CMS Collaboration, “Charged particle transverse momentum spectra in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=0.9$ and 7 TeV”,  JHEP 08 (2011) 086, 10.1007/JHEP08(2011)086, arXiv:1104.3547.
  * [39] M. Bahr et al., “Herwig++ physics and manual”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 58 (2008) 639, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-008-0798-9, arXiv:0803.0883.
  * [40] C.-Y. Wong and G. Wilk, “Tsallis fits to $p_{\text{T}}$ spectra for pp collisions at LHC”,  Acta Phys. Polon. B 43 (2012) 2047, 10.5506/APhysPolB.43.2047, arXiv:1210.3661.
  * [41] CMS Collaboration, “Nuclear effects on the transverse momentum spectra of charged particles in pPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{{}_{NN}}}}=5.02$ TeV”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 237, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3435-4, arXiv:1502.05387.
  * [42] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity calibration for the pp reference run at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-16-001, 2016.
  * [43] I. Helenius, K. J. Eskola, H. Honkanen, and C. A. Salgado, “Impact-parameter dependent nuclear parton distribution functions: EPS09s and EKS98s and their applications in nuclear hard processes”,  JHEP 07 (2012) 073, 10.1007/JHEP07(2012)073, arXiv:1205.5359.
  * [44] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the elliptic anisotropy of charged particles produced in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{{}_{NN}}}}$ = 2.76 TeV”,  Phys. Rev. C 87 (2013) 014902, 10.1103/PhysRevC.87.014902, arXiv:1204.1409.
  * [45] PHENIX Collaboration, “Spectra and ratios of identified particles in Au+Au and $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{{}_{NN}}}}=200$ GeV”,  Phys. Rev. C 88 (2013) 024906, 10.1103/PhysRevC.88.024906, arXiv:1304.3410.
  * [46] C. Loizides and A. Morsch, “Absence of jet quenching in peripheral nucleus–nucleus collisions”,  Phys. Lett. B 773 (2017) 408, 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.09.002, arXiv:1705.08856.
  * [47] ALICE Collaboration, “Analysis of the apparent nuclear modification in peripheral Pb-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV”, (2018). arXiv:1805.05212. Submitted to Phys. Lett. B.
  * [48] J. Jia, “Influence of the nucleon–nucleon collision geometry on the determination of the nuclear modification factor for nucleon–nucleus and nucleus–nucleus collisions”,  Phys. Lett. B 681 (2009) 320, 10.1016/j.physletb.2009.10.044, arXiv:0907.4175.
  * [49] Y. He, T. Luo, X.-N. Wang, and Y. Zhu, “Linear Boltzmann transport for jet propagation in the quark-gluon plasma: Elastic processes and medium recoil”,  Phys. Rev. C 91 (2015) 054908, 10.1103/PhysRevC.91.054908, arXiv:1503.03313. [Erratum: Phys. Rev. C 97 (2018) 019902].
  * [50] S. Cao, T. Luo, G.-Y. Qin, and X.-N. Wang, “Heavy and light flavor jet quenching at RHIC and LHC energies”,  Phys. Lett. B 777 (2018) 255, 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.12.023, arXiv:1703.00822.
  * [51] M. Djordjevic, “Theoretical formalism of radiative jet energy loss in a finite size dynamical QCD medium”,  Phys. Rev. C 80 (2009) 064909, 10.1103/PhysRevC.80.064909, arXiv:0903.4591.
  * [52] M. Djordjevic and M. Djordjevic, “LHC jet suppression of light and heavy flavor observables”,  Phys. Lett. B 734 (2014) 286, 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.05.053, arXiv:1307.4098.
  * [53] J. Xu, J. Liao, and M. Gyulassy, “Bridging soft-hard transport properties of quark-gluon plasmas with CUJET3.0”,  JHEP 02 (2016) 169, 10.1007/JHEP02(2016)169, arXiv:1508.00552.
  * [54] S. Shi, J. Liao, and M. Gyulassy, “Probing the color structure of the perfect QCD fluids via soft–hard–event–by–event azimuthal correlations”, (2018). arXiv:1804.01915.
  * [55] C. Andrés et al., “Energy versus centrality dependence of the jet quenching parameter $\hat{q}$ at RHIC and LHC: a new puzzle?”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 475, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4320-5, arXiv:1606.04837.
  * [56] Z.-B. Kang et al., “Jet quenching phenomenology from soft-collinear effective theory with Glauber gluons”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 092002, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.092002, arXiv:1405.2612.
  * [57] Y.-T. Chien et al., “Jet quenching from QCD evolution”,  Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 074030, 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.074030, arXiv:1509.02936.

##  .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, M. Dragicevic,
J. Erö, A. Escalante Del Valle, M. Flechl, R. Frühwirth1, V.M. Ghete, J.
Hrubec, M. Jeitler1, N. Krammer, I. Krätschmer, D. Liko, T. Madlener, I.
Mikulec, N. Rad, H. Rohringer, J. Schieck1, R. Schöfbeck, M. Spanring, D.
Spitzbart, A. Taurok, W. Waltenberger, J. Wittmann, C.-E. Wulz1, M. Zarucki
Institute for Nuclear Problems, Minsk, Belarus
V. Chekhovsky, V. Mossolov, J. Suarez Gonzalez Universiteit Antwerpen,
Antwerpen, Belgium
E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, J. Lauwers, M. Pieters, H. Van
Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, N. Van Remortel Vrije Universiteit Brussel,
Brussel, Belgium
S. Abu Zeid, F. Blekman, J. D’Hondt, I. De Bruyn, J. De Clercq, K. Deroover,
G. Flouris, D. Lontkovskyi, S. Lowette, I. Marchesini, S. Moortgat, L.
Moreels, Q. Python, K. Skovpen, S. Tavernier, W. Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders,
I. Van Parijs Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
D. Beghin, B. Bilin, H. Brun, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, H. Delannoy, B.
Dorney, G. Fasanella, L. Favart, R. Goldouzian, A. Grebenyuk, A.K. Kalsi, T.
Lenzi, J. Luetic, N. Postiau, E. Starling, L. Thomas, C. Vander Velde, P.
Vanlaer, D. Vannerom, Q. Wang Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, A. Fagot, M. Gul, I. Khvastunov2, D. Poyraz, C. Roskas,
D. Trocino, M. Tytgat, W. Verbeke, B. Vermassen, M. Vit, N. Zaganidis
Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
H. Bakhshiansohi, O. Bondu, S. Brochet, G. Bruno, C. Caputo, P. David, C.
Delaere, M. Delcourt, A. Giammanco, G. Krintiras, V. Lemaitre, A. Magitteri,
A. Mertens, M. Musich, K. Piotrzkowski, A. Saggio, M. Vidal Marono, S. Wertz,
J. Zobec Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
F.L. Alves, G.A. Alves, M. Correa Martins Junior, G. Correia Silva, C. Hensel,
A. Moraes, M.E. Pol, P. Rebello Teles Universidade do Estado do Rio de
Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato3, E. Coelho, E.M.
Da Costa, G.G. Da Silveira4, D. De Jesus Damiao, C. De Oliveira Martins, S.
Fonseca De Souza, H. Malbouisson, D. Matos Figueiredo, M. Melo De Almeida, C.
Mora Herrera, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, W.L. Prado Da Silva, L.J. Sanchez Rosas,
A. Santoro, A. Sznajder, M. Thiel, E.J. Tonelli Manganote3, F. Torres Da Silva
De Araujo, A. Vilela Pereira Universidade Estadual Paulista a, Universidade
Federal do ABC b, São Paulo, Brazil
S. Ahujaa, C.A. Bernardesa, L. Calligarisa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M.
Gregoresb, P.G. Mercadanteb, S.F. Novaesa, SandraS. Padulaa Institute for
Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia,
Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, A. Marinov, M. Misheva, M. Rodozov,
M. Shopova, G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Dimitrov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov Beihang University, Beijing, China
W. Fang5, X. Gao5, L. Yuan Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, J.G. Bian, G.M. Chen, H.S. Chen, M. Chen, Y. Chen, C.H. Jiang, D.
Leggat, H. Liao, Z. Liu, F. Romeo, S.M. Shaheen6, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, Z. Wang,
E. Yazgan, H. Zhang, S. Zhang6, J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of Nuclear
Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
Y. Ban, G. Chen, A. Levin, J. Li, L. Li, Q. Li, Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang, Z.
Xu Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Y. Wang Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, C.A. Carrillo Montoya, L.F. Chaparro Sierra, C. Florez,
C.F. González Hernández, M.A. Segura Delgado University of Split, Faculty of
Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split,
Croatia
B. Courbon, N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak, T. Sculac University of Split,
Faculty of Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, K. Kadija, B. Mesic, A. Starodumov7, T. Susa
University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, M. Kolosova, G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou,
F. Ptochos, P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski Charles University, Prague, Czech
Republic
M. Finger8, M. Finger Jr.8 Escuela Politecnica Nacional, Quito, Ecuador
E. Ayala Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
E. Carrera Jarrin Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab
Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt
H. Abdalla9, A.A. Abdelalim10,11, M.A. Mahmoud12,13 National Institute of
Chemical Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
S. Bhowmik, A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveira, R.K. Dewanjee, K. Ehataht, M.
Kadastik, M. Raidal, C. Veelken Department of Physics, University of Helsinki,
Helsinki, Finland
P. Eerola, H. Kirschenmann, J. Pekkanen, M. Voutilainen Helsinki Institute of
Physics, Helsinki, Finland
J. Havukainen, J.K. Heikkilä, T. Järvinen, V. Karimäki, R. Kinnunen, T.
Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Laurila, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, P. Luukka, T.
Mäenpää, H. Siikonen, E. Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi Lappeenranta University of
Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
T. Tuuva IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, J.L. Faure, F. Ferri, S.
Ganjour, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry, C. Leloup,
E. Locci, J. Malcles, G. Negro, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M.Ö. Sahin, M. Titov
Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole polytechnique, CNRS/IN2P3, Université
Paris-Saclay, Palaiseau, France
A. Abdulsalam14, C. Amendola, I. Antropov, F. Beaudette, P. Busson, C.
Charlot, R. Granier de Cassagnac, I. Kucher, A. Lobanov, J. Martin Blanco, C.
Martin Perez, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, G. Ortona, P. Pigard, J. Rembser, R.
Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A.G. Stahl Leiton, A. Zabi, A. Zghiche
Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, F-67000 Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram15, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, J.-M. Brom, E.C. Chabert, V. Cherepanov,
C. Collard, E. Conte15, J.-C. Fontaine15, D. Gelé, U. Goerlach, M. Jansová,
A.-C. Le Bihan, N. Tonon, P. Van Hove Centre de Calcul de l’Institut National
de Physique Nucleaire et de Physique des Particules, CNRS/IN2P3, Villeurbanne,
France
S. Gadrat Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3,
Institut de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, N. Chanon, R. Chierici, D. Contardo, P.
Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, L. Finco, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, G.
Grenier, B. Ille, F. Lagarde, I.B. Laktineh, H. Lattaud, M. Lethuillier, L.
Mirabito, S. Perries, A. Popov16, V. Sordini, G. Touquet, M. Vander Donckt, S.
Viret 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. Erdmann, S. Erdweg, T. Esch, R. Fischer, S. Ghosh,
A. Güth, T. Hebbeker, C. Heidemann, K. Hoepfner, H. Keller, L. Mastrolorenzo,
M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, P. Millet, S. Mukherjee, T. Pook, M. Radziej, H.
Reithler, M. Rieger, A. Schmidt, D. Teyssier, S. Thüer RWTH Aachen University,
III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany
G. Flügge, O. Hlushchenko, T. Kress, A. Künsken, T. Müller, A. Nehrkorn, A.
Nowack, C. Pistone, O. Pooth, D. Roy, H. Sert, 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. Borras19, V. Botta, A. Campbell, P. Connor, C. Contreras-Campana, V.
Danilov, A. De Wit, M.M. Defranchis, C. Diez Pardos, D. Domínguez Damiani, G.
Eckerlin, T. Eichhorn, A. Elwood, E. Eren, E. Gallo20, A. Geiser, A.
Grohsjean, M. Guthoff, M. Haranko, A. Harb, J. Hauk, H. Jung, M. Kasemann, J.
Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, J. Knolle, D. Krücker, W. Lange, A. Lelek, T. Lenz, J.
Leonard, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann21, R. Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, A.B. Meyer,
M. Meyer, M. Missiroli, G. Mittag, J. Mnich, V. Myronenko, S.K. Pflitsch, D.
Pitzl, A. Raspereza, M. Savitskyi, P. Saxena, P. Schütze, C. Schwanenberger,
R. Shevchenko, A. Singh, H. Tholen, O. Turkot, A. Vagnerini, G.P. Van Onsem,
R. Walsh, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C. Wissing, O. Zenaiev University of Hamburg,
Hamburg, Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, L. Benato, A. Benecke, V. Blobel, T. Dreyer, A.
Ebrahimi, E. Garutti, D. Gonzalez, P. Gunnellini, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, A.
Karavdina, G. Kasieczka, R. Klanner, R. Kogler, N. Kovalchuk, S. Kurz, V.
Kutzner, J. Lange, D. Marconi, J. Multhaup, M. Niedziela, C.E.N. Niemeyer, D.
Nowatschin, A. Perieanu, A. Reimers, O. Rieger, C. Scharf, P. Schleper, S.
Schumann, J. Schwandt, J. Sonneveld, H. Stadie, G. Steinbrück, F.M. Stober, M.
Stöver, A. Vanhoefer, B. Vormwald, I. Zoi Karlsruher Institut fuer Technology
M. Akbiyik, C. Barth, M. Baselga, S. Baur, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, F.
Colombo, W. De Boer, A. Dierlamm, K. El Morabit, N. Faltermann, B. Freund, M.
Giffels, M.A. Harrendorf, F. Hartmann18, S.M. Heindl, U. Husemann, F.
Kassel18, I. Katkov16, S. Kudella, S. Mitra, M.U. Mozer, Th. Müller, M.
Plagge, G. Quast, K. Rabbertz, M. Schröder, I. Shvetsov, G. Sieber, H.J.
Simonis, R. Ulrich, S. Wayand, M. Weber, T. Weiler, S. Williamson, C.
Wöhrmann, R. Wolf Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics (INPP), NCSR
Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
G. Anagnostou, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas, G.
Paspalaki, I. Topsis-Giotis National and Kapodistrian University of Athens,
Athens, Greece
B. Francois, G. Karathanasis, S. Kesisoglou, P. Kontaxakis, A. Panagiotou, I.
Papavergou, N. Saoulidou, E. Tziaferi, K. Vellidis National Technical
University of Athens, Athens, Greece
K. Kousouris, I. Papakrivopoulos, G. Tsipolitis University of Ioánnina,
Ioánnina, Greece
I. Evangelou, C. Foudas, P. Gianneios, P. Katsoulis, P. Kokkas, S. Mallios, N.
Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, E. Paradas, J. Strologas, F.A. Triantis, D.
Tsitsonis MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
M. Bartók22, M. Csanad, N. Filipovic, P. Major, M.I. Nagy, G. Pasztor, O.
Surányi, G.I. Veres Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath23, 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. Karancsi24, A. Makovec, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi
Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari Indian Institute of Science (IISc),
Bangalore, India
S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri, P.C. Tiwari National Institute of Science
Education and Research, HBNI, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati25, C. Kar, P. Mal, K. Mandal, A. Nayak26, D.K. Sahoo25, 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, K.
Sandeep, S. Sharma, J.B. Singh, A.K. Virdi, G. Walia University of Delhi,
Delhi, India
A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, M. Gola, S. Keshri, Ashok Kumar, S.
Malhotra, M. Naimuddin, P. Priyanka, K. Ranjan, Aashaq Shah, R. Sharma Saha
Institute of Nuclear Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India
R. Bhardwaj27, M. Bharti27, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, U. Bhawandeep27,
D. Bhowmik, S. Dey, S. Dutt27, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh, K. Mondal, S. Nandan, A.
Purohit, P.K. Rout, A. Roy, S. Roy Chowdhury, G. Saha, S. Sarkar, M. Sharan,
B. Singh27, S. Thakur27 Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
R. Chudasama, D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, P.K. Netrakanti, L.M. Pant, P.
Shukla Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A, Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, M.A. Bhat, S. Dugad, G.B. Mohanty, N. Sur, B. Sutar, RavindraKumar
Verma Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, P. Das, M. Guchait, Sa. Jain, S.
Karmakar, S. Kumar, M. Maity28, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, N. Sahoo, T.
Sarkar28 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, F. Rezaei Hosseinabadi, B. Safarzadeh30, M.
Zeinali University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
M. Felcini, M. Grunewald INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b,
Politecnico di Bari c, Bari, Italy
M. Abbresciaa,b, C. Calabriaa,b, A. Colaleoa, D. Creanzaa,c, L. Cristellaa,b,
N. De Filippisa,c, M. De Palmaa,b, A. Di Florioa,b, F. Erricoa,b, L. Fiorea,
A. Gelmia,b, G. Iasellia,c, M. Incea,b, S. Lezkia,b, G. Maggia,c, M. Maggia,
G. Minielloa,b, S. Mya,b, S. Nuzzoa,b, A. Pompilia,b, G. Pugliesea,c, R.
Radognaa, A. Ranieria, G. Selvaggia,b, A. Sharmaa, L. Silvestrisa, R.
Vendittia, P. Verwilligena, G. Zitoa INFN Sezione di Bologna a, Università di
Bologna b, Bologna, Italy
G. Abbiendia, C. Battilanaa,b, D. Bonacorsia,b, L. Borgonovia,b, S. Braibant-
Giacomellia,b, R. Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A. Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa,
S.S. Chhibraa,b, C. Cioccaa, G. Codispotia,b, M. Cuffiania,b, G.M.
Dallavallea, F. Fabbria, A. Fanfania,b, E. Fontanesi, P. Giacomellia, C.
Grandia, L. Guiduccia,b, F. Iemmia,b, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, A.
Montanaria, F.L. Navarriaa,b, A. Perrottaa, F. Primaveraa,b,18, A.M. Rossia,b,
T. Rovellia,b, G.P. Sirolia,b, N. Tosia INFN Sezione di Catania a, Università
di Catania b, Catania, Italy
S. Albergoa,b, A. Di Mattiaa, R. Potenzaa,b, A. Tricomia,b, C. Tuvea,b INFN
Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b, Firenze, Italy
G. Barbaglia, K. Chatterjeea,b, V. Ciullia,b, C. Civininia, R.
D’Alessandroa,b, E. Focardia,b, G. Latino, P. Lenzia,b, M. Meschinia, S.
Paolettia, L. Russoa,31, G. Sguazzonia, D. Stroma, L. Viliania INFN Laboratori
Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, F. Fabbri, D. Piccolo INFN Sezione di Genova a,
Università di Genova b, Genova, Italy
F. Ferroa, F. Raveraa,b, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia,b INFN Sezione di Milano-
Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, Italy
A. Benagliaa, A. Beschib, L. Brianzaa,b, F. Brivioa,b, V. Cirioloa,b,18, S. Di
Guidaa,d,18, M.E. Dinardoa,b, S. Fiorendia,b, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P.
Govonia,b, M. Malbertia,b, S. Malvezzia, A. Massironia,b, D. Menascea, F.
Monti, L. Moronia, M. Paganonia,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Ragazzia,b, T. Tabarelli de
Fatisa,b, D. Zuoloa,b INFN Sezione di Napoli a, Università di Napoli ’Federico
II’ b, Napoli, Italy, Università della Basilicata c, Potenza, Italy,
Università G. Marconi d, Roma, Italy
S. Buontempoa, N. Cavalloa,c, A. De Iorioa,b, A. Di Crescenzoa,b, F.
Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa, G. Galatia, A.O.M. Iorioa,b, W.A. Khana, L. Listaa, S.
Meolaa,d,18, P. Paoluccia,18, C. Sciaccaa,b, E. Voevodinaa,b INFN Sezione di
Padova a, Università di Padova b, Padova, Italy, Università di Trento c,
Trento, Italy
P. Azzia, N. Bacchettaa, D. Biselloa,b, A. Bolettia,b, A. Bragagnolo, R.
Carlina,b, P. Checchiaa, M. Dall’Ossoa,b, P. De Castro Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa,
U. Dossellia, F. Gasparinia,b, U. Gasparinia,b, A. Gozzelinoa, S.Y. Hoh, S.
Lacapraraa, P. Lujan, M. Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,b, J. Pazzinia,b, P.
Ronchesea,b, R. Rossina,b, F. Simonettoa,b, A. Tiko, E. Torassaa, M.
Zanettia,b, P. Zottoa,b, G. Zumerlea,b INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di
Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
A. Braghieria, A. Magnania, P. Montagnaa,b, S.P. Rattia,b, V. Rea, M.
Ressegottia,b, C. Riccardia,b, P. Salvinia, I. Vaia,b, P. Vituloa,b INFN
Sezione di Perugia a, Università di Perugia b, Perugia, Italy
M. Biasinia,b, G.M. Bileia, C. Cecchia,b, D. Ciangottinia,b, L. Fanòa,b, P.
Laricciaa,b, R. Leonardia,b, E. Manonia, G. Mantovania,b, V. Mariania,b, M.
Menichellia, A. Rossia,b, A. Santocchiaa,b, D. Spigaa INFN Sezione di Pisa a,
Università di Pisa b, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa c, Pisa, Italy
K. Androsova, P. Azzurria, G. Bagliesia, L. Bianchinia, T. Boccalia, L.
Borrello, R. Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, G. Fedia, F. Fioria,c,
L. Gianninia,c, A. Giassia, M.T. Grippoa, F. Ligabuea,c, E. Mancaa,c, G.
Mandorlia,c, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, A. Rizzia,b, P. Spagnoloa, R.
Tenchinia, G. Tonellia,b, A. Venturia, P.G. Verdinia INFN Sezione di Roma a,
Sapienza Università di Roma b, Rome, Italy
L. Baronea,b, F. Cavallaria, M. Cipriania,b, D. Del Rea,b, E. Di Marcoa,b, M.
Diemoza, S. Gellia,b, E. Longoa,b, B. Marzocchia,b, P. Meridiania, G.
Organtinia,b, F. Pandolfia, R. Paramattia,b, F. Preiatoa,b, S. Rahatloua,b, C.
Rovellia, F. Santanastasioa,b INFN Sezione di Torino a, Università di Torino
b, Torino, Italy, Università del Piemonte Orientale c, Novara, Italy
N. Amapanea,b, R. Arcidiaconoa,c, S. Argiroa,b, M. Arneodoa,c, N. Bartosika,
R. Bellana,b, C. Biinoa, N. Cartigliaa, F. Cennaa,b, S. Comettia, M. Costaa,b,
R. Covarellia,b, N. Demariaa, B. Kiania,b, C. Mariottia, S. Masellia, E.
Migliorea,b, V. Monacoa,b, E. Monteila,b, M. Montenoa, M.M. Obertinoa,b, L.
Pachera,b, N. Pastronea, M. Pelliccionia, G.L. Pinna Angionia,b, A. Romeroa,b,
M. Ruspaa,c, R. Sacchia,b, K. Shchelinaa,b, V. Solaa, A. Solanoa,b, D.
Soldia,b, A. Staianoa INFN Sezione di Trieste a, Università di Trieste b,
Trieste, Italy
S. Belfortea, V. Candelisea,b, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, A. Da Rolda,b, G.
Della Riccaa,b, F. Vazzolera,b, 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.I. Pak, 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. Goh32, T.J. Kim Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, D. Gyun, S. Ha, B. Hong, Y. Jo, K. Lee, K.S. Lee, S.
Lee, J. Lim, S.K. Park, Y. Roh Sejong University, Seoul, Korea
H.S. Kim Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, H. Lee, K. Lee, K. Nam, S.B. Oh, B.C. Radburn-
Smith, S.h. Seo, U.K. Yang, H.D. Yoo, G.B. Yu University of Seoul, Seoul,
Korea
D. Jeon, H. Kim, J.H. Kim, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park Sungkyunkwan University,
Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, C. Hwang, J. Lee, I. Yu Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
V. Dudenas, A. Juodagalvis, J. Vaitkus National Centre for Particle Physics,
Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
I. Ahmed, Z.A. Ibrahim, M.A.B. Md Ali33, F. Mohamad Idris34, W.A.T. Wan
Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli Universidad de Sonora (UNISON), Hermosillo,
Mexico
J.F. Benitez, A. Castaneda Hernandez, J.A. Murillo Quijada Centro de
Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, M.C. Duran-Osuna, I. Heredia-De La
Cruz35, R. Lopez-Fernandez, J. Mejia Guisao, R.I. Rabadan-Trejo, M. Ramirez-
Garcia, G. Ramirez-Sanchez, R Reyes-Almanza, A. Sanchez-Hernandez Universidad
Iberoamericana, Mexico City, Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, F. Vazquez Valencia Benemerita
Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
J. Eysermans, I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada Universidad
Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, Mexico
A. Morelos Pineda University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
S. Bheesette, P.H. Butler National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam
University, Islamabad, Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M. Ahmad, M.I. Asghar, Q. Hassan, H.R. Hoorani, A. Saddique, M.A.
Shah, M. Shoaib, M. Waqas National Centre for Nuclear Research, Swierk, Poland
H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, T. Frueboes, M. Górski, M. Kazana, M.
Szleper, P. Traczyk, P. Zalewski Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of
Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk36, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J.
Krolikowski, M. Misiura, M. Olszewski, A. Pyskir, M. Walczak Laboratório de
Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas, Lisboa, Portugal
M. Araujo, P. Bargassa, C. Beirão Da Cruz E Silva, A. Di Francesco, P.
Faccioli, B. Galinhas, M. Gallinaro, J. Hollar, N. Leonardo, M.V. Nemallapudi,
J. Seixas, G. Strong, O. Toldaiev, D. Vadruccio, J. Varela Joint Institute for
Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
S. Afanasiev, P. Bunin, M. Gavrilenko, I. Golutvin, I. Gorbunov, A. Kamenev,
V. Karjavine, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev37,38, P. Moisenz, V. Palichik,
V. Perelygin, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, N. Skatchkov, V. Smirnov, N. Voytishin,
A. Zarubin Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg),
Russia
V. Golovtsov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim39, E. Kuznetsova40, P. Levchenko, V. Murzin,
V. Oreshkin, I. Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Vavilov, A.
Vorobyev Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, M. Kirsanov,
N. Krasnikov, A. Pashenkov, D. Tlisov, A. Toropin Institute for Theoretical
and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, V. Popov, I. Pozdnyakov, G.
Safronov, A. Spiridonov, A. Stepennov, V. Stolin, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A.
Zhokin Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
R. Chistov41, P. Parygin, D. Philippov, S. Polikarpov41, E. Popova, E.
Tarkovskii P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin, I. Dremin38, M. Kirakosyan, S.V. Rusakov, A. Terkulov
Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University,
Moscow, Russia
A. Baskakov, A. Belyaev, E. Boos, A. Ershov, A. Gribushin, A. Kaminskiy42, O.
Kodolova, V. Korotkikh, I. Lokhtin, I. Miagkov, S. Obraztsov, S. Petrushanko,
V. Savrin, A. Snigirev, I. Vardanyan Novosibirsk State University (NSU),
Novosibirsk, Russia
A. Barnyakov43, V. Blinov43, T. Dimova43, L. Kardapoltsev43, Y. Skovpen43
State Research Center of Russian Federation, Institute for High Energy Physics
of NRC ’Kurchatov Institute’, Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, S. Bitioukov, D. Elumakhov, A. Godizov, V. Kachanov,
A. Kalinin, D. Konstantinov, P. Mandrik, V. Petrov, R. Ryutin, S.
Slabospitskii, A. Sobol, S. Troshin, N. Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov National
Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia
A. Babaev, S. Baidali, V. Okhotnikov University of Belgrade, Faculty of
Physics and Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic44, P. Cirkovic, D. Devetak, M. Dordevic, J. Milosevic Centro de
Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid,
Spain
J. Alcaraz Maestre, A. Álvarez Fernández, I. Bachiller, M. Barrio Luna, J.A.
Brochero Cifuentes, M. Cerrada, N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris, C.
Fernandez Bedoya, J.P. Fernández Ramos, J. Flix, M.C. Fouz, O. Gonzalez Lopez,
S. Goy Lopez, J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa, D. Moran, A. Pérez-Calero Yzquierdo,
J. Puerta Pelayo, I. Redondo, L. Romero, M.S. Soares, A. Triossi Universidad
Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
C. Albajar, J.F. de Trocóniz Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain
J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, S. Folgueras, I. Gonzalez
Caballero, J.R. González Fernández, E. Palencia Cortezon, V. Rodríguez Bouza,
S. Sanchez Cruz, P. Vischia, J.M. Vizan Garcia Instituto de Física de
Cantabria (IFCA), CSIC-Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain
I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, B. Chazin Quero, J. Duarte Campderros, M.
Fernandez, P.J. Fernández Manteca, A. García Alonso, J. Garcia-Ferrero, G.
Gomez, A. Lopez Virto, J. Marco, C. Martinez Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del
Arbol, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, C. Prieels, T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno,
L. Scodellaro, N. Trevisani, I. Vila, R. Vilar Cortabitarte University of
Ruhuna, Department of Physics, Matara, Sri Lanka
N. Wickramage CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
D. Abbaneo, B. Akgun, E. Auffray, G. Auzinger, P. Baillon, A.H. Ball, D.
Barney, J. Bendavid, M. Bianco, A. Bocci, C. Botta, E. Brondolin, T.
Camporesi, M. Cepeda, G. Cerminara, E. Chapon, Y. Chen, G. Cucciati, D.
d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, N. Daci, V. Daponte, A. David, A. De Roeck, N.
Deelen, M. Dobson, M. Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, P. Everaerts, F.
Fallavollita45, D. Fasanella, G. Franzoni, J. Fulcher, W. Funk, D. Gigi, A.
Gilbert, K. Gill, F. Glege, M. Guilbaud, D. Gulhan, J. Hegeman, C. Heidegger,
V. Innocente, A. Jafari, P. Janot, O. Karacheban21, J. Kieseler, A. Kornmayer,
M. Krammer1, C. Lange, P. Lecoq, C. Lourenço, L. Malgeri, M. Mannelli, F.
Meijers, J.A. Merlin, S. Mersi, E. Meschi, P. Milenovic46, F. Moortgat, M.
Mulders, J. Ngadiuba, S. Nourbakhsh, 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. Rolandi47, M. Rovere,
H. Sakulin, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Seidel, M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P.
Silva, P. Sphicas48, A. Stakia, J. Steggemann, M. Tosi, D. Treille, A. Tsirou,
V. Veckalns49, M. Verzetti, W.D. Zeuner Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen,
Switzerland
L. Caminada50, K. Deiters, W. Erdmann, R. Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C.
Kaestli, D. Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, T. Rohe, S.A. Wiederkehr ETH Zurich -
Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics (IPA), Zurich, Switzerland
M. Backhaus, L. Bäni, P. Berger, N. Chernyavskaya, G. Dissertori, M. Dittmar,
M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, T.A. Gómez Espinosa, C. Grab, D. Hits, T. Klijnsma, W.
Lustermann, R.A. Manzoni, M. Marionneau, M.T. Meinhard, F. Micheli, P.
Musella, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, J. Pata, F. Pauss, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, S.
Pigazzini, M. Quittnat, C. Reissel, 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. Amsler51, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, R. Del
Burgo, S. Donato, C. Galloni, T. Hreus, B. Kilminster, S. Leontsinis, I.
Neutelings, 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, R. Khurana, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A.
Pozdnyakov, S.S. Yu National Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, W.-S. Hou, Arun Kumar, Y.F. Liu,
R.-S. Lu, E. Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen Chulalongkorn University, Faculty
of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok, Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, N. Srimanobhas, N. Suwonjandee Çukurova University, Physics
Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
A. Bat, F. Boran, S. Cerci52, S. Damarseckin, Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, C.
Dozen, I. Dumanoglu, S. Girgis, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, E. Gurpinar, I. Hos53,
C. Isik, E.E. Kangal54, O. Kara, A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, M. Oglakci, G.
Onengut, K. Ozdemir55, S. Ozturk56, D. Sunar Cerci52, B. Tali52, U.G. Tok, S.
Turkcapar, I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East Technical University,
Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak57, G. Karapinar58, M. Yalvac, M. Zeyrek Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya59, O. Kaya60, S. Tekten, E.A. Yetkin61
Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
M.N. Agaras, A. Cakir, K. Cankocak, Y. Komurcu, S. Sen62 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, B. Penning, T. Sakuma, D. Smith, V.J. Smith, J. Taylor, A.
Titterton Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
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
R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A. Bundock, D.
Colling, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M. Della Negra, R. Di Maria, Y. Haddad, G.
Hall, G. Iles, T. James, M. Komm, C. Laner, L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik,
A. Martelli, J. Nash65, A. Nikitenko7, V. Palladino, M. Pesaresi, D.M.
Raymond, A. Richards, A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A. Shtipliyski, G. Singh, M.
Stoye, T. Strebler, S. Summers, A. Tapper, K. Uchida, 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, C.K. Mackay, A. Morton, I.D. Reid,
L. Teodorescu, S. Zahid Baylor University, Waco, USA
K. Call, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, H. Liu, C. Madrid, B. Mcmaster, N.
Pastika, C. Smith Catholic University of America, Washington DC, USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
A. Buccilli, S.I. Cooper, C. Henderson, P. Rumerio, C. West Boston University,
Boston, USA
D. Arcaro, T. Bose, D. Gastler, D. Pinna, D. Rankin, C. Richardson, J. Rohlf,
L. Sulak, D. Zou Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, X. Coubez, D. Cutts, M. Hadley, J. Hakala, U. Heintz, J.M.
Hogan66, K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, J. Lee, Z. Mao, M. Narain, S.
Sagir67, R. Syarif, E. Usai, D. Yu University of California, Davis, Davis, USA
R. Band, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, D. Burns, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez,
M. Chertok, J. Conway, R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, G. Funk,
W. Ko, O. Kukral, R. Lander, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, J. Pilot, S. Shalhout,
M. Shi, D. Stolp, D. Taylor, K. Tos, M. Tripathi, Z. Wang, F. Zhang University
of California, Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, C. Bravo, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, A. Florent, J. Hauser, M.
Ignatenko, N. Mccoll, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg, C. Schnaible, V. Valuev
University of California, Riverside, Riverside, USA
E. Bouvier, K. Burt, R. Clare, J.W. Gary, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi, G. Hanson, G.
Karapostoli, E. Kennedy, F. Lacroix, O.R. Long, M. Olmedo Negrete, M.I.
Paneva, W. Si, L. Wang, H. Wei, S. Wimpenny, B.R. Yates University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, P. Chang, 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, S. Wang, J. Yoo California
Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
D. Anderson, A. Bornheim, J.M. Lawhorn, H.B. Newman, T.Q. Nguyen, M.
Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, R. Wilkinson, S. Xie, Z. Zhang, R.Y. Zhu Carnegie
Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
M.B. Andrews, T. Ferguson, T. Mudholkar, M. Paulini, M. Sun, I. Vorobiev, M.
Weinberg University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, F. Jensen, A. Johnson, M. Krohn, E. MacDonald, T.
Mulholland, R. Patel, A. Perloff, 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, K. Burkett,
J.N. Butler, A. Canepa, G.B. Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M. Cremonesi,
J. Duarte, V.D. Elvira, J. Freeman, Z. Gecse, E. Gottschalk, L. Gray, D.
Green, S. Grünendahl, O. Gutsche, J. Hanlon, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, J.
Hirschauer, Z. Hu, B. Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, B.
Klima, M.J. Kortelainen, B. Kreis, S. Lammel, D. Lincoln, R. Lipton, M. Liu,
T. Liu, J. Lykken, K. Maeshima, J.M. Marraffino, D. Mason, P. McBride, P.
Merkel, S. Mrenna, S. Nahn, V. O’Dell, K. Pedro, C. Pena, 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 University of Florida,
Gainesville, USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, P. Bortignon, D. Bourilkov, A. Brinkerhoff, L. Cadamuro,
A. Carnes, M. Carver, D. Curry, R.D. Field, S.V. Gleyzer, B.M. Joshi, J.
Konigsberg, A. Korytov, K.H. Lo, P. Ma, K. Matchev, H. Mei, G. Mitselmakher,
D. Rosenzweig, K. Shi, D. Sperka, J. Wang, S. Wang, X. Zuo Florida
International University, Miami, USA
Y.R. Joshi, S. Linn Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
A. Ackert, T. Adams, A. Askew, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F. Johnson, T.
Kolberg, G. Martinez, T. Perry, H. Prosper, A. Saha, C. Schiber, R. Yohay
Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, V. Bhopatkar, S. Colafranceschi, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, M.
Rahmani, T. Roy, F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago,
USA
M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, D. Berry, R.R. Betts, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, S.
Dittmer, O. Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, K. Jung, J.
Kamin, C. Mills, I.D. Sandoval Gonzalez, M.B. Tonjes, H. Trauger, N. Varelas,
H. Wang, X. Wang, Z. Wu, J. Zhang The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, B. Bilki70, W. Clarida, K. Dilsiz71, S. Durgut, R.P.
Gandrajula, M. Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko, J.-P. Merlo, A. Mestvirishvili, A.
Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul72, Y. Onel, F. Ozok73, A. Penzo, C. Snyder, E.
Tiras, J. Wetzel Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
B. Blumenfeld, A. Cocoros, N. Eminizer, D. Fehling, L. Feng, A.V. Gritsan,
W.T. Hung, P. Maksimovic, J. Roskes, U. Sarica, M. Swartz, M. Xiao, C. You The
University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA
A. Al-bataineh, P. Baringer, A. Bean, S. Boren, J. Bowen, A. Bylinkin, J.
Castle, S. Khalil, A. Kropivnitskaya, D. Majumder, W. Mcbrayer, M. Murray, C.
Rogan, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang Kansas State
University, Manhattan, USA
S. Duric, A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, D. Kim, Y. Maravin, D.R. Mendis, T. Mitchell,
A. Modak, A. Mohammadi, L.K. Saini, N. Skhirtladze Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright University of Maryland, College Park, USA
A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, S.C. Eno, Y. Feng, C. Ferraioli, N.J. Hadley,
S. Jabeen, G.Y. Jeng, R.G. Kellogg, J. Kunkle, A.C. Mignerey, S. Nabili, F.
Ricci-Tam, Y.H. Shin, A. Skuja, S.C. Tonwar, K. Wong Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, V. Azzolini, A. Baty, G. Bauer, R. Bi, S. Brandt, W.
Busza, I.A. Cali, M. D’Alfonso, Z. Demiragli, G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov,
P. Harris, D. Hsu, M. Hu, Y. Iiyama, G.M. Innocenti, M. Klute, D. Kovalskyi,
Y.-J. Lee, P.D. Luckey, B. Maier, A.C. Marini, C. Mcginn, C. Mironov, S.
Narayanan, X. Niu, C. Paus, C. Roland, G. Roland, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Sumorok,
K. Tatar, D. Velicanu, J. Wang, T.W. Wang, B. Wyslouch, S. Zhaozhong
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
A.C. Benvenuti${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, P.
Hansen, Sh. Jain, S. Kalafut, Y. Kubota, Z. Lesko, J. Mans, N. Ruckstuhl, R.
Rusack, J. Turkewitz, M.A. Wadud University of Mississippi, Oxford, USA
J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
E. Avdeeva, K. Bloom, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, F. Golf, R. Gonzalez Suarez,
R. Kamalieddin, I. Kravchenko, J. Monroy, J.E. Siado, G.R. Snow, B. Stieger
State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
A. Godshalk, C. Harrington, I. Iashvili, A. Kharchilava, C. Mclean, D. Nguyen,
A. Parker, S. Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani Northeastern University, Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, A. Hortiangtham, D.M. Morse, T. Orimoto,
R. Teixeira De Lima, T. Wamorkar, B. Wang, A. Wisecarver, D. Wood Northwestern
University, Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, O. Charaf, K.A. Hahn, N. Mucia, N. Odell, M.H. Schmitt, K.
Sung, M. Trovato, M. Velasco University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, USA
R. Bucci, N. Dev, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop, D.J. Karmgard, N.
Kellams, K. Lannon, W. Li, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, F. Meng, C. Mueller, Y.
Musienko37, M. Planer, A. Reinsvold, R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, G. Smith, S.
Taroni, M. Wayne, A. Wightman, M. Wolf, A. Woodard The Ohio State University,
Columbus, USA
J. Alimena, L. Antonelli, B. Bylsma, L.S. Durkin, S. Flowers, B. Francis, A.
Hart, C. Hill, W. Ji, T.Y. Ling, W. Luo, B.L. Winer Princeton University,
Princeton, USA
S. Cooperstein, P. Elmer, J. Hardenbrook, S. Higginbotham, A. Kalogeropoulos,
D. Lange, M.T. Lucchini, J. Luo, D. Marlow, K. Mei, I. Ojalvo, J. Olsen, C.
Palmer, P. Piroué, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, D. Stickland, C. Tully University of
Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
A. Barker, V.E. Barnes, S. Das, L. Gutay, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, A. Khatiwada,
B. Mahakud, D.H. Miller, N. Neumeister, C.C. Peng, S. Piperov, H. Qiu, J.F.
Schulte, J. Sun, F. Wang, R. Xiao, W. Xie Purdue University Northwest,
Hammond, USA
T. Cheng, J. Dolen, N. Parashar Rice University, Houston, USA
Z. Chen, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Kilpatrick, W. Li, B.P.
Padley, R. Redjimi, J. Roberts, J. Rorie, W. Shi, Z. Tu, J. Zabel, A. Zhang
University of Rochester, Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, Y.t. Duh, J.L. Dulemba, C. Fallon, T.
Ferbel, M. Galanti, A. Garcia-Bellido, J. Han, O. Hindrichs, A.
Khukhunaishvili, P. Tan, R. Taus Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,
Piscataway, USA
A. Agapitos, J.P. Chou, Y. Gershtein, 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, S. Spanier Texas A&M University, College
Station, USA
O. Bouhali74, A. Celik, M. Dalchenko, M. De Mattia, A. Delgado, S. Dildick, R.
Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T. Kamon75, S. Luo, R. Mueller, D. Overton, L.
Perniè, D. Rathjens, A. Safonov Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, F. De Guio, P.R. Dudero, S. Kunori, K. Lamichhane,
S.W. Lee, T. Mengke, S. Muthumuni, T. Peltola, S. Undleeb, I. Volobouev, Z.
Wang Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H. Ni, K.
Padeken, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska, M. Verweij, Q.
Xu University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
M.W. Arenton, P. Barria, B. Cox, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A. Ledovskoy, H. Li, C.
Neu, T. Sinthuprasith, Y. Wang, E. Wolfe, F. Xia Wayne State University,
Detroit, USA
R. Harr, P.E. Karchin, N. Poudyal, J. Sturdy, P. Thapa, S. Zaleski University
of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI, USA
M. Brodski, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, D. Carlsmith, S. Dasu, L. Dodd, B.
Gomber, M. Grothe, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, P. Klabbers, A. Lanaro,
K. Long, R. Loveless, T. Ruggles, A. Savin, V. Sharma, N. Smith, W.H. Smith,
N. Woods †: Deceased
1: Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria
2: Also at IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
3: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
4: Also at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
5: Also at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
6: Also at University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
7: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
8: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
9: Also at Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
10: Also at Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
11: Now at Zewail City of Science and Technology, Zewail, Egypt
12: Also at Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt
13: Now at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt
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 RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
20: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
21: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
22: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
23: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
24: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
25: Also at Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India
26: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
27: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India
28: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
29: Also at Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
30: Also at Plasma Physics Research Center, Science and Research Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
31: Also at Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy
32: Also at Kyunghee University, Seoul, Korea
33: Also at International Islamic University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
34: Also at Malaysian Nuclear Agency, MOSTI, Kajang, Malaysia
35: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico city, Mexico
36: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems,
Warsaw, Poland
37: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
38: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
39: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
40: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
41: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
42: Also at INFN Sezione di Padova a, Università di Padova b, Università di
Trento (Trento) c, Padova, Italy
43: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
44: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
45: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
46: Also at University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of
Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
47: Also at Scuola Normale e Sezione dell’INFN, Pisa, Italy
48: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
49: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
50: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
51: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics (SMI), Vienna,
Austria
52: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
53: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey
54: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
55: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
56: Also at Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey
57: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
58: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
59: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
60: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
61: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
62: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, 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 Bethel University, St. Paul, USA
67: Also at Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey
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 Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
73: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
74: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
75: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea