EXO-17-008

$HeadURL:svn+ssh://svn.cern.ch/reps/tdr2/papers/EXO-17-008/trunk/EXO-17-008.tex$
$Id:EXO-17-008.tex4931472019-03-3115:00:20Zswmukher$

EXO-17-008

# Search for a boson decaying to a $\Pgt$ lepton and a neutrino in proton-
proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$

###### Abstract

A search for a new high-mass resonance decaying to a $\Pgt$ lepton and a
neutrino is reported. The analysis uses proton-proton collision data collected
by the CMS experiment at the LHC at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$, corresponding to an
integrated luminosity of 35.9. The search utilizes hadronically decaying
$\Pgt$ leptons. No excess in the event yield is observed at high transverse
masses of the $\Pgt$ and missing transverse momentum. An interpretation of
results within the sequential standard model excludes boson masses below 4.0at
95% confidence level. Existing limits are also improved on models in which the
boson decays preferentially to fermions of the third generation. Heavy bosons
with masses less than 1.7–3.9, depending on the coupling in the non-universal
G(221) model, are excluded at 95% confidence level. These are the most
stringent limits on this model to date.

##  0.1 Introduction

New charged heavy gauge bosons, generally referred to as bosons, are predicted
by various extensions of the standard model (SM). An example is the sequential
standard model (SSM) [1], featuring an extended gauge sector, which is often
used as a benchmark model. Lepton universality holds in the SSM; however,
there exist models without this assumption. Nonuniversal gauge interaction
models (NUGIMs) [2, 3, 4, 5, 6] predict an enhanced boson branching fraction
to the third generation fermions. In this approach, the high top quark mass is
associated with the large vacuum expectation value of the corresponding Higgs
field.

The analysis presented in this Letter searches for $\PWpr\to\Pgt\Pgn$ events,
where the $\Pgt$ lepton decays hadronically. The leading order Feynman diagram
is shown in Fig. 1. In this Letter, the symbol will be used to denote the
visible part of the hadronic decay of the $\Pgt$, which is reconstructed as a
$\Pgt$ jet in the detector. The hadronic decays of the $\Pgt$ lepton are
experimentally distinctive because they result in low charged-hadron
multiplicity, unlike jets originating from the hadronization of partons
produced in the hard scattering process, which have high charged-hadron
multiplicity. The signature of a boson event is similar to that of a boson
event in which the boson is produced “off-shell” with a high mass.

Searches for a boson decaying to a $\Pgt$ lepton and a neutrino have been
performed previously by the CMS [7] and ATLAS [8] collaborations at the CERN
LHC. Searches for a boson have been performed also in $\Pe+\ptmiss$,
$\Pgm+\ptmiss$ [9, 10], [11, 12], ′ [13, 14] and [15, 16] channels. The ATLAS
experiment has excluded an SSM for masses below 3.7in the $\tauh+\ptmiss$
channel. The CMS experiment has excluded an SSM for masses below 5.2in the
combination of electron and muon channels. This Letter describes a search for
a boson in the $\tauh+\ptmiss$ channel using proton-proton () collisions
collected in 2016 at a center-of-mass energy of 13. The data set corresponds
to an integrated luminosity of 35.9. The results are interpreted in the
context of two models, the SSM and the NUGIM.

Figure 1: Leading order Feynman diagram of the expected signal process
$\PWpr\to\Pgt\Pgn$.

##  0.2 Physics models

###  0.2.1 The sequential standard model boson

In the SSM, the boson is a heavy analog of the boson. It is a resonance with
fermionic decay modes and branching fractions similar to those of the SM
boson, with the addition of the decay $\PWpr\to\cPqt\cPqb$, which becomes
relevant for boson masses larger than 180\. If the boson is heavy enough to
decay to top and bottom quarks, the SSM branching fraction for the decay
$\PWpr\to\Pgt\Pgn$ is 8.5% [1]. Under these assumptions, the relative width
$\Gamma/M$ of the boson is $\sim$3.3%. With increasing mass, a growing
fraction of events are produced off-shell and shifted to lower mass values.
Assuming events within a window of $\pm$10% around the actual mass to be on-
shell, the off-shell fractions are approximately 9, 22 and 66% for $\PWpr$
masses of 1, 3 and 5, respectively. Decays into depend on the specific model
assumptions and are usually considered to be suppressed in the SSM, as assumed
by the current search.

In accordance with previous analyses, it is assumed that there is no
interference between the production of the new particle and the production of
the SM boson. Such an absence of interference would occur, for example, if the
interacts via V+A coupling [17].

Signal events for the SSM boson are simulated at leading order (LO) with 8.212
[18], using the NNPDF 2.3 [19, 20] parton distribution function (PDF) set and
tune CUETP8M1 [21]. The samples are normalized to next-to-next-to-leading-
order (NNLO) cross sections from [22, 23].

###  0.2.2 Coupling strength

The boson coupling strength, $g_{\PWpr}$, is given in terms of the SM weak
coupling strength $g_{\PW}=e/\swsq\approx 0.65$. Here, $\theta_{\PW}$ is the
weak mixing angle. If the is a heavier copy of the SM boson, their coupling
ratio is $g_{\PWpr}/g_{\PW}=1$ and the SSM theoretical cross sections, signal
shapes, and widths apply. However, different couplings are possible. Because
of the dependence of the width of a particle on its coupling, and the
consequent effect on the transverse mass distribution, a limit can also be set
on the coupling strength. For this study, a reweighting procedure is used.
Some selected signal samples are simulated at LO with (version 1.5.11) [24],
for a range of coupling ratios $g_{\PWpr}/g_{\PW}$ from 0.01 to 3. These
signals exhibit different widths as well as different cross sections. The
generated distributions of the SSM samples with $g_{\PWpr}/g_{\PW}=1$ are
reweighted to take into account the decay width dependence, thus providing the
appropriate reconstructed transverse mass distributions for
$g_{\PWpr}/g_{\PW}\neq 1$ . For $g_{\PWpr}/g_{\PW}=1$, the theoretical LO
cross sections apply and this coupling strength is used to compare the
standard SSM samples with the reweighted ones, allowing the reweighting method
to be verified.

###  0.2.3 Nonuniversal gauge interaction model

Models with nonuniversal couplings predict an enhanced branching fraction for
the third generation of fermions and explain the large mass of the top quark.
The nonuniversal gauge interaction models (NUGIMs) exhibit a
$SU(2)_{\text{l}}\times SU(2)_{\text{h}}\times U(1)$ symmetry, and thus are
often called G(221) models. Here the indices l and h refer to light and heavy,
respectively. The weak SM $SU(2)_{\text{W}}$ group is a low-energy limit of
two gauge groups, a light $SU(2)_{\text{l}}$ and a heavy $SU(2)_{\text{h}}$,
which govern the couplings to the light fermions of the first two generations
and to the heavy fermions of the third generation, respectively. These two
groups mix, resulting in an SM-like $SU(2)_{\text{W}}$ and an extended group
$SU(2)_{\text{E}}$. The $SU(2)_{\text{E}}$ extended gauge group gives rise to
additional gauge bosons such as a . The mixing of the two gauge groups
involves a mixing angle of the extended group, $\theta_{\mathrm{E}}$, which
modifies the couplings to the heavy boson. Consequently, the mixing modifies

Figure 2:  Branching fractions $\mathcal{B}(\PWpr)$ as a function of the
mixing angle $\cot\theta_{\mathrm{E}}$, for boson decays in the NUGIM G(221)
framework, as calculated in Refs. [2, 25, 26]. For $\cot\theta_{\mathrm{E}}=1$
the values correspond to those in the SSM, rescaled to accommodate the decay
channel.

the production cross section and, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the branching
fractions of the . For $\cot\theta_{\mathrm{E}}\gtrsim 3$ the decays
predominantly to third generation fermions. The branching fraction to is
smaller than the branching fraction to third generation fermions, as shown in
Fig. 2. For $\cot\theta_{\mathrm{E}}=1$ the branching fractions are the same
as those of the SSM, and the boson couples democratically to all fermions. For
$\cot\theta_{\mathrm{E}}<1$ the decays into light fermions are dominant.

In the NUGIM G(221), the ratio of the couplings $g_{\PWpr}/g_{\PW}$ is related
to the parameter $\cot\theta_{\mathrm{E}}$ by the following equation [26]:

$\Gamma_{\PWpr}=\Gamma_{\PWpr}^{\text{SSM}}\frac{(4+\frac{1}{4})\cot^{2}\theta_{\mathrm{E}}+8\tan^{2}\theta_{\mathrm{E}}}{12+\frac{1}{4}}=\Gamma_{\PWpr}^{\text{SSM}}\left(\frac{g_{\PWpr}}{g_{\PW}}\right)^{2}$
(1)

Because of this functional relationship, a reinterpretation of limits on
coupling strength will yield limits on NUGIM G(221), and thus it was not
necessary to generate a signal sample for this model.

##  0.3 The CMS detector

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

The silicon tracker measures charged particles within the range
$\abs{\eta}<2.5$. It consists of 1440 silicon pixel and 15 148 silicon strip
detector modules. For nonisolated particles with transverse momentum
$1<\pt<10\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<1.4$, the track resolutions are typically 1.5%
in and 25–90in the transverse impact parameter and 45–150in the longitudinal
impact parameter. The ECAL consists of 75 848 lead tungstate crystals, which
provide coverage of $\abs{\eta}<1.48$ in a barrel region (EB) and
$1.48<\abs{\eta}<3.0$ in two endcap regions (EE). The HCAL is a sampling
calorimeter, which utilizes alternating layers of brass as an absorber and
plastic scintillator as active material, covering the range $\abs{\eta}<3$. In
the forward region, the calorimetric coverage is extended to $\abs{\eta}<5$ by
a steel and quartz fiber Cherenkov hadron forward calorimeter. Muons are
measured in the range $\abs{\eta}<2.4$, with detection planes made using three
technologies: drift tubes, cathode strip chambers, and resistive plate
chambers. Events of interest are selected using a two-tiered trigger system
[27].

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. [28].

##  0.4 Background simulation

The dominant SM background is the production of +jets. This background is
generated at LO using version 2.2.2 with the MLM merging [24, 29] and the
NNPDF 3.0 [30, 19, 20] PDF set for on-shell boson production and using 8.212
with the NNPDF 2.3 PDF set for off-shell production. The differential cross
section is reweighted as a function of the invariant mass of the SM boson
decay products, incorporating NNLO quantum chromodynamics (QCD) and next-to-
leading-order (NLO) electroweak (EW) corrections. The effect with respect to
the LO calculation corresponds to a correction factor ($K$ factor) for the
boson transverse mass spectrum. To combine the QCD and EW differential cross
sections, two different mathematical approaches could be taken [31]: an
additive or a multiplicative combination. Their effects differ by around 5%.
The $K$ factor assumed in this analysis is obtained by taking the additive
combination as recommended by Ref. [32] and the difference from the
multiplicative combination is treated as a systematic uncertainty. The $K$
factor is 1.15 at a mass of 0.3and drops monotonically for higher masses down
to 0.6 for a mass of 6. The calculation uses the generators 3.1 and mcsanc
1.01 [33] for the QCD and electroweak corrections.

Other background processes are: $\PZ/\PGg*\to\ell\ell$ generated with version
2.3.2.2 [24] with the NNPDF 3.0 PDF set, diboson processes generated with
8.212 and with the NNPDF 2.3 PDF set, and top quark processes generated with
2.0 [34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39] and the NNPDF 3.0 PDF set. Background from jets
that are falsely identified as $\tauh$ candidates is dominated by
$\PZ\to\Pgn\Pgn+\text{jets}$ events, which are simulated with version 2.3.2.2
and with the NNPDF 3.0 PDF set.

Parton fragmentation and hadronization are performed with 8.212 with the
underlying event tune CUETP8M1. The detector response is simulated using a
detailed description of the CMS detector implemented with the package [40].
All simulated event samples are normalized to the integrated luminosity of the
recorded data, using the theoretical cross section values. Additional pp
collisions during the same bunch crossing (pileup) is taken into account by
superimposing simulated minimum bias interactions onto all simulated events.
The simulated events are weighted so that the pileup distribution matches that
of the data, with an average of about 27 interactions per bunch crossing.

##  0.5 Reconstruction and identification of physics objects

A particle-flow (PF) algorithm [41] is used to combine information from all
CMS subdetectors in order to reconstruct and identify individual particles in
the event: muons, electrons, photons, and charged and neutral hadrons. The
resulting set of particles is used to reconstruct the $\tauh$ candidates,
missing transverse momentum (), and jets. The vector is defined as the
negative vector sum of all PF candidates reconstructed in the event. The
magnitude of this vector is referred to as . The raw value is modified to
account for corrections to the energy scale of all the reconstructed jets in
the event [42]. The jets are clustered using the anti-jet finding algorithm
[43, 44]. The reconstructed vertex with the largest value of summed physics-
object $\pt^{2}$ is taken as the primary vertex.

Electrons [45, 46] are reconstructed by matching energy deposits in the ECAL
with track segments in the inner tracker. Muon reconstruction [47] is
performed by matching a track segment reconstructed in the inner tracker with
a track segment reconstructed in the muon detector and performing a global fit
of the charge deposits from the two track segments.

The $\tauh$ reconstruction in CMS starts from jets clustered from PF
candidates, using the anti-algorithm with a distance parameter of 0.4. The
$\tauh$ candidates are reconstructed using the hadrons-plus-strips algorithm
[48, 49], which is designed to optimize the performance of $\tauh$
reconstruction and identification by considering specific $\Pgt$ lepton decay
modes. Individual $\tauh$ decay modes are reconstructed separately. The
signatures distinguished by the algorithm are: a single charged hadron, a
charged hadron and up to two neutral pions, and three charged hadrons.

Requiring $\tauh$ candidates to pass isolation requirements reduces the
$\text{jet}\to\tauh$ misidentification probability. The multivariant-based
(MVA-based) $\tauh$ identification discriminant combine isolation and other
variables with sensitivity to the $\Pgt$ lifetime, to provide the best
possible discrimination for $\tauh$ decays against quark and gluon jets.
Hadronically decaying $\Pgt$ leptons in this analysis are required to satisfy
the very loose working point of the MVA-based isolation [50]. This working
point has an efficiency of about 70% for genuine $\tauh$, with about 0.4%
misidentification rate for quark- and gluon-initiated jets, for a range
typical of $\tauh$ originating from a $\PWpr$ boson of mass of 2. Isolated
electrons have a high probability to be misidentified as $\tauh$ objects that
decay to a single charged hadron ($\text{h}^{\pm}$ or $\text{h}^{\pm}\Pgpz$).
Electrons can emit energetic bremsstrahlung photons as they traverse the
material of the silicon tracker. When this occurs, the electron and
accompanying photons may be mistakenly reconstructed as a hadronically
decaying $\Pgt$. Muons can also be reconstructed as $\tauh$ objects in the
$\text{h}^{\pm}$ decay mode. The $\tauh$ candidates in this analysis are
required to pass the loose working point of the antielectron discriminator,
which has an efficiency of about 85% for genuine $\tauh$ events, and a
misidentification rate of about 1.5% for electrons. The $\tauh$ candidates are
further required to pass the loose working point of the antimuon
discriminator, which has an efficiency of $>99\%$ for genuine $\tauh$ events,
with a misidentification rate of about 0.3% for muons [51, 50].

##  0.6 Analysis strategy

The discriminating variable used in this analysis is the transverse mass,
defined as follows:

$\mT=\sqrt{2\pt^{\Pgt}\ptmiss[1-\cos\Delta\phi(\ptvec^{\Pgt},\ptvecmiss)]},$
(2)

where $\pt^{\Pgt}$ is the magnitude of the transverse momentum vector of the
$\tauh$ candidate $\ptvec^{\Pgt}$, and $\Delta\phi$ is the difference in the
azimuthal angle between $\ptvec^{\Pgt}$ and $\ptvecmiss$.

The strategy of this analysis is to select a heavy boson candidate decaying
almost at rest to a hadronic jet consistent with a $\tauh$ candidate and
neutrinos, the latter manifesting themselves as . Signal events are selected
online with a $\tauh+\ptmiss$ trigger that requires the of the $\tauh$
candidate to be greater than 50and the value of to be greater than 90. To
ensure that the trigger is maximally efficient for selected events, the
offline selection requires one isolated $\tauh$ candidate to have $\pt^{\Pgt}$
greater than 80and to be greater than 200.

Although there are two neutrinos in the final state, and the isolated $\tauh$
candidate are largely produced in opposite directions, which helps to
distinguish signal from background events especially those coming from QCD
multijet production. Two selection criteria exploit this behavior to reduce
the background: the ratio of the $\pt^{\Pgt}$ to is required to satisfy
$0.7<\pt^{\Pgt}/\ptmiss<1.3$; and the angle
$\Delta\phi(\ptvec^{\Pgt},\ptvecmiss)$ has to be greater than 2.4 radians.
Consequently, the lowest value is about 300. To avoid an overlap with the
boson search in the electron channel, events are rejected if they contain a
loosely identified electron with $\pt>20\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.5$, where the
loose working point is $\approx$90% efficient for real electrons. For similar
reasons, events containing a loosely identified muon with $\pt>20\GeV$ and
$\abs{\eta}<2.4$ are not considered in this analysis, where the loose working
point is $>$99% efficient for real muons.

Figure 3:  (Left) The distribution after the final selection. The black
symbols with error bars show data, while the filled histograms represent the
SM backgrounds. Signal examples for SSM bosons with masses of 0.6, 1.0, 4.0,
and 5.0are shown with the open histograms. (Right) The integral transverse
mass distribution, where the value in each bin is equal to the number of
events with transverse mass equal to or greater than the left of the bin. The
lower panels show the ratio of data to prediction, and the gray band
represents the systematic uncertainties.

After all selections, the distributions for the observed data and expected
background events are presented in Fig. 3 (left). Figure 3 (right) shows the
integral distribution, which is formed by filling each bin of the histogram
with the sum of that bin and all following bins. The systematic uncertainties,
which are detailed in Section 0.7, are illustrated as a grey band in the lower
panels of the plots. The product of the signal efficiency and acceptance for
SSM $\PWpr\to\Pgt\Pgn$ events depends on the boson mass. The total signal
efficiency for the studied range of $\mT>300\GeV$ varies from 14% to about 24%
as $M_{\PWpr}$ increases from 1 to 3. For higher boson masses, events shift to
lower because of the increasing fraction of off-shell production (as shown in
Fig. 3 for a few signal mass points). For example, for a boson with a mass of
5, the total signal efficiency is around 17%. The trigger threshold affects
the signal efficiency in the low-mass range. These efficiency values are
obtained assuming the $\PWpr\to\Pgt\Pgn$ branching fraction to be unity. The
efficiency values are estimated using simulated events where the $\Pgt$ lepton
decays hadronically.

The dominant background is from the off-shell tail of the distribution of the
SM boson, and is obtained from simulation. The background contributions from
$\PZ(\to\Pgn\Pgn)+\text{jets}$ and QCD multijet events are also obtained from
simulation. These backgrounds primarily arise as a consequence of jets
misidentified as $\tauh$ candidates. The contribution of QCD multijet
background is small compared to $\PZ(\to\Pgn\Pgn)+\text{jets}$ in the signal
region. Following the strategy in Ref. [52], to ensure that the misidentified
$\Pgt$ background is simulated properly, the agreement between data and
simulation is checked in a control region dominated by
$\PZ(\to\Pgm\Pgm)+\text{jets}$ events, where a jet is misidentified as a
$\tauh$ candidate. The is recalculated excluding the muons from the Z decay in
order to reproduce the distribution of $\PZ\to\Pgn\Pgn$ events. Specifically,
the control region is defined as follows. Events are selected online using a
dimuon trigger with muon thresholds of 17 and 8. They must contain two
oppositely charged muons with $\pt>20\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.4$, both passing
loose identification and isolation requirements. The invariant mass of the
dimuon system is required to be between 81 and 101. In addition, the events
are required to contain exactly one $\tauh$ candidate passing the same
selection requirements as in the signal region, with $\pt^{\Pgt}>20\GeV$ and
$\abs{\eta^{\Pgt}}<2.1$. To remove the overlap between muon and $\tauh$
candidates, the separation between them must fulfill $\DR(\Pgm,\tauh)>0.1$,
where $\DR$ is defined as
$\DR=\sqrt{\smash[b]{(\Delta\eta)^{2}+(\Delta\phi)^{2}}}$. Data and simulation
are compared using distributions of the dimuon mass, , /, , $\eta^{\Pgt}$ and
$\pt^{\Pgt}$. Figure 4 shows the $\pt^{\Pgt}$ distribution in the control
region.

Figure 4: Distribution of $\pt^{\Pgt}$ in the control region. The black
symbols with error bars show the data, while the histograms represent the SM
backgrounds. The lower panel shows the ratio of data to prediction.

Data and simulation agree within 50% in all bins except in one bin in the tail
of the $\pt^{\Pgt}$ distribution, giving confidence that the misidentified
$\tauh$ background source—about 22% of the total background—is correctly
modeled in the simulation.

##  0.7 Systematic uncertainties

The uncertainty in the modeling of the distribution can be split into three
categories: uncertainties affecting shape and normalization, uncertainties
affecting only normalization and an uncertainty due to limited numbers of
events in simulated samples.

The dominant uncertainty of the first category comes from $\tauh$
reconstruction and identification, affecting background and a potential signal
in the same way. The uncertainty associated with the $\tauh$ identification is
5% [48]. An additional systematic uncertainty, which dominates for high-$\pt$
$\tauh$ candidates, is related to the degree of confidence that the MC
simulation correctly models the identification efficiency. This additional
uncertainty increases linearly with $\pt^{\Pgt}$ and amounts to $+5\%$/$-35\%$
at $\pt^{\Pgt}=1\TeV$. The uncertainty is asymmetric because studies indicate
that the $\Pgt$ identification efficiency is smaller in data than in
simulation, and the difference increases as the of the $\Pgt$ increases. The
uncertainty in the $\tauh$ energy scale amounts to 3% [48]. The main sources
of uncertainty from jets are the jet energy scale and jet energy resolution
[53]. For the energy measurements of other objects the following uncertainties
are applied: 3% [48] for $\tauh$, 0.6% in EB and 1.5% in EE, respectively, for
electrons and photons [54]; and 0.2% for muons [47]. The contribution to the
uncertainty in associated with unclustered energy is estimated by varying this
energy by $\pm$10%. For the $\Pgt$ plus trigger, a scale factor of 0.9 is
applied. The scale factor has an uncertainty of 10%. The uncertainty
associated with the choice of the PDF in the simulation is evaluated according
to the PDF4LHC prescription [55, 56, 57]. The values increase with , ranging
from an uncertainty of 1 to 10% at $\mT=0.5$ to 4.0. For the $K$ factor of the
boson background, the difference between additive and multiplicative
combination, which is around 5%, is taken to be the systematic uncertainty.
The simulated events are weighted so that the pileup distribution matches the
measured one, using a value for the total inelastic cross section of 69.2mb,
which has an uncertainty of $\pm$4.6 % [58].

Uncertainties of the second category influence only the normalization of the
distribution. Kinematic distributions in the $\PZ(\to\Pgm\Pgm)+\text{jets}$
control region demonstrate that data and simulation agree within 50% for
misidentified $\tauh$ background, which is composed of
$\PZ(\to\Pgn\Pgn)+\text{jets}$ and QCD multijet events. This guides the
assignment of a 50% systematic uncertainty in the normalization of these
backgrounds. The uncertainty in the electron identification efficiency (veto)
is 2% and the uncertainty in the integrated luminosity measurement is 2.5%
[59].

Uncertainties in the third category arise from limited sizes of event samples
in the simulation of background processes. In contrast to all other
uncertainties, they are not correlated between the bins of the invariant mass
distribution.

In the high-mass region, where both the expected and the observed numbers of
events are consistent with zero, the effect of the systematic uncertainty on
the exclusion limits is negligible.

The relevant systematic uncertainties taken into account in the estimation of
potential signals include those associated with $\tauh$ identification and
energy scale, , trigger, pile-up simulation, and integrated luminosity. The
uncertainty in the signal $K$ factor arises from the choices of PDF and . The
combined uncertainty is evaluated using the PDF4LHC prescription, where in the
computation of each PDF set, the strong coupling constant is varied.
Uncertainties from different PDF sets and $\alpha_{S}$ variation are added in
quadrature.

##  0.8 Results

The transverse mass distribution in Fig. 3 shows no significant deviations
from the expected SM background. Signal events are expected to be particularly
prominent at the upper end of the distribution, where the expected SM
background is low. The expected and measured yields are summarized in Table
0.8 together with the detailed systematic uncertainties described in Section
0.7.

Expected yields for the signal and background events compared to the measured
event yields in data, for three regions of . Also shown are the total
systematic uncertainties in the estimate of the event numbers.  Range of
$\mT<0.5\TeV$ $0.5<\mT<1\TeV$ $\mT>1\TeV$ $\PW+\text{jets}$ 786 $\pm$ 110 355
$\pm$ 68 21.8 $\pm$ 6.2 $\PZ\to\Pgn\Pgn+\text{jets}$ 238 $\pm$ 120 68 $\pm$ 35
0.9 $\pm$ 0.5 Multijet 68 $\pm$ 35 18 $\pm$ 10 $<$0.1 68 $\pm$ 15 14.5 $\pm$
4.5 $<$0.1 $\PZ\to\ell\ell+\text{jets}$ 35.8 $\pm$ 8.7 10.4 $\pm$ 5.1 $<$0.1
Diboson (, , ) 24.9 $\pm$ 6.4 9.6 $\pm$ 3.5 0.7 $\pm$ 0.1 Single top quark
21.5 $\pm$ 6.5 7.0 $\pm$ 2.9 $<$0.1 Total background 1243 $\pm$ 160 485 $\pm$
77 23.4 $\pm$ 6.2 SSM $M=600\GeV$ 28229 $\pm$ 4388 14012 $\pm$ 2798 45.6 $\pm$
7.7 SSM $M=1\TeV$ 3767 $\pm$ 590 10079 $\pm$ 1581 355 $\pm$ 98 SSM $M=4\TeV$
0.7 $\pm$ 0.1 3.0 $\pm$ 1.8 11.4 $\pm$ 3.9 Data 1203 452 15

###  0.8.1 Statistical analysis

Upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching
fraction, $\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\PWpr)\mathcal{B}(\PWpr\to\Pgt\Pgn)$, are
determined using a Bayesian method [60, 61] with a uniform positive prior
probability density for the signal cross section (known to have excellent
frequentist properties when used as a technical device for generating
frequentist upper limits). All limits presented here are at 95% confidence
level (). The nuisance parameters associated with the systematic uncertainties
are modeled through log-normal distributions for uncertainties in the
normalization. Uncertainties in the shape of the distributions are modeled
through “template morphing” techniques [62]. The limits are obtained from the
entire spectrum for $\mT>320\GeV$, as displayed in Fig. 3. This procedure is
performed for different values of parameters of each signal, to obtain limits
in terms on these parameters, such as the boson mass.

To determine a model-independent upper limit on the product of the cross
section and branching fraction, all events above a threshold
$\mT^{\text{min}}$ are summed. From the number of background events, signal
events, and observed data events, the cross section limit can be calculated.
The resulting limit can be reinterpreted in the framework of other models with
a $\tauh$ and in the final state.

###  0.8.2 The sequential standard model

The parameter of interest is the product of the signal cross section and the
branching fraction, $\sigma\mathcal{B}(\PWpr\to\Pgt\Pgn)$. The branching
fraction includes all $\Pgt$ lepton decay modes, to allow a direct comparison
with the searches in the electron and muon channels [9].

Figure 5: Expected (black dashed line) and observed (black solid line) 95%
upper limits on the cross section for the production of SSM boson. The shaded
bands around the expected limit represent the one and two standard deviation
(s.d.) uncertainty intervals. The NNLO theoretical cross section with the
corresponding PDF uncertainty band is also shown.

The upper limit on $\sigma\mathcal{B}(\PWpr\to\Pgt\Pgn)$ as a function of the
SSM boson mass is shown in Fig. 5. The observed limit is consistent with the
expected limit. The SSM boson is excluded for masses $0.4<M_{\PWpr}<4.0\TeV$
at 95% where the lower limit is mainly determined by the trigger threshold and
the upper one by the available data. This result in the $\Pgt$ channel may be
compared with the lower mass limit of 5.2for an SSM boson, obtained from the
combination of electron and muon channels [10, 9].

###  0.8.3 Limits on the coupling strength

The upper limits on the cross section depend not only on the mass of a
potential excess, but also on the width. Because of the relation between the
coupling of a particle and its width, a limit can also be set on the coupling
strength. In order to compute the limit for couplings $g_{\PWpr}/g_{\PW}\neq
1$, reweighted samples are used that take into account the appropriate signal
width and the differences in reconstructed shapes. For $g_{\PWpr}/g_{\PW}=1$
the theoretical LO cross sections apply. For a given mass, the cross section
limit as a function of the coupling strength $g_{\PWpr}/g_{\PW}$ is
determined.

Figure 6:  Expected (black dashed line) and observed (black solid line) 95%
upper limits on the ratio of couplings as a function of the boson mass. The
values above the observed limit contour are excluded. The shaded bands around
the expected limit represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.)
uncertainty intervals.

For each simulated boson mass, the excluded cross section is determined from
the intersection of the theoretical cross section curve with the observed
cross section limit. The resulting intersection points provide the input for
the exclusion limit in a two-dimensional plane made of $g_{\PWpr}/g_{\PW}$ and
$M_{\PWpr}$, as depicted in Fig. 6. The phase space above the observed limit
contour is excluded. For low masses, $g_{\PWpr}/g_{\PW}$ values down to
$7\times 10^{-2}$ are excluded.

###  0.8.4 The nonuniversal gauge interaction model limits

In the NUGIM G(221) framework, the ratio of the couplings $g_{\PWpr}/g_{\PW}$
is related to the parameter $\cot\theta_{\mathrm{E}}$ through Eq. 1. Thus
$\cot\theta_{\mathrm{E}}$ can be extracted for each value of
$g_{\PWpr}/g_{\PW}$. Based on the limits on coupling strengths presented in
Fig. 6, the two-dimensional limit on $\cot\theta_{\mathrm{E}}$ is shown as a
function of the boson mass. Fig. 7 (left) shows the width of the boson as a
function of $\cot\theta_{\mathrm{E}}$ and $M_{\PWpr}$. For
$\cot\theta_{\mathrm{E}}>6.5$, the width becomes so large that the model is no
longer valid. The limit, shown in Fig. 7 (right), focuses on the parameter
space $\cot\theta_{\mathrm{E}}\geq 1$ where the $\tauh$ channel sets the most
stringent bounds, as illustrated in Fig. 2. For lower values of
$\cot\theta_{\mathrm{E}}$, other channels are more sensitive. Depending on the
value of $\cot\theta_{\mathrm{E}}$, the mass of the boson can be excluded at
95% up to 3.9in the NUGIM G(221) framework.

Figure 7:  Left: The width of the $\PWpr$ boson as a function of $M_{\PWpr}$
and mixing angle $\cot\theta_{\mathrm{E}}$ in the NUGIM G(221) framework.
Right: Expected (black dashed line) and observed (black solid line) 95% upper
limits on the mixing angle $\cot\theta_{\mathrm{E}}$ as a function of the
boson mass. The region left of the solid line is excluded. The shaded bands
represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainty bands.

###  0.8.5 The model-independent cross section limit

The shape analysis assumes a certain signal shape in . However, alternative
new physics processes yielding a $\tauh+\ptmiss$ final state could cause an
excess of a different shape. A model-independent cross section limit is
determined using a single bin ranging from a lower threshold on to infinity.
No assumptions on the shape of the signal distribution have to be made other
than that of a flat product of acceptance times efficiency, $A\epsilon$, as a
function of mass. In order to determine the limit for a specific model from
the model-independent limit shown here, only the model-dependent part of the
efficiency needs to be applied. The experimental efficiencies for the signal
are already taken into account, including the effect of the kinematic
selection of events containing $\tauh$ and (the selections on $\pt/\ptmiss$
and $\Delta\phi$), the geometrical acceptance (selection on $\eta$), and the
trigger threshold.

A factor $f_{\mT}$ that reflects the effect of the threshold
$\mT^{\text{min}}$ on the signal is determined by counting the events with
$\mT>\mT^{\text{min}}$ and dividing the result by the number of generated
events. The reconstruction efficiency is nearly constant over the entire range
probed here, therefore $f_{\mT}$ can be evaluated at generator level. A limit
on the product of the cross section and branching fraction
$(\sigma\mathcal{B}A\epsilon)_{\text{excl}}$ can be obtained by dividing the
excluded cross section of the model-independent limit
$(\sigma\mathcal{B}A\epsilon)_{\text{MI}}$ given in Fig. 8 by the calculated
fraction $f_{\mT}(\mT^{\text{min}})$:

$(\sigma\mathcal{B}A\epsilon)_{\text{excl}}=\frac{(\sigma\mathcal{B}A\epsilon)_{\text{MI}}(\mT^{\text{min}})}{f_{\mT}(\mT^{\text{min}})}$
(3)

Here, $\mathcal{B}$ is the branching fraction of the new particle decaying to
$\Pgt+\Pgn$. Models with a theoretical cross section
$(\sigma\mathcal{B})_{\text{theo}}$ larger than
$(\sigma\mathcal{B})_{\text{excl}}$ can be excluded. The procedure described
here can be applied to all models involving the two-body decay of a massive
state, which exhibit back-to-back kinematics similar to those of a generic .
If the kinematic properties are different, the fraction of events
$f_{\mT}(\mT^{\text{min}})$ must be determined for the particular model
considered.

Figure 8: Expected (black dashed line) and observed (black solid line) 95%
model-independent upper limits on the product of cross section, branching
fraction, and acceptance for a resonance decaying into the $\Pgt\Pgn$ channel.
The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.)
uncertainty bands.

The resulting cross section limit as a function of $\mT^{\text{min}}$ is shown
in Fig. 8. The highest event in data was found at 1.65, after which the limit
becomes flat. The results depend strongly on the threshold $\mT^{\text{min}}$.
Values of the product $\sigma\mathcal{B}A\epsilon$ between 50 fb
($\mT^{\text{min}}>400\GeV$) and 0.4 fb ($\mT^{\text{min}}>2\TeV$) are
excluded for the $\mT^{\text{min}}$ thresholds given in brackets.

##  0.9 Summary

A search for new physics in final states with a hadronically decaying $\Pgt$
lepton and missing transverse momentum has been performed by the CMS
experiment, using proton-proton collision data at the center-of-mass energy
$\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ with an integrated luminosity of 35.9. No significant excess
compared to the standard model expectation is observed in the transverse mass
of the $\Pgt$ and missing transverse momentum. A sequential standard model
boson is excluded in the mass range $0.4<M_{\PWpr}<4.0\TeV$ at 95% confidence
level. Couplings that are weaker than assumed in the sequential standard model
can be excluded down to values of $7\times 10^{-2}$ for $M_{\PWpr}=1\TeV$.
Within the nonuniversal gauge interaction $SU(2)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$
model, the lower limit on the boson mass depends on the coupling constant and
varies from 1.7 to 3.9at 95% confidence level. For
$\cot\theta_{\mathrm{E}}>1$, these results obtained in the $\Pgt$ channel
provide the most stringent constraints on this model to date. In addition, a
model-independent limit is provided allowing the results to be interpreted in
other models giving the same final state with similar kinematic distributions.

###### Acknowledgements.

We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the
excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative
staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the
success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the
computing centers and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for
delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our
analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction
and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following
funding agencies: BMWFW and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq,
CAPES, FAPERJ, 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 programme 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. Altarelli, B. Mele, and M. Ruiz-Altaba, “Searching for new heavy vector bosons in $\Pp\PAp$ colliders”,  Z. Phys. C 45 (1989) 109, 10.1007/BF01552335. [Erratum: 10.1007/BF01556677].
  * [2] C.-W. Chiang, N. G. Deshpande, X.-G. He, and J. Jiang, “The family $SU(2)_{l}\times SU(2)_{h}\times U(1)$ model”,  Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 015006, 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.015006, arXiv:0911.1480.
  * [3] X. Li and E. Ma, “Gauge model of generation nonuniversality”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 47 (1981) 1788, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.47.1788.
  * [4] D. J. Muller and S. Nandi, “Top flavor: a separate $SU(2)$ for the third family”,  Phys. Lett. B 383 (1996) 345, 10.1016/0370-2693(96)00745-9, arXiv:hep-ph/9602390.
  * [5] E. Malkawi, T. M. P. Tait, and C. P. Yuan, “A model of strong flavor dynamics for the top quark”,  Phys. Lett. B 385 (1996) 304, 10.1016/0370-2693(96)00859-3, arXiv:hep-ph/9603349.
  * [6] K. Hsieh, K. Schmitz, J.-H. Yu, and C. P. Yuan, “Global analysis of general $SU(2)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$ models with precision data”,  Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 035011, 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.035011, arXiv:1003.3482.
  * [7] CMS Collaboration, “Search for $\PWpr$ decaying to tau lepton and neutrino in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8\TeV$”,  Phys. Lett. B 755 (2016) 196, 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.02.002, arXiv:1508.04308.
  * [8] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for high-mass resonances decaying to $\tau\nu$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 161802, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.161802, arXiv:1801.06992.
  * [9] CMS Collaboration, “Search for high-mass resonances in final states with a lepton and missing transverse momentum at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$”,  JHEP 06 (2018) 128, 10.1007/JHEP06(2018)128, arXiv:1803.11133.
  * [10] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for a new heavy gauge boson resonance decaying into a lepton and missing transverse momentum in 36 $\fbinv$ of $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ with the ATLAS experiment”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 401, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5877-y, arXiv:1706.04786.
  * [11] CMS Collaboration, “Search for a heavy resonance decaying into a $\PZ$ boson and a vector boson in the $\PGn\PAGn\mathrm{\PQq}\mathrm{\PAQq}$ final state”,  JHEP 07 (2018) 075, 10.1007/JHEP07(2018)075, arXiv:1803.03838.
  * [12] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for diboson resonances with boson-tagged jets in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Lett. B 777 (2018) 91, 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.12.011, arXiv:1708.04445.
  * [13] CMS Collaboration, “Search for dijet resonances in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ and constraints on dark matter and other models”,  Phys. Lett. B 769 (2017) 520, 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.02.012, arXiv:1611.03568. [Corrigendum: 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.09.029].
  * [14] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for new phenomena in dijet events using 37 $\fbinv$ of $\Pp\Pp$ collision data collected at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 052004, 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.052004, arXiv:1703.09127.
  * [15] CMS Collaboration, “Search for heavy resonances decaying to a top quark and a bottom quark in the lepton+jets final state in proton-proton collisions at $13\TeV$”,  Phys. Lett. B 777 (2018) 39, 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.12.006, arXiv:1708.08539.
  * [16] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for $\PWpr\to\cPqt\cPqb$ decays in the hadronic final state using $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Lett. B 781 (2018) 327, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.03.036, arXiv:1801.07893.
  * [17] E. Boos, V. Bunichev, L. Dudko, and M. Perfilov, “Interference between $\PWpr$ and $\PW$ in single-top quark production processes”,  Phys. Lett. B 655 (2007) 245, 10.1016/j.physletb.2007.03.064, arXiv:hep-ph/0610080.
  * [18] T. Sjöstrand et al., “An introduction to 8.2”,  Comp. Phys. Comm. 191 (2015) 159, 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024, arXiv:1410.3012.
  * [19] R. D. Ball et al., “Impact of heavy quark masses on parton distributions and LHC phenomenology”,  Nucl. Phys. B 849 (2011) 296, 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2011.03.021, arXiv:1101.1300.
  * [20] R. D. Ball et al., “Parton distributions with LHC data”,  Nucl. Phys. B 867 (2013) 244, 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2012.10.003, arXiv:1207.1303.
  * [21] P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo, “Tuning 8.1: the Monash 2013 tune”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3024, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3024-y, arXiv:1404.5630.
  * [22] R. Gavin, Y. Li, F. Petriello, and S. Quackenbush, “$\PW$ physics at the LHC with 2.1”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 184 (2013) 208, 10.1016/j.cpc.2012.09.005, arXiv:1201.5896.
  * [23] Y. Li and F. Petriello, “Combining QCD and electroweak corrections to dilepton production in ”,  Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 094034, 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.094034, arXiv:1208.5967.
  * [24] J. Alwall et al., “The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations”,  JHEP 07 (2014) 079, 10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079, arXiv:1405.0301.
  * [25] Y. G. Kim and K. Y. Lee, “Early LHC bound on the $\PWpr$ boson mass in the nonuniversal gauge interaction model”,  Phys. Lett. B 706 (2012) 367, 10.1016/j.physletb.2011.11.032, arXiv:1105.2653.
  * [26] L. Edelhauser and A. Knochel, “Observing nonstandard $\PWpr$ and $\PZpr$ through the third generation and Higgs lens”, (2014). arXiv:1408.0914.
  * [27] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [28] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [29] J. Alwall et al., “Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 53 (2008) 473, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0490-5, arXiv:0706.2569.
  * [30] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC Run II”,  JHEP 04 (2015) 040, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040, arXiv:1410.8849.
  * [31] G. Balossini et al., “Combination of electroweak and QCD corrections to single W production at the Fermilab Tevatron and the CERN LHC”,  JHEP 01 (2010) 013, 10.1007/JHEP01(2010)013, arXiv:0907.0276.
  * [32] J. R. Andersen et al., “Les Houches 2013: Physics at TeV colliders: Standard model working group report”, (2014). arXiv:1405.1067.
  * [33] S. G. Bondarenko and A. A. Sapronov, “NLO EW and QCD proton-proton cross section calculations with MCSANC-v1.01”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 184 (2013) 2343, 10.1016/j.cpc.2013.05.010, arXiv:1301.3687.
  * [34] S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari, “Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the method”,  JHEP 11 (2007) 070, 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070, arXiv:0709.2092.
  * [35] P. Nason, “A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms”,  JHEP 11 (2004) 040, 10.1088/1126-6708/2004/11/040, arXiv:hep-ph/0409146.
  * [36] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the box”,  JHEP 06 (2010) 043, 10.1007/JHEP06(2010)043, arXiv:1002.2581.
  * [37] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “NLO single-top production matched with shower in : $s$\- and $t$-channel contributions”,  JHEP 09 (2009) 111, 10.1007/JHEP02(2010)011, arXiv:0907.4076. [Erratum: 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/09/111].
  * [38] E. Re, “Single-top Wt-channel production matched with parton showers using the method”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1547, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1547-z, arXiv:1009.2450.
  * [39] S. Frixione, P. Nason, and G. Ridolfi, “A positive-weight next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction”,  JHEP 09 (2007) 126, 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/09/126, arXiv:0707.3088.
  * [40] Collaboration, “—a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [41] 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.
  * [42] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS missing transverse momentum reconstruction in $\Pp\Pp$ data at $\sqrt{s}=8\TeV$”,  JINST 10 (2015) P02006, 10.1088/1748-0221/10/02/P02006, arXiv:1411.0511.
  * [43] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-jet clustering algorithm”,  JHEP 04 (2008) 063, 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063, arXiv:0802.1189.
  * [44] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “FastJet user manual”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1896, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2, arXiv:1111.6097.
  * [45] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8\TeV$”,  JINST 10 (2015) P06005, 10.1088/1748-0221/10/06/P06005, arXiv:1502.02701.
  * [46] CMS Collaboration, “Electron and photon performance in CMS with the full 2016 data sample”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-DP-17-004, 2017.
  * [47] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$”,  JINST 13 (2018) P06015, 10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/P06015, arXiv:1804.04528.
  * [48] CMS Collaboration, “Reconstruction and identification of $\PGt$ lepton decays to hadrons and $\Pgngt$ at CMS”,  JINST 11 (2016) P01019, 10.1088/1748-0221/11/01/P01019, arXiv:1510.07488.
  * [49] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of reconstruction and identification of $\Pgt$ leptons in their decays to hadrons and $\Pgngt$ in LHC Run II”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-TAU-16-002, 2016.
  * [50] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of the Higgs boson decay to a pair of $\Pgt$ leptons with the CMS detector”,  Phys. Lett. B 779 (2018) 283, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.02.004, arXiv:1708.00373.
  * [51] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of reconstruction and identification of $\Pgt$ leptons decaying to hadrons and $\Pgngt$ in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$”, 2018.  Submitted to JINST.
  * [52] CMS Collaboration, “Search for dark matter produced with an energetic jet or a hadronically decaying $\PW$ or $\PZ$ boson at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$”,  JHEP 07 (2017) 014, 10.1007/JHEP07(2017)014, arXiv:1703.01651.
  * [53] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of missing energy reconstruction in 13 $\Pp\Pp$ collision data using the CMS detector”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-16-004, 2016.
  * [54] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8\TeV$”,  JINST 10 (2015) P08010, 10.1088/1748-0221/10/08/P08010, arXiv:1502.02702.
  * [55] M. Botje et al., “The PDF4LHC working group interim recommendations”, (2011). arXiv:1101.0538.
  * [56] S. Alekhin et al., “The PDF4LHC working group interim report”, (2011). arXiv:1101.0536.
  * [57] J. Butterworth et al., “PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II”,  J. Phys. G 43 (2016) 023001, 10.1088/0954-3899/43/2/023001, arXiv:1510.03865.
  * [58] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$”, (2018). arXiv:1802.02613. Submitted to JHEP.
  * [59] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2016 data taking period”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001, 2017.
  * [60] D0 Collaboration, “A recipe for the construction of confidence limits”, Technical report FERMILAB-TM-2104, 2000.
  * [61] G. Cowan, “Statistics”, Ch. 39 in Particle Data Group, C. Patrignani et al., “Review of particle physics”,  Chin. Phys. C 40 (2016) 100001, 10.1088/1674-1137/40/10/100001.
  * [62] M. Baak, S. Gadatsch, R. Harrington, and W. Verkerke, “Interpolation between multi-dimensional histograms using a new non-linear moment morphing method”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 771 (2015) 39, 10.1016/j.nima.2014.10.033, arXiv:1410.7388.

##  .10 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan Institut für Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, E. Asilar, T. Bergauer, J. Brandstetter, M. Dragicevic,
J. Erö, A. Escalante Del Valle, M. Flechl, R. Frühwirth1, V.M. Ghete, J.
Hrubec, M. Jeitler1, N. Krammer, I. Krätschmer, D. Liko, T. Madlener, I.
Mikulec, N. Rad, H. Rohringer, J. Schieck1, R. Schöfbeck, M. Spanring, D.
Spitzbart, A. Taurok, W. Waltenberger, J. Wittmann, C.-E. Wulz1, M. Zarucki
Institute for Nuclear Problems, Minsk, Belarus
V. Chekhovsky, V. Mossolov, J. Suarez Gonzalez Universiteit Antwerpen,
Antwerpen, Belgium
E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, J. Lauwers, M. Pieters, H. Van
Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, N. Van Remortel Vrije Universiteit Brussel,
Brussel, Belgium
S. Abu Zeid, F. Blekman, J. D’Hondt, I. De Bruyn, J. De Clercq, K. Deroover,
G. Flouris, D. Lontkovskyi, S. Lowette, I. Marchesini, S. Moortgat, L.
Moreels, Q. Python, K. Skovpen, S. Tavernier, W. Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders,
I. Van Parijs Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
D. Beghin, B. Bilin, H. Brun, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, H. Delannoy, B.
Dorney, G. Fasanella, L. Favart, R. Goldouzian, A. Grebenyuk, A.K. Kalsi, T.
Lenzi, J. Luetic, N. Postiau, E. Starling, L. Thomas, C. Vander Velde, P.
Vanlaer, D. Vannerom, Q. Wang Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, A. Fagot, M. Gul, I. Khvastunov2, D. Poyraz, C. Roskas,
D. Trocino, M. Tytgat, W. Verbeke, B. Vermassen, M. Vit, N. Zaganidis
Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
H. Bakhshiansohi, O. Bondu, S. Brochet, G. Bruno, C. Caputo, P. David, C.
Delaere, M. Delcourt, B. Francois, A. Giammanco, G. Krintiras, V. Lemaitre, A.
Magitteri, A. Mertens, M. Musich, K. Piotrzkowski, A. Saggio, M. Vidal Marono,
S. Wertz, J. Zobec Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil
F.L. Alves, G.A. Alves, 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, C. Wang,
Z. Wang, E. Yazgan, H. Zhang, S. Zhang, J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of
Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
Y. Ban, G. Chen, A. Levin, J. Li, L. Li, Q. Li, Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang, Z.
Xu Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Y. Wang Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, C.A. Carrillo Montoya, L.F. Chaparro Sierra, C. Florez,
C.F. González Hernández, M.A. Segura Delgado University of Split, Faculty of
Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split,
Croatia
B. Courbon, N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak, T. Sculac University of Split,
Faculty of Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, K. Kadija, B. Mesic, A. Starodumov7, T. Susa
University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, 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
Y. Assran9,10, S. Elgammal10, S. Khalil11 National Institute of Chemical
Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
S. Bhowmik, A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveira, R.K. Dewanjee, K. Ehataht, M.
Kadastik, M. Raidal, C. Veelken Department of Physics, University of Helsinki,
Helsinki, Finland
P. Eerola, H. Kirschenmann, J. Pekkanen, M. Voutilainen Helsinki Institute of
Physics, Helsinki, Finland
J. Havukainen, J.K. Heikkilä, T. Järvinen, V. Karimäki, R. Kinnunen, T.
Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Laurila, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, P. Luukka, T.
Mäenpää, H. Siikonen, E. Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi Lappeenranta University of
Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
T. Tuuva IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, J.L. Faure, F. Ferri, S.
Ganjour, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry, C. Leloup,
E. Locci, J. Malcles, G. Negro, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M.Ö. Sahin, M. Titov
Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole polytechnique, CNRS/IN2P3, Université
Paris-Saclay, Palaiseau, France
A. Abdulsalam12, C. Amendola, I. Antropov, F. Beaudette, P. Busson, C.
Charlot, R. Granier de Cassagnac, I. Kucher, A. Lobanov, J. Martin Blanco, M.
Nguyen, C. Ochando, G. Ortona, P. Paganini, P. Pigard, R. Salerno, J.B.
Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A.G. Stahl Leiton, A. Zabi, A. Zghiche Université de
Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram13, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, J.-M. Brom, E.C. Chabert, V. Cherepanov,
C. Collard, E. Conte13, J.-C. Fontaine13, D. Gelé, U. Goerlach, M. Jansová,
A.-C. Le Bihan, N. Tonon, P. Van Hove Centre de Calcul de l’Institut National
de Physique Nucleaire et de Physique des Particules, CNRS/IN2P3, Villeurbanne,
France
S. Gadrat Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3,
Institut de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, N. Chanon, R. Chierici, D. Contardo, P.
Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, L. Finco, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, G.
Grenier, B. Ille, F. Lagarde, I.B. Laktineh, H. Lattaud, M. Lethuillier, L.
Mirabito, A.L. Pequegnot, S. Perries, A. Popov14, V. Sordini, G. Touquet, M.
Vander Donckt, S. Viret Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
A. Khvedelidze8 Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
Z. Tsamalaidze8 RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen,
Germany
C. Autermann, L. Feld, M.K. Kiesel, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, M. Preuten, M.P.
Rauch, C. Schomakers, J. Schulz, M. Teroerde, B. Wittmer, V. Zhukov14 RWTH
Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany
A. Albert, D. Duchardt, M. Endres, M. Erdmann, S. Ghosh, A. Güth, T. Hebbeker,
C. Heidemann, K. Hoepfner, H. Keller, L. Mastrolorenzo, M. Materok, M.
Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, P. Millet, S. Mukherjee, T. Pook, M. Radziej, H.
Reithler, M. Rieger, A. Schmidt, D. Teyssier, S. Wiedenbeck 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. Stahl15 Deutsches
Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
M. Aldaya Martin, T. Arndt, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, I. Babounikau, K.
Beernaert, O. Behnke, U. Behrens, A. Bermúdez Martínez, D. Bertsche, A.A. Bin
Anuar, K. Borras16, V. Botta, A. Campbell, P. Connor, C. Contreras-Campana, F.
Costanza, V. Danilov, A. De Wit, M.M. Defranchis, C. Diez Pardos, D. Domínguez
Damiani, G. Eckerlin, T. Eichhorn, A. Elwood, E. Eren, E. Gallo17, A. Geiser,
J.M. Grados Luyando, A. Grohsjean, P. Gunnellini, M. Guthoff, M. Haranko, A.
Harb, J. Hauk, H. Jung, M. Kasemann, J. Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, J. Knolle, D.
Krücker, W. Lange, A. Lelek, T. Lenz, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann18, R. Mankel, I.-A.
Melzer-Pellmann, A.B. Meyer, M. Meyer, M. Missiroli, G. Mittag, J. Mnich, V.
Myronenko, S.K. Pflitsch, D. Pitzl, A. Raspereza, M. Savitskyi, P. Saxena, P.
Schütze, C. Schwanenberger, R. Shevchenko, A. Singh, H. Tholen, O. Turkot, A.
Vagnerini, G.P. Van Onsem, R. Walsh, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C. Wissing, O.
Zenaiev University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, L. Benato, A. Benecke, V. Blobel, M. Centis Vignali, T.
Dreyer, E. Garutti, D. Gonzalez, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, A. Karavdina, G.
Kasieczka, R. Klanner, R. Kogler, N. Kovalchuk, S. Kurz, V. Kutzner, J. Lange,
D. Marconi, J. Multhaup, M. Niedziela, D. Nowatschin, A. Perieanu, A. Reimers,
O. Rieger, C. Scharf, P. Schleper, S. Schumann, J. Schwandt, J. Sonneveld, H.
Stadie, G. Steinbrück, F.M. Stober, M. Stöver, 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. Hartmann15, S.M. Heindl, U. Husemann, F.
Kassel15, I. Katkov14, S. Kudella, H. Mildner, S. Mitra, M.U. Mozer, Th.
Müller, M. Plagge, G. Quast, K. Rabbertz, M. Schröder, I. Shvetsov, G. Sieber,
H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, S. Wayand, M. Weber, T. Weiler, S. Williamson, C.
Wöhrmann, R. Wolf Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics (INPP), NCSR
Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
G. Anagnostou, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas, G.
Paspalaki, I. Topsis-Giotis National and Kapodistrian University of Athens,
Athens, Greece
G. Karathanasis, S. Kesisoglou, P. Kontaxakis, A. Panagiotou, 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. Bartók19, M. Csanad, N. Filipovic, P. Major, M.I. Nagy, G. Pasztor, O.
Surányi, G.I. Veres Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath20, Á. Hunyadi, F. Sikler, T.Á. Vámi, V.
Veszpremi, G. Vesztergombi${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$ Institute of Nuclear
Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi21, A. Makovec, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi
Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari Indian Institute of Science (IISc),
Bangalore, India
S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri, P.C. Tiwari National Institute of Science
Education and Research, HBNI, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati22, C. Kar, P. Mal, K. Mandal, A. Nayak23, D.K. Sahoo22, S.K.
Swain Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, S. Chauhan, R. Chawla, N. Dhingra, R.
Gupta, A. Kaur, 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. Bhardwaj24, M. Bharti, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, U. Bhawandeep24,
D. Bhowmik, S. Dey, S. Dutt24, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh, K. Mondal, S. Nandan, A.
Purohit, P.K. Rout, A. Roy, S. Roy Chowdhury, G. Saha, S. Sarkar, M. Sharan,
B. Singh, S. Thakur24 Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
R. Chudasama, D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, P.K. Netrakanti, L.M. Pant, P.
Shukla Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A, Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, M.A. Bhat, S. Dugad, G.B. Mohanty, N. Sur, B. Sutar, RavindraKumar
Verma Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, P. Das, M. Guchait, Sa. Jain, S.
Karmakar, S. Kumar, M. Maity25, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, N. Sahoo, T.
Sarkar25 Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune,
India
S. Chauhan, S. Dube, V. Hegde, A. Kapoor, K. Kothekar, S. Pandey, A. Rane, S.
Sharma Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran
S. Chenarani26, E. Eskandari Tadavani, S.M. Etesami26, M. Khakzad, M.
Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri, F. Rezaei Hosseinabadi, B. Safarzadeh27, M.
Zeinali University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
M. Felcini, M. Grunewald INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b,
Politecnico di Bari c, Bari, Italy
M. Abbresciaa,b, C. Calabriaa,b, A. Colaleoa, D. Creanzaa,c, L. Cristellaa,b,
N. De Filippisa,c, M. De Palmaa,b, A. Di Florioa,b, F. Erricoa,b, L. Fiorea,
A. Gelmia,b, G. Iasellia,c, M. Incea,b, S. Lezkia,b, G. Maggia,c, M. Maggia,
G. Minielloa,b, S. Mya,b, S. Nuzzoa,b, A. Pompilia,b, G. Pugliesea,c, R.
Radognaa, A. Ranieria, G. Selvaggia,b, A. Sharmaa, L. Silvestrisa, R.
Vendittia, P. Verwilligena, G. Zitoa INFN Sezione di Bologna a, Università di
Bologna b, Bologna, Italy
G. Abbiendia, C. Battilanaa,b, D. Bonacorsia,b, L. Borgonovia,b, S. Braibant-
Giacomellia,b, R. Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A. Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa,
S.S. Chhibraa,b, C. Cioccaa, G. Codispotia,b, M. Cuffiania,b, G.M.
Dallavallea, F. Fabbria, A. Fanfania,b, P. Giacomellia, C. Grandia, L.
Guiduccia,b, F. Iemmia,b, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, A. Montanaria, F.L.
Navarriaa,b, A. Perrottaa, F. Primaveraa,b,15, A.M. Rossia,b, T. Rovellia,b,
G.P. Sirolia,b, N. Tosia INFN Sezione di Catania a, Università di Catania b,
Catania, Italy
S. Albergoa,b, A. Di Mattiaa, R. Potenzaa,b, A. Tricomia,b, C. Tuvea,b INFN
Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b, Firenze, Italy
G. Barbaglia, K. Chatterjeea,b, V. Ciullia,b, C. Civininia, R.
D’Alessandroa,b, E. Focardia,b, G. Latino, P. Lenzia,b, M. Meschinia, S.
Paolettia, L. Russoa,28, G. Sguazzonia, D. Stroma, L. Viliania INFN Laboratori
Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, F. Fabbri, D. Piccolo INFN Sezione di Genova a,
Università di Genova b, Genova, Italy
F. Ferroa, F. Raveraa,b, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia,b INFN Sezione di Milano-
Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, Italy
A. Benagliaa, A. Beschib, L. Brianzaa,b, F. Brivioa,b, V. Cirioloa,b,15, S. Di
Guidaa,d,15, M.E. Dinardoa,b, S. Fiorendia,b, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P.
Govonia,b, M. Malbertia,b, S. Malvezzia, A. Massironia,b, D. Menascea, L.
Moronia, M. Paganonia,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Ragazzia,b, T. Tabarelli de Fatisa,b,
D. Zuolo INFN Sezione di Napoli a, Università di Napoli ’Federico II’ b,
Napoli, Italy, Università della Basilicata c, Potenza, Italy, Università G.
Marconi d, Roma, Italy
S. Buontempoa, N. Cavalloa,c, A. Di Crescenzoa,b, F. Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa,
G. Galatia, A.O.M. Iorioa,b, W.A. Khana, L. Listaa, S. Meolaa,d,15, P.
Paoluccia,15, C. Sciaccaa,b, E. Voevodinaa,b INFN Sezione di Padova a,
Università di Padova b, Padova, Italy, Università di Trento c, Trento, Italy
P. Azzia, N. Bacchettaa, A. Bolettia,b, A. Bragagnolo, R. Carlina,b, P.
Checchiaa, M. Dall’Ossoa,b, P. De Castro Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa, U. Dossellia,
F. Gasparinia,b, U. Gasparinia,b, S.Y. Hoh, S. Lacapraraa, P. Lujan, M.
Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,b, J. Pazzinia,b, N. Pozzobona,b, P. Ronchesea,b,
R. Rossina,b, F. Simonettoa,b, A. Tiko, E. Torassaa, S. Venturaa, M.
Zanettia,b, P. Zottoa,b, 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.
Sekmen, D.C. Son, Y.C. Yang Chonnam National University, Institute for
Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju, Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon, G. Oh Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
J. Goh29, T.J. Kim Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, D. Gyun, S. Ha, B. Hong, Y. Jo, K. Lee, K.S. Lee, S.
Lee, J. Lim, S.K. Park, Y. Roh Sejong University, Seoul, Korea
H.S. Kim Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, H. Lee, K. Lee, K. Nam, S.B. Oh, B.C. Radburn-
Smith, S.h. Seo, U.K. Yang, H.D. Yoo, G.B. Yu University of Seoul, Seoul,
Korea
D. Jeon, H. Kim, J.H. Kim, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park Sungkyunkwan University,
Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, C. Hwang, J. Lee, I. Yu Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
V. Dudenas, A. Juodagalvis, J. Vaitkus National Centre for Particle Physics,
Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
I. Ahmed, Z.A. Ibrahim, M.A.B. Md Ali30, F. Mohamad Idris31, W.A.T. Wan
Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli Universidad de Sonora (UNISON), Hermosillo,
Mexico
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
Cruz32, 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, K.
Nawrocki, M. Szleper, P. Traczyk, P. Zalewski Institute of Experimental
Physics, Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk33, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J.
Krolikowski, M. Misiura, M. Olszewski, A. Pyskir, M. Walczak Laboratório de
Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas, Lisboa, Portugal
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. Matveev34,35, 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. Kim36, E. Kuznetsova37, P. Levchenko, V. Murzin,
V. Oreshkin, I. Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Vavilov, A.
Vorobyev Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, M. Kirsanov,
N. Krasnikov, A. Pashenkov, D. Tlisov, A. Toropin Institute for Theoretical
and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, V. Popov, I. Pozdnyakov, G.
Safronov, A. Spiridonov, A. Stepennov, V. Stolin, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A.
Zhokin Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
M. Chadeeva38, P. Parygin, D. Philippov, S. Polikarpov38, E. Popova, V.
Rusinov P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin35, I. Dremin35, M. Kirakosyan35, S.V. Rusakov, A.
Terkulov Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
A. Baskakov, A. Belyaev, E. Boos, M. Dubinin39, L. Dudko, A. Ershov, A.
Gribushin, V. Klyukhin, O. Kodolova, I. Lokhtin, I. Miagkov, S. Obraztsov, S.
Petrushanko, V. Savrin, A. Snigirev Novosibirsk State University (NSU),
Novosibirsk, Russia
A. Barnyakov40, V. Blinov40, T. Dimova40, L. Kardapoltsev40, Y. Skovpen40
State Research Center of Russian Federation, Institute for High Energy Physics
of NRC “Kurchatov Institute”, Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, S. Bitioukov, D. Elumakhov, A. Godizov, V. Kachanov,
A. Kalinin, D. Konstantinov, P. Mandrik, V. Petrov, R. Ryutin, S.
Slabospitskii, A. Sobol, S. Troshin, N. Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov National
Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia
A. Babaev, S. Baidali, V. Okhotnikov University of Belgrade, Faculty of
Physics and Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic41, P. Cirkovic, D. Devetak, M. Dordevic, J. Milosevic Centro de
Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid,
Spain
J. Alcaraz Maestre, A. Álvarez Fernández, I. Bachiller, M. Barrio Luna, J.A.
Brochero Cifuentes, M. Cerrada, N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris, C.
Fernandez Bedoya, J.P. Fernández Ramos, J. Flix, M.C. Fouz, O. Gonzalez Lopez,
S. Goy Lopez, J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa, D. Moran, A. Pérez-Calero Yzquierdo,
J. Puerta Pelayo, I. Redondo, L. Romero, M.S. Soares, A. Triossi Universidad
Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
C. Albajar, J.F. de Trocóniz Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain
J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, S. Folgueras, I. Gonzalez
Caballero, J.R. González Fernández, E. Palencia Cortezon, V. Rodríguez Bouza,
S. Sanchez Cruz, P. Vischia, J.M. Vizan Garcia Instituto de Física de
Cantabria (IFCA), CSIC-Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain
I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, B. Chazin Quero, J. Duarte Campderros, M.
Fernandez, P.J. Fernández Manteca, A. García Alonso, J. Garcia-Ferrero, G.
Gomez, A. Lopez Virto, J. Marco, C. Martinez Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del
Arbol, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, C. Prieels, T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno,
L. Scodellaro, N. Trevisani, I. Vila, R. Vilar Cortabitarte 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.
Fallavollita42, 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. Karacheban18, J. Kieseler, A. Kornmayer,
M. Krammer1, C. Lange, P. Lecoq, C. Lourenço, L. Malgeri, M. Mannelli, F.
Meijers, J.A. Merlin, S. Mersi, E. Meschi, P. Milenovic43, F. Moortgat, M.
Mulders, J. Ngadiuba, S. Nourbakhsh, S. Orfanelli, L. Orsini, F. Pantaleo15,
L. Pape, E. Perez, M. Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M.
Pierini, F.M. Pitters, D. Rabady, A. Racz, T. Reis, G. Rolandi44, M. Rovere,
H. Sakulin, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Seidel, M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P.
Silva, P. Sphicas45, A. Stakia, J. Steggemann, M. Tosi, D. Treille, A. Tsirou,
V. Veckalns46, M. Verzetti, W.D. Zeuner Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen,
Switzerland
L. Caminada47, K. Deiters, W. Erdmann, R. Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C.
Kaestli, D. Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, T. Rohe, S.A. Wiederkehr ETH Zurich -
Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics (IPA), Zurich, Switzerland
M. Backhaus, L. Bäni, P. Berger, N. Chernyavskaya, G. Dissertori, M. Dittmar,
M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, C. Grab, D. Hits, J. Hoss, T. Klijnsma, W. Lustermann,
R.A. Manzoni, M. Marionneau, M.T. Meinhard, F. Micheli, P. Musella, F. Nessi-
Tedaldi, J. Pata, F. Pauss, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, S. Pigazzini, M. Quittnat,
D. Ruini, D.A. Sanz Becerra, M. Schönenberger, L. Shchutska, V.R. Tavolaro, K.
Theofilatos, M.L. Vesterbacka Olsson, R. Wallny, D.H. Zhu Universität Zürich,
Zurich, Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, C. Amsler48, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, R. Del
Burgo, S. Donato, C. Galloni, T. Hreus, B. Kilminster, S. Leontsinis, I.
Neutelings, D. Pinna, G. Rauco, P. Robmann, D. Salerno, K. Schweiger, C.
Seitz, Y. Takahashi, A. Zucchetta National Central University, Chung-Li,
Taiwan
Y.H. Chang, K.y. Cheng, T.H. Doan, Sh. Jain, R. Khurana, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A.
Pozdnyakov, S.S. Yu National Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, W.-S. Hou, Arun Kumar, Y.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
M.N. Bakirci49, A. Bat, F. Boran, S. Cerci50, S. Damarseckin, Z.S. Demiroglu,
F. Dolek, C. Dozen, I. Dumanoglu, E. Eskut, S. Girgis, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler,
E. Gurpinar, I. Hos51, C. Isik, E.E. Kangal52, O. Kara, A. Kayis Topaksu, U.
Kiminsu, M. Oglakci, G. Onengut, K. Ozdemir53, A. Polatoz, U.G. Tok, S.
Turkcapar, I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East Technical University,
Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak54, G. Karapinar55, M. Yalvac, M. Zeyrek Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya56, O. Kaya57, S. Ozkorucuklu58, S. Tekten,
E.A. Yetkin59 Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
M.N. Agaras, S. Atay, A. Cakir, K. Cankocak, Y. Komurcu, S. Sen60 Institute
for Scintillation Materials of National Academy of Science of Ukraine,
Kharkov, Ukraine
B. Grynyov National Scientific Center, Kharkov Institute of Physics and
Technology, Kharkov, Ukraine
L. Levchuk University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
F. Ball, L. Beck, J.J. Brooke, D. Burns, E. Clement, D. Cussans, O. Davignon,
H. Flacher, J. Goldstein, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, D.M. Newbold61,
S. Paramesvaran, B. Penning, T. Sakuma, D. Smith, V.J. Smith, J. Taylor, A.
Titterton Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev62, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, D. Cieri, D.J.A. Cockerill, J.A.
Coughlan, K. Harder, S. Harper, J. Linacre, E. Olaiya, D. Petyt, C.H.
Shepherd-Themistocleous, A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin, T. Williams, W.J. Womersley
Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A. Bundock, S.
Casasso, D. Colling, L. Corpe, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M. Della Negra, R. Di
Maria, Y. Haddad, G. Hall, G. Iles, T. James, M. Komm, C. Laner, L. Lyons,
A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, A. Martelli, J. Nash63, A. Nikitenko7, V. Palladino,
M. Pesaresi, A. Richards, A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A. Shtipliyski, G.
Singh, M. Stoye, T. Strebler, S. Summers, A. Tapper, K. Uchida, T. Virdee15,
N. Wardle, D. Winterbottom, J. Wright, S.C. Zenz Brunel University, Uxbridge,
United Kingdom
J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, C.K. Mackay, A. Morton, I.D. Reid,
L. Teodorescu, S. Zahid Baylor University, Waco, USA
K. Call, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, H. Liu, C. Madrid, B. Mcmaster, N.
Pastika, C. Smith Catholic University of America, Washington DC, USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
A. Buccilli, S.I. Cooper, C. Henderson, P. Rumerio, C. West Boston University,
Boston, USA
D. Arcaro, T. Bose, D. Gastler, D. Rankin, C. Richardson, J. Rohlf, L. Sulak,
D. Zou Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, X. Coubez, D. Cutts, M. Hadley, J. Hakala, U. Heintz, J.M.
Hogan64, K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, J. Lee, Z. Mao, M. Narain, S.
Sagir65, 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, S. Cittolin, M. Derdzinski, R. Gerosa, D. Gilbert, B. Hashemi,
A. Holzner, D. Klein, G. Kole, V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, M. Masciovecchio, D.
Olivito, S. Padhi, M. Pieri, M. Sani, V. Sharma, S. Simon, M. Tadel, A.
Vartak, S. Wasserbaech66, J. Wood, F. Würthwein, A. Yagil, G. Zevi Della Porta
University of California, Santa Barbara - Department of Physics, Santa
Barbara, USA
N. Amin, R. Bhandari, J. Bradmiller-Feld, C. Campagnari, M. Citron, A. Dishaw,
V. Dutta, M. Franco Sevilla, L. Gouskos, R. Heller, J. Incandela, A.
Ovcharova, H. Qu, J. Richman, D. Stuart, I. Suarez, 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, K. Stenson, K.A. Ulmer, S.R. Wagner Cornell University,
Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, J. Chaves, Y. Cheng, J. Chu, A. Datta, K. Mcdermott, N. Mirman,
J.R. Patterson, D. Quach, A. Rinkevicius, A. Ryd, L. Skinnari, L. Soffi, S.M.
Tan, Z. Tao, J. Thom, J. Tucker, P. Wittich, M. Zientek Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, USA
S. Abdullin, M. Albrow, M. Alyari, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S.
Banerjee, L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, G.
Bolla${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, K. Burkett, J.N. Butler, A. Canepa, G.B.
Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M. Cremonesi, J. Duarte, V.D. Elvira, J.
Freeman, Z. Gecse, E. Gottschalk, L. Gray, D. Green, S. Grünendahl, O.
Gutsche, J. Hanlon, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, J. Hirschauer, Z. Hu, B.
Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, B. Klima, M.J. Kortelainen,
B. Kreis, S. Lammel, D. Lincoln, R. Lipton, M. Liu, T. Liu, J. Lykken, K.
Maeshima, J.M. Marraffino, D. Mason, P. McBride, P. Merkel, S. Mrenna, S.
Nahn, V. O’Dell, K. Pedro, C. Pena, O. Prokofyev, G. Rakness, L. Ristori, A.
Savoy-Navarro67, B. Schneider, E. Sexton-Kennedy, A. Soha, W.J. Spalding, L.
Spiegel, S. Stoynev, J. Strait, N. Strobbe, L. Taylor, S. Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran,
L. Uplegger, E.W. Vaandering, C. Vernieri, M. Verzocchi, R. Vidal, M. Wang,
H.A. Weber, A. Whitbeck University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, P. Bortignon, D. Bourilkov, A. Brinkerhoff, L. Cadamuro,
A. Carnes, M. Carver, D. Curry, R.D. Field, S.V. Gleyzer, B.M. Joshi, J.
Konigsberg, A. Korytov, P. Ma, K. Matchev, H. Mei, G. Mitselmakher, K. Shi, D.
Sperka, J. Wang, S. Wang Florida International University, Miami, USA
Y.R. Joshi, S. Linn Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
A. Ackert, T. Adams, A. Askew, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F. Johnson, T.
Kolberg, G. Martinez, T. Perry, H. Prosper, A. Saha, C. Schiber, V. Sharma, R.
Yohay Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, V. Bhopatkar, S. Colafranceschi, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, M.
Rahmani, T. Roy, F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago,
USA
M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, D. Berry, R.R. Betts, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, S.
Dittmer, O. Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, K. Jung, J.
Kamin, C. Mills, I.D. Sandoval Gonzalez, M.B. Tonjes, N. Varelas, H. Wang, X.
Wang, Z. Wu, J. Zhang The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, B. Bilki68, W. Clarida, K. Dilsiz69, S. Durgut, R.P.
Gandrajula, M. Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko, J.-P. Merlo, A. Mestvirishvili, A.
Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul70, Y. Onel, F. Ozok71, A. Penzo, C. Snyder, E.
Tiras, J. Wetzel Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
B. Blumenfeld, A. Cocoros, N. Eminizer, D. Fehling, L. Feng, A.V. Gritsan,
W.T. Hung, P. Maksimovic, J. Roskes, U. Sarica, M. Swartz, M. Xiao, C. You The
University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA
A. Al-bataineh, P. Baringer, A. Bean, S. Boren, J. Bowen, A. Bylinkin, J.
Castle, S. Khalil, A. Kropivnitskaya, D. Majumder, W. Mcbrayer, M. Murray, C.
Rogan, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang Kansas State
University, Manhattan, USA
S. Duric, A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, D. Kim, Y. Maravin, D.R. Mendis, T. Mitchell,
A. Modak, A. Mohammadi, L.K. Saini, N. Skhirtladze Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright University of Maryland, College Park, USA
A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, S.C. Eno, Y. Feng, C. Ferraioli, N.J. Hadley,
S. Jabeen, G.Y. Jeng, R.G. Kellogg, J. Kunkle, A.C. Mignerey, F. Ricci-Tam,
Y.H. Shin, A. Skuja, S.C. Tonwar, K. Wong Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, V. Azzolini, A. Baty, G. Bauer, R. Bi, S. Brandt, W.
Busza, I.A. Cali, M. D’Alfonso, Z. Demiragli, G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov,
P. Harris, D. Hsu, M. Hu, Y. Iiyama, G.M. Innocenti, M. Klute, D. Kovalskyi,
Y.-J. Lee, P.D. Luckey, B. Maier, A.C. Marini, C. Mcginn, C. Mironov, S.
Narayanan, X. Niu, C. Paus, C. Roland, G. Roland, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Sumorok,
K. Tatar, D. Velicanu, J. Wang, T.W. Wang, B. Wyslouch, S. Zhaozhong
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
A.C. Benvenuti, R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, P. Hansen, S. Kalafut, Y. Kubota,
Z. Lesko, J. Mans, 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.
Musienko34, M. Planer, A. Reinsvold, R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, G. Smith, S.
Taroni, M. Wayne, A. Wightman, M. Wolf, A. Woodard The Ohio State University,
Columbus, USA
J. Alimena, L. Antonelli, B. Bylsma, L.S. Durkin, S. Flowers, B. Francis, A.
Hart, C. Hill, W. Ji, T.Y. Ling, W. Luo, B.L. Winer, H.W. Wulsin Princeton
University, Princeton, USA
S. Cooperstein, P. Elmer, J. Hardenbrook, 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, J. Roberts, J. Rorie, W. Shi, Z. Tu, J. Zabel, A. Zhang University of
Rochester, Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, Y.t. Duh, J.L. Dulemba, C. Fallon, T.
Ferbel, M. Galanti, A. Garcia-Bellido, J. Han, O. Hindrichs, A.
Khukhunaishvili, K.H. Lo, P. Tan, R. Taus Rutgers, The State University of New
Jersey, Piscataway, USA
A. Agapitos, J.P. Chou, Y. Gershtein, T.A. Gómez Espinosa, E. Halkiadakis, M.
Heindl, E. Hughes, S. Kaplan, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, S. Kyriacou, A. Lath,
R. Montalvo, K. Nash, M. Osherson, H. Saka, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, D.
Sheffield, S. Somalwar, R. Stone, S. Thomas, P. Thomassen, M. Walker
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
A.G. Delannoy, J. Heideman, G. Riley, S. Spanier Texas A&M University, College
Station, USA
O. Bouhali72, A. Celik, M. Dalchenko, M. De Mattia, A. Delgado, S. Dildick, R.
Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T. Kamon73, S. Luo, R. Mueller, A. Perloff, 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, 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 Suez University, Suez, Egypt
10: Now at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt
11: Also at Zewail City of Science and Technology, Zewail, Egypt
12: Also at Department of Physics, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia
13: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
14: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
15: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
16: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
17: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
18: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
19: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
20: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
21: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
22: Also at Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India
23: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
24: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India
25: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
26: Also at Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
27: Also at Plasma Physics Research Center, Science and Research Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
28: Also at Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy
29: Also at Kyunghee University, Seoul, Korea
30: Also at International Islamic University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
31: Also at Malaysian Nuclear Agency, MOSTI, Kajang, Malaysia
32: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico city, Mexico
33: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems,
Warsaw, Poland
34: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
35: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
36: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
37: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
38: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
39: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
40: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
41: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
42: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
43: Also at University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of
Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
44: Also at Scuola Normale e Sezione dell’INFN, Pisa, Italy
45: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
46: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
47: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
48: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics (SMI), Vienna,
Austria
49: Also at Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey
50: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
51: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey
52: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
53: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
54: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
55: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
56: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
57: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
58: Also at Istanbul University, Faculty of Science, Istanbul, Turkey
59: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
60: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
61: Also at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
62: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
63: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia
64: Also at Bethel University, St. Paul, USA
65: Also at Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey
66: Also at Utah Valley University, Orem, USA
67: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
68: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey
69: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
70: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
71: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
72: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
73: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea