HIG-17-030

$HeadURL:svn+ssh://svn.cern.ch/reps/tdr2/papers/HIG-17-030/trunk/HIG-17-030.tex$
$Id:HIG-17-030.tex4934822019-04-0512:47:01Zgortona$

HIG-17-030

# Combination of searches for Higgs boson pair production in proton-proton
collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$

###### Abstract

This Letter describes a search for Higgs boson pair production using the
combined results from four final states: $\PQb\PQb\PGg\PGg$,
$\PQb\PQb\PGt\PGt$, $\PQb\PQb\PQb\PQb$, and $\PQb\PQb\text{VV}$, where V
represents a $\PW$ or boson. The search is performed using data collected in
2016 by the CMS experiment from LHC proton-proton collisions at
$\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9. Limits
are set on the Higgs boson pair production cross section. A 95% confidence
level observed (expected) upper limit on the nonresonant production cross
section is set at 22.2 (12.8) times the standard model value. A search for
narrow resonances decaying to Higgs boson pairs is also performed in the mass
range 250–3000. No evidence for a signal is observed, and upper limits are set
on the resonance production cross section.

The discovery of the Higgs boson ($\PH$) by the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations
[1, 2, 3] was a major step in the understanding of the mechanism of
electroweak symmetry breaking. The Higgs boson mass was jointly determined by
the two experiments using the CERN LHC Run 1 data to be $m_{\PH}=125.09\pm
0.24\GeV$ [4] and recently by CMS using partial Run 2 data with even better
accuracy, $m_{\PH}=125.26\pm 0.21\GeV$ [5]. With the Higgs boson mass known
with a precision better than 0.2%, the structure of the Higgs scalar field
potential and the Higgs boson self-couplings are precisely predicted in the
standard model (SM). The current measurements of the properties of the Higgs
boson are compatible with the SM predictions [6, 7]. The measurement of the
Higgs boson self-coupling provides an independent test of the SM and
verification that the Higgs mechanism is truly responsible for the electroweak
symmetry breaking by giving access to the shape of the Higgs scalar field
potential [8]. Access to the Higgs boson trilinear coupling can be obtained by
measuring the production of pairs of Higgs bosons (${\PH\PH}$) at the LHC. At
the same time, several theories predict heavy resonances that decay into
${\PH\PH}$ [9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16]. Studies of pair production of
Higgs bosons, each of which can decay in different channels, allow one to
probe different regions of the anomalous couplings space and of the resonant
invariant mass spectrum. A combination of different channels is therefore
needed to obtain the best possible sensitivity for the ${\PH\PH}$ production.

The ${\PH\PH}$ SM production cross section, which partly depends on the Higgs
trilinear coupling, was computed at next-to-next-to-leading order in quantum
chromodynamics (QCD), including next-to-next-to-leading-logarithmic
corrections and finite top quark mass effects at next-to-leading order. Its
value is $\sigma_{{\PH\PH}}=33.53^{+4.3\%}_{-6.0\%}(\text{QCD scale})\pm
5.9\%(\text{other})\unit{fb}$ in proton-proton ($\Pp\Pp$) collisions at 13for
a Higgs boson mass of 125 [17, 18, 19, 20, 21], where “other” includes
contributions from parton distribution function (PDF) uncertainties evaluated
using the PDF4LHC recommendations [22, 23, 24], strong coupling constant
dependence, and top quark mass effects.

Physics beyond the SM (BSM) can significantly modify the cross section and the
kinematic properties of nonresonant Higgs boson pair production. In order to
provide model independent constraints on these effects, we introduce an
effective field theory (EFT) Lagrangian that extends the SM with dimension-6
operators [25]. This approach results in five anomalous Higgs boson couplings
relevant for ${\PH\PH}$ production: the $\PH$ coupling to the top quark,
$y_{\PQt}$; the trilinear coupling, $\lambda_{\PH\PH\PH}$; and three
additional couplings, denoted by $\text{c}_{2}$, $\text{c}_{2\Pg}$, and
$\text{c}_{\Pg}$, that represent, respectively, the interactions of a top
quark pair with a Higgs boson pair, of a gluon pair with a Higgs boson pair,
and of a gluon pair with a single [17]. We define
$k_{\lambda}=\lambda_{\PH\PH\PH}/\lambda_{\text{SM}}$ and
$k_{\PQt}=y_{\PQt}/y^{\text{SM}}_{\PQt}$. Since a full five-dimensional scan
of all possible coupling combinations would be computationally excessive, a
clustering strategy [26] has been developed to group together possible
combinations of coupling values that present similar kinematic properties.
Twelve clusters have been identified, in addition to the SM and the
$\lambda_{\PH\PH\PH}=0$ scenarios. Within each cluster, a representative point
in the EFT space that we refer to as a benchmark is selected. Each benchmark
thus represents a possible modification of the ${\PH\PH}$ signal yield and
kinematic distributions due to BSM effects.

In the searches discussed in the Letter, the resonant signal is represented by
either a CP-even particle of spin-0 (radion) or spin-2 (graviton) with a width
that is much smaller than the detector resolution for the whole range under
study.

The ATLAS and CMS Collaborations performed studies of Higgs boson pair
production at $\sqrt{s}=8$ [27, 28, 29]. Limits on nonresonant ${\PH\PH}$
production were set by the CMS Collaboration in the $\PQb\PQb\PGg\PGg$ and
$\PQb\PQb\PGt\PGt$ final states. Here and in the rest of the text the
indication of the charge of the decay products is omitted for simplicity of
notation. The combination of those searches allowed the CMS Collaboration to
set an upper limit on ${\PH\PH}$ production at 43 times the SM expectation
[29]. Using the data collected in 2016 at $\sqrt{s}=13$, the CMS and ATLAS
Collaborations performed searches in the $\PQb\PQb\PGg\PGg$ [30, 31],
$\PQb\PQb\PGt\PGt$ [32, 33], and $\PQb\PQb\PQb\PQb$ [34, 35, 36, 37, 38] final
states, with the CMS Collaboration having results in the $\PQb\PQb\text{VV}$
[39] channel as well, where V denotes either a $\PW$ or a $\PZ$ boson that
decays leptonically. All four channels studied at CMS are included in this
combination.

The CMS apparatus features a superconducting solenoid of 6m internal diameter,
providing a magnetic field of 3.8T. Within the solenoid volume are a silicon
pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal electromagnetic calorimeter,
and a brass and scintillator hadron calorimeter, each composed of a barrel and
two end cap sections. Forward calorimeters extend the pseudorapidity coverage
provided by the barrel and end cap detectors. Muons are detected in gas-
ionization chambers embedded in the steel flux-return yoke outside the
solenoid. Events of interest are selected using a two-tiered trigger system
[40]. The particle-flow algorithm [41] aims to reconstruct and identify each
individual particle in an event with an optimized combination of information
from the various elements of the CMS detector. Dedicated tagging algorithms
[42] are used to identify jets originating from quarks (jets). 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. [43].

With the current data, the $\PQb\PQb\PGg\PGg$ [30] analysis is the most
sensitive to SM Higgs boson pair production in CMS. Despite a low branching
fraction ($\mathcal{B}({\PH\PH}\to\PQb\PQb\PGg\PGg)=0.26\%$), the analysis
profits from a very small background contribution, thanks to the excellent
diphoton mass resolution of the CMS experiment for this channel
(${\approx}1.6\GeV$ [30]). To exploit this feature, the analysis relies on a
2D fit of the $\PH\to\PGg\PGg$ and $\PH\to\PQb\PQb$ invariant mass
distributions, where the background coming from the $\text{N}\PGg+\text{jets}$
$(N=\left\\{0,1,2,..\right\\})$ continuum is estimated from the mass
sidebands. Other background contributions can arise from single $\PH$
production and constitute up to a third of the total background in the
nonresonant searches. They are modeled from Monte Carlo (MC) simulations,
including gluon fusion, vector boson fusion, V, $\ttbar\PH$, and
$\PQb\bar{\PQb}\PH$ production processes. In the nonresonant searches events
are classified into low- and high-mass categories according to the ${\PH\PH}$
pair reduced mass
$\tilde{M}_{\text{X}}=M_{\text{jj}\PGg\PGg}-M_{\text{jj}}-M_{\PGg\PGg}+250$,
which increases the sensitivity to ${\PH\PH}$ production. A further
categorization based on the purity of the events is applied to both resonant
and nonresonant searches. The signal purity is estimated by means of a boosted
decision tree (BDT) built from the tagging probability of each jet, the angles
between the products of the ${\PH\PH}$ system decay, and the transverse
momentum of each candidate. The category most sensitive to nonresonant
production is the one with the highest signal purity and reduced mass, with a
SM signal over background ratio (S/B) of ${\approx}5$%. The low reduced mass
categories enhance sensitivity to large $k_{\lambda}$ values. In the resonant
search, two different BDTs are trained for resonance masses $m_{\text{X}}$
higher or lower than 600.

The $\PQb\PQb\PGt\PGt$ analysis [32] combines a relatively low background
contamination with a relatively large branching fraction (7.3%), for a final
S/B of ${\approx}0.4$% in the most sensitive category. At least one isolated
hadronically decaying $\PGt$ lepton must be present in the event, together
with a second isolated lepton that is oppositely charged. The second lepton
can be either an electron or a muon (semileptonic final state) or another
hadronically decaying $\Pgt$ lepton (fully hadronic final state). Events are
categorized according to the number of -tagged jets (one or two) in the event.
Events with a boosted jet candidate are assigned to a dedicated boosted
category. A BDT discriminant based on the kinematic differences between the
${\PH\PH}$ and $\ttbar$ processes is used in the semileptonic channels in
order to reduce the large amount of $\ttbar$ background. A kinematic fit [44]
is performed to reconstruct the Higgs boson mass. For the nonresonant
searches, the so-called ‘stransverse mass’ [45, 32, 46] is found to provide
the best separation between the background and the signal [45]. For the
resonant searches, a further kinematic fit, detailed in Ref. [47], is
performed to reconstruct the most probable mass of the resonance. The largest
background contributions come from Drell–Yan, $\ttbar$, processes and events
comprised uniquely of jets produced via the strong interaction (QCD multijet).
Additional background sources considered are V, VV, and +jets. The Drell–Yan
background is estimated from a leading order simulation with a scale factor
obtained from data in a boson enriched control region to account for higher-
order corrections. The QCD multijet background is estimated using three
control regions with different lepton charge (same-sign region) and isolation
requirements. All other background contributions are estimated from MC
simulations.

The $\PQb\PQb\PQb\PQb$ final state has the highest ${\PH\PH}$ decay branching
fraction (33.6%). Three optimized resonance searches are performed targeting
resonances of different masses. For a resonance mass below 0.7, four
$\PQb$-tagged jets [34] are required in the final state. For high-mass
searches ($m_{\text{X}}>1.2\TeV$), selected events must contain two “jet
candidates,” where each jet candidate is a jet associated with a boosted $\PH$
decaying into a $\PQb\PAQb$ pair merged into a single jet [35]. This candidate
reconstruction uses jet substructure and jet flavor tagging techniques [48].
The search sensitivity in the intermediate mass range, 0.7–1.2, is improved by
considering both the final state with four jets and the case with one Higgs
jet candidate and two jets [36]. A dedicated nonresonant ${\PH\PH}$ search is
performed in the four jet final state [37]. Triggers using tagging and jet
substructure techniques are used to collect these events. The sensitivity of
the analysis is improved using a BDT that employs jet-related and ${\PH\PH}$
decay kinematic variables and global event properties. Under SM assumptions,
the S/B can be as high as 1% in the most sensitive BDT bins. Further
sensitivity to BSM nonresonant ${\PH\PH}$ production, which often results in
boosted topologies, is obtained adding the final states with one or two jet
candidates [36]. The dominant background comes from QCD multijet events and it
is estimated using data sideband regions [34, 35, 36] and a hemisphere mixing
technique [37]. The residual background is dominated by $\ttbar$ events and is
estimated using simulation. Such events correspond to 10, 15, and 1% of the
total background in the low-, intermediate-, and high-mass ranges,
respectively, for resonant searches and 5 (15)% for nonresonant searches in
the final states with four -tagged jets (with jet candidates).

The $\PQb\PQb\text{VV}$ analysis [39] includes the
${\PH\PH}\to\PQb\PQb\PW\PW\to\PQb\PQb\ell\nu\ell\nu$ and the
${\PH\PH}\to\PQb\PQb\PZ\PZ\to\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\nu\nu$ processes, for a total
branching fraction $\mathcal{B}({\PH\PH}\to\PQb\PQb\ell\nu\ell\nu)=2.72\%$
when all possible lepton flavor decays are considered (including the leptonic
decays). This channel has large backgrounds, which are predominantly from
$\ttbar$ and Drell–Yan processes. All background sources are estimated from MC
simulations with the exception of Drell–Yan, which is estimated from data. In
order to improve the rejection of these large backgrounds, a deep neural
network (DNN) discriminant technique has been implemented. Two separate
parametrized DNNs have been trained, one for the resonant and one for the
nonresonant search. The first is parametrized according to the mass of the
resonance, while the second depends on the parameters $k_{\lambda}$ and
$k_{\PQt}$. For each nonresonant benchmark, the closest point in the
$(k_{\lambda},k_{\PQt})$ plane, according to the statistical measure defined
in Ref. [26], has been used to define the DNN parameters. An S/B ratio of
${\approx}0.18\%$ is obtained in the most sensitive DNN region for SM
nonresonant production.

For both the resonant and nonresonant searches, likelihood fits are performed
using the statistical toolkits, RooFit [49] and RooStats [50]. The signal
strength ($\mu$), defined as the ratio between the observed and expected
signal rates, is estimated with its corresponding confidence interval via the
profile likelihood ratio test statistic [51]. The latter depends on the signal
strength as well as on the nuisance parameters, which account for various
experimental and theoretical uncertainties. The reference value for the
expected signal strength is chosen as the SM gluon fusion ${\PH\PH}$
production cross section (33.53fb) in nonresonant searches. The likelihood
fits are performed with respect to the observed data or a data set constructed
using $\mu=1$ for assessing expected results using the asymptotic
approximation [52, 53]. Limits are set at 95% confidence level (CL) using the
criterion [54, 55]. For all measurements, the $\PH$ mass is fixed at
$m_{\PH}=125\GeV$, and branching fractions are assumed to be equal to the SM
predictions. When investigating signal models corresponding to the shape
benchmarks, the single production cross sections are all assumed to have their
SM values.

When combining results, the systematic uncertainties from various sources are
accounted for as follows. A polynomial interpolation between alternative shape
variations is used to model systematic effects on the shape of the
discriminant variables. Lepton and photon reconstruction and identification
efficiencies and energy scale corrections are assumed to be fully correlated
across the channels and analysis categories that use the same objects. The
uncertainties in the jet energy scale corrections are divided into multiple
sources. The effect of each source on the rate and shape of the final
observable for different processes is considered in the $\PQb\PQb\text{VV}$
analysis and is treated as fully correlated with the normalization effects in
the $\PQb\PQb\PGt\PGt$ and $\PQb\PQb\PGg\PGg$ channels. In these latter
channels, the shape effects from the individual sources have been verified to
be negligible, and only the cumulative effects on the shape are considered.
They are assumed to be correlated with the normalization and shape variation
from the $\PQb\PQb\PQb\PQb$ analysis. Jet energy resolution effects are
negligible in the $\PQb\PQb\PGt\PGt$ channel and assumed to be fully
correlated between the $\PQb\PQb\text{VV}$ and the $\PQb\PQb\PQb\PQb$
channels. The effects of jet energy scale and resolution are included in the
functional form for the shape used in the $\PQb\PQb\PGg\PGg$ channel and are
assumed to be uncorrelated with the other channels. Uncertainties related to
the tagging are dominated by the modeling of heavy flavor production when
measuring data/MC scale factors, and are considered correlated across the
$\PQb\PQb\PGt\PGt$, $\PQb\PQb\PGg\PGg$, resonant $\PQb\PQb\PQb\PQb$, and
$\PQb\PQb\text{VV}$ channels. The nonresonant $\PQb\PQb\PQb\PQb$ analysis uses
a different tagging method and is considered uncorrelated.

An integrated luminosity uncertainty of 2.5% [56] is applied in a fully
correlated way to all channels and all processes estimated from simulation.
Different uncertainties are applied to background processes that are estimated
from data. The uncertainties in the total cross sections of the common
background processes are assumed to be correlated across all channels, and are
of the order of 5% for the most relevant ones (single top, , V). The
uncertainty in the same-sign to opposite-sign candidate ratio in the
$\PQb\PQb\PGt\PGt$ channel is propagated to the estimation of the multijet
background, and the uncertainties in the scale factors applied to the
$\PZ/\PGg^{*}\to\ell\ell$ background estimation to correct for higher-order
effects are also taken into account. A normalization uncertainty is considered
in the $\PQb\PQb\PQb\PQb$ nonresonant search to account for residual biases in
the hemisphere mixing technique. Some background estimates in the
$\PQb\PQb\PGt\PGt$, $\PQb\PQb\text{VV}$, and nonresonant $\PQb\PQb\PQb\PQb$
analyses have non-negligible statistical uncertainties due to the limited
number of events passing the selection in data control regions or simulated
data samples. These are taken into account by allowing each bin in each
template shape to fluctuate independently according to a Poisson distribution.
These uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated across bins in the
individual template shapes. The nonresonant signal uncertainties include
contributions coming from variations in the renormalization and factorization
scales, these amount to ${}^{+4.3\%}_{-6.0\%}$ [17, 20] of the nonresonant
signal cross section. Other theoretical uncertainties such as those in , PDFs,
and finite top quark mass effects at next-to-next-to-leading order result in a
further 5.9% uncertainty [21, 18, 19]. These effects are assumed to be fully
correlated across the different channels. The , PDFs, and scale variation
effects are also included for single $\PH$ background contributions. These
uncertainties are considered fully correlated for the Vproduction in the
$\PQb\PQb\PGt\PGt$, $\PQb\PQb\text{VV}$, and $\PQb\PQb\PGg\PGg$ channels. The
uncertainty in the branching fraction of the Higgs boson to $\PQb\PQb$ [17] is
also assumed to be fully correlated across all channels.

The event yield in data is small, so the statistical uncertainties are much
larger than the systematic ones. Those with the largest effect on the final
result are the statistical fluctuations in the yield in the most sensitive
bins of the BDT and the overall background normalization in the
$\PQb\PQb\PQb\PQb$ channel, the hadronically decaying $\tau$ lepton energy
scale effects in the $\PQb\PQb\PGt\PGt$ analysis, and the uncertainty in the
functional form used to model the signal shape in the $\PQb\PQb\PGg\PGg$
channel. These effects are as large as 10 (5)% for the $\PQb\PQb\PQb\PQb$ and
$\PQb\PQb\PGt\PGt$ ($\PQb\PQb\PGg\PGg$) uncertainties. Due to its lower
overall sensitivity, the systematic uncertainties affecting the
$\PQb\PQb\text{VV}$ analysis have little effect on the combined result. The
largest sources of systematic uncertainty for this channel arise from the
uncertainties in the $\ttbar$ cross section, electron identification
efficiency, and tagging efficiency.

With all the correlations across the channels included, the observed and
expected limits at 95% confidence level on the nonresonant ${\PH\PH}$
production signal strength are measured to be 22.2 and 12.8 times the SM
expectations, respectively. They are shown in Fig. 1 for the individual
channels and their combination. Small excesses, compatible with statistical
fluctuations, are observed in the $\PQb\PQb\PQb\PQb$, $\PQb\PQb\PGt\PGt$, and
$\PQb\PQb\PGg\PGg$ final states and result in a small excess in the combined
result.

Figure 1: The 95% CL upper limits on the signal strength
$\mu=\sigma_{{\PH\PH}}/\sigma_{{\PH\PH}}^{\text{SM}}$. The inner (green) band
and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%,
respectively, of the limits on $\mu$ expected under the background-only
hypothesis.

A scan is performed for different values of the $k_{\lambda}$ parameter, while
keeping all other EFT parameters fixed at their SM values. The value of
$k_{\lambda}$ affects both the expected cross section and the ${\PH\PH}$ decay
kinematics. For each value, these differences are fully simulated and
considered in the scan. Resulting limits are reported in Fig. 2. The exclusion
limit as a function of $k_{\lambda}$ closely follows the features of the
${\PH\PH}$ production cross section and ${\PH\PH}$ invariant mass distribution
$M_{{\PH\PH}}$ [57], which are sculpted by the interference between the
${\PH\PH}$ production via the trilinear Higgs coupling and the emission of an
${\PH\PH}$ pair from a top quark loop. The minimum at $k_{\lambda}=2.46$
corresponds to the maximum negative interference between the two diagrams,
which results in a minimum of the cross section but at the same time enhances
the relative importance of tails in the $M_{{\PH\PH}}$ distribution. The
maximum at $k_{\lambda}{\approx}5$ is due to the softness of the
$M_{{\PH\PH}}$ spectrum for such values of the trilinear coupling, causing a
larger fraction of events to fall outside experimental acceptance. As
$\abs{k_{\lambda}}$ increases, the production via the trilinear Higgs coupling
becomes dominant and the limit asymptotically approaches the same value for
both $k_{\lambda}\ll-10$ and $k_{\lambda}\gg 10$. This is reflected in the
observed exclusion limit as well, where the significance of the small observed
excess is relatively less important in the more sensitive small $k_{\lambda}$
region than at large values of $k_{\lambda}$. When fixing all the other EFT
parameters to their SM values, the $k_{\lambda}$ parameter is observed
(expected) to be constrained to the range $-11.8<k_{\lambda}<18.8$
($-7.1<k_{\lambda}<13.6$) at 95% CL. The observed exclusions for the different
EFT benchmarks [26] are in the range of 100–3000fb, and can be seen in
Appendix .1. A small excess, similar to that observed at the SM value, is
present across most of the phase space with the exception of the more boosted
topologies.

Figure 2: Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the ${\PH\PH}$
production cross section as a function of the $k_{\lambda}$ parameter. The
inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing
68 and 95%, respectively, of the limits on the ${\PH\PH}$ cross section
expected under the background-only hypothesis. The red band shows the expected
theoretical [26] cross section expectations and its uncertainty. All other
couplings and EFT parameters are set to their SM values. Figure 3: Expected
(dashed) and observed (solid line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the production
of a narrow, spin zero resonance (X) decaying into a pair of Higgs bosons. The
inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing
68 and 95%, respectively, of the limits on the ${\PH\PH}$ cross section
expected under the background-only hypothesis.

The resonant search is performed in the range of masses from 250 to 3000.
Under the hypothesis of a narrow-width resonance, no significant excess is
found across the whole range for either a spin-0 or a spin-2 resonance. The
results of the combined resonant search are shown in Fig. 3 for the spin-0
model, and in Appendix .1 for the spin-2 case.

In summary, a combination of searches for nonresonant and resonant Higgs boson
pair production has been presented. The combination includes the
$\PQb\PQb\PGg\PGg$, $\PQb\PQb\PGt\PGt$, $\PQb\PQb\PQb\PQb$, and
$\PQb\PQb\text{VV}$ channels, where V represents a $\PW$ or boson, using a
data sample collected in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$, which
corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 35.9. Upper limits at 95%
confidence level (CL) on the Higgs boson pair production cross section are
obtained. For the nonresonant production mechanism, the observed (expected)
95% CL corresponds to 22.2 (12.8) times the theoretical prediction for the
standard model cross section. An effective field theory framework is used to
parametrize the cross section as a function of anomalous couplings of the
Higgs boson. When varying only the ratio $k_{\lambda}$ between the Higgs
trilinear coupling $\lambda_{\PH\PH\PH}$ and its standard model expectation,
values of $k_{\lambda}$ in the region $-11.8<k_{\lambda}<18.8$
($-7.1<k_{\lambda}<13.6$) are still allowed by the observed (expected) data.
For the resonant production mechanism, upper exclusion limits at 95% CL are
obtained for the production of a narrow resonance with mass ranging from 250
to 3000. These results represent both the most sensitive and most
comprehensive study of double Higgs production at the LHC to date.

###### Acknowledgements.

We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the
excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative
staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the
success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the
computing centers and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for
delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our
analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction
and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following
funding agencies: BMBWF and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq,
CAPES, FAPERJ, FAPERGS, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST,
and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RPF
(Cyprus); SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC IUT, 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).

## References

  * [1] ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a new particle in the search for the standard model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020, arXiv:1207.7214.
  * [2] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021, arXiv:1207.7235.
  * [3] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8 TeV”,  JHEP 06 (2013) 081, 10.1007/JHEP06(2013)081, arXiv:1303.4571.
  * [4] ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, “Combined measurement of the Higgs boson mass in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8 TeV with the ATLAS and CMS experiments”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 191803, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191803, arXiv:1503.07589.
  * [5] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of properties of the Higgs boson decaying into the four-lepton final state in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  JHEP 11 (2017) 047, 10.1007/JHEP11(2017)047, arXiv:1706.09936.
  * [6] ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, “Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined ATLAS and CMS analysis of the LHC pp collision data at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8 TeV”,  JHEP 08 (2016) 045, 10.1007/JHEP08(2016)045, arXiv:1606.02266.
  * [7] CMS Collaboration, “Combined measurements of Higgs boson couplings in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”, (2018). arXiv:1809.10733. Submitted to Eur. Phys. J.
  * [8] J. Baglio et al., “The measurement of the Higgs self-coupling at the LHC: theoretical status”,  JHEP 04 (2013) 151, 10.1007/JHEP04(2013)151, arXiv:1212.5581.
  * [9] T. Binoth and J. J. van der Bij, “Influence of strongly coupled, hidden scalars on Higgs signals”,  Z. Phys. C 75 (1997) 17, 10.1007/s002880050442, arXiv:hep-ph/9608245.
  * [10] R. M. Schabinger and J. D. Wells, “Minimal spontaneously broken hidden sector and its impact on Higgs boson physics at the CERN Large Hadron Collider”,  Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 093007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.093007, arXiv:hep-ph/0509209.
  * [11] B. Patt and F. Wilczek, “Higgs-field portal into hidden sectors”, (2006). arXiv:hep-ph/0605188.
  * [12] G. C. Branco et al., “Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models”,  Phys. Rept. 516 (2012) 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2012.02.002, arXiv:1106.0034.
  * [13] P. Fayet, “Supergauge invariant extension of the Higgs mechanism and a model for the electron and its neutrino”,  Nucl. Phys. B 90 (1975) 104, 10.1016/0550-3213(75)90636-7.
  * [14] P. Fayet, “Spontaneously broken supersymmetric theories of weak, electromagnetic and strong interactions”,  Phys. Lett. B 69 (1977) 489, 10.1016/0370-2693(77)90852-8.
  * [15] K. Agashe, H. Davoudiasl, G. Perez, and A. Soni, “Warped gravitons at the CERN LHC and beyond”,  Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 036006, 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.036006, arXiv:hep-ph/0701186.
  * [16] A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, L. Randall, and L.-T. Wang, “Searching for the Kaluza-Klein graviton in bulk RS models”,  JHEP 09 (2007) 013, 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/09/013, arXiv:hep-ph/0701150.
  * [17] LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group, “Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector”,  CERN (2016) 10.23731/CYRM-2017-002, arXiv:1610.07922.
  * [18] S. Borowka et al., “Higgs boson pair production in gluon fusion at next-to-leading order with full top-quark mass dependence”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 012001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.012001, arXiv:1604.06447. [Erratum: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.079901].
  * [19] S. Borowka et al., “Full top quark mass dependence in Higgs boson pair production at NLO”,  JHEP 10 (2016) 107, 10.1007/JHEP10(2016)107, arXiv:1608.04798.
  * [20] D. de Florian and J. Mazzitelli, “Higgs pair production at next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy at the LHC”,  JHEP 09 (2015) 053, 10.1007/JHEP09(2015)053, arXiv:1505.07122.
  * [21] G. Degrassi, P. P. Giardino, and R. Grober, “On the two-loop virtual QCD corrections to Higgs boson pair production in the standard model”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 411, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4256-9, arXiv:1603.00385.
  * [22] M. Botje et al., “The PDF4LHC Working Group Interim Recommendations”, (2011). arXiv:1101.0538.
  * [23] S. Alekhin et al., “The PDF4LHC working group interim report”, (2011). arXiv:1101.0536.
  * [24] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC Run II”,  JHEP 04 (2015) 040, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040, arXiv:1410.8849.
  * [25] F. Goertz, A. Papaefstathiou, L. L. Yang, and J. Zurita, “Higgs boson pair production in the d=6 extension of the SM”,  JHEP 04 (2015) 167, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)167, arXiv:1410.3471.
  * [26] A. Carvalho et al., “Analytical parametrization and shape classification of anomalous HH production in the EFT approach”, (2016). arXiv:1608.06578.
  * [27] ATLAS Collaboration, “Searches for Higgs boson pair production in the $hh\to bb\tau\tau,\gamma\gamma{WW}^{*},\gamma\gamma bb,bbbb$ channels with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 092004, 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.092004, arXiv:1509.04670.
  * [28] CMS Collaboration, “Search for two Higgs bosons in final states containing two photons and two bottom quarks in proton-proton collisions at 8 TeV”,  Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 052012, 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.052012, arXiv:1603.06896.
  * [29] CMS Collaboration, “Search for Higgs boson pair production in the $bb\tau\tau$ final state in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{TeV}$”,  Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 072004, 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.072004, arXiv:1707.00350.
  * [30] CMS Collaboration, “Search for Higgs boson pair production in the $\gamma\gamma\mathrm{b\overline{b}}$ final state in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 788 (2019) 7, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.10.056, arXiv:1806.00408.
  * [31] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for Higgs boson pair production in the $\gamma\gamma b\bar{b}$ final state with 13 TeV $pp$ collision data collected by the ATLAS experiment”,  JHEP 11 (2018) 040, 10.1007/JHEP11(2018)040, arXiv:1807.04873.
  * [32] CMS Collaboration, “Search for Higgs boson pair production in events with two bottom quarks and two tau leptons in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 778 (2018) 101, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.01.001, arXiv:1707.02909.
  * [33] ATLAS Collaboration, “A search for resonant and non-resonant Higgs boson pair production in the ${b\bar{b}\tau^{+}\tau^{-}}$ decay channel in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 191801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.191801, arXiv:1808.00336.
  * [34] CMS Collaboration, “Search for resonant pair production of Higgs bosons decaying to bottom quark-antiquark pairs in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV”,  JHEP 08 (2018) 152, 10.1007/JHEP08(2018)152, arXiv:1806.03548.
  * [35] CMS Collaboration, “Search for a massive resonance decaying to a pair of Higgs bosons in the four b quark final state in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 781 (2018) 244, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.03.084, arXiv:1710.04960.
  * [36] CMS Collaboration, “Search for production of Higgs boson pairs in the four b quark final state using large-area jets in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  JHEP 01 (2019) 040, 10.1007/JHEP01(2019)040, arXiv:1808.01473.
  * [37] CMS Collaboration, “Search for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in the $\mathrm{b\overline{b}b\overline{b}}$ final state at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”, (2018). arXiv:1810.11854. Submitted to JHEP.
  * [38] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for pair production of Higgs bosons in the $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$ final state using proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  JHEP 01 (2019) 030, 10.1007/JHEP01(2019)030, arXiv:1804.06174.
  * [39] CMS Collaboration, “Search for resonant and nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in the $\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}\ell\nu\ell\nu$ final state in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  JHEP 01 (2018) 054, 10.1007/JHEP01(2018)054, arXiv:1708.04188.
  * [40] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [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, “Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV”,  JINST 13 (2018) P05011, 10.1088/1748-0221/13/05/P05011, arXiv:1712.07158.
  * [43] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [44] L. Bianchini, J. Conway, E. K. Friis, and C. Veelken, “Reconstruction of the Higgs mass in $H\to\tau\tau$ events by dynamical likelihood techniques”, in  Proceedings, 20th International Conference on Computing in High Energy and Nuclear Physics (CHEP 2013), p. 022035.  Amsterdam, the Netherlands, October, 2014.  J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 513 (2014) 022035. 10.1088/1742-6596/513/2/022035.
  * [45] A. J. Barr, M. J. Dolan, C. Englert, and M. Spannowsky, “Di-Higgs final states augMT2ed – selecting $hh$ events at the high luminosity LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 728 (2014) 308, 10.1016/j.physletb.2013.12.011, arXiv:1309.6318.
  * [46] C. G. Lester and D. J. Summers, “Measuring masses of semi-invisibly decaying particle pairs produced at hadron colliders”,  Phys. Lett. B 463 (1999) 99, 10.1016/S0370-2693(99)00945-4.
  * [47] CMS Collaboration, “Searches for a heavy scalar boson H decaying to a pair of 125 GeV Higgs bosons hh or for a heavy pseudoscalar boson A decaying to Zh, in the final states with $h\to\tau\tau$”,  Phys. Lett. B 755 (2016) 217, 10.1016/j..2016.01.056, arXiv:1510.01181.
  * [48] J. M. Butterworth, A. R. Davison, M. Rubin, and G. P. Salam, “Jet substructure as a new Higgs search channel at theLHC”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 242001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.242001, arXiv:0802.2470.
  * [49] W. Verkerke and D. P. Kirkby, “The RooFit toolkit for data modeling”, in  13th International Conference for Computing in High-Energy and Nuclear Physics (CHEP03).  2003\.  arXiv:physics/0306116.  SLAC-econf-C0303241.
  * [50] L. Moneta et al., “The RooStats project”, in  Proceedings, 13th International Workshop on Advanced computing and analysis techniques in physics research (ACAT2010), p. 057.  Jaipur, India, February, 2010.  arXiv:1009.1003.  [PoS(ACAT2010)057]. 10.22323/1.093.0057.
  * [51] The ATLAS Collaboration, The CMS Collaboration, The LHC Higgs Combination Group, “Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011”, Technical Report CMS-NOTE-2011-005, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-11, 2011.
  * [52] G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, “Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1554, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0, arXiv:1007.1727. [Erratum: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2501-z].
  * [53] T. R. Junk, A. Korytov, and A. L. Read, “Appendix A: Statistical methods”, in  Discovery of the Higgs Boson, A. Nisati and V. Sharma, eds., p. 415.  2016\.  10.1142/9789814425452_0014.
  * [54] A. L. Read, “Presentation of search results: The CL${}_{\text{s}}$ technique”,  J. Phys. G 28 (2002) 2693, 10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/313.
  * [55] T. Junk, “Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 434 (1999) 435, 10.1016/S0168-9002(99)00498-2, arXiv:hep-ex/9902006.
  * [56] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data taking period”, Technical Report CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001, 2017.
  * [57] R. Frederix et al., “Higgs pair production at the LHC with NLO and parton-shower effects”,  Phys. Lett. B 732 (2014) 142, 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.03.026, arXiv:1401.7340.

##  .1 Supplemental material

Figure 4 shows the 95% CL upper limit on the ${\PH\PH}$ production cross
section for each benchmark topology, the standard model and the
$k_{\lambda}=1$ case and for each final state. As can be seen in the plot,
different benchmark shapes result in very different sensitivities for a given
analysis. The combined limits alone are shown in Fig. 5.

The sensitivity of each analysis to the SM ${\PH\PH}$ production is shown in
Fig. 6, together with the 8CMS result.

The exclusion limits for a spin-2 narrow width resonance are shown in Fig. 7.

Figure 4: The 95% CL exclusion limits on the nonresonant Higgs boson pair
production cross sections for different EFT benchmark topologies (bins 1 to
12) as defined in Ref. [26]. Each benchmark represents a possible modification
in the ${\PH\PH}$ signal yield and kinematic distributions due to BSM effects.
The last two bins show the 95% CL exclusion limits for the SM and for the
$k_{\lambda}$= 0 scenarios. Limits are shown for each of the four final states
separately and for the combination.

Figure 5: The 95% CL exclusion limits on the nonresonant Higgs boson pair
production cross sections for different EFT benchmark topologies. Each bin of
the histogram shows the limit for a different benchmark (bins 1 to 12) as
defined in Ref. [26], for SM production and for $k_{\lambda}=0$ production
(last 2 bins). Each benchmark represents a possible modification in the
${\PH\PH}$ signal yield and kinematic distributions due to BSM effects. Figure
6: The 95% CL exclusion limits on the SM nonresonant Higgs boson pair
production cross section for different channels. The inner (green) band and
the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%,
respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only
hypothesis. The uppermost bin reports the combined limit obtained at
$\sqrt{s}=8$. Figure 7: Expected (dashed) and observed (solid line) 95% CL
exclusion limits on the production of a narrow, spin-2 resonance decaying into
a pair of Higgs bosons. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band
indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution
of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis.

##  .2 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, J. De Clercq, K. Deroover, G. Flouris, D.
Lontkovskyi, S. Lowette, I. Marchesini, S. Moortgat, L. Moreels, Q. Python, K.
Skovpen, S. Tavernier, W. Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders, I. Van Parijs
Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
D. Beghin, B. Bilin, H. Brun, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, H. Delannoy, B.
Dorney, G. Fasanella, L. Favart, R. Goldouzian, A. Grebenyuk, A.K. Kalsi, T.
Lenzi, J. Luetic, N. Postiau, E. Starling, L. Thomas, C. Vander Velde, P.
Vanlaer, D. Vannerom, Q. Wang Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, A. Fagot, M. Gul, I. Khvastunov2, D. Poyraz, C. Roskas,
D. Trocino, M. Tytgat, W. Verbeke, B. Vermassen, M. Vit, N. Zaganidis
Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
H. Bakhshiansohi, O. Bondu, S. Brochet, G. Bruno, C. Caputo, P. David, C.
Delaere, M. Delcourt, A. Giammanco, G. Krintiras, V. Lemaitre, A. Magitteri,
K. Piotrzkowski, A. Saggio, M. Vidal Marono, S. Wertz, J. Zobec Centro
Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
F.L. Alves, G.A. Alves, M. Correa Martins Junior, G. Correia Silva, C. Hensel,
A. Moraes, M.E. Pol, P. Rebello Teles Universidade do Estado do Rio de
Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato3, E. Coelho, E.M.
Da Costa, G.G. Da Silveira4, D. De Jesus Damiao, C. De Oliveira Martins, S.
Fonseca De Souza, H. Malbouisson, D. Matos Figueiredo, M. Melo De Almeida, C.
Mora Herrera, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, W.L. Prado Da Silva, L.J. Sanchez Rosas,
A. Santoro, A. Sznajder, M. Thiel, E.J. Tonelli Manganote3, F. Torres Da Silva
De Araujo, A. Vilela Pereira Universidade Estadual Paulista a, Universidade
Federal do ABC b, São Paulo, Brazil
S. Ahujaa, C.A. Bernardesa, L. Calligarisa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M.
Gregoresb, P.G. Mercadanteb, S.F. Novaesa, SandraS. Padulaa Institute for
Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia,
Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, A. Marinov, M. Misheva, M. Rodozov,
M. Shopova, G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Dimitrov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov Beihang University, Beijing, China
W. Fang5, X. Gao5, L. Yuan Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, J.G. Bian, G.M. Chen, H.S. Chen, M. Chen, Y. Chen, C.H. Jiang, D.
Leggat, H. Liao, Z. Liu, F. Romeo, S.M. Shaheen6, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, Z. Wang,
E. Yazgan, H. Zhang, S. Zhang6, J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of Nuclear
Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
Y. Ban, G. Chen, A. Levin, J. Li, L. Li, Q. Li, Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang
Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Y. Wang Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, C.A. Carrillo Montoya, L.F. Chaparro Sierra, C. Florez,
C.F. González Hernández, M.A. Segura Delgado University of Split, Faculty of
Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split,
Croatia
B. Courbon, N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak, T. Sculac University of Split,
Faculty of Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, K. Kadija, B. Mesic, A. Starodumov7, T. Susa
University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, M. Kolosova, G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou,
F. Ptochos, P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski Charles University, Prague, Czech
Republic
M. Finger8, M. Finger Jr.8 Escuela Politecnica Nacional, Quito, Ecuador
E. Ayala Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
E. Carrera Jarrin Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab
Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt
H. Abdalla9, A.A. Abdelalim10,11, A. Mohamed11 National Institute of Chemical
Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
S. Bhowmik, A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveira, R.K. Dewanjee, K. Ehataht, M.
Kadastik, M. Raidal, C. Veelken Department of Physics, University of Helsinki,
Helsinki, Finland
P. Eerola, H. Kirschenmann, J. Pekkanen, M. Voutilainen Helsinki Institute of
Physics, Helsinki, Finland
J. Havukainen, J.K. Heikkilä, T. Järvinen, V. Karimäki, R. Kinnunen, T.
Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Laurila, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, P. Luukka, T.
Mäenpää, H. Siikonen, E. Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi Lappeenranta University of
Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
T. Tuuva IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, J.L. Faure, F. Ferri, S.
Ganjour, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry, C. Leloup,
E. Locci, J. Malcles, G. Negro, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M.Ö. Sahin, M. Titov
Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole polytechnique, CNRS/IN2P3, Université
Paris-Saclay, Palaiseau, France
A. Abdulsalam12, C. Amendola, I. Antropov, F. Beaudette, P. Busson, C.
Charlot, R. Granier de Cassagnac, I. Kucher, A. Lobanov, J. Martin Blanco, C.
Martin Perez, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, G. Ortona, P. Paganini, P. Pigard, J.
Rembser, R. Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A.G. Stahl Leiton, A. Zabi, A.
Zghiche Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, 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, 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 RWTH Aachen
University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany
A. Albert, D. Duchardt, M. Erdmann, S. Erdweg, T. Esch, R. Fischer, S. Ghosh,
A. Güth, T. Hebbeker, C. Heidemann, K. Hoepfner, H. Keller, L. Mastrolorenzo,
M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, P. Millet, S. Mukherjee, T. Pook, M. Radziej, H.
Reithler, M. Rieger, A. Schmidt, D. Teyssier, S. Thüer RWTH Aachen University,
III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany
G. Flügge, O. Hlushchenko, T. Kress, 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, 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, M. Guthoff, M. Haranko, A. Harb, J. Hauk, H. Jung, M.
Kasemann, J. Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, J. Knolle, D. Krücker, W. Lange, A.
Lelek, T. Lenz, J. Leonard, K. Lipka, W. 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, T. Dreyer, A.
Ebrahimi, E. Garutti, D. Gonzalez, P. Gunnellini, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, A.
Karavdina, G. Kasieczka, R. Klanner, R. Kogler, N. Kovalchuk, S. Kurz, V.
Kutzner, J. Lange, D. Marconi, J. Multhaup, M. Niedziela, C.E.N. Niemeyer, D.
Nowatschin, A. Perieanu, A. Reimers, O. Rieger, C. Scharf, P. Schleper, S.
Schumann, J. Schwandt, J. Sonneveld, H. Stadie, G. Steinbrück, F.M. Stober, M.
Stöver, A. Vanhoefer, B. Vormwald, I. Zoi Karlsruher Institut fuer
Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany
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, I.
Katkov14, S. Kudella, S. Mitra, M.U. Mozer, Th. Müller, M. Musich, M. Plagge,
G. Quast, K. Rabbertz, M. Schröder, I. Shvetsov, H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, S.
Wayand, M. Weber, T. Weiler, 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
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
G. Karathanasis, 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. Karancsi19, 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, 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. Bharti24, 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. Singh24, 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, A.
Rastogi, 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, E. Fontanesi, P. Giacomellia, C.
Grandia, L. Guiduccia,b, F. Iemmia,b, S. Lo Meoa, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia,
A. Montanaria, F.L. Navarriaa,b, A. Perrottaa, F. Primaveraa,b,15, 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, R. Mulargiaa,b, 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, 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, F. Monti, L. Moronia,
M. Paganonia,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Ragazzia,b, T. Tabarelli de Fatisa,b, D.
Zuoloa,b INFN Sezione di Napoli a, Università di Napoli ’Federico II’ b,
Napoli, Italy, Università della Basilicata c, Potenza, Italy, Università G.
Marconi d, Roma, Italy
S. Buontempoa, N. Cavalloa,c, A. De Iorioa,b, A. Di Crescenzoa,b, F.
Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa, G. Galatia, A.O.M. Iorioa,b, W.A. Khana, L. Listaa, S.
Meolaa,d,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, M. Passaseoa, J. Pazzinia,b, N. Pozzobona,b, P.
Ronchesea,b, R. Rossina,b, F. Simonettoa,b, A. Tiko, E. Torassaa, M. Tosia,b,
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, G. Rolandi29, 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, A. Cappatia,b, 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, R. Salvaticoa,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,
Daegu, Korea
D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, M.S. Kim, J. Lee, S. Lee, S.W. Lee, C.S. Moon, Y.D. Oh,
S.I. Pak, S. Sekmen, D.C. Son, Y.C. Yang Chonnam National University,
Institute for Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju, Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon, G. Oh Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
B. Francois, J. Goh30, 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 Ali31, F. Mohamad Idris32, 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
Cruz33, R. Lopez-Fernandez, J. Mejia Guisao, R.I. Rabadan-Trejo, M. Ramirez-
Garcia, G. Ramirez-Sanchez, R. Reyes-Almanza, A. Sanchez-Hernandez Universidad
Iberoamericana, Mexico City, Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, F. Vazquez Valencia Benemerita
Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
J. Eysermans, I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada Universidad
Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, Mexico
A. Morelos Pineda University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
S. Bheesette, P.H. Butler National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam
University, Islamabad, Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M. Ahmad, M.I. Asghar, Q. Hassan, H.R. Hoorani, A. Saddique, M.A.
Shah, M. Shoaib, M. Waqas National Centre for Nuclear Research, Swierk, Poland
H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, T. Frueboes, M. Górski, M. Kazana, M.
Szleper, P. Traczyk, P. Zalewski Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of
Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk34, 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, J. Seixas, G.
Strong, O. Toldaiev, J. Varela Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna,
Russia
S. Afanasiev, P. Bunin, M. Gavrilenko, I. Golutvin, I. Gorbunov, A. Kamenev,
V. Karjavine, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev35,36, 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. Kim37, E. Kuznetsova38, 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. Chadeeva39, P. Parygin, D. Philippov, S. Polikarpov39, E. Popova, V.
Rusinov P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin, I. Dremin36, M. Kirakosyan, A. Terkulov Skobeltsyn
Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow,
Russia
A. Baskakov, A. Belyaev, E. Boos, V. Bunichev, M. Dubinin40, L. Dudko, A.
Ershov, A. Gribushin, V. Klyukhin, O. Kodolova, I. Lokhtin, I. Miagkov, S.
Obraztsov, S. Petrushanko, V. Savrin Novosibirsk State University (NSU),
Novosibirsk, Russia
A. Barnyakov41, V. Blinov41, T. Dimova41, L. Kardapoltsev41, Y. Skovpen41
Institute for High Energy Physics of National Research Centre ’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. Adzic42, 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.
Fallavollita43, D. Fasanella, G. Franzoni, J. Fulcher, W. Funk, D. Gigi, A.
Gilbert, K. Gill, F. Glege, M. Gruchala, 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. Milenovic44, 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, M. Rovere, H.
Sakulin, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Seidel, M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva,
P. Sphicas45, A. Stakia, J. Steggemann, 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, T.A. Gómez Espinosa, C. Grab, D. Hits, T. Klijnsma, W.
Lustermann, R.A. Manzoni, M. Marionneau, M.T. Meinhard, F. Micheli, P.
Musella, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, J. Pata, F. Pauss, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, S.
Pigazzini, M. Quittnat, C. Reissel, D. Ruini, D.A. Sanz Becerra, M.
Schönenberger, L. Shchutska, V.R. Tavolaro, K. Theofilatos, M.L. Vesterbacka
Olsson, R. Wallny, D.H. Zhu Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, C. Amsler48, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, R. Del
Burgo, S. Donato, C. Galloni, T. Hreus, B. Kilminster, S. Leontsinis, I.
Neutelings, G. Rauco, P. Robmann, D. Salerno, K. Schweiger, C. Seitz, Y.
Takahashi, A. Zucchetta National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan
T.H. Doan, R. Khurana, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A. Pozdnyakov, S.S. Yu National
Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, W.-S. Hou, Arun Kumar, Y.F. Liu,
R.-S. Lu, E. Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen Chulalongkorn University, Faculty
of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok, Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, N. Srimanobhas, N. Suwonjandee Çukurova University, Physics
Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
A. Bat, F. Boran, S. Cerci49, S. Damarseckin, Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, C.
Dozen, I. Dumanoglu, E. Eskut, S. Girgis, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, E. Gurpinar,
I. Hos50, C. Isik, E.E. Kangal51, O. Kara, A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, M.
Oglakci, G. Onengut, K. Ozdemir52, S. Ozturk53, 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, 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, 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, D.
Colling, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M. Della Negra, R. Di Maria, 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, D.M. Raymond, A. Richards,
A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A. Shtipliyski, G. Singh, M. Stoye, T. Strebler,
S. Summers, A. Tapper, K. Uchida, T. 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. Pinna, D. Rankin, C. Richardson, J. Rohlf,
L. Sulak, D. Zou Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, X. Coubez, D. Cutts, M. Hadley, J. Hakala, U. Heintz, J.M.
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, P. Chang, S. Cittolin, M. Derdzinski, R. Gerosa, D. Gilbert, B.
Hashemi, A. Holzner, D. Klein, G. Kole, V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, M.
Masciovecchio, D. Olivito, S. Padhi, M. Pieri, M. Sani, V. Sharma, S. Simon,
M. Tadel, A. Vartak, S. 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, C. Campagnari, M. Citron, 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, N. Lu, 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, E. MacDonald, T. Mulholland,
R. Patel, A. Perloff, K. Stenson, K.A. Ulmer, S.R. Wagner Cornell University,
Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, J. Chaves, Y. Cheng, J. Chu, A. Datta, K. Mcdermott, N. Mirman,
J.R. Patterson, D. Quach, A. Rinkevicius, A. Ryd, L. Skinnari, L. Soffi, S.M.
Tan, Z. Tao, J. Thom, J. Tucker, P. Wittich, M. Zientek Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, USA
S. Abdullin, M. Albrow, M. Alyari, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S.
Banerjee, L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, K. Burkett,
J.N. Butler, A. Canepa, G.B. Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M. Cremonesi,
J. Duarte, V.D. Elvira, J. Freeman, Z. Gecse, E. Gottschalk, L. Gray, D.
Green, S. Grünendahl, O. Gutsche, J. Hanlon, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, J.
Hirschauer, Z. Hu, B. Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, B.
Klima, M.J. Kortelainen, B. Kreis, S. Lammel, D. Lincoln, R. Lipton, M. Liu,
T. Liu, J. Lykken, K. Maeshima, J.M. Marraffino, D. Mason, P. McBride, P.
Merkel, S. Mrenna, S. Nahn, V. O’Dell, K. Pedro, C. Pena, O. Prokofyev, G.
Rakness, L. Ristori, A. Savoy-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, D. Curry, R.D. Field, S.V. Gleyzer, B.M. Joshi, J. Konigsberg, A.
Korytov, K.H. Lo, P. Ma, K. Matchev, H. Mei, G. Mitselmakher, D. Rosenzweig,
K. Shi, D. Sperka, J. Wang, S. Wang, X. Zuo Florida International University,
Miami, USA
Y.R. Joshi, S. Linn Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
A. Ackert, T. Adams, A. Askew, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F. Johnson, T.
Kolberg, G. Martinez, T. Perry, H. Prosper, A. Saha, C. Schiber, R. Yohay
Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, V. Bhopatkar, S. Colafranceschi, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, M.
Rahmani, T. Roy, F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago,
USA
M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, D. Berry, R.R. Betts, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, S.
Dittmer, O. Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, K. Jung, J.
Kamin, C. Mills, I.D. Sandoval Gonzalez, M.B. Tonjes, H. Trauger, N. Varelas,
H. Wang, X. Wang, Z. Wu, J. Zhang The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, B. 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 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright University of Maryland, College Park, USA
A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, S.C. Eno, Y. Feng, C. Ferraioli, N.J. Hadley,
S. Jabeen, G.Y. Jeng, R.G. Kellogg, J. Kunkle, A.C. Mignerey, S. Nabili, F.
Ricci-Tam, Y.H. Shin, A. Skuja, S.C. Tonwar, K. Wong Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, V. Azzolini, A. Baty, G. Bauer, R. Bi, S. Brandt, W.
Busza, I.A. Cali, M. D’Alfonso, Z. Demiragli, G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov,
P. Harris, D. Hsu, M. Hu, Y. Iiyama, G.M. Innocenti, M. Klute, D. Kovalskyi,
Y.-J. Lee, P.D. Luckey, B. Maier, A.C. Marini, C. Mcginn, C. Mironov, S.
Narayanan, X. Niu, C. Paus, C. Roland, G. Roland, Z. Shi, G.S.F. Stephans, K.
Sumorok, K. Tatar, D. Velicanu, J. Wang, T.W. Wang, B. Wyslouch University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
A.C. Benvenuti${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, P.
Hansen, J. Hiltbrand, Sh. Jain, S. Kalafut, M. Krohn, Y. Kubota, Z. Lesko, J.
Mans, N. Ruckstuhl, R. Rusack, 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, Y. Haddad, 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, J. Bueghly, 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.
Musienko35, 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, C.
Hill, W. Ji, T.Y. Ling, W. Luo, B.L. Winer Princeton University, Princeton,
USA
S. Cooperstein, P. Elmer, J. Hardenbrook, S. Higginbotham, A. Kalogeropoulos,
D. Lange, M.T. Lucchini, J. Luo, D. Marlow, K. Mei, I. Ojalvo, J. Olsen, C.
Palmer, P. Piroué, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, D. Stickland, C. Tully, Z. Wang
University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
A. Barker, V.E. Barnes, S. Das, L. Gutay, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, A. Khatiwada,
B. Mahakud, D.H. Miller, N. Neumeister, C.C. Peng, S. Piperov, H. Qiu, J.F.
Schulte, J. Sun, F. Wang, R. Xiao, W. Xie Purdue University Northwest,
Hammond, USA
T. Cheng, J. Dolen, N. Parashar Rice University, Houston, USA
Z. Chen, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Kilpatrick, W. Li, B.P.
Padley, R. Redjimi, J. Roberts, J. Rorie, W. Shi, Z. Tu, 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, E. Ranken, P. Tan, R. Taus Rutgers, The State University of
New Jersey, Piscataway, USA
A. Agapitos, J.P. Chou, Y. Gershtein, E. Halkiadakis, A. Hart, 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, D. Overton, L.
Perniè, D. Rathjens, A. Safonov Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, F. De Guio, P.R. Dudero, S. Kunori, K. Lamichhane,
S.W. Lee, T. Mengke, S. Muthumuni, T. Peltola, S. Undleeb, I. Volobouev, Z.
Wang Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H. Ni, K.
Padeken, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska, M. Verweij, Q.
Xu University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
M.W. Arenton, P. Barria, B. Cox, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A. Ledovskoy, H. Li, C.
Neu, T. Sinthuprasith, Y. Wang, E. Wolfe, F. Xia Wayne State University,
Detroit, USA
R. Harr, P.E. Karchin, N. Poudyal, J. Sturdy, P. Thapa, S. Zaleski University
of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI, USA
M. Brodski, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, D. Carlsmith, S. Dasu, I. De Bruyn, L.
Dodd, B. Gomber, M. Grothe, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, P. Klabbers, A.
Lanaro, K. Long, R. Loveless, T. Ruggles, A. Savin, V. Sharma, N. Smith, W.H.
Smith, N. Woods †: Deceased
1: Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria
2: Also at IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
3: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
4: Also at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
5: Also at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
6: Also at University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
7: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
8: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
9: Also at Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
10: Also at Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
11: Now at Zewail City of Science and Technology, Zewail, Egypt
12: Also at 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 Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
20: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
21: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, 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 Scuola Normale e Sezione dell’INFN, Pisa, Italy
30: Also at Kyunghee University, Seoul, Korea
31: Also at International Islamic University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
32: Also at Malaysian Nuclear Agency, MOSTI, Kajang, Malaysia
33: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico City, Mexico
34: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems,
Warsaw, Poland
35: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
36: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
37: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
38: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
39: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
40: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
41: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
42: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
43: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
44: Also at University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of
Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
45: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
46: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
47: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
48: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics (SMI), Vienna,
Austria
49: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
50: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey
51: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
52: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
53: Also at Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey
54: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
55: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
56: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
57: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
58: Also at Istanbul 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