BPH-18-005

$HeadURL$ $Id$

BPH-18-005

# Study of the ${\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp}$ decay in proton-proton collisions at
${\sqrt{s}=8\TeV}$

###### Abstract

A study of the ${\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp}$ decay using proton-proton collision
data collected at $\sqrt{s}=8\TeV$ by the CMS experiment at the LHC,
corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $19.6\fbinv$, is presented. The
ratio of branching fractions ${\cal B}(\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp)/{\cal
B}(\PBp\to\JPsi\PK^{*}(892)^{+})$ is measured to be $(1.054\pm 0.057\stat\pm
0.035\syst\pm 0.011({\cal B}))\%$, where the last uncertainty reflects the
uncertainties in the world-average branching fractions of $\PagL$ and
$\PK^{*}(892)^{+}$ decays to reconstructed final states. The invariant mass
distributions of the $\JPsi\PagL$, $\JPsi\Pp$, and $\PagL\Pp$ systems produced
in the $\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp$ decay are investigated and found to be
inconsistent with the pure phase space hypothesis. The analysis is extended by
using a model-independent angular amplitude analysis, which shows that the
observed invariant mass distributions are consistent with the contributions
from excited kaons decaying to the $\PagL\Pp$ system.

##  0.1 Introduction

The $\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp$ decay is the first observed example of a $\PB$
meson decay into baryons and a charmonium state (the charge-conjugate states
are implied throughout the paper). The first evidence for the
$\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp$ decay was obtained by the BaBar Collaboration [1],
along with a measurement of its branching fraction of
$\mathcal{B}(\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp)=(12^{+9}_{-6})\times 10^{-6}$. Later, this
decay was observed by the Belle Collaboration and its branching fraction was
measured to be $\mathcal{B}(\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp)=(11.7\pm
2.8^{+1.8}_{-2.3})\times 10^{-6}$ [2], resulting in the world-average
branching fraction of $\mathcal{B}(\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp)=(11.8\pm 3.1)\times
10^{-6}$ [3].

The decay mode under study provides an opportunity to search for new
intermediate resonances in the $\JPsi\PagL$, $\JPsi\Pp$, and $\PagL\Pp$
systems. The interest in $\PB$ hadron decays to charmonium-baryon systems has
increased since the observation of three pentaquark states in
${\PgL}_{\PQb}^{0}\to\JPsi\Pp\PKm$ decays by the LHCb Collaboration [4, 5].
While these states are beyond the available phase space of the
$\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp$ decay, this process can target potential low-mass
pentaquark states in the $\JPsi\Pp$ system, as well as new resonances in the
$\JPsi\PagL$ system, where one of the new states is expected to appear close
to the threshold and represent itself as a threshold enhancement [6].
Recently, the existence of a molecular baryon state decaying to $\JPsi\PagL$
and potentially accessible via the $\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp$ decay has been
predicted [7].

In this paper, we report on a study of the $\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp$
($\JPsi\to\PGmp\PGmm$, $\PagL\to\Pap\Pgpp$) decay using a data sample of
proton-proton ($\Pp\Pp$) collisions collected by the CMS experiment in 2012 at
$\sqrt{s}=8\TeV$, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 19.6$\fbinv$.
Exploring the large available integrated luminosities of $\Pp\Pp$ collisions
and the large production cross section of $\bbbar$ pairs at the CERN LHC, the
CMS experiment has developed an efficient trigger for displaced
$\JPsi\to\PGmp\PGmm$ decays, described in Section 0.3. This trigger allowed
CMS to conduct this study of the $\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp$ decay, including the
measurement of its branching fraction and the study of the $\JPsi\PagL$,
$\JPsi\Pp$, and $\PagL\Pp$ systems. The decay $\PBp\to\JPsi\PK^{*}(892)^{+}$
($\PK^{*}(892)^{+}\to\PKzS\Pgpp\to\Pgpp\Pgpm\Pgpp$) is chosen as the
normalization channel, because it is measured with high precision and has a
similar decay topology to the $\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp$ decay. In what follows,
the $\PK^{*}(892)^{+}$ particle is denoted as $\PK^{*+}$. The ratio of the
branching fractions is measured using the following formula:

$\dfrac{\mathcal{B}(\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp)}{\mathcal{B}(\PBp\to\JPsi\PK^{*+})}=\dfrac{N(\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp)\mathcal{B}(\PK^{*+}\to\PKzS\Pgpp)\mathcal{B}(\PKzS\to\Pgpp\Pgpm)\epsilon(\PBp\to\JPsi\PK^{*+})}{N(\PBp\to\JPsi\PK^{*+})\mathcal{B}(\PagL\to\Pap\Pgpp)\epsilon(\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp)},$
(1)

where $N$ and $\epsilon$ correspond to the number of observed decays and the
total efficiency of the decay, respectively. The total efficiency includes the
product of efficiencies for the subsequent decays $\PK^{*+}\to\PKzS\Pgpp$,
$\PKzS\to\Pgpp\Pgpm$, and $\PagL\to\Pap\Pgpp$. The invariant mass
distributions of the $\JPsi\PagL$, $\JPsi\Pp$, and $\PagL\Pp$ systems produced
in the $\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp$ decay are investigated using a model-independent
angular analysis.

##  0.2 The CMS detector

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

The silicon tracker measures charged particles within the range
$\abs{\eta}<2.5$. During the LHC running period when the data used in this
paper were recorded, the silicon tracker consisted of 1440 silicon pixel and
15 148 silicon strip detector modules. The track resolutions are typically
1.5$\%$ in transverse momentum ($\pt$) and 25–90 (45–150)$\mum$ in the
transverse (longitudinal) impact parameter [8] for nonisolated particles with
$1<\pt<10\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<1.4$.

Muons are measured within $\abs{\eta}<2.4$, with detection planes made using
three technologies: drift tubes, cathode strip chambers, and resistive-plate
chambers. Matching muons to tracks measured in the silicon tracker results in
a relative $\pt$ resolution of 0.8–3.0$\%$ for muons with $\pt<10\GeV$ used in
this analysis, depending on the muon $\abs{\eta}$ [9].

Events of interest are selected using a two-tiered trigger system [10]. The
first level (L1), composed of custom hardware processors, uses information
from the calorimeters and muon detectors to select events at a rate of around
100$\unit{kHz}$ within a time interval of less than 4$\mus$. The second level,
known as the high-level trigger (HLT), consists of a farm of processors
running a version of the full event reconstruction software optimized for fast
processing, and reduces the event rate to around 1$\unit{kHz}$ before data
storage.

A more detailed description of the CMS detector, together with a definition of
the coordinate system used and the relevant kinematic variables, can be found
in Ref. [11].

##  0.3 Data sample and event selection

Data were collected with a dedicated trigger, optimized for the selection of
$\PQb$ hadrons decaying to $\JPsi(\PGmp\PGmm)$. The L1 trigger required two
oppositely charged muons, each with $\pt>3\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.1$. At the
HLT, a $\JPsi$ candidate decaying into a $\PGmp\PGmm$ pair displaced from the
interaction point was required. Each muon must have $\pt>4\GeV$, and the
dimuon $\pt$ must exceed $6.9\GeV$. The HLT demanded that $\JPsi$ candidates
reconstructed from opposite-sign dimuons have an invariant mass between 2.9
and 3.3. The three-dimensional (3D) distance of closest approach of the two
muons of a pair to each other was required to be less than 0.5cm. The dimuon
vertex fit was required to have a transverse decay length significance
$L_{xy}/\sigma_{L_{xy}}>3$, where $L_{xy}$ and $\sigma_{L_{xy}}$ are,
respectively, the distance from the common vertex to the beam axis in the
transverse plane, and its uncertainty. Finally, the dimuon vertex fit
probability, calculated using the $\chi^{2}$ and the number of degrees of
freedom of the vertex fit, was required to exceed 10$\%$, while the angle
$\alpha$ between the dimuon $\pt$ vector and the direction connecting the beam
spot and the dimuon vertex in the transverse plane was required to satisfy
$\cos\alpha>0.9$.

The analysis requires two muons of opposite charge that must match those that
triggered the event readout. The trigger requirements are confirmed and the
$\JPsi$ candidates are selected by tightening the dimuon mass region to be
within 150$\MeV$ of the $\JPsi$ meson mass $M_{\JPsi}^{\text{PDG}}$ [3]
($M_{\text{X}}^{\text{PDG}}$ denotes the world-average mass of hadron X).

To reconstruct a $\PBp$ candidate, the $\JPsi$ candidate is combined with a
positively charged particle track, assumed to be a proton track, and a $\PagL$
candidate. The track must satisfy the CMS high-purity requirements [8]. The
$\PagL$ candidates are formed from displaced two-prong vertices under the
assumption of the $\PagL\to\Pap\Pgpp$ decay, as described in Ref. [12].
Daughter particles of the $\PagL$ candidate are refitted to a common vertex,
and the vertex fit probability must exceed $1\%$. The proton mass is assigned
to the higher-$\pt$ daughter track. To select the candidates in the $\PagL$
signal region, we demand that the $\Pap\Pgpp$ invariant mass satisfy
$\abs{M(\Pap\Pgpp)-M_{\PagL}^{\text{PDG}}}<2\sigma^{\PagL}$, where the
effective $\PagL$ signal resolution $\sigma^{\PagL}=3.7\MeV$ is measured in
data by fitting the $M(\Pap\Pgpp)$ distribution with a sum of two Gaussian
functions with a common mean.

Since reliable charged hadron type identification in CMS is not possible, the
contribution from $\PKzS\to\Pgpm\Pgpp$ decays is present in the
$\PagL\to\Pap\Pgpp$ sample. It is removed by demanding that the invariant mass
of the two $\PagL$ candidate tracks, where both are assigned the charged pion
mass, satisfies $\abs{M(\Pgpp\Pgpm)-M_{\PKzS}^{\text{PDG}}}>2\sigma^{\PKzS}$,
where the effective $\PKzS$ signal resolution $\sigma^{\PKzS}=9.2\MeV$ is
measured in data by fitting the $M(\Pgpp\Pgpm)$ distribution with a sum of two
Gaussian functions with a common mean.

As the last step of the reconstruction, the kinematic vertex fit of the
$\PagL$ candidate, the proton track, and the dimuon is performed, with the
dimuon mass constrained to $M_{\JPsi}^{\text{PDG}}$; this vertex is referred
to as the $\PB$ vertex. The selected candidates are required to have
$\pt(\JPsi)>7\GeV$, $\pt(\PagL)>1\GeV$, and $\pt(\Pp)>1\GeV$.

Multiple $\Pp\Pp$ interactions in the same or nearby beam crossing (pileup)
are present in data, with an average multiplicity of about 20. The hard-
scattering vertex in the event with the highest cosine of the three-
dimensional (3D) pointing angle between the line connecting this vertex with
the $\PB$ vertex and the $\PBp$ candidate momentum is chosen as the primary
vertex (PV). The following requirement is used to select $\PBp$ candidates
consistent with originating from the PV: $\cos\alpha(\PBp,\text{PV})>0.99$,
where $\alpha(\PBp,\text{PV})$ is the two-dimensional (2D) angle in the
transverse plane between the $\PBp$ candidate momentum and the vector pointing
from the PV to the $\PB$ vertex. The following requirement on the $\PB$ vertex
displacement is also applied: $L_{xy}(\PBp)/\sigma_{L_{xy}(\PBp)}>3$, where
$L_{xy}(\PBp)$ is the distance between the primary and $\PB$ vertices in the
transverse plane, and $\sigma_{L_{xy}(\PBp)}$ is its uncertainty. The $\PBp$
candidate kinematic vertex fit probability must exceed $1\%$. The $\PagL$
candidate is required to be consistent with originating from the $\PBp$ decay
by requiring $\cos\alpha({\PagL,\PBp})>0$, where $\alpha({\PagL,\PBp})$ is the
angle between the $\PagL$ momentum and the vector connecting the $\PBp$ and
$\PagL$ vertices.

The normalization decay channel $\PBp\to\JPsi\PK^{*+}$
($\PK^{*+}\to\PKzS\Pgpp\to\Pgpp\Pgpm\Pgpp$) candidates are selected using the
same reconstruction chain. Identical requirements are used to select the
$\JPsi$ candidate and the $\Pgpp$ track from the $\PK^{*+}$ meson decay. The
selection of the $\PKzS$ candidates is the same as for the $\PagL$ candidates,
except that the invariant mass of the candidate pions from the $\PKzS$ meson
decay is required to satisfy
$\abs{M(\Pgpp\Pgpm)-M_{\PKzS}^{\text{PDG}}}<2\sigma^{\PKzS}_{\text{eff}}$. The
contamination of the $\PKzS$ candidates from the $\PagL\to\Pap\Pgpp$ decay is
reduced with the requirement:
$\abs{M(\Pap\Pgpp)-M^{\text{PDG}}_{\PagL}}>2\sigma^{\PagL}_{\text{eff}}$,
where the negatively charged track is assigned the proton mass.

To calculate the reconstruction efficiency, a study based on simulated signal
events is performed. The events are generated with $\PYTHIA$ v6.424 [13]. The
$\PB$ meson decays are modeled according to a phase space decay model using
$\EVTGEN$ v1.3.0 [14] for both the $\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp$ and
$\PBp\to\JPsi\PK^{*+}$ channels. The simulation sample corresponding to the
$\PBp\to\JPsi\PK^{*+}$ decay is reweighted according to the angular
distributions of the $\PK^{*+}$ and $\JPsi$ systems observed in data by
applying a weight to each simulated event obtained using a linear
interpolation of the data-to-simulation ratio histogram for each angular
variable. The events are passed through a detailed CMS detector simulation
based on $\GEANTfour$ [15]. To estimate reconstruction efficiencies (Section
0.5), matching of the reconstructed candidates to the generated particles is
performed by requiring $\Delta
R=\sqrt{\smash[b]{(\Delta\eta)^{2}+(\Delta\phi)^{2}}}<0.004$ (0.03) for $\PGm$
($\Pp$, $\Pgpp$, $\PagL$, and $\PKzS$) candidates, where $\Delta\eta$ and
$\Delta\phi$ are the differences in the pseudorapidity and the azimuthal
angle, respectively, between the momenta of the reconstructed and generated
particles.

##  0.4 Signal yields extraction

The invariant mass distribution of the selected $\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp$
candidates is shown in Fig. 1 (upper). An unbinned, extended maximum-
likelihood fit with a signal plus background hypothesis is performed on this
distribution. The signal component is modeled with a sum of three Gaussian
functions with floating common mean and overall normalization, while the
widths and the relative normalizations of the three Gaussian functions are
fixed to the values obtained from simulation. The background component is
parameterized by a threshold function: $(x-x_{0})^{\beta}$, where
$x_{0}=M_{\PagL}^{\text{PDG}}+M_{\JPsi}^{\text{PDG}}+M_{\Pp}^{\text{PDG}}$ and
$\beta$ is a free parameter of the fit. The fit results in a signal yield of
$452\pm 23$ events.

Figure 1 (lower left) shows the observed $\PBp\to\JPsi\PKzS\Pgpp$ invariant
mass distribution with the requirement on the $\PKzS\Pgpp$ invariant mass to
be inside a $\pm 200\MeV$ window around the world-average $\PK^{*+}$ mass [3].
The $\PBp$ signal is modeled with a sum of two Gaussian functions with a
common mean and all the parameters floating in the fit, while the background
is described by a second-order polynomial.

Figure 1:  The invariant mass distribution of the selected
$\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp$ candidates (upper). The invariant mass distributions of
$\JPsi\PKzS\Pgpp$ (lower left) and $\PKzS\Pgpp$ (lower right) for the
$\PBp\to\JPsi\PK^{*+}$ decay candidates. The points are data and the solid
curves are the results of the fits explained in the text. The vertical bars
represent the statistical uncertainty. On the lower right picture the
background-subtracted candidates using the $M(\JPsi\PKzS\Pgpp)$ as a
discriminating variable are shown. The dash-dotted curves show the $\PBp$
signal in the upper and lower left plots, and the $\PK^{*+}$ signal in the
lower right plot. The dashed lines indicate the background contributions. The
vertical lines in the lower right plot indicate the $\PK^{*+}$ invariant mass
window used for the normalization, as described in the text.

In order to evaluate the pure $\PK^{*+}$ meson contribution, excluding other
resonances in the $\PKzS\Pgpp$ system, the background-subtracted
$M(\PKzS\Pgpp)$ distribution shown in Fig. 1 (lower right) is fitted in the
range of $\pm 200\MeV$ around the $\PK^{*+}$ mass. Background subtraction is
performed using the sPlot technique [16] with the $M(\JPsi\PKzS\Pgpp)$ used as
the discriminating variable. The instrumental mass resolution of the
$\PK^{*+}$ peak is negligible in comparison with its natural width; therefore
a relativistic Breit–Wigner function is used as the signal model, while a
threshold polynomial function is chosen to model the non-$\PK^{*+}$ component:
$(x-x_{0}^{\PK^{*}})^{\gamma}$, where
$x_{0}^{\PK^{*}}=M_{\PKzS}^{\text{PDG}}+M_{\Pgpp}^{\text{PDG}}$ and $\gamma$
is a free parameter in the fit.

To obtain the observed number of $\PBp\to\JPsi\PK^{*+}$ decays for the
measurement of the ratio of branching fractions, the signal Breit–Wigner
function is integrated over $\pm 50\MeV$ around the $\PK^{*+}$ mass, resulting
in an yield of $20~{}863\pm 357$ events. The efficiency of the requirement on
$M(\PKzS\Pgpp)$ of being within $\pm 50\MeV$ of the $\PK^{*+}$ mass is taken
into account in the calculation of the total efficiency (Section 0.5).

##  0.5 Efficiency calculation

The efficiency for detecting and identifying the $\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp$ decay
is calculated as the ratio of the numbers of reconstructed to generated events
in simulation. The overall efficiency includes the trigger and reconstruction
efficiencies, and the detector acceptance. The efficiency in each channel is
obtained using simulated samples described in Section 0.3. The efficiency
ratio, which is used in the measurement of the ratio of branching fractions,
is found to be
$\epsilon(\PBp\to\JPsi\PK^{*+})/\epsilon(\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp)=1.347\pm
0.023$, where the uncertainty is statistical only and accounts for the limited
event counts in the corresponding simulated samples.

For the study of the two-body intermediate invariant masses in the
$\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp$ decay, we perform an efficiency-correction procedure to
account for detector effects. Crucial to the investigation of the $\PagL\Pp$
system is the possibility of intermediate high-mass $\PK^{*+}$ resonances that
can decay to $\PagL\Pp$ [3]. We list these resonances in Table 0.5 and
designate them collectively as $\PK^{*+}_{2,3,4}$. The details of the decay
$\PBp\to\JPsi\PK^{*+}_{2,3,4}$, followed by $\PK^{*+}_{2,3,4}\to\PagL\Pp$ are
discussed in Section 0.8. Because of this possibility, the efficiency is
calculated as a function of two variables: the invariant mass of the
$\PagL\Pp$ system, $M(\PagL\Pp)$, and the cosine of the
$\PK^{*+}_{2,3,4}\to\PagL\Pp$ system helicity angle $\cos\theta_{\PK^{*}}$,
which is defined as the angle between the $\PagL$ and $\PBp$ momentum vectors
in the $\PagL\Pp$ system rest frame (as illustrated in Fig. 2 together with
other decay angles). The 2D efficiency is calculated as the ratio of the 2D
histogram at the reconstruction level to that at the generator level. The data
are corrected for the reconstruction efficiency by applying a
$1/\epsilon(M(\PagL\Pp),\cos\theta_{\PK^{*}})$ weight to each event.
Efficiency values at each point in the 2D space are evaluated using a bilinear
interpolation algorithm. Since the points inside the border bins of the 2D
space cannot be interpolated, the efficiency values at these points are
assumed to be the values at the centers of the corresponding bins.

The mass, width, and $\text{J}^{\text{P}}$ quantum numbers for the known
$\PK^{*+}$ states [3] that can decay to $\PagL\Pp$.  Resonance Mass ($\MeV$)
Natural width ($\MeV$) $\text{J}^{\text{P}}$ $\PKstiv{}^{+}$ $2045\pm 9$
$198\pm 30$ $4^{+}$ ${\PK^{*}_{2}(2250)}{}^{+}$ $2247\pm 17$ $180\pm 30$
$2^{-}$ ${\PK^{*}_{3}(2320)}{}^{+}$ $2324\pm 24$ $150\pm 30$ $3^{+}$

Figure 2:  An illustration of the decay angles in the
$\PBp\to\JPsi\PK^{*+}_{2,3,4}(\PagL\Pp)$ decay.

##  0.6 Evaluation of the systematic uncertainties in the branching fraction
ratio measurement

In this section, we discuss the sources of the systematic uncertainty in the
measurement of the ratio ${\cal B}(\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp)/{\cal
B}(\PBp\to\JPsi\PK^{*+})$, defined by Eq. (1).

Since the signal $\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp$ and the normalization
$\PBp\to\JPsi\PK^{*+}$ decays have the same topology, the systematic
uncertainties related to the muon reconstruction, track reconstruction, and
trigger efficiencies should almost cancel out in Eq. (1). To check if this is
the case, simulated signal samples for both $\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp$ and
$\PBp\to\JPsi\PK^{*+}$ decays are validated by comparing distributions of
variables used in the event selection between background-subtracted data and
simulated signal samples. As a result of these studies, an additional
systematic uncertainty is assigned to account for the deviation between data
and simulation in the $\eta$ distributions of $\PBp$ meson for the signal and
normalization channels, and the $M(\PKzS\Pgpp)$ distribution for the
$\PBp\to\JPsi\PK^{*+}$ decay. The deviation in the $\eta$ distributions of
$\PBp$ meson were taken into account by reweighting the simulated samples
according to the $\eta$ distributions of $\PBp$ meson observed on data and
recalculating the efficiency ratio using the reweighted simulation samples;
the systematic uncertainty is calculated as the difference in efficiency
ratios calculated before and after reweighting. The difference in the
$M(\PKzS\Pgpp)$ distribution is taken into account by altering the baseline
mass window width used for $\PK^{*+}$ selection of 50, with 35 and 70windows,
and recalculating the final branching fraction value; the largest deviation
from the value obtained using the baseline selection is considered as
systematic uncertainty.

The systematic uncertainty related to the choice of the background model is
estimated separately for the fits to the $\JPsi\PagL\Pp$, $\JPsi\PKzS\Pgpp{}$,
and $\PKzS\Pgpp$ invariant mass distributions. To evaluate this uncertainty,
several additional background modeling functions were used: polynomials of the
first, second, and third order for the $\JPsi\PKzS\Pgpp$ invariant mass
distribution; and the function $(x-x_{0})^{\delta}$ multiplied by polynomials
of the first and second order for the $\JPsi\PagL\Pp$ and $\PKzS\Pgpp$
invariant mass distributions.

Another source of systematic uncertainty is due to the modeling of the signal
shape in the $M(\JPsi\PagL\Pp)$ and $M(\JPsi\PKzS\Pgpp)$ invariant mass
distributions. In the case of the $\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp$ decay, the resolution
functions in the baseline fits are obtained from simulation. The associated
uncertainty is estimated by allowing the widths to float in the fit and by
adding a double-Gaussian function as a fit option. For the
$\PBp\to\JPsi\PK^{*+}$ decay, the corresponding systematic uncertainty is
estimated by using alternative signal models to fit the $\JPsi\PKzS\Pgpp$
invariant mass distribution, such as a sum of three Gaussian functions or two
Crystal Ball functions [17, 18].

For each of the variations, the largest deviation in the measured signal yield
is used as the systematic uncertainty. Variations of the signal and background
components are performed independently. The uncertainty in the relative
efficiency from the simulation related to the limited number of events in the
simulated samples is considered as an additional source of systematic
uncertainty.

Table 0.6 summarizes the individual systematic uncertainties, as well as the
total systematic uncertainty, calculated as the quadratic sum of the
individual components.

Summary of the relative systematic uncertainties in the ${\cal
B}(\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp)/{\cal B}(\PBp\to\JPsi\PK^{*+})$ ratio.  Source
Relative uncertainty ($\%$) Discrepancy between data and simulation 2.2
Background model in the $M(\JPsi\PagL\Pp)$ distribution 1.1 Background model
in the $M(\JPsi\PKzS\Pgpp)$ distribution 0.1 Background model in the
$M(\PKzS\Pgpp)$ distribution 1.2 Signal model in the $M(\JPsi\PagL\Pp)$
distribution 0.9 Signal model in the $M(\JPsi\PKzS\Pgpp$) distribution 0.6
Simulated sample event count 1.7 Total systematic uncertainty 3.3

##  0.7 Measurement of the ratio of branching fractions

Using the world-average values of the $\mathcal{B}(\PK^{*+}\to\PKzS\Pgpp)$,
$\mathcal{B}(\PKzS\to\Pgpp\Pgpm)$, $\mathcal{B}(\PagL\to\Pap\Pgpp)$ branching
fractions [3], the relative efficiency described in Section 0.5, and the
signal yields, the ratio ${\cal B}(\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp)/{\cal
B}(\PBp\to\JPsi\PK^{*+})$ is measured using Eq. (1) to be $(1.054\pm
0.057\stat\pm 0.035\syst\pm 0.011({\cal B}))\%$, where the first uncertainty
is statistical, the second is systematic (as discussed in Section 0.6), and
the third is due to the uncertainties in the world-average branching fractions
of the decays involved.

From this ratio and the world-average value of ${\cal
B}(\PBp\to\JPsi\PK^{*+})=(1.43\pm 0.08)\times 10^{-3}$ [3], the branching
fraction ${\cal B}(\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp)$ = $(15.1\pm 0.8\stat\pm 0.5\syst\pm
0.9({\cal B}))\times 10^{-6}$ is obtained, where now the last uncertainty
includes the uncertainty in the $\PBp\to\JPsi\PK^{*+}$ branching fraction.
This measurement is the most precise to date.

##  0.8 Study of two-body invariant mass spectra

In this section, the invariant mass distributions of the $\JPsi\PagL$,
$\JPsi\Pp$, and $\PagL\Pp$ two-body combinations of the $\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp$
decay products are investigated. To account for the event selection
efficiency, each event is assigned a weight equal to
$1/\epsilon(M(\Pp\PagL),\cos\theta_{\PK^{*}})$, where
$\epsilon(M(\PagL\Pp),\cos\theta_{\PK^{*}})$ is obtained from simulation, as
described in Section 0.5. Background subtraction is performed using the sPlot
technique, with the $\JPsi\PagL\Pp$ invariant mass as the discriminating
variable. Figure 3 shows the efficiency-corrected and background-subtracted
invariant mass distributions of the $\JPsi\Pp$, $\JPsi\PagL$, and $\PagL\Pp$
systems. These invariant mass distributions are compared with the pure phase
space decay hypothesis (shown by the dashed lines), obtained from the
generator-level simulation. The data are poorly described by the pure phase
space hypothesis in all three distributions. The degree of incompatibility
between the data and this hypothesis is measured using the likelihood ratio
method and is determined to be at least 6.1, 5.5, and 3.4 standard deviations
for the $\JPsi\Pp$, $\JPsi\PagL$, and $\PagL\Pp$ invariant mass distributions,
respectively. More details of the significance calculation are given in
Section 0.8.1. We conclude that none of the three mass spectra can be
adequately described by a pure three-body nonresonant phase space decay
hypothesis, which is an indication of more complex dynamics in the
$\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp$ decay.

Figure 3:  The invariant mass distributions of the $\JPsi\Pp$ (upper left),
$\JPsi\PagL$ (upper right), and $\PagL\Pp$ (lower) systems from the
$\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp$ decay. The points show the efficiency-corrected,
background-subtracted data; the vertical bars represent the statistical
uncertainty. Superimposed curves are obtained from simulation: the dashed
lines correspond to the pure phase space distribution ($H_{\text{PS}}$); the
solid curves represent the phase space distribution corrected for the
$\PagL\Pp$ angular structure with the inclusion of the first eight moments,
corresponding to resonances decaying to the $\PagL\Pp$ system with maximum
spin of 4 ($H_{\text{L8}}$); the dotted curves show the phase space
distribution reweighted according to the $\cos\theta_{\PK^{*}}$ distribution,
which is defined as the $H_{\cos\theta}$ hypothesis. The mentioned curves are
explained in Section 0.8.1.

There are at least three known $\PK^{*+}$ resonances, which we designate as
$\PK^{*+}_{2,3,4}$, that can decay to $\PagL\Pp$, as listed in Table 0.5 [3].
Even though the three $\PK^{*+}_{2,3,4}$ resonances listed in Table 0.5 are
beyond the kinematic region of the $\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp$ decay, these broad
excited kaon states can contribute to the $\JPsi\Pp$ and $\JPsi\PagL$
invariant mass distributions, altering the pure phase space distributions.

To account for possible contributions from these resonances, we use a model-
independent approach developed by BaBar in a search for the $\PZ(4430)$
resonance in the $\JPsi\Pgpp$ and $\psi(2S)\Pgpp$ channels [19]. This approach
was later used by LHCb in a similar search for the $\PZ(4430)$ particle in the
$\psi(2S)\Pgpp$ invariant mass spectrum [20] and to support the observation of
possible pentaquark states $\cmsSymbolFace{P}_{\PQc}(4380)^{+}$ and
$\cmsSymbolFace{P}_{\PQc}(4450)^{+}$ in the $\JPsi\Pp$ system [21]. This
method tests whether the contributions from a reflection of the resonant
$\PagL\Pp$ angular amplitudes in the $\JPsi\PagL$ and $\JPsi\Pp$ spectra are
sufficient to describe the data.

The background-subtracted and efficiency-corrected $\cos\theta_{\PK^{*}}$
distribution in data is shown in Fig. 4. It is clear that, unlike the
simulation of $\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp$ decay based on a pure phase space
hypothesis, shown in the same figure, the distribution from data is not flat
and has a structure that could affect the two-body invariant mass
distributions under study.

Figure 4:  The background-subtracted and efficiency-corrected
$\cos\theta_{\PK^{*}}$ distribution from the data (points with vertical bars)
and the phase space simulation (shaded histogram). The vertical bars represent
the statistical uncertainty.

In bins of $M(\PagL\Pp)$, the $\cos\theta_{\PK^{*}}$ distribution can be
expressed as an expansion in terms of Legendre polynomials:

$\frac{\rd N}{\rd\cos\theta_{\PK^{*}}}=\sum_{j=0}^{l_{\text{max}}}\langle
P_{j}^{U}\rangle P_{j}(\cos\theta_{\PK^{*}}),$ (2)

where $N$ is the efficiency-corrected and background-subtracted yield,
$l_{\text{max}}$ depends on the maximum angular momentum used to describe the
data, $P_{j}$ are the Legendre polynomials, and $\langle P_{j}^{U}\rangle$ are
the unnormalized Legendre moments. The Legendre moments contain the full
angular information of the $\PagL\Pp$ system and can be expressed using the
following formula obtained by projecting the moments in Eq. (2) onto a
Legendre polynomial basis:

$\langle
P_{j}^{U}\rangle=\sum_{i=1}^{N_{\text{reco}}}\frac{w^{i}_{\textit{sPlot}}}{\epsilon^{i}}P_{j}(\cos\theta_{\PK^{*}}),$
(3)

where $N_{\text{reco}}$ is the number of selected events in each $M(\PagL\Pp)$
bin, $\epsilon^{i}=\epsilon^{i}(\cos\theta^{i}_{\PK^{*}},M(\PagL\Pp))$ is the
efficiency correction factor, obtained as described in Section 0.5, and
$w^{i}_{\textit{sPlot}}$ is the sPlot background subtraction weight.

To determine the proper value for $l_{\text{max}}$, we note that the $\rd
N/\rd\cos\theta_{\PK^{*}}$ distribution for a $\PK^{*}$ resonance with spin
$S$ is proportional to the square of the Wigner $d$ function
$d^{S(\PK^{*})}_{\lambda_{\PK^{*}},(\lambda_{\Pp}-\lambda_{\PagL})}(\theta_{\PK^{*}})$,
given by the following equation:

$d^{S}_{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}}(\theta_{\PK^{*}})=\sum_{s=s_{\text{min}}}^{s_{\text{max}}}(-1)^{s}\frac{\sqrt{(S+\lambda_{2})!(S-\lambda_{2})!(S+\lambda_{1})!(S-\lambda_{1})!}}{(S+\lambda_{2}-s)!(S-\lambda_{1}-s)!(s-\lambda_{2}+\lambda_{1})!s!}\left(\cos\frac{\theta_{\PK^{*}}}{2}\right)^{n_{1}}\left(\sin\frac{\theta_{\PK^{*}}}{2}\right)^{n_{2}},$
(4)

where $n_{1}=2S+\lambda_{2}-\lambda_{1}-2s$,
$n_{2}=\lambda_{1}-\lambda_{2}+2s$, $\lambda_{1}=\lambda_{\PK^{*}}$, and
$\lambda_{2}=\lambda_{\Pp}-\lambda_{\PagL}$ are the corresponding spin
projections, and $s$ is an integer such that:

$s_{\text{min}}=\text{min}\\{0,\lambda_{2}-\lambda_{1}\\}\geq-2S,~{}s_{\text{max}}=\text{max}\\{0,S+\lambda_{2},~{}S-\lambda_{1}\\}\leq
2S.$ (5)

By expanding Eq. (4), one can see that the maximum power of
$\cos\theta_{\PK^{*}}$ in the expression for $\rd
N/\rd\cos\theta_{\PK^{*}}\sim(d^{S}_{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}}(\theta_{\PK^{*}}))^{2}$
is given by $l_{\text{max}}=n_{1}+n_{2}=2S$. Similarly, if one considers the
interference between two resonances with spins $S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$,
$l_{\text{max}}=S_{1}+S_{2}$. Consequently, in order to fully describe the
contributions from the resonances listed in Table 0.5, including their
interference, it is sufficient to consider the Legendre moments up to twice
the maximum spin of the considered resonances, i.e., $l_{\text{max}}=8$. The
dependence of the first eight Legendre moments on $M(\PagL\Pp)$ from data is
shown in Fig. 5. If there were no resonant contributions to the intermediate
two-body systems in the $\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp$ decay, the distributions shown
in Fig. 5 would all be consistent with zero, which is not the case.

Figure 5:  The dependence of the first eight Legendre moments on
$M(\PagL\Pp)$. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainty.

To investigate whether the $\PagL\Pp$ angular structure caused by the
$\PK^{*+}_{2,3,4}$ resonances with spins up to four is sufficient to describe
the data, a reweighting of the simulated signal sample is performed and the
result is compared with the background-subtracted and efficiency-corrected
data. A significant disagreement between the data and the reweighted
simulation that accounts for the invariant mass of the $\PagL\Pp$ system and
the angular structure corresponding to the resonances with the spin up to four
in the $\PagL\Pp$ system may indicate the presence of an exotic state in the
$\JPsi\PagL$ or $\JPsi\Pp$ systems. Since the data are corrected for the
reconstruction efficiency, we use generator-level simulated samples without
detector simulation for the reweighting. The simulation is forced to reproduce
the $\PagL\Pp$ invariant mass spectrum observed in data by applying a weight
to each simulated event obtained using a linear interpolation of the data-to-
simulation ratio histogram. The angular structure is introduced into the
simulation by using appropriate weights, described below. To obtain the
weights corresponding to the angular structure, Eq. (2) is expanded as
follows:

$\frac{\rd
N}{\rd\cos\theta_{\PK^{*}}}=\frac{N}{2}+\sum_{j=1}^{l_{\text{max}}}\langle
P_{j}^{U}\rangle
P_{j}(\cos\theta_{\PK^{*}})=\frac{N}{2}(1+\sum_{j=1}^{l_{\text{max}}}\langle\frac{2\langle
P_{j}^{U}\rangle}{N}\rangle P_{j}(\cos\theta_{\PK^{*}})).\\\ $ (6)

The factor of $N/2$ in Eq. (6) appears because of the Legendre polynomial
normalization convention, i.e., $\langle P_{0}^{N}\rangle
P_{0}(\cos\theta_{\PK^{*}})=1/2$. By factoring out the $N/2$ term from the
right-hand side of Eq. (6), one can obtain the weights given by the following
equation:

$w^{i}=1+\sum_{j=1}^{l_{\text{max}}}\langle P_{j}^{N}\rangle
P_{j}(\cos\theta_{\PK^{*}}),$ (7)

where $\langle P_{j}^{N}\rangle=2\langle
P_{j}^{U}\rangle/N_{\text{reco}}^{\text{corr}}$ are the normalized Legendre
moments and $N_{\text{reco}}^{\text{corr}}$ is the corrected number of
reconstructed events in each $M(\PagL\Pp)$ bin.

The templates obtained after applying the weights corresponding to the
observed $\PagL\Pp$ invariant mass structure, as well as the weights given by
Eq. (7) applied to the simulation, are then compared with the efficiency-
corrected and background-subtracted data. Results are shown in Fig. 3 (solid
line). As seen from the lower panel in the figure, the $M(\PagL\Pp)$
distribution in data is well described by the reweighted simulation, which is
expected by the construction of the weights. The $M(\PagL\Pp)$ distribution is
not affected by the $w^{i}$ weights since the integrals of the individual
$P_{j}(x)$ functions over the full range in $\cos\theta_{\PK^{*}}$ are equal
to zero. It is also evident from the two upper panels in Fig. 3 that the
description of the $M(\JPsi\Pp)$ and $M(\JPsi\PagL)$ data distributions is
improved after accounting for both the observed angular and invariant mass
structures in the $\PagL\Pp$ system.

###  0.8.1 Significance calculation

In this section, the compatibility of the data with both hypotheses of pure
phase space ($H_{\text{PS}}$) and phase space augmented with the eight
Legendre moments and the reweighting of the $M(\PagL\Pp)$ distribution to
describe the structure observed in data ($H_{\text{L8}}$) is quantified using
the likelihood ratio technique. To test the compatibility of data with the
$H_{\text{L8}}$ hypothesis, 2000 pseudo-experiments were generated, each with
the number of signal events, $N$, equal to the one observed in data, according
to the probability density function corresponding to this hypothesis
$F^{X}(H_{\text{L8}})$, where $X$ stands for the projection on the invariant
mass of the corresponding system. An additional hypothesis $H_{\cos\theta}$
has a probability density function $F^{X}(H_{\cos\theta})$ that accounts for
all the features in the $\cos\theta_{\PK^{*}}$ and $M(\PagL\Pp)$ distributions
observed in data. It is obtained by reweighting the pure phase space
simulation to reproduce the $\cos\theta_{\PK^{*}}$ distribution in data (shown
in Fig. 4) in each $M(\PagL\Pp)$ bin, as well as by reweighting the
$M(\PagL\Pp)$ spectrum in simulation to match the one observed in data.
Therefore, the $F^{X}(H_{\cos\theta})$ function reflects the total angular
structure of the $\PagL\Pp$ system and provides the best description of the
$M(\JPsi\PagL)$ and $M(\JPsi\Pp)$ invariant mass spectra. The logarithm of the
likelihood ratio is used to define the test statistic:

$2\Delta\text{NLL}=-2\sum_{i=1}^{N}\ln\frac{F^{X}(H_{\text{L8}})}{F^{X}(H_{\cos\theta})},$
(8)

where the sum runs over the events in each pseudo-experiment or in data.

The $2\Delta\text{NLL}$ distribution from the pseudo-experiments is well
described by a Gaussian function; the $2\Delta\text{NLL}_{\text{data}}$ value
is calculated using collision data. The significance of the $H_{\text{L8}}$
hypothesis incompatibility with data is calculated as the number of standard
deviations between the observed $2\Delta\text{NLL}_{\text{data}}$ value and
the mean value of the $2\Delta\text{NLL}$ distribution from the pseudo-
experiments.

The same test is performed to quantify the incompatibility of the data with
the pure phase space hypothesis $H_{\text{PS}}$, following the procedure
described for the test of $H_{\text{L8}}$.

There are several sources of systematic uncertainty that could affect the
significance calculation. The first source is the function used to describe
the background component in the $M(\JPsi\PagL\Pp)$ distribution, which enters
through the sPlot background-subtraction procedure. This uncertainty is
estimated by using two alternative models for the background component in the
$M(\JPsi\PagL\Pp)$ spectrum: the baseline model multiplied by a polynomial of
either first or second order. Another source of systematic uncertainty is due
to statistical fluctuations in the 2D efficiency calculation, discussed in
Section 0.5. To test how the significance is affected by these fluctuations,
additional parameterizations of the 2D efficiency are considered: a histogram
with wider bins and a fit to the efficiency distribution with 2D polynomials,
with the uncertainties obtained from the fit taken into account.

The contribution of the systematic uncertainty to the significance calculation
from the kinematic requirements used in the selection of the
$\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp$ candidates is also estimated. The effect of the
requirement applied to the reflected invariant mass of the $\PagL$ candidate
daughters
$\abs{M(\Pgpp\Pgpm)-M_{\PKzS}^{\text{PDG}}}>2\sigma^{\PKzS}_{\text{eff}}$ is
evaluated by repeating the significance calculation without this requirement.
The effect of the $\pt$ selection criteria applied to the $\PBp$ meson and the
$\JPsi$, $\PagL$, and $\Pp$ candidates in the final state of the
$\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp$ decay, was also tested by tightening the baseline
requirements by 50$\%$ and recalculating the significance values.

The effect of the correlation between the $M(\PagL\Pp)$,
$\cos\theta_{\PK^{*}}$, $\JPsi\Pp$, and $\JPsi\PagL$ variables is tested by
generating pseudo-experiments according to the two-dimensional probability
density function $F^{Y}(H_{\text{L8}})$, where
$\text{Y}=(M(\PagL\Pp),~{}\cos\theta_{\PK^{*}})$, and then projecting them to
the $\JPsi\Pp$ system invariant mass. The significance values decrease on
average by 30%, which does not exceed the significance range introduced by the
effects of the other systematics sources discussed above.

Under the variations discussed above, the significance of the incompatibility
of data with the $H_{\text{PS}}$ is found to vary from 6.1 to 8.1, 5.5 to 7.4,
and 3.4 to 4.8 standard deviations for the $\JPsi\Pp$, $\JPsi\PagL$, and
$\PagL\Pp$ invariant mass distributions, respectively. The incompatibility of
data with the phase space augmented with the eight Legendre moments and the
reweighting of the $M(\PagL\Pp)$ distribution to describe the structure
observed in data $H_{\text{L8}}$ varies from 1.3 to 2.8 (2.7) standard
deviations for the $\JPsi\Pp$ ($\JPsi\PagL$) invariant mass spectrum, which
allows us to conclude that the data are consistent with the $H_{\text{L8}}$
hypothesis. We note that since the quoted statistical significances for the
$\JPsi\Pp$ and $\JPsi\PagL$ systems are not independent, they cannot be
combined without properly taking into account the correlation. While the
presence of new resonances in an intermediate two-body system produced in this
decay cannot be ruled out, the deviation of the data from a pure phase space
model can be adequately described by including only the known
$\PK^{*+}_{2,3,4}$ resonances in the $\PagL\Pp$ system.

##  0.9 Summary

Using a data set of proton-proton collisions collected by the CMS experiment
at $\sqrt{s}=8\TeV$ and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 19.6, the
ratio of branching fractions has been measured to be ${\cal
B}(\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp)/{\cal B}(\PBp\to\JPsi\PK^{*}(892)^{+})=(1.054\pm
0.057\stat\pm 0.035\syst\pm 0.011({\cal B}))\%$. Using the world-average
branching fraction of the $\PBp\to\JPsi\PK^{*}(892)^{+}$ decay, the branching
fraction of the $\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp$ decay is determined to be $(15.1\pm
0.8\stat\pm 0.5\syst\pm 0.9({\cal B}))\times 10^{-6}$, the most precise
measurement to date. A study of the two-body invariant mass distributions of
the $\PBp\to\JPsi\PagL\Pp$ decay products demonstrates that these spectra
cannot be adequately modeled with a pure phase space decay hypothesis. The
incompatibility of the data with this hypothesis is more than 6.1, 5.5, and
3.4 standard deviations for the $\JPsi\Pp$, $\JPsi\PagL$, and $\PagL\Pp$
invariant mass spectra, respectively. A model-independent approach that
accounts for the contribution from known $\PK^{*+}_{2,3,4}$ resonances with
spins up to 4 decaying to the $\PagL\Pp$ system improves the agreement
significantly, decreasing the incompatibility with data to less than three
standard deviations in both the $\JPsi\Pp$ and $\JPsi\PagL$ invariant mass
spectra.

###### 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).
Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie program and the
European Research Council and Horizon 2020 Grant, contract Nos. 675440 and
765710 (European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A.P. Sloan Foundation;
the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science Policy
Office; the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans
l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en
Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the F.R.S.-FNRS and FWO (Belgium) under the
“Excellence of Science – EOS” – be.h project n. 30820817; the Beijing
Municipal Science & Technology Commission, No. Z181100004218003; 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, 125105, 128713, 128786,
and 129058 (Hungary); the Council of Science and Industrial Research, India;
the HOMING PLUS program of the Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from
European Union, Regional Development Fund, the Mobility Plus program of the
Ministry of Science and Higher Education, the National Science Center
(Poland), contracts Harmonia 2014/14/M/ST2/00428, Opus 2014/13/B/ST2/02543,
2014/15/B/ST2/03998, and 2015/19/B/ST2/02861, Sonata-bis 2012/07/E/ST2/01406;
the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation contract No.
14.W03.31.0026; the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National
Research Fund; the Programa Estatal de Fomento de la Investigación Científica
y Técnica de Excelencia María de Maeztu, grant MDM-2015-0509 and the Programa
Severo Ochoa del Principado de Asturias; the Thalis and Aristeia programs
cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for
Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University and the Chulalongkorn
Academic into Its 2nd Century Project Advancement Project (Thailand); the
Welch Foundation, contract C-1845; and the Weston Havens Foundation (USA).

## References

  * [1] BaBar Collaboration, “Evidence for $\PB^{+}\to\JPsi\bar{\Lambda}\Pp$ and search for $\PB^{0}\to\JPsi\Pp\bar{\Pp}$”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 231801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.231801, arXiv:hep-ex/0303036.
  * [2] Belle Collaboration, “Observation of $\PB^{-}\to\JPsi\Lambda\bar{\Pp}$ and searches for $\PB^{-}\to\JPsi\Sigma^{0}\bar{\Pp}$ and $\PB^{0}\to\JPsi\Pp\bar{\Pp}$ decays”,  Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 051105, 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.051105, arXiv:hep-ex/0508011.
  * [3] Particle Data Group, “Review of particle physics”,  Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 030001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.030001.
  * [4] LHCb Collaboration, “Observation of $\JPsi\Pp$ resonances consistent with pentaquark states in $\Lambda_{b}^{0}\to\JPsi\PK^{-}\Pp$ decays”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 072001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.072001, arXiv:1507.03414.
  * [5] LHCb Collaboration, “Observation of a narrow pentaquark state, $\cmsSymbolFace{P}_{\PQc}(4312)^{+}$, and of two-peak structure of the $\cmsSymbolFace{P}_{\PQc}(4450)^{+}$”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) 222001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.222001, arXiv:1904.03947.
  * [6] X.-Z. Weng, X.-L. Chen, W.-Z. Deng, and S.-L. Zhu, “Hidden-charm pentaquarks and ${P}_{c}$ states”,  Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 016014, 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.016014.
  * [7] C. W. Xiao, J. Nieves, and E. Oset, “Prediction of hidden charm strange molecular baryon states with heavy quark spin symmetry”,  Phys. Lett. B 799 (2019) 135051, 10.1016/j.physletb.2019.135051, arXiv:1906.09010.
  * [8] CMS Collaboration, “Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker”,  JINST 9 (2014) P10009, 10.1088/1748-0221/9/10/P10009, arXiv:1405.6569.
  * [9] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in $\Pp\Pp$ collision events at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”,  JINST 7 (2012) P10002, 10.1088/1748-0221/7/10/P10002, arXiv:1206.4071.
  * [10] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [11] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [12] CMS Collaboration, “CMS tracking performance results from early LHC operation”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 70 (2010) 1165, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1491-3, arXiv:1007.1988.
  * [13] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, “PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual”,  JHEP 05 (2006) 026, 10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/026, arXiv:hep-ph/0603175.
  * [14] D. J. Lange, “The particle decay simulation package”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 462 (2001) 152, 10.1016/S0168-9002(01)00089-4.
  * [15] GEANT4 Collaboration, “—a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [16] M. Pivk and F. R. Le Diberder, “sPlot: A statistical tool to unfold data distributions”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 555 (2005) 356, 10.1016/j.nima.2005.08.106, arXiv:physics/0402083.
  * [17] M. J. Oreglia, “A study of the reactions $\psi^{\prime}\to\gamma\gamma\psi$”.  PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1980.  SLAC Report SLAC-R-236.
  * [18] J. E. Gaiser, “Charmonium spectroscopy from radiative decays of the $\JPsi$ and $\psi^{\prime}$”.  PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1982.  SLAC Report SLAC-R-255.
  * [19] BaBar Collaboration, “Search for the Z(4430)- at BaBar”,  Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 112001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.112001, arXiv:0811.0564.
  * [20] LHCb Collaboration, “Model-independent confirmation of the $Z(4430)^{-}$ state”,  Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 112009, 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.112009, arXiv:1510.01951.
  * [21] LHCb Collaboration, “Model-independent evidence for $\JPsi\Pp$ contributions to $\Lambda_{b}^{0}\to\JPsi\Pp\PK^{-}$ decays”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 082002, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.082002, arXiv:1604.05708.

##  .10 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, A. Tumasyan Institut für
Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, T. Bergauer, J. Brandstetter, M. Dragicevic, J. Erö, A.
Escalante Del Valle, M. Flechl, R. Frühwirth1, M. Jeitler1, N. Krammer, I.
Krätschmer, D. Liko, T. Madlener, I. Mikulec, N. Rad, J. Schieck1, R.
Schöfbeck, M. Spanring, D. Spitzbart, W. Waltenberger, C.-E. Wulz1, M. Zarucki
Institute for Nuclear Problems, Minsk, Belarus
V. Drugakov, V. Mossolov, J. Suarez Gonzalez Universiteit Antwerpen,
Antwerpen, Belgium
M.R. Darwish, E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, J. Lauwers, A. Lelek, M.
Pieters, H. Rejeb Sfar, H. Van Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, S. Van Putte, N.
Van Remortel Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
F. Blekman, E.S. Bols, S.S. Chhibra, J. D’Hondt, J. De Clercq, D. Lontkovskyi,
S. Lowette, I. Marchesini, S. Moortgat, 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, L. Favart, A. Grebenyuk, A.K. Kalsi, J. Luetic, A. Popov, N. Postiau,
E. Starling, L. Thomas, C. Vander Velde, P. Vanlaer, D. Vannerom Ghent
University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, I. Khvastunov2, M. Niedziela, C. Roskas, D. Trocino, M.
Tytgat, W. Verbeke, B. Vermassen, M. Vit, N. Zaganidis Université Catholique
de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
O. Bondu, G. Bruno, C. Caputo, P. David, C. Delaere, M. Delcourt, A.
Giammanco, V. Lemaitre, A. Magitteri, J. Prisciandaro, A. Saggio, M. Vidal
Marono, P. Vischia, J. Zobec Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil
F.L. Alves, G.A. Alves, G. Correia Silva, C. Hensel, A. Moraes, 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, L.M. Huertas Guativa, H. Malbouisson, J. Martins5, D. Matos
Figueiredo, M. Medina Jaime6, 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, D.S. Lemos, P.G. Mercadanteb, S.F. Novaesa, SandraS. Padulaa
Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of
Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, G. Antchev, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, A. Marinov, M. Misheva,
M. Rodozov, M. Shopova, G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
M. Bonchev, A. Dimitrov, T. Ivanov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov Beihang
University, Beijing, China
W. Fang7, X. Gao7, L. Yuan Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, G.M. Chen, H.S. Chen, M. Chen, C.H. Jiang, D. Leggat, H. Liao, Z.
Liu, S.M. Shaheen8, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, E. Yazgan, H. Zhang, S. Zhang8, J.
Zhao State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking
University, Beijing, China
A. Agapitos, Y. Ban, G. Chen, A. Levin, J. Li, L. Li, Q. Li, Y. Mao, S.J.
Qian, D. Wang, Q. Wang Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Z. Hu, Y. Wang Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, L.F. Chaparro Sierra, C. Florez, C.F. González
Hernández, M.A. Segura Delgado Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia
J. Mejia Guisao, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, C.A. Salazar González, N. Vanegas Arbelaez
University of Split, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering
and Naval Architecture, Split, Croatia
D. Giljanović, 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, S. Ceci, D. Ferencek, K. Kadija, B. Mesic, M. Roguljic, A.
Starodumov9, T. Susa University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, E. Erodotou, A. Ioannou, M. Kolosova, S. Konstantinou,
G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos, P.A. Razis, H.
Rykaczewski, D. Tsiakkouri Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
M. Finger10, M. Finger Jr.10, A. Kveton, J. Tomsa Escuela Politecnica
Nacional, Quito, Ecuador
E. Ayala Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
E. Carrera Jarrin Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab
Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt
Y. Assran11,12, S. Elgammal12 National Institute of Chemical Physics and
Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
S. Bhowmik, A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveira, R.K. Dewanjee, K. Ehataht, M.
Kadastik, M. Raidal, C. Veelken Department of Physics, University of Helsinki,
Helsinki, Finland
P. Eerola, L. Forthomme, H. Kirschenmann, K. Osterberg, M. Voutilainen
Helsinki Institute of Physics, Helsinki, Finland
F. Garcia, 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, B. Fabbro, J.L. Faure, F.
Ferri, S. Ganjour, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry,
C. Leloup, E. Locci, J. Malcles, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M.Ö. Sahin, A. Savoy-
Navarro13, M. Titov Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, CNRS/IN2P3, Ecole
Polytechnique, Institut Polytechnique de Paris
C. Amendola, F. Beaudette, P. Busson, C. Charlot, B. Diab, G. Falmagne, R.
Granier de Cassagnac, I. Kucher, A. Lobanov, C. Martin Perez, M. Nguyen, C.
Ochando, P. Paganini, J. Rembser, R. Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A. Zabi,
A. Zghiche Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram14, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, G. Bourgatte, J.-M. Brom, E.C. Chabert, C.
Collard, E. Conte14, J.-C. Fontaine14, 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, C. Camen, N. Chanon, R. Chierici, D.
Contardo, P. Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, B.
Ille, Sa. Jain, F. Lagarde, I.B. Laktineh, H. Lattaud, M. Lethuillier, L.
Mirabito, S. Perries, V. Sordini, G. Touquet, M. Vander Donckt, S. Viret
Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
G. Adamov Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
Z. Tsamalaidze10 RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen,
Germany
C. Autermann, L. Feld, M.K. Kiesel, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, D. Meuser, A.
Pauls, M. Preuten, M.P. Rauch, C. Schomakers, J. Schulz, M. Teroerde, B.
Wittmer RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
A. Albert, M. Erdmann, S. Erdweg, T. Esch, B. Fischer, R. Fischer, S. Ghosh,
T. Hebbeker, K. Hoepfner, H. Keller, L. Mastrolorenzo, M. Merschmeyer, A.
Meyer, P. Millet, G. Mocellin, S. Mondal, S. Mukherjee, D. Noll, A. Novak, T.
Pook, A. Pozdnyakov, T. Quast, M. Radziej, Y. Rath, H. Reithler, M. Rieger, J.
Roemer, A. Schmidt, S.C. Schuler, A. Sharma, S. Thüer, S. Wiedenbeck RWTH
Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany
G. Flügge, W. Haj Ahmad15, O. Hlushchenko, T. Kress, T. Müller, A. Nehrkorn,
A. Nowack, C. Pistone, O. Pooth, D. Roy, H. Sert, A. Stahl16 Deutsches
Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
M. Aldaya Martin, P. Asmuss, I. Babounikau, H. Bakhshiansohi, K. Beernaert, O.
Behnke, U. Behrens, A. Bermúdez Martínez, D. Bertsche, A.A. Bin Anuar, K.
Borras17, V. Botta, A. Campbell, A. Cardini, P. Connor, S. Consuegra
Rodríguez, C. Contreras-Campana, V. Danilov, A. De Wit, M.M. Defranchis, C.
Diez Pardos, D. Domínguez Damiani, G. Eckerlin, D. Eckstein, T. Eichhorn, A.
Elwood, E. Eren, E. Gallo18, A. Geiser, J.M. Grados Luyando, A. Grohsjean, M.
Guthoff, M. Haranko, A. Harb, A. Jafari, N.Z. Jomhari, H. Jung, A. Kasem17, M.
Kasemann, H. Kaveh, J. Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, J. Knolle, D. Krücker, W.
Lange, T. Lenz, J. Leonard, J. Lidrych, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann19, R. Mankel,
I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, A.B. Meyer, M. Meyer, M. Missiroli, G. Mittag, J.
Mnich, A. Mussgiller, V. Myronenko, D. Pérez Adán, S.K. Pflitsch, D. Pitzl, A.
Raspereza, A. Saibel, M. Savitskyi, V. Scheurer, P. Schütze, C.
Schwanenberger, R. Shevchenko, A. Singh, H. Tholen, O. Turkot, A. Vagnerini,
M. Van De Klundert, G.P. Van Onsem, R. Walsh, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C. Wissing,
O. Zenaiev, R. Zlebcik University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, L. Benato, A. Benecke, V. Blobel, T. Dreyer, A.
Ebrahimi, A. Fröhlich, C. Garbers, 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, T. Lange, A. Malara, D. Marconi, J.
Multhaup, 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, B. Vormwald, I. Zoi Karlsruher Institut
fuer Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany
M. Akbiyik, C. Barth, M. Baselga, S. Baur, T. Berger, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T.
Chwalek, W. De Boer, A. Dierlamm, K. El Morabit, N. Faltermann, M. Giffels, P.
Goldenzweig, A. Gottmann, M.A. Harrendorf, F. Hartmann16, U. Husemann, S.
Kudella, S. Mitra, M.U. Mozer, Th. Müller, M. Musich, A. Nürnberg, G. Quast,
K. Rabbertz, M. Schröder, I. Shvetsov, H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, M. Weber, C.
Wöhrmann, R. Wolf Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics (INPP), NCSR
Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
G. Anagnostou, P. Asenov, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas,
G. Paspalaki National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
M. Diamantopoulou, G. Karathanasis, P. Kontaxakis, A. Panagiotou, I.
Papavergou, N. Saoulidou, A. Stakia, K. Theofilatos, K. Vellidis National
Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece
G. Bakas, K. Kousouris, I. Papakrivopoulos, G. Tsipolitis University of
Ioánnina, Ioánnina, Greece
I. Evangelou, C. Foudas, P. Gianneios, P. Katsoulis, P. Kokkas, S. Mallios, K.
Manitara, N. Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, J. Strologas, F.A. Triantis, D.
Tsitsonis MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
M. Bartók20, M. Csanad, P. Major, K. Mandal, A. Mehta, M.I. Nagy, G. Pasztor,
O. Surányi, G.I. Veres Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath21, F. Sikler, T.Á. Vámi, V. Veszpremi, G.
Vesztergombi${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$ Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI,
Debrecen, Hungary
N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi20, A. Makovec, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi
Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
P. Raics, D. Teyssier, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari Eszterhazy Karoly University,
Karoly Robert Campus, Gyongyos, Hungary
T. Csorgo, W.J. Metzger, F. Nemes, T. Novak 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. Bahinipati23, C. Kar, G. Kole, P. Mal, V.K. Muraleedharan Nair Bindhu, A.
Nayak24, D.K. Sahoo23, 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, M. Meena, 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. Bhardwaj25, M. Bharti25, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, U. Bhawandeep25,
D. Bhowmik, S. Dey, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh, M. Maity26, K. Mondal, S. Nandan, A.
Purohit, P.K. Rout, G. Saha, S. Sarkar, T. Sarkar26, M. Sharan, B. Singh25, S.
Thakur25 Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera, P. Kalbhor, A. Muhammad, P.R. Pujahari, A. Sharma, A.K. Sikdar
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
R. Chudasama, D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, D.K. Mishra, 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, RavindraKumar Verma Tata
Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, P. Das, M. Guchait, S. Karmakar,
S. Kumar, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, N. Sahoo, S. Sawant 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. Chenarani27, E. Eskandari Tadavani, S.M. Etesami27, M. Khakzad, M.
Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri, F. Rezaei Hosseinabadi University College
Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
M. Felcini, M. Grunewald INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b,
Politecnico di Bari c, Bari, Italy
M. Abbresciaa,b, R. Alya,b,28, C. Calabriaa,b, A. Colaleoa, D. Creanzaa,c, L.
Cristellaa,b, N. De Filippisa,c, M. De Palmaa,b, A. Di Florioa,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, L. Silvestrisa, R. Vendittia, P.
Verwilligena INFN Sezione di Bologna a, Università di Bologna b, Bologna,
Italy
G. Abbiendia, C. Battilanaa,b, D. Bonacorsia,b, L. Borgonovia,b, S. Braibant-
Giacomellia,b, R. Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A. Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa,
C. Cioccaa, 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,29, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, F.L. Navarriaa,b, A.
Perrottaa, F. Primaveraa,b, A.M. Rossia,b, T. Rovellia,b, G.P. Sirolia,b, N.
Tosia INFN Sezione di Catania a, Università di Catania b, Catania, Italy
S. Albergoa,b,30, S. Costaa,b, A. Di Mattiaa, R. Potenzaa,b, A. Tricomia,b,30,
C. Tuvea,b INFN Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b, Firenze, Italy
G. Barbaglia, R. Ceccarelli, K. Chatterjeea,b, V. Ciullia,b, C. Civininia, R.
D’Alessandroa,b, E. Focardia,b, G. Latino, P. Lenzia,b, M. Meschinia, S.
Paolettia, G. Sguazzonia, D. Stroma, L. Viliania INFN Laboratori Nazionali di
Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, D. Piccolo INFN Sezione di Genova a, Università di
Genova b, Genova, Italy
M. Bozzoa,b, F. Ferroa, R. Mulargiaa,b, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia,b INFN Sezione
di Milano-Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, Italy
A. Benagliaa, A. Beschia,b, F. Brivioa,b, V. Cirioloa,b,16, S. Di Guidaa,b,16,
M.E. Dinardoa,b, P. Dinia, S. Fiorendia,b, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P.
Govonia,b, L. Guzzia,b, M. Malbertia, S. Malvezzia, D. Menascea, F. Montia,b,
L. Moronia, G. Ortonaa,b, 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, L. Listaa,b, S.
Meolaa,d,16, P. Paoluccia,16, B. Rossia, C. Sciaccaa,b, E. Voevodinaa,b INFN
Sezione di Padova a, Università di Padova b, Padova, Italy, Università di
Trento c, Trento, Italy
P. Azzia, N. Bacchettaa, D. Biselloa,b, A. Bolettia,b, A. Bragagnolo, R.
Carlina,b, P. Checchiaa, P. De Castro Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa, U. Dossellia, F.
Gasparinia,b, U. Gasparinia,b, A. Gozzelinoa, S.Y. Hoh, P. Lujan, M.
Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,b, J. Pazzinia,b, M. Presillab, P. Ronchesea,b, R.
Rossina,b, F. Simonettoa,b, A. Tiko, 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, 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, V. Bertacchia,c, L. Bianchinia, T.
Boccalia, R. Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, G. Fedia, 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. Rolandi31, S. Roy
Chowdhury, A. Scribanoa, P. Spagnoloa, R. Tenchinia, G. Tonellia,b, N. Turini,
A. Venturia, P.G. Verdinia INFN Sezione di Roma a, Sapienza Università di Roma
b, Rome, Italy
F. Cavallaria, M. Cipriania,b, D. Del Rea,b, E. Di Marcoa,b, M. Diemoza, E.
Longoa,b, B. Marzocchia,b, P. Meridiania, G. Organtinia,b, F. Pandolfia, R.
Paramattia,b, C. Quarantaa,b, S. Rahatloua,b, C. Rovellia, F.
Santanastasioa,b, L. Soffia,b 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, 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, 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
B. Kim, D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, M.S. Kim, J. 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, T.J. Kim, J. Park Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, D. Gyun, S. Ha, B. Hong, K. Lee, K.S. Lee, J. Lim, J.
Park, S.K. Park, Y. Roh Kyung Hee University, Department of Physics
J. Goh Sejong University, Seoul, Korea
H.S. Kim Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J.H. Bhyun, J. Choi, S. Jeon, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, H. Lee, K. Lee, S.
Lee, K. Nam, M. Oh, S.B. Oh, B.C. Radburn-Smith, U.K. Yang, H.D. Yoo, I. Yoon,
G.B. Yu University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea
D. Jeon, H. Kim, J.H. Kim, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park, I. Watson Sungkyunkwan
University, Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, C. Hwang, Y. Jeong, J. Lee, Y. Lee, I. Yu Riga Technical University,
Riga, Latvia
V. Veckalns32 Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
V. Dudenas, A. Juodagalvis, G. Tamulaitis, J. Vaitkus National Centre for
Particle Physics, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Z.A. Ibrahim, F. Mohamad Idris33, W.A.T. Wan Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli
Universidad de Sonora (UNISON), Hermosillo, Mexico
J.F. Benitez, A. Castaneda Hernandez, J.A. Murillo Quijada, L. Valencia Palomo
Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, I. Heredia-De La Cruz34, R. Lopez-
Fernandez, A. Sanchez-Hernandez Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City,
Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, M. Ramirez-Garcia, F. Vazquez Valencia
Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
J. Eysermans, I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada Universidad
Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, Mexico
A. Morelos Pineda University of Montenegro, Podgorica, Montenegro
N. Raicevic University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
S. Bheesette, P.H. Butler National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam
University, Islamabad, Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M. Ahmad, Q. Hassan, H.R. Hoorani, W.A. Khan, M.A. Shah, M. Shoaib,
M. Waqas AGH University of Science and Technology Faculty of Computer Science,
Electronics and Telecommunications, Krakow, Poland
V. Avati, L. Grzanka, M. Malawski National Centre for Nuclear Research,
Swierk, Poland
H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, M. Górski, M. Kazana, M. Szleper, P.
Zalewski Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of Physics, University of
Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk35, 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, D. Bastos, A. Di Francesco, P. Faccioli, B. Galinhas,
M. Gallinaro, J. Hollar, N. Leonardo, J. Seixas, K. Shchelina, 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. Matveev36,37, P. Moisenz, V. Palichik,
V. Perelygin, M. Savina, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, N. Skatchkov, V. Smirnov, N.
Voytishin, A. Zarubin Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St.
Petersburg), Russia
L. Chtchipounov, V. Golovtsov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim38, E. Kuznetsova39, P.
Levchenko, V. Murzin, V. Oreshkin, I. Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L.
Uvarov, 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 named by A.I. Alikhanov of NRC ‘Kurchatov Institute’,
Moscow, Russia
V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, A. Nikitenko40, V. Popov, I.
Pozdnyakov, G. Safronov, A. Spiridonov, A. Stepennov, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A.
Zhokin Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
R. Chistov41, M. Danilov41, A. Nigamova, P. Parygin, S. Polikarpov41, E.
Tarkovskii P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin, I. Dremin, M. Kirakosyan, A. Terkulov Skobeltsyn
Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow,
Russia
A. Belyaev, E. Boos, M. Dubinin42, L. Dudko, A. Ershov, A. Gribushin, V.
Klyukhin, O. Kodolova, I. Lokhtin, S. Obraztsov, S. Petrushanko, V. Savrin, A.
Snigirev Novosibirsk State University (NSU), Novosibirsk, Russia
A. Barnyakov43, V. Blinov43, T. Dimova43, L. Kardapoltsev43, Y. Skovpen43
Institute for High Energy Physics of National Research Centre ‘Kurchatov
Institute’, Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, S. Bitioukov, V. Kachanov, 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, A. Iuzhakov, V. Okhotnikov Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russia
V. Borchsh, V. Ivanchenko, E. Tcherniaev University of Belgrade: Faculty of
Physics and VINCA Institute of Nuclear Sciences
P. Adzic44, P. Cirkovic, D. Devetak, M. Dordevic, P. Milenovic, J. Milosevic,
M. Stojanovic Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y
Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid, Spain
M. Aguilar-Benitez, J. Alcaraz Maestre, A. Álvarez Fernández, I. Bachiller, M.
Barrio Luna, J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, C.A. Carrillo Montoya, M. Cepeda, 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, Á. Navarro Tobar, A. Pérez-Calero Yzquierdo,
J. Puerta Pelayo, I. Redondo, L. Romero, S. Sánchez Navas, M.S. Soares, A.
Triossi, C. Willmott Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
C. Albajar, J.F. de Trocóniz Universidad de Oviedo, Instituto Universitario de
Ciencias y Tecnologías Espaciales de Asturias (ICTEA), Oviedo, Spain
B. Alvarez Gonzalez, J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, S. Folgueras,
I. Gonzalez Caballero, J.R. González Fernández, E. Palencia Cortezon, V.
Rodríguez Bouza, S. Sanchez Cruz Instituto de Física de Cantabria (IFCA),
CSIC-Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain
I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, B. Chazin Quero, J. Duarte Campderros, M.
Fernandez, P.J. Fernández Manteca, A. García Alonso, G. Gomez, C. Martinez
Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del Arbol, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, C. Prieels,
T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno, L. Russo45, L. Scodellaro, N. Trevisani, I. Vila,
J.M. Vizan Garcia University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka
K. Malagalage University of Ruhuna, Department of Physics, Matara, Sri Lanka
W.G.D. Dharmaratna, N. Wickramage CERN, European Organization for Nuclear
Research, Geneva, Switzerland
D. Abbaneo, B. Akgun, E. Auffray, G. Auzinger, J. Baechler, P. Baillon, A.H.
Ball, D. Barney, J. Bendavid, M. Bianco, A. Bocci, P. Bortignon, E. Bossini,
C. Botta, E. Brondolin, T. Camporesi, A. Caratelli, G. Cerminara, E. Chapon,
G. Cucciati, D. d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, N. Daci, V. Daponte, A. David, O.
Davignon, A. De Roeck, N. Deelen, M. Deile, M. Dobson, M. Dünser, N. Dupont,
A. Elliott-Peisert, F. Fallavollita46, D. Fasanella, G. Franzoni, J. Fulcher,
W. Funk, S. Giani, D. Gigi, A. Gilbert, K. Gill, F. Glege, M. Gruchala, M.
Guilbaud, D. Gulhan, J. Hegeman, C. Heidegger, Y. Iiyama, V. Innocente, P.
Janot, O. Karacheban19, J. Kaspar, J. Kieseler, M. Krammer1, C. Lange, P.
Lecoq, C. Lourenço, L. Malgeri, M. Mannelli, A. Massironi, F. Meijers, J.A.
Merlin, S. Mersi, E. Meschi, F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, J. Ngadiuba, S.
Nourbakhsh, S. Orfanelli, L. Orsini, F. Pantaleo16, L. Pape, E. Perez, M.
Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, F.M. Pitters,
D. Rabady, A. Racz, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M.
Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva, W. Snoeys, P. Sphicas47, J. Steggemann, V.R.
Tavolaro, D. Treille, A. Tsirou, A. Vartak, M. Verzetti, W.D. Zeuner Paul
Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland
L. Caminada48, 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, 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, F. Pauss, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, S. Pigazzini, M.
Reichmann, C. Reissel, T. Reitenspiess, D. Ruini, D.A. Sanz Becerra, M.
Schönenberger, L. Shchutska, M.L. Vesterbacka Olsson, R. Wallny, D.H. Zhu
Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, C. Amsler49, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, R. Del
Burgo, S. Donato, B. Kilminster, S. Leontsinis, V.M. Mikuni, I. Neutelings, G.
Rauco, P. Robmann, D. Salerno, K. Schweiger, C. Seitz, Y. Takahashi, S. Wertz,
A. Zucchetta National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan
T.H. Doan, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A. Roy, S.S. Yu National Taiwan University (NTU),
Taipei, Taiwan
P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, W.-S. Hou, Y.y. Li, R.-S. Lu, E.
Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen Chulalongkorn University, Faculty of Science,
Department of Physics, Bangkok, Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, N. Srimanobhas, N. Suwonjandee Çukurova
University, Physics Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
A. Bat, F. Boran, S. Cerci50, S. Damarseckin51, Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, C.
Dozen, I. Dumanoglu, G. Gokbulut, EmineGurpinar Guler52, Y. Guler, I. Hos53,
C. Isik, E.E. Kangal54, O. Kara, A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, M. Oglakci, G.
Onengut, K. Ozdemir55, S. Ozturk56, A.E. Simsek, D. Sunar Cerci50, U.G. Tok,
S. Turkcapar, I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East Technical University,
Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak57, G. Karapinar58, M. Yalvac Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey
I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya59, O. Kaya60, B. Kaynak, Ö. Özçelik, S.
Tekten, E.A. Yetkin61 Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
A. Cakir, K. Cankocak, Y. Komurcu, S. Sen62 Istanbul University, Istanbul,
Turkey
S. Ozkorucuklu 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, E. Bhal, S. Bologna, J.J. Brooke, D. Burns, E. Clement, D. Cussans,
H. Flacher, J. Goldstein, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, S. Paramesvaran,
B. Penning, T. Sakuma, S. Seif El Nasr-Storey, D. Smith, V.J. Smith, J.
Taylor, A. Titterton Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev63, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, D. Cieri, D.J.A. Cockerill, J.A.
Coughlan, K. Harder, S. Harper, J. Linacre, K. Manolopoulos, D.M. Newbold, E.
Olaiya, D. Petyt, T. Reis, T. Schuh, C.H. Shepherd-Themistocleous, A. Thea,
I.R. Tomalin, T. Williams, W.J. Womersley Imperial College, London, United
Kingdom
R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A. Bundock,
GurpreetSingh CHAHAL64, D. Colling, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M. Della Negra, R.
Di Maria, P. Everaerts, G. Hall, G. Iles, T. James, M. Komm, C. Laner, L.
Lyons, A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, A. Martelli, V. Milosevic, J. Nash65, V.
Palladino, M. Pesaresi, D.M. Raymond, A. Richards, A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez,
A. Shtipliyski, M. Stoye, T. Strebler, S. Summers, A. Tapper, K. Uchida, T.
Virdee16, N. Wardle, D. Winterbottom, J. Wright, A.G. Zecchinelli, 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, C. Madrid, B. McMaster, N. Pastika, C.
Smith Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez, R. Uniyal 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, Z. Demiragli, D. Gastler, S. Girgis, D. Pinna, C.
Richardson, J. Rohlf, D. Sperka, I. Suarez, L. Sulak, D. Zou Brown University,
Providence, USA
G. Benelli, B. Burkle, X. Coubez, D. Cutts, Y.t. Duh, M. Hadley, J. Hakala, U.
Heintz, J.M. Hogan66, K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, J. Lee, Z. Mao, M.
Narain, S. Sagir67, R. Syarif, E. Usai, D. Yu University of California, Davis,
Davis, USA
R. Band, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez, M. Chertok,
J. Conway, R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, G. Funk, F. Jensen, W.
Ko, O. Kukral, R. Lander, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, J. Pilot, 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, W.A. Nash, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg, C. Schnaible, B.
Stone, V. Valuev University of California, Riverside, Riverside, USA
K. Burt, R. Clare, J.W. Gary, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi, G. Hanson, G.
Karapostoli, E. Kennedy, O.R. Long, M. Olmedo Negrete, M.I. Paneva, W. Si, L.
Wang, H. Wei, S. Wimpenny, B.R. Yates, Y. Zhang University of California, San
Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, P. Chang, S. Cittolin, M. Derdzinski, R. Gerosa, D. Gilbert, B.
Hashemi, D. Klein, V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, M. Masciovecchio, S. May, S. Padhi,
M. Pieri, V. Sharma, M. Tadel, F. Würthwein, A. Yagil, 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, J. Incandela, B. Marsh, H. Mei, A. Ovcharova, H. Qu, J. Richman,
U. Sarica, D. Stuart, S. Wang, J. Yoo California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, USA
D. Anderson, A. Bornheim, O. Cerri, I. Dutta, J.M. Lawhorn, N. Lu, J. Mao,
H.B. Newman, T.Q. Nguyen, J. Pata, M. Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, S. Xie, Z.
Zhang, R.Y. Zhu Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
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, 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, A. Frankenthal, K.
Mcdermott, N. Mirman, J.R. Patterson, D. Quach, A. Rinkevicius68, A. Ryd, S.M.
Tan, Z. Tao, J. Thom, P. Wittich, M. Zientek Fermi National Accelerator
Laboratory, Batavia, USA
S. Abdullin, M. Albrow, M. Alyari, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S.
Banerjee, L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas, 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, AllisonReinsvold Hall, J. Hanlon, R.M.
Harris, S. Hasegawa, R. Heller, J. Hirschauer, B. Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani,
M. Johnson, U. Joshi, B. Klima, M.J. Kortelainen, B. Kreis, S. Lammel, J.
Lewis, 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, V.
Papadimitriou, K. Pedro, C. Pena, G. Rakness, F. Ravera, L. Ristori, B.
Schneider, E. Sexton-Kennedy, N. Smith, 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
University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, D. Bourilkov, A. Brinkerhoff, L. Cadamuro, A. Carnes, V.
Cherepanov, D. Curry, F. Errico, R.D. Field, S.V. Gleyzer, B.M. Joshi, M. Kim,
J. Konigsberg, A. Korytov, K.H. Lo, P. Ma, K. Matchev, N. Menendez, G.
Mitselmakher, D. Rosenzweig, K. Shi, J. Wang, S. Wang, X. Zuo Florida
International University, Miami, USA
Y.R. Joshi Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
T. Adams, A. Askew, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F. Johnson, R. Khurana, T.
Kolberg, G. Martinez, T. Perry, H. Prosper, C. Schiber, R. Yohay, J. Zhang
Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, V. Bhopatkar, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, M. Rahmani, M. Saunders,
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, C.
Mills, T. Roy, M.B. Tonjes, N. Varelas, H. Wang, X. Wang, Z. Wu The University
of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, B. Bilki52, W. Clarida, K. Dilsiz69, S. Durgut, R.P.
Gandrajula, M. Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko, O.K. Köseyan, J.-P. Merlo, A.
Mestvirishvili70, A. Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul71, Y. Onel, F. Ozok72, 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, M. Swartz, M. Xiao The University of
Kansas, Lawrence, USA
C. Baldenegro Barrera, P. Baringer, A. Bean, S. Boren, J. Bowen, A. Bylinkin,
T. Isidori, S. Khalil, J. King, G. Krintiras, A. Kropivnitskaya, C. Lindsey,
D. Majumder, W. Mcbrayer, N. Minafra, M. Murray, C. Rogan, C. Royon, S.
Sanders, E. Schmitz, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang, J. Williams, G. Wilson Kansas
State University, Manhattan, USA
S. Duric, A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, D. Kim, Y. Maravin, D.R. Mendis, T. Mitchell,
A. Modak, A. Mohammadi Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright University of Maryland, College Park, USA
A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, S.C. Eno, Y. Feng, N.J. Hadley, S. Jabeen,
G.Y. Jeng, R.G. Kellogg, J. Kunkle, A.C. Mignerey, S. Nabili, F. Ricci-Tam, M.
Seidel, Y.H. Shin, A. Skuja, S.C. Tonwar, K. Wong Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, A. Baty, R. Bi, S. Brandt, W. Busza, I.A. Cali, M.
D’Alfonso, G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov, P. Harris, D. Hsu, M. Hu, 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, D. Rankin, 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, S. Guts,
P. Hansen, J. Hiltbrand, Sh. Jain, S. Kalafut, Y. Kubota, Z. Lesko, J. Mans,
R. Rusack, M.A. Wadud University of Mississippi, Oxford, USA
J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
K. Bloom, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, L. Finco, F. Golf, R. Gonzalez Suarez, R.
Kamalieddin, I. Kravchenko, J.E. Siado, G.R. Snow, B. Stieger State University
of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
G. Agarwal, C. Harrington, I. Iashvili, A. Kharchilava, C. Mclean, D. Nguyen,
A. Parker, J. Pekkanen, S. Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani Northeastern University,
Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, Y. Haddad, A. Hortiangtham, G. Madigan,
D.M. Morse, T. Orimoto, L. Skinnari, A. Tishelman-Charny, T. Wamorkar, B.
Wang, A. Wisecarver, D. Wood Northwestern University, Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, J. Bueghly, T. Gunter, K.A. Hahn, N. Odell, M.H. Schmitt, K.
Sung, M. Trovato, M. Velasco University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, USA
R. Bucci, N. Dev, R. Goldouzian, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop,
D.J. Karmgard, K. Lannon, W. Li, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, I. Mcalister, F.
Meng, C. Mueller, Y. Musienko36, M. Planer, R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, G.
Smith, S. Taroni, M. Wayne, A. Wightman, M. Wolf, A. Woodard The Ohio State
University, Columbus, USA
J. Alimena, B. Bylsma, L.S. Durkin, S. Flowers, B. Francis, C. Hill, W. Ji, A.
Lefeld, T.Y. Ling, B.L. Winer Princeton University, Princeton, USA
S. Cooperstein, G. Dezoort, P. Elmer, J. Hardenbrook, N. Haubrich, S.
Higginbotham, A. Kalogeropoulos, S. Kwan, 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, G. Negro, 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
K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Kilpatrick, Arun Kumar, W. Li, B.P.
Padley, R. Redjimi, J. Roberts, J. Rorie, W. Shi, A.G. Stahl Leiton, Z. Tu, A.
Zhang University of Rochester, Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, J.L. Dulemba, C. Fallon, T. Ferbel, M.
Galanti, A. Garcia-Bellido, J. Han, O. Hindrichs, A. Khukhunaishvili, E.
Ranken, P. Tan, R. Taus Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,
Piscataway, USA
B. Chiarito, J.P. Chou, A. Gandrakota, Y. Gershtein, E. Halkiadakis, A. Hart,
M. Heindl, E. Hughes, S. Kaplan, S. Kyriacou, I. Laflotte, A. Lath, R.
Montalvo, K. Nash, M. Osherson, H. Saka, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, D. Sheffield,
S. Somalwar, R. Stone, S. Thomas, P. Thomassen University of Tennessee,
Knoxville, USA
H. Acharya, A.G. Delannoy, J. Heideman, G. Riley, S. Spanier Texas A&M
University, College Station, USA
O. Bouhali73, A. Celik, M. Dalchenko, M. De Mattia, A. Delgado, S. Dildick, R.
Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T. Kamon74, S. Luo, D. Marley, R. Mueller, D.
Overton, L. Perniè, D. Rathjens, A. Safonov Texas Tech University, Lubbock,
USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, F. De Guio, S. Kunori, K. Lamichhane, S.W. Lee, T.
Mengke, S. Muthumuni, T. Peltola, S. Undleeb, I. Volobouev, Z. Wang, A.
Whitbeck Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H. Ni, K.
Padeken, F. Romeo, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska, M. Verweij University of
Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
M.W. Arenton, P. Barria, B. Cox, G. Cummings, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A.
Ledovskoy, C. Neu, B. Tannenwald, 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
J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, D. Carlsmith, S. Dasu, I. De Bruyn, L. Dodd, F.
Fiori, C. Galloni, B. Gomber75, H. He, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, P.
Klabbers, A. Lanaro, A. Loeliger, K. Long, R. Loveless, J. Madhusudanan
Sreekala, T. Ruggles, A. Savin, V. Sharma, W.H. Smith, D. Teague, S. Trembath-
reichert, 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 UFMS, Nova Andradina, Brazil
6: Also at Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil
7: Also at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
8: Also at University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
9: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics named by A.I.
Alikhanov of NRC ‘Kurchatov Institute’, Moscow, Russia
10: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
11: Also at Suez University, Suez, Egypt
12: Now at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt
13: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
14: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
15: Also at Erzincan Binali Yildirim University, Erzincan, Turkey
16: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
17: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
18: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
19: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
20: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary,
Debrecen, Hungary
21: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
22: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary, Budapest, Hungary
23: Also at IIT Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India, Bhubaneswar, India
24: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
25: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India
26: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
27: Also at Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
28: Now at INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b, Politecnico di Bari
c, Bari, Italy
29: Also at Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and
Sustainable Economic Development, Bologna, Italy
30: Also at Centro Siciliano di Fisica Nucleare e di Struttura Della Materia,
Catania, Italy
31: Also at Scuola Normale e Sezione dell’INFN, Pisa, Italy
32: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia, Riga, Latvia
33: Also at Malaysian Nuclear Agency, MOSTI, Kajang, Malaysia
34: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico City, Mexico
35: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems,
Warsaw, Poland
36: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
37: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
38: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
39: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
40: Also at Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
41: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
42: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
43: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
44: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
45: Also at Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy
46: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy,
Pavia, Italy
47: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
48: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
49: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics, Vienna, Austria,
Vienna, Austria
50: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
51: Also at Şırnak University, Sirnak, Turkey
52: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey, Istanbul, Turkey
53: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey
54: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
55: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
56: Also at Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey
57: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
58: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
59: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
60: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
61: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
62: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
63: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
64: Also at IPPP Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom
65: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia
66: Also at Bethel University, St. Paul, Minneapolis, USA, St. Paul, USA
67: Also at Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey
68: Also at Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
69: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
70: Also at Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
71: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
72: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
73: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
74: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea, Daegu, Korea
75: Also at University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India