HIG-18-013

AN-16-434

# Search for resonant pair production of Higgs bosons in the $\PQb\PQb\PZ\PZ$
channel in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$

###### Abstract

A search for the production of a narrow-width resonance decaying into a pair
of Higgs bosons decaying into the $\PQb\PQb\PZ\PZ$ channel is presented. The
analysis is based on data collected with the CMS detector during 2016, in
proton-proton collisions at the LHC, corresponding to an integrated luminosity
of 35.9. The final states considered are the ones where one of the bosons
decays into a pair of muons or electrons, and the other boson decays either to
a pair of quarks or a pair of neutrinos. Upper limits at 95% confidence level
are placed on the production of narrow-width spin-0 or spin-2 particles
decaying to a pair of Higgs bosons, in models with and without an extended
Higgs sector. For a resonance mass range between 260 and 1000, limits on the
production cross section times branching fraction of a spin-0 and spin-2
resonance range from 0.1 to 5.0pb and 0.1 to 3.6pb, respectively. These
results set limits in parameter space in bulk Randall–Sundrum radion,
Kaluza–Klein excitation of the graviton, and N2HDM models. For specific
choices of parameters the N2HDM can be excluded in a mass range between 360
and 620for a resonance decaying to two Higgs bosons. This is the first search
for Higgs boson resonant pair production in the $\PQb\PQb\PZ\PZ$ channel.

##  0.1 Introduction

The discovery of the Higgs boson ($\Ph$) in 2012 [1, 2, 3, 4] has led to a
detailed program of studies of the Higgs field couplings to the elementary
particles of the standard model (SM) of particle physics: leptons, quarks, and
gauge bosons. To fully understand the form of the Higgs field potential, which
is a key element in the formulation of the SM, it is important to also study
the self-interaction of the Higgs boson. The self-interaction can be
investigated through measurements of the production of a pair of Higgs bosons
($\Ph\Ph$). In the SM, $\Ph\Ph$ production is a rare, nonresonant process,
with a small production rate [5] that will require the future data sets of the
high-luminosity LHC to be observed [5]. Hence, an early observation of
$\Ph\Ph$ production, a resonant production in particular, would be a
spectacular signature of physics beyond the standard model (BSM). The
production of gravitons, radions, or stoponium [6, 7, 8], for example, could
lead to $s$-channel $\Ph\Ph$ production via narrow-width resonances. The
breadth of the Higgs boson decay channels provides a unique opportunity to
test the self-consistency of an $\Ph\Ph$ signal with the SM or models with
extended electroweak sectors, such as two-Higgs doublet models (2HDM) [9, 10]
or extensions of the minimal supersymmetric standard model [11, 12, 13].

This paper reports a search for resonant $\Pp\Pp\to\mathrm{X}\to\PH\PH$
production in the $\PH\PH\to\PQb\PQb\PZ\PZ$ decay channel, where X is a
narrow-width resonance of spin-0 or spin-2, and $\PH$ can represent either
$\Ph$ or an additional Higgs boson from an extended electroweak sector. The
search uses proton-proton ($\Pp\Pp$) collision data at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$,
recorded with the CMS detector at the LHC in 2016, and corresponding to an
integrated luminosity of 35.9. It covers a range of resonance masses between
260 and 1000. The final state consists of two jets from one Higgs boson decay
and two distinct $\PZ$ boson decay signatures from the other $\PH\to\PZ\PZ$
decay: two same-flavor, opposite-sign (OS) leptons from a decay of one of the
bosons, and either two jets of any flavor (the $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\mathrm{jj}$
channel) or significant missing transverse momentum (the
$\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\nu\nu$ channel) from the decay of the second boson to
neutrinos. In both cases, the selected charged leptons are either electrons or
muons. In the SM, the branching fractions of these signatures represent 0.43
(0.12)% of the full $\Ph\Ph$ decay through the $\PQb\PQb\PZ\PZ$ intermediate
state in the $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\mathrm{jj}$ ($\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\nu\nu$) channel.
The challenging aspect of the search in the $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\mathrm{jj}$
channel is the ability to discriminate the signal containing two jets and two
additional jets from multijet background events. For a search in the
$\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\nu\nu$ channel, the challenge resides in discriminating the
signal against top quark anti-top quark ($\ttbar$) events and instrumental
background sources of large missing transverse momentum arising from the
mismeasurement of the energies of jets in the final state. The two channels
are kept independent by applying orthogonal selections on the missing
transverse momentum of the event. Signal yields are calculated for each
individual channel and are then combined. Having multiple decay channels with
complementary background compositions and sensitivities over a large resonance
mass ($m_{X}$) range makes this combination of the $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\nu\nu$
and $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\mathrm{jj}$ channels highly efficient for covering the
$\PQb\PQb\PZ\PZ$ final state. This is the first search for Higgs boson
resonant pair production in the $\PQb\PQb\PZ\PZ$ channel.

Previous searches for resonant $\Ph\Ph$ production have been performed by the
CMS and ATLAS Collaborations in the $\PQb\PQb\PQb\PQb$ [14, 15],
$\PQb\PQb\tau\tau$ [16, 17], $\PQb\PQb\gamma\gamma$ [18], and
$\PQb\PQb\ell\nu\ell\nu$ [19, 17] channels. While coverage of as many $\Ph\Ph$
decay channels as possible remains necessary to understand the exact nature of
the Higgs boson self-coupling and the electroweak symmetry breaking mechanism,
a $\PQb\PQb\PZ\PZ$ search is particularly interesting in models with extended
electroweak sectors, where the phenomenology of additional Higgs bosons can
lead to significantly enhanced $\PQb\PQb\PZ\PZ$ production, while suppressing
the BSM production of $\PQb\PQb\PQb\PQb$, $\PQb\PQb\tau\tau$, or
$\PQb\PQb\gamma\gamma$ final states.

##  0.2 Benchmark models

As in the previous searches, a class of narrow width resonance models arising
from the Randall–Sundrum (RS) model [20] in warped extra dimensions [21, 22,
23, 24] are considered. This scenario introduces one small spatial extra
dimension with a nonfactorizable geometry, where the SM particles are not
allowed to propagate along that extra dimension, and is referred to in this
search as RS1. The resonant particle can be a radion (spin-0) or the first
Kaluza–Klein (KK) excitation of a graviton (spin-2). The production cross
section of the radion is proportional to $1/\lambda_{\mathrm{R}}^{2}$ where
$\lambda_{\mathrm{R}}$ is the interaction scale parameter of the theory. In
this analysis, we consider the cases where $\lambda_{\mathrm{R}}=1\TeV$ with
$kL=35$, where $k$ is the constant in the warp factor ($e^{-kL}$) appearing in
the space-time metric of the theory and $L$ is the size of the extra
dimension. The free parameter of the model for the graviton case is
$\tilde{k}=k/\overline{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}$, where $\overline{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}$
is the reduced Planck scale, and we consider $\tilde{k}=0.1$ in this analysis
[25]. We further scan the model parameter space in the $\lambda_{\mathrm{R}}$
and $\tilde{k}$ parameters for their respective models. Production at hadron
colliders is expected to be dominated by gluon-gluon fusion, and we assume
that the radion or graviton is produced exclusively via this process. Due to
the small branching fraction of $\Ph\Ph\to\PQb\PQb\PZ\PZ$ and the high
multiplicities of the final states, the analyses presented in this paper are
less sensitive to these models compared to the previous searches. As noted in
Section 0.1, however, certain models with extended electroweak sectors can
produce significantly enhanced $\PQb\PQb\PZ\PZ$ production, while suppressing
final states with Higgs boson decays to fermions and scalar bosons.

Such an enhancement can be produced for example in the next-to-minimal 2HDM
(N2HDM) extended Higgs sector [26, 27], where an additional real singlet is
introduced in addition to the usual two doublet Higgs bosons of the 2HDM. This
analysis is further interpreted in this context. The so-called broken phase is
considered, wherein both the Higgs doublets and the singlet acquire vacuum
expectation values (vev) [27]. Mixing between these states produces 3
$CP$-even Higgs bosons ${\PH}_{1}$, ${\PH}_{2}$, and ${\PH}_{3}$, with masses
that are free parameters of the model. This search considers the nearly mass-
degenerate case where the masses of the two bosons ${\PH}_{1}$ and ${\PH}_{2}$
are constrained to the experimental measurements of the $\Ph$ mass, which
would be indistinguishable from $\Ph$ production with current LHC data sets
[28, 29, 11], but may give rise to manifestly non-SM-like rates in the case of
$\Ph\Ph$ production. In what is commonly referred to as Higgs boson cascade
decays, ${\PH}_{3}$ can decay to any combination of bosons ${\PH}_{1}$ and
${\PH}_{2}$, which then both can have different decay branching fractions
compared to the SM Higgs boson. The model spectrum depends on the ratio of the
vevs of the two Higgs doublets $\tan\beta$, low values of which enhance
${\PH}_{3}$ production; the vev of the singlet, which affects the decay
branching fractions of ${\PH}_{3}$ to ${\PH}_{1}$ and ${\PH}_{2}$; and three
mixing angles, which determine the decay branching fractions of ${\PH}_{1}$
and ${\PH}_{2}$ [27]. The model spectra described below are determined using
N2HDECAY [30], and are chosen to enhance production of the $\PQb\PQb\PZ\PZ$
final state while respecting current LHC measurements of the SM $\Ph$
branching fractions within their experimental uncertainties [5]. The gluon-
gluon fusion production cross sections of ${\PH}_{3}$ are determined from the
BSM Higgs boson predictions of the LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group [5].
These cross sections assume SM decay branching fractions of the Higgs boson,
and changing these branching fractions affects the production cross section.
The cross sections are corrected at leading order (LO) by the ratio of the
relative partial width of ${\PH}_{3}$ in the decay to two gluons compared to
the BSM Higgs boson prediction. Enhanced (reduced) coupling of ${\PH}_{3}$ to
gluons will enhance (reduce) the production cross section of ${\PH}_{3}$. The
mass of the Higgs bosons ${\PH}_{1}$ and ${\PH}_{2}$ are set to 125, and the
mass of ${\PH}_{3}$ is generated in the range $260\leq m_{\mathrm{X}}\leq
1000\GeV$. Two benchmark points are chosen for this analysis, corresponding to
$\tan\beta=0.5$ and 2.0. In both cases, the scalar vev is set to 45, and the
mixing angles $\alpha_{1}$, $\alpha_{2}$, $\alpha_{3}$ are set to 0.76, 0.48,
and 1.00, respectively. For $\tan\beta=0.5$, this results in branching
fractions of ${\PH}_{3}$ to ${\PH}_{1}{\PH}_{1}$, ${\PH}_{1}{\PH}_{2}$, and
${\PH}_{2}{\PH}_{2}$ around 0.02, 0.29, and 0.64 respectively, branching
fractions of ${\PH}_{1}\to\PQb\PQb$ (${\PH}_{1}\to\PZ\PZ$) of 0.70 (0.01), and
branching fractions of ${\PH}_{2}\to\PQb\PQb$ (${\PH}_{2}\to\PZ\PZ$) of 0.42
(0.05). This represents a 33% increase in the branching fraction to
$\PQb\PQb\PZ\PZ$ compared to SM $\Ph\Ph$ decays. The correction factor based
on the relative partial width of ${\PH}_{3}$ to two gluons is around 3.0. For
$\tan\beta=2.0$, this results in branching fractions of ${\PH}_{3}$ to
${\PH}_{1}{\PH}_{1}$, ${\PH}_{1}{\PH}_{2}$, and ${\PH}_{2}{\PH}_{2}$ around
0.07, 0.22, and 0.67 respectively, branching fractions of
${\PH}_{1}\to\PQb\PQb$ (${\PH}_{1}\to\PZ\PZ$) of 0.53 (0.03), and branching
fractions of ${\PH}_{2}\to\PQb\PQb$ (${\PH}_{2}\to\PZ\PZ$) of 0.58 (0.03).
This represents a 5% increase in the branching fraction to $\PQb\PQb\PZ\PZ$
compared to SM $\Ph\Ph$ decays. The correction factor based on the relative
partial width of ${\PH}_{3}$ to two gluons is around 0.7. These corrections
and branching fractions produce significant differences in the production
rates of the $\PQb\PQb\PZ\PZ$ system compared to $\Ph\Ph$ production both in
the SM and through resonant production of radions or gravitons.

##  0.3 The CMS detector

The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6m
internal diameter, providing a magnetic field of 3.8T. Within the solenoid
volume are a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal
electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), and a brass and scintillator hadron
calorimeter (HCAL), each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. Forward
calorimeters extend the pseudorapidity coverage provided by the barrel and
endcap detectors, where pseudorapidity is defined as
$\eta=-\ln[\tan(\theta/2)]$, and $\theta$ is the polar angle. Muons are
measured in gas-ionization detectors embedded in the steel flux-return yoke
outside the solenoid. CMS uses a two-level trigger system [31]. The first
level of the CMS trigger system, composed of custom hardware processors, uses
information from the calorimeters and muon detectors to select the most
interesting events. The high-level trigger (HLT) processor farm further
decreases the event rate from around 100kHz to a rate of around 1kHz, 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. [32].

##  0.4 Event simulation

The signal samples of RS1 spin-0 radion and RS1 KK spin-2 graviton narrow
resonances decaying to a pair of Higgs bosons ($\mathrm{X}\to\Ph\Ph$) are
generated at LO using . The $\Ph$ mass is set to 125, and the $X$ resonance
mass $m_{X}$ is generated in the range of 260–1000. In the
$\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\nu\nu$ channel the final state can be produced via either
the $\PQb\PQb\PZ\PZ$ or $\PQb\PQb\PWp\PWm$ intermediate states.

The main background processes to production of a pair of Higgs bosons in the
$\PQb\PQb\PZ\PZ\to$ $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\mathrm{jj}$ or $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\nu\nu$
final states are $\PZ/\gamma^{*}\text{+jets}$ and $\ttbar$ processes. Less
significant backgrounds arise from single top quark, $\PW$+jets, diboson+jets,
SM Higgs boson production, and quantum chromodynamics (QCD) multijet
production. Signal and background processes are modeled with simulations, with
the exception of the QCD multijet background that is estimated using data
control regions.

In the analysis using the $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\mathrm{jj}$ channel, the
$\PZ/\gamma^{*}\text{+jets}$ and $\PW$+jets processes are generated with 2.4.2
[33] at next-to-leading order (NLO). In this case, the generator uses the FxFx
jet merging scheme [34]. The analysis of the $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\nu\nu$ channel
uses samples of $\PZ/\gamma^{*}\text{+jets}$ generated with at LO, with the
MLM matching scheme [35], and reweighted to account for higher order QCD and
electroweak effects [36].

The process is generated at NLO with 2.0 [37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42]. Single top
processes and SM Higgs boson production processes are simulated at NLO either
with or , depending on the particular channel. The diboson processes
($\PW\PW$+jets, $\PW\PZ$+jets, $\PZ\PZ$+jets) are simulated at NLO with .

The simulated samples are normalized to their best-known highest-order-QCD
cross sections, either evaluated at NLO with [43] (diboson+jets) or at next-
to-next-to-leading order with 3.1 [44] (single top quark, $\PW$+jets, SM Higgs
boson), with the exception of $\ttbar$ and $\PZ/\gamma^{*}\text{+jets}$
processes, which are normalized using data.

The simulated samples are interfaced with 8.212 [45] for parton showering and
hadronization. The generator uses the CUETP8M1 underlying event tune [46]. The
nnpdf3.0 NLO and LO parton distribution functions (PDFs) [47] are used for the
various processes, with the precision matching that in the matrix element
calculations.

For all the simulated samples used in this analysis, a simulation of CMS
detector response based on [48] is applied. The presence of additional
interactions in the same bunch crossing (pileup, or PU), both in-time and out-
of-time with respect to the primary interaction, is simulated and corrected to
agree with a multiplicity corresponding to the distribution measured in data.

##  0.5 Event reconstruction and background estimation

###  0.5.1 Event reconstruction

Events are selected using triggers that require two muons with transverse
momentum $\pt>17$ (8)or two electrons with $\pt>23$ (12)for the leading (sub-
leading) lepton.

The particle-flow (PF) algorithm [49], which combines information from various
elements of the CMS detector, is used to reconstruct and identify final-state
particles, such as photons, electrons, muons, and charged and neutral hadrons,
as individual PF objects. Combinations of PF objects are then used to
reconstruct higher-level objects such as jets and missing transverse momentum.

Jets are reconstructed from the PF objects, using the anti- [50, 51] algorithm
with a distance parameter of $R=0.4$. In order to reduce instrumental
backgrounds and the contamination from PU, selected jets are required to
satisfy loose identification criteria [52] based on the multiplicities and
energy fractions carried by charged and neutral hadrons. The energy of
reconstructed jets is calibrated using $\pt$\- and $\eta$-dependent
corrections to account for nonuniformity and nonlinearity effects of the ECAL
and HCAL energy response to neutral hadrons, for the presence of extra
particles from PU, for the thresholds used in jet constituent selection,
reconstruction inefficiencies, and possible biases introduced by the
clustering algorithm. These jet energy corrections are extracted from the
measurement of the momentum balance in dijet, $\text{photon}+\text{jet}$,
$\PZ/\gamma^{*}\text{+jets}$, and multijet events [53]. A residual $\eta$\-
and $\pt$-dependent calibration is applied to correct for the small
differences between data and simulated jets. The jets that are candidates to
be from the decay of one of the Higgs bosons and of one of the bosons are
required to have $\pt>20\GeV$. Furthermore, jets are required to have a
spatial separation of $\Delta R>0.3$ from lepton candidates.

Jets originating from quarks are identified with the combined multivariate
analysis (cMVA) algorithm [54]. A jet is tagged as a jet if the cMVA
discriminant is above a certain threshold, chosen such that the
misidentification rate is about 1% for light-flavor quark and gluon jets, and
about 13% for charm quark jets. The jet tagging efficiency for this working
point is about 66%.

The missing transverse momentum vector is computed as the negative vector sum
of the transverse momenta of all the PF candidates in an event, and its
magnitude is denoted as [55]. The is modified to account for corrections to
the energy scale of the reconstructed jets in the event.

The candidate vertex with the largest value of summed physics-object $\pt^{2}$
is taken to be the primary $\Pp\Pp$ interaction vertex. The physics objects
are the jets, clustered using the jet finding algorithm [50, 51] with the
tracks assigned to candidate vertices as inputs, and the associated missing
transverse momentum, taken as the negative vector sum of the of those jets.

Muons are reconstructed as tracks in the muon system that are matched to the
tracks reconstructed in the inner silicon tracking system [56]. The leading
muon is required to have $\pt>20\GeV$, while the subleading muon must have
$\pt>15$ (10)in the $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\nu\nu$ ($\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\mathrm{jj}$)
channel. Muons are required to be reconstructed in the HLT fiducial volume, ,
with $\abs{\eta}<2.4$, to ensure that the offline selection is at least as
restrictive as the HLT requirements. The selected muons are required to
satisfy a set of identification requirements based on the number of spatial
measurements in the silicon tracker and in the muon system and the fit quality
of the combined muon track [46], and are required to be consistent with
originating from the primary vertex.

Electrons are reconstructed by matching tracks in the silicon tracker to the
clusters of energy deposited in the ECAL [57]. The leading (subleading)
electron is required to have $\pt>25$ (15)and $\abs{\eta}<2.5$ to be within
the geometrical acceptance, excluding candidates in the range
$1.4442<\abs{\eta}<1.5660$, which is the transition region between the ECAL
barrel and endcaps, because the reconstruction of an electron in this region
is poor compared to other regions. Electrons are required to pass an
identification requirement based on an MVA [58] technique that combines
information from various observables related to the shower shape in the ECAL
and the quality of the matching between the tracks and the associated ECAL
clusters [57]. They are further required to be consistent with originating
from the primary vertex. Candidates that are identified as originating from
photon conversions in the material of the detector are removed.

Both muons and electrons have a requirement that the lepton relative
isolation, defined in Eq.(1), be less than 0.25 (0.15) and 0.15 (0.06),
respectively, for the $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\mathrm{jj}$ ($\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\nu\nu$)
channel. In Eq.(1), the sums run over charged hadrons originating from the
primary vertex of the event, neutral hadrons, and photons inside a cone of
radius $\Delta R=\sqrt{\smash[b]{(\Delta\phi)^{2}+(\Delta\eta)^{2}}}<0.4$
(0.3) around the direction of the muon (electron), where $\phi$ is the
azimuthal angle in radians.

$I_{\text{iso}}=\frac{1}{\pt^{\ell}}\left[\sum^{\text{charged}}\pt+\max\left(0,\sum^{\text{neutral}}\pt+\sum^{\text{photons}}\pt-\text{Corr}_{\text{PU}}\right)\right]$
(1)

The isolation includes a correction for pileup effects,
$\text{Corr}_{\text{PU}}$. For electrons, $\text{Corr}_{\text{PU}}=\rho
A_{\text{eff}}$, where $\rho$ is the average transverse momentum flow density,
calculated using the jet area method [59], and $A_{\text{eff}}$ is the
geometric area of the isolation cone times an $\eta$-dependent correction
factor that accounts for residual pileup effects. For muons,
$\text{Corr}_{\text{PU}}=0.5\sum^{\text{PU}}\pt$, where the sum runs over
charged particles not associated with the primary vertex and the factor 0.5
corresponds to an approximate average ratio of neutral to charged particles in
the isolation cone [60].

Simulated background and signal events are corrected with scale factors for
differences observed between data and simulation, in trigger efficiencies, in
lepton $\pt$\- and $\eta$-dependent identification and isolation efficiencies,
and in tagging efficiencies.

###  0.5.2 Event selection in the $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\mathrm{jj}$ channel

After selection of the candidate physics objects, an initial event selection
is performed by requiring at least two same-flavor leptons (muons or
electrons) in each event. The two leptons are required to be oppositely
charged. The invariant mass of the two leptons, $m_{\ell\ell}$, is required to
be larger than 15. Four of the jets in an event are designated as the $\Ph$
and boson decay products. These jets are required to have $\pt>20\GeV$ and at
least one of those must be tagged with a minimum requirement on the tagging
discriminant, that is looser than the requirement in the final selection. We
refer to this selection as the preselection.

Since the signal contains two jets from the decay of a Higgs boson, and two
jets of any flavor from the decay of a boson, it is important to carefully
categorize the jets in the event. Starting from a collection of jets
identified as described above, the information from the tagging discriminant,
as well as the kinematic properties of the jets, are taken into account when
assigning jets as each particle’s decay products.

The following selection is applied to identify the jets originating from the
decay of the Higgs boson. The two jets with the highest tagging scores above a
certain threshold are assigned to the decay of the Higgs boson. If only one
jet is found that meets the minimum tagging score value, a second jet that
leads to an invariant mass closest to 125 is selected. If no jets with tagging
scores above threshold are found, the two jets whose invariant mass is closest
to 125 are chosen.

After jets are assigned to the decay of $\Ph\to\PQb\PQb$, from the remaining
jets the two jets with four-object invariant mass $M(\ell\ell\text{jj})$
closest to 125are assigned to the decay of the boson.

After preselection, additional requirements are imposed. At least one of the
four jets assigned as the decay products of the $\Ph$ or boson must satisfy
the tagging requirement, to increase the signal-to-background ratio. To impose
orthogonality with the $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\nu\nu$ decay channel, upper limits on
the $\ptmiss$ are imposed as follows: $\ptmiss<40,\ 75,\ \mathrm{and}\
100\GeV$ for the $m_{X}$ of 260–350, 350–650, and ${\geq}$650, respectively.
We refer to this selection as the final selection in the
$\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\mathrm{jj}$ channel.

After the final selection, twenty-two variables that exploit the differences
in kinematic and angular distributions between the signal and background
processes are combined into a boosted decision tree (BDT) discriminant [61].
In the $m_{X}$ range of 260–300, the most important variables are
$m_{\ell\ell}$, the separation between the leading lepton and leading tagged
jet $\Delta R_{\ell 1\PQb 1}$, and the invariant mass of the pair of tagged
jets $m^{\Ph}_{\PQb\PQb}$. In the $m_{X}$ range of 350–550,
$m^{\Ph}_{\PQb\PQb}$ is the most important variable, while $m_{\ell\ell}$
becomes less important, and the separation between the pair of leptons $\Delta
R_{\ell\ell}$ gradually becomes more important when the $m_{X}$ increases. For
the $m_{X}$ higher than 550, $\Delta R_{\ell\ell}$ becomes the most important
variable followed by $m^{\Ph}_{\PQb\PQb}$ and the separation between the pair
of tagged jets $\Delta R^{\Ph}_{\PQb\PQb}$. The BDTs are configured to use
stochastic gradient boosting with the binomial log-likelihood loss function.
The software package TMVA [58] is used for BDT implementation, training, and
application.

The BDT is trained using all background processes described in Section 0.4,
excluding the multijet background. In each lepton channel and for each spin
hypothesis, one BDT is trained for each simulated signal $m_{X}$. In the
training, signal events include samples from the two neighboring mass points,
in addition to the targeted mass point. In total, 48 BDTs are trained. These
BDT distributions for data and expected backgrounds are used as the final
discriminating variable in the analysis.

###  0.5.3 Background estimation in the $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\mathrm{jj}$ channel

The main processes that can mimic the signature of the signal in the
$\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\mathrm{jj}$ channel are $\PZ/\gamma^{*}\text{+jets}$ and
$\ttbar$, with smaller contributions from QCD multijets, diboson+jets,
$\PW$+jets, and SM Higgs boson production.

The contribution from the principal background, $\PZ/\gamma^{*}\text{+jets}$,
is estimated with simulated events normalized to the data at the preselection
level in the $\PZ$ boson-enriched control region $80<m_{\ell\ell}<100\GeV$.
The contribution from $\ttbar$ is estimated in a similar manner, with the
$\ttbar$-enriched control region defined by $m_{\ell\ell}>100\GeV$, and
$\ptmiss>100\GeV$. The data-to-simulation normalization factors derived from
the two control regions are $R_{\PZ}=1.14\pm 0.01\stat$ and
$R_{\ttbar}=0.91\pm 0.01\stat$ in the muon channel and $R_{\PZ}=1.24\pm
0.01\stat$ and $R_{\ttbar}=0.97\pm 0.02\stat$ in the electron channel. These
normalization factors are found to be consistent between lepton flavors when
applying lepton-specific systematic variations.

The contribution from QCD multijet processes is determined from data with a
method that exploits the fact that neither signal events nor events from other
backgrounds produce final states with same-sign leptons at any significant
level. Data events with same-sign isolated leptons are used to model the shape
of the multijet background, after all non-QCD sources of background
contributing to this selection are subtracted using simulation. The yield in
this region is normalized with the ratio of the number of events with
nonisolated OS leptons to the number of events with nonisolated same-sign
leptons. Here, nonisolated leptons are those muons (electrons) that fail the
relative isolation requirements described in Section 0.5.1. All non-QCD
sources of background, estimated with simulated events, are subtracted from
the numerator and the denominator before computing the ratio.

The contributions from diboson+jets, $\PW$+jets, and SM Higgs boson production
are estimated from simulation.

###  0.5.4 Event selection in the $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\nu\nu$ channel

Candidate events in the $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\nu\nu$ channel are reconstructed
from the physics objects, as described above. The two leptons (muons or
electrons) are required to have OS, and the invariant mass of the two leptons,
$m_{\ell\ell}$, is required to exceed 76. One of the Higgs bosons is formed
from the pair of jets with the highest output value of the tagging
discriminant, and the second Higgs boson is reconstructed as a combination of
the two charged leptons and the , representing the visible and invisible
decays products, respectively, of the pair of bosons. The requirement on
$m_{\ell\ell}$ reduces the contribution from resonant $\mathrm{X}\to\Ph\Ph$
production in the $\PQb\PQb\PW\PW$ final state, and makes this measurement
orthogonal to a previous $\PQb\PQb\PW\PW$ search [19], where only events with
$m_{\ell\ell}$ below 76were considered.

For the Higgs boson decaying to a pair of bosons, the two neutrinos are not
reconstructed in the detector, and a pseudo invariant mass of the Higgs boson
is used to approximate the incomplete momentum four-vector of the $\PH$. The
pseudo invariant mass is formed from the momenta of the two charged leptons
coming from one of the bosons and the four-vector $(\ptmiss,\ptvecmiss)$
approximating that of the two-neutrino system coming from the other of the
bosons, where the $z$ component of is zero. While the true invariant mass of
the pair of neutrinos is not zero but is equal to the invariant mass of the
parent boson, that boson is off the mass shell and has relatively low mass.

In order to suppress the backgrounds from the $\PZ/\gamma^{*}\text{+jets}$ and
QCD multijet processes as well as from the SM Higgs boson production via the
$\PZ\Ph$ process, a requirement is imposed on the minimum , which is 40
(75)for the $m_{X}$ of 260–300 (350–600), and 100for higher $m_{X}$.

Three regions, a signal region (SR) and two control regions (CRs), are further
defined using $m_{\ell\ell}$ and the invariant mass $m^{\Ph}_{\PQb\PQb}$ of
the two jets. The SR is defined by the requirements $76<m_{\ell\ell}<106\GeV$
and $90<m^{\Ph}_{\PQb\PQb}<150\GeV$. A first CR, dominated by events, is
defined by $m_{\ell\ell}>106\GeV$ and $90<m^{\Ph}_{\PQb\PQb}<150\GeV$. A
second CR, enriched in $\PZ/\gamma^{*}\text{+jets}$ events, is defined by
requiring $20<m^{\Ph}_{\PQb\PQb}<90\GeV$ or $m^{\Ph}_{\PQb\PQb}>150\GeV$, and
$76<m_{\ell\ell}<106\GeV$. The two CRs and the SR are used to estimate the
backgrounds in the SR via a simultaneous fit.

To further differentiate signal from backgrounds in the SR, a BDT discriminant
is trained using all simulated signal and background processes described in
Section 0.4. Of the nine input distributions to the BDT, the most important
variables in the low-mass range are the separation between the pair of $\PQb$
tagged jets $\Delta R^{\Ph}_{\PQb\PQb}$, , and $m^{\Ph}_{\PQb\PQb}$. In the
high-mass region, $m^{\Ph}_{\PQb\PQb}$ and $\Delta R^{\Ph}_{\PQb\PQb}$ are
also the most significant, together with the separation between the pair of
charged leptons $\Delta R_{\ell\ell}$, which becomes more important as the
resonance mass increases. Two BDTs are trained for each lepton channel and
each resonance spin hypothesis, one for $m_{X}$ in the range of 250–450, and
another one for the $m_{X}$ above 450. A minimum BDT value is required for
candidates in the SR, optimized for each narrow $m_{X}$ hypothesis to yield
the best 95% confidence level () expected upper limit on resonant production.
The BDTs are configured with the same classification and loss function
parameters described in Section 0.5.2.

Finally, a quantity closely correlated with the energy-momentum four-vector of
the $\Ph\Ph$ system is constructed as the vector sum of the of the two
leptons, two $\PQb$ jets, and the four-vector formed as $(\ptmiss,\ptvecmiss)$
for the neutrinos, as described above. Subsequently, the pseudo transverse
mass of the $\Ph\Ph$ system is defined as
$\widetilde{M}_{\mathrm{T}}(\Ph\Ph)=\sqrt{\smash[b]{E^{2}-p_{z}^{2}}}$, where
$E$ and $p_{z}$ are the energy and the $z$ component of the combined four-
vector.

The $\widetilde{M}_{\mathrm{T}}(\Ph\Ph)$ distributions for data and expected
backgrounds, in the combined signal and CRs, will be used as the final
discriminating variable in the analysis.

After the event selection in this channel is applied, the signal $\Ph\Ph$
events in the SR come predominantly from the decays with the $\PQb\PQb\PZ\PZ$
intermediate state (80%) with a smaller contribution from the
$\PQb\PQb\PWp\PWm$ intermediate state (20%). Both intermediate states are used
to calculate the limit on $\Pp\Pp\to\mathrm{X}\to\Ph\Ph$ in the
$\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\nu\nu$ channel.

###  0.5.5 Background estimation in the $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\nu\nu$ channel

The dominant sources of background in the $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\nu\nu$ channel are
and $\PZ/\gamma^{*}\text{+jets}$ production. Several other background
processes contribute, including single top quark and diboson production, and
SM Higgs boson production in association with a boson. While these are
typically minor backgrounds, their contribution can vary over the $m_{X}$
range. The QCD multijet background is negligible across the full mass range
because of the stringent selection on $m_{\ell\ell}$.

The event yields in the signal and two CRs, which are dominated by and
$\PZ/\gamma^{*}\text{+jets}$ events, are determined from data. The
corresponding normalizations of the simulated
$\widetilde{M}_{\mathrm{T}}(\Ph\Ph)$ distributions are free parameters in the
simultaneous fit of all three regions. The remaining backgrounds are estimated
from simulation and normalized according to their theoretical cross sections.

##  0.6 Systematic uncertainties

The dominant source of systematic uncertainty in this analysis is the jet
energy scale (JES) uncertainty, which is of the order of a few percent and is
estimated as a function of jet and $\eta$ [53]. The $\eta$-dependent jet
energy resolution (JER) correction factors are varied by $\pm$1 standard
deviation in order to estimate the effect of the uncertainty. Uncertainties in
the JES are propagated to the calculation of $\ptmiss$. A residual $\ptmiss$
uncertainty of 3% is applied in the $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\nu\nu$ channel to take
into account the effect, at low $\ptmiss$, of the unclustered energy from
neutral hadrons and photons that do not belong to any jet, and from jets with
$\pt<10\GeV$.

An uncertainty of 2% per muon in the muon reconstruction, identification, and
isolation requirements, as well as a 1% per muon uncertainty in the muon HLT
efficiency are assigned [56]. A per-muon uncertainty due to measured
differences of tracking efficiency in data and simulation is estimated to be
0.5% for muon $\pt<300\GeV$ and 1.0% for muon $\pt>300\GeV$ [62]. Per-electron
uncertainties in the efficiency for electron trigger, identification and
isolation requirements, estimated by varying the scale factors within their
uncertainties, are applied. The uncertainties in the efficiency scale factors
are generally $<$2% for trigger and $<$3% for identification and isolation
[57]. The effect of the variations on the yield of the total background is
$<$1%. Uncertainties in the data-to-simulation correction factors of the
tagging and of light flavor mis-tagging efficiencies are included.

Normalization and shape uncertainties are assigned to the modeling of the
backgrounds. An uncertainty in the shape of the signal and background models
is determined by varying the factorization and the renormalization scales
between their nominal values and 0.5 to 2.0 times the nominal values in the
simulated signal and background samples. The variations where one scale
increases and the other decreases are not considered. Each of the remaining
variations of the renormalization and the factorization scales are considered,
and the maximum variation among all the samples with respect to the nominal
sample used in the analysis is taken as the systematic uncertainty, which is
found to be 5–7% depending on the process. An uncertainty in the signal
acceptance and background acceptance and cross section due to PDF
uncertainties and to the value chosen for the strong coupling constant is
estimated by varying the NNPDF set of eigenvectors within their uncertainties,
following the PDF4LHC prescription [63]. Statistical uncertainties in the
simulated samples for $\PZ/\gamma^{*}\text{+jets}$ and $\ttbar$ background
estimates result in uncertainties on the data-derived normalization factors in
the $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\mathrm{jj}$ channel.

An uncertainty of 2.5% is assigned to the determination of the integrated
luminosity [64]. The uncertainty in the PU condition and modeling is assessed
by varying the inelastic $\Pp\Pp$ cross section from its central value by
$\pm$4.6% [65].

All the uncertainties discussed are applied to all background and signal
simulated samples. The sensitivity of the presented search is limited by the
statistical uncertainties.

##  0.7 Results

Results are obtained by performing a binned maximum likelihood fit of the BDT
distributions for the $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\mathrm{jj}$ channel, and of the
$\Ph\Ph$ pseudo transverse mass simultaneously in the SR and two CRs for the
$\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\nu\nu$ channel.

The data and background predictions at final selection level in the
$\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\mathrm{jj}$ channel are shown in Fig. 1, for the
distributions of the BDT discriminant for signal masses of 500 and 1000, in
the muon and electron final states. Studies performed on all 48 BDT
discriminants show stability of the trainings with no evidence of bias or
overtraining.

Figure 1: Comparison of the BDT discriminant for $m_{\mathrm{X}}=500$ and
1000after the final selection in the muon (upper row) and electron (lower row)
final states of the $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\mathrm{jj}$ channel. The signals of an
RS1 radion with mass of 500 (left) and 1000(right) are normalized to a cross
section of 1pb for the $\Pp\Pp\to\mathrm{X}\to\Ph\Ph$ process. The shaded area
represents the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties in the
background estimate.

Figure 2 shows the $\Ph\Ph$ pseudo transverse mass distributions in the data,
background estimates, and spin-2 RS1 graviton for the 300mass hypothesis,
after the final selection in the $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\nu\nu$ channel.

Figure 2: Pseudo transverse mass of the reconstructed $\Ph\Ph$ candidates, in
the $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\nu\nu$ channel, for data, simulated spin-2 RS1 graviton
signal with a mass of 300, and simulated backgrounds scaled according to the
fit results. The upper and lower rows correspond to the muon and electrons
channels. For each row, the left and middle plots are for the
$\PZ/\gamma^{*}\text{+jets}$ and control regions, and the right is for the
signal region. The signals are normalized to 1pb for the
$\Pp\Pp\to\mathrm{X}\to\Ph\Ph$ process. The shaded area represents the
combined statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background estimate.

The systematic uncertainties are represented by nuisance parameters that are
varied in the fit according to their probability density functions, prescribed
as follows. A log-normal probability density function is assumed for the
nuisance parameters affecting the event yields of the various background
contributions, whereas systematic uncertainties that affect the distributions
are represented by nuisance parameters whose variation is a vertical
interpolation in each bin with a sixth-order polynomial for upward and
downward shifts of one standard deviation, and linearly outside of that [66].

The statistical uncertainty from the limited number of events in the simulated
samples is taken into account, for each bin of the discriminant distributions,
by assigning a nuisance parameter to scale the sum of the process yields in
that bin according to the statistical uncertainty using the Barlow–Beeston
“lite” prescription [67, 68].

In both channels the data distributions are well reproduced by the SM
background processes. Upper limits on the resonance production cross section
are set, using the asymptotic modified frequentist approach [69, 70, 71].

The observed and expected 95% upper limits on
$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\mathrm{X}\to\PH\PH\to\PQb\PQb\PZ\PZ)$ in the
$\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\mathrm{jj}$ and $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\nu\nu$ channels as a
function of $m_{X}$ are shown in Fig. 3, together with the NLO predictions for
the RS1 radion, RS1 KK graviton, and N2HDM resonance production cross
sections, where $\PH$ can represent either the SM Higgs boson or an additional
Higgs boson from an extended electroweak sector. As two different BDTs are
defined for the search in the low- and high-mass ranges of the
$\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\nu\nu$ channel, the limit calculation is performed with both
of the BDTs at the boundary of the two ranges, around 450, where a
discontinuity is seen.

Figure 3:  Expected (black dashed line) and observed (black solid line) limits
on the cross section of resonant $\PH\PH$ production times the branching
fraction of $\PH\PH\to\PQb\PQb\PZ\PZ$ as a function of the resonance mass for
the $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\mathrm{jj}$ (upper row) and $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\nu\nu$
(lower row) channels, where $\PH$ can represent either the SM Higgs boson or
an additional Higgs boson from an extended electroweak sector. The spin-0 case
is shown on the left and the spin-2 case is shown on the right. The red solid
line shows the theoretical prediction for the cross section of an RS1 radion
with $\lambda_{\mathrm{R}}=1\TeV$ and $kL=35$ (left) and an RS1 KK graviton
with $\tilde{k}=0.1$ (right). In the spin-0 case only, the blue (green) line
shows the decays of
${\PH}_{3}\to{\PH}_{1}{\PH}_{1}/{\PH}_{1}{\PH}_{2}/{\PH}_{2}{\PH}_{2}\to\PQb\PQb\PZ\PZ$
in the N2HDM formulation, with $\tan\beta=0.5\ (2.0)$, the scalar ${\PH}_{3}$
vev set to 45, and the mixing angles $\alpha_{1}$, $\alpha_{2}$, $\alpha_{3}$
set to 0.76, 0.48, and 1.00, respectively. The correction factor based on the
relative partial width of ${\PH}_{3}$ to two gluons is around 3.0 (0.7) for
$\tan\beta=0.5\ (2.0)$. In the lower row, the vertical black dashed line
indicates the resonance mass of 450, a mass point where the BDT used in the
analysis is switched from the one trained for low mass resonance to the one
trained for high mass resonance.

Combined 95% upper limits from both channels on
$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\mathrm{X}\to\PH\PH\to\PQb\PQb\PZ\PZ$) as a function of
$m_{X}$, are shown in Fig. 4, together with the theoretical predictions for
the RS1 radion and RS1 KK graviton. In the $m_{X}$ range between 260 and 1000,
limits on the production cross section times branching fraction of RS1 radion
and RS1 KK graviton range from 0.1 to 5.0 and 0.1 to 3.6pb, respectively. In
the spin-0 case, the predictions of the N2HDM model with
$\tan\beta=0.5\mathrm{\ and\ }2.0$ are shown, for all
${\PH}_{3}\to{\PH}_{1}{\PH}_{1}/{\PH}_{1}{\PH}_{2}/{\PH}_{2}{\PH}_{2}\to\PQb\PQb\PZ\PZ$
decays. In the $\tan\beta=0.5$ case, the model can be excluded with
${\PH}_{3}$ in the $m_{X}$ range of 360–620. In comparison to previous
searches in other channels, we achieve a sensitivity to the RS1 radion and RS1
KK graviton models that is consistent with the lower value of the $\Ph\Ph$
branching fraction in the $\PQb\PQb\PZ\PZ$ channel relative to the other
channels.

Figure 4:  Expected (black dashed line) and observed (black solid line) limits
on the cross section of resonant $\PH\PH$ production times the branching
fraction of $\PH\PH\to\PQb\PQb\PZ\PZ$ as a function of the mass of the
resonance for the combination of the $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\mathrm{jj}$ and
$\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\nu\nu$ channels, where $\PH$ can represent either the SM
Higgs boson or an additional Higgs boson from an extended electroweak sector.
The spin-0 case is shown on the left and the spin-2 case is shown on the
right. The expected limits for each individual channel are shown with a red
dashed line for the $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\mathrm{jj}$ channel and blue dashed line
for the $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\nu\nu$ channel. The red solid lines show the
theoretical prediction for the cross section of an RS1 radion with
$\lambda_{\mathrm{R}}=1\TeV$ and $kL=35$ (left) and an RS1 KK graviton with
$\tilde{k}=0.1$ (right). In the spin-0 case only, the blue (green) line shows
the decays of
${\PH}_{3}\to{\PH}_{1}{\PH}_{1}/{\PH}_{1}{\PH}_{2}/{\PH}_{2}{\PH}_{2}\to\PQb\PQb\PZ\PZ$
in the N2HDM formulation, with $\tan\beta=0.5\ (2.0)$, the scalar ${\PH}_{3}$
vev set to 45, and the mixing angles $\alpha_{1}$, $\alpha_{2}$, $\alpha_{3}$
set to 0.76, 0.48, and 1.00, respectively. The correction factor based on the
relative partial width of ${\PH}_{3}$ to two gluons is around 3.0 (0.7) for
$\tan\beta=0.5\ (2.0)$. The vertical black dashed line indicates the resonance
mass of 450, a mass point where the BDT used in the analysis is switched from
the one trained for low mass resonance to the one trained for high mass
resonance.

Finally, the results are also interpreted as a function of both the $m_{X}$
and $\lambda_{\mathrm{R}}$ ($\tilde{k}$) for the radion (graviton) case, with
$\lambda_{\mathrm{R}}<0.3\TeV$ ($\tilde{k}>0.6$) excluded for all of the
$m_{X}$ considered, as shown in Fig. 5.

Figure 5:  The expected and observed exclusion limits at 95% on the RS1 radion
with $kL=35$ (RS1 KK graviton) hypothesis in the $\lambda_{\mathrm{R}}$
($\tilde{k}$) versus mass plane for the individual
$\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\mathrm{jj}$ (red) and $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\nu\nu$ (blue)
channels and their combination (black). The dark green and light yellow
expected limit uncertainty bands represent the 68 and 95% confidence
intervals. Solid lines represent the observed limits and dashed lines
represent the expected limits. The shaded region is excluded by the current
limits. The vertical black dashed line indicates the resonance mass of 450, a
mass point where the BDT used in the $\PQb\PQb\ell\ell\nu\nu$ analysis is
switched from the one trained for low mass resonance to the one trained for
high mass resonance.

##  0.8 Summary

A search for the production of a narrow-width resonance decaying into a pair
of Higgs bosons decaying into the $\PQb\PQb\PZ\PZ$ channel is presented. The
analysis is based on data collected with the CMS detector during 2016, in
proton-proton collisions at the LHC, corresponding to an integrated luminosity
of 35.9. The final states considered are the ones where one of the bosons
decays into a pair of muons or electrons, and the other boson decays either to
a pair of quarks or a pair of neutrinos. Upper limits at 95% confidence level
are placed on the production of narrow-width spin-0 or spin-2 particles
decaying to a pair of Higgs bosons, in models with and without an extended
Higgs sector. For a resonance mass range between 260 and 1000, limits on the
production cross section times branching fraction of a spin-0 and spin-2
resonance range from 0.1 to 5.0pb and 0.1 to 3.6pb, respectively. These
results set limits in parameter space in bulk Randall–Sundrum radion,
Kaluza–Klein excitation of the graviton, and N2HDM models. For specific
choices of parameters the N2HDM can be excluded in a mass range between 360
and 620for a resonance decaying to two Higgs bosons. This is the first search
for Higgs boson resonant pair production in the $\PQb\PQb\PZ\PZ$ channel.

###### 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, PUT 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 (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,
752730, 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. Z191100007219010; the
Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy –
EXC 2121 “Quantum Universe” – 390833306; the Lendület (“Momentum”) Program 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 National Priorities
Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund; the Ministry of Science and
Higher Education, project no. 02.a03.21.0005 (Russia); the Tomsk Polytechnic
University Competitiveness Enhancement Program and “Nauka” Project
FSWW-2020-0008 (Russia); 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
Kavli Foundation; the Nvidia Corporation; the SuperMicro Corporation; the
Welch Foundation, contract C-1845; and the Weston Havens Foundation (USA).

## References

  * [1] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021, arXiv:1207.7235.
  * [2] ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a new particle in the search for the standard model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020, arXiv:1207.7214.
  * [3] CMS Collaboration, “A new boson with a mass of 125 GeV observed with the CMS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider”,  Science 338 (2012) 1569, 10.1126/science.1230816.
  * [4] ATLAS Collaboration, “A particle consistent with the Higgs boson observed with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider”,  Science 338 (2012) 1576, 10.1126/science.1232005.
  * [5] LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group, “Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. Deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector”,  CERN (2016) 10.23731/CYRM-2017-002, arXiv:1610.07922.
  * [6] Y. Tang, “Implications of LHC searches for massive graviton”,  JHEP 08 (2012) 078, 10.1007/JHEP08(2012)078, arXiv:1206.6949.
  * [7] K. Cheung, “Phenomenology of the radion in the Randall-Sundrum scenario”,  Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 056007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.63.056007, arXiv:hep-ph/0009232.
  * [8] N. Kumar and S. P. Martin, “LHC search for di-Higgs decays of stoponium and other scalars in events with two photons and two bottom jets”,  Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 055007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.055007, arXiv:1404.0996.
  * [9] G. C. Branco et al., “Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models”,  Phys. Rept. 516 (2012) 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2012.02.002, arXiv:1106.0034.
  * [10] N. Craig, J. Galloway, and S. Thomas, “Searching for signs of the second Higgs doublet”, (2013). arXiv:1305.2424.
  * [11] M. Carena et al., “Alignment limit of the NMSSM Higgs sector”,  Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 035013, 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.035013, arXiv:1510.09137.
  * [12] S. AbdusSalam, “Testing Higgs boson scenarios in the phenomenological NMSSM”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 442, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6953-7, arXiv:1710.10785.
  * [13] E. Bagnaschi et al., “Benchmark scenarios for low $\tan\beta$ in the MSSM”, Technical Report LHCHXSWG-2015-002, 2015.
  * [14] CMS Collaboration, “Search for resonant pair production of Higgs bosons decaying to bottom quark-antiquark pairs in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV”,  JHEP 08 (2018) 152, 10.1007/JHEP08(2018)152, arXiv:1806.03548.
  * [15] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for pair production of Higgs bosons in the $\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}$ final state using proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  JHEP 01 (2019) 30, 10.1007/JHEP01(2019)030, arXiv:1804.06174.
  * [16] CMS Collaboration, “Search for Higgs boson pair production in events with two bottom quarks and two tau leptons in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ =13 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 778 (2018) 101, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.01.001, arXiv:1707.02909.
  * [17] ATLAS Collaboration, “Combination of searches for heavy resonances decaying into bosonic and leptonic final states using 36 fb-1 of proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 052008, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.052008, arXiv:1808.02380.
  * [18] CMS Collaboration, “Search for Higgs boson pair production in the $\gamma\gamma\mathrm{b\overline{b}}$ final state in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 788 (2019) 7, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.10.056, arXiv:1806.00408.
  * [19] CMS Collaboration, “Search for resonant and nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in the $\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}\ell\nu\ell\nu$ final state in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  JHEP 01 (2018) 54, 10.1007/JHEP01(2018)054, arXiv:1708.04188.
  * [20] L. Randall and R. Sundrum, “A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 3370, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.3370, arXiv:hep-ph/9905221.
  * [21] W. D. Goldberger and M. B. Wise, “Modulus stabilization with bulk fields”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 4922, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.4922, arXiv:hep-ph/9907447.
  * [22] O. DeWolfe, D. Z. Freedman, S. S. Gubser, and A. Karch, “Modeling the fifth-dimension with scalars and gravity”,  Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 046008, 10.1103/PhysRevD.62.046008, arXiv:hep-th/9909134.
  * [23] C. Csaki, M. Graesser, L. Randall, and J. Terning, “Cosmology of brane models with radion stabilization”,  Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 045015, 10.1103/PhysRevD.62.045015, arXiv:hep-ph/9911406.
  * [24] C. Csaki, J. Hubisz, and S. J. Lee, “Radion phenomenology in realistic warped space models”,  Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 125015, 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.125015, arXiv:0705.3844.
  * [25] A. Oliveira, “Gravity particles from warped extra dimensions, predictions for LHC”, (2014). arXiv:1404.0102.
  * [26] C.-Y. Chen, M. Freid, and M. Sher, “Next-to-minimal two Higgs doublet model”,  Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 075009, 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.075009, arXiv:1312.3949.
  * [27] M. Muhlleitner, M. O. P. Sampaio, R. Santos, and J. Wittbrodt, “The N2HDM under Theoretical and Experimental Scrutiny”,  JHEP 03 (2017) 094, 10.1007/JHEP03(2017)094, arXiv:1612.01309.
  * [28] L. Bian et al., “Future prospects of mass-degenerate Higgs bosons in the CP-conserving two-Higgs-doublet model”,  Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 115007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.115007, arXiv:1712.01299.
  * [29] P. M. Ferreira, R. Santos, H. E. Haber, and J. P. Silva, “Mass-degenerate Higgs bosons at 125 GeV in the two-Higgs-doublet model”,  Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 055009, 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.055009, arXiv:1211.3131.
  * [30] I. Engeln, M. Mühlleitner, and J. Wittbrodt, “N2HDECAY: Higgs boson decays in the different phases of the N2HDM”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 234 (2019) 256, 10.1016/j.cpc.2018.07.020, arXiv:1805.00966.
  * [31] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) 1020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [32] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [33] J. Alwall et al., “The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations”,  JHEP 07 (2014) 079, 10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079, arXiv:1405.0301.
  * [34] R. Frederix and S. Frixione, “Merging meets matching in MC@NLO”,  JHEP 12 (2012) 061, 10.1007/JHEP12(2012)061, arXiv:1209.6215.
  * [35] J. Alwall et al., “Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 53 (2008) 473, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0490-5, arXiv:0706.2569.
  * [36] S. Kallweit et al., “NLO QCD+EW predictions for V+jets including off-shell vector-boson decays and multijet merging”,  JHEP 04 (2016) 021, 10.1007/JHEP04(2016)021, arXiv:1511.08692.
  * [37] P. Nason, “A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms”,  JHEP 11 (2004) 040, 10.1088/1126-6708/2004/11/040, arXiv:hep-ph/0409146.
  * [38] S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari, “Matching NLO QCD computations with Parton Shower simulations: the POWHEG method”,  JHEP 11 (2007) 070, 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070, arXiv:0709.2092.
  * [39] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX”,  JHEP 06 (2010) 043, 10.1007/JHEP06(2010)043, arXiv:1002.2581.
  * [40] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “NLO single-top production matched with shower in POWHEG: s- and t-channel contributions”,  JHEP 09 (2009) 111, 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/09/111, arXiv:0907.4076. [Erratum: 10.1007/JHEP02(2010)011].
  * [41] E. Re, “Single-top Wt-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1547, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1547-z, arXiv:1009.2450.
  * [42] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “NLO higgs boson production via gluon fusion matched with shower in POWHEG”,  JHEP 04 (2009) 002, 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/04/002, arXiv:0812.0578.
  * [43] J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, “MCFM for the Tevatron and the LHC”,  Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 205 (2010) 10, 10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2010.08.011, arXiv:1007.3492.
  * [44] Y. Li and F. Petriello, “Combining QCD and electroweak corrections to dilepton production in FEWZ”,  Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 094034, 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.094034, arXiv:1208.5967.
  * [45] T. Sjöstrand et al., “An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159, 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024, arXiv:1410.3012.
  * [46] CMS Collaboration, “Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 155, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3988-x, arXiv:1512.00815.
  * [47] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC Run II”,  JHEP 04 (2015) 040, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040, arXiv:1410.8849.
  * [48] GEANT4 Collaboration, “GEANT4—a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [49] CMS Collaboration, “Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector”,  JINST 12 (2017) 10003, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/10/P10003, arXiv:1706.04965.
  * [50] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-jet clustering algorithm”,  JHEP 04 (2008) 063, 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063, arXiv:0802.1189.
  * [51] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “FastJet user manual”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1896, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2, arXiv:1111.6097.
  * [52] CMS Collaboration, “Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-16-003, 2017.
  * [53] CMS Collaboration, “Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV”,  JINST 12 (2017) P02014, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/P02014, arXiv:1607.03663.
  * [54] CMS Collaboration, “Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV”,  JINST 13 (2018) P05011, 10.1088/1748-0221/13/05/P05011, arXiv:1712.07158.
  * [55] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV using the CMS detector”,  JINST 14 (2019) P07004, 10.1088/1748-0221/14/07/P07004, arXiv:1903.06078.
  * [56] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$”,  JINST 13 (2018) P06015, 10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/P06015, arXiv:1804.04528.
  * [57] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 8 TeV”,  JINST 10 (2015) P06005, 10.1088/1748-0221/10/06/P06005, arXiv:1502.02701.
  * [58] H. Voss, A. Höcker, J. Stelzer, and F. Tegenfeldt, “TMVA, the toolkit for multivariate data analysis with ROOT”, in  XIth International Workshop on Advanced Computing and Analysis Techniques in Physics Research (ACAT), p. 40.  2007\.  arXiv:physics/0703039.  [PoS(ACAT)040]. 10.22323/1.050.0040.
  * [59] M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam, “Pileup subtraction using jet areas”,  Phys. Lett. B 659 (2008) 119, 10.1016/j.physletb.2007.09.077, arXiv:0707.1378.
  * [60] CMS Collaboration, “Commissioning of the particle flow reconstruction in minimum-bias and jet events from pp collisions at 7 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-PFT-10-002, 2010.
  * [61] J. H. Friedman, “Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine.”,  Ann. Statist. 29 (10, 2001) 1189, 10.1214/aos/1013203451.
  * [62] CMS Collaboration, “Search for high-mass resonances in final states with a lepton and missing transverse momentum at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  JHEP 06 (2018) 128, 10.1007/JHEP06(2018)128, arXiv:1803.11133.
  * [63] J. Butterworth et al., “PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II”,  J. Phys. G 43 (2016) 023001, 10.1088/0954-3899/43/2/023001, arXiv:1510.03865.
  * [64] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data taking period”, (2017). CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001.
  * [65] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  JHEP 07 (2018) 161, 10.1007/JHEP07(2018)161, arXiv:1802.02613.
  * [66] The ATLAS Collaboration, The CMS Collaboration, The LHC Higgs Combination Group, “Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011”, Technical Report CMS-NOTE-2011-005, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-11, 2011.
  * [67] R. Barlow and C. Beeston, “Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 77 (1993) 219, 10.1016/0010-4655(93)90005-W.
  * [68] J. S. Conway, “Incorporating nuisance parameters in likelihoods for multisource spectra”, in  Proceedings, PHYSTAT 2011 workshop on statistical issues related to discovery claims in search experiments and unfolding, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland 17–20 January 2011, p. 115.  2011\.  arXiv:1103.0354.  10.5170/CERN-2011-006.115.
  * [69] T. Junk, “Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 434 (1999) 435, 10.1016/S0168-9002(99)00498-2, arXiv:hep-ex/9902006.
  * [70] A. L. Read, “Presentation of search results: the $\mathrm{CL_{s}}$ technique”,  J. Phys. G 28 (2002) 2693, 10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/313.
  * [71] G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, “Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1554, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0, arXiv:1007.1727. [Erratum: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2501-z].

##  .9 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, M. Dragicevic, J. Erö, A. Escalante Del
Valle, R. Frühwirth1, M. Jeitler1, N. Krammer, L. Lechner, D. Liko, T.
Madlener, I. Mikulec, N. Rad, J. Schieck1, R. Schöfbeck, M. Spanring, S.
Templ, W. Waltenberger, C.-E. Wulz1, M. Zarucki Institute for Nuclear
Problems, Minsk, Belarus
V. Chekhovsky, A. Litomin, V. Makarenko, J. Suarez Gonzalez Universiteit
Antwerpen, Antwerpen, Belgium
M.R. Darwish2, E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, T. Kello3, 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, Q. Python, S. Tavernier, W. Van
Doninck, P. Van Mulders Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
D. Beghin, B. Bilin, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, H. Delannoy, B. Dorney, L.
Favart, A. Grebenyuk, A.K. Kalsi, I. Makarenko, L. Moureaux, L. Pétré, A.
Popov, N. Postiau, E. Starling, L. Thomas, C. Vander Velde, P. Vanlaer, D.
Vannerom, L. Wezenbeek Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, I. Khvastunov4, M. Niedziela, C. Roskas, K. Skovpen, M.
Tytgat, W. Verbeke, B. Vermassen, M. Vit Université Catholique de Louvain,
Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
G. Bruno, F. Bury, C. Caputo, P. David, C. Delaere, M. Delcourt, I.S.
Donertas, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaitre, J. Prisciandaro, A. Saggio, A. Taliercio,
M. Teklishyn, P. Vischia, S. Wuyckens, J. Zobec Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas
Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
G.A. Alves, G. Correia Silva, C. Hensel, A. Moraes Universidade do Estado do
Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
W.L. Aldá Júnior, E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato5,
E. Coelho, E.M. Da Costa, G.G. Da Silveira6, D. De Jesus Damiao, S. Fonseca De
Souza, H. Malbouisson, J. Martins7, D. Matos Figueiredo, M. Medina Jaime8, M.
Melo De Almeida, C. Mora Herrera, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, P. Rebello Teles, L.J.
Sanchez Rosas, A. Santoro, S.M. Silva Do Amaral, A. Sznajder, M. Thiel, E.J.
Tonelli Manganote5, F. Torres Da Silva De Araujo, A. Vilela Pereira
Universidade Estadual Paulista a, Universidade Federal do ABC b, São Paulo,
Brazil
C.A. Bernardesa, L. Calligarisa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M. Gregoresb,
D.S. Lemosa, P.G. Mercadanteb, S.F. Novaesa, Sandra S. Padulaa Institute for
Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia,
Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, G. Antchev, I. Atanasov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, 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, A. Petrov
Beihang University, Beijing, China
W. Fang3, Q. Guo, H. Wang, L. Yuan Department of Physics, Tsinghua University,
Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, Z. Hu, Y. Wang Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
E. Chapon, G.M. Chen9, H.S. Chen9, M. Chen, C.H. Jiang, D. Leggat, H. Liao, Z.
Liu, R. Sharma, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, J. Wang, H. Zhang, S. Zhang9, J. Zhao
State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University,
Beijing, China
A. Agapitos, Y. Ban, C. Chen, G. Chen, A. Levin, J. Li, L. Li, Q. Li, X. Lyu,
Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang, Q. Wang, J. Xiao Sun Yat-Sen University,
Guangzhou, China
Z. You Institute of Modern Physics and Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and
Ion-beam Application (MOE) - Fudan University, Shanghai, China
X. Gao3 Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
M. Xiao Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, C. Florez, J. Fraga, M.A. Segura Delgado Universidad de
Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia
J. Mejia Guisao, F. Ramirez, 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. Giljanovic, N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak, T. Sculac University of
Split, Faculty of Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, D. Majumder, B. Mesic, M. Roguljic, A.
Starodumov10, T. Susa University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, E. Erodotou, A. Ioannou, G. Kole, M. Kolosova, S.
Konstantinou, G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos, P.A.
Razis, H. Rykaczewski, H. Saka, D. Tsiakkouri Charles University, Prague,
Czech Republic
M. Finger11, M. Finger Jr.11, 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
E. Salama12,13 Center for High Energy Physics (CHEP-FU), Fayoum University,
El-Fayoum, Egypt
M.A. Mahmoud, Y. Mohammed14 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
E. Brücken, F. Garcia, J. Havukainen, V. Karimäki, M.S. Kim, R. Kinnunen, T.
Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Laurila, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, H. Siikonen, E.
Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta,
Finland
P. Luukka, T. Tuuva IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, J.L. Faure, F. Ferri, S.
Ganjour, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry, C. Leloup,
B. Lenzi, E. Locci, J. Malcles, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M.Ö. Sahin, A. Savoy-
Navarro15, M. Titov, G.B. Yu Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, CNRS/IN2P3, Ecole
Polytechnique, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Paris, France
S. Ahuja, C. Amendola, F. Beaudette, M. Bonanomi, P. Busson, C. Charlot, O.
Davignon, 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. Agram16, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, G. Bourgatte, J.-M. Brom, E.C. Chabert, C.
Collard, J.-C. Fontaine16, D. Gelé, U. Goerlach, C. Grimault, A.-C. Le Bihan,
P. Van Hove Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3,
Institut de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
E. Asilar, S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, C. Camen, A. Carle, N. Chanon,
R. Chierici, D. Contardo, P. Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, S. Gascon, M.
Gouzevitch, B. Ille, Sa. Jain, I.B. Laktineh, H. Lattaud, A. Lesauvage, M.
Lethuillier, L. Mirabito, L. Torterotot, G. Touquet, M. Vander Donckt, S.
Viret Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
A. Khvedelidze11 Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
Z. Tsamalaidze11 RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen,
Germany
L. Feld, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, D. Meuser, A. Pauls, M. Preuten, M.P. Rauch,
J. Schulz, M. Teroerde RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A,
Aachen, Germany
D. Eliseev, M. Erdmann, P. Fackeldey, B. 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, J. Roemer, A. Schmidt, S.C.
Schuler, A. Sharma, S. Wiedenbeck, S. Zaleski RWTH Aachen University, III.
Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany
C. Dziwok, G. Flügge, W. Haj Ahmad17, O. Hlushchenko, T. Kress, A. Nowack, C.
Pistone, O. Pooth, D. Roy, H. Sert, A. Stahl18, T. Ziemons Deutsches
Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
H. Aarup Petersen, M. Aldaya Martin, P. Asmuss, I. Babounikau, S. Baxter, O.
Behnke, A. Bermúdez Martínez, A.A. Bin Anuar, K. Borras19, V. Botta, D.
Brunner, A. Campbell, A. Cardini, P. Connor, S. Consuegra Rodríguez, V.
Danilov, A. De Wit, M.M. Defranchis, L. Didukh, D. Domínguez Damiani, G.
Eckerlin, D. Eckstein, T. Eichhorn, A. Elwood, L.I. Estevez Banos, E. Gallo20,
A. Geiser, A. Giraldi, A. Grohsjean, M. Guthoff, M. Haranko, A. Harb, A.
Jafari21, N.Z. Jomhari, H. Jung, A. Kasem19, M. Kasemann, H. Kaveh, J.
Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, J. Knolle, D. Krücker, W. Lange, T. Lenz, J. Lidrych,
K. Lipka, W. Lohmann22, R. Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, J. Metwally, A.B.
Meyer, M. Meyer, M. Missiroli, J. Mnich, A. Mussgiller, V. Myronenko, Y.
Otarid, D. Pérez Adán, S.K. Pflitsch, D. Pitzl, A. Raspereza, A. Saibel, M.
Savitskyi, V. Scheurer, P. Schütze, C. Schwanenberger, R. Shevchenko, A.
Singh, R.E. Sosa Ricardo, H. Tholen, N. Tonon, O. Turkot, A. Vagnerini, M. Van
De Klundert, R. Walsh, D. Walter, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C. Wissing, S.
Wuchterl, O. Zenaiev, R. Zlebcik University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, L. Benato, A. Benecke, K. De Leo, T. Dreyer, A.
Ebrahimi, F. Feindt, A. Fröhlich, C. Garbers, E. Garutti, D. Gonzalez, P.
Gunnellini, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, A. Karavdina, G. Kasieczka, R. Klanner, R.
Kogler, S. Kurz, V. Kutzner, J. Lange, T. Lange, A. Malara, J. Multhaup,
C.E.N. Niemeyer, A. Nigamova, K.J. Pena Rodriguez, A. Reimers, O. Rieger, P.
Schleper, S. Schumann, J. Schwandt, D. Schwarz, J. Sonneveld, H. Stadie, G.
Steinbrück, B. Vormwald, I. Zoi Karlsruher Institut fuer Technologie,
Karlsruhe, Germany
M. Akbiyik, M. Baselga, S. Baur, J. Bechtel, T. Berger, E. Butz, R. Caspart,
T. Chwalek, W. De Boer, A. Dierlamm, A. Droll, K. El Morabit, N. Faltermann,
K. Flöh, M. Giffels, A. Gottmann, F. Hartmann18, C. Heidecker, U. Husemann,
M.A. Iqbal, I. Katkov23, P. Keicher, R. Koppenhöfer, S. Kudella, S. Maier, M.
Metzler, S. Mitra, M.U. Mozer, D. Müller, Th. Müller, M. Musich, G. Quast, K.
Rabbertz, J. Rauser, D. Savoiu, D. Schäfer, M. Schnepf, M. Schröder, D. Seith,
I. Shvetsov, H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, M. Wassmer, M. Weber, C. Wöhrmann, R.
Wolf, S. Wozniewski 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, A. Stakia National and Kapodistrian University of Athens,
Athens, Greece
M. Diamantopoulou, D. Karasavvas, G. Karathanasis, P. Kontaxakis, C.K. Koraka,
A. Manousakis-katsikakis, A. Panagiotou, I. Papavergou, N. Saoulidou, K.
Theofilatos, K. Vellidis, E. Vourliotis National Technical University of
Athens, Athens, Greece
G. Bakas, K. Kousouris, I. Papakrivopoulos, G. Tsipolitis, A. Zacharopoulou
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, D. Tsitsonis MTA-ELTE
Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös Loránd University,
Budapest, Hungary
M. Bartók24, R. Chudasama, M. Csanad, M.M.A. Gadallah25, P. Major, K. Mandal,
A. Mehta, G. Pasztor, O. Surányi, G.I. Veres Wigner Research Centre for
Physics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath26, F. Sikler, V. Veszpremi, G.
Vesztergombi${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$ Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI,
Debrecen, Hungary
N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi24, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi, D. Teyssier
Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari Eszterhazy Karoly University, Karoly
Robert Campus, Gyongyos, Hungary
T. Csorgo, S. Lökös27, F. Nemes, T. Novak Indian Institute of Science (IISc),
Bangalore, India
S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri, D. Kumar, L. Panwar, P.C. Tiwari National
Institute of Science Education and Research, HBNI, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati28, D. Dash, C. Kar, P. Mal, T. Mishra, V.K. Muraleedharan Nair
Bindhu, A. Nayak29, D.K. Sahoo28, N. Sur, S.K. Swain Panjab University,
Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, S. Chauhan, N. Dhingra30, R. Gupta, A.
Kaur, A. Kaur, S. Kaur, P. Kumari, M. Lohan, M. Meena, K. Sandeep, S. Sharma,
J.B. Singh, A.K. Virdi University of Delhi, Delhi, India
A. Ahmed, A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, M. Gola, S. Keshri, A.
Kumar, M. Naimuddin, P. Priyanka, K. Ranjan, A. Shah Saha Institute of Nuclear
Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India
M. Bharti31, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, D. Bhowmik, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh,
B. Gomber32, M. Maity33, K. Mondal, S. Nandan, P. Palit, A. Purohit, P.K.
Rout, G. Saha, S. Sarkar, M. Sharan, B. Singh31, S. Thakur31 Indian Institute
of Technology Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera, S.C. Behera, P. Kalbhor, A. Muhammad, R. Pradhan, P.R. Pujahari,
A. Sharma, A.K. Sikdar Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, D.K. Mishra, K. Naskar34, P.K. Netrakanti, L.M.
Pant, P. Shukla Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A, Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, M.A. Bhat, S. Dugad, R. Kumar Verma, U. Sarkar 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, S. Mukherjee, D. Roy, N. Sahoo Indian
Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, India
S. Dube, B. Kansal, A. Kapoor, K. Kothekar, S. Pandey, A. Rane, A. Rastogi, S.
Sharma Department of Physics, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
H. Bakhshiansohi35 Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM),
Tehran, Iran
S. Chenarani36, S.M. Etesami, M. Khakzad, M. Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri
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,37, C. Arutaa,b, C. Calabriaa,b, A. Colaleoa, D.
Creanzaa,c, N. De Filippisa,c, M. De Palmaa,b, A. Di Florioa,b, A. Di
Pilatoa,b, W. Elmetenaweea,b, L. Fiorea, A. Gelmia,b, G. Iasellia,c, M.
Incea,b, S. Lezkia,b, G. Maggia,c, M. Maggia, I. Margjekaa,b, J.A. Merlina, S.
Mya,b, S. Nuzzoa,b, A. Pompilia,b, G. Pugliesea,c, A. Ranieria, G.
Selvaggia,b, L. Silvestrisa, F.M. Simonea,b, 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, M. Cuffiania,b, G.M. Dallavallea, T. Diotalevia,b, F. Fabbria, A.
Fanfania,b, E. Fontanesia,b, P. Giacomellia, C. Grandia, L. Guiduccia,b, F.
Iemmia,b, S. Lo Meoa,38, 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,39, S. Costaa,b, A. Di Mattiaa, R. Potenzaa,b, A. Tricomia,b,39,
C. Tuvea,b INFN Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b, Firenze, Italy
G. Barbaglia, A. Cassesea, R. Ceccarellia,b, V. Ciullia,b, C. Civininia, R.
D’Alessandroa,b, F. Fioria, E. Focardia,b, G. Latinoa,b, P. Lenzia,b, M.
Lizzoa,b, M. Meschinia, S. Paolettia, R. Seiditaa,b, G. Sguazzonia, 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, F. Cetorellia,b, V. Cirioloa,b,18,
F. De Guioa,b, M.E. Dinardoa,b, P. Dinia, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P.
Govonia,b, L. Guzzia,b, M. Malbertia, S. Malvezzia, D. Menascea, F. Montia,b,
L. Moronia, M. Paganonia,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Ragazzia,b, T. Tabarelli de
Fatisa,b, D. Valsecchia,b,18, 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, F. Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa,
A.O.M. Iorioa,b, L. Layera,b, L. Listaa,b, S. Meolaa,d,18, P. Paoluccia,18, 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. Bragagnoloa,b, R.
Carlina,b, P. Checchiaa, P. De Castro Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa, U. Dossellia, F.
Gasparinia,b, U. Gasparinia,b, S.Y. Hoha,b, M. Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,b,
M. Presillab, P. Ronchesea,b, R. Rossina,b, F. Simonettoa,b, G. Strong, A.
Tikoa, M. Tosia,b, H. YARARa,b, M. Zanettia,b, P. Zottoa,b, A. Zucchettaa,b
INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
A. Braghieria, S. Calzaferria,b, D. Fiorinaa,b, P. Montagnaa,b, S.P. Rattia,b,
V. Rea, M. Ressegottia,b, C. Riccardia,b, P. Salvinia, I. Vaia, P. Vituloa,b
INFN Sezione di Perugia a, Università di Perugia b, Perugia, Italy
M. Biasinia,b, G.M. Bileia, D. Ciangottinia,b, L. Fanòa,b, P. Laricciaa,b, G.
Mantovania,b, V. Mariania,b, M. Menichellia, F. Moscatellia, A. Rossia,b, A.
Santocchiaa,b, D. Spigaa, T. Tedeschia,b 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, M.R. Di Domenicoa,b, S.
Donatoa, 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. Rolandia,c, S. Roy
Chowdhurya,c, A. Scribanoa, N. Shafieia,b, P. Spagnoloa, R. Tenchinia, G.
Tonellia,b, N. Turinia, 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, M. Diemoza, E.
Longoa,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, R.
Tramontanoa,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, A. Belloraa,b, C. Biinoa, A. Cappatia,b, N. Cartigliaa, S.
Comettia, M. Costaa,b, R. Covarellia,b, N. Demariaa, B. Kiania,b, F. Leggera,
C. Mariottia, S. Masellia, E. Migliorea,b, V. Monacoa,b, E. Monteila,b, M.
Montenoa, M.M. Obertinoa,b, G. Ortonaa, L. Pachera,b, N. Pastronea, M.
Pelliccionia, G.L. Pinna Angionia,b, M. Ruspaa,c, R. Salvaticoa,b, F.
Sivieroa,b, V. Solaa, A. Solanoa,b, D. Soldia,b, A. Staianoa, D. Trocinoa,b
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 Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea
S. Dogra, C. Huh, B. Kim, D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, J. Lee, S.W. Lee, C.S. Moon,
Y.D. Oh, S.I. Pak, S. Sekmen, Y.C. Yang Chonnam National University, Institute
for Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju, Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
B. Francois, T.J. Kim, J. Park Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, S. Ha, B. Hong, K. Lee, K.S. Lee, J. Lim, J. Park,
S.K. Park, Y. Roh, J. Yoo Kyung Hee University, Department of Physics, Seoul,
Republic of Korea
J. Goh, A. Gurtu Sejong University, Seoul, Korea
H.S. Kim, Y. Kim Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J.H. Bhyun, J. Choi, S. Jeon, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, S. Ko, H. Kwon, H.
Lee, K. Lee, S. Lee, K. Nam, B.H. Oh, M. Oh, S.B. Oh, B.C. Radburn-Smith, H.
Seo, U.K. Yang, I. Yoon University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea
D. Jeon, J.H. Kim, B. Ko, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park, I.J. Watson Yonsei
University, Department of Physics, Seoul, Korea
H.D. Yoo Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, C. Hwang, Y. Jeong, H. Lee, J. Lee, Y. Lee, I. Yu Riga Technical
University, Riga, Latvia
V. Veckalns40 Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
A. Juodagalvis, A. Rinkevicius, G. Tamulaitis National Centre for Particle
Physics, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
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 Cruz41, 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
J. Mijuskovic4, 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.I. Asghar, M.I.M. Awan, 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, T. Frueboes, M. Górski, M. Kazana, M.
Szleper, P. Traczyk, P. Zalewski Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of
Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk42, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J.
Krolikowski, M. Olszewski, 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, T. Niknejad, J. Seixas, K. Shchelina, O.
Toldaiev, J. Varela Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
V. Alexakhin, A. Golunov, A. Golunov, I. Golutvin, N. Gorbounov, I. Gorbunov,
V. Karjavine, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev43,44, V.V. Mitsyn, P. Moisenz,
V. Palichik, V. Perelygin, D. Seitova, V. Shalaev, S. Shmatov, O. Teryaev, V.
Trofimov, N. Voytishin, B.S. Yuldashev45, A. Zarubin, I. Zhizhin Petersburg
Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg), Russia
G. Gavrilov, V. Golovtcov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim46, E. Kuznetsova47, V. Murzin, V.
Oreshkin, I. Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Volkov, A. Vorobyev
Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, M. Kirsanov,
N. Krasnikov, A. Pashenkov, G. Pivovarov, 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. Nikitenko48, 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
O. Bychkova, M. Chadeeva49, D. Philippov, E. Popova, V. Rusinov 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. Dubinin50, 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
V. Blinov51, T. Dimova51, L. Kardapoltsev51, I. Ovtin51, Y. Skovpen51
Institute for High Energy Physics of National Research Centre ‘Kurchatov
Institute’, Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, V. Kachanov, A. Kalinin, D. Konstantinov, V. Petrov,
R. Ryutin, 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, Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic52, P. Cirkovic, 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, Cristina F. Bedoya, J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, C.A. Carrillo
Montoya, M. Cepeda, M. Cerrada, N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris,
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, R. Reyes-Almanza 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, E. Palencia Cortezon, C. Ramón Álvarez, 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,
F. Ricci-Tam, T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno, L. Russo53, L. Scodellaro, I. Vila,
J.M. Vizan Garcia University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka
MK Jayananda, B. Kailasapathy54, D.U.J. Sonnadara, DDC Wickramarathna
University of Ruhuna, Department of Physics, Matara, Sri Lanka
W.G.D. Dharmaratna, K. Liyanage, N. Perera, N. Wickramage CERN, European
Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, 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, E. Brondolin, T. Camporesi, G. Cerminara, L. Cristella, D.
d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, N. Daci, V. Daponte, A. David, A. De Roeck, M.
Deile, R. Di Maria, M. Dobson, M. Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, N.
Emriskova, F. Fallavollita55, D. Fasanella, S. Fiorendi, G. Franzoni, J.
Fulcher, W. Funk, S. Giani, D. Gigi, K. Gill, F. Glege, L. Gouskos, M.
Gruchala, M. Guilbaud, D. Gulhan, J. Hegeman, Y. Iiyama, V. Innocente, T.
James, P. Janot, J. Kaspar, J. Kieseler, M. Komm, N. Kratochwil, C. Lange, P.
Lecoq, K. Long, C. Lourenço, L. Malgeri, M. Mannelli, A. Massironi, F.
Meijers, S. Mersi, E. Meschi, F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, J. Ngadiuba, J.
Niedziela, S. Orfanelli, L. Orsini, F. Pantaleo18, L. Pape, E. Perez, M.
Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, F.M. Pitters,
D. Rabady, A. Racz, M. Rieger, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, S.
Scarfi, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva, W. Snoeys,
P. Sphicas56, J. Steggemann, S. Summers, V.R. Tavolaro, D. Treille, A. Tsirou,
G.P. Van Onsem, A. Vartak, M. Verzetti, K.A. Wozniak, W.D. Zeuner Paul
Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland
L. Caminada57, W. Erdmann, R. Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C. Kaestli, D.
Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, T. Rohe ETH Zurich - Institute for Particle Physics
and Astrophysics (IPA), Zurich, Switzerland
M. Backhaus, P. Berger, A. Calandri, N. Chernyavskaya, G. Dissertori, M.
Dittmar, M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, T. Gadek, T.A. Gómez Espinosa, C. Grab, D.
Hits, W. Lustermann, A.-M. Lyon, R.A. Manzoni, M.T. Meinhard, F. Micheli, P.
Musella, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, F. Pauss, V. Perovic, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, S.
Pigazzini, M.G. Ratti, M. Reichmann, C. Reissel, T. Reitenspiess, B. Ristic,
D. Ruini, D.A. Sanz Becerra, M. Schönenberger, L. Shchutska, V. Stampf, M.L.
Vesterbacka Olsson, R. Wallny, D.H. Zhu Universität Zürich, Zurich,
Switzerland
C. Amsler58, C. Botta, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, R. Del Burgo,
J.K. Heikkilä, M. Huwiler, A. Jofrehei, B. Kilminster, S. Leontsinis, A.
Macchiolo, P. Meiring, V.M. Mikuni, U. Molinatti, I. Neutelings, G. Rauco, P.
Robmann, K. Schweiger, Y. Takahashi, S. Wertz National Central University,
Chung-Li, Taiwan
C. Adloff59, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A. Roy, T. Sarkar33, S.S. Yu National Taiwan
University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
L. Ceard, 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, E. Yazgan Chulalongkorn University,
Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok, Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, N. Srimanobhas Çukurova University,
Physics Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
F. Boran, S. Damarseckin60, Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, C. Dozen61, I.
Dumanoglu62, E. Eskut, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, E. Gurpinar Guler63, I. Hos64,
C. Isik, E.E. Kangal65, O. Kara, A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, G. Onengut, K.
Ozdemir66, A. Polatoz, A.E. Simsek, B. Tali67, U.G. Tok, S. Turkcapar, I.S.
Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East Technical University, Physics Department,
Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak68, G. Karapinar69, K. Ocalan70, M. Yalvac71 Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya72, O. Kaya73, Ö. Özçelik, S. Tekten74, E.A.
Yetkin75 Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
A. Cakir, K. Cankocak62, Y. Komurcu, S. Sen76 Istanbul University, Istanbul,
Turkey
F. Aydogmus Sen, S. Cerci67, B. Kaynak, S. Ozkorucuklu, D. Sunar Cerci67
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
E. Bhal, S. Bologna, J.J. Brooke, D. Burns77, E. Clement, D. Cussans, H.
Flacher, J. Goldstein, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, B. Krikler, S.
Paramesvaran, T. Sakuma, S. Seif El Nasr-Storey, V.J. Smith, J. Taylor, A.
Titterton Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev78, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, D.J.A. Cockerill, K.V. Ellis, 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 Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, S. Bonomally, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A.
Bundock, V. Cepaitis, G.S. Chahal79, D. Colling, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M.
Della Negra, P. Everaerts, G. Fedi, G. Hall, G. Iles, J. Langford, L. Lyons,
A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, A. Martelli, V. Milosevic, A. Morton, J. Nash80, V.
Palladino, M. Pesaresi, D.M. Raymond, A. Richards, A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez,
A. Shtipliyski, M. Stoye, A. Tapper, K. Uchida, T. Virdee18, N. Wardle, S.N.
Webb, D. Winterbottom, A.G. Zecchinelli, S.C. Zenz Brunel University,
Uxbridge, United Kingdom
J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, C.K. Mackay, I.D. Reid, L.
Teodorescu, S. Zahid Baylor University, Waco, USA
A. Brinkerhoff, K. Call, B. Caraway, 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, A.M. Vargas Hernandez The University of
Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
A. Buccilli, O. Charaf, S.I. Cooper, S.V. Gleyzer, C. Henderson, P. Rumerio,
C. West Boston University, Boston, USA
A. Akpinar, A. Albert, D. Arcaro, C. Cosby, Z. Demiragli, D. Gastler, C.
Richardson, J. Rohlf, K. Salyer, D. Sperka, D. Spitzbart, I. Suarez, S. Yuan,
D. Zou Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, B. Burkle, X. Coubez19, D. Cutts, Y.t. Duh, M. Hadley, U. Heintz,
J.M. Hogan81, K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, K.T. Lau, J. Lee, M.
Narain, S. Sagir82, R. Syarif, E. Usai, W.Y. Wong, D. Yu, W. Zhang 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${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, O. Kukral, R. Lander, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett,
J. Pilot, M. Shi, D. Taylor, K. Tos, M. Tripathi, Y. Yao, F. Zhang University
of California, Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, C. Bravo, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, A. Florent, D. Hamilton, J.
Hauser, M. Ignatenko, T. Lam, N. Mccoll, W.A. Nash, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg,
C. Schnaible, B. Stone, V. Valuev University of California, Riverside,
Riverside, USA
K. Burt, Y. Chen, R. Clare, J.W. Gary, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi, G. Hanson, G.
Karapostoli, O.R. Long, N. Manganelli, M. Olmedo Negrete, M.I. Paneva, W. Si,
S. Wimpenny, Y. Zhang University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, P. Chang, S. Cittolin, S. Cooperstein, N. Deelen, M. Derdzinski,
J. Duarte, 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 University of California, Santa Barbara - Department of
Physics, Santa Barbara, USA
N. Amin, R. Bhandari, C. Campagnari, M. Citron, A. Dorsett, V. Dutta, J.
Incandela, B. Marsh, H. Mei, A. Ovcharova, H. Qu, M. Quinnan, J. Richman, U.
Sarica, D. Stuart, S. Wang 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
J. Alison, 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, E. MacDonald, T. Mulholland, R. Patel, A. Perloff, K.
Stenson, K.A. Ulmer, S.R. Wagner Cornell University, Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, Y. Cheng, J. Chu, D.J. Cranshaw, A. Datta, A. Frankenthal, K.
Mcdermott, J. Monroy, J.R. Patterson, D. Quach, A. Ryd, W. Sun, 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, D. Berry, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, K.
Burkett, J.N. Butler, A. Canepa, G.B. Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M.
Cremonesi, V.D. Elvira, J. Freeman, Z. Gecse, E. Gottschalk, L. Gray, D.
Green, S. Grünendahl, O. Gutsche, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, R. Heller, T.C.
Herwig, J. Hirschauer, B. Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, T.
Klijnsma, B. Klima, M.J. Kortelainen, S. Lammel, J. Lewis, D. Lincoln, R.
Lipton, M. Liu, T. Liu, J. Lykken, K. Maeshima, D. Mason, P. McBride, P.
Merkel, S. Mrenna, S. Nahn, V. O’Dell, V. Papadimitriou, K. Pedro, C. Pena50,
O. Prokofyev, F. Ravera, A. Reinsvold Hall, L. Ristori, B. Schneider, E.
Sexton-Kennedy, N. Smith, A. Soha, W.J. Spalding, L. Spiegel, S. Stoynev, J.
Strait, L. Taylor, S. Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran, L. Uplegger, E.W. Vaandering, M.
Wang, H.A. Weber, A. Woodard University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, D. Bourilkov, L. Cadamuro, V. Cherepanov, F. Errico, R.D.
Field, D. Guerrero, B.M. Joshi, M. Kim, J. Konigsberg, A. Korytov, K.H. Lo, 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, D. Diaz, R. Habibullah, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F.
Johnson, R. Khurana, T. Kolberg, G. Martinez, H. Prosper, C. Schiber, R.
Yohay, J. Zhang Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, S. Butalla, T. Elkafrawy13, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, M. Rahmani,
M. Saunders, F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago, USA
M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, H. Becerril Gonzalez, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, S.
Dittmer, O. Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, C. Mills, G. Oh,
T. Roy, M.B. Tonjes, N. Varelas, J. Viinikainen, H. Wang, X. Wang, Z. Wu The
University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, B. Bilki63, K. Dilsiz83, S. Durgut, R.P. Gandrajula, M.
Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko, O.K. Köseyan, J.-P. Merlo, A. Mestvirishvili84, A.
Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul85, Y. Onel, F. Ozok86, A. Penzo, C. Snyder, E.
Tiras, J. Wetzel, K. Yi87 Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
O. Amram, B. Blumenfeld, L. Corcodilos, M. Eminizer, A.V. Gritsan, S.
Kyriacou, P. Maksimovic, C. Mantilla, J. Roskes, M. Swartz, T.Á. Vámi The
University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA
C. Baldenegro Barrera, P. Baringer, A. Bean, A. Bylinkin, T. Isidori, S.
Khalil, J. King, G. Krintiras, A. Kropivnitskaya, C. Lindsey, 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
E. Adams, A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, S.C. Eno, Y. Feng, N.J. Hadley, S.
Jabeen, G.Y. Jeng, R.G. Kellogg, T. Koeth, A.C. Mignerey, S. Nabili, M.
Seidel, A. Skuja, S.C. Tonwar, L. Wang, K. Wong Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, R. Bi, S. Brandt, W. Busza, I.A. Cali, Y. Chen, M.
D’Alfonso, G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov, P. Harris, D. Hsu, M. Hu, M.
Klute, D. Kovalskyi, J. Krupa, 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, Z. Wang, B. Wyslouch University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, S. Guts${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, P. Hansen, J.
Hiltbrand, Sh. Jain, M. Krohn, Y. Kubota, Z. Lesko, J. Mans, M. Revering, R.
Rusack, R. Saradhy, N. Schroeder, N. Strobbe, M.A. Wadud University of
Mississippi, Oxford, USA
J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
K. Bloom, S. Chauhan, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, L. Finco, F. Golf, J.R.
González Fernández, R. Kamalieddin, I. Kravchenko, J.E. Siado, G.R.
Snow${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, B. Stieger, W. Tabb State University of New
York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
G. Agarwal, C. Harrington, L. Hay, 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, B.
Marzocchi, D.M. Morse, V. Nguyen, T. Orimoto, L. Skinnari, A. Tishelman-
Charny, T. Wamorkar, B. Wang, A. Wisecarver, D. Wood Northwestern University,
Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, J. Bueghly, Z. Chen, A. Gilbert, T. Gunter, K.A. Hahn, N.
Odell, M.H. Schmitt, K. Sung, 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, K. Mohrman, Y. Musienko43, R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, S. Taroni, M.
Wayne, A. Wightman, M. Wolf, L. Zygala The Ohio State University, Columbus,
USA
J. Alimena, B. Bylsma, B. Cardwell, L.S. Durkin, B. Francis, C. Hill, W. Ji,
A. Lefeld, B.L. Winer, B.R. Yates Princeton University, Princeton, USA
G. Dezoort, P. Elmer, B. Greenberg, N. Haubrich, S. Higginbotham, A.
Kalogeropoulos, G. Kopp, S. Kwan, D. Lange, M.T. Lucchini, J. Luo, D. Marlow,
K. Mei, I. Ojalvo, J. Olsen, C. Palmer, P. Piroué, D. Stickland, C. Tully
University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
V.E. Barnes, R. Chawla, S. Das, L. Gutay, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, B. Mahakud, G.
Negro, N. Neumeister, C.C. Peng, S. Piperov, H. Qiu, J.F. Schulte, N.
Trevisani, F. Wang, R. Xiao, W. Xie Purdue University Northwest, Hammond, USA
T. Cheng, J. Dolen, N. Parashar Rice University, Houston, USA
A. Baty, S. Dildick, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Kilpatrick, A.
Kumar, W. Li, B.P. Padley, R. Redjimi, J. Roberts${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$,
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, O. Hindrichs, A. Khukhunaishvili, E. Ranken, 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, O. Karacheban22, I. Laflotte, A. Lath, R.
Montalvo, K. Nash, M. Osherson, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, S. Somalwar, R. Stone,
S.A. Thayil, S. Thomas University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
H. Acharya, A.G. Delannoy, S. Spanier Texas A&M University, College Station,
USA
O. Bouhali88, M. Dalchenko, A. Delgado, R. Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T.
Kamon89, H. Kim, S. Luo, S. Malhotra, D. Marley, R. Mueller, D. Overton, L.
Perniè, D. Rathjens, A. Safonov Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, V. Hegde, 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
E. Appelt, 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
L. Ang, M.W. Arenton, B. Cox, G. Cummings, J. Hakala, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A.
Ledovskoy, C. Neu, B. Tannenwald, Y. Wang, E. Wolfe, F. Xia Wayne State
University, Detroit, USA
P.E. Karchin, N. Poudyal, J. Sturdy, P. Thapa University of Wisconsin -
Madison, Madison, WI, USA
K. Black, T. Bose, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, S. Dasu, I. De Bruyn, L. Dodd, C.
Galloni, H. He, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, A. Lanaro, A. Loeliger, R.
Loveless, J. Madhusudanan Sreekala, A. Mallampalli, D. Pinna, T. Ruggles, A.
Savin, V. Shang, V. Sharma, W.H. Smith, D. Teague, S. Trembath-reichert, W.
Vetens †: Deceased
1: Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria
2: Also at Department of Basic and Applied Sciences, Faculty of Engineering,
Arab Academy for Science, Technology and Maritime Transport, Alexandria, Egypt
3: Also at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
4: Also at IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
5: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
6: Also at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
7: Also at UFMS, Nova Andradina, Brazil
8: Also at Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil
9: Also at University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
10: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics named by A.I.
Alikhanov of NRC ‘Kurchatov Institute’, Moscow, Russia
11: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
12: Also at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt
13: Now at Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
14: Now at Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt
15: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
16: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
17: Also at Erzincan Binali Yildirim University, Erzincan, Turkey
18: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
19: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
20: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
21: Also at Department of Physics, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan,
Iran, Isfahan, Iran
22: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
23: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
24: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary,
Debrecen, Hungary
25: Also at Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Assiut University, Assiut,
Egypt
26: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
27: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary, Budapest, Hungary
28: Also at IIT Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India, Bhubaneswar, India
29: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
30: Also at G.H.G. Khalsa College, Punjab, India
31: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India
32: Also at University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India
33: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
34: Also at Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Mumbai, India
35: Also at Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
36: Also at Department of Physics, University of Science and Technology of
Mazandaran, Behshahr, Iran
37: Now at INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b, Politecnico di Bari
c, Bari, Italy
38: Also at Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and
Sustainable Economic Development, Bologna, Italy
39: Also at Centro Siciliano di Fisica Nucleare e di Struttura Della Materia,
Catania, Italy
40: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia, Riga, Latvia
41: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico City, Mexico
42: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems,
Warsaw, Poland
43: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
44: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
45: Also at Institute of Nuclear Physics of the Uzbekistan Academy of
Sciences, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
46: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
47: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
48: Also at Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
49: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
50: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
51: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
52: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
53: Also at Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy
54: Also at Trincomalee Campus, Eastern University, Sri Lanka, Nilaveli, Sri
Lanka
55: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy,
Pavia, Italy
56: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
57: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
58: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics, Vienna, Austria,
Vienna, Austria
59: Also at Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules,
IN2P3-CNRS, Annecy-le-Vieux, France
60: Also at Şırnak University, Sirnak, Turkey
61: Also at Department of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China,
Beijing, China
62: Also at Near East University, Research Center of Experimental Health
Science, Nicosia, Turkey
63: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey, Istanbul, Turkey
64: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Application and Research Center for
Advanced Studies (App. & Res. Cent. for Advanced Studies), Istanbul, Turkey
65: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
66: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
67: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
68: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
69: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
70: Also at Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
71: Also at Bozok Universitetesi Rektörlügü, Yozgat, Turkey
72: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
73: Also at Milli Savunma University, Istanbul, Turkey
74: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
75: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
76: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
77: Also at Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
78: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
79: Also at IPPP Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom
80: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia
81: Also at Bethel University, St. Paul, Minneapolis, USA, St. Paul, USA
82: Also at Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey
83: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
84: Also at Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
85: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
86: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
87: Also at Nanjing Normal University Department of Physics, Nanjing, China
88: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
89: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea, Daegu, Korea