HIG-18-007

HIG-18-007

# Search for the associated production of the Higgs boson and a vector boson
in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ via Higgs boson decays to
$\Pgt$ leptons

###### Abstract

A search for the standard model Higgs boson produced in association with a
$\PW$ or a $\PZ$ boson and decaying to a pair of $\Pgt$ leptons is performed.
A data sample of proton-proton collisions collected at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ by
the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC is used, corresponding to an integrated
luminosity of 35.9. The signal strength is measured relative to the
expectation for the standard model Higgs boson, yielding
$\mu=2.5^{+1.4}_{-1.3}$. These results are combined with earlier CMS
measurements targeting Higgs boson decays to a pair of $\PGt$ leptons,
performed with the same data set in the gluon fusion and vector boson fusion
production modes. The combined signal strength is $\mu=1.24^{+0.29}_{-0.27}$
($1.00^{+0.24}_{-0.23}$ expected), and the observed significance is 5.5
standard deviations (4.8 expected) for a Higgs boson mass of 125.

##  0.1 Introduction

In the standard model (SM), the fermions receive mass via their Yukawa
couplings to the Higgs boson [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9], and measurements of
the Higgs boson branching fractions to fermions directly probe these
couplings. The Higgs boson decay to a $\PGt$ lepton pair is particularly
interesting because it has the largest branching fraction among the direct
leptonic Higgs boson decays ($\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\PGt^{+}\PGt^{-})\simeq
6.3\%$). Many searches for the $\PH\to\PGt^{+}\PGt^{-}$ process have been
performed by earlier experiments [10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15]. The ATLAS and CMS
Collaborations each previously reported evidence for this particular Higgs
boson decay process using data collected at center-of-mass energies of 7 and 8
[16, 17, 18]. The $\PH\to\PGt^{+}\PGt^{-}$ process was measured targeting the
gluon fusion and vector boson fusion production modes using data collected by
the CMS Collaboration at a center-of-mass energy of 13 [19] resulting in a
cross section times branching fraction of $1.09^{+0.27}_{-0.26}$ relative to
the SM expectation.

This paper reports on a search for the SM Higgs boson produced in association
with a $\PW$ or a $\PZ$ boson. The Higgs boson is sought in its decay to a
pair of $\Pgt$ leptons. The search is based on a data set of proton-proton
($\Pp\Pp$) collisions, collected in 2016 by the CMS experiment at a center-of-
mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=13$, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of
35.9. The results are combined with prior results from the CMS
$\PH\to\PGt^{+}\PGt^{-}$ analysis performed with the same data set and
focusing on the gluon fusion and vector boson fusion production modes [19].
This combination provides dedicated signal regions covering the four leading
Higgs boson production mechanisms: gluon fusion, vector boson fusion, $\PW$
associated production, and $\PZ$ associated production.

For the $\PZ\PH$ associated production channel, $\PZ\to\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$
($\ell=\Pe,\Pgm$) decays are considered, combined with four possible
$\PGt\PGt$ final states from the Higgs boson decay: $\Pe\tauh$, $\Pgm\tauh$,
$\Pe\Pgm$, and $\tauh\tauh$, where $\tauh$ denotes $\PGt$ leptons decaying
hadronically. For the $\PW\PH$ channel, four final states are considered, with
the $\PW$ boson decaying leptonically to a neutrino and an electron or a muon
(listed first in the following notation), and the Higgs boson decaying to at
least one $\tauh$ (listed second): $\Pgm+\Pgm\tauh$,
$\Pe+\Pgm\tauh$/$\Pgm+\Pe\tauh$, $\Pe+\tauh\tauh$, and $\Pgm+\tauh\tauh$. The
final state with an electron, a muon, and a $\tauh$ candidate is written as
$\Pe+\Pgm\tauh$/$\Pgm+\Pe\tauh$ to make clear which light lepton is attributed
to the $\PW$ boson and which to the Higgs boson. The $\Pe+\Pe\tauh$ final
state is not considered because of the lower acceptance and efficiency for
electrons with respect to muons. Throughout the paper neutrinos are omitted
from the notation of the final states.

##  0.2 The CMS detector

The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid 6m in
internal diameter, providing a magnetic field of 3.8T. Within the solenoid
volume there are: a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal
electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), and a brass and scintillator hadron
calorimeter (HCAL). Each of these is composed of a barrel and two endcap
sections. Forward hadron calorimeters extend the pseudorapidity ($\eta$)
coverage provided by the barrel and endcap detectors. Muons are detected in
gas-ionization chambers embedded in the steel flux-return yoke outside the
solenoid. Events are selected using a two-tiered trigger system [20]. 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. [21].

##  0.3 Simulated samples

The signal samples with a Higgs boson produced in association with a $\PW$ or
a $\PZ$ boson ($\PW\PH$ or $\PZ\PH$) are generated at next-to-leading order
(NLO) in perturbative quantum chromodynamics (QCD) with the 2.0 [22, 23, 24,
25, 26] generator extended with the MiNLO procedure [27]. The set of parton
distribution functions (PDFs) is NNPDF3.0 [28]. Because the analysis focuses
on measuring the $\PW\PH$ and $\PZ\PH$ processes, the $\ttbar\PH$ process is
included as a background. The contribution from Higgs boson events produced
via gluon fusion or vector boson fusion is negligible in this analysis. This
is because the studied final states, when counting both leptonically and
hadronically decaying $\PGt$ leptons, all include three or four charged lepton
candidates. The transverse momentum () distribution of the Higgs boson in the
simulations is tuned to match closely the next-to-NLO (NNLO) plus next-to-
next-to-leading-logarithmic prediction in the HRes 2.3 generator [29, 30]. The
production cross sections and branching fractions for the SM Higgs boson
production and their corresponding uncertainties are taken from Refs. [31, 32,
33].

The background samples of $\ttbar$, $\PW\PZ$, and $\cPq\cPq\to\PZ\PZ$ are
generated at NLO with $\POWHEG$, as are the $\PW\PH\to\PW\PW\PW$,
$\PZ\PH\to\PZ\PW\PW$, and $\PH\to\PZ\PZ$ backgrounds. The $\Pg\Pg\to\PZ\PZ$
process is generated at leading order (LO) with mcfm [34]. The v2.3.3
generator is used for triboson, $\ttbar\PW$, and $\ttbar\PZ$ production, with
the jet matching and merging scheme applied either at NLO with the FxFx
algorithm [35] or at LO with the MLM algorithm [36]. The generators are
interfaced with 8.212 [37] to model the parton showering and fragmentation, as
well as the decay of the $\PGt$ leptons. The parameters affecting the
description of the underlying event are set to the CUETP8M1 tune [38].

Generated events are processed through a simulation of the CMS detector based
on [39], and are reconstructed with the same algorithms that are used for
data. The simulated samples include additional $\Pp\Pp$ interactions per bunch
crossing, referred to as pileup. The effect of pileup is taken into account by
generating concurrent minimum-bias collision events. The simulated events are
weighted such that the distribution of the number of additional pileup
interactions matches closely with data. The pileup distribution in data is
estimated from the measured instantaneous luminosity for each bunch crossing
and results in an average of approximately 23 interactions per bunch crossing.

##  0.4 Event reconstruction

The reconstruction of observed and simulated events relies on the particle-
flow (PF) algorithm [40]. This algorithm combines information from all
subdetectors to identify and reconstruct the particles emerging from $\Pp\Pp$
collisions: charged hadrons, neutral hadrons, photons, muons, and electrons.
Combinations of these PF objects are used to reconstruct higher-level objects
such as the missing transverse momentum (). The is defined as the projection
onto the plane perpendicular to the beam axis of the negative vector sum of
the momenta of all reconstructed particle-flow objects in an event. Its
magnitude is referred to as . The primary $\Pp\Pp$ interaction vertex is taken
to be the reconstructed vertex with the largest value of summed $\pt^{2}$ of
jets and the associated , calculated from the tracks assigned to the vertex,
where the jet finding algorithm is taken from Refs. [41, 42] and the
associated is taken as the negative vector sum of the of the jets.

Electrons are identified with a multivariate discriminant combining several
quantities describing the track quality, the shape of the energy deposits in
the ECAL, and the compatibility of the measurements from the tracker and the
ECAL [43]. Muons are reconstructed by combining information from the inner
tracker and the muon systems, using two algorithms [44]. One matches tracks in
the silicon tracker to hits in the muon detectors, while the other one
performs a track fit using hits in both the silicon tracker and the muon
systems. To reject nonprompt or misidentified leptons, a relative lepton
isolation is defined as:

$I^{\ell}\equiv\frac{\sum_{\text{charged}}\PT+\max\left(0,\sum_{\text{neutral}}\PT-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\text{charged,
PU}}\PT\right)}{\PT^{\ell}}.$ (1)

In this expression, $\sum_{\text{charged}}\PT$ is the scalar sum of the
transverse momenta of the charged particles originating from the primary
vertex and located in a cone of size $\Delta
R=\sqrt{\smash[b]{(\Delta\eta)^{2}+(\Delta\phi)^{2}}}=0.3$ (0.4) centered on
the electron (muon) direction, where $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle in radians.
The sum $\sum_{\text{neutral}}\PT$ represents a similar quantity for neutral
particles. The contribution of photons and neutral hadrons originating from
pileup vertices is estimated from the scalar sum of the transverse momenta of
charged hadrons in the cone originating from pileup vertices,
$\sum_{\text{charged, PU}}\PT$. This sum is multiplied by a factor of $1/2$,
which corresponds approximately to the ratio of neutral to charged hadron
production in the hadronization process of inelastic $\Pp\Pp$ collisions, as
estimated from simulation. The estimated contribution to $I^{\ell}$ from
photons and neutral hadrons originating from the primary vertex is required
not to be negative, which is enforced by the “max“ notation in Eq. (1). The
expression $\PT^{\ell}$ stands for the $\pt$ of the lepton. Isolation
requirements used in this analysis include $I^{\Pe}<0.10$ and $I^{\Pgm}<0.15$
in the $\PW\PH$ channels. In the $\PZ\PH$ channels, the isolation criteria are
$I^{\Pe}<0.15$ ($I^{\Pgm}<0.15$) for electrons (muons) associated to a $\tauh$
decay and $I^{\Pgm}<0.25$ for muons associated to a $\PZ$ boson decay.

Jets are reconstructed with an anti-clustering algorithm implemented in the
library [42, 45]. It is based on the clustering of neutral and charged PF
candidates with a distance parameter of 0.4. Charged PF candidates not
associated with the primary vertex of the interaction are not considered when
clustering. The combined secondary vertex (CSVv2) algorithm is used to
identify jets that are likely to have originated from a bottom quark (“$\cPqb$
jets”) [46]. The algorithm exploits the track-based lifetime information
together with the secondary vertices associated with the jet using a
multivariate technique to produce a discriminator for $\cPqb$ jet
identification. A set of $\pt$-dependent correction factors are applied as
weights to simulated events to account for differences in the b tagging
efficiency between data and simulation [46]. The working point chosen in this
analysis gives an identification efficiency for genuine $\cPqb$ jets of about
70% and a misidentification probability for light flavor or gluon jets of
about 1%. All events with a -tagged jet are discarded from this analysis. This
selection requirement suppresses the contributions of $\ttbar$, $\ttbar+\PW$,
and $\ttbar+\PZ$ with minimal impact to the signal selection efficiency.

Hadronically decaying $\PGt$ leptons are reconstructed with the hadron-plus-
strips (HPS) algorithm [47, 48], which is seeded from anti-jets. The HPS
algorithm reconstructs $\tauh$ candidates on the basis of the number of tracks
and on the number of ECAL strips with an energy deposit in the $\eta$-$\phi$
plane, in the 1-prong, 1-$\text{prong}+\PGpz$, and 3-prong decay modes. A
multivariate analysis (MVA) discriminator [49], including isolation and
lifetime information, is used to reduce the rate for quark- and gluon-
initiated jets to be identified as $\tauh$ candidates. The three working
points used in this analysis have efficiencies of about 55, 60, and 65% for
genuine $\tauh$, with about 1.0, 1.5, and 2.5% misidentification rates for
quark- and gluon-initiated jets, within a $\pt$ range typical of a $\tauh$
originating from a $\PZ$ boson. The first working point is used in the
$\ell+\tauh\tauh$ channels of $\PW\PH$ for the $\tauh$ that has the same
charge as the electron or muon, while the third working point is used for the
$\tauh$ that has the opposite charge. The second working point is used in the
$\PW\PH$ channels with exactly one $\tauh$. The third working point is used
for all $\tauh$ in the $\PZ\PH$ channels. Electrons misidentified as $\tauh$
candidates are suppressed using a second MVA discriminator that includes
tracker and calorimeter information [48]. Muons misidentified as $\tauh$
candidates are suppressed using additional cut-based criteria requiring energy
and momentum consistency between the measurements in the tracker and the
calorimeters, and requiring no more than one segment in the muon detectors
[47]. The working points of these discriminators are specific to each decay
channel. The $\tauh$ energy in simulation is corrected for each decay mode on
the basis of a measurement of the $\tauh$ energy scale in $\PZ\to\PGt\PGt$
events. The rate and the energy of electrons and muons misidentified as
$\tauh$ candidates are also corrected in simulation on the basis of a “tag-
and-probe” measurement [50] in $\PZ\to\ell\ell$ events.

In all final states, the visible mass of the Higgs boson candidate,
$m_{\text{vis}}$, can be used to separate the $\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ signal events
from the large irreducible contribution of $\PZ\to\PGt\PGt$ events. However,
the neutrinos from the $\PGt$ lepton decays carry a large fraction of the
$\PGt$ lepton energy and reduce the discriminating power of this variable. The
svfit algorithm [51] combines with the four-vector momenta of both $\PGt$
candidates to estimate the mass of the parent boson, denoted as
$m_{\PGt\PGt}$. The resolution of $m_{\PGt\PGt}$ is about 20%. The
$m_{\PGt\PGt}$ variable is used for the $\PZ\PH$ channels, while
$m_{\text{vis}}$ is used for the $\PW\PH$ channels because the svfit algorithm
cannot account for the additional from the $\PW$ boson decay.

##  0.5 Event selection

Events for the $\PW\PH$ and $\PZ\PH$ production channels are selected using
single- or double-lepton triggers targeting leptonic decays of the $\PW$ and
$\PZ$ bosons. The trigger and offline selection requirements for all possible
decay modes are presented in Table 0.5. Leptons selected by the trigger must
be matched to those selected in the analysis. The light leptons (electrons and
muons) in the events are required to be separated from each other by $\Delta
R>0.3$, while the $\tauh$ candidates must be separated from each other and
from the other leptons by $\Delta R>0.5$. The resulting event samples are made
mutually exclusive by discarding events that have additional identified and
isolated electrons or muons.

Kinematic selection requirements for $\PW\PH$ and $\PZ\PH$ events. The trigger
requirement is defined by a combination of trigger candidates with over a
given threshold (in ), indicated inside parentheses. The $\abs\eta$ thresholds
come from trigger and object reconstruction constraints. $\PZ\PH$ events are
selected with either a lower threshold double lepton trigger or a higher
threshold single lepton trigger.  $\PW\PH$ selection $\tauh$ baseline
requirements: $\pt^{\tauh}>20\GeV$, $\abs{\eta^{\tauh}}<2.3$ $\Pe$ baseline
requirements: $\pt^{\Pe}>15\GeV$, $\abs{\eta^{\Pe}}<2.5$, $\Pe$ ID 80%
efficiency, $I^{\Pe}<0.10$ $\Pgm$ baseline requirements: $\pt^{\Pgm}>15\GeV$,
$\abs{\eta^{\Pgm}}<2.4$, $\Pgm$ ID $>99\%$ efficiency, $I^{\Pgm}<0.15$ Channel
Trigger ($\pt(\GeVns)/\abs\eta$) Light lepton selection $\tauh$ selection
$\Pe+\Pgm\tauh$/$\Pgm+\Pe\tauh$ $\Pe(25/2.1)$ or $\Pgm(22/2.1)$
$\pt^{\Pe}>26\GeV$ or $\pt^{\Pgm}>23\GeV$ $\tauh$ isolation 60% eff.
$\Pgm+\Pgm\tauh$ $\Pgm(22/2.1)$ $\pt^{\Pgm}>23\GeV$ $\tauh$ isolation 60% eff.
$\Pe+\tauh\tauh$ $\Pe(25/2.1)$ $\pt^{\Pe}>26\GeV$ $\tauh$ isolation 55 or 65%
eff. $\Pgm+\tauh\tauh$ $\Pgm(22/2.1)$ $\pt^{\Pgm}>23\GeV$ $\tauh$ isolation 55
or 65% eff. $\PZ\PH$ selection $\PZ$ boson reconstructed from opposite charge,
same-flavor light leptons, $60<m_{\ell\ell}<120\GeV$ $\tauh$ baseline
requirements: $\pt^{\tauh}>20\GeV$, $\abs{\eta^{\tauh}}<2.3$, $\tauh$
isolation 65% efficiency $\Pe$ baseline requirements: $\pt^{\Pe}>10\GeV$,
$\abs{\eta^{\Pe}}<2.5$, $\Pe$ ID 90% efficiency $\Pgm$ baseline requirements:
$\pt^{\Pgm}>10\GeV$, $\abs{\eta^{\Pgm}}<2.4$, $\Pgm$ ID $>99\%$ efficiency,
$I^{\Pgm}<0.25$ Channel Trigger ($\pt(\GeVns)/\abs\eta$) $\PZ\to\ell\ell$
lepton selection $\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ lepton selection $\Pe\Pe+\Pgm\tauh$
$I^{\Pgm}<0.15$ $\Pe\Pe+\Pe\tauh$
$\left[\Pe_{1}(23/2.5)\,\&\,\Pe_{2}(12/2.5)\right]$
$\left[\pt^{\Pe_{1}}>24\GeV~{}\&\,\pt^{\Pe_{2}}>13\GeV\right]$ $\Pe$ ID 80%
eff., $I^{\Pe}<0.15$ $\Pe\Pe+\tauh\tauh$ or $\Pe_{1}(27/2.5)$ or
$\pt^{\Pe_{1}}>28\GeV$ baseline selection listed above $\Pe\Pe+\Pe\Pgm$ $\Pe$
ID 80% eff., $I^{\Pe}<0.15$, $I^{\Pgm}<0.15$ $\Pgm\Pgm+\Pgm\tauh$
$I^{\Pgm}<0.15$ $\Pgm\Pgm+\Pe\tauh$
$\left[\Pgm_{1}(17/2.4)\,\&\,\Pgm_{2}(8/2.4)\right]$
$\left[\pt^{\Pgm_{1}}>18\GeV~{}\&\,\pt^{\Pgm_{2}}>10\GeV\right]$ $\Pe$ ID 80%
eff., $I^{\Pe}<0.15$ $\Pgm\Pgm+\tauh\tauh$ or $\Pgm_{1}(24/2.4)$ or
$\pt^{\Pgm_{1}}>25\GeV$ baseline selection listed above $\Pgm\Pgm+\Pe\Pgm$
$\Pe$ ID 80% eff., $I^{\Pe}<0.15$, $I^{\Pgm}<0.15$

In the $\Pe+\Pgm\tauh$/$\Pgm+\Pe\tauh$ and $\Pgm+\Pgm\tauh$ final states of
the $\PW\PH$ channel, the two light leptons are required to have the same
charge to reduce the $\ttbar$ and $\PZ+\text{jets}$ backgrounds where one or
more jets is misidentified as a $\tauh$ candidate. The highest $\pt$ light
lepton is considered as coming from the $\PW$ boson. The Higgs boson candidate
is formed from the $\tauh$ candidate, which must have opposite charge to the
light leptons, and the subleading light lepton. The correct pairing is
achieved in about 75% of events, according to simulation. The leading light
lepton is required to pass a single-lepton trigger and to have a $\pt$ that is
1above the online threshold, whereas the subleading light lepton must have
$\pt>15\GeV$, as determined from optimizing for signal sensitivity. In
$\PW\PH$ associated production, the Higgs and $\PW$ bosons are dominantly
produced back-to-back in $\phi$, and may have a longitudinal Lorentz boost
that makes them close in $\eta$. There is an increased background of
misidentified jets at high $\eta$ because of the decreased detector
performance in the endcaps. Considering these characteristics, selection
criteria based on three variables have been found to improve the signal
sensitivity in both the $\Pe+\Pgm\tauh$/$\Pgm+\Pe\tauh$ and $\Pgm+\Pgm\tauh$
final states:

  * •

$L_{\text{T}}>100\GeV$, where $L_{\text{T}}$ is the scalar sum of of the light
leptons and the $\tauh$ candidate;

  * •

$\abs{\Delta\phi(\ell_{1},\PH)}>2.0$, where $\ell_{1}$ is the leading light
lepton, and $\PH$ is the system formed by the subleading light lepton and the
$\tauh$ candidate;

  * •

$\abs{\Delta\eta(\ell_{1},\PH)}<2.0$.

In the $\Pe+\tauh\tauh$ and $\Pgm+\tauh\tauh$ final states of the $\PW\PH$
channel, the $\tauh$ candidates are required to have opposite charge. The
$\tauh$ candidate that has the same charge as the light lepton must have
$\pt>35\GeV$, while the other one is required to have $\pt>20\GeV$. This
requirement is driven by the fact that the $\tauh$ candidate with the same
charge as the light lepton is often a jet misidentified as a $\tauh$ from the
SM background, and the jet misidentification rate strongly decreases as $\pt$
increases. Selection criteria based on three variables have been found to
improve the results in the $\Pe+\tauh\tauh$ and $\Pgm+\tauh\tauh$ final
states:

  * •

$L_{\text{T}}>130\GeV$, where $L_{\text{T}}$ is the scalar sum of of the light
lepton and $\tauh$ candidates;

  * •

$\abs{\vec{S_{\text{T}}}}<70\GeV$, where $\vec{S_{\text{T}}}$ is the vector
sum of of the light lepton, $\tauh$ candidates, and $\ptvecmiss$;

  * •

$\abs{\Delta\eta(\tauh,\tauh)}<2.0$.

In the $\PZ\PH$ final states, the $\PZ$ boson is reconstructed from the
opposite charge, same-flavor light lepton combination that has a mass closest
to the $\PZ$ boson mass. Different identification and isolation selections are
applied to the light leptons associated to the $\PZ$ boson compared with those
associated to the Higgs boson. The selections are looser for those associated
with the $\PZ$ boson to increase the signal acceptance, while tighter
selections are applied to the light leptons assigned to the Higgs boson to
decrease the background contributions from $\PZ+\text{jets}$ and other
reducible backgrounds. The leptons assigned to the Higgs boson are required to
have opposite charge. The specific selections detailed in Table 0.5, including
those chosen for the $\tauh$ candidates, were optimized to obtain the best
expected signal sensitivity.

Candidates for associated $\PZ\PH$ production are also categorized depending
on the value of $L_{\text{T}}^{\text{Higgs}}$, defined as the scalar sum of
$\pt$ of the visible decay products of the Higgs boson. The large Higgs boson
mass causes the decay products to have relatively high $\pt$ compared to the
jets misidentified as leptons from the $\PZ+\text{jets}$ background process,
which leads to a higher signal purity in the category with high
$L_{\text{T}}^{\text{Higgs}}$. The thresholds to separate the high
$L_{\text{T}}^{\text{Higgs}}$ and low $L_{\text{T}}^{\text{Higgs}}$ regions
are optimized to maximize the expected signal sensitivity for each
$\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ final state. The threshold is equal to 50in the
$\ell\ell+\Pe\Pgm$ final states, 60in the $\ell\ell+\Pe\tauh$ and
$\ell\ell+\Pgm\tauh$ final states, and 75in the $\ell\ell+\tauh\tauh$ final
state.

##  0.6 Background estimation

The irreducible backgrounds ($\PZ\PZ$, $\ttbar\PZ$, $\PW\PW\PZ$, $\PW\PZ\PZ$,
$\PZ\PZ\PZ$, as well as $\PW\PZ$ and $\ttbar\PW$ in the $\PW\PH$ channels) are
estimated from simulation and scaled by their theoretical cross sections at
the highest order available. Inclusive Higgs boson decays to $\PW$ or $\PZ$
boson pairs and the $\ttbar\PH$ associated production background processes are
also estimated from simulation.

The reducible backgrounds, which have at least one jet misidentified as an
electron, muon, or $\tauh$ candidate, are estimated from data. The dominant
reducible background contributions come from $\ttbar$ and $\PZ+\text{jets}$ in
the $\PW\PH$ channels and from $\ttbar$, $\PZ+\text{jets}$, and
$\PW\PZ+\text{jets}$ in the $\PZ\PH$ channels. Misidentification rates are
estimated in control samples that specifically measure the rate at which jets
pass the identification criteria used for each $\Pgt$ candidate (electrons,
muons, or $\tauh$). The misidentification rates are then applied to reweight
events with $\Pgt$ candidates failing the identification criteria but passing
all other signal region selections. These reweighted events estimate the
contribution from processes with jets misidentified as $\Pgt$ candidates in
the signal region.

In the $\PW\PH$ analysis, the misidentification rate of jets as $\Pgt$
candidates is measured in $\PZ+\text{jets}$ events. After reconstructing the
$\PZ\to\Pe\Pe$ decay, the jet-to-muon misidentification rate is estimated as a
function of the lepton $\pt$ by applying the lepton identification algorithm
to any additional jet in the event. Similarly, $(\PZ\to\Pgm\Pgm)+\text{jets}$
events are used to estimate the jet-to-electron and jet-to-$\tauh$
misidentification rates. Events where the $\Pgt$ candidates arise from genuine
leptons, primarily from the $\PW\PZ$ process, are estimated from simulation
and subtracted from the data so that the misidentification rates are measured
for jets only. The rates are measured in bins of lepton $\pt$, and are
separated by the reconstructed decay mode of the $\tauh$ candidates.

In the $\Pe+\Pgm\tauh$/$\Pgm+\Pe\tauh$ and $\Pgm+\Pgm\tauh$ final states,
events that do not pass the identification conditions of either the subleading
light lepton or the $\tauh$ are reweighted to estimate the reducible
background contribution in the signal region. In particular, events with
exactly one object failing the identification criteria receive a weight
$f/(1-f)$, where $f$ is the misidentification rate for the particular type of
object. Events with both objects failing the identification criteria receive a
weight $-f_{1}f_{2}/[(1-f_{1})(1-f_{2})]$, where the negative sign removes the
double counting of events with two jets. This method estimates the number of
events for which the subleading light lepton or the $\tauh$ candidate
corresponds to a jet. Such events are therefore removed from simulated samples
to avoid double counting. However, events that have a jet misidentified as the
leading lepton, but two genuine leptons for the subleading lepton and the
$\tauh$, are not taken into account with the misidentification rate method and
are therefore estimated from simulation. These events mostly arise from
$\ttbar$ and $\PZ+\text{jets}$ processes, and account for less than 10% of the
total expected background in the signal region. In the $\Pe+\tauh\tauh$ and
$\Pgm+\tauh\tauh$ final states of the $\PW\PH$ channels, the method is
essentially the same, except that the misidentification rate functions are
applied only to events where the $\tauh$ candidate that has the same charge as
the light lepton fails the identification criteria.

In the $\PZ\PH$ analysis, a very similar method is used to estimate the
contribution of jets misidentified as electrons, muons, or $\tauh$ candidates
in the signal region. The misidentification rates are measured in a region
with an opposite-charge same-flavor lepton pair compatible with a $\PZ$ boson,
and two additional objects. This region is dominated by $\PZ+\text{jets}$
events with a small contribution from $\ttbar$ events. In a procedure
identical to that of the $\PW\PH$ final states, the contribution from genuine
leptons is estimated from simulation and is subtracted, and the rates are
measured in bins of lepton $\pt$ and are split between reconstructed decay
modes for the $\tauh$ candidates. In the $\PZ\PH$ analysis, events that pass
the full signal region selection with the exception that either or both of the
$\Pgt$ candidates associated to the Higgs boson fail the identification
criteria are weighted as a function of the misidentification rates. To avoid
double counting, events with both $\Pgt$ candidates failing the selection
criteria have their weight subtracted from the events that have only a single
object failing. This misidentification rate method is used to estimate only
the yield of the reducible backgrounds. The $m_{\PGt\PGt}$ distribution of the
reducible background contribution is taken from data in a region with
negligible signal and irreducible background contribution, defined similarly
to the signal region but with same charge $\Pgt$ candidates passing relaxed
identification and isolation criteria.

##  0.7 Systematic uncertainties

The overall uncertainty in the $\tauh$ identification efficiency for genuine
$\tauh$ leptons is 5% [48], which has been measured with a tag-and-probe
method in $\PZ\to\PGt\PGt$ events. An uncertainty of 1.2% in the visible
energy of genuine $\tauh$ leptons affects both the shape and yield of the
final mass distributions for the signals and backgrounds. It is uncorrelated
among the 1-prong, 1-$\textrm{prong}+\PGpz$, and 3-prong decay modes.

The uncertainties in the electron and muon identification, isolation, and
trigger efficiencies lead to a rate uncertainty of 2% for both electrons and
muons. The uncertainty in the electron energy, which amounts to 2.5% in the
endcaps and 1% in the barrel, affects both the shape and yield of the final
mass distributions. In all channels, the effect of the uncertainty in the muon
energy is negligible.

The rate uncertainty related to discarding events with a -tagged jet is 4.5%
for processes with heavy-flavor jets, and 0.15% for processes with light-
flavor jets.

Theoretical uncertainties associated with finite-order perturbative
calculations, and with the choice of the PDF set, are taken into account for
the $\PZ\PZ$ and $\PW\PZ$ background processes. The theoretical uncertainties
are evaluated by varying renormalization and factorization scales by factors
of 0.5 and 2.0, independently. The process leads to yield uncertainties of
${}^{+3.2\%}_{-4.2\%}$ for the $\Pq\Pq\to\PZ\PZ$ process, and $\pm 3.2\%$ for
the $\PW\PZ$ process. The uncertainty from the PDF set is determined to be
${}^{+3.1\%}_{-4.2\%}$ for the $\Pq\Pq\to\PZ\PZ$ process, and $\pm 4.5\%$ for
the $\PW\PZ$ process. In addition, a 10% uncertainty in the NLO $K$ factor
used for the $\Pg\Pg\to\PZ\PZ$ prediction is used [52]. The uncertainties in
the cross section of the rare $\ttbar\PW$ and $\ttbar\PZ$ processes amount to
25% [53].

The rate and acceptance uncertainties for the signal processes related to the
theoretical calculations arise from uncertainties in the PDFs, variations of
the QCD renormalization and factorization scales, and uncertainties in the
modeling of parton showers. The magnitude of the rate uncertainty is estimated
from simulation and depends on the production process. The inclusive
uncertainties related to the PDFs amount to 1.9 and 1.6%, respectively, for
the $\PW\PH$ and $\PZ\PH$ production modes [31]. The corresponding uncertainty
for the variation of the renormalization and factorization scales is 0.7 and
3.8%, respectively [31].

The reducible backgrounds are estimated by using the measured rates for jets
to be misidentified as electron, muon, or $\tauh$ candidates. In the $\PW\PH$
channels, an uncertainty arises from potentially different misidentification
rates in $\PZ+\text{jets}$ events, where the rates are measured, and in
$\PW+\text{jets}$ or $\ttbar$ events, which constitute a large fraction of the
reducible background in the signal region. This leads to a 20% yield
uncertainty for the reducible background in each final state of the $\PW\PH$
analysis. This uncertainty also covers the measured differences in observed
versus predicted reducible background yields in multiple dedicated control
regions.

In the $\PZ\PH$ final states a similar uncertainty is applied based on
potential differences between the region where the misidentification rates are
measured and the region where they are applied. These uncertainties are based
on the results of closure tests comparing the differences in observed versus
predicted reducible background yields. The uncertainty is taken to be the
largest difference between simulation-based and data-based closure tests. The
yield uncertainties are 50% in the $\ell\ell+\Pe\tauh$ final states, 25% in
$\ell\ell+\Pgm\tauh$, 40% in $\ell\ell+\tauh\tauh$, and 100% in
$\ell\ell+\Pe\Pgm$. The large uncertainty in the $\ell\ell+\Pe\Pgm$ final
states results from the very low expected reducible background yields, which
makes the closure tests susceptible to large statistical fluctuations.

The misidentification rates of jets as $\Pgt$ candidates are measured in
different bins of lepton $\pt$, separately for the three reconstructed decay
modes for the $\tauh$ candidate. In the $\PW\PH$ channels, where the mass
distribution for the reducible background is taken from the misidentification
rate method, the statistical uncertainty in every bin is considered as an
independent uncertainty and is propagated to the mass distributions and to the
yields of the reducible background estimate. In contrast, in the $\PZ\PH$
channels, the mass distribution of the reducible background is estimated from
data in a region where the $\Pgt$ candidates have the same charge and pass
relaxed isolation conditions. Therefore, the statistical uncertainties in the
misidentification rates do not have an impact on the shape of the mass
distribution in this channel. Additionally, their impact on the reducible
background yields is subleading compared to the closure-based uncertainties.
In both the $\PW\PH$ and $\PZ\PH$ channels, an additional uncertainty in the
misidentification rates arising from the subtraction of prompt leptons
estimated from simulation is taken into account and propagated to the
reducible background mass distributions.

The scale uncertainties [54], which are computed event-by-event, affect the
normalization of various processes through the event selection, as well as
their distributions through the propagation of these uncertainties to the
di-$\PGt$ mass $m_{\PGt\PGt}$ in the $\PZ\PH$ channels. The scale
uncertainties arising from unclustered energy deposits in the detector come
from four independent sources related to the tracker, ECAL, HCAL, and forward
calorimeters. Additionally, scale uncertainties related to the uncertainties
in the jet energy measurement, which affect the calculation, are taken into
account.

Uncertainties related to the finite number of simulated events, or to the
limited number of events in data control regions, are taken into account. They
are considered for all bins of the distributions used to extract the results.
They are uncorrelated across different samples, and across bins of a single
distribution. Finally, the uncertainty in the integrated luminosity amounts to
2.5% [55]. The systematic uncertainties considered in the analysis are
summarized in Table 0.7.

Sources of systematic uncertainty. The sign $\dagger$ marks the uncertainties
that are both shape- and rate-based. Uncertainties that affect only the
normalizations have no marker. For the shape and normalization uncertainties,
the magnitude column lists the range of the associated change in
normalization, which varies by process and final state. The last column
specifies the processes affected by each source of uncertainty.  Source of
uncertainty Magnitude Process $\tauh$ ID & isolation 5% All simulations
$\tauh$ energy† (1.2% energy shift) 0.1–1.9% All simulations $\Pe$ ID &
isolation & trigger 2% All simulations $\Pe$ energy† (1–2.5% energy shift)
0.3–1.4% All simulations $\Pgm$ ID & isolation & trigger 2% All simulations
$\cPqb$ veto 0.15–4.50% All simulations Diboson theoretical uncertainty 5%
$\PW\PZ$, $\PZ\PZ$ $\Pg\Pg\to\PZ\PZ$ NLO $K$ factor 10% $\Pg\Pg\to\PZ\PZ$
$\ttbar+\PW$/$\PZ$ theoretical uncertainty 25% $\ttbar+\PW$/$\PZ$ Signal
theoretical uncertainty Up to 4%, see text Signal Reducible background
uncertainties: Reducible bkg. $\quad\PW\PH$ statistical error propagation†
1–2% $\quad\PW\PH$ prompt lepton normalization† 2.6% in
$\Pe+\Pgm\tauh$/$\Pgm+\Pe\tauh$, 4% in $\Pgm+\Pgm\tauh$ $\quad\PZ\PH$ prompt
lepton normalization† 20% in $\ell\ell+\Pe\Pgm$, $<$1% elsewhere $\quad\PW\PH$
normalization 20% $\quad\PZ\PH$ normalization 25–100% $\ptvecmiss$ energy† Up
to 1.5% in $\PW\PH$, $<$1% in $\PZ\PH$ All simulations Limited number of
events Stat. uncertainty per bin All Integrated luminosity 2.5% All
simulations

##  0.8 Results

The results of the analysis are extracted with a global maximum likelihood fit
based on the reconstructed Higgs boson mass distributions in the eight
$\PZ\PH$ and four $\PW\PH$ signal regions. In the $\PZ\PH$ channels, the
$m_{\PGt\PGt}$ distribution is used. The $m_{\PGt\PGt}$ distributions are
shown in Fig. 1 for each of the four $\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ final states, and in
Fig. 2 for all eight $\PZ\PH$ channels combined together. The low
$L_{\text{T}}^{\text{Higgs}}$ and high $L_{\text{T}}^{\text{Higgs}}$ regions
are plotted side-by-side. The eight $\PZ\PH$ channels are each fit as separate
distributions in the global fit; combining them together is for visualization
purposes only. The $\PW\PH$ and $\PZ\PH$ signal yields correspond to their
best fit signal strength value of 2.5. The distributions are shown after the
fit and include both statistical and systematic uncertainties. The signal and
background predicted yields, as well as the number of observed events, are
given for each of the four $\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ final states of the $\PZ\PH$
channel in Table 0.8.

Figure 1: The post-fit $m_{\PGt\PGt}$ distributions used to extract the signal
shown for (upper left) $\ell\ell+\Pe\tauh$, (upper right)
$\ell\ell+\Pgm\tauh$, (lower left) $\ell\ell+\tauh\tauh$, and (lower right)
$\ell\ell+\Pe\Pgm$. The uncertainties include both statistical and systematic
components. The left half of each distribution is the low
$L_{\text{T}}^{\text{Higgs}}$ region, while the right half of each
distribution is the high $L_{\text{T}}^{\text{Higgs}}$ region. The $\PW\PH$
and $\PZ\PH$, $\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ signal processes are summed together and shown
as V, $\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ with a best fit $\mu=2.5$. V, $\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ is shown
both as a stacked filled histogram and an open overlaid histogram. The
contribution from “Other” includes events from triboson, $\ttbar+\PW$/$\PZ$,
$\ttbar\PH$ production, and all production modes leading to $\PH\to\PW\PW$ and
$\PH\to\PZ\PZ$ decays. In these distributions the $\PZ\PH$, $\PH\to\PGt\PGt$
process contributes more than 99% of the total of V, $\PH\to\PGt\PGt$.  Figure
2: The post-fit $m_{\PGt\PGt}$ distributions used to extract the signal, shown
for all 8 $\PZ\PH$ channels combined. The uncertainties include both
statistical and systematic components. The left half of the distribution is
the low $L_{\text{T}}^{\text{Higgs}}$ region, while the right half corresponds
to the high $L_{\text{T}}^{\text{Higgs}}$ region. The definitions of the
$L_{\text{T}}^{\text{Higgs}}$ regions in this distribution are the same as
those used in Fig. 1 and are final state dependent. The $\PW\PH$ and $\PZ\PH$,
$\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ signal processes are summed together and shown as V,
$\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ with a best fit $\mu=2.5$. V, $\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ is shown both
as a stacked filled histogram and an open overlaid histogram. The contribution
from “Other” includes events from triboson, $\ttbar+\PW$/$\PZ$, $\ttbar\PH$
production, and all production modes leading to $\PH\to\PW\PW$ and
$\PH\to\PZ\PZ$ decays. In this distribution the $\PZ\PH$, $\PH\to\PGt\PGt$
process contributes more than 99% of the total of V, $\PH\to\PGt\PGt$.

The results in the $\PW\PH$ channels are obtained from the distributions of
the visible mass of the $\tauh$ candidate pairs in the $\ell+\tauh\tauh$
channels, and of the visible mass of the $\tauh$ and subleading light lepton
in the $\ell+\ell\tauh$ final states. The mass distributions are shown in Fig.
3 for the semileptonic and hadronic channels. Figure 4 shows all four $\PW\PH$
channels combined together. The signal and background predicted yields, as
well as the number of observed events, are given for each final state for the
$\PW\PH$ channel in Table 0.8.

Figure 3: Post-fit visible mass distributions of the Higgs boson candidate in
the $\Pe+\Pgm\tauh$/$\Pgm+\Pe\tauh$ (upper left), $\Pgm+\Pgm\tauh$ (upper
right), $\Pe+\tauh\tauh$ (lower left), and $\Pgm+\tauh\tauh$ (lower right)
final states. The uncertainties include both statistical and systematic
components. The $\PW\PH$ and $\PZ\PH$, $\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ signal processes are
summed together and shown as V, $\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ with a best fit $\mu=2.5$. V,
$\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ is shown both as a stacked filled histogram and an open
overlaid histogram. The contribution from “Other” includes events from
triboson, $\ttbar+\PW$/$\PZ$, $\ttbar\PH$ production, and all production modes
leading to $\PH\to\PW\PW$ and $\PH\to\PZ\PZ$ decays. In these distribution the
$\PW\PH$, $\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ processes contributes 91–93% of the total of V,
$\PH\to\PGt\PGt$.  Figure 4: Post-fit visible mass distributions of the Higgs
boson candidate in the four $\PW\PH$ final states combined together. The
uncertainties include both statistical and systematic components. The $\PW\PH$
and $\PZ\PH$, $\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ signal processes are summed together and shown
as V, $\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ with a best fit $\mu=2.5$. V, $\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ is shown
both as a stacked filled histogram and an open overlaid histogram. The
contribution from “Other” includes events from triboson, $\ttbar+\PW$/$\PZ$,
$\ttbar\PH$ production, and all production modes leading to $\PH\to\PW\PW$ and
$\PH\to\PZ\PZ$ decays. In this distribution the $\PW\PH$, $\PH\to\PGt\PGt$
process contributes 92% of the total of V, $\PH\to\PGt\PGt$.

Background and signal expectations for the $\PZ\PH$ channels, together with
the numbers of observed events, for the post-fit signal region distributions.
The $\PZ\PH$ final states are each grouped according to the Higgs boson decay
products. The $\ell\ell$ notation covers both $\PZ\to\Pgm\Pgm$ and
$\PZ\to\Pe\Pe$ events. The $\PW\PH$ and $\PZ\PH$, $\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ signal
yields are listed both individually and summed together, and correspond to
$\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ with a best fit $\mu=2.5$ for a Higgs boson with a mass
$m_{\PH}=125\GeV$. The background uncertainty accounts for all sources of
background uncertainty, systematic as well as statistical, after the global
fit. The contribution from “Other” includes events from triboson,
$\ttbar+\PW$/$\PZ$, $\ttbar\PH$ production, and all production modes leading
to $\PH\to\PW\PW$ and $\PH\to\PZ\PZ$ decays.  Process $\ell\ell+\Pe\tauh$
$\ell\ell+\Pgm\tauh$ $\ell\ell+\tauh\tauh$ $\ell\ell+\Pe\Pgm$ $\PZ\PZ$
$14.40\,\pm\,0.36$ $26.91\,\pm\,0.55$ $25.58\,\pm\,1.05$ $9.33\,\pm\,0.18$
Reducible $14.01\,\pm\,1.55$ $17.58\,\pm\,1.17$ $58.05\,\pm\,2.87$
$3.66\,\pm\,4.60$ Other $0.62\,\pm\,0.08$ $1.54\,\pm\,0.61$ $0.81\,\pm\,0.42$
$3.02\,\pm\,0.23$ Total backgrounds $29.03\,\pm\,1.59$ $46.03\,\pm\,1.43$
$84.44\,\pm\,3.08$ $16.01\,\pm\,4.61$ $\PW\PH,\PH\to\PGt\PGt$
$0.008\,\pm\,0.002$ $0.010\,\pm\,0.003$ $0.016\,\pm\,0.005$
$0.002\,\pm\,0.001$ $\PZ\PH,\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ $2.83\,\pm\,0.39$
$5.31\,\pm\,0.70$ $5.29\,\pm\,1.17$ $1.62\,\pm\,0.20$ Total signal
$2.84\,\pm\,0.39$ $5.32\,\pm\,0.70$ $5.31\,\pm\,1.17$ $1.62\,\pm\,0.20$
Observed 33 53 87 20

Background and signal expectations for the $\PW\PH$ channels, together with
the numbers of observed events, for the post-fit signal region distributions.
The $\PW\PH$ and $\PZ\PH$, $\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ signal yields are listed both
individually and summed together, and correspond to $\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ with a
best fit $\mu=2.5$ for a Higgs boson with a mass $m_{\PH}=125\GeV$. The
background uncertainty accounts for all sources of background uncertainty,
systematic as well as statistical, after the global fit. The contributions
from triboson, $\ttbar+\PW$/$\PZ$, $\ttbar\PH$ production, and all production
modes leading to $\PH\to\PW\PW$ and $\PH\to\PZ\PZ$ decays are included in the
category labeled “Other”.  Process $\Pe+\Pgm\tauh$/$\Pgm+\Pe\tauh$
$\Pgm+\Pgm\tauh$ $\Pe+\tauh\tauh$ $\Pgm+\tauh\tauh$ $\PZ\PZ$ $1.56\,\pm\,0.05$
$0.93\,\pm\,0.03$ $0.82\,\pm\,0.04$ $1.18\,\pm\,0.05$ $\PW\PZ$
$7.92\,\pm\,0.28$ $6.69\,\pm\,0.24$ $4.83\,\pm\,0.25$ $8.38\,\pm\,0.42$
Reducible $10.09\,\pm\,1.61$ $12.19\,\pm\,1.72$ $10.68\,\pm\,1.27$
$19.80\,\pm\,1.87$ Other $2.28\,\pm\,0.61$ $3.77\,\pm\,0.84$ $1.71\,\pm\,1.08$
$1.76\,\pm\,0.90$ Total backgrounds $21.85\,\pm\,1.75$ $23.58\,\pm\,1.93$
$18.04\,\pm\,1.69$ $31.12\,\pm\,2.12$ $\PW\PH,\PH\to\PGt\PGt$
$4.28\,\pm\,0.72$ $4.25\,\pm\,0.73$ $3.51\,\pm\,0.62$ $5.45\,\pm\,0.97$
$\PZ\PH,\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ $0.42\,\pm\,0.07$ $0.40\,\pm\,0.08$ $0.33\,\pm\,0.07$
$0.44\,\pm\,0.10$ Total signal $4.70\,\pm\,0.72$ $4.65\,\pm\,0.73$
$3.84\,\pm\,0.62$ $5.89\,\pm\,0.98$ Observed 28 29 23 38

Events from all final states are combined as a function of their decimal
logarithm of the ratio of the signal ($S$) to signal-plus-background ($S+B$)
in each bin, as shown in Fig. 5. Most of the $\PZ\PH$ and $\PW\PH$ final
states contribute to the most sensitive bins in this distribution. The
sensitive bins in the mass distributions correspond to those that include the
peak of the signal from approximately 70–110in the $m_{\text{vis}}$
distributions from the $\PW\PH$ channels and 100–160in the $m_{\PGt\PGt}$
distributions from the $\PZ\PH$ channels. The least sensitive bins in Fig. 5
include background events from all channels away from the signal peak and
especially in the low $L_{\text{T}}^{\text{Higgs}}$ region for the $\PZ\PH$
channels. An excess of observed events with respect to the SM background
expectation is visible in the most sensitive bins of the analysis.

The maximum likelihood fit to the $\PW\PH$ and $\PZ\PH$ associated production
event distributions yields a signal strength $\mu=2.5^{+1.4}_{-1.3}$
($1.0^{+1.1}_{-1.0}$ expected) for a significance of 2.3 standard deviations
(1.0 expected). The large $\mu$ value is driven by the $\PW\PH$ channels,
where the observation significantly exceeds the expectations from the SM
including the Higgs boson. The constraints from the combined global fit are
used to extract the individual best fit signal strengths for $\PW\PH$ and
$\PZ\PH$: $\mu_{\PW\PH}=3.6^{+1.8}_{-1.6}$ ($1.0^{+1.6}_{-1.4}$ expected), and
$\mu_{\PZ\PH}=1.4^{+1.6}_{-1.5}$ ($1.0^{+1.5}_{-1.3}$ expected).

Figure 5:  Distribution of the decimal logarithm of the ratio between the
expected signal and the sum of the expected signal and background. The signal,
corresponding to the best fit value $\mu=2.5$, and expected background in each
bin of the mass distributions used to extract the results, in all final states
are combined. The background contributions are separated based on the analysis
channel, $\PW\PH$ or $\PZ\PH$. The inset shows the corresponding difference
between the data and expected background distributions divided by the
background expectation, as well as the signal expectation divided by the
background expectation.

The results of this dedicated $\PW\PH$ and $\PZ\PH$ associated production
analysis are combined with the prior $\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ analysis that targeted
the gluon fusion and vector boson fusion production modes using the same data
set and dilepton final states [19]. The signal regions in both analyses are
orthogonal by design because events with extra leptons are removed from the
gluon fusion and vector boson fusion targeted dilepton final states. Changes
in the gluon fusion signal modeling and uncertainties were made between the
publication of Ref. [19] and the combination presented here, to take advantage
of the most accurate, available simulations of the gluon fusion process. The
gluon fusion simulation used in Ref. [19] was computed with next-to-leading
order matrix elements merged with the parton shower
($\textrm{NLO}+\textrm{PS}$) accuracy. These $\textrm{NLO}+\textrm{PS}$ gluon
fusion samples were reweighted to match the Higgs boson $\pt$ spectrum from
the nnlops generator [56]. Additionally, the gluon fusion cross section
uncertainty scheme has been updated to the one proposed in Ref. [31]. This
uncertainty scheme includes 9 nuisance parameters accounting for the
uncertainties in the cross section prediction for exclusive jet bins, the
2-jet and 3-jet VBF phase space regions, different Higgs boson $\pt$ regions,
and the uncertainty in the Higgs boson $\pt$ distribution due to missing
higher-order corrections relating to the treatment of the top quark mass.

After applying the mentioned changes to the gluon fusion modeling, the gluon
fusion and VBF targeted analysis results in a best fit signal strength for
$\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ of $\mu=1.17^{+0.27}_{-0.25}$ ($1.00^{+0.25}_{-0.23}$
expected).

With combined results, the significance, signal strengths, and Higgs boson
couplings can be measured with better precision than with either analysis
alone. The combination leads to an observed significance of 5.5 standard
deviations (4.8 expected). The best fit signal strength for the combination is
$\mu=1.24^{+0.29}_{-0.27}$ ($1.00^{+0.24}_{-0.23}$ expected). The signal
regions used in the combination target the four leading Higgs boson production
mechanisms allowing extraction of the Higgs boson signal strength per
production mechanism. The production mode specific signal strength
measurements are shown in Fig. 6.

Figure 6:  Best fit signal strength per Higgs boson production process, for
$m_{\PH}=125$, using a combination of the $\PW\PH$ and $\PZ\PH$ targeted
analysis detailed in this paper with the CMS analysis performed in the same
data set for the same decay mode but targeting the gluon fusion and vector
boson fusion production mechanisms [19]. The constraints from the combined
global fit are used to extract each of the individual best fit signal
strengths. The combined best fit signal strength is
$\mu=1.24^{+0.29}_{-0.27}$.

This combination places a tighter constraint on the $\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ process
in the $(\kappa_{\text{V}}$,$\kappa_{\text{f}})$ Higgs boson couplings
parameter space than previous analyses targeting exclusively the
$\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ decay process. The coupling parameters $\kappa_{\text{V}}$
and $\kappa_{\text{f}}$ quantify, respectively, the ratio between the measured
and the SM expected values for the couplings of the Higgs boson to vector
bosons and to fermions, with the methods described in Ref. [18]. Constraints
are set with a likelihood scan that is performed for $m_{\PH}=125\GeV$ in the
($\kappa_{\text{V}}$,$\kappa_{\text{f}}$) parameter space. For this scan only,
Higgs boson decays to pairs of $\PW$ or $\PZ$ bosons, $\PH\to\PW\PW$ or
$\PH\to\PZ\PZ$, are considered as part of the signal. All nuisance parameters
are profiled for each point of the scan. As shown in Fig. 7, the observed
likelihood contour is consistent with the SM expectations of
$\kappa_{\text{V}}$ and $\kappa_{\text{f}}$ equal to unity providing increased
confidence that the Higgs boson couples to $\PGt$ leptons through a Yukawa
coupling as predicted in the SM. The addition of the $\PW\PH$ and $\PZ\PH$
targeted final states brings roughly a 10% reduction in the maximum extent of
the 68% CL for $\kappa_{\text{V}}$ compared to the gluon fusion and vector
boson fusion targeted analysis.

Figure 7: Scans of the negative log-likelihood difference as a function of
$\kappa_{V}$ and $\kappa_{f}$, for $m_{\PH}=125\GeV$. Contours corresponding
to confidence levels (CL) of 68 and 95% are shown. All nuisance parameters are
profiled for each point. The scan labeled as “Combined” is a combination of
the $\PW\PH$ and $\PZ\PH$ targeted analysis detailed in this paper with the
CMS analysis performed in the same data set for the same decay mode but
targeting the gluon fusion and vector boson fusion production mechanisms [19].
The results for the gluon fusion and vector boson fusion analysis are
represented by the dashed lines and are labeled as “$\Pg\Pg\PH+\textrm{VBF}$”.
For these scans, the included $\PH\to\PW\PW$ and $\PH\to\PZ\PZ$ processes are
treated as signal.

##  0.9 Summary

A search is presented for the standard model (SM) Higgs boson in $\PW\PH$ and
$\PZ\PH$ associated production processes, based on data collected in proton-
proton collisions by the CMS detector in 2016 at a center-of-mass energy of
13. Event categories are defined by three-lepton final states targeting
$\PW\PH$ production, and four-lepton final states targeting $\PZ\PH$
production. The best fit signal strength is $\mu=2.5^{+1.4}_{-1.3}$
($1.0^{+1.1}_{-1.0}$ expected) for a significance of 2.3 standard deviations
(1.0 expected).

The results of this analysis are combined with those of the CMS analysis
targeting gluon fusion and vector boson fusion production, also performed at a
center-of-mass energy of 13, and constraints on the $\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ decay
rate are set. The best fit signal strength is $\mu=1.24^{+0.29}_{-0.27}$
($1.00^{+0.24}_{-0.23}$ expected), and the observed significance is 5.5
standard deviations (4.8 expected) for a Higgs boson mass of 125. This
combination further constrains the coupling of the Higgs boson to vector
bosons, resulting in measured couplings that are consistent with SM
predictions within one standard deviation, providing increased confidence that
the Higgs boson couples to $\PGt$ leptons through a Yukawa coupling as
predicted in the SM. The combination allows for extraction of the signal
strengths for the four leading Higgs boson production processes using
exclusively $\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ targeted final states, the results of which are
largely consistent with the SM. The measurements of the Higgs boson production
mechanisms using $\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ decays are the best results to date for the
$\PW\PH$ and $\PZ\PH$ associated production mechanisms using the
$\PH\to\PGt\PGt$ process.

###### Acknowledgements.

We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the
excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative
staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the
success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the
computing centers and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for
delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our
analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction
and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following
funding agencies: BMBWF and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq,
CAPES, FAPERJ, FAPERGS, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST,
and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RPF
(Cyprus); SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC IUT, and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of
Finland, MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and
HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); NKFIA (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM
(Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); MES
(Latvia); LAS (Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT,
LNS, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MOS (Montenegro); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC
(Pakistan); MSHE and NSC (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom,
RAS, RFBR, and NRC KI (Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI, and FEDER
(Spain); MOSTR (Sri Lanka); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); MST
(Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR, and NSTDA (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK
(Turkey); NASU and SFFR (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA).
Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie program and the
European Research Council and Horizon 2020 Grant, contract No. 675440
(European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A. P. Sloan Foundation; the
Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office;
the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans
l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en
Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the F.R.S.-FNRS and FWO (Belgium) under the
“Excellence of Science - EOS” - be.h project n. 30820817; the Ministry of
Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Lendület
(“Momentum”) Programme and the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the
Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the New National Excellence Program ÚNKP, the
NKFIA research grants 123842, 123959, 124845, 124850 and 125105 (Hungary); the
Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; the HOMING PLUS 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 Programa Estatal de
Fomento de la Investigación Científica y Técnica de Excelencia María de
Maeztu, grant MDM-2015-0509 and the Programa Severo Ochoa del Principado de
Asturias; the Thalis and Aristeia programs cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek
NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn
University and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century Project
Advancement Project (Thailand); the Welch Foundation, contract C-1845; and the
Weston Havens Foundation (USA).

## References

  * [1] F. Englert and R. Brout, “Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 321, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.321.
  * [2] P. W. Higgs, “Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields”,  Phys. Lett. 12 (1964) 132, 10.1016/0031-9163(64)91136-9.
  * [3] P. W. Higgs, “Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 508, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.508.
  * [4] G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble, “Global conservation laws and massless particles”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 585, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.585.
  * [5] P. W. Higgs, “Spontaneous symmetry breakdown without massless bosons”,  Phys. Rev. 145 (1966) 1156, 10.1103/PhysRev.145.1156.
  * [6] T. W. B. Kibble, “Symmetry breaking in non-abelian gauge theories”,  Phys. Rev. 155 (1967) 1554, 10.1103/PhysRev.155.1554.
  * [7] 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.
  * [8] 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.
  * [9] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 and 8 TeV”,  JHEP 06 (2013) 081, 10.1007/JHEP06(2013)081, arXiv:1303.4571.
  * [10] ALEPH Collaboration, “Observation of an excess in the search for the standard model Higgs boson at ALEPH”,  Phys. Lett. B 495 (2000) 1, 10.1016/S0370-2693(00)01269-7, arXiv:hep-ex/0011045.
  * [11] DELPHI Collaboration, “Final results from DELPHI on the searches for SM and MSSM neutral Higgs bosons”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 32 (2004) 145, 10.1140/epjc/s2003-01394-x, arXiv:hep-ex/0303013.
  * [12] L3 Collaboration, “Standard model Higgs boson with the L3 experiment at LEP”,  Phys. Lett. B 517 (2001) 319, 10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01010-3, arXiv:hep-ex/0107054.
  * [13] OPAL Collaboration, “Search for the standard model Higgs boson in e+e- collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 192–209 GeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 499 (2001) 38, 10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00070-3, arXiv:hep-ex/0101014.
  * [14] CDF Collaboration, “Search for a low mass standard model Higgs boson in the $\tau\tau$ decay channel in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 1.96 TeV”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 181804, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.181804, arXiv:1201.4880.
  * [15] D0 Collaboration, “Search for the standard model Higgs boson in tau lepton pair final states”,  Phys. Lett. B 714 (2012) 237, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.07.012, arXiv:1203.4443.
  * [16] ATLAS Collaboration, “Evidence for the Higgs-boson Yukawa coupling to tau leptons with the ATLAS detector”,  JHEP 04 (2015) 117, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)117, arXiv:1501.04943.
  * [17] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for the Standard Model Higgs boson produced in association with a vector boson and decaying into a tau pair in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 092005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.092005, arXiv:1511.08352.
  * [18] CMS Collaboration, “Evidence for the 125 GeV Higgs boson decaying to a pair of $\tau$ leptons”,  JHEP 05 (2014) 104, 10.1007/JHEP05(2014)104, arXiv:1401.5041.
  * [19] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of the Higgs boson decay to a pair of $\tau$ leptons with the CMS detector”,  Phys. Lett. B 779 (2018) 283, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.02.004, arXiv:1708.00373.
  * [20] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [21] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [22] 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.
  * [23] 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.
  * [24] 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.
  * [25] S. Alioli et al., “Jet pair production in POWHEG”,  JHEP 04 (2011) 081, 10.1007/JHEP04(2011)081, arXiv:1012.3380.
  * [26] 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.
  * [27] G. Luisoni, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and F. Tramontano, “$HW^{\pm}/HZ+0$ and 1 jet at NLO with the POWHEG BOX interfaced to GoSam and their merging within MiNLO”,  JHEP 10 (2013) 083, 10.1007/JHEP10(2013)083, arXiv:1306.2542.
  * [28] R. D. Ball et al., “Unbiased global determination of parton distributions and their uncertainties at NNLO and at LO”,  Nucl. Phys. B 855 (2012) 153, 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2011.09.024, arXiv:1107.2652.
  * [29] D. de Florian, G. Ferrera, M. Grazzini, and D. Tommasini, “Higgs boson production at the LHC: transverse momentum resummation effects in the $\mathrm{H}\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$, $\mathrm{H}\rightarrow{WW}\rightarrow l\nu l\nu$ and $\mathrm{H}\rightarrow{ZZ}\rightarrow 4l$ decay modes”,  JHEP 06 (2012) 132, 10.1007/JHEP06(2012)132, arXiv:1203.6321.
  * [30] M. Grazzini and H. Sargsyan, “Heavy-quark mass effects in Higgs boson production at the LHC”,  JHEP 09 (2013) 129, 10.1007/JHEP09(2013)129, arXiv:1306.4581.
  * [31] D. de Florian et al., “Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector”, CERN Report CERN-2017-002-M, 2017.  10.23731/CYRM-2017-002, arXiv:1610.07922.
  * [32] A. Denner et al., “Standard model Higgs-boson branching ratios with uncertainties”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1753, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1753-8, arXiv:1107.5909.
  * [33] NNPDF Collaboration, “Impact of heavy quark masses on parton distributions and LHC phenomenology”,  Nucl. Phys. B 849 (2011) 296, 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2011.03.021, arXiv:1101.1300.
  * [34] J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, “MCFM for the Tevatron and the LHC”,  Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 205-206 (2010) 10, 10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2010.08.011, arXiv:1007.3492.
  * [35] R. Frederix and S. Frixione, “Merging meets matching in MC@NLO”,  JHEP 12 (2012) 061, 10.1007/JHEP12(2012)061, arXiv:1209.6215.
  * [36] 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.
  * [37] 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.
  * [38] 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.
  * [39] GEANT4 Collaboration, “—a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [40] CMS Collaboration, “Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector”,  JINST 12 (2017) P10003, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/10/P10003, arXiv:1706.04965.
  * [41] 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.
  * [42] 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.
  * [43] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$”,  JINST 10 (2015) P06005, 10.1088/1748-0221/10/06/P06005, arXiv:1502.02701.
  * [44] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  JINST 13 (2018) P06015, 10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/P06015, arXiv:1804.04528.
  * [45] M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam, “Dispelling the $N^{3}$ myth for the jet-finder”,  Phys. Lett. B 641 (2006) 57, 10.1016/j.physletb.2006.08.037, arXiv:hep-ph/0512210.
  * [46] CMS Collaboration, “Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV”,  JINST 13 (2017) P05011, 10.1088/1748-0221/13/05/P05011, arXiv:1712.07158.
  * [47] CMS Collaboration, “Reconstruction and identification of $\tau$ lepton decays to hadrons and $\nu_{\tau}$ at CMS”,  JINST 11 (2016) P01019, 10.1088/1748-0221/11/01/P01019, arXiv:1510.07488.
  * [48] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of reconstruction and identification of tau leptons in their decays to hadrons and tau neutrino in LHC Run-2”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-TAU-16-002, 2016.
  * [49] H. Voss, A. Höcker, J. Stelzer, and F. Tegenfeldt, “TMVA, the toolkit for multivariate data analysis with ROOT”, in  XI Int. Workshop on Advanced Computing and Analysis Techniques in Physics Research.  2007\.  arXiv:physics/0703039.
  * [50] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inclusive W and Z production cross sections in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”,  JHEP 10 (2011) 132, 10.1007/JHEP10(2011)132, arXiv:1107.4789.
  * [51] L. Bianchini, J. Conway, E. K. Friis, and C. Veelken, “Reconstruction of the Higgs mass in $H\to\tau\tau$ events by dynamical likelihood techniques”,  J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 513 (2014) 022035, 10.1088/1742-6596/513/2/022035.
  * [52] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of properties of the Higgs boson decaying into the four-lepton final state in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  JHEP 11 (2017) 047, 10.1007/JHEP11(2017)047, arXiv:1706.09936.
  * [53] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the cross section for top quark pair production in association with a W or Z boson in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”, (2017). arXiv:1711.02547. Submitted to JHEP.
  * [54] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of missing energy reconstruction in 13 TeV pp collision data using the CMS detector”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-16-004, 2016.
  * [55] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data taking period”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001, 2017.
  * [56] K. Hamilton, P. Nason, E. Re, and G. Zanderighi, “NNLOPS simulation of Higgs boson production”,  JHEP 10 (2013) 222, 10.1007/JHEP10(2013)222, arXiv:1309.0017.

##  .10 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan Institut für Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, E. Asilar, T. Bergauer, J. Brandstetter, M. Dragicevic,
J. Erö, A. Escalante Del Valle, M. Flechl, R. Frühwirth1, V.M. Ghete, J.
Hrubec, M. Jeitler1, N. Krammer, I. Krätschmer, D. Liko, T. Madlener, I.
Mikulec, N. Rad, H. Rohringer, J. Schieck1, R. Schöfbeck, M. Spanring, D.
Spitzbart, A. Taurok, W. Waltenberger, J. Wittmann, C.-E. Wulz1, M. Zarucki
Institute for Nuclear Problems, Minsk, Belarus
V. Chekhovsky, V. Mossolov, J. Suarez Gonzalez Universiteit Antwerpen,
Antwerpen, Belgium
E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, J. Lauwers, M. Pieters, H. Van
Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, N. Van Remortel Vrije Universiteit Brussel,
Brussel, Belgium
S. Abu Zeid, F. Blekman, J. D’Hondt, I. De Bruyn, J. De Clercq, K. Deroover,
G. Flouris, D. Lontkovskyi, S. Lowette, I. Marchesini, S. Moortgat, L.
Moreels, Q. Python, K. Skovpen, S. Tavernier, W. Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders,
I. Van Parijs Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
D. Beghin, B. Bilin, H. Brun, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, H. Delannoy, B.
Dorney, G. Fasanella, L. Favart, R. Goldouzian, A. Grebenyuk, A.K. Kalsi, T.
Lenzi, J. Luetic, N. Postiau, E. Starling, L. Thomas, C. Vander Velde, P.
Vanlaer, D. Vannerom, Q. Wang Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, A. Fagot, M. Gul, I. Khvastunov2, D. Poyraz, C. Roskas,
D. Trocino, M. Tytgat, W. Verbeke, B. Vermassen, M. Vit, N. Zaganidis
Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
H. Bakhshiansohi, O. Bondu, S. Brochet, G. Bruno, C. Caputo, P. David, C.
Delaere, M. Delcourt, A. Giammanco, G. Krintiras, V. Lemaitre, A. Magitteri,
A. Mertens, M. Musich, K. Piotrzkowski, A. Saggio, M. Vidal Marono, S. Wertz,
J. Zobec Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
F.L. Alves, G.A. Alves, M. Correa Martins Junior, G. Correia Silva, C. Hensel,
A. Moraes, M.E. Pol, P. Rebello Teles Universidade do Estado do Rio de
Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato3, E. Coelho, E.M.
Da Costa, G.G. Da Silveira4, D. De Jesus Damiao, C. De Oliveira Martins, S.
Fonseca De Souza, H. Malbouisson, D. Matos Figueiredo, M. Melo De Almeida, C.
Mora Herrera, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, W.L. Prado Da Silva, L.J. Sanchez Rosas,
A. Santoro, A. Sznajder, M. Thiel, E.J. Tonelli Manganote3, F. Torres Da Silva
De Araujo, A. Vilela Pereira Universidade Estadual Paulista a, Universidade
Federal do ABC b, São Paulo, Brazil
S. Ahujaa, C.A. Bernardesa, L. Calligarisa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M.
Gregoresb, P.G. Mercadanteb, S.F. Novaesa, SandraS. Padulaa Institute for
Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia,
Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, A. Marinov, M. Misheva, M. Rodozov,
M. Shopova, G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Dimitrov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov Beihang University, Beijing, China
W. Fang5, X. Gao5, L. Yuan Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, J.G. Bian, G.M. Chen, H.S. Chen, M. Chen, Y. Chen, C.H. Jiang, D.
Leggat, H. Liao, Z. Liu, F. Romeo, S.M. Shaheen6, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, Z. Wang,
E. Yazgan, H. Zhang, S. Zhang6, J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of Nuclear
Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
Y. Ban, G. Chen, A. Levin, J. Li, L. Li, Q. Li, Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang, Z.
Xu Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Y. Wang Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, C.A. Carrillo Montoya, L.F. Chaparro Sierra, C. Florez,
C.F. González Hernández, M.A. Segura Delgado University of Split, Faculty of
Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split,
Croatia
B. Courbon, N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak, T. Sculac University of Split,
Faculty of Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, K. Kadija, B. Mesic, A. Starodumov7, T. Susa
University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, M. Kolosova, G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou,
F. Ptochos, P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski Charles University, Prague, Czech
Republic
M. Finger8, M. Finger Jr.8 Escuela Politecnica Nacional, Quito, Ecuador
E. Ayala Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
E. Carrera Jarrin Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab
Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt
H. Abdalla9, A.A. Abdelalim10,11, E. Salama12,13 National Institute of
Chemical Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
S. Bhowmik, A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveira, R.K. Dewanjee, K. Ehataht, M.
Kadastik, M. Raidal, C. Veelken Department of Physics, University of Helsinki,
Helsinki, Finland
P. Eerola, H. Kirschenmann, J. Pekkanen, M. Voutilainen Helsinki Institute of
Physics, Helsinki, Finland
J. Havukainen, J.K. Heikkilä, T. Järvinen, V. Karimäki, R. Kinnunen, T.
Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Laurila, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, P. Luukka, T.
Mäenpää, H. Siikonen, E. Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi Lappeenranta University of
Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
T. Tuuva IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, J.L. Faure, F. Ferri, S.
Ganjour, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry, C. Leloup,
E. Locci, J. Malcles, G. Negro, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M.Ö. Sahin, M. Titov
Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole polytechnique, CNRS/IN2P3, Université
Paris-Saclay, Palaiseau, France
A. Abdulsalam14, C. Amendola, I. Antropov, F. Beaudette, P. Busson, C.
Charlot, R. Granier de Cassagnac, I. Kucher, A. Lobanov, J. Martin Blanco, C.
Martin Perez, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, G. Ortona, P. Pigard, J. Rembser, R.
Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A.G. Stahl Leiton, A. Zabi, A. Zghiche
Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram15, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, J.-M. Brom, E.C. Chabert, V. Cherepanov,
C. Collard, E. Conte15, J.-C. Fontaine15, D. Gelé, U. Goerlach, M. Jansová,
A.-C. Le Bihan, N. Tonon, P. Van Hove Centre de Calcul de l’Institut National
de Physique Nucleaire et de Physique des Particules, CNRS/IN2P3, Villeurbanne,
France
S. Gadrat Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3,
Institut de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, N. Chanon, R. Chierici, D. Contardo, P.
Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, L. Finco, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, G.
Grenier, B. Ille, F. Lagarde, I.B. Laktineh, H. Lattaud, M. Lethuillier, L.
Mirabito, S. Perries, A. Popov16, V. Sordini, G. Touquet, M. Vander Donckt, S.
Viret Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
T. Toriashvili17 Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
Z. Tsamalaidze8 RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen,
Germany
C. Autermann, L. Feld, M.K. Kiesel, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, M. Preuten, M.P.
Rauch, C. Schomakers, J. Schulz, M. Teroerde, B. Wittmer RWTH Aachen
University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany
A. Albert, D. Duchardt, M. Erdmann, S. Erdweg, T. Esch, R. Fischer, S. Ghosh,
A. Güth, T. Hebbeker, C. Heidemann, K. Hoepfner, H. Keller, L. Mastrolorenzo,
M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, P. Millet, S. Mukherjee, T. Pook, M. Radziej, H.
Reithler, M. Rieger, A. Schmidt, D. Teyssier, S. Thüer RWTH Aachen University,
III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany
G. Flügge, O. Hlushchenko, T. Kress, A. Künsken, T. Müller, A. Nehrkorn, A.
Nowack, C. Pistone, O. Pooth, D. Roy, H. Sert, A. Stahl18 Deutsches
Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
M. Aldaya Martin, T. Arndt, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, I. Babounikau, K.
Beernaert, O. Behnke, U. Behrens, A. Bermúdez Martínez, D. Bertsche, A.A. Bin
Anuar, K. Borras19, V. Botta, A. Campbell, P. Connor, C. Contreras-Campana, V.
Danilov, A. De Wit, M.M. Defranchis, C. Diez Pardos, D. Domínguez Damiani, G.
Eckerlin, T. Eichhorn, A. Elwood, E. Eren, E. Gallo20, A. Geiser, A.
Grohsjean, M. Guthoff, M. Haranko, A. Harb, J. Hauk, H. Jung, M. Kasemann, J.
Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, J. Knolle, D. Krücker, W. Lange, A. Lelek, T. Lenz, J.
Leonard, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann21, R. Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, A.B. Meyer,
M. Meyer, M. Missiroli, G. Mittag, J. Mnich, V. Myronenko, S.K. Pflitsch, D.
Pitzl, A. Raspereza, M. Savitskyi, P. Saxena, P. Schütze, C. Schwanenberger,
R. Shevchenko, A. Singh, H. Tholen, O. Turkot, A. Vagnerini, G.P. Van Onsem,
R. Walsh, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C. Wissing, O. Zenaiev University of Hamburg,
Hamburg, Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, L. Benato, A. Benecke, V. Blobel, T. Dreyer, A.
Ebrahimi, E. Garutti, D. Gonzalez, P. Gunnellini, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, A.
Karavdina, G. Kasieczka, R. Klanner, R. Kogler, N. Kovalchuk, S. Kurz, V.
Kutzner, J. Lange, D. Marconi, J. Multhaup, M. Niedziela, C.E.N. Niemeyer, D.
Nowatschin, A. Perieanu, A. Reimers, O. Rieger, C. Scharf, P. Schleper, S.
Schumann, J. Schwandt, J. Sonneveld, H. Stadie, G. Steinbrück, F.M. Stober, M.
Stöver, A. Vanhoefer, B. Vormwald, I. Zoi Karlsruher Institut fuer
Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany
M. Akbiyik, C. Barth, M. Baselga, S. Baur, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, F.
Colombo, W. De Boer, A. Dierlamm, K. El Morabit, N. Faltermann, B. Freund, M.
Giffels, M.A. Harrendorf, F. Hartmann18, S.M. Heindl, U. Husemann, F.
Kassel18, I. Katkov16, S. Kudella, S. Mitra, M.U. Mozer, Th. Müller, M.
Plagge, G. Quast, K. Rabbertz, M. Schröder, I. Shvetsov, G. Sieber, H.J.
Simonis, R. Ulrich, S. Wayand, M. Weber, T. Weiler, S. Williamson, C.
Wöhrmann, R. Wolf Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics (INPP), NCSR
Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
G. Anagnostou, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas, G.
Paspalaki, I. Topsis-Giotis National and Kapodistrian University of Athens,
Athens, Greece
B. Francois, G. Karathanasis, S. Kesisoglou, P. Kontaxakis, A. Panagiotou, I.
Papavergou, N. Saoulidou, E. Tziaferi, K. Vellidis National Technical
University of Athens, Athens, Greece
K. Kousouris, I. Papakrivopoulos, G. Tsipolitis University of Ioánnina,
Ioánnina, Greece
I. Evangelou, C. Foudas, P. Gianneios, P. Katsoulis, P. Kokkas, S. Mallios, N.
Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, E. Paradas, J. Strologas, F.A. Triantis, D.
Tsitsonis MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
M. Bartók22, M. Csanad, N. Filipovic, P. Major, M.I. Nagy, G. Pasztor, O.
Surányi, G.I. Veres Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath23, Á. Hunyadi, F. Sikler, T.Á. Vámi, V.
Veszpremi, G. Vesztergombi${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$ Institute of Nuclear
Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi24, A. Makovec, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi
Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari Indian Institute of Science (IISc),
Bangalore, India
S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri, P.C. Tiwari National Institute of Science
Education and Research, HBNI, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati25, C. Kar, P. Mal, K. Mandal, A. Nayak26, D.K. Sahoo25, S.K.
Swain Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, S. Chauhan, R. Chawla, N. Dhingra, R.
Gupta, A. Kaur, M. Kaur, S. Kaur, R. Kumar, P. Kumari, M. Lohan, A. Mehta, K.
Sandeep, S. Sharma, J.B. Singh, A.K. Virdi, G. Walia University of Delhi,
Delhi, India
A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, M. Gola, S. Keshri, Ashok Kumar, S.
Malhotra, M. Naimuddin, P. Priyanka, K. Ranjan, Aashaq Shah, R. Sharma Saha
Institute of Nuclear Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India
R. Bhardwaj27, M. Bharti27, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, U. Bhawandeep27,
D. Bhowmik, S. Dey, S. Dutt27, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh, K. Mondal, S. Nandan, A.
Purohit, P.K. Rout, A. Roy, S. Roy Chowdhury, G. Saha, S. Sarkar, M. Sharan,
B. Singh27, S. Thakur27 Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
R. Chudasama, D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, P.K. Netrakanti, L.M. Pant, P.
Shukla Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A, Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, M.A. Bhat, S. Dugad, G.B. Mohanty, N. Sur, B. Sutar, RavindraKumar
Verma Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, P. Das, M. Guchait, Sa. Jain, S.
Karmakar, S. Kumar, M. Maity28, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, N. Sahoo, T.
Sarkar28 Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune,
India
S. Chauhan, S. Dube, V. Hegde, A. Kapoor, K. Kothekar, S. Pandey, A. Rane, S.
Sharma Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran
S. Chenarani29, E. Eskandari Tadavani, S.M. Etesami29, M. Khakzad, M.
Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri, F. Rezaei Hosseinabadi, B. Safarzadeh30, M.
Zeinali University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
M. Felcini, M. Grunewald INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b,
Politecnico di Bari c, Bari, Italy
M. Abbresciaa,b, C. Calabriaa,b, A. Colaleoa, D. Creanzaa,c, L. Cristellaa,b,
N. De Filippisa,c, M. De Palmaa,b, A. Di Florioa,b, F. Erricoa,b, L. Fiorea,
A. Gelmia,b, G. Iasellia,c, M. Incea,b, S. Lezkia,b, G. Maggia,c, M. Maggia,
G. Minielloa,b, S. Mya,b, S. Nuzzoa,b, A. Pompilia,b, G. Pugliesea,c, R.
Radognaa, A. Ranieria, G. Selvaggia,b, A. Sharmaa, L. Silvestrisa, R.
Vendittia, P. Verwilligena, G. Zitoa INFN Sezione di Bologna a, Università di
Bologna b, Bologna, Italy
G. Abbiendia, C. Battilanaa,b, D. Bonacorsia,b, L. Borgonovia,b, S. Braibant-
Giacomellia,b, R. Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A. Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa,
S.S. Chhibraa,b, C. Cioccaa, G. Codispotia,b, M. Cuffiania,b, G.M.
Dallavallea, F. Fabbria, A. Fanfania,b, E. Fontanesi, P. Giacomellia, C.
Grandia, L. Guiduccia,b, S. Lo Meoa, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, A.
Montanaria, F.L. Navarriaa,b, A. Perrottaa, F. Primaveraa,b,18, A.M. Rossia,b,
T. Rovellia,b, G.P. Sirolia,b, N. Tosia INFN Sezione di Catania a, Università
di Catania b, Catania, Italy
S. Albergoa,b, A. Di Mattiaa, R. Potenzaa,b, A. Tricomia,b, C. Tuvea,b INFN
Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b, Firenze, Italy
G. Barbaglia, K. Chatterjeea,b, V. Ciullia,b, C. Civininia, R.
D’Alessandroa,b, E. Focardia,b, G. Latino, P. Lenzia,b, M. Meschinia, S.
Paolettia, L. Russoa,31, G. Sguazzonia, D. Stroma, L. Viliania INFN Laboratori
Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, F. Fabbri, D. Piccolo INFN Sezione di Genova a,
Università di Genova b, Genova, Italy
F. Ferroa, F. Raveraa,b, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia,b INFN Sezione di Milano-
Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, Italy
A. Benagliaa, A. Beschib, F. Brivioa,b, V. Cirioloa,b,18, S. Di Guidaa,d,18,
M.E. Dinardoa,b, S. Fiorendia,b, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P. Govonia,b, M.
Malbertia,b, S. Malvezzia, A. Massironia,b, D. Menascea, F. Monti, L. Moronia,
M. Paganonia,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Ragazzia,b, T. Tabarelli de Fatisa,b, D.
Zuoloa,b INFN Sezione di Napoli a, Università di Napoli ’Federico II’ b,
Napoli, Italy, Università della Basilicata c, Potenza, Italy, Università G.
Marconi d, Roma, Italy
S. Buontempoa, N. Cavalloa,c, A. De Iorioa,b, A. Di Crescenzoa,b, F.
Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa, G. Galatia, A.O.M. Iorioa,b, W.A. Khana, L. Listaa, S.
Meolaa,d,18, P. Paoluccia,18, C. Sciaccaa,b, E. Voevodinaa,b INFN Sezione di
Padova a, Università di Padova b, Padova, Italy, Università di Trento c,
Trento, Italy
P. Azzia, N. Bacchettaa, A. Bolettia,b, A. Bragagnolo, R. Carlina,b, P.
Checchiaa, M. Dall’Ossoa,b, P. De Castro Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa, U. Dossellia,
F. Gasparinia,b, U. Gasparinia,b, A. Gozzelinoa, S.Y. Hoh, S. Lacapraraa, P.
Lujan, M. Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,b, J. Pazzinia,b, N. Pozzobona,b, P.
Ronchesea,b, R. Rossina,b, F. Simonettoa,b, A. Tiko, E. Torassaa, M.
Zanettia,b, P. Zottoa,b, G. Zumerlea,b INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di
Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
A. Braghieria, A. Magnania, P. Montagnaa,b, S.P. Rattia,b, V. Rea, M.
Ressegottia,b, C. Riccardia,b, P. Salvinia, I. Vaia,b, P. Vituloa,b INFN
Sezione di Perugia a, Università di Perugia b, Perugia, Italy
M. Biasinia,b, G.M. Bileia, C. Cecchia,b, D. Ciangottinia,b, L. Fanòa,b, P.
Laricciaa,b, R. Leonardia,b, E. Manonia, G. Mantovania,b, V. Mariania,b, M.
Menichellia, A. Rossia,b, A. Santocchiaa,b, D. Spigaa INFN Sezione di Pisa a,
Università di Pisa b, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa c, Pisa, Italy
K. Androsova, P. Azzurria, G. Bagliesia, L. Bianchinia, T. Boccalia, L.
Borrello, R. Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, G. Fedia, F. Fioria,c,
L. Gianninia,c, A. Giassia, M.T. Grippoa, F. Ligabuea,c, E. Mancaa,c, G.
Mandorlia,c, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, A. Rizzia,b, P. Spagnoloa, R.
Tenchinia, G. Tonellia,b, A. Venturia, P.G. Verdinia INFN Sezione di Roma a,
Sapienza Università di Roma b, Rome, Italy
L. Baronea,b, F. Cavallaria, M. Cipriania,b, D. Del Rea,b, E. Di Marcoa,b, M.
Diemoza, S. Gellia,b, E. Longoa,b, B. Marzocchia,b, P. Meridiania, G.
Organtinia,b, F. Pandolfia, R. Paramattia,b, F. Preiatoa,b, S. Rahatloua,b, C.
Rovellia, F. Santanastasioa,b INFN Sezione di Torino a, Università di Torino
b, Torino, Italy, Università del Piemonte Orientale c, Novara, Italy
N. Amapanea,b, R. Arcidiaconoa,c, S. Argiroa,b, M. Arneodoa,c, N. Bartosika,
R. Bellana,b, C. Biinoa, N. Cartigliaa, F. Cennaa,b, S. Comettia, M. Costaa,b,
R. Covarellia,b, N. Demariaa, B. Kiania,b, C. Mariottia, S. Masellia, E.
Migliorea,b, V. Monacoa,b, E. Monteila,b, M. Montenoa, M.M. Obertinoa,b, L.
Pachera,b, N. Pastronea, M. Pelliccionia, G.L. Pinna Angionia,b, A. Romeroa,b,
M. Ruspaa,c, R. Sacchia,b, K. Shchelinaa,b, V. Solaa, A. Solanoa,b, D.
Soldia,b, A. Staianoa INFN Sezione di Trieste a, Università di Trieste b,
Trieste, Italy
S. Belfortea, V. Candelisea,b, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, A. Da Rolda,b, G.
Della Riccaa,b, F. Vazzolera,b, A. Zanettia Kyungpook National University,
Daegu, Korea
D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, M.S. Kim, J. Lee, S. Lee, S.W. Lee, C.S. Moon, Y.D. Oh,
S.I. Pak, S. Sekmen, D.C. Son, Y.C. Yang Chonnam National University,
Institute for Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju, Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon, G. Oh Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
J. Goh32, T.J. Kim Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, D. Gyun, S. Ha, B. Hong, Y. Jo, K. Lee, K.S. Lee, S.
Lee, J. Lim, S.K. Park, Y. Roh Sejong University, Seoul, Korea
H.S. Kim Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, H. Lee, K. Lee, K. Nam, S.B. Oh, B.C. Radburn-
Smith, S.h. Seo, U.K. Yang, H.D. Yoo, G.B. Yu University of Seoul, Seoul,
Korea
D. Jeon, H. Kim, J.H. Kim, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park Sungkyunkwan University,
Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, C. Hwang, J. Lee, I. Yu Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
V. Dudenas, A. Juodagalvis, J. Vaitkus National Centre for Particle Physics,
Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
I. Ahmed, Z.A. Ibrahim, M.A.B. Md Ali33, F. Mohamad Idris34, W.A.T. Wan
Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli Universidad de Sonora (UNISON), Hermosillo,
Mexico
J.F. Benitez, A. Castaneda Hernandez, J.A. Murillo Quijada Centro de
Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, M.C. Duran-Osuna, I. Heredia-De La
Cruz35, R. Lopez-Fernandez, J. Mejia Guisao, R.I. Rabadan-Trejo, M. Ramirez-
Garcia, G. Ramirez-Sanchez, R Reyes-Almanza, A. Sanchez-Hernandez Universidad
Iberoamericana, Mexico City, Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, F. Vazquez Valencia Benemerita
Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
J. Eysermans, I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada Universidad
Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, Mexico
A. Morelos Pineda University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
S. Bheesette, P.H. Butler National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam
University, Islamabad, Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M. Ahmad, M.I. Asghar, Q. Hassan, H.R. Hoorani, A. Saddique, M.A.
Shah, M. Shoaib, M. Waqas National Centre for Nuclear Research, Swierk, Poland
H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, T. Frueboes, M. Górski, M. Kazana, M.
Szleper, P. Traczyk, P. Zalewski Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of
Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk36, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J.
Krolikowski, M. Misiura, M. Olszewski, A. Pyskir, M. Walczak Laboratório de
Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas, Lisboa, Portugal
M. Araujo, P. Bargassa, C. Beirão Da Cruz E Silva, A. Di Francesco, P.
Faccioli, B. Galinhas, M. Gallinaro, J. Hollar, N. Leonardo, M.V. Nemallapudi,
J. Seixas, G. Strong, O. Toldaiev, D. Vadruccio, J. Varela Joint Institute for
Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
S. Afanasiev, P. Bunin, M. Gavrilenko, I. Golutvin, I. Gorbunov, A. Kamenev,
V. Karjavine, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev37,38, P. Moisenz, V. Palichik,
V. Perelygin, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, N. Skatchkov, V. Smirnov, N. Voytishin,
A. Zarubin Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg),
Russia
V. Golovtsov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim39, E. Kuznetsova40, P. Levchenko, V. Murzin,
V. Oreshkin, I. Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Vavilov, A.
Vorobyev Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, M. Kirsanov,
N. Krasnikov, A. Pashenkov, D. Tlisov, A. Toropin Institute for Theoretical
and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, V. Popov, I. Pozdnyakov, G.
Safronov, A. Spiridonov, A. Stepennov, V. Stolin, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A.
Zhokin Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
M. Chadeeva41, P. Parygin, D. Philippov, S. Polikarpov41, E. Popova, V.
Rusinov P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin, I. Dremin38, M. Kirakosyan, S.V. Rusakov, A. Terkulov
Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University,
Moscow, Russia
A. Baskakov, A. Belyaev, E. Boos, V. Bunichev, M. Dubinin42, L. Dudko, A.
Ershov, V. Klyukhin, O. Kodolova, I. Lokhtin, I. Miagkov, S. Obraztsov, S.
Petrushanko, V. Savrin, A. Snigirev Novosibirsk State University (NSU),
Novosibirsk, Russia
A. Barnyakov43, V. Blinov43, T. Dimova43, L. Kardapoltsev43, Y. Skovpen43
Institute for High Energy Physics of National Research Centre ’Kurchatov
Institute’, Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, S. Bitioukov, D. Elumakhov, A. Godizov, V. Kachanov,
A. Kalinin, D. Konstantinov, P. Mandrik, V. Petrov, R. Ryutin, S.
Slabospitskii, A. Sobol, S. Troshin, N. Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov National
Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia
A. Babaev, S. Baidali, V. Okhotnikov University of Belgrade, Faculty of
Physics and Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic44, P. Cirkovic, D. Devetak, M. Dordevic, J. Milosevic Centro de
Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid,
Spain
J. Alcaraz Maestre, A. Álvarez Fernández, I. Bachiller, M. Barrio Luna, J.A.
Brochero Cifuentes, M. Cerrada, N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris, C.
Fernandez Bedoya, J.P. Fernández Ramos, J. Flix, M.C. Fouz, O. Gonzalez Lopez,
S. Goy Lopez, J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa, D. Moran, A. Pérez-Calero Yzquierdo,
J. Puerta Pelayo, I. Redondo, L. Romero, M.S. Soares, A. Triossi Universidad
Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
C. Albajar, J.F. de Trocóniz Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain
J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, S. Folgueras, I. Gonzalez
Caballero, J.R. González Fernández, E. Palencia Cortezon, V. Rodríguez Bouza,
S. Sanchez Cruz, P. Vischia, J.M. Vizan Garcia Instituto de Física de
Cantabria (IFCA), CSIC-Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain
I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, B. Chazin Quero, J. Duarte Campderros, M.
Fernandez, P.J. Fernández Manteca, A. García Alonso, J. Garcia-Ferrero, G.
Gomez, A. Lopez Virto, J. Marco, C. Martinez Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del
Arbol, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, C. Prieels, T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno,
L. Scodellaro, N. Trevisani, I. Vila, R. Vilar Cortabitarte University of
Ruhuna, Department of Physics, Matara, Sri Lanka
N. Wickramage CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
D. Abbaneo, B. Akgun, E. Auffray, G. Auzinger, P. Baillon, A.H. Ball, D.
Barney, J. Bendavid, M. Bianco, A. Bocci, C. Botta, E. Brondolin, T.
Camporesi, M. Cepeda, G. Cerminara, E. Chapon, Y. Chen, G. Cucciati, D.
d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, N. Daci, V. Daponte, A. David, A. De Roeck, N.
Deelen, M. Dobson, M. Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, P. Everaerts, F.
Fallavollita45, D. Fasanella, G. Franzoni, J. Fulcher, W. Funk, D. Gigi, A.
Gilbert, K. Gill, F. Glege, M. Guilbaud, D. Gulhan, J. Hegeman, C. Heidegger,
V. Innocente, A. Jafari, P. Janot, O. Karacheban21, J. Kieseler, A. Kornmayer,
M. Krammer1, C. Lange, P. Lecoq, C. Lourenço, L. Malgeri, M. Mannelli, F.
Meijers, J.A. Merlin, S. Mersi, E. Meschi, P. Milenovic46, F. Moortgat, M.
Mulders, J. Ngadiuba, S. Nourbakhsh, S. Orfanelli, L. Orsini, F. Pantaleo18,
L. Pape, E. Perez, M. Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M.
Pierini, F.M. Pitters, D. Rabady, A. Racz, T. Reis, G. Rolandi47, M. Rovere,
H. Sakulin, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Seidel, M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P.
Silva, P. Sphicas48, A. Stakia, J. Steggemann, M. Tosi, D. Treille, A. Tsirou,
V. Veckalns49, M. Verzetti, W.D. Zeuner Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen,
Switzerland
L. Caminada50, K. Deiters, W. Erdmann, R. Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C.
Kaestli, D. Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, T. Rohe, S.A. Wiederkehr ETH Zurich -
Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics (IPA), Zurich, Switzerland
M. Backhaus, L. Bäni, P. Berger, N. Chernyavskaya, G. Dissertori, M. Dittmar,
M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, T.A. Gómez Espinosa, C. Grab, D. Hits, T. Klijnsma, W.
Lustermann, R.A. Manzoni, M. Marionneau, M.T. Meinhard, F. Micheli, P.
Musella, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, J. Pata, F. Pauss, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, S.
Pigazzini, M. Quittnat, C. Reissel, D. Ruini, D.A. Sanz Becerra, M.
Schönenberger, L. Shchutska, V.R. Tavolaro, K. Theofilatos, M.L. Vesterbacka
Olsson, R. Wallny, D.H. Zhu Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, C. Amsler51, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, R. Del
Burgo, S. Donato, C. Galloni, T. Hreus, B. Kilminster, S. Leontsinis, I.
Neutelings, G. Rauco, P. Robmann, D. Salerno, K. Schweiger, C. Seitz, Y.
Takahashi, A. Zucchetta National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan
Y.H. Chang, K.y. Cheng, T.H. Doan, R. Khurana, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A.
Pozdnyakov, S.S. Yu National Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, W.-S. Hou, Arun Kumar, Y.F. Liu,
R.-S. Lu, E. Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen Chulalongkorn University, Faculty
of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok, Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, N. Srimanobhas, N. Suwonjandee Çukurova University, Physics
Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
A. Bat, F. Boran, S. Cerci52, S. Damarseckin, Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, C.
Dozen, I. Dumanoglu, S. Girgis, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, E. Gurpinar, I. Hos53,
C. Isik, E.E. Kangal54, O. Kara, A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, M. Oglakci, G.
Onengut, K. Ozdemir55, S. Ozturk56, B. Tali52, U.G. Tok, H. Topakli56, S.
Turkcapar, I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East Technical University,
Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak57, G. Karapinar58, M. Yalvac, M. Zeyrek Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya59, O. Kaya60, S. Ozkorucuklu61, S. Tekten,
E.A. Yetkin62 Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
M.N. Agaras, A. Cakir, K. Cankocak, Y. Komurcu, S. Sen63 Institute for
Scintillation Materials of National Academy of Science of Ukraine, Kharkov,
Ukraine
B. Grynyov National Scientific Center, Kharkov Institute of Physics and
Technology, Kharkov, Ukraine
L. Levchuk University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
F. Ball, L. Beck, J.J. Brooke, D. Burns, E. Clement, D. Cussans, O. Davignon,
H. Flacher, J. Goldstein, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, D.M. Newbold64,
S. Paramesvaran, B. Penning, T. Sakuma, D. Smith, V.J. Smith, J. Taylor, A.
Titterton Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev65, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, D. Cieri, D.J.A. Cockerill, J.A.
Coughlan, K. Harder, S. Harper, J. Linacre, E. Olaiya, D. Petyt, C.H.
Shepherd-Themistocleous, A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin, T. Williams, W.J. Womersley
Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A. Bundock, D.
Colling, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M. Della Negra, R. Di Maria, Y. Haddad, G.
Hall, G. Iles, T. James, M. Komm, C. Laner, L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik,
A. Martelli, J. Nash66, A. Nikitenko7, V. Palladino, M. Pesaresi, D.M.
Raymond, A. Richards, A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A. Shtipliyski, G. Singh, M.
Stoye, T. Strebler, S. Summers, A. Tapper, K. Uchida, T. Virdee18, N. Wardle,
D. Winterbottom, J. Wright, S.C. Zenz Brunel University, Uxbridge, United
Kingdom
J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, C.K. Mackay, A. Morton, I.D. Reid,
L. Teodorescu, S. Zahid Baylor University, Waco, USA
K. Call, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, H. Liu, C. Madrid, B. Mcmaster, N.
Pastika, C. Smith Catholic University of America, Washington DC, USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
A. Buccilli, S.I. Cooper, C. Henderson, P. Rumerio, C. West Boston University,
Boston, USA
D. Arcaro, T. Bose, D. Gastler, D. Pinna, D. Rankin, C. Richardson, J. Rohlf,
L. Sulak, D. Zou Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, X. Coubez, D. Cutts, M. Hadley, J. Hakala, U. Heintz, J.M.
Hogan67, K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, J. Lee, Z. Mao, M. Narain, S.
Sagir68, R. Syarif, E. Usai, D. Yu University of California, Davis, Davis, USA
R. Band, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, D. Burns, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez,
M. Chertok, J. Conway, R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, G. Funk,
W. Ko, O. Kukral, R. Lander, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, J. Pilot, S. Shalhout,
M. Shi, D. Stolp, D. Taylor, K. Tos, M. Tripathi, Z. Wang, F. Zhang University
of California, Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, C. Bravo, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, A. Florent, J. Hauser, M.
Ignatenko, N. Mccoll, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg, C. Schnaible, V. Valuev
University of California, Riverside, Riverside, USA
E. Bouvier, K. Burt, R. Clare, J.W. Gary, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi, G. Hanson, G.
Karapostoli, E. Kennedy, F. Lacroix, O.R. Long, M. Olmedo Negrete, M.I.
Paneva, W. Si, L. Wang, H. Wei, S. Wimpenny, B.R. Yates University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, P. Chang, S. Cittolin, M. Derdzinski, R. Gerosa, D. Gilbert, B.
Hashemi, A. Holzner, D. Klein, G. Kole, V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, M.
Masciovecchio, D. Olivito, S. Padhi, M. Pieri, M. Sani, V. Sharma, S. Simon,
M. Tadel, A. Vartak, S. Wasserbaech69, J. Wood, F. Würthwein, A. Yagil, G.
Zevi Della Porta University of California, Santa Barbara - Department of
Physics, Santa Barbara, USA
N. Amin, R. Bhandari, J. Bradmiller-Feld, C. Campagnari, M. Citron, A. Dishaw,
V. Dutta, M. Franco Sevilla, L. Gouskos, R. Heller, J. Incandela, A.
Ovcharova, H. Qu, J. Richman, D. Stuart, I. Suarez, S. Wang, J. Yoo California
Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
D. Anderson, A. Bornheim, J.M. Lawhorn, H.B. Newman, T.Q. Nguyen, M.
Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, R. Wilkinson, S. Xie, Z. Zhang, R.Y. Zhu Carnegie
Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
M.B. Andrews, T. Ferguson, T. Mudholkar, M. Paulini, M. Sun, I. Vorobiev, M.
Weinberg University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, F. Jensen, A. Johnson, M. Krohn, E. MacDonald, T.
Mulholland, R. Patel, A. Perloff, K. Stenson, K.A. Ulmer, S.R. Wagner Cornell
University, Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, J. Chaves, Y. Cheng, J. Chu, A. Datta, K. Mcdermott, N. Mirman,
J.R. Patterson, D. Quach, A. Rinkevicius, A. Ryd, L. Skinnari, L. Soffi, S.M.
Tan, Z. Tao, J. Thom, J. Tucker, P. Wittich, M. Zientek Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, USA
S. Abdullin, M. Albrow, M. Alyari, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S.
Banerjee, L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, K. Burkett,
J.N. Butler, A. Canepa, G.B. Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M. Cremonesi,
J. Duarte, V.D. Elvira, J. Freeman, Z. Gecse, E. Gottschalk, L. Gray, D.
Green, S. Grünendahl, O. Gutsche, J. Hanlon, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, J.
Hirschauer, Z. Hu, B. Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, B.
Klima, M.J. Kortelainen, B. Kreis, S. Lammel, D. Lincoln, R. Lipton, M. Liu,
T. Liu, J. Lykken, K. Maeshima, J.M. Marraffino, D. Mason, P. McBride, P.
Merkel, S. Mrenna, S. Nahn, V. O’Dell, K. Pedro, C. Pena, O. Prokofyev, G.
Rakness, L. Ristori, A. Savoy-Navarro70, B. Schneider, E. Sexton-Kennedy, A.
Soha, W.J. Spalding, L. Spiegel, S. Stoynev, J. Strait, N. Strobbe, L. Taylor,
S. Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran, L. Uplegger, E.W. Vaandering, C. Vernieri, M.
Verzocchi, R. Vidal, M. Wang, H.A. Weber, A. Whitbeck University of Florida,
Gainesville, USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, P. Bortignon, D. Bourilkov, A. Brinkerhoff, L. Cadamuro,
A. Carnes, M. Carver, D. Curry, R.D. Field, S.V. Gleyzer, B.M. Joshi, J.
Konigsberg, A. Korytov, K.H. Lo, P. Ma, K. Matchev, H. Mei, G. Mitselmakher,
D. Rosenzweig, K. Shi, D. Sperka, J. Wang, S. Wang, X. Zuo Florida
International University, Miami, USA
Y.R. Joshi, S. Linn Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
A. Ackert, T. Adams, A. Askew, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F. Johnson, T.
Kolberg, G. Martinez, T. Perry, H. Prosper, A. Saha, C. Schiber, R. Yohay
Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, V. Bhopatkar, S. Colafranceschi, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, M.
Rahmani, T. Roy, F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago,
USA
M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, D. Berry, R.R. Betts, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, S.
Dittmer, O. Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, K. Jung, J.
Kamin, C. Mills, I.D. Sandoval Gonzalez, M.B. Tonjes, H. Trauger, N. Varelas,
H. Wang, X. Wang, Z. Wu, J. Zhang The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, B. Bilki71, W. Clarida, K. Dilsiz72, S. Durgut, R.P.
Gandrajula, M. Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko, J.-P. Merlo, A. Mestvirishvili, A.
Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul73, Y. Onel, F. Ozok74, A. Penzo, C. Snyder, E.
Tiras, J. Wetzel Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
B. Blumenfeld, A. Cocoros, N. Eminizer, D. Fehling, L. Feng, A.V. Gritsan,
W.T. Hung, P. Maksimovic, J. Roskes, U. Sarica, M. Swartz, M. Xiao, C. You The
University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA
A. Al-bataineh, P. Baringer, A. Bean, S. Boren, J. Bowen, A. Bylinkin, J.
Castle, S. Khalil, A. Kropivnitskaya, D. Majumder, W. Mcbrayer, M. Murray, C.
Rogan, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang Kansas State
University, Manhattan, USA
S. Duric, A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, D. Kim, Y. Maravin, D.R. Mendis, T. Mitchell,
A. Modak, A. Mohammadi, L.K. Saini, N. Skhirtladze Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright University of Maryland, College Park, USA
A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, S.C. Eno, Y. Feng, C. Ferraioli, N.J. Hadley,
S. Jabeen, G.Y. Jeng, R.G. Kellogg, J. Kunkle, A.C. Mignerey, S. Nabili, F.
Ricci-Tam, Y.H. Shin, A. Skuja, S.C. Tonwar, K. Wong Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, V. Azzolini, A. Baty, G. Bauer, R. Bi, S. Brandt, W.
Busza, I.A. Cali, M. D’Alfonso, Z. Demiragli, G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov,
P. Harris, D. Hsu, M. Hu, Y. Iiyama, G.M. Innocenti, M. Klute, D. Kovalskyi,
Y.-J. Lee, P.D. Luckey, B. Maier, A.C. Marini, C. Mcginn, C. Mironov, S.
Narayanan, X. Niu, C. Paus, C. Roland, G. Roland, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Sumorok,
K. Tatar, D. Velicanu, J. Wang, T.W. Wang, B. Wyslouch, S. Zhaozhong
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
A.C. Benvenuti${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, P.
Hansen, J. Hiltbrand, Sh. Jain, S. Kalafut, Y. Kubota, Z. Lesko, J. Mans, N.
Ruckstuhl, R. Rusack, M.A. Wadud University of Mississippi, Oxford, USA
J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
E. Avdeeva, K. Bloom, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, F. Golf, R. Gonzalez Suarez,
R. Kamalieddin, I. Kravchenko, J. Monroy, J.E. Siado, G.R. Snow, B. Stieger
State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
A. Godshalk, C. Harrington, I. Iashvili, A. Kharchilava, C. Mclean, D. Nguyen,
A. Parker, S. Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani Northeastern University, Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, A. Hortiangtham, D.M. Morse, T. Orimoto,
R. Teixeira De Lima, T. Wamorkar, B. Wang, A. Wisecarver, D. Wood Northwestern
University, Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, O. Charaf, K.A. Hahn, N. Mucia, N. Odell, M.H. Schmitt, K.
Sung, M. Trovato, M. Velasco University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, USA
R. Bucci, N. Dev, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop, D.J. Karmgard, N.
Kellams, K. Lannon, W. Li, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, F. Meng, C. Mueller, Y.
Musienko37, M. Planer, A. Reinsvold, R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, G. Smith, S.
Taroni, M. Wayne, A. Wightman, M. Wolf, A. Woodard The Ohio State University,
Columbus, USA
J. Alimena, L. Antonelli, B. Bylsma, L.S. Durkin, S. Flowers, B. Francis, A.
Hart, C. Hill, W. Ji, T.Y. Ling, W. Luo, B.L. Winer Princeton University,
Princeton, USA
S. Cooperstein, P. Elmer, J. Hardenbrook, S. Higginbotham, A. Kalogeropoulos,
D. Lange, M.T. Lucchini, J. Luo, D. Marlow, K. Mei, I. Ojalvo, J. Olsen, C.
Palmer, P. Piroué, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, D. Stickland, C. Tully University of
Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
A. Barker, V.E. Barnes, S. Das, L. Gutay, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, A. Khatiwada,
B. Mahakud, D.H. Miller, N. Neumeister, C.C. Peng, S. Piperov, H. Qiu, J.F.
Schulte, J. Sun, F. Wang, R. Xiao, W. Xie Purdue University Northwest,
Hammond, USA
T. Cheng, J. Dolen, N. Parashar Rice University, Houston, USA
Z. Chen, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Kilpatrick, W. Li, B.P.
Padley, R. Redjimi, J. Roberts, J. Rorie, W. Shi, Z. Tu, J. Zabel, A. Zhang
University of Rochester, Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, Y.t. Duh, J.L. Dulemba, C. Fallon, T.
Ferbel, M. Galanti, A. Garcia-Bellido, J. Han, O. Hindrichs, A.
Khukhunaishvili, P. Tan, R. Taus Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,
Piscataway, USA
A. Agapitos, J.P. Chou, Y. Gershtein, E. Halkiadakis, M. Heindl, E. Hughes, S.
Kaplan, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, S. Kyriacou, A. Lath, R. Montalvo, K. Nash,
M. Osherson, H. Saka, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, D. Sheffield, S. Somalwar, R.
Stone, S. Thomas, P. Thomassen, M. Walker University of Tennessee, Knoxville,
USA
A.G. Delannoy, J. Heideman, G. Riley, S. Spanier Texas A&M University, College
Station, USA
O. Bouhali75, A. Celik, M. Dalchenko, M. De Mattia, A. Delgado, S. Dildick, R.
Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T. Kamon76, S. Luo, R. Mueller, D. Overton, L.
Perniè, D. Rathjens, A. Safonov Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, F. De Guio, P.R. Dudero, S. Kunori, K. Lamichhane,
S.W. Lee, T. Mengke, S. Muthumuni, T. Peltola, S. Undleeb, I. Volobouev, Z.
Wang Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H. Ni, K.
Padeken, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska, M. Verweij, Q.
Xu University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
M.W. Arenton, P. Barria, B. Cox, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A. Ledovskoy, H. Li, C.
Neu, T. Sinthuprasith, Y. Wang, E. Wolfe, F. Xia Wayne State University,
Detroit, USA
R. Harr, P.E. Karchin, N. Poudyal, J. Sturdy, P. Thapa, S. Zaleski University
of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI, USA
M. Brodski, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, D. Carlsmith, S. Dasu, L. Dodd, B.
Gomber, M. Grothe, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, P. Klabbers, A. Lanaro,
K. Long, R. Loveless, T. Ruggles, A. Savin, V. Sharma, N. Smith, W.H. Smith,
N. Woods †: Deceased
1: Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria
2: Also at IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
3: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
4: Also at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
5: Also at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
6: Also at University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
7: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
8: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
9: Also at Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
10: Also at Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
11: Now at Zewail City of Science and Technology, Zewail, Egypt
12: Also at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt
13: Now at Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
14: Also at Department of Physics, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia
15: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
16: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
17: Also at Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
18: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
19: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
20: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
21: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
22: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
23: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
24: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
25: Also at Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India
26: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
27: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India
28: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
29: Also at Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
30: Also at Plasma Physics Research Center, Science and Research Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
31: Also at Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy
32: Also at Kyunghee University, Seoul, Korea
33: Also at International Islamic University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
34: Also at Malaysian Nuclear Agency, MOSTI, Kajang, Malaysia
35: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico city, Mexico
36: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems,
Warsaw, Poland
37: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
38: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
39: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
40: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
41: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
42: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
43: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
44: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
45: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
46: Also at University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of
Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
47: Also at Scuola Normale e Sezione dell’INFN, Pisa, Italy
48: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
49: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
50: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
51: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics (SMI), Vienna,
Austria
52: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
53: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey
54: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
55: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
56: Also at Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey
57: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
58: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
59: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
60: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
61: Also at Istanbul University, Faculty of Science, Istanbul, Turkey
62: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
63: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
64: Also at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
65: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
66: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia
67: Also at Bethel University, St. Paul, USA
68: Also at Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey
69: Also at Utah Valley University, Orem, USA
70: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
71: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey
72: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
73: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
74: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
75: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
76: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea