SMP-17-014

$HeadURL:svn+ssh://svn.cern.ch/reps/tdr2/papers/SMP-17-014/trunk/SMP-17-014.tex$
$Id:SMP-17-014.tex4894212019-02-1918:28:16Zalverson$

SMP-17-014

# Measurement of associated production of a $\PW$ boson and a charm quark in
proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$

###### Abstract

Measurements are presented of associated production of a $\PW$ boson and a
charm quark ($\PW+\cPqc$) in proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass
energy of 13. The data correspond to an integrated luminosity of 35.7collected
by the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC. The $\PW$ bosons are identified by
their decay into a muon and a neutrino. The charm quarks are tagged via the
full reconstruction of $\PDstpm$ mesons that decay via
$\PDstpm\to\PDz+\Pgppm\to\PK^{\mp}+\Pgppm+\Pgppm$. A cross section is measured
in the fiducial region defined by the muon transverse momentum
$\pt^{\PGm}>26\GeV$, muon pseudorapidity $\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}<2.4$, and charm
quark transverse momentum $\pt^{\cPqc}>5\GeV$. The inclusive cross section for
this kinematic range is $\sigma(\PW+\cPqc)=1026\pm
31\stat\begin{subarray}{c}+76\\\ -72\end{subarray}\syst\unit{pb}$. The cross
section is also measured differentially as a function of the pseudorapidity of
the muon from the $\PW$ boson decay. These measurements are compared with
theoretical predictions and are used to probe the strange quark content of the
proton.

##  0.1 Introduction

Precise knowledge of the structure of the proton, expressed in terms of parton
distribution functions (PDFs), is important for interpreting results obtained
in proton-proton () collisions at the CERN LHC. The PDFs are determined by
comparing theoretical predictions obtained at a particular order in
perturbative quantum chromodynamics (pQCD) to experimental measurements. The
precision of the PDFs, which affects the accuracy of the theoretical
predictions for cross sections at the LHC, is determined by the uncertainties
of the experimental measurements used, and by the limitations of the available
theoretical calculations. The flavor composition of the light quark sea in the
proton and, in particular, the understanding of the strange quark distribution
is important for the measurement of the $\PW$ boson mass at the LHC [1].
Therefore, it is of great interest to determine the strange quark distribution
with improved precision.

Before the start of LHC data taking, information on the strange quark content
of the nucleon was obtained primarily from charm production in (anti)neutrino-
iron deep inelastic scattering (DIS) by the NuTeV [2], CCFR [3], and NOMAD [4]
experiments. In addition, a direct measurement of inclusive charm production
in nuclear emulsions was performed by the CHORUS experiment [5]. At the LHC,
the production of $\PW$ or $\PZ$ bosons, inclusive or associated with charm
quarks, provides an important input for tests of the earlier determinations of
the strange quark distribution. The measurements of inclusive $\PW$ or $\PZ$
boson production at the LHC, which are indirectly sensitive to the strange
quark distribution, were used in a QCD analysis by the ATLAS experiment, and
an enhancement of the strange quark distribution with respect to other
measurements was observed [6].

The associated production of $\PW$ bosons and charm quarks in pp collisions at
the LHC probes the strange quark content of the proton directly through the
leading order (LO) processes $\cPg+\cPaqs\to\PWp{+}\cPaqc$ and
$\cPg+\cPqs\to\PWm{+}\cPqc$, as shown in Fig. 1. The contribution of the
Cabibbo-suppressed processes $\cPg+\cPaqd\to\PWp{+}\cPaqc$ and
$\cPg+\cPqd\to\PWm{+}\cPqc$ amounts to only a few percent of the total cross
section.

Figure 1: Dominant contributions to $\PW{+}\cPqc$ production at the LHC at
leading order in pQCD.

Therefore, measurements of associated $\PW{+}\cPqc$ production in pp
collisions provide valuable insights into the strange quark distribution of
the proton. Furthermore, these measurements allow important cross-checks of
the results obtained in the global PDF fits using the DIS data and
measurements of inclusive $\PW$ and $\PZ$ boson production at the LHC.

Production of $\PW{+}\cPqc$ in hadron collisions was first investigated at the
Tevatron [7, 8, 9]. The first measurement of the cross section of
$\PW{+}\cPqc$ production in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at the LHC was performed by
the CMS Collaboration at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=7\TeV$ with an
integrated luminosity of 5 [10]. This measurement was used for the first
direct determination of the strange quark distribution in the proton at a
hadron collider [11]. The extracted strangeness suppression with respect to
$\cPaqu$ and $\cPaqd$ quark densities was found to be in agreement with
measurements in neutrino scattering experiments. The cross section for
$\PW{+}\cPqc$ production was also measured by the ATLAS experiment at
$\sqrt{s}=7\TeV$ [12] and used in a QCD analysis, which supported the enhanced
strange quark content in the proton suggested by the earlier ATLAS analysis
[6]. A subsequent joint QCD analysis [13] of all available data that were
sensitive to the strange quark distribution demonstrated consistency between
the $\PW{+}\cPqc$ measurements by the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations. In Ref.
[13], possible reasons for the observed strangeness enhancement were
discussed. Recent results of an ATLAS QCD analysis [14], including
measurements of inclusive $\PW$ and $\PZ$ boson production at
$\sqrt{s}=7\TeV$, indicated an even stronger strangeness enhancement in
disagreement with all global PDFs. In Ref. [15], possible reasons for this
observation were attributed to the limitations of the parameterization used in
this ATLAS analysis [14]. The associated production of a $\PW$ boson with a
jet originating from a charm quark is also studied in the forward region by
the LHCb experiment [16].

In this paper, the cross section for $\PW{+}\cPqc$ production is measured in
pp collisions at the LHC at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ using data collected by the CMS
experiment in 2016 corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.7. The
$\PW$ bosons are selected via their decay into a muon and a neutrino. The
charm quarks are tagged by a full reconstruction of the charmed hadrons in the
process
$\cPqc\to\PDstpm\to\PDz+\Pgp_{\text{slow}}^{\pm}\to\PK^{\mp}+\Pgppm+\Pgp_{\text{slow}}^{\pm}$,
which has a clear experimental signature. The pion originating from the
$\PDstpm$ decay receives very little energy because of the small mass
difference between $\PDstpm$ and $\PDz$(1865) and is therefore denoted a
“slow” pion $\Pgp_{\text{slow}}^{\pm}$. Cross sections for $\PW{+}\PDstpm$
production are measured within a selected fiducial phase space. The
$\PW{+}\cPqc$ cross sections are compared with theoretical predictions at
next-to-leading order (NLO) QCD, which are obtained with 6.8 [17, 18, 19], and
are used to extract the strange quark content of the proton.

This paper is organized as follows. The CMS detector is briefly described in
Section 0.2. The data and the simulated samples are described in Section 0.3.
The event selection is presented in Section 0.4. The measurement of the cross
sections and the evaluation of systematic uncertainties are discussed in
Section 0.5. The details of the QCD analysis are described in Section 0.6.
Section 0.7 summarizes the results.

##  0.2 The CMS detector

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

The silicon tracker measures charged particles within the pseudorapidity range
$\abs{\eta}<2.5$. It consists of 1440 silicon pixel and 15 148 silicon strip
detector modules. For nonisolated particles of $1<\pt<10\GeV$ and
$\abs{\eta}<1.4$, the track resolutions are typically 1.5% in and 25–90
(45–150)in the transverse (longitudinal) impact parameter [20]. The
reconstructed vertex with the largest value of summed physics-object $\pt^{2}$
is taken to be the primary $\Pp\Pp$ interaction vertex. The physics objects
are the jets, clustered using the jet finding algorithm [21, 22] with the
tracks assigned to the vertex as inputs, and the associated missing transverse
momentum, taken as the negative vector sum of the of those jets. Muons are
measured in the pseudorapidity range $\abs{\eta}<2.4$, with detection planes
made using three technologies: drift tubes, cathode strip chambers, and
resistive-plate chambers. The single muon trigger efficiency exceeds 90% over
the full $\eta$ range, and the efficiency to reconstruct and identify muons is
greater than 96%. Matching muons to tracks measured in the silicon tracker
results in a relative transverse momentum resolution, for muons with up to
100, of 1% in the barrel and 3% in the endcaps. The resolution in the barrel
is better than 7% for muons with up to 1 [23]. 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. [24].

##  0.3 Data and Monte Carlo samples and signal definition

Candidate events for the muon decay channel of the $\PW$ boson are selected by
a muon trigger [25] that requires a reconstructed muon with
$\pt^{\PGm}>24\GeV$. The presence of a high-neutrino is implied by the missing
transverse momentum, $\ptvecmiss$, which is defined as the negative vector sum
of the transverse momenta of the reconstructed particles.

Muon candidates and $\ptvecmiss$ are reconstructed using the particle-flow
(PF) algorithm [26], which reconstructs and identifies each individual
particle with an optimized combination of information from the various
elements of the CMS detector. The energy of photons is obtained directly from
the ECAL measurement. The energy of electrons is determined from a combination
of the electron momentum at the primary interaction vertex determined by the
tracking detector, the energy of the corresponding ECAL cluster, and the
energy sum of all bremsstrahlung photons spatially compatible with originating
from the electron track. The muon momentum is obtained from the track
curvature in both the tracker and the muon system, and identified by hits in
multiple stations of the flux-return yoke. The energy of charged hadrons is
determined from a combination of their momentum measured in the tracker and
the matching ECAL and HCAL energy deposits, corrected for both zero-
suppression effects and the response function of the calorimeters to hadronic
showers. Finally, the energy of neutral hadrons is obtained from the
corresponding corrected ECAL and HCAL energy.

The $\PDstpm$ meson candidates are reconstructed from tracks formed by
combining the measurements in the silicon pixel and strip detectors through
the CMS combinatorial track finder [20].

The signal and background processes are simulated using Monte Carlo (MC)
generators to estimate the acceptance and efficiency of the CMS detector. The
corresponding MC events are passed through a detailed [27] simulation of the
CMS detector and reconstructed using the same software as the real data. The
presence of multiple pp interactions in the same or adjacent bunch crossing
(pileup) is incorporated by simulating additional interactions (both in-time
and out-of-time with respect to the hard interaction) with a vertex
multiplicity that matches the distribution observed in data. The simulated
samples are normalized to the integrated luminosity of the data using the
generated cross sections. To simulate the signal, inclusive +jets events are
generated with (v2.2.2) [28] using the NLO matrix elements, interfaced with 8
(8.2.12) [29] for parton showering and hadronization. A matching scale of 10is
chosen, and the FxFx technique [30] is applied for matching and merging. The
factorization and renormalization scales, $\mu_{\mathrm{r}}^{2}$ and
$\mu_{\mathrm{f}}^{2}$, are set to
$\mu_{\mathrm{r}}^{2}=\mu_{\mathrm{f}}^{2}=m^{2}_{\PW}+p^{2}_{\mathrm{T},\PW}$.
The proton structure is described by the NNPDF3.0nlo [31] PDF set. To enrich
the sample with simulated $\PW{+}\cPqc$ events, an event filter that requires
at least one muon with $\pt^{\PGm}>20\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}<2.4$, as
well as at least one $\PDstpm$ meson, is applied at the generator level.

Several background contributions are considered, which are described in the
following. An inclusive +jets event sample is generated using the same
settings as the signal events, but without the event filter, to simulate
background contributions from events that do not contain $\PDstpm$ mesons.
Events originating from Drell–Yan (DY) with associated jets are simulated with
(v2.2.2) with $\mu_{\mathrm{r}}^{2}$ and $\mu_{\mathrm{f}}^{2}$ set to
$m^{2}_{\PZ}+p^{2}_{\mathrm{T},\PZ}$. Events originating from top quark-
antiquark pair ($\ttbar$) production are simulated using (v2.0) [32], whereas
single top quark events are simulated using (v2.0) [33, 34] or (v1.0) [35],
depending on the production channel. Inclusive production of $\PW\PW$,
$\PW\PZ$, and $\PZ\PZ$ bosons and contributions from the inclusive QCD events
are generated using 8. The CUETP8M1 [36] underlying event tune is used in 8
for all, except for the $\ttbar$ sample, where the
CUETP8M2T4 [37] tune is applied.

The dominant background originates from processes like
$\cPqu+\cPaqd\to\PWp+\cPg^{*}\to\PWp+\ccbar$ or
$\cPqd+\cPaqu\to\PWm+\cPg^{*}\to\PWm+\ccbar$, with $\cPqc$ quarks produced in
gluon splitting. In the $\PW{+}\cPqc$ signal events the charges of the $\PW$
boson and the charm quark have opposite signs. In gluon splitting, an
additional $\cPqc$ quark is produced with the same charge as the $\PW$ boson.
At the generator level, an event is considered as a $\PW{+}\cPqc$ event if it
contains at least one charm quark in the final state. In the case of an odd
number of $\cPqc$ quarks, the $\cPqc$ quark with the highest $\pt$ and a
charge opposite to that of the $\PW$ boson is considered as originating from a
$\PW{+}\cPqc$ process, whereas the other $\cPqc$ quarks in the event are
labeled as originating from gluon splitting. In the case of an even number of
$\cPqc$ quarks, all are considered to come from gluon splitting. Events
containing both $\cPqc$ and $\cPqb$ quarks are considered to be $\PW{+}\cPqc$
events, since $\cPqc$ quarks are of higher priority in this analysis,
regardless of their momentum or production mechanism. Events containing no
$\cPqc$ quark and at least one $\cPqb$ quark are classified as $\PW+\cPqb$.
Otherwise, an event is assigned to the $\PW+\cPqu\cPqd\cPqs\Pg$ category.

The contribution from gluon splitting can be significantly reduced using data.
Events with the same charge sign for both the $\PW$ boson and charm quark,
which correlates to the charge sign of the $\PDstpm$ meson, are background,
which is due to gluon splitting. Since the gluon splitting background for
opposite charge pairs is identical, it can be removed by subtracting the same-
sign distribution from the signal. The measurement is performed in the central
kinematic range and is not sensitive to the contributions of processes
$\cPqc+\cPg\to\PW+\cPqs$ with a spectator charm quark.

For validation and tuning of MC event generators using a Rivet plugin [38],
the $\PW{+}\PDstpm$ measurement is performed. This requires a particle-level
definition without constraints on the origin of $\PDstpm$ mesons. Therefore,
any contributions from $\PB$ meson decays and other hadrons, though only a few
pb, are included as signal for this part of the measurement.

##  0.4 Event selection

The associated production of $\PW$ bosons and charm quarks is investigated
using events, where $\PW\to\Pgm+\Pagngm$ and the $\cPqc$ quarks hadronize into
a $\PDstpm$ meson. The reconstruction of the muons from the $\PW$ boson decays
and of the $\PDstpm$ candidates is described in detail in the following.

###  0.4.1 Selection of boson candidates

Events containing a $\PW$ boson decay are identified by the presence of a
high-isolated muon and . The muon candidates are reconstructed by combining
the tracking information from the muon system and from the inner tracking
system [23], using the CMS particle-flow algorithm. Muon candidates are
required to have $\pt^{\PGm}>26\GeV$, $\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}<2.4$, and must
fulfill the CMS “tight identification” criteria [23]. To suppress
contamination from muons contained in jets, an isolation requirement is
imposed:

$\frac{1}{\pt^{\PGm}}\left[\sum^{\mathrm{CH}}\pt+\max\left(0.,\sum^{\mathrm{NH}}\pt+\sum^{\mathrm{EM}}\pt-0.5\sum^{\mathrm{PU}}\pt\right)\right]\leq
0.15,$ (1)

where the $\pt$ sum of PF candidates for charged hadrons (CH), neutral hadrons
(NH), photons (EM) and charged particles from pileup (PU) inside a cone of
radius $\Delta R\leq 0.4$ is used, and the factor 0.5 corresponds to the
typical ratio of neutral to charged particles, as measured in jet production
[26].

Events in which more than one muon candidate fulfills all the above criteria
are rejected in order to suppress background from DY processes. Corrections
are applied to the simulated samples to adjust the trigger, isolation,
identification, and tracking efficiencies to the observed data. These
correction factors are determined through dedicated tag-and-probe studies.

The presence of a neutrino in an event is assured by imposing a requirement on
the transverse mass, which is defined as the combination of $\pt^{\PGm}$ and
$\ptvecmiss$:

$\mT\equiv\sqrt{{2\,\pt^{\PGm}\,\ptvecmiss\,(1-\cos(\phi_{\Pgm}-\phi_{\ptvecmiss}))}}.$
(2)

In this analysis, $\mT>50\GeV$ is required, which results in a significant
reduction of background.

###  0.4.2 Selection of candidates

The $\PDstpm$ mesons are identified by their decays
$\PDstpm\to\PDz+\Pgp_{\text{slow}}^{\pm}\to\PK^{\mp}+\Pgppm+\Pgp_{\text{slow}}^{\pm}$
using the reconstructed tracks of the decay products. The branching fraction
for this channel is $2.66\pm 0.03\%$ [39].

The $\PDz$ candidates are constructed by combining two oppositely charged
tracks with transverse momenta $\pt^{\text{track}}>1\GeV$, assuming the
$\PK^{\mp}$ and $\Pgppm$ masses. The $\PDz$ candidates are further combined
with a track of opposite charge to the kaon candidate, assuming the
$\Pgp^{\pm}$ mass, following the well-established procedure of Ref. [40, 41].
The invariant mass of the $\PK^{\mp}\Pgppm$ combination is required to be
$\abs{m(\PK^{\mp}\Pgppm)-m(\PDz)}<35\MeV$, where $m(\PDz)=1864.8\pm 0.1\MeV$
[39]. The candidate $\PK^{\mp}$ and $\Pgppm$ tracks must originate at a fitted
secondary vertex [42] that is displaced by not more than 0.1cm in both the
$xy$-plane and $z$-coordinate from the third track, which is presumed to be
the $\Pgp_{\text{slow}}^{\pm}$ candidate. The latter is required to have
$\pt^{\text{track}}>0.35\GeV$ and to be in a cone of $\Delta R\leq 0.15$
around the direction of the $\PDz$ candidate momentum. The combinatorial
background is reduced by requiring the $\PDstpm$ transverse momentum
$\pt^{\PD^{*}}>5\GeV$ and by applying an isolation criterion
$\pt^{\PD^{*}}/\sum\pt>0.2$. Here $\sum\pt$ is the sum of transverse momenta
of tracks in a cone of $\Delta R\leq$ 0.4 around the direction of the
$\PDstpm$ momentum. The contribution of $\PDstpm$ mesons produced in pileup
events is suppressed by rejecting candidates with a
$\text{$z$-distance}>0.2\unit{cm}$ between the muon and the
$\Pgp_{\text{slow}}^{\pm}$. After applying all selection criteria, the
contribution of $\PDz$ decays other than $\PK^{\mp}\Pgppm$ is negligible
compared to the uncertainties.

The $\PDstpm$ meson candidates are identified using the mass difference method
[41] via a peak in the $\Delta m(\PD^{*},\PDz)$ distribution. Wrong-charge
combinations with $\PKpm\Pgppm$ pairs in the accepted $\PDz$ mass range mimic
the background originating from light-flavor hadrons. By subtracting the
wrong-charge combinations, the combinatorial background in the $\Delta
m(\PD^{*},\PDz)$ distribution is mostly removed. The presence of nonresonant
charm production in the right-charge $\PK^{\mp}\Pgppm\Pgppm$ combinations
introduces a small normalization difference of $\Delta m(\PD^{*},\PDz)$
distributions for right- and wrong-charge combinations, which is corrected
utilizing fits to the ratio of both distributions.

###  0.4.3 Selection of $\PW{+}\cPqc$ candidates

An event is selected as a $\PW{+}\cPqc$ signal if it contains a $\PW$ boson
and a $\PDstpm$ candidate fulfilling all selection criteria. The candidate
events are split into two categories: with $\PW^{\pm}+\PDstpm$ combinations
falling into the same sign (SS) category, and $\PW^{\mp}+\PDstpm$ combinations
falling into the opposite sign (OS) category. The signal events consist of
only OS combinations, whereas the $\PW+\ccbar$ and $\PW+\bbbar$ background
processes produce the same number of OS and SS candidates. Therefore,
subtracting the SS events from the OS events removes the background
contributions from gluon splitting. The contributions from other background
sources, such as $\cPqt\cPaqt$ and single top quark production, are
negligible.

The number of $\PW{+}\cPqc$ events corresponds to the number of $\PDstpm$
mesons after the subtraction of light-flavor and gluon splitting backgrounds.
The invariant mass of $\PK^{\mp}\Pgppm$ candidates, which are selected in a
$\Delta m(\PD^{*},\PDz)$ window of $\pm$1, is shown in Fig. 2, along with the
observed reconstructed mass difference $\Delta m(\PD^{*},\PDz)$. A clear
$\PDz$ peak at the expected mass and a clear $\Delta m(\PD^{*},\PDz)$ peak
around the expected value of $145.4257\pm 0.0017\MeV$ [39] are observed. The
remaining background is negligible, and the number of $\PDstpm$ mesons is
determined by counting the number of candidates in a window of $144<\Delta
m(\PD^{*},\PDz)<147\MeV$. Alternately, two different functions are fit to the
distributions, and their integral over the same mass window is used to
estimate the systematic uncertainties associated with the method chosen.

Figure 2:  Distributions of the reconstructed invariant mass of
$\PK^{\mp}\Pgppm$ candidates (left) in the range $\abs{\Delta
m(\PD^{*},\PDz)-0.1454}<0.001\GeV$, and the reconstructed mass difference
$\Delta m(\PD^{*},\PDz)$ (right). The SS combinations are subtracted. The data
(filled circles) are compared to MC simulation with contributions from
different processes shown as histograms of different shades.

##  0.5 Measurement of the fiducial $\PW{+}\cPqc$ cross section

The fiducial cross section is measured in a kinematic region defined by
requirements on the transverse momentum and the pseudorapidity of the muon and
the transverse momentum of the charm quark. The simulated signal is used to
extrapolate from the fiducial region of the $\PDstpm$ meson to the fiducial
region of the charm quark. Since the $\PDstpm$ kinematics is integrated over
at the generator level, the only kinematic constraint on the corresponding
charm quark arises from the requirement on the transverse momentum of
$\PDstpm$ meson. The correlation of the kinematics of charm quarks and
$\PDstpm$ mesons is investigated using simulation, and the requirement of
$\pt^{\PD^{*}}>5\GeV$ translates into $\pt^{\cPqc}>5\GeV$. The distributions
of $\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}$ and $\pt^{\cPqc}$ in the simulation are shown to
reproduce very well the fixed order prediction at NLO obtained, using 6.8 [17,
18, 19] calculation. The kinematic range of the measured fiducial cross
section corresponds to $\pt^{\PGm}>26\GeV$, $\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}<2.4$, and
$\pt^{\cPqc}>5\GeV$.

The fiducial $\PW{+}\cPqc$ cross section is determined as:

$\sigma(\PW{+}\cPqc)=\frac{N_{\text{sel}}\,\mathcal{S}}{\large\Lumi_{\text{int}}\,\mathcal{B}\,\mathcal{C}},$
(3)

where $N_{\text{sel}}$ is the number of selected $\mbox{OS}-\mbox{SS}$ events
in the $\Delta m(\PD^{*},\PDz)$ distribution and $\mathcal{S}$ is the signal
fraction. The latter is defined as the ratio of the number of reconstructed
$\PW{+}\PDstpm$ candidates originating from $\PW{+}\cPqc$ to the number of all
reconstructed $\PDstpm$. It is determined from the MC simulation, includes the
background contributions, and varies between 0.95 and 0.99. The integrated
luminosity is denoted by $\Lumi_{\text{int}}$. The combined branching fraction
$\mathcal{B}$ for the channels under study is a product of
$\mathcal{B}(\cPqc\to\PDstpm)=0.2429$ $\pm$ 0.0049 [43] and
$\mathcal{B}(\PDstpm\to\PK^{\mp}+\Pgppm+\Pgp_{\text{slow}}^{\pm})$ = 0.0266
$\pm$ 0.0003 [39]. The correction factor $\mathcal{C}$ accounts for the
acceptance and efficiency of the detector. The latter is determined using the
MC simulation and is defined as the ratio of the number of reconstructed
$\PW{+}\PDstpm$ candidates to the number of generated $\PW{+}\PDstpm$
originating from $\PW{+}\cPqc$ events that fulfill the fiducial requirements.
In the measurement of the $\PWp{+}\cPaqc$ ($\PWp{+}\PD^{*}(2010)^{-}$) and
$\PWm{+}\cPqc$ ($\PWm{+}\PD^{*}(2010)^{+}$) cross sections, the factor
$\mathcal{C}$ is determined separately for different charge combinations.

The measurement of the $\PW{+}\cPqc$ cross section relies to a large extent on
the MC simulation and requires extrapolation to unmeasured phase space. To
reduce the extrapolation and the corresponding uncertainty, the cross section
for $\PW{+}\PDstpm$ production is also determined in the fiducial phase space
of the detector-level measurement, $\pt^{\PGm}>26\GeV$,
$\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}<2.4$, $\abs{\eta^{\PD^{*}}}<2.4$ and $\pt^{\PD^{*}}>5\GeV$,
in a similar way by modifying Eq. (3) as follows: only the branching fraction
$\mathcal{B}=\mathcal{B}(\PDstpm\to\PK^{\mp}+\Pgppm+\Pgp_{\text{slow}}^{\pm})$
is considered and the factor $\mathcal{C}$ is defined as the ratio between the
numbers of reconstructed and of generated $\PW{+}\PDstpm$ candidates in the
fiducial phase space after $\mbox{OS}-\mbox{SS}$ subtraction.

The cross sections are determined inclusively and also in five bins of the
absolute pseudorapidity $\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}$ of the muon originating from the
$\PW$ boson decay. The number of signal ($\mbox{OS}-\mbox{SS}$) events in each
range of $\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}$ is shown in Fig. 3. Good agreement between the
data and MC simulation within the statistical uncertainties is observed.

Figure 3: Number of events after $\mbox{OS}-\mbox{SS}$ subtraction for data
(filled circles) and MC simulation (filled histograms) as a function of
$\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}$.

###  0.5.1 Systematic uncertainties

The efficiencies and the assumptions relevant for the measurement are varied
within their uncertainties to estimate the systematic uncertainty in the cross
section measurement. The resulting shift of the cross section with respect to
the central result is taken as the corresponding uncertainty contribution. The
various sources of the systematic uncertainties in the $\PW{+}\cPqc$
production cross section are listed in Table 0.5.1 for both the inclusive and
the differential measurements.

  * •

Uncertainties associated with the integrated luminosity measurement are
estimated as 2.5% [44].

  * •

The uncertainty in the tracking efficiency is 2.3% for the 2016 data. It is
determined using the same method described in Ref. [45], which exploits the
ratio of branching fractions between the four-body and two-body decays of the
neutral charm meson to all-charged final states.

  * •

The uncertainty in the branching fraction of the $\cPqc\to\PDstpm$ is 2.4%
[43].

  * •

The muon systematic uncertainties are 1% each for for the muon identification
and isolation, and 0.5% for the trigger and tracking corrections. These are
added in quadrature and the resulting uncertainty for muons is 1.2%, which is
referred to as the ’muon uncertainty’.

  * •

The uncertainty in the determination of $N_{\text{sel}}$ is estimated from the
difference in using a Gaussian or Crystal Ball fit [46]. The largest value of
this uncertainty determined differentially, 1.5%, is considered for all.

  * •

Uncertainties in the modeling of kinematic observables of the generated
$\PDstpm$ meson are estimated by reweighting the simulated $\pt^{\PD^{*}}$ and
$\abs{\eta^{\PD^{*}}}$ distributions to the shape observed in data. The
respective uncertainty in the inclusive cross section measurement is 0.5%. Due
to statistical limitations, this uncertainty is determined inclusively in
$\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}$.

  * •

The uncertainty in the difference of the normalization of the $\Delta
m(\PD^{*},\PDz)$ distributions for $\PK^{\mp}\Pgppm\Pgppm$ and
$\PKpm\Pgppm\Pgp^{\mp}$ combinations (’background normalization’) is 0.5%.

  * •

Uncertainties in the measured $\ptvecmiss$ are estimated in Ref. [47] and
result in an overall uncertainty of 0.9% for this analysis.

  * •

Uncertainties due to the modeling of pileup are estimated by varying the total
inelastic cross section used in the simulation of pileup events by 5%. The
corresponding uncertainty in the $\PW{+}\cPqc$ cross section is 2%.

  * •

The uncertainty related to the requirement of a valid secondary vertex, fitted
from the tracks associated with a $\PDz$ candidate, is determined by
calculating the $\PDstpm$ reconstruction efficiency in data and MC simulation
for events with and without applying this selection criterion. The number of
reconstructed $\PDstpm$ candidates after the SS event subtraction is compared
for events with or without a valid secondary vertex along with the proximity
requirement ($\Delta_{xy}<0.1\unit{cm}$, $\Delta_{z}<0.1\unit{cm}$). The
difference in efficiency between data and MC simulation is calculated and an
uncertainty in the inclusive cross section of $-1.1$% is obtained. Since this
variation is not symmetric, the uncertainty is one-sided.

  * •

The PDF uncertainties are determined according to the prescription of the PDF
group [31]. These are added in quadrature to the uncertainty related to the
variation of $\alpS(m_{\PZ})$ in the PDF, resulting in an uncertainty of 1.2%
in the inclusive cross section.

  * •

The uncertainty associated with the fragmentation of the $\cPqc$ quark into a
$\PDstpm$ meson is determined through variations of the function describing
the fragmentation parameter $z=\pt^{\PD^{*}}/\pt^{\cPqc}$. The investigation
of this uncertainty is inspired by a dedicated measurement of the
$\cPqc\to\PDstpm$ fragmentation function in electron-proton collisions [48],
in which the fragmentation parameters in various phenomenological models were
determined with an uncertainty of 10%. In the MC event generator, the
fragmentation is described by the phenomenological Bowler–Lund function [49,
50], in the form

$f(z)=\frac{1}{z^{r_{c}\,b\,m_{q}^{2}}}(1-z)^{a}\exp(-b\,m_{\perp}^{2}/z)\,c,$

with $m_{\perp}=\sqrt{\smash[b]{m_{\PD^{*}}^{2}+p_{\mathrm{T\PD^{*}}}^{2}}},$
controlled by the two parameters $a$ and $b$. In the case of charm quarks,
$r_{c}$ = 1 and $m_{q}=1.5\GeV$ are the standard settings in the CUETP8M1
tune, whereas the value of $m_{\perp}$ is related to the average transverse
momentum of generated $\PDstpm$ in the MC sample. The parameters $a$, $b$ and
$c$ are determined in a fit to the simulated distribution of $f(z)$, where $c$
is needed for the normalization. Since the presence of a jet is not required
in the analysis, the charm quark transverse momentum is approximated by
summing up the transverse momenta of tracks in a cone of $\Delta R\leq$ 0.4
around the axis of the $\PDstpm$ candidate. The free parameters are determined
as $a=1.827\pm 0.016$ and $b=0.00837\pm 0.00005\GeV^{-2}$. To estimate the
uncertainty, the parameters $a$ and $b$ are varied within $\pm$10% around
their central values, following the precision achieved for the fragmentation
parameters in [48]. An additional constraint on the upper boundary on the $a$
parameter in is consistent with this 10% variation. The resulting uncertainty
in the cross section is 3.9%.

Systematic uncertainties [%] in the inclusive and differential $\PW{+}\cPqc$
cross section measurement in the fiducial region of the analysis. The total
uncertainty corresponds to the sum of the individual contributions in
quadrature. The contributions listed in the top part of the table cancel in
the ratio $\sigma(\PWp{+}\cPaqc)/\sigma(\PWm{+}\cPqc)$.  Pseudorapidity
$[\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}]$ $[0,2.4]$ $[0,0.4]$ $[0.4,0.8]$ $[0.8,1.3]$ $[1.3,1.8]$
$[1.8,2.4]$ Luminosity $\pm$2.5 $\pm$2.5 $\pm$2.5 $\pm$2.5 $\pm$2.5 $\pm$2.5
Tracking $\pm$2.3 $\pm$2.3 $\pm$2.3 $\pm$2.3 $\pm$2.3 $\pm$2.3 Branching
$\pm$2.4 $\pm$2.4 $\pm$2.4 $\pm$2.4 $\pm$2.4 $\pm$2.4 Muons $\pm$1.2 $\pm$1.2
$\pm$1.2 $\pm$1.2 $\pm$1.2 $\pm$1.2 $N_{\text{sel}}$ determination $\pm$1.5
$\pm$1.5 $\pm$1.5 $\pm$1.5 $\pm$1.5 $\pm$1.5 $\PDstpm$ $\pm$0.5 $\pm$0.5
$\pm$0.5 $\pm$0.5 $\pm$0.5 $\pm$0.5 kinematics Background normalization $\pm$
0.5 $+$0.9/$-$0.8 $+$1.9/$-$0.8 $+$1.4/$-$0.5 $+$0.8/$-$1.0 0.0/$-$0.6
$\ptvecmiss$ $+$0.7/$-$0.9 $+$0.4/$-$1.2 $+$1.3/$-$0.3 $+$1.1/$-$1.0
0.0/$-$2.6 0.0/$+$1.5 Pileup $+$2.0/$-$1.9 $+$0.4/$-$0.5 $+$2.9/$-$3.0
$+$2.0/$-$1.9 $+$4.6/$-$5.1 $+$2.7/$-$2.6 Secondary vertex $-$1.1 $+$1.3
$-$1.2 $-$1.5 $-$2.7 $-$2.5 PDF $\pm$1.2 $\pm$1.3 $\pm$0.9 $\pm$1.4 $\pm$1.5
$\pm$1.7 Fragmentation $+$3.9/$-$3.2 $+$3.4/$-$1.8 $+$7.4/$-$5.2 $+$3.3/$-$3.0
$+$2.2/$-$1.2 $+$7.4/$-$5.7 MC statistics $+$3.6/$-$3.3 $+$8.8/$-$7.5
$+$9.0/$-$11.9 $+$7.9/$-$6.8 $+$9.8/$-$14.1 $+$10.1/$-$8.5 Total $+$7.5/$-$7.0
$+$10.7/$-$9.3 $+$13.2/$-$14.2 $+$10.1/$-$9.3 $+$12.7/$-$16.2 $+$13.8/$-$12.1

###  0.5.2 Cross section results

The numbers of signal events and the inclusive fiducial cross sections with
their uncertainties are listed in Table 0.5.2 together with the ratio of
$\sigma(\PWp{+}\cPaqc)/\sigma(\PWm{+}\cPqc)$. For the differential measurement
of the $\PW{+}\cPqc$ cross section, the numbers of signal events are
summarized in Table 0.5.2 together with the corrections $\mathcal{C}$ derived
using MC simulations in each $\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}$ bin. The results are
presented for $\rd\sigma(\PW{+}\cPqc)/\rd\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}$, as well as for
$\rd\sigma(\PWp{+}\cPaqc)/\rd\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}$ and for
$\rd\sigma(\PWm{+}\cPqc)/\rd\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}$.

Inclusive cross sections of $\PW{+}\cPqc$ and $\PW{+}\PDstpm$ production in
the fiducial range of the analysis. The correction factor $\mathcal{C}$
accounts for the acceptance and efficiency of the detector.  $\PW{+}\cPqc$
$\PWp{+}\cPaqc$ $\PWm{+}\cPqc$ $N_{\text{sel}}$ 19210 $\pm$ 587 9674 $\pm$ 401
9546 $\pm$ 367 $\mathcal{C}$ 0.0811 $\pm$ 0.003 0.0832 $\pm$ 0.004 0.0794
$\pm$ 0.004 $\sigma$ [pb] 1026 $\pm$ 31$\begin{subarray}{c}+76\\\
-72\end{subarray}$ 504 $\pm$ 21$\pm$42 521 $\pm$ 20$\begin{subarray}{c}+42\\\
-40\end{subarray}$ $\frac{\sigma(\PWp{+}\cPaqc)}{\sigma(\PWm{+}\cPqc)}$ 0.968
$\pm$ 0.055$\begin{subarray}{c}+0.015\\\ -0.028\end{subarray}$ $\PW{+}\PDstpm$
$\PWp{+}\PD^{*}(2010)^{-}$ $\PWm{+}\PD^{*}(2010)^{+}$ $N_{\text{sel}}$ 19210
$\pm$ 587 9674 $\pm$ 401 9546 $\pm$ 367 $\mathcal{C}$ 0.107 $\pm$ 0.004 0.113
$\pm$ 0.006 0.101 $\pm$ 0.004 $\sigma$ [pb] 190 $\pm$
6$\begin{subarray}{c}+12\\\ -13\end{subarray}$ 90 $\pm$
4$\begin{subarray}{c}+7\\\ -8\end{subarray}$ 99 $\pm$ 3$\pm$7
$\frac{\sigma(\PWp{+}\PD^{*}(2010)^{-})}{\sigma(\PWm{+}\PD^{*}(2010)^{+})}$
0.909 $\pm$ 0.051$\begin{subarray}{c}+0.014\\\ -0.028\end{subarray}$

Number of signal events, correction factors $\mathcal{C}$, accounting for the
acceptance and efficiency of the detector and the differential cross sections
in each $\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}$ range for $\PW{+}\cPqc$ (upper), $\PWp{+}\cPaqc$
(middle) and $\PWm{+}\cPqc$ (lower). $\mathbf{\PW}+\cPqc$

$[\abs{\eta^{\Pgm}_{\text{min}}},\abs{\eta^{\Pgm}_{\text{max}}}]$ | $N_{\text{sel}}$ | $\mathcal{C}$ |  $\frac{\rd\sigma(\PW{+}\cPqc)}{\rd\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}}$ [pb]
---|---|---|---
$[0,0.4]$ | 3795 $\pm$ 248  | 0.072 $\pm$ 0.006  | 569 $\pm$ 37$\begin{subarray}{c}+61\\\ -53\end{subarray}$
$[0.4,0.8]$ | 4201 $\pm$ 256  | 0.096 $\pm$ 0.006  | 467 $\pm$ 28$\begin{subarray}{c}+61\\\ -66\end{subarray}$
$[0.8,1.3]$ | 4334 $\pm$ 274  | 0.078 $\pm$ 0.006  | 479 $\pm$ 30$\begin{subarray}{c}+49\\\ -45\end{subarray}$
$[1.3,1.8]$ | 3823 $\pm$ 267  | 0.083 $\pm$ 0.007  | 395 $\pm$ 28$\begin{subarray}{c}+49\\\ -63\end{subarray}$
$[1.8,2.4]$ | 3042 $\pm$ 266  | 0.078 $\pm$ 0.007  | 283 $\pm$ 25$\begin{subarray}{c}+39\\\ -34\end{subarray}$

$\mathbf{\PWp}+\cPaqc$

$[\abs{\eta^{\Pgm}_{\text{min}}},\abs{\eta^{\Pgm}_{\text{max}}}]$ | $N_{\text{sel}}$ | $\mathcal{C}$ |  $\frac{\rd\sigma(\PWp{+}\cPaqc)}{\rd\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}}$ [pb]
---|---|---|---
$[0,0.4]$ | 2109 $\pm$ 167  | 0.073 $\pm$ 0.008  | 313 $\pm$ 25$\begin{subarray}{c}+48\\\ -44\end{subarray}$
$[0.4,0.8]$ | 2119 $\pm$ 172  | 0.094 $\pm$ 0.010  | 236 $\pm$ 19$\begin{subarray}{c}+37\\\ -41\end{subarray}$
$[0.8,1.3]$ | 2103 $\pm$ 186  | 0.077 $\pm$ 0.008  | 235 $\pm$ 21$\begin{subarray}{c}+33\\\ -27\end{subarray}$
$[1.3,1.8]$ | 1840 $\pm$ 184  | 0.093 $\pm$ 0.010  | 162 $\pm$ 16$\begin{subarray}{c}+34\\\ -31\end{subarray}$
$[1.8,2.4]$ | 1499 $\pm$ 186  | 0.080 $\pm$ 0.011  | 135 $\pm$ 17$\begin{subarray}{c}+24\\\ -26\end{subarray}$

$\mathbf{\PWm}+\cPqc$

$[\abs{\eta^{\Pgm}_{\text{min}}},\abs{\eta^{\Pgm}_{\text{max}}}]$ | $N_{\text{sel}}$ | $\mathcal{C}$ |  $\frac{\rd\sigma(\PWm{+}\cPqc)}{\rd\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}}$ [pb]
---|---|---|---
$[0,0.4]$ | 1688 $\pm$ 158  | 0.072 $\pm$ 0.008  | 255 $\pm$ 23$\begin{subarray}{c}+35\\\ -42\end{subarray}$
$[0.4,0.8]$ | 2084 $\pm$ 162  | 0.097 $\pm$ 0.008  | 231 $\pm$ 18$\begin{subarray}{c}+28\\\ -42\end{subarray}$
$[0.8,1.3]$ | 2234 $\pm$ 172  | 0.079 $\pm$ 0.007  | 244 $\pm$ 19$\begin{subarray}{c}+29\\\ -38\end{subarray}$
$[1.3,1.8]$ | 1986 $\pm$ 166  | 0.073 $\pm$ 0.008  | 237 $\pm$ 20$\begin{subarray}{c}+33\\\ -37\end{subarray}$
$[1.8,2.4]$ | 1544 $\pm$ 161  | 0.075 $\pm$ 0.008  | 149 $\pm$ 16$\begin{subarray}{c}+25\\\ -21\end{subarray}$

The measured inclusive and differential fiducial cross sections of
$\PW{+}\cPqc$ are compared to predictions at NLO
($\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$) that are obtained using 6.8. Similarly to the
earlier analysis [11], the mass of the charm quark is chosen to be
$m_{{c}}=1.5\GeV$, and the factorization and the renormalization scales are
set to the value of the $\PW$ boson mass. The calculation is performed for
$\pt^{\PGm}>26\GeV$, $\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}<2.4$, and $\pt^{\cPqc}>5\GeV$. In Fig.
4, the measurements of the inclusive $\PW{+}\cPqc$ cross section and the
charge ratio are compared to the NLO predictions calculated using the
ABMP16nlo [51], ATLASepWZ16nnlo [14], CT14nlo [52], MMHT14nlo [53],
NNPDF3.0nlo [31], and NNPDF3.1nlo [54] PDF sets. The values of the strong
coupling constant $\alpS(m_{\PZ})$ are set to those used in the evaluation of
a particular PDF. The details of the experimental data, used for constraining
the strange quark content of the proton in the global PDFs, are given in Refs.
[55, 14, 52, 53, 31]. In these references, the treatment of the sea quark
distributions in different PDF sets is discussed, and the comparison of the
PDFs is presented. The ABMP16nlo PDF includes the most recent data on charm
quark production in charged-current neutrino-nucleon DIS collected by the
NOMAD and CHORUS experiments in order to improve the constraints on the
strange quark distribution and to perform a detailed study of the isospin
asymmetry of the light quarks in the proton sea [56]. Despite differences in
the data used in the individual global PDF fits, the strangeness suppression
distributions in ABMP16nlo, NNPDF3.1nlo, CT14nlo and MMHT14nlo are in a good
agreement among each other and disagree with the ATLASepWZ16nnlo result [14].

The predicted inclusive cross sections are summarized in Table 0.5.2. The PDF
uncertainties are calculated using prescriptions from each PDF group. For the
ATLASepWZ16nnlo PDFs no respective NLO set is available and only Hessian
uncertainties are considered in this paper. For other PDFs, the variation of
$\alpha_{s}(m_{Z})$ is taken into account as well. The uncertainties due to
missing higher-order corrections are estimated by varying $\mu_{\mathrm{r}}$
and $\mu_{\mathrm{f}}$ simultaneously by a factor of 2 up and down, and the
resulting variation of the cross section is referred to as the scale
uncertainty, $\Delta\PGm$. Good agreement between NLO predictions and the
measurements is observed, except for the prediction using ATLASepWZ16nnlo. For
the cross section ratio $\sigma(\PWp{+}\cPaqc)$/$\sigma(\PWm{+}\cPqc)$, all
theoretical predictions are in good agreement with the measured value. In
Table 0.5.2, the theoretical predictions for
$\rd\sigma(\PW{+}\cPqc)/\rd\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}$ using different PDF sets are
summarized. In Fig. 5, the measurements of differential $\PW{+}\cPqc$ and
$\PW{+}\PDstpm$ cross sections are compared with the NLO calculations and with
the signal MC prediction, respectively. Good agreement between the measured
$\PW{+}\cPqc$ cross section and NLO calculations is observed except for the
prediction using the ATLASepWZ16nnlo PDF set. The signal MC prediction using
NNPDF3.0nlo is presented with the PDF and $\alpha_{s}$ uncertainties and
accounts for simultaneous variations of $\mu_{\mathrm{r}}$ and
$\mu_{\mathrm{f}}$ in the matrix element by a factor of 2. The $\PW{+}\PDstpm$
cross section is described well by the simulation.

The NLO predictions for $\sigma(\PW{+}\cPqc)$, obtained with [17, 18, 19]. The
uncertainties account for PDF and scale variations.  $\sigma(\PW{+}\cPqc)$
[pb] $\Delta$PDF [%] $\Delta\PGm$ [%]
$\sigma(\PWp{+}\cPaqc)$/$\sigma(\PWm{+}\cPqc)$ ABMP16nlo 1077.9 $\pm$ 2.1
$\begin{subarray}{c}+3.4\\\ -2.4\end{subarray}$ 0.975
$\begin{subarray}{c}+0.002\\\ -0.002\end{subarray}$ ATLASepWZ16nnlo 1235.1
$\begin{subarray}{c}+1.4\\\ -1.6\end{subarray}$ $\begin{subarray}{c}+3.7\\\
-2.8\end{subarray}$ 0.976 $\begin{subarray}{c}+0.001\\\ -0.001\end{subarray}$
CT14nlo 992.6 $\begin{subarray}{c}+7.2\\\ -8.4\end{subarray}$
$\begin{subarray}{c}+3.1\\\ -2.1\end{subarray}$ 0.970
$\begin{subarray}{c}+0.005\\\ -0.007\end{subarray}$ MMHT14nlo 1057.1
$\begin{subarray}{c}+6.5\\\ -8.0\end{subarray}$ $\begin{subarray}{c}+3.2\\\
-2.2\end{subarray}$ 0.960 $\begin{subarray}{c}+0.023\\\ -0.033\end{subarray}$
NNPDF3.0nlo 959.5 $\pm$ 5.4 $\begin{subarray}{c}+2.8\\\ -1.9\end{subarray}$
0.962 $\begin{subarray}{c}+0.034\\\ -0.034\end{subarray}$ NNPDF3.1nlo 1030.2
$\pm$ 5.3 $\begin{subarray}{c}+3.2\\\ -2.2\end{subarray}$ 0.965
$\begin{subarray}{c}+0.043\\\ -0.043\end{subarray}$

Figure 4: Inclusive fiducial cross section $\sigma(\PW{+}\cPqc)$ and the cross
section ratio $\sigma(\PWp{+}\cPaqc)/\sigma(\PWm{+}\cPqc)$ at 13. The data are
represented by a line with the statistical (total) uncertainty shown by a
light (dark) shaded band. The measurements are compared to the NLO QCD
prediction using several PDF sets, represented by symbols of different types.
All used PDF sets are evaluated at NLO, except for ATLASepWZ16, which is
obtained at NNLO. The error bars depict the total theoretical uncertainty,
including the PDF and the scale variation uncertainty.

Theoretical predictions for $\rd\sigma(\PW{+}\cPqc)/\rd\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}$
calculated with at NLO for different PDF sets. The relative uncertainties due
to PDF and scale variations are shown.  ABMP16nlo ATLASepWZ16nnlo
$[\abs{\eta^{\Pgm}_{\text{min}}},\abs{\eta^{\Pgm}_{\text{max}}}]$
$\frac{\rd\sigma(\PW{+}\cPqc)}{\rd\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}}$[pb] $\Delta$PDF[%]
$\Delta\mu$ [%] $\frac{\rd\sigma(\PW{+}\cPqc)}{\rd\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}}$[pb]
$\Delta$PDF[%] $\Delta\PGm$[%] $[0,0.4]$ 537.8 $\pm$ 2.2
$\begin{subarray}{c}+3.7\\\ -1.9\end{subarray}$ 607.8
$\begin{subarray}{c}+1.1\\\ -1.3\end{subarray}$ $\begin{subarray}{c}+4.2\\\
-2.4\end{subarray}$ $[0.4,0.8]$ 522.8 $\pm$ 2.1 $\begin{subarray}{c}+3.1\\\
-2.3\end{subarray}$ 592.9 $\begin{subarray}{c}+1.1\\\ -1.3\end{subarray}$
$\begin{subarray}{c}+3.5\\\ -2.7\end{subarray}$ $[0.8,1.3]$ 483.9 $\pm$ 2.1
$\begin{subarray}{c}+3.2\\\ -2.1\end{subarray}$ 552.7
$\begin{subarray}{c}+1.2\\\ -1.4\end{subarray}$ $\begin{subarray}{c}+3.6\\\
-2.5\end{subarray}$ $[1.3,1.8]$ 422.4 $\pm$ 2.0 $\begin{subarray}{c}+3.4\\\
-2.9\end{subarray}$ 487.8 $\begin{subarray}{c}+1.4\\\ -1.6\end{subarray}$
$\begin{subarray}{c}+3.8\\\ -3.3\end{subarray}$ $[1.8,2.4]$ 334.1 $\pm$ 2.0
$\begin{subarray}{c}+3.4\\\ -3.0\end{subarray}$ 391.1
$\begin{subarray}{c}+2.2\\\ -2.3\end{subarray}$ $\begin{subarray}{c}+3.6\\\
-3.3\end{subarray}$

| CT14nlo |  | MMHT14nlo
---|---|---|---
$[\abs{\eta^{\Pgm}_{\text{min}}},\abs{\eta^{\Pgm}_{\text{max}}}]$ |  $\frac{\rd\sigma(\PW{+}\cPqc)}{\rd\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}}$[pb] |  $\Delta$PDF[%] |  $\Delta\PGm$[%] |  |  $\frac{\rd\sigma(\PW{+}\cPqc)}{\rd\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}}$[pb] |  $\Delta$PDF[%] |  $\Delta\PGm$[%]
$[0,0.4]$ | 499.3 | $\begin{subarray}{c}+7.0\\\ -8.0\end{subarray}$ | $\begin{subarray}{c}+3.4\\\ -1.7\end{subarray}$ |  | 526.0 | $\begin{subarray}{c}+7.0\\\ -7.7\end{subarray}$ | $\begin{subarray}{c}+3.6\\\ -1.8\end{subarray}$
$[0.4,0.8]$ | 484.4 | $\begin{subarray}{c}+7.0\\\ -8.0\end{subarray}$ | $\begin{subarray}{c}+2.9\\\ -2.1\end{subarray}$ |  | 511.2 | $\begin{subarray}{c}+6.8\\\ -7.7\end{subarray}$ | $\begin{subarray}{c}+3.0\\\ -2.1\end{subarray}$
$[0.8,1.3]$ | 446.3 | $\begin{subarray}{c}+6.9\\\ -8.2\end{subarray}$ | $\begin{subarray}{c}+2.9\\\ -1.8\end{subarray}$ |  | 473.4 | $\begin{subarray}{c}+6.4\\\ -7.7\end{subarray}$ | $\begin{subarray}{c}+3.0\\\ -1.9\end{subarray}$
$[1.3,1.8]$ | 387.0 | $\begin{subarray}{c}+7.1\\\ -8.5\end{subarray}$ | $\begin{subarray}{c}+3.1\\\ -2.6\end{subarray}$ |  | 414.4 | $\begin{subarray}{c}+6.0\\\ -8.0\end{subarray}$ | $\begin{subarray}{c}+3.2\\\ -2.7\end{subarray}$
$[1.8,2.4]$ | 304.1 | $\begin{subarray}{c}+7.8\\\ -9.3\end{subarray}$ | $\begin{subarray}{c}+3.0\\\ -2.6\end{subarray}$ |  | 330.5 | $\begin{subarray}{c}+6.5\\\ -9.1\end{subarray}$ | $\begin{subarray}{c}+3.2\\\ -2.7\end{subarray}$

| NNPDF3.0nlo |  | NNPDF3.1nlo
---|---|---|---
$[\abs{\eta^{\Pgm}_{\text{min}}},\abs{\eta^{\Pgm}_{\text{max}}}]$ |  $\frac{\rd\sigma(\PW{+}\cPqc)}{\rd\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}}$[pb] |  $\Delta$PDF[%] |  $\Delta\PGm$[%] |  |  $\frac{\rd\sigma(\PW{+}\cPqc)}{\rd\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}}$[pb] |  $\Delta$PDF[%] |  $\Delta\PGm$[%]
$[0,0.4]$ | 489.8 |  $\pm$ 7.0 | $\begin{subarray}{c}+3.2\\\ -1.5\end{subarray}$ |  | 524.8 |  $\pm$ 5.8 | $\begin{subarray}{c}+3.6\\\ -1.8\end{subarray}$
$[0.4,0.8]$ | 473.2 |  $\pm$ 6.5 | $\begin{subarray}{c}+2.7\\\ -1.8\end{subarray}$ |  | 508.1 |  $\pm$ 5.6 | $\begin{subarray}{c}+3.0\\\ -2.2\end{subarray}$
$[0.8,1.3]$ | 432.4 |  $\pm$ 5.5 | $\begin{subarray}{c}+2.6\\\ -1.5\end{subarray}$ |  | 465.6 |  $\pm$ 5.4 | $\begin{subarray}{c}+3.0\\\ -1.9\end{subarray}$
$[1.3,1.8]$ | 370.4 |  $\pm$ 4.2 | $\begin{subarray}{c}+2.7\\\ -2.3\end{subarray}$ |  | 399.0 |  $\pm$ 5.0 | $\begin{subarray}{c}+3.1\\\ -2.7\end{subarray}$
$[1.8,2.4]$ | 288.1 |  $\pm$ 3.5 | $\begin{subarray}{c}+2.7\\\ -2.3\end{subarray}$ |  | 307.9 |  $\pm$ 4.8 | $\begin{subarray}{c}+3.1\\\ -2.6\end{subarray}$

Figure 5: Left: differential cross sections of $\sigma(\PW{+}\cPqc)$
production at 13measured as a function $\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}$. The data are
presented by filled circles with the statistical (total) uncertainties shown
by vertical error bars (light shaded bands). The measurements are compared to
the QCD predictions calculated with at NLO using different PDF sets, presented
by symbols of different style. All used PDF sets are evaluated at NLO, except
for ATLASepWZ16, which is obtained at NNLO. The error bars represent
theoretical uncertainties, which include PDF and scale variation uncertainty.
Right: $\sigma(\PW{+}\PDstpm)$ production differential cross sections
presented as a function of $\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}$. The data (filled circles) are
shown with their total (outer error bars) and statistical (inner error bars)
uncertainties and are compared to the predictions of the signal MC generated
with and using NNPDF3.0nlo to describe the proton structure. PDF uncertainties
and scale variations are accounted for and added in quadrature (shaded band).

##  0.6 Impact on the strange quark distribution in the proton

The associated $\PW{+}\cPqc$ production at 13probes the strange quark
distribution directly in the kinematic range of $\langle x\rangle\approx
0.007$ at the scale of $m^{2}_{\PW}$. The first measurement of a fiducial
$\PW{+}\cPqc$ cross section in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions was performed by the CMS
experiment at a center-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s}=7\TeV$ with a total integrated
luminosity of 5 [11]. The results were used in a QCD analysis [10] together
with measurements of neutral- and charged-current cross sections of DIS at
HERA [57] and of the lepton charge asymmetry in $\PW$ production at
$\sqrt{s}=7\TeV$ at the LHC [11].

The present measurement of the $\PW{+}\cPqc$ production cross section at 13,
determined as a function of the absolute pseudorapidity $\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}$ of
the muon from the $\PW$ boson decay and $\pt^{\PGm}>26\GeV$, is used in an NLO
QCD analysis. This analysis also includes an updated combination of the
inclusive DIS cross sections [58] and the available CMS measurements of the
lepton charge asymmetry in $\PW$ boson production at $\sqrt{s}=7\TeV$ [11] and
at $\sqrt{s}=8\TeV$ [59]. These latter measurements probe the valence quark
distributions in the kinematic range $10^{-3}\leq x\leq 10^{-1}$ and have
indirect sensitivity to the strange quark distribution. The earlier CMS
measurement [10] of $\PW{+}\cPqc$ production at $\sqrt{s}=7\TeV$ is also used
to exploit the strange quark sensitive measurements at CMS in a joint QCD
analysis. The correlations of the experimental uncertainties within each
individual data set are taken into account, whereas the CMS data sets are
treated as uncorrelated to each other. In particular, the measurements of
$\PW{+}\cPqc$ production at 7 and 13are treated as uncorrelated because of the
different methods of charm tagging and the differences in reconstruction and
event selection in the two data sets.

The theoretical predictions for the muon charge asymmetry and for
$\PW{+}\cPqc$ production are calculated at NLO using the program [17, 18],
which is interfaced to applgrid 1.4.56 [60].

Version 2.0.0 of the open-source QCD fit framework for PDF determination
xFitter [61, 62] is used with the parton distributions evolved using the
Dokshitzer–Gribov–Lipatov–Altarelli–Parisi equations [63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68]
at NLO, as implemented in the qcdnum 17-00/06 program [69].

The Thorne–Roberts [70, 71] general mass variable flavor number scheme at NLO
is used for the treatment of heavy quark contributions with heavy quark masses
$m_{\cPqb}=4.5\GeV$ and $m_{\cPqc}=1.5\GeV$, which correspond to the values
used in the signal MC simulation in the cross section measurements. The
renormalization and factorization scales are set to $Q$, which denotes the
four-momentum transfer for the case of the DIS data and the mass of the $\PW$
boson for the case of the muon charge asymmetry and the $\PW{+}\cPqc$
measurement. The strong coupling constant is set to
$\alpha_{s}(m_{\cPZ})=0.118$. The $Q^{2}$ range of HERA data is restricted to
$Q^{2}\geq Q^{2}_{\min}=3.5\GeV^{2}$ to ensure the applicability of pQCD over
the kinematic range of the fit. The procedure for the determination of the
PDFs follows the approach used in the earlier CMS analyses [11, 59]. In the
following, a similar PDF parameterization is used as in the most recent CMS
QCD analysis [59] of inclusive $\PW$ boson production.

The parameterized PDFs are the gluon distribution, $x\Pg$, the valence quark
distributions, $x\cPqu_{v}$, $x\cPqd_{v}$, the $\cPqu$-type, $x\cPaqu$, and
$x\cPaqd$-type anti-quark distributions, with $x\cPqs$ ($x\cPaqs$) denoting
the strange (anti-)quark distribution. The initial scale of the QCD evolution
is chosen as $Q_{0}^{2}=1.9\GeV^{2}$. At this scale, the parton distributions
are parameterized as:

$\displaystyle x\cPqu_{\mathrm{v}}(x)$
$\displaystyle=A_{\cPqu_{\mathrm{v}}}~{}x^{B_{\cPqu_{\mathrm{v}}}}~{}(1-x)^{C_{\cPqu_{\mathrm{v}}}}~{}(1+E_{\cPqu_{\mathrm{v}}}x^{2}),$
(4) $\displaystyle x\cPqd_{\mathrm{v}}(x)$
$\displaystyle=A_{\cPqd_{\mathrm{v}}}~{}x^{B_{\cPqd_{\mathrm{v}}}}~{}(1-x)^{C_{\cPqd_{\mathrm{v}}}},$
(5) $\displaystyle x\cPaqu(x)$
$\displaystyle=A_{\cPaqu}~{}x^{B_{\cPaqu}}~{}(1-x)^{C_{\cPaqu}}~{}(1+E_{\cPaqu}x^{2}),$
(6) $\displaystyle x\cPaqd(x)$
$\displaystyle=A_{\cPaqd}~{}x^{B_{\cPaqd}}~{}(1-x)^{C_{\cPaqd}},$ (7)
$\displaystyle x\cPaqs(x)$
$\displaystyle=A_{\cPaqs}~{}x^{B_{\cPaqs}}~{}(1-x)^{C_{\cPaqs}},$ (8)
$\displaystyle x\cPg(x)$
$\displaystyle=A_{\cPg}~{}x^{B_{\cPg}}~{}(1-x)^{C_{\cPg}}.$ (9)

The normalization parameters $A_{\cPqu_{\mathrm{v}}}$,
$A_{\cPqd_{\mathrm{v}}}$, $A_{\cPg}$ are determined by the QCD sum rules, the
$B$ parameter is responsible for small-$x$ behavior of the PDFs, and the
parameter $C$ describes the shape of the distribution as $x\to 1$. The
strangeness fraction $f_{\cPqs}=\cPaqs/(\cPaqd+\cPaqs)$ is a free parameter in
the fit.

The strange quark distribution is determined by fitting the free parameters in
Eqs. (4)–(9). The constraint $A_{\cPaqu}=A_{\cPaqd}$ ensures the same
normalization for $\cPaqu$ and $\cPaqd$ densities at $x\to 0$. It is assumed
that $x\cPqs=x\cPaqs$.

In the earlier CMS analysis [11], the assumption $B_{\cPaqu}=B_{\cPaqd}$ was
applied. An alternative assumption $B_{\cPaqu}\neq B_{\cPaqd}$ led to a
significant change in the result, which was included in the parameterization
uncertainty. In the present analysis, the $B$ parameters of the light sea
quarks are independent from each other, $B_{\cPaqu}\neq B_{\cPaqd}\neq
B_{\cPaqs}$, following the suggestion of Ref. [15].

For all measured data, the predicted and measured cross sections together with
their corresponding uncertainties are used to build a global $\chi^{2}$,
minimized to determine the initial PDF parameters [61, 62]. The quality of the
overall fit can be judged based on the global $\chi^{2}$ divided by the number
of degrees of freedom, $n_{\mathrm{dof}}$. For each data set included in the
fit, a partial $\chi^{2}$ divided by the number of measurements (data points),
$n_{\mathrm{dp}}$, is provided. The correlated part of $\chi^{2}$ quantifies
the influence of the correlated systematic uncertainties in the fit. The
global and partial $\chi^{2}$ values for each data set are listed in Table
0.6, illustrating a general agreement among all the data sets.

The partial $\chi^{2}$ per number of data points, $n_{\mathrm{dp}}$, and the
global $\chi^{2}$ per number of degree of freedom, $n_{\mathrm{dof}}$,
resulting from the PDF fit.  Data set $\chi^{2}/n_{\mathrm{dp}}$ HERA I+II
charged current $\Pep\Pp$ 43 / 39 HERA I+II charged current $\Pem\Pp$ 57 / 42
HERA I+II neutral current $\Pem\Pp$ 218 / 159 HERA I+II neutral current
$\Pep\Pp$, $E_{\Pp}$ = 820 69 / 70 HERA I+II neutral current $\Pep\Pp$,
$E_{\Pp}$ = 920 448 / 377 HERA I+II neutral current $\Pep\Pp$, $E_{\Pp}$ = 460
216 / 204 HERA I+II neutral current $\Pep\Pp$, $E_{\Pp}$ = 575 220 / 254 CMS
$\PW$ muon charge asymmetry 7 13 / 11 CMS $\PW$ muon charge asymmetry 8 4.2 /
11 CMS $\PW{+}\cPqc$ 7 2.2 / 5 CMS $\PW{+}\cPqc$ 13 2.1 / 5 Correlated
$\chi^{2}$ 87 Total $\chi^{2}$ / dof 1385 / 1160

The PDF uncertainties are investigated according to the general approach of
HERAPDF 1.0 [57]. The experimental PDF uncertainties arising from the
uncertainties in the measurements are estimated by using the Hessian method
[72], adopting the tolerance criterion of $\Delta\chi^{2}=1$. The experimental
uncertainties correspond to 68% confidence level. Alternatively, the
experimental uncertainties in the measurements are propagated to the extracted
QCD fit parameters using the MC method [73, 74]. In this method, 426 replicas
of pseudodata are generated, with measured values for the cross sections
allowed to vary within the statistical and systematic uncertainties. For each
of them, the PDF fit is performed and the uncertainty is estimated as the
root-mean-square around the central value. Because of possible nonGaussian
tails in the PDF uncertainties, the MC method is usually considered to be more
robust and to give more realistic uncertainties, in particular for PDFs not
strongly constrained by the measurements, , in the case of too little or not
very precise data. In Fig. 6, the distributions of the strange quark content
$\cPqs(x,Q^{2})$, and of the strangeness suppression factor
$r_{\cPqs}(x,\PGm_{f}^{2})=(\cPqs+\cPaqs)/(\cPaqu+\cPaqd)$ are presented.

Figure 6: The $\cPqs$ quark distribution (upper) and the strangeness
suppression factor (lower) as functions of $x$ at the factorization scale of
1.92 (left) and $m^{2}_{\PW}$ (right). The results of the current analysis are
presented with the fit uncertainties estimated by the Hessian method (hatched
band) and using MC replicas (shaded band).

Figure 7: The strangeness suppression factor as a function of $x$ at the
factorization scale of 1.92 (left) and $m^{2}_{\PW}$ (right). The results of
the current analysis (hatched band) are compared to ABMP16nlo (dark shaded
band) and ATLASepWZ16nnlo (light shaded band) PDFs.

Figure 8: The distributions of $\cPqs$ quarks (upper panel) in the proton and
their relative uncertainty (lower panel) as a functions of $x$ at the
factorization scale of 1.92 (left) and $m^{2}_{\PW}$ (right). The result of
the current analysis (filled band) is compared to the result of Ref. [11]
(dashed band). The PDF uncertainties resulting from the fit are shown.

In Fig. 7 the strangeness suppression factor is shown in comparison with the
ATLASepWZ16nnlo and the ABMP16nlo, similar to Fig. 1 in Ref. [15]. Whereas the
CMS result for $\mathrm{r}_{\mathrm{s}}(x)$ is close to the ABMP16nlo PDF, it
shows a significant difference with regard to the ATLASepWZ16nnlo PDF for
$x>10^{-3}$. The significant excess of the strange quark content in the proton
reported by ATLAS [14] is not observed in the present analysis.

To investigate the impact of model assumptions on the resulting PDFs,
alternative fits are performed, in which the heavy quark masses are varied as
$4.3\leq m_{\cPqb}\leq 5.0\GeV$, $1.37\leq m_{\cPqc}\leq 1.55\GeV$, and the
value of $Q^{2}_{\min}$ imposed on the HERA data is varied in the interval
$2.5\leq Q^{2}_{\min}\leq 5.0\GeV^{2}$. Also, the variations in PDF
parameterization, following Ref. [59] are investigated. These variations do
not alter the results for the strange quark distribution or the suppression
factor significantly, compared to the PDF fit uncertainty. Since each global
PDF group is using their own assumptions for the values of heavy quark masses
and cutoffs on the DIS data, these model variations are not quantified
further.

To compare the results of the present PDF fit with the earlier determination
of the strange quark content in the proton at CMS [11], the “free-s”
parameterization of Ref. [11] is used. There, a flexible form [70, 71] for the
gluon distribution was adopted, allowing the gluon to be negative.
Furthermore, the condition $B_{\cPaqu}=B_{\cPaqd}=B_{\cPaqs}$ was applied in
the central parameterization, while $B_{\cPaqd}\neq B_{\cPaqs}$ was used to
estimate the parameterization uncertainty. A complete release of the condition
$B_{\cPaqu}=B_{\cPaqd}=B_{\cPaqs}$ was not possible because of limited data
input, in contrast to the current analysis. The same PDF parameterization was
used in the ATLASepWZ16nnlo analysis [14]. The results are presented in Fig.
8. The central value obtained of the $\cPqs$ quark distribution is well within
the experimental uncertainty of the results at $\sqrt{s}=7\TeV$, while the PDF
uncertainty is reduced.

##  0.7 Summary

Associated production of $\PW$ bosons with charm quarks in proton-proton
collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ is measured using the data collected by the
CMS experiment in 2016 and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.7.
The $\PW$ boson is detected via the presence of a high-muon and missing
transverse momentum, suggesting the presence of a neutrino. The charm quark is
identified via the full reconstruction of the $\PDstpm$ meson decaying to
$\PDz+\Pgp_{\text{slow}}^{\pm}\to\PK^{\mp}+\Pgppm+\Pgp_{\text{slow}}^{\pm}$.
Since in $\PW{+}\cPqc$ production the $\PW$ boson and the $\cPqc$ quark have
opposite charge, contributions from background processes, mainly $\cPqc$ quark
production from gluon splitting, are largely removed by subtracting the events
in which the charges of the $\PW$ boson and of the $\PDstpm$ meson have the
same sign. The fiducial cross sections are measured in the kinematic range of
the muon transverse momentum $\pt^{\PGm}>26\GeV$, pseudorapidity
$\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}<2.4$, and transverse momentum of the charm quark
$\pt^{\cPqc}>5\GeV$. The fiducial cross section of $\PW{+}\PDstpm$ production
is measured in the kinematic range $\pt^{\PGm}>26\GeV$,
$\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}<2.4$, transverse momentum of the $\PDstpm$ meson
$\pt^{\PD^{*}}>5\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta^{\PD^{*}}}<2.4$, and compared to the
Monte Carlo prediction. The measurements are performed inclusively and in five
bins of $\abs{\eta^{\PGm}}$.

The obtained values for the inclusive fiducial $\PW{+}\cPqc$ cross section and
for the cross section ratio are:

$\sigma(\PW{+}\cPqc)=1026\pm 31\stat\begin{subarray}{c}+76\\\
-72\end{subarray}\syst\unit{pb},$ (10)
$\frac{\sigma(\PWp{+}\cPaqc)}{\sigma(\PWm{+}\cPqc)}=0.968\pm
0.055\stat\begin{subarray}{c}+0.015\\\ -0.028\end{subarray}\syst.$ (11)

The measurements are in good agreement with the theoretical predictions at
next-to-leading order (NLO) for different sets of parton distribution
functions (PDF), except for the one using the ATLASepWZ16nnlo PDF. To
illustrate the impact of these measurements in the determination of the
strange quark distribution in the proton, the data is used in a QCD analysis
at NLO together with inclusive DIS measurements and earlier results from CMS
on $\PW{+}\cPqc$ production and the lepton charge asymmetry in $\PW$ boson
production. The strange quark distribution and the strangeness suppression
factor $r_{\cPqs}(x,\mu_{f}^{2})=(\cPqs+\cPaqs)/(\cPaqu+\cPaqd)$ are
determined and agree with earlier results obtained in neutrino scattering
experiments. The results do not support the hypothesis of an enhanced strange
quark contribution in the proton quark sea reported by ATLAS [14].

###### 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] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the $W$-boson mass in pp collisions at
$\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 110,
10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5475-4, arXiv:1701.07240.

  * [2] NuTeV Collaboration, “Precise measurement of dimuon production cross-sections in muon neutrino Fe and muon anti-neutrino Fe deep inelastic scattering at the Tevatron”,  Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 112006, 10.1103/PhysRevD.64.112006, arXiv:hep-ex/0102049.
  * [3] CCFR Collaboration, “Determination of the strange quark content of the nucleon from a next-to-leading order QCD analysis of neutrino charm production”,  Z. Phys. C 65 (1995) 189, 10.1007/BF01571875, arXiv:hep-ex/9406007.
  * [4] NOMAD Collaboration, “A precision measurement of charm dimuon production in neutrino interactions from the NOMAD experiment”,  Nucl. Phys. B 876 (2013) 339, 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2013.08.021, arXiv:1308.4750.
  * [5] A. Kayis-Topaksu et al., “Measurement of charm production in neutrino charged-current interactions”,  New J. Phys. 13 (2011) 093002, 10.1088/1367-2630/13/9/093002, arXiv:1107.0613.
  * [6] ATLAS Collaboration, “Determination of the strange quark density of the proton from ATLAS measurements of the $W\to\ell\nu$ and $Z\to\ell\ell$ cross sections”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 012001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.012001, arXiv:1203.4051.
  * [7] CDF Collaboration, “First measurement of the production of a $\PW$ boson in association with a single charm quark in $\mathrm{p}\bar{\mathrm{p}}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 1.96 TeV”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 091803, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.091803, arXiv:0711.2901.
  * [8] CDF Collaboration, “Observation of the production of a W boson in association with a single charm quark”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 071801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.071801, arXiv:1209.1921.
  * [9] D0 Collaboration, “Measurement of the ratio of the $\Pp\Pap\to\PW+\cPqc$\- jet cross section to the inclusive $\Pp\Pap\to\PW+$ jets cross section”,  Phys. Lett. B 666 (2008) 23, 10.1016/j.physletb.2008.06.067, arXiv:0803.2259.
  * [10] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of associated W+charm production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV”,  JHEP 02 (2014) 013, 10.1007/JHEP02(2014)013, arXiv:1310.1138.
  * [11] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the muon charge asymmetry in inclusive $\mathrm{pp}\to\mathrm{W}+X$ production at $\sqrt{s}=$ 7 TeV and an improved determination of light parton distribution functions”,  Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 032004, 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.032004, arXiv:1312.6283.
  * [12] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the production of a $\PW$ boson in association with a charm quark in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  JHEP 05 (2014) 068, 10.1007/JHEP05(2014)068, arXiv:1402.6263.
  * [13] S. Alekhin et al., “Determination of strange sea quark distributions from fixed-target and collider data”,  Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 094002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.094002, arXiv:1404.6469.
  * [14] ATLAS Collaboration, “Precision measurement and interpretation of inclusive $W^{+}$ , $W^{-}$ and $Z/\gamma^{*}$ production cross sections with the ATLAS detector”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 367, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4911-9, arXiv:1612.03016.
  * [15] S. Alekhin, J. Blümlein, and S. Moch, “Strange sea determination from collider data”,  Phys. Lett. B 777 (2018) 134, 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.12.024, arXiv:1708.01067.
  * [16] LHCb Collaboration, “Study of $\PW$ boson production in association with beauty and charm”,  Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 052001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.052001, arXiv:1505.04051.
  * [17] J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, “Update on vector boson pair production at hadron colliders”,  Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 113006, 10.1103/PhysRevD.60.113006, arXiv:hep-ph/9905386.
  * [18] 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.
  * [19] J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, “Top quark processes at NLO in production and decay”,  J. Phys. G 42 (2015) 015005, 10.1088/0954-3899/42/1/015005, arXiv:1204.1513.
  * [20] CMS Collaboration, “Description and performance of track and primary vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker”,  JINST 9 (2014) P10009, 10.1088/1748-0221/9/10/P10009, arXiv:1405.6569.
  * [21] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-$\kt$ jet clustering algorithm”,  JHEP 04 (2008) 063, 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063, arXiv:0802.1189.
  * [22] 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.
  * [23] 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.
  * [24] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [25] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [26] 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.
  * [27] GEANT4 Collaboration, “—a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [28] J. Alwall et al., “The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations”,  JHEP 07 (2014) 079, 10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079, arXiv:1405.0301.
  * [29] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, “A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 178 (2008) 852, 10.1016/j.cpc.2008.01.036, arXiv:0710.3820.
  * [30] R. Frederix and S. Frixione, “Merging meets matching in MC@NLO”,  JHEP 12 (2012) 061, 10.1007/JHEP12(2012)061, arXiv:1209.6215.
  * [31] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC run II”,  JHEP 04 (2015) 040, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040, arXiv:1410.8849.
  * [32] J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, P. Nason, and E. Re, “Top-pair production and decay at NLO matched with parton showers”,  JHEP 04 (2015) 114, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)114, arXiv:1412.1828.
  * [33] R. Frederix, E. Re, and P. Torrielli, “Single-top $t$-channel hadroproduction in the four-flavour scheme with POWHEG and aMC@NLO”,  JHEP 09 (2012) 130, 10.1007/JHEP09(2012)130, arXiv:1207.5391.
  * [34] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “NLO single-top production matched with shower in POWHEG: $s$\- and $t$-channel contributions”,  JHEP 09 (2009) 111, 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/09/111, arXiv:0907.4076. [Erratum: JHEP 02 (2010) 011].
  * [35] E. Re, “Single-top -channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1547, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1547-z, arXiv:1009.2450.
  * [36] 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.
  * [37] CMS Collaboration, “Investigations of the impact of the parton shower tuning in Pythia 8 in the modelling of $\mathrm{t\overline{t}}$ at $\sqrt{s}=8$ and 13 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-TOP-16-021, 2016.  https://cds.cern.ch/record/2235192.
  * [38] A. Buckley et al., “Rivet user manual”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 184 (2013) 2803, 10.1016/j.cpc.2013.05.021, arXiv:1003.0694.
  * [39] Particle Data Group, M. Tanabashi et al., “Review of particle physics”,  Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 030001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.030001.
  * [40] S. Nussinov, “Possible effects of decays of charmed-particle resonances”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 35 (1975) 1672, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.35.1672.
  * [41] G. J. Feldman et al., “Observation of the decay $D^{*+}\to D^{0}\pi^{+}$”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 1313, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.38.1313.
  * [42] R. Fruhwirth, W. Waltenberger, and P. Vanlaer, “Adaptive vertex fitting”,  J. Phys. G34 (2007) N343, 10.1088/0954-3899/34/12/N01. “
  * [43] M. Lisovyi, A. Verbytskyi, and O. Zenaiev, “Combined analysis of charm-quark fragmentation-fraction measurements”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 397, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4246-y, arXiv:1509.01061.
  * [44] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data taking Period”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001, 2017\.  http://cds.cern.ch/record/2257069.
  * [45] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of tracking efficiency”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-TRK-10-002, 2010.  http://cds.cern.ch/record/1279139.
  * [46] M. J. Oreglia, “A study of the reactions $\psi^{\prime}\to\gamma\gamma\psi$”.  PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1980.  SLAC Report SLAC-R-236.
  * [47] 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.  https://cds.cern.ch/record/2205284.
  * [48] H1 Collaboration, “Study of charm fragmentation into D∗± mesons in deep-inelastic scattering at HERA”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 59 (2009) 589, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-008-0792-2, arXiv:0808.1003.
  * [49] M. G. Bowler, “e+e- Production of heavy quarks in the string model”,  Z. Phys. C 11 (1981) 169, 10.1007/BF01574001.
  * [50] B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, G. Ingelman, and T. Sjöstrand, “Parton fragmentation and string dynamics”,  Phys. Rept. 97 (1983) 31, 10.1016/0370-1573(83)90080-7.
  * [51] S. Alekhin, J. Blümlein, and S. Moch, “NLO PDFs from the ABMP16 fit”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 477, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5947-1, arXiv:1803.07537.
  * [52] S. Dulat et al., “New parton distribution functions from a global analysis of quantum chromodynamics”,  Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 033006, 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.033006, arXiv:1506.07443.
  * [53] L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin, P. Motylinski, and R. S. Thorne, “Parton distributions in the LHC era: MMHT 2014 PDFs”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 204, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3397-6, arXiv:1412.3989.
  * [54] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions from high-precision collider data”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 663, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5199-5, arXiv:1706.00428.
  * [55] S. Alekhin, J. Blümlein, S. Moch, and R. Plačakytė, “Parton distribution functions, $\alpha_{s}$, and heavy-quark masses for LHC Run II”,  Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 014011, 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.014011, arXiv:1701.05838.
  * [56] S. Alekhin, J. Blümlein, S. Moch, and R. Plačakytė, “Isospin asymmetry of quark distributions and implications for single top-quark production at the LHC”,  Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 114038, 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.114038, arXiv:1508.07923.
  * [57] H1 and ZEUS Collaborations, “Combined measurement and QCD analysis of the inclusive $\Pe^{\pm}\Pp$ scattering cross sections at HERA”,  JHEP 01 (2010) 109, 10.1007/JHEP01(2010)109, arXiv:0911.0884.
  * [58] H1 and ZEUS Collaborations, “Combination of measurements of inclusive deep inelastic ${\Pe^{\pm}\Pp}$ scattering cross sections and QCD analysis of HERA data”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 580, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3710-4, arXiv:1506.06042.
  * [59] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the differential cross section and charge asymmetry for inclusive $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\rightarrow\mathrm{W}^{\pm}+X$ production at ${\sqrt{s}}=8$ TeV”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 469, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4293-4, arXiv:1603.01803.
  * [60] T. Carli et al., “A posteriori inclusion of parton density functions in NLO QCD final-state calculations at hadron colliders: the APPLGRID project”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 66 (2010) 503, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1255-0, arXiv:0911.2985.
  * [61] S. Alekhin et al., “HERAFitter”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 304, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3480-z, arXiv:1410.4412.
  * [62] 2018\.  xFitter web site, http://www.xfitter.org/xFitter.
  * [63] V. N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov, “Deep inelastic $\Pe$-$\Pp$ scattering in perturbation theory”,  Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 15 (1972) 438\.
  * [64] G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, “Asymptotic freedom in parton language”,  Nucl. Phys. B 126 (1977) 298, 10.1016/0550-3213(77)90384-4.
  * [65] G. Curci, W. Furmanski, and R. Petronzio, “Evolution of parton densities beyond leading order: the nonsinglet case”,  Nucl. Phys. B 175 (1980) 27, 10.1016/0550-3213(80)90003-6.
  * [66] W. Furmanski and R. Petronzio, “Singlet parton densities beyond leading order”,  Phys. Lett. B 97 (1980) 437, 10.1016/0370-2693(80)90636-X.
  * [67] S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren, and A. Vogt, “The three-loop splitting functions in QCD: the non-singlet case”,  Nucl. Phys. B 688 (2004) 101, 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2004.03.030, arXiv:hep-ph/0403192.
  * [68] A. Vogt, S. Moch, and J. A. M. Vermaseren, “The three-loop splitting functions in QCD: the singlet case”,  Nucl. Phys. B 691 (2004) 129, 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2004.04.024, arXiv:hep-ph/0404111.
  * [69] M. Botje, “QCDNUM: fast QCD evolution and convolution”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 182 (2011) 490, 10.1016/j.cpc.2010.10.020, arXiv:1005.1481.
  * [70] R. S. Thorne, “Variable-flavor number scheme for next-to-next-to-leading order”,  Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 054019, 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.054019, arXiv:hep-ph/0601245.
  * [71] A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne, and G. Watt, “Parton distributions for the LHC”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 63 (2009) 189, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-009-1072-5, arXiv:0901.0002.
  * [72] J. Pumplin et al., “Uncertainties of predictions from parton distribution functions. II. The Hessian method”,  Phys. Rev. D 65 (2001) 014013, 10.1103/PhysRevD.65.014013, arXiv:hep-ph/0101032.
  * [73] W. T. Giele and S. Keller, “Implications of hadron collider observables on parton distribution function uncertainties”,  Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 094023, 10.1103/PhysRevD.58.094023, arXiv:hep-ph/9803393.
  * [74] W. T. Giele, S. A. Keller, and D. A. Kosower, “Parton distribution function uncertainties”, (2001). arXiv:hep-ph/0104052.

##  .8 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan Institut für Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, E. Asilar, T. Bergauer, J. Brandstetter, M. Dragicevic,
J. Erö, A. Escalante Del Valle, M. Flechl, R. Frühwirth1, V.M. Ghete, J.
Hrubec, M. Jeitler1, N. Krammer, I. Krätschmer, D. Liko, T. Madlener, I.
Mikulec, N. Rad, H. Rohringer, J. Schieck1, R. Schöfbeck, M. Spanring, D.
Spitzbart, A. Taurok, W. Waltenberger, J. Wittmann, C.-E. Wulz1, M. Zarucki
Institute for Nuclear Problems, Minsk, Belarus
V. Chekhovsky, V. Mossolov, J. Suarez Gonzalez Universiteit Antwerpen,
Antwerpen, Belgium
E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, J. Lauwers, M. Pieters, H. Van
Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, N. Van Remortel Vrije Universiteit Brussel,
Brussel, Belgium
S. Abu Zeid, F. Blekman, J. D’Hondt, I. De Bruyn, J. De Clercq, K. Deroover,
G. Flouris, D. Lontkovskyi, S. Lowette, I. Marchesini, S. Moortgat, L.
Moreels, Q. Python, K. Skovpen, S. Tavernier, W. Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders,
I. Van Parijs Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
D. Beghin, B. Bilin, H. Brun, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, H. Delannoy, B.
Dorney, G. Fasanella, L. Favart, R. Goldouzian, A. Grebenyuk, A.K. Kalsi, T.
Lenzi, J. Luetic, N. Postiau, E. Starling, L. Thomas, C. Vander Velde, P.
Vanlaer, D. Vannerom, Q. Wang Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, A. Fagot, M. Gul, I. Khvastunov2, D. Poyraz, C. Roskas,
D. Trocino, M. Tytgat, W. Verbeke, B. Vermassen, M. Vit, N. Zaganidis
Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
H. Bakhshiansohi, O. Bondu, S. Brochet, G. Bruno, C. Caputo, P. David, C.
Delaere, M. Delcourt, B. Francois, A. Giammanco, G. Krintiras, V. Lemaitre, A.
Magitteri, A. Mertens, M. Musich, K. Piotrzkowski, A. Saggio, M. Vidal Marono,
S. Wertz, J. Zobec Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil
F.L. Alves, G.A. Alves, M. Correa Martins Junior, G. Correia Silva, C. Hensel,
A. Moraes, M.E. Pol, P. Rebello Teles Universidade do Estado do Rio de
Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato3, E. Coelho, E.M.
Da Costa, G.G. Da Silveira4, D. De Jesus Damiao, C. De Oliveira Martins, S.
Fonseca De Souza, H. Malbouisson, D. Matos Figueiredo, M. Melo De Almeida, C.
Mora Herrera, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, W.L. Prado Da Silva, L.J. Sanchez Rosas,
A. Santoro, A. Sznajder, M. Thiel, E.J. Tonelli Manganote3, F. Torres Da Silva
De Araujo, A. Vilela Pereira Universidade Estadual Paulista a, Universidade
Federal do ABC b, São Paulo, Brazil
S. Ahujaa, C.A. Bernardesa, L. Calligarisa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M.
Gregoresb, P.G. Mercadanteb, S.F. Novaesa, SandraS. Padulaa Institute for
Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia,
Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, A. Marinov, M. Misheva, M. Rodozov,
M. Shopova, G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Dimitrov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov Beihang University, Beijing, China
W. Fang5, X. Gao5, L. Yuan Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, J.G. Bian, G.M. Chen, H.S. Chen, M. Chen, Y. Chen, C.H. Jiang, D.
Leggat, H. Liao, Z. Liu, F. Romeo, S.M. Shaheen6, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, C. Wang,
Z. Wang, E. Yazgan, H. Zhang, S. Zhang, J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of
Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
Y. Ban, G. Chen, A. Levin, J. Li, L. Li, Q. Li, Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang, Z.
Xu Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Y. Wang Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, C.A. Carrillo Montoya, L.F. Chaparro Sierra, C. Florez,
C.F. González Hernández, M.A. Segura Delgado University of Split, Faculty of
Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split,
Croatia
B. Courbon, N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak, T. Sculac University of Split,
Faculty of Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, K. Kadija, B. Mesic, A. Starodumov7, T. Susa
University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, M. Kolosova, G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou,
F. Ptochos, P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski Charles University, Prague, Czech
Republic
M. Finger8, M. Finger Jr.8 Escuela Politecnica Nacional, Quito, Ecuador
E. Ayala Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
E. Carrera Jarrin Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab
Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt
A.A. Abdelalim9,10, A. Mahrous9, A. Mohamed10 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. Abdulsalam11, C. Amendola, I. Antropov, F. Beaudette, P. Busson, C.
Charlot, R. Granier de Cassagnac, I. Kucher, A. Lobanov, J. Martin Blanco, M.
Nguyen, C. Ochando, G. Ortona, P. Paganini, P. Pigard, R. Salerno, J.B.
Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A.G. Stahl Leiton, A. Zabi, A. Zghiche Université de
Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram12, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, J.-M. Brom, E.C. Chabert, V. Cherepanov,
C. Collard, E. Conte12, J.-C. Fontaine12, D. Gelé, U. Goerlach, M. Jansová,
A.-C. Le Bihan, N. Tonon, P. Van Hove Centre de Calcul de l’Institut National
de Physique Nucleaire et de Physique des Particules, CNRS/IN2P3, Villeurbanne,
France
S. Gadrat Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3,
Institut de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, N. Chanon, R. Chierici, D. Contardo, P.
Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, L. Finco, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, G.
Grenier, B. Ille, F. Lagarde, I.B. Laktineh, H. Lattaud, M. Lethuillier, L.
Mirabito, A.L. Pequegnot, S. Perries, A. Popov13, V. Sordini, G. Touquet, M.
Vander Donckt, S. Viret Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
T. Toriashvili14 Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
Z. Tsamalaidze8 RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen,
Germany
C. Autermann, L. Feld, M.K. Kiesel, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, M. Preuten, M.P.
Rauch, C. Schomakers, J. Schulz, M. Teroerde, B. Wittmer, V. Zhukov13 RWTH
Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany
A. Albert, D. Duchardt, M. Endres, M. Erdmann, S. Ghosh, A. Güth, T. Hebbeker,
C. Heidemann, K. Hoepfner, H. Keller, L. Mastrolorenzo, M. Merschmeyer, A.
Meyer, P. Millet, S. Mukherjee, T. Pook, M. Radziej, H. Reithler, M. Rieger,
A. Schmidt, D. Teyssier RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut
B, Aachen, Germany
G. Flügge, O. Hlushchenko, T. Kress, A. Künsken, T. Müller, A. Nehrkorn, A.
Nowack, C. Pistone, O. Pooth, D. Roy, H. Sert, A. Stahl15 Deutsches
Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
M. Aldaya Martin, T. Arndt, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, I. Babounikau, K.
Beernaert, O. Behnke, U. Behrens, A. Bermúdez Martínez, D. Bertsche, A.A. Bin
Anuar, K. Borras16, V. Botta, A. Campbell, P. Connor, C. Contreras-Campana, F.
Costanza, V. Danilov, A. De Wit, M.M. Defranchis, C. Diez Pardos, D. Domínguez
Damiani, G. Eckerlin, T. Eichhorn, A. Elwood, E. Eren, E. Gallo17, A. Geiser,
J.M. Grados Luyando, A. Grohsjean, P. Gunnellini, M. Guthoff, M. Haranko, A.
Harb, J. Hauk, H. Jung, M. Kasemann, J. Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, J. Knolle, D.
Krücker, W. Lange, A. Lelek, T. Lenz, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann18, R. Mankel, I.-A.
Melzer-Pellmann, A.B. Meyer, M. Meyer, M. Missiroli, G. Mittag, J. Mnich, V.
Myronenko, S.K. Pflitsch, D. Pitzl, A. Raspereza, M. Savitskyi, P. Saxena, P.
Schütze, C. Schwanenberger, R. Shevchenko, A. Singh, H. Tholen, O. Turkot, A.
Vagnerini, G.P. Van Onsem, R. Walsh, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C. Wissing, O.
Zenaiev University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, L. Benato, A. Benecke, V. Blobel, M. Centis Vignali, T.
Dreyer, E. Garutti, D. Gonzalez, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, A. Karavdina, G.
Kasieczka, R. Klanner, R. Kogler, N. Kovalchuk, S. Kurz, V. Kutzner, J. Lange,
D. Marconi, J. Multhaup, M. Niedziela, D. Nowatschin, A. Perieanu, A. Reimers,
O. Rieger, C. Scharf, P. Schleper, S. Schumann, J. Schwandt, J. Sonneveld, H.
Stadie, G. Steinbrück, F.M. Stober, M. Stöver, D. Troendle, A. Vanhoefer, B.
Vormwald Karlsruher Institut fuer Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany
M. Akbiyik, C. Barth, M. Baselga, S. Baur, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, F.
Colombo, W. De Boer, A. Dierlamm, K. El Morabit, N. Faltermann, B. Freund, M.
Giffels, M.A. Harrendorf, F. Hartmann15, S.M. Heindl, U. Husemann, F.
Kassel15, I. Katkov13, S. Kudella, H. Mildner, S. Mitra, M.U. Mozer, Th.
Müller, M. Plagge, G. Quast, K. Rabbertz, M. Schröder, I. Shvetsov, G. Sieber,
H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, S. Wayand, M. Weber, T. Weiler, S. Williamson, C.
Wöhrmann, R. Wolf Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics (INPP), NCSR
Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
G. Anagnostou, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas, G.
Paspalaki, I. Topsis-Giotis National and Kapodistrian University of Athens,
Athens, Greece
G. Karathanasis, S. Kesisoglou, P. Kontaxakis, A. Panagiotou, I. Papavergou,
N. Saoulidou, E. Tziaferi, K. Vellidis National Technical University of
Athens, Athens, Greece
K. Kousouris, I. Papakrivopoulos, G. Tsipolitis University of Ioánnina,
Ioánnina, Greece
I. Evangelou, C. Foudas, P. Gianneios, P. Katsoulis, P. Kokkas, S. Mallios, N.
Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, E. Paradas, J. Strologas, F.A. Triantis, D.
Tsitsonis MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
M. Bartók19, M. Csanad, N. Filipovic, P. Major, M.I. Nagy, G. Pasztor, O.
Surányi, G.I. Veres Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath20, Á. Hunyadi, F. Sikler, T.Á. Vámi, V.
Veszpremi, G. Vesztergombi${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$ Institute of Nuclear
Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi21, A. Makovec, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi
Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari Indian Institute of Science (IISc),
Bangalore, India
S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri, P.C. Tiwari National Institute of Science
Education and Research, HBNI, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati22, C. Kar, P. Mal, K. Mandal, A. Nayak23, D.K. Sahoo22, S.K.
Swain Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, S. Chauhan, R. Chawla, N. Dhingra, R.
Gupta, A. Kaur, M. Kaur, S. Kaur, R. Kumar, P. Kumari, M. Lohan, A. Mehta, K.
Sandeep, S. Sharma, J.B. Singh, A.K. Virdi, G. Walia University of Delhi,
Delhi, India
A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, M. Gola, S. Keshri, Ashok Kumar, S.
Malhotra, M. Naimuddin, P. Priyanka, K. Ranjan, Aashaq Shah, R. Sharma Saha
Institute of Nuclear Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India
R. Bhardwaj24, M. Bharti, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, U. Bhawandeep24,
D. Bhowmik, S. Dey, S. Dutt24, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh, K. Mondal, S. Nandan, A.
Purohit, P.K. Rout, A. Roy, S. Roy Chowdhury, G. Saha, S. Sarkar, M. Sharan,
B. Singh, S. Thakur24 Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
R. Chudasama, D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, P.K. Netrakanti, L.M. Pant, P.
Shukla Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A, Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, M.A. Bhat, S. Dugad, G.B. Mohanty, N. Sur, B. Sutar, RavindraKumar
Verma Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, P. Das, M. Guchait, Sa. Jain, S.
Karmakar, S. Kumar, M. Maity25, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, N. Sahoo, T.
Sarkar25 Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune,
India
S. Chauhan, S. Dube, V. Hegde, A. Kapoor, K. Kothekar, S. Pandey, A. Rane, S.
Sharma Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran
S. Chenarani26, E. Eskandari Tadavani, S.M. Etesami26, M. Khakzad, M.
Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri, F. Rezaei Hosseinabadi, B. Safarzadeh27, M.
Zeinali University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
M. Felcini, M. Grunewald INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b,
Politecnico di Bari c, Bari, Italy
M. Abbresciaa,b, C. Calabriaa,b, A. Colaleoa, D. Creanzaa,c, L. Cristellaa,b,
N. De Filippisa,c, M. De Palmaa,b, A. Di Florioa,b, F. Erricoa,b, L. Fiorea,
A. Gelmia,b, G. Iasellia,c, M. Incea,b, S. Lezkia,b, G. Maggia,c, M. Maggia,
G. Minielloa,b, S. Mya,b, S. Nuzzoa,b, A. Pompilia,b, G. Pugliesea,c, R.
Radognaa, A. Ranieria, G. Selvaggia,b, A. Sharmaa, L. Silvestrisa, R.
Vendittia, P. Verwilligena, G. Zitoa INFN Sezione di Bologna a, Università di
Bologna b, Bologna, Italy
G. Abbiendia, C. Battilanaa,b, D. Bonacorsia,b, L. Borgonovia,b, S. Braibant-
Giacomellia,b, R. Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A. Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa,
S.S. Chhibraa,b, C. Cioccaa, G. Codispotia,b, M. Cuffiania,b, G.M.
Dallavallea, F. Fabbria, A. Fanfania,b, P. Giacomellia, C. Grandia, L.
Guiduccia,b, F. Iemmia,b, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, A. Montanaria, F.L.
Navarriaa,b, A. Perrottaa, F. Primaveraa,b,15, A.M. Rossia,b, T. Rovellia,b,
G.P. Sirolia,b, N. Tosia INFN Sezione di Catania a, Università di Catania b,
Catania, Italy
S. Albergoa,b, A. Di Mattiaa, R. Potenzaa,b, A. Tricomia,b, C. Tuvea,b INFN
Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b, Firenze, Italy
G. Barbaglia, K. Chatterjeea,b, V. Ciullia,b, C. Civininia, R.
D’Alessandroa,b, E. Focardia,b, G. Latino, P. Lenzia,b, M. Meschinia, S.
Paolettia, L. Russoa,28, G. Sguazzonia, D. Stroma, L. Viliania INFN Laboratori
Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, F. Fabbri, D. Piccolo INFN Sezione di Genova a,
Università di Genova b, Genova, Italy
F. Ferroa, F. Raveraa,b, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia,b INFN Sezione di Milano-
Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, Italy
A. Benagliaa, A. Beschib, L. Brianzaa,b, F. Brivioa,b, V. Cirioloa,b,15, S. Di
Guidaa,d,15, M.E. Dinardoa,b, S. Fiorendia,b, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P.
Govonia,b, M. Malbertia,b, S. Malvezzia, A. Massironia,b, D. Menascea, L.
Moronia, M. Paganonia,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Ragazzia,b, T. Tabarelli de Fatisa,b,
D. Zuolo INFN Sezione di Napoli a, Università di Napoli ’Federico II’ b,
Napoli, Italy, Università della Basilicata c, Potenza, Italy, Università G.
Marconi d, Roma, Italy
S. Buontempoa, N. Cavalloa,c, A. Di Crescenzoa,b, F. Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa,
G. Galatia, A.O.M. Iorioa,b, W.A. Khana, L. Listaa, S. Meolaa,d,15, P.
Paoluccia,15, C. Sciaccaa,b, E. Voevodinaa,b INFN Sezione di Padova a,
Università di Padova b, Padova, Italy, Università di Trento c, Trento, Italy
P. Azzia, N. Bacchettaa, D. Biselloa,b, 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, 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, N. Dacia, 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.
Sekmen, D.C. Son, Y.C. Yang Chonnam National University, Institute for
Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju, Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon, G. Oh Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
J. Goh29, T.J. Kim Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, D. Gyun, S. Ha, B. Hong, Y. Jo, K. Lee, K.S. Lee, S.
Lee, J. Lim, S.K. Park, Y. Roh Sejong University, Seoul, Korea
H.S. Kim Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, H. Lee, K. Lee, K. Nam, S.B. Oh, B.C. Radburn-
Smith, S.h. Seo, U.K. Yang, H.D. Yoo, G.B. Yu University of Seoul, Seoul,
Korea
D. Jeon, H. Kim, J.H. Kim, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park Sungkyunkwan University,
Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, C. Hwang, J. Lee, I. Yu Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
V. Dudenas, A. Juodagalvis, J. Vaitkus National Centre for Particle Physics,
Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
I. Ahmed, Z.A. Ibrahim, M.A.B. Md Ali30, F. Mohamad Idris31, W.A.T. Wan
Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli Universidad de Sonora (UNISON), Hermosillo,
Mexico
J.F. Benitez, A. Castaneda Hernandez, J.A. Murillo Quijada Centro de
Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, M.C. Duran-Osuna, I. Heredia-De La
Cruz32, R. Lopez-Fernandez, J. Mejia Guisao, R.I. Rabadan-Trejo, M. Ramirez-
Garcia, G. Ramirez-Sanchez, R Reyes-Almanza, A. Sanchez-Hernandez Universidad
Iberoamericana, Mexico City, Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, F. Vazquez Valencia Benemerita
Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
J. Eysermans, I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada Universidad
Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, Mexico
A. Morelos Pineda University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
S. Bheesette, P.H. Butler National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam
University, Islamabad, Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M. Ahmad, M.I. Asghar, Q. Hassan, H.R. Hoorani, A. Saddique, M.A.
Shah, M. Shoaib, M. Waqas National Centre for Nuclear Research, Swierk, Poland
H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, T. Frueboes, M. Górski, M. Kazana, K.
Nawrocki, M. Szleper, P. Traczyk, P. Zalewski Institute of Experimental
Physics, Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk33, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J.
Krolikowski, M. Misiura, M. Olszewski, A. Pyskir, M. Walczak Laboratório de
Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas, Lisboa, Portugal
M. Araujo, P. Bargassa, C. Beirão Da Cruz E Silva, A. Di Francesco, P.
Faccioli, B. Galinhas, M. Gallinaro, J. Hollar, N. Leonardo, M.V. Nemallapudi,
J. Seixas, G. Strong, O. Toldaiev, D. Vadruccio, J. Varela Joint Institute for
Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
S. Afanasiev, P. Bunin, M. Gavrilenko, I. Golutvin, I. Gorbunov, A. Kamenev,
V. Karjavine, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev34,35, P. Moisenz, V. Palichik,
V. Perelygin, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, N. Skatchkov, V. Smirnov, N. Voytishin,
A. Zarubin Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg),
Russia
V. Golovtsov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim36, E. Kuznetsova37, P. Levchenko, V. Murzin,
V. Oreshkin, I. Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Vavilov, A.
Vorobyev Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, M. Kirsanov,
N. Krasnikov, A. Pashenkov, D. Tlisov, A. Toropin Institute for Theoretical
and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, V. Popov, I. Pozdnyakov, G.
Safronov, A. Spiridonov, A. Stepennov, V. Stolin, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A.
Zhokin Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
R. Chistov38, M. Danilov38, P. Parygin, D. Philippov, S. Polikarpov38, E.
Tarkovskii P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin35, I. Dremin35, M. Kirakosyan35, S.V. Rusakov, A.
Terkulov Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
A. Baskakov, A. Belyaev, E. Boos, M. Dubinin39, L. Dudko, A. Ershov, A.
Gribushin, V. Klyukhin, O. Kodolova, I. Lokhtin, I. Miagkov, S. Obraztsov, S.
Petrushanko, V. Savrin, A. Snigirev Novosibirsk State University (NSU),
Novosibirsk, Russia
A. Barnyakov40, V. Blinov40, T. Dimova40, L. Kardapoltsev40, Y. Skovpen40
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. Adzic41, P. Cirkovic, D. Devetak, M. Dordevic, J. Milosevic Centro de
Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid,
Spain
J. Alcaraz Maestre, A. Álvarez Fernández, I. Bachiller, M. Barrio Luna, J.A.
Brochero Cifuentes, M. Cerrada, N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris, C.
Fernandez Bedoya, J.P. Fernández Ramos, J. Flix, M.C. Fouz, O. Gonzalez Lopez,
S. Goy Lopez, J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa, D. Moran, A. Pérez-Calero Yzquierdo,
J. Puerta Pelayo, I. Redondo, L. Romero, M.S. Soares, A. Triossi Universidad
Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
C. Albajar, J.F. de Trocóniz Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain
J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, S. Folgueras, I. Gonzalez
Caballero, J.R. González Fernández, E. Palencia Cortezon, V. Rodríguez Bouza,
S. Sanchez Cruz, P. Vischia, J.M. Vizan Garcia Instituto de Física de
Cantabria (IFCA), CSIC-Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain
I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, B. Chazin Quero, J. Duarte Campderros, M.
Fernandez, P.J. Fernández Manteca, A. García Alonso, J. Garcia-Ferrero, G.
Gomez, A. Lopez Virto, J. Marco, C. Martinez Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del
Arbol, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, C. Prieels, T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno,
L. Scodellaro, N. Trevisani, I. Vila, R. Vilar Cortabitarte University of
Ruhuna, Department of Physics, Matara, Sri Lanka
N. Wickramage CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
D. Abbaneo, B. Akgun, E. Auffray, G. Auzinger, P. Baillon, A.H. Ball, D.
Barney, J. Bendavid, M. Bianco, A. Bocci, C. Botta, E. Brondolin, T.
Camporesi, M. Cepeda, G. Cerminara, E. Chapon, Y. Chen, G. Cucciati, D.
d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, V. Daponte, A. David, A. De Roeck, N. Deelen, M.
Dobson, M. Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, P. Everaerts, F.
Fallavollita42, D. Fasanella, G. Franzoni, J. Fulcher, W. Funk, D. Gigi, A.
Gilbert, K. Gill, F. Glege, M. Guilbaud, D. Gulhan, J. Hegeman, C. Heidegger,
V. Innocente, A. Jafari, P. Janot, O. Karacheban18, J. Kieseler, A. Kornmayer,
M. Krammer1, C. Lange, P. Lecoq, C. Lourenço, L. Malgeri, M. Mannelli, F.
Meijers, J.A. Merlin, S. Mersi, E. Meschi, P. Milenovic43, F. Moortgat, M.
Mulders, J. Ngadiuba, S. Nourbakhsh, S. Orfanelli, L. Orsini, F. Pantaleo15,
L. Pape, E. Perez, M. Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M.
Pierini, F.M. Pitters, D. Rabady, A. Racz, T. Reis, G. Rolandi44, M. Rovere,
H. Sakulin, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Seidel, M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P.
Silva, P. Sphicas45, A. Stakia, J. Steggemann, M. Tosi, D. Treille, A. Tsirou,
V. Veckalns46, M. Verzetti, W.D. Zeuner Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen,
Switzerland
L. Caminada47, K. Deiters, W. Erdmann, R. Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C.
Kaestli, D. Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, T. Rohe, S.A. Wiederkehr ETH Zurich -
Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics (IPA), Zurich, Switzerland
M. Backhaus, L. Bäni, P. Berger, N. Chernyavskaya, G. Dissertori, M. Dittmar,
M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, C. Grab, D. Hits, J. Hoss, T. Klijnsma, W. Lustermann,
R.A. Manzoni, M. Marionneau, M.T. Meinhard, F. Micheli, P. Musella, F. Nessi-
Tedaldi, J. Pata, F. Pauss, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, S. Pigazzini, M. Quittnat,
D. Ruini, D.A. Sanz Becerra, M. Schönenberger, L. Shchutska, V.R. Tavolaro, K.
Theofilatos, M.L. Vesterbacka Olsson, R. Wallny, D.H. Zhu Universität Zürich,
Zurich, Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, C. Amsler48, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, R. Del
Burgo, S. Donato, C. Galloni, T. Hreus, B. Kilminster, S. Leontsinis, I.
Neutelings, D. Pinna, G. Rauco, P. Robmann, D. Salerno, K. Schweiger, C.
Seitz, Y. Takahashi, A. Zucchetta National Central University, Chung-Li,
Taiwan
Y.H. Chang, K.y. Cheng, T.H. Doan, Sh. Jain, R. Khurana, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A.
Pozdnyakov, S.S. Yu National Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, W.-S. Hou, Arun Kumar, Y.y. Li, Y.F.
Liu, R.-S. Lu, E. Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen Chulalongkorn University,
Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok, Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, N. Srimanobhas, N. Suwonjandee Çukurova University, Physics
Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
M.N. Bakirci49, A. Bat, F. Boran, S. Damarseckin, Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, C.
Dozen, E. Eskut, S. Girgis, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, E. Gurpinar, I. Hos50, C.
Isik, E.E. Kangal51, O. Kara, U. Kiminsu, M. Oglakci, G. Onengut, K.
Ozdemir52, A. Polatoz, D. Sunar Cerci53, B. Tali53, U.G. Tok, H. Topakli49, S.
Turkcapar, I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East Technical University,
Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak54, G. Karapinar55, M. Yalvac, M. Zeyrek Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya56, O. Kaya57, S. Ozkorucuklu58, S. Tekten,
E.A. Yetkin59 Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
M.N. Agaras, S. Atay, A. Cakir, K. Cankocak, Y. Komurcu, S. Sen60 Institute
for Scintillation Materials of National Academy of Science of Ukraine,
Kharkov, Ukraine
B. Grynyov National Scientific Center, Kharkov Institute of Physics and
Technology, Kharkov, Ukraine
L. Levchuk University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
F. Ball, L. Beck, J.J. Brooke, D. Burns, E. Clement, D. Cussans, O. Davignon,
H. Flacher, J. Goldstein, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, D.M. Newbold61,
S. Paramesvaran, B. Penning, T. Sakuma, D. Smith, V.J. Smith, J. Taylor, A.
Titterton Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev62, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, D. Cieri, D.J.A. Cockerill, J.A.
Coughlan, K. Harder, S. Harper, J. Linacre, E. Olaiya, D. Petyt, C.H.
Shepherd-Themistocleous, A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin, T. Williams, W.J. Womersley
Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A. Bundock, S.
Casasso, D. Colling, L. Corpe, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M. Della Negra, R. Di
Maria, Y. Haddad, G. Hall, G. Iles, T. James, M. Komm, C. Laner, L. Lyons,
A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, A. Martelli, J. Nash63, A. Nikitenko7, V. Palladino,
M. Pesaresi, A. Richards, A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A. Shtipliyski, G.
Singh, M. Stoye, T. Strebler, S. Summers, A. Tapper, K. Uchida, T. Virdee15,
N. Wardle, D. Winterbottom, J. Wright, S.C. Zenz Brunel University, Uxbridge,
United Kingdom
J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, C.K. Mackay, A. Morton, I.D. Reid,
L. Teodorescu, S. Zahid Baylor University, Waco, USA
K. Call, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, H. Liu, C. Madrid, B. Mcmaster, N.
Pastika, C. Smith Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
A. Buccilli, S.I. Cooper, C. Henderson, P. Rumerio, C. West Boston University,
Boston, USA
D. Arcaro, T. Bose, D. Gastler, D. Rankin, C. Richardson, J. Rohlf, L. Sulak,
D. Zou Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, X. Coubez, D. Cutts, M. Hadley, J. Hakala, U. Heintz, J.M.
Hogan64, K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, J. Lee, Z. Mao, M. Narain, S.
Piperov, S. Sagir65, R. Syarif, E. Usai, D. Yu University of California,
Davis, Davis, USA
R. Band, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, D. Burns, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez,
M. Chertok, J. Conway, R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, G. Funk,
W. Ko, O. Kukral, R. Lander, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, J. Pilot, S. Shalhout,
M. Shi, D. Stolp, D. Taylor, K. Tos, M. Tripathi, Z. Wang, F. Zhang University
of California, Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, C. Bravo, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, A. Florent, J. Hauser, M.
Ignatenko, N. Mccoll, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg, C. Schnaible, V. Valuev
University of California, Riverside, Riverside, USA
E. Bouvier, K. Burt, R. Clare, J.W. Gary, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi, G. Hanson, G.
Karapostoli, E. Kennedy, F. Lacroix, O.R. Long, M. Olmedo Negrete, M.I.
Paneva, W. Si, L. Wang, H. Wei, S. Wimpenny, B.R. Yates University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, S. Cittolin, M. Derdzinski, R. Gerosa, D. Gilbert, B. Hashemi,
A. Holzner, D. Klein, G. Kole, V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, M. Masciovecchio, D.
Olivito, S. Padhi, M. Pieri, M. Sani, V. Sharma, S. Simon, M. Tadel, A.
Vartak, S. Wasserbaech66, J. Wood, F. Würthwein, A. Yagil, G. Zevi Della Porta
University of California, Santa Barbara - Department of Physics, Santa
Barbara, USA
N. Amin, R. Bhandari, J. Bradmiller-Feld, C. Campagnari, M. Citron, A. Dishaw,
V. Dutta, M. Franco Sevilla, L. Gouskos, R. Heller, J. Incandela, A.
Ovcharova, H. Qu, J. Richman, D. Stuart, I. Suarez, S. Wang, J. Yoo California
Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
D. Anderson, A. Bornheim, J.M. Lawhorn, H.B. Newman, T.Q. Nguyen, M.
Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, R. Wilkinson, S. Xie, Z. Zhang, R.Y. Zhu Carnegie
Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
M.B. Andrews, T. Ferguson, T. Mudholkar, M. Paulini, M. Sun, I. Vorobiev, M.
Weinberg University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, F. Jensen, A. Johnson, M. Krohn, E. MacDonald, T.
Mulholland, R. Patel, K. Stenson, K.A. Ulmer, S.R. Wagner Cornell University,
Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, J. Chaves, Y. Cheng, J. Chu, A. Datta, K. Mcdermott, N. Mirman,
J.R. Patterson, D. Quach, A. Rinkevicius, A. Ryd, L. Skinnari, L. Soffi, S.M.
Tan, Z. Tao, J. Thom, J. Tucker, P. Wittich, M. Zientek Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, USA
S. Abdullin, M. Albrow, M. Alyari, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S.
Banerjee, L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, G.
Bolla${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, K. Burkett, J.N. Butler, A. Canepa, G.B.
Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M. Cremonesi, J. Duarte, V.D. Elvira, J.
Freeman, Z. Gecse, E. Gottschalk, L. Gray, D. Green, S. Grünendahl, O.
Gutsche, J. Hanlon, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, J. Hirschauer, Z. Hu, B.
Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, B. Klima, M.J. Kortelainen,
B. Kreis, S. Lammel, D. Lincoln, R. Lipton, M. Liu, T. Liu, J. Lykken, K.
Maeshima, J.M. Marraffino, D. Mason, P. McBride, P. Merkel, S. Mrenna, S.
Nahn, V. O’Dell, K. Pedro, C. Pena, O. Prokofyev, G. Rakness, L. Ristori, A.
Savoy-Navarro67, B. Schneider, E. Sexton-Kennedy, A. Soha, W.J. Spalding, L.
Spiegel, S. Stoynev, J. Strait, N. Strobbe, L. Taylor, S. Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran,
L. Uplegger, E.W. Vaandering, C. Vernieri, M. Verzocchi, R. Vidal, M. Wang,
H.A. Weber, A. Whitbeck University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, P. Bortignon, D. Bourilkov, A. Brinkerhoff, L. Cadamuro,
A. Carnes, M. Carver, D. Curry, R.D. Field, S.V. Gleyzer, B.M. Joshi, J.
Konigsberg, A. Korytov, P. Ma, K. Matchev, H. Mei, G. Mitselmakher, K. Shi, D.
Sperka, J. Wang, S. Wang Florida International University, Miami, USA
Y.R. Joshi, S. Linn Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
A. Ackert, T. Adams, A. Askew, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F. Johnson, T.
Kolberg, G. Martinez, T. Perry, H. Prosper, A. Saha, C. Schiber, V. Sharma, R.
Yohay Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, V. Bhopatkar, S. Colafranceschi, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, M.
Rahmani, T. Roy, F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago,
USA
M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, D. Berry, R.R. Betts, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, S.
Dittmer, O. Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, K. Jung, J.
Kamin, C. Mills, I.D. Sandoval Gonzalez, M.B. Tonjes, N. Varelas, H. Wang, X.
Wang, Z. Wu, J. Zhang The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, B. Bilki68, W. Clarida, K. Dilsiz69, S. Durgut, R.P.
Gandrajula, M. Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko, J.-P. Merlo, A. Mestvirishvili, A.
Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul70, Y. Onel, F. Ozok71, A. Penzo, C. Snyder, E.
Tiras, J. Wetzel Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
B. Blumenfeld, A. Cocoros, N. Eminizer, D. Fehling, L. Feng, A.V. Gritsan,
W.T. Hung, P. Maksimovic, J. Roskes, U. Sarica, M. Swartz, M. Xiao, C. You The
University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA
A. Al-bataineh, P. Baringer, A. Bean, S. Boren, J. Bowen, A. Bylinkin, J.
Castle, S. Khalil, A. Kropivnitskaya, D. Majumder, W. Mcbrayer, M. Murray, C.
Rogan, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang Kansas State
University, Manhattan, USA
S. Duric, A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, D. Kim, Y. Maravin, D.R. Mendis, T. Mitchell,
A. Modak, A. Mohammadi, L.K. Saini, N. Skhirtladze Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright University of Maryland, College Park, USA
A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, S.C. Eno, Y. Feng, C. Ferraioli, N.J. Hadley,
S. Jabeen, G.Y. Jeng, R.G. Kellogg, J. Kunkle, A.C. Mignerey, F. Ricci-Tam,
Y.H. Shin, A. Skuja, S.C. Tonwar, K. Wong Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, V. Azzolini, A. Baty, G. Bauer, R. Bi, S. Brandt, W.
Busza, I.A. Cali, M. D’Alfonso, Z. Demiragli, G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov,
P. Harris, D. Hsu, M. Hu, Y. Iiyama, G.M. Innocenti, M. Klute, D. Kovalskyi,
Y.-J. Lee, P.D. Luckey, B. Maier, A.C. Marini, C. Mcginn, C. Mironov, S.
Narayanan, X. Niu, C. Paus, C. Roland, G. Roland, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Sumorok,
K. Tatar, D. Velicanu, J. Wang, T.W. Wang, B. Wyslouch, S. Zhaozhong
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
A.C. Benvenuti, R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, P. Hansen, S. Kalafut, Y. Kubota,
Z. Lesko, J. Mans, N. Ruckstuhl, R. Rusack, J. Turkewitz, M.A. Wadud
University of Mississippi, Oxford, USA
J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
E. Avdeeva, K. Bloom, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, F. Golf, R. Gonzalez Suarez,
R. Kamalieddin, I. Kravchenko, J. Monroy, J.E. Siado, G.R. Snow, B. Stieger
State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
A. Godshalk, C. Harrington, I. Iashvili, A. Kharchilava, C. Mclean, D. Nguyen,
A. Parker, S. Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani Northeastern University, Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, A. Hortiangtham, D.M. Morse, T. Orimoto,
R. Teixeira De Lima, T. Wamorkar, B. Wang, A. Wisecarver, D. Wood Northwestern
University, Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, O. Charaf, K.A. Hahn, N. Mucia, N. Odell, M.H. Schmitt, K.
Sung, M. Trovato, M. Velasco University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, USA
R. Bucci, N. Dev, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop, D.J. Karmgard, N.
Kellams, K. Lannon, W. Li, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, F. Meng, C. Mueller, Y.
Musienko34, M. Planer, A. Reinsvold, R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, G. Smith, S.
Taroni, M. Wayne, A. Wightman, M. Wolf, A. Woodard The Ohio State University,
Columbus, USA
J. Alimena, L. Antonelli, B. Bylsma, L.S. Durkin, S. Flowers, B. Francis, A.
Hart, C. Hill, W. Ji, T.Y. Ling, W. Luo, B.L. Winer, H.W. Wulsin Princeton
University, Princeton, USA
S. Cooperstein, P. Elmer, J. Hardenbrook, S. Higginbotham, A. Kalogeropoulos,
D. Lange, M.T. Lucchini, J. Luo, D. Marlow, K. Mei, I. Ojalvo, J. Olsen, C.
Palmer, P. Piroué, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, D. Stickland, C. Tully University of
Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
A. Barker, V.E. Barnes, S. Das, L. Gutay, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, A. Khatiwada,
B. Mahakud, D.H. Miller, N. Neumeister, C.C. Peng, H. Qiu, J.F. Schulte, J.
Sun, F. Wang, R. Xiao, W. Xie Purdue University Northwest, Hammond, USA
T. Cheng, J. Dolen, N. Parashar Rice University, Houston, USA
Z. Chen, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Kilpatrick, W. Li, B.P.
Padley, J. Roberts, J. Rorie, W. Shi, Z. Tu, J. Zabel, A. Zhang University of
Rochester, Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, Y.t. Duh, J.L. Dulemba, C. Fallon, T.
Ferbel, M. Galanti, A. Garcia-Bellido, J. Han, O. Hindrichs, A.
Khukhunaishvili, K.H. Lo, P. Tan, R. Taus Rutgers, The State University of New
Jersey, Piscataway, USA
A. Agapitos, J.P. Chou, Y. Gershtein, T.A. Gómez Espinosa, E. Halkiadakis, M.
Heindl, E. Hughes, S. Kaplan, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, S. Kyriacou, A. Lath,
R. Montalvo, K. Nash, M. Osherson, H. Saka, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, D.
Sheffield, S. Somalwar, R. Stone, S. Thomas, P. Thomassen, M. Walker
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
A.G. Delannoy, J. Heideman, G. Riley, S. Spanier, K. Thapa Texas A&M
University, College Station, USA
O. Bouhali72, A. Celik, M. Dalchenko, M. De Mattia, A. Delgado, S. Dildick, R.
Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T. Kamon73, S. Luo, R. Mueller, A. Perloff, L.
Perniè, D. Rathjens, A. Safonov Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, F. De Guio, P.R. Dudero, S. Kunori, K. Lamichhane,
S.W. Lee, T. Mengke, S. Muthumuni, T. Peltola, S. Undleeb, I. Volobouev, Z.
Wang Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H. Ni, K.
Padeken, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska, M. Verweij, Q.
Xu University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
M.W. Arenton, P. Barria, B. Cox, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A. Ledovskoy, H. Li, C.
Neu, T. Sinthuprasith, Y. Wang, E. Wolfe, F. Xia Wayne State University,
Detroit, USA
R. Harr, P.E. Karchin, N. Poudyal, J. Sturdy, P. Thapa, S. Zaleski University
of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI, USA
M. Brodski, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, D. Carlsmith, S. Dasu, L. Dodd, B.
Gomber, M. Grothe, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, P. Klabbers, A. Lanaro,
K. Long, R. Loveless, T. Ruggles, A. Savin, N. Smith, W.H. Smith, N. Woods †:
Deceased
1: Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria
2: Also at IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
3: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
4: Also at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
5: Also at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
6: Also at University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
7: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
8: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
9: Also at Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
10: Now at Zewail City of Science and Technology, Zewail, Egypt
11: Also at Department of Physics, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia
12: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
13: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
14: Also at Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
15: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
16: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
17: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
18: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
19: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
20: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
21: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
22: Also at Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India
23: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
24: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India
25: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
26: Also at Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
27: Also at Plasma Physics Research Center, Science and Research Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
28: Also at Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy
29: Also at Kyunghee University, Seoul, Korea
30: Also at International Islamic University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
31: Also at Malaysian Nuclear Agency, MOSTI, Kajang, Malaysia
32: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico City, Mexico
33: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems,
Warsaw, Poland
34: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
35: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
36: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
37: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
38: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
39: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
40: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
41: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
42: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
43: Also at University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of
Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
44: Also at Scuola Normale e Sezione dell’INFN, Pisa, Italy
45: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
46: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
47: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
48: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics (SMI), Vienna,
Austria
49: Also at Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey
50: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey
51: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
52: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
53: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
54: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
55: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
56: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
57: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
58: Also at Istanbul University, Faculty of Science, Istanbul, Turkey
59: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
60: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
61: Also at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
62: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
63: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia
64: Also at Bethel University, St. Paul, USA
65: Also at Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey
66: Also at Utah Valley University, Orem, USA
67: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
68: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey
69: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
70: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
71: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
72: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
73: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea