HIG-17-024

$HeadURL:svn+ssh://svn.cern.ch/reps/tdr2/papers/HIG-17-024/trunk/HIG-17-024.tex$
$Id:HIG-17-024.tex4687602018-07-1615:02:14Zalverson$

HIG-17-024

# Search for an exotic decay of the Higgs boson to a pair of light
pseudoscalars in the final state with two quarks and two $\Pgt$ leptons in
proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$

###### Abstract

A search for an exotic decay of the Higgs boson to a pair of light
pseudoscalar bosons is performed for the first time in the final state with
two quarks and two $\Pgt$ leptons. The search is motivated in the context of
models of physics beyond the standard model (SM), such as two Higgs doublet
models extended with a complex scalar singlet (2HDM+S), which include the
next-to-minimal supersymmetric SM (NMSSM). The results are based on a data set
of proton-proton collisions corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9,
accumulated by the CMS experiment at the LHC in 2016 at a center-of-mass
energy of 13. Masses of the pseudoscalar boson between 15 and 60are probed,
and no excess of events above the SM expectation is observed. Upper limits
between 3 and 12% are set on the branching fraction
$\mathcal{B}({\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 2\Pgt 2{\cPqb})$ assuming the SM production
of the Higgs boson. Upper limits are also set on the branching fraction of the
Higgs boson to two light pseudoscalar bosons in different 2HDM+S scenarios.
Assuming the SM production cross section for the Higgs boson, the upper limit
on this quantity is as low as 20% for a mass of the pseudoscalar of 40in the
NMSSM.

##  0.1 Introduction

Within the standard model (SM), the Brout–Englert–Higgs mechanism [1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6] is responsible for electroweak symmetry breaking and predicts the
existence of a scalar particle—the Higgs boson. A particle compatible with the
Higgs boson was discovered by the ATLAS and CMS collaborations at the CERN LHC
[7, 8, 9]. Measurements of the couplings and properties of this particle leave
room for exotic decays to beyond-the-SM particles, with a limit of 34% on this
branching fraction at 95% confidence level (), using data collected at center-
of-mass energies of 7 and 8 [10].

The possible existence of exotic decays of the Higgs boson is well motivated
[11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16]. The decay width of the Higgs boson in the SM is so
narrow that a small coupling to a light state could lead to branching
fractions of the Higgs boson to that light state of the order of several
percent. Additionally, the scalar sector can theoretically serve as a portal
that allows matter from a hidden sector to interact with SM particles [17]. In
general, exotic decays of the Higgs boson are allowed in many models that are
consistent with all LHC measurements published so far.

An interesting class of such processes consists of decays to a pair of light
pseudoscalar particles, which then decay to pairs of SM particles. This type
of process is allowed in various models, including two Higgs doublet models
augmented by a scalar singlet (2HDM+S). Seven scalar and pseudoscalar
particles are predicted in 2HDM+S. One of them, , is a scalar that can be
compatible with the discovered particle with a mass of 125, and another, the
pseudoscalar , can be light enough so that $\Ph\to\Pa\Pa$ decays are allowed.

Four types of 2HDM, and by extension 2HDM+S, forbid flavor-changing neutral
currents at tree level [18]. In type I, all SM particles couple to the first
doublet. In type II, up-type quarks couple to the first doublet, whereas
leptons and down-type quarks couple to the second doublet. The next-to-minimal
supersymmetric SM (NMSSM) is a particular case of 2HDM+S of type II that
brings a solution to the $\mu$ problem [19]. In type III, quarks couple to the
first doublet, and leptons to the second one. Finally, in type IV, leptons and
up-type quarks couple to the first doublet, while down-type quarks couple to
the second doublet [15]. The branching fractions of the light pseudoscalars to
pairs of SM particles depend on the type of 2HDM+S, on the pseudoscalar mass
$m_{\Pa}$, and on $\tan\beta$, defined as the ratio of the vacuum expectation
values of the second and first doublets. The value of the branching fraction
$\mathcal{B}(\Pa\Pa\to\cPqb\cPqb\Pgt\Pgt)$ is slightly above 10% in the
NMSSM—or more generally in 2HDM+S type II—for $\tan\beta>1$, and can reach up
to about 50% in 2HDM+S type III with $\tan\beta\sim 2$, as shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 1: Predicted $\mathcal{B}(\Pa\Pa\to\cPqb\cPqb\Pgt\Pgt)$ for
$m_{\Pa}=40\GeV$ in the different models of 2HDM+S, as a function of
$\tan\beta$. The picture is essentially the same for all $m_{\Pa}$ hypotheses
considered in this Letter. The branching fractions are computed following the
formulas of Ref. [15].

Several searches for exotic decays of the Higgs boson to a pair of light
short-lived pseudoscalar bosons have been performed by the CMS Collaboration
with data collected at a center-of-mass energy of 8in different final states:
$2\Pgm 2\PQb$ for $25.0<m_{\Pa}<62.5\GeV$ [20], $2\Pgm 2\Pgt$ for
$15.0<m_{\Pa}<62.5\GeV$ [20], $4\Pgt$ for $4<m_{\Pa}<8\GeV$ [21] and
$5<m_{\Pa}<15\GeV$ [20], and $4\Pgm$ for $0.25<m_{\Pa}<3.50\GeV$ [22]. The CMS
Collaboration also studied the $2\Pgm 2\Pgt$ final state for
$15.0<m_{\Pa}<62.5\GeV$ at a center-of-mass energy of 13 [23]. The ATLAS
Collaboration reported results for the following final states at a center-of-
mass energy of 8: $4\Pgm$, $4\Pe$, and $2\Pe 2\Pgm$ for $15<m_{\Pa}<60\GeV$
[24]; $4\Pgg$ for $10<m_{\Pa}<62\GeV$ [25]; and $2\Pgm 2\Pgt$ for
$3.7<m_{\Pa}<50.0\GeV$ [26]. At a center-of-mass energy of 13, the ATLAS
Collaboration published results for the $4\cPqb$ decay channel for
$20<m_{\Pa}<60\GeV$ [27], and $4\Pgm$, $4\Pe$, and $2\Pe 2\Pgm$ for
$1<m_{\Pa}<60\GeV$ [28]. The $2\cPqb 2\Pgt$ final state has never been probed
so far. This final state benefits from large branching fractions in most
models because of the large masses of $\Pgt$ leptons and quarks with respect
to other leptons and quarks. The presence of light leptons originating from
the $\Pgt$ decays allows events to be triggered in the dominant gluon fusion
production mode.

This Letter reports on the first search with the CMS experiment for exotic
decays of the Higgs boson to a pair of light pseudoscalar bosons, in the final
state with two $\Pgt$ leptons and two quarks. The search focuses on the mass
range between 15 and 60. For low $m_{\Pa}$ values, between the $\cPqb\cPaqb$
threshold and 15, the decay products of each of the pseudoscalar bosons become
collimated, which would necessitate the use of special reconstruction
techniques.

The search is based on proton-proton ($\Pp\Pp$) collision data collected at a
center-of-mass energy of 13and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of
35.9. Throughout this Letter, the term $\tauh$ denotes $\Pgt$ leptons decaying
hadronically. The $\Pgt\Pgt$ final states studied in this search are
$\Pe\Pgm$, $\Pe\tauh$, and $\Pgm\tauh$. Despite its large branching fraction,
the $\tauh\tauh$ final state is not considered because the signal acceptance
is negligible with the transerse momentum () thresholds available for the
$\tauh\tauh$ triggers. The $\Pe\Pe$ and $\Pgm\Pgm$ final states for the
$\Pgt\Pgt$ pair are not considered either, because they have a low branching
fraction and suffer from a large contribution of Drell–Yan background events.

##  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, there are a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal
electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), and a brass and scintillator hadron
calorimeter, 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. Events of interest are
selected using a two-tiered trigger system [29]. 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. [30].

##  0.3 Simulated samples and event reconstruction

The signal and some of the background processes are modeled with samples of
simulated events. The [31] 2.3.2 generator is used for the
${\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 2\Pgt 2{\cPqb}$ signal process, in gluon fusion
($\cPg\cPg\Ph$), vector boson fusion (VBF), or associated vector boson
($\PW\Ph$, $\PZ\Ph$) processes. These samples are simulated at leading order
(LO) in perturbative quantum chromodynamics (QCD) with the MLM jet matching
and merging [32]. The $\PZ+\text{jets}$ and $\PW+\text{jets}$ processes are
also generated with the generator at LO with the MLM jet matching and merging.
The $\PZ+\text{jets}$ simulation contains non-resonant Drell–Yan production,
with a minimum dilepton mass threshold of 10. The FxFx merging scheme [33] is
used to generate diboson background with the generator at next-to-LO (NLO).
The $\ttbar$ and single top quark processes are generated at NLO with the 2.0
and 1.0 generator [34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39]. Backgrounds from SM Higgs boson
production are generated at NLO with the 2.0 generator [40], and the minlo hvj
[41] extension of 2.0 is used for the $\PW\Ph$ and $\PZ\Ph$ simulated samples.
The generators are interfaced with 8.212 [42] to model the parton showering
and fragmentation, as well as the decay of the $\Pgt$ leptons. The CUETP8M1
tune [43] is chosen for the parameters that affect the description of the
underlying event. The set of parton distribution functions (PDFs) is NLO
NNPDF3.0 for NLO samples, and LO NNPDF3.0 for LO samples [44]. The full next-
to-NLO (NNLO) plus next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic (NNLL) order
calculation [45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50], performed with the Top++ 2.0 program
[51], is used to compute a production cross section equal to
$832^{+20}_{-29}\,\text{(scale)}\pm 35\,\text{(PDF+\alpS)}\unit{pb}$ setting
the top quark mass to 172.5. This cross section is used to normalize the
background simulated with .

All simulated samples include additional proton-proton interactions per bunch
crossing, referred to as “pileup”, obtained by generating concurrent minimum
bias collision events using . The simulated events are reweighted in such a
way to have the same pileup distribution as data. Generated events are
processed through a simulation of the CMS detector based on [52].

The reconstruction of events relies on the particle-flow (PF) algorithm [53],
which combines information from the CMS subdetectors to identify and
reconstruct the particles emerging from $\Pp\Pp$ collisions: charged and
neutral hadrons, photons, muons, and electrons. Combinations of these PF
objects are used to reconstruct higher-level objects such as jets, $\tauh$
candidates, and missing transverse momentum.

Electrons are reconstructed by matching ECAL clusters to tracks in the
tracker. They are then identified with a multivariate analysis (MVA)
discriminant that makes use of variables related to the energy deposits in the
ECAL, the quality of the track, and the compatibility between the properties
of the ECAL clusters and the track that have been matched [54]. The MVA
working point chosen in this search has an efficiency of about 80%. The
reconstruction of muon candidates is performed combining the information of
the tracker and the muon systems. Muons are then identified on the basis of
the track reconstruction quality and on the number of measurements in the
tracker and the muon systems [55]. The relative isolation of electrons and
muons is defined as:

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

In this formula, $\sum_{\text{charged}}\PT$ is the scalar sum of the
transverse momenta of the charged particles, excluding the lepton itself,
associated with the primary vertex and in a cone around the lepton direction,
with size $\Delta R=\sqrt{\smash[b]{(\Delta\eta)^{2}+(\Delta\phi)^{2}}}=0.3$
for electrons, or 0.4 for muons. The sum $\sum_{\text{neutral}}\PT$ represents
a similar quantity for neutral particles. The last term corresponds to the of
neutral particles from pileup vertices, which, as estimated from simulation,
is equal to approximately half of that of charged hadrons associated with
pileup vertices, denoted by $\sum_{\text{charged, PU}}\PT$. The of the lepton
is denoted $\PT^{\ell}$. The azimuthal angle, $\phi$, is measured in radians.

Jets are reconstructed from PF objects with the anti-clustering algorithm
implemented in the library [56, 57], using a distance parameter of 0.4.
Corrections to the jet energy are applied as a function of the and $\eta$ of
the jet [58]. The jets in this search are required to be separated from the
selected electrons, muons, or $\tauh$, by $\Delta R\geq 0.5$. Jets that
originate from quarks, called jets, are identified with the combined secondary
vertex (CSVv2) algorithm [59]. The CSVv2 algorithm builds a discriminant from
variables related to secondary vertices associated with the jet if any, and
from track-based lifetime information. The working point chosen in this search
provides an efficiency for quark jets of approximately 70%, and a
misidentification rate for light-flavor and quark jets of approximately 1 and
10%, respectively.

Hadronically decaying $\Pgt$ leptons are reconstructed with the hadrons-plus-
strips (HPS) algorithm [60, 61] as a combination of tracks and energy deposits
in strips of the ECAL. The tracks are the signature of the charged hadrons,
and the strips that of the neutral pions, which decay to a pair of photons
with potential electron-positron conversion. The reconstructed $\tauh$ decay
modes are one track, one track plus at least one strip, and three tracks. The
rate for jets to be misidentified as $\tauh$ is reduced by applying an MVA
discriminator that uses isolation as well as lifetime variables. Its working
point has been chosen to have an efficiency of approximately 45% for a
misidentification rate of light-flavor jets of the order of 0.1%.
Additionally, discriminators that reduce the rates with which electrons and
muons are misidentified as $\tauh$ are applied. Loose working points with an
efficiency above 90% are chosen because the $\PZ\to\Pe\Pe/\Pgm\Pgm$ background
does not contribute much in the region where the signal is expected.

To account for the contribution of undetected particles, such as the
neutrinos, the missing transverse momentum, $\ptvecmiss$, is defined as the
negative vectorial sum of the transverse momenta of all PF objects
reconstructed in the event. The magnitude of this vector is denoted $\ptmiss$.
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 objects constructed by a jet finding algorithm [62, 56]
applied to all charged tracks associated with the vertex, and the
corresponding associated missing transverse momentum.

##  0.4 Event selection

Events are selected in three different $\Pgt\Pgt$ final states: $\Pe\Pgm$,
$\Pe\tauh$, and $\Pgm\tauh$. They are additionally required to contain at
least one -tagged jet. The dominant backgrounds with these objects in the
final state are $\ttbar$ and $\PZ\to\Pgt\Pgt$ production. Another large
background consists of events with jets misidentified as $\tauh$, such as
$\PW+\text{jets}$ events, the background from SM events composed uniquely of
jets produced through the strong interaction, referred to as QCD multijet
events, or semileptonic $\ttbar$ events.

All events are required to have at least one -tagged jet with $\pt>20\GeV$ and
$\abs{\eta}<2.4$. About 90% of simulated signal events passing this condition
have only one such jet, as a result of the typically soft jet spectrum and of
the limited efficiency of the tagging algorithm. Events in the $\Pe\Pgm$ final
state are selected with a trigger that relies on the presence of both an
electron and a muon, where the leading lepton has $\pt>23\GeV$ and the
subleading one $\pt>12\GeV$ if it is an electron or 8if it is a muon. In the
$\Pe\tauh$ final state, the trigger is based on the presence of an isolated
electron with $\pt>25\GeV$, whereas in the $\Pgm\tauh$ final state events are
selected with a combination of triggers that require either an isolated muon
with $\pt>22\GeV$, or a muon with $\pt>19\GeV$ and a $\tauh$ candidate with
$\pt>21\GeV$. During the 2016 data taking period, none of the available
triggers that required the presence of both an electron and a $\tauh$
candidate could increase the signal acceptance significantly with respect to
the trigger based on the presence of an electron only. Tighter selection
criteria are applied at the reconstruction level. The electrons, muons, and
$\tauh$ candidates are required to be well identified and isolated [54, 55,
61], to have opposite charge, and to be separated by at least $\Delta R=0.4$
if there is a $\tauh$, or 0.3 otherwise. Table 0.4 details the , $\eta$,
isolation, and identification criteria for the various objects, in the
different final states.

Baseline selection criteria for objects required in various final states. The
numbers given for the thresholds of the electron and muon in the $\Pe\Pgm$
final state correspond to the leading and subleading particles. The threshold
for the $\tauh$ candidates is the result of an optimization of the expected
exclusion limits of the signal.  $\Pe\Pgm$ $\Pe\tauh$ $\Pgm\tauh$ $\pt(\Pe)$
${>}24/13\GeV$ ${>}26\GeV$ $\pt(\Pgm)$ ${>}24/13\GeV$ ${>}20\GeV$ $\pt(\tauh)$
${>}25\GeV$ ${>}25\GeV$ $\pt(\cPqb)$ ${>}20\GeV$ ${>}20\GeV$ ${>}20\GeV$
$\abs{\eta(\Pe)}$ ${<}2.4$ ${<}2.1$ $\abs{\eta(\Pgm)}$ ${<}2.4$ ${<}2.1$
$\abs{\eta(\tauh)}$ ${<}2.3$ ${<}2.3$ $\abs{\eta(\cPqb)}$ ${<}2.4$ ${<}2.4$
${<}2.4$ Isolation ($\Pe$) ${<}0.10$ ${<}0.10$ Isolation ($\Pgm$) ${<}0.15$
${<}0.15$ Ident. ($\tauh$) MVA MVA

To increase the sensitivity of the analysis, events in each final state are
separated into four categories with different signal-to-background ratios. The
categories are defined on the basis of the invariant mass of the visible decay
products of the $\Pgt$ leptons and the -tagged jet with the highest , denoted
by $m_{\cPqb\Pgt\Pgt}^{\text{vis}}$. This variable is typically low for signal
events because the three objects originate from a 125Higgs boson, but it is on
average much larger for background events, where the three objects do not
originate from a decay of a resonance, as shown in Fig. 2 for the $\Pgm\tauh$
final state. The thresholds that define the categories depend on the
$\Pgt\Pgt$ final state: they are lower in the $\Pe\Pgm$ final state because
there are more neutrinos not included in the mass calculation, and they are
higher in the $\Pe\tauh$ final state to keep enough events despite the lower
signal acceptance related to the electron thresholds. Signal events with
$m_{\Pa}\gtrsim 25\GeV$ contribute mostly to the first two categories, whereas
those with $m_{\Pa}\lesssim 25\GeV$ are concentrated in the second and third
categories. This can be explained by the fact that the missing jet in the mass
calculation would be closer to the reconstructed jet for a signal with lower
$m_{\Pa}$ because of the boost of the pseudoscalar bosons, leading to a larger
reconstructed mass. The last category has large background yields; it is
useful to constrain the various backgrounds and provides some additional
sensitivity for low-$m_{\Pa}$ signal samples. The results of the search are
extracted from a fit of the visible $\Pgt\Pgt$ mass
($m_{\Pgt\Pgt}^{\text{vis}}$) distributions in each of the categories, because
this is a resonant distribution for signal events.

Figure 2: Visible invariant mass of the leptons and the leading jet,
$m_{\cPqb\Pgt\Pgt}^{\text{vis}}$, after the baseline selection, in the
$\Pgm\tauh$ final state, for the signal with different mass hypotheses (left).
Distribution of $m_{\cPqb\Pgt\Pgt}^{\text{vis}}$ in the $\Pgm\tauh$ final
state (right). The “$\text{jet}\to\tauh$” contribution includes all events
with a jet misidentified as a $\tauh$ candidate, whereas the rest of
background contributions only include events where the reconstructed $\tauh$
corresponds to a $\tauh$, a muon, or an electron, at the generator level. The
“Other” contribution includes events from single top quark, diboson, and SM
Higgs boson processes. The signal histogram corresponds to 10 times the SM
production cross section for $\cPg\cPg\Ph$, VBF, and V$\Ph$ processes, and
assumes $\mathcal{B}({\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 2\Pgt 2{\cPqb})=100\%$.

Selection criteria are applied to optimize the expected limits on the product
of the signal cross section and branching fraction. The same thresholds would
be obtained with an optimization based on the discovery potential. One such
criterion is based on the transverse mass of $\ptvecmiss$ and each of the
leptons. The transverse mass $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ between a lepton $\ell$ and
$\ptvecmiss$ is defined as

$m_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell,\ptvecmiss)\equiv\sqrt{\smash[b]{2\pt^{\ell}\ptmiss[1-\cos(\Delta\phi)]}},$
(2)

where $\pt^{\ell}$ is the transverse momentum of the lepton $\ell$, and
$\Delta\phi$ is the azimuthal angle between the lepton momentum and .
Selecting events with low $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ strongly reduces the backgrounds
from $\PW+\text{jets}$ and $\ttbar$ events, which are characterized by a
larger $\ptvecmiss$. In addition, for $\PW+\text{jets}$ events in which the
selected lepton comes from the $\PW$ boson decay, $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ has a
Jacobian peak near the $\PW$ boson mass. The distributions of
$m_{\mathrm{T}}(\Pgm,\ptvecmiss)$ and $m_{\mathrm{T}}(\tauh,\ptvecmiss)$ in
the $\Pgm\tauh$ final state before the $m_{\cPqb\Pgt\Pgt}^{\text{vis}}$-based
categorization are shown in Fig. 3 (top left and top right).

Another selection criterion is based on the variable $D_{\zeta}$, which is
defined as

$D_{\zeta}\equiv p_{\zeta}-0.85\,p_{\zeta}^{\text{vis}},$ (3)

where $p_{\zeta}$ is the component of along the bisector of the transverse
momenta of the two $\Pgt$ candidates and $p_{\zeta}^{\text{vis}}$ is the sum
of the components of the lepton along the same direction [63]. As shown in
Fig. 3 (bottom), the $\PZ\to\Pgt\Pgt$ background typically has $D_{\zeta}$
values close to zero because $\ptvecmiss$ is approximately collinear to the
$\Pgt\Pgt$ system, whereas the $\ttbar$ background is concentrated at lower
$D_{\zeta}$ values because of typically large $\ptvecmiss$ not aligned with
the $\Pgt\Pgt$ system. The signal lies in an intermediate region because
$\ptvecmiss$ is approximately aligned with the $\Pgt\Pgt$ system, but
$\ptmiss$ is usually small. The precise criteria for each final state and
category are indicated in Table 0.4.

Figure 3: Distributions of $m_{\mathrm{T}}(\Pgm,\ptvecmiss)$ (top left),
$m_{\mathrm{T}}(\tauh,\ptvecmiss)$ (top right), and $D_{\zeta}$ (bottom) in
the $\Pgm\tauh$ final state before the $m_{\cPqb\Pgt\Pgt}^{\text{vis}}$-based
categorization. The “$\text{jet}\to\tauh$” contribution includes all events
with a jet misidentified as a $\tauh$ candidate, whereas the rest of
background contributions only include events where the reconstructed $\tauh$
corresponds to a $\tauh$, a muon, or an electron, at the generator level. The
“Other” contribution includes events from single top quark, diboson, and SM
Higgs boson processes. The signal histogram corresponds to 10 times the SM
production cross section for $\cPg\cPg\Ph$, VBF, and V$\Ph$ processes, and
assumes $\mathcal{B}({\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 2\Pgt 2{\cPqb})=100\%$.

Optimized selection and categorization in the various final states. The
selection criterion $D_{\zeta}>-30\GeV$ in the $\Pe\Pgm$ final state reduces
the large $\ttbar$ background. In the other final states the $\ttbar$
background is less important, and only events with $D_{\zeta}>0\GeV$ are
discarded in one of the categories of the $\Pgm\tauh$ final state to reduce
the $\PZ\to\Pgt\Pgt$ background. This selection criterion does not improve the
sensitivity in the $\Pe\tauh$ final state because of the lower expected signal
and background yields, and is therefore not applied.  Variable Category 1
Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 $\Pe\Pgm$ $m_{\cPqb\Pgt\Pgt}^{\text{vis}}$
${<}65\GeV$ ${\in}[65,80]\GeV$ ${\in}[80,95]\GeV$ ${>}95\GeV$
$m_{\mathrm{T}}(\Pe,\ptvecmiss)$ ${<}40\GeV$ ${<}40\GeV$ ${<}40\GeV$
${<}40\GeV$ $m_{\mathrm{T}}(\Pgm,\ptvecmiss)$ ${<}40\GeV$ ${<}40\GeV$
${<}40\GeV$ ${<}40\GeV$ $D_{\zeta}$ ${>}-30\GeV$ ${>}-30\GeV$ ${>}-30\GeV$
${>}-30\GeV$ $\Pe\tauh$ $m_{\cPqb\Pgt\Pgt}^{\text{vis}}$ ${<}80\GeV$
${\in}[80,100]\GeV$ ${\in}[100,120]\GeV$ ${>}120\GeV$
$m_{\mathrm{T}}(\Pe,\ptvecmiss)$ ${<}40\GeV$ ${<}50\GeV$ ${<}50\GeV$
${<}40\GeV$ $m_{\mathrm{T}}(\tauh,\ptvecmiss)$ ${<}60\GeV$ ${<}60\GeV$
${<}60\GeV$ ${<}60\GeV$ $\Pgm\tauh$ $m_{\cPqb\Pgt\Pgt}^{\text{vis}}$
${<}75\GeV$ ${\in}[75,95]\GeV$ ${\in}[95,115]\GeV$ ${>}115\GeV$
$m_{\mathrm{T}}(\Pgm,\ptvecmiss)$ ${<}40\GeV$ ${<}50\GeV$ ${<}50\GeV$
${<}40\GeV$ $m_{\mathrm{T}}(\tauh,\ptvecmiss)$ ${<}60\GeV$ ${<}60\GeV$
${<}60\GeV$ ${<}60\GeV$ $D_{\zeta}$ ${<}0\GeV$

##  0.5 Background estimation

The $\PZ\to\ell\ell$ background is estimated from simulation. The
distributions of the of the dilepton system and the visible invariant mass
between the leptons and the leading jet are reweighted with corrections
derived using data from a region enriched in $\PZ\to\Pgm\Pgm$ \+ $\geq 1$
events. The simulation is separated between $\PZ\to\Pgt\Pgt$, where the
reconstructed $\Pgt$ candidates correspond to $\Pgt$ leptons at generator
level, and $\PZ\to\Pe\Pe/\Pgm\Pgm$ decays, where at least one electron or muon
is misidentified as a $\tauh$ candidate.

Backgrounds with a jet misidentified as a $\tauh$ candidate are estimated from
data. They consist mostly of $\PW+\text{jets}$ and QCD multijet events, as
well as the fraction of $\ttbar$, diboson, and single top quark production
where the reconstructed $\tauh$ candidate comes from a jet. The probabilities
for jets to be misidentified as $\tauh$ candidates, denoted $f$, are estimated
from $\PZ\to\Pgm\Pgm+\text{jets}$ events in data. They are parameterized with
Landau distributions as a function of the of the $\tauh$ candidate, separately
for every reconstructed $\tauh$ decay mode. Events that pass all the selection
criteria, except that the $\tauh$ candidate fails the isolation condition, are
reweighted with a weight $f/(1-f)$ to estimate the contribution of events with
jets in the signal region. The contribution of events with genuine electrons,
muons, or $\tauh$ candidates in the control region is estimated from
simulation and subtracted from data.

In the $\Pe\Pgm$ final state, the small $\PW+\text{jets}$ background is
estimated from simulation [64]. Such events typically have a genuine lepton
coming from the $\PW$ boson decay and a jet misidentified as the other lepton.
The QCD multijet background, which also contains jets misidentified as
leptons, is estimated from data. Its normalization corresponds to the
difference between the data and the sum of all the other backgrounds in a so-
called same-sign region where the $\Pgt$ candidates have the same sign. A
smooth distribution is obtained by additionally relaxing the isolation
conditions of both leptons. A correction that is extracted from data is
applied to extrapolate the normalization obtained in the same-sign region to
the signal region.

Other processes, including diboson, $\ttbar$, and single top quark production
without jet misidentified as a $\tauh$ candidate, as well as SM Higgs boson
processes in various production and decay modes, are estimated from
simulation. The $\ttbar$ production is a major background, especially in the
$\Pe\Pgm$ final state. The $\ttbar$ simulation models the variables used in
this analysis well, as it has been verified in a control region in the
$\Pe\Pgm$ final state where no selection criterion is applied on
$m_{\mathrm{T}}(\Pe,\ptvecmiss)$ or $m_{\mathrm{T}}(\Pgm,\ptvecmiss)$, and
where the $D_{\zeta}$ selection criterion is inverted.

In the $\Pe\tauh$ and $\Pgm\tauh$ final states, where all backgrounds with a
jet misidentified as a $\tauh$ candidate are estimated from data, simulated
events with a reconstructed $\tauh$ that is not matched to an electron, a
muon, or a $\tauh$ at the generator level are discarded to avoid double
counting. Approximately 30% of simulated $\ttbar$ events after the selection
have a reconstructed $\tauh$ that is not matched to an electron, a muon, or a
$\tauh$ at the generator level.

##  0.6 Fit method and systematic uncertainties

The search for an excess of signal events over the expected background
involves a global binned maximum likelihood fit based on the
$m_{\Pgt\Pgt}^{\text{vis}}$ distributions in the different channels and
categories. The statistical uncertainty largely dominates over systematic
uncertainties in this search. The systematic uncertainties are represented by
nuisance parameters that are varied in the fit according to their probability
density functions. A log-normal probability density function is assumed for
the nuisance parameters that affect the event yields of the various background
and signal contributions, whereas systematic uncertainties that affect the
distributions are represented by nuisance parameters whose variation results
in a continuous perturbation of the spectrum [65] and which are assumed to
have a Gaussian probability density function.

To take into account the limited size of simulated samples and of data in the
control regions used to estimate some of the background processes, statistical
uncertainties in individual bins of the $m_{\Pgt\Pgt}^{\text{vis}}$
distributions are considered as Poissonian nuisance parameters. The
uncertainty can be as large as 40% for some bins in the
low-$m_{\cPqb\Pgt\Pgt}^{\text{vis}}$ categories. The combined effect of all
these uncertainties is the dominant systematic uncertainty in this search.

The uncertainties in the jet energy scale [58] affect the overall yields of
processes estimated from simulation, as well as their relative contribution to
the different categories because the categorization is based on the value of
$m_{\cPqb\Pgt\Pgt}^{\text{vis}}$ for each event. They are functions of the jet
and $\eta$. The $\ptvecmiss$ is recomputed for each variation of the jet
energy scale. The uncertainty in $\ptvecmiss$ related to the measurement of
the energy that is not clustered in jets [66] is evaluated event-by-event, and
is also considered as a shape uncertainty.

Corrections for the efficiency of the identification of electrons, muons, and
$\tauh$ candidates are derived from data using tag-and-probe methods [67], and
are applied to simulated events as a function of the lepton and $\eta$.
Uncertainties related to these corrections amount to 2% for electrons, 2% for
muons, and 5% for $\tauh$ candidates. Additionally, events with an electron or
muon misidentified as a $\tauh$ candidate have a yield uncertainty of 5%.
Trigger scale factors are also estimated with tag-and-probe methods and their
corresponding uncertainties in the yields of simulated processes are 1%.

The energy scale of $\tauh$ candidates is corrected for each reconstructed
decay mode, and the uncertainty of 1.2% for each single decay mode is
considered as a shape uncertainty. Uncertainties in the energy scales of
electrons and muons are also included as shape uncertainties.

Corrections to the efficiency for identifying a quark jet as a jet, as well as
for mistagging a jet originating from a different flavor, are applied to
simulated events on the basis of the generated flavor of the jets. The
uncertainties in the scale factors depend on the of the jet and are therefore
considered as shape uncertainties. They amount to 1.5% for a jet originating
from a quark, 5% from a quark, and 10% from a light-flavor parton [59].

The uncertainty in the yield of the backgrounds with jets misidentified as
$\tauh$ candidates accounts for possibly different misidentification rates in
$\PZ+\text{jets}$ events (where the misidentification rates are measured), and
in $\PW+\text{jets}$ and QCD multijet events (which dominate the constitution
of the reducible background in the signal region), and for differences between
data and predicted backgrounds observed in a region enriched in reducible
background events by inverting the charge requirement on the $\Pgt$ candidates
and removing the $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ and $D_{\zeta}$ selection criteria. This
uncertainty amounts to 20%, and is constrained to about 7% after the maximum
likelihood fit because of the large number of events contributing to the last
$m_{\cPqb\Pgt\Pgt}^{\text{vis}}$ category. Uncertainties in the
parameterization of the misidentification probability of jets as a function of
result in shape uncertainties for the backgrounds with jets misidentified as
$\tauh$ candidates.

The uncertainty in the yield of the QCD multijet background in the $\Pe\Pgm$
final state is 20%; the value comes from the uncertainty in the extrapolation
factor from the same-sign region to the opposite-sign region. The uncertainty
in the $\PW+\text{jets}$ background in this channel also amounts to 20%, and
accounts for a potential mismodeling in simulation of the misidentification
rate of jets as electrons or muons.

The theoretical yield uncertainty of the $\ttbar$ background is related to the
PDF uncertainty and to the uncertainty associated to the strong coupling
constant in the full NNLO plus NNLL order calculation of the cross section; it
amounts to about 4%. The yield uncertainties for other backgrounds estimated
from simulation are taken from recent CMS measurements: 6% for diboson
processes [68], 13% for single top quark processes [69], and 7% for
$\PZ+\text{jets}$ events with at least one -tagged jet in the final state
[70]. The uncertainty in the correction of the dilepton distribution for
Drell–Yan events is equal to 10% of the size of the correction itself. The
uncertainty in the correction of the $m_{\cPqb\Pgt\Pgt}^{\text{vis}}$
distribution is equal to the correction itself, and considered as a shape
uncertainty. Uncertainties in the production cross sections and branching
fractions for SM Higgs boson processes are taken from Ref. [71]. The
uncertainty in the integrated luminosity amounts to 2.5% [72].

##  0.7 Results

The $m_{\Pgt\Pgt}^{\text{vis}}$ distributions in the different channels and
categories are shown in Figs. 4–6. The binning corresponds to the bins used in
the likelihood fit.

Figure 4: Distributions of $m_{\Pgt\Pgt}^{\text{vis}}$ in the four categories
of the $\Pe\Pgm$ channel. The “Other” contribution includes events from single
top quark, diboson, SM Higgs boson, and $\PW+\text{jets}$ productions. The
signal histogram corresponds to the SM production cross section for
$\cPg\cPg\Ph$, VBF, and V$\Ph$ processes, and assumes
$\mathcal{B}({\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 2\Pgt 2{\cPqb})=10\%$. The normalizations of
the predicted background distributions correspond to the result of the global
fit.

Figure 5: Distributions of $m_{\Pgt\Pgt}^{\text{vis}}$ in the four categories
of the $\Pe\tauh$ channel. The “$\text{jet}\to\tauh$” contribution includes
all events with a jet misidentified as a $\tauh$ candidate, whereas the rest
of background contributions only include events where the reconstructed
$\tauh$ corresponds to a $\tauh$, a muon, or an electron, at the generator
level. The “Other” contribution includes events from single top quark,
diboson, and SM Higgs boson processes. The signal histogram corresponds to the
SM production cross section for $\cPg\cPg\Ph$, VBF, and V$\Ph$ processes, and
assumes $\mathcal{B}({\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 2\Pgt 2{\cPqb})=10\%$. The
normalizations of the predicted background distributions correspond to the
result of the global fit.

Figure 6: Distributions of $m_{\Pgt\Pgt}^{\text{vis}}$ in the four categories
of the $\Pgm\tauh$ channel. The “$\text{jet}\to\tauh$” contribution includes
all events with a jet misidentified as a $\tauh$ candidate, whereas the rest
of background contributions only include events where the reconstructed
$\tauh$ corresponds to a $\tauh$, a muon, or an electron, at the generator
level. The “Other” contribution includes events from single top quark,
diboson, and SM Higgs boson processes. The signal histogram corresponds to the
SM production cross section for $\cPg\cPg\Ph$, VBF, and V$\Ph$ processes, and
assumes $\mathcal{B}({\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 2\Pgt 2{\cPqb})=10\%$. The
normalizations of the predicted background distributions correspond to the
result of the global fit.

No excess is observed relatively to the SM background prediction. Upper limits
at 95% are set on
$(\sigma(\Ph)/\sigma_{\mathrm{SM}})\mathcal{B}({\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 2\Pgt
2{\cPqb})$ using the modified frequentist construction in the asymptotic
approximation [73, 74, 75, 76, 77], for pseudoscalar masses between 15 and 60.
In this expression, $\sigma_{\mathrm{SM}}$ denotes the SM production cross
section of the Higgs boson, whereas $\sigma(\Ph)$ is the $\Ph$ production
cross section. The limits per channel and for the combination of the three
channels are shown in Fig. 7. The most sensitive final state is $\Pgm\tauh$.
The sensitivity of the $\Pe\tauh$ and $\Pe\Pgm$ channels is approximately
equivalent; the first channel suffers from higher trigger thresholds and lower
object identification efficiency than $\Pgm\tauh$, and the second one suffers
from a lower branching fraction than $\Pgm\tauh$. At low $m_{\Pa}$, the
$\Pe\Pgm$ final state has a higher signal acceptance than the other final
states, especially $\Pe\tauh$. The limits are more stringent in the
intermediate mass range. The low-$m_{\Pa}$ signals have a lower acceptance
because of the overlap of the leptons related to the boost of the pseudoscalar
bosons, and of the typically softer lepton and jet spectra. The high $m_{\Pa}$
signals lie in a region where more backgrounds contribute, leading also to
lower sensitivity than in the intermediate mass region. The categories are
complementary over the probed mass range, with the
low-$m_{\cPqb\Pgt\Pgt}^{\text{vis}}$ signal regions more sensitive for heavy
resonances, and the high-$m_{\cPqb\Pgt\Pgt}^{\text{vis}}$ signal regions for
light resonances.

Figure 7: Expected and observed 95% limits on
$(\sigma(\Ph)/\sigma_{\mathrm{SM}})\mathcal{B}({\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 2\Pgt
2{\cPqb})$ in %. The $\Pe\Pgm$ results are shown in the top left panel,
$\Pe\tauh$ in the top right, $\Pgm\tauh$ in the bottom left, and the
combination in the bottom right. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow)
band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the
distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis.

The combined limit at intermediate mass is as low as 3% on
$\mathcal{B}({\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to 2\Pgt 2{\cPqb})$, assuming the SM production
cross section and mechanisms for the Higgs boson, and is up to 12% for the
lowest mass point $m_{\Pa}=15\GeV$. Computing the branching fractions of the
light pseudoscalar to SM particles [15, 78], this translates to limits on
$(\sigma(\Ph)/\sigma_{\mathrm{SM}})\mathcal{B}(\Ph\to\Pa\Pa)$ of about 20% in
2HDM+S type II—including the NMSSM—with $\tan\beta>1$ for $m_{\Pa}=40\GeV$.
This improves by more than one order of magnitude previous limits on
$\mathcal{B}(\Ph\to\Pa\Pa)$ obtained in the $2\Pgm 2\Pgt$ final state by CMS
for $15<m_{\Pa}<25\GeV$ [20, 23], and by up to a factor five those obtained in
the $2\Pgm 2\cPqb$ final state by CMS for $25<m_{\Pa}<60\GeV$ [20]. In the
scenario with the highest branching fraction, 2HDM+S type III with
$\tan\beta=2$, the expected limit is as low as 6% at intermediate $m_{\Pa}$.
Figure 8 shows the observed limits at 95% on
$(\sigma(\Ph)/\sigma_{\mathrm{SM}})\mathcal{B}(\Ph\to\Pa\Pa)$ as a function of
$m_{\Pa}$ and $\tan\beta$ for type III and type IV 2HDM+S, for which there is
a strong dependence with $\tan\beta$. Figure 9 shows the observed limits at
95% on $(\sigma(\Ph)/\sigma_{\mathrm{SM}})\mathcal{B}(\Ph\to\Pa\Pa)$ for a few
scenarios of 2HDM+S, assuming the branching fractions of the light
pseudoscalar to SM particles computed using Refs. [15, 78]. The limit shown
for type II 2HDM+S is approximately valid for any value of $\tan\beta>1$, and
that for type I 2HDM+S does not depend on $\tan\beta$. In the $m_{\Pa}$ range
considered in the analysis, the branching fraction
$\mathcal{B}(\Pa\Pa\to\cPqb\cPqb\Pgt\Pgt)$ ranges between 0.10 and 0.11 in
type I 2HDM+S, between 0.11 and 0.13 for $\tan\beta=2$ in type II 2HDM+S,
between 0.44 and 0.46 for $\tan\beta=2$ in type III 2HDM+S, and between 0.16
and 0.21 for $\tan\beta=0.5$ in type IV 2HDM+S.

Figure 8: Observed 95% limits on
$(\sigma(\Ph)/\sigma_{\mathrm{SM}})\mathcal{B}(\Ph\to\Pa\Pa)$ in 2HDM+S of
type III (left), and type IV (right). The contours corresponding to a 95%
exclusion of
$(\sigma(\Ph)/\sigma_{\mathrm{SM}})\mathcal{B}(\Ph\to\Pa\Pa)=1.00$ and 0.34
are drawn with dashed lines. The number 34% corresponds to the limit on the
branching fraction of the Higgs boson to beyond-the-SM particles at the 95%
obtained with data collected at center-of-mass energies of 7 and 8by the ATLAS
and CMS experiments [10].  Figure 9: Observed 95% limits on
$(\sigma(\Ph)/\sigma_{\mathrm{SM}})\mathcal{B}(\Ph\to\Pa\Pa)$ for various
2HDM+S types. The limit in type I 2HDM+S does not depend on $\tan\beta$.

##  0.8 Summary

The first search for exotic decays of the Higgs boson to pairs of light bosons
with two quark jets and two $\Pgt$ leptons in the final state has been
performed with 35.9of data collected at 13center-of-mass energy in 2016. This
decay channel has a large branching fraction in many models where the
couplings to fermions are proportional to the fermion mass, and can be
triggered with high efficiency in the dominant gluon fusion production mode
because of the presence of light leptons from leptonic $\Pgt$ decays. No
excess of events is found on top of the expected standard model background for
masses of the light boson, $m_{\Pa}$, between 15 and 60. Upper limits between
3 and 12% are set on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}({\Ph}\to{\Pa\Pa}\to
2\Pgt 2{\cPqb})$ assuming the SM production of the Higgs boson. This
translates to upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(\Ph\to\Pa\Pa)$ as low as 20% for
$m_{\Pa}=40\GeV$ in the NMSSM. These results improve by more than one order of
magnitude the sensitivity to exotic Higgs boson decays to pairs of light
pseudoscalars in the NMSSM from previous CMS results in other final states for
$15<m_{\Pa}<25\GeV$, and by a factor up to five for $25<m_{\Pa}<60\GeV$ [20,
23].

###### 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: BMWFW and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq,
CAPES, FAPERJ, 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); LAS
(Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT, LNS, SEP, and
UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC
(Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom, RAS and RFBR (Russia);
MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI and FEDER (Spain); Swiss Funding Agencies
(Switzerland); MST (Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR, and NSTDA (Thailand);
TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); NASU and SFFR (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE
and NSF (USA). Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie program
and the European Research Council and Horizon 2020 Grant, contract No. 675440
(European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A. P. Sloan Foundation; the
Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office;
the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans
l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en
Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the F.R.S.-FNRS and FWO (Belgium) under the
“Excellence of Science - EOS” - be.h project n. 30820817; the Ministry of
Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Lendület
(“Momentum”) Programme and the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the
Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the New National Excellence Program ÚNKP, the
NKFIA research grants 123842, 123959, 124845, 124850 and 125105 (Hungary); the
Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; the HOMING PLUS program of
the Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from European Union, Regional
Development Fund, the Mobility Plus program of the Ministry of Science and
Higher Education, the National Science Center (Poland), contracts Harmonia
2014/14/M/ST2/00428, Opus 2014/13/B/ST2/02543, 2014/15/B/ST2/03998, and
2015/19/B/ST2/02861, Sonata-bis 2012/07/E/ST2/01406; the National Priorities
Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund; the Programa Estatal de
Fomento de la Investigación Científica y Técnica de Excelencia María de
Maeztu, grant MDM-2015-0509 and the Programa Severo Ochoa del Principado de
Asturias; the Thalis and Aristeia programs cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek
NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn
University and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century Project
Advancement Project (Thailand); the Welch Foundation, contract C-1845; and the
Weston Havens Foundation (USA).

## References

  * [1] F. Englert and R. Brout, “Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 321, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.321.
  * [2] P. W. Higgs, “Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields”,  Phys. Lett. 12 (1964) 132, 10.1016/0031-9163(64)91136-9.
  * [3] P. W. Higgs, “Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 508, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.508.
  * [4] G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble, “Global conservation laws and massless particles”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 585, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.585.
  * [5] P. W. Higgs, “Spontaneous symmetry breakdown without massless bosons”,  Phys. Rev. 145 (1966) 1156, 10.1103/PhysRev.145.1156.
  * [6] T. W. B. Kibble, “Symmetry breaking in non-Abelian gauge theories”,  Phys. Rev. 155 (1967) 1554, 10.1103/PhysRev.155.1554.
  * [7] ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a new particle in the search for the standard model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020, arXiv:1207.7214.
  * [8] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021, arXiv:1207.7235.
  * [9] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8 TeV”,  JHEP 06 (2013) 081, 10.1007/JHEP06(2013)081, arXiv:1303.4571.
  * [10] ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, “Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined ATLAS and CMS analysis of the LHC pp collision data at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8 TeV”,  JHEP 08 (2016) 045, 10.1007/JHEP08(2016)045, arXiv:1606.02266.
  * [11] B. A. Dobrescu, G. L. Landsberg, and K. T. Matchev, “Higgs boson decays to CP odd scalars at the Tevatron and beyond”,  Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 075003, 10.1103/PhysRevD.63.075003, arXiv:hep-ph/0005308.
  * [12] R. Dermisek and J. F. Gunion, “Escaping the large fine tuning and little hierarchy problems in the next to minimal supersymmetric model and $\textrm{h}\rightarrow\textrm{aa}$ decays”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (2005) 041801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.041801, arXiv:hep-ph/0502105.
  * [13] R. Dermisek and J. F. Gunion, “The NMSSM close to the R-symmetry limit and naturalness in $\textrm{h}\rightarrow\textrm{aa}$ decays for $m_{a}<2m_{b}$”,  Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 075019, 10.1103/PhysRevD.75.075019, arXiv:hep-ph/0611142.
  * [14] S. Chang, R. Dermisek, J. F. Gunion, and N. Weiner, “Nonstandard Higgs boson decays”,  Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 58 (2008) 75, 10.1146/annurev.nucl.58.110707.171200, arXiv:0801.4554.
  * [15] D. Curtin et al., “Exotic decays of the 125 GeV Higgs boson”,  Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 075004, 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.075004, arXiv:1312.4992.
  * [16] J. A. Evans, S. Gori, and J. Shelton, “Looking for the WIMP next door”,  JHEP 02 (2018) 100, 10.1007/JHEP02(2018)100, arXiv:1712.03974.
  * [17] C. Englert, T. Plehn, D. Zerwas, and P. M. Zerwas, “Exploring the Higgs portal”,  Phys. Lett. B 703 (2011) 298, 10.1016/j.physletb.2011.08.002, arXiv:1106.3097.
  * [18] G. C. Branco et al., “Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models”,  Phys. Rep. 516 (2012) 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2012.02.002, arXiv:1106.0034.
  * [19] S. Ramos-Sanchez, “The mu-problem, the NMSSM and string theory”,  Fortsch. Phys. 58 (2010) 748, 10.1002/prop.201000058, arXiv:1003.1307.
  * [20] CMS Collaboration, “Search for light bosons in decays of the 125 GeV Higgs boson in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV”,  JHEP 10 (2017) 076, 10.1007/JHEP10(2017)076, arXiv:1701.02032.
  * [21] CMS Collaboration, “Search for a very light NMSSM Higgs boson produced in decays of the 125 GeV scalar boson and decaying into $\tau$ leptons in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV”,  JHEP 01 (2016) 079, 10.1007/JHEP01(2016)079, arXiv:1510.06534.
  * [22] CMS Collaboration, “A search for pair production of new light bosons decaying into muons”,  Phys. Lett. B 752 (2016) 146, 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.10.067, arXiv:1506.00424.
  * [23] CMS Collaboration, “Search for an exotic decay of the Higgs boson to a pair of light pseudoscalars in the final state of two muons and two $\tau$ leptons in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”, (2018). arXiv:1805.04865. Submitted to JHEP.
  * [24] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for new light gauge bosons in Higgs boson decays to four-lepton final states in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”,  Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 092001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.092001, arXiv:1505.07645.
  * [25] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for new phenomena in events with at least three photons collected in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 210, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4034-8, arXiv:1509.05051.
  * [26] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for Higgs bosons decaying to aa in the $\mu\mu\tau\tau$ final state in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV with the ATLAS experiment”,  Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 052002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.052002, arXiv:1505.01609.
  * [27] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for the Higgs boson produced in association with a W boson and decaying to four b-quarks via two spin-zero particles in pp collisions at 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 605, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4418-9, arXiv:1606.08391.
  * [28] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for Higgs boson decays to beyond-the-standard-model light bosons in four-lepton events with the ATLAS detector at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”, (2018). arXiv:1802.03388. Submitted to JHEP.
  * [29] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [30] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [31] 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.
  * [32] J. Alwall et al., “Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 53 (2008) 473, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0490-5, arXiv:0706.2569.
  * [33] R. Frederix and S. Frixione, “Merging meets matching in MC@NLO”,  JHEP 12 (2012) 061, 10.1007/JHEP12(2012)061, arXiv:1209.6215.
  * [34] P. Nason, “A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms”,  JHEP 11 (2004) 040, 10.1088/1126-6708/2004/11/040, arXiv:hep-ph/0409146.
  * [35] S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari, “Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method”,  JHEP 11 (2007) 070, 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070, arXiv:0709.2092.
  * [36] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX”,  JHEP 06 (2010) 043, 10.1007/JHEP06(2010)043, arXiv:1002.2581.
  * [37] S. Alioli et al., “Jet pair production in POWHEG”,  JHEP 04 (2011) 081, 10.1007/JHEP04(2011)081, arXiv:1012.3380.
  * [38] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “NLO Higgs boson production via gluon fusion matched with shower in POWHEG”,  JHEP 04 (2009) 002, 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/04/002, arXiv:0812.0578.
  * [39] S. Frixione, P. Nason, and G. Ridolfi, “A positive-weight next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction”,  JHEP 09 (2007) 126, 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/09/126, arXiv:0707.3088.
  * [40] E. Bagnaschi, G. Degrassi, P. Slavich, and A. Vicini, “Higgs production via gluon fusion in the POWHEG approach in the SM and in the MSSM”,  JHEP 02 (2012) 088, 10.1007/JHEP02(2012)088, arXiv:1111.2854.
  * [41] G. Luisoni, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and F. Tramontano, “HW±/HZ+0 and 1 jet at NLO with the POWHEG BOX interfaced to GoSam and their merging within MiNLO”,  JHEP 10 (2013) 083, 10.1007/JHEP10(2013)083, arXiv:1306.2542.
  * [42] T. Sjöstrand et al., “An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159, 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024, arXiv:1410.3012.
  * [43] 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.
  * [44] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC Run II”,  JHEP 04 (2015) 040, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040, arXiv:1410.8849.
  * [45] M. Beneke, P. Falgari, S. Klein, and C. Schwinn, “Hadronic top-quark pair production with NNLL threshold resummation”,  Nucl. Phys. B 855 (2012) 695, 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2011.10.021, arXiv:1109.1536.
  * [46] M. Cacciari et al., “Top-pair production at hadron colliders with next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic soft-gluon resummation”,  Phys. Lett. B 710 (2012) 612, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.03.013, arXiv:1111.5869.
  * [47] P. Baernreuther, M. Czakon, and A. Mitov, “Percent level precision physics at the tevatron: First genuine NNLO QCD corrections to $\cPq\cPaq\to\ttbar+X$”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 132001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.132001, arXiv:1204.5201.
  * [48] M. Czakon and A. Mitov, “NNLO corrections to top pair production at hadron colliders: the quark-gluon reaction”,  JHEP 01 (2013) 080, 10.1007/JHEP01(2013)080, arXiv:1210.6832.
  * [49] M. Czakon and A. Mitov, “NNLO corrections to top-pair production at hadron colliders: the all-fermionic scattering channels”,  JHEP 12 (2012) 054, 10.1007/JHEP12(2012)054, arXiv:1207.0236.
  * [50] M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, and A. Mitov, “Total top-quark pair-production cross section at hadron colliders through O($\alpha_{s}^{4}$)”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 252004, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.252004, arXiv:1303.6254.
  * [51] M. Czakon and A. Mitov, “Top++: A program for the calculation of the top-pair cross-section at hadron colliders”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 185 (2014) 2930, 10.1016/j.cpc.2014.06.021, arXiv:1112.5675.
  * [52] GEANT4 Collaboration, “—a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [53] 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.
  * [54] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV”,  JINST 10 (2015) P06005, 10.1088/1748-0221/10/06/P06005, arXiv:1502.02701.
  * [55] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in pp collision events at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”,  JINST 7 (2012) P10002, 10.1088/1748-0221/7/10/P10002, arXiv:1206.4071.
  * [56] 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.
  * [57] M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam, “Dispelling the $N^{3}$ myth for the jet-finder”,  Phys. Lett. B 641 (2006) 57, 10.1016/j.physletb.2006.08.037, arXiv:hep-ph/0512210.
  * [58] CMS Collaboration, “Determination of jet energy calibration and transverse momentum resolution in CMS”,  JINST 6 (2011) 11002, 10.1088/1748-0221/6/11/P11002, arXiv:1107.4277.
  * [59] CMS Collaboration, “Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV”,  JINST (2017) 10.1088/1748-0221/13/05/P05011, arXiv:1712.07158.
  * [60] CMS Collaboration, “Reconstruction and identification of $\tau$ lepton decays to hadrons and $\nu_{\tau}$ at CMS”,  JINST 11 (2016) P01019, 10.1088/1748-0221/11/01/P01019, arXiv:1510.07488.
  * [61] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of reconstruction and identification of tau leptons in their decays to hadrons and tau neutrino in LHC Run-2”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-TAU-16-002, 2016.
  * [62] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-jet clustering algorithm”,  JHEP 04 (2008) 063, 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063, arXiv:0802.1189.
  * [63] CMS Collaboration, “Search for neutral MSSM Higgs bosons decaying to a pair of tau leptons in pp collisions”,  JHEP 10 (2014) 160, 10.1007/JHEP10(2014)160, arXiv:1408.3316.
  * [64] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of the Higgs boson decay to a pair of $\tau$ leptons with the CMS detector”,  Phys. Lett. B 779 (2018) 283, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.02.004, arXiv:1708.00373.
  * [65] J. S. Conway, “Incorporating nuisance parameters in likelihoods for multisource spectra”, in  Proceedings of PHYSTAT 2011 Workshop on Statistical Issues Related to Discovery Claims in Search Experiments and Unfolding, p. 115.  CERN-2011-006, 2011.
  * [66] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS missing transverse momentum reconstruction in pp data at $\sqrt{s}$ = 8 TeV”,  JINST 10 (2015) P02006, 10.1088/1748-0221/10/02/P02006, arXiv:1411.0511.
  * [67] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inclusive W and Z production cross sections in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”,  JHEP 10 (2011) 132, 10.1007/JHEP10(2011)132, arXiv:1107.4789.
  * [68] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of the $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\rightarrow\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z}$ production cross section and the $\mathrm{Z}\rightarrow 4\ell$ branching fraction, and constraints on anomalous triple gauge couplings at $\sqrt{s}=13$TeV”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 165, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5567-9, arXiv:1709.08601.
  * [69] CMS Collaboration, “Cross section measurement of t-channel single top quark production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 772 (2017) 752, 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.07.047, arXiv:1610.00678.
  * [70] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of the associated production of a Z boson and b jets in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 751, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5140-y, arXiv:1611.06507.
  * [71] D. de Florian et al., “Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. Deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector”, CERN Report CERN-2017-002-M, 2016.  10.23731/CYRM-2017-002, arXiv:1610.07922.
  * [72] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data taking period”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001, 2017.
  * [73] The ATLAS Collaboration, The CMS Collaboration, The LHC Higgs Combination Group, “Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011”, Technical Report CMS-NOTE-2011-005. ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-11, 2011.
  * [74] CMS Collaboration, “Combined results of searches for the standard model Higgs boson in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 710 (2012) 26, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.02.064, arXiv:1202.1488.
  * [75] T. Junk, “Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 434 (1999) 435, 10.1016/S0168-9002(99)00498-2, arXiv:hep-ex/9902006.
  * [76] A. L. Read, “Presentation of search results: the $CL_{s}$ technique”, in  Durham IPPP Workshop: Advanced Statistical Techniques in Particle Physics, p. 2693.  Durham, UK, March, 2002.  [J. Phys. G 28 (2002) 2693]. 10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/313.
  * [77] G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, “Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1554, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0, arXiv:1007.1727. [Erratum: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2501-z].
  * [78] A. Djouadi, “The anatomy of electro-weak symmetry breaking. I: the Higgs boson in the standard model”,  Phys. Rep. 457 (2008) 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.10.004, arXiv:hep-ph/0503172.

##  .9 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, E. Brondolin, 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, M. Van De
Klundert, 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, L. Brito, 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, D. Romero Abadb
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. Shaheen, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, C. Wang,
Z. Wang, E. Yazgan, H. 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. Starodumov6, 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, D. Tsiakkouri Charles University,
Prague, Czech Republic
M. Finger7, M. Finger Jr.7 Escuela Politecnica Nacional, Quito, Ecuador
E. Ayala Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
E. Carrera Jarrin Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab
Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt
H. Abdalla8, A.A. Abdelalim9,10, 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, S. Lisniak, A. Lobanov, J. Martin
Blanco, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, G. Ortona, P. Pigard, R. Salerno, J.B. Sauvan,
Y. Sirois, A.G. Stahl Leiton, A. Zabi, A. Zghiche Université de Strasbourg,
CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, F-67000 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, M. Vander
Donckt, S. Viret, S. Zhang Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
A. Khvedelidze7 Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
Z. Tsamalaidze7 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, T. Esch, R. Fischer, S. Ghosh,
A. Güth, T. Hebbeker, C. Heidemann, K. Hoepfner, H. Keller, S. Knutzen, L.
Mastrolorenzo, M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, P. Millet, S. Mukherjee, T. Pook, M.
Radziej, H. Reithler, M. Rieger, F. Scheuch, A. Schmidt, D. Teyssier RWTH
Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany
G. Flügge, O. Hlushchenko, B. Kargoll, T. Kress, A. Künsken, T. Müller, A.
Nehrkorn, A. Nowack, C. Pistone, O. Pooth, H. Sert, A. Stahl14 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. Borras15, 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. Gallo16, 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. Lohmann17, 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, N. Stefaniuk, 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 Technology
M. Akbiyik, C. Barth, M. Baselga, S. Baur, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, F.
Colombo, W. De Boer, A. Dierlamm, N. Faltermann, B. Freund, M. Giffels, M.A.
Harrendorf, F. Hartmann14, S.M. Heindl, U. Husemann, F. Kassel14, 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, 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. Bartók18, 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. Horvath19, 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. Karancsi20, 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. Bahinipati21, C. Kar, P. Mal, K. Mandal, A. Nayak22, D.K. Sahoo21, S.K.
Swain Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, S. Chauhan, R. Chawla, N. Dhingra, R.
Gupta, A. Kaur, A. Kaur, M. Kaur, S. Kaur, R. Kumar, P. Kumari, M. Lohan, A.
Mehta, K. Sandeep, S. Sharma, J.B. Singh, 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. Bhardwaj23, M. Bharti, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, U. Bhawandeep23,
D. Bhowmik, S. Dey, S. Dutt23, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh, K. Mondal, S. Nandan, A.
Purohit, P.K. Rout, A. Roy, S. Roy Chowdhury, S. Sarkar, M. Sharan, B. Singh,
S. Thakur23 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. Maity24, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, N. Sahoo, T.
Sarkar24 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. Chenarani25, E. Eskandari Tadavani, S.M. Etesami25, M. Khakzad, M.
Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri, F. Rezaei Hosseinabadi, B. Safarzadeh26, 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, 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,14, 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,14, 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,27, 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,14, S. Di
Guidaa,d,14, 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
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,14, P.
Paoluccia,14, 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. Lacapraraa,
P. Lujan, M. Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,b, F. Montecassianoa, N. Pozzobona,b,
P. Ronchesea,b, R. Rossina,b, F. Simonettoa,b, A. Tiko, M. Zanettia,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
L. Alunni Solestizia,b, 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. Cometti, 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. Soldi,
A. Staianoa INFN Sezione di Trieste a, Università di Trieste b, Trieste, Italy
S. Belfortea, V. Candelisea,b, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, G. Della Riccaa,b,
F. Vazzolera,b, A. Zanettia Kyungpook National University
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. Goh, 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 Ali28, F. Mohamad Idris29, W.A.T. Wan
Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli Universidad de Sonora (UNISON), Hermosillo,
Mexico
A. Castaneda Hernandez, J.A. Murillo Quijada Centro de Investigacion y de
Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
M.C. Duran-Osuna, H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, G. Ramirez-
Sanchez, I. Heredia-De La Cruz30, R.I. Rabadan-Trejo, R. Lopez-Fernandez, J.
Mejia Guisao, 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. Byszuk31, 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
P. Bargassa, C. Beirão Da Cruz E Silva, A. Di Francesco, P. Faccioli, B.
Galinhas, M. Gallinaro, J. Hollar, N. Leonardo, L. Lloret Iglesias, M.V.
Nemallapudi, J. Seixas, G. Strong, O. Toldaiev, D. Vadruccio, J. Varela Joint
Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
V. Alexakhin, A. Golunov, I. Golutvin, N. Gorbounov, I. Gorbunov, A. Kamenev,
V. Karjavin, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev32,33, P. Moisenz, V. Palichik,
V. Perelygin, M. Savina, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, N. Skatchkov, V. Smirnov, A.
Zarubin Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg),
Russia
V. Golovtsov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim34, E. Kuznetsova35, 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. Chistov36, M. Danilov36, P. Parygin, D. Philippov, S. Polikarpov36, E.
Tarkovskii P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin33, I. Dremin33, M. Kirakosyan33, S.V. Rusakov, A.
Terkulov Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
A. Baskakov, A. Belyaev, E. Boos, V. Bunichev, M. Dubinin37, L. Dudko, A.
Ershov, A. Gribushin, V. Klyukhin, O. Kodolova, I. Lokhtin, I. Miagkov, S.
Obraztsov, S. Petrushanko, V. Savrin Novosibirsk State University (NSU),
Novosibirsk, Russia
V. Blinov38, T. Dimova38, L. Kardapoltsev38, D. Shtol38, Y. Skovpen38 State
Research Center of Russian Federation, Institute for High Energy Physics of
NRC ’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 University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca
Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic39, 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 CERN, European
Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland
D. Abbaneo, B. Akgun, E. Auffray, P. Baillon, A.H. Ball, D. Barney, J.
Bendavid, M. Bianco, A. Bocci, C. Botta, 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, T. du Pree, M. Dünser,
N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, P. Everaerts, F. Fallavollita40, D. Fasanella,
G. Franzoni, J. Fulcher, W. Funk, D. Gigi, A. Gilbert, K. Gill, F. Glege, M.
Guilbaud, D. Gulhan, J. Hegeman, V. Innocente, A. Jafari, P. Janot, O.
Karacheban17, 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. Milenovic41, F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, J. Ngadiuba, S. Orfanelli, L.
Orsini, F. Pantaleo14, L. Pape, E. Perez, M. Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G.
Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, F.M. Pitters, D. Rabady, A. Racz, T.
Reis, G. Rolandi42, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Seidel,
M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva, P. Sphicas43, A. Stakia, J. Steggemann, M.
Tosi, D. Treille, A. Tsirou, V. Veckalns44, W.D. Zeuner Paul Scherrer
Institut, Villigen, Switzerland
L. Caminada45, 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, C. Heidegger, 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. Amsler46, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, R. Del
Burgo, S. Donato, C. Galloni, T. Hreus, B. Kilminster, 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, R.-S.
Lu, E. Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen, J.f. Tsai Chulalongkorn University,
Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok, Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, N. Srimanobhas, N. Suwonjandee Çukurova University, Physics
Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
A. Bat, F. Boran, S. Cerci47, S. Damarseckin, Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, C.
Dozen, I. Dumanoglu, S. Girgis, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, E. Gurpinar, I. Hos48,
C. Isik, E.E. Kangal49, O. Kara, A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, M. Oglakci, G.
Onengut, K. Ozdemir50, S. Ozturk51, D. Sunar Cerci47, B. Tali47, U.G. Tok, S.
Turkcapar, I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East Technical University,
Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak52, G. Karapinar53, M. Yalvac, M. Zeyrek Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya54, O. Kaya55, S. Tekten, E.A. Yetkin56
Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
M.N. Agaras, S. Atay, A. Cakir, K. Cankocak, Y. Komurcu, S. Sen57 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. Newbold58,
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. Belyaev59, 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
G. Auzinger, 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. Nash60, A. Nikitenko6, 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. Virdee14, 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.
Hogan61, K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, J. Lee, Z. Mao, M. Narain, J.
Pazzini, S. Piperov, S. Sagir62, 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, C. Mclean, 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. Wasserbaech63, 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, S. Leontsinis, E.
MacDonald, T. Mulholland, 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-Navarro64, 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, 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. Bilki65, W. Clarida, K. Dilsiz66, S. Durgut, R.P.
Gandrajula, M. Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko, J.-P. Merlo, A. Mestvirishvili, A.
Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul67, Y. Onel, F. Ozok68, 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
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, S. Nourbakhsh, 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, 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.
Musienko32, 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, P. Hebda, 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.
Michlin, 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, M. Verzetti 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, K. Rose, S. Spanier, K. Thapa Texas A&M
University, College Station, USA
O. Bouhali69, A. Celik, M. Dalchenko, M. De Mattia, A. Delgado, S. Dildick, R.
Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T. Kamon70, S. Luo, R. Mueller, Y. Pakhotin, R.
Patel, A. Perloff, L. Perniè, D. Rathjens, A. Safonov, A. Tatarinov 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, S. Duric,
B. Gomber, M. Grothe, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, P. Klabbers, A.
Lanaro, A. Levine, 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 Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
7: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
8: Also at Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
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 CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
15: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
16: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
17: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
18: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
19: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
20: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
21: Also at Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India
22: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
23: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India
24: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
25: Also at Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
26: Also at Plasma Physics Research Center, Science and Research Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
27: Also at Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy
28: Also at International Islamic University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
29: Also at Malaysian Nuclear Agency, MOSTI, Kajang, Malaysia
30: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico city, Mexico
31: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems,
Warsaw, Poland
32: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
33: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
34: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
35: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
36: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
37: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
38: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
39: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
40: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
41: Also at University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of
Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
42: Also at Scuola Normale e Sezione dell’INFN, Pisa, Italy
43: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
44: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
45: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
46: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics (SMI), Vienna,
Austria
47: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
48: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey
49: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
50: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
51: Also at Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey
52: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
53: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
54: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
55: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
56: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
57: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
58: Also at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
59: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
60: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia
61: Also at Bethel University, St. Paul, USA
62: Also at Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey
63: Also at Utah Valley University, Orem, USA
64: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
65: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey
66: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
67: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
68: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
69: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
70: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea