SMP-20-009

SMP-20-009

# Study of boson plus jets events using variables sensitive to double-parton
scattering in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at 13

###### Abstract

Double-parton scattering is investigated using events with a boson and jets.
The boson is reconstructed using only the dimuon channel. The measurements are
performed with proton-proton collision data recorded by the CMS experiment at
the LHC at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of
35.9collected in the year 2016. Differential cross sections of $\PZ$\+ $\geq$1
jet and $\PZ$\+ $\geq$2 jets are measured with transverse momentum of the jets
above 20and pseudorapidity $\abs{\eta}<2.4$. Several distributions with
sensitivity to double-parton scattering effects are measured as functions of
the angle and the transverse momentum imbalance between the boson and the
jets. The measured distributions are compared with predictions from several
event generators with different hadronization models and different parameter
settings for multiparton interactions. The measured distributions show a
dependence on the hadronization and multiparton interaction simulation
parameters, and are important input for future improvements of the
simulations.

##  0.1 Introduction

Proton-proton ($\Pp\Pp$) collisions at high energies result in many events
with a boson produced in association with jets at large transverse momentum .
The $\PZ$+jets process is an important background for many standard model (SM)
measurements and searches for physics beyond the SM. Measurements of
differential cross sections for boson production in association with jets can
be used to test models of initial-state radiation, and multiparton
interactions (MPI). Monte Carlo (MC) models are used to simulate collision
processes and play a crucial role in understanding background for the new
physics searches. The description of MPI is an important part of these
simulations. However, MPI can not be completely described by perturbative
quantum chromodynamics (QCD), so this requires a phenomenological description
involving parameters that must be tuned with the help of data.

The ATLAS, CMS, and LHCb experiments have reported various measurements of
$\PZ$+jets processes at centre-of-mass energies of 7 [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6], 8 [7,
8, 9], and 13 [10, 11]. boson production in association with jets is a process
with a clean experimental signature and is well understood theoretically. In
this paper, measurements of $\PZ$+jets events are performed to explore
observables sensitive to the presence of MPI. A possible contribution could
come from the simultaneous occurrence of two parton-parton interactions and is
usually, when the involved scale is large, called double-parton scattering
(DPS). This analysis explores new signatures sensitive to DPS in events with a
boson and one or more jets, and compares the data with MC simulations, using a
variety of event generators simulating $\PZ$+jets processes with different MPI
and hadronization models.

The ATLAS, ALICE, CMS, and LHCb Collaborations have previously reported
measurements of DPS in various topologies, such as [12], $\PW$+jets [13, 14],
4 jets [15], production [16, 17, 18, 19], double charm production [20, 21],
but not in the $\PZ$+jets topology.

Figure 1 shows typical diagrams of single parton scattering (SPS) and DPS
production of $\PZ$+$2$ jet events. In SPS, the boson decaying into two muons
and the two jets come from the same parton-parton interaction, whereas in the
case of DPS, the boson and the two jets originate from two independent
interactions.

Figure 1: Typical diagrams for $\PZ$+$2$ jet production in a single (left) and
double-parton (right) scattering process.

Events are categorized as $\PZ$\+ $\geq$1 jet and $\PZ$\+ $\geq$2 jets
topologies, and the corresponding integrated cross sections are measured in a
fiducial region. For consistency with previous DPS measurements at 7 [13, 14],
jets are required to have a threshold of 20. Decreasing the jet threshold
would increase the DPS contribution, but will also lead to a significant
increase in the experimental uncertainties related to jet identification. With
this threshold of 20, the DPS contribution is measured to be around 5.5% at 7
[14] and, as estimated from simulation, at 13it is expected to increase by
20–30% because of the increased parton density. The differential cross
sections are measured as functions of various observables based on the
azimuthal ($\phi$, in radians) separation and the balance between the boson
and jets, as well as the balance between two jets in case of $\PZ$\+ $\geq$2
jets events [13, 14, 22]. Since the two interactions in DPS are largely
uncorrelated in the phase space studied, the shape of the distribution of
these observables is expected to differ from that seen in SPS. Distributions
of these observables normalized to the integrated cross section are measured
because they have a lower systematic uncertainty due to the cancellation of
the uncertainties correlated among bins. Previously measured distributions
were used to extract parameters for DPS modelling in MC event generators [23,
24].

The measurement is performed using events where the boson decays into two
oppositely charged muons. The $\Pp\Pp$ collision data used in the analysis
were collected in 2016 at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$, corresponding to an integrated
luminosity of 35.9. Tabulated results are provided in the HEPDATA [25].

##  0.2 The CMS detector

The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6m
internal diameter, providing a magnetic field of 3.8T. Within the solenoid
volume are a silicon pixel and strip tracker covering a pseudorapidity region
of $\abs{\eta}<2.5$, 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, made of steel and quartz
fibers, extend the $\eta$ coverage provided by the barrel and endcap detectors
to $\abs{\eta}<5.0$. Muons are measured in the range $\abs{\eta}<2.4$, with
detection planes made using three technologies: drift tubes, cathode strip
chambers, and resistive plate chambers [26].

Events of interest are selected using a two-tiered trigger system. The first
level, composed of custom hardware processors, uses information from the
calorimeters and muon detectors to select events at a rate of about 100kHz
within a latency of less than 4 [27]. The second level, known as the high-
level trigger, consists of a farm of processors running a version of the full
event reconstruction software optimized for fast processing, and reduces the
event rate to around 1kHz before data storage [28].

A more detailed description of the CMS detector, together with a definition of
the coordinate system used and the relevant kinematic variables, is reported
in Ref. [29].

##  0.3 Simulated event samples

MC event generators are used to simulate the signal and background
contributions. These MC samples are employed to optimize the event selection,
to validate simulated event samples, to estimate some background sources, and
to extract the unfolding response matrices used to correct for detector
effects in the measured distributions. In addition, MC generators with
different MPI and hadronization models are used to compare with the measured
distributions and to evaluate systematic uncertainties related to the model
dependence.

The $\PZ$+jets events are simulated with version 2.2.2 [30] (denoted MG5_aMC).
The calculation includes matrix elements (MEs) computed at next-to-leading-
order (NLO) in perturbative QCD for the process $\Pp\Pp\to\PZ+N\ \text{jets}$,
$N=0$, 1, or 2. The sample is generated using the NNPDF 3.0 NLO parton
distribution function (PDF) set [31]. An alternative simulation uses MG5_aMC
to calculate leading-order (LO) MEs for $\Pp\Pp\to\PZ+N\ \text{jets}$,
$N=0,\ldots,4$, and the NNPDF 3.0 LO PDF set.

The $\PZ$+jets process is also simulated with v2.2 [32] with up to two
additional parton emissions at NLO accuracy or up to four additional parton
emissions at LO accuracy. The merging with the parton shower is done via the
MEPS@NLO prescription [33, 34, 35] using the five-flavour-number scheme, with
a matching scale of 20. The NNPDF3.0 next-to-NLO (NNLO) set [31] and a
dedicated set of tuned parton shower parameters [32] developed by the authors
are used.

Top quark-antiquark pair () production, which forms the dominant background,
is generated at NLO by MG5_aMC. The diboson (, , ) background processes are
simulated at LO using 8 v8.212 [36], and 2.0 is used for the simulation of the
single top quark processes ($s$-channel, $t$-channel, and ). The prediction
for production is normalized to NNLO in QCD including resummation of next-to-
next-to-leading logarithmic soft-gluon terms with Top++ 2.0 [37, 38, 39, 40,
41, 42, 43]. Diboson and single top quark background predictions are
normalized to NLO [44] and NNLO [45] cross sections, respectively.

All samples, except those based on , use 8 to model the initial- and final-
state parton showers and hadronization with the CUETP8M1 [24] or CUETP8M2T4
[46] tune. The CUETP8M1 tune includes the NNPDF 2.3 [47] LO PDF set with the
strong coupling $\alpS(m_{\PZ})$ set to 0.1365 for space- and time-like shower
simulation. The CUETP8M2T4 tune is based on the CUETP8M1 tune, which includes
the NNPDF30_lo_as_0130 PDF set, but uses a lower value of $\alpS=0.1108$ for
the initial-state radiation component of the parton shower. Matching between
the ME generators and the parton shower is done using the -MLM scheme [48, 49]
with the matching scale set at 19for the LO MG5_aMC sample, and the FxFx [50]
scheme with the matching scale set to 30for the NLO MG5_aMC events.

Generated events are processed through a full –based [51] CMS detector
simulation and trigger emulation. The simulated samples include the effects of
multiple interactions in each bunch crossing, referred to as pileup. The
simulated events are reconstructed with the same algorithm used for the data.

In addition to the $\PZ$+jets MG5_aMC samples with the CUETP8M1 tune described
above, the measurements are compared with simulations using different 8 tunes,
such as CP5 [23], CP5 without MPI, and CDPSTP8S1-Wj [24]. The CP5 tune uses
NNPDF3.1 PDF set at NNLO, with values of 0.118, and running according to NLO
evolution. The CP5 tune is chosen since it is the standard tune obtained by
fitting a large number of 1.96, 7, and 13measurements sensitive to soft and
semihard multipartonic interactions [23]. The $\PW$+dijet DPS tune,
CDPSTP8S1-Wj is derived from the parameters of 8 tune 4C, with a variation of
the impact parameter dependence, matter overlap function, which is the
convolution of the matter distributions of the two incoming hadrons. The DPS
simulation in MC is usually quantified in terms of a parameter known as
effective cross section $\sigma_{\text{eff}}$. In 8, the value of
$\sigma_{\text{eff}}$ is calculated by dividing the nondiffractive (ND) cross
section by the so-called “enhancement factor”, which depends on the parameters
of the overlap matter distribution function and the limiting value of at a
reference energy [52]. For central collisions, the enhancement factor tends to
be large, translating to a lower value of $\sigma_{\text{eff}}$ and larger DPS
contribution. For peripheral interactions, enhancement factors are small,
giving large values of $\sigma_{\text{eff}}$ and a small DPS contribution.

The $\PZ$+jets events calculated at NLO with MG5_aMC are also interfaced with
7, applying the CH3 tune for the underlying event description, hadronization,
and showering [53, 54, 55, 56]. The tune is derived by fitting measurements
from $\Pp\Pp$ collision data collected by the CMS experiment at
$\sqrt{s}=0.9$, 7, and 13. The CH3 tune makes use of the NNPDF3.1 LO PDF set
with $\alpS=0.130$ for the simulation of MPI, but the NNLO PDF set with
$\alpS=0.118$ for all other components. The cross sections of $\PZ$+jets
events simulated with different MC event generators and configurations are
normalized to NNLO calculations with v3.1 [57]. Table 0.3 summarizes all the
event generators, PDF sets, and tunes used to produce both signals (including
alternative samples), and the background processes.

Summary of event generators with their k-factors (ratio of NNLO to NLO/LO
cross section), PDF sets, and tunes used to produce both the signal and
background event samples.  Process name Event generator (k-factor) Tune PDF
set $\PZ$+jets MG5_aMC (NLO) + 8 (1.07) CUETP8M1 NNPDF 3.0 NLO for matrix
element NNPDF 2.3 LO for tune $\PZ$+jets MG5_aMC (LO) + 8 (1.24) CUETP8M1
NNPDF 3.0 LO for matrix element NNPDF 2.3 LO for tune $\PZ$+jets SHERPA (NLO)
(0.97) NNPDF 3.0 NNLO $\PZ$+jets MG5_aMC (NLO) + 8 (1.07) CP5 NNPDF 3.0 NLO
for matrix element NNPDF 3.1 NNLO for tune $\PZ$+jets MG5_aMC (NLO) + 8 MPI-
OFF (1.07) CP5 NNPDF 3.0 NLO for matrix element NNPDF 3.1 NNLO for tune
$\PZ$+jets MG5_aMC (NLO) + 8 (1.09) CDPSTP8S1-Wj NNPDF 3.0 NLO for matrix
element CTEQ6L1 LO for tune $\PZ$+jets MG5_aMC (NLO) + 7 (1.02) CH3 NNPDF 3.0
NLO for matrix element NNPDF 3.1 LO/NNLO for tune MG5_aMC (NLO) + 8 ()
CUETP8M2T4 NNPDF 3.0 NLO for matrix element NNPDF30_lo_as_0130 for tune
Diboson 8 (LO) () NNPDF 2.3 LO Single top (NLO) + 8 () CUETP8M1 NNPDF 3.0 NLO
for matrix element NNPDF 2.3 LO for tune

##  0.4 Event selection

The particle flow (PF) algorithm [58] is used to reconstruct and identify
individual particle candidates in an event, with an optimized combination of
information from the various elements of the CMS detector. Energy deposits are
measured in the calorimeters and charged particles are identified in the
central tracking and muon systems.

Events are selected with a single-muon trigger requiring at least one isolated
muon candidate with $\pt>24\GeV$. The primary vertex is the vertex candidate
with the largest value of summed physics-object $\pt^{2}$. The physics objects
are the track-only jets, clustered using the jet finding anti-algorithm [59,
60] with the tracks assigned to candidate vertices as inputs, and the
associated missing , which is the negative vector sum of all physics objects.
Events are required to have at least two oppositely charged muons with
$\pt>27\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.4$. These muons are reconstructed by combining
information from the inner tracker and the muon detector subsystems. The muon
candidates are required to satisfy identification criteria based on the number
of hits in each detector, the quality of the muon-track fit, and the
consistency with the primary vertex, which is imposed by requiring the
longitudinal and transverse impact parameters are less than 0.5 and 0.2,
respectively. The efficiency to reconstruct and identify the muons is greater
than 96%. Matching muon candidates to tracks measured in the silicon tracker
results in a relative resolution for muons with $20<\pt<100\GeV$ of 1% in the
barrel and 3% in the endcaps.

To suppress the multijet background, muons are required to be isolated. The
relative isolation variable, $\mathrm{I}_{\text{rel}}$, for muons is defined
as:

$\mathrm{I}_{\text{rel}}=\frac{[\sum\pt^{{\,\text{charged}}}+\max(0.,\sum\ET^{{\,\text{neutral}}}+\sum\ET^{\gamma}-0.5\sum\pt^{\mathrm{PU}})]}{\pt^{\PGm}}.$
(1)

Here $\sum\ET^{\smash[b]{\,\text{neutral}}}$ and $\sum\ET^{\gamma}$ are the
transverse energy sums of neutral hadrons and photons, respectively, within a
cone of radius $\Delta
R=\sqrt{\smash[b]{(\Delta\eta)^{2}+(\Delta\phi)^{2}}}=0.4$ around the muon
track. The quantity $\sum\pt^{\smash[b]{\,\text{charged}}}$ represents the sum
of the charged hadrons in the same cone around the muon associated with the
selected vertex. Finally, $\sum\pt^{\mathrm{PU}}$ is the sum of the charged
hadrons in the same cone around the muon not associated with the selected
vertex. A muon is considered isolated if $\mathrm{I}_{\text{rel}}<0.2$. There
are small residual differences in the trigger, identification and isolation
efficiencies between data and simulation, which are measured using the “tag-
and-probe” method [61], and included by applying scale factors to simulated
events [26].

To select boson candidate events, the invariant mass of the two oppositely
charged muons with highest is required to be close to the boson mass,
$70<m_{\PGmp\PGmm}<110\GeV$. The boson candidate is required to be accompanied
by at least one jet with $\pt>20\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.4$. The overlap
between the muons from the boson decay and the jets is removed by requiring a
minimum $\Delta R$ distance of 0.4 between them.

Jets are clustered from PF candidates using the infrared- and collinear-safe
anti-algorithm [59] with a distance parameter of 0.4, as implemented in the
package [60]. The jet momentum is determined as the vectorial sum of all
particle momenta in the jet, and is found from simulation to be, on average,
within 5 to 10% of the true momentum over the entire spectrum and detector
acceptance. Pileup can contribute additional tracks and calorimetric energy
depositions, increasing the apparent jet momentum. To mitigate the effects of
pileup, tracks identified as originating from pileup vertices are discarded,
and a factor [62] is applied to correct for the remaining contributions. Jet
energy corrections are derived from simulation studies so that the average
measured response of jets becomes identical to that of particle-level jets. In
situ measurements of the momentum balance in dijet, multijet, photon+jet, and
$\PZ$+jets events with the boson decaying leptonically are used to correct
residual differences between the jet energy scales in data and simulation [63,
64]. The jet energy in simulation is spread to match the resolution observed
in data. The jet energy resolution (JER) in data amounts typically to 15–20%
at jet energy of 30, 10% at 100, and 5% at 1. Additional selection criteria
are applied to remove jets potentially dominated by anomalous contributions
from various subdetector components or reconstruction failures [65]. Jets
identified as being likely to originate from pileup [66, 67] are also removed
by using a pileup jet ID discriminator for jets with $20<\pt\leq 50\GeV$. No
pileup jet ID is applied to jets with $\pt\geq 50\GeV$, since here the pileup
event contribution is negligible [67].

The selected events correspond to a sample of $\PZ$+jets events with a
background of 2–5%, which is subtracted from the data before the unfolding.
The dominant contribution is the production of pairs. The simulation of
production is validated with data in a $\ttbar\to\Pe\PGm+\mathrm{X}$ control
region. The control region is constructed using data events by requiring an
oppositely charged electron-muon pair with at least one jet. The energy of
electrons is determined from a combination of the electron momentum at the
primary interaction vertex as determined by the tracker, the energy of the
corresponding ECAL cluster, and the energy sum of all bremsstrahlung photons
spatially compatible with originating from the electron track [68]. The
longitudinal and transverse impact parameters for barrel (endcap) are required
to be less than 0.10 (0.20) and 0.05 (0.10), respectively. Electrons are
required to have $\pt>27\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.4$. The selection criteria for
muons and jets are the same as discussed above. The invariant mass of the
oppositely charged $\Pe\PGm$ pair is required to lie within the range of
$70<m_{\Pe\PGm}<110\GeV$. The difference in the data to simulation comparison
in this control region is included as a part of the systematic uncertainty.

##  0.5 Observables and the unfolding

Events are categorized in the $\PZ$\+ $\geq$1 jet and $\PZ$\+ $\geq$2 jets
subsets, and the differential cross sections are measured as function of the
following observables:

  1. 1.

$\PZ$\+ $\geq$1 jet events

     * •

Azimuthal angle between the boson and the highest (leading) jet:
$\Delta\phi(\PZ,j_{1})$. For SPS events, the boson and the leading jet will
balance each other, hence this observable will peak around $\pi$, whereas for
the DPS process the distribution is expected to be flat because of the absence
of a correlation between the boson and the leading jet produced from the two
different scatterings.

     * •

Relative imbalance between the boson and leading jet is

$\Delta_{\text{rel}}\pt(\PZ,j_{1})=\frac{\abs{{\vec{\pt}(\PZ)}+{\vec{\pt}(j_{1})}}}{\abs{{\vec{\pt}(\PZ)}}+\abs{{\vec{\pt}(j_{1})}}}.$
(2)

This observable is expected to be close to zero for SPS events, whereas in the
case of DPS this observable will have higher values.

  2. 2.

$\PZ$\+ $\geq$2 jets events

     * •

Azimuthal angle between the boson and dijet system: $\Delta\phi$(, dijet).
Here, dijet means the resulting three-momentum of the leading and subleading
jets. For SPS events, the dijet system will balance the boson , therefore,
this observable will peak around $\pi$. In the case of DPS production, the
distribution is expected to be flat since the boson and the two jets are
originating from two independent scatterings.

     * •

Relative imbalance between the boson and dijet system is

$\Delta_{\text{rel}}\pt(\PZ,\text{dijet})=\frac{\abs{{\vec{\pt}(\PZ)}+{\vec{\pt}(\text{dijet})}}}{\abs{{\vec{\pt}(\PZ)}}+\abs{{\vec{\pt}(\text{dijet})}}}.$
(3)

For SPS events this observable is expected to be 0, whereas for DPS events
this observable will have higher values.

     * •

Relative imbalance between the leading ($j_{1}$) and subleading ($j_{2}$) jets
is

$\Delta_{\text{rel}}\pt(j_{1},j_{2})=\frac{\abs{{\vec{\pt}(j_{1})}+{\vec{\pt}(j_{2})}}}{\abs{{\vec{\pt}(j_{1})}}+\abs{{\vec{\pt}(j_{2})}}}.$
(4)

For DPS events, the two jets are expected to balance each other, therefore
this observable will be around 0. For SPS events, the two jets are correlated
with the boson and not expected to balance each other.

The reconstructed distributions are corrected for the event selection
efficiency and detector resolution using an unfolding technique that employs a
response matrix to map the reconstructed observables onto the particle-level
values. The unfolding is done with 20 detector-level and 10 particle-level
$\Delta\phi$ or $\Delta_{\text{rel}}\pt$ bins. The unfolding is performed
using the TUnfold package [69], which is based on a least squares fit with a
possible Tikhonov regularization term [70]. Since the effect of regularization
is minimal on the reported observables, the unfolding is performed without
regularization.

The $\PZ$+jets events simulated with MG5_aMC + 8 with tune CUETP8M1 are used
to construct the response matrix. At particle level, events are required to
have at least two oppositely charged muons with $\pt>27\GeV$ and
$\abs{\eta}<2.4$. The particle-level definition of a muon corresponds to a
generator-level muon coming from the boson decay, “dressed” by adding the
momenta of all photons within $\Delta R<0.1$ around both muon directions to
account for the FSR effects [71]. The particle-level jets with $\pt>20\GeV$
and $\abs{\eta}<2.4$ are formed from stable particles ($c\tau>1\cm$), except
neutrinos, using the same anti-jet algorithm as for reconstructed jets. A
possible overlap between particle-level jets and a pair of muons from the
boson decay is removed by requiring a minimum distance of 0.4 between them.
The distributions are unfolded to the particle level in the fiducial region
defined in Table 0.5.

Fiducial selections at particle level.  Object Selections Muons (dressed)
$\pt>27\GeV$, $\abs{\eta}<2.4$ boson $70<m_{\PGmp\PGmm}<110\GeV$ At least 1
jet $\pt>20\GeV$, $\abs{\eta}<2.4$

In simulation, the reconstructed jets and a pair of muons are spatially
matched to the corresponding particle-level objects by requiring that they are
within $\Delta R$ of 0.4 from one another. Events that have reconstructed
objects without matched particle-level objects are included in the background
category and are excluded from the sample. This contribution includes the
events where the selected jets originate from pileup. The contribution of
background with no jet at particle level, but at least one jet at the
reconstructed level is about 4.1%. The contribution of background with no jet
(1 jet) at particle level and at least 2 jets at the reconstruction level is
around 1.1 (4.8)%. The simulation of pileup jets is validated in a control
region enriched in pileup jets, obtained by inverting the criteria used to
reject the pileup jets. The simulation describes the data well, within the
uncertainties, in the pileup-enriched control region, validating the
simulation of background events from pileup.

Events that have particle-level objects in the fiducial volume, but no
matching reconstructed objects, are accounted for with acceptance and
efficiency corrections. In addition, there may be events in which the
particle-level jet passing the fiducial selection does not lead to a
reconstructed level jet that passes the fiducial selection. Events of this
type are considered as background at the reconstruction level and are not
considered. However, at the generator level, these are genuine signal events
missed because of the detector and reconstruction inefficiencies. These missed
events are accounted for via a signal acceptance correction.

Finally, the unfolded distributions are scaled with the inverse of the
integrated luminosity to obtain the differential cross section.

##  0.6 Systematic uncertainties

The measurements have various sources of systematic uncertainties.

  * •

Jet energy resolution and scale: The effect of the uncertainty in jet energy
scale (JES) or JER [63, 64] is evaluated by varying the JES or JER within the
associated uncertainty and performing the unfolding procedure with the
modified distribution. The variations of JES corrections within their
uncertainties change the differential cross sections by 2–8%, whereas the
area-normalized distributions are affected by up to 4%. The variations of JER
corrections within their uncertainty change the differential cross section
distributions by 1–7% and area-normalized distributions up to 5%.

  * •

Pileup jet identification: Simulated events are corrected for the differences
in the jet identification efficiency between data and simulated events. The
uncertainties in these corrections affect the measurements by up to 1–2% for
differential cross section distributions and less than 0.5% for area-
normalized distributions.

  * •

Closure uncertainty: The effect of model dependence is evaluated by comparing
unfolded results obtained using response matrices constructed with the MG5_aMC
+ 8 with tune CUETP8M1 and generators having different ME and parton
showering, as discussed in Section 0.3. The calculated uncertainty is then
symmetrized.

The effect of scale uncertainties is estimated using a set of generator
weights that correspond to variations of renormalization ($\mu_{F}$) and
factorization ($\mu_{R}$) scales up and down by factors of 2 from their
nominal values, excluding the pair of extreme variations. The unfolded
distributions are obtained for all such combinations and their envelope is
quoted as the uncertainty.

The uncertainty in the PDFs is estimated using the 100 replicas of the NNPDF
3.0 PDF set [72]. The unfolded distributions are reproduced using the weights
of the replicas and a standard deviation is computed on a bin-by-bin basis
[72].

These sources, added in quadrature, affect the differential cross section by
1–5% and area-normalized distributions up to 1–4% in the case of $\PZ$\+
$\geq$1 jet events, whereas the effect is within 9% for the differential cross
section and up to 7% for the area-normalized distribution in the case of
$\PZ$\+ $\geq$2 jet events.

  * •

Integrated luminosity: It is determined with a 2.5% [73] uncertainty for
differential cross section distributions, but completely cancels in the area
normalized distributions.

  * •

Pileup weighting: The distribution of the mean number of interactions per
bunch crossing of the simulated samples is weighted to match that of the data.
The uncertainty related to pileup weighting is estimated by varying the total
inelastic cross section by $\pm$4.6% [74]. The effect is negligible for both
the differential and area-normalized distributions. After the pileup
weighting, the vertex multiplicity in simulation shows overall good agreement
with data, but there is an overestimation of around 40% for high vertex
multiplicities. To investigate the effect of this residual discrepancy, the
simulated events are additionally corrected to reproduce the vertex
multiplicity distributions observed in data. The data are unfolded with the
weighted response matrix, and the results are compared with the unfolded
results without weighting. These sources, added in quadrature, affect the
differential cross section by 1.0–1.5% and area-normalized distributions up to
1%.

  * •

Muon selection: The systematic uncertainty related to various muon selection
criteria such as muon identification, isolation and trigger scale factors is
less than 1% for both differential cross section and area-normalized
distributions.

The effect of the muon momentum corrections on the measurement is very small
($<$0.1%), therefore no additional systematic uncertainty is assigned.

  * •

Background modelling: There is a small contribution from events, whereas the
contribution from other processes such as dibosons, $\PW$+jets, and QCD
multijet production is smaller than 1%. To calculate the systematic
uncertainty related to the simulated background contribution, the cross
sections of the background samples are varied by their uncertainties. The
systematic uncertainty related to the process is obtained from the differences
between data and simulation in a $\ttbar\to\Pe\PGm+\mathrm{X}$ control region.
The variation of the background contribution within the uncertainties affects
the differential cross section less than than 0.2% for $\PZ$\+ $\geq$1 jet and
less than 0.6% for $\PZ$\+ $\geq$2 jets events. The effect of this variation
on the area-normalized distributions is less than 0.2%.

Tables 0.6 and 0.6 summarize the effect of various systematic uncertainties
for the differential cross section and the normalized distributions. These
systematic uncertainties are considered uncorrelated and are added in
quadrature.

Uncertainty sources and their effect on the differential cross section
distributions.  Observable/Uncertainty $\Delta\phi(\PZ,j_{1})$
$\Delta_{\text{rel}}\pt(\PZ,j_{1})$ $\Delta\phi$(, dijet)
$\Delta_{\text{rel}}\pt(\PZ,\text{dijet})$
$\Delta_{\text{rel}}\pt(j_{1},j_{2})$ JES 2.7–7.5% 2.4–7.4% 4.9–7.9% 4.5–8.4%
4.4–7.3% JER 0.9–6.6% 1.4–5.8% 1.2–7.2% 2.1–5.1% 1.1–4.2% Pileup jet
identification 1.3–1.7% 0.9–1.6% 1.7–2.1% 1.6–2.1% 1.7–2.3% Integrated
luminosity 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% Pileup modelling 0.1–0.7% 0.2–1.0%
0.2–1.4% 0.4–1.4% 0.8–1.4% Closure uncertainty 0.6–4.0% 0.8–5.1% 2.7–6.1%
2.2–8.7% 2.2–8.7% Muon selection $<$1.0% $<$1.0% $<$1.0% $<$1.0% $<$1.0%
Background modelling $<$0.2% $<$0.2% $<$0.6% $<$0.6% $<$0.4% Total 4–11% 4–10%
8–14% 8–14% 7–11%

Uncertainty sources and their effect on the area-normalized distributions.
Observable/Uncertainty $\Delta\phi(\PZ,j_{1})$
$\Delta_{\text{rel}}\pt(\PZ,j_{1})$ $\Delta\phi$(, dijet)
$\Delta_{\text{rel}}\pt(\PZ,\text{dijet})$
$\Delta_{\text{rel}}\pt(j_{1},j_{2})$ JES 0.1–3.8% 0.7–3.7% 0.6–4.0% 0.3–2.6%
0.3–1.5% JER 0.3–4.6% 0.4–4.4% 1.3–4.4% 0.2–4.8% 0.2–1.7% Pileup jet
identification 0.1–0.2% 0.1–0.2% 0.1–0.2% 0.1–0.2% 0.1–0.4% Pileup modelling
0.1–0.5% 0.1–0.5% 0.1–1% 0.1–0.8% 0.2–0.4% Closure uncertainty 0.8–2.5%
0.9–3.6% 0.3–5.0% 0.4–6.7% 0.5–3.7% Muon selection $<$1.0% $<$1.0% $<$1.0%
$<$1.0% $<$1.0% Background modelling $<$0.1% $<$0.1% $<$0.2% $<$0.2% $<$0.2%
Total 1–6% 1–6% 2–7% 1–7% 1–4%

##  0.7 Results

The production cross sections in the fiducial region defined in Table 0.5 are
measured to be $158.5\pm 0.3\stat\pm 7.0\syst\pm 1.2\thy\pm 4.0\lum$pb for
$\PZ$\+ $\geq$1 jet events and $44.8\pm 0.4\stat\pm 3.7\syst\pm 0.5\thy\pm
1.1\lum$pb for $\PZ$\+ $\geq$2 jet events. The measured cross sections are
described, within the uncertainties, by different simulations, except for the
MG5_aMC + 8 with CP5 tune MPIOFF and the DPS-specific CDPSTP8S1-WJ tune. The
cross section of the DPS-specific tune is predicted to be 10% higher than the
measured cross section. The cross section of CP5 tune without MPI
underestimates the measured cross section up to 10% for $\PZ$\+ $\geq$1 jet
events and up to 16% for $\PZ$\+ $\geq$2 jet events. Table 0.7 summarizes the
measured and predicted cross sections for the $\PZ$\+ $\geq$1 jet and $\PZ$\+
$\geq$2 jet processes.

Measured and predicted cross section for $\PZ$\+ $\geq$1 jet and $\PZ$\+
$\geq$2 jet production. Simulations are normalized to NNLO calculations (from
) and reported cross section values are extracted by applying fiducial
selections. Predicted cross sections include statistical and theoretical
uncertainties added in quadrature for MG5_aMC + 8 with CP5 tune, whereas the
other predicted cross sections are reported with only statistical
uncertainties.  Cross section (pb) $\PZ$\+ $\geq$1 Jets $\PZ$\+ $\geq$2 Jets
Measured in data $158.5\pm 0.3\stat$ $\pm 7.0\syst$ $\pm 1.2\thy$ $\pm
4.0\lum$pb $44.8\pm 0.4\stat$ $\pm 3.7\syst$ $\pm 0.5\thy$ $\pm 1.1\lum$pb
Predicted by MC MG5_aMC (NLO) 8, CP5 tune 167.4 $\pm$ 9.7 47.0 $\pm$ 3.9 8,
CP5 tune MPIOFF 143.8 $\pm$ 0.3 37.7 $\pm$ 0.2 8, CDPSTP8S1-WJ tune 178.4
$\pm$ 0.3 50.5 $\pm$ 0.2 7, CH3 tune 158.3 $\pm$ 1.1 44.4 $\pm$ 0.6 MG5_aMC
(LO) + 8, CP5 tune 161.2 $\pm$ 0.1 45.3 $\pm$ 0.1 (NLO+LO) 149.8 $\pm$ 0.2
41.6 $\pm$ 0.1

For $\PZ$\+ $\geq 1$ jet events, Fig. 2 (3) shows the differential cross
section measurements (left) and the area-normalized distributions (right) as a
function of $\Delta\phi(\PZ,j_{1})$ ($\Delta_{\text{rel}}\pt(\PZ,j_{1})$),
respectively. Different MC event generators (except for the MG5_aMC + 8 with
the DPS-specific tune CDPSTP8S1-WJ) describe, within the uncertainties, the
overall differential cross section as a function of $\Delta\phi$ and
$\Delta_{\text{rel}}\pt$, apart from a few discrepancies in some specific
regions of these observables. MG5_aMC + 8 generator prediction with the DPS-
specific tune CDPSTP8S1-WJ overestimates the cross section up to 10–20%, but
correctly describe the shapes of the $\Delta\phi$ and $\Delta_{\text{rel}}\pt$
distributions. The MG5_aMC + 8 prediction (with CP5 tune) overestimates (up to
20%) the measurement in the lower-$\Delta_{\text{rel}}\pt$, where SPS is
expected to be dominant. The prediction of MG5_aMC + 7 describes, within the
uncertainties, the shape of the $\Delta_{\text{rel}}\pt$ distribution, but
deviates up to 15–20% in the lower-$\Delta\phi$ region where DPS is expected
to contribute more.

The $\PZ$+jets calculation of MG5_aMC + 8 without MPI does not describe the
measurement and is lower than the measurement by up to 50% in both the lower
$\Delta\phi$ and higher $\Delta_{\text{rel}}\pt$ regions, where the MPI
contribution is expected to be the largest.

Figure 2: Differential cross sections (left) and area-normalized distributions
(right) as functions of $\Delta\phi$ between the boson and the leading jet for
$\PZ$\+ $\geq$1 jet events. The uncertainties in the predictions are shown as
coloured bands around the theoretical predictions including statistical, PDF,
scale, and tune uncertainties for the NLO MG5_aMC + 8 (with CP5 tune) and the
statistical uncertainty only for the LO MG5_aMC + 8 (with CP5 tune), NLO
MG5_aMC + 8 (with CDPSTP8S1-WJ tune, CP5 tune with MPI-OFF), NLO MG5_aMC + 7
(with tune CH3), and predictions. In the top panel, the vertical bars on the
data points represent statistical uncertainties, whereas in the bottom panels,
the total uncertainty in data is indicated by the solid yellow band centred at
1. In the legend, the $\chi^{2}$ per degree of freedom is given to quantify
the goodness of fit of the model to the data.

Figure 3: Differential cross sections (left) and area-normalized distributions
(right) as functions of the imbalance between the boson and the leading jet
for $\PZ$\+ $\geq$1 jet events. The uncertainties in the predictions are shown
as coloured bands around the theoretical predictions including statistical,
PDF, scale, and tune uncertainties for the NLO MG5_aMC + 8 (with CP5 tune) and
the statistical uncertainty only for the LO MG5_aMC + 8 (with CP5 tune), NLO
MG5_aMC + 8 (with CDPSTP8S1-WJ tune, CP5 tune with MPI-OFF), NLO MG5_aMC + 7
(with tune CH3), and predictions. In the top panel, the vertical bars on the
data points represent statistical uncertainties, whereas in the bottom panels,
the total uncertainty in data is indicated by the solid yellow band centred at
1. In the legend, the $\chi^{2}$ per degree of freedom is given to quantify
the goodness of fit of the model to the data.

For $\PZ$\+ $\geq$2 jet events Fig. 4 (5) shows the differential cross section
measurements (left) and the area-normalized distributions (right) as a
function of $\Delta\phi$(, dijet)
($\Delta_{\text{rel}}\pt(\PZ,\text{dijet})$), respectively. The differential
cross section, as a function of $\Delta\phi$, is reasonably well described by
the different predictions. The predictions of MG5_aMC + 8 (with the
CDPSTP8S1-WJ tune) and best describe the shape of the measured distributions,
whereas the MG5_aMC + 8 (with CP5 tune) prediction deviates by up to 15% in
the lower-$\Delta\phi$ region, where DPS production of $\PZ$+jets is expected
to contribute more. The shape of the $\Delta_{\text{rel}}\pt$ distribution is
best described by the predictions of MG5_aMC + 8 (with the CDPSTP8S1-WJ tune)
and . The MG5_aMC + 8 (with CP5 tune) prediction overestimates, up to 20%, in
the lower-$\Delta_{\text{rel}}\pt$ region.

The differential cross section as a function of $\Delta_{\text{rel}}\pt$
between two jets, as shown in Fig. 6, is well described by the different
predictions except for MG5_aMC + 8 (with the CDPSTP8S1-WJ tune), which
overestimates the differential cross section measurements up to 15%. The shape
of the $\Delta_{\text{rel}}\pt$ distribution is described well by the
predictions presented, except some deviations shown by MG5_aMC + 7 mainly in
the higher region of the distribution. If MPI is not included in the
simulation, predictions underestimate the differential cross section and fail
to describe the shape of all the observables for $\PZ$\+ $\geq$2 jet events
with deviations up to 50%.

Figure 4: Differential cross sections (left) and area-normalized distributions
(right) as functions of $\Delta\phi$ between the boson and the dijet for
$\PZ$\+ $\geq$2 jet events. The uncertainties in the predictions are shown as
coloured bands around the theoretical predictions including statistical, PDF,
scale and tune uncertainties for the NLO MG5_aMC + 8 (with CP5 tune) and the
statistical uncertainty only for the LO MG5_aMC + 8 (with CP5 tune), NLO
MG5_aMC + 8 (with CDPSTP8S1-WJ tune, CP5 tune with MPI-OFF), NLO MG5_aMC + 7
(with tune CH3), and predictions. In the top panel, the vertical bars on the
data points represent statistical uncertainties, whereas in the bottom panels,
the total uncertainty in data is indicated by the solid yellow band centred at
1. In the legend, the $\chi^{2}$ per degree of freedom is given to quantify
the goodness of fit of the model to the data.

Figure 5: Differential cross sections (left) and area-normalized distributions
(right) as functions of the imbalance between the boson and the dijet for
$\PZ$\+ $\geq$2 jet events. The uncertainties in the predictions are shown as
coloured bands around the theoretical predictions including statistical, PDF,
scale, and tune uncertainties for the NLO MG5_aMC + 8 (with CP5 tune) and the
statistical uncertainty only for the LO MG5_aMC + 8 (with CP5 tune), NLO
MG5_aMC + 8 (with CDPSTP8S1-WJ tune, CP5 tune with MPI-OFF), NLO MG5_aMC + 7
(with tune CH3), and predictions. In the top panel, the vertical bars on the
data points represent statistical uncertainties, whereas in the bottom panels,
the total uncertainty in data is indicated by the solid yellow band centred at
1. In the legend, the $\chi^{2}$ per degree of freedom is given to quantify
the goodness of fit of the model to the data.

Figure 6: Differential cross sections (left) and area-normalized distributions
(right) as functions of the imbalance between leading and subleading jets for
$\PZ$\+ $\geq$2 jet events. The uncertainties in the predictions are shown as
coloured bands around the theoretical predictions including statistical, PDF,
scale, and tune uncertainties for the NLO MG5_aMC + 8 (with CP5 tune) and the
statistical uncertainty only for the LO MG5_aMC + 8 (with CP5 tune), NLO
MG5_aMC + 8 (with CDPSTP8S1-WJ tune, CP5 tune with MPI-OFF), NLO MG5_aMC + 7
(with tune CH3), and predictions. In the top panel, the vertical bars on the
data points represent statistical uncertainties, whereas in the bottom panels,
the total uncertainty in data is indicated by the solid yellow band centred at
1. In the legend, the $\chi^{2}$ per degree of freedom is given to quantify
the goodness of fit of the model to the data.

The model parameters for different MPI and hadronization models are mostly
derived by fitting minimum bias and low-($\lesssim$3) MPI measurements. From
the above data, it is clear that our measurements can test the accuracy of
various predictions and the simulation of MPI. Most of the predictions follow
a similar trend describing the differential cross sections and area-normalized
distributions with a few exceptions.

The 8 CP5 tune (with MPI) describes the differential cross section
measurements within the uncertainty, but deviate (up to 15–20%) from the
measurements in the lower-region of $\Delta_{\text{rel}}\pt(\PZ,j_{1})$ and
$\Delta_{\text{rel}}\pt(\PZ,\text{dijet})$, where SPS is expected to be
dominant. In the case of area-normalized distributions, the prediction from
the MG5_aMC + 8 CP5 tune (with MPI) describes the shape of the
$\Delta_{\text{rel}}\pt(j_{1},j_{2})$ distribution within the uncertainty, but
overestimates in the lower-region of $\Delta_{\text{rel}}\pt(\PZ,j_{1})$ and
$\Delta_{\text{rel}}\pt(\PZ,\text{dijet})$, but underestimate otherwise. The
LO calculations with MG5_aMC + 8 provide a similar agreement as obtained by
the NLO calculation. The MG5_aMC + 7 prediction describes the measurements
within the uncertainty except some deviations in describing the shapes of the
$\Delta\phi(\PZ,j_{1})$ and $\Delta_{\text{rel}}\pt(j_{1},j_{2})$
distributions. The prediction is in reasonable agreement with the measurements
within the uncertainty.

The predictions based on the DPS-specific tune CDPSTP8S1-WJ describe the shape
of the distributions within the uncertainty. Since the parameters were derived
by fitting only 7measurements, this suggests that the collision energy
dependence of the MPI parameters is well modelled in this tune.

##  0.8 Summary

The CMS Collaboration has measured the differential cross sections for $\PZ$\+
$\geq$1 jet and $\PZ$\+ $\geq$2 jet events using proton-proton collision data
at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9collected
in the year 2016. The boson is reconstructed using the dimuon channel. This is
the first measurement performed to explore observables sensitive to the
presence of multi-parton interaction (MPI) using the $\PZ$+jets process at 13.
Within the fiducial region, the production cross sections of $\PZ$\+ $\geq$1
jet and $\PZ$\+ $\geq$2 jet events are measured to be $158.5\pm 0.3\stat\pm
7.0\syst\pm 1.2\thy\pm 4.0\lum$pb and $44.8\pm 0.4\stat\pm 3.7\syst\pm
0.5\thy\pm 1.1\lum$pb, respectively. The measured integrated cross section in
the fiducial region with jets is well described by the event generators ,
MG5_aMC + 8, and MG5_aMC + 7 predictions. The prediction obtained with MG5_aMC
+ 8 with the double-parton scattering (DPS) specific tune CDPSTP8S1-WJ
overestimates the measurements by 10–15%, but correctly describes the shape of
all the observables. The prediction from MG5_aMC + 8 with the CP5 tune,
derived by fitting soft quantum chromodynamics (QCD) measurements, describes
the differential cross section and area-normalized distributions. However,
there are parts of the distributions that are not well described, such as
single parton scattering that dominates lower regions of transverse momentum
imbalance $\Delta_{\text{rel}}\pt$ distributions. Predictions with other MPI
models describe the measurements well () or reasonably well (MG5_aMC + 7)
except a few deviations in describing the shapes of the
$\Delta\phi(\PZ,j_{1})$ and $\Delta_{\text{rel}}\pt(j_{1},j_{2})$
distributions. The measured distributions show a significant sensitivity to
MPI. A proper simulation of MPI is essential to describe the shape of the
measured distributions and hence these results are a useful input to further
improve DPS-specific tunes and a global tune in combination with other soft
QCD measurements.

###### 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 centres and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid and other
centres 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, the CMS detector, and the supporting
computing infrastructure provided by the following funding agencies: BMBWF and
FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, FAPERGS, and
FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC (China);
MINCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RIF (Cyprus); SENESCYT
(Ecuador); MoER, ERC PUT and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of Finland, MEC, and HIP
(Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF (Germany); GSRT
(Greece); NKFIA (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM (Iran); SFI (Ireland);
INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); MES (Latvia); LAS (Lithuania);
MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT, LNS, SEP, and UASLP-FAI
(Mexico); MOS (Montenegro); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC
(Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom, RAS, RFBR, and NRC KI
(Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI, and FEDER (Spain); MOSTR (Sri
Lanka); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); MST (Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST,
STAR, and NSTDA (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); NASU (Ukraine); STFC
(United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA). Individuals have received support from
the Marie-Curie programme and the European Research Council and Horizon 2020
Grant, contract Nos. 675440, 724704, 752730, 765710 and 824093 (European
Union); the Leventis Foundation; the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation; the Alexander
von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office; the Fonds
pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans l’Agriculture (FRIA-
Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-
Belgium); the F.R.S.-FNRS and FWO (Belgium) under the “Excellence of Science –
EOS” – be.h project n. 30820817; the Beijing Municipal Science & Technology
Commission, No. Z191100007219010; the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports
(MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), under
Germany’s Excellence Strategy – EXC 2121 “Quantum Universe” – 390833306, and
under project number 400140256 - GRK2497; the Lendület (“Momentum”) Programme
and the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of
Sciences, the New National Excellence Program ÚNKP, the NKFIA research grants
123842, 123959, 124845, 124850, 125105, 128713, 128786, and 129058 (Hungary);
the Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; the Latvian Council of
Science; the Ministry of Science and Higher Education and the National Science
Center, contracts Opus 2014/15/B/ST2/03998 and 2015/19/B/ST2/02861 (Poland);
the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund; the
Ministry of Science and Higher Education, project no. 0723-2020-0041 (Russia);
the Programa Estatal de Fomento de la Investigación Científica y Técnica de
Excelencia María de Maeztu, grant MDM-2015-0509 and the Programa Severo Ochoa
del Principado de Asturias; the Thalis and Aristeia programmes cofinanced by
EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral
Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its
2nd Century Project Advancement Project (Thailand); the Kavli Foundation; the
Nvidia Corporation; the SuperMicro Corporation; the Welch Foundation, contract
C-1845; and the Weston Havens Foundation (USA).

## References

  * [1] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the production cross section of jets in association with a Z boson in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  JHEP 07 (2013) 032, 10.1007/JHEP07(2013)032, arXiv:1304.7098.
  * [2] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the production cross section for $Z/\gamma^{*}$ in association with jets in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector.”,  Phys. Rev. D 85 (2011) 032009, 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.032009, arXiv:1111.2690.
  * [3] CMS Collaboration, “Jet production rates in association with $W$ and $Z$ bosons in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”,  JHEP 01 (2012) 010, 10.1007/JHEP01(2012)010, arXiv:1110.3226.
  * [4] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of jet multiplicity and differential production cross sections of $\PZ$+jets events in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 7 TeV”,  Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 052008, 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.052008, arXiv:1408.3104.
  * [5] CMS Collaboration, “Event shapes and azimuthal correlations in $\PZ$+jets events in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 722 (2013) 238, 10.1016/j.physletb.2013.04.025, arXiv:1301.1646.
  * [6] LHCb Collaboration, “Study of forward + jet production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”,  JHEP 01 (2014) 033, 10.1007/JHEP01(2014)033, arXiv:1310.8197.
  * [7] CMS Collaboration, “Comparison of the Z/$\gamma$∗ \+ jets to $\gamma$ \+ jets cross sections in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV”,  JHEP 10 (2015) 128, 10.1007/JHEP04(2016)010, arXiv:1505.06520.
  * [8] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of differential production cross sections for a Z boson in association with jets in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV”,  JHEP 04 (2017) 022, 10.1007/JHEP04(2017)022, arXiv:1611.03844.
  * [9] LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of forward and boson production in association with jets in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV”,  JHEP 05 (2016) 131, 10.1007/JHEP05(2016)131, arXiv:1605.00951.
  * [10] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of differential cross sections for Z boson production in association with jets in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 965, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6373-0, arXiv:1804.05252.
  * [11] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurements of the production cross-section for a $Z$ boson in association with b-jets in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  JHEP 07 (2020) 044, 10.1007/JHEP07(2020)044, arXiv:2003.11960.
  * [12] CMS Collaboration, “Constraints on the double-parton scattering cross section from same-sign W boson pair production in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV”,  JHEP 02 (2018) 032, 10.1007/JHEP02(2018)032, arXiv:1712.02280.
  * [13] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of hard double-parton interactions in W$(\to{l\nu})$\+ 2 jet events at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  New J. Phys. 15 (2013) 033038, 10.1088/1367-2630/15/3/033038, arXiv:1301.6872.
  * [14] CMS Collaboration, “Study of double parton scattering using W + 2-jet events in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV”,  JHEP 03 (2014) 032, 10.1007/JHEP03(2014)032, arXiv:1312.5729.
  * [15] ATLAS Collaboration, “Study of the hard double-parton scattering contribution to inclusive four-lepton production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Lett. B 790 (2019) 595, 10.1016/j.physletb.2019.01.062, arXiv:1811.11094.
  * [16] ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation and measurements of the production of prompt and non-prompt J/$\psi$ mesons in association with a $Z$ boson in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 229, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3406-9, arXiv:1412.6428.
  * [17] LHCb Collaboration, “Observation of J/$\psi$ pair production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 707 (2012) 52, 10.1016/j.physletb.2011.12.015, arXiv:1109.0963.
  * [18] LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of the J/$\psi$ pair production cross-section in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  JHEP 06 (2017) 047, 10.1007/JHEP06(2017)047, arXiv:1612.07451.
  * [19] ALICE Collaboration, “J/$\psi$ production as a function of charged particle multiplicity in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 712 (2012) 165, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.04.052, arXiv:1202.2816.
  * [20] LHCb Collaboration, “Observation of double charm production involving open charm in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV”,  JHEP 06 (2012) 141, 10.1007/JHEP06(2012)141, arXiv:1205.0975.
  * [21] LHCb Collaboration, “Observation of enhanced double parton scattering in proton-lead collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 8.16 TeV”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) 212001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.212001, arXiv:2007.06945.
  * [22] D0 Collaboration, “Double parton interactions in $\gamma$+3 jet events in p$\overline{\mbox{p}}$ collisions $\sqrt{s}=1.96$ TeV.”,  Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 052012, 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.052012, arXiv:0912.5104.
  * [23] CMS Collaboration, “Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 4, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7499-4, arXiv:1903.12179.
  * [24] 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.
  * [25] “HEPData record for this analysis”, 2021.  10.17182/hepdata.110665.
  * [26] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$”,  JINST 13 (2018) P06015, 10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/P06015, arXiv:1804.04528.
  * [27] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  JINST 15 (2020) P10017, 10.1088/1748-0221/15/10/P10017, arXiv:2006.10165.
  * [28] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [29] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [30] 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.
  * [31] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC Run II”,  JHEP 04 (2015) 040, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040, arXiv:1410.8849.
  * [32] Sherpa Collaboration, “Event generation with Sherpa 2.2”,  SciPost Phys. 7 (2019) 034, 10.21468/SciPostPhys.7.3.034, arXiv:1905.09127.
  * [33] S. Hoeche, F. Krauss, M. Schonherr, and F. Siegert, “QCD matrix elements + parton showers: The NLO case”,  JHEP 04 (2013) 027, 10.1007/JHEP04(2013)027, arXiv:1207.5030.
  * [34] T. Gehrmann et al., “NLO QCD matrix elements + parton showers in e+e- $\to$ hadrons”,  JHEP 01 (2013) 144, 10.1007/JHEP01(2013)144, arXiv:1207.5031.
  * [35] S. Hoeche et al., “Triple vector boson production through Higgs-Strahlung with NLO multijet merging”,  Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 093015, 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.093015, arXiv:1403.7516.
  * [36] 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.
  * [37] M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, and A. Mitov, “Total top-quark pair-production cross section at hadron colliders through $O(\alpha^{4}_{S})$”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 252004, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.252004, arXiv:1303.6254.
  * [38] P. Bärnreuther, M. Czakon, and A. Mitov, “Percent level precision physics at the Tevatron: first genuine NNLO QCD corrections to $\PQq\overline{\PQq}\to\mathrm{t\overline{t}}+\mathrm{X}$”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 132001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.132001, arXiv:1204.5201.
  * [39] 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.
  * [40] 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.
  * [41] 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.
  * [42] 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.
  * [43] 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.
  * [44] J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and C. Williams, “Vector boson pair production at the LHC”,  JHEP 07 (2011) 018, 10.1007/JHEP07(2011)018, arXiv:1105.0020.
  * [45] N. Kidonakis, “Top Quark Production”, in  Proceedings, Helmholtz International Summer School on Physics of Heavy Quarks and Hadrons (HQ 2013): JINR, Dubna, Russia, July 15-28, 2013, p. 139.  (2014).  arXiv:1311.0283.  10.3204/DESY-PROC-2013-03/Kidonakis.
  * [46] CMS Collaboration, “Investigations of the impact of the parton shower tuning in PYTHIA 8 in the modelling of $\mathrm{t\overline{t}}$ at $\sqrt{s}=8$ and 13 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-TOP-16-021, 2016.
  * [47] R. D. Ball et al., “Parton distributions with LHC data”,  Nucl. Phys. B 867 (2013) 244, 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2012.10.003, arXiv:1207.1303.
  * [48] J. Alwall et al., “MadGraph 5: going beyond”,  JHEP 06 (2011) 128, 10.1007/JHEP06(2011)128, arXiv:1106.0522.
  * [49] J. Alwall, S. de Visscher, and F. Maltoni, “QCD radiation in the production of heavy colored particles at the LHC”,  JHEP 02 (2009) 017, 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/02/017, arXiv:0810.5350.
  * [50] R. Frederix and S. Frixione, “Merging meets matching in MC@NLO”,  JHEP 12 (2012) 061, 10.1007/JHEP12(2012)061, arXiv:1209.6215.
  * [51] Collaboration, “—a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [52] T. Sjöstrand and M. van Zijl, “A multiple interaction model for the event structure in hadron collisions”,  Phys. Rev. D 36 (1987) 2019, 10.1103/PhysRevD.36.2019.
  * [53] M. Bahr et al., “Herwig++ physics and manual”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 58 (2008) 639, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-008-0798-9, arXiv:0803.0883.
  * [54] J. Bellm et al., “Herwig 7.0/Herwig++ 3.0 release note”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 196, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4018-8, arXiv:1512.01178.
  * [55] J. Bellm et al., “Herwig 7.1 release note”, CERN theory preprint CERN-PH-TH-2017-109, 2017.  arXiv:1705.06919.
  * [56] CMS Collaboration, “Development and validation of HERWIG 7 tunes from CMS underlying-event measurements”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 312, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-08949-5, arXiv:2011.03422.
  * [57] K. Melnikov and F. Petriello, “Electroweak gauge boson production at hadron colliders through O($\alpha_{s}^{2}$)”,  Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 114017, 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.114017, arXiv:hep-ph/0609070.
  * [58] 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.
  * [59] 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.
  * [60] 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.
  * [61] 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.
  * [62] M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam, “Pileup subtraction using jet areas”,  Phys. Lett. B 659 (2008) 119, 10.1016/j.physletb.2007.09.077, arXiv:0707.1378.
  * [63] CMS Collaboration, “Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV”,  JINST 12 (2017) P02014, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/P02014, arXiv:1607.03663.
  * [64] CMS Collaboration, “Jet energy scale and resolution performance with 13 TeV data collected by CMS in 2016”, CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2018-028, 2018.
  * [65] CMS Collaboration, “Jet performance in pp collisions at 7 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-10-003, 2010.
  * [66] CMS Collaboration, “Pileup jet identification”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-13-005, 2013.
  * [67] CMS Collaboration, “Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data”,  JINST 15 (2020) P09018, 10.1088/1748-0221/15/09/P09018, arXiv:2003.00503.
  * [68] CMS Collaboration, “Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 16 (2021) P05014, 10.1088/1748-0221/16/05/P05014, arXiv:2012.06888.
  * [69] S. Schmitt, “TUnfold: an algorithm for correcting migration effects in high energy physics”,  JINST 7 (2012) T10003, 10.1088/1748-0221/7/10/T10003, arXiv:1205.6201.
  * [70] A. N. Tikhonov, “Solution of incorrectly formulated problems and the regularization method”,  Soviet Math. Dokl. 4 (1963) 1035.
  * [71] CMS Collaboration, “Object definitions for top quark analyses at the particle level”, CMS Note 2017/004, 2017.
  * [72] J. Butterworth et al., “PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II”,  J. Phys. G 43 (2016) 023001, 10.1088/0954-3899/43/2/023001, arXiv:1510.03865.
  * [73] CMS Collaboration, “Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 800, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09538-2, arXiv:2104.01927.
  * [74] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  JHEP 07 (2018) 161, 10.1007/JHEP07(2018)161, arXiv:1802.02613.

##  .9 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A. Tumasyan Institut für Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, J.W. Andrejkovic, T. Bergauer, S. Chatterjee, M. Dragicevic, A.
Escalante Del Valle, R. Frühwirth1, M. Jeitler1, N. Krammer, L. Lechner, D.
Liko, I. Mikulec, P. Paulitsch, F.M. Pitters, J. Schieck1, R. Schöfbeck, M.
Spanring, S. Templ, W. Waltenberger, C.-E. Wulz1 Institute for Nuclear
Problems, Minsk, Belarus
V. Chekhovsky, A. Litomin, V. Makarenko Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerpen,
Belgium
M.R. Darwish2, E.A. De Wolf, X. Janssen, T. Kello3, A. Lelek, H. Rejeb Sfar,
P. Van Mechelen, S. Van Putte, N. Van Remortel Vrije Universiteit Brussel,
Brussel, Belgium
F. Blekman, E.S. Bols, J. D’Hondt, J. De Clercq, M. Delcourt, H. El Faham, S.
Lowette, S. Moortgat, A. Morton, D. Müller, A.R. Sahasransu, S. Tavernier, W.
Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
D. Beghin, B. Bilin, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, L. Favart, A. Grebenyuk,
A.K. Kalsi, K. Lee, M. Mahdavikhorrami, I. Makarenko, L. Moureaux, L. Pétré,
A. Popov, N. Postiau, E. Starling, L. Thomas, M. Vanden Bemden, C. Vander
Velde, P. Vanlaer, D. Vannerom, L. Wezenbeek Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, J. Knolle, L. Lambrecht, G. Mestdach, M. Niedziela, C.
Roskas, A. Samalan, K. Skovpen, T.T. Tran, M. Tytgat, W. Verbeke, B.
Vermassen, M. Vit Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
A. Bethani, G. Bruno, F. Bury, C. Caputo, P. David, C. Delaere, I.S. Donertas,
A. Giammanco, K. Jaffel, V. Lemaitre, K. Mondal, J. Prisciandaro, A.
Taliercio, M. Teklishyn, P. Vischia, S. Wertz, S. Wuyckens Centro Brasileiro
de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
G.A. Alves, C. Hensel, A. Moraes Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil
W.L. Aldá Júnior, M. Alves Gallo Pereira, M. Barroso Ferreira Filho, H.
BRANDAO MALBOUISSON, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato4, E.M. Da Costa, G.G. Da
Silveira5, D. De Jesus Damiao, S. Fonseca De Souza, D. Matos Figueiredo, C.
Mora Herrera, K. Mota Amarilo, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, P. Rebello Teles, A.
Santoro, S.M. Silva Do Amaral, A. Sznajder, M. Thiel, F. Torres Da Silva De
Araujo, A. Vilela Pereira Universidade Estadual Paulista a, Universidade
Federal do ABC b, São Paulo, Brazil
C.A. Bernardesa,a, L. Calligarisa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M.
Gregoresa,b, D.S. Lemosa, P.G. Mercadantea,b, S.F. Novaesa, Sandra S. Padulaa
Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of
Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, G. Antchev, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, M. Misheva, M. Rodozov,
M. Shopova, G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Dimitrov, T. Ivanov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov, A. Petrov Beihang
University, Beijing, China
T. Cheng, W. Fang3, Q. Guo, T. Javaid6, M. Mittal, H. Wang, L. Yuan Department
of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, G. Bauer, C. Dozen7, Z. Hu, J. Martins8, Y. Wang, K. Yi9,10
Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
E. Chapon, G.M. Chen6, H.S. Chen6, M. Chen, F. Iemmi, A. Kapoor, D. Leggat, H.
Liao, Z.-A. LIU6, V. Milosevic, F. Monti, R. Sharma, J. Tao, J. Thomas-
wilsker, J. Wang, H. Zhang, S. Zhang6, J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of Nuclear
Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
A. Agapitos, Y. Ban, C. Chen, Q. Huang, A. Levin, Q. Li, X. Lyu, Y. Mao, S.J.
Qian, D. Wang, Q. Wang, J. Xiao Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
M. Lu, Z. You Institute of Modern Physics and Key Laboratory of Nuclear
Physics and Ion-beam Application (MOE) - Fudan University, Shanghai, China
X. Gao3, H. Okawa Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
Z. Lin, M. Xiao Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, C. Florez, J. Fraga, A. Sarkar, M.A. Segura Delgado
Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia
J. Mejia Guisao, F. Ramirez, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, C.A. Salazar González
University of Split, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering
and Naval Architecture, Split, Croatia
D. Giljanovic, N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak University of Split, Faculty
of Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac, T. Sculac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, D. Majumder, M. Roguljic, A. Starodumov11, T. Susa
University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
A. Attikis, E. Erodotou, A. Ioannou, G. Kole, M. Kolosova, S. Konstantinou, J.
Mousa, C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos, P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski, H. Saka Charles
University, Prague, Czech Republic
M. Finger12, M. Finger Jr.12, A. Kveton 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. Abdalla13, S. Abu Zeid14 Center for High Energy Physics (CHEP-FU), Fayoum
University, El-Fayoum, Egypt
A. Lotfy, M.A. Mahmoud National Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics,
Tallinn, Estonia
S. Bhowmik, A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveira, R.K. Dewanjee, K. Ehataht, M.
Kadastik, C. Nielsen, J. Pata, M. Raidal, L. Tani, C. Veelken Department of
Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
P. Eerola, L. Forthomme, H. Kirschenmann, K. Osterberg, M. Voutilainen
Helsinki Institute of Physics, Helsinki, Finland
S. Bharthuar, E. Brücken, F. Garcia, J. Havukainen, M.S. Kim, R. Kinnunen, T.
Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, M. Lotti, L. Martikainen, J.
Ott, H. Siikonen, E. Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi Lappeenranta University of
Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
P. Luukka, H. Petrow, T. Tuuva IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-
Yvette, France
C. Amendola, 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,
B. Lenzi, E. Locci, J. Malcles, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M.Ö. Sahin, A. Savoy-
Navarro15, M. Titov, G.B. Yu Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, CNRS/IN2P3, Ecole
Polytechnique, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Palaiseau, France
S. Ahuja, F. Beaudette, M. Bonanomi, A. Buchot Perraguin, P. Busson, A.
Cappati, C. Charlot, O. Davignon, B. Diab, G. Falmagne, S. Ghosh, R. Granier
de Cassagnac, A. Hakimi, I. Kucher, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, P. Paganini, J.
Rembser, R. Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A. Zabi, A. Zghiche Université de
Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram16, J. Andrea, D. Apparu, D. Bloch, G. Bourgatte, J.-M. Brom, E.C.
Chabert, C. Collard, D. Darej, J.-C. Fontaine16, U. Goerlach, C. Grimault,
A.-C. Le Bihan, E. Nibigira, P. Van Hove Institut de Physique des 2 Infinis de
Lyon (IP2I ), Villeurbanne, France
E. Asilar, S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, C. Camen, A. Carle, N. Chanon,
D. Contardo, P. Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, B.
Ille, Sa. Jain, I.B. Laktineh, H. Lattaud, A. Lesauvage, M. Lethuillier, L.
Mirabito, S. Perries, K. Shchablo, V. Sordini, L. Torterotot, G. Touquet, M.
Vander Donckt, S. Viret Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
I. Lomidze, T. Toriashvili17, Z. Tsamalaidze12 RWTH Aachen University, I.
Physikalisches Institut, Aachen, Germany
L. Feld, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, D. Meuser, A. Pauls, M.P. Rauch, N. Röwert, J.
Schulz, M. Teroerde RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A,
Aachen, Germany
D. Eliseev, M. Erdmann, P. Fackeldey, B. Fischer, S. Ghosh, T. Hebbeker, K.
Hoepfner, F. Ivone, H. Keller, L. Mastrolorenzo, M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, G.
Mocellin, S. Mondal, S. Mukherjee, D. Noll, A. Novak, T. Pook, A. Pozdnyakov,
Y. Rath, H. Reithler, J. Roemer, A. Schmidt, S.C. Schuler, A. Sharma, S.
Wiedenbeck, S. Zaleski RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut B,
Aachen, Germany
C. Dziwok, G. Flügge, W. Haj Ahmad18, O. Hlushchenko, T. Kress, A. Nowack, C.
Pistone, O. Pooth, D. Roy, H. Sert, A. Stahl19, T. Ziemons Deutsches
Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
H. Aarup Petersen, M. Aldaya Martin, P. Asmuss, I. Babounikau, S. Baxter, O.
Behnke, A. Bermúdez Martínez, A.A. Bin Anuar, K. Borras20, V. Botta, D.
Brunner, A. Campbell, A. Cardini, C. Cheng, S. Consuegra Rodríguez, G. Correia
Silva, V. Danilov, L. Didukh, G. Eckerlin, D. Eckstein, L.I. Estevez Banos, O.
Filatov, E. Gallo21, A. Geiser, A. Giraldi, A. Grohsjean, M. Guthoff, A.
Jafari22, N.Z. Jomhari, H. Jung, A. Kasem20, M. Kasemann, H. Kaveh, C.
Kleinwort, D. Krücker, W. Lange, J. Lidrych, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann23, R.
Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, J. Metwally, A.B. Meyer, M. Meyer, J. Mnich, A.
Mussgiller, Y. Otarid, D. Pérez Adán, D. Pitzl, A. Raspereza, B. Ribeiro
Lopes, J. Rübenach, A. Saggio, A. Saibel, M. Savitskyi, M. Scham, V. Scheurer,
C. Schwanenberger21, A. Singh, R.E. Sosa Ricardo, D. Stafford, N. Tonon, O.
Turkot, M. Van De Klundert, R. Walsh, D. Walter, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, L.
Wiens, C. Wissing, S. Wuchterl University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, L. Benato, A. Benecke, P. Connor, K. De Leo, M. Eich, F.
Feindt, A. Fröhlich, C. Garbers, E. Garutti, P. Gunnellini, J. Haller, A.
Hinzmann, G. Kasieczka, R. Klanner, R. Kogler, T. Kramer, V. Kutzner, J.
Lange, T. Lange, A. Lobanov, A. Malara, A. Nigamova, K.J. Pena Rodriguez, O.
Rieger, P. Schleper, M. Schröder, J. Schwandt, D. Schwarz, J. Sonneveld, H.
Stadie, G. Steinbrück, A. Tews, B. Vormwald, I. Zoi Karlsruher Institut fuer
Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany
J. Bechtel, T. Berger, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, W. De
Boer${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, A. Dierlamm, A. Droll, K. El Morabit, N.
Faltermann, M. Giffels, J.o. Gosewisch, A. Gottmann, F. Hartmann19, C.
Heidecker, U. Husemann, I. Katkov24, P. Keicher, R. Koppenhöfer, S. Maier, M.
Metzler, S. Mitra, Th. Müller, M. Neukum, A. Nürnberg, G. Quast, K. Rabbertz,
J. Rauser, D. Savoiu, M. Schnepf, D. Seith, I. Shvetsov, H.J. Simonis, R.
Ulrich, J. Van Der Linden, R.F. Von Cube, M. Wassmer, M. Weber, S. Wieland, R.
Wolf, S. Wozniewski, S. Wunsch Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics
(INPP), NCSR Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
G. Anagnostou, P. Asenov, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas,
A. Stakia National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
M. Diamantopoulou, D. Karasavvas, G. Karathanasis, P. Kontaxakis, C.K. Koraka,
A. Manousakis-katsikakis, A. Panagiotou, I. Papavergou, N. Saoulidou, K.
Theofilatos, E. Tziaferi, K. Vellidis, E. Vourliotis National Technical
University of Athens, Athens, Greece
G. Bakas, K. Kousouris, I. Papakrivopoulos, G. Tsipolitis, A. Zacharopoulou
University of Ioánnina, Ioánnina, Greece
I. Evangelou, C. Foudas, P. Gianneios, P. Katsoulis, P. Kokkas, N. Manthos, I.
Papadopoulos, J. Strologas MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics
Group, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
M. Csanad, K. Farkas, M.M.A. Gadallah25, S. Lökös26, P. Major, K. Mandal, A.
Mehta, G. Pasztor, A.J. Rádl, O. Surányi, G.I. Veres Wigner Research Centre
for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
M. Bartók27, G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath28, F. Sikler, V. Veszpremi, G.
Vesztergombi${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$ Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI,
Debrecen, Hungary
S. Czellar, J. Karancsi27, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi, D. Teyssier Institute of
Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi29, B. Ujvari Karoly Robert Campus, MATE Institute of
Technology
T. Csorgo30, F. Nemes30, T. Novak Indian Institute of Science (IISc),
Bangalore, India
J.R. Komaragiri, D. Kumar, L. Panwar, P.C. Tiwari National Institute of
Science Education and Research, HBNI, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati31, D. Dash, C. Kar, P. Mal, T. Mishra, V.K. Muraleedharan Nair
Bindhu32, A. Nayak32, P. Saha, N. Sur, S.K. Swain, D. Vats32 Panjab
University, Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, G. Chaudhary, S. Chauhan, N. Dhingra33, R.
Gupta, A. Kaur, M. Kaur, S. Kaur, P. Kumari, M. Meena, K. Sandeep, J.B. Singh,
A.K. Virdi University of Delhi, Delhi, India
A. Ahmed, A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, M. Gola, S. Keshri, A.
Kumar, M. Naimuddin, P. Priyanka, K. Ranjan, A. Shah Saha Institute of Nuclear
Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India
M. Bharti34, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, D. Bhowmik, S. Dutta, S. Dutta,
B. Gomber35, M. Maity36, S. Nandan, P. Palit, P.K. Rout, G. Saha, B. Sahu, S.
Sarkar, M. Sharan, B. Singh34, S. Thakur34 Indian Institute of Technology
Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera, S.C. Behera, P. Kalbhor, A. Muhammad, R. Pradhan, P.R. Pujahari,
A. Sharma, A.K. Sikdar Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, D.K. Mishra, K. Naskar37, P.K. Netrakanti, L.M.
Pant, P. Shukla Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A, Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, S. Dugad, M. Kumar, U. Sarkar Tata Institute of Fundamental
Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, R. Chudasama, M. Guchait, S. Karmakar, S. Kumar,
G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, S. Mukherjee Indian Institute of Science Education
and Research (IISER), Pune, India
K. Alpana, S. Dube, B. Kansal, S. Pandey, A. Rane, A. Rastogi, S. Sharma
Department of Physics, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
H. Bakhshiansohi38, M. Zeinali39 Institute for Research in Fundamental
Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran
S. Chenarani40, S.M. Etesami, M. Khakzad, M. Mohammadi Najafabadi University
College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
M. Grunewald INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b, Politecnico di Bari
c, Bari, Italy
M. Abbresciaa,b, R. Alya,b,41, C. Arutaa,b, A. Colaleoa, D. Creanzaa,c, N. De
Filippisa,c, M. De Palmaa,b, A. Di Florioa,b, A. Di Pilatoa,b, W.
Elmetenaweea,b, L. Fiorea, A. Gelmia,b, M. Gula, G. Iasellia,c, M. Incea,b, S.
Lezkia,b, G. Maggia,c, M. Maggia, I. Margjekaa,b, V. Mastrapasquaa,b, J.A.
Merlina, S. Mya,b, S. Nuzzoa,b, A. Pellecchiaa,b, A. Pompilia,b, G.
Pugliesea,c, A. Ranieria, G. Selvaggia,b, L. Silvestrisa, F.M. Simonea,b, R.
Vendittia, P. Verwilligena INFN Sezione di Bologna a, Università di Bologna b,
Bologna, Italy
G. Abbiendia, C. Battilanaa,b, D. Bonacorsia,b, L. Borgonovia, L.
Brigliadoria, R. Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A. Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa,
M. Cuffiania,b, G.M. Dallavallea, T. Diotalevia,b, F. Fabbria, A. Fanfania,b,
P. Giacomellia, L. Giommia,b, C. Grandia, L. Guiduccia,b, S. Lo Meoa,42, L.
Lunertia,b, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, F.L. Navarriaa,b, A. Perrottaa, F.
Primaveraa,b, A.M. Rossia,b, T. Rovellia,b, G.P. Sirolia,b INFN Sezione di
Catania a, Università di Catania b, Catania, Italy
S. Albergoa,b,43, S. Costaa,b,43, A. Di Mattiaa, R. Potenzaa,b, A.
Tricomia,b,43, C. Tuvea,b INFN Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b,
Firenze, Italy
G. Barbaglia, A. Cassesea, R. Ceccarellia,b, V. Ciullia,b, C. Civininia, R.
D’Alessandroa,b, E. Focardia,b, G. Latinoa,b, P. Lenzia,b, M. Lizzoa,b, M.
Meschinia, S. Paolettia, R. Seiditaa,b, G. Sguazzonia, L. Viliania INFN
Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, D. Piccolo INFN Sezione di Genova a, Università di
Genova b, Genova, Italy
M. Bozzoa,b, F. Ferroa, R. Mulargiaa,b, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia,b INFN Sezione
di Milano-Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, Italy
A. Benagliaa, F. Brivioa,b, F. Cetorellia,b, V. Cirioloa,b,19, F. De Guioa,b,
M.E. Dinardoa,b, P. Dinia, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P. Govonia,b, L.
Guzzia,b, M. Malbertia, S. Malvezzia, A. Massironia, D. Menascea, L. Moronia,
M. Paganonia,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Ragazzia,b, N. Redaellia, T. Tabarelli de
Fatisa,b, D. Valsecchia,b,19, D. Zuoloa,b INFN Sezione di Napoli a, Università
di Napoli ’Federico II’ b, Napoli, Italy, Università della Basilicata c,
Potenza, Italy, Università G. Marconi d, Roma, Italy
S. Buontempoa, F. Carnevalia,b, N. Cavalloa,c, A. De Iorioa,b, F. Fabozzia,c,
A.O.M. Iorioa,b, L. Listaa,b, S. Meolaa,d,19, P. Paoluccia,19, B. Rossia, C.
Sciaccaa,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, P. Bortignona, A. Bragagnoloa,b, R.
Carlina,b, P. Checchiaa, P. De Castro Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa, U. Dossellia, F.
Gasparinia,b, U. Gasparinia,b, S.Y. Hoha,b, L. Layera,44, M. Margonia,b, A.T.
Meneguzzoa,b, J. Pazzinia,b, M. Presillaa,b, P. Ronchesea,b, R. Rossina,b, F.
Simonettoa,b, G. Stronga, M. Tosia,b, H. YARARa,b, M. Zanettia,b, P. Zottoa,b,
A. Zucchettaa,b, G. Zumerlea,b INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b,
Pavia, Italy
C. Aime‘a,b, A. Braghieria, S. Calzaferria,b, D. Fiorinaa,b, P. Montagnaa,b,
S.P. Rattia,b, V. Rea, M. Ressegottia,b, C. Riccardia,b, P. Salvinia, I. Vaia,
P. Vituloa,b INFN Sezione di Perugia a, Università di Perugia b, Perugia,
Italy
G.M. Bileia, D. Ciangottinia,b, L. Fanòa,b, P. Laricciaa,b, M. Magherinib, G.
Mantovania,b, V. Mariania,b, M. Menichellia, F. Moscatellia, A. Piccinellia,b,
A. Rossia,b, A. Santocchiaa,b, D. Spigaa, T. Tedeschia,b INFN Sezione di Pisa
a, Università di Pisa b, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa c, Pisa Italy,
Università di Siena d, Siena, Italy
P. Azzurria, G. Bagliesia, V. Bertacchia,c, L. Bianchinia, T. Boccalia, E.
Bossinia,b, R. Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, M.R. Di Domenicoa,d,
S. Donatoa, A. Giassia, M.T. Grippoa, F. Ligabuea,c, E. Mancaa,c, G.
Mandorlia,c, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, S. Paroliaa,b, G. Ramirez-Sancheza,c,
A. Rizzia,b, G. Rolandia,c, S. Roy Chowdhurya,c, A. Scribanoa, N. Shafieia,b,
P. Spagnoloa, R. Tenchinia, G. Tonellia,b, N. Turinia,d, A. Venturia, P.G.
Verdinia INFN Sezione di Roma a, Sapienza Università di Roma b, Rome, Italy
M. Campanaa,b, F. Cavallaria, M. Cipriania,b, D. Del Rea,b, E. Di Marcoa, M.
Diemoza, E. Longoa,b, P. Meridiania, G. Organtinia,b, F. Pandolfia, R.
Paramattia,b, C. Quarantaa,b, S. Rahatloua,b, C. Rovellia, F.
Santanastasioa,b, L. Soffia, R. Tramontanoa,b INFN Sezione di Torino a,
Università di Torino b, Torino, Italy, Università del Piemonte Orientale c,
Novara, Italy
N. Amapanea,b, R. Arcidiaconoa,c, S. Argiroa,b, M. Arneodoa,c, N. Bartosika,
R. Bellana,b, A. Belloraa,b, J. Berenguer Antequeraa,b, C. Biinoa, N.
Cartigliaa, S. Comettia, M. Costaa,b, R. Covarellia,b, N. Demariaa, B.
Kiania,b, F. Leggera, C. Mariottia, S. Masellia, E. Migliorea,b, E.
Monteila,b, M. Montenoa, M.M. Obertinoa,b, G. Ortonaa, L. Pachera,b, N.
Pastronea, M. Pelliccionia, G.L. Pinna Angionia,b, M. Ruspaa,c, R.
Salvaticoa,b, K. Shchelinaa,b, F. Sivieroa,b, V. Solaa, A. Solanoa,b, D.
Soldia,b, A. Staianoa, M. Tornagoa,b, D. Trocinoa,b, A. Vagnerini INFN Sezione
di Trieste a, Università di Trieste b, Trieste, Italy
S. Belfortea, V. Candelisea,b, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, A. Da Rolda,b, G.
Della Riccaa,b, G. Sorrentinoa,b, F. Vazzolera,b Kyungpook National
University, Daegu, Korea
S. Dogra, C. Huh, B. Kim, D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, J. Kim, J. Lee, S.W. Lee, C.S.
Moon, Y.D. Oh, S.I. Pak, B.C. Radburn-Smith, S. Sekmen, Y.C. Yang Chonnam
National University, Institute for Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju,
Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
B. Francois, T.J. Kim, J. Park Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, B. Hong, K. Lee, K.S. Lee, J. Lim, J. Park, S.K. Park,
J. Yoo Kyung Hee University, Department of Physics, Seoul, Republic of Korea
J. Goh, A. Gurtu Sejong University, Seoul, Korea
H.S. Kim, Y. Kim Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J.H. Bhyun, J. Choi, S. Jeon, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, S. Ko, H. Kwon, H.
Lee, S. Lee, B.H. Oh, M. Oh, S.B. Oh, H. Seo, U.K. Yang, I. Yoon University of
Seoul, Seoul, Korea
W. Jang, D. Jeon, D.Y. Kang, Y. Kang, J.H. Kim, S. Kim, B. Ko, J.S.H. Lee, Y.
Lee, I.C. Park, Y. Roh, D. Song, I.J. Watson, S. Yang Yonsei University,
Department of Physics, Seoul, Korea
S. Ha, H.D. Yoo Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea
Y. Jeong, H. Lee, Y. Lee, I. Yu College of Engineering and Technology,
American University of the Middle East (AUM), Egaila, Kuwait
T. Beyrouthy, Y. Maghrbi Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
V. Veckalns45 Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
M. Ambrozas, A. Juodagalvis, A. Rinkevicius, G. Tamulaitis, A. Vaitkevicius
National Centre for Particle Physics, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
N. Bin Norjoharuddeen, W.A.T. Wan Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli
Universidad de Sonora (UNISON), Hermosillo, Mexico
J.F. Benitez, A. Castaneda Hernandez, M. León Coello, J.A. Murillo Quijada, A.
Sehrawat, L. Valencia Palomo Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados
del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
G. Ayala, H. Castilla-Valdez, I. Heredia-De La Cruz46, R. Lopez-Fernandez,
C.A. Mondragon Herrera, D.A. Perez Navarro, A. Sanchez-Hernandez Universidad
Iberoamericana, Mexico City, Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, M. Ramirez-Garcia, F. Vazquez Valencia
Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada University of Montenegro,
Podgorica, Montenegro
J. Mijuskovic47, N. Raicevic University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
S. Bheesette, P.H. Butler National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam
University, Islamabad, Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M.I. Asghar, A. Awais, M.I.M. Awan, H.R. Hoorani, W.A. Khan, M.A.
Shah, M. Shoaib, M. Waqas AGH University of Science and Technology Faculty of
Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunications, Krakow, Poland
V. Avati, L. Grzanka, M. Malawski National Centre for Nuclear Research,
Swierk, Poland
H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, M. Górski, M. Kazana, M. Szleper, P.
Zalewski Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of Physics, University of
Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J. Krolikowski, M. Walczak
Laboratório de Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas, Lisboa,
Portugal
M. Araujo, P. Bargassa, D. Bastos, A. Boletti, P. Faccioli, M. Gallinaro, J.
Hollar, N. Leonardo, T. Niknejad, M. Pisano, J. Seixas, O. Toldaiev, J. Varela
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
S. Afanasiev, D. Budkouski, I. Golutvin, I. Gorbunov, V. Karjavine, V.
Korenkov, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev48,49, V. Palichik, V. Perelygin,
M. Savina, D. Seitova, V. Shalaev, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, V. Smirnov, O.
Teryaev, N. Voytishin, B.S. Yuldashev50, A. Zarubin, I. Zhizhin Petersburg
Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg), Russia
G. Gavrilov, V. Golovtcov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim51, E. Kuznetsova52, V. Murzin, V.
Oreshkin, I. Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Volkov, A. Vorobyev
Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, D.
Kirpichnikov, M. Kirsanov, N. Krasnikov, A. Pashenkov, G. Pivovarov, D.
Tlisov${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, A. Toropin Institute for Theoretical and
Experimental Physics named by A.I. Alikhanov of NRC ‘Kurchatov Institute’,
Moscow, Russia
V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, A. Nikitenko53, V. Popov, A.
Spiridonov, A. Stepennov, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A. Zhokin Moscow Institute of
Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
M. Chadeeva54, A. Oskin, P. Parygin, E. Popova, V. Rusinov P.N. Lebedev
Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin, I. Dremin, M. Kirakosyan, A. Terkulov Skobeltsyn
Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow,
Russia
A. Belyaev, E. Boos, M. Dubinin55, L. Dudko, A. Ershov, V. Klyukhin, O.
Kodolova, I. Lokhtin, O. Lukina, S. Obraztsov, S. Petrushanko, V. Savrin, A.
Snigirev Novosibirsk State University (NSU), Novosibirsk, Russia
V. Blinov56, T. Dimova56, L. Kardapoltsev56, A. Kozyrev56, I. Ovtin56, Y.
Skovpen56 Institute for High Energy Physics of National Research Centre
‘Kurchatov Institute’, Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, D. Elumakhov, V. Kachanov, D. Konstantinov, P.
Mandrik, V. Petrov, R. Ryutin, S. Slabospitskii, A. Sobol, S. Troshin, N.
Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University,
Tomsk, Russia
A. Babaev, V. Okhotnikov Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russia
V. Borchsh, V. Ivanchenko, E. Tcherniaev University of Belgrade: Faculty of
Physics and VINCA Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic57, M. Dordevic, P. Milenovic, J. Milosevic Centro de Investigaciones
Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid, Spain
M. Aguilar-Benitez, J. Alcaraz Maestre, A. Álvarez Fernández, I. Bachiller, M.
Barrio Luna, Cristina F. Bedoya, C.A. Carrillo Montoya, M. Cepeda, M. Cerrada,
N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris, J.P. Fernández Ramos, J. Flix,
M.C. Fouz, O. Gonzalez Lopez, S. Goy Lopez, J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa, J. León
Holgado, D. Moran, Á. Navarro Tobar, A. Pérez-Calero Yzquierdo, J. Puerta
Pelayo, I. Redondo, L. Romero, S. Sánchez Navas, L. Urda Gómez, C. Willmott
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
J.F. de Trocóniz, R. Reyes-Almanza Universidad de Oviedo, Instituto
Universitario de Ciencias y Tecnologías Espaciales de Asturias (ICTEA),
Oviedo, Spain
B. Alvarez Gonzalez, J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, S. Folgueras,
I. Gonzalez Caballero, E. Palencia Cortezon, C. Ramón Álvarez, J. Ripoll Sau,
V. Rodríguez Bouza, A. Trapote, N. Trevisani Instituto de Física de Cantabria
(IFCA), CSIC-Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain
J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, B. Chazin Quero, J.
Duarte Campderros, M. Fernandez, C. Fernandez Madrazo, P.J. Fernández Manteca,
A. García Alonso, G. Gomez, C. Martinez Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del Arbol, F.
Matorras, P. Matorras Cuevas, J. Piedra Gomez, C. Prieels, T. Rodrigo, A.
Ruiz-Jimeno, L. Scodellaro, I. Vila, J.M. Vizan Garcia University of Colombo,
Colombo, Sri Lanka
MK Jayananda, B. Kailasapathy58, D.U.J. Sonnadara, DDC Wickramarathna
University of Ruhuna, Department of Physics, Matara, Sri Lanka
W.G.D. Dharmaratna, K. Liyanage, N. Perera, N. Wickramage CERN, European
Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, D. Abbaneo, J. Alimena, E. Auffray, G. Auzinger, J. Baechler,
P. Baillon${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, D. Barney, J. Bendavid, M. Bianco, A.
Bocci, T. Camporesi, M. Capeans Garrido, G. Cerminara, S.S. Chhibra, L.
Cristella, D. d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, N. Daci, A. David, A. De Roeck, M.M.
Defranchis, M. Deile, M. Dobson, M. Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, N.
Emriskova, F. Fallavollita59, D. Fasanella, S. Fiorendi, A. Florent, G.
Franzoni, W. Funk, S. Giani, D. Gigi, K. Gill, F. Glege, L. Gouskos, M.
Haranko, J. Hegeman, Y. Iiyama, V. Innocente, T. James, P. Janot, J. Kaspar,
J. Kieseler, M. Komm, N. Kratochwil, C. Lange, S. Laurila, P. Lecoq, K. Long,
C. Lourenço, L. Malgeri, S. Mallios, M. Mannelli, A.C. Marini, F. Meijers, S.
Mersi, E. Meschi, F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, S. Orfanelli, L. Orsini, F.
Pantaleo, L. Pape, E. Perez, M. Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A.
Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, D. Piparo, M. Pitt, H. Qu, T. Quast, D. Rabady, A. Racz,
G. Reales Gutiérrez, M. Rieger, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, S.
Scarfi, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva, W. Snoeys,
P. Sphicas60, S. Summers, V.R. Tavolaro, D. Treille, A. Tsirou, G.P. Van
Onsem, M. Verzetti, J. Wanczyk61, K.A. Wozniak, W.D. Zeuner Paul Scherrer
Institut, Villigen, Switzerland
L. Caminada62, A. Ebrahimi, W. Erdmann, R. Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C.
Kaestli, D. Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, M. Missiroli, T. Rohe ETH Zurich -
Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics (IPA), Zurich, Switzerland
K. Androsov61, M. Backhaus, P. Berger, A. Calandri, N. Chernyavskaya, A. De
Cosa, G. Dissertori, M. Dittmar, M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, F. Eble, T.A. Gómez
Espinosa, C. Grab, D. Hits, W. Lustermann, A.-M. Lyon, R.A. Manzoni, C. Martin
Perez, M.T. Meinhard, F. Micheli, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, J. Niedziela, F. Pauss, V.
Perovic, G. Perrin, S. Pigazzini, M.G. Ratti, M. Reichmann, C. Reissel, T.
Reitenspiess, B. Ristic, D. Ruini, D.A. Sanz Becerra, M. Schönenberger, V.
Stampf, J. Steggemann61, R. Wallny, D.H. Zhu Universität Zürich, Zurich,
Switzerland
C. Amsler63, P. Bärtschi, C. Botta, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, K. Cormier, A.
De Wit, R. Del Burgo, J.K. Heikkilä, M. Huwiler, A. Jofrehei, B. Kilminster,
S. Leontsinis, A. Macchiolo, P. Meiring, V.M. Mikuni, U. Molinatti, I.
Neutelings, G. Rauco, A. Reimers, P. Robmann, S. Sanchez Cruz, K. Schweiger,
Y. Takahashi National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan
C. Adloff64, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A. Roy, T. Sarkar36, S.S. Yu National Taiwan
University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
L. Ceard, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, W.-S. Hou, Y.y. Li, R.-S. Lu, E.
Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen, H.y. Wu, E. Yazgan, P.r. Yu Chulalongkorn
University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok, Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, N. Srimanobhas Çukurova University,
Physics Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
F. Boran, S. Damarseckin65, Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, I. Dumanoglu66, E.
Eskut, Y. Guler, E. Gurpinar Guler67, I. Hos68, C. Isik, O. Kara, A. Kayis
Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, G. Onengut, K. Ozdemir69, A. Polatoz, A.E. Simsek, B.
Tali70, U.G. Tok, S. Turkcapar, I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East
Technical University, Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak71, G. Karapinar72, K. Ocalan73, M. Yalvac74 Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
B. Akgun, I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya75, O. Kaya76, Ö. Özçelik, S.
Tekten77, E.A. Yetkin78 Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
A. Cakir, K. Cankocak66, Y. Komurcu, S. Sen79 Istanbul University, Istanbul,
Turkey
S. Cerci70, B. Kaynak, S. Ozkorucuklu, D. Sunar Cerci70 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
D. Anthony, E. Bhal, S. Bologna, J.J. Brooke, A. Bundock, E. Clement, D.
Cussans, H. Flacher, J. Goldstein, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, B.
Krikler, S. Paramesvaran, S. Seif El Nasr-Storey, V.J. Smith, N. Stylianou80,
R. White Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev81, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, D.J.A. Cockerill, K.V. Ellis, K.
Harder, S. Harper, J. Linacre, K. Manolopoulos, D.M. Newbold, E. Olaiya, D.
Petyt, T. Reis, T. Schuh, C.H. Shepherd-Themistocleous, I.R. Tomalin, T.
Williams Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, S. Bonomally, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, V.
Cepaitis, G.S. Chahal82, D. Colling, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M. Della Negra, S.
Fayer, G. Fedi, G. Hall, M.H. Hassanshahi, G. Iles, J. Langford, L. Lyons,
A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, A. Martelli, J. Nash83, M. Pesaresi, D.M. Raymond, A.
Richards, A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A. Shtipliyski, A. Tapper, K. Uchida, T.
Virdee19, N. Wardle, S.N. Webb, D. Winterbottom, A.G. Zecchinelli Brunel
University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
K. Coldham, J.E. Cole, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, I.D. Reid, L. Teodorescu, S. Zahid
Baylor University, Waco, USA
S. Abdullin, A. Brinkerhoff, B. Caraway, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, A.R.
Kanuganti, B. McMaster, N. Pastika, S. Sawant, C. Sutantawibul, J. Wilson
Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez, R. Uniyal, A.M. Vargas Hernandez The University of
Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
A. Buccilli, S.I. Cooper, D. Di Croce, S.V. Gleyzer, C. Henderson, C.U. Perez,
P. Rumerio84, C. West Boston University, Boston, USA
A. Akpinar, A. Albert, D. Arcaro, C. Cosby, Z. Demiragli, E. Fontanesi, D.
Gastler, J. Rohlf, K. Salyer, D. Sperka, D. Spitzbart, I. Suarez, A. Tsatsos,
S. Yuan, D. Zou Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, B. Burkle, X. Coubez20, D. Cutts, Y.t. Duh, M. Hadley, U. Heintz,
J.M. Hogan85, G. Landsberg, K.T. Lau, J. Lee, M. Lukasik, J. Luo, M. Narain,
S. Sagir86, E. Usai, W.Y. Wong, X. Yan, D. Yu, W. Zhang University of
California, Davis, Davis, USA
J. Bonilla, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez, M.
Chertok, J. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, G. Haza, F. Jensen, O. Kukral, R.
Lander, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, B. Regnery, D. Taylor, Y. Yao, F. Zhang
University of California, Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, R. Cousins, A. Datta, D. Hamilton, J. Hauser, M. Ignatenko, M.A.
Iqbal, T. Lam, N. Mccoll, W.A. Nash, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg, B. Stone, V.
Valuev University of California, Riverside, Riverside, USA
K. Burt, Y. Chen, R. Clare, J.W. Gary, M. Gordon, G. Hanson, G. Karapostoli,
O.R. Long, N. Manganelli, M. Olmedo Negrete, W. Si, S. Wimpenny, Y. Zhang
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, P. Chang, S. Cittolin, S. Cooperstein, N. Deelen, J. Duarte, R.
Gerosa, L. Giannini, D. Gilbert, J. Guiang, R. Kansal, V. Krutelyov, R. Lee,
J. Letts, M. Masciovecchio, S. May, M. Pieri, B.V. Sathia Narayanan, V.
Sharma, M. Tadel, A. Vartak, F. Würthwein, Y. Xiang, A. Yagil University of
California, Santa Barbara - Department of Physics, Santa Barbara, USA
N. Amin, C. Campagnari, M. Citron, A. Dorsett, V. Dutta, J. Incandela, M.
Kilpatrick, J. Kim, B. Marsh, H. Mei, M. Oshiro, M. Quinnan, J. Richman, U.
Sarica, D. Stuart, S. Wang California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
A. Bornheim, O. Cerri, I. Dutta, J.M. Lawhorn, N. Lu, J. Mao, H.B. Newman, J.
Ngadiuba, T.Q. Nguyen, M. Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, C. Wang, S. Xie, Z. Zhang,
R.Y. Zhu Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
J. Alison, S. An, M.B. Andrews, P. Bryant, T. Ferguson, A. Harilal, T.
Mudholkar, M. Paulini, A. Sanchez University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, E. MacDonald, R. Patel, A. Perloff, K. Stenson, K.A.
Ulmer, S.R. Wagner Cornell University, Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, Y. Cheng, J. Chu, D.J. Cranshaw, K. Mcdermott, J. Monroy, J.R.
Patterson, D. Quach, J. Reichert, A. Ryd, W. Sun, S.M. Tan, Z. Tao, J. Thom,
P. Wittich, M. Zientek Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, USA
M. Albrow, M. Alyari, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S. Banerjee,
L.A.T. Bauerdick, D. Berry, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, K. Burkett, J.N. Butler,
A. Canepa, G.B. Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M. Cremonesi, K.F. Di
Petrillo, V.D. Elvira, Y. Feng, J. Freeman, Z. Gecse, L. Gray, D. Green, S.
Grünendahl, O. Gutsche, R.M. Harris, R. Heller, T.C. Herwig, J. Hirschauer, B.
Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, T. Klijnsma, B. Klima, K.H.M.
Kwok, S. Lammel, D. Lincoln, R. Lipton, T. Liu, C. Madrid, K. Maeshima, C.
Mantilla, D. Mason, P. McBride, P. Merkel, S. Mrenna, S. Nahn, V. O’Dell, V.
Papadimitriou, K. Pedro, C. Pena55, O. Prokofyev, F. Ravera, A. Reinsvold
Hall, L. Ristori, B. Schneider, E. Sexton-Kennedy, N. Smith, A. Soha, W.J.
Spalding, L. Spiegel, S. Stoynev, J. Strait, L. Taylor, S. Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran,
L. Uplegger, E.W. Vaandering, H.A. Weber University of Florida, Gainesville,
USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, D. Bourilkov, L. Cadamuro, V. Cherepanov, F. Errico, R.D.
Field, D. Guerrero, B.M. Joshi, M. Kim, E. Koenig, J. Konigsberg, A. Korytov,
K.H. Lo, K. Matchev, N. Menendez, G. Mitselmakher, A. Muthirakalayil Madhu, N.
Rawal, D. Rosenzweig, S. Rosenzweig, K. Shi, J. Sturdy, J. Wang, E. Yigitbasi,
X. Zuo Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
T. Adams, A. Askew, D. Diaz, R. Habibullah, V. Hagopian, K.F. Johnson, R.
Khurana, T. Kolberg, G. Martinez, H. Prosper, C. Schiber, R. Yohay, J. Zhang
Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, S. Butalla, T. Elkafrawy14, M. Hohlmann, R. Kumar Verma, D.
Noonan, M. Rahmani, M. Saunders, F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago
(UIC), Chicago, USA
M.R. Adams, H. Becerril Gonzalez, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, S. Dittmer, O.
Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, A.H. Merrit, C. Mills, G.
Oh, T. Roy, S. Rudrabhatla, M.B. Tonjes, N. Varelas, J. Viinikainen, X. Wang,
Z. Wu, Z. Ye The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, K. Dilsiz87, R.P. Gandrajula, O.K. Köseyan, J.-P. Merlo, A.
Mestvirishvili88, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul89, Y. Onel, A. Penzo, C. Snyder, E.
Tiras90 Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
O. Amram, B. Blumenfeld, L. Corcodilos, J. Davis, M. Eminizer, A.V. Gritsan,
S. Kyriacou, P. Maksimovic, J. Roskes, M. Swartz, T.Á. Vámi The University of
Kansas, Lawrence, USA
J. Anguiano, C. Baldenegro Barrera, P. Baringer, A. Bean, A. Bylinkin, T.
Isidori, S. Khalil, J. King, G. Krintiras, A. Kropivnitskaya, C. Lindsey, N.
Minafra, M. Murray, C. Rogan, C. Royon, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz, C. Smith, J.D.
Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang, J. Williams, G. Wilson Kansas State University,
Manhattan, USA
S. Duric, A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, D. Kim, Y. Maravin, T. Mitchell, A. Modak, K.
Nam Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright University of Maryland, College Park, USA
E. Adams, A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, S.C. Eno, N.J. Hadley, S. Jabeen,
R.G. Kellogg, T. Koeth, A.C. Mignerey, S. Nabili, M. Seidel, A. Skuja, L.
Wang, K. Wong Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, G. Andreassi, R. Bi, S. Brandt, W. Busza, I.A. Cali, Y. Chen,
M. D’Alfonso, J. Eysermans, G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov, P. Harris, M. Hu,
M. Klute, D. Kovalskyi, J. Krupa, Y.-J. Lee, B. Maier, C. Mironov, C. Paus, D.
Rankin, C. Roland, G. Roland, Z. Shi, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Tatar, J. Wang, Z.
Wang, B. Wyslouch University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, P. Hansen, J. Hiltbrand, Sh. Jain, M. Krohn, Y.
Kubota, J. Mans, M. Revering, R. Rusack, R. Saradhy, N. Schroeder, N. Strobbe,
M.A. Wadud University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
K. Bloom, M. Bryson, S. Chauhan, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, L. Finco, F. Golf,
J.R. González Fernández, C. Joo, I. Kravchenko, M. Musich, I. Reed, J.E.
Siado, G.R. Snow${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, W. Tabb, F. Yan State University
of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
G. Agarwal, H. Bandyopadhyay, L. Hay, I. Iashvili, A. Kharchilava, C. McLean,
D. Nguyen, J. Pekkanen, S. Rappoccio, A. Williams Northeastern University,
Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, Y. Haddad, A. Hortiangtham, J. Li, G.
Madigan, B. Marzocchi, D.M. Morse, V. Nguyen, T. Orimoto, A. Parker, L.
Skinnari, A. Tishelman-Charny, T. Wamorkar, B. Wang, A. Wisecarver, D. Wood
Northwestern University, Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, J. Bueghly, Z. Chen, A. Gilbert, T. Gunter, K.A. Hahn, N.
Odell, M.H. Schmitt, M. Velasco University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, USA
R. Band, R. Bucci, A. Das, N. Dev, R. Goldouzian, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado
Anampa, C. Jessop, K. Lannon, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, I. Mcalister, T.
McCauley, F. Meng, K. Mohrman, Y. Musienko48, R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, M.
Wayne, A. Wightman, M. Wolf, M. Zarucki, L. Zygala The Ohio State University,
Columbus, USA
B. Bylsma, B. Cardwell, L.S. Durkin, B. Francis, C. Hill, M. Nunez Ornelas, K.
Wei, B.L. Winer, B.R. Yates Princeton University, Princeton, USA
F.M. Addesa, B. Bonham, P. Das, G. Dezoort, P. Elmer, A. Frankenthal, B.
Greenberg, N. Haubrich, S. Higginbotham, A. Kalogeropoulos, G. Kopp, S. Kwan,
D. Lange, M.T. Lucchini, D. Marlow, K. Mei, I. Ojalvo, J. Olsen, C. Palmer, D.
Stickland, C. Tully University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
A.S. Bakshi, V.E. Barnes, R. Chawla, S. Das, L. Gutay, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, S.
Karmarkar, M. Liu, G. Negro, N. Neumeister, G. Paspalaki, C.C. Peng, S.
Piperov, A. Purohit, J.F. Schulte, M. Stojanovic15, J. Thieman, F. Wang, R.
Xiao, W. Xie Purdue University Northwest, Hammond, USA
J. Dolen, N. Parashar Rice University, Houston, USA
A. Baty, M. Decaro, S. Dildick, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, P. Gardner, F.J.M.
Geurts, A. Kumar, W. Li, B.P. Padley, R. Redjimi, W. Shi, A.G. Stahl Leiton,
S. Yang, L. Zhang, Y. Zhang University of Rochester, Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, J.L. Dulemba, C. Fallon, T. Ferbel, M.
Galanti, A. Garcia-Bellido, O. Hindrichs, A. Khukhunaishvili, E. Ranken, R.
Taus Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, USA
B. Chiarito, J.P. Chou, A. Gandrakota, Y. Gershtein, E. Halkiadakis, A. Hart,
M. Heindl, E. Hughes, S. Kaplan, O. Karacheban23, I. Laflotte, A. Lath, R.
Montalvo, K. Nash, M. Osherson, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, S. Somalwar, R. Stone,
S.A. Thayil, S. Thomas, H. Wang University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
H. Acharya, A.G. Delannoy, S. Spanier Texas A&M University, College Station,
USA
O. Bouhali91, M. Dalchenko, A. Delgado, R. Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T.
Kamon92, H. Kim, S. Luo, S. Malhotra, R. Mueller, D. Overton, D. Rathjens, A.
Safonov Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, V. Hegde, S. Kunori, K. Lamichhane, S.W. Lee, T.
Mengke, S. Muthumuni, T. Peltola, I. Volobouev, Z. Wang, A. Whitbeck
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
E. Appelt, S. Greene, A. Gurrola, W. Johns, A. Melo, H. Ni, K. Padeken, F.
Romeo, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska University of Virginia,
Charlottesville, USA
M.W. Arenton, B. Cox, G. Cummings, J. Hakala, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A.
Ledovskoy, A. Li, C. Neu, B. Tannenwald, S. White, E. Wolfe Wayne State
University, Detroit, USA
N. Poudyal, P. Thapa University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI, USA
K. Black, T. Bose, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, S. Dasu, I. De Bruyn, P.
Everaerts, F. Fienga, C. Galloni, H. He, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, A.
Lanaro, A. Loeliger, R. Loveless, J. Madhusudanan Sreekala, A. Mallampalli, A.
Mohammadi, D. Pinna, A. Savin, V. Shang, V. Sharma, W.H. Smith, D. Teague, S.
Trembath-reichert, W. Vetens †: Deceased
1: Also at TU Wien, Wien, Austria
2: Also at Institute of Basic and Applied Sciences, Faculty of Engineering,
Arab Academy for Science, Technology and Maritime Transport, Alexandria,
Egypt, Alexandria, Egypt
3: Also at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
4: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
5: Also at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
6: Also at University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
7: Also at Department of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China,
Beijing, China
8: Also at UFMS, Nova Andradina, Brazil
9: Also at Nanjing Normal University Department of Physics, Nanjing, China
10: Now at The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
11: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics named by A.I.
Alikhanov of NRC ‘Kurchatov Institute’, Moscow, Russia
12: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
13: Also at Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
14: Also at Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
15: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
16: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
17: Also at Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
18: Also at Erzincan Binali Yildirim University, Erzincan, Turkey
19: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
20: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
21: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
22: Also at Department of Physics, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan,
Iran, Isfahan, Iran
23: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
24: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
25: Also at Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Assiut University, Assiut,
Egypt
26: Also at Karoly Robert Campus, MATE Institute of Technology, Gyongyos,
Hungary
27: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary,
Debrecen, Hungary
28: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
29: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary, Budapest, Hungary
30: Also at Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
31: Also at IIT Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India, Bhubaneswar, India
32: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
33: Also at G.H.G. Khalsa College, Punjab, India
34: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India
35: Also at University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India
36: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
37: Also at Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Mumbai, India
38: Also at Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
39: Also at Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
40: Also at Department of Physics, University of Science and Technology of
Mazandaran, Behshahr, Iran
41: Now at INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b, Politecnico di Bari
c, Bari, Italy
42: Also at Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and
Sustainable Economic Development, Bologna, Italy
43: Also at Centro Siciliano di Fisica Nucleare e di Struttura Della Materia,
Catania, Italy
44: Also at Università di Napoli ’Federico II’, NAPOLI, Italy
45: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia, Riga, Latvia
46: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico City, Mexico
47: Also at IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
48: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
49: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
50: Also at Institute of Nuclear Physics of the Uzbekistan Academy of
Sciences, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
51: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
52: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
53: Also at Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
54: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
55: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
56: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
57: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
58: Also at Trincomalee Campus, Eastern University, Sri Lanka, Nilaveli, Sri
Lanka
59: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy,
Pavia, Italy
60: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
61: Also at Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
62: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
63: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics, Vienna, Austria,
Vienna, Austria
64: Also at Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules,
IN2P3-CNRS, Annecy-le-Vieux, France
65: Also at Şırnak University, Sirnak, Turkey
66: Also at Near East University, Research Center of Experimental Health
Science, Nicosia, Turkey
67: Also at Konya Technical University, Konya, Turkey
68: Also at Istanbul University - Cerrahpasa, Faculty of Engineering,
Istanbul, Turkey
69: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
70: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
71: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
72: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
73: Also at Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
74: Also at Bozok Universitetesi Rektörlügü, Yozgat, Turkey, Yozgat, Turkey
75: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
76: Also at Milli Savunma University, Istanbul, Turkey
77: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
78: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
79: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
80: Also at Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
81: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
82: Also at IPPP Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom
83: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia
84: Also at Università di Torino, TORINO, Italy
85: Also at Bethel University, St. Paul, Minneapolis, USA, St. Paul, USA
86: Also at Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey
87: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
88: Also at Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
89: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
90: Also at Erciyes University, KAYSERI, Turkey
91: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
92: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea, Daegu, Korea