B2G-16-023

$Revision:444322$
$HeadURL:svn+ssh://svn.cern.ch/reps/tdr2/papers/B2G-16-023/trunk/B2G-16-023.tex$
$Id:B2G-16-023.tex4443222018-02-0509:41:29Zhirosky$

B2G-16-023

# Search for ZZ resonances in the $2\ell 2\nu$ final state in proton-proton
collisions at 13

###### Abstract

A search for heavy resonances decaying to a pair of Z bosons is performed
using data collected with the CMS detector at the LHC. Events are selected by
requiring two oppositely charged leptons (electrons or muons), consistent with
the decay of a Z boson, and large missing transverse momentum, which is
interpreted as arising from the decay of a second Z boson to two neutrinos.
The analysis uses data from proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass
energy of 13, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9. The
hypothesis of a spin-2 bulk graviton ($\cmsSymbolFace{X}$) decaying to a pair
of Z bosons is examined for $600\leq m_{\cmsSymbolFace{X}}\leq 2500$and upper
limits at 95% confidence level are set on the product of the production cross
section and branching fraction of $\cmsSymbolFace{X}\to\cPZ\cPZ$ ranging from
100 to 4fb. For bulk graviton models characterized by a curvature scale
parameter $\tilde{k}=0.5$ in the extra dimension, the region
$m_{\cmsSymbolFace{X}}<800$is excluded, providing the most stringent limit
reported to date. Variations of the model considering the possibility of a
wide resonance produced exclusively via gluon–gluon fusion or annihilation are
also examined.

##  0.1 Introduction

The standard model (SM) of particle physics has successfully described a wide
range of high energy phenomena investigated over the decades. The discovery of
a particle compatible with SM predictions for the Higgs boson [1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6] by the ATLAS and CMS experiments [7, 8, 9] at the CERN LHC marks an
important milestone in the history of particle physics, providing substantive
verification of the SM. However, the SM lacks a natural means to accommodate
the large hierarchy between gravity and electroweak (EW) scales. Large loop
corrections are necessary to stabilize the SM Higgs boson mass at the EW
scale. One possible interpretation is that the measured Higgs boson mass is
the result of fine-tuned constants of nature within the SM. Alternatively, new
physics at the scale can be invoked to stabilize the mass of the Higgs boson
far below the Planck scale ($M_{\mathrm{Pl}}\approx 10^{19}$). The spontaneous
breaking of EW symmetry in the SM has also been associated with new dynamics
appearing at the scale. Examples of theoretical extensions include the
description of a new strongly interacting sector [10, 11, 12] or the
introduction of a composite Higgs boson [13, 14, 15].

Models extending the number of spatial dimensions can also address the
observed difference between the EW and gravitational scales. A solution
postulating the existence of multiple and potentially large extra spatial
dimensions, accessible only for the propagation of gravity [16, 17], was
advanced as a way to eliminate the hierarchy between the EW scale and
$M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$. The model of Randall and Sundrum [18] introduced an
alternative hypothesis, with a single compactified extra dimension and a
modification to the space-time metric by an exponential “warp” factor.
Standard model particles reside on a (3+1) dimensional brane, while the
graviton propagates though the extra dimensional bulk, thereby generating two
effective scales. These models predict the existence of a tower of massive
Kaluza–Klein (KK) excitations of a spin-2 boson, the KK graviton, which
couples to SM fields at energies on the order of the EW scale. Such states
could be produced at a hadron collider. However, limits on flavor-changing
neutral currents and EW precision tests place strong constraints on this
model. The bulk graviton (${\mathrm{G}_{\text{bulk}}}$) model extends the
Randall–Sundrum model, by addressing the flavor structure of the SM through
localization of fermions in the warped extra dimension [19, 20, 21], only
confining the Higgs field to the brane. The coupling of the graviton to light
fermions is highly suppressed in this scenario and the decays into photons are
negligible. On the other hand, the production of gravitons from gluon–gluon
fusion and their decays into a pair of massive gauge bosons can be sizable at
hadron colliders, while precision EW and flavor constraints are relaxed to
allow graviton masses in the range. The model has two free parameters: the
mass of the first mode of the KK bulk graviton, $m_{\mathrm{G}}$, and the
ratio $\tilde{k}=k/\overline{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}$, where $k$ is the unknown
curvature scale of the extra dimension, and $\overline{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}\equiv
M_{\mathrm{Pl}}/\sqrt{8\pi}$ is the reduced Planck mass. For values of
$\tilde{k}<1$, the width of the KK bulk graviton relative to its mass is less
than $\approx$6% for $m_{\mathrm{G}}$ as large as 2, and therefore a narrow
resonance is expected. Previous direct searches at ATLAS and CMS have set
limits on the cross section for the production of ${\mathrm{G}_{\text{bulk}}}$
as a function of $m_{\mathrm{G}}$ [22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27] using LHC data
taken at center-of-mass energies of 7, 8, and 13.

We present a new search for resonances $\cmsSymbolFace{X}$ decaying to a pair
of bosons, in which one of the Z bosons decays into two charged leptons and
the other into two neutrinos $2\ell 2\Pgn$ (where $\ell$ represents either
$\Pe$ or $\Pgm$), as illustrated in Fig. 1. The analysis uses data from
proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13collected in 2016 and
corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9. The results are compared to
expectations for the bulk graviton model of Refs. [19, 20, 21]. We also
examine variations of the model considering the possibility of a wide
resonance, which is produced exclusively via gluon–gluon fusion or
annihilation processes.

Figure 1: Leading order Feynman diagram for the production of a generic
resonance $\cmsSymbolFace{X}$ via gluon–gluon fusion decaying to the final
state.

The characteristic signature of the $2\ell 2\Pgn$ final state includes two
charged leptons with large transverse momenta () and an overall imbalance in
due to the presence of the undetected neutrinos. The imbalance in transverse
momentum () is the negative of the vector sum of the of all final-state
particles; its magnitude is referred to as . We refer to the observable final
states $\Pe\Pe{+}\ptmiss$ and $\Pgm\Pgm{+}\ptmiss$ as the electron and muon
channels, respectively.

The search is performed using the transverse mass ($m_{\mathrm{T}}$) spectrum
of the two leptons and , where a kinematic edge is expected from the putative
heavy resonance and depends on its invariant mass. The $m_{\mathrm{T}}$
variable is calculated as:

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{2}=\left[\sqrt{(\pt^{\ell\ell})^{2}+m^{2}_{\ell\ell}}+\sqrt{(\ptmiss)^{2}+m^{2}_{\ell\ell}}\right]^{2}-\left[\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell\ell}+\ptvecmiss\right]^{2},$
(1)

where $\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell\ell}\equiv\ptvec^{\cPZ}$ is the of the two
lepton system associated with the leptonic decay of a boson. The decay of the
second boson to two invisible neutrinos is represented by and $m_{\ell\ell}$
in the middle term provides an estimator of the mass of the invisibly decaying
boson. This choice has negligible impact on the expected signal at large
$m_{\mathrm{T}}$, but is found to preferentially suppress backgrounds from and
decays.

The most significant background to the $2\ell 2\Pgn$ final state is due to
$\cPZ{+}\text{jets}$ production, where the boson or recoiling hadrons are not
precisely reconstructed. This can produce a signal-like final state with
arising primarily from instrumental effects. Other important sources of
background include the nonresonant production of $\ell\ell$ final states and ,
primarily composed of and production, and the resonant background from SM
production of diboson ( and ) events.

Compared to fully reconstructed final states, the branching fraction for the
$2\ell 2\Pgn$ decay mode is approximately a factor of six larger than that of
the four charged-lepton final state, and has less background than semileptonic
channels such as $2\ell$+$2\text{quark}$ ($2\ell 2\PQq$). For the $2\ell
2\PQq$ channel, the hadronic recoil in the $\cPZ{+}\text{jets}$ background is
kinematically similar to the $2\PQq$ system from boson decay. For events with
large , as expected for a high-mass signal, high jets in the corresponding
$\cPZ{+}\text{jets}$ background are more accurately reconstructed. This
effectively suppresses the background in the $2\ell 2\Pgn$ channel and the
signal purity is enhanced relative to the $2\ell 2\PQq$ channel.

##  0.2 The CMS detector

The central feature of the CMS detector is a 3.8T superconducting solenoid
with a 6m internal diameter. Within the solenoid volume are a silicon pixel
and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal electromagnetic calorimeter
(ECAL), and a brass and scintillator hadron calorimeter (HCAL), each composed
of a barrel and two endcap sections. Forward calorimeters extend the
pseudorapidity coverage ($\eta$) provided by the barrel and endcap detectors.
Muons are detected in gas-ionization chambers embedded in the steel magnetic
flux-return yoke outside the solenoid. Events of interest are selected using a
two-tiered trigger system [28]. The first level, composed of custom hardware
processors, uses information from the calorimeters and muon detectors to
select events at a rate of around 100kHz within a time interval of less than
4. 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 less than 1kHz
before data storage. A detailed description of the CMS detector, together with
a definition of the coordinate system used and the relevant kinematic
variables, can be found in Ref. [29].

##  0.3 Event selection and reconstruction

The signal consists of two bosons, one decaying into a pair of oppositely
charged leptons and the other to two neutrinos, which escape direct detection.
The final state is thus characterized by a pair of oppositely charged
electrons or muons that are isolated from large deposits of hadronic energy,
having an invariant mass consistent with that of a boson, and large . A
single-electron or a single-muon trigger has to be satisfied. Thresholds on
the of the leptons are 115 (50)in the electron (muon) channel. Electron events
are triggered by clusters of energy depositions in the ECAL that are matched
to reconstructed tracks within a range $\abs{\eta}<2.5$. Cluster shape
requirements, as well as isolation criteria based on calorimetric and track
information, are also applied. An additional sample of photon plus jet(s)
($\gamma{+}\text{jets}$) events is collected for background modeling based on
control samples in data and is discussed below. The photon trigger is similar
to the electron trigger, except that a veto is applied on the presence of a
matching track. For muon events the trigger begins with track fitting in the
outer muon spectrometer. The outer track is used to seed track reconstruction
in the inner tracker and matching inner-outer track pairs are included in a
combined fit that is used to select muon candidates in a range
$\abs{\eta}<2.4$.

###  0.3.1 Event reconstruction

The global event reconstruction (also called particle-flow event
reconstruction [30]) consists of reconstructing and identifying each
individual particle with an optimized combination of all subdetector
information. In this process, the identification of the particle type (photon,
electron, muon, charged hadron, neutral hadron) plays an important role in the
determination of the particle direction and energy. Photons (coming from
decays or from electron bremsstrahlung) are identified as ECAL energy clusters
not linked to the extrapolation of any charged particle trajectory to the
ECAL. Electrons (coming from photon conversions in the tracker material or
from -hadron semileptonic decays) are identified as a primary charged particle
track and potentially many ECAL energy clusters corresponding to this track
extrapolation to the ECAL and to possible bremsstrahlung photons emitted along
the way through the tracker material. Muons (from -hadron semileptonic decays)
are identified as a track in the central tracker consistent with either a
track or several hits in the muon system, associated with an energy deficit in
the calorimeters. Charged hadrons are identified as charged particle tracks
neither identified as electrons, nor as muons. Finally, neutral hadrons are
identified as HCAL energy clusters not linked to any charged hadron
trajectory, or as ECAL and HCAL energy excesses with respect to the expected
charged hadron energy deposit.

The energy of photons is directly obtained from the ECAL measurement,
corrected for zero-suppression effects. The energy of electrons is determined
from a combination of the track momentum at the main interaction vertex, the
corresponding ECAL cluster energy, and the energy sum of all bremsstrahlung
photons attached to the track. The energy of muons is obtained from the
corresponding track momentum. The energy of charged hadrons is determined from
a combination of the track momentum and the corresponding ECAL and HCAL
energy, corrected for zero-suppression effects and for the response function
of the calorimeters to hadronic showers. Finally, the energy of neutral
hadrons is obtained from the corresponding corrected ECAL and HCAL energy.

Events are required to have at least one reconstructed interaction vertex. In
case of the existence of multiple vertices, the reconstructed vertex with the
largest value of summed physics-object $\pt^{2}$ is taken to be the primary
$\Pp\Pp$ interaction vertex. The physics objects are the jets, clustered using
the jet finding algorithm [31, 32] with the tracks assigned to the vertex as
inputs, and the associated missing transverse momentum, taken as the negative
vector sum of the of those jets.

To reduce the electron misidentification rate, we require the candidates to
satisfy additional identification criteria that are based on the shape of the
electromagnetic shower in the ECAL [33]. Electron candidates within the
transition region between the ECAL barrel and endcap
($1.479<\abs{\eta}<1.566$) are rejected, because instrumental effects degrade
the performance of the reconstruction. Candidates that are identified as
coming from photon conversions in the detector material are removed. Photon
reconstruction uses the same approach as electrons, except that photon
candidates must not have an assigned track or be identified as a
bremsstrahlung photon from an electron [34].

Muon candidate reconstruction at CMS utilizes several standard algorithms
[35], two of which are employed in this analysis. In the first, tracks are
reconstructed in the muon system and propagated inward to the tracker. If a
matching track is found, a global fit is performed to hits in both the silicon
tracker and the muon system. In the second, tracks in the silicon tracker are
matched with at least one muon segment in any detector plane of the muon
system, but only silicon tracking data are used to reconstruct the trajectory
of the muon. To improve efficiency for highly boosted events where the
separation between the two muons is small, we require only one muon to satisfy
the global fit requirement. This results in an efficiency improvement of 4–18%
for identifying bosons having in the range of 200–1000. The muon
misidentification rate is reduced by applying additional identification
criteria based on the number of spatial points measured in the tracker and in
the muon system, the fit quality of the muon track, and its consistency with
the event vertex location.

Leptons produced in the decay of bosons are expected to be isolated from
hadronic activity in the event. Therefore, an isolation requirement is applied
based on the sum of the momenta of either charged hadron PF candidates or
additional tracks found in a cone of radius $\Delta R=0.3$ around each
electron or muon candidate, respectively. The isolation sum is required to be
smaller than $10\%$ of the of the electron or muon. For each electron, the
mean energy deposit in the isolation cone coming from other $\Pp\Pp$
collisions in the same bunch crossing, is estimated following the method
described in Ref. [33], and subtracted from the isolation sum. For muon
candidates, only charged tracks associated with the primary vertex are
included and any additional muons found in the isolation cone are removed from
this sum to prevent rejection of a highly boosted boson decay.

Jets produced by initial state radiation may accompany signal events and are
also expected to arise from background sources. The jets are reconstructed
from all the PF candidates using the anti-algorithm [31, 32] with a radius
parameter of $R=0.4$. Charged hadron candidates that are not associated with
the primary vertex are excluded. Jet energy corrections are derived from the
simulation, and are confirmed with in situ measurements using the energy
balance of dijet, multijet, $\gamma{+}\text{jets}$, and leptonically decaying
$\cPZ{+}\text{jets}$ events [36].

The is calculated from all the PF candidates, with momentum scale corrections
applied to the candidates.

###  0.3.2 Sample selection

Events are selected if they include a pair of same-flavor, oppositely charged
leptons that pass the identification and isolation criteria. The leading
(subleading) leptons are required to have $\pt>120\,(35)$for the electron
channel and $\pt>60(20)$for the muon channel. Electrons (muons) are required
to be reconstructed in the range $\abs{\eta}<2.5\,(2.4)$. To suppress
backgrounds that do not include a boson, the lepton pair is required to have
an invariant mass compatible with the boson mass [37] $70<m_{\ell\ell}<110$.
If more than one such pair is identified, the pair with invariant mass closest
to the boson is selected.

The signal region (SR) is defined by additionally requiring that the of the
boson candidate satisfies $\pt^{\cPZ}>100$, $\ptmiss>50$, and the angular
difference between $\ptvec^{\cPZ}$ and satisfies
$\abs{\Delta\phi(\ptvec^{\cPZ},\ptvecmiss)}>0.5$radians. The SR selection
largely suppresses the backgrounds, which are primarily concentrated at low
$\pt^{\cPZ}$ and low . In the case of a signal we expect two highly boosted
bosons, therefore, the $|\Delta\phi(\ptvec^{\cPZ},\ptvecmiss)|$ distribution
is correspondingly peaked around $\pi$ in contrast to a relatively flat
distribution in the $\cPZ{+}\text{jets}$ background where arises from
instrumental effects.

##  0.4 Signal and background models

Two versions of the signal model are examined. For our benchmark model, signal
events are generated at leading order for the bulk graviton model of Refs.
[19, 20, 21] using the 2.3.3 event generator [38]. Because the expected width
is small compared to detector resolution for reconstructing the signal, we use
a zero width approximation [39] for generating signal events. A more general
version of the bulk graviton decaying to is generated using JHU Generator
7.0.2 [40, 41, 42]. We model a bulk graviton as in Refs. [43, 44] and
introduce variable decay widths up to 30% of $m_{\cmsSymbolFace{X}}$.
Production of the wide resonance via gluon fusion and annihilation are
generated separately. Generated events are interfaced to 8.212 [45] for parton
showering and hadronization. The renormalization and factorization scales are
set to the resonance mass. Parton distribution functions (PDFs) are modeled
using the NNPDF 3.0 [46] parametrization. Signal samples are generated in the
mass range 600–2500for each tested model. We simulate both signal and
background using a -based model [47, 48, 49] of the CMS detector and process
the Monte Carlo (MC) events using the same reconstruction algorithms as for
data. All MC samples include an overlay of additional minimum bias events
(also called “pileup”), generated with an approximate distribution for the
number of expected additional $\Pp\Pp$ interactions, and events are reweighted
to match the distribution observed in data.

The largest source of background arises from the production of
$\cPZ{+}\text{jets}$ events, characterized by a transversely boosted boson and
recoiling hadrons. The observation of in these events primarily results from
the mismeasurement of jet or lepton . While this process may be modeled
exclusively using simulated events, the description of detector instrumental
effects can be improved by constructing a background estimate based on control
samples in data. We use a sample of $\gamma{+}\text{jets}$ data with a
reweighting procedure to reproduce the kinematics of the boson in
$\cPZ{+}\text{jets}$ events, exploiting the intrinsic similarity of the
recoiling hadrons balancing the of the boson or the photon. The procedure also
employs a sample of $\cPZ{+}\text{jets}$ events generated using the 5_aMC@NLO
framework with next-to-leading order (NLO) matrix elements for final states
with up to two additional partons. The merging scheme of Frederix and Frixione
is employed for matching to parton showers using a merging scale
$\mu_{Q}=30\GeV$ [50]. The inclusive cross section is recalculated to include
next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) QCD and EW corrections from 3.1 [51]. We
use the $\cPZ{+}\text{jets}$ differential cross section measurement as a
function of $\pt^{\cPZ}$ in CMS data to reweight each event in the MC sample
at the generator level to match the dependence observed in data. The
differential cross section measured in $\gamma{+}\text{jets}$ data is first
corrected for backgrounds producing physical , such as $\PW{+}\text{jets}$
events. The reconstructed $\gamma{+}\text{jets}$ events in data are then
reweighted as a function of $\pt^{\gamma}$ and $\abs{\eta^{\gamma}}$ to match
the corrected $\cPZ{+}\text{jets}$ spectra in simulation for electron and muon
channels separately. This procedure transfers the lepton trigger and
identification efficiencies from $\cPZ{+}\text{jets}$, into the
$\gamma{+}\text{jets}$ data sample. For calculation of the $m_{\mathrm{T}}$
variable in Eq. (1), the photon is randomly assigned a mass based on the
measured boson mass distribution as a function of the boson . Finally to
account for small energy scale and resolution differences in the between
$\gamma{+}\text{jets}$ and $\cPZ{+}\text{jets}$ events, we fit the parallel
and perpendicular components of the hadronic recoil relative to the
reconstructed boson in both samples using a Gaussian model in bins of boson .
The differences are used to correct the $\gamma{+}\text{jets}$ data as a
function of photon .

The nonresonant backgrounds can be significant in regions of large due to the
presence of neutrinos in the final state. A method based on control samples in
data is used to more precisely model this background. The method uses dilepton
samples consisting of pairs to describe the expected background in $\ell\ell$
( or ) events. This utilizes the fact that pairs in the nonresonant background
have very similar kinematic behavior and cross sections compared to the
$\ell\ell$ final states. Events with at least one pair are selected. If more
than one pair is present, the pair having an invariant mass closest to that of
the boson is selected. The normalization of event yields between $\ell\ell$
and events is estimated using events outside the boson mass selection window.
Because of effects due to different trigger requirements and identification
efficiencies, variances are observed in the lepton distributions compared to
the single-flavor samples. Therefore when modeling the electron (muon)
channel, event-based weighting factors are applied to correct the distribution
of the muon (electron) in the data for these observed differences. The trigger
efficiency is also applied in the background sample to simulate the single-
lepton trigger efficiency. The correction corresponding to either the electron
or muon channel is applied based on the and $\abs{\eta}$ of both leptons.

Figure 2: The $\pt^{\cPZ}$ distributions for electron (left) and muon (right)
channels comparing the data and background model based on control samples in
data. The lower panels give the ratio of data to the prediction for the
background. The shaded band shows the systematic uncertainties in background,
while the statistical uncertainty in the data is shown by the error bars. The
expected distribution for a zero width bulk graviton resonance with a mass of
1is also shown for a value of 1pb for the product of cross section and
branching fraction
$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\cmsSymbolFace{X}\to\cPZ\cPZ)\,\mathcal{B}(\cPZ\cPZ\to 2\ell
2\Pgn)$.

The irreducible (resonant) background arises mainly from the SM
$\PQq\Paq\to\cPZ\cPZ{}\to 2\ell 2\Pgn$ process and is modeled using MC samples
generated by 2.0 [52, 53], at NLO in QCD and leading order in EW calculations.
We also apply NNLO QCD [54] and NLO EW corrections to the production processes
[55, 56]. These are applied as a function of $m_{\cPZ\cPZ}$ and on average are
1.11 and 0.95 for the NNLO QCD and NLO EW corrections, respectively. Smaller
contributions from and decays are modeled at NLO using 5_aMC@NLO.

Figure 2 shows the comparison of background models and data for the
distribution of the reconstructed boson after all corrections are applied.
Figure 3 shows the data and background prediction of the distribution after
all corrections are applied. The is an essential variable to examine the
quality of the background modeling and the understanding of the systematic
uncertainties. All the systematic uncertainties are propagated to the
distributions and shown as the uncertainty band on the ratio plots in the
lower panels of the figure. Also shown in Figs. 2 and 3 is the expected signal
distribution assuming a bulk graviton with 1mass and an arbitrary product of
the cross section and branching fraction
$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\cmsSymbolFace{X}\to\cPZ\cPZ)\,\mathcal{B}(\cPZ\cPZ\to 2\ell
2\Pgn)$ of 1pb.

Figure 3: The for electron (left) and muon (right) channels comparing the data
and background model based on control samples in data. The expected
distribution for a zero width bulk graviton resonance with a mass of 1is also
shown for a value of 1pb for the product of cross section and branching
fraction
$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\cmsSymbolFace{X}\to\cPZ\cPZ)\,\mathcal{B}(\cPZ\cPZ\to 2\ell
2\Pgn)$. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the prediction for the
background. The shaded band shows the systematic uncertainties in background,
while the statistical uncertainty in the data is shown by the error bars.

##  0.5 Systematic uncertainties

Systematic uncertainties can affect both the normalization and differential
distributions of signal and background. Individual sources of systematic
uncertainties are evaluated by studying the effects of parameter variations
within one standard deviation relative to their nominal values and propagating
the result into the $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ template distributions that are used to
evaluate signal cross section limits. The various categories of systematic
uncertainties affecting these distributions are described below and summarized
in Table 0.5 for both electron and muon channels.

Summary of the normalization uncertainties that are included in the
statistical procedure for the electron and muon channels. All values are
listed in percentage units and similar categories are grouped for brevity.
Sources that do not apply or are found to be negligibly small are marked “—”
or “(—),” respectively. Integrated luminosity and theoretical uncertainties
are evaluated separately for effects on normalizations, while all the other
uncertainties are considered simultaneously with shape variations in the
statistical analysis. Values in the signal column refer to the hypothetical
spin-2 bulk graviton signal with a mass of 1.  Source Signal
$\cPZ{+}\text{jets}$ Resonant Nonresonant (%) (%) (%) (%) Integrated
luminosity 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 PDF: cross section — 2.3 1.7 — Scale: cross section
— 3.5 3.0 — EW NLO correction — — 3.0 — Electron channel PDF: acceptance 1.0
3.4 1.0 — Scale: acceptance (—) 22.7 2.9 — Trigger/identification eff. 2.1 —
0.4 — $\pt^{\cPZ}$ reweighting — 6.8 — — Nonresonant norm. — — — 10.0 /energy
scale (—) — 4.6 — Jet energy resolution (—) — 6.8 — Unclustered energy (—) —
5.5 — Hadronic recoil — 3.4 — — Muon channel PDF: acceptance 1.0 3.4 1.0 —
Scale: acceptance (—) 13.1 2.9 — Trigger/identification eff. 3.6 1.0 1.0 1.0
$\pt^{\cPZ}$ reweighting — 3.2 — — Nonresonant norm. — — — 2.4 /energy scale
(—) — 7.4 — Jet energy resolution (—) — 5.6 — Unclustered energy (—) — 6.3 —
Hadronic recoil — 2.0 — —

Uncertainties from trigger efficiencies, lepton identification and isolation
requirements, and tracking efficiency can affect signal and background
estimates obtained from both simulation and from control samples in data. The
combined effect of these uncertainties on the normalizations of the various
samples is found to be 0.4–3.6%.

Uncertainties of 6.8 (3.2)% for the electron (muon) channel are assigned to
the reweighting procedure for the $\cPZ{+}\text{jets}$ background. For the
nonresonant background, modeling of trigger and lepton identification
efficiencies relative to the boson data and the size of the sideband samples
contribute the major uncertainties in the expected event yields. These are
estimated to affect the normalization by 10 (2.4)% for the electron (muon)
channel.

The lepton momenta, and photon and jet energies are recalculated by varying
their respective corrections within scale uncertainties. These uncertainties
affect event selection and the detector response corrected , contributing a
variation of 4.6 (7.4)% to the template normalizations for the MC-generated
resonant backgrounds in the electron (muon) channel. Their corresponding
effect on acceptance for the signal is negligible. The modeling of jet
resolution and the correction applied to unclustered energy are similarly
considered for the MC samples and found to contribute an uncertainty of
$\approx$6% each to the resonant background normalization. The effect of
variations in corrections to the modeling of recoil in the
$\cPZ{+}\text{jets}$ background is found to be 3.4% and 2.0% for the electron
and muon channel, respectively.

Uncertainties arising from the PDF model and renormalization and factorization
scales in fixed-order calculations affect signal and simulated backgrounds,
modifying predictions for both the production cross-section and the
acceptance. We estimate the effect of PDF uncertainties by evaluating the
complete set of NNPDF 3.0 PDF eigenvectors, following the PDF4LHC prescription
[46, 57]. This contributes a variation of 1.0–3.4% to the MC background
models. The production of bulk gravitons is modeled by a fusion process with
gluons having large Björken-$x$, where parton luminosities are generally not
well-constrained by existing PDF models. The PDF uncertainties in the signal
production cross section depend on $m_{\cmsSymbolFace{X}}$ and range from
10–50%, but modify the acceptance by only about 1%.

The effect of scale variations is assessed by varying the original
factorization and renormalization scales by factors of 0.5 or 2.0. The scale
uncertainties are estimated to be about 3–3.5% each in the production cross
section and acceptance for the resonant background. For the
$\cPZ{+}\text{jets}$ background, the scale choice modifies the normalization
by 3.5%. The acceptance varies by 23 (13)% in the electron (muon) channel and
the corresponding effect is negligibly small for the signal. An uncertainty of
3.0% is estimated for the (N)NLO correction to the resonant background. The
uncertainty assigned to the integrated luminosity measurement is 2.5% [58] and
is applied to the signal and simulated backgrounds.

In the treatment of systematic uncertainties, both normalization effects,
which only alter the overall yields of individual contributions, as well as
shape variations, which also affect their distribution, are taken into account
for each source individually.

##  0.6 Statistical interpretation

The $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ distribution is used as the sensitive variable to search
for a new resonance decaying to with the subsequent decay $\cPZ\cPZ\to 2\ell
2\Pgn$. For both the electron and muon channels, a binned shape analysis is
employed. The expected numbers of background and signal events scaled by a
signal strength modifier are combined to form a binned likelihood calculated
using each bin of the $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ distribution.

Event yields for different background contributions and those observed in data
in the electron and muon channels.  Electron channel Muon channel Data 9336
52806 Z$+$jets $8421\pm 203$ $44253\pm 336$ Resonant $637\pm 38$ $2599\pm 164$
Nonresonant $271\pm 28$ $5961\pm 211$ Total background $9329\pm 208$ $52813\pm
439$

The results of a simultaneous fit of the predicted backgrounds to data,
combining electron and muon channels, and including the estimated systematic
uncertainties are summarized in Table 0.6. Figure 4 shows the post-fit
$m_{\mathrm{T}}$ distributions in the SR using only the background models. The
expected distribution for a bulk graviton signal with a mass of 1and an
arbitrary product of cross section and branching fraction
$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\cmsSymbolFace{X}\to\cPZ\cPZ)\,\mathcal{B}(\cPZ\cPZ\to 2\ell
2\Pgn)$ of 1pb is also shown. The observed distributions are in agreement with
fitted SM background predictions.

Figure 4: The $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ distributions for electron (left) and muon
(right) channels comparing the data and background model based on control
samples in data, after fitting the background-only model to the data. The
expected distribution for a zero width bulk graviton resonance with a mass of
1is also shown for a value of 1pb for the product of branching fraction and
cross section
$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\cmsSymbolFace{X}\to\cPZ\cPZ)\,\mathcal{B}(\cPZ\cPZ\to 2\ell
2\Pgn)$. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the prediction for the
background. The shaded bands show the systematic uncertainties in the
background, while the statistical uncertainty in the data is shown by the
error bars.

Upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for the
resonance production $\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\cmsSymbolFace{X}\to\PZ\PZ)$ are
evaluated using the asymptotic approximation [59] of the modified frequentist
approach CLs [60, 61, 62]. The same simultaneous combined fit is performed
using signal and background distributions after application of the SR
selection, to extract the upper limits for a given signal hypothesis.
Statistical uncertainties in the background modeling are taken into account by
fluctuating the predicted background histograms within an envelope according
to uncertainties in each bin. Systematic uncertainties are treated as nuisance
parameters, constrained with Gaussian or log-normal probability density
functions in the maximum likelihood fit. For the signal, only uncertainties
related to luminosity and acceptance contribute in the limit setting
procedure. When the likelihoods for electron and muon channels are combined,
the correlation of systematic effects is taken into account.

##  0.7 Results

The expected and observed upper limits on the product of the resonance cross
section and the branching fraction for $\cmsSymbolFace{X}\to\cPZ\cPZ$ are
determined at the 95% confidence level (CL) for the zero width benchmark model
as a function of $m_{\cmsSymbolFace{X}}$ and shown in Fig. 5 for the and
channels combined. Expectations for
$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\cmsSymbolFace{X}\to\cPZ\cPZ)$ are also normalized to the
calculations of Ref. [39] and shown as a function of the bulk graviton mass
for three values of the curvature scale parameter $\tilde{k}=(1.0,0.5,0.1)$.
The hypothesis of $\tilde{k}=0.5$ can be excluded for masses below 800at 95%
CL, while the current data are not yet sensitive to the hypothesis of
$\tilde{k}=0.1$.

Figure 5: Expected and observed limits on the product of cross section and
branching fraction of a new spin-2 heavy resonance
$\cmsSymbolFace{X}\to\cPZ\cPZ$, assuming zero width, based on the combined
analysis of the electron and muon channels. Expectations for the production
cross section $\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\cmsSymbolFace{X}\to\cPZ\cPZ)$ are also shown
for the benchmark bulk graviton model for three values of the curvature scale
parameter $\tilde{k}$.

The observed limits are within 2 standard deviations of expectations from the
background-only model. The largest upward fluctuations in the data are
observed for $m_{\cmsSymbolFace{X}}\approx 900$and weaken the corresponding
exclusions in this region. To explore this region in more detail, upper limits
are shown separately for the electron and muon channels in Fig. 6. The upward
fluctuations at $m_{\cmsSymbolFace{X}}\approx 900$appear mainly in the muon
channel, and additional fluctuations below this $m_{\cmsSymbolFace{X}}$ can
also be observed.

The analysis is repeated comparing to the more general wide width version of
the bulk graviton model described above. The initial state is fixed purely to
either a gluon–gluon fusion or annihilation process and the width of the
resonance varied between 0 and $0.3m_{\cmsSymbolFace{X}}$. The 95% CL limits
for these models are shown in Fig. 7. Differences in the limits between the
gluon fusion and production processes arise from spin and parity effects,
which broaden the $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ peak in production [41].

Figure 6: Expected and observed limits on the product of cross section and
branching fraction of a new spin-2 bulk heavy resonance
$\cmsSymbolFace{X}\to\cPZ\cPZ$, assuming zero width, shown separately for
searches $\cmsSymbolFace{X}\to\cPZ\cPZ\to\ell\ell\Pgn\Pgn$ in the electron
(left) and muon (right) final states. The median expected 95% CL limits from
the combined analysis (Fig. 5) are also shown.

Figure 7: Expected and observed limits on the product of cross section and
branching fraction of a new spin-2 heavy resonance
$\cmsSymbolFace{X}\to\cPZ\cPZ$ based on a combined analysis of the electron
and muon channels. The more generic version of the bulk graviton model is
considered, assuming either gluon-gluon fusion (left) or annihilation (right)
processes. Expected limits are also shown for models having various decay
widths relative to the mass of the resonance.

##  0.8 Summary

A search for the production of new resonances has been performed in events
with a leptonically decaying boson and missing transverse momentum, using data
corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9of proton-proton collisions
at a center-of-mass energy of 13. The data are consistent with expectations
from standard model processes. The hypothesis of a spin-2 bulk graviton,
$\cmsSymbolFace{X}$, decaying to a pair of bosons is examined for $600\leq
m_{\cmsSymbolFace{X}}\leq 2500$ GeV, and upper limits are set at 95%
confidence level on the product of the cross section and branching fraction
$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\cmsSymbolFace{X}\to\cPZ\cPZ)$ ranging from 100 to 4fb. For
bulk graviton models characterized by a curvature scale parameter
$\tilde{k}=0.5$ in the extra dimension, the region
$m_{\cmsSymbolFace{X}}<800$is excluded, providing the most stringent limit
reported to date. The analysis is repeated considering variations of the bulk
graviton model to include a large mass-dependent width. Exclusion limits are
provided separately for gluon–gluon fusion and annihilation production
processes.

###### Acknowledgements.

We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the
excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative
staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the
success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the
computing centers and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for
delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our
analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction
and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following
funding agencies: BMWFW and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq,
CAPES, FAPERJ, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC
(China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RPF (Cyprus);
SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC IUT, and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of Finland,
MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF
(Germany); GSRT (Greece); OTKA and NIH (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM
(Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); LAS
(Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT, LNS, SEP, and
UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC
(Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom, RAS, RFBR and RAEP
(Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI and FEDER (Spain); Swiss Funding
Agencies (Switzerland); MST (Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR, and NSTDA
(Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); NASU and SFFR (Ukraine); STFC (United
Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA). Individuals have received support from the Marie-
Curie program and the European Research Council and Horizon 2020 Grant,
contract No. 675440 (European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A. P. Sloan
Foundation; the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science
Policy Office; the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et
dans l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door
Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the Ministry of Education, Youth and
Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Council of Science and Industrial
Research, India; the HOMING PLUS program of the Foundation for Polish Science,
cofinanced from European Union, Regional Development Fund, the Mobility Plus
program of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, the National Science
Center (Poland), contracts Harmonia 2014/14/M/ST2/00428, Opus
2014/13/B/ST2/02543, 2014/15/B/ST2/03998, and 2015/19/B/ST2/02861, Sonata-bis
2012/07/E/ST2/01406; the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar
National Research Fund; the Programa Severo Ochoa del Principado de Asturias;
the Thalis and Aristeia programs cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; the
Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University
and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century Project Advancement
Project (Thailand); the Welch Foundation, contract C-1845; and the Weston
Havens Foundation (USA).

## References

  * [1] F. Englert and R. Brout, “Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 321, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.321.
  * [2] P. W. Higgs, “Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields”,  Phys. Lett. 12 (1964) 132, 10.1016/0031-9163(64)91136-9.
  * [3] P. W. Higgs, “Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 508, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.508.
  * [4] G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble, “Global conservation laws and massless particles”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 585, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.585.
  * [5] P. W. Higgs, “Spontaneous symmetry breakdown without massless bosons”,  Phys. Rev. 145 (1966) 1156, 10.1103/PhysRev.145.1156.
  * [6] T. W. B. Kibble, “Symmetry breaking in non-abelian gauge theories”,  Phys. Rev. 155 (1967) 1554, 10.1103/PhysRev.155.1554.
  * [7] ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020, arXiv:1207.7214.
  * [8] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021, arXiv:1207.7235.
  * [9] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 and 8 TeV”,  JHEP 06 (2013) 081, 10.1007/JHEP06(2013)081, arXiv:1303.4571.
  * [10] S. Weinberg, “Implications of dynamical symmetry breaking”,  Phys. Rev. D 13 (1976) 974, 10.1103/PhysRevD.13.974.
  * [11] S. Weinberg, “Implications of dynamical symmetry breaking: An addendum”,  Phys. Rev. D 19 (1979) 1277, 10.1103/PhysRevD.19.1277.
  * [12] L. Susskind, “Dynamics of spontaneous symmetry breaking in the Weinberg–Salam theory”,  Phys. Rev. D 20 (1979) 2619, 10.1103/PhysRevD.20.2619.
  * [13] D. B. Kaplan and H. Georgi, “SU(2) x U(1) breaking by vacuum misalignment”,  Phys. Lett. B 136 (1984) 183, 10.1016/0370-2693(84)91177-8.
  * [14] R. Contino, T. Kramer, M. Son, and R. Sundrum, “Warped/composite phenomenology simplified”,  JHEP 05 (2007) 074, 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/05/074, arXiv:hep-ph/0612180.
  * [15] G. F. Giudice, C. Grojean, A. Pomarol, and R. Rattazzi, “The strongly-interacting light Higgs”,  JHEP 06 (2007) 045, 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/06/045, arXiv:hep-ph/0703164.
  * [16] N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali, “The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter”,  Phys. Lett. B 429 (1998) 263, 10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00466-3, arXiv:hep-ph/9803315.
  * [17] I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali, “New dimensions at a millimeter to a Fermi and superstrings at a TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 436 (1998) 257, 10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00860-0, arXiv:hep-ph/9804398.
  * [18] L. Randall and R. Sundrum, “A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 3370, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.3370, arXiv:hep-ph/9905221.
  * [19] A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, L. Randall, and L.-T. Wang, “Searching for the Kaluza-Klein graviton in bulk RS models”,  JHEP 09 (2007) 013, 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/09/013, arXiv:hep-ph/0701150.
  * [20] O. Antipin, D. Atwood, and A. Soni, “Search for RS gravitons via $W_{L}W_{L}$ decays”,  Phys. Lett. B 666 (2008) 155, 10.1016/j.physletb.2008.07.009, arXiv:0711.3175.
  * [21] K. Agashe, H. Davoudiasl, G. Perez, and A. Soni, “Warped gravitons at the LHC and beyond”,  Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 036006, 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.036006, arXiv:hep-ph/0701186.
  * [22] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for new phenomena in the WW to $\ell\nu\ell^{\prime}\nu^{\prime}$ final state in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Lett. B 718 (2013) 860, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.11.040, arXiv:1208.2880.
  * [23] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for resonant diboson production in the $\ell\nu jj$ decay channels with the ATLAS detector at 7 TeV”,  Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 112006, 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.112006, arXiv:1305.0125.
  * [24] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for resonant diboson production in the ${\ell\ell}{\text{q}\bar{\text{q}}}$ final state in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 69, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3261-8, arXiv:1409.6190.
  * [25] CMS Collaboration, “Search for a narrow spin-2 resonance decaying to a pair of Z vector bosons in the semileptonic final state”,  Phys. Lett. B 718 (2013) 1208, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.11.063, arXiv:1209.3807.
  * [26] CMS Collaboration, “Search for massive resonances decaying into pairs of boosted bosons in semi-leptonic final states at $\sqrt{s}=$ 8 TeV”,  JHEP 08 (2014) 174, 10.1007/JHEP08(2014)174, arXiv:1405.3447.
  * [27] ATLAS Collaboration, “Searches for heavy diboson resonances in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  JHEP 09 (2016) 173, 10.1007/JHEP09(2016)173, arXiv:1606.04833.
  * [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] 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.
  * [31] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-$k_{t}$ jet clustering algorithm”,  JHEP 04 (2008) 063, 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063, arXiv:0802.1189.
  * [32] 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.
  * [33] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 8 TeV”,  JINST 10 (2015) P06005, 10.1088/1748-0221/10/06/P06005, arXiv:1502.02701.
  * [34] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$”,  JINST 10 (2015) P08010, 10.1088/1748-0221/10/08/P08010, arXiv:1502.02702.
  * [35] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in pp collision events at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV”,  JINST 7 (2012) P10002, 10.1088/1748-0221/7/10/P10002, arXiv:1206.4071.
  * [36] 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.
  * [37] Particle Data Group, C. Patrignani et al., “Review of Particle Physics”,  Chin. Phys. C 40 (2016) 100001, 10.1088/1674-1137/40/10/100001.
  * [38] J. Alwall et al., “The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations”,  JHEP 07 (2014) 079, 10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079, arXiv:1405.0301.
  * [39] A. Oliveira, “Gravity particles from warped extra dimensions, predictions for LHC”, (2014). arXiv:1404.0102.
  * [40] Y. Gao et al., “Spin determination of single-produced resonances at hadron colliders”,  Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 075022, 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.075022, arXiv:1001.3396.
  * [41] S. Bolognesi et al., “On the spin and parity of a single-produced resonance at the LHC”,  Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 095031, 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.095031, arXiv:1208.4018.
  * [42] M. Chen et al., “The role of interference in unraveling the ZZ-couplings of the newly discovered boson at the LHC”,  Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 034002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.034002, arXiv:1310.1397.
  * [43] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the properties of a Higgs boson in the four-lepton final state”,  Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 092007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.092007, arXiv:1312.5353.
  * [44] CMS Collaboration, “Constraints on the spin-parity and anomalous HVV couplings of the Higgs boson in proton collisions at 7 and 8 TeV”,  Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 012004, 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.012004, arXiv:1411.3441.
  * [45] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, “PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual”,  JHEP 05 (2006) 026, 10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/026, arXiv:hep-ph/0603175.
  * [46] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC Run II”,  JHEP 04 (2015) 040, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040, arXiv:1410.8849.
  * [47] GEANT4 Collaboration, “GEANT4—a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [48] J. Allison et al., “Geant4 developments and applications”,  IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 53 (2006) 270, 10.1109/TNS.2006.869826.
  * [49] Geant4 Collaboration, “Recent developments in Geant4”,  Annals Nucl. Energy 82 (2015) 19, 10.1016/j.anucene.2014.08.021.
  * [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] Y. Li and F. Petriello, “Combining QCD and electroweak corrections to dilepton production in FEWZ”,  Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 094034, 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.094034, arXiv:1208.5967.
  * [52] P. Nason, “A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms”,  JHEP 11 (2004) 040, 10.1088/1126-6708/2004/11/040, arXiv:hep-ph/0409146.
  * [53] S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari, “Matching NLO QCD computations with Parton Shower simulations: the POWHEG method”,  JHEP 11 (2007) 070, 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070, arXiv:0709.2092.
  * [54] M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, and D. Rathlev, “ZZ production at the LHC: fiducial cross sections and distributions in NNLO QCD”,  Phys. Lett. B 750 (2015) 407, 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.09.055, arXiv:1507.06257.
  * [55] A. Bierweiler, T. Kasprzik, and J. H. Kühn, “Vector-boson pair production at the LHC to $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{3})$ accuracy”,  JHEP 12 (2013) 071, 10.1007/JHEP12(2013)071, arXiv:1305.5402.
  * [56] S. Gieseke, T. Kasprzik, and J. H. Kühn, “Vector-boson pair production and electroweak corrections in HERWIG++”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 2988, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2988-y, arXiv:1401.3964.
  * [57] 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.
  * [58] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data taking period”, Technical Report CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001, 2017.
  * [59] G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, “Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1554, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0, arXiv:1007.1727. [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2501].
  * [60] T. Junk, “Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 434 (1999) 435, 10.1016/S0168-9002(99)00498-2, arXiv:hep-ex/9902006.
  * [61] A. L. Read, “Presentation of search results: the $CL_{s}$ technique”, in  Durham IPPP Workshop: Advanced Statistical Techniques in Particle Physics, p. 2693.  Durham, UK, March, 2002.  [J. Phys. G 28 (2002) 2693]. 10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/313.
  * [62] ATLAS, CMS, and the LHC Higgs Combination Group Collaboration, “Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011”, Technical Report CMS-NOTE-2011-005, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-11, 2011.

##  .9 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan Institut für Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, E. Asilar, T. Bergauer, J. Brandstetter, E. Brondolin, M.
Dragicevic, J. Erö, A. Escalante Del Valle, M. Flechl, M. Friedl, R.
Frühwirth1, V.M. Ghete, J. Grossmann, J. Hrubec, M. Jeitler1, A. König, N.
Krammer, I. Krätschmer, D. Liko, T. Madlener, I. Mikulec, E. Pree, N. Rad, H.
Rohringer, J. Schieck1, R. Schöfbeck, M. Spanring, D. Spitzbart, A. Taurok, W.
Waltenberger, J. Wittmann, C.-E. Wulz1, M. Zarucki Institute for Nuclear
Problems, Minsk, Belarus
V. Chekhovsky, V. Mossolov, J. Suarez Gonzalez Universiteit Antwerpen,
Antwerpen, Belgium
E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, J. Lauwers, M. Van De Klundert, H. Van
Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, N. Van Remortel Vrije Universiteit Brussel,
Brussel, Belgium
S. Abu Zeid, F. Blekman, J. D’Hondt, I. De Bruyn, J. De Clercq, K. Deroover,
G. Flouris, D. Lontkovskyi, S. Lowette, I. Marchesini, S. Moortgat, L.
Moreels, Q. Python, K. Skovpen, S. Tavernier, W. Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders,
I. Van Parijs Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
D. Beghin, B. Bilin, H. Brun, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, H. Delannoy, B.
Dorney, G. Fasanella, L. Favart, R. Goldouzian, A. Grebenyuk, A.K. Kalsi, T.
Lenzi, J. Luetic, T. Maerschalk, A. Marinov, T. Seva, E. Starling, C. Vander
Velde, P. Vanlaer, D. Vannerom, R. Yonamine, F. Zenoni Ghent University,
Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, A. Fagot, M. Gul, I. Khvastunov2, D. Poyraz, C. Roskas,
S. Salva, M. Tytgat, W. Verbeke, N. Zaganidis Université Catholique de
Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
H. Bakhshiansohi, O. Bondu, S. Brochet, G. Bruno, C. Caputo, A. Caudron, P.
David, S. De Visscher, C. Delaere, M. Delcourt, B. Francois, A. Giammanco, M.
Komm, G. Krintiras, V. Lemaitre, A. Magitteri, A. Mertens, M. Musich, K.
Piotrzkowski, L. Quertenmont, A. Saggio, M. Vidal Marono, S. Wertz, J. Zobec
Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
W.L. Aldá Júnior, F.L. Alves, G.A. Alves, L. Brito, M. Correa Martins Junior,
G. Correia Silva, C. Hensel, A. Moraes, M.E. Pol, P. Rebello Teles
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato3, E. Coelho, E.M.
Da Costa, G.G. Da Silveira4, D. De Jesus Damiao, S. Fonseca De Souza, L.M.
Huertas Guativa, H. Malbouisson, M. Melo De Almeida, C. Mora Herrera, L.
Mundim, H. Nogima, L.J. Sanchez Rosas, A. Santoro, A. Sznajder, M. Thiel, E.J.
Tonelli Manganote3, F. Torres Da Silva De Araujo, A. Vilela Pereira
Universidade Estadual Paulista a, Universidade Federal do ABC b, São Paulo,
Brazil
S. Ahujaa, C.A. Bernardesa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M. Gregoresb, P.G.
Mercadanteb, S.F. Novaesa, Sandra S. Padulaa, D. Romero Abadb, J.C. Ruiz
Vargasa Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy
of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, M. Misheva, M. Rodozov, M. Shopova,
G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Dimitrov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov Beihang University, Beijing, China
W. Fang5, X. Gao5, L. Yuan Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, J.G. Bian, G.M. Chen, H.S. Chen, M. Chen, Y. Chen, C.H. Jiang, D.
Leggat, H. Liao, Z. Liu, F. Romeo, S.M. Shaheen, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, C. Wang,
Z. Wang, E. Yazgan, T. Yu, H. Zhang, S. Zhang, J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of
Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
Y. Ban, G. Chen, J. Li, Q. Li, S. Liu, Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang, Z. Xu, F.
Zhang5 Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Y. Wang Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, L.F. Chaparro Sierra, C. Florez, C.F. González
Hernández, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, M.A. Segura Delgado University of Split, Faculty
of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture,
Split, Croatia
B. Courbon, N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak, P.M. Ribeiro Cipriano, T.
Sculac University of Split, Faculty of Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, K. Kadija, B. Mesic, A. Starodumov6, T. Susa
University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos,
P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
M. Finger7, M. Finger Jr.7 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
Y. Assran8,9, S. Elgammal9, A. Mahrous10 National Institute of Chemical
Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
S. Bhowmik, R.K. Dewanjee, M. Kadastik, L. Perrini, M. Raidal, A. Tiko, C.
Veelken Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
P. Eerola, H. Kirschenmann, J. Pekkanen, M. Voutilainen Helsinki Institute of
Physics, Helsinki, Finland
J. Havukainen, J.K. Heikkilä, T. Järvinen, V. Karimäki, R. Kinnunen, T.
Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Laurila, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, P. Luukka, T.
Mäenpää, H. Siikonen, E. Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi Lappeenranta University of
Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
T. Tuuva IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, J.L. Faure, F. Ferri, S.
Ganjour, S. Ghosh, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry,
I. Kucher, C. Leloup, E. Locci, M. Machet, J. Malcles, G. Negro, J. Rander, A.
Rosowsky, M.Ö. Sahin, M. Titov Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole
polytechnique, CNRS/IN2P3, Université Paris-Saclay, Palaiseau, France
A. Abdulsalam11, C. Amendola, I. Antropov, S. Baffioni, F. Beaudette, P.
Busson, L. Cadamuro, C. Charlot, R. Granier de Cassagnac, M. Jo, S. Lisniak,
A. Lobanov, J. Martin Blanco, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, G. Ortona, P. Paganini,
P. Pigard, R. Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A.G. Stahl Leiton, T. Strebler,
Y. Yilmaz, A. Zabi, A. Zghiche Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178,
F-67000 Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram12, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, J.-M. Brom, M. Buttignol, E.C. Chabert, N.
Chanon, C. Collard, E. Conte12, X. Coubez, F. Drouhin12, J.-C. Fontaine12, D.
Gelé, U. Goerlach, M. Jansová, P. Juillot, A.-C. Le Bihan, N. Tonon, P. Van
Hove Centre de Calcul de l’Institut National de Physique Nucleaire et de
Physique des Particules, CNRS/IN2P3, Villeurbanne, France
S. Gadrat Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3,
Institut de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, R. Chierici, D. Contardo, P. Depasse, H.
El Mamouni, J. Fay, L. Finco, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, G. Grenier, B. Ille,
F. Lagarde, I.B. Laktineh, M. Lethuillier, L. Mirabito, A.L. Pequegnot, S.
Perries, A. Popov13, V. Sordini, M. Vander Donckt, S. Viret Georgian Technical
University, Tbilisi, Georgia
T. Toriashvili14 Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
Z. Tsamalaidze7 RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen,
Germany
C. Autermann, L. Feld, M.K. Kiesel, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, M. Preuten, C.
Schomakers, J. Schulz, M. Teroerde, B. Wittmer, V. Zhukov13 RWTH Aachen
University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany
A. Albert, E. Dietz-Laursonn, D. Duchardt, M. Endres, M. Erdmann, S. Erdweg,
T. Esch, R. Fischer, A. Güth, M. Hamer, T. Hebbeker, C. Heidemann, K.
Hoepfner, S. Knutzen, M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, P. Millet, S. Mukherjee, T.
Pook, M. Radziej, H. Reithler, M. Rieger, F. Scheuch, D. Teyssier, S. Thüer
RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany
G. Flügge, B. Kargoll, T. Kress, A. Künsken, T. Müller, A. Nehrkorn, A.
Nowack, C. Pistone, O. Pooth, A. Stahl15 Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron,
Hamburg, Germany
M. Aldaya Martin, T. Arndt, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, K. Beernaert, O. Behnke, U.
Behrens, A. Bermúdez Martínez, A.A. Bin Anuar, K. Borras16, V. Botta, A.
Campbell, P. Connor, C. Contreras-Campana, F. Costanza, C. Diez Pardos, G.
Eckerlin, D. Eckstein, T. Eichhorn, E. Eren, E. Gallo17, J. Garay Garcia, A.
Geiser, J.M. Grados Luyando, A. Grohsjean, P. Gunnellini, M. Guthoff, A. Harb,
J. Hauk, M. Hempel18, H. Jung, M. Kasemann, J. Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, I.
Korol, D. Krücker, W. Lange, A. Lelek, T. Lenz, J. Leonard, K. Lipka, W.
Lohmann18, R. Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, A.B. Meyer, G. Mittag, J. Mnich,
A. Mussgiller, E. Ntomari, D. Pitzl, A. Raspereza, M. Savitskyi, P. Saxena, R.
Shevchenko, N. Stefaniuk, G.P. Van Onsem, R. Walsh, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C.
Wissing, O. Zenaiev University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, V. Blobel, M. Centis Vignali, T. Dreyer, E. Garutti, D.
Gonzalez, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, M. Hoffmann, A. Karavdina, R. Klanner, R.
Kogler, N. Kovalchuk, S. Kurz, T. Lapsien, D. Marconi, M. Meyer, M. Niedziela,
D. Nowatschin, F. Pantaleo15, T. Peiffer, A. Perieanu, C. Scharf, P. Schleper,
A. Schmidt, S. Schumann, J. Schwandt, J. Sonneveld, H. Stadie, G. Steinbrück,
F.M. Stober, M. Stöver, H. Tholen, D. Troendle, E. Usai, A. Vanhoefer, B.
Vormwald Institut für Experimentelle Kernphysik, Karlsruhe, Germany
M. Akbiyik, C. Barth, M. Baselga, S. Baur, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, F.
Colombo, W. De Boer, A. Dierlamm, N. Faltermann, B. Freund, R. Friese, M.
Giffels, M.A. Harrendorf, F. Hartmann15, S.M. Heindl, U. Husemann, F.
Kassel15, S. Kudella, H. Mildner, M.U. Mozer, Th. Müller, M. Plagge, G. Quast,
K. Rabbertz, M. Schröder, I. Shvetsov, G. Sieber, H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, S.
Wayand, M. Weber, T. Weiler, S. Williamson, C. Wöhrmann, R. Wolf Institute of
Nuclear and Particle Physics (INPP), NCSR Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
G. Anagnostou, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas, I. Topsis-
Giotis National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
G. Karathanasis, S. Kesisoglou, A. Panagiotou, N. Saoulidou National Technical
University of Athens, Athens, Greece
K. Kousouris University of Ioánnina, Ioánnina, Greece
I. Evangelou, C. Foudas, P. Gianneios, P. Katsoulis, P. Kokkas, S. Mallios, N.
Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, E. Paradas, J. Strologas, F.A. Triantis, D.
Tsitsonis MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
M. Csanad, N. Filipovic, G. Pasztor, O. Surányi, G.I. Veres19 Wigner Research
Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath20, Á. Hunyadi, F. Sikler, V. Veszpremi, G.
Vesztergombi19 Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi21, A. Makovec, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi
Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
M. Bartók19, P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari Indian Institute of Science
(IISc), Bangalore, India
S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri National Institute of Science Education and
Research, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati22, P. Mal, K. Mandal, A. Nayak23, D.K. Sahoo22, N. Sahoo, S.K.
Swain Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, R. Chawla, N. Dhingra, A. Kaur, M. Kaur,
S. Kaur, R. Kumar, P. Kumari, A. Mehta, J.B. Singh, G. Walia University of
Delhi, Delhi, India
Ashok Kumar, Aashaq Shah, A. Bhardwaj, S. Chauhan, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg,
S. Keshri, A. Kumar, S. Malhotra, M. Naimuddin, K. Ranjan, R. Sharma Saha
Institute of Nuclear Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India
R. Bhardwaj, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, U. Bhawandeep, S. Dey, S. Dutt,
S. Dutta, S. Ghosh, N. Majumdar, A. Modak, K. Mondal, S. Mukhopadhyay, S.
Nandan, A. Purohit, A. Roy, S. Roy Chowdhury, S. Sarkar, M. Sharan, S. Thakur
Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
R. Chudasama, D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, A.K. Mohanty15, P.K. Netrakanti,
L.M. Pant, P. Shukla, A. Topkar Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A,
Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, S. Dugad, B. Mahakud, S. Mitra, G.B. Mohanty, N. Sur, B. Sutar Tata
Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, P. Das, M. Guchait, Sa. Jain, S.
Kumar, M. Maity24, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, T. Sarkar24, N. Wickramage25
Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, India
S. Chauhan, S. Dube, V. Hegde, A. Kapoor, K. Kothekar, S. Pandey, A. Rane, S.
Sharma Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran
S. Chenarani26, E. Eskandari Tadavani, S.M. Etesami26, M. Khakzad, M.
Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri, S. Paktinat Mehdiabadi27, F. Rezaei
Hosseinabadi, B. Safarzadeh28, M. Zeinali University College Dublin, Dublin,
Ireland
M. Felcini, M. Grunewald INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b,
Politecnico di Bari c, Bari, Italy
M. Abbresciaa,b, C. Calabriaa,b, A. Colaleoa, D. Creanzaa,c, L. Cristellaa,b,
N. De Filippisa,c, M. De Palmaa,b, F. Erricoa,b, L. Fiorea, G. Iasellia,c, S.
Lezkia,b, G. Maggia,c, M. Maggia, G. Minielloa,b, S. Mya,b, S. Nuzzoa,b, A.
Pompilia,b, G. Pugliesea,c, R. Radognaa, A. Ranieria, G. Selvaggia,b, A.
Sharmaa, L. Silvestrisa,15, R. Vendittia, P. Verwilligena INFN Sezione di
Bologna a, Università di Bologna b, Bologna, Italy
G. Abbiendia, C. Battilanaa,b, D. Bonacorsia,b, L. Borgonovia,b, S. Braibant-
Giacomellia,b, R. Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A. Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa,
S.S. Chhibraa,b, G. Codispotia,b, M. Cuffiania,b, G.M. Dallavallea, F.
Fabbria, A. Fanfania,b, D. Fasanellaa,b, P. Giacomellia, C. Grandia, L.
Guiduccia,b, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, A. Montanaria, F.L. Navarriaa,b, A.
Perrottaa, A.M. Rossia,b, T. Rovellia,b, G.P. Sirolia,b, N. Tosia INFN Sezione
di Catania a, Università di Catania b, Catania, Italy
S. Albergoa,b, S. Costaa,b, A. Di Mattiaa, F. Giordanoa,b, R. Potenzaa,b, A.
Tricomia,b, C. Tuvea,b INFN Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b,
Firenze, Italy
G. Barbaglia, K. Chatterjeea,b, V. Ciullia,b, C. Civininia, R.
D’Alessandroa,b, E. Focardia,b, P. Lenzia,b, M. Meschinia, S. Paolettia, L.
Russoa,29, G. Sguazzonia, D. Stroma, L. Viliania INFN Laboratori Nazionali di
Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, F. Fabbri, D. Piccolo, F. Primavera15 INFN Sezione di
Genova a, Università di Genova b, Genova, Italy
V. Calvellia,b, F. Ferroa, F. Raveraa,b, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia,b INFN Sezione
di Milano-Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, Italy
A. Benagliaa, A. Beschib, L. Brianzaa,b, F. Brivioa,b, V. Cirioloa,b,15, M.E.
Dinardoa,b, S. Fiorendia,b, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P. Govonia,b, M.
Malbertia,b, S. Malvezzia, R.A. Manzonia,b, D. Menascea, L. Moronia, M.
Paganonia,b, K. Pauwelsa,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Pigazzinia,b,30, S. Ragazzia,b, T.
Tabarelli de Fatisa,b INFN Sezione di Napoli a, Università di Napoli ’Federico
II’ b, Napoli, Italy, Università della Basilicata c, Potenza, Italy,
Università G. Marconi d, Roma, Italy
S. Buontempoa, N. Cavalloa,c, S. Di Guidaa,d,15, F. Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa,b,
A.O.M. Iorioa,b, W.A. Khana, L. Listaa, S. Meolaa,d,15, P. Paoluccia,15, C.
Sciaccaa,b, F. Thyssena INFN Sezione di Padova a, Università di Padova b,
Padova, Italy, Università di Trento c, Trento, Italy
P. Azzia, N. Bacchettaa, L. Benatoa,b, A. Bolettia,b, R. Carlina,b, A.
Carvalho Antunes De Oliveiraa,b, P. Checchiaa, M. Dall’Ossoa,b, P. De Castro
Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa, F. Gasparinia,b, U. Gasparinia,b, A. Gozzelinoa, S.
Lacapraraa, P. Lujan, M. Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,b, N. Pozzobona,b, P.
Ronchesea,b, R. Rossina,b, F. Simonettoa,b, E. Torassaa, S. Venturaa, M.
Zanettia,b, P. Zottoa,b, G. Zumerlea,b INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di
Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
A. Braghieria, A. Magnania, P. Montagnaa,b, S.P. Rattia,b, V. Rea, M.
Ressegottia,b, C. Riccardia,b, P. Salvinia, I. Vaia,b, P. Vituloa,b INFN
Sezione di Perugia a, Università di Perugia b, Perugia, Italy
L. Alunni Solestizia,b, M. Biasinia,b, G.M. Bileia, C. Cecchia,b, D.
Ciangottinia,b, L. Fanòa,b, P. Laricciaa,b, R. Leonardia,b, E. Manonia, G.
Mantovania,b, V. Mariania,b, M. Menichellia, A. Rossia,b, A. Santocchiaa,b, D.
Spigaa INFN Sezione di Pisa a, Università di Pisa b, Scuola Normale Superiore
di Pisa c, Pisa, Italy
K. Androsova, P. Azzurria,15, G. Bagliesia, T. Boccalia, L. Borrello, R.
Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, G. Fedia, L. Gianninia,c, A.
Giassia, M.T. Grippoa,29, F. Ligabuea,c, T. Lomtadzea, E. Mancaa,c, G.
Mandorlia,c, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, A. Rizzia,b, A. Savoy-Navarroa,31, P.
Spagnoloa, R. Tenchinia, G. Tonellia,b, A. Venturia, P.G. Verdinia INFN
Sezione di Roma a, Sapienza Università di Roma b, Rome, Italy
L. Baronea,b, F. Cavallaria, M. Cipriania,b, N. Dacia, D. Del Rea,b,15, E. Di
Marcoa,b, M. Diemoza, S. Gellia,b, E. Longoa,b, F. Margarolia,b, B.
Marzocchia,b, P. Meridiania, G. Organtinia,b, R. Paramattia,b, F. Preiatoa,b,
S. Rahatloua,b, C. Rovellia, F. Santanastasioa,b INFN Sezione di Torino a,
Università di Torino b, Torino, Italy, Università del Piemonte Orientale c,
Novara, Italy
N. Amapanea,b, R. Arcidiaconoa,c, S. Argiroa,b, M. Arneodoa,c, N. Bartosika,
R. Bellana,b, C. Biinoa, N. Cartigliaa, F. Cennaa,b, M. Costaa,b, R.
Covarellia,b, A. Deganoa,b, N. Demariaa, B. Kiania,b, C. Mariottia, S.
Masellia, E. Migliorea,b, V. Monacoa,b, E. Monteila,b, M. Montenoa, M.M.
Obertinoa,b, L. Pachera,b, N. Pastronea, M. Pelliccionia, G.L. Pinna
Angionia,b, A. Romeroa,b, M. Ruspaa,c, R. Sacchia,b, K. Shchelinaa,b, V.
Solaa, A. Solanoa,b, A. Staianoa, P. Traczyka,b INFN Sezione di Trieste a,
Università di Trieste b, Trieste, Italy
S. Belfortea, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, G. Della Riccaa,b, A. Zanettia
Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea
D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, M.S. Kim, J. Lee, S. Lee, S.W. Lee, C.S. Moon, Y.D. Oh, S.
Sekmen, D.C. Son, Y.C. Yang Chonbuk National University, Jeonju, Korea
A. Lee Chonnam National University, Institute for Universe and Elementary
Particles, Kwangju, Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon, G. Oh Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, J. Goh, T.J. Kim Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, D. Gyun, S. Ha, B. Hong, Y. Jo, Y. Kim, K. Lee, K.S.
Lee, S. Lee, J. Lim, S.K. Park, Y. Roh Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, H. Lee, K. Lee, K. Nam, S.B. Oh, B.C. Radburn-
Smith, S.h. Seo, U.K. Yang, H.D. Yoo, G.B. Yu University of Seoul, Seoul,
Korea
H. Kim, J.H. Kim, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, C. Hwang, J. Lee, I. Yu Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
V. Dudenas, A. Juodagalvis, J. Vaitkus National Centre for Particle Physics,
Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
I. Ahmed, Z.A. Ibrahim, M.A.B. Md Ali32, F. Mohamad Idris33, W.A.T. Wan
Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios
Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
Reyes-Almanza, R, Ramirez-Sanchez, G., Duran-Osuna, M. C., H. Castilla-Valdez,
E. De La Cruz-Burelo, I. Heredia-De La Cruz34, Rabadan-Trejo, R. I., R. Lopez-
Fernandez, J. Mejia Guisao, A. Sanchez-Hernandez Universidad Iberoamericana,
Mexico City, Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, F. Vazquez Valencia Benemerita
Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
J. Eysermans, I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada Universidad
Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, Mexico
A. Morelos Pineda University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
P.H. Butler National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam University, Islamabad,
Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M. Ahmad, Q. Hassan, H.R. Hoorani, A. Saddique, M.A. Shah, M.
Shoaib, M. Waqas National Centre for Nuclear Research, Swierk, Poland
H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, T. Frueboes, M. Górski, M. Kazana, K.
Nawrocki, M. Szleper, P. Zalewski Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty
of Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk35, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J.
Krolikowski, M. Misiura, M. Olszewski, A. Pyskir, M. Walczak Laboratório de
Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas, Lisboa, Portugal
P. Bargassa, C. Beirão Da Cruz E Silva, A. Di Francesco, P. Faccioli, B.
Galinhas, M. Gallinaro, J. Hollar, N. Leonardo, L. Lloret Iglesias, M.V.
Nemallapudi, J. Seixas, G. Strong, O. Toldaiev, D. Vadruccio, J. Varela Joint
Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
V. Alexakhin, A. Golunov, I. Golutvin, N. Gorbounov, I. Gorbunov, A. Kamenev,
V. Karjavin, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev36,37, P. Moisenz, V. Palichik,
V. Perelygin, M. Savina, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, N. Skatchkov, V. Smirnov, A.
Zarubin Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg),
Russia
Y. Ivanov, V. Kim38, E. Kuznetsova39, P. Levchenko, V. Murzin, V. Oreshkin, I.
Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Vavilov, A. Vorobyev Institute
for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, M. Kirsanov,
N. Krasnikov, A. Pashenkov, D. Tlisov, A. Toropin Institute for Theoretical
and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, V. Popov, I. Pozdnyakov, G.
Safronov, A. Spiridonov, A. Stepennov, V. Stolin, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A.
Zhokin Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev, A. Bylinkin37 National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow
Engineering Physics Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
R. Chistov40, M. Danilov40, P. Parygin, D. Philippov, S. Polikarpov, E.
Tarkovskii P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin37, I. Dremin37, M. Kirakosyan37, S.V. Rusakov, A.
Terkulov Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
A. Baskakov, A. Belyaev, E. Boos, V. Bunichev, M. Dubinin41, L. Dudko, A.
Gribushin, V. Klyukhin, O. Kodolova, I. Lokhtin, I. Miagkov, S. Obraztsov, S.
Petrushanko, V. Savrin, A. Snigirev Novosibirsk State University (NSU),
Novosibirsk, Russia
V. Blinov42, D. Shtol42, Y. Skovpen42 State Research Center of Russian
Federation, Institute for High Energy Physics of NRC "Kurchatov
Institute", Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, S. Bitioukov, D. Elumakhov, A. Godizov, V. Kachanov,
A. Kalinin, D. Konstantinov, P. Mandrik, V. Petrov, R. Ryutin, A. Sobol, S.
Troshin, N. Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov University of Belgrade, Faculty of
Physics and Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic43, P. Cirkovic, D. Devetak, M. Dordevic, J. Milosevic, V. Rekovic
Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas
(CIEMAT), Madrid, Spain
J. Alcaraz Maestre, I. Bachiller, M. Barrio Luna, M. Cerrada, N. Colino, B. De
La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris, C. Fernandez Bedoya, J.P. Fernández Ramos, J. Flix,
M.C. Fouz, O. Gonzalez Lopez, S. Goy Lopez, J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa, D.
Moran, A. Pérez-Calero Yzquierdo, J. Puerta Pelayo, I. Redondo, L. Romero,
M.S. Soares, A. Álvarez Fernández Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid,
Spain
C. Albajar, J.F. de Trocóniz, M. Missiroli Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo,
Spain
J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, I. Gonzalez Caballero, J.R.
González Fernández, E. Palencia Cortezon, S. Sanchez Cruz, P. Vischia, J.M.
Vizan Garcia Instituto de Física de Cantabria (IFCA), CSIC-Universidad de
Cantabria, Santander, Spain
I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, B. Chazin Quero, E. Curras, J. Duarte Campderros,
M. Fernandez, J. Garcia-Ferrero, G. Gomez, A. Lopez Virto, J. Marco, C.
Martinez Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del Arbol, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, T.
Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno, L. Scodellaro, N. Trevisani, I. Vila, R. Vilar
Cortabitarte CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
D. Abbaneo, B. Akgun, E. Auffray, P. Baillon, A.H. Ball, D. Barney, J.
Bendavid, M. Bianco, P. Bloch, A. Bocci, C. Botta, T. Camporesi, R. Castello,
M. Cepeda, G. Cerminara, E. Chapon, Y. Chen, D. d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, V.
Daponte, A. David, M. De Gruttola, A. De Roeck, N. Deelen, M. Dobson, T. du
Pree, M. Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, P. Everaerts, F. Fallavollita,
G. Franzoni, J. Fulcher, W. Funk, D. Gigi, A. Gilbert, K. Gill, F. Glege, D.
Gulhan, P. Harris, J. Hegeman, V. Innocente, A. Jafari, P. Janot, O.
Karacheban18, J. Kieseler, V. Knünz, A. Kornmayer, M.J. Kortelainen, M.
Krammer1, C. Lange, P. Lecoq, C. Lourenço, M.T. Lucchini, L. Malgeri, M.
Mannelli, A. Martelli, F. Meijers, J.A. Merlin, S. Mersi, E. Meschi, P.
Milenovic44, F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, H. Neugebauer, J. Ngadiuba, S.
Orfanelli, L. Orsini, L. Pape, E. Perez, M. Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G.
Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, D. Rabady, A. Racz, T. Reis, G.
Rolandi45, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Seidel, M.
Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva, P. Sphicas46, A. Stakia, J. Steggemann, M.
Stoye, M. Tosi, D. Treille, A. Triossi, A. Tsirou, V. Veckalns47, M. Verweij,
W.D. Zeuner Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland
W. Bertl${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, L. Caminada48, K. Deiters, W. Erdmann, R.
Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C. Kaestli, D. Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, T. Rohe,
S.A. Wiederkehr ETH Zurich - Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics
(IPA), Zurich, Switzerland
M. Backhaus, L. Bäni, P. Berger, L. Bianchini, B. Casal, G. Dissertori, M.
Dittmar, M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, C. Grab, C. Heidegger, D. Hits, J. Hoss, G.
Kasieczka, T. Klijnsma, W. Lustermann, B. Mangano, M. Marionneau, M.T.
Meinhard, D. Meister, F. Micheli, P. Musella, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, F. Pandolfi,
J. Pata, F. Pauss, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, M. Quittnat, M. Reichmann, D.A.
Sanz Becerra, M. Schönenberger, L. Shchutska, V.R. Tavolaro, K. Theofilatos,
M.L. Vesterbacka Olsson, R. Wallny, D.H. Zhu Universität Zürich, Zurich,
Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, C. Amsler49, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, R. Del Burgo, S.
Donato, C. Galloni, T. Hreus, B. Kilminster, D. Pinna, G. Rauco, P. Robmann,
D. Salerno, K. Schweiger, C. Seitz, Y. Takahashi, A. Zucchetta National
Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan
V. Candelise, Y.H. Chang, K.y. Cheng, T.H. Doan, Sh. Jain, R. Khurana, C.M.
Kuo, W. Lin, A. Pozdnyakov, S.S. Yu National Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei,
Taiwan
Arun Kumar, P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, F. Fiori, W.-S. Hou, Y.
Hsiung, Y.F. Liu, R.-S. Lu, E. Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen, J.f. Tsai
Chulalongkorn University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok,
Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, K. Kovitanggoon, G. Singh, N. Srimanobhas Çukurova University,
Physics Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
M.N. Bakirci50, A. Bat, F. Boran, S. Damarseckin, Z.S. Demiroglu, C. Dozen, E.
Eskut, S. Girgis, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, I. Hos51, E.E. Kangal52, O. Kara, A.
Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, M. Oglakci, G. Onengut53, K. Ozdemir54, A. Polatoz,
U.G. Tok, H. Topakli50, S. Turkcapar, I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East
Technical University, Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey
G. Karapinar55, K. Ocalan56, M. Yalvac, M. Zeyrek Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
E. Gülmez, M. Kaya57, O. Kaya58, S. Tekten, E.A. Yetkin59 Istanbul Technical
University, Istanbul, Turkey
M.N. Agaras, S. Atay, A. Cakir, K. Cankocak, Y. Komurcu Institute for
Scintillation Materials of National Academy of Science of Ukraine, Kharkov,
Ukraine
B. Grynyov National Scientific Center, Kharkov Institute of Physics and
Technology, Kharkov, Ukraine
L. Levchuk University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
F. Ball, L. Beck, J.J. Brooke, D. Burns, E. Clement, D. Cussans, O. Davignon,
H. Flacher, J. Goldstein, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, D.M. Newbold60,
S. Paramesvaran, T. Sakuma, S. Seif El Nasr-storey, D. Smith, V.J. Smith
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev61, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, L. Calligaris, D. Cieri, D.J.A.
Cockerill, J.A. Coughlan, K. Harder, S. Harper, J. Linacre, E. Olaiya, D.
Petyt, C.H. Shepherd-Themistocleous, A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin, T. Williams, W.J.
Womersley Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
G. Auzinger, R. Bainbridge, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A. Bundock, S.
Casasso, M. Citron, D. Colling, L. Corpe, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, A. De Wit, M.
Della Negra, R. Di Maria, A. Elwood, Y. Haddad, G. Hall, G. Iles, T. James, R.
Lane, C. Laner, L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, L. Mastrolorenzo, T.
Matsushita, J. Nash, A. Nikitenko6, V. Palladino, M. Pesaresi, D.M. Raymond,
A. Richards, A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A. Shtipliyski, S. Summers, A.
Tapper, K. Uchida, M. Vazquez Acosta62, T. Virdee15, N. Wardle, D.
Winterbottom, J. Wright, S.C. Zenz Brunel University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, I.D. Reid, L. Teodorescu, S. Zahid
Baylor University, Waco, USA
A. Borzou, K. Call, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, H. Liu, N. Pastika, C. Smith
Catholic University of America, Washington DC, USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
A. Buccilli, S.I. Cooper, C. Henderson, P. Rumerio, C. West Boston University,
Boston, USA
D. Arcaro, A. Avetisyan, T. Bose, D. Gastler, D. Rankin, C. Richardson, J.
Rohlf, L. Sulak, D. Zou Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, D. Cutts, A. Garabedian, M. Hadley, J. Hakala, U. Heintz, J.M.
Hogan, K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, J. Lee, Z. Mao, M. Narain, J.
Pazzini, S. Piperov, S. Sagir, R. Syarif, D. Yu University of California,
Davis, Davis, USA
R. Band, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, D. Burns, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez,
M. Chertok, J. Conway, R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, G. Funk,
W. Ko, R. Lander, C. Mclean, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, J. Pilot, S. Shalhout,
M. Shi, J. Smith, D. Stolp, K. Tos, M. Tripathi, Z. Wang University of
California, Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, C. Bravo, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, A. Florent, J. Hauser, M.
Ignatenko, N. Mccoll, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg, C. Schnaible, V. Valuev
University of California, Riverside, Riverside, USA
E. Bouvier, K. Burt, R. Clare, J. Ellison, J.W. Gary, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi,
G. Hanson, J. Heilman, G. Karapostoli, E. Kennedy, F. Lacroix, O.R. Long, M.
Olmedo Negrete, M.I. Paneva, W. Si, L. Wang, H. Wei, S. Wimpenny, B. R. Yates
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, S. Cittolin, M. Derdzinski, R. Gerosa, D. Gilbert, B. Hashemi,
A. Holzner, D. Klein, G. Kole, V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, M. Masciovecchio, D.
Olivito, S. Padhi, M. Pieri, M. Sani, V. Sharma, S. Simon, M. Tadel, A.
Vartak, S. Wasserbaech63, J. Wood, F. Würthwein, A. Yagil, G. Zevi Della Porta
University of California, Santa Barbara - Department of Physics, Santa
Barbara, USA
N. Amin, R. Bhandari, J. Bradmiller-Feld, C. Campagnari, A. Dishaw, V. Dutta,
M. Franco Sevilla, L. Gouskos, R. Heller, J. Incandela, A. Ovcharova, H. Qu,
J. Richman, D. Stuart, I. Suarez, J. Yoo California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, USA
D. Anderson, A. Bornheim, J. Bunn, J.M. Lawhorn, H.B. Newman, T. Q. Nguyen, C.
Pena, M. Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, R. Wilkinson, S. Xie, Z. Zhang, R.Y. Zhu
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
M.B. Andrews, T. Ferguson, T. Mudholkar, M. Paulini, J. Russ, M. Sun, H.
Vogel, I. Vorobiev, M. Weinberg University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, F. Jensen, A. Johnson, M. Krohn, S. Leontsinis, T.
Mulholland, K. Stenson, S.R. Wagner Cornell University, Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, J. Chaves, J. Chu, S. Dittmer, K. Mcdermott, N. Mirman, J.R.
Patterson, D. Quach, A. Rinkevicius, A. Ryd, L. Skinnari, L. Soffi, S.M. Tan,
Z. Tao, J. Thom, J. Tucker, P. Wittich, M. Zientek Fermi National Accelerator
Laboratory, Batavia, USA
S. Abdullin, M. Albrow, M. Alyari, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S.
Banerjee, L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, G.
Bolla${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, K. Burkett, J.N. Butler, A. Canepa, G.B.
Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M. Cremonesi, J. Duarte, V.D. Elvira, J.
Freeman, Z. Gecse, E. Gottschalk, L. Gray, D. Green, S. Grünendahl, O.
Gutsche, J. Hanlon, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, J. Hirschauer, Z. Hu, B.
Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, B. Klima, B. Kreis, S.
Lammel, D. Lincoln, R. Lipton, M. Liu, T. Liu, R. Lopes De Sá, J. Lykken, K.
Maeshima, N. Magini, J.M. Marraffino, D. Mason, P. McBride, P. Merkel, S.
Mrenna, S. Nahn, V. O’Dell, K. Pedro, O. Prokofyev, G. Rakness, L. Ristori, B.
Schneider, E. Sexton-Kennedy, A. Soha, W.J. Spalding, L. Spiegel, S. Stoynev,
J. Strait, N. Strobbe, L. Taylor, S. Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran, L. Uplegger, E.W.
Vaandering, C. Vernieri, M. Verzocchi, R. Vidal, M. Wang, H.A. Weber, A.
Whitbeck, W. Wu University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, P. Bortignon, D. Bourilkov, A. Brinkerhoff, A. Carnes, M.
Carver, D. Curry, R.D. Field, I.K. Furic, S.V. Gleyzer, B.M. Joshi, J.
Konigsberg, A. Korytov, K. Kotov, P. Ma, K. Matchev, H. Mei, G. Mitselmakher,
K. Shi, D. Sperka, N. Terentyev, L. Thomas, J. Wang, S. Wang, J. Yelton
Florida International University, Miami, USA
Y.R. Joshi, S. Linn, P. Markowitz, J.L. Rodriguez Florida State University,
Tallahassee, USA
A. Ackert, T. Adams, A. Askew, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F. Johnson, T.
Kolberg, G. Martinez, T. Perry, H. Prosper, A. Saha, A. Santra, V. Sharma, R.
Yohay Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, V. Bhopatkar, S. Colafranceschi, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, T.
Roy, F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago, USA
M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, D. Berry, R.R. Betts, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, O.
Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, K. Jung, J. Kamin, I.D.
Sandoval Gonzalez, M.B. Tonjes, H. Trauger, N. Varelas, H. Wang, Z. Wu, J.
Zhang The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
B. Bilki64, W. Clarida, K. Dilsiz65, S. Durgut, R.P. Gandrajula, M.
Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko, J.-P. Merlo, H. Mermerkaya66, A. Mestvirishvili,
A. Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul67, Y. Onel, F. Ozok68, A. Penzo, C. Snyder,
E. Tiras, J. Wetzel, K. Yi Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
B. Blumenfeld, A. Cocoros, N. Eminizer, D. Fehling, L. Feng, A.V. Gritsan, P.
Maksimovic, J. Roskes, U. Sarica, M. Swartz, M. Xiao, C. You The University of
Kansas, Lawrence, USA
A. Al-bataineh, P. Baringer, A. Bean, S. Boren, J. Bowen, J. Castle, S.
Khalil, A. Kropivnitskaya, D. Majumder, W. Mcbrayer, M. Murray, C. Rogan, C.
Royon, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang Kansas State
University, Manhattan, USA
A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, Y. Maravin, A. Mohammadi, L.K. Saini, N. Skhirtladze
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright University of Maryland, College Park, USA
A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, S.C. Eno, Y. Feng, C. Ferraioli, N.J. Hadley,
S. Jabeen, G.Y. Jeng, R.G. Kellogg, J. Kunkle, A.C. Mignerey, F. Ricci-Tam,
Y.H. Shin, A. Skuja, S.C. Tonwar Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, V. Azzolini, R. Barbieri, A. Baty, G. Bauer, R. Bi,
S. Brandt, W. Busza, I.A. Cali, M. D’Alfonso, Z. Demiragli, G. Gomez Ceballos,
M. Goncharov, D. Hsu, M. Hu, Y. Iiyama, G.M. Innocenti, M. Klute, D.
Kovalskyi, Y.-J. Lee, A. Levin, P.D. Luckey, B. Maier, A.C. Marini, C. Mcginn,
C. Mironov, S. Narayanan, X. Niu, C. Paus, C. Roland, G. Roland, J. Salfeld-
Nebgen, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Sumorok, K. Tatar, D. Velicanu, J. Wang, T.W.
Wang, B. Wyslouch University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
A.C. Benvenuti, R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, P. Hansen, J. Hiltbrand, S.
Kalafut, Y. Kubota, Z. Lesko, J. Mans, S. Nourbakhsh, N. Ruckstuhl, R. Rusack,
J. Turkewitz, M.A. Wadud University of Mississippi, Oxford, USA
J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
E. Avdeeva, K. Bloom, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, F. Golf, R. Gonzalez Suarez,
R. Kamalieddin, I. Kravchenko, J. Monroy, J.E. Siado, G.R. Snow, B. Stieger
State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
J. Dolen, A. Godshalk, C. Harrington, I. Iashvili, D. Nguyen, A. Parker, S.
Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani Northeastern University, Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, A. Hortiangtham, A. Massironi, D.M. Morse,
T. Orimoto, R. Teixeira De Lima, D. Trocino, T. Wamorkar, B. Wang, A.
Wisecarver, D. Wood Northwestern University, Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, O. Charaf, K.A. Hahn, N. Mucia, N. Odell, M.H. Schmitt, K.
Sung, M. Trovato, M. Velasco University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, USA
R. Bucci, N. Dev, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop, D.J. Karmgard, N.
Kellams, K. Lannon, W. Li, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, F. Meng, C. Mueller, Y.
Musienko36, M. Planer, A. Reinsvold, R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, G. Smith, S.
Taroni, M. Wayne, A. Wightman, M. Wolf, A. Woodard The Ohio State University,
Columbus, USA
J. Alimena, L. Antonelli, B. Bylsma, L.S. Durkin, S. Flowers, B. Francis, A.
Hart, C. Hill, W. Ji, T.Y. Ling, B. Liu, W. Luo, B.L. Winer, H.W. Wulsin
Princeton University, Princeton, USA
S. Cooperstein, O. Driga, P. Elmer, J. Hardenbrook, P. Hebda, S. Higginbotham,
A. Kalogeropoulos, D. Lange, J. Luo, D. Marlow, K. Mei, I. Ojalvo, J. Olsen,
C. Palmer, P. Piroué, D. Stickland, C. Tully University of Puerto Rico,
Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
A. Barker, V.E. Barnes, S. Das, S. Folgueras, L. Gutay, M. Jones, A.W. Jung,
A. Khatiwada, D.H. Miller, N. Neumeister, C.C. Peng, H. Qiu, J.F. Schulte, J.
Sun, F. Wang, R. Xiao, W. Xie Purdue University Northwest, Hammond, USA
T. Cheng, N. Parashar, J. Stupak Rice University, Houston, USA
Z. Chen, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Guilbaud, M. Kilpatrick, W.
Li, B. Michlin, B.P. Padley, J. Roberts, J. Rorie, W. Shi, Z. Tu, J. Zabel, A.
Zhang University of Rochester, Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, Y.t. Duh, T. Ferbel, M. Galanti, A.
Garcia-Bellido, J. Han, O. Hindrichs, A. Khukhunaishvili, K.H. Lo, P. Tan, M.
Verzetti The Rockefeller University, New York, USA
R. Ciesielski, K. Goulianos, C. Mesropian Rutgers, The State University of New
Jersey, Piscataway, USA
A. Agapitos, J.P. Chou, Y. Gershtein, T.A. Gómez Espinosa, E. Halkiadakis, M.
Heindl, E. Hughes, S. Kaplan, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, S. Kyriacou, A. Lath,
R. Montalvo, K. Nash, M. Osherson, H. Saka, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, D.
Sheffield, S. Somalwar, R. Stone, S. Thomas, P. Thomassen, M. Walker
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
A.G. Delannoy, J. Heideman, G. Riley, K. Rose, S. Spanier, K. Thapa Texas A&M
University, College Station, USA
O. Bouhali69, A. Castaneda Hernandez69, A. Celik, M. Dalchenko, M. De Mattia,
A. Delgado, S. Dildick, R. Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T. Kamon70, R.
Mueller, Y. Pakhotin, R. Patel, A. Perloff, L. Perniè, D. Rathjens, A.
Safonov, A. Tatarinov, K.A. Ulmer Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, F. De Guio, P.R. Dudero, J. Faulkner, E. Gurpinar, S.
Kunori, K. Lamichhane, S.W. Lee, T. Libeiro, T. Mengke, S. Muthumuni, T.
Peltola, S. Undleeb, I. Volobouev, Z. Wang Vanderbilt University, Nashville,
USA
S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H. Ni, K.
Padeken, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska, Q. Xu University of Virginia,
Charlottesville, USA
M.W. Arenton, P. Barria, B. Cox, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A. Ledovskoy, H. Li, C.
Neu, T. Sinthuprasith, Y. Wang, E. Wolfe, F. Xia Wayne State University,
Detroit, USA
R. Harr, P.E. Karchin, N. Poudyal, J. Sturdy, P. Thapa, S. Zaleski University
of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI, USA
M. Brodski, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, D. Carlsmith, S. Dasu, L. Dodd, S. Duric,
B. Gomber, M. Grothe, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, P. Klabbers, A.
Lanaro, A. Levine, K. Long, R. Loveless, T. Ruggles, A. Savin, N. Smith, W.H.
Smith, D. Taylor, N. Woods †: Deceased
1: Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria
2: Also at IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
3: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
4: Also at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
5: Also at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
6: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
7: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
8: Also at Suez University, Suez, Egypt
9: Now at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt
10: Now at Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
11: Also at Department of Physics, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia
12: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
13: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
14: Also at Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
15: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
16: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
17: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
18: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
19: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
20: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
21: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
22: Also at Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India
23: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
24: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
25: Also at University of Ruhuna, Matara, Sri Lanka
26: Also at Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
27: Also at Yazd University, Yazd, Iran
28: Also at Plasma Physics Research Center, Science and Research Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
29: Also at Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy
30: Also at INFN Sezione di Milano-Bicocca; Università di Milano-Bicocca,
Milano, Italy
31: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
32: Also at International Islamic University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
33: Also at Malaysian Nuclear Agency, MOSTI, Kajang, Malaysia
34: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico city, Mexico
35: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems,
Warsaw, Poland
36: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
37: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
38: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
39: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
40: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
41: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
42: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
43: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
44: Also at University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of
Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
45: Also at Scuola Normale e Sezione dell’INFN, Pisa, Italy
46: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
47: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
48: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
49: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics (SMI), Vienna,
Austria
50: Also at Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey
51: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey
52: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
53: Also at Cag University, Mersin, Turkey
54: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
55: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
56: Also at Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
57: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
58: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
59: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
60: Also at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
61: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
62: Also at Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, La Laguna, Spain
63: Also at Utah Valley University, Orem, USA
64: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey
65: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
66: Also at Erzincan University, Erzincan, Turkey
67: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
68: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
69: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
70: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea