HIN-16-024

$HeadURL:svn+ssh://svn.cern.ch/reps/tdr2/papers/HIN-16-024/trunk/HIN-16-024.tex$
$Id:HIN-16-024.tex4772152018-10-0610:29:26Zalverson$

HIN-16-024

# Measurement of the groomed jet mass in $\mathrm{PbPb}$ and $\Pp\Pp$
collisions at $\sqrtsNN=5.02\TeV$

###### Abstract

A measurement of the groomed jet mass in $\mathrm{PbPb}$ and $\Pp\Pp$
collisions at a nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy of 5.02with the CMS
detector at the LHC is presented. Jet grooming is a recursive procedure which
sequentially removes soft constituents of a jet until a pair of hard subjets
is found. The resulting groomed jets can be used to study modifications to the
parton shower evolution in the presence of the hot and dense medium created in
heavy ion collisions. Predictions of groomed jet properties from the and event
generators agree with the measurements in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions. When comparing
the results from the most central $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions to $\Pp\Pp$ data,
a hint of an increase of jets with large jet mass is observed, which could
originate from additional medium-induced radiation at a large angle from the
jet axis. However, no modification of the groomed mass of the core of the jet
is observed for all $\mathrm{PbPb}$ centrality classes. The $\mathrm{PbPb}$
results are also compared to predictions from the jewel and q-pythia event
generators, which predict a large modification of the groomed mass not
observed in the data.

##  0.1 Introduction

In heavy ion collisions, scattering processes with large momentum transfer $Q$
(of order 100or more) between the partonic constituents of the colliding
nuclei occur early. Energy loss experienced by these high-momentum partons
(quarks or gluons) as a result of their interactions with the colored, hot and
dense quantum chromodynamics (QCD) medium created in heavy ion collisions (the
quark-gluon plasma, or QGP) [1, 2], was first observed at BNL RHIC [3, 4, 5,
6] and then at the CERN LHC [7, 8, 9]. Interactions of the outgoing partons
with the QGP are also expected to modify the angular and momentum
distributions of the parton shower relative to proton-proton ($\Pp\Pp$)
collisions. It was shown at the LHC that there is a significant amount of
energy carried by soft particles at large angles relative to the axes of the
jets produced by outgoing partons [10, 11].

Parton interactions with the QGP can increase the gluon radiation probability
of the propagating partons and can also lead to modifications of the momentum
sharing between split partons, as well as the angular scale of the splitting
[12, 13, 14, 15, 16]. After a hard splitting, where both resulting partons
carry a significant fraction of the original energy, the two energetic partons
then evolve into separate sprays of particles within the jet. By isolating
these two hard-radiation sources, the interactions of the color charges of the
medium with the two outgoing highly energetic partons can be studied.

Jet grooming algorithms [17, 18, 19, 20, 21] remove large-angle, soft
radiation inside a jet, revealing the underlying hard structure via the
identification of two subjets. In $\Pp\Pp$ collisions this reflects the first
hard splitting process. The properties of these subjets provide information
about medium interactions of the two partons that originated in a hard
splitting. The hard structure of the jet is also expected to be sensitive to
semihard medium-induced gluon radiation [22, 23], modifications of the initial
parton splitting [24], and the medium response [25]. A modification in the
distribution of the shared momentum fraction, $z_{\mathrm{g}}$, defined as the
energy of the sub-leading (in transverse momentum, ) subjet over the sum of
the two energies of the two subjets, was previously studied in lead-lead
($\mathrm{PbPb}$) collisions [26]. The opening angle of the parton splitting
provides additional information about the nature of the modifications in the
medium [24, 23]. This motivates studies of the groomed jet mass
($M_{\mathrm{g}}$), defined as the invariant mass of the system consisting of
the two subjets, which is sensitive to both the parton splitting function and
the opening angle between the two outgoing partons. This measurement
complements studies of the mass of the full jet without using grooming
algorithms [27], which makes such studies mostly sensitive to soft wide angle
radiation.

In this paper, a measurement of the ratio of the groomed jet mass and the jet
in both $\Pp\Pp$ and $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions using the soft drop (SD) jet
grooming algorithm [21] with two parameter settings is presented. This
analysis uses $\Pp\Pp$ and $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collision datasets corresponding to
integrated luminosities of $27.4\pbinv$ and $404\mubinv$, respectively,
collected with the CMS detector [28] at the LHC in 2015 at a nucleon-nucleon
center-of-mass energy of 5.02.

##  0.2 The CMS apparatus and event selection

The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6m
internal diameter, providing an axial magnetic field of 3.8T. Within the
solenoid volume are a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate
crystal electromagnetic calorimeter, and a brass and scintillator hadron
calorimeter, each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. A hadron
forward (HF) calorimeter, covering the pseudorapidity range $3<\abs{\eta}<5$,
complements the coverage provided by the barrel and endcap detectors. Muons
are detected in gas-ionization chambers embedded in the steel flux-return yoke
outside the solenoid. The first level of the CMS trigger system [29], composed
of specialized hardware processors, uses information from the calorimeters and
muon detectors to select the most interesting events in a fixed time interval
of less than 4. The high-level trigger processor farm further decreases the
event rate from around 100kHz to 1 (2)kHz for $\Pp\Pp$ ($\mathrm{PbPb}$)
collisions before data storage. A more detailed description of the CMS
detector, together with a definition of the coordinate system used and the
relevant kinematic variables, can be found in Ref. [28].

Events with multiple collisions (pileup) within a bunch crossing have a
negligible effect on the measurement, since the average number of additional
collisions is less than 0.9 in both data sets, and much lower in the
$\mathrm{PbPb}$ data set. Events are selected with triggers requiring a jet
with high , found using the anti- algorithm [30, 31] with a distance parameter
of $R=0.4$. In $\Pp\Pp$ collisions, these triggers are based on jets
reconstructed from particle-flow (PF) candidates [32]. An unprescaled trigger
with a $\pt^{\text{jet}}$ threshold of 80is used. In $\mathrm{PbPb}$
collisions, triggers are based on jets reconstructed from calorimeter deposits
including a subtraction for the uncorrelated underlying event (UE) [33].
Triggers with multiple thresholds are employed to ensure that their efficiency
is high for the full range of phase space considered in the analysis. The
thresholds for these triggers are ${\pt^{\text{jet}}=60}$, 80 and 100. The
triggers with lower $\pt^{\text{jet}}$ thresholds are prescaled.

Several offline event selections are applied to reject events from beam-gas,
beam-pipe, beam halo, cosmic ray muons, and beam scraping interactions [34]. A
requirement of a coincidence of three towers with at least 3of total
transverse energy in the HF detectors on each side of the interaction point
[28] is employed to reject purely electromagnetic interaction events between
Pb nuclei. In $\Pp\Pp$ collisions this coincidence requirement is not present,
as the contamination from electromagnetic interactions is negligible. For both
collision systems a requirement is placed on the primary vertex, the
reconstructed vertex with the highest amount of activity, to be within 15cm
from the nominal interaction point along the beam direction and within 0.15cm
in the transverse plane.

In order to cope with the high particle multiplicity $\mathrm{PbPb}$
environment, the event reconstruction algorithms are modified compared to the
ones used for $\Pp\Pp$ data. Although not identical between the two colliding
systems [34], the tracking efficiency is comparable within a few percent in
the range relevant to the analysis, and it is well modeled by simulation. The
collision centrality for $\mathrm{PbPb}$ events is determined using the total
sum of transverse energy from the calorimeter towers in the HF region. The
transverse energy distribution is used to divide the event sample into bins of
percentage of the total hadronic interaction cross section [7]. In this
analysis, we present the results in four event centrality classes: 0–10%,
10–30%, 30–50%, and 50–80%, with 0% being the most central collision, and four
$\pt^{\text{jet}}$ ranges: 140–160, 160–180, 180–200, and 200–300.

The 6.246 [35] (tune Z2* [36]) event generator prediction is compared with
experimental $\Pp\Pp$ data and used to study systematic effects. For
$\mathrm{PbPb}$ collision simulation, events generated with are embedded into
an UE produced with the 1.9 event generator [37]. All generated events undergo
a full [38] simulation of the CMS detector response. Additional samples for
cross checks and for comparison with the data are produced with 2.7.1 [39]
(tune EE5C [40]).

Predictions for medium-modified jets are generated with jewel 2.2.0 [41] (both
with and without recoil, , the scattered recoiling particles from the medium)
and q-pythia 1.0.3 [42] where the PQM model [43] is used to model the medium.
In order to model the effect of the uncorrelated UE, the samples generated
with jewel and q-pythia are embedded in a simulated thermal background with
particle momenta following a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution [44] with an
average of 1.2and an average energy density corresponding to that from events
in the 0–10% centrality class in $\mathrm{PbPb}$ data.

##  0.3 Jet reconstruction

Offline particle candidates are reconstructed with the PF algorithm. This
algorithm aims to reconstruct and identify each individual particle (PF
candidate) using an optimized combination of information from various elements
of the CMS detector. For this analysis, the PF candidates are treated as
massless. Jets are clustered from PF candidates using the anti- algorithm with
a distance parameter of 0.4. Only jets with $\pt^{\text{jet}}>140$and
${\abs{\eta_{\text{jet}}}<1.3}$ are included in the analysis due to the
trigger.

In $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions, the constituents of the jet are corrected for
the UE contribution using the “constituent subtraction” algorithm [45]. This
algorithm uses a particle-level approach that removes or corrects jet
constituents for the uncorrelated background based on the average UE density
in a given $\eta$ region. This particle-by-particle subtraction allows the
correction of both the four-momentum of the jet and its substructure. A more
detailed description of this method can be found in Ref. [26].

The energy of reconstructed jets is corrected to the particle level with the
corrections derived from simulation and applied to the reconstructed jets in
$\Pp\Pp$ and $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions. Additional corrections for the
mismodeling of the detector response are also applied [46, 47].

##  0.4 Groomed jet mass

Jet grooming isolates the hard sub-components of a jet and removes soft and
wide-angle radiation, thereby highlighting jet substructure features. This
procedure can be used to isolate a hard splitting in the parton shower
evolution. The soft components of a jet can originate from many sources,
including uncorrelated UE, initial state radiation, other uncorrelated hard
scattering in the collision, or soft gluons radiated by the hard parton which
initiated the jet. The SD jet grooming algorithm is used to extract the hard
structure of jets, which is sensitive to the impact of parton-medium
interactions during the jet evolution. With this grooming technique, the hard
and soft parts of the jets can be separated in a completely theoretically
controlled way [48, 20, 21, 49, 50, 51]. The procedure starts with a jet and
reclusters the constituents with the Cambridge–Aachen algorithm [52] to form
an angular-ordered structure. A recursive pairwise declustering step is then
performed. In each step during the grooming procedure, the softer leg of the
considered subjet pair is dropped if the SD condition is not satisfied,
resulting in a smaller groomed than that of the original jet. The SD condition
is the following [21]:

$z_{\mathrm{g}}=\frac{\min(p_{\mathrm{T},i},p_{\mathrm{T},j})}{p_{\mathrm{T},i}+p_{\mathrm{T},j}}>z_{\text{cut}}\left(\frac{\Delta
R_{ij}}{R_{0}}\right)^{\beta},$ (1)

where the subscripts “$i$” and “$j$” indicate the subjets at that step of the
declustering, $\Delta R_{ij}$ is the distance between the two subjets in the
$\eta-\phi$ plane, $R_{0}$ is the jet resolution parameter, and
$z_{\text{cut}}$ and $\beta$ are adjustable parameters. The parameter
$z_{\text{cut}}$ is the threshold for $z_{\mathrm{g}}$ when the two subjets
are separated by the jet resolution parameter $R_{0}$, and $\beta$ controls
the grooming profile as a function of subjet separation $\Delta R_{ij}$. When
$\beta=0$, the SD grooming threshold is independent of $\Delta R_{ij}$, and
the grooming procedure is equivalent to the modified mass–drop tagger [20].
The jet is discarded if the SD condition is never satisfied before only one
constituent remains. This constitutes less than 1% of the jets for the
grooming parameter settings used in this analysis. Once the SD condition is
satisfied, the two subjets at that position in the angular-ordered tree are
used to compute the mass. Assuming that these last two constituents surviving
the grooming procedure are massless, the groomed jet mass ($M_{\mathrm{g}}$)
is calculated from their energies and opening angle. The main variable used in
this analysis is the groomed jet mass divided by the ungroomed jet transverse
momentum, $M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$. For this observable, the
characteristic Sudakov peak (caused by the evolution of the shower) stays the
same as $\pt^{\text{jet}}$ is varied [20], which allows the study for
modification on mass without convoluting with the $\pt^{\text{jet}}$ spectrum.

In this analysis, two sets of parameters are considered: $z_{\text{cut}}=0.1$
with $\beta=0.0$, denoted as $(0.1,0.0)$ SD setting, and $z_{\text{cut}}=0.5$
with $\beta=1.5$, denoted as $(0.5,1.5)$ SD setting. The first parameter set
has the advantage of being largely insensitive to higher-order QCD
corrections, such as multiple emissions [20, 49], while the second one is
preferred experimentally since it reduces the impact from UE fluctuations by
applying a stronger SD constraint for subjets with larger opening angle,
thereby focusing on the core of the jet.

Figure 1: Groomed jet momentum fraction $p_{\mathrm{T,g}}$ in $\Pp\Pp$ (left)
and the 10% most central $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions (right) for jets with
$140<\pt^{\text{jet}}<160\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta_{\text{jet}}}<1.3$. The $\Pp\Pp$
data are compared to simulation using the event generator and the
$\mathrm{PbPb}$ data are compared to the same events embedded in
$\mathrm{PbPb}$ events simulated with the event generator. Vertical lines
indicate size of statistical uncertainty. The parameters used for the SD
algorithm are $z_{\text{cut}}=0.5$, $\beta=1.5$. The jets are selected based
on the ungroomed jet transverse momentum.

If two subjets are very close to each other in the $\eta-\phi$ plane, they
cannot be distinctly resolved, leading to a significant worsening of the mass
resolution. To avoid unphysical modification of the
$M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$ measurement, an additional selection on the
subjet opening angle of $\Delta R_{12}>0.1$ is applied. For the 0–10%
$\mathrm{PbPb}$ centrality bin, this $\Delta R_{12}$ requirement results in
the rejection of 30% of the jets using the $(0.1,0.0)$ SD setting and 50% for
the $(0.5,1.5)$ SD setting, due to a worse subjet angular separation
resolution when the UE is larger. Both fractions are well reproduced by the
simulation.

The groomed jet transverse momentum $p_{\mathrm{T,g}}$, divided by the
ungroomed $\pt^{\text{jet}}$ in data, is compared to simulation at the
reconstruction level in Fig. 1 for the $(0.5,1.5)$ SD setting. More energy is
removed in the 10% most central $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions than in $\Pp\Pp$
events in both data and simulation, indicating that the grooming procedure
removes part of the residual background activity surviving the constituent
subtraction procedure. A difference in the $p_{\mathrm{T,g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$
ratio distribution between data and simulation is seen in central
$\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions due to correlated background, which is not modeled
by the embedded sample.

Resolution effects in the $M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$ distributions from
charged-particle detection inefficiency, the particle angular resolution from
the granularity of the calorimeter, and the UE fluctuations are not unfolded.
Instead, in order to compare results from $\Pp\Pp$ collisions with those of
$\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions in a given $\pt^{\text{jet}}$ and centrality range,
a smearing procedure is applied to the $\Pp\Pp$ data in order to account for
the effects of the presence of the UE and differences in the reconstruction
procedure between $\mathrm{PbPb}$ and $\Pp\Pp$ data. This is achieved by
mixing a $\Pp\Pp$ event with a generated $\mathrm{PbPb}$ UE at the
reconstructed PF candidate level. The UE is generated by sampling from the
spectra of the PF candidates in simulated minimum bias $\mathrm{PbPb}$ events.
The PF candidates in the resulting mixed events are clustered and subtracted
following the identical procedure used for the $\mathrm{PbPb}$ data. The
“smeared” jets correspond to the expected modification in the presence of UE
activity and detector effects but without any medium-induced modification to
the jet structure. The smearing procedure is validated using simulation by
comparing with the embedded + sample with full detector simulation with the
smeared sample. In addition to the accounting for the resolution difference
between $\Pp\Pp$ and $\mathrm{PbPb}$ data, the smearing procedure also allows
a better understanding of the different sources of systematic uncertainties.
The $M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$ spectra in the PF-level embedding agrees
within 3% with that from the full detector simulation. It is found that the
dominant source causing this difference is the difference in tracking
efficiency in $\mathrm{PbPb}$ and $\Pp\Pp$ collisions.

The different track reconstruction in $\mathrm{PbPb}$ and $\Pp\Pp$ collisions
[53, 34] leads to a different $M_{\mathrm{g}}$ scale. A correction for
$M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$ is derived from simulation as a function of
$\Delta R_{12}$ and applied to the smeared jets. The magnitude of the
correction ranges from 1% to 3%, depending on the subjet separation. A good
closure in the $M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$ distribution between embedded
and smeared jets is found. The effect on $M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$
from the merging of PF candidates is found to be negligible compared to the
$M_{\mathrm{g}}$ scale difference from the different tracking reconstruction
algorithms.

##  0.5 Systematic uncertainties

The systematic uncertainties in the $M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$
measurement are derived separately for $\Pp\Pp$ and $\mathrm{PbPb}$
collisions. Uncertainties are determined for each centrality and
$\pt^{\text{jet}}$ selection. The following sources of systematic
uncertainties are taken into account: online trigger, jet energy scale, jet
energy resolution, subjet angular resolution, smearing procedure, quark-to-
gluon fraction, and the $M_{\mathrm{g}}$ scale correction. Uncertainties in
the UE associated with pileup collisions are found to be negligible as
compared to other uncertainties.

In $\Pp\Pp$ and $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions with 30–100% centrality, the
trigger is fully efficient for jets in the kinematic range considered for this
analysis. For the 30% most central $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions, a trigger bias
is present for the lowest considered $\pt^{\text{jet}}$ range,
$140<\pt^{\text{jet}}<160\GeV$. The measurement in this range is compared to
the measurement using a lower-threshold trigger for which this effect is
absent at $\pt^{\text{jet}}=140$. The difference in the observed
distributions, up to 5% in the considered $M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$
range, is assigned as a systematic uncertainty. It is also observed that the
trigger used in the $\Pp\Pp$ data can induce a bias to the smeared
$M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$ measurement for the 0–10% central events in
the lowest $\pt^{\text{jet}}$ bin. As a result of the larger amount of
smearing needed to compare to 0–10% central events, a $\Pp\Pp$ jet with lower
$\pt^{\text{jet}}$ where the trigger is not yet fully efficient may enter the
analysis selection. The bias is studied by comparing the smeared jets
collected with lower $\pt^{\text{jet}}$ threshold triggers. An uncertainty of
7% over the entire $M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$ range is assigned.

The systematic uncertainty due to the jet energy scale (resolution) is
estimated by changing the jet energy scale (resolution) by 5% to cover the
uncertainty on these quantities [46], followed by a comparison of the modified
spectra with the nominal spectrum. The systematic uncertainty as a function of
$M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$ is derived from the difference between the
spectra; it is generally of the order of 5% for both jet energy scale and
resolution.

The resolution of the opening angle between subjets is found to be around 0.01
for a typical jet in this analysis with subjet separation boundary of 0.1. The
effect of the angular resolution measurement on
$M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$ ratio is estimated by comparing spectra
obtained by varying the selection on $\Delta R_{12}$ by 10% up and down. Only
the low $M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$ region is affected by changing the
threshold, because of the correlation between $\Delta R_{12}$ and
$M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$, resulting in an uncertainty as large as 20%
for the $(0.5,1.5)$ SD setting. Changes at high
$M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$ can be induced because the spectra are self-
normalized.

Uncertainties associated with the $\Pp\Pp$ smearing procedure are obtained by
varying the free parameters in the UE model. The density of the UE is varied
by 10% which translates to a change in the $M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$
spectrum by up to 10% for $M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}>0.2$. The
fluctuation on the UE energy density is varied by 5%, resulting in a change of
the $M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$ spectrum by 5% across the entire range.

Since the fraction of quark- and gluon-initiated jets for a fixed
$\pt^{\text{jet}}$ selection in $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions is not known, a
systematic uncertainty is applied to the smeared jets in order to account for
the different detector responses to quark and gluon jets. It is estimated in
simulation by taking half of the difference between smeared
$M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$ spectra for jets originated from quarks and
gluons, and is found to be of order of 10–20% towards the high tail
($M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}>0.2$).

The systematic uncertainty related to the $M_{\mathrm{g}}$ scale correction is
estimated by comparing the smeared spectra obtained with different tracking
algorithms used in $\mathrm{PbPb}$ and $\Pp\Pp$ collisions data. It is found
that the change due to this is up to 6% for larger values of
$M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$ and about 2% in the bulk of the spectrum
($M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}\simeq 0.05$–$0.10$).

##  0.6 Results

The per jet normalized $M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$ spectra in $\Pp\Pp$
collisions for various $\pt^{\text{jet}}$ selections are presented in Fig. 2
for the $(0.1,0.0)$ and $(0.5,1.5)$ SD settings. The results are compared to
generated jets with and . At large $M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$, is above
the $M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$ spectra and is below the spectra when
compared to data with the $(0.1,0.0)$ SD setting, although the observed
difference is smaller than the systematic uncertainties in the measurement.
The observed effect is in agreement with earlier measurements [54, 55]. A
similar conclusion can be drawn for the $(0.5,1.5)$ SD setting. With this
setting, the $M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$ spectrum is steeper than for
the $(0.1,0.0)$ SD setting due to the larger amount of energy removed during
the grooming procedure. The lower edge of the spectra is caused by the $\Delta
R_{12}$ requirement.

Figure 2:  The spectra of $M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$ for $\Pp\Pp$
events with $160<\pt^{\text{jet}}<180\GeV$ using $(0.1,0.0)$ SD setting (left
panels) and $(0.5,1.5)$ SD setting (right panels). Results are compared to and
event generators. The ratio of simulation to data is also shown. The heights
of the gray boxes indicate systematic uncertainties. Statistical uncertainties
are less than the marker sizes.

The measurement of the $M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$ in $\mathrm{PbPb}$
collisions for several centrality intervals for the $\pt^{\text{jet}}$ in the
160–180range is compared to the results for smeared $\Pp\Pp$ collisions in
Figs. 3 and 4 for the two SD grooming settings. For the $(0.1,0.0)$ SD
setting, no significant modification in $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions compared to
smeared $\Pp\Pp$ data is observed for this $\pt^{\text{jet}}$ range, except
for a hint of an enhancement for the 10% most central collisions. For the
$(0.5,1.5)$ SD setting, where the grooming disfavors pairs of subjets with
large opening angles and highly imbalanced values, no noticeable modification
is observed.

Figure 3: (left) The centrality dependence of
$M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$, for $\mathrm{PbPb}$ events with
$160<\pt^{\text{jet}}<180\GeV$ for the $(0.1,0.0)$ SD setting. Results are
compared to the smeared $\Pp\Pp$ spectra. (right) The ratio of $\mathrm{PbPb}$
data over smeared $\Pp\Pp$ data. The heights of the vertical lines (colored
boxes) indicate statistical (systematic) uncertainties. Statistical
uncertainties are less than the marker sizes in most bins.

Figure 4: (left) The centrality dependence of
$M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$, for $\mathrm{PbPb}$ events with
$160<\pt^{\text{jet}}<180\GeV$ for the $(0.5,1.5)$ SD setting. Results are
compared to the smeared $\Pp\Pp$ spectra. (right) The ratio of $\mathrm{PbPb}$
data over smeared $\Pp\Pp$ data. The heights of the vertical lines (colored
boxes) indicate statistical (systematic) uncertainties. Statistical
uncertainties are less than the marker sizes in most bins.

Figure 5: (left) The $\pt^{\text{jet}}$ dependence of
$M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$, for $\mathrm{PbPb}$ events in the
centrality class 0–10%, for the $(0.1,0.0)$ SD setting. Results are compared
to the smeared $\Pp\Pp$ spectra. (right) The ratio of $\mathrm{PbPb}$ data
over smeared $\Pp\Pp$ data. The heights of the colored boxes indicate
systematic uncertainties. Statistical uncertainties are less than the marker
sizes. The ratios are compared to smeared jewel and q-pythia generators, shown
in blue and green, respectively.

Figure 6: (left) The $\pt^{\text{jet}}$ dependence of
$M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$, for $\mathrm{PbPb}$ events in the
centrality class 0–10%, for the $(0.5,1.5)$ SD setting. Results are compared
to the smeared $\Pp\Pp$ spectra. (right) The ratio of $\mathrm{PbPb}$ data
over smeared $\Pp\Pp$ data. The heights of the colored boxes statistical
(systematic) uncertainties. Statistical uncertainties are less than the marker
sizes. The ratios are compared to smeared jewel and q-pythia generators, shown
in blue and green, respectively.

In Figs. 5 and 6 the measured $M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$ spectra in the
0–10% $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions sample are compared in several
$\pt^{\text{jet}}$ intervals to the $\Pp\Pp$ smeared sample, for the two SD
settings. Some differences between jets from $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions and
smeared jets from $\Pp\Pp$ collisions are seen for the $(0.1,0.0)$ SD setting
in the lowest $\pt^{\text{jet}}$ ranges. This indicates that in central
$\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions it is more likely to produce a jet with large
$M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$ than in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions. The results are
compared to two jet quenching event generators, which incorporate medium-
induced radiation in the parton splitting process. The generated events are
smeared to account for effects from UE activity in $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions.
The medium response in jewel is modeled with the momentum transfers to
recoiling scattering centers in the medium in addition to the splitting of jet
constituents that is also present when the recoil feature in jewel is
disabled. The relative enhancement of large-mass jets can be qualitatively
captured by the jewel generator with the recoil-on setting [25, 56], but the
magnitude is much larger than that in data. For the recoil-off setting, the
enhancement at large $M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$ is not reproduced,
indicating that the recoil from the medium is important in reproducing the
qualitative feature of the result. In q-pythia the medium modification
enhances the splitting probability with an additional term that follows the
BDMPS-Z radiation [42, 57]. This in turn increases the jet mass via the large
amount of inter-jet broadening where the jets become less collimated. The
broadening of the mass distribution in q-pythia is more prominent than in
data. The measured modifications are much smaller than predicted, as
previously observed for the jet mass without grooming [27].

As a consequence of the stronger grooming at large subjet opening angles, the
result for the $(0.5,1.5)$ SD setting probes potential modification of the
core of the jet. On the contrary, in the $(0.1,0.0)$ SD setting the grooming
strength does not depend on the subjet opening angle and therefore is
sensitive to both the core and peripheral modifications. The comparison shows
that the core of the jet is not altered in central $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions
within the uncertainties of the measurement, but the periphery of the jet is
more sensitive to interactions of the partons with the dense colored medium
during the parton shower evolution. This effect vanishes at higher
$\pt^{\text{jet}}$ and for more peripheral collisions. The observed feature is
not reproduced by theoretical models. The comparison between the results from
the two grooming settings indicates that the region of phase space included in
the $(0.1,0.0)$ SD setting but excluded from the $(0.5,1.5)$ SD setting is the
place with the most significant modification: splittings with large angular
separation and low momentum sharing.

##  0.7 Summary

The first measurements of the ratio of the groomed jet mass and the transverse
momentum of the jet, $M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$, in $\Pp\Pp$ and
$\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions at a nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy of
5.02are presented. Both the and event generators reproduce the measurement in
$\Pp\Pp$ collisions.

The results demonstrate that different grooming settings provide sensitivity
to different parts of the phase space of subjet angular separation and
momentum sharing. For soft drop (SD) grooming parameters that remove more
radiation at distances far away from the jet axis,
$({z_{\text{cut}}=0.5},{\beta=1.5})$, the $M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$
distribution in $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions is, within uncertainties, in
agreement with that measured in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions for all studied centrality
(0–80%) and $\pt^{\text{jet}}$ (140–300) regions. Using the
$({z_{\text{cut}}=0.1},{\beta=0.0})$ SD setting, for which the grooming is
independent of the angular separation of the subjets, no significant
modification of the $M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$ spectra in 10–80%
peripheral collisions with respect to the measurement in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions
is observed. However, for the 10% most central collisions, a hint of increased
probability to produce jets with large $M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$ is
seen when compared to $\Pp\Pp$ collisions for jets with
$140<\pt^{\text{jet}}<180\GeV$. The difference between the results from the
two examined grooming settings indicates that the region of phase space where
modifications are most significant are splittings with large angular
separation and low-to-moderate momentum sharing. The measurements are compared
to the jet quenching event generators jewel and q-pythia, both of which
predict a large enhancement at large $M_{\mathrm{g}}/\pt^{\text{jet}}$ that is
not observed in the data.

###### Acknowledgements.

We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the
excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative
staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the
success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the
computing centers and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for
delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our
analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction
and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following
funding agencies: BMWFW and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq,
CAPES, FAPERJ, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC
(China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RPF (Cyprus);
SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC IUT, and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of Finland,
MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF
(Germany); GSRT (Greece); NKFIA (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM (Iran);
SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); LAS
(Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT, LNS, SEP, and
UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC
(Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom, RAS and RFBR (Russia);
MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI and FEDER (Spain); Swiss Funding Agencies
(Switzerland); MST (Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR, and NSTDA (Thailand);
TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); NASU and SFFR (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE
and NSF (USA). Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie
programme and the European Research Council and Horizon 2020 Grant, contract
No. 675440 (European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A. P. Sloan
Foundation; the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science
Policy Office; the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et
dans l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door
Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the F.R.S.-FNRS and FWO (Belgium)
under the “Excellence of Science - EOS” - be.h project n. 30820817; the
Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the
Lendület (“Momentum”) Programme and the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of
the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the New National Excellence Program ÚNKP,
the NKFIA research grants 123842, 123959, 124845, 124850 and 125105 (Hungary);
the Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; the HOMING PLUS
programme of the Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from European
Union, Regional Development Fund, the Mobility Plus programme of the Ministry
of Science and Higher Education, the National Science Center (Poland),
contracts Harmonia 2014/14/M/ST2/00428, Opus 2014/13/B/ST2/02543,
2014/15/B/ST2/03998, and 2015/19/B/ST2/02861, Sonata-bis 2012/07/E/ST2/01406;
the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund; the
Programa Estatal de Fomento de la Investigación Científica y Técnica de
Excelencia María de Maeztu, grant MDM-2015-0509 and the Programa Severo Ochoa
del Principado de Asturias; the Thalis and Aristeia programmes cofinanced by
EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral
Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its
2nd Century Project Advancement Project (Thailand); the Welch Foundation,
contract C-1845; and the Weston Havens Foundation (USA).

## References

  * [1] M. Gyulassy and M. Plumer, “Jet quenching in dense matter”,  Phys. Lett. B 243 (1990) 432, 10.1016/0370-2693(90)91409-5.
  * [2] R. Baier, Y. L. Dokshitzer, S. Peigne, and D. Schiff, “Induced gluon radiation in a QCD medium”,  Phys. Lett. B 345 (1995) 277, 10.1016/0370-2693(94)01617-L, arXiv:hep-ph/9411409.
  * [3] PHENIX Collaboration, “Suppressed $\pi^{0}$ production at large transverse momentum in central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 072301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.072301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0304022.
  * [4] STAR Collaboration, “Transverse momentum and collision energy dependence of high hadron suppression in Au+Au collisions at ultrarelativistic energies”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 172302, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.172302, arXiv:nucl-ex/0305015.
  * [5] BRAHMS Collaboration, “Transverse momentum spectra in Au+Au and d+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV and the pseudorapidity dependence of high $p_{\text{T}}$ suppression”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 072305, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.072305, arXiv:nucl-ex/0307003.
  * [6] PHOBOS Collaboration, “Charged hadron transverse momentum distributions in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 578 (2004) 297, 10.1016/j.physletb.2003.10.101, arXiv:nucl-ex/0302015.
  * [7] CMS Collaboration, “Observation and studies of jet quenching in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{{NN}}}$ = 2.76 TeV”,  Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 024906, 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.024906, arXiv:1102.1957.
  * [8] ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a centrality-dependent dijet asymmetry in lead-lead collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.77$ TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 252303, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.252303, arXiv:1011.6182.
  * [9] ALICE Collaboration, “Suppression of charged particle production at large transverse momentum in central Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 696 (2011) 30, 10.1016/j.physletb.2010.12.020, arXiv:1012.1004.
  * [10] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of transverse momentum relative to dijet systems in PbPb and pp collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV”,  JHEP 01 (2016) 006, 10.1007/JHEP01(2016)006, arXiv:1509.09029.
  * [11] CMS Collaboration, “Correlations between jets and charged particles in PbPb and pp collisions at $\sqrt{s_{{NN}}}=2.76$ TeV”,  JHEP 02 (2016) 156, 10.1007/JHEP02(2016)156, arXiv:1601.00079.
  * [12] I. Vitev, “Large angle hadron correlations from medium-induced gluon radiation”,  Phys. Lett. B 630 (2005) 78, 10.1016/j.physletb.2005.09.082, arXiv:hep-ph/0501255.
  * [13] T. Renk, “Comparison study of medium-modified QCD shower evolution scenarios”,  Phys. Rev. C 79 (2009) 054906, 10.1103/PhysRevC.79.054906, arXiv:0901.2818.
  * [14] T. Renk, “YaJEM – a Monte Carlo code for in-medium shower evolution”,  Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 20 (2011) 1594, 10.1142/S0218301311019933, arXiv:1009.3740.
  * [15] N. Armesto et al., “Comparison of jet quenching formalisms for a quark-gluon plasma “brick””,  Phys. Rev. C 86 (2012) 064904, 10.1103/PhysRevC.86.064904, arXiv:1106.1106.
  * [16] A. Majumder and J. Putschke, “Mass depletion: a new parameter for quantitative jet modification”,  Phys. Rev. C 93 (2016) 054909, 10.1103/PhysRevC.93.054909, arXiv:1408.3403.
  * [17] S. D. Ellis, C. K. Vermilion, and J. R. Walsh, “Recombination algorithms and jet substructure: Pruning as a tool for heavy particle searches”,  Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 094023, 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.094023, arXiv:0912.0033.
  * [18] J. M. Butterworth, A. R. Davison, M. Rubin, and G. P. Salam, “Jet substructure as a new higgs-search channel at the LHC”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 242001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.242001, arXiv:0802.2470.
  * [19] D. Krohn, J. Thaler, and L.-T. Wang, “Jet trimming”,  JHEP 02 (2010) 084, 10.1007/JHEP02(2010)084, arXiv:0912.1342.
  * [20] M. Dasgupta, A. Fregoso, S. Marzani, and G. P. Salam, “Towards an understanding of jet substructure”,  JHEP 09 (2013) 29, 10.1007/JHEP09(2013)029, arXiv:1307.0007.
  * [21] A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and J. Thaler, “Soft drop”,  JHEP 05 (2014) 146, 10.1007/JHEP05(2014)146, arXiv:1402.2657.
  * [22] C. A. Salgado and U. A. Wiedemann, “Calculating quenching weights”,  Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 014008, 10.1103/PhysRevD.68.014008, arXiv:hep-ph/0302184.
  * [23] Y. Mehtar-Tani and K. Tywoniuk, “Groomed jets in heavy-ion collisions: sensitivity to medium-induced bremsstrahlung”,  JHEP 04 (2017) 125, 10.1007/JHEP04(2017)125, arXiv:1610.08930.
  * [24] Y.-T. Chien and I. Vitev, “Probing the hardest branching of jets in heavy ion collisions”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 112301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.112301, arXiv:1608.07283.
  * [25] G. Milhano, U. A. Wiedemann, and K. C. Zapp, “Sensitivity of jet substructure to jet-induced medium response”,  Phys. Lett. B 779 (2018) 409, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.01.029, arXiv:1707.04142.
  * [26] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the splitting function in pp and PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{{{NN}}}}=$ 5.02 TeV”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 142302, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.142302, arXiv:1708.09429.
  * [27] ALICE Collaboration, “First measurement of jet mass in Pb-Pb and p-Pb collisions at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 776 (2018) 249, 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.11.044, arXiv:1702.00804.
  * [28] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [29] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [30] 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.
  * [31] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-jet clustering algorithm”,  JHEP 04 (2008) 063, 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063, arXiv:0802.1189.
  * [32] 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.
  * [33] O. Kodolova, I. Vardanyan, A. Nikitenko, and A. Oulianov, “The performance of the jet identification and reconstruction in heavy ions collisions with CMS detector”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 50 (2007) 117, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0223-9.
  * [34] CMS Collaboration, “Charged-particle nuclear modification factors in PbPb and pPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{{N}{N}}}=5.02$ TeV”,  JHEP 04 (2017) 39, 10.1007/JHEP04(2017)039, arXiv:1611.01664.
  * [35] 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.
  * [36] CMS Collaboration, “Study of the underlying event at forward rapidity in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 0.9, 2.76, and 7 TeV”,  JHEP 04 (2013) 072, 10.1007/JHEP04(2013)072, arXiv:1302.2394.
  * [37] I. P. Lokhtin and A. M. Snigirev, “A model of jet quenching in ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions and high-$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ hadron spectra at RHIC”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 45 (2006) 211, 10.1140/epjc/s2005-02426-3, arXiv:hep-ph/0506189.
  * [38] GEANT4 Collaboration, “—a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [39] M. Bähr et al., “Herwig++ physics and manual”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 58 (2008) 639, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-008-0798-9, arXiv:0803.0883.
  * [40] M. H. Seymour and A. Siodmok, “Constraining MPI models using $\sigma_{\mathrm{eff}}$ and recent Tevatron and LHC underlying event data”,  JHEP 10 (2013) 113, 10.1007/JHEP10(2013)113, arXiv:1307.5015.
  * [41] K. C. Zapp, “JEWEL 2.0.0: directions for use”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 2762, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2762-1, arXiv:1311.0048.
  * [42] N. Armesto, L. Cunqueiro, and C. A. Salgado, “Q-PYTHIA: A medium-modified implementation of final state radiation”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 63 (2009) 679, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-009-1133-9, arXiv:0907.1014.
  * [43] A. Dainese, C. Loizides, and G. Paic, “Leading-particle suppression in high energy nucleus-nucleus collisions”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 38 (2005) 461, 10.1140/epjc/s2004-02077-x, arXiv:hep-ph/0406201.
  * [44] G. O. V. de Barros, B. Fenton-Olsen, P. Jacobs, and M. Ploskon, “Data-driven analysis methods for the measurement of reconstructed jets in heavy ion collisions at RHIC and LHC”,  Nucl. Phys. A 910 (2013) 314, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2012.12.019, arXiv:1208.1518.
  * [45] P. Berta, M. Spousta, D. W. Miller, and R. Leitner, “Particle-level pileup subtraction for jets and jet shapes”,  JHEP 06 (2014) 092, 10.1007/JHEP06(2014)092, arXiv:1403.3108.
  * [46] CMS Collaboration, “Determination of jet energy calibration and transverse momentum resolution in CMS”,  JINST 6 (2011) P11002, 10.1088/1748-0221/6/11/P11002, arXiv:1107.4277.
  * [47] 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.
  * [48] M. Dasgupta and G. P. Salam, “Resummation of nonglobal QCD observables”,  Phys. Lett. B 512 (2001) 323, 10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00725-0, arXiv:hep-ph/0104277.
  * [49] M. Dasgupta, A. Fregoso, S. Marzani, and A. Powling, “Jet substructure with analytical methods”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2623, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2623-3, arXiv:1307.0013.
  * [50] M. Dasgupta, A. Powling, and A. Siodmok, “On jet substructure methods for signal jets”,  JHEP 08 (2015) 079, 10.1007/JHEP08(2015)079, arXiv:1503.01088.
  * [51] A. J. Larkoski, I. Moult, and D. Neill, “Non-global logarithms, factorization, and the soft substructure of jets”,  JHEP 09 (2015) 143, 10.1007/JHEP09(2015)143, arXiv:1501.04596.
  * [52] Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. D. Leder, S. Moretti, and B. R. Webber, “Better jet clustering algorithms”,  JHEP 08 (1997) 001, 10.1088/1126-6708/1997/08/001, arXiv:hep-ph/9707323.
  * [53] CMS Collaboration, “Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker”,  JINST 9 (2014) P10009, 10.1088/1748-0221/9/10/P10009, arXiv:1405.6569.
  * [54] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the charged-particle multiplicity inside jets from $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV $pp$ collisions with the ATLAS detector”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 322, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4126-5, arXiv:1602.00988.
  * [55] ATLAS Collaboration, “Light-quark and gluon jet discrimination in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3023, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3023-z, arXiv:1405.6583.
  * [56] R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli and K. C. Zapp, “Medium response in JEWEL and its impact on jet shape observables in heavy ion collisions”,  JHEP 07 (2017) 141, 10.1007/JHEP07(2017)141.
  * [57] R. Baier et al., “Radiative energy loss and $p_{\perp}$ broadening of high-energy partons in nuclei”,  Nucl. Phys. B 484 (1997) 265, 10.1016/S0550-3213(96)00581-0, arXiv:hep-ph/9608322.

##  .8 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan Institut für Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, E. Asilar, T. Bergauer, J. Brandstetter, M. Dragicevic,
J. Erö, A. Escalante Del Valle, M. Flechl, R. Frühwirth1, V.M. Ghete, J.
Hrubec, M. Jeitler1, N. Krammer, I. Krätschmer, D. Liko, T. Madlener, I.
Mikulec, N. Rad, H. Rohringer, J. Schieck1, R. Schöfbeck, M. Spanring, D.
Spitzbart, A. Taurok, W. Waltenberger, J. Wittmann, C.-E. Wulz1, M. Zarucki
Institute for Nuclear Problems, Minsk, Belarus
V. Chekhovsky, V. Mossolov, J. Suarez Gonzalez Universiteit Antwerpen,
Antwerpen, Belgium
E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, J. Lauwers, M. Pieters, M. Van De
Klundert, H. Van Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, N. Van Remortel Vrije
Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
S. Abu Zeid, F. Blekman, J. D’Hondt, I. De Bruyn, J. De Clercq, K. Deroover,
G. Flouris, D. Lontkovskyi, S. Lowette, I. Marchesini, S. Moortgat, L.
Moreels, Q. Python, K. Skovpen, S. Tavernier, W. Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders,
I. Van Parijs Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
D. Beghin, B. Bilin, H. Brun, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, H. Delannoy, B.
Dorney, G. Fasanella, L. Favart, R. Goldouzian, A. Grebenyuk, A.K. Kalsi, T.
Lenzi, J. Luetic, N. Postiau, E. Starling, L. Thomas, C. Vander Velde, P.
Vanlaer, D. Vannerom, Q. Wang Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, A. Fagot, M. Gul, I. Khvastunov2, D. Poyraz, C. Roskas,
D. Trocino, M. Tytgat, W. Verbeke, B. Vermassen, M. Vit, N. Zaganidis
Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
H. Bakhshiansohi, O. Bondu, S. Brochet, G. Bruno, C. Caputo, P. David, C.
Delaere, M. Delcourt, B. Francois, A. Giammanco, G. Krintiras, V. Lemaitre, A.
Magitteri, A. Mertens, M. Musich, K. Piotrzkowski, A. Saggio, M. Vidal Marono,
S. Wertz, J. Zobec Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil
F.L. Alves, G.A. Alves, L. Brito, M. Correa Martins Junior, G. Correia Silva,
C. Hensel, A. Moraes, M.E. Pol, P. Rebello Teles Universidade do Estado do Rio
de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato3, E. Coelho, E.M.
Da Costa, G.G. Da Silveira4, D. De Jesus Damiao, C. De Oliveira Martins, S.
Fonseca De Souza, H. Malbouisson, D. Matos Figueiredo, M. Melo De Almeida, C.
Mora Herrera, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, W.L. Prado Da Silva, L.J. Sanchez Rosas,
A. Santoro, A. Sznajder, M. Thiel, E.J. Tonelli Manganote3, F. Torres Da Silva
De Araujo, A. Vilela Pereira Universidade Estadual Paulista a, Universidade
Federal do ABC b, São Paulo, Brazil
S. Ahujaa, C.A. Bernardesa, L. Calligarisa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M.
Gregoresb, P.G. Mercadanteb, S.F. Novaesa, SandraS. Padulaa, D. Romero Abadb
Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of
Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, A. Marinov, M. Misheva, M. Rodozov,
M. Shopova, G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Dimitrov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov Beihang University, Beijing, China
W. Fang5, X. Gao5, L. Yuan Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, J.G. Bian, G.M. Chen, H.S. Chen, M. Chen, Y. Chen, C.H. Jiang, D.
Leggat, H. Liao, Z. Liu, F. Romeo, S.M. Shaheen6, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, C. Wang,
Z. Wang, E. Yazgan, H. Zhang, J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics
and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
Y. Ban, G. Chen, A. Levin, J. Li, L. Li, Q. Li, Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang, Z.
Xu Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Y. Wang Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, C.A. Carrillo Montoya, L.F. Chaparro Sierra, C. Florez,
C.F. González Hernández, M.A. Segura Delgado University of Split, Faculty of
Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split,
Croatia
B. Courbon, N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak, T. Sculac University of Split,
Faculty of Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, K. Kadija, B. Mesic, A. Starodumov7, T. Susa
University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, M. Kolosova, G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou,
F. Ptochos, P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski Charles University, Prague, Czech
Republic
M. Finger8, M. Finger Jr.8 Escuela Politecnica Nacional, Quito, Ecuador
E. Ayala Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
E. Carrera Jarrin Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab
Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt
A. Ellithi Kamel9, M.A. Mahmoud10,11, E. Salama11,12 National Institute of
Chemical Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
S. Bhowmik, A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveira, R.K. Dewanjee, K. Ehataht, M.
Kadastik, M. Raidal, C. Veelken Department of Physics, University of Helsinki,
Helsinki, Finland
P. Eerola, H. Kirschenmann, J. Pekkanen, M. Voutilainen Helsinki Institute of
Physics, Helsinki, Finland
J. Havukainen, J.K. Heikkilä, T. Järvinen, V. Karimäki, R. Kinnunen, T.
Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Laurila, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, P. Luukka, T.
Mäenpää, H. Siikonen, E. Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi Lappeenranta University of
Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
T. Tuuva IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, J.L. Faure, F. Ferri, S.
Ganjour, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry, C. Leloup,
E. Locci, J. Malcles, G. Negro, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M.Ö. Sahin, M. Titov
Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole polytechnique, CNRS/IN2P3, Université
Paris-Saclay, Palaiseau, France
A. Abdulsalam13, C. Amendola, I. Antropov, F. Beaudette, P. Busson, C.
Charlot, R. Granier de Cassagnac, I. Kucher, A. Lobanov, J. Martin Blanco, M.
Nguyen, C. Ochando, G. Ortona, P. Pigard, R. Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois,
A.G. Stahl Leiton, A. Zabi, A. Zghiche Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC
UMR 7178, F-67000 Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram14, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, J.-M. Brom, E.C. Chabert, V. Cherepanov,
C. Collard, E. Conte14, J.-C. Fontaine14, D. Gelé, U. Goerlach, M. Jansová,
A.-C. Le Bihan, N. Tonon, P. Van Hove Centre de Calcul de l’Institut National
de Physique Nucleaire et de Physique des Particules, CNRS/IN2P3, Villeurbanne,
France
S. Gadrat Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3,
Institut de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, N. Chanon, R. Chierici, D. Contardo, P.
Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, L. Finco, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, G.
Grenier, B. Ille, F. Lagarde, I.B. Laktineh, H. Lattaud, M. Lethuillier, L.
Mirabito, A.L. Pequegnot, S. Perries, A. Popov15, V. Sordini, M. Vander
Donckt, S. Viret, S. Zhang Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
A. Khvedelidze8 Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
D. Lomidze RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen, Germany
C. Autermann, L. Feld, M.K. Kiesel, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, M. Preuten, M.P.
Rauch, C. Schomakers, J. Schulz, M. Teroerde, B. Wittmer, V. Zhukov15 RWTH
Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany
A. Albert, D. Duchardt, M. Endres, M. Erdmann, T. Esch, R. Fischer, S. Ghosh,
A. Güth, T. Hebbeker, C. Heidemann, K. Hoepfner, H. Keller, S. Knutzen, L.
Mastrolorenzo, M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, P. Millet, S. Mukherjee, T. Pook, M.
Radziej, H. Reithler, M. Rieger, F. Scheuch, A. Schmidt, D. Teyssier RWTH
Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany
G. Flügge, O. Hlushchenko, T. Kress, A. Künsken, T. Müller, A. Nehrkorn, A.
Nowack, C. Pistone, O. Pooth, D. Roy, H. Sert, A. Stahl16 Deutsches
Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
M. Aldaya Martin, T. Arndt, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, I. Babounikau, K.
Beernaert, O. Behnke, U. Behrens, A. Bermúdez Martínez, D. Bertsche, A.A. Bin
Anuar, K. Borras17, V. Botta, A. Campbell, P. Connor, C. Contreras-Campana, F.
Costanza, V. Danilov, A. De Wit, M.M. Defranchis, C. Diez Pardos, D. Domínguez
Damiani, G. Eckerlin, T. Eichhorn, A. Elwood, E. Eren, E. Gallo18, A. Geiser,
J.M. Grados Luyando, A. Grohsjean, P. Gunnellini, M. Guthoff, M. Haranko, A.
Harb, J. Hauk, H. Jung, M. Kasemann, J. Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, J. Knolle, D.
Krücker, W. Lange, A. Lelek, T. Lenz, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann19, R. Mankel, I.-A.
Melzer-Pellmann, A.B. Meyer, M. Meyer, M. Missiroli, G. Mittag, J. Mnich, V.
Myronenko, S.K. Pflitsch, D. Pitzl, A. Raspereza, M. Savitskyi, P. Saxena, P.
Schütze, C. Schwanenberger, R. Shevchenko, A. Singh, H. Tholen, O. Turkot, A.
Vagnerini, G.P. Van Onsem, R. Walsh, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C. Wissing, O.
Zenaiev University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, L. Benato, A. Benecke, V. Blobel, M. Centis Vignali, T.
Dreyer, E. Garutti, D. Gonzalez, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, A. Karavdina, G.
Kasieczka, R. Klanner, R. Kogler, N. Kovalchuk, S. Kurz, V. Kutzner, J. Lange,
D. Marconi, J. Multhaup, M. Niedziela, D. Nowatschin, A. Perieanu, A. Reimers,
O. Rieger, C. Scharf, P. Schleper, S. Schumann, J. Schwandt, J. Sonneveld, H.
Stadie, G. Steinbrück, F.M. Stober, M. Stöver, D. Troendle, A. Vanhoefer, B.
Vormwald Institut für Experimentelle Teilchenphysik, Karlsruhe, Germany
M. Akbiyik, C. Barth, M. Baselga, S. Baur, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, F.
Colombo, W. De Boer, A. Dierlamm, K. El Morabit, N. Faltermann, B. Freund, M.
Giffels, M.A. Harrendorf, F. Hartmann16, S.M. Heindl, U. Husemann, F.
Kassel16, I. Katkov15, S. Kudella, H. Mildner, S. Mitra, M.U. Mozer, Th.
Müller, M. Plagge, G. Quast, K. Rabbertz, M. Schröder, I. Shvetsov, G. Sieber,
H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, S. Wayand, M. Weber, T. Weiler, S. Williamson, C.
Wöhrmann, R. Wolf Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics (INPP), NCSR
Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
G. Anagnostou, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas, G.
Paspalaki, I. Topsis-Giotis National and Kapodistrian University of Athens,
Athens, Greece
G. Karathanasis, S. Kesisoglou, P. Kontaxakis, A. Panagiotou, I. Papavergou,
N. Saoulidou, E. Tziaferi, K. Vellidis National Technical University of
Athens, Athens, Greece
K. Kousouris, I. Papakrivopoulos, G. Tsipolitis University of Ioánnina,
Ioánnina, Greece
I. Evangelou, C. Foudas, P. Gianneios, P. Katsoulis, P. Kokkas, S. Mallios, N.
Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, E. Paradas, J. Strologas, F.A. Triantis, D.
Tsitsonis MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
M. Bartók20, M. Csanad, N. Filipovic, P. Major, M.I. Nagy, G. Pasztor, O.
Surányi, G.I. Veres Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath21, Á. Hunyadi, F. Sikler, T.Á. Vámi, V.
Veszpremi, G. Vesztergombi${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$ Institute of Nuclear
Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi22, A. Makovec, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi
Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari Indian Institute of Science (IISc),
Bangalore, India
S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri, P.C. Tiwari National Institute of Science
Education and Research, HBNI, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati23, C. Kar, P. Mal, K. Mandal, A. Nayak24, D.K. Sahoo23, S.K.
Swain Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, S. Chauhan, R. Chawla, N. Dhingra, R.
Gupta, A. Kaur, A. Kaur, M. Kaur, S. Kaur, R. Kumar, P. Kumari, M. Lohan, A.
Mehta, K. Sandeep, S. Sharma, J.B. Singh, G. Walia University of Delhi, Delhi,
India
A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, M. Gola, S. Keshri, Ashok Kumar, S.
Malhotra, M. Naimuddin, P. Priyanka, K. Ranjan, Aashaq Shah, R. Sharma Saha
Institute of Nuclear Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India
R. Bhardwaj25, M. Bharti, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, U. Bhawandeep25,
D. Bhowmik, S. Dey, S. Dutt25, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh, K. Mondal, S. Nandan, A.
Purohit, P.K. Rout, A. Roy, S. Roy Chowdhury, G. Saha, S. Sarkar, M. Sharan,
B. Singh, S. Thakur25 Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
R. Chudasama, D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, P.K. Netrakanti, L.M. Pant, P.
Shukla Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A, Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, M.A. Bhat, S. Dugad, G.B. Mohanty, N. Sur, B. Sutar, RavindraKumar
Verma Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, P. Das, M. Guchait, Sa. Jain, S.
Karmakar, S. Kumar, M. Maity26, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, N. Sahoo, T.
Sarkar26 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. Chenarani27, E. Eskandari Tadavani, S.M. Etesami27, M. Khakzad, M.
Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri, 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, A. Di Florioa,b, F. Erricoa,b, L. Fiorea,
A. Gelmia,b, G. Iasellia,c, M. Incea,b, S. Lezkia,b, G. Maggia,c, M. Maggia,
G. Minielloa,b, S. Mya,b, S. Nuzzoa,b, A. Pompilia,b, G. Pugliesea,c, R.
Radognaa, A. Ranieria, G. Selvaggia,b, A. Sharmaa, L. Silvestrisa, R.
Vendittia, P. Verwilligena, G. Zitoa INFN Sezione di Bologna a, Università di
Bologna b, Bologna, Italy
G. Abbiendia, C. Battilanaa,b, D. Bonacorsia,b, L. Borgonovia,b, S. Braibant-
Giacomellia,b, R. Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A. Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa,
S.S. Chhibraa,b, C. Cioccaa, G. Codispotia,b, M. Cuffiania,b, G.M.
Dallavallea, F. Fabbria, A. Fanfania,b, P. Giacomellia, C. Grandia, L.
Guiduccia,b, F. Iemmia,b, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, A. Montanaria, F.L.
Navarriaa,b, A. Perrottaa, F. Primaveraa,b,16, A.M. Rossia,b, T. Rovellia,b,
G.P. Sirolia,b, N. Tosia INFN Sezione di Catania a, Università di Catania b,
Catania, Italy
S. Albergoa,b, A. Di Mattiaa, R. Potenzaa,b, A. Tricomia,b, C. Tuvea,b INFN
Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b, Firenze, Italy
G. Barbaglia, K. Chatterjeea,b, V. Ciullia,b, C. Civininia, R.
D’Alessandroa,b, E. Focardia,b, G. Latino, P. Lenzia,b, M. Meschinia, S.
Paolettia, L. Russoa,29, G. Sguazzonia, D. Stroma, L. Viliania INFN Laboratori
Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, F. Fabbri, D. Piccolo INFN Sezione di Genova a,
Università di Genova b, Genova, Italy
F. Ferroa, F. Raveraa,b, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia,b INFN Sezione di Milano-
Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, Italy
A. Benagliaa, A. Beschib, L. Brianzaa,b, F. Brivioa,b, V. Cirioloa,b,16, S. Di
Guidaa,d,16, M.E. Dinardoa,b, S. Fiorendia,b, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P.
Govonia,b, M. Malbertia,b, S. Malvezzia, A. Massironia,b, D. Menascea, L.
Moronia, M. Paganonia,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Ragazzia,b, T. Tabarelli de Fatisa,b,
D. Zuolo INFN Sezione di Napoli a, Università di Napoli ’Federico II’ b,
Napoli, Italy, Università della Basilicata c, Potenza, Italy, Università G.
Marconi d, Roma, Italy
S. Buontempoa, N. Cavalloa,c, A. Di Crescenzoa,b, F. Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa,
G. Galatia, A.O.M. Iorioa,b, W.A. Khana, L. Listaa, S. Meolaa,d,16, P.
Paoluccia,16, C. Sciaccaa,b, E. Voevodinaa,b INFN Sezione di Padova a,
Università di Padova b, Padova, Italy, Università di Trento c, Trento, Italy
P. Azzia, N. Bacchettaa, D. Biselloa,b, A. Bolettia,b, A. Bragagnolo, R.
Carlina,b, P. Checchiaa, M. Dall’Ossoa,b, P. De Castro Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa,
U. Dossellia, F. Gasparinia,b, U. Gasparinia,b, A. Gozzelinoa, S.Y. Hoh, S.
Lacapraraa, P. Lujan, M. Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,b, J. Pazzinia,b, P.
Ronchesea,b, R. Rossina,b, F. Simonettoa,b, A. Tiko, E. Torassaa, M.
Zanettia,b, P. Zottoa,b, G. Zumerlea,b INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di
Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
A. Braghieria, A. Magnania, P. Montagnaa,b, S.P. Rattia,b, V. Rea, M.
Ressegottia,b, C. Riccardia,b, P. Salvinia, I. Vaia,b, P. Vituloa,b INFN
Sezione di Perugia a, Università di Perugia b, Perugia, Italy
L. Alunni Solestizia,b, M. Biasinia,b, G.M. Bileia, C. Cecchia,b, D.
Ciangottinia,b, L. Fanòa,b, P. Laricciaa,b, R. Leonardia,b, E. Manonia, G.
Mantovania,b, V. Mariania,b, M. Menichellia, A. Rossia,b, A. Santocchiaa,b, D.
Spigaa INFN Sezione di Pisa a, Università di Pisa b, Scuola Normale Superiore
di Pisa c, Pisa, Italy
K. Androsova, P. Azzurria, G. Bagliesia, L. Bianchinia, T. Boccalia, L.
Borrello, R. Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, G. Fedia, F. Fioria,c,
L. Gianninia,c, A. Giassia, M.T. Grippoa, F. Ligabuea,c, E. Mancaa,c, G.
Mandorlia,c, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, A. Rizzia,b, P. Spagnoloa, R.
Tenchinia, G. Tonellia,b, A. Venturia, P.G. Verdinia INFN Sezione di Roma a,
Sapienza Università di Roma b, Rome, Italy
L. Baronea,b, F. Cavallaria, M. Cipriania,b, N. Dacia, D. Del Rea,b, E. Di
Marcoa,b, M. Diemoza, S. Gellia,b, E. Longoa,b, B. Marzocchia,b, P.
Meridiania, G. Organtinia,b, F. Pandolfia, R. Paramattia,b, F. Preiatoa,b, S.
Rahatloua,b, C. Rovellia, F. Santanastasioa,b INFN Sezione di Torino a,
Università di Torino b, Torino, Italy, Università del Piemonte Orientale c,
Novara, Italy
N. Amapanea,b, R. Arcidiaconoa,c, S. Argiroa,b, M. Arneodoa,c, N. Bartosika,
R. Bellana,b, C. Biinoa, N. Cartigliaa, F. Cennaa,b, S. Cometti, M. Costaa,b,
R. Covarellia,b, N. Demariaa, B. Kiania,b, C. Mariottia, S. Masellia, E.
Migliorea,b, V. Monacoa,b, E. Monteila,b, M. Montenoa, M.M. Obertinoa,b, L.
Pachera,b, N. Pastronea, M. Pelliccionia, G.L. Pinna Angionia,b, A. Romeroa,b,
M. Ruspaa,c, R. Sacchia,b, K. Shchelinaa,b, V. Solaa, A. Solanoa,b, D. Soldi,
A. Staianoa INFN Sezione di Trieste a, Università di Trieste b, Trieste, Italy
S. Belfortea, V. Candelisea,b, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, G. Della Riccaa,b,
F. Vazzolera,b, A. Zanettia Kyungpook National University
D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, M.S. Kim, J. Lee, S. Lee, S.W. Lee, C.S. Moon, Y.D. Oh, S.
Sekmen, D.C. Son, Y.C. Yang Chonnam National University, Institute for
Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju, Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon, G. Oh Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
J. Goh30, T.J. Kim Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, D. Gyun, S. Ha, B. Hong, Y. Jo, K. Lee, K.S. Lee, S.
Lee, J. Lim, S.K. Park, Y. Roh Sejong University, Seoul, Korea
H.S. Kim Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, H. Lee, K. Lee, K. Nam, S.B. Oh, B.C. Radburn-
Smith, S.h. Seo, U.K. Yang, H.D. Yoo, G.B. Yu University of Seoul, Seoul,
Korea
D. Jeon, H. Kim, J.H. Kim, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park Sungkyunkwan University,
Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, C. Hwang, J. Lee, I. Yu Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
V. Dudenas, A. Juodagalvis, J. Vaitkus National Centre for Particle Physics,
Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
I. Ahmed, Z.A. Ibrahim, M.A.B. Md Ali31, F. Mohamad Idris32, W.A.T. Wan
Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli Universidad de Sonora (UNISON), Hermosillo,
Mexico
A. Castaneda Hernandez, J.A. Murillo Quijada Centro de Investigacion y de
Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
M.C. Duran-Osuna, H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, G. Ramirez-
Sanchez, I. Heredia-De La Cruz33, R.I. Rabadan-Trejo, R. Lopez-Fernandez, J.
Mejia Guisao, R Reyes-Almanza, M. Ramirez-Garcia, A. Sanchez-Hernandez
Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City, Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, F. Vazquez Valencia Benemerita
Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
J. Eysermans, I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada Universidad
Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, Mexico
A. Morelos Pineda University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
S. Bheesette, P.H. Butler National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam
University, Islamabad, Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M. Ahmad, M.I. Asghar, Q. Hassan, H.R. Hoorani, A. Saddique, M.A.
Shah, M. Shoaib, M. Waqas National Centre for Nuclear Research, Swierk, Poland
H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, T. Frueboes, M. Górski, M. Kazana, K.
Nawrocki, M. Szleper, P. Traczyk, P. Zalewski Institute of Experimental
Physics, Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk34, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J.
Krolikowski, M. Misiura, M. Olszewski, A. Pyskir, M. Walczak Laboratório de
Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas, Lisboa, Portugal
M. Araujo, P. Bargassa, C. Beirão Da Cruz E Silva, A. Di Francesco, P.
Faccioli, B. Galinhas, M. Gallinaro, J. Hollar, N. Leonardo, M.V. Nemallapudi,
J. Seixas, G. Strong, O. Toldaiev, D. Vadruccio, J. Varela Joint Institute for
Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
S. Afanasiev, P. Bunin, M. Gavrilenko, I. Golutvin, I. Gorbunov, A. Kamenev,
V. Karjavin, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev35,36, P. Moisenz, V. Palichik,
V. Perelygin, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, N. Skatchkov, V. Smirnov, N. Voytishin,
A. Zarubin Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg),
Russia
V. Golovtsov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim37, E. Kuznetsova38, P. Levchenko, V. Murzin,
V. Oreshkin, I. Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Vavilov, A.
Vorobyev Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, M. Kirsanov,
N. Krasnikov, A. Pashenkov, D. Tlisov, A. Toropin Institute for Theoretical
and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, V. Popov, I. Pozdnyakov, G.
Safronov, A. Spiridonov, A. Stepennov, V. Stolin, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A.
Zhokin Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
R. Chistov39, M. Danilov39, P. Parygin, D. Philippov, S. Polikarpov39, E.
Tarkovskii P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin36, I. Dremin36, M. Kirakosyan36, S.V. Rusakov, A.
Terkulov Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
A. Baskakov, A. Belyaev, E. Boos, M. Dubinin40, L. Dudko, A. Ershov, A.
Gribushin, V. Klyukhin, O. Kodolova, I. Lokhtin, I. Miagkov, S. Obraztsov, S.
Petrushanko, V. Savrin, A. Snigirev Novosibirsk State University (NSU),
Novosibirsk, Russia
V. Blinov41, T. Dimova41, L. Kardapoltsev41, D. Shtol41, Y. Skovpen41 State
Research Center of Russian Federation, Institute for High Energy Physics of
NRC ’Kurchatov Institute’, Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, S. Bitioukov, D. Elumakhov, A. Godizov, V. Kachanov,
A. Kalinin, D. Konstantinov, P. Mandrik, V. Petrov, R. Ryutin, S.
Slabospitskii, A. Sobol, S. Troshin, N. Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov National
Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia
A. Babaev, S. Baidali, V. Okhotnikov University of Belgrade, Faculty of
Physics and Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic42, P. Cirkovic, D. Devetak, M. Dordevic, J. Milosevic Centro de
Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid,
Spain
J. Alcaraz Maestre, A. Álvarez Fernández, I. Bachiller, M. Barrio Luna, J.A.
Brochero Cifuentes, M. Cerrada, N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris, C.
Fernandez Bedoya, J.P. Fernández Ramos, J. Flix, M.C. Fouz, O. Gonzalez Lopez,
S. Goy Lopez, J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa, D. Moran, A. Pérez-Calero Yzquierdo,
J. Puerta Pelayo, I. Redondo, L. Romero, M.S. Soares, A. Triossi Universidad
Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
C. Albajar, J.F. de Trocóniz Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain
J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, S. Folgueras, I. Gonzalez
Caballero, J.R. González Fernández, E. Palencia Cortezon, V. Rodríguez Bouza,
S. Sanchez Cruz, P. Vischia, J.M. Vizan Garcia Instituto de Física de
Cantabria (IFCA), CSIC-Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain
I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, B. Chazin Quero, J. Duarte Campderros, M.
Fernandez, P.J. Fernández Manteca, A. García Alonso, J. Garcia-Ferrero, G.
Gomez, A. Lopez Virto, J. Marco, C. Martinez Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del
Arbol, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, C. Prieels, T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno,
L. Scodellaro, N. Trevisani, I. Vila, R. Vilar Cortabitarte CERN, European
Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland
D. Abbaneo, B. Akgun, E. Auffray, P. Baillon, A.H. Ball, D. Barney, J.
Bendavid, M. Bianco, A. Bocci, C. Botta, E. Brondolin, T. Camporesi, M.
Cepeda, G. Cerminara, E. Chapon, Y. Chen, G. Cucciati, D. d’Enterria, A.
Dabrowski, V. Daponte, A. David, A. De Roeck, N. Deelen, M. Dobson, M. Dünser,
N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, P. Everaerts, F. Fallavollita43, D. Fasanella,
G. Franzoni, J. Fulcher, W. Funk, D. Gigi, A. Gilbert, K. Gill, F. Glege, M.
Guilbaud, D. Gulhan, J. Hegeman, V. Innocente, A. Jafari, P. Janot, O.
Karacheban19, J. Kieseler, A. Kornmayer, M. Krammer1, C. Lange, P. Lecoq, C.
Lourenço, L. Malgeri, M. Mannelli, F. Meijers, J.A. Merlin, S. Mersi, E.
Meschi, P. Milenovic44, F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, J. Ngadiuba, S. Orfanelli, L.
Orsini, F. Pantaleo16, L. Pape, E. Perez, M. Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G.
Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, F.M. Pitters, 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.
Tosi, D. Treille, A. Tsirou, V. Veckalns47, W.D. Zeuner Paul Scherrer
Institut, Villigen, Switzerland
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, N. Chernyavskaya, G. Dissertori, M. Dittmar,
M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, C. Grab, C. Heidegger, D. Hits, J. Hoss, T. Klijnsma, W.
Lustermann, R.A. Manzoni, M. Marionneau, M.T. Meinhard, F. Micheli, P.
Musella, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, J. Pata, F. Pauss, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, S.
Pigazzini, M. Quittnat, D. Ruini, D.A. Sanz Becerra, M. Schönenberger, L.
Shchutska, V.R. Tavolaro, K. Theofilatos, M.L. Vesterbacka Olsson, R. Wallny,
D.H. Zhu Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, C. Amsler49, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, R. Del
Burgo, S. Donato, C. Galloni, T. Hreus, B. Kilminster, I. Neutelings, D.
Pinna, G. Rauco, P. Robmann, D. Salerno, K. Schweiger, C. Seitz, Y. Takahashi,
A. Zucchetta National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan
Y.H. Chang, K.y. Cheng, T.H. Doan, Sh. Jain, R. Khurana, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A.
Pozdnyakov, S.S. Yu National Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, W.-S. Hou, Arun Kumar, Y.y. Li, Y.F.
Liu, R.-S. Lu, E. Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen Chulalongkorn University,
Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok, Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, N. Srimanobhas, N. Suwonjandee Çukurova University, Physics
Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
A. Bat, F. Boran, S. Cerci50, S. Damarseckin, Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, C.
Dozen, I. Dumanoglu, S. Girgis, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, E. Gurpinar, I. Hos51,
C. Isik, E.E. Kangal52, O. Kara, A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, M. Oglakci, G.
Onengut, K. Ozdemir53, S. Ozturk54, D. Sunar Cerci50, B. Tali50, U.G. Tok, S.
Turkcapar, I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East Technical University,
Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak55, G. Karapinar56, M. Yalvac, M. Zeyrek Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
I.O. Atakisi, 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, S. Sen60 Institute
for Scintillation Materials of National Academy of Science of Ukraine,
Kharkov, Ukraine
B. Grynyov National Scientific Center, Kharkov Institute of Physics and
Technology, Kharkov, Ukraine
L. Levchuk University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
F. Ball, L. Beck, J.J. Brooke, D. Burns, E. Clement, D. Cussans, O. Davignon,
H. Flacher, J. Goldstein, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, D.M. Newbold61,
S. Paramesvaran, B. Penning, T. Sakuma, D. Smith, V.J. Smith, J. Taylor, A.
Titterton Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
A. Belyaev62, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, D. Cieri, D.J.A. Cockerill, J.A. Coughlan,
K. Harder, S. Harper, J. Linacre, E. Olaiya, D. Petyt, C.H. Shepherd-
Themistocleous, A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin, T. Williams, W.J. Womersley Imperial
College, London, United Kingdom
G. Auzinger, R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A.
Bundock, S. Casasso, D. Colling, L. Corpe, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M. Della
Negra, R. Di Maria, Y. Haddad, G. Hall, G. Iles, T. James, M. Komm, C. Laner,
L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, A. Martelli, J. Nash63, A. Nikitenko7, V.
Palladino, M. Pesaresi, A. Richards, A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A.
Shtipliyski, G. Singh, M. Stoye, T. Strebler, S. Summers, A. Tapper, K.
Uchida, T. Virdee16, N. Wardle, D. Winterbottom, J. Wright, S.C. Zenz Brunel
University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, C.K. Mackay, A. Morton, I.D. Reid,
L. Teodorescu, S. Zahid Baylor University, Waco, USA
K. Call, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, H. Liu, C. Madrid, B. Mcmaster, N.
Pastika, C. Smith Catholic University of America, Washington DC, USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
A. Buccilli, S.I. Cooper, C. Henderson, P. Rumerio, C. West Boston University,
Boston, USA
D. Arcaro, T. Bose, D. Gastler, D. Rankin, C. Richardson, J. Rohlf, L. Sulak,
D. Zou Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, X. Coubez, D. Cutts, M. Hadley, J. Hakala, U. Heintz, J.M.
Hogan64, K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, J. Lee, Z. Mao, M. Narain, S.
Piperov, S. Sagir65, R. Syarif, E. Usai, D. Yu University of California,
Davis, Davis, USA
R. Band, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, D. Burns, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez,
M. Chertok, J. Conway, R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, G. Funk,
W. Ko, O. Kukral, R. Lander, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, J. Pilot, S. Shalhout,
M. Shi, D. Stolp, D. Taylor, K. Tos, M. Tripathi, Z. Wang, F. Zhang University
of California, Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, C. Bravo, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, A. Florent, J. Hauser, M.
Ignatenko, N. Mccoll, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg, C. Schnaible, V. Valuev
University of California, Riverside, Riverside, USA
E. Bouvier, K. Burt, R. Clare, J.W. Gary, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi, G. Hanson, G.
Karapostoli, E. Kennedy, F. Lacroix, O.R. Long, M. Olmedo Negrete, M.I.
Paneva, W. Si, L. Wang, H. Wei, S. Wimpenny, B.R. Yates University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, S. Cittolin, M. Derdzinski, R. Gerosa, D. Gilbert, B. Hashemi,
A. Holzner, D. Klein, G. Kole, V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, M. Masciovecchio, D.
Olivito, S. Padhi, M. Pieri, M. Sani, V. Sharma, S. Simon, M. Tadel, A.
Vartak, S. Wasserbaech66, J. Wood, F. Würthwein, A. Yagil, G. Zevi Della Porta
University of California, Santa Barbara - Department of Physics, Santa
Barbara, USA
N. Amin, R. Bhandari, J. Bradmiller-Feld, C. Campagnari, M. Citron, A. Dishaw,
V. Dutta, M. Franco Sevilla, L. Gouskos, R. Heller, J. Incandela, A.
Ovcharova, H. Qu, J. Richman, D. Stuart, I. Suarez, S. Wang, J. Yoo California
Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
D. Anderson, A. Bornheim, J.M. Lawhorn, H.B. Newman, T.Q. Nguyen, M.
Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, R. Wilkinson, S. Xie, Z. Zhang, R.Y. Zhu Carnegie
Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
M.B. Andrews, T. Ferguson, T. Mudholkar, M. Paulini, M. Sun, I. Vorobiev, M.
Weinberg University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, F. Jensen, A. Johnson, M. Krohn, S. Leontsinis, E.
MacDonald, T. Mulholland, K. Stenson, K.A. Ulmer, S.R. Wagner Cornell
University, Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, J. Chaves, Y. Cheng, J. Chu, A. Datta, K. Mcdermott, N. Mirman,
J.R. Patterson, D. Quach, A. Rinkevicius, A. Ryd, L. Skinnari, L. Soffi, S.M.
Tan, Z. Tao, J. Thom, J. Tucker, P. Wittich, M. Zientek Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, USA
S. Abdullin, M. Albrow, M. Alyari, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S.
Banerjee, L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, G.
Bolla${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, K. Burkett, J.N. Butler, A. Canepa, G.B.
Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M. Cremonesi, J. Duarte, V.D. Elvira, J.
Freeman, Z. Gecse, E. Gottschalk, L. Gray, D. Green, S. Grünendahl, O.
Gutsche, J. Hanlon, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, J. Hirschauer, Z. Hu, B.
Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, B. Klima, M.J. Kortelainen,
B. Kreis, S. Lammel, D. Lincoln, R. Lipton, M. Liu, T. Liu, J. Lykken, K.
Maeshima, J.M. Marraffino, D. Mason, P. McBride, P. Merkel, S. Mrenna, S.
Nahn, V. O’Dell, K. Pedro, C. Pena, O. Prokofyev, G. Rakness, L. Ristori, A.
Savoy-Navarro67, B. Schneider, E. Sexton-Kennedy, A. Soha, W.J. Spalding, L.
Spiegel, S. Stoynev, J. Strait, N. Strobbe, L. Taylor, S. Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran,
L. Uplegger, E.W. Vaandering, C. Vernieri, M. Verzocchi, R. Vidal, M. Wang,
H.A. Weber, A. Whitbeck University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, P. Bortignon, D. Bourilkov, A. Brinkerhoff, L. Cadamuro,
A. Carnes, M. Carver, D. Curry, R.D. Field, S.V. Gleyzer, B.M. Joshi, J.
Konigsberg, A. Korytov, P. Ma, K. Matchev, H. Mei, G. Mitselmakher, K. Shi, D.
Sperka, J. Wang, S. Wang Florida International University, Miami, USA
Y.R. Joshi, S. Linn Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
A. Ackert, T. Adams, A. Askew, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F. Johnson, T.
Kolberg, G. Martinez, T. Perry, H. Prosper, A. Saha, C. Schiber, V. Sharma, R.
Yohay Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, V. Bhopatkar, S. Colafranceschi, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, M.
Rahmani, T. Roy, F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago,
USA
M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, D. Berry, R.R. Betts, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, S.
Dittmer, O. Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, K. Jung, J.
Kamin, C. Mills, I.D. Sandoval Gonzalez, M.B. Tonjes, N. Varelas, H. Wang, X.
Wang, Z. Wu, J. Zhang The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, B. Bilki68, W. Clarida, K. Dilsiz69, S. Durgut, R.P.
Gandrajula, M. Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko, J.-P. Merlo, A. Mestvirishvili, A.
Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul70, Y. Onel, F. Ozok71, A. Penzo, C. Snyder, E.
Tiras, J. Wetzel Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
B. Blumenfeld, A. Cocoros, N. Eminizer, D. Fehling, L. Feng, A.V. Gritsan,
W.T. Hung, P. Maksimovic, J. Roskes, U. Sarica, M. Swartz, M. Xiao, C. You The
University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA
A. Al-bataineh, P. Baringer, A. Bean, S. Boren, J. Bowen, A. Bylinkin, J.
Castle, S. Khalil, A. Kropivnitskaya, D. Majumder, W. Mcbrayer, M. Murray, C.
Rogan, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang Kansas State
University, Manhattan, USA
S. Duric, A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, D. Kim, Y. Maravin, D.R. Mendis, T. Mitchell,
A. Modak, A. Mohammadi, L.K. Saini, N. Skhirtladze Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright University of Maryland, College Park, USA
A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, S.C. Eno, Y. Feng, C. Ferraioli, N.J. Hadley,
S. Jabeen, G.Y. Jeng, R.G. Kellogg, J. Kunkle, A.C. Mignerey, F. Ricci-Tam,
Y.H. Shin, A. Skuja, S.C. Tonwar, K. Wong Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, V. Azzolini, A. Baty, G. Bauer, R. Bi, S. Brandt, W.
Busza, I.A. Cali, M. D’Alfonso, Z. Demiragli, G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov,
P. Harris, D. Hsu, M. Hu, Y. Iiyama, G.M. Innocenti, M. Klute, D. Kovalskyi,
Y.-J. Lee, P.D. Luckey, B. Maier, A.C. Marini, C. Mcginn, C. Mironov, S.
Narayanan, X. Niu, C. Paus, C. Roland, G. Roland, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Sumorok,
K. Tatar, D. Velicanu, J. Wang, T.W. Wang, B. Wyslouch, S. Zhaozhong
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
A.C. Benvenuti, R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, P. Hansen, S. Kalafut, Y. Kubota,
Z. Lesko, J. Mans, S. Nourbakhsh, N. Ruckstuhl, R. Rusack, J. Turkewitz, M.A.
Wadud University of Mississippi, Oxford, USA
J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
E. Avdeeva, K. Bloom, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, F. Golf, R. Gonzalez Suarez,
R. Kamalieddin, I. Kravchenko, J. Monroy, J.E. Siado, G.R. Snow, B. Stieger
State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
A. Godshalk, C. Harrington, I. Iashvili, A. Kharchilava, C. Mclean, D. Nguyen,
A. Parker, S. Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani Northeastern University, Boston, USA
E. Barberis, C. Freer, A. Hortiangtham, D.M. Morse, T. Orimoto, R. Teixeira De
Lima, T. Wamorkar, B. Wang, A. Wisecarver, D. Wood Northwestern University,
Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, O. Charaf, K.A. Hahn, N. Mucia, N. Odell, M.H. Schmitt, K.
Sung, M. Trovato, M. Velasco University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, USA
R. Bucci, N. Dev, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop, D.J. Karmgard, N.
Kellams, K. Lannon, W. Li, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, F. Meng, C. Mueller, Y.
Musienko35, M. Planer, A. Reinsvold, R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, G. Smith, S.
Taroni, M. Wayne, A. Wightman, M. Wolf, A. Woodard The Ohio State University,
Columbus, USA
J. Alimena, L. Antonelli, B. Bylsma, L.S. Durkin, S. Flowers, B. Francis, A.
Hart, C. Hill, W. Ji, T.Y. Ling, W. Luo, B.L. Winer, H.W. Wulsin Princeton
University, Princeton, USA
S. Cooperstein, P. Elmer, J. Hardenbrook, S. Higginbotham, A. Kalogeropoulos,
D. Lange, M.T. Lucchini, J. Luo, D. Marlow, K. Mei, I. Ojalvo, J. Olsen, C.
Palmer, P. Piroué, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, D. Stickland, C. Tully University of
Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
A. Barker, V.E. Barnes, S. Das, L. Gutay, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, A. Khatiwada,
B. Mahakud, D.H. Miller, N. Neumeister, C.C. Peng, H. Qiu, J.F. Schulte, J.
Sun, F. Wang, R. Xiao, W. Xie Purdue University Northwest, Hammond, USA
T. Cheng, J. Dolen, N. Parashar Rice University, Houston, USA
Z. Chen, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Kilpatrick, W. Li, B.
Michlin, B.P. Padley, J. Roberts, J. Rorie, W. Shi, Z. Tu, J. Zabel, A. Zhang
University of Rochester, Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, Y.t. Duh, J.L. Dulemba, C. Fallon, T.
Ferbel, M. Galanti, A. Garcia-Bellido, J. Han, O. Hindrichs, A.
Khukhunaishvili, K.H. Lo, P. Tan, R. Taus, M. Verzetti Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey, Piscataway, USA
A. Agapitos, J.P. Chou, Y. Gershtein, T.A. Gómez Espinosa, E. Halkiadakis, M.
Heindl, E. Hughes, S. Kaplan, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, S. Kyriacou, A. Lath,
R. Montalvo, K. Nash, M. Osherson, H. Saka, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, D.
Sheffield, S. Somalwar, R. Stone, S. Thomas, P. Thomassen, M. Walker
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
A.G. Delannoy, J. Heideman, G. Riley, S. Spanier, K. Thapa Texas A&M
University, College Station, USA
O. Bouhali72, A. Celik, M. Dalchenko, M. De Mattia, A. Delgado, S. Dildick, R.
Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T. Kamon73, S. Luo, R. Mueller, R. Patel, A.
Perloff, L. Perniè, D. Rathjens, A. Safonov Texas Tech University, Lubbock,
USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, F. De Guio, P.R. Dudero, S. Kunori, K. Lamichhane,
S.W. Lee, T. Mengke, S. Muthumuni, T. Peltola, S. Undleeb, I. Volobouev, Z.
Wang Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H. Ni, K.
Padeken, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska, M. Verweij, Q.
Xu University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
M.W. Arenton, P. Barria, B. Cox, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A. Ledovskoy, H. Li, C.
Neu, T. Sinthuprasith, Y. Wang, E. Wolfe, F. Xia Wayne State University,
Detroit, USA
R. Harr, P.E. Karchin, N. Poudyal, J. Sturdy, P. Thapa, S. Zaleski University
of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI, USA
M. Brodski, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, D. Carlsmith, S. Dasu, L. Dodd, B.
Gomber, M. Grothe, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, P. Klabbers, A. Lanaro,
K. Long, R. Loveless, T. Ruggles, A. Savin, N. Smith, W.H. Smith, N. Woods †:
Deceased
1: Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria
2: Also at IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
3: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
4: Also at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
5: Also at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
6: Also at University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
7: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
8: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
9: Now at Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
10: Also at Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt
11: Now at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt
12: Now at Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
13: Also at Department of Physics, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia
14: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
15: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
16: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
17: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
18: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
19: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
20: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
21: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
22: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
23: Also at Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India
24: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
25: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India
26: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
27: Also at Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, 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 Kyunghee University, Seoul, Korea
31: Also at International Islamic University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
32: Also at Malaysian Nuclear Agency, MOSTI, Kajang, Malaysia
33: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico city, Mexico
34: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems,
Warsaw, Poland
35: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
36: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
37: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
38: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
39: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
40: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
41: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
42: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
43: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
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 Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
51: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey
52: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
53: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
54: Also at Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey
55: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
56: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, 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 Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
61: Also at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
62: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
63: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia
64: Also at Bethel University, St. Paul, USA
65: Also at Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey
66: Also at Utah Valley University, Orem, USA
67: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
68: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey
69: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
70: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
71: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
72: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
73: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea