First measurement of large area jet transverse momentum spectra in heavy-ion collisions
EEUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH (CERN)
CERN-EP-2020-2262021/02/26
CMS-HIN-18-014
First measurement of large area jet transverse momentumspectra in heavy-ion collisions
The CMS Collaboration * Abstract
Jet production in lead-lead (PbPb) and proton-proton (pp) collisions at a nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy of 5.02 TeV is studied with the CMS detector at theLHC, using PbPb and pp data samples corresponding to integrated luminosities of404 µ b − and 27.4 pb − , respectively. Jets with different areas are reconstructed usingthe anti- k T algorithm by varying the distance parameter R . The measurements areperformed using jets with transverse momenta ( p T ) greater than 200 GeV and in apseudorapidity range of | η | <
2. To reveal the medium modification of the jet spectrain PbPb collisions, the properly normalized ratio of spectra from PbPb and pp datais used to extract jet nuclear modification factors as functions of the PbPb collisioncentrality, p T and, for the first time, as a function of R up to 1.0. For the most centralcollisions, a strong suppression is observed for high- p T jets reconstructed with alldistance parameters, implying that a significant amount of jet energy is scattered tolarge angles. The dependence of jet suppression on R is expected to be sensitive toboth the jet energy loss mechanism and the medium response, and so the data arecompared to several modern event generators and analytic calculations. The modelsconsidered do not fully reproduce the data. Submitted to the Journal of High Energy Physics © 2021 CERN for the benefit of the CMS Collaboration. CC-BY-4.0 license * See Appendix A for the list of collaboration members a r X i v : . [ h e p - e x ] F e b Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), the theory of the strong nuclear force, predicts that a de-confined state of quarks and gluons, called the quark-gluon plasma (QGP), should be producedat sufficiently high temperatures and densities [1]. In relativistic heavy ion collisions, the QGPis produced on an extremely short time scale [2, 3]. A pair of partons (quarks or gluons) in thecolliding nuclei can undergo a high transverse momentum ( p T ) scattering, a process that occursprior to the formation of the QGP. As the scattered partons pass through and interact with theQGP, they lose some of their energy, thereby acting as probes of the short-distance structure ofthe medium [4–8]. This parton energy loss, often referred to as “jet quenching”, is related tothe transport and thermodynamical properties of the QGP [9–12]. However, the details of theparton’s interactions with the medium, as well as the relative importance of each interactionmechanism, are not yet fully understood [13–18].A hard-scattered parton fragments and hadronizes into a collimated spray of particles. Thefragmentation process coevolves with the QGP. The suppression of inclusive high- p T hadronsin nucleus-nucleus collisions [19–26] provides evidence for jet quenching. Experimentally,final-state particles can be clustered into jets through the use of well-defined algorithms suchas anti- k T [27]. Various studies of jets and jet pairs, such as dijet p T imbalance [28–30], mod-ifications of the jet yield in the medium [31–34], electroweak boson-jet p T imbalance [35, 36],jet fragmentation functions [37–39], missing p T in dijet systems [28, 29, 40], jet-track correla-tions [41, 42], and the radial p T profile of tracks within jets [43–45] have been studied. Com-plementary to these measurements, inclusive jet spectra reconstructed using different distanceparameters R in the anti- k T algorithm are of great interest because they are less sensitive tohadronization effects than observables involving individual final-state hadrons. The value of R defines the area of the reconstructed jet. By varying R , different fractions of energy fromthe quenched jet and the medium response will be included in the reconstructed jet. A differ-ential study of the suppression versus R provides new sensitivity to the QGP properties [46]and to the underlying jet quenching mechanism. In particular, theoretical models and genera-tors based on perturbative QCD [46–48] and anti-de Sitter/conformal field theory correspon-dence [49] predict different dependences of the jet suppression on R .Modifications to jet production can be quantified by the ratio of the inclusive jet yields perevent in nucleus-nucleus (AA) collisions ( N AA ) to those in proton-proton (pp) collisions ( N pp ),scaled by the mean number of binary nucleon-nucleon (NN) collisions ( (cid:104) N coll (cid:105) ) [50]. This ratiois called the nuclear modification factor R AA and is defined as R AA ( p jetT ) = d N AA /d p jetT (cid:104) N coll (cid:105) d N pp /d p jetT = d N AA /d p jetT (cid:104) T AA (cid:105) d σ ppinel /d p jetT , (1)where p jetT is the transverse momentum of the jet. The R AA is typically measured in bins ofcentrality, which characterizes the degree of overlap of the two colliding lead nuclei [29, 51].The nuclear overlap function (cid:104) T AA (cid:105) is defined as the ratio of (cid:104) N coll (cid:105) to the total inelastic ppcross section, (cid:104) T AA (cid:105) = (cid:104) N coll (cid:105) / σ ppinel , and can be calculated from a Glauber model of the nuclearcollision geometry [51]. If the ratio is less than one, it indicates a transfer of energy out of thejet cone. Measurements of the dependence of jet spectra and nuclear modification factors onthe jet distance parameter R can help differentiate between competing models of parton energyloss mechanisms [52].In studies of jet suppression from LHC Run 1 with lead-lead (PbPb) collisions at a nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy of √ s NN = is roughly independent of p jetT in the range p jetT = 200–400 GeV [33]. This suggests that the shapeof the spectra is not significantly modified, and the modifications are predominantly throughthe overall number of jets. However, these initial measurements were statistically limited. At √ s NN = p T . Furthermore, at this highercenter-of-mass energy, partons traverse a medium of higher density and temperature.In this paper, measurements of jet R AA at p jetT >
200 GeV using PbPb collisions at √ s NN = k T algorithm [27] with R vary-ing between 0.2 and 1.0. The results are presented as a function of p jetT in bins of PbPb eventcentrality. The central feature of the CMS detector is a superconducting solenoid of 6 m internal diameter,providing a magnetic field of 3.8 T. Within the solenoid volume are a silicon pixel and striptracker, a lead tungstate crystal electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), and a brass and scintilla-tor hadron calorimeter (HCAL), each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. Hadronforward (HF) calorimeters extend the pseudorapidity coverage up to | η | = | η | =
1, rising to about2.5% at | η | = | η | < < p T <
10 GeV and | η | < p T and 25–90 (45–150) µ m in the transverse(longitudinal) impact parameter [55]. Events of interest are selected using a two-tiered triggersystem [56]. The first level, composed of custom hardware processors, uses information fromthe calorimeters and muon detectors to select events at a rate of around 100 kHz within a timeinterval of less than 4 µ s. The second level, known as the high-level trigger, consists of a farmof processors running a version of the full event reconstruction software optimized for fastprocessing, and reduces the event rate to around 1 kHz before data storage. A more detaileddescription of the CMS detector, together with a definition of the coordinate system used andthe relevant kinematic variables, can be found in Ref. [57]. The event samples are recorded with dedicated jet triggers with different p jetT thresholds, thesmallest of which is p jetT >
80 GeV [36]. The efficiencies of the triggering algorithms are eval-uated in data and are found to reach unity in both pp and PbPb collisions for jets consideredin this paper ( p jetT >
200 GeV). A number of requirements are made to the events to removenon-collision events (e.g., beam-gas interactions) and to select only inelastic hadronic colli-sions [36, 58]. Both pp and PbPb events are required to have at least one reconstructed primary interaction vertex with a distance from the center of the nominal interaction region of less than15 cm along the beam direction. In addition, in PbPb collisions the shapes of the clusters in thepixel detector have to be compatible with those produced by a genuine collision [59]. The PbPbcollision events are also required to have at least three towers in each of the HF detectors withenergy deposits of more than 3 GeV per tower. These criteria select 99% of inelastic hadronicPbPb collisions [29].The collision centrality for PbPb events is determined using the total sum of transverse energyfrom the calorimeter towers in the HF region. The transverse energy distribution is used to di-vide the event sample into bins of percentage of the total hadronic interaction cross section [29].The results in this paper are presented in four centrality intervals, where 0% corresponds to afull overlap of the two nuclei: 0–10, 10–30, 30–50, and 50–90%. The corresponding (cid:104) T AA (cid:105) and (cid:104) N coll (cid:105) values used in this paper for the centrality intervals are listed in Table 1.Table 1: The values of (cid:104) N coll (cid:105) and (cid:104) T AA (cid:105) , and their uncertainties in √ s NN = (cid:104) N coll (cid:105) (cid:104) T AA (cid:105) [mb − ]0–10% 1630 + − + − + − + − + − + − + − + − Several Monte Carlo (MC) simulated jet event samples are used to evaluate background com-ponents, efficiencies, misreconstructed jet rates (arising from upward fluctuations of the under-lying event (UE) without a corresponding hard parton), jet energy corrections and jet energyresolutions (JER). Proton-proton collisions are generated with
PYTHIA
PYTHIA
PYTHIA signal event is embedded into a PbPbcollision event generated with
HYDJET v1.8 [65], which is tuned to reproduce global event prop-erties such as the charged-hadron p T spectrum and particle multiplicity. The detailed simula-tion of the CMS detector response is performed using the G EANT
Particle candidates are reconstructed with the particle-flow (PF) algorithm [54], where informa-tion from different parts of the detector are combined to form an optimized description of theevent. Jets are clustered from the PF candidates using the anti- k T algorithm with distance pa-rameters of R = AST J ET framework [27, 67].One of the main challenges to reconstructing jets in heavy-ion collisions is the additional softUE coming from the QGP. In order to subtract the soft UE in PbPb collisions on an event-by-event basis, an iterative algorithm [68] is employed. The mean value, (cid:104) E PF (cid:105) , and dispersion, σ ( E PF ) , of the transverse energies from the PF candidates are calculated in a number of η bins[29, 35, 69] for each event. Then, a two-step procedure is employed to account for the azimuthalmodulation of background activity arising from the bulk properties of the QGP. In the first step, the so-called event plane angles ( Φ EP,2 , Φ EP,3 ) for the second- and third-order harmonics of theazimuthal distribution are derived from the HF calorimeters (3 < | η | <
5) [70]. This methodof estimating the UE gives underlying energy estimations that are consistent with a previousanalysis of photon- and Z-tagged jets in which event plane mixing was used [71]. The eventplane angles are not corrected for detector effects since the only goal of this procedure is toobtain a better description of the modulation of the background level. For the second step, afit to the azimuthal angle ( φ , in radians) distribution of charged-hadron PF candidates with0.3 < p T < | η | < N ( φ ) = N ( + v cos ( [ φ − Φ EP,2 ]) + v cos ( [ φ − Φ EP,3 ])) , (2)where N is the magnitude of average UE activity. The parameters v and v quantify thestrengths of the collective behaviors of the UE known as “elliptic” and “triangular” flow, re-spectively. The event plane angles Φ EP,2 and Φ EP,3 are fixed to the result from the first step. Afit is performed per event to extract the parameters N , v , and v . The fit is discarded if theminimum required number of candidates (at least 10 entries in each bin) are not met, or if thereduced χ of the fit is greater than 2. In this case, the background energy density is estimatedas a flat distribution in φ , without flow modulations.An example of this procedure is shown for data in Fig. 1. The left plot shows the fit in theextraction region, along with a breakdown of the components of the fit. The right plot takesparameters extracted from mid-rapidity ( | η | <
1) and renormalizes the function to data atforward-rapidity (1 < | η | < η ranges is observed. - - - | < 1 h | < 3.0 GeV T - - - PF Charged HadronTotal fit component v component v | < 2 h - - - - - - (radian) f PF Candidate C oun t s CMS = 5.02 TeV, PbPb 2015 NN s Figure 1: (Color online) Azimuthal angle distributions for a single PbPb event: φ modulationsat mid-rapidity | η | < < | η | < v (blue curve) and v (yellow curve) of the flow components are shown,together with the total modulation used in the analysis to account for the background (redcurve). The flow coefficients are extracted from the left plot and overlaid in the right plot.Finally, the UE subtraction in PbPb collisions is performed using a constituent subtractionmethod [72]. This is a particle-by-particle approach that corrects the energy of each jet con-stituent based on the local average UE density ρ ( η , φ ) . This density is assumed to factorize in .2 Jet energy scale and resolution η and φ according to the form ρ ( η , φ ) = ρ ( η )( + v cos ( [ φ − Φ EP,2 ]) + v cos ( [ φ − Φ EP,3 ])) . (3)Here ρ ( η ) encodes the variation of the UE density as a function of η , and the flow parametersare determined in the previous fit. The average UE density ρ ( η ) is calculated as the averageenergy in given η bins, excluding regions overlapping with jets. In pp collisions, where the UElevel is negligible, jets are reconstructed without UE subtraction. Jet energy corrections are derived from simulation separately for pp and PbPb data followingmethods outlined in Ref. [73]. The energy scales are verified with an energy balance methodapplied to dijet and photon+jet events in pp data. For this study, jets with | η jet | < p jetT >
160 GeV are selected.The p jetT binning of the analysis is chosen based on the JER for each cone size and centrality. Forpp events, the JER varies by less than 10% for different values of R . These variations reflecthow the probability for energy to move into or out of the jet cone changes with cone sizes.Figure 2 shows the PbPb jet energy scale (JES, upper), defined as the reconstructed p jetT dividedby the generated p jetT , and JER (lower), for R = R = p jetT . The JES is rather flat vs. p jetT while JER decreases with p jetT . As expected, theresolution is worse for more central events and for larger values of R , because of the larger UEcontribution that must be subtracted. For R ≤ p jetT is below 2% at mid-rapidity( | η | <
1) and of order 4% for (1 < | η | < R in the peripheral 70–100% PbPbbin, where the nonclosure is defined as the deviation of the corrected JES from unity. The UE inthis bin is most comparable to that in pp collisions, and it is used to evaluate the performanceof the jet algorithm with heavy ion reconstruction and subtraction in the absence of UE. This isnecessary, as the difference in tracking and the subtraction of an UE in PbPb, compared to pp,results in modest performance changes even without a significant UE contribution.The φ -modulation of ρ shown in Eq. (3) improves the jet resolution without introducing any bi-ases to the energy scale. However, as can be seen in Fig. 2, there is evidence of over-subtractionfor the largest values of R at low p jetT . This is because of uncertainties in the estimation of ρ .Errors in the estimation of ρ tend to be handled much better for small R , as the subtractionscales with the multiplicative area. This over-subtraction causes the nonclosure to reach up to4% for R = R the nonclosure is below 2%.Another source of over-subtraction is caused by the flow-modulated subtraction. The mini-mum candidate count requirement for a good UE shape estimation does not account for thefact that jets could bias the fit. The over-subtraction occurs when a jet biases the flow modu-lation fit. While the fitting for φ modulation is turned off for events with a small number oftracks, events close to this threshold could still be affected by these biases, resulting in a sourceof nonclosure.Finally, for the most central events, where ρ ( η , φ ) ranges from 200–300 GeV per unit area andthe fluctuations are the largest, there is a global underestimation of the true UE, particularly inthe forward region ( | η | > ρ to avoid bias from the hard process. In the most central events, upward | < 2 jet h , | T anti-kPythia8+Hydjet Centrality
100 200 300 100 200 30000.20.40.911.1 (GeV) jetT
Generated p m / sm Simulation
CMS = 5.02 TeV NN s
500 500
R = 0.2 R = 1.0
Figure 2: The energy scale µ (upper) and resolution σ / µ (lower) for PbPb anti- k T jets with | η jet | <
2, as functions of generated p jetT . The left (right) column shows jets with R = ρ is underestimated. This underestimation of ρ results inthe largest uncertainty in the final R AA and spectra for the most central bins. It is mitigated bysetting an upper limit on the number of excluded towers, with a cutoff that is tuned to achievethe best performance. Raw spectra are unfolded according to response matrices constructed using
PYTHIA + HYDJET
MC for PbPb and pure
PYTHIA for pp results, in matched bins of p jetT , η jet , and for PbPb only,event centrality. The matrices are constructed with an N coll distribution that matches the expec-tations from data. The unfolding is done with the d’Agostini iteration with early stopping [74]as implemented in the R OO U NFOLD package [75]. Examples of response matrices are shownin Fig. 3 for pp and 0–10% PbPb collisions with R = R = R = R AA distribution. R = 0.2 | < 2.0 jet h | R = 0.2 R = 1.0 R = 1.0
300 1000 300 100020030040050010002003004005001000 (GeV) jetT
Generated p ( G e V ) j e t T R e c on s t r u c t ed p Simulation
CMS = 5.02 TeV NN sPythia Pythia8+Hydjet Centrality 0-10% - - - Figure 3: Response matrices in
PYTHIA (left) and
PYTHIA + HYDJET R = R = | η jet | <
2. The integral for eachgenerated p jetT bin is normalized to unity. The systematic uncertainties in the spectra are estimated by varying analysis parameters oneat a time within a reasonable range, propagating the change through the full analysis chain,and then considering the deviation from the nominal results. For R AA , any correlation betweenthe uncertainties in the pp and PbPb spectra is accounted for by simultaneously changing thesame parameter in the pp and PbPb analyses, calculating a new R AA and taking the differencefrom the nominal result. This procedure produces a significant reduction in the uncertaintyfrom data-simulation differences that impact JES and JER since the pp and PbPb were takenin run periods separated by just a few days. For ratios of R AA between different jet radii, theluminosity and the (cid:104) T AA (cid:105) uncertainties cancel.Finally, in the R AA ratio between different radii, and the pp ratios of spectra between radii,there are statistical cancellations as the same jet may contribute to multiple R spectra. These areaccounted for by comparing ratios of spectra in pseudo-experiments generated independentlyfrom the spectra and those generated with the correlation between different R taken from thedata.Figure 4 shows the principal systematic uncertainties as a function of p jetT for R = p jetT and centrality but does not have a strong dependenceupon R . The unfolding and JER uncertainties tend to decrease with p jetT and increase withcentrality and R . The (cid:104) T AA (cid:105) uncertainty decreases from peripheral to central events and is independent of p jetT and R . pp PbPb 50-90% PbPb 30-50% PbPb 10-30% PbPb 0-10% JESJERUnfold AA Lumi/TMisrec.Total
200 1000 200 1000 200 1000 200 1000 200 100001020300102030 (GeV) jetT p U n c e r t a i n t y ( % ) CMS -1 , pp 27.4 pb -1 b m = 5.02 TeV, PbPb 404 NN s R = . R = . Figure 4: Relative systematic uncertainties for the spectra of anti- k T jets within | η jet | < R = R = R AA .1. Jet energy scale. The uncertainty ranges from 15 to 20% and is dominated by the data-simulation difference. It consists of several components, summed in quadrature:(a) Nonclosure in simulation. This uncertainty is evaluated as a function of centralityand η but independently of p jetT . It is estimated by varying data by the observednonclosure in simulation, see Fig. 2, and then propagating this change through theanalysis chain. In pp and peripheral (50–90%) PbPb collisions, a 1% variation ismade for all η . For 10–50% centrality, the variation is 1% within | η jet | < < | η jet | <
2. For the most central (0–10%) events, a 2% variation is made for jetswithin | η jet | < < | η jet | < R -dependent ratios of R AA .2. Jet energy resolution.(a) The JER uncertainty is extracted from simulation. This is subdominant compared tothe data-simulation differences for spectra, but does not cancel in R AA . (b) Jet energy resolution from data-simulation differences. The resolution in data isfound to be 10 to 15% worse than that in simulation. To propagate this uncertainty,the simulation is first smeared by 10%, such that central values are closer to those indata. The systematic uncertainty is estimated by applying an additional smearingon top of these new central values such that the resolution is increased by 10% inall bins. The effect is subdominant in part because the p jetT binning was chosen tominimize bin migration. Furthermore, there is partial cancellation in R AA , comingfrom the constant and stochastic terms of the resolution, which are partially sharedbetween the pp and PbPb data.3. Unfolding. This source of uncertainty is typically of order 5% with a maximum of 10%.There are several components within this category:(a) The choice of the prior. A variation of the nominal prior for the underlying p jetT spec-trum is done and propagated through the full analysis chain, including the responsematrix.(b) Unfolding algorithm. The result is cross-checked with singular value decompositionunfolding [76].4. Integrated luminosity and (cid:104) T AA (cid:105) . The uncertainty in the integrated luminosity for ppcollisions is 2.3% [77]. For the (cid:104) T AA (cid:105) , the relative uncertainties vary between 3% for the0–10% bin, to 11% in the most peripheral 50–90% bin [50]. The absolute uncertainties foreach of the four values are listed in Table 1.5. Misreconstructed jets which arise from fluctuations of the UE. The contamination fromthese jets is evaluated from simulation, and it is found to be negligible in the consideredkinematic range. The unfolded jet spectra as functions of p jetT for R = p jetT is chosen based on theobserved noise level for each centrality class, and the upper bound is driven by the amount ofstatistics.The upper plot of Fig. 6 shows the ratio of spectra of jets with different radii in pp collisions,normalized to the spectrum for R = p jetT increases withthe size of the jet cone. The increase of jet yield with R becomes weaker at higher values of p jetT suggesting that jets become narrower as p jetT increases. Figure 6 also shows predictions usingthe PYTHIA
PYTHIA
PYTHIA
PYTHIA to the data spectrum for R = PYTHIA p jetT for both values of R . The PYTHIA p jetT and are generallycloser to unity than those of PYTHIA R AA factors compare PbPb data to the scaled pp reference. Figure 7 shows R AA , the ratioof PbPb data to a scaled pp reference, as functions of p jetT , jet radius, and centrality. Systematicuncertainties related to the JES and JER cancel partially. The remaining systematic uncertaintiesare dominated by the uncertainties in the integrated luminosity, (cid:104) T AA (cid:105) , and the JES uncertaintycomponent from the UE. - - - - - -
10 110 R = 0.2 | < 2.0 jet h | - - - - - -
10 110 R = 1.0 · PbPb 0-10% · PbPb 10-30% · PbPb 30-50% · PbPb 50-90% · pp
200 300 400 1000 200 300 400 1000 - - - - - -
10 110
10 (GeV) jetT p ( nb / G e V ) h d T dp j e t s d o r h d T dp j e t N d e v t N > AA < T CMS -1 , pp 27.4 pb -1 b m = 5.02 TeV, PbPb 404 NN s Figure 5: Spectra of jets with | η jet | < R = R = R , R AA for the most peripheral collisions (50–90%) is independent of p jetT andconsistent with unity after considering the (cid:104) T AA (cid:105) uncertainty. In the most central bin, a strongsuppression of the PbPb data ( ≈ R AA with p jetT for the smaller values of R in the central bins, with values up to 0.8 for jets with p jetT >
500 GeV.To highlight the jet radius dependence of the jet R AA , the ratios of R AA for a given R with respectto R = < p jetT <
500 GeV,the R AA ratios are above unity and increase with p jetT in both the 0–10% and 10–30% centralityintervals. On the other hand, for p jetT >
500 GeV, the R R AA / R R = is close to unity or slightlybelow it for the 0–10% and 10–30% centrality intervals, respectively.Figure 9 shows R AA for 0–10% central PbPb collisions, as a function of p jetT for several R values.As p jetT increases, R AA increases. Also shown in Fig. 9 are predictions from the J EWEL [78](v2.2.0) and
PYQUEN [65] (v1.5.4) generators. The J
EWEL predictions are made with (pink)and without (fuchsia) contributions from recoil particles (i.e. scattered medium particles). Thepredictions without recoil particles are in disagreement with the data, showing the importanceof the medium response. The importance of recoil particles within J
EWEL increases greatly as R increases. For R = EWEL predictions with recoil are significantly below the data for R = R = 0.2R = 0.3R = 0.4R = 0.6R = 0.8 Data 6 (tune Z2)
YTHIA
P 8 (tune CUETP8M1)
YTHIA P | < 2.0 jet h |
200 300 400 500 10000.911.11.200.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91 (GeV) jetT p T dp R = . d N / T dp R d N R = . , . D a t a P y t h i a CMS -1 = 5.02 TeV, pp 27.4 pb NN s Figure 6: The spectra ratio for jets from pp collisions with | η jet | < R = R = PYTHIA
PYTHIA R = R = R increases.Predictions from PYQUEN are shown with (the default, shown in teal) and without (turquoise)medium-induced wide-angle radiation. The default
PYQUEN generator overpredicts R AA par-ticularly for smaller values of R and p jetT . The inclusion of wide-angle radiation lowers thepredictions for R AA particularly for smaller R sizes and brings the PYQUEN predictions closerto the data, showing the importance of the medium effects.Figure 10 shows R R AA / R R = as a function of R for several values of p jetT . Monte Carlo pre-dictions from the J EWEL and
PYQUEN generators are also shown. For the data, R R AA / R R = has little dependence upon R and is consistent with unity for all values of p jetT for both thedata and the PYQUEN predictions. The J
EWEL model is unable to capture the R dependenceof R R AA / R R = . For the predictions with recoil, R R AA / R R = increases as a function of R but ifrecoil is ignored R R AA / R R = decreases with R . | < 2 jet h , | T anti-k R = 0.2 R = 0.3 R = 0.4 R = 0.6 AA T R = 0.8 AA T R = 1.0
Lumi
200 1000 200 1000 200 100000.20.40.60.8100.20.40.60.81 (GeV) jetT p AA R CMS -1 , pp 27.4 pb -1 b m = 5.02 TeV, PbPb 404 NN s Figure 7: The R AA for jets with | η jet | < p jetT for various R and centralityclasses. The statistical uncertainties are represented by vertical lines, and the systematic un-certainties by shaded boxes. The markers are placed at the bin centers. Global uncertainties(integrated luminosity for pp and (cid:104) T AA (cid:105) for PbPb data) are shown as colored boxes on thedashed line at R AA = R AA as functions of p jetT and R . The H YBRID model [52] combines a perturbative description of the weakly coupled physics of jet productionand evolution, with a gauge/gravity duality description of the strongly coupled dynamics ofthe medium, and the soft-gluon exchanges between the jet and medium. As the jet passesthrough and deposits energy into the hydrodynamic medium, a wake is left behind the jet. TheH
YBRID model (dark orange) tends to under-predict R AA at high p jetT . Calculations without awake (brown) and with only the positive contribution of the wake (yellow) are also shown.These two are not physical and are included here only for better understanding of the effect ofthe wake contribution. The effect of the wake is more important at large R and lower p jetT .In the Linear Boltzmann Transport ( LBT ) model [79], the effects of recoil thermal partons andtheir propagation in the dense medium are described by a 3+1D viscous relativistic hydro-dynamic model. Predictions from
LBT are shown in Fig. 11 with and without the mediumresponse. It is clear that the medium response becomes more and more dominant as the sizeof the jet cone increases. A similar effect is seen for the jet-coupled fluid model [48, 80, 81]C
CNU . Although predictions are only available for a limited p jetT range, it is clear from compar-ing the blue and violet points in Fig. 11 that the hydrodynamic component of C CNU becomesincreasingly important with increasing R .The predictions from M ARTINI [82] (Modular Algorithm for Relativistic Treatment of Heavy < 250 GeV jetT
200 < p < 300 GeV jetT
250 < p < 400 GeV jetT
300 < p < 500 GeV jetT
400 < p < 1000 GeV jetT
500 < p | < 2 jet h , | T anti-k Jet R R = . AA / R R AA R CMS -1 , pp 27.4 pb -1 b m = 5.02 TeV, PbPb 404 NN s Figure 8: The R AA ratio for jets with | η jet | < R for R = R = p jetT ranges. The statistical uncertainties of dataare shown as the vertical lines, whereas the systematic uncertainties are shown as the shadedboxes.IoN Interactions) are shown as purple boxes in Fig. 11. The model follows a hybrid approachwhere it embeds the high energy parton into an evolving hydrodynamic medium, and theshower evolution of the jet is modified following the McGill-AMY formalism [83–87]. TheM ARTINI generator predicts a larger increase of jet R AA ratio as a function of R than what isobserved in data.From Fig. 11, it is striking that, for the small jet radius R = R AA rises with p jetT but theH YBRID , LBT , C
CNU and M
ARTINI models are all flat in p jetT . For all these models, hydrody-namic or medium effects become increasingly important as R increases and are indeed domi-nant for R = R R AA / R R = as a function of R , for several values of p jetT . Monte Carlo pre-dictions from the H YBRID , M
ARTINI , and
LBT generators are also shown. The H
YBRID model(orange) is able to describe the data. However if the wake contribution is ignored (brown) themodel gives a different trend. The M
ARTINI model (purple) predicts that R R AA / R R = shouldincrease with R in contrast to the data. The default LBT model (lime) is consistent with the databut
LBT with showers only and no medium response (dark green) overpredicts R R AA / R R = .Some of the models which correctly predict the trend of R R AA / R R = are off in the R AA , as canbe seen in Fig. 11.The same data in Figs. 11 and 12 are also compared to additional models. Figure 13 shows R AA | < 2 jet h , | T anti-k R = 0.2 AA TLumi R = 0.3
CMS 0-10%JEWELJEWEL w/o recoil R = 0.4
PYQUENPYQUEN w/ wide rad. R = 0.6 R = 0.8 R = 1.0
200 1000 200 1000 200 100000.20.40.60.8100.20.40.60.81 (GeV) jetT p AA R CMS -1 , pp 27.4 pb -1 b m = 5.02 TeV, PbPb 404 NN s Figure 9: The R AA for jets with | η jet | < p jetT , for various R and 0–10%centrality class. The statistical uncertainties are represented by the vertical lines, while thesystematic uncertainties are shown as the shaded boxes. The markers are placed at the bincenters. Global uncertainties (integrated luminosity for pp and (cid:104) T AA (cid:105) for PbPb collisions) areshown as the colored boxes on the dashed line at R AA = EWEL (fuchsia and pink) and
PYQUEN (teal andturquoise) generators, shown as colored boxes, are compared to the data.vs. p jetT for several values of R and for the top 0–10% centrality class as well as several predic-tions from generators and analytic calculations. The gray boxes in Fig. 13 are predictions froma jet factorization model based on a phenomenological approach to establish QCD factorizationof jet cross sections in heavy ion collisions [88]. Medium-modified jet functions are extractedfrom jet nuclear modification factors at smaller jet distance parameter values ( R = R < R AA at larger R values. The data are also compared to the coherent antenna BDMPS calcula-tions [89] (orange), which is an analytical approach that resums multiple emissions to leading-logarithmic accuracy including both radiative energy loss and color coherence effects [90–92].The predictions are in general agreement with the R AA data.Finally, calculations based on a soft collinear effective theory with Glauber gluon interactionsS CET [46], are also compared to the data. The S
CET calculations with collisional energy loss [93,94] (navy blue) are slightly below the R AA measurements while those without collisional energyloss (sky blue) are consistent with the data. < 400 GeV jetT
300 < p = 5.02 TeV NN s < 500 GeV jetT
400 < p < 1000 GeV jetT
500 < p | < 2 jet h , | T anti-k CMS 0-10%PYQUENPYQUEN w/ wide angle rad.JEWELJEWEL w/o recoil
Jet R R = . AA / R R AA R CMS -1 , pp 27.4 pb -1 b m PbPb 404
Figure 10: The R AA ratio for jets with | η jet | < R for R = R = p jetT ranges for the 0–10% centrality class. The statistical uncertaintiesof data are shown as the vertical lines, whereas the systematic uncertainties are shown as theshaded boxes. The width of the boxes carries no meaning. The predictions from J EWEL (fuchsiaand pink) and
PYQUEN (teal and turquoise) generators, shown with the colored bands, arecompared to the data.Figure 14 shows R R AA / R R = vs. R for several values of p jetT together with predictions from theS CET , BDMPS and jet factorization models. The
BDMPS (orange) and S
CET predictions (sky blueand navy blue) are consistent with the data but the factorization calculations (gray) decreasewith R in contrast to the data. Measurements of jet nuclear modification factors based on proton-proton and lead-lead colli-sions at √ s NN = k T distance parameter R up to 1.0. For the most centralPbPb collisions, a strong suppression is observed for jets with high transverse momentum re-constructed with all distance parameters. Predictions from quenched jet event generators, the-oretical models, and analytical calculations are compared to these results. The new data placefurther constraints on the underlying jet quenching mechanisms. While state of the art modelshave made important progress, significant tension remains in view of the large area jet datapresented here. | < 2 jet h , | T anti-k R = 0.2 AA TLumi R = 0.3
CMS 0-10%MARTINI R = 0.4
Hybrid w/ wakeHybrid w/o wakeHybrid w/ pos wake R = 0.6
LBT w/ showers onlyLBT w/ med. response R = 0.8 R = 1.0
CCNU coupled jet fluid w/ hydroCCNU coupled jet fluid w/o hydro
200 1000 200 1000 200 100000.20.40.60.8100.20.40.60.81 (GeV) jetT p AA R CMS -1 , pp 27.4 pb -1 b m = 5.02 TeV, PbPb 404 NN s Figure 11: The R AA for jets with | η jet | < p jetT , for various R values and the0–10% centrality class. The statistical uncertainties are represented by vertical lines, while thesystematic uncertainties are shown as shaded boxes. The markers are placed at the bin centers.Global uncertainties (integrated luminosity for pp and (cid:104) T AA (cid:105) for PbPb collisions) are shownas the colored boxes on the dashed line at R AA = 1 and are not included in the shaded bandsaround the points. The predictions from H YBRID (dark orange, brown and yellow), M
ARTINI (purple),
LBT (lime and dark green), and C
CNU (blue and violet) models, shown as the coloredboxes and bands, are compared to the data. < 400 GeV jetT
300 < p = 5.02 TeV NN s < 500 GeV jetT
400 < p < 1000 GeV jetT
500 < p | < 2 jet h , | T anti-k CMS 0-10%Hybrid w/ wakeHybrid w/o wakeHybrid w/ pos wakeMARTINILBT w/ showers onlyLBT w/ med. response
Jet R R = . AA / R R AA R CMS -1 , pp 27.4 pb -1 b m PbPb 404
Figure 12: The double ratio R R AA / R R = for jets with | η jet | < R , for R = R = p jetT ranges for the 0–10% centrality class. The statisticaluncertainties of data are shown as the vertical lines, whereas the systematic uncertainties areshown as the shaded boxes. The width of the boxes carries no meaning. The predictions fromthe H YBRID (dark orange, brown and yellow), M
ARTINI (purple), and
LBT (lime and dark green)models are compared to the data as colored bands. | < 2 jet h , | T anti-k R = 0.2 AA TLumi R = 0.3
CMS 0-10%Li and Vitev R = 0.4
Coherent antenna BDMPSFactorizationSCET w/o coll. E-loss R = 0.6 R = 0.8 R = 1.0
200 1000 200 1000 200 100000.20.40.60.8100.20.40.60.81 (GeV) jetT p AA R CMS -1 , pp 27.4 pb -1 b m = 5.02 TeV, PbPb 404 NN s Figure 13: The R AA for jets with | η jet | < p jetT , for various R values and0–10% centrality class. The statistical uncertainties are represented by the vertical lines, whilethe systematic uncertainties are shown as the shaded boxes. The markers are placed at the bincenters. Global uncertainties (integrated luminosity for pp and (cid:104) T AA (cid:105) for PbPb collisions) areshown as the colored boxes on the dashed line at R AA = CET (sky blue and navy blue), coherent an-tenna
BDMPS (orange) and jet factorization (gray) formalisms are compared to the data, shownas the colored boxes and bands. < 400 GeV jetT
300 < p = 5.02 TeV NN s < 500 GeV jetT
400 < p < 1000 GeV jetT
500 < p | < 2 jet h , | T anti-k CMS 0-10%FactorizationSCET w/o coll. E-lossLi and VitevCoherent antenna BDMPS
Jet R R = . AA / R R AA R CMS -1 , pp 27.4 pb -1 b m PbPb 404
Figure 14: The double ratio R R AA / R R = for jets with | η jet | < R for R = R = p jetT ranges for the 0–10% centrality class. The statisticaluncertainties of data are shown as the vertical lines, whereas the systematic uncertainties areshown as the shaded boxes. The width of the boxes carries no meaning. The calculations basedfrom S CET (sky blue and navy blue), coherent antenna
BDMPS (orange) and, jet factorization(gray) formalisms, shown with the colored bands and boxes, are compared to the data. Acknowledgments
We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the excellent perfor-mance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative staffs at CERN and at other CMSinstitutes for their contributions to the success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefullyacknowledge the computing centers and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Gridand other centers for delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to ouranalyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction and operationof the LHC, the CMS detector, and the supporting computing infrastructure provided by thefollowing funding agencies: BMBWF and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq,CAPES, FAPERJ, FAPERGS, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, andNSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RIF (Cyprus); SENESCYT(Ecuador); MoER, ERC PUT and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of Finland, MEC, and HIP (Fin-land); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); NK-FIA (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM (Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF(Republic of Korea); MES (Latvia); LAS (Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CIN-VESTAV, CONACYT, LNS, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MOS (Montenegro); MBIE (NewZealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON,RosAtom, RAS, RFBR, and NRC KI (Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI, and FEDER(Spain); MOSTR (Sri Lanka); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); MST (Taipei); ThEPCen-ter, IPST, STAR, and NSTDA (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); NASU (Ukraine); STFC(United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA).Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie program and the European ResearchCouncil and Horizon 2020 Grant, contract Nos. 675440, 724704, 752730, and 765710 (EuropeanUnion); the Leventis Foundation; the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation; the Alexander von Hum-boldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office; the Fonds pour la Formation `a laRecherche dans l’Industrie et dans l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Inno-vatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the F.R.S.-FNRS and FWO (Belgium)under the “Excellence of Science – EOS” – be.h project n. 30820817; the Beijing Municipal Sci-ence & Technology Commission, No. Z191100007219010; the Ministry of Education, Youthand Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), un-der Germany’s Excellence Strategy – EXC 2121 “Quantum Universe” – 390833306, and underproject number 400140256 - GRK2497; the Lend ¨ulet (“Momentum”) Program and the J´anosBolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the New National Ex-cellence Program ´UNKP, the NKFIA research grants 123842, 123959, 124845, 124850, 125105,128713, 128786, and 129058 (Hungary); the Council of Science and Industrial Research, In-dia; the Ministry of Science and Higher Education and the National Science Center, contractsOpus 2014/15/B/ST2/03998 and 2015/19/B/ST2/02861 (Poland); the National Priorities Re-search Program by Qatar National Research Fund; the Ministry of Science and Higher Educa-tion, project no. 0723-2020-0041 (Russia); the Programa Estatal de Fomento de la Investigaci ´onCient´ıfica y T´ecnica de Excelencia Mar´ıa de Maeztu, grant MDM-2015-0509 and the ProgramaSevero 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, Chula-longkorn University and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century Project Advance-ment Project (Thailand); the Kavli Foundation; the Nvidia Corporation; the SuperMicro Cor-poration; the Welch Foundation, contract C-1845; and the Weston Havens Foundation (USA). eferences References [1] F. Karsch, “The phase transition to the quark gluon plasma: recent results from latticecalculations”,
Nucl. Phys. A (1995) 367, doi:10.1016/0375-9474(95)00248-Y , arXiv:hep-lat/9503010 .[2] J. D. Bjorken, “Highly relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions: The central rapidity region”, Phys. Rev. D (1983) 140, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.27.140 .[3] J. E. Bernhard et al., “Applying Bayesian parameter estimation to relativistic heavy-ioncollisions: simultaneous characterization of the initial state and quark-gluon plasmamedium”, Phys. Rev. C (2016) 024907, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.94.024907 , arXiv:1605.03954 .[4] J. D. Bjorken, “Energy loss of energetic partons in quark-gluon plasma: Possibleextinction of high p T jets in hadron-hadron collisions”, FNAL Public DocumentFERMILAB-PUB-82-059-THY, FNAL, 1982.[5] M. Gyulassy and M. Pl ¨umer, “Jet quenching in dense matter”, Phys. Lett. B (1990)432, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(90)91409-5 .[6] X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, “Gluon shadowing and jet quenching in A + A collisions at √ s = A GeV”,
Phys. Rev. Lett. (1992) 1480, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.1480 .[7] R. Baier et al., “Radiative energy loss and p ⊥ -broadening of high energy partons innuclei”, Nucl. Phys. B (1997) 265, doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(96)00581-0 , arXiv:hep-ph/9608322 .[8] B. G. Zakharov, “Radiative energy loss of high-energy quarks in finite-size nuclear matterand quark-gluon plasma”, JETP Lett. (1997) 615, doi:10.1134/1.567389 , arXiv:hep-ph/9704255 .[9] D. A. Appel, “Jets as a probe of quark-gluon plasmas”, Phys. Rev. D (1986) 717, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.33.717 .[10] J. P. Blaizot and L. D. McLerran, “Jets in expanding quark-gluon plasmas”, Phys. Rev. D (1986) 2739, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.34.2739 .[11] JET Collaboration, “Extracting the jet transport coefficient from jet quenching inhigh-energy heavy-ion collisions”, Phys. Rev. C (2014) 014909, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.90.014909 , arXiv:1312.5003 .[12] H. Liu, K. Rajagopal, and U. A. Wiedemann, “Calculating the jet quenching parameterfrom AdS/CFT”, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2006) 182301, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.182301 , arXiv:hep-ph/0605178 .[13] J. Casalderrey-Solana and C. A. Salgado, “Introductory lectures on jet quenching inheavy ion collisions”, Acta Phys. Polon. B (2007) 3731, arXiv:0712.3443 .[14] D. d’Enterria, “Jet quenching”, in Springer Materials - The Landolt-B¨ornstein Database ,R. Stock, ed., volume 23: Relativistic Heavy Ion Physics, p. 99. Springer-Verlag, 2010. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-01539-7 16 , arXiv:0902.2011 . [15] U. A. Wiedemann, “Jet quenching in heavy ion collisions”, Landolt-Bornstein (2010) 521, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-01539-7_17 , arXiv:0908.2306 .[16] A. Majumder and M. Van Leeuwen, “The theory and phenomenology of perturbativeQCD based jet quenching”, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. (2011) 41, doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2010.09.001 , arXiv:1002.2206 .[17] G.-Y. Qin and X.-N. Wang, “Jet quenching in high-energy heavy-ion collisions”, International Journal of Modern Physics E (2015) 1530014, doi:10.1142/s0218301315300143 , arXiv:1511.00790 .[18] S. Cao and X.-N. Wang, “Jet quenching and medium response in high-energy heavy-ioncollisions: a review”, Reports on Progress in Physics (2021) 024301, doi:10.1088/1361-6633/abc22b , arXiv:2002.04028 .[19] PHENIX Collaboration, “Formation of dense partonic matter in relativisticnucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC: Experimental evaluation by the PHENIXcollaboration”, Nucl. Phys. A (2005) 184, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03.086 , arXiv:nucl-ex/0410003 .[20] STAR Collaboration, “Experimental and theoretical challenges in the search for the quarkgluon plasma: The STAR Collaboration’s critical assessment of the evidence from RHICcollisions”, Nucl. Phys. A (2005) 102, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03.085 , arXiv:nucl-ex/0501009 .[21] PHOBOS Collaboration, “The PHOBOS perspective on discoveries at RHIC”, Nucl. Phys.A (2005) 28, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03.084 , arXiv:nucl-ex/0410022 .[22] BRAHMS Collaboration, “Quark gluon plasma and color glass condensate at RHIC? ThePerspective from the BRAHMS experiment”, Nucl. Phys. A (2005) 1, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.02.130 , arXiv:nucl-ex/0410020 .[23] PHENIX Collaboration, “Transverse momentum and centrality dependence of dihadroncorrelations in Au+Au collisions at √ s NN =
200 GeV: Jet-quenching and the response ofpartonic matter”,
Phys. Rev. C (2008) 011901, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.77.011901 , arXiv:0705.3238 .[24] CMS Collaboration, “Study of high- p T charged particle suppression in PbPb compared topp collisions at √ s NN = Eur. Phys. J. C (2012) 1945, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1945-x , arXiv:1202.2554 .[25] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of charged-particle spectra in Pb+Pb collisions at √ s NN = JHEP (2015) 050, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2015)050 , arXiv:1504.04337 .[26] ALICE Collaboration, “Suppression of charged particle production at large transversemomentum in central Pb-Pb collisions at √ s NN = Phys. Lett. B (2011) 30, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.12.020 , arXiv:1012.1004 .[27] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti- k T jet clustering algorithm”, JHEP (2008) 063, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063 , arXiv:0802.1189 . eferences [28] ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a centrality-dependent dijet asymmetry inlead-lead collisions at √ s NN = Phys. Rev.Lett. (2010) 252303, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.252303 , arXiv:1011.6182 .[29] CMS Collaboration, “Observation and studies of jet quenching in PbPb collisions at √ s NN = Phys. Rev. C (2011) 024906, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.84.024906 , arXiv:1102.1957 .[30] STAR Collaboration, “Dijet imbalance measurements in Au+Au and pp collisions at √ s NN =
200 GeV at STAR”,
Phys. Rev. Lett. (2017) 062301, doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.062301 , arXiv:1609.03878 .[31] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurements of the nuclear modification factor for jets inPb+Pb collisions at √ s NN = Phys. Rev. Lett. (2015) 072302, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.072302 , arXiv:1411.2357 .[32] ALICE Collaboration, “Measurement of jet suppression in central Pb-Pb collisions at √ s NN = Phys. Lett. B (2015) 1, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.04.039 , arXiv:1502.01689 .[33] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of inclusive jet cross sections in pp and PbPbcollisions at √ s NN = Phys. Rev. C (2017) 015202, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.96.015202 , arXiv:1609.05383 .[34] STAR Collaboration, “Measurement of inclusive charged-particle jet production inAu+Au collisions at √ s NN =
200 GeV”,
Phys. Rev. C (2020) 054913, doi:10.1103/physrevc.102.054913 , arXiv:2006.00582 .[35] CMS Collaboration, “Studies of jet quenching using isolated-photon+jet correlations inPbPb and pp collisions at √ s NN = Phys. Lett. B (2013) 773, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.11.003 , arXiv:1205.0206 .[36] CMS Collaboration, “Study of jet quenching with isolated-photon+jet correlations inPbPb and pp collisions at √ s NN = Phys. Lett. B (2018) 14, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.07.061 , arXiv:1711.09738 .[37] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of jet fragmentation in PbPb and pp collisions at √ s NN = Phys. Rev. C (2014) 024908, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.90.024908 , arXiv:1406.0932 .[38] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of jet fragmentation in Pb+Pb and pp collisions at √ s NN = Eur. Phys. J. C (2017) 379, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4915-5 , arXiv:1702.00674 .[39] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of medium induced modifications of jet fragmentationin PbPb collisions at √ s NN = Phys. Rev. Lett. (2018) 242301, doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.242301 , arXiv:1801.04895 .[40] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of transverse momentum relative to dijet systems inPbPb and pp collisions at √ s NN = JHEP (2016) 006, doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2016)006 , arXiv:1509.09029 . [41] STAR Collaboration, “Measurements of jet quenching with semi-inclusive hadron+jetdistributions in Au + Au collisions at √ s NN =
200 GeV”,
Phys. Rev. C (2017) 024905, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.96.024905 , arXiv:1702.01108 .[42] CMS Collaboration, “Decomposing transverse momentum balance contributions forquenched jets in PbPb collisions at √ s NN = JHEP (2016) 055, doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2016)055 , arXiv:1609.02466 .[43] CMS Collaboration, “Modification of jet shapes in PbPb collisions at √ s NN = Phys. Lett. B (2014) 243, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.01.042 , arXiv:1310.0878 .[44] CMS Collaboration, “Jet properties in PbPb and pp collisions at √ s NN = JHEP (2018) 006, doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2018)006 , arXiv:1803.00042 .[45] CMS Collaboration, “Jet shapes of isolated photon-tagged jets in PbPb and pp collisionsat √ s NN = Phys. Rev. Lett. (2018) 152001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.152001 , arXiv:1809.08602 .[46] Y.-T. Chien and I. Vitev, “Towards the understanding of jet shapes and cross sections inheavy ion collisions using soft-collinear effective theory”, JHEP (2016) 023, doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2016)023 , arXiv:1509.07257 .[47] N. Armesto, L. Cunqueiro, and C. A. Salgado, “Q-PYTHIA: A medium-modifiedimplementation of final state radiation”, Eur. Phys. J. C (2009) 679, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-009-1133-9 , arXiv:0907.1014 .[48] Y. Tachibana, N.-B. Chang, and G.-Y. Qin, “Full jet in quark-gluon plasma withhydrodynamic medium response”, Phys. Rev. C (2017) 044909, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.95.044909 , arXiv:1701.07951 .[49] Z. Hulcher, D. Pablos, and K. Rajagopal, “Resolution effects in the hybrid strong/weakcoupling model”, JHEP (2018) 010, doi:10.1007/jhep03(2018)010 , arXiv:1707.05245 .[50] C. Loizides, J. Kamin, and D. d’Enterria, “Improved Monte Carlo Glauber predictions atpresent and future nuclear colliders”, Phys. Rev. C (2018) 054910, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.97.054910 , arXiv:1710.07098 . [Erratum: doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.99.019901 ].[51] M. L. Miller, K. Reygers, S. J. Sanders, and P. Steinberg, “Glauber modeling in highenergy nuclear collisions”, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. (2007) 205, doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.57.090506.123020 , arXiv:nucl-ex/0701025 .[52] D. Pablos, “Jet suppression from a small to intermediate to large radius”, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2020) 052301, doi:10.1103/physrevlett.124.052301 , arXiv:1907.12301 .[53] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of photon reconstruction and identification with theCMS detector in proton-proton collisions at √ s = JINST (2015) P08010, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/10/08/P08010 , arXiv:1502.02702 .[54] CMS Collaboration, “Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with theCMS detector”, JINST (2017) P10003, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/10/P10003 , arXiv:1706.04965 . eferences [55] CMS Collaboration, “Description and performance of track and primary-vertexreconstruction with the CMS tracker”, JINST (2014) P10009, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/9/10/P10009 , arXiv:1405.6569 .[56] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”, JINST (2017) P01020, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020 , arXiv:1609.02366 .[57] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”, JINST (2008) S08004, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004 .[58] CMS Collaboration, “Charged-particle nuclear modification factors in PbPb and pPbcollisions at √ s NN = JHEP (2017) 039, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2017)039 , arXiv:1611.01664 .[59] CMS Collaboration, “Transverse momentum and pseudorapidity distributions ofcharged hadrons in pp collisions at √ s = JHEP (2010) 041, doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2010)041 , arXiv:1002.0621 .[60] T. Sj ¨ostrand et al., “An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2”, Comput. Phys. Commun. (2015)159, doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024 , arXiv:1410.3012 .[61] CMS Collaboration, “Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event andmultiparton scattering measurements”, Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 155, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3988-x , arXiv:1512.00815 .[62] T. Sj ¨ostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, “PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual”, JHEP (2006) 026, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/026 , arXiv:hep-ph/0603175 .[63] CMS Collaboration, “Study of the underlying event at forward rapidity in pp collisionsat √ s = JHEP (2013) 072, doi:10.1007/jhep04(2013)072 , arXiv:1302.2394 .[64] J. Pumplin et al., “New generation of parton distributions with uncertainties from globalQCD analysis”, JHEP (2002) 012, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/07/012 , arXiv:hep-ph/0201195 .[65] I. P. Lokhtin and A. M. Snigirev, “A model of jet quenching in ultrarelativistic heavy ioncollisions and high- p T hadron spectra at RHIC”, Eur. Phys. J. C (2006) 211, doi:10.1140/epjc/s2005-02426-3 , arXiv:hep-ph/0506189 .[66] GEANT4 Collaboration, “GEANT4 — a simulation toolkit”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A (2003) 250, doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8 .[67] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “FastJet user manual”,
Eur. Phys. J. C (2012)1896, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2 , arXiv:1111.6097 .[68] O. Kodolova, I. Vardanian, A. Nikitenko, and A. Oulianov, “The performance of the jetidentification and reconstruction in heavy ions collisions with CMS detector”, Eur. Phys.J. C (2007) 117, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0223-9 .[69] CMS Collaboration, “Jet momentum dependence of jet quenching in PbPb collisions at √ s NN = Phys. Lett. B (2012) 176, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.04.058 , arXiv:1202.5022 . [70] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the elliptic anisotropy of charged particlesproduced in PbPb collisions at √ s NN =2.76 TeV”, Phys. Rev. C (2013) 014902, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.87.014902 , arXiv:1204.1409 .[71] CMS Collaboration, “Study of jet quenching with Z+jet correlations in PbPb and ppcollisions at √ s NN = Phys. Rev. Lett. (2017) 082301, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.082301 , arXiv:1702.01060 .[72] P. Berta, M. Spousta, D. W. Miller, and R. Leitner, “Particle-level pileup subtraction forjets and jet shapes”, JHEP (2014) 092, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2014)092 , arXiv:1403.3108 .[73] CMS Collaboration, “Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in ppcollisions at 8 TeV”, JINST (2017) P02014, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/P02014 , arXiv:1607.03663 .[74] G. D’Agostini, “A multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes’ theorem”, Nucl.Instrum. Meth. A (1995) 487, doi:10.1016/0168-9002(95)00274-X .[75] T. Adye, “Unfolding algorithms and tests using RooUnfold”, in
Proceedings, PHYSTAT2011 Workshop on Statistical Issues Related to Discovery Claims in Search Experiments andUnfolding, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland 17-20 January 2011 , p. 313. 2011. doi:10.5170/CERN-2011-006.313 , arXiv:1105.1160 .[76] A. H ¨ocker and V. Kartvelishvili, “SVD approach to data unfolding”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth.A (1996) 469, doi:10.1016/0168-9002(95)01478-0 .[77] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity calibration for the pp reference run at √ s = Eur. Phys. J. C (2014) 1, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2762-1 , arXiv:1311.0048 .[79] Y. He et al., “Interplaying mechanisms behind single inclusive jet suppression inheavy-ion collisions”, Phys. Rev. C (2019) 054911, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.99.054911 , arXiv:1809.02525 .[80] N.-B. Chang and G.-Y. Qin, “Full jet evolution in quark-gluon plasma and nuclearmodification of jet production and jet shape in Pb+Pb collisions at 2.76ATeV at the CERNLarge Hadron Collider”, Phys. Rev. C (2016) 024902, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.94.024902 , arXiv:1603.01920 .[81] N.-B. Chang, Y. Tachibana, and G.-Y. Qin, “Nuclear modification of jet shape for inclusivejets and γ -jets at the LHC energies”, Phys. Lett. B (2020) 135181, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.135181 , arXiv:1906.09562 .[82] B. Schenke, C. Gale, and S. Jeon, “MARTINI: An event generator for relativistic heavy-ioncollisions”, Phys. Rev. C (2009) 054913, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.80.054913 , arXiv:0909.2037 .[83] G.-Y. Qin et al., “Radiative and collisional jet energy loss in the quark-gluon plasma at thebnl relativistic heavy ion collider”, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2008) 072301, doi:10.1103/physrevlett.100.072301 , arXiv:0710.0605 . eferences [84] P. Arnold, G. D. Moore, and L. G. Yaffe, “Photon emission from quark-gluon plasma:complete leading order results”, JHEP (2001) 009, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2001/12/009 , arXiv:hep-ph/0111107 .[85] P. Arnold, G. D. Moore, and L. G. Yaffe, “Photon emission from ultrarelativistic plasmas”, JHEP (2001) 057, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2001/11/057 , arXiv:hep-ph/0109064 .[86] P. Arnold, G. D. Moore, and L. G. Yaffe, “Photon and gluon emission in relativisticplasmas”, JHEP (2002) 030, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/06/030 , arXiv:hep-ph/0204343 .[87] B. Schenke, C. Gale, and G.-Y. Qin, “Evolving distribution of hard partons traversing ahot, strongly interacting plasma”, Phys. Rev. C (2009) 054908, doi:10.1103/physrevc.79.054908 , arXiv:0901.3498 .[88] J.-W. Qiu, F. Ringer, N. Sato, and P. Zurita, “Factorization of jet cross sections in heavy-ioncollisions”, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2019) 252301, doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.252301 , arXiv:1903.01993 .[89] R. Baier, Y. L. Dokshitzer, S. Peigne, and D. Schiff, “Induced gluon radiation in a QCDmedium”, Phys. Lett. B (1995) 277, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(94)01617-L , arXiv:hep-ph/9411409 .[90] J. Casalderrey-Solana, Y. Mehtar-Tani, C. A. Salgado, and K. Tywoniuk, “New picture ofjet quenching dictated by color coherence”, Phys. Lett. B (2013) 357, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.07.046 , arXiv:1210.7765 .[91] Y. Mehtar-Tani and K. Tywoniuk, “Groomed jets in heavy-ion collisions: sensitivity tomedium-induced bremsstrahlung”, JHEP (2017) 125, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2017)125 , arXiv:1610.08930 .[92] Y. Mehtar-Tani and K. Tywoniuk, “Sudakov suppression of jets in QCD media”, Phys.Rev. D (2018) 051501, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.051501 , arXiv:1707.07361 .[93] H. T. Li and I. Vitev, “Inclusive heavy flavor jet production with semi-inclusive jetfunctions: from proton to heavy-ion collisions”, JHEP (2019) 148, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2019)148 , arXiv:1811.07905 .[94] M. D. Sievert, I. Vitev, and B. Yoon, “A complete set of in-medium splitting functions toany order in opacity”, Phys. Lett. B (2019) 502, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.06.019 , arXiv:1903.07905 . A The CMS Collaboration
Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan † , A. Tumasyan Institut f ¨ur Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, T. Bergauer, M. Dragicevic, J. Er ¨o, A. Escalante Del Valle, M. Flechl,R. Fr ¨uhwirth , M. Jeitler , N. Krammer, I. Kr¨atschmer, D. Liko, T. Madlener, I. Mikulec, N. Rad,J. Schieck , R. Sch ¨ofbeck, M. Spanring, W. Waltenberger, C.-E. Wulz , M. Zarucki Institute for Nuclear Problems, Minsk, Belarus
V. Drugakov, V. Mossolov, J. Suarez Gonzalez
Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerpen, Belgium
M.R. Darwish, E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, T. Kello , A. Lelek, M. Pieters,H. Rejeb Sfar, H. Van Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, S. Van Putte, N. Van Remortel Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
F. Blekman, E.S. Bols, S.S. Chhibra, J. D’Hondt, J. De Clercq, D. Lontkovskyi, S. Lowette,I. Marchesini, S. Moortgat, Q. Python, S. Tavernier, W. Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders
Universit´e Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
D. Beghin, B. Bilin, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, H. Delannoy, B. Dorney, L. Favart,A. Grebenyuk, A.K. Kalsi, L. Moureaux, A. Popov, N. Postiau, E. Starling, L. Thomas,C. Vander Velde, P. Vanlaer, D. Vannerom
Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, I. Khvastunov , M. Niedziela, C. Roskas, K. Skovpen, M. Tytgat,W. Verbeke, B. Vermassen, M. Vit Universit´e Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
G. Bruno, C. Caputo, P. David, C. Delaere, M. Delcourt, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaitre,J. Prisciandaro, A. Saggio, P. Vischia, J. Zobec
Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
G.A. Alves, G. Correia Silva, C. Hensel, A. Moraes
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato , E. Coelho, E.M. Da Costa,G.G. Da Silveira , D. De Jesus Damiao, C. De Oliveira Martins, S. Fonseca De Souza,H. Malbouisson, J. Martins , D. Matos Figueiredo, M. Medina Jaime , M. Melo De Almeida,C. Mora Herrera, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, W.L. Prado Da Silva, P. Rebello Teles,L.J. Sanchez Rosas, A. Santoro, A. Sznajder, M. Thiel, E.J. Tonelli Manganote , F. Tor-res Da Silva De Araujo, A. Vilela Pereira Universidade Estadual Paulista a , Universidade Federal do ABC b , S˜ao Paulo, Brazil C.A. Bernardes a , L. Calligaris a , T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomei a , E.M. Gregores b , D.S. Lemos a ,P.G. Mercadante b , S.F. Novaes a , Sandra S. Padula a Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia,Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, G. Antchev, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, M. Misheva, M. Rodozov, M. Shopova,G. Sultanov
University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
M. Bonchev, A. Dimitrov, T. Ivanov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov, A. Petrov Beihang University, Beijing, China
W. Fang , X. Gao , L. Yuan Department of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, Z. Hu, Y. Wang
Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
G.M. Chen , H.S. Chen , M. Chen, C.H. Jiang, D. Leggat, H. Liao, Z. Liu, A. Spiezia, J. Tao,E. Yazgan, H. Zhang, S. Zhang , J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
A. Agapitos, Y. Ban, G. Chen, A. Levin, J. Li, L. Li, Q. Li, Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang, Q. Wang
Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
M. Xiao
Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, C. Florez, C.F. Gonz´alez Hern´andez, M.A. Segura Delgado
Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia
J. Mejia Guisao, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, C.A. Salazar Gonz´alez, N. Vanegas Arbelaez
University of Split, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and NavalArchitecture, Split, Croatia
D. Giljanovi´c, 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, M. Roguljic, A. Starodumov , T. Susa University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, E. Erodotou, A. Ioannou, M. Kolosova, S. Konstantinou,G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos, P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski, H. Saka,D. Tsiakkouri
Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
M. Finger , M. Finger Jr. , A. Kveton, J. Tomsa 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, EgyptianNetwork of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt
M.A. Mahmoud , Y. Mohammed 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, L. Forthomme, H. Kirschenmann, K. Osterberg, M. Voutilainen Helsinki Institute of Physics, Helsinki, Finland
F. Garcia, J. Havukainen, J.K. Heikkil¨a, V. Karim¨aki, M.S. Kim, R. Kinnunen, T. Lamp´en,K. Lassila-Perini, S. Laurila, S. Lehti, T. Lind´en, H. Siikonen, E. Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi
Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
P. Luukka, T. Tuuva
IRFU, CEA, Universit´e Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, B. Fabbro, J.L. Faure, F. Ferri, S. Ganjour,A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry, C. Leloup, B. Lenzi, E. Locci,J. Malcles, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M. ¨O. Sahin, A. Savoy-Navarro , M. Titov, G.B. Yu Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, CNRS/IN2P3, Ecole Polytechnique, Institut Polytechniquede Paris, Palaiseau, France
S. Ahuja, C. Amendola, F. Beaudette, M. Bonanomi, P. Busson, C. Charlot, B. Diab, G. Falmagne,R. Granier de Cassagnac, I. Kucher, A. Lobanov, C. Martin Perez, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando,P. Paganini, J. Rembser, R. Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A. Zabi, A. Zghiche
Universit´e de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram , J. Andrea, D. Bloch, G. Bourgatte, J.-M. Brom, E.C. Chabert, C. Collard,E. Conte , J.-C. Fontaine , D. Gel´e, U. Goerlach, C. Grimault, 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
Universit´e de Lyon, Universit´e Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3, Institut de PhysiqueNucl´eaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, C. Camen, A. Carle, N. Chanon, R. Chierici, D. Contardo,P. Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, B. Ille, Sa. Jain, I.B. Laktineh,H. Lattaud, A. Lesauvage, M. Lethuillier, L. Mirabito, S. Perries, V. Sordini, L. Torterotot,G. Touquet, M. Vander Donckt, S. Viret
Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
G. Adamov
Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
I. Bagaturia RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen, Germany
C. Autermann, L. Feld, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, D. Meuser, A. Pauls, M. Preuten, M.P. Rauch,J. Schulz, M. Teroerde
RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany
M. Erdmann, B. Fischer, S. Ghosh, T. Hebbeker, K. Hoepfner, H. Keller, L. Mastrolorenzo,M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, P. Millet, G. Mocellin, S. Mondal, S. Mukherjee, D. Noll, A. Novak,T. Pook, A. Pozdnyakov, T. Quast, M. Radziej, Y. Rath, H. Reithler, J. Roemer, A. Schmidt,S.C. Schuler, A. Sharma, S. Wiedenbeck, S. Zaleski
RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany
G. Fl ¨ugge, W. Haj Ahmad , O. Hlushchenko, T. Kress, T. M ¨uller, A. Nowack, C. Pistone,O. Pooth, D. Roy, H. Sert, A. Stahl Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
M. Aldaya Martin, P. Asmuss, I. Babounikau, H. Bakhshiansohi, K. Beernaert, O. Behnke,A. Berm ´udez Mart´ınez, A.A. Bin Anuar, K. Borras , V. Botta, A. Campbell, A. Cardini,P. Connor, S. Consuegra Rodr´ıguez, C. Contreras-Campana, V. Danilov, A. De Wit,M.M. Defranchis, C. Diez Pardos, D. Dom´ınguez Damiani, G. Eckerlin, D. Eckstein, T. Eichhorn,A. Elwood, E. Eren, E. Gallo , A. Geiser, A. Grohsjean, M. Guthoff, M. Haranko, A. Harb,A. Jafari, N.Z. Jomhari, H. Jung, A. Kasem , M. Kasemann, H. Kaveh, J. Keaveney,C. Kleinwort, J. Knolle, D. Kr ¨ucker, W. Lange, T. Lenz, J. Lidrych, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann ,R. Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, A.B. Meyer, M. Meyer, M. Missiroli, J. Mnich, A. Mussgiller,V. Myronenko, D. P´erez Ad´an, S.K. Pflitsch, D. Pitzl, A. Raspereza, A. Saibel, M. Savitskyi,V. Scheurer, P. Sch ¨utze, C. Schwanenberger, R. Shevchenko, A. Singh, R.E. Sosa Ricardo,H. Tholen, O. Turkot, A. Vagnerini, M. Van De Klundert, R. Walsh, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann,C. Wissing, O. Zenaiev, R. Zlebcik University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, L. Benato, A. Benecke, T. Dreyer, A. Ebrahimi, F. Feindt, A. Fr ¨ohlich,C. Garbers, E. Garutti, D. Gonzalez, P. Gunnellini, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, A. Karavdina,G. Kasieczka, R. Klanner, R. Kogler, N. Kovalchuk, S. Kurz, V. Kutzner, J. Lange, T. Lange,A. Malara, J. Multhaup, C.E.N. Niemeyer, A. Reimers, O. Rieger, P. Schleper, S. Schumann,J. Schwandt, J. Sonneveld, H. Stadie, G. Steinbr ¨uck, B. Vormwald, I. Zoi
Karlsruher Institut fuer Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany
M. Akbiyik, M. Baselga, S. Baur, T. Berger, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, W. De Boer,A. Dierlamm, K. El Morabit, N. Faltermann, M. Giffels, A. Gottmann, F. Hartmann ,C. Heidecker, U. Husemann, M.A. Iqbal, S. Kudella, S. Maier, S. Mitra, M.U. Mozer, D. M ¨uller,Th. M ¨uller, M. Musich, A. N ¨urnberg, G. Quast, K. Rabbertz, D. Savoiu, D. Sch¨afer, M. Schnepf,M. Schr ¨oder, I. Shvetsov, H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, M. Wassmer, M. Weber, C. W ¨ohrmann, R. Wolf,S. Wozniewski Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics (INPP), NCSR Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi,Greece
G. Anagnostou, P. Asenov, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas, G. Paspalaki,A. Stakia
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
M. Diamantopoulou, G. Karathanasis, P. Kontaxakis, A. Manousakis-katsikakis, A. Panagiotou,I. Papavergou, N. Saoulidou, K. Theofilatos, K. Vellidis, E. Vourliotis
National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece
G. Bakas, K. Kousouris, I. Papakrivopoulos, G. Tsipolitis, A. Zacharopoulou
University of Io´annina, Io´annina, Greece
I. Evangelou, C. Foudas, P. Gianneios, P. Katsoulis, P. Kokkas, S. Mallios, K. Manitara,N. Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, J. Strologas, F.A. Triantis, D. Tsitsonis
MTA-ELTE Lend ¨ulet CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, E ¨otv ¨os Lor´and University,Budapest, Hungary
M. Bart ´ok , R. Chudasama, M. Csanad, P. Major, K. Mandal, A. Mehta, G. Pasztor, O. Sur´anyi,G.I. Veres Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath , F. Sikler, V. Veszpremi, G. Vesztergombi † Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi , J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
P. Raics, D. Teyssier, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari
Eszterhazy Karoly University, Karoly Robert Campus, Gyongyos, Hungary
T. Csorgo, W.J. Metzger, F. Nemes, T. Novak
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. Bahinipati , C. Kar, G. Kole, P. Mal, V.K. Muraleedharan Nair Bindhu, A. Nayak ,D.K. Sahoo , S.K. Swain Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, S. Chauhan, N. Dhingra , R. Gupta, A. Kaur, M. Kaur, S. Kaur,P. Kumari, M. Lohan, M. Meena, K. Sandeep, S. Sharma, J.B. Singh, A.K. Virdi University of Delhi, Delhi, India
A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, M. Gola, S. Keshri, Ashok Kumar, M. Naimuddin,P. Priyanka, K. Ranjan, Aashaq Shah, R. Sharma
Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India
R. Bhardwaj , M. Bharti , R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, U. Bhawandeep , D. Bhowmik,S. Dutta, S. Ghosh, B. Gomber , M. Maity , K. Mondal, S. Nandan, A. Purohit, P.K. Rout,G. Saha, S. Sarkar, M. Sharan, B. Singh , S. Thakur Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera, S.C. Behera, P. Kalbhor, A. Muhammad, P.R. Pujahari, A. Sharma, A.K. Sikdar
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
D. Dutta, V. Jha, D.K. Mishra, 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, Ravindra Kumar Verma
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, P. Das, M. Guchait, S. Karmakar, S. Kumar,G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, N. Sahoo, S. Sawant
Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, India
S. Dube, B. Kansal, A. Kapoor, K. Kothekar, S. Pandey, A. Rane, A. Rastogi, S. Sharma
Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran
S. Chenarani, S.M. Etesami, M. Khakzad, M. Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri,F. Rezaei Hosseinabadi
University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
M. Felcini, M. Grunewald
INFN Sezione di Bari a , Universit`a di Bari b , Politecnico di Bari c , Bari, Italy M. Abbrescia a , b , R. Aly a , b ,30 , C. Calabria a , b , A. Colaleo a , D. Creanza a , c , L. Cristella a , b ,N. De Filippis a , c , M. De Palma a , b , A. Di Florio a , b , W. Elmetenawee a , b , L. Fiore a , A. Gelmi a , b ,G. Iaselli a , c , M. Ince a , b , S. Lezki a , b , G. Maggi a , c , M. Maggi a , J.A. Merlin a , G. Miniello a , b , S. My a , b , S. Nuzzo a , b , A. Pompili a , b , G. Pugliese a , c , R. Radogna a , A. Ranieri a , G. Selvaggi a , b , L. Silvestris a ,F.M. Simone a , b , R. Venditti a , P. Verwilligen a INFN Sezione di Bologna a , Universit`a di Bologna b , Bologna, Italy G. Abbiendi a , C. Battilana a , b , D. Bonacorsi a , b , L. Borgonovi a , b , S. Braibant-Giacomelli a , b ,R. Campanini a , b , P. Capiluppi a , b , A. Castro a , b , F.R. Cavallo a , C. Ciocca a , G. Codispoti a , b ,M. Cuffiani a , b , G.M. Dallavalle a , F. Fabbri a , A. Fanfani a , b , E. Fontanesi a , b , P. Giacomelli a ,L. Giommi a , b , C. Grandi a , L. Guiducci a , b , F. Iemmi a , b , S. Lo Meo a ,31 , S. Marcellini a , G. Masetti a ,F.L. Navarria a , b , A. Perrotta a , F. Primavera a , b , T. Rovelli a , b , G.P. Siroli a , b , N. Tosi a INFN Sezione di Catania a , Universit`a di Catania b , Catania, Italy S. Albergo a , b ,32 , S. Costa a , b ,32 , A. Di Mattia a , R. Potenza a , b , A. Tricomi a , b ,32 , C. Tuve a , b INFN Sezione di Firenze a , Universit`a di Firenze b , Firenze, Italy G. Barbagli a , A. Cassese a , R. Ceccarelli a , b , V. Ciulli a , b , C. Civinini a , R. D’Alessandro a , b , F. Fiori a ,E. Focardi a , b , G. Latino a , b , P. Lenzi a , b , M. Meschini a , S. Paoletti a , G. Sguazzoni a , L. Viliani a INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, D. Piccolo
INFN Sezione di Genova a , Universit`a di Genova b , Genova, Italy M. Bozzo a , b , F. Ferro a , R. Mulargia a , b , E. Robutti a , S. Tosi a , b INFN Sezione di Milano-Bicocca a , Universit`a di Milano-Bicocca b , Milano, Italy A. Benaglia a , A. Beschi a , b , F. Brivio a , b , V. Ciriolo a , b ,17 , M.E. Dinardo a , b , P. Dini a , S. Gennai a ,A. Ghezzi a , b , P. Govoni a , b , L. Guzzi a , b , M. Malberti a , S. Malvezzi a , D. Menasce a , F. Monti a , b ,L. Moroni a , M. Paganoni a , b , D. Pedrini a , S. Ragazzi a , b , T. Tabarelli de Fatis a , b , D. Valsecchi a , b ,17 ,D. Zuolo a , b INFN Sezione di Napoli a , Universit`a di Napoli ’Federico II’ b , Napoli, Italy, Universit`a dellaBasilicata c , Potenza, Italy, Universit`a G. Marconi d , Roma, Italy S. Buontempo a , N. Cavallo a , c , A. De Iorio a , b , A. Di Crescenzo a , b , F. Fabozzi a , c , F. Fienga a ,G. Galati a , A.O.M. Iorio a , b , L. Layer a , b , L. Lista a , b , S. Meola a , d ,17 , P. Paolucci a ,17 , B. Rossi a ,C. Sciacca a , b , E. Voevodina a , b INFN Sezione di Padova a , Universit`a di Padova b , Padova, Italy, Universit`a di Trento c ,Trento, Italy P. Azzi a , N. Bacchetta a , D. Bisello a , b , A. Boletti a , b , A. Bragagnolo a , b , R. Carlin a , b , P. Checchia a ,P. De Castro Manzano a , T. Dorigo a , U. Dosselli a , F. Gasparini a , b , U. Gasparini a , b , A. Gozzelino a ,S.Y. Hoh a , b , M. Margoni a , b , A.T. Meneguzzo a , b , J. Pazzini a , b , M. Presilla b , P. Ronchese a , b ,R. Rossin a , b , F. Simonetto a , b , A. Tiko a , M. Tosi a , b , M. Zanetti a , b , P. Zotto a , b , A. Zucchetta a , b ,G. Zumerle a , b INFN Sezione di Pavia a , Universit`a di Pavia b , Pavia, Italy A. Braghieri a , D. Fiorina a , b , P. Montagna a , b , S.P. Ratti a , b , V. Re a , M. Ressegotti a , b , C. Riccardi a , b ,P. Salvini a , I. Vai a , P. Vitulo a , b INFN Sezione di Perugia a , Universit`a di Perugia b , Perugia, Italy M. Biasini a , b , G.M. Bilei a , D. Ciangottini a , b , L. Fan `o a , b , P. Lariccia a , b , R. Leonardi a , b , E. Manoni a ,G. Mantovani a , b , V. Mariani a , b , M. Menichelli a , A. Rossi a , b , A. Santocchia a , b , D. Spiga a INFN Sezione di Pisa a , Universit`a di Pisa b , Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa c , Pisa Italy,Universit`a di Siena d , Siena, Italy K. Androsov a , P. Azzurri a , G. Bagliesi a , V. Bertacchi a , c , L. Bianchini a , T. Boccali a , R. Castaldi a ,M.A. Ciocci a , b , R. Dell’Orso a , S. Donato a , L. Giannini a , c , A. Giassi a , M.T. Grippo a , F. Ligabue a , c , E. Manca a , c , G. Mandorli a , c , A. Messineo a , b , F. Palla a , A. Rizzi a , b , G. Rolandi a , c ,S. Roy Chowdhury a , c , A. Scribano a , P. Spagnolo a , R. Tenchini a , G. Tonelli a , b , N. Turini a , d ,A. Venturi a , P.G. Verdini a INFN Sezione di Roma a , Sapienza Universit`a di Roma b , Rome, Italy F. Cavallari a , M. Cipriani a , b , D. Del Re a , b , E. Di Marco a , M. Diemoz a , E. Longo a , b , P. Meridiani a ,G. Organtini a , b , F. Pandolfi a , R. Paramatti a , b , C. Quaranta a , b , S. Rahatlou a , b , C. Rovelli a ,F. Santanastasio a , b , L. Soffi a , b , R. Tramontano a , b INFN Sezione di Torino a , Universit`a di Torino b , Torino, Italy, Universit`a del PiemonteOrientale c , Novara, Italy N. Amapane a , b , R. Arcidiacono a , c , S. Argiro a , b , M. Arneodo a , c , N. Bartosik a , R. Bellan a , b ,A. Bellora a , b , C. Biino a , A. Cappati a , b , N. Cartiglia a , S. Cometti a , M. Costa a , b , R. Covarelli a , b ,N. Demaria a , J.R. Gonz´alez Fern´andez a , B. Kiani a , b , F. Legger a , C. Mariotti a , S. Maselli a ,E. Migliore a , b , V. Monaco a , b , E. Monteil a , b , M. Monteno a , M.M. Obertino a , b , G. Ortona a ,L. Pacher a , b , N. Pastrone a , M. Pelliccioni a , G.L. Pinna Angioni a , b , A. Romero a , b , M. Ruspa a , c ,R. Salvatico a , b , V. Sola a , A. Solano a , b , D. Soldi a , b , A. Staiano a , D. Trocino a , b INFN Sezione di Trieste a , Universit`a di Trieste b , Trieste, Italy S. Belforte a , V. Candelise a , b , M. Casarsa a , F. Cossutti a , A. Da Rold a , b , G. Della Ricca a , b ,F. Vazzoler a , b , A. Zanetti a Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea
B. Kim, D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, J. Lee, S.W. Lee, C.S. Moon, Y.D. Oh, S.I. Pak, S. Sekmen, D.C. Son,Y.C. Yang
Chonnam National University, Institute for Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju,Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon
Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
B. Francois, T.J. Kim, J. Park
Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, S. Ha, B. Hong, K. Lee, K.S. Lee, J. Lim, J. Park, S.K. Park, Y. Roh, J. Yoo
Kyung Hee University, Department of Physics, Seoul, Republic of Korea
J. Goh
Sejong University, Seoul, Korea
H.S. Kim
Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J.H. Bhyun, J. Choi, S. Jeon, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, H. Lee, K. Lee, S. Lee, K. Nam, M. Oh,S.B. Oh, B.C. Radburn-Smith, U.K. Yang, H.D. Yoo, I. Yoon
University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea
D. Jeon, J.H. Kim, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park, I.J. Watson
Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, C. Hwang, Y. Jeong, J. Lee, Y. Lee, I. Yu
Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
V. Veckalns Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
V. Dudenas, A. Juodagalvis, A. Rinkevicius, G. Tamulaitis, J. Vaitkus
National Centre for Particle Physics, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
F. Mohamad Idris , W.A.T. Wan Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli Universidad de Sonora (UNISON), Hermosillo, Mexico
J.F. Benitez, A. Castaneda Hernandez, J.A. Murillo Quijada, L. Valencia Palomo
Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, I. Heredia-De La Cruz , R. Lopez-Fernandez,A. Sanchez-Hernandez Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City, Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, M. Ramirez-Garcia, F. Vazquez Valencia
Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
J. Eysermans, I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada
Universidad Aut ´onoma de San Luis Potos´ı, San Luis Potos´ı, Mexico
A. Morelos Pineda
University of Montenegro, Podgorica, Montenegro
J. Mijuskovic , N. Raicevic University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
S. Bheesette, P.H. Butler, P. Lujan
National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M. Ahmad, M.I.M. Awan, Q. Hassan, H.R. Hoorani, W.A. Khan, M.A. Shah,M. Shoaib, M. Waqas
AGH University of Science and Technology Faculty of Computer Science, Electronics andTelecommunications, Krakow, Poland
V. Avati, L. Grzanka, M. Malawski
National Centre for Nuclear Research, Swierk, Poland
H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, M. G ´orski, M. Kazana, M. Szleper, P. Zalewski
Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk , K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J. Krolikowski,M. Olszewski, M. Walczak Laborat ´orio de Instrumenta¸c˜ao e F´ısica Experimental de Part´ıculas, Lisboa, Portugal
M. Araujo, P. Bargassa, D. Bastos, A. Di Francesco, P. Faccioli, B. Galinhas, M. Gallinaro,J. Hollar, N. Leonardo, T. Niknejad, J. Seixas, K. Shchelina, G. Strong, O. Toldaiev, J. Varela
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
S. Afanasiev, P. Bunin, Y. Ershov, M. Gavrilenko, A. Golunov, I. Golutvin, N. Gorbounov,I. Gorbunov, A. Kamenev, V. Karjavine, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev , P. Moisenz,V. Palichik, V. Perelygin, S. Shmatov, V. Smirnov, A. Zarubin, V. Zhiltsov Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg), Russia
L. Chtchipounov, V. Golovtcov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim , E. Kuznetsova , P. Levchenko, V. Murzin,V. Oreshkin, I. Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, 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 named by A.I. Alikhanov of NRC‘Kurchatov Institute’, Moscow, Russia
V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, A. Nikitenko , V. Popov, I. Pozdnyakov,G. Safronov, A. Spiridonov, A. Stepennov, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A. Zhokin Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev
National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics Institute’ (MEPhI),Moscow, Russia
M. Chadeeva , P. Parygin, D. Philippov, E. Popova, V. Rusinov P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin, I. Dremin, M. Kirakosyan, A. Terkulov
Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow,Russia
A. Belyaev, E. Boos, A. Ershov, A. Gribushin, A. Kaminskiy , O. Kodolova, V. Korotkikh,I. Lokhtin, S. Obraztsov, S. Petrushanko, V. Savrin, A. Snigirev, I. Vardanyan Novosibirsk State University (NSU), Novosibirsk, Russia
A. Barnyakov , V. Blinov , T. Dimova , L. Kardapoltsev , Y. Skovpen Institute for High Energy Physics of National Research Centre ‘Kurchatov Institute’,Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, S. Bitioukov, V. Kachanov, D. Konstantinov, P. Mandrik, V. Petrov,R. Ryutin, S. Slabospitskii, A. Sobol, S. Troshin, N. Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov
National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia
A. Babaev, A. Iuzhakov, V. Okhotnikov
Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russia
V. Borchsh, V. Ivanchenko, E. Tcherniaev
University of Belgrade: Faculty of Physics and VINCA Institute of Nuclear Sciences,Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic , P. Cirkovic, M. Dordevic, P. Milenovic, J. Milosevic, M. Stojanovic Centro de Investigaciones Energ´eticas Medioambientales y Tecnol ´ogicas (CIEMAT),Madrid, Spain
M. Aguilar-Benitez, J. Alcaraz Maestre, A. ´Alvarez Fern´andez, I. Bachiller, M. Barrio Luna,Cristina F. Bedoya, J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, C.A. Carrillo Montoya, M. Cepeda, M. Cerrada,N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris, J.P. Fern´andez Ramos, J. Flix, M.C. Fouz,O. Gonzalez Lopez, S. Goy Lopez, J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa, D. Moran, ´A. Navarro Tobar,A. P´erez-Calero Yzquierdo, J. Puerta Pelayo, I. Redondo, L. Romero, S. S´anchez Navas,M.S. Soares, A. Triossi, C. Willmott Universidad Aut ´onoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
C. Albajar, J.F. de Troc ´oniz, R. Reyes-Almanza
Universidad de Oviedo, Instituto Universitario de Ciencias y Tecnolog´ıas Espaciales deAsturias (ICTEA), Oviedo, Spain
B. Alvarez Gonzalez, J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, S. Folgueras, I. Gonzalez Ca-ballero, E. Palencia Cortezon, C. Ram ´on ´Alvarez, V. Rodr´ıguez Bouza, S. Sanchez Cruz
Instituto de F´ısica de Cantabria (IFCA), CSIC-Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain
I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, B. Chazin Quero, J. Duarte Campderros, M. Fernandez,P.J. Fern´andez Manteca, A. Garc´ıa Alonso, G. Gomez, C. Martinez Rivero, P. Mar-tinez Ruiz del Arbol, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, C. Prieels, F. Ricci-Tam, T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno, L. Russo , L. Scodellaro, I. Vila, J.M. Vizan Garcia University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka
D.U.J. Sonnadara
University of Ruhuna, Department of Physics, Matara, Sri Lanka
W.G.D. Dharmaratna, N. Wickramage
CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, D. Abbaneo, B. Akgun, E. Auffray, G. Auzinger, J. Baechler, P. Baillon, A.H. Ball,D. Barney, J. Bendavid, M. Bianco, A. Bocci, P. Bortignon, E. Bossini, E. Brondolin, T. Camporesi,A. Caratelli, G. Cerminara, E. Chapon, G. Cucciati, D. d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, N. Daci,V. Daponte, A. David, O. Davignon, A. De Roeck, M. Deile, R. Di Maria, M. Dobson, M. D ¨unser,N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, N. Emriskova, F. Fallavollita , D. Fasanella, S. Fiorendi,G. Franzoni, J. Fulcher, W. Funk, S. Giani, D. Gigi, K. Gill, F. Glege, L. Gouskos, M. Gruchala,M. Guilbaud, D. Gulhan, J. Hegeman, C. Heidegger, Y. Iiyama, V. Innocente, T. James, P. Janot,O. Karacheban , J. Kaspar, J. Kieseler, M. Krammer , N. Kratochwil, C. Lange, P. Lecoq,K. Long, C. Lourenc¸o, L. Malgeri, M. Mannelli, A. Massironi, F. Meijers, S. Mersi, E. Meschi,F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, J. Ngadiuba, J. Niedziela, S. Nourbakhsh, S. Orfanelli, L. Orsini,F. Pantaleo , L. Pape, E. Perez, M. Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M. Pierini,F.M. Pitters, D. Rabady, A. Racz, M. Rieger, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, S. Scarfi,C. Sch¨afer, C. Schwick, M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva, W. Snoeys, P. Sphicas , J. Steggemann,S. Summers, V.R. Tavolaro, D. Treille, A. Tsirou, G.P. Van Onsem, A. Vartak, M. Verzetti,K.A. Wozniak, W.D. Zeuner Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland
L. Caminada , K. Deiters, W. Erdmann, R. Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C. Kaestli, D. Kotlinski,U. Langenegger, T. Rohe ETH Zurich - Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics (IPA), Zurich, Switzerland
M. Backhaus, P. Berger, A. Calandri, N. Chernyavskaya, G. Dissertori, M. Dittmar, M. Doneg`a,C. Dorfer, T.A. G ´omez Espinosa, C. Grab, D. Hits, W. Lustermann, R.A. Manzoni,M.T. Meinhard, F. Micheli, P. Musella, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, F. Pauss, V. Perovic, G. Perrin,L. Perrozzi, S. Pigazzini, M.G. Ratti, M. Reichmann, C. Reissel, T. Reitenspiess, B. Ristic,D. Ruini, D.A. Sanz Becerra, M. Sch ¨onenberger, L. Shchutska, M.L. Vesterbacka Olsson,R. Wallny, D.H. Zhu
Universit¨at Z ¨urich, Zurich, Switzerland
C. Amsler , C. Botta, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, R. Del Burgo, B. Kilminster,S. Leontsinis, V.M. Mikuni, I. Neutelings, G. Rauco, P. Robmann, K. Schweiger, Y. Takahashi,S. Wertz National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan
C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A. Roy, T. Sarkar , S.S. Yu National Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, W.-S. Hou, Y.y. Li, R.-S. Lu, E. Paganis, A. Psallidas,A. Steen
Chulalongkorn University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok, Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, N. Srimanobhas, N. Suwonjandee
C¸ ukurova University, Physics Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
A. Bat, F. Boran, A. Celik , S. Damarseckin , Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, C. Dozen ,I. Dumanoglu , G. Gokbulut, Emine Gurpinar Guler , Y. Guler, I. Hos , C. Isik, E.E. Kangal ,O. Kara, A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, G. Onengut, K. Ozdemir , A.E. Simsek, U.G. Tok,S. Turkcapar, I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East Technical University, Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak , G. Karapinar , M. Yalvac Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey
I.O. Atakisi, E. G ¨ulmez, M. Kaya , O. Kaya , ¨O. ¨Ozc¸elik, S. Tekten , E.A. Yetkin Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
A. Cakir, K. Cankocak , Y. Komurcu, S. Sen Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
S. Cerci , B. Kaynak, S. Ozkorucuklu, D. Sunar Cerci 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
E. Bhal, S. Bologna, J.J. Brooke, D. Burns , E. Clement, D. Cussans, H. Flacher, J. Goldstein,G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, B. Krikler, S. Paramesvaran, T. Sakuma, S. Seif El Nasr-Storey, V.J. Smith, J. Taylor, A. Titterton Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev , C. Brew, R.M. Brown, D.J.A. Cockerill, J.A. Coughlan, K. Harder,S. Harper, J. Linacre, K. Manolopoulos, D.M. Newbold, E. Olaiya, D. Petyt, T. Reis, T. Schuh,C.H. Shepherd-Themistocleous, A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin, T. Williams Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, S. Bonomally, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A. Bundock, GurpreetSingh CHAHAL , D. Colling, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M. Della Negra, P. Everaerts, G. Hall,G. Iles, M. Komm, J. Langford, L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, A. Martelli, V. Milosevic,A. Morton, J. Nash , V. Palladino, M. Pesaresi, D.M. Raymond, A. Richards, A. Rose, E. Scott,C. Seez, A. Shtipliyski, M. Stoye, T. Strebler, A. Tapper, K. Uchida, T. Virdee , N. Wardle,S.N. Webb, D. Winterbottom, A.G. Zecchinelli, S.C. Zenz Brunel University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, C.K. Mackay, I.D. Reid, L. Teodorescu, S. Zahid Baylor University, Waco, USA
A. Brinkerhoff, K. Call, B. Caraway, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, C. Madrid, B. McMaster,N. Pastika, C. Smith
Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez, R. Uniyal, A.M. Vargas Hernandez
The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
A. Buccilli, S.I. Cooper, S.V. Gleyzer, C. Henderson, P. Rumerio, C. West
Boston University, Boston, USA
A. Albert, D. Arcaro, Z. Demiragli, D. Gastler, C. Richardson, J. Rohlf, D. Sperka, D. Spitzbart,I. Suarez, L. Sulak, D. Zou
Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, B. Burkle, X. Coubez , D. Cutts, Y.t. Duh, M. Hadley, U. Heintz, J.M. Hogan ,K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, K.T. Lau, J. Lee, M. Narain, S. Sagir , R. Syarif, E. Usai,W.Y. Wong, D. Yu, W. Zhang University of California, Davis, Davis, USA
R. Band, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez, M. Chertok, J. Conway,R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, G. Funk, F. Jensen, W. Ko † , O. Kukral, R. Lander,M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, J. Pilot, M. Shi, 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,W.A. Nash, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg, C. Schnaible, B. Stone, V. Valuev
University of California, Riverside, Riverside, USA
K. Burt, Y. Chen, R. Clare, J.W. Gary, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi, G. Hanson, G. Karapostoli,O.R. Long, N. Manganelli, M. Olmedo Negrete, M.I. Paneva, W. Si, S. Wimpenny, B.R. Yates,Y. Zhang
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, P. Chang, S. Cittolin, S. Cooperstein, N. Deelen, M. Derdzinski, J. Duarte,R. Gerosa, D. Gilbert, B. Hashemi, D. Klein, V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, M. Masciovecchio, S. May,S. Padhi, M. Pieri, V. Sharma, M. Tadel, F. W ¨urthwein, A. Yagil, G. Zevi Della Porta
University of California, Santa Barbara - Department of Physics, Santa Barbara, USA
N. Amin, R. Bhandari, C. Campagnari, M. Citron, V. Dutta, J. Incandela, B. Marsh, H. Mei,A. Ovcharova, H. Qu, J. Richman, U. Sarica, D. Stuart, S. Wang
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
D. Anderson, A. Bornheim, O. Cerri, I. Dutta, J.M. Lawhorn, N. Lu, J. Mao, H.B. Newman,T.Q. Nguyen, J. Pata, M. Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, S. Xie, Z. Zhang, R.Y. Zhu
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
J. Alison, 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, E. MacDonald, T. Mulholland, R. Patel, A. Perloff, K. Stenson,K.A. Ulmer, S.R. Wagner Cornell University, Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, Y. Cheng, J. Chu, A. Datta, A. Frankenthal, K. Mcdermott, J.R. Patterson,D. Quach, A. Ryd, S.M. Tan, Z. Tao, J. Thom, 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, D. Berry, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, K. Burkett, J.N. Butler,A. Canepa, G.B. Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M. Cremonesi, V.D. Elvira, J. Freeman,Z. Gecse, E. Gottschalk, L. Gray, D. Green, S. Gr ¨unendahl, O. Gutsche, J. Hanlon,R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, R. Heller, J. Hirschauer, B. Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson,U. Joshi, T. Klijnsma, B. Klima, M.J. Kortelainen, B. Kreis, S. Lammel, J. Lewis, 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, V. Papadimitriou, K. Pedro, C. Pena , F. Ravera,A. Reinsvold Hall, L. Ristori, B. Schneider, E. Sexton-Kennedy, N. Smith, A. Soha, W.J. Spalding,L. Spiegel, S. Stoynev, J. Strait, L. Taylor, S. Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran, L. Uplegger, E.W. Vaandering,R. Vidal, M. Wang, H.A. Weber, A. Woodard University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, D. Bourilkov, L. Cadamuro, V. Cherepanov, F. Errico, R.D. Field,D. Guerrero, B.M. Joshi, M. Kim, J. Konigsberg, A. Korytov, K.H. Lo, K. Matchev, N. Menendez,G. Mitselmakher, D. Rosenzweig, K. Shi, J. Wang, S. Wang, X. Zuo
Florida International University, Miami, USA
Y.R. Joshi
Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
T. Adams, A. Askew, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F. Johnson, R. Khurana, T. Kolberg,G. Martinez, T. Perry, H. Prosper, C. Schiber, R. Yohay, J. Zhang
Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, M. Rahmani, M. Saunders, F. Yumiceva
University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago, USA
M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, R.R. Betts, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, S. Dittmer, O. Evdokimov,C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, V. Kumar, C. Mills, G. Oh, T. Roy, M.B. Tonjes,N. Varelas, J. Viinikainen, H. Wang, X. Wang, Z. Wu
The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, B. Bilki , K. Dilsiz , S. Durgut, R.P. Gandrajula, M. Haytmyradov,V. Khristenko, O.K. K ¨oseyan, J.-P. Merlo, A. Mestvirishvili , A. Moeller, J. Nachtman,H. Ogul , Y. Onel, F. Ozok , A. Penzo, C. Snyder, E. Tiras, J. Wetzel, K. Yi Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
B. Blumenfeld, A. Cocoros, N. Eminizer, A.V. Gritsan, W.T. Hung, S. Kyriacou, P. Maksimovic,C. Mantilla, J. Roskes, M. Swartz, T. ´A. V´ami
The University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA
C. Baldenegro Barrera, P. Baringer, A. Bean, S. Boren, A. Bylinkin, T. Isidori, S. Khalil, J. King,G. Krintiras, A. Kropivnitskaya, C. Lindsey, D. Majumder, W. Mcbrayer, N. Minafra, M. Murray,C. Rogan, C. Royon, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang, J. Williams, G. Wilson
Kansas State University, Manhattan, USA
S. Duric, A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, D. Kim, Y. Maravin, D.R. Mendis, T. Mitchell, A. Modak,A. Mohammadi 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, N.J. Hadley, S. Jabeen, G.Y. Jeng, R.G. Kellogg,A.C. Mignerey, S. Nabili, M. Seidel, A. Skuja, S.C. Tonwar, L. Wang, K. Wong
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, R. Bi, S. Brandt, W. Busza, I.A. Cali, M. D’Alfonso,G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov, P. Harris, D. Hsu, M. Hu, 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,D. Rankin, C. Roland, G. Roland, Z. Shi, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Sumorok, K. Tatar, D. Velicanu,J. Wang, T.W. Wang, B. Wyslouch
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, S. Guts † , P. Hansen, J. Hiltbrand, Sh. Jain, Y. Kubota, Z. Lesko,J. Mans, M. Revering, R. Rusack, R. Saradhy, N. Schroeder, N. Strobbe, M.A. Wadud University of Mississippi, Oxford, USA
J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
K. Bloom, S. Chauhan, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, L. Finco, F. Golf, R. Kamalieddin,I. Kravchenko, J.E. Siado, G.R. Snow † , B. Stieger, W. Tabb State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
G. Agarwal, C. Harrington, I. Iashvili, A. Kharchilava, C. McLean, D. Nguyen, A. Parker,J. Pekkanen, S. Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani
Northeastern University, Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, Y. Haddad, A. Hortiangtham, G. Madigan, B. Marzocchi,D.M. Morse, V. Nguyen, T. Orimoto, L. Skinnari, A. Tishelman-Charny, T. Wamorkar, B. Wang,A. Wisecarver, D. Wood
Northwestern University, Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, J. Bueghly, G. Fedi, A. Gilbert, T. Gunter, K.A. Hahn, N. Odell, M.H. Schmitt,K. Sung, M. Velasco
University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, USA
R. Bucci, N. Dev, R. Goldouzian, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop, D.J. Karmgard,K. Lannon, W. Li, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, I. Mcalister, F. Meng, Y. Musienko , R. Ruchti,P. Siddireddy, G. Smith, S. Taroni, M. Wayne, A. Wightman, M. Wolf The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA
J. Alimena, B. Bylsma, B. Cardwell, L.S. Durkin, B. Francis, C. Hill, W. Ji, A. Lefeld, T.Y. Ling,B.L. Winer
Princeton University, Princeton, USA
G. Dezoort, P. Elmer, J. Hardenbrook, N. Haubrich, S. Higginbotham, A. Kalogeropoulos,S. Kwan, D. Lange, M.T. Lucchini, J. Luo, D. Marlow, K. Mei, I. Ojalvo, J. Olsen, C. Palmer,P. Pirou´e, D. Stickland, C. Tully
University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
A. Barker, V.E. Barnes, R. Chawla, S. Das, L. Gutay, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, B. Mahakud,D.H. Miller, G. Negro, N. Neumeister, C.C. Peng, S. Piperov, H. Qiu, J.F. Schulte, N. Trevisani,F. Wang, R. Xiao, W. Xie
Purdue University Northwest, Hammond, USA
T. Cheng, J. Dolen, N. Parashar
Rice University, Houston, USA
A. Baty, U. Behrens, S. Dildick, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Kilpatrick,Arun Kumar, W. Li, B.P. Padley, R. Redjimi, J. Roberts, J. Rorie, W. Shi, A.G. Stahl Leiton, Z. Tu,A. Zhang
University of Rochester, Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, J.L. Dulemba, C. Fallon, T. Ferbel, M. Galanti, A. Garcia-Bellido, O. Hindrichs, A. Khukhunaishvili, E. Ranken, R. Taus
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, USA
B. Chiarito, J.P. Chou, A. Gandrakota, Y. Gershtein, E. Halkiadakis, A. Hart, M. Heindl,E. Hughes, S. Kaplan, I. Laflotte, A. Lath, R. Montalvo, K. Nash, M. Osherson, S. Salur,S. Schnetzer, S. Somalwar, R. Stone, S. Thomas
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
H. Acharya, A.G. Delannoy, S. Spanier
Texas A&M University, College Station, USA
O. Bouhali , M. Dalchenko, M. De Mattia, A. Delgado, R. Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang,T. Kamon , H. Kim, S. Luo, S. Malhotra, D. Marley, R. Mueller, D. Overton, L. Perni`e,D. Rathjens, A. Safonov Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, F. De Guio, V. Hegde, S. Kunori, K. Lamichhane, S.W. Lee, T. Mengke,S. Muthumuni, T. Peltola, S. Undleeb, I. Volobouev, Z. Wang, A. Whitbeck
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H. Ni, K. Padeken, F. Romeo,P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska, M. Verweij
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
M.W. Arenton, P. Barria, B. Cox, G. Cummings, J. Hakala, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A. Ledovskoy,C. Neu, B. Tannenwald, Y. Wang, E. Wolfe, F. Xia
Wayne State University, Detroit, USA
R. Harr, P.E. Karchin, N. Poudyal, J. Sturdy, P. Thapa
University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI, USA
K. Black, T. Bose, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, D. Carlsmith, S. Dasu, I. De Bruyn, L. Dodd,C. Galloni, H. He, M. Herndon, A. Herv´e, U. Hussain, A. Lanaro, A. Loeliger, R. Loveless,J. Madhusudanan Sreekala, A. Mallampalli, D. Pinna, T. Ruggles, A. Savin, V. Sharma,W.H. Smith, D. Teague, S. Trembath-reichert†: Deceased1: Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria2: Also at Universit´e Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium3: Also at IRFU, CEA, Universit´e Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
4: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil5: Also at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil6: Also at UFMS, Nova Andradina, Brazil7: Also at Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil8: Also at University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China9: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics named by A.I. Alikhanov of NRC‘Kurchatov Institute’, Moscow, Russia10: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia11: Also at Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt12: Now at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt13: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA14: Also at Universit´e de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France15: Also at Ilia State University, Tbilisi, Georgia16: Also at Erzincan Binali Yildirim University, Erzincan, Turkey17: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland18: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany19: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany20: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany21: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary, Debrecen,Hungary22: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary23: Also at MTA-ELTE Lend ¨ulet CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, E ¨otv ¨os Lor´andUniversity, Budapest, Hungary, Budapest, Hungary24: Also at IIT Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India, Bhubaneswar, India25: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India26: Also at G.H.G. Khalsa College, Punjab, India27: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India28: Also at University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India29: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India30: Now at INFN Sezione di Bari a , Universit`a di Bari b , Politecnico di Bari c , Bari, Italy31: Also at Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable EconomicDevelopment, Bologna, Italy32: Also at Centro Siciliano di Fisica Nucleare e di Struttura Della Materia, Catania, Italy33: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia, Riga, Latvia34: Also at Malaysian Nuclear Agency, MOSTI, Kajang, Malaysia35: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnolog´ıa, Mexico City, Mexico36: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems, Warsaw, Poland37: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia38: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics Institute’(MEPhI), Moscow, Russia39: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg, Russia40: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA41: Also at Imperial College, London, United Kingdom42: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia43: Also at INFN Sezione di Padova a , Universit`a di Padova b , Padova, Italy, Universit`a diTrento c , Trento, Italy, Padova, Italy44: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia45: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia46: Also at Universit`a degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy, Siena, Italy
47: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a , Universit`a di Pavia bb