Measurement of electroweak production of a W boson in association with two jets in proton-proton collisions at s √ = 13 TeV
EEUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH (CERN)
CERN-EP-2019-0222020/01/24
CMS-SMP-17-011
Measurement of electroweak production of a W boson inassociation with two jets in proton-proton collisions at √ s =
13 TeV
The CMS Collaboration ∗ Abstract
A measurement is presented of electroweak (EW) production of a W boson in asso-ciation with two jets in proton-proton collisions at √ s =
13 TeV. The data samplewas recorded by the CMS Collaboration at the LHC and corresponds to an integratedluminosity of 35.9 fb − . The measurement is performed for the (cid:96) ν jj final state (with (cid:96) ν indicating a lepton-neutrino pair, and j representing the quarks produced in thehard interaction) in a kinematic region defined by invariant mass m jj >
120 GeV andtransverse momenta p Tj >
25 GeV. The cross section of the process is measured in theelectron and muon channels yielding σ EW ( Wjj ) = ± ± − < c WWW / Λ < − , − < c W / Λ <
16 TeV − , and − < c B / Λ <
46 TeV − .These results are combined with the CMS EW Zjj analysis, yielding the constraint onthe c WWW coupling : − < c WWW / Λ < − . ”Published in the European Physical Journal C as doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7585-7 .” c (cid:13) ∗ See Appendix C for the list of collaboration members a r X i v : . [ h e p - e x ] J a n In proton-proton (pp) collisions at the CERN LHC, the pure electroweak (EW) production of alepton-neutrino pair ( (cid:96) ν ) in association with two jets (jj) includes production via vector bosonfusion (VBF). This process has a distinctive signature of two jets with large energy and sep-aration in pseudorapidity ( η ), produced in association with a lepton-neutrino pair. This EWprocess is referred to as EW Wjj, and the two jets produced through the fragmentation of theoutgoing quarks are referred to as “tagging jets”.Figure 1 shows representative Feynman diagrams for the EW Wjj signal processes, namely VBF(Fig. 1, left), bremsstrahlung-like (Fig. 1, center), and multiperipheral (Fig. 1, right) production.Gauge cancellations lead to a large negative interference between the VBF diagram and theother two diagrams, with the larger interference coming from bremsstrahlung-like production.Interference with multiperipheral production is limited to cases where the lepton-neutrino pairmass is close to the W boson mass. ud + WZ + W dd ud dZ + W dd ud + WZ dd
Figure 1: Representative Feynman diagrams for lepton-neutrino production in association withtwo jets from purely electroweak amplitudes: vector boson fusion (left), bremsstrahlung-like(center), and multiperipheral (right) production.In addition to the purely EW signal diagrams described above, there are other, not purely EWprocesses, that lead to the same (cid:96) ν jj final states and can interfere with the signal diagrams inFig. 1. This interference effect between the signal production and the main Drell-Yan (DY)background processes (DY Wjj) is small compared to the interference effects among the EWproduction amplitudes, but needs to be included when measuring the signal contribution. Fig-ure 2 (left) shows one example of W boson production in association with two jets that has thesame initial and final states as those in Fig. 1. A process that does not interfere with the EWsignal is shown in Fig. 2 (right).The study of EW Wjj processes is part of a more general investigation of standard model (SM)VBF and scattering processes that includes the measurements of EW Zjj processes, Higgs bosonproduction [1–3], and searches for physics beyond the SM [4]. The properties of EW Wjj eventsthat are isolated from the backgrounds can be compared with SM predictions. Probing theadditional hadronic activity in selected events can shed light on the modeling of the additionalparton radiation [5, 6], which is important for signal selection and the vetoing of backgroundevents.Higher-dimensional operators outside the SM can generate anomalous trilinear gauge cou-plings (ATGCs) [7, 8], so the measurement of the coupling strengths provides an indirect searchfor beyond-the-SM physics at mass scales not directly accessible at the LHC.At the LHC, the EW Wjj process was first measured by the CMS Collaboration using pp col- ud dg + W dd ug dg + W dg
Figure 2: Representative diagrams for W boson production in association with two jets (DY Wjj)that constitute the main background for the measurement.lisions at √ s = √ s = √ s = √ s = √ s = √ s =
13 TeV have been performed by ATLAS [14] and by CMS [15]. Consideringleptonic final states in the same kinematic region the EW Wjj cross section is about a factor 10larger than the EW Zjj cross section. All results so far agree with the expectations of the SMwithin a precision of 10–20%.This paper presents measurements of the EW Wjj process with the CMS detector using ppcollisions collected at √ s =
13 TeV during 2016, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of35.9 fb − . A multivariate analysis (BDT), based on the methods developed for the EW Zjj mea-surement [11, 12], is used to separate signal events from the large W +jets background. Theanalysis of the 13 TeV data offers the opportunity to measure the cross section at a higher energythan previously done and to reduce the uncertainties obtained with previous measurements,given both the larger integrated luminosity and the larger predicted total cross section.This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 describes the experimental apparatus and Sec-tion 3 the event simulations. Event selection procedures are described in Section 4, togetherwith the selection efficiencies and background estimations using control regions (CRs). Sec-tion 5 describes an estimation of the multijet background from quantum chromodynamics(QCD), based on CRs in data. Section 6 discusses a correction applied to the simulation asa function of the invariant mass m jj . Section 7 presents distributions of the main discriminatingvariables in data. Section 8 details the strategy adopted to extract the signal from the data,and the corresponding systematic uncertainties are summarized in Section 9. The cross sectionand anomalous coupling results are presented in Sections 10 and 11, respectively. Section 12presents a study of the additional hadronic activity in an EW Wjj enriched region. Finally, abrief summary of the results is given in Section 13. The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6 m internal diame-ter, 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, each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. Forward calorime-ters extend the η coverage provided by the barrel and endcap detectors to | η | = 5.2. Muons are measured in gas-ionization detectors embedded in the steel flux-return yoke outside thesolenoid.The tracker measures charged particles within the range | η | < < p T <
10 GeV and | η | < p T and 25–90 (45–150) µ m inthe transverse (longitudinal) impact parameter [16].The energy of electrons is measured after combining the information from the ECAL and thetracker, whereas their direction is measured by the tracker. The momentum resolution forelectrons with p T ≈
45 GeV from Z → ee decays ranges from 1.7% to 4.5%. It is generallybetter in the barrel region than in the endcaps, and also depends on the bremsstrahlung energyemitted by the electron as it traverses the material in front of the ECAL [17].Muons are measured in the range | η | < < p T <
100 GeV of 1.3–2.0% in the barrel and better than 6% in the endcaps.The p T resolution in the barrel is better than 10% for muons with p T up to 1 TeV [18].Events of interest are selected using a two-tiered trigger system [19]. The first level (L1), com-posed of custom hardware processors, uses information from the calorimeters and muon de-tectors to select events at a rate of around 100 kHz within a time interval of less than 4 µ s. Thesecond level, known as the high-level trigger (HLT), consists of a farm of processors running aversion of the full-event reconstruction software optimized for fast processing, and reduces theevent rate to around 1 kHz before data storage.A more detailed description of the CMS detector, together with a definition of the coordinatesystem used and the relevant kinematic variables, can be found in Ref. [20]. Signal events are simulated at leading order (LO) using the M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO (v2.3.3)Monte Carlo (MC) generator [21], interfaced with
PYTHIA (v8.212) [22] for parton showering(PS) and hadronization. The NNPDF30 [23] parton distribution functions (PDFs) are used togenerate the events. The underlying event is modeled using the CUETP8M1 tune [24]. The sim-ulation does not include extra partons at matrix element (ME) level. The signal is defined inthe kinematic region with parton transverse momentum p Tj >
25 GeV, and diparton invariantmass m jj >
120 GeV. The simulated cross section for the (cid:96) ν jj final state (with (cid:96) = e, µ or τ ), ap-plying the above requirements, is σ LO ( EW (cid:96) ν jj ) = + − (scale) ± µ F ) and renormal-ization ( µ R ) scales by factors of 2 and 1/2, and the second one reflects the uncertainties in theNNPDF30 PDFs. The LO signal cross section and relevant kinematic distributions estimatedwith M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO are in agreement within 2–5% with the next-to-leading-order(NLO) predictions of the
VBFNLO generator (v2.6.3) [25–27], which include QCD NLO correc-tions to the LO ME-level diagrams evaluated with M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO . For additionalcomparisons, signal events produced with M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO are also processed withthe
HERWIG ++ (v2.7.1) [28] PS, using the EE5C [29] tune.An additional signal sample that includes NLO QCD corrections but does not include the s-channel contributions to the final state has been generated with
POWHEG (v2.0) [30–32], basedon the
VBFNLO
ME calculations [33, 34]. In the
POWHEG sample the m jj >
120 GeV condition is applied on the two p T -leading parton-level jets, after clustering the ME final state partons withthe k T -algorithm [35–37], with a distance parameter D = POWHEG sample has also been processed alternatively with
PYTHIA and
HERWIG ++ parton showering(PS) and hadronization programs, as done for the M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO samples. In thefollowing, results obtained with the
POWHEG signal samples are given as a cross check of themain results obtained with the M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO signal samples.Events coming from processes including ATGCs are generated with the same settings as theSM sample, but include additional information for reweighting in the three-dimensional effec-tive field theory (EFT) parameter space, which is described in more detail in Section 11. The’EWdim6NLO’ model [8, 21] is used for the generation of anomalous couplings.Background W boson events are also simulated with M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO using (i) anNLO ME calculation with up to three final-state partons generated from QCD interactions, and(ii) an LO ME calculation with up to four partons from QCD interactions. The ME-PS matchingis performed following the FxFx prescription [38] for the NLO case, and the MLM prescrip-tion [39, 40] for the LO case. The NLO background simulation is used to extract the finalresults, while the independent LO samples are used to perform the multivariate discriminanttraining. The inclusive W boson production is normalized to σ th ( W ) = FEWZ (v3.1) [41].The evaluation of the interference between EW Wjj and DY Wjj processes relies on the pre-dictions obtained with M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO . A dedicated sample of events arising fromthe interference terms is generated directly by selecting the contributions of order α s α , andpassed through the full detector simulation to estimate the expected interference contribution.Other backgrounds are expected from events with one electron or muon and missing transversemomentum together with jets in the final state. Events from top quark pair production aregenerated with POWHEG (v2.0) [30–32], and normalized to the inclusive cross section calculatedat NNLO, including next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic corrections, of 832 pb [42, 43]. Singletop quark processes are modeled at NLO with
POWHEG [30–32, 44] and normalized to crosssections of 71.7 ± ± ± POWHEG v1) [45], t -, and s -channel production [42, 46]. The diboson (VV) production processes (WW,WZ, and ZZ) are generated with PYTHIA and normalized to NNLO cross section computationsobtained with
MCFM (v8.0) [47].The contribution from QCD multijet processes is derived via an extrapolation from a QCD dataCR with the lepton relative isolation selection inverted. All background simulations make useof the
PYTHIA
PS model with the CUETP8M1 tune.A detector simulation based on G
EANT
Events containing exactly one isolated, high- p T lepton and at least two high- p T jets are selected.Isolated single-lepton triggers are used to acquire the data, where the lepton is required to have p T >
27 GeV for the electron trigger and p T >
24 GeV for the muon trigger.
The offline analysis uses candidates reconstructed by the particle-flow (PF) algorithm [50]. Inthe PF event reconstruction, all stable particles in the event — i.e., electrons, muons, photons,charged and neutral hadrons — are reconstructed as PF candidates using information from allsubdetectors to obtain an optimal determination of their direction, energy, and type. The PFcandidates are used to reconstruct the jets and the missing transverse momentum.The reconstructed primary vertex (PV) with the largest value of summed physics-object p isthe primary pp interaction vertex. The physics objects are the objects returned by a jet find-ing algorithm [51, 52] applied to all charged particle tracks associated with the vertex, alongwith the corresponding associated missing transverse momentum. Charged tracks identifiedas hadrons from pileup vertices are omitted in the subsequent PF event reconstruction [50].Offline electrons are reconstructed from clusters of energy deposits in the ECAL that matchtracks extrapolated from the silicon tracker [17]. Offline muons are reconstructed by fittingtrajectories based on hits in the silicon tracker and in the muon system [53]. Reconstructedelectron or muon candidates are required to have p T >
20 GeV. Electron candidates are re-quired to be reconstructed within | η | ≤ < | η | < | η | ≤ I ) variable is calculated from PF candi-dates and is corrected for pileup on an event-by-event basis [54]. The scalar p T sum of all PFcandidates reconstructed in an isolation cone with radius ∆ R = √ ( ∆ η ) + ( ∆ φ ) = p T value. For additional offline analysis, the isolated lepton is required tohave p T >
25 GeV for the muon channel and p T >
30 GeV for the electron channel. Events withmore than one lepton satisfying the above requirements are rejected. The lepton flavor samplesare exclusive and precedence is given to the selection of muons.The missing transverse momentum vector, (cid:126) p missT , is calculated offline as the negative of the vec-tor sum of transverse momenta of all PF objects identified in the event [55], and the magnitudeof this vector is denoted p missT . Events are required to have p missT in excess of 20 GeV in the muonchannel and 40 GeV in the electron channel. The tighter requirement for the electron channel re-duces the corresponding higher background of QCD multijet events. The transverse mass ( m T )of the lepton and (cid:126) p missT four-vector sum is then required to exceed 40 GeV in both channels.Jets are reconstructed by clustering PF candidates with the anti- k T algorithm [51, 56] using adistance parameter of 0.4. The jet momentum is the vector sum of all particle momenta in thejet and is typically within 5 to 10% of the true momentum over the whole p T spectrum anddetector acceptance.An offset correction is applied to jet energies because of the contribution from pileup. Jet en-ergy corrections are derived from simulation, and are confirmed with in situ measurementsof the energy balance in dijet, multijet, photon+jet, and Z+jets events with leptonic Z bosondecays [57]. Loose jet identification criteria are applied to reject misreconstructed jets resultingfrom detector noise [58]. Loose criteria are also applied to remove jets heavily contaminatedwith pileup energy (clustering of energy deposits not associated with a parton from the pri-mary pp interaction) [58, 59]. The efficiency of the jet identification is greater than 99%, witha rejection of 90% of background pileup jets with p T (cid:39)
50 GeV and | η | ≤ | η | > < p T <
50 GeV, the efficiency is approximately 90% and the pileup jet rejec- tion is approximately 50%. The jet energy resolution (JER) is typically ≈
15% at 10 GeV, 8% at100 GeV, and 4% at 1 TeV for jets with | η | ≤ p T ≥
15 GeV and | η | ≤ p T jets are defined as the tagging jets, and are required to have p T >
50 GeVand p T >
30 GeV for the leading and subleading (in p T ) jet, respectively. The invariant mass ofthe two tagging jets is required to satisfy m jj >
200 GeV.The transverse momentum of the W boson ( (cid:126) p TW ) is evaluated as the vector sum of the lepton p T and (cid:126) p missT . The event p T balance ( R ( p T )) is then defined as R ( p T ) = | (cid:126) p Tj + (cid:126) p Tj + (cid:126) p TW || (cid:126) p Tj | + | (cid:126) p Tj | + | (cid:126) p TW | (1)where (cid:126) p Tj and (cid:126) p Tj are the transverse momenta of the two tagging jets.Finally, events are required to have R ( p T ) < R ( p T ) > (cid:96) ν jj spectrum. The main discrim-inating variables are the dijet invariant mass m jj and pseudorapidity separation ∆ η jj .Angular variables useful for signal discrimination include the y ∗ Zeppenfeld variable [6], de-fined as the difference between the rapidity of the W boson y W and the average rapidity of thetwo tagging jets, i.e., y ∗ = y W − ( y j + y j ) , (2)and the z ∗ Zeppenfeld variable [6] defined as z ∗ = y ∗ ∆ y jj , (3)where ∆ y jj is the dijet rapidity separation.Table 1 reports the expected and observed event yields after the initial selection and after im-posing a minimum value for the final multivariate discriminant output applied to define thesignal-enriched region used for the studies of additional hadronic activity described in Sec-tion 12. Jets in signal events are expected to originate from quarks, whereas for background events itis more probable that jets are initiated by a gluon. A quark-gluon likelihood (QGL) discrim-inant [11] is evaluated for the two tagging jets with the intent of distinguishing the nature ofeach jet.The QGL discriminant exploits differences in the showering and fragmentation of quarks andgluons, making use of the following internal jet composition observables: (i) the particle multi-plicity of the jet, (ii) the minor root-mean-square of distance between the jet constituents in the η – φ plane, and (iii) the p T distribution function of the jet constituents, as defined in Ref. [60]. Table 1: Event yields expected for background and signal processes using the initial selectionsand with a selection on the multivariate analysis output (BDT) that provides similar signal andbackground yields. The yields are compared to the data observed in the different channels andcategories. The total uncertainties quoted for signal, DY Wjj and diboson backgrounds, andprocesses with top quarks (tt and single top quarks) include the systematic uncertainties.Sample Initial BDT > µ e µ eVV 20300 ± ±
980 11.0 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±
17 102 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±
39 17.0 ± ± ± ±
65 240 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±
78 412 ± ± ± ±
54 308 ± ±
130 407 ±
41 11.2 ± ± ± ± ±
95 726 ± The QCD multijet contribution is estimated by defining a multijet-enriched CR with invertedlepton isolation criteria for both the muon and electron channels. In the nominal selectionboth lepton types are required to pass the relative isolation requirement I < < I < < I < p missT distribution of QCD events has the same shape in both the nominaland the multijet-enriched CR.The various components, with floating W +jets and QCD multijet background scale factors, aresimultaneously fitted to the p missT data distributions, independently in the muon and electronchannels, and the expected QCD multijet yields in the nominal regions are derived.The contribution of QCD multijet processes in any other observable ( x ) used in the analysis isthen normalized to the yields obtained above from the fit to the p missT distribution, and the shapefor the distribution x is taken as the difference between data and all simulated backgroundcontributions in the x distribution in the multijet-enriched CR.The estimation of the QCD multijet contribution based on a CR in data is validated by checkingthe modeling of other variables that discriminate QCD multijets from W +jets such as the Wtransverse mass and the minimum difference in φ between the missing transerse energy andthe jets. Good agreement with the data is observed in all distributions. The stability of the W +jets fitted normalization is checked by varying the selection requirements for the fitted regionand repeating the QCD extraction fit. The observed variations in fitted normalization whenvarying the m T (W) and p missT selection requirements with respect to the fit region definition aremuch smaller than systematic uncertainties.Although b tagging is not used in this analysis, a b-tagging discriminant output [61] is usedto check the fitted W +jets background normalization as well as the tt normalization fromsimulation, and they agree with data within the uncertainties. Finally, the selections on m jj , p missT , and m T (W) are also loosened in order to verify that the W +jets background scale factoris not biased by these requirements. m jj correction A systematic overestimation of the simulation yields is caused by a partial mistiming of thesignals in the forward region of the ECAL endcaps (2.5 < | η | < m jj , is observed in both electron and muon channels. A correction forthis effect is derived in the nonoverlapping signal-depleted CR obtained by requiring that theevent transverse momentum balance R ( p T ) , defined in Section 4, exceeds 0.2.A third-order polynomial correction is first applied to the W +jets simulation separately in themuon and electron channels in order to match the R ( p T ) distribution in data. The magnitudeof the applied R ( p T ) corrections is about 10%. The uncertainty in this correction due to thelimited statistical precision of the simulation as well as data is propagated to the fitted W +jetstemplates.A correction to the m jj prediction from simulation is derived in the signal-depleted R ( p T ) > ( m jj / GeV ) . The electron and muon channels arecombined when deriving the m jj correction. The uncertainty in the correction includes thedata statistical component as well as the systematic uncertainty due to the limited statisticalprecision of the simulation.Figure 3 shows the fitted correction including the uncertainty. This correction is applied to allsimulated results, including the signal, and the corresponding uncertainty is propagated to thesignal extraction fits. Figure 4 shows the p missT and m T (W) distributions after the event preselection. The dijet invari-ant mass and pseudorapidity difference ( ∆ η jj ) after preselection are presented in Fig. 5, andFig. 6 shows the y (cid:63) and z (cid:63) distributions after the event preselection. The distributions of theQGL likelihood output values in data and simulation for the two tagging jets are shown inFig. 7. The prediction from simulated events and the data agree within total uncertainties forall discriminating variables. The EW Wjj signal is characterized by a large pseudorapidity separation between the taggingjets, due to the small-angle scattering of the two initial partons. Because of both the topologicalconfiguration and the large energy of the outgoing partons, m jj is also expected to be large, and [GeV] jj m D a t a / S i m u l a t i on Data / predictionWith MC Stat. Unc. correction jj Nominal mCorrection Uncertainty
CMS (13 TeV) -1 Figure 3: Data divided by simulation as a function of ln ( m jj / GeV ) in a signal-depleted controlsample with R ( p T ) > m jj prediction. The points are varied by theuncertainty, including the effect of the limited number of simulated events and refitted in orderto derive the systematic variations on the correction (dashed lines) corresponding to a standarddeviation (s.d.).can be used to distinguish the EW Wjj and DY Wjj processes. The correlation between ∆ η jj and m jj is expected to be different in signal and background events, therefore these characteristicsare expected to yield a high separation power between EW Wjj and DY Wjj production. Inaddition, in signal events it is expected that the W boson candidate is produced centrally in therapidity region defined by the two tagging jets. As a consequence, signal events are expectedto yield lower values of z ∗ compared to the DY background. Other variables that are used toenhance the signal-to-background separation are related to the kinematics of the event or to theproperties of the jets that are expected to be initiated by quarks. The variables that are used inthe multivariate analysis are: (i) m jj , (ii) ∆ η jj , (iii) z ∗ , and (iv) the QGL values of the two taggingjets.The output is built by training a boosted decision tree (BDT) discriminator with the TMVA package [62] to achieve an optimal separation between the EW Wjj and DY Wjj processes. Thesimulated events that are used for the BDT training are not used for the signal extraction.To improve the sensitivity for the extraction of the signal component, the transformation thatoriginally projects the BDT output value in the [ − +
1] interval is changed to BDT (cid:48) = tanh − (( BDT + ) /2 ) . This allows the purest signal region of the BDT output to be better sampled while keep-ing an equal-width binning of the BDT variable.Figure 8 shows the distributions of the discriminants for the two leptonic channels. Goodoverall agreement between simulation and data is observed in all distributions, and the signalpresence is visible at high BDT’ values.A binned maximum likelihood is built from the expected rates for each process, as a functionof the value of the discriminant, which is fit to extract the strength modifiers for the EW Wjjand DY Wjj processes, µ = σ ( EW Wjj ) / σ LO ( EW (cid:96) ν jj ) and υ = σ ( W ) / σ NNLO ( W ) . Nuisanceparameters are added to modify the expected rates and shapes according to the estimate of thesystematic uncertainties affecting the measurement. · DataEW W+jets x 30EW W+jetsW+jetstt
QCD multijett quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / G e V nmfi W · DataEW W+jets x 30EW W+jetsW+jetstt
QCD multijett quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / G e V n e fi W [GeV] missT p da t a / p r ed . [GeV] missT p da t a / p r ed . · DataEW W+jets x 30EW W+jetsW+jetstt
QCD multijett quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / G e V nmfi W · DataEW W+jets x 30EW W+jetsW+jetstt
QCD multijett quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / G e V n e fi W (W) [GeV] T m da t a / p r ed . (W) [GeV] T m da t a / p r ed . Figure 4: Distribution of the missing transverse momentum (upper) and the lepton- p missT systemtransverse mass (lower) after the event preselection for the selected leading lepton in the event,in the muon (left) and electron (right) channels. In all plots the last bin contains overflowevents.The interference between the EW Wjj and DY Wjj processes is included in the fit procedure, andits strength scales as √ µυ . The interference model is derived from the M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO simulation described in Section 3.The parameters of the model ( µ and υ ) are determined by maximizing the likelihood. Thestatistical methodology follows the one used in other analyses [63] using asymptotic formu-las [64]. In this procedure the systematic uncertainties affecting the measurement of the signaland background strengths ( µ and υ ) are constrained with log-normal probability distributions. The main systematic uncertainties affecting the measurement are classified into experimen-tal and theoretical according to their sources. Some uncertainties affect only normalizations, .1 Experimental uncertainties DataEW W+jets x 30EW W+jetsW+jetstt
QCD multijett quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / G e V nmfi W DataEW W+jets x 30EW W+jetsW+jetstt
QCD multijett quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / G e V n e fi W [GeV] jj m da t a / p r ed . [GeV] jj m da t a / p r ed . DataEW W+jets x 30EW W+jetsW+jetstt
QCD multijett quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / . nmfi W DataEW W+jets x 30EW W+jetsW+jetstt
QCD multijett quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / . G e V n e fi W (jj) hD da t a / p r ed . (jj) hD da t a / p r ed . Figure 5: Dijet invariant mass (upper) and pseudorapidity difference (lower) distributions afterthe event preselection, in the muon (left) and electron (right) channels. In all plots the last bincontains overflow events.whereas others affect both the normalization and shape of the BDT output distribution.
The following experimental uncertainties are considered.
Integrated luminosity.
A 2.5% uncertainty is assigned to the value of the integrated luminos-ity [65].
Trigger and selection efficiencies.
Uncertainties in the efficiency corrections based on controlsamples in data for the leptonic trigger and offline selections are included and amount toa total of 2–3% depending on the lepton p T and η , for both the e and µ channels. Theseuncertainties are estimated by comparing the lepton efficiencies expected in simulationand measured in data with a “tag-and-probe” method [66]. -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5100200300400500 · DataEW W+jets x 30EW W+jetsW+jetstt
QCD multijett quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / . nmfi W -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 550100150200250 · DataEW W+jets x 30EW W+jetsW+jetstt
QCD multijett quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / . n e fi W y*(W) -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 da t a / p r ed . y*(W) -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 da t a / p r ed . · DataEW W+jets x 30EW W+jetsW+jetstt
QCD multijett quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / . nmfi W · DataEW W+jets x 30EW W+jetsW+jetstt
QCD multijett quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / . n e fi W z*(W) da t a / p r ed . z*(W) da t a / p r ed . Figure 6: Distributions of the “Zeppenfeld” variables y (cid:63) (W) (upper) and z (cid:63) (W) (lower) afterevent preselection in the muon (left) and electron (right) channels. In all plots the first and lastbins contain overflow events. Jet energy scale and resolution.
The uncertainty in the energy of the jets affects the event se-lection and the computation of the kinematic variables used to calculate the discrimi-nants. Therefore, the uncertainty in the jet energy scale (JES) affects both the expectedevent yields and the final shapes. The effect of the JES uncertainty is studied by rescalingup and down the reconstructed jet energy by p T - and η -dependent scale factors [57]. Ananalogous approach is used for the JER. QGL discriminator.
The uncertainty in the performance of the QGL discriminator is measuredusing independent Z +jet and dijet data, after comparing with the corresponding simula-tion predictions [60]. Shape variations corresponding to the full differences between thedata and the simulation are used as estimates of the uncertainty.
Pileup.
Pileup can affect the identification and isolation of the leptons or the corrected energyof the jets. When the jet clustering algorithm is run, pileup can distort the reconstructed .1 Experimental uncertainties · DataEW W+jets x 30EW W+jetsW+jetstt
QCD multijett quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / . nmfi W · DataEW W+jets x 30EW W+jetsW+jetstt
QCD multijett quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / . n e fi W Leading jet QGL da t a / p r ed . Leading jet QGL da t a / p r ed . · DataEW W+jets x 30EW W+jetsW+jetstt
QCD multijett quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / . nmfi W · DataEW W+jets x 30EW W+jetsW+jetstt
QCD multijett quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / . n e fi W Subleading jet QGL da t a / p r ed . Subleading jet QGL da t a / p r ed . Figure 7: The QGL output for the leading (upper) and subleading (lower) quark jet candidatesin the preselected muon (left) and electron (right) samples.dijet system because of the contamination of tracks and calorimetric deposits. This un-certainty is evaluated by generating alternative distributions of the number of pileupinteractions, corresponding to a 4.6% uncertainty in the total inelastic pp cross section at √ s =
13 TeV [67].
Limited number of simulated events.
For each signal and background simulation, shape vari-ations for the distributions are considered by shifting the content of each bin up or downby its statistical uncertainty [68]. This generates alternatives to the nominal shape thatare used to describe the uncertainty from the limited number of simulated events. m jj correction. As described in Section 6, the m jj prediction from simulation is corrected tomatch the distribution in data in a signal-depleted R ( p T ) > QCD multijet background template.
As described in Section 5, the QCD multijet prediction is E n t r i e s / . -1
10 110 DataEW W+jetsW+jetstt t quarkQCD multijetVVZ+jetsInterference
CMS (13 TeV) -1 BDT'0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 ( da t a / p r ed . ) - -0.2-0.100.10.20.3 Jet energy scale unc.Quark-gluon likelihood reweighting unc. F m QCD scale: R m QCD scale: correction unc. jj m E n t r i e s / . -1
10 110 DataEW W+jetsW+jetstt t quarkQCD multijetVVZ+jetsInterference
CMS (13 TeV) -1 BDT'0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 ( da t a / p r ed . ) - -0.2-0.100.10.20.3 Jet energy scale unc.Quark-gluon likelihood reweighting unc. F m QCD scale: R m QCD scale: correction unc. jj m Figure 8: Data and MC simulation BDT’ output distributions for the muon (left) and electron(right) channels, using the BDT output transformed with the tanh − function to enhance thepurest signal region. The ratio panel shows the statistical uncertainty from the simulation aswell as the independent systematic uncertainties front the leading sources.extrapolated from the data in a nonoverlapping CR. The uncertainty in the QCD multijetbackground template shape is derived by taking the envelope of the shape obtained whenvarying the lepton isolation requirement used to define the multijet-enriched CR. A 50%uncertainty in the QCD multijet background normalization is also included. The following theoretical uncertainties are considered in the analysis.
PDF.
The PDF uncertainties are evaluated by comparing the nominal distributions to thoseobtained when using the alternative PDFs of the NNPDF set, including α s variations. Factorization and renormalization scales.
To account for theoretical uncertainties, signal andbackground shape variations are built by changing the values of µ F and µ R from theirdefaults by factors of 2 or 1/2 in the ME calculation, simultaneously for µ F and µ R , butindependently for each simulated sample. Signal acceptance.
A 5% uncertainty on the signal yield is assigned to account for differencesbetween the prediction for the LO signal with respect to the NLO predictions of the
VBFNLO generator (v2.6.3).
Normalization of top quark and diboson backgrounds.
Diboson and top quark productionprocesses are modeled with MC simulations. An uncertainty in the normalization ofthese backgrounds is assigned based on the PDF and µ F , µ R uncertainties, following cal-culations in Refs. [42, 43, 47]. Interference between EW Wjj and DY Wjj.
An overall normalization and a shape uncertaintyare assigned to the interference term in the fit, based on an envelope of predictions withdifferent µ F , µ R scales. Parton showering model.
The uncertainty in the PS model and the event tune is assessed asthe full difference of the acceptance and shape predictions using
PYTHIA and
HERWIG ++. R ( p T ) correction. As described in Section 6, the R ( p T ) prediction from W +jets simulation iscorrected to match the distribution in data with all expected contributions other than W+jets subtracted. The uncertainty in this correction is derived by varying the fitted pointswithin the statistical uncertainty from data and simulation combined and refitting thecorrection.
10 Measurement of the EW W jj production cross section The signal strength, defined with the (cid:96) ν jj final state in the kinematic region described in Sec-tion 3, is extracted from the fit to the BDT output distribution as discussed in Section 8. Figure9 shows the BDT distribution in the muon and electron channels for data and simulation afterthe fit, where the grey uncertainty band includes all systematic uncertainties. Good agreementis observed between the data and simulation within the uncertainties. E n t r i e s / . -1 CMS (13 TeV) -1 DataEW W+jetsW+jetstt t quarkQCD multijetVVZ+jetsInterference
BDT'0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 ( da t a / p r ed . ) - -0.2-0.100.10.2 total uncertainty (syst. + stat.) E n t r i e s / . -1 CMS (13 TeV) -1 DataEW W+jetsW+jetstt t quarkQCD multijetVVZ+jetsInterference
BDT'0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 ( da t a / p r ed . ) - -0.2-0.100.10.2 total uncertainty (syst. + stat.) Figure 9: Data compared with simulation for the BDT’ output distribution for the muon (left)and electron (right) channels, after the fit. The grey uncertainty band in the ratio panel includesall systematic uncertainties.In the muon channel, the signal strength is measured to be µ = ± ± = ± σ ( EW (cid:96) ν jj ) = ± ± = ± µ = ± ± = ± σ ( EW (cid:96) ν jj ) = ± ± = ± The results obtained for the different lepton channels are compatible with each other, and inagreement with the SM predictions.From the combined fit of the two channels, the signal strength is measured to be µ = ± ± = ± σ ( EW (cid:96) ν jj ) = ± ± = ± AD G RAPH MC @ NLO
LO prediction σ LO ( EW (cid:96) ν jj ) = + − (scale) ± ν = ± µ .The largest sources of experimental uncertainty are the m jj correction, the JES, and the limitednumber of simulated events, while the largest sources of theoretical uncertainty are the µ F , µ R scale uncertainties and the uncertainty in the signal acceptance, derived by comparing the LOsignal prediction with the prediction from the VBFNLO generator.Table 2: Major sources of uncertainty in the measurement of the signal strength µ , and theirimpact. The total uncertainty is separated into four components: statistical, number of simu-lated events, experimental, and theory. The experimental and theory components are furtherdecomposed into their primary individual uncertainty sources.Uncertainty source ∆ µ Statistical + − + − + − + − + − m jj correction + − + − < + − + − + − + − + − + − µ NLO = ± ± = ± µ NLO = ± ± = ± µ NLO = ± ± = ± σ ( EW (cid:96) ν jj ) = ± ± = ± POWHEG
NLO prediction σ NLO ( EW (cid:96) ν jj ) = + − (scale) ±
11 Limits on anomalous gauge couplings
It is useful to look for signs of new physics via a model-independent EFT framework. In theframework of EFT, new physics can be described as an infinite series of new interaction termsorganized as an expansion in the mass dimension of the operators.In the EW sector of the SM, the first higher-dimensional operators containing bosons are six-dimensional [8]: O WWW = c WWW Λ W µν W νρ W µρ , O W = c W Λ ( D µ Φ ) † W µν ( D ν Φ ) , O B = c B Λ ( D µ Φ ) † B µν ( D ν Φ ) , (cid:101) O WWW = (cid:101) c WWW Λ (cid:101) W µν W νρ W µρ , (cid:101) O W = (cid:101) c W Λ ( D µ Φ ) † (cid:101) W µν ( D ν Φ ) , (4)where, as is customary, group indices are suppressed and the mass scale Λ is factorized fromthe coupling constants c . In Eq. (4), W µν is the SU(2) field strength, B µν is the U(1) field strength, Φ is the Higgs doublet, and operators with a tilde are the magnetic duals of the field strengths.The first three operators are charge and parity conserving, whereas the last two are not. Modelswith operators that preserve charge conjugation and parity symmetries can be included in thecalculation either individually or in pairs. With these assumptions, the values of couplingconstants divided by the mass scale c / Λ are measured.These operators have a rich phenomenology since they contribute to many multiboson scat-tering processes at tree level. The operator O WWW modifies vertices with three or six vectorbosons, whereas the operators O W and O B modify both the HVV vertices and vertices withthree or four vector bosons. A more detailed description of the phenomenology of these oper-ators can be found in Ref. [69]. Modifications to the ZWW and γ WW vertices are investigatedin this analysis, since these modify the pp → Wjj cross section.Previously, modifications to these vertices have been studied using anomalous trilinear gaugecouplings [70]. The relationship between the dimension-six operators in Eq. (4) and ATGCscan be found in Ref. [8]. Most stringent limits on ATGC parameters were previously set byLEP [71], CDF [72], D0 [73], ATLAS [74, 75], and CMS [76, 77]. The measurement of the coupling constants uses templates in the p T of the lepton from the W → (cid:96) ν decay. Because this is well measured and longitudinally Lorentz invariant, this vari-able is robust against mismodeling and ideal for this purpose. An additional requirement ofBDT > < p (cid:96) T < × × ( c WWW / Λ ) ( c W / Λ ) ( c B / Λ ) . Equal bins are used in the interval [ −
15, 15 ] TeV − for c WWW / Λ , [ −
40, 40 ] TeV − for c W / Λ , and equal bins in the interval [ − ] TeV − for c B / Λ .To construct the p (cid:96) T templates, the associated weights calculated for each event are used to con-struct a parametrized model of the expected yield in each bin as a function of the values ofthe dimension-six operators’ coupling constants. For each bin, the ratios of the expected signalyield with dimension-six operators to the one without (leaving only the SM contribution) arefitted at each point of the grid to a quadratic polynomial. The highest p (cid:96) T bin has the largeststatistical power to detect the presence of higher-dimensional operators. Figure 10 shows ex-amples of the final templates, with the expected signal overlaid on the background expectation,for three different hypotheses of dimension-six operators. The SM distribution is normalizedto the expected cross section.A simultaneous binned fit for the values of the ATGCs is performed in the two lepton channels.A profile likelihood method, the Wald Gaussian approximation, and Wilks’ theorem [78] areused to derive confidence intervals at 95% confidence level (CL). One-dimensional and two-dimensional limits are derived on each of the three ATGC parameters and each combinationof two ATGC parameters while all other parameters are set to their SM values. Systematicand theoretical uncertainties are represented by the individual nuisance parameters with log-normal distributions and are profiled in the fit. No significant deviation from the SM expectation is observed. Limits on the EFT param-eters are reported and also translated into the equivalent parameters defined in an effec-tive Lagrangian (LEP parametrization) in Ref. [79], without form factors: λ γ = λ Z = λ , ∆ κ Z = ∆ g Z1 − ∆ κ γ tan θ W . The parameters λ , ∆ κ Z , and ∆ g Z1 are considered, where the ∆ symbols represent deviations from their respective SM values.Results for the one-dimensional limits are listed in Table 3 for c WWW , c W and c B , and in Table 4for λ , ∆ g Z1 and ∆ κ Z1 ; two-dimensions limits are shown in Figs. 11 and 12. The results aredominated by the sensitivity in the muon channel due to the larger acceptance for muons. AnATGC signal is not included in the interference between EW and DY production. The effect onthe limits is small ( < c WWW / Λ and c W / Λ , while the WW analysis using 8 TeV datacurrently sets the tightest limits on c B / Λ . This analysis is most sensitive to c WWW / Λ , wherethe limit is slightly less restrictive but comparable. E v en t s -1
10 110 CMS (13 TeV) -1 DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttt quarkQCD multijet
VVZ+jetsInterference=7.5
ATGC c =20 w ATGC c =87.5 b ATGC c ) [GeV] m ( T p0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 ( da t a / p r ed . ) - -0.500.5 Jet energy scale unc.Quark-gluon likelihood reweighting unc. F m QCD scale: R m QCD scale: correction unc. jj M E v en t s -1
10 110 CMS (13 TeV) -1 DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttt quarkQCD multijet
VVZ+jetsInterference=7.5
ATGC c =20 w ATGC c =87.5 b ATGC c (e) [GeV] T p0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 ( da t a / p r ed . ) - -0.500.5 Jet energy scale unc.Quark-gluon likelihood reweighting unc. F m QCD scale: R m QCD scale: correction unc. jj M Figure 10: Distributions of p (cid:96) T in data and SM backgrounds, and various ATGC scenarios in themuon (left) and electron (right) channels, before the fit. For each ATGC scenario plotted a par-ticular parameter is varied while the other ATGC parameters are fixed to zero. The lower pan-els show the ratio between data and prediction minus one with the statistical uncertainty fromsimulation (grey hatched band) as well as the leading systematic uncertainties in the shape ofthe p (cid:96) T distribution.Table 3: One-dimensional limits on the ATGC EFT parameters at 95% CL.Coupling constant Expected 95% CL interval (TeV − ) Observed 95% CL interval (TeV − ) c WWW / Λ [ − ] [ − ] c W / Λ [ −
16, 19 ] [ − ] c B / Λ [ −
62, 61 ] [ −
45, 46 ] Table 4: One-dimensional limits on the ATGC effective Lagrangian (LEP parametrization) pa-rameters at 95% CL.Coupling constant Expected 95% CL interval Observed 95% CL interval λ Z [ − ] [ − ] ∆ g Z [ − ] [ − ] ∆ κ Z [ − ] [ − ] ] -2 [TeV L / W c -20 0 20 ] - [ T e V L / B c -1000100 Expected 68% CLExpected 95% CLExpected 99% CLObserved 95% CL = 13 TeVs, -1 L = 35.9 fbCMS ] -2 [TeV L / WWW c -4 -2 0 2 4 ] - [ T e V L / B c -1000100 Expected 68% CLExpected 95% CLExpected 99% CLObserved 95% CL = 13 TeVs, -1 L = 35.9 fbCMS ] -2 [TeV L / WWW c -4 -2 0 2 4 ] - [ T e V L / W c -20020 Expected 68% CLExpected 95% CLExpected 99% CLObserved 95% CL = 13 TeVs, -1 L = 35.9 fbCMS
Figure 11: Expected and observed two-dimensional limits on the EFT parameters at 95% CL. Z1 g D -0.1 0 0.1 Z l -0.02-0.0100.010.02 Expected 68% CLExpected 95% CLExpected 99% CLObserved 95% CL = 13 TeVs, -1 L = 35.9 fbCMS Z1 g D -0.1 0 0.1 Z kD -0.100.1 Expected 68% CLExpected 95% CLExpected 99% CLObserved 95% CL = 13 TeVs, -1 L = 35.9 fbCMS Z l -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 Z kD -0.100.1 Expected 68% CLExpected 95% CLExpected 99% CLObserved 95% CL = 13 TeVs, -1 L = 35.9 fbCMS
Figure 12: Expected and observed two-dimensional limits on the ATGC effective Lagrangian(LEP parametrization) parameters at 95% CL. As mentioned in Section 1, the closely-related EW Zjj process has been measured by CMS at √ s =
13 TeV [15]. This result included constraints on ATGC EFT parameters obtained via a fitto the p T (Z) distribution, an experimentally clean observable sensitive to deviations from zeroin the ATGC parameters. Both the EW Zjj and EW Wjj analyses are sensitive to anomalouscouplings related to the WWZ vertex. A simultaneous binned likelihood fit for the ATGCparameters is performed to the p T (Z) distribution in the EW Zjj production and and p (cid:96) T inthe EW Wjj production. In the combined fit, the primary uncertainty sources are correlatedincluding the JES and JER uncertainties. Results for the one-dimensional limits are listed inTable 5 for c WWW , c W and c B , and in Table 6 for λ , ∆ g Z1 , and ∆ κ Z1 ; two-dimensions limits areshown in Figs. 13 and 14.Table 5: One-dimensional limits on the ATGC EFT parameters at 95% CL from the combinationof EW Wjj and EW Zjj analyses.Coupling constant Expected 95% CL interval (TeV − ) Observed 95% CL interval (TeV − ) c WWW / Λ [ − ] [ − ] c W / Λ [ −
11, 14 ] [ − ] c B / Λ [ −
61, 61 ] [ −
43, 45 ] Table 6: One-dimensional limits on the ATGC effective Lagrangian (LEP parametrization) pa-rameters at 95% CL from the combination of EW Wjj and EW Zjj analyses.Coupling constant Expected 95% CL interval Observed 95% CL interval λ Z [ − ] [ − ] ∆ g Z [ − ] [ − ] ∆ κ Z [ − ] [ − ]
12 Study of the hadronic and jet activity in W +jet events
Having established the presence of the SM signal, the properties of the hadronic activity in theselected events can be examined, in particular in the the region in rapidity between the twotagging jets, with low expected hadron activity (rapidity gap). The production of additionaljets in the rapidity gap, in a region with a larger contribution of EW Wjj processes is exploredin Section 12.1. Studies of the rapidity gap hadronic activity using track-only observables, arepresented in Section 12.2. Finally, a study of hadronic activity vetoes, using both PF jets andtrack-only observables, is presented in Section 12.3. A significant suppression of the hadronicactivity in signal events is expected because the final-state objects originate from EW interac-tions, in contrast with the radiative QCD production of jets in DY Wjj events.In all these studies, event distributions are shown with a selection on the output value atBDT > > ] -2 [TeV L / W c -20 0 20 ] - [ T e V L / B c -1000100 Expected 68% CLExpected 95% CLExpected 99% CLObserved 95% CL = 13 TeVs, -1 L = 35.9 fbCMS ] -2 [TeV L / WWW c -4 -2 0 2 4 ] - [ T e V L / B c -1000100 Expected 68% CLExpected 95% CLExpected 99% CLObserved 95% CL = 13 TeVs, -1 L = 35.9 fbCMS ] -2 [TeV L / WWW c -4 -2 0 2 4 ] - [ T e V L / W c -20020 Expected 68% CLExpected 95% CLExpected 99% CLObserved 95% CL = 13 TeVs, -1 L = 35.9 fbCMS
Figure 13: Expected and observed two-dimensional limits on the EFT parameters at 95% CLfrom the combination of EW Wjj and EW Zjj analyses. Z1 g D -0.1 0 0.1 Z l -0.02-0.0100.010.02 Expected 68% CLExpected 95% CLExpected 99% CLObserved 95% CL = 13 TeVs, -1 L = 35.9 fbCMS Z1 g D -0.1 0 0.1 Z kD -0.100.1 Expected 68% CLExpected 95% CLExpected 99% CLObserved 95% CL = 13 TeVs, -1 L = 35.9 fbCMS Z l -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 Z kD -0.100.1 Expected 68% CLExpected 95% CLExpected 99% CLObserved 95% CL = 13 TeVs, -1 L = 35.9 fbCMS
Figure 14: Expected and observed two-dimensional limits on the ATGC effective Lagrangian(LEP parametrization) parameters at 95% CL from the combination of EW Wjj and EW Zjjanalyses. For this study, aside from the two tagging jets used in the preselection, all PF jets with p T >
15 GeV found within the pseudorapidity gap of the tagging jets, η tag jetmin < η < η tag jetmax , are used.For the estimation of the background contributions, the normalizations obtained from the fitdiscussed in Section 10 are used.The p T of the leading additional jet in Wjj events, as well as the scalar p T sum ( H T ) of alladditional jets, are shown in Figs. 15 and 16, comparing data and simulations including thesignal prediction from M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO interfaced with either
PYTHIA or HERWIG ++parton showering. The comparison reveals a deficit in the simulation predictions with
PYTHIA parton showering for the rate of events with lower additional jet activity, whereas the tail ofhigher additional activity is generally in better agreement.A suppression of additional jets is observed in data compared with the background-only sim-ulation shapes. In the simulation of the signal, the additional jets are produced by the PS (seeSection 3), so studying these distributions provides insight on the PS model in the rapidity gapregion.
For this study, a collection is formed of high-purity tracks [80] with p T > z -distance between the PV and the point of closest approach of the track helix to the PV,labeled d PV z . The association is required to satisfy the conditions d PV z < d PV z < δ d PV z ,where δ d PV z is the uncertainty in d PV z .A collection of “soft-track” jets is defined by clustering the selected tracks using the anti- k T clustering algorithm [51] with a distance parameter of R = p T and within η tag jetmin < η < η tag jetmax are considered for the study of the hadronicactivity between the tagging jets, and referred to as “soft activity” (SA). For each event, thescalar p T sum of the soft-track jets with p T > H T ” variable. Figures 17 and 18 show the distribution of the leading soft-track jet p T and soft H T in the signal-enriched region (BDT > PYTHIA and
HERWIG ++ PS models. The plots show some disagreementbetween the data and the predictions, in particular in the regions of small additional activity,when compared with the
PYTHIA predictions.
The efficiency of a hadronic activity veto corresponds to the fraction of events with a measuredgap activity below a given threshold. This efficiency is studied as a function of the appliedthreshold for various gap activity observables. The veto thresholds studied here start at 15 GeVfor gap activities measured with standard PF jets, while they go down to 1 GeV for gap activitiesmeasured with soft-track jets.Figure 19 shows the gap activity veto efficiency of combined muon and electron events in the DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / G e V nmfi W BDT > 0.95PYTHIA8 PS
DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / G e V n e fi W BDT > 0.95PYTHIA8 PS (j3) [GeV] T p da t a / p r ed . (j3) [GeV] T p da t a / p r ed . DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / G e V nmfi W BDT > 0.95HERWIG++ PS
DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / G e V n e fi W BDT > 0.95HERWIG++ PS (j3) [GeV] T p da t a / p r ed . (j3) [GeV] T p da t a / p r ed . Figure 15: Leading additional jet p T ( p T (j3)) for BDT > AD G RAPH MC @ NLO interfaced with
PYTHIA parton showering (upper) and
HERWIG ++ parton showering (lower). In all plots thelast bin contains overflow events, and the first bin contains events where no additional jet with p T >
15 GeV is present.signal-enriched region when placing an upper threshold on the p T of the additional third jet,on the H T of all additional jets, on the leading soft-activity jet p T , or on the soft-activity H T . Theobserved efficiency in data is compared to expected efficiencies for background-only events,and efficiencies for background plus signal events where the signal is modeled with PYTHIA or HERWIG ++. Data points clearly disfavor the background-only predictions and are in reasonableagreement with the presence of the signal with the
HERWIG ++ PS predictions for gap activitiesabove 20 GeV, while the signal with
PYTHIA
PS seems to generally overestimate the gap activity.In the events with very low gap activity, in particular below 10 GeV as measured with thesoft track jets, the data indicates gap activities also below the
HERWIG ++ PS predictions. Inaddition, the expected efficiencies are included for background plus signal events where thesignal is modeled with
POWHEG (Sec. 3) with
HERWIG ++ PS. The
POWHEG plus
HERWIG ++ DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / G e V nmfi W BDT > 0.95PYTHIA8 PS
DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / G e V n e fi W BDT > 0.95PYTHIA8 PS [GeV] T Add. Jet H da t a / p r ed . [GeV] T Add. Jet H da t a / p r ed . DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / G e V nmfi W BDT > 0.95HERWIG++ PS
DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / G e V n e fi W BDT > 0.95HERWIG++ PS [GeV] T Add. Jet H da t a / p r ed . [GeV] T Add. Jet H da t a / p r ed . Figure 16: Total H T of the additional jets for BDT > AD G RAPH MC @ NLO interfaced with
PYTHIA parton showering (upper) and
HERWIG ++ parton showering (lower). In all plots the last bincontains overflow events, and the first bin contains events where no additional jet with p T >
15 GeV is present.prediction is in good agreement with the LO plus
HERWIG ++ prediction.
13 Summary
The cross section of the electroweak production of a W boson in association with two jets ismeasured in the kinematic region defined as invariant mass m jj >
120 GeV and transverse mo-menta p Tj >
25 GeV. The data sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb − ofproton-proton collisions at centre-of-mass energy √ s =
13 TeV recorded by the CMS Collab-oration at the LHC. The measured cross section σ EW ( Wjj ) = ± ± √ s =
13 TeV. DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / G e V nmfi W BDT > 0.95PYTHIA8 PS
DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / G e V n e fi W BDT > 0.95PYTHIA8 PS (SA jet) [GeV] T p da t a / p r ed . (SA jet) [GeV] T p da t a / p r ed . DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / G e V nmfi W BDT > 0.95HERWIG++ PS
DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / G e V n e fi W BDT > 0.95HERWIG++ PS (SA jet) [GeV] T p da t a / p r ed . (SA jet) [GeV] T p da t a / p r ed . Figure 17: Leading additional soft-activity (SA) jet p T for BDT > AD G RAPH MC @ NLO inter-faced with
PYTHIA parton showering (upper) and
HERWIG ++ parton showering (lower).A search is performed for anomalous trilinear gauge couplings associated with dimension-sixoperators as given in the framework of an effective field theory. No evidence for ATGCs isfound, and the corresponding 95% confidence level intervals on the dimension-six operatorsare − < c WWW / Λ < − , − < c W / Λ <
16 TeV − , and − < c B / Λ <
46 TeV − .These results are combined with previous results on the electroweak production of a Z bosonin association with two jets, yielding the limit on the c WWW coupling − < c WWW / Λ < − .The additional hadronic activity, as well as the efficiencies for gap activity vetos, are studied ina signal-enriched region. Generally reasonable agreement is found between the data and thequantum chromodynamics predictions with the HERWIG ++ parton shower and hadronizationmodel, while the
PYTHIA model predictions typically show greater activity in the rapidity gapbetween the two tagging jets. DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / G e V nmfi W BDT > 0.95PYTHIA8 PS
DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / G e V n e fi W BDT > 0.95PYTHIA8 PS (SA) [GeV] T H da t a / p r ed . (SA) [GeV] T H da t a / p r ed . DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / G e V nmfi W BDT > 0.95HERWIG++ PS
DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / G e V n e fi W BDT > 0.95HERWIG++ PS (SA) [GeV] T H da t a / p r ed . (SA) [GeV] T H da t a / p r ed . Figure 18: Total soft activity (SA) jet H T for BDT > AD G RAPH MC @ NLO interfaced with
PYTHIA parton showering (upper) and
HERWIG ++ parton showering (lower). In all plots the last bincontains overflow events.
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 Gridfor delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our analyses. Finally,we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction and operation of the LHC and theCMS detector provided by the following funding agencies: BMBWF and FWF (Austria); FNRSand FWO (Belgium); CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, FAPERGS, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria);CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croa-tia); RPF (Cyprus); SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC IUT, and ERDF (Estonia); Academy ofFinland, MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF [GeV] T Third jet p G a p ve t o e ff i c i e n cy CMS + e events: BDT > 0.95 m (13 TeV) -1 DataBackground-onlyBackground + EW Wjj (MG5_aMC LO + Pythia8)Background + EW Wjj (MG5_aMC LO + Herwig++)Background + EWK Wjj (POWHEG NLO + Herwig++) [GeV] T H G a p ve t o e ff i c i e n cy CMS + e events: BDT > 0.95 m (13 TeV) -1 DataBackground-onlyBackground + EW Wjj (MG5_aMC LO + Pythia8)Background + EW Wjj (MG5_aMC LO + Herwig++)Background + EWK Wjj (POWHEG NLO + Herwig++) [GeV] T Leading soft jet p G a p ve t o e ff i c i e n cy CMS + e events: BDT > 0.95 m (13 TeV) -1 DataBackground-onlyBackground + EW Wjj (MG5_aMC LO + Pythia8)Background + EW Wjj (MG5_aMC LO + Herwig++)Background + EWK Wjj (POWHEG NLO + Herwig++) [GeV] T Soft H G a p ve t o e ff i c i e n cy CMS + e events: BDT > 0.95 m (13 TeV) -1 DataBackground-onlyBackground + EWK Wjj (MG5_aMC LO + Pythia8)Background + EWK Wjj (MG5_aMC LO + Herwig++)Background + EWK Wjj (POWHEG NLO + Herwig++)
Figure 19: Hadronic activity veto efficiencies in the signal-enriched BDT > p T (upperleft), additional jet H T (upper right), leading soft-activity jet p T (lower left), and soft-activity jet H T (lower right). The data are compared with the background-only prediction as well as back-ground+signal with PYTHIA parton showering and background+signal with
HERWIG ++ partonshowering. In addition, the background+signal prediction from
POWHEG plus
HERWIG ++ par-ton showering is included. The uncertainty bands include only the statistical uncertainty in theprediction from simulation, and the data points include only the statistical uncertainty in data.(Germany); GSRT (Greece); NKFIA (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM (Iran); SFI (Ireland);INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); MES (Latvia); LAS (Lithuania); MOE and UM(Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT, LNS, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MOS (Mon-tenegro); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC (Poland); FCT (Portugal);JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom, RAS, RFBR, and NRC KI (Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI,CPAN, PCTI, and FEDER (Spain); MOSTR (Sri Lanka); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland);MST (Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR, and NSTDA (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey);NASU and SFFR (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA). eferences Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie program and the European ResearchCouncil and Horizon 2020 Grant, contract Nos. 675440 and 765710 (European Union); theLeventis Foundation; the A.P. Sloan Foundation; the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation;the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office; the Fonds pour la Formation `a la Recherche dansl’Industrie et dans l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door Weten-schap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the F.R.S.-FNRS and FWO (Belgium) under the “Excel-lence of Science – EOS” – be.h project n. 30820817; the Beijing Municipal Science & TechnologyCommission, No. Z181100004218003; the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS)of the Czech Republic; the Lend ¨ulet (“Momentum”) Program and the J´anos Bolyai ResearchScholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the New National Excellence Program´UNKP, the NKFIA research grants 123842, 123959, 124845, 124850, 125105, 128713, 128786,and 129058 (Hungary); the Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; the HOMINGPLUS program of the Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from European Union, Re-gional Development Fund, the Mobility Plus program of the Ministry of Science and HigherEducation, the National Science Center (Poland), contracts Harmonia 2014/14/M/ST2/00428,Opus 2014/13/B/ST2/02543, 2014/15/B/ST2/03998, and 2015/19/B/ST2/02861, Sonata-bis2012/07/E/ST2/01406; the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National ResearchFund; the Programa Estatal de Fomento de la Investigaci ´on Cient´ıfica y T´ecnica de ExcelenciaMar´ıa de Maeztu, grant MDM-2015-0509 and the Programa Severo Ochoa del Principado deAsturias; the Thalis and Aristeia programs cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; theRachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University and theChulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century Project Advancement Project (Thailand); theWelch Foundation, contract C-1845; and the Weston Havens Foundation (USA).
References [1] ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a new particle in the search for the standardmodel Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”,
Phys. Lett. B (2012) 1, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020 , arXiv:1207.7214 .[2] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMSexperiment at the LHC”, Phys. Lett. B (2012) 30, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021 , arXiv:1207.7235 .[3] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in ppcollisions at √ s = 7 and 8 TeV”, JHEP (2013) 081, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2013)081 , arXiv:1303.4571 .[4] G.-C. Cho et al., “Weak boson fusion production of supersymmetric particles at theCERN LHC”, Phys. Rev. D (2006) 054002, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.054002 , arXiv:hep-ph/0601063 .[5] J. D. Bjorken, “Rapidity gaps and jets as a new physics signature in very high-energyhadron hadron collisions”, Phys. Rev. D (1993) 101, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.47.101 .[6] F. Schissler and D. Zeppenfeld, “Parton shower effects on W and Z production via vectorboson fusion at NLO QCD”, JHEP (2013) 057, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2013)057 , arXiv:1302.2884 . [7] K. Hagiwara, S. Ishihara, R. Szalapski, and D. Zeppenfeld, “Low-energy effects of newinteractions in the electroweak boson sector”, Phys. Rev. D (1993) 2182, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.48.2182 .[8] C. Degrande et al., “Effective field theory: A modern approach to anomalous couplings”, Annals Phys. (2013) 21, doi:10.1016/j.aop.2013.04.016 , arXiv:1205.4231 .[9] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of electroweak production of a W boson and twoforward jets in proton-proton collisions at √ s = JHEP (2016) 147, doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2016)147 , arXiv:1607.06975 .[10] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurements of electroweak W jj production and constraints onanomalous gauge couplings with the ATLAS detector”,
Eur. Phys. J. C (2017) 474, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5007-2 , arXiv:1703.04362 .[11] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the hadronic activity in events with a Z and twojets and extraction of the cross section for the electroweak production of a Z with two jetsin pp collisions at √ s = 7 TeV”, JHEP (2013) 062, doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2013)062 , arXiv:1305.7389 .[12] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of electroweak production of two jets in associationwith a Z boson in proton-proton collisions at √ s = Eur. Phys. J. C (2015) 66, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3232-5 , arXiv:1410.3153 .[13] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the electroweak production of dijets inassociation with a Z boson and distributions sensitive to vector boson fusion inproton-proton collisions at √ s = 8 TeV using the ATLAS detector”, JHEP (2014) 031, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2014)031 , arXiv:1401.7610 .[14] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the cross-section for electroweak production ofdijets in association with a Z boson in pp collisions at √ s = 13 TeV with the ATLASdetector”, Phys. Lett. B (2017) 206, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.10.040 , arXiv:1709.10264 .[15] CMS Collaboration, “Electroweak production of two jets in association with a Z boson inproton-proton collisions at √ s =
13 TeV”,
Eur. Phys. J. C (2018) 589, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6049-9 , arXiv:1712.09814 .[16] 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 .[17] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMSdetector in proton-proton collisions at √ s = JINST (2015) P06005, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/10/06/P06005 , arXiv:1502.02701 .[18] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstructionwith proton-proton collisions at √ s =
13 TeV”,
JINST (2018) P06015, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/P06015 , arXiv:1804.04528 .[19] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”, JINST (2017) P01020, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020 , arXiv:1609.02366 .[20] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”, JINST (2008) S08004, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004 . eferences [21] J. Alwall et al., “The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading orderdifferential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations”, JHEP (2014) 079, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079 , arXiv:1405.0301 .[22] 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 .[23] NNPDF Collaboration, “Unbiased global determination of parton distributions and theiruncertainties at NNLO and at LO”, Nucl. Phys. B (2012) 153, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2011.09.024 , arXiv:1107.2652 .[24] 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 .[25] K. Arnold et al., “VBFNLO: A parton level Monte Carlo for processes with electroweakbosons”, Comput. Phys. Commun. (2009) 1661, doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2009.03.006 , arXiv:0811.4559 .[26] J. Baglio et al., “VBFNLO: a parton level Monte Carlo for processes with electroweakbosons — manual for version 2.7.0”, (2011). arXiv:1107.4038 .[27] K. Arnold et al., “Release Note — VBFNLO-2.6.0”, (2012). arXiv:1207.4975 .[28] M. B¨ahr et al., “Herwig++ physics and manual”, Eur. Phys. J. C (2008) 639, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-008-0798-9 , arXiv:0803.0883 .[29] M. H. Seymour and A. Siodmok, “Constraining MPI models using σ eff and recentTevatron and LHC Underlying Event data”, JHEP (2013) 113, doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2013)113 , arXiv:1307.5015 .[30] P. Nason, “A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carloalgorithms”, JHEP (2004) 040, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/11/040 , arXiv:hep-ph/0409146 .[31] S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari, “Matching NLO QCD computations with partonshower simulations: the POWHEG method”, JHEP (2007) 070, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070 , arXiv:0709.2092 .[32] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “A general framework for implementing NLOcalculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX”, JHEP (2010) 043, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2010)043 , arXiv:1002.2581 .[33] C. Oleari and D. Zeppenfeld, “QCD corrections to electroweak (cid:96) ν (cid:96) jj and (cid:96) + (cid:96) − jjproduction”, Phys. Rev. D (2004) 093004, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.093004 , arXiv:hep-ph/0310156 .[34] B. Jager, S. Schneider, and G. Zanderighi, “Next-to-leading order QCD corrections toelectroweak Zjj production in the POWHEG BOX”, JHEP (2012) 083, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2012)083 , arXiv:1207.2626 .[35] S. Catani, Y. L. Dokshitzer, and B. R. Webber, “The K − perpendicular clustering algorithmfor jets in deep inelastic scattering and hadron collisions”, Phys. Lett.B (1992) 291, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)91467-N . [36] S. Catani, Y. L. Dokshitzer, M. H. Seymour, and B. R. Webber, “Longitudinally invariant K t clustering algorithms for hadron hadron collisions”, Nucl. Phys.B (1993) 187, doi:10.1016/0550-3213(93)90166-M .[37] S. D. Ellis and D. E. Soper, “Successive combination jet algorithm for hadron collisions”,
Phys. Rev.D (1993) 3160, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.48.3160 , arXiv:hep-ph/9305266 .[38] R. Frederix and S. Frixione, “Merging meets matching in MC@NLO”, JHEP (2012)061, doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2012)061 , arXiv:1209.6215 .[39] M. L. Mangano, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini, and M. Treccani, “Matching matrix elements andshower evolution for top-quark production in hadronic collisions”, JHEP (2007) 013, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/01/013 , arXiv:hep-ph/0611129 .[40] J. Alwall et al., “Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of partonshowers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions”, Eur. Phys. J. C (2008) 473, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0490-5 , arXiv:0706.2569 .[41] K. Melnikov and F. Petriello, “Electroweak gauge boson production at hadron collidersthrough O ( α S ) ”, Phys. Rev. D (2006) 114017, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.114017 , arXiv:hep-ph/0609070 .[42] N. Kidonakis, “Differential and total cross sections for top pair and single topproduction”, in Proceedings of the XX International Workshop on Deep-Inelastic Scatteringand Related Subjects . Bonn, Germany, 2012. arXiv:1205.3453 . doi:10.3204/DESY-PROC-2012-02/251 .[43] M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, and A. Mitov, “Total top quark pair production cross section athadron colliders through O( α S )”, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2013) 252004, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.252004 , arXiv:1303.6254 .[44] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “NLO single-top production matched withshower in POWHEG: s- and t- channel contributions”, JHEP (2009) 111, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/09/111 , arXiv:0907.4076 . [Erratum: doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2010)011 ].[45] E. Re, “Single-top W t-channel production matched with parton showers using thePOWHEG method”, Eur. Phys. J. C (2011) 1547, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1547-z , arXiv:1009.2450 .[46] N. Kidonakis, “Top quark production”, (2013). arXiv:1311.0283 .[47] J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, “MCFM for the Tevatron and the LHC”, Nucl. Phys. BProc. Suppl. (2010) 10, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2010.08.011 , arXiv:1007.3492 .[48] GEANT4 Collaboration, “G EANT
Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A (2003) 250, doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8 .[49] J. Allison et al., “G
EANT
IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. (2006) 270, doi:10.1109/TNS.2006.869826 . eferences [50] 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 .[51] 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 .[52] 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 .[53] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in pp collision events at √ s = JINST (2012) P10002, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/7/10/P10002 , arXiv:1206.4071 .[54] M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam, “Pileup subtraction using jet areas”, Phys. Lett. B (2008)119, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.09.077 , arXiv:0707.1378 .[55] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of missing energy reconstruction in 13 TeV ppcollision data using the CMS detector”, CMS Physics Analysis SummaryCMS-PAS-JME-16-004, 2016.[56] M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam, “Dispelling the N myth for the k T jet-finder”, Phys. Lett. B (2006) 57, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.08.037 , arXiv:hep-ph/0512210 .[57] CMS Collaboration, “Determination of jet energy calibration and transverse momentumresolution in CMS”, JINST (2011) P11002, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/6/11/P11002 , arXiv:1107.4277 .[58] CMS Collaboration, “Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data”, CMS Physics AnalysisSummary CMS-PAS-JME-16-003, 2017.[59] CMS Collaboration, “Pileup jet identification”, CMS Physics Analysis SummaryCMS-PAS-JME-13-005, 2013.[60] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of quark/gluon discrimination using pp collision dataat √ s = 8 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-13-002, 2013.[61] CMS Collaboration, “Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in ppcollisions at 13 TeV”, JINST (2018) P05011, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/05/P05011 , arXiv:1712.07158 .[62] H. Voss, A. H ¨ocker, J. Stelzer, and F. Tegenfeldt, “TMVA, the toolkit for multivariate dataanalysis with ROOT”, in XIth International Workshop on Advanced Computing and AnalysisTechniques in Physics Research (ACAT) , p. 40. 2007. arXiv:physics/0703039 .[63] The ATLAS Collaboration, The CMS Collaboration, The LHC Higgs Combination Group,“Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011”, TechnicalReport CMS-NOTE-2011-005. ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-11, 2011.[64] G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, “Asymptotic formulae forlikelihood-based tests of new physics”,
Eur. Phys. J. C (2011) 1554, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0 , arXiv:1007.1727 . [Erratum: doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2501-z ]. [65] CMS Collaboration, “CMS Luminosity Measurements for the 2016 Data Taking Period”,CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001, 2017.[66] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of Inclusive W and Z Cross Sections in pp Collisionsat √ s = JHEP (2011) 080, doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2011)080 , arXiv:1012.2466 .[67] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at √ s = JHEP (2018) 161, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2018)161 , arXiv:1802.02613 .[68] R. J. Barlow and C. Beeston, “Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples”, Comput. Phys.Commun. (1993) 219, doi:10.1016/0010-4655(93)90005-W .[69] C. Degrande et al., “Studies of vector boson scattering and triboson production withDELPHES parametrized fast simulation for Snowmass 2013”, (2013). arXiv:1309.7452 .[70] Particle Data Group, K. Nakamura et al., “Review of particle physics”, J. Phys. G (2010) 075021, doi:10.1088/0954-3899/37/7A/075021 .[71] The LEP Electroweak Working Group, “Electroweak measurements in electron-positroncollisions at W-boson-pair energies at LEP”, Phys. Rept. (2013) 119, doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2013.07.004 , arXiv:1302.3415 .[72] CDF Collaboration, “Measurement of the WZ Cross Section and Triple Gauge Couplingsin p ¯ p Collisions at √ s = Phys. Rev. D (2012) 031104, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.031104 , arXiv:1202.6629 .[73] D0 Collaboration, “Limits on anomalous trilinear gauge boson couplings from WW , WZ and W γ production in p ¯ p collisions at √ s = Phys. Lett. B (2012) 451, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.10.062 , arXiv:1208.5458 .[74] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of WW/WZ → (cid:96) ν qq (cid:48) production with thehadronically decaying boson reconstructed as one or two jets in pp collisions at √ s = Eur. Phys. J. C (2017) 563, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5084-2 , arXiv:1706.01702 .[75] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurements of W ± Z production cross sections in pp collisionsat √ s = Phys. Rev. D (2016) 092004, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.092004 , arXiv:1603.02151 .[76] CMS Collaboration, “Search for anomalous couplings in boosted WW/WZ → (cid:96) ν qqproduction in proton-proton collisions at √ s = Phys. Lett. B (2017) 21, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.06.009 , arXiv:1703.06095 .[77] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the WZ production cross section in pp collisions at √ s = √ s = Eur.Phys. J. C (2017) 236, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4730-z , arXiv:1609.05721 .[78] CMS Collaboration, “Precise determination of the mass of the Higgs boson and tests ofcompatibility of its couplings with the standard model predictions using protoncollisions at 7 and 8 TeV”, Eur. Phys. J. C (2015) 212, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3351-7 , arXiv:1412.8662 . [79] K. Hagiwara, R. D. Peccei, and D. Zeppenfeld, “Probing the weak boson sector ine + e − → W + W − ”, Nucl. Phys. B (1987) 253, doi:10.1016/0550-3213(87)90685-7 .[80] CMS Collaboration, “Tracking and primary vertex results in first 7 TeV collisions”, CMSPhysics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-TRK-10-005, 2010.[81] CMS Collaboration, “Commissioning of TrackJets in pp collisions at √ s = 7 TeV”, CMSPhysics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-10-006, 2010.[82] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of jet reconstruction with charged tracks only”, CMSPhysics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-08-001, 2009. A Additional rapidity gap observables
A set of rapidity gap observables in the high signal purity region BDT > p T >
10, 5, and2 GeV in Figures 20, 21, and 22, respectively. These distributions are consistent with the generalunderestimation of the simulation with respect to data at low activity values, particularly forthe
PYTHIA parton showering. DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es nmfi W BDT > 0.95PYTHIA8 PS
DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es n e fi W BDT > 0.95PYTHIA8 PS > 10 GeV T : p SAjet N da t a / p r ed . > 10 GeV T : p SAjet N da t a / p r ed . DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es nmfi W BDT > 0.95HERWIG++ PS
DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es n e fi W BDT > 0.95HERWIG++ PS > 10 GeV T : p SAjet N da t a / p r ed . > 10 GeV T : p SAjet N da t a / p r ed . Figure 20: Number of soft activity jets with p T >
10 GeV in the rapidity gap for BDT > PYTHIA parton showering(upper) and
HERWIG ++ parton showering (lower). In all plots the last bin contains overflowevents. DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es nmfi W BDT > 0.95PYTHIA8 PS
DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijett quark
VVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es n e fi W BDT > 0.95PYTHIA8 PS > 5 GeV T : p SAjet N D a t a / M C > 5 GeV T : p SAjet N da t a / p r ed . DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es nmfi W BDT > 0.95HERWIG++ PS
DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es n e fi W BDT > 0.95HERWIG++ PS > 5 GeV T : p SAjet N da t a / p r ed . > 5 GeV T : p SAjet N da t a / p r ed . Figure 21: Number of soft activity jets with p T > > PYTHIA parton showering(upper) and
HERWIG ++ parton showering (lower). DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es nmfi W BDT > 0.95PYTHIA8 PS
DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es n e fi W BDT > 0.95PYTHIA8 PS > 2 GeV T : p SAjet N da t a / p r ed . > 2 GeV T : p SAjet N da t a / p r ed . DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es nmfi W BDT > 0.95HERWIG++ PS
DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es n e fi W BDT > 0.95HERWIG++ PS > 2 GeV T : p SAjet N da t a / p r ed . > 2 GeV T : p SAjet N da t a / p r ed . Figure 22: Number of soft activity jets with p T > > PYTHIA parton showering(upper) and
HERWIG ++ parton showering (lower).1
HERWIG ++ parton showering (lower).1 B Jet activity in signal-depleted region
Section 12 shows a comparison of the data with simulation with
PYTHIA and
HERWIG ++ par-ton showering separately in a high purity signal region with BDT > < p T , the total H T of the additional jets,the leading soft activity jet p T , and the total soft activity jet H T , respectively, in the region BDT < · DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / G e V nmfi W BDT < 0.95 · DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / G e V n e fi W BDT < 0.95 (j3) [GeV] T p da t a / p r ed . (j3) [GeV] T p da t a / p r ed . Figure 23: Leading additional jet p T ( p T (j3)) for BDT < p T >
15 GeV is present. · DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / G e V nmfi W BDT < 0.95 · DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / G e V n e fi W BDT < 0.95 [GeV] T Add. Jet H da t a / p r ed . [GeV] T Add. Jet H da t a / p r ed . Figure 24: Total H T of the additional jets for BDT < p T >
15 GeV ispresent. · DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / G e V nmfi W BDT < 0.95 · DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / G e V n e fi W (SA jet) [GeV] T p da t a / p r ed . (SA jet) [GeV] T p da t a / p r ed . Figure 25: Leading additional soft-activity (SA) jet p T for BDT < · DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / G e V nmfi W BDT < 0.95 · DataEW W+jetsW+jetsttQCD multijet t quarkVVZ+jetsInterferenceMC stat. unc.
CMS (13 TeV) -1 E n t r i es / G e V n e fi W (SA) [GeV] T H da t a / p r ed . (SA) [GeV] T H da t a / p r ed . Figure 26: Total soft activity (SA) jet H T for BDT < .1 Hadronic activity vetoes B.1 Hadronic activity vetoes
The efficiency of a hadronic activity veto, as described in Section 12.3, is studied in the signal-depleted BDT < p T of the additional third jet, on the H T of all additional jets, on the leading soft-activity jet p T , oron the soft-activity H T . There is very little difference between the background-only predictionand the predictions including signal with either PYTHIA or HERWIG ++ parton showering dueto the very small fraction of signal in this region. Good agreement is observed between the dataand the simulation, giving further confidence in the modelling of the background observablesfor the rapidity gap studies. [GeV] T Third jet p G ap v e t o e ff i c i en cy CMS + e events: BDT < 0.95 m (13 TeV) -1 DataBackground-onlyBackground + EW Wjj (MG5_aMC LO + Pythia8)Background + EW Wjj (MG5_aMC LO + Herwig++) [GeV] T H G ap v e t o e ff i c i en cy CMS + e events: BDT < 0.95 m (13 TeV) -1 DataBackground-onlyBackground + EW Wjj (MG5_aMC LO + Pythia8)Background + EW Wjj (MG5_aMC LO + Herwig++) [GeV] T Leading soft jet p G ap v e t o e ff i c i en cy CMS + e events: BDT < 0.95 m (13 TeV) -1 DataBackground-onlyBackground + EW Wjj (MG5_aMC LO + Pythia8)Background + EW Wjj (MG5_aMC LO + Herwig++) [GeV] T Soft H G ap v e t o e ff i c i en cy CMS + e events: BDT < 0.95 m (13 TeV) -1 DataBackground-onlyBackground + EW Wjj (MG5_aMC LO + Pythia8)Background + EW Wjj (MG5_aMC LO + Herwig++)
Figure 27: Hadronic activity veto efficiencies in the signal-depleted BDT < p T (upperleft), additional jet H T (upper right), leading soft-activity jet p T (lower left), and soft-activityjet H T (lower right). The data are compared with the background-only prediction as well asbackground+signal with PYTHIA parton showering and background+signal with
HERWIG ++parton showering. The uncertainty bands include only the statistical uncertainty in the predic-tion from simulation. There is very little difference between the predictions due to the smallfraction of signal in this region. C The CMS Collaboration
Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan
Institut f ¨ur Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, E. Asilar, T. Bergauer, J. Brandstetter, M. Dragicevic, J. Er ¨o,A. Escalante Del Valle, M. Flechl, R. Fr ¨uhwirth , V.M. Ghete, J. Hrubec, M. Jeitler , N. Krammer,I. Kr¨atschmer, D. Liko, T. Madlener, I. Mikulec, N. Rad, H. Rohringer, J. Schieck , R. Sch ¨ofbeck,M. Spanring, D. Spitzbart, W. Waltenberger, J. Wittmann, C.-E. Wulz , M. Zarucki Institute for Nuclear Problems, Minsk, Belarus
V. Chekhovsky, V. Mossolov, J. Suarez Gonzalez
Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerpen, Belgium
E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, J. Lauwers, A. Lelek, M. Pieters, H. Van Haevermaet,P. Van Mechelen, N. Van Remortel
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
F. Blekman, J. D’Hondt, J. De Clercq, K. Deroover, G. Flouris, D. Lontkovskyi, S. Lowette,I. Marchesini, S. Moortgat, L. Moreels, Q. Python, K. Skovpen, S. Tavernier, W. Van Doninck,P. Van Mulders, I. Van Parijs
Universit´e Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
D. Beghin, B. Bilin, H. Brun, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, H. Delannoy, B. Dorney,L. Favart, A. Grebenyuk, A.K. Kalsi, J. Luetic, A. Popov , N. Postiau, E. Starling, L. Thomas,C. Vander Velde, P. Vanlaer, D. Vannerom, Q. Wang Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, A. Fagot, M. Gul, I. Khvastunov , C. Roskas, D. Trocino, M. Tytgat,W. Verbeke, B. Vermassen, M. Vit, N. Zaganidis Universit´e Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
O. Bondu, G. Bruno, C. Caputo, P. David, C. Delaere, M. Delcourt, A. Giammanco, G. Krintiras,V. Lemaitre, A. Magitteri, K. Piotrzkowski, A. Saggio, M. Vidal Marono, P. Vischia, J. Zobec
Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
F.L. Alves, G.A. Alves, G. Correia Silva, C. Hensel, A. Moraes, M.E. Pol, P. Rebello Teles
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato , E. Coelho, E.M. Da Costa,G.G. Da Silveira , D. De Jesus Damiao, C. De Oliveira Martins, S. Fonseca De Souza,L.M. Huertas Guativa, H. Malbouisson, D. Matos Figueiredo, M. Melo De Almeida,C. Mora Herrera, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, W.L. Prado Da Silva, L.J. Sanchez Rosas, A. Santoro,A. Sznajder, M. Thiel, E.J. Tonelli Manganote , F. Torres Da Silva De Araujo, A. Vilela Pereira Universidade Estadual Paulista a , Universidade Federal do ABC b , S˜ao Paulo, Brazil S. Ahuja a , C.A. Bernardes a , L. Calligaris a , T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomei a , E.M. Gregores b ,P.G. Mercadante b , S.F. Novaes a , SandraS. Padula a Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia,Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, A. Marinov, M. Misheva, M. Rodozov, M. Shopova,G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Dimitrov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov
Beihang University, Beijing, China
W. Fang , X. Gao , L. Yuan Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, J.G. Bian, G.M. Chen, H.S. Chen, M. Chen, Y. Chen, C.H. Jiang, D. Leggat, H. Liao,Z. Liu, S.M. Shaheen , A. Spiezia, J. Tao, E. Yazgan, H. Zhang, S. Zhang , J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
Y. Ban, G. Chen, A. Levin, J. Li, L. Li, Q. Li, Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang
Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Y. Wang
Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, C.A. Carrillo Montoya, L.F. Chaparro Sierra, C. Florez,C.F. Gonz´alez Hern´andez, M.A. Segura Delgado
Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia
J.D. Ruiz Alvarez
University of Split, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and NavalArchitecture, Split, Croatia
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, M. Kolosova, S. Konstantinou, G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa,C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos, P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski
Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
M. Finger , M. Finger Jr. 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
A.A. Abdelalim , A. Ellithi Kamel , E. Salama National Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
S. Bhowmik, A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveira, R.K. Dewanjee, K. Ehataht, M. Kadastik,M. Raidal, C. Veelken
Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
P. Eerola, H. Kirschenmann, J. Pekkanen, M. Voutilainen Helsinki Institute of Physics, Helsinki, Finland
J. Havukainen, J.K. Heikkil¨a, T. J¨arvinen, V. Karim¨aki, R. Kinnunen, T. Lamp´en, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Laurila, S. Lehti, T. Lind´en, P. Luukka, T. M¨aenp¨a¨a, H. Siikonen, E. Tuominen,J. Tuominiemi
Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
T. Tuuva
IRFU, CEA, Universit´e Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, J.L. Faure, F. Ferri, S. Ganjour, A. Givernaud,P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry, C. Leloup, E. Locci, J. Malcles, J. Rander,A. Rosowsky, M. ¨O. Sahin, A. Savoy-Navarro , M. Titov Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, CNRS/IN2P3, Ecole Polytechnique, Institut Polytechniquede Paris
C. Amendola, F. Beaudette, P. Busson, C. Charlot, B. Diab, R. Granier de Cassagnac, I. Kucher,A. Lobanov, J. Martin Blanco, C. Martin Perez, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, G. Ortona, 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, M. Jansov´a, 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, N. Chanon, R. Chierici, D. Contardo, P. Depasse,H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, G. Grenier, B. Ille, F. Lagarde, I.B. Laktineh,H. Lattaud, M. Lethuillier, L. Mirabito, S. Perries, V. Sordini, G. Touquet, M. Vander Donckt,S. Viret
Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
T. Toriashvili Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
I. Bagaturia RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen, Germany
C. Autermann, L. Feld, M.K. Kiesel, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, D. Meuser, A. Pauls, M. Preuten,M.P. Rauch, C. Schomakers, J. Schulz, M. Teroerde, B. Wittmer
RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany
A. Albert, M. Erdmann, S. Erdweg, T. Esch, R. Fischer, S. Ghosh, T. Hebbeker, C. Heidemann,K. Hoepfner, H. Keller, L. Mastrolorenzo, M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, P. Millet, S. Mukherjee,A. Novak, T. Pook, A. Pozdnyakov, M. Radziej, H. Reithler, M. Rieger, A. Schmidt, A. Sharma,D. Teyssier, S. Th ¨uer
RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany
G. Fl ¨ugge, O. Hlushchenko, T. Kress, T. M ¨uller, A. Nehrkorn, A. Nowack, C. Pistone, O. Pooth,D. Roy, H. Sert, A. Stahl Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
M. Aldaya Martin, T. Arndt, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, I. Babounikau, H. Bakhshiansohi,K. Beernaert, O. Behnke, U. Behrens, A. Berm ´udez Mart´ınez, D. Bertsche, A.A. Bin Anuar,K. Borras , V. Botta, A. Campbell, P. Connor, C. Contreras-Campana, V. Danilov, A. De Wit,M.M. Defranchis, C. Diez Pardos, D. Dom´ınguez Damiani, G. Eckerlin, T. Eichhorn, A. Elwood,E. Eren, E. Gallo , A. Geiser, J.M. Grados Luyando, A. Grohsjean, M. Guthoff, M. Haranko,A. Harb, N.Z. Jomhari, H. Jung, M. Kasemann, J. Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, J. Knolle, D. Kr ¨ucker,W. Lange, T. Lenz, J. Leonard, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann , R. Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann,A.B. Meyer, M. Meyer, M. Missiroli, G. Mittag, J. Mnich, V. Myronenko, S.K. Pflitsch, D. Pitzl,A. Raspereza, A. Saibel, M. Savitskyi, P. Saxena, V. Scheurer, P. Sch ¨utze, C. Schwanenberger,R. Shevchenko, A. Singh, H. Tholen, O. Turkot, A. Vagnerini, M. Van De Klundert,G.P. Van Onsem, R. Walsh, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C. Wissing, O. Zenaiev University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, L. Benato, A. Benecke, V. Blobel, T. Dreyer, A. Ebrahimi, 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, D. Marconi, J. Multhaup, M. Niedziela,C.E.N. Niemeyer, D. Nowatschin, A. Perieanu, A. Reimers, O. Rieger, C. Scharf, P. Schleper,S. Schumann, J. Schwandt, J. Sonneveld, H. Stadie, G. Steinbr ¨uck, F.M. Stober, M. St ¨over,B. Vormwald, I. Zoi
Karlsruher Institut fuer Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany
M. Akbiyik, C. Barth, M. Baselga, S. Baur, T. Berger, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, W. De Boer,A. Dierlamm, K. El Morabit, N. Faltermann, M. Giffels, M.A. Harrendorf, F. Hartmann ,U. Husemann, I. Katkov , S. Kudella, S. Mitra, M.U. Mozer, Th. M ¨uller, M. Musich, G. Quast,K. Rabbertz, M. Schr ¨oder, I. Shvetsov, H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, M. Weber, C. W ¨ohrmann, R. Wolf Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics (INPP), NCSR Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi,Greece
G. Anagnostou, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas, G. Paspalaki
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
A. Agapitos, G. Karathanasis, P. Kontaxakis, A. Panagiotou, I. Papavergou, N. Saoulidou,K. Vellidis
National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece
G. Bakas, K. Kousouris, I. Papakrivopoulos, G. Tsipolitis
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, E. Paradas, 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 , M. Csanad, N. Filipovic, P. Major, K. Mandal, A. Mehta, M.I. Nagy, G. Pasztor,O. Sur´anyi, G.I. Veres Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath , . Hunyadi, F. Sikler, T.. V´ami, V. Veszpremi,G. Vesztergombi † Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi , A. Makovec, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari
Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore, India
S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri, P.C. Tiwari
National Institute of Science Education and Research, HBNI, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati , C. Kar, P. Mal, A. Nayak , S. Roy Chowdhury, D.K. Sahoo , S.K. Swain Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, S. Chauhan, R. Chawla, 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,G. Walia
University of Delhi, Delhi, India
A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, M. Gola, S. Keshri, Ashok Kumar, S. Malhotra,M. Naimuddin, P. Priyanka, K. Ranjan, Aashaq Shah, R. Sharma
Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India
R. Bhardwaj , M. Bharti , R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, U. Bhawandeep , D. Bhowmik,S. Dey, S. Dutt , S. Dutta, S. Ghosh, M. Maity , K. Mondal, S. Nandan, A. Purohit, P.K. Rout,A. Roy, G. Saha, S. Sarkar, T. Sarkar , M. Sharan, B. Singh , S. Thakur Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera, A. Muhammad
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
R. Chudasama, D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, D.K. Mishra, P.K. Netrakanti, L.M. Pant, P. Shukla,P. Suggisetti
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A, Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, M.A. Bhat, S. Dugad, G.B. Mohanty, N. Sur, RavindraKumar Verma
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, P. Das, M. Guchait, Sa. Jain, S. Karmakar, S. Kumar,G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, N. Sahoo, S. Sawant
Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, India
S. Chauhan, S. Dube, V. Hegde, A. Kapoor, K. Kothekar, S. Pandey, A. Rane, A. Rastogi,S. Sharma
Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran
S. Chenarani , E. Eskandari Tadavani, S.M. Etesami , M. Khakzad, M. Mohammadi Na-jafabadi, M. Naseri, F. Rezaei Hosseinabadi, B. Safarzadeh , M. Zeinali 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 , 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 , F. Errico 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 , 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 , 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 , S.S. Chhibra a , b , G. Codispoti a , b ,M. Cuffiani a , b , G.M. Dallavalle a , F. Fabbri a , A. Fanfani a , b , E. Fontanesi, P. Giacomelli a ,C. Grandi a , L. Guiducci a , b , F. Iemmi a , b , S. Lo Meo a ,32 , S. Marcellini a , G. Masetti a , A. Montanari a ,F.L. Navarria a , b , A. Perrotta a , F. Primavera a , b , A.M. Rossi 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 ,33 , A. Di Mattia a , R. Potenza a , b , A. Tricomi a , b ,33 , C. Tuve a , b INFN Sezione di Firenze a , Universit`a di Firenze b , Firenze, Italy G. Barbagli a , K. Chatterjee a , b , V. Ciulli a , b , C. Civinini a , R. D’Alessandro a , b , E. Focardi a , b ,G. Latino, P. Lenzi a , b , M. Meschini a , S. Paoletti a , L. Russo a ,34 , G. Sguazzoni a , D. Strom a ,L. Viliani a INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, F. Fabbri, D. Piccolo
INFN Sezione di Genova a , Universit`a di Genova b , Genova, Italy 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 b , F. Brivio a , b , V. Ciriolo a , b ,19 , S. Di Guida a , b ,19 , M.E. Dinardo a , b ,S. Fiorendi a , b , S. Gennai a , A. Ghezzi a , b , P. Govoni a , b , M. Malberti a , b , S. Malvezzi a , D. Menasce a ,F. Monti, L. Moroni a , M. Paganoni a , b , D. Pedrini a , S. Ragazzi a , b , T. Tabarelli de Fatis a , b ,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. Lista a , b , S. Meola a , d ,19 , P. Paolucci a ,19 , 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, R. Carlin a , b , P. Checchia a ,M. Dall’Osso a , b , 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, S. Lacaprara a , P. Lujan, 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, E. Torassa a , M. Tosi a , b , M. Zanetti a , b , P. Zotto a , b , G. Zumerle a , b INFN Sezione di Pavia a , Universit`a di Pavia b , Pavia, Italy A. Braghieri a , A. Magnani a , 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 , b , P. Vitulo a , b INFN Sezione di Perugia a , Universit`a di Perugia b , Perugia, Italy M. Biasini a , b , G.M. Bilei a , C. Cecchi a , b , 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 K. Androsov a , P. Azzurri a , G. Bagliesi a , L. Bianchini a , T. Boccali a , L. Borrello, R. Castaldi a ,M.A. Ciocci a , b , R. Dell’Orso a , G. Fedi a , F. Fiori a , c , L. Giannini a , c , A. Giassi a , M.T. Grippo a ,1
INFN Sezione di Genova a , Universit`a di Genova b , Genova, Italy 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 b , F. Brivio a , b , V. Ciriolo a , b ,19 , S. Di Guida a , b ,19 , M.E. Dinardo a , b ,S. Fiorendi a , b , S. Gennai a , A. Ghezzi a , b , P. Govoni a , b , M. Malberti a , b , S. Malvezzi a , D. Menasce a ,F. Monti, L. Moroni a , M. Paganoni a , b , D. Pedrini a , S. Ragazzi a , b , T. Tabarelli de Fatis a , b ,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. Lista a , b , S. Meola a , d ,19 , P. Paolucci a ,19 , 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, R. Carlin a , b , P. Checchia a ,M. Dall’Osso a , b , 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, S. Lacaprara a , P. Lujan, 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, E. Torassa a , M. Tosi a , b , M. Zanetti a , b , P. Zotto a , b , G. Zumerle a , b INFN Sezione di Pavia a , Universit`a di Pavia b , Pavia, Italy A. Braghieri a , A. Magnani a , 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 , b , P. Vitulo a , b INFN Sezione di Perugia a , Universit`a di Perugia b , Perugia, Italy M. Biasini a , b , G.M. Bilei a , C. Cecchi a , b , 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 K. Androsov a , P. Azzurri a , G. Bagliesi a , L. Bianchini a , T. Boccali a , L. Borrello, R. Castaldi a ,M.A. Ciocci a , b , R. Dell’Orso a , G. Fedi a , F. Fiori a , c , L. Giannini a , c , A. Giassi a , M.T. Grippo a ,1 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. Scribano a , P. Spagnolo a , R. Tenchini a , G. Tonelli a , b , A. Venturi a , P.G. Verdini a INFN Sezione di Roma a , Sapienza Universit`a di Roma b , Rome, Italy L. Barone a , b , F. Cavallari a , M. Cipriani a , b , D. Del Re a , b , E. Di Marco a , b , M. Diemoz a , S. Gelli a , b ,E. Longo a , b , B. Marzocchi a , b , P. Meridiani a , G. Organtini a , b , F. Pandolfi a , R. Paramatti a , b ,F. Preiato a , b , C. Quaranta a , b , S. Rahatlou a , b , C. Rovelli a , F. Santanastasio 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 ,C. Biino a , A. Cappati a , b , N. Cartiglia a , F. Cenna a , b , S. Cometti a , M. Costa a , b , R. Covarelli a , b ,N. Demaria a , B. Kiani a , b , 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 , 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. Sacchi a , b , R. Salvatico a , b , K. Shchelina a , b ,V. Sola a , A. Solano a , b , D. Soldi a , b , A. Staiano a 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
D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, M.S. 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, G. Oh
Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
B. Francois, J. Goh , T.J. Kim Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, D. Gyun, S. Ha, B. Hong, Y. Jo, K. Lee, K.S. Lee, S. Lee, J. Lim, S.K. Park,Y. Roh
Sejong University, Seoul, Korea
H.S. Kim
Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, H. Lee, K. Lee, S. Lee, K. Nam, S.B. Oh, B.C. Radburn-Smith,S.h. Seo, U.K. Yang, H.D. Yoo, G.B. Yu
University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea
D. Jeon, H. Kim, J.H. Kim, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park
Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, C. Hwang, J. Lee, I. Yu
Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
V. Veckalns Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
V. Dudenas, A. Juodagalvis, J. Vaitkus National Centre for Particle Physics, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Z.A. Ibrahim, M.A.B. Md Ali , 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
Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, M.C. Duran-Osuna, I. Heredia-De La Cruz ,R. Lopez-Fernandez, R.I. Rabadan-Trejo, G. Ramirez-Sanchez, R. Reyes-Almanza, 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
N. Raicevic
University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
S. Bheesette, P.H. Butler
National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M. Ahmad, M.I. Asghar, Q. Hassan, H.R. Hoorani, W.A. Khan, M.A. Shah,M. Shoaib, M. Waqas
National Centre for Nuclear Research, Swierk, Poland
H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, T. Frueboes, M. G ´orski, M. Kazana, M. Szleper, P. Traczyk,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. Misiura,M. Olszewski, A. Pyskir, M. Walczak Laborat ´orio de Instrumenta¸c˜ao e F´ısica Experimental de Part´ıculas, Lisboa, Portugal
M. Araujo, P. Bargassa, D. Bastos, C. Beir˜ao Da Cruz E Silva, A. Di Francesco, P. Faccioli,B. Galinhas, M. Gallinaro, J. Hollar, N. Leonardo, J. Seixas, G. Strong, O. Toldaiev, J. Varela
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
S. Afanasiev, P. Bunin, M. Gavrilenko, I. Golutvin, I. Gorbunov, A. Kamenev, V. Karjavine,A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev , P. Moisenz, V. Palichik, V. Perelygin, S. Shmatov,S. Shulha, N. Skatchkov, V. Smirnov, N. Voytishin, A. Zarubin
Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg), Russia
V. Golovtsov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim , E. Kuznetsova , P. Levchenko, V. Murzin, V. Oreshkin,I. Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Vavilov, A. Vorobyev Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, M. Kirsanov, N. Krasnikov,A. Pashenkov, A. Shabanov, 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, V. Popov, I. Pozdnyakov, G. Safronov,A. Spiridonov, A. Stepennov, V. Stolin, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A. Zhokin
Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev
National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics Institute’ (MEPhI),Moscow, Russia
M. Chadeeva , 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, M. Dubinin , L. Dudko, A. Ershov, A. Gribushin, V. Klyukhin,O. Kodolova, I. Lokhtin, S. Obraztsov, S. Petrushanko, V. Savrin, A. Snigirev 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, A. Kalinin, D. Konstantinov, P. Mandrik,V. Petrov, R. Ryutin, S. Slabospitskii, A. Sobol, S. Troshin, N. Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov
National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia
A. Babaev, S. Baidali, A. Iuzhakov, V. Okhotnikov
University of Belgrade: Faculty of Physics and VINCA Institute of Nuclear Sciences
P. Adzic , P. Cirkovic, D. Devetak, M. Dordevic, P. Milenovic , J. Milosevic Centro de Investigaciones Energ´eticas Medioambientales y Tecnol ´ogicas (CIEMAT),Madrid, Spain
J. Alcaraz Maestre, A. lvarez Fern´andez, I. Bachiller, M. Barrio Luna, J.A. Brochero Cifuentes,M. Cerrada, N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris, C. Fernandez Bedoya,J.P. Fern´andez Ramos, J. Flix, M.C. Fouz, O. Gonzalez Lopez, S. Goy Lopez, J.M. Hernandez,M.I. Josa, D. Moran, A. P´erez-Calero Yzquierdo, J. Puerta Pelayo, I. Redondo, L. Romero,S. S´anchez Navas, M.S. Soares, A. Triossi
Universidad Aut ´onoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
C. Albajar, J.F. de Troc ´oniz
Universidad de Oviedo, Instituto Universitario de Ciencias y Tecnolog´ıas Espaciales deAsturias (ICTEA), Oviedo, Spain
J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, S. Folgueras, I. Gonzalez Caballero,J.R. Gonz´alez Fern´andez, E. Palencia Cortezon, V. Rodr´ıguez Bouza, S. Sanchez Cruz,J.M. Vizan Garcia 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, A. Lopez Virto, C. Martinez Rivero,P. Martinez Ruiz del Arbol, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, C. Prieels, T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno,L. Scodellaro, N. Trevisani, I. Vila
University of Ruhuna, Department of Physics, Matara, Sri Lanka
N. Wickramage
CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland
D. Abbaneo, B. Akgun, E. Auffray, G. Auzinger, P. Baillon † , A.H. Ball, D. Barney, J. Bendavid,M. Bianco, A. Bocci, C. Botta, E. Brondolin, T. Camporesi, M. Cepeda, G. Cerminara, E. Chapon,Y. Chen, G. Cucciati, D. d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, N. Daci, V. Daponte, A. David, A. De Roeck,N. Deelen, M. Dobson, M. D ¨unser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, F. Fallavollita , D. Fasanella,G. Franzoni, J. Fulcher, W. Funk, D. Gigi, A. Gilbert, K. Gill, F. Glege, M. Gruchala, M. Guilbaud,D. Gulhan, J. Hegeman, C. Heidegger, Y. Iiyama, V. Innocente, G.M. Innocenti, A. Jafari,P. Janot, O. Karacheban , J. Kieseler, A. Kornmayer, M. Krammer , C. Lange, P. Lecoq,C. Lourenc¸o, L. Malgeri, M. Mannelli, A. Massironi, F. Meijers, J.A. Merlin, S. Mersi, E. Meschi,F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, J. Ngadiuba, 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. Rovere, H. Sakulin, C. Sch¨afer, C. Schwick, M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma,P. Silva, P. Sphicas , A. Stakia, J. Steggemann, V.R. Tavolaro, D. Treille, A. Tsirou, A. Vartak,M. Verzetti, 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, S.A. Wiederkehr ETH Zurich - Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics (IPA), Zurich, Switzerland
M. Backhaus, P. Berger, N. Chernyavskaya, G. Dissertori, M. Dittmar, M. Doneg`a, C. Dorfer,T.A. G ´omez Espinosa, C. Grab, D. Hits, T. Klijnsma, W. Lustermann, R.A. Manzoni,M. Marionneau, M.T. Meinhard, F. Micheli, P. Musella, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, F. Pauss, G. Perrin,L. Perrozzi, S. Pigazzini, M. Reichmann, C. Reissel, T. Reitenspiess, D. Ruini, D.A. Sanz Becerra,M. Sch ¨onenberger, L. Shchutska, K. Theofilatos, M.L. Vesterbacka Olsson, R. Wallny, D.H. Zhu
Universit¨at Z ¨urich, Zurich, Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, C. Amsler , D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, R. Del Burgo, S. Donato,C. Galloni, T. Hreus, B. Kilminster, S. Leontsinis, V.M. Mikuni, I. Neutelings, G. Rauco,P. Robmann, D. Salerno, K. Schweiger, C. Seitz, Y. Takahashi, S. Wertz, A. Zucchetta National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan
T.H. Doan, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, S.S. Yu
National Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, W.-S. Hou, Y.F. Liu, R.-S. Lu, E. Paganis, A. Psallidas,A. Steen
Chulalongkorn University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok, Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, N. Srimanobhas, N. Suwonjandee ukurova University, Physics Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
A. Bat, F. Boran, S. Cerci , S. Damarseckin , Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, C. Dozen,I. Dumanoglu, G. Gokbulut, EmineGurpinar Guler , Y. Guler, I. Hos , C. Isik, E.E. Kangal , O. Kara, A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, M. Oglakci, G. Onengut, K. Ozdemir , S. Ozturk ,D. Sunar Cerci , B. Tali , U.G. Tok, S. Turkcapar, I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East Technical University, Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak , G. Karapinar , M. Yalvac, M. Zeyrek Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey
I.O. Atakisi, E. G ¨ulmez, M. Kaya , O. Kaya , B. Kaynak, ¨O. ¨Ozc¸elik, S. Ozkorucuklu ,S. Tekten, E.A. Yetkin Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
A. Cakir, K. Cankocak, Y. Komurcu, S. Sen Institute for Scintillation Materials of National Academy of Science of Ukraine, Kharkov,Ukraine
B. Grynyov
National Scientific Center, Kharkov Institute of Physics and Technology, Kharkov, Ukraine
L. Levchuk
University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
F. Ball, J.J. Brooke, D. Burns, E. Clement, D. Cussans, O. Davignon, H. Flacher, J. Goldstein,G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, D.M. Newbold , S. Paramesvaran, B. Penning, T. Sakuma,D. Smith, V.J. Smith, J. Taylor, A. Titterton Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev , C. Brew, R.M. Brown, D. Cieri, D.J.A. Cockerill, J.A. Coughlan,K. Harder, S. Harper, J. Linacre, K. Manolopoulos, E. Olaiya, D. Petyt, T. Reis, T. Schuh,C.H. Shepherd-Themistocleous, A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin, T. Williams, W.J. Womersley Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A. Bundock, GurpreetS-ingh CHAHAL , D. Colling, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M. Della Negra, R. Di Maria, P. Everaerts,G. Hall, G. Iles, T. James, M. Komm, C. Laner, L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, A. Martelli,V. Milosevic, J. Nash , A. Nikitenko , V. Palladino, M. Pesaresi, D.M. Raymond, A. Richards,A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A. Shtipliyski, M. Stoye, T. Strebler, S. Summers, A. Tapper, K. Uchida,T. Virdee , N. Wardle, D. Winterbottom, J. Wright, S.C. Zenz Brunel University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, C.K. Mackay, A. Morton, I.D. Reid, L. Teodorescu,S. Zahid
Baylor University, Waco, USA
K. Call, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, C. Madrid, B. McMaster, N. Pastika, C. Smith
Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez
The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
A. Buccilli, O. Charaf, S.I. Cooper, C. Henderson, P. Rumerio, C. West
Boston University, Boston, USA
D. Arcaro, T. Bose, Z. Demiragli, D. Gastler, S. Girgis, D. Pinna, C. Richardson, J. Rohlf,D. Sperka, I. Suarez, L. Sulak, D. Zou Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, B. Burkle, X. Coubez, D. Cutts, M. Hadley, J. Hakala, U. Heintz, J.M. Hogan ,K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, J. Lee, Z. Mao, M. Narain, S. Sagir , R. Syarif, E. Usai,D. Yu University of California, Davis, Davis, USA
R. Band, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, D. Burns, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez, M. Chertok,J. Conway, R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, G. Funk, W. Ko, O. Kukral, R. Lander,M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, J. Pilot, M. Shi, D. Stolp, D. Taylor, K. Tos, M. Tripathi, Z. Wang,F. Zhang
University of California, Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, C. Bravo, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, A. Florent, J. Hauser, M. Ignatenko, N. Mccoll,S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg, C. Schnaible, V. Valuev
University of California, Riverside, Riverside, USA
K. Burt, R. Clare, J.W. Gary, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi, G. Hanson, G. Karapostoli, E. Kennedy,O.R. Long, M. Olmedo Negrete, M.I. Paneva, W. Si, L. Wang, H. Wei, S. Wimpenny, B.R. Yates
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, P. Chang, S. Cittolin, M. Derdzinski, R. Gerosa, D. Gilbert, B. Hashemi,A. Holzner, D. Klein, G. Kole, V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, M. Masciovecchio, S. May, D. Olivito,S. Padhi, M. Pieri, V. Sharma, M. Tadel, J. Wood, 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, M. Franco Sevilla, L. Gouskos,J. Incandela, B. Marsh, H. Mei, A. Ovcharova, H. Qu, J. Richman, U. Sarica, D. Stuart, S. Wang,J. Yoo
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
D. Anderson, A. Bornheim, J.M. Lawhorn, N. Lu, H.B. Newman, T.Q. Nguyen, J. Pata,M. Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, R. Wilkinson, S. Xie, Z. Zhang, R.Y. Zhu
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
M.B. Andrews, T. Ferguson, T. Mudholkar, M. Paulini, M. Sun, I. Vorobiev, M. Weinberg
University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, F. Jensen, A. Johnson, E. MacDonald, T. Mulholland, R. Patel, A. Perloff,K. Stenson, K.A. Ulmer, S.R. Wagner
Cornell University, Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, J. Chaves, Y. Cheng, J. Chu, A. Datta, A. Frankenthal, K. Mcdermott, N. Mirman,J. Monroy, J.R. Patterson, D. Quach, A. Rinkevicius, A. Ryd, L. Skinnari, L. Soffi, S.M. Tan,Z. Tao, J. Thom, J. Tucker, P. Wittich, M. Zientek
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, USA
S. Abdullin, M. Albrow, M. Alyari, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S. Banerjee,L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, K. Burkett, J.N. Butler, A. Canepa,G.B. Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M. Cremonesi, J. Duarte, V.D. Elvira, J. Freeman,Z. Gecse, E. Gottschalk, L. Gray, D. Green, S. Gr ¨unendahl, O. Gutsche, J. Hanlon, R.M. Harris,S. Hasegawa, R. Heller, J. Hirschauer, Z. Hu, B. Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi,B. Klima, M.J. Kortelainen, B. Kreis, S. Lammel, D. Lincoln, R. Lipton, M. Liu, T. Liu, J. Lykken,K. Maeshima, J.M. Marraffino, D. Mason, P. McBride, P. Merkel, S. Mrenna, S. Nahn, V. O’Dell,K. Pedro, C. Pena, O. Prokofyev, G. Rakness, F. Ravera, A. Reinsvold, L. Ristori, B. Schneider, E. Sexton-Kennedy, N. Smith, A. Soha, W.J. Spalding, L. Spiegel, S. Stoynev, J. Strait, N. Strobbe,L. Taylor, S. Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran, L. Uplegger, E.W. Vaandering, C. Vernieri, M. Verzocchi,R. Vidal, M. Wang, H.A. Weber
University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, P. Bortignon, D. Bourilkov, A. Brinkerhoff, L. Cadamuro, A. Carnes,V. Cherepanov, D. Curry, R.D. Field, S.V. Gleyzer, B.M. Joshi, M. Kim, J. Konigsberg, A. Korytov,K.H. Lo, P. Ma, K. Matchev, N. Menendez, G. Mitselmakher, D. Rosenzweig, K. Shi, J. Wang,S. Wang, X. Zuo
Florida International University, Miami, USA
Y.R. Joshi, S. Linn
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, A. Saha, C. Schiber, R. Yohay
Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, V. Bhopatkar, S. Colafranceschi, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, M. Rahmani,T. Roy, M. Saunders, F. Yumiceva
University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago, USA
M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, D. Berry, R.R. Betts, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, S. Dittmer,O. Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, K. Jung, C. Mills, M.B. Tonjes,N. Varelas, H. Wang, X. Wang, Z. Wu, J. Zhang
The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, B. Bilki , W. Clarida, 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 Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
B. Blumenfeld, A. Cocoros, N. Eminizer, D. Fehling, L. Feng, A.V. Gritsan, W.T. Hung,P. Maksimovic, J. Roskes, M. Swartz, M. Xiao
The University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA
A. Al-bataineh, P. Baringer, A. Bean, S. Boren, J. Bowen, A. Bylinkin, J. Castle, S. Khalil,A. Kropivnitskaya, D. Majumder, W. Mcbrayer, M. Murray, C. Rogan, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz,J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang
Kansas State University, Manhattan, USA
S. Duric, A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, D. Kim, Y. Maravin, D.R. Mendis, T. Mitchell, A. Modak,A. Mohammadi
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright
University of Maryland, College Park, USA
A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, S.C. Eno, Y. Feng, C. Ferraioli, N.J. Hadley, S. Jabeen, G.Y. Jeng,R.G. Kellogg, J. Kunkle, A.C. Mignerey, S. Nabili, F. Ricci-Tam, M. Seidel, Y.H. Shin, A. Skuja,S.C. Tonwar, K. Wong
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, V. Azzolini, A. Baty, 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
A.C. Benvenuti † , R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, P. Hansen, J. Hiltbrand, Sh. Jain, S. Kalafut,M. Krohn, Y. Kubota, Z. Lesko, J. Mans, R. Rusack, M.A. Wadud University of Mississippi, Oxford, USA
J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
E. Avdeeva, K. Bloom, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, L. Finco, F. Golf, R. Gonzalez Suarez,R. Kamalieddin, I. Kravchenko, J.E. Siado, G.R. Snow, B. Stieger
State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
A. Godshalk, C. Harrington, I. Iashvili, A. Kharchilava, C. Mclean, D. Nguyen, A. Parker,S. Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani
Northeastern University, Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, Y. Haddad, A. Hortiangtham, G. Madigan, D.M. Morse,T. Orimoto, A. Tishelman-Charny, T. Wamorkar, B. Wang, A. Wisecarver, D. Wood
Northwestern University, Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, J. Bueghly, T. Gunter, K.A. Hahn, N. Odell, M.H. Schmitt, K. Sung, M. Trovato,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, F. Meng, C. Mueller, Y. Musienko , M. Planer,R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, G. Smith, S. Taroni, M. Wayne, A. Wightman, M. Wolf, A. Woodard The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA
J. Alimena, L. Antonelli, B. Bylsma, L.S. Durkin, S. Flowers, B. Francis, C. Hill, W. Ji, A. Lefeld,T.Y. Ling, W. Luo, B.L. Winer
Princeton University, Princeton, USA
S. Cooperstein, 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, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, D. Stickland, C. Tully, Z. Wang
University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg
Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
A. Barker, V.E. Barnes, S. Das, L. Gutay, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, A. Khatiwada, B. Mahakud,D.H. Miller, G. Negro, N. Neumeister, C.C. Peng, S. Piperov, H. Qiu, J.F. Schulte, J. Sun, F. Wang,R. Xiao, W. Xie
Purdue University Northwest, Hammond, USA
T. Cheng, J. Dolen, N. Parashar
Rice University, Houston, USA
Z. Chen, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Kilpatrick, Arun Kumar, W. Li, B.P. Padley,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, Y.t. Duh, J.L. Dulemba, C. Fallon, T. Ferbel, M. Galanti,A. Garcia-Bellido, J. Han, O. Hindrichs, A. Khukhunaishvili, E. Ranken, P. Tan, R. Taus
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, USA
B. Chiarito, J.P. Chou, Y. Gershtein, E. Halkiadakis, A. Hart, M. Heindl, E. Hughes, S. Kaplan,S. Kyriacou, I. Laflotte, A. Lath, R. Montalvo, K. Nash, M. Osherson, H. Saka, S. Salur,S. Schnetzer, D. Sheffield, S. Somalwar, R. Stone, S. Thomas, P. Thomassen
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
H. Acharya, A.G. Delannoy, J. Heideman, G. Riley, S. Spanier
Texas A&M University, College Station, USA
O. Bouhali , A. Celik, M. Dalchenko, M. De Mattia, A. Delgado, S. Dildick, R. Eusebi,J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T. Kamon , S. Luo, 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, P.R. Dudero, 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, Q. Xu
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
M.W. Arenton, P. Barria, B. Cox, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A. Ledovskoy, H. Li, C. Neu, Y. Wang,E. Wolfe, F. Xia
Wayne State University, Detroit, USA
R. Harr, P.E. Karchin, N. Poudyal, J. Sturdy, P. Thapa, S. Zaleski
University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI, USA
J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, D. Carlsmith, S. Dasu, I. De Bruyn, L. Dodd, B. Gomber , M. Grothe,M. Herndon, A. Herv´e, U. Hussain, P. Klabbers, A. Lanaro, K. Long, R. Loveless, T. Ruggles,A. Savin, V. Sharma, W.H. Smith, N. Woods † : Deceased1: Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria2: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University,Moscow, Russia3: Also at IRFU, CEA, Universit´e Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France4: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil5: Also at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil6: Also at Universit´e Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium7: Also at University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China8: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics named by A.I. Alikhanov of NRC‘Kurchatov Institute’, Moscow, Russia9: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia10: Also at Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt11: Now at Zewail City of Science and Technology, Zewail, Egypt12: Now at Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt13: Also at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt14: Now at Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
15: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA16: Also at Universit´e de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France17: Also at Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia18: Also at Ilia State University, Tbilisi, Georgia19: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland20: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany21: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany22: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany23: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary, Debrecen,Hungary24: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary25: Also at MTA-ELTE Lend ¨ulet CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, E ¨otv ¨os Lor´andUniversity, Budapest, Hungary, Budapest, Hungary26: Also at IIT Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India, Bhubaneswar, India27: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India28: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India29: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India30: Also at Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran31: Also at Plasma Physics Research Center, Science and Research Branch, Islamic AzadUniversity, Tehran, Iran32: Also at Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable EconomicDevelopment, Bologna, Italy33: Also at Centro Siciliano di Fisica Nucleare e di Struttura Della Materia, Catania, Italy34: Also at Universit`a degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy35: Also at Scuola Normale e Sezione dell’INFN, Pisa, Italy36: Also at Kyung Hee University, Department of Physics, Seoul, Korea37: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia, Riga, Latvia38: Also at International Islamic University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia39: Also at Malaysian Nuclear Agency, MOSTI, Kajang, Malaysia40: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnolog´ıa, Mexico City, Mexico41: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems, Warsaw, Poland42: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia43: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics Institute’(MEPhI), Moscow, Russia44: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg, Russia45: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA46: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia47: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA48: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia49: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia50: Also at University of Belgrade: Faculty of Physics and VINCA Institute of Nuclear Sciences,Belgrade, Serbia51: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a , Universit`a di Pavia b , Pavia, Italy, Pavia, Italy52: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece53: Also at Universit¨at Z ¨urich, Zurich, Switzerland54: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics, Vienna, Austria, Vienna, Austria55: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey56: Also at S¸ ırnak University, Sirnak, Turkey57: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey, Istanbul, Turkey1