Measurements of the differential cross sections of the production of Z + jets and γ + jets and of Z boson emission collinear with a jet in pp collisions at s √ = 13 TeV
EEUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH (CERN)
CERN-EP-2020-2502021/02/05
CMS-SMP-19-010
Measurements of the differential cross sections of theproduction of Z + jets and γ + jets and of Z boson emissioncollinear with a jet in pp collisions at √ s =
13 TeV
The CMS Collaboration * Abstract
Measurements of the differential cross sections of Z + jets and γ + jets production,and their ratio, are presented as a function of the boson transverse momentum. Mea-surements are also presented of the angular distribution between the Z boson andthe closest jet. The analysis is based on pp collisions at a center-of-mass energy of13 TeV corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb − recorded by the CMSexperiment at the LHC. The results, corrected for detector effects, are compared withvarious theoretical predictions. In general, the predictions at higher orders in pertur-bation theory show better agreement with the measurements. This work provides thefirst measurement of the ratio of the differential cross sections of Z + jets and γ + jetsproduction at 13 TeV, as well as the first direct measurement of Z bosons emittedcollinearly with a jet. Submitted to the Journal of High Energy Physics © 2021 CERN for the benefit of the CMS Collaboration. CC-BY-4.0 license * See Appendix A for the list of collaboration members a r X i v : . [ h e p - e x ] F e b The production of vector bosons in association with jets in pp collisions provides an impor-tant test of the standard model (SM), as well as the opportunity to study major backgroundprocesses to many searches for physics beyond the SM. The 13 TeV center-of-mass energy ofthe CERN LHC and the large integrated luminosity of 36 fb − , collected in 2016, are used tomeasure these processes in regions of phase space that were not previously accessible.This paper presents a measurement of the differential production cross sections of Z + jets and γ + jets, and their ratio for highly energetic bosons. It also provides the first measurement of aZ boson produced in close proximity (collinear) to an associated jet. Such measurements probethe SM for events with high boson transverse momentum ( p T ), and collinear Z-jet emission,and provide precision tests of perturbative quantum chromodynamics (QCD) and electroweak(EW) calculations that are implemented in analytical calculations [1, 2] and Monte Carlo (MC)event generators. These measurements also provide constraints on parton distribution func-tions (PDFs) [3, 4], and are relevant in searches for physics beyond the SM, such as dark matter,supersymmetry, and invisible decays of the Higgs boson. The processes of Z + jets and γ + jetsat high boson p T are key for estimating backgrounds from a Z boson decaying to neutrinos(Z → νν ), whereas the Z/ γ ratio is a theoretical input using γ + jets to predict contributionsfrom Z → νν [5]. An accurate modeling of these processes can improve the potential for dis-covering new physics.The differential cross sections for Z + jets and γ + jets can constrain higher-order perturbativeQCD and EW calculations that result in a nonnegligible dependence of the cross sections onboson p T . The EW radiative corrections become large and negative at high energies, becauseof the presence of Sudakov logarithms that arise from the virtual exchange of soft or collinearmassive gauge bosons [6–11]. The corrections are logarithmically enhanced at large energiesand their impact has been discussed in the context of searches for dark matter [12], wherethe dependence of the EW corrections on p T can lead to effects of the order of tens of percentat large boson p T . Furthermore, developments in theory have led to improved predictionswith automated next-to-leading order (NLO) QCD and EW corrections, for instance SHERPA +O PEN L OOPS [13] and M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO [14]. The Z + jets and γ + jets cross sections,and their ratio, at high boson p T , provide valuable information for probing the magnitude anddependence of these higher-order corrections on boson p T . A differential measurement of theZ/ γ cross section ratio at √ s = − [15]. The measurement presentedhere is the first measurement of this ratio at 13 TeV.In contrast to corrections in quantum electrodynamics and QCD, where the massless gaugebosons lead to logarithms that are canceled by the corresponding real-emission corrections, themassive W and Z bosons act as infrared regulators and provide a physical cutoff for the calcu-lations of their cross sections. The emission of a W or Z boson can contribute significantly toinclusive W + jets and Z + jets production at high energies [16–18]. Such events can be accessedby selecting a high- p T event topology and studying the region of small angular separation be-tween a W or Z boson and a jet. Measurements of the emission of W bosons with jets wereperformed by ATLAS at 8 TeV [19] and CMS at 13 TeV [20]. The fully reconstructable decayproducts from the Z boson (in this case decaying to muons) measured in this work, provide adirect measurement of the angular separation between the Z boson and the closest jet. 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 (HCAL), each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. The ECALprovides coverage in pseudorapidity | η | < < | η | < µ s. Thesecond level, known as the high-level trigger, consists of a farm of processors running a versionof the full event reconstruction software optimized for fast processing, and reduces the eventrate 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, is reported in Ref. [22]. The production of Z + jets and the decay to muons is simulated at NLO in QCD using the MCevent generator M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO (v2.2.2) [23] interfaced with
PYTHIA (v8.212) [24] forparton shower (PS) and hadronization. The QCD matrix element (ME) calculation includes upto three final-state partons. The ME-PS matching is performed following the FxFx prescrip-tion [25]. The cross section of Z + jets production for p ZT >
50 GeV, where p ZT is the transversemomentum of the Z boson, is computed at next-to-NLO (NNLO) with FEWZ (v3.1) [26]. Therenormalization and factorization scales are both set to the sum of the transverse masses of allfinal state particles and partons.The γ + jets process is generated using the M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO generator at both leadingorder (LO) and NLO in perturbative QCD. For the LO samples, the ME calculation includesup to two final state partons and uses the k T MLM matching scheme [27] with a matchingparameter of 20 GeV to avoid double counting the final states arising from the ME calculationsand PS evolution. The NLO samples are generated with up to one parton in the final stateand the ME-PS matching is performed following the FxFx prescription. After correcting for thedetector effects, the data are also compared with γ + jets samples generated at NLO in QCDusing the J ET P HOX (v1.3.1) [28–30] generator with the Bourhis–Fontannaz–Guillet set II parton-to-photon fragmentation functions [31]. The choice for the renormalization, factorization, andfragmentation scales in J ET P HOX are all set to the photon p T : µ R = µ F = µ f = p γ T . A parton-level isolation criterion is also required by applying a 5 GeV threshold on the transverse energy( E T ), defined as the sum of all parton energies (each multiplied by the sin θ of their polarangles), around the photon within a cone of radius ∆ R = √ ( ∆ η ) + ( ∆ φ ) = η isthe pseudorapidity and φ is the azimuthal angle.The Z + jets and γ + jets processes are also generated using SHERPA + O
PEN L OOPS (v2.1.0) [32]with a matrix element calculation for up to 2 additional partons at NLO in QCD and up to 4partons at LO in QCD and the approximate NLO EW calculation using the Comix [33] andO
PEN L OOPS [34] matrix element generators. This is merged with CSS
HOWER [35], the default parton shower in
SHERPA , using the ME-PS matching implemented according to the MC @ NLO method [36, 37]. The renormalization and factorization scales are both set to the
METS scalesetter [32].The simulation of background processes contributing to the Z + jets and γ + jets channels aredescribed in the following.The production of a W boson in association with jets, where the W boson decays to a chargedlepton and a neutrino, is also simulated with M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO and normalized to thecross section calculated at NNLO with
FEWZ .Top quark pair events are generated with M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO and normalized to the in-clusive cross section calculated at NNLO together with next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic cor-rections [38, 39]. Single top quark processes are generated at LO with
POWHEG (v2.0) [40–42]and normalized to the NLO cross sections for tW and t-channel production [43], whereas the s -channel production is generated at NLO with M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO .The diboson production processes are generated at NLO as follows: WZ is generatedwith M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO ; ZZ is generated with a mixture of
POWHEG and M AD -G RAPH MC @ NLO ; WW is generated with
POWHEG and normalized to the cross section calcu-lated at NNLO; and W γ and Z γ are generated with M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO . Finally, multijetQCD events are generated with
PYTHIA at LO.The NNPDF3.0 LO, NLO, and NNLO PDFs [44] are used, respectively, with the LO, NLO, andNNLO codes described above. The
PYTHIA program with the CUETP8M1 underlying eventtune [45] is used to describe parton showering and hadronization for all simulated samples.The full detector response is simulated using the G
EANT
PYTHIA using the NNPDF2.3PDFs [47] and the CUETP8M1 tune. The simulated event samples are weighted to match thepileup distribution measured in data.
The particle-flow (PF) algorithm [48] aims to reconstruct and identify each individual physics-object (PF candidate) in an event, with an optimized combination of information from the vari-ous elements of the CMS detector. The energy of photons is obtained from the ECAL measure-ment. The energy of electrons is determined from a combination of the electron momentumat the primary interaction vertex as measured by the tracker, the energy of the correspondingECAL cluster, and the energy sum of all bremsstrahlung photons spatially compatible withoriginating from the electron track. The momentum of muons is obtained from the curvatureof the corresponding track. The energy of charged hadrons is determined from a combinationof their momentum measured in the tracker and the matching ECAL and HCAL energy de-posits, corrected for zero-suppression effects and for the response function of the calorimetersto hadronic showers. Finally, the energy of neutral hadrons is obtained from the correspondingcorrected ECAL and HCAL energies.In the barrel section of the ECAL, an energy resolution of about 1% is achieved for unconvertedor late-converting photons in the tens of GeV energy range. The remaining barrel photons have a resolution of about 1.3% up to | η | =
1, increasing to about 2.5% at | η | = k T algorithm [51, 52] with a distance parameter of ∆ R = p T spec-trum and detector acceptance. Pileup can contribute additional tracks and calorimetric energydepositions to the jet momentum. To mitigate this effect, tracks identified as originating frompileup vertices are discarded and an offset is applied to correct for the remaining contribu-tions [53, 54]. Jet energy corrections are derived from simulation studies so that the averagemeasured response of jets becomes identical to that of particle-level jets. Measurements of themomentum balance in dijet, γ + jet, Z + jet, and multijet events are used to correct for anyresidual differences in jet energy scale (JES) in data and simulation [55]. The jet energy resolu-tion (JER) amounts typically to 15% at 10 GeV, 8% at 100 GeV, and 4% at 1 TeV [55]. Additionalselection criteria are applied to each event to remove jets potentially dominated by anomalouscontributions from various subdetector components or reconstruction failures.The reconstructed vertex with the largest value of summed physics-object p is the primary ppinteraction vertex. The physics objects are the jets, clustered using the jet finding algorithm [51,52] with the tracks assigned to the vertex as inputs.Muons are measured in the range | η | < < p T up to 100 (1000) GeV.The Z bosons are identified by their decay into µ + µ − pairs. Events for the Z + jets analysis areselected online using a high-level trigger that requires a loosely isolated muon with a minimum p T threshold of 24 GeV. Offline, the muon candidates are required to be: reconstructed in thefiducial region | η | < ∆ R > ∆ R = <
15% of the muon p T .Photon events are selected online with a trigger that requires at least one ECAL cluster with E T >
175 GeV, and the ratio of energy deposited in the HCAL to that in the ECAL to be lessthan 0.15 (0.10) in the EB (EE) region. Offline, photon candidates are required: (i) to have p T >
200 GeV and | η | < ∆ R = + p T + p , and2.362 + p T , respectively, where the p T is the photon p T [49, 50].Jets are required to have p T >
40 GeV and | η | < + jets and γ + jets channels,at least one jet is required to have p T >
100 GeV.Z bosons are selected by requiring two isolated muons of opposite electric charges. The dimuoninvariant mass m µµ is required to be compatible with the Z boson mass, in the range of 71 < m µµ <
111 GeV. Z + jets events thus contain Z boson and off-peak Drell–Yan + jets production.In case more than one pair is selected, the highest p T pair is chosen. The muons are each required to have p T >
30 GeV. In addition, to match the photon requirement in the differentialcross section ratio of Z/ γ , the dimuon system is required to have p T >
200 GeV and a rapidityin the range | y | < + jets and γ + jets selections closely follow theanalysis requirements for the reconstructed objects. The Z + jets selection requires the presenceof two muons with opposite electric charges, whose four-vectors have been summed with allthe generated photons and leptons within a cone of ∆ R = p T >
30 GeV and | η | < < m µµ <
111 GeV.Both channels require the vector boson to have p T >
200 GeV, | η | or | y | < p T >
100 GeV, where the jets are required to be separated from the muons or thephoton by a distance of ∆ R > + jets re-gion, except that the requirements on the boson p T and y are removed and instead the thresholdon the leading jet p T is raised to 300 GeV. The distribution of the angular separation betweenthe Z boson and the closest jet ( ∆ R Z,j ) from data is compared with theoretical predictions fortwo thresholds on the leading jet p T : 300 and 500 GeV. The region ∆ R Z,j > ∆ R Z,j < p T >
30 GeV, | η | < | η | < p T above 300 or 500 GeV. + jets channel The selection of Z + jets events produces a relatively pure sample of Z bosons decaying tomuons. Contributions from background processes in the fiducial region are estimated fromsimulation and subtracted in the results. The dominant contributions are from diboson eventsand vector boson fusion Z + jets production, which is treated as a background in this analysis.These backgrounds contribute at the level of 2.5 and 1.5%, respectively, for the Z + jets analysisand 3.2 and 3.1% for the collinear Z analysis with leading jet p T above 300 GeV. The systematicuncertainty in the MC prediction is a quadratic sum of the uncertainties in the modeling ofthe muon selection efficiencies, simulation-based systematic uncertainties, and the statisticaluncertainty due to the limited number of MC events. γ + jets channel The largest background contribution to the γ + jets region is from QCD multijet processes inwhich an electron or hadron from a jet is misidentified as a photon candidate. The contributionfrom such misidentified photon events is estimated from the purity of γ + jets events, definedas the fraction of isolated photons from the hard scattering over the number of all photon candi-dates after the full selection criteria is applied. A template fit method is used to extract a valuefor the photon purity in each p T bin, by fitting the data with a sum of the signal and backgroundtemplates, where the signal denotes the distribution from genuine photons and the backgroundis the distribution from misidentified photons. The number of isolated photons emitted in thehard scattering is extracted from a fit to the shower shape variable σ ηη , which defines the ex-tent of the shower along the η direction within a 5 × The signal template is obtained from simulated γ + jets events generated at NLO using M AD -G RAPH MC @ NLO , selecting all candidates passing the analysis selection criteria and matchedto a particle-level isolated photon coming from the hard scattering. The particle-level photon isdefined as a prompt photon with the scalar p T sum of all additional generated stable particles(within a cone of ∆ R = σ ηη distribution from the LO SHERPA prediction and thenominal distribution from M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO . The shape of the σ ηη distribution fromthe two simulations are similar. The signal template obtained from SHERPA is provided as analternative template to the fit.A data region enriched in misidentified photons is selected using the isolation of the pho-ton candidate, as determined by summing the transverse momenta of only charged hadrons(charged-hadron isolation I ch ). This region is used to obtain the background template; thepresence of genuine photons can lead to a background template that looks like the signal dis-tribution and skews the estimate of the purity. The value of I ch used to define this background-enriched region is thus chosen following an optimization to reduce the contamination fromsignal events and, at the same time, provide a statistically sufficient sample of misidentifiedphotons. The charged-hadron isolation is required to be in the range 10–15 GeV, following anoptimization procedure described below. Any remaining residual contribution from genuinephotons, which is under 6% for σ ηη < σ ηη distribution is studied. Thedifference in the shape of this distribution in the nominal region and one with a different I ch range is estimated by constructing a quantity R σ ηη , defined as the ratio of the number of eventsin the signal region ( σ ηη < σ ηη > R σ ηη is studied for a large num-ber of possible background-enriched regions defined within the I ch range of 1–20 GeV. Theratio is most stable around a range where the lower threshold on the I ch is sufficiently far awayfrom the signal region to be least affected by the contamination from signal events. The opti-mal background-enriched region is found to be 10 < I ch <
15 GeV. A systematic uncertaintyfrom the choice of this region is determined from the maximum variation of the backgroundtemplate across all possible regions that produce a value for R σ ηη that does not vary with theamount of signal contamination. This shape difference is small, within the statistical uncer-tainty associated with the number of events in the sideband region.A binned maximum-likelihood fit is performed to the σ ηη distribution in data to extract thefraction of genuine photons. Statistical uncertainties in the templates are included in the fit asnuisance parameters using the Barlow–Beeston approach [57]. The purity fraction is estimatedby integrating the fitted template over the photon σ ηη fiducial region of σ ηη < σ ηη distribution for the p T bin 300–350 GeV, and the purityvalues extracted from a similar fit in each p T bin. The purity as a function of photon p T isthen fitted with a functional form and used to extract the purity values for the subsequentunfolding procedure. Also shown in Fig. 1 is the associated uncertainty in the purity, includingboth the statistical uncertainty from the fit and systematic contributions from the alternativesignal template, choice of background-enriched region, discrepancies in modeling of the σ ηη distribution, and photon selection efficiencies. The purity for photons with p T > ( ) GeVis above 98 (99)% and approaches 100% at high p T . hh s E v en t s Data Signal Background Signal+background (13 TeV) -1 CMS -2 x10
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 [GeV] g T p P ho t on pu r i t y Purity Fit (13 TeV) -1 CMS
Figure 1: A fit to the σ ηη distribution using signal and background templates to extract a valuefor the purity in the photon p T bin of 300–350 GeV. The signal region is to the left of the verticaldashed line (left). Purity as a function of photon p T , as extracted from a fit to the σ ηη distributionin each p T bin. The error bars show the total statistical and systematic uncertainty and the solidline is the fit to the data points (right). The reconstructed distributions are corrected for the event selection efficiency and detector res-olution effects using an unfolding technique that employs a response matrix to map the recon-structed observables onto the generator-level values. This is performed using the TU
NFOLD software package [58], which is based on a least squares fit and includes the option for a pos-sible Tikhonov regularization term [59]. The strength of the regularization parameter is deter-mined with the L -curve scan method [60] and is negligible. Hence, no regularization is appliedto the distributions.The simulation used to build the response matrix correcting for Z + jets and γ + jets eventsis based on NLO M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO . To build the response matrix, the bosons in eachgenerator-level event passing the fiducial requirements described in Section 4 are matched tothe corresponding reconstruction-level objects. When the generator-level bosons match thereconstruction-level objects, the response matrix is populated with both events, whereas gener-ated events in the fiducial region without a matching reconstructed boson candidate are used todetermine the selection efficiency. Conversely, a reconstructed boson candidate in the fiducialregion not matched to a generator-level boson is considered as a further background source.The unfolding of the ∆ R Z,j distribution is also performed using the NLO M AD -G RAPH MC @ NLO simulation. For this distribution, an additional matching procedure isperformed between the closest jet to the reconstructed Z boson and a generator-level jet. Theresponse matrix is then built similarly to the Z + jets and γ + jets cases.After the unfolding procedure, the fiducial region event yield is obtained and the correspond-ing measured fiducial cross sections are compared with different theoretical predictions. Systematic uncertainties associated with the measurement of the cross sections are propagatedby varying the parameter representing the source of each uncertainty by one standard devia- tion up and down ( ± σ ) and recomputing the response matrix for each variation.The systematic uncertainty in the efficiency of selecting muons or photons is determined bycomparing the efficiency expected from simulation and measured in data with the “tag-and-probe” method [61] as a function of the p T and η of the relevant object. For photons, this isderived using a sample of electrons from Z decays [49], reconstructed as photons without theelectron-veto requirement. This uncertainty is applied as a scale factor on an event-by-event ba-sis and implemented in the unfolding procedure as alternative MC distributions for each ± σ variation on the efficiencies. The statistical (systematic) component of the uncertainty is treatedas uncorrelated (correlated) across the boson p T bins. The uncertainty in the muon selection ef-ficiency, which includes the identification, isolation and tracking efficiency, contributes at the0.8–1.0% level to the Z + jets cross section, whereas the uncertainty in the photon selection ef-ficiency, which includes the identification and isolation efficiency, contributes at the 2.5–2.6%level on the γ + jets cross section across the full p T range.The systematic uncertainty in the muon momentum scale is the dominant systematic uncer-tainty in the Z + jets cross section. The uncertainty in the scale of up to 1 (7)% at p T < p T up to 22% at high p T . The uncertainty in the photon energy scale and resolution of1–2% results in an uncertainty in the cross section of ( ≤ p T and up to 8.6% at high p T , becoming the dominant systematic uncertainty.The effect on the measurement from the uncertainty in the JES and JER is evaluated by varyingthe jet four-momenta using the uncertainties in the correction factors that depend on the jet p T and η for the JES, and jet η for the JER. The uncertainties from the JES and JER are subdominant(below or at the 1% level) for all three event categories, because of the high- p T threshold of theleading jet.The sources of systematic uncertainty associated with the estimation of the photon purity aredescribed in more detail in Section 5.2, and contribute up to 1.1% at low photon p T and downto 0.2% at high p T .A correction is applied to account for the difference in pileup between data and simulation.It has a negligible (less than 1%) effect on the Z + jets and γ + jets cross sections. A 2.5%uncertainty in the total integrated luminosity [62] is applied to the unfolded data distribution.Uncertainties are included in the unfolding procedure from the statistical size of the simulationsample used to build the response matrix and from the difference between the LO and NLOM AD G RAPH MC @ NLO samples. The overall unfolding uncertainty is the quadratic sum ofthese two contributions, with the dominant uncertainty being the statistical size of the simu-lation samples. The uncertainty in the unfolding is the dominant uncertainty at high boson p T for the Z + jets cross section, contributing up to 19% in the highest Z boson p T bin, and alower uncertainty in the γ + jets cross section, contributing up to 6.4% at high photon p T . Theuncertainty in the unfolding for the ∆ R Z,j distribution is among the largest uncertainties.A summary of the contributions from each uncertainty source to the differential cross sectionmeasurements of Z + jets, γ + jets, Z/ γ ratio, and Z-jet angular separation for a leading jet p T threshold of 300 GeV is shown in Table 1. Common sources of systematic uncertainties such asthose from JES, JER, and integrated luminosity are treated as correlated between Z + jets and γ + jets and therefore mostly cancel in the Z/ γ ratio, whereas sources of uncertainty such asthe lepton efficiency, trigger, and photon purity are treated as uncorrelated. Table 1: The contributions to the uncertainty in the differential cross section measurements forthe Z + jets and γ + jets processes, the Z/ γ ratio, and the ∆ R Z,j region. The uncertainties areexpressed in percent, and a range represents the minimum and maximum effect observed.
Systematic source Z + jets [%] γ + jets [%] (Z + jets)/( γ + jets) [%] ∆ R Z,j region [%]Trigger 0.0 0.2–2.2 0.2–2.2 0.0–0.2Muon reconstruction and selection 0.8–1.0 — 0.8–1.0 0.9–1.1Photon reconstruction and selection — 2.5–2.6 2.5–2.6 —Photon energy scale — 0.5–8.6 0.5–8.6 —Muon momentum scale 1.7–22 — 1.7–22 0.1–12Photon purity — 0.2–1.1 0.2–1.1 —Background yields 0.7–1.5 — 0.5–1.6 0.9–11Pileup 0.0–0.7 0.0–0.3 0.0–0.4 0.2–0.9Integrated luminosity 2.5 2.5 0.0 2.5Unfolding 0.3–19 1.1–6.4 1.1–20 1.2–11JES/JER 0.0–0.2 0.0–0.2 ≤ A comparison of the unfolded cross section of Z + jets events, as a function of the Z boson p T , with several theoretical predictions is shown in Fig. 2 left (upper and lower panels). Theunfolded data are compared with the LO and NLO predictions from M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO and the NLO QCD+EW prediction from
SHERPA + O
PEN L OOPS . The predictions from M AD -G RAPH MC @ NLO at LO are normalized to the NNLO cross section from
FEWZ . Statisticaluncertainties associated with the MC are shown for the LO and NLO predictions in the lowerpanel. Additionally, the NLO prediction from M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO is shown with the un-certainties from the variation in the PDFs, and in µ R and µ F . The PDF uncertainty is evaluatedby taking the one sigma uncertainty band from the different PDF replicas and the scale un-certainty is evaluated by independently varying the scales up and down by a factor of two,with the condition that 0.5 < µ F / µ R < p T region, whereas the major source of the systematic uncertainty in the high- p T regioncomes from the unfolding. The precision in the high- p T region is limited by both the statisti-cal uncertainties in the data and also by the limited size of the MC samples. The data showagreement within uncertainties with all predictions across almost the entire p T range. A dif-ference of 1.7 standard deviations is observed between the data and the prediction from M AD -G RAPH MC @ NLO in the 950–1200 GeV bin.The distribution of the unfolded photon p T is compared with theoretical predictions from J ET -P HOX , SHERPA + O
PEN L OOPS , and M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO in Fig. 2 right (upper and lowerpanels). The LO prediction from M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO shows a 10–30% disagreement inthe shape of the photon p T distribution, in particular for p T values below ≈
600 GeV. The cor-responding NLO calculation shows agreement within uncertainties across the full range of p T .The SHERPA + O
PEN L OOPS calculation overpredicts the data by 20–30% in the p T region below500 GeV and is consistent within uncertainties for the rest of the p T range. The NLO predictionfrom J ET P HOX is shown with the uncertainties from the variation in PDFs and in µ R , µ F and µ f .The prediction is mostly consistent with data within uncertainties with a general overpredic-tion at the level of ≈
20% for p T <
500 GeV. Since the experimental uncertainties are smaller [GeV] ZT p
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 [ pb / G e V ] Z T p / d Z s d - - - - - -
10 Data Stat + syst unc 4j@NLO QCD+EW) £ Sherpa + OpenLoops ( 2j@NLO+PS) £ MG5_aMC + PY8 (
NNLO £ MG5_aMC + PY8 (
Z+jets (13 TeV) -1 CMS [GeV] g T p
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 [ pb / G e V ] g T p / d gs d - - - - -
10 1 Data Stat + syst uncJetPhox (NLO) 4j@NLO QCD+EW) £ Sherpa + OpenLoops (MG5_aMC + PY8 (1j@NLO+PS) 4j@LO+PS) £ MG5_aMC + PY8 ( +jets g (13 TeV) -1 CMS / D a t a N L O M G M C ¯ Theory S he r pa / D a t a [GeV] ZT p
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 / D a t a L O M G M C (13 TeV) -1 CMS / D a t a N L O M G ¯ Theory J e t pho x / D a t a ¯ Theory / D a t a L O M G [GeV] g T p
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 S he r pa / D a t a (13 TeV) -1 CMS
Figure 2: Measured differential cross sections as a function of the boson p T for Z + jets (left)and γ + jets (right) and their comparisons with several theoretical predictions. The LO M AD -G RAPH MC @ NLO prediction for Z + jets has been normalized to the NNLO cross section (de-noted by k NNLO ). The vertical bars in the upper panels represent the statistical uncertainty inthe measurement and the hatched band in the lower and upper panels is the sum in quadratureof the statistical and systematic uncertainty components in the measurement. The lower pan-els show the ratios of the theoretical predictions to the unfolded data. The shaded band in theLO M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO and
SHERPA + O
PEN L OOPS calculations shows the statistical un-certainty. The dark (light) shaded band on the NLO prediction from M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO and the J ET P HOX prediction represents the PDF (scale) uncertainties, whereas the statisticaluncertainties are barely visible.than or comparable with the theoretical uncertainties for low and intermediate photon p T , thisanalysis can be useful to constrain the proton PDF [3].The ratio of differential cross sections for the two processes, Z + jets over γ + jets, is shown inFig. 3 and compared with the theoretical prediction at NLO from M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO andNLO QCD+EW from
SHERPA + O
PEN L OOPS . The comparison with M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO shows consistency within the uncertainties across the entire p T range, whereas SHERPA + O
PEN -L OOPS underpredicts the data by 10–20% at low p T but is consistent with data within uncer-tainties for p T >
300 GeV. [GeV] VT p
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 g T p / d s / d Z T p / d s d £ Sherpa + OpenLoops ( 2j@NLO+PS) £ MG5_aMC + PY8 ( +jets g Z/ (13 TeV) -1 CMS / D a t a N L O M G M C ¯ Theory [GeV] VT p
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 S he r pa / D a t a (13 TeV) -1 CMS
Figure 3: Differential cross section ratio of Z + jets to γ + jets as a function of the vec-tor boson (V) transverse momentum compared with the theoretical prediction from M AD -G RAPH MC @ NLO and
SHERPA + O
PEN L OOPS . Only vector bosons produced centrally, with | y | < AD -G RAPH MC @ NLO represents the PDF (scale) uncertainties, which are treated as uncorrelatedbetween Z + jets and γ + jets, whereas the statistical uncertainties are barely visible. Theshaded band on the SHERPA + O
PEN L OOPS calculation is the statistical uncertainty.The unfolded distribution for the angular separation between the Z boson and the closest jet isshown in Fig. 4 and compared with predictions from M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO and
SHERPA +O PEN L OOPS . The peak around ∆ R Z,j = 3.4 corresponds to the back-to-back production of a Zboson and a jet, whereas the region below ∆ R Z,j ≈ p T is above 500 GeV. The LO prediction fromM AD G RAPH MC @ NLO underpredicts the data for ∆ R Z,j > ∆ R Z,j below 0.8 for leading jet p T >
300 GeV, the region dominated by collinear production.The
SHERPA + O
PEN L OOPS prediction is typically higher than the data for the region below ∆ R Z,j ≈ Z,j R D ) [ pb ] Z , j R D / d ( Z s d £ Sherpa + OpenLoops ( 2j@NLO+PS) £ MG5_aMC + PY8 (
NNLO £ MG5_aMC + PY8 ( > 300 GeV T p lead jet (13 TeV) -1 CMS
Z,j R D ) [ pb ] Z , j R D / d ( Z s d £ Sherpa + OpenLoops ( 2j@NLO+PS) £ MG5_aMC + PY8 (
NNLO £ MG5_aMC + PY8 ( > 500 GeV T p lead jet (13 TeV) -1 CMS / D a t a N L O M G M C ¯ Theory S he r pa / D a t a Z,j R D / D a t a L O M G M C (13 TeV) -1 CMS / D a t a N L O M G M C ¯ Theory S he r pa / D a t a Z,j R D / D a t a L O M G M C (13 TeV) -1 CMS
Figure 4: Measured differential cross section of Z + jets as a function of the angular separationbetween the Z boson and the closest jet, compared with theoretical predictions from M AD -G RAPH MC @ NLO and
SHERPA + O
PEN L OOPS , where the leading jet p T is above 300 (left)and 500 (right) GeV. The vertical bars in the upper panel represent the statistical uncertainty inthe measurement and the hatched band in the lower and upper panels is the sum in quadratureof the statistical and systematic uncertainty components in the measurement. The lower panelsshow the ratio of the theoretical predictions to the unfolded data. The shaded band on the LOM AD G RAPH MC @ NLO and
SHERPA + O
PEN L OOPS calculations is the statistical uncertainty.The dark (light) shaded band on the NLO prediction from M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO representsthe PDF (scale) uncertainties.
This paper presents measurements of standard model processes that probe regions of phasespace characterized by the production of Z + jets and γ + jets at large boson transverse mo-mentum ( p T ), and of a Z boson in association with at least one very high p T jet.The measurements utilize data recorded with the CMS detector in pp collisions at √ s = 13 TeVat the LHC that correspond to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb − . Comparisons are madebetween the unfolded data and several theory predictions.The Z + jets and γ + jets cross sections as a function of boson p T are presented for p T above
200 GeV and compared with predictions from (i) the leading-order (LO) and next-to-leading-order (NLO) calculations from M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO , and (ii) the NLO quantum chromo-dynamics and electroweak (QCD+EW) calculation from
SHERPA + O
PEN L OOPS . In addition,the γ + jets measurement is compared with NLO J ET P HOX predictions. The data are consistentwith theory for both the γ and Z boson final states, although in some regions of phase spacea few tens of percent deviations are observed. In general, the perturbative NLO correctionsexhibit a better agreement with the measurements.This is the first measurement at 13 TeV of the ratio of cross sections for Z + jets to γ + jetsas a function of boson p T . This ratio is compared with the NLO calculation from M AD -G RAPH MC @ NLO and the NLO QCD+EW prediction from
SHERPA + O
PEN L OOPS ; and itprobes the region up to 1.5 TeV in boson p T . The data are generally in agreement with the-ory within the uncertainties over the full range of boson p T . This ratio provides an importanttheoretical input for the estimation, based on the γ + jets process, of the Z → νν backgroundrelevant in searches for new physics.The measurement of the emission of a Z boson collinear to a jet represents the first explicit studyof this topology at the LHC. It is accessed through the production of a Z boson in associationwith at least one high- p T jet ( >
300 or >
500 GeV), and the differential cross section is measuredas a function of the angular separation between the Z boson and the closest jet ( ∆ R Z,j ). Theunfolded data are compared with the LO and NLO calculations from M AD G RAPH MC @ NLO ,and the NLO QCD+EW prediction from
SHERPA + O
PEN L OOPS . The NLO M AD G RAPH showsagreement over most of the measured distribution, but underpredicts it for the ∆ R Z,j regionbelow 0.8, which is dominated by events with the emission of a Z boson in close proximity toa jet. The prediction from
SHERPA is also generally consistent with the measurement.The measurements presented in this paper will become increasingly important in current andfuture runs of the LHC, where the higher √ s and larger integrated luminosity will push theLHC program into new territory, necessitating an understanding of standard model processesin regions of previously unexplored phase space. Acknowledgments
We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the excellent perfor-mance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative staffs at CERN and at other CMSinstitutes for their contributions to the success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefullyacknowledge the computing centers and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Gridand other centers for delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to ouranalyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction and operationof the LHC, the CMS detector, and the supporting computing infrastructure provided by thefollowing funding agencies: BMBWF and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq,CAPES, FAPERJ, FAPERGS, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, andNSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RIF (Cyprus); SENESCYT(Ecuador); MoER, ERC PUT and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of Finland, MEC, and HIP (Fin-land); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); NK-FIA (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM (Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF(Republic of Korea); MES (Latvia); LAS (Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CIN-VESTAV, CONACYT, LNS, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MOS (Montenegro); MBIE (NewZealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON,RosAtom, RAS, RFBR, and NRC KI (Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI, and FEDER(Spain); MOSTR (Sri Lanka); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); MST (Taipei); ThEPCen-ter, IPST, STAR, and NSTDA (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); NASU (Ukraine); STFC(United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA).Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie program and the European ResearchCouncil and Horizon 2020 Grant, contract Nos. 675440, 724704, 752730, and 765710 (EuropeanUnion); the Leventis Foundation; the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation; the Alexander von Hum-boldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office; the Fonds pour la Formation `a laRecherche dans l’Industrie et dans l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Inno-vatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the F.R.S.-FNRS and FWO (Belgium) un-der the “Excellence of Science – EOS” – be.h project n. 30820817; the Beijing Municipal Science &Technology Commission, No. Z191100007219010; the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports(MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), under Germany’sExcellence Strategy – EXC 2121 “Quantum Universe” – 390833306, and under project number400140256 - GRK2497; 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 LebaneseCNRS and the Lebanese University(Lebanon); the HOMING PLUS program of the Founda-tion for Polish Science, cofinanced from European Union, Regional Development Fund, theMobility Plus program of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, the National ScienceCenter (Poland), contracts Harmonia 2014/14/M/ST2/00428, Opus 2014/13/B/ST2/02543,2014/15/B/ST2/03998, and 2015/19/B/ST2/02861, Sonata-bis 2012/07/E/ST2/01406; theNational Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund; the Ministry of Scienceand Higher Education, project no. 0723-2020-0041 (Russia); the Programa Estatal de Fomentode la Investigaci ´on Cient´ıfica y T´ecnica de Excelencia Mar´ıa de Maeztu, grant MDM-2015-0509and the Programa Severo Ochoa del Principado de Asturias; the Thalis and Aristeia programscofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for PostdoctoralFellowship, Chulalongkorn University and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd CenturyProject Advancement Project (Thailand); the Kavli Foundation; the Nvidia Corporation; the Su-perMicro Corporation; the Welch Foundation, contract C-1845; and the Weston Havens Foun- eferences dation (USA). References [1] A. Gehrmann-De Ridder et al., “Precise QCD predictions for the production of a Z bosonin association with a hadronic jet”,
Phys. Rev. Lett. (2016) 022001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.022001 , arXiv:1507.02850 .[2] R. Boughezal et al., “Z-boson production in association with a jet atnext-to-next-to-leading order in perturbative QCD”, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2016) 152001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.152001 , arXiv:1512.01291 .[3] L. Carminati et al., “Sensitivity of the LHC isolated-gamma+jet data to the partondistribution functions of the proton”, EPL (2013) 61002, doi:10.1209/0295-5075/101/61002 , arXiv:1212.5511 .[4] R. Boughezal, A. Guffanti, F. Petriello, and M. Ubiali, “The impact of the LHC Z-bosontransverse momentum data on PDF determinations”, JHEP (2017) 130, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2017)130 , arXiv:1705.00343 .[5] CMS Collaboration, “Search for new physics in final states with an energetic jet or ahadronically decaying W or Z boson and transverse momentum imbalance at √ s =
13 TeV”,
Phys. Rev. D (2018) 092005, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.092005 , arXiv:1712.02345 .[6] W. J. Stirling and E. Vryonidou, “Electroweak corrections and Bloch-Nordsieck violationsin 2-to-2 processes at the LHC”, JHEP (2013) 155, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2013)155 , arXiv:1212.6537 .[7] A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, T. Kasprzik, and A. M ¨uck, “Electroweak corrections to W + jethadroproduction including leptonic W-boson decays”, JHEP (2009) 075, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/08/075 , arXiv:0906.1656 .[8] A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, T. Kasprzik, and A. M ¨uck, “Electroweak corrections to dilepton +jet production at hadron colliders”, JHEP (2011) 069, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2011)069 , arXiv:1103.0914 .[9] A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, T. Kasprzik, and A. M ¨uck, “Electroweak corrections to monojetproduction at the LHC”, Eur. Phys. J. C (2013) 2297, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2297-x , arXiv:1211.5078 .[10] A. Denner, L. Hofer, A. Scharf, and S. Uccirati, “Electroweak corrections to lepton pairproduction in association with two hard jets at the LHC”, JHEP (2015) 094, doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2015)094 , arXiv:1411.0916 .[11] S. Kallweit et al., “NLO QCD+EW predictions for V+jets including off-shell vector-bosondecays and multijet merging”, JHEP (2016) 021, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2016)021 , arXiv:1511.08692 .[12] J. M. Lindert et al., “Precise predictions for V+jets dark matter backgrounds”, Eur. Phys.J. C (2017) 829, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5389-1 , arXiv:1705.04664 . [13] M. Sch ¨onherr et al., “NLO QCD+EW for V+jets”, in Proceedings of the 4th Large HadronCollider Physics Conference (LHCP 2016) , p. 58. 2016. arXiv:1609.01445 . doi:10.22323/1.276.0058 .[14] R. Frederix et al., “The automation of next-to-leading order electroweak calculations”, JHEP (2018) 185, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2018)185 , arXiv:1804.10017 .[15] CMS Collaboration, “Comparison of the Z/ γ ∗ + jets to γ + jets cross sections in ppcollisions at √ s = JHEP (2015) 128, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2016)010 , arXiv:1505.06520 .[16] U. Baur, “Weak boson emission in hadron collider processes”, Phys. Rev. D (2007)013005, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.013005 , arXiv:hep-ph/0611241 .[17] J. R. Christiansen and T. Sj ¨ostrand, “Weak gauge boson radiation in parton showers”, JHEP (2014) 115, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2014)115 , arXiv:1401.5238 .[18] F. Krauss, P. Petrov, M. Sch ¨onherr, and M. Spannowsky, “Measuring collinear Wemissions inside jets”, Phys. Rev. D (2014) 114006, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.114006 , arXiv:1403.4788 .[19] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of W boson angular distributions in events withhigh transverse momentum jets at √ s = Phys. Lett. B (2017) 132, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.12.005 , arXiv:1609.07045 .[20] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the differential cross sections for the associatedproduction of a W boson and jets in proton-proton collisions at √ s =
13 TeV”,
Phys. Rev.D (2017) 072005, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.072005 , arXiv:1707.05979 .[21] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”, JINST (2017) P01020, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020 , arXiv:1609.02366 .[22] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”, JINST (2008) S08004, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004 .[23] 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 .[24] 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 .[25] R. Frederix and S. Frixione, “Merging meets matching in MC@NLO”, JHEP (2012)061, doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2012)061 , arXiv:1209.6215 .[26] 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 .[27] 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 .[28] S. Catani, M. Fontannaz, J. P. Guillet, and E. Pilon, “Cross-section of isolated promptphotons in hadron-hadron collisions”, JHEP (2002) 028, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/05/028 , arXiv:hep-ph/0204023 . eferences [29] P. Aurenche et al., “A new critical study of photon production in hadronic collisions”, Phys. Rev. D (2006) 094007, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.094007 , arXiv:hep-ph/0602133 .[30] Z. Belghobsi et al., “Photon-jet correlations and constraints on fragmentation functions”, Phys. Rev. D (2009) 114024, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.114024 , arXiv:0903.4834 .[31] L. Bourhis, M. Fontannaz, and J. P. Guillet, “Quark and gluon fragmentation functionsinto photons”, Eur. Phys. J. C (1998) 529, doi:10.1007/s100520050158 , arXiv:hep-ph/9704447 .[32] E. Bothmann et al., “Event generation with Sherpa 2.2”, SciPost Phys. (2019) 034, doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.7.3.034 , arXiv:1905.09127 .[33] T. Gleisberg and S. Hoeche, “Comix, a new matrix element generator”, JHEP (2008)039, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/12/039 , arXiv:0808.3674 .[34] F. Buccioni et al., “Openloops 2”, Eur. Phys. J. C (2019) 866, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7306-2 , arXiv:1907.13071 .[35] S. Schumann and F. Krauss, “A parton shower algorithm based on Catani-Seymourdipole factorisation”, JHEP (2008) 038, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/03/038 , arXiv:0709.1027 .[36] S. Hoeche, F. Krauss, M. Sch ¨onherr, and F. Siegert, “A critical appraisal of NLO+PSmatching methods”, JHEP (2012) 049, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2012)049 , arXiv:1111.1220 .[37] S. Frixione and B. R. Webber, “Matching NLO QCD computations and parton showersimulations”, JHEP (2002) 029, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/06/029 , arXiv:hep-ph/0204244 .[38] N. Kidonakis, “Differential and total cross sections for top pair and single topproduction”, in , p. 40. 2012. arXiv:1205.3453 . doi:10.3204/DESY-PROC-2012-02/251 .[39] 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 .[40] 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 .[41] 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 .[42] 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 .8
Phys. Rev.D (2017) 072005, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.072005 , arXiv:1707.05979 .[21] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”, JINST (2017) P01020, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020 , arXiv:1609.02366 .[22] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”, JINST (2008) S08004, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004 .[23] 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 .[24] 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 .[25] R. Frederix and S. Frixione, “Merging meets matching in MC@NLO”, JHEP (2012)061, doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2012)061 , arXiv:1209.6215 .[26] 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 .[27] 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 .[28] S. Catani, M. Fontannaz, J. P. Guillet, and E. Pilon, “Cross-section of isolated promptphotons in hadron-hadron collisions”, JHEP (2002) 028, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/05/028 , arXiv:hep-ph/0204023 . eferences [29] P. Aurenche et al., “A new critical study of photon production in hadronic collisions”, Phys. Rev. D (2006) 094007, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.094007 , arXiv:hep-ph/0602133 .[30] Z. Belghobsi et al., “Photon-jet correlations and constraints on fragmentation functions”, Phys. Rev. D (2009) 114024, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.114024 , arXiv:0903.4834 .[31] L. Bourhis, M. Fontannaz, and J. P. Guillet, “Quark and gluon fragmentation functionsinto photons”, Eur. Phys. J. C (1998) 529, doi:10.1007/s100520050158 , arXiv:hep-ph/9704447 .[32] E. Bothmann et al., “Event generation with Sherpa 2.2”, SciPost Phys. (2019) 034, doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.7.3.034 , arXiv:1905.09127 .[33] T. Gleisberg and S. Hoeche, “Comix, a new matrix element generator”, JHEP (2008)039, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/12/039 , arXiv:0808.3674 .[34] F. Buccioni et al., “Openloops 2”, Eur. Phys. J. C (2019) 866, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7306-2 , arXiv:1907.13071 .[35] S. Schumann and F. Krauss, “A parton shower algorithm based on Catani-Seymourdipole factorisation”, JHEP (2008) 038, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/03/038 , arXiv:0709.1027 .[36] S. Hoeche, F. Krauss, M. Sch ¨onherr, and F. Siegert, “A critical appraisal of NLO+PSmatching methods”, JHEP (2012) 049, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2012)049 , arXiv:1111.1220 .[37] S. Frixione and B. R. Webber, “Matching NLO QCD computations and parton showersimulations”, JHEP (2002) 029, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/06/029 , arXiv:hep-ph/0204244 .[38] N. Kidonakis, “Differential and total cross sections for top pair and single topproduction”, in , p. 40. 2012. arXiv:1205.3453 . doi:10.3204/DESY-PROC-2012-02/251 .[39] 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 .[40] 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 .[41] 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 .[42] 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 .8 [43] E. Re, “Single-top Wt-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 .[44] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC Run 2”, JHEP (2015) 040, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040 , arXiv:1410.8849 .[45] 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 .[46] GEANT4 Collaboration, “GEANT4: A simulation toolkit”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A (2003) 250, doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8 .[47] R. D. Ball et al., “Parton distributions with LHC data”,
Nucl. Phys. B (2013) 244, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2012.10.003 , arXiv:1207.1303 .[48] 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 .[49] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of photon reconstruction and identification with theCMS detector in proton-proton collisions at √ s = JINST (2015) P08010, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/10/08/P08010 , arXiv:1502.02702 .[50] CMS Collaboration, “Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with theCMS experiment at the CERN LHC”, (12, 2020). arXiv:2012.06888 .[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] 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 .[54] 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 .[55] CMS Collaboration, “Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in ppcollisions at 8 TeV”, JINST (2017) P02014, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/P02014 , arXiv:1607.03663 .[56] 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 .[57] R. J. Barlow and C. Beeston, “Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples”, Comput. Phys.Commun. (1993) 90005, doi:10.1016/0010-4655(93)90005-W .[58] S. Schmitt, “TUnfold: an algorithm for correcting migration effects in high energyphysics”, JINST (2012) T10003, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/7/10/T10003 , arXiv:1205.6201 . eferences [59] A. N. Tikhonov, “Solution of incorrectly formulated problems and the regularizationmethod”, Soviet Math. Dokl. (1963) 1035.[60] P. C. Hansen, “The L-curve and its use in the numerical treatment of inverse problems”,in Computational Inverse Problems in Electrocardiology, ed. P. Johnston, Advances inComputational Bioengineering , p. 119. WIT Press, 2000.[61] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inclusive W and Z production cross sections inpp collisions at √ s = JHEP (2011) 132, doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2011)132 , arXiv:1107.4789 .[62] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data taking period”,CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001, 2017. A The CMS Collaboration
Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan † , A. Tumasyan Institut f ¨ur Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, T. Bergauer, M. Dragicevic, J. Er ¨o, A. Escalante Del Valle, R. Fr ¨uhwirth ,M. Jeitler , N. Krammer, L. Lechner, D. Liko, T. Madlener, I. Mikulec, F.M. Pitters, N. Rad,J. Schieck , R. Sch ¨ofbeck, M. Spanring, S. Templ, W. Waltenberger, C.-E. Wulz , M. Zarucki Institute for Nuclear Problems, Minsk, Belarus
V. Chekhovsky, A. Litomin, V. Makarenko, J. Suarez Gonzalez
Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerpen, Belgium
M.R. Darwish , E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, T. Kello , A. Lelek, M. Pieters,H. Rejeb Sfar, H. Van Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, S. Van Putte, N. Van Remortel Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
F. Blekman, E.S. Bols, S.S. Chhibra, J. D’Hondt, J. De Clercq, D. Lontkovskyi, S. Lowette,I. Marchesini, S. Moortgat, A. Morton, Q. Python, S. Tavernier, W. Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders
Universit´e Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
D. Beghin, B. Bilin, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, B. Dorney, L. Favart, A. Grebenyuk,A.K. Kalsi, I. Makarenko, L. Moureaux, L. P´etr´e, A. Popov, N. Postiau, E. Starling, L. Thomas,C. Vander Velde, P. Vanlaer, D. Vannerom, L. Wezenbeek
Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, M. Gruchala, I. Khvastunov , M. Niedziela, C. Roskas, K. Skovpen,M. Tytgat, W. Verbeke, B. Vermassen, M. Vit Universit´e Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
G. Bruno, F. Bury, C. Caputo, P. David, C. Delaere, M. Delcourt, I.S. Donertas, A. Giammanco,V. Lemaitre, K. Mondal, J. Prisciandaro, A. Taliercio, M. Teklishyn, P. Vischia, S. Wuyckens,J. Zobec
Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
G.A. Alves, G. Correia Silva, C. Hensel, A. Moraes
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
W.L. Ald´a J ´unior, E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, H. BRANDAO MALBOUISSON,W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato , E. Coelho, E.M. Da Costa, G.G. Da Silveira , D. De Jesus Damiao,S. Fonseca De Souza, J. Martins , D. Matos Figueiredo, M. Medina Jaime , M. Melo De Almeida,C. Mora Herrera, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, P. Rebello Teles, L.J. Sanchez Rosas,A. Santoro, S.M. Silva Do Amaral, 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 C.A. Bernardes a , L. Calligaris a , T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomei a , E.M. Gregores b , D.S. Lemos a ,P.G. Mercadante b , S.F. Novaes a , Sandra S. Padula a Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia,Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, G. Antchev, I. Atanasov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, M. Misheva, M. Rodozov,M. Shopova, G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
M. Bonchev, A. Dimitrov, T. Ivanov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov, A. Petrov
Beihang University, Beijing, China
W. Fang , Q. Guo, H. Wang, L. Yuan Department of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, Z. Hu, Y. Wang
Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
E. Chapon, G.M. Chen , H.S. Chen , M. Chen, A. Kapoor, D. Leggat, H. Liao, Z. Liu, R. Sharma,A. Spiezia, J. Tao, J. Thomas-wilsker, J. Wang, H. Zhang, S. Zhang , J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
A. Agapitos, Y. Ban, C. Chen, A. Levin, Q. Li, M. Lu, X. Lyu, Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang,Q. Wang, J. Xiao
Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
Z. You
Institute of Modern Physics and Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Ion-beamApplication (MOE) - Fudan University, Shanghai, China
X. Gao Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
M. Xiao
Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, C. Florez, J. Fraga, A. Sarkar, M.A. Segura Delgado
Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia
J. Jaramillo, J. Mejia Guisao, F. Ramirez, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, C.A. Salazar Gonz´alez,N. Vanegas Arbelaez
University of Split, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and NavalArchitecture, Split, Croatia
D. Giljanovic, 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, D. Majumder, M. Roguljic, A. Starodumov , T. Susa University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, E. Erodotou, A. Ioannou, G. Kole, M. Kolosova, S. Konstantinou,G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos, P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski, H. Saka,D. Tsiakkouri
Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
M. Finger , M. Finger Jr. , A. Kveton, J. Tomsa Escuela Politecnica Nacional, Quito, Ecuador
E. Ayala
Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
E. Carrera Jarrin Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab Republic of Egypt, EgyptianNetwork of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt
A.A. Abdelalim , S. Elgammal , A. Ellithi Kamel Center for High Energy Physics (CHEP-FU), Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt
M.A. Mahmoud, Y. Mohammed National Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
S. Bhowmik, A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveira, R.K. Dewanjee, K. Ehataht, M. Kadastik,M. Raidal, C. Veelken
Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
P. Eerola, L. Forthomme, H. Kirschenmann, K. Osterberg, M. Voutilainen
Helsinki Institute of Physics, Helsinki, Finland
E. Br ¨ucken, F. Garcia, J. Havukainen, V. Karim¨aki, M.S. Kim, R. Kinnunen, T. Lamp´en,K. Lassila-Perini, S. Laurila, S. Lehti, T. Lind´en, H. Siikonen, E. Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi
Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
P. Luukka, T. Tuuva
IRFU, CEA, Universit´e Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
C. Amendola, M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, J.L. Faure, F. Ferri, S. Ganjour,A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry, B. Lenzi, E. Locci, J. Malcles,J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M. ¨O. Sahin, A. Savoy-Navarro , M. Titov, G.B. Yu Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, CNRS/IN2P3, Ecole Polytechnique, Institut Polytechniquede Paris, Palaiseau, France
S. Ahuja, F. Beaudette, M. Bonanomi, A. Buchot Perraguin, P. Busson, C. Charlot, O. Davignon,B. Diab, G. Falmagne, R. Granier de Cassagnac, A. Hakimi, I. Kucher, A. Lobanov,C. Martin Perez, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, P. Paganini, J. Rembser, R. Salerno, J.B. Sauvan,Y. Sirois, A. Zabi, A. Zghiche
Universit´e de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram , J. Andrea, D. Bloch, G. Bourgatte, J.-M. Brom, E.C. Chabert, C. Collard, J.-C. Fontaine , D. Gel´e, U. Goerlach, C. Grimault, A.-C. Le Bihan, P. Van Hove Universit´e de Lyon, Universit´e Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3, Institut de PhysiqueNucl´eaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
E. Asilar, S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, C. Camen, A. Carle, N. Chanon,D. Contardo, P. Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, B. Ille, Sa. Jain,I.B. Laktineh, H. Lattaud, A. Lesauvage, M. Lethuillier, L. Mirabito, L. Torterotot, G. Touquet,M. Vander Donckt, S. Viret
Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
A. Khvedelidze , Z. Tsamalaidze RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen, Germany
L. Feld, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, D. Meuser, A. Pauls, M. Preuten, M.P. Rauch, J. Schulz,M. Teroerde
RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany
D. Eliseev, M. Erdmann, P. Fackeldey, B. Fischer, S. Ghosh, T. Hebbeker, K. Hoepfner, H. Keller,L. Mastrolorenzo, M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, P. Millet, G. Mocellin, S. Mondal, S. Mukherjee, D. Noll, A. Novak, T. Pook, A. Pozdnyakov, T. Quast, M. Radziej, Y. Rath, H. Reithler, J. Roemer,A. Schmidt, S.C. Schuler, A. Sharma, S. Wiedenbeck, S. Zaleski
RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany
C. Dziwok, G. Fl ¨ugge, W. Haj Ahmad , O. Hlushchenko, T. Kress, A. Nowack, C. Pistone,O. Pooth, D. Roy, H. Sert, A. Stahl , T. Ziemons Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
H. Aarup Petersen, M. Aldaya Martin, P. Asmuss, I. Babounikau, S. Baxter, O. Behnke,A. Berm ´udez Mart´ınez, A.A. Bin Anuar, K. Borras , V. Botta, D. Brunner, A. Campbell,A. Cardini, P. Connor, S. Consuegra Rodr´ıguez, V. Danilov, A. De Wit, M.M. Defranchis,L. Didukh, D. Dom´ınguez Damiani, G. Eckerlin, D. Eckstein, T. Eichhorn, L.I. Estevez Banos,E. Gallo , A. Geiser, A. Giraldi, A. Grohsjean, M. Guthoff, A. Harb, A. Jafari , N.Z. Jomhari,H. Jung, A. Kasem , M. Kasemann, H. Kaveh, C. Kleinwort, J. Knolle, D. Kr ¨ucker, W. Lange,T. Lenz, J. Lidrych, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann , R. Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, J. Metwally,A.B. Meyer, M. Meyer, M. Missiroli, J. Mnich, A. Mussgiller, V. Myronenko, Y. Otarid,D. P´erez Ad´an, S.K. Pflitsch, D. Pitzl, A. Raspereza, A. Saggio, A. Saibel, M. Savitskyi,V. Scheurer, P. Sch ¨utze, C. Schwanenberger, A. Singh, R.E. Sosa Ricardo, N. Tonon, O. Turkot,A. Vagnerini, M. Van De Klundert, R. Walsh, D. Walter, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C. Wissing,S. Wuchterl, O. Zenaiev, R. Zlebcik University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, L. Benato, A. Benecke, K. De Leo, T. Dreyer, A. Ebrahimi, M. Eich, F. Feindt,A. Fr ¨ohlich, C. Garbers, E. Garutti, P. Gunnellini, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, A. Karavdina,G. Kasieczka, R. Klanner, R. Kogler, V. Kutzner, J. Lange, T. Lange, A. Malara, C.E.N. Niemeyer,A. Nigamova, K.J. Pena Rodriguez, O. Rieger, P. Schleper, S. Schumann, J. Schwandt,D. Schwarz, J. Sonneveld, H. Stadie, G. Steinbr ¨uck, B. Vormwald, I. Zoi
Karlsruher Institut fuer Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany
M. Baselga, S. Baur, J. Bechtel, T. Berger, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, W. De Boer,A. Dierlamm, A. Droll, K. El Morabit, N. Faltermann, K. Fl ¨oh, M. Giffels, A. Gottmann,F. Hartmann , C. Heidecker, U. Husemann, M.A. Iqbal, I. Katkov , P. Keicher, R. Koppenh ¨ofer,S. Maier, M. Metzler, S. Mitra, D. M ¨uller, Th. M ¨uller, M. Musich, G. Quast, K. Rabbertz,J. Rauser, D. Savoiu, D. Sch¨afer, M. Schnepf, M. Schr ¨oder, D. Seith, I. Shvetsov, H.J. Simonis,R. Ulrich, M. Wassmer, M. Weber, R. Wolf, S. Wozniewski Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics (INPP), NCSR Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi,Greece
G. Anagnostou, P. Asenov, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas, G. Paspalaki,A. Stakia
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
M. Diamantopoulou, D. Karasavvas, G. Karathanasis, P. Kontaxakis, C.K. Koraka,A. Manousakis-katsikakis, A. Panagiotou, I. Papavergou, N. Saoulidou, K. Theofilatos,K. Vellidis, E. Vourliotis
National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece
G. Bakas, K. Kousouris, I. Papakrivopoulos, G. Tsipolitis, A. Zacharopoulou
University of Io´annina, Io´annina, Greece
I. Evangelou, C. Foudas, P. Gianneios, P. Katsoulis, P. Kokkas, S. Mallios, K. Manitara,N. Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, J. Strologas MTA-ELTE Lend ¨ulet CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, E ¨otv ¨os Lor´and University,Budapest, Hungary
M. Bart ´ok , R. Chudasama, M. Csanad, M.M.A. Gadallah , S. L ¨ok ¨os , P. Major, K. Mandal,A. Mehta, G. Pasztor, O. Sur´anyi, G.I. Veres Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath , F. Sikler, V. Veszpremi, G. Vesztergombi † Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
S. Czellar, J. Karancsi , J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi, D. Teyssier Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari
Eszterhazy Karoly University, Karoly Robert Campus, Gyongyos, Hungary
T. Csorgo, F. Nemes, T. Novak
Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore, India
S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri, D. Kumar, L. Panwar, P.C. Tiwari
National Institute of Science Education and Research, HBNI, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati , D. Dash, C. Kar, P. Mal, T. Mishra, V.K. Muraleedharan Nair Bindhu,A. Nayak , D.K. Sahoo , N. Sur, S.K. Swain Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, S. Chauhan, N. Dhingra , R. Gupta, A. Kaur, S. Kaur,P. Kumari, M. Lohan, M. Meena, K. Sandeep, S. Sharma, J.B. Singh, A.K. Virdi University of Delhi, Delhi, India
A. Ahmed, A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, M. Gola, S. Keshri, A. Kumar,M. Naimuddin, P. Priyanka, K. Ranjan, A. Shah
Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India
M. Bharti , R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, D. Bhowmik, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh, B. Gomber ,M. Maity , S. Nandan, P. Palit, A. Purohit, P.K. Rout, G. Saha, S. Sarkar, M. Sharan, B. Singh ,S. Thakur Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera, S.C. Behera, P. Kalbhor, A. Muhammad, R. Pradhan, P.R. Pujahari, A. Sharma,A.K. Sikdar
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
D. Dutta, V. Kumar, K. Naskar , P.K. Netrakanti, L.M. Pant, P. Shukla Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A, Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, M.A. Bhat, S. Dugad, R. Kumar Verma, G.B. Mohanty, U. Sarkar
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, M. Guchait, S. Karmakar, S. Kumar, G. Majumder,K. Mazumdar, S. Mukherjee, D. Roy, N. Sahoo
Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, India
S. Dube, B. Kansal, K. Kothekar, S. Pandey, A. Rane, A. Rastogi, S. Sharma
Department of Physics, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
H. Bakhshiansohi Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran
S. Chenarani , S.M. Etesami, M. Khakzad, M. Mohammadi Najafabadi University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
M. Felcini, M. Grunewald
INFN Sezione di Bari a , Universit`a di Bari b , Politecnico di Bari c , Bari, Italy M. Abbrescia a , b , R. Aly a , b ,39 , C. Aruta a , b , A. Colaleo a , D. Creanza a , c , N. De Filippis a , c ,M. De Palma a , b , A. Di Florio a , b , A. Di Pilato a , b , W. Elmetenawee a , b , L. Fiore a , A. Gelmi a , b ,M. Gul a , G. Iaselli a , c , M. Ince a , b , S. Lezki a , b , G. Maggi a , c , M. Maggi a , I. Margjeka a , b ,V. Mastrapasqua a , b , J.A. Merlin a , S. My a , b , S. Nuzzo a , b , A. Pompili a , b , G. Pugliese a , c , A. Ranieri a ,G. Selvaggi a , b , L. Silvestris a , F.M. Simone a , b , R. Venditti a , P. Verwilligen a INFN Sezione di Bologna a , Universit`a di Bologna b , Bologna, Italy G. Abbiendi a , C. Battilana a , b , D. Bonacorsi a , b , L. Borgonovi a , b , S. Braibant-Giacomelli a , b ,R. Campanini a , b , P. Capiluppi a , b , A. Castro a , b , F.R. Cavallo a , C. Ciocca a , M. Cuffiani a , b ,G.M. Dallavalle a , T. Diotalevi a , b , F. Fabbri a , A. Fanfani a , b , E. Fontanesi a , b , P. Giacomelli a ,L. Giommi a , b , C. Grandi a , L. Guiducci a , b , F. Iemmi a , b , S. Lo Meo a ,40 , S. Marcellini a , G. Masetti a ,F.L. Navarria a , b , A. Perrotta a , F. Primavera a , b , T. Rovelli a , b , G.P. Siroli a , b , N. Tosi a INFN Sezione di Catania a , Universit`a di Catania b , Catania, Italy S. Albergo a , b ,41 , S. Costa a , b ,41 , A. Di Mattia a , R. Potenza a , b , A. Tricomi a , b ,41 , C. Tuve a , b INFN Sezione di Firenze a , Universit`a di Firenze b , Firenze, Italy G. Barbagli a , A. Cassese a , R. Ceccarelli a , b , V. Ciulli a , b , C. Civinini a , R. D’Alessandro a , b , F. Fiori a ,E. Focardi a , b , G. Latino a , b , P. Lenzi a , b , M. Lizzo a , b , M. Meschini a , S. Paoletti a , R. Seidita a , b ,G. Sguazzoni a , L. Viliani a INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, D. Piccolo
INFN Sezione di Genova a , Universit`a di Genova b , Genova, Italy M. Bozzo a , b , F. Ferro a , R. Mulargia a , b , E. Robutti a , S. Tosi a , b INFN Sezione di Milano-Bicocca a , Universit`a di Milano-Bicocca b , Milano, Italy A. Benaglia a , A. Beschi a , b , F. Brivio a , b , F. Cetorelli a , b , V. Ciriolo a , b ,20 , F. De Guio a , b ,M.E. Dinardo a , b , P. Dini a , S. Gennai a , A. Ghezzi a , b , P. Govoni a , b , L. Guzzi a , b , M. Malberti a ,S. Malvezzi a , D. Menasce a , F. Monti a , b , L. Moroni a , M. Paganoni a , b , D. Pedrini a , S. Ragazzi a , b ,T. Tabarelli de Fatis a , b , D. Valsecchi a , b ,20 , 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 , F. Fabozzi a , c , F. Fienga a , A.O.M. Iorio a , b , L. Lista a , b ,S. Meola a , d ,20 , P. Paolucci a ,20 , B. Rossi a , C. Sciacca a , b , E. Voevodina a , b INFN Sezione di Padova a , Universit`a di Padova b , Padova, Italy, Universit`a di Trento c ,Trento, Italy P. Azzi a , N. Bacchetta a , D. Bisello a , b , A. Boletti a , b , A. Bragagnolo a , b , R. Carlin a , b , P. Checchia a ,P. De Castro Manzano a , T. Dorigo a , F. Gasparini a , b , U. Gasparini a , b , S.Y. Hoh a , b , L. Layer a ,42 ,M. Margoni a , b , A.T. Meneguzzo a , b , M. Presilla b , P. Ronchese a , b , R. Rossin a , b , F. Simonetto a , b ,G. Strong, A. Tiko a , M. Tosi a , b , H. YARAR a , b , M. Zanetti a , b , P. Zotto a , b , A. Zucchetta a , b ,G. Zumerle a , b INFN Sezione di Pavia a , Universit`a di Pavia b , Pavia, Italy C. Aime‘ a , b , A. Braghieri a , S. Calzaferri a , b , D. Fiorina a , b , P. Montagna a , b , S.P. Ratti a , b , V. Re a ,M. Ressegotti a , b , C. Riccardi a , b , P. Salvini a , I. Vai a , P. Vitulo a , b INFN Sezione di Perugia a , Universit`a di Perugia b , Perugia, Italy M. Biasini a , b , G.M. Bilei a , D. Ciangottini a , b , L. Fan `o a , b , P. Lariccia a , b , G. Mantovani a , b ,V. Mariani a , b , M. Menichelli a , F. Moscatelli a , A. Piccinelli a , b , A. Rossi a , b , A. Santocchia a , b ,D. Spiga a , T. Tedeschi a , b INFN Sezione di Pisa a , Universit`a di Pisa b , Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa c , Pisa Italy,Universit`a di Siena d , Siena, Italy K. Androsov a , P. Azzurri a , G. Bagliesi a , V. Bertacchi a , c , L. Bianchini a , T. Boccali a , R. Castaldi a ,M.A. Ciocci a , b , R. Dell’Orso a , M.R. Di Domenico a , d , S. Donato a , L. Giannini a , c , A. Giassi a ,M.T. Grippo a , F. Ligabue a , c , E. Manca a , c , G. Mandorli a , c , A. Messineo a , b , F. Palla a , G. Ramirez-Sanchez a , c , A. Rizzi a , b , G. Rolandi a , c , S. Roy Chowdhury a , c , A. Scribano a , N. Shafiei a , b ,P. Spagnolo a , R. Tenchini a , G. Tonelli a , b , N. Turini a , d , A. Venturi a , P.G. Verdini a INFN Sezione di Roma a , Sapienza Universit`a di Roma b , Rome, Italy F. Cavallari a , M. Cipriani a , b , D. Del Re a , b , E. Di Marco a , M. Diemoz a , E. Longo a , b , P. Meridiani a ,G. Organtini a , b , F. Pandolfi a , R. Paramatti a , b , C. Quaranta a , b , S. Rahatlou a , b , C. Rovelli a ,F. Santanastasio a , b , L. Soffi a , b , R. Tramontano a , b INFN Sezione di Torino a , Universit`a di Torino b , Torino, Italy, Universit`a del PiemonteOrientale c , Novara, Italy N. Amapane a , b , R. Arcidiacono a , c , S. Argiro a , b , M. Arneodo a , c , N. Bartosik a , R. Bellan a , b ,A. Bellora a , b , C. Biino a , A. Cappati a , b , N. Cartiglia a , S. Cometti a , M. Costa a , b , R. Covarelli a , b ,N. Demaria a , B. Kiani a , b , F. Legger a , C. Mariotti a , S. Maselli a , E. Migliore a , b , V. Monaco a , b ,E. Monteil a , b , M. Monteno a , M.M. Obertino a , b , G. Ortona a , L. Pacher a , b , N. Pastrone a ,M. Pelliccioni a , G.L. Pinna Angioni a , b , M. Ruspa a , c , R. Salvatico a , b , F. Siviero a , b , V. Sola a ,A. Solano a , b , D. Soldi a , b , A. Staiano a , D. Trocino a , b INFN Sezione di Trieste a , Universit`a di Trieste b , Trieste, Italy S. Belforte a , V. Candelise a , b , M. Casarsa a , F. Cossutti a , A. Da Rold a , b , G. Della Ricca a , b ,F. Vazzoler a , b Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea
S. Dogra, C. Huh, B. Kim, D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, J. Lee, S.W. Lee, C.S. Moon, Y.D. Oh, S.I. Pak,B.C. Radburn-Smith, S. Sekmen, Y.C. Yang
Chonnam National University, Institute for Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju,Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon
Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
B. Francois, T.J. Kim, J. Park
Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, S. Ha, B. Hong, K. Lee, K.S. Lee, J. Lim, J. Park, S.K. Park, J. Yoo
Kyung Hee University, Department of Physics, Seoul, Republic of Korea
J. Goh, A. Gurtu
Sejong University, Seoul, Korea
H.S. Kim, Y. Kim8
H.S. Kim, Y. Kim8 Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J.H. Bhyun, J. Choi, S. Jeon, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, S. Ko, H. Kwon, H. Lee, K. Lee, S. Lee,K. Nam, B.H. Oh, M. Oh, S.B. Oh, H. Seo, U.K. Yang, I. Yoon
University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea
D. Jeon, J.H. Kim, B. Ko, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park, Y. Roh, D. Song, I.J. Watson
Yonsei University, Department of Physics, Seoul, Korea
H.D. Yoo
Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, C. Hwang, Y. Jeong, H. Lee, Y. Lee, I. Yu
College of Engineering and Technology, American University of the Middle East (AUM),Dasman, Kuwait
Y. Maghrbi
Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
V. Veckalns The Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon
N. Barakat, H. Zaraket
Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
A. Juodagalvis, A. Rinkevicius, G. Tamulaitis
National Centre for Particle Physics, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
W.A.T. Wan Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli
Universidad de Sonora (UNISON), Hermosillo, Mexico
J.F. Benitez, A. Castaneda Hernandez, J.A. Murillo Quijada, L. Valencia Palomo
Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, I. Heredia-De La Cruz , R. Lopez-Fernandez,A. Sanchez-Hernandez Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City, Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, M. Ramirez-Garcia, F. Vazquez Valencia
Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
J. Eysermans, I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada
Universidad Aut ´onoma de San Luis Potos´ı, San Luis Potos´ı, Mexico
A. Morelos Pineda
University of Montenegro, Podgorica, Montenegro
J. Mijuskovic , N. Raicevic University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
S. Bheesette, P.H. Butler
National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M.I. Asghar, M.I.M. Awan, H.R. Hoorani, W.A. Khan, M.A. Shah, M. Shoaib,M. Waqas AGH University of Science and Technology Faculty of Computer Science, Electronics andTelecommunications, Krakow, Poland
V. Avati, L. Grzanka, M. Malawski
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. Olszewski, M. Walczak Laborat ´orio de Instrumenta¸c˜ao e F´ısica Experimental de Part´ıculas, Lisboa, Portugal
M. Araujo, P. Bargassa, D. Bastos, P. Faccioli, M. Gallinaro, J. Hollar, N. Leonardo, T. Niknejad,J. Seixas, K. Shchelina, O. Toldaiev, J. Varela
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
S. Afanasiev, A. Baginyan, P. Bunin, Y. Ershov, M. Gavrilenko, A. Golunov, I. Golutvin,N. Gorbounov, I. Gorbunov, V. Karjavine, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev , P. Moisenz,V. Palichik, V. Perelygin, M. Savina, V. Shalaev, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, O. Teryaev, A. Zarubin,I. Zhizhin
Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg), Russia
G. Gavrilov, V. Golovtcov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim , E. Kuznetsova , V. Murzin, V. Oreshkin,I. Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Volkov, A. Vorobyev Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, M. Kirsanov, N. Krasnikov,A. Pashenkov, G. Pivovarov, D. Tlisov † , A. Toropin Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics named by A.I. Alikhanov of NRC‘Kurchatov Institute’, Moscow, Russia
V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, A. Nikitenko , V. Popov, G. Safronov,A. Spiridonov, A. Stepennov, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A. Zhokin Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev
National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics Institute’ (MEPhI),Moscow, Russia
O. Bychkova, 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
V. Blinov , T. Dimova , L. Kardapoltsev , I. Ovtin , Y. Skovpen Institute for High Energy Physics of National Research Centre ‘Kurchatov Institute’,Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, V. Kachanov, A. Kalinin, D. Konstantinov, V. Petrov, R. Ryutin, A. Sobol,S. Troshin, N. Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov
National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia
A. Babaev, A. Iuzhakov, V. Okhotnikov, L. Sukhikh
Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russia
V. Borchsh, V. Ivanchenko, E. Tcherniaev
University of Belgrade: Faculty of Physics and VINCA Institute of Nuclear Sciences,Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic , P. Cirkovic, M. Dordevic, P. Milenovic, J. Milosevic Centro de Investigaciones Energ´eticas Medioambientales y Tecnol ´ogicas (CIEMAT),Madrid, Spain
M. Aguilar-Benitez, J. Alcaraz Maestre, A. ´Alvarez Fern´andez, I. Bachiller, M. Barrio Luna,Cristina F. Bedoya, J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, C.A. Carrillo Montoya, M. Cepeda, M. Cerrada,N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris, J.P. Fern´andez Ramos, J. Flix, M.C. Fouz,A. Garc´ıa Alonso, O. Gonzalez Lopez, S. Goy Lopez, J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa,J. Le ´on Holgado, D. Moran, ´A. Navarro Tobar, A. P´erez-Calero Yzquierdo, J. Puerta Pelayo,I. Redondo, L. Romero, S. S´anchez Navas, M.S. Soares, A. Triossi, L. Urda G ´omez, C. Willmott
Universidad Aut ´onoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
C. Albajar, J.F. de Troc ´oniz, R. Reyes-Almanza
Universidad de Oviedo, Instituto Universitario de Ciencias y Tecnolog´ıas Espaciales deAsturias (ICTEA), Oviedo, Spain
B. Alvarez Gonzalez, J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, S. Folgueras, I. Gonza-lez Caballero, E. Palencia Cortezon, C. Ram ´on ´Alvarez, J. Ripoll Sau, V. Rodr´ıguez Bouza,S. Sanchez Cruz, A. Trapote
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, G. Gomez, C. Martinez Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del Arbol, F. Matorras,J. Piedra Gomez, C. Prieels, F. Ricci-Tam, T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno, L. Scodellaro, I. Vila,J.M. Vizan Garcia
University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka
MK Jayananda, B. Kailasapathy , D.U.J. Sonnadara, DDC Wickramarathna University of Ruhuna, Department of Physics, Matara, Sri Lanka
W.G.D. Dharmaratna, K. Liyanage, N. Perera, N. Wickramage
CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, D. Abbaneo, B. Akgun, E. Auffray, G. Auzinger, J. Baechler, P. Baillon, A.H. Ball,D. Barney, J. Bendavid, N. Beni, M. Bianco, A. Bocci, P. Bortignon, E. Bossini, E. Brondolin,T. Camporesi, G. Cerminara, L. Cristella, D. d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, N. Daci, V. Daponte,A. David, A. De Roeck, M. Deile, R. Di Maria, M. Dobson, M. D ¨unser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, N. Emriskova, F. Fallavollita , D. Fasanella, S. Fiorendi, G. Franzoni, J. Fulcher,W. Funk, S. Giani, D. Gigi, K. Gill, F. Glege, L. Gouskos, M. Guilbaud, D. Gulhan, M. Haranko,J. Hegeman, Y. Iiyama, V. Innocente, T. James, P. Janot, J. Kaspar, J. Kieseler, M. Komm,N. Kratochwil, C. Lange, P. Lecoq, K. Long, C. Lourenc¸o, L. Malgeri, M. Mannelli, A. Massironi, F. Meijers, S. Mersi, E. Meschi, F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, J. Ngadiuba, J. Niedziela, S. Orfanelli,L. Orsini, F. Pantaleo , L. Pape, E. Perez, M. Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer,M. Pierini, D. Rabady, A. Racz, M. Rieger, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, S. Scarfi,C. Sch¨afer, C. Schwick, M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva, W. Snoeys, P. Sphicas , J. Steggemann,S. Summers, V.R. Tavolaro, D. Treille, A. Tsirou, G.P. Van Onsem, A. Vartak, M. Verzetti,K.A. Wozniak, W.D. Zeuner Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland
L. Caminada , W. Erdmann, R. Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C. Kaestli, D. Kotlinski,U. Langenegger, T. Rohe ETH Zurich - Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics (IPA), Zurich, Switzerland
M. Backhaus, P. Berger, A. Calandri, N. Chernyavskaya, A. De Cosa, G. Dissertori, M. Dittmar,M. Doneg`a, C. Dorfer, T. Gadek, T.A. G ´omez Espinosa, C. Grab, D. Hits, W. Lustermann,A.-M. Lyon, R.A. Manzoni, M.T. Meinhard, F. Micheli, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, F. Pauss, V. Perovic,G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, S. Pigazzini, M.G. Ratti, M. Reichmann, C. Reissel, T. Reitenspiess,B. Ristic, D. Ruini, D.A. Sanz Becerra, M. Sch ¨onenberger, V. Stampf, M.L. Vesterbacka Olsson,R. Wallny, D.H. Zhu
Universit¨at Z ¨urich, Zurich, Switzerland
C. Amsler , C. Botta, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, R. Del Burgo, J.K. Heikkil¨a, M. Huwiler,A. Jofrehei, B. Kilminster, S. Leontsinis, A. Macchiolo, P. Meiring, V.M. Mikuni, U. Molinatti,I. Neutelings, G. Rauco, A. Reimers, P. Robmann, K. Schweiger, Y. Takahashi, S. Wertz National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan
C. Adloff , C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A. Roy, T. Sarkar , S.S. Yu National Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
L. Ceard, P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, W.-S. Hou, Y.y. Li, R.-S. Lu, E. Paganis,A. Psallidas, A. Steen, E. Yazgan
Chulalongkorn University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok, Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, N. Srimanobhas
C¸ ukurova University, Physics Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
F. Boran, S. Damarseckin , Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, C. Dozen , I. Dumanoglu , E. Eskut,G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, E. Gurpinar Guler , I. Hos , C. Isik, E.E. Kangal , O. Kara,A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, G. Onengut, K. Ozdemir , A. Polatoz, A.E. Simsek, B. Tali ,U.G. Tok, S. Turkcapar, I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East Technical University, Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak , G. Karapinar , K. Ocalan , M. Yalvac Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey
I.O. Atakisi, E. G ¨ulmez, M. Kaya , O. Kaya , ¨O. ¨Ozc¸elik, S. Tekten , E.A. Yetkin Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
A. Cakir, K. Cankocak , Y. Komurcu, S. Sen Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
F. Aydogmus Sen, S. Cerci , B. Kaynak, S. Ozkorucuklu, D. Sunar Cerci Institute for Scintillation Materials of National Academy of Science of Ukraine, Kharkov,Ukraine
B. Grynyov National Scientific Center, Kharkov Institute of Physics and Technology, Kharkov, Ukraine
L. Levchuk
University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
E. Bhal, S. Bologna, J.J. Brooke, E. Clement, D. Cussans, H. Flacher, J. Goldstein, G.P. Heath,H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, B. Krikler, S. Paramesvaran, T. Sakuma, S. Seif El Nasr-Storey, V.J. Smith,J. Taylor, A. Titterton
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev , C. Brew, R.M. Brown, D.J.A. Cockerill, K.V. Ellis, K. Harder,S. Harper, J. Linacre, K. Manolopoulos, D.M. Newbold, E. Olaiya, D. Petyt, T. Reis, T. Schuh,C.H. Shepherd-Themistocleous, A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin, T. Williams Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, S. Bonomally, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A. Bundock, V. Cepaitis,G.S. Chahal , D. Colling, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M. Della Negra, G. Fedi, G. Hall, G. Iles,J. Langford, L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, A. Martelli, V. Milosevic, J. Nash , V. Palladino,M. Pesaresi, D.M. Raymond, A. Richards, A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A. Shtipliyski, M. Stoye,A. Tapper, K. Uchida, T. Virdee , N. Wardle, S.N. Webb, D. Winterbottom, A.G. Zecchinelli Brunel University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, C.K. Mackay, I.D. Reid, L. Teodorescu, S. Zahid
Baylor University, Waco, USA
A. Brinkerhoff, K. Call, B. Caraway, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, A.R. Kanuganti, C. Madrid,B. McMaster, N. Pastika, S. Sawant, C. Smith, J. Wilson
Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez, R. Uniyal, A.M. Vargas Hernandez
The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
A. Buccilli, O. Charaf, S.I. Cooper, S.V. Gleyzer, C. Henderson, P. Rumerio, C. West
Boston University, Boston, USA
A. Akpinar, A. Albert, D. Arcaro, C. Cosby, Z. Demiragli, D. Gastler, C. Richardson, J. Rohlf,K. Salyer, D. Sperka, D. Spitzbart, I. Suarez, S. Yuan, D. Zou
Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, B. Burkle, X. Coubez , D. Cutts, Y.t. Duh, M. Hadley, U. Heintz, J.M. Hogan ,K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, K.T. Lau, J. Lee, M. Narain, S. Sagir , R. Syarif, E. Usai,W.Y. Wong, D. Yu, W. Zhang University of California, Davis, Davis, USA
R. Band, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez, M. Chertok, J. Conway,R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, G. Funk, F. Jensen, W. Ko † , O. Kukral, R. Lander,M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, J. Pilot, M. Shi, D. Taylor, K. Tos, M. Tripathi, Y. Yao, F. Zhang University of California, Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, A. Florent, D. Hamilton, J. Hauser, M. Ignatenko, T. Lam,N. Mccoll, W.A. Nash, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg, C. Schnaible, B. Stone, V. Valuev
University of California, Riverside, Riverside, USA
K. Burt, Y. Chen, R. Clare, J.W. Gary, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi, G. Hanson, G. Karapostoli,O.R. Long, N. Manganelli, M. Olmedo Negrete, M.I. Paneva, W. Si, S. Wimpenny, Y. Zhang University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, P. Chang, S. Cittolin, S. Cooperstein, N. Deelen, M. Derdzinski, J. Duarte,R. Gerosa, D. Gilbert, B. Hashemi, V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, M. Masciovecchio, S. May, S. Padhi,M. Pieri, V. Sharma, M. Tadel, F. W ¨urthwein, A. Yagil
University of California, Santa Barbara - Department of Physics, Santa Barbara, USA
N. Amin, C. Campagnari, M. Citron, A. Dorsett, V. Dutta, J. Incandela, B. Marsh, H. Mei,A. Ovcharova, H. Qu, M. Quinnan, J. Richman, U. Sarica, D. Stuart, S. Wang
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
D. Anderson, A. Bornheim, O. Cerri, I. Dutta, J.M. Lawhorn, N. Lu, J. Mao, H.B. Newman,T.Q. Nguyen, J. Pata, M. Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, S. Xie, Z. Zhang, R.Y. Zhu
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
J. Alison, M.B. Andrews, T. Ferguson, T. Mudholkar, M. Paulini, M. Sun, I. Vorobiev
University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, E. MacDonald, T. Mulholland, R. Patel, A. Perloff, K. Stenson,K.A. Ulmer, S.R. Wagner
Cornell University, Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, Y. Cheng, J. Chu, D.J. Cranshaw, A. Datta, A. Frankenthal, K. Mcdermott,J. Monroy, J.R. Patterson, D. Quach, A. Ryd, W. Sun, S.M. Tan, Z. Tao, J. Thom, P. Wittich,M. Zientek
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, USA
S. Abdullin, M. Albrow, M. Alyari, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S. Banerjee,L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas, D. Berry, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, K. Burkett, J.N. Butler, A. Canepa,G.B. Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M. Cremonesi, V.D. Elvira, J. Freeman, Z. Gecse,E. Gottschalk, L. Gray, D. Green, S. Gr ¨unendahl, O. Gutsche, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa,R. Heller, T.C. Herwig, J. Hirschauer, B. Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi,P. Klabbers, T. Klijnsma, B. Klima, M.J. Kortelainen, S. Lammel, D. Lincoln, R. Lipton, M. Liu,T. Liu, J. Lykken, K. Maeshima, D. Mason, P. McBride, P. Merkel, S. Mrenna, S. Nahn,V. O’Dell, V. Papadimitriou, K. Pedro, C. Pena , O. Prokofyev, F. Ravera, A. Reinsvold Hall,L. Ristori, B. Schneider, E. Sexton-Kennedy, N. Smith, A. Soha, W.J. Spalding, L. Spiegel,S. Stoynev, J. Strait, L. Taylor, S. Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran, L. Uplegger, E.W. Vaandering, H.A. Weber,A. Woodard University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, D. Bourilkov, L. Cadamuro, V. Cherepanov, F. Errico, R.D. Field,D. Guerrero, B.M. Joshi, M. Kim, J. Konigsberg, A. Korytov, K.H. Lo, K. Matchev, N. Menendez,G. Mitselmakher, D. Rosenzweig, K. Shi, J. Wang, S. Wang, X. Zuo
Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
T. Adams, A. Askew, D. Diaz, R. Habibullah, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F. Johnson,R. Khurana, T. Kolberg, G. Martinez, H. Prosper, C. Schiber, R. Yohay, J. Zhang
Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, S. Butalla, T. Elkafrawy , M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, M. Rahmani,M. Saunders, F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago, USA
M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, H. Becerril Gonzalez, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, S. Dittmer, O. Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, C. Mills, G. Oh, T. Roy, M.B. Tonjes,N. Varelas, J. Viinikainen, X. Wang, Z. Wu
The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, K. Dilsiz , S. Durgut, R.P. Gandrajula, M. Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko,O.K. K ¨oseyan, J.-P. Merlo, A. Mestvirishvili , A. Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul , Y. Onel,F. Ozok , A. Penzo, C. Snyder, E. Tiras, J. Wetzel, K. Yi Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
O. Amram, B. Blumenfeld, L. Corcodilos, M. Eminizer, A.V. Gritsan, S. Kyriacou,P. Maksimovic, C. Mantilla, J. Roskes, M. Swartz, T. ´A. V´ami
The University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA
C. Baldenegro Barrera, P. Baringer, A. Bean, A. Bylinkin, T. Isidori, S. Khalil, J. King,G. Krintiras, A. Kropivnitskaya, C. Lindsey, N. Minafra, M. Murray, C. Rogan, C. Royon,S. Sanders, E. Schmitz, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang, J. Williams, G. Wilson
Kansas State University, Manhattan, USA
S. Duric, A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, D. Kim, Y. Maravin, T. Mitchell, A. Modak, A. Mohammadi
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright
University of Maryland, College Park, USA
E. Adams, A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, S.C. Eno, Y. Feng, N.J. Hadley, S. Jabeen, G.Y. Jeng,R.G. Kellogg, T. Koeth, A.C. Mignerey, S. Nabili, M. Seidel, A. Skuja, S.C. Tonwar, L. Wang,K. Wong
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, R. Bi, S. Brandt, W. Busza, I.A. Cali, Y. Chen, M. D’Alfonso,G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov, P. Harris, D. Hsu, M. Hu, M. Klute, D. Kovalskyi, J. Krupa,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, Z. Wang, B. Wyslouch
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, S. Guts † , P. Hansen, J. Hiltbrand, Sh. Jain, M. Krohn, Y. Kubota,Z. Lesko, J. Mans, M. Revering, R. Rusack, R. Saradhy, N. Schroeder, N. Strobbe, M.A. Wadud University of Mississippi, Oxford, USA
J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
K. Bloom, S. Chauhan, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, L. Finco, F. Golf, J.R. Gonz´alez Fern´andez,I. Kravchenko, J.E. Siado, G.R. Snow † , B. Stieger, W. Tabb, F. Yan State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
G. Agarwal, H. Bandyopadhyay, C. Harrington, L. Hay, I. Iashvili, A. Kharchilava, C. McLean,D. Nguyen, J. Pekkanen, S. Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani
Northeastern University, Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, Y. Haddad, A. Hortiangtham, J. Li, G. Madigan, B. Marzocchi,D.M. Morse, V. Nguyen, T. Orimoto, A. Parker, L. Skinnari, A. Tishelman-Charny, T. Wamorkar,B. Wang, A. Wisecarver, D. Wood Northwestern University, Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, J. Bueghly, Z. Chen, A. Gilbert, T. Gunter, K.A. Hahn, N. Odell, M.H. Schmitt,K. Sung, M. Velasco
University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, USA
R. Bucci, N. Dev, R. Goldouzian, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop, D.J. Karmgard,K. Lannon, W. Li, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, I. Mcalister, F. Meng, K. Mohrman, Y. Musienko ,R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, S. Taroni, M. Wayne, A. Wightman, M. Wolf, L. Zygala The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA
J. Alimena, B. Bylsma, B. Cardwell, L.S. Durkin, B. Francis, C. Hill, A. Lefeld, B.L. Winer,B.R. Yates
Princeton University, Princeton, USA
P. Das, G. Dezoort, P. Elmer, B. Greenberg, N. Haubrich, S. Higginbotham, A. Kalogeropoulos,G. Kopp, S. Kwan, D. Lange, M.T. Lucchini, J. Luo, D. Marlow, K. Mei, I. Ojalvo, J. Olsen,C. Palmer, P. Pirou´e, D. Stickland, C. Tully
University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg
Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
V.E. Barnes, R. Chawla, S. Das, L. Gutay, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, B. Mahakud, G. Negro,N. Neumeister, C.C. Peng, S. Piperov, H. Qiu, J.F. Schulte, M. Stojanovic , N. Trevisani,F. Wang, R. Xiao, W. Xie Purdue University Northwest, Hammond, USA
T. Cheng, J. Dolen, N. Parashar
Rice University, Houston, USA
A. Baty, S. Dildick, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Kilpatrick, A. Kumar, W. Li,B.P. Padley, R. Redjimi, J. Roberts † , J. Rorie, W. Shi, A.G. Stahl Leiton University of Rochester, Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, J.L. Dulemba, C. Fallon, T. Ferbel, M. Galanti, A. Garcia-Bellido, O. Hindrichs, A. Khukhunaishvili, E. Ranken, R. Taus
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, USA
B. Chiarito, J.P. Chou, A. Gandrakota, Y. Gershtein, E. Halkiadakis, A. Hart, M. Heindl,E. Hughes, S. Kaplan, O. Karacheban , I. Laflotte, A. Lath, R. Montalvo, K. Nash, M. Osherson,S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, S. Somalwar, R. Stone, S.A. Thayil, S. Thomas, H. Wang University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
H. Acharya, A.G. Delannoy, S. Spanier
Texas A&M University, College Station, USA
O. Bouhali , M. Dalchenko, A. Delgado, R. Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T. Kamon , H. Kim,S. Luo, S. Malhotra, R. Mueller, D. Overton, L. Perni`e, D. Rathjens, A. Safonov, J. Sturdy Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, V. Hegde, S. Kunori, K. Lamichhane, S.W. Lee, T. Mengke,S. Muthumuni, T. Peltola, S. Undleeb, I. Volobouev, Z. Wang, A. Whitbeck
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
E. Appelt, S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H. Ni, K. Padeken,F. Romeo, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska, M. Verweij University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
M.W. Arenton, B. Cox, G. Cummings, J. Hakala, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A. Ledovskoy, A. Li,C. Neu, B. Tannenwald, Y. Wang, E. Wolfe, F. Xia
Wayne State University, Detroit, USA
P.E. Karchin, N. Poudyal, P. Thapa
University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI, USA
K. Black, T. Bose, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, S. Dasu, I. De Bruyn, P. Everaerts, C. Galloni,H. He, M. Herndon, A. Herv´e, U. Hussain, A. Lanaro, A. Loeliger, R. Loveless,J. Madhusudanan Sreekala, A. Mallampalli, D. Pinna, T. Ruggles, A. Savin, V. Shang, V. Sharma,W.H. Smith, D. Teague, S. Trembath-reichert, W. Vetens†: Deceased1: Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria2: Also at Institute of Basic and Applied Sciences, Faculty of Engineering, Arab Academy forScience, Technology and Maritime Transport, Alexandria, Egypt, Alexandria, Egypt3: Also at Universit´e Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium4: Also at IRFU, CEA, Universit´e Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France5: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil6: Also at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil7: Also at UFMS, Nova Andradina, Brazil8: Also at Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil9: Also at University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China10: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics named by A.I. Alikhanov ofNRC ‘Kurchatov Institute’, Moscow, Russia11: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia12: Also at Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt13: Now at Zewail City of Science and Technology, Zewail, Egypt14: Now at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt15: Now at Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt16: Now at Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt17: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA18: Also at Universit´e de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France19: Also at Erzincan Binali Yildirim University, Erzincan, Turkey20: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland21: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany22: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany23: Also at Department of Physics, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran, Isfahan,Iran24: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany25: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University,Moscow, Russia26: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary, Debrecen,Hungary27: Also at Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt28: Also at MTA-ELTE Lend ¨ulet CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, E ¨otv ¨os Lor´andUniversity, Budapest, Hungary, Budapest, Hungary29: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary30: Also at IIT Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India, Bhubaneswar, India31: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
32: Also at G.H.G. Khalsa College, Punjab, India33: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India34: Also at University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India35: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India36: Also at Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Mumbai, India37: Also at Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany38: Also at Department of Physics, University of Science and Technology of Mazandaran,Behshahr, Iran39: Now at INFN Sezione di Bari a , Universit`a di Bari b , Politecnico di Bari c , Bari, Italy40: Also at Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable EconomicDevelopment, Bologna, Italy41: Also at Centro Siciliano di Fisica Nucleare e di Struttura Della Materia, Catania, Italy42: Also at INFN Sezione di Napoli a , Universit`a di Napoli ’Federico II’ b , Napoli, Italy,Universit`a della Basilicata c , Potenza, Italy, Universit`a G. Marconi d , Roma, Italy, Napoli, Italy43: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia, Riga, Latvia44: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnolog´ıa, Mexico City, Mexico45: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems, Warsaw, Poland46: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia47: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics Institute’(MEPhI), Moscow, Russia48: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg, Russia49: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA50: Also at Imperial College, London, United Kingdom51: Also at Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia, Moscow, Russia52: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA53: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia54: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia55: Also at Trincomalee Campus, Eastern University, Sri Lanka, Nilaveli, Sri Lanka56: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a , Universit`a di Pavia b , Pavia, Italy, Pavia, Italy57: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece58: Also at Universit¨at Z ¨urich, Zurich, Switzerland59: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics, Vienna, Austria, Vienna, Austria60: Also at Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules, IN2P3-CNRS, Annecy-le-Vieux, France61: Also at S¸ ırnak University, Sirnak, Turkey62: Also at Department of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, Beijing, China63: Also at Near East University, Research Center of Experimental Health Science, Nicosia,Turkey64: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey, Istanbul, Turkey65: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Application and Research Center for Advanced Studies(App. & Res. Cent. for Advanced Studies), Istanbul, Turkey66: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey67: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey68: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey69: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey70: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey71: Also at Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey72: Also at Bozok Universitetesi Rekt ¨orl ¨ug ¨u, Yozgat, Turkey, Yozgat, Turkey73: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey8