Study of Drell-Yan dimuon production in proton-lead collisions at \sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}} = 8.16 TeV
EEUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH (CERN)
CERN-EP-2021-0282021/03/01
CMS-HIN-18-003
Study of Drell–Yan dimuon production in proton-leadcollisions at √ s NN = The CMS Collaboration * Abstract
Differential cross sections for the Drell–Yan process, including Z boson production,using the dimuon decay channel are measured in proton-lead (pPb) collisions at anucleon-nucleon centre-of-mass energy of 8.16 TeV. A data sample recorded withthe CMS detector at the LHC is used, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of173 nb − . The differential cross section as a function of the dimuon mass is mea-sured in the range 15–600 GeV, for the first time in proton-nucleus collisions. It isalso reported as a function of dimuon rapidity over the mass ranges 15–60 GeV and60–120 GeV, and ratios for the p-going over the Pb-going beam directions are built.In both mass ranges, the differential cross sections as functions of the dimuon trans-verse momentum p T and of a geometric variable φ ∗ are measured, where φ ∗ highlycorrelates with p T but is determined with higher precision. In the Z mass region, therapidity dependence of the data indicate a modification of the distribution of partonswithin a lead nucleus as compared to the proton case. The data are more precise thanpredictions based upon current models of parton distributions. 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 annihilation of a quark-antiquark pair into two oppositely charged leptons, through theexchange of a Z boson or a virtual photon (Z/ γ ∗ ) in the s -channel, is known as the Drell–Yan(DY) process [1]. The theoretical derivation of the matrix elements is available up to next-to-next-to-leading order in perturbative quantum chromodynamics (QCD) with next-to-leadingorder (NLO) electroweak (EW) corrections [2–5]. A precise measurement of this process canadd valuable information on its nonperturbative part, including the effect of parton distribu-tion functions (PDFs) [6].Measurements of EW bosons in proton-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus collisions probe the nu-clear modification of the PDFs [7–10]. The presence of a nuclear environment has been longobserved [11] to modify the parton densities in the nucleus, as compared to those in a free nu-cleon. A first-principle description of such (nonperturbative) nuclear effects remains an openchallenge, but they can be modelled using nuclear PDFs (nPDFs) determined with data in thesame collinear factorisation approach as for free protons. Global fits of nPDFs [12–19] pre-dict a suppression for small longitudinal momentum fraction x , x (cid:46) − (i.e. shadowing [20]region), and an enhancement for intermediate x , 10 − (cid:46) x (cid:46) − (i.e. antishadowing region).Many measurements of the DY process, including the mass dependence, have been performedin proton-proton (pp) collisions, for instance by the ATLAS [21–25], CMS [26–30], and PHENIX [31]experiments. Measurements of the Z boson production have been performed in proton-lead(pPb) collisions by the ALICE [32, 33], ATLAS [34], and CMS [35] experiments, as functions ofrapidity, transverse momentum, or centrality (related to the impact parameter of the collision).In this paper, we report the measurement of the differential cross section for µ + µ − productionvia the DY process, as a function of the following variables: • dimuon mass, m µµ , in the interval 15 < m µµ <
600 GeV; • dimuon transverse momentum, p T , in two dimuon mass intervals (15–60 GeV and60–120 GeV, targeting the continuum at low mass and the Z boson, respectively); • dimuon rapidity in the nucleon-nucleon centre-of-mass (CM) frame, y CM , in thesame two mass intervals; and • φ ∗ [36–38] (defined below) in the same two mass intervals.The dimuon mass and φ ∗ dependencies as well as cross sections in the dimuon mass range15–60 GeV are reported for the first time in proton-nucleus collisions.The variable φ ∗ , used in numerous Z boson studies, is defined as φ ∗ ≡ tan (cid:18) π − ∆ φ (cid:19) sin ( θ ∗ η ) , (1)where ∆ φ is the opening angle between the leptons, defined as the difference of their azimuthalangles in the plane transverse to the beam axis, and θ ∗ η is related to the emission angle of thedilepton system with respect to the beam. The variable θ ∗ η is defined in a frame that is Lorentz-boosted along the beam direction such that the two leptons are back-to-back in the transverseplane. This angle θ ∗ η is related to the pseudorapidities of the leptons by the relationcos ( θ ∗ η ) = tanh ( ∆ η /2 ) , (2)where ∆ η is the difference in pseudorapidity between the two leptons. By construction, φ ∗ isgreater than zero. This quantity strongly correlates with the dimuon p T , while only depending on angular quantities for the leptons. Thus, it is measured with better precision than p T , espe-cially at low p T values. Since φ ∗ ∼ p T / m , where m is the mass of the dilepton system, the range φ ∗ < p T up to about 100 GeV for a dilepton mass close to that of theZ boson.The outline of this paper is as follows. In Section 2, the experimental methods are described,from the data and simulation samples used, up to the data analysis description and systematicuncertainties estimation. Results are presented and discussed in Section 3, before the summaryin Section 4. The results reported in this paper use pPb collision data taken by CMS at the end of 2016, at anucleon-nucleon CM energy of √ s NN = ± − [39]. In the first part of the pPb run, corresponding to63 ± − , the proton beam was heading toward negative η , according to the CMS detectorconvention [40], with an energy of 6.5 TeV, and colliding with a lead nucleus beam with anenergy of 2.56 TeV per nucleon. The beams were swapped for the second part of the run, corre-sponding to 111 ± − . Because of the asymmetric collision system, massless particles pro-duced in the nucleon-nucleon CM frame at a given η CM are reconstructed at η lab = η CM − η .The measurements presented here are expressed in terms of y CM .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. Forwardcalorimeters extend the η coverage provided by the barrel and endcap detectors. The hadronforward (HF) calorimeter uses steel as the absorber and quartz fibres as the sensitive material.The two halves of the HF are located 11.2 m from the interaction region, one on each end, andtogether they provide coverage in the range 3.0 < | η | < | η | < µ s [41]. The secondlevel, known as the high-level trigger (HLT), consists of a farm of processors running a versionof the full event reconstruction software optimised for fast processing, and reduces the eventrate to around 1 kHz (up to around 20 kHz during the pPb data taking) before data storage [42].The reconstructed vertex with the largest value of summed physics-object p is taken to be theprimary pPb interaction vertex. The physics objects are the jets, clustered using the jet findingalgorithm [43, 44] with the tracks assigned to the vertex as inputs, and the associated missingtransverse momentum, taken as the negative vector sum of the p T of those jets. During thedata taking, the average number of collisions per bunch crossing was 0.18. The stability of theresults has been checked against different such average number conditions.The particle-flow algorithm [45] aims to reconstruct and identify each individual particle in an .2 Simulated samples event, with an optimised combination of information from the various elements of the CMSdetector. The energy of photons is obtained from the ECAL measurement. The energy of elec-trons is determined from a combination of the electron momentum at the primary interactionvertex as determined by the tracker, the energy of the corresponding ECAL cluster, and the en-ergy sum of all bremsstrahlung photons spatially compatible with originating from the electrontrack. The energy of muons is obtained from the curvature of the corresponding track. The en-ergy of charged hadrons is determined from a combination of their momentum measured in thetracker and the matching ECAL and HCAL energy deposits, corrected for zero-suppression ef-fects and for the response function of the calorimeters to hadronic showers. Finally, the energyof neutral hadrons is obtained from the corresponding corrected ECAL and HCAL energies.Matching muons to tracks measured in the silicon tracker results in a relative transverse mo-mentum resolution, for muons with p T up to 100 GeV, of 1% in the barrel and 3% in the endcaps.The p T resolution in the barrel is better than 7% for muons with p T up to 1 TeV [46].A more detailed description of the CMS detector, together with a definition of the coordinatesystem used and the relevant kinematic variables, can be found in Ref. [40]. The signal and most backgrounds are modelled using Monte Carlo (MC) simulated samples.The following processes are considered: DY to µ + µ − (signal) and to τ + τ − (treated as back-ground), tt, diboson (WW, WZ, and ZZ), and single top quark production (tW and tW, collec-tively referred to as tW in the paper). Additional MC samples are used, for the production ofW bosons (decaying to muon and neutrino, or τ lepton and neutrino) and QCD multijet events.These backgrounds are estimated using control samples in data, as described later in the text,and the MC samples are only used for complementary studies.The DY, W boson, tt, and tW MC samples are generated using the NLO generator POWHEG v2 [47–50], modified to account for the mixture of proton-proton and proton-neutron interac-tions occurring in pPb collisions. The CT14 [51] PDF set is used, with nuclear modificationsfrom EPPS16 [14] for the lead nucleus. Parton showering is performed by
PYTHIA τ leptons in the W → τ ν τ MC samples is handled in
POWHEG using
TAUOLA
PHOTOS
PYTHIA .The aforementioned event generators only simulate single proton-nucleon interactions, withthe proportion of protons and neutrons found in Pb nuclei. To consider a more realistic distri-bution of the UE present in pPb collisions, simulated events are embedded into two separatesamples of minimum bias (MB) events generated with
EPOS
LHC (v3400) [56], one for each pPbboost direction. The
EPOS
MC samples provide a good description of the global event proper-ties of the MB pPb data, such as the η distributions of charged hadrons [57] and the transverseenergy density [58].A difference is found between the dimuon p T in POWHEG
MC and that observed in data. Toimprove the modelling in the simulation, the
POWHEG Z/ γ ∗ samples are reweighted event-by-event using an empirical function of the generated boson p T . This weight is applied in Z/ γ ∗ MC samples in the derivation of the various corrections described below. However, it is notapplied in the figures of this paper, where the original p T spectrum from POWHEG is used.The full detector response is simulated for all MC samples, using G
EANT spot. The trigger decisions are also emulated, and the MC events are reconstructed with thestandard CMS pp reconstruction algorithms used for the 2016 data.The Z/ γ ∗ , W, and tW samples are normalised to their NLO cross sections provided by POWHEG for pPb collisions, including EPPS16 modifications. The diboson samples are normalised to thecross sections measured by the CMS Collaboration in pp collisions at √ s = √ s NN = EPOS sample usedfor embedding simulates MB events. To ensure a proper description of event activity in simula-tion, the distribution of the energy deposited in both sides of the HF calorimeter is reweightedevent-by-event so that it matches that observed in data (selecting Z → µ + µ − events). Thecorresponding weights have a standard deviation of 0.27 for a mean of 1. The events used in the analysis are selected with a single-muon trigger, requiring p T >
12 GeVfor the muon reconstructed by the HLT. During both online and offline muon reconstruction,the data from the muon detectors are matched and fitted to data from the silicon tracker toform muon candidates. Each muon is required to be within the geometrical acceptance of thedetector, | η lab | < p T ) is matched to the HLT trigger objectand is required to have p T >
15 GeV, in the plateau of the trigger efficiency (around 95%,depending on η lab ). A looser selection of p T >
10 GeV is applied to the other muon.Muons are selected by applying the standard “tight” selection criteria [46] used, e.g. in Refs. [63,64], with an efficiency of about 98%. Requirements on the impact parameter and the openingangle between the two muons are further imposed to reject cosmic ray muons. Events areselected for further analysis if they contain pairs of oppositely charged muons meeting theabove requirements. The χ divided by the number of degrees of freedom (dof) from a fit tothe dimuon vertex must be smaller than 20, ensuring that the two muon tracks originate from acommon vertex, thus reducing the contribution from heavy-flavour meson decays. In the rareevents (about 0.4%) where more than one selected dimuon pair is found, the candidate withthe smallest dimuon vertex χ is kept.To further suppress the background contributions due to muons originating from light andheavy flavour hadron decays, muons are required to be isolated, based on the p T sum of thecharged-particle tracks around the muon. Isolation sums are evaluated in a circular region ofthe ( η , φ ) plane around the lepton candidate with ∆ R < ∆ R = √ ( ∆ η ) + ( ∆ φ ) .The relative isolation I rel , obtained by dividing this isolation sum by the muon p T , is requiredto be below 0.2.In addition to the DY process, lepton pairs can also be produced through photon interactions.Exclusive coherent photon-induced dilepton production is enhanced in pPb collisions com-pared to pp data, because of the large charge of the lead nucleus. Hadronic collisions areselected by requiring at least one HF calorimeter tower with more than 3 GeV of total energyon either side of the interaction point. In order to further suppress the photon-induced back-ground, characterised by almost back-to-back muons, events are required to contain at least .4 Background estimation one additional reconstructed track, which completely removes this background. Incoherentphoton-induced dimuon production, where the photon is emitted from a parton instead of thewhole nucleus and amounting to less than 5% of the total dilepton cross section according tostudies in pp collisions at √ s =
13 TeV [29, 65], is considered part of the signal and is neitherremoved nor subtracted.
Various backgrounds are estimated using one of the techniques described below, depending onthe nature of the respective background process. Processes involving two isolated muons, suchas Z/ γ ∗ → τ + τ − , tt, tW, and dibosons, are estimated from simulation and corrected usingthe “e µ method”. Processes with one or more muons in jets, namely W+jets and multijet, areestimated using the “misidentification rate method”.The e µ method takes advantage of the fact that the EW backgrounds, as opposed to the Z/ γ ∗ → µ + µ − signal, also contribute to the e µ final state. Events with exactly one electron and onemuon of opposite charge are used, where the muon is selected as described previously, matchedto the HLT trigger muon and with p T >
15 GeV, while the electron [66] must have p T >
20 GeVand fulfil the same isolation requirement as the muon. The small contribution from heavy-flavour meson decays is estimated from same-sign e µ events. The data-to-simulation ratio withthis selection, in each bin of the measured variables, is used to correct the simulated samples inthe µ + µ − final state. This ratio is compatible with unity in most bins.The misidentification rate method estimates the probability for a muon inside a jet and passingthe tight selection criteria to pass the isolation requirements. This probability (the misidenti-fication rate) is estimated as a function of p T , separately for | η lab | < | η lab | > χ selection has been inverted. This sample is dominated by contributions from multijet andW+jets production, and the small contribution from EW processes, estimated using simulation,is removed. The misidentification rate is then applied to a control dimuon data sample, pass-ing the dimuon vertex χ selection but in which neither of the two muons passes the isolationrequirement, to obtain the multijet contribution in the signal region, where both muons areisolated. The W+jets contribution is estimated with a similar procedure, using events in whichexactly one of the two muons passes the isolation requirement. The small contribution fromEW processes to these control data samples is estimated using simulation and removed. Themultijet contribution in the sample with exactly one isolated muon is also accounted for, usingthe same technique. The validity of this method is checked in a control sample of same-signdimuon data, which is also dominated by the multijet and W+jets processes. The same-signdata are found to be compatible with the predictions from the misidentification rate method inmost bins, and the residual difference is accounted for as a systematic uncertainty.In Figs. 1 and 2, data are compared to the prediction from DY simulation and backgroundexpectations estimated using the techniques described above. A good overall agreement isfound between the data and the expectation, which is dominated by the DY signal. Some hintsfor the differences will be discussed in terms of potential physics implications in Section 3: theyinclude data above expectation for m µµ <
50 GeV, as well as for y CM > < m µµ <
120 GeV, and trends in dimuon p T and φ ∗ , as mentioned in Section 2.2. The muon momentum scale and resolution are corrected in both data and simulation followingthe standard CMS procedure described in Ref. [67]. These corrections have been derived using - - -
10 110 E n t r i e s / G e V Data mm fi Z * / g ttEWQCD , 8.16 TeV) -1 pPb (173 nb CMS | < 1.93 CM -2.87 < |y > 15 (10) GeV m T | < 2.4, p m lab h |
20 30 40 100 200 300 [GeV] mm m0.60.811.21.4 D a t a / P r ed . E n t r i e s / un i t y Data mm fi Z * / g ttEWQCD , 8.16 TeV) -1 pPb (173 nb CMS < 60 GeV mm
15 < m > 15 (10) GeV m T | < 2.4, p m lab h | - - - - - CM y D a t a / P r ed . E n t r i e s / un i t y Data mm fi Z * / g ttEWQCD , 8.16 TeV) -1 pPb (173 nb CMS < 120 GeV mm
60 < m > 15 (10) GeV m T | < 2.4, p m lab h | - - - - - CM y D a t a / P r ed . Figure 1: Comparison of the data (black points) with the Z/ γ ∗ signal and background expec-tations (filled histograms, where ”EW” includes Z/ γ ∗ → τ + τ − and diboson), estimated asdescribed in the text, as a function of invariant mass (upper) and rapidity in the centre-of-massframe for 15 < m µµ <
60 GeV (lower left) and 60 < m µµ <
120 GeV (lower right). Verticalerror bars represent statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data over expectations are shown inthe lower panels. The boson p T reweighting described in the text is not applied. The shadedregions show the quadratic sum of the systematic uncertainties (including the integrated lu-minosity, but excluding acceptance and unfolding uncertainties) and the nPDF uncertainties(CT14+EPPS16). .5 Muon momentum scale and resolution corrections -
10 110 E n t r i e s / G e V Data mm fi Z * / g ttEWQCD , 8.16 TeV) -1 pPb (173 nb CMS | < 1.93 CM -2.87 < |y < 60 GeV mm
15 < m > 15 (10) GeV m T | < 2.4, p m lab h |
10 100 [GeV] T p0.511.5 D a t a / P r ed . E n t r i e s / G e V Data mm fi Z * / g ttEWQCD , 8.16 TeV) -1 pPb (173 nb CMS | < 1.93 CM -2.87 < |y < 120 GeV mm
60 < m > 15 (10) GeV m T | < 2.4, p m lab h |
10 100 [GeV] T p0.511.5 D a t a / P r ed . * f E n t r i e s / un i t Data mm fi Z * / g ttEWQCD , 8.16 TeV) -1 pPb (173 nb CMS | < 1.93 CM -2.87 < |y < 60 GeV mm
15 < m > 15 (10) GeV m T | < 2.4, p m lab h | - -
10 1 * f D a t a / P r ed . * f E n t r i e s / un i t Data mm fi Z * / g ttEWQCD , 8.16 TeV) -1 pPb (173 nb CMS | < 1.93 CM -2.87 < |y < 120 GeV mm
60 < m > 15 (10) GeV m T | < 2.4, p m lab h | - -
10 1 * f D a t a / P r ed . Figure 2: Comparison of the data (black points) with the Z/ γ ∗ signal and background expec-tations (filled histograms, where ”EW” includes Z/ γ ∗ → τ + τ − and diboson), estimated as de-scribed in the text, as a function of p T (upper row) and φ ∗ (lower row), for 15 < m µµ <
60 GeV(left) and 60 < m µµ <
120 GeV (right). The first bins of the p T and φ ∗ distributions start at0. Vertical error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data over expectationsare shown in the lower panels. The boson p T reweighting described in the text is not applied.The shaded regions show the quadratic sum of the systematic uncertainties (including the in-tegrated luminosity, but excluding acceptance and unfolding uncertainties) and the nPDF un-certainties (CT14+EPPS16). the pp data sample at √ s =
13 TeV recorded in 2016, with the same detector conditions as thepPb data set used in the present analysis.In addition, the measurement is unfolded to account for finite momentum resolution. No reg-ularisation is found to be needed given the good resolution and modest migrations betweenthe analysis bins, and the maximum likelihood estimate [68] (obtained from the inversion ofthe response matrix, derived using simulated NLO
POWHEG samples) is used to obtain theunfolded results. The effect of the unfolding is less than 1% in most cases, except for the massdependence close to the Z boson mass peak, where it can amount to up to 15%.
After subtraction of the contributions from different background processes, correction for themuon momentum resolution and scale, and unfolding for the detector resolution, the data needto be corrected for the acceptance and efficiency. The acceptance is defined as the fraction ofgenerated signal events in the full phase space (within the quoted dimuon mass range and − < y CM < p T >
15 GeV, trailing muon p T >
10 GeV, and | η lab | < tag-and-probe technique, asdescribed in Ref. [69]. The same procedure and corrections are used as in the measurement ofW ± bosons in pPb collisions [64]. The observed differences between the efficiency in data andsimulation, estimated separately for the trigger, identification, and isolation, are accounted foras scale factors on a per-muon basis that are applied to the simulated events. These correc-tions are applied both in the efficiency estimation and in the construction of the backgroundtemplates described in Section 2.4. When both muons in the event have p T >
15 GeV, theycan both pass the single-muon trigger used in this data analysis, and the scale factor is com-puted from the product of inefficiencies. For the muon and central track reconstruction, thedata and MC simulation are found to give comparable efficiencies ( > Muons may undergo final-state radiation before being measured in the CMS detector, bias-ing their momentum and shifting the dimuon mass to lower values. We unfold the measureddistributions, after efficiency correction (as well as acceptance, if applicable), to the “pre-FSR”quantities, used for the presentation of our results and defined from a “dressed lepton” defini-tion [28]. Generator-level muon four-momenta are recalculated by adding the four-momenta ofall generated photons found inside a cone of radius ∆ R = POWHEG samples,are found to be close to diagonal, thus no regularisation is needed in the unfolding.
Several sources of systematic uncertainties are evaluated. They are estimated in each bin ofthe measured distributions and added in quadrature. The list of systematic uncertainties issummarised in Table 1 and details of the estimation of each source are given below. .8 Systematic uncertainties Theoretical uncertainties have an impact on the acceptance and efficiency. The renormalisa-tion and factorisation scales have been varied from half to twice their nominal value (set tothe dimuon mass), and the envelope of the variations, excluding combinations where bothscales are varied in opposite directions, is taken as an uncertainty. In addition, the strongcoupling constant value is varied by 0.0015 from its default value, α S ( m Z ) = p T reweighting is considered as a systematic uncertainty. The impact of these un-certainties is less than 1% on the efficiency, but up to 10% on the acceptance for low dimuonmasses.We also include uncertainties stemming from the estimation of the efficiencies from data. Thestatistical component coming from the limited Z boson sample available is treated as a system-atic uncertainty in this analysis. We also consider systematic effects associated with the choiceof function used to model the p T behaviour of the efficiencies, the dimuon mass fitting pro-cedure to the Z boson peak in the extraction of the efficiencies, a possible data-to-simulationdifference in the muon reconstruction efficiency, and the effect of the mismodelling in simula-tion of the event activity and for additional interactions per bunch crossing. The magnitude ofthese uncertainties ranges from 1 to 5% at low dimuon mass.Regarding the estimation of EW backgrounds with the e µ method, the statistical uncertaintyin the correction factors is included as a systematic uncertainty, as well as the effect of varyingthe tt cross section by its uncertainty, 18% [63], the uncertainty in the transfer factor for theheavy-flavour contribution, and the difference between the data and simulation in the e µ dis-tributions. The systematic uncertainty in the multijet and W+jets backgrounds, related to themisidentification rate method, receives several contributions. The statistical uncertainty in thetemplates derived from data is accounted for, and combined with the full difference betweenthe nominal estimation and an alternative method (based on a different sideband in data, usingsame-sign dimuon events). The residual nonclosure in the same-sign data sample, as well asits statistical uncertainty, are also both added in quadrature to the other uncertainties related tothe misidentification rate method. The total systematic uncertainty in the background estimate,dominated by the residual nonclosure in most bins, ranges from less than 0.5 to 15% (for largedimuon p T ).A different reweighting of the event activity in simulated samples is derived, as a function ofthe number of offline tracks reconstructed with | η lab | < √ s =
13 TeV, from which they are derived. These uncer-tainties, about 1% or less, arise from the limited data sample size available and variations inthe method and its assumptions.Response matrices used in the muon momentum scale and FSR unfoldings have been re-calculated using the first and second parts of the run alone (accounting for statistical uncer-tainties in simulation), and using the
PYQUEN generator v1.5.1 [72] instead of
POWHEG (for aconservative estimation of the model dependence). Differences in the unfolded results, whichare up to 2%, are taken into account as a systematic uncertainty. Finally, the uncertainty in the integrated luminosity measurement is 3.5% [39].Table 1: Range of systematic uncertainties in percentage of the cross section, given separatelyfor 15 < m µµ <
60 and 60 < m µµ <
120 GeV. Systematic uncertainties for the three mass binsabove 120 GeV fall in the range given for 15 < m µµ <
60 GeV. For the theoretical componentof acceptance and efficiency, the systematic uncertainty related to efficiency alone (for fiducialcross sections) is given between parentheses.Source of uncertainty 15 < m µµ <
60 GeV 60 < m µµ <
120 GeVEvent activity reweighting < < < < < < < <
1% ( < < < < < < m µµ <
60 GeV but negligible most of the time for60 < m µµ <
120 GeV, except at large p T or φ ∗ . Fiducial cross section results, where the fiducial volume is defined from the single-muon p T and η lab selection, are shown in Figs. 5 and 6, as functions of the dressed lepton kinematic variables(as discussed in Section 2.7), together with the expectations from POWHEG , using the CT14 [51]or CT14+EPPS16 [14] PDF sets. Cross sections in the full phase space, − < y CM < x Pb of the parton in thelead nucleus, one can identify the shadowing region in the rapidity dependence of the cross - - - - - [GeV] mm m [ G e V ] mm m , 8.16 TeV) -1 pPb (173 nb CMS - - - - - - - - - - CM y - - - - - C M y , 8.16 TeV) -1 pPb (173 nb CMS - - - - - - - - - - CM y - - - - - C M y , 8.16 TeV) -1 pPb (173 nb CMS
Figure 3: Correlation matrix for the systematic uncertainties, excluding integrated luminosity,as a function of the dimuon invariant mass (upper) and rapidity in the centre-of-mass framefor 15 < m µµ <
60 GeV (lower left) and 60 < m µµ <
120 GeV (lower right). - - - - - [GeV] T p [ G e V ] T p , 8.16 TeV) -1 pPb (173 nb CMS - - - - - [GeV] T p [ G e V ] T p , 8.16 TeV) -1 pPb (173 nb CMS - - - - - - -
10 1 * f - -
10 1 * f , 8.16 TeV) -1 pPb (173 nb CMS - - - - - - -
10 1 * f - -
10 1 * f , 8.16 TeV) -1 pPb (173 nb CMS
Figure 4: Correlation matrices for the systematic uncertainties, excluding integrated luminos-ity, as functions of p T (upper row) and φ ∗ (lower row), for 15 < m µµ <
60 GeV (left) and60 < m µµ <
120 GeV (right). - - -
10 110 [ nb / G e V ] mm / d m s d DataCT14CT14+EPPS16
20 30 40 50 100 200 300 [GeV] mm m P r ed ./ D a t a , 8.16 TeV) -1 pPb (173 nb CMS | < 1.93 CM -2.87 < |y > 15 (10) GeV m T | < 2.4, p m lab h | / d y [ nb ] s d DataCT14CT14+EPPS16 - - - CM y P r ed ./ D a t a , 8.16 TeV) -1 pPb (173 nb CMS < 60 GeV mm
15 < m > 15 (10) GeV m T | < 2.4, p m lab h | / d y [ nb ] s d DataCT14CT14+EPPS16 - - - CM y P r ed ./ D a t a , 8.16 TeV) -1 pPb (173 nb CMS < 120 GeV mm
60 < m > 15 (10) GeV m T | < 2.4, p m lab h | Figure 5: Differential fiducial cross section (without the acceptance correction) for the DYprocess measured in the muon channel, as a function of the dimuon invariant mass (upper)and rapidity in the centre-of-mass frame for 15 < m µµ <
60 GeV (lower left) and 60 < m µµ <
120 GeV (lower right). The error bars on the data represent the quadratic sum of the statisticaland systematic uncertainties. Theory predictions from the
POWHEG
NLO generator are alsoshown, using CT14 (blue) or CT14+EPPS16 (red). The boxes show the 68% confidence level(n)PDF uncertainty on these predictions. The ratios of predictions over data are shown in thelower panels, where the data and (n)PDF uncertainties are shown separately, as error barsaround one and as coloured boxes, respectively.4
NLO generator are alsoshown, using CT14 (blue) or CT14+EPPS16 (red). The boxes show the 68% confidence level(n)PDF uncertainty on these predictions. The ratios of predictions over data are shown in thelower panels, where the data and (n)PDF uncertainties are shown separately, as error barsaround one and as coloured boxes, respectively.4 - - -
10 1 [ nb / G e V ] T / dp s d DataCT14CT14+EPPS16 [GeV] T p P r ed ./ D a t a , 8.16 TeV) -1 pPb (173 nb CMS | < 1.93 CM -2.87 < |y < 60 GeV mm
15 < m > 15 (10) GeV m T | < 2.4, p m lab h | - - -
10 110 [ nb / G e V ] T / dp s d DataCT14CT14+EPPS16 [GeV] T p P r ed ./ D a t a , 8.16 TeV) -1 pPb (173 nb CMS | < 1.93 CM -2.87 < |y < 120 GeV mm
60 < m > 15 (10) GeV m T | < 2.4, p m lab h | [ nb ] * f / d s d DataCT14CT14+EPPS16 - -
10 1 * f P r ed ./ D a t a , 8.16 TeV) -1 pPb (173 nb CMS | < 1.93 CM -2.87 < |y < 60 GeV mm
15 < m > 15 (10) GeV m T | < 2.4, p m lab h | [ nb ] * f / d s d DataCT14CT14+EPPS16 - -
10 1 * f P r ed ./ D a t a , 8.16 TeV) -1 pPb (173 nb CMS | < 1.93 CM -2.87 < |y < 120 GeV mm
60 < m > 15 (10) GeV m T | < 2.4, p m lab h | Figure 6: Differential fiducial cross sections (without the acceptance correction) for the DYprocess measured in the muon channel, as functions of p T (upper row) and φ ∗ (lower row),for 15 < m µµ <
60 GeV (left) and 60 < m µµ <
120 GeV (right). The first bin of the p T and φ ∗ measurements starts at 0. The error bars on the data represent the quadratic sum of thestatistical and systematic uncertainties. Theory predictions from the POWHEG
NLO generatorare also shown, using CT14 (blue) or CT14+EPPS16 (red). The boxes show the 68% confidencelevel (n)PDF uncertainty on these predictions. The ratios of predictions over data are shown inthe lower panels, where the data and (n)PDF uncertainties are shown separately, as error barsaround one and as coloured boxes, respectively. - - -
10 110 [ nb / G e V ] mm / d m s d DataCT14CT14+EPPS16
20 30 40 50 100 200 300 [GeV] mm m P r ed ./ D a t a , 8.16 TeV) -1 pPb (173 nb CMS | < 1.93 CM -2.87 < |y / d y [ nb ] s d DataCT14CT14+EPPS16 - - - CM y P r ed ./ D a t a , 8.16 TeV) -1 pPb (173 nb CMS < 60 GeV mm
15 < m / d y [ nb ] s d DataCT14CT14+EPPS16 - - - CM y P r ed ./ D a t a , 8.16 TeV) -1 pPb (173 nb CMS < 120 GeV mm
60 < m
Figure 7: Differential cross section for the DY process measured in the muon channel, as afunction of the dimuon invariant mass (upper) and rapidity in the centre-of-mass frame for15 < m µµ <
60 GeV (lower left) and 60 < m µµ <
120 GeV (lower right). The error bars on thedata represent the quadratic sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. Theory pre-dictions from the
POWHEG
NLO generator are also shown, using CT14 (blue) or CT14+EPPS16(red). The boxes show the 68% confidence level (n)PDF uncertainty on these predictions. Theratios of predictions over data are shown in the lower panels, where the data and (n)PDF un-certainties are shown separately, as error bars around one and as coloured boxes, respectively. - - -
10 110 [ nb / G e V ] T / dp s d DataCT14CT14+EPPS16 [GeV] T p P r ed ./ D a t a , 8.16 TeV) -1 pPb (173 nb CMS | < 1.93 CM -2.87 < |y < 60 GeV mm
15 < m - - -
10 110 [ nb / G e V ] T / dp s d DataCT14CT14+EPPS16 [GeV] T p P r ed ./ D a t a , 8.16 TeV) -1 pPb (173 nb CMS | < 1.93 CM -2.87 < |y < 120 GeV mm
60 < m [ nb ] * f / d s d DataCT14CT14+EPPS16 - -
10 1 * f P r ed ./ D a t a , 8.16 TeV) -1 pPb (173 nb CMS | < 1.93 CM -2.87 < |y < 60 GeV mm
15 < m [ nb ] * f / d s d DataCT14CT14+EPPS16 - -
10 1 * f P r ed ./ D a t a , 8.16 TeV) -1 pPb (173 nb CMS | < 1.93 CM -2.87 < |y < 120 GeV mm
60 < m
Figure 8: Differential cross sections for the DY process measured in the muon channel, asfunctions of p T (upper row) and φ ∗ (lower row), for 15 < m µµ <
60 GeV (left) and 60 < m µµ <
120 GeV (right). The first bin of the p T and φ ∗ measurements starts at 0. The errorbars on the data represent the quadratic sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties.Theory predictions from the POWHEG
NLO generator are also shown, using CT14 (blue) orCT14+EPPS16 (red). The boxes show the 68% confidence level (n)PDF uncertainty on thesepredictions. The ratios of predictions over data are shown in the lower panels, where the dataand (n)PDF uncertainties are shown separately, as error bars around one and as coloured boxes,respectively. section, in the full measured rapidity range for 15 < m µµ <
60 GeV and at positive rapidityfor 60 < m µµ <
120 GeV. In the latter mass range, rapidities y CM (cid:46) − < m µµ <
120 GeV than the useof the CT14 PDF alone. Uncertainties in the measurement are also smaller than nPDF uncer-tainties in the Z boson mass region for most analysis bins, showing that these data will imposestrong constraints if included in future nPDF fits.The mass dependence of the cross section sheds further light on the shadowing effects probedat low mass, i.e. at lower x Pb and lower scales than using Z bosons. The cross section measure-ment extends down to masses close to the Υ meson masses, with potential implications in theunderstanding of the interplay between nPDF and other effects in quarkonium production inproton-nucleus collisions [74].The difference between the fiducial cross sections, shown in Figs. 5 and 6, and the ones cor-rected to the full phase space, shown in Figs. 7 and 8, is largest for low masses. The absence ofacceptance correction in the former results reduces their model dependence and correspond-ing theoretical uncertainty, making clearer the trend for a higher cross section in data for lowdimuon masses compared to the POWHEG expectation.The p T and φ ∗ dependencies of the cross section, especially in the Z boson mass region, bothpoint to a slight mismodelling in POWHEG , reminiscent of the trend reported previously [35],where the data are softer than
POWHEG predictions. The large sensitivity of these observablesto the details of the QCD model, especially nonperturbative effects, is also observed in ppcollisions [30] and prevents one from using them to draw unambiguous conclusions aboutnPDFs. This precise measurement in pPb collisions provides new insight into the soft QCDphenomena dominating the production at low boson p T or φ ∗ , and their possible modificationwith respect to pp collisions.Integrated cross sections are also reported, in two mass ranges, in the fiducial region (fid.) orin the full phase space for − < y CM < σ ( pPb → γ ∗ /Z → µ + µ − , fid., 15 < m µµ <
60 GeV ) = ± ± σ ( pPb → γ ∗ /Z → µ + µ − , fid., 60 < m µµ <
120 GeV ) = ± ± σ ( pPb → γ ∗ /Z → µ + µ − , full, 15 < m µµ <
60 GeV ) = ± ± σ ( pPb → γ ∗ /Z → µ + µ − , full, 60 < m µµ <
120 GeV ) = ± ± χ values between the data and the predictions are reported, accountingfor the bin-to-bin correlations for experimental (systematic uncertainties, shown in Figs. 3 and4) and theoretical (from nPDF) uncertainties. The observations discussed above from Figs. 5 to8 can be made here more quantitatively and more precisely with fiducial cross sections, thanksto the smaller systematic uncertainty. The inclusion of the EPPS16 modifications to the PDFsof the lead nucleus tends to improve the description for y CM in the Z boson mass region, butconclusions are not clear for other quantities, and could even be opposite in the case of p T and φ ∗ in that region. However, the manifestly imperfect modelling of the cross sections in POWHEG prevents from drawing strong conclusions about nPDFs using these variables.Forward-backward ratios ( R FB ) are built from the rapidity-dependent cross sections in the twomass regions, defined as the ratio of the y CM > y CM < R FB is by construction equalto unity in the absence of nuclear effect (CT14), but decreasing with | y CM | with CT14+EPPS16 Table 2: χ values between the data and the POWHEG predictions and associated probabil-ity, from the fiducial cross sections, when experimental and theoretical bin-to-bin correlationsare taken into account. The integrated luminosity uncertainty is included in the experimentaluncertainties.Observable Mass range CT14 EPPS16 χ dof Prob. [%] χ dof Prob. [%] m µµ < m µµ <
600 GeV 35 13 0.10 30 13 0.42 y CM < m µµ <
120 GeV 51 24 0.12 35 24 6.6 p T < m µµ <
120 GeV 26 17 8.4 52 17 0.002 φ ∗ < m µµ <
120 GeV 23 17 17 45 17 0.03 y CM < m µµ <
60 GeV 11 12 50 10 12 58 p T < m µµ <
60 GeV 12 8 15 8.5 8 38 φ ∗ < m µµ <
60 GeV 8.3 9 50 9.0 9 44Table 3: χ values between the data and the POWHEG predictions and associated probability,from the full phase space cross sections, when experimental and theoretical bin-to-bin correla-tions are taken into account. The integrated luminosity uncertainty is included in the experi-mental uncertainties.Observable Mass range CT14 EPPS16 χ dof Prob. [%] χ dof Prob. [%] m µµ < m µµ <
600 GeV 27 13 1.2 25 13 2.0 y CM < m µµ <
120 GeV 50 24 0.13 35 24 7.3 p T < m µµ <
120 GeV 28 17 4.5 51 17 0.003 φ ∗ < m µµ <
120 GeV 25 17 9.3 44 17 0.03 y CM < m µµ <
60 GeV 7.4 12 83 6.0 12 92 p T < m µµ <
60 GeV 14 8 8.3 8.3 8 40 φ ∗ < m µµ <
60 GeV 6.2 9 72 6.4 9 69and CT14+nCTEQ15WZ [19]. Similar conclusions are drawn as from the rapidity dependenceof the cross section, but the construction of these ratios allows for the partial cancellation of the-oretical and experimental uncertainties, accounting for the correlations described in the previ-ous section. In particular, for 60 < m µµ <
120 GeV and at large | y CM | , an indication of aforward-backward ratio smaller than unity is found, consistent with the expectation from thecombination of shadowing and antishadowing effects expected with CT14+EPPS16, as well aswith similar results from W bosons [64]. Predictions using CT14+nCTEQ15WZ are found to bein good agreement with the data. The larger amount of shadowing in nCTEQ15 [15], hintedby the recent W boson measurement [64], is not predicted with nCTEQ15WZ. The low massregion is less conclusive, but nPDF uncertainties are smaller in this selection for nCTEQ15WZthan for EPPS16. Finally, experimental uncertainties for 60 < m µµ <
120 GeV are smaller thanthe nPDF ones, once again showing relevance of these data to the study of nPDF effects.
Differential cross section measurements of the Drell–Yan process in the dimuon channel inproton-lead collisions at √ s NN = p T ) and rapidity dependencies in the Z boson mass region (60 < m µµ <
120 GeV).In addition, for the first time in collisions including nuclei, the p T and rapidity dependencefor smaller masses 15 < m µµ <
60 GeV have been measured. The dependence with φ ∗ (a F B R DataCT14CT14+EPPS16CT14+nCTEQ W/Z | CM |y P r ed ./ D a t a , 8.16 TeV) -1 pPb (173 nb CMS < 60 GeV mm
15 < m F B R DataCT14CT14+EPPS16CT14+nCTEQ W/Z | CM |y P r ed ./ D a t a , 8.16 TeV) -1 pPb (173 nb CMS < 120 GeV mm
60 < m
Figure 9: Forward-backward ratios for 15 < m µµ <
60 GeV (left) and 60 < m µµ <
120 GeV(right). The error bars on the data points represent the quadratic sum of the statistical andsystematic uncertainties. The theory predictions from the
POWHEG
NLO generator are alsoshown, using CT14 [51] (blue), CT14+EPPS16 [14] (red), or CT14+nCTEQ15WZ [19] (green)PDF sets. The boxes show the 68% confidence level (n)PDF uncertainty in these predictions.The ratios of predictions over data are shown in the lower panels, where the data and the(n)PDF uncertainties are shown separately, as error bars around one and as coloured boxes,respectively.geometrical variable that highly correlates with dimuon p T but is determined with higher pre-cision) for both 15 < m µµ <
60 GeV and 60 < m µµ <
120 GeV and the mass dependencefrom 15 to 600 GeV have been presented, also for the first time in proton-nucleus collisions. Fi-nally, forward-backward ratios have been built from the rapidity-dependent cross sections for y CM > y CM < < m µµ <
120 GeV are the most precise to date, featuring smaller uncertain-ties than the theoretical predictions, and provide novel constraints on the quark and anti-quark nuclear parton distribution functions (nPDFs). Measurements in the lower mass range15 < m µµ <
60 GeV give access to a new phase space for nPDF studies, extending to lower lon-gitudinal momentum fraction x and lower energy scale Q . The p T - and φ ∗ -dependent resultsare also very sensitive to the details of model details, such as soft quantum chromodynamicsphenomena, which they may help to better understand in pPb collisions. 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 centres and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Gridand other centres 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 the following 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 programme and the European Re-search Council and Horizon 2020 Grant, contract Nos. 675440, 724704, 752730, and 765710(European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation; the Alexandervon Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office; the Fonds pour la For-mation `a la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschapvoor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the F.R.S.-FNRS and FWO(Belgium) under the “Excellence of Science – EOS” – be.h project n. 30820817; the Beijing Mu-nicipal Science & Technology Commission, No. Z191100007219010; the Ministry of Education,Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG),under Germany’s Excellence Strategy – EXC 2121 “Quantum Universe” – 390833306, and un-der project number 400140256 - GRK2497; the Lend ¨ulet (“Momentum”) Programme and theJ´anos Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the New NationalExcellence Program ´UNKP, the NKFIA research grants 123842, 123959, 124845, 124850, 125105,128713, 128786, and 129058 (Hungary); the Council of Science and Industrial Research, In-dia; the Ministry of Science and Higher Education and the National Science Center, contractsOpus 2014/15/B/ST2/03998 and 2015/19/B/ST2/02861 (Poland); the National Priorities Re-search Program by Qatar National Research Fund; the Ministry of Science and Higher Educa-tion, project no. 0723-2020-0041 (Russia); the Programa Estatal de Fomento de la Investigaci ´onCient´ıfica y T´ecnica de Excelencia Mar´ıa de Maeztu, grant MDM-2015-0509 and the ProgramaSevero Ochoa del Principado de Asturias; the Thalis and Aristeia programmes cofinanced byEU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship,Chulalongkorn University and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century Project Ad-vancement Project (Thailand); the Kavli Foundation; the Nvidia Corporation; the SuperMi-cro Corporation; the Welch Foundation, contract C-1845; and the Weston Havens Foundation(USA). References [1] S. D. Drell and T.-M. Yan, “Massive lepton pair production in hadron-hadron collisions athigh-energies”,
Phys. Rev. Lett. (1970) 316, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.25.316 .[Erratum: doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.25.902.2 ].[2] R. Hamberg, W. L. van Neerven, and T. Matsuura, “A complete calculation of the order α s correction to the Drell–Yan K-factor”, Nucl. Phys. B (1991) 343, doi:10.1016/0550-3213(91)90064-5 . [Erratum: doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(02)00814-3 ]. eferences [3] S. Catani et al., “Vector boson production at hadron colliders: a fully exclusive QCDcalculation at next-to-next-to-leading order”, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2009) 082001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.082001 , arXiv:0903.2120 .[4] S. Catani and M. Grazzini, “Next-to-next-to-leading-order subtraction formalism inhadron collisions and its application to Higgs-boson production at the Large HadronCollider”, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2007) 222002, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.222002 , arXiv:hep-ph/0703012 .[5] 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 .[6] A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, and R. G. Roberts, “Parton distributions of the proton”, Phys.Rev. D (1994) 6734, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.50.6734 , arXiv:hep-ph/9406315 .[7] V. Kartvelishvili, R. Kvatadze, and R. Shanidze, “On Z and Z + jet production in heavyion collisions”, Phys. Lett. B (1995) 589, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(95)00865-I , arXiv:hep-ph/9505418 .[8] R. Vogt, “Shadowing effects on vector boson production”, Phys. Rev. C (2001) 044901, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.64.044901 , arXiv:hep-ph/0011242 .[9] X.-f. Zhang and G. I. Fai, “ Z production as a test of nuclear effects at the LHC”, Phys.Lett. B (2002) 91, doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(02)02558-3 , arXiv:hep-ph/0205155 .[10] H. Paukkunen and C. A. Salgado, “Constraints for the nuclear parton distributions fromZ and W production at the LHC”, JHEP (2011) 071, doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2011)071 , arXiv:1010.5392 .[11] European Muon Collaboration, “The ratio of the nucleon structure functions F N for ironand deuterium”, Phys. Lett. B (1983) 275, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(83)90437-9 .[12] D. de Florian, R. Sassot, P. Zurita, and M. Stratmann, “Global analysis of nuclear partondistributions”,
Phys. Rev. D (2012) 074028, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.074028 , arXiv:1112.6324 .[13] H. Khanpour and S. Atashbar Tehrani, “Global analysis of nuclear parton distributionfunctions and their uncertainties at next-to-next-to-leading order”, Phys. Rev. D (2016) 014026, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.014026 , arXiv:1601.00939 .[14] K. J. Eskola, P. Paakkinen, H. Paukkunen, and C. A. Salgado, “EPPS16: nuclear partondistributions with LHC data”, Eur. Phys. J. C (2017) 163, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4725-9 , arXiv:1612.05741 .[15] K. Kovaˇr´ık et al., “nCTEQ15 - Global analysis of nuclear parton distributions withuncertainties in the CTEQ framework”, Phys. Rev. D (2016) 085037, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.085037 , arXiv:1509.00792 .[16] M. Walt, I. Helenius, and W. Vogelsang, “Open-source QCD analysis of nuclear partondistribution functions at NLO and NNLO”, Phys. Rev. D (2019) 096015, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.096015 , arXiv:1908.03355 . [17] NNPDF Collaboration, “Nuclear parton distributions from lepton-nucleus scattering andthe impact of an electron-ion collider”, Eur. Phys. J. C (2019) 471, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6983-1 , arXiv:1904.00018 .[18] R. Abdul Khalek, J. J. Ethier, J. Rojo, and G. van Weelden, “nNNPDF2.0: quark flavorseparation in nuclei from LHC data”, JHEP (2020) 183, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2020)183 , arXiv:2006.14629 .[19] A. Kusina et al., “Impact of LHC vector boson production in heavy ion collisions onstrange PDFs”, Eur. Phys. J. C (2020) 968, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08532-4 , arXiv:2007.09100 .[20] N. Armesto, “Nuclear shadowing”, J. Phys. G (2006) R367, doi:10.1088/0954-3899/32/11/R01 , arXiv:hep-ph/0604108 .[21] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the high-mass Drell–Yan differentialcross-section in pp collisions at √ s = Phys. Lett. B (2013) 223, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.07.049 , arXiv:1305.4192 .[22] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the low-mass Drell–Yan differential cross sectionat √ s = JHEP (2014) 112, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2014)112 , arXiv:1404.1212 .[23] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the double-differential high-mass Drell–Yancross section in pp collisions at √ s = JHEP (2016)009, doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2016)009 , arXiv:1606.01736 .[24] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of W ± -boson and Z-boson productioncross-sections in pp collisions at √ s = Eur. Phys. J. C (2019) 901, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7399-7 , arXiv:1907.03567 .[25] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the transverse momentum distribution ofDrell–Yan lepton pairs in proton–proton collisions at √ s =
13 TeV with the ATLASdetector”,
Eur. Phys. J. C (2020) 616, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8001-z , arXiv:1912.02844 .[26] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the Drell–Yan cross section in pp collisions at √ s = JHEP (2011) 007, doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2011)007 , arXiv:1108.0566 .[27] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the differential and double-differential Drell–Yancross sections in proton-proton collisions at √ s = JHEP (2013) 030, doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2013)030 , arXiv:1310.7291 .[28] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of differential and double-differential Drell–Yancross sections in proton-proton collisions at 8 TeV”, Eur. Phys. J. C (2015) 147, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3364-2 , arXiv:1412.1115 .[29] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the differential Drell–Yan cross section inproton-proton collisions at √ s =
13 TeV”,
JHEP (2019) 059, doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2019)059 , arXiv:1812.10529 .[30] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of differential Z boson production cross sections inproton-proton collisions at √ s = 13 TeV”, JHEP (2019) 061, doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2019)061 , arXiv:1909.04133 . eferences [31] PHENIX Collaboration, “Measurements of µµ pairs from open heavy flavor andDrell–Yan in p + p collisions at √ s =
200 GeV”,
Phys. Rev. D (2019) 072003, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.072003 , arXiv:1805.02448 .[32] ALICE Collaboration, “W and Z boson production in p-Pb collisions at √ s NN = 5.02TeV”, JHEP (2017) 077, doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2017)077 , arXiv:1611.03002 .[33] ALICE Collaboration, “Z-boson production in p-Pb collisions at √ s NN = √ s NN = JHEP (2020) 076, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2020)076 , arXiv:2005.11126 .[34] ATLAS Collaboration, “ Z boson production in p + Pb collisions at √ s NN = Phys. Rev. C (2015) 044915, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.92.044915 , arXiv:1507.06232 .[35] CMS Collaboration, “Study of Z boson production in pPb collisions at √ s NN = Phys. Lett. B (2016) 36, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.05.044 , arXiv:1512.06461 .[36] A. Banfi et al., “Optimisation of variables for studying dilepton transverse momentumdistributions at hadron colliders”, Eur. Phys. J. C (2011) 1600, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1600-y , arXiv:1009.1580 .[37] A. Banfi, M. Dasgupta, S. Marzani, and L. Tomlinson, “Predictions for Drell–Yan φ ∗ and Q T observables at the LHC”, Phys. Lett. B (2012) 152, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.07.035 , arXiv:1205.4760 .[38] S. Marzani, “ Q T and φ ∗ observables in Drell–Yan processes”, Eur. Phys. J. Web Conf. (2013) 14007, doi:10.1051/epjconf/20134914007 .[39] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement using 2016 proton-nucleus collisionsat nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy of 8.16 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis SummaryCMS-PAS-LUM-17-002, 2018.[40] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”, JINST (2008) S08004, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004 .[41] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisionsat √ s =
13 TeV”,
JINST (2020) P10017, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/10/P10017 , arXiv:2006.10165 .[42] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”, JINST (2017) P01020, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020 , arXiv:1609.02366 .[43] 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 .[44] 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 .[45] 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 .4
JINST (2020) P10017, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/10/P10017 , arXiv:2006.10165 .[42] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”, JINST (2017) P01020, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020 , arXiv:1609.02366 .[43] 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 .[44] 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 .[45] 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 .4 [46] 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 .[47] 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 .[48] 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 .[49] 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 .[50] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “NLO vector-boson production matched withshower in POWHEG”, JHEP (2008) 060, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/07/060 , arXiv:0805.4802 .[51] S. Dulat et al., “New parton distribution functions from a global analysis of quantumchromodynamics”, Phys. Rev. D (2016) 033006, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.033006 , arXiv:1506.07443 .[52] 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 .[53] 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 .[54] S. Jadach, J. H. K ¨uhn, and Z. Wa¸s, “TAUOLA—a library of Monte Carlo programs tosimulate decays of polarized τ leptons”, Comput. Phys. Commun. (1990) 275, doi:10.1016/0010-4655(91)90038-M .[55] P. Golonka and Z. Wa¸s, “PHOTOS Monte Carlo: a precision tool for QED corrections in Zand W decays”, Eur. Phys. J. C (2006) 97, doi:10.1140/epjc/s2005-02396-4 , arXiv:hep-ph/0506026 .[56] T. Pierog et al., “EPOS LHC: test of collective hadronization with data measured at theCERN Large Hadron Collider”, Phys. Rev. C (2015) 034906, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.92.034906 , arXiv:1306.0121 .[57] CMS Collaboration, “Pseudorapidity distributions of charged hadrons in proton-leadcollisions at √ s NN = JHEP (2018) 045, doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2018)045 , arXiv:1710.09355 .[58] CMS Collaboration, “Centrality and pseudorapidity dependence of the transverse energydensity in pPb collisions at √ s NN = Phys. Rev. C (2019) 024902, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.100.024902 , arXiv:1810.05745 .[59] GEANT4 Collaboration, “G EANT
Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A (2003) 250, doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8 . eferences [60] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the W + W − cross section in pp collisions at √ s = Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 401, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4219-1 , arXiv:1507.03268 .[61] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the WZ production cross section in pp collisions at √ s = √ s = Eur.Phys. J. C (2017) 236, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4730-z , arXiv:1609.05721 .[62] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the pp → ZZ production cross section andconstraints on anomalous triple gauge couplings in four-lepton final states at √ s = Phys. Lett. B (2015) 250, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.11.059 , arXiv:1406.0113 . [Erratum: doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.04.010 ].[63] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of top quark production in proton-nucleus collisions”, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2017) 242001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.242001 , arXiv:1709.07411 .[64] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of nuclear modifications in W ± boson production inpPb collisions at √ s NN = Phys. Lett. B (2020) 135048, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.135048 , arXiv:1905.01486 .[65] D. Bourilkov, “Exploring the LHC landscape with dileptons”, (2016). arXiv:1609.08994 .[66] 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 .[67] A. Bodek et al., “Extracting muon momentum scale corrections for hadron colliderexperiments”, Eur. Phys. J. C (2012) 2194, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-2194-8 , arXiv:1208.3710 .[68] G. D. Cowan, “Statistical data analysis”. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1998.[69] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of inclusive W and Z cross sections in pp collisionsat √ s = JHEP (2011) 080, doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2011)080 , arXiv:1012.2466 .[70] J. Butterworth et al., “PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II”, J. Phys. G (2016)023001, doi:10.1088/0954-3899/43/2/023001 , arXiv:1510.03865 .[71] A. Buckley et al., “LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era”, Eur. Phys.J. C (2015) 132, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3318-8 , arXiv:1412.7420 .[72] I. P. Lokhtin and A. M. Snigirev, “A model of jet quenching in ultrarelativistic heavy ioncollisions and high- p T hadron spectra at RHIC”, Eur. Phys. J. C (2006) 211, doi:10.1140/epjc/s2005-02426-3 , arXiv:hep-ph/0506189 .[73] H.-L. Lai et al., “New parton distributions for collider physics”, Phys. Rev. D (2010)074024, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.074024 , arXiv:1007.2241 .[74] F. Arleo and S. Peign´e, “Disentangling shadowing from coherent energy loss using theDrell–Yan process”, Phys. Rev. D (2017) 011502, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.011502 , arXiv:1512.01794 . 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, 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
S. Abu Zeid , Y. Assran , A. Ellithi Kamel Center for High Energy Physics (CHEP-FU), Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt
A. Lotfy, M.A. Mahmoud
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 Institut de Physique des 2 Infinis de Lyon (IP2I ), 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
T. Toriashvili , 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, 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, A. Kapoor, 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 , 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 , A.M. Rossi a , b , T. Rovelli a , b , G.P. Siroli a , b , N. Tosi a INFN Sezione di Catania a , Universit`a di Catania b , Catania, Italy S. Albergo a , b ,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. Layer 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 , 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 , 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. 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. Kim
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. Yoon4
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. Yoon4 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),Egaila, Kuwait
Y. Maghrbi
Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
V. Veckalns 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, P. Bunin, M. Gavrilenko, I. Golutvin, I. Gorbunov, A. Kamenev, V. Karjavine,A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev , P. Moisenz, V. Palichik, V. Perelygin, M. Savina,S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, V. Smirnov, O. Teryaev, V. Trofimov, N. Voytishin, B.S. Yuldashev ,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, V. Bunichev, A. Ershov, A. Gribushin, O. Kodolova, V. Korotkikh, I. Lokhtin,S. Obraztsov, S. Petrushanko, V. Savrin, A. Snigirev, I. Vardanyan
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
M.N. Bakirci , 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, U. Kiminsu, G. Onengut, K. Ozdemir , A. Polatoz, A.E. Simsek,U.G. Tok, H. Topakli , 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
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, 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, N. Trevisani, F. Wang, R. Xiao, W. Xie
Purdue University Northwest, Hammond, USA
T. Cheng, J. Dolen, N. Parashar, M. Stojanovic
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 Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt13: Also at Suez University, Suez, Egypt14: Now at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt15: Now at Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt16: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA17: Also at Universit´e de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France18: Also at Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia19: 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, India32: 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, Iran
39: 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 Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia, Riga, Latvia43: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnolog´ıa, Mexico City, Mexico44: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems, Warsaw, Poland45: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia46: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics Institute’(MEPhI), Moscow, Russia47: Also at Institute of Nuclear Physics of the Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences, Tashkent,Uzbekistan48: 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 P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia52: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia53: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia54: Also at Trincomalee Campus, Eastern University, Sri Lanka, Nilaveli, Sri Lanka55: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a , Universit`a di Pavia b , Pavia, Italy, Pavia, Italy56: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece57: Also at Universit¨at Z ¨urich, Zurich, Switzerland58: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics, Vienna, Austria, Vienna, Austria59: Also at Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules, IN2P3-CNRS, Annecy-le-Vieux, France60: Also at Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey61: 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 Tarsus University, MERSIN, 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, Turkey74: Also at Milli Savunma University, Istanbul, Turkey75: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey76: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey77: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey78: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey79: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton, Southampton,United Kingdom80: Also at IPPP Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom4