Measurement of electroweak WZ boson production and search for new physics in WZ $+$ two jets events in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV

TL;DR

This paper reports a measurement of electroweak WZ boson production with two jets at 13 TeV, testing the Standard Model and searching for new physics like charged Higgs bosons and anomalous gauge couplings.

Contribution

It provides the first measurement of EW WZ production with two jets at the LHC and sets limits on new physics scenarios using effective field theory.

Findings

Measured WZ+2 jets cross section consistent with SM

Observed EW WZ production significance of 2.2 sigma

Set constraints on charged Higgs and anomalous gauge couplings

Abstract

A measurement of WZ electroweak (EW) vector boson scattering is presented. The measurement is performed in the leptonic decay modes WZ $\to$ $\ell\nu\ell'\ell'$, where $\ell, \ell' = $ e, $\mu$. The analysis is based on a data sample of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV at the LHC collected with the CMS detector and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$. The WZ plus two jet production cross section is measured in fiducial regions with enhanced contributions from EW production and found to be consistent with standard model predictions. The EW WZ production in association with two jets is measured with an observed (expected) significance of 2.2 (2.5) standard deviations. Constraints on charged Higgs boson production and on anomalous quartic gauge couplings in terms of dimension-eight effective field theory operators are also presented.

Equations

$$I^{\ell }=\left(\sum {\text{pt}}^{\text{charged}}+\text{max}\left[0,\sum {\text{pt}}^{\text{neutral}}+\sum {\text{pt}}^{\gamma }-{\text{pt}}^{\mathrm{PU}}\right]\right)/{\text{pt}}^{\ell }.$$

$${\sigma }_{\text{PW}\text{PZ}\mathrm{jj}}^{\mathrm{fid}}=3.18_{-0.52}^{+0.57}{\text{stat}}_{-0.36}^{+0.43}\text{syst}\text{unit}fb=3.18_{-0.63}^{+0.71}\text{unit}fb.$$

$${\sigma }_{\text{PW}\text{PZ}\mathrm{jj}}^{\mathrm{fid},\mathrm{loose}}=4.39_{-0.72}^{+0.78}{\text{stat}}_{-0.50}^{+0.60}\text{syst}\text{unit}fb=4.39_{-0.87}^{+0.98}\text{unit}fb,$$

$${\mu }_{\text{EW}}=0.82_{-0.43}^{+0.51},$$

$$m_{\mathrm{T}}(\text{PW}\text{PZ})=\sqrt{{\left[\text{ET}(\text{PW})+\text{ET}(\text{cPZ})\right]}^2-{\left[\overrightarrow{\text{PT}}(\text{PW})+\overrightarrow{\text{PT}}(\text{cPZ})\right]}^2},$$

Full text

0.1 Introduction

The discovery of a scalar boson with couplings consistent with those of the standard model (SM) Higgs boson (\PH) by the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations [1, 2, 3] at the CERN LHC provides evidence that the \PW and \cPZ bosons acquire mass through the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. However, current measurements of the Higgs boson couplings [10, 11] do not preclude the existence of scalar isospin doublets, triplets, or higher isospin representations alongside the single isospin doublet field responsible for breaking the electroweak (EW) symmetry in the SM [12, 13]. In addition to their couplings to the Higgs boson, the non-Abelian nature of the EW sector of the SM leads to quartic and triple self-interactions of the massive vector bosons. Physics beyond the SM in the EW sector is expected to include interactions with the vector and Higgs bosons that modify their effective couplings. Characterizing the self-interactions of the vector bosons is thus of great importance.

The total $\PW\PZ$ production cross section in proton-proton ($\Pp\Pp$) collisions has been measured in the leptonic decay modes by the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations at 7, 8, and 13\TeV [14, 15, 16, 17, 18], and limits on anomalous triple gauge couplings [19] are presented in Refs. [15, 17, 20]. Constraints on anomalous quartic gauge couplings (aQGC) [21] are presented by the ATLAS Collaboration at 8\TeVin Ref. [15]. At the LHC, quartic $\PW\PZ$ interactions are accessible through triple vector boson production or via vector boson scattering (VBS), where vector bosons are radiated from the incoming quarks before interacting, as illustrated in Fig. 1 (left). The VBS processes form a distinct experimental signature characterized by the \PW and \cPZ bosons with two forward, high-momentum jets, arising from the hadronization of two quarks. They are part of an important subclass of processes contributing to $\PW\PZ$ plus two jet ($\PW\PZ\mathrm{jj}$) production that proceeds via the EW interaction at tree level, $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{4})$, referred to as EW-induced $\PW\PZ\mathrm{jj}$ production, or simply $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ production. An additional contribution to the $\PW\PZ\mathrm{jj}$ state proceeds via quantum chromodynamics (QCD) radiation of partons from an incoming quark or gluon, shown in Fig. 1 (second from left), leading to tree-level contributions at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{2}\alpS^{2})$. This class of processes is referred to as QCD-induced $\PW\PZ\mathrm{jj}$ production (or $\mathrm{QCD}\ \PW\PZ$).

The first study of $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ production at the LHC was performed by the ATLAS Collaboration at 8\TeV [15]. A measurement at 13\TeVwith an observed statistical significance for the $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ process greater than 5 standard deviations has recently been reported and submitted for publication by the ATLAS Collaboration [22]. This letter reports searches for $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ production in the SM and for new physics modifying the $\PW\PW\PZ\PZ$ coupling in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$. Two fiducial $\PW\PZ\mathrm{jj}$ cross sections are presented, both in phase spaces with enhanced contributions from the $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ process. The data sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 35.9\fbinvcollected with the CMS detector [23] at the CERN LHC in 2016. The analysis selects events with exactly three leptons (electrons or muons), missing transverse momentum \ptmiss, and two jets at high pseudorapidity $\eta$ with a large dijet system invariant mass $m_{\mathrm{jj}}$, characteristic of VBS processes. The kinematic variables of the two forward and high momentum jets, including $\eta$ separation and $m_{\mathrm{jj}}$, are used to identify the $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ component of $\PW\PZ\mathrm{jj}$ production. An excess of events with respect to the SM prediction could indicate contributions from additional gauge boson or vector resonances [24], charged scalar or Higgs bosons [25], or it could suggest that the gauge or Higgs bosons are not elementary [26]. We study such deviations in terms of aQGCs in the generalized framework of dimension-eight effective field theory operators, Fig. 1 (third from left), and in terms of charged Higgs bosons, Fig. 1 (right), and we place limits on their production cross sections and operator couplings.

0.2 The CMS detector

The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6\unitm internal diameter, providing a magnetic field of 3.8\unitT. Within the solenoid volume are silicon pixel and strip tracking detectors, a lead tungstate crystal electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), and a brass and scintillator hadron calorimeter (HCAL), each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. Forward calorimeters extend the $\eta$ coverage provided by the barrel and endcap detectors up to $\abs{\eta}<5$. Muons are measured in gas-ionization detectors embedded in the steel flux-return yoke outside the solenoid.

Events of interest are selected using a two-level trigger system [27]. The first level of the CMS trigger system, composed of custom hardware processors, uses information from the calorimeters and muon detectors to select events of interest in a fixed time interval of 3.2\mus. The high-level trigger processor farm further decreases the event rate from around 100\unitkHz to less than 1\unitkHz, before data storage [27].

A more detailed description of the CMS detector, together with a definition of the coordinate system used and the relevant kinematic variables, can be found in Ref. [23].

0.3 Signal and background simulation

Several Monte Carlo (MC) event generators are used to simulate the signal and background processes.

The EW-induced production of $\PW\PZ$ boson pairs and two final-state quarks, Fig. 1 (left), where the \PW and \cPZ bosons decay leptonically, is simulated at leading order (LO) in perturbative QCD using \MGvATNLO v2.4.2 [28]. The MC simulation includes all contributions to the three-lepton final state at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{6})$, with the condition that the mass of \PW boson be within $30\GeV$ of its on-shell value from Ref. [29]. The resonant \PW boson is decayed using MadSpin [30]. Triboson processes, where the $\PW\PZ$ boson pair is accompanied by a third vector boson that decays into jets, are included in the MC simulation, but account for well below 1% of the event yield for the selections described in Section 0.5. Contributions with an initial-state \cPqb quark are excluded from this MC simulation since they are considered part of the $\PQt\PZ\PQq$ background process. The predictions from \MGvATNLOare cross-checked with LO predictions from the event generators Vbfnlo 3.0 [31] and \SHERPA v2.2.4 [32, 33], and with fixed-order calculations from MoCaNLO+Recola [34, 35]. Agreement is obtained when using equivalent configurations of input parameters, including couplings, particle masses and widths, and the choice of renormalization ($\mu_{\text{R}}$) and factorization scales ($\mu_{\text{F}}$).

Several MC simulations of the $\mathrm{QCD}\ \PW\PZ$ process, Fig. 1 (second from left), are considered. The simulations are inclusive in the number of jets associated with the leptonically decaying \PW and \cPZ bosons, and therefore comprise the full $\PW\PZ\mathrm{jj}$ state. The primary MC simulation is simulated at LO with \MGvATNLO v2.4.2, with contributions to $\PW\PZ$ production with up to three outgoing partons included in the matrix element calculation. The different jet multiplicities are merged using the MLM scheme [36]. A next-to-leading order (NLO) MC simulation from \MGvATNLO v2.3.3 with zero or one outgoing partons at Born level, merged using the FxFx scheme [37], and an inclusive NLO simulation from \POWHEG2.0 [38, 39, 40, 41] are also utilized. The LO MC simulation with MLM merging, referred to as the MLM-merged simulation, is used as the central prediction for the analysis because of its inclusion of $\PW\PZ$ plus three-parton contributions at tree level, which are relevant to $\PW\PZ\mathrm{jj}$ production. The other MC simulations, used to assess the modeling uncertainty in the $\mathrm{QCD}\ \PW\PZ$ process, are referred to as the FxFx-merged and the \POWHEGsimulations, respectively. Each MC simulation is normalized to the NLO cross section from \POWHEG2.0.

In addition to the $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ and $\mathrm{QCD}\ \PW\PZ$ processes, which at tree level are $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{4})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{2}\alpS^{2})$ respectively, a smaller contribution at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{3}\alpS)$ contributes to the $\PW\PZ\mathrm{jj}$ state. We refer to this contribution as the interference term. It is evaluated using MC simulations of particle-level events generated with \MGvATNLO v2.6.0. The process is simulated with the dynamic $\mu_{\text{R}}$ and $\mu_{\text{F}}$ set to the maximum outgoing quark \ptper event, and with fixed scales $\mu_{\text{R}}=\mu_{\text{F}}=m_{\PW}$, where $m_{\PW}$ is the world average value of the $\PW$ boson mass, taken from Ref. [29].

The associated production of a $\cPZ$ boson and a single top quark, referred to as $\PQt\PZ\PQq$ production, is simulated at NLO in the four-flavor scheme using \MGvATNLO v2.3.3. The MC simulation is normalized using a cross section computed at NLO with \MGvATNLOin the five-flavor scheme, following the procedure of Ref. [42]. The production of $\cPZ$ boson pairs via $\Pq\Paq$ annihilation is generated at NLO in perturbative QCD with \POWHEG2.0 while the $\Pg\Pg\to\PZ\PZ$ process is simulated at LO with \MCFM7.0 [43]. The $\PZ\PZ$ simulations are normalized to the cross section calculated at next-to-next-to-leading order for $\Pq\Paq\to\PZ\PZ$ with MATRIX [44, 45] ($K$ factor 1.1) and at NLO for $\Pg\Pg\to\PZ\PZ$ [46] ($K$ factor 1.7). The EW production of \Zboson pairs and two final-state quarks, where the \Zbosons decay leptonically, is simulated at LO using \MGvATNLO v2.3.3. Background from $\PZ\PGg$, $\ttbar\text{V}$ ($\ttbar\PW$, $\ttbar\cPZ$), and triboson events $\HepParticle{V}{}{}\HepParticle{V}{}{}\HepParticle{V}{}{}$ ($\PW\PW\cPZ$, $\PW\cPZ\cPZ$, $\cPZ\cPZ\cPZ$) are generated at NLO with \MGvATNLO v2.3.3, with the vector bosons generated on-shell and decayed via MadSpin.

The simulation of the aQGC processes is performed at LO using \MGvATNLO v2.4.2 and employs matrix element reweighting to obtain a finely spaced grid of parameters for each of the anomalous couplings operators probed by the analysis. The configuration of input parameters is equivalent to that used for the $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ simulation described previously. The production of charged Higgs bosons in the Georgi–Machacek (GM) model [47] is simulated at LO using \MGvATNLO v2.3.3 and normalized using the next-to-next-to-leading order cross sections reported in Ref. [48].

The \PYTHIA v8.212 [49, 50] package is used for parton showering, hadronization, and underlying event simulation, with parameters set by the CUETP8M1 tune [51] for all simulated samples. For the $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ process, comparisons are made at particle-level with the parton shower and hadronization of \SHERPA and with \HERWIG v7.1 [52, 53]. For all MC simulations used in this analysis, the NNPDF3.0 [54] set of parton distribution functions (PDFs) is used, with PDFs calculated to the same order in perturbative QCD as the hard scattering process.

The detector response is simulated using a detailed description of the CMS detector implemented in the \GEANTfourpackage [55, 56]. The simulated events are reconstructed using the same algorithms used for the data. The simulated samples include additional interactions in the same and neighboring bunch crossings, referred to as pileup. Simulated events are weighted so the pileup distribution reproduces that observed in the data, which has an average of about 23 interactions per bunch crossing.

0.4 Event reconstruction

In this analysis, the particle-flow (PF) event reconstruction algorithm [57] is used. The PF algorithm aims to reconstruct and identify each individual particle as a physics object in an event, with an optimized combination of information from the various elements of the CMS detector. The energy of photons is obtained from the ECAL measurement. The energy of electrons is determined from a combination of the electron momentum at the primary interaction vertex as determined by the tracker, the energy of the corresponding ECAL cluster, and the energy sum of all bremsstrahlung photons spatially compatible with originating from the electron track. The energy of muons is obtained from the curvature of the corresponding track. The energy of charged hadrons is determined from a combination of their momentum measured in the tracker and the matching ECAL and HCAL energy deposits, corrected for zero-suppression effects and for the response function of the calorimeters to hadronic showers. Finally, the energy of neutral hadrons is obtained from the corresponding corrected ECAL and HCAL energies.

The reconstructed vertex with the largest value of summed physics-object $\pt^{2}$ (where \ptis the transverse momentum) is the primary $\Pp\Pp$ interaction vertex. The physics objects are the jets, clustered using a jet finding algorithm [58, 59] with the tracks assigned to the vertex as inputs, and the associated \ptmiss, taken as the negative vector sum of the $\pt^{\mathrm{j}}$ of those jets.

Electrons are reconstructed within the geometrical acceptance $\abs{\eta^{\Pe}}<2.5$. The reconstruction combines the information from clusters of energy deposits in the ECAL and the trajectory in the tracker [60]. To reduce the electron misidentification rate, electron candidates are subjected to additional identification criteria based on the distribution of the electromagnetic shower in the ECAL, the relative amount of energy deposited in the HCAL, a matching of the trajectory of an electron track with the cluster in the ECAL, and its consistency with originating from the selected primary vertex. Candidates that are identified as originating from photon conversions in the detector material are removed.

Muons are reconstructed within $\abs{\eta^{\mu}}<2.4$ [61]. The reconstruction combines the information from both the tracker and the muon spectrometer. The muons are selected from among the reconstructed muon track candidates by applying minimal quality requirements on the track components in the muon system and by ensuring that muons are associated with small energy deposits in the calorimeters.

For each lepton track, the distance of closest approach to the primary vertex in the transverse plane is required to be less than 0.05 (0.10)\unitcm for electrons in the barrel (endcap) region and 0.02\unitcm for muons. The distance along the beamline must be less than 0.1 (0.2)\unitcm for electrons in the barrel (endcap) and 0.1\unitcm for muons.

Jets are reconstructed using PF objects. The anti-\ktjet clustering algorithm [58] with a distance parameter $R=0.4$ is used. To exclude electrons and muons from the jet sample, the jets are required to be separated from the identified leptons by $\Delta R=\sqrt{\smash[b]{(\Delta\eta)^{2}+(\Delta\phi)^{2}}}>0.4$, where $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle in radians. The CMS standard method for jet energy corrections [62] is applied. These include corrections to the pileup contribution that keep the jet energy correction and the corresponding uncertainty almost independent of the number of pileup interactions. In order to reject jets coming from pileup collisions (pileup jets), a multivariate-based jet identification algorithm [63] is applied. This algorithm takes advantage of differences in the shape of energy deposits in a jet cone between jets from hard-scattering and from pileup interactions. The jets are required to have $\pt^{\mathrm{j}}>30\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta^{\mathrm{j}}}<4.7$. We identify potential top quark backgrounds by identifying the \cPqb quark produced in its decay via the combined secondary vertex \cPqb-tagging algorithm with the tight working point [64]. The efficiency for selecting \cPqb quark jets is $\approx$49% with a misidentification probability of $\approx$4% for \cPqc quark jets and $\approx$0.1% for light-quark and gluon jets.

The isolation of individual electrons or muons is defined relative to their $\pt^{\ell}$ by summing over the \ptof charged hadrons and neutral particles within a cone with radius $\Delta R<0.3\,(0.4)$ around the electron (muon) direction at the interaction vertex:

[TABLE]

Here, $\sum\pt^{\text{charged}}$ is the scalar \ptsum of charged hadrons originating from the primary vertex. The $\sum\pt^{\text{neutral}}$ and $\sum\pt^{\gamma}$ are the scalar \ptsums for neutral hadrons and photons, respectively. The neutral contribution to the isolation from pileup events, $\pt^{\mathrm{PU}}$, is estimated differently for electrons and muons. For electrons, $\pt^{\mathrm{PU}}\equiv\rho\,A_{\text{eff}}$, where the average transverse momentum flow density $\rho$ is calculated in each event using the “jet area” method [65], which defines $\rho$ as the median of the ratio of the jet transverse momentum to the jet area, $\pt^{\mathrm{j}}/A_{\mathrm{j}}$, for all pileup jets in the event. The effective area $A_{\text{eff}}$ is the geometric area of the isolation cone times an $\eta$-dependent correction factor that accounts for the residual dependence of the isolation on the pileup. For muons, $\pt^{\mathrm{PU}}\equiv 0.5\sum_{i}\pt^{\mathrm{PU},i}$, where $i$ runs over the charged hadrons originating from pileup vertices and the factor 0.5 corrects for the ratio of charged to neutral particle contributions in the isolation cone. Electrons are considered isolated if $I^{\Pe}<0.036,(0.094)$ for the barrel (endcap) region, whereas muons are considered isolated if $I^{\Pgm}<0.15$, where the values are optimized for aggressive background rejection while maintaining a reconstruction efficiency of $\approx$70%. Relaxed identification criteria are defined by $I^{\Pgm}<0.40$ for muons and by relaxed track quality and detector-based isolation conditions for electrons. The overall efficiencies of the reconstruction, identification, and isolation requirements for the prompt $\Pe$ or $\Pgm$ are measured in data and simulation in bins of $\pt^{\ell}$ and $\abs{\eta^{\ell}}$ using a “tag–and–probe” technique [66] applied to an inclusive sample of \cPZ events. The data to simulation efficiency ratios are used as scale factors to correct the simulated event yields.

0.5 Event selection

Collision events are selected by triggers that require the presence of one or two electrons or muons. The $\pt^{\ell}$ threshold for the single lepton trigger is 25 (20)\GeVfor the electron (muon) trigger. For the dilepton triggers, with the same or different flavors, the minimum $\pt^{\ell}$ of the leading and subleading leptons are 17 (17) and 12 (8)\GeVfor electrons (muons), respectively. The combination of these trigger paths brings the trigger efficiency for selected three-lepton events to nearly 100%. Partial mistiming of signals in the forward region of the electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL) endcaps ($2.5<\abs{\eta}<3.0$) led to early readout for a significant fraction of events with forward jet activity, and a corresponding reduction in the level 1 trigger efficiency. A correction for this effect is determined in bins of jet $\pt^{\mathrm{j}}$ and $\eta^{\mathrm{j}}$ using an unbiased data sample. This loss of efficiency is about 1% for $m_{\mathrm{jj}}$ of $200\GeV$, increasing to about 15% for $m_{\mathrm{jj}}>2\TeV$.

A selected event is required to have three lepton candidates $\ell\ell^{\prime}\ell^{\prime}$, where $\ell,\ell^{\prime}=\Pe$, $\mu$. All leptons must pass the identification and isolation requirements described in Section 0.4. The electrons and muons can be directly produced from a \PW or \cPZ boson decay or from a \PW or \cPZ boson with an intermediate $\tau$ lepton decay. The $\ell^{\prime}\ell^{\prime}$ pair consists of two leptons with opposite charge and the same flavor, as expected for a $\cPZ$ boson candidate. One of the leptons from the $\cPZ$ boson candidate is required to have $\pt^{\ell^{\prime}_{1}}>25\GeV$ and the other $\pt^{\ell^{\prime}_{2}}>15\GeV$. For events with three same-flavor leptons, two oppositely charged, same-flavor combinations are possible. The pair with invariant mass closest to $m_{\cPZ}=91.2\GeV$, the nominal $\cPZ$ boson mass from Ref. [29], is selected as the $\cPZ$ boson candidate. The remaining lepton is associated with the $\PW$ boson and must have $\pt^{\ell}>20\GeV$. Events containing additional leptons satisfying the relaxed identification criteria with $\pt^{\ell}>10\GeV$ are rejected. Because of the neutrino in the final state, the events are required to have $\ptmiss>30\GeV$. To reduce contributions from $\ttbar$ events, the leptons constituting the $\cPZ$ boson candidate are required to have an invariant mass satisfying $\abs{m_{\ell^{\prime}\ell^{\prime}}-m_{\cPZ}}<15\GeV$ and events with a \cPqb tagged jet with $\pt^{\cPqb}>30\,\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta^{\cPqb}}<2.4$ are vetoed.

The invariant mass of any dilepton pair $m_{\ell\ell}$ must be greater than 4\GeV. Such a requirement is necessary in theoretical calculations to avoid divergences from collinear emission of same-flavor opposite-sign dilepton pairs, and 4\GeVis chosen to avoid low mass resonances. The selection is extended to all dilepton pairs to reduce contributions from backgrounds with soft leptons while having a negligible effect on signal efficiency. The trilepton invariant mass, $m_{3\ell}$, is required to be more than 100\GeVto exclude a region where production of $\cPZ$ bosons with final-state photon radiation is expected to contribute.

Furthermore, the event must have at least two jets with $\pt^{\mathrm{j}}>50\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta^{\mathrm{j}}}<4.7$. The jet with the highest $\pt^{\mathrm{j}}$ is called the leading jet and the jet with the second-highest $\pt^{\mathrm{j}}$ the subleading jet. To exploit the unique signature of the VBS process, these two jets are required to have $m_{\mathrm{jj}}>500\GeV$ and $\eta$ separation $\abs{\Delta\eta(\mathrm{j}_{1},\mathrm{j}_{2})}\equiv\abs{\Delta\eta_{\mathrm{jj}}}>2.5$. The variable $\eta^{*}_{3\ell}=\eta^{3\ell}-(\eta^{\mathrm{j}_{1}}+\eta^{\mathrm{j}_{2}})/2$ of the three-lepton system is additionally required to be between $-2.5$ and 2.5. This selection is referred to as the “EW signal selection.” The same set of selections, but with no requirement on $\eta^{*}_{3\ell}$ and with the relaxed requirement $\pt^{j}>30\GeV$, is used in searches for charged Higgs bosons and therefore called the “Higgs boson selection.” A summary of these selections is shown in Table 0.5.

Sideband regions of events with a similar topology to signal events, but outside the signal region, are used to constrain the normalization of the $\mathrm{QCD}\ \PW\PZ$ process in the $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ measurement and in searches for new physics. We refer to this region as the “$\mathrm{QCD}\ \PW\PZ$ sideband region.” It consists of events with $m_{\mathrm{jj}}>100\GeV$ satisfying all requirements applied to signal events, but failing at least one of the signal discriminating variables, i.e., $m_{\mathrm{jj}}<500\GeV$ or $\abs{\Delta\eta_{\mathrm{jj}}}<2.5$. For the $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ measurement, events satisfying $\abs{\eta^{*}_{3\ell}}>2.5$ are also selected in the sideband region.

To reduce the dependence on theoretical predictions, measurements are reported in two fiducial regions, defined in Table 0.5. The “tight fiducial region” is defined to be as close as possible to the measurement phase space, whereas the “loose fiducial region” is designed to be easily reproducible in theoretical calculations or in MC simulations, following the procedure of Ref. [34]. The fiducial predictions are defined through selections on particle-level simulated events using the Rivet [67] framework, which provides a toolkit for analyzing simulated events in a model-independent way. Electrons and muons are required to be prompt (i.e., not from hadron decays), and those produced in the decay of a $\tau$ lepton are not considered in the definition of the fiducial phase space. The momenta of prompt photons located within a cone of radius $\Delta R=0.1$ are added to the lepton momentum to correct for final-state photon radiation, referred to as “dressing.” The three highest \ptleptons are selected and associated with the \PW and \cPZ bosons with the same procedure used in the data selection. The fiducial cross section in the $\mathrm{QCD}\ \PW\PZ$ sideband region is defined following the tight fiducial region of Table 0.5, with $m_{\mathrm{jj}}>100\GeV$ and $m_{\mathrm{jj}}<500\GeV$ or $\abs{\Delta\eta_{\mathrm{jj}}}<2.5$ or $\abs{\eta^{*}_{3\ell}}>2.5$. Theoretical predictions are evaluated using \MGvATNLOat LO interfaced to \PYTHIAwith the samples described in Section 0.3.

0.6 Background estimation

Background contributions in this analysis are divided into two categories: background processes with prompt isolated leptons, \eg, $\cPZ\cPZ$, $\PQt\PZ\PQq$, $\ttbar\cPZ$; and background processes with nonprompt leptons from hadrons decaying to leptons inside jets or jets misidentified as isolated leptons, primarily $\ttbar$ and $\cPZ$+jets. The background processes with prompt leptons are estimated from MC simulation, whereas backgrounds with nonprompt leptons from hadronic activity are estimated from data using control samples. The nonprompt component of the $\PZ\PGg$ process, in which the photon experiences conversion into leptons in the tracker, is evaluated using MC simulation.

The contribution from $\mathrm{QCD}\ \PW\PZ$ production is estimated with MC simulation. It is considered signal for the $\PW\PZ\mathrm{jj}$ cross section measurement, but is the dominant background for the $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ measurement and in searches for new physics. For the $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ measurement and new physics searches, the normalization of the $\mathrm{QCD}\ \PW\PZ$ process is constrained by data in the $\mathrm{QCD}\ \PW\PZ$ sideband region. The cross section predicted by the MLM-merged sample in the $\mathrm{QCD}\ \PW\PZ$ sideband region is $18.6\,^{+2.9}_{-2.3}\,\text{(scale)}\pm 1.0\,\text{(PDF)}\unit{fb}$, where the scale and PDF uncertainties are calculated using the procedure described in Section 0.7. In this region the normalization correction, which is derived from a fit to the data, is consistent with unity. The $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ process, considered signal for the $\PW\PZ\mathrm{jj}$ and $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ measurements but background to new physics searches, is also estimated using MC simulation.

The contribution from background processes with nonprompt leptons is evaluated with data control samples of events satisfying relaxed lepton identification requirements using the technique described in Refs. [16, 68]. Events satisfying the full analysis selection, with the exception that one, two, or three leptons pass relaxed identification requirements but fail the more stringent requirements applied to signal events, are selected to form relaxed lepton control samples. These control samples are mutually independent and, additionally, independent from the signal selection. The small contribution to the relaxed lepton control samples from events with three prompt leptons is estimated with MC simulation and subtracted from the event samples.

The expected contribution in the signal region is estimated using “loose-to-tight” efficiency factors applied to the lepton candidates failing the analysis requirements in the control region events. The efficiency factors are calculated from a sample of $\PZ$+$\ell_{\text{cand}}$ events, where \cPZ denotes a pair of oppositely charged, same-flavor leptons satisfying the full identification requirements and $\abs{m_{\ell^{+}\ell^{-}}-m_{\cPZ}}<10\GeV$, and $\ell_{\text{cand}}$ is a lepton candidate satisfying the relaxed identification. The loose-to-tight efficiency factors are obtained from ratios of events where the $\ell_{\text{cand}}$ object satisfies the full identification requirements to events where all identification criteria are not satisfied, and is parameterized as a function of \PTand $\eta$. A cross-check of the technique is performed by repeating the procedure with efficiency factors derived from a sample of events dominated by dijet production. The loose-to-tight efficiency factors obtained in the two regions agree to within 30% for the full \PTand $\eta$ range.

This method is validated in nonoverlapping data samples enriched in Drell–Yan and $\ttbar$ contributions. The Drell–Yan sample is defined by inverting the selection requirement in $\ptmiss$, and the $\ttbar$ sample is defined by requiring at least one \cPqb-tagged jet and rejecting events with $\abs{m_{\ell^{\prime}\ell^{\prime}}-m_{\PZ}}<5\GeV$ while keeping all other requirements for the signal region. The predictions derived from the relaxed lepton data control samples agree with the measurements in the Drell–Yan and $\ttbar$ data samples to within 20%.

The small size of the loose lepton control samples and $\PZ\PGg$ MC simulation limit differential predictions in the EW signal region. Therefore, the combined shape of the estimated nonprompt and $\PZ\PGg$ backgrounds for both electrons and muons are used as background for the $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ measurement and in the extraction of constraints on aQGCs. The normalization of the distributions per channel are taken from the ratio of the nonprompt ($\PZ\PGg$) yield in a single channel to the total nonprompt ($\PZ\PGg$) event yield measured in $\PW\PZ\mathrm{jj}$ events with no requirements on the dijet system. These ratios are consistent within the statistical uncertainty with ratios measured when relaxing the jet \PTrequirement in $\PW\PZ\mathrm{jj}$ events, in $\PW\PZ$ events inclusive in the number of jets, and in events satisfying the EW signal and $\mathrm{QCD}\ \PW\PZ$ sideband selections.

0.7 Systematic uncertainties

The dominant uncertainties in both the cross section measurement and new physics searches are those associated with the jet energy scale (JES) and resolution (JER). The JES and JER uncertainties are evaluated in simulated events by smearing and scaling the relevant observables and propagating the effects to the event selection and the kinematic variables used in the analysis. The uncertainty in the event yield in the EW signal selection due to the JES and JER is 9% for $\mathrm{QCD}\ \PW\PZ$ and 5% for $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ processes. For the $\mathrm{QCD}\ \PW\PZ$ ($\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$) process, the JES uncertainty varies in the range of 5–25% (3–15%) with increasing values of $m_{\mathrm{jj}}$ and $\abs{\Delta\eta_{\mathrm{jj}}}$.

The uncertainties in signal and background processes estimated with MC simulation are evaluated from the theoretical uncertainties of the predictions. Event weights in the MC simulations are used to evaluate variations of the central prediction. Scale uncertainties are estimated by independently varying $\mu_{\text{R}}$ and $\mu_{\text{F}}$ by a factor of two from their nominal values, with the condition that $1/2\leq\mu_{\text{R}}/\mu_{\text{F}}\leq 2$. The maximal and minimal variations are obtained per bin to form a shape-dependent variation band. The PDF uncertainties are evaluated by combining the predictions per bin from the fit and $\alpha_{s}$ variations of the NNPDF3.0 set according to the procedure described in Ref. [69] for MC replica sets. The scale and PDF uncertainties are uncorrelated for different signal and background process and 100% correlated across bins for the distributions used to extract results. For MC simulations normalized to a cross section computed at a higher order in QCD, the uncertainties are calculated from the order of the MC simulation.

The uncertainty in modeling the $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ and $\mathrm{QCD}\ \PW\PZ$ processes has a large impact in the $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ measurement. In addition to the uncertainties from scale and PDF choice, comparisons of alternative matrix element and parton shower generators are considered. The uncertainty in the $\mathrm{QCD}\ \PW\PZ$ process is derived by comparing the predictions of the MLM-merged simulation and those obtained with the FxFx-merged simulation, after fixing the normalization to the observed data in the $\mathrm{QCD}\ \PW\PZ$ sideband region. Differences between the predictions of the MC simulations in the signal region and in the ratio of the $\mathrm{QCD}\ \PW\PZ$ sideband to the signal region event yields are considered in the comparisons. The differences in predictions are generally within the scale and PDF uncertainties of the MC simulations, and a 10% normalization uncertainty is assigned to account for the observed discrepancies. The results obtained using the \POWHEGsimulation, which predicts a slightly softer $m_{\mathrm{jj}}$ spectrum, are also largely contained within the theoretical uncertainties considered. However, because $\PW\PZ\mathrm{jj}$ events from this simulation arise from soft radiation from the parton shower, it is not explicitly considered in the uncertainty evaluation. For the $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ process, the MC simulations described in Section 0.3 agree within the theoretical uncertainties from the PDF and the choice of $\mu_{\text{R}}$ and $\mu_{\text{F}}$ for the kinematic variables considered in the analysis, so no additional uncertainty is assigned.

The interference term is evaluated on particle-level simulated events selected from the MC simulations described in Section 0.3. It is positive, and roughly 12% of the $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ contribution in the $\mathrm{QCD}\ \PW\PZ$ sideband region and 4% in the EW signal region for both MC simulations considered, consistent with the results reported in Ref. [34]. The ratio of the interference to the $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ decreases with increasing $m_{\mathrm{jj}}$, consistent with the observations of Refs. [34, 70]. These values are used as a symmetric shape uncertainty in the $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ prediction. This uncertainty is lower than other theoretical uncertainties and has a negligible contribution to the uncertainty in the $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ measurement.

Higher-order EW corrections in VBS processes are known to be negative and at the level of tens of percent, with the correction increasing in magnitude with increasing $m_{\mathrm{jj}}$ and $m_{\mathrm{VV}}$ [71]. We do not apply corrections to the $\PW\PZ\mathrm{jj}$ MC simulation, but we have verified that the significance of the $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ measurement is insensitive to higher-order EW corrections by performing the signal extraction described in Section 0.8 with the $m_{\mathrm{jj}}$ predicted by the $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ MC simulation modified by the corrections from Ref. [72]. As the relative effect of the EW corrections on SM and anomalous $\PW\PZ\mathrm{jj}$ production is unknown, we do not apply corrections to the SM backgrounds or new physics signals for our results. Because corrections to the SM WZjj production that decrease the expected number of events at high $m_{\PW\PZ}$ lead to more stringent limits on new physics, this is a conservative approach.

The uncertainties related to the finite number of simulated events, or to the limited number of events in data control regions, affect the signal and background predictions. They are uncorrelated across different samples, and across bins of a single distribution. The limited number of events in the relaxed lepton control samples used for the nonprompt background estimate is the dominant contribution to this uncertainty.

The nonprompt background estimate is also affected by systematic uncertainties from the jet flavor composition of the relaxed lepton control samples and loose-to-tight extrapolation factors. The systematic uncertainty in the nonprompt event yield is 30% for both electrons and muons, uncorrelated between channels. It covers the largest difference observed between the estimated and measured numbers of events in data control samples enriched in $\ttbar$ and Drell–Yan contributions and the differences between using extrapolation factors derived in ${\PZ}\mathrm{+jet}$ and dijet events.

Systematic uncertainties are less than 1% for the trigger efficiency and 1–3% for the lepton identification and isolation requirements, depending on the lepton flavors. Other systematic uncertainties are related to the use of simulated samples: 1% for the effects of pileup and 1–2% for the \ptmissreconstruction, estimated by varying the energies of the PF objects within their uncertainties. The uncertainty in the \cPqb tagging efficiency is 2% for $\PW\PZ$ events, which accounts for differences in \cPqb tagging efficiencies between MC simulations and data. The uncertainty in the integrated luminosity of the data sample is 2.5% [73]. This uncertainty affects both the signal and the simulated portion of the background estimation, but does not affect the background estimation from data.

For the extraction of results, log-normal probability density functions are assumed for the nuisance parameters affecting the event yields of the various background contributions, whereas systematic uncertainties that affect the shape of the distributions are represented by nuisance parameters whose variation results in a continuous perturbation of the spectrum [74] and are assumed to have a Gaussian probability density function. A summary of the contribution of each systematic uncertainty to the total $\PW\PZ\mathrm{jj}$ cross section measurement is presented in Table 0.7. The impact of each systematic uncertainty in the $\PW\PZ\mathrm{jj}$ cross section measurement is obtained by freezing the set of associated nuisance parameters to their best-fit values and comparing the total uncertainty in the signal strength to the result from the nominal fit. The prompt background normalization uncertainty includes the scale and PDF uncertainties in the background processes estimated using MC simulations.

0.8 Fiducial $\PW\PZ\mathrm{jj}$ cross section measurement and search for $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ production

The cross section for $\PW\PZ\mathrm{jj}$ production, without separating by production mechanism, is measured with a combined maximum likelihood fit to the observed event yields for the EW signal selection. The likelihood is a combination of individual likelihoods for the four leptonic decay channels ($\Pe\Pe\Pe$, $\Pe\Pe\PGm$, $\PGm\PGm\Pe$, $\PGm\PGm\PGm$) for the signal and background hypotheses with the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the form of nuisance parameters. To minimize the dependence of the result on theoretical predictions, the likelihood function is built from the event yields per channel without considering information about the distribution of events in kinematic variables. The expected event yields for the EW- and QCD-induced $\PW\PZ\mathrm{jj}$ processes are taken from the \MGvATNLO v2.4.2 predictions. The $\PW\PZ\mathrm{jj}$ signal strength $\mu_{\PW\PZ\mathrm{jj}}$, which is the ratio of the measured signal yield to the expected number of signal events, is treated as a free parameter in the fit.

The best-fit value for the $\PW\PZ\mathrm{jj}$ signal strength is used to obtain a cross section in the tight fiducial region defined in Table 0.5. The measured fiducial $\PW\PZ\mathrm{jj}$ cross section in this region is

[TABLE]

This result can be compared with the predicted value of $3.27\,^{+0.39}_{-0.32}\,\text{(scale)}\pm 0.15\,\text{(PDF)}\unit{fb}$. The $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ and $\mathrm{QCD}\ \PW\PZ$ contributions are calculated independently from the samples described in Section 0.3 and their uncertainties are combined in quadrature to obtain the $\PW\PZ\mathrm{jj}$ cross section prediction. The predicted $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ cross section is $1.25^{+0.11}_{-0.09}\,\text{(scale)}\pm 0.06\,\text{(PDF)}\unit{fb}$, and the interference term contribution in this region is less than 1% of the total cross section.

Results are also obtained in a looser fiducial region, defined in Table 0.5 following Ref. [34], to simplify comparisons with theoretical calculations. The acceptance from the loose to tight fiducial region is $(72.4\pm 0.8)\%$, computed using \MGvATNLOinterfaced to \PYTHIA. The uncertainty in the acceptance is evaluated by combining the scale and PDF uncertainties in the $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ and $\mathrm{QCD}\ \PW\PZ$ predictions in quadrature. The scale uncertainty in the $\mathrm{QCD}\ \PW\PZ$ contribution is the dominant component of the uncertainty. The resulting $\PW\PZ\mathrm{jj}$ loose fiducial cross section is

[TABLE]

compared with the predicted value of $4.51^{+0.59}_{-0.45}\,\text{(scale)}\pm 0.18\,\text{(PDF)}\unit{fb}$. The $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ and $\mathrm{QCD}\ \PW\PZ$ contributions and their uncertainties are treated independently with the same approach as described for the tight fiducial region. The predicted $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ cross section in the loose region is $1.48^{+0.13}_{-0.11}\,\text{(scale)}\pm 0.07\,\text{(PDF)}\unit{fb}$, and the relative contribution from the interference term is less the 1%.

Separating the EW- and QCD-induced components of $\PW\PZ\mathrm{jj}$ events requires exploiting the different kinematic signatures of the two processes. The relative fraction of the $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ process with respect to the $\mathrm{QCD}\ \PW\PZ$ process and other backgrounds grows with increasing values of the $m_{\mathrm{jj}}$ and $\abs{\Delta\eta_{\mathrm{jj}}}$ of the leading jets, as demonstrated in Fig. 2. This motivates the use of a 2D distribution built from these variables for the extraction of the $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ signal via a maximum likelihood fit. This 2D distribution, shown as a one-dimensional histogram in Fig. 3, along with the yield in the $\mathrm{QCD}\ \PW\PZ$ sideband region, are combined in a binned likelihood involving the expected and observed numbers of events in each bin. The likelihood is a combination of individual likelihoods for the four decay channels.

The systematic uncertainties are represented by nuisance parameters that are allowed to vary according to their probability density functions, and correlation across bins and between different sources of uncertainty is taken into account. The expected number of signal events is taken from the \MGvATNLO v2.4.2 prediction at LO, multiplied by a signal strength $\mu_{\text{EW}}$ which is treated as a free parameter in the fit.

The best-fit value for the signal strength $\mu_{\text{EW}}$ is

[TABLE]

consistent with the SM expectation at LO of $\mu_{\text{EW},\,\mathrm{LO}}=1$, with respect to the predicted cross section for the $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ process in the tight fiducial region. The significance of the signal is quantified by calculating the local $p$-value for an upward fluctuation of the data relative to the background prediction using a profile likelihood ratio test statistic and asymptotic formulae [75]. The observed (expected) statistical significance for $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ production is 2.2 (2.5) standard deviations. A modification to the predicted cross section used in the fit trivially rescales the signal strength but does not impact the significance of the result. The total uncertainty of the measurement is dominated by the statistical uncertainty of the data. The post-fit yields for the signal and background corresponding to the best-fit signal strength for $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ production are shown in Table 0.8.

0.9 Limits on anomalous quartic gauge couplings

Events satisfying the EW signal selection are used to constrain aQGCs in the effective field theory approach [76]. Results are obtained following the formulation of Ref. [21] that proposes nine independent dimension-eight operators, which assume the SU(2)$\times$U(1) symmetry of the EW gauge sector as well as the presence of an SM Higgs boson. All operators are charge conjugation and parity-conserving. The $\PW\PZ\mathrm{jj}$ channel is most sensitive to the T0, T1, and T2 operators that are constructed purely from the SU(2) gauge fields, the S0 and S1 operators that involve interactions with the Higgs field, and the M0 and M1 operators that involve a mixture of gauge and Higgs field interactions.

The presence of nonzero aQGCs would enhance the production of events with high WZ mass. This motivates the use of the transverse mass of the $\PW\PZ$ system, defined as

[TABLE]

with $\ET=\sqrt{\smash[b]{m^{2}+\PT^{2}}}$, where the \PW candidate is constructed from the \ptvecmissand the lepton associated with the $\PW$ boson, and $m$ is the invariant mass of the $\PW$ or $\cPZ$ candidate, to constrain the parameters $f_{\mathcal{O}i}/\Lambda^{4}$. In this formulation, $f_{\mathcal{O}i}$ is a dimensionless coefficient for the operator $\mathcal{O}_{i}$ and $\Lambda$ is the energy scale of new physics. The $m_{\mathrm{T}}(\PW\PZ)$ for events satisfying the EW signal selection is shown in Fig 4. The predictions of several indicative aQGC operators and coefficients are also shown.

The MC simulations of nonzero aQGCs include the SM $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ process, with an increase in the yield at high $m_{\mathrm{T}}(\PW\PZ)$ arising from parameters different from their SM values. Because the increase of the expected yield over the SM prediction exhibits a quadratic dependence on the operator coefficient, a parabolic function is fitted to the predicted yields per bin to obtain a smooth interpolation between the discrete operator coefficients considered in the MC simulation. The one-dimensional 95% confidence level (\CL) limits are extracted using the \CLscriterion [77, 78, 75], with all parameters except for the coefficient being probed set to zero. The SM prediction, including the $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ process, is treated as the null hypothesis. The expected prompt backgrounds are normalized to the predictions of the MC simulations, with no corrections applied for the results of the $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ or $\PW\PZ\mathrm{jj}$ measurements. No deviation from the SM prediction is observed, and the resulting observed and expected limits are summarized in Table 0.9.

Constraints are also placed on aQGC parameters using a two-dimensional scan, where two parameters are probed in the fit with all others set to zero. This approach is motivated by correlations between operators and physical couplings, and for comparisons with alternative formulations of dimension-eight operators. In particular, the quartic gauge interactions of the massive gauge bosons is a function of S0 and S1, while combinations of the M0 and M1 operators can be compared with the formulation of Ref. [79]. The resulting 2D 95% \CLintervals for these parameters are shown in Fig. 5.

0.10 Limits on charged Higgs boson production

Theories with Higgs sectors including SU(2) triplets can give rise to charged Higgs bosons (H*±*) with large couplings to the vector bosons of the SM. A prominent one is the GM model [47], where the Higgs sector is extended by one real and one complex SU(2) triplet to preserve custodial symmetry at tree level for arbitrary vacuum expectation values. In this model, the couplings of $\PH^{\pm}$ and the vector bosons depend on $m(\PHpm)$ and the parameter $\sin{\theta_{\PH}}$, or $s_{\PH}$, which represents the mixing angle of the vacuum expectation values in the model, and determines the fraction of the \PW and \cPZ boson masses generated by the vacuum expectation values of the triplets. This analysis extends the previous study of $\PH^{\pm}$ production via vector boson fusion by the CMS Collaboration in the same channel [68].

A combined fit of the predicted signal and background yields to the data in the Higgs boson selection is performed in bins of $m_{\mathrm{T}}(\PW\PZ)$, simultaneously with the event yield in the $\mathrm{QCD}\ \PW\PZ$ sideband region, to derive model-independent expected and observed upper limits on $\sigma({\Hpm}\mathrm{+jj})\,\mathcal{B}(\PHpm\to\PW\cPZ)$ at 95% \CLusing the \CLscriterion. The distribution and binning of the $m_{\mathrm{T}}(\PW\PZ)$ distribution used in the fit are shown in Fig. 6. The upper limits as a function of $m(\PHpm)$ are shown in Fig. 7 (left). The results assume that the intrinsic width of the $\PHpm$ is $\lesssim$0.05$m(\PHpm)$, which is below the experimental resolution in the phase space considered.

The model-independent upper limits are compared with the predicted cross sections at next-to-next-to-leading order in the GM model in the $s_{\PH}$-$m(\PHpm)$ plane, under the assumptions defined for the “H5plane” in Ref. [48]. For the probed parameter space and $m_{\mathrm{T}}(\PW\PZ)$ distribution used for signal extraction, the varying width as a function of $s_{\PH}$ is assumed to have negligible effect on the result. The value of the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\PHpm\to\PW\cPZ)$ is assumed to be unity. In Fig. 7 (right), the excluded $s_{\PH}$ values as a function of $m(\PHpm)$ are shown. The blue shaded region shows the parameter space for which the $\PHpm$ total width exceeds 10% of $m(\PHpm)$, where the model is not applicable because of perturbativity and vacuum stability requirements [48].

0.11 Summary

A measurement of the production of a \PW and a $\PZ$ boson in association with two jets has been presented, using events where both bosons decay leptonically. Results are based on data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $35.9\fbinv$ recorded in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ with the CMS detector at the LHC in 2016. The cross section in a tight fiducial region with enhanced contributions from electroweak (EW) $\PW\PZ$ production is $\sigma^{\mathrm{fid}}_{\PW\PZ\mathrm{jj}}=3.18^{+0.71}_{-0.63}\unit{fb}$, consistent with the standard model (SM) prediction. The dijet mass and dijet rapidity separation are used to measure the signal strength of $\text{EW}\ \PW\PZ$ production with respect to the SM expectation, resulting in $\mu_{\text{EW}}=0.82^{+0.51}_{-0.43}$. The significance of this result is 2.2 standard deviations with 2.5 standard deviations expected.

Constraints are placed on anomalous quartic gauge couplings in terms of dimension-eight effective field theory operators, and upper limits are given on the production cross section times branching fraction of charged Higgs bosons. The upper limits on charged Higgs boson production via vector boson fusion with decay to a \PW and a \cPZ boson extend the results previously published by the CMS Collaboration [68] and are comparable to those of the ATLAS Collaboration [80]. These are the first limits for dimension-eight effective field theory operators in the $\PW\PZ$ channel at $13\TeV$.

Acknowledgements.

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

.12 The CMS Collaboration

\cmsinstskip

**Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia

** A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan \cmsinstskip**Institut für Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria

** W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, E. Asilar, T. Bergauer, J. Brandstetter, M. Dragicevic, J. Erö, A. Escalante Del Valle, M. Flechl, R. Frühwirth\cmsAuthorMark1, V.M. Ghete, J. Hrubec, M. Jeitler\cmsAuthorMark1, N. Krammer, I. Krätschmer, D. Liko, T. Madlener, I. Mikulec, N. Rad, H. Rohringer, J. Schieck\cmsAuthorMark1, R. Schöfbeck, M. Spanring, D. Spitzbart, W. Waltenberger, J. Wittmann, C.-E. Wulz\cmsAuthorMark1, M. Zarucki \cmsinstskip**Institute for Nuclear Problems, Minsk, Belarus

** V. Chekhovsky, V. Mossolov, J. Suarez Gonzalez \cmsinstskip**Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerpen, Belgium

** E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, J. Lauwers, M. Pieters, H. Van Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, N. Van Remortel \cmsinstskip**Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium

** S. Abu Zeid, F. Blekman, J. D’Hondt, J. De Clercq, K. Deroover, G. Flouris, D. Lontkovskyi, S. Lowette, I. Marchesini, S. Moortgat, L. Moreels, Q. Python, K. Skovpen, S. Tavernier, W. Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders, I. Van Parijs \cmsinstskip**Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium

** D. Beghin, B. Bilin, H. Brun, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, H. Delannoy, B. Dorney, G. Fasanella, L. Favart, R. Goldouzian, A. Grebenyuk, A.K. Kalsi, T. Lenzi, J. Luetic, N. Postiau, E. Starling, L. Thomas, C. Vander Velde, P. Vanlaer, D. Vannerom, Q. Wang \cmsinstskip**Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

** T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, A. Fagot, M. Gul, I. Khvastunov\cmsAuthorMark2, D. Poyraz, C. Roskas, D. Trocino, M. Tytgat, W. Verbeke, B. Vermassen, M. Vit, N. Zaganidis \cmsinstskip**Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

** H. Bakhshiansohi, O. Bondu, S. Brochet, G. Bruno, C. Caputo, P. David, C. Delaere, M. Delcourt, A. Giammanco, G. Krintiras, V. Lemaitre, A. Magitteri, K. Piotrzkowski, A. Saggio, M. Vidal Marono, P. Vischia, S. Wertz, J. Zobec \cmsinstskip**Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

** F.L. Alves, G.A. Alves, M. Correa Martins Junior, G. Correia Silva, C. Hensel, A. Moraes, M.E. Pol, P. Rebello Teles \cmsinstskip**Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

** E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato\cmsAuthorMark3, E. Coelho, E.M. Da Costa, G.G. Da Silveira\cmsAuthorMark4, D. De Jesus Damiao, C. De Oliveira Martins, S. Fonseca De Souza, H. Malbouisson, D. Matos Figueiredo, M. Melo De Almeida, C. Mora Herrera, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, W.L. Prado Da Silva, L.J. Sanchez Rosas, A. Santoro, A. Sznajder, M. Thiel, E.J. Tonelli Manganote\cmsAuthorMark3, F. Torres Da Silva De Araujo, A. Vilela Pereira \cmsinstskip**Universidade Estadual Paulista a, Universidade Federal do ABC b, São Paulo, Brazil

** S. Ahujaa, C.A. Bernardesa, L. Calligarisa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M. Gregoresb, P.G. Mercadanteb, S.F. Novaesa, SandraS. Padulaa \cmsinstskip**Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria

** A. Aleksandrov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, A. Marinov, M. Misheva, M. Rodozov, M. Shopova, G. Sultanov \cmsinstskip**University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria

** A. Dimitrov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov \cmsinstskip**Beihang University, Beijing, China

** W. Fang\cmsAuthorMark5, X. Gao\cmsAuthorMark5, L. Yuan \cmsinstskip**Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China

** M. Ahmad, J.G. Bian, G.M. Chen, H.S. Chen, M. Chen, Y. Chen, C.H. Jiang, D. Leggat, H. Liao, Z. Liu, S.M. Shaheen\cmsAuthorMark6, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, Z. Wang, E. Yazgan, H. Zhang, S. Zhang\cmsAuthorMark6, J. Zhao \cmsinstskip**State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China

** Y. Ban, G. Chen, A. Levin, J. Li, L. Li, Q. Li, Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang \cmsinstskip**Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

** Y. Wang \cmsinstskip**Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia

** C. Avila, A. Cabrera, C.A. Carrillo Montoya, L.F. Chaparro Sierra, C. Florez, C.F. González Hernández, M.A. Segura Delgado \cmsinstskip**University of Split, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split, Croatia

** B. Courbon, N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak, T. Sculac \cmsinstskip**University of Split, Faculty of Science, Split, Croatia

** Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac \cmsinstskip**Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia

** V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, K. Kadija, B. Mesic, A. Starodumov\cmsAuthorMark7, T. Susa \cmsinstskip**University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

** M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, M. Kolosova, G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos, P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski \cmsinstskip**Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

** M. Finger\cmsAuthorMark8, M. Finger Jr.\cmsAuthorMark8 \cmsinstskip**Escuela Politecnica Nacional, Quito, Ecuador

** E. Ayala \cmsinstskip**Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador

** E. Carrera Jarrin \cmsinstskip**Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt

** S. Khalil\cmsAuthorMark9, M.A. Mahmoud\cmsAuthorMark10*,\cmsAuthorMark11, E. Salama\cmsAuthorMark11,*\cmsAuthorMark12 \cmsinstskip**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 \cmsinstskip**Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

** P. Eerola, H. Kirschenmann, J. Pekkanen, M. Voutilainen \cmsinstskip**Helsinki Institute of Physics, Helsinki, Finland

** J. Havukainen, J.K. Heikkilä, T. Järvinen, V. Karimäki, R. Kinnunen, T. Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Laurila, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, P. Luukka, T. Mäenpää, H. Siikonen, E. Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi \cmsinstskip**Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland

** T. Tuuva \cmsinstskip**IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France

** M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, J.L. Faure, F. Ferri, S. Ganjour, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry, C. Leloup, E. Locci, J. Malcles, G. Negro, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M.Ö. Sahin, M. Titov \cmsinstskip**Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole polytechnique, CNRS/IN2P3, Université Paris-Saclay, Palaiseau, France

** A. Abdulsalam\cmsAuthorMark13, C. Amendola, I. Antropov, F. Beaudette, P. Busson, C. Charlot, R. Granier de Cassagnac, I. Kucher, A. Lobanov, J. Martin Blanco, C. Martin Perez, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, G. Ortona, P. Paganini, P. Pigard, J. Rembser, R. Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A.G. Stahl Leiton, A. Zabi, A. Zghiche \cmsinstskip**Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, Strasbourg, France

** J.-L. Agram\cmsAuthorMark14, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, J.-M. Brom, E.C. Chabert, V. Cherepanov, C. Collard, E. Conte\cmsAuthorMark14, J.-C. Fontaine\cmsAuthorMark14, D. Gelé, U. Goerlach, M. Jansová, A.-C. Le Bihan, N. Tonon, P. Van Hove \cmsinstskip**Centre de Calcul de l’Institut National de Physique Nucleaire et de Physique des Particules, CNRS/IN2P3, Villeurbanne, France

** S. Gadrat \cmsinstskip**Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3, Institut de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France

** S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, N. Chanon, R. Chierici, D. Contardo, P. Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, L. Finco, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, G. Grenier, B. Ille, F. Lagarde, I.B. Laktineh, H. Lattaud, M. Lethuillier, L. Mirabito, S. Perries, A. Popov\cmsAuthorMark15, V. Sordini, G. Touquet, M. Vander Donckt, S. Viret \cmsinstskip**Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia

** T. Toriashvili\cmsAuthorMark16 \cmsinstskip**Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia

** D. Lomidze \cmsinstskip**RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen, Germany

** C. Autermann, L. Feld, M.K. Kiesel, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, M. Preuten, M.P. Rauch, C. Schomakers, J. Schulz, M. Teroerde, B. Wittmer \cmsinstskip**RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany

** A. Albert, D. Duchardt, M. Erdmann, S. Erdweg, T. Esch, R. Fischer, S. Ghosh, A. Güth, T. Hebbeker, C. Heidemann, K. Hoepfner, H. Keller, L. Mastrolorenzo, M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, P. Millet, S. Mukherjee, T. Pook, M. Radziej, H. Reithler, M. Rieger, A. Schmidt, D. Teyssier, S. Thüer \cmsinstskip**RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany

** G. Flügge, O. Hlushchenko, T. Kress, T. Müller, A. Nehrkorn, A. Nowack, C. Pistone, O. Pooth, D. Roy, H. Sert, A. Stahl\cmsAuthorMark17 \cmsinstskip**Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany

** M. Aldaya Martin, T. Arndt, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, I. Babounikau, K. Beernaert, O. Behnke, U. Behrens, A. Bermúdez Martínez, D. Bertsche, A.A. Bin Anuar, K. Borras\cmsAuthorMark18, V. Botta, A. Campbell, P. Connor, C. Contreras-Campana, V. Danilov, A. De Wit, M.M. Defranchis, C. Diez Pardos, D. Domínguez Damiani, G. Eckerlin, T. Eichhorn, A. Elwood, E. Eren, E. Gallo\cmsAuthorMark19, A. Geiser, J.M. Grados Luyando, A. Grohsjean, M. Guthoff, M. Haranko, A. Harb, H. Jung, M. Kasemann, J. Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, J. Knolle, D. Krücker, W. Lange, A. Lelek, T. Lenz, J. Leonard, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann\cmsAuthorMark20, R. Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, A.B. Meyer, M. Meyer, M. Missiroli, J. Mnich, V. Myronenko, S.K. Pflitsch, D. Pitzl, A. Raspereza, P. Saxena, P. Schütze, C. Schwanenberger, R. Shevchenko, A. Singh, H. Tholen, O. Turkot, A. Vagnerini, G.P. Van Onsem, R. Walsh, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C. Wissing, O. Zenaiev \cmsinstskip**University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

** R. Aggleton, S. Bein, L. Benato, A. Benecke, V. Blobel, T. Dreyer, A. Ebrahimi, E. Garutti, D. Gonzalez, P. Gunnellini, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, A. Karavdina, G. Kasieczka, R. Klanner, R. Kogler, N. Kovalchuk, S. Kurz, V. Kutzner, J. Lange, D. Marconi, J. Multhaup, M. Niedziela, C.E.N. Niemeyer, D. Nowatschin, A. Perieanu, A. Reimers, O. Rieger, C. Scharf, P. Schleper, S. Schumann, J. Schwandt, J. Sonneveld, H. Stadie, G. Steinbrück, F.M. Stober, M. Stöver, B. Vormwald, I. Zoi \cmsinstskip**Karlsruher Institut fuer Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany

** M. Akbiyik, C. Barth, M. Baselga, S. Baur, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, F. Colombo, W. De Boer, A. Dierlamm, K. El Morabit, N. Faltermann, B. Freund, M. Giffels, M.A. Harrendorf, F. Hartmann\cmsAuthorMark17, S.M. Heindl, U. Husemann, I. Katkov\cmsAuthorMark15, S. Kudella, S. Mitra, M.U. Mozer, Th. Müller, M. Musich, M. Plagge, G. Quast, K. Rabbertz, M. Schröder, I. Shvetsov, H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, S. Wayand, M. Weber, T. Weiler, C. Wöhrmann, R. Wolf \cmsinstskip**Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics (INPP), NCSR Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece

** G. Anagnostou, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas, G. Paspalaki \cmsinstskip**National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

** A. Agapitos, G. Karathanasis, P. Kontaxakis, A. Panagiotou, I. Papavergou, N. Saoulidou, E. Tziaferi, K. Vellidis \cmsinstskip**National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece

** K. Kousouris, I. Papakrivopoulos, G. Tsipolitis \cmsinstskip**University of Ioánnina, Ioánnina, Greece

** I. Evangelou, C. Foudas, P. Gianneios, P. Katsoulis, P. Kokkas, S. Mallios, N. Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, E. Paradas, J. Strologas, F.A. Triantis, D. Tsitsonis \cmsinstskip**MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary

** M. Bartók\cmsAuthorMark21, M. Csanad, N. Filipovic, P. Major, M.I. Nagy, G. Pasztor, O. Surányi, G.I. Veres \cmsinstskip**Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary

** G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath\cmsAuthorMark22, Á. Hunyadi, F. Sikler, T.Á. Vámi, V. Veszpremi, G. Vesztergombi${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$ \cmsinstskip**Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary

** N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi\cmsAuthorMark21, A. Makovec, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi \cmsinstskip**Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

** P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari \cmsinstskip**Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore, India

** S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri, P.C. Tiwari \cmsinstskip**National Institute of Science Education and Research, HBNI, Bhubaneswar, India

** S. Bahinipati\cmsAuthorMark24, C. Kar, P. Mal, K. Mandal, A. Nayak\cmsAuthorMark25, S. Roy Chowdhury, D.K. Sahoo\cmsAuthorMark24, S.K. Swain \cmsinstskip**Panjab University, Chandigarh, India

** S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, S. Chauhan, R. Chawla, N. Dhingra, R. Gupta, A. Kaur, M. Kaur, S. Kaur, P. Kumari, M. Lohan, M. Meena, A. Mehta, K. Sandeep, S. Sharma, J.B. Singh, A.K. Virdi, G. Walia \cmsinstskip**University of Delhi, Delhi, India

** A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, M. Gola, S. Keshri, Ashok Kumar, S. Malhotra, M. Naimuddin, P. Priyanka, K. Ranjan, Aashaq Shah, R. Sharma \cmsinstskip**Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India

** R. Bhardwaj\cmsAuthorMark26, M. Bharti\cmsAuthorMark26, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, U. Bhawandeep\cmsAuthorMark26, D. Bhowmik, S. Dey, S. Dutt\cmsAuthorMark26, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh, K. Mondal, S. Nandan, A. Purohit, P.K. Rout, A. Roy, G. Saha, S. Sarkar, M. Sharan, B. Singh\cmsAuthorMark26, S. Thakur\cmsAuthorMark26 \cmsinstskip**Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras, India

** P.K. Behera, A. Muhammad \cmsinstskip**Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India

** R. Chudasama, D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, D.K. Mishra, P.K. Netrakanti, L.M. Pant, P. Shukla \cmsinstskip**Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A, Mumbai, India

** T. Aziz, M.A. Bhat, S. Dugad, G.B. Mohanty, N. Sur, B. Sutar, RavindraKumar Verma \cmsinstskip**Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India

** S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, P. Das, M. Guchait, Sa. Jain, S. Karmakar, S. Kumar, M. Maity\cmsAuthorMark27, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, N. Sahoo, T. Sarkar\cmsAuthorMark27 \cmsinstskip**Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, India

** S. Chauhan, S. Dube, V. Hegde, A. Kapoor, K. Kothekar, S. Pandey, A. Rane, A. Rastogi, S. Sharma \cmsinstskip**Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran

** S. Chenarani\cmsAuthorMark28, E. Eskandari Tadavani, S.M. Etesami\cmsAuthorMark28, M. Khakzad, M. Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri, F. Rezaei Hosseinabadi, B. Safarzadeh\cmsAuthorMark29, M. Zeinali \cmsinstskip**University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

** M. Felcini, M. Grunewald \cmsinstskip**INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b, Politecnico di Bari c, Bari, Italy

** M. Abbresciaa**,b, C. Calabriaa**,b, A. Colaleoa, D. Creanzaa**,c, L. Cristellaa**,b, N. De Filippisa**,c, M. De Palmaa**,b, A. Di Florioa**,b, F. Erricoa**,b, L. Fiorea, A. Gelmia**,b, G. Iasellia**,c, M. Incea**,b, S. Lezkia**,b, G. Maggia**,c, M. Maggia, G. Minielloa**,b, S. Mya**,b, S. Nuzzoa**,b, A. Pompilia**,b, G. Pugliesea**,c, R. Radognaa, A. Ranieria, G. Selvaggia**,b, A. Sharmaa, L. Silvestrisa, R. Vendittia, P. Verwilligena \cmsinstskip**INFN Sezione di Bologna a, Università di Bologna b, Bologna, Italy

** G. Abbiendia, C. Battilanaa**,b, D. Bonacorsia**,b, L. Borgonovia**,b, S. Braibant-Giacomellia**,b, R. Campaninia**,b, P. Capiluppia**,b, A. Castroa**,b, F.R. Cavalloa, S.S. Chhibraa**,b, G. Codispotia**,b, M. Cuffiania**,b, G.M. Dallavallea, F. Fabbria, A. Fanfania**,b, E. Fontanesi, P. Giacomellia, C. Grandia, L. Guiduccia**,b, F. Iemmia**,b, S. Lo Meoa, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, A. Montanaria, F.L. Navarriaa**,b, A. Perrottaa, F. Primaveraa**,b,\cmsAuthorMark17, A.M. Rossia**,b, T. Rovellia**,b, G.P. Sirolia**,b, N. Tosia \cmsinstskip**INFN Sezione di Catania a, Università di Catania b, Catania, Italy

** S. Albergoa**,b, A. Di Mattiaa, R. Potenza*a**,b, A. Tricomia**,b, C. Tuvea**,*b \cmsinstskip**INFN Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b, Firenze, Italy

** G. Barbaglia, K. Chatterjeea**,b, V. Ciullia**,b, C. Civininia, R. D’Alessandroa**,b, E. Focardia**,b, G. Latino, P. Lenzia**,b, M. Meschinia, S. Paolettia, L. Russoa**,\cmsAuthorMark30, G. Sguazzonia, D. Stroma, L. Viliania \cmsinstskip**INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy

** L. Benussi, S. Bianco, F. Fabbri, D. Piccolo \cmsinstskip**INFN Sezione di Genova a, Università di Genova b, Genova, Italy

** F. Ferroa, R. Mulargiaa**,b, F. Raveraa**,b, E. Robuttia, S. Tosi*a**,*b \cmsinstskip**INFN Sezione di Milano-Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, Italy

** A. Benagliaa, A. Beschib, F. Brivioa**,b, V. Cirioloa**,b,\cmsAuthorMark17, S. Di Guidaa**,b,\cmsAuthorMark17, M.E. Dinardoa**,b, S. Fiorendia**,b, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia**,b, P. Govonia**,b, M. Malbertia**,b, S. Malvezzia, D. Menascea, F. Monti, L. Moronia, M. Paganonia**,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Ragazzi*a**,b, T. Tabarelli de Fatisa**,b, D. Zuoloa**,*b \cmsinstskip**INFN Sezione di Napoli a, Università di Napoli ’Federico II’ b, Napoli, Italy, Università della Basilicata c, Potenza, Italy, Università G. Marconi d, Roma, Italy

** S. Buontempoa, N. Cavalloa**,c, A. De Iorioa**,b, A. Di Crescenzoa**,b, F. Fabozzia**,c, F. Fiengaa, G. Galatia, A.O.M. Iorioa**,b, W.A. Khana, L. Listaa, S. Meolaa**,d,\cmsAuthorMark17, P. Paoluccia**,\cmsAuthorMark17, C. Sciacca*a**,b, E. Voevodinaa**,*b \cmsinstskip**INFN Sezione di Padova a, Università di Padova b, Padova, Italy, Università di Trento c, Trento, Italy

** P. Azzia, N. Bacchettaa, D. Biselloa**,b, A. Bolettia**,b, A. Bragagnolo, R. Carlina**,b, P. Checchiaa, M. Dall’Ossoa**,b, P. De Castro Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa, U. Dossellia, F. Gasparinia**,b, U. Gasparinia**,b, A. Gozzelinoa, S.Y. Hoh, S. Lacapraraa, P. Lujan, M. Margonia**,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa**,b, J. Pazzinia**,b, M. Presillab, P. Ronchesea**,b, R. Rossina**,b, F. Simonettoa**,b, A. Tiko, E. Torassaa, M. Tosi*a**,b, M. Zanettia**,b, P. Zottoa**,b, G. Zumerlea**,*b \cmsinstskip**INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy

** A. Braghieria, A. Magnania, P. Montagnaa**,b, S.P. Rattia**,b, V. Rea, M. Ressegottia**,b, C. Riccardia**,b, P. Salvinia, I. Vai*a**,b, P. Vituloa**,*b \cmsinstskip**INFN Sezione di Perugia a, Università di Perugia b, Perugia, Italy

** M. Biasinia**,b, G.M. Bileia, C. Cecchia**,b, D. Ciangottinia**,b, L. Fanòa**,b, P. Laricciaa**,b, R. Leonardia**,b, E. Manonia, G. Mantovania**,b, V. Mariania**,b, M. Menichellia, A. Rossia**,b, A. Santocchiaa**,b, D. Spigaa \cmsinstskip**INFN Sezione di Pisa a, Università di Pisa b, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa c, Pisa, Italy

** K. Androsova, P. Azzurria, G. Bagliesia, L. Bianchinia, T. Boccalia, L. Borrello, R. Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia**,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, G. Fedia, F. Fioria**,c, L. Gianninia**,c, A. Giassia, M.T. Grippoa, F. Ligabuea**,c, E. Mancaa**,c, G. Mandorlia**,c, A. Messineoa**,b, F. Pallaa, A. Rizzia**,b, G. Rolandi\cmsAuthorMark31, P. Spagnoloa, R. Tenchinia, G. Tonellia**,b, A. Venturia, P.G. Verdinia \cmsinstskip**INFN Sezione di Roma a, Sapienza Università di Roma b, Rome, Italy

** L. Baronea**,b, F. Cavallaria, M. Cipriania**,b, D. Del Rea**,b, E. Di Marcoa**,b, M. Diemoza, S. Gellia**,b, E. Longoa**,b, B. Marzocchia**,b, P. Meridiania, G. Organtinia**,b, F. Pandolfia, R. Paramattia**,b, F. Preiatoa**,b, S. Rahatloua**,b, C. Rovellia, F. Santanastasio*a**,*b \cmsinstskip**INFN Sezione di Torino a, Università di Torino b, Torino, Italy, Università del Piemonte Orientale c, Novara, Italy

** N. Amapanea**,b, R. Arcidiaconoa**,c, S. Argiroa**,b, M. Arneodoa**,c, N. Bartosika, R. Bellana**,b, C. Biinoa, A. Cappatia**,b, N. Cartigliaa, F. Cennaa**,b, S. Comettia, M. Costaa**,b, R. Covarellia**,b, N. Demariaa, B. Kiania**,b, C. Mariottia, S. Masellia, E. Migliorea**,b, V. Monacoa**,b, E. Monteila**,b, M. Montenoa, M.M. Obertinoa**,b, L. Pachera**,b, N. Pastronea, M. Pelliccionia, G.L. Pinna Angionia**,b, A. Romeroa**,b, M. Ruspaa**,c, R. Sacchia**,b, R. Salvaticoa**,b, K. Shchelinaa**,b, V. Solaa, A. Solanoa**,b, D. Soldia**,b, A. Staianoa \cmsinstskip**INFN Sezione di Trieste a, Università di Trieste b, Trieste, Italy

** S. Belfortea, V. Candelisea**,b, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, A. Da Rolda**,b, G. Della Riccaa**,b, F. Vazzolera**,b, A. Zanettia \cmsinstskip**Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea

** D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, M.S. Kim, J. Lee, S. Lee, S.W. Lee, C.S. Moon, Y.D. Oh, S.I. Pak, S. Sekmen, D.C. Son, Y.C. Yang \cmsinstskip**Chonnam National University, Institute for Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju, Korea

** H. Kim, D.H. Moon, G. Oh \cmsinstskip**Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea

** B. Francois, J. Goh\cmsAuthorMark32, T.J. Kim \cmsinstskip**Korea University, Seoul, Korea

** S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, D. Gyun, S. Ha, B. Hong, Y. Jo, K. Lee, K.S. Lee, S. Lee, J. Lim, S.K. Park, Y. Roh \cmsinstskip**Sejong University, Seoul, Korea

** H.S. Kim \cmsinstskip**Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

** J. Almond, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, H. Lee, K. Lee, K. Nam, S.B. Oh, B.C. Radburn-Smith, S.h. Seo, U.K. Yang, H.D. Yoo, G.B. Yu \cmsinstskip**University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea

** D. Jeon, H. Kim, J.H. Kim, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park \cmsinstskip**Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea

** Y. Choi, C. Hwang, J. Lee, I. Yu \cmsinstskip**Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania

** V. Dudenas, A. Juodagalvis, J. Vaitkus \cmsinstskip**National Centre for Particle Physics, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

** I. Ahmed, Z.A. Ibrahim, M.A.B. Md Ali\cmsAuthorMark33, F. Mohamad Idris\cmsAuthorMark34, W.A.T. Wan Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli \cmsinstskip**Universidad de Sonora (UNISON), Hermosillo, Mexico

** J.F. Benitez, A. Castaneda Hernandez, J.A. Murillo Quijada \cmsinstskip**Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico

** H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, M.C. Duran-Osuna, I. Heredia-De La Cruz\cmsAuthorMark35, R. Lopez-Fernandez, J. Mejia Guisao, R.I. Rabadan-Trejo, M. Ramirez-Garcia, G. Ramirez-Sanchez, R. Reyes-Almanza, A. Sanchez-Hernandez \cmsinstskip**Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City, Mexico

** S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, F. Vazquez Valencia \cmsinstskip**Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico

** J. Eysermans, I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada \cmsinstskip**Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, Mexico

** A. Morelos Pineda \cmsinstskip**University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

** D. Krofcheck \cmsinstskip**University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

** S. Bheesette, P.H. Butler \cmsinstskip**National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan

** A. Ahmad, M. Ahmad, M.I. Asghar, Q. Hassan, H.R. Hoorani, A. Saddique, M.A. Shah, M. Shoaib, M. Waqas \cmsinstskip**National Centre for Nuclear Research, Swierk, Poland

** H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, T. Frueboes, M. Górski, M. Kazana, M. Szleper, P. Traczyk, P. Zalewski \cmsinstskip**Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland

** K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk\cmsAuthorMark36, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J. Krolikowski, M. Misiura, M. Olszewski, A. Pyskir, M. Walczak \cmsinstskip**Laboratório de Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas, Lisboa, Portugal

** M. Araujo, P. Bargassa, C. Beirão Da Cruz E Silva, A. Di Francesco, P. Faccioli, B. Galinhas, M. Gallinaro, J. Hollar, N. Leonardo, J. Seixas, G. Strong, O. Toldaiev, J. Varela \cmsinstskip**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\cmsAuthorMark37*,*\cmsAuthorMark38, P. Moisenz, V. Palichik, V. Perelygin, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, N. Skatchkov, V. Smirnov, N. Voytishin, A. Zarubin \cmsinstskip**Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg), Russia

** V. Golovtsov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim\cmsAuthorMark39, E. Kuznetsova\cmsAuthorMark40, P. Levchenko, V. Murzin, V. Oreshkin, I. Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Vavilov, A. Vorobyev \cmsinstskip**Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia

** Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, M. Kirsanov, N. Krasnikov, A. Pashenkov, D. Tlisov, A. Toropin \cmsinstskip**Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia

** V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, V. Popov, I. Pozdnyakov, G. Safronov, A. Spiridonov, A. Stepennov, V. Stolin, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A. Zhokin \cmsinstskip**Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia

** T. Aushev \cmsinstskip**National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia

** M. Chadeeva\cmsAuthorMark41, P. Parygin, D. Philippov, S. Polikarpov\cmsAuthorMark41, E. Popova, V. Rusinov \cmsinstskip**P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia

** V. Andreev, M. Azarkin, I. Dremin\cmsAuthorMark38, M. Kirakosyan, A. Terkulov \cmsinstskip**Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

** A. Baskakov, A. Belyaev, E. Boos, M. Dubinin\cmsAuthorMark42, L. Dudko, A. Ershov, A. Gribushin, V. Klyukhin, O. Kodolova, I. Lokhtin, I. Miagkov, S. Obraztsov, S. Petrushanko, V. Savrin, A. Snigirev \cmsinstskip**Novosibirsk State University (NSU), Novosibirsk, Russia

** A. Barnyakov\cmsAuthorMark43, V. Blinov\cmsAuthorMark43, T. Dimova\cmsAuthorMark43, L. Kardapoltsev\cmsAuthorMark43, Y. Skovpen\cmsAuthorMark43 \cmsinstskip**Institute for High Energy Physics of National Research Centre ’Kurchatov Institute’, Protvino, Russia

** I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, S. Bitioukov, V. Kachanov, A. Kalinin, D. Konstantinov, P. Mandrik, V. Petrov, R. Ryutin, S. Slabospitskii, A. Sobol, S. Troshin, N. Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov \cmsinstskip**National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia

** A. Babaev, S. Baidali, V. Okhotnikov \cmsinstskip**University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia

** P. Adzic\cmsAuthorMark44, P. Cirkovic, D. Devetak, M. Dordevic, J. Milosevic \cmsinstskip**Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid, Spain

** J. Alcaraz Maestre, A. Álvarez Fernández, I. Bachiller, M. Barrio Luna, J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, M. Cerrada, N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris, C. Fernandez Bedoya, J.P. Fernández Ramos, J. Flix, M.C. Fouz, O. Gonzalez Lopez, S. Goy Lopez, J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa, D. Moran, A. Pérez-Calero Yzquierdo, J. Puerta Pelayo, I. Redondo, L. Romero, S. Sánchez Navas, M.S. Soares, A. Triossi \cmsinstskip**Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

** C. Albajar, J.F. de Trocóniz \cmsinstskip**Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain

** J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, S. Folgueras, I. Gonzalez Caballero, J.R. González Fernández, E. Palencia Cortezon, V. Rodríguez Bouza, S. Sanchez Cruz, J.M. Vizan Garcia \cmsinstskip**Instituto de Física de Cantabria (IFCA), CSIC-Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain

** I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, B. Chazin Quero, J. Duarte Campderros, M. Fernandez, P.J. Fernández Manteca, A. García Alonso, J. Garcia-Ferrero, G. Gomez, A. Lopez Virto, J. Marco, C. Martinez Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del Arbol, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, C. Prieels, T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno, L. Scodellaro, N. Trevisani, I. Vila, R. Vilar Cortabitarte \cmsinstskip**University of Ruhuna, Department of Physics, Matara, Sri Lanka

** N. Wickramage \cmsinstskip**CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland

** D. Abbaneo, B. Akgun, E. Auffray, G. Auzinger, P. Baillon, A.H. Ball, D. Barney, J. Bendavid, M. Bianco, A. Bocci, C. Botta, E. Brondolin, T. Camporesi, M. Cepeda, G. Cerminara, E. Chapon, Y. Chen, G. Cucciati, D. d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, N. Daci, V. Daponte, A. David, A. De Roeck, N. Deelen, M. Dobson, M. Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, P. Everaerts, F. Fallavollita\cmsAuthorMark45, D. Fasanella, G. Franzoni, J. Fulcher, W. Funk, D. Gigi, A. Gilbert, K. Gill, F. Glege, M. Gruchala, M. Guilbaud, D. Gulhan, J. Hegeman, C. Heidegger, V. Innocente, A. Jafari, P. Janot, O. Karacheban\cmsAuthorMark20, J. Kieseler, A. Kornmayer, M. Krammer\cmsAuthorMark1, C. Lange, P. Lecoq, C. Lourenço, L. Malgeri, M. Mannelli, A. Massironi, F. Meijers, J.A. Merlin, S. Mersi, E. Meschi, P. Milenovic\cmsAuthorMark46, F. Moortgat, M. Mulders, J. Ngadiuba, S. Nourbakhsh, S. Orfanelli, L. Orsini, F. Pantaleo\cmsAuthorMark17, L. Pape, E. Perez, M. Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, F.M. Pitters, D. Rabady, A. Racz, T. Reis, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva, P. Sphicas\cmsAuthorMark47, A. Stakia, J. Steggemann, D. Treille, A. Tsirou, V. Veckalns\cmsAuthorMark48, M. Verzetti, W.D. Zeuner \cmsinstskip**Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland

** L. Caminada\cmsAuthorMark49, K. Deiters, W. Erdmann, R. Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C. Kaestli, D. Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, T. Rohe, S.A. Wiederkehr \cmsinstskip**ETH Zurich - Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics (IPA), Zurich, Switzerland

** M. Backhaus, L. Bäni, P. Berger, N. Chernyavskaya, G. Dissertori, M. Dittmar, M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, T.A. Gómez Espinosa, C. Grab, D. Hits, T. Klijnsma, W. Lustermann, R.A. Manzoni, M. Marionneau, M.T. Meinhard, F. Micheli, P. Musella, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, J. Pata, F. Pauss, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, S. Pigazzini, M. Quittnat, C. Reissel, D. Ruini, D.A. Sanz Becerra, M. Schönenberger, L. Shchutska, V.R. Tavolaro, K. Theofilatos, M.L. Vesterbacka Olsson, R. Wallny, D.H. Zhu \cmsinstskip**Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland

** T.K. Aarrestad, C. Amsler\cmsAuthorMark50, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, R. Del Burgo, S. Donato, C. Galloni, T. Hreus, B. Kilminster, S. Leontsinis, I. Neutelings, G. Rauco, P. Robmann, D. Salerno, K. Schweiger, C. Seitz, Y. Takahashi, A. Zucchetta \cmsinstskip**National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan

** T.H. Doan, R. Khurana, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A. Pozdnyakov, S.S. Yu \cmsinstskip**National Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan

** P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, W.-S. Hou, Y.F. Liu, R.-S. Lu, E. Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen \cmsinstskip**Chulalongkorn University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok, Thailand

** B. Asavapibhop, N. Srimanobhas, N. Suwonjandee \cmsinstskip**Çukurova University, Physics Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey

** A. Bat, F. Boran, S. Cerci\cmsAuthorMark51, S. Damarseckin, Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, C. Dozen, I. Dumanoglu, E. Eskut, S. Girgis, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, E. Gurpinar, I. Hos\cmsAuthorMark52, C. Isik, E.E. Kangal\cmsAuthorMark53, O. Kara, A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, M. Oglakci, G. Onengut, K. Ozdemir\cmsAuthorMark54, D. Sunar Cerci\cmsAuthorMark51, B. Tali\cmsAuthorMark51, U.G. Tok, S. Turkcapar, I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez \cmsinstskip**Middle East Technical University, Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey

** B. Isildak\cmsAuthorMark55, G. Karapinar\cmsAuthorMark56, M. Yalvac, M. Zeyrek \cmsinstskip**Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey

** I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya\cmsAuthorMark57, O. Kaya\cmsAuthorMark58, S. Ozkorucuklu\cmsAuthorMark59, S. Tekten, E.A. Yetkin\cmsAuthorMark60 \cmsinstskip**Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey

** M.N. Agaras, A. Cakir, K. Cankocak, Y. Komurcu, S. Sen\cmsAuthorMark61 \cmsinstskip**Institute for Scintillation Materials of National Academy of Science of Ukraine, Kharkov, Ukraine

** B. Grynyov \cmsinstskip**National Scientific Center, Kharkov Institute of Physics and Technology, Kharkov, Ukraine

** L. Levchuk \cmsinstskip**University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom

** F. Ball, J.J. Brooke, D. Burns, E. Clement, D. Cussans, O. Davignon, H. Flacher, J. Goldstein, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, D.M. Newbold\cmsAuthorMark62, S. Paramesvaran, B. Penning, T. Sakuma, D. Smith, V.J. Smith, J. Taylor, A. Titterton \cmsinstskip**Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom

** K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev\cmsAuthorMark63, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, D. Cieri, D.J.A. Cockerill, J.A. Coughlan, K. Harder, S. Harper, J. Linacre, K. Manolopoulos, E. Olaiya, D. Petyt, C.H. Shepherd-Themistocleous, A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin, T. Williams, W.J. Womersley \cmsinstskip**Imperial College, London, United Kingdom

** R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A. Bundock, D. Colling, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M. Della Negra, R. Di Maria, G. Hall, G. Iles, T. James, M. Komm, C. Laner, L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, A. Martelli, J. Nash\cmsAuthorMark64, A. Nikitenko\cmsAuthorMark7, V. Palladino, M. Pesaresi, D.M. Raymond, A. Richards, A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A. Shtipliyski, G. Singh, M. Stoye, T. Strebler, S. Summers, A. Tapper, K. Uchida, T. Virdee\cmsAuthorMark17, N. Wardle, D. Winterbottom, J. Wright, S.C. Zenz \cmsinstskip**Brunel University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom

** J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, C.K. Mackay, A. Morton, I.D. Reid, L. Teodorescu, S. Zahid \cmsinstskip**Baylor University, Waco, USA

** K. Call, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, H. Liu, C. Madrid, B. McMaster, N. Pastika, C. Smith \cmsinstskip**Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA

** R. Bartek, A. Dominguez \cmsinstskip**The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA

** A. Buccilli, S.I. Cooper, C. Henderson, P. Rumerio, C. West \cmsinstskip**Boston University, Boston, USA

** D. Arcaro, T. Bose, D. Gastler, D. Pinna, D. Rankin, C. Richardson, J. Rohlf, L. Sulak, D. Zou \cmsinstskip**Brown University, Providence, USA

** G. Benelli, X. Coubez, D. Cutts, M. Hadley, J. Hakala, U. Heintz, J.M. Hogan\cmsAuthorMark65, K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, J. Lee, Z. Mao, M. Narain, S. Sagir\cmsAuthorMark66, R. Syarif, E. Usai, D. Yu \cmsinstskip**University of California, Davis, Davis, USA

** R. Band, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, D. Burns, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez, M. Chertok, J. Conway, R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, G. Funk, W. Ko, O. Kukral, R. Lander, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, J. Pilot, S. Shalhout, M. Shi, D. Stolp, D. Taylor, K. Tos, M. Tripathi, Z. Wang, F. Zhang \cmsinstskip**University of California, Los Angeles, USA

** M. Bachtis, C. Bravo, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, A. Florent, J. Hauser, M. Ignatenko, N. Mccoll, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg, C. Schnaible, V. Valuev \cmsinstskip**University of California, Riverside, Riverside, USA

** E. Bouvier, K. Burt, R. Clare, J.W. Gary, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi, G. Hanson, G. Karapostoli, E. Kennedy, F. Lacroix, O.R. Long, M. Olmedo Negrete, M.I. Paneva, W. Si, L. Wang, H. Wei, S. Wimpenny, B.R. Yates \cmsinstskip**University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA

** J.G. Branson, P. Chang, S. Cittolin, M. Derdzinski, R. Gerosa, D. Gilbert, B. Hashemi, A. Holzner, D. Klein, G. Kole, V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, M. Masciovecchio, D. Olivito, S. Padhi, M. Pieri, M. Sani, V. Sharma, S. Simon, M. Tadel, A. Vartak, S. Wasserbaech\cmsAuthorMark67, J. Wood, F. Würthwein, A. Yagil, G. Zevi Della Porta \cmsinstskip**University of California, Santa Barbara - Department of Physics, Santa Barbara, USA

** N. Amin, R. Bhandari, C. Campagnari, M. Citron, V. Dutta, M. Franco Sevilla, L. Gouskos, R. Heller, J. Incandela, H. Mei, A. Ovcharova, H. Qu, J. Richman, D. Stuart, I. Suarez, S. Wang, J. Yoo \cmsinstskip**California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA

** D. Anderson, A. Bornheim, J.M. Lawhorn, N. Lu, H.B. Newman, T.Q. Nguyen, M. Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, R. Wilkinson, S. Xie, Z. Zhang, R.Y. Zhu \cmsinstskip**Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA

** M.B. Andrews, T. Ferguson, T. Mudholkar, M. Paulini, M. Sun, I. Vorobiev, M. Weinberg \cmsinstskip**University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA

** J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, F. Jensen, A. Johnson, E. MacDonald, T. Mulholland, R. Patel, A. Perloff, K. Stenson, K.A. Ulmer, S.R. Wagner \cmsinstskip**Cornell University, Ithaca, USA

** J. Alexander, J. Chaves, Y. Cheng, J. Chu, A. Datta, K. Mcdermott, N. Mirman, J.R. Patterson, D. Quach, A. Rinkevicius, A. Ryd, L. Skinnari, L. Soffi, S.M. Tan, Z. Tao, J. Thom, J. Tucker, P. Wittich, M. Zientek \cmsinstskip**Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, USA

** S. Abdullin, M. Albrow, M. Alyari, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S. Banerjee, L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, K. Burkett, J.N. Butler, A. Canepa, G.B. Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M. Cremonesi, J. Duarte, V.D. Elvira, J. Freeman, Z. Gecse, E. Gottschalk, L. Gray, D. Green, S. Grünendahl, O. Gutsche, J. Hanlon, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, J. Hirschauer, Z. Hu, B. Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, B. Klima, M.J. Kortelainen, B. Kreis, S. Lammel, D. Lincoln, R. Lipton, M. Liu, T. Liu, J. Lykken, K. Maeshima, J.M. Marraffino, D. Mason, P. McBride, P. Merkel, S. Mrenna, S. Nahn, V. O’Dell, K. Pedro, C. Pena, O. Prokofyev, G. Rakness, L. Ristori, A. Savoy-Navarro\cmsAuthorMark68, B. Schneider, E. Sexton-Kennedy, A. Soha, W.J. Spalding, L. Spiegel, S. Stoynev, J. Strait, N. Strobbe, L. Taylor, S. Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran, L. Uplegger, E.W. Vaandering, C. Vernieri, M. Verzocchi, R. Vidal, M. Wang, H.A. Weber, A. Whitbeck \cmsinstskip**University of Florida, Gainesville, USA

** D. Acosta, P. Avery, P. Bortignon, D. Bourilkov, A. Brinkerhoff, L. Cadamuro, A. Carnes, D. Curry, R.D. Field, S.V. Gleyzer, B.M. Joshi, J. Konigsberg, A. Korytov, K.H. Lo, P. Ma, K. Matchev, G. Mitselmakher, D. Rosenzweig, K. Shi, D. Sperka, J. Wang, S. Wang, X. Zuo \cmsinstskip**Florida International University, Miami, USA

** Y.R. Joshi, S. Linn \cmsinstskip**Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA

** A. Ackert, T. Adams, A. Askew, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F. Johnson, T. Kolberg, G. Martinez, T. Perry, H. Prosper, A. Saha, C. Schiber, R. Yohay \cmsinstskip**Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA

** M.M. Baarmand, V. Bhopatkar, S. Colafranceschi, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, M. Rahmani, T. Roy, F. Yumiceva \cmsinstskip**University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago, USA

** M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, D. Berry, R.R. Betts, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, S. Dittmer, O. Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, K. Jung, J. Kamin, C. Mills, M.B. Tonjes, N. Varelas, H. Wang, X. Wang, Z. Wu, J. Zhang \cmsinstskip**The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA

** M. Alhusseini, B. Bilki\cmsAuthorMark69, W. Clarida, K. Dilsiz\cmsAuthorMark70, S. Durgut, R.P. Gandrajula, M. Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko, J.-P. Merlo, A. Mestvirishvili, A. Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul\cmsAuthorMark71, Y. Onel, F. Ozok\cmsAuthorMark72, A. Penzo, C. Snyder, E. Tiras, J. Wetzel \cmsinstskip**Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA

** B. Blumenfeld, A. Cocoros, N. Eminizer, D. Fehling, L. Feng, A.V. Gritsan, W.T. Hung, P. Maksimovic, J. Roskes, U. Sarica, M. Swartz, M. Xiao, C. You \cmsinstskip**The University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA

** A. Al-bataineh, P. Baringer, A. Bean, S. Boren, J. Bowen, A. Bylinkin, J. Castle, S. Khalil, A. Kropivnitskaya, D. Majumder, W. Mcbrayer, M. Murray, C. Rogan, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang \cmsinstskip**Kansas State University, Manhattan, USA

** S. Duric, A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, D. Kim, Y. Maravin, D.R. Mendis, T. Mitchell, A. Modak, A. Mohammadi \cmsinstskip**Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA

** F. Rebassoo, D. Wright \cmsinstskip**University of Maryland, College Park, USA

** A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, S.C. Eno, Y. Feng, C. Ferraioli, N.J. Hadley, S. Jabeen, G.Y. Jeng, R.G. Kellogg, J. Kunkle, A.C. Mignerey, S. Nabili, F. Ricci-Tam, M. Seidel, Y.H. Shin, A. Skuja, S.C. Tonwar, K. Wong \cmsinstskip**Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA

** D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, V. Azzolini, A. Baty, G. Bauer, R. Bi, S. Brandt, W. Busza, I.A. Cali, J. Curti, M. D’Alfonso, Z. Demiragli, G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov, P. Harris, D. Hsu, M. Hu, Y. Iiyama, G.M. Innocenti, M. Klute, D. Kovalskyi, Y.-J. Lee, P.D. Luckey, B. Maier, A.C. Marini, C. Mcginn, C. Mironov, S. Narayanan, X. Niu, C. Paus, C. Roland, G. Roland, Z. Shi, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Sumorok, K. Tatar, D. Velicanu, J. Wang, T.W. Wang, B. Wyslouch \cmsinstskip**University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA

** A.C. Benvenuti${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, P. Hansen, J. Hiltbrand, Sh. Jain, S. Kalafut, M. Krohn, Y. Kubota, Z. Lesko, J. Mans, N. Ruckstuhl, R. Rusack, M.A. Wadud \cmsinstskip**University of Mississippi, Oxford, USA

** J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros \cmsinstskip**University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA

** E. Avdeeva, K. Bloom, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, F. Golf, R. Gonzalez Suarez, R. Kamalieddin, I. Kravchenko, J. Monroy, J.E. Siado, G.R. Snow, B. Stieger \cmsinstskip**State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA

** A. Godshalk, C. Harrington, I. Iashvili, A. Kharchilava, C. Mclean, D. Nguyen, A. Parker, S. Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani \cmsinstskip**Northeastern University, Boston, USA

** G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, Y. Haddad, A. Hortiangtham, D.M. Morse, T. Orimoto, T. Wamorkar, B. Wang, A. Wisecarver, D. Wood \cmsinstskip**Northwestern University, Evanston, USA

** S. Bhattacharya, J. Bueghly, O. Charaf, T. Gunter, K.A. Hahn, N. Odell, M.H. Schmitt, K. Sung, M. Trovato, M. Velasco \cmsinstskip**University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, USA

** R. Bucci, N. Dev, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop, D.J. Karmgard, K. Lannon, W. Li, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, F. Meng, C. Mueller, Y. Musienko\cmsAuthorMark37, M. Planer, A. Reinsvold, R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, G. Smith, S. Taroni, M. Wayne, A. Wightman, M. Wolf, A. Woodard \cmsinstskip**The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA

** J. Alimena, L. Antonelli, B. Bylsma, L.S. Durkin, S. Flowers, B. Francis, C. Hill, W. Ji, T.Y. Ling, W. Luo, B.L. Winer \cmsinstskip**Princeton University, Princeton, USA

** S. Cooperstein, P. Elmer, J. Hardenbrook, N. Haubrich, S. Higginbotham, A. Kalogeropoulos, S. Kwan, D. Lange, M.T. Lucchini, J. Luo, D. Marlow, K. Mei, I. Ojalvo, J. Olsen, C. Palmer, P. Piroué, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, D. Stickland, C. Tully \cmsinstskip**University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA

** S. Malik, S. Norberg \cmsinstskip**Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA

** A. Barker, V.E. Barnes, S. Das, L. Gutay, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, A. Khatiwada, B. Mahakud, D.H. Miller, N. Neumeister, C.C. Peng, S. Piperov, H. Qiu, J.F. Schulte, J. Sun, F. Wang, R. Xiao, W. Xie \cmsinstskip**Purdue University Northwest, Hammond, USA

** T. Cheng, J. Dolen, N. Parashar \cmsinstskip**Rice University, Houston, USA

** Z. Chen, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Kilpatrick, Arun Kumar, W. Li, B.P. Padley, R. Redjimi, J. Roberts, J. Rorie, W. Shi, Z. Tu, A. Zhang \cmsinstskip**University of Rochester, Rochester, USA

** A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, Y.t. Duh, J.L. Dulemba, C. Fallon, T. Ferbel, M. Galanti, A. Garcia-Bellido, J. Han, O. Hindrichs, A. Khukhunaishvili, E. Ranken, P. Tan, R. Taus \cmsinstskip**Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, USA

** J.P. Chou, Y. Gershtein, E. Halkiadakis, A. Hart, M. Heindl, E. Hughes, S. Kaplan, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, S. Kyriacou, I. Laflotte, A. Lath, R. Montalvo, K. Nash, M. Osherson, H. Saka, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, D. Sheffield, S. Somalwar, R. Stone, S. Thomas, P. Thomassen \cmsinstskip**University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA

** A.G. Delannoy, J. Heideman, G. Riley, S. Spanier \cmsinstskip**Texas A&M University, College Station, USA

** O. Bouhali\cmsAuthorMark73, A. Celik, M. Dalchenko, M. De Mattia, A. Delgado, S. Dildick, R. Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T. Kamon\cmsAuthorMark74, S. Luo, D. Marley, R. Mueller, D. Overton, L. Perniè, D. Rathjens, A. Safonov \cmsinstskip**Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA

** N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, F. De Guio, P.R. Dudero, S. Kunori, K. Lamichhane, S.W. Lee, T. Mengke, S. Muthumuni, T. Peltola, S. Undleeb, I. Volobouev, Z. Wang \cmsinstskip**Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA

** S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H. Ni, K. Padeken, F. Romeo, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska, M. Verweij, Q. Xu \cmsinstskip**University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA

** M.W. Arenton, P. Barria, B. Cox, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A. Ledovskoy, H. Li, C. Neu, T. Sinthuprasith, Y. Wang, E. Wolfe, F. Xia \cmsinstskip**Wayne State University, Detroit, USA

** R. Harr, P.E. Karchin, N. Poudyal, J. Sturdy, P. Thapa, S. Zaleski \cmsinstskip**University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI, USA

** J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, D. Carlsmith, S. Dasu, I. De Bruyn, L. Dodd, B. Gomber, M. Grothe, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, P. Klabbers, A. Lanaro, K. Long, R. Loveless, T. Ruggles, A. Savin, V. Sharma, N. Smith, W.H. Smith, N. Woods \cmsinstskip†: Deceased

1: Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria

2: Also at IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France

3: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil

4: Also at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil

5: Also at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium

6: Also at University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

7: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia

8: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia

9: Also at Zewail City of Science and Technology, Zewail, Egypt

10: Also at Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt

11: Now at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt

12: Now at Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

13: Also at Department of Physics, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

14: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France

15: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

16: Also at Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia

17: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland

18: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany

19: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

20: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany

21: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

22: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary

23: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary

24: Also at Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India

25: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India

26: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India

27: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India

28: Also at Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran

29: Also at Plasma Physics Research Center, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

30: Also at Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy

31: Also at Scuola Normale e Sezione dell’INFN, Pisa, Italy

32: Also at Kyunghee University, Seoul, Korea

33: Also at International Islamic University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

34: Also at Malaysian Nuclear Agency, MOSTI, Kajang, Malaysia

35: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico City, Mexico

36: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems, Warsaw, Poland

37: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia

38: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia

39: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg, Russia

40: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA

41: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia

42: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA

43: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia

44: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

45: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy

46: Also at University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia

47: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

48: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia

49: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland

50: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics (SMI), Vienna, Austria

51: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey

52: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey

53: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey

54: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey

55: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey

56: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey

57: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey

58: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey

59: Also at Istanbul University, Faculty of Science, Istanbul, Turkey

60: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey

61: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey

62: Also at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom

63: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom

64: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia

65: Also at Bethel University, St. Paul, USA

66: Also at Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey

67: Also at Utah Valley University, Orem, USA

68: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA

69: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey

70: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey

71: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey

72: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey

73: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar

74: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea