Search for new physics in top quark production in dilepton final states in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV

TL;DR

This study searches for signs of new physics in top quark production at 13 TeV using CMS data, focusing on dilepton final states, and sets constraints on effective couplings without observing deviations from the standard model.

Contribution

It introduces a novel analysis separating tW from top pair events and uses effective field theory to constrain new physics couplings.

Findings

No significant deviation from the standard model observed.

Constraints set on effective couplings in top quark production.

Distinct analysis of tW process enhances sensitivity to new physics.

Abstract

A search for new physics in top quark production is performed in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV. The data set corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$ collected in 2016 with the CMS detector. Events with two opposite-sign isolated leptons (electrons or muons), and b quark jets in the final state are selected. The search is sensitive to new physics in top quark pair production and in single top quark production in association with a W boson. No significant deviation from the standard model expectation is observed. Results are interpreted in the framework of effective field theory and constraints on the relevant effective couplings are set, one at a time, using a dedicated multivariate analysis. This analysis differs from previous searches for new physics in the top quark sector by explicitly separating tW from $\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}$ events and exploiting the specific sensitivity of the tW process to new physics.

Figures

Equations

$$\sigma ={\sigma }_{\mathrm{SM}}+{\mathrm{C}}_i{\sigma }_i^{(1)}+{\mathrm{C}}_i^2{\sigma }_i^{(2)},$$

Full text

0.1 Introduction

Because of its large mass, close to the electroweak (EW) symmetry breaking scale, the top quark is predicted to play an important role in several new physics scenarios. If the new physics scale is in the available energy range of the CERN LHC, the existence of new physics could be directly observed via the production of new particles. Otherwise, new physics could affect standard model (SM) interactions indirectly, through modifications of SM couplings or enhancements of rare SM processes. In this case, it is useful to introduce a model independent approach to parametrize and constrain possible deviations from SM predictions, independently of the fundamental theory of new physics.

Several searches for new physics in the top quark sector including new non-SM couplings of the top quark have been performed at the Tevatron and LHC colliders [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 4, 9, 10]. Most of the previous analyses followed the anomalous coupling approach in which the SM Lagrangian is extended for possible new interactions. Another powerful framework to parametrize deviations with respect to the SM prediction is the effective field theory (EFT) [11, 12]. Constraints obtained on anomalous couplings can be translated to the effective coupling bounds [13, 1]. Several groups have performed global fits of top quark EFT to unfolded experimental data from the Tevatron and LHC colliders [14, 15]. Due to the limited access to data and details of the associated uncertainties, correlations between various cross section measurements and related uncertainties are neglected in a global fit on various unfolded measurements. On the other hand, EFT operators could affect backgrounds for some processes constructively or destructively while cross sections are measured with the SM assumptions for background processes. Inside the CMS Collaboration and with direct access to data, all mentioned points could be considered properly.

In this paper, the EFT approach is followed to search for new physics in the top quark sector in the dilepton final states. In Refs. [13, 16], all dimension-six operators that contribute to top quark pair (\ttbar) production and single top quark production in association with a \PW boson ($\cPqt\PW$) are investigated. The operators and the related effective Lagrangians, which are relevant for dilepton final states, can be written as [12]:

[TABLE]

where $D_{\Pgm}=\partial_{\Pgm}-i\Pg_{s}\frac{1}{2}\Lam^{a}\cPG_{\Pgm}^{a}-i\Pg\frac{1}{2}\Pgt^{i}\PW_{\Pgm}^{i}-i\Pg^{{}^{\prime}}YB_{\Pgm}$, $\PW_{\Pgm\PGn}^{i}=\partial_{\Pgm}\PW_{\cPgn}^{i}-\partial_{\cPgn}\PW^{i}_{\Pgm}+\Pg\epsilon_{ijk}\PW^{j}_{\Pgm}\PW^{k}_{\cPgn}$, $\cPG_{\Pgm\PGn}^{a}=\partial_{\Pgm}\cPG_{\cPgn}^{a}-\partial_{\cPgn}\cPG^{a}_{\Pgm}+\Pg_{s}f^{abc}\cPG^{b}_{\Pgm}\cPG^{c}_{\cPgn}$, $\sigma^{\Pgm\PGn}=\frac{1}{2}[\cPgg^{\Pgm},\cPgg^{\cPgn}]$, $P_{\mathrm{L,R}}=\frac{1}{2}(1\mp\cPgg^{5})$, and the symbols $\cPq$, $\cPqt$ and $\phi$ ($\tilde{\phi}=\epsilon\phi^{*}$) in the operators represent the left-handed quark doublet, the right-handed top quark singlet, and the Higgs boson doublet fields, respectively. The parameters C${}_{\phi\cPq}^{(3)}$, C${}_{\cPqt\PW}$, C${}_{\cPqt\cPG}$, C${}_{\cPG}$ and C${}_{\cPqu(\cPqc)\cPG}$ stand for the dimensionless Wilson coefficients, also called effective couplings. The variable $\Lambda$ represents the energy scale beyond which new physics becomes relevant. A detailed description of the operators is given in Refs. [13, 16, 17]. In this analysis, four-fermion operators involved in \ttbar production are not probed. Up to order $\Lambda^{-2}$, the $\cPqt\PW$ and \ttbarproduction cross sections and most of the differential observables considered in this analysis do not receive CP-odd contributions. Therefore, we only probe CP-even operators with real coefficients. The operators $O_{\phi\cPq}^{(3)}$ and $O_{\cPqt\PW}$ modify the SM interaction between the \PW boson, top quark, and \cPqb quark ($\PW\cPqt\cPqb$). We consider the EFT effects in the production of top quarks not in their decays [18]. The operator $O_{\cPqt\cPG}$ is called the chromomagnetic dipole moment operator of the top quark and can arise from various models of new physics [19, 20]. The triple-gluon field strength operator $O_{\cPG}$ represents the only genuinely gluonic CP conserving term that can appear at dimension six within an effective strong interaction Lagrangian. Although it is shown that jet production at the LHC can set a tight constraint on the C${}_{\cPG}$ [21], \ttbarproduction is also considered as a promising channel [22, 23]. The operators $O_{\cPqu\cPG}$ and $O_{\cPqc\cPG}$ lead to flavor-changing neutral current (FCNC) interactions of the top quark and contribute to $\cPqt\PW$ production. The effect of introducing new couplings C${}_{\phi\cPq}^{(3)}$, C${}_{\cPqt\PW}$, C${}_{\cPqt\cPG}$ and C${}_{\cPqu(\cPqc)\cPG}$ can be investigated in $\cPqt\PW$ production. The chromomagnetic dipole moment operator of the top quark also affects \ttbarproduction. In the case of C${}_{\cPG}$ coupling, only \ttbarproduction is modified. It should be noted that the $O_{\cPqt\PW}$ and $O_{\cPqt\cPG}$ operators with imaginary coefficients lead to CP-violating effects. Representative Feynman diagrams for SM and new physics contributions in $\cPqt\PW$ and \ttbarproduction are shown in Fig. 1.

A variety of limits have been set on the $\PW\cPqt\cPqb$ anomalous coupling through single top quark $t$-channel production and measurements of the \PW boson polarization from top quark decay by the D0 [1], ATLAS [2, 3] and CMS [4, 5] Collaborations. Direct limits on the top quark chromomagnetic dipole moment have been obtained by the CMS Collaboration at 7 and 13\TeVusing top quark pair production events [6, 10]. Searches for top quark FCNC interactions have been performed at the Tevatron [7, 8] and LHC [4, 9] via single top quark production and limits are set on related anomalous couplings.

In this paper, a search for new physics in top quark production using an EFT framework is reported. This is the first such search for new physics that uses the $\cPqt\PW$ process. Final states with two opposite-sign isolated leptons (electrons or muons) in association with jets identified as originating from the fragmentation of a bottom quark (“\cPqbjets”) are analyzed. The search is sensitive to new physics contributions to $\cPqt\PW$ and \ttbarproduction, and the six effective couplings, C${}_{\cPG}$, C${}_{\phi\cPq}^{(3)}$, C${}_{\cPqt\PW}$, C${}_{\cPqt\cPG}$, C${}_{\cPqu\cPG}$, and C${}_{\cPqc\cPG}$, are constrained assuming one non-zero effective coupling at a time. The effective couplings affect both the rate of \ttbarand $\cPqt\PW$ production and the kinematic distributions of final state particles. For the C${}_{\phi\cPq}^{(3)}$, C${}_{\cPqt\PW}$, C${}_{\cPqt\cPG}$, and C${}_{\cPG}$ effective couplings, the deviation from the SM prediction is dominated by the interference term between SM and new physics diagrams, which is linear with respect to the effective coupling. Therefore, the kinematic distributions of the final-state particles vary as a function of the Wilson coefficients. For small effective couplings the kinematic distributions approach those predicted by the SM. On the other hand, the new physics terms due to the C${}_{\cPqu\cPG}$ and C${}_{\cPqc\cPG}$ effective couplings do not interfere with the SM $\cPqt\PW$ process, and the kinematic distributions of final-state particles are determined by the new physics terms independently of the SM prediction. In this analysis, we use the rates of $\cPqt\PW$ and \ttbarproduction to probe the C${}_{\phi\cPq}^{(3)}$, C${}_{\cPqt\PW}$, C${}_{\cPqt\cPG}$, and C${}_{\cPG}$ effective couplings. Variations in both rate and kinematic distributions of final-state particles are employed to probe the C${}_{\cPqu\cPG}$ and C${}_{\cPqc\cPG}$ effective couplings. The analysis utilizes proton-proton ($\Pp\Pp$) collision data collected by the CMS experiment in 2016 at a center-of-mass energy of 13\TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9\fbinv.

The paper is structured as follows. In Section 0.2, a description of the CMS detector is given and the simulated samples used in the analysis are detailed. The event selection and the SM background estimation are presented in Section 0.3. Section 0.4 presents a description of the signal extraction procedure. An overview of the systematic uncertainty treatment is given in Section 0.5. Finally, the constraints on the effective couplings are presented in Section 0.6, and a summary is given in Section 0.7.

0.2 The CMS detector and event simulation

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 a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), and a brass and scintillator hadron calorimeter, each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. Forward calorimeters extend the pseudorapidity ($\eta$) coverage provided by the barrel and endcap detectors. Muons are detected in gas-ionisation chambers embedded in the steel flux-return yoke outside the solenoid. 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. [24].

The Monte Carlo (MC) samples for the \ttbar, $\cPqt\PW$ and diboson ($\mathrm{VV}=\PW\PW$, $\PW\PZ$, $\PZ\PZ$) SM processes are simulated using the Powheg-Box event generator (v1 for $\cPqt\PW$, v2 for \ttbarand diboson) [25, 26, 27, 28] at the next-to-leading order (NLO), interfaced with \PYTHIA(v8.205) [29] to simulate parton showering and to match soft radiations with the contributions from the matrix elements. The \PYTHIAtune CUETP8M1 [30] is used for all samples except for the \ttbarsample, for which the tune CUETP8M2 [31] is used. The NNPDF3.0 [32] set of the parton distribution functions (PDFs) is used. The \ttbarand $\cPqt\PW$ samples are normalized to the next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) and approximate NNLO cross section calculations, respectively [33, 34]. In order to better describe the transverse momentum (\pt) distribution of the top quark in \ttbarevents, the top quark \ptspectrum simulated with \POWHEGis reweighted to match the differential top quark \ptdistribution at NNLO Quantum ChromoDynamics (QCD) accuracy and including EW corrections calculated in Ref. [35]. Other SM background contributions, from Drell–Yan (DY), \ttbar+V, \ttbar+$\cPgg$, and $\PW+\cPgg$ processes, are simulated at NLO using the \MGvATNLO(v2.2.2) event generator [36, 37, 38], interfaced with \PYTHIAv8 for parton showering and hadronization. The events include the effects of additional $\Pp\Pp$ interactions in the same or nearby bunch crossings (pileup) and are weighted according to the observed pileup distribution in the analyzed data. The CMS detector response is simulated using \GEANTfour (v9.4) [39, 40], followed by a detailed trigger simulation. Simulated events are reconstructed with the same algorithms as used for data.

In order to calculate the total cross sections for the \ttbarand $\cPqt\PW$ processes and generate events in the presence of new effective interactions, the operators of Eqs. 1–5 have been implemented in the universal FeynRules output (UFO) format [41] through the FeynRules package [42]. The output EFT model is used in the \MGvATNLO(v2.2.2) event generator [36, 37]. If we allow for the presence of one operator at a time, the total cross section up to $\mathcal{O}(\Lambda^{-4})$ can be parametrized as

[TABLE]

where the Cis are effective couplings introduced in Eqs. 1–5. Here, $\sigma_{i}^{(1)}$ is the contribution to the cross section due to the interference term between the SM diagrams and diagrams with one EFT vertex. The cross section $\sigma_{i}^{(2)}$ is the pure new physics contribution. We use the most precise available SM cross section prediction, which are $\sigma_{\text{SM}}^{\ttbar}=832^{+20}_{-29}\,\text{(scales)}\pm 35\,(\text{PDF}+\alpS)\unit{pb}$ and $\sigma_{\text{SM}}^{\cPqt\PW}=71.7\pm 1.8\,\text{(scales)}\pm 3.4\,(\text{PDF}+\alpS)\unit{pb}$ for \ttbarand $\cPqt\PW$ production, respectively [33, 34], where the $\alpS$ is strong coupling constant. The first uncertainty reflects the uncertainties in the factorization and renormalization scales. In the framework of EFT, the $\sigma_{i}^{(1)}$ and $\sigma_{i}^{(2)}$ terms have been calculated at NLO accuracy for all of the operators, except $O_{\cPG}$ [43, 44, 16]. At the time the work for this paper was concluded, there was no available UFO model including the $O_{\cPG}$ operator at the NLO. The values of $\sigma_{i}^{(1)}$ and $\sigma_{i}^{(2)}$ for various effective couplings at LO and available $K$ factors are given in Table 0.2.

0.3 Event selection and background estimation

The event selection for this analysis is similar to the one used in Ref. [10]. The events of interest are recorded by the CMS detector using a combination of dilepton and single-lepton triggers. Single-lepton triggers require at least one isolated electron (muon) with $\pt>27\,(24)\GeV$. The dilepton triggers select events with at least two leptons with loose isolation requirements and \ptfor the leading and sub-leading leptons greater than 23 and 12 (17 and 8)\GeVfor the $\Pe\Pe$ ($\Pgm\Pgm$) final state. In the $\Pe\Pgm$ final state, in the case of the leading lepton being an electron, the events are triggered if the electron-muon pair has a \ptgreater than 23 and 8\GeVfor the electron and muon, respectively. In the case of the leading lepton being a muon, the trigger thresholds are 23 and 12\GeVfor the muon and electron, respectively [45].

Offline, the particle-flow (PF) algorithm [46] aims to reconstruct and identify each individual particle with an optimized combination of information from the various elements of the CMS detector. Electron candidates are reconstructed using tracking and ECAL information [47]. Requirements on electron identification variables based on shower shape and track-cluster matching are further applied to the reconstructed electron candidates, together with isolation criteria [10, 47]. Electron candidates are selected with $\pt>20\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.4$. Electron candidates within the range $1.444<\abs{\eta}<1.566$, which corresponds to the transition region between the barrel and endcap regions of the ECAL, are not considered. Information from the tracker and the muon spectrometer are combined in a global fit to reconstruct muon candidates [48]. Muon candidates are further required to have a high-quality fit including a minimum number of hits in both systems, and to be isolated [10, 48]. The muons used in this analysis are selected inside the fiducial region of the muon spectrometer, $\abs{\eta}<2.4$, with a minimum \ptof 20\GeV.

The PF candidates are clustered into jets using the anti-\ktalgorithm with a distance parameter of 0.4 [49, 50, 51]. Jets are calibrated in data and simulation, accounting for energy deposits of particles from pileup [52]. Jets with $\pt>30\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.4$ are selected; loose jets are defined as jets with the \ptrange between 20 and 30\GeV. Jets originating from the hadronization of \cPqb quarks are identified using the combined secondary vertex algorithm [53]; this algorithm combines information from track impact parameters and secondary vertices identified within a given jet. The chosen working point provides a signal identification efficiency of approximately 68% with a probability to misidentify light-flavor jets as \cPqbjets of approximately 1% [53]. The missing transverse momentum vector \ptvecmissis defined as the projection on the plane perpendicular to the proton beams axis of the negative vector sum of the momenta of all reconstructed PF candidates in the event [54]. Corrections to the jet energies are propagated to \ptvecmiss. Its magnitude is referred to as \ptmiss.

Events are required to have at least two leptons (electrons or muons) with opposite sign and with an invariant mass above 20\GeV. The leading lepton must fulfill $\pt>25\GeV$. For the same-flavor lepton channels, to suppress the DY background, the dilepton invariant mass must not be within 15\GeVof the \PZ boson mass and a minimal value (of 60\GeV) on \ptmissis applied.

The events are divided into the $\Pe\Pe$, $\Pe\Pgm$, and $\Pgm\Pgm$ channels according to the flavors of the two leptons with the highest \ptand are further categorized in different bins depending on the number of jets (“$n$-jets”) and number \cPqb-tagged jets (“$m$-tags”) in the final state. The largest number of $\cPqt\PW$ events is expected in the category with exactly one \cPqb-tagged jet (1-jet,1-tag) followed by the category with two jets, of which one a \cPqbjet (2-jets,1-tag). Events in the categories with more than two jets and exactly two \cPqb-tagged jets are dominated by the \ttbarprocess ($\geq$2-jets,2-tags). Categories with zero \cPqbjets are dominated by DY events in the $\Pe\Pe$ and $\Pgm\Pgm$ channels and are not used in the analysis. However, in the $\Pe\Pgm$ channel, the contamination of DY events is lower and a significant number of $\cPqt\PW$ events is present in the category with one jet and zero \cPqb-tagged jets (1-jet,0-tag). The latter category is included in this analysis. In Fig. 2, the data in the ten search regions are shown together with the SM background predictions.

The contributions of SM processes leading to two prompt leptons in the final state are estimated from simulated samples and are normalised to the integrated luminosity of the data. These contributions originate mainly from \ttbar, $\cPqt\PW$ and DY production. Other SM processes, such as diboson, \ttbar+V and \ttbar+$\cPgg$ have significantly smaller contributions.

To correct the DY simulation for the efficiency of the \ptmissthreshold and for the mismodeling of the heavy-flavour content, scale factors are derived using the ratio of the numbers of simulated events inside and outside the dilepton invariant mass window, 76 to 106\GeV. The observed event yield inside the window is scaled to estimate the DY background outside the mass window [55].

The nonprompt lepton backgrounds which contain fake lepton(s) from a misreconstructed $\cPgg$ or jet(s) are also considered. The contribution of misidentified or converted $\cPgg$ events from the $\PW\cPgg$ process is estimated from MC simulation. The contribution from $\PW$+jets and multijet processes is estimated by a data-based technique using events with same-sign leptons. The method is based on the assumption that the probability of assigning positive or negative charge to the fake lepton is equal. Therefore, the background contribution from fake leptons in the final selection (opposite-sign sample) can be estimated from the corresponding sample with same-sign leptons. In this latter same-sign event sample, the remaining small contribution from prompt-lepton backgrounds is subtracted from data using MC samples.

After all selections, the expected numbers of events from $\cPqt\PW$, \ttbar, DY, and remaining background contributions mentioned above, as well as the total number of background events are reported in Table 0.3 for the $\Pe\Pe$, $\Pe\Pgm$, and $\Pgm\Pgm$ channels and for the various ($n$-jets,$m$-tags) categories. We find generally very good agreement between data and predictions, within the uncertainties of the data.

0.4 Signal extraction using neural networks tools

The purpose of the analysis is to search for deviations from the SM predictions in the $\cPqt\PW$ and \ttbarproduction due to new physics, parametrized with the presence of new effective couplings. In order to investigate the effect of the non-zero effective couplings, it is important to find suitable variables with high discrimination power between the signal and the background. Depending on the couplings, the total yield or the distribution of the output of a neural network (NN) algorithm is employed, as summarized in Table 0.4. The NN algorithm used in this analysis is a multilayer perceptron [56].

All the effective couplings introduced in Section 0.1 can contribute to $\cPqt\PW$ production except the triple gluon field strength operator, $O_{\cPG}$ which only affects \ttbarproduction. As observed in previous analysis [22] and confirmed here, the top quark \ptdistribution is sensitive to the triple-gluon field-strength operator. The kinematic distributions of final-state particles show less discrimination power than the top quark \ptdistribution. In addition, they vary with the value of C${}_{\cPG}$ and approach the SM prediction for decreasing values of C${}_{\cPG}$. Therefore, we use the total yield in various categories to constrain the C${}_{\cPG}$ effective coupling.

The deviation from the SM $\cPqt\PW$ production because of the interference between the SM and the $O_{\cPqt\cPG}$, $O_{\phi\cPq}^{(3)}$, and $O_{\cPqt\PW}$ operators is of the order of $1/\Lambda^{2}$. It is assumed that the new physics scale $\Lambda$ is larger than the scale we probe. Therefore, $1/\Lambda^{4}$ contributions from the new physics terms are small compared to the contribution from the interference term. The operator $O_{\phi\cPq}^{(3)}$ is similar to the SM $\PW\cPqt\cPqb$ operator and leads to a rescaling of the SM $\PW\cPqt\cPqb$ vertex [13]. The $O_{\cPqt\PW}$ and $O_{\cPqt\cPG}$ operators lead to the right-handed Wtb interaction and a tensor-like ttg interaction, respectively, which are absent in the SM at the first order. Their effects have been investigated via the various kinematic distributions of the final-state particles considered in this analysis and are found to be not distinguishable from the SM $\cPqt\PW$ and \ttbarprocesses for unconstrained values of the effective couplings within the current precision on data. After the selection described in Section 3, the dominant background comes from \ttbarproduction, with a contribution of about 90%. In order to observe deviations from SM $\cPqt\PW$ production in the presence of the $O_{\phi\cPq}^{(3)}$, $O_{\cPqt\PW}$, and $O_{\cPqt\cPG}$ effective operators, we need to separate $\cPqt\PW$ events from the large number of \ttbarevents. Two independent NNs are trained to separate \ttbarevents (the background) and $\cPqt\PW$ events (considered as the signal) in the (1-jet,1-tag) (NN11) and (2-jets,1-tag) (NN21) categories, which have significant signal contributions [57]. For the $\Pe\Pgm$ channel, another NN is used for the (1-jet,0-tag) (NN10) category, in which the \ttbar, $\PW\PW$, and DY events are combined and are considered as the background. A comparison between the observed data and the SM background prediction of the NN output shape in various ($n$-jets,$m$-tags) categories is shown for the $\Pe\Pe$ and $\Pgm\Pgm$ channels in Fig. 3 and for the $\Pe\Pgm$ channel in Fig. 4 (left column).

The presence of the $O_{\cPqu\cPG}$ and $O_{\cPqc\cPG}$ operators changes the initial-state particle (see Fig. 1), and leads to different kinematic distributions for the final-state particles, compared to the SM $\cPqt\PW$ process. For these FCNC operators, new physics effects on final-state particle distributions are expected to be distinguishable from SM processes. In order to search for new physics due to the $O_{\cPqu\cPG}$ and $O_{\cPqc\cPG}$ effective operators, an NN (NNFCNC) is used to separate SM backgrounds (\ttbarand $\cPqt\PW$ events together) and new physics signals for events with exactly one \cPqb-tagged jet with no requirement on the number of light-flavor jets ($n$-jets,1-tag). The comparison of the NN output for data, SM background and signal ($\cPqt\PW$ events via FCNC interactions) is shown in Fig. 4 (right column) for the $\Pe\Pe$, $\Pe\Pgm$, and $\Pgm\Pgm$ channels.

The various input variables for training the NN introduced above are described below and are shown in Table  0.4.

• •

Mℓℓ (where $\ell$ = \Pe or \Pgm), invariant mass of dilepton system;

• •

$\pt^{\ell\ell}$, \ptof dilepton system;

• •

$\Delta\pt(\ell_{1},\,\ell_{2})$, $\pt^{\text{leading lepton}}-\pt^{\text{sub-leading lepton}}$;

• •

$\pt^{\ell_{1}}$, \ptof leading lepton;

• •

Centrality($\ell_{1}$, jet1), scalar sum of \ptof the leading lepton and leading jet, over total energy of selected leptons and jets;

• •

Centrality($\ell_{1},\,\ell_{2}$), scalar sum of \ptof the leading and sub-leading leptons, over total energy of selected leptons and jets;

• •

$\Delta\Phi(\ell\ell$, jet1), $\Delta\Phi$ between dilepton system and leading jet where $\Phi$ is azimuthal angle;

• •

\pt

($\ell\ell$, jet1), \ptof dilepton and leading jet system;

• •

\pt

($\ell_{1}$, jet1), \ptof leading lepton and leading jet system;

• •

Centrality($\ell\ell$, jet1), scalar sum of \ptof the dilepton system and leading jet, over total energy of selected leptons and jets;

• •

$\Delta$R($\ell_{1},\,\ell_{2}$), $\sqrt{\smash[b]{\,(\eta^{\ell_{1}}-\eta^{\ell_{2}})^{2}\,+\,(\Phi^{\ell_{1}}-\Phi^{\ell_{2}})^{2}}}$;

• •

$\Delta$R($\ell_{1}$, jet1), $\sqrt{\smash[b]{\,(\eta^{\ell_{1}}-\eta^{\text{jet}_{1}})^{2}\,+\,(\Phi^{\ell_{1}}-\Phi^{\text{jet}_{1}})^{2}}}$;

• •

M($\ell_{1}$, jet1), invariant mass of leading lepton and leading jet;

• •

M(jet1, jet2), invariant mass of leading jet and sub-leading jet;

• •

$\Delta$R($\ell_{1}$, jet2), $\sqrt{\smash[b]{\,(\eta^{\ell_{1}}-\eta^{\text{jet}_{2}})^{2}\,+\,(\Phi^{\ell_{1}}-\Phi^{\text{jet}_{2}})^{2}}}$;

• •

$\Delta$R($\ell\ell$, jet1), $\sqrt{\smash[b]{\,(\eta^{\ell\ell}-\eta^{\text{jet}_{1}})^{2}\,+\,(\Phi^{\ell\ell}-\Phi^{\text{jet}_{1}})^{2}}}$;

• •

$\Delta\pt(\ell_{2},~{}\text{jet}_{2})$, $\pt^{\ell_{2}}-\pt^{\text{jet}_{2}}$;

• •

M($\ell_{2}$, jet1), invariant mass of sub-leading lepton and leading jet.

0.5 Systematic uncertainties

The normalization and shape of the signal and the backgrounds are both affected by different sources of systematic uncertainty. For each source, an induced variation can be parametrized, and treated as a nuisance parameter in the fit that is described in the next section.

A systematic uncertainty of 2.5% is assigned to the integrated luminosity and is used for signal and background rates [58]. The efficiency corrections for trigger and offline selection of leptons were estimated by comparing the efficiency measured in data and in MC simulation using $\PZ\to\ell\ell$ events, based on a “tag-and-probe” method as in Ref. [59]. The scale factors obtained are varied by one standard deviation to take into account the corresponding uncertainties in the efficiency. The jet energy scale and resolution uncertainties depend on \ptand $\eta$ of the jet and are computed by shifting the energy of each jet and propagating the variation to \ptvecmisscoherently [60].

The uncertainty in the \cPqb tagging is estimated by varying the \cPqb tagging scale factors within one standard deviation [53]. Effects of the uncertainty in the distribution of the number of pileup interactions are evaluated by varying the effective inelastic $\Pp\Pp$ cross section used to predict the number of pileup interactions in MC simulation by $\pm$4.6% of its nominal value [61].

The uncertainty in the DY contribution in categories with one or two \cPqb-tagged jets is considered to be 50 and 30% in the $\Pe\Pgm$ and same-flavor dilepton channels, respectively [10, 57]. For the DY normalization in the (1-jet,0-tag) category, an uncertainty of 15% is assigned [62]. In addition, systematic uncertainties related to the PDF, and to the renormalization and factorization scale uncertainty are taken into account for DY process in the (1-jet,0-tag) category. The uncertainty in the yield of nonprompt lepton backgrounds is considered to be 50% [57]. Contributions to the background from \ttbarproduction in association with a boson, as well as diboson production, are estimated from simulation and a systematic uncertainty of 50% is conservatively assigned [63].

Various uncertainties originate from the theoretical predictions. The effect of the renormalization and factorization scale uncertainty from the \ttbarand $\cPqt\PW$ MC generators is estimated by varying the scales used during the generation of the simulation sample independently by a factor 0.5, 1 or 2. Unphysical cases, where one scale fluctuates up while the other fluctuates down, are not considered. The top quark \ptreweighting procedure, discussed in Sec. 0.2, is applied on top of the nominal \POWHEGprediction at NLO to account for the higher-order corrections.

The uncertainty in the PDFs for each simulated signal process is obtained using the replicas of the NNPDF 3.0 set [64]. The most recent measurement of the top quark mass by CMS yields a total uncertainty of $\pm 0.49$\GeV[65]. We consider variations of the top quark mass due to this uncertainty and they are found to be insignificant. At NLO QCD, $\cPqt\PW$ production is expected to interfere with \ttbarproduction [66]. Two schemes for defining the $\cPqt\PW$ signal in a way that distinguishes it from the \ttbarproduction have been compared in the analysis: the “diagram removal” (DR), in which all doubly resonant NLO $\cPqt\PW$ diagrams are removed, and the “diagram subtraction” (DS), where a gauge-invariant subtractive term modifies the NLO $\cPqt\PW$ cross section to locally cancel the contribution from \ttbarproduction [67, 66, 68]. The DR method is used for the nominal $\cPqt\PW$ sample and the difference with respect to the sample simulated using the DS method is taken as a systematic uncertainty. The model parameter $h_{\text{damp}}$ in \ttbar\POWHEG[25] that controls the matching of the matrix elements to the \PYTHIAparton showers is varied from a top quark mass default value of 172.5\GeVby factors of 0.5 and 2 for estimating the uncertainties from the matching between jets from matrix element calculations and parton shower emissions. The renormalization scale for QCD emissions in the initial- and final-state radiation (ISR and FSR) is varied up and down by factors of 2 and $\sqrt{2}$, respectively, to account for parton shower QCD scale variation error in both \ttbarand $\cPqt\PW$ samples [69]. In addition, several dedicated \ttbarsamples are used to estimate shower modeling uncertainties in both underlying event and color re-connections [10, 31, 69]. To estimate model uncertainties, $\cPqt\PW$ and \ttbarsamples are generated with \POWHEGas described in Sec. 0.2, varying the relevant model parameters with respect to the nominal samples.

0.6 Constraints on the effective couplings

The six Wilson coefficients sensitive to new physics contributions in top quark interactions, as defined in Eqs. 1–5, are tested separately in the observed data. The event yields and the NN output distributions in each analysis category, summarized in Table 0.4, are used to construct a binned likelihood function. All sources of systematic uncertainty, described in Section 0.5, are taken into account as nuisance parameters in the fit. A simultaneous binned maximum-likelihood fit is performed to find the best fit value for each Wilson coefficient together with 68 and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) [70]. In this Section, distributions of the log-likelihood functions are shown with one nonzero effective coupling at a time for $\Lambda$ = 1\TeV.

The SM cross section prediction for the \ttbarand $\cPqt\PW$ processes, $\sigma_{i}^{(1)}$ and $\sigma_{i}^{(2)}$ (see Table 0.2), are accompanied by uncertainties in scales and PDFs. These theoretical uncertainties can affect the bounds on the Wilson coefficients. In order to study this effect, the fit is performed on data, while theoretical uncertainties are varied within one standard deviation and are shown together with the nominal results in the likelihood scan plots in Fig. 5. The nominal theoretical cross sections for \ttbarand $\cPqt\PW$ processes are varied by [+4.8%,$-5.5\%$] and [+5.4%,$-5.4\%$] , respectively. These variations cover the uncertainties arising from the variations of factorization and renormalization scales and PDFs [10, 34]. The scale variations for $\sigma_{i}^{(1)}$ and $\sigma_{i}^{(2)}$ are evaluated to be within 1 to 25%. We assumed that the scale uncertainty is 100% correlated among the terms $\sigma_{\mathrm{SM}}$, $\sigma_{i}^{(1)}$, and $\sigma_{i}^{(2)}$.

0.6.1 Exclusion limits on the C${}_{\cPG}$ effective coupling

In order to constrain the C${}_{\cPG}$ coupling, the effect on the \ttbarrate in various ($n$-jets,$m$-tags) categories is considered. The impact of the difference between the kinematic distributions of \ttbarevents from the $O_{\cPG}$ interaction and from the SM interactions on the acceptance is evaluated to be 3% for C${}_{\cPG}\sim 1$. This uncertainty is considered only for the C${}_{\cPG}$ coupling since the top \pt spectrum is affected considerably by this operator, while other operators lead to a \pt spectrum similar to the SM prediction for unconstrained values of the probed Wilson coefficients. The fit is performed simultaneously on the observed event yields in the categories presented in Fig. 2 in the (1-jet,1-tag), (2-jets,1-tag), and ($\geq$2-jets,2-tags) categories for the $\Pe\Pe$, $\Pe\Pgm$, and $\Pgm\Pgm$ channels. In addition, the (1-jet,0-tag) category is included only for the $\Pe\Pgm$ channel. The main limiting factor on the constraints in the C${}_{\cPG}$ coupling is the uncertainty in the signal acceptance found after maximizing the likelihood, followed by uncertainties in the integrated luminosity calibration and the trigger scale factor.

The results of the fit for the individual channels and for all channels combined are listed in the first row of Table 0.6.3.

The results of the likelihood scans of the C${}_{\cPG}$ coupling are shown in Fig. 5 (upper left plot). The likelihood scan result of the nominal fit, in which the nominal values of $\sigma_{\mathrm{SM}}$, $\sigma_{i}^{(1)}$, and $\sigma_{i}^{(2)}$ terms are assumed, is shown as the thick curve. The thin dashed curves are the results of the fit to the observed data when the assumed values of the $\sigma_{\mathrm{SM}}$, $\sigma_{i}^{(1)}$, and $\sigma_{i}^{(2)}$ terms are varied due to the scale and PDF uncertainties. As a second-order parametrization, given by Eq. 6 is used to fit the data, the resulting likelihood function could have two minima, as can be seen in some of the plots in Fig. 5.

0.6.2 Exclusion limits on the C${}_{\cPqt\cPG}$, C${}_{\phi\cPq}^{(3)}$, and C${}_{\cPqt\PW}$ effective couplings

In order to set limits on the effective couplings C${}_{\cPqt\cPG}$, C${}_{\phi\cPq}^{(3)}$, and C${}_{\cPqt\PW}$, we utilize the NN output distributions for both data and MC expectation in the (1-jet,1-tag) and (2-jets,1-tag) regions and event yields in the ($\geq$2-jets,2-tags) region for the three dilepton channels. The inclusion of the ($\geq$2-jets,2-tags) and (2-jets,1-tag) categories provides a constraint of the normalization and systematic uncertainties in the \ttbarbackground. In addition, the (1-jet,0-tag) category is included for the $\Pe\Pgm$ channel to increase the signal sensitivity. The results of the likelihood scans of the C${}_{\cPqt\cPG}$, C${}_{\phi\cPq}^{(3)}$, and C${}_{\cPqt\PW}$ Wilson coefficients are shown in Fig. 5 for the combination of all channels. The inclusion of the C${}_{\cPqt\cPG}$ coupling to the tW process tightens the 2 standard deviations band by 7%. The results for the individual channels, and the combined results are listed in Table 0.6.3 (second, third, and fourth rows). The three main sources of uncertainty that affect the interval determination are uncertainties in the DY estimation, integrated luminosity, and lepton identification scale factors for C${}_{\cPqt\cPG}$; jet energy scale, tt and tW interference at NLO, and statistical uncertainty in MC samples for C${}_{\phi\cPq}^{(3)}$; statistical uncertainty in data, jet energy scale, and the \POWHEGmatching method for C${}_{\cPqt\PW}$ effective couplings.

0.6.3 Exclusion limits on the C${}_{\cPqu\cPG}$ and C${}_{\cPqc\cPG}$ effective couplings

Since the $\cPqt\PW$ production via FCNC interactions does not interfere with the SM $\cPqt\PW$ process (with the assumption of $\abs{\text{V}_{\cPqt\cPqd}}=\abs{\text{V}_{\cPqt\cPqs}}=0$), the FCNC signal sample is used to set upper bounds on the related Wilson coefficients. Events with exactly one \cPqb-tagged jet are included in the limit setting procedure with no requirement on the number of light-flavor jets ($n$-jets,1-tag). The observed (median expected) $95\%$ confidence level (\CL) upper limits on the product of cross section times branching fractions $\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\cPqt\PW)\mathcal{B}(\PW\to\ell\cPgn)^{2}$ for the C${}_{\cPqu\cPG}$ and C${}_{\cPqc\cPG}$ FCNC signals for the combination of the $\Pe\Pe$, $\Pgm\Pgm$, and $\Pe\Pgm$ channels are found to be 0.11 (0.20)\unitpb and 0.13 (0.26)\unitpb, respectively. These results are used to calculate upper limits on the Wilson coefficients C${}_{\cPqu\cPG}$, C${}_{\cPqc\cPG}$, and on the branching fractions $\mathcal{B}(\cPqt\to\cPqu\Pg)$ and $\mathcal{B}(\cPqt\to\cPqc\Pg)$. The limits on the C${}_{\cPqu\cPG}$ and C${}_{\cPqc\cPG}$ couplings are summarized in the last two rows of Table 0.6.3, and correspond to the observed (expected) limits on $\mathcal{B}(\cPqt\to\cPqu\Pg)<$ 0.12 (0.22)% and $\mathcal{B}(\cPqt\to\cPqc\Pg)<$ 0.53 (1.05)% at $95\%$ \CL. The statistical uncertainty in data is the dominant source of uncertainty affecting the limits on the FCNC couplings. The second and third most important uncertainties originate from \ttbarand $\cPqt\PW$ interferences at NLO and FSR in \ttbarevents.

The observed best fit together with one and two standard deviation bounds on the six Wilson coefficients, C${}_{\phi\cPq}^{(3)}$, C${}_{\cPqt\PW}$, C${}_{\cPqt\cPG}$, C${}_{\cPG}$, C${}_{\cPqu\cPG}$, and C${}_{\cPqc\cPG}$, obtained from the combination of all channels are shown in Fig. 6. Table 0.6.3 summarizes the effect of the most important uncertainty sources on the observed allowed intervals.

0.7 Summary

A search for new physics in top quark interactions is performed using \ttbarand $\cPqt\PW$ events in dilepton final states. The analysis is based on data collected in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions at 13\TeVby the CMS detector in 2016, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9\fbinv. No significant excess above the standard model background expectation is observed. For the first time, both \ttbarand $\cPqt\PW$ production are used simultaneously in a model independent search for effective couplings. The six effective couplings, C${}_{\cPG}$, C${}_{\cPqt\cPG}$, C${}_{\cPqt\PW}$, C${}_{\phi\cPq}^{(3)}$, C${}_{\cPqu\cPG}$, and C${}_{\cPqc\cPG}$ are constrained using a dedicated multivariate analysis. The constraints presented, obtained by considering one operator at a time, are a useful first step toward more global approaches.

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 centres 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: BMWFW and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, 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); OTKA and NIH (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM (Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); LAS (Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT, LNS, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom, RAS, RFBR and RAEP (Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI and FEDER (Spain); 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 EPLANET (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 Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; the HOMING PLUS program of Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from European Union, Regional Development Fund; the Compagnia di San Paolo (Torino); the Consorzio per la Fisica (Trieste); MIUR project 20108T4XTM (Italy); the Thalis and Aristeia programs cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; and the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund.

.8 The CMS Collaboration

\cmsinstskip

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia

A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan \cmsinstskipInstitut 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 \cmsinstskipInstitute for Nuclear Problems, Minsk, Belarus

V. Chekhovsky, V. Mossolov, J. Suarez Gonzalez \cmsinstskipUniversiteit Antwerpen, Antwerpen, Belgium

E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, J. Lauwers, A. Lelek, M. Pieters, H. Van Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, N. Van Remortel \cmsinstskipVrije 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 \cmsinstskipUniversité Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium

D. Beghin, B. Bilin, H. Brun, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, H. Delannoy, B. Dorney, G. Fasanella, L. Favart, A. Grebenyuk, A.K. Kalsi, T. Lenzi, J. Luetic, N. Postiau, E. Starling, L. Thomas, C. Vander Velde, P. Vanlaer, D. Vannerom, Q. Wang \cmsinstskipGhent 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 \cmsinstskipUniversité Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

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

F.L. Alves, G.A. Alves, G. Correia Silva, C. Hensel, A. Moraes, M.E. Pol, P. Rebello Teles \cmsinstskipUniversidade 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 \cmsinstskipUniversidade 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 \cmsinstskipInstitute 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 \cmsinstskipUniversity of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria

A. Dimitrov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov \cmsinstskipBeihang University, Beijing, China

W. Fang\cmsAuthorMark5, X. Gao\cmsAuthorMark5, L. Yuan \cmsinstskipInstitute 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, E. Yazgan, H. Zhang, S. Zhang\cmsAuthorMark6, J. Zhao \cmsinstskipState 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 \cmsinstskipTsinghua University, Beijing, China

Y. Wang \cmsinstskipUniversidad 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 \cmsinstskipUniversity of Split, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split, Croatia

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

Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac \cmsinstskipInstitute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia

V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, K. Kadija, B. Mesic, M. Roguljic, A. Starodumov\cmsAuthorMark7, T. Susa \cmsinstskipUniversity of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

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

M. Finger\cmsAuthorMark8, M. Finger Jr.\cmsAuthorMark8 \cmsinstskipEscuela Politecnica Nacional, Quito, Ecuador

E. Ayala \cmsinstskipUniversidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador

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

H. Abdalla\cmsAuthorMark9, A. Mohamed\cmsAuthorMark10, E. Salama\cmsAuthorMark11*,*\cmsAuthorMark12 \cmsinstskipNational 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 \cmsinstskipDepartment of Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

P. Eerola, H. Kirschenmann, J. Pekkanen, M. Voutilainen \cmsinstskipHelsinki 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 \cmsinstskipLappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland

T. Tuuva \cmsinstskipIRFU, 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 \cmsinstskipLaboratoire 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, J. Rembser, R. Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A.G. Stahl Leiton, A. Zabi, A. Zghiche \cmsinstskipUniversité de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, Strasbourg, France

J.-L. Agram\cmsAuthorMark14, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, G. Bourgatte, 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 \cmsinstskipCentre de Calcul de l’Institut National de Physique Nucleaire et de Physique des Particules, CNRS/IN2P3, Villeurbanne, France

S. Gadrat \cmsinstskipUniversité 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 \cmsinstskipGeorgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia

T. Toriashvili\cmsAuthorMark16 \cmsinstskipTbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia

Z. Tsamalaidze\cmsAuthorMark8 \cmsinstskipRWTH 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 \cmsinstskipRWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany

A. Albert, M. Erdmann, S. Erdweg, T. Esch, R. Fischer, S. Ghosh, T. Hebbeker, C. Heidemann, K. Hoepfner, H. Keller, L. Mastrolorenzo, M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, P. Millet, S. Mukherjee, T. Pook, A. Pozdnyakov, M. Radziej, H. Reithler, M. Rieger, A. Schmidt, D. Teyssier, S. Thüer \cmsinstskipRWTH 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 \cmsinstskipDeutsches 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, T. Lenz, J. Leonard, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann\cmsAuthorMark20, R. Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, A.B. Meyer, M. Meyer, M. Missiroli, G. Mittag, J. Mnich, V. Myronenko, S.K. Pflitsch, D. Pitzl, A. Raspereza, A. Saibel, M. Savitskyi, P. Saxena, P. Schütze, C. Schwanenberger, R. Shevchenko, A. Singh, H. Tholen, O. Turkot, A. Vagnerini, M. Van De Klundert, G.P. Van Onsem, R. Walsh, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C. Wissing, O. Zenaiev \cmsinstskipUniversity of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

R. Aggleton, S. Bein, L. Benato, A. Benecke, 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 \cmsinstskipKarlsruher 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 \cmsinstskipInstitute of Nuclear and Particle Physics (INPP), NCSR Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece

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

A. Agapitos, G. Karathanasis, P. Kontaxakis, A. Panagiotou, I. Papavergou, N. Saoulidou, K. Vellidis \cmsinstskipNational Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece

K. Kousouris, I. Papakrivopoulos, G. Tsipolitis \cmsinstskipUniversity 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 \cmsinstskipMTA-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 \cmsinstskipWigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary

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

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

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

S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri, P.C. Tiwari \cmsinstskipNational 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 \cmsinstskipPanjab 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 \cmsinstskipUniversity 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 \cmsinstskipSaha 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, M. Maity\cmsAuthorMark27, K. Mondal, S. Nandan, A. Purohit, P.K. Rout, A. Roy, G. Saha, S. Sarkar, T. Sarkar\cmsAuthorMark27, M. Sharan, B. Singh\cmsAuthorMark26, S. Thakur\cmsAuthorMark26 \cmsinstskipIndian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras, India

P.K. Behera, A. Muhammad \cmsinstskipBhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India

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

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

S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, P. Das, M. Guchait, Sa. Jain, S. Karmakar, S. Kumar, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, N. Sahoo \cmsinstskipIndian 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 \cmsinstskipInstitute 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 \cmsinstskipUniversity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

M. Felcini, M. Grunewald \cmsinstskipINFN 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 \cmsinstskipINFN 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**,\cmsAuthorMark30, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, A. Montanaria, F.L. Navarriaa**,b, A. Perrottaa, F. Primaveraa**,b, A.M. Rossia**,b, T. Rovellia**,b, G.P. Sirolia**,b, N. Tosia \cmsinstskipINFN 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 \cmsinstskipINFN 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**,\cmsAuthorMark31, G. Sguazzonia, D. Stroma, L. Viliania \cmsinstskipINFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy

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

F. Ferroa, R. Mulargiaa**,b, E. Robuttia, S. Tosi*a**,*b \cmsinstskipINFN 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 \cmsinstskipINFN 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, L. Listaa, S. Meolaa**,d,\cmsAuthorMark17, P. Paoluccia**,\cmsAuthorMark17, C. Sciacca*a**,b, E. Voevodinaa**,*b \cmsinstskipINFN 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 \cmsinstskipINFN 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 \cmsinstskipINFN 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 \cmsinstskipINFN 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\cmsAuthorMark32, P. Spagnoloa, R. Tenchinia, G. Tonellia**,b, A. Venturia, P.G. Verdinia \cmsinstskipINFN 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 \cmsinstskipINFN 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 \cmsinstskipINFN 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 \cmsinstskipKyungpook 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 \cmsinstskipChonnam National University, Institute for Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju, Korea

H. Kim, D.H. Moon, G. Oh \cmsinstskipHanyang University, Seoul, Korea

B. Francois, J. Goh\cmsAuthorMark33, T.J. Kim \cmsinstskipKorea 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 \cmsinstskipSejong University, Seoul, Korea

H.S. Kim \cmsinstskipSeoul 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 \cmsinstskipUniversity of Seoul, Seoul, Korea

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

Y. Choi, C. Hwang, J. Lee, I. Yu \cmsinstskipRiga Technical University, Riga, Latvia

V. Veckalns\cmsAuthorMark34 \cmsinstskipVilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania

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

Z.A. Ibrahim, M.A.B. Md Ali\cmsAuthorMark35, F. Mohamad Idris\cmsAuthorMark36, W.A.T. Wan Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli \cmsinstskipUniversidad de Sonora (UNISON), Hermosillo, Mexico

J.F. Benitez, A. Castaneda Hernandez, J.A. Murillo Quijada \cmsinstskipCentro 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\cmsAuthorMark37, R. Lopez-Fernandez, J. Mejia Guisao, R.I. Rabadan-Trejo, M. Ramirez-Garcia, G. Ramirez-Sanchez, R. Reyes-Almanza, A. Sanchez-Hernandez \cmsinstskipUniversidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City, Mexico

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

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

A. Morelos Pineda \cmsinstskipUniversity of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

D. Krofcheck \cmsinstskipUniversity of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

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

A. Ahmad, M. Ahmad, M.I. Asghar, Q. Hassan, H.R. Hoorani, W.A. Khan, M.A. Shah, M. Shoaib, M. Waqas \cmsinstskipNational Centre for Nuclear Research, Swierk, Poland

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

K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk\cmsAuthorMark38, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J. Krolikowski, M. Misiura, M. Olszewski, A. Pyskir, M. Walczak \cmsinstskipLaboratório 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 \cmsinstskipJoint 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\cmsAuthorMark39*,*\cmsAuthorMark40, P. Moisenz, V. Palichik, V. Perelygin, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, N. Skatchkov, V. Smirnov, N. Voytishin, A. Zarubin \cmsinstskipPetersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg), Russia

V. Golovtsov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim\cmsAuthorMark41, E. Kuznetsova\cmsAuthorMark42, P. Levchenko, V. Murzin, V. Oreshkin, I. Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Vavilov, A. Vorobyev \cmsinstskipInstitute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia

Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, M. Kirsanov, N. Krasnikov, A. Pashenkov, A. Shabanov, D. Tlisov, A. Toropin \cmsinstskipInstitute 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 \cmsinstskipMoscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia

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

R. Chistov\cmsAuthorMark43, M. Danilov\cmsAuthorMark43, D. Philippov, E. Tarkovskii \cmsinstskipP.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia

V. Andreev, M. Azarkin, I. Dremin\cmsAuthorMark40, M. Kirakosyan, A. Terkulov \cmsinstskipSkobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

A. Baskakov, A. Belyaev, E. Boos, V. Bunichev, M. Dubinin\cmsAuthorMark44, L. Dudko, V. Klyukhin, O. Kodolova, N. Korneeva, I. Lokhtin, S. Obraztsov, M. Perfilov, V. Savrin \cmsinstskipNovosibirsk State University (NSU), Novosibirsk, Russia

A. Barnyakov\cmsAuthorMark45, V. Blinov\cmsAuthorMark45, T. Dimova\cmsAuthorMark45, L. Kardapoltsev\cmsAuthorMark45, Y. Skovpen\cmsAuthorMark45 \cmsinstskipInstitute 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 \cmsinstskipNational Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia

A. Babaev, S. Baidali, V. Okhotnikov \cmsinstskipUniversity of Belgrade: Faculty of Physics and VINCA Institute of Nuclear Sciences

P. Adzic\cmsAuthorMark46, P. Cirkovic, D. Devetak, M. Dordevic, P. Milenovic\cmsAuthorMark47, J. Milosevic \cmsinstskipCentro 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 \cmsinstskipUniversidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

C. Albajar, J.F. de Trocóniz \cmsinstskipUniversidad 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 \cmsinstskipInstituto 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 \cmsinstskipUniversity of Ruhuna, Department of Physics, Matara, Sri Lanka

N. Wickramage \cmsinstskipCERN, 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, F. Fallavollita\cmsAuthorMark48, 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, G.M. Innocenti, 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, 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, M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva, P. Sphicas\cmsAuthorMark49, A. Stakia, J. Steggemann, D. Treille, A. Tsirou, A. Vartak, M. Verzetti, W.D. Zeuner \cmsinstskipPaul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland

L. Caminada\cmsAuthorMark50, K. Deiters, W. Erdmann, R. Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C. Kaestli, D. Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, T. Rohe, S.A. Wiederkehr \cmsinstskipETH 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, F. Pauss, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, S. Pigazzini, M. Reichmann, 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 \cmsinstskipUniversität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland

T.K. Aarrestad, C. Amsler\cmsAuthorMark51, 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, S. Wertz, A. Zucchetta \cmsinstskipNational Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan

T.H. Doan, R. Khurana, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, S.S. Yu \cmsinstskipNational 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 \cmsinstskipChulalongkorn University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok, Thailand

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

A. Bat, F. Boran, S. Cerci\cmsAuthorMark52, S. Damarseckin, Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, C. Dozen, I. Dumanoglu, E. Eskut, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, E. Gurpinar, I. Hos\cmsAuthorMark53, C. Isik, E.E. Kangal\cmsAuthorMark54, O. Kara, A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, M. Oglakci, G. Onengut, K. Ozdemir\cmsAuthorMark55, A. Polatoz, D. Sunar Cerci\cmsAuthorMark52, U.G. Tok, S. Turkcapar, I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez \cmsinstskipMiddle East Technical University, Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey

B. Isildak\cmsAuthorMark56, G. Karapinar\cmsAuthorMark57, M. Yalvac, M. Zeyrek \cmsinstskipBogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey

I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya\cmsAuthorMark58, O. Kaya\cmsAuthorMark59, S. Ozkorucuklu\cmsAuthorMark60, S. Tekten, E.A. Yetkin\cmsAuthorMark61 \cmsinstskipIstanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey

M.N. Agaras, A. Cakir, K. Cankocak, Y. Komurcu, S. Sen\cmsAuthorMark62 \cmsinstskipInstitute for Scintillation Materials of National Academy of Science of Ukraine, Kharkov, Ukraine

B. Grynyov \cmsinstskipNational Scientific Center, Kharkov Institute of Physics and Technology, Kharkov, Ukraine

L. Levchuk \cmsinstskipUniversity 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\cmsAuthorMark63, S. Paramesvaran, B. Penning, T. Sakuma, D. Smith, V.J. Smith, J. Taylor, A. Titterton \cmsinstskipRutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom

K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev\cmsAuthorMark64, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, D. Cieri, D.J.A. Cockerill, J.A. Coughlan, K. Harder, S. Harper, J. Linacre, K. Manolopoulos, E. Olaiya, D. Petyt, T. Reis, T. Schuh, C.H. Shepherd-Themistocleous, A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin, T. Williams, W.J. Womersley \cmsinstskipImperial 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, P. Everaerts, G. Hall, G. Iles, T. James, M. Komm, C. Laner, L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, A. Martelli, J. Nash\cmsAuthorMark65, 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 \cmsinstskipBrunel 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 \cmsinstskipBaylor University, Waco, USA

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

R. Bartek, A. Dominguez \cmsinstskipThe University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA

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

D. Arcaro, T. Bose, Z. Demiragli, D. Gastler, S. Girgis, D. Pinna, C. Richardson, J. Rohlf, D. Sperka, I. Suarez, L. Sulak, D. Zou \cmsinstskipBrown University, Providence, USA

G. Benelli, B. Burkle, X. Coubez, D. Cutts, M. Hadley, J. Hakala, U. Heintz, J.M. Hogan\cmsAuthorMark66, K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, J. Lee, Z. Mao, M. Narain, S. Sagir\cmsAuthorMark67, R. Syarif, E. Usai, D. Yu \cmsinstskipUniversity 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 \cmsinstskipUniversity of California, Los Angeles, USA

M. Bachtis, C. Bravo, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, S. Erhan, A. Florent, J. Hauser, M. Ignatenko, N. Mccoll, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg, C. Schnaible, V. Valuev \cmsinstskipUniversity 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 \cmsinstskipUniversity of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA

J.G. Branson, P. Chang, S. Cittolin, M. Derdzinski, R. Gerosa, D. Gilbert, B. Hashemi, A. Holzner, D. Klein, G. Kole, V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, M. Masciovecchio, S. May, D. Olivito, S. Padhi, M. Pieri, V. Sharma, M. Tadel, J. Wood, F. Würthwein, A. Yagil, G. Zevi Della Porta \cmsinstskipUniversity 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, S. Wang, J. Yoo \cmsinstskipCalifornia Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA

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

M.B. Andrews, T. Ferguson, T. Mudholkar, M. Paulini, M. Sun, I. Vorobiev, M. Weinberg \cmsinstskipUniversity 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 \cmsinstskipCornell 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 \cmsinstskipFermi 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, F. Ravera, A. Reinsvold, 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 \cmsinstskipUniversity 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, N. Menendez, G. Mitselmakher, D. Rosenzweig, K. Shi, J. Wang, S. Wang, X. Zuo \cmsinstskipFlorida International University, Miami, USA

Y.R. Joshi, S. Linn \cmsinstskipFlorida 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 \cmsinstskipFlorida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA

M.M. Baarmand, V. Bhopatkar, S. Colafranceschi, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, M. Rahmani, T. Roy, M. Saunders, F. Yumiceva \cmsinstskipUniversity 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 \cmsinstskipThe 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 \cmsinstskipJohns 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 \cmsinstskipThe 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 \cmsinstskipKansas State University, Manhattan, USA

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

F. Rebassoo, D. Wright \cmsinstskipUniversity 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 \cmsinstskipMassachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA

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

J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros \cmsinstskipUniversity 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 \cmsinstskipState 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 \cmsinstskipNortheastern University, Boston, USA

G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, Y. Haddad, A. Hortiangtham, G. Madigan, D.M. Morse, T. Orimoto, A. Tishelman-charny, T. Wamorkar, B. Wang, A. Wisecarver, D. Wood \cmsinstskipNorthwestern 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 \cmsinstskipUniversity of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, USA

R. Bucci, N. Dev, R. Goldouzian, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop, D.J. Karmgard, K. Lannon, W. Li, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, F. Meng, C. Mueller, Y. Musienko\cmsAuthorMark39, M. Planer, R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, G. Smith, S. Taroni, M. Wayne, A. Wightman, M. Wolf, A. Woodard \cmsinstskipThe 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 \cmsinstskipPrinceton University, Princeton, USA

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

S. Malik, S. Norberg \cmsinstskipPurdue 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 \cmsinstskipPurdue University Northwest, Hammond, USA

T. Cheng, J. Dolen, N. Parashar \cmsinstskipRice 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 \cmsinstskipUniversity 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 \cmsinstskipRutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, USA

B. Chiarito, J.P. Chou, Y. Gershtein, E. Halkiadakis, A. Hart, M. Heindl, E. Hughes, S. Kaplan, 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 \cmsinstskipUniversity of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA

H. Acharya, A.G. Delannoy, J. Heideman, G. Riley, S. Spanier \cmsinstskipTexas 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 \cmsinstskipTexas Tech University, Lubbock, USA

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

S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H. Ni, K. Padeken, F. Romeo, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska, M. Verweij, Q. Xu \cmsinstskipUniversity 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 \cmsinstskipWayne State University, Detroit, USA

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

J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, D. Carlsmith, S. Dasu, I. De Bruyn, L. Dodd, B. Gomber\cmsAuthorMark75, 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 Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

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

11: Also 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 ITALIAN NATIONAL AGENCY FOR NEW TECHNOLOGIES, ENERGY AND SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Bologna, Italy

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

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

33: Also at Kyung Hee University, Department of Physics, Seoul, Korea

34: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

42: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA

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

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

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

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

47: Also at University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

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

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

50: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland

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

52: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey

53: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey

54: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey

55: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey

56: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey

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

58: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey

59: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey

60: Also at Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey

61: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey

62: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey

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

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

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

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

67: Also at Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey

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

75: Also at University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India