# Measurement of the electroweak production of dijets in association with a Z-boson and distributions sensitive to vector boson fusion in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV using the ATLAS detector

G. Aad, S. Albrand, J. Brown, Q. Buat, B. Clement, J. Collot, S.

Crépé-Renaudin, B. Dechenaux, T. Delemontex, P.A. Delsart, et al.

► To cite this version:

G. Aad, S. Albrand, J. Brown, Q. Buat, B. Clement, et al., Measurement of the electroweak production of dijets in association with a Z-boson and distributions sensitive to vector boson fusion in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV using the ATLAS detector. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2014, 04, pp.031. 10.1007/JHEP04(2014)031

HAL Id: in2p3-00939046

https://hal.in2p3.fr/in2p3-00939046

Submitted on 7 Jun 2021

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
RECEIVED: January 30, 2014

ACCEPTED: March 5, 2014

PUBLISHED: April 7, 2014

# Measurement of the electroweak production of dijets in association with a Z-boson and distributions sensitive to vector boson fusion in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV using the ATLAS detector

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

The ATLAS collaboration

E-mail: atlas/publications@cern.ch

**ABSTRACT:** Measurements of fiducial cross sections for the electroweak production of two jets in association with a Z-boson are presented. The measurements are performed using $20.3 \text{ fb}^{-1}$ of proton-proton collision data collected at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider. The electroweak component is extracted by a fit to the dijet invariant mass distribution in a fiducial region chosen to enhance the electroweak contribution over the dominant background in which the jets are produced via the strong interaction. The electroweak cross sections measured in two fiducial regions are in good agreement with the Standard Model expectations and the background-only hypothesis is rejected with significance above the $5\sigma$ level. The electroweak process includes the vector boson fusion production of a Z-boson and the data are used to place limits on anomalous triple gauge boson couplings. In addition, measurements of cross sections and differential distributions for inclusive Z-boson-plus-dijet production are performed in five fiducial regions, each with different sensitivity to the electroweak contribution. The results are corrected for detector effects and compared to predictions from the Sherpa and Powheg event generators.

**KEYWORDS:** Electroweak interaction, Jets, Hadron-Hadron Scattering

ARXIV ePRINT: 1401.7610
Contents

<table><tr><td>1</td><td>Introduction</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>The ATLAS detector</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Event reconstruction and selection</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Theoretical predictions</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Monte Carlo simulation</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Fiducial cross-section measurements of inclusive Zjj production</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>6.1</td><td>Backgrounds</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>6.2</td><td>Systematic uncertainties</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>6.3</td><td>Comparison of data and simulation</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>6.4</td><td>Cross section determination</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Differential distributions of inclusive Zjj production</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>7.1</td><td>Analysis methodology and unfolding to particle level</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>7.2</td><td>Systematic uncertainties</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>7.3</td><td>Unfolded differential distributions</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Extraction of the electroweak Zjj fiducial cross section</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>8.1</td><td>Template construction and fit results</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>8.2</td><td>Validation of the control region constraint procedure</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>8.3</td><td>Systematic uncertainties on the fit procedure</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>8.4</td><td>Measurement of fiducial cross section</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>8.5</td><td>Estimate of signal significance</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td>8.6</td><td>Limits on anomalous triple gauge couplings</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Summary</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>A</td><td>Additional inclusive Zjj differential distributions</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>The ATLAS collaboration</td><td>40</td></tr></table>
# 1 Introduction

The dominant production mechanism for a leptonically decaying $Z/\gamma^*$-boson<fnref n="1" /> in association with two jets ($Zjj$) at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is via the Drell-Yan process, with the additional jets arising as a result of the strong interaction. Production of $Zjj$ events via the $t$-channel exchange of an electroweak gauge boson is a purely electroweak process and is therefore much rarer. Electroweak $Zjj$ production in the leptonic decay channel is defined to include all contributions to $\ell^+\ell^-jj$ production for which there is a $t$-channel exchange of an electroweak gauge boson [1, 2]. These contributions include $Z$-boson production via vector boson fusion (VBF), $Z$-boson bremsstrahlung and non-resonant production, as shown in figure 1. The VBF process is of particular interest because of the similarity to the VBF production of a Higgs boson and the sensitivity to anomalous WWZ triple gauge couplings.<fnref n="2" />

This paper presents two measurements of $Zjj$ production using $20.3 \text{ fb}^{-1}$ of proton-proton collision data collected by the ATLAS experiment [3] at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV:

1. Measurements of fiducial cross sections and differential distributions of inclusive $Zjj$ production. These measurements are performed in five fiducial regions with different sensitivity to the electroweak component. Inclusive $Zjj$ production is dominated by the strong production process, an example of which is shown in figure 2(a). The data therefore provide important constraints on the theoretical modelling of QCD-initiated processes that produce VBF-like topologies.<fnref n="3" />

2. Observation of electroweak $Zjj$ production and measurements of the cross section in two fiducial regions. Limits are also placed on anomalous WWZ couplings.

These measurements are performed using a combination of the $Z \to e^+e^-$ and $Z \to \mu^+\mu^-$ decay channels.

Using electroweak $Zjj$ production as a probe of colour-singlet exchange and as a validation of the vector boson fusion process has been discussed extensively in the literature [1, 4, 5]. A previous measurement by the CMS Collaboration showed evidence for electroweak $Zjj$ production using proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 7$ TeV [6]. However, due to large experimental and theoretical uncertainties associated with the modelling of strong $Zjj$ production, the background-only hypothesis could be rejected only at the $2.6\sigma$ level. The measurement presented in this paper constrains the modelling of strong $Zjj$ production using a data-driven technique. This allows the background-only hypothesis to be rejected at greater than $5\sigma$ significance and leads to a more precise cross section measurement for electroweak $Zjj$ production.

<footnote n="1">¹The contribution from $\gamma^*$ production in association with two jets is substantially reduced in this analysis by an invariant mass cut on the $Z/\gamma^*$ decay products.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²The VBF process cannot be isolated due to a large destructive interference with the electroweak $Z$-boson bremsstrahlung process. The contribution to the electroweak cross section from non-resonant $\ell^+\ell^-jj$ production is less than 1% after applying the selection criteria used in this analysis.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Inclusive $Zjj$ production contains a small (percent-level) contribution from diboson events (figure 2(b)).</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Representative leading-order Feynman diagrams for electroweak $Zjj$ production at the LHC: (a) vector boson fusion (b) Z-boson bremsstrahlung and (c) non-resonant $l^+l^-jj$ production.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Examples of leading-order Feynman diagrams for (a) strong $Zjj$ production and (b) diboson-initiated $Zjj$ production.</figcaption></figure>

## 2 The ATLAS detector

The ATLAS detector is described in detail in ref. [3]. Tracks and interaction vertices are reconstructed with the inner detector tracking system, which consists of a silicon pixel detector, a silicon microstrip detector and a transition radiation tracker, all immersed in a 2 T axial magnetic field, providing charged-particle tracking in the pseudorapidity range $|η| < 2.5$.<fnref n="4" /> The ATLAS calorimeter system provides fine-grained measurements of shower energy depositions over a wide range of $η$. An electromagnetic liquid-argon sampling calorimeter covers the region $|η| < 3.2$. It is divided into a barrel part ($|η| < 1.475$) and an endcap part ($1.375 < |η| < 3.2$). The hadronic barrel calorimeter ($|η| < 1.7$) consists of steel absorbers and active scintillator tiles. The hadronic endcap calorimeter ($1.5 < |η| < 3.2$) and forward electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeters ($3.1 < |η| < 4.9$) use liquid argon as

<footnote n="4">⁴ATLAS uses a right-handed coordinate system with its origin at the nominal interaction point (IP) in the centre of the detector and the z-axis along the beam pipe. The x-axis points from the IP to the centre of the LHC ring, and the y-axis points upward. Cylindrical coordinates $(r, φ)$ are used in the transverse plane, $φ$ being the azimuthal angle around the beam pipe. The pseudorapidity is defined in terms of the polar angle $θ$ as $η = -\ln \tan(θ/2)$. The rapidity is defined as $y = 0.5 \ln ((E + p_z) / (E - p_z))$, where $E$ and $p_z$ refer to energy and longitudinal momentum, respectively.</footnote>
the active medium. The muon spectrometer comprises separate trigger and high-precision tracking chambers measuring the deflection of muons in a magnetic field generated by superconducting air-core toroids. The precision chamber system covers the region $|η| < 2.7$ with three layers of monitored drift tube chambers, complemented by cathode strip chambers in the forward region, where the background is highest. The muon trigger system covers the range $|η| < 2.4$ with resistive plate chambers in the barrel, and thin gap chambers in the endcap regions. A three-level trigger system is used to select interesting events [7]. The Level-1 trigger reduces the event rate to less than 75 kHz using hardware-based trigger algorithms acting on a subset of detector information. Two software-based trigger levels further reduce the event rate to about 400 Hz using the complete detector information.

### 3 Event reconstruction and selection

The measurement is performed using proton-proton collision data recorded at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV. The data were collected between April and December 2012 and correspond to an integrated luminosity of 20.3 fb$^{-1}$. Events containing a Z-candidate in the $\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ decay channel were retained for further analysis using a single-muon trigger, with muon transverse momentum, $p_{T}$, greater than 24 GeV or 36 GeV (isolation criteria are applied at the lower threshold). Events containing a Z-candidate in the $e^{+}e^{-}$ decay channel were retained using a dielectron trigger with both electrons having $p_{T} > 12$ GeV.

In both decay channels, events are required to have a reconstructed collision vertex, defined by at least three associated inner detector tracks with $p_{T} > 400$ MeV. The primary vertex for each event is then defined as the collision vertex with the highest sum of squared transverse momenta of associated inner detector tracks. Finally, the event is required to be in a data-taking period in which the detector was fully operational.

Muon candidates are identified as tracks in the inner detector matched and combined with track segments in the muon spectrometer [8]. They are required to have $p_{T} > 25$ GeV and $|η| < 2.4$. In order to suppress backgrounds, track quality requirements are imposed for muon identification, and impact parameter requirements ensure that the muon candidates originate from the primary vertex. The muon candidates are also required to be isolated: the scalar sum of the $p_{T}$ of tracks with $\Delta R < 0.2$ around the muon track is required to be less than 10% of the $p_{T}$ of the muon. The radius parameter is defined as $(\Delta R)^{2} = (\Delta η)^{2} + (\Delta φ)^{2}$.

Electron candidates are reconstructed from clusters of energy in the electromagnetic calorimeter matched to inner detector tracks. They are required to have $p_{T} > 25$ GeV and $|η| < 2.47$, but excluding the transition regions between the barrel and endcap electromagnetic calorimeters, $1.37 < |η| < 1.52$. The electron candidates must satisfy a set of 'medium' selection criteria [9] that have been reoptimised for the higher rate of proton-proton collisions per beam crossing (pileup) observed in the 2012 data. Impact parameter requirements ensure the electron candidates originate from the primary vertex.

Jets are reconstructed with the anti-$k_{t}$ jet algorithm [10] with a jet-radius parameter of 0.4. The input objects to the jet algorithm are three-dimensional topological clusters of energy in the calorimeter [11]. The resultant jet energies are initially corrected to account
for soft energy arising from pileup [12]. The energy and direction of each jet is then
corrected for calorimeter non-compensation, detector material and the transition between
calorimeter regions, using a combination of MC-derived calibration constants and in situ
data-driven calibration constants [13, 14]. Jets are required to have $p_T > 25$ GeV and
$|y| < 4.4$, where $y$ is the rapidity. Additional data quality requirements are imposed to
minimise the effect of noisy calorimeter cells. To suppress jets from overlapping proton-
proton collisions, the jet vertex fraction (JVF) is used to identify jets from the primary
interaction. Tracks are associated with jets using ghost-association [15], where tracks are
assigned negligible momentum and clustered to the jet using the anti-$k_t$ algorithm. The
JVF is subsequently defined as the scalar summed transverse momentum of associated
tracks from the primary vertex divided by the summed transverse momentum of associated
tracks from all vertices. Each jet with $p_T < 50$ GeV and $|\eta| < 2.4$ is required to have
JVF > 0.5. Finally, jets are required to be well separated from any of the selected leptons
(jets within a cone of radius $\Delta R < 0.3$ in $\eta-\phi$ space around any lepton are removed from
the analysis).

# 4 Theoretical predictions

Theoretical predictions for strong and electroweak Zjj production are obtained using the Powheg Box [16–18] and Sherpa v1.4.3 [19] event generators. The small contribution from diboson events is estimated using Sherpa.

Sherpa is a matrix-element plus parton-shower generator that provides $Z + n$-parton predictions ($n = 0,1,2...$) at leading-order (LO) accuracy in perturbative QCD. The CKKW method is used to combine the various final-state topologies and match to the parton shower [20]. Electroweak Zjj production is accurate at LO for two and three partons in the final state. Strong Zjj production is accurate at LO for two, three and four partons in the final state, and the Z-boson plus zero and one parton configurations are also produced (at LO accuracy) to allow contributions from double parton scattering to be included. Diboson-initiated Zjj production (ZV) is generated with up to three partons in addition to the partonically decaying boson. For all production channels, parton-shower, hadronisation and multiple parton interaction (MPI) algorithms create the fully hadronic final state. The Sherpa predictions are produced using the CT10 [21] parton distribution functions (PDFs) and the default generator tune for underlying event activity.

The Powheg Box provides Zjj predictions at next-to-leading-order (NLO) accuracy in perturbative QCD for both electroweak and strong production [22–25]. The fully hadronic final state is produced by interfacing the Powheg Box to PYTHIA 6 [26], which provides parton showering, hadronisation and MPI. These particle level-predictions are referred to as Powheg in the remainder of this paper. The Powheg predictions are produced using the CT10 PDFs and the Perugia 2011 tune [27] for underlying event activity. The strong Zjj sample was generated with the MiNLO feature [28], which also produces Z plus zero and one jet events at LO accuracy and allows contributions to Zjj production from double parton scattering to be evaluated.
Theoretical uncertainties are estimated for the strong and electroweak $Zjj$ predictions from Sherpa and Powheg. Scale uncertainties on all theoretical predictions are estimated by varying the renormalisation and factorisation scales (separately) by a factor of 0.5 and 2.0. Additional modelling uncertainties in the Sherpa prediction arise from the choice of CKKW matching scale, the choice of parton-shower scheme, and the MPI-modelling.<fnref n="5" /> Similar modelling uncertainties in the Powheg prediction are estimated using the suite of Perugia 2011 tunes [27], with the largest effects coming from those tunes with increased/decreased parton-shower activity or increased MPI activity.

The use of independent strong and electroweak $Zjj$ samples relies on the fact that interference between the two processes is colour and kinematically suppressed, and therefore negligible. Interference between the strong and electroweak processes has been proven to be negligible for the production of the Higgs boson in association with two jets ($Hjj$) [32–35]. Although no such studies have been performed for the electroweak production of a $Zjj$ system, the interference effects arise from the same sources as $Hjj$ production and should therefore be small. The assumption of negligible interference is checked for this measurement using a combined strong/electroweak Sherpa sample that is accurate to leading order for $Zjj$ production. This combined sample includes electroweak and strong $Zjj$ matrix elements at the amplitude level and thereby calculates the interference between them. The interference contribution is established by subtracting the strong-only and electroweak-only $Zjj$ components. The impact of interference on inclusive $Zjj$ cross sections and distributions is found to be negligible. The impact of interference on the extraction of the electroweak $Zjj$ component is at the few-percent level and is discussed in more detail in section 8.

## 5 Monte Carlo simulation

Event generator samples are passed through GEANT4 [36, 37] for a full simulation [38] of the ATLAS detector and reconstructed with the same analysis chain as used for the data. Pileup is simulated by overlaying inelastic proton-proton interactions produced with PYTHIA 8 [39], tune A2 [40] with the MSTW2008LO PDF set [41].

Strong and electroweak $Zjj$ simulated events are produced using the Sherpa samples discussed in section 4. The samples are normalised to reproduce the NLO calculations for $Zjj$ production obtained from Powheg; the NLO K-factors are 1.23 and 1.02 for the strong and electroweak samples, respectively. The contribution from $ZV$ events is also produced using Sherpa. To cross-check aspects of the theoretical modelling of strong $Zjj$ production at the detector level, a small simulated sample of $Zjj$ events is produced using ALPGEN [42]. ALPGEN is a leading-order matrix-element generator that produces $Z$-boson

<footnote n="5">⁵The uncertainty in the CKKW matching is determined by increasing the matching scale by a factor of two. Uncertainties associated with the parton shower are estimated by changing the recoil strategy for dipoles with initial-state emitter and final-state spectator, from the default [29] to that proposed in ref. [30]. The uncertainty due to a potential mismodelling of the underlying event is estimated by increasing the MPI activity uniformly by 10% [31], or changing the shape of the MPI spectrum such that more jets from double parton scattering are produced. The parameter variations for the latter are: SIGMA_ND FACTOR=0.14 and SCALE_MIN=4.0</footnote>
events with up to five additional partons in the final state and is interfaced to HERWIG [43, 44] and JIMMY [45] to add the parton shower, hadronisation and MPI (AUET2 tune [46]).

Background events stemming from $t\bar{t}$ and single-top production are produced using MC@NLO v4.03 [47] interfaced to HERWIG and JIMMY (AUET2 tune). The generator modelling of $t\bar{t}$ events is cross-checked with a simulated sample produced using the Powheg Box interfaced to PYTHIA 6 (Perugia 2011 tune). The $t\bar{t}$ samples are normalised to a next-to-next-to-leading-order (NNLO) calculation in QCD including resummation of next-to-next-to-leading-logarithmic (NNLL) soft gluon terms [48]. The backgrounds arising from WW and W+jets events are produced using Sherpa.

# 6 Fiducial cross-section measurements of inclusive Zjj production

The cross section for inclusive Zjj production, $\sigma_{fid}$, is defined by

$$ \sigma_{fid} = \frac{N_{obs} - N_{bkg}}{\int L dt \cdot C} \qquad (6.1) $$

where $N_{obs}$ is the number of events observed in the data passing the reconstruction-level selection criteria, $N_{bkg}$ is the expected number of background events, $\int L dt$ is the integrated luminosity and C is a correction factor accounting for differences in event yields at reconstruction and particle level due to detector inefficiencies and resolutions.

The particle-level prediction is constructed using final-state particles with mean lifetime ($c\tau$) longer than 10 mm. Leptons are defined as objects constructed from the four-momentum combination of an electron (or muon) and all nearby photons in a cone of radius $\Delta R = 0.1$ in $\eta-\phi$ space centred on the lepton (so-called 'dressed leptons'). Leptons are required to have $p_T > 25$ GeV and $|\eta| < 2.47$. Jets are reconstructed using the anti-$k_t$ algorithm with a jet-radius parameter of 0.4. Jets are required to have $p_T > 25$ GeV, $|y| < 4.4$ and $\Delta R_{j,\ell} \ge 0.3$, where $\Delta R_{j,\ell}$ is the distance in $\eta-\phi$ space between the jet and the selected leptons.

The cross section for inclusive Zjj production is measured in five fiducial regions, each with different sensitivity to the electroweak component of Zjj production. A summary of the selection criteria for each fiducial region is given in table 1. The search region is chosen to optimise the expected significance when extracting the electroweak Zjj component, and is defined as:

* A Z-boson candidate, defined as exactly two oppositely charged, same-flavour leptons with a dilepton invariant mass of $81 \le m_{\ell\ell} < 101$ GeV.

* The transverse momentum of the dilepton pair must satisfy $p_T^{\ell\ell} > 20$ GeV.

* At least two jets that satisfy $p_T^{j_1} > 55$ GeV, $p_T^{j_2} > 45$ GeV, where $j_1$ and $j_2$ label the highest and second highest transverse momentum jets in the event.

* The invariant mass of the two leading jets is required to satisfy $m_{jj} > 250$ GeV.

* No additional jets with $p_T > 25$ GeV in the rapidity interval between the two leading jets.
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Summary of the selection criteria that define the fiducial regions. ‘Interval jets’ refer to the selection criteria applied to the jets that lie in the rapidity interval bounded by the dijet system.</caption><thead><tr><th>Object</th><th>baseline</th><th>high-mass</th><th>search</th><th>control</th><th>high-p<sub>T</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Leptons</td><td colspan="5">|η<sup>ℓ</sup>| &lt; 2.47, p<sub>T</sub><sup>ℓ</sup> &gt; 25 GeV</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Dilepton pair</td><td colspan="5">81 ≤ m<sub>ℓℓ</sub> ≤ 101 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>—</td><td colspan="3">p<sub>T</sub><sup>ℓℓ</sup> &gt; 20 GeV</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Jets</td><td colspan="5">|y<sup>j</sup>| &lt; 4.4, ΔR<sub>j,ℓ</sub> ≥ 0.3</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">p<sub>T</sub><sup>j1</sup> &gt; 55 GeV</td><td colspan="3">p<sub>T</sub><sup>j1</sup> &gt; 85 GeV</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">p<sub>T</sub><sup>j2</sup> &gt; 45 GeV</td><td colspan="3">p<sub>T</sub><sup>j2</sup> &gt; 75 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>Dijet system</td><td>—</td><td>m<sub>jj</sub> &gt; 1 TeV</td><td colspan="3">m<sub>jj</sub> &gt; 250 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>Interval jets</td><td>—</td><td colspan="2">N<sub>jet</sub><sup>gap</sup> = 0</td><td>N<sub>jet</sub><sup>gap</sup> ≥ 1</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Zjj system</td><td>—</td><td colspan="2">p<sub>T</sub><sup>balance</sup> &lt; 0.15</td><td>p<sub>T</sub><sup>balance,3</sup> &lt; 0.15</td><td>—</td></tr></tbody></table>

* The normalised transverse-momentum balance between the two leptons and the two highest transverse momentum jets, $p_T^{\text{balance}}$, is required to be less than 0.15. The $p_T^{\text{balance}}$ is defined as

$$p_T^{\text{balance}} = \frac{|\vec{p}_T^{\ell_1} + \vec{p}_T^{\ell_2} + \vec{p}_T^{j_1} + \vec{p}_T^{j_2}|}{|\vec{p}_T^{\ell_1}| + |\vec{p}_T^{\ell_2}| + |\vec{p}_T^{j_1}| + |\vec{p}_T^{j_2}|}, \quad (6.2)$$

where $\vec{p}_T^i$ is the transverse momentum vector of object $i$, and $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ label the two leptons that define the Z-boson candidate.

The tight cut on the dilepton invariant mass is chosen to suppress backgrounds from events that do not contain a Z-boson. The high-$p_T$ requirement on the two leading jets and the veto on additional jet activity preferentially suppress strong Zjj production with respect to electroweak Zjj production. The dijet invariant mass criterion removes a large fraction of diboson events. The $p_T^{\text{balance}}$ and $p_T^{\ell\ell}$ requirements reduce the impact of those events containing jets that originate from pileup interactions or multiple parton interactions. Events with poorly measured jets are also removed by the $p_T^{\text{balance}}$ requirement.

The control region criteria are chosen in order to suppress the electroweak Zjj contribution, allowing the theoretical modelling of strong Zjj production to be evaluated. The selection criteria are similar to the search region, with two modifications: (i) at least one additional jet with $p_T > 25$ GeV must be present in the rapidity interval between the two leading jets. (ii) the transverse-momentum balancing variable is redefined to use the two leptons, the two highest transverse momentum jets, and the highest transverse momentum jet in the rapidity interval bounded by the two leading jets. This variable, $p_T^{\text{balance},3}$, is defined in an analogous way to the $p_T^{\text{balance}}$ variable in eq. (6.2), but incorporating the additional jet in the numerator and denominator.
The remaining three fiducial regions are chosen with fewer selection criteria, in order to study inclusive Zjj production in simpler topologies. The baseline region is defined as containing a Z-boson candidate plus at least two jets with $p_T^{j1} > 55$ GeV and $p_T^{j2} > 45$ GeV. This is the most inclusive fiducial region examined and contains the events in all other fiducial regions. The high-mass region is chosen as the subset of these events that have $m_{jj} > 1$ TeV. The high-$p_T$ region is defined as containing a Z-boson candidate plus at least two jets with $p_T^{j1} > 85$ GeV and $p_T^{j2} > 75$ GeV. The high-mass and high-$p_T$ regions are useful to probe the impact of the electroweak Zjj process, which produces a harder jet transverse momentum and harder dijet invariant mass than the strong Zjj process.

The simulation-based correction factor (C) used to correct the measurement to the particle level is estimated using the Sherpa Zjj samples. The correction factor is found to lie between 0.80 and 0.92 in the muon channel, and between 0.64 and 0.71 in the electron channel, depending on the fiducial region. The difference between the channels arises primarily from the different efficiency in reconstructing and identifying electrons and muons in the detector.

## 6.1 Backgrounds

The contributions from the $t\bar{t}$, WW, $tW$ and W+jets background processes are obtained by applying the analysis chain to the dedicated simulated samples introduced in section 5. The multijet background contributes if two jets are misidentified as leptons or contain leptons from b- or c-hadron decays. A multijet sample is obtained from the data by reversing some of the electron identification criteria for the analysis in the electron channel, or reversing the muon isolation criteria for the analysis in the muon channel. The normalisation of the multijet sample in each fiducial region is then obtained by a two-component template fit to the dilepton invariant mass distributions, using the multijet template and a template formed from all other processes.

Table 2 shows the composition by percentage of the predicted signal and background processes in each of the five fiducial regions. The event sample is dominated by processes producing a Z-boson in the final state. The dominant background to inclusive Zjj production is from $t\bar{t}$ production.

## 6.2 Systematic uncertainties

The systematic uncertainties on the lepton reconstruction, identification, isolation and trigger efficiencies, as well as the lepton momentum scale and resolution, are defined in refs. [9, 49]. The total impact of the lepton-based systematic uncertainties on the cross-section measurement in each fiducial region is typically 3% in the electron channel and 2% in the muon channel. The uncertainty on the integrated luminosity is estimated to be 2.8%, using the methodology detailed in ref. [50] for beam-separation scans performed in November 2012.

The jet energy scale (JES) and jet energy resolution (JER) uncertainties account for differences between the calorimeter response in simulation and data [13, 14, 51]. The JES uncertainty for 2012 data includes components for the soft-energy pileup corrections, the MC-based/data-driven calibration constants, the calibration of forward jets, and the
<table><caption>**Table 2.** Process composition (%) for each fiducial region for the combined muon and electron channels. The strong Zjj, electroweak Zjj, diboson, t<span style="text-decoration: overline;">t</span>, W+jets and tW rates are estimated by running the analysis chain over MC samples fully simulated in the ATLAS detector. The multijet background is estimated using a data-driven technique.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Process</th><th colspan="5">Composition (%)</th></tr><tr><th>baseline</th><th>high-p<sub>T</sub></th><th>search</th><th>control</th><th>high-mass</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Strong Z<sub>jj</sub></td><td>95.8</td><td>94.0</td><td>94.7</td><td>96.0</td><td>85</td></tr><tr><td>Electroweak Z<sub>jj</sub></td><td>1.1</td><td>2.1</td><td>4.0</td><td>1.4</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>WZ and ZZ</td><td>1.0</td><td>1.3</td><td>0.7</td><td>1.4</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>t<span style="text-decoration: overline;">t</span></td><td>1.8</td><td>2.2</td><td>0.6</td><td>1.0</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Single top</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.1</td><td>&lt; 0.1</td><td>&lt; 0.1</td><td>&lt; 0.1</td></tr><tr><td>Multijet</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.2</td><td>&lt; 0.1</td><td>0.2</td><td>&lt; 0.1</td></tr><tr><td>WW, W+jets</td><td>&lt; 0.1</td><td>&lt; 0.1</td><td>&lt; 0.1</td><td>&lt; 1.1</td><td>&lt; 0.1</td></tr></tbody></table>

unknown jet flavour.<fnref n="6" /> The uncertainty due to JES is the dominant systematic uncertainty, ranging from 7.5% in the *search* region to 19% in the *high-mass* region. The uncertainty due to JER is much smaller, ranging from 0.1% in the *high-p<sub>T</sub>* region to 5% in the *high-mass* region.

The JVF cut removes a fraction of the jets associated with the primary vertex in addition to the jets originating from pileup interactions. Any mismodelling of the JVF distribution therefore introduces a possible bias in the shape and normalisation of the distributions. A systematic uncertainty is determined after repeating the full analysis using modified JVF cuts that cover possible differences in efficiency between data and simulation. The JVF cuts are varied by ±0.03 and the uncertainty due to JVF modelling is found to be between 0.2% and 2.8% in the *baseline* and *control* regions, respectively.

Hard jets originating from the additional (pileup) interactions are also reconstructed in the event and any mismodelling of pileup jets in the simulation is a source of systematic uncertainty. In the central calorimeter region, the JVF cut removes a large fraction of these jets. In the forward calorimeter regions (outside the inner detector acceptance), no track-based cut can be applied to remove these pileup jets. To estimate the impact of a possible mismodelling of the jets originating from pileup, the analysis is repeated using the simulated samples after removing pileup jets, defined as those reconstruction-level jets that are not matched ($\Delta R \le 0.3$) to a particle-level jet from the hard scattering process with $p_T > 10$ GeV. The effect of pileup on each cross section measurement is then determined by comparing the reconstruction-level event yield obtained in simulation after applying jet matching to that obtained with no matching applied. Studies of the central jet transverse momentum in a pileup-enhanced sample (JVF < 0.1), and the transverse energy density in the forward region of the detector [52], indicate that the simulation could be mismodelling the number of pileup jets by up to 35%. The difference between the reconstruction-level event yields obtained with and without jet matching is therefore scaled by 0.35 and taken

<footnote n="6">⁶The jet flavour uncertainty refers to the different calorimeter response for quark-initiated and gluon-initiated jets.</footnote>
as a two-sided systematic uncertainty on the fiducial cross section. The impact on the final measurement is not large, ranging from less than 0.1% in the *search* region to 2.3% in the *baseline* region.

In addition to the experimental uncertainties discussed above, systematic uncertainties on the correction factor, $C$, due to possible event generator mismodelling are evaluated. These generator modelling uncertainties are estimated by reweighting the events, at reconstruction level and particle level, such that the kinematic distributions in the simulation match those observed in the data. The reweighting is carried out for the two lepton transverse momenta and pseudorapidities, the two leading jet transverse momenta and pseudorapidities, and the variables used to define the fiducial regions. The correction factor is re-evaluated for each reweighting and the difference with respect to the nominal correction factor is taken as a theory modelling uncertainty. The uncertainty on the correction factor from theoretical modelling ranges from 1% in the *baseline* region to 6.6% in the *high-mass* region.

The uncertainty due to background subtraction is found to be between 0.2% in the *search* region and 0.5% in the *high-mass* region. This accounts for the uncertainty in the normalisation of the inclusive $t\bar{t}$ sample, generator modelling differences in $t\bar{t}$ events predicted by MC@NLO and Powheg, and the uncertainty in the data-driven method used to determine the multijet background.

The total systematic uncertainty on the inclusive $Zjj$ cross-section measurement in each fiducial region is defined as the quadrature sum of all sources of experimental and theoretical uncertainty.

## 6.3 Comparison of data and simulation

Figure 3 shows data compared to MC simulation in the *baseline* region, as a function of the leading jet transverse momentum and rapidity, the subleading jet transverse momentum and rapidity, and the invariant mass and rapidity separation of the two leading jets. The uncertainty on the simulation due to the experimental systematic uncertainties is shown in the ratio as a hatched (blue) band. In general, the simulation gives an adequate description of the data, although there are indications of generator mismodelling at high jet transverse momentum and high dijet invariant mass. The contribution from $t\bar{t}$ and multijet events remains small in each bin of the distributions.

## 6.4 Cross section determination

The cross sections are measured in the muon and electron decay channels separately. The cross-section measured in each fiducial region is found to be compatible between the two channels, with a maximum difference of $1.1\sigma$ after accounting for those uncertainties that are uncorrelated between channels. The results are then combined$^7$ to obtain a weighted average, with each channel's weight set to the inverse squared uncorrelated uncertainty. Table 3 presents the measured inclusive $Zjj$ cross sections in the five fiducial regions together

<footnote>$^7$The individual- and combined-channel cross sections are defined using dressed leptons as discussed in section 6. Cross sections defined using ‘Born’ leptons (which originate directly from the $Z$-boson decay and before final state QED radiation) would differ by 2–3%.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>(a)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>(b)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>(c)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>(d)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>(e)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>(f)</figcaption></figure>

**Figure 3.** Comparison of data and simulation in the *baseline* region for (a,b) the leading jet transverse momentum and rapidity, (c,d) the subleading jet transverse momentum and rapidity, (e,f) the invariant mass and rapidity span of the dijet system. The simulated samples are normalised to the cross-section predictions discussed in section 5 and then stacked. The error bars reflect the statistical uncertainties of the data. The hatched band in the ratio reflects the total experimental systematic uncertainty on the simulation.
<table><caption>**Table 3.** Fiducial cross sections for inclusive Zjj production, measured in the $Z \to \ell^+\ell^-$ decay channel.</caption><thead><tr><th>Fiducial region</th><th colspan="5">σ<sub>fid</sub> (pb)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>baseline</td><td>5.88 ± 0.01 (stat)</td><td>± 0.62 (syst)</td><td>± 0.17 (lumi)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>high-p<sub>T</sub></td><td>1.82 ± 0.01 (stat)</td><td>± 0.17 (syst)</td><td>± 0.05 (lumi)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>high-mass</td><td>0.066 ± 0.001 (stat)</td><td>± 0.012 (syst)</td><td>± 0.002 (lumi)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>search</td><td>1.10 ± 0.01 (stat)</td><td>± 0.09 (syst)</td><td>± 0.03 (lumi)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>control</td><td>0.447 ± 0.004 (stat)</td><td>± 0.059 (syst)</td><td>± 0.013 (lumi)</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 4.** Theory predictions for inclusive Zjj production cross sections in the $Z \to \ell^+\ell^-$ decay channel. The strong Zjj and electroweak Zjj events are produced using Powheg. A small contribution of ZV events, produced by Sherpa, is also included. The PDF uncertainty is estimated from the CT10 eigenvectors using the procedure described in ref. [21]. Scale and modelling uncertainties are each estimated from the envelope of Powheg sample variations discussed in section 4.</caption><thead><tr><th>Fiducial region</th><th colspan="6">σ<sub>theory</sub> (pb)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>baseline</td><td>6.26 ± 0.06 (stat)</td><td>+0.50<br>-0.60 (scale)</td><td>+0.29<br>-0.35 (PDF)</td><td>+0.19<br>-0.25 (model)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>high-p<sub>T</sub></td><td>1.92 ± 0.02 (stat)</td><td>+0.17<br>-0.20 (scale)</td><td>+0.09<br>-0.10 (PDF)</td><td>+0.05<br>-0.07 (model)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>high-mass</td><td>0.068 ± 0.001 (stat)</td><td>+0.009<br>-0.009 (scale)</td><td>+0.004<br>-0.003 (PDF)</td><td>+0.004<br>-0.002 (model)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>search</td><td>1.23 ± 0.01 (stat)</td><td>+0.11<br>-0.13 (scale)</td><td>+0.06<br>-0.07 (PDF)</td><td>+0.03<br>-0.04 (model)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>control</td><td>0.444 ± 0.005 (stat)</td><td>+0.051<br>-0.054 (scale)</td><td>+0.021<br>-0.025 (PDF)</td><td>+0.032<br>-0.034 (model)</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

with their statistical and systematic uncertainties. Table 4 presents the Powheg prediction for strong and electroweak Zjj production, combined with the Sherpa prediction for the small contribution from diboson processes. Uncertainties on the theoretical predictions are broken down into statistical, scale, PDF and generator modelling uncertainties. Good agreement between data and theory is observed in all fiducial regions and a summary is shown in figure 4.

# 7 Differential distributions of inclusive Zjj production

In this section, inclusive Zjj differential distributions are measured in the five fiducial regions presented in the previous section. The theoretical modelling of strong Zjj production is therefore confronted in regions with differing sensitivity to the electroweak Zjj component. The data are fully corrected for detector effects and are provided in HEPDATA [53] with full correlation information. The distributions sensitive to the kinematics of the two tagging jets are:

* $\frac{1}{\sigma} \cdot \frac{d\sigma}{dm_{jj}}$: the normalised distribution of the dijet invariant mass of the two leading jets, $m_{jj}$.

* $\frac{1}{\sigma} \cdot \frac{d\sigma}{d|\Delta y|}$: the normalised distribution of the difference in rapidity between the two leading jets, $|\Delta y|$.
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.** Fiducial cross-section measurements for inclusive Zjj production in the $Z \to \ell^+\ell^-$ decay channel, compared to the Powheg prediction for strong and electroweak Zjj production and the small contribution from ZV production predicted by Sherpa. The (black) circles represent the data and the associated error bar is the total uncertainty in the measurement. The (red) triangles represent the theoretical prediction, the associated error bar (or hatched band in the lower plot) is the total theoretical uncertainty on the prediction.</figcaption></figure>

• $\frac{1}{\sigma} \cdot \frac{d\sigma}{d|\Delta\phi(j,j)|}$: the normalised distribution of the difference in azimuthal angle between the two leading jets, $\Delta\phi(j,j)$.

The distributions sensitive to the difference in t-channel colour flow between electroweak and strong production of Zjj events include:

• $\frac{1}{\sigma} \cdot \frac{d\sigma}{dN_{jet}^{gap}}$: the normalised distribution of the number of jets, $N_{jet}^{gap}$, with $p_T > 25$ GeV in the rapidity interval bounded by the two highest-$p_T$ jets.

• $\frac{1}{\sigma} \cdot \frac{d\sigma}{dp_T^{balance}}$: the normalised distribution of the $p_T$-balancing distribution, $p_T^{balance}$ (see eq. (6.2)).

• The fraction of events that contain no additional jets with $p_T > 25$ GeV in the rapidity interval bounded by the two highest-$p_T$ jets (the *jet veto efficiency*) as a function of $m_{jj}$ and $|\Delta y|$.

• The average number of jets with $p_T > 25$ GeV in the rapidity interval bounded by the two highest-$p_T$ jets, $\langle N_{jet}^{gap} \rangle$, as a function of $m_{jj}$ and $|\Delta y|$.

• The fraction of events with $p_T^{balance} < 0.15$ ($p_T^{balance}$ *cut efficiency*) as a function of $m_{jj}$ and $|\Delta y|$.

## 7.1 Analysis methodology and unfolding to particle level

The differential distributions are normalised to unity after subtracting the small background contributions from $t\bar{t}$ and multijet events in each bin of the distributions. An
iterative Bayesian unfolding procedure [54, 55] is then applied to the data to produce dis-
tributions at the particle level. This procedure uses a detector response matrix to reverse
the bin migration caused by finite detector resolution. The response matrix is constructed
from the strong and electroweak Zjj simulated samples for each distribution. Events that
pass the reconstruction-level but not the particle-level selection criteria (or vice versa) are
also corrected for as part of the unfolding procedure.

The Bayesian unfolding procedure relies on knowledge of the underlying particle-level distribution. This 'prior' distribution is taken to be the particle-level prediction from Sherpa. After the first unfolding iteration, the input prior is replaced with the unfolded distribution from the data and the unfolding process is repeated. It is found that two iterations are sufficient to ensure convergence of the results.

The statistical uncertainty on the data after unfolding is computed using pseudo-
experiments. The statistical correlation between the numerator and the denominator in
the jet veto distributions is retained by unfolding two-dimensional distributions constructed
from the dijet observable ($m_{jj}$, $|\Delta y|$) and information as to whether events passed or failed
the efficiency criterion. The $p_T^{\text{balance}}$ cut efficiency distribution is unfolded in a similar
way. Correlations in the $\langle N_{\text{jet}}^{\text{gap}} \rangle$ distributions are retained by unfolding a two-dimensional
distribution constructed from the dijet observable and the number of jets in the rapidity
interval between the two leading jets. Statistical correlations between bins from different
unfolded distributions are estimated using a bootstrap method [56].

## 7.2 Systematic uncertainties

The sources of experimental and theoretical uncertainty include all of those present in
the measurement of the inclusive Zjj fiducial cross section (section 6.2). The impact
of lepton-based and luminosity systematic uncertainties on the measured distributions is
negligible and the experimental systematic uncertainties therefore arise from JES, JER,
JVF, as well as pileup jet modelling. The theoretical modelling uncertainties are again
estimated by reweighting the simulation, such that the kinematic distributions of the vari-
ables used to define the fiducial regions match those observed in the data. An additional
uncertainty associated with the closure of the Bayesian iterative procedure is estimated
by reweighting the simulated events such that the reconstruction-level distribution being
unfolded better matches the one observed in the data. The reweighting functions applied
at the particle level are taken to be the ratio of the reconstruction-level distributions in
data and simulation.

For all sources of systematic uncertainty, the data are unfolded using a new response
matrix constructed after shifting and smearing the MC events and objects. The shift in the
unfolded spectrum is taken as the systematic uncertainty on the final result. The dominant
uncertainties arise from the JES and JER, with small additional uncertainties from JVF,
pileup modelling and theoretical modelling. The systematic uncertainties are presented in
figure 5 for the $\frac{1}{\sigma} \cdot \frac{d\sigma}{d|\Delta y|}$ distribution and the jet veto efficiency as a function of $|\Delta y|$, in the
baseline region. The total systematic uncertainty in each bin is defined as the quadrature
sum of the individual sources of experimental and theoretical uncertainty.
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.** Example systematic uncertainty breakdown for the $\frac{1}{\sigma} \cdot \frac{d\sigma}{d|\Delta y|}$ distribution and the jet veto efficiency as a function of $|\Delta y|$ in the *baseline* region. The effect of MC statistics, pileup modelling and JVF modelling are combined into one uncertainty labelled ‘other’.</figcaption></figure>

The unfolding procedure is cross-checked using the simulated ALPGEN sample in place of the Sherpa strong Zjj sample. The data are unfolded using the new response matrix formed from these simulated events. The data unfolded using the ALPGEN- and Sherpa-based response matrices are found to agree, after accounting for the larger statistical uncertainty in the ALPGEN sample in addition to the theory modelling and closure uncertainties assigned to the nominal result.

## 7.3 Unfolded differential distributions

The unfolded data are compared to particle-level predictions from Powheg and Sherpa in figures 6–10. The theoretical predictions are shown for combined electroweak and strong Zjj production and for strong Zjj production only. The theoretical uncertainty on the combined electroweak and strong Zjj prediction is estimated using the envelope of theory modelling uncertainties discussed in section 4. The contribution from diboson production is neglected for the theoretical predictions as the impact on the distributions is negligible.

The unfolded $\frac{1}{\sigma} \cdot \frac{d\sigma}{dm_{jj}}$ and $\frac{1}{\sigma} \cdot \frac{d\sigma}{d|\Delta y|}$ distributions are shown in figure 6 and 7, respectively, for the *baseline* and *search* regions (corresponding distributions in the *high-pT* and *control* regions are provided in appendix A). Both of these distributions are sensitive to the difference between electroweak and strong production of Zjj events, especially at large $m_{jj}$ or $|\Delta y|$. In the electroweak process, the masses of the exchanged electroweak bosons lead to jets produced preferentially at large rapidities with sizeable transverse momentum. Furthermore, strong Zjj production typically involves the t-channel exchange of a spin-1/2 quark, which leads to steeper $m_{jj}$ and $|\Delta y|$ spectra than the spin-1 exchange that is present in electroweak Zjj production.

In the *baseline* region, the Powheg prediction is accurate to NLO in perturbative QCD and better describes the data at the highest values of $m_{jj}$ and $|\Delta y|$ than Sherpa, which is accurate to LO. In particular, Sherpa predicts too large a fraction of events at large $m_{jj}$ and $|\Delta y|$, a feature also seen in previous measurements at the LHC and Tevatron [57, 58].
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6.** Unfolded $\frac{1}{\sigma} \cdot \frac{d\sigma}{dm_{jj}}$ distribution in the (a) baseline and (b) search regions. The data are shown as filled (black) circles. The vertical error bars show the size of the total uncertainty on the measurement, with tick marks used to reflect the size of the statistical uncertainty only. Particle-level predictions from Sherpa and Powheg are shown for combined strong and electroweak $Zjj$ production (labelled as QCD+EW) by hatched bands, denoting the model uncertainty, around the central prediction, which is shown as a solid line. The predictions from Sherpa and Powheg for strong $Zjj$ production (labelled QCD) are shown as dashed lines.</figcaption></figure>

In the *search* region, the veto on additional jet activity means that both **Sherpa** and **Powheg** are accurate only to LO. Despite this, both predictions give a satisfactory description of the data if both strong and electroweak $Zjj$ production are included. The contribution from electroweak $Zjj$ production is evident at high $m_{jj}$ and high $|\Delta y|$ in the *search* region for both event generators.

The unfolded $\frac{1}{\sigma} \cdot \frac{d\sigma}{dN_{jet}^{gap}}$, $\frac{1}{\sigma} \cdot \frac{d\sigma}{dp_{T}^{balance}}$ and $\frac{1}{\sigma} \cdot \frac{d\sigma}{d|\Delta\phi(j,j)|}$ distributions are shown in the *high-mass* region in figure 8. Quark/gluon radiation from the electroweak $Zjj$ process is much less likely than in the strong $Zjj$ process because there is no colour flow between the two jets. The contribution from electroweak $Zjj$ production is clear in the low-multiplicity region of the $\frac{1}{\sigma} \cdot \frac{d\sigma}{dN_{jet}^{gap}}$ distribution for both **Powheg** and **Sherpa**, demonstrating the effectiveness of the jet veto at separating the strong and electroweak components of $Zjj$ production. Both **Powheg** and **Sherpa** adequately describe the data for the $\frac{1}{\sigma} \cdot \frac{d\sigma}{dp_{T}^{balance}}$ and $\frac{1}{\sigma} \cdot \frac{d\sigma}{d|\Delta\phi(j,j)|}$ distributions; the latter distribution has little sensitivity to the electroweak process.<fnref n="8" />

<footnote n="8">⁸Although the azimuthal angle between the jets is not sensitive to the differences between strong and electroweak $Zjj$ production, it is of interest in Higgs-plus-two-jet studies, as the vector boson fusion and gluon fusion production channels have very different azimuthal structure [59–61].</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 7.** Unfolded $\frac{1}{\sigma} \cdot \frac{d\sigma}{d|\Delta y|}$ distribution in the (a) baseline and (b) search regions. The data and theoretical predictions are presented in the same way as in figure 6.</figcaption></figure>

Figure 9 shows the unfolded jet veto efficiency and $\langle N_{jet}^{gap} \rangle$ distributions as a function of $m_{jj}$ and $|\Delta y|$ in the baseline region (corresponding distributions in the high-$p_T$ region are provided in appendix A). These variables probe the theoretical description of wide-angle quark and gluon radiation in strong $Zjj$ events as a function of the energy scale of the dijet system. For the electroweak process, quark and gluon radiation into the rapidity interval is suppressed and little jet activity is expected. This is evident at medium-to-high values of $m_{jj}$, for which the strong $Zjj$ prediction has more jet activity than the combined strong and electroweak $Zjj$ prediction. In general, both theoretical predictions give a good description of the data (for combined strong and electroweak $Zjj$ production), although Sherpa gives a slightly better description than Powheg when compared across both the $m_{jj}$ and $|\Delta y|$ distributions. Sherpa and Powheg have previously provided a good description of the jet activity in the rapidity interval bounded by a dijet system in purely dijet topologies [31, 62].

The unfolded $p_T^{\text{balance}}$ cut efficiency as a function of $m_{jj}$ and $|\Delta y|$ in the baseline region is shown in figure 10 (the corresponding distribution in the high-$p_T$ region is provided in appendix A). Again, with less quark/gluon radiation from the electroweak process, it is expected that the two jets are better balanced against the Z-boson for the electroweak $Zjj$ process than for the strong $Zjj$ process. This is apparent at high $m_{jj}$ and high $|\Delta y|$, where the strong $Zjj$ prediction falls below the data. For this distribution, Powheg describes the data poorly at low values of $m_{jj}$ or $|\Delta y|$, whereas Sherpa gives a good description of the data over the full range of the distributions.

In general, neither Sherpa nor Powheg is able to fully reproduce the data for all distributions in all fiducial regions. Powheg gives a better description of the data than Sherpa.
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 8.** Unfolded (a) $\frac{1}{\sigma} \cdot \frac{d\sigma}{dN_{jet}^{gap}}$, (b) $\frac{1}{\sigma} \cdot \frac{d\sigma}{dp_{T}^{balance}}$ and (c) $\frac{1}{\sigma} \cdot \frac{d\sigma}{d|\Delta\phi(j,j)|}$ distributions in the high-mass region. The data and theoretical predictions are presented in the same way as in figure 6.</figcaption></figure>

for the $m_{jj}$ and $|\Delta y|$ distributions, with **Sherpa** predicting too large a cross section at the highest values of $m_{jj}$ or $|\Delta y|$. However, **Sherpa** gives a better description for variables sensitive to the additional jet activity in the event, with **Powheg** predicting too little jet activity.
<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>Figure 9. Unfolded jet veto efficiency versus (a) $m_{jj}$ and (b) $|\Delta y|$, and unfolded $\langle N_{jet}^{\text{gap}} \rangle$ versus (c) $m_{jj}$ and (d) $|\Delta y|$. All distributions are measured in the baseline region. The data and theoretical predictions are presented in the same way as in figure 6.</figcaption></figure>

tivity in the rapidity interval bounded by the dijet system. The unfolded data can be used to constrain the modelling of $Z_{jj}$ production in the extreme phase-space regions probed in this measurement. The unfolded data are provided in HEPDATA with statistical and sys-
<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 10.** Unfolded $p_T^{\text{balance}}$ cut efficiency versus (a) $m_{jj}$ and (b) $|\Delta y|$ in the baseline region. The data and theoretical predictions are presented in the same way as in figure 6.</figcaption></figure>

tematic uncertainties. Furthermore, the correlation between bins of different distributions is provided, allowing the quantitative comparison of all distributions simultaneously.

# 8 Extraction of the electroweak Zjj fiducial cross section

The electroweak $Zjj$ component is extracted by fitting the dijet invariant mass reconstructed in the *search* region. Templates are formed for the signal and background processes and a fit to the dijet invariant mass distribution in the data is performed, allowing the normalisation of each template to float. The fit is performed using a log-likelihood maximisation [63] and the number of signal and background events is extracted. The number of signal events is then converted into a fiducial cross section, using a correction factor to convert from the reconstruction-level event selection to the particle-level event selection.

## 8.1 Template construction and fit results

The signal template is obtained from the **Sherpa** electroweak $Zjj$ sample. The background template is constructed from the **Sherpa** strong $Zjj$ sample plus the small contribution from the diboson and $t\bar{t}$ samples (the other background sources are found to have negligible impact on the results). The background template is then constrained using the following data-driven technique. The dijet invariant mass distributions are constructed for data and MC simulation in the *control* region and a reweighting function is defined by fitting the ratio of the data to MC simulation with a second-order polynomial. This reweighting function is then applied directly to the background template in the *search* region. The
<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 11.** (a) The dijet invariant mass distribution in the *control* region. The simulation has been normalised to match the number of events observed in the data. The lower panel shows the reweighting function used to constrain the shape of the background template. (b) The dijet invariant mass distribution in the *search* region. The signal and (constrained) background templates are scaled to match the number of events obtained in the fit. The lowest panel shows the ratio of constrained and unconstrained background templates to the data.</figcaption></figure>

data are therefore used to constrain the generator modelling of the background $m_{jj}$ shape, and the MC simulation is used only to extrapolate this constraint between the *control* and *search* regions. This procedure has the advantage of minimising both the experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties on the background template. Figure 11(a) shows the dijet invariant mass distribution in the *control* region for the data and the MC simulation for the electron and muon channels combined. The reweighting function is shown in the lower panel. The use of the *control* region to constrain the background template is validated in section 8.2 and corresponding systematic uncertainties are presented in section 8.3.

Figure 11(b) shows the dijet invariant mass distribution in the *search* region for the electron and muon channels combined. The signal and background templates are normalised to the values obtained from the fit. The background template is presented after the data-driven reweighting using the second-order polynomial in figure 11 (a). The unconstrained background template is also compared to the data in the lowest panel, demonstrating that the background-only prediction always falls below the data at high-$m_{jj}$.

Table 5 summarises the fit results, giving the number of signal ($N_{EW}$) and background ($N_{bkg}$) events expected by the MC simulation and the number obtained from the fit, together with the statistical uncertainties from the data (first uncertainty) and MC templates (second uncertainty). The results are shown for electrons and muons separately and also with both channels combined, where the latter result is obtained by combining the two
<table><caption>**Table 5.** The number of strong ($N_{bkg}$) and electroweak ($N_{EW}$) Zjj events as predicted by the MC simulation and obtained from a fit to the data. The number of events in data is also given. The first and second uncertainties on the fitted yields are due to statistical uncertainties in data and simulation, respectively. The first and second uncertainties in the MC prediction are the experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties, respectively.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Electron</th><th>Muon</th><th>Electron+muon</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Data</td><td>14248</td><td>17938</td><td>32186</td></tr><tr><td>MC predicted N<sub>bkg</sub></td><td>13700 ± 1200<sup>+1400</sup><sub>-1700</sub></td><td>18600 ± 1500<sup>+1900</sup><sub>-2300</sub></td><td>32600 ± 2600<sup>+3400</sup><sub>-4000</sub></td></tr><tr><td>MC predicted N<sub>EW</sub></td><td>602 ± 27 ± 18</td><td>731 ± 29 ± 22</td><td>1333 ± 50 ± 40</td></tr><tr><td>Fitted N<sub>bkg</sub></td><td>13351 ± 144 ± 29</td><td>17201 ± 161 ± 31</td><td>30530 ± 216 ± 40</td></tr><tr><td>Fitted N<sub>EW</sub></td><td>897 ± 92 ± 27</td><td>737 ± 98 ± 28</td><td>1657 ± 134 ± 40</td></tr></tbody></table>

channels for the data and for the MC templates before fitting. For the purpose of measuring the fiducial cross section, the yields from the fits to electrons and muons are used. For the purpose of determining systematic uncertainties on $N_{EW}$, which are correlated between the two channels, the fractional shift in the number of events obtained from the fit combining both channels is used.

## 8.2 Validation of the control region constraint procedure

The data-driven background constraint derived in the control region is an important component of the analysis as it improves the modelling of the background $m_{jj}$ spectrum and constrains the impact of experimental and theoretical uncertainties. Several cross-checks are performed to validate the method.

The choice of polynomial used to describe the reweighting function is investigated by using a first-order polynomial instead of a second-order polynomial. The lower panel of figure 11(a) shows that both choices of polynomial give very similar reweighting functions at low $m_{jj}$ and differ only at the highest values of $m_{jj}$. The change in $N_{EW}$ is less than 2% if the first-order polynomial is used to reweight the background template in place of the second-order polynomial.

The choice of event generator is examined by reweighting the simulated dijet invariant mass distribution for strong Zjj production using the ratio of the Powheg and Sherpa particle-level predictions. This reweighting is carried out in the *search* and *control* regions separately. Powheg has been shown to give a much better description of the data for the dijet invariant mass in figure 6 for all fiducial regions. The reweighting to Powheg improves the description of the data in the *control* region. The data-driven reweighting function then becomes much flatter and repeating the full analysis procedure with the new templates produces a result consistent at 0.8% with the analysis based on the *Sherpa* samples alone.

The choice of control region is studied by splitting it into six subregions that probe the additional jet activity in the rapidity interval between the two leading jets. The *control*
<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 12.** (a) Background reweighting functions obtained for different choices of control region. (b) The agreement between data and simulation in the $25 < p_T \le 38$ GeV subregion both before and after applying a background reweighting function derived in the $p_T > 38$ GeV subregion.</figcaption></figure>

and *search* regions are distinguished by this additional jet activity and these subregions allow the impact of any mismodelling in the simulation to be explored. Two subregions are defined by the transverse momentum of the leading jet in the rapidity interval ($25 < p_T \le 38$ GeV and $p_T > 38$ GeV), two subregions are defined by the rapidity of the jet ($|y| \le 0.8$ and $|y| > 0.8$), and two subregions are defined by the number of jets in the rapidity interval ($N_{jet} = 1$ and $N_{jet} \ge 2$). In addition to these six regions, an MPI-suppressed subregion is defined by the requirements $|\Delta\phi(j,j)/\pi| < 0.9$ and $p_T^{jj} > 20$ GeV, where $p_T^{jj}$ is the transverse momentum of the dijet system. This region allows the impact of MPI on the control region constraint to be examined.

Figure 12(a) shows the background reweighting functions obtained from these subregions, compared to the default function obtained from the default *control* region. The extraction of the electroweak signal is cross-checked using each of these constraints. The values of $N_{EW}$ are consistent, with a maximum 5% spread between subregions. This spread is likely to be statistical in origin, as the values of $N_{EW}$ obtained from reweighting functions derived in orthogonal subregions are found to agree to better than $1\sigma$ when considering only the statistical uncertainty associated with the reweighting functions. Although the spread of reweighting functions in figure 12(a) is large at high $m_{jj}$, the background modelling in this region has only a small impact on the extracted number of electroweak $Zjj$ events. The background modelling shape has most impact at values of $m_{jj}$ around 1–1.5 TeV, for which the spread of reweighting functions is just a few percent.

The orthogonal subregions are also used to test the agreement between data and the corrected simulation directly. The reweighting function derived in the $p_T > 38$ GeV subregion is used to correct the simulation in the $25 < p_T \le 38$ GeV subregion, as shown
in figure 12(b). The corrected simulation gives a better description of the data than the uncorrected simulation. Similar tests are performed for the subregions split by jet rapidity or jet multiplicity. In all cases, the corrected simulation gives a better description of data than the uncorrected simulation.

## 8.3 Systematic uncertainties on the fit procedure

Systematic uncertainties on $N_{EW}$ arise from the background template reweighting function, the jet-based experimental systematic uncertainties, and the theoretical modelling uncertainties on the $Z_{jj}$ samples. The uncertainty due to the lepton-based systematic uncertainties is negligible. A summary of the systematic uncertainties discussed in this section is presented in table 6. The systematic uncertainty due to the limited number of events in the control region is obtained using pseudo-experiments, and is found to be 8.9% and 11.2% in the electron and muon channels, respectively. The remaining experimental systematic uncertainties affect the extracted value of $N_{EW}$ by changing the shape of the signal template and/or the shape of the background template. The experimental systematic uncertainties that change the template shape are due to JES, JER, JVF, as well as pileup jet modelling, as discussed in section 6.2. The effect on the number of fitted events due to each source of uncertainty is evaluated simultaneously for signal and background templates in order to account for correlations.

Systematic variations in the signal template are evaluated by taking the ratio of the template formed with a systematic shift to the nominal template, fitting that ratio with a second-order polynomial, applying that polynomial as a reweighting function to the signal template, and repeating the fit for the number of electroweak events. The use of the polynomial to estimate the systematic shift reduces the impact of statistical fluctuations at large $m_{jj}$.

For the systematic variations in the background template, the data provide a constraint in the *control* region, meaning that only the effect of each systematic variation on the extrapolation between the *control* and *search* regions needs to be evaluated. A double ratio is formed from the systematic-shifted to nominal ratios in the *search* and *control* regions and fitted with a first-order polynomial function. If the gradient of the fitted function is statistically significant, defined as the parameter value being greater than 1.64 times the parameter uncertainty, then this component is considered as a significant source of systematic uncertainty. This significance requirement is chosen to remove 90% of statistical fluctuations and avoid double counting statistical uncertainties in the simulated samples.<fnref n="9" /> For each significant source of systematic uncertainty, the first-order polynomial is applied as an additional reweighting to the background template in the *search* region and the fit is repeated.

The dominant systematic uncertainty on the extracted value of $N_{EW}$ from experimental sources is from the JES (5.6%). This uncertainty comes almost entirely from the uncertainty on the signal template shape, because the shape of the background template

<footnote n="9">⁹The choice of significance requirement was investigated by changing the requirement to 1.0 or 2.0. The resultant systematic uncertainties were unchanged from the nominal choice of 1.64.</footnote>
is constrained using the *control* region. The uncertainty due to the JVF is modest (1.1%), whereas the uncertainty from JER and pileup modelling is effectively negligible (0.4% and 0.3%, respectively).

Additional uncertainties on the extraction of the electroweak component arise from the theoretical modelling in the MC generators. Again, these affect the signal template as well as the extrapolation between the *control* and *search* region for the background template. The uncertainties due to theoretical modelling are split into two components: PDF modelling and generator modelling.

Uncertainties due to PDF modelling are obtained as follows. The nominal value of $N_{EW}$ is obtained using the CT10 PDF set. The full analysis is then repeated using simulated samples created using (i) the CT10 uncertainties and (ii) the central values and uncertainties of two other PDF sets, MSTW2008nlo [41] and NNPDF2.3 [64]. Each PDF variation is applied to the signal and background simultaneously. For each PDF set, the uncertainty on $N_{EW}$ is then calculated using the recommended procedure from each collaboration [65, 66], with the CT10 results scaled to reflect 68% probability. The $\alpha_s$ uncertainty is found to be negligible. The overall uncertainty due to PDF modelling is found to be $^{+1.5}_{-3.9}\%$ from the envelope of uncertainties obtained from each PDF set.

The generator modelling uncertainties are determined using the dedicated Sherpa sample variations discussed in section 4, by varying the factorisation and renormalisation scale, varying the activity from multiple parton interactions (MPI), and changing the parton-shower scheme or CKKW matching parameters. To evaluate the generator modelling uncertainty, the analysis is repeated for each sample variation independently to obtain a shift in $N_{EW}$. The standard deviation in the shifted values for each sample variation is obtained using a pseudo-experiment approach. The effect of the signal modelling uncertainty on $N_{EW}$ is found to be 8.9% from the envelope of the shifts (mean plus standard deviation) produced from the eight dedicated signal templates. A separate uncertainty on $N_{EW}$ is obtained from the envelope of the shifts (mean plus standard deviation) produced from the eight dedicated background templates. The uncertainty due to background modelling is found to be 7.5%. The uncertainties in the signal and background generator modelling are taken as uncorrelated.

The uncertainties on the signal and background modelling are cross-checked by reweighting the simulated dijet invariant mass distribution for strong and electroweak $Zjj$ production, using the ratio of the Powheg and Sherpa particle-level predictions. As discussed in section 8.2, reweighting the strong $Zjj$ sample produces a change in $N_{EW}$ of just 0.8%. This is covered by the background modelling uncertainty determined from the Sherpa systematic variations. Reweighting the electroweak $Zjj$ sample produces a change in $N_{EW}$ of 4.6%, which is also covered by the signal modelling uncertainty assigned from the Sherpa systematic variations.

The systematic uncertainty associated with possible interference between electroweak and strong $Zjj$ production is estimated by reweighting the background template to account for the interference contribution. The interference is determined using the dedicated Sherpa samples discussed in section 4. These samples use only leading-order matrix elements for $Zjj$ production and the change in the background template is therefore estimated prior to
<table><caption>**Table 6.** Systematic uncertainties, expressed in percentages, on (i) the number of fitted signal events in the *search* region, $N_{EW}$, and (ii) the correction factor to the particle-level, $C_{EW}$. The uncertainties are anti-correlated between $N_{EW}$ and $C_{EW}$.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Source</th><th colspan="2">ΔN<sub>EW</sub></th><th colspan="2">ΔC<sub>EW</sub></th></tr><tr><th>Electrons</th><th>Muons</th><th>Electrons</th><th>Muons</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Lepton systematics</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>±3.2 %</td><td>±2.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Control region statistics</td><td>±8.9 %</td><td>±11.2 %</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>JES</td><td>±5.6 %</td><td></td><td><sup>+2.7</sup><sub>-3.4</sub> %</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JER</td><td>±0.4 %</td><td></td><td>±0.8 %</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Pileup jet modelling</td><td>±0.3 %</td><td></td><td>±0.3 %</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JVF</td><td>±1.1 %</td><td></td><td><sup>+0.4</sup><sub>-1.0</sub> %</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Signal modelling</td><td>±8.9 %</td><td></td><td><sup>+0.6</sup><sub>-1.0</sub> %</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Background modelling</td><td>±7.5 %</td><td></td><td>—</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Signal/background interference</td><td>±6.2 %</td><td></td><td>—</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PDF</td><td><sup>+1.5</sup><sub>-3.9</sub> %</td><td></td><td>±0.1 %</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

applying the jet veto. The impact of interference is determined by repeating the full fitting procedure after reweighting the background template in either the *search* region or the *control* region alone. This approach assumes the interference affects only one of the two regions and therefore has a maximal impact on the analysis. If the background template is reweighted only in the *search* region, the extracted value of $N_{EW}$ is reduced by 6.2%. Alternatively, if the background template is reweighted only in the *control* region, the value of $N_{EW}$ increases by 6.2%. A conservative systematic uncertainty of ±6.2% is assigned to the final measurement.

## 8.4 Measurement of fiducial cross section

The fitted values of $N_{EW}$ for the electron and muon channels are converted to a fiducial cross section, defined as:

$$ \sigma_{EW} = \frac{N_{EW}}{\int L dt \cdot C_{EW}} \qquad (8.1) $$

where $C_{EW}$ is a correction factor based on the reconstruction- to particle-level ratio of the *Sherpa* prediction for electroweak $Zjj$ production in the *search* region.

The correction factors are 0.80 and 0.66 in the muon and electron channels, respectively. The difference in correction factor between the two channels arises primarily from the different reconstruction and identification efficiencies for muons and electrons. The systematic uncertainties on the correction factor are divided into those that are uncorrelated between the electron and muon channels (MC sample statistics, lepton reconstruction, identification, trigger, energy scale and energy smearing) and those that are correlated (JES, JER, JVF, pileup jet modelling, generator modelling and PDFs). The generator
modelling can affect the correction factor due to differences in the kinematics of final-state particles. This uncertainty is determined by reweighting the nominal MC simulation such that the particle-level distributions match those of the dedicated Sherpa model variations discussed in section 4. This is carried out for all kinematic distributions for which a cut is made in defining the search region and the resulting uncertainties are added in quadrature. A breakdown of the uncertainties on the correction factor is given in table 6. The JES and lepton identification are the largest sources of uncertainty.

For each source of systematic uncertainty, the impact on $N_{EW}$ and $C_{EW}$ is found to be anti-correlated, and the fractional uncertainty on the measured cross section is therefore obtained from a linear combination of the fractional uncertainties on $N_{EW}$ and $C_{EW}$. The total systematic uncertainty on the measured cross section is then taken to be the quadrature sum of the individual sources of systematic uncertainty.

The fiducial cross sections in the electron and muon channels are

$$ \sigma_{EW}^{ee} = 67.2 \pm 6.9 \text{(stat)}^{+12.7}_{-13.4} \text{(syst)} \pm 1.9 \text{(lumi) fb} \quad \text{and} \\ \sigma_{EW}^{\mu\mu} = 45.6 \pm 6.1 \text{(stat)}^{+9.1}_{-9.6} \text{(syst)} \pm 1.3 \text{(lumi) fb.} $$

These measurements are consistent at the $1.7\sigma$ level, accounting for only those uncertainties that are uncorrelated between the two channels. The channels are then combined using a weighted average, with the weight of each channel defined as the squared inverse of the uncorrelated uncertainties. The combined fiducial cross section is

$$ \sigma_{EW} = 54.7 \pm 4.6 \text{(stat)}^{+9.8}_{-10.4} \text{(syst)} \pm 1.5 \text{(lumi) fb.} $$

The theoretical prediction from Powheg for the electroweak $Zjj$ cross section is $46.1 \pm 0.2 \text{(stat)}^{+0.3}_{-0.2} \text{(scale)} \pm 0.8 \text{(PDF)} \pm 0.5 \text{(model)} \text{ fb}$, which is in good agreement with the data.

A detector-corrected fiducial cross section for electroweak $Zjj$ production is also determined for the search region with $m_{jj} > 1$ TeV, using the integral of the fitted signal template. In this region, electroweak production accounts for approximately 35% of the events. The region at large dijet invariant mass is therefore the part of the spectrum that is most sensitive to the electroweak $Zjj$ component and the least sensitive to the background normalisation. The measured cross section for electroweak $Zjj$ production in the search region with $m_{jj} > 1$ TeV is

$$ \sigma_{EW} (m_{jj} > 1 \text{ TeV}) = 10.7 \pm 0.9 \text{(stat)} \pm 1.9 \text{(syst)} \pm 0.3 \text{(lumi) fb,} $$

which is again in good agreement with the theoretical prediction from Powheg, $9.38 \pm 0.05 \text{(stat)}^{+0.15}_{-0.24} \text{(scale)} \pm 0.24 \text{(PDF)} \pm 0.09 \text{(model)} \text{ fb.}$

## 8.5 Estimate of signal significance

The significance of the measurement is estimated using pseudo-experiments. Pseudo-data are created for the search and control regions from the constrained background templates, after scaling the simulation such that the integral of the template in the control region
matches the number of events observed in the data. Each bin in the pseudo-data is ran-
domly generated from a Poisson distribution with its mean set to the expected number
of events in the normalised constrained templates. Signal and background templates are
constructed from the nominal templates by smearing the template shape according to
experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties, which are taken to be Gaussian-
distributed. The complete analysis procedure is then performed, including the use of the
pseudo-data in the control region to construct the reweighting function to apply to the
background template in the search region. The pseudo-data in the search region are sub-
sequently fitted with the new signal and background templates and a value of N<sub>EW</sub> is
extracted. The process is repeated one billion times and none of the pseudo-experiments
produce a value of N<sub>EW</sub> greater than (or equal to) the 1657 events observed in data. The
background-only hypothesis is therefore rejected at greater than 5σ significance.<sup>10</sup>

8.6 Limits on anomalous triple gauge couplings

The observation of electroweak Zjj production allows limits to be placed on anomalous triple gauge couplings (aTGCs). The potential benefits of using the electroweak Zjj channel as a probe of aTGCs have been discussed previously in the literature [67]. In the standard hadron collider analyses, aTGC limits are set by measuring vector boson pair production, for which all three gauge bosons entering the WWZ vertex have time-like four-momentum. In the VBF diagram, however, two of the gauge bosons entering the WWZ vertex have space-like four-momentum transfer. Electroweak Zjj production therefore offers a complementary test of aTGCs, because the effects of boson propagators present in electroweak Zjj production are different from those in vector boson pair production. Reference [67] emphasises that full information on triple gauge boson couplings can be obtained only if electroweak vector boson production is measured in addition to vector boson pair production.

The effective Lagrangian, $\mathcal{L}$, for aTGCs can be written as

$$
\frac{\mathcal{L}}{g_{WWZ}} = i \left[ g_{1,Z} (W_{\mu\nu}^{\dagger} W^{\mu} Z^{\nu} - W_{\mu\nu} W^{\dagger\mu} Z^{\nu}) + \kappa_Z W_{\mu}^{\dagger} W_{\nu} Z^{\mu\nu} + \frac{\lambda_Z}{m_W^2} W_{\rho\mu}^{\dagger} W_{\nu}^{\mu} Z^{\nu\rho} \right] \quad (8.2)
$$

if only those terms that conserve charge conjugation and parity are retained from the
general expression [68]. Here, $g_{WWZ} = -e \cot \theta_W$, $e$ is the electric charge, $\theta_W$ is the weak
mixing angle, $W^\mu$ and $Z^\mu$ are the $W$-boson and $Z$-boson fields, $X_{\mu\nu} = \partial_\mu X_\nu - \partial_\nu X_\mu$ for
$X = W$ or $Z$, and $g_{1,Z}$, $\kappa_Z$ and $\lambda_Z$ are dimensionless couplings. The SM values of these
dimensionless couplings are $g_{1,Z}^{SM} = 1$, $\kappa_Z^{SM} = 1$ and $\lambda_Z^{SM} = 0$.

The tree-level S-matrix for this effective Lagrangian violates unitarity at large energy
scales. Unitarity is restored in the full theory by propagator (form factor) effects. A typical
approach is to modify the couplings by a dipole form factor

$$
a(\hat{s}) = \frac{a_0}{(1 + \hat{s}/\Lambda^2)^2} \qquad (8.3)
$$

<footnote n="10">¹⁰To cross-check the possible impact of non-Gaussian tails in the systematic uncertainties, the pseudo-experiments are repeated using templates smeared (for each source of systematic uncertainty) according to a uniform distribution in the range -5 to +5 times the systematic uncertainty. In this extremely conservative approach, the background-only hypothesis is still rejected at greater than 5σ significance.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 7.** The 95% confidence intervals obtained on the aTGC parameters from counting the number of events with $m_{jj} > 1$ TeV in the *search* region. Observed and expected intervals, labelled ‘obs’ and ‘exp’ respectively, are presented for unitarisation scales of $\Lambda = 6$ TeV and $\Lambda = \infty$. The parameter $\Delta g_{1,Z}$ refers to the deviation of $g_{1,Z}$ from the SM value.</caption><thead><tr><th>aTGC</th><th>Λ = 6 TeV (obs)</th><th>Λ = 6 TeV (exp)</th><th>Λ = ∞ (obs)</th><th>Λ = ∞ (exp)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Δg<sub>1,Z</sub></td><td>[-0.65, 0.33]</td><td>[-0.58, 0.27]</td><td>[-0.50, 0.26]</td><td>[-0.45, 0.22]</td></tr><tr><td>λ<sub>Z</sub></td><td>[-0.22, 0.19]</td><td>[-0.19, 0.16]</td><td>[-0.15, 0.13]</td><td>[-0.14, 0.11]</td></tr></tbody></table>

where $a_0$ is the bare coupling, $\hat{s}$ is the partonic centre-of-mass energy and $\Lambda$ is a unitarisation scale. In this measurement, limits are placed on the aTGC parameters for unitarisation scales set to $\Lambda = 6$ TeV and $\Lambda = \infty$. The unitarisation scale of 6 TeV is chosen as the largest common value allowed by unitarity considerations [69, 70] for all anomalous couplings probed in the measurement.

The extracted number of events in the *search* region with $m_{jj} > 1$ TeV is used to place limits on the aTGCs as this region is the least affected by the background normalisation and signal template shape. There are 900 events observed in the data in this region. The expected number of electroweak $Zjj$ events in the SM is 261, estimated using the **Sherpa** sample. The expected number of background events is 592, estimated after fitting the $m_{jj}$ spectrum with signal and background templates. Note that the normalisation of the background template is effectively governed by the low-$m_{jj}$ region, thus limiting the impact of background modelling in the aTGC limit setting in the high $m_{jj}$ tail. The aTGC parameters (and form factors) are varied within the **Sherpa** event generator, allowing the change in the number of electroweak $Zjj$ events to be estimated.

Frequentist confidence intervals are set for the anomalous couplings by performing a profile likelihood test [71]. A Poisson likelihood function is constructed from the observed number of events, the expected signal as a function of the anomalous couplings and the estimated number of background events. The systematic uncertainties are included in the likelihood function as nuisance parameters with correlated Gaussian constraints. A given aTGC parameter point is rejected at 95% confidence level if more than 95% of randomly generated pseudo-experiments exhibit a value of the profile likelihood ratio larger than that observed in data.

The limits presented in this paper are sensitive to the momentum transfer in the $t$-channel due to the high-$m_{jj}$ requirement and, therefore, most sensitive to the terms in the Lagrangian that contain a derivative of the $W$-boson field. Table 7 shows the 95% confidence intervals obtained on the anomalous coupling parameters $\lambda_Z$ and $g_{1,Z}$. The limits are not as stringent as those set in $WZ$ production [72], which are approximately a factor of three smaller in the $\lambda_Z$ coupling, for example.

## 9 Summary

Fiducial cross sections for electroweak $Zjj$ production have been presented for proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV, using a dataset corresponding to an integrated luminos-
ity of 20.3 fb⁻¹ collected by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider. The background-only model has been rejected above the 5σ level and these measurements constitute observation of the electroweak Zjj process. The measured cross sections are in good agreement with the Standard Model expectation and limits have been set on anomalous triple gauge couplings. In addition, cross sections and differential distributions have been measured for inclusive Zjj production in five fiducial regions. The cross-section measurements are all in good agreement with the prediction from Powheg for Zjj production. The differential distributions are sensitive to the electroweak component of Zjj production, as well as the modelling of strong Zjj production in the extreme phase-space regions probed. The data are compared to theoretical predictions from the Sherpa and Powheg event generators. Neither prediction is able to fully reproduce the data for all distributions and the data can be used to constrain the theoretical modelling in these extreme phase-space regions.

## Acknowledgments

We thank CERN for the very successful operation of the LHC, as well as the support staff from our institutions without whom ATLAS could not be operated efficiently. We also thank Stefan Hoeche and Frank Krauss for insight and cross-checks related to the interference between electroweak and strong Zjj production as predicted by the Sherpa event generator.

We acknowledge the support of ANPCyT, Argentina; YerPhI, Armenia; ARC, Australia; BMWF and FWF, Austria; ANAS, Azerbaijan; SSTC, Belarus; CNPq and FAPESP, Brazil; NSERC, NRC and CFI, Canada; CERN; CONICYT, Chile; CAS, MOST and NSFC, China; COLCIENCIAS, Colombia; MSMT CR, MPO CR and VSC CR, Czech Republic; DNRF, DNSRC and Lundbeck Foundation, Denmark; EPLANET, ERC and NSRF, European Union; IN2P3-CNRS, CEA-DSM/IRFU, France; GNSF, Georgia; BMBF, DFG, HGF, MPG and AvH Foundation, Germany; GSRT and NSRF, Greece; ISF, MINERVA, GIF, DIP and Benoziyo Center, Israel; INFN, Italy; MEXT and JSPS, Japan; CNRST, Monrocco; FOM and NWO, Netherlands; BRF and RCN, Norway; MNiSW and NCN, Poland; GRICES and FCT, Portugal; MNE/IFA, Romania; MES of Russia and ROSATOM, Russian Federation; JINR; MSTD, Serbia; MSSR, Slovakia; ARRS and MIZŠ, Slovenia; DST/NRF, South Africa; MINECO, Spain; SRC and Wallenberg Foundation, Sweden; SER, SNSF and Cantons of Bern and Geneva, Switzerland; NSC, Taiwan; TAEK, Turkey; STFC, the Royal Society and Leverhulme Trust, United Kingdom; DOE and NSF, United States of America.

The crucial computing support from all WLCG partners is acknowledged gratefully, in particular from CERN and the ATLAS Tier-1 facilities at TRIUMF (Canada), NDGF (Denmark, Norway, Sweden), CC-IN2P3 (France), KIT/GridKA (Germany), INFN-CNAF (Italy), NL-T1 (Netherlands), PIC (Spain), ASGC (Taiwan), RAL (U.K.) and BNL (U.S.A.) and in the Tier-2 facilities worldwide.
## A Additional inclusive $Zjj$ differential distributions

In this section, unfolded inclusive $Zjj$ distributions are presented in fiducial regions that complement the data presented in section 7. These additional data are fully corrected for detector effects and available in HEPDATA. The unfolded $\frac{1}{\sigma} \cdot \frac{d\sigma}{dm_{jj}}$ and $\frac{1}{\sigma} \cdot \frac{d\sigma}{d|\Delta y|}$ distributions are shown in figure 13 and 14, respectively, for the *high-$p_T$* and *control* regions. Figure 15 shows the unfolded jet veto efficiency and $\langle N_{jet}^{gap} \rangle$ distributions as a function of $m_{jj}$ and $|\Delta y|$ in the *high-$p_T$* region. Finally, the unfolded $p_T^{\text{balance}}$ *cut efficiency* as a function of $m_{jj}$ and $|\Delta y|$ in the *high-$p_T$* region is shown in figure 16.

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 13.** Unfolded $\frac{1}{\sigma} \cdot \frac{d\sigma}{dm_{jj}}$ distribution in (a) the *high-$p_T$* and (b) *control* regions. The data and theoretical predictions are presented in the same way as in figure 6.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_21.png" /><figcaption>Figure 14. Unfolded $\frac{1}{\sigma} \cdot \frac{d\sigma}{d|\Delta y|}$ distribution in (a) the high-$p_T$ and (b) control regions. The data and theoretical predictions are presented in the same way as in figure 6.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /><figcaption>Figure 15. Unfolded jet veto efficiency versus (a) $m_{jj}$ and (b) $|\Delta y|$ in the high-$p_T$ region. Unfolded $\langle N_{jet}^{\text{gap}} \rangle$ versus (c) $m_{jj}$ and (d) $|\Delta y|$ in the high-$p_T$ region. The data and theoretical predictions are presented in the same way as in figure 6.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_26.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 16.** Unfolded $p_T^{\text{balance}}$ cut efficiency versus (a) $m_{jj}$ and (b) $|\Delta y|$ in the high-$p_T$ region. The data and theoretical predictions are presented in the same way as in figure 6.</figcaption></figure>

**Open Access.** This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

References

[1] C. Oleari and D. Zeppenfeld, QCD corrections to electroweak $\nu_{\ell jj}$ and $\ell^+\ell^- jj$ production, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 093004 [hep-ph/0310156] [INSPIRE].

[2] K. Arnold, J. Bellm, G. Bozzi, M. Brieg, F. Campanario et al., VBFNLO: A parton level Monte Carlo for processes with electroweak bosons – Manual for version 2.5.0, arXiv:1107.4038 [INSPIRE].

[3] ATLAS collaboration, The ATLAS experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, 2008 JINST 3 S08003 [INSPIRE].

[4] D.L. Rainwater, R. Szalapski and D. Zeppenfeld, Probing color singlet exchange in Z + two jet events at the CERN LHC, Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 6680 [hep-ph/9605444] [INSPIRE].

[5] V. Khoze, M. Ryskin, W. Stirling and P. Williams, A Z monitor to calibrate Higgs production via vector boson fusion with rapidity gaps at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C 26 (2003) 429 [hep-ph/0207365] [INSPIRE].

[6] CMS collaboration, Measurement of the hadronic activity in events with a Z and two jets and extraction of the cross section for the electroweak production of a Z with two jets in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 7$ TeV, JHEP 10 (2013) 101 [arXiv:1305.7389] [INSPIRE].
[7] ATLAS collaboration, Performance of the ATLAS trigger system in 2010, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1849 [arXiv:1110.1530] [INSPIRE].

[8] ATLAS collaboration, Measurement of the $W \to \ell\nu$ and $Z/\gamma^* \to \ell\ell$ production cross sections in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 7$ TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 12 (2010) 060 [arXiv:1010.2130] [INSPIRE].

[9] ATLAS collaboration, Electron performance measurements with the ATLAS detector using the 2010 LHC proton-proton collision data, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1909 [arXiv:1110.3174] [INSPIRE].

[10] M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam and G. Soyez, The anti-$k_t$ jet clustering algorithm, JHEP 04 (2008) 063 [arXiv:0802.1189] [INSPIRE].

[11] ATLAS collaboration, Calorimeter clustering algorithms: description and performance, ATLAS-LARG-PUB-2008-002 (2008).

[12] ATLAS collaboration, Pile-up subtraction and suppression for jets in ATLAS, ATLAS-CONF-2013-083 (2013).

[13] ATLAS collaboration, Jet energy measurement with the ATLAS detector in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 7$ TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2304 [arXiv:1112.6426] [INSPIRE].

[14] ATLAS collaboration, Jet energy scale and its systematic uncertainty in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 7$ TeV with ATLAS 2011 data, ATLAS-CONF-2013-004 (2013).

[15] M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam and G. Soyez, The catchment area of jets, JHEP 04 (2008) 005 [arXiv:0802.1188] [INSPIRE].

[16] P. Nason, A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms, JHEP 11 (2004) 040 [hep-ph/0409146] [INSPIRE].

[17] S. Frixione, P. Nason and C. Oleari, Matching NLO QCD computations with Parton Shower simulations: the POWHEG method, JHEP 11 (2007) 070 [arXiv:0709.2092] [INSPIRE].

[18] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari and E. Re, A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX, JHEP 06 (2010) 043 [arXiv:1002.2581] [INSPIRE].

[19] T. Gleisberg et al., Event generation with SHERPA 1.1, JHEP 02 (2009) 007 [arXiv:0811.4622] [INSPIRE].

[20] S. Catani, F. Krauss, R. Kuhn and B. Webber, QCD matrix elements + parton showers, JHEP 11 (2001) 063 [hep-ph/0109231] [INSPIRE].

[21] H.-L. Lai et al., New parton distributions for collider physics, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 074024 [arXiv:1007.2241] [INSPIRE].

[22] B. Jager, S. Schneider and G. Zanderighi, Next-to-leading order QCD corrections to electroweak $Zjj$ production in the POWHEG BOX, JHEP 09 (2012) 083 [arXiv:1207.2626] [INSPIRE].

[23] F. Schissler and D. Zeppenfeld, Parton shower effects on W and Z production via vector boson fusion at NLO QCD, JHEP 04 (2013) 057 [arXiv:1302.2884] [INSPIRE].

[24] E. Re, NLO corrections merged with parton showers for $Z + 2$ jets production using the POWHEG method, JHEP 10 (2012) 031 [arXiv:1204.5433] [INSPIRE].

[25] J.M. Campbell, R.K. Ellis, P. Nason and G. Zanderighi, W and Z bosons in association with two jets using the POWHEG method, JHEP 08 (2013) 005 [arXiv:1303.5447] [INSPIRE].
[26] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna and P.Z. Skands, PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual, JHEP 05 (2006) 026 [hep-ph/0603175] [INSPIRE].

[27] P.Z. Skands, Tuning Monte Carlo generators: the Perugia tunes, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 074018 [arXiv:1005.3457] [INSPIRE].

[28] K. Hamilton, P. Nason and G. Zanderighi, MINLO: Multi-scale Improved NLO, JHEP 10 (2012) 155 [arXiv:1206.3572] [INSPIRE].

[29] S. Hoeche, S. Schumann and F. Siegert, Hard photon production and matrix-element parton-shower merging, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 034026 [arXiv:0912.3501] [INSPIRE].

[30] S. Schumann and F. Krauss, A parton shower algorithm based on Catani-Seymour dipole factorisation, JHEP 03 (2008) 038 [arXiv:0709.1027] [INSPIRE].

[31] S. Hoeche and M. Schonherr, Uncertainties in next-to-leading order plus parton shower matched simulations of inclusive jet and dijet production, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 094042 [arXiv:1208.2815] [INSPIRE].

[32] J.R. Andersen and J.M. Smillie, QCD and electroweak interference in Higgs production by gauge boson fusion, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 037301 [hep-ph/0611281] [INSPIRE].

[33] M. Ciccolini, A. Denner and S. Dittmaier, Electroweak and QCD corrections to Higgs production via vector-boson fusion at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 013002 [arXiv:0710.4749] [INSPIRE].

[34] J. Andersen, T. Binoth, G. Heinrich and J. Smillie, Loop induced interference effects in Higgs Boson plus two jet production at the LHC, JHEP 02 (2008) 057 [arXiv:0709.3513] [INSPIRE].

[35] A. Bredenstein, K. Hagiwara and B. Jager, Mixed QCD-electroweak contributions to Higgs-plus-dijet production at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 073004 [arXiv:0801.4231] [INSPIRE].

[36] S. Agostinelli et al., GEANT4 — A simulation toolkit, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. 506 (2003) 250.

[37] J. Allison et al., GEANT4 developments and applications, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 53 (2006) 270 [INSPIRE].

[38] ATLAS collaboration, The ATLAs simulation infrastructure, Eur. Phys. J. C 70 (2010) 823 [arXiv:1005.4568] [INSPIRE].

[39] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna and P.Z. Skands, A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1, Comput. Phys. Commun. 178 (2008) 852 [arXiv:0710.3820] [INSPIRE].

[40] ATLAS Collaboration, Further ATLAS tunes of PYTHIA 6 and Pythia 8, ATLAS-PHYS-PUB-2011-014 (2011).

[41] A. Martin, W. Stirling, R. Thorne and G. Watt, Parton distributions for the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C 63 (2009) 189 [arXiv:0901.0002] [INSPIRE].

[42] M.L. Mangano, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini, R. Pittau and A.D. Polosa, ALPGEN, a generator for hard multiparton processes in hadronic collisions, JHEP 07 (2003) 001 [hep-ph/0206293] [INSPIRE].

[43] G. Corcella et al., HERWIG 6: an event generator for hadron emission reactions with interfering gluons (including supersymmetric processes), JHEP 01 (2001) 010 [hep-ph/0011363] [INSPIRE].

[44] G. Corcella et al., HERWIG 6.5 release note, hep-ph/0210213 [INSPIRE].
[45] J. Butterworth, J.R. Forshaw and M. Seymour, *Multiparton interactions in photoproduction at HERA*, Z. Phys. C **72** (1996) 637 [hep-ph/9601371] [INSPIRE].

[46] ATLAS collaboration, *New ATLAS event generator tunes to 2010 data*, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-008 (2011).

[47] S. Frixione and B.R. Webber, *Matching NLO QCD computations and parton shower simulations*, JHEP **06** (2002) 029 [hep-ph/0204244] [INSPIRE].

[48] M. Czakon and A. Mitov, *Top++: a program for the calculation of the top-pair cross-section at hadron colliders*, arXiv:1112.5675 [INSPIRE].

[49] ATLAS collaboration, *Preliminary results on the muon reconstruction efficiency, momentum resolution and momentum scale in ATLAS 2012 pp collision data*, ATLAS-CONF-2013-088 (2013).

[50] ATLAS collaboration, *Improved luminosity determination in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 7$ TeV using the ATLAS detector at the LHC*, Eur. Phys. J. C **73** (2013) 2518 [arXiv:1302.4393] [INSPIRE].

[51] ATLAS collaboration, *Jet energy resolution in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 7$ TeV recorded in 2010 with the ATLAS detector*, Eur. Phys. J. C **73** (2013) 2306 [arXiv:1210.6210] [INSPIRE].

[52] ATLAS collaboration, *Measurements of the pseudorapidity dependence of the total transverse energy in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 7$ TeV with ATLAS*, JHEP **11** (2012) 033 [arXiv:1208.6256] [INSPIRE].

[53] http://hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/.

[54] G. D'Agostini, *A multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes' theorem*, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. **A** **362** (1995) 487 [INSPIRE].

[55] T. Adye, *Unfolding algorithms and tests using RooUnfold*, arXiv:1105.1160 [INSPIRE].

[56] K. Hayes, M.L. Perl and B. Efron, *Application of the bootstrap statistical method to the $\tau$ decay mode problem*, Phys. Rev. **D** **39** (1989) 274 [INSPIRE].

[57] ATLAS collaboration, *Measurement of the production cross section of jets in association with a Z boson in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 7$ TeV with the ATLAS detector*, JHEP **07** (2013) 032 [arXiv:1304.7098] [INSPIRE].

[58] D0 collaboration, V.M. Abazov et al., *Studies of W boson plus jets production in $p\bar{p}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 1.96$ TeV*, Phys. Rev. **D** **88** (2013) 092001 [arXiv:1302.6508] [INSPIRE].

[59] T. Plehn, D.L. Rainwater and D. Zeppenfeld, *Determining the structure of Higgs couplings at the LHC*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **88** (2002) 051801 [hep-ph/0105325] [INSPIRE].

[60] G. Klamke and D. Zeppenfeld, *Higgs plus two jet production via gluon fusion as a signal at the CERN LHC*, JHEP **04** (2007) 052 [hep-ph/0703202] [INSPIRE].

[61] J.R. Andersen, K. Arnold and D. Zeppenfeld, *Azimuthal angle correlations for Higgs boson plus multi-jet events*, JHEP **06** (2010) 091 [arXiv:1001.3822] [INSPIRE].

[62] ATLAS collaboration, *Measurement of dijet production with a veto on additional central jet activity in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 7$ TeV using the ATLAS detector*, JHEP **09** (2011) 053 [arXiv:1107.1641] [INSPIRE].

[63] W. Verkerke and D.P. Kirkby, *The RooFit toolkit for data modeling*, eConf **C** **0303241** (2003) M0T007 [physics/0306116] [INSPIRE].
[64] R.D. Ball et al., Parton distributions with LHC data, Nucl. Phys. B 867 (2013) 244
[arXiv:1207.1303] [INSPIRE].

[65] J.M. Campbell, J. Huston and W. Stirling, HArd interactions of quarks and gluons: a primer for LHC physics, Rept. Prog. Phys. 70 (2007) 89 [hep-ph/0611148] [INSPIRE].

[66] A. Martin, W. Stirling, R. Thorne and G. Watt, Uncertainties on α_s in global PDF analyses and implications for predicted hadronic cross sections, Eur. Phys. J. C 64 (2009) 653
[arXiv:0905.3531] [INSPIRE].

[67] U. Baur and D. Zeppenfeld, Measuring three vector boson couplings in $qq \to qqW$ at the SSC, hep-ph/9309227 [INSPIRE].

[68] K. Hagiwara, R. Peccei, D. Zeppenfeld and K. Hikasa, Probing the weak boson sector in $e^+e^- \to W^+W^-$, Nucl. Phys. B 282 (1987) 253 [INSPIRE].

[69] U. Baur and D. Zeppenfeld, Unitarity constraints on the electroweak three vector boson vertices, Phys. Lett. B 201 (1988) 383 [INSPIRE].

[70] H. Aihara et al., Anomalous gauge boson interactions, hep-ph/9503425 [INSPIRE].

[71] G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross and O. Vitells, Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics, Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1554 [arXiv:1007.1727] [INSPIRE].

[72] ATLAS collaboration, Measurement of WZ production in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 7$ TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 2173 [arXiv:1208.1390] [INSPIRE].
The ATLAS collaboration

G. Aad⁸⁴, T. Abajyan²¹, B. Abbott¹¹², J. Abdallah¹⁵², S. Abdel Khalek¹¹⁶, O. Abdinov¹¹,
R. Aben¹⁰⁶, B. Abi¹¹³, M. Abolins⁸⁹, O.S. AbouZeid¹⁵⁹, H. Abramowicz¹⁵⁴, H. Abreu¹³⁷,
Y. Abulaiti¹⁴⁷a,¹⁴⁷b, B.S. Acharya¹⁶⁵a,¹⁶⁵b,a, L. Adamczyk³⁸a, D.L. Adams²⁵, T.N. Addy⁵⁶,
J. Adelman¹⁷⁷, S. Adomeit⁹⁹, T. Adye¹³⁰, T. Agatonovic-Jovin¹³b, J.A. Aguilar-Saavedra¹²⁵f,¹²⁵a,
M. Agustoni¹⁷, S.P. Ahlen²², A. Ahmad¹⁴⁹, F. Ahmadov⁶⁴, b, G. Aielli¹³⁴a,¹³⁴b, T.P.A. Åkesson⁸⁰,
G. Akimoto¹⁵⁶, A.V. Akimov⁹⁵, J. Albert¹⁷⁰, S. Albrand⁵⁵, M.J. Alconada Verzini⁷⁰, M. Aleksa³⁰,
I.N. Aleksandrov⁶⁴, C. Alexa²⁶a, G. Alexander¹⁵⁴, G. Alexandre⁴⁹, T. Alexopoulos¹⁰,
M. Alhroob¹⁶⁵a,¹⁶⁵c, G. Alimonti⁹⁰a, L. Alio⁸⁴, J. Alison³¹, B.M.M. Allbrooke¹⁸, L.J. Allison⁷¹,
P.P. Allport⁷³, S.E. Allwood-Spiers⁵³, J. Almond⁸³, A. Aloisio¹⁰³a,¹⁰³b, R. Alon¹⁷³, A. Alonso³⁶,
F. Alonso⁷⁰, C. Alpigiani⁷⁵, A. Altheimer³⁵, B. Alvarez Gonzalez⁸⁹, M.G. Alviggi¹⁰³a,¹⁰³b,
K. Amako⁶⁵, Y. Amaral Coutinho²⁴a, C. Amelung²³, V.V. Ammosov¹²⁹,*,
S.P. Amor Dos Santos¹²⁵a,¹²⁵c, A. Amorim¹²⁵a,¹²⁵b, S. Amoroso⁴⁸, N. Amram¹⁵⁴, G. Amundsen²³,
C. Anastopoulos¹⁴⁰, L.S. Ancu¹⁷, N. Andari³⁰, T. Andeen³⁵, C.F. Anders⁵⁸b, G. Anders⁵⁸a,
K.J. Anderson³¹, A. Andreazza⁹⁰a,⁹⁰b, V. Andrei⁵⁸a, X.S. Anduaga⁷⁰, S. Angelidakis⁹, P. Anger⁴⁴,
A. Angerami³⁵, F. Anghinolfi³⁰, A.V. Anisenkov¹⁰⁸, N. Anjos¹²⁵a, A. Annovi⁴⁷, A. Antonaki⁹,
M. Antonelli⁴⁷, A. Antonov⁹⁷, J. Antos¹⁴⁵b, F. Anulli¹³³a, M. Aoki⁶⁵, L. Aperio Bella¹⁸,
R. Apolle¹¹⁹, c, G. Arabidze⁸⁹, I. Aracena¹⁴⁴, Y. Arai⁶⁵, A.T.H. Arce⁴⁵, J-F. Arguin⁹⁴,
S. Argyropoulos⁴², M. Arik¹⁹a, A.J. Armbruster⁸⁸, O. Arnaez⁸², V. Arnal⁸¹, O. Arslan²¹,
A. Artamonov⁹⁶, G. Artoni²³, S. Asai¹⁵⁶, N. Asbah⁹⁴, S. Ask²⁸, B. Åsman¹⁴⁷a,¹⁴⁷b, L. Asquith⁶,
K. Assamagan²⁵, R. Astalos¹⁴⁵a, M. Atkinson¹⁶⁶, N.B. Atlay¹⁴², B. Auerbach⁶, E. Auge¹¹⁶,
K. Augsten¹²⁷, M. Aurousseau¹⁴⁶b, G. Avolio³⁰, G. Azuelos⁹⁴, d, Y. Azuma¹⁵⁶, M.A. Baak³⁰,
C. Bacci¹³⁵a,¹³⁵b, A.M. Bach¹⁵, H. Bachacou¹³⁷, K. Bachas¹⁵⁵, M. Backes³⁰, M. Backhaus²¹,
J. Backus Mayes¹⁴⁴, E. Badescu²⁶a, P. Bagiacchi¹³³a,¹³³b, P. Bagnaia¹³³a,¹³³b, Y. Bai³³a,
D.C. Bailey¹⁵⁹, T. Bain³⁵, J.T. Baines¹³⁰, O.K. Baker¹⁷⁷, S. Baker⁷⁷, P. Balek¹²⁸, F. Balli¹³⁷,
E. Banas³⁹, Sw. Banerjee¹⁷⁴, D. Banfi³⁰, A. Bangert¹⁵¹, V. Bansal¹⁷⁰, H.S. Bansil¹⁸, L. Barak¹⁷³,
S.P. Baranov⁹⁵, T. Barber⁴⁸, E.L. Barberio⁸⁷, D. Barberis⁵⁰a,⁵⁰b, M. Barbero⁸⁴, T. Barillari¹⁰⁰,
M. Barisonzi¹⁷⁶, T. Barklow¹⁴⁴, N. Barlow²⁸, B.M. Barnett¹³⁰, R.M. Barnett¹⁵, Z. Barnovska⁵,
A. Baroncelli¹³⁵a, G. Barone⁴⁹, A.J. Barr¹¹⁹, F. Barreiro⁸¹, J. Barreiro Guimarães da Costa⁵⁷,
R. Bartoldus¹⁴⁴, A.E. Barton⁷¹, P. Bartos¹⁴⁵a, V. Bartsch¹⁵⁰, A. Bassalat¹¹⁶, A. Basye¹⁶⁶,
R.L. Bates⁵³, L. Batkova¹⁴⁵a, J.R. Batley²⁸, M. Battistin³⁰, F. Bauer¹³⁷, H.S. Bawa¹⁴⁴, e,
T. Beau⁷⁹, P.H. Beauchemin¹⁶², R. Beccherle¹²³a,¹²³b, P. Bechtle²¹, H.P. Beck¹⁷, K. Becker¹⁷⁶,
S. Becker⁹⁹, M. Beckingham¹³⁹, A.J. Beddall¹⁹c, A. Beddall¹⁹c, S. Bedikian¹⁷⁷, V.A. Bednyakov⁶⁴,
C.P. Bee¹⁴⁹, L.J. Beemster¹⁰⁶, T.A. Beermann¹⁷⁶, M. Begel²⁵, K. Behr¹¹⁹,
C. Belanger-Champagne⁸⁶, P.J. Bell⁴⁹, W.H. Bell⁴⁹, G. Bella¹⁵⁴, L. Bellagamba²⁰a, A. Bellerive²⁹,
M. Bellomo⁸⁵, A. Belloni⁵⁷, O.L. Beloborodova¹⁰⁸, f, K. Belotskiy⁹⁷, O. Beltramello³⁰,
O. Benary¹⁵⁴, D. Benchekroun¹³⁶a, K. Bendtz¹⁴⁷a,¹⁴⁷b, N. Benekos¹⁶⁶, Y. Benhammou¹⁵⁴,
E. Benhar Noccioli⁴⁹, J.A. Benitez Garcia¹⁶⁰b, D.P. Benjamin⁴⁵, J.R. Bensinger²³,
K. Benslama¹³¹, S. Bentvelsen¹⁰⁶, D. Berge¹⁰⁶, E. Bergeaas Kuutmann¹⁶, N. Berger⁵,
F. Berghaus¹⁷⁰, E. Berglund¹⁰⁶, J. Beringer¹⁵, C. Bernard²², P. Bernat⁷⁷, C. Bernius⁷⁸,
F.U. Bernlochner¹⁷⁰, T. Berry⁷⁶, P. Berta¹²⁸, C. Bertella⁸⁴, F. Bertolucci¹²³a,¹²³b, M.I. Besana⁹⁰a,
G.J. Besjes¹⁰⁵, O. Bessidskaia¹⁴⁷a,¹⁴⁷b, N. Besson¹³⁷, C. Betancourt⁴⁸, S. Bethke¹⁰⁰, W. Bhimji⁴⁶,
R.M. Bianchi¹²⁴, L. Bianchini²³, M. Bianco³⁰, O. Biebel⁹⁹, S.P. Bieniek⁷⁷, K. Bierwagen⁵⁴,
J. Biesiada¹⁵, M. Biglietti¹³⁵a, J. Bilbao De Mendizabal⁴⁹, H. Bilokon⁴⁷, M. Bindi²⁰a,²⁰b,
S. Binet¹¹⁶, A. Bingul¹⁹c, C. Bini¹³³a,¹³³b, C.W. Black¹⁵¹, J.E. Black¹⁴⁴, K.M. Black²²,
D. Blackburn¹³⁹, R.E. Blair⁶, J.-B. Blanchard¹³⁷, T. Blazek¹⁴⁵a, I. Bloch⁴², C. Blocker²³,
W. Blum⁸²,*, U. Blumenschein⁵⁴, G.J. Bobbink¹⁰⁶, V.S. Bobrovnikov¹⁰⁸, S.S. Bocchetta⁸⁰,
A. Bocci⁴⁵, C.R. Boddy¹¹⁹, M. Boehler⁴⁸, J. Boek¹⁷⁶, T.T. Boek¹⁷⁶, J.A. Bogaerts³⁰,
A.G. Bogdanchikov¹⁰⁸, A. Bogouch⁹¹,*, C. Bohm¹⁴⁷a, J. Bohm¹²⁶, V. Boisvert⁷⁶, T. Bold³⁸a,
V. Boldea²⁶a, A.S. Boldyrev⁹⁸, N.M. Bolnet¹³⁷, M. Bomben⁷⁹, M. Bona⁷⁵, M. Boonekamp¹³⁷,
A. Borisov¹²⁹, G. Borissov¹⁷¹, M. Borri⁸³, S. Borroni⁴², J. Bortfeldt⁹⁹, V. Bortolotto¹³⁵a,¹³⁵b,
K. Bos¹⁰⁶, D. Boscherini²⁰a, M. Bosman¹², H. Boterenbrood¹⁰⁶, J. Boudreau¹²⁴, J. Bouffard²,
E.V. Bouhova-Thacker<sup>71</sup>, D. Boumediene<sup>34</sup>, C. Bourdarios<sup>116</sup>, N. Bousson<sup>84</sup>, S. Boutouil<sup>136d</sup>, A. Boveia<sup>31</sup>, J. Boyd<sup>30</sup>, I.R. Boyko<sup>64</sup>, I. Bozovic-Jelisavcic<sup>13b</sup>, J. Bracinik<sup>18</sup>, P. Branchini<sup>135a</sup>, A. Brandt<sup>8</sup>, G. Brandt<sup>15</sup>, O. Brandt<sup>58a</sup>, U. Bratzler<sup>157</sup>, B. Brau<sup>85</sup>, J.E. Brau<sup>115</sup>, H.M. Braun<sup>176,*</sup>, S.F. Brazzale<sup>165a,165c</sup>, B. Brelier<sup>159</sup>, K. Brendlinger<sup>121</sup>, A.J. Brennan<sup>87</sup>, R. Brenner<sup>167</sup>, S. Bressler<sup>173</sup>, K. Bristow<sup>146c</sup>, T.M. Bristow<sup>46</sup>, D. Britton<sup>53</sup>, F.M. Brochu<sup>28</sup>, I. Brock<sup>21</sup>, R. Brock<sup>89</sup>, C. Bromberg<sup>89</sup>, J. Bronner<sup>100</sup>, G. Brooijmans<sup>35</sup>, T. Brooks<sup>76</sup>, W.K. Brooks<sup>32b</sup>, J. Brosamer<sup>15</sup>, E. Brost<sup>115</sup>, G. Brown<sup>83</sup>, J. Brown<sup>55</sup>, P.A. Bruckman de Renstrom<sup>39</sup>, D. Bruncko<sup>145b</sup>, R. Bruneliere<sup>48</sup>, S. Brunet<sup>60</sup>, A. Bruni<sup>20a</sup>, G. Bruni<sup>20a</sup>, M. Bruschi<sup>20a</sup>, L. Bryngemark<sup>80</sup>, T. Buanes<sup>14</sup>, Q. Buat<sup>143</sup>, F. Bucci<sup>49</sup>, P. Buchholz<sup>142</sup>, R.M. Buckingham<sup>119</sup>, A.G. Buckley<sup>53</sup>, S.I. Buda<sup>26a</sup>, I.A. Budagov<sup>64</sup>, F. Buehrer<sup>48</sup>, L. Bugge<sup>118</sup>, M.K. Bugge<sup>118</sup>, O. Bulekov<sup>97</sup>, A.C. Bundock<sup>73</sup>, H. Burckhart<sup>30</sup>, S. Burdin<sup>73</sup>, B. Burghgrave<sup>107</sup>, S. Burke<sup>130</sup>, I. Burmeister<sup>43</sup>, E. Busato<sup>34</sup>, V. Büscher<sup>82</sup>, P. Bussey<sup>53</sup>, C.P. Buszello<sup>167</sup>, B. Butler<sup>57</sup>, J.M. Butler<sup>22</sup>, A.I. Butt<sup>3</sup>, C.M. Buttar<sup>53</sup>, J.M. Butterworth<sup>77</sup>, W. Buttinger<sup>28</sup>, A. Buzatu<sup>53</sup>, M. Byszewski<sup>10</sup>, S. Cabrera Urbán<sup>168</sup>, D. Caforio<sup>20a,20b</sup>, O. Cakir<sup>4a</sup>, P. Calafiura<sup>15</sup>, G. Calderini<sup>79</sup>, P. Calfayan<sup>99</sup>, R. Calkins<sup>107</sup>, L.P. Caloba<sup>24a</sup>, D. Calvet<sup>34</sup>, S. Calvet<sup>34</sup>, R. Camacho Toro<sup>49</sup>, P. Camarri<sup>134a,134b</sup>, D. Cameron<sup>118</sup>, L.M. Caminada<sup>15</sup>, R. Caminal Armadans<sup>12</sup>, S. Campana<sup>30</sup>, M. Campanelli<sup>77</sup>, A. Campoverde<sup>149</sup>, V. Canale<sup>103a,103b</sup>, A. Canepa<sup>160a</sup>, J. Cantero<sup>81</sup>, R. Cantrill<sup>76</sup>, T. Cao<sup>40</sup>, M.D.M. Capeans Garrido<sup>30</sup>, I. Caprini<sup>26a</sup>, M. Caprini<sup>26a</sup>, M. Capua<sup>37a,37b</sup>, R. Caputo<sup>82</sup>, R. Cardarelli<sup>134a</sup>, T. Carli<sup>30</sup>, G. Carlino<sup>103a</sup>, L. Carminati<sup>90a,90b</sup>, S. Caron<sup>105</sup>, E. Carquin<sup>32a</sup>, G.D. Carrillo-Montoya<sup>146c</sup>, A.A. Carter<sup>75</sup>, J.R. Carter<sup>28</sup>, J. Carvalho<sup>125a,125c</sup>, D. Casadei<sup>77</sup>, M.P. Casado<sup>12</sup>, E. Castaneda-Miranda<sup>146b</sup>, A. Castelli<sup>106</sup>, V. Castillo Gimenez<sup>168</sup>, N.F. Castro<sup>125a</sup>, P. Catastini<sup>57</sup>, A. Catinaccio<sup>30</sup>, J.R. Catmore<sup>71</sup>, A. Cattai<sup>30</sup>, G. Cattani<sup>134a,134b</sup>, S. Caughron<sup>89</sup>, V. Cavaliere<sup>166</sup>, D. Cavalli<sup>90a</sup>, M. Cavalli-Sforza<sup>12</sup>, V. Cavasinni<sup>123a,123b</sup>, F. Ceradini<sup>135a,135b</sup>, B. Cerio<sup>45</sup>, K. Cerny<sup>128</sup>, A.S. Cerqueira<sup>24b</sup>, A. Cerri<sup>150</sup>, L. Cerrito<sup>75</sup>, F. Cerutti<sup>15</sup>, M. Cerv<sup>30</sup>, A. Cervelli<sup>17</sup>, S.A. Cetin<sup>19b</sup>, A. Chafaq<sup>136a</sup>, D. Chakraborty<sup>107</sup>, I. Chalupkova<sup>128</sup>, K. Chan<sup>3</sup>, P. Chang<sup>166</sup>, B. Chapleau<sup>86</sup>, J.D. Chapman<sup>28</sup>, D. Charfeddine<sup>116</sup>, D.G. Charlton<sup>18</sup>, C.A. Chavez Barajas<sup>30</sup>, S. Cheatham<sup>86</sup>, A. Chegwidden<sup>89</sup>, S. Chekanov<sup>6</sup>, S.V. Chekulaev<sup>160a</sup>, G.A. Chelkov<sup>64</sup>, M.A. Chelstowska<sup>88</sup>, C. Chen<sup>63</sup>, H. Chen<sup>25</sup>, K. Chen<sup>149</sup>, L. Chen<sup>33d,g</sup>, S. Chen<sup>33c</sup>, X. Chen<sup>146c</sup>, Y. Chen<sup>35</sup>, H.C. Cheng<sup>88</sup>, Y. Cheng<sup>31</sup>, A. Cheplakov<sup>64</sup>, R. Cherkaoui El Moursli<sup>136e</sup>, V. Chernyatin<sup>25,*</sup>, E. Cheu<sup>7</sup>, L. Chevalier<sup>137</sup>, V. Chiarella<sup>47</sup>, G. Chiefari<sup>103a,103b</sup>, J.T. Childers<sup>6</sup>, A. Chilingarov<sup>71</sup>, G. Chiodini<sup>72a</sup>, A.S. Chisholm<sup>18</sup>, R.T. Chislett<sup>77</sup>, A. Chitan<sup>26a</sup>, M.V. Chizhov<sup>64</sup>, S. Chouridou<sup>9</sup>, B.K.B. Chow<sup>99</sup>, I.A. Christidi<sup>77</sup>, D. Chromek-Burckhart<sup>30</sup>, M.L. Chu<sup>152</sup>, J. Chudoba<sup>126</sup>, L. Chytka<sup>114</sup>, G. Ciapetti<sup>133a,133b</sup>, A.K. Ciftci<sup>4a</sup>, R. Ciftci<sup>4a</sup>, D. Cinca<sup>62</sup>, V. Cindro<sup>74</sup>, A. Ciocio<sup>15</sup>, P. Cirkovic<sup>13b</sup>, Z.H. Citron<sup>173</sup>, M. Citterio<sup>90a</sup>, M. Ciubancan<sup>26a</sup>, A. Clark<sup>49</sup>, P.J. Clark<sup>46</sup>, R.N. Clarke<sup>15</sup>, W. Cleland<sup>124</sup>, J.C. Clemens<sup>84</sup>, B. Clement<sup>55</sup>, C. Clement<sup>147a,147b</sup>, Y. Coadou<sup>84</sup>, M. Cobal<sup>165a,165c</sup>, A. Coccaro<sup>139</sup>, J. Cochran<sup>63</sup>, L. Coffey<sup>23</sup>, J.G. Cogan<sup>144</sup>, J. Coggeshall<sup>166</sup>, B. Cole<sup>35</sup>, S. Cole<sup>107</sup>, A.P. Colijn<sup>106</sup>, C. Collins-Tooth<sup>53</sup>, J. Collot<sup>55</sup>, T. Colombo<sup>58c</sup>, G. Colon<sup>85</sup>, G. Compostella<sup>100</sup>, P. Conde Muiño<sup>125a,125b</sup>, E. Coniavitis<sup>167</sup>, M.C. Conidi<sup>12</sup>, I.A. Connelly<sup>76</sup>, S.M. Consonni<sup>90a,90b</sup>, V. Consorti<sup>48</sup>, S. Constantinescu<sup>26a</sup>, C. Conta<sup>120a,120b</sup>, G. Conti<sup>57</sup>, F. Conventi<sup>103a,h</sup>, M. Cooke<sup>15</sup>, B.D. Cooper<sup>77</sup>, A.M. Cooper-Sarkar<sup>119</sup>, N.J. Cooper-Smith<sup>76</sup>, K. Copic<sup>15</sup>, T. Cornelissen<sup>176</sup>, M. Corradi<sup>20a</sup>, F. Corriveau<sup>86,i</sup>, A. Corso-Radu<sup>164</sup>, A. Cortes-Gonzalez<sup>12</sup>, G. Cortiana<sup>100</sup>, G. Costa<sup>90a</sup>, M.J. Costa<sup>168</sup>, D. Costanzo<sup>140</sup>, D. Côté<sup>8</sup>, G. Cottin<sup>28</sup>, G. Cowan<sup>76</sup>, B.E. Cox<sup>83</sup>, K. Cranmer<sup>109</sup>, G. Cree<sup>29</sup>, S. Crépé-Renaudin<sup>55</sup>, F. Crescioli<sup>79</sup>, M. Crispin Ortuzar<sup>119</sup>, M. Cristinziani<sup>21</sup>, G. Crosetti<sup>37a,37b</sup>, C.-M. Cuciuc<sup>26a</sup>, C. Cuenca Almenar<sup>177</sup>, T. Cuhadar Donszelmann<sup>140</sup>, J. Cummings<sup>177</sup>, M. Curatolo<sup>47</sup>, C. Cuthbert<sup>151</sup>, H. Czirr<sup>142</sup>, P. Czodrowski<sup>3</sup>, Z. Czyczula<sup>177</sup>, S. D'Auria<sup>53</sup>, M. D'Onofrio<sup>73</sup>, M.J. Da Cunha Sargedas De Sousa<sup>125a,125b</sup>, C. Da Via<sup>83</sup>, W. Dabrowski<sup>38a</sup>, A. Dafinca<sup>119</sup>, T. Dai<sup>88</sup>, O. Dale<sup>14</sup>, F. Dallaire<sup>94</sup>, C. Dallapiccola<sup>85</sup>, M. Dam<sup>36</sup>, A.C. Daniells<sup>18</sup>, M. Dano Hoffmann<sup>36</sup>, V. Dao<sup>105</sup>, G. Darbo<sup>50a</sup>, G.L. Darlea<sup>26c</sup>, S. Darmora<sup>8</sup>, J.A. Dassoulas<sup>42</sup>, W. Davey<sup>21</sup>, C. David<sup>170</sup>, T. Davidek<sup>128</sup>, E. Davies<sup>119,c</sup>, M. Davies<sup>94</sup>, O. Davignon<sup>79</sup>, A.R. Davison<sup>77</sup>, P. Davison<sup>77</sup>, Y. Davygora<sup>58a</sup>, E. Dawe<sup>143</sup>, I. Dawson<sup>140</sup>,
R.K. Daya-Ishmukhametova²³, K. De⁸, R. de Asmundis¹⁰³a, S. De Castro²⁰a,²⁰b, S. De Cecco⁷⁹, J. de Graat⁹⁹, N. De Groot¹⁰⁵, P. de Jong¹⁰⁶, C. De La Taille¹¹⁶, H. De la Torre⁸¹, F. De Lorenzi⁶³, L. De Nooij¹⁰⁶, D. De Pedis¹³³a, A. De Salvo¹³³a, U. De Sanctis¹⁶⁵a,¹⁶⁵c, A. De Santo¹⁵⁰, J.B. De Vivie De Regie¹¹⁶, G. De Zorzi¹³³a,¹³³b, W.J. Dearnaley⁷¹, R. Debbe²⁵, C. Debenedetti⁴⁶, B. Dechenaux⁵⁵, D.V. Dedovich⁶⁴, J. Degenhardt¹²¹, I. Deigaard¹⁰⁶, J. Del Peso⁸¹, T. Del Prete¹²³a,¹²³b, T. Delemontex⁵⁵, F. Deliot¹³⁷, M. Deliyergiyev⁷⁴, A. Dell'Acqua³⁰, L. Dell'Asta²², M. Della Pietra¹⁰³a,⁴, D. della Volpe⁴⁹, M. Delmastro⁵, P.A. Delsart⁵⁵, C. Deluca¹⁰⁶, S. Demers¹⁷⁷, M. Demichev⁶⁴, A. Demilly⁷⁹, S.P. Denisov¹²⁹, D. Derendarz³⁹, J.E. Derkaoui¹³⁶d, F. Derue⁷⁹, P. Dervan⁷³, K. Desch²¹, C. Deterre⁴², P.O. Deviveiros¹⁰⁶, A. Dewhurst¹³⁰, S. Dhaliwal¹⁰⁶, A. Di Ciaccio¹³⁴a,¹³⁴b, L. Di Ciaccio⁵, A. Di Domenico¹³³a,¹³³b, C. Di Donato¹⁰³a,¹⁰³b, A. Di Girolamo³⁰, B. Di Girolamo³⁰, A. Di Mattia¹⁵³, B. Di Micco¹³⁵a,¹³⁵b, R. Di Nardo⁴⁷, A. Di Simone⁴⁸, R. Di Sipio²⁰a,²⁰b, D. Di Valentino²⁹, M.A. Diaz³²a, E.B. Diehl⁸⁸, J. Dietrich⁴², T.A. Dietzsch⁵⁸a, S. Diglio⁸⁷, A. Dimitrievska¹³a, J. Dingfelder²¹, C. Dionisi¹³³a,¹³³b, P. Dita²⁶a, S. Dita²⁶a, F. Dittus³⁰, F. Djama⁸⁴, T. Djobava⁵¹b, M.A.B. do Vale²⁴c, A. Do Valle Wemans¹²⁵a,¹²⁵g, T.K.O. Doan⁵, D. Dobos³⁰, E. Dobson⁷⁷, C. Doglioni⁴⁹, T. Doherty⁵³, T. Dohmae¹⁵⁶, J. Dolejsi¹²⁸, Z. Dolezal¹²⁸, B.A. Dolgoshein⁹⁷,*, M. Donadelli²⁴d, S. Donati¹²³a,¹²³b, P. Dondero¹²⁰a,¹²⁰b, J. Donini³⁴, J. Dopke³⁰, A. Doria¹⁰³a, A. Dos Anjos¹⁷⁴, A. Dotti¹²³a,¹²³b, M.T. Dova⁷⁰, A.T. Doyle⁵³, M. Dris¹⁰, J. Dubbert⁸⁸, S. Dube¹⁵, E. Dubreuil³⁴, E. Duchovni¹⁷³, G. Duckeck⁹⁹, O.A. Ducu²⁶a, D. Duda¹⁷⁶, A. Dudarev³⁰, F. Dudziak⁶³, L. Duflot¹¹⁶, L. Duguid⁷⁶, M. Dührssen³⁰, M. Dunford⁵⁸a, H. Duran Yildiz⁴a, M. Düren⁵², M. Dwuznik³⁸a, J. Ebke⁹⁹, W. Edson², N.C. Edwards⁴⁶, W. Ehrenfeld²¹, T. Eifert¹⁴⁴, G. Eigen¹⁴, K. Einsweiler¹⁵, T. Ekelof¹⁶⁷, M. El Kacimi¹³⁶c, M. Ellert¹⁶⁷, S. Ellés⁵, F. Ellinghaus⁸², K. Ellis⁷⁵, N. Ellis³⁰, J. Elmsheuser⁹⁹, M. Elsing³⁰, D. Emeliyanov¹³⁰, Y. Enari¹⁵⁶, O.C. Endner⁸², M. Endo¹¹⁷, R. Engelmann¹⁴⁹, J. Erdmann¹⁷⁷, A. Ereditato¹⁷, D. Eriksson¹⁴⁷a, G. Ernis¹⁷⁶, J. Ernst², M. Ernst²⁵, J. Ernwein¹³⁷, D. Errede¹⁶⁶, S. Errede¹⁶⁶, E. Ertel⁸², M. Escalier¹¹⁶, H. Esch⁴³, C. Escobar¹²⁴, X. Espinal Curull¹², B. Esposito⁴⁷, A.I. Etienvre¹³⁷, E. Etzion¹⁵⁴, H. Evans⁶⁰, L. Fabbri²⁰a,²⁰b, G. Facini³⁰, R.M. Fakhruvdinov¹²⁹, S. Falciano¹³³a, Y. Fang³³a, M. Fanti⁹⁰a,⁹⁰b, A. Farbin⁸, A. Farilla¹³⁵a, T. Farooque¹², S. Farrell¹⁶⁴, S.M. Farrington¹⁷¹, P. Farthouat³⁰, F. Fassi¹⁶⁸, P. Fassnacht³⁰, D. Fassouliotis⁹, A. Favareto⁵⁰a,⁵⁰b, L. Fayard¹¹⁶, P. Federic¹⁴⁵a, O.L. Fedin¹²², W. Fedorko¹⁶⁹, M. Fehling-Kaschek⁴⁸, S. Feigl³⁰, L. Feligioni⁸⁴, C. Feng³³d, E.J. Feng⁶, H. Feng⁸⁸, A.B. Fenyuk¹²⁹, S. Fernandez Perez³⁰, W. Fernando⁶, S. Ferrag⁵³, J. Ferrando⁵³, V. Ferrara⁴², A. Ferrari¹⁶⁷, P. Ferrari¹⁰⁶, R. Ferrari¹²⁰a, D.E. Ferreira de Lima⁵³, A. Ferrer¹⁶⁸, D. Ferrere⁴⁹, C. Ferretti⁸⁸, A. Ferretto Parodi⁵⁰a,⁵⁰b, M. Fiascaris³¹, F. Fiedler⁸², A. Filipčič⁷⁴, M. Filipuzzi⁴², F. Filthaut¹⁰⁵, M. Fincke-Keeler¹⁷⁰, K.D. Finelli¹⁵¹, M.C.N. Fiolhais¹²⁵a,¹²⁵c, L. Fiorini¹⁶⁸, A. Firan⁴⁰, J. Fischer¹⁷⁶, M.J. Fisher¹¹⁰, W.C. Fisher⁸⁹, E.A. Fitzgerald²³, M. Flech¹⁴⁸, I. Fleck¹⁴², P. Fleischmann¹⁷⁵, S. Fleischmann¹⁷⁶, G.T. Fletcher¹⁴⁰, G. Fletcher⁷⁵, T. Flick¹⁷⁶, A. Floderus⁸⁰, L.R. Flores Castillo¹⁷⁴, A.C. Florez Bustos¹⁶⁰b, M.J. Flowerdew¹⁰⁰, A. Formica¹³⁷, A. Forti⁸³, D. Fortin¹⁶⁰a, D. Fournier¹¹⁶, H. Fox⁷¹, P. Francavilla¹², M. Franchini²⁰a,²⁰b, S. Franchino³⁰, D. Francis³⁰, M. Franklin⁵⁷, S. Franz⁶¹, M. Fraternali¹²⁰a,¹²⁰b, S. Fratina¹²¹, S.T. French²⁸, C. Friedrich⁴², F. Friedrich⁴⁴, D. Froidevaux³⁰, J.A. Frost²⁸, C. Fukunaga¹⁵⁷, E. Fullana Torregrosa¹²⁸, B.G. Fulsom¹⁴⁴, J. Fuster¹⁶⁸, C. Gabaldon⁵⁵, O. Gabizon¹⁷³, A. Gabrielli²⁰a,²⁰b, A. Gabrielli¹³³a,¹³³b, S. Gadatsch¹⁰⁶, S. Gadomski⁴⁹, G. Gagliardi⁵⁰a,⁵⁰b, P. Gagnon⁶⁰, C. Galea¹⁰⁵, B. Galhardo¹²⁵a,¹²⁵c, E.J. Gallas¹¹⁹, V. Gallo¹⁷, B.J. Gallop¹³⁰, P. Gallus¹²⁷, G. Galster³⁶, K.K. Gan¹¹⁰, R.P. Gandrajula⁶², J. Gao³³b, g, Y.S. Gao¹⁴⁴e, F.M. Garay Walls⁴⁶, F. Garberson¹⁷⁷, C. García¹⁶⁸, J.E. García Navarro¹⁶⁸, M. Garcia-Sciveres¹⁵, R.W. Gardner³¹, N. Garelli¹⁴⁴, V. Garonne³⁰, C. Gatti⁴⁷, G. Gaudio¹²⁰a, B. Gaur¹⁴², L. Gauthier⁹⁴, P. Gauzzi¹³³a,¹³³b, I.L. Gavrilenko⁹⁵, C. Gay¹⁶⁹, G. Gaycken²¹, E.N. Gazis¹⁰, P. Ge³³d, Z. Gecse¹⁶⁹, C.N.P. Gee¹³⁰, D.A.A. Geerts¹⁰⁶, Ch. Geich-Gimbel²¹, K. Gellerstedt¹⁴⁷a,¹⁴⁷b, C. Gemme⁵⁰a, A. Gemmell⁵³, M.H. Genest⁵⁵, S. Gentile¹³³a,¹³³b, M. George⁵⁴, S. George⁷⁶, D. Gerbaudo¹⁶⁴, A. Gershon¹⁵⁴, H. Ghazlane¹³⁶b, N. Ghodbane³⁴, B. Giacobbe²⁰a, S. Giagu¹³³a,¹³³b, V. Giangiobbe¹², P. Giannetti¹²³a,¹²³b, F. Gianotti³⁰,
B. Gibbard<sup>25</sup>, S.M. Gibson<sup>76</sup>, M. Gilchriese<sup>15</sup>, T.P.S. Gillam<sup>28</sup>, D. Gillberg<sup>30</sup>, A.R. Gillman<sup>130</sup>, D.M. Gingrich<sup>3,d</sup>, N. Giokaris<sup>9</sup>, M.P. Giordani<sup>165a,165c</sup>, R. Giordano<sup>103a,103b</sup>, F.M. Giorgi<sup>16</sup>, P.F. Giraud<sup>137</sup>, D. Giugni<sup>90a</sup>, C. Giuliani<sup>48</sup>, M. Giunta<sup>94</sup>, B.K. Gjelsten<sup>118</sup>, I. Gkialas<sup>155,k</sup>, L.K. Gladilin<sup>98</sup>, C. Glasman<sup>81</sup>, J. Glatzer<sup>30</sup>, A. Glazov<sup>42</sup>, G.L. Glonti<sup>64</sup>, M. Goblirsch-Kolb<sup>100</sup>, J.R. Goddard<sup>75</sup>, J. Godfrey<sup>143</sup>, J. Godlewski<sup>30</sup>, C. Goeringer<sup>82</sup>, S. Goldfarb<sup>88</sup>, T. Golling<sup>177</sup>, D. Golubkov<sup>129</sup>, A. Gomes<sup>125a,125b,125d</sup>, L.S. Gomez Fajardo<sup>42</sup>, R. Gonçalo<sup>76</sup>, J. Goncalves Pinto Firmino Da Costa<sup>42</sup>, L. Gonella<sup>21</sup>, S. González de la Hoz<sup>168</sup>, G. Gonzalez Parra<sup>12</sup>, M.L. Gonzalez Silva<sup>27</sup>, S. Gonzalez-Sevilla<sup>49</sup>, L. Goossens<sup>30</sup>, P.A. Gorbounov<sup>96</sup>, H.A. Gordon<sup>25</sup>, I. Gorelov<sup>104</sup>, G. Gorfine<sup>176</sup>, B. Gorini<sup>30</sup>, E. Gorini<sup>72a,72b</sup>, A. Gorišek<sup>74</sup>, E. Gornicki<sup>39</sup>, A.T. Goshaw<sup>6</sup>, C. Gössling<sup>43</sup>, M.I. Gostkin<sup>64</sup>, M. Gouighri<sup>136a</sup>, D. Goujdami<sup>136c</sup>, M.P. Goulette<sup>49</sup>, A.G. Goussiou<sup>139</sup>, C. Goy<sup>5</sup>, S. Gozpinar<sup>23</sup>, H.M.X. Grabas<sup>137</sup>, L. Graber<sup>54</sup>, I. Grabowska-Bold<sup>38a</sup>, P. Grafström<sup>20a,20b</sup>, K-J. Grahn<sup>42</sup>, J. Gramling<sup>49</sup>, E. Gramstad<sup>118</sup>, F. Grancagnolo<sup>72a</sup>, S. Grancagnolo<sup>16</sup>, V. Grassi<sup>149</sup>, V. Gratchev<sup>122</sup>, H.M. Gray<sup>30</sup>, E. Graziani<sup>135a</sup>, O.G. Grebenyuk<sup>122</sup>, Z.D. Greenwood<sup>78,l</sup>, K. Gregersen<sup>36</sup>, I.M. Gregor<sup>42</sup>, P. Grenier<sup>144</sup>, J. Griffiths<sup>8</sup>, N. Grigalashvili<sup>64</sup>, A.A. Grillo<sup>138</sup>, K. Grimm<sup>71</sup>, S. Grinstein<sup>12,m</sup>, Ph. Gris<sup>34</sup>, Y.V. Grishkevich<sup>98</sup>, J.-F. Grivaz<sup>116</sup>, J.P. Grohs<sup>44</sup>, A. Grohsjean<sup>42</sup>, E. Gross<sup>173</sup>, J. Grosse-Knetter<sup>54</sup>, G.C. Grossi<sup>134a,134b</sup>, J. Groth-Jensen<sup>173</sup>, Z.J. Grout<sup>150</sup>, K. Grybel<sup>142</sup>, L. Guan<sup>33b</sup>, F. Guescini<sup>49</sup>, D. Guest<sup>177</sup>, O. Gueta<sup>154</sup>, C. Guicheney<sup>34</sup>, E. Guido<sup>50a,50b</sup>, T. Guillemin<sup>116</sup>, S. Guindon<sup>2</sup>, U. Gul<sup>53</sup>, C. Gumpert<sup>44</sup>, J. Gunther<sup>127</sup>, J. Guo<sup>35</sup>, S. Gupta<sup>119</sup>, P. Gutierrez<sup>112</sup>, N.G. Gutierrez Ortiz<sup>53</sup>, C. Gutschow<sup>77</sup>, N. Guttman<sup>154</sup>, C. Guyot<sup>137</sup>, C. Gwenlan<sup>119</sup>, C.B. Gwilliam<sup>73</sup>, A. Haas<sup>109</sup>, C. Haber<sup>15</sup>, H.K. Hadavand<sup>8</sup>, N. Haddad<sup>136e</sup>, P. Haefner<sup>21</sup>, S. Hageboeck<sup>21</sup>, Z. Hajduk<sup>39</sup>, H. Hakobyan<sup>178</sup>, M. Haleem<sup>42</sup>, D. Hall<sup>119</sup>, G. Halladjian<sup>89</sup>, K. Hamacher<sup>176</sup>, P. Hamal<sup>114</sup>, K. Hamano<sup>87</sup>, M. Hamer<sup>54</sup>, A. Hamilton<sup>146a</sup>, S. Hamilton<sup>162</sup>, L. Han<sup>33b</sup>, K. Hanagaki<sup>117</sup>, K. Hanawa<sup>156</sup>, M. Hance<sup>15</sup>, P. Hanke<sup>58a</sup>, J.R. Hansen<sup>36</sup>, J.B. Hansen<sup>36</sup>, J.D. Hansen<sup>36</sup>, P.H. Hansen<sup>36</sup>, K. Hara<sup>161</sup>, A.S. Hard<sup>174</sup>, T. Harenberg<sup>176</sup>, S. Harkusha<sup>91</sup>, D. Harper<sup>88</sup>, R.D. Harrington<sup>46</sup>, O.M. Harris<sup>139</sup>, P.F. Harrison<sup>171</sup>, F. Hartjes<sup>106</sup>, A. Harvey<sup>56</sup>, S. Hasegawa<sup>102</sup>, Y. Hasegawa<sup>141</sup>, S. Hassani<sup>137</sup>, S. Haug<sup>17</sup>, M. Hauschild<sup>30</sup>, R. Hauser<sup>89</sup>, M. Havranek<sup>126</sup>, C.M. Hawkes<sup>18</sup>, R.J. Hawkings<sup>30</sup>, A.D. Hawkins<sup>80</sup>, T. Hayashi<sup>161</sup>, D. Hayden<sup>89</sup>, C.P. Hays<sup>119</sup>, H.S. Hayward<sup>73</sup>, S.J. Haywood<sup>130</sup>, S.J. Head<sup>18</sup>, T. Heck<sup>82</sup>, V. Hedberg<sup>80</sup>, L. Heelan<sup>8</sup>, S. Heim<sup>121</sup>, T. Heim<sup>176</sup>, B. Heinemann<sup>15</sup>, L. Heinrich<sup>109</sup>, S. Heisterkamp<sup>36</sup>, J. Hejbal<sup>126</sup>, L. Helary<sup>22</sup>, C. Heller<sup>99</sup>, M. Heller<sup>30</sup>, S. Hellman<sup>147a,147b</sup>, D. Hellmich<sup>21</sup>, C. Helsens<sup>30</sup>, J. Henderson<sup>119</sup>, R.C.W. Henderson<sup>71</sup>, C. Hengler<sup>42</sup>, A. Henrichs<sup>177</sup>, A.M. Henriques Correia<sup>30</sup>, S. Henrot-Versille<sup>116</sup>, C. Hensel<sup>54</sup>, G.H. Herbert<sup>16</sup>, Y. Hernández Jiménez<sup>168</sup>, R. Herrberg-Schubert<sup>16</sup>, G. Herten<sup>48</sup>, R. Hertenberger<sup>99</sup>, L. Hervas<sup>30</sup>, G.G. Hesketh<sup>77</sup>, N.P. Hessey<sup>106</sup>, R. Hickling<sup>75</sup>, E. Higón-Rodriguez<sup>168</sup>, J.C. Hill<sup>28</sup>, K.H. Hiller<sup>42</sup>, S. Hillert<sup>21</sup>, S.J. Hillier<sup>18</sup>, I. Hinchliffe<sup>15</sup>, E. Hines<sup>121</sup>, M. Hirose<sup>117</sup>, D. Hirschbuehl<sup>176</sup>, J. Hobbs<sup>149</sup>, N. Hod<sup>106</sup>, M.C. Hodgkinson<sup>140</sup>, P. Hodgson<sup>140</sup>, A. Hoecker<sup>30</sup>, M.R. Hoeferkamp<sup>104</sup>, J. Hoffman<sup>40</sup>, D. Hoffmann<sup>84</sup>, J.I. Hofmann<sup>58a</sup>, M. Hohlfeld<sup>82</sup>, T.R. Holmes<sup>15</sup>, T.M. Hong<sup>121</sup>, L. Hooft van Huysduynen<sup>109</sup>, J.-Y. Hostachy<sup>55</sup>, S. Hou<sup>152</sup>, A. Hoummada<sup>136a</sup>, J. Howard<sup>119</sup>, J. Howarth<sup>42</sup>, M. HRABOVSKY<sup>114</sup>, I. Hristova<sup>16</sup>, J. Hrivnac<sup>116</sup>, T. Hryn'ova<sup>5</sup>, P.J. Hsu<sup>82</sup>, S.-C. Hsu<sup>139</sup>, D. Hu<sup>35</sup>, X. Hu<sup>25</sup>, Y. Huang<sup>146c</sup>, Z. Hubacek<sup>30</sup>, F. Hubaut<sup>84</sup>, F. Huegging<sup>21</sup>, T.B. Huffman<sup>119</sup>, E.W. Hughes<sup>35</sup>, G. Hughes<sup>71</sup>, M. Huhtinen<sup>30</sup>, T.A. Hülsing<sup>82</sup>, M. Hurwitz<sup>15</sup>, N. Huseynov<sup>64,b</sup>, J. Huston<sup>89</sup>, J. Huth<sup>57</sup>, G. Iacobucci<sup>49</sup>, G. Iakovidis<sup>10</sup>, I. Ibragimov<sup>142</sup>, L. Iconimidou-Fayard<sup>116</sup>, J. Idarraga<sup>116</sup>, E. Ideal<sup>177</sup>, P. Iengo<sup>103a</sup>, O. Igonkina<sup>106</sup>, T. Iizawa<sup>172</sup>, Y. Ikegami<sup>65</sup>, K. Ikematsu<sup>142</sup>, M. Ikeno<sup>65</sup>, D. Iliadis<sup>155</sup>, N. Ilic<sup>159</sup>, Y. Inamaru<sup>66</sup>, T. Ince<sup>100</sup>, P. Ioannou<sup>9</sup>, M. Iodice<sup>135a</sup>, K. Iordanidou<sup>9</sup>, V. Ippolito<sup>133a,133b</sup>, A. Irles Quiles<sup>168</sup>, C. Isaksson<sup>167</sup>, M. Ishino<sup>67</sup>, M. Ishitsuka<sup>158</sup>, R. Ishmukhametov<sup>110</sup>, C. Issever<sup>119</sup>, S. Istin<sup>19a</sup>, J.M. Iturbe Ponce<sup>83</sup>, A.V. Ivashin<sup>129</sup>, W. Iwanski<sup>39</sup>, H. Iwasaki<sup>65</sup>, J.M. Izen<sup>41</sup>, V. Izzo<sup>103a</sup>, B. Jackson<sup>121</sup>, J.N. Jackson<sup>73</sup>, M. Jackson<sup>73</sup>, P. Jackson<sup>1</sup>, M.R. Jaekel<sup>30</sup>, V. Jain<sup>2</sup>, K. Jakobs<sup>48</sup>, S. Jakobsen<sup>36</sup>, T. Jakoubek<sup>126</sup>, J. Jakubek<sup>127</sup>, D.O. Jamin<sup>152</sup>, D.K. Jana<sup>78</sup>, E. Jansen<sup>77</sup>, H. Jansen<sup>30</sup>, J. Janssen<sup>21</sup>, M. Janus<sup>171</sup>, G. Jarlskog<sup>80</sup>, L. Jeanty<sup>15</sup>, G.-Y. Jeng<sup>151</sup>, I. Jen-La Plante<sup>31</sup>,
D. Jennens<sup>87</sup>, P. Jenni<sup>48,n</sup>, J. Jentzsch<sup>43</sup>, C. Jeske<sup>171</sup>, S. Jézéquel<sup>5</sup>, H. Ji<sup>174</sup>, W. Ji<sup>82</sup>, J. Jia<sup>149</sup>, Y. Jiang<sup>33a</sup>, M. Jimenez Belenguer<sup>42</sup>, S. Jin<sup>33a</sup>, A. Jinaru<sup>26a</sup>, O. Jinnouchi<sup>158</sup>, M.D. Joergensen<sup>36</sup>, D. Joffe<sup>40</sup>, K.E. Johansson<sup>147a</sup>, P. Johansson<sup>140</sup>, K.A. Johns<sup>7</sup>, K. Jon-And<sup>147a,147b</sup>, G. Jones<sup>171</sup>, R.W.L. Jones<sup>71</sup>, T.J. Jones<sup>73</sup>, P.M. Jorge<sup>125a,125b</sup>, K.D. Joshi<sup>83</sup>, J. Jovicevic<sup>148</sup>, X. Ju<sup>174</sup>, C.A. Jung<sup>43</sup>, R.M. Jungst<sup>30</sup>, P. Jussel<sup>61</sup>, A. Juste Rozas<sup>12,m</sup>, M. Kaci<sup>168</sup>, A. Kaczmarska<sup>39</sup>, M. Kado<sup>116</sup>, H. Kagan<sup>110</sup>, M. Kagan<sup>144</sup>, E. Kajomovitz<sup>45</sup>, S. Kama<sup>40</sup>, N. Kanaya<sup>156</sup>, M. Kaneda<sup>30</sup>, S. Kaneti<sup>28</sup>, T. Kanno<sup>158</sup>, V.A. Kantserov<sup>97</sup>, J. Kanzaki<sup>65</sup>, B. Kaplan<sup>109</sup>, A. Kapliy<sup>31</sup>, D. Kar<sup>53</sup>, K. Karakostas<sup>10</sup>, N. Karastathis<sup>10</sup>, M. Karnevskiy<sup>82</sup>, S.N. Karpov<sup>64</sup>, K. Karthik<sup>109</sup>, V. Kartvelishvili<sup>71</sup>, A.N. Karyukhin<sup>129</sup>, L. Kashif<sup>174</sup>, G. Kasieczka<sup>58b</sup>, R.D. Kass<sup>110</sup>, A. Kastanas<sup>14</sup>, Y. Kataoka<sup>156</sup>, A. Katre<sup>49</sup>, J. Katzy<sup>42</sup>, V. Kaushik<sup>7</sup>, K. Kawagoe<sup>69</sup>, T. Kawamoto<sup>156</sup>, G. Kawamura<sup>54</sup>, S. Kazama<sup>156</sup>, V.F. Kazanin<sup>108</sup>, M.Y. Kazarinov<sup>64</sup>, R. Keeler<sup>170</sup>, P.T. Keener<sup>121</sup>, R. Kehoe<sup>40</sup>, M. Keil<sup>54</sup>, J.S. Keller<sup>139</sup>, H. Keoshkerian<sup>5</sup>, O. Kepka<sup>126</sup>, B.P. Kerševan<sup>74</sup>, S. Kersten<sup>176</sup>, K. Kessoku<sup>156</sup>, J. Keung<sup>159</sup>, F. Khalil-zada<sup>11</sup>, H. Khandanyan<sup>147a,147b</sup>, A. Khanov<sup>113</sup>, A. Khodinov<sup>97</sup>, A. Khomich<sup>58a</sup>, T.J. Khoo<sup>28</sup>, G. Khoriauli<sup>21</sup>, A. Khoroshilov<sup>176</sup>, V. Khovanskiy<sup>96</sup>, E. Khramov<sup>64</sup>, J. Khubua<sup>51b</sup>, H. Kim<sup>147a,147b</sup>, S.H. Kim<sup>161</sup>, N. Kimura<sup>172</sup>, O. Kind<sup>16</sup>, B.T. King<sup>73</sup>, M. King<sup>168</sup>, R.S.B. King<sup>119</sup>, S.B. King<sup>169</sup>, J. Kirk<sup>130</sup>, A.E. Kiryunin<sup>100</sup>, T. Kishimoto<sup>66</sup>, D. Kisielewska<sup>38a</sup>, F. Kiss<sup>48</sup>, T. Kitamura<sup>66</sup>, T. Kittelmann<sup>124</sup>, K. Kiuchi<sup>161</sup>, E. Kladiva<sup>145b</sup>, M. Klein<sup>73</sup>, U. Klein<sup>73</sup>, K. Kleinknecht<sup>82</sup>, P. Klimek<sup>147a,147b</sup>, A. Klimentov<sup>25</sup>, R. Klingenberg<sup>43</sup>, J.A. Klinger<sup>83</sup>, E.B. Klinkby<sup>36</sup>, T. Klioutchnikova<sup>30</sup>, P.F. Klok<sup>105</sup>, E.-E. Kluge<sup>58a</sup>, P. Kluit<sup>106</sup>, S. Kluth<sup>100</sup>, E. Kneringer<sup>61</sup>, E.B.F.G. Knoops<sup>84</sup>, A. Knue<sup>53</sup>, T. Kobayashi<sup>156</sup>, M. Kobel<sup>44</sup>, M. Kocian<sup>144</sup>, P. Kodys<sup>128</sup>, S. Koenig<sup>82</sup>, P. Koevesarki<sup>21</sup>, T. Koffas<sup>29</sup>, E. Koffeman<sup>106</sup>, L.A. Kogan<sup>119</sup>, S. Kohlmann<sup>176</sup>, Z. Kohout<sup>127</sup>, T. Kohriki<sup>65</sup>, T. Koi<sup>144</sup>, H. Kolanoski<sup>16</sup>, I. Koletsou<sup>5</sup>, J. Koll<sup>89</sup>, A.A. Komar<sup>95,*</sup>, Y. Komori<sup>156</sup>, T. Kondo<sup>65</sup>, K. Köneke<sup>48</sup>, A.C. König<sup>105</sup>, T. Kono<sup>65,o</sup>, R. Konoplich<sup>109,p</sup>, N. Konstantinidis<sup>77</sup>, R. Kopeliansky<sup>153</sup>, S. Koperny<sup>38a</sup>, L. Köpke<sup>82</sup>, A.K. Kopp<sup>48</sup>, K. Korcyl<sup>39</sup>, K. Kordas<sup>155</sup>, A. Korn<sup>77</sup>, A.A. Korol<sup>108</sup>, I. Korolkov<sup>12</sup>, E.V. Korolkova<sup>140</sup>, V.A. Korotkov<sup>129</sup>, O. Kortner<sup>100</sup>, S. Kortner<sup>100</sup>, V.V. Kostyukhin<sup>21</sup>, S. Kotov<sup>100</sup>, V.M. Kotov<sup>64</sup>, A. Kotwal<sup>45</sup>, C. Kourkoumelis<sup>9</sup>, V. Kouskoura<sup>155</sup>, A. Koutsman<sup>160a</sup>, R. Kowalewski<sup>170</sup>, T.Z. Kowalski<sup>38a</sup>, W. Kozanecki<sup>137</sup>, A.S. Kozhin<sup>129</sup>, V. Kral<sup>127</sup>, V.A. Kramarenko<sup>98</sup>, G. Kramberger<sup>74</sup>, D. Krasnopevtsev<sup>97</sup>, M.W. Krasny<sup>79</sup>, A. Krasznahorkay<sup>30</sup>, J.K. Kraus<sup>21</sup>, A. Kravchenko<sup>25</sup>, S. Kreiss<sup>109</sup>, M. Kretz<sup>58c</sup>, J. Kretzschmar<sup>73</sup>, K. Kreutzfeldt<sup>52</sup>, P. Krieger<sup>159</sup>, K. Kroeninger<sup>54</sup>, H. Kroha<sup>100</sup>, J. Kroll<sup>121</sup>, J. Kroseberg<sup>21</sup>, J. Krstic<sup>13a</sup>, U. Kruchonak<sup>64</sup>, H. Krüger<sup>21</sup>, T. Kruker<sup>17</sup>, N. Krumnack<sup>63</sup>, Z.V. Krumshteyn<sup>64</sup>, A. Kruse<sup>174</sup>, M.C. Kruse<sup>45</sup>, M. Kruskal<sup>22</sup>, T. Kubota<sup>87</sup>, S. Kuday<sup>4a</sup>, S. Kuehn<sup>48</sup>, A. Kugel<sup>58c</sup>, A. Kuhl<sup>138</sup>, T. Kuhl<sup>42</sup>, V. Kukhtin<sup>64</sup>, Y. Kulchitsky<sup>91</sup>, S. Kuleshov<sup>32b</sup>, M. Kuna<sup>133a,133b</sup>, J. Kunkle<sup>121</sup>, A. Kupco<sup>126</sup>, H. Kurashige<sup>66</sup>, Y.A. Kurochkin<sup>91</sup>, R. Kurumida<sup>66</sup>, V. Kus<sup>126</sup>, E.S. Kuwertz<sup>148</sup>, M. Kuze<sup>158</sup>, J. Kvita<sup>143</sup>, A. La Rosa<sup>49</sup>, L. La Rotonda<sup>37a,37b</sup>, L. Labarga<sup>81</sup>, C. Lacasta<sup>168</sup>, F. Lacava<sup>133a,133b</sup>, J. Lacey<sup>29</sup>, H. Lacker<sup>16</sup>, D. Lacour<sup>79</sup>, V.R. Lacuesta<sup>168</sup>, E. Ladygin<sup>64</sup>, R. Lafaye<sup>5</sup>, B. Laforge<sup>79</sup>, T. Lagouri<sup>177</sup>, S. Lai<sup>48</sup>, H. Laier<sup>58a</sup>, E. Laisne<sup>55</sup>, L. Lambourne<sup>77</sup>, C.L. Lampen<sup>7</sup>, W. Lampl<sup>7</sup>, E. Lançon<sup>137</sup>, U. Landgraf<sup>48</sup>, M.P.J. Landon<sup>75</sup>, V.S. Lang<sup>58a</sup>, C. Lange<sup>42</sup>, A.J. Lankford<sup>164</sup>, F. Lanni<sup>25</sup>, K. Lantzsch<sup>30</sup>, A. Lanza<sup>120a</sup>, S. Laplace<sup>79</sup>, C. Lapoire<sup>21</sup>, J.F. Laporte<sup>137</sup>, T. Lari<sup>90a</sup>, M. Lassnig<sup>30</sup>, P. Laurelli<sup>47</sup>, V. Lavorini<sup>37a,37b</sup>, W. Lavrijsen<sup>15</sup>, P. Laycock<sup>73</sup>, B.T. Le<sup>55</sup>, O. Le Dortz<sup>79</sup>, E. Le Guirriec<sup>84</sup>, E. Le Menedeu<sup>12</sup>, T. LeCompte<sup>6</sup>, F. Ledroit-Guillon<sup>55</sup>, C.A. Lee<sup>152</sup>, H. Lee<sup>106</sup>, J.S.H. Lee<sup>117</sup>, S.C. Lee<sup>152</sup>, L. Lee<sup>177</sup>, G. Lefebvre<sup>79</sup>, M. Lefebvre<sup>170</sup>, F. Legger<sup>99</sup>, C. Leggett<sup>15</sup>, A. Lehan<sup>73</sup>, M. Lehmacher<sup>21</sup>, G. Lehmann Miotto<sup>30</sup>, X. Lei<sup>7</sup>, A.G. Leister<sup>177</sup>, M.A.L. Leite<sup>24d</sup>, R. Leitner<sup>128</sup>, D. Lellouch<sup>173</sup>, B. Lemmer<sup>54</sup>, K.J.C. Leney<sup>77</sup>, T. Lenz<sup>106</sup>, G. Lenzen<sup>176</sup>, B. Lenzi<sup>30</sup>, R. Leone<sup>7</sup>, K. Leonhardt<sup>44</sup>, S. Leontsinis<sup>10</sup>, C. Leroy<sup>94</sup>, C.G. Lester<sup>28</sup>, C.M. Lester<sup>121</sup>, J. Levêque<sup>5</sup>, D. Levin<sup>88</sup>, L.J. Levinson<sup>173</sup>, A. Lewis<sup>119</sup>, G.H. Lewis<sup>109</sup>, A.M. Leyko<sup>21</sup>, M. Leyton<sup>41</sup>, B. Li<sup>33b,q</sup>, B. Li<sup>84</sup>, H. Li<sup>149</sup>, H.L. Li<sup>31</sup>, S. Li<sup>45</sup>, X. Li<sup>88</sup>, Z. Liang<sup>119,r</sup>, H. Liao<sup>34</sup>, B. Liberti<sup>134a</sup>, P. Lichard<sup>30</sup>, K. Lie<sup>166</sup>, J. Liebal<sup>21</sup>, W. Liebig<sup>14</sup>, C. Limbach<sup>21</sup>, A. Limosani<sup>87</sup>, M. Limper<sup>62</sup>, S.C. Lin<sup>152,s</sup>, F. Linde<sup>106</sup>, B.E. Lindquist<sup>149</sup>, J.T. Linnemann<sup>89</sup>, E. Lipeles<sup>121</sup>, A. Lipniacka<sup>14</sup>, M. Lisovyi<sup>42</sup>,
T.M. Liss¹⁶⁶, D. Lissauer²⁵, A. Lister¹⁶⁹, A.M. Litke¹³⁸, B. Liu¹⁵², D. Liu¹⁵², J.B. Liu³³b,
K. Liu³³b,t, L. Liu⁸⁸, M. Liu⁴⁵, M. Liu³³b, Y. Liu³³b, M. Livan¹²⁰a,¹²⁰b, S.S.A. Livermore¹¹⁹,
A. Lleres⁵⁵, J. Llorente Merino⁸¹, S.L. Lloyd⁷⁵, F. Lo Sterzo¹⁵², E. Lobodzinska⁴², P. Loch⁷,
W.S. Lockman¹³⁸, T. Loddenkoetter²¹, F.K. Loebinger⁸³, A.E. Loevschall-Jensen³⁶,
A. Loginov¹⁷⁷, C.W. Loh¹⁶⁹, T. Lohse¹⁶, K. Lohwasser⁴⁸, M. Lokajicek¹²⁶, V.P. Lombardo⁵,
J.D. Long⁸⁸, R.E. Long⁷¹, L. Lopes¹²⁵a, D. Lopez Mateos⁵⁷, B. Lopez Paredes¹⁴⁰, J. Lorenz⁹⁹,
N. Lorenzo Martinez¹¹⁶, M. Losada¹⁶³, P. Loscutoff¹⁵, M.J. Losty¹⁶⁰a,*, X. Lou⁴¹, A. Lounis¹¹⁶,
J. Love⁶, P.A. Love⁷¹, A.J. Lowe¹⁴⁴,e, F. Lu³³a, H.J. Lubatti¹³⁹, C. Luci¹³³a,¹³³b, A. Lucotte⁵⁵,
D. Ludwig⁴², F. Luehring⁶⁰, W. Lukas⁶¹, L. Luminari¹³³a, O. Lundberg¹⁴⁷a,¹⁴⁷b,
B. Lund-Jensen¹⁴⁸, M. Lungwitz⁸², D. Lynn²⁵, R. Lysak¹²⁶, E. Lytken⁸⁰, H. Ma²⁵, L.L. Ma³³d,
G. Maccarrone⁴⁷, A. Macchiolo¹⁰⁰, B. Maček⁷⁴, J. Machado Miguens¹²⁵a,¹²⁵b, D. Macina³⁰,
R. Mackeprang³⁶, D. Madaffari⁸⁴, R. Madar⁴⁸, H.J. Maddocks⁷¹, W.F. Mader⁴⁴, A. Madsen¹⁶⁷,
M. Maeno⁸, T. Maeno²⁵, E. Magradze⁵⁴, K. Mahboubi⁴⁸, J. Mahlstedt¹⁰⁶, S. Mahmoud⁷³,
C. Maiani¹³⁷, C. Maidantchik²⁴a, A. Maio¹²⁵a,¹²⁵b,¹²⁵d, S. Majewski¹¹⁵, Y. Makida⁶⁵,
N. Makovec¹¹⁶, P. Mal¹³⁷,u, B. Malaescu⁷⁹, Pa. Malecki³⁹, V.P. Maleev¹²², F. Malek⁵⁵,
U. Mallik⁶², D. Malon⁶, C. Malone¹⁴⁴, S. Maltezos¹⁰, V.M. Malyshev¹⁰⁸, S. Malyukov³⁰,
J. Mamuzic¹³b, B. Mandelli³⁰, L. Mandelli⁹⁰a, I. Mandić⁷⁴, R. Mandrysch⁶², J. Maneira¹²⁵a,¹²⁵b,
A. Manfredini¹⁰⁰, L. Manhaes de Andrade Filho²⁴b, J.A. Manjarres Ramos¹⁶⁰b, A. Mann⁹⁹,
P.M. Manning¹³⁸, A. Manousakis-Katsikakis⁹, B. Mansoulie¹³⁷, R. Mantifel⁸⁶, L. Mapelli³⁰,
L. March¹⁶⁸, J.F. Marchand²⁹, F. Marchese¹³⁴a,¹³⁴b, G. Marchiori⁷⁹, M. Marcisovsky¹²⁶,
C.P. Marino¹⁷⁰, C.N. Marques¹²⁵a, F. Marroquim²⁴a, S.P. Marsden⁸³, Z. Marshall¹⁵, L.F. Marti¹⁷,
S. Marti-Garcia¹⁶⁸, B. Martin³⁰, B. Martin⁸⁹, J.P. Martin⁹⁴, T.A. Martin¹⁷¹, V.J. Martin⁴⁶,
B. Martin dit Latour⁴⁹, H. Martinez¹³⁷, M. Martinez¹²,m, S. Martin-Haugh¹³⁰, A.C. Martyniuk⁷⁷,
M. Marx¹³⁹, F. Marzano¹³³a, A. Marzin³⁰, L. Masetti⁸², T. Mashimo¹⁵⁶, R. Mashinistov⁹⁵,
J. Masik⁸³, A.L. Maslennikov¹⁰⁸, I. Massa²⁰a,²⁰b, N. Massol⁵, P. Mastrandrea¹⁴⁹,
A. Mastroberardino³⁷a,³⁷b, T. Masubuchi¹⁵⁶, P. Matricon¹¹⁶, H. Matsunaga¹⁵⁶, T. Matsushita⁶⁶,
P. Mättig¹⁷⁶, S. Mättig⁴², J. Mattmann⁸², J. Maurer⁸⁴, S.J. Maxfield⁷³, D.A. Maximov¹⁰⁸,f,
R. Mazini¹⁵², L. Mazzaferro¹³⁴a,¹³⁴b, G. Mc Goldrick¹⁵⁹, S.P. Mc Kee⁸⁸, A. McCarn⁸⁸,
R.L. McCarthy¹⁴⁹, T.G. McCarthy²⁹, N.A. McCubbin¹³⁰, K.W. McFarlane⁵⁶,*, J.A. Mcfayden⁷⁷,
G. Mchedlidze⁵⁴, T. Mclaughlan¹⁸, S.J. McMahon¹³⁰, R.A. McPherson¹⁷⁰,i, A. Meade⁸⁵,
J. Mechnich¹⁰⁶, M. Mechtel¹⁷⁶, M. Medinnis⁴², S. Meehan³¹, R. Meera-Lebbai¹¹², S. Mehlhase³⁶,
A. Mehta⁷³, K. Meier⁵⁸a, C. Meineck⁹⁹, B. Meirose⁸⁰, C. Melachrinos³¹, B.R. Mellado Garcia¹⁴⁶c,
F. Meloni⁹⁰a,⁹⁰b, L. Mendoza Navas¹⁶³, A. Mengarelli²⁰a,²⁰b, S. Menke¹⁰⁰, E. Meoni¹⁶²,
K.M. Mercurio⁵⁷, S. Mergelmeyer²¹, N. Meric¹³⁷, P. Mermod⁴⁹, L. Merola¹⁰³a,¹⁰³b, C. Meroni⁹⁰a,
F.S. Merritt³¹, H. Merritt¹¹⁰, A. Messina³⁰,v, J. Metcalfe²⁵, A.S. Mete¹⁶⁴, C. Meyer⁸²,
C. Meyer³¹, J-P. Meyer¹³⁷, J. Meyer³⁰, R.P. Middleton¹³⁰, S. Migas⁷³, L. Mijović¹³⁷,
G. Mikenberg¹⁷³, M. Mikestikova¹²⁶, M. Mikuž⁷⁴, D.W. Miller³¹, C. Mills⁴⁶, A. Milov¹⁷³,
D.A. Milstead¹⁴⁷a,¹⁴⁷b, D. Milstein¹⁷³, A.A. Minaenko¹²⁹, M. Miñano Moya¹⁶⁸, I.A. Minashvili⁶⁴,
A.I. Mincer¹⁰⁹, B. Mindur³⁸a, M. Mineev⁶⁴, Y. Ming¹⁷⁴, L.M. Mir¹², G. Mirabelli¹³³a,
T. Mitani¹⁷², J. Mitrevski⁹⁹, V.A. Mitsou¹⁶⁸, S. Mitsui⁶⁵, A. Miucci⁴⁹, P.S. Miyagawa¹⁴⁰,
J.U. Mjörnmark⁸⁰, T. Moa¹⁴⁷a,¹⁴⁷b, K. Mochizuki⁸⁴, V. Moeller²⁸, S. Mohapatra³⁵, W. Mohr⁴⁸,
S. Molander¹⁴⁷a,¹⁴⁷b, R. Moles-Valls¹⁶⁸, K. Mönig⁴², C. Monini⁵⁵, J. Monk³⁶, E. Monnier⁸⁴,
J. Montejo Berlingen¹², F. Monticelli⁷⁰, S. Monzani¹³³a,¹³³b, R.W. Moore³, C. Mora Herrera⁴⁹,
A. Moraes⁵³, N. Morange⁶², J. Morel⁵⁴, D. Moreno⁸², M. Moreno Llácer⁵⁴, P. Morettini⁵⁰a,
M. Morgenstern⁴⁴, M. Morii⁵⁷, S. Moritz⁸², A.K. Morley¹⁴⁸, G. Mornacchi³⁰, J.D. Morris⁷⁵,
L. Morvaj¹⁰², H.G. Moser¹⁰⁰, M. Mosidze⁵¹b, J. Moss¹¹⁰, R. Mount¹⁴⁴, E. Mountricha²⁵,
S.V. Mouraviev⁹⁵,*, E.J.W. Moyse⁸⁵, S.G. Muanza⁸⁴, R.D. Mudd¹⁸, F. Mueller⁵⁸a, J. Mueller¹²⁴,
K. Mueller²¹, T. Mueller²⁸, T. Mueller⁸², D. Muenstermann⁴⁹, Y. Munwes¹⁵⁴,
J.A. Murillo Quijada¹⁸, W.J. Murray¹⁷¹,c, E. Musto¹⁵³, A.G. Myagkov¹²⁹,w, M. Myska¹²⁶,
O. Nackenhorst⁵⁴, J. Nadal⁵⁴, K. Nagai⁶¹, R. Nagai¹⁵⁸, Y. Nagai⁸⁴, K. Nagano⁶⁵, A. Nagarkar¹¹⁰,
Y. Nagasaka⁵⁹, M. Nagel¹⁰⁰, A.M. Nairz³⁰, Y. Nakahama³⁰, K. Nakamura⁶⁵, T. Nakamura¹⁵⁶,
I. Nakano¹¹¹, H. Namasivayam⁴¹, G. Nanava²¹, R. Narayan⁵⁸b, T. Nattermann²¹, T. Naumann⁴²,
G. Navarro<sup>163</sup>, R. Nayyar<sup>7</sup>, H.A. Neal<sup>88</sup>, P.Yu. Nechaeva<sup>95</sup>, T.J. Neep<sup>83</sup>, A. Negri<sup>120a,120b</sup>,
G. Negri<sup>30</sup>, M. Negrini<sup>20a</sup>, S. Nektarijevic<sup>49</sup>, A. Nelson<sup>164</sup>, T.K. Nelson<sup>144</sup>, S. Nemecek<sup>126</sup>,
P. Nemethy<sup>109</sup>, A.A. Nepomuceno<sup>24a</sup>, M. Nessi<sup>30,x</sup>, M.S. Neubauer<sup>166</sup>, M. Neumann<sup>176</sup>,
A. Neusiedl<sup>82</sup>, R.M. Neves<sup>109</sup>, P. Nevski<sup>25</sup>, F.M. Newcomer<sup>121</sup>, P.R. Newman<sup>18</sup>, D.H. Nguyen<sup>6</sup>,
R.B. Nickerson<sup>119</sup>, R. Nicolaidou<sup>137</sup>, B. Nicquevert<sup>30</sup>, J. Nielsen<sup>138</sup>, N. Nikiforou<sup>35</sup>,
A. Nikiforov<sup>16</sup>, V. Nikolaenko<sup>129,w</sup>, I. Nikolic-Audit<sup>79</sup>, K. Nikolics<sup>49</sup>, K. Nikolopoulos<sup>18</sup>,
P. Nilsson<sup>8</sup>, Y. Ninomiya<sup>156</sup>, A. Nisati<sup>133a</sup>, R. Nisius<sup>100</sup>, T. Nobe<sup>158</sup>, L. Nodulman<sup>6</sup>,
M. Nomachi<sup>117</sup>, I. Nomidis<sup>155</sup>, S. Norberg<sup>112</sup>, M. Nordberg<sup>30</sup>, J. Novakova<sup>128</sup>, S. Nowak<sup>100</sup>,
M. Nozaki<sup>65</sup>, L. Nozka<sup>114</sup>, K. Ntekas<sup>10</sup>, A.-E. Nuncio-Quiroz<sup>21</sup>, G. Nunes Hanninger<sup>87</sup>,
T. Nunnemann<sup>99</sup>, E. Nurse<sup>77</sup>, F. Nuti<sup>87</sup>, B.J. O'Brien<sup>46</sup>, F. O'grady<sup>7</sup>, D.C. O'Neil<sup>143</sup>,
V. O'Shea<sup>53</sup>, F.G. Oakham<sup>29,d</sup>, H. Oberlack<sup>100</sup>, J. Ocariz<sup>79</sup>, A. Ochi<sup>66</sup>, M.I. Ochoa<sup>77</sup>, S. Oda<sup>69</sup>,
S. Odaka<sup>65</sup>, H. Ogren<sup>60</sup>, A. Oh<sup>83</sup>, S.H. Oh<sup>45</sup>, C.C. Ohm<sup>30</sup>, H. Ohman<sup>167</sup>, T. Ohshima<sup>102</sup>,
W. Okamura<sup>117</sup>, H. Okawa<sup>25</sup>, Y. Okumura<sup>31</sup>, T. Okuyama<sup>156</sup>, A. Olariu<sup>26a</sup>, A.G. Olchevski<sup>64</sup>,
S.A. Olivares Pino<sup>46</sup>, D. Oliveira Damazio<sup>25</sup>, E. Oliver Garcia<sup>168</sup>, D. Olivito<sup>121</sup>, A. Olszewski<sup>39</sup>,
J. Olszowska<sup>39</sup>, A. Onofre<sup>125a,125e</sup>, P.U.E. Onyisi<sup>31,y</sup>, C.J. Oram<sup>160a</sup>, M.J. Oreglia<sup>31</sup>, Y. Oren<sup>154</sup>,
D. Orestano<sup>135a,135b</sup>, N. Orlando<sup>72a,72b</sup>, C. Oropeza Barrera<sup>53</sup>, R.S. Orr<sup>159</sup>, B. Osculati<sup>50a,50b</sup>,
R. Ospanov<sup>121</sup>, G. Otero y Garzon<sup>27</sup>, H. Otono<sup>69</sup>, M. Ouchrif<sup>136d</sup>, E.A. Ouellette<sup>170</sup>,
F. Ould-Saada<sup>118</sup>, A. Ouraou<sup>137</sup>, K.P. Oussoren<sup>106</sup>, Q. Ouyang<sup>33a</sup>, A. Ovcharova<sup>15</sup>, M. Owen<sup>83</sup>,
V.E. Ozcan<sup>19a</sup>, N. Ozturk<sup>8</sup>, K. Pachal<sup>119</sup>, A. Pacheco Pages<sup>12</sup>, C. Padilla Aranda<sup>12</sup>,
S. Pagan Griso<sup>15</sup>, E. Paganis<sup>140</sup>, C. Pahl<sup>100</sup>, F. Paige<sup>25</sup>, P. Pais<sup>85</sup>, K. Pajchel<sup>118</sup>, G. Palacino<sup>160b</sup>,
S. Palestini<sup>30</sup>, D. Pallin<sup>34</sup>, A. Palma<sup>125a,125b</sup>, J.D. Palmer<sup>18</sup>, Y.B. Pan<sup>174</sup>, E. Panagiotopoulou<sup>10</sup>,
J.G. Panduro Vazquez<sup>76</sup>, P. Pani<sup>106</sup>, N. Panikashvili<sup>88</sup>, S. Panitkin<sup>25</sup>, D. Pantea<sup>26a</sup>,
Th.D. Papadopoulou<sup>10</sup>, K. Papageorgiou<sup>155,k</sup>, A. Paramonov<sup>6</sup>, D. Paredes Hernandez<sup>34</sup>,
M.A. Parker<sup>28</sup>, F. Parodi<sup>50a,50b</sup>, J.A. Parsons<sup>35</sup>, U. Parzefall<sup>48</sup>, E. Pasqualucci<sup>133a</sup>,
S. Passaggio<sup>50a</sup>, A. Passeri<sup>135a</sup>, F. Pastore<sup>135a,135b,*</sup>, Fr. Pastore<sup>76</sup>, G. Pásztor<sup>49,z</sup>, S. Pataraia<sup>176</sup>,
N.D. Patel<sup>151</sup>, J.R. Pater<sup>83</sup>, S. Patricelli<sup>103a,103b</sup>, T. Pauly<sup>30</sup>, J. Pearce<sup>170</sup>, M. Pedersen<sup>118</sup>,
S. Pedraza Lopez<sup>168</sup>, R. Pedro<sup>125a,125b</sup>, S.V. Peleganchuk<sup>108</sup>, D. Pelikan<sup>167</sup>, H. Peng<sup>33b</sup>,
B. Penning<sup>31</sup>, J. Penwell<sup>60</sup>, D.V. Perepelitsa<sup>35</sup>, E. Perez Codina<sup>160a</sup>, M.T. Pérez García-Estañ<sup>168</sup>,
V. Perez Reale<sup>35</sup>, L. Perini<sup>90a,90b</sup>, H. Pernegger<sup>30</sup>, R. Perrino<sup>72a</sup>, R. Peschke<sup>42</sup>,
V.D. Peshekhonov<sup>64</sup>, K. Peters<sup>30</sup>, R.F.Y. Peters<sup>83</sup>, B.A. Petersen<sup>87</sup>, J. Petersen<sup>30</sup>,
T.C. Petersen<sup>36</sup>, E. Petit<sup>42</sup>, A. Petridis<sup>147a,147b</sup>, C. Petridou<sup>155</sup>, E. Petrolo<sup>133a</sup>,
F. Petrucci<sup>135a,135b</sup>, M. Petteni<sup>143</sup>, R. Pezoa<sup>32b</sup>, P.W. Phillips<sup>130</sup>, G. Piacquadio<sup>144</sup>, E. Pianori<sup>171</sup>,
A. Picazio<sup>49</sup>, E. Piccaro<sup>75</sup>, M. Piccinini<sup>20a,20b</sup>, S.M. Piec<sup>42</sup>, R. Piegaia<sup>27</sup>, D.T. Pignotti<sup>110</sup>,
J.E. Pilcher<sup>31</sup>, A.D. Pilkington<sup>77</sup>, J. Pina<sup>125a,125b,125d</sup>, M. Pinamonti<sup>165a,165c,aa</sup>, A. Pinder<sup>119</sup>,
J.L. Pinfold<sup>3</sup>, A. Pingel<sup>36</sup>, B. Pinto<sup>125a</sup>, C. Pizio<sup>90a,90b</sup>, M.-A. Pleier<sup>25</sup>, V. Pleskot<sup>128</sup>,
E. Plotnikova<sup>64</sup>, P. Plucinski<sup>147a,147b</sup>, S. Poddar<sup>58a</sup>, F. Podlyski<sup>34</sup>, R. Poettgen<sup>82</sup>, L. Poggioli<sup>116</sup>,
D. Pohl<sup>21</sup>, M. Pohl<sup>49</sup>, G. Polesello<sup>120a</sup>, A. Policicchio<sup>37a,37b</sup>, R. Polifka<sup>159</sup>, A. Polini<sup>20a</sup>,
C.S. Pollard<sup>45</sup>, V. Polychronakos<sup>25</sup>, K. Pommès<sup>30</sup>, L. Pontecorvo<sup>133a</sup>, B.G. Pope<sup>89</sup>,
G.A. Popeneciu<sup>26b</sup>, D.S. Popovic<sup>13a</sup>, A. Poppleton<sup>30</sup>, X. Portell Bueso<sup>12</sup>, G.E. Pospelov<sup>100</sup>,
S. Pospisil<sup>127</sup>, K. Potamianos<sup>15</sup>, I.N. Potrap<sup>64</sup>, C.J. Potter<sup>150</sup>, C.T. Potter<sup>115</sup>, G. Poulard<sup>30</sup>,
J. Poveda<sup>60</sup>, V. Pozdnyakov<sup>64</sup>, R. Prabhu<sup>77</sup>, P. Pralavorio<sup>84</sup>, A. Pranko<sup>15</sup>, S. Prasad<sup>30</sup>,
R. Pravahan<sup>8</sup>, S. Prell<sup>63</sup>, D. Price<sup>83</sup>, J. Price<sup>73</sup>, L.E. Price<sup>6</sup>, D. Prieur<sup>124</sup>, M. Primavera<sup>72a</sup>,
M. Proissl<sup>46</sup>, K. Prokofiev<sup>109</sup>, F. Prokoshin<sup>32b</sup>, E. Protopapadaki<sup>137</sup>, S. Protopopescu<sup>25</sup>,
J. Proudfoot<sup>6</sup>, M. Przybycien<sup>38a</sup>, H. Przysiezniak<sup>5</sup>, E. Ptacek<sup>115</sup>, E. Pueschel<sup>85</sup>, D. Puldon<sup>149</sup>,
M. Purohit<sup>25,ab</sup>, P. Puzo<sup>116</sup>, Y. Pylypchenko<sup>62</sup>, J. Qian<sup>88</sup>, A. Quadt<sup>54</sup>, D.R. Quarrie<sup>15</sup>,
W.B. Quayle<sup>165a,165b</sup>, D. Quilty<sup>53</sup>, A. Qureshi<sup>160b</sup>, V. Radeka<sup>25</sup>, V. Radescu<sup>42</sup>,
S.K. Radhakrishnan<sup>149</sup>, P. Radloff<sup>115</sup>, F. Ragusa<sup>90a,90b</sup>, G. Rahal<sup>179</sup>, S. Rajagopalan<sup>25</sup>,
M. Rammensee<sup>30</sup>, M. Rammes<sup>142</sup>, A.S. Randle-Conde<sup>40</sup>, C. Rangel-Smith<sup>79</sup>, K. Rao<sup>164</sup>,
F. Rauscher<sup>99</sup>, T.C. Rave<sup>48</sup>, T. Ravenscroft<sup>53</sup>, M. Raymond<sup>30</sup>, A.L. Read<sup>118</sup>,
D.M. Rebuzzi<sup>120a,120b</sup>, A. Redelbach<sup>175</sup>, G. Redlinger<sup>25</sup>, R. Reece<sup>138</sup>, K. Reeves<sup>41</sup>, L. Rehnisch<sup>16</sup>,
A. Reinsch<sup>115</sup>, H. Reisin<sup>27</sup>, M. Relich<sup>164</sup>, C. Rembser<sup>30</sup>, Z.L. Ren<sup>152</sup>, A. Renaud<sup>116</sup>,
M. Rescigno<sup>133a</sup>, S. Resconi<sup>90a</sup>, B. Resende<sup>137</sup>, P. Reznicek<sup>128</sup>, R. Rezvani<sup>94</sup>, R. Richter<sup>100</sup>,
M. Ridel<sup>79</sup>, P. Rieck<sup>16</sup>, M. Rijssenbeek<sup>149</sup>, A. Rimoldi<sup>120a,120b</sup>, L. Rinaldi<sup>20a</sup>, E. Ritsch<sup>61</sup>, I. Riu<sup>12</sup>, F. Rizatdinova<sup>113</sup>, E. Rizvi<sup>75</sup>, S.H. Robertson<sup>86,i</sup>, A. Robichaud-Veronneau<sup>119</sup>, D. Robinson<sup>28</sup>, J.E.M. Robinson<sup>83</sup>, A. Robson<sup>53</sup>, C. Roda<sup>123a,123b</sup>, D. Roda Dos Santos<sup>126</sup>, L. Rodrigues<sup>30</sup>, S. Roe<sup>30</sup>, O. Røhne<sup>118</sup>, S. Rolli<sup>162</sup>, A. Romaniouk<sup>97</sup>, M. Romano<sup>20a,20b</sup>, G. Romeo<sup>27</sup>, E. Romero Adam<sup>168</sup>, N. Rompotis<sup>139</sup>, L. Roos<sup>79</sup>, E. Ros<sup>168</sup>, S. Rosati<sup>133a</sup>, K. Rosbach<sup>49</sup>, A. Rose<sup>150</sup>, M. Rose<sup>76</sup>, P.L. Rosendahl<sup>14</sup>, O. Rosenthal<sup>142</sup>, V. Rossetti<sup>147a,147b</sup>, E. Rossi<sup>103a,103b</sup>, L.P. Rossi<sup>50a</sup>, R. Rosten<sup>139</sup>, M. Rotaru<sup>26a</sup>, I. Roth<sup>173</sup>, J. Rothberg<sup>139</sup>, D. Rousseau<sup>116</sup>, C.R. Royon<sup>137</sup>, A. Rozanov<sup>84</sup>, Y. Rozen<sup>153</sup>, X. Ruan<sup>146c</sup>, F. Rubbo<sup>12</sup>, I. Rubinskiy<sup>42</sup>, V.I. Rud<sup>98</sup>, C. Rudolph<sup>44</sup>, M.S. Rudolph<sup>159</sup>, F. Rühr<sup>7</sup>, A. Ruiz-Martinez<sup>63</sup>, Z. Rurikova<sup>48</sup>, N.A. Rusakovich<sup>64</sup>, A. Ruschke<sup>99</sup>, J.P. Rutherfoord<sup>7</sup>, N. Ruthmann<sup>48</sup>, P. Ruzicka<sup>126</sup>, Y.F. Ryabov<sup>122</sup>, M. Rybar<sup>128</sup>, G. Rybkin<sup>116</sup>, N.C. Ryder<sup>119</sup>, A.F. Saavedra<sup>151</sup>, S. Sacerdoti<sup>27</sup>, A. Saddique<sup>3</sup>, I. Sadeh<sup>154</sup>, H.F.-W. Sadrozinski<sup>138</sup>, R. Sadykov<sup>64</sup>, F. Safai Tehrani<sup>133a</sup>, H. Sakamoto<sup>156</sup>, Y. Sakurai<sup>172</sup>, G. Salamanna<sup>75</sup>, A. Salamon<sup>134a</sup>, M. Saleem<sup>112</sup>, D. Salek<sup>106</sup>, P.H. Sales De Bruin<sup>139</sup>, D. Salihagic<sup>100</sup>, A. Salnikov<sup>144</sup>, J. Salt<sup>168</sup>, B.M. Salvachua Ferrando<sup>6</sup>, D. Salvatore<sup>37a,37b</sup>, F. Salvatore<sup>150</sup>, A. Salvucci<sup>105</sup>, A. Salzburger<sup>30</sup>, D. Sampsonidis<sup>155</sup>, A. Sanchez<sup>103a,103b</sup>, J. Sánchez<sup>168</sup>, V. Sanchez Martinez<sup>168</sup>, H. Sandaker<sup>14</sup>, H.G. Sander<sup>82</sup>, M.P. Sanders<sup>99</sup>, M. Sandhoff<sup>176</sup>, T. Sandoval<sup>28</sup>, C. Sandoval<sup>165a,165b</sup>, R. Sandstroem<sup>100</sup>, D.P.C. Sankey<sup>130</sup>, A. Sansoni<sup>47</sup>, C. Santoni<sup>34</sup>, R. Santonico<sup>134a,134b</sup>, H. Santos<sup>125a</sup>, I. Santoyo Castillo<sup>150</sup>, K. Sapp<sup>124</sup>, A. Sapronov<sup>64</sup>, J.G. Saraiva<sup>125a,125d</sup>, B. Sarrazin<sup>21</sup>, G. Sartisohn<sup>176</sup>, O. Sasaki<sup>65</sup>, Y. Sasaki<sup>156</sup>, I. Satsounkevitch<sup>91</sup>, G. Sauvage<sup>5,*</sup>, E. Sauvan<sup>5</sup>, P. Savard<sup>159,d</sup>, D.O. Savu<sup>30</sup>, C. Sawyer<sup>119</sup>, L. Sawyer<sup>78,l</sup>, D.H. Saxon<sup>53</sup>, J. Saxon<sup>121</sup>, C. Sbarra<sup>20a</sup>, A. Sbrizzi<sup>3</sup>, T. Scanlon<sup>30</sup>, D.A. Scannicchio<sup>164</sup> M. Scarcella<sup>151</sup>, J. Schaarschmidt<sup>173</sup>, P. Schacht<sup>100</sup>, D. Schaefer<sup>121</sup>, R. Schaefer<sup>42</sup>, A. Schaelicke<sup>46</sup>, S. Schaepe<sup>21</sup>, S. Schaetzel<sup>58b</sup>, U. Schäfer<sup>82</sup>, A.C. Schaffer<sup>116</sup>, D. Schaile<sup>99</sup>, R.D. Schamberger<sup>149</sup>, V. Scharf<sup>58a</sup>, V.A. Schegelsky<sup>122</sup>, D. Scheirich<sup>128</sup>, M. Schernau<sup>164</sup>, M.I. Scherzer<sup>35</sup>, C. Schiavi<sup>50a,50b</sup>, J. Schieck<sup>99</sup>, C. Schillo<sup>48</sup>, M. Schioppa<sup>37a,37b</sup>, S. Schlenker<sup>30</sup>, E. Schmidt<sup>48</sup>, K. Schmieden<sup>30</sup>, C. Schmitt<sup>82</sup>, C. Schmitt<sup>99</sup>, S. Schmitt<sup>58b</sup>, B. Schneider<sup>17</sup>, Y.J. Schnellbach<sup>73</sup>, U. Schnoor<sup>44</sup>, L. Schoeffel<sup>137</sup>, A. Schoening<sup>58b</sup>, B.D. Schoenrock<sup>89</sup>, A.L.S. Schorlemmer<sup>54</sup>, M. Schott<sup>82</sup>, D. Schouten<sup>160a</sup>, J. Schovancova<sup>25</sup>, M. Schram<sup>86</sup>, S. Schramm<sup>159</sup>, M. Schreyer<sup>175</sup>, C. Schroeder<sup>82</sup>, N. Schuh<sup>82</sup>, M.J. Schultens<sup>21</sup>, H.-C. Schultz-Coulon<sup>58a</sup>, H. Schulz<sup>16</sup>, M. Schumacher<sup>48</sup>, B.A. Schumm<sup>138</sup>, Ph. Schune<sup>137</sup>, A. Schwartzman<sup>144</sup>, Ph. Schwegler<sup>100</sup>, Ph. Schwemling<sup>137</sup>, R. Schwienhorst<sup>89</sup>, J. Schwindling<sup>137</sup>, T. Schwindt<sup>21</sup>, M. Schwoerer<sup>5</sup>, F.G. Sciacca<sup>17</sup>, E. Scifo<sup>116</sup>, G. Sciolla<sup>23</sup>, W.G. Scott<sup>130</sup>, F. Scuri<sup>123a,123b</sup>, F. Scutti<sup>21</sup>, J. Searcy<sup>88</sup>, G. Sedov<sup>42</sup>, E. Sedykh<sup>122</sup>, S.C. Seidel<sup>104</sup>, A. Seiden<sup>138</sup>, F. Seifert<sup>127</sup>, J.M. Seixas<sup>24a</sup>, G. Sekhniaidze<sup>103a</sup>, S.J. Sekula<sup>40</sup>, K.E. Selbach<sup>46</sup>, D.M. Seliverstov<sup>122</sup>, G. Sellers<sup>73</sup>, M. Seman<sup>145b</sup>, N. Semprini-Cesari<sup>20a,20b</sup>, C. Serfon<sup>30</sup>, L. Serin<sup>116</sup>, L. Serkin<sup>54</sup>, T. Serre<sup>84</sup>, R. Seuster<sup>160a</sup>, H. Severini<sup>112</sup>, F. Sforza<sup>100</sup>, A. Sfyrla<sup>30</sup>, E. Shabalina<sup>54</sup>, M. Shamim<sup>115</sup>, L.Y. Shan<sup>33a</sup>, J.T. Shank<sup>22</sup>, Q.T. Shao<sup>87</sup>, M. Shapiro<sup>15</sup>, P.B. Shatalov<sup>96</sup>, K. Shaw<sup>165a,165c</sup>, P. Sherwood<sup>77</sup>, S. Shimizu<sup>66</sup>, C.O. Shimmin<sup>164</sup>, M. Shimojima<sup>101</sup>, T. Shin<sup>56</sup>, M. Shiyakova<sup>64</sup>, A. Shmeleva<sup>95</sup>, M.J. Shochet<sup>31</sup>, D. Short<sup>119</sup>, S. Shrestha<sup>63</sup>, E. Shulga<sup>97</sup>, M.A. Shupe<sup>7</sup>, S. Shushkevich<sup>42</sup>, P. Sicho<sup>126</sup>, D. Sidorov<sup>113</sup>, A. Sidoti<sup>133a</sup>, F. Siegert<sup>44</sup>, Dj. Sijacki<sup>13a</sup>, O. Silbert<sup>173</sup>, J. Silva<sup>125a,125d</sup>, Y. Silver<sup>154</sup>, D. Silverstein<sup>144</sup>, S.B. Silverstein<sup>147a</sup>, V. Simak<sup>127</sup>, O. Simard<sup>5</sup>, Lj. Simic<sup>13a</sup>, S. Simion<sup>116</sup>, E. Simioni<sup>82</sup>, B. Simmons<sup>77</sup>, R. Simoniello<sup>90a,90b</sup>, M. Simonyan<sup>36</sup>, P. Sinervo<sup>159</sup>, N.B. Sinev<sup>115</sup>, V. Sipica<sup>142</sup>, G. Siragusa<sup>175</sup>, A. Sircar<sup>78</sup>, A.N. Sisakyan<sup>64,*</sup>, S.Yu. Sivoklokov<sup>98</sup>, J. Sjölin<sup>147a,147b</sup>, T.B. Sjursen<sup>14</sup>, L.A. Skinnari<sup>15</sup>, H.P. Skottowe<sup>57</sup>, K.Yu. Skovpen<sup>108</sup>, P. Skubic<sup>112</sup>, M. Slater<sup>18</sup>, T. Slavicek<sup>127</sup>, K. Sliwa<sup>162</sup>, V. Smakhtin<sup>173</sup>, B.H. Smart<sup>46</sup>, L. Smestad<sup>118</sup>, S.Yu. Smirnov<sup>97</sup>, Y. Smirnov<sup>97</sup>, L.N. Smirnova<sup>98,ac</sup>, O. Smirnova<sup>80</sup>, K.M. Smith<sup>53</sup>, M. Smizanska<sup>71</sup>, K. Smolek<sup>127</sup>, A.A. Snesarev<sup>95</sup>, G. Snidero<sup>75</sup>, J. Snow<sup>112</sup>, S. Snyder<sup>25</sup>, R. Sobie<sup>170,i</sup>, F. Socher<sup>44</sup>, J. Sodomka<sup>127</sup>, A. Soffer<sup>154</sup>, D.A. Soh<sup>152,r</sup>, C.A. Solans<sup>30</sup>, M. Solar<sup>127</sup>, J. Solc<sup>127</sup>, E.Yu. Soldatov<sup>97</sup>, U. Soldevila<sup>168</sup>, E. Solfaroli Camillocci<sup>133a,133b</sup>, A.A. Solodkov<sup>129</sup>, O.V. Solovyyanov<sup>129</sup>, V. Solovyev<sup>122</sup>, P. Sommer<sup>48</sup>, H.Y. Song<sup>33b</sup>, N. Soni<sup>1</sup>, A. Sood<sup>15</sup>, V. Sopko<sup>127</sup>, B. Sopko<sup>127</sup>, M. Sosebee<sup>8</sup>, R. Soualah<sup>165a,165c</sup>, P. Soueid<sup>94</sup>, A.M. Soukharev<sup>108</sup>, D. South<sup>42</sup>, S. Spagnolo<sup>72a,72b</sup>,
F. Spanò⁷⁶, W.R. Spearman⁵⁷, R. Spighi²⁰ª, G. Spigo³⁰, M. Spousta¹²⁸, T. Spreitzer¹⁵⁹,
B. Spurlock⁸, R.D. St. Denis⁵³, J. Stahlman¹²¹, R. Stamen⁵⁸ª, E. Stanecka³⁹, R.W. Stanek⁶,
C. Stanescu¹³⁵ª, M. Stanescu-Bellu⁴², M.M. Stanitzki⁴², S. Stapnes¹¹⁸, E.A. Starchenko¹²⁹,
J. Stark⁵⁵, P. Staroba¹²⁶, P. Starovoitov⁴², R. Staszewski³⁹, P. Stavina¹⁴⁵ª,*, G. Steele⁵³,
P. Steinberg²⁵, I. Stekl¹²⁷, B. Stelzer¹⁴³, H.J. Stelzer³⁰, O. Stelzer-Chilton¹⁶⁰ª, H. Stenzel⁵²,
S. Stern¹⁰⁰, G.A. Stewart⁵³, J.A. Stillings²¹, M.C. Stockton⁸⁶, M. Stoebe⁸⁶, K. Stoerig⁴⁸,
G. Stoicea²⁶ª, S. Stonjek¹⁰⁰, A.R. Stradling⁸, A. Straessner⁴⁴, J. Strandberg¹⁴⁸,
S. Strandberg¹⁴⁷ª,¹⁴⁷ᵇ, A. Strandlie¹¹⁸, E. Strauss¹⁴⁴, M. Strauss¹¹², P. Strizenec¹⁴⁵ᵇ,
R. Ströhmer¹⁷⁵, D.M. Strom¹¹⁵, R. Stroynowski⁴⁰, S.A. Stucci¹⁷, B. Stugu¹⁴, I. Stumer²⁵,*,
N.A. Styles⁴², D. Su¹⁴⁴, J. Su¹²⁴, HS. Subramania³, R. Subramaniam⁷⁸, A. Succurro¹²,
Y. Sugaya¹¹⁷, C. Suhr¹⁰⁷, M. Suk¹²⁷, V.V. Sulin⁹⁵, S. Sultansoy⁴c, T. Sumida⁶⁷, X. Sun⁵⁵,
J.E. Sundermann⁴⁸, K. Suruliz¹⁴⁰, G. Susinno³⁷ª,³⁷ᵇ, M.R. Sutton¹⁵⁰, Y. Suzuki⁶⁵, M. Svatos¹²⁶,
S. Swedish¹⁶⁹, M. Swiatlowski¹⁴⁴, I. Sykora¹⁴⁵ª, T. Sykora¹²⁸, D. Ta⁸⁹, K. Tackmann⁴²,
J. Taenzer¹⁵⁹, A. Taffard¹⁶⁴, R. Tafirout¹⁶⁰ª, N. Taiblum¹⁵⁴, Y. Takahashi¹⁰², H. Takai²⁵,
R. Takashima⁶⁸, H. Takeda⁶⁶, T. Takeshita¹⁴¹, Y. Takubo⁶⁵, M. Talby⁸⁴, A.A. Talyshev¹⁰⁸,f,
J.Y.C. Tam¹⁷⁵, M.C. Tamsett⁷⁸,ad, K.G. Tan⁸⁷, J. Tanaka¹⁵⁶, R. Tanaka¹¹⁶, S. Tanaka¹³²,
S. Tanaka⁶⁵, A.J. Tanasijczuk¹⁴³, K. Tani⁶⁶, N. Tannoury⁸⁴, S. Tapprogge⁸², S. Tarem¹⁵³,
F. Tarrade²⁹, G.F. Tartarelli⁹⁰ª, P. Tas¹²⁸, M. Tasevsky¹²⁶, T. Tashiro⁶⁷, E. Tassi³⁷ª,³⁷ᵇ,
A. Tavares Delgado¹²⁵ª,¹²⁵ᵇ, Y. Tayalati¹³⁶d, C. Taylor⁷⁷, F.E. Taylor⁹³, G.N. Taylor⁸⁷,
W. Taylor¹⁶⁰b, F.A. Teischinger³⁰, M. Teixeira Dias Castanheira⁷⁵, P. Teixeira-Dias⁷⁶,
K.K. Temming⁴⁸, H. Ten Kate³⁰, P.K. Teng¹⁵², S. Terada⁶⁵, K. Terashi¹⁵⁶, J. Terron⁸¹,
S. Terzo¹⁰⁰, M. Testa⁴⁷, R.J. Teuscher¹⁵⁹,ij, J. Therhaag²¹, T. Theveneaux-Pelzer³⁴, S. Thoma⁴⁸,
J.P. Thomas¹⁸, J. Thomas-Wilsker⁷⁶, E.N. Thompson³⁵, P.D. Thompson¹⁸, P.D. Thompson¹⁵⁹,
A.S. Thompson⁵³, L.A. Thomsen³⁶, E. Thomson¹²¹, M. Thomson²⁸, W.M. Thong⁸⁷,
R.P. Thun⁸⁸,*, F. Tian³⁵, M.J. Tibbetts¹⁵, V.O. Tikhomirov⁹⁵,ae, Yu.A. Tikhonov¹⁰⁸,f,
S. Timoshenko⁹⁷, E. Tiouchichine⁸⁴, P. Tipton¹⁷⁷, S. Tisserant⁸⁴, T. Todorov⁵,
S. Todorova-Nova¹²⁸, B. Toggerson¹⁶⁴, J. Tojo⁶⁹, S. Tokár¹⁴⁵ª, K. Tokushuku⁶⁵, K. Tollefson⁸⁹,
L. Tomlinson⁸³, M. Tomoto¹⁰², L. Tompkins³¹, K. Toms¹⁰⁴, N.D. Topilin⁶⁴, E. Torrence¹¹⁵,
H. Torres¹⁴³, E. Torró Pastor¹⁶⁸, J. Toth⁸⁴,z, F. Touchard⁸⁴, D.R. Tovey¹⁴⁰, H.L. Tran¹¹⁶,
T. Trefzger¹⁷⁵, L. Tremblet³⁰, A. Tricoli³⁰, I.M. Trigger¹⁶⁰ª, S. Trincaz-Duvoid⁷⁹,
M.F. Tripiana⁷⁰, N. Triplett²⁵, W. Trischuk¹⁵⁹, B. Trocmé⁵⁵, C. Troncon⁹⁰ª,
M. Trottier-McDonald¹⁴³, M. Trovatelli¹³⁵ª,¹³⁵ᵇ, P. True⁸⁹, M. Trzebinski³⁹, A. Trzupek³⁹,
C. Tsarouchas³⁰, J.C-L. Tseng¹¹⁹, P.V. Tsiarašhka⁹¹, D. Tsionou¹³⁷, G. Tsipolitis¹⁰,
N. Tsirintanis⁹, S. Tsiskaridze¹², V. Tsiskaridze⁴⁸, E.G. Tskhadadze⁵¹ª, I.I. Tsukerman⁹⁶,
V. Tsulaia¹⁵, S. Tsuno⁶⁵, D. Tsybychev¹⁴⁹, A. Tua¹⁴⁰, A. Tudorache²⁶ª, V. Tudorache²⁶ª,
A.N. Tuna¹²¹, S.A. Tupputi²⁰ª,²⁰ᵇ, S. Turchikhin⁹⁸,ac, D. Turecek¹²⁷, I. Turk Cakir⁴d,
R. Turra⁹⁰ª,⁹⁰ᵇ, P.M. Tuts³⁵, A. Tykhonov⁷⁴, M. Tylmad¹⁴⁷ª,¹⁴⁷ᵇ, M. Tyndel¹³⁰, K. Uchida²¹,
I. Ueda¹⁵⁶, R. Ueno²⁹, M. Ughetto⁸⁴, M. Ugland¹⁴, M. Uhlenbrock²¹, F. Ukegawa¹⁶¹, G. Unal³⁰,
A. Undrus²⁵, G. Unel¹⁶⁴, F.C. Ungaro⁴⁸, Y. Unno⁶⁵, D. Urbaniec³⁵, P. Urquijo²¹, G. Usai⁸,
A. Usanova⁶¹, L. Vacavant⁸⁴, V. Vacek¹²⁷, B. Vachon⁸⁶, N. Valencic¹⁰⁶, S. Valentinetti²⁰ª,²⁰ᵇ,
A. Valero¹⁶⁸, L. Valery³⁴, S. Valkar¹²⁸, E. Valladolid Gallego¹⁶⁸, S. Vallecorsa⁴⁹,
J.A. Valls Ferrer¹⁶⁸, R. Van Berg¹²¹, P.C. Van Der Deijl¹⁰⁶, R. van der Geer¹⁰⁶,
H. van der Graaf¹⁰⁶, R. Van Der Leeuw¹⁰⁶, D. van der Ster³⁰, N. van Eldik³⁰, P. van Gemmeren⁶,
J. Van Nieuwkoop¹⁴³, I. van Vulpen¹⁰⁶, M.C. van Woerden³⁰, M. Vanadia¹³³ª,¹³³ᵇ, W. Vandelli³⁰,
A. Vaniachine⁶, P. Vankov⁴², F. Vannucci⁷⁹, G. Vardanyan¹⁷⁸, R. Vari¹³³ª, E.W. Varnes⁷,
T. Varol⁸⁵, D. Varouchas¹⁵, A. Vartapetian⁸, K.E. Varvell¹⁵¹, V.I. Vassilakopoulos⁵⁶, F. Vazeille³⁴,
T. Vazquez Schroeder⁵⁴, J. Veatch⁷, F. Veloso¹²⁵ª,¹²⁵ᶜ, S. Veneziano¹³³ª, A. Ventura⁷²ª,⁷²ᵇ,
D. Ventura⁸⁵, M. Venturi⁴⁸, N. Venturi¹⁵⁹, A. Venturini²³, V. Vercesi¹²⁰ª, M. Verducci¹³⁹,
W. Verkerke¹⁰⁶, J.C. Vermeulen¹⁰⁶, A. Vest⁴⁴, M.C. Vetterli¹⁴³,d, O. Viazlo⁸⁰, I. Vichou¹⁶⁶,
T. Vickey¹⁴⁶c,af, O.E. Vickey Boeriu¹⁴⁶c, G.H.A. Viehhauser¹¹⁹, S. Viel¹⁶⁹, R. Vigne³⁰,
M. Villa²⁰ª,²⁰ᵇ, M. Villaplana Perez¹⁶⁸, E. Vilucchi⁴⁷, M.G. Vincter²⁹, V.B. Vinogradov⁶⁴,
J. Virzi¹⁵, O. Vitells¹⁷³, I. Vivarelli¹⁵⁰, F. Vives Vaque³, S. Vlachos¹⁰, D. Vladoiu⁹⁹,
M. Vlasak¹²⁷, A. Vogel²¹, P. Vokac¹²⁷, G. Volpi⁴⁷, M. Volpi⁸⁷, H. von der Schmitt¹⁰⁰,
H. von Radziewski⁴⁸, E. von Toerne²¹, V. Vorobel¹²⁸, M. Vos¹⁶⁸, R. Voss³⁰, J.H. Vossebeld⁷³,
N. Vranjes¹³⁷, M. Vranjes Milosavljevic¹⁰⁶, V. Vrba¹²⁶, M. Vreeswijk¹⁰⁶, T. Vu Anh⁴⁸,
R. Vuillermet³⁰, I. Vukotic³¹, Z. Vykydal¹²⁷, W. Wagner¹⁷⁶, P. Wagner²¹, S. Wahrmund⁴⁴,
J. Wakabayashi¹⁰², J. Walder⁷¹, R. Walker⁹⁹, W. Walkowiak¹⁴², R. Wall¹⁷⁷, P. Waller⁷³,
B. Walsh¹⁷⁷, C. Wang¹⁵², C. Wang⁴⁵, F. Wang¹⁷⁴, H. Wang¹⁵, H. Wang⁴⁰, J. Wang⁴²,
J. Wang³³a, K. Wang⁸⁶, R. Wang¹⁰⁴, S.M. Wang¹⁵², T. Wang²¹, X. Wang¹⁷⁷, A. Warburton⁸⁶,
C.P. Ward²⁸, D.R. Wardrobe⁷⁷, M. Warsinsky⁴⁸, A. Washbrook⁴⁶, C. Wasicki⁴², I. Watanabe⁶⁶,
P.M. Watkins¹⁸, A.T. Watson¹⁸, I.J. Watson¹⁵¹, M.F. Watson¹⁸, G. Watts¹³⁹, S. Watts⁸³,
B.M. Waugh⁷⁷, S. Webb⁸³, M.S. Weber¹⁷, S.W. Weber¹⁷⁵, J.S. Webster³¹, A.R. Weidberg¹¹⁹,
P. Weigell¹⁰⁰, J. Weingarten⁵⁴, C. Weiser⁴⁸, H. Weits¹⁰⁶, P.S. Wells³⁰, T. Wenaus²⁵,
D. Wendland¹⁶, Z. Weng¹⁵², r, T. Wengler³⁰, S. Wenig³⁰, N.ermes²¹, M. Werner⁴⁸, P. Werner³⁰,
M. Wessels⁵⁸a, J. Wetter¹⁶², K. Whalen²⁹, A. White⁸, M.J. White¹, R. White³²b,
S. White¹²³a, ¹²³b, D. Whiteson¹⁶⁴, D. Wicke¹⁷⁶, F.J. Wickens¹³⁰, W. Wiedenmann¹⁷⁴,
M. Wielers⁸⁰, c, P. Wienemann²¹, C. Wiglesworth³⁶, L.A.M. Wiik-Fuchs²¹, P.A. Wijeratne⁷⁷,
A. Wildauer¹⁰⁰, M.A. Wildt⁴², a, g, H.G. Wilkens³⁰, J.Z. Will⁹⁹, H.H. Williams¹²¹, S. Williams²⁸,
C. Willis⁸⁹, S. Willocq⁸⁵, J.A. Wilson¹⁸, A. Wilson⁸⁸, I. Wingerter-Seez⁵, S. Winkelmann⁴⁸,
F. Winklmeier¹¹⁵, M. Wittgen¹⁴⁴, T. Wittig⁴³, J. Wittkowski⁹⁹, S.J. Wollstadt⁸², M.W. Wolter³⁹,
H. Wolters¹²⁵a, ¹²⁵c, B.K. Wosiek³⁹, J. Wotschack³⁰, M.J. Woudstra⁸³, K.W. Wozniak³⁹,
M. Wright⁵³, S.L. Wu¹⁷⁴, X. Wu⁴⁹, Y. Wu⁸⁸, E. Wulf³⁵, T.R. Wyatt⁸³, B.M. Wynne⁴⁶, S. Xella³⁶,
M. Xiao¹³⁷, D. Xu³³a, L. Xu³³b, ah, B. Yabsley¹⁵¹, S. Yacoob¹⁴⁶b, ai, M. Yamada⁶⁵,
H. Yamaguchi¹⁵⁶, Y. Yamaguchi¹⁵⁶, A. Yamamoto⁶⁵, K. Yamamoto⁶³, S. Yamamoto¹⁵⁶,
T. Yamamura¹⁵⁶, T. Yamanaka¹⁵⁶, K. Yamauchi¹⁰², Y. Yamazaki⁶⁶, Z. Yan²², H. Yang³³e,
H. Yang¹⁷⁴, U.K. Yang⁸³, Y. Yang¹¹⁰, S. Yanush⁹², L. Yao³³a, W-M. Yao¹⁵, Y. Yasu⁶⁵,
E. Yatsenko⁴², K.H. Yau Wong²¹, J. Ye⁴⁰, S. Ye²⁵, A.L. Yen⁵⁷, E. Yildirim⁴², M. Yilmaz⁴b,
R. Yoosoofmiya¹²⁴, K. Yorita¹²⁷, R. Yoshida⁶, K. Yoshihara¹⁵⁶, C. Young¹⁴⁴, C.J.S. Young³⁰,
S. Youssef²², D.R. Yu¹⁵, J. Yu⁸, J.M. Yu⁸⁸, J. Yu¹¹³, L. Yuan⁶⁶, A. Yurkewicz¹⁰⁷, B. Zabinski³⁹,
R. Zaidan⁶², A.M. Zaitsev¹²⁹, w, A. Zaman¹⁴⁹, S. Zambito²³, L. Zanello¹³³a, ¹³³b, D. Zanzi¹⁰⁰,
A. Zaytsev²⁵, C. Zeitnitz¹⁷⁶, M. Zeman¹²⁷, A. Zemla³⁸a, K. Zengel²³, O. Zenin¹²⁹, T. Ženiš¹⁴⁵a,
D. Zerwas¹¹⁶, G. Zevi della Porta⁵⁷, D. Zhang⁸⁸, F. Zhang¹⁷⁴, H. Zhang⁸⁹, J. Zhang⁶,
L. Zhang¹⁵², X. Zhang³³d, Z. Zhang¹¹⁶, Z. Zhao³³b, A. Zhemchugov⁶⁴, J. Zhong¹¹⁹, B. Zhou⁸⁸,
L. Zhou³⁵, N. Zhou¹⁶⁴, C.G. Zhu³³d, H. Zhu³³a, J. Zhu⁸⁸, Y. Zhu³³b, X. Zhuang³³a, A. Zibell⁹⁹,
D. Zieminska⁶⁰, N.I. Zimine⁶⁴, C. Zimmermann⁸², R. Zimmermann²¹, S. Zimmermann²¹,
S. Zimmermann⁴⁸, Z. Zinonos⁵⁴, M. Ziolkowski¹⁴², R. Zitoun⁵, G. Zobernig¹⁷⁴, A. Zoccoli²⁰a, ²⁰b,
M. zur Nedden¹⁶, G. Zurzolo¹⁰³a, ¹⁰³b, V. Zutshi¹⁰⁷, L. Zwalinski³⁰

¹ School of Chemistry and Physics, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

² Physics Department, SUNY Albany, Albany NY, United States of America

³ Department of Physics, University of Alberta, Edmonton AB, Canada

⁴ (a) Department of Physics, Ankara University, Ankara; (b) Department of Physics, Gazi University, Ankara; (c) Division of Physics, TOBB University of Economics and Technology, Ankara; (d) Turkish Atomic Energy Authority, Ankara, Turkey

⁵ LAPP, CNRS/IN2P3 and Université de Savoie, Annecy-le-Vieux, France

⁶ High Energy Physics Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne IL, United States of America

⁷ Department of Physics, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ, United States of America

⁸ Department of Physics, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington TX, United States of America

⁹ Physics Department, University of Athens, Athens, Greece

¹⁰ Physics Department, National Technical University of Athens, Zografou, Greece

¹¹ Institute of Physics, Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences, Baku, Azerbaijan

¹² Institut de Física d'Altes Energies and Departament de Física de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
13 (a) Institute of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade; (b) Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

14 Department for Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

15 Physics Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and University of California, Berkeley CA, United States of America

16 Department of Physics, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany

17 Albert Einstein Center for Fundamental Physics and Laboratory for High Energy Physics, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

18 School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom

19 (a) Department of Physics, Bogazici University, Istanbul; (b) Department of Physics, Dogus University, Istanbul; (c) Department of Physics Engineering, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey

20 (a) INFN Sezione di Bologna; (b) Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia, Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

21 Physikalisches Institut, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

22 Department of Physics, Boston University, Boston MA, United States of America

23 Department of Physics, Brandeis University, Waltham MA, United States of America

24 (a) Universidade Federal do Rio De Janeiro COPPE/EE/IF, Rio de Janeiro; (b) Federal University of Juiz de Fora (UFJF), Juiz de Fora; (c) Federal University of Sao Joao del Rei (UFSJ), Sao Joao del Rei; (d) Instituto de Fisica, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil

25 Physics Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton NY, United States of America

26 (a) National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest; (b) National Institute for Research and Development of Isotopic and Molecular Technologies, Physics Department, Cluj Napoca; (c) University Politehnica Bucharest, Bucharest; (d) West University in Timisoara, Timisoara, Romania

27 Departamento de Física, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina

28 Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

29 Department of Physics, Carleton University, Ottawa ON, Canada

30 CERN, Geneva, Switzerland

31 Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago IL, United States of America

32 (a) Departamento de Física, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago; (b) Departamento de Física, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, Valparaíso, Chile

33 (a) Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing; (b) Department of Modern Physics, University of Science and Technology of China, Anhui; (c) Department of Physics, Nanjing University, Jiangsu; (d) School of Physics, Shandong University, Shandong; (e) Physics Department, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China

34 Laboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire, Clermont Université and Université Blaise Pascal and CNRS/IN2P3, Clermont-Ferrand, France

35 Nevis Laboratory, Columbia University, Irvington NY, United States of America

36 Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

37 (a) INFN Gruppo Collegato di Cosenza, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati; (b) Dipartimento di Fisica, Università della Calabria, Rende, Italy

38 (a) AGH University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Physics and Applied Computer Science, Krakow; (b) Marian Smoluchowski Institute of Physics, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland

39 The Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow, Poland

40 Physics Department, Southern Methodist University, Dallas TX, United States of America

41 Physics Department, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson TX, United States of America

42 DESY, Hamburg and Zeuthen, Germany

43 Institut für Experimentelle Physik IV, Technische Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany

44 Institut für Kern- und Teilchenphysik, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany

45 Department of Physics, Duke University, Durham NC, United States of America

46 SUPA - School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
47 INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy

48 Fakultät für Mathematik und Physik, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Freiburg, Germany

49 Section de Physique, Université de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland

50 (a) INFN Sezione di Genova; (b) Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Genova, Genova, Italy

51 (a) E. Andronikashvili Institute of Physics, Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi; (b) High Energy Physics Institute, Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia

52 II Physikalisches Institut, Justus-Liebig-Universität Giessen, Giessen, Germany

53 SUPA - School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom

54 II Physikalisches Institut, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany

55 Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie, Université Joseph Fourier and CNRS/IN2P3 and Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble, Grenoble, France

56 Department of Physics, Hampton University, Hampton VA, United States of America

57 Laboratory for Particle Physics and Cosmology, Harvard University, Cambridge MA, United States of America

58 (a) Kirchhoff-Institut für Physik, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg; (b) Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg; (c) ZITI Institut für technische Informatik, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany

59 Faculty of Applied Information Science, Hiroshima Institute of Technology, Hiroshima, Japan

60 Department of Physics, Indiana University, Bloomington IN, United States of America

61 Institut für Astro- und Teilchenphysik, Leopold-Franzens-Universität, Innsbruck, Austria

62 University of Iowa, Iowa City IA, United States of America

63 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Iowa State University, Ames IA, United States of America

64 Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, JINR Dubna, Dubna, Russia

65 KEK, High Energy Accelerator Research Organization, Tsukuba, Japan

66 Graduate School of Science, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan

67 Faculty of Science, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

68 Kyoto University of Education, Kyoto, Japan

69 Department of Physics, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan

70 Instituto de Física La Plata, Universidad Nacional de La Plata and CONICET, La Plata, Argentina

71 Physics Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom

72 (a) INFN Sezione di Lecce; (b) Dipartimento di Matematica e Fisica, Università del Salento, Lecce, Italy

73 Oliver Lodge Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom

74 Department of Physics, Jožef Stefan Institute and University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

75 School of Physics and Astronomy, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom

76 Department of Physics, Royal Holloway University of London, Surrey, United Kingdom

77 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London, London, United Kingdom

78 Louisiana Tech University, Ruston LA, United States of America

79 Laboratoire de Physique Nucléaire et de Hautes Energies, UPMC and Université Paris-Diderot and CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, France

80 Fysiska institutionen, Lunds universitet, Lund, Sweden

81 Departamento de Fisica Teorica C-15, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

82 Institut für Physik, Universität Mainz, Mainz, Germany

83 School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

84 CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université and CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France

85 Department of Physics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA, United States of America

86 Department of Physics, McGill University, Montreal QC, Canada

87 School of Physics, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

88 Department of Physics, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI, United States of America

89 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michigan State University, East Lansing MI, United States of America

90 (a) INFN Sezione di Milano; (b) Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Milano, Milano, Italy
91 B.I. Stepanov Institute of Physics, National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, Minsk, Republic of Belarus

92 National Scientific and Educational Centre for Particle and High Energy Physics, Minsk, Republic of Belarus

93 Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MA, United States of America

94 Group of Particle Physics, University of Montreal, Montreal QC, Canada

95 P.N. Lebedev Institute of Physics, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

96 Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics (ITEP), Moscow, Russia

97 Moscow Engineering and Physics Institute (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia

98 D.V.Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, M.V.Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

99 Fakultät für Physik, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Germany

100 Max-Planck-Institut für Physik (Werner-Heisenberg-Institut), München, Germany

101 Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science, Nagasaki, Japan

102 Graduate School of Science and Kobayashi-Maskawa Institute, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan

103 (a) INFN Sezione di Napoli; (b) Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche, Università di Napoli, Napoli, Italy

104 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque NM, United States of America

105 Institute for Mathematics, Astrophysics and Particle Physics, Radboud University Nijmegen/Nikhef, Nijmegen, Netherlands

106 Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics and University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

107 Department of Physics, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb IL, United States of America

108 Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, SB RAS, Novosibirsk, Russia

109 Department of Physics, New York University, New York NY, United States of America

110 Ohio State University, Columbus OH, United States of America

111 Faculty of Science, Okayama University, Okayama, Japan

112 Homer L. Dodge Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Oklahoma, Norman OK, United States of America

113 Department of Physics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater OK, United States of America

114 Palacký University, RCPTM, Olomouc, Czech Republic

115 Center for High Energy Physics, University of Oregon, Eugene OR, United States of America

116 LAL, Université Paris-Sud and CNRS/IN2P3, Orsay, France

117 Graduate School of Science, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan

118 Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

119 Department of Physics, Oxford University, Oxford, United Kingdom

120 (a) INFN Sezione di Pavia; (b) Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy

121 Department of Physics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia PA, United States of America

122 Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina, Russia

123 (a) INFN Sezione di Pisa; (b) Dipartimento di Fisica E. Fermi, Università di Pisa, Pisa, Italy

124 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh PA, United States of America

125 (a) Laboratorio de Instrumentacao e Fisica Experimental de Partículas - LIP, Lisboa; (b) Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa; (c) Department of Physics, University of Coimbra, Coimbra; (d) Centro de Física Nuclear da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa; (e) Departamento de Fisica, Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal; (f) Departamento de Fisica Teórica y del Cosmos and CAFPE, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain; (g) Dep Fisica and CEFITEC of Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Caparica, Portugal

126 Institute of Physics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Praha, Czech Republic

127 Czech Technical University in Prague, Praha, Czech Republic

128 Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University in Prague, Praha, Czech Republic
129 State Research Center Institute for High Energy Physics, Protvino, Russia

130 Particle Physics Department, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom

131 Physics Department, University of Regina, Regina SK, Canada

132 Ritsumeikan University, Kusatsu, Shiga, Japan

133 (a) INFN Sezione di Roma; (b) Dipartimento di Fisica, Sapienza Università di Roma, Roma, Italy

134 (a) INFN Sezione di Roma Tor Vergata; (b) Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Roma Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy

135 (a) INFN Sezione di Roma Tre; (b) Dipartimento di Matematica e Fisica, Università Roma Tre, Roma, Italy

136 (a) Faculté des Sciences Ain Chock, Réseau Universitaire de Physique des Hautes Energies - Université Hassan II, Casablanca; (b) Centre National de l'Energie des Sciences Techniques Nucleaires, Rabat; (c) Faculté des Sciences Semlalia, Université Cadi Ayyad, LPHEA-Marrakech; (d) Faculté des Sciences, Université Mohamed Premier and LPTPM, Oujda; (e) Faculté des sciences, Université Mohammed V-Agdal, Rabat, Morocco

137 DSM/IRFU (Institut de Recherches sur les Lois Fondamentales de l'Univers), CEA Saclay (Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique et aux Energies Alternatives), Gif-sur-Yvette, France

138 Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz CA, United States of America

139 Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle WA, United States of America

140 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom

141 Department of Physics, Shinshu University, Nagano, Japan

142 Fachbereich Physik, Universität Siegen, Siegen, Germany

143 Department of Physics, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby BC, Canada

144 SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford CA, United States of America

145 (a) Faculty of Mathematics, Physics & Informatics, Comenius University, Bratislava; (b) Department of Subnuclear Physics, Institute of Experimental Physics of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Kosice, Slovak Republic

146 (a) Department of Physics, University of Cape Town, Cape Town; (b) Department of Physics, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg; (c) School of Physics, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

147 (a) Department of Physics, Stockholm University; (b) The Oskar Klein Centre, Stockholm, Sweden

148 Physics Department, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

149 Departments of Physics & Astronomy and Chemistry, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook NY, United States of America

150 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom

151 School of Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

152 Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan

153 Department of Physics, Technion: Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel

154 Raymond and Beverly Sackler School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

155 Department of Physics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

156 International Center for Elementary Particle Physics and Department of Physics, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

157 Graduate School of Science and Technology, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Tokyo, Japan

158 Department of Physics, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan

159 Department of Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto ON, Canada

160 (a) TRIUMF, Vancouver BC; (b) Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Toronto ON, Canada

161 Faculty of Pure and Applied Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan

162 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Tufts University, Medford MA, United States of America

163 Centro de Investigaciones, Universidad Antonio Narino, Bogota, Colombia

164 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California Irvine, Irvine CA, United States of America
165 (a) INFN Gruppo Collegato di Udine, Sezione di Trieste; (b) ICTP, Trieste; (c) Dipartimento di Chimica, Fisica e Ambiente, Università di Udine, Udine, Italy

166 Department of Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana IL, United States of America

167 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden

168 Instituto de Física Corpuscular (IFIC) and Departamento de Física Atómica, Molecular y Nuclear and Departamento de Ingeniería Electrónica and Instituto de Microelectrónica de Barcelona (IMB-CNM), University of Valencia and CSIC, Valencia, Spain

169 Department of Physics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC, Canada

170 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, Victoria BC, Canada

171 Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom

172 Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan

173 Department of Particle Physics, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel

174 Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison WI, United States of America

175 Fakultät für Physik und Astronomie, Julius-Maximilians-Universität, Würzburg, Germany

176 Fachbereich C Physik, Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany

177 Department of Physics, Yale University, New Haven CT, United States of America

178 Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia

179 Centre de Calcul de l'Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (IN2P3), Villeurbanne, France

a Also at Department of Physics, King's College London, London, United Kingdom

b Also at Institute of Physics, Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences, Baku, Azerbaijan

c Also at Particle Physics Department, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom

d Also at TRIUMF, Vancouver BC, Canada

e Also at Department of Physics, California State University, Fresno CA, United States of America

f Also at Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Russia

g Also at CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université and CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France

h Also at Università di Napoli Parthenope, Napoli, Italy

i Also at Institute of Particle Physics (IPP), Canada

j Also at Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michigan State University, East Lansing MI, United States of America

k Also at Department of Financial and Management Engineering, University of the Aegean, Chios, Greece

l Also at Louisiana Tech University, Ruston LA, United States of America

m Also at Institutucio Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avancats, ICREA, Barcelona, Spain

n Also at CERN, Geneva, Switzerland

o Also at Ochadai Academic Production, Ochanomizu University, Tokyo, Japan

p Also at Manhattan College, New York NY, United States of America

q Also at Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan

r Also at School of Physics and Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China

s Also at Academia Sinica Grid Computing, Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan

t Also at Laboratoire de Physique Nucléaire et de Hautes Energies, UPMC and Université Paris-Diderot and CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, France

u Also at School of Physical Sciences, National Institute of Science Education and Research, Bhubaneswar, India

v Also at Dipartimento di Fisica, Sapienza Università di Roma, Roma, Italy

w Also at Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology State University, Dolgoprudny, Russia

x Also at section de Physique, Université de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland

y Also at Department of Physics, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX, United States of America

z Also at Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics, Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary

aa Also at International School for Advanced Studies (SISSA), Trieste, Italy
ab Also at Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of South Carolina, Columbia SC, United States of America

ac Also at Faculty of Physics, M.V.Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

ad Also at Physics Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton NY, United States of America

ae Also at Moscow Engineering and Physics Institute (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia

af Also at Department of Physics, Oxford University, Oxford, United Kingdom

ag Also at Institut für Experimentalphysik, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

ah Also at Department of Physics, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI, United States of America

ai Also at Discipline of Physics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa

* Deceased