J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

Published for SISSA by Springer

Received: May 25, 2012

Accepted: July 5, 2012

Published: July 24, 2012

Search for a light charged Higgs boson in top quark

decays in pp collisions at
√
s = 7TeV

The CMS collaboration

Abstract: Results are presented on a search for a light charged Higgs boson that can be

produced in the decay of the top quark t→ H+b and which, in turn, decays into τ+ντ . The

analysed data correspond to an integrated luminosity of about 2 fb−1 recorded in proton-

proton collisions at
√
s = 7 TeV by the CMS experiment at the LHC. The search is sensitive

to the decays of the top quark pairs tt→ H±W∓bb and tt→ H±H∓bb. Various final states

have been studied separately, all requiring presence of a τ lepton from H+ decays, missing

transverse energy, and multiple jets. Upper limits on the branching fraction B(t→ H+b) in

the range of 2–4% are established for charged Higgs boson masses between 80 and 160 GeV,

under the assumption that B(H+ → τ+ντ ) = 1.

Keywords: Hadron-Hadron Scattering

Open Access, Copyright CERN,

for the benefit of the CMS collaboration

doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2012)143

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2012)143


J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 CMS detector, reconstruction, and simulation 2

3 Analysis of the τh+jets final state 3

4 Analysis of the eτh and µτh final states 7

5 Analysis of the eµ final state 8

6 Systematic uncertainties 9

7 Evaluation of limits on B(t → H+b) 13

8 Summary 16

The CMS collaboration 21

1 Introduction

The minimal supersymmetric extension of the standard model (MSSM) requires the in-

troduction of two Higgs doublets in order that the superpotential can contain appropriate

terms for giving masses to both up and down type quarks [1–8]. This leads to the pre-

diction of five elementary Higgs particles: two CP-even (h,H), one CP-odd (A), and two

charged (H±) states [9, 10]. The lower limit on the charged Higgs boson mass is 78.6 GeV,

as determined by LEP experiments [11–14]. If the mass of the charged Higgs boson is

smaller than the difference between the masses of the top and the bottom quarks, i.e.

mH+ < mt −mb, the top quark can decay via t → H+b (charge conjugate processes are

always implied throughout this paper). For values of tanβ > 5, the charged Higgs boson

preferentially decays to a τ lepton and a neutrino, H+ → τ+ντ , where tanβ is defined as

the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs boson doublets. In deriving

the experimental limits we assume that the branching fraction B(H+ → τ+ντ ) is equal to 1.

The presence of the t → H+b, H+→ τ+ντ decay modes alters the τ lepton yield in

the decay products of tt pairs compared to the standard model (SM). The upper limit on

the branching fraction, B(t → H+b) < 0.2, has been set by the CDF [15] and D0 [16]

experiments at the Tevatron for mH+ between 80 and 155 GeV, assuming B(H+→ τ+ντ ) =

1. More recently, ATLAS experiment at the LHC has set the upper limit on the B(t→ H+b)

between 5% and 1% for charged Higgs boson masses in the range 90–160 GeV [17].

The dominant process of production of top quarks at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)

is pp→ tt+X via gluon gluon fusion. The search for a charged Higgs boson is sensitive to

– 1 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

�t

t̄

W−

b̄

t
b

H+

g

g

q

q̄ ′

ντ

τ+→ hadrons

�t

t̄

W−

b̄

t
b

H+

g

g

`−

ν̄`

ντ

τ+→ hadrons

�t

t̄

W−

b̄

t
b

H+

g

g

`−

ν̄`

ντ

τ+→ `+ν̄τν`

Figure 1. Representative diagrams for the τh+jets (left), e(µ)τh (middle), and eµ (right) fi-

nal states.

the decays of the top quark pairs tt→ H±W∓bb and tt→ H±H∓bb, where each charged

Higgs boson decays into a τ lepton and a neutrino. Throughout this paper, these two decay

modes are referred to as WH and HH, respectively.

Three different final states are studied, all requiring missing transverse energy and

multiple jets. The τ lepton decaying into hadrons and a neutrino is labeled τh. The

first final state involves the production of τh and jets (labeled τh+jets), the second one

is where τh is produced in association with an electron or a muon (labeled eτh or µτh),

and the third one is where an electron and a muon are produced (labeled eµ). Figure 1

shows representative diagrams for the τh+jets (left plot), e(µ)τh (middle plot), and eµ

(right plot) final states. We use a data sample recorded by the Compact Muon Solenoid

(CMS) experiment until the end of August 2011 with an average number of interactions

per crossing (pileup) of 5–6. The analyses correspond to an integrated luminosity ranging

from 1.99 to 2.27 fb−1 depending on the final state.

2 CMS detector, reconstruction, and simulation

A detailed description can be found in ref. [18]. The central feature of the CMS apparatus

is a superconducting solenoid of 6 m internal diameter providing a field of 3.8 T. Within

the field volume are a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a crystal electromagnetic calorimeter

(ECAL), and a brass/scintillator hadron calorimeter (HCAL). Muons are measured in gas-

ionization detectors embedded in the steel return yoke of the magnet. Extensive forward

calorimetry complements the coverage provided by the barrel and endcap detectors.

CMS uses a right-handed coordinate system, with the origin at the nominal interaction

point, the x axis pointing to the centre of the LHC, the y axis pointing up (perpendicular

to the LHC plane), and the z axis along the anticlockwise-beam direction. The polar angle

θ is measured from the positive z axis and the azimuthal angle φ is measured in the x-y

plane. The preudorapidity η is defined as − ln[tan(θ/2)].

The first level (L1) of the CMS trigger system, composed of custom hardware pro-

cessors, uses information from the calorimeters and muon detectors to select the most

interesting events in a fixed time interval of less than 4µs. The High Level Trigger (HLT)

processor farm further decreases the event rate from around 100 kHz to around 300 Hz,

before data storage.

Muons are reconstructed [19] by performing a simultaneous global track fit to hits

in the silicon tracker and the muon system. Electrons are reconstructed [20] from clus-

– 2 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

ters of energy deposits in the electromagnetic calorimeter that are matched to hits in the

silicon tracker. Jets, τh, and missing transverse energy (Emiss
T ) are reconstructed using

particles measured with the particle-flow algorithm [21]. The particle-flow algorithm re-

constructs particles in each event, using the information from the tracker, the ECAL and

HCAL calorimeters, and the muon system. Jets are reconstructed with the anti-kT jet

algorithm [22] with a distance parameter of R = 0.5. The value of Emiss
T is defined as the

magnitude of the vector sum of the transverse momenta of all reconstructed objects in the

volume of the detector (leptons, photons, and hadrons).

The b-tagging algorithm used in this analysis exploits as the discriminating variable the

significance of the impact parameter of the track with the second highest significance [23].

The significance is defined as the ratio of the measured value of the impact parameter to

the measurement uncertainty. The hadron-plus-strips (HPS) τ identification algorithm [24]

is used to reconstruct τ leptons decaying hadronically. The HPS algorithm considers can-

didates with one or three charged pions and up to two neutral pions. The τh candidate

isolation is based on a cone of ∆R =
√

∆φ2 + ∆η2 = 0.5 around the reconstructed τh-

momentum direction. It is required that no charged hadrons with pT > pcutT and no pho-

tons with ET > Ecut
T be present within the isolation cone, other than the τh constituents.

The typical values of pcutT and Ecut
T are '1 GeV.

Backgrounds tt, W+jets, Z+jets are generated with MadGraph 5 [25, 26] interfaced

with pythia 6.4.25 [27]. The diboson production processes WW, WZ, and ZZ are gener-

ated by pythia. Single-top-quark production is generated with powheg [28]. The signal

processes, tt→ H±bH∓b and tt→W±bH∓b, are generated by pythia. The tauola [29]

package is used to simulate τ decays in all cases.

Generated events are processed through the full detector simulation based on Geant4 [30,

31], followed by a detailed trigger emulation and the CMS event reconstruction. Several

minimum-bias events are superimposed upon the hard interactions to simulate pileup. The

simulated events are weighted according to the measured distribution of the number of

interaction vertices. The pythia parameters for the underlying event were set according

to the “Z2” tune, an update of the “Z1” tune described in ref. [32].

The number of produced tt events is estimated from the SM prediction of the tt pro-

duction cross section, 165+4
−9(scale)+7

−7(PDF) pb [33–36]. The theoretical prediction agrees

with the cross section measured at the LHC [37, 38].

3 Analysis of the τh+jets final state

In the τh+jets analysis, events are selected by a trigger that requires the presence of a

τh with transverse momentum pT > 35 GeV and a large calorimetric Emiss
T (> 60 GeV).

The τh trigger selection includes the requirement on the leading-pT track, pT > 20 GeV.

The amount of data analyzed for this channel corresponds to an integrated luminosity of

2.27± 0.05 fb−1.

In this analysis, selected event are required to have one τh with pτhT > 40 GeV within

|η| < 2.1, and at least three other jets with pT > 30 GeV within |η| < 2.4 with at least one

jet identified as originating from the hadronization of a b quark.

– 3 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

In order to suppress the multijet background we use selection criteria on the missing

transverse energy, Emiss
T > 50 GeV, and on the angle between the Emiss

T vector and the

transverse momentum of the τh, ∆φ(pτhT , E
miss
T ) < 160◦. This analysis selects τh candidates

with one charged hadron. The charged hadron is required to have ptrkT > 20 GeV. In order

to use non-overlapping data samples in the τh+jets analysis and the other analyses, events

containing either an electron or a muon with p`T > 15 GeV are rejected. The background

events with W→ τντ decays are suppressed by a requirement on the variable Rτ = ptrk/pτh ,

with Rτ > 0.7, which takes into account the different polarization of τ leptons originating

from H or W decays [39]. Although the requirements on the transverse momenta of τh and

the charged particle introduce a bias of Rτ requirement, it provides a background rejection

factor of about two.

In the τh+jets analysis the dominant reducible background arises from multijet events

with large Emiss
T and jets that mimic hadronic τ decays or are misidentified as b-quark jets.

The other background processes comprise electroweak (EWK) ones - W+jets, Z+jets,

diboson (WW, ZZ, WZ) as well as SM tt and tW production. The W+jets and tt pro-

duction processes dominate. These backgrounds can be divided in two parts: the first one

labeled “EWK+tt τ” consists of events where at least one τ lepton in the final state is

present with pτT > 40 GeV, within |ητ | < 2.1, and the second one labeled “EWK+tt no-τ”

consisting of events with no τ leptons in the final state or with no τ leptons satisfying the

above-mentioned criteria. The “EWK+tt no-τ” background events with no τ leptons in

the final state can pass the selection due to misidentification of a jet, an electron or a muon

as a τh.

The transverse mass, mT , can be reconstructed from the τh and Emiss
T vectors, pro-

viding additional discrimination between W and H decays. The shape and normalisation

of the mT distributions of the multijet and “EWK+tt τ” backgrounds are obtained from

data. The mT distribution of the multijet background is measured using the events which

pass the signal selection described above, except for no requirements on τ isolation and

on an identified b quark jet. A small contamination from EWK+tt processes, evaluated

using simulation, has been subtracted. The mT distributions are measured in bins of pT of

the τ candidate (a τh with no isolation criteria applied). The final mT distribution of the

multijet background after full event selection is obtained by summing the mT distributions

for each pτT bin weighted with the efficiency that the τ candidate passes the τ isolation

criteria and the Rτ selection. The efficiency is measured from data using events selected

for the measurement of the mT distributions, but without applying the requirements on

Emiss
T and ∆φ(pτhT , E

miss
T ). The expected number of multijet events in a given bin i of the

mT distribution is calculated as:

Nmultijet
i = Nmultijet

∑
j

pmultijet
i,j ετ+Rτj , (3.1)

where the index j runs over the bins of pτhT ; ετ+Rτj is the efficiency of the τ isolation and

the Rτ selection in a given bin j, pmultijet
i,j is the mT probability density function obtained

from the shapes of the mT distributions, and Nmultijet is the total number of the multijet

background events.

– 4 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

Figure 2. The event yield after each selection step for the τh+jets analysis. The expected event

yield in the presence of the t → H+b, H+ → τ+ντ decays is shown as the dashed line for mH+ =

120 GeV and under that assumption that B(t→ H+b) = 0.05. The multijet and the “EWK+tt τ”

backgrounds are measured from the data. The “EWK+tt no-τ” background is shown as estimated

from simulation. The bottom panel shows the ratio of data over background along with the total

uncertainties. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The expected number of events and the mT distribution of the “EWK+tt τ” back-

ground are obtained using a control data sample defined with the same jet selection criteria

of the τh+jets sample, but requiring a muon instead of a τh. The reconstructed muons

are then replaced by embedding in the events the reconstructed particles from simulated τ

lepton decays. The embedding method underestimates a small contribution from the Drell-

Yan ττ and WW→ ττ + Emiss
T processes, since a veto on the presence of a second lepton

(e or µ) is used in the selection of the control sample. The residues of these backgrounds

not counted with the embedding method have been estimated from the simulation. The

“EWK+tt no-τ” background has been estimated from the simulation.

Figure 2 shows the event yield after each selection step starting from the requirement

that at least three high-pT jets are present. The expected event yield in the presence of the

t→ H+b, H+→ τ+ντ decays is shown as the dashed line for mH+ = 120 GeV and assuming

B(t→ H+b) = 0.05. The multijet background and the “EWK+tt̄ τ” background are shown

as measured from the data. The “EWK+tt no-τ” background is shown as estimated from

the simulation.

The observed number of events after full event selection is listed in table 1, along with

the expected number of events from the various backgrounds, and from the Higgs boson

signal processes WH and HH at mH+ = 120 GeV. The number of WH and HH events is

obtained under the assumption that B(t → H+b) = 0.05. The systematic uncertainties

listed in table 1 will be discussed in section 6.

The mT distribution after all event selection criteria are applied is shown in figure 3.

– 5 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

Source N τh+jets
ev ± stat.± syst.

HH + WH, mH+ = 120 GeV, B(t→ H+b) = 0.05 51 ± 4 ± 8

multijets (from data) 26 ± 2 ± 1

EWK+tt τ (from data) 78 ± 3 ± 11

EWK+tt no-τ 6.0 ± 3.0 ± 1.2

residual Z/γ∗ → ττ 7.0 ± 2.0 ± 2.1

residual WW→ τνττντ 0.35 ± 0.23 ± 0.09

Total expected background 119 ± 5 ± 12

Data 130

Table 1. Numbers of expected events in the τh+jets analysis for the backgrounds and the Higgs

boson signal from HH and WH processes at mH+ = 120 GeV, and the number of observed events

after the final event selection. Unless stated differently, the expected background events are

from simulation.

Figure 3. The transverse mass of τh and Emiss
T after full event selection for the τh+jets analysis.

The expected event yield in the presence of the t→ H+b, H+ → τ+ν decays is shown as the dashed

line for mH+ = 120 GeV and under the assumption that B(t → H+b) = 0.05. The bottom panel

shows the ratio of data over background along with the total uncertainties. The ratio is not shown

for mT > 160 GeV, where the expected total number of the background events is 2.5± 0.3 while 5

events are observed. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are always added in quadrature.

– 6 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

4 Analysis of the eτh and µτh final states

The event selections used are the same as in the measurement of the top quark pair pro-

duction cross section in dilepton final states containing τ [40].

In the eτh analysis, the events are selected by a trigger that requires the presence of

an electron, at least two jets with pT > 30 GeV and pT > 25 GeV, respectively, and a

certain amount of Hmiss
T , where Hmiss

T is defined at the trigger level as the magnitude of the

vector sum of pT of all jets in the event. As the peak instantaneous luminosity increased

the requirements on the electron pT changed from 17 to 27 GeV and on Hmiss
T from 15

to 20 GeV. The amount of data analyzed for this channel corresponds to an integrated

luminosity of 1.99± 0.05 fb−1

In the µτh analysis, the events are selected by a single-muon trigger with the threshold

changing from 17 to 24 GeV during the data taking period. The amount of data analyzed

for this channel corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 2.22± 0.05 fb−1.

The events are selected by requiring one isolated, high-pT electron (muon) with pT >

35 (30) GeV and |η| < 2.5 (2.1). The event should have one τh with pT > 20 GeV within

|η| < 2.4, at least two jets with pT > 35 (30) GeV within |η| < 2.4, with at least one jet

identified as originating from the hadronization of a b quark, and Emiss
T > 45 (40) GeV for

the eτh (µτh) final state. The τh and the electron (muon) are required to have opposite

electric charges. The isolation of each charged lepton candidate (e or µ) is measured

by summing the transverse momenta of the reconstructed particles within a cone of radius

∆R = 0.3 around the lepton’s direction. The contribution from the lepton itself is excluded.

If the value of this sum divided by the lepton pT, labeled Irel, is less than 0.1 (0.2) for

electrons (muons), the lepton is considered to be isolated. The lepton is required to be

separated from any selected jet by a distance ∆R > 0.3. Events with an additional electron

(muon) with Irel < 0.2 and pT > 15 (10) GeV are rejected.

The backgrounds in the eτh and µτh final-state analyses arise from two sources, the

first with misidentified τh, which is estimated from data, and the second with genuine τh,

which is estimated from simulation. The misidentified τh background comes from events

with one lepton (e or µ), Emiss
T , and three or more jets with at least one identified b quark

jet (labelled “`+ ≥ 3 jets” events), where one jet is misidentified as a τh. The dominant

contribution to this background comes from W+jets, and from tt→W+bW−b→ `νb qq′b

(` = e, µ) events. The misidentified τh background is estimated by applying the probability

that a jet mimics a τh to every jet in “`+ ≥ 3 jets” events. The probability that a jet is

misidentified as a τh is measured from data as a function of jet pT and η using W+jets and

multijet events [24].

The backgrounds with genuine τ leptons are Drell-Yan ττ , single-top-quark production,

dibosons, and the SM tt events in which a τ is produced from a W decay. The Z/γ∗ →
ee, µµ and tt → W+bW−b → `+νb`−νb events may also contain electrons or muons

misidentified as τh. The event yields for these backgrounds are estimated from simulation.

The data and the simulated event yield at various stages of event selection, described

above, for the eτh (µτh) analysis are shown in figure 4 left (right). The backgrounds

are normalized to the SM prediction obtained from the simulation. A good agreement is

– 7 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

Figure 4. The event yields after each selection step for the eτh (left) and µτh (right) analyses. The

backgrounds are estimated from simulation and normalized to the standard model prediction. The

expected event yield in the presence of the t→ H+b, H+→ τ+ντ decays is shown as a dashed line

for mH+ = 120 GeV and under the assumption that B(t→ H+b) = 0.05. The bottom panel shows

the ratios of data over background with the total uncertainties. OS indicates the requirement to

have opposite electric charges for a τh and a e or µ. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are

added in quadrature.

found between data and the SM background. The expected event yield in the presence

of t → H+b, H+→ τ+ντ decays is shown as a dashed line for mH+ = 120 GeV under the

assumption that B(t→ H+b) = 0.05.

The observed number of events after the full event selection is shown in table 2 along

with the expected numbers of events from the various backgrounds, and from the Higgs

boson signal processes WH and HH for mH+ = 120 GeV. The misidentified τ background

measured from the data is consistent with the expectation from simulation, 42±4 (stat.)±
8 (syst.) for the eτh analysis and 83± 7 (stat.)± 12 (syst.) for the µτh analysis.

5 Analysis of the eµ final state

The event selections are the same as used in the measurement of the top quark pair pro-

duction cross section in dilepton final states [41].

The eµ events are selected by a trigger requiring an electron with peT > 8 GeV and a

muon with pµT > 17 GeV; or an electron with peT > 17 GeV and a muon with pµT > 8 GeV.

The amount of data analyzed for this channel corresponds to an integrated luminosity of

2.27± 0.05 fb−1.

In the eµ analysis, the events are selected by requiring at least one isolated electron

and at least one isolated muon (Irel < 0.15) in a cone of radius ∆R = 0.3 around the lepton

with pT > 20 GeV within |η| < 2.5 (2.4) for electrons (muons). The event has to have at

least two jets with pT > 30 GeV within |η| < 2.4. The leptons are required to be separated

from any selected jet by a distance ∆R > 0.4. The invariant mass of electron-muon pair,

– 8 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

Source N eτh
ev ± stat.± syst. Nµτh

ev ± stat.± syst.

HH+HW, mH+ = 120 GeV, B(t→ H+b) = 0.05 51 ± 3 ± 8 89 ± 4 ± 13

misidentified τ (from data) 54 ± 6 ± 8 89 ± 9 ± 11

tt→WbWb→ `νb τνb 100 ± 3 ± 14 162 ± 4 ± 23

tt→WbWb→ `νb `νb 9.0 ± 0.9 ± 1.8 13.0 ± 1.2 ± 2.5

Z/γ∗ → ee, µµ 4.8 ± 1.8 ± 1.3 0.7 ± 0.7 ± 0.7

Z/γ∗ → ττ 17.0 ± 3.3 ± 3.0 26.0 ± 4.3 ± 6.1

single top quark 7.9 ± 0.4 ± 1.1 13.5 ± 0.5 ± 1.9

diboson 1.3 ± 0.1 ± 0.2 2.0 ± 0.2 ± 0.3

Total expected background 194 ± 8 ± 20 306 ± 11 ± 32

Data 176 288

Table 2. Numbers of expected events in the eτh and µτh analyses for the backgrounds and the

Higgs boson signal from WH and HH processes at mH+ = 120 GeV, and the number of observed

events after the final event selection. Unless stated differently, the expected background events are

from simulation.

meµ, is required to exceed 12 GeV. The electron and the muon are required to have opposite

electric charges.

The backgrounds considered in the eµ final-state analysis are the following: SM tt,

Drell-Yan `` (` = e, µ, τ) production in association with jets (DY(``)), W+jets, single-top-

quark production (dominated by tW) and diboson (WW, WZ, ZZ) production. Background

yields are all estimated from simulation. After the signal selection requirements are applied,

95% of the remaining background is due to SM tt decays.

The data and simulated event yields at various stages of the event selection are shown

in figure 5. The backgrounds are normalized to the standard model prediction obtained by

simulation. A good agreement between the data and the standard model expectations is

found. The expected event yield in the presence of t→ H+b, H+ → τ+ντ decays is shown

as a dashed line for mH+ = 120 GeV under the assumption that B(t→ H+b) = 0.05. It is

smaller than the expectation from the SM alone (B(t → H+b) = 0) because the selection

efficiency is smaller for H+ → τ+ντ → `+ν`ντντ than for W+ → `+ν` decay owing to the

softer lepton pT spectrum.

The numbers of expected events for the backgrounds and the Higgs boson signal pro-

cesses from WH and HH modes at mH+ = 120 GeV, and the number of observed events

after all selection requirements are summarized in table 3.

6 Systematic uncertainties

The sources and the size of the systematic uncertainties are listed in tables 4, 5, and 6.

In all of the analyses the following effects are taken into account:

– 9 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

Figure 5. The event yield after each selection step for the eµ analysis. The backgrounds are

from simulation and normalized to the standard model prediction. The expected event yield in

the presence of the t → H+b, H+ → τ+ντ decays is shown as a dashed line for mH+ = 120 GeV

under the assumption that B(t → H+b) = 0.05. The bottom panel shows the ratios of data over

background with the total uncertainties. The requirement for the e and µ to have opposite electric

charges is labelled as OS. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are added in quadrature.

Source N eµ
ev ± stat.± syst.

HH+WH, mH+ = 120 GeV, B(t→ H+b) = 0.05 125 ± 9 ± 13

tt dileptons 3423 ± 35 ± 405

other tt 23 ± 3 ± 3

Z/γ∗ → `` 192 ± 12 ± 19

W+jets 14 ± 6 ± 2

single top quark 166 ± 3 ± 18

diboson 48 ± 2 ± 5

Total expected background 3866 ± 38 ± 406

Data 3875

Table 3. Number of expected events in the eµ analysis for the backgrounds, the Higgs boson

signal from HH and WH processes at mH+ = 120 GeV, and the number of observed events after all

selection requirements. The expected background events are from simulation.

– 10 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

• the uncertainty on the jet energy scale (JES), jet energy resolution (JER), and Emiss
T

scale. This uncertainty is estimated following the procedure outlined in ref. [42]; an

uncertainty of 3% on the τh energy scale is included;

• the theoretical uncertainties on the signal and background cross sections;

• the uncertainty on pileup modelling due to the reweighting of simulated events ac-

cording to the measured distribution of the number of vertices;

• the uncertainty due to the limited number of events available in the simulated samples

(MC stat.);

• an estimated 2.2% uncertainty in the integrated luminosity [43].

In addition, for the fully hadronic channel the following systematic uncertainties are

taken into account:

• the uncertainty on trigger efficiencies. The efficiency of the τ part of the trigger is

evaluated using Z→ ττ events. It is used for the “EWK+tt τ” background estimate.

The data-to-simulation correction factor for the trigger on Emiss
T is evaluated using tt

events with an uncertainty estimated to be '10%. The data-to-simulation correction

factors for the efficiency of the trigger on τh and on Emiss
T are used for the WH, HH

signal and “EWK+tt no-τ” background estimates;

• the uncertainty on the estimate of the multijet background from data;

• the uncertainty on the estimate of “EWK+tt τ” background due to the uncertainty

on the τh jet energy scale, the selection of muons in the control sample, the limited

number of events in the control sample, the contamination from multijet background,

and the fraction of W → τ → µ events (fW→τ→µ) in the control sample;

• the uncertainty in the application of the lepton veto. It is estimated from the un-

certainty in the lepton reconstruction, identification, and isolation efficiencies of 2%

(1%) for electrons (muons), which is measured using Z → `` (` = e, µ) events;

In addition, for the analyses with τh in the final state (τh+jets, eτh, µτh), the following

systematic uncertainties are taken into account:

• the uncertainty on the efficiency of τ identification, estimated to be 6% [24];

• the uncertainty on the rate of misidentification of a jet as a τh or of a lepton as a τh,

each estimated to be 15% [24];

• the uncertainty on the efficiency of b tagging, 5.4% [23];

• the uncertainty on the rate of misidentification of a jet as a b quark, 10% [23];

– 11 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

HH WH multi- EWK+tt τ EWK+tt no-τ

jets Emb.data Res.DY Res.WW tt tW W+jets

JES+JER+Emiss
T 4.7–14 9.0–18 6.6 26 23 8.1 2.4 <10

cross section +7.0
−10.0

+7.0
−10.0 4.0 4.0 +7.0

−10.0 8.0 5.0

pileup modeling 0.3–4.2 0.6–5.2 7.6 3.9 7.1 15 10

MC stat 6.2–11 7.0–10 29 66 28 49 71

luminosity 2.2 2.2

trigger 12–13 13 11 12 11 12 11 14

multijet stat. 6.5

multijets syst. 3.8

µ sample stat. 3.4

multijet contamin. 0.3

fW→τ→µ 0.7 0.1 0.1

muon selections 0.5 0.1 0.1

lepton veto 0.3–0.5 0.5–0.7 0.9 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.3

τ -jet id 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

jet, `→ τ misident. 15

b-jet tagging 1.1–2.1 1.0-1.7 1.4 1.6

jet→ b misident. 2.0 2.6 4.8

Table 4. The systematic uncertainties on event yields (in percent) for the τh+jets analysis for

background processes and for the Higgs boson signal processes WH and HH in the range of mH+ =

80–160 GeV. The range of errors for the signal processes is given for the Higgs boson mass range of

80–160 GeV.

In the eτh and µτh analyses the uncertainty in the estimation of the misidentified τ

background has two sources: the limited number of events for the measurement of the τ

misidentification rate and the difference in the τ misidentification rates for jets originating

from a quark with respect to jets originating from a gluon.

Finally the uncertainty on the reconstruction, identification, and isolation efficiency of

an electron or a muon is taken into account in the eτh, µτh, and eµ analyses. It is estimated

to be '2–3%.

The full sets of systematic uncertainties are used as input to the exclusion limit

calculation.

In the τ+jets analysis the mT distribution shown in figure 3 is used in a binned

maximum-likelihood fit in order to extract a possible signal. Other channels use event

counting only for setting the limits. The uncertainties on the shapes for the multijet

and “EWK+tt τ” backgrounds derived from data are evaluated taking account of the

corresponding uncertainty in every bin of the mT distribution. In addition, the mT shape

– 12 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

HH WH tt`τ tt`` misident. τ Single top diboson DY(µµ) DY(ττ)

JES+JER+Emiss
T 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 11.0 100.0 22.0

cross section +7.0
−10 8.0 4.0 4.0

pileup modeling 4.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 2.0 3.0 25.0 4.0

MC stat 5.0 4.0 2.0 9.0 4.0 9.0 100.0 16.0

luminosity 2.2 2.2

τ -jet id 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

jet, `→ τ misident. 15.0 15.0

b-jet tagging 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 7.0

jet→ b misident. 8.0 8.0 9.0

misident. τ (stat.) 10.0

misident. τ (syst.) 12.0

lepton selections 2.0 2.0

Table 5. The systematic uncertainties on event yields (in percent) for the µτh analysis for the

background processes and for the Higgs boson signal processes WH and HH for mH+ = 120 GeV.

HH WH tt DY(``) W+jets Single top diboson

JES+JER+Emiss
T 2.1 2.0 2.0 6.0 10.8 4.0 6.5

cross section +7
−10 4.3 5.0 7.4 4.0

pileup modeling 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5

MC stat 5.3 7.9 1.0 6.5 42.9 1.9 4.3

luminosity 2.2

dilepton selection 2.5

Table 6. The systematic uncertainties on event yields (in percent) for the eµ analysis for the

background processes and for the Higgs boson signal processes WH and HH at mH+ = 120 GeV.

uncertainty for the “EWK+tt τ” background, related to the τh energy scale uncertainty,

is taken into account in the fit. For the signal and the small “EWK+tt no-τ” background

the mT shape uncertainty in the JES+JER+Emiss
T scale is evaluated from simulation.

7 Evaluation of limits on B(t → H+b)

The expected number of tt events, after final event selection, is shown in figure 6 for the

µτh (left) and eµ (right) analyses as a function of the branching fraction B(t → H+b) for

mH+ = 120 GeV. Expectations are shown separately for contributions from WH, HH, and

tt → WbWb (WW) processes. In the eτh, µτh, and fully hadronic analyses the total tt

event yield (NMSSM
tt

) from WW, WH, and HH processes is larger than the yield from the

– 13 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

Figure 6. The expected number of tt events after event selection for the µτh (left) and eµ (right)

final states as a function of the branching fraction B(t→ H+b) for mH+ = 120 GeV. Expectations

are shown separately for the WH, HH, and WW contributions.

standard model tt → WbWb process (NSM
tt

). This is due to the fact that the branching

fraction for the Higgs boson decay into τντ is larger than the corresponding branching

fraction for W boson decay. For the eµ analysis the total tt event yield is smaller than that

expected from the standard model.

Assuming that any excess or deficit of events in data, when compared with the expected

background contribution, is due to the t → H+b, H+→ τ+ντ decays, the value of x =

B(t → H+b) for each individual analysis can be related to the difference ∆N between

the observed number of events and the predicted background contribution through the

following equation:

∆N = NMSSM
tt −NSM

tt = 2x(1− x)NWH + x2NHH + [(1− x)2 − 1]NSM
tt . (7.1)

In this equation NWH is estimated from simulation forcing the first top quark to decay to

H±b and the second to W∓b, and NHH forcing both top quarks to decay to H±b. In the

eτh, µτh, and eµ analyses, NSM
tt

is evaluated from simulation, as given by the tt background

in table 2 and 3. In the τh+jets analysis, most of the tt→WbWb yield is derived directly

from data, so it does not contribute to ∆N whatever the value of x. In other words if an

H+ SUSY signal is present in the data, affecting the tt → WbWb rate, it also affects the

data driven background estimate for this rate and therefore this contribution disappears in

the difference data−background. In this case NSM
tt

contains only the small tt contribution

included in the “EWK+tt no-τ” background in table 1, which is derived from simulation:

NSM
tt

= 2.1± 0.6 (stat.)± 0.5 (syst.).

The CLs method [44, 45] is used to obtain an upper limit, at 95% confidence level (CL),

on x = B(t → H+b) using eq. 7.1 for each final-state analysis and for their combination.

The background and signal uncertainties described in section 6 are modeled with a log-

normal probability distribution function and their correlations are taken into account. In

– 14 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

Figure 7. Upper limit on B(t → H+b) as a function of mH+ for the fully hadronic (left) and the

eτh (right) final states. The ±1σ and ±2σ bands around the expected limit are also shown.

Figure 8. Upper limit on B(t→ H+b) as a function of mH+ for the µτh (left) and eµ (right) final

states. The ±1σ and ±2σ bands around the expected limit are also shown.

the τ+jets analysis the mT distribution shown in figure 3 is used in a binned maximum-

likelihood fit in order to extract a possible signal. For the eτh, µτh, and eµ final states only

event counting is used to obtain the upper limits.

The upper limit on B(t→ H+b) as a function of mH+ is shown in figure 7 for the fully

hadronic and eτh final states and in figure 8 for the µτh and eµ final states. The combined

upper limit has been obtained using the procedure described in [46]. Figure 9 (left) shows

the upper limit obtained from the combination of all final states.

Table 7 gives the values of the median, ±1σ, and ±2σ expected and the observed 95%

CL upper limit for B(t → H+b) as a function of mH+ for the combination of the fully

hadronic, eτh, µτh, and eµ final states. The systematic uncertainties for the eτh, µτh, and

eµ analyses are larger than the statistical uncertainties.

– 15 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

95% CL upper limit on B(t→ H+b)

mH+ Expected limit Observed

(GeV) −2σ −1σ median +1σ +2σ limit

80 0.018 0.022 0.029 0.040 0.054 0.041

100 0.014 0.018 0.024 0.032 0.043 0.035

120 0.013 0.015 0.020 0.027 0.040 0.028

140 0.009 0.011 0.014 0.021 0.030 0.022

150 0.008 0.010 0.013 0.019 0.027 0.023

160 0.008 0.009 0.011 0.016 0.023 0.019

Table 7. The expected range and observed 95% CL upper limit for B(t → H+b) as a function of

mH+ for the combination of the fully hadronic, eτh, µτh, and eµ final states.

Figure 9 (right) shows the exclusion region in the MSSM mH+-tanβ parameter space

obtained from the combined analysis for the MSSM mmax
h scenario [47]: MSUSY = 1 TeV,

µ = +200 GeV, M2 = 200 GeV, mg̃ = 0.8MSUSY, Xt = 2MSUSY, and Ab = At. Here,

MSUSY denotes the common soft-SUSY-breaking squark mass of the third generation; Xt =

(At−µ/ tanβ) is the stop mixing parameter; At and Ab are the stop and sbottom trilinear

couplings, respectively; µ the Higgsino mass parameter; Mg the gluino mass; and M2 is

the SU(2)-gaugino mass parameter. The value of M1 is fixed via the unification relation

M1 = (5/3)M2 sin θW/ cos θW.

The t→ H+b branching fraction is calculated with the FeynHiggs program [48]. The

exclusion contours corresponding to the ±1σ theoretical error on B(t → H+b) due to

missing one-loop EW corrections (5%), missing two-loop QCD corrections (2%) and ∆b

induced uncertainties (the ∆b term accumulates the SUSY-QCD corrections) [36] are also

shown in figure 9 (right).

The upper limit on the the branching fraction B(t → H+b) and the exclusion re-

gion in the MSSM mH+-tanβ parameter space obtained from the combined analysis are

comparable with the results from the ATLAS experiment [17].

8 Summary

A search has been performed for a light charged Higgs boson produced in top quark decays

t → H+b and which in turn decays into τ+ντ . The data sample used in the analysis

corresponds to an integrated luminosity of about 2 fb−1. The fully hadronic, eτh, µτh, and

eµ final states have been used in the analysis. The results from these analyses have been

combined to extract limits on t→ H+b branching fraction. Upper limits on the branching

fraction B(t→ H+b) in the range of 2–4% are established for charged Higgs boson masses

between 80 and 160 GeV, under the assumption that B(H+ → τ+ντ ) = 1.

Acknowledgments

We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the excellent

performance of the LHC machine. We thank the technical and administrative staff at

– 16 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

Figure 9. Left: the upper limit on B(t→ H+b) as a function ofmH+ obtained from the combination

of the all final states. Right: the exclusion region in the MSSM MH+ -tanβ parameter space obtained

from the combined analysis for the MSSM mmax
h scenario [47]. The ±1σ and ±2σ bands around

the expected limit are also shown.

CERN and other CMS institutes, and acknowledge support from: FMSR (Austria); FNRS

and FWO (Belgium); CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria);

CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES (Croatia);

RPF (Cyprus); MoER, SF0690030s09 and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of Finland, MEC,

and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF (Germany);

GSRT (Greece); OTKA and NKTH (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM (Iran); SFI

(Ireland); INFN (Italy); NRF and WCU (Korea); LAS (Lithuania); CINVESTAV, CONA-

CYT, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MSI (New Zealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and

NSC (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan);

MON, RosAtom, RAS and RFBR (Russia); MSTD (Serbia); MICINN and CPAN (Spain);

Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); NSC (Taipei); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey);

STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA).

Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie programme and the European

Research Council (European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A. P. Sloan Founda-

tion; the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science Policy Of-

fice; the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans l’Agriculture

(FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-

Belgium); the Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; and the HOMING PLUS

programme of Foundation for Polish Science, co-financed from European Union, Regional

Development Fund.

Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons

Attribution License which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,

provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

– 17 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

References

[1] P. Fayet, Supergauge invariant extension of the Higgs mechanism and a model for the

electron and its neutrino, Nucl. Phys. B 90 (1975) 104 [INSPIRE].

[2] P. Fayet, Supersymmetry and weak, electromagnetic and strong interactions, Phys. Lett. B

64 (1976) 159 [INSPIRE].

[3] P. Fayet, Spontaneously broken supersymmetric theories of weak, electromagnetic and strong

interactions, Phys. Lett. B 69 (1977) 489 [INSPIRE].

[4] S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi, Softly broken supersymmetry and SU(5), Nucl. Phys. B 193

(1981) 150 [INSPIRE].

[5] N. Sakai, Naturalness in supersymmetric GUTs, Z. Phys. C 11 (1981) 153 [INSPIRE].

[6] K. Inoue, A. Kakuto, H. Komatsu and S. Takeshita, Low-energy parameters and particle

masses in a supersymmetric grand unified model, Prog. Theor. Phys. 67 (1982) 1889

[INSPIRE].

[7] K. Inoue, A. Kakuto, H. Komatsu and S. Takeshita, Aspects of grand unified models with

softly broken supersymmetry, Prog. Theor. Phys. 68 (1982) 927 [Erratum ibid. 70 (1983) 330]

[INSPIRE].

[8] K. Inoue, A. Kakuto, H. Komatsu and S. Takeshita, Renormalization of supersymmetry

breaking parameters revisited, Prog. Theor. Phys. 71 (1984) 413 [INSPIRE].

[9] J.F. Gunion et al., The Higgs hunters’s guide, Westview Press, U.S.A. (2000).

[10] A. Djouadi, The anatomy of electro-weak symmetry breaking. II. The Higgs bosons in the

minimal supersymmetric model, Phys. Rept. 459 (2008) 1 [hep-ph/0503173] [INSPIRE].

[11] L3 collaboration, P. Achard et al., Search for charged Higgs bosons at LEP, Phys. Lett. B

575 (2003) 208 [hep-ex/0309056] [INSPIRE].

[12] ALEPH collaboration, A. Heister et al., Search for charged Higgs bosons in e+e− collisions

at energies up to
√
s = 209 GeV, Phys. Lett. B 543 (2002) 1 [hep-ex/0207054] [INSPIRE].

[13] DELPHI collaboration, J. Abdallah et al., Search for charged Higgs bosons at LEP in general

two Higgs doublet models, Eur. Phys. J. C 34 (2004) 399 [hep-ex/0404012] [INSPIRE].

[14] OPAL collaboration, G. Abbiendi et al., Search for charged Higgs bosons in e+e− collisions

at
√
s = 189–209 GeV, arXiv:0812.0267 [INSPIRE].

[15] CDF collaboration, A. Abulencia et al., Search for charged Higgs bosons from top quark

decays in pp̄ collisions at
√
s = 1.96 TeV., Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 042003

[hep-ex/0510065] [INSPIRE].

[16] D0 collaboration, V. Abazov et al., Search for charged Higgs bosons in top quark decays,

Phys. Lett. B 682 (2009) 278 [arXiv:0908.1811] [INSPIRE].

[17] ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al., Search for charged Higgs bosons decaying via H+ → τν

in top quark pair events using pp collision data at
√
s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector,

JHEP 06 (2012) 039 [arXiv:1204.2760] [INSPIRE].

[18] CMS collaboration, The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC, 2008 JINST 3 S08004.

[19] CMS collaboration, Performance of muon identification in pp collisions at
√
s = 7 TeV,

PAS-MUO-10-002 (2010).

– 18 –

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(75)90636-7
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+J+Nucl.Phys.,B90,104
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(76)90319-1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(76)90319-1
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+J+Phys.Lett.,B64,159
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(77)90852-8
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+J+Phys.Lett.,B69,489
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(81)90522-8
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(81)90522-8
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+J+Nucl.Phys.,B193,150
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01573998
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+J+Z.Physik,C11,153
http://dx.doi.org/10.1143/PTP.67.1889
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+J+Prog.Theor.Phys.,67,1889
http://dx.doi.org/10.1143/PTP.68.927
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+J+Prog.Theor.Phys.,68,927
http://dx.doi.org/10.1143/PTP.71.413
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+J+Prog.Theor.Phys.,71,413
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2007.10.005
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0503173
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-ph/0503173
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2003.09.057
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2003.09.057
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0309056
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-ex/0309056
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(02)02380-8
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0207054
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-ex/0207054
http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s2004-01732-6
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0404012
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-ex/0404012
http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.0267
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:0812.0267
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.042003
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0510065
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-ex/0510065
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2009.11.016
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1811
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:0908.1811
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP06(2012)039
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2760
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1204.2760
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1279140


J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

[20] CMS collaboration, Electron reconstruction and identification at
√
s = 7 TeV,

PAS-EGM-10-004 (2010).

[21] CMS collaboration, Commissioning of the particle-flow reconstruction in minimum-bias and

jet events from pp collisions at 7 TeV, PAS-PFT-10-002 (2010).

[22] M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam and G. Soyez, The anti-kt jet clustering algorithm, JHEP 04 (2008)

063 [arXiv:0802.1189] [INSPIRE].

[23] CMS collaboration, Performance of the b-jet identification in CMS, PAS-BTV-11-001 (2011).

[24] CMS collaboration, Performance of τ -lepton reconstruction and identification in CMS, 2012

JINST 7 P01001.

[25] F. Maltoni and T. Stelzer, MadEvent: automatic event generation with MadGraph, JHEP 02

(2003) 027 [hep-ph/0208156] [INSPIRE].

[26] J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer and T. Stelzer, MadGraph 5: going beyond,

JHEP 06 (2011) 128 [arXiv:1106.0522] [INSPIRE].

[27] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna and P.Z. Skands, PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual, JHEP 05

(2006) 026 [hep-ph/0603175] [INSPIRE].

[28] 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].

[29] Z. Wąs, TAUOLA the library for τ lepton decay and KKMC/KORALB/KORALZ/. . . status

report, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 98 (2001) 96 [hep-ph/0011305] [INSPIRE].

[30] GEANT4 collaboration, S. Agostinelli et al., GEANT4 — A simulation toolkit, Nucl.

Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250 [INSPIRE].

[31] J. Allison et al., Geant4 developments and applications, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 53 (2006)

270.

[32] R. Field, Early LHC underlying event data — Findings and surprises, arXiv:1010.3558

[INSPIRE].

[33] U. Langenfeld, S. Moch and P. Uwer, New results for tt̄ production at hadron colliders,

arXiv:0907.2527 [INSPIRE].

[34] N. Kidonakis, Next-to-next-to-leading soft-gluon corrections for the top quark cross section

and transverse momentum distribution, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 114030 [arXiv:1009.4935]

[INSPIRE].

[35] M. Cacciari, S. Frixione, M.L. Mangano, P. Nason and G. Ridolfi, Updated predictions for the

total production cross sections of top and of heavier quark pairs at the Tevatron and at the

LHC, JHEP 09 (2008) 127 [arXiv:0804.2800] [INSPIRE].

[36] LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group collaboration, Handbook of LHC Higgs

cross sections: 2. Differential distributions, CERN-2012-002 (2012).

[37] CMS collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., Measurement of the tt̄ production cross section in

pp collisions at 7 TeV in lepton + jets events using b-quark jet identification, Phys. Rev. D

84 (2011) 092004 [arXiv:1108.3773] [INSPIRE].

[38] ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al., Measurement of the cross section for top-quark pair

production in pp collisions at
√
s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector using final states with

two high-pT leptons, JHEP 05 (2012) 059 [arXiv:1202.4892] [INSPIRE].

– 19 –

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1299116
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1279341
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063
http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.1189
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:0802.1189
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1366061
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/7/01/P01001
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/7/01/P01001
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2003/02/027
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2003/02/027
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0208156
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-ph/0208156
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP06(2011)128
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.0522
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1106.0522
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/026
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/026
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0603175
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-ph/0603175
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070
http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.2092
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:0709.2092
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0920-5632(01)01200-2
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0011305
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-ph/0011305
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+J+Nucl.Instrum.Meth.,A506,250
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2006.869826
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2006.869826
http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.3558
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1010.3558
http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.2527
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:0907.2527
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.82.114030
http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.4935
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1009.4935
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2008/09/127
http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.2800
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:0804.2800
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1416519
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.84.092004
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.84.092004
http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.3773
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+J+Phys.Rev.,D84,092004
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2012)059
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4892
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1202.4892


J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

[39] D. Roy, The hadronic τ decay signature of a heavy charged Higgs boson at LHC, Phys. Lett.

B 459 (1999) 607 [hep-ph/9905542] [INSPIRE].

[40] CMS collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., Measurement of the top quark pair production cross

section in pp collisions at
√
s = 7 TeV in dilepton final states containing a τ , submitted to

Phys. Rev. D, arXiv:1203.6810 [INSPIRE].

[41] CMS collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., Measurement of the tt̄ production cross section and

the top quark mass in the dilepton channel in pp collisions at
√
s = 7 TeV, JHEP 07 (2011)

049 [arXiv:1105.5661] [INSPIRE].

[42] CMS collaboration, Jet energy corrections determination at 7 TeV, PAS-JME-10-010 (2010).

[43] CMS collaboration, Absolute calibration of the luminosity measurement at CMS: winter 2012

update, PAS-SMP-12-008 (2012).

[44] L. Read, Presentation of search results: the CLs technique, J. Phys. G 28 (2002) 2693.

[45] T. Junk, Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics, Nucl.

Instrum. Meth. A 434 (1999) 435 [hep-ex/9902006] [INSPIRE].

[46] ATLAS, CMS collaborations and LHC Higgs Combination Group, Procedure for the

LHC Higgs boson search combination in summer 2011, CMS-NOTE-2011-005 (2011).

[47] M.S. Carena, S. Heinemeyer, C. Wagner and G. Weiglein, Suggestions for improved

benchmark scenarios for Higgs boson searches at LEP-2, hep-ph/9912223 [INSPIRE].

[48] T. Hahn, S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, H. Rzehak and G. Weiglein, FeynHiggs: a program for

the calculation of MSSM Higgs-boson observables — Version 2.6.5, Comput. Phys. Commun.

180 (2009) 1426 [INSPIRE].

– 20 –

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(99)00724-8
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(99)00724-8
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9905542
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-ph/9905542
http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.6810
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1203.6810
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2011)049
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2011)049
http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.5661
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1105.5661
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1308178
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1434360
http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/313
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(99)00498-2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(99)00498-2
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/9902006
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-ex/9902006
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1379837
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9912223
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-ph/9912223
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2009.02.014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2009.02.014
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+J+Comput.Phys.Commun.,180,1426


J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

The CMS collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia

S. Chatrchyan, V. Khachatryan, A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan

Institut für Hochenergiephysik der OeAW, Wien, Austria

W. Adam, E. Aguilo, T. Bergauer, M. Dragicevic, J. Erö, C. Fabjan1, M. Friedl,

R. Frühwirth1, V.M. Ghete, J. Hammer, N. Hörmann, J. Hrubec, M. Jeitler1, W. Kiesen-

hofer, V. Knünz, M. Krammer1, D. Liko, I. Mikulec, M. Pernicka†, B. Rahbaran,

C. Rohringer, H. Rohringer, R. Schöfbeck, J. Strauss, A. Taurok, W. Waltenberger,

G. Walzel, E. Widl, C.-E. Wulz1

National Centre for Particle and High Energy Physics, Minsk, Belarus

V. Mossolov, N. Shumeiko, J. Suarez Gonzalez

Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerpen, Belgium

S. Bansal, T. Cornelis, E.A. De Wolf, X. Janssen, S. Luyckx, L. Mucibello, S. Ochesanu,

B. Roland, R. Rougny, M. Selvaggi, Z. Staykova, H. Van Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen,

N. Van Remortel, A. Van Spilbeeck

Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium

F. Blekman, S. Blyweert, J. D’Hondt, R. Gonzalez Suarez, A. Kalogeropoulos, M. Maes,

A. Olbrechts, W. Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders, G.P. Van Onsem, I. Villella

Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium

B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, V. Dero, A.P.R. Gay, T. Hreus, A. Léonard, P.E. Marage,

T. Reis, L. Thomas, C. Vander Velde, P. Vanlaer, J. Wang

Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

V. Adler, K. Beernaert, A. Cimmino, S. Costantini, G. Garcia, M. Grunewald, B. Klein,

J. Lellouch, A. Marinov, J. Mccartin, A.A. Ocampo Rios, D. Ryckbosch, N. Strobbe,

F. Thyssen, M. Tytgat, P. Verwilligen, S. Walsh, E. Yazgan, N. Zaganidis

Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

S. Basegmez, G. Bruno, R. Castello, L. Ceard, C. Delaere, T. du Pree, D. Favart,

L. Forthomme, A. Giammanco2, J. Hollar, V. Lemaitre, J. Liao, O. Militaru, C. Nuttens,

D. Pagano, A. Pin, K. Piotrzkowski, N. Schul, J.M. Vizan Garcia

Université de Mons, Mons, Belgium

N. Beliy, T. Caebergs, E. Daubie, G.H. Hammad

Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

G.A. Alves, M. Correa Martins Junior, D. De Jesus Damiao, T. Martins, M.E. Pol,

M.H.G. Souza

Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

W.L. Aldá Júnior, W. Carvalho, A. Custódio, E.M. Da Costa, C. De Oliveira Martins,

S. Fonseca De Souza, D. Matos Figueiredo, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, V. Oguri, W.L. Prado

Da Silva, A. Santoro, L. Soares Jorge, A. Sznajder

– 21 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

Instituto de Fisica Teorica, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Sao Paulo, Brazil

C.A. Bernardes3, F.A. Dias4, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomei, E. M. Gregores3, C. Lagana,

F. Marinho, P.G. Mercadante3, S.F. Novaes, Sandra S. Padula

Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Sofia, Bulgaria

V. Genchev5, P. Iaydjiev5, S. Piperov, M. Rodozov, S. Stoykova, G. Sultanov, V. Tcholakov,

R. Trayanov, M. Vutova

University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria

A. Dimitrov, R. Hadjiiska, V. Kozhuharov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov

Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China

J.G. Bian, G.M. Chen, H.S. Chen, C.H. Jiang, D. Liang, S. Liang, X. Meng, J. Tao,

J. Wang, X. Wang, Z. Wang, H. Xiao, M. Xu, J. Zang, Z. Zhang

State Key Lab. of Nucl. Phys. and Tech., Peking University, Beijing, China

C. Asawatangtrakuldee, Y. Ban, S. Guo, Y. Guo, W. Li, S. Liu, Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, H. Teng,

D. Wang, L. Zhang, B. Zhu, W. Zou

Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia

C. Avila, J.P. Gomez, B. Gomez Moreno, A.F. Osorio Oliveros, J.C. Sanabria

Technical University of Split, Split, Croatia

N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, R. Plestina6, D. Polic, I. Puljak5

University of Split, Split, Croatia

Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac

Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia

V. Brigljevic, S. Duric, K. Kadija, J. Luetic, S. Morovic

University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

A. Attikis, M. Galanti, G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos, P.A. Razis

Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

M. Finger, M. Finger Jr.

Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab Republic of Egypt,

Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt

Y. Assran7, S. Elgammal8, A. Ellithi Kamel9, S. Khalil8, M.A. Mahmoud10, A. Radi11,12

National Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia

M. Kadastik, M. Müntel, M. Raidal, L. Rebane, A. Tiko

Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

P. Eerola, G. Fedi, M. Voutilainen

Helsinki Institute of Physics, Helsinki, Finland

J. Härkönen, A. Heikkinen, V. Karimäki, R. Kinnunen, M.J. Kortelainen, T. Lampén,

K. Lassila-Perini, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, P. Luukka, T. Mäenpää, T. Peltola, E. Tuominen,

J. Tuominiemi, E. Tuovinen, D. Ungaro, L. Wendland

– 22 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland

K. Banzuzi, A. Karjalainen, A. Korpela, T. Tuuva

DSM/IRFU, CEA/Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France

M. Besancon, S. Choudhury, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, B. Fabbro, J.L. Faure, F. Ferri,

S. Ganjour, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry, E. Locci,

J. Malcles, L. Millischer, A. Nayak, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, I. Shreyber, M. Titov

Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole Polytechnique, IN2P3-CNRS, Palaiseau,

France

S. Baffioni, F. Beaudette, L. Benhabib, L. Bianchini, M. Bluj13, C. Broutin, P. Busson,

C. Charlot, N. Daci, T. Dahms, L. Dobrzynski, R. Granier de Cassagnac, M. Haguenauer,

P. Miné, C. Mironov, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, P. Paganini, D. Sabes, R. Salerno, Y. Sirois,

C. Veelken, A. Zabi

Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien, Université de Strasbourg, Univer-

sité de Haute Alsace Mulhouse, CNRS/IN2P3, Strasbourg, France

J.-L. Agram14, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, D. Bodin, J.-M. Brom, M. Cardaci, E.C. Chabert,

C. Collard, E. Conte14, F. Drouhin14, C. Ferro, J.-C. Fontaine14, D. Gelé, U. Goerlach,

P. Juillot, A.-C. Le Bihan, P. Van Hove

Centre de Calcul de l’Institut National de Physique Nucleaire et de Physique

des Particules (IN2P3), Villeurbanne, France

F. Fassi, D. Mercier

Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3, Institut

de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France

S. Beauceron, N. Beaupere, O. Bondu, G. Boudoul, J. Chasserat, R. Chierici5, D. Contardo,

P. Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, B. Ille, T. Kurca,

M. Lethuillier, L. Mirabito, S. Perries, V. Sordini, Y. Tschudi, P. Verdier, S. Viret

Institute of High Energy Physics and Informatization, Tbilisi State University,

Tbilisi, Georgia

Z. Tsamalaidze15

RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen, Germany

G. Anagnostou, S. Beranek, M. Edelhoff, L. Feld, N. Heracleous, O. Hindrichs, R. Jussen,

K. Klein, J. Merz, A. Ostapchuk, A. Perieanu, F. Raupach, J. Sammet, S. Schael,

D. Sprenger, H. Weber, B. Wittmer, V. Zhukov16

RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany

M. Ata, J. Caudron, E. Dietz-Laursonn, D. Duchardt, M. Erdmann, R. Fischer, A. Güth,

T. Hebbeker, C. Heidemann, K. Hoepfner, D. Klingebiel, P. Kreuzer, J. Lingemann,

C. Magass, M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, M. Olschewski, P. Papacz, H. Pieta, H. Reithler,

S.A. Schmitz, L. Sonnenschein, J. Steggemann, D. Teyssier, M. Weber

– 23 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany

M. Bontenackels, V. Cherepanov, G. Flügge, H. Geenen, M. Geisler, W. Haj Ahmad,

F. Hoehle, B. Kargoll, T. Kress, Y. Kuessel, A. Nowack, L. Perchalla, O. Pooth, J. Ren-

nefeld, P. Sauerland, A. Stahl

Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany

M. Aldaya Martin, J. Behr, W. Behrenhoff, U. Behrens, M. Bergholz17, A. Bethani,

K. Borras, A. Burgmeier, A. Cakir, L. Calligaris, A. Campbell, E. Castro, F. Costanza,

D. Dammann, C. Diez Pardos, G. Eckerlin, D. Eckstein, G. Flucke, A. Geiser, I. Glushkov,

P. Gunnellini, S. Habib, J. Hauk, G. Hellwig, H. Jung, M. Kasemann, P. Kat-

sas, C. Kleinwort, H. Kluge, A. Knutsson, M. Krämer, D. Krücker, E. Kuznetsova,

W. Lange, W. Lohmann17, B. Lutz, R. Mankel, I. Marfin, M. Marienfeld, I.-A. Melzer-

Pellmann, A.B. Meyer, J. Mnich, A. Mussgiller, S. Naumann-Emme, J. Olzem, H. Perrey,

A. Petrukhin, D. Pitzl, A. Raspereza, P.M. Ribeiro Cipriano, C. Riedl, E. Ron, M. Rosin,

J. Salfeld-Nebgen, R. Schmidt17, T. Schoerner-Sadenius, N. Sen, A. Spiridonov, M. Stein,

R. Walsh, C. Wissing

University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

C. Autermann, V. Blobel, J. Draeger, H. Enderle, J. Erfle, U. Gebbert, M. Görner,

T. Hermanns, R.S. Höing, K. Kaschube, G. Kaussen, H. Kirschenmann, R. Klanner,

J. Lange, B. Mura, F. Nowak, T. Peiffer, N. Pietsch, D. Rathjens, C. Sander, H. Schettler,

P. Schleper, E. Schlieckau, A. Schmidt, M. Schröder, T. Schum, M. Seidel, V. Sola,

H. Stadie, G. Steinbrück, J. Thomsen, L. Vanelderen

Institut für Experimentelle Kernphysik, Karlsruhe, Germany

C. Barth, J. Berger, C. Böser, T. Chwalek, W. De Boer, A. Descroix, A. Dierlamm,

M. Feindt, M. Guthoff5, C. Hackstein, F. Hartmann, T. Hauth5, M. Heinrich, H. Held,

K.H. Hoffmann, S. Honc, I. Katkov16, J.R. Komaragiri, P. Lobelle Pardo, D. Martschei,

S. Mueller, Th. Müller, M. Niegel, A. Nürnberg, O. Oberst, A. Oehler, J. Ott, G. Quast,

K. Rabbertz, F. Ratnikov, N. Ratnikova, S. Röcker, A. Scheurer, F.-P. Schilling, G. Schott,

H.J. Simonis, F.M. Stober, D. Troendle, R. Ulrich, J. Wagner-Kuhr, S. Wayand, T. Weiler,

M. Zeise

Institute of Nuclear Physics ”Demokritos”, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece

G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, S. Kesisoglou, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas, I. Manolakos, A. Markou,

C. Markou, C. Mavrommatis, E. Ntomari

University of Athens, Athens, Greece

L. Gouskos, T.J. Mertzimekis, A. Panagiotou, N. Saoulidou

University of Ioánnina, Ioánnina, Greece

I. Evangelou, C. Foudas5, P. Kokkas, N. Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, V. Patras

KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics, Budapest, Hungary

G. Bencze, C. Hajdu5, P. Hidas, D. Horvath18, F. Sikler, V. Veszpremi, G. Vesztergombi19

Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary

N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Molnar, J. Palinkas, Z. Szillasi

– 24 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

J. Karancsi, P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari

Panjab University, Chandigarh, India

S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, N. Dhingra, R. Gupta, M. Jindal, M. Kaur, M.Z. Mehta, N. Nishu,

L.K. Saini, A. Sharma, J. Singh

University of Delhi, Delhi, India

S. Ahuja, A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, A. Kumar, A. Kumar, S. Malhotra, M. Naimud-

din, K. Ranjan, V. Sharma, R.K. Shivpuri

Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata, India

S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Dutta, B. Gomber, Sa. Jain, Sh. Jain, R. Khurana,

S. Sarkar, M. Sharan

Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India

A. Abdulsalam, R.K. Choudhury, D. Dutta, S. Kailas, V. Kumar, P. Mehta,

A.K. Mohanty5, L.M. Pant, P. Shukla

Tata Institute of Fundamental Research - EHEP, Mumbai, India

T. Aziz, S. Ganguly, M. Guchait20, M. Maity21, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, G.B. Mo-

hanty, B. Parida, K. Sudhakar, N. Wickramage

Tata Institute of Fundamental Research - HECR, Mumbai, India

S. Banerjee, S. Dugad

Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran

H. Arfaei, H. Bakhshiansohi22, S.M. Etesami23, A. Fahim22, M. Hashemi, H. Hesari,

A. Jafari22, M. Khakzad, M. Mohammadi Najafabadi, S. Paktinat Mehdiabadi,

B. Safarzadeh24, M. Zeinali23

INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b, Politecnico di Bari c, Bari, Italy

M. Abbresciaa,b, L. Barbonea,b, C. Calabriaa,b,5, S.S. Chhibraa,b, A. Colaleoa,

D. Creanzaa,c, N. De Filippisa,c,5, M. De Palmaa,b, L. Fiorea, G. Iasellia,c, L. Lusitoa,b,

G. Maggia,c, M. Maggia, B. Marangellia,b, S. Mya,c, S. Nuzzoa,b, N. Pacificoa,b,

A. Pompilia,b, G. Pugliesea,c, G. Selvaggia,b, L. Silvestrisa, G. Singha,b, R. Venditti,

G. Zitoa

INFN Sezione di Bologna a, Università di Bologna b, Bologna, Italy

G. Abbiendia, A.C. Benvenutia, D. Bonacorsia,b, S. Braibant-Giacomellia,b,

L. Brigliadoria,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A. Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa, M. Cuffiania,b,

G.M. Dallavallea, F. Fabbria, A. Fanfania,b, D. Fasanellaa,b,5, P. Giacomellia,

C. Grandia, L. Guiduccia,b, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, M. Meneghellia,b,5, A. Montanaria,

F.L. Navarriaa,b, F. Odoricia, A. Perrottaa, F. Primaveraa,b, A.M. Rossia,b, T. Rovellia,b,

G. Sirolia,b, R. Travaglinia,b

INFN Sezione di Catania a, Università di Catania b, Catania, Italy

S. Albergoa,b, G. Cappelloa,b, M. Chiorbolia,b, S. Costaa,b, R. Potenzaa,b, A. Tricomia,b,

C. Tuvea,b

– 25 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

INFN Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b, Firenze, Italy

G. Barbaglia, V. Ciullia,b, C. Civininia, R. D’Alessandroa,b, E. Focardia,b, S. Frosalia,b,

E. Galloa, S. Gonzia,b, M. Meschinia, S. Paolettia, G. Sguazzonia, A. Tropianoa,5

INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy

L. Benussi, S. Bianco, S. Colafranceschi25, F. Fabbri, D. Piccolo

INFN Sezione di Genova, Genova, Italy

P. Fabbricatore, R. Musenich, S. Tosi

INFN Sezione di Milano-Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano,

Italy

A. Benagliaa,b,5, F. De Guioa,b, L. Di Matteoa,b,5, S. Fiorendia,b, S. Gennaia,5, A. Ghezzia,b,

S. Malvezzia, R.A. Manzonia,b, A. Martellia,b, A. Massironia,b,5, D. Menascea, L. Moronia,

M. Paganonia,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Ragazzia,b, N. Redaellia, S. Salaa, T. Tabarelli de Fatisa,b

INFN Sezione di Napoli a, Università di Napoli ”Federico II” b, Napoli, Italy

S. Buontempoa, C.A. Carrillo Montoyaa,5, N. Cavalloa,26, A. De Cosaa,b,5, O. Doganguna,b,

F. Fabozzia,26, A.O.M. Iorioa, L. Listaa, S. Meolaa,27, M. Merolaa,b, P. Paoluccia,5

INFN Sezione di Padova a, Università di Padova b, Università di

Trento (Trento) c, Padova, Italy

P. Azzia, N. Bacchettaa,5, P. Bellana,b, D. Biselloa,b, A. Brancaa,5, R. Carlina,b,

P. Checchiaa, T. Dorigoa, U. Dossellia, F. Gasparinia,b, U. Gasparinia,b, A. Gozzelinoa,

K. Kanishcheva,c, S. Lacapraraa, I. Lazzizzeraa,c, M. Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,b,

M. Nespoloa,5, J. Pazzini, P. Ronchesea,b, F. Simonettoa,b, E. Torassaa, S. Vaninia,b,

P. Zottoa,b, G. Zumerlea,b

INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy

M. Gabusia,b, S.P. Rattia,b, C. Riccardia,b, P. Torrea,b, P. Vituloa,b

INFN Sezione di Perugia a, Università di Perugia b, Perugia, Italy

M. Biasinia,b, G.M. Bileia, L. Fanòa,b, P. Laricciaa,b, A. Lucaronia,b,5, G. Mantovania,b,

M. Menichellia, A. Nappia,b, F. Romeoa,b, A. Sahaa, A. Santocchiaa,b, A. Spieziaa,b,

S. Taronia,b,5

INFN Sezione di Pisa a, Università di Pisa b, Scuola Normale Superiore di

Pisa c, Pisa, Italy

P. Azzurria,c, G. Bagliesia, T. Boccalia, G. Broccoloa,c, R. Castaldia, R.T. D’Agnoloa,c,

R. Dell’Orsoa, F. Fioria,b,5, L. Foàa,c, A. Giassia, A. Kraana, F. Ligabuea,c, T. Lomtadzea,

L. Martinia,28, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, A. Rizzia,b, A.T. Serbana,29, P. Spagnoloa,

P. Squillaciotia,5, R. Tenchinia, G. Tonellia,b,5, A. Venturia,5, P.G. Verdinia

INFN Sezione di Roma a, Università di Roma ”La Sapienza” b, Roma, Italy

L. Baronea,b, F. Cavallaria, D. Del Rea,b,5, M. Diemoza, M. Grassia,b,5, E. Longoa,b,

P. Meridiania,5, F. Michelia,b, S. Nourbakhsha,b, G. Organtinia,b, R. Paramattia,

S. Rahatloua,b, M. Sigamania, L. Soffia,b

– 26 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

INFN Sezione di Torino a, Università di Torino b, Università del Piemonte

Orientale (Novara) c, Torino, Italy

N. Amapanea,b, R. Arcidiaconoa,c, S. Argiroa,b, M. Arneodoa,c, C. Biinoa, N. Cartigliaa,

M. Costaa,b, N. Demariaa, C. Mariottia,5, S. Masellia, E. Migliorea,b, V. Monacoa,b,

M. Musicha,5, M.M. Obertinoa,c, N. Pastronea, M. Pelliccionia, A. Potenzaa,b,

A. Romeroa,b, M. Ruspaa,c, R. Sacchia,b, A. Solanoa,b, A. Staianoa, A. Vilela Pereiraa

INFN Sezione di Trieste a, Università di Trieste b, Trieste, Italy

S. Belfortea, V. Candelisea,b, F. Cossuttia, G. Della Riccaa,b, B. Gobboa, M. Maronea,b,5,

D. Montaninoa,b,5, A. Penzoa, A. Schizzia,b

Kangwon National University, Chunchon, Korea

S.G. Heo, T.Y. Kim, S.K. Nam

Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea

S. Chang, D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, D.J. Kong, H. Park, S.R. Ro, D.C. Son, T. Son

Chonnam National University, Institute for Universe and Elementary Particles,

Kwangju, Korea

J.Y. Kim, Zero J. Kim, S. Song

Korea University, Seoul, Korea

S. Choi, D. Gyun, B. Hong, M. Jo, H. Kim, T.J. Kim, K.S. Lee, D.H. Moon, S.K. Park

University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea

M. Choi, J.H. Kim, C. Park, I.C. Park, S. Park, G. Ryu

Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea

Y. Cho, Y. Choi, Y.K. Choi, J. Goh, M.S. Kim, E. Kwon, B. Lee, J. Lee, S. Lee, H. Seo,

I. Yu

Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania

M.J. Bilinskas, I. Grigelionis, M. Janulis, A. Juodagalvis

Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico

H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, I. Heredia-de La Cruz, R. Lopez-Fernandez,

R. Magaña Villalba, J. Mart́ınez-Ortega, A. Sánchez-Hernández, L.M. Villasenor-Cendejas

Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City, Mexico

S. Carrillo Moreno, F. Vazquez Valencia

Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico

H.A. Salazar Ibarguen

Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potośı, San Luis Potośı, Mexico

E. Casimiro Linares, A. Morelos Pineda, M.A. Reyes-Santos

University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

D. Krofcheck

– 27 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

A.J. Bell, P.H. Butler, R. Doesburg, S. Reucroft, H. Silverwood

National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan

M. Ahmad, M.I. Asghar, H.R. Hoorani, S. Khalid, W.A. Khan, T. Khurshid, S. Qazi,

M.A. Shah, M. Shoaib

Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw,

Warsaw, Poland

G. Brona, K. Bunkowski, M. Cwiok, W. Dominik, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki,

J. Krolikowski

Soltan Institute for Nuclear Studies, Warsaw, Poland

H. Bialkowska, B. Boimska, T. Frueboes, R. Gokieli, M. Górski, M. Kazana, K. Nawrocki,

K. Romanowska-Rybinska, M. Szleper, G. Wrochna, P. Zalewski

Laboratório de Instrumentação e F́ısica Experimental de Part́ıculas, Lisboa,

Portugal

N. Almeida, P. Bargassa, A. David, P. Faccioli, P.G. Ferreira Parracho, M. Gallinaro,

J. Seixas, J. Varela, P. Vischia

Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia

I. Belotelov, P. Bunin, M. Gavrilenko, I. Golutvin, I. Gorbunov, A. Kamenev, V. Karjavin,

G. Kozlov, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, P. Moisenz, V. Palichik, V. Perelygin, S. Shmatov,

V. Smirnov, A. Volodko, A. Zarubin

Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St Petersburg), Russia

S. Evstyukhin, V. Golovtsov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim, P. Levchenko, V. Murzin, V. Oreshkin,

I. Smirnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Vavilov, A. Vorobyev, An. Vorobyev

Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia

Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, M. Kirsanov, N. Krasnikov,

V. Matveev, A. Pashenkov, D. Tlisov, A. Toropin

Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia

V. Epshteyn, M. Erofeeva, V. Gavrilov, M. Kossov5, N. Lychkovskaya, V. Popov,

G. Safronov, S. Semenov, V. Stolin, E. Vlasov, A. Zhokin

Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

A. Belyaev, E. Boos, M. Dubinin4, L. Dudko, A. Ershov, A. Gribushin, V. Klyukhin,

O. Kodolova, I. Lokhtin, A. Markina, S. Obraztsov, M. Perfilov, S. Petrushanko, A. Popov,

L. Sarycheva†, V. Savrin, A. Snigirev

P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia

V. Andreev, M. Azarkin, I. Dremin, M. Kirakosyan, A. Leonidov, G. Mesyats,

S.V. Rusakov, A. Vinogradov

– 28 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

State Research Center of Russian Federation, Institute for High Energy

Physics, Protvino, Russia

I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, S. Bitioukov, V. Grishin5, V. Kachanov, D. Konstantinov,

A. Korablev, V. Krychkine, V. Petrov, R. Ryutin, A. Sobol, L. Tourtchanovitch, S. Troshin,

N. Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov

University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of Nuclear

Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia

P. Adzic30, M. Djordjevic, M. Ekmedzic, D. Krpic30, J. Milosevic

Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tec-

nológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid, Spain

M. Aguilar-Benitez, J. Alcaraz Maestre, P. Arce, C. Battilana, E. Calvo, M. Cerrada,

M. Chamizo Llatas, N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris, D. Domı́nguez Vázquez,

C. Fernandez Bedoya, J.P. Fernández Ramos, A. Ferrando, J. Flix, M.C. Fouz, P. Garcia-

Abia, O. Gonzalez Lopez, S. Goy Lopez, J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa, G. Merino, J. Puerta

Pelayo, A. Quintario Olmeda, I. Redondo, L. Romero, J. Santaolalla, M.S. Soares,

C. Willmott

Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

C. Albajar, G. Codispoti, J.F. de Trocóniz

Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain

H. Brun, J. Cuevas, J. Fernandez Menendez, S. Folgueras, I. Gonzalez Caballero, L. Lloret

Iglesias, J. Piedra Gomez31

Instituto de F́ısica de Cantabria (IFCA), CSIC-Universidad de Cantabria,

Santander, Spain

J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, S.H. Chuang, J. Duarte Campderros,

M. Felcini32, M. Fernandez, G. Gomez, J. Gonzalez Sanchez, A. Graziano, C. Jorda,

A. Lopez Virto, J. Marco, R. Marco, C. Martinez Rivero, F. Matorras, F.J. Munoz Sanchez,

T. Rodrigo, A.Y. Rodŕıguez-Marrero, A. Ruiz-Jimeno, L. Scodellaro, M. Sobron Sanudo,

I. Vila, R. Vilar Cortabitarte

CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland

D. Abbaneo, E. Auffray, G. Auzinger, P. Baillon, A.H. Ball, D. Barney, J.F. Benitez,

C. Bernet6, G. Bianchi, P. Bloch, A. Bocci, A. Bonato, C. Botta, H. Breuker, T. Camporesi,

G. Cerminara, T. Christiansen, J.A. Coarasa Perez, D. D’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, A. De

Roeck, S. Di Guida, M. Dobson, N. Dupont-Sagorin, A. Elliott-Peisert, B. Frisch, W. Funk,

G. Georgiou, M. Giffels, D. Gigi, K. Gill, D. Giordano, M. Giunta, F. Glege, R. Gomez-

Reino Garrido, P. Govoni, S. Gowdy, R. Guida, M. Hansen, P. Harris, C. Hartl, J. Harvey,

B. Hegner, A. Hinzmann, V. Innocente, P. Janot, K. Kaadze, E. Karavakis, K. Kousouris,

P. Lecoq, Y.-J. Lee, P. Lenzi, C. Lourenço, T. Mäki, M. Malberti, L. Malgeri, M. Man-

nelli, L. Masetti, F. Meijers, S. Mersi, E. Meschi, R. Moser, M.U. Mozer, M. Mulders,

P. Musella, E. Nesvold, T. Orimoto, L. Orsini, E. Palencia Cortezon, E. Perez, L. Perrozzi,

A. Petrilli, A. Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, M. Pimiä, D. Piparo, G. Polese, L. Quertenmont,

– 29 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

A. Racz, W. Reece, J. Rodrigues Antunes, G. Rolandi33, T. Rommerskirchen, C. Rovelli34,

M. Rovere, H. Sakulin, F. Santanastasio, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, I. Segoni, S. Sekmen,

A. Sharma, P. Siegrist, P. Silva, M. Simon, P. Sphicas35, D. Spiga, A. Tsirou, G.I. Veres19,

J.R. Vlimant, H.K. Wöhri, S.D. Worm36, W.D. Zeuner

Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland

W. Bertl, K. Deiters, W. Erdmann, K. Gabathuler, R. Horisberger, Q. Ingram,

H.C. Kaestli, S. König, D. Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, F. Meier, D. Renker, T. Rohe,

J. Sibille37

Institute for Particle Physics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

L. Bäni, P. Bortignon, M.A. Buchmann, B. Casal, N. Chanon, A. Deisher, G. Dissertori,

M. Dittmar, M. Dünser, J. Eugster, D. Fischer, K. Freudenreich, C. Grab, D. Hits,

P. Lecomte, W. Lustermann, A.C. Marini, P. Martinez Ruiz del Arbol, N. Mohr, F. Moort-

gat, C. Nägeli38, P. Nef, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, F. Pandolfi, L. Pape, F. Pauss, M. Peruzzi,

F.J. Ronga, M. Rossini, L. Sala, A.K. Sanchez, A. Starodumov39, B. Stieger, M. Takahashi,

L. Tauscher†, A. Thea, K. Theofilatos, D. Treille, C. Urscheler, R. Wallny, H.A. Weber,

L. Wehrli

Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland

C. Amsler, V. Chiochia, S. De Visscher, C. Favaro, M. Ivova Rikova, B. Millan Mejias,

P. Otiougova, P. Robmann, H. Snoek, S. Tupputi, M. Verzetti

National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan

Y.H. Chang, K.H. Chen, C.M. Kuo, S.W. Li, W. Lin, Z.K. Liu, Y.J. Lu, D. Mekterovic,

A.P. Singh, R. Volpe, S.S. Yu

National Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan

P. Bartalini, P. Chang, Y.H. Chang, Y.W. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, C. Dietz,

U. Grundler, W.-S. Hou, Y. Hsiung, K.Y. Kao, Y.J. Lei, R.-S. Lu, D. Majumder,

E. Petrakou, X. Shi, J.G. Shiu, Y.M. Tzeng, X. Wan, M. Wang

Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey

A. Adiguzel, M.N. Bakirci40, S. Cerci41, C. Dozen, I. Dumanoglu, E. Eskut, S. Girgis,

G. Gokbulut, E. Gurpinar, I. Hos, E.E. Kangal, T. Karaman, G. Karapinar42, A. Kayis

Topaksu, G. Onengut, K. Ozdemir, S. Ozturk43, A. Polatoz, K. Sogut44, D. Sunar Cerci41,

B. Tali41, H. Topakli40, L.N. Vergili, M. Vergili

Middle East Technical University, Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey

I.V. Akin, T. Aliev, B. Bilin, S. Bilmis, M. Deniz, H. Gamsizkan, A.M. Guler, K. Ocalan,

A. Ozpineci, M. Serin, R. Sever, U.E. Surat, M. Yalvac, E. Yildirim, M. Zeyrek

Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey

E. Gülmez, B. Isildak45, M. Kaya46, O. Kaya46, S. Ozkorucuklu47, N. Sonmez48

Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey

K. Cankocak

– 30 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

National Scientific Center, Kharkov Institute of Physics and Technology,

Kharkov, Ukraine

L. Levchuk

University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom

F. Bostock, J.J. Brooke, E. Clement, D. Cussans, H. Flacher, R. Frazier, J. Goldstein,

M. Grimes, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, S. Metson, D.M. Newbold36, K. Nirun-

pong, A. Poll, S. Senkin, V.J. Smith, T. Williams

Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom

L. Basso49, K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev49, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, D.J.A. Cockerill, J.A. Cough-

lan, K. Harder, S. Harper, J. Jackson, B.W. Kennedy, E. Olaiya, D. Petyt, B.C. Radburn-

Smith, C.H. Shepherd-Themistocleous, I.R. Tomalin, W.J. Womersley

Imperial College, London, United Kingdom

R. Bainbridge, G. Ball, R. Beuselinck, O. Buchmuller, D. Colling, N. Cripps, M. Cutajar,

P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M. Della Negra, W. Ferguson, J. Fulcher, D. Futyan, A. Gilbert,

A. Guneratne Bryer, G. Hall, Z. Hatherell, J. Hays, G. Iles, M. Jarvis, G. Karapostoli,

L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan, J. Marrouche, B. Mathias, R. Nandi, J. Nash, A. Nikitenko39,

A. Papageorgiou, J. Pela5, M. Pesaresi, K. Petridis, M. Pioppi50, D.M. Raymond, S. Roger-

son, A. Rose, M.J. Ryan, C. Seez, P. Sharp†, A. Sparrow, M. Stoye, A. Tapper, M. Vazquez

Acosta, T. Virdee, S. Wakefield, N. Wardle, T. Whyntie

Brunel University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom

M. Chadwick, J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, D. Leggat, D. Leslie,

W. Martin, I.D. Reid, P. Symonds, L. Teodorescu, M. Turner

Baylor University, Waco, USA

K. Hatakeyama, H. Liu, T. Scarborough

The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA

O. Charaf, C. Henderson, P. Rumerio

Boston University, Boston, USA

A. Avetisyan, T. Bose, C. Fantasia, A. Heister, J. St. John, P. Lawson, D. Lazic, J. Rohlf,

D. Sperka, L. Sulak

Brown University, Providence, USA

J. Alimena, S. Bhattacharya, D. Cutts, A. Ferapontov, U. Heintz, S. Jabeen, G. Kukartsev,

E. Laird, G. Landsberg, M. Luk, M. Narain, D. Nguyen, M. Segala, T. Sinthuprasith,

T. Speer, K.V. Tsang

University of California, Davis, Davis, USA

R. Breedon, G. Breto, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez, S. Chauhan, M. Chertok,

J. Conway, R. Conway, P.T. Cox, J. Dolen, R. Erbacher, M. Gardner, R. Houtz, W. Ko,

A. Kopecky, R. Lander, T. Miceli, D. Pellett, F. Ricci-tam, B. Rutherford, M. Searle,

J. Smith, M. Squires, M. Tripathi, R. Vasquez Sierra

– 31 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, USA

V. Andreev, D. Cline, R. Cousins, J. Duris, S. Erhan, P. Everaerts, C. Farrell, J. Hauser,

M. Ignatenko, C. Jarvis, C. Plager, G. Rakness, P. Schlein†, J. Tucker, V. Valuev, M. Weber

University of California, Riverside, Riverside, USA

J. Babb, R. Clare, M.E. Dinardo, J. Ellison, J.W. Gary, F. Giordano, G. Hanson,

G.Y. Jeng51, H. Liu, O.R. Long, A. Luthra, H. Nguyen, S. Paramesvaran, J. Sturdy,

S. Sumowidagdo, R. Wilken, S. Wimpenny

University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA

W. Andrews, J.G. Branson, G.B. Cerati, S. Cittolin, D. Evans, F. Golf, A. Holzner,

R. Kelley, M. Lebourgeois, J. Letts, I. Macneill, B. Mangano, S. Padhi, C. Palmer,

G. Petrucciani, M. Pieri, M. Sani, V. Sharma, S. Simon, E. Sudano, M. Tadel, Y. Tu,

A. Vartak, S. Wasserbaech52, F. Würthwein, A. Yagil, J. Yoo

University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, USA

D. Barge, R. Bellan, C. Campagnari, M. D’Alfonso, T. Danielson, K. Flowers, P. Geffert,

J. Incandela, C. Justus, P. Kalavase, S.A. Koay, D. Kovalskyi, V. Krutelyov, S. Lowette,

N. Mccoll, V. Pavlunin, F. Rebassoo, J. Ribnik, J. Richman, R. Rossin, D. Stuart, W. To,

C. West

California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA

A. Apresyan, A. Bornheim, Y. Chen, E. Di Marco, J. Duarte, M. Gataullin, Y. Ma, A. Mott,

H.B. Newman, C. Rogan, M. Spiropulu4, V. Timciuc, P. Traczyk, J. Veverka, R. Wilkinson,

Y. Yang, R.Y. Zhu

Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA

B. Akgun, V. Azzolini, R. Carroll, T. Ferguson, Y. Iiyama, D.W. Jang, Y.F. Liu, M. Paulini,

H. Vogel, I. Vorobiev

University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, USA

J.P. Cumalat, B.R. Drell, C.J. Edelmaier, W.T. Ford, A. Gaz, B. Heyburn, E. Luiggi

Lopez, J.G. Smith, K. Stenson, K.A. Ulmer, S.R. Wagner

Cornell University, Ithaca, USA

J. Alexander, A. Chatterjee, N. Eggert, L.K. Gibbons, B. Heltsley, A. Khukhunaishvili,

B. Kreis, N. Mirman, G. Nicolas Kaufman, J.R. Patterson, A. Ryd, E. Salvati, W. Sun,

W.D. Teo, J. Thom, J. Thompson, J. Vaughan, Y. Weng, L. Winstrom, P. Wittich

Fairfield University, Fairfield, USA

D. Winn

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, USA

S. Abdullin, M. Albrow, J. Anderson, L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas, J. Berryhill,

P.C. Bhat, I. Bloch, K. Burkett, J.N. Butler, V. Chetluru, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana,

V.D. Elvira, I. Fisk, J. Freeman, Y. Gao, D. Green, O. Gutsche, J. Hanlon, R.M. Har-

ris, J. Hirschauer, B. Hooberman, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, B. Kilminster,

B. Klima, S. Kunori, S. Kwan, C. Leonidopoulos, J. Linacre, D. Lincoln, R. Lipton,

– 32 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

J. Lykken, K. Maeshima, J.M. Marraffino, S. Maruyama, D. Mason, P. McBride, K. Mishra,

S. Mrenna, Y. Musienko53, C. Newman-Holmes, V. O’Dell, O. Prokofyev, E. Sexton-

Kennedy, S. Sharma, W.J. Spalding, L. Spiegel, P. Tan, L. Taylor, S. Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran,

L. Uplegger, E.W. Vaandering, R. Vidal, J. Whitmore, W. Wu, F. Yang, F. Yumiceva,

J.C. Yun

University of Florida, Gainesville, USA

D. Acosta, P. Avery, D. Bourilkov, M. Chen, T. Cheng, S. Das, M. De Gruttola, G.P. Di

Giovanni, D. Dobur, A. Drozdetskiy, R.D. Field, M. Fisher, Y. Fu, I.K. Furic, J. Gartner,

J. Hugon, B. Kim, J. Konigsberg, A. Korytov, A. Kropivnitskaya, T. Kypreos, J.F. Low,

K. Matchev, P. Milenovic54, G. Mitselmakher, L. Muniz, R. Remington, A. Rinkevicius,

P. Sellers, N. Skhirtladze, M. Snowball, J. Yelton, M. Zakaria

Florida International University, Miami, USA

V. Gaultney, S. Hewamanage, L.M. Lebolo, S. Linn, P. Markowitz, G. Martinez, J.L. Ro-

driguez

Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA

T. Adams, A. Askew, J. Bochenek, J. Chen, B. Diamond, S.V. Gleyzer, J. Haas,

S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, M. Jenkins, K.F. Johnson, H. Prosper, V. Veeraraghavan,

M. Weinberg

Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA

M.M. Baarmand, B. Dorney, M. Hohlmann, H. Kalakhety, I. Vodopiyanov

University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago, USA

M.R. Adams, I.M. Anghel, L. Apanasevich, Y. Bai, V.E. Bazterra, R.R. Betts, I. Bucin-

skaite, J. Callner, R. Cavanaugh, C. Dragoiu, O. Evdokimov, L. Gauthier, C.E. Gerber,

D.J. Hofman, S. Khalatyan, F. Lacroix, M. Malek, C. O’Brien, C. Silkworth, D. Strom,

N. Varelas

The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA

U. Akgun, E.A. Albayrak, B. Bilki55, W. Clarida, F. Duru, S. Griffiths, J.-P. Merlo,

H. Mermerkaya56, A. Mestvirishvili, A. Moeller, J. Nachtman, C.R. Newsom, E. Norbeck,

Y. Onel, F. Ozok, S. Sen, E. Tiras, J. Wetzel, T. Yetkin, K. Yi

Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA

B.A. Barnett, B. Blumenfeld, S. Bolognesi, D. Fehling, G. Giurgiu, A.V. Gritsan, Z.J. Guo,

G. Hu, P. Maksimovic, S. Rappoccio, M. Swartz, A. Whitbeck

The University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA

P. Baringer, A. Bean, G. Benelli, O. Grachov, R.P. Kenny Iii, M. Murray, D. Noonan,

S. Sanders, R. Stringer, G. Tinti, J.S. Wood, V. Zhukova

Kansas State University, Manhattan, USA

A.F. Barfuss, T. Bolton, I. Chakaberia, A. Ivanov, S. Khalil, M. Makouski, Y. Maravin,

S. Shrestha, I. Svintradze

– 33 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA

J. Gronberg, D. Lange, D. Wright

University of Maryland, College Park, USA

A. Baden, M. Boutemeur, B. Calvert, S.C. Eno, J.A. Gomez, N.J. Hadley, R.G. Kellogg,

M. Kirn, T. Kolberg, Y. Lu, M. Marionneau, A.C. Mignerey, K. Pedro, A. Peterman,

A. Skuja, J. Temple, M.B. Tonjes, S.C. Tonwar, E. Twedt

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA

A. Apyan, G. Bauer, J. Bendavid, W. Busza, E. Butz, I.A. Cali, M. Chan, V. Dutta,

G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov, K.A. Hahn, Y. Kim, M. Klute, K. Krajczar57, W. Li,

P.D. Luckey, T. Ma, S. Nahn, C. Paus, D. Ralph, C. Roland, G. Roland, M. Rudolph,

G.S.F. Stephans, F. Stöckli, K. Sumorok, K. Sung, D. Velicanu, E.A. Wenger, R. Wolf,

B. Wyslouch, S. Xie, M. Yang, Y. Yilmaz, A.S. Yoon, M. Zanetti

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA

S.I. Cooper, B. Dahmes, A. De Benedetti, G. Franzoni, A. Gude, S.C. Kao, K. Klapoetke,

Y. Kubota, J. Mans, N. Pastika, R. Rusack, M. Sasseville, A. Singovsky, N. Tambe,

J. Turkewitz

University of Mississippi, University, USA

L.M. Cremaldi, R. Kroeger, L. Perera, R. Rahmat, D.A. Sanders

University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA

E. Avdeeva, K. Bloom, S. Bose, J. Butt, D.R. Claes, A. Dominguez, M. Eads, J. Keller,

I. Kravchenko, J. Lazo-Flores, H. Malbouisson, S. Malik, G.R. Snow

State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA

U. Baur, A. Godshalk, I. Iashvili, S. Jain, A. Kharchilava, A. Kumar, S.P. Shipkowski,

K. Smith

Northeastern University, Boston, USA

G. Alverson, E. Barberis, D. Baumgartel, M. Chasco, J. Haley, D. Nash, D. Trocino,

D. Wood, J. Zhang

Northwestern University, Evanston, USA

A. Anastassov, A. Kubik, N. Mucia, N. Odell, R.A. Ofierzynski, B. Pollack, A. Pozdnyakov,

M. Schmitt, S. Stoynev, M. Velasco, S. Won

University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, USA

L. Antonelli, D. Berry, A. Brinkerhoff, M. Hildreth, C. Jessop, D.J. Karmgard, J. Kolb,

K. Lannon, W. Luo, S. Lynch, N. Marinelli, D.M. Morse, T. Pearson, R. Ruchti,

J. Slaunwhite, N. Valls, M. Wayne, M. Wolf

The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA

B. Bylsma, L.S. Durkin, C. Hill, R. Hughes, K. Kotov, T.Y. Ling, D. Puigh, M. Rodenburg,

C. Vuosalo, G. Williams, B.L. Winer

– 34 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

Princeton University, Princeton, USA

N. Adam, E. Berry, P. Elmer, D. Gerbaudo, V. Halyo, P. Hebda, J. Hegeman, A. Hunt,

P. Jindal, D. Lopes Pegna, P. Lujan, D. Marlow, T. Medvedeva, M. Mooney, J. Olsen,

P. Piroué, X. Quan, A. Raval, B. Safdi, H. Saka, D. Stickland, C. Tully, J.S. Werner,

A. Zuranski

University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA

J.G. Acosta, E. Brownson, X.T. Huang, A. Lopez, H. Mendez, S. Oliveros, J.E. Ramirez

Vargas, A. Zatserklyaniy

Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA

E. Alagoz, V.E. Barnes, D. Benedetti, G. Bolla, D. Bortoletto, M. De Mattia, A. Everett,

Z. Hu, M. Jones, O. Koybasi, M. Kress, A.T. Laasanen, N. Leonardo, V. Maroussov,

P. Merkel, D.H. Miller, N. Neumeister, I. Shipsey, D. Silvers, A. Svyatkovskiy, M. Vidal

Marono, H.D. Yoo, J. Zablocki, Y. Zheng

Purdue University Calumet, Hammond, USA

S. Guragain, N. Parashar

Rice University, Houston, USA

A. Adair, C. Boulahouache, K.M. Ecklund, F.J.M. Geurts, B.P. Padley, R. Redjimi,

J. Roberts, J. Zabel

University of Rochester, Rochester, USA

B. Betchart, A. Bodek, Y.S. Chung, R. Covarelli, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, Y. Eshaq,

A. Garcia-Bellido, P. Goldenzweig, J. Han, A. Harel, D.C. Miner, D. Vishnevskiy, M. Zielin-

ski

The Rockefeller University, New York, USA

A. Bhatti, R. Ciesielski, L. Demortier, K. Goulianos, G. Lungu, S. Malik, C. Mesropian

Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, USA

S. Arora, A. Barker, J.P. Chou, C. Contreras-Campana, E. Contreras-Campana, D. Dug-

gan, D. Ferencek, Y. Gershtein, R. Gray, E. Halkiadakis, D. Hidas, A. Lath, S. Panwalkar,

M. Park, R. Patel, V. Rekovic, J. Robles, K. Rose, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, C. Seitz,

S. Somalwar, R. Stone, S. Thomas

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA

G. Cerizza, M. Hollingsworth, S. Spanier, Z.C. Yang, A. York

Texas A&M University, College Station, USA

R. Eusebi, W. Flanagan, J. Gilmore, T. Kamon58, V. Khotilovich, R. Montalvo, I. Os-

ipenkov, Y. Pakhotin, A. Perloff, J. Roe, A. Safonov, T. Sakuma, S. Sengupta, I. Suarez,

A. Tatarinov, D. Toback

Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA

N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, P.R. Dudero, C. Jeong, K. Kovitanggoon, S.W. Lee, T. Libeiro,

Y. Roh, I. Volobouev

– 35 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA

E. Appelt, A.G. Delannoy, C. Florez, S. Greene, A. Gurrola, W. Johns, C. Johnston,

P. Kurt, C. Maguire, A. Melo, M. Sharma, P. Sheldon, B. Snook, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska

University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA

M.W. Arenton, M. Balazs, S. Boutle, B. Cox, B. Francis, J. Goodell, R. Hirosky,

A. Ledovskoy, C. Lin, C. Neu, J. Wood, R. Yohay

Wayne State University, Detroit, USA

S. Gollapinni, R. Harr, P.E. Karchin, C. Kottachchi Kankanamge Don, P. Lamichhane,

A. Sakharov

University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA

M. Anderson, M. Bachtis, D. Belknap, L. Borrello, D. Carlsmith, M. Cepeda, S. Dasu,

L. Gray, K.S. Grogg, M. Grothe, R. Hall-Wilton, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, P. Klabbers,

J. Klukas, A. Lanaro, C. Lazaridis, J. Leonard, R. Loveless, A. Mohapatra, I. Ojalvo,

F. Palmonari, G.A. Pierro, I. Ross, A. Savin, W.H. Smith, J. Swanson

†: Deceased

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

2: Also at National Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia

3: Also at Universidade Federal do ABC, Santo Andre, Brazil

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

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

6: Also at Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole Polytechnique, IN2P3-CNRS, Palaiseau, France

7: Also at Suez Canal University, Suez, Egypt

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

9: Also at Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

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

11: Also at Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

12: Now at British University, Cairo, Egypt

13: Also at Soltan Institute for Nuclear Studies, Warsaw, Poland

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

15: Now at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia

16: Also at Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

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

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

19: Also at Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary

20: Also at Tata Institute of Fundamental Research - HECR, Mumbai, India

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

22: Also at Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

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

24: Also at Plasma Physics Research Center, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad

University, Teheran, Iran

25: Also at Facoltà Ingegneria Università di Roma, Roma, Italy

26: Also at Università della Basilicata, Potenza, Italy

– 36 –



J
H
E
P
0
7
(
2
0
1
2
)
1
4
3

27: Also at Università degli Studi Guglielmo Marconi, Roma, Italy

28: Also at Università degli studi di Siena, Siena, Italy

29: Also at University of Bucharest, Faculty of Physics, Bucuresti-Magurele, Romania

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

31: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA

32: Also at University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, USA

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

34: Also at INFN Sezione di Roma; Università di Roma ”La Sapienza”, Roma, Italy

35: Also at University of Athens, Athens, Greece

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

37: Also at The University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA

38: Also at Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland

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

40: Also at Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey

41: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey

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

43: Also at The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA

44: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey

45: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey

46: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey

47: Also at Suleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey

48: Also at Ege University, Izmir, Turkey

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

Kingdom

50: Also at INFN Sezione di Perugia; Università di Perugia, Perugia, Italy

51: Also at University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

52: Also at Utah Valley University, Orem, USA

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

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

Belgrade, Serbia

55: Also at Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, USA

56: Also at Erzincan University, Erzincan, Turkey

57: Also at KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics, Budapest, Hungary

58: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea

– 37 –


	Introduction 
	CMS detector, reconstruction, and simulation 
	Analysis of the tau(h)+jets final state 
	Analysis of the e tau(h) and mu tau(h) final states 
	Analysis of the e mu final state 
	Systematic uncertainties 
	Evaluation of limits on B( t to Hb) 
	Summary 
	The CMS collaboration