J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

Published for SISSA by Springer

Received: August 11, 2016

Accepted: December 14, 2016

Published: December 22, 2016

Measurement of the mass of the top quark in decays

with a J/ψ meson in pp collisions at 8TeV

The CMS collaboration

E-mail: cms-publication-committee-chair@cern.ch

Abstract: A first measurement of the top quark mass in the decay channel t → (W →
`ν)(b → J/ψ + X → µ+µ− + X) is presented. The analysis uses events selected from

the proton-proton collisions recorded by the CMS detector at the LHC at a center-of-

mass energy of 8 TeV. The data correspond to an integrated luminosity of 19.7 fb−1, with

666 tt̄ and single top quark candidate events containing a reconstructed J/ψ candidate

decaying into an oppositely-charged muon pair. The mass of the (J/ψ + `) system, where

` is an electron or a muon from W boson decay, is used to extract a top quark mass of

173.5± 3.0 (stat)± 0.9 (syst) GeV.

Keywords: Hadron-Hadron scattering (experiments), Top physics

ArXiv ePrint: 1608.03560

Open Access, Copyright CERN,

for the benefit of the CMS Collaboration.

Article funded by SCOAP3.

doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2016)123

mailto:cms-publication-committee-chair@cern.ch
https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.03560
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2016)123


J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Experimental setup 2

2.1 The CMS detector 2

2.2 Data and simulation 3

2.3 Event reconstruction and selection 4

3 Extraction of the top quark mass 6

3.1 Fitting procedure 6

3.2 Validation of the procedure to extract the top quark mass 7

3.3 Modeling heavy-quark fragmentation 9

3.4 Results 9

4 Systematic uncertainties 11

4.1 Experimental uncertainties 11

4.2 Theoretical uncertainties 13

5 Summary 15

The CMS collaboration 20

1 Introduction

The top quark is the most massive particle in the standard model (SM), with the largest

Yukawa coupling to the Higgs boson. The mass of the top quark (mt) is a fundamental

parameter of the SM, playing a key role in radiative electroweak corrections [1, 2] and likely

in the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking [3]. Therefore, a precise determination

of mt is essential for a better understanding of the SM.

Since the first observation of the top quark [4, 5], measurements of its mass have

relied on the reconstruction of its decay products. These measurements are currently

dominated by systematic uncertainties, related to the b-jet energy scale and the mod-

eling of soft quantum chromodynamics (QCD) effects such as b quark hadronization

and the underlying event [6, 7]. Currently, the most precise measurement of mt,

172.44± 0.13 (stat)± 0.47 (syst) GeV, is from the combination of measurements at 7 and

8 TeV by the CMS experiment [7].

In this paper, a measurement is presented of mt from partial reconstruction of top

quarks in leptonic final states that contain a J/ψ meson from a b hadron decay. Both top

quark-antiquark pair (tt) and single top quark production are considered to be signal in

this study. The decay mode of interest is t→ (W→ `ν) (b→ J/ψ + X→ µ+µ− + X) and

– 1 –



J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

t̄
b̄

W−
j/ℓ−

j/ν̄

t
W+

b

b hadron

ν

µ+ (e+)

J/ψ

µ+

µ−

Figure 1. Pictorial view of the J/ψ meson produced in a tt system. The kinematic properties of

the particles represented with dashed lines are used to infer mt.

is shown (for tt production) in figure 1. Here and everywhere, the charge conjugation is

implicit. As suggested in ref. [8] and refined in ref. [9], the value of mt is determined through

its correlation with the mass of the J/ψ + ` system, where ` is either an electron or muon

produced in the decay of the accompanying W boson (either directly or via a τ lepton) in

the same top quark decay. The branching fraction is expected to be (1.5± 0.1)× 10−4, but

the presence of three leptons in the final state, two of which originate from the J/ψ meson

decay, provides a nearly background-free sample of events.

This measurement is based on data collected in pp collisions at a center-of-mass energy

of 8 TeV with the CMS detector at the CERN LHC. Simulated events generated at different

top quark masses are used to calibrate the method and evaluate its performance, as well

as to estimate systematic uncertainties. The main advantage of this analysis lies in the

determination of mt using only leptons. In this way, the dependence of the measurement

on several dominant systematic uncertainties linked to initial- and final-state radiation, jet

reconstruction and b tagging techniques, is considerably reduced. The drawback is the

expected sensitivity to the modeling of b quark fragmentation, and the limited number of

events in the selected sample on account of the small branching fraction.

2 Experimental setup

2.1 The CMS detector

The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6 m internal

diameter, providing a magnetic field of 3.8 T. Within the solenoid volume are a silicon

pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), and

a brass and scintillator hadron calorimeter (HCAL), each composed of a barrel and two

endcap sections. Forward calorimeters extend the pseudorapidity (η) coverage provided by

the barrel and endcap detectors. Muons are measured in gas-ionization detectors embedded

in the steel flux-return yoke outside the solenoid. The tracker has a track-finding efficiency

of more than 99% for muons with transverse momentum pT > 1 GeV and |η| < 2.5. The

ECAL is a fine-grained calorimeter with quasi-projective geometry, and consists of a barrel

– 2 –



J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

region of |η| < 1.48 and two endcaps that extend up to |η| of 3.0. The HCAL barrel and

endcaps similarly cover the region |η| < 3.0. Muons are measured in the |η| < 2.4 range,

with detection planes made using three technologies: drift tubes, cathode strip chambers,

and resistive-plate chambers. Matching muons to tracks measured in the silicon tracker

results in a relative pT resolution for muons with 20 < pT < 100 GeV of 1–2% in the barrel

and better than 6% in the endcaps. The pT resolution in the barrel is better than 10%

for muons with pT up to 1 TeV [10]. A more detailed description of the CMS detector,

together with a definition of the coordinate systems and kinematic variables, can be found

in ref. [11].

2.2 Data and simulation

This measurement is performed using the data recorded by the CMS detector at
√
s=8 TeV,

corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 19.7±0.5 fb−1 [12]. Events are required to pass

a single-muon (single-electron) trigger with a minimum muon (electron) pT of 24 (27) GeV.

The method used to extract mt has been developed and optimized using simulated events,

without accessing the final data.

We use simulated events to develop the analysis method and estimate its perfor-

mance. The tt, W+jets, and Z+jets processes are generated with the leading-order (LO)

MadGraph [13] generator (v5.1.3.30) matched to LO pythia 6 [14] (v6.426) for parton

showering and fragmentation. The τ lepton decays are simulated with the tauola [15]

program (v27.121.5). The LO CTEQ6L1 [16] parton distribution function (PDF) set and

the Z2* underlying event tune are used in the generation. The most recent pythia Z2*

tune is derived from the Z1 tune [17], which uses the CTEQ5L parton distribution set,

whereas Z2* adopts CTEQ6L. Matrix elements describing up to three partons in addition

to the tt pair are included in the MadGraph generator, and the MLM prescription [18] is

used for matching of matrix-element jets to parton showers. The Lund string model [19]

is used for the simulation of the hadronization, and to determine the fraction of the quark

energy carried by unstable hadrons. For heavy quarks, the Lund symmetric fragmentation

function is modified according to the Bowler space-time picture of string evolution [20].

Assuming fragmentation universality [21, 22], the values of the parameters of the frag-

mentation function obtained from fits to the LEP data [23] are used, without assigning

a systematic uncertainty associated to the universality assumption. The single top quark

t-channel, s-channel, and tW processes are simulated with the next-to-leading-order (NLO)

MadGraph [24, 25] generator (v1.0, r1380) with the CTEQ6M PDF set. Diboson WW,

WZ, and ZZ processes are generated with pythia 6 (v6.426).

The simulated processes are normalized to their theoretical cross sections. Except

for single top quark processes, the higher-order calculation is used, and associated sys-

tematic uncertainties are discussed in section 4.2. The tt cross section is computed at

next-to-next-to-leading-order (NNLO) [26], while single top quark processes are computed

at approximate NNLO [27]. The W+jets and Z+jets cross sections are computed with

fewz (v3.1) [28, 29] at NNLO, while the diboson cross sections are computed at NLO with

mcfm (v6.6) [30].

– 3 –



J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

For tt→ b`−νbqq′ (lepton+jets), tt→ b`−νb`+ν (dilepton), tt→ bqq′bqq′ (all jets),

and single top quark processes, six samples with mt values between 166.5 and 178.5 GeV

are generated.

The evaluation of systematic uncertainties related to color reconnection, the modeling

of the underlying event, the factorization (µF) and renormalization (µR) scales, and the

matching of the parton from the matrix element to parton showers, is based on studies of

dedicated samples of simulated events.

A full simulation of the CMS detector based on Geant4 [31] (v9.4p03) is used. Effects

of additional overlapping minimum-bias events (pileup) are included in the simulation in

such a way that the vertex multiplicity distribution is matched to the data. Single-lepton

trigger efficiencies are applied to the simulation to match the trigger selection.

2.3 Event reconstruction and selection

Events are reconstructed using a particle-flow (PF) algorithm [32, 33] that optimally com-

bines the information from all CMS subdetectors to identify and reconstruct individual

objects produced in pp collisions. The particle candidates include muons, electrons, pho-

tons, charged hadrons, and neutral hadrons. Charged particles are required to originate

from the primary collision vertex, identified as the reconstructed vertex with the largest

value of
∑
p2T for its associated tracks. Once isolated muons [10] and electrons [34] are

identified and removed from the list of PF particles, charged hadrons are rejected if their

tracks do not originate from the primary vertex of the event. Finally, jets are reconstructed

from the remaining PF particles using the anti-kT algorithm [35] with a distance parameter

of 0.5 in the η–φ plane. Jet energy corrections are applied to all the jets in data and simula-

tion [36]. The muon pT scale is corrected to account for possible geometrical effects, such as

deformation of tracker geometry still present after implementing the alignment procedure.

The selection criteria are optimized for lepton+jets and dilepton tt events with a J/ψ

meson resulting in two additional non-isolated muons. Lepton+jets events are required

to have exactly one isolated lepton with pT > 26 (30) GeV and |η| < 2.1 (2.5) in the case

of the muon (electron). A muon (electron) is considered isolated if the scalar pT sum

of all reconstructed particle candidates (not including the lepton itself) within a cone

of size ∆R =
√

(∆η)2 + (∆φ)2 = 0.4 (0.3) (where the φ is azimuthal angle in radians)

around the lepton direction is less than 12% (10%) of the lepton pT. An event-by-event

correction is applied to the scalar sum to take into account possible contributions from

pileup events [37]. Dilepton events are required to have exactly two isolated leptons: at

least one isolated lepton defined as above, and either an isolated muon with pT > 20 GeV

and |η| < 2.4, or an isolated electron with pT > 20 GeV and |η| < 2.5. In case of a second

electron, the isolation threshold is relaxed to less than 15%. The two leptons are required to

be of opposite charge and have an invariant mass above 20 GeV. Pairs with the same flavor

and invariant mass between 76 and 106 GeV are rejected to remove poorly reconstructed

leptonic Z boson decays. In addition to these criteria, at least 2 jets with pT > 40 GeV and

|η| < 2.4 are required.

Exactly one J/ψ meson candidate, with a mass between 3.0 and 3.2 GeV, is required in

the event, reconstructed from two muons of opposite sign, with pT > 4 GeV and |η| < 2.4,

– 4 –



J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

Process
Number of events

Leading µ Leading e

tt→ b`−νbqq′ 228.1± 4.0 195.6± 3.7

tt→ b`−νb`+ν 66.3± 1.7 56.9± 1.6

tt→ bqq’bqq′ negligible negligible

Single top quark 39.4± 3.8 30.6± 3.3

W→ `ν + jets 18.3± 3.2 12.1± 2.7

Z/γ∗ → `+`− + jets 4.5± 0.9 6.3± 1.0

WW, WZ, ZZ 1.1± 0.3 1.2± 0.3

Predicted yield 357.7± 6.6 302.7± 5.9

Data 355 311

Table 1. Number of selected events from simulation and observed in data. The uncertainties are

statistical.

that emanate from the same jet. To reduce the combinatorial background, a Kalman vertex

fit [38, 39] with one degree of freedom is performed and the χ2 of the vertex is required to

be less than 5. The significance (i.e., the number of standard deviations) of the distance

between the secondary vertex — formed by the products of the b quark fragmentation —

and the primary vertex of the event is required to be above 20.

These criteria select 666 events in data. The numbers of events expected from the SM

processes are evaluated using Monte Carlo (MC) simulation and the results are normalized

to their theoretical cross sections. These are noted in table 1, where a distinction is

made between events in which the isolated lepton with the largest pT is a muon, labeled

“Leading µ”, and events in which the leading isolated lepton is an electron, labeled “Leading

e”, but not between lepton+jets and dileptonic event candidates. The rates predicted

by the default simulation are in fair agreement with those observed in data. The event

sample is dominated by contributions from lepton+jets and dilepton tt events, with a lesser

contribution from single top quark processes.

Figure 2 shows the dimuon invariant mass spectrum (for a wider mass range than

the acceptance window for the J/ψ meson candidates) and the pT distribution of the J/ψ

meson candidates. The simulation used in this figure and the following ones is for mt =

172.5 GeV. The ratio in the number of events observed in data to the number expected

from simulation is presented in the lower panel. The shaded band includes statistical

and systematic uncertainties, which are discussed below, as well as the uncertainty in the

integrated luminosity. The number of J/ψ meson candidates is roughly the same in data

and simulation. Despite the corrections applied to the muon pT scale, a worse resolution is

observed in data than in simulation. This is caused by final-state radiation emitted by the

muons originating from the J/ψ meson decay, which is not included in the simulation [40]

and which results in a shift of the reconstructed dimuon invariant mass in the simulation to

larger values. This effect is included in the systematic uncertainties discussed in section 4.1.

– 5 –



J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

E
v
e

n
ts

 /
 (

0
.0

2
5

 G
e

V
)

0

50

100

150

200

250
Data

tt

Single t

Background

Uncertainties

 (8 TeV)-119.7 fbCMS

 mass (GeV)−µ+µ

2.8 2.9 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

D
a

ta
 /

 M
C

0

1

2

3

E
v
e

n
ts

 /
 (

5
 G

e
V

)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120 Data

tt

Single t

Background

Uncertainties

 (8 TeV)-119.7 fbCMS

) (GeV)ψ (J/
T

p

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

D
a

ta
 /

 M
C

0

1

2

3

Figure 2. Distributions of the dimuon invariant mass between 2.8 and 3.4 GeV (left) and of the

pT of the J/ψ meson candidate (right). Processes are normalized to their theoretical cross sections.

The simulation assumes a value of mt = 172.5 GeV. The lower panel shows the ratio of the number

of events observed in data to the number expected from simulation. One point is not visible in the

lower panel of the right plot, as it would require to enlarge the y-axis range up to 3.5 units.

The invariant mass, mJ/ψ+`, is computed from the combination of the J/ψ meson

candidate and the leading lepton. The distributions are shown in figure 3.

3 Extraction of the top quark mass

3.1 Fitting procedure

Since no significant differences are observed between J/ψ+µ and J/ψ+ e events, no further

distinction is made on the flavor of the leading lepton. In associating the leading lepton

to a J/ψ meson in a tt event, there are configurations where both particles arise from the

same top quark decay chain or from different top quarks (referred to as “wrong pairings”).

The right and wrong pairings are considered simultaneously in the analysis. While wrong

pairings are less sensitive to mt, they remain weakly correlated with it.

The expected mJ/ψ+` distributions for tt and single top quark processes are simulated

for different values of mt. The background contribution is considered to be the same for

each mt value. The simulated mJ/ψ+` distributions thus obtained are fitted simultaneously,

between 0 and 250 GeV. The signal and background contributions are modelled by the

following analytic probability density function:

Psig+bkg(mJ/ψ+`) = α
1

σg
√

2π
exp

(
−

(mJ/ψ+` − µg)2

2σ2g

)

+ (1− α)
β
−γγ
γ

Γ(γγ)
(mJ/ψ+` − µγ)γγ−1 exp

(
−
mJ/ψ+` − µγ

βγ

)
. (3.1)

– 6 –



J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

E
v
e

n
ts

 /
 (

1
0

 G
e

V
)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 Data

tt

Single t

Background

Uncertainties

 (8 TeV)-119.7 fbCMS

 (GeV)
µ+ψJ/m

0 50 100 150 200 250

D
a

ta
 /

 M
C

0

1

2

3

µLeading 

E
v
e

n
ts

 /
 (

1
0

 G
e

V
)

0

10

20

30

40

50
Data

tt

Single t

Background

Uncertainties

 (8 TeV)-119.7 fbCMS

 (GeV)+eψJ/m

0 50 100 150 200 250

D
a

ta
 /

 M
C

0

1

2

3

Leading e

Figure 3. Distributions of the invariant mass of the J/ψ meson candidate and the leading lepton

combination, in the leading µ (left) and leading e (right) combinations. Processes are normalized to

their theoretical cross sections. The simulation assumes a value of mt = 172.5 GeV. The lower panel

shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to the number expected from simulation.

Two points are not visible in the lower panel of the left plot and one for the right plot, as it would

require to enlarge the y-axis range up to 5.5 and 18 units, respectively.

This function is the sum of a Gaussian distribution (i.e., the first term of the right-hand

side in eq. (3.1)) with the free parameters µg (mean) and σg (standard deviation), which

describes mostly the peak in the mJ/ψ+` distribution, and a gamma distribution (i.e., the

whole second term of the right-hand side in eq. (3.1)), whose definition involves the Gamma

function Γ. The gamma distribution has three free parameters: its shape parameter γγ ,

scale parameter βγ , and shift parameter µγ . The relative contribution of the Gaussian

distribution is described by the parameter α. Each of the six parameters is implemented

as a linear function of mt, taking the form of c1 + c2mt. The MJ/ψ+` distributions for each

of the samples with different values of mt are simultaneously fitted to obtain the slope

and intercept for each of the six parameters. Then, when the mJ/ψ+` distribution obtained

from data is fitted, the linear coefficients c1 and c2 are fixed and mt becomes the only free

parameter of Psig+bkg. Figure 4 shows the six parameters of eq. (3.1) with respect to mt.

The two parameters showing the strongest dependence on mt are µg and σg.

3.2 Validation of the procedure to extract the top quark mass

Different tests are used to validate the procedure to extract mt. First, the parameters of

Psig+bkg are fitted for each of the mt values independently, without any specific assumption

about their dependence on mt. The result, superimposed as the dots in figure 4, confirms

the assumed linear dependence. Then the mJ/ψ+` distribution obtained for mt = 172.5 GeV

is fitted to Psig+bkg fixing thereby the dependence of µg, σg, γγ , βγ , µγ , and α on mt, only

leaving mt free. The result is statistically compatible with 172.5 GeV.

– 7 –



J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

 (GeV)tm

166 168 170 172 174 176 178

 (
G

e
V

)
g

µ

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

t
m⋅ 0.46+5 − = 

g
µ

Alternative fit method

SimulationCMS (8 TeV)

 (GeV)tm

166 168 170 172 174 176 178

 (
G

e
V

)
g

σ

18

18.5

19

19.5

20

20.5

21

21.5

22

t
m⋅ 0.15+6 − = gσ

Alternative fit method

SimulationCMS (8 TeV)

 (GeV)tm

166 168 170 172 174 176 178

α

0.41

0.42

0.43

0.44

0.45

0.46

0.47

0.48

0.49

0.5

t
m⋅ 0.0031+0.07 − = α

Alternative fit method

SimulationCMS (8 TeV)

 (GeV)tm

166 168 170 172 174 176 178

γ
γ

2.3

2.35

2.4

2.45

2.5

2.55

2.6

2.65

2.7

2.75

t
m⋅ 0.0026+ = 2.1 

γ
γ

Alternative fit method

SimulationCMS (8 TeV)

 (GeV)tm

166 168 170 172 174 176 178

 (
G

e
V

)
γ

β

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

t
m⋅ 0.18+ = 1.96 

γ
β

Alternative fit method

SimulationCMS (8 TeV)

 (GeV)tm

166 168 170 172 174 176 178

 (
G

e
V

)
γ

µ

8.2

8.4

8.6

8.8

9

9.2

9.4

9.6

9.8

10

t
m⋅ 0.01+ =  8 

γ
µ

Alternative fit method

SimulationCMS (8 TeV)

Figure 4. Mean (upper left) and standard deviation (upper middle) of the Gaussian distribution

describing the peak of the mJ/ψ+` distributions, relative contribution of the Gaussian distribution

to Psig+bkg (upper right), and shape (lower left), scale (lower middle), and shift (lower right)

parameters of the gamma distribution, as a function of input mt. The solid lines are the result of

the simultaneous fit described in section 3.1, while the dashed lines indicate the 68% confidence level

of the fit. The superimposed data points are the result of the alternative fitting method described

in section 3.2.

The performance of this fitting method is evaluated with pseudo-data experiments.

From Psig+bkg, described by eq. (3.1), with mt fixed at 172.5 GeV, 3 000 pseudo-data ex-

periments of Nevt events are drawn, where Nevt follows a Poisson distribution around the

666 events observed in data. Each pseudo-data experiment is fitted to Psig+bkg, with mt

being once again the only free parameter. The same procedure is reproduced for different

mt values in Psig+bkg. The residual and the pull, respectively defined as the difference

between the fit result and the input value and the difference between the fit result and

the input value relative to the fit uncertainty, are computed for each pseudo-data event.

The mean and width of the pull and residual distributions obtained for each pseudo-data

experiment are rescaled to propagate uncertainties due to the limited numbers of pseudo-

data experiments and simulated events. The means and widths of the pull distributions are

found to be constant in mt and compatible with 0 and 1 within their respective statistical

uncertainties. The method to extract mt from the mJ/ψ+` distribution can therefore be

considered as unbiased. Each of the six mass points results in a mean and width from the

residual distribution, which are interpolated to mt = 172.5 GeV. The spread of the mean

values is used to estimate the systematic uncertainty arising from the size of the simulated

event samples (0.22 GeV) and the width values are used to derive the expected statistical

uncertainty for the data (2.9 GeV).

– 8 –



J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

3.3 Modeling heavy-quark fragmentation

Since this measurement is expected to be particularly sensitive to heavy-quark fragmenta-

tion, its corresponding modeling in simulated events is studied in detail.

The tt simulated event samples in the measurement are generated using the Z2* tune.

The pT distribution of the b hadron at the generator level (pgenT (B)), relative to that of the

jet the hadron is matched to (pgenT (jet)), is used to compare the Z2* tune to two alternative

tunes and their variants:

1. An updated version of the Z2* tune, which better describes fragmentation in e+e−

data, is denoted Z2* LEP rb [41]. The rb parameter in the Bowler extension of the

fragmentation function [20] changes from rb = 1.0 for Z2* to 0.591 for Z2* LEP rb.

Values that provide 1 standard deviation changes in the rb parameter, respectively

of rb = 0.317 (Z2∗ LEP r+b ) and 0.807 (Z2∗ LEP r−b ), are also considered;

2. The Perugia 12 (P12) tune is used along with two variants [42] for which the frag-

mentation process is altered to be harder in the longitudinal (“FL”) and transverse

(“FT”) directions by changing for all quarks the a and b parameters of the Lund

fragmentation function [19]. The P12 tune is an update of the Perugia 11 tune, used

in other analyses, e.g. ref. [41].

Figure 5 shows the ratio of pgenT (B)/pgenT (jet) distribution for the Z2* LEP rb tune. For the

Z2*, Z2* LEP r−b , Z2∗ LEP r+b , P12, P12FT, and P12FL tunes, the ratio to Z2* LEP rb
is shown. Since this distribution reflects how the pT of the b quark is transferred to the b

hadron, it is a good probe of fragmentation modeling.

A reweighting procedure, based on the pT distribution of the b hadron at generator

level relative to that of the jet the hadron belongs to, is applied to the mJ/ψ+` distribution

generated with the Z2* tune at mt = 172.5 GeV. This provides a consistent modeling of

the underlying event and color reconnection effects in the Z2* tune, while the description of

fragmentation changes. Each reweighted mJ/ψ+` distribution is then fitted to Psig+bkg, with

mt being its only free parameter. Figure 6 shows the dependence of the fitted mt on the

average jet pT fraction carried by the b hadron in exclusive decays. In ref. [41], it was found

that the default Z2* tune is softer than the data for tt events, and the Z2* LEP rb tune

is a better match to the data. It appears in figure 6 that P12 and Z2* tune families give

compatible results within statistical uncertainties. The Z2* LEP rb tune is therefore chosen

as the baseline, implying a shift of −0.71 GeV to the fit results. The difference between the

mt values obtained for its soft and hard variants is assigned as a systematic uncertainty.

A closure test on the reweighting procedure has been done using simulated event

samples generated with the P12 tune family. It validates the strategy of reweighting only

the pT transfer pgenT (B)/pgenT (jet).

3.4 Results

Figure 7 shows the mJ/ψ+` data distribution together with the results of a maximum-

likelihood fit to eq. (3.1). The fit gives a good description of the data, apart from the low

mass region, where the missing radiation correction becomes important (see section 2.3).

– 9 –



J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

A
rb

it
ra

ry
 u

n
it
s

0

0.02

0.04

0.06
b

rZ2* LEP ψB decays with J/

SimulationCMS (8 TeV)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

b
r

R
a
ti
o
 t
o
 Z

2
* 

L
E

P
 

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4 −

b
rZ2* LEP +

b
rZ2* LEP Z2*

(jet)
gen

T
(B)/p

gen

T
p

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

b
r

R
a
ti
o
 t
o
 Z

2
* 

L
E

P
 

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4
P12FT P12 P12FL

Figure 5. Ratio of the pT of the b hadrons to the pT of the matched generator-level jet for

the Z2* LEP rb tune (upper), the ratio to Z2* LEP rb for the Z2*, Z2*;LEP r−b , and Z2* LEP r+b
tunes (middle), and the ratio to Z2* LEP rb for the P12, P12FT, and P12FL tunes (lower). As

neutrinos are not clustered within jets, it happens in very rare cases that pgenT (B) > pgenT (jet). For

this effect to be visible, the horizontal axis range is extended beyond 1 unit.

〉(jet)
gen

T
(B)/p

gen

T
p〈

0.73 0.735 0.74 0.745 0.75 0.755 0.76 0.765 0.77

(o
th

e
r 

tu
n

e
) 

(G
e

V
)

t
 m

−
) 

b
r

(Z
2

* 
L

E
P

 
t

 =
 m

t
m

∆

1−

0.8−

0.6−

0.4−

0.2−

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

〉(jet)
gen

T
(B)/p

gen

T
p〈∆ × = (0.30 GeV/1%) tm∆

Z2* brZ2* LEP 
−
brZ2* LEP +

brZ2* LEP 

P12FT P12FL

P12

ψB decays with J/

SimulationCMS (8 TeV)

Figure 6. Dependence of the extracted mt value on the average fragmentation ratio

〈pgenT (B)/pgenT (jet)〉, fitted to a linear function.

– 10 –



J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

 (GeV)l+ψJ/m
0 50 100 150 200 250

E
v
e
n
ts

 /
 (

 1
0
 G

e
V

 )

0

20

40

60

80

100
 3.0) GeV± = (173.5 tm

CMS  (8 TeV)-119.7 fb

 (GeV)tm
170 180

)
m

a
x

 l
o

g
(L

/L
−

0

1

2

3

4

Data

Fit result

Statistical uncertainty

gamma component

Gaussian component

 3.0) GeV± = (173.5 tm

Figure 7. Distribution in the invariant mass of the J/ψ meson candidate and the leading lepton

combination, fitted to Psig+bkg of eq. (3.1) through the maximization of a likelihood function. The

inset shows the negative logarithm of the likelihood function L relative to its maximum Lmax as a

function of the only free parameter, which is mt.

The inset shows the negative logarithm of the likelihood function L relative to its maximum

Lmax as a function of mt, which is the only free parameter in the fit. The value of the fitted

mass, after implementing the shift of −0.71 GeV described in section 3.3, is 173.5 GeV, with

a 68% confidence level statistical uncertainty of 3.0 GeV.

4 Systematic uncertainties

The size of each systematic uncertainty is evaluated from its impact on the mJ/ψ+` shape

and its propagation to the fit to extract mt. For each source of uncertainty, the mJ/ψ+`

distributions are generated for the corresponding variations and then fitted to the nominal

parametrization of Psig+bkg obtained without variation. A cross-check is performed using

pseudo-data experiments. The average shift of mt with respect to the reference is taken as

an estimate of the magnitude of the systematic uncertainty. Both methods are always in

good agreement within the statistical uncertainty.

Table 2 summarizes the results obtained for the evaluation of the systematic uncertain-

ties, which are described in detail in sections 4.1 and 4.2, and considered as uncorrelated.

4.1 Experimental uncertainties

Limited size of the simulation samples. As described in section 3.2, pseudo-data

experiments are drawn from Psig+bkg for seven different mt values. The spread of the

residual mean is interpreted as the uncertainty due to the finite size of the simulated event

– 11 –



J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

Source Value (GeV)

Experimental uncertainties

Limited size of the simulation samples ±0.22

Muon momentum scale ±0.09

Electron momentum scale ±0.11

Modeling of the J/ψ meson candidate mass distribution +0.09

Jet energy scale <0.01

Jet energy resolution <0.01

Trigger efficiencies ±0.02

Pileup ±0.07

Theoretical uncertainties

Background normalization ±0.01

Matrix-element generator −0.37

Factorization and renormalization scales +0.12,−0.46

Matching of matrix element and parton shower +0.12,−0.58

Top quark transverse momentum +0.64

b quark fragmentation ±0.30

Underlying event ±0.13

Modeling of color reconnection +0.12

Parton distribution functions +0.39,−0.11

Total (in quadrature) +0.89,−0.94

Table 2. Summary of the impact of systematic uncertainties on the top quark mass according to

the contributions from each source.

samples used for the calibration. No systematic uncertainty stemming from the shape

parametrization is added.

Leading lepton momentum scale. The average uncertainties in the leading lepton

transverse momentum scale are below 0.1% in the case of muons [10] and 0.3% in the case

of electrons [34]. This uncertainty, given as a function of pT and η, is propagated to mJ/ψ+`

and the effect on the mt fit is evaluated.

Modeling of the J/ψ meson candidate mass distribution. Despite the corrections

applied to the muon pT scale, the shape of the J/ψ meson candidate mass distribution

observed in data is not exactly reproduced in the simulation, in which final-state radiation

from soft muons is not modelled. Conservatively, the full difference is treated as a potential

systematic uncertainty. Thus, the mJ/ψ+` distribution is recomputed for a reweighted J/ψ

meson candidate mass, such that the peak position and the width of the simulated distribu-

tion are the same as for the data. The uncertainty associated with this effect is computed

as the difference between the top quark masses fitted before and after reweighting.

– 12 –



J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

Jet energy scale and resolution. In this analysis, the jet energy scale and resolution

affect only the event yield. The effect of the jet energy scale uncertainty is studied by

scaling the reconstructed jet energy by a pT- and η-dependent scale factor before the event

selection is applied. Similarly, the effect of the jet energy resolution uncertainty is studied

by varying the jet energy resolution of the simulated events according to the estimated

uncertainty.

Trigger efficiencies. As reported in section 2.2, the single-lepton trigger efficiencies are

applied to simulated events. A conservative systematic uncertainty of ±3% is assumed for

the trigger efficiencies. The difference between the top quark masses fitted with upwards

and downwards variations is taken as the uncertainty.

Pileup. Simulated events are reweighted event by event to reproduce the number of

pileup events observed in data. A 5% variation on the minimum-bias cross section [43]

used is propagated to mJ/ψ+` and mt.

4.2 Theoretical uncertainties

Background normalization. Processes are normalized to their theoretical cross sec-

tions. To evaluate the effect of the uncertainties in these cross sections, obtained from scale

variations in the theoretical calculation, the main background contributions, i.e. W/Z+jets

and WW/ZZ/WZ, are varied by ±20% and ±5%, respectively. Variations in the theoretical

cross sections of other processes have negligible impact on the measurement.

Matrix-element generator. The MadGraph LO matrix-element predictions used for

the calibration of the measurement are compared with the NLO powheg predictions for

mt = 172.5 GeV. The difference, propagated to the measured mass, is assigned as a

systematic uncertainty.

Factorization and renormalization scales. In the signal simulation, µF and µR are

set to a common value Q2 = m2
t +
∑

(ppartonT )2, where ppartonT is the transverse momentum of

the partons. Alternative samples with Q varied by a factor of 0.5 or 2 are used to estimate

the effect of the uncertainties in the factorization and renormalization scales.

Matrix element/parton shower matching threshold. This matching threshold is a

parameter used in the simulation to define the limit at which the generation of extra jets

is made by pythia instead of the matrix-element generator MadGraph, and therefore

controls the hardest initial- and final-state radiation in the event. The effect of the choice

of this threshold is evaluated using dedicated samples in which the parameter is changed

from the default value of 40 GeV down to 30 GeV and up to 60 GeV, as discussed in ref. [44].

Top quark transverse momentum. Evidence of a mismodeling of the top quark

pT by MadGraph has been obtained by the differential cross sections measurements in

CMS [45, 46]. To quantify the effect of this mismodeling on mt, an event-by-event reweight-

ing is applied to the simulation to reproduce the top quark pT shape observed in data. The

difference between the top quark masses fitted with and without this reweighting is taken

as the uncertainty.

– 13 –



J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

Fragmentation functions. The tt simulated event samples used for the measurement

are produced with the default Z2* tune, with a correction applied to the fitted result so as

to use the Z2* LEP rb tune as a baseline. These two tunes are based upon data collected

at LEP and elsewhere. Porting an MC simulation tune from LEP to LHC implies the

assumption of the factorization between the perturbative and nonperturbative parts in

the shower evolution, which are typically fitted together, and the noncorrelation of these

fits with the color structure of the event, which is clearly different in e+e− → bb and

pp → tt → bW−bW+ events. These differences are considered to be covered by the

underlying event and color reconnection modeling uncertainty. The uncertainty stemming

from the modeling of the b hadron decay induces variations of the b hadron relative pT
that are much smaller than the uncertainty in rb for the Z2* LEP rb tune [47]. Thus,

only the effect of fragmentation parameters constrained by the LEP data is considered as

an additional source of systematic uncertainty, assigning the maximum difference between

the mt values obtained for the Z2* LEP r±b and Z2* LEP rb tunes, shown in figure 6, as

the systematic uncertainty stemming from the fragmentation modeling. The size of the

uncertainty is found to be comparable to the one estimated in a different way in ref. [9].

Hadronization modeling. A generator-level study using sherpa (v2.1.0) [48] has been

carried out in the context of ref. [41]. The sherpa generator allows us to use the same

pT-ordered shower model (csshower++ [49]), while interfacing with two alternative had-

ronization/fragmentation models. The difference between the cluster and the string mod-

els on the mJ/ψ+` shape is much smaller than the difference between the Z2* LEP r+b and

Z2* LEP r−b tunes. Thus, only the difference between the two fragmentation tunes is con-

sidered as a source of systematic uncertainty and no extra uncertainty stemming from the

hadronization model is assigned.

Underlying event and color reconnection modeling. These effects are evaluated

using variations of the Perugia 12 (P12) underlying event tune [42]. Two variations (“ueHi”

and “ueLo”) are compared to the nominal P12 tune to evaluate the effect of the underlying

event in the measurement. The nominal P12 tune is taken here as the reference as it

contains not only a dedicated parametrization of the fragmentation function, but also

different parametrizations for the hadron multiplicities. The difference between the nominal

P12 tune and a separate variation where color reconnection effects are smaller (“crLo”) is

assigned as the systematic uncertainty due to this effect.

Parton distribution functions. As stated in section 2.2, the default PDF tune is

CTEQ6L1 for tt simulated events in this analysis. The mt value fitted in this tune is

compared to the one obtained for the CT14 NLO [50], MMHT2014 NCL 68CL [51], and

NNPDF30 NLO AS0118 [52] tunes, applying the PDF4LHC recommendations [53, 54].

Diagonalized uncertainty sources of each PDF set are used to derive event-by-event weights,

which are then applied to obtain a variation of the MJ/ψ+` shape. The maximal difference

with respect to the nominal MJ/ψ+` shape is quoted as the systematic uncertainty.

– 14 –



J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

5 Summary

The first measurement of the mass of the top quark is presented in the decay channel

t → (W → `ν) (b → J/ψ + X → µ+µ− + X). An event selection is implemented in

proton-proton collisions recorded with the CMS detector at
√
s = 8 TeV, to obtain a

sample of high purity leptonically-decaying top quarks in tt and single top quark production

events containing one J/ψ meson candidate that decays into an oppositely-charged muon

pair. The data correspond to an integrated luminosity of 19.7 fb−1. There are 355 events

observed with a muon and 311 with an electron as leading isolated lepton, in agreement

with expectations from simulation.

The top quark mass is extracted from an unbinned maximum-likelihood fit to the

invariant mass of the leading lepton and J/ψ meson candidate. The resulting mt measure-

ment is 173.5 GeV, with a statistical uncertainty of 3.0 GeV and a systematic uncertainty

of 0.9 GeV. This is the first time that this method has been applied to a physics analysis

and the systematic uncertainty is of the same order of magnitude as that estimated in

ref. [9]. Even though the results are statistically limited, the dominant systematic uncer-

tainties are different from those of the most precise direct reconstruction methods. As the

sensitivity to jet-related uncertainties is negligible, this allows the possibility to contribute

significantly in combination with other mt measurements. Furthermore, with the larger

data set expected in the next runs of the LHC, the method described in this paper will

provide a result which will be more competitive with those obtained from the conventional

reconstruction techniques.

Acknowledgments

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

performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative staffs at CERN and

at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the success of the CMS effort. In ad-

dition, we gratefully acknowledge the computing centers and personnel of the Worldwide

LHC Computing Grid for delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential

to our analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction and

operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following funding agencies:

BMWFW and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ,

and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC (China); COL-

CIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RPF (Cyprus); SENESCYT (Ecuador);

MoER, ERC IUT and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of Finland, MEC, and HIP (Finland);

CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece);

OTKA and NIH (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM (Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN

(Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); LAS (Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia);

BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT, LNS, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MBIE (New

Zealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna);

MON, RosAtom, RAS and RFBR (Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI and CPAN (Spain);

Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); MST (Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR and

– 15 –



J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

NSTDA (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); NASU and SFFR (Ukraine); STFC

(United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (U.S.A.).

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

Research Council and EPLANET (European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A.

P. Sloan Foundation; the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Sci-

ence Policy Office; the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans

l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Tech-

nologie (IWT-Belgium); the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech

Republic; the Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; the HOMING PLUS pro-

gram of the Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from European Union, Regional

Development Fund, the Mobility Plus program of the Ministry of Science and Higher Edu-

cation, the National Science Center (Poland), contracts Harmonia 2014/14/M/ST2/00428,

Opus 2013/11/B/ST2/04202, 2014/13/B/ST2/02543 and 2014/15/B/ST2/03998, Sonata-

bis 2012/07/E/ST2/01406; the Thalis and Aristeia programs cofinanced by EU-ESF and

the Greek NSRF; the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research

Fund; the Programa Claŕın-COFUND del Principado de Asturias; the Rachadapisek Som-

pot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University and the Chulalongkorn

Academic into Its 2nd Century Project Advancement Project (Thailand); and the Welch

Foundation, contract C-1845.

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

Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in

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

References

[1] Gfitter Group collaboration, M. Baak et al., The global electroweak fit at NNLO and

prospects for the LHC and ILC, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3046 [arXiv:1407.3792]

[INSPIRE].

[2] A.J. Buras, J. Girrbach, D. Guadagnoli and G. Isidori, On the Standard Model prediction for

BR(Bs,d → µ+µ−), Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 2172 [arXiv:1208.0934] [INSPIRE].

[3] G. Degrassi et al., Higgs mass and vacuum stability in the Standard Model at NNLO, JHEP

08 (2012) 098 [arXiv:1205.6497] [INSPIRE].

[4] CDF collaboration, F. Abe et al., Observation of top quark production in p̄p collisions, Phys.

Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 2626 [hep-ex/9503002] [INSPIRE].

[5] D0 collaboration, S. Abachi et al., Observation of the top quark, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995)

2632 [hep-ex/9503003] [INSPIRE].

[6] ATLAS collaboration, Measurement of the top quark mass in the tt̄→ lepton+jets and

tt̄→ dilepton channels using
√
s = 7 TeV ATLAS data, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 330

[arXiv:1503.05427] [INSPIRE].

[7] CMS collaboration, Measurement of the top quark mass using proton-proton data at√
(s) = 7 and 8 TeV, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 072004 [arXiv:1509.04044] [INSPIRE].

– 16 –

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3046-5
https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.3792
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1407.3792
http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-2172-1
https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0934
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1208.0934
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2012)098
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2012)098
https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.6497
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1205.6497
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.2626
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.2626
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/9503002
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-ex/9503002
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.2632
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.2632
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/9503003
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-ex/9503003
http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3544-0
https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.05427
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1503.05427
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.072004
https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.04044
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1509.04044


J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

[8] CMS collaboration, Letter of intent: by the CMS Collaboration for a general purpose

detector at LHC, CERN-LHCC-92-003 (1992).

[9] A. Kharchilava, Top mass determination in leptonic final states with J/ψ, Phys. Lett. B 476

(2000) 73 [hep-ph/9912320] [INSPIRE].

[10] CMS collaboration, Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in pp collision events at√
s = 7 TeV, 2012 JINST 7 P10002 [arXiv:1206.4071] [INSPIRE].

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

[INSPIRE].

[12] CMS collaboration, CMS Luminosity Based on Pixel Cluster Counting — Summer 2013

Update, CMS-PAS-LUM-13-001 (2013).

[13] J. Alwall et al., The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order

differential cross sections and their matching to parton shower simulations, JHEP 07 (2014)

079 [arXiv:1405.0301] [INSPIRE].

[14] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna and P.Z. Skands, PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual, JHEP 05

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

[15] N. Davidson, G. Nanava, T. Przedzinski, E. Richter-Was and Z. Was, Universal Interface of

TAUOLA Technical and Physics Documentation, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183 (2012) 821

[arXiv:1002.0543] [INSPIRE].

[16] J. Pumplin, D.R. Stump, J. Huston, H.L. Lai, P.M. Nadolsky and W.K. Tung, New

generation of parton distributions with uncertainties from global QCD analysis, JHEP 07

(2002) 012 [hep-ph/0201195] [INSPIRE].

[17] R. Field, Early LHC Underlying Event Data — Findings and Surprises, arXiv:1010.3558

[INSPIRE].

[18] M.L. Mangano, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini and M. Treccani, Matching matrix elements and

shower evolution for top-quark production in hadronic collisions, JHEP 01 (2007) 013

[hep-ph/0611129] [INSPIRE].

[19] B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, G. Ingelman and T. Sjöstrand, Parton Fragmentation and

String Dynamics, Phys. Rept. 97 (1983) 31 [INSPIRE].

[20] M.G. Bowler, e+e− Production of Heavy Quarks in the String Model, Z. Phys. C 11 (1981)

169 [INSPIRE].

[21] T. Kinoshita, Mass singularities of Feynman amplitudes, J. Math. Phys. 3 (1962) 650

[INSPIRE].

[22] T.D. Lee and M. Nauenberg, Degenerate Systems and Mass Singularities, Phys. Rev. 133

(1964) B1549 [INSPIRE].

[23] G. Altarelli, R.H.P. Kleiss and C. Verzegnassi eds., Z physics at LEP 1, vol. 3: Event

generators and software, CERN Yellow Report CERN-YELLOW-89-08-V-3 (1989).

[24] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari and E. Re, NLO single-top production matched with shower in

POWHEG: s- and t-channel contributions, JHEP 09 (2009) 111 [Erratum ibid. 02 (2010)

011] [arXiv:0907.4076] [INSPIRE].

[25] E. Re, Single-top Wt-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG

method, Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1547 [arXiv:1009.2450] [INSPIRE].

– 17 –

http://cds.cern.ch/record/290808
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00120-9
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00120-9
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9912320
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-ph/9912320
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/7/10/P10002
https://arxiv.org/abs/1206.4071
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1206.4071
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+J+%22JINST,3,S08004%22
http://cds.cern.ch/record/1598864
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079
https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0301
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1405.0301
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/026
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/026
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0603175
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-ph/0603175
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2011.12.009
https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0543
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1002.0543
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2002/07/012
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2002/07/012
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0201195
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-ph/0201195
https://arxiv.org/abs/1010.3558
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1010.3558
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2007/01/013
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0611129
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-ph/0611129
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(83)90080-7
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+J+%22Phys.Rep.,97,31%22
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01574001
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01574001
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+J+%22Z.Physik,C11,169%22
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1724268
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+J+%22J.Math.Phys.,3,650%22
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.133.B1549
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.133.B1549
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+IRN+1816497
http://dx.doi.org/10.5170/CERN-1989-008-V-3
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2009/09/111
https://arxiv.org/abs/0907.4076
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:0907.4076
http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1547-z
https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.2450
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1009.2450


J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

[26] M. Czakon, P. Fiedler and A. Mitov, Total Top-Quark Pair-Production Cross section at

Hadron Colliders Through O(α4
S), Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 252004 [arXiv:1303.6254]

[INSPIRE].

[27] N. Kidonakis, NNLL threshold resummation for top-pair and single-top production, Phys.

Part. Nucl. 45 (2014) 714 [arXiv:1210.7813] [INSPIRE].

[28] R. Gavin, Y. Li, F. Petriello and S. Quackenbush, FEWZ 2.0: A code for hadronic Z

production at next-to-next-to-leading order, Comput. Phys. Commun. 182 (2011) 2388

[arXiv:1011.3540] [INSPIRE].

[29] R. Gavin, Y. Li, F. Petriello and S. Quackenbush, W Physics at the LHC with FEWZ 2.1,

Comput. Phys. Commun. 184 (2013) 208 [arXiv:1201.5896] [INSPIRE].

[30] J.M. Campbell, R.K. Ellis and C. Williams, Vector boson pair production at the LHC, JHEP

07 (2011) 018 [arXiv:1105.0020] [INSPIRE].

[31] GEANT4 collaboration, S. Agostinelli et al., GEANT4: A simulation toolkit, Nucl. Instrum.

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

[32] CMS collaboration, Particle-Flow Event Reconstruction in CMS and Performance for Jets,

Taus and MET, CMS-PAS-PFT-09-001 (2009).

[33] CMS collaboration, Commissioning of the Particle-flow Event Reconstruction with the first

LHC collisions recorded in the CMS detector, CMS-PAS-PFT-10-001 (2010).

[34] CMS collaboration, Performance of Electron Reconstruction and Selection with the CMS

Detector in Proton-Proton Collisions at
√
s = 8 TeV, 2015 JINST 10 P06005

[arXiv:1502.02701] [INSPIRE].

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

063 [arXiv:0802.1189] [INSPIRE].

[36] CMS collaboration, Determination of Jet Energy Calibration and Transverse Momentum

Resolution in CMS, 2011 JINST 6 P11002 [arXiv:1107.4277] [INSPIRE].

[37] CMS collaboration, Measurement of the tt̄ production cross section in the e-µ channel in

proton-proton collisions at
√
s = 7 and 8 TeV, JHEP 08 (2016) 029 [arXiv:1603.02303]

[INSPIRE].

[38] R. Fruhwirth, Application of Kalman filtering to track and vertex fitting, Nucl. Instrum.

Meth. A 262 (1987) 444 [INSPIRE].

[39] R. Fruhwirth, W. Waltenberger and P. Vanlaer, Adaptive vertex fitting, J. Phys. G 34 (2007)

N343 [INSPIRE].

[40] CMS collaboration, Measurement of J/ψ and ψ(2S) Prompt Double-Differential Cross

sections in pp Collisions at
√
s = 7 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 191802

[arXiv:1502.04155] [INSPIRE].

[41] CMS collaboration, Measurement of the top quark mass using charged particles in pp

collisions at
√
s = 8 TeV, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 092006 [arXiv:1603.06536] [INSPIRE].

[42] P.Z. Skands, Tuning Monte Carlo Generators: The Perugia Tunes, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010)

074018 [arXiv:1005.3457] [INSPIRE].

[43] CMS collaboration, Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at
√
s = 7 TeV,

Phys. Lett. B 722 (2013) 5 [arXiv:1210.6718] [INSPIRE].

– 18 –

http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.252004
https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6254
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1303.6254
http://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S1063779614040091
http://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S1063779614040091
https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7813
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1210.7813
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2011.06.008
https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3540
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1011.3540
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2012.09.005
https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.5896
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1201.5896
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2011)018
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2011)018
https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0020
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1105.0020
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+%22Nucl.Instrum.Meth.,A506,250%22
http://cds.cern.ch/record/1194487
http://cds.cern.ch/record/1247373
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/10/06/P06005
https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.02701
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1502.02701
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063
https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.1189
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:0802.1189
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/6/11/P11002
https://arxiv.org/abs/1107.4277
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1107.4277
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2016)029
https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.02303
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1603.02303
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-9002(87)90887-4
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-9002(87)90887-4
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+J+%22Nucl.Instrum.Meth.,A262,444%22
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/34/12/N01
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/34/12/N01
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+J+%22J.Phys.,G34,N343%22
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191802
https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.04155
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1502.04155
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.092006
https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.06536
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1603.06536
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.82.074018
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.82.074018
https://arxiv.org/abs/1005.3457
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1005.3457
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2013.03.024
https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.6718
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1210.6718


J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

[44] CMS collaboration, Measurement of tt production with additional jet activity, including b

quark jets, in the dilepton decay channel using pp collisions at
√
s = 8 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C

76 (2016) 379 [arXiv:1510.03072] [INSPIRE].

[45] CMS collaboration, Measurement of the differential cross section for top quark pair

production in pp collisions at
√
s = 8 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 542

[arXiv:1505.04480] [INSPIRE].

[46] CMS collaboration, Measurement of the tt production cross section in the all-jets final state

in pp collisions at
√
s = 8 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 128 [arXiv:1509.06076]

[INSPIRE].

[47] BaBar collaboration, B. Aubert et al., Study of inclusive production of charmonium mesons

in B decay, Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 032002 [hep-ex/0207097] [INSPIRE].

[48] T. Gleisberg et al., Event generation with SHERPA 1.1, JHEP 02 (2009) 007

[arXiv:0811.4622] [INSPIRE].

[49] S. Schumann and F. Krauss, A parton shower algorithm based on Catani-Seymour dipole

factorisation, JHEP 03 (2008) 038 [arXiv:0709.1027] [INSPIRE].

[50] S. Dulat et al., New parton distribution functions from a global analysis of quantum

chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 033006 [arXiv:1506.07443] [INSPIRE].

[51] L.A. Harland-Lang, A.D. Martin, P. Motylinski and R.S. Thorne, Parton distributions in the

LHC era: MMHT 2014 PDFs, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 204 [arXiv:1412.3989] [INSPIRE].

[52] NNPDF collaboration, R.D. Ball et al., Parton distributions for the LHC Run II, JHEP 04

(2015) 040 [arXiv:1410.8849] [INSPIRE].

[53] S. Alekhin et al., The PDF4LHC Working Group Interim Report, arXiv:1101.0536

[INSPIRE].

[54] M. Botje et al., The PDF4LHC Working Group Interim Recommendations,

arXiv:1101.0538 [INSPIRE].

– 19 –

http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4105-x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4105-x
https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.03072
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1510.03072
http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3709-x
https://arxiv.org/abs/1505.04480
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1505.04480
http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3956-5
https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.06076
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1509.06076
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.67.032002
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0207097
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-ex/0207097
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2009/02/007
https://arxiv.org/abs/0811.4622
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:0811.4622
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2008/03/038
https://arxiv.org/abs/0709.1027
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:0709.1027
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.033006
https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.07443
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1506.07443
http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3397-6
https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.3989
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1412.3989
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040
https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.8849
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1410.8849
https://arxiv.org/abs/1101.0536
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1101.0536
https://arxiv.org/abs/1101.0538
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1101.0538


J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

The CMS collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia

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

Institut für Hochenergiephysik der OeAW, Wien, Austria

W. Adam, E. Asilar, T. Bergauer, J. Brandstetter, E. Brondolin, M. Dragicevic, J. Erö,

M. Flechl, M. Friedl, R. Frühwirth1, V.M. Ghete, C. Hartl, N. Hörmann, J. Hrubec,

M. Jeitler1, A. König, I. Krätschmer, D. Liko, T. Matsushita, I. Mikulec, D. Rabady,

N. Rad, B. Rahbaran, H. Rohringer, J. Schieck1, J. Strauss, W. Treberer-Treberspurg,

W. Waltenberger, 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. Alderweireldt, E.A. De Wolf, X. Janssen, J. Lauwers, M. Van De Klundert, H. Van

Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, N. Van Remortel, A. Van Spilbeeck

Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium

S. Abu Zeid, F. Blekman, J. D’Hondt, N. Daci, I. De Bruyn, K. Deroover, N. Heracleous,

S. Lowette, S. Moortgat, L. Moreels, A. Olbrechts, Q. Python, S. Tavernier, W. Van

Doninck, P. Van Mulders, I. Van Parijs

Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium

H. Brun, C. Caillol, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, H. Delannoy, G. Fasanella, L. Favart,

R. Goldouzian, A. Grebenyuk, G. Karapostoli, T. Lenzi, A. Léonard, J. Luetic, T. Maer-

schalk, A. Marinov, A. Randle-conde, T. Seva, C. Vander Velde, P. Vanlaer, R. Yonamine,

F. Zenoni, F. Zhang2

Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

A. Cimmino, T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, A. Fagot, G. Garcia, M. Gul, D. Poyraz, S. Salva,

R. Schöfbeck, M. Tytgat, W. Van Driessche, E. Yazgan, N. Zaganidis

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

H. Bakhshiansohi, C. Beluffi3, O. Bondu, S. Brochet, G. Bruno, A. Caudron, S. De

Visscher, C. Delaere, M. Delcourt, B. Francois, A. Giammanco, A. Jafari, P. Jez,

M. Komm, V. Lemaitre, A. Magitteri, A. Mertens, M. Musich, C. Nuttens, K. Piotrzkowski,

L. Quertenmont, M. Selvaggi, M. Vidal Marono, S. Wertz

Université de Mons, Mons, Belgium

N. Beliy

Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

W.L. Aldá Júnior, F.L. Alves, G.A. Alves, L. Brito, C. Hensel, A. Moraes, M.E. Pol,

P. Rebello Teles

– 20 –



J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

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

E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato4, A. Custódio, E.M. Da Costa,

G.G. Da Silveira5, D. De Jesus Damiao, C. De Oliveira Martins, S. Fonseca De Souza,

L.M. Huertas Guativa, H. Malbouisson, D. Matos Figueiredo, C. Mora Herrera, L. Mundim,

H. Nogima, W.L. Prado Da Silva, A. Santoro, A. Sznajder, E.J. Tonelli Manganote4,

A. Vilela Pereira

Universidade Estadual Paulista a, Universidade Federal do ABC b, São Paulo,

Brazil

S. Ahujaa, C.A. Bernardesb, S. Dograa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M. Gregoresb,

P.G. Mercadanteb, C.S. Moona, S.F. Novaesa, Sandra S. Padulaa, D. Romero Abadb,

J.C. Ruiz Vargas

Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Sofia, Bulgaria

A. Aleksandrov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, M. Rodozov, S. Stoykova, G. Sultanov, M. Vu-

tova

University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria

A. Dimitrov, I. Glushkov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov

Beihang University, Beijing, China

W. Fang6

Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China

M. Ahmad, J.G. Bian, G.M. Chen, H.S. Chen, M. Chen, Y. Chen7, T. Cheng, C.H. Jiang,

D. Leggat, Z. Liu, F. Romeo, S.M. Shaheen, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, C. Wang, Z. Wang,

H. Zhang, J. Zhao

State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University,

Beijing, China

Y. Ban, G. Chen, Q. Li, S. Liu, Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang, Z. Xu

Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia

C. Avila, A. Cabrera, L.F. Chaparro Sierra, C. Florez, J.P. Gomez, C.F. González

Hernández, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, J.C. Sanabria

University of Split, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering

and Naval Architecture, Split, Croatia

N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak, P.M. Ribeiro Cipriano, T. Sculac

University of Split, Faculty of Science, Split, Croatia

Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac

Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia

V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, K. Kadija, S. Micanovic, L. Sudic, T. Susa

University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

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

H. Rykaczewski

– 21 –



J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

M. Finger8, M. Finger Jr.8

Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador

E. Carrera Jarrin

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

Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt

E. El-khateeb9, S. Elgammal10, A. Mohamed11

National Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia

B. Calpas, M. Kadastik, M. Murumaa, L. Perrini, M. Raidal, A. Tiko, C. Veelken

Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

P. Eerola, J. Pekkanen, M. Voutilainen

Helsinki Institute of Physics, Helsinki, Finland

J. Härkönen, V. Karimäki, R. Kinnunen, T. Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Lehti, T. Lindén,

P. Luukka, T. Peltola, J. Tuominiemi, E. Tuovinen, L. Wendland

Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland

J. Talvitie, T. Tuuva

IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France

M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, B. Fabbro, J.L. Faure, C. Favaro,

F. Ferri, S. Ganjour, S. Ghosh, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry,

I. Kucher, E. Locci, M. Machet, J. Malcles, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M. Titov, A. Zghiche

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

France

A. Abdulsalam, I. Antropov, S. Baffioni, F. Beaudette, P. Busson, L. Cadamuro,

E. Chapon, C. Charlot, O. Davignon, R. Granier de Cassagnac, M. Jo, S. Lisniak, P. Miné,

M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, G. Ortona, P. Paganini, P. Pigard, S. Regnard, R. Salerno,

Y. Sirois, T. Strebler, Y. Yilmaz, A. Zabi

Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien, Université de Strasbourg, Univer-

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

J.-L. Agram12, J. Andrea, A. Aubin, D. Bloch, J.-M. Brom, M. Buttignol, E.C. Chabert,

N. Chanon, C. Collard, E. Conte12, X. Coubez, J.-C. Fontaine12, D. Gelé, U. Goerlach,

A.-C. Le Bihan, J.A. Merlin13, K. Skovpen, P. Van Hove

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

des Particules, CNRS/IN2P3, Villeurbanne, France

S. Gadrat

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

de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France

S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, E. Bouvier, C.A. Carrillo Montoya, R. Chierici,

D. Contardo, B. Courbon, P. Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fan, J. Fay, S. Gascon,

– 22 –



J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

M. Gouzevitch, G. Grenier, B. Ille, F. Lagarde, I.B. Laktineh, M. Lethuillier, L. Mirabito,

A.L. Pequegnot, S. Perries, A. Popov14, D. Sabes, V. Sordini, M. Vander Donckt, P. Verdier,

S. Viret

Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia

T. Toriashvili15

Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia

D. Lomidze

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

C. Autermann, S. Beranek, L. Feld, A. Heister, M.K. Kiesel, K. Klein, M. Lipinski,

A. Ostapchuk, M. Preuten, F. Raupach, S. Schael, C. Schomakers, J.F. Schulte, J. Schulz,

T. Verlage, H. Weber, V. Zhukov14

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

M. Brodski, E. Dietz-Laursonn, D. Duchardt, M. Endres, M. Erdmann, S. Erdweg, T. Esch,

R. Fischer, A. Güth, M. Hamer, T. Hebbeker, C. Heidemann, K. Hoepfner, S. Knutzen,

M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, P. Millet, S. Mukherjee, M. Olschewski, K. Padeken, T. Pook,

M. Radziej, H. Reithler, M. Rieger, F. Scheuch, L. Sonnenschein, D. Teyssier, S. Thüer

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

V. Cherepanov, G. Flügge, W. Haj Ahmad, F. Hoehle, B. Kargoll, T. Kress, A. Künsken,

J. Lingemann, T. Müller, A. Nehrkorn, A. Nowack, I.M. Nugent, C. Pistone, O. Pooth,

A. Stahl13

Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany

M. Aldaya Martin, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, K. Beernaert, O. Behnke, U. Behrens, A.A. Bin

Anuar, K. Borras16, A. Campbell, P. Connor, C. Contreras-Campana, F. Costanza, C. Diez

Pardos, G. Dolinska, G. Eckerlin, D. Eckstein, E. Eren, E. Gallo17, J. Garay Garcia,

A. Geiser, A. Gizhko, J.M. Grados Luyando, P. Gunnellini, A. Harb, J. Hauk, M. Hempel18,

H. Jung, A. Kalogeropoulos, O. Karacheban18, M. Kasemann, J. Keaveney, J. Kieseler,

C. Kleinwort, I. Korol, D. Krücker, W. Lange, A. Lelek, J. Leonard, K. Lipka, A. Lobanov,

W. Lohmann18, R. Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, A.B. Meyer, G. Mittag, J. Mnich,

A. Mussgiller, E. Ntomari, D. Pitzl, R. Placakyte, A. Raspereza, B. Roland, M.Ö. Sahin,

P. Saxena, T. Schoerner-Sadenius, C. Seitz, S. Spannagel, N. Stefaniuk, K.D. Trippkewitz,

G.P. Van Onsem, R. Walsh, C. Wissing

University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

V. Blobel, M. Centis Vignali, A.R. Draeger, T. Dreyer, E. Garutti, D. Gonzalez, J. Haller,

M. Hoffmann, A. Junkes, R. Klanner, R. Kogler, N. Kovalchuk, T. Lapsien, T. Lenz,

I. Marchesini, D. Marconi, M. Meyer, M. Niedziela, D. Nowatschin, F. Pantaleo13,

T. Peiffer, A. Perieanu, J. Poehlsen, C. Sander, C. Scharf, P. Schleper, A. Schmidt,

S. Schumann, J. Schwandt, H. Stadie, G. Steinbrück, F.M. Stober, M. Stöver, H. Tholen,

D. Troendle, E. Usai, L. Vanelderen, A. Vanhoefer, B. Vormwald

– 23 –



J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

Institut für Experimentelle Kernphysik, Karlsruhe, Germany

C. Barth, C. Baus, J. Berger, E. Butz, T. Chwalek, F. Colombo, W. De Boer, A. Dierlamm,

S. Fink, R. Friese, M. Giffels, A. Gilbert, P. Goldenzweig, D. Haitz, F. Hartmann13,

S.M. Heindl, U. Husemann, I. Katkov14, P. Lobelle Pardo, B. Maier, H. Mildner,

M.U. Mozer, Th. Müller, M. Plagge, G. Quast, K. Rabbertz, S. Röcker, F. Roscher,

M. Schröder, I. Shvetsov, G. Sieber, H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, J. Wagner-Kuhr, S. Wayand,

M. Weber, T. Weiler, S. Williamson, C. Wöhrmann, R. Wolf

Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics (INPP), NCSR Demokritos, Aghia

Paraskevi, Greece

G. Anagnostou, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, V.A. Giakoumopoulou, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas,

I. Topsis-Giotis

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

A. Agapitos, S. Kesisoglou, A. Panagiotou, N. Saoulidou, E. Tziaferi

University of Ioánnina, Ioánnina, Greece

I. Evangelou, G. Flouris, C. Foudas, P. Kokkas, N. Loukas, N. Manthos, I. Papadopoulos,

E. Paradas

MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös Loránd

University, Budapest, Hungary

N. Filipovic

Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary

G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, P. Hidas, D. Horvath19, F. Sikler, V. Veszpremi, G. Vesztergombi20,

A.J. Zsigmond

Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary

N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi21, A. Makovec, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi

University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

M. Bartók20, P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari

National Institute of Science Education and Research, Bhubaneswar, India

S. Bahinipati, S. Choudhury22, P. Mal, K. Mandal, A. Nayak23, D.K. Sahoo, N. Sahoo,

S.K. Swain

Panjab University, Chandigarh, India

S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, R. Chawla, U.Bhawandeep, A.K. Kalsi, A. Kaur,

M. Kaur, R. Kumar, A. Mehta, M. Mittal, J.B. Singh, G. Walia

University of Delhi, Delhi, India

Ashok Kumar, A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, S. Keshri, S. Malhotra,

M. Naimuddin, N. Nishu, K. Ranjan, R. Sharma, V. Sharma

– 24 –



J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata, India

R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, K. Chatterjee, S. Dey, S. Dutt, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh,

N. Majumdar, A. Modak, K. Mondal, S. Mukhopadhyay, S. Nandan, A. Purohit, A. Roy,

D. Roy, S. Roy Chowdhury, S. Sarkar, M. Sharan, S. Thakur

Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras, India

P.K. Behera

Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India

R. Chudasama, D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, A.K. Mohanty13, P.K. Netrakanti, L.M. Pant,

P. Shukla, A. Topkar

Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A, Mumbai, India

T. Aziz, S. Dugad, G. Kole, B. Mahakud, S. Mitra, G.B. Mohanty, B. Parida, N. Sur,

B. Sutar

Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India

S. Banerjee, S. Bhowmik24, R.K. Dewanjee, S. Ganguly, M. Guchait, Sa. Jain, S. Kumar,

M. Maity24, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, T. Sarkar24, N. Wickramage25

Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, India

S. Chauhan, S. Dube, V. Hegde, A. Kapoor, K. Kothekar, A. Rane, S. Sharma

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

H. Behnamian, S. Chenarani26, E. Eskandari Tadavani, S.M. Etesami26, A. Fahim27,

M. Khakzad, M. Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri, S. Paktinat Mehdiabadi28, F. Rezaei

Hosseinabadi, B. Safarzadeh29, M. Zeinali

University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

M. Felcini, M. Grunewald

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

M. Abbresciaa,b, C. Calabriaa,b, C. Caputoa,b, A. Colaleoa, D. Creanzaa,c, L. Cristellaa,b,

N. De Filippisa,c, M. De Palmaa,b, L. Fiorea, G. Iasellia,c, G. Maggia,c, M. Maggia,

G. Minielloa,b, S. Mya,b, S. Nuzzoa,b, A. Pompilia,b, G. Pugliesea,c, R. Radognaa,b,

A. Ranieria, G. Selvaggia,b, L. Silvestrisa,13, R. Vendittia,b, P. Verwilligena

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

G. Abbiendia, C. Battilana, D. Bonacorsia,b, S. Braibant-Giacomellia,b, L. Brigliadoria,b,

R. Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A. Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa, S.S. Chhibraa,b,

G. Codispotia,b, M. Cuffiania,b, G.M. Dallavallea, F. Fabbria, A. Fanfania,b, D. Fasanellaa,b,

P. Giacomellia, C. Grandia, L. Guiduccia,b, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia, A. Montanaria,

F.L. Navarriaa,b, A. Perrottaa, A.M. Rossia,b, T. Rovellia,b, G.P. Sirolia,b, N. Tosia,b,13

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

S. Albergoa,b, M. Chiorbolia,b, S. Costaa,b, A. Di Mattiaa, F. Giordanoa,b, R. Potenzaa,b,

A. Tricomia,b, C. Tuvea,b

– 25 –



J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
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, V. Goria,b,

P. Lenzia,b, M. Meschinia, S. Paolettia, G. Sguazzonia, L. Viliania,b,13

INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy

L. Benussi, S. Bianco, F. Fabbri, D. Piccolo, F. Primavera13

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

V. Calvellia,b, F. Ferroa, M. Lo Veterea,b, M.R. Mongea,b, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia,b

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

Italy

L. Brianza13, M.E. Dinardoa,b, S. Fiorendia,b, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P. Govonia,b,

M. Malberti, S. Malvezzia, R.A. Manzonia,b,13, B. Marzocchia,b, D. Menascea, L. Moronia,

M. Paganonia,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Pigazzini, S. Ragazzia,b, T. Tabarelli de Fatisa,b

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

Università della Basilicata c, Potenza, Italy, Università G. Marconi d, Roma,

Italy

S. Buontempoa, N. Cavalloa,c, G. De Nardo, S. Di Guidaa,d,13, M. Espositoa,b,

F. Fabozzia,c, A.O.M. Iorioa,b, G. Lanzaa, L. Listaa, S. Meolaa,d,13, P. Paoluccia,13,

C. Sciaccaa,b, F. Thyssen

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

Trento c, Trento, Italy

P. Azzia,13, N. Bacchettaa, L. Benatoa,b, M. Biasottoa,30, D. Biselloa,b, A. Bolettia,b,

A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveiraa,b, P. Checchiaa, M. Dall’Ossoa,b, P. De Castro Manzanoa,

T. Dorigoa, F. Fanzagoa, U. Gasparinia,b, A. Gozzelinoa, S. Lacapraraa, M. Margonia,b,

A.T. Meneguzzoa,b, J. Pazzinia,b,13, N. Pozzobona,b, P. Ronchesea,b, F. Simonettoa,b,

E. Torassaa, S. Venturaa, M. Zanetti, P. Zottoa,b, A. Zucchettaa,b, G. Zumerlea,b

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

A. Braghieria, A. Magnania,b, P. Montagnaa,b, S.P. Rattia,b, V. Rea, C. Riccardia,b,

P. Salvinia, I. Vaia,b, P. Vituloa,b

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

L. Alunni Solestizia,b, G.M. Bileia, D. Ciangottinia,b, L. Fanòa,b, P. Laricciaa,b,

R. Leonardia,b, G. Mantovania,b, M. Menichellia, A. Sahaa, A. Santocchiaa,b

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

Pisa c, Pisa, Italy

K. Androsova,31, P. Azzurria,13, G. Bagliesia, J. Bernardinia, T. Boccalia, R. Castaldia,

M.A. Cioccia,31, R. Dell’Orsoa, S. Donatoa,c, G. Fedi, A. Giassia, M.T. Grippoa,31,

F. Ligabuea,c, T. Lomtadzea, L. Martinia,b, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, A. Rizzia,b, A. Savoy-

Navarroa,32, P. Spagnoloa, R. Tenchinia, G. Tonellia,b, A. Venturia, P.G. Verdinia

– 26 –



J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

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

L. Baronea,b, F. Cavallaria, M. Cipriania,b, G. D’imperioa,b,13, D. Del Rea,b,13, M. Diemoza,

S. Gellia,b, E. Longoa,b, F. Margarolia,b, P. Meridiania, G. Organtinia,b, R. Paramattia,

F. Preiatoa,b, S. Rahatloua,b, C. Rovellia, F. Santanastasioa,b

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

Piemonte Orientale c, Novara, Italy

N. Amapanea,b, R. Arcidiaconoa,c,13, S. Argiroa,b, M. Arneodoa,c, N. Bartosika,

R. Bellana,b, C. Biinoa, N. Cartigliaa, F. Cennaa,b, M. Costaa,b, R. Covarellia,b,

A. Deganoa,b, N. Demariaa, L. Fincoa,b, B. Kiania,b, C. Mariottia, S. Masellia,

E. Migliorea,b, V. Monacoa,b, E. Monteila,b, M.M. Obertinoa,b, L. Pachera,b, N. Pastronea,

M. Pelliccionia, G.L. Pinna Angionia,b, F. Raveraa,b, A. Romeroa,b, M. Ruspaa,c,

R. Sacchia,b, K. Shchelinaa,b, V. Solaa, A. Solanoa,b, A. Staianoa, P. Traczyka,b

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

S. Belfortea, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, G. Della Riccaa,b, C. La Licataa,b, A. Schizzia,b,

A. Zanettia

Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea

D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, M.S. Kim, S. Lee, S.W. Lee, Y.D. Oh, S. Sekmen, D.C. Son,

Y.C. Yang

Chonbuk National University, Jeonju, Korea

A. Lee

Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea

J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, T.J. Kim

Korea University, Seoul, Korea

S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, D. Gyun, S. Ha, B. Hong, Y. Jo, Y. Kim, B. Lee, K. Lee, K.S. Lee,

S. Lee, J. Lim, S.K. Park, Y. Roh

Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

J. Almond, J. Kim, H. Lee, S.B. Oh, B.C. Radburn-Smith, S.h. Seo, U.K. Yang, H.D. Yoo,

G.B. Yu

University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea

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

Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea

Y. Choi, J. Goh, C. Hwang, J. Lee, I. Yu

Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania

V. Dudenas, A. Juodagalvis, J. Vaitkus

National Centre for Particle Physics, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur,

Malaysia

I. Ahmed, Z.A. Ibrahim, J.R. Komaragiri, M.A.B. Md Ali33, F. Mohamad Idris34,

W.A.T. Wan Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli

– 27 –



J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

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

H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, I. Heredia-De La Cruz35, A. Hernandez-Almada,

R. Lopez-Fernandez, R. Magaña Villalba, J. Mejia Guisao, A. Sanchez-Hernandez

Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City, Mexico

S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, F. Vazquez Valencia

Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico

S. Carpinteyro, I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada

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

A. Morelos Pineda

University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

D. Krofcheck

University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

P.H. Butler

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

A. Ahmad, M. Ahmad, Q. Hassan, H.R. Hoorani, W.A. Khan, M.A. Shah, M. Shoaib,

M. Waqas

National Centre for Nuclear Research, Swierk, Poland

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

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

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

Warsaw, Poland

K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk36, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J. Krolikowski,

M. Misiura, M. Olszewski, M. Walczak

Laboratório de Instrumentação e F́ısica Experimental de Part́ıculas, Lisboa,

Portugal

P. Bargassa, C. Beirão Da Cruz E Silva, A. Di Francesco, P. Faccioli, P.G. Ferreira Parracho,

M. Gallinaro, J. Hollar, N. Leonardo, L. Lloret Iglesias, M.V. Nemallapudi, J. Rodrigues

Antunes, J. Seixas, O. Toldaiev, D. Vadruccio, J. Varela, P. Vischia

Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia

M. Gavrilenko, A. Golunov, I. Golutvin, N. Gorbounov, A. Kamenev, V. Karjavin, V. Ko-

renkov, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev37,38, V.V. Mitsyn, P. Moisenz, V. Palichik,

V. Perelygin, S. Shmatov, N. Skatchkov, V. Smirnov, E. Tikhonenko, A. Zarubin

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

L. Chtchipounov, V. Golovtsov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim39, E. Kuznetsova40, V. Murzin,

V. Oreshkin, V. Sulimov, A. Vorobyev

Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia

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

N. Krasnikov, A. Pashenkov, D. Tlisov, A. Toropin

– 28 –



J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia

V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, V. Popov, I. Pozdnyakov, G. Safronov,

A. Spiridonov, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A. Zhokin

Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology

A. Bylinkin38

National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics Insti-

tute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia

M. Chadeeva41, O. Markin, E. Tarkovskii

P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia

V. Andreev, M. Azarkin38, I. Dremin38, M. Kirakosyan, A. Leonidov38, S.V. Rusakov,

A. Terkulov

Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University,

Moscow, Russia

A. Baskakov, A. Belyaev, E. Boos, V. Bunichev, M. Dubinin42, L. Dudko, A. Ershov,

A. Gribushin, V. Klyukhin, N. Korneeva, I. Lokhtin, I. Miagkov, S. Obraztsov, M. Perfilov,

V. Savrin

Novosibirsk State University (NSU), Novosibirsk, Russia

V. Blinov43, Y.Skovpen43

State Research Center of Russian Federation, Institute for High Energy

Physics, Protvino, Russia

I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, S. Bitioukov, D. Elumakhov, V. Kachanov, A. Kalinin, D. Kon-

stantinov, V. Krychkine, V. Petrov, R. Ryutin, A. Sobol, S. Troshin, N. Tyurin, A. Uzunian,

A. Volkov

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

Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia

P. Adzic44, P. Cirkovic, D. Devetak, M. Dordevic, J. Milosevic, V. Rekovic

Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tec-

nológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid, Spain

J. Alcaraz Maestre, M. Barrio Luna, E. Calvo, M. Cerrada, M. Chamizo Llatas, N. Col-

ino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris, A. Escalante Del Valle, C. Fernandez Bedoya,

J.P. Fernández Ramos, J. Flix, M.C. Fouz, P. Garcia-Abia, O. Gonzalez Lopez, S. Goy

Lopez, J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa, E. Navarro De Martino, A. Pérez-Calero Yzquierdo,

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

Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

J.F. de Trocóniz, M. Missiroli, D. Moran

Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain

J. Cuevas, J. Fernandez Menendez, I. Gonzalez Caballero, J.R. González Fernández,

E. Palencia Cortezon, S. Sanchez Cruz, I. Suárez Andrés, J.M. Vizan Garcia

– 29 –



J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

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

Santander, Spain

I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, J.R. Castiñeiras De Saa, E. Curras, M. Fernandez, J. Garcia-

Ferrero, G. Gomez, A. Lopez Virto, J. Marco, C. Martinez Rivero, F. Matorras, J. Piedra

Gomez, T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno, L. Scodellaro, N. Trevisani, I. Vila, R. Vilar

Cortabitarte

CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland

D. Abbaneo, E. Auffray, G. Auzinger, M. Bachtis, P. Baillon, A.H. Ball, D. Barney,

P. Bloch, A. Bocci, A. Bonato, C. Botta, T. Camporesi, R. Castello, M. Cepeda,

G. Cerminara, M. D’Alfonso, D. d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, V. Daponte, A. David,

M. De Gruttola, A. De Roeck, E. Di Marco45, M. Dobson, B. Dorney, T. du Pree,

D. Duggan, M. Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, S. Fartoukh, G. Franzoni, J. Fulcher,

W. Funk, D. Gigi, K. Gill, M. Girone, F. Glege, D. Gulhan, S. Gundacker, M. Guthoff,

J. Hammer, P. Harris, J. Hegeman, V. Innocente, P. Janot, H. Kirschenmann, V. Knünz,

A. Kornmayer13, M.J. Kortelainen, K. Kousouris, M. Krammer1, P. Lecoq, C. Lourenço,

M.T. Lucchini, L. Malgeri, M. Mannelli, A. Martelli, F. Meijers, S. Mersi, E. Meschi,

F. Moortgat, S. Morovic, M. Mulders, H. Neugebauer, S. Orfanelli, L. Orsini, L. Pape,

E. Perez, M. Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, A. Racz, T. Reis,

G. Rolandi46, M. Rovere, M. Ruan, H. Sakulin, J.B. Sauvan, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick,

M. Seidel, A. Sharma, P. Silva, P. Sphicas47, J. Steggemann, M. Stoye, Y. Takahashi,

M. Tosi, D. Treille, A. Triossi, A. Tsirou, V. Veckalns48, G.I. Veres20, N. Wardle,

A. Zagozdzinska36, W.D. Zeuner

Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland

W. Bertl, K. Deiters, W. Erdmann, R. Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C. Kaestli, D. Kotlinski,

U. Langenegger, T. Rohe

Institute for Particle Physics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

F. Bachmair, L. Bäni, L. Bianchini, B. Casal, G. Dissertori, M. Dittmar, M. Donegà,

P. Eller, C. Grab, C. Heidegger, D. Hits, J. Hoss, G. Kasieczka, P. Lecomte†, W. Lus-

termann, B. Mangano, M. Marionneau, P. Martinez Ruiz del Arbol, M. Masciovecchio,

M.T. Meinhard, D. Meister, F. Micheli, P. Musella, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, F. Pandolfi,

J. Pata, F. Pauss, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, M. Quittnat, M. Rossini, M. Schönenberger,

A. Starodumov49, V.R. Tavolaro, K. Theofilatos, R. Wallny

Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland

T.K. Aarrestad, C. Amsler50, L. Caminada, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, C. Galloni,

A. Hinzmann, T. Hreus, B. Kilminster, C. Lange, J. Ngadiuba, D. Pinna, G. Rauco,

P. Robmann, D. Salerno, Y. Yang

National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan

V. Candelise, T.H. Doan, Sh. Jain, R. Khurana, M. Konyushikhin, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin,

Y.J. Lu, A. Pozdnyakov, S.S. Yu

– 30 –



J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

National Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan

Arun Kumar, P. Chang, Y.H. Chang, Y.W. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen,

C. Dietz, F. Fiori, W.-S. Hou, Y. Hsiung, Y.F. Liu, R.-S. Lu, M. Miñano Moya, E. Paganis,

A. Psallidas, J.f. Tsai, Y.M. Tzeng

Chulalongkorn University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok,

Thailand

B. Asavapibhop, G. Singh, N. Srimanobhas, N. Suwonjandee

Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey

A. Adiguzel, S. Damarseckin, Z.S. Demiroglu, C. Dozen, E. Eskut, S. Girgis, G. Gokbulut,

Y. Guler, E. Gurpinar, I. Hos, E.E. Kangal51, O. Kara, A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu,

M. Oglakci, G. Onengut52, K. Ozdemir53, S. Ozturk54, A. Polatoz, B. Tali55, S. Turkcapar,

I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez

Middle East Technical University, Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey

B. Bilin, S. Bilmis, B. Isildak56, G. Karapinar57, M. Yalvac, M. Zeyrek

Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey

E. Gülmez, M. Kaya58, O. Kaya59, E.A. Yetkin60, T. Yetkin61

Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey

A. Cakir, K. Cankocak, S. Sen62

Institute for Scintillation Materials of National Academy of Science of Ukraine,

Kharkov, Ukraine

B. Grynyov

National Scientific Center, Kharkov Institute of Physics and Technology,

Kharkov, Ukraine

L. Levchuk, P. Sorokin

University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom

R. Aggleton, F. Ball, L. Beck, J.J. Brooke, D. Burns, E. Clement, D. Cussans, H. Flacher,

J. Goldstein, M. Grimes, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, J. Jacob, L. Kreczko, C. Lucas,

D.M. Newbold63, S. Paramesvaran, A. Poll, T. Sakuma, S. Seif El Nasr-storey, D. Smith,

V.J. Smith

Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom

K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev64, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, L. Calligaris, D. Cieri, D.J.A. Cockerill,

J.A. Coughlan, K. Harder, S. Harper, E. Olaiya, D. Petyt, C.H. Shepherd-Themistocleous,

A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin, T. Williams

Imperial College, London, United Kingdom

M. Baber, R. Bainbridge, O. Buchmuller, A. Bundock, D. Burton, S. Casasso, M. Citron,

D. Colling, L. Corpe, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, A. De Wit, M. Della Negra, R. Di Maria,

P. Dunne, A. Elwood, D. Futyan, Y. Haddad, G. Hall, G. Iles, T. James, R. Lane,

C. Laner, R. Lucas63, L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, L. Mastrolorenzo, J. Nash,

– 31 –



J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

A. Nikitenko49, J. Pela, B. Penning, M. Pesaresi, D.M. Raymond, A. Richards, A. Rose,

C. Seez, S. Summers, A. Tapper, K. Uchida, M. Vazquez Acosta65, T. Virdee13, J. Wright,

S.C. Zenz

Brunel University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom

J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, D. Leslie, I.D. Reid, P. Symonds, L. Teodor-

escu, M. Turner

Baylor University, Waco, U.S.A.

A. Borzou, K. Call, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, H. Liu, N. Pastika

The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, U.S.A.

O. Charaf, S.I. Cooper, C. Henderson, P. Rumerio, C. West

Boston University, Boston, U.S.A.

D. Arcaro, A. Avetisyan, T. Bose, D. Gastler, D. Rankin, C. Richardson, J. Rohlf, L. Sulak,

D. Zou

Brown University, Providence, U.S.A.

G. Benelli, E. Berry, D. Cutts, A. Garabedian, J. Hakala, U. Heintz, J.M. Hogan, O. Jesus,

E. Laird, G. Landsberg, Z. Mao, M. Narain, S. Piperov, S. Sagir, E. Spencer, R. Syarif

University of California, Davis, Davis, U.S.A.

R. Breedon, G. Breto, D. Burns, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez, S. Chauhan,

M. Chertok, J. Conway, R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, G. Funk, M. Gardner,

W. Ko, R. Lander, C. Mclean, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, J. Pilot, F. Ricci-Tam, S. Shalhout,

J. Smith, M. Squires, D. Stolp, M. Tripathi, S. Wilbur, R. Yohay

University of California, Los Angeles, U.S.A.

R. Cousins, P. Everaerts, A. Florent, J. Hauser, M. Ignatenko, D. Saltzberg, E. Takasugi,

V. Valuev, M. Weber

University of California, Riverside, Riverside, U.S.A.

K. Burt, R. Clare, J. Ellison, J.W. Gary, G. Hanson, J. Heilman, P. Jandir, E. Kennedy,

F. Lacroix, O.R. Long, M. Olmedo Negrete, M.I. Paneva, A. Shrinivas, H. Wei, S. Wim-

penny, B. R. Yates

University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, U.S.A.

J.G. Branson, G.B. Cerati, S. Cittolin, M. Derdzinski, R. Gerosa, A. Holzner, D. Klein,

V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, I. Macneill, D. Olivito, S. Padhi, M. Pieri, M. Sani, V. Sharma,

S. Simon, M. Tadel, A. Vartak, S. Wasserbaech66, C. Welke, J. Wood, F. Würthwein,

A. Yagil, G. Zevi Della Porta

University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, U.S.A.

R. Bhandari, J. Bradmiller-Feld, C. Campagnari, A. Dishaw, V. Dutta, K. Flowers,

M. Franco Sevilla, P. Geffert, C. George, F. Golf, L. Gouskos, J. Gran, R. Heller,

J. Incandela, N. Mccoll, S.D. Mullin, A. Ovcharova, J. Richman, D. Stuart, I. Suarez,

J. Yoo

– 32 –



J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, U.S.A.

D. Anderson, A. Apresyan, J. Bendavid, A. Bornheim, J. Bunn, Y. Chen, J. Duarte,

J.M. Lawhorn, A. Mott, H.B. Newman, C. Pena, M. Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, S. Xie,

R.Y. Zhu

Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, U.S.A.

M.B. Andrews, V. Azzolini, T. Ferguson, M. Paulini, J. Russ, M. Sun, H. Vogel, I. Vorobiev

University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, U.S.A.

J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, F. Jensen, A. Johnson, M. Krohn, T. Mulholland, K. Stenson,

S.R. Wagner

Cornell University, Ithaca, U.S.A.

J. Alexander, J. Chaves, J. Chu, S. Dittmer, K. Mcdermott, N. Mirman, G. Nicolas

Kaufman, J.R. Patterson, A. Rinkevicius, A. Ryd, L. Skinnari, L. Soffi, S.M. Tan, Z. Tao,

J. Thom, J. Tucker, P. Wittich, M. Zientek

Fairfield University, Fairfield, U.S.A.

D. Winn

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, U.S.A.

S. Abdullin, M. Albrow, G. Apollinari, S. Banerjee, L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas,

J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, G. Bolla, K. Burkett, J.N. Butler, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana,

S. Cihangir†, M. Cremonesi, V.D. Elvira, I. Fisk, J. Freeman, E. Gottschalk, L. Gray,

D. Green, S. Grünendahl, O. Gutsche, D. Hare, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, J. Hirschauer,

Z. Hu, B. Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, B. Klima, B. Kreis, S. Lammel,

J. Linacre, D. Lincoln, R. Lipton, T. Liu, R. Lopes De Sá, J. Lykken, K. Maeshima,

N. Magini, J.M. Marraffino, S. Maruyama, D. Mason, P. McBride, P. Merkel, S. Mrenna,

S. Nahn, C. Newman-Holmes†, V. O’Dell, K. Pedro, O. Prokofyev, G. Rakness, L. Ristori,

E. Sexton-Kennedy, A. Soha, W.J. Spalding, L. Spiegel, S. Stoynev, N. Strobbe, L. Taylor,

S. Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran, L. Uplegger, E.W. Vaandering, C. Vernieri, M. Verzocchi, R. Vidal,

M. Wang, H.A. Weber, A. Whitbeck

University of Florida, Gainesville, U.S.A.

D. Acosta, P. Avery, P. Bortignon, D. Bourilkov, A. Brinkerhoff, A. Carnes, M. Carver,

D. Curry, S. Das, R.D. Field, I.K. Furic, J. Konigsberg, A. Korytov, P. Ma, K. Matchev,

H. Mei, P. Milenovic67, G. Mitselmakher, D. Rank, L. Shchutska, D. Sperka, L. Thomas,

J. Wang, S. Wang, J. Yelton

Florida International University, Miami, U.S.A.

S. Linn, P. Markowitz, G. Martinez, J.L. Rodriguez

Florida State University, Tallahassee, U.S.A.

A. Ackert, J.R. Adams, T. Adams, A. Askew, S. Bein, B. Diamond, S. Hagopian,

V. Hagopian, K.F. Johnson, A. Khatiwada, H. Prosper, A. Santra, M. Weinberg

– 33 –



J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, U.S.A.

M.M. Baarmand, V. Bhopatkar, S. Colafranceschi68, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, T. Roy,

F. Yumiceva

University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago, U.S.A.

M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, D. Berry, R.R. Betts, I. Bucinskaite, R. Cavanaugh,

O. Evdokimov, L. Gauthier, C.E. Gerber, D.J. Hofman, P. Kurt, C. O’Brien, I.D. Sandoval

Gonzalez, P. Turner, N. Varelas, H. Wang, Z. Wu, M. Zakaria, J. Zhang

The University of Iowa, Iowa City, U.S.A.

B. Bilki69, W. Clarida, K. Dilsiz, S. Durgut, R.P. Gandrajula, M. Haytmyradov, V. Khris-

tenko, J.-P. Merlo, H. Mermerkaya70, A. Mestvirishvili, A. Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul,

Y. Onel, F. Ozok71, A. Penzo, C. Snyder, E. Tiras, J. Wetzel, K. Yi

Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, U.S.A.

I. Anderson, B. Blumenfeld, A. Cocoros, N. Eminizer, D. Fehling, L. Feng, A.V. Gritsan,

P. Maksimovic, M. Osherson, J. Roskes, U. Sarica, M. Swartz, M. Xiao, Y. Xin, C. You

The University of Kansas, Lawrence, U.S.A.

A. Al-bataineh, P. Baringer, A. Bean, S. Boren, J. Bowen, C. Bruner, J. Castle,

L. Forthomme, R.P. Kenny III, A. Kropivnitskaya, D. Majumder, W. Mcbrayer, M. Murray,

S. Sanders, R. Stringer, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang

Kansas State University, Manhattan, U.S.A.

A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, S. Khalil, M. Makouski, Y. Maravin, A. Mohammadi, L.K. Saini,

N. Skhirtladze, S. Toda

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, U.S.A.

F. Rebassoo, D. Wright

University of Maryland, College Park, U.S.A.

C. Anelli, A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, B. Calvert, S.C. Eno, C. Ferraioli, J.A. Gomez,

N.J. Hadley, S. Jabeen, R.G. Kellogg, T. Kolberg, J. Kunkle, Y. Lu, A.C. Mignerey,

Y.H. Shin, A. Skuja, M.B. Tonjes, S.C. Tonwar

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, U.S.A.

D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, A. Apyan, R. Barbieri, A. Baty, R. Bi, K. Bierwagen, S. Brandt,

W. Busza, I.A. Cali, Z. Demiragli, L. Di Matteo, G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov,

D. Hsu, Y. Iiyama, G.M. Innocenti, M. Klute, D. Kovalskyi, K. Krajczar, Y.S. Lai,

Y.-J. Lee, A. Levin, P.D. Luckey, A.C. Marini, C. Mcginn, C. Mironov, S. Narayanan,

X. Niu, C. Paus, C. Roland, G. Roland, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Sumorok,

K. Tatar, M. Varma, D. Velicanu, J. Veverka, J. Wang, T.W. Wang, B. Wyslouch, M. Yang,

V. Zhukova

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, U.S.A.

A.C. Benvenuti, R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, A. Finkel, A. Gude, P. Hansen, S. Kalafut,

S.C. Kao, Y. Kubota, Z. Lesko, J. Mans, S. Nourbakhsh, N. Ruckstuhl, R. Rusack,

N. Tambe, J. Turkewitz

– 34 –



J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

University of Mississippi, Oxford, U.S.A.

J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros

University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, U.S.A.

E. Avdeeva, R. Bartek, K. Bloom, D.R. Claes, A. Dominguez, C. Fangmeier, R. Gonzalez

Suarez, R. Kamalieddin, I. Kravchenko, A. Malta Rodrigues, F. Meier, J. Monroy,

J.E. Siado, G.R. Snow, B. Stieger

State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, U.S.A.

M. Alyari, J. Dolen, J. George, A. Godshalk, C. Harrington, I. Iashvili, J. Kaisen,

A. Kharchilava, A. Kumar, A. Parker, S. Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani

Northeastern University, Boston, U.S.A.

G. Alverson, E. Barberis, D. Baumgartel, A. Hortiangtham, A. Massironi, D.M. Morse,

D. Nash, T. Orimoto, R. Teixeira De Lima, D. Trocino, R.-J. Wang, D. Wood

Northwestern University, Evanston, U.S.A.

S. Bhattacharya, K.A. Hahn, A. Kubik, A. Kumar, J.F. Low, N. Mucia, N. Odell,

B. Pollack, M.H. Schmitt, K. Sung, M. Trovato, M. Velasco

University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, U.S.A.

N. Dev, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop, D.J. Karmgard, N. Kellams,

K. Lannon, N. Marinelli, F. Meng, C. Mueller, Y. Musienko37, M. Planer, A. Reinsvold,

R. Ruchti, G. Smith, S. Taroni, M. Wayne, M. Wolf, A. Woodard

The Ohio State University, Columbus, U.S.A.

J. Alimena, L. Antonelli, J. Brinson, B. Bylsma, L.S. Durkin, S. Flowers, B. Francis,

A. Hart, C. Hill, R. Hughes, W. Ji, B. Liu, W. Luo, D. Puigh, B.L. Winer, H.W. Wulsin

Princeton University, Princeton, U.S.A.

S. Cooperstein, O. Driga, P. Elmer, J. Hardenbrook, P. Hebda, D. Lange, J. Luo, D. Mar-

low, T. Medvedeva, K. Mei, M. Mooney, J. Olsen, C. Palmer, P. Piroué, D. Stickland,

C. Tully, A. Zuranski

University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, U.S.A.

S. Malik

Purdue University, West Lafayette, U.S.A.

A. Barker, V.E. Barnes, S. Folgueras, L. Gutay, M.K. Jha, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, K. Jung,

D.H. Miller, N. Neumeister, X. Shi, J. Sun, A. Svyatkovskiy, F. Wang, W. Xie, L. Xu

Purdue University Calumet, Hammond, U.S.A.

N. Parashar, J. Stupak

Rice University, Houston, U.S.A.

A. Adair, B. Akgun, Z. Chen, K.M. Ecklund, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Guilbaud, W. Li,

B. Michlin, M. Northup, B.P. Padley, R. Redjimi, J. Roberts, J. Rorie, Z. Tu, J. Zabel

– 35 –



J
H
E
P
1
2
(
2
0
1
6
)
1
2
3

University of Rochester, Rochester, U.S.A.

B. Betchart, A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, Y.t. Duh, T. Ferbel, M. Galanti,

A. Garcia-Bellido, J. Han, O. Hindrichs, A. Khukhunaishvili, K.H. Lo, P. Tan, M. Verzetti

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, U.S.A.

J.P. Chou, E. Contreras-Campana, Y. Gershtein, T.A. Gómez Espinosa, E. Halkiadakis,

M. Heindl, D. Hidas, E. Hughes, S. Kaplan, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, S. Kyriacou,

A. Lath, K. Nash, H. Saka, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, D. Sheffield, S. Somalwar, R. Stone,

S. Thomas, P. Thomassen, M. Walker

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, U.S.A.

M. Foerster, J. Heideman, G. Riley, K. Rose, S. Spanier, K. Thapa

Texas A&M University, College Station, U.S.A.

O. Bouhali72, A. Celik, M. Dalchenko, M. De Mattia, A. Delgado, S. Dildick, R. Eusebi,

J. Gilmore, T. Huang, E. Juska, T. Kamon73, R. Mueller, Y. Pakhotin, R. Patel, A. Perloff,

L. Perniè, D. Rathjens, A. Rose, A. Safonov, A. Tatarinov, K.A. Ulmer

Texas Tech University, Lubbock, U.S.A.

N. Akchurin, C. Cowden, J. Damgov, F. De Guio, C. Dragoiu, P.R. Dudero, J. Faulkner,

S. Kunori, K. Lamichhane, S.W. Lee, T. Libeiro, S. Undleeb, I. Volobouev, Z. Wang

Vanderbilt University, Nashville, U.S.A.

A.G. Delannoy, S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H. Ni,

P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska, Q. Xu

University of Virginia, Charlottesville, U.S.A.

M.W. Arenton, P. Barria, B. Cox, J. Good