Measurement of the underlying event activity in inclusive Z boson production in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

(1)

JHEP07(2018)032

Published for SISSA by Springer

Received: November 12, 2017 Revised: June 9, 2018 Accepted: June 25, 2018 Published: July 5, 2018

Measurement of the underlying event activity in

inclusive Z boson production in proton-proton

collisions at

√

s = 13 TeV

The CMS collaboration

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

Abstract: This paper presents a measurement of the underlying event activity in proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV, performed using inclusive Z boson production events collected with the CMS experiment at the LHC. The analyzed data cor-respond to an integrated luminosity of 2.1 fb−1. The underlying event activity is quantified in terms of the charged particle multiplicity, as well as of the scalar sum of the charged particles’ transverse momenta in different topological regions defined with respect to the Z boson direction. The distributions are unfolded to the stable particle level and compared with predictions from various Monte Carlo event generators, as well as with similar CDF and CMS measurements at center-of-mass energies of 1.96 and 7 TeV respectively.

Keywords: Hadron-Hadron scattering (experiments), Minimum bias, Event-by-event fluctuation

(2)

JHEP07(2018)032

Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Data and simulated samples 2

3 The CMS detector 3

4 Experimental methods 4

4.1 Event selection 4

4.2 Track selection 4

5 Unfolding and systematic uncertainties 5

6 Results and discussion 7

7 Summary 11

The CMS collaboration 20

1 Introduction

The production of particles in a hadron-hadron collision includes contributions from parton-parton scatterings, initial-state radiation (ISR), final-state radiation (FSR), and beam-beam remnant (BBR) interactions. The large parton densities accessible in proton-proton (pp) collisions at the CERN LHC result in a significant probability of more than one parton-parton scattering in the same pp collision, a phenomenon known as multiple par-ton interactions (MPI). The combination of particle production from MPI (excluding the parton-parton scattering with the highest momentum transfer) and BBR interactions is commonly called the underlying event (UE). The UE usually produces particles at low transverse momentum (pT) that cannot be experimentally distinguished from the particles

produced from ISR and FSR. These processes cannot be completely described by perturba-tive quantum chromodynamics (QCD) calculations, and require phenomenological models, whose parameters are tuned by means of fits to data.

The experimental measurement of the UE is often based on a process that defines the scale of the hardest parton-parton scattering, along with a phase space region with enhanced sensitivity to particle production associated with the UE activity. A number of measurements [1–9] have been performed by the Tevatron and LHC experiments at various center-of-mass energies, ranging from 0.3 TeV to 13 TeV, and using a variety of hard processes including events with high-pT charged particles or jets, Z+jets, and tt+jets.

(3)

JHEP07(2018)032

of universality of the underlying MPI dynamics. Events with a harder scale are expected to correspond, on average, to proton-proton interactions with a smaller impact parameter and therefore with more MPI [10]. Such increased UE activity is observed to plateau at high energy scales, which indicates that the smallest impact parameters have been reached and hence maximum matter overlap in the pp collision [11].

This paper presents a measurement of the UE activity based on events with inclusive Z → µ+µ− production at √s = 13 TeV. Underlying event measurements based on Z boson production have been carried out previously at√s = 1.96 TeV [9] and 7 TeV [3,8] by Tevatron and LHC experiments. Z boson production is a process with a clean experimental signature and well understood theoretically, allowing clear identification of the UE activity. Measurements with Z bosons also make it possible to partially distinguish the MPI and ISR/FSR contributions [3,12]. In this paper, the properties of the UE are measured as a function of conventional observables related to the impact parameter of the pp collision, such as the number of charged particles and the scalar sum of their pT. The data are

corrected for detector effects and compared to Monte Carlo (MC) event generators, as well as with earlier results at √s = 1.96 TeV [9] and 7 TeV [3].

The outline of the paper is as follows. Section 2 describes the data and simulated samples used for the validation and unfolding studies. Section3gives a brief description of the CMS detector, whereas section 4 describes the event and track selection criteria, and the observables used for quantification of the UE. The unfolding procedure and systematic effects are discussed in section 5, and the final results are presented in section 6. Finally, the analysis is summarized in section 7.

2 Data and simulated samples

The analysis is performed on a sample of pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 2.1 fb−1. Data were collected with the CMS detector in 2015 when the average number of inelastic collisions per bunch crossing (pileup) was about 20. For the evaluation of the event and track selection efficiencies, signal and background processes are simulated at next-to-leading order (NLO) accuracy with mc@nlo 2.2.2 [13] and, for single top production, with powheg 2.0 [14,15]. To study the model dependence, the Z+jets events are also simulated at leading order (LO) with MadGraph5 2.2.2 [16,17] combined with pythia8 [18] using the CUET8PM1 [19] tune. Diboson (WW, WZ and ZZ) as well as multiple-jet production, via strong interaction processes, are generated at LO with pythia8 standalone. The NNPDF3.0 [20] set is used as the default set of parton distribution functions (PDFs) for all generated LO and NLO samples.

These simulated samples are processed and reconstructed in the same manner as the collision data. The detector response is simulated in detail by using the Geant4 pack-age [21]. The samples include additional pileup pp interactions, with a multiplicity distri-bution matching that observed in data.

The measured UE distributions are unfolded to correct for detector effects and selection efficiencies, and compared to various MC simulation predictions:

(4)

JHEP07(2018)032

• MadGraph + pythia8: Z+jets events are generated with MadGraph, followed by parton showering and hadronization with pythia8 (CUET8PM1 tune). The Mad-Graph generator includes up to 4 partons in the matrix element calculations, while additional jets can be generated by pythia8 during parton showering.

• powheg + pythia8: Z+jets events are produced up to NLO accuracy with the powheg ‘Multiscale-improved NLO’ method [15]. The pythia8 generator as-sumes pT-ordered parton showers, and the latter are interleaved with MPI. Tune

CUET8PM1 is used for hadronization and parton showering. To quantify the ef-fect of MPI, events are also simulated without MPI. To study the impact of color-reconnection (CR) between final state partons, pythia8 events are also simulated without CR.

• powheg + herwig++: to further investigate the model dependence, powheg events are also hadronized using herwig++ [22] with tune EE5C [19]. herwig++, unlike pythia8, generates angular-ordered parton showers. It simulates MPI ac-cording to a model similar to that of pythia8, with tunable parameters for the regularization of the parton-parton cross section at very low momentum transfers, but without the interleaving with parton showers. In most models, the number of MPI follows a Poission distribution with a mean that depends on the overlap of the matter distributions of the hadrons.

Monte Carlo events are generated at √s = 7 and 13 TeV, as well as for proton-antiproton collisions at √s = 1.96 TeV.

3 The CMS detector

The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6 m internal diameter. Within the solenoid volume are a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal electromagnetic calorimeter, and a brass and scintillator hadron calorimeter, each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. Forward calorimeters extend the pseudo-rapidity 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, cover-ing the pseudorapidity range |η| < 2.4, with detection planes based on three technologies: drift tubes, cathode strip chambers, and resistive-plate chambers.

The silicon tracker measures charged particles within the range |η| < 2.5. It consists of 1440 silicon pixel and 15 148 silicon strip detector modules and is located in the 3.8 T field of the superconducting solenoid. For nonisolated particles of 1 < pT < 10 GeV and

|η| < 1.4, the track resolutions are typically 1.5% in p_T and 25–90 (45–150) µm in the transverse (longitudinal) impact parameter [23]. Matching muons to tracks measured in the silicon tracker results in a relative pT resolution for muons with 20 < pT < 100 GeV of

1.3–2.0% 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 [24].

A more detailed description of the CMS detector, together with a definition of the coordinate system used and the relevant kinematic variables, can be found in ref. [25].

(5)

JHEP07(2018)032

4 Experimental methods

4.1 Event selection

Events are selected online by requiring the presence of at least two isolated muon candidates with pT > 17 (8) GeV for the leading (subleading) muon. Offline, events are required to

have at least one well-reconstructed vertex [23] within ±24 cm of the nominal interaction point along the z-direction. At least five tracks are required to be associated with the vertex, which should be at most 2 cm from the beam axis in the transverse plane. Muons are reconstructed with the particle-flow algorithm [26] and are required to satisfy identification criteria based on the number of hits in the muon detectors and tracker, the transverse impact parameter with respect to the beam axis, and the normalized χ2 of the global muon track fit. The backgrounds from jets misidentified as muons and from semileptonic decays of heavy quarks are suppressed by applying an isolation condition on the muon candidates. The relative isolation variable, Irel, for muons is defined as:

Irel = P pcharged T + max 0.,P ETneutral+P E γ T− 0.5P pPUT pµ_T . (4.1) Here P Eneutral T and P E γ

T are the sums of the transverse energies of

neu-tral hadrons and photons, respectively, in a pseudorapidity-azimuth cone of size ∆R ≡

√

(ηµ− ηneutral,γ₎2_{+ (φ}µ_{− φ}neutral,γ₎2 _{< 0.4 around the muon direction. The}

quan-tityP pcharged

T represents the pT sum of the charged hadrons, in the same cone around the

muon, associated with the selected vertex. Finally, P pPU

T is the pT sum of the charged

hadrons, in the same cone around the muon, not associated with the selected vertex. A muon is considered isolated if Irel< 0.15. Misalignment in the detector geometry affects the

measurement of muons in a different manner for data and simulation. To account for this effect, different muon momentum corrections [27] are applied to data and simulated events. Offline, the leading and subleading muons are required to have a pT larger than 20

and 10 GeV, respectively, so as to be in the region where the trigger efficiency is highest and pT-independent [28]. These muons are required to be associated to the vertex with

the largest value of the p2_T sum of the tracks belonging to it. Events with two oppositely charged muons are further required to have an invariant mass (Mµµ) in the window 81–

101 GeV. After all the selections, a high-purity sample of Z candidates is extracted with estimated background contributions, mainly from top quark and diboson processes, below 1%. About 1.3 million Z candidate events are left in the data, which is in agreement within 5% with the NLO simulation predictions.

4.2 Track selection

All charged particles, except the selected muons, with pT > 0.5 GeV and |η| < 2 are

considered for the UE study. To reduce the number of incorrectly reconstructed tracks, a high-purity reconstruction algorithm [29] is used.

The distance of closest approach between the track and the selected vertex in the transverse plane and in the longitudinal direction are required to be less than three times

(6)

JHEP07(2018)032

the respective uncertainties. These requirements help reduce contamination of secondary tracks from decays of long-lived particles, photon conversions, and pileup. Tracks with poorly measured momenta are removed by requiring σ(pT)/pT < 5%, where σ(pT) is

the uncertainty in the pT measurement. The track selection efficiencies in the data and

simulated samples agree within 4–5%.

These selected charged particle tracks are used to construct the relevant UE observ-ables, namely the particle density and ΣpT density, which are defined as follows:

• Particle density: the average number of charged particles in an event per unit ∆η∆φ area.

• Σp_T density: the average of the scalar pT sum of all selected charged particles in an

event per unit ∆η∆φ area.

Here, ∆η = |ηZ− ηch_{| and ∆φ = |φ}Z_{− φ}ch_{| are the pseudorapidity and azimuthal}

sep-aration between each charged particle and the Z boson. In order to enhance the sensitivity to the UE, observables are calculated in different phase-space regions defined with respect to the φ direction of the Z boson. These regions are classified as:

• towards region: ∆φ < 60◦,

• transverse region: 60◦ < ∆φ < 120◦, • away region: ∆φ > 120◦.

The UE observables are studied as a function of the transverse momentum of the dimuon system (pµµ_T ).

5 Unfolding and systematic uncertainties

In order to compare data and predictions, the UE distributions are corrected to the stable particle level (lifetime cτ > 10 mm) with the iterative D’Agostini method [30], which also accounts for bin-to-bin migrations. In the present analysis, two-dimensional dis-tributions are unfolded with a response matrix constructed from events simulated with MadGraph + pythia8.

The unfolded measured distributions may be distorted by a variety of systematic ef-fects, as discussed below.

• Model dependence: the events simulated with MadGraph + pythia8 reproduce the measured pµµ_T distribution within 10–20%. The effect of this discrepancy on the final UE distributions is evaluated by reweighting the simulated sample so that it describes the measured pµµ_T distribution. These weights are applied to the response matrix used for the unfolding. The difference between the unfolded distributions with and without these weight factors is 2–5%. An additional cross-check is per-formed by using response matrices constructed with events simulated with the Mad-Graph + pythia8 and the mc@nlo + pythia8 event generators. The difference between the unfolded distributions obtained with the response matrices constructed with these two generators is found to be less than 0.5%.

(7)

JHEP07(2018)032

Observable Uncertainty (%) Model dependence 2–5 Tracking efficiency 4–6 Pileup 0.5 Trigger 0.1 Physics background 0.5–1

Muon momentum correction 0.4–0.7

Total Uncertainty 4.8–7.8

Table 1. Summary of the systematic uncertainties in the particle and ΣpTdensities.

• Tracking efficiency: the tracking efficiency is known with an uncertainty of 4% [23,31]. To estimate the effect of this uncertainty on the UE distribution, 4% of the tracks are randomly removed in the simulated events while constructing the response matrix. The effect on the unfolded distributions is approximately 4–6%.

• Pileup: pileup events produce low-pTparticles that can contribute to the UE activity.

However, the effect of pileup is expected to be small in the present analysis because all tracks are required to originate from the same primary vertex. The effect of pileup is further reduced by the unfolding procedure because the simulated samples also include pileup. Any possible residual effect is evaluated by varying the pp inelastic cross section used in the simulation by 5%. The bias on the unfolded distributions is less than 0.5%.

• Trigger: the triggers used in the analysis require that the muons be isolated, which may bias the UE distributions. The effect of this requirement is evaluated by com-paring UE distributions obtained with and without the trigger requirement in the simulation. This affects the results by up to 0.1%.

• Physics background: the Z boson production events are required to be in the mass window 81–101 GeV. In this region, there is a small (about 0.3%) contribution of dimuons from diboson and top quark decays. These background processes may bias the UE distributions because of the different event topologies and parton radiation patterns as compared to the Z boson events. The effect of these background processes is evaluated, using simulations, by comparing the UE distributions for the Z-boson events and for the Z-boson events combined with background processes. The UE distributions change by 0.5–1%.

• Muon momentum correction: the effect of the muon momentum corrections [27] is studied by comparing the corrected data distributions with the ones without correc-tions. The resulting effect on the particle density is up to 0.4%, and up to 0.7% for the ΣpT density distribution.

Table 1 summarizes the dominant systematic uncertainties in the particle and ΣpT

densities. Adding all aforementioned sources in quadrature results in a total systematic uncertainty of 4.8–7.8%, depending on the UE observable and particular bin.

(8)

JHEP07(2018)032

0 20 40 60 80 100 [GeV] µ µ T p 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 ] -1 [rad〉 ch N〈 )] φ ∆( ∆ η ∆ 1/[ CMS (13 TeV) -1 2.1 fb (GeV) < 101 µ µ 81 < M Charged particles | < 2) η > 0.5 GeV, | T (p + X -µ + µ → Z + X → pp Data (towards) Data (transverse) Data (away) 0 20 40 60 80 100 [GeV] µ µ T p 2 4 6 8 10 [GeV/rad]〉 T p Σ 〈 )] φ ∆( ∆ η ∆ 1/[ CMS (13 TeV) -1 2.1 fb (GeV) < 101 µ µ 81 < M Charged particles | < 2) η > 0.5 GeV, | T (p + X -µ + µ → Z + X → pp Data (towards) Data (transverse) Data (away)

Figure 1. Unfolded distributions of particle density (left) and ΣpTdensity (right) in Z events, as a

function of pµµ_T in the towards (∆φ < 60◦), transverse (60◦< ∆φ < 120◦), and away (∆φ > 120◦) regions. Error bars represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.

6 Results and discussion

Figure 1 shows the comparison of the measured UE activity in the towards, transverse, and away regions. The activity in the away region increases sharply with pµµ_T , but more slowly in the towards and transverse regions. This is expected as particle production in the away region is mostly dominated by the hadronic recoil system, which is highly correlated with pµµ_T . Because of the large spatial separation, the contribution of the hadronic recoil is small in the transverse region, and becomes even smaller in the towards region. The activity in the three regions becomes similar as pµµ_T approaches zero; this observation again corroborates the hypothesis that differences in the UE activity for the three regions are due to varying parton radiation contributions. Unlike the UE measurement with leading jet/track [3, 6], in the present analysis the UE activity is not zero when pµµ_T approaches zero. This behavior reflects the fact that the initial scale in the Z boson events, given by the lepton pair invariant mass in the range 81–101 GeV, is already large enough to determine a significant overlap between the transverse parton densities of the colliding protons, and hence a large number of MPI. From the UE measurements using the leading charged particle (jet) approach [3,6], it is observed that the MPI contribution reaches its maximal value at an energy scale of 5 (12–15) GeV. Above this energy, there is a slow rise in the number of particles produced, which is mainly attributed to the increase in the parton radiation contributions. In the present measurement, the minimum scale is set by the dimuon mass (81–101 GeV), which is larger than the energy where the MPI contribution saturates. Therefore, the increase in UE activity with pµµ_T should be mainly ascribed to the rise in the recoil hadronic contribution and associated ISR/FSR [3].

Figures2–4present data-model comparisons of the UE distributions as a function of the Z boson pTin the away, transverse, and towards regions, respectively. The bottom panel of

(9)

JHEP07(2018)032

0 20 40 60 80 100 [GeV] µ µ T p 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2

MC / Data Total uncertainty

0 20 40 60 80 100 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2

0 20 40 60 80 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] -1 [rad〉 ch N〈 )] φ ∆( ∆ η ∆ 1/[ Data MADGRAPH + PYTHIA8 POWHEG + PYTHIA8 POWHEG + HERWIG++ CMS (13 TeV) -1 2.1 fb (GeV) < 101 µ µ 81 < M Charged particles | < 2, away) η > 0.5 GeV, | T (p + X -µ + µ → Z + X → pp 0 20 40 60 80 100 [GeV] µ µ T p 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2

0 20 40 60 80 100 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2

0 20 40 60 80 100 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 [GeV/rad]〉 T p Σ 〈 )] φ ∆( ∆ η ∆ 1/[ Data MADGRAPH + PYTHIA8 POWHEG + PYTHIA8 POWHEG + HERWIG++ CMS (13 TeV) -1 2.1 fb (GeV) < 101 µ µ 81 < M Charged particles | < 2, away) η > 0.5 GeV, | T (p + X -µ + µ → Z + X → pp

Figure 2. Unfolded distributions of particle density (left) and ΣpTdensity (right) in Z events in the

away region as a function of pµµ_T _{, compared to various model predictions: MadGraph + pythia8} (dashed line), powheg + pythia8 (solid line), and powheg + herwig++ (dashed-dotted line). The bottom panels of each plot show the ratios of the simulations to the measured distribu-tions. The bands in the bottom panels represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.

sample, which uses herwig++ for parton showering and hadronization, overestimates the UE activity by 10–15% in all topological regions, whereas when pythia8 is used the measured distributions are reproduced within 5%. The MadGraph sample in combination with pythia8 also reproduces the measurement within 5%. The mc@nlo predictions (not shown in the figures) have the same level of agreement with the data as MadGraph. Color reconnection between the produced partons influences the multiplicity and pTof final-state

particles. Its global impact in the measured UE observables is evaluated by comparing the pythia8 predictions with and without CR, and is found to be negligible.

To understand the evolution of the UE activity with √s, the present measurement is compared with results obtained at √s = 1.96 TeV at the Tevatron and at 7 TeV at the LHC. As the away region is dominated by the jet balancing the Z boson, the particle activity in this region is not considered for this specific study. Figures 5–8 show the UE activity as a function of pµµ_T at√s = 1.96, 7, and 13 TeV. The predictions of powheg with pythia8 as well as with herwig++ are also shown. The ratios of the simulations to the measurements are plotted in the bottom panel of each plot. The powheg + pythia8 pre-dictions reproduce the measurements within 10% at√s of 1.96 TeV and 7 TeV, and within

(10)

JHEP07(2018)032

0 20 40 60 80 100 [GeV] µ µ T p 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2

0 20 40 60 80 100 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2

0 20 40 60 80 100 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 ] -1 [rad〉 ch N〈 )] φ ∆( ∆ η ∆ 1/[ Data MADGRAPH + PYTHIA8 POWHEG + PYTHIA8 POWHEG + HERWIG++ CMS (13 TeV) -1 2.1 fb (GeV) < 101 µ µ 81 < M Charged particles | < 2, transverse) η > 0.5 GeV, | T (p + X -µ + µ → Z + X → pp 0 20 40 60 80 100 [GeV] µ µ T p 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2

0 20 40 60 80 100 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2

0 20 40 60 80 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 [GeV/rad]〉 T p Σ 〈 )] φ ∆( ∆ η ∆ 1/[ Data MADGRAPH + PYTHIA8 POWHEG + PYTHIA8 POWHEG + HERWIG++ CMS (13 TeV) -1 2.1 fb (GeV) < 101 µ µ 81 < M Charged particles | < 2, transverse) η > 0.5 GeV, | T (p + X -µ + µ → Z + X → pp

Figure 3. Unfolded distributions of particle density (left) and ΣpT density (right) in Z events

in the transverse region as a function of pµµ_T _{, compared to various model predictions:} Mad-Graph + pythia8 (dashed line), powheg + pythia8 (solid line), and powheg + herwig++ (dashed-dotted line). The bottom panels of each plot show the ratios of the simulations to the measured distributions. The bands in the bottom panels represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.

5% at 13 TeV. The combination of powheg and herwig++ describes the measurements within 10–15, 10–20, and 20–40% at √s of 1.96, 7, and 13 TeV, respectively.

The data show a significant increase in the UE activity with √s, which is qualitatively described by the model predictions. The collision energy evolution is quantified in figure9, which shows the ratio of the UE activities at 13 and 7 TeV, and at 1.96 and 7 TeV, for the data and the simulations. An increase of 25–30% in particle and ΣpT densities is observed

as the collision energy increases from 7 to 13 TeV. This behavior is quantitatively well described by powheg + pythia8 and powheg + herwig++. As the collision energy increases from 1.96 to 7 TeV, the UE activity increases by 60–80% for both the particle and ΣpT densities. Event generators predict a slower rise, but the agreement improves

at higher values of pµµ_T . The increase in particle and ΣpT densities from 7 to 13 TeV is

consistent with that observed in the leading jet/track analyses [3,6].

To further quantify the energy dependence of the UE activity, events with a pµµ_T smaller than 5 GeV are studied. Setting an upper limit on pµµ_T reduces the ISR and FSR contri-butions and the remaining UE activity stems mainly from MPI. With the requirement pµµ_T < 5 GeV, the UE activity is similar in the towards and transverse regions. Therefore,

(11)

JHEP07(2018)032

0 20 40 60 80 100 [GeV] µ µ T p 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2

0 20 40 60 80 100 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2

0 20 40 60 80 100 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 ] -1 [rad〉 ch N〈 )] φ ∆( ∆ η ∆ 1/[ Data MADGRAPH + PYTHIA8 POWHEG + PYTHIA8 POWHEG + HERWIG++ CMS (13 TeV) -1 2.1 fb (GeV) < 101 µ µ 81 < M Charged particles | < 2, towards) η > 0.5 GeV, | T (p + X -µ + µ → Z + X → pp 0 20 40 60 80 100 [GeV] µ µ T p 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2

0 20 40 60 80 100 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2

0 20 40 60 80 100 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 [GeV/rad]〉 T p Σ 〈 )] φ ∆( ∆ η ∆ 1/[ Data MADGRAPH + PYTHIA8 POWHEG + PYTHIA8 POWHEG + HERWIG++ CMS (13 TeV) -1 2.1 fb (GeV) < 101 µ µ 81 < M Charged particles | < 2, towards) η > 0.5 GeV, | T (p + X -µ + µ → Z + X → pp

Figure 4. Unfolded distributions of particle density (left) and ΣpTdensity (right) in Z events in the

towards region as a function of pµµ_T _{, compared to various model predictions: MadGraph + pythia8} (dashed line), powheg + pythia8 (solid line), and powheg + herwig++ (dashed-dotted line). The bottom panels of each plot show the ratios of the simulations to the measured distribu-tions. The bands in the bottom panels represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.

the UE activity is combined in these two regions. Figure 10 shows the UE activity, with the pµµ_T < 5 GeV requirement, as a function of√s for data compared to model predictions. There is a significant increase, by a factor 2–2.5, as the collision energy rises from 1.96 to 13 TeV, which is qualitatively reproduced by powheg. The energy evolution is better de-scribed by powheg with pythia8, whereas hadronization with herwig++ overestimates the UE activity at all collision energies. The comparison of the distributions with and without MPI indicates that the ISR and FSR contributions, which increase slowly with center-of-mass energy, are small.

The CUETP8M1 and EE5C tunes employed here are mostly obtained from fits to minimum-bias measurements and UE measurements with leading jets or leading tracks. The fact that these tunes reproduce globally well the present data supports the hypothesis that the UE activity is independent of the hard process. The present study also confirms that the collision energy dependence of the UE activity is similar for different hard pro-cesses. Unlike UE studies with a leading track/jet, the present measurements provide new handles to better understand the evolution of ISR, FSR, and MPI contributions separately, as functions of the event energy scale and the collision energy.

(12)

JHEP07(2018)032

0 20 40 60 80 100 [GeV] µ µ T p 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 MC / Data Total uncertainty 0 20 40 60 80 100 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

0 20 40 60 80 100 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

0 20 40 60 80 100 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

]

-1

[rad〉

ch

N〈

)]

φ

∆(

∆

η

∆

1/[

CMS

+ X -µ + µ → Z + X → ) p pp( Charged particles Towards pp, s = 13 TeV CMS, = 7 TeV s pp, CMS, = 1.96 TeV s , p p CDF, = 13 TeV s pp, POWHEG + PYTHIA8, = 7 TeV s pp, POWHEG + PYTHIA8, = 1.96 TeV s , p p POWHEG + PYTHIA8 = 13 TeV s pp, POWHEG + HERWIG++, = 7 TeV s pp, POWHEG + HERWIG++, = 1.96 TeV s , p p POWHEG + HERWIG++,

Figure 5. Comparison of the particle density measured in Z events at √s = 13 TeV with that at 7 (CMS) [3] and 1.96 TeV (CDF) [9] in the towards region as a function of pµµ_T . The data are also compared with the model predictions of powheg + pythia8 (solid line) and powheg + herwig++ (dashed-dotted line). The bottom panels of each plot show the ratios of the model predictions to the measurements. The bands in the bottom panels represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.

7 Summary

This paper presents a measurement of the underlying event (UE) activity using inclusive Z boson production events in proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. The data correspond to an integrated luminosity of 2.1 fb−1. The UE activity, quantified in terms of charged particle and ΣpT densities, is measured as a function of the pT of the

muon pair from the Z boson decay. The distributions are corrected for detector effects and compared to various model predictions. The MadGraph and powheg generators, with parton showering and hadronization modeled with pythia8 using the CUET8PM1 tune, reproduce the measurements within 5%. The combination of powheg and herwig++ (tune EE5C) overestimates the measurements by 10–15%. The present results are also

(13)

JHEP07(2018)032

0 20 40 60 80 100 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

0 20 40 60 80 100 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

[GeV/rad]〉

T

p

Σ

〈

)]

φ

∆(

∆

η

∆

1/[

CMS

+ X -µ + µ → Z + X → ) p pp( Charged particles Towards pp, s = 13 TeV CMS, = 7 TeV s pp, CMS, = 1.96 TeV s , p p CDF, = 13 TeV s pp, POWHEG + PYTHIA8, = 7 TeV s pp, POWHEG + PYTHIA8, = 1.96 TeV s , p p POWHEG + PYTHIA8 = 13 TeV s pp, POWHEG + HERWIG++, = 7 TeV s pp, POWHEG + HERWIG++, = 1.96 TeV s , p p POWHEG + HERWIG++,

Figure 6. Comparison of the ΣpT density measured in Z events at

√

s = 13 TeV with that at 7 (CMS) [3] and 1.96 TeV (CDF) [9] in the towards region as a function of pµµ_T . The data are also compared with the model predictions of powheg + pythia8 (solid line) and powheg + herwig++ (dashed-dotted line). The bottom panels of each plot show the ratios of the model predictions to the measurements. The bands in the bottom panels represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.

compared with previous measurements at 1.96 and 7 TeV. The UE activity almost doubles as the collision energy increases from 1.96 to 13 TeV. Monte Carlo event generators provide a reasonable description of the evolution of the UE activity as the collision energy rises from 1.96 to 13 TeV, although they tend to underestimate its increase in the 1.96–7 TeV range. The overall good description of the UE activity in Z boson events by Monte Carlo generators previously tuned to minimum-bias and leading track/jet UE measurements confirms the universality of the physical processes producing the underlying event in pp collisions at high energies.

(14)

JHEP07(2018)032

0 20 40 60 80 100 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

0 20 40 60 80 100 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

]

-1

[rad〉

ch

N〈

)]

φ

∆(

∆

η

∆

1/[

CMS

+ X -µ + µ → Z + X → ) p pp( Charged particles Transverse pp, s = 13 TeV CMS, = 7 TeV s pp, CMS, = 1.96 TeV s , p p CDF, = 13 TeV s pp, POWHEG + PYTHIA8, = 7 TeV s pp, POWHEG + PYTHIA8, = 1.96 TeV s , p p POWHEG + PYTHIA8 = 13 TeV s pp, POWHEG + HERWIG++, = 7 TeV s pp, POWHEG + HERWIG++, = 1.96 TeV s , p p POWHEG + HERWIG++,

Figure 7. Comparison of the particle density measured in Z events at √s = 13 TeV with that at 7 (CMS) [3] and 1.96 TeV (CDF) [9] in the transverse region as a function of pµµ_T . The data are also compared with the model predictions of powheg + pythia8 (solid line) and powheg + herwig++ (dashed-dotted line). The bottom panels of each plot show the ratios of model predictions to the measurements. The bands in the bottom panels represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.

(15)

JHEP07(2018)032

0 20 40 60 80 100 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

0 20 40 60 80 100 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

[GeV/rad]〉

T

p

Σ

〈

)]

φ

∆(

∆

η

∆

1/[

CMS

+ X -µ + µ → Z + X → ) p pp( Charged particles Transverse pp, s = 13 TeV CMS, = 7 TeV s pp, CMS, = 1.96 TeV s , p p CDF, = 13 TeV s pp, POWHEG + PYTHIA8, = 7 TeV s pp, POWHEG + PYTHIA8, = 1.96 TeV s , p p POWHEG + PYTHIA8 = 13 TeV s pp, POWHEG + HERWIG++, = 7 TeV s pp, POWHEG + HERWIG++, = 1.96 TeV s , p p POWHEG + HERWIG++,

Figure 8. Comparison of the ΣpT density measured in Z events at

√

s = 13 TeV with that at 7 (CMS) [3] and 1.96 TeV (CDF) [9] in the transverse region as a function of pµµ_T . The data are also compared with the predictions of powheg + pythia8 (solid line) and powheg + herwig++ (dashed-dotted line). The bottom panels of each plot show the ratios of the model predictions to the measurements. The bands in the bottom panels represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.

(16)

JHEP07(2018)032

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 [GeV] µ µ T p 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 ] ) -1 [rad〉 ch N〈 )] φ ∆( ∆ η ∆ Ratio ( 1/[ CMS Charged particles towards + X -µ + µ → Z + X → ) p pp(

Data (13 TeV/7 TeV)

POWHEG + PYTHIA8 (13 TeV/7 TeV) POWHEG + HERWIG++ (13 TeV/7 TeV) Data (7 TeV/1.96 TeV)

POWHEG + PYTHIA8 (7 TeV/1.96 TeV) POWHEG + HERWIG++ (7 TeV/1.96 TeV)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 [GeV] µ µ T p 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 [GeV/rad] )〉 T p Σ 〈 )] φ ∆( ∆ η ∆ Ratio ( 1/[ CMS Charged particles towards + X -µ + µ → Z + X → ) p pp(

Data (13 TeV/7 TeV)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 [GeV] µ µ T p 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 ] ) -1 [rad〉 ch N〈 )] φ ∆( ∆ η ∆ Ratio ( 1/[ CMS Charged particles transverse + X -µ + µ → Z + X → ) p pp(

Data (13 TeV/7 TeV)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 [GeV] µ µ T p 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 [GeV/rad] )〉 T p Σ 〈 )] φ ∆( ∆ η ∆ Ratio ( 1/[ CMS Charged particles transverse + X -µ + µ → Z + X → ) p pp(

Data (13 TeV/7 TeV)

Figure 9. Comparison of the increase in UE activity in Z events, from √s = 1.96 TeV (CDF) [9] to 7 TeV (CMS) [3], with that from √s = 7 TeV (CMS) to 13 TeV (CMS) in the towards (top) and transverse (bottom) regions. Panels on the left show the particle density, whereas panels on the right show the ΣpT density as a function of pµµ_T . The data distributions are also compared with

predictions of powheg + pythia8 (dashed-dotted line) and powheg + herwig++ (solid line). The error bars represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.

(17)

JHEP07(2018)032

2 4 6 8 10 12 [TeV] s 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 ] -1 [rad〉 ch N〈 )] φ ∆( ∆ η ∆ 1/[ CMS < 5 GeV µ µ T p + X -µ + µ → Z + X → ) p pp( Charged particles ) o | < 120 φ ∆ towards+transverse (| Data POWHEG + PYTHIA8 POWHEG + HERWIG++ POWHEG + PYTHIA8, MPI OFF

2 4 6 8 10 12 [TeV] s 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 [GeV/rad]〉 T p Σ 〈 )] φ ∆( ∆ η ∆ 1/[ CMS < 5 GeV µ µ T p + X -µ + µ → Z + X → ) p pp( Charged particles ) o | < 120 φ ∆ towards+transverse (| Data POWHEG + PYTHIA8 POWHEG + HERWIG++ POWHEG + PYTHIA8, MPI OFF

Figure 10. Average particle density (left) and average ΣpT density (right) for Z events with

pµµ_T < 5 GeV as a function of the center-of-mass energy, measured by CMS and CDF [9] in the combined towards + transverse regions, compared to predictions from powheg + pythia8, powheg + herwig++, and powheg + pythia8 without MPI. The error bars represent the sta-tistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.

Acknowledgments

We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the excellent per-formance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the computing centers and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following funding agencies: the Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy and the Austrian Science Fund; the Belgian Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique, and Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek; the Brazilian Funding Agencies (CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, and FAPESP); the Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Science; CERN; the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Ministry of Science and Technology, and National Natural Science Foundation of China; the Colom-bian Funding Agency (COLCIENCIAS); the Croatian Ministry of Science, Education and Sport, and the Croatian Science Foundation; the Research Promotion Foundation, Cyprus; the Secretariat for Higher Education, Science, Technology and Innovation, Ecuador; the Ministry of Education and Research, Estonian Research Council via 4 and IUT23-6 and European Regional Development Fund, Estonia; the Academy of Finland, Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture, and Helsinki Institute of Physics; the Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules / CNRS, and Commissariat à l’ Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies Alternatives / CEA, France; the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, and Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Deutscher

(18)

JHEP07(2018)032

Forschungszentren, Germany; the General Secretariat for Research and Technology, Greece; the National Scientific Research Foundation, and National Innovation Office, Hungary; the Department of Atomic Energy and the Department of Science and Technology, India; the Institute for Studies in Theoretical Physics and Mathematics, Iran; the Science Founda-tion, Ireland; the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Italy; the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning, and National Research Foundation (NRF), Republic of Korea; the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; the Ministry of Education, and University of Malaya (Malaysia); the Mexican Funding Agencies (BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT, LNS, SEP, and UASLP-FAI); the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, New Zealand; the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission; the Ministry of Science and Higher Education and the National Science Centre, Poland; the Funda¸cão para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, Portugal; JINR, Dubna; the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federa-tion, the Federal Agency of Atomic Energy of the Russian FederaFedera-tion, Russian Academy of Sciences, the Russian Foundation for Basic Research and the Russian Competitiveness Program of NRNU “MEPhI”; the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological De-velopment of Serbia; the Secretar´ıa de Estado de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación, Programa Consolider-Ingenio 2010, Plan de Ciencia, Tecnolog´ıa e Innovación 2013-2017 del Principado de Asturias and Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional, Spain; the Swiss Fund-ing Agencies (ETH Board, ETH Zurich, PSI, SNF, UniZH, Canton Zurich, and SER); the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taipei; the Thailand Center of Excellence in Physics, the Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology of Thailand, Special Task Force for Activating Research and the National Science and Technology Development Agency of Thailand; the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey, and Turkish Atomic Energy Authority; the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, and State Fund for Fundamental Researches, Ukraine; the Science and Technology Facilities Council, U.K.; the US Department of Energy, and the US National Science Foundation.

Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie program and the European Research Council and Horizon 2020 Grant, contract No. 675440 (European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A. P. Sloan Foundation; the Alexander von Humboldt Founda-tion; the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office; the Fonds pour la Formation `a la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, In-dia; the HOMING PLUS program of the Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from European Union, Regional Development Fund, the Mobility Plus program of the Min-istry of Science and Higher Education, the National Science Center (Poland), contracts Harmonia 2014/14/M/ST2/00428, Opus 2014/13/B/ST2/02543, 2014/15/B/ST2/03998, and 2015/19/B/ST2/02861, Sonata-bis 2012/07/E/ST2/01406; the National Priorities Re-search Program by Qatar National ReRe-search Fund; the Programa Severo Ochoa del Princi-pado de Asturias; the Thalis and Aristeia programs cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn Univer-sity and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century Project Advancement Project (Thailand); the Welch Foundation, contract C-1845; and the Weston Havens Foundation (U.S.A.).

(19)

JHEP07(2018)032

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] CMS collaboration, Measurement of the underlying event activity at the LHC with_√ s = 7 TeV and comparison with√s = 0.9 TeV,JHEP 09 (2011) 109[arXiv:1107.0330]

[INSPIRE].

[2] CMS collaboration, Measurement of the underlying event activity using charged-particle jets in proton-proton collisions at√s = 2.76 TeV,JHEP 09 (2015) 137[arXiv:1507.07229]

[INSPIRE].

[3] CMS collaboration, Measurement of the underlying event in the Drell-Yan process in proton-proton collisions at√s = 7 TeV,Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 2080[arXiv:1204.1411]

[INSPIRE].

[4] ALICE collaboration, Underlying event measurements in pp collisions at√s = 0.9 and 7 TeV with the ALICE experiment at the LHC,JHEP 07 (2012) 116[arXiv:1112.2082] [INSPIRE].

[5] ATLAS collaboration, Measurement of underlying event characteristics using charged particles in pp collisions at√s = 900 GeV and 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector,Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 112001[arXiv:1012.0791] [INSPIRE].

[6] ATLAS collaboration, Measurements of underlying-event properties using neutral and charged particles in pp collisions at 900 GeV and 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1636[arXiv:1103.1816] [INSPIRE].

[7] ATLAS collaboration, Measurement of the dependence of transverse energy production at large pseudorapidity on the hard-scattering kinematics of proton-proton collisions at √

s = 2.76 TeV with ATLAS,Phys. Lett. B 756 (2016) 10[arXiv:1512.00197] [INSPIRE].

[8] ATLAS collaboration, Measurement of distributions sensitive to the underlying event in inclusive Z-boson production in pp collisions at√s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector,Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3195[arXiv:1409.3433] [INSPIRE].

[9] CDF collaboration, T. Aaltonen et al., Studying the underlying event in Drell-Yan and high transverse momentum jet production at the Tevatron,Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 034001

[arXiv:1003.3146] [INSPIRE].

[10] T. Sj¨ostrand and M. van Zijl, A multiple interaction model for the event structure in hadron collisions,Phys. Rev. D 36 (1987) 2019[INSPIRE].

[11] L. Frankfurt, M. Strikman and C. Weiss, Transverse nucleon structure and diagnostics of hard parton-parton processes at LHC,Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 054012[arXiv:1009.2559]

[INSPIRE].

[12] R. Kumar, M. Bansal, S. Bansal and J.B. Singh, New observables for multiple-parton interactions measurements using Z+jets processes at the LHC,Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 054019[arXiv:1602.05392] [INSPIRE].

[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].

(20)

JHEP07(2018)032

[14] S. Frixione, P. Nason and C. Oleari, Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower

simulations: the POWHEG method,JHEP 11 (2007) 070[arXiv:0709.2092] [INSPIRE].

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

[16] F. Maltoni and T. Stelzer, MadEvent: automatic event generation with MadGraph,JHEP 02 (2003) 027[hep-ph/0208156] [INSPIRE].

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

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

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

[19] CMS collaboration, Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements,Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 155[arXiv:1512.00815] [INSPIRE].

[20] NNPDF collaboration, R.D. Ball et al., Parton distributions for the LHC Run II,JHEP 04 (2015) 040[arXiv:1410.8849] [INSPIRE].

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

[22] M. B¨ahr et al., HERWIG++ physics and manual,Eur. Phys. J. C 58 (2008) 639

[23] CMS collaboration, Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker,2014 JINST 9 P10009[arXiv:1405.6569] [INSPIRE].

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

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

[INSPIRE].

[26] CMS collaboration, Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector,2017 JINST 12 P10003[arXiv:1706.04965] [INSPIRE].

[27] A. Bodek, A. van Dyne, J.Y. Han, W. Sakumoto and A. Strelnikov, Extracting muon

momentum scale corrections for hadron collider experiments,Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 2194

[28] CMS collaboration, The CMS trigger system,2017 JINST 12 P01020[arXiv:1609.02366]

[INSPIRE].

[29] CMS collaboration, CMS tracking performance results from early LHC operation,Eur. Phys. J. C 70 (2010) 1165[arXiv:1007.1988] [INSPIRE].

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

[31] CMS collaboration, Measurement of tracking efficiency,CMS-PAS-TRK-10-002

(21)

JHEP07(2018)032

The CMS collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan

Institut f¨ur Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria

W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, E. Asilar, T. Bergauer, J. Brandstetter, E. Brondolin, M. Drag-icevic, J. Erö, M. Flechl, M. Friedl, R. Frühwirth1, V.M. Ghete, J. Grossmann, J. Hrubec, M. Jeitler1, A. König, N. Krammer, I. Krätschmer, D. Liko, T. Madlener, I. Mikulec, E. Pree, D. Rabady, N. Rad, H. Rohringer, J. Schieck1_{, R. Sch¨}_{ofbeck, M. Spanring,}

D. Spitzbart, J. Strauss, W. Waltenberger, J. Wittmann, C.-E. Wulz1, M. Zarucki Institute for Nuclear Problems, Minsk, Belarus

V. Chekhovsky, V. Mossolov, J. Suarez Gonzalez Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerpen, Belgium

E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, J. Lauwers, M. Van De Klundert, H. Van Haever-maet, P. Van Mechelen, N. Van Remortel

Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium

S. Abu Zeid, F. Blekman, J. D’Hondt, I. De Bruyn, J. De Clercq, K. Deroover, G. Flouris, D. Lontkovskyi, S. Lowette, S. Moortgat, L. Moreels, A. Olbrechts, Q. Python, K. Skovpen, S. Tavernier, W. Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders, I. Van Parijs

Universit´e Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium

H. Brun, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, H. Delannoy, G. Fasanella, L. Favart, R. Goldouzian, A. Grebenyuk, G. Karapostoli, T. Lenzi, J. Luetic, T. Maerschalk, A. Marinov, A. Randle-conde, T. Seva, C. Vander Velde, P. Vanlaer, D. Vannerom, R. Yonamine, F. Zenoni, F. Zhang2

Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

A. Cimmino, T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, A. Fagot, M. Gul, I. Khvastunov, D. Poyraz, C. Roskas, S. Salva, M. Tytgat, W. Verbeke, N. Zaganidis

Universit´e Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

H. Bakhshiansohi, O. Bondu, S. Brochet, G. Bruno, A. Caudron, S. De Visscher, C. Delaere, M. Delcourt, B. Francois, A. Giammanco, A. Jafari, M. Komm, G. Krintiras, V. Lemaitre, A. Magitteri, A. Mertens, M. Musich, K. Piotrzkowski, L. Quertenmont, M. Vidal Marono, S. Wertz

Universit´e de Mons, Mons, Belgium N. Beliy

Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

W.L. Ald´a J´unior, F.L. Alves, G.A. Alves, L. Brito, M. Correa Martins Junior, C. Hensel, A. Moraes, M.E. Pol, P. Rebello Teles

(22)

JHEP07(2018)032

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

E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato3, A. Cust´odio, E.M. Da Costa, G.G. Da Silveira4_{, D. De Jesus Damiao, S. Fonseca De Souza, L.M. Huertas Guativa,}

H. Malbouisson, M. Melo De Almeida, C. Mora Herrera, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, A. San-toro, A. Sznajder, E.J. Tonelli Manganote3, F. Torres Da Silva De Araujo, A. Vilela Pereira Universidade Estadual Paulista a, Universidade Federal do ABC b, S˜ao Paulo, Brazil

S. Ahujaa, C.A. Bernardesa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M. Gregoresb, P.G. Mercadanteb, S.F. Novaesa, Sandra S. Padulaa, D. Romero Abadb, J.C. Ruiz Vargasa Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria

A. Aleksandrov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, M. Misheva, M. Rodozov, M. Shopova, S. Stoykova, G. Sultanov

University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria

A. Dimitrov, I. Glushkov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov Beihang University, Beijing, China

W. Fang5, X. Gao5

Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China

M. Ahmad, J.G. Bian, G.M. Chen, H.S. Chen, M. Chen, Y. Chen, C.H. Jiang, D. Leggat, H. Liao, Z. Liu, F. Romeo, S.M. Shaheen, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, C. Wang, Z. Wang, E. Yazgan, 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, C.F. Gonz´alez Hern´andez, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez

University of Split, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split, Croatia

B. Courbon, 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, B. Mesic, A. Starodumov6, T. Susa University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos, P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski

(23)

JHEP07(2018)032

Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic M. Finger7, M. Finger Jr.7

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

Y. Assran8,9, M.A. Mahmoud10,9, A. Mahrous11

National Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia R.K. Dewanjee, M. Kadastik, 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, T. Järvinen, V. Karimäki, R. Kinnunen, T. Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, P. Luukka, E. Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi, E. Tuovinen

Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland J. Talvitie, T. Tuuva

IRFU, CEA, Universit´e Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France

M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, J.L. Faure, F. Ferri, S. Ganjour, S. Ghosh, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry, I. Kucher, E. Locci, M. Machet, J. Malcles, G. Negro, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M. ¨O. Sahin, M. Titov

Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole polytechnique, CNRS/IN2P3, Universit´e Paris-Saclay, Palaiseau, France

A. Abdulsalam, I. Antropov, S. Baffioni, F. Beaudette, P. Busson, L. Cadamuro, C. Char-lot, R. Granier de Cassagnac, M. Jo, S. Lisniak, A. Lobanov, J. Martin Blanco, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, G. Ortona, P. Paganini, P. Pigard, S. Regnard, R. Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A.G. Stahl Leiton, T. Strebler, Y. Yilmaz, A. Zabi, A. Zghiche

Universit´e de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, F-67000 Strasbourg, France

J.-L. Agram12, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, J.-M. Brom, M. Buttignol, E.C. Chabert, N. Chanon, C. Collard, E. Conte12_{, X. Coubez, J.-C. Fontaine}12_{, D. Gel´}_{e, U. Goerlach, M. Jansov´}_a,

A.-C. Le Bihan, N. Tonon, 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, R. Chierici, D. Contardo, P. Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, L. Finco, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, G. Grenier, B. Ille, F. Lagarde, I.B. Laktineh,

(24)

JHEP07(2018)032

M. Lethuillier, L. Mirabito, A.L. Pequegnot, S. Perries, A. Popov13, V. Sordini, M. Van-der Donckt, S. Viret

Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia A. Khvedelidze7

Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia D. Lomidze

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

C. Autermann, S. Beranek, L. Feld, M.K. Kiesel, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, M. Preuten, C. Schomakers, J. Schulz, T. Verlage

RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany A. Albert, E. Dietz-Laursonn, D. Duchardt, M. Endres, M. Erdmann, S. Erdweg, T. Esch, R. Fischer, A. G¨uth, 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, D. Teyssier, S. Th¨uer

RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany G. Flügge, B. Kargoll, T. Kress, A. Künsken, J. Lingemann, T. Müller, A. Nehrkorn, A. Nowack, C. Pistone, O. Pooth, A. Stahl14

Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany

M. Aldaya Martin, T. Arndt, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, K. Beernaert, O. Behnke, U. Behrens, A. Berm´udez Mart´ınez, A.A. Bin Anuar, K. Borras15, V. Botta, A. Campbell, P. Connor, C. Contreras-Campana, F. Costanza, C. Diez Pardos, G. Eckerlin, D. Eckstein, T. Eichhorn, E. Eren, E. Gallo16, J. Garay Garcia, A. Geiser, A. Gizhko, J.M. Gra-dos Luyando, A. Grohsjean, P. Gunnellini, A. Harb, J. Hauk, M. Hempel17, H. Jung, A. Kalogeropoulos, M. Kasemann, J. Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, I. Korol, D. Kr¨ucker, W. Lange, A. Lelek, T. Lenz, J. Leonard, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann17, R. Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, I.-A.B. Meyer, G. Mittag, J. Mnich, I.-A. Mussgiller, E. Ntomari, D. Pitzl, R. Placakyte, A. Raspereza, B. Roland, M. Savitskyi, P. Saxena, R. Shevchenko, S. Spannagel, N. Stefaniuk, G.P. Van Onsem, R. Walsh, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C. Wissing, O. Zenaiev

University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

S. Bein, V. Blobel, M. Centis Vignali, T. Dreyer, E. Garutti, D. Gonzalez, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, M. Hoffmann, A. Karavdina, R. Klanner, R. Kogler, N. Kovalchuk, S. Kurz, T. Lapsien, I. Marchesini, D. Marconi, M. Meyer, M. Niedziela, D. Nowatschin, F. Pantaleo14, T. Peiffer, A. Perieanu, C. Scharf, P. Schleper, A. Schmidt, S. Schumann, J. Schwandt, J. Sonneveld, H. Stadie, G. Steinbr¨uck, F.M. Stober, M. St¨over, H. Tholen, D. Troendle, E. Usai, L. Vanelderen, A. Vanhoefer, B. Vormwald

Institut f¨ur Experimentelle Kernphysik, Karlsruhe, Germany

M. Akbiyik, C. Barth, S. Baur, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, F. Colombo, W. De Boer, A. Dierlamm, B. Freund, R. Friese, M. Giffels, A. Gilbert, D. Haitz, F. Hartmann14,

(25)

JHEP07(2018)032

S.M. Heindl, U. Husemann, F. Kassel14, S. Kudella, H. Mildner, M.U. Mozer, Th. Müller, M. Plagge, G. Quast, K. Rabbertz, M. Schröder, I. Shvetsov, G. Sieber, H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, 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 S. Kesisoglou, A. Panagiotou, N. Saoulidou

University of Io´annina, Io´annina, Greece

I. Evangelou, C. Foudas, P. Kokkas, S. Mallios, N. Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, E. Paradas, J. Strologas, F.A. Triantis

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

M. Csanad, N. Filipovic, G. Pasztor

Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary

G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath18, A.´ Hunyadi, F. Sikler, V. Veszpremi, G. Vesztergombi19, A.J. Zsigmond

Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi20, A. Makovec, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary M. Bart´ok19, P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari

Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore, India S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri

National Institute of Science Education and Research, Bhubaneswar, India S. Bahinipati21, S. Bhowmik, P. Mal, K. Mandal, A. Nayak22, D.K. Sahoo21, N. Sahoo, S.K. Swain

Panjab University, Chandigarh, India

S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, U. Bhawandeep, R. Chawla, N. Dhingra, R. Gupta, A.K. Kalsi, A. Kaur, M. Kaur, R. Kumar, P. Kumari, A. Mehta, J.B. Singh, G. Walia University of Delhi, Delhi, India

A. Bhardwaj, S. Chauhan, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, S. Keshri, A. Kumar, Ashok Ku-mar, S. Malhotra, M. Naimuddin, K. Ranjan, Aashaq Shah, R. Sharma, V. Sharma Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India

R. Bhardwaj, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, 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

(26)

JHEP07(2018)032

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. Mohanty14, P.K. Netrakanti, L.M. Pant, P. Shukla, A. Topkar

Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A, Mumbai, India

T. Aziz, S. Dugad, B. Mahakud, S. Mitra, G.B. Mohanty, N. Sur, B. Sutar Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India

S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, P. Das, M. Guchait, Sa. Jain, S. Kumar, M. Maity23, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, T. Sarkar23, N. Wickramage24

Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, India S. Chauhan, S. Dube, V. Hegde, A. Kapoor, K. Kothekar, S. Pandey, A. Rane, S. Sharma Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran

S. Chenarani25_{, E. Eskandari Tadavani, S.M. Etesami}25_{, M. Khakzad, M. Mohammadi}

Na-jafabadi, M. Naseri, S. Paktinat Mehdiabadi26, F. Rezaei Hosseinabadi, B. Safarzadeh27, M. Zeinali

University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland M. Felcini, M. Grunewald

INFN Sezione di Bari a, Universit`a 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, F. Erricoa,b, L. Fiorea, G. Iasellia,c, S. Lezkia,b, G. Maggia,c, M. Maggia, G. Minielloa,b, S. Mya,b, S. Nuzzoa,b, A. Pompilia,b, G. Pugliesea,c, R. Radognaa,b, A. Ranieria, G. Selvaggia,b, A. Sharmaa, L. Silvestrisa,14, R. Vendittia, P. Verwilligena

INFN Sezione di Bologna a, Universit`a di Bologna b, Bologna, Italy

G. Abbiendia, C. Battilanaa,b, D. Bonacorsia,b, S. Braibant-Giacomellia,b, R. Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A. Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa, S.S. Chhibraa, 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

INFN Sezione di Catania a, Universit`a di Catania b, Catania, Italy

S. Albergoa,b_{, S. Costa}a,b_{, A. Di Mattia}a_{, F. Giordano}a,b_{, R. Potenza}a,b_{, A. Tricomi}a,b_,

C. Tuvea,b

INFN Sezione di Firenze a_{, Universit`}_{a di Firenze} b_{, Firenze, Italy}

G. Barbaglia, K. Chatterjeea,b, V. Ciullia,b, C. Civininia, R. D’Alessandroa,b, E. Focardia,b, P. Lenzia,b, M. Meschinia, S. Paolettia, L. Russoa,28, G. Sguazzonia, D. Stroma, L. Viliania,b,14

(27)

JHEP07(2018)032

INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy L. Benussi, S. Bianco, F. Fabbri, D. Piccolo, F. Primavera14

INFN Sezione di Genova a, Universit`a di Genova b, Genova, Italy V. Calvellia,b, F. Ferroa, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia,b

INFN Sezione di Milano-Bicocca a, Universit`a di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, Italy

L. Brianzaa,b, F. Brivioa,b, V. Cirioloa,b, M.E. Dinardoa,b, S. Fiorendia,b, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P. Govonia,b, M. Malbertia,b, S. Malvezzia, R.A. Manzonia,b, D. Menascea, L. Moronia, M. Paganonia,b, K. Pauwelsa,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Pigazzinia,b,29, 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, S. Di Guidaa,d,14, F. Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa,b, A.O.M. Iorioa,b, W.A. Khana, L. Listaa, S. Meolaa,d,14, P. Paoluccia,14, C. Sciaccaa,b, F. Thyssena

INFN Sezione di Padova a, Universit`a di Padovab, Padova, Italy, Universit`a di Trento c, Trento, Italy

P. Azzia,14, N. Bacchettaa, L. Benatoa,b, D. Biselloa,b, A. Bolettia,b, R. Carlina,b, A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveiraa,b, P. Checchiaa, P. De Castro Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa, F. Gasparinia,b, U. Gasparinia,b, A. Gozzelinoa, S. Lacapraraa, P. Lujan, M. Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,b, N. Pozzobona,b, P. Ronchesea,b, R. Rossina,b, F. Simonettoa,b, E. Torassaa, S. Venturaa, P. Zottoa,b, G. Zumerlea,b

INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Universit`a di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy

A. Braghieria, F. Fallavollitaa,b, A. Magnania,b, P. Montagnaa,b, S.P. Rattia,b, V. Rea, M. Ressegotti, C. Riccardia,b, P. Salvinia, I. Vaia,b, P. Vituloa,b

INFN Sezione di Perugia a_{, Universit`}_{a di Perugia} b_{, Perugia, Italy}

L. Alunni Solestizia,b, M. Biasinia,b, G.M. Bileia, C. Cecchia,b, D. Ciangottinia,b, L. Fan`oa,b, P. Laricciaa,b, R. Leonardia,b, E. Manonia, G. Mantovania,b, V. Mariania,b, M. Menichellia, A. Rossia,b_{, A. Santocchia}a,b_{, D. Spiga}a

INFN Sezione di Pisa a, Universit`a di Pisa b, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa c, Pisa, Italy

K. Androsova, P. Azzurria,14, G. Bagliesia, J. Bernardinia, T. Boccalia, L. Borrello, R. Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, G. Fedia, L. Gianninia,c, A. Giassia, M.T. Grippoa,28, F. Ligabuea,c, T. Lomtadzea, E. Mancaa,c, G. Mandorlia,c, L. Martinia,b, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, A. Rizzia,b, A. Savoy-Navarroa,30, P. Spagnoloa, R. Tenchinia, G. Tonellia,b, A. Venturia, P.G. Verdinia

(28)

JHEP07(2018)032

INFN Sezione di Roma a, Sapienza Universit`a di Roma b, Rome, Italy

L. Baronea,b, F. Cavallaria, M. Cipriania,b, N. Dacia, D. Del Rea,b,14, M. Diemoza, S. Gellia,b, E. Longoa,b, F. Margarolia,b, B. Marzocchia,b, P. Meridiania, G. Organtinia,b, R. Paramattia,b, F. Preiatoa,b, S. Rahatloua,b, C. Rovellia, F. Santanastasioa,b

INFN Sezione di Torino a, Universit`a di Torino b, Torino, Italy, Universit`a del Piemonte Orientale c, Novara, Italy

N. Amapanea,b, R. Arcidiaconoa,c, S. Argiroa,b, M. Arneodoa,c, N. Bartosika, R. Bellana,b, C. Biinoa, N. Cartigliaa, F. Cennaa,b, M. Costaa,b, R. Covarellia,b, A. Deganoa,b, N. Demariaa, B. Kiania,b, C. Mariottia, S. Masellia, E. Migliorea,b, V. Monacoa,b, E. Monteila,b, M. Montenoa, M.M. Obertinoa,b, L. Pachera,b, N. Pastronea, M. Pelliccionia, G.L. Pinna Angionia,b, 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, Universit`a di Trieste b, Trieste, Italy S. Belfortea, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, G. Della Riccaa,b, A. Zanettia Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea

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

Chonbuk National University, Jeonju, Korea A. Lee

Chonnam National University, Institute for Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju, Korea

H. Kim, D.H. Moon, G. Oh

Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, J. Goh, T.J. Kim Korea University, Seoul, Korea

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

Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

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

University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea

M. Choi, H. Kim, J.H. Kim, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park, G. Ryu Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea

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

Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania V. Dudenas, A. Juodagalvis, J. Vaitkus

(29)

JHEP07(2018)032

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

I. Ahmed, Z.A. Ibrahim, M.A.B. Md Ali31_{, F. Mohamad Idris}32_{, W.A.T. Wan Abdullah,}

M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli

Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico Duran-Osuna, M. C., H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, I. Heredia-De La Cruz33_,

R. Lopez-Fernandez, J. Mejia Guisao, R.I. Rabad´an-Trejo, G. Ramirez-Sanchez, R. Reyes-Almanza, A. Sanchez-Hernandez

Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City, Mexico S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, F. Vazquez Valencia

Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada

Universidad Aut´onoma de San Luis Potos´ı, San Luis Potos´ı, 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, A. Saddique, M.A. Shah, M. Shoaib, M. Waqas

National Centre for Nuclear Research, Swierk, Poland

H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, T. Frueboes, M. G´orski, M. Kazana, K. Nawrocki, K. Romanowska-Rybinska, M. Szleper, P. Zalewski

Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of Physics, University of War-saw, WarWar-saw, Poland

K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk34, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J. Krolikowski, M. Misiura, M. Olszewski, A. Pyskir, M. Walczak

Laborat´orio de Instrumenta¸c˜ao e F´ısica Experimental de Part´ıculas, Lis-boa, Portugal

P. Bargassa, C. Beir˜ao Da Cruz E Silva, B. Calpas, A. Di Francesco, P. Faccioli, M. Gallinaro, J. Hollar, N. Leonardo, L. Lloret Iglesias, M.V. Nemallapudi, J. Seixas, O. Toldaiev, D. Vadruccio, J. Varela

Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia

I. Golutvin, V. Karjavin, I. Kashunin, V. Korenkov, G. Kozlov, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev35,36, V.V. Mitsyn, V. Palichik, V. Perelygin, S. Shmatov, N. Skatchkov, V. Smirnov, V. Trofimov, B.S. Yuldashev37, A. Zarubin, V. Zhiltsov