The first direct search for lepton-flavour-violating decays of the recently discovered Higgs boson (H) is described. The search is performed in the and channels, where and are tau leptons reconstructed in the electronic and hadronic decay channels, respectively. The data sample used in this search was collected in pp collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC and corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 19.7. The sensitivity of the search is an order of magnitude better than the existing indirect limits. A slight excess of signal events with a significance of 2.4 standard deviations is observed. The -value of this excess at is 0.010. The best fit branching fraction is . A constraint on the branching fraction, at 95% confidence level is set. This limit is subsequently used to constrain the - Yukawa couplings to be less than .
EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH (CERN)
Search for lepton-flavour-violating decays of the Higgs boson
The CMS Collaboration111See Appendix A for the list of collaboration members
Please replace the default abstract using the abstract command.
Published in Physics Letters B as doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.07.053.
© 2019 CERN for the benefit of the CMS Collaboration. CC-BY-3.0 license
The discovery of the Higgs boson () [1, 2, 3] has generated great interest in exploring its properties. In the standard model (SM), lepton-flavour-violating (LFV) decays are forbidden if the theory is to be renormalizable . If this requirement is relaxed, so the theory is valid only to a finite mass scale, then LFV couplings may be introduced. LFV decays can occur naturally in models with more than one Higgs doublet without abandoning renormalizability . They also arise in supersymmetric models [6, 7, 8, 9], composite Higgs boson models [10, 11], models with flavour symmetries , Randall–Sundrum models [13, 14, 15], and many others [16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23]. The presence of LFV couplings would allow , and transitions to proceed via a virtual Higgs boson [24, 25]. The experimental limits on these have recently been translated into constraints on the branching fractions [26, 4]. The transition is strongly constrained by null search results for , . However, the constraints on and are much less stringent. These come from searches for [28, 29] and other rare decays , , and measurements . Exclusion limits on the electron and muon electric dipole moments  also provide complementary constraints. These lead to the much less restrictive limits: , . The observation of the Higgs boson offers the possibility of sensitive direct searches for LFV Higgs boson decays. To date no dedicated searches have been performed. However, a theoretical reinterpretation of the ATLAS search results in terms of LFV decays by an independent group has been used to set limits at the 95% confidence level (CL) of , .
This letter describes a search for a LFV decay of a Higgs boson with at the CMS experiment. The 2012 dataset collected at a centre-of-mass energy of corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 19.7 is used. The search is performed in two channels, and , where and are tau leptons reconstructed in the electronic and hadronic decay channels, respectively. The signature is very similar to the SM and decays, where is a tau lepton decaying muonically, which have been studied by CMS in Refs. [32, 33] and ATLAS in Ref. , but with some significant kinematic differences. The comes promptly from the LFV decay and tends to have a larger momentum than in the SM case. There is only one tau lepton so there are typically fewer neutrinos in the decay. They are highly Lorentz boosted and tend to be collinear with the visible decay products.
The two channels are divided into categories based on the number of jets in order to separate the different boson production mechanisms. The signal sensitivity is enhanced by using different selection criteria for each category. The dominant production mechanism is gluon-gluon fusion but there is also a significant contribution from vector boson fusion which is enhanced by requiring jets to be present in the event. The dominant background in the channel is . Other much smaller backgrounds come from misidentified leptons in +jets, QCD multijets and events. In the channel the dominant background arises from misidentified leptons in +jets, QCD multijets and events. Less significant backgrounds come from and +jets. The principal backgrounds are estimated using data. There is also a small background from SM decays which is estimated with simulation. The presence or absence of a signal is established by fitting a mass distribution for signal and background using the asymptotic CL criterion [35, 36]. A “blind” analysis was performed. The data in the signal region were not studied until the selection criteria had been fixed and the background estimate finalized.
2 Detector and data sets
A detailed description of the CMS detector, together with a description of the coordinate system used and the relevant kinematic variables, can be found in ref. . The momenta of charged particles are measured with a silicon pixel and strip tracker that covers the pseudorapidity range and is inside a 3.8 T axial magnetic field. Surrounding the tracker are a lead tungstate crystal electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL) and a brass/scintillator hadron calorimeter, both consisting of a barrel assembly and two endcaps that extend to a pseudorapidity range of . A steel/quartz-fiber Cherenkov forward detector extends the calorimetric coverage to . The outermost component of the CMS detector is the muon system, consisting of gas-ionization detectors placed in the steel flux-return yoke of the magnet to measure the momenta of muons traversing the detector. The two-level CMS trigger system selects events of interest for permanent storage. The first trigger level, composed of custom hardware processors, uses information from the calorimeters and muon detectors to select events in less than 3.2. The high-level trigger software algorithms, executed on a farm of commercial processors, further reduce the event rate using information from all detector subsystems.
The channel selection begins by requiring a single trigger with a transverse momentum threshold in the pseudorapidity range , while the channel requires a - trigger with thresholds of 17 () for the and 8 () for the . Loose and identification criteria are applied at the trigger level. The leptons are also required to be isolated from other tracks and calorimeter energy deposits to maintain an acceptable trigger rate.
Simulated samples of signal and background events are produced using various Monte Carlo (MC) event generators, with the CMS detector response modeled with Geant4 . Higgs bosons are produced in proton-proton collisions predominantly by gluon-gluon fusion, but also by vector boson fusion and in association with a or boson. It is assumed that the rate of new decays of the are sufficiently small that the narrow width approximation can be used. The LFV decay samples are produced with pythia 8.175 . The background event samples with a SM are generated by powheg 1.0 [40, 41, 42, 43, 44] with the decays modelled by tauola . The MadGraph 5.1  generator is used for +jets, +jets, , and diboson production, and powheg for single top-quark production. The powheg and MadGraph generators are interfaced with pythia for parton shower and fragmentation.
3 Event reconstruction
A particle-flow (PF) algorithm [47, 48] combines the information from all CMS sub-detectors to identify and reconstruct the individual particles emerging from all vertices: charged hadrons, neutral hadrons, photons, muons, and electrons. These particles are then used to reconstruct jets, hadronic decays, and to quantify the isolation of leptons and photons. The missing transverse energy vector is the negative vector sum of all particle transverse momenta and its magnitude is referred to as . The variable is used to measure the separation between reconstructed objects in the detector, where is the azimuthal angle (in radians) of the trajectory of the object in the plane transverse to the direction of the proton beams.
The large number of proton interactions occurring per LHC bunch crossing (pileup), with an average of 21 in 2012, makes the identification of the vertex corresponding to the hard-scattering process nontrivial. This affects most of the object reconstruction algorithms: jets, lepton isolation, etc. The tracking system is able to separate collision vertices as close as 0.5 along the beam direction . For each vertex, the sum of the of all tracks associated with the vertex is computed. The vertex for which this quantity is the largest is assumed to correspond to the hard-scattering process, and is referred to as the primary vertex in the event reconstruction.
Muons are reconstructed using two algorithms : one in which tracks in the silicon tracker are matched to signals in the muon detectors, and another in which a global track fit is performed, seeded by signals in the muon systems. The muon candidates used in the analysis are required to be successfully reconstructed by both algorithms. Further identification criteria are imposed on the muon candidates to reduce the fraction of tracks misidentified as muons. These include the number of measurements in the tracker and in the muon systems, the fit quality of the global muon track and its consistency with the primary vertex.
Electron reconstruction requires the matching of an energy cluster in the ECAL with a track in the silicon tracker [51, 52]. Identification criteria based on the ECAL shower shape, matching between the track and the ECAL cluster, and consistency with the primary vertex are imposed. Electron identification relies on a multivariate technique that combines observables sensitive to the amount of bremsstrahlung along the electron trajectory, the geometrical and momentum matching between the electron trajectory and associated clusters, as well as shower-shape observables. Additional requirements are imposed to remove electrons produced by photon conversions.
Jets are reconstructed from all the PF objects using the anti jet clustering algorithm  implemented in FastJet , with a distance parameter of 0.5. The jet energy is corrected for the contribution of particles created in pileup interactions and in the underlying event. Particles from different pileup vertices can be clustered into a pileup jet, or significantly overlap a jet from the primary vertex below the threshold applied in the analysis. Such jets are identified and removed .
Hadronically decaying leptons are reconstructed and identified using the hadron plus strips (HPS) algorithm  which targets the main decay modes by selecting PF candidates with one charged hadron and up to two neutral pions, or with three charged hadrons. A photon from a neutral-pion decay can convert in the tracker material into an electron and a positron, which can then radiate bremsstrahlung photons. These particles give rise to several ECAL energy deposits at the same value and separated in azimuthal angle, and are reconstructed as several photons by the PF algorithm. To increase the acceptance for such converted photons, the neutral pions are identified by clustering the reconstructed photons in narrow strips along the azimuthal direction.
4 Event selection
The event selection consists of three steps. First, a loose selection defining the basic signature is applied. The sample is then divided into categories, according to the number of jets in the event. Finally, requirements are placed on a set of kinematic variables designed to suppress the backgrounds.
The loose selection for the channel requires an isolated (, ) and an isolated (, ) of opposite charge lying within a region of the detector that allows good identification. The and are required to be separated by . The channel requires an isolated (, ) and an isolated hadronically decaying (, ) of opposite charge. Leptons are also required to be isolated from any jet in the event with by and to have an impact parameter consistent with the primary vertex.
The events are then divided into categories within each channel according to the number of jets in the event. Jets are required to pass identification criteria , have and lie within the range . The zero jet category contains signal events predominantly produced by gluon-gluon fusion. The one-jet category contains signal events predominantly produced by gluon-gluon fusion and a negligibly small number of events produced in association with a W or Z boson decaying hadronically. The two jet category is enriched with signal events produced by vector boson fusion.
The main variable for the discrimination between the signal and background is the collinear mass, , which provides an estimator of the reconstructed mass using the observed decay products. This is constructed using the collinear approximation  which is based on the observation that since the mass of the is much greater than the mass of the , the decay products are highly Lorentz boosted in the direction of the . The neutrino momenta can be approximated to be in the same direction as the other visible decay products of the and the component of the missing transverse energy in the transverse direction of the visible decay products is used to estimate the transverse component of the neutrino momentum. Figure 1 shows distribution for the signal and background compared to data for each of the categories in each channel after the loose selection. The simulated signal for is shown. The principal backgrounds are estimated with data using techniques described in Section 5. There is good agreement between data and the background estimation. The agreement is similar in all of the kinematic variables that are subsequently used to suppress backgrounds. The analysis is performed “blinded” in the region .
Next, a set of kinematic variables is defined and the criteria for selection are determined by optimizing for where S and B are the expected signal and background event yields in the mass window . The signal event yield corresponds to the SM production cross section at with . This value for the LFV branching fraction is chosen because it corresponds to the limit from indirect measurements as described in Ref. . The optimization was also performed assuming and negligible change in the optimal values of selection criteria was observed. The criteria for each category, and in each channel, are given in Table 2. The variables used are the lepton transverse momenta with ; azimuthal angles between the leptons ; azimuthal angle ; the transverse mass . Events in the 2-jet category are required to have two jets separated by a pseudorapidity gap () and to have a dijet invariant mass greater than 550. In the channel events in which at least one of the jets identified as coming from a b-quark decay are using the combined secondary-vertex b-tagging algorithm  are vetoed, to suppress backgrounds from top quark decays.
5 Background Processes
The contributions of the dominant background processes are estimated with data while less significant backgrounds are estimated using simulation. The largest backgrounds come from and from misidentified leptons in +jets and QCD multijet production.
The background contribution is estimated using an embedding technique [59, 33] as follows. A sample of events is taken from data using a loose selection. The two muons are then replaced with PF particles resulting from the reconstruction of simulated lepton decays. Thus, the key features of the event topology such as the jets, missing transverse energy and underlying event are taken directly from data with only the decays being simulated. The normalization of the sample is obtained from the simulation. The technique is validated by comparing the lepton identification efficiencies estimated with an embedded decay sample, using simulated events, to those from simulated decays.
5.2 Misidentified leptons
Leptons can arise from misidentified PF objects in +jets and QCD multijet processes. This background is estimated with data. A sample with similar kinematic properties to the signal sample but enriched in +jets and QCD multijets is defined. Then the probability for PF objects to be misidentified as leptons is measured in an independent data set, and this probability is applied to the enriched sample to compute the misidentified lepton background in the signal region. The technique is shown schematically in Table 4 in which four regions are defined including the signal and background enriched regions and two control regions used for validation of the technique. It is employed slightly differently in the and channels. The lepton isolation requirements used to define the enriched regions in each channel are slightly different.
In the channel, region I is the signal region in which an isolated and an isolated are required. Region III is a data sample in which all the analysis selection criteria are applied except that one of the leptons is required to be not-isolated. Thus, there are two components: events with an isolated and not-isolated events, as well as events with an isolated and not-isolated events. There is negligible number of signal events in region III. Regions II and IV are data samples formed with the same selection criteria as regions I and III, respectively, but with same-sign rather than opposite-sign leptons. The kinematic distributions of the same-sign samples are very similar to the opposite-sign samples
|Region I||Region II|
|Region III||Region IV|
The sample in region III is dominated by +jets and QCD multijets but with small contributions from and that are subtracted using simulation. The misidentified background in region I is then estimated by multiplying the event yield in region III by a factor , where is the ratio of not-isolated to isolated ’s. It is computed in an independent data sample , where is an object identified as a , in bins of and . The sample is corrected for contributions from and using simulated samples. A correction is made to account for the difference in trigger efficiency for selection of events with isolated and not-isolated versus the events with isolated and isolated . The misidentified background is computed in exactly the same way. The technique is validated by using the same-sign data from regions II and IV as shown schematically in Table 4. In Fig. 2(left) the observed data yield in region II is compared to the estimate from scaling the region IV sample by the measured misidentification rates. The region II sample is dominated by misidentified leptons but also includes small contributions of true leptons arising from vector boson decays, estimated with simulated samples.
In the channel, the candidate can come from a misidentified jet with a number of sources, predominantly and QCD multijets, but also and . In this case the enriched background regions are defined with candidates that pass a looser isolation requirement, but do not pass the signal isolation requirement. The misidentification rate is then defined as the fraction of candidates with the looser isolation that also pass the signal isolation requirement. It is measured in observed events, where is an object identified as a . The misidentification rate measured in data is checked by comparing to that measured in simulation and found to be in good agreement. The misidentified background in the signal region (region I) is estimated by multiplying the event yield in region III by a factor . The procedure is validated with same-sign events in the same way as for the channel above. Figure 2(right) shows the data in region II compared to the estimate from scaling region IV by the misidentification rates.
The method assumes that the misidentification rate in events is the same as for +jets and QCD processes. To test this assumption the misidentification rates are measured in a QCD jet data control sample. They are found to be consistent. Finally as a cross-check the study has been performed also as a function of the number of jets in the event and similar agreement is found.
5.3 Other backgrounds
The SM decays in the channel provide a small background that is estimated with simulation. This background is suppressed by the kinematic selection criteria and peaks below 125. The leptonic decay from produces opposite-sign dileptons and . This background is estimated with simulated events using the shape of the distribution from simulation and a data control region for normalization. The control region is the 2-jet selection but with the additional requirement that at least one of the jets is b-tagged in order to enhance the contribution. Other smaller backgrounds come from , , and single top-quark production. Each of these is estimated with simulation.
6 Systematic uncertainties
To set upper bounds on the signal strength, or determine a signal significance, we use the CL method [35, 36]. A binned likelihood is used, based on the distributions of for the signal and the various background sources. Systematic uncertainties are represented by nuisance parameters, some of which only affect the background and signal normalizations, while others affect the shape and/or normalization of the distributions.
6.1 Normalization uncertainties
|hadronic tau efficiency||—||—||—||9||9||9|
|single top production background||10||10||10||10||10||10|
The uncertainties are summarized in Tables 6 and 8. The uncertainties in the and selection efficiency (trigger, identification and isolation) are estimated using the “tag and probe” technique in data . The identification efficiency of hadronic decays is estimated using the “tag and probe” technique in data . The uncertainty in the background comes predominantly from the uncertainty in the efficiency. The uncertainties in the estimation of the misidentified lepton rate come from the difference in rates measured in different data samples (QCD multijets and +jets). The uncertainty in the production cross section of the backgrounds that have been estimated by simulation is also included.
There are several uncertainties on the production cross section, which depend on the production mechanism contribution and the analysis category. They are given in Table 8. These affect the LFV and the SM background equally, and are treated as 100% correlated. The parton distribution function (PDF) uncertainty is evaluated by comparing the yields in each category, when spanning the parameter range of a number of different independent PDF sets including CT10 , MSTW , NNPDF  as recommended by PDF4LHC . The scale uncertainty is estimated by varying the renormalization, , and factorization scales, , up and down by one half or two times the nominal scale () under the constraint . The underlying event and parton shower uncertainty is estimated by using two different pythia tunes, AUET2 and Z2*. Anticorrelations arise due to migration of events between the categories and are expressed as negative numbers.
|Systematic uncertainty||Gluon-Gluon Fusion||Vector Boson Fusion|
|parton distribution function|
|underlying event/parton shower||1|
6.2 shape uncertainties
The systematic uncertainties that lead to a change in the shape of the distribution are summarized in Table 10.
|hadronic tau energy scale||—||3|
|jet energy scale||3–7||3–7|
|unclustered energy scale||10||10|
In the embedded distribution, used to estimate the background, a 1% shift has been observed with respect to simulations by comparing the means of both distributions. This occurs only in the channel. The distribution has been corrected for this effect and a 100% uncertainty on this shift is used as a systematic uncertainty for the possible bias. The jet energy scale has been studied extensively and a standard prescription for corrections  is used in all CMS analyses. The overall scale is set using +jets events and the most significant uncertainty arises from the photon energy scale. A number of other uncertainties such as jet fragmentation modeling, single pion response and uncertainties in the pileup corrections are also included. The jet energy scale uncertainties (3–7%) are applied as a function of and , including all correlations, to all jets in the event, propagated to the missing energy, and the resultant distribution is used in the fit. There is also an additional uncertainty to account for the unclustered energy scale uncertainty. The unclustered energy comes from jets below 10 and PF candidates not within jets. It is also propagated to the missing transverse energy. These effects cause a shift of the distribution. The energy scale is estimated by comparing events in data and simulation. An uncertainty of 3% is derived from this comparison. The uncertainty is applied by shifting the of the candidates in the event and using the resultant distribution in the fit. Finally, the distributions used in the fit have a statistical uncertainty in each mass bin that is included as an uncertainty which is uncorrelated between the bins.
Potential uncertainties in the shape of the misidentified lepton backgrounds have also been considered. In the channel the misidentified lepton rates are measured and applied in bins of lepton and . These rates are all adjusted up or down by one standard deviation () and the differences in the shape of the resultant distributions are then used as nuisance parameters in the fit. In the channel the misidentification rate is found to be approximately flat in and . To estimate the systematic uncertainty the distribution of is fit with a linear function and the rate recomputed from the fitted slope and intercept. The modified distribution that results from the recomputed background is then used to evaluate the systematic uncertainty.
The distributions after the fit for signal and background contributions are shown in Fig. 3 and the event yields in the mass range are shown in Table 12. The different channels and categories are combined to set a CL upper limit on the branching fraction of LFV decay in the channel, .
|sum of backgrounds|
|LFV Higgs boson signal|
The observed and the median expected CL upper limits on the for the mass at 125 are given for each category in Table 14. Combining all the channels, an expected upper limit of is obtained. The observed upper limit is which is above the expected limit due to an excess of the observed number of events above the background prediction. The fit can then be used to estimate the branching fraction if this excess were to be interpreted as a signal. The best fit values for the branching fractions are given in Table 14. The limits and best fit branching fractions are also summarized graphically in Fig. 4. The combined categories give a best fit of . The combined excess is 2.4 standard deviations which corresponds to a -value of 0.010 at . The observed and expected distributions combined for all channels and categories are shown in Fig. 5. The distributions are weighted in each channel and category by the ratio, where S and B are respectively the signal and background yields corresponding to the result of the global fit. The values for S and B are obtained in the region.
|1.32 (0.67)||1.66 (0.85)||3.77 (1.92)|
|2.34 (1.19)||2.07 (1.06)||2.31 (1.18)|
|0.75 (0.38 )|
|Best Fit Branching Fractions|
8 Limits on lepton-flavour-violating couplings
The constraint on can be interpreted in terms of LFV Yukawa couplings . The LFV decays , , arise at tree level from the assumed flavour-violating Yukawa interactions, where denote the leptons, and . The decay width in terms of the Yukawa couplings is given by:
and the branching fraction by:
The SM decay width is assumed to be  for . The 95% CL constraint on the Yukawa couplings derived from and the expression for the branching fraction above is:
Figure 6 compares this result to the constraints from previous indirect measurements.
The first direct search for lepton-flavour-violating decays of a Higgs boson to a - pair, based on the full 8 data set collected by CMS in 2012 is presented. It improves upon previously published indirect limits [26, 4] by an order of magnitude. A slight excess of events with a significance of is observed, corresponding to a -value of 0.010. The best fit branching fraction is . A constraint of at 95% confidence level is set. The limit is used to constrain the Yukawa couplings, . It improves the current bound by an order of magnitude.
We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the computing centres and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following funding agencies: BMWFW and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RPF (Cyprus); 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); CINVESTAV, CONACYT, 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 NSTDA (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); NASU and SFFR (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA).
Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie programme and the European Research Council and EPLANET (European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A. P. Sloan Foundation; the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office; the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; the HOMING PLUS programme of Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from European Union, Regional Development Fund; the Compagnia di San Paolo (Torino); the Consorzio per la Fisica (Trieste); MIUR project 20108T4XTM (Italy); the Thalis and Aristeia programmes cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; and the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund.
-  ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”, Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020, arXiv:1207.7214.
-  CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC”, Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021, arXiv:1207.7235.
-  CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at = 7 and 8 TeV”, JHEP 06 (2013) 081, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2013)081, arXiv:1303.4571.
-  R. Harnik, J. Kopp, and J. Zupan, “Flavor violating Higgs decays”, JHEP 03 (2013) 026, doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2013)026, arXiv:1209.1397.
-  J. D. Bjorken and S. Weinberg, “Mechanism for Nonconservation of Muon Number”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 622, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.38.622.
-  J. L. Diaz-Cruz and J. J. Toscano, “Lepton flavor violating decays of Higgs bosons beyond the standard model”, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 116005, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.116005, arXiv:hep-ph/9910233.
-  T. Han and D. Marfatia, “ at hadron colliders”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 1442, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.1442, arXiv:hep-ph/0008141.
-  A. Arhrib, Y. Cheng, and O. C. W. Kong, “Comprehensive analysis on lepton flavor violating Higgs boson to decay in supersymmetry without parity”, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 015025, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.015025, arXiv:1210.8241.
-  M. Arana-Catania, E. Arganda, and M. J. Herrero, “Non-decoupling SUSY in LFV Higgs decays: a window to new physics at the LHC”, JHEP 09 (2013) 160, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2013)160, arXiv:1304.3371.
-  K. Agashe and R. Contino, “Composite Higgs-mediated FCNC”, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 075016, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.075016, arXiv:0906.1542.
-  A. Azatov, M. Toharia, and L. Zhu, “Higgs mediated flavor changing neutral currents in warped extra dimensions”, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 035016, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.035016, arXiv:0906.1990.
-  H. Ishimori et al., “Non-Abelian Discrete Symmetries in Particle Physics”, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 183 (2010) 1, doi:10.1143/PTPS.183.1, arXiv:1003.3552.
-  S. Casagrande et al., “Flavor physics in the Randall-Sundrum Model I. Theoretical setup and electroweak precision tests”, JHEP 10 (2008) 094, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/10/094, arXiv:0807.4937.
-  A. J. Buras, B. Duling, and S. Gori, “The impact of Kaluza-Klein fermions on Standard Model fermion couplings in a RS model with custodial protection”, JHEP 09 (2009) 076, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/09/076, arXiv:0905.2318.
-  G. Perez and L. Randall, “Natural neutrino masses and mixings from warped geometry”, JHEP 01 (2009) 077, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/01/077, arXiv:0805.4652.
-  M. Blanke et al., “ observables and fine-tuning in a warped extra dimension with custodial protection”, JHEP 03 (2009) 001, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/03/001, arXiv:0809.1073.
-  G. F. Giudice and O. Lebedev, “Higgs-dependent Yukawa couplings”, Phys. Lett. B 665 (2008) 79, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.05.062, arXiv:0804.1753.
-  J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, “A minimal set of top-Higgs anomalous couplings”, Nucl. Phys. B 821 (2009) 215, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2009.06.022, arXiv:0904.2387.
-  M. E. Albrecht et al., “Electroweak and flavour structure of a warped extra dimension with custodial protection”, JHEP 09 (2009) 064, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/09/064, arXiv:0903.2415.
-  A. Goudelis, O. Lebedev, and J. H. Park, “Higgs-induced lepton flavor violation”, Phys. Lett. B 707 (2012) 369, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2011.12.059, arXiv:1111.1715.
-  D. McKeen, M. Pospelov, and A. Ritz, “Modified Higgs branching ratios versus and lepton flavor violation”, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 113004, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.113004, arXiv:1208.4597.
-  E. Arganda, A. M. Curiel, M. J. Herrero, and D. Temes, “Lepton flavor violating Higgs boson decays from massive seesaw neutrinos”, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 035011, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.035011, arXiv:hep-ph/0407302.
-  E. Arganda, M. J. Herrero, X. Marcano, and C. Weiland, “Imprints of massive inverse seesaw model neutrinos in lepton flavor violating Higgs boson decays”, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 015001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.015001, arXiv:1405.4300.
-  B. McWilliams and L.-F. Li, “Virtual effects of Higgs particles”, Nucl. Phys. B 179 (1981) 62, doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90249-2.
-  O. U. Shanker, “Flavor violation, scalar particles and leptoquarks”, Nucl. Phys. B 206 (1982) 253, doi:10.1016/0550-3213(82)90534-X.
-  G. Blankenburg, J. Ellis, and G. Isidori, “Flavour-changing decays of a 125 GeV Higgs-like particle”, Phys. Lett. B 712 (2012) 386, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.05.007, arXiv:1202.5704.
-  Particle Data Group, K. A. Olive et al., “Review of Particle Physics”, Chin. Phys. C 38 (2014) 090001, doi:10.1088/1674-1137/38/9/090001.
-  S. Kanemura, T. Ota, and K. Tsumura, “Lepton flavor violation in Higgs boson decays under the rare tau decay results”, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 016006, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.016006, arXiv:hep-ph/0505191.
-  S. Davidson and G. J. Grenier, “Lepton flavour violating Higgs and to ”, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 095016, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.095016, arXiv:1001.0434.
-  A. Celis, V. Cirigliano, and E. Passemar, “Lepton flavor violation in the Higgs sector and the role of hadronic tau-lepton decays”, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 013008, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.013008, arXiv:1309.3564.
-  S. M. Barr and A. Zee, “Electric dipole moment of the electron and of the neutron”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 (1990) 21, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.65.21. [Erratum: doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.65.2920].
-  CMS Collaboration, “Evidence for the direct decay of the 125 GeV Higgs boson to fermions”, Nature Phys. 10 (2014) 557, doi:10.1038/nphys3005, arXiv:1401.6527.
-  CMS Collaboration, “Evidence for the 125 GeV Higgs boson decaying to a pair of leptons”, JHEP 05 (2014) 104, doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2014)104, arXiv:1401.5041.
-  ATLAS Collaboration, “Evidence for the Higgs-boson Yukawa coupling to tau leptons with the ATLAS detector”, JHEP 04 (2015) 117, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2015)117, arXiv:1501.04943.
-  T. Junk, “Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 434 (1999) 435, doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(99)00498-2, arXiv:hep-ex/9902006.
-  A. L. Read, “Presentation of search results: the technique”, J. Phys. G 28 (2002) 2693, doi:10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/313.
-  CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”, JINST 3 (2008) S08004, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
-  GEANT4 Collaboration, “GEANT4—a simulation toolkit”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
-  T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, “A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1”, Comp. Phys. Comm. 178 (2008) 852, doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2008.01.036, arXiv:0710.3820.
-  P. Nason, “A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms”, JHEP 11 (2004) 040, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/11/040, arXiv:hep-ph/0409146.
-  S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari, “Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method”, JHEP 11 (2007) 070, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070, arXiv:0709.2092.
-  S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX”, JHEP 06 (2010) 043, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2010)043, arXiv:1002.2581.
-  S. Alioli et al., “Jet pair production in POWHEG”, JHEP 04 (2011) 081, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2011)081, arXiv:1012.3380.
-  S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “NLO Higgs boson production via gluon fusion matched with shower in POWHEG”, JHEP 04 (2009) 002, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/04/002, arXiv:0812.0578.
-  S. Jadach, J. H. Kühn, and Z. Wa̧s, “TAUOLA - a library of Monte Carlo programs to simulate decays of polarized leptons”, Comput. Phys. Commun. 64 (1991) 275, doi:10.1016/0010-4655(91)90038-M.
-  J. Alwall et al., “MadGraph 5: going beyond”, JHEP 06 (2011) 128, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2011)128, arXiv:1106.0522.
-  CMS Collaboration, “Particle–Flow Event Reconstruction in CMS and Performance for Jets, Taus, and ”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-PFT-09-001, 2009.
-  CMS Collaboration, “Commissioning of the Particle-flow Event Reconstruction with the first LHC collisions recorded in the CMS detector”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-PFT-10-001, 2010.
-  K. Rose, “Deterministic annealing for clustering, compression, classification, regression and related optimisation problems”, Proceedings of the IEEE 86 (1998) 11, doi:10.1109/5.726788.
-  CMS Collaboration, “Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in pp collision events at ”, JINST 7 (2012) P10002, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/7/10/P10002, arXiv:1206.4071.
-  CMS Collaboration, “Electron Reconstruction and Identification at TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-EGM-10-004, 2010.
-  CMS Collaboration, “Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at TeV”, JINST 10 (2015) P06005, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/10/06/P06005, arXiv:1502.02701.
-  M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti- jet clustering algorithm”, JHEP 04 (2008) 063, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063, arXiv:0802.1189.
-  M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, “Dispelling the myth for the jet-finder”, Phys. Lett. B 641 (2006) 57, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.08.037, arXiv:hep-ph/0512210.
-  CMS Collaboration, “Pileup Jet Identification”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-13-005, 2013.
-  CMS Collaboration, “Performance of -lepton reconstruction and identification in CMS”, JINST 7 (2012) P01001, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/7/01/P01001, arXiv:1109.6034.
-  R. K. Ellis, I. Hinchliffe, M. Soldate, and J. J. van der Bij, “Higgs decay to : A possible signature of intermediate mass Higgs bosons at high energy hadron colliders”, Nucl. Phys. B 297 (1988) 221, doi:10.1016/0550-3213(88)90019-3.
-  CMS Collaboration, “Identification of b-quark jets with the CMS experiment”, JINST 8 (2013) P04013, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/8/04/P04013, arXiv:1211.4462.
-  CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inclusive W and Z Production cross sections in pp collisions at TeV”, JHEP 10 (2011) 132, doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2011)132, arXiv:1107.4789.
-  P. M. Nadolsky et al., “Implications of CTEQ global analysis for collider observables”, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 013004, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.013004, arXiv:0802.0007.
-  A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne, and G. Watt, “Parton distributions for the LHC”, Eur. Phys. J. C 63 (2009) 189, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-009-1072-5, arXiv:0901.0002.
-  NNPDF Collaboration, “A first unbiased global NLO determination of parton distributions and their uncertainties”, Nucl. Phys. B 838 (2010) 136, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2010.05.008, arXiv:1002.4407.
-  M. Botje et al., “The PDF4LHC Working Group Interim Recommendations”, (2011). arXiv:1101.0538.
-  LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group, S. Dittmaier et al., “Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 1. Inclusive Observables”, CERN Report CERN-2011-002, 2011. doi:10.5170/CERN-2011-002, arXiv:1101.0593.
-  CMS Collaboration, “Determination of jet energy calibration and transverse momentum resolution in CMS”, JINST 6 (2011) P11002, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/6/11/P11002.
-  A. Denner et al., “Standard model Higgs-boson branching ratios with uncertainties”, Eur. Phys. J. C. 71 (2011) 1753, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1753-8, arXiv:1107.5909.
Appendix A The CMS Collaboration
Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
V. Khachatryan, A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan Institut für Hochenergiephysik der OeAW, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, T. Bergauer, M. Dragicevic, J. Erö, M. Friedl, R. Frühwirth\@textsuperscript1, V.M. Ghete, C. Hartl, N. Hörmann, J. Hrubec, M. Jeitler\@textsuperscript1, W. Kiesenhofer, V. Knünz, M. Krammer\@textsuperscript1, I. Krätschmer, D. Liko, I. Mikulec, D. Rabady\@textsuperscript2, B. Rahbaran, H. Rohringer, R. Schöfbeck, J. Strauss, W. Treberer-Treberspurg, W. Waltenberger, C.-E. Wulz\@textsuperscript1 National Centre for Particle and High Energy Physics, Minsk, Belarus
V. Mossolov, N. Shumeiko, J. Suarez Gonzalez Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerpen, Belgium
S. Alderweireldt, S. Bansal, T. Cornelis, E.A. De Wolf, X. Janssen, A. Knutsson, J. Lauwers, S. Luyckx, S. Ochesanu, R. Rougny, M. Van De Klundert, H. Van Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, N. Van Remortel, A. Van Spilbeeck Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
F. Blekman, S. Blyweert, J. D’Hondt, N. Daci, N. Heracleous, J. Keaveney, S. Lowette, M. Maes, A. Olbrechts, Q. Python, D. Strom, S. Tavernier, W. Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders, G.P. Van Onsem, I. Villella Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
C. Caillol, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, D. Dobur, L. Favart, A.P.R. Gay, A. Grebenyuk, A. Léonard, A. Mohammadi, L. Perniè\@textsuperscript2, A. Randle-conde, T. Reis, T. Seva, L. Thomas, C. Vander Velde, P. Vanlaer, J. Wang, F. Zenoni Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
V. Adler, K. Beernaert, L. Benucci, A. Cimmino, S. Costantini, S. Crucy, A. Fagot, G. Garcia, J. Mccartin, A.A. Ocampo Rios, D. Poyraz, D. Ryckbosch, S. Salva Diblen, M. Sigamani, N. Strobbe, F. Thyssen, M. Tytgat, E. Yazgan, N. Zaganidis Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
S. Basegmez, C. Beluffi\@textsuperscript3, G. Bruno, R. Castello, A. Caudron, L. Ceard, G.G. Da Silveira, C. Delaere, T. du Pree, D. Favart, L. Forthomme, A. Giammanco\@textsuperscript4, J. Hollar, A. Jafari, P. Jez, M. Komm, V. Lemaitre, C. Nuttens, D. Pagano, L. Perrini, A. Pin, K. Piotrzkowski, A. Popov\@textsuperscript5, L. Quertenmont, M. Selvaggi, M. Vidal Marono, J.M. Vizan Garcia Université de Mons, Mons, Belgium
N. Beliy, T. Caebergs, E. Daubie, G.H. Hammad Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
W.L. Aldá Júnior, G.A. Alves, L. Brito, M. Correa Martins Junior, T. Dos Reis Martins, J. Molina, C. Mora Herrera, M.E. Pol, P. Rebello Teles Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato\@textsuperscript6, A. Custódio, E.M. Da Costa, D. De Jesus Damiao, C. De Oliveira Martins, S. Fonseca De Souza, H. Malbouisson, D. Matos Figueiredo, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, W.L. Prado Da Silva, J. Santaolalla, A. Santoro, A. Sznajder, E.J. Tonelli Manganote\@textsuperscript6, A. Vilela Pereira Universidade Estadual Paulista , Universidade Federal do ABC , São Paulo, Brazil
C.A. Bernardes, S. Dogra, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomei, E.M. Gregores, P.G. Mercadante, S.F. Novaes, Sandra S. Padula Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, V. Genchev\@textsuperscript2, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, A. Marinov, S. Piperov, M. Rodozov, S. Stoykova, G. Sultanov, M. Vutova University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Dimitrov, I. Glushkov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
J.G. Bian, G.M. Chen, H.S. Chen, M. Chen, T. Cheng, R. Du, C.H. Jiang, R. Plestina\@textsuperscript7, F. Romeo, J. Tao, Z. Wang State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
C. Asawatangtrakuldee, Y. Ban, S. Liu, Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang, Z. Xu, F. Zhang\@textsuperscript8, L. Zhang, W. Zou Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, L.F. Chaparro Sierra, C. Florez, J.P. Gomez, B. Gomez Moreno, J.C. Sanabria University of Split, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split, Croatia
N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, D. Polic, I. Puljak University of Split, Faculty of Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, K. Kadija, J. Luetic, D. Mekterovic, L. Sudic University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
A. Attikis, G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos, P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
M. Bodlak, M. Finger, M. Finger Jr.\@textsuperscript9 Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt
Y. Assran\@textsuperscript10, A. Ellithi Kamel\@textsuperscript11, M.A. Mahmoud\@textsuperscript12, A. Radi\@textsuperscript13\@textsuperscript14 National Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
M. Kadastik, M. Murumaa, M. Raidal, A. Tiko Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
P. Eerola, M. Voutilainen Helsinki Institute of Physics, Helsinki, Finland
J. Härkönen, V. Karimäki, R. Kinnunen, M.J. Kortelainen, T. Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, P. Luukka, T. Mäenpää, T. Peltola, E. Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi, E. Tuovinen, L. Wendland Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
J. Talvitie, T. Tuuva DSM/IRFU, CEA/Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, B. Fabbro, J.L. Faure, C. Favaro, F. Ferri, S. Ganjour, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry, E. Locci, J. Malcles, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M. Titov Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole Polytechnique, IN2P3-CNRS, Palaiseau, France
S. Baffioni, F. Beaudette, P. Busson, E. Chapon, C. Charlot, T. Dahms, L. Dobrzynski, N. Filipovic, A. Florent, R. Granier de Cassagnac, L. Mastrolorenzo, P. Miné, I.N. Naranjo, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, G. Ortona, P. Paganini, S. Regnard, R. Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, C. Veelken, Y. Yilmaz, A. Zabi Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien, Université de Strasbourg, Université de Haute Alsace Mulhouse, CNRS/IN2P3, Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram\@textsuperscript15, J. Andrea, A. Aubin, D. Bloch, J.-M. Brom, E.C. Chabert, C. Collard, E. Conte\@textsuperscript15, J.-C. Fontaine\@textsuperscript15, D. Gelé, U. Goerlach, C. Goetzmann, A.-C. Le Bihan, 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, N. Beaupere, C. Bernet\@textsuperscript7, G. Boudoul\@textsuperscript2, E. Bouvier, S. Brochet, C.A. Carrillo Montoya, J. Chasserat, R. Chierici, D. Contardo\@textsuperscript2, B. Courbon, P. Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fan, J. Fay, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, B. Ille, T. Kurca, M. Lethuillier, L. Mirabito, A.L. Pequegnot, S. Perries, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, D. Sabes, L. Sgandurra, V. Sordini, M. Vander Donckt, P. Verdier, S. Viret, H. Xiao E. Andronikashvili Institute of Physics, Academy of Science, Tbilisi, Georgia
L. Rurua RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen, Germany
C. Autermann, S. Beranek, M. Bontenackels, M. Edelhoff, L. Feld, A. Heister, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, A. Ostapchuk, M. Preuten, F. Raupach, J. Sammet, S. Schael, J.F. Schulte, H. Weber, B. Wittmer, V. Zhukov\@textsuperscript5 RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany
M. Ata, M. Brodski, E. Dietz-Laursonn, D. Duchardt, M. Erdmann, R. Fischer, A. Güth, T. Hebbeker, C. Heidemann, K. Hoepfner, D. Klingebiel, S. Knutzen, P. Kreuzer, M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, P. Millet, M. Olschewski, K. Padeken, P. Papacz, H. Reithler, S.A. Schmitz, L. Sonnenschein, D. Teyssier, S. Thüer RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany
V. Cherepanov, Y. Erdogan, G. Flügge, H. Geenen, M. Geisler, W. Haj Ahmad, F. Hoehle, B. Kargoll, T. Kress, Y. Kuessel, A. Künsken, J. Lingemann\@textsuperscript2, A. Nowack, I.M. Nugent, C. Pistone, O. Pooth, A. Stahl Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
M. Aldaya Martin, I. Asin, N. Bartosik, J. Behr, U. Behrens, A.J. Bell, A. Bethani, K. Borras, A. Burgmeier, A. Cakir, L. Calligaris, A. Campbell, S. Choudhury, F. Costanza, C. Diez Pardos, G. Dolinska, S. Dooling, T. Dorland, G. Eckerlin, D. Eckstein, T. Eichhorn, G. Flucke, J. Garay Garcia, A. Geiser, A. Gizhko, P. Gunnellini, J. Hauk, M. Hempel\@textsuperscript16, H. Jung, A. Kalogeropoulos, O. Karacheban\@textsuperscript16, M. Kasemann, P. Katsas, J. Kieseler, C. Kleinwort, I. Korol, D. Krücker, W. Lange, J. Leonard, K. Lipka, A. Lobanov, W. Lohmann\@textsuperscript16, B. Lutz, R. Mankel, I. Marfin\@textsuperscript16, I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, A.B. Meyer, G. Mittag, J. Mnich, A. Mussgiller, S. Naumann-Emme, A. Nayak, E. Ntomari, H. Perrey, D. Pitzl, R. Placakyte, A. Raspereza, P.M. Ribeiro Cipriano, B. Roland, E. Ron, M.Ö. Sahin, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, P. Saxena, T. Schoerner-Sadenius, M. Schröder, C. Seitz, S. Spannagel, A.D.R. Vargas Trevino, R. Walsh, C. Wissing University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
V. Blobel, M. Centis Vignali, A.R. Draeger, J. Erfle, E. Garutti, K. Goebel, M. Görner, J. Haller, M. Hoffmann, R.S. Höing, A. Junkes, H. Kirschenmann, R. Klanner, R. Kogler, T. Lapsien, T. Lenz, I. Marchesini, D. Marconi, J. Ott, T. Peiffer, A. Perieanu, N. Pietsch, J. Poehlsen, T. Poehlsen, D. Rathjens, C. Sander, H. Schettler, P. Schleper, E. Schlieckau, A. Schmidt, M. Seidel, V. Sola, H. Stadie, G. Steinbrück, D. Troendle, E. Usai, L. Vanelderen, A. Vanhoefer Institut für Experimentelle Kernphysik, Karlsruhe, Germany
C. Barth, C. Baus, J. Berger, C. Böser, E. Butz, T. Chwalek, W. De Boer, A. Descroix, A. Dierlamm, M. Feindt, F. Frensch, M. Giffels, A. Gilbert, F. Hartmann\@textsuperscript2, T. Hauth, U. Husemann, I. Katkov\@textsuperscript5, A. Kornmayer\@textsuperscript2, P. Lobelle Pardo, M.U. Mozer, T. Müller, Th. Müller, A. Nürnberg, G. Quast, K. Rabbertz, S. Röcker, H.J. Simonis, F.M. Stober, R. Ulrich, J. Wagner-Kuhr, S. Wayand, T. Weiler, 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, A. Markou, C. Markou, A. Psallidas, I. Topsis-Giotis University of Athens, Athens, Greece
A. Agapitos, S. Kesisoglou, A. Panagiotou, N. Saoulidou, E. Stiliaris, E. Tziaferi University of Ioánnina, Ioánnina, Greece
X. Aslanoglou, I. Evangelou, G. Flouris, C. Foudas, P. Kokkas, N. Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, E. Paradas, J. Strologas Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, P. Hidas, D. Horvath\@textsuperscript17, F. Sikler, V. Veszpremi, G. Vesztergombi\@textsuperscript18, A.J. Zsigmond Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi\@textsuperscript19, J. Molnar, J. Palinkas, Z. Szillasi University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
A. Makovec, P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari National Institute of Science Education and Research, Bhubaneswar, India
S.K. Swain Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, R. Gupta, U.Bhawandeep, A.K. Kalsi, M. Kaur, R. Kumar, M. Mittal, N. Nishu, J.B. Singh University of Delhi, Delhi, India
Ashok Kumar, Arun Kumar, S. Ahuja, A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, A. Kumar, S. Malhotra, M. Naimuddin, K. Ranjan, V. Sharma Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, K. Chatterjee, S. Dutta, B. Gomber, Sa. Jain, Sh. Jain, R. Khurana, A. Modak, S. Mukherjee, D. Roy, S. Sarkar, M. Sharan Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
A. Abdulsalam, D. Dutta, V. Kumar, A.K. Mohanty\@textsuperscript2, L.M. Pant, P. Shukla, A. Topkar Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, S. Banerjee, S. Bhowmik\@textsuperscript20, R.M. Chatterjee, R.K. Dewanjee, S. Dugad, S. Ganguly, S. Ghosh, M. Guchait, A. Gurtu\@textsuperscript21, G. Kole, S. Kumar, M. Maity\@textsuperscript20, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, G.B. Mohanty, B. Parida, K. Sudhakar, N. Wickramage\@textsuperscript22 Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, India
S. Sharma Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran
H. Bakhshiansohi, H. Behnamian, S.M. Etesami\@textsuperscript23, A. Fahim\@textsuperscript24, R. Goldouzian, M. Khakzad, M. Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri, S. Paktinat Mehdiabadi, F. Rezaei Hosseinabadi, B. Safarzadeh\@textsuperscript25, M. Zeinali University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
M. Felcini, M. Grunewald INFN Sezione di Bari , Università di Bari , Politecnico di Bari , Bari, Italy
M. Abbrescia, C. Calabria, S.S. Chhibra, A. Colaleo, D. Creanza, L. Cristella, N. De Filippis, M. De Palma, L. Fiore, G. Iaselli, G. Maggi, M. Maggi, S. My, S. Nuzzo, A. Pompili, G. Pugliese, R. Radogna\@textsuperscript2, G. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, L. Silvestris\@textsuperscript2, R. Venditti, P. Verwilligen INFN Sezione di Bologna , Università di Bologna , Bologna, Italy
G. Abbiendi, A.C. Benvenuti, D. Bonacorsi, S. Braibant-Giacomelli, L. Brigliadori, R. Campanini, P. Capiluppi, A. Castro, F.R. Cavallo, G. Codispoti, M. Cuffiani, G.M. Dallavalle, F. Fabbri, A. Fanfani, D. Fasanella, P. Giacomelli, C. Grandi, L. Guiducci, S. Marcellini, G. Masetti, A. Montanari, F.L. Navarria, A. Perrotta, A.M. Rossi, T. Rovelli, G.P. Siroli, N. Tosi, R. Travaglini INFN Sezione di Catania , Università di Catania , CSFNSM , Catania, Italy
S. Albergo, G. Cappello, M. Chiorboli, S. Costa, F. Giordano\@textsuperscript2, R. Potenza, A. Tricomi, C. Tuve INFN Sezione di Firenze , Università di Firenze , Firenze, Italy
G. Barbagli, V. Ciulli, C. Civinini, R. D’Alessandro, E. Focardi, E. Gallo, S. Gonzi, V. Gori, P. Lenzi, M. Meschini, S. Paoletti, G. Sguazzoni, A. Tropiano INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, F. Fabbri, D. Piccolo INFN Sezione di Genova , Università di Genova , Genova, Italy
R. Ferretti, F. Ferro, M. Lo Vetere, E. Robutti, S. Tosi INFN Sezione di Milano-Bicocca , Università di Milano-Bicocca , Milano, Italy
M.E. Dinardo, S. Fiorendi, S. Gennai\@textsuperscript2, R. Gerosa\@textsuperscript2, A. Ghezzi, P. Govoni, M.T. Lucchini\@textsuperscript2, S. Malvezzi, R.A. Manzoni, A. Martelli, B. Marzocchi\@textsuperscript2, D. Menasce, L. Moroni, M. Paganoni, D. Pedrini, S. Ragazzi, N. Redaelli, T. Tabarelli de Fatis INFN Sezione di Napoli , Università di Napoli ’Federico II’ , Napoli, Italy, Università della Basilicata , Potenza, Italy, Università G. Marconi , Roma, Italy
S. Buontempo, N. Cavallo, S. Di Guida\@textsuperscript2, F. Fabozzi, A.O.M. Iorio, L. Lista, S. Meola\@textsuperscript2, M. Merola, P. Paolucci\@textsuperscript2 INFN Sezione di Padova , Università di Padova , Padova, Italy, Università di Trento , Trento, Italy
P. Azzi, N. Bacchetta, D. Bisello, A. Branca, R. Carlin, P. Checchia, M. Dall’Osso, T. Dorigo, U. Dosselli, F. Gasparini, U. Gasparini, A. Gozzelino, K. Kanishchev, S. Lacaprara, M. Margoni, A.T. Meneguzzo, J. Pazzini, N. Pozzobon, P. Ronchese, F. Simonetto, E. Torassa, M. Tosi, P. Zotto, A. Zucchetta, G. Zumerle INFN Sezione di Pavia , Università di Pavia , Pavia, Italy
M. Gabusi, S.P. Ratti, V. Re, C. Riccardi, P. Salvini, P. Vitulo INFN Sezione di Perugia , Università di Perugia , Perugia, Italy
M. Biasini, G.M. Bilei, D. Ciangottini\@textsuperscript2, L. Fanò, P. Lariccia, G. Mantovani, M. Menichelli, A. Saha, A. Santocchia, A. Spiezia\@textsuperscript2 INFN Sezione di Pisa , Università di Pisa , Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa , Pisa, Italy
K. Androsov\@textsuperscript26, P. Azzurri, G. Bagliesi, J. Bernardini, T. Boccali, G. Broccolo, R. Castaldi, M.A. Ciocci\@textsuperscript26, R. Dell’Orso, S. Donato\@textsuperscript2, G. Fedi, F. Fiori, L. Foà, A. Giassi, M.T. Grippo\@textsuperscript26, F. Ligabue, T. Lomtadze, L. Martini, A. Messineo, C.S. Moon\@textsuperscript27, F. Palla\@textsuperscript2, A. Rizzi, A. Savoy-Navarro\@textsuperscript28, A.T. Serban, P. Spagnolo, P. Squillacioti\@textsuperscript26, R. Tenchini, G. Tonelli, A. Venturi, P.G. Verdini, C. Vernieri INFN Sezione di Roma , Università di Roma , Roma, Italy
L. Barone, F. Cavallari, G. D’imperio, D. Del Re, M. Diemoz, C. Jorda, E. Longo, F. Margaroli, P. Meridiani, F. Micheli\@textsuperscript2, G. Organtini, R. Paramatti, S. Rahatlou, C. Rovelli, F. Santanastasio, L. Soffi, P. Traczyk\@textsuperscript2 INFN Sezione di Torino , Università di Torino , Torino, Italy, Università del Piemonte Orientale , Novara, Italy
N. Amapane, R. Arcidiacono, S. Argiro, M. Arneodo, R. Bellan, C. Biino, N. Cartiglia, S. Casasso\@textsuperscript2, M. Costa