EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH (CERN)

CERN-EP/2016-293
2017/08/01

CMS-SUS-16-009

Search for supersymmetry in the all-hadronic

√ final state
using top quark tagging in pp collisions at s = 13 TeV
arXiv:1701.01954v2 [hep-ex] 30 Jul 2017

The CMS Collaboration∗

Abstract

A search is presented for supersymmetry in all-hadronic events with missing trans-

verse momentum and tagged top quarks. The data sample was collected with the
CMS detector at the LHC and corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 2.3 fb−1
of proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. Search regions are
defined using the properties of reconstructed jets, the multiplicity of bottom and
top quark candidates, and an imbalance in transverse momentum. With no statis-
tically significant excess of events observed beyond the expected contributions from
the standard model, we set exclusion limits at 95% confidence level on the masses of
new particles in the context of simplified models of direct and gluino-mediated top
squark production. For direct top squark production with decays to a top quark and
a neutralino, top squark masses up to 740 GeV and neutralino masses up to 240 GeV
are excluded. Gluino masses up to 1550 GeV and neutralino masses up to 900 GeV
are excluded for a gluino-mediated production case, where each of the pair-produced
gluinos decays to a top-antitop quark pair and a neutralino.

Published in Physical Review D as doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.012004.

c 2017 CERN for the benefit of the CMS Collaboration. CC-BY-3.0 license
∗ See Appendix B for the list of collaboration members
 1

1 Introduction
The standard model (SM) of fundamental particles and their interactions has been extremely
successful in describing phenomena in the atomic and subatomic realms. The discovery of a
boson with properties consistent with the SM Higgs boson [1–3] at the CERN LHC [4] further
strengthened this model. Assuming that the Higgs boson is a fundamental spin-0 particle,
however, the low value of its measured mass, around 125 GeV [5], implies that there is a fine-
tuned cancellation of large quantum corrections to its mass, which is referred to as the hierarchy
problem and is currently unexplained [6–10]. Supersymmetry (SUSY) [11–20] is one of the
most compelling models of new physics as it provides an elegant mechanism to mitigate the
hierarchy problem by introducing a symmetry between fermions and bosons.
Supersymmetry proposes a superpartner for each SM particle with the same quantum num-
bers, except for spin, which differs by a half-integer. The SM particles and their correspond-
ing superpartners contribute to the loop corrections to the Higgs boson mass with opposite
sign [21], and are therefore capable of controlling these corrections. This behavior can persist
despite the breaking of SUSY, which is required to accommodate the lack of observation of
superpartners with exactly the same masses as their SM counterparts. To solve the hierarchy
problem in a “natural” way, Refs. [22–27] suggest models in which the higgsino mass parame-
ter is of the order of 100 GeV and the masses of the top squark et, the bottom squark e b, and the
gluino g e are near the TeV scale, while the masses of the other sparticles can be beyond the reach
of the LHC. The mass of the top squark is particularly constrained in “natural” SUSY models
as it is the most important factor in cancelling the top quark contribution to the Higgs boson
mass. In R-parity conserving models [28], superpartners are produced in pairs, and the lightest
SUSY particle (LSP) is stable. Models with a weakly interacting neutralino (χe01 ) as the LSP are
especially attractive because the χe01 can have properties consistent with dark matter [29].
Based on these considerations, we perform a search for top squarks, produced either directly
or through gluino decays, with each top squark decaying into 0
√ a stable χe1 and SM particles. Pre-
vious searches at the LHC in proton-proton collisions at s = 8 TeV have found no evidence
for physics beyond the SM, and lower limits have been placed on the top squark mass within
the framework of simplified models of the SUSY particle spectrum (SMS) [30–34]. The parti-
cle spectra in such models are typically restricted to states that are required for natural SUSY
scenarios. Lower limits on the top squark mass, met , extend up to 775 GeV [35–45], and those
on the gluino mass, mge , extend up to 1400 GeV [46–57]. Lower limits on the neutralino mass,
mχe0 , extend up to 290 GeV for models with direct top squarks production and up to 600 GeV
1
for
√ models with gluino-mediated production. Recent searches in proton-proton collisions at
s = 13 TeV have further extended these lower limits, reaching up to 800 GeV [58–60] for the
top squark mass, up to 1760 GeV for the gluino mass, and up to 850 GeV for the neutralino
mass [61–65].
The search presented in this paper is performed on data collected with the CMS detector at
the LHC and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 2.3 fb−1 of proton-proton collisions
at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. The search strategy closely follows the one reported in
Ref. [41] with several improvements. We select events containing large missing transverse mo-
mentum, at least four jets, at least one jet identified as originating from the hadronization of a
b quark (“b jet”), and no identified leptons. The analysis relies on a highly efficient algorithm
to tag groups of jets consistent with top quark decay. This top quark tagging algorithm is im-
proved relative to the one described in Ref. [41], to enhance the sensitivity for selecting top
quarks with large Lorentz boosts that cause the merging of jets among the top decay products.
The analysis categorizes each event according to the number of identified top quark candi-
2 2 Detector, event reconstruction, and simulation

dates, in order to both discriminate signal from background and to distinguish among signal
hypotheses such as direct top squark production and gluino-mediated top squark production,
which contain different multiplicities of top quarks in the final state. In addition, the kinematic
properties of top quark candidates are used as input to the computation of the “stransverse”
mass (MT2 ) variable [66, 67], which is used to estimate the mass of pair-produced particles in
the presence of invisible particles. Exclusive search regions are defined using several event
properties, including the number of identified b jets, the number of top quark candidates, the
missing transverse momentum ~pTmiss , and MT2 .
One of the major sources of SM background originates from either top-antitop quark pair (tt)
or W+jets events in which leptonic W boson decay produces a charged lepton that is not re-
constructed or identified, and a high momentum neutrino, generating true missing transverse
momentum. Events in which a Z boson, produced in association with jets, decays to neutrinos
(Z → νν) also provide a significant contribution to the SM background. The SM backgrounds
are estimated using control samples in the data that are disjoint from the signal regions but
have similar kinematic properties and composition.
This paper is structured as follows. Event reconstruction and simulation are described in Sec. 2.
Sec. 3 presents details of the optimization of the analysis, including signal models, the top quark
tagging algorithm, and event categorization. The strategy used to estimate the SM background
is detailed in Sec. 4. The results and their interpretation in the context of SUSY are discussed in
Sec. 5, followed by a summary in Sec. 6.

2 Detector, event reconstruction, and simulation

2.1 Detector and event reconstruction
The CMS detector is built around a superconducting solenoid of 6 m internal diameter, provid-
ing a magnetic field of 3.8 T. Within the solenoid volume are a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a
lead tungstate crystal electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), and a brass and scintillator hadron
calorimeter (HCAL). The tracking detectors cover |η | < 2.5. The ECAL and HCAL, each com-
posed of a barrel and two endcap sections, extend over a pseudorapidity range |η | < 3.0.
Forward calorimeters on each side of the interaction point encompass 3.0 < |η | < 5.2. Muons
are identified and measured within |η | < 2.4 by gas-ionization detectors embedded in the steel
flux-return yoke outside the solenoid. The first level of the CMS trigger system, composed of
custom hardware processors, uses information from the calorimeters and muon detectors to se-
lect the most interesting events in a fixed time interval of less than 4 µs. The high-level-trigger
processor farm further decreases the event rate from around 100 kHz to less than 1 kHz before
data storage. 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. [68].
The recorded events are reconstructed using the particle-flow (PF) algorithm [69]. Using the
information from the tracker, calorimeters, and muon system, this algorithm reconstructs PF
candidates that are classified as charged hadrons, neutral hadrons, photons, muons, or elec-
trons. The ~pTmiss is defined as the negative of the vector sum of the transverse momentum pT of
all PF candidates in the event, and its magnitude is denoted by ETmiss . The PF candidates in an
event are clustered into jets using the anti-kT clustering algorithm [70] with size parameter 0.4
(AK4 jets). Charged particles from additional pp collisions (“pileup”) from the same or adja-
cent beam crossing to the one that produced the primary hard-scattering process are excluded
if they do not originate from the primary interaction vertex, i.e., the vertex with the largest
∑ p2T calculated from all its associated tracks. The momentum of neutral particles from pileup
2.1 Detector and event reconstruction 3

interactions, and from the underlying event, is subtracted using the FAST J ET technique, which
is based on the calculation of the η-dependent transverse momentum density, evaluated event
by event [71, 72]. The energy and momentum of each jet are corrected using factors derived
from simulation, and, for jets in data, an additional residual energy-momentum correction is
applied to account for differences in the jet energy-momentum scales [73] between simulations
and data. Only jets with pT > 30 GeV and |η | < 2.4 or |η | < 5, depending on the use case, are
considered in this search. The scalar sum of the jet pT for all jets within |η | < 2.4 is denoted by
HT in the following.
A jet is considered to be a b jet (“b-tagged”) if it passes the medium operating point require-
ments of the combined secondary vertex algorithm [74, 75], has pT > 30 GeV, and is within
|η | < 2.4. The corresponding b quark identification efficiency is 70% on average per jet in tt
events. The probability of a jet originating from a light quark or gluon to be misidentified as a
b quark jet is 1.4%, averaged over jet pT in tt events [74].
Muons are reconstructed by matching tracks in the muon detectors to compatible track seg-
ments in the silicon tracker [76] and are required to be within |η | < 2.4. Electron candidates
are reconstructed starting from clusters of energy deposited in the ECAL that are then matched
to a track in the silicon tracker [77]. Electron candidates are required to have |η | < 1.44 or
1.56 < |η | < 2.50 to avoid the transition region between the ECAL barrel and the endcap.
Muon and electron candidates are required to originate from within 2 mm of the primary ver-
tex in the transverse plane and within 5 mm along the z axis.
To obtain a sample of all-hadronic events, events with isolated electrons and muons are vetoed.
The isolation of electron and muon candidates is defined as the ∑ pT of all additional
√ PF candi-
dates in a cone around the lepton candidate’s trajectory with a radius ∆R = (∆η ) + (∆φ)2 .
2

The cone size depends on the lepton pT as follows:


0.2,
 pT ≤ 50 GeV
∆R = 10 GeV
, 50 < pT < 200 GeV (1)
 pT
0.05, pT ≥ 200 GeV.


The cone radius for higher-pT candidates is reduced because highly boosted objects, which may
include high-pT leptons in their decay, are contained in a cone of smaller radius than low-pT
objects. The isolation sum is corrected for contributions originating from pileup interactions
using an estimate of the pileup energy in the cone. A relative isolation is defined as the ratio of
the isolation sum to the candidate pT , and is required to be less than 0.1 (0.2) for electron (muon)
candidates. Events with isolated electrons (muons) that have pT > 10 GeV and |η | < 2.5 (2.4)
are rejected.
In order to further reduce the contribution from background events originating from leptonic
W boson decays that feature low-pT electrons, muons, or hadronically decaying taus (τh ), an
additional veto on the presence of isolated tracks is used. These tracks are required to have
|η | < 2.5, pT > 5 (10) GeV, and relative track isolation less than 0.2 (0.1) when they are identi-
fied by the PF algorithm as electrons or muons (charged hadrons). The isolation sum used to
compute the relative track isolation is the ∑ pT of all additional charged PF candidates within a
fixed cone of ∆R = 0.3 around the track. To preserve signal efficiency, this veto is applied only
if the transverse mass (mT ) of the isolated track and ETmiss system is consistent with a W boson
decay. The mT is defined as
q
miss
mT (track, ET ) = 2ptrackT ETmiss (1 − cos ∆φ), (2)
4 3 Analysis strategy

with ptrack
T the pT of the track and ∆φ the azimuthal separation between the track and ~pTmiss
vector. Specifically, we require mT < 100 GeV.

2.2 Event simulation

Monte Carlo (MC) simulated event samples are used to study the properties of the SM back-
ground processes, as well as the signal models. The M AD G RAPH 5 aMC @ NLO v2.2.2 genera-
tor [78] is used in leading-order (LO) mode to simulate events originating from tt production,
W+jets with W → `ν decays, Z+jets with Z → νν decays, Drell-Yan (DY)+jets, γ+jets, quantum
chromodynamics (QCD) multijet, gluino pair production, and top squark pair production pro-
cesses. The generation of these processes is based on LO parton distribution functions (PDFs)
using NNPDF3.0 [79]. Single top quark events produced in the tW channel are generated with
the next-to-leading-order (NLO) POWHEG v1.0 [80–83] generator. Rare SM processes, such as
ttZ and ttW, are generated at NLO accuracy with the M AD G RAPH 5 aMC @ NLO v2.2.2 pro-
gram. Both the single top quark and rare SM processes are generated using NLO NNPDF3.0
PDFs. The parton showering and hadronization is simulated with PYTHIA v8.205 [84] using
underlying-event tune CUETP8M1 [85].
The CMS detector response is simulated using a G EANT 4-based model [86] in the case of SM
background processes and a dedicated fast simulation package [87] for the case of signal pro-
cesses, where a large number of signal model scenarios are needed. The fast simulation is
tuned to provide results that are consistent with those obtained from the full G EANT 4-based
simulation. Event reconstruction is performed in the same manner as for collision data.
The signal production cross sections are calculated using NLO plus next-to-leading-logarithm
(NLL) calculations [88]. The most precise available cross section calculations are used to nor-
malize the SM simulated samples, corresponding to NLO or next-to-NLO accuracy in most
cases [78, 89–95].
The simulation is corrected to account for discrepancies between data and simulation in the
lepton selection efficiency and the b tagging efficiency. The uncertainties corresponding to
these corrections are propagated to the predicted SM yields in the search regions. Differences
in the efficiencies for selecting isolated electrons and muons are measured in Z → `` events.
Correction factors and their uncertainties for the b tagging efficiency are derived using multijet-
and tt-enriched event samples and are parametrized by the jet kinematics [74].

3 Analysis strategy
The analysis is designed for maximum sensitivity to models in which top quarks are produced
in the SUSY decay chains discussed in Sec. 1. The data are first divided into regions based upon
the numbers of tagged top quarks (Nt ) and b jets (Nb ) found in each event. The search regions
are defined by further subdivision of each Nt , Nb bin in several ETmiss and MT2 bins.

3.1 Benchmark signal models

For direct top squark pair production, we consider two decay scenarios within the SMS frame-
work. In the scenario denoted by “T2tt,” each et decays via a top quark: et → tχe01 , in which
χe01 is the LSP. The second decay scenario considered here, denoted by “T2tb,” involves two et
decay modes, et → tχe01 (as in T2tt) and et → bχe1± , each with a 50% branching fraction. In the
latter case, the lightest chargino χe1± decays with 100% branching fraction to a virtual W boson
and a χe01 . A natural simplified SUSY spectrum is assumed in which the χe1± is 5 GeV heavier
than the χe01 [24–26]. As a result of the mixed decay modes, the T2tb scenario consists of three
3.1 Benchmark signal models 5

t b
P2 P2
t̃ χ̃01 t̃ W +∗
χ̃+
1 χ̃01
χ̃01
t̃ χ̃01
P1 P1 t̃
t t

Figure 1: Diagrams representing two cases of the simplified models of direct top squark pair
production and decay considered in this study: the T2tt model with top squark decay via a top
quark (left), and the T2tb model with the top squark decaying either via a top quark or via an
intermediate chargino (right).

t t
P2 c
t
P2 g̃ g̃
χ̃01 χ̃01
t̃
χ̃01 t̃ χ̃01
g̃ g̃
t c
P1 P1
t t

Figure 2: Diagrams representing the simplified models of gluino-mediated top squark produc-
tion considered in this study: the T1tttt model (left) where the gluino decays to top quarks and
the LSP via an off-shell top squark, and the T5ttcc model (right) where the gluino decays to an
on-shell top squark, which decays to a charm quark and the LSP.

different final states containing either two b quarks and no top quarks (25%), one b quark and
one top quark (50%), or two top quarks and no b quarks (25%). Figure 1 shows the diagrams
representing these two simplified models.
Two scenarios are considered for gluino-mediated top squark production, as shown in Fig. 2.
In the main model, denoted by “T1tttt,” the gluino decays to top quarks via an off-shell top
squark: ge → ttχe01 . This model is complementary to the direct top squark production because it
gives sensitivity to the scenario where the gluino is kinematically accessible but the top squark
is too heavy for direct production. The second scenario, denoted by “T5ttcc,” features on-shell
top squarks in the decay chain with a mass difference between top squark and LSP assumed
to be ∆m(et, χe01 ) = 20 GeV. For this model, the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark,
e → tet, and the top squark decays to a charm quark and the LSP, et → cχe01 . This model again
g
serves as a complement to the direct search by providing sensitivity to very light top squarks,
which would not decay to on-shell top quarks.
All scenarios described above share similar final states, containing two neutralinos and up to
four top quarks. Given that the χe01 is stable and only interacts weakly, it does not produce a
signal in the detector. Therefore, ETmiss is one of the most important discriminators between
signal and SM background, especially for models with large mass differences between the top
6 3 Analysis strategy

squark or gluino and the χe01 . Since top quarks decay almost exclusively to a b quark and a W
boson, each hadronically decaying top quark can result in up to three identified jets, depending
on the top quark pT and jet size. For certain signal scenarios, there may be additional bottom,
charm, or light-flavor quarks, which increase the expected jet and b-tagged jet multiplicities.

3.2 Top quark reconstruction and identification

The procedure to reconstruct and identify the hadronically decaying top quarks (top quark
tagging or “t tagging”) presented here is similar to the one used in Ref. [41], where reconstruc-
tion of the hadronically decaying top quarks from resolved jets is performed as described in
Refs. [96–98]. The t tagging algorithm is improved in this work, to be more sensitive to boosted
scenarios in which decay products from the W boson or top quark are merged into a single jet.
Additionally, the algorithm is expanded to allow the reconstruction of multiple top quarks in
each event.
The top quark tagging algorithm takes as input all reconstructed AK4 jets that satisfy pT >
30 GeV and |η | < 5. These jets are clustered into three categories of top quark candidates:
trijet, dijet, and monojet. Trijet candidates, representing the three jets coming from the b quark
and the hadronic decay of the W boson, are subject to the following conditions: (i) All jets lie
within a cone of radius ∆R = 1.5, centered at the direction defined by the vector sum of the
momentum of the three jets. The radius requirement implies a moderate Lorentz boost of the
top quark, as is expected for the vast majority of signal parameter space (met/eg , mχe0 ) targeted in
1
this search. (ii) To reduce combinatoric backgrounds, one of the ratios of dijet to trijet masses
must be consistent with the mW /mt ratio [97]. The trijet system must satisfy one of the following
three (overlapping) criteria:
 
m13 m23
(a) 0.2 < arctan < 1.3 and Rmin < < Rmax ,
m12 m3-jet
"  2 #  2 "  2 #
m 13 m 23 m 13
(b) R2min 1 + < 1− < R2max 1 + , (3)
m12 m3-jet m12
"  2 #  2 "  2 #
m 12 m 23 m 12
(c) R2min 1 + < 1− < R2max 1 + .
m13 m3-jet m13

Here, m12 , m13 , and m23 are the dijet masses, where the jet indices 1, 2, and 3 reflect a de-
creasing order in pT . The numerical constants have values Rmin = 0.85 (mW /mt ) and Rmax =
1.25 (mW /mt ), with mW = 80.4 GeV and mt = 173.4 GeV [99]. Assuming massless input jets
and trijet mass m3-jet = mt , each of the three criteria can be reduced to the condition that the
respective ratio of m23 /m3-jet , m12 /m3-jet or m13 /m3-jet is within the range of [ Rmin , Rmax ].
The second category of top quark candidates is clustered from just two jets and is designed to
tag top quark decays in which the W boson decay products are merged into a single jet (W jet).
The jet mass is used to determine if a jet represents a W jet with a required mass window of
70–110 GeV. Additionally, the dijet system is required to pass the requirement:
mWjet
Rmin < < Rmax , (4)
mdijet

where mWjet is the mass of the candidate W jet and mdijet is the mass of the dijet system. Rmin
and Rmax are the same as for the trijet requirements. The final category of candidates, monojets,
are constructed from single jets which have a jet mass consistent with mt , i.e., in the range of
110–220 GeV.
3.2 Top quark reconstruction and identification 7

After all possible top quark candidates are constructed, the final list of reconstructed top quark
objects is determined by making requirements on the total mass of the object and the number
of b jets. Any top quark candidate with more than one b jet is rejected because the probability
of having two genuine b jets, or having a second light-flavor jet tagged as a b jet, in a single
top quark candidate is negligible. All candidates with a mass outside the range 100–250 GeV
are rejected. The list of candidates is pruned to remove candidates that share a jet with another
candidate, in favor of the candidate with the mass closer to the true top quark mass. However,
if there is only one b jet in the event, the top quark candidate with the best match to the true
top mass may be pruned if it contains the b jet to ensure that there are two objects for the MT2
calculation (described below).
By considering not only fully resolved (trijet) top quark decays, but also decays from boosted
top quarks, manifesting themselves as dijet or monojet topologies, this t tagger achieves a high
efficiency for tagging top quarks over a wide range of top quark pT values, from ∼30% at
200 GeV to close to 85% at 1 TeV. The tagging efficiency is determined using the T2tt signal
model with met = 850 GeV and mχe0 = 100 GeV since it has a wide top quark pT spectrum.
1
The tagging efficiency was also measured using SM tt background and other signal models,
and was found to agree with the T2tt measurement within statistical uncertainties. The event
sample used to measure the tagging efficiency was selected by requiring the presence of at least
four jets with pT > 30 GeV and |η | < 2.4. The t-tagged object must be matched to a hadronically
decaying generator-level top quark within a cone of radius 0.4 in (η, φ) space. The t tagging
efficiency as a function of top quark pT is shown in Fig. 3, which also includes the expected
pT distributions for the hadronically decaying top quark in SM tt events, as well as in various
signal models. Since the top quark pT spectrum for signal events depends strongly on met/eg
and ∆m(et/e g, χe01 ), the good tagging efficiency across the top quark pT spectrum ensures high
acceptance for a wide range of signal models. The tagging efficiency for a previous algorithm,
described in Ref. [41], as evaluated from simulation, is about 20% at top quark pT = 600 GeV
and drops quickly to close to 0 for higher top quark pT . Figure 3 shows that the top quark tagger
performance has substantially improved with respect to that used in Ref. [41]: the efficiency is
about 55% at pT = 600 GeV, and it rises with increasing pT .
The purity of the t tagger, computed as the percentage of t-tagged objects that can be matched
to a hadronically decaying generator-level top quark within a cone of radius 0.4 in (η, φ) space,
is 70–90% in tt events that satisfy ETmiss > 200 GeV and contain at least four jets, at least one of
which is b-tagged. The probability that an event that does not contain hadronically decaying
top quarks will be found to contain one or more t-tagged objects is about 30–40% for events
passing the selection used for the efficiency calculation. Further details on the t tagger per-
formance are presented in App. A. The event yields of these processes, as well as from the
tt process, are further reduced by placing requirements on the “stransverse mass” variable,
MT2 , discussed below, as a complement to the top quark tagging requirements. The top quark
tagging efficiency agrees well between data and the G EANT 4-based simulation as shown in
App. A. However, a correction factor of up to 5% is needed to account for discrepancies be-
tween the fast simulation and the G EANT 4-based simulation. It is derived using the same T2tt
signal model mentioned above and is parametrized as a function of top quark candidate pT .
The MT2 variable [66, 67] is an extension of the transverse mass variable that is sensitive to
the pair production of heavy particles, e.g., gluinos or top squarks, each of which decays to
an invisible particle. For direct top squark production, MT2 has a kinematic upper limit at
the et mass, whereas for tt production the kinematic upper limit is the top quark mass. For
gluino pair production, the interpretation of MT2 depends on the decay scenario. However,
8 3 Analysis strategy

(13 TeV)
Top quark tagging efficiency 1
0.9 CMS
Simulation
0.8 Top quark tagger efficiency
0.7 measured in T2tt(850,100)
0.6
0.5 Top quark p distributions (a.u.)
T
tt
0.4 T2tt(500,325)
0.3 T2tt(750,50)
T1tttt(1200,800)
0.2 T1tttt(1500,100)
0.1
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
gen
p [GeV]
T
Figure 3: The tagging efficiency of the top quark tagger as a function of the generator-level
hadronically decaying top quark pT (black points). The efficiency was computed using the
T2tt signal model with met = 850 GeV and mχe0 = 100 GeV, and it is similar for tt events. The
1
vertical bars depict the statistical uncertainty. The colored lines show the expected hadronically
decaying top quark pT distribution from tt (red solid line), the T2tt signal model with met =
500 GeV and mχe0 = 325 GeV (blue short-dashed line), the T2tt signal model with met = 750 GeV
1
and mχe0 = 50 GeV (green long-dashed line), the T1tttt signal model with mge = 1200 GeV and
1
mχe0 = 800 GeV (purple long-dash-dotted line), and the T1tttt signal model with mge = 1500 GeV
1
and mχe0 = 100 GeV (orange short-dash-dotted line). The last bin contains the overflow entries
1
and the top quark pT distributions are normalized to unit area.

the values of MT2 are consistently larger than those for tt or other SM backgrounds due to the
larger values of ETmiss and the high pT of the top quarks produced in gluino decays. The MT2
variable is defined for two heavy particles, denoted with subscripts 1 and 2, decaying to some
visible particles and an invisible particle (χe01 ) as:
n h io
2 2
MT2 ≡ min max mT (~pT,1 ; mp,1 , ~qT,1 ; mχe0 ), mT (~pT,2 ; mp,2 , ~qT,2 ; mχe0 ) , (5)
~qT,1 +~qT,2 =~pTmiss 1 1

where ~pT,i and mp,i are the transverse momentum and mass of the visible daughters of each
heavy particle, and ~qT,i and mχe0 represent the unknown transverse momentum and mass of the
1
invisible χe01 from each heavy particle decay. The transverse mass squared, m2T , is defined as

m2T (~pT ; mp , ~qT ; mχe0 ) ≡ m2p + m2χe0 + 2 (|~pT ||~qT | − ~pT · ~qT ) . (6)
1 1

The MT2 variable is the minimum [66] of two transverse masses with the constraint that the sum
of the transverse momenta of both neutralinos is equal to the ~pTmiss in the event, i.e., ~qT,1 +~qT,2 =
~pTmiss . The invisible particle is assumed to be massless, in order to be consistent with the use of
the neutrino as the invisible particle in the MT2 calculation for the SM backgrounds, therefore
mχe0 equals zero in Eqs. (5) and (6).
1
3.3 Event selection and categorization 9

We construct the visible decay products of each heavy particle (1 and 2) from the list of t-tagged
objects. The selection requirements used in the analysis ensure that every event has at least one
reconstructed t-tagged object. In the case where two t-tagged objects are identified, each is
used as one visible component in the MT2 calculation. If more than two t-tagged objects are
found, MT2 is calculated for all combinations and the lowest MT2 value is used. In the case
where only one t-tagged object is identified, the visible component of the second system is
taken from the remaining jets not included in the t-tagged object, using a b-tagged jet as a seed
to partially reconstruct a top quark. The b-tagged jet is combined with the closest jet that yields
an invariant mass between 50 GeV and mt . The combined “dijet” is used as the second visible
system. In case no jet combination satisfies that invariant mass requirement, the b-tagged jet is
used as the only remnant of the second visible system.

3.3 Event selection and categorization

Events in the search regions are collected with a trigger that applies a lower threshold of
350 GeV on HT in coincidence with a threshold of 100 GeV on ETmiss . This trigger is fully ef-
ficient at selecting events satisfying the requirements HT > 500 GeV and ETmiss > 175 GeV, both
at the full event reconstruction level.
All events must pass filters designed to remove detector- and beam-related noise. All jets con-
sidered in this analysis are required to have pT > 30 GeV, and must pass a set of jet identifica-
tion criteria as described in Ref. [100]. The minimum number of such jets with |η | < 2.4 in an
event must be Nj ≥ 4, with the leading two jets required to have pT > 50 GeV. Events must sat-
isfy ETmiss > 200 GeV and HT > 500 GeV, where the thresholds are chosen to exceed the trigger
efficiency turn-on and to allow a low 175 < ETmiss < 200 GeV sideband for background studies.
A requirement on the angle between ETmiss and the first three leading jets, ∆φ( ETmiss , j1,2,3 ) > 0.5,
0.5, 0.3, is applied to reduce the number of events from QCD multijet processes. High-ETmiss
QCD multijet events are usually the result of an undermeasurement of the pT of one of the
leading jets, which results in ETmiss being aligned with that jet and ∆φ( ETmiss , j1,2,3 ) being small.
The undermeasurement can occur because of detector effects or, in the case of semileptonic b
or c quark decays, because a neutrino carries away unmeasured energy. Finally, requirements
that Nt ≥ 1, Nb ≥ 1, and MT2 > 200 GeV are applied, after which we observe 288 events in the
data.
After this preselection, we define nonoverlapping search regions in terms of Nt , Nb , ETmiss , and
MT2 . Figure 4 displays the background composition, as computed from simulation, following
the preselection as a function of each of these four variables. Note that the t-tagged object
definition does not require the presence of b-tagged jets, nor are b-tagged jets inside t-tagged
objects rejected from the b-tagged jet counting. Thus there is not a one-to-one correspondence
between the numbers of t-tagged objects and b-tagged jets in an event. Two different analysis
optimizations are used to get the best sensitivity for direct top squark production models (T2tt
and T2tb) versus gluino-mediated production models (T1tttt and T5ttcc). For direct top squark
production models, the multiplicities of b-tagged jets and t-tagged objects are binned as Nb = 1,
Nb ≥ 2 and Nt = 1, Nt ≥ 2. Due to the possibility of having more than two top quarks in the
decay chain, the gluino-mediated production models are interpreted using bins with Nb = 1,
Nb = 2, Nb ≥ 3 and Nt = 1, Nt = 2, Nt ≥ 3. To improve background suppression, in particular
of the tt contribution, and to improve the sensitivity to the various signal topologies, each
(Nb , Nt ) bin is further subdivided by placing requirements on the ETmiss and MT2 variables, as
shown in Figs. 5 and 6. These figures also list the search region bin numbers used throughout
the paper. The subdivision of any given (Nb , Nt ) bin according to the ETmiss and MT2 variables
is the same for both the direct top squark and the gluino-mediated production optimizations.
10 3 Analysis strategy

2.3 fb-1 (13 TeV) 2.3 fb-1 (13 TeV)

Events

Events
CMS Data tt
250 CMS Data tt
300 W(lν l)+jets Single t W(lν l)+jets Single t
Z(ν ν )+jets QCD Z(ν ν )+jets QCD
ttZ Rare ttZ Rare
250 200
T2tt(500,325) T2tt(750,50) T2tt(500,325) T2tt(750,50)
T1tttt(1200,800) T1tttt(1500,100) T1tttt(1200,800) T1tttt(1500,100)
200 signals scaled to total background signals scaled to total background
150
150
100
100

50
50

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Nt Nb

2.3 fb-1 (13 TeV) 2.3 fb-1 (13 TeV)

Events/(50 GeV)

Events/(50 GeV)

4
CMS Data tt 10 CMS Data tt
160
W(lν l)+jets Single t W(lν l)+jets Single t
Z(ν ν )+jets QCD Z(ν ν )+jets QCD
140 3
ttZ Rare 10 ttZ Rare
120 T2tt(500,325) T2tt(750,50) T2tt(500,325) T2tt(750,50)
T1tttt(1200,800) T1tttt(1500,100) T1tttt(1200,800) T1tttt(1500,100)
100 signals scaled to total background signals scaled to total background
102
80

60 10
40

20 1
0
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
MT2 [GeV] Emiss
T [GeV]
Figure 4: Comparison of the distributions in data (black points), simulated SM backgrounds
(filled stacked histograms) and several signal models in Nt (top left), Nb (top right), MT2 (bot-
tom left), and ETmiss (bottom right), after the preselection requirements have been applied. The
T2tt signal model with met = 500 (750) GeV and mχe0 = 325 (50) GeV is shown with a red
1
short-dashed (long-dashed) line, and the T1tttt signal model with mge = 1200 (1500) GeV and
mχe0 = 800 (100) GeV with a dark green short-dash-dotted (long-dash-dotted) line. The distri-
1
butions for the signal events have been normalized to the same area as the total background
distribution, and the last bin contains the overflow events.
3.3 Event selection and categorization 11

Nb = 1 & Nt = 1 Nb = 2 & Nt = 1 Nb ≥ 3 & Nt = 1

500 500 500
MT2 [GeV]

MT2 [GeV]

MT2 [GeV]
450 8 9 10 450 19 20 450

400 400 400

350 4 5 6 7 350 15 16 17 18 350 21 22 23

300 300 300

250 0 1 2 3 250 11 12 13 14 250

200 200 200

200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
Emiss
T [GeV] Emiss
T [GeV] Emiss
T [GeV]
Nb = 1 & Nt = 2 Nb = 2 & Nt = 2 Nb ≥ 3 & Nt = 2
500 500 500
MT2 [GeV]

MT2 [GeV]

MT2 [GeV]
450 30 31 450 38 39 450

400 400 400

350 27 28 29 350 35 36 37 350 40 41

300 300 300

250 24 25 26 250 32 33 34 250

200 200 200

200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
Emiss
T [GeV] Emiss
T [GeV] Emiss
T [GeV]

Figure 5: Search region definitions for bin numbers 0–41 of the gluino-mediated production
optimization. The highest ETmiss and MT2 bins are open-ended, e.g., bin 10 requires ETmiss >
450 GeV and MT2 > 400 GeV. In addition to the search bins shown in this figure, there are three
bins (42–44) with Nt ≥ 3, one for each Nb bin, that contain no further binning in ETmiss or MT2
beyond baseline selection requirements.

Nb = 1 & Nt = 1 Nb ≥ 2 & Nt = 1
500 500
MT2 [GeV]

MT2 [GeV]

450 8 9 10 450 19 20
400 400

350 4 5 6 7 350 15 16 17 18
300 300

250 0 1 2 3 250 11 12 13 14
200 200
200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
Emiss
T [GeV] Emiss
T [GeV]
Nb = 1 & Nt ≥ 2 Nb ≥ 2 & Nt ≥ 2
500 500
MT2 [GeV]

MT2 [GeV]

450 27 28 450 35 36
400 400

350 24 25 26 350 32 33 34
300 300

250 21 22 23 250 29 30 31
200 200
200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
Emiss
T [GeV] Emiss
T [GeV]

Figure 6: Search region definitions for bin numbers 0–36 for the direct top squark production
optimization. The highest ETmiss and MT2 bins are open-ended, e.g., bin 10 requires ETmiss >
450 GeV and MT2 > 400 GeV.
12 4 Background estimation

4 Background estimation
About 70% of the expected SM background (integrated over all search bins) comes from tt,
W+jets, and single top quark events with leptonic W boson decays. If the W boson decays
to a τ lepton that decays hadronically, this τ lepton is reconstructed as a jet and passes the
lepton vetoes. If, on the other hand, the W boson decays to an electron or muon, events can
survive the lepton vetoes when the electron or muon is “lost,” i.e., is not isolated, not identi-
fied/reconstructed, or out of the acceptance region. The remaining SM background contribu-
tions, in order of decreasing importance, originate from the Z → νν +jets, QCD multijet, ttZ
and other rare processes such as triboson and ttW production. The tt, W+jets, single top quark,
and QCD multijet backgrounds are determined using data-driven methods and are validated
with closure tests in the simulation. The Z → νν +jets background is estimated using simulated
events that are weighted to match the data in control regions. Small contributions from ttZ and
other rare processes are estimated directly from simulated events. The background estimation
methods are presented in the following subsections.

4.1 Estimation of the lost-lepton background

The contribution to the background from events with lost leptons (LL) is determined from
a data control sample (CS) that consists mainly of tt events. This CS is collected using the
search trigger and is defined to match the preselection, but the muon veto is replaced by the
requirement that there be exactly one well-identified and isolated muon with pT > 10 GeV and
|η | < 2.4, and the isolated track veto is removed. To reduce possible signal contamination in
this CS, only events with mT less than 100 GeV are considered, with mT reconstructed from the
muon pT and ETmiss as described for tracks in Eq. (2). For tt, W+jets, and single top quark events
with one W → µν decay, ETmiss originates from the produced neutrino. This means that the mT
distribution represents the transverse W mass and falls off sharply above 80 GeV; however, this
is not the case for signal events.
The predicted number of events with lost leptons, NLL , originating from the tt, W+jets, and
single top quark processes contributing to each search region bin is calculated as
eisotrack
NLL = ∑( Fiso + FID + Facc ) Fdilepton µ
emT
, (7)
CS

where ∑CS is the sum over the events measured directly in the corresponding bin of the single
muon CS defined above. The factors Fiso , FID , and Facc convert the number of events in the CS
to the number of LL events due to isolation, reconstruction and identification, and acceptance
criteria (typical values are, respectively, around 0.1, 0.1, and 0.3). These scale factors are de-
termined from isolation and reconstruction efficiencies, as well as the acceptance, which are
obtained for each search region bin using simulated tt events. The contribution to the signal
region from dilepton tt events where both leptons are lost is corrected with the term Fdilepton
µ
(0.99 for muons and 0.97 for electrons). The CS is normalized by the factor emT (around 0.9) to
compensate for the efficiency of the mT < 100 GeV requirement. Finally, the isolated track veto
efficiency factor, eisotrack , is applied to get the final number of predicted LL background events.
The isolated track veto efficiency, i.e., the fraction of events surviving the isolated track veto, is
around 60%.
The main systematic uncertainty for the LL background prediction is derived from a closure
test, which assesses whether the method can correctly predict the background yield in simu-
lated event samples. The test is performed by comparing the LL background in the search re-
gions, as predicted by applying the LL background determination procedure to the simulated
4.2 Estimation of the hadronically decaying τ lepton background 13

muon CS, to the expectation obtained directly from tt, single top quark, and W+jets simulation.
The result of the closure test for the 45 search bins optimized for gluino-mediated production
is shown in the top plot of Fig. 7. The closure test uncertainty (up to 26%, depending on the
search bin) is dominated by statistical fluctuations and included as a systematic uncertainty
in the LL background prediction. The closure uncertainties for the 37 search bins optimized
for direct top squark production are of similar size. The following other sources of systematic
uncertainty are also included: lepton isolation efficiency (effect on prediction is between 2 and
7%), lepton reconstruction and identification efficiency (3 to 8%), lepton acceptance from un-
certainty in the PDFs (about 10%), control sample purity (2%), corrections due to the presence
of dilepton events (around 1%), efficiency of the mT selection (less than 1%), and isolated-track
veto (3 to 11%).

4.2 Estimation of the hadronically decaying τ lepton background

Events from tt, W+jets, and single top quark processes in which a τ lepton decays hadronically
(τh ) are one of the largest components of the SM background contributing to the search regions.
When a W boson decays to a neutrino and a τh , the presence of neutrinos in the final state results
in ~pTmiss , and the event passes the lepton veto because the hadronically decaying τ lepton is
reconstructed as a jet. A veto on isolated tracks is used in the preselection to reduce the τh
background with a minimal impact on signal efficiency.
The estimate of the remaining τh background is based on a CS of µ+jets events selected from
data using a trigger with requirements on both muon pT and HT , and a requirement of exactly
one muon with pT > 20 GeV and |η | < 2.4. An upper threshold on the transverse mass re-
constructed from the muon and ETmiss , mT < 100 GeV, is required to select events containing
a W → µν decay and to suppress signal events contaminating the µ+jets sample. Since both
µ+jets and τh +jets production arise from the same underlying process, the hadronic component
of the events is expected to be the same, aside from the response of the detector to a muon or
τh . The muon pT is smeared by response template distributions derived for a hadronically de-
caying τ lepton to correct the leptonic part of the event. The response templates are derived
using tt, W+jets, and single top quark simulated samples by comparing the true τ lepton pT
with the reconstructed τh jet pT . The kinematic variables of the event are recalculated with this
τh jet, and the search selections are applied to predict the τh background.
The probability to mistag a τh jet as a b jet is significant (about 0.1) and affects the Nb distri-
bution of τh background events. The dependence of the mistag rate on the τh jet pT is larger
for tt events than for W+jets events, because the b quark from the top quark decay can overlap
with the τh jet. This mistag rate is taken into account in the µ+jets CS by randomly selecting a
simulated τh jet and counting it as a b jet with the probability obtained from MC simulation in
W+jets events for the corresponding τh jet pT .
The τh background prediction is calculated as follows:
!
1 B(W → τh )
∑ ∑
resp
Nτh = Pτh µ e Fτ →µ Fdilepton , (8)
CS template bins
µ µ µ µ
etrigger ereco eiso eacc emT B(W → µ) isotrack

where the first summation is over the events in the µ+jets CS, the second is over the bins of the
resp
τh response template, and Pτh is the probability of the τh response from each bin. The various
correction factors applied to convert µ+jets events into τh +jets events to construct the final τh
sample are:
• the branching fraction ratio B(W → τh )/B(W → µ) = 0.65;
14 4 Background estimation

µ
• the muon reconstruction and identification efficiency ereco (0.94–0.98) and the muon
µ
isolation efficiency eiso (0.5–0.95 depending on the muon pT and the ∑ pT of PF can-
didates within an annulus with outer radius of ∆R = 0.4 and inner radius equal to
the isolation cone);
µ
• the muon acceptance eacc (typically around 0.8–0.9);
• the mT selection efficiency emT (> 0.9);
• the correction to account for the contamination in the CS from muons from τ decays,
Fτ →µ (around 0.8 depending on Nj and ETmiss );
• the isolated track veto efficiency for τh , eisotrack (around 0.7), as determined from
simulated tt, W+jets and single top quark events by matching isolated tracks to τh
jets;
• the τh contribution that overlaps with the LL background prediction due to contam-
ination of dileptonic events in the CS, Fdilepton , to avoid double counting (0.98);
µ
• and a correction for the µ trigger efficiency, etrigger (0.95).
The muon reconstruction, identification, and isolation efficiency are the same as those used for
the LL background determination.
A closure test is performed comparing the τh background in the search regions as predicted by
applying the τh background determination procedure to the simulated muon CS to the expec-
tation obtained directly from simulation. The result of the closure test for the 45 search bins
optimized for gluino-mediated production is shown in the lower plot of Fig. 7. The closure
uncertainty for each search bin (between 2% and 28%) is dominated by statistical fluctuations
and is included as a systematic uncertainty in the τh background prediction. The closure un-
certainties for the 37 search bins optimized for direct top squark production are of similar size.
In addition, systematic uncertainties are evaluated for each of the ingredients in the prediction,
which arise from uncertainties in the following sources: the τh response template (2%), the
muon reconstruction and isolation efficiency (1%), the acceptance due to uncertainties in the
PDFs (up to 5%), the b mistag rate of the τh jet (up to 15%), emT due to uncertainties in the ETmiss
scale (< 1%), the efficiency of the isolated track veto (4–6.5%), contamination from lost leptons
(2.4%), and the trigger efficiency (1%).

4.3 Estimation of the Z → νν background

The Z → νν background is derived using simulated events that have been corrected for ob-
served differences between data and simulation. A Z → µµ control sample is used to validate
the Z → νν MC and residual differences in both shape of the jet multiplicity (Nj ) distribution
and overall normalization present therein are corrected for. The central value of the Z → νν
background prediction for each search bin B can be written as

b B = Rnorm
N ∑ SDY ( Nj )wMC , (9)
events∈ B

where N b B is the predicted number of Z → νν background events in search bin B. The sum
runs over all simulated Z → νν events that fall in search bin B, and wMC is a standard event
weight including the assumed Z → νν cross section, the integrated luminosity, the b tagging
efficiency scale factors, and the measured trigger efficiency. Each simulated event is addition-
ally weighted using two scale factors, Rnorm and SDY ( Nj ), that correct the normalization of the
simulation and the shape of the simulated Nj distribution, respectively. Both scale factors are
calculated in a dimuon CS that has events with two muons, with 81 < mµµ < 101 GeV, and
4.3 Estimation of the Z → νν background 15

CMS Simulation 2.3 fb-1 (13 TeV)

Events

104 Nt = 1 Lost lepton background

Nb ≥ 3
Nb = 1 Nb = 2 Direct from simulation
MT2 ∈ [200,300]

MT2 ∈ [300,400]

MT2 ≥ 400 GeV

3
10 Treat simulation like data
Nt = 2

Nt ≥ 3
102

10

1.8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Prediction

1.6
Direct

1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Search region bin number

CMS Simulation 2.3 fb-1 (13 TeV)

Events

104 Nt = 1 Hadronic τ-lepton background

Nb ≥ 3

Nb = 1 Nb = 2 Direct from simulation

MT2 ∈ [200,300]

MT2 ∈ [300,400]

MT2 ≥ 400 GeV

3
10 Treat simulation like data
Nt = 2
Nt ≥ 3

102

10

1.8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Prediction

1.6
Direct

1.4
1.2 search bin
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Search region bin number
Figure 7: (Top) The lost-lepton background in the 45 search regions optimized for gluino-
mediated production as determined directly from tt, single top quark, and W+jets simulation
(points) and as predicted by applying the lost-lepton background determination procedure to
the simulated muon control sample (histograms). The lower panel shows the same results
after dividing by the predicted value. (Bottom) The corresponding simulated results for the
background from hadronically decaying τ leptons. For both plots, vertical lines indicate search
regions with different Nt , Nb , and MT2 values. Within each (Nt , Nb , MT2 ) region, the bins indi-
cate the different ETmiss selections, as defined in Fig. 5. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
16 4 Background estimation

CMS 2.3 fb-1 (13 TeV) CMS 2.3 fb-1 (13 TeV)

Events/(60 GeV)
Events

Data (1706) 103 Data (1706)

3 DY (1547) DY (1547)
10 tt (127) tt (127)
Single t (4) Single t (4)
ttZ (13) ttZ (13)
Diboson (33) 102 Diboson (33)
102 Rare (5) Rare (5)

10
10

1 1
Data/MC

Data/MC
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 20 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
2
1 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Nb Emiss
T [GeV]
Figure 8: The Nb (left) and ETmiss (right) distributions in data and simulation in the loose dimuon
control region, after applying the SDY ( Nj ) scale factor to the simulation. The lower panels show
the ratio between data and simulation. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. The values
in parentheses in the legend indicate the integrated yield for each given process. The “rare”
category includes background processes such as triboson and ttW production.

no muon or isolated track vetoes. In this region the two muons are treated as if they were
neutrinos.
The first scale factor, Rnorm , is derived using a tight dimuon CS in data. This control region
has the same selection as the search region preselection, apart from the muon requirement and
without any requirements on b-tagged jets. This region is selected for its kinematic similarity
to the signal region, but lacks the statistical precision required for shape comparison. The
scale factor is computed by comparing the expected event yield in the tight region in the DY
simulation with the observed event yield in data after subtraction of the other SM processes.
The second scale factor, SDY , depends on the number of jets Nj in the event and is designed
to correct the mismodeling of the jet multiplicity distribution in simulation. The scale factor is
derived in a loose dimuon control region in which the signal region requirements on ETmiss , Nt ,
and MT2 are removed, and the HT requirement is relaxed to HT > 200 GeV. The SDY scale factor
is derived for each ( Nj ) bin as the ratio between the data, with non-DY backgrounds subtracted,
and the DY simulation. Due to tt contributions similar to the DY processes for greater jet and b-
tagged jet multiplicities, the tt MC events are similarly reweighted using a CS selected to have
an electron and a muon with 81 < meµ < 101 GeV before subtraction from the dimuon data.
The Nb and ETmiss distributions in the loose dimuon CS after applying the SDY ( Nj ) scale factor
are shown in Fig. 8. The Nb distribution agrees well between data and simulation, whereas the
ETmiss distribution has some disagreement between 300 and 600 GeV. The disagreement is taken
into account with a shape uncertainty equal to the magnitude of the disagreement and has a
negligible effect on the final results.
The systematic uncertainties for the Z → νν background prediction are divided into two broad
categories: uncertainties associated with the use of MC simulation and uncertainties specifi-
cally associated with the background prediction method. The first category includes systematic
4.4 Estimation of the QCD multijet background 17

uncertainties in the PDFs and renormalization/factorization scale choices, jet and ETmiss energy
scale uncertainties, b tagging efficiency scale factor uncertainties, and trigger efficiency uncer-
tainties. The second category includes uncertainties from the method used to determine Rnorm
and the SDY ( Nj ) scale factors, and uncertainties based on the residual shape disagreement be-
tween data and DY+jets simulation in the loose dimuon CS. The uncertainty in Rnorm , derived
from the statistical uncertainties on data and MC in the tight CS, results in a 19% uncertainty
in the predicted Z → νν event yield for each search bin. The uncertainties associated with SDY
are the dominant uncertainties and are related to residual shape uncertainties (after applying
the SDY scale factor) in the search region variables ETmiss , MT2 , Nb , and Nt . These uncertainties
are evaluated in the loose CS with the additional requirement that Nt ≥ 1 so that MT2 is well
defined. The resulting shift of the central value of the search bin predictions is used as the sys-
tematic uncertainty from the residual shape disagreements. Depending on the search bin, this
uncertainty ranges between 10 and 82%. The statistical uncertainties in the ratios between data
and simulation, as well as in SDY , are also included as a 15–75% systematic uncertainty in the
prediction.

4.4 Estimation of the QCD multijet background

The procedure to predict the QCD multijet background consists of selecting a signal-depleted
data CS, rich in QCD multijet events, from which significant contributions of other SM back-
grounds, such as tt, W+jets, and Z+jets, are subtracted. Following that, a translation factor,
partly determined from data and partly from simulation, is used to convert the number of
events measured in the data CS into a prediction for each search region bin.
The CS is defined by applying the full set of preselection requirements described in Sec. 3.3, ex-
cept that the ∆φ( ETmiss , j1,2,3 ) requirements are inverted, requiring that the ETmiss be aligned with
one of the leading three jets. The estimated number of QCD multijet events in the inverted-∆φ
CS is computed by subtracting the contributions from LL, hadronically decaying τ leptons, and
Z+jets processes from the number of data events observed in that region. The same methods as
described in the previous sections are used to estimate the contributions from LL and τh pro-
cesses, but applied to this QCD multijet-rich CS. Simulation is used to estimate the contribution
from Z → νν events, since it is expected to be small.
The translation factor between the QCD multijet-rich CS and the search region bins is com-
puted in data, using a sideband of the preselection region, defined by the requirement 175 <
ETmiss < 200 GeV and without an Nb requirement, where the amount of data is sufficiently large
to make an accurate measurement. The contributions from processes other than QCD multijet
are subtracted from the observed number of events in this low-ETmiss data sideband, following
the procedure outlined above. The dependence of the translation factor as a function of ETmiss is
accounted for by using a linear approximation derived from simulation. To take into account
the dependence as a function of MT2 , the translation factor is computed separately for MT2
values below and above 300 GeV. The translation factor ranges from 0.01 to 0.14 depending on
ETmiss and MT2 .
The main systematic uncertainty in the QCD multijet prediction is obtained from a closure
test in which the expectation for the signal region event yields, as obtained directly from the
QCD multijet simulation, is compared to the prediction obtained by applying the QCD multijet
background prediction procedure to simulated event samples. The result for the 45 search bins
optimized for gluino-mediated production is shown in Fig. 9, and any observed nonclosure
from the relaxed ETmiss and Nb requirements is taken into account as the systematic uncertainty.
If there is insufficient simulation to populate a bin in the closure prediction, the uncertainty
18 4 Background estimation

from the next lowest ETmiss bin is used. This uncertainty ranges from 5% to 500% depending on
the search bin. The closure uncertainties for the 37 search bins optimized for direct top squark
production are of similar size. The high closure uncertainties for some search bins are due
to statistical limitations of the simulation, but have a small effect on the final results because
the QCD multijet yields are very low in these search bins compared to other backgrounds. In
addition, another major source of systematic uncertainty in the QCD multijet prediction is the
uncertainty in the TQCD factors.

CMS Simulation 2.3 fb-1 (13 TeV)

Events

3
10 Nt = 1 QCD background

Nb ≥ 3
Nb = 1 Nb = 2
Direct from simulation
MT2 ∈ [200,300]

MT2 ∈ [300,400]

MT2 ≥ 400 GeV

102 Treat simulation like data

Nt = 2

Nt ≥ 3
10

10−1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Prediction
Direct

10− 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Search region bin number
Figure 9: The QCD multijet background in the 45 search regions optimized for gluino-mediated
production as determined directly from simulation (points) and as predicted by applying the
QCD multijet background determination procedure to simulated event samples in the inverted-
∆φ control region (histograms). The lower panel shows the same results after dividing by the
predicted value. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. The labeling of the search regions is
the same as in Fig. 7.

4.5 Backgrounds from ttZ and other SM rare processes

Similar to the Z → νν background, ttZ is an irreducible background when Z bosons decay to
neutrinos and both top quarks decay hadronically. The ttZ cross section at 13 TeV is only 783 fb
(computed at NLO using M AD G RAPH 5 aMC @ NLO) and the predicted yield of ttZ events in
the search bins is less than 10% of the total background. Given the presence of genuine ETmiss
and b jets in ttZ events, and given the small cross section associated with this process, we
rely on simulation to predict its contribution to each search region bin. The ttZ simulation is
validated using a trilepton control sample in data, and the 30% statistical uncertainty in this
data measurement is propagated to the ttZ prediction.
The contribution of the ttW process to the signal region is covered by the LL and τh background
estimation methods. The signal region yields for the diboson and multiboson processes are
fully determined by simulation and are combined into a single rare background prediction.
 19

5 Results and interpretation

The predicted number of SM background events and the number of events observed in data
for each of the search regions defined in Sec. 3.3 are summarized in Fig. 10 and Tables 1 and 2
for the binning optimized for direct top squark production, and in Fig. 11 and Tables 1 and 3
for the binning optimized for gluino-mediated production models. Typically, the most signif-
icant background across the search regions comes from SM tt or W boson production, where
the W boson decay contains genuine ETmiss from a neutrino. Generally, the next largest contri-
bution comes from Z → νν production in association with jets (including heavy-flavor jets) in
which the neutrino pair gives rise to large ETmiss and the top quark conditions are satisfied by
an accidental combination of the jets. For search regions with very high ETmiss requirements,
the Z → νν background can become dominant. The QCD multijet contribution and the con-
tribution from other rare SM processes are subdominant across all bins. The largest rare SM
process contribution (though still small) comes from ttZ with the Z boson decaying into a pair
of neutrinos. No statistically significant deviation between the observed data events and the
SM background prediction is found.

CMS 2.3 fb-1 (13 TeV)

Events

106
Nt = 1 Data Z(νν)+jets
105 Nb = 1 Nb ≥ 2 tt/W/t(e,µ) QCD
Bkg. Stat. Unc.
tt/W/t(τhad) ttZ(νν)
MT2 ∈ [200,300]

MT2 ∈ [300,400]

Bkg. Syst. Unc.

MT2 ≥ 400 GeV

104
T2tt(500,325) T2tt(750,50) T2tb(700,100)
103

102 Nt ≥ 2

10

10− 1
Prediction

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
4 Search region bin number
Data

3
2
1
00 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Search region bin number
Figure 10: Observed event yields in data (black points) and predicted SM background (filled
solid area) for the 37 search bins optimized for direct top squark production. The red and
dark green lines indicate various signal models: the T2tt model with met = 500 GeV and mχe0 =
1
325 GeV (red short-dashed line), the T2tt model with met = 750 GeV and mχe0 = 50 GeV (red long-
1
dashed line), and the T2tb model with met = 700 GeV and mχe0 = 100 GeV (dark green dashed-
1
dotted line). The lower panel shows the ratio of data over total background prediction in each
search bin. For both panels, the error bars show the statistical uncertainty associated with the
observed data counts, and the grey (blue) hatched bands indicate the statistical (systematic)
uncertainties in the total predicted background.
The statistical interpretation of the results in terms of exclusion limits for the signal models
considered is based on a binned likelihood fit to the observed data, taking into account the
20 5 Results and interpretation

CMS 2.3 fb-1 (13 TeV)

Events

Nb ≥ 3
106
Nt = 1 Data Z(νν)+jets
Nb = 1 Nb = 2
10 5
tt/W/t(e,µ) QCD
MT2 ∈ [200,300]

MT2 ∈ [300,400]

MT2 ≥ 400 GeV

Bkg. Stat. Unc.

104 Bkg. Syst. Unc. tt/W/t(τhad) ttZ(νν)
T1tttt(1200,800) T1tttt(1500,100) T5ttcc(1200,800)
103

Nt ≥ 3
102 Nt = 2
10

10− 1
Prediction

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
4 Search region bin number
Data

3
2
1
00 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Search region bin number
Figure 11: Observed event yields in data (black points) and predicted SM background (filled
solid area) for the 45 search bins optimized for gluino models. The red and dark green lines
indicate various signal models: the T1tttt model with mge = 1200 GeV and mχe0 = 800 GeV (dark
1
green short-dashed line), the T1tttt model with mge = 1500 GeV and mχe0 = 100 GeV (dark green
1
long-dashed line), and the T5ttcc model with mge = 1200 GeV and mχe0 = 800 GeV (red dashed-
1
dotted line). The lower panel shows the ratio of data over total background prediction in each
search bin. For both panels, the error bars show the statistical uncertainty associated with the
observed data counts, and the grey (blue) hatched bands indicate the statistical (systematic)
uncertainties in the total predicted background.
 21

Table 1: Observed yields from the data compared to the total background predictions for the
search bins that are common between the direct top squark and gluino-mediated production
optimizations. The quoted uncertainties on the predicted background yields are statistical and
systematic, respectively.

Bin number Nt Nb MT2 [GeV] ETmiss [GeV] Data Predicted background

0 1 1 200 – 300 200 – 275 68 54 +
−4
4 +6
−6
+2 +3
1 1 1 200 – 300 275 – 350 15 15 −2 −3
2 1 1 200 – 300 350 – 450 2 4.9 + 1.6 +2.4
−1.2 −0.9
3 1 1 200 – 300 >450 3 1.2 + 1.1 +0.4
−0.2 −0.4
4 1 1 300 – 400 200 – 275 13 9.8 + 1.8 +3.1
−1.5 −1.0
5 1 1 300 – 400 275 – 350 16 13 + 2 +2
−2 −1
6 1 1 300 – 400 350 – 450 8 5.0 + 1.7 +0.9
−1.1 −0.9
7 1 1 300 – 400 >450 4 1.3 + 1.1 +0.5
−0.1 −0.5
8 1 1 >400 200 – 350 2 2.9 + 1.3 +1.1
−0.8 −0.4
9 1 1 >400 350 – 450 3 6+ 2 +1
−2 −1
10 1 1 >400 >450 3 7+ 2 +3
−1 −3

predicted background and expected signal yields with their uncertainties in each search bin.
The extraction of exclusion limits is based on a modified frequentist approach [101–104] using
a profile likelihood ratio as the test statistic. Signal models for which the 95% confidence level
(CL) upper limit on the production cross section falls below the theoretical cross section (based
on NLO+NLL calculations [88]) are considered to be excluded by the analysis.
The uncertainties in the signal modeling are determined per search region bin and include the
following sources: simulation sample size (up to 50% for top squark pair production models
and up to 10% for gluino-mediated production models), luminosity determination (2.7%), lep-
ton and isolated track veto (up to 4%), b tagging efficiency corrections used to scale simulation
to data (up to 36%), trigger efficiency (< 1%), renormalization and factorization scale varia-
tions (up to 3%), initial-state radiation (up to 30%), jet energy scale corrections (up to 25%),
and the modeling of the fast simulation compared with the full simulation for top quark re-
construction and mistagging (up to 7%). All these uncertainties, apart from those arising from
the simulation sample size, are treated as fully correlated between the search bins when com-
puting exclusion limits. Potential contamination of signal events in the single-lepton control
regions is taken into account for each signal model considered in the interpretation. The poten-
tial contamination in the dilepton and inverted-∆φ region is negligible. The uncertainties from
the background predictions are also taken into account using a similar method as used for the
signal modeling, but evaluated separately for each physics process.
Figure 12 shows 95% CL exclusion limits obtained for simplified models in the pure T2tt sce-
nario, and in the mixed T2tb scenario assuming a 50% branching fraction for each of the two
decay modes (et → tχe01 /et → bχe1± ). In the latter case, the χe1± and χe01 are assumed to be nearly
degenerate in mass, with a 5 GeV difference between their masses. As a result of this analysis,
we exclude top squark masses up to 740 GeV (for zero LSP mass) and LSP masses up to 240 GeV
(for top squark mass of 420 GeV) in the T2tt scenario. In the T2tb scenario, top squark masses
up to 610 GeV (for LSP mass of 60 GeV) and LSP masses up to 190 GeV (for top squark mass
22 5 Results and interpretation

Table 2: Observed yields from the data compared to the total background predictions for the
search bins that are specific to the direct top squark production optimization. The quoted un-
certainties on the predicted background yields are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Bin number Nt Nb MT2 [GeV] ETmiss [GeV] Data Predicted background

11 1 ≥2 200 – 300 200 – 275 43 44 +
−4
4 +5
−5
+3 +2
12 1 ≥2 200 – 300 275 – 350 10 15 −2 −2
13 1 ≥2 200 – 300 350 – 450 5 3.6 + 1.5 +0.7
−0.9 −0.6
14 1 ≥2 200 – 300 >450 1 1.4 + 1.5 +0.2
−0.7 −0.2
15 1 ≥2 300 – 400 200 – 275 7 7.6 + 1.7 +2.0
−1.4 −0.9
16 1 ≥2 300 – 400 275 – 350 10 4.8 + 1.7 +0.6
−1.1 −0.5
17 1 ≥2 300 – 400 350 – 450 3 2.8 + 1.6 +0.4
−0.9 −0.4
18 1 ≥2 300 – 400 >450 2 0.5 + 1.3 +0.2
−0.1 −0.2
19 1 ≥2 >400 200 – 450 2 2.0 + 1.4 +0.6
−0.7 −0.4
20 1 ≥2 >400 >45 1 0.99 + 1.77 +0.65
−0.06 −0.65

21 ≥2 1 200 – 300 200 – 275 18 20 +

−2
2 +3
−3
+1 +1
22 ≥2 1 200 – 300 275 – 350 3 5 −1 −1
23 ≥2 1 200 – 300 >350 1 1.1 + 0.9 +0.2
−0.5 −0.2
24 ≥2 1 300 – 400 200 – 275 10 7.1 + 1.8 +1.1
−1.5 −0.7
25 ≥2 1 300 – 400 275 – 350 6 4.0 + 1.5 +0.5
−1.1 −0.5
26 ≥2 1 300 – 400 >350 2 2.7 + 1.2 +0.4
−0.8 −0.4
27 ≥2 1 >400 200 – 250 2 0.5 + 1.1 +0.9
−0.1 −0.2
28 ≥2 1 >400 >350 3 1.9 + 1.1 +0.9
−0.5 −0.8
29 ≥2 ≥2 200 – 300 200 – 275 6 16 + 3 +2
−3 −2
30 ≥2 ≥2 200 – 300 275 – 350 1 3.3 + 1.3 +0.5
−1.1 −0.5
31 ≥2 ≥2 200 – 300 >350 0 1.3 + 0.9 +0.1
−0.4 −0.1
32 ≥2 ≥2 300 – 400 200 – 275 10 7.1 + 1.8 +0.8
−1.5 −0.7
33 ≥2 ≥2 300 – 400 275 – 350 2 1.7 + 1.3 +0.2
−0.7 −0.2
34 ≥2 ≥2 300 – 400 >350 1 0.8 + 1.0 +0.2
−0.3 −0.2
35 ≥2 ≥2 >400 200 – 350 1 0.27 + 1.00 +0.05
−0.16 −0.05
36 ≥2 ≥2 >400 >350 1 0.41 + 1.27 +0.19
−0.06 −0.17
 23

Table 3: Observed yields from the data compared to the total background predictions for the
search bins that are specific to the gluino-mediated production optimization. The quoted un-
certainties on the predicted background yields are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Bin number Nt Nb MT2 [GeV] ETmiss [GeV] Data Predicted background

11 1 2 200 – 300 200 – 275 38 36 +
−3
4 +4
−4
12 1 2 200 – 300 275 – 350 7 11 + 2 +2
−2 −2
+1.5 +0.8
13 1 2 200 – 300 350 – 450 4 3.5 −0.8 −0.6
14 1 2 200 – 300 >450 1 1.3 + 1.5 +0.2
−0.6 −0.2
15 1 2 300 – 400 200 – 275 7 6.4 + 1.6 +1.7
−1.3 −0.8
16 1 2 300 – 400 275 – 350 10 3.6 + 1.6 +0.5
−0.9 −0.5
17 1 2 300 – 400 350 – 450 3 2.6 + 1.7 +0.4
−0.9 −0.4
18 1 2 300 – 400 >450 2 0.5 + 1.2 +0.2
−0.2 −0.2
19 1 2 >400 200 – 450 2 1.0 + 1.3 +0.6
−0.2 −0.3
20 1 2 >400 >450 1 0.91 + 1.57 +0.62
−0.05 −0.62
21 1 ≥3 >200 200 – 300 5 12 + 3 +2
−2 −2
22 1 ≥3 >200 300 – 400 3 2.2 + 1.4 +0.3
−0.7 −0.3
23 1 ≥3 >200 >400 1 1.4 + 1.6 +0.3
−0.7 −0.2

24 2 1 200 – 300 200 – 275 16 19 +

−2
2 +3
−3
25 2 1 200 – 300 275 – 350 3 5.2 + 1.4 +1.0
−1.1 −1.0
26 2 1 200 – 300 >350 1 0.5 + 0.8 +0.2
−0.2 −0.2
27 2 1 300 – 400 200 – 275 10 7.0 + 1.8 +1.1
−1.5 −0.8
28 2 1 300 – 400 275 – 350 6 4.0 + 1.5 +0.5
−1.1 −0.5
29 2 1 300 – 400 >350 2 2.7 + 1.2 +0.4
−0.8 −0.4
30 2 1 >400 200 – 350 2 0.5 + 1.1 +0.9
−0.1 −0.2
31 2 1 >400 >350 3 1.9 + 1.1 +0.9
−0.5 −0.8
32 2 2 200 – 300 200 – 275 6 14 + 3 +2
−3 −2
33 2 2 200 – 300 275 – 350 1 3.1 + 1.3 +0.5
−1.0 −0.5
34 2 2 200 – 300 >350 0 1.2 + 0.9 +0.1
−0.4 −0.1
35 2 2 300 – 400 200 – 275 10 5.3 + 1.6 +0.9
−1.3 −0.5
36 2 2 300 – 400 275 – 350 2 1.3 + 1.3 +0.2
−0.6 −0.1
37 2 2 300 – 400 >350 1 0.7 + 1.0 +0.2
−0.4 −0.1
38 2 2 >400 200 – 350 1 0.20 + 0.87 +0.04
−0.11 −0.04
39 2 2 >400 >350 1 0.38 + 1.31 +0.16
−0.07 −0.16
40 2 ≥3 >200 200 – 300 0 4.3 + 1.6 +0.5
−1.3 −0.5
41 2 ≥3 >200 >300 0 0.29 + 0.91 +0.06
−0.09 −0.05

42 ≥3 1 >200 >200 2 1.7 + 1.2

−0.7
+0.3
−0.2
+0.9 +0.1
43 ≥3 2 >200 >200 0 0.3 −0.2 −0.1
44 ≥3 ≥3 >200 >200 0 0.23 + 0.92 +0.04
−0.21 −0.04
24 5 Results and interpretation

of 380 GeV) are excluded. These results are comparable to those from the top squark searches
at 8 TeV based on an order of magnitude larger data sets. The improvements of the top quark
tagging algorithm, in particular the addition of merged jet scenarios to recover efficiency for
boosted top quarks, extends the reach of the analysis to higher top squark masses than would
have been possible with the approach used in Ref. [41]. No interpretation is provided for the
T2tt and T2tb signal models for which both |met − mχe0 − mt | ≤ 25 GeV and met ≤ 275 GeV be-
1
cause of significant differences between the fast simulation and the G EANT 4-based simulation
for these low-ETmiss scenarios.
Figure 13 shows 95% CL exclusion limits obtained for simplified models in the T1tttt and T5ttcc
scenarios. Gluino masses up to 1550 GeV (for zero LSP mass) and LSP masses up to 900 GeV
(for top squark mass of 1360 GeV) are excluded for the T1tttt model, whereas gluino masses
up to 1450 GeV (for LSP mass of 200-400 GeV) and LSP masses up to 820 GeV (for top squark
mass of 1300 GeV) are excluded for the T5ttcc model. These results significantly extend the
mass reach compared to analyses at 8 TeV, which excluded gluino masses up to about 1380
(1340) GeV and LSP masses up to about 700 (650) GeV for the T1tttt (T5ttcc) model. The search
bins with Nt ≥ 3 provide additional sensitivity for T1tttt models with high gluino and LSP
masses, since they allow suppression of SM backgrounds while keeping a low ETmiss threshold.
The decrease in the mge limit for very small LSP masses for the T5ttcc model can be explained
by Lorentz boosts. For LSP masses near the mass of the charm quark, the LSP and charm quark
share the momentum available in the top squark decay about equally. This results in a softer
ETmiss spectrum, and, therefore, a reduced efficiency, compared to models that have a heavier
LSP.

CMS 2.3 fb-1 (13 TeV) CMS 2.3 fb-1 (13 TeV)
500 500 102
mχ∼ [GeV]
mχ∼ [GeV]

~~ ~ ~
~~ ~ pp → t t*, t → b ∼
χ1 → b W± ∼
χ1 or t → t ∼
∼ ± 0 0

95% CL upper limit on cross section [pb]

χ1
95% CL upper limit on cross section [pb]

pp → t t, t → t χ01 NLO+NLL exclusion 10 2

450 450 NLO+NLL exclusion
Observed ± 1 σtheory
Observed ± 1 σtheory
0
1

0
1

400 Expected ± 1 σexperiment 400 mχ∼ - m∼χ = 5 GeV

± 0
1

Expected ± 1 σexperiment BR(~t → t ∼χ01) = 50%

1

10
350 350
χ∼ 0

10
1
+m

χ∼ 0
=m
t

1
+m

300 300
m~

=m
t
t

250 250
m~
t

1 1
200 200

150 150
10-1
100 100 10-1

50 50

0 10 -2 0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

m~t [GeV] m~t [GeV]

Figure 12: Exclusion limits at 95% CL for simplified models of top squark pair production
in the T2tt (left) and T2tb (right) scenario, assuming a 50% branching fraction for each of the
et → tχe01 /et → bχe1± modes and a 5 GeV mass difference between the χe1± and χe01 . The solid
black curves represent the observed exclusion contour with respect to NLO+NLL cross section
calculations [88] and the corresponding ±1 standard deviation uncertainties. The dashed red
curves indicate the expected exclusion contour and the ±1 standard deviation uncertainties in-
cluding experimental uncertainties. No interpretation is provided for signal models for which
|met − mχe0 − mt | ≤ 25 GeV and met ≤ 275 GeV because of significant differences between the fast
1
simulation and the G EANT 4-based simulation for these low-ETmiss scenarios.
 25

CMS 2.3 fb-1 (13 TeV) CMS 2.3 fb-1 (13 TeV)
mχ∼ [GeV]

mχ∼ [GeV]
~~ ~ ∼0 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ∼0
1400 pp → g g, g → t t χ1 NLO+NLL exclusion 1400 pp → gg, g → tt, t → cχ1 NLO+NLL exclusion

95% CL upper limit on cross section [pb]

95% CL upper limit on cross section [pb]

1 1
Observed ± 1 σtheory Observed ± 1 σtheory
m~t - m∼χ = 20 GeV
0
0
1

0
1
1200 Expected ± 1 σexperiment 1200 Expected ± 1 σexperiment 1

1000 1000
10-1 10-1
800 800

600 600
-2
10 10-2
400 400

200 200

-3 -3
0 10 0 10
900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700

m~g [GeV] m~g [GeV]

Figure 13: Exclusion limits at 95% CL for simplified models of top squarks produced via decays
of gluino pairs in the T1tttt (left) and T5ttcc (right) scenarios. The solid black curves represent
the observed exclusion contour with respect to NLO+NLL cross section calculations [88] and
the corresponding ±1 standard deviation uncertainties. The dashed red curves indicate the ex-
pected exclusion contour and the ±1 standard deviation uncertainties including experimental
uncertainties.

6 Summary
Results have been presented from a search for direct and gluino-mediated top squark produc-
tion in final states that include tagged top quark decays. The search uses all-hadronic events
with at least four jets and a large imbalance in transverse momentum (ETmiss ), selected from
data collected in proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV with the CMS
detector and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 2.3 fb−1 . A set of search regions
is defined based on ETmiss , MT2 , the number of top quark tagged objects, and the number of
b-tagged jets. No statistically significant excess of events is observed above the expected stan-
dard model background. Exclusion limits are set at 95% confidence level for simplified models
of direct top squark pair production and of gluino pair production, where the gluinos decay to
final states that include top quarks. For simplified models of pair production of top squarks,
which decay to a top quark and a neutralino (T2tt), top squark masses of up to 740 GeV and
neutralino masses up to 240 GeV are excluded at 95% confidence level. For models that assume
50% branching fractions for top squark decays to a top quark and a neutralino, or to a bottom
quark and a chargino that is nearly degenerate in mass with the neutralino (T2tb), top squark
masses of up to 610 GeV and neutralino masses up to 190 GeV are also excluded. For simplified
models of gluino pair production where each gluino decays to a top-antitop quark pair and
a neutralino (T1tttt), gluino masses of up to 1550 GeV, and neutralino masses up to 900 GeV
are excluded. Gluino masses of up to 1450 GeV, and neutralino masses up to 820 GeV are ex-
cluded for models in which the gluino decays to an on-shell top squark and a top quark, and
the top squarks decays to a charm quark and a neutralino (T5ttcc). These are among the most
restrictive currently available limits.

Acknowledgments
We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the excellent perfor-
mance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative staffs at CERN and at other
26 6 Summary

CMS institutes for their contributions to the success of the CMS effort. In addition, we grate-
fully acknowledge the computing centers and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing
Grid for delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our analyses. Fi-
nally, 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 Min-
istry of Science, Research and Economy and the Austrian Science Fund; the Belgian Fonds de
la Recherche Scientifique, and Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek; the Brazilian Fund-
ing 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 Na-
tional Natural Science Foundation of China; the Colombian Funding Agency (COLCIENCIAS);
the Croatian Ministry of Science, Education and Sport, and the Croatian Science Foundation;
the Research Promotion Foundation, Cyprus; the Ministry of Education and Research, Esto-
nian Research Council via IUT23-4 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 Partic-
ules / 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 Forschungszentren, Germany; the General Secretariat
for Research and Technology, Greece; the National Scientific Research Foundation, and Na-
tional 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 Foundation, Ireland; the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Italy; the Min-
istry of Science, ICT and Future Planning, and National Research Foundation (NRF), Repub-
lic 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 Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, Portugal;
JINR, Dubna; the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, the Federal
Agency of Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation, Russian Academy of Sciences, and the
Russian Foundation for Basic Research; the Ministry of Education, Science and Technologi-
cal Development of Serbia; the Secretarı́a de Estado de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación
and Programa Consolider-Ingenio 2010, Spain; the Swiss Funding 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 Teach-
ing Science and Technology of Thailand, Special Task Force for Activating Research and the
National Science and Technology Development Agency of Thailand; the Scientific and Techni-
cal 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, UK; 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 EPLANET (European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A. P. Sloan Founda-
tion; 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 In-
dustrial Research, India; the HOMING PLUS program of the Foundation for Polish Science,
cofinanced from European Union, Regional Development Fund; the Mobility Plus programme
 27

of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education (Poland); the OPUS programme of the Na-
tional Science Center (Poland); the Thalis and Aristeia programmes cofinanced by EU-ESF and
the Greek NSRF; the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund;
the Programa Cları́n-COFUND del Principado de Asturias; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for
Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University (Thailand); the Chulalongkorn Academic
into Its 2nd Century Project Advancement Project (Thailand); and the Welch Foundation, con-
tract C-1845.
28 References

References
[1] 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.
[2] 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.
[3] CMS Collaboration,
√ “Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp
collisions at s = 7 and 8 TeV”, JHEP 06 (2013) 081,
doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2013)081, arXiv:1303.4571.
[4] L. Evans and P. Bryant, “LHC Machine”, JINST 3 (2008) S08001,
doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08001.
[5] ATLAS and CMS √ Collaborations, “Combined measurement of the Higgs boson mass in
pp collisions at s = 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS and CMS experiments”, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 114 (2015) 191803, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191803,
arXiv:1503.07589.
[6] S. Dimopoulos and S. Raby, “Supercolor”, Nucl. Phys. B 192 (1981) 353,
doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90430-2.
[7] E. Witten, “Dynamical breaking of supersymmetry”, Nucl. Phys. B 188 (1981) 513,
doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90006-7.
[8] M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, “Supersymmetric technicolor”, Nucl. Phys. B
189 (1981) 575, doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90582-4.
[9] S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi, “Softly broken supersymmetry and SU(5)”, Nucl. Phys. B
193 (1981) 150, doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90522-8.
[10] R. K. Kaul and P. Majumdar, “Cancellation of quadratically divergent mass corrections
in globally supersymmetric spontaneously broken gauge theories”, Nucl. Phys. B 199
(1982) 36, doi:10.1016/0550-3213(82)90565-X.
[11] R. Barbieri, S. Ferrara, and C. A. Savoy, “Gauge models with spontaneously broken local
supersymmetry”, Phys. Lett. B 119 (1982) 343,
doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)90685-2.
[12] R. Barbieri and G. F. Giudice, “Upper bounds on supersymmetric particle masses”,
Nucl. Phys. B 306 (1988) 63, doi:10.1016/0550-3213(88)90171-X.
[13] J. Wess and B. Zumino, “Supergauge transformations in four-dimensions”, Nucl. Phys.
B 70 (1974) 39, doi:10.1016/0550-3213(74)90355-1.
[14] Y. A. Gol’fand and E. P. Likhtman, “Extension of the algebra of Poincaré group
generators and violation of P invariance”, JETP Lett. 13 (1971) 323.
[15] D. V. Volkov and V. P. Akulov, “Possible universal neutrino interaction”, JETP Lett. 16
(1972) 438.
[16] A. H. Chamseddine, R. L. Arnowitt, and P. Nath, “Locally supersymmetric grand
unification”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 (1982) 970, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.970.
References 29

[17] G. L. Kane, C. F. Kolda, L. Roszkowski, and J. D. Wells, “Study of constrained minimal

supersymmetry”, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 6173, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.49.6173,
arXiv:hep-ph/9312272.

[18] P. Fayet, “Supergauge invariant extension of the Higgs mechanism and a model for the
electron and its neutrino”, Nucl. Phys. B 90 (1975) 104,
doi:10.1016/0550-3213(75)90636-7.

[19] L. J. Hall, J. D. Lykken, and S. Weinberg, “Supergravity as the messenger of

supersymmetry breaking”, Phys. Rev. D 27 (1983) 2359,
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.27.2359.

[20] P. Ramond, “Dual theory for free fermions”, Phys. Rev. D 3 (1971) 2415,
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.3.2415.

[21] B. de Carlos and J. A. Casas, “One-loop analysis of the electroweak breaking in

supersymmetric models and the fine-tuning problem”, Phys. Lett. B 309 (1993) 320,
doi:10.1016/0370-2693(93)90940-J, arXiv:hep-ph/9303291.

[22] S. Dimopoulos and G. F. Giudice, “Naturalness constraints in supersymmetric theories

with non-universal soft terms”, Phys. Lett. B 357 (1995) 573,
doi:10.1016/0370-2693(95)00961-J, arXiv:hep-ph/9507282.

[23] N. Sakai, “Naturalness in supersymmetric GUTS”, Z. Phys. C 11 (1981) 153,

doi:10.1007/BF01573998.

[24] M. Papucci, J. T. Ruderman, and A. Weiler, “Natural SUSY endures”, JHEP 09 (2012)
035, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2012)035, arXiv:1110.6926.

[25] C. Brust, A. Katz, S. Lawrence, and R. Sundrum, “SUSY, the third generation and the
LHC”, JHEP 03 (2012) 103, doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2012)103, arXiv:1110.6670.

[26] J. L. Feng, “Naturalness and the status of supersymmetry”, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63
(2013) 351, doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102010-130447, arXiv:1302.6587.

[27] A. Delgado et al., “The light stop window”, Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2370,
doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2370-5, arXiv:1212.6847.

[28] G. R. Farrar and P. Fayet, “Phenomenology of the production, decay, and detection of
new hadronic states associated with supersymmetry”, Phys. Lett. B 76 (1978) 575,
doi:10.1016/0370-2693(78)90858-4.

[29] J. L. Feng, “Dark matter candidates from particle physics and methods of detection”,
Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 48 (2010) 495,
doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101659, arXiv:1003.0904.

[30] J. Alwall, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, “Simplified models for a first characterization of new
physics at the LHC”, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 075020,
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.075020, arXiv:0810.3921.

[31] J. Alwall, M.-P. Le, M. Lisanti, and J. G. Wacker, “Model-Independent Jets plus Missing
Energy Searches”, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 015005,
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.015005, arXiv:0809.3264.
30 References

[32] LHC New Physics Working Group Collaboration, “Simplified Models for LHC New
Physics Searches”, J. Phys. G 39 (2012) 105005,
doi:10.1088/0954-3899/39/10/105005, arXiv:1105.2838.

[33] D. Alves, E. Izaguirre, and J. G. Wacker, “Where the sidewalk ends: jets and missing
energy search strategies for the 7 TeV LHC”, JHEP 10 (2011) 012,
doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2011)012, arXiv:1102.5338.

[34] CMS Collaboration, “Interpretation of searches for supersymmetry with simplified

models”, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 052017, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.052017,
arXiv:1301.2175.

[35] ATLAS Collaboration, “ATLAS run 1 searches for direct pair production of
third-generation squarks at the large hadron collider”, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 510,
doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3726-9, arXiv:1506.08616.

[36] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for pair-produced third-generation squarks decaying

√ via
charm quarks or in compressed supersymmetric scenarios in pp collisions at s = 8
TeV with the ATLAS detector”, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 052008,
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.052008, arXiv:1407.0608.

[37] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for direct pair production √ of the top squark in
all-hadronic final states in proton-proton collisions at s = 8 TeV with the ATLAS
detector”, JHEP 09 (2014) 015, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2014)015,
arXiv:1406.1122.

[38] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for direct third-generation squark √

pair production in
final states with missing transverse momentum and two b-jets in s = 8 TeV pp
collisions with the ATLAS detector”, JHEP 10 (2013) 189,
doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2013)189, arXiv:1308.2631.

[39] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search √ for direct top-squark pair production in final states with
two leptons in pp collisions at s = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector”, JHEP 06 (2014)
124, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2014)124, arXiv:1403.4853.
√
[40] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for supersymmetry at s = 8 TeV in final states with jets
and two same-sign leptons or three leptons with the ATLAS detector”, JHEP 06 (2014)
035, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2014)035, arXiv:1404.2500.

[41] CMS Collaboration, “Searches for third-generation

√ squark production in fully hadronic
final states in proton-proton collisions at s = 8 TeV”, JHEP 06 (2015) 116,
doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2015)116, arXiv:1503.08037.

[42] CMS Collaboration, “Search for direct pair production √ of supersymmetric top quarks
decaying to all-hadronic final states in pp collisions at s = 8 TeV”, Eur. Phys. J. C 76
(2016) 460, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4292-5, arXiv:1603.00765.

[43] CMS Collaboration, “Search for direct pair production

√ of scalar top quarks in the single-
and dilepton channels in proton-proton collisions at s = 8 TeV”, JHEP 07 (2016) 027,
doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2016)027, arXiv:1602.03169.

[44] CMS Collaboration, “Search

√ for top-squark pair production in the single-lepton final
state in pp collisions at s = 8 TeV”, Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2677,
doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2677-2, arXiv:1308.1586.
References 31

[45] CMS Collaboration, “Search for supersymmetry in events with soft leptons, √ low jet
multiplicity, and missing transverse energy in proton-proton collisions at s = 8 TeV”,
Phys. Lett. B 759 (2016) 9, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.05.033,
arXiv:1512.08002.
√
[46] ATLAS Collaboration, “Summary of the searches for squarks and gluinos using s = 8
TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS experiment at the LHC”, JHEP 10 (2015) 054,
doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2015)054, arXiv:1507.05525.

[47] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for squarks and gluinos with

√ the ATLAS detector in final
states with jets and missing transverse momentum using s = 8 TeV proton-proton
collision data”, JHEP 09 (2014) 176, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2014)176,
arXiv:1405.7875.

[48] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for new phenomena in√ final states with large jet
multiplicities and missing transverse momentum at s = 8 TeV proton-proton
collisions using the ATLAS experiment”, JHEP 10 (2013) 130,
doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2013)130, arXiv:1308.1841. [Erratum:
doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2014)109].

[49] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for new phenomena in final states

√ with an energetic jet
and large missing transverse momentum in pp collisions at s = 8 TeV with the ATLAS
detector”, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 299, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3517-3,
arXiv:1502.01518. [Erratum: doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3639-7].

[50] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for squarks√

and gluinos in events with isolated leptons,
jets and missing transverse momentum at s = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector”, JHEP
04 (2015) 116, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2015)116, arXiv:1501.03555.

[51] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for strong production of supersymmetric particles √ in

final states with missing transverse momentum and at least three b-jets at s = 8 TeV
proton-proton collisions with the ATLAS detector”, JHEP 10 (2014) 024,
doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2014)024, arXiv:1407.0600.
√
[52] CMS Collaboration, “Search for supersymmetry in pp collisions at s = 8 TeV in events
with a single lepton, large jet multiplicity, and multiple b jets”, Phys. Lett. B 733 (2014)
328, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.04.023, arXiv:1311.4937.

[53] CMS Collaboration, “Searches for supersymmetry based on events with b jets and four
W bosons in pp collisions at 8 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 745 (2015) 5,
doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.04.002, arXiv:1412.4109.
√
[54] CMS Collaboration, “Search for supersymmetry in pp collisions at s = 8 TeV in final
states with boosted W bosons and b jets using razor variables”, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016)
092009, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.092009, arXiv:1602.02917.

[55] CMS Collaboration, “Searches for supersymmetry using the mT2 variable in hadronic
events produced in pp collisions at 8 TeV”, JHEP 05 (2015) 078,
doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2015)078, arXiv:1502.04358.

[56] CMS Collaboration, “Search for√ supersymmetry using razor variables in events with
b-tagged jets in pp collisions at s = 8 TeV”, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 052018,
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.052018, arXiv:1502.00300.
32 References

[57] CMS Collaboration, “Search for new physics in the multijet

√ and missing transverse
momentum final state in proton-proton collisions at s = 8 TeV”, JHEP 06 (2014) 055,
doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2014)055, arXiv:1402.4770.

[58] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for top squarks

√ in final states with one isolated lepton,
jets, and missing transverse momentum in s = 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS
detector”, Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 052009, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.052009,
arXiv:1606.03903.

[59] CMS Collaboration, “Search √for new physics with the MT2 variable in all-jets final states
produced in pp collisions at s = 13 TeV”, JHEP 10 (2016) 006,
doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2016)006, arXiv:1603.04053.

[60] CMS
√ Collaboration, “Searches for pair production of third-generation squarks in
s = 13 TeV pp collisions”, (2016). arXiv:1612.03877. Submitted to Eur. Phys. J. C.

[61] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for pair production of gluinos decaying via stop and
sbottom
√ in events with b-jets and large missing transverse momentum in pp collisions
at s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”, Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 032003,
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.032003, arXiv:1605.09318.
√
[62] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for supersymmetry at s = 13 TeV in final states with
jets and two same-sign leptons or three leptons with the ATLAS detector”, Eur. Phys. J.
C 76 (2016) 259, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4095-8, arXiv:1602.09058.

[63] CMS Collaboration, “Search for supersymmetry in the multijet and missing transverse
momentum final state in pp collisions at 13 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 758 (2016) 152,
doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.05.002, arXiv:1602.06581.

[64] CMS Collaboration, “Search√for new physics in same-sign dilepton events in

proton–proton collisions at s = 13 TeV”, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 439,
doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4261-z, arXiv:1605.03171.
√
[65] CMS Collaboration, “Search for supersymmetry in pp collisions at s = 13 TeV in the
single-lepton final state using the sum of masses of large-radius jets”, JHEP 08 (2016)
122, doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2016)122, arXiv:1605.04608.

[66] C. G. Lester and D. J. Summers, “Measuring masses of semi-invisibly decaying particles

pair produced at hadron colliders”, Phys. Lett. B 463 (1999) 99,
doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(99)00945-4, arXiv:hep-ph/9906349.

[67] A. Barr, C. Lester, and P. Stephens, “A variable for measuring masses at hadron colliders
when missing energy is expected; m T2 : the truth behind the glamour”, J. Phys. G 29
(2003) 2343, doi:10.1088/0954-3899/29/10/304, arXiv:hep-ph/0304226.

[68] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”, JINST 3 (2008) S08004,
doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.

[69] CMS Collaboration, “Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the
CMS detector”, (2017). arXiv:1706.04965. Submitted to JINST.

[70] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-k t jet clustering algorithm”, JHEP 04
(2008) 063, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063, arXiv:0802.1189.
References 33

[71] M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam, “Pileup subtraction using jet areas”, Phys. Lett. B 659
(2008) 119, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.09.077, arXiv:0707.1378.

[72] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “FastJet user manual”, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012)
1896, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2, arXiv:1111.6097.

[73] CMS Collaboration, “Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp
collisions at 8 TeV”, Submitted to JINST (2016) arXiv:1607.03663.

[74] CMS Collaboration, “Identification of b quark jets at the CMS Experiment in the LHC
Run 2”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-BTV-15-001, 2016.

[75] 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.

[76] CMS
√ Collaboration, “Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in pp collision events at
s = 7 TeV”, JINST 7 (2012) P10002, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/7/10/P10002,
arXiv:1206.4071.

[77] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of electron√reconstruction and selection with the

CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at s = 8 TeV”, JINST 10 (2015) P06005,
doi:10.1088/1748-0221/10/06/P06005, arXiv:1502.02701.

[78] 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, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079, arXiv:1405.0301.

[79] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC Run II”, JHEP 04 (2015) 040,
doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040, arXiv:1410.8849.

[80] 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.

[81] 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.

[82] 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.

[83] E. Re, “Single-top Wt-channel production matched with parton showers using the
POWHEG method”, Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1547,
doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1547-z, arXiv:1009.2450.

[84] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, “A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1”,

Comput. Phys. Commun. 178 (2008) 852, doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2008.01.036,
arXiv:0710.3820.

[85] CMS Collaboration, “Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and
multiparton scattering measurements”, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 155,
doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3988-x, arXiv:1512.00815.
34 References

[86] GEANT4 Collaboration, “GEANT4—a simulation toolkit”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506
(2003) 250, doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.

[87] S. Abdullin et al., “The fast simulation of the CMS detector at LHC”, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.
331 (2011) 032049, doi:10.1088/1742-6596/331/3/032049.

[88] C.
√ Borschensky et al., “Squark and gluino production cross sections in pp collisions at
s = 13, 14, 33 and 100 TeV”, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3174,
doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3174-y, arXiv:1407.5066.

[89] M. Czakon and A. Mitov, “Top++: A Program for the Calculation of the Top-Pair
Cross-Section at Hadron Colliders”, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185 (2014) 2930,
doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2014.06.021, arXiv:1112.5675.

[90] P. Kant et al., “HATHOR for single top-quark production: Updated predictions and
uncertainty estimates for single top-quark production in hadronic collisions”, Comput.
Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 74, doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2015.02.001,
arXiv:1406.4403.

[91] M. Aliev et al., “HATHOR: HAdronic Top and Heavy quarks crOss section calculatoR”,
Comput. Phys. Commun. 182 (2011) 1034, doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2010.12.040,
arXiv:1007.1327.

[92] T. Gehrmann et al., “W+ W− Production at Hadron Colliders in Next to Next to Leading
Order QCD”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 212001,
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.212001, arXiv:1408.5243.

[93] J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, “An update on vector boson pair production at hadron
colliders”, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 113006, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.60.113006,
arXiv:hep-ph/9905386.

[94] J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and C. Williams, “Vector boson pair production at the LHC”,
JHEP 07 (2011) 018, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2011)018, arXiv:1105.0020.

[95] Y. Li and F. Petriello, “Combining QCD and electroweak corrections to dilepton

production in FEWZ”, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 094034,
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.094034, arXiv:1208.5967.

[96] D. E. Kaplan, K. Rehermann, M. D. Schwartz, and B. Tweedie, “Top Tagging: A Method

for Identifying Boosted Hadronically Decaying Top Quarks”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008)
142001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.142001, arXiv:0806.0848.

[97] T. Plehn, M. Spannowsky, M. Takeuchi, and D. Zerwas, “Stop reconstruction with

tagged tops”, JHEP 10 (2010) 078, doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2010)078,
arXiv:1006.2833.

[98] D. E. Kaplan, K. Rehermann, and D. Stolarski, “Searching for Direct Stop Production in
Hadronic Top Data at the LHC”, JHEP 07 (2012) 119,
doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2012)119, arXiv:1205.5816.

[99] 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.

[100] CMS Collaboration, “Jet Performance in pp Collisions at 7 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis
Summary CMS-PAS-JME-10-003, 2010.
References 35

[101] ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, “Procedure for the lhc higgs boson search combination
in summer 2011”, Technical Report ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-011, CMS NOTE-2011/005,
2011.

[102] A. L. Read, “Presentation of search results: the CLs technique”, J. Phys. G 28 (2002)
2693, doi:10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/313.

[103] 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.

[104] G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, “Asymptotic formulae for

likelihood-based tests of new physics”, Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1554,
doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0, arXiv:1007.1727. [Erratum:
doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2501-z].
36 A Additional information on the performance of top quark identification

A Additional information on the performance of top quark identi-

fication
(13 TeV)
1.4
Top quark tagging purity
CMS
1.2 Supplementary (Simulation)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
preco [GeV]
T
Figure 14: The purity of the top quark tagger as a function of the reconstructed top quark
pT . The purity is defined as the fraction of reconstructed top quarks that are matched to a
generator-level hadronically decaying top quark within a cone of ∆R = 0.4, and was measured
in a sample of simulated one-lepton tt events. The following event selection requirements were
applied: Nj ≥ 4 for pT > 30 GeV, |η | < 2.4 and Nj ≥ 2 for pT > 50 GeV, |η | < 2.4; Nb ≥ 1; and
ETmiss > 200 GeV.

(13 TeV)
1
Mistag rate per event

0.9 CMS
Supplementary (Simulation) Z(νν) + jets
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Emiss
T [GeV]
Figure 15: The event mistag rate of the top quark tagger as a function of ETmiss in the Z → νν
simulated sample, with the following event selection requirements applied: Nj ≥ 4 for pT >
30 GeV, |η | < 2.4 and Nj ≥ 2 for pT > 50 GeV, |η | < 2.4; no electrons, muons, or isolated tracks;
∆φ( ETmiss , jets) matching preselection requirements; and Nb ≥ 1.
 37

2.3 fb-1 (13 TeV)

1
t-tagged event fraction

CMS Data
Supplementary tt
0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

1.20 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Data/tt

1.15
1.1
1.05
1
0.95
0.9
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
preco [GeV]
T

Figure 16: The t-tagged event fraction measured in data and tt simulated samples, as a function
of the reconstructed top quark candidate pT . The data are selected from a single muon dataset
with the following selection applied: events pass noise filters; Nj ≥ 4 for pT > 30 GeV, |η | < 2.4
and Nj ≥ 2 for pT > 50 GeV, |η | < 2.4; at least one muon with pT > 45 GeV, |η | < 2.1;
no electrons; muon pT + ETmiss > 150 GeV; ∆φ( ETmiss , jets) matching preselection requirements;
Nb ≥ 1; and ETmiss > 20 GeV. We also require the presence of at least one candidate from the
t-tagger in the event. This candidate can be either: (i) a trijet candidate, composed of three
jets with pT > 30 GeV that are within ∆R = 1.5 of the candidate four-momentum, (ii) a dijet
candidate, composed of two jets that are within ∆R = 1.5 of the candidate four-momentum,
one of which should have a mass between 70 and 110 GeV, or (iii) a monojet candidate, which
is simply a single jet with a mass between 110 and 220 GeV. The candidate used to compute
the t-tagged event fraction is the candidate whose mass is closest to the top quark mass. The t-
tagged event fraction then is defined as the fraction of events for which this top quark candidate
satisfies all requirements of the top quark tagging algorithm. The error bar depicts the statistical
uncertainty. The ratio of the t-tagged event fraction in data and simulated tt is shown in the
lower plot, indicating good agreement.
38 A Additional information on the performance of top quark identification
 39

B The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
V. Khachatryan, A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan
Institut für Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, E. Asilar, T. Bergauer, J. Brandstetter, E. Brondolin, M. Dragicevic, J. Erö, M. Flechl,
M. Friedl, R. Frühwirth1 , V.M. Ghete, C. Hartl, N. Hörmann, J. Hrubec, M. Jeitler1 , A. König,
I. Krätschmer, D. Liko, T. Matsushita, I. Mikulec, D. Rabady, N. Rad, B. Rahbaran, H. Rohringer,
J. Schieck1 , J. Strauss, W. Waltenberger, C.-E. Wulz1
Institute for Nuclear Problems, Minsk, Belarus
O. Dvornikov, V. Makarenko, V. Zykunov
National Centre for Particle and High Energy Physics, Minsk, Belarus
V. Mossolov, N. Shumeiko, J. Suarez Gonzalez
Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerpen, Belgium
S. Alderweireldt, E.A. De Wolf, X. Janssen, J. Lauwers, M. Van De Klundert, H. Van
Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, N. Van Remortel, A. Van Spilbeeck
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
S. Abu Zeid, F. Blekman, J. D’Hondt, N. Daci, I. De Bruyn, K. Deroover, S. Lowette, S. Moortgat,
L. Moreels, A. Olbrechts, Q. Python, S. Tavernier, W. Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders, I. Van Parijs
Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
H. Brun, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, H. Delannoy, G. Fasanella, L. Favart, R. Goldouzian,
A. Grebenyuk, G. Karapostoli, T. Lenzi, A. Léonard, 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, G. Garcia, M. Gul, I. Khvastunov, D. Poyraz,
S. Salva, R. Schöfbeck, A. Sharma, M. Tytgat, W. Van Driessche, E. Yazgan, N. Zaganidis
Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
H. Bakhshiansohi, C. Beluffi3 , O. Bondu, S. Brochet, G. Bruno, A. Caudron, S. De
Visscher, C. Delaere, M. Delcourt, B. Francois, A. Giammanco, A. Jafari, P. Jez, M. Komm,
G. Krintiras, V. Lemaitre, A. Magitteri, A. Mertens, M. Musich, C. Nuttens, K. Piotrzkowski,
L. Quertenmont, M. Selvaggi, M. Vidal Marono, S. Wertz
Université de Mons, Mons, Belgium
N. Beliy
Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
W.L. Aldá Júnior, F.L. Alves, G.A. Alves, L. Brito, C. Hensel, A. Moraes, M.E. Pol, P. Rebello
Teles
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato4 , A. Custódio, E.M. Da Costa,
G.G. Da Silveira5 , D. De Jesus Damiao, C. De Oliveira Martins, S. Fonseca De Souza,
L.M. Huertas Guativa, H. Malbouisson, D. Matos Figueiredo, C. Mora Herrera, L. Mundim,
H. Nogima, W.L. Prado Da Silva, A. Santoro, A. Sznajder, E.J. Tonelli Manganote4 , A. Vilela
Pereira
40 B The CMS Collaboration

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

S. Ahujaa , C.A. Bernardesb , S. Dograa , T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia , E.M. Gregoresb ,
P.G. Mercadanteb , C.S. Moona , S.F. Novaesa , Sandra S. Padulaa , D. Romero Abadb , J.C. Ruiz
Vargas
Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, M. Rodozov, S. Stoykova, G. Sultanov, M. Vutova
University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Dimitrov, I. Glushkov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov
Beihang University, Beijing, China
W. Fang6
Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, J.G. Bian, G.M. Chen, H.S. Chen, M. Chen, Y. Chen7 , T. Cheng, C.H. Jiang,
D. Leggat, Z. Liu, F. Romeo, S.M. Shaheen, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, C. Wang, Z. Wang, H. Zhang,
J. Zhao
State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
Y. Ban, G. Chen, Q. Li, S. Liu, Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang, Z. Xu
Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, L.F. Chaparro Sierra, C. Florez, J.P. Gomez, C.F. González Hernández,
J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, J.C. Sanabria
University of Split, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval
Architecture, Split, Croatia
N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak, P.M. Ribeiro Cipriano, T. Sculac
University of Split, Faculty of Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac
Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, K. Kadija, S. Micanovic, L. Sudic, T. Susa
University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
A. Attikis, G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou, F. Ptochos, P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski,
D. Tsiakkouri
Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
M. Finger8 , M. Finger Jr.8
Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
E. Carrera Jarrin
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab Republic of Egypt, Egyptian
Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt
E. El-khateeb9 , S. Elgammal10 , A. Mohamed11
National Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
M. Kadastik, L. Perrini, M. Raidal, A. Tiko, C. Veelken
Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
P. Eerola, J. Pekkanen, M. Voutilainen
 41

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, J. Tuominiemi, E. Tuovinen, L. Wendland
Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
J. Talvitie, T. Tuuva
IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, B. Fabbro, J.L. Faure, C. Favaro, F. Ferri,
S. Ganjour, S. Ghosh, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry, I. Kucher,
E. Locci, M. Machet, J. Malcles, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M. Titov, A. Zghiche
Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole Polytechnique, IN2P3-CNRS, Palaiseau, France
A. Abdulsalam, I. Antropov, S. Baffioni, F. Beaudette, P. Busson, L. Cadamuro, E. Chapon,
C. Charlot, O. Davignon, R. Granier de Cassagnac, M. Jo, S. Lisniak, P. Miné, M. Nguyen,
C. Ochando, G. Ortona, P. Paganini, P. Pigard, S. Regnard, R. Salerno, Y. Sirois, T. Strebler,
Y. Yilmaz, A. Zabi
Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien (IPHC), Université de Strasbourg, CNRS-IN2P3
J.-L. Agram12 , J. Andrea, A. Aubin, D. Bloch, J.-M. Brom, M. Buttignol, E.C. Chabert,
N. Chanon, C. Collard, E. Conte12 , X. Coubez, J.-C. Fontaine12 , D. Gelé, U. Goerlach, A.-C. Le
Bihan, K. Skovpen, P. Van Hove
Centre de Calcul de l’Institut National de Physique Nucleaire et de Physique des Particules,
CNRS/IN2P3, Villeurbanne, France
S. Gadrat
Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3, Institut de Physique
Nucléaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, E. Bouvier, C.A. Carrillo Montoya, R. Chierici,
D. Contardo, B. Courbon, P. Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fan, J. Fay, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch,
G. Grenier, B. Ille, F. Lagarde, I.B. Laktineh, M. Lethuillier, L. Mirabito, A.L. Pequegnot,
S. Perries, A. Popov13 , D. Sabes, V. Sordini, M. Vander Donckt, P. Verdier, S. Viret
Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
A. Khvedelidze8
Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
Z. Tsamalaidze8
RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen, Germany
C. Autermann, S. Beranek, L. Feld, A. Heister, M.K. Kiesel, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, A. Ostapchuk,
M. Preuten, F. Raupach, S. Schael, C. Schomakers, J. Schulz, T. Verlage, H. Weber, V. Zhukov13
RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany
A. Albert, M. Brodski, E. Dietz-Laursonn, D. Duchardt, M. Endres, M. Erdmann, S. Erdweg,
T. Esch, R. Fischer, A. Güth, M. Hamer, T. Hebbeker, C. Heidemann, K. Hoepfner, S. Knutzen,
M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, P. Millet, S. Mukherjee, M. Olschewski, K. Padeken, T. Pook,
M. Radziej, H. Reithler, M. Rieger, F. Scheuch, L. Sonnenschein, D. Teyssier, S. Thüer
RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany
V. Cherepanov, G. Flügge, F. Hoehle, B. Kargoll, T. Kress, A. Künsken, J. Lingemann, T. Müller,
A. Nehrkorn, A. Nowack, I.M. Nugent, C. Pistone, O. Pooth, A. Stahl14
42 B The CMS Collaboration

Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany

M. Aldaya Martin, T. Arndt, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, K. Beernaert, O. Behnke, U. Behrens,
A.A. Bin Anuar, K. Borras15 , A. Campbell, P. Connor, C. Contreras-Campana, F. Costanza,
C. Diez Pardos, G. Dolinska, G. Eckerlin, D. Eckstein, T. Eichhorn, E. Eren, E. Gallo16 ,
J. Garay Garcia, A. Geiser, A. Gizhko, J.M. Grados Luyando, P. Gunnellini, A. Harb,
J. Hauk, M. Hempel17 , H. Jung, A. Kalogeropoulos, O. Karacheban17 , M. Kasemann,
J. Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, I. Korol, D. Krücker, W. Lange, A. Lelek, J. Leonard, K. Lipka,
A. Lobanov, W. Lohmann17 , R. Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann, A.B. Meyer, G. Mittag, J. Mnich,
A. Mussgiller, E. Ntomari, D. Pitzl, R. Placakyte, A. Raspereza, B. Roland, M.Ö. Sahin,
P. Saxena, T. Schoerner-Sadenius, C. Seitz, S. Spannagel, N. Stefaniuk, G.P. Van Onsem,
R. Walsh, C. Wissing
University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
V. Blobel, M. Centis Vignali, A.R. Draeger, T. Dreyer, E. Garutti, D. Gonzalez, J. Haller,
M. Hoffmann, A. Junkes, R. Klanner, R. Kogler, N. Kovalchuk, T. Lapsien, T. Lenz,
I. Marchesini, D. Marconi, M. Meyer, M. Niedziela, D. Nowatschin, F. Pantaleo14 , T. Peiffer,
A. Perieanu, J. Poehlsen, C. Sander, C. Scharf, P. Schleper, A. Schmidt, S. Schumann,
J. Schwandt, H. Stadie, G. Steinbrück, F.M. Stober, M. Stöver, H. Tholen, D. Troendle, E. Usai,
L. Vanelderen, A. Vanhoefer, B. Vormwald
Institut für Experimentelle Kernphysik, Karlsruhe, Germany
M. Akbiyik, C. Barth, S. Baur, C. Baus, J. Berger, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, F. Colombo,
W. De Boer, A. Dierlamm, S. Fink, B. Freund, R. Friese, M. Giffels, A. Gilbert, P. Goldenzweig,
D. Haitz, F. Hartmann14 , S.M. Heindl, U. Husemann, I. Katkov13 , S. Kudella, P. Lobelle Pardo,
H. Mildner, M.U. Mozer, Th. Müller, M. Plagge, G. Quast, K. Rabbertz, S. Röcker, F. Roscher,
M. Schröder, I. Shvetsov, G. Sieber, H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, J. Wagner-Kuhr, S. Wayand,
M. Weber, T. Weiler, S. Williamson, C. Wöhrmann, R. Wolf
Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics (INPP), NCSR Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi,
Greece
G. Anagnostou, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, V.A. Giakoumopoulou, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas,
I. Topsis-Giotis
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
S. Kesisoglou, A. Panagiotou, N. Saoulidou, E. Tziaferi
University of Ioánnina, Ioánnina, Greece
I. Evangelou, G. Flouris, C. Foudas, P. Kokkas, N. Loukas, N. Manthos, I. Papadopoulos,
E. Paradas
MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös Loránd University,
Budapest, Hungary
N. Filipovic
Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath18 , 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
M. Bartók19 , P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari
 43

National Institute of Science Education and Research, Bhubaneswar, India

S. Bahinipati, S. Choudhury21 , P. Mal, K. Mandal, A. Nayak22 , D.K. Sahoo, N. Sahoo, S.K. Swain
Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, R. Chawla, U.Bhawandeep, A.K. Kalsi, A. Kaur, M. Kaur,
R. Kumar, P. Kumari, A. Mehta, M. Mittal, J.B. Singh, G. Walia
University of Delhi, Delhi, India
Ashok Kumar, A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, S. Keshri, S. Malhotra, M. Naimuddin,
N. Nishu, K. Ranjan, R. Sharma, V. Sharma
Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata, India
R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, K. Chatterjee, S. Dey, S. Dutt, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh,
N. Majumdar, A. Modak, K. Mondal, S. Mukhopadhyay, S. Nandan, A. Purohit, A. Roy, D. Roy,
S. Roy Chowdhury, S. Sarkar, M. Sharan, S. Thakur
Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
R. Chudasama, D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, A.K. Mohanty14 , P.K. Netrakanti, L.M. Pant,
P. Shukla, A. Topkar
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A, Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, S. Dugad, G. Kole, B. Mahakud, S. Mitra, G.B. Mohanty, B. Parida, N. Sur, B. Sutar
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhowmik23 , R.K. Dewanjee, S. Ganguly, 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
H. Behnamian, S. Chenarani25 , E. Eskandari Tadavani, S.M. Etesami25 , A. Fahim26 , M. Khakzad,
M. Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri, S. Paktinat Mehdiabadi27 , F. Rezaei Hosseinabadi,
B. Safarzadeh28 , M. Zeinali
University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
M. Felcini, M. Grunewald
INFN Sezione di Bari a , Università di Bari b , Politecnico di Bari c , Bari, Italy
M. Abbresciaa,b , C. Calabriaa,b , C. Caputoa,b , A. Colaleoa , D. Creanzaa,c , L. Cristellaa,b , N. De
Filippisa,c , M. De Palmaa,b , L. Fiorea , G. Iasellia,c , G. Maggia,c , M. Maggia , G. Minielloa,b ,
S. Mya,b , S. Nuzzoa,b , A. Pompilia,b , G. Pugliesea,c , R. Radognaa,b , A. Ranieria , G. Selvaggia,b ,
L. Silvestrisa,14 , R. Vendittia,b , P. Verwilligena
INFN Sezione di Bologna a , Università di Bologna b , Bologna, Italy
G. Abbiendia , C. Battilana, D. Bonacorsia,b , S. Braibant-Giacomellia,b , L. Brigliadoria,b ,
R. Campaninia,b , P. Capiluppia,b , A. Castroa,b , F.R. Cavalloa , S.S. Chhibraa,b , G. Codispotia,b ,
M. Cuffiania,b , G.M. Dallavallea , F. Fabbria , A. Fanfania,b , D. Fasanellaa,b , P. Giacomellia ,
C. Grandia , L. Guiduccia,b , S. Marcellinia , G. Masettia , A. Montanaria , F.L. Navarriaa,b ,
A. Perrottaa , A.M. Rossia,b , T. Rovellia,b , G.P. Sirolia,b , N. Tosia,b,14
INFN Sezione di Catania a , Università di Catania b , Catania, Italy
S. Albergoa,b , S. Costaa,b , A. Di Mattiaa , F. Giordanoa,b , R. Potenzaa,b , A. Tricomia,b , C. Tuvea,b
44 B The CMS Collaboration

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

G. Barbaglia , V. Ciullia,b , C. Civininia , R. D’Alessandroa,b , E. Focardia,b , P. Lenzia,b ,
M. Meschinia , S. Paolettia , G. Sguazzonia , L. Viliania,b,14
INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, F. Fabbri, D. Piccolo, F. Primavera14
INFN Sezione di Genova a , Università di Genova b , Genova, Italy
V. Calvellia,b , F. Ferroa , M. Lo Veterea,b , M.R. Mongea,b , E. Robuttia , S. Tosia,b
INFN Sezione di Milano-Bicocca a , Università di Milano-Bicocca b , Milano, Italy
L. Brianzaa,b,14 , M.E. Dinardoa,b , S. Fiorendia,b,14 , S. Gennaia , A. Ghezzia,b , P. Govonia,b ,
M. Malbertia,b , S. Malvezzia , R.A. Manzonia,b,14 , D. Menascea , L. Moronia , M. Paganonia,b ,
D. Pedrinia , S. Pigazzinia,b , S. Ragazzia,b , T. Tabarelli de Fatisa,b
INFN Sezione di Napoli a , Università di Napoli ’Federico II’ b , Napoli, Italy, Università della
Basilicata c , Potenza, Italy, Università G. Marconi d , Roma, Italy
S. Buontempoa , N. Cavalloa,c , G. De Nardo, S. Di Guidaa,d,14 , M. Espositoa,b , F. Fabozzia,c ,
F. Fiengaa,b , A.O.M. Iorioa,b , G. Lanzaa , L. Listaa , S. Meolaa,d,14 , P. Paoluccia,14 , C. Sciaccaa,b ,
F. Thyssen
INFN Sezione di Padova a , Università di Padova b , Padova, Italy, Università 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 , M. Dall’Ossoa,b , P. De Castro Manzanoa , T. Dorigoa ,
U. Dossellia , F. Gasparinia,b , U. Gasparinia,b , A. Gozzelinoa , S. Lacapraraa , M. Margonia,b ,
A.T. Meneguzzoa,b , J. Pazzinia,b , N. Pozzobona,b , P. Ronchesea,b , F. Simonettoa,b , E. Torassaa ,
M. Zanetti, P. Zottoa,b , G. Zumerlea,b
INFN Sezione di Pavia a , Università di Pavia b , Pavia, Italy
A. Braghieria , A. Magnania,b , P. Montagnaa,b , S.P. Rattia,b , V. Rea , C. Riccardia,b , P. Salvinia ,
I. Vaia,b , P. Vituloa,b
INFN Sezione di Perugia a , Università di Perugia b , Perugia, Italy
L. Alunni Solestizia,b , G.M. Bileia , D. Ciangottinia,b , L. Fanòa,b , P. Laricciaa,b , R. Leonardia,b ,
G. Mantovania,b , M. Menichellia , A. Sahaa , A. Santocchiaa,b
INFN Sezione di Pisa a , Università di Pisa b , Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa c , Pisa, Italy
K. Androsova,29 , P. Azzurria,14 , G. Bagliesia , J. Bernardinia , T. Boccalia , R. Castaldia ,
M.A. Cioccia,29 , R. Dell’Orsoa , S. Donatoa,c , G. Fedi, A. Giassia , M.T. Grippoa,29 , F. Ligabuea,c ,
T. Lomtadzea , 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
INFN Sezione di Roma a , Università di Roma b , Roma, Italy
L. Baronea,b , F. Cavallaria , M. Cipriania,b , 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 , F. Preiatoa,b ,
S. Rahatloua,b , C. Rovellia , F. Santanastasioa,b
INFN Sezione di Torino a , Università di Torino b , Torino, Italy, Università del Piemonte
Orientale c , Novara, Italy
N. Amapanea,b , R. Arcidiaconoa,c,14 , S. Argiroa,b , M. Arneodoa,c , N. Bartosika , R. Bellana,b ,
C. Biinoa , N. Cartigliaa , F. Cennaa,b , M. Costaa,b , R. Covarellia,b , A. Deganoa,b , N. Demariaa ,
L. Fincoa,b , B. Kiania,b , C. Mariottia , S. Masellia , E. Migliorea,b , V. Monacoa,b , E. Monteila,b ,
M. Montenoa , M.M. Obertinoa,b , L. Pachera,b , N. Pastronea , M. Pelliccionia , G.L. Pinna
 45

Angionia,b , F. Raveraa,b , A. Romeroa,b , M. Ruspaa,c , R. Sacchia,b , K. Shchelinaa,b , V. Solaa ,

A. Solanoa,b , A. Staianoa , P. Traczyka,b
INFN Sezione di Trieste a , Università di Trieste b , Trieste, Italy
S. Belfortea , M. Casarsaa , F. Cossuttia , G. Della Riccaa,b , A. Zanettia
Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea
D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, M.S. Kim, S. Lee, S.W. Lee, Y.D. Oh, S. Sekmen, D.C. Son, Y.C. Yang
Chonbuk National University, Jeonju, Korea
A. Lee
Chonnam National University, Institute for Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju,
Korea
H. Kim
Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
J.A. Brochero Cifuentes, T.J. Kim
Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, D. Gyun, S. Ha, B. Hong, Y. Jo, Y. Kim, B. Lee, K. Lee, K.S. Lee, S. Lee,
J. Lim, S.K. Park, Y. Roh
Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J. Kim, H. Lee, S.B. Oh, B.C. Radburn-Smith, S.h. Seo, U.K. Yang, H.D. Yoo, G.B. Yu
University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea
M. Choi, H. Kim, J.H. Kim, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park, G. Ryu, M.S. Ryu
Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, J. Goh, C. Hwang, J. Lee, I. Yu
Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
V. Dudenas, A. Juodagalvis, J. Vaitkus
National Centre for Particle Physics, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
I. Ahmed, Z.A. Ibrahim, J.R. Komaragiri, M.A.B. Md Ali31 , F. Mohamad Idris32 , W.A.T. Wan
Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli
Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, I. Heredia-De La Cruz33 , A. Hernandez-Almada,
R. Lopez-Fernandez, R. Magaña Villalba, J. Mejia Guisao, A. Sanchez-Hernandez
Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City, Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, F. Vazquez Valencia
Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
S. Carpinteyro, I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada
Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosı́, San Luis Potosı́, Mexico
A. Morelos Pineda
University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
P.H. Butler
46 B The CMS Collaboration

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

A. Ahmad, M. Ahmad, Q. Hassan, H.R. Hoorani, W.A. Khan, 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. Górski, M. Kazana, K. Nawrocki,
K. Romanowska-Rybinska, M. Szleper, P. Zalewski
Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk34 , K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J. Krolikowski, M. Misiura,
M. Olszewski, M. Walczak
Laboratório de Instrumentação e Fı́sica Experimental de Partı́culas, Lisboa, Portugal
P. Bargassa, C. Beirão Da Cruz E Silva, B. Calpas, A. Di Francesco, P. Faccioli, P.G. Ferreira
Parracho, M. Gallinaro, J. Hollar, N. Leonardo, L. Lloret Iglesias, M.V. Nemallapudi,
J. Rodrigues Antunes, J. Seixas, O. Toldaiev, D. Vadruccio, J. Varela, P. Vischia
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
S. Afanasiev, P. Bunin, M. Gavrilenko, I. Golutvin, I. Gorbunov, A. Kamenev, V. Karjavin,
A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev35,36 , V. Palichik, V. Perelygin, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha,
N. Skatchkov, V. Smirnov, N. Voytishin, A. Zarubin
Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg), Russia
L. Chtchipounov, V. Golovtsov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim37 , E. Kuznetsova38 , V. Murzin, V. Oreshkin,
V. Sulimov, A. Vorobyev
Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, M. Kirsanov, N. Krasnikov,
A. Pashenkov, D. Tlisov, A. Toropin
Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, V. Popov, I. Pozdnyakov, G. Safronov,
A. Spiridonov, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A. Zhokin
Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
A. Bylinkin36
National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics Institute’ (MEPhI),
Moscow, Russia
M. Chadeeva39 , M. Danilov39 , E. Popova
P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin36 , I. Dremin36 , M. Kirakosyan, A. Leonidov36 , A. Terkulov
Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow,
Russia
A. Baskakov, A. Belyaev, E. Boos, M. Dubinin40 , L. Dudko, A. Ershov, A. Gribushin,
V. Klyukhin, O. Kodolova, I. Lokhtin, I. Miagkov, S. Obraztsov, S. Petrushanko, V. Savrin,
A. Snigirev
Novosibirsk State University (NSU), Novosibirsk, Russia
V. Blinov41 , Y.Skovpen41 , D. Shtol41
 47

State Research Center of Russian Federation, Institute for High Energy Physics, Protvino,
Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, S. Bitioukov, D. Elumakhov, V. Kachanov, A. Kalinin, D. Konstantinov,
V. Krychkine, V. Petrov, R. Ryutin, A. Sobol, S. Troshin, N. Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade,
Serbia
P. Adzic42 , P. Cirkovic, D. Devetak, M. Dordevic, J. Milosevic, V. Rekovic
Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT),
Madrid, Spain
J. Alcaraz Maestre, M. Barrio Luna, E. Calvo, M. Cerrada, M. Chamizo Llatas, N. Colino, B. De
La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris, A. Escalante Del Valle, C. Fernandez Bedoya, J.P. Fernández Ramos,
J. Flix, M.C. Fouz, P. Garcia-Abia, O. Gonzalez Lopez, S. Goy Lopez, J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa,
E. Navarro De Martino, A. Pérez-Calero Yzquierdo, J. Puerta Pelayo, A. Quintario Olmeda,
I. Redondo, L. Romero, M.S. Soares
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
J.F. de Trocóniz, M. Missiroli, D. Moran
Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain
J. Cuevas, J. Fernandez Menendez, I. Gonzalez Caballero, J.R. González Fernández, E. Palencia
Cortezon, S. Sanchez Cruz, I. Suárez Andrés, J.M. Vizan Garcia
Instituto de Fı́sica de Cantabria (IFCA), CSIC-Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain
I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, J.R. Castiñeiras De Saa, E. Curras, M. Fernandez, J. Garcia-Ferrero,
G. Gomez, A. Lopez Virto, J. Marco, C. Martinez Rivero, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez,
T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno, L. Scodellaro, N. Trevisani, I. Vila, R. Vilar Cortabitarte
CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland
D. Abbaneo, E. Auffray, G. Auzinger, M. Bachtis, P. Baillon, A.H. Ball, D. Barney, P. Bloch,
A. Bocci, A. Bonato, C. Botta, T. Camporesi, R. Castello, M. Cepeda, G. Cerminara,
M. D’Alfonso, D. d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, V. Daponte, A. David, M. De Gruttola, A. De Roeck,
E. Di Marco43 , M. Dobson, B. Dorney, T. du Pree, D. Duggan, M. Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-
Peisert, S. Fartoukh, G. Franzoni, J. Fulcher, W. Funk, D. Gigi, K. Gill, M. Girone, F. Glege,
D. Gulhan, S. Gundacker, M. Guthoff, J. Hammer, P. Harris, J. Hegeman, V. Innocente, P. Janot,
J. Kieseler, H. Kirschenmann, V. Knünz, A. Kornmayer14 , M.J. Kortelainen, K. Kousouris,
M. Krammer1 , C. Lange, P. Lecoq, C. Lourenço, M.T. Lucchini, L. Malgeri, M. Mannelli,
A. Martelli, F. Meijers, J.A. Merlin, S. Mersi, E. Meschi, P. Milenovic44 , F. Moortgat, S. Morovic,
M. Mulders, H. Neugebauer, S. Orfanelli, L. Orsini, L. Pape, E. Perez, M. Peruzzi, A. Petrilli,
G. Petrucciani, A. Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, A. Racz, T. Reis, G. Rolandi45 , M. Rovere, M. Ruan,
H. Sakulin, J.B. Sauvan, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Seidel, A. Sharma, P. Silva, P. Sphicas46 ,
J. Steggemann, M. Stoye, Y. Takahashi, M. Tosi, D. Treille, A. Triossi, A. Tsirou, V. Veckalns47 ,
G.I. Veres19 , M. Verweij, N. Wardle, H.K. Wöhri, A. Zagozdzinska34 , W.D. Zeuner
Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland
W. Bertl, K. Deiters, W. Erdmann, R. Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C. Kaestli, D. Kotlinski,
U. Langenegger, T. Rohe
Institute for Particle Physics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
F. Bachmair, L. Bäni, L. Bianchini, B. Casal, G. Dissertori, M. Dittmar, M. Donegà, C. Grab,
C. Heidegger, D. Hits, J. Hoss, G. Kasieczka, P. Lecomte† , W. Lustermann, B. Mangano,
M. Marionneau, P. Martinez Ruiz del Arbol, M. Masciovecchio, M.T. Meinhard, D. Meister,
48 B The CMS Collaboration

F. Micheli, P. Musella, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, F. Pandolfi, J. Pata, F. Pauss, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi,

M. Quittnat, M. Rossini, M. Schönenberger, A. Starodumov48 , V.R. Tavolaro, K. Theofilatos,
R. Wallny
Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, C. Amsler49 , L. Caminada, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, C. Galloni, A. Hinzmann,
T. Hreus, B. Kilminster, J. Ngadiuba, D. Pinna, G. Rauco, P. Robmann, D. Salerno, Y. Yang,
A. Zucchetta
National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan
V. Candelise, T.H. Doan, Sh. Jain, R. Khurana, M. Konyushikhin, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, Y.J. Lu,
A. Pozdnyakov, S.S. Yu
National Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
Arun Kumar, P. Chang, Y.H. Chang, Y.W. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, C. Dietz,
F. Fiori, W.-S. Hou, Y. Hsiung, Y.F. Liu, R.-S. Lu, M. Miñano Moya, E. Paganis, A. Psallidas,
J.f. Tsai, Y.M. Tzeng
Chulalongkorn University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok, Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, G. Singh, N. Srimanobhas, N. Suwonjandee
Cukurova University - Physics Department, Science and Art Faculty
A. Adiguzel, M.N. Bakirci50 , S. Cerci51 , S. Damarseckin, Z.S. Demiroglu, C. Dozen,
I. Dumanoglu, S. Girgis, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, I. Hos52 , E.E. Kangal53 , O. Kara, A. Kayis
Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, M. Oglakci, G. Onengut54 , K. Ozdemir55 , B. Tali51 , S. Turkcapar,
I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez
Middle East Technical University, Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey
B. Bilin, S. Bilmis, B. Isildak56 , G. Karapinar57 , M. Yalvac, M. Zeyrek
Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey
E. Gülmez, M. Kaya58 , O. Kaya59 , E.A. Yetkin60 , T. Yetkin61
Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
A. Cakir, K. Cankocak, S. Sen62
Institute for Scintillation Materials of National Academy of Science of Ukraine, Kharkov,
Ukraine
B. Grynyov
National Scientific Center, Kharkov Institute of Physics and Technology, Kharkov, Ukraine
L. Levchuk, P. Sorokin
University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
R. Aggleton, F. Ball, L. Beck, J.J. Brooke, D. Burns, E. Clement, D. Cussans, H. Flacher,
J. Goldstein, M. Grimes, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, J. Jacob, L. Kreczko, C. Lucas, D.M. Newbold63 ,
S. Paramesvaran, A. Poll, T. Sakuma, S. Seif El Nasr-storey, D. Smith, V.J. Smith
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev64 , C. Brew, R.M. Brown, L. Calligaris, D. Cieri, D.J.A. Cockerill,
J.A. Coughlan, K. Harder, S. Harper, E. Olaiya, D. Petyt, C.H. Shepherd-Themistocleous,
A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin, T. Williams
Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
M. Baber, R. Bainbridge, O. Buchmuller, A. Bundock, D. Burton, S. Casasso, M. Citron,
D. Colling, L. Corpe, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, A. De Wit, M. Della Negra, R. Di Maria, P. Dunne,
 49

A. Elwood, D. Futyan, Y. Haddad, G. Hall, G. Iles, T. James, R. Lane, C. Laner, R. Lucas63 ,

L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, L. Mastrolorenzo, J. Nash, A. Nikitenko48 , J. Pela, B. Penning,
M. Pesaresi, D.M. Raymond, A. Richards, A. Rose, C. Seez, S. Summers, A. Tapper, K. Uchida,
M. Vazquez Acosta65 , T. Virdee14 , J. Wright, S.C. Zenz
Brunel University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, D. Leslie, I.D. Reid, P. Symonds, L. Teodorescu,
M. Turner
Baylor University, Waco, USA
A. Borzou, K. Call, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, H. Liu, N. Pastika
The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
S.I. Cooper, C. Henderson, P. Rumerio, C. West
Boston University, Boston, USA
D. Arcaro, A. Avetisyan, T. Bose, D. Gastler, D. Rankin, C. Richardson, J. Rohlf, L. Sulak, D. Zou
Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, E. Berry, D. Cutts, A. Garabedian, J. Hakala, U. Heintz, J.M. Hogan, O. Jesus,
K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, Z. Mao, M. Narain, S. Piperov, S. Sagir, E. Spencer,
R. Syarif
University of California, Davis, Davis, USA
R. Breedon, G. Breto, D. Burns, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez, S. Chauhan, M. Chertok,
J. Conway, R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, G. Funk, M. Gardner, W. Ko, R. Lander,
C. Mclean, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, J. Pilot, S. Shalhout, J. Smith, M. Squires, D. Stolp,
M. Tripathi
University of California, Los Angeles, USA
C. Bravo, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, P. Everaerts, A. Florent, J. Hauser, M. Ignatenko, N. Mccoll,
D. Saltzberg, C. Schnaible, E. Takasugi, V. Valuev, M. Weber
University of California, Riverside, Riverside, USA
K. Burt, R. Clare, J. Ellison, J.W. Gary, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi, G. Hanson, J. Heilman, P. Jandir,
E. Kennedy, F. Lacroix, O.R. Long, M. Olmedo Negrete, M.I. Paneva, A. Shrinivas, W. Si, H. Wei,
S. Wimpenny, B. R. Yates
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, G.B. Cerati, S. Cittolin, M. Derdzinski, R. Gerosa, A. Holzner, D. Klein,
V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, I. Macneill, D. Olivito, S. Padhi, M. Pieri, M. Sani, V. Sharma, S. Simon,
M. Tadel, A. Vartak, S. Wasserbaech66 , C. Welke, J. Wood, F. Würthwein, A. Yagil, G. Zevi Della
Porta
University of California, Santa Barbara - Department of Physics, Santa Barbara, USA
N. Amin, R. Bhandari, J. Bradmiller-Feld, C. Campagnari, A. Dishaw, V. Dutta, M. Franco
Sevilla, C. George, F. Golf, L. Gouskos, J. Gran, R. Heller, J. Incandela, S.D. Mullin,
A. Ovcharova, H. Qu, J. Richman, D. Stuart, I. Suarez, J. Yoo
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
D. Anderson, A. Apresyan, J. Bendavid, A. Bornheim, J. Bunn, Y. Chen, J. Duarte, J.M. Lawhorn,
A. Mott, H.B. Newman, C. Pena, M. Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, S. Xie, R.Y. Zhu
50 B The CMS Collaboration

Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA

M.B. Andrews, V. Azzolini, T. Ferguson, M. Paulini, J. Russ, M. Sun, H. Vogel, I. Vorobiev,
M. Weinberg
University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, F. Jensen, A. Johnson, M. Krohn, T. Mulholland, K. Stenson,
S.R. Wagner
Cornell University, Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, J. Chaves, J. Chu, S. Dittmer, K. Mcdermott, N. Mirman, G. Nicolas Kaufman,
J.R. Patterson, A. Rinkevicius, A. Ryd, L. Skinnari, L. Soffi, S.M. Tan, Z. Tao, J. Thom, J. Tucker,
P. Wittich, M. Zientek
Fairfield University, Fairfield, USA
D. Winn
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, USA
S. Abdullin, M. Albrow, G. Apollinari, S. Banerjee, L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas, J. Berryhill,
P.C. Bhat, G. Bolla, K. Burkett, J.N. Butler, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, S. Cihangir† ,
M. Cremonesi, V.D. Elvira, I. Fisk, J. Freeman, E. Gottschalk, L. Gray, D. Green, S. Grünendahl,
O. Gutsche, D. Hare, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, J. Hirschauer, Z. Hu, B. Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani,
M. Johnson, U. Joshi, B. Klima, B. Kreis, S. Lammel, J. Linacre, D. Lincoln, R. Lipton, M. Liu,
T. Liu, R. Lopes De Sá, J. Lykken, K. Maeshima, N. Magini, J.M. Marraffino, S. Maruyama,
D. Mason, P. McBride, P. Merkel, S. Mrenna, S. Nahn, C. Newman-Holmes† , V. O’Dell, K. Pedro,
O. Prokofyev, G. Rakness, L. Ristori, E. Sexton-Kennedy, A. Soha, W.J. Spalding, L. Spiegel,
S. Stoynev, J. Strait, N. Strobbe, L. Taylor, S. Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran, L. Uplegger, E.W. Vaandering,
C. Vernieri, M. Verzocchi, R. Vidal, M. Wang, H.A. Weber, A. Whitbeck, Y. Wu
University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, P. Bortignon, D. Bourilkov, A. Brinkerhoff, A. Carnes, M. Carver, D. Curry,
S. Das, R.D. Field, I.K. Furic, J. Konigsberg, A. Korytov, J.F. Low, P. Ma, K. Matchev, H. Mei,
G. Mitselmakher, D. Rank, L. Shchutska, D. Sperka, L. Thomas, J. Wang, S. Wang, J. Yelton
Florida International University, Miami, USA
Y.R. Joshi, S. Linn, P. Markowitz, G. Martinez, J.L. Rodriguez
Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
A. Ackert, J.R. Adams, T. Adams, A. Askew, S. Bein, B. Diamond, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian,
K.F. Johnson, A. Khatiwada, H. Prosper, A. Santra, R. Yohay
Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, V. Bhopatkar, S. Colafranceschi, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, T. Roy,
F. Yumiceva
University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago, USA
M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, D. Berry, R.R. Betts, I. Bucinskaite, R. Cavanaugh, O. Evdokimov,
L. Gauthier, C.E. Gerber, D.J. Hofman, K. Jung, P. Kurt, C. O’Brien, I.D. Sandoval Gonzalez,
P. Turner, N. Varelas, H. Wang, Z. Wu, M. Zakaria, J. Zhang
The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
B. Bilki67 , W. Clarida, K. Dilsiz, S. Durgut, R.P. Gandrajula, M. Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko,
J.-P. Merlo, H. Mermerkaya68 , A. Mestvirishvili, A. Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul, Y. Onel,
F. Ozok69 , A. Penzo, C. Snyder, E. Tiras, J. Wetzel, K. Yi
 51

Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA

I. Anderson, B. Blumenfeld, A. Cocoros, N. Eminizer, D. Fehling, L. Feng, A.V. Gritsan,
P. Maksimovic, C. Martin, M. Osherson, J. Roskes, U. Sarica, M. Swartz, M. Xiao, Y. Xin, C. You
The University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA
A. Al-bataineh, P. Baringer, A. Bean, S. Boren, J. Bowen, C. Bruner, J. Castle, L. Forthomme,
R.P. Kenny III, S. Khalil, A. Kropivnitskaya, D. Majumder, W. Mcbrayer, M. Murray, S. Sanders,
R. Stringer, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang
Kansas State University, Manhattan, USA
A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, Y. Maravin, A. Mohammadi, L.K. Saini, N. Skhirtladze, S. Toda
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright
University of Maryland, College Park, USA
C. Anelli, A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, B. Calvert, S.C. Eno, C. Ferraioli, J.A. Gomez,
N.J. Hadley, S. Jabeen, R.G. Kellogg, T. Kolberg, J. Kunkle, Y. Lu, A.C. Mignerey, F. Ricci-Tam,
Y.H. Shin, A. Skuja, M.B. Tonjes, S.C. Tonwar
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, A. Apyan, R. Barbieri, A. Baty, R. Bi, K. Bierwagen, S. Brandt,
W. Busza, I.A. Cali, Z. Demiragli, L. Di Matteo, G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov, D. Hsu,
Y. Iiyama, G.M. Innocenti, M. Klute, D. Kovalskyi, K. Krajczar, Y.S. Lai, Y.-J. Lee, A. Levin,
P.D. Luckey, B. Maier, A.C. Marini, C. Mcginn, C. Mironov, S. Narayanan, X. Niu, C. Paus,
C. Roland, G. Roland, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, G.S.F. Stephans, K. Sumorok, K. Tatar, M. Varma,
D. Velicanu, J. Veverka, J. Wang, T.W. Wang, B. Wyslouch, M. Yang, V. Zhukova
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
A.C. Benvenuti, R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, A. Finkel, A. Gude, P. Hansen, S. Kalafut, S.C. Kao,
Y. Kubota, Z. Lesko, J. Mans, S. Nourbakhsh, N. Ruckstuhl, R. Rusack, N. Tambe, J. Turkewitz
University of Mississippi, Oxford, USA
J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
E. Avdeeva, R. Bartek70 , K. Bloom, D.R. Claes, A. Dominguez70 , C. Fangmeier, R. Gonzalez
Suarez, R. Kamalieddin, I. Kravchenko, A. Malta Rodrigues, F. Meier, J. Monroy, J.E. Siado,
G.R. Snow, B. Stieger
State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
M. Alyari, J. Dolen, J. George, A. Godshalk, C. Harrington, I. Iashvili, J. Kaisen, A. Kharchilava,
A. Kumar, A. Parker, S. Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani
Northeastern University, Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, A. Hortiangtham, A. Massironi, D.M. Morse, D. Nash, T. Orimoto,
R. Teixeira De Lima, D. Trocino, R.-J. Wang, D. Wood
Northwestern University, Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, O. Charaf, K.A. Hahn, A. Kubik, A. Kumar, N. Mucia, N. Odell, B. Pollack,
M.H. Schmitt, K. Sung, M. Trovato, M. Velasco
University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, USA
N. Dev, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop, D.J. Karmgard, N. Kellams, K. Lannon,
52 B The CMS Collaboration

N. Marinelli, F. Meng, C. Mueller, Y. Musienko35 , M. Planer, A. Reinsvold, R. Ruchti, G. Smith,

S. Taroni, M. Wayne, M. Wolf, A. Woodard
The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA
J. Alimena, L. Antonelli, J. Brinson, B. Bylsma, L.S. Durkin, S. Flowers, B. Francis, A. Hart,
C. Hill, R. Hughes, W. Ji, B. Liu, W. Luo, D. Puigh, B.L. Winer, H.W. Wulsin
Princeton University, Princeton, USA
S. Cooperstein, O. Driga, P. Elmer, J. Hardenbrook, P. Hebda, D. Lange, J. Luo, D. Marlow,
J. Mc Donald, T. Medvedeva, K. Mei, M. Mooney, J. Olsen, C. Palmer, P. Piroué, D. Stickland,
A. Svyatkovskiy, C. Tully, A. Zuranski
University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg
Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
A. Barker, V.E. Barnes, S. Folgueras, L. Gutay, M.K. Jha, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, D.H. Miller,
N. Neumeister, J.F. Schulte, X. Shi, J. Sun, F. Wang, W. Xie
Purdue University Calumet, Hammond, USA
N. Parashar, J. Stupak
Rice University, Houston, USA
A. Adair, B. Akgun, Z. Chen, K.M. Ecklund, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Guilbaud, W. Li, B. Michlin,
M. Northup, B.P. Padley, R. Redjimi, J. Roberts, J. Rorie, Z. Tu, J. Zabel
University of Rochester, Rochester, USA
B. Betchart, A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, Y.t. Duh, T. Ferbel, M. Galanti, A. Garcia-
Bellido, J. Han, O. Hindrichs, A. Khukhunaishvili, K.H. Lo, P. Tan, M. Verzetti
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, USA
A. Agapitos, J.P. Chou, E. Contreras-Campana, Y. Gershtein, T.A. Gómez Espinosa,
E. Halkiadakis, M. Heindl, D. Hidas, E. Hughes, S. Kaplan, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli,
S. Kyriacou, A. Lath, K. Nash, H. Saka, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, D. Sheffield, S. Somalwar, R. Stone,
S. Thomas, P. Thomassen, M. Walker
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
A.G. Delannoy, M. Foerster, J. Heideman, G. Riley, K. Rose, S. Spanier, K. Thapa
Texas A&M University, College Station, USA
O. Bouhali71 , A. Celik, M. Dalchenko, M. De Mattia, A. Delgado, S. Dildick, R. Eusebi,
J. Gilmore, T. Huang, E. Juska, T. Kamon72 , R. Mueller, Y. Pakhotin, R. Patel, A. Perloff,
L. Perniè, D. Rathjens, A. Rose, A. Safonov, A. Tatarinov, K.A. Ulmer
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
N. Akchurin, C. Cowden, J. Damgov, F. De Guio, C. Dragoiu, P.R. Dudero, J. Faulkner,
E. Gurpinar, S. Kunori, K. Lamichhane, S.W. Lee, T. Libeiro, T. Peltola, S. Undleeb, I. Volobouev,
Z. Wang
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H. Ni, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo,
J. Velkovska, Q. Xu
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
M.W. Arenton, P. Barria, B. Cox, J. Goodell, R. Hirosky, A. Ledovskoy, H. Li, C. Neu,
T. Sinthuprasith, X. Sun, Y. Wang, E. Wolfe, F. Xia
 53

Wayne State University, Detroit, USA

C. Clarke, R. Harr, P.E. Karchin, J. Sturdy
University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI, USA
D.A. Belknap, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, S. Dasu, L. Dodd, S. Duric, B. Gomber, M. Grothe,
M. Herndon, A. Hervé, P. Klabbers, A. Lanaro, A. Levine, K. Long, R. Loveless, I. Ojalvo,
T. Perry, G.A. Pierro, G. Polese, T. Ruggles, A. Savin, N. Smith, W.H. Smith, D. Taylor, N. Woods
†: Deceased
1: Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria
2: Also at State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing,
China
3: Also at Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien (IPHC), Université de Strasbourg,
CNRS/IN2P3, Strasbourg, France
4: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
5: Also at Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil
6: Also at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
7: Also at Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
8: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
9: Now at Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
10: Now at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt
11: Also at Zewail City of Science and Technology, Zewail, Egypt
12: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
13: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University,
Moscow, Russia
14: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland
15: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany
16: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
17: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
18: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
19: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös Loránd
University, Budapest, Hungary
20: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
21: Also at Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Bhopal, India
22: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
23: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
24: Also at University of Ruhuna, Matara, Sri Lanka
25: Also at Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
26: Also at University of Tehran, Department of Engineering Science, Tehran, Iran
27: Also at Yazd University, Yazd, Iran
28: Also at Plasma Physics Research Center, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad
University, Tehran, Iran
29: Also at Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy
30: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
31: Also at International Islamic University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
32: Also at Malaysian Nuclear Agency, MOSTI, Kajang, Malaysia
33: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologı́a, Mexico city, Mexico
34: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems, Warsaw, Poland
35: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
36: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
54 B The CMS Collaboration

Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia

37: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg, Russia
38: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
39: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
40: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
41: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
42: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
43: Also at INFN Sezione di Roma; Università di Roma, Roma, Italy
44: Also at University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences,
Belgrade, Serbia
45: Also at Scuola Normale e Sezione dell’INFN, Pisa, Italy
46: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
47: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
48: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
49: Also at Albert Einstein Center for Fundamental Physics, Bern, Switzerland
50: Also at Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey
51: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
52: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey
53: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
54: Also at Cag University, Mersin, Turkey
55: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
56: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
57: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
58: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
59: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
60: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
61: Also at Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
62: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
63: Also at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
64: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton, Southampton,
United Kingdom
65: Also at Instituto de Astrofı́sica de Canarias, La Laguna, Spain
66: Also at Utah Valley University, Orem, USA
67: Also at Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, USA
68: Also at Erzincan University, Erzincan, Turkey
69: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
70: Now at The Catholic University of America, Washington, USA
71: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
72: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea