Search for the Higgs boson in the H->WW->lnujj decay channel at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector

arXiv:1206.6074v1 [hep-ex] 26 Jun 2012

EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH (CERN)

CERN-PH-EP-2012-162

Submitted to: Physics Letters B

Search for the Higgs boson in the

_{H → WW → ℓν j j}

decay

channel at

√

s

= 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector

The ATLAS Collaboration

Abstract

A search for the Standard Model Higgs boson has been performed in the

_{H → WW → ℓν j j}

channel

using 4.7

fb

−1

of

pp

collision data recorded at a centre-of-mass energy of

√

s = 7 TeV

with the ATLAS

detector at the Large Hadron Collider. Higgs boson candidates produced in association with zero, one

or two jets are included in the analysis to maximize the acceptance for both gluon fusion and weak

boson fusion Higgs boson production processes. No significant excess of events is observed over the

expected background and limits on the Higgs boson production cross section are derived for a Higgs

boson mass in the range

300 GeV < m

H

<

600

GeV. The best sensitivity is reached for

m

H

= 400 GeV

,

where the observed (expected) 95% confidence level upper bound on the cross section for

_{H → WW}

produced in association with zero or one jet is 2.2 pb (1.9 pb), corresponding to 1.9 (1.6) times the

Standard Model prediction. In the Higgs boson plus two jets channel, which is more sensitive to the

weak boson fusion process, the observed (expected) 95% confidence level upper bound on the cross

section for

_{H → WW}

production with

m

H

= 400 GeV

is 0.7 pb (0.6 pb), corresponding to 7.9 (6.5) times

the Standard Model prediction.

Search for the Higgs boson in the H → WW → ℓν j j decay channel at

_√

s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector

The ATLAS Collaboration

Abstract

A search for the Standard Model Higgs boson has been performed in the H → WW → ℓν j j channel

using 4.7 fb−1of pp collision data recorded at a centre-of-mass energy of √s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS

detector at the Large Hadron Collider. Higgs boson candidates produced in association with zero, one or two jets are included in the analysis to maximize the acceptance for both gluon fusion and weak boson fusion Higgs boson production processes. No significant excess of events is observed over the expected background and limits on the Higgs boson production cross section are derived for a Higgs boson mass

in the range 300 GeV < mH < 600 GeV. The best sensitivity is reached for mH = 400 GeV, where the

observed (expected) 95% confidence level upper bound on the cross section for H → WW produced in association with zero or one jet is 2.2 pb (1.9 pb), corresponding to 1.9 (1.6) times the Standard Model prediction. In the Higgs boson plus two jets channel, which is more sensitive to the weak boson fusion process, the observed (expected) 95% confidence level upper bound on the cross section for H → WW

production with mH = 400 GeV is 0.7 pb (0.6 pb), corresponding to 7.9 (6.5) times the Standard Model

prediction.

Keywords: ATLAS, LHC, Higgs, WW PACS: 14.80.Bn, 12.15.Ji, 14.70.Fm

1. Introduction

In the Standard Model (SM), a scalar field with a non-zero vacuum expectation value breaks the electroweak symmetry, gives masses to the W/Z bosons and fermions [1–6], and manifests itself di-rectly as a particle, the Higgs boson [2, 3, 5]. A primary goal of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is to test the SM mechanism of electroweak sym-metry breaking by searching for Higgs boson pro-duction in high-energy proton-proton collisions. At LHC energies, the Higgs boson is predomi-nantly produced via gluon fusion (gg → H) and via weak boson fusion (qq → qqH).

Results of Higgs boson searches in various channels using data up to an integrated

luminos-ity of approximately 5 fb−1have recently been

re-ported by both the ATLAS and CMS collabora-tions [7, 8]. The ATLAS analysis excludes a Higgs boson with mass in the ranges 112.9–115.5 GeV, 131–238 GeV and 251–466 GeV while the CMS analysis excludes the range 127–600 GeV at 95% confidence level (CL). Direct searches at LEP and the Tevatron exclude Higgs boson masses

mH < 114.4 GeV [9] and 156 GeV < mH <

177 GeV [10] respectively at 95% CL.

For mH >_{∼ 135 GeV, the dominant decay mode}

of the Higgs boson is H → WW(∗)_{. For mH} >

∼

200 GeV, the H → WW → ℓν j j channel, where one W boson decays into two quarks leading to a pair of jets (W → j j) and the other decays into a charged lepton and a neutrino (W → ℓν) where

ℓ = e or µ, becomes interesting since jets from

the Higgs boson decay are, on average, more ener-getic than the jets from the dominant background (W+jets). An advantage of H → WW → ℓν j j over channels with two final-state neutrinos is the possibility of reconstructing the Higgs boson mass using kinematical constraints to estimate the com-ponent of the neutrino momentum along the beam axis.

This Letter describes a search for the SM Higgs boson in the H → WW → ℓν j j channel using

the ATLAS detector at the LHC, based on 4.7 fb−1

of pp collision data collected at a centre-of-mass

energy √s = 7 TeV during 2011. The present

search supersedes a previous analysis in the same Higgs boson decay channel published by the AT-LAS Collaboration [11]. The distribution of the

ℓνj j invariant mass m(ℓν j j), reconstructed using

the ℓν invariant mass constraint m(ℓν) = m(W) and the requirement that two of the jets in the event are consistent with a W → j j decay, is used to search for a Higgs boson signal. Feed-down from

τlepton decays is included in this analysis for both

background and signal, i.e. H → WW → τ¯ντj j →

ℓ¯νℓντ¯ντj j.

The present search is restricted to mH > 300

GeV in order to ensure a smoothly varying non-resonant background. The search is further

lim-ited to mH < 600 GeV since, for higher Higgs

boson masses, the jets from W → j j decay begin to overlap due to the large boost of the W boson, and the natural width of the Higgs boson exceeds 100 GeV. The best sensitivity to Higgs boson

pro-duction in this analysis is expected for mH ∼ 400

GeV.

2. The ATLAS Detector

The ATLAS experiment [12] uses a multi-purpose particle detector with forward-backward

symmetric cylindrical geometry1 covering the

pseudorapidity range |η| < 2.5 for charged parti-cles and |η| < 4.9 for jet measurements. The inner tracking detector (ID) consists of a silicon pixel detector, a silicon microstrip detector, and a tran-sition radiation tracker. The ID is surrounded by a thin superconducting solenoid providing a 2 T ax-ial magnetic field. The superconducting solenoid is surrounded by a high-granularity liquid-argon (LAr) sampling electromagnetic (EM) calorime-ter. An iron/scintillator tile calorimeter provides hadronic coverage in the central rapidity range. The end-cap and forward regions are instrumented with LAr calorimeters for both electromagnetic

and hadronic measurements. The muon

spec-trometer surrounds the calorimeters and consists of three large superconducting toroids, each with eight coils, a system of precision tracking cham-bers, and detectors for triggering.

1_{ATLAS uses a right-handed coordinate system with its}

ori-gin at the nominal interaction point (IP) in the centre of the de-tector and the z-axis coinciding with the axis of the beam pipe. The x-axis points from the IP to the centre of the LHC ring, and the y-axis points upward. Cylindrical coordinates (r,φ) are used in the transverse plane, φ being the azimuthal angle around the beam pipe. The pseudorapidity is defined in terms of the polar angle θ, measured with respect to the z-axis, as

3. Data and simulation samples

The data were collected using single-muon and

single-electron triggers [13]. The single-muon

trigger required the transverse momentum (pT) of

the muon with respect to the beam line to exceed 18 GeV; for the single-electron trigger, the thresh-old varied from 20 GeV to 22 GeV. The trigger ob-ject quality requirements were tightened through-out the data-taking period to cope with increasing instantaneous luminosity.

Using the ATLAS simulation framework [14], detailed Monte Carlo (MC) studies of signal and backgrounds have been performed. The in-teraction with the ATLAS detector is modelled with GEANT4 [15] and the events are processed through the same reconstruction chain that is used to perform the reconstruction of data events. The effect of multiple pp interactions in the same and nearby bunch crossings (pile-up) is modelled by superimposing several simulated minimum-bias events on the simulated signal and background

events. Simulated MC events are weighted to

match the distribution of interactions per beam crossing in the dataset.

4. Object Selection

The pp collision vertices in each bunch crossing are reconstructed using the inner tracking system [16]. To remove cosmic-ray and beam-induced backgrounds, events are required to have at least one reconstructed primary vertex with at least

three associated tracks with pT > 400 MeV. If

multiple collision vertices are reconstructed, the

vertex with the largest summed p2

T of the

associ-ated tracks is selected as the primary vertex. Each electron candidate is reconstructed from clustered energy deposits in the EM calorimeter with an associated track. It is further required to satisfy a tight set of identification criteria with an efficiency of approximately 80% for electrons from W → eν decays with transverse energy

20 GeV < ET < 50 GeV [17]. While the

en-ergy measurement is taken from the EM calorime-ter, the pseudorapidity η and azimuthal angle φ are taken from the associated track. The cluster is required to be in the range |η| < 2.47, exclud-ing the transition region between barrel and end-cap calorimeters, 1.37 < |η| < 1.52, and small calorimeter regions affected by temporary oper-ational problems. The track associated with the electron candidate is required to point back to the

reconstructed primary vertex with a transverse

im-pact parameter significance |d0/σd0| < 10 and with

an impact parameter along the beam direction of

|z0| < 1 mm. Electrons are further required to be

isolated: the sum of the transverse energies (ex-cluding the electron itself) in calorimeter cells

in-side a cone ∆R ≡ p(∆φ)2_{+ (∆η)}2 _{= 0.3 around}

the cluster barycentre must satisfy Σ(Ecalo_T )/pe_T <

0.14 and the scalar sum of the transverse momenta of all tracks (excluding the electron track itself)

with pT > 1 GeV from the primary vertex in the

same cone must satisfy Σ(ptrack

T )/p e T<0.13.

Muons are reconstructed by combining tracks in the inner detector and the muon spectrome-ter. The identification efficiency is measured to be (92.8 ± 0.2)% for muons with transverse

momen-tum pT>20 GeV [18]. Tracks are required to pass

basic quality cuts on the number and type of hits in the inner detector. They must lie within the range

|η| < 2.4. The tracks must satisfy the same z0cut

as electrons and |d0/σd0| < 3. They must also be

isolated, with the sum of the transverse energies (excluding those attributed to the muon itself) in calorimeter cells inside a cone ∆R = 0.3 around

the muon satisfying Σ(E_Tcalo)/pµ_T <0.14.

Further-more, the scalar sum of the transverse momenta of

all tracks with pT >1 GeV from the primary

ver-tex inside a cone ∆R = 0.4 around the muon must

satisfy Σ(ptrack

T )/p

µ

T<0.15.

Jets are reconstructed from topological clusters of energy deposited in the calorimeters using the

anti-kt algorithm [19] with radius parameter R =

0.4. The reconstructed jet energy is calibrated

us-ing pT- and η-dependent correction factors based

on MC simulation and validated with data [20].

The selected jets are required to have pT >25 GeV

and |η| < 4.5. Jets are considered b-tagged if they satisfy the requirement |η| < 2.8 and are consis-tent with having originated from the decay of a b-quark. This latter requirement is determined by a

b-tagging algorithm which uses a combination of

impact parameter significance and secondary ver-tex information and exploits the topology of weak decays of b- and c-hadrons. The algorithm is tuned to achieve an 80% b-jet identification efficiency, which results in a tagging rate for light quark jets of approximately 6% [21, 22]. The missing

trans-verse momentum and its magnitude Emiss

T are

re-constructed from calibrated jets, leptons and pho-tons, and take into account soft clustered energy in the calorimeters [23]. Energy deposited by muons

is subtracted in the Emiss

T calculation to avoid

dou-ble counting.

5. Event Selection

Events are classified based on the number of jets selected in addition to the two jets from the Higgs boson decay candidate. For events to be se-lected as Higgs boson candidates without an addi-tional jet (H + 0 j) or with exactly one addiaddi-tional jet (H + 1 j), the channels which are more sensitive to the gluon fusion process, the following condi-tions must be met: only one reconstructed lepton

candidate (electron or muon) with pT > 40 GeV,

no additional leptons with pT >20 GeV, Emiss_T >

40 GeV, and exactly two jets (ℓν j j + 0 jet sam-ple) or exactly three jets (ℓν j j + 1 jet samsam-ple) with

pT > 40 GeV and |η| < 4.5. The two jets with

invariant mass (mj j) closest to the mass of the W

boson are required to satisfy 71 GeV < mj j <

91 GeV. The more energetic of these two jets

must satisfy pT>60 GeV. These two jets are taken

as the W boson decay jets and are required to lie within the range |η| < 2.8, where the jet energy scale is best known (with an uncertainty of 5% or

less for pT>40 GeV, depending on pTand |η| over

this range [20]), and have ∆Rj j <1.3 to suppress

W+jets background. In order to reduce top quark

background, the event is rejected if either of the W boson decay jets is b-tagged.

For the ℓν j j + 2 j selection (H + 2 j), which is more sensitive to the weak boson fusion Higgs bo-son production mode, the following requirements

are applied. The charged lepton pT and the E_Tmiss

must both exceed 30 GeV. There must be at least

four jets with pT>25 GeV and |η| < 4.5. The two

jets with invariant mass closest to the mass of the

W boson are required to satisfy 71 GeV < mj j <

91 GeV. These jets are labelled as the W boson decay jets. Because of the small signal cross sec-tion in this channel, the W boson decay jets are not required to lie within |η| < 2.8, in order to increase the acceptance. The event is required to satisfy a set of “forward jet tagging” cuts designed

to select qq → qqH events. The two highest-pT

jets apart from the W boson decay jets are labelled as the “tag” jets, and they are required to be in

opposite hemispheres (ηj1 · ηj2 < 0). They are

also required to be well-separated in

pseudorapid-ity (∆ηj j = |ηj1− ηj2| > 3). The lepton is required

to be between the two tag jets in pseudorapidity. The two tag jets must have large invariant mass

(mj j >600 GeV) and there must be no additional

jets in the range |η| < 3.2. The event is rejected if it contains a b-tagged jet.

The ℓν j j + 0/1 j selection differs from the selec-tion used Ref. [11]. The selecselec-tion criteria are

op-timized to improve the expected Higgs boson sen-sitivity for masses above 300 GeV and require a more complex parameterization of the background shape, as discussed in Section 8.

6. Expected Backgrounds

In both the ℓν j j + 0/1 j and ℓν j j + 2 j selections, the background is expected to be dominated by

W+jets production. Other important backgrounds

are Z+jets, t¯t, single top quark, diboson (WW,

WZ, ZZ, Wγ and Zγ) production, and multijets

(MJ) from strong interaction processes that can be selected due either to the presence of leptons from heavy-flavour decays or jets misidentified as lep-tons.

Although MC predictions are not used to model the background in the Higgs boson search results, a combination of MC and data-driven methods is used to understand the background composition at this intermediate stage. Backgrounds due to

W/Z+jets, tt, and diboson production are modelled

using the ALPGEN [24], MC@NLO [25], and HERWIG [26] generators, respectively. Single top production is modelled using AcerMC [27] and single top produced in association with a W boson is modelled with MC@NLO. The small contribu-tion from W/Z + γ events is estimated from events simulated using MadGraph/MadEvent [28]. The shapes of MJ background distributions are mod-elled using histograms derived from data samples selected in the same way as for the H → WW →

ℓνj j selection, except that the electron

identifica-tion requirements are loosened and the isolaidentifica-tion requirement on muons is inverted. In the loosened selection, electrons satisfying the complete set of identification criteria are not included. Expected contributions from top quark (t¯t and single top) production and electroweak boson (including di-boson) production to the MJ shape histograms are subtracted using MC predictions.

To normalize the MJ background contribution,

fits to the E_Tmiss distribution using templates for

each background contribution are performed. The

Emiss_T template is constructed from the loose

lep-ton control sample after the selection is further

re-laxed by omitting the Emiss

T criteria. The

normal-izations of this MJ template and the correspond-ing template for W/Z+jets taken from MC are

fit-ted to the observed Emiss

T distribution in data

af-ter the final selection, with other backgrounds es-timated using the MC simulation and fixed to their

expectation for 4.7 fb−1_{. The relative contributions}

from W+jets and Z+jets into the W/Z+jets tem-plate are fixed according to the SM cross sections. The scale factors for the MJ and W/Z+jets tem-plates derived from these fits are used to normalize the MJ and W/Z+jets background contributions in comparisons between data and these background expectations.

The MC simulation predicts that W/Z+jets events constitute (72 ± 14)% of the total back-ground for ℓν j j+0/1 j and (77±15)% for ℓν j j+2 j, while the top quark backgrounds contribute with (19±5)% and (9±2)% for ℓν j j+0/1 j and ℓν j j+2 j respectively.

7. WW Mass Reconstruction

To reconstruct the invariant mass m(ℓν j j) of the WW system, the neutrino momentum is

re-quired. Its transverse momentum pν_Tis taken from

the measured Emiss

T while the neutrino

longitu-dinal momentum pν

z is computed using the

sec-ond degree equation given by the mass constraint

m(ℓν) = m(W). In the case of two real solu-tions, the solution with smaller neutrino

longitu-dinal momentum |pν

z| is taken, based on simulation

studies. In the case of complex solutions, the event is rejected. This requirement rejects (20 ± 1)% of

MC signal events at mH= 400 GeV, while for MC

W+jets the corresponding rejection is (30 ± 1)%.

These estimates include only statistical

uncertain-ties. Larger fractions of events are rejected in

ℓνj j + 1 j than in ℓν j j + 0 j independent of lepton

flavour. In collision data (30 ± 1)% of the events are rejected by this requirement, consistent with the expectations from the W+jets background sim-ulation.

8. Signal and Background Modelling

The Higgs boson signal is expected to appear as a peak in the m(ℓν j j) distribution. Its width, before

detector effects, varies from about 10 GeV at mH=

300 GeV to about 70 GeV at mH = 550 GeV. The

non-resonant background for the ℓν j j+0/1 j chan-nel is modelled by a smooth function of the form

f (x) = [1/(1 + |a(x − m)|b)] × exp[−c(x − 200)], where x is m(ℓν j j) in GeV and a, b, c, and m are free parameters with the appropriate units. In the

ℓνj j + 2 j channel, the background is modelled by

the sum of two exponential functions. The param-eters of the fitted function in each of these models are not subjected to any external constraint. The functional form for the background model is well

motivated by studies using MC simulation, and is tested by fits to the m(ℓν j j) distributions obtained through event selection in the W sidebands, with

mj jjust below (45 GeV < mj j <60 GeV) or just

above (100 GeV < mj j < 115 GeV) the W

bo-son peak. Figures 1 and 2 show fits of the ℓν j j mass to the background model for ℓν j j + 0 j and

ℓνj j + 1 j selections with mj jin the W sidebands.

The χ2_{probabilities of these fits are between 25%}

and 75%, providing support for the background functional form used in this analysis.

MC simulation is used to study the expected Higgs boson contribution to the m(ℓν j j) distribu-tions. Both the gluon fusion and the weak bo-son fusion signal production processes are simu-lated using the POWHEG [29, 30] event gener-ator interfaced to PYTHIA [31] and are normal-ized to the next-to-next-to-leading order cross sec-tions [32] shown in Table 1. The m(ℓν j j) dis-tribution for the expected signal at each

hypoth-esized mH is modelled using the functional form

1/(a + (x − m1)2 + b(x − m2)4) with parameters

(a, b, m1 and m2) determined from a fit to the

MC simulation of the expected Higgs boson sig-nal. The m(lν j j) fractional resolution is 8.8 ±1.3% at mH = 400 GeV, the uncertainty arising mostly

from the Emiss_T and jet energy scale as described

below, and shows a 1/√mH dependence over the

range of this analysis.

9. Systematic Uncertainties

The systematic uncertainty due to the back-ground modelling is included by treating the un-certainties on the background model parameters resulting from fits to the data as nuisance param-eters in the statistical interpretation of the data. Both the background model and the sum of signal and background models are found to be good fits

to the data. For mH = 400 GeV, the χ2

probabili-ties are 33% and 31% for the background-only and background-plus-signal fits, respectively. There-fore, alternative parameterizations of the back-ground expectation that are consistent with the data will also be consistent with the background model within its uncertainties. This is tested by fitting both the signal region and the sideband re-gions of the data with two alternative parameteri-zations. Differences in the fitted background yield between these parameterizations and the nominal background model are less than 5%, while the un-certainty from the nuisance parameters and statis-tical uncertainty is 10-12%.

The remaining systematic uncertainties are re-lated to the Higgs boson signal. The fit includes nuisance parameters which account for the uncer-tainty in the reconstruction efficiency. The trigger efficiencies, the electron and muon reconstruction efficiencies, lepton energy resolution and scale are varied within their uncertainties, giving an uncer-tainty in the signal efficiency of less than 1%. Varying the jet energy scale [20] within its un-certainties yields an uncertainty of up to 8% in the expected signal in the ℓν j j + 0/1 j channel for

mH >400 GeV. Smearing the jet energies within

the uncertainty on their resolutions [35] results in

a signal uncertainty of 7% for mH= 400 GeV and

5% for mH = 600 GeV. The reconstructed E_Tmiss

[23] is also affected by the uncertainties on the en-ergy scales and resolutions of reconstructed lep-tons and jets. The signal uncertainties given above include the propagation of these effects to the

re-constructed Emiss

T . The propagation to E

miss

T adds a

small contribution to the overall signal uncertainty. In addition, a 7% uncertainty on the degradation of

the Emiss

T resolution and scale due to pile-up effects

is estimated, which results in a negligible uncer-tainty on the signal efficiency. The looser selec-tion criteria for the ℓν j j + 2 j channel result in an 11% uncertainty on the signal efficiency from the

jet energy scale at mH= 400 GeV while the

uncer-tainty due to the jet energy resolution is 16%. The uncertainty on the b-tagging efficiency [36] gives a maximum uncertainty of 8% on the signal

effi-ciency and shows no strong dependence on mHor

the selection criteria.

The uncertainties on jet energy resolution and jet energy scale, which also have an impact on

Emiss

T , lead to systematic uncertainties on the Higgs

boson mass resolution (5%) and on the Higgs bo-son mass scale (2%). These uncertainties are not included since their effect on the fitted Higgs bo-son yield is considerably smaller than the system-atic uncertainty on the signal acceptance due to jet energy scale and resolution.

The Higgs boson signal expectation includes a 3.9% systematic uncertainty due the luminos-ity determination [37, 38] and a 19.4% uncer-tainty on the predicted Higgs boson cross sec-tion [32], taken to be independent of the mass. Off-shell effects and interference between the sig-nal and background processes are discussed in Refs. [32, 39, 40]. To account for the uncertainties

from these effects, an uncertainty of 150%×m3

H

(mHin TeV) on the signal cross section is included

in the statistical interpretation of the data, where

the m3

jj) [GeV] ν m(e 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Events / 20 GeV 1 10 2 10 3 10 Sidebands jj Data in m Background fit -1 L dt = 4.7 fb

∫

= 7 TeV s jj ν e → WW → H+0j, H ATLAS /dof = 40/35 (Prob = 25%) 2 χ jj) [GeV] ν µ m( 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Events / 20 GeV 1 10 2 10 3 10 Sidebands jj Data in m Background fit -1 L dt = 4.7 fb

∫

= 7 TeV s jj ν µ → WW → H+0j, H ATLAS /dof = 31/35 (Prob = 66%) 2 χ

Figure 1: Fits of the background model described in the text to the reconstructed invariant mass m(ℓν j j) when mj jis in the W

sidebands for the ℓν j j + 0 j selection. The left (right) figure shows the electron (muon) channel distribution. The χ2_{/dof and χ}2

probability of these fits are also shown in the figure.

jj) [GeV] ν m(e 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Events / 20 GeV 1 10 2 10 Sidebands jj Data in m Background fit -1 L dt = 4.7 fb

∫

= 7 TeV s jj ν e → WW → H+1j, H ATLAS /dof = 29/35 (Prob = 75%) 2 χ jj) [GeV] ν µ m( 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Events / 20 GeV 1 10 2 10 Sidebands jj Data in m Background fit -1 L dt = 4.7 fb

∫

= 7 TeV s jj ν µ → WW → H+1j, H ATLAS /dof = 32/35 (Prob = 59%) 2 χ

Figure 2: Fits of the background model described in the text to the reconstructed invariant mass m(ℓν j j) when the mj jis in the W

sidebands for the ℓν j j + 1 j selection. The left (right) figure shows the electron (muon) channel distributions. The χ2_{/dof and χ}2

Table 1: Cross sections for Standard Model Higgs boson production and the branching ratio (BR) for H → WW → ℓν j j (ℓ = e or µ) as a function of Higgs boson mass mH. The cross section and its associated uncertainties are described in Ref. [33]. The branching

ratio includes W → τ → ℓ, and the uncertainties from the subchannels [34] are added in quadrature with the H → WW uncertainty, which is 0.5% below 500 GeV and 0.1m4

Hfor mH&500 GeV.

mH[GeV] σ(gg → H) [pb] σ(qq → H) [pb] BR(H → ℓ±νj j) 300 _{2.4 ± 0.4 0.30 ± 0.01 0.237 ± 0.003} 400 _{2.0 ± 0.3} 0.162+0.010 −0.005 0.199 ± 0.002 500 _{0.85 ± 0.15} 0.095+0.007 −0.003 0.187 ± 0.002 600 _{0.33 ± 0.06} 0.058+0.005 −0.002 0.191 ± 0.003

Higgs boson width with mH and the

normaliza-tion factor of 150% is chosen to give ∼30% at

mH= 600 GeV [32].

10. Results and Conclusions

Figures 3–5 show the m(ℓν j j) distributions and the ratio of data to background expectation from MC simulation for the six different final states con-sidered in this analysis, along with bands showing the total background uncertainty. The simulated background is not used in the statistical interpre-tation of the data. Instead, the parameterizations described in Section 8 are used to model the back-ground.

The Higgs boson signal yield in each final state is determined using a binned maximum likelihood fit to the observed m(ℓν j j) distribution in the range 200 GeV < m(ℓν j j) < 2000 GeV. As a check, fits over a smaller range (200 GeV < m(ℓν j j) < 1000 GeV) were also performed and the results were found to be consistent with the results pre-sented here.

The difference between data and the fitted back-ground is shown in Figure 6. The expected signals

for mH = 400 GeV and mH = 600 GeV are also

shown, each scaled to the 95% CL limit on the pro-duction cross section.

Figure 6 shows that there is no indication of a significant excess of data above the background model. Limits on SM Higgs boson production are extracted using the profile likelihood ratio [41] as

a test statistic and following the CLsprocedure

de-scribed in Refs. [7, 42].

Figure 7 shows the 95% CL upper bound on the cross section times branching ratio for Higgs bo-son production with respect to the Standard Model

prediction, as a function of mH. The best

sensitiv-ity is reached at mH = 400 GeV, where the 95%

confidence level upper bound on the cross sec-tion for H → WW producsec-tion using the combined

H + 0 j and H + 1 j channels is observed (expected)

to be 2.2 pb (1.9 pb) corresponding to 1.9 (1.6) times the Standard Model prediction. In the H +2 j channel, which is more sensitive to Higgs boson production via weak boson fusion, the 95% con-fidence level upper bound on the cross section for

H → WW production with mH = 400 GeV is

ob-served (expected) to be 0.7 pb (0.6 pb) correspond-ing to 7.9 (6.5) times the Standard Model predic-tion. Figure 8 shows the limits obtained when combining the H + 2 j channel with the H + 0/1 j

channels. Figure 9 shows the probability p0to

ob-serve a fluctuation in 300 < m(ℓν j j) < 600 GeV at least as large as the one observed in data if there is no signal contribution, where the signal and back-ground are modelled as described in Section 8.

The expected p0 for H + 0/1 j if there were a SM

Higgs at 400 GeV is 0.091, and the observed value

is 0.276. For H + 2 j, the expected p0is 0.369 and

the observed is 0.293. The significance is

com-puted as p−2 log λ where λ is the likelihood

ra-tio obtained by the fit, and the significance is

con-verted into the probability p0using the Gauss error

function.

In summary, a search for the SM Higgs boson has been performed in the H → WW → ℓν j j

channel using 4.7 fb−1 _{of pp collisions at} √_{s =}

7 TeV recorded by the ATLAS detector. No sig-nificant excess of events over the expected back-ground has been observed. Exclusion limits on SM Higgs boson production at 95% CL are re-ported over the Higgs boson mass range of 300 − 600 GeV.

11. Acknowledgements

We thank CERN for the very successful opera-tion of the LHC, as well as the support staff from our institutions without whom ATLAS could not be operated efficiently.

[GeV] m 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Events / 20 GeV 1 10 2 10 3

10 DataTotal bkg (stat ⊕ sys)

W+jets Z+jets Dibosons Multi-jet Top SM Signal = 400 GeV H m -1 L dt = 4.7 fb ∫ = 7 TeV s jj ν e → WW → H+0j, H ATLAS jj) [GeV] ν m(e 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Data / MC 0.5₀ 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 [GeV] m 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Events / 20 GeV 1 10 2 10 3

10 DataTotal bkg (stat ⊕ sys)

W+jets Z+jets Dibosons Multi-jet Top SM Signal = 400 GeV H m -1 L dt = 4.7 fb ∫ = 7 TeV s jj ν µ → WW → H+0j, H ATLAS jj) [GeV] ν µ m( 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Data / MC 0.5₀ 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Figure 3: The reconstructed invariant mass m(ℓν j j) in the data and expected backgrounds using MC simulation for the ℓν j j + 0 j selection. The left (right) figure shows the electron (muon) channel distribution. The expected Higgs boson signal for mH= 400 GeV

is also shown. The bottom panels show the data divided by the MC expectation as markers, and the shaded (orange) region indicates the systematic uncertainty on the background expectation from MC simulation.

[GeV] m 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Events / 20 GeV 1 10 2 10 3

10 DataTotal bkg (stat ⊕ sys)

W+jets Z+jets Dibosons Multi-jet Top SM Signal = 400 GeV H m -1 L dt = 4.7 fb ∫ = 7 TeV s jj ν e → WW → H+1j, H ATLAS jj) [GeV] ν m(e 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Data / MC 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 [GeV] m 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Events / 20 GeV 1 10 2 10 3

10 DataTotal bkg (stat ⊕ sys)

W+jets Z+jets Dibosons Multi-jet Top SM Signal = 400 GeV H m -1 L dt = 4.7 fb ∫ = 7 TeV s jj ν µ → WW → H+1j, H ATLAS jj) [GeV] ν µ m( 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Data / MC 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Figure 4: The reconstructed invariant mass m(ℓν j j) in the data and expected backgrounds using MC simulation for the ℓν j j + 1 j selection. The left (right) figure shows the electron (muon) channel distribution. The expected Higgs boson signal for mH= 400 GeV

is also shown. The bottom panels show the data divided by the MC expectation as markers, and the shaded (orange) region indicates the systematic uncertainty on the background expectation from MC simulation.

[GeV] m 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Events / 20 GeV 1 10 2 10 3

10 DataTotal bkg (stat ⊕ sys)

W+jets Z+jets Dibosons Multi-jet Top SM Signal x10 = 400 GeV H m -1 L dt = 4.7 fb ∫ = 7 TeV s jj ν e → WW → H+2j, H ATLAS jj) [GeV] ν m(e 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Data / MC 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 [GeV] m 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Events / 20 GeV 1 10 2 10 3

10 DataTotal bkg (stat ⊕ sys)

W+jets Z+jets Dibosons Multi-jet Top SM Signal x10 = 400 GeV H m -1 L dt = 4.7 fb ∫ = 7 TeV s jj ν µ → WW → H+2j, H ATLAS jj) [GeV] ν µ m( 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Data / MC 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Figure 5: The reconstructed invariant mass m(ℓν j j) in the data and expected backgrounds using MC simulation for the ℓν j j + 2 j selection. The left (right) figure shows the electron (muon) channel distribution. The expected Higgs boson signal for mH= 400 GeV

is also shown, scaled up by a factor of 10 for visibility. The bottom panels show the data divided by the MC expectation as markers, and the shaded (orange) region indicates the systematic uncertainty on the background expectation from MC simulation.

jj) [GeV]

ν

M(l

200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Data-Fit [Events/20 GeV]

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Data (bg fit subtracted) =400 GeV (x 1.9) H Signal, m =600 GeV (x 10.6) H Signal, m ATLAS =7 TeV s -1 L dt=4.7 fb

∫

jj ν l → WW → H+0/1j, H jj) [GeV] ν M(l 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Data-Fit [Events/20 GeV]

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

Data (bg fit subtracted) =400 GeV (x 7.9) H Signal, m =600 GeV (x 15) H Signal, m ATLAS =7 TeV s -1 L dt=4.7 fb

∫

jj ν l → WW → H+2j, H

Figure 6: The difference between data and the fitted background under a no-signal hypothesis, for the (left) ℓν j j + 0/1 j selection and (right) ℓν j j + 2 j selection, both summed over lepton flavours. The expected contribution from SM Higgs boson decays is also shown for mH= 400 GeV and mH = 600 GeV, multiplied by a factor equal to the ratio of 95% CL limit on its production to the SM

[GeV] H M 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 SM σ / σ 95% C.L. limit on -1 10 1 10 2 10 Expected σ 1 ± σ 2 ± Observed =7 TeV s -1 L dt=4.7 fb

∫

ATLAS jj ν l → WW → H+0/1j, H [GeV] H M 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 SM σ / σ 95% C.L. limit on -1 10 1 10 2 10 Expected σ 1 ± σ 2 ± Observed =7 TeV s -1 L dt=4.7 fb

∫

ATLAS H+2j, H→ WW→ lν jj

Figure 7: The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the Higgs boson production cross section divided by the SM prediction. The left figure shows the combination of H + 0 j with H + 1 j and the right figure shows the H + 2 j limits. For any hypothesized Higgs boson mass, the background contribution used in the calculation of this limit is obtained from a fit to the m(ℓν j j) distribution. The dark (green) and light (yellow) bands show the ±1σ and ±2σ uncertainties on the expected limit.

[GeV]

H

M

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

SM

σ

/

σ

95% C.L. limit on

-1

10

1

10

2

10

Expected

σ

1

±

σ

2

±

Observed

=7 TeV

s

-1

L dt=4.7 fb

∫

ATLAS

jj

ν

l

→

WW

→

H+0/1/2j, H

Figure 8: The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the Higgs boson production cross section divided by the SM prediction. This figure shows the combination of the H + 0 j, H + 1 j and H + 2 j channels. The background contribution used in the calculation of this limit is obtained from a fit to the m(ℓν j j) distribution. The green and yellow bands show the ±1σ and ±2σ uncertainties on the expected limit.

[GeV] H m 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 0 Local p -3 10 -2 10 -1 10 1 σ 1 σ 2 σ 3 ATLAS -1 L dt=4.7 fb

∫

=7 TeV s jj ν l → WW → H+0/1j, H Observed Expected [GeV] H m 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 0 Local p -3 10 -2 10 -1 10 1 σ 1 σ 2 σ 3 ATLAS -1 L dt=4.7 fb

∫

s=7 TeV jj ν l → WW → H+2j, H Observed Expected

Figure 9: Local p0for the SM Higgs boson search in the H + 0/1 j channel (left) and H + 2 j channel (right). The dashed line shows

the expected p0value for a Standard Model Higgs boson as a function of its mass.

We acknowledge the support of ANPCyT, Argentina; YerPhI, Armenia; ARC, Australia; BMWF, Austria; ANAS, Azerbaijan; SSTC, Be-larus; CNPq and FAPESP, Brazil; NSERC, NRC and CFI, Canada; CERN; CONICYT, Chile; CAS, MOST and NSFC, China; COLCIENCIAS, Colombia; MSMT CR, MPO CR and VSC CR, Czech Republic; DNRF, DNSRC and Lundbeck Foundation, Denmark; EPLANET and ERC, Eu-ropean Union; IN2P3-CNRS, CEA-DSM/IRFU, France; GNAS, Georgia; BMBF, DFG, HGF, MPG and AvH Foundation, Germany; GSRT, Greece; ISF, MINERVA, GIF, DIP and Benoziyo Center, Israel; INFN, Italy; MEXT and JSPS,

Japan; CNRST, Morocco; FOM and NWO,

Netherlands; RCN, Norway; MNiSW, Poland; GRICES and FCT, Portugal; MERYS (MECTS), Romania; MES of Russia and ROSATOM, Rus-sian Federation; JINR; MSTD, Serbia; MSSR, Slovakia; ARRS and MVZT, Slovenia; DST/NRF, South Africa; MICINN, Spain; SRC and Wallen-berg Foundation, Sweden; SER, SNSF and Can-tons of Bern and Geneva, Switzerland; NSC, Tai-wan; TAEK, Turkey; STFC, the Royal Society and Leverhulme Trust, United Kingdom; DOE and NSF, United States of America.

The crucial computing support from all WLCG partners is acknowledged gratefully, in particu-lar from CERN and the ATLAS Tier-1 facilities at TRIUMF (Canada), NDGF (Denmark, Nor-way, Sweden), CC-IN2P3 (France), KIT/GridKA (Germany), INFN-CNAF (Italy), NL-T1 (Nether-lands), PIC (Spain), ASGC (Taiwan), RAL (UK) and BNL (USA) and in the Tier-2 facilities world-wide.

References

[1] F. Englert and R. Brout, Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 321. [2] P. W. Higgs, Broken symmetries, massless particles and

gauge fields, Phys. Lett. 12 (1964) 132.

[3] P. W. Higgs, Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 508.

[4] G. Guralnik, C. Hagen, and T. Kibble, Global conservation laws and massless particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 585.

[5] P. W. Higgs, Spontaneous symmetry breakdown without massless bosons, Phys. Rev. 145 (1966) 1156. [6] T. Kibble, Symmetry breaking in non-Abelian gauge

theories, Phys. Rev. 155 (1967) 1554. [7] ATLAS Collaboration, Combined search for the

Standard Model Higgs boson using up to 4.9 fb-1 of pp

collision data at√s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector at

the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 710 (2012) 49, arXiv:1202.1408.

[8] CMS Collaboration, Combined results of searches for the standard model Higgs boson in pp collisions at √

s = 7 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 710 (2012) 26, arXiv:1202.1488.

[9] The LEP Collaborations, Search for the Standard Model Higgs boson at LEP, Phys. Lett. B 565 (2003) 61, arXiv:hep-ex/0306033.

[10] The CDF and DØ Collaborations, and the Tevatron New Phenomena and Higgs Working Group, Combined CDF and D0 upper limits on Standard Model Higgs boson

production with up to 8.6 fb−1_{of data,}

arXiv:1107.5518.

[11] ATLAS Collaboration, Search for the Higgs boson in the H → WW → lν j j decay channel in pp collisions at √

s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. Lett.

107 (2011) 231801,arXiv:1109.3615.

[12] ATLAS Collaboration, The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, JINST 3 (2008) S08003. [13] ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of the ATLAS

Trigger System in 2010, Eur. Phys. J. C72 (2012) 1849, arXiv:1110.1530.

[14] ATLAS Collaboration, The ATLAS Simulation Infrastructure, Eur. Phys. J. C70 (2010) 823–874. [15] The GEANT4 Collaboration, S. Agostinelli et al.,

GEANT 4, A Simulation Toolkit, Nucl. Instr. Meth. A

[16] ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of primary vertex

reconstruction in proton-proton collisions at √s =7 TeV

in the ATLAS experiment, ATLAS-CONF-2010-069 (2010). http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1281344. [17] ATLAS Collaboration, Electron performance

measurements with the ATLAS detector using the 2010 LHC proton-proton collision data, Eur. Phys. J. C72 (2012) 001,arXiv:1110.3174.

[18] ATLAS Collaboration, Muon reconstruction efficiency in reprocessed 2010 LHC proton-proton collision data recorded with the ATLAS detector,

ATLAS-CONF-2011-063 (2011). http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1345743.

[19] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, Anti-ktjet

clustering Algorithm, JHEP 04 (2008) 063, arXiv:0802.1189.

[20] ATLAS Collaboration, Jet energy measurement with the ATLAS detector in proton-proton collisions at

√_{s = 7 TeV,arXiv:1112.6426.}

[21] ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of the Mistag Rate

of b-tagging algorithms with 5 fb−1_{of Data Collected by}

the ATLAS Detector, ATLAS-CONF-2012-040 (2012). http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1454675.

[22] ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of the b-tag Efficiency in a Sample of Jets Containing Muons with 5

f b−1of Data from the ATLAS Detector,

ATLAS-CONF-2012-043 (2012). http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1435197. [23] ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of missing

transverse momentum reconstruction in proton-proton collisions at 7 TeV with ATLAS, Eur. Phys. J. C72 1844, arXiv:1108.5602.

[24] M.L. Mangano et al., ALPGEN, a generator for hard multi-parton processes in hadronic collisions, JHEP 07 (2003) 001,arXiv:hep-ph/0206293.

[25] S. Frixione and B. Webber, Matching NLO QCD and parton showers in heavy flavour production, JHEP 0308 (2003) 007,arXiv:hep-ph/0305252.

[26] G. Corcella et al., HERWIG 6: An event generator for hadron emission reactions with interfering gluons (including super-symmetric processes) , JHEP 01 (2001) 010,arXiv:hep-ph/0011363.

[27] B. P. Kersevan and E. Richter-Was, The Monte Carlo event generator AcerMC version 2.0 with interfaces to PYTHIA 6.2 and HERWIG 6.5,

arXiv:hep-ph/0405247.

[28] J.Alwall et al., MadGraph/MadEvent v4: The New Web

Generation, JHEP 09 (2007) 028,arXiv:0706.2334.

[29] S. Alioli et al., NLO Higgs Boson production via gluon fusion matched with shower in POWHEG, JHEP 04 (2009) 002.

[30] P. Nason and C. Oleari, NLO Higgs boson production via vector-boson fusion matched with shower in

POWHEG, JHEP 02 (2010) 037,arXiv:0911.5299.

[31] T. Sj¨ostrand et al., PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual, JHEP 05 (2006) 026.

[32] LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group, S. Dittmaier, C. Mariotti, G. Passarino, and R. Tanaka (Eds.), Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 2. Differential

Distributions,arXiv:1201.3084.

[33] LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group, S. Dittmaier, C. Mariotti, G. Passarino, and R. Tanaka (Eds.), Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 1. Inclusive

observables,arXiv:1101.0593.

[34] Particle Data Group, K. Nakamura, et al., Review of particle physics, J. Phys. G37 (2010) 075021. [35] ATLAS Collaboration, Jet energy resolution and

reconstruction efficiencies from in-situ techniques with the ATLAS detector using proton-proton collisions at a

center of mass energy√s=7 TeV,

ATLAS-CONF-2010-054 (2010). http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1281311.

[36] ATLAS Collaboration, Calibrating the b-tag efficiency

and mistag rate in 35 pb−1_{of data with the ATLAS}

detector, ATLAS-CONF-2011-089 (2011). http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1356198.

[37] ATLAS Collaboration, Luminosity Determination in pp

Collisions at√s = 7 TeV using the ATLAS Detector at

the LHC, Eur.Phys.J. C71 (2011) 1630, arXiv:1101.2185.

[38] ATLAS Collaboration, Luminosity Determination in pp

Collisions at√s = 7 TeV using the ATLAS Detector in

2011, ATLAS-CONF-2011-116 (2011). http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1376384.

[39] C. Anastasiou et al., Total cross-section for Higgs boson hadroproduction with anomalous Standard Model

interactions, JHEP 2011 (2011) 1,arXiv:1107.0683.

[40] J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and C. Williams,

Gluon-gluon contributions to W+W−production and

Higgs interference effects, JHEP 10 (2011) 005, arXiv:1107.5569.

[41] G. Cowan et al., Asymptotic formulae for

likelihood-based tests of new physics, Eur. Phys. J. C71 (2011) 1554,arXiv:1007.1727.

[42] A. L. Read, Presentation of search results: The CL(s) technique, J. Phys. G 28 (2002) 2693.

The ATLAS Collaboration

G. Aad48_{, B. Abbott}111_{, J. Abdallah}11_{, S. Abdel Khalek}115_{, A.A. Abdelalim}49_{, O. Abdinov}10_{, R. Aben}105_,

B. Abi112_{, M. Abolins}88_{, O.S. AbouZeid}158_{, H. Abramowicz}153_{, H. Abreu}136_{, E. Acerbi}89a,89b_,

B.S. Acharya164a,164b_{, L. Adamczyk}37_{, D.L. Adams}24_{, T.N. Addy}56_{, J. Adelman}176_{, S. Adomeit}98_,

P. Adragna75_{, T. Adye}129_{, S. Aefsky}22_{, J.A. Aguilar-Saavedra}124b,a_{, M. Agustoni}16_{, M. Aharrouche}81_,

S.P. Ahlen21_{, F. Ahles}48_{, A. Ahmad}148_{, M. Ahsan}40_{, G. Aielli}133a,133b_{, T. Akdogan}18a_{, T.P.A. Åkesson}79_,

G. Akimoto155_{, A.V. Akimov}94_{, M.S. Alam}1_{, M.A. Alam}76_{, J. Albert}169_{, S. Albrand}55_{, M. Aleksa}29_,

I.N. Aleksandrov64_{, F. Alessandria}89a_{, C. Alexa}25a_{, G. Alexander}153_{, G. Alexandre}49_{, T. Alexopoulos}9_,

M. Alhroob164a,164c_{, M. Aliev}15_{, G. Alimonti}89a_{, J. Alison}120_{, B.M.M. Allbrooke}17_{, P.P. Allport}73_,

S.E. Allwood-Spiers53_{, J. Almond}82_{, A. Aloisio}102a,102b_{, R. Alon}172_{, A. Alonso}79_{, F. Alonso}70_,

B. Alvarez Gonzalez88_{, M.G. Alviggi}102a,102b_{, K. Amako}65_{, C. Amelung}22_{, V.V. Ammosov}128,∗_,

A. Amorim124a,b, N. Amram153, C. Anastopoulos29, L.S. Ancu16, N. Andari115, T. Andeen34,

C.F. Anders58b, G. Anders58a, K.J. Anderson30, A. Andreazza89a,89b, V. Andrei58a, X.S. Anduaga70,

P. Anger43, A. Angerami34, F. Anghinolfi29, A. Anisenkov107, N. Anjos124a, A. Annovi47, A. Antonaki8,

M. Antonelli47, A. Antonov96, J. Antos144b, F. Anulli132a, M. Aoki101, S. Aoun83, L. Aperio Bella4,

R. Apolle118,c, G. Arabidze88, I. Aracena143, Y. Arai65, A.T.H. Arce44, S. Arfaoui148, J-F. Arguin14,

E. Arik18a,∗_{, M. Arik}18a_{, A.J. Armbruster}87_{, O. Arnaez}81_{, V. Arnal}80_{, C. Arnault}115_{, A. Artamonov}95_,

G. Artoni132a,132b_{, D. Arutinov}20_{, S. Asai}155_{, R. Asfandiyarov}173_{, S. Ask}27_{, B. Åsman}146a,146b_{, L. Asquith}5_,

K. Assamagan24_{, A. Astbury}169_{, B. Aubert}4_{, E. Auge}115_{, K. Augsten}127_{, M. Aurousseau}145a_{, G. Avolio}163_,

R. Avramidou9_{, D. Axen}168_{, G. Azuelos}93,d_{, Y. Azuma}155_{, M.A. Baak}29_{, G. Baccaglioni}89a_,

C. Bacci134a,134b_{, A.M. Bach}14_{, H. Bachacou}136_{, K. Bachas}29_{, M. Backes}49_{, M. Backhaus}20_{, E. Badescu}25a_,

P. Bagnaia132a,132b_{, S. Bahinipati}2_{, Y. Bai}32a_{, D.C. Bailey}158_{, T. Bain}158_{, J.T. Baines}129_{, O.K. Baker}176_,

M.D. Baker24_{, S. Baker}77_{, E. Banas}38_{, P. Banerjee}93_{, Sw. Banerjee}173_{, D. Banfi}29_{, A. Bangert}150_,

V. Bansal169_{, H.S. Bansil}17_{, L. Barak}172_{, S.P. Baranov}94_{, A. Barbaro Galtieri}14_{, T. Barber}48_,

E.L. Barberio86, D. Barberis50a,50b, M. Barbero20, D.Y. Bardin64, T. Barillari99, M. Barisonzi175,

T. Barklow143, N. Barlow27, B.M. Barnett129, R.M. Barnett14, A. Baroncelli134a, G. Barone49, A.J. Barr118,

F. Barreiro80, J. Barreiro Guimar˜aes da Costa57, P. Barrillon115, R. Bartoldus143, A.E. Barton71,

V. Bartsch149, R.L. Bates53, L. Batkova144a, J.R. Batley27, A. Battaglia16, M. Battistin29, F. Bauer136,

H.S. Bawa143,e, S. Beale98, T. Beau78, P.H. Beauchemin161, R. Beccherle50a, P. Bechtle20, H.P. Beck16,

A.K. Becker175, S. Becker98, M. Beckingham138, K.H. Becks175, A.J. Beddall18c, A. Beddall18c,

S. Bedikian176_{, V.A. Bednyakov}64_{, C.P. Bee}83_{, L.J. Beemster}105_{, M. Begel}24_{, S. Behar Harpaz}152_,

M. Beimforde99_{, C. Belanger-Champagne}85_{, P.J. Bell}49_{, W.H. Bell}49_{, G. Bella}153_{, L. Bellagamba}19a_,

F. Bellina29_{, M. Bellomo}29_{, A. Belloni}57_{, O. Beloborodova}107, f_{, K. Belotskiy}96_{, O. Beltramello}29_,

O. Benary153_{, D. Benchekroun}135a_{, K. Bendtz}146a,146b_{, N. Benekos}165_{, Y. Benhammou}153_,

E. Benhar Noccioli49_{, J.A. Benitez Garcia}159b_{, D.P. Benjamin}44_{, M. Benoit}115_{, J.R. Bensinger}22_,

K. Benslama130_{, S. Bentvelsen}105_{, D. Berge}29_{, E. Bergeaas Kuutmann}41_{, N. Berger}4_{, F. Berghaus}169_,

E. Berglund105_{, J. Beringer}14_{, P. Bernat}77_{, R. Bernhard}48_{, C. Bernius}24_{, T. Berry}76_{, C. Bertella}83_,

A. Bertin19a,19b_{, F. Bertolucci}122a,122b_{, M.I. Besana}89a,89b_{, G.J. Besjes}104_{, N. Besson}136_{, S. Bethke}99_,

W. Bhimji45_{, R.M. Bianchi}29_{, M. Bianco}72a,72b_{, O. Biebel}98_{, S.P. Bieniek}77_{, K. Bierwagen}54_{, J. Biesiada}14_,

M. Biglietti134a_{, H. Bilokon}47_{, M. Bindi}19a,19b_{, S. Binet}115_{, A. Bingul}18c_{, C. Bini}132a,132b_{, C. Biscarat}178_,

U. Bitenc48, K.M. Black21, R.E. Blair5, J.-B. Blanchard136, G. Blanchot29, T. Blazek144a, C. Blocker22,

J. Blocki38, A. Blondel49, W. Blum81, U. Blumenschein54, G.J. Bobbink105, V.B. Bobrovnikov107,

S.S. Bocchetta79, A. Bocci44, C.R. Boddy118, M. Boehler48, J. Boek175, N. Boelaert35, J.A. Bogaerts29,

A. Bogdanchikov107, A. Bogouch90,∗, C. Bohm146a, J. Bohm125, V. Boisvert76, T. Bold37, V. Boldea25a,

N.M. Bolnet136, M. Bomben78, M. Bona75, M. Boonekamp136, C.N. Booth139, S. Bordoni78, C. Borer16,

A. Borisov128, G. Borissov71, I. Borjanovic12a, M. Borri82, S. Borroni87, V. Bortolotto134a,134b, K. Bos105,

D. Boscherini19a_{, M. Bosman}11_{, H. Boterenbrood}105_{, J. Bouchami}93_{, J. Boudreau}123_,

E.V. Bouhova-Thacker71_{, D. Boumediene}33_{, C. Bourdarios}115_{, N. Bousson}83_{, A. Boveia}30_{, J. Boyd}29_,

I.R. Boyko64_{, I. Bozovic-Jelisavcic}12b_{, J. Bracinik}17_{, P. Branchini}134a_{, A. Brandt}7_{, G. Brandt}118_,

O. Brandt54_{, U. Bratzler}156_{, B. Brau}84_{, J.E. Brau}114_{, H.M. Braun}175,∗_{, S.F. Brazzale}164a,164c_{, B. Brelier}158_,

J. Bremer29_{, K. Brendlinger}120_{, R. Brenner}166_{, S. Bressler}172_{, D. Britton}53_{, F.M. Brochu}27_{, I. Brock}20_,

R. Brock88_{, F. Broggi}89a_{, C. Bromberg}88_{, J. Bronner}99_{, G. Brooijmans}34_{, T. Brooks}76_{, W.K. Brooks}31b_,

A. Bruni19a, G. Bruni19a, M. Bruschi19a, T. Buanes13, Q. Buat55, F. Bucci49, J. Buchanan118,

P. Buchholz141_{, R.M. Buckingham}118_{, A.G. Buckley}45_{, S.I. Buda}25a_{, I.A. Budagov}64_{, B. Budick}108_,

V. B¨uscher81_{, L. Bugge}117_{, O. Bulekov}96_{, A.C. Bundock}73_{, M. Bunse}42_{, T. Buran}117_{, H. Burckhart}29_,

S. Burdin73_{, T. Burgess}13_{, S. Burke}129_{, E. Busato}33_{, P. Bussey}53_{, C.P. Buszello}166_{, B. Butler}143_,

J.M. Butler21_{, C.M. Buttar}53_{, J.M. Butterworth}77_{, W. Buttinger}27_{, S. Cabrera Urb´an}167_{, D. Caforio}19a,19b_,

O. Cakir3a_{, P. Calafiura}14_{, G. Calderini}78_{, P. Calfayan}98_{, R. Calkins}106_{, L.P. Caloba}23a_{, R. Caloi}132a,132b_,

D. Calvet33_{, S. Calvet}33_{, R. Camacho Toro}33_{, P. Camarri}133a,133b_{, D. Cameron}117_{, L.M. Caminada}14_,

S. Campana29_{, M. Campanelli}77_{, V. Canale}102a,102b_{, F. Canelli}30,g_{, A. Canepa}159a_{, J. Cantero}80_,

R. Cantrill76_{, L. Capasso}102a,102b_{, M.D.M. Capeans Garrido}29_{, I. Caprini}25a_{, M. Caprini}25a_{, D. Capriotti}99_,

M. Capua36a,36b_{, R. Caputo}81_{, R. Cardarelli}133a_{, T. Carli}29_{, G. Carlino}102a_{, L. Carminati}89a,89b_{, B. Caron}85_,

S. Caron104_{, E. Carquin}31b_{, G.D. Carrillo Montoya}173_{, A.A. Carter}75_{, J.R. Carter}27_{, J. Carvalho}124a,h_,

D. Casadei108_{, M.P. Casado}11_{, M. Cascella}122a,122b_{, C. Caso}50a,50b,∗_{, A.M. Castaneda Hernandez}173,i_,

E. Castaneda-Miranda173, V. Castillo Gimenez167, N.F. Castro124a, G. Cataldi72a, P. Catastini57,

A. Catinaccio29, J.R. Catmore29, A. Cattai29, G. Cattani133a,133b, S. Caughron88, P. Cavalleri78,

D. Cavalli89a, M. Cavalli-Sforza11, V. Cavasinni122a,122b, F. Ceradini134a,134b, A.S. Cerqueira23b, A. Cerri29,

L. Cerrito75, F. Cerutti47, S.A. Cetin18b, A. Chafaq135a, D. Chakraborty106, I. Chalupkova126, K. Chan2,

B. Chapleau85, J.D. Chapman27, J.W. Chapman87, E. Chareyre78, D.G. Charlton17, V. Chavda82,

C.A. Chavez Barajas29_{, S. Cheatham}85_{, S. Chekanov}5_{, S.V. Chekulaev}159a_{, G.A. Chelkov}64_,

M.A. Chelstowska104_{, C. Chen}63_{, H. Chen}24_{, S. Chen}32c_{, X. Chen}173_{, Y. Chen}34_{, A. Cheplakov}64_,

R. Cherkaoui El Moursli135e_{, V. Chernyatin}24_{, E. Cheu}6_{, S.L. Cheung}158_{, L. Chevalier}136_,

G. Chiefari102a,102b_{, L. Chikovani}51a,∗_{, J.T. Childers}29_{, A. Chilingarov}71_{, G. Chiodini}72a_{, A.S. Chisholm}17_,

R.T. Chislett77_{, A. Chitan}25a_{, M.V. Chizhov}64_{, G. Choudalakis}30_{, S. Chouridou}137_{, I.A. Christidi}77_,

A. Christov48_{, D. Chromek-Burckhart}29_{, M.L. Chu}151_{, J. Chudoba}125_{, G. Ciapetti}132a,132b_{, A.K. Ciftci}3a_,

R. Ciftci3a_{, D. Cinca}33_{, V. Cindro}74_{, C. Ciocca}19a,19b_{, A. Ciocio}14_{, M. Cirilli}87_{, P. Cirkovic}12b_,

M. Citterio89a_{, M. Ciubancan}25a_{, A. Clark}49_{, P.J. Clark}45_{, R.N. Clarke}14_{, W. Cleland}123_{, J.C. Clemens}83_,

B. Clement55, C. Clement146a,146b, Y. Coadou83, M. Cobal164a,164c, A. Coccaro138, J. Cochran63,

J.G. Cogan143, J. Coggeshall165, E. Cogneras178, J. Colas4, S. Cole106, A.P. Colijn105, N.J. Collins17,

C. Collins-Tooth53, J. Collot55, T. Colombo119a,119b, G. Colon84, P. Conde Mui˜no124a, E. Coniavitis118,

M.C. Conidi11, S.M. Consonni89a,89b, V. Consorti48, S. Constantinescu25a, C. Conta119a,119b, G. Conti57,

F. Conventi102a, j, M. Cooke14, B.D. Cooper77, A.M. Cooper-Sarkar118, K. Copic14, T. Cornelissen175,

M. Corradi19a, F. Corriveau85,k, A. Cortes-Gonzalez165, G. Cortiana99, G. Costa89a, M.J. Costa167,

D. Costanzo139_{, T. Costin}30_{, D. Cˆot´e}29_{, L. Courneyea}169_{, G. Cowan}76_{, C. Cowden}27_{, B.E. Cox}82_,

K. Cranmer108_{, F. Crescioli}122a,122b_{, M. Cristinziani}20_{, G. Crosetti}36a,36b_{, S. Cr´ep´e-Renaudin}55_,

C.-M. Cuciuc25a_{, C. Cuenca Almenar}176_{, T. Cuhadar Donszelmann}139_{, M. Curatolo}47_{, C.J. Curtis}17_,

C. Cuthbert150_{, P. Cwetanski}60_{, H. Czirr}141_{, P. Czodrowski}43_{, Z. Czyczula}176_{, S. D’Auria}53_,

M. D’Onofrio73_{, A. D’Orazio}132a,132b_{, M.J. Da Cunha Sargedas De Sousa}124a_{, C. Da Via}82_,

W. Dabrowski37_{, A. Dafinca}118_{, T. Dai}87_{, C. Dallapiccola}84_{, M. Dam}35_{, M. Dameri}50a,50b_,

D.S. Damiani137_{, H.O. Danielsson}29_{, V. Dao}49_{, G. Darbo}50a_{, G.L. Darlea}25b_{, J.A. Dassoulas}41_,

W. Davey20_{, T. Davidek}126_{, N. Davidson}86_{, R. Davidson}71_{, E. Davies}118,c_{, M. Davies}93_{, O. Davignon}78_,

A.R. Davison77_{, Y. Davygora}58a_{, E. Dawe}142_{, I. Dawson}139_{, R.K. Daya-Ishmukhametova}22_{, K. De}7_,

R. de Asmundis102a_{, S. De Castro}19a,19b_{, S. De Cecco}78_{, J. de Graat}98_{, N. De Groot}104_{, P. de Jong}105_,

C. De La Taille115, H. De la Torre80, F. De Lorenzi63, L. de Mora71, L. De Nooij105, D. De Pedis132a,

A. De Salvo132a, U. De Sanctis164a,164c, A. De Santo149, J.B. De Vivie De Regie115, G. De Zorzi132a,132b,

W.J. Dearnaley71, R. Debbe24, C. Debenedetti45, B. Dechenaux55, D.V. Dedovich64, J. Degenhardt120,

C. Del Papa164a,164c, J. Del Peso80, T. Del Prete122a,122b, T. Delemontex55, M. Deliyergiyev74,

A. Dell’Acqua29, L. Dell’Asta21, M. Della Pietra102a, j, D. della Volpe102a,102b, M. Delmastro4,

P.A. Delsart55, C. Deluca105, S. Demers176, M. Demichev64, B. Demirkoz11,l, J. Deng163, S.P. Denisov128,

D. Derendarz38_{, J.E. Derkaoui}135d_{, F. Derue}78_{, P. Dervan}73_{, K. Desch}20_{, E. Devetak}148_{, P.O. Deviveiros}105_,

A. Dewhurst129_{, B. DeWilde}148_{, S. Dhaliwal}158_{, R. Dhullipudi}24,m_{, A. Di Ciaccio}133a,133b_{, L. Di Ciaccio}4_,

A. Di Girolamo29_{, B. Di Girolamo}29_{, S. Di Luise}134a,134b_{, A. Di Mattia}173_{, B. Di Micco}29_{, R. Di Nardo}47_,

A. Di Simone133a,133b_{, R. Di Sipio}19a,19b_{, M.A. Diaz}31a_{, E.B. Diehl}87_{, J. Dietrich}41_{, T.A. Dietzsch}58a_,

S. Diglio86_{, K. Dindar Yagci}39_{, J. Dingfelder}20_{, F. Dinut}25a_{, C. Dionisi}132a,132b_{, P. Dita}25a_{, S. Dita}25a_,

F. Dittus29_{, F. Djama}83_{, T. Djobava}51b_{, M.A.B. do Vale}23c_{, A. Do Valle Wemans}124a,n_{, T.K.O. Doan}4_,

Y. Doi65,∗, J. Dolejsi126, I. Dolenc74, Z. Dolezal126, B.A. Dolgoshein96,∗, T. Dohmae155, M. Donadelli23d,

J. Donini33_{, J. Dopke}29_{, A. Doria}102a_{, A. Dos Anjos}173_{, A. Dotti}122a,122b_{, M.T. Dova}70_{, A.D. Doxiadis}105_,

A.T. Doyle53_{, M. Dris}9_{, J. Dubbert}99_{, S. Dube}14_{, E. Duchovni}172_{, G. Duckeck}98_{, A. Dudarev}29_,

F. Dudziak63_{, M. D¨uhrssen}29_{, I.P. Duerdoth}82_{, L. Duflot}115_{, M-A. Dufour}85_{, L. Duguid}76_{, M. Dunford}29_,

H. Duran Yildiz3a_{, R. Duxfield}139_{, M. Dwuznik}37_{, F. Dydak}29_{, M. D¨uren}52_{, J. Ebke}98_{, S. Eckweiler}81_,

K. Edmonds81_{, W. Edson}1_{, C.A. Edwards}76_{, N.C. Edwards}53_{, W. Ehrenfeld}41_{, T. Eifert}143_{, G. Eigen}13_,

K. Einsweiler14_{, E. Eisenhandler}75_{, T. Ekelof}166_{, M. El Kacimi}135c_{, M. Ellert}166_{, S. Elles}4_{, F. Ellinghaus}81_,

K. Ellis75_{, N. Ellis}29_{, J. Elmsheuser}98_{, M. Elsing}29_{, D. Emeliyanov}129_{, R. Engelmann}148_{, A. Engl}98_,

B. Epp61_{, J. Erdmann}54_{, A. Ereditato}16_{, D. Eriksson}146a_{, J. Ernst}1_{, M. Ernst}24_{, J. Ernwein}136_{, D. Errede}165_,

S. Errede165_{, E. Ertel}81_{, M. Escalier}115_{, H. Esch}42_{, C. Escobar}123_{, X. Espinal Curull}11_{, B. Esposito}47_,

F. Etienne83_{, A.I. Etienvre}136_{, E. Etzion}153_{, D. Evangelakou}54_{, H. Evans}60_{, L. Fabbri}19a,19b_{, C. Fabre}29_,

R.M. Fakhrutdinov128_{, S. Falciano}132a_{, Y. Fang}173_{, M. Fanti}89a,89b_{, A. Farbin}7_{, A. Farilla}134a_{, J. Farley}148_,

T. Farooque158, S. Farrell163, S.M. Farrington170, P. Farthouat29, P. Fassnacht29, D. Fassouliotis8,

B. Fatholahzadeh158, A. Favareto89a,89b, L. Fayard115, S. Fazio36a,36b, R. Febbraro33, P. Federic144a,

O.L. Fedin121, W. Fedorko88, M. Fehling-Kaschek48, L. Feligioni83, D. Fellmann5, C. Feng32d, E.J. Feng5,

A.B. Fenyuk128, J. Ferencei144b, W. Fernando5, S. Ferrag53, J. Ferrando53, V. Ferrara41, A. Ferrari166,

P. Ferrari105, R. Ferrari119a, D.E. Ferreira de Lima53, A. Ferrer167, D. Ferrere49, C. Ferretti87,

A. Ferretto Parodi50a,50b_{, M. Fiascaris}30_{, F. Fiedler}81_{, A. Filipˇciˇc}74_{, F. Filthaut}104_{, M. Fincke-Keeler}169_,

M.C.N. Fiolhais124a,h_{, L. Fiorini}167_{, A. Firan}39_{, G. Fischer}41_{, M.J. Fisher}109_{, M. Flechl}48_{, I. Fleck}141_,

J. Fleckner81_{, P. Fleischmann}174_{, S. Fleischmann}175_{, T. Flick}175_{, A. Floderus}79_{, L.R. Flores Castillo}173_,

M.J. Flowerdew99_{, T. Fonseca Martin}16_{, A. Formica}136_{, A. Forti}82_{, D. Fortin}159a_{, D. Fournier}115_{, H. Fox}71_,

P. Francavilla11_{, M. Franchini}19a,19b_{, S. Franchino}119a,119b_{, D. Francis}29_{, T. Frank}172_{, S. Franz}29_,

M. Fraternali119a,119b_{, S. Fratina}120_{, S.T. French}27_{, C. Friedrich}41_{, F. Friedrich}43_{, R. Froeschl}29_,

D. Froidevaux29_{, J.A. Frost}27_{, C. Fukunaga}156_{, E. Fullana Torregrosa}29_{, B.G. Fulsom}143_{, J. Fuster}167_,

C. Gabaldon29_{, O. Gabizon}172_{, T. Gadfort}24_{, S. Gadomski}49_{, G. Gagliardi}50a,50b_{, P. Gagnon}60_{, C. Galea}98_,

E.J. Gallas118, V. Gallo16, B.J. Gallop129, P. Gallus125, K.K. Gan109, Y.S. Gao143,e, A. Gaponenko14,

F. Garberson176, M. Garcia-Sciveres14, C. Garc´ıa167, J.E. Garc´ıa Navarro167, R.W. Gardner30, N. Garelli29,

H. Garitaonandia105, V. Garonne29, J. Garvey17, C. Gatti47, G. Gaudio119a, B. Gaur141, L. Gauthier136,

P. Gauzzi132a,132b, I.L. Gavrilenko94, C. Gay168, G. Gaycken20, E.N. Gazis9, P. Ge32d, Z. Gecse168,

C.N.P. Gee129, D.A.A. Geerts105, Ch. Geich-Gimbel20, K. Gellerstedt146a,146b, C. Gemme50a,

A. Gemmell53, M.H. Genest55, S. Gentile132a,132b, M. George54, S. George76, P. Gerlach175, A. Gershon153,

C. Geweniger58a_{, H. Ghazlane}135b_{, N. Ghodbane}33_{, B. Giacobbe}19a_{, S. Giagu}132a,132b_,

V. Giakoumopoulou8_{, V. Giangiobbe}11_{, F. Gianotti}29_{, B. Gibbard}24_{, A. Gibson}158_{, S.M. Gibson}29_,

D. Gillberg28_{, A.R. Gillman}129_{, D.M. Gingrich}2,d_{, J. Ginzburg}153_{, N. Giokaris}8_{, M.P. Giordani}164c_,

R. Giordano102a,102b_{, F.M. Giorgi}15_{, P. Giovannini}99_{, P.F. Giraud}136_{, D. Giugni}89a_{, M. Giunta}93_,

P. Giusti19a_{, B.K. Gjelsten}117_{, L.K. Gladilin}97_{, C. Glasman}80_{, J. Glatzer}48_{, A. Glazov}41_{, K.W. Glitza}175_,

G.L. Glonti64_{, J.R. Goddard}75_{, J. Godfrey}142_{, J. Godlewski}29_{, M. Goebel}41_{, T. G¨opfert}43_{, C. Goeringer}81_,

C. G¨ossling42_{, S. Goldfarb}87_{, T. Golling}176_{, A. Gomes}124a,b_{, L.S. Gomez Fajardo}41_{, R. Gonc¸alo}76_,

J. Goncalves Pinto Firmino Da Costa41_{, L. Gonella}20_{, S. Gonzalez}173_{, S. Gonz´alez de la Hoz}167_,

G. Gonzalez Parra11_{, M.L. Gonzalez Silva}26_{, S. Gonzalez-Sevilla}49_{, J.J. Goodson}148_{, L. Goossens}29_,

P.A. Gorbounov95_{, H.A. Gordon}24_{, I. Gorelov}103_{, G. Gorfine}175_{, B. Gorini}29_{, E. Gorini}72a,72b_,

A. Goriˇsek74, E. Gornicki38, B. Gosdzik41, A.T. Goshaw5, M. Gosselink105, M.I. Gostkin64,

I. Gough Eschrich163, M. Gouighri135a, D. Goujdami135c, M.P. Goulette49, A.G. Goussiou138, C. Goy4,

S. Gozpinar22, I. Grabowska-Bold37, P. Grafstr¨om19a,19b, K-J. Grahn41, F. Grancagnolo72a,

S. Grancagnolo15, V. Grassi148, V. Gratchev121, N. Grau34, H.M. Gray29, J.A. Gray148, E. Graziani134a,

O.G. Grebenyuk121, T. Greenshaw73, Z.D. Greenwood24,m, K. Gregersen35, I.M. Gregor41, P. Grenier143,

J. Griffiths138, N. Grigalashvili64, A.A. Grillo137, S. Grinstein11, Y.V. Grishkevich97, J.-F. Grivaz115,

E. Gross172_{, J. Grosse-Knetter}54_{, J. Groth-Jensen}172_{, K. Grybel}141_{, D. Guest}176_{, C. Guicheney}33_,

S. Guindon54_{, U. Gul}53_{, H. Guler}85,p_{, J. Gunther}125_{, B. Guo}158_{, J. Guo}34_{, P. Gutierrez}111_{, N. Guttman}153_,

O. Gutzwiller173_{, C. Guyot}136_{, C. Gwenlan}118_{, C.B. Gwilliam}73_{, A. Haas}143_{, S. Haas}29_{, C. Haber}14_,

H.K. Hadavand39_{, D.R. Hadley}17_{, P. Haefner}20_{, F. Hahn}29_{, S. Haider}29_{, Z. Hajduk}38_{, H. Hakobyan}177_,

D. Hall118_{, J. Haller}54_{, K. Hamacher}175_{, P. Hamal}113_{, M. Hamer}54_{, A. Hamilton}145b,q_{, S. Hamilton}161_,

L. Han32b_{, K. Hanagaki}116_{, K. Hanawa}160_{, M. Hance}14_{, C. Handel}81_{, P. Hanke}58a_{, J.R. Hansen}35_,