EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH (CERN)
âââ CERN-EP-2022-198 LHCb-PAPER-2022-031 June 12, 2024
Observation of a resonance consistent with a strange pentaquark candidate in decays
LHCb Collaborationâ â â Authors are listed at the end of this paper.
An amplitude analysis of decays is performed using 4400 signal candidates selected on a data sample of collisions recorded at center-of-mass energies of 7, 8 and 13 âTeV with the LHCb detector, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 9 . A narrow resonance in the system, consistent with a pentaquark candidate with strangeness, is observed with high significance. The mass and the width of this new state are measured to be and , where the first uncertainty is statistical and the second systematic. The spin is determined to be and negative parity is preferred. Due to the small -value of the reaction, the most precise single measurement of the mass to date, , is obtained.
Published in Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) 031901
Š 2024 CERN for the benefit of the LHCb collaboration. CC BY 4.0 licence.
Â
The discovery of pentaquark candidates in the system at LHCb [1, 2] opened a new field of investigation in baryon spectroscopy. Such resonant structures with valence quark content (the exotic hadron naming scheme defined in Ref. [3] is used throughout this Letter) = ââ have been observed only in the decay to date. Recently, evidence for a new candidate was found in the decay [4, 5], and evidence for a = ââ pentaquark candidate with strangeness was found in the system in the decay [6] (charge conjugation is implied throughout this Letter).
Pentaquarks are predicted within the quark model to have a minimal quark content of three quarks plus a quark-antiquark pair. Experimentally, the pentaquark candidates are found close to threshold for the production of ordinary baryon-meson states, i.e. and for the observed states [1, 2], and for the state [6]. Various interpretations of these states have been proposed, including tightly bound pentaquark states [7, 8], loosely bound baryon-meson molecular states (Refs.[9, 10] and references therein), and rescattering effects [11]. Hidden-charm pentaquarks with strangeness were predicted in [12, 13] as hadronic molecules, and in Ref. [14] as compact states. However, their nature is still largely unknown and further investigation is needed [15].
The decay offers the unique opportunity to simultaneously search for and pentaquark candidates in the and systems, respectively. In particular, the phase space available in the decay allows searches for pentaquark candidates located close to different baryon-meson thresholds, such as for , and , for candidates. Neither the state, found in the decay [6], nor the state, found in the decays [5], is accessible with the present analysis since they are outside of the available phase space.
The small -value of the decay, approximately (natural units with are used throughout this Letter) , provides excellent mass resolution, allowing searches for narrow resonant structures. In addition, efficient reconstruction of low momentum tracks can improve sensitivity to resonance structures near threshold. This decay was previously studied by the CMS collaboration using a sample of signal candidates and the invariant mass distributions of the , , systems were found to be inconsistent with the pure phase-space hypothesis [16]. In this Letter, an amplitude analysis of the decay is performed using signal candidates selected on a data sample of collisions at centre-of-mass energies of 7âTeV and 8âTeV (Run 1), and 13âTeV (Run 2), recorded between 2011 and 2018 by the LHCb detector, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 9 . In the following, the first observation of a pentaquark candidate with strangeness in the system is reported, which is different from the state found in the decay [6].
The LHCb detector is a single-arm forward spectrometer covering the pseudorapidity range , described in detail in Refs. [17, 18, 19, 20]. The online event selection is performed by a trigger [21], comprising a hardware stage based on information from the muon system which selects decays, followed by a software stage that applies a full event reconstruction. The software trigger relies on identifying decays into muon pairs consistent with originating from a -meson decay vertex detached from the primary collision point.
Samples of simulated events are used to study the properties of the signal mode decay and the control-mode decay . The latter are used to calibrate the distributions of simulated decays with data.
The collisions are generated using Pythia [22] with a specific LHCb configuration [23]. Decays of hadronic particles and interactions with the detector material are described by EvtGen [24], using Photos [25], and by the Geant4 toolkit [26, 27, 28], respectively. The signal and the control-mode decays are generated from a uniform phase-space distribution.
Signal candidates are formed from combinations of , and candidates originating from a common decay vertex. The candidates are formed from pairs of oppositely charged tracks identified as muons and originating from a decay vertex significantly displaced from the associated primary vertex (PV). The associated PV for a given particle is the PV with the smallest impact parameter , defined as the difference in the vertex-fit of a given PV reconstructed with and without the particle under consideration. The candidates are formed from pairs of oppositely charged tracks and selected in two different categories according to the decay position: i) the âlongâ category for early decays that allow the proton and pion candidates to be reconstructed in the vertex detector; ii) the âdownstreamâ category for baryons that decay outside the vertex detector and are reconstructed in the tracking stations only. The long candidates have better mass, momentum and vertex resolution than downstream candidates. The candidate is a charged track identified as an antiproton.
A kinematic fit [29] to the candidate is performed with the dimuon and the masses constrained to the known and masses, respectively [30]. Simulated events are weighted such that the distributions of transverse momentum () and number of tracks per event for candidates match the control-mode distributions in data. In simulation, the particle identification (PID) variables for each charged track are resampled as a function of their , and the number of tracks in the event using and calibration samples from data [31].
The final stage of the selection uses multivariate techniques trained with simulation and data. Separate boosted-decision-tree (BDT, [32]) classifiers are employed for the four combinations of two data-taking periods (Run 1 and Run 2) and two signal categories, using long and downstream reconstructed candidates. Each BDT is trained on simulated signal decays and data sidebands, with the invariant mass in the range . The variables used as input to the BDT are the , the decay length significance, the angle between the momentum and the flight direction and the variable of the candidate; the probability from the kinematic fit of the candidate; the sum of the of the daughter particles; the angle between the momentum and the flight direction, the of the flight distance (only for long category candidates), the variables of the candidate, and the hadron PID for the candidate from the ring-imaging Cherenkov detectors.
The BDT output selection criterion is chosen as in Ref. [5] by maximising the figure of merit to obtain both high signal purity and significance, where and are the signal and background yield in a region of around the known mass. To avoid a possible bias due to fluctuations of the signal yield, is determined from a fit to the invariant-mass distribution in data after applying a loose BDT selection, multiplied by the efficiency of the BDT output requirement obtained from simulation. Similarly, is extracted from a fit to sideband data.
For candidates passing all selection criteria, a maximum-likelihood fit is performed to the distribution shown in Fig. 1, resulting in a signal yield of . For the amplitude analysis about 4400 signal candidates are retained, with a purity of in the signal region of around the mass peak, where is the mass resolution. The signal distribution is modelled by the sum of a Johnson function [33] and two Crystal Ball [34] functions sharing the same mean and width parameters determined from the fit. The tail parameters and fractions of each signal component are fixed to values obtained from a fit to simulated events. The background contribution is mainly due to random combinations of charged particles in the event and is described by a third-order Chebyshev polynomial.
The Dalitz distribution of the reconstructed candidates in the signal region is shown in Fig. 2, where a horizontal band in the region around in the distribution is present. Some structure in the high spectrum is also present. This Letter investigates the nature of these enhancements.
An amplitude analysis of the candidates in the signal region is performed using a phenomenological model based on the interference of two-body resonances in the three decay chains, , , and , labelled as the , and chains, respectively. The angular information of the subsequent and decays are taken into account in all cases. The decay amplitudes are based on helicity formalism [35] with symmetry enforced, and follow the prescriptions in Ref.[36] for the spin alignment of the different decay chains. Details about the decay amplitude definition are given in the Supplemental material [37].
The decay amplitudes are defined as a function of the six-dimensional phase space of the decay, described by the combined invariant mass of the and pairs, and by five angular variables indicated as : the cosine of the helicity angle, of the in the () rest frame, the azimuthal angle of the () in the rest frame of the (), and the cosine of the helicity angle , of the in the rest frame of the . The amplitude fit to determine the model parameters , i.e., the couplings, the masses, the widths, and lineshape parameters of different contributions, is performed by minimising the negative log-likelihood function,
(1) |
where is the probability density function (PDF) for the signal (background) component of the th event, and is the fraction of background candidates in the signal region. The signal PDF is proportional to the squared decay amplitude , and accounts for the phase-space element and the reconstruction efficiency ,
(2) |
The denominator normalizes the probability. The background PDF is parameterized according to a six-dimensional phase-space function based on Legendre polynomials, whose coefficients are determined from the region . Similarly, the reconstruction efficiency is parameterized using Legendre polynomials with coefficients determined using simulated phase-space signal decays.
No well-established resonances are expected to decay into the and final states. However, excited resonances decaying outside of the phase space of the decay can contribute to the channel [16]. A fit including only NR contributions and , , and resonant amplitudes does not reproduce the data distribution. A of is obtained, where the is calculated as the largest value over the six one-dimensional fit projections and the number of degrees of freedom () is extracted from pseudoexperiments by fitting the tail of the distribution. The simplest and most effective amplitude model used to fit the data, indicated as the nominal model in the following, comprises a narrow structure with spin-parity , whose mass and width are extracted from the amplitude fit, and two nonresonant (NR) contributions, one with for the system and a second one with for the , referred to as NR() and NR(), respectively. The resonance is modelled with a relativistic BreitâWigner function as discussed in the Supplemental material [37].
The couplings are defined in the basis, both for the process, and for the process, where , , and are the final state particles, and , and is the decay chain under consideration. Here, indicates the decay orbital angular momentum, and is the sum of the spins of the decay products. In the nominal model, is used for the production and decay of the narrow resonance, while and are used in the NR() system for the production and decay, respectively, and and in the NR() system. Because of the small -value of the decay, higher values of the orbital momentum are suppressed. Fixing the lowest orbital momentum couplings for the NR() as the normalization choice reduces the number of free parameters to 16: the mass, the width, and the complex coupling of the resonant contribution, four complex couplings for the NR() contribution, and a complex coupling and two parameters for the second-order polynominal parameterization of the lineshape for the NR() contribution.
A null-hypothesis model is used to test the significance of the state, which comprises only two NR contributions. The fit results for the nominal and the null-hypothesis model are shown in Fig. 3. The null-hypothesis model does not describe the data, with a corresponding . Using the nominal model, a good fit to data was obtained with a and a -value of computed by counting the number of pseudoexperiments above the value of observed in data.
A new narrow structure is observed with high significance in the nominal fit to data. Using Wilksâs theorem, a statistical significance exceeding is estimated from the value of of the null-hypothesis model with respect to the nominal model. The mass and width of the new pentaquark candidate are measured to be and , respectively, where the uncertainties are statistical only. This represents the first observation of a strange pentaquark candidate with minimal quark content ââ .
Alternative models are considered for systematic studies. To assess the contribution of a pentaquark candidate, a relativistic BreitâWigner function is used for the lineshape instead of a 2nd order polynomial function. The value of obtained with respect to the nominal fit indicates that the NR() contribution is preferred over the hypothesis of a candidate, while consistent results for the state parameters are obtained. The contribution of a second narrow resonance is added to the nominal model to parametrize the distribution close to the threshold at , and found to not be statistically significant. Using the method [38], an upper limit on the fit fraction is set to 8.7% at a 95% confidence level. To determine the assignments, all 16 combinations of are studied for the and NR() spin-parity hypotheses, and those with with respect to the nominal fit are discarded. For the state, the hypotheses are discarded, the assignment is preferred, while the is excluded at a 90% confidence level using the method [38].
Systematic uncertainties are evaluated on the mass and the width of the new pentaquark candidate, and on the fit fractions of , NR(), and NR contributions. The uncertainties are summarised in Table 1 and are summed in quadrature for the total contribution. For each systematic uncertainty, an ensemble of 1000 pseudoexperiments, generated according to the nominal model with the same statistics as in data is fitted with an alternative configuration that is representative of the systematic effect. The uncertainty on each parameter is determined as the mean value of the difference between the fit results of the nominal and the alternative models. The main contributions are related to the model for the decay amplitude, the bias of the fitting procedure, and the uncertainty on the reconstruction efficiency . For the amplitude model, the nominal value of the hadron radius for the BlattâWeisskopf coefficients [39] is assumed to be and varied to 1 and , taking the largest effect as a systematic uncertainty. Additional couplings are considered with respect to the nominal model, in particular, the () coupling for the production (decay) of contribution, and the coupling for the NR contribution. A relativistic BreitâWigner function is used instead of the 2nd order polynominal for the lineshape of the NR contribution. Moreover, a model with assignment to the state is also considered. Finally, the behaviour of the maximum-likelihood estimator is studied using 1000 pseudoexperiments. Biases on the fit parameters are present due to the limited sample size and are assigned as systematic uncertainties. For the reconstruction efficiency, the nominal efficiency function based on decays from either the long or downstream category and the largest effect is considered as systematic uncertainty.
Additional systematic uncertainties account for the limited knowledge of the decay amplitude parameters [40, 30], the background parameterization, and the effect of the resolution on the invariant mass. The nominal background parameterization is obtained from the distributions of candidates in the range , while the parameterization obtained from the region is used to assess systematic effects. The background fraction is also varied within uncertainties. The effect of the invariant mass resolution, about on average on , is estimated by smearing the invariant mass distributions of 1000 pseudoexperiments and fitting them using the nominal model.
Source | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hadron radius | |||||
values | |||||
BreitâWigner | ⌠| ⌠| |||
assignment | |||||
Fitting procedure | |||||
Efficiency | |||||
decay parameters | |||||
Background | |||||
Mass resolution | |||||
Total |
The mass and width of the new pentaquark candidate are measured to be and ; the measured fit fractions are , , and for the resonant state, the nonresonant , and contributions, respectively. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second systematic. The quantum numbers for the state are preferred; is established and positive parity can be excluded at 90% confidence level.
Because of the small -value of the decay, the most precise single measurement to date of the mass is performed. This measurement is based on 1670 signal candidates with baryons in the long category, which amounts to 36% of the total. Systematic uncertainties on the mass include uncertainties on particle interactions with the detector material (), momentum scaling due to imperfections in the magnetic-field mapping ()Â [17], and the choice of the signal and background fit model (). The alternative fit model, with compatible fit quality with respect to the nominal model, comprises an exponential function for the background and a sum of a Gaussian and two Johnson functions for the signal. Systematic uncertainties from knowledge of the , and masses are negligible.
In conclusion, an amplitude analysis of the decay is performed using about 4400 signal candidates selected on data collected by the LHCb experiment between 2011 and 2018 and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of . A new resonant structure in the system is found with high statistical significance, representing the first observation of a pentaquark candidate with strange quark content named the state, with spin assigned and parity preferred. The new state is found at the threshold for baryon-meson production, which is relevant for the interpretation of its nature. No evidence for additional resonant states, either or pentaquark candidates or excited resonances, is found from the fit to data.
Acknowledgements
We express our gratitude to our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the excellent performance of the LHC. We thank the technical and administrative staff at the LHCb institutes. We acknowledge support from CERN and from the national agencies: CAPES, CNPq, FAPERJ and FINEP (Brazil); MOST and NSFC (China); CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG and MPG (Germany); INFN (Italy); NWO (Netherlands); MNiSW and NCN (Poland); MEN/IFA (Romania); MICINN (Spain); SNSF and SER (Switzerland); NASU (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE NP and NSF (USA). We acknowledge the computing resources that are provided by CERN, IN2P3 (France), KIT and DESY (Germany), INFN (Italy), SURF (Netherlands), PIC (Spain), GridPP (United Kingdom), CSCS (Switzerland), IFIN-HH (Romania), CBPF (Brazil), Polish WLCG (Poland) and NERSC (USA). We are indebted to the communities behind the multiple open-source software packages on which we depend. Individual groups or members have received support from ARC and ARDC (Australia); Minciencias (Colombia); AvH Foundation (Germany); EPLANET, Marie SkĹodowska-Curie Actions and ERC (European Union); A*MIDEX, ANR, IPhU and Labex P2IO, and RĂŠgion Auvergne-RhĂ´ne-Alpes (France); Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences of CAS, CAS PIFI, CAS CCEPP, Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, and Sci. & Tech. Program of Guangzhou (China); GVA, XuntaGal, GENCAT and Prog. AtracciĂłn Talento, CM (Spain); SRC (Sweden); the Leverhulme Trust, the Royal Society and UKRI (United Kingdom).
10 \mciteSetBstSublistModen \mciteSetBstMaxWidthFormsubitem) \mciteSetBstSublistLabelBeginEnd\mcitemaxwidthsubitemform
References
- [1] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Observation of resonances consistent with pentaquark states in decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 072001, arXiv:1507.03414\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [2] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Observation of a narrow pentaquark state, , and of two-peak structure of the , Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) 222001, arXiv:1904.03947\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [3] LHCb collaboration, T. Gershon, Exotic hadron naming convention, CERN-LHCb-PUB-2022-013, 2022\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [4] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Observation of decays and precision measurements of the masses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) 191804, arXiv:1902.05588\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [5] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Evidence for a new structure in the and systems in decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) 062001, arXiv:2108.04720\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [6] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Evidence of a structure and observation of excited states in the decay, Science Bulletin 66 (2021) 1278, arXiv:2012.10380\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [7] A. Esposito, A. Pilloni, and A. D. Polosa, Multiquark resonances, Phys. Rept. 668 (2017) 1, arXiv:1611.07920\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [8] J.-M. Richard, Exotic hadrons: review and perspectives, Few Body Syst. 57 (2016) 1185, arXiv:1606.08593\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [9] X.-K. Dong, F.-K. Guo, and B.-S. Zou, A survey of heavy-antiheavy hadronic molecules, Progr. Phys. 41 (2021) 65, arXiv:2101.01021\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [10] F.-K. Guo et al., Hadronic molecules, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90 (2018) 015004, arXiv:1705.00141, [Erratum Rev.Mod.Phys. 94, 029901 (2022)]\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [11] F.-K. Guo, X.-H. Liu, and S. Sakai, Threshold cusps and triangle singularities in hadronic reactions, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 112 (2020) 103757, arXiv:1912.07030\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [12] C. W. Xiao, J. Nieves, and E. Oset, Prediction of hidden charm strange molecular baryon states with heavy quark spin symmetry, Phys. Lett. B799 (2019) 135051, arXiv:1906.09010\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [13] B. Wang, L. Meng, and S.-L. Zhu, Spectrum of the strange hidden charm molecular pentaquarks in chiral effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 034018, arXiv:1912.12592\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [14] A. Ali et al., Mass spectrum of the hidden-charm pentaquarks in the compact diquark model, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2019) 256\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [15] S. L. Olsen, T. Skwarnicki, and D. Zieminska, Nonstandard heavy mesons and baryons: Experimental evidence, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90 (2018) 015003, arXiv:1708.04012\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [16] CMS collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., Study of the decay in proton-proton collisions at = 8 TeV, JHEP 12 (2019) 100, arXiv:1907.05461\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [17] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., LHCb detector performance, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A30 (2015) 1530022, arXiv:1412.6352\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [18] R. Aaij et al., Performance of the LHCb vertex locator, JINST 9 (2014) P09007, arXiv:1405.7808\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [19] R. Arink et al., Performance of the LHCb outer tracker, JINST 9 (2014) P01002, arXiv:1311.3893\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [20] A. A. Alves Jr. et al., Performance of the LHCb muon system, JINST 8 (2013) P02022, arXiv:1211.1346\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [21] R. Aaij et al., The LHCb trigger and its performance in 2011, JINST 8 (2013) P04022, arXiv:1211.3055\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [22] T. SjÜstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1, Comput. Phys. Commun. 178 (2008) 852, arXiv:0710.3820\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [23] I. Belyaev et al., Handling of the generation of primary events in Gauss, the LHCb simulation framework, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 331 (2011) 032047\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [24] D. J. Lange, The EvtGen particle decay simulation package, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A462 (2001) 152\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [25] N. Davidson, T. Przedzinski, and Z. Was, PHOTOS interface in C++: Technical and physics documentation, Comp. Phys. Comm. 199 (2016) 86, arXiv:1011.0937\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [26] Geant4 collaboration, J. Allison et al., Geant4 developments and applications, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 53 (2006) 270\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [27] Geant4 collaboration, S. Agostinelli et al., Geant4: A simulation toolkit, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506 (2003) 250\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [28] M. Clemencic et al., The LHCb simulation application, Gauss: Design, evolution and experience, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 331 (2011) 032023\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [29] W. D. Hulsbergen, Decay chain fitting with a Kalman filter, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A552 (2005) 566, arXiv:physics/0503191\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [30] Particle Data Group, R. L. Workman et al., Review of particle physics, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2022 (2022) 083C01\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [31] R. Aaij et al., Selection and processing of calibration samples to measure the particle identification performance of the LHCb experiment in Run 2, Eur. Phys. J. Tech. Instr. 6 (2018) 1, arXiv:1803.00824\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [32] L. Breiman, J. H. Friedman, R. A. Olshen, and C. J. Stone, Classification and regression trees, Wadsworth international group, Belmont, California, USA, 1984\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [33] N. L. Johnson, Systems of Frequency Curves Generated by Methods of Translation, Biometrika 36 (1949) 149\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [34] T. Skwarnicki, A study of the radiative cascade transitions between the Upsilon-prime and Upsilon resonances, PhD thesis, Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakow, 1986, DESY-F31-86-02\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [35] S. U. Chung, Spin formalisms, CERN Academic Training Lecture, CERN, Geneva, 1971. CERN, Geneva, 1969 - 1970\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [36] JPAC collaboration, M. Mikhasenko et al., Dalitz-plot decomposition for three-body decays, Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 034033, arXiv:1910.04566\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [37] See Supplemental material at [link inserted by publisher] for details on the amplitude model, the event-by-event efficiency parameterisation, the fit results of the nominal model, the test with angular moments and the efficiency corrected and background subtracted distributions.\mciteBstWouldAddEndPunctfalse\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [38] A. L. Read, Presentation of search results: The CL(s) technique, J. Phys. G 28 (2002) 2693\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [39] J. M. Blatt and V. F. Weisskopf, Theoretical nuclear physics, Springer, New York, 1952\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
- [40] BESIII collaboration, M. Ablikim et al., Polarization and entanglement in baryon-antibaryon pair production in electron-positron annihilation, Nature Phys. 15 (2019) 631, arXiv:1808.08917\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct\mcitedefaultmidpunct \mcitedefaultendpunct\mcitedefaultseppunct\EndOfBibitem
Supplemental Material
Appendix A Amplitude model
The amplitude model is constructed using helicity formalism [35] following the prescription for final particle spin matching described in Ref. [36]. The amplitude describes the decay amplitude for the to the final state via the decay chains as follows,
where is the total angular momentum of the different contributions in the and decay chains, respectively, and are the helicities of the final particles before spin rotations. The angle, , is between the and the particle in rest frame . The coupling, , is the helicity coupling of a two-body decay , is the line shape and is the small Wigner function. The angle, , is the helicity angle of particle , which is calculated using the in the rest frame, and either the in the rest frame, or the in the rest frame.
The total decay amplitude is obtained by including the and the decay amplitudes
(4) |
where is the Wigner matrix, equal to , are the azimuthal and polar angles of and in the and rest frames, respectively. The axes in the rest frame are defined as follows,
(5) |
where the symbol refers to . In Eq. 4, is the difference of the muon helicities. For the decay, the coupling can be absorbed into the other couplings of the total decay amplitude and therefore is not fit. Indeed, there is only one coupling because the process with is highly suppressed. So, can only take values and , and both choices lead to the same helicity coupling due to parity conservation.
Enforcing conservation, the helicity couplings for and decays are the same. The matrix-element formula is the same for charge-conjugate decays, but all azimuthal angles must change sign due to charge-parity transformation, i.e. and .
The decay parameters are defined by
(6) | |||
which satisfy the relation,
It is convenient to express and in terms of an angle defined as
(7) | |||
Enforcing conservation, the following relations hold,
(8) |
This leads to
(9) |
where , and are obtained following Eq. A but using the couplings of the conjugate decay.
If the complex helicity coupling is set to (1,0), then . The values of and are fixed to [40] and [30] respectively.
The helicity couplings for the decay can be expressed as a combination of the couplings () using the ClebschâGordan (CG) coefficients
(10) |
where is the orbital angular momentum in the decay, and is the total spin of the daughters, (). If the value, defined as , is small (), the higher orbital angular momenta are suppressed, hence the number of couplings is reduced. CG coefficients automatically take into account parity conservation constraints on helicity couplings for a strong or electromagnetic decay.
For , cascade decay, e.g. , , and , the lineshape of is
(11) |
where is the momentum of resonance in the rest frame, is the momentum of particle in the rest frame of resonance , and are the momentum values calculated at the resonance peak, is the orbital angular momentum between resonance and particle in the decay, and is the orbital angular momentum between particle and particle in the decay. The and contributions are the orbital barrier factors, and are the BlattâWeisskopf functions that account for the difficulty to create the orbital angular momentum, and depend on the production (decay) momentum () and on the size of the decaying particle given by the hadron radius . These coefficients up to order 4 are listed below,
(12) |
where is the particle size parameter, set to following the convention of Ref. [1]. In the nominal amplitude fit of decays, the constant is set to âGeV -1 for the and intermediate resonant decays.
The relativistic BreitâWigner amplitude is given by
(13) |
with
(14) |
where is the invariant mass of the system, and () is the mass (width) of the resonance. In the case that resonance has a mass peak outside of the accessible kinematic region, i.e. , such as for the and states, the effective mass is introduced to calculate the two-body-decay momentum in Eq. 14,
(15) |
This term is a constant that can be absorbed into the couplings, since it enters only in Eq. 14, and the mass and width of the resonant contributions are fixed to the nominal values [30]. In the case of a resonance with mass peak located outside of the phase space at values , such as for the state, the width is chosen as mass-independent parameter . In the nominal model, the non-resonant (NR) contribution is modelled by a second-order polynomial,
(16) |
where is the average value of the invariant mass distribution, i.e. of the invariant mass distribution. The coefficients, , are the polynomial coefficients, where is set to a constant value since one of the coefficients can be factor out of amplitude matrix element, and the other two are extracted from a fit to the data.
Appendix B Event-by-event efficiency parameterisation
Event-by-event acceptance corrections are applied to the data using an efficiency parameterisation based on the decay kinematics. The 6-body phase space of the topology is fully described by six independent kinematic variables: , , , , , and . For the signal mode, the overall efficiency, including trigger, detector acceptance, and selection procedure, is obtained from simulation as a function of the six kinematic variables, . Here, and are transformed such that all four variables in lie in the range . The efficiency is parameterised as the product of Legendre polynomials
(17) | ||||
where are Legendre polynomials of order in . Employing the order of the polynomials as for , respectively, was found to give a good parameterisation. The coefficients are determined from a moment analysis of phase-space simulated samples
(18) | |||
where is the per-event weight taking into account both the generator-level phase-space element, , and the kinematic event weights. Simulation samples are employed where events are generated uniformly in phase space. In order to render the simulation flat also in , the inverted phase-space factor, , is considered. The factors of arise from the orthogonality of the Legendre polynomials,
(19) |
The sum in Eq. 18 is over the reconstructed events in the simulation sample after all selection criteria. The factor ensures appropriate normalisation and it is computed such that
(20) |
where is the total number of reconstructed signal events.
Up to statistical fluctuations, the parameterisation follows the simulated data in all the distributions.
Appendix C Fit results of the nominal model
In Table 2, the fit results of the nominal model are reported including the results of the couplings. The couplings are split into real and imaginary parts, i.e. Re, Im. The subscript prod (decay) refers to the () process, where , , are the final state particles, and is the decay chain under consideration. The subscript refers to the orbital angular momentum and to the sum of the spins of the decay products.
Parameters | Values |
---|---|
(âMeV) | |
(âMeV) | |
Re()L=0,S=1/2 | |
Im()L=0,S=1/2 | |
Re(NR( ))L=1,S=3/2 | |
Im(NR( ))L=1,S=3/2 | |
Re(NR( ))L=1,S=1 | |
Im(NR( ))L=1,S=1 | |
Re(NR( ))L=2,S=2 | |
Im(NR( ))L=2,S=2 | |
Re(NR( ))L=0,S=1 | |
Im(NR( ))L=0,S=1 | |
Re(NR( ))L=2,S=1 | |
Im(NR( ))L=2,S=1 | |
Appendix D Angular moments
The normalized angular moments of the helicity angle are defined as,
(21) |
where is the number of selected events, are Legendre polynomials and are per-event weights accounting for background subtraction (with sPlot technique) and efficiency correction.
The angular moments are shown in Fig. 4, up to order 5, as a function of the invariant mass distribution. They show a good agreement between the data and the nominal model.
Appendix E Efficiency corrected and background subtracted distributions
Appendix F Invariant mass fit for the mass measurement
Fig. 6 shows the invariant mass fit used to extract the mass measurement. The signal yield with baryons in the long category is , which amounts to 36% of the total candidates.
LHCb collaboration
R. Aaij32â,
A.S.W. Abdelmotteleb50â,
C. Abellan Beteta44,
F. AbudinĂŠn50â,
T. Ackernley54â,
B. Adeva40â,
M. Adinolfi48â,
P. Adlarson77â,
H. Afsharnia9,
C. Agapopoulou13â,
C.A. Aidala78â,
Z. Ajaltouni9,
S. Akar59â,
K. Akiba32â,
J. Albrecht15â,
F. Alessio42â,
M. Alexander53â,
A. Alfonso Albero39â,
Z. Aliouche56â,
P. Alvarez Cartelle49â,
R. Amalric13â,
S. Amato2â,
J.L. Amey48â,
Y. Amhis11,42â,
L. An42â,
L. Anderlini22â,
M. Andersson44â,
A. Andreianov38â,
M. Andreotti21â,
D. Andreou62â,
D. Ao6â,
F. Archilli17â,
A. Artamonov38â,
M. Artuso62â,
E. Aslanides10â,
M. Atzeni44â,
B. Audurier12â,
S. Bachmann17â,
M. Bachmayer43â,
J.J. Back50â,
A. Bailly-reyre13,
P. Baladron Rodriguez40â,
V. Balagura12â,
W. Baldini21â,
J. Baptista de Souza Leite1â,
M. Barbetti22,jâ,
R.J. Barlow56â,
S. Barsuk11â,
W. Barter55â,
M. Bartolini49â,
F. Baryshnikov38â,
J.M. Basels14â,
G. Bassi29,râ,
B. Batsukh4â,
A. Battig15â,
A. Bay43â,
A. Beck50â,
M. Becker15â,
F. Bedeschi29â,
I.B. Bediaga1â,
A. Beiter62,
V. Belavin38,
S. Belin40â,
V. Bellee44â,
K. Belous38â,
I. Belov38â,
I. Belyaev38â,
G. Benane10â,
G. Bencivenni23â,
E. Ben-Haim13â,
A. Berezhnoy38â,
R. Bernet44â,
S. Bernet Andres76â,
D. Berninghoff17,
H.C. Bernstein62,
C. Bertella56â,
A. Bertolin28â,
C. Betancourt44â,
F. Betti42â,
Ia. Bezshyiko44â,
S. Bhasin48â,
J. Bhom35â,
L. Bian68â,
M.S. Bieker15â,
N.V. Biesuz21â,
S. Bifani47â,
P. Billoir13â,
A. Biolchini32â,
M. Birch55â,
F.C.R. Bishop49â,
A. Bitadze56â,
A. Bizzetiâ,
M.P. Blago49â,
T. Blake50â,
F. Blanc43â,
J.E. Blank15â,
S. Blusk62â,
D. Bobulska53â,
J.A. Boelhauve15â,
O. Boente Garcia12â,
T. Boettcher59â,
A. Boldyrev38â,
C.S. Bolognani74â,
R. Bolzonella21,iâ,
N. Bondar38,42â,
F. Borgato28â,
S. Borghi56â,
M. Borsato17â,
J.T. Borsuk35â,
S.A. Bouchiba43â,
T.J.V. Bowcock54â,
A. Boyer42â,
C. Bozzi21â,
M.J. Bradley55,
S. Braun60â,
A. Brea Rodriguez40â,
J. Brodzicka35â,
A. Brossa Gonzalo40â,
J. Brown54â,
D. Brundu27â,
A. Buonaura44â,
L. Buonincontri28â,
A.T. Burke56â,
C. Burr42â,
A. Bursche66,
A. Butkevich38â,
J.S. Butter32â,
J. Buytaert42â,
W. Byczynski42â,
S. Cadeddu27â,
H. Cai68,
R. Calabrese21,iâ,
L. Calefice15â,
S. Cali23â,
R. Calladine47,
M. Calvi26,nâ,
M. Calvo Gomez76â,
P. Campana23â,
D.H. Campora Perez74â,
A.F. Campoverde Quezada6â,
S. Capelli26,nâ,
L. Capriotti20â,
A. Carbone20,gâ,
G. Carboni31â,
R. Cardinale24,kâ,
A. Cardini27â,
P. Carniti26,nâ,
L. Carus14,
A. Casais Vidal40â,
R. Caspary17â,
G. Casse54â,
M. Cattaneo42â,
G. Cavallero42â,
V. Cavallini21,iâ,
S. Celani43â,
J. Cerasoli10â,
D. Cervenkov57â,
A.J. Chadwick54â,
M.G. Chapman48,
M. Charles13â,
Ph. Charpentier42â,
C.A. Chavez Barajas54â,
M. Chefdeville8â,
C. Chen3â,
S. Chen4â,
A. Chernov35â,
S. Chernyshenko46â,
V. Chobanova40â,
S. Cholak43â,
M. Chrzaszcz35â,
A. Chubykin38â,
V. Chulikov38â,
P. Ciambrone23â,
M.F. Cicala50â,
X. Cid Vidal40â,
G. Ciezarek42â,
G. Ciulloi,21â,
P.E.L. Clarke52â,
M. Clemencic42â,
H.V. Cliff49â,
J. Closier42â,
J.L. Cobbledick56â,
V. Coco42â,
J.A.B. Coelho11â,
J. Cogan10â,
E. Cogneras9â,
L. Cojocariu37â,
P. Collins42â,
T. Colombo42â,
L. Congedo19â,
A. Contu27â,
N. Cooke47â,
I. Corredoira 40â,
G. Corti42â,
B. Couturier42â,
D.C. Craik44â,
M. Cruz Torres1,eâ,
R. Currie52â,
C.L. Da Silva61â,
S. Dadabaev38â,
L. Dai65â,
X. Dai5â,
E. DallâOcco15â,
J. Dalseno40â,
C. DâAmbrosio42â,
J. Daniel9â,
A. Danilina38â,
P. dâArgent15â,
J.E. Davies56â,
A. Davis56â,
O. De Aguiar Francisco56â,
J. de Boer42â,
K. De Bruyn73â,
S. De Capua56â,
M. De Cian43â,
U. De Freitas Carneiro Da Graca1â,
E. De Lucia23â,
J.M. De Miranda1â,
L. De Paula2â,
M. De Serio19,fâ,
D. De Simone44â,
P. De Simone23â,
F. De Vellis15â,
J.A. de Vries74â,
C.T. Dean61â,
F. Debernardis19,fâ,
D. Decamp8â,
V. Dedu10â,
L. Del Buono13â,
B. Delaney58â,
H.-P. Dembinski15â,
V. Denysenko44â,
O. Deschamps9â,
F. Dettori27,hâ,
B. Dey71â,
P. Di Nezza23â,
I. Diachkov38â,
S. Didenko38â,
L. Dieste Maronas40,
S. Ding62â,
V. Dobishuk46â,
A. Dolmatov38,
C. Dong3â,
A.M. Donohoe18â,
F. Dordei27â,
A.C. dos Reis1â,
L. Douglas53,
A.G. Downes8â,
P. Duda75â,
M.W. Dudek35â,
L. Dufour42â,
V. Duk72â,
P. Durante42â,
M. M. Duras75â,
J.M. Durham61â,
D. Dutta56â,
A. Dziurda35â,
A. Dzyuba38â,
S. Easo51â,
U. Egede63â,
V. Egorychev38â,
S. Eidelman38,â ,
C. Eirea Orro40,
S. Eisenhardt52â,
E. Ejopu56â,
S. Ek-In43â,
L. Eklund77â,
S. Ely62â,
A. Ene37â,
E. Epple59â,
S. Escher14â,
J. Eschle44â,
S. Esen44â,
T. Evans56â,
F. Fabiano27,hâ,
L.N. Falcao1â,
Y. Fan6â,
B. Fang11,68â,
L. Fantini72,qâ,
M. Faria43â,
S. Farry54â,
D. Fazzini26,nâ,
L.FÂ Felkowski75â,
M. Feo42â,
M. Fernandez Gomez40â,
A.D. Fernez60â,
F. Ferrari20â,
L. Ferreira Lopes43â,
F. Ferreira Rodrigues2â,
S. Ferreres Sole32â,
M. Ferrillo44â,
M. Ferro-Luzzi42â,
S. Filippov38â,
R.A. Fini19â,
M. Fiorini21,iâ,
M. Firlej34â,
K.M. Fischer57â,
D.S. Fitzgerald78â,
C. Fitzpatrick56â,
T. Fiutowski34â,
F. Fleuret12â,
M. Fontana13â,
F. Fontanelli24,kâ,
R. Forty42â,
D. Foulds-Holt49â,
V. Franco Lima54â,
M. Franco Sevilla60â,
M. Frank42â,
E. Franzoso21,iâ,
G. Frau17â,
C. Frei42â,
D.A. Friday53â,
J. Fu6â,
Q. Fuehring15â,
T. Fulghesu13â,
E. Gabriel32â,
G. Galati19,fâ,
M.D. Galati32â,
A. Gallas Torreira40â,
D. Galli20,gâ,
S. Gambetta52,42â,
Y. Gan3â,
M. Gandelman2â,
P. Gandini25â,
Y. Gao7â,
Y. Gao5â,
M. Garau27,hâ,
L.M. Garcia Martin50â,
P. Garcia Moreno39â,
J. GarcĂa PardiĂąas26,nâ,
B. Garcia Plana40,
F.A. Garcia Rosales12â,
L. Garrido39â,
C. Gaspar42â,
R.E. Geertsema32â,
D. Gerick17,
L.L. Gerken15â,
E. Gersabeck56â,
M. Gersabeck56â,
T. Gershon50â,
L. Giambastiani28â,
V. Gibson49â,
H.K. Giemza36â,
A.L. Gilman57â,
M. Giovannetti23,uâ,
A. GioventĂš40â,
P. Gironella Gironell39â,
C. Giugliano21,iâ,
M.A. Giza35â,
K. Gizdov52â,
E.L. Gkougkousis42â,
V.V. Gligorov13,42â,
C. GĂśbel64â,
E. Golobardes76â,
D. Golubkov38â,
A. Golutvin55,38â,
A. Gomes1,aâ,
S. Gomez Fernandez39â,
F. Goncalves Abrantes57â,
M. Goncerz35â,
G. Gong3â,
I.V. Gorelov38â,
C. Gotti26â,
J.P. Grabowski70â,
T. Grammatico13â,
L.A. Granado Cardoso42â,
E. GraugĂŠs39â,
E. Graverini43â,
G. Grazianiâ,
A. T. Grecu37â,
L.M. Greeven32â,
N.A. Grieser4â,
L. Grillo53â,
S. Gromov38â,
B.R. Gruberg Cazon57â,
C. Â Gu3â,
M. Guarise21,iâ,
M. Guittiere11â,
P. A. GĂźnther17â,
E. Gushchin38â,
A. Guth14,
Y. Guz38â,
T. Gys42â,
T. Hadavizadeh63â,
C. Hadjivasiliou60â,
G. Haefeli43â,
C. Haen42â,
J. Haimberger42â,
S.C. Haines49â,
T. Halewood-leagas54â,
M.M. Halvorsen42â,
P.M. Hamilton60â,
J. Hammerich54â,
Q. Han7â,
X. Han17â,
E.B. Hansen56â,
S. Hansmann-Menzemer17â,
L. Hao6â,
N. Harnew57â,
T. Harrison54â,
C. Hasse42â,
M. Hatch42â,
J. He6,câ,
K. Heijhoff32â,
C. Henderson59â,
R.D.L. Henderson63,50â,
A.M. Hennequin58â,
K. Hennessy54â,
L. Henry42â,
J. Herd55â,
J. Heuel14â,
A. Hicheur2â,
D. Hill43â,
M. Hilton56â,
S.E. Hollitt15â,
J. Horswill56â,
R. Hou7â,
Y. Hou8â,
J. Hu17,
J. Hu66â,
W. Hu5â,
X. Hu3â,
W. Huang6â,
X. Huang68,
W. Hulsbergen32â,
R.J. Hunter50â,
M. Hushchyn38â,
D. Hutchcroft54â,
P. Ibis15â,
M. Idzik34â,
D. Ilin38â,
P. Ilten59â,
A. Inglessi38â,
A. Iniukhin38â,
A. Ishteev38â,
K. Ivshin38â,
R. Jacobsson42â,
H. Jage14â,
S.J. Jaimes Elles41â,
S. Jakobsen42â,
E. Jans32â,
B.K. Jashal41â,
A. Jawahery60â,
V. Jevtic15â,
E. Jiang60â,
X. Jiang4,6â,
Y. Jiang6â,
M. John57â,
D. Johnson58â,
C.R. Jones49â,
T.P. Jones50â,
B. Jost42â,
N. Jurik42â,
I. Juszczak35â,
S. Kandybei45â,
Y. Kang3â,
M. Karacson42â,
D. Karpenkov38â,
M. Karpov38â,
J.W. Kautz59â,
F. Keizer42â,
D.M. Keller62â,
M. Kenzie50â,
T. Ketel32â,
B. Khanji15â,
A. Kharisova38â,
S. Kholodenko38â,
G. Khreich11â,
T. Kirn14â,
V.S. Kirsebom43â,
O. Kitouni58â,
S. Klaver33â,
N. Kleijne29,râ,
K. Klimaszewski36â,
M.R. Kmiec36â,
S. Koliiev46â,
A. Kondybayeva38â,
A. Konoplyannikov38â,
P. Kopciewicz34â,
R. Kopecna17,
P. Koppenburg32â,
M. Korolev38â,
I. Kostiuk32,46â,
O. Kot46,
S. Kotriakhovaâ,
A. Kozachuk38â,
P. Kravchenko38â,
L. Kravchuk38â,
R.D. Krawczyk42â,
M. Kreps50â,
S. Kretzschmar14â,
P. Krokovny38â,
W. Krupa34â,
W. Krzemien36â,
J. Kubat17,
S. Kubis75â,
W. Kucewicz35,34â,
M. Kucharczyk35â,
V. Kudryavtsev38â,
A. Kupsc77â,
D. Lacarrere42â,
G. Lafferty56â,
A. Lai27â,
A. Lampis27,hâ,
D. Lancierini44â,
C. Landesa Gomez40â,
J.J. Lane56â,
R. Lane48â,
G. Lanfranchi23â,
C. Langenbruch14â,
J. Langer15â,
O. Lantwin38â,
T. Latham50â,
F. Lazzari29,vâ,
M. Lazzaroni25,mâ,
R. Le Gac10â,
S.H. Lee78â,
R. Lefèvre9â,
A. Leflat38â,
S. Legotin38â,
P. Lenisai,21â,
O. Leroy10â,
T. Lesiak35â,
B. Leverington17â,
A. Li3â,
H. Li66â,
K. Li7â,
P. Li17â,
P.-R. Li67â,
S. Li7â,
T. Li4â,
T. Li66â,
Y. Li4â,
Z. Li62â,
X. Liang62â,
C. Lin6â,
T. Lin51â,
R. Lindner42â,
V. Lisovskyi15â,
R. Litvinov27,hâ,
G. Liu66â,
H. Liu6â,
Q. Liu6â,
S. Liu4,6â,
A. Lobo Salvia39â,
A. Loi27â,
R. Lollini72â,
J. Lomba Castro40â,
I. Longstaff53,
J.H. Lopes2â,
A. Lopez Huertas39â,
S. LĂłpez SoliĂąo40â,
G.H. Lovell49â,
Y. Lu4,bâ,
C. Lucarelli22,jâ,
D. Lucchesi28,pâ,
S. Luchuk38â,
M. Lucio Martinez74â,
V. Lukashenko32,46â,
Y. Luo3â,
A. Lupato56â,
E. Luppi21,iâ,
A. Lusiani29,râ,
K. Lynch18â,
X.-R. Lyu6â,
L. Ma4â,
R. Ma6â,
S. Maccolini20â,
F. Machefert11â,
F. Maciuc37â,
I. Mackay57â,
V. Macko43â,
P. Mackowiak15â,
L.R. Madhan Mohan48â,
A. Maevskiy38â,
D. Maisuzenko38â,
M.W. Majewski34,
J.J. Malczewski35â,
S. Malde57â,
B. Malecki35,42â,
A. Malinin38â,
T. Maltsev38â,
G. Manca27,hâ,
G. Mancinelli10â,
C. Mancuso11,25,mâ,
D. Manuzzi20â,
C.A. Manzari44â,
D. Marangotto25,mâ,
J.F. Marchand8â,
U. Marconi20â,
S. Mariani22,jâ,
C. Marin Benito39â,
J. Marks17â,
A.M. Marshall48â,
P.J. Marshall54,
G. Martelli72,qâ,
G. Martellotti30â,
L. Martinazzoli42,nâ,
M. Martinelli26,nâ,
D. Martinez Santos40â,
F. Martinez Vidal41â,
A. Massafferri1â,
M. Materok14â,
R. Matev42â,
A. Mathad44â,
V. Matiunin38â,
C. Matteuzzi26â,
K.R. Mattioli12â,
A. Mauri32â,
E. Maurice12â,
J. Mauricio39â,
M. Mazurek42â,
M. McCann55â,
L. Mcconnell18â,
T.H. McGrath56â,
N.T. McHugh53â,
A. McNab56â,
R. McNulty18â,
J.V. Mead54â,
B. Meadows59â,
G. Meier15â,
D. Melnychuk36â,
S. Meloni26,nâ,
M. Merk32,74â,
A. Merli25,mâ,
L. Meyer Garcia2â,
D. Miao4,6â,
M. Mikhasenko70,dâ,
D.A. Milanes69â,
E. Millard50,
M. Milovanovic42â,
M.-N. Minard8,â ,
A. Minotti26,nâ,
T. Miralles9â,
S.E. Mitchell52â,
B. Mitreska56â,
D.S. Mitzel15â,
A. MĂśdden 15â,
R.A. Mohammed57â,
R.D. Moise14â,
S. Mokhnenko38â,
T. Mombächer40â,
M. Monk50,63â,
I.A. Monroy69â,
S. Monteil9â,
M. Morandin28â,
G. Morello23â,
M.J. Morello29,râ,
J. Moron34â,
A.B. Morris70â,
A.G. Morris50â,
R. Mountain62â,
H. Mu3â,
E. Muhammad50â,
F. Muheim52â,
M. Mulder73â,
K. MĂźller44â,
C.H. Murphy57â,
D. Murray56â,
R. Murta55â,
P. Muzzetto27,hâ,
P. Naik48â,
T. Nakada43â,
R. Nandakumar51â,
T. Nanut42â,
I. Nasteva2â,
M. Needham52â,
N. Neri25,mâ,
S. Neubert70â,
N. Neufeld42â,
P. Neustroev38,
R. Newcombe55,
J. Nicolini15,11â,
E.M. Niel43â,
S. Nieswand14,
N. Nikitin38â,
N.S. Nolte58â,
C. Normand8,h,27â,
J. Novoa Fernandez40â,
C. Nunez78â,
A. Oblakowska-Mucha34â,
V. Obraztsov38â,
T. Oeser14â,
D.P. OâHanlon48â,
S. Okamura21,iâ,
R. Oldeman27,hâ,
F. Oliva52â,
C.J.G. Onderwater73â,
R.H. OâNeil52â,
J.M. Otalora Goicochea2â,
T. Ovsiannikova38â,
P. Owen44â,
A. Oyanguren41â,
O. Ozcelik52â,
K.O. Padeken70â,
B. Pagare50â,
P.R. Pais42â,
T. Pajero57â,
A. Palano19â,
M. Palutan23â,
Y. Pan56â,
G. Panshin38â,
L. Paolucci50â,
A. Papanestis51â,
M. Pappagallo19,fâ,
L.L. Pappalardo21,iâ,
C. Pappenheimer59â,
W. Parker60â,
C. Parkes56â,
B. Passalacqua21,iâ,
G. Passaleva22â,
A. Pastore19â,
M. Patel55â,
C. Patrignani20,gâ,
C.J. Pawley74â,
A. Pearce42â,
A. Pellegrino32â,
M. Pepe Altarelli42â,
S. Perazzini20â,
D. Pereima38â,
A. Pereiro Castro40â,
P. Perret9â,
M. Petric53,
K. Petridis48â,
A. Petrolini24,kâ,
A. Petrov38,
S. Petrucci52â,
M. Petruzzo25â,
H. Pham62â,
A. Philippov38â,
R. Piandani6â,
L. Pica29,râ,
M. Piccini72â,
B. Pietrzyk8â,
G. Pietrzyk11â,
M. Pili57â,
A. Pilloni62,l,
D. Pinci30â,
F. Pisani42â,
M. Pizzichemi26,n,42â,
V. Placinta37â,
J. Plews47â,
M. Plo Casasus40â,
F. Polci13,42â,
M. Poli Lener23â,
M. Poliakova62,
A. Poluektov10â,
N. Polukhina38â,
I. Polyakov42â,
E. Polycarpo2â,
S. Ponce42â,
D. Popov6,42â,
S. Popov38â,
S. Poslavskii38â,
K. Prasanth35â,
L. Promberger17â,
C. Prouve40â,
V. Pugatch46â,
V. Puill11â,
G. Punzi29,sâ,
H.R. Qi3â,
W. Qian6â,
N. Qin3â,
S. Qu3â,
R. Quagliani43â,
N.V. Raab18â,
R.I. Rabadan Trejo6â,
B. Rachwal34â,
J.H. Rademacker48â,
R. Rajagopalan62,
M. Rama29â,
M. Ramos Pernas50â,
M.S. Rangel2â,
F. Ratnikov38â,
G. Raven33,42â,
M. Rebollo De Miguel41â,
F. Redi42â,
J. Reich48â,
F. Reiss56â,
C. Remon Alepuz41,
Z. Ren3â,
P.K. Resmi10â,
R. Ribatti29,râ,
A.M. Ricci27â,
S. Ricciardi51â,
K. Richardson58â,
M. Richardson-Slipper52â,
K. Rinnert54â,
P. Robbe11â,
G. Robertson52â,
A.B. Rodrigues43â,
E. Rodrigues54â,
E. Rodriguez Fernandez40â,
J.A. Rodriguez Lopez69â,
E. Rodriguez Rodriguez40â,
D.L. Rolf42â,
A. Rollings57â,
P. Roloff42â,
V. Romanovskiy38â,
M. Romero Lamas40â,
A. Romero Vidal40â,
J.D. Roth78,â ,
M. Rotondo23â,
M.S. Rudolph62â,
T. Ruf42â,
R.A. Ruiz Fernandez40â,
J. Ruiz Vidal41,
A. Ryzhikov38â,
J. Ryzka34â,
J.J. Saborido Silva40â,
N. Sagidova38â,
N. Sahoo47â,
B. Saitta27,hâ,
M. Salomoni42â,
C. Sanchez Gras32â,
I. Sanderswood41â,
R. Santacesaria30â,
C. Santamarina Rios40â,
M. Santimaria23â,
E. Santovetti31,uâ,
D. Saranin38â,
G. Sarpis14â,
M. Sarpis70â,
A. Sarti30â,
C. Satriano30,tâ,
A. Satta31â,
M. Saur15â,
D. Savrina38â,
H. Sazak9â,
L.G. Scantlebury Smead57â,
A. Scarabotto13â,
S. Schael14â,
S. Scherl54â,
M. Schiller53â,
H. Schindler42â,
M. Schmelling16â,
B. Schmidt42â,
S. Schmitt14â,
O. Schneider43â,
A. Schopper42â,
M. Schubiger32â,
S. Schulte43â,
M.H. Schune11â,
R. Schwemmer42â,
B. Sciascia23,42â,
A. Sciuccati42â,
S. Sellam40â,
A. Semennikov38â,
M. Senghi Soares33â,
A. Sergi24,kâ,
N. Serra44â,
L. Sestini28â,
A. Seuthe15â,
Y. Shang5â,
D.M. Shangase78â,
M. Shapkin38â,
I. Shchemerov38â,
L. Shchutska43â,
T. Shears54â,
L. Shekhtman38â,
Z. Shen5â,
S. Sheng4,6â,
V. Shevchenko38â,
B. Shi6â,
E.B. Shields26,nâ,
Y. Shimizu11â,
E. Shmanin38â,
R. Shorkin38â,
J.D. Shupperd62â,
B.G. Siddi21,iâ,
R. Silva Coutinho62â,
G. Simi28â,
S. Simone19,fâ,
M. Singla63â,
N. Skidmore56â,
R. Skuza17â,
T. Skwarnicki62â,
M.W. Slater47â,
J.C. Smallwood57â,
J.G. Smeaton49â,
E. Smith44â,
K. Smith61â,
M. Smith55â,
A. Snoch32â,
L. Soares Lavra9â,
M.D. Sokoloff59â,
F.J.P. Soler53â,
A. Solomin38,48â,
A. Solovev38â,
I. Solovyev38â,
R. Song63â,
F.L. Souza De Almeida2â,
B. Souza De Paula2â,
B. Spaan15,â ,
E. Spadaro Norella25,mâ,
E. Spedicato20â,
E. Spiridenkov38,
P. Spradlin53â,
V. Sriskaran42â,
F. Stagni42â,
M. Stahl42â,
S. Stahl42â,
S. Stanislaus57â,
E.N. Stein42â,
O. Steinkamp44â,
O. Stenyakin38,
H. Stevens15â,
S. Stone62,â â,
D. Strekalina38â,
Y.SÂ Su6â,
F. Suljik57â,
J. Sun27â,
L. Sun68â,
Y. Sun60â,
P. Svihra56â,
P.N. Swallow47â,
K. Swientek34â,
A. Szabelski36â,
T. Szumlak34â,
M. Szymanski42â,
Y. Tan3â,
S. Taneja56â,
M.D. Tat57â,
A. Terentev38â,
F. Teubert42â,
E. Thomas42â,
D.J.D. Thompson47â,
K.A. Thomson54â,
H. Tilquin55â,
V. Tisserand9â,
S. TâJampens8â,
M. Tobin4â,
L. Tomassetti21,iâ,
G. Tonani25,mâ,
X. Tong5â,
D. Torres Machado1â,
D.Y. Tou3â,
S.M. Trilov48â,
C. Trippl43â,
G. Tuci6â,
A. Tully43â,
N. Tuning32â,
A. Ukleja36â,
D.J. Unverzagt17â,
A. Usachov32â,
A. Ustyuzhanin38â,
U. Uwer17â,
A. Vagner38,
V. Vagnoni20â,
A. Valassi42â,
G. Valenti20â,
N. Valls Canudas76â,
M. van Beuzekom32â,
M. Van Dijk43â,
H. Van Hecke61â,
E. van Herwijnen55â,
C.B. Van Hulse40,xâ,
M. van Veghel73â,
R. Vazquez Gomez39â,
P. Vazquez Regueiro40â,
C. VĂĄzquez Sierra42â,
S. Vecchi21â,
J.J. Velthuis48â,
M. Veltri22,wâ,
A. Venkateswaran43â,
M. Veronesi32â,
M. Vesterinen50â,
D.  Vieira59â,
M. Vieites Diaz43â,
X. Vilasis-Cardona76â,
E. Vilella Figueras54â,
A. Villa20â,
P. Vincent13â,
F.C. Volle11â,
D. vom Bruch10â,
A. Vorobyev38,
V. Vorobyev38,
N. Voropaev38â,
K. Vos74â,
C. Vrahas52â,
R. Waldi17â,
J. Walsh29â,
G. Wan5â,
C. Wang17â,
G. Wang7â,
J. Wang5â,
J. Wang4â,
J. Wang3â,
J. Wang68â,
M. Wang5â,
R. Wang48â,
X. Wang66â,
Y. Wang7â,
Z. Wang44â,
Z. Wang3â,
Z. Wang6â,
J.A. Ward50,63â,
N.K. Watson47â,
D. Websdale55â,
Y. Wei5â,
C. Weisser58,
B.D.C. Westhenry48â,
D.J. White56â,
M. Whitehead53â,
A.R. Wiederhold50â,
D. Wiedner15â,
G. Wilkinson57â,
M.K. Wilkinson59â,
I. Williams49,
M. Williams58â,
M.R.J. Williams52â,
R. Williams49â,
F.F. Wilson51â,
W. Wislicki36â,
M. Witek35â,
L. Witola17â,
C.P. Wong61â,
G. Wormser11â,
S.A. Wotton49â,
H. Wu62â,
J. Wu7â,
K. Wyllie42â,
Z. Xiang6â,
D. Xiao7â,
Y. Xie7â,
A. Xu5â,
J. Xu6â,
L. Xu3â,
L. Xu3â,
M. Xu50â,
Q. Xu6,
Z. Xu9â,
Z. Xu6â,
D. Yang3â,
S. Yang6â,
X. Yang5â,
Y. Yang6â,
Z. Yang5â,
Z. Yang60â,
L.E. Yeomans54â,
V. Yeroshenko11â,
H. Yeung56â,
H. Yin7â,
J. Yu65â,
X. Yuan62â,
E. Zaffaroni43â,
M. Zavertyaev16â,
M. Zdybal35â,
O. Zenaiev42â,
M. Zeng3â,
C. Zhang5â,
D. Zhang7â,
L. Zhang3â,
S. Zhang65â,
S. Zhang5â,
Y. Zhang5â,
Y. Zhang57,
A. Zharkova38â,
A. Zhelezov17â,
Y. Zheng6â,
T. Zhou5â,
X. Zhou6â,
Y. Zhou6â,
V. Zhovkovska11â,
X. Zhu3â,
X. Zhu7â,
Z. Zhu6â,
V. Zhukov14,38â,
Q. Zou4,6â,
S. Zucchelli20,gâ,
D. Zuliani28â,
G. Zunica56â.
1Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas FĂsicas (CBPF), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
2Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
3Center for High Energy Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
4Institute Of High Energy Physics (IHEP), Beijing, China
5School of Physics State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
6University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
7Institute of Particle Physics, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei, China
8UniversitĂŠ Savoie Mont Blanc, CNRS, IN2P3-LAPP, Annecy, France
9UniversitĂŠ Clermont Auvergne, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France
10Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS/IN2P3, CPPM, Marseille, France
11UniversitĂŠ Paris-Saclay, CNRS/IN2P3, IJCLab, Orsay, France
12Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, CNRS/IN2P3, Ecole Polytechnique, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Palaiseau, France
13LPNHE, Sorbonne UniversitĂŠ, Paris Diderot Sorbonne Paris CitĂŠ, CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, France
14I. Physikalisches Institut, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
15Fakultät Physik, Technische Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany
16Max-Planck-Institut fĂźr Kernphysik (MPIK), Heidelberg, Germany
17Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
18School of Physics, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
19INFN Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy
20INFN Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
21INFN Sezione di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
22INFN Sezione di Firenze, Firenze, Italy
23INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
24INFN Sezione di Genova, Genova, Italy
25INFN Sezione di Milano, Milano, Italy
26INFN Sezione di Milano-Bicocca, Milano, Italy
27INFN Sezione di Cagliari, Monserrato, Italy
28UniversitĂ degli Studi di Padova, UniversitĂ e INFN, Padova, Padova, Italy
29INFN Sezione di Pisa, Pisa, Italy
30INFN Sezione di Roma La Sapienza, Roma, Italy
31INFN Sezione di Roma Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy
32Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, Netherlands
33Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics and VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
34AGH - University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Physics and Applied Computer Science, KrakĂłw, Poland
35Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, KrakĂłw, Poland
36National Center for Nuclear Research (NCBJ), Warsaw, Poland
37Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest-Magurele, Romania
38Affiliated with an institute covered by a cooperation agreement with CERN
39ICCUB, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
40Instituto Galego de FĂsica de Altas EnerxĂas (IGFAE), Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
41Instituto de Fisica Corpuscular, Centro Mixto Universidad de Valencia - CSIC, Valencia, Spain
42European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
43Institute of Physics, Ecole Polytechnique FĂŠdĂŠrale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
44Physik-Institut, Universität Zßrich, Zßrich, Switzerland
45NSC Kharkiv Institute of Physics and Technology (NSC KIPT), Kharkiv, Ukraine
46Institute for Nuclear Research of the National Academy of Sciences (KINR), Kyiv, Ukraine
47University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
48H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
49Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
50Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
51STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
52School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
53School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
54Oliver Lodge Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
55Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
56Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
57Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
58Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States
59University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, United States
60University of Maryland, College Park, MD, United States
61Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, NM, United States
62Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, United States
63School of Physics and Astronomy, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, associated to 50
64PontifĂcia Universidade CatĂłlica do Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, associated to 2
65Physics and Micro Electronic College, Hunan University, Changsha City, China, associated to 7
66Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Nuclear Science, Guangdong-Hong Kong Joint Laboratory of Quantum Matter, Institute of Quantum Matter, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China, associated to 3
67Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China, associated to 4
68School of Physics and Technology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China, associated to 3
69Departamento de Fisica , Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogota, Colombia, associated to 13
70Universität Bonn - Helmholtz-Institut fßr Strahlen und Kernphysik, Bonn, Germany, associated to 17
71Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, Hungary, associated to 42
72INFN Sezione di Perugia, Perugia, Italy, associated to 21
73Van Swinderen Institute, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands, associated to 32
74Universiteit Maastricht, Maastricht, Netherlands, associated to 32
75Tadeusz Kosciuszko Cracow University of Technology, Cracow, Poland, associated to 35
76DS4DS, La Salle, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, associated to 39
77Department of Physics and Astronomy, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, associated to 53
78University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States, associated to 62
aUniversidade de BrasĂlia, BrasĂlia, Brazil
bCentral South U., Changsha, China
cHangzhou Institute for Advanced Study, UCAS, Hangzhou, China
dExcellence Cluster ORIGINS, Munich, Germany
eUniversidad Nacional AutĂłnoma de Honduras, Tegucigalpa, Honduras
fUniversitĂ di Bari, Bari, Italy
gUniversitĂ di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
hUniversitĂ di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
iUniversitĂ di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
jUniversitĂ di Firenze, Firenze, Italy
kUniversitĂ di Genova, Genova, Italy
lDipartimento MIFT, Universita degli Studi di Messina and INFN Sezione di Catania, Italy, Messina and Catania, Italy
mUniversitĂ degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy
nUniversitĂ di Milano Bicocca, Milano, Italy
oUniversitĂ di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
pUniversitĂ di Padova, Padova, Italy
qUniversitĂ di Perugia, Perugia, Italy
rScuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, Italy
sUniversitĂ di Pisa, Pisa, Italy
tUniversitĂ della Basilicata, Potenza, Italy
uUniversitĂ di Roma Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy
vUniversitĂ di Siena, Siena, Italy
wUniversitĂ di Urbino, Urbino, Italy
xUniversidad de AlcalĂĄ, AlcalĂĄ de Henares , Spain
â Deceased