EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH (CERN)
18 Feb 2020

Departamento de Física
Universidad Católica de Chile
SantiagoPontificia

Department of Physics
Universidad Andres Bello
Santiago

Departamento de Física
Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María
ValparaísoChile. 148

Department of Physics
University of Washington
SeattleWAUnited States of America. 149

Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of Sheffield
SheffieldUnited Kingdom. 150

Department of Physics
Shinshu University
NaganoJapan. 151

Department Physik
Universität Siegen
SiegenGermany. 152

Department of Physics
Simon Fraser University
BurnabyBCCanada. 153

United States of America. 154 Physics Department
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory
StanfordCA

Royal Institute of Technology
StockholmSweden. 155

Departments of Physics and Astronomy
Stony Brook University
Stony BrookNYUnited States of America. 156

Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of Sussex
BrightonUnited Kingdom. 157

School of Physics
University of Sydney
SydneyAustralia. 158

Institute of Physics
Academia Sinica
TaipeiTaiwan

Institute of Physics
Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University
Tbilisi

High Energy Physics Institute
Tbilisi State University
TbilisiGeorgia. 160

Department of Physics
Israel Institute of Technology
Technion, HaifaIsrael. 161 Raymond

Beverly Sackler School of Physics and Astronomy
Tel Aviv University
Tel AvivIsrael. 162

Department of Physics
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
ThessalonikiGreece. 163

International Center for Elementary Particle Physics
Department of Physics
University of Tokyo
TokyoJapan. 164

Graduate School of Science and Technology
Tokyo Metropolitan University
TokyoJapan. 165

Department of Physics
Tokyo Institute of Technology
TokyoJapan. 166

Tomsk State University
TomskRussia. 167

Department of Physics
University of Toronto
TorontoONCanada

Department of Physics and Astronomy
York University
TorontoONCanada. 169

Division of Physics
Faculty of Pure and Applied Sciences
Tomonaga Center for the History of the Universe
University of Tsukuba
TsukubaJapan. 170

Department of Physics and Astronomy
Tufts University
MedfordMAUnited States of America. 171

Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of California Irvine
IrvineCAUnited States of America. 172

Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of Uppsala
UppsalaSweden. 173

Department of Physics
University of Illinois
Urbana IL
United States of America. 174

Centro Mixto
Instituto de Física Corpuscular (IFIC)
Universidad de Valencia -CSIC
ValenciaSpain. 175

Department of Physics
University of British Columbia
VancouverBCCanada. 176

Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of Victoria
VictoriaBCCanada. 177

Fakultät für Physik und Astronomie
Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg
WürzburgGermany

Department of Physics
University of Warwick
CoventryUnited Kingdom. 179

Waseda University
TokyoJapan. 180

Department of Particle Physics
Weizmann Institute of Science
RehovotIsrael. 181

Department of Physics
University of Wisconsin
MadisonWIUnited States of America. 182

Fakultät für Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften
Fachgruppe Physik
Bergische Universität Wuppertal
WuppertalGermany. 183

Department of Physics
Yale University
New HavenCT

United States of America. a Also at Borough of Manhattan Community College
City University of New York
New York, NYUnited States of America

Also at CERN
GenevaSwitzerland

Also at CPPM
Aix-Marseille Université
CNRS/IN2P3
MarseilleFrance

Also at Département de Physique Nucléaire et Corpusculaire
Université de Genève
Genève

EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH (CERN)
18 Feb 202078E76902636ACDE3D708B3FB65A7FFB2arXiv:2002.07546v1[hep-ex]Submitted to: JHEP CERN-EP-2019-273 19th February 2020
The ATLAS CollaborationSingle top-quark production in association with a Z boson is measured in the trilepton channel.The proton-proton collision data collected by the ATLAS experiment from 2015 to 2018 at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV are used, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb −1 .Events containing three isolated charged leptons (electrons or muons) and two or three jets, one of which is identified as containing a b-hadron, are selected.The main backgrounds are from t t Z and diboson production.Neural networks are used to improve the background rejection and extract the signal.The measured cross-section for t + − q production, including non-resonant dilepton pairs with m + − > 30 GeV, is 97 ± 13 (stat.)± 7 (syst.)fb, consistent with the Standard Model prediction.

Introduction

This paper reports on the observation of the electroweak production of a top quark or an anti-top quark associated with a Z boson (tZq) by the ATLAS Collaboration using a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb −1  of proton-proton (pp) collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of √ s = 13 TeV.The final state is where the Z boson decays into electrons or muons, and the W boson, from the top-quark decay, decays into an electron or muon and an associated neutrino.The requirement of three leptons in the final state maximises the signal significance relative to the backgrounds.Evidence for this process has previously been reported by the ATLAS Collaboration [1] with a significance of 4.2 standard deviations using data collected in 2015 and 2016.The CMS Collaboration [2] reported an observation with a measured cross-section uncertainty of 15% using data collected in 2016 and 2017.

At leading order (LO) in the Standard Model (SM) both the single top-quark production and decay occur through the electroweak interaction.The main LO Feynman diagram is the same as in t-channel single top-quark production with the addition of a Z boson radiated from any of the quarks (Figure 1(a)) or from the t-channel W-boson propagator (Figure 1(b)).This allows the t-Z and the W-Z couplings to be indirectly studied in a single interaction.At LO the ttZ process is O(α 2 s ) in QCD, and the extraction of the t-Z coupling is more sensitive to higher-order QCD corrections.Furthermore, for the tZq process the next-to-leading-order (NLO) QCD corrections are small and therefore deviations from the SM can easily be studied in the framework of the SM effective field theory [3].In addition to resonant Z-boson production, a small non-resonant + − (with = e, µ, τ) contribution to this process (t + − q) is accounted for.Throughout this paper, single top-quark production with either resonant or non-resonant + − in the final state is referred to as tZq.In the SM, the expected cross-section for this process, calculated at NLO in QCD for a dilepton mass greater than 30 GeV, is 102 +5 −2 fb.

ATLAS detector

The ATLAS detector [4] at the LHC covers nearly the entire solid angle around the collision point.1It consists of an inner tracking detector surrounded by a thin superconducting solenoid, electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeters, and a muon spectrometer incorporating three large superconducting toroidal magnets.

The inner-detector system (ID) is immersed in a 2 T axial magnetic field and provides charged-particle tracking in the range |η| < 2.5.The high-granularity silicon pixel detector covers the vertex region and typically provides four measurements per track, the first hit being normally in the insertable B-layer installed before Run 2 [5,6].It is followed by the silicon microstrip tracker, which usually provides eight measurements per track.These silicon detectors are complemented by the transition radiation tracker (TRT), which enables radially extended track reconstruction up to |η| = 2.0.The TRT also provides electron identification information based on the fraction of hits (typically 30 in total) above a higher energy-deposit threshold corresponding to transition radiation.

The calorimeter system covers the pseudorapidity range |η| < 4.9.Within the region |η| < 3.2, electromagnetic (EM) calorimetry is provided by barrel and endcap high-granularity lead/liquid-argon (LAr) calorimeters, with an additional thin LAr presampler covering |η| < 1.8, to correct for energy loss in material upstream of the calorimeters.Hadronic calorimetry is provided by the steel/scintillator-tile calorimeter, segmented into three barrel structures within the region |η| < 1.7, and two copper/LAr hadronic 1 ATLAS uses a right-handed coordinate system with its origin at the nominal interaction point (IP) in the centre of the detector and the z-axis along the beam pipe.The x-axis points from the IP to the centre of the LHC ring, and the y-axis points upwards.Cylindrical coordinates (r, φ) are used in the transverse plane, φ being the azimuthal angle around the z-axis.The pseudorapidity is defined in terms of the polar angle θ as η = − ln tan(θ/2).Distances in the η-φ plane are measured in units of
∆R ≡ (∆η) 2 + (∆φ) 2 .
endcap calorimeters.The solid angle coverage is completed with forward copper/LAr and tungsten/LAr calorimeter modules optimised for electromagnetic and hadronic measurements respectively.

The muon spectrometer (MS) comprises separate trigger and high-precision tracking chambers measuring the deflection of muons in a magnetic field generated by superconducting air-core toroids.The field integral of the toroids ranges between 2.0 and 6.0 T m across most of the detector.A set of precision chambers covers the region |η| < 2.7 with three layers of monitored drift tubes, complemented by cathode-strip chambers in the forward region, where the background is highest.The muon trigger system covers the range |η| < 2.4 with resistive-plate chambers in the barrel and thin-gap chambers in the endcap regions.

Interesting events are selected for recording by the first-level trigger system implemented in custom hardware, followed by selections made by algorithms implemented in software in the high-level trigger [7].

The first-level trigger selects events from the 40 MHz bunch crossings at a rate below 100 kHz, which the high-level trigger further reduces to record events to disk at about 1 kHz.

Data and simulation samples

The data sample used in this article corresponds to 139 fb −1 of pp collisions at √ s = 13 TeV collected by the ATLAS detector during 2015-2018, after requiring stable LHC beams and that all detector subsystems were operational [8].

Candidate events were required to satisfy one of the single-electron triggers or one of the single-muon triggers [7,[9][10][11][12][13].Single-lepton triggers with low transverse momentum, p T , thresholds and standard isolation requirements were combined in a logical OR with higher-threshold triggers that had a looser identification criterion and did not have any isolation requirement.The lowest p T threshold used for electrons was 24 GeV (26 GeV) in 2015 (2016-2018), while for muons the threshold was 20 GeV (26 GeV).

To evaluate the effects of the detector resolution and acceptance on the signal and background, and to estimate the SM backgrounds, simulated event samples were produced using a G 4-based Monte Carlo (MC) detector simulation [14,15].Some of the samples used for evaluating systematic uncertainties did not use the full G 4 simulation but instead relied on parameterised showers in the calorimeter.The top-quark mass in the event generators described below was set to 172.5 GeV.

The simulated data must account for the fact that significantly more than one inelastic pp collision occurs per bunch crossing.On average, the number of collisions per bunch crossing ranged from 13 to 38 for the 2015 through 2018 data-taking periods, respectively.Inelastic collisions were simulated using P 8.186 [16] with the A3 set of tuned parameters [17] and the NNPDF2.3LO [18] set of parton distribution functions (PDFs), and overlaid on the signal and background MC samples.These simulated events were reweighted to match the conditions of the collision data, specifically the additional pp interactions (pile-up).

To estimate the signal acceptance and efficiency, and to study the effect of different selection criteria on the expected precision of the measurement, a tZq sample was simulated, including non-resonant + − contributions.The sample was generated using the four-flavour scheme at NLO in QCD with M G 5_aMC@NLO 2.6.0 [19], requiring the dilepton invariant mass to be larger than 30 GeV and using the NNPDF30_ _ _0118_ _4 [20] PDF set.Following the discussion in Ref. [21], the functional form of the renormalisation and factorisation scale was set to 4 m 2 b + p 2 T,b , where the b-quark is the one produced in the gluon splitting in the initial state associated with tZq production.The parton showering and hadronisation in signal events were simulated using P 8.230 [22], with a set of tuned parameters selected according to Ref. [23], referred to as the 'A14 tune'.

The predicted cross-section was calculated with M G 5_aMC@NLO 2.6.0, using the five-flavour scheme with the NNPDF30_ _ _0118 PDF set and with the renormalisation and factorisation scales, µ and µ , set to µ = µ = (m t + m Z )/4 = 66 GeV.The SM tZq cross-section at NLO in QCD is 102 fb.

The renormalisation and factorisation scale uncertainties are +5.2 −1.3 % and the PDF uncertainty is ±1.0%.The PDF uncertainty was calculated using the replica method described in Ref. [24].

The background to the signal is estimated by using simulated samples that contain at least two leptons and at least two jets.These samples include the production of tt, ttH, ttZ, ttW, tW, tWZ, diboson (WW, WZ, or ZZ), and Z + jets events.

The nominal tt and ttH simulated samples were generated using the NLO matrix-element generator P -B v2 [25][26][27][28][29] with the parameter h damp , which controls the transverse momentum of the first additional gluon emission beyond the Born configuration, set to 1.5 × m t for tt [30] and 0.75 × (2 × m t + m H ) for ttH, with m H = 125 GeV.These events were then passed through P 8.230 to generate the underlying event and perform the parton showering and hadronisation.The PDF set used in the sample simulation was NNPDF3.0NLO and for P 8 the A14 tune and NNPDF2.3LO PDF set were used.

Additional tt simulated samples are used to assess modelling uncertainties [31].To evaluate the uncertainty due to initial-state radiation, samples with higher parton radiation were produced by decreasing the factorisation and renormalisation scales by a factor of 0.5 and simultaneously increasing the h damp parameter to twice its nominal value, and using the 'Var3c' up variation from the A14 tune [32].For lower parton radiation, the nominal h damp value was used, while the renormalisation and factorisation scales were increased by a factor of two and the 'Var3c' down variation was selected in the parton shower.To study the impact of using an alternative parton shower and hadronisation model, a sample was produced with the P -B v2 generator interfaced to H 7.0.4[33,34], the former using the NNPDF3.0NLO PDF set and the latter using the H7UE set of tuned parameters [34] and the MMHT2014 LO PDF set [35].To assess the uncertainty due to the choice of matching scheme, a sample generated by M G 5_aMC@NLO 2.6.0 with the NNPDF3.0NLO PDF set was passed through P 8.230, which used the A14 tune and NNPDF2.3LO PDF set.For all samples produced with this set of generators, the matrix-element correction for the first emission was turned off and the global recoil option was used.

The production of ttZ and ttW events was modelled using the M G 5_aMC@NLO 2.3.3 generator at NLO in QCD, with the NNPDF3.0NLO PDF set.Parton showering and hadronisation were modelled with P 8.210, using the A14 tune and the NNPDF2.3LO PDF set.Non-resonant + − contributions are included for ttZ.

To assess modelling uncertainties, alternative ttZ simulated samples were produced with the S 2.2.1 [36] generator with one additional parton at NLO accuracy.The CKKW matching scale of the additional emissions was set to 30 GeV.The default S 2.2.1 parton shower was used along with the NNPDF3.0NNLO PDF set.

The tW simulated samples used the same generators as those used for the various tt samples [37].To avoid overlap between tW and tt production, the diagram removal (DR) scheme was employed [38], where all NLO diagrams that overlap with the doubly resonant tt contributions are removed from the calculation of the tW amplitude.

The production of tWZ events was modelled using the M G 5_aMC@NLO 2.3.3 generator at NLO with the NNPDF3.0NLO PDF set.The generator was interfaced to P 8.212, which used the A14 tune and the NNPDF2.3LO PDF set.The modelling uncertainties for this process are evaluated by comparing with a MC sample produced using the same generators but employing a different treatment of the interference between ttZ and tWZ, namely the diagram removal scheme that takes the interference term into account (DR2), as opposed to the nominal DR1 scheme [39].

The simulation of the diboson event samples used the NLO S event generators: S 2.2.1 for events with one boson decaying into hadrons, and S 2.2.2 for events with both bosons decaying into leptons.In this set-up, multiple matrix elements were matched and merged with the S parton shower based on Catani-Seymour dipole factorisation [40,41] using the MEPS@NLO prescription [42][43][44][45].The simulations included up to one additional parton at NLO accuracy and up to three additional parton emissions at LO accuracy.The virtual QCD corrections for matrix elements at NLO accuracy were provided by the O L library [46,47] with the NNPDF3.0NLO PDF set.

To assess modelling uncertainties for the diboson background, the P -B v2 [48] generator was used to generate the diboson processes at NLO in QCD.Events were generated using the CT10 NLO PDF set [49] and showered with P 8.210 with the AZNLO [50] tune and the CTEQ6L1 [51] PDF set.

For the modelling of Z + jets, a sample was generated using S 2.2.1 with the NNPDF3.0NNLO PDF set.The matching and merging procedure, as well as the virtual QCD corrections, were similar to those described for the diboson event simulation.The simulations included up to two additional partons at NLO accuracy and up to four additional parton emissions at LO accuracy.

Object reconstruction

The reconstruction of the basic objects used in the analysis is described in the following.The primary vertex [52] is selected as the pp vertex candidate with the highest sum of the squared transverse momenta of all associated tracks with p T > 400 MeV.

Electron candidates are reconstructed from energy clusters in the EM calorimeter that match a reconstructed track [53].The clusters are required to be within the range |η| < 2.47, excluding the transition region between the barrel and endcap calorimeters at 1.37 < |η| < 1.52.Electron candidates must also satisfy a transverse energy requirement of E T > 20 GeV [53].A likelihood-based discriminant is constructed from a set of variables that enhance the electron selection, while rejecting photon conversions and hadrons misidentified as electrons [53].An ηand E T -dependent selection on the likelihood discriminant is applied, such that it has an 80% efficiency when used to identify electrons from Z-boson decays.Electrons are further required to be isolated using criteria based on ID tracks and topological clusters in the calorimeter, with an efficiency of 90% (99%) for E T = 25 GeV (60 GeV).Correction factors are applied to simulated electrons to take into account the small differences in reconstruction, identification and isolation efficiencies between data and MC simulation.

Muon candidates are reconstructed by combining a reconstructed track from the inner detector with one from the muon spectrometer [54], and are required to have p T > 20 GeV and |η| < 2.5.To reject misidentified muon candidates, primarily originating from pion and kaon decays, several quality requirements are imposed on the muon candidate.An isolation requirement based on ID tracks and topological clusters in the calorimeter is imposed, resulting in an efficiency of 90% (99%) for p T = 25 GeV (60 GeV).The overall efficiency obtained for muons from W-boson decays in simulated tt events is 96%.Like for electrons, correction factors are applied to simulated muons to account for the small differences between data and simulation.

Jet reconstruction in the calorimeter starts from topological clustering [55] of individual calorimeter cells calibrated to the electromagnetic energy scale.The anti-k t algorithm [56,57], with the radius parameter set to R = 0.4, is used to reconstruct the jets [58].These jets are then calibrated to the particle level by the application of a jet energy scale derived from simulation and in situ corrections based on √ s = 13 TeV data [59].Jets are required to have p T > 35 GeV in the region |η| < 4.5.To suppress jets arising from pile-up, a discriminant called the 'jet vertex tagger' (JVT) is constructed using a two-dimensional likelihood method [60].For jets with p T < 60 GeV and |η| < 2.5 a JVT requirement corresponding to a 92% efficiency, while rejecting 98% of jets from pile-up and noise, is imposed.To reject jets at high |η| originating from additional pp interactions, a forward jet vertex tagger (fJVT) requirement is applied [61].All jets with |η| > 2.5 are required to satisfy the requirements of the fJVT 'medium' working point.This has an efficiency of selecting hard-scattered jets of up to 97% and a pile-up-jet efficiency of 53% for jets with a p T of 40 GeV.

To identify jets containing a b-hadron (b-jets), a multivariate algorithm is employed [62,63].It uses impact parameter and reconstructed secondary vertex information from tracks contained in the jet as input.A calibration in bins of p T is derived at four efficiency points.Each jet is assigned a score, depending on how many of the efficiency points are passed.Due to its use of the ID, the reconstruction of b-jets is restricted to the region |η| < 2.5.Candidate b-jets must have a b-tagging discriminant value that exceeds a threshold such that a 70% b-jet selection efficiency is achieved in simulated tt events.With this criterion, the misidentification rate for light-jets, i.e. jets containing neither a bnor a c-hadron, is 0.3%, while it is 11% for jets initiated by c-quarks.Correction factors are derived and applied to correct for differences in b-jet selection efficiency and the mistagging rates between data and MC simulation [62,64,65].

The missing transverse momentum, with magnitude E miss T , is calculated as the negative of the vector sum of the transverse momenta of all reconstructed objects.To account for the soft hadronic activity, a term including tracks associated with the primary vertex but not with any of the reconstructed objects is added to the E miss T calculation [66].

To avoid cases where the detector response to a single physical object is reconstructed as two separate final-state objects, an overlap removal procedure is used.If electron and muon candidates share a track, the electron candidate is removed.After that, if the ∆R y,φ distance2 between a jet and an electron candidate is less than 0.2, the jet is discarded.If multiple jets satisfy this requirement, only the closest jet is removed.For jet-electron distances between 0.2 and 0.4, the electron candidate is removed.If the distance between a jet and a muon candidate is less than 0.4, the muon candidate is removed if the jet has more than two associated tracks, otherwise the jet is removed.

Signal and control regions

The tZq final state used for this measurement comprises three charged leptons (electrons or muons), missing transverse momentum, one b-jet from the top-quark decay and an additional jet that does not satisfy the b-tagging requirement (untagged jet) and is expected to be emitted at high |η|.A second untagged jet is allowed in order to include events with QCD radiation.To help separate the tZq signal from the four largest backgrounds (ttZ, diboson, Z + jets and tt events), both the Z-boson and the top-quark invariant masses are reconstructed.

The data are divided into eight non-overlapping regions: two signal regions (SR) designed to select tZq events and six control regions (CR) designed to enhance the selection of the three main sources of background events.The CRs are used to adjust the normalisation and reduce the associated systematic uncertainties in the main backgrounds.

These SRs and CRs are included in a binned maximum-likelihood fit that is performed to measure the signal cross-section.In the fit, the normalisation of the signal and the tt (including tW) and Z + jets backgrounds is unconstrained, while the other backgrounds are constrained to be close to their SM prediction (see Section 8).

Table 1 summarises the selection criteria applied across all the regions considered.Leptons and jets have to satisfy the requirements discussed in Section 4 and one of the leptons is required to have p T > 28 GeV, because of the trigger thresholds, and match, with ∆R < 0.15, the lepton reconstructed by the trigger.The nomenclature njmb is used to denote the regions, where n is the total number of jets, of which m are b-tagged.

The SRs require an opposite-sign, same-flavour (OSSF) lepton pair to reconstruct the Z boson.In the µee and eµµ channels the pair is uniquely identified, whereas in the eee and µµµ channels both of the possible combinations are considered and the pair with the invariant mass closer to the Z-boson mass is chosen.

Background estimation

Two classes of backgrounds are considered: processes in which three or more prompt leptons are produced, such as diboson production or the associated production of a top-quark pair and a boson (W, Z or H); and processes with only two prompt leptons in the final state (such as Z + jets, tt and tW production) and one additional non-prompt or fake lepton that satisfies the selection criteria.Such non-prompt or fake leptons can originate from decays of bottom or charm hadrons, from jets misidentified as electrons, leptons from kaon or pion decays, or electrons from photon conversions.

After applying the SR event selection, diboson, ttZ, Z + jets and tt production constitute the largest backgrounds.For the SR 2j1b, the dominant background source is diboson production, mainly WZ events.Monte Carlo simulation indicates that these represent 50% of the total number of selected background events in this region, while the second largest backgrounds, ttZ and tWZ amount to 32%.Non-prompt-lepton backgrounds are predicted to contribute up to 14% of the events.In the SR 3j1b, ttZ is the dominant Table 1: Overview of the requirements applied when selecting events in the signal and control regions.OSSF is an opposite-sign same-flavour lepton pair.OSDF is an opposite-sign different-flavour lepton pair.The ttZ and tWZ backgrounds are combined, as are tt and tW, due to their similar production mechanisms and kinematic properties.The ttW and ttH contributions are also combined, since both are very small.

Common selections

All background contributions involving prompt leptons are estimated by using MC samples that are normalised to their respective SM predicted cross-sections calculated at NLO in QCD.The cross-section of the ttH background includes NLO+NLL soft-gluon resummation [68].

When estimating the number of non-prompt-lepton background events, using MC samples is not reliable because the simulation does not reproduce the data when trying to model non-prompt-and fake-lepton contributions.Additionally, the MC samples for these processes do not have enough events after applying the SR event selection.Generator-level studies have shown that for tt events4 and Z + jets events passing the event selection, the additional non-prompt lepton usually originates from a charm-or bottom-hadron decay, with a smaller contribution from other sources, such as photon conversions in the case of non-prompt electrons.

The method used to estimate the shape of kinematic distributions for non-prompt-lepton backgrounds with high statistical precision relies on MC samples enriched in events with semileptonic b-jet decays.To compute the tt and Z + jets yields, these distributions are then normalised to data.Generated events are used for tt and Z + jets independently, with a preselection of two leptons instead of three leptons and two b-jets.

One of the two b-jets, which is selected at random, is replaced by a lepton.The energy and polar angle of the replacement lepton, relative to the direction of the b-jet momentum, are derived from a generator-level study of the polar-angle distribution versus lepton energy in the rest frame of the b-hadron, which is assumed to carry the b-jet energy.The azimuthal angle is generated uniformly around the b-jet direction.

The lepton four-momenta are transformed to the laboratory frame using the b-jet four-momenta.

If the b-jet is within a cone of ∆R = 0.4 around the lepton, the b-jet is removed.In the other events the b-jet is kept and the event will ultimately not satisfy the common selection, as it contains two b-jets.

The distributions of kinematic variables from the resulting sample are compared with those from the tt and Z + jets MC samples, applying the common selection, and are found to agree within statistical uncertainties.

Multivariate analysis

To improve the separation between signal and background, a neural network (NN) is used to derive a discriminant that takes correlations among the input variables into account.The package NeuroBayes [69, 70] is used, which combines a three-layer feed-forward NN with a complex, robust preprocessing that orders the input variables by their separation power [71].The first layer of the network consists of one input node for each input variable plus one bias node.The second layer can have an arbitrary, user-defined, number of hidden nodes.There is one output node that gives a continuous value in the interval [−1, 1].The NN uses Bayesian regularisation during the training process to improve its performance and stability, and to avoid overtraining.All background processes are considered in the training and are weighted according to the expected number of events in each SR.

Only variables that provide good separation and are well modelled are used in the final NN.A separate network is trained for each of the SRs, with each NN starting with the same input variables and 25 hidden nodes.The 15 input variables that give the best separation according to NeuroBayes are used for the final NN training.The full list of the variables used for the NN training is shown in Table 2.The untagged jet is denoted j f .When two untagged jets are selected, j f (j r ) refers to the one for which the invariant mass of this untagged jet and the b-tagged jet is the largest (smallest).

Variables related to the reconstructed Z boson help to reduce the tt background, while top-quark-related quantities are useful in separating the signal from processes such as WZ and Z + jets, in which no top quark is produced.For the signal, the untagged jet comes from the spectator quark in the hard-scattering process and thus tends to have higher |η|, helping the NN provide better separation from diboson and ttZ background events.The invariant mass of an untagged jet and b-jet, m bj f , is also used as a discriminating variable for selecting signal over background.

In terms of the separation power, the four highest-ranked variables for the two SRs are the same.The highest-ranked variable is m bj f .The m bj f is higher for topologies with a forward jet, because of the large angular separation between the forward jet and the central b-jet.The other three variables are the Table 2: Variables used as input to the neural network in SR 2j1b and SR 3j1b.The ranking of the variables in each of the SRs is given in the 2 nd and 3 rd columns, respectively.The untagged jet is denoted j f .When two untagged jets are selected, j f (j r ) refers to the one for which the invariant mass of this untagged jet and the b-tagged jet is the largest (smallest).The b-tagging score indicates whether the b-jet would also satisfy a tighter b-tagging requirement corresponding to a working point with an efficiency of 60% instead of 70%.

Variable

Rank Definition SR 2j1b SR 3j1b The post-fit distributions of the three variables with the highest discrimination power are shown in Figure 2 for the two SRs.Good agreement between data and prediction is observed.
m bj f 1 1 (Largest) invariant

Systematic uncertainties

Systematic uncertainties in the signal acceptance and in the normalisation of the individual backgrounds, as well as uncertainties in the shape of the fitted distributions, are taken into account.These are treated as correlated between the different regions, unless stated otherwise.The uncertainties can be classified into the following categories:

The transverse mass is calculated using the momentum of the lepton associated with the W boson, E miss         Reconstruction efficiency and calibration uncertainties: Systematic uncertainties affecting the reconstruction efficiency and energy calibration of electrons, muons and jets are propagated through the analysis, each contributing at the percent level to the pre-fit signal and background uncertainties.

ATLAS

ATLAS

The differences between the electron (muon) trigger, reconstruction and selection efficiencies in data and those in MC simulation are corrected for by scale factors derived from dedicated Z → e + e − (Z → µ + µ − ) enriched control samples using a tag-and-probe method [53,54].

The jet energy scale (JES) was derived using information from test-beam data, LHC collision data and simulation, as described in Ref. [59].The fractional JES uncertainty decreases with the p T of the reconstructed jet and is rather stable in η.It has various components according to the factors it accounts for and the different steps used to compute it.The impact of the uncertainty in the jet energy resolution is also evaluated.

Since this measurement makes use of the b-tagging algorithm, the b-tagging efficiency and mistagging rate uncertainties are taken into account.The b-tagging efficiencies and mistagging rate are measured in data using the same methods as described in Refs.[62,64,65], with the systematic uncertainties due to b-tagging efficiency and the mistagging rates calculated separately.The impact of the uncertainties on the b-tagging calibration is evaluated separately for b-, cand light-jets in the MC samples.For the signal MC simulation, the effects of the systematic uncertainty in the renormalisation and factorisation scales, which are set equal to each other, and in the amount of additional radiation are calculated simultaneously and are referred to as 'tZq QCD radiation'.This is done by increasing the scales by a factor of two and using the 'Var3cDown' parameter of the A14 tune, and by decreasing the scales by a factor of 0.5 combined with the A14 tune using 'Var3cUp' [23].The PDF uncertainty in the signal MC prediction is also taken into account by calculating the RMS of the 100 replicas of the NNPDF30_ _ _0118_ _4 PDF set following the PDF4LHC prescription [24].The PDF uncertainty shape variations are very small and are therefore neglected.

The uncertainty in E miss

The effect of changing the MC generator for tt events is included as the tt NLO matching systematic uncertainty by taking the difference between the P -B and M G 5_aMC@NLO predictions.The impact of changing the parton shower and hadronisation model is evaluated by comparing samples generated with P -B interfaced with either P 8 or H 7, as described in Ref. [72].Systematic uncertainties related to the scale and additional radiation are also included using the samples described in Section 3.

The effect of changing the MC generator for ttZ events is included as the ttZ modelling systematic uncertainty by taking the difference between the M G 5_aMC@NLO and S predictions.

Uncertainties related to the choice of renormalisation and factorisation scales, as well as initial-state radiation are also included.

The uncertainty associated with the modelling of diboson events is assessed by comparing the predictions of the S and P -B generators.This uncertainty is treated as uncorrelated for the VV + LF and VV + HF components.

To account for the possible differences in the distribution shape of Z + jets events originating from sources other than semileptonic b-decays, a systematic uncertainty in the shape of the Z + jets distribution is applied.The systematic uncertainty is constructed by comparing the distribution shapes of MC events from different sources separated according to the origin of the fake lepton in the event (e.g.heavy-flavour decay, photon conversion, etc.).This is not used for tt since the non-prompt-lepton contributions in CRs and SRs have the same composition and are fully dominated by semileptonic b-decays.

Background rate uncertainty: For ttZ production, a cross-section uncertainty of 12% is used [73].For VV + LF production, the normalisation uncertainty is taken to be 20% [74].The uncertainty for VV + HF production is 30% [75].The diboson production uncertainties are taken to be uncorrelated.In addition, modelling uncertainties are also used in the fit, as mentioned above.For ttW and ttH a 15% systematic uncertainty in the normalisation is used.

For the backgrounds that are unconstrained in the fit (Z + jets and tt), an additional normalisation uncertainty of 15% for Z + jets and 7% for tt, uncorrelated for each region, is included to allow for differences between the regions.These values correspond to the largest statistical uncertainty in the predicted yields for the Z + jets and tt MC samples in the SRs and the relevant CRs.

Luminosity:

The uncertainty in the combined 2015-2018 integrated luminosity is 1.7% [76], obtained using the LUCID-2 detector [77] for the primary luminosity measurements.

Uncertainty in pile-up modelling:

The uncertainty in pile-up modelling is accounted for by varying the reweighting of the MC samples to the data pile-up conditions.

Results

A simultaneous binned maximum-likelihood fit of the SRs and CRs is performed using MC distributions for both the signal and background predictions.The templates are binned distributions of the NN output (O NN ) for the SRs and ttZ CRs; m T ( , E miss T ) for the diboson CR, to provide separation between diboson and Z + jets events in this region; and the total event yield in the tt CRs.For the ttZ CR templates, the NN trained in a given SR is evaluated on the events selected in the corresponding CR.In this case, the top-quark reconstruction is performed using the reconstructed W boson and b-jet combination that has the invariant mass closest to m t .To measure the tZq cross-section the normalisation of the signal template is extracted from the fit.

Nuisance parameters are included in the fit to account for each systematic variation described in Section 8.When variations of the shape of the distributions are not statistically significant, only the effect on the normalisation is taken into account in the assessment of the systematic uncertainty.To quantify the  statistical significance of the fit and its resulting power to reject the background-only hypothesis, a test statistic is constructed using a profile likelihood ratio.

Figures 3 and 4 show the comparison between data and post-fit background and signal distributions, in the SRs and CRs, respectively.The numbers of fitted signal and background events compared with the data are shown in Table 3.The normalisation of the unconstrained fit parameters agrees with the SM predictions.Validation regions are defined to further check the level of agreement between data and simulation.Details are given in Appendix A.

The results of the fit yield a tZq production cross-section, including non-resonant dilepton pairs with m + − > 30 GeV, of 97 ± 13 (stat.)± 7 (syst.)fb, assuming m t = 172.5 GeV, corresponding to a total uncertainty of ±14%.The SM cross-section for this process is 102 +5 −2 fb.The statistical uncertainty of 13% in the measurement, which is dominant for this result, is obtained by performing the fit after fixing all nuisance parameters to their post-fit values.The systematic uncertainty is computed by subtracting in quadrature the statistical component of the uncertainty from the total.The impact of the systematic uncertainties on the tZq cross-section, broken down into major categories, is summarised in Table 4.

The statistical significance of obtaining a signal at least as large as that observed in the data if no signal were present is calculated using the test statistic in the asymptotic approximation [78].Both the expected and observed significances are well above five standard deviations.

The distributions of the reconstructed p T of the top quark and of the Z boson in the SR 2j1b for events with high O NN score (O NN > 0.4) are shown in Figure 5. Good agreement is observed between data and the prediction.5: Comparison between data and prediction ('Pred.')after the fit to data ('Post-Fit') under the signal-plusbackground hypothesis for the reconstructed p T of (a) the top quark and (b) the Z boson in the SR 2j1b, for events with O NN > 0.4.The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties as obtained by the fit.The rightmost bin includes overflow events.The lower panels show the ratios of the data to the prediction.

ATLAS

Conclusion

The cross-section for tZq production, including non-resonant dilepton pairs with m + − > 30 GeV, is measured.The analysis uses 139 fb −1  of proton-proton collision data collected by the ATLAS experiment at the LHC between 2015 and 2018 at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV.The measured cross-section is 97 ± 13 (stat.)± 7 (syst.)fb, assuming a top-quark mass of 172.5 GeV, corresponding to a total uncertainty of ±14%.This result is in good agreement with the SM prediction of 102 +5 −2 fb.[  [64] ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of b-tagging efficiency of c-jets in t t events using a likelihood approach with the ATLAS detector, ATLAS-CONF-2018-001, 2018, : https://cds.cern.ch/record/2306649.

Figure 1 :
1
Figure 1: Example Feynman diagrams of the lowest-order amplitudes for the tZq process with an on-shell Z boson.In the four-flavour scheme, the b-quark originates from gluon splitting.In diagram (a) the Z boson is radiated from the top quark, while in diagram (b) the Z boson is radiated from the t-channel W-boson propagator.

The dilepton invariant mass requirement is |m − m Z | < 10 GeV.The remaining lepton and the E miss T are used to reconstruct the leptonically decaying W boson.3 The four-momenta of the reconstructed W boson and the b-jet are summed to reconstruct the top quark.The diboson CRs use the same event selection as each of the SRs but a b-tag veto is applied.The CRs for ttZ are the same as the SRs except for the addition of another b-jet.The CRs for tt are the same as the SRs except for the requirement of no OSSF lepton pair and at least one opposite-sign, different-flavour (OSDF) lepton pair.

Exactly 3
3

4 4
4
mass of the b-jet and the untagged jet(s) the η of the j f jet m T ( , E miss T ) Transverse mass of the W boson b-tagging score 5 11 b-tagging score of the b-jet H T 6 -Scalar sum of the p T of the leptons and jets in the event q( W ) 7 8 Electric charge of the lepton from the W-boson decay η( W ) 8 12 Absolute value of the η of the lepton from the W-boson decay p T (W) 9 15 p T of the reconstructed W boson p T ( W ) 10 14 p T of the lepton from the W-boson decay m( ) 11 -Mass of the reconstructed Z boson |η(Z)| 12 13 Absolute value of the η of the reconstructed Z boson ∆R(j f , Z) 13 7 ∆R between the j f jet and the reconstructed Z boson E the η of the j r jet p T (Z) -6 p T of the reconstructed Z boson p T (j r ) -9 p T of the j r jet reconstructed top-quark mass, the absolute value of the untagged j f jet pseudorapidity, and the transverse mass of the W boson.5

T 1 −
1

Figure 2 :
2
Figure 2: Comparison between data and prediction ('Pred.')for the three most discriminating NN input variables after the fit to data ('Post-Fit') under the signal-plus-background hypothesis.The variables displayed are: (a) and (d) the invariant mass of the b-jet and the untagged jet, (b) and (e) the mass of the reconstructed top quark, and (c) and (f) the absolute value of the η of the j f jet, shown in the SR 2j1b (top row) and SR 3j1b (bottom row).The jet denoted j f is the untagged jet for which the invariant mass of this untagged jet and the b-tagged jet is the largest.The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties as obtained by the fit.The rightmost bin includes overflow events.The lower panels show the ratios of the data to the prediction.The open triangles indicate points that are outside the vertical range of the figure.

T

due to a possible miscalibration of the soft-track component of the E miss T is derived from data-MC comparisons of the p T balance between the hard and soft E miss T components[66].The uncertainty associated with the leptons and jets is propagated from the corresponding uncertainties in the energy/momentum scales and resolutions, and is classified together with the uncertainty associated with the corresponding objects.Signal and background modelling:The systematic uncertainties due to MC modelling of the signal and the tt and ttZ backgrounds are estimated by comparing different MC generators and by varying the parameters associated with the renormalisation and factorisation scales, and additional radiation.

Figure 3 :
3
Figure 3: Comparison between data and prediction ('Pred.')after the fit to data ('Post-Fit') under the signal-plusbackground hypothesis for the fitted distributions of the neural network output O NN in the SRs (a) 2j1b and (b) 3j1b.The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties as obtained by the fit.The lower panels show the ratios of the data to the prediction.

Figure 4 :
4
Figure 4: Comparison between data and prediction ('Pred.')after the fit to data ('Post-Fit') under the signal-plusbackground hypothesis for the fitted distributions in the CRs.The fitted distributions are: (a) and (d) the m T ( , E miss T ) distribution in the diboson CRs, (b) and (e) the event yields in the tt CRs, and (c) and (f) the O NN distribution in the ttZ CRs.The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties as obtained by the fit.The lower panels show the ratios of the data to the prediction.

Figure 6 :
6
Figure 6: Comparison between data and prediction ('Pred.')after the fit to data ('Post-Fit') under the signal-plusbackground hypothesis for the O NN distributions in the VRs (a) diboson 2j1Lb, (b) diboson 3j1Lb, (c) tt + ttV 2j1b and (d) tt + ttV 3j1b.The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties as obtained by the fit.The lower panels show the ratios of the data to the prediction.The open triangles indicate points that are outside the vertical range of the figure.

[ 56 ]
56

[ 63 ]
63
ATLAS Collaboration, Optimisation and performance studies of the ATLAS b-tagging algorithms for the 2017-18 LHC run, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2017-013, 2017, : https://cds.cern.ch/record/2273281.

[ 65 ]= 7
657

Table 3 :
3
Predicted and observed yields in each of the analysis regions considered.The signal and background predictions are shown after the fit to data.The quoted uncertainties include the statistical and systematic uncertainties of the yields, computed taking into account correlations among nuisance parameters and among processes.
SR 2j1bCR diboson 2j0bCR tt 2j1bCR ttZ 3j2btZq tt + tW Z + jets79 ± 11 23.8 ± 4.8 28 ± 1353.1 ± 7.5 13.7 ± 2.7 181 ± 820.2 ± 0.1 33.3 ± 6.3 < 0.112.9 ± 2.0 1.7 ± 0.3 1.4 ± 0.6VV + LF19.7 ± 7.9 2000 ± 100< 0.10.1 ± 0.1VV + HF ttZ + tWZ ttH + ttW101 ± 22 96 ± 11 6.5 ± 1.0383 ± 78 63.2 ± 7.0 3.0 ± 0.50.4 ± 0.1 4.8 ± 0.5 12.4 ± 1.95.2 ± 1.7 59.3 ± 7.1 2.8 ± 0.5Total354 ± 162697 ± 5651.1 ± 6.183.5 ± 6.4Data35927034992SR 3j1bCR diboson 3j0bCR tt 3j1bCR ttZ 4j2btZq tt + tW Z + jets43.4 ± 6.2 11.0 ± 2.2 12.8 ± 6.021.2 ± 3.3 6.9 ± 1.3 53 ± 230.2 ± 0.1 15.4 ± 3.1 < 0.18.0 ± 1.3 1.0 ± 0.2 0.4 ± 0.2VV + LF10.1 ± 4.2624 ± 53< 0.10.1 ± 0.1VV + HF ttZ + tWZ ttH + ttW58 ± 17 132 ± 12 4.7 ± 0.7186 ± 51 61.9 ± 6.2 1.7 ± 0.30.3 ± 0.1 3.9 ± 0.5 8.2 ± 1.33.4 ± 1.0 58.1 ± 5.3 2.0 ± 0.3Total272 ± 12955 ± 2928.0 ± 3.072.8 ± 5.0Data2599493175

Table 4 :
4
Impact of systematic uncertainties on the tZq cross-section, broken down into major categories.For each category the impact is calculated by performing a fit where the nuisance parameters in the group are fixed to their best-fit values, and then subtracting the resulting uncertainty in the parameter of interest in quadrature from the uncertainty from the nominal fit.For simplicity, the impact is given as the average of the up and down variations.Details of the systematic uncertainties are provided in the text.MC statistics refers to the effect of the limited size of the MC samples.The total systematic uncertainty is a bit larger than the quadratic sum of the individual contributions due to correlations.
Uncertainty source∆σ/σ [%]Prompt-lepton background modelling and normalisation3.3Jets and E miss Treconstruction and calibration2.0Lepton reconstruction and calibration2.0Luminosity1.7Non-prompt-lepton background modelling1.6Pile-up modelling1.2MC statistics tZq modelling (QCD radiation) tZq modelling (PDF)1.0 0.8 0.7Jet flavour tagging0.4Total systematic uncertainty7.0Data statistical tt and Z + jets normalisation12.6 2.1Total statistical uncertainty12.9

∆R y,φ is the Lorentz-invariant distance in the rapidity-azimuthal-angle plane, defined as ∆R y,φ = (∆y) 2 + (∆φ) 2 .
The longitudinal component of the neutrino four-momentum is obtained by using the mass constraint of the W boson. The twofold ambiguity is resolved by choosing the solution with the smaller |p ν z |, since the W boson is expected to be produced with small pseudorapidity [67].
This is also valid for the very small number of tW events. The same method of estimating their contribution is used for both processes.
AcknowledgementsWe thank CERN for the very successful operation of the LHC, as well as the support staff from our institutions without whom ATLAS could not be operated efficiently.We acknowledge the support of ANPCyT, Argentina; YerPhI, Armenia; ARC, Australia; BMWFW and FWF, Austria; ANAS, Azerbaijan; SSTC, Belarus; 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 and DNSRC, Denmark; IN2P3-CNRS and CEA-DRF/IRFU, France; SRNSFG, Georgia; BMBF, HGF and MPG, Germany; GSRT, Greece; RGC and Hong Kong SAR, China; ISF and Benoziyo Center, Israel; INFN, Italy; MEXT and JSPS, Japan; CNRST, Morocco; NWO, Netherlands; RCN, Norway; MNiSW and NCN, Poland; FCT, Portugal; MNE/IFA, Romania; MES of Russia and NRC KI, Russia Federation; JINR; MESTD, Serbia; MSSR, Slovakia; ARRS and MIZŠ, Slovenia; DST/NRF, South Africa; MINECO, Spain; SRC and Wallenberg Foundation, Sweden; SERI, SNSF and Cantons of Bern and Geneva, Switzerland; MOST, Taiwan; TAEK, Turkey; STFC, United Kingdom; DOE and NSF, United States of America.In addition, individual groups and members have received support from BCKDF, CANARIE, Compute Canada and CRC, Canada; ERC, ERDF, Horizon 2020, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions and COST, European Union; Investissements d'Avenir Labex, Investissements d'Avenir Idex and ANR, France; DFG and AvH Foundation, Germany; Herakleitos, Thales and Aristeia programmes co-financed by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF, Greece; BSF-NSF and GIF, Israel; CERCA Programme Generalitat de Catalunya and PROMETEO Programme Generalitat Valenciana, Spain; Göran Gustafssons Stiftelse, Sweden; The Royal Society and Leverhulme Trust, United Kingdom.The crucial computing support from all WLCG partners is acknowledged gratefully, in particular from CERN, the ATLAS Tier-1 facilities at TRIUMF (Canada), NDGF (Denmark, Norway, Sweden), CC-IN2P3 (France), KIT/GridKA (Germany), INFN-CNAF (Italy), NL-T1 (Netherlands), PIC (Spain), ASGC (Taiwan), RAL (UK) and BNL (USA), the Tier-2 facilities worldwide and large non-WLCG resource providers.Major contributors of computing resources are listed in Ref. [79].AppendixA Validation regionsThe normalisation and modelling of the four main backgrounds are constrained using CRs.Additional diboson and tt +ttV validation regions (VRs) are used to confirm the goodness of the background modelling.These VRs are defined so as to be as close as possible to both the SRs and CRs.The diboson VRs are defined using the same selection as the SRs except that a 'loose' b-tag requirement is imposed that has a b-jet selection efficiency in the range 85%-70%.The tt + ttV VRs are defined using the same selection as the SRs except that the OSSF invariant mass requirement is inverted.The NN training from each SR is applied to the corresponding VRs.Distributions of the O NN in the various VRs are shown in Figure6.Any variables used in the NN training that are undefined in the VRs (e.g.due to missing jets) are replaced by a dummy value such that the variable is not used by NeuroBayes during the evaluation.This is also valid for the variables that have a different range compared to the one that was used in the training, such as the b-tagging score.Switzerland.
Measurement of the production cross-section of a single top quark in association with a Z boson in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector. 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.03.023arXiv:1710.03659Phys. Lett. B. 7805572018hep-ex

Observation of Single Top Quark Production in Association with a Z Boson in Proton-Proton Collisions at √ s = 13 TeV. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.132003arXiv:1812.05900Phys. Rev. Lett. 1221320032019hep-ex

Single-top associated production with a Z or H boson at the LHC: the SMEFT interpretation. C Degrande, F Maltoni, K Mimasu, E Vryonidou, C Zhang, 10.1007/JHEP10(2018)005arXiv:1804.07773JHEP. 1052018hep-ph

The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider. 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08003JINST. 3S080032008

Addendum: ATLAS-TDR-19-ADD-1ATLAS Insertable B-Layer Technical Design Report. 2010. 2012

Production and integration of the ATLAS Insertable B-Layer. B Abbott, 10.1088/1748-0221/13/05/T05008arXiv:1803.00844JINST. 13T050082018physics.ins-det

Performance of the ATLAS trigger system in 2015. 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4852-3arXiv:1611.09661Eur. Phys. J. C. 773172017hep-ex

arXiv:1911.04632ATLAS data quality operations and performance for 2015-2018 data-taking. 2019physics.ins-det

arXiv:1909.00761Performance of electron and photon triggers in ATLAS during LHC Run 2. 2019hep-ex

2015 start-up trigger menu and initial performance assessment of the ATLAS trigger using Run-2 data. ATL-DAQ-PUB-2016-0012016

ATL-DAQ-PUB-2017-001Trigger Menu in 2016. 2017

ATL-DAQ-PUB-2018-002Trigger Menu in 2017. 2018

ATL-DAQ-PUB-2019-001Trigger menu in 2018. 2019

G 4-a simulation toolkit. S Agostinelli, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A. 5062502003

The ATLAS Simulation Infrastructure. 10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1429-9arXiv:1005.4568Eur. Phys. J. C. 708232010physics.ins-det

A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1. T Sjöstrand, S Mrenna, P Z Skands, 10.1016/j.cpc.2008.01.036arXiv:0710.3820Comput. Phys. Commun. 1788522008hep-ph

ATL-PHYS-PUB-2016- 017The Pythia 8 A3 tune description of ATLAS minimum bias and inelastic measurements incorporating the Donnachie-Landshoff diffractive model. 2016

Parton distributions with LHC data. R D Ball, 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2012.10.003arXiv:1207.1303Nucl. Phys. B. 8672442013hep-ph

The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations. J Alwall, 10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079arXiv:1405.0301JHEP. 07792014hep-ph

Parton distributions for the LHC run II. R D Ball, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040arXiv:1410.8849JHEP. 04402015hep-ph

Single-top t-channel hadroproduction in the four-flavour scheme with POWHEG and aMC@NLO. R Frederix, E Re, P Torrielli, 10.1007/JHEP09(2012)130arXiv:1207.5391JHEP. 091302012hep-ph

An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2. T Sjöstrand, 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024arXiv:1410.3012Comput. Phys. Commun. 1911592015hep-ph

ATL-PHYS-PUB-2014-021ATLAS Pythia 8 tunes to 7 TeV data. 2014

PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II. J Butterworth, 10.1088/0954-3899/43/2/023001arXiv:1510.03865J. Phys. G. 43230012016hep-ph

A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms. P Nason, 10.1088/1126-6708/2004/11/040arXiv:hep-ph/0409146JHEP. 11402004

Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method. S Frixione, P Nason, C Oleari, 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070arXiv:0709.2092JHEP. 11702007hep-ph

A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX. S Alioli, P Nason, C Oleari, E Re, 10.1007/JHEP06(2010)043arXiv:1002.2581JHEP. 06432010hep-ph

A Positive-weight next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction. S Frixione, P Nason, G Ridolfi, 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/09/126arXiv:0707.3088JHEP. 091262007hep-ph

Higgs boson production in association with top quarks in the POWHEG BOX. H B Hartanto, B Jager, L Reina, D Wackeroth, 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.094003arXiv:1501.04498Phys. Rev. 91940032015hep-ph

ATL-PHYS-PUB- 2016-020Studies on top-quark Monte Carlo modelling for Top2016. 2016

Improvements in t t modelling using NLO+PS Monte Carlo generators for Run 2. ATL-PHYS-PUB-2018-0092018

ATL-PHYS-PUB-2017-007Studies on top-quark Monte Carlo modelling with Sherpa and MG5_aMC@NLO. 2017

Herwig++ physics and manual. M Bähr, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-008-0798-9arXiv:0803.0883Eur. Phys. J. C. 586392008hep-ph

Herwig 7.0/Herwig++ 3.0 release note. J Bellm, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4018-8arXiv:1512.01178Eur. Phys. J. C. 761962016hep-ph

Parton distributions in the LHC era: MMHT 2014 PDFs. L A Harland-Lang, A D Martin, P Motylinski, R S Thorne, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3397-6arXiv:1412.3989Eur. Phys. J. C. 752042015hep-ph

Event generation with SHERPA 1.1. T Gleisberg, 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/02/007arXiv:0811.4622JHEP. 0272009hep-ph

Single-top Wt-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method. E Re, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1547-zarXiv:1009.2450Eur. Phys. J. 7115472011hep-ph

Single-top hadroproduction in association with a W boson. S Frixione, E Laenen, P Motylinski, C White, B R Webber, 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/07/029arXiv:0805.3067JHEP. 07292008hep-ph

. F Demartin, B Maier, F Maltoni, K Mawatari, M Zaro, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4601-7arXiv:1607.05862Eur. Phys. J. C. 77342017tWH associated production at the LHC. hep-ph

Comix, a new matrix element generator. T Gleisberg, S Höche, 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/12/039arXiv:0808.3674JHEP. 12392008hep-ph

A parton shower algorithm based on Catani-Seymour dipole factorisation. S Schumann, F Krauss, 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/03/038arXiv:0709.1027JHEP. 03382008hep-ph

A critical appraisal of NLO+PS matching methods. S Höche, F Krauss, M Schönherr, F Siegert, 10.1007/JHEP09(2012)049arXiv:1111.1220JHEP. 09492012hep-ph

QCD matrix elements + parton showers. The NLO case. S Höche, F Krauss, M Schönherr, F Siegert, 10.1007/JHEP04(2013)027arXiv:1207.5030JHEP. 04272013hep-ph

. S Catani, F Krauss, B R Webber, R Kuhn, 10.1088/1126-6708/2001/11/063arXiv:hep-ph/0109231QCD Matrix Elements + Parton Showers. 11632001JHEP

QCD matrix elements and truncated showers. S Höche, F Krauss, S Schumann, F Siegert, 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/05/053arXiv:0903.1219JHEP. 05532009hep-ph

Scattering Amplitudes with Open Loops. F Cascioli, P Maierhöfer, S Pozzorini, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.111601arXiv:1111.5206Phys. Rev. Lett. 1081116012012hep-ph

C : A fortran-based complex one-loop library in extended regularizations. A Denner, S Dittmaier, L Hofer, 10.1016/j.cpc.2016.10.013arXiv:1604.06792Comput. Phys. Commun. 2122202017hep-ph

. P Nason, G Zanderighi, W + W − , W , Z , 10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2702-5arXiv:1311.1365Eur. Phys. J. POWHEG-BOX-V27427022014hep-ph

New parton distributions for collider physics. H.-L Lai, 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.074024arXiv:1007.2241Phys. Rev. D. 82740242010hep-ph

10.1007/JHEP09(2014)145arXiv:1406.3660Measurement of the Z/γ * boson transverse momentum distribution in pp collisions at √ s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector. 2014145hep-ex

New Generation of Parton Distributions with Uncertainties from Global QCD Analysis. J Pumplin, 10.1088/1126-6708/2002/07/012arXiv:hep-ph/0201195JHEP. 07122002

Vertex Reconstruction Performance of the ATLAS Detector at √ s = 13 TeV. ATL-PHYS-PUB-2015-0262015

Electron and photon performance measurements with the ATLAS detector using the 2015-2017 LHC proton-proton collision data. 10.1088/1748-0221/14/12/P12006arXiv:1908.00005JINST. 14P120062019hep-ex

Muon reconstruction performance of the ATLAS detector in proton-proton collision data at √ s = 13 TeV. 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4120-yarXiv:1603.05598Eur. Phys. J. C. 762922016hep-ex

Topological cell clustering in the ATLAS calorimeters and its performance in LHC Run 1. 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5004-5arXiv:1603.02934Eur. Phys. J. C. 774902017hep-ex

Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. Deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector. D De Florian, arXiv:1610.079222016hep-ph

Measurement of W ± Z production cross sections and gauge boson polarisation in pp collisions at √ s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector. 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7027-6arXiv:1902.05759Eur. Phys. J. C. 795352019hep-ex

Evidence for the H → b b decay with the ATLAS detector. 10.1007/JHEP12(2017)024arXiv:1708.03299JHEP. 12242017hep-ex

ATLAS-CONF-2019-021Luminosity determination in pp collisions at √ s = 13 TeV using the ATLAS detector at the LHC. 2019

The new LUCID-2 detector for luminosity measurement and monitoring in ATLAS. G Avoni, 10.1088/1748-0221/13/07/P07017JINST. 13P070172018

Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics. G Cowan, K Cranmer, E Gross, O Vitells, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2501-zarXiv:1007.1727Eur. Phys. J. C. 7125012011. 2013Eur. Phys. J. C

Gorini 68a,68b , A. Gorišek 92 , A.T. Goshaw 49 , M.I. Gostkin 80 , C.A. Gottardo 119 , M. Gouighri 35b , A.G. Goussiou 148 , N. Govender 33b , C. Goy 5 , E. Gozani 160 , I. Grabowska-Bold 84a , E.C. Graham 91 , J. Gramling 171 , E. Gramstad 134 , S. Grancagnolo 19 , M. Grandi 156 , V. Gratchev 138 , P.M. Gravila 27f , F.G. Gravili 68a,68b. ATL-GEN-PUB-2016-002Song 168b , A. Sopczak 142 , A.L. Sopio 95 , F. Sopkova 28b , C.L. Sotiropoulou 72a,72b , S. Sottocornola 71a,71b , R. Soualah 67a,67c,f , A.M. Soukharev 122b,122a , D. South 46 , S. Spagnolo 68a,68b , M. Spalla 115 , M. Spangenberg 178 , F. Spanò 94 , D. Sperlich 52 , T.M. Spieker 61a , G. Spigo. F Tsai 46, J , C-L Tseng, Sanchez Pineda 67a,36,67c , H. Sandaker30F. Ould-Saada 134 , A. Ouraou 145J. Veatch. Veloso 140a,140c , S. Veneziano 73a , A. Ventura 68a,68b , N. Venturi 36 , A. Verbytskyi 115 , V. Vercesi 71a , M. Verducci 72a,72b , C.M. Vergel Infante 79 , C. Vergis 24 , W. Verkerke 120 , A.T. Vermeulen 120 , J.C. Vermeulen 120 , M.C. Vetterli 152,aq , N. Viaux Maira 147c , M. Vicente Barreto Pinto 54 , T. Vickey 149 , O.E. Vickey Boeriu 149 , G.H.A. Viehhauser 135 , L. Vigani 61b , M. Villa 23b,23a , M. Villaplana Perez 3 , E. Vilucchi 51 , M.G. Vincter 34 , G.S. Virdee 21 , A. Vishwakarma 46 , C. Vittori 23b,23a , I. Vivarelli 156 , M. Vogel 182 , P. Vokac 142 , S.E. von Buddenbrock 33d , E. Von Toerne 24. N. Vranjes 16 , M. Vranjes Milosavljevic 16 , V. Vrba 142 , M. Vreeswijk 120 , R. Vuillermet 36 , I. Vukotic 37 , P. Wagner 24 , W. Wagner 182 , J. Wagner-Kuhr 114 , S. Wahdan 182 , H. Wahlberg 89 , V.M. Walbrecht 115 , J. Walder 90 , R. Walker 114 , S.D. Walker 94 , W. Walkowiak 151 , V. Wallangen 45a,45b , A.M. Wang 59 , A.Z. Wang 181 , C. Wang 60c , F. Wang 181 , H. Wang 18 , H. Wang 3 , J. Wang 63a , J. Wang 61b , P. Wang 42 , Q. Wang 129 , R.-J. Wang 100 , R. Wang 60a , R. Wang 6 , S.M. Wang 158 , W.T. Wang 60a , W. Wang 15c , W.X. Wang 60a , Y. Wang 60a , Z. Wang 60c , C. Wanotayaroj 46 , A. Warburton 104 , C.P. Ward 32 , D.R. Wardrope 95 , N. Warrack 57 , A. Washbrook 50 , A.T. Watson 21 , M.F. Watson 21 , G. Watts 148 , B.M. Waugh 95 , A.F. Webb 11 , S. Webb 100 , C. Weber 183 , M.S. Weber 20 , S.A. Weber 34 , S.M. Weber 61a , A.R. Weidberg 135 , J. Weingarten 47 , M. Weirich 100 , C. Weiser 52 , P.S. Wells 36 , T. Wenaus 29 , T. Wengler 36 , S. Wenig 36 , N. Wermes 24 , M.D. Werner 79 , M. Wessels 61a , T.D. Weston 20 , K. Whalen 132 , N.L. Whallon 148 , A.M. Wharton 90 , A.S. White 106 , A. White 8 , M.J. White 1 , D. Whiteson 171 , B.W. Whitmore 90 , W. Wiedenmann 181 , C. Wiel 48 , M. Wielers 144 , N. Wieseotte 100 , C. Wiglesworth 40 , L.A.M. Wiik-Fuchs 52 , H.G. Wilkens 36 , L.J. Wilkins 94 , H.H. Williams 137 , S. Williams 32 , C. Willis 107 , S. Willocq 103 , I. Wingerter-Seez 5 , E. Winkels 156 , F. Winklmeier 132 , O.J. Winston 156 , B.T. Winter 52 , M. Wittgen 153 , M. Wobisch 96 , A. Wolf 100 , T.M.H. Wolf 120 , R. Wolff 102 , R.W. Wölker 135 , J. Wollrath 52 , M.W. Wolter 85 , H. Wolters 140a,140c , V.W.S. Wong 175 , N.L. Woods 146 , S.D. Worm 21 , B.K. Wosiek 85 , K.W. Woźniak 85 , K. Wraight 57 , S.L. Wu 181 , X. Wu 54 , Y. Wu 60a , T.R. Wyatt 101 , B.M. Wynne 50 , S. Xella 40 , Z. Xi 106 , L. Xia 178 , X. Xiao 106 , I. Xiotidis 156 , D. Xu 15a , H. Xu 60a , H. Xu 60a , L. Xu 29 , T. Xu 145 , W. Xu 106 , Z. Xu 60b , Z. Xu 153 , B. Yabsley 157 , S. Yacoob 33a , K. Yajima 133 , D.P. Yallup 95 , N. Yamaguchi 88 , Y. Yamaguchi 165 , A. Yamamoto 82 , M. Yamatani 163 , T. Yamazaki 163 , Y. Yamazaki 83 , Z. Yan 25 , H.J. Yang 60c,60d , H.T. Yang 18 , S. Yang 60a , T. Yang 63c , X. Yang 60b,58 , Y. Yang 163 , W-M. Yao 18 , Y.C. Yap 46 , Y. Yasu 82 , E. Yatsenko 60c,60d , H. Ye 15c , J. Ye 42 , S. Ye 29 , I. Yeletskikh 80 , M.R. Yexley 90 , E. Yigitbasi 25 , K. Yorita 179 , K. Yoshihara 137 , C.J.S. Young 36 , C. Young 153 , J. Yu 79 , R. Yuan 60b,h , X. Yue 61a , M. Zaazoua 35e , B. Zabinski 85 , G. Zacharis 10 , E. Zaffaroni 54 , J. Zahreddine 136 , A.M. Zaitsev 123,aj , T. Zakareishvili 159b , N. Zakharchuk 34 , S. Zambito 59 , D. Zanzi 36 , D.R. Zaripovas 57 , S.V. Zeißner 47 , C. Zeitnitz 182 , G. Zemaityte 135 , J.C. Zeng 173 , O. Zenin 123 , T. Ženiš 28a , D. Zerwas 65 , M. Zgubič 135 , B. Zhang 15c , D.F. Zhang 15b , G. Zhang 15b , H. Zhang 15c , J. Zhang 6 , L. Zhang 15c , L. Zhang 60a , M. Zhang 173 , R. Zhang 181 , S. Zhang 106 , X. Zhang 60b , Y. Zhang 15a,15d , Z. Zhang 63a , Z. Zhang 65 , P. Zhao 49 , Z. Zhao 60a , A. Zhemchugov 80 , Z. Zheng 106 , D. Zhong 173 , B. Zhou 106 , C. Zhou 181 , M.S. Zhou 15a,15d , M. Zhou 155 , N. Zhou 60c , Y. Zhou 7 , C.G. Zhu 60b , C. Zhu 15a,15d , H.L. Zhu 60a , H. Zhu 15a , J. Zhu 106 , Y. Zhu 60a , X. Zhuang 15a , K. Zhukov 111 , V. Zhulanov 122b,122a , D. Zieminska 66 , N.I. Zimine 80 , S. Zimmermann 52 , Z. Zinonos 115 , M. Ziolkowski 151 , L. Živković 16 , G. Zobernig 181 , A. Zoccoli 23b,23a , K. Zoch 53 , T.G. Zorbas 149 , R. Zou 37 , L. Zwalinski 36

. Physics Department. SUNY Albany, Albany NY; United States of America

. Physics, TOBB University of Economics and Technology.

. Spain, 15Belgrade; SerbiaInstitute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing; (b) Physics Department, Tsinghua University, Beijing; (c) Department of Physics, Nanjing University, Nanjing; (d) University of Chinese Academy of Science (UCAS), Beijing; China. 16 Institute of Physics, University of Belgrade

. Physics Division. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and University of California

. United States of America.

Colombia. 23(a) INFN Bologna and Universita' di Bologna. BogotaItalyFacultad de Ciencias y Centro de Investigaciónes, Universidad Antonio NariñoDipartimento di Fisica; (b) INFN Sezione di Bologna

. Physics Department. 27Physikalisches Institut, Universität Bonn, Bonn; Germany. 25 Department of Physics, Boston University, Boston MA; United States of America. 26 Department of Physics, Brandeis University, Waltham MA; United States of America ; Transilvania University of Brasov, Brasov; (b) Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest; (c) Department of Physics, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi, Iasi; (d) National Institute for Research and Development of Isotopic and Molecular Technologies ; (e) University Politehnica Bucharest, Bucharest; ( f ) West University in Timisoara

. Physics and Informatics. 28Comenius University, Bratislava; (b) Department ofRomania

. Subnuclear Physics, Institute of Experimental Physics of the Slovak Academy of Sciences.

. Université Lpc, Clermont Auvergne, CNRS/IN2P3, Clermont-Ferrand

. France ,

. Dipartimento Di, Fisica , Università della Calabria, Rende; (b) INFN Gruppo Collegato di Cosenza, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati; Italy

United States of America. 44 National Centre for Scientific Research "Demokritos. Richardson TX; Agia Paraskevi; GreecePhysics Department, University of Texas at Dallas

. Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY.

. Physikalisches Institut, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, GermanyFreiburg

. Physikalisches Institut. GermanyGeorg-August-Universität Göttingen

Switzerland. 55(a) Dipartimento di Fisica. GenèveDépartement de Physique Nucléaire et Corpusculaire, Université de Genève ; Università di Genova, Genova; (b) INFN Sezione di Genova; Italy

. Physikalisches Institut. GermanyJustus-Liebig-Universität Giessen

60(a) Department of Modern Physics and State Key Laboratory of Particle Detection and Electronics. Université Lpsc, Grenoble Alpes, Cnrs/In2p3, Inp Grenoble, ; Grenoble, France, Shanghai; China59 Laboratory for Particle Physics and Cosmology, Harvard University, Cambridge MA; United States of America ; University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei; (b) Institute of Frontier and Interdisciplinary Science and Key Laboratory of Particle Physics and Particle Irradiation (MOE), Shandong University, Qingdao; (c) School of Physics and Astronomy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, KLPPAC-MoE, SKLPPC, Shanghai; (d) Tsung-Dao Lee Institute

. Kirchhoff-Institut Für Physik, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg; (b) Physikalisches

62 Faculty of Applied Information Science. Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Institut, Heidelberg, ; Heidelberg, N T Germany ; Shatin, Hong Kong, Clear Water Bay. TaiwanHiroshima Institute of Technology, Hiroshima; Japan. 63(a) Department of Physics, Chinese University of Hong Kong ; b) Department of Physics, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; (c) Department of Physics and Institute for Advanced Study, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology ; 64 Department of Physics, National Tsing Hua University

Université Ijclab, Paris-Saclay, CNRS/IN2P3, 91405, Orsay; France. 66 Department of Physics. Indiana University, Bloomington IN; United States of America

(a) INFN Sezione di Lecce; (b) Dipartimento di Matematica e Fisica. Italy. 69Udine; Lecce; Milano; ItalyINFN Gruppo Collegato di Udine, Sezione di Trieste, Udine; (b) ICTP, Trieste; (c) Dipartimento Politecnico di Ingegneria e Architettura, Università di Udine ; Università del Salento ; Università di Milano(a) INFN Sezione di Milano; (b) Dipartimento di Fisica

(a) INFN Sezione di Roma Tor Vergata; (b) Dipartimento di Fisica. Italy. 74Sapienza Università di Roma. INFN Sezione di Pisa; (b) Dipartimento di Fisica E. Fermi, Università di Pisa, Pisa; Italy ; Università di Roma Tor Vergata73(a) INFN Sezione di Roma; (b) Dipartimento di Fisica

75(a) INFN Sezione di Roma Tre; (b) Dipartimento di Matematica e Fisica. Italy, Roma; Trento; ItalyUniversità Roma Tre ; (b) Università degli Studi di TrentoItaly. 76(a) INFN-TIFPA

. Joint Institute for Nuclear Research. 80Department of Physics and Astronomy, Iowa State University, Ames IA; United States of AmericaRussia

. Brazil,

. High Kek, Energy Accelerator Research Organization. Japan

. Japan ,

La Plata; Argentina. 90 Physics Department. LancasterInstituto de Física La Plata, Universidad Nacional de La Plata and CONICET ; Lancaster UniversityUnited Kingdom

. Lunds Fysiska Institutionen, Universitet, Lund; Sweden,

et de Physique des Particules (IN2P3). VilleurbanneFranceCentre de Calcul de l'Institut National de Physique Nucléaire

. School of Physics and Astronomy. United Kingdom

. Aix-Marseille Cppm, Université, Cnrs/In2p3, ; Marseille, France, Montreal QC; Canada103 Department of Physics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA; United States of America. 104 Department of Physics, McGill University

. B I , Stepanov Institute of Physics, National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, Minsk; Belarus. 109 Research Institute for Nuclear Problems of Byelorussian State University, Minsk; Belarus. 110 Group of Particle Physics, University of Montreal, Montreal QC; Canada

. P N , Lebedev Physical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 112 National Research Nuclear University MEPhI

. D V , MoscowSkobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University

114 Fakultät für Physik. Russia, GermanyMünchenLudwig-Maximilians-Universität München

. Max-Planck , GermanyMünchenInstitut für PhysikWerner-Heisenberg-Institut

. Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science. Japan

Protvino; Russia. 124 Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics named by A.I. Alikhanov of National Research Centre "Kurchatov Institute. Moscow; Russia. 125 Department of PhysicsNew York University; New York NY; United States of AmericaNetherlands. 121 Department of Physics, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb IL; United States of America. 122(a) Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics and NSU, SB RAS, Novosibirsk; (b) Novosibirsk State University Novosibirsk; Russia. 123 Institute for High Energy Physics of the National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute,

. Otsuka, Bunkyo-ku. Ochanomizu University

. L Homer, Olomouc; Czech RepublicDodge Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Oklahoma, Norman OK; United States of America. 130 Department of Physics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater OK; United States of America. 131 Palacký University, RCPTM, Joint Laboratory of Optics

139 Department of Physics and Astronomy. PNPI, St. Petersburg; RussiaLPNHE, Sorbonne Université, Université de Paris ; CNRS/IN2P3, Paris; France. 137 Department of Physics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia PA; United States of America. 138 Konstantinov Nuclear Physics Institute of National Research Centre "Kurchatov Institute ; University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh PA; United States of America. 140(a) Laboratório de Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas -LIP, Lisboa; (b) Departamento de

. Faculdade Física, De Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa; (c) Departamento de Física, Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra; (d) Centro de Física Nuclear da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa; (e) Departamento de

. Física, Universidade do Minho, Braga; ( f ) Departamento de Física Teórica y del Cosmos, Universidad de

Granada Granada, Dep Física and CEFITEC of Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia. LisboaUniversidade Nova de Lisboa, Caparica; (h) Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa

141 Institute of. Portugal, Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences. 142Czech Technical University in Prague

. Faculty of Mathematics and Physics. Charles University

. Particle Physics Department. Rutherford Appleton LaboratoryUnited Kingdom

. Cea Irfu, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette

. France ,