PLB33734S0370-2693(18)30314-910.1016/j.physletb.2018.04.030The Author(s)ExperimentsFig. 1Illustration of the angular variables θℓ (left), θK (middle), and φ (right) for the decay B0 → K⁎0(K+π−)μ+μ−.Fig. 1Fig. 2Invariant mass and angular distributions of K+π−μ+μ− events for (upper two rows) 2 < q2 < 4.3 GeV2 and (lower two rows) 4.3 < q2 < 6 GeV2. The projection of the results from the total fit, as well as for correctly tagged signal events, mistagged signal events, and background events, are also shown. The vertical bars indicate the statistical uncertainties.Fig. 2Fig. 3CMS measurements of the (left) P1 and (right) P5′ angular parameters versus q2 for B0 → K⁎0μ+μ− decays, in comparison to results from the LHCb [33] and Belle [34] Collaborations. The statistical uncertainties are shown by the inner vertical bars, while the outer vertical bars give the total uncertainties. The horizontal bars show the bin widths. The vertical shaded regions correspond to the J/ψ and ψ′ resonances. The hatched region shows the prediction from SM calculations described in the text, averaged over each q2 bin.Fig. 3Table 1Systematic uncertainties in P1 and P5′. For each source, the range indicates the variation over the bins in q2.Table 1SourceP1(×10−3)P5′(×10−3)Simulation mismodeling1–3310–23Fit bias5–7810–120Finite size of simulated samples29–7331–110Efficiency17–1005–65Kπ mistagging8–1106–66Background distribution12–7010–51Mass distribution1219Feed-through background4–123–24FL, FS, AS uncertainty propagation0–2100–210Angular resolution2–680.1–12Total100–23070–250Table 2The measured signal yields, which include both correctly tagged and mistagged events, the P1 and P5′ values, and the correlation coefficients, in bins of q2, for B0 → K⁎0μ+μ− decays. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic. The bin ranges are selected to allow comparison with previous measurements.Table 2q2 (GeV2)Signal yieldP1P5′Correlations1.00–2.0080 ± 12+0.12±−0.47+0.460.10+0.10±−0.31+0.320.07−0.05262.00–4.30145 ± 16−0.69±−0.27+0.580.23−0.57±−0.31+0.340.18−0.04524.30–6.00119 ± 14+0.53±−0.33+0.240.19−0.96±−0.21+0.220.25+0.47156.00–8.68247 ± 21−0.47±−0.23+0.270.15−0.64±−0.19+0.150.13+0.076110.09–12.86354 ± 23−0.53±−0.14+0.200.15−0.69±−0.14+0.110.13+0.607714.18–16.00213 ± 17−0.33±−0.23+0.240.20−0.66±−0.20+0.130.18+0.418816.00–19.00239 ± 19−0.53 ± 0.19 ± 0.16−0.56 ± 0.12 ± 0.07+0.4621Measurement of angular parameters from the decay B0 → K⁎0μ+μ− in proton–proton collisions at s=8TeVThe CMS Collaboration⋆A.M.SirunyanA.TumasyanYerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, ArmeniaYerevan Physics InstituteYerevanArmeniaW.AdamF.AmbrogiE.AsilarT.BergauerJ.BrandstetterE.BrondolinM.DragicevicJ.EröM.FlechlM.FriedlR.Frühwirth1V.M.GheteJ.GrossmannJ.HrubecM.Jeitler1A.KönigN.KrammerI.KrätschmerD.LikoT.MadlenerI.MikulecE.PreeN.RadH.RohringerJ.Schieck1R.SchöfbeckM.SpanringD.SpitzbartW.WaltenbergerJ.WittmannC.-E.Wulz1M.ZaruckiInstitut für Hochenergiephysik, Wien, AustriaInstitut für HochenergiephysikWienAustria1Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria.V.ChekhovskyV.MossolovJ.Suarez GonzalezInstitute for Nuclear Problems, Minsk, BelarusInstitute for Nuclear ProblemsMinskBelarusE.A.De WolfD.Di CroceX.JanssenJ.LauwersM.Van De KlundertH.Van HaevermaetP.Van MechelenN.Van RemortelUniversiteit Antwerpen, Antwerpen, BelgiumUniversiteit AntwerpenAntwerpenBelgiumS.Abu ZeidF.BlekmanJ.D'HondtI.De BruynJ.De ClercqK.DerooverG.FlourisD.LontkovskyiS.LowetteS.MoortgatL.MoreelsQ.PythonK.SkovpenS.TavernierW.Van DoninckP.Van MuldersI.Van ParijsVrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, BelgiumVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselBelgiumD.BeghinH.BrunB.ClerbauxG.De LentdeckerH.DelannoyB.DorneyG.FasanellaL.FavartR.GoldouzianA.GrebenyukG.KarapostoliT.LenziJ.LueticT.MaerschalkA.MarinovA.Randle-condeT.SevaE.StarlingC.Vander VeldeP.VanlaerD.VanneromR.YonamineF.ZenoniF.Zhang2Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, BelgiumUniversité Libre de BruxellesBruxellesBelgium2Also at State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China.A.CimminoT.CornelisD.DoburA.FagotM.GulI.Khvastunov3D.PoyrazC.RoskasS.SalvaM.TytgatW.VerbekeN.ZaganidisGhent University, Ghent, BelgiumGhent UniversityGhentBelgium3Also at IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France.H.BakhshiansohiO.BonduS.BrochetG.BrunoC.CaputoA.CaudronP.DavidS.De VisscherC.DelaereM.DelcourtB.FrancoisA.GiammancoM.KommG.KrintirasV.LemaitreA.MagitteriA.MertensM.MusichK.PiotrzkowskiL.QuertenmontA.SaggioM.Vidal MaronoS.WertzJ.ZobecUniversité Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, BelgiumUniversité Catholique de LouvainLouvain-la-NeuveBelgiumN.BeliyUniversité de Mons, Mons, BelgiumUniversité de MonsMonsBelgiumW.L.Aldá JúniorF.L.AlvesG.A.AlvesL.BritoM.Correa Martins JuniorC.HenselA.MoraesM.E.PolP.Rebello TelesCentro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, BrazilCentro Brasileiro de Pesquisas FisicasRio de JaneiroBrazilE.Belchior Batista Das ChagasW.CarvalhoJ.Chinellato4E.CoelhoE.M.Da CostaG.G.Da Silveira5D.De Jesus DamiaoS.Fonseca De SouzaL.M.Huertas GuativaH.MalbouissonM.Melo De AlmeidaC.Mora HerreraL.MundimH.NogimaL.J.Sanchez RosasA.SantoroA.SznajderM.ThielE.J.Tonelli Manganote4F.Torres Da Silva De AraujoA.Vilela PereiraUniversidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, BrazilUniversidade do Estado do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil4Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil.5Also at Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil.S.AhujaaC.A.BernardesaT.R.Fernandez Perez TomeiaE.M.GregoresbP.G.MercadantebS.F.NovaesaSandra S.PadulaaD.Romero AbadbJ.C.Ruiz VargasaaUniversidade Estadual Paulista, São Paulo, BrazilUniversidade Estadual PaulistaSão PauloBrazilbUniversidade Federal do ABC, São Paulo, BrazilUniversidade Federal do ABCSão PauloBrazilA.AleksandrovR.HadjiiskaP.IaydjievM.MishevaM.RodozovM.ShopovaG.SultanovInstitute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy of Bulgaria Academy of Sciences, BulgariaInstitute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy of Bulgaria Academy of SciencesBulgariaA.DimitrovI.GlushkovL.LitovB.PavlovP.PetkovUniversity of Sofia, Sofia, BulgariaUniversity of SofiaSofiaBulgariaW.Fang6X.Gao6L.YuanBeihang University, Beijing, ChinaBeihang UniversityBeijingChina6Also at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium.M.AhmadJ.G.BianG.M.ChenH.S.ChenM.ChenY.ChenC.H.JiangD.LeggatH.LiaoZ.LiuF.RomeoS.M.ShaheenA.SpieziaJ.TaoC.WangZ.WangE.YazganH.ZhangS.ZhangJ.ZhaoInstitute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, ChinaInstitute of High Energy PhysicsBeijingChinaY.BanG.ChenQ.LiL.LinweiS.LiuY.MaoS.J.QianD.WangZ.XuState Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, ChinaState Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and TechnologyPeking UniversityBeijingChinaC.AvilaA.CabreraL.F.Chaparro SierraC.FlorezC.F.González HernándezJ.D.Ruiz AlvarezM.A.Segura DelgadoUniversidad de Los Andes, Bogota, ColombiaUniversidad de Los AndesBogotaColombiaB.CourbonN.GodinovicD.LelasI.PuljakP.M.Ribeiro CiprianoT.SculacUniversity of Split, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split, CroatiaUniversity of SplitFaculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval ArchitectureSplitCroatiaZ.AntunovicM.KovacUniversity of Split, Faculty of Science, Split, CroatiaUniversity of SplitFaculty of ScienceSplitCroatiaV.BrigljevicD.FerencekK.KadijaB.MesicA.Starodumov7T.SusaInstitute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, CroatiaInstitute Rudjer BoskovicZagrebCroatia7Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia.M.W.AtherA.AttikisG.MavromanolakisJ.MousaC.NicolaouF.PtochosP.A.RazisH.RykaczewskiUniversity of Cyprus, Nicosia, CyprusUniversity of CyprusNicosiaCyprusM.Finger8M.FingerJr.8Charles University, Prague, Czech RepublicCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic8Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia.E.Carrera JarrinUniversidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, EcuadorUniversidad San Francisco de QuitoQuitoEcuadorY.Assran910S.Elgammal10A.Mahrous11Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, EgyptAcademy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab Republic of EgyptEgyptian Network of High Energy PhysicsCairoEgypt9Also at Suez University, Suez, Egypt.10Now at British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt.11Now at Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt.R.K.DewanjeeM.KadastikL.PerriniM.RaidalA.TikoC.VeelkenNational Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, EstoniaNational Institute of Chemical Physics and BiophysicsTallinnEstoniaP.EerolaH.KirschenmannJ.PekkanenM.VoutilainenDepartment of Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, FinlandDepartment of PhysicsUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinlandJ.HavukainenJ.K.HeikkiläT.JärvinenV.KarimäkiR.KinnunenT.LampénK.Lassila-PeriniS.LaurilaS.LehtiT.LindénP.LuukkaH.SiikonenE.TuominenJ.TuominiemiHelsinki Institute of Physics, Helsinki, FinlandHelsinki Institute of PhysicsHelsinkiFinlandJ.TalvitieT.TuuvaLappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, FinlandLappeenranta University of TechnologyLappeenrantaFinlandM.BesanconF.CoudercM.DejardinD.DenegriJ.L.FaureF.FerriS.GanjourS.GhoshA.GivernaudP.GrasG.Hamel de MonchenaultP.JarryI.KucherC.LeloupE.LocciM.MachetJ.MalclesG.NegroJ.RanderA.RosowskyM.Ö.SahinM.TitovIRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, FranceIRFUCEAUniversité Paris-SaclayGif-sur-YvetteFranceA.AbdulsalamC.AmendolaI.AntropovS.BaffioniF.BeaudetteP.BussonL.CadamuroC.CharlotR.Granier de CassagnacM.JoS.LisniakA.LobanovJ.Martin BlancoM.NguyenC.OchandoG.OrtonaP.PaganiniP.PigardR.SalernoJ.B.SauvanY.SiroisA.G.Stahl LeitonT.StreblerY.YilmazA.ZabiA.ZghicheLaboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole polytechnique, CNRS/IN2P3, Université Paris-Saclay, Palaiseau, FranceLaboratoire Leprince-RinguetEcole polytechniqueCNRS/IN2P3Université Paris-SaclayPalaiseauFranceJ.-L.Agram12J.AndreaD.BlochJ.-M.BromM.ButtignolE.C.ChabertN.ChanonC.CollardE.Conte12X.CoubezJ.-C.Fontaine12D.GeléU.GoerlachM.JansováA.-C.Le BihanN.TononP.Van HoveUniversité de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, F-67000 Strasbourg, FranceUniversité de StrasbourgCNRSIPHC UMR 7178StrasbourgF-67000France12Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France.S.GadratCentre de Calcul de l'Institut National de Physique Nucleaire et de Physique des Particules, CNRS/IN2P3, Villeurbanne, FranceCentre de Calcul de l'Institut National de Physique Nucleaire et de Physique des ParticulesCNRS/IN2P3VilleurbanneFranceS.BeauceronC.BernetG.BoudoulR.ChiericiD.ContardoP.DepasseH.El MamouniJ.FayL.FincoS.GasconM.GouzevitchG.GrenierB.IlleF.LagardeI.B.LaktinehM.LethuillierL.MirabitoA.L.PequegnotS.PerriesA.Popov13V.SordiniM.Vander DoncktS.ViretUniversité de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3, Institut de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, FranceUniversité de LyonUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1CNRS-IN2P3Institut de Physique Nucléaire de LyonVilleurbanneFrance13Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia.T.Toriashvili14Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, GeorgiaGeorgian Technical UniversityTbilisiGeorgia14Also at Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia.D.LomidzeTbilisi State University, Tbilisi, GeorgiaTbilisi State UniversityTbilisiGeorgiaC.AutermannL.FeldM.K.KieselK.KleinM.LipinskiM.PreutenC.SchomakersJ.SchulzV.Zhukov13RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen, GermanyRWTH Aachen UniversityI. Physikalisches InstitutAachenGermanyA.AlbertE.Dietz-LaursonnD.DuchardtM.EndresM.ErdmannS.ErdwegT.EschR.FischerA.GüthM.HamerT.HebbekerC.HeidemannK.HoepfnerS.KnutzenM.MerschmeyerA.MeyerP.MilletS.MukherjeeT.PookM.RadziejH.ReithlerM.RiegerF.ScheuchD.TeyssierS.ThüerRWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, GermanyRWTH Aachen UniversityIII. Physikalisches Institut AAachenGermanyG.FlüggeB.KargollT.KressA.KünskenT.MüllerA.NehrkornA.NowackC.PistoneO.PoothA.Stahl15RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, GermanyRWTH Aachen UniversityIII. Physikalisches Institut BAachenGermany15Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland.M.Aldaya MartinT.ArndtC.AsawatangtrakuldeeK.BeernaertO.BehnkeU.BehrensA.Bermúdez MartínezA.A.Bin AnuarK.Borras16V.BottaA.CampbellP.ConnorC.Contreras-CampanaF.CostanzaC.Diez PardosG.EckerlinD.EcksteinT.EichhornE.ErenE.Gallo17J.Garay GarciaA.GeiserA.GizhkoJ.M.Grados LuyandoA.GrohsjeanP.GunnelliniM.GuthoffA.HarbJ.HaukM.Hempel18H.JungA.KalogeropoulosM.KasemannJ.KeaveneyC.KleinwortI.KorolD.KrückerW.LangeA.LelekT.LenzJ.LeonardK.LipkaW.Lohmann18R.MankelI.-A.Melzer-PellmannA.B.MeyerG.MittagJ.MnichA.MussgillerE.NtomariD.PitzlA.RasperezaM.SavitskyiP.SaxenaR.ShevchenkoS.SpannagelN.StefaniukG.P.Van OnsemR.WalshY.WenK.WichmannC.WissingO.ZenaievDeutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, GermanyDeutsches Elektronen-SynchrotronHamburgGermany16Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany.17Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.18Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany.R.AggletonS.BeinV.BlobelM.Centis VignaliT.DreyerE.GaruttiD.GonzalezJ.HallerA.HinzmannM.HoffmannA.KaravdinaR.KlannerR.KoglerN.KovalchukS.KurzT.LapsienI.MarchesiniD.MarconiM.MeyerM.NiedzielaD.NowatschinF.Pantaleo15T.PeifferA.PerieanuC.ScharfP.SchleperA.SchmidtS.SchumannJ.SchwandtJ.SonneveldH.StadieG.SteinbrückF.M.StoberM.StöverH.TholenD.TroendleE.UsaiA.VanhoeferB.VormwaldUniversity of Hamburg, Hamburg, GermanyUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermanyM.AkbiyikC.BarthM.BaselgaS.BaurE.ButzR.CaspartT.ChwalekF.ColomboW.De BoerA.DierlammN.FaltermannB.FreundR.FrieseM.GiffelsM.A.HarrendorfF.Hartmann15S.M.HeindlU.HusemannF.Kassel15S.KudellaH.MildnerM.U.MozerTh.MüllerM.PlaggeG.QuastK.RabbertzM.SchröderI.ShvetsovG.SieberH.J.SimonisR.UlrichS.WayandM.WeberT.WeilerS.WilliamsonC.WöhrmannR.WolfInstitut für Experimentelle Kernphysik, Karlsruhe, GermanyInstitut für Experimentelle KernphysikKarlsruheGermanyG.AnagnostouG.DaskalakisT.GeralisV.A.GiakoumopoulouA.KyriakisD.LoukasI.Topsis-GiotisInstitute of Nuclear and Particle Physics (INPP), NCSR Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, GreeceInstitute of Nuclear and Particle Physics (INPP)NCSR DemokritosAghia ParaskeviGreeceG.KarathanasisS.KesisoglouA.PanagiotouN.SaoulidouNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, GreeceNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreeceK.KousourisNational Technical University of Athens, Athens, GreeceNational Technical University of AthensAthensGreeceI.EvangelouC.FoudasP.KokkasS.MalliosN.ManthosI.PapadopoulosE.ParadasJ.StrologasF.A.TriantisUniversity of Ioánnina, Ioánnina, GreeceUniversity of IoánninaIoánninaGreeceM.CsanadN.FilipovicG.PasztorO.SurányiG.I.Veres19MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, HungaryMTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics GroupEötvös Loránd UniversityBudapestHungary19Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary.G.BenczeC.HajduD.Horvath20Á.HunyadiF.SiklerV.VeszpremiWigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, HungaryWigner Research Centre for PhysicsBudapestHungary20Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary.N.BeniS.CzellarJ.Karancsi21A.MakovecJ.MolnarZ.SzillasiInstitute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, HungaryInstitute of Nuclear Research ATOMKIDebrecenHungary21Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary.M.Bartók19P.RaicsZ.L.TrocsanyiB.UjvariInstitute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, HungaryInstitute of PhysicsUniversity of DebrecenDebrecenHungaryS.ChoudhuryJ.R.KomaragiriIndian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore, IndiaIndian Institute of Science (IISc)BangaloreIndiaS.Bahinipati22S.BhowmikP.MalK.MandalA.Nayak23D.K.Sahoo22N.SahooS.K.SwainNational Institute of Science Education and Research, Bhubaneswar, IndiaNational Institute of Science Education and ResearchBhubaneswarIndia22Also at Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India.23Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India.S.BansalS.B.BeriV.BhatnagarR.ChawlaN.DhingraA.K.KalsiA.KaurM.KaurS.KaurR.KumarP.KumariA.MehtaJ.B.SinghG.WaliaPanjab University, Chandigarh, IndiaPanjab UniversityChandigarhIndiaAshokKumarAashaqShahA.BhardwajS.ChauhanB.C.ChoudharyR.B.GargS.KeshriA.KumarS.MalhotraM.NaimuddinK.RanjanR.SharmaUniversity of Delhi, Delhi, IndiaUniversity of DelhiDelhiIndiaR.BhardwajR.BhattacharyaS.BhattacharyaU.BhawandeepS.DeyS.DuttS.DuttaS.GhoshN.MajumdarA.ModakK.MondalS.MukhopadhyayS.NandanA.PurohitA.RoyS.Roy ChowdhuryS.SarkarM.SharanS.ThakurSaha Institute of Nuclear Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, IndiaSaha Institute of Nuclear PhysicsHBNIKolkataIndiaP.K.BeheraIndian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras, IndiaIndian Institute of Technology MadrasMadrasIndiaR.ChudasamaD.DuttaV.JhaV.KumarA.K.Mohanty15P.K.NetrakantiL.M.PantP.ShuklaA.TopkarBhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, IndiaBhabha Atomic Research CentreMumbaiIndiaT.AzizS.DugadB.MahakudS.MitraG.B.MohantyN.SurB.SutarTata Institute of Fundamental Research-A, Mumbai, IndiaTata Institute of Fundamental Research-AMumbaiIndiaS.BanerjeeS.BhattacharyaS.ChatterjeeP.DasM.GuchaitSa.JainS.KumarM.Maity24G.MajumderK.MazumdarT.Sarkar24N.Wickramage25Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, IndiaTata Institute of Fundamental Research-BMumbaiIndia24Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India.25Also at University of Ruhuna, Matara, Sri Lanka.S.ChauhanS.DubeV.HegdeA.KapoorK.KothekarS.PandeyA.RaneS.SharmaIndian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, IndiaIndian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER)PuneIndiaS.Chenarani26E.Eskandari TadavaniS.M.Etesami26M.KhakzadM.Mohammadi NajafabadiM.NaseriS.Paktinat Mehdiabadi27F.Rezaei HosseinabadiB.Safarzadeh28M.ZeinaliInstitute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, IranInstitute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM)TehranIran26Also at Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran.27Also at Yazd University, Yazd, Iran.28Also at Plasma Physics Research Center, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.M.FelciniM.GrunewaldUniversity College Dublin, Dublin, IrelandUniversity College DublinDublinIrelandM.AbbresciaabC.CalabriaabA.ColaleoaD.CreanzaacL.CristellaabN.De FilippisacM.De PalmaabF.ErricoabL.FioreaG.IaselliacS.LezkiabG.MaggiacM.MaggiaG.MinielloabS.MyabS.NuzzoabA.PompiliabG.PuglieseacR.RadognaaA.RanieriaG.SelvaggiabA.SharmaaL.Silvestrisa15R.VendittiaP.VerwilligenaaINFN Sezione di Bari, Bari, ItalyINFN Sezione di BariBariItalybUniversità di Bari, Bari, ItalyUniversità di BariBariItalycPolitecnico di Bari, Bari, ItalyPolitecnico di BariBariItalyG.AbbiendiaC.BattilanaabD.BonacorsiabL.BorgonoviabS.Braibant-GiacomelliabR.CampaniniabP.CapiluppiabA.CastroabF.R.CavalloaS.S.ChhibraaG.CodispotiabM.CuffianiabG.M.DallavalleaF.FabbriaA.FanfaniabD.FasanellaabP.GiacomelliaC.GrandiaL.GuiducciabS.MarcelliniaG.MasettiaA.MontanariaF.L.NavarriaabA.PerrottaaA.M.RossiabT.RovelliabG.P.SiroliabN.TosiaaINFN Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, ItalyINFN Sezione di BolognaBolognaItalybUniversità di Bologna, Bologna, ItalyUniversità di BolognaBolognaItalyS.AlbergoabS.CostaabA.Di MattiaaF.GiordanoabR.PotenzaabA.TricomiabC.TuveabaINFN Sezione di Catania, Catania, ItalyINFN Sezione di CataniaCataniaItalybUniversità di Catania, Catania, ItalyUniversità di CataniaCataniaItalyG.BarbagliaK.ChatterjeeabV.CiulliabC.CivininiaR.D'AlessandroabE.FocardiabP.LenziabM.MeschiniaS.PaolettiaL.Russoa29G.SguazzoniaD.StromaL.Vilianiab15aINFN Sezione di Firenze, Firenze, ItalyINFN Sezione di FirenzeFirenzeItalybUniversità di Firenze, Firenze, ItalyUniversità di FirenzeFirenzeItaly29Also at Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy.L.BenussiS.BiancoF.FabbriD.PiccoloF.Primavera15INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, ItalyINFN Laboratori Nazionali di FrascatiFrascatiItalyV.CalvelliabF.FerroaE.RobuttiaS.TosiabaINFN Sezione di Genova, Genova, ItalyINFN Sezione di GenovaGenovaItalybUniversità di Genova, Genova, ItalyUniversità di GenovaGenovaItalyA.BenagliaaA.BeschiabL.BrianzaabF.BrivioabV.Cirioloab15M.E.DinardoabP.DiniaS.FiorendiabS.GennaiaA.GhezziabP.GovoniabM.MalbertiabS.MalvezziaR.A.ManzoniabD.MenasceaL.MoroniaM.PaganoniabK.PauwelsabD.PedriniaS.Pigazziniab15N.RedaelliaT.Tabarelli de FatisabaINFN Sezione di Milano-Bicocca, Milano, ItalyINFN Sezione di Milano-BicoccaMilanoItalybUniversità di Milano-Bicocca, Milano, ItalyUniversità di Milano-BicoccaMilanoItalyS.BuontempoaN.CavalloacS.Di Guidaad15F.FabozziacF.FiengaabA.O.M.IorioabW.A.KhanaL.ListaaS.Meolaad15P.Paoluccia15C.SciaccaabF.ThyssenaaINFN Sezione di Napoli, Napoli, ItalyINFN Sezione di NapoliNapoliItalybUniversità di Napoli ‘Federico II’, Napoli, ItalyUniversità di Napoli ‘Federico II’NapoliItalycUniversità della Basilicata, Potenza, ItalyUniversità della BasilicataPotenzaItalydUniversità G. Marconi, Roma, ItalyUniversità G. MarconiRomaItalyP.AzziaN.BacchettaaL.BenatoabA.BolettiabR.CarlinabA.Carvalho Antunes De OliveiraabP.ChecchiaaM.Dall'OssoabP.De Castro ManzanoaT.DorigoaU.GaspariniabA.GozzelinoaS.LacapraraaP.LujanM.MargoniabA.T.MeneguzzoabF.MontecassianoaM.PassaseoaN.PozzobonabP.RoncheseabR.RossinabF.SimonettoabE.TorassaaM.ZanettiabP.ZottoabG.ZumerleabaINFN Sezione di Padova, Padova, ItalyINFN Sezione di PadovaPadovaItalybUniversità di Padova, Padova, ItalyUniversità di PadovaPadovaItalycUniversità di Trento, Trento, ItalyUniversità di TrentoTrentoItalyA.BraghieriaA.MagnaniaP.MontagnaabS.P.RattiabV.ReaM.RessegottiabC.RiccardiabP.SalviniaI.VaiabP.VituloabaINFN Sezione di Pavia, Pavia, ItalyINFN Sezione di PaviaPaviaItalybUniversità di Pavia, Pavia, ItalyUniversità di PaviaPaviaItalyL.Alunni SolestiziabM.BiasiniabG.M.BileiaC.CecchiabD.CiangottiniabL.FanòabP.LaricciaabR.LeonardiabE.ManoniaG.MantovaniabV.MarianiabM.MenichelliaA.RossiabA.SantocchiaabD.SpigaaaINFN Sezione di Perugia, Perugia, ItalyINFN Sezione di PerugiaPerugiaItalybUniversità di Perugia, Perugia, ItalyUniversità di PerugiaPerugiaItalyK.AndrosovaP.Azzurria15G.BagliesiaT.BoccaliaL.BorrelloR.CastaldiaM.A.CiocciabR.Dell'OrsoaG.FediaL.GianniniacA.GiassiaM.T.Grippoa29F.LigabueacT.LomtadzeaE.MancaacG.MandorliacL.MartiniabA.MessineoabF.PallaaA.RizziabA.Savoy-Navarroa30P.SpagnoloaR.TenchiniaG.TonelliabA.VenturiaP.G.VerdiniaaINFN Sezione di Pisa, Pisa, ItalyINFN Sezione di PisaPisaItalybUniversità di Pisa, Pisa, ItalyUniversità di PisaPisaItalycScuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Pisa, ItalyScuola Normale Superiore di PisaPisaItaly30Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA.L.BaroneabF.CavallariaM.CiprianiabN.DaciaD.Del Reab15E.Di MarcoabM.DiemozaS.GelliabE.LongoabF.MargaroliabB.MarzocchiabP.MeridianiaG.OrgantiniabR.ParamattiabF.PreiatoabS.RahatlouabC.RovelliaF.SantanastasioabaINFN Sezione di Roma, Rome, ItalyINFN Sezione di RomaRomeItalybSapienza Università di Roma, Rome, ItalySapienza Università di RomaRomeItalyN.AmapaneabR.ArcidiaconoacS.ArgiroabM.ArneodoacN.BartosikaR.BellanabC.BiinoaN.CartigliaaF.CennaabM.CostaabR.CovarelliabA.DeganoabN.DemariaaB.KianiabC.MariottiaS.MaselliaE.MiglioreabV.MonacoabE.MonteilabM.MontenoaM.M.ObertinoabL.PacherabN.PastroneaM.PelliccioniaG.L.Pinna AngioniabF.RaveraabA.RomeroabM.RuspaacR.SacchiabK.ShchelinaabV.SolaaA.SolanoabA.StaianoaP.TraczykabaINFN Sezione di Torino, Torino, ItalyINFN Sezione di TorinoTorinoItalybUniversità di Torino, Torino, ItalyUniversità di TorinoTorinoItalycUniversità del Piemonte Orientale, Novara, ItalyUniversità del Piemonte OrientaleNovaraItalyS.BelforteaM.CasarsaaF.CossuttiaG.Della RiccaabA.ZanettiaaINFN Sezione di Trieste, Trieste, ItalyINFN Sezione di TriesteTriesteItalybUniversità di Trieste, Trieste, ItalyUniversità di TriesteTriesteItalyD.H.KimG.N.KimM.S.KimJ.LeeS.LeeS.W.LeeC.S.MoonY.D.OhS.SekmenD.C.SonY.C.YangKyungpook National University, Daegu, Republic of KoreaKyungpook National UniversityDaeguRepublic of KoreaA.LeeChonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of KoreaChonbuk National UniversityJeonjuRepublic of KoreaH.KimD.H.MoonG.OhChonnam National University, Institute for Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju, Republic of KoreaChonnam National UniversityInstitute for Universe and Elementary ParticlesKwangjuRepublic of KoreaJ.A.Brochero CifuentesJ.GohT.J.KimHanyang University, Seoul, Republic of KoreaHanyang UniversitySeoulRepublic of KoreaS.ChoS.ChoiY.GoD.GyunS.HaB.HongY.JoY.KimK.LeeK.S.LeeS.LeeJ.LimS.K.ParkY.RohKorea University, Seoul, Republic of KoreaKorea UniversitySeoulRepublic of KoreaJ.AlmondJ.KimJ.S.KimH.LeeK.LeeK.NamS.B.OhB.C.Radburn-SmithS.h.SeoU.K.YangH.D.YooG.B.YuSeoul National University, Seoul, Republic of KoreaSeoul National UniversitySeoulRepublic of KoreaM.ChoiH.KimJ.H.KimJ.S.H.LeeI.C.ParkUniversity of Seoul, Seoul, Republic of KoreaUniversity of SeoulSeoulRepublic of KoreaY.ChoiC.HwangJ.LeeI.YuSungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Republic of KoreaSungkyunkwan UniversitySuwonRepublic of KoreaV.DudenasA.JuodagalvisJ.VaitkusVilnius University, Vilnius, LithuaniaVilnius UniversityVilniusLithuaniaI.AhmedZ.A.IbrahimM.A.B.Md Ali31F.Mohamad Idris32W.A.T.Wan AbdullahM.N.YusliZ.ZolkapliNational Centre for Particle Physics, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaNational Centre for Particle PhysicsUniversiti MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia31Also at International Islamic University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.32Also at Malaysian Nuclear Agency, MOSTI, Kajang, Malaysia.R.Reyes-AlmanzaG.Ramirez-SanchezM.C.Duran-OsunaH.Castilla-ValdezE.De La Cruz-BureloI.Heredia-De La Cruz33R.I.Rabadan-TrejoR.Lopez-FernandezJ.Mejia GuisaoA.Sanchez-HernandezCentro de Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, MexicoCentro de Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados del IPNMexico CityMexico33Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico city, Mexico.S.Carrillo MorenoC.Oropeza BarreraF.Vazquez ValenciaUniversidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City, MexicoUniversidad IberoamericanaMexico CityMexicoI.PedrazaH.A.Salazar IbarguenC.Uribe EstradaBenemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, MexicoBenemerita Universidad Autonoma de PueblaPueblaMexicoA.Morelos PinedaUniversidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, MexicoUniversidad Autónoma de San Luis PotosíSan Luis PotosíMexicoD.KrofcheckUniversity of Auckland, Auckland, New ZealandUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew ZealandP.H.ButlerUniversity of Canterbury, Christchurch, New ZealandUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew ZealandA.AhmadM.AhmadQ.HassanH.R.HooraniA.SaddiqueM.A.ShahM.ShoaibM.WaqasNational Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam University, Islamabad, PakistanNational Centre for PhysicsQuaid-I-Azam UniversityIslamabadPakistanH.BialkowskaM.BlujB.BoimskaT.FrueboesM.GórskiM.KazanaK.NawrockiM.SzleperP.ZalewskiNational Centre for Nuclear Research, Swierk, PolandNational Centre for Nuclear ResearchSwierkPolandK.BunkowskiA.Byszuk34K.DorobaA.KalinowskiM.KoneckiJ.KrolikowskiM.MisiuraM.OlszewskiA.PyskirM.WalczakInstitute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, PolandInstitute of Experimental PhysicsFaculty of PhysicsUniversity of WarsawWarsawPoland34Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems, Warsaw, Poland.P.BargassaC.Beirão Da Cruz E SilvaA.Di FrancescoP.FaccioliB.GalinhasM.GallinaroJ.HollarN.LeonardoL.Lloret IglesiasM.V.NemallapudiJ.SeixasG.StrongO.ToldaievD.VadruccioJ.VarelaLaboratório de Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas, Lisboa, PortugalLaboratório de Instrumentação e Física Experimental de PartículasLisboaPortugalS.AfanasievP.BuninM.GavrilenkoI.GolutvinI.GorbunovA.KamenevV.KarjavinA.LanevA.MalakhovV.Matveev3536V.PalichikV.PerelyginS.ShmatovS.ShulhaN.SkatchkovV.SmirnovN.VoytishinA.ZarubinJoint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, RussiaJoint Institute for Nuclear ResearchDubnaRussia35Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia.36Now at National Research Nuclear University ‘Moscow Engineering Physics Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia.Y.IvanovV.Kim37E.Kuznetsova38P.LevchenkoV.MurzinV.OreshkinI.SmirnovV.SulimovL.UvarovS.VavilovA.VorobyevPetersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg), RussiaPetersburg Nuclear Physics InstituteGatchina (St. Petersburg)Russia37Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg, Russia.38Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA.Yu.AndreevA.DermenevS.GninenkoN.GolubevA.KarneyeuM.KirsanovN.KrasnikovA.PashenkovD.TlisovA.ToropinInstitute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, RussiaInstitute for Nuclear ResearchMoscowRussiaV.EpshteynV.GavrilovN.LychkovskayaV.PopovI.PozdnyakovG.SafronovA.SpiridonovA.StepennovM.TomsE.VlasovA.ZhokinInstitute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, RussiaInstitute for Theoretical and Experimental PhysicsMoscowRussiaT.AushevA.Bylinkin36Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, RussiaMoscow Institute of Physics and TechnologyMoscowRussiaR.Chistov39M.Danilov39P.ParyginD.PhilippovS.PolikarpovE.TarkovskiiNational Research Nuclear University ‘Moscow Engineering Physics Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, RussiaNational Research Nuclear University ‘Moscow Engineering Physics Institute’ (MEPhI)MoscowRussia39Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia.V.AndreevM.Azarkin36I.Dremin36M.Kirakosyan36A.TerkulovP.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, RussiaP.N. Lebedev Physical InstituteMoscowRussiaA.BaskakovA.BelyaevE.BoosM.Dubinin40L.DudkoA.ErshovA.GribushinV.KlyukhinO.KodolovaI.LokhtinI.MiagkovS.ObraztsovS.PetrushankoV.SavrinA.SnigirevSkobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, RussiaSkobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear PhysicsLomonosov Moscow State UniversityMoscowRussia40Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA.V.Blinov41Y.Skovpen41D.Shtol41Novosibirsk State University (NSU), Novosibirsk, RussiaNovosibirsk State University (NSU)NovosibirskRussia41Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia.I.AzhgireyI.BayshevS.BitioukovD.ElumakhovV.KachanovA.KalininD.KonstantinovP.MandrikV.PetrovR.RyutinA.SobolS.TroshinN.TyurinA.UzunianA.VolkovState Research Center of Russian Federation, Institute for High Energy Physics, Protvino, RussiaState Research Center of Russian FederationInstitute for High Energy PhysicsProtvinoRussiaP.Adzic42P.CirkovicD.DevetakM.DordevicJ.MilosevicV.RekovicUniversity of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, SerbiaUniversity of BelgradeFaculty of PhysicsVinca Institute of Nuclear SciencesBelgradeSerbia42Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.J.Alcaraz MaestreM.Barrio LunaM.CerradaN.ColinoB.De La CruzA.Delgado PerisA.Escalante Del ValleC.Fernandez BedoyaJ.P.Fernández RamosJ.FlixM.C.FouzO.Gonzalez LopezS.Goy LopezJ.M.HernandezM.I.JosaD.MoranA.Pérez-Calero YzquierdoJ.Puerta PelayoA.Quintario OlmedaI.RedondoL.RomeroM.S.SoaresA.Álvarez FernándezCentro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid, SpainCentro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT)MadridSpainC.AlbajarJ.F.de TrocónizM.MissiroliUniversidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, SpainUniversidad Autónoma de MadridMadridSpainJ.CuevasC.EriceJ.Fernandez MenendezI.Gonzalez CaballeroJ.R.González FernándezE.Palencia CortezonS.Sanchez CruzP.VischiaJ.M.Vizan GarciaUniversidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, SpainUniversidad de OviedoOviedoSpainI.J.CabrilloA.CalderonB.Chazin QueroE.CurrasJ.Duarte CampderrosM.FernandezJ.Garcia-FerreroG.GomezA.Lopez VirtoJ.MarcoC.Martinez RiveroP.Martinez Ruiz del ArbolF.MatorrasJ.Piedra GomezT.RodrigoA.Ruiz-JimenoL.ScodellaroN.TrevisaniI.VilaR.Vilar CortabitarteInstituto de Física de Cantabria (IFCA), CSIC-Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, SpainInstituto de Física de Cantabria (IFCA)CSIC-Universidad de CantabriaSantanderSpainD.AbbaneoB.AkgunE.AuffrayP.BaillonA.H.BallD.BarneyJ.BendavidM.BiancoP.BlochA.BocciC.BottaT.CamporesiR.CastelloM.CepedaG.CerminaraE.ChaponY.ChenD.d'EnterriaA.DabrowskiV.DaponteA.DavidM.De GruttolaA.De RoeckN.DeelenM.DobsonT.du PreeM.DünserN.DupontA.Elliott-PeisertP.EveraertsF.FallavollitaG.FranzoniJ.FulcherW.FunkD.GigiA.GilbertK.GillF.GlegeD.GulhanP.HarrisJ.HegemanV.InnocenteA.JafariP.JanotO.Karacheban18J.KieselerV.KnünzA.KornmayerM.J.KortelainenM.Krammer1C.LangeP.LecoqC.LourençoM.T.LucchiniL.MalgeriM.MannelliA.MartelliF.MeijersJ.A.MerlinS.MersiE.MeschiP.Milenovic43F.MoortgatM.MuldersH.NeugebauerJ.NgadiubaS.OrfanelliL.OrsiniL.PapeE.PerezM.PeruzziA.PetrilliG.PetruccianiA.PfeifferM.PieriniD.RabadyA.RaczT.ReisG.Rolandi44M.RovereH.SakulinC.SchäferC.SchwickM.SeidelM.SelvaggiA.SharmaP.SilvaP.Sphicas45A.StakiaJ.SteggemannM.StoyeM.TosiD.TreilleA.TriossiA.TsirouV.Veckalns46M.VerweijW.D.ZeunerCERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, SwitzerlandCERNEuropean Organization for Nuclear ResearchGenevaSwitzerland43Also at University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia.44Also at Scuola Normale e Sezione dell'INFN, Pisa, Italy.45Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.46Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia.W.Bertl†L.Caminada47K.DeitersW.ErdmannR.HorisbergerQ.IngramH.C.KaestliD.KotlinskiU.LangeneggerT.RoheS.A.WiederkehrPaul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, SwitzerlandPaul Scherrer InstitutVilligenSwitzerland†Deceased.47Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland.M.BackhausL.BäniP.BergerL.BianchiniB.CasalG.DissertoriM.DittmarM.DonegàC.DorferC.GrabC.HeideggerD.HitsJ.HossG.KasieczkaT.KlijnsmaW.LustermannB.ManganoM.MarionneauM.T.MeinhardD.MeisterF.MicheliP.MusellaF.Nessi-TedaldiF.PandolfiJ.PataF.PaussG.PerrinL.PerrozziM.QuittnatM.ReichmannD.A.Sanz BecerraM.SchönenbergerL.ShchutskaV.R.TavolaroK.TheofilatosM.L.Vesterbacka OlssonR.WallnyD.H.ZhuETH Zurich - Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics (IPA), Zurich, SwitzerlandETH ZurichInstitute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics (IPA)ZurichSwitzerlandT.K.AarrestadC.Amsler48M.F.CanelliA.De CosaR.Del BurgoS.DonatoC.GalloniT.HreusB.KilminsterD.PinnaG.RaucoP.RobmannD.SalernoK.SchweigerC.SeitzY.TakahashiA.ZucchettaUniversität Zürich, Zurich, SwitzerlandUniversität ZürichZurichSwitzerland48Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics (SMI), Vienna, Austria.V.CandeliseT.H.DoanSh.JainR.KhuranaC.M.KuoW.LinA.PozdnyakovS.S.YuNational Central University, Chung-Li, TaiwanNational Central UniversityChung-LiTaiwanArunKumarP.ChangY.ChaoK.F.ChenP.H.ChenF.FioriW.-S.HouY.HsiungY.F.LiuR.-S.LuE.PaganisA.PsallidasA.SteenJ.f.TsaiNational Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei, TaiwanNational Taiwan University (NTU)TaipeiTaiwanB.AsavapibhopK.KovitanggoonG.SinghN.SrimanobhasChulalongkorn University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok, ThailandChulalongkorn UniversityFaculty of ScienceDepartment of PhysicsBangkokThailandM.N.Bakirci49A.BatF.BoranS.DamarseckinZ.S.DemirogluC.DozenE.EskutS.GirgisG.GokbulutY.GulerI.Hos50E.E.Kangal51O.KaraU.KiminsuM.OglakciG.Onengut52K.Ozdemir53S.Ozturk49B.Tali54U.G.TokH.Topakli49S.TurkcaparI.S.ZorbakirC.ZorbilmezÇukurova University, Physics Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, TurkeyÇukurova UniversityPhysics DepartmentScience and Art FacultyAdanaTurkey49Also at Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey.50Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey.51Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey.52Also at Cag University, Mersin, Turkey.53Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey.54Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey.B.BilinG.Karapinar55K.Ocalan56M.YalvacM.ZeyrekMiddle East Technical University, Physics Department, Ankara, TurkeyMiddle East Technical UniversityPhysics DepartmentAnkaraTurkey55Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey.56Also at Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey.E.GülmezM.Kaya57O.Kaya58S.TektenE.A.Yetkin59Bogazici University, Istanbul, TurkeyBogazici UniversityIstanbulTurkey57Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey.58Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey.59Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey.M.N.AgarasS.AtayA.CakirK.CankocakIstanbul Technical University, Istanbul, TurkeyIstanbul Technical UniversityIstanbulTurkeyB.GrynyovInstitute for Scintillation Materials of National Academy of Science of Ukraine, Kharkov, UkraineInstitute for Scintillation Materials of National Academy of Science of UkraineKharkovUkraineL.LevchukNational Scientific Center, Kharkov Institute of Physics and Technology, Kharkov, UkraineNational Scientific CenterKharkov Institute of Physics and TechnologyKharkovUkraineF.BallL.BeckJ.J.BrookeD.BurnsE.ClementD.CussansO.DavignonH.FlacherJ.GoldsteinG.P.HeathH.F.HeathL.KreczkoD.M.Newbold60S.ParamesvaranT.SakumaS.Seif El Nasr-storeyD.SmithV.J.SmithUniversity of Bristol, Bristol, United KingdomUniversity of BristolBristolUnited Kingdom60Also at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom.K.W.BellA.Belyaev61C.BrewR.M.BrownL.CalligarisD.CieriD.J.A.CockerillJ.A.CoughlanK.HarderS.HarperE.OlaiyaD.PetytC.H.Shepherd-ThemistocleousA.TheaI.R.TomalinT.WilliamsRutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United KingdomRutherford Appleton LaboratoryDidcotUnited Kingdom61Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.G.AuzingerR.BainbridgeJ.BorgS.BreezeO.BuchmullerA.BundockS.CasassoM.CitronD.CollingL.CorpeP.DaunceyG.DaviesA.De WitM.Della NegraR.Di MariaA.ElwoodY.HaddadG.HallG.IlesT.JamesR.LaneC.LanerL.LyonsA.-M.MagnanS.MalikL.MastrolorenzoT.MatsushitaJ.NashA.Nikitenko7V.PalladinoM.PesaresiD.M.RaymondA.RichardsA.RoseE.ScottC.SeezA.ShtipliyskiS.SummersA.TapperK.UchidaM.Vazquez Acosta62T.Virdee15N.WardleD.WinterbottomJ.WrightS.C.ZenzImperial College, London, United KingdomImperial CollegeLondonUnited Kingdom62Also at Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, La Laguna, Spain.J.E.ColeP.R.HobsonA.KhanP.KyberdI.D.ReidP.SymondsL.TeodorescuM.TurnerS.ZahidBrunel University, Uxbridge, United KingdomBrunel UniversityUxbridgeUnited KingdomA.BorzouK.CallJ.DittmannK.HatakeyamaH.LiuN.PastikaC.SmithBaylor University, Waco, USABaylor UniversityWacoUSAR.BartekA.DominguezCatholic University of America, Washington DC, USACatholic University of AmericaWashingtonDCUSAA.BuccilliS.I.CooperC.HendersonP.RumerioC.WestThe University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USAThe University of AlabamaTuscaloosaUSAD.ArcaroA.AvetisyanT.BoseD.GastlerD.RankinC.RichardsonJ.RohlfL.SulakD.ZouBoston University, Boston, USABoston UniversityBostonUSAG.BenelliD.CuttsA.GarabedianM.HadleyJ.HakalaU.HeintzJ.M.HoganK.H.M.KwokE.LairdG.LandsbergJ.LeeZ.MaoM.NarainJ.PazziniS.PiperovS.SagirR.SyarifD.YuBrown University, Providence, USABrown UniversityProvidenceUSAR.BandC.BrainerdD.BurnsM.Calderon De La Barca SanchezM.ChertokJ.ConwayR.ConwayP.T.CoxR.ErbacherC.FloresG.FunkM.GardnerW.KoR.LanderC.McleanM.MulhearnD.PellettJ.PilotS.ShalhoutM.ShiJ.SmithD.StolpK.TosM.TripathiZ.WangUniversity of California, Davis, Davis, USAUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSAM.BachtisC.BravoR.CousinsA.DasguptaA.FlorentJ.HauserM.IgnatenkoN.MccollS.RegnardD.SaltzbergC.SchnaibleV.ValuevUniversity of California, Los Angeles, USAUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSAE.BouvierK.BurtR.ClareJ.EllisonJ.W.GaryS.M.A.Ghiasi ShiraziG.HansonJ.HeilmanE.KennedyF.LacroixO.R.LongM.Olmedo NegreteM.I.PanevaW.SiL.WangH.WeiS.WimpennyB.R.YatesUniversity of California, Riverside, Riverside, USAUniversity of California, RiversideRiversideUSAJ.G.BransonS.CittolinM.DerdzinskiR.GerosaD.GilbertB.HashemiA.HolznerD.KleinG.KoleV.KrutelyovJ.LettsI.MacneillM.MasciovecchioD.OlivitoS.PadhiM.PieriM.SaniV.SharmaS.SimonM.TadelA.VartakS.Wasserbaech63J.WoodF.WürthweinA.YagilG.Zevi Della PortaUniversity of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USAUniversity of California, San DiegoLa JollaUSA63Also at Utah Valley University, Orem, USA.N.AminR.BhandariJ.Bradmiller-FeldC.CampagnariA.DishawV.DuttaM.Franco SevillaC.GeorgeF.GolfL.GouskosJ.GranR.HellerJ.IncandelaS.D.MullinA.OvcharovaH.QuJ.RichmanD.StuartI.SuarezJ.YooUniversity of California, Santa Barbara - Department of Physics, Santa Barbara, USAUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraDepartment of PhysicsSanta BarbaraUSAD.AndersonA.BornheimJ.M.LawhornH.B.NewmanT.NguyenC.PenaM.SpiropuluJ.R.VlimantS.XieZ.ZhangR.Y.ZhuCalifornia Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USACalifornia Institute of TechnologyPasadenaUSAM.B.AndrewsT.FergusonT.MudholkarM.PauliniJ.RussM.SunH.VogelI.VorobievM.WeinbergCarnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USACarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSAJ.P.CumalatW.T.FordF.JensenA.JohnsonM.KrohnS.LeontsinisT.MulhollandK.StensonS.R.WagnerUniversity of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USAUniversity of Colorado BoulderBoulderUSAJ.AlexanderJ.ChavesJ.ChuS.DittmerK.McdermottN.MirmanJ.R.PattersonD.QuachA.RinkeviciusA.RydL.SkinnariL.SoffiS.M.TanZ.TaoJ.ThomJ.TuckerP.WittichM.ZientekCornell University, Ithaca, USACornell UniversityIthacaUSAS.AbdullinM.AlbrowM.AlyariG.ApollinariA.ApresyanA.ApyanS.BanerjeeL.A.T.BauerdickA.BeretvasJ.BerryhillP.C.BhatG.Bolla†K.BurkettJ.N.ButlerA.CanepaG.B.CeratiH.W.K.CheungF.ChlebanaM.CremonesiJ.DuarteV.D.ElviraJ.FreemanZ.GecseE.GottschalkL.GrayD.GreenS.GrünendahlO.GutscheR.M.HarrisS.HasegawaJ.HirschauerZ.HuB.JayatilakaS.JindarianiM.JohnsonU.JoshiB.KlimaB.KreisS.LammelD.LincolnR.LiptonM.LiuT.LiuR.Lopes De SáJ.LykkenK.MaeshimaN.MaginiJ.M.MarraffinoD.MasonP.McBrideP.MerkelS.MrennaS.NahnV.O'DellK.PedroO.ProkofyevG.RaknessL.RistoriB.SchneiderE.Sexton-KennedyA.SohaW.J.SpaldingL.SpiegelS.StoynevJ.StraitN.StrobbeL.TaylorS.TkaczykN.V.TranL.UpleggerE.W.VaanderingC.VernieriM.VerzocchiR.VidalM.WangH.A.WeberA.WhitbeckFermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, USAFermi National Accelerator LaboratoryBataviaUSAD.AcostaP.AveryP.BortignonD.BourilkovA.BrinkerhoffA.CarnesM.CarverD.CurryR.D.FieldI.K.FuricS.V.GleyzerB.M.JoshiJ.KonigsbergA.KorytovK.KotovP.MaK.MatchevH.MeiG.MitselmakherD.RankK.ShiD.SperkaN.TerentyevL.ThomasJ.WangS.WangJ.YeltonUniversity of Florida, Gainesville, USAUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSAY.R.JoshiS.LinnP.MarkowitzJ.L.RodriguezFlorida International University, Miami, USAFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSAA.AckertT.AdamsA.AskewS.HagopianV.HagopianK.F.JohnsonT.KolbergG.MartinezT.PerryH.ProsperA.SahaA.SantraV.SharmaR.YohayFlorida State University, Tallahassee, USAFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSAM.M.BaarmandV.BhopatkarS.ColafranceschiM.HohlmannD.NoonanT.RoyF.YumicevaFlorida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USAFlorida Institute of TechnologyMelbourneUSAM.R.AdamsL.ApanasevichD.BerryR.R.BettsR.CavanaughX.ChenO.EvdokimovC.E.GerberD.A.HangalD.J.HofmanK.JungJ.KaminI.D.Sandoval GonzalezM.B.TonjesH.TraugerN.VarelasH.WangZ.WuJ.ZhangUniversity of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago, USAUniversity of Illinois at Chicago (UIC)ChicagoUSAB.Bilki64W.ClaridaK.Dilsiz65S.DurgutR.P.GandrajulaM.HaytmyradovV.KhristenkoJ.-P.MerloH.Mermerkaya66A.MestvirishviliA.MoellerJ.NachtmanH.Ogul67Y.OnelF.Ozok68A.PenzoC.SnyderE.TirasJ.WetzelK.YiThe University of Iowa, Iowa City, USAThe University of IowaIowa CityUSA64Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey.65Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey.66Also at Erzincan University, Erzincan, Turkey.67Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey.68Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey.B.BlumenfeldA.CocorosN.EminizerD.FehlingL.FengA.V.GritsanP.MaksimovicJ.RoskesU.SaricaM.SwartzM.XiaoC.YouJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USAJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSAA.Al-batainehP.BaringerA.BeanS.BorenJ.BowenJ.CastleS.KhalilA.KropivnitskayaD.MajumderW.McbrayerM.MurrayC.RoyonS.SandersE.SchmitzJ.D.Tapia TakakiQ.WangThe University of Kansas, Lawrence, USAThe University of KansasLawrenceUSAA.IvanovK.KaadzeY.MaravinA.MohammadiL.K.SainiN.SkhirtladzeS.TodaKansas State University, Manhattan, USAKansas State UniversityManhattanUSAF.RebassooD.WrightLawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USALawrence Livermore National LaboratoryLivermoreUSAC.AnelliA.BadenO.BaronA.BelloniB.CalvertS.C.EnoY.FengC.FerraioliN.J.HadleyS.JabeenG.Y.JengR.G.KelloggJ.KunkleA.C.MignereyF.Ricci-TamY.H.ShinA.SkujaS.C.TonwarUniversity of Maryland, College Park, USAUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSAD.AbercrombieB.AllenV.AzzoliniR.BarbieriA.BatyR.BiS.BrandtW.BuszaI.A.CaliM.D'AlfonsoZ.DemiragliG.Gomez CeballosM.GoncharovD.HsuM.HuY.IiyamaG.M.InnocentiM.KluteD.KovalskyiY.S.LaiY.-J.LeeA.LevinP.D.LuckeyB.MaierA.C.MariniC.McginnC.MironovS.NarayananX.NiuC.PausC.RolandG.RolandJ.Salfeld-NebgenG.S.F.StephansK.TatarD.VelicanuJ.WangT.W.WangB.WyslouchMassachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USAMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSAA.C.BenvenutiR.M.ChatterjeeA.EvansP.HansenJ.HiltbrandS.KalafutY.KubotaZ.LeskoJ.MansS.NourbakhshN.RuckstuhlR.RusackJ.TurkewitzM.A.WadudUniversity of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USAUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSAJ.G.AcostaS.OliverosUniversity of Mississippi, Oxford, USAUniversity of MississippiOxfordUSAE.AvdeevaK.BloomD.R.ClaesC.FangmeierR.Gonzalez SuarezR.KamalieddinI.KravchenkoJ.MonroyJ.E.SiadoG.R.SnowB.StiegerUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USAUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnLincolnUSAJ.DolenA.GodshalkC.HarringtonI.IashviliD.NguyenA.ParkerS.RappoccioB.RoozbahaniState University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USAState University of New York at BuffaloBuffaloUSAG.AlversonE.BarberisA.HortiangthamA.MassironiD.M.MorseT.OrimotoR.Teixeira De LimaD.TrocinoD.WoodNortheastern University, Boston, USANortheastern UniversityBostonUSAS.BhattacharyaO.CharafK.A.HahnN.MuciaN.OdellB.PollackM.H.SchmittK.SungM.TrovatoM.VelascoNorthwestern University, Evanston, USANorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSAN.DevM.HildrethK.Hurtado AnampaC.JessopD.J.KarmgardN.KellamsK.LannonN.LoukasN.MarinelliF.MengC.MuellerY.Musienko35M.PlanerA.ReinsvoldR.RuchtiG.SmithS.TaroniM.WayneM.WolfA.WoodardUniversity of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, USAUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSAJ.AlimenaL.AntonelliB.BylsmaL.S.DurkinS.FlowersB.FrancisA.HartC.HillW.JiB.LiuW.LuoD.PuighB.L.WinerH.W.WulsinThe Ohio State University, Columbus, USAThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSAS.CoopersteinO.DrigaP.ElmerJ.HardenbrookP.HebdaS.HigginbothamD.LangeJ.LuoD.MarlowK.MeiI.OjalvoJ.OlsenC.PalmerP.PirouéD.SticklandC.TullyPrinceton University, Princeton, USAPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSAS.MalikS.NorbergUniversity of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USAUniversity of Puerto RicoMayaguezUSAA.BarkerV.E.BarnesS.DasS.FolguerasL.GutayM.K.JhaM.JonesA.W.JungA.KhatiwadaD.H.MillerN.NeumeisterC.C.PengH.QiuJ.F.SchulteJ.SunF.WangW.XiePurdue University, West Lafayette, USAPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSAT.ChengN.ParasharJ.StupakPurdue University Northwest, Hammond, USAPurdue University NorthwestHammondUSAA.AdairZ.ChenK.M.EcklundS.FreedF.J.M.GeurtsM.GuilbaudM.KilpatrickW.LiB.MichlinM.NorthupB.P.PadleyJ.RobertsJ.RorieW.ShiZ.TuJ.ZabelA.ZhangRice University, Houston, USARice UniversityHoustonUSAA.BodekP.de BarbaroR.DeminaY.t.DuhT.FerbelM.GalantiA.Garcia-BellidoJ.HanO.HindrichsA.KhukhunaishviliK.H.LoP.TanM.VerzettiUniversity of Rochester, Rochester, USAUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSAR.CiesielskiK.GoulianosC.MesropianThe Rockefeller University, New York, USAThe Rockefeller UniversityNew YorkUSAA.AgapitosJ.P.ChouY.GershteinT.A.Gómez EspinosaE.HalkiadakisM.HeindlE.HughesS.KaplanR.Kunnawalkam ElayavalliS.KyriacouA.LathR.MontalvoK.NashM.OshersonH.SakaS.SalurS.SchnetzerD.SheffieldS.SomalwarR.StoneS.ThomasP.ThomassenM.WalkerRutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, USARutgers, The State University of New JerseyPiscatawayUSAA.G.DelannoyM.FoersterJ.HeidemanG.RileyK.RoseS.SpanierK.ThapaUniversity of Tennessee, Knoxville, USAUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSAO.Bouhali69A.Castaneda Hernandez69A.CelikM.DalchenkoM.De MattiaA.DelgadoS.DildickR.EusebiJ.GilmoreT.HuangT.Kamon70R.MuellerY.PakhotinR.PatelA.PerloffL.PernièD.RathjensA.SafonovA.TatarinovK.A.UlmerTexas A&M University, College Station, USATexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA69Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar.70Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea.N.AkchurinJ.DamgovF.De GuioP.R.DuderoJ.FaulknerE.GurpinarS.KunoriK.LamichhaneS.W.LeeT.LibeiroT.MengkeS.MuthumuniT.PeltolaS.UndleebI.VolobouevZ.WangTexas Tech University, Lubbock, USATexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSAS.GreeneA.GurrolaR.JanjamW.JohnsC.MaguireA.MeloH.NiK.PadekenP.SheldonS.TuoJ.VelkovskaQ.XuVanderbilt University, Nashville, USAVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSAM.W.ArentonP.BarriaB.CoxR.HiroskyM.JoyceA.LedovskoyH.LiC.NeuT.SinthuprasithY.WangE.WolfeF.XiaUniversity of Virginia, Charlottesville, USAUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSAR.HarrP.E.KarchinN.PoudyalJ.SturdyP.ThapaS.ZaleskiWayne State University, Detroit, USAWayne State UniversityDetroitUSAM.BrodskiJ.BuchananC.CaillolS.DasuL.DoddS.DuricB.GomberM.GrotheM.HerndonA.HervéU.HussainP.KlabbersA.LanaroA.LevineK.LongR.LovelessG.PoleseT.RugglesA.SavinN.SmithW.H.SmithD.TaylorN.WoodsUniversity of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI, USAUniversity of Wisconsin - MadisonMadisonWIUSACERN, SwitzerlandCERNSwitzerland⋆E-mail address: cms-publication-committee-chair@cern.ch.Editor: M. DoserAbstractAngular distributions of the decay B0→K⁎0μ+μ− are studied using a sample of proton–proton collisions at s=8TeV collected with the CMS detector at the LHC, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 20.5fb−1. An angular analysis is performed to determine the P1 and P5′ parameters, where the P5′ parameter is of particular interest because of recent measurements that indicate a potential discrepancy with the standard model predictions. Based on a sample of 1397 signal events, the P1 and P5′ parameters are determined as a function of the dimuon invariant mass squared. The measurements are in agreement with predictions based on the standard model.KeywordsCMSPhysicsB0 decays1IntroductionPhenomena beyond the standard model (SM) of particle physics can become manifest directly, via the production of new particles, or indirectly, by modifying the production and decay properties of SM particles. Analyses of flavor-changing neutral-current decays are particularly sensitive to the effects of new physics because these decays are highly suppressed in the SM. An example is the decay B0→K⁎0μ+μ−, where K⁎0 indicates the K⁎0(892) meson, with the charge-conjugate reaction implied here and elsewhere in this Letter unless otherwise stated. An angular analysis of this decay as a function of the dimuon invariant mass squared (q2) allows its properties to be thoroughly investigated.The differential decay rate for B0→K⁎0μ+μ− can be written in terms of q2 and three angular variables as a combination of spherical harmonics, weighted by q2-dependent angular parameters. These angular parameters in turn depend upon complex decay amplitudes, which are described by Wilson coefficients in the relevant effective Hamiltonian [1]. There can be different formulations of the angular parameters. In this Letter we present measurements of the so-called P1 and P5′ parameters [2,3].New physics can modify the values of these angular parameters [1,2,4–18] relative to the SM [1,19–25]. While previous measurements of some of these parameters by the BaBar, Belle, CDF, CMS, and LHCb experiments were found to be consistent with the SM predictions [26–31], the LHCb Collaboration recently reported a discrepancy larger than 3 standard deviations with respect to the SM predictions for the P5′ parameter [32,33], and the Belle Collaboration reported a discrepancy almost as large [34].The new measurements of the P1 and P5′ angular parameters in B0→K⁎0μ+μ− decays presented in this Letter are performed using a sample of events collected in proton–proton (pp) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 8 TeV with the CMS detector at the CERN LHC. The data correspond to an integrated luminosity of 20.5±0.5fb−1 [35]. The K⁎0 meson is reconstructed through its decay to K+π−, and the B0 meson by fitting to a common vertex the tracks from two oppositely charged muon candidates and the tracks from the K⁎0 decay. The values of P1 and P5′ are measured by fitting the distributions of events as a function of three angular variables: the angle between the μ+ and the B0 in the dimuon rest frame, the angle between the K+ and the B0 in the K⁎0 rest frame, and the angle between the dimuon and the Kπ decay planes in the B0 rest frame. The measurements are performed in the q2 range from 1 to 19GeV2. Data in the ranges 8.68<q2<10.09GeV2 and 12.90<q2<14.18GeV2 correspond to B0→J/ψK⁎0 and B0→ψ′K⁎0 decays, respectively, and are used as control samples, since they have the same final state as the nonresonant decays of interest. Here, ψ′ denotes the ψ(2S) meson.CMS previously exploited the same data set used in this analysis to measure two other angular parameters in the B0→K⁎0μ+μ− decay as a function of q2: the forward–backward asymmetry of the muons, AFB, and the K⁎0 longitudinal polarization fraction, FL, as well as the differential branching fraction, dB/dq2 [31]. After a simplification of the theoretical decay rate expression, this previous measurement was performed using two out of the three angular variables. The analysis was performed with a blinded procedure: the definition of fit strategy and its validation, as well as background distribution determination have been performed on simulated samples, control region and signal side bands. The final fit on data has been done at the end of validation. The analysis presented in this Letter shares with the previous analysis, together with the data set, the criteria used for selecting signal events, which are reported in Section 3 for completeness.2The CMS detectorA detailed description of the CMS detector, together with the coordinate system and the standard kinematic variables, can be found in Ref. [36]. The main detector components used in this analysis are the silicon tracker and the muon detection systems. The silicon tracker, positioned within a superconducting solenoid that provides an axial magnetic field of 3.8 T, consists of three pixel layers and ten strip layers (four of which have a stereo view) in the barrel region, accompanied by similar pixel and strip detectors in each endcap region, for a total pseudorapidity coverage of |η|<2.5. For tracks with transverse momenta 1<pT<10GeV and |η|<1.4, the resolutions are typically 1.5% in pT and 25–90 (45–150) μm in the transverse (longitudinal) impact parameter [37]. Muons are measured in the range |η|<2.4 with detection planes made using three technologies: drift tubes, cathode strip chambers, and resistive plate chambers. The probability for a pion, kaon, or proton to be misidentified as a muon is less than 2.5×10−3, 0.5×10−3, and 0.6×10−3, respectively, for pT>4GeV and |η|<2.4. The muon identification efficiency is greater than 0.80 (0.98) for pT>3.5GeV and |η|<1.2 (1.2<|η|<2.4) [38]. In addition to the tracker and muon detectors, CMS is equipped with electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeters.Events are selected using a two-level trigger system [39]. The first level consists of specialized hardware processors that use information from the calorimeters and muon systems to select events of interest at a rate of around 90 kHz. A high-level trigger processor farm further decreases the event rate to less than 1 kHz before data storage.3Reconstruction, event selection, and efficiencyThe criteria used to select the candidate events during data taking (trigger) and after full event reconstruction (offline) make use of the relatively long lifetime of B0 mesons, which leads them to decay an average of about 1 mm from their production point. The trigger uses only muon information to select events, while the offline selection includes the full reconstruction of all decay products.All events used in this analysis were recorded with the same trigger, requiring two identified muons of opposite charge to form a vertex that is displaced from the pp collision region (beamspot). Multiple pp collisions in the same or nearby beam crossings (pileup) cause multiple vertices in the same event. The beamspot position (the most probable collision point) and size (the extent of the luminous region covering 68% of the collisions in each dimension) were continuously measured through Gaussian fits to reconstructed pileup vertices as part of the online data quality monitoring. The trigger required each muon to have pT>3.5GeV, |η|<2.2, and to pass within 2 cm of the beam axis. The dimuon system was required to have pT>6.9GeV, a vertex fit χ2 probability larger than 10%, and a separation of the vertex relative to the beamspot in the transverse plane of at least 3 standard deviations, where the calculation of the standard deviation includes the calculated uncertainty in the vertex position and the measured size of the beamspot. In addition, the cosine of the angle in the transverse plane between the dimuon momentum vector and the vector from the beamspot to the dimuon vertex was required to be greater than 0.9.The offline reconstruction requires at least two oppositely charged muons and at least two oppositely charged hadrons. The muons are required to match those that triggered the event. The matching is performed by requiring an offline muon to match a trigger-level muon within ΔR=(Δη)2+(Δϕ)2<0.1, where Δη and Δϕ are the pseudorapidity and azimuthal angle differences, respectively, between the directions of the trigger-level and offline muons. Offline muons must, in addition, satisfy general muon identification requirements. For example, the muon track candidate from the silicon tracker must match a track segment from the muon detector, the χ2 per degree of freedom in a global fit to the silicon tracker and muon detector hits must be less than 1.9, there must be at least six silicon tracker hits, including at least two from the pixel detector, and the transverse (longitudinal) impact parameter with respect to the beamspot must be less than 3 (30) cm. These selection criteria are chosen to optimize the muon identification efficiency as measured using J/ψ→μ+μ− decays in data. The dimuon system at the offline level is required to satisfy the same requirements as specified above for the trigger level.The charged hadron candidates are required to fail the muon identification criteria, have pT>0.8GeV, and an extrapolated distance d of closest approach to the beamspot in the transverse plane greater than twice the sum in quadrature of the uncertainty in d and the beamspot transverse size. For at least one of the two possible identity assignments—that the positively charged hadron is a kaon and the negatively charged hadron a pion, or vice versa—the invariant mass of the hadron pair must lie within 90 MeV of the nominal K⁎0 mass [40]. To remove contamination from ϕ(1020)→K+K− decays, we temporarily assign the kaon mass to both charged hadrons, and then eliminate the candidate if the resulting invariant mass of the hadron pair is less than 1.035 GeV. The B0 candidates are obtained by fitting the four charged tracks to a common vertex, and applying a vertex constraint to improve the resolution of the track parameters. The B0 candidates must have pT>8GeV, |η|<2.2, vertex fit χ2 probability larger than 10%, vertex transverse separation L from the beamspot greater than 12 times the sum in quadrature of the uncertainty in L and the beamspot transverse size, and cos⁡αxy>0.9994, where αxy is the angle in the transverse plane between the B0 momentum vector and the line-of-flight between the beamspot and the B0 vertex. The invariant mass m of the B0 candidate must lie within 280 MeV of the nominal B0 mass (mB0) [40] for either the K−π+μ+μ− or K+π−μ+μ− possibility. The selection criteria are optimized using signal event samples from simulation and background event samples from sideband data in m. The sideband includes both a low- and a high-mass region and is defined by 3σm<|m−mB0|<280MeV, where σm is the average mass resolution (≈45MeV) obtained from fitting a sum of two Gaussian functions with a common mean to simulated signal events. After applying the selection criteria, about 5% of the events have more than one candidate. A single candidate is chosen based on the best B0 vertex χ2 probability.For each of the selected events, the dimuon invariant mass q and its uncertainty σq are calculated. We define B0→J/ψK⁎0 and B0→ψ′K⁎0 control samples through the requirements |q−mJ/ψ|<3σq and |q−mψ′|<3σq, respectively, where mJ/ψ and mψ′ are the nominal masses [40] of the indicated meson. The average value of σq is about 26 MeV.The remaining event sample still contains contributions from B0→J/ψK⁎0 and B0→ψ′K⁎0 decays, mainly because of unreconstructed soft photons in the charmonium decay, i.e., J/ψ or ψ′→μ+μ−γ. These events have a low value of q and fall outside the control sample selection described above. They also have a low value of m and can be selectively removed using a combined requirement on q and m. For q<mJ/ψ (q>mJ/ψ), we require |(m−mB0)−(q−mJ/ψ)|>160(60)MeV. For q<mψ′ (q>mψ′), we require |(m−mB0)−(q−mψ′)|>60(30)MeV. Using Monte Carlo (MC) simulation, these requirements were set so that less than 10% of the background events originate from the control channels.To avoid bias, the optimization of the selection criteria, and the fit strategy described below in Section 4, are determined before data in the signal region are examined. The selection criteria do not depend on the choice of the primary vertex, and their optimization procedure makes use of both MC simulated signal events generated with the same pileup distribution as in data, and sideband data. After applying these requirements, 3191 events remain.The selected four-track vertex is identified as a B0 or B‾0 candidate depending on whether the K+π− or K−π+ invariant mass is closest to the nominal K⁎0 mass. The fraction of candidates assigned to the incorrect state is estimated from simulation to be 12–14%, depending on q2.The global efficiency, ϵ, is the product of the acceptance and the combined trigger, reconstruction, and selection efficiencies, all of which are obtained from MC simulated event samples. The pp collisions are simulated using the pythia [41] event generator, version 6.424, with particle decays described by the evtgen [42] generator, version 9.1, in which final-state radiation is generated using photos [43]. The default matrix element in pythia is used to describe the events. The simulated particles are propagated through a detailed model of the detector based on Geant4 [44]. The reconstruction and selection of the generated events proceed as for the data. Separate samples of events are generated for B0 decays to K⁎0μ+μ−, J/ψK⁎0, and ψ′K⁎0, with K⁎0→K+π− and both J/ψ and ψ′ decaying to μ+μ−. The distribution of pp collision vertices in each sample is adjusted to match the observed distribution.The acceptance is obtained from generator-level events, i.e., before the particle propagation with Geant4, and is defined as the fraction of events with pT(B0)>8GeV and |η(B0)|<2.2 that satisfy the single-muon requirements pT(μ)>3.3GeV and |η(μ)|<2.3. These criteria are less restrictive than the final selection criteria in order to account for finite detector resolution, since they are applied to generator-level quantities. Only events satisfying the acceptance criteria are processed through the Geant4 simulation, the trigger simulation, and the reconstruction software.The combined trigger, reconstruction, and selection efficiency is given by the ratio of the number of events that satisfy the trigger and selection requirements and have a reconstructed B0 candidate compatible with a generated B0 meson, relative to the number of events that satisfy the acceptance criteria. The generated and reconstructed B0 are considered to be compatible if the reconstructed K+ candidate appears within a distance ΔR of the generated K+ meson, and analogously for the π−, μ+, and μ−, where ΔR=0.3 for the hadrons and ΔR=0.004 for the muons. Requiring all four particles in the B0 decay to be matched results in an efficiency of 99.6% (0.4% of the events have a correctly reconstructed B0 candidate that is not matched to a generated B0 meson) and a purity of 99.5% (0.5% of the matched candidates do not correspond to a correctly reconstructed B0 candidate). Efficiencies are determined for both correctly tagged (the K and π have the correct charge) and mistagged (the K and π charges are reversed) candidates.3.1Background studiesUsing simulation, we search for possible backgrounds that might peak in the B0 mass region. The event selection is applied to inclusive MC samples of B0, Bs, B+, and Λb decays to J/ψ X and ψ′ X, where X denotes all of the exclusive decay channels found in the PDG [40], and with the J/ψ and ψ′ decaying to μ+μ−. No evidence for a peaking structure near the B0 mass is found. The distributions of the few events that satisfy the selection criteria are similar to the shape of the combinatorial background. As an additional check, we generate events with Bs→K⁎0(K+π−)μ+μ− decays. Assuming that the ratio of branching fractions B(Bs→J/ψK⁎0)/B(B0→J/ψK⁎0)≈10−2 [40], less than one event passes our selection criteria.Possible backgrounds from events with two hadrons misidentified as muons, in particular from the hadronic fully reconstructable B0→DX decays, are suppressed by the misidentification probability (10−3×10−3), and are thus considered negligible. Also, events from B0→J/ψK⁎0 decays, where a muon and a hadron are swapped, are suppressed by the hadron-to-muon misidentification probability (10−3) and by the muon-to-hadron identification inefficiency (10−1). In fact, given the amount of reconstructed B0→J/ψK⁎0 events (165 k), we expect ≈16 events distributed in the two adjacent q2 bins close to the J/ψ control region.Backgrounds from semileptonic decays such as B0→D−π+, B0→D−K+, and B0→D−μ+νμ, where D− decays to K⁎0μ−ν‾μ and K⁎0 to K+π−, are also studied using simulation. We estimate in data less than one event for each of the three decays populating the low-mass sideband. All these potential sources of background are evaluated in the whole q2 range, excluding the J/ψ and ψ′ control regions, and are found to be negligible.The impact of other partially reconstructed multibody B decays that might affect the low-mass sideband is addressed in Section 5.Backgrounds from events in which a B+→K+μ+μ− decay is combined with a random pion, and from events with a Λb→Λ0μ+μ− decay, where Λ0 decays to p K, in which the proton is assigned the pion mass, are found to be negligible. In fact, both processes are flavor-changing neutral-current decays, therefore they have a comparable branching fraction to our signal process. The former decay has a theoretical lower bound on the invariant mass that lies at ≈5.41GeV. We search in data for an invariant mass peak around the B+ world-average mass after computing the invariant mass for both K+μ+μ− and K−μ+μ− possibilities in events with 5.41−σm<m<mB0+0.280GeV, but no evidence of such a peak is found. For the latter decay we search in data for an invariant mass peak around the Λb world-average mass after assigning the proton mass to the track previously identified as a pion. Also in this case, no evidence of a peak is found. Indeed, the simulation shows that less than one event is expected to pass our selection requirements.4Analysis methodThis analysis measures the P1 and P5′ values in B0→K⁎0μ+μ− decays as a function of q2. Fig. 1 illustrates the angular variables needed to describe the decay: θℓ is the angle between the positive (negative) muon momentum and the direction opposite to the B0 (B‾0) momentum in the dimuon rest frame, θK is the angle between the kaon momentum and the direction opposite to the B0 (B‾0) momentum in the K⁎0 (K‾⁎0) rest frame, and φ is the angle between the plane containing the two muons and the plane containing the kaon and the pion in the B0 rest frame. Although the K+π− invariant mass is required to be consistent with that of a K⁎0 meson, there can be a contribution from spinless (S-wave) K+π− combinations [25,45–47]. This is parametrized with three terms: FS, which is related to the S-wave fraction, and AS and AS5, which are the interference amplitudes between the S- and P-wave decays. Including these components, the angular distribution of B0→K⁎0μ+μ− decays can be written as [25]:(1)1dΓ/dq2d4Γdq2dcos⁡θℓdcos⁡θKdφ=98π{23[(FS+AScos⁡θK)(1−cos2⁡θℓ)+AS51−cos2⁡θK1−cos2⁡θℓcos⁡φ]+(1−FS)[2FLcos2⁡θK(1−cos2⁡θℓ)+12(1−FL)(1−cos2⁡θK)(1+cos2⁡θℓ)+12P1(1−FL)(1−cos2⁡θK)(1−cos2⁡θℓ)cos⁡2φ+2P5′cos⁡θKFL(1−FL)1−cos2⁡θK1−cos2⁡θℓcos⁡φ]}, where FL denotes the longitudinal polarization fraction of the K⁎0. This expression is an exact simplification of the full angular distribution, obtained by folding the φ and θℓ angles about zero and π/2, respectively. Specifically, if φ<0, then φ→−φ, and the new φ domain is [0, π]. If θℓ>π/2, then θℓ→π−θℓ, and the new θℓ domain is [0, π/2]. We use this simplified version of the expression because of difficulties in the fit convergence with the full angular distribution due to the limited size of the data sample. This simplification exploits the odd symmetry of the angular variables with respect to φ=0 and θℓ=π/2 in such a manner that the cancellation around these angular values is exact. This cancellation remains approximately valid even after accounting for the experimental acceptance because the efficiency is symmetric with respect to the folding angles.For each q2 bin, the observables of interest are extracted from an unbinned extended maximum-likelihood fit to four variables: the K+π−μ+μ− invariant mass m and the three angular variables θℓ, θK, and φ. The unnormalized probability density function (pdf) in each q2 bin has the following form:(2)pdf(m,θK,θℓ,φ)=YSC[SC(m)Sa(θK,θℓ,φ)ϵC(θK,θℓ,φ)+fM1−fMSM(m)Sa(−θK,−θℓ,φ)ϵM(θK,θℓ,φ)]+YBBm(m)BθK(θK)Bθℓ(θℓ)Bφ(φ), where the three terms on the righthand side correspond to correctly tagged signal events, mistagged signal events, and background events. The parameters YSC and YB are the yields of correctly tagged signal events and background events, respectively, and are determined in the fit. The parameter fM is the fraction of signal events that are mistagged and is determined from simulation. Its value ranges from 0.124 to 0.137 depending on the q2 bin.The signal mass probability functions SC(m) and SM(m) are each the sum of two Gaussian functions, with a common mean for all four Gaussian functions, and describe the mass distribution for correctly tagged and mistagged signal events, respectively. In the fit, the mean, the four Gaussian function's width parameters, and the two fractions specifying the relative contribution of the two Gaussian functions in SC(m) and SM(m) are determined from simulation. The function Sa(θK,θℓ,φ) describes the signal in the three-dimensional (3D) space of the angular variables and corresponds to Eq. (1). The combination Bm(m)BθK(θK)Bθℓ(θℓ)Bφ(φ) is obtained from the B0 sideband data in m and describes the background in the space of (m,θK,θℓ,φ), where Bm(m) is an exponential function, BθK(θK) and Bθℓ(θℓ) are second- to fourth-order polynomials, depending on the q2 bin, and Bφ(φ) is a first-order polynomial. The factorization assumption of the background pdf in Eq. (2) is validated by dividing the range of an angular variable into two at its center point and comparing the distributions of events from the two halves in the other angular variables.The functions ϵC(θK,θℓ,φ) and ϵM(θK,θℓ,φ) are the efficiencies in the 3D space of |cos⁡θK|≤1, 0≤cos⁡θℓ≤1, and 0≤φ≤π for correctly tagged and mistagged signal events, respectively. The numerator and denominator of the efficiency are separately described with a nonparametric technique, which is implemented with a kernel density estimator [48,49]. The final efficiency distributions used in the fit are obtained from the ratio of 3D histograms derived from the sampling of the kernel density estimators. The histograms have 40 bins in each dimension. A consistency check of the procedure used to determine the efficiency is performed by dividing the simulated data sample into two independent subsets, and extracting the angular parameters from the first subset using the efficiency computed from the second subset. The efficiencies for both correctly tagged and mistagged events peak at cos⁡θℓ≈0, around which they are rather symmetric for q2<10GeV2, and are approximately flat in φ. The efficiency for correctly tagged events becomes relatively flat in cos⁡θℓ for larger values of q2, while it has a monotonic decrease for increasing cos⁡θK values for q2<14GeV2. For larger values of q2 a decrease in the efficiency is also seen near cos⁡θK=−1. The efficiency for mistagged events has a minimum at cos⁡θℓ≈0 for q2>10GeV2, while it is maximal near cos⁡θK=0 for q2<10GeV2. For large values of q2 a mild maximum also appears near cos⁡θK=1.The fit is performed in two steps. The initial fit does not include a signal component and uses the sideband data in m to obtain the Bm(m), BθK(θK), Bθℓ(θℓ), and Bφ(φ) distributions. The distributions obtained in this step are then fixed for the second step, which is a fit to the data over the full mass range. The fitted parameters in the second step are the angular parameters P1, P5′, and AS5, and the yields YSC and YB. To avoid difficulties in the convergence of the fit related to the limited number of events, the angular parameters FL, FS, and AS are fixed to previous measurements [31].The expression describing the angular distribution of B0→K⁎0μ+μ− decays, Eq. (1), and also its more general form in Ref. [25], can become negative for certain values of the angular parameters. In particular, the pdf in Eq. (2) is only guaranteed to be positive for a particular subset of the P1, P5′, and AS5 parameter space. The presence of such a boundary greatly complicates the numerical maximization process of the likelihood by minuit [50] and especially the error determination by minos [50], in particular near the boundary between physical and unphysical regions. Therefore, the second fit step is performed by discretizing the P1, P5′ two-dimensional space and by maximizing the likelihood as a function of the nuisance parameters YSC, YB, and AS5 at fixed values of P1 and P5′. Finally, the distribution of the likelihood values is fit with a bivariate Gaussian distribution. The position of the maximum of this distribution inside the physical region provides the measurements of P1 and P5′.The interference terms AS and AS5 must vanish if either of the two interfering components vanish. These constraints are implemented by requiring |AS|<12FS(1−FS)FLf and |AS5|<3FS(1−FS)(1−FL)(1+P1)f, where f is a ratio related to the S- and P-wave line shapes, calculated to be 0.89 near the K⁎0 meson mass [25]. The constraint on AS is naturally satisfied since FS, FL, and AS are taken from previous measurements [31].To ensure correct coverage for the uncertainties, the Feldman–Cousins method [51] is used with nuisance parameters. Two main sets of pseudo-experimental samples are generated. The first (second) set, used to compute the coverage for P1 (P5′), is generated by assigning values to the other parameters as obtained by profiling the bivariate Gaussian distribution description of the likelihood determined from data at fixed P1 (P5′) values. When fitting the pseudo-experimental samples, the same fit procedure as applied to the data is used.The fit formalism and results are validated through fits to pseudo-experimental samples, MC simulation samples, and control channels. Additional details, including the size of the systematic uncertainties assigned on the basis of these fits, are described in Section 5.5Systematic uncertaintiesThe systematic uncertainty studies are described below and summarized in Table 1 in the same order.The adequacy of the fit function and the procedure to determine the parameters of interest are validated in three ways. First, a large, statistically precise MC signal sample with approximately 400 times the number of events as the data is used to verify that the fitting procedure produces results consistent with the input values to the simulation. The difference between the input and output values in this check is assigned as a simulation mismodeling systematic uncertainty. It is also verified that fitting a sample with only either correctly tagged or mistagged events yields the correct results. Second, 200 subsamples are extracted randomly from the large MC signal sample and combined with background events obtained from the pdf in Eq. (2) to mimic independent data sets of similar size to the data. These are used to estimate a fit bias by comparing the average values of the results obtained by fitting the 200 samples to the results obtained using the full MC signal sample. Much of the observed bias is a consequence of the fitted parameters lying close to the boundaries of the physical region. Third, 200 pseudo-experiments, each with the same number of events as the data sample, are generated in each q2 bin using the pdf in Eq. (2), with parameters obtained from the fit to the data. Fits to these 200 samples do not reveal any additional systematic uncertainty.Because the efficiency functions are estimated from a finite number of simulated events, there is a corresponding statistical uncertainty in the efficiency. Alternatives to the default efficiency function are obtained by generating 100 new distributions for the numerator and the denominator of the efficiency ratio based on the default kernel density estimators as pdfs, and rederiving new kernel density estimators for each trial. The effect of these different efficiency functions on the final result is used to estimate the systematic uncertainty.The efficiency determination is checked by comparing efficiency-corrected results obtained from the control channels with the corresponding world-average values. The B0→J/ψK⁎0 control sample contains 165 000 events, compared with 11 000 events for the B0→ψ′K⁎0 sample. Because of its greater statistical precision, we rely on the B0→J/ψK⁎0 sample to perform the check of the efficiency determination for the angular variables. We do this by measuring the longitudinal polarization fraction FL in the B0→J/ψK⁎0 decays. We find FL=0.537±0.002(stat), compared with the world-average value 0.571±0.007(stat+syst) [40]. The difference of 0.034 is propagated to P1 and P5′ by taking the root-mean-square (RMS) of the respective distributions resulting from refitting the data 200 times, varying FL within a Gaussian distribution with a standard deviation of 0.034. As a cross-check that the overall efficiency is not affected by a q2-dependent offset, we measure the ratio of branching fractions B(B0→ψ′K⁎0)/B(B0→J/ψK⁎0)=0.480±0.008(stat)±0.055(Rψμμ), by means of efficiency-corrected yields including both correctly and wrongly tagged events (the same central value is obtained also separately for the two subsets of events), where Rψμμ refers to the ratio B(J/ψ→μ+μ−)/B(ψ′→μ+μ−) of branching fractions. This is compared to the world-average value 0.484±0.018(stat)±0.011(syst)±0.012(Rψee) [40], where Rψee refers to the corresponding ratio of branching fractions to e+e−. The two results are seen to agree within the uncertainties.To evaluate the uncertainty in the mistag fraction fM, we allow this fraction to vary in a fit to the events in the B0→J/ψK⁎0 control sample. We find fM=(14.5±0.5)%, compared to the result from simulation (13.7±0.1)%. The difference of 0.8 is propagated to P1 and P5′ by determining the RMS of the respective distributions obtained from refitting the data 10 times, varying fM within a Gaussian distribution with a standard deviation of 0.8.The systematic uncertainty associated with the functions used to model the angular distribution of the background is obtained from the statistical uncertainty in the background shape, as these shapes are fixed in the final fit. This uncertainty is determined by fitting the data 200 times, varying the background parameters within their Gaussian uncertainties, and taking the RMS of the angular parameter values as the systematic uncertainty. Moreover, for the q2 bin reported in Fig. 2, upper two rows, which shows an excess around cos⁡θℓ≈0.7 that is also present in the sideband distribution (not shown in the figure), we refit the data using different descriptions of the background as a function of cos⁡θℓ. The differences in the measurement of P1 and P5′ are within the systematic uncertainty quoted for the background distribution.The low-mass sideband might contain partially reconstructed multibody B0 decays. We test this possibility by refitting the data with a restricted range for the low-mass sideband, i.e., starting from ≈5.1 instead of ≈5GeV. No significant differences are seen in the measurement of P1 and P5′, and therefore no systematic uncertainty is assigned.To evaluate the systematic uncertainty associated with the signal mass pdfs SC(m) and SM(m), we fit the B0→J/ψK⁎0 and B0→ψ′K⁎0 control samples allowing two of the width values in the four Gaussian terms to vary at a time. The maximum change in P1 and P5′ for either of the two control channels is taken as the systematic uncertainty for all q2 bins.The q2 bin just below the J/ψ (ψ′) control region, and the q2 bin just above, may be contaminated with B0→J/ψK⁎0 (B0→ψ′K⁎0) “feed-through” events that are not removed by the selection procedure. A special fit in these two bins is performed, in which an additional background term is added to the pdf. This background distribution is obtained from simulated B0→J/ψK⁎0 (B0→ψ′K⁎0) events, with the background yield as a fitted parameter. The resulting changes in P1 and P5′ are used as estimates of the systematic uncertainty associated with this contribution.To properly propagate the uncertainty associated with the values of FL, FS, and AS, taking into account possible correlations, 10 pseudo-experiments per q2 bin are generated using the pdf parameters determined from the fit to data. The number of events in these pseudo-experiments is 100 times that of the data. The pseudo-experiments are then fit twice, once with the same procedure as for the data and once with P1, P5′, AS5, FL, FS, and AS allowed to vary. The average ratio ρ of the statistical uncertainties in P1 and P5′ from the first fit to that in the second fit is used to compute this systematic uncertainty, which is proportional to the confidence interval determined from the Feldman–Cousins method through the coefficient ρ2−1. The stability of ρ as a function of the number of events of the pseudo-experiments is also verified. As cross-checks of our procedure concerning the fixed value of FL, we fit the two control regions either fixing FL or allowing it to vary, and find that the values of P1 and P5′ are essentially unaffected, obtaining the same value of FL as in our previous study [31]. Moreover, we refit all the q2 bins using only the P-wave contribution for the decay rate in Eq. (1) and leaving all three parameters, P1, P5′, and FL, free to vary. The differences in the measured values of P1 and P5′ are within the systematic uncertainty quoted for the FL, FS, and AS uncertainty propagation.The effects of angular resolution on the reconstructed values of θK and θℓ are estimated by performing two fits on the same set of simulated events. One fit uses the true values of the angular variables and the other fit their reconstructed values. The difference in the fitted parameters between the two fits is taken as an estimate of the systematic uncertainty.The systematic uncertainties are determined for each q2 bin, with the total systematic uncertainty obtained by adding the individual contributions in quadrature.As a note for future possible global fits of our P1 and P5′ data, the systematic uncertainties associated with the efficiency, Kπ mistagging, B0 mass distribution, and angular resolution can be assumed to be fully correlated bin-by-bin, while the remaining uncertainties can be assumed to be uncorrelated.6ResultsThe events are fit in seven q2 bins from 1 to 19GeV2, yielding 1397 signal and 1794 background events in total. As an example, distributions for two of these bins, along with the fit projections, are shown in Fig. 2. The fitted values of the signal yields, P1, and P5′ are given in Table 2 for the seven q2 bins. The results for P1 and P5′ are shown in Fig. 3, along with those from the LHCb [33] and Belle [34] experiments. The fitted values of AS5 vary from −0.052 to +0.057.A SM prediction, denoted SM-DHMV, is available for comparison with the measured angular parameters. The SM-DHMV result, derived from Refs. [18,25], updates the calculations from Ref. [52] to account for the known correlation between the different form factors [53]. It also combines predictions from light-cone sum rules, which are valid in the low-q2 region, with lattice predictions at high q2 [54] to obtain more precise determinations of the form factors over the full q2 range. The hadronic charm-quark loop contribution is obtained from Ref. [55]. A reliable theoretical prediction is not available near the J/ψ and ψ′ resonances. The SM prediction is shown in comparison to the data in Fig. 3 and it is seen to be in agreement with the CMS results. Thus, we do not obtain evidence for physics beyond the SM. Qualitatively, the CMS measurements are compatible with the LHCb results. The Belle measurements lie systematically above both the CMS and LHCb results and the SM prediction.7SummaryUsing proton–proton collision data recorded at s=8TeV with the CMS detector at the LHC, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 20.5fb−1, an angular analysis has been performed for the decay B0→K⁎0μ+μ−. The signal sample consists of 1397 selected events. For each of seven bins between 1 to 19GeV2 in the dimuon invariant mass squared q2, unbinned maximum-likelihood fits are performed on the distributions of the K+π−μ+μ− invariant mass and three angular variables to obtain values of the P1 and P5′ parameters. The results are among the most precise to date for these parameters and are consistent with predictions based on the standard model.AcknowledgementsWe congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the computing centres and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following funding agencies: BMWFW and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RPF (Cyprus); SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC IUT, and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of Finland, MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); OTKA and NIH (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM (Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); LAS (Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT, LNS, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom, RAS, RFBR and RAEP (Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI and FEDER (Spain); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); MST (Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR, and NSTDA (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); NASU and SFFR (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA).References[1]W.AltmannshoferP.BallA.BharuchaA.J.BurasD.M.StraubM.WickSymmetries and asymmetries of B→K⁎μ+μ− decays in the standard model and beyondJ. High Energy Phys.01200901910.1088/1126-6708/2009/01/019arXiv:0811.1214[2]J.MatiasF.MesciaM.RamonJ.VirtoComplete anatomy of B‾d→K‾⁎0(→Kπ)ℓ+ℓ− and its angular distributionJ. High Energy Phys.04201210410.1007/JHEP04(2012)104arXiv:1202.4266[3]S.Descotes-GenonJ.MatiasJ.VirtoGlobal analysis of b→sℓℓ anomaliesJ. High Energy Phys.06201609210.1007/JHEP06(2016)092arXiv:1510.04239[4]D.MelikhovN.NikitinS.SimulaProbing right-handed currents in B→K⁎ℓ+ℓ− transitionsPhys. Lett. B442199838110.1016/S0370-2693(98)01271-4arXiv:hep-ph/9807464[5]A.AliP.BallL.T.HandokoG.HillerA comparative study of the decays B→(K,K⁎)ℓ+ℓ− in the standard model and supersymmetric theoriesPhys. Rev. D61200007402410.1103/PhysRevD.61.074024arXiv:hep-ph/9910221[6]Q.-S.YanC.-S.HuangW.LiaoS.-H.ZhuExclusive semileptonic rare decays B→(K,K⁎)ℓ+ℓ− in supersymmetric theoriesPhys. Rev. D62200009402310.1103/PhysRevD.62.094023arXiv:hep-ph/0004262[7]G.BuchallaG.HillerG.IsidoriPhenomenology of nonstandard Z couplings in exclusive semileptonic b→s transitionsPhys. Rev. D63200001401510.1103/PhysRevD.63.014015arXiv:hep-ph/0006136[8]T.FeldmannJ.MatiasForward–backward and isospin asymmetry for B→K⁎ℓ+ℓ− decay in the standard model and in supersymmetryJ. High Energy Phys.01200307410.1088/1126-6708/2003/01/074arXiv:hep-ph/0212158[9]G.HillerF.KrügerMore model-independent analysis of b→s processesPhys. Rev. D69200407402010.1103/PhysRevD.69.074020arXiv:hep-ph/0310219[10]F.KrügerJ.MatiasProbing new physics via the transverse amplitudes of B0→K⁎0(→K−π+)ℓ+ℓ− at large recoilPhys. Rev. D71200509400910.1103/PhysRevD.71.094009arXiv:hep-ph/0502060[11]W.-S.HouA.HovhannisyanN.MahajanB→K⁎ℓ+ℓ− forward–backward asymmetry and new physicsPhys. Rev. D77200801401610.1103/PhysRevD.77.014016arXiv:hep-ph/0701046[12]U.EgedeT.HurthJ.MatiasM.RamonW.ReeceNew observables in the decay mode B‾d→K‾⁎0ℓ+ℓ−J. High Energy Phys.11200803210.1088/1126-6708/2008/11/032arXiv:0807.2589[13]T.HurthG.IsidoriJ.F.KamenikF.MesciaConstraints on new physics in MFV models: a model-independent analysis of ΔF=1 processesNucl. Phys. B808200932610.1016/j.nuclphysb.2008.09.040arXiv:0807.5039[14]A.K.AlokA.DigheD.GhoshD.LondonJ.MatiasM.NagashimaA.SzynkmanNew-physics contributions to the forward–backward asymmetry in B→K⁎μ+μ−J. High Energy Phys.02201005310.1007/JHEP02(2010)053arXiv:0912.1382[15]A.K.AlokA.DattaA.DigheM.DuraisamyD.GhoshD.LondonNew physics in b→sμ+μ−: CP-conserving observablesJ. High Energy Phys.11201112110.1007/JHEP11(2011)121arXiv:1008.2367[16]Q.ChangX.-Q.LiY.-D.YangB→K⁎ℓ+ℓ−, Kℓ+ℓ− decays in a family non-universal Z′ modelJ. High Energy Phys.04201005210.1007/JHEP04(2010)052arXiv:1002.2758[17]S.Descotes-GenonD.GhoshJ.MatiasM.RamonExploring new physics in the C7–C7′ planeJ. High Energy Phys.06201109910.1007/JHEP06(2011)099arXiv:1104.3342[18]S.Descotes-GenonJ.MatiasM.RamonJ.VirtoImplications from clean observables for the binned analysis of B→K⁎μ+μ− at large recoilJ. High Energy Phys.01201304810.1007/JHEP01(2013)048arXiv:1207.2753[19]C.BobethG.HillerD.van DykThe benefits of B‾→K‾⁎ℓ+ℓ− decays at low recoilJ. High Energy Phys.07201009810.1007/JHEP07(2010)098arXiv:1006.5013[20]C.BobethG.HillerD.van DykC.WackerThe decay B‾→K‾ℓ+ℓ− at low hadronic recoil and model-independent ΔB=1 constraintsJ. High Energy Phys.01201210710.1007/JHEP01(2012)107arXiv:1111.2558[21]C.BobethG.HillerD.van DykGeneral analysis of B‾→K‾(⁎)ℓ+ℓ− decays at low recoilPhys. Rev. D87201203401610.1103/PhysRevD.87.034016arXiv:1212.2321[22]A.AliG.KramerG.ZhuB→K⁎ℓ+ℓ− decay in soft-collinear effective theoryEur. Phys. J. C47200662510.1140/epjc/s2006-02596-4arXiv:hep-ph/0601034[23]W.AltmannshoferP.ParadisiD.M.StraubModel-independent constraints on new physics in b→s transitionsJ. High Energy Phys.04201200810.1007/JHEP04(2012)008arXiv:1111.1257[24]S.JägerJ.Martin CamalichOn B→Vℓℓ at small dilepton invariant mass, power corrections, and new physicsJ. High Energy Phys.05201304310.1007/JHEP05(2013)043arXiv:1212.2263[25]S.Descotes-GenonT.HurthJ.MatiasJ.VirtoOptimizing the basis of B→K⁎ℓ+ℓ− observables in the full kinematic rangeJ. High Energy Phys.05201313710.1007/JHEP05(2013)137arXiv:1303.5794[26]B.AubertBABARAngular distributions in the decay B→K⁎ℓ+ℓ−Phys. Rev. D79200903110210.1103/PhysRevD.79.031102arXiv:0804.4412[27]J.-T.WeiBelleMeasurement of the differential branching fraction and forward–backward asymmetry for B→K(⁎)ℓ+ℓ−Phys. Rev. Lett.103200917180110.1103/PhysRevLett.103.171801arXiv:0904.0770[28]T.AaltonenCDFMeasurements of the angular distributions in the decays B→K(⁎)μ+μ− at CDFPhys. Rev. Lett.108201208180710.1103/PhysRevLett.108.081807arXiv:1108.0695[29]LHCb CollaborationDifferential branching fraction and angular analysis of the decay B0→K⁎0μ+μ−J. High Energy Phys.08201313110.1007/JHEP08(2013)131arXiv:1304.6325[30]CMS CollaborationAngular analysis and branching fraction measurement of the decay B0→K⁎0μ+μ−Phys. Lett. B72720137710.1016/j.physletb.2013.10.017arXiv:1308.3409[31]CMS CollaborationAngular analysis of the decay B0→K⁎0μ+μ− from pp collisions at s=8TeVPhys. Lett. B753201642410.1016/j.physletb.2015.12.020arXiv:1507.08126[32]LHCb CollaborationMeasurement of form-factor-independent observables in the decay B0→K⁎0μ+μ−Phys. Rev. Lett.111201319180110.1103/PhysRevLett.111.191801arXiv:1308.1707[33]LHCb CollaborationAngular analysis of the B0→K⁎μ+μ− decay using 3fb−1 of integrated luminosityJ. High Energy Phys.02201610410.1007/JHEP02(2016)104arXiv:1512.04442[34]A.AbdesselamBelleLepton-flavor-dependent angular analysis of B→K⁎ℓ+ℓ−Phys. Rev. Lett.118201711180110.1103/PhysRevLett.118.111801arXiv:1612.05014[35]CMS CollaborationCMS Luminosity Based on Pixel Cluster Counting—Summer 2013 UpdateCMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-13-0012013http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1598864[36]CMS CollaborationThe CMS experiment at the CERN LHCJ. Instrum.32008S0800410.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004[37]CMS CollaborationDescription and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS trackerJ. Instrum.92014P1000910.1088/1748-0221/9/10/P10009arXiv:1405.6569[38]CMS CollaborationPerformance of CMS muon reconstruction in pp collision events at s=7TeVJ. Instrum.72012P1000210.1088/1748-0221/7/10/P10002arXiv:1206.4071[39]CMS CollaborationThe CMS trigger systemJ. Instrum.122017P0102010.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020arXiv:1609.02366[40]Particle Data GroupC.PatrignaniThe review of particle physicsChin. Phys. C40201610000110.1088/1674-1137/40/10/100001[41]T.SjöstrandS.MrennaP.SkandsPYTHIA 6.4 physics and manualJ. High Energy Phys.05200602610.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/026arXiv:hep-ph/0603175[42]D.J.LangeThe EvtGen particle decay simulation packageNucl. Instrum. Methods A462200115210.1016/S0168-9002(01)00089-4[43]E.BarberioZ.WasPhotos—a universal Monte Carlo for QED radiative corrections in Z and W decaysEur. Phys. J. C4520069710.1140/epjc/s2005-02396-4arXiv:hep-ph/0506026[44]S.AgostinelliGEANT4GEANT4—a simulation toolkitNucl. Instrum. Methods A506200325010.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8[45]D.BečirevićA.TayduganovImpact of B→K⁎0ℓ+ℓ− on the new physics search in B→K⁎ℓ+ℓ− decayNucl. Phys. B868201336810.1016/j.nuclphysb.2012.11.016arXiv:1207.4004[46]J.MatiasOn the S-wave pollution of B→K⁎ℓ+ℓ− observablesPhys. Rev. D86201209402410.1103/PhysRevD.86.094024arXiv:1209.1525[47]T.BlakeU.EgedeA.ShiresThe effect of S-wave interference on the B0→K⁎0ℓ+ℓ− angular observablesJ. High Energy Phys.03201302710.1007/JHEP03(2013)027arXiv:1210.5279[48]D.W.ScottMultivariate Density Estimation: Theory, Practice, and VisualizationWiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics: Applied Probability and Statistics Section1992Wiley-InterscienceNew York, Chichester, Brisbanehttp://opac.inria.fr/record=b1089297[49]K.S.CranmerKernel estimation in high-energy physicsComput. Phys. Commun.136200119810.1016/S0010-4655(00)00243-5arXiv:hep-ex/0011057[50]F.JamesM.RoosMinuit—a system for function minimization and analysis of the parameter errors and correlationsComput. Phys. Commun.10197534310.1016/0010-4655(75)90039-9[51]G.J.FeldmanR.D.CousinsUnified approach to the classical statistical analysis of small signalsPhys. Rev. D571998387310.1103/PhysRevD.57.3873arXiv:physics/9711021[52]P.BallR.ZwickyBd,s→ρ,ω,K⁎,ϕ decay form factors from light-cone sum rules reexaminedPhys. Rev. D71200501402910.1103/PhysRevD.71.014029arXiv:hep-ph/0412079[53]A.BharuchaD.M.StraubR.Zwickyb→vℓ+ℓ− in the standard model from light-cone sum rulesJ. High Energy Phys.08201609810.1007/JHEP08(2016)098arXiv:1503.05534[54]R.R.HorganZ.LiuS.MeinelM.WingateLattice QCD calculation of form factors describing the rare decays B→K⁎ℓ+ℓ− and Bs→ϕℓ+ℓ−Phys. Rev. D89201409450110.1103/PhysRevD.89.094501arXiv:1310.3722[55]A.KhodjamirianT.MannelA.A.PivovarovY.-M.WangCharm-loop effect in B→K(⁎)ℓ+ℓ− and b→K⁎γJ. High Energy Phys.09201008910.1007/JHEP09(2010)089arXiv:1006.4945